The URL can be used to link to this page

12-09-85 agendadl-- / CITY OF RICHFIELD,.MINNESOTA Office of City Manager iMgen o. 4 9 8 etter No. 67 a ecem er , 1985 The Honorable Mayor Housing and Redevelopment and Authority Commissioners Members of the City Council City of Richfield City of Richfield Subject: Adoption of Resolution Approving Contract For Private Development, PALSCO, Inc., ILN Project Council Members and Commissioners: At the December 9, 1985, meeting, the HRA and City Council will be requested to approve a development contract with PALSCO, Incorporated. It is the intent of staff and the developer to have a copy.of the executed contract for the meeting on December '9, 1985. The basic development concept is as follows. PALSCO, Inc. would be purchasing the existing Colonial Lodge Motel property from Mr. Tom Price. They also have an agreement to purchase the print shop facility at the corner of 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Additional site area would be provided by MNDOT abandoning the adjoining portion of the 78th Street frontage road. MNDOT's need for their easement would cease and the land would revert to the Colonial Lodge property. The site would then approximate 2.14 acres. On this parcel PALSCO, Inc., a franchisee, would construct a Hampton Inn Motel. There are'two alternative development plans. A final . determination of the specific development would be the result of negotiations between PALSCO and Hampton Inn. Under one alternative, a five story structure containing 135 motel rooms and a freestanding 150 seat "family" type restaurant would be constructed. The second alternative would be the construction of only a four story motel with 14,6 rooms. Site plans and an elevation are attached to the development Contract. Construction would be initiated in the spring of 1986 with completion scheduled for early 1987. Under the terms of the Contract, the developer agrees to the following: To construct either the 135 room motel and restaurant, or, the 146 room motel Construction completion, 1 /2/88 with a minimum Assessor's Estimated Market Value (EMV) of $2,060,000 A minimum EMV of $2,660,000 1/2/89 U OC A minimum EMV of $3,1402,000 1/2/90 continuing for the life of the tax increment bonds To execute an assessment agreement with the above values and dates To purchase the print shop at the corner of 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue To sell to the City easements adjacent to Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street (This would permit the city to install the Phase I roadway improvements). The preliminary cost estimate is $114,000. The HRA and City would agree to the following: To use their "best efforts" to encourage MNDOT to abandon the 78th Street frontage road and easement adjacent to the subject parcel To not unreasonably withhold or deny the necessary permits and licenses to permit construction To use the "best efforts" of the City to make tax exempt IDBR financing available for the development To pay $11.62 per square foot for the easements for right-of- way improvements or approximately $1114,132 with the final amount to be determined by the right -of -way design To issue a Certificate of Completion when the construction is completed. On November 26, 1985, the Planning Commission approved the preliminary PUA Plan, the rezoning and special use permit. The fifth floor would be needed if a restaurant is constructed as a part of the project. Otherwise, the motel will have four floors. A variance is needed because the total floor area of the hotel and the restaurant exceed the maximum floor area allowed by the zoning ordinance. The Hearing Examiner has denied the variance request. The denial is being appealed to the City Council as part of another agenda item. The approval of this Contract does not prevent the City from acting independently on the matters related to zoning. The Contract only prohibits the unreasonable withholding or denial of these permits. It is recommended that the HRA and City Council adopt the attached appropriate resolutions approving the Contract For Private Development with PALSCO, Inc. 0 JGC:sb city Manag HRA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITH PALSCO, INCORPORATED WHEREAS, The HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (HRA) has received a proposed document entitled "Contract for Private Development" (Contract), which Contract is on file in the office of the City Clerk for inspection; and WHEREAS, the HRA has reviewed the Contract and determines that such is in the best interests of-the City and serves the health, safety and general welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Housing and Redevelopment Authority that the Contract is hereby approved and the Chairman and Executive Director are hereby authorized and directed to execute the same on behalf of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of December, 1985. Thomas E. Harms, Chairman ATTEST: Joan Helmberger, Secretary d=y RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITH PALSCO, INCORPORATED WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received a proposed document entitled "Contract For Private Development" (Contract), which is on file in the office of the City Clerk for inspection;. and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Contract and determines that such is in the best interests of the City and service the health, safety and general welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY City Council of the City of Richfield that the Contract is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the same on behalf of the City of Richfield. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of December, 1985. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: 0 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 4p_ / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 49 etter N�o:`�7°°" Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor: Housing and Redevelopment and Authority Commissioners Members of the City Council City of Richfield City of Richfield Subject: Adoption of Resolution Approving Contract For Private Development, PALSCO, Inc., ILN Project Council Members and Commissioners: At the December 9, 1985, meeting, the HRA and City Council will be requested to approve a development contract with PALSCO, Incorporated. It is the intent of staff and the developer to have a copy of the executed contract for the meeting on December 9, 1985. The basic development concept is as follows. PALSCO, Inca would be purchasing the existing Colonial Lodge Motel property from Mr. Tom Price. They also have an agreement to purchase the print shop facility at the corner of 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Additional site area would be provided by MNDOT abandoning the adjoining portion of the 78th Street frontage road. MNDOT's need for their easement would cease and the land would revert to the Colonial Lodge property. The site would then approximate 2.4 acres. On this parcel PALSCO, Inc., a franchisee, would construct a Hampton Inn Motel. There are two alternative development plans. A final determination of the specific development would be the result of negotiations between PALSCO and Hampton Inn. Under one alternative, a five story structure containing 135 motel rooms and a freestanding 150 seat "family" type restaurant would be constructed. The second alternative would be the construction of only a four story motel with 146 rooms. Site plans and an elevation are attached to the development Contract. Construction would be initiated in the spring of 1986 with completion scheduled for early 1987. Under the terms of the Contract, the developer agrees to the following: To construct either the 135 room motel and restaurant, or, the 146 room motel Construction completion, 1/2/88 with a minimum Assessor's Estimated Market Value (EMV) of $2,060,000 A minimum EMV of $2,660,000 1/2/89 i A minimum EMV of $3,402,000 1/2/90 continuing for the life of the tax increment bonds To execute an assessment agreement with the above values and dates To purchase the print shop at the corner of 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue To sell to the City easements adjacent to Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street (This would permit the city to install the Phase I roadway improvements). The preliminary cost estimate is $114,000. The HRA and City would agree to the following: To use their "best efforts" to encourage MNDOT to abandon the 78th Street frontage road and easement adjacent to the subject parcel To not unreasonably withhold or deny the necessary permits and licenses to permit construction To use the "best efforts" of the City to make tax exempt IDBR financing available for the development To pay $11.62 per square foot for the easements for right -of- way improvements or approximately $114,132 with the final amount to be determined by the right -of -way design To issue a Certificate of Completion when the construction is completed. On November 26, 1985, the Planning Commission approved the preliminary PUD Plan, the rezoning and special use permit. The fifth floor would be needed if a restaurant is constructed as a part of the project. Otherwise, the motel will have four floors. A variance is needed because the total floor area of the hotel and the restaurant exceed the maximum floor area allowed by the zoning ordinance. The Hearing Examiner has denied the variance request. The denial is being appealed to the City Council as part of another agenda item. The approval of this Contract does not prevent the City from acting independently on the matters related to zoning. The Contract only prohibits the unreasonable withholding or denial of these permits. It is recommended that the HRA and City Council adopt the attached appropriate resolutions approving the Contract For Private Development with PALSCO, Inc. JGC:sb city Mana HRA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITH PALSCO, INCORPORATED WHEREAS, The HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (HRA) has received a proposed document entitled "Contract for Private Development" (Contract), which Contract is on file in the office of the City Clerk for inspection; and WHEREAS, the HRA has reviewed the Contract and determines that such is in the best interests of the City and serves the health, safety and general welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE,-BE IT RESOLVED BY the Housing and Redevelopment Authority that the Contract is hereby approved and the Chairman and Executive Director are hereby authorized and directed to execute the same on behalf of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of December, 1985. • ATTEST: Joan Helmberger, Secretary • Thomas E. Harms, Chairman RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITH PALSCO, INCORPORATED WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received a proposed document entitled "Contract For Private Development" (Contract), which is on file in the office of the City Clerk for inspection; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Contract and determines that such is in the best interests of the City and service the health, safety and general welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY City Council of the City of Richfield that the Contract is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the same on behalf of the City of Richfield. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of December, 1985. • John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 49 11, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA / Office of City Manager - Council Letter No. 497 Agenda December 10, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the'City Council City of Richfield Subject: Special Use Permit Request for Restaurant Serving Beer and Wine at 7724 Morgan Avenue Council Members: In February 1985, Mr. Paul Knudson of 601 South Ninth Street, Minneapolis, requested a special use permit for a 28 seat deli restaurant and bar serving beer and wine at the Viking Center. The proposed restaurant was to'be located at 7724 Morgan Avenue South which is in the middle of the existing commercial strip center. Mr. Knudson leases both the first floor and basement at that address. The proposed restaurant was to be located on the first floor and the basement area would be used for dry storage and potential for future expansion of the restaurant. There were to be no kitchen facilities at this restaurant. The food was to be catered in and there would have been a preparation area behind the bar for cold sandwiches. The restaurant would have been open for breakfast, lunch and dinner and remain open until midnight or 1:00 AM. 1. The city council,'on a 4 -1, vote denied the special use permit which would have permitted a 28 seat restaurant. Mr. Knudson has subsequently opened a take -out deli. Mr. Knudson has also asked that the city council reconsider his request for a special use permit. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, lists restaurants as uses which may be allowed in C -2 districts if they are granted a special use permit. 2. Section 3.33, subdivision 4, establishes standards which must be complied with in order to issue a special use permit to a restaurant. A copy of this ordinance is attached for your information. 3. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, indicates that a special use permit shall not be granted unless it is found that the proposal would not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use or to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. 0 • STAFF REVIEW ap_ a Staff has reviewed the proposal against the standards for restaurants and has found the .following: 1. The proposed site is located in the C -2 general commercial district which allows restaurants by special use permit. 2. The proposal is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan which designates the site within a freeway strip area. This allows for high density uses specifically including dining and entertainment. 3. The use will not create undue traffic hazards or traffic congestion on surrounding streets. Access to the site is by either the 78th Street frontage road or from Morgan Avenue. The proposal may result in a slight increase in traffic on Morgan Avenue through the residential neighborhood north of 77th Street. This increase should not be significant. The off - street parking lot provided for the center is adequately designed to insure safe traffic circulation on the site itself. 4. The proposed restaurant will be located within an existing office /commercial structure. Therefore there should be no problems with setbacks, screening, glare or landscaping. Because there are no kitchen facilities proposed at this time, dust and fumes would pose no problems to surrounding property. 5. Assuming that the use of the shopping center as a whole remains predominately office uses rather than commercial uses, and that the number of seats in the restaurant does not exceed 28, the proposal would meet the city's minimum off - street parking guidelines. The center with the proposed restaurant would require 91 parking spaces and 92 are provided. A number of complaints have been received by the city in the past concerning on- street parking and traffic congestion in the area and in the residential blocks north of 77th Street. Parking shortage is a result of heavy demand generated by two large car dealerships and a number of other commercial operations. If the parking demand at the Viking Center increases due to changes in uses at the center, the center may not provide sufficient parking. Any overflow parking crated by a shortage at the Viking Center would exacerbate the problems in the surrounding area. 6. In order to serve wine on the premises, a restaurant must be located on a main thoroughfare of the city. In this particular case, while a portion of the Viking Plaza Center abuts on the 78th Street service road to 494, the space to be occupied by the restaurant abuts Morgan Avenue which would not meet the city's definition of a main thoroughfare. 7. Access to the off - street parking for the center and the proposed restaurant is from an internal driveway,system 0 is axe and not directly from public streets. Provision is also made for sufficient stacking space which allows for an efficient and orderly flow of traffic from the site onto adjacent streets. 8. The public safety department has indicated that there are some potential building code related problems that would have to be resolved prior to the issuance of permits to remodel the space into a restaurant. STAFF RECOMMED ?w _-"— It is s.tarf's recommendation that the special use permit be approved with the following stipulations: 1. That wine not be offered on the premises because it does not abut a major thoroughfare. 2. That the special use permit be limited to the first floor area of the restaurant. 3. That seating for no more than 28 persons be provided. 4. That all building code problems be resolved to the statisfaction of the public safety department. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENATION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the special use permit be granted as requested with the four stipulations set forth in the staff recommendation. COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER The City Manager the southern part of of automobile parts. purchase the entire is exercised, Walser center for expansion has learned that Walser Buick has leased the Viking Shopping Center for the storage Also, Walser Buick has an option to property in September, 1986. If the option Buick expects to demolish the shopping of their dealership. In a telephone conversation with Hedlund Properties, leasing agent for the Viking Shopping Center, the City Manager was told that Mr. Knudson is fully aware of the Walser Buick lease and option to purchase. This raises the question: why would Mr. Knudson want to spend monies to expand his business when it may have to be closed in 8 or 9 months? JGC /eja ectf t vvw (,610h n G. art righ City Manager tted, dN • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 496 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Consideration of a Request By Richfield State Agency to Reconsider the Amendment of the Planned Unit Development To Permit the Building at 6637 Lyndale Avenue South to Remain in Place Until Phase II of Their Development Project is Completed Council Members: In March, 1985, the City Council approved a planned unit development plan, final development plan, and special use permit for the planned unit development proposed by the Richfield State Agency at 6625 Lyndale Avenue South. One of the stipulations approved at that time was that the commercial structure located at 6637 Lyndale Avenue be removed at the end of phase I. On October 28, 1985, Richfield State Agency again requested that the City Council allow the commercial structure at 6637 Lyndale Avenue to remain in place until the completion of phase II of their development. The city council, by a 4 -1 vote, denied this request. At this time, Richfield State Agency is requesting that the City Council once again reconsider the action taken on October 28, 1985, and that the city council allow the structure at 6637 Lyndale Avenue South to remain until the end of phase II. The Richfield State Agency proposes to construct a new facade for this building. The staff position, as stated in the October 28, 1985, council letter remains the same, i.e. that the structure should be removed as previously stipulated by the City Council. One of the problems which was identified in the LHN Redevelopment Plan was fragmented piecemeal development which does not work well from an aesthetic, traffic or parking standpoint. The structure is located on an island within the RSA parking lot. The structure does not meet city commercial setback requirements. Traffic flow around the building is difficult because the driving isle width is substandard. Traffic flow and parking are a.17-a? not integrated well into the overall development. The site has been developed independently of the main bank development which further adds confusion to the traffic flow patterns on the site. This is a particular problem in that part of the RSA development, because of the amount of traffic using the driveup facility during times of peak usage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A major goal of the redevelopment plan has been to eliminate such fragmented land uses and to bring about integrated development. The city has spent a considerable amount of public money to assist this development in removing the former Kentucky Fried Chicken structure and the structure located at the corner of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. The staff is of the opinion that the removal of the structure at 6637 Lyndale Avenue is important in order to assure that the goals of the LHN Redevelopment Plan are met. The timing of phase II is uncertain at this time and it is possible that it may never occur. If this is the case the structure at 6637 Lyndale Avenue will be allowed to remain at its present location indefinitely. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION This item was also before the Planning Commission prior to the October 28th city council meeting. At that time, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the building at 6637 Lyndale Avenue South be removed within 90 da.ys of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the phase I development. ectfO14 /�ibmitted, (/416vh-n 7G. ar wright City Manage .JGC /eja C air;• i � '��` ! � ��'� ;. - , 1''•"�- '■1i'� W � :t''; :�'� I 1 Sri �v .. • :' ;.•��•'ri' ' :; ?:.�: ✓rat....;'•$ � f �w•..rl.r r l` ;:tiff ::ti; } ° :�Y• Rl n • .` i • •,,, ../""',� 'j�, � ZI It •k _ {r . lit an^. "�' i , : •S.w.::�f:_ • �, ` as --=. r >•„ -f� � ' I ;- i .1 I L4 GRAND Avip—ftsczafir `: r•�� a• - �ii 1 i� J j j +' � Z 11 i 1 • A` • 1 ! - i. � I ,� 1 !�te�•r . .�• . .. � � .. — \ moo♦- sSC�+ -• s �.. � + ss•• ■w'a'.%rs e. e. CUw•• s ssee sze • •C O ► ••a +s 1-s i� ►•' s ea ee ROw • ♦ •• n•• ■eea •'{'O i �� i2 !SL••C>Ef ".Im E ►•.x s �q 1°■ a.- ■r�i is s••aar . +wei iwli�w os� ii N•Z A_ G �b•a •sue ;"a IF ■ i ! ■rte :> n°• a s. 40.2 a W2,04 Sill, 'A S; - Q S � ' .•w s •- rf ws 1 O $ . _- 1 �• is s.. - •�1 � • •!•• of •1j� • • r•Y•.••1 .�'• a t Q ee ee e• - .:Cs.: p "te .•i 16 •1•••••i._ • • _ io 1;)1d_1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 495 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Denial of a Variance Request at 7045 James Avenue South Council Members: PROPOSAL Mr. Robert Burg, has made a request for a variance to the required setback to allow an addition to the existing attached garage. The site is a corner lot and is in 'R' (residence) zoning district. The existing house meets all the setback requirements except the streetside sideyard setback. The city zoning ordinance requires that single family use should have a 15 foot streetside sideyard setback in the 'R' (residence) district. The existing streetside sideyard is 12.37 feet and hence .nonconforming. The applicant proposes to build a 12 foot x 22 foot addition to the existing 14 foot x 22 foot attached garage which will reduce the rearyard setback to 15 feet. This means the rearyard will be 10 feet less than required by the zoning ordinance. The existing garage and proposed addition meets the required streetside sideyard setback, Mr.- Burg's position is that if the proposed garage addition was a detached garage it would comply with the zoning ordinance. Because the garage is attached to the main structure by a breezeway, the garage is by zoning provisions an attached garage. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.40, subdivision 2, states that the council shall serve as the board to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officier in the enforcement of this part of this chapter. Hearing examiners • from the Committee of,Hearing Examiners created pursuant to Section 3.40A of this Code shall hear, subject to the right of appeal to the council as provided in Section 3:40A, requests for variances from the literal provisions of this part in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions are consistent with Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 6 and any amendments thereto and will be keeping with the spirit and intent of this part. STAFF REVIEW A variance has been requested for an addition to the attached garage and denied by the city's Hearing Examiner on variances. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's findings will be distributed at the council meeting. The applicant is appealing that decision to the council. It is staff's opinion that there are no circumstances unique to this particular site under consideration. The existing structure with an attached garage has been in existence for quite sometime. Existing single family residential use could continue without the addition to the attached garage and would not create any undue hardship to the applicant. It is also the feeling of the staff that there are sufficient separation from the adjacent structures to the north and to the east and therefore, the proposed addition to the attached garage would not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the people working or residing in the surrounding neighborhood. JGC /eja • R ectfu Is mitted, hn G. art right ; City Manager 0 6 co w n z w w CO T Q LO e}' 0 ti !� T ZZ l/ Og N MEMO OZ ..r 03 c� 0 a 1 ZG ui to O N N _ co OZ co Cl) LL 1_ anN3nd s3wer w w m co 1— co ti d3-3 ESTAOLIlNED 1920 CiTT LOT SUOvEnll PLANT PLATTING JPICATICT46 rARM SURVEYING L b X3.8' 227-47 htvisod June 28th,1949• ` M. J. BE-RSCH E1 D ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER PNOwE DRCxEL 4593 G 3644 -ZZNC AVE. SO. MINNEAPOLIS 7. MINN. h f7035' r:` SC 'pia e . - Zr08 1.ran ,� 'F. �Q/ ..._� R. L BURG •a'� 7o" JAMES AVE. S. MINNEMIOUS. IIUNN. I hereby certify that the sVcve is a true and correct plat of a survey of Lot 11,F* Block 4,For4zt La.Rn,in the Tillage of Richfield Yinnl,as surveyed by Ire the 26th. r+ : day of June 1947• • i �• _t +S Lt. J. Berscheid. t_ i 1�7 jA mot/ •- t Zo . ti ' Z-. t'�- r,:��.� �.^IF i�..G -i ��f1.?' � "�,•�,:.,yv..�rLi -r � `.�'�. ►v 1... ' 'f �.�"� i�(,IVT `"'C''c' ! '„' �." ! ' .. :1.�.�,.`-t � t\.'- �- ��t..G��' -r:..Z . I •�..6. J�.c�..L�T.t��l..G'�ti.. c�- a�C -��• .�� ,�,,..ti., ti C'� `� ' %`�./Y/ �v�.+� �' r.�c. -c t+'" � jL,f4 � �,�.�yC� �..i� /"' ✓:••SJT.�� ..: L� � . 1 � CKCL I . ti ' Z-. t'�- r,:��.� �.^IF i�..G -i ��f1.?' � "�,•�,:.,yv..�rLi -r � `.�'�. ►v 1... ' 'f �.�"� i�(,IVT `"'C''c' ! '„' �." ! ' .. :1.�.�,.`-t � t\.'- �- ��t..G��' -r:..Z . I •�..6. J�.c�..L�T.t��l..G'�ti.. c�- a�C -��• .�� ,�,,..ti., ti I REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF FOR PURPOSE OF ' �,:.. *�:,� r C i' 7..� ,: !�� • -t /.2 X 2-2- Legal Description: We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining Land as above described, do hereby concur.with the variance as requested. Signature of Owners* _Address �. Iro l 10 44 •�i i �• �1.' � '2�i'� -��' �� G / ��G • its• . � l . _:...b' -' � �1. * Signatures may not be removed once the petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. J • Mr. Burs a Granting permission to request is h agr GiLlb! Zeid a 7111-�es Ave. S. APPIUMANT LCCATICN CF McFerry PUMIOSE -Al CF HEARIM FLACM CF IqEAaIN(3: MCW TO PARMIPWIME ANY CUESTICNS CITY OF RICHFIEU R-WNING =?AMISSION �3 -� To property Ow=e__s within 350 feet Of T045 James Avenue South Robert Burg Block 4, Lot 11, Forest Lawn TO hear reasons for or against the granting of a variance to allow a. 121 x 221 addition to the garage which would be 15 feet from the rear-lot line rather than the required 25 feet. ?:30 M Tuesday, November 26, 1985 �o Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall-- 6700 Portland Avenue Submit It' ' Attend the heari4* and give testimony for or- against the proposal, 2. a letter the p-, Ar, your W --n.;rg Cb=mission expressing your views. Towhid Ka: i Assistant Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, :field, 3M 55423 869-7521, Zx-.. 512 November 8, 1985 NAILING M.A. T1 3. 0 November 18,1985 —" Dear Sir: As a neighbor of Mr Robert Burg, 7045 James Ave So, who is requesting variance to allow for an addition o his garage, we have nothing-against his request nd hope that it will be granted. Mr. & Mrs. Charles E. Dunnum 7.100 Irving Ave So PROS= CF HEARING PLC CF HEARING HCW IM PA sF"i ICIPA c ANY CL'a, ICNS A3, C 7045 James Avenue South To hear reason for or against the granting of % variance to allow a..12' a 22' addition to the garage which would be 15 Peet from the rear lot line rather than the required 25 Peet. I ?:30 PX, Tuesda7i November 26, 1985 Council Chambers, - Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue 1. Attend the hearing and give testi=ogy for or against the proposal, 2. Submit a letter to the Plan -=ag Commission e=ressirg your views. - `"owhid Kaci. Assistant Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue ' Richfield, W 55423 869 -T521, ter.. 512 &MAILING CA MM November 8, 1985 \.,.lf _ TD APPLI"4T LOC;T rcN CF McF_ : OF HEARING 'aLACE CF Iszmma W O PAhMC:PA c Ul:L1C JNC �'iOTJC WY OF RICA MILD PLANNING COMMISSION To groge_rty owners withia 350 feet of T045 James Avenue Sou Robert Burg Block h, Lot 11, Forest Lassa To hear reasons for or against the granting of a variance to allow•a 12' a 22' addition to the garage which could be 15 feet from the rear-lot line rather than the required 25 feet. I' T : 30 PM, Tues day , Novemb eM 26, 1985 Council Chambers, Richfield City hail 6700 Portland Ave=e ' d -ive testi.:.ony for or- against Tthe Proposal. 1:2. mit g lette_'- to 'the Piara:Cc=ission e:rprersi g r views . ANY CLM, IONS Towhid Kazi Assisrant Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, M 55423 869 -T521, 512 Glk�'r'C 4TA1L'NC �:,Tr November 8, ?985 m- APPLICANT LOCATION CP PRCPLRTY -- CTY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING: COMMISSION To property owners within 350 feet of 7045 games Avenue Sou Robert Burg Block 4, Lot I:?, Forest Lawn To he reaso for 'r aiast the �� 88 granting of a variaace _ to allow a l2' z 22' addition to the garage which-would ,,u� sc•Q g 8g be 15 feet from the rear- lot dine rather than the required 25 feet. 10E OF HEAFIING ?:30 -PM, Tuesday, November 26, 3.985 PLC CF HEARING Couacil Chambers, Richfield City Hall • 6700 Portland Avenue HOW Tv PAFTIC.MA E Z: Attend the hearing- and give testimony for or against ._. .the proposal.. 2. Submit a letter to the Punning Commission ex;ressirg your views. . ANY CL.SSTICNS Towhid Kazi Assistant Planner City of Richfield .6700 Portland Avenue ' Richfield, MN 55423 869-752i, Ext. 512 TQ APPLICANT r Wz"A -: M.AM 1NC NQT 10E CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING CCMMISSION . C3 TO Property Owns --s within 350 Peet of T045 James Avenue South Robert Burg . LCCATICN CF ?RCPiY Block 4, Lot 11, Forest Lawn PURPOSE To hear reasons for or against the granting of a variance to allow e.: 12' a 22' addition to the garage which would be 15 feet from the rear-.lot line rather than the required �5 feet. a M CF MEARM 7:30 -PM,. Tuesday, November 26, 1985 PLC CF HEARING: Council Chambers, Richfield City He".l 6700 Portland Avenue iiOV T0 PAhTICA, 1: Attend the hearing and give testimony for or against the proposal,. 2 Submit a lett ier to the Plsaaing Cosmssion expressing your views. ANY CLIMTICNS Tcwhid aa: i Assistant Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue ` Richfield, MR 55423 869.7521, Ext. 512 MAILING C.A .� November 8, 1985 a��-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 494 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Adoption of Resolution Authorizing The Issuance And Sale of A $400,000 IDRB For The Oreck Plaza Project, 64th Street and Lyndale Avenue, LHN Council Members: The resolution under consideration authorizes the issuance and sale of a $400,000 revenue note (a form of IDRB) for the Oreck Plaza project at 6401 -6435 Lyndale Avenue South. The concept for improving this property was first presented to the City Council on August 12, 1985. Mr. Oreck and his architect Mr. Herman presented a plan which envisioned the following: (1) Expansion of by approximately 2,00.0 square feet and renovation of the corner structure at 64th Street and Lyndale Avenue; (2) Removal of the shed structures at the rear of the large building; (3) Installation of a pedestrian arcade; (4) Construction of a mansard roof; (5) Installation of bronze colored framing of the window and door openings; (6) Repaving of the parking lot; (7) Installation of a fire suppression sprinkling system; and, (8) Upgrading of electrical, plumbing, and heating systems. a�J On September 9, 1985, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed project. Following the hearing, the Council adopted a resolution giving preliminary approval to the project, approved the off- street parking layout and agreement, and, granted waivers to-the Urban Design Elements which would permit a roof top sign and proposed mansard roof. With the preliminary approvals, and because of the time required to negotiate the agreements to finalize the financing and the approaching cold weather, Mr. Oreck has initiated the renovation of his property. Permits for all the renovation work have been issued. Permits for lease hold improvements, however, have not yet been issued. Some of the improvements such as those related to the parking lot and landscaping will not be underway until spring. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of $400,000 in the form of a commercial development revenue note. JGC /eja • • RespectfyTZy /*ubmitted, John G. - Car right City Manager (, 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $400,000 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE OF 1985 (ORECR PLAZA PROJECT) PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474 a�3 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield (City) is authorized by the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, as amended, (Act) to issue its revenue bonds and to make secured or unsecured loans to finance the acqui- sition of real property and the acquisition or construction of buildings and improvements on such real property and the installation of machinery and equipment of any and all kinds and any other personal properties deemed necessary in connection with a project, as defined in the Act; and WHEREAS, the City has made the necessary arrangements with Michael C. Oreck and Susan R. Oreck, husband and wife residing in the State of Minnesota, (Borrowers), for the acquisition, construction, and rehabilita- tion by the Borrowers of a commercial facility (Project), which will be of the character contemplated by and will accomplish the purposeer- provided by the Act; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that a note in the principal amount of $400,000 should be issued, sold and delivered to provide proceeds for a loan to be made to the Borrowers to pay a portion of the cost of the Project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Definition, Exhibits and General Provisions. 1.01. Definitions. In this Resolution the following terms have the following respective meanings unless the context hereof clearly requires otherwise: 1.02. Act: the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended; 1.03. Note Register: the register maintained by the City pursuant to Section 4.02 hereof; 1.04. City: the City of Richfield, Minnesota, its successors and assigns; 1.05. Construction Loan Agreement: the Construction Loan Agreement among Bank, City, Borrowers and Title Services, Inc.; 1.06. Holder: the Registered Holder of the Note; 1.07. Loan. Agreement: . the Loan Agreement between the City and the Borrowers and any amendments or supplements thereto; 1.09. Mortgage: that certain Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement by the Borrowers to the Bank; 1.10. Note: the Commercial Development Revenue Note of 1985 (Oreck Plaza Project) in the aggregate principal ambunt of $400,000, to be issued by the City pursuant to this Resolution. 1.11. Payment Date: a date on which an installment of interest or of principal and interest is due on the Note; 1.12. Pledge Agreement: the Pledge Agreement by which the City assigns to Purchaser certain of its rights under the Loan Agreement as security for the Note; 1.13. Purchaser: First National Bank of Minneapolis, Minneapolis, Minnesota (sometimes referred to as "the Bank "); 1.14. Resolution: this Resolution, including any amendment thereto. Section 2. Approval of Documents: deneral Provisions Relating to the Note. 2.01. Authorization. The City is authorized by the Act to issue revenue bonds and loan the proceeds thereof to business enterprises to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation and construction of projects as defined in the Act, and to make all contracts, execute all instruments, and do all things necessary or convenient in the exercise of such authority. 2.02. Preliminary City Approval: Approval by the Energy and Economic Development Authority. By resolution duly adopted by this Council on September 9, 1985, the Council gave preliminary approval to the sale of revenue bonds and the loan of proceeds to the Borrowers for the construction of the Project, and authorized the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project and the issuance and sale of the Note. The Project has received approval from the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority on September 25, 1985. 2.03. Approval of Documents. Pursuant to the above, there have been prepared and presented to this Council copies of the following documents, all of which are now, or shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk, and which are approved substantially in the form presented, subject to such modifications as are acceptable to the parties and the City Attor- ney: (a) the Loan Agreement; (b) the Pledge Agreement; (c) the Construction Loan Agreement; (d) the Note; and (e) the Mortgage (not to be executed by the City). 2.04. Form and Authorized Amount. The Note shall be issued substan- tially in the form set forth in Exhibit A attached to the Loan Agreement, with such appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are permitted • • dkts � or required by this Resolut #on, and in accordance with the further provi- sions of this Article and Article Three. The total principal amount of the Note to be delivered hereunder is'expressly limited to $400,000. 2.05. Execution. The Note may be in typewritten form and shall be executed on behalf of the City by the manual signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager, shall have the official seal of the City affixed or im- printed thereon. In case any officer whose signature appears on the Note shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signa- ture shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if he had remained in office until delivery. 2.06. Mutilated, Lost and Destroyed Note. In case the Note shall become mutilated or be destroyed or lost, the City shall, if not then prohibited by law, cause to be executed and delivered, a new Note of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu of and in substi- tution for such Note destroyed or lost, upon the Holder's paying the reasonable expenses and charges of the City in connection therewith, and, in case of a Note destroyed or lost, its filing with the City evidence of such loss or ,destruction satisfactory to it together with the indemnity required by Section 475.70 of the Act. If the mutilated, destroyed or lost Note has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment. 2.07. Redemption. The Note is subject to redemption and prepayment without premium in whole or in part, the City at the direction of the Borrower on any Payment Date. The Note may also be prepaid in whole but not in part at the option of the Borrower upon certain conditions involving damage to or destruction of the Project or taking of the Project by eminent domain. The Note is also further subject to redemption in whole but not in part by the City at the direction of the Holder upon certain events spec- ified in Article 5 of the Loan Agreement. 2.08. Cancellation. When the Note has been redeemed or otherwise paid in full, it shall be cancelled by the City and shall not be reissued. The Holder shall deliver to the City either the cancelled Note or a certif- icate of a responsible officer of the Holder certifying as to the destruc- tion thereof. 2.09. Registration: Securities Act. The Note has not been regis- tered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or under any state securities laws for initial distribution, and the Note has been sold initially only to the Bank pursuant to the investment representation of the Bank as Purchaser. 2.10. Registration of Transfer. The City will cause to be kept at the office of the City Clerk a Note Register in which, subject to such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, the City shall provide for the registration of transfers of ownership of the Note. The Note shall be transferable only upon the Note Register by the the Registered Holder thereof in person or by its attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender of the Note together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the City Clerk and the City Attorney, duly executed by the r � � Registered Holder or its�duly authorized attorney. Upon such transfer the City shall note the date of registration and the name and address of the new registered owner in the Note Register and in the registration blank appearing on the Note. Alternatively, the City shall, at the request and expense of the registered Holder, issue a new Note in aggregate outstanding principal amount equal to that of the note surrendered, and of like tenor except as to principal amount, and registered in the name of the registered Holder or such transferee as may be designated by the registered Holder. The City may deem and treat the person in whose name the Note is last registered in the Note Register and by notation on the Note as the absolute owner thereof, whether or not the principal balance or any part thereof is overdue, for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of the principal balance, redemption price or interest and for all other purposes. The Note shall be initially registered in the name of the Bank. 2.11. Cessation and Continuation of Interest. Interest on the. Note shall cease on its payment in full. If the Note is not presented for payment when due, and if funds sufficient to pay the Note shall have been paid to the Holder, (i) all obligations of the City for payment of the Note shall forthwith cease and (ii) the Holder of the Note shall thereafter have no rights with respect thereof except to receive payment therefor. Section 3. Authorization and Sale: Terms and Conditions of the Note. 3.01. Approval of Terms. The City shall forthwith issue and sell the Note the principal amount of $400,000. The Note shall be in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit A to the Loan Agreement, which terms and provisions are hereby approved and incorporated herein. Principal and interest shall be payable at First National Bank of Minneapolis,. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. 3.02. Sale of Note. The offer of the Bank to purchase the Note at a price of the par value thereof in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement is hereby found to be reasonable and is accepted. 3.03. Delivery of the Note. The Note shall be delivered to the Bank upon payment of the purchase price, and upon compliance with all conditions of,Article 3 of the Loan Agreement relating to closing and delivery. Section 4. Approvals and Authorization: Limitations of City Obligation. 4.01. Authorization: Authentication of Transcript. Upon the execu- tion of the documents approved in Section 2 hereof, the Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute the Note on behalf of the City and to deliver it to the Bank, and to execute such other certifica- tions, documents or instructions as may be required by the Loan Agreement, or as note counsel or counsel for the Bank shall require, and all such certifications, recitals and representations of the City, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute a representation of the City as to the accuracy of all statements contained therein. Upon delivery of the Note, the proceeds thereof shall be disbursed to the Borrowers pursuant to )G -7 the Loan Agreement. Execution of any instrument or document by one or more appropriate officers of the City shall constitute, and shall be deemed the conclusive evidence of, the approval and authorization by the City and the Council of the instrument or document so executed. In the event of the absence or disability of the Mayor or City Manager, such officers of the City as, in the opinion of the City Attorneys may act in their behalf, shall without further act or authorization of the Council do all things and execute all instruments and documents required to be done or executed by such absent or disabled officials. 4.02. Registration Records. The City Clerk, as note registrar, shall keep a note register in which the City shall provide for the registration of the Note and for transfers of the Note. The principal of and interest on the Note shall be paid to the Bank for the account of the Holder enti- tled thereto in Federal or other immediately available funds. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to deliver a certified copy of this Note Resolution to the Director of Property Taxation of Hennepin County, togeth- er with such other information as said' officer may require, and to obtain the certificate as to entry of the Note on the note register as required by the Act and Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.63 4.03. Limitation of the City's Obligations. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Note or the Loan Agreement or any other documents relating thereto, the Note shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional, statutory, or charter limitation, and shall not be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof, and the City shall not be subject to any liability thereon, and no holder of the Note shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Note or the interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City, and the Note shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City. The agreement of the City to perform the covenants and other provisions contained in the Note and the Loan Agreement shall be subject at all times to the availability of revenues furnished by the Company sufficient to pay all costs of such performance or the enforcement thereof, and neither the City nor any of its officials, officers, agents or employees shall be subject to any personal liability thereon. 4.04. Execution and Delivery. The Mayor, the Manager, the Clerk and the City Attorney are authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the 'provisions of this Resolution relating to the execution and delivery of the Note and the other documents described herein. Adopted by the Council this 9th day of December, 1985. Mayor • Attest: City Clerk '�j CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 493 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolutions Reducing Annual Interest Rate for City Project No. 793, 19814 Alley Paving; and City Project No. 813, Storm Sewer Improvement for Richfield State Agency /Market Plaza Council Members: On September 23, 1985, the City Council adopted resolutions which established a 9% interest rate to be charged to benefited property owners for City Project No. 793, 19814 Alley Paving and City Project No. 813, Richfield State Agency /Market Plaza Storm Sewer Improvements. This interest rate was necessary to complete the certification process to Hennepin County for these projects prior to the October 10, 1985, deadline. Since the bonds had not been sold prior to October as has been the normal practice (the bond sale was delayed to accomodate the school district fire sprinkler system project), it was necessary to assume an interest rate based on the prevailing bond market at the end of September. Thus, the 9% rate was selected. However, in early November when the $1,940,000 improvements bonds were sold, the bond market was in an excellent position from the City's perspective and the bonds sold at 7.58 %. The agreement between Agency /Market Plaza for t: interest rate that may be Agency /Market Plaza at 1% bonds sold to finance the charge no more than 8.58% the City and Richfield State he storm sewer improvements limits the charged to Richfield State more than the interest cost of the project. As a result, the City may interest for the storm sewer project. Most municipalities, including Richfield, establish an interest rate (to charge to property owners paying off assessments) of between 1% to 2% greater than the municipalities interest cost on the respective bonds sold to finance the improvements. This typical margin of 1% or 2% provides for internal administrative costs associated with the bonds and assessments and, in addition, provides a safety margin to cover 40 for the small number of special assessments which are delinquent or defaulted. 0 H A*10 In consideration of the 8.58% limitation in the Richfield State Agency /Market Plaza Storm Sewer Project, it is Isrecommended that the resolution certifying the assessment for the project be reduced from 9% to 8.58 %. Furthermore, in an effort to maintain equality in the interest rate charged for each of the four projects funded by the 7.58 %, $17 940,000 bond sale, it is also recommended that the resolution certifying the interest rate for the 1984 Alley Paving Project, City Project No. 793, be similarly reduced from 9% to 8,58 %. This would enable the City to pass the savings from the favorable bond sale onto affected property owners while providing the City with an adequate cushion for administrative costs and delinquent assessments. • 0 The school sprinkler system and 1985 alley improvements have not been certified to date. The writer recommends that those assessments be certified with an 8.58% rate when those certifications come before the Council in 1986. It is recommended that the City Council approve the - attached resolutions establishing an 8.58% interest rate for City Project No. 813, Richfield State Agency /Market Plaza Storm Sewer Improvements and City Project No. 793, 1984 Alley Paving. pectfu nr mitted, �ohn G. art fight City Manager JGC /eja cc: Administrative Services Director Finance Manager Assessment Clerk City Engineer 0-3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION_ - AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 7071 ESTABLISHING ANNUAL INTEREST RATE FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 7939 19814 ALLEY PAVING WHEREAS, pursuant to all applicable law, the City Council adopted (March 11,- 1985) Resolution No. 7019, "Resolution Adopting Assessment on City Project No. 793, 19814 Alley Paving," and WHEREAS, pursuant to all applicable law, the City Council adopted (September 23, 1985) Resolution No. 7071, "Resolution Amending Resolution No. 7019 Adopting Assessment on City Project No. 793, 19814 Alley Paving, Establishing Annual Interest Rate" by setting the annual interest rate at 9 %, and, WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 7019 and 7071 were adopted prior to the sale of General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985 to finance the project but before the deadline to certify the project to Hennepin County on October 10, 1985, and WHEREAS, the City subsequently sold (November 6, 1985) General Obligation Improvement Bonds to finance the projects at a net interest rate of 7.58 %, and WHEREAS, the City is limited by its agreement with Richfield State Agency on City Project No. 813 -to charge an annual interest rate not greater than 1% more than the General Obligation Improvement Bonds that are sold to finance the project, and, WHEREAS, it is the City's intent to establish a uniform annual interest rate for all projects included in the said General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that Resolution No. 7071 amending Resolution No. 7019 adopting assessment on City Project No. 793, 19814 Alley Paving, establishing annual interest rate be amended to state the assessment shall bear an annual interest rate of 8.58 %. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of December, 1985. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber. City Clerk a� � RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION. AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 7072 ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 813, RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT,, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL INTEREST RATE WHEREAS, pursuant to all applicable law, the City Council adopted (September 23, 1985) Resolution No. 7072, "Resolution Adopting Assessment on City Project No. 813, Richfield State Agency Storm Sewer Improvements," and WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 7072 provides that the assessment shall bear a 9% interest rate, and WHEREAS, the City subsequently sold General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1985 to finance the project at an interest rate of 7.58% on November 6, 1985, and WHEREAS, the petition agreement between the City and Richfield State Agency for the storm sewer improvement project provided that the City may not charge an interest rate for the assessments which was greater than /more than the interest rate the City pays for the improvement bonds to finance the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that Resolution No. 7072 be amended to state that all assessments shall bear an annual interest rate of 8.58 %. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of December, 1985. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • John Hamilton Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 4�k/ Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 492 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract - Storm Sewer Improvements - Wilson Pond and Norby Pond Council Members: On November 25, 1985, bids for storm sewer improvements for Norby Pond and Wilson Pond were opened in accordance with legal requirements. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached for city council review. Wilson Pond is located in the vicinity of 74th Street and 14th Avenue. Improvements include, but are not limited to, rerouting water from Christian Park, dredging of Wilson Pond and increasing pipe capacity. Norby Pond is located in the vicinity of 70th Street and Second Avenue. Improvements include dredging and increasing pipe capacity. The source of funds for the storm sewer improvement projects will be proceeds from a 1986 General Obligation Storm Sewer Utility bond issue. User fees will be pledged to meet debt service obligations. The bond sale will be held within the first six months of 1986. Eleven bids were submitted. The lowest bid by a responsible bidder meeting specifications was submitted by Arcon, Inc. in the amount of $1,466,051.15. It is recommended the city council adopt the attached resolution. The 1985 and 1986 storm sewer projects now completed or under contract (including the Norby and Wilson Pond projects) totals $2.3 million. The other projects are: (1) 69th Street conduits and (2) the 76th at Washburn relief sewers. Re pectfu s mitted, vUv ohn G. art right City Manager JGC /eja RESOLUTION NO.� RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STORM-SEWER AND APPURTENANT WORK C.P. 708 -1564 AND C.P. 708 -1565 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for for storm sewer improvement and appurtenant work for Wilson Pond and Norby Pond, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and WHEREAS, it appears that Arcon, Inc. of Mora, MN is the lowest responsible bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the .City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the bid minutes and tabulation is hereby accepted. 2. That the total base bid of Arcon, Inc. of Mora, MN for storm sewer and appurtenant work related to the above noted projects at a cost of $1,466,051.15 is hereby accepted. 3. That the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Arcon, Inc. of Mora, MN in the name of the City of Richfield for such improvements according to plans and specifications therefore approved by the city council. . 4. That the city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of December, 1985. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor C is CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING • November 25, 1985 Storm Sewer and Appurtenant Work Project No. 708- 4880 -1564 a v_J Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Storm Sewer and Appurtenant Work, Project No. 708 -4880 -1564, as advertised in the official newspaper on October 30, 1985. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Don Fondrick; Community Services Director Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative Mike Eastling, City Engineer The following bids were submitted and read aloud: CONTRACTOR BID SECURITY TOTAL BID Northdale Construction Co., Inc. Rogers, MN 5% bond 1,641,425.75 Austin P. Keller Construction Co. St. Paul, MN 5% bond 12838,707.00 Lametty & Sons Inc. Hugo, MN 5% bond 1,6532000.00 Progressive Contractors Inc.. Osseo, MN 5% bond 1,776,723.48 G. L. Contracting Inc. Minnetonka, MN 5% bond 2,0472863.80 Kenko Inc. Blaine, MN 5% bond 127952895.50 Johnson Bras Corporation Litchfield, MN 5% bond 22263,712.00 Arcon Construction Co. Mora, MN 5% bond 1,466,051.15 Barbarossa & Sons Inc. Osseo, MN. 5%-bond 1,536,679.60 D H Blottner & Sons Inc. St. Paul, MN 5% bond 12871,214..55 Richard Knutson Inc. Burnsville, MN 5% bond 1,532,439.45 The City Clerk announced that the bids would "be tabulated and considered at the December 9, 1985 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk ,4�-/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager . Council Letter No. 1491 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Amateur Radio Tower Regulations Council Members: In May of this year, the Planning Commission, at the request of-an amateur radio operator, began consideration of amendments to the city's zoning ordinance concerning the way the city regulates amateur radio towers. An amateur radio operator questioned why the city imposed a special use permit process and fee on a person who desires to place an amateur radio tower on their property, while a person who erects a satellite dish antenna does not need to go through a special use permit process. • At the November 25, 1985, city council meeting, the council gave first reading consideration to an ordinance regulating amateur radio towers. The proposed ordinance eliminates the special use permit process. However, it sets up a series of standards which must be met in order for the tower or antenna to be constructed. The following is a summary of the ordinance provisions: 1. The ordinance defines antennas and towers. Antennas are defined as any exterior equipment used to transmit or receive radio, television, or telecommunication signals. Towers are defined as any pole, spire, or structure to which antennas are attached. 2. The ordinance incorporates the regulations for satellite antennas. No changes are proposed to the existing regulations which regulate satellite antennas. The regulations are incorporated into this ordinance because satellite antennas are covered by the definitions of an antenna and to have all regulations in one place to make ordinance interpretation easier. 3. The ordinance requires that a building permit be obtained for the construction of antenna towers. Permits are not required for antennas which do not exceed a height of 10 feet above the highest point of A�P-01 attachment to the building nor for antenna and towers used by the city for city purposes nor for adjustment repair or replacement of existing antennas. 4. The regulations - restrict the location of antennas and towers to rearyards except that an antenna may be in a required interior sideyard provided they are securely attached to the structure and are at least 4 feet from an interior side property line. 5. The ordinance restricts the height of antennas or towers to 70 feet. 6. The ordinance sets up construction requirements which provides that the tower must:withstand the applicable wind load requirements of the state building code; that they be constructed of or treated with corrosive resistant material; that they are grounded for protection against lighting strikes; that climbing of towers by unauthorized persons is discouraged; and, that there be no lights, reflectors, flashers, platforms, or catwalks or similar attachments except as might be required by the Federal Avaiation Agency or the Federal Communications Commission. 7. The ordinance allows existing, nonconforming installations to continue to exist and to be repaired as long as the cost of repairing the tower does not exceed 50% of the cost of a new tower of like kind or quality. The amateur radio tower operators of the community have indicated support for the ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission. The ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission eliminated a restriction contained in the ordinance drafted by staff. The provision eliminated was that the height of a tower shall not exceed the distance from the base of the tower to the nearest overhead electrical power line which serves more than one dwelling less five feet. The Planning Commission eliminated this provision because they believed the small lot size existing in Richfield would overly restrict amateur radio towers. It was also the belief that if the towers were properly constructed as required by the building permit process, there would not be a danger of towers falling and knocking out power lines. The trees would fall before thetowers would and, therefore, the trees are the real danger to power lines. Staff discussed this matter with a representative of Northern States Power who indicated that the city should regulate both the type of construction and the distance of antennas to power lines. He said that the city should limit the height of antennaes and towers so that if they fall they would not hit power lines. As previously indicated, the ordinance is • • recommended by the Planning Commission does not contain such a provision. It does, however, regulate the type of construction. It is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing and approve second.reading of the attached ordinance at the December 9, 1985, city council meeting. JGC /eja Respectfu y bmitted, � E ohn G. Car righ City Manager AMENDWM M CHAPTER III, PART IV OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF ME CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled "Zoning Regulation" is hereby amended in the following respects: I. Section 3.27, subdivision 3 is amended by adding the following new definitions and renumber existing definitions appropriately. II. Section 3.27, subdivision 39 paragraph 31 is amended to read as follows: (31) "Satellite Antenna" means a structure and all supporting apparatus which is used for receiving. satellite signals. If 1 -- -t- -- 7-ji- -of me abructure is AD III. By adding the following new Section 329 A. • 3.29A. Antennae and Towers Subdivision 2. Permit Requirements • -2- 2. Permits shall not be required for: Js • M-1 Subdivision 3. Location Reouirements. 3. No part. of anv antenna or tower nor ariv lines. cable- Pnni nnuani. nw ac, ross or over any part any ;ublic right sidewalk or alleys or over any property Subdivision 4. Height Restrictions. 2. The total height of roof mounted towers, antennae or combination thereof shall not exceed 70 feet above the average elevation of along the front building line of the building .it is mount on. • • Subdivision 50 Construction Requirements. 1:- 'Towers'with' antenna shall be'desi ed to - withstand a licable'wind cad requirements as prescribed in the state - building code: tower affixed to the V-Ound shall be protected to discouram Subdivision 6. Non- conforming Installations 1. Antenna and towers in existence as of the effective date of the ordinance which does-not conform to or comply with these regulations may continue to-exist for the purpose now used but may not be replaced or structurally altered except as hereafter specified without complying in all respects with these regulations. 2. If such non - conforming towers are hereafter damaged or destroyed due to any reason or cause whatsoever, the tower may be repaired and restored to its former use, location and physical dimensions upon Obtaining a building permit therefore, but without otherwise complying with these regulations provided however, that the cost of repairing the tower to its former use, size or location does not exceed 50 per cent of the cost of .a new tower of like kind or quality. IV. Section 3.309 subdivision 2, paragraph -k is amended to read as follows: • (k) Sege Antenna and Towers. provided, that l -4- 1"-7V. Section 3030; subdivision 3; paragraph f is amended to read as follows: (f) Freestanding or ground -based antenna structures on interior lots • abutting on two,streets or corner lots abutting on more than 2 streets; and roof - mounted satellite antenna higher than 'ten feet from the highest point of the roof. Vi. Section 3.30A9 subdivision 3, paragraph b is amended to read as follows. (b) Freestanding or ground -based antenna structures'an interior lots abutting on two streets or corner lots abutting on two streets or corner .lots abutting on more than 2 streets, and roof - mounted satellite antenna higher than ten feet from -the highest point of the roof. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1965. ATTEST: T as Ferber, City Clerk John Harm ton, Mayor r .s 1 - i I QQM �1 N N N a O- Cys7 co m i7 f• In � r r KM r C � co ti �O M N r cu i S x 1 1 1 I x I x x 1 I x 1 t w 1 u', I N 1 3 1 1 x t I s 1 x 1 I x 1 I _NI x "Ir l l 1 x l 1 :N x I, I 1 1 I r I� 1 - I P9 , x t I 1 i x x 1 x 1, M I t- N x I 1 t 1 _x 1._ 1 1 1 �rx 1 I' N s i N t>- N1 i x i X i I _ 1 1 f I (n ; � ; N I w i x 1 1 i x ' ...�.. 1 1 x 1 N 1 1 N 1 i 1 1 x .? 1 X I ti 1 X �I 1 1 x It 1 It x 1 I X I N � _T 1 X t N�YI t` fv1 1 iC" 1 x 1 -T to I N 2 U, j 2 4'\ en i ` I 1 1. x 1 1 I l _x I I , x x a 1 1 x I 1 x 1 I I x I 1 x l I I NN , t' I X 1 I 1 1 - 1 1` 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 I 1 - 1 I� 1 1 xI I �__I x i x I 1 X I i X II I X I i` I x 1� 1 I_ �� I i x I I x 1 I X X 1 1 1 F 1 t 1 1 I Ct7 t 1 t 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I pQ 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 S I C7 i 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I o 1 1 p 1 C? 1 t 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 E 1 E I 1-H 1 1 I I Z 1 1 m l 1 I 1 1 U I 1 ~ 1 >d g i v It 3 a i i a i oi l 1 1 i a i 61 i A11-/ CITY.OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 490 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing and Approval of Preliminary Resolution Concerning The Issuance of IDRB's For The Construction Of A Hampton Inn (ILN Project) Council Members: At the November 12, 1985, City Council meeting, a resolution was adopted establishing December 9, 1985, as the date for a public hearing on the issuance of IDRB's for the Hampton Inn project. This letter recommends City Council adoption of a Preliminary Resolution providing for the issuance of IDRB's for the development of the Hampton Inn Motel. The basic development concept is as follows. PALSCO, Inc. would be purchasing the existing Colonial Lodge Motel property from Mr. Tom Price. They also have an agreement to purchase the print shop facility at the corner of 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Additional site area would be provided by MNDOT by abandoning the adjoining portion of the 78th Street frontage road. MNDOT's need for their easement would cease and the land would revert to the Colonial Lodge property. The site would then approximate 2.4 acres. On this parcel, PALSCO, Inc., a franchisee, would construct a Hampton Inn Motel. There are-two alternative development plans. A final determination of the specific development would be the result of negotiations between PALSCO and Hampton Inn. Under one alternative, a five story structure containing 135 motel rooms and a freestanding 150 seat "family" type restaurant would be constructed. The second alternative would be the construction - of only a four story motel with 146 rooms. Construction would be initiated in the spring of 1986 with completion scheduled for early 1987. The development concept will be presented at the Council meeting on December 9th PALSCO is seeking tax exempt IDRB financing in some amount less than $7,000,000. At the time of dictating this letter, PALSCO had not determined what the amount is. /6 a It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution giving preliminary approval to the use of IDRB-financing for the project and authorize city officials to execute the necessary agreements to effectuate this action. JGC:sb • • Res ectfu submitted, John G. Car wr' t City Manager /D ,3 RESOLUnON NO. RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROVAL, AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council ") of the. City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "City ") as follows: Section 1. It is hereby found, determined and declared as follows: (1) PALSCO, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the "Company ") has proposed that the City undertake and finance the acquisition and betterment of a one hundred fifty (150) room hotel facility to be known as Hampton Inn (the "Project "), located at the northeast Goner of the intersection of Interstate Highway 494 and Lyndale Avenue South, under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statues, Chapter 474 (the "Act "). (2) The existence of the Project in the City will contribute to more intensive development and use of land to increase the tax base of the City and overlapping taxing authorities and maintain and provide for an increase in opportunities for employment for residents of the City. (3) The City has been advised that conventional, commercial financing to . pay the capital cost of the Project is available at such costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly reduced, but that with the aid of municipal financing and its resulting low borrowing cost the Project is economically more feasible. (4) The City has on this date held a public hearing to consider the financing of the Project after at least (15) days published notice thereof. (5) The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, to issue its revenue bonds, notes or other obligations to finance the cost, in whole or in part, of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement or extension of capital projects consisting of properties used and useful in connection with a revenue- producing enterprise, such as that of the . Company; the issuance of such bonds, notes or other obligations by the City would be a substantial inducement to the Company to construct its facility in the City. Section 2. On the basis of information given the City to date, it appears that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue its industrial development revenue bonds, notes or other obligations under the provisions of Chapter 474 to finance the Project of the Company at a cost presently estimated not to exceed $7,000,000. • le- � -2- Section 3. The Project ' is hereby given preliminary approval by the City and the issuance of the Bonds, notes or other obligations for such purpose and in such amount is hereby approved, subject. to approval of the Project by the Commissioner of the Department Energy, 40 of Planning and Development and to the mutual agreement of this body, the Company and the initial purchasers of the Bonds, notes or other obligations as to the details of the Bond issue and provisions for their payment. In all events, it is understood, however, that the Bonds, notes or other obligations of the City shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City except the Project, and each Bond, note or other obligation when, as, and if issued shall recite in substance that the Bond, note or other obligation, including interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenues received from the Project and the property pledged to the payment thereof and shall not constitute a debt of the City. Section 4. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 7(a), the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Commissioner of the Department of Energy, Planning and Development for approval of the Project. The Mayor, the City Clerk, the City Attorney and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Commissioner of the Department of Energy, Planning and Development with any preliminary information needed for this purpose, and the City Attorney is authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project, if it is approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Energy, Planning and Development. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of December, 1985. JOHN HAMILTON, Mayor ATTEST: THOMAS P. FERBER, City Clerk -2- 9 -/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Of- fice of City Manager Council Letter No. 489 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Planned Unit Development, Rezoning, Special Use Permit And Variance Request for the Hampton Inn Project at 78th Street and Lyndale Avenue Council Members: PROPOSAL Palsco Inc., has submitted a request for approval of a planned unit development plan, rezoning, special use permit and variance for a hotel and restaurant- development on a 2.4 acre site lying generally east of Lyndale Avenue, south of 77th Street and north of the 78th Street Frontage Road along Highway 494. The proposal will involve the construction, of a 5 story Hampton Inn Motel containing approximately 135 rooms and a freestanding restaurant containing approximately 150 seats. If the restaurant is not developed on the site, the proposal will involve a 4 story, 146 room Hampton Inn Hotel only. If the restaurant is developed there will be 160 parking spaces provided. If the restaurant is not developed, 135 parking spaces will be provided. The site is zoned C -2 General Commercial. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to PC -2 Planned General Commercial (PUD zoning district). ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.33, sets standards for hotel and restaurant developments. 2. Section 3.34A sets standards for planned unit development districts. 3. Section 3.40 sets conditions for granting variances. 4. Section 3.41 establishes criteria for issuing special use permits. OTHER ORDINANCE REQUIRMENTS 1. Section 3.54,.sets standards for land, subdivisions and platting procedures. 2. Section 4.05, sets standards for off - street parking areas. STAFF REVIEW 1. Relationship to Ordinance and Plans The PUD ordinance requires that the PUD project be compared with the zoning ordinance requirements otherwise applicable to this type of development. Shown below is a comparison of what would be required for this type of development by the normal commercial zoning standards and what would be required by the planned unit development ordinance. As can be seen, the proposal varies from the ordinance requirements in four areas. First, the proposed height of the hotel structure will be 5 stories if the restaurant is constructed and 4 stories if the restaurant is not constructed. This is one or two stories higher than the normal height restriction of 3 stories in a C -2 General Commercial zoning district. It is staff's opinion that the extra height would not be detrimental to the public welfare and in fact allows for more open space on the site. Extra PUD ; C -2 Zoning ; Proposed ! Ordinance ! District !Requirements!Requirementslw /restaurant , wo /restaurant 1. Minimum! Setbacks! Front: ; ; 40 feet North ; N/A ; 'Hotel:180 ft ! !Rest.: 271 ft! 110 ft ! ! ! ! West ! N/A ! 40 feet !Hotel: 72 ft !Hotel: 72 ft !Canopy: 24 ft!Canopy:,22 ft !Rest.: 83 ft ! South ! N/A ! ! 40 feet ! !Hotel: 180 ! ft! !Rest: 25 €t ! 150 ft Rear: East ! N/A ! 25 feet !Hotel: 75 ft! !Rest: 135 ft ! 75 ft 2. Maximum! N/A ! 3 stories /! 5 stories ! 4 stories Height ! ! 40 feet ! ! ! ! 3. Minimum! N/A !w /rest. 194 Parking! ! !wo /rest. 1541 160 spaces ! ! ! 135 spaces ! 4. Maximum! 38,257.88 ! N/A ! 579885 ! 56,296 Floor ! sq. ft. Area !. As can be seen, the proposal varies from the ordinance requirements in four areas. First, the proposed height of the hotel structure will be 5 stories if the restaurant is constructed and 4 stories if the restaurant is not constructed. This is one or two stories higher than the normal height restriction of 3 stories in a C -2 General Commercial zoning district. It is staff's opinion that the extra height would not be detrimental to the public welfare and in fact allows for more open space on the site. Extra 57-3 height is also justified because of the sites location adjacent to 494. The acquisitions and installation of the buffer area north- -of 77th Street which will be done as part 40 of the ILN public improvements will also provide a buffer which minimizes the impact of the additional height. The second area where the proposal differs from city PC -2 guidelines is the number of off- street parking spaces provided on the site. If the re- taurpnt is constructed, the proposal is 34 spaces short of the .-.qty's off - street parking guidelines and it is short 19 spaces if the restaurant is not constructed. As can be seen in the attached parking analysis, this shortage can be lessened because of certain adjustment factors due to the nature of the project (i.e. some customers arrive by taxi; some restaurant customers are also motel customers). Accounting for these adjustment factors, the project would be only 13 spaces short if the restaurant is constructed and 11 spaces if it is not. A more detailed discussion of this item can be found later in this report and in the attached parking analysis. The third area where the proposal differs from city guidelines is that the amount of floor area proposed exceeds that allowed by the PUD ordinance in a PC -2 district. The PUD ordinance indicates that a maximum of 38,257.88 square feet can be allowed on the site while the proposal involves 57,885 square feet with the restaurant and 56,296 square feet without the restaurant. It is staff's feeling that the additional floor area is justified and would not be detrimental to the public welfare. First of all, the site is located adjacent to highway 494. Secondly, the site is part of the ILN redevelopment district recently approved by the council. Intense development of the site can help generate tax increment which is necessary to finance the roadway and other public improvements necessary in the area. Finally, the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates this area should be developed as high intensity freeway_strip uses. The final area are the setbacks of structures. The city ordinances require that structures in commercial districts have a 40 foot setback from each street. The proposal calls for a canopy to extend from the hotel structure which would be 22 to 24 feet from the projected new right -of -way line of Lyndale Avenue. The proposed restaurant would be 25 feet from the projected new right -of -way line of 494 after the frontage road is vacated. It is staff's opinion that the reduced setbacks would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The city allows similar canopies at gasoline service stations to be within 5 feet of the right -of -way. The restaurant setback functions as a rearyard setback because there is no access to.the freeway from the site and because there is a grade separation. There also will be additional space separating the building from the exit ramp. There will also be considerable landscaping in the 25 foot setback area. 5;7- Z/ A variance would be required for the additional floor area because the floor area restriction is a standard of the PUD ordinance. A- variance would not be necessary for the additional height, the reduction in parking or for the reduced setbacks because there are no such restrictions in the PUD ordinance. The PUD ordinance only requires that the proposal be reviewed against these standards. A variance has been requested and denied by the city's variance Hearing Examiner. A copy of the hearing examiners findings will be distributed at the council meeting. The applicant is appealing that decision to the council. The basis for the applicants appeal is that they believe that the denial of the variance will cause undue hardship due to reasons unique to the site. It is the applicant's contention that the floor area proposed is necessary because of the sites location in the ILN area and because of the requirement of the city that they guarantee a minimum value for tax increment purposes. The land costs which they are facing are high and requires the developers to maximize the number of hotel rooms in the project. A reduction in the amount of floor area would require them to reduce the number of rooms and jeopardize the project. The parent company which issues the franchise, Hampton Inn /Holiday Inn, controls room sizes and other facility requirements so this limits the option of reducing the floor area. Without the variance the project is not economically feasible and they cannot meet the city's minimum value requirements and, therefore, cannot develop the site. This would constitute an undue hardship and prevent them from making reasonable use of the property. The site is to be rezoned to a PUD zoning district. The intent of PUD districts is to allow maximum flexibility of development. The proposal is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the ILN Redevelopment Plan. It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance would not preclude reasonable use of the property. A smaller hotel and restaurant or another commercial use could be developed on the property within the floor area requirements of the ordinance. The City's Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site should be developed as high intensity freeway strip type uses which include hotels and restaurants. The development proposed is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The site is within the ILN redevelopment project area. The plans proposed have been coordinated with the planning done by the city's consultant for the area. The planning that was done took into account this proposed development. The site shown on the proposed site plan takes into account the city's need for additional right -of -way along 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue. The site also reflects the vacation of the 78th Street frontage road as, approved in the ILN plan. q_�_5 2. Availability of Public Services The site is adequately served by utilities including gas, water, electricity and sanitary service. There is adequate capacity in the existing facilities to handle the proposed use. There should be no adverse affect on the existing utilities in the area. 3. Traffic Circulation and Control Access to the site is provided from Lyndale Avenue by a right -in and right -out entrance. Full access to the site is provided from 77th Street. With the improvements to Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street, there will be adequate capacity to handle the additional traffic generated by this use. The location of the entrances are proper and will not cause congestion on Lyndale Avenue nor at the intersection of Lyndale and 77th Street. The on -site traffic circulation system is designed properly and should not present problems. As previously indicated, the development anticipates that the 78th Street frontage road would be vacated. The city is currently working with MNDOT, which has control over the frontage road, to have them vacate this right -of -way to the city so the city can than vacate it and turn it over to the developer. This proposed vacation is part of the ILN plan approved by the Planning Commission and the city council. 4. Parking As previously indicated, a number of parking stalls provided on a site falls short of city off - street parking guidelines. It is staff's feeling that an additional 13 spaces should be provided on the site if the restaurant is constructed and 11 additional spaces if the restaurant is not provided. There is sufficient space on the site to provide these stalls through the narrowing of end islands and through the reduction of the area of the green space shown immediately south and west of the hotel structure. The reductions of these green areas does however have a negative affect on the aesthetic appearance of the site by providing less green areas. The city may want to allow the development to proceed as shown and then review the parking situation after the development is complete and operating to see if there would be a parking shortage before requiring the additional parking to be constructed. The applicant has indicated that because the hotel typically is only 75% occupied that there should be sufficient parking on the site. 5. Light Exposure and Air Circulation It is staff's opinion that there will be adequate light 49 exposure and air circulation on the site and that it should not have adverse affect on surrounding properties. 6. Nature and Extent of Open Space The project provides adequate amount of open space on the site both adjacent to the building and along its street frontages. The plans indicate that 28.5% of the site will be in green areas, which should be sufficient. 7. Impact of the Project on the Neighborhood It is staff's opinion that the project should not have adverse affect on the neighborhood. The site is located adjacent to 494 and Lyndale Avenue and there will be a buffer area constructed on the north side of 77th Street between the project and the residential area to the north. With this construction and with the construction of looped residential streets, traffic impact on residential neighborhoods will be minimal. 8. Street Vacations and Dedications The vacation of the 78th Street frontage road and the dedication of the additional right -of -way for Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street need to occur for the plans submitted to be implemented. Approval of the plans should be contingent upon these events occuring. 9. Plat The existing property is described by a wets and bounds legal description. Proper preliminary and final plat should be submitted to plat the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS It is staff's opinion that the type of development and its design is appropriate to this site. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the preliminary PUD plan, rezoning and special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. That the required easements for additional right -of -way along Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street be provided as required to carry out the planned street improvements. 2. That the 78th Street frontage road be vacated. 3. That a development proceed as shown on the site plan. The parking demand should be closely monitored and if a parking shortage occurs on the site when it is complete and operating, that a minimum of 13 additional parking stalls be provided on the site. 4. That the property be platted and that proper preliminary and final plats be filed for city approval. The council should give first reading to the attached ordinance rezoning the property and schedule the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance for January 13, 1986. 9,7 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval with the four stipulations recommended by staff and the following additional stipulation: That the variance be approved or the interpretation made that a variance is not necessary because the project is in a PUD. The City Manager recommends approval of the Staff and ` Planning Commission recommendations, including the variance for additional floor area. JGC /ej t ectf "/� bmitted, ,ronn u. fua Lwr City Manag PARKING ANALYSIS Parking Regulations 40 1. Hotel. 1 space per unit + 1 per employee 135 units + 8 employees = 144 spaces 146 units + 8 employees = 154 spaces 2. Restaurant: 1 space per 3 seats 150 seats = 50 spaces 3. Total: 144 + 50 = 1914 spaces 154 = 154 Adjustments Barton- Aschman shared parking study indicates: 1. Hotel parking requirement can be 1 space per unit. Assumption is that 20% of occupants will use taxis, buses or- shared cars. This would reduce requirement for hotel by 8 spaces (135 required with restaurant, 146 without restaurant) 2. 50% of restaurant customers could also be hotel occupants. Using a more conservative estimate of 25% (because of restaurant type, lack of other restaurants in area, and because it is a freestanding restaurant). This could reduce rewquirement for restaurant by 12 spaces a (38 spaces would be required). Total Parking Required After Adjustments: With Restaurant: 135 + 38 = 173 spaces. Without Restaurant: 146 spaces Parking Provided: With Restaurant: 160 spaces Without Restaurant: 135 spaces Parking Shortage With Restaurant: 173 - 160 = 13 spaces Without Restaurant: 146 - 135 = 11 spaces • • • zi Ig 43 ;TTI I jj ri IIA Ix- .r2 V4% uv gl-43 7, )Eli G k. L? V • 4 • G v-Q +-LAI • 1 w • Imo.._._ I ° 0 - -- - f'LSl • • • • s c J c7V— / 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 488 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Environmental Assessment Worksheet For The CDR Associates /Minnesota Project Council Members: At the November 25, 19859 City Council meeting the City Council accepted the Environmental Assessment Worksheet filed by CDR Associates /Minnesota Inc. concerning their project generally located at 35W and 494. At that meeting the City Council also scheduled a public hearing concerning this matter for December 9, 1985.. In accordance with State Statutes city staff submitted the Environmental. Assessment Worksheet to the Environmental Quality Board. On December 2nd the Environmental Quality Board published notice of the availability of the EAW for review. State Statutes provide that there shall be a 30 day period from the publication of the notice of the availability of the EAW for citizens to review the document and comment to the city. This 30 day period will run until January 2, 1986. The public hearing scheduled for December 9th is optional and not required by State Statutes. The Sun newspaper failed to publish the press release and public hearing notice which city staff submitted to them. Therefore, reasonable notice has not been provided to citizens. It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing for any persons that may wish to comment. The council should continue the public hearing on this matter until January 13, 1986, to allow further citizen review and comment on the EAW and proper public notice. Re ectfurly mitted, 1 hn G. Car Wright City Manager JGC /eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 487 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Planned Unit Development Plan Amendment and Special Use Permit for an Arby's Restaurant on the K -Mart Site Council Members: HISTORY In 1979, the city approved a planned unit development and rezoning of the site bounded by 65th Street, 66th Street, Lyndale Avenue and the Northwestern Bell property to allow the construction of a K -Mart store. In 1982, the city approved an amendment to the planned unit development plan to allow the construction of a Fastbank remote teller facility on the site. The Fastbank facilty was ultimately constructed on another site. In 1984, Franchise Associates, Inc. requested city approval of a planned unit development plan amendment and special use permit to allow the construction of a freestanding Arby's restaurant on the K -Mart site adjacent to the 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue intersection. The planning commission recommended approval of the request with the following stipulations: 1. That the proposed restaurant design meet the LHN Urban Design Elements. 2. That the design of the berm and landscaping adjacent to 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue intersection be approved by the Public Safety Department to insure that proper corner visibility is maintained. 3. That Franchise Associates, Inc. agree in writing to close the restaurant if the city determines that there is a parking problem at a future date. The city council denied the request citing the following: 1. The-proposal departs from the requirements of the zoning ordinance in a number of ways. 2. 'The proposal of Franchise Association is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposal would also be inconsistent with the redevelopment plan L /H /N. 4. Testimony at the previous planning commission meeting indicated that adjacent apartment owners and residents had concerns about negative elements such as noise, traffic, trash and glare which would emanate from the site. 5. The City Attorney's office had concluded that the development agreement between the City and the developer of the K -Mart site does not specifically allow or disallow additional development. This issue is not covered by that developer's agreement. 6. The proposed use of metal panel type roof and white color of the restaurant are not consistent with L /H /N Urban Design Guidelines. Franchise Associates has attempted to find a different site but has been unsuccessful. They.have subsequently requested that the city reconsider their previous request to locate a restaurant on the K -Mart site. The proposal is identical to the proposal denied by the city in 1984. PROPOSAL Franchise Associates, Inc. is proposing to construct a 2,876 square foot Arby's restaurant with a drive -up window in the northwest corner of the K -Mart site. The restaurant would have a maximum of 88 seats. Arby's would lease a total of 20,208 square feet of the K -Mart site. Vehicular access to the restaurant will be through the existing K -Mart parking lot via the existing curb cuts on Lyndale Avenue and 65th Street. The drive -up window will be located on the north side of the building. A one -way access to the drive -up window will be provided with considerable stacking space. Parking for 30 cars will be provided within the space leased from K -Mart. Exterior building materials will be split face concrete block painted biege. There will be a mansard type roof constructed of brown wood panels with battens. Medium brown wood panels will also be used above the main entry way. The site plan indicates that landscaping will be provided around the building as well as in the end islands of the K -Mart lot. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 4 lists requirements for restaurants. 2. Section 3.33, subdivision 6 and Section 3.32, subdivision 4 lists setback requirements in commercial zoning districts. 3. Section 3.34A lists the regulations applicable in Planned Unit Development districts. 4. Section 3.141, subdivision 5A lists conditions governing the issuance of special use permits in redevelopment areas. 5. Section 14.05 lists the city's regulations for parking areas. STAFF REVIEW The planned unit development (PUD) ordinance requires an amendment be reviewed using the same factors as are considered when a PUD is originally approved. Staff has reviewed the proposal against these requirements and found the following: A. The proposal departs from the requirements of the zoning ordinance in a number of ways. The proposed setback adjacent to 65th Street is 12.5 feet instead of the required 40 feet. Frontyard setbacks are important to separate uses from negative impacts of vehicular traffic. It is also 40 important adjacent to intersections to provide sufficient visibility for vehicles and pedestrians and to not cause confusion with traffic signals. The reduced setback and drive -up location adjacent to 65th Street could create confusion in the intersection because of headlights shining into the intersection. The applicant has indicated that berming and landscaping will be provided to screen the intersection from headlights. Setback requirements also are important to create an "open" character and image. The city has attempted to open up intersections in the LHN. The K -Mart site is an example of this. There were a number of smaller businesses on the site with insufficient setbacks, including the previous tenant on the site, Cliff's Apeo, which had a setback of approximately 13 feet from 65th Street. This point is further evidenced by removal of the Standard service station, the development of the Civic Plaza, the removal of the Hagen Fur /Carrousel Travel building and the Godfather restaurant at 66th and Lyndale. The removal of the Richfield Automotive and the Jackie Ann building at 66th and Nicollet are other examples of the attempt to provide for a more open character around intersections in the LHN Redevelopment area. Insufficient parking will be provided on the site if this proposal is approved. Minimum parking guidelines indicated that 380 parking stalls are necessary on the site. Only 313 will be provided. The applicant contracted with the firm of Benshoof and Associates to do a parking and traffic analysis for the proposed restaurant. Benshoof and Associates concluded that there is a parking surplus on the site and the there would be sufficient parking available to serve both K- Mart and the proposed restaurant. Benshoof and Associates have recently completed an additional analysis and concluded that their previous analysis is still valid. City staff contracted with the firm of Barton Aschman and Associates to also review the parking and traffic situation. Mr. Dean Wenger of Barton Aschman Associates made the following general comments concerning the situation: a. The parking ratios required by Richfield ordinance are more flexible than most municipalities and are reasonable. b. Data collected nationally by Barton Aschman and Associates indicate that for a discount store such as.K -Mart, the peak annual day parking ratios greatly exceed an average day and, in fact, might be higher than those predicted by Benshoof and Associates. e. That although mixed land use can reduce parking needs, the proposed two uses in this particular case tend to have their highest parking accumla- tions during the midday and so are not generally good land uses for shared parking. d. The typical design parking ratio should provide for some space vacancies. They indicated that as lot occupancy approaches the 90% level, spaces become more difficult to find and drivers begin circulating in the aisles searching for spaces, or they stop in the aisles near the building waiting for a space to become vacant. These waiting vehicles tend to be near the store front. They may use fire lanes for parking and the waiting or circulating cars can create unnecessary hazards in the zones of heaviest pedestrian movement. Investigation of 6 other communities in the urban area indicated that their requirements ranged from 397 to 571 for the proposed combined uses. One community would require 344 which is less than our standard but more . than is proposed on the site. This further indicates that the Richfield standards are reasonable. Staff is concerned about the undesireable precedent that might be set by approval of a development which is considerably below city parking standards. Staff is also concerned that future problems could be created if the parking demand increases, either due to an increase in business for the existing uses (the Bloominton K -Mart store at 494 and Lyndale is to be closed soon) or to a change in the uses on the site. There have been recent experiences in -the LHN where uses have changed and the new uses have created considerably more parking demand than the previous uses. These were the development of the Marshalls store in the HUB and the Old Country Buffet restaurant in the former Red Owl building. The U.S. Swim and Fitness Club is an example where a new use has added considerable parking demand to an existing center. The city went through considerable time and expense in. assembling the K -Mart site to insure that the site was developed according to local standards, and that problems were not created in the future. For reasons discusssed below, the proposal would be inconsistent with both the city's comprehensive plan and LHN redevelopment plan. Because of these inconsistencies, the zoning ordinance prohibits the issuance of special use permits and the approval of planned unit development plans and amendments thereto. B. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to assist in the implementation of the comprehensive plan by regulating the location, size, use and height of buildings, the arrangement of buildings and lots and the density of population within the city and to conversely prevent that type of development which is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The LHN redevelopment plan map is included as a part of the comprehensive plan. The purpose of including the redevelopment plan map is to provide for a more detailed guide in the development of the LHN area. The redevelopment plan indicates that the subject site should be developed as a promotional department store, and does not include the development of a freestanding restaurant on the site. A staff review of the proposal by Franchise Associates has indicated that it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. C. More specifically, the proposed restaurant would be inconsistent with the following comprehensive plan policies. General Land Use Policies 4. To require all public improvement programs or private applications for rezoning, special use permits, variances or land subdivision, approved only if shown or to be in accordance with the comprehensive plan or any officially adopted redevelopment plans. 5. To prohibit development proposals which tend to produce undesired effects to the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare. 7. To maintain compliance of all development with the intent, if not the letter, of regulations established by the City Council to guide and direct the development within the community. Land Use Concept Policies 1. To regulate existing and future development so it will not adversely affect adjacent land uses. 8. To require commercial development to provide adequate off - street parking and on -site aesthetic improvements. Commercial Land Use Policies 1. To promote commercial development that is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and with Richfield's residential community. Central Business District Policies 8. To facilitate the consolidation of commercial uses along Lyndale Avenue through the proper location of new developments. 10. To require integrated development of areas to be acquired by the HRA to ensure that the LHN redevelopment plan is carried out. D. The proposal would also be inconsistent with redevelopment plan. As indicated previously, the proposal is inconsistent with the city's LHN redevelopment plan. The development of the plan was the result of many years of study by consultants and city staff along with considerable time and effort by business persons and area residents. The plan was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and adopted by the HRA. Considerable effort has been expended to insure that the plan developed would best serve the LHN area and the community as a whole. • The development of the promotional department store site was the .first priority in implementing the redevelopment plan. Considerable time and expense went ,;;;1,0 - into the property acquisition and other site assembly costs to bring about the K -Mart development. It was the goal in redeveloping the site to not only provide the anchor use for the entire LHN area, but to replace the existing piece -meal development on the site which was, in some cases, characterized by inadequate setbacks and parking. The LHN plan required the construction of a 500 car parking area to serve the promotional department store and adjacent retail use. It was deemed.to be important to provide adequate parking for both the promotional department store and also to promote additional shared parking and promote foot traffic to and from other business with the area. The HRA sold the land to the developer at a considerable write -down as an incentive to develop the promotional department store in accordance with the plan and the standards of the city. The proposal by Franchise Associates is contrary to these goals and prior actions taken by the HRA. E. Testimony at the previous planning commission meeting indicates that adjacent apartment owners.and residents had concerns about such negative elements as noise, traffic, trash, and glare which could emanate from the site. The restaurant would intensify the use of that part of the site which is in close proximity to the apartments located on the north side of 65th Street and could result in additional negative impacts upon the apartment residents. F. The city attorney's office has concluded that the developers agreement between the HRA and the developer of the K -Mart site does not specifically preclude the development proposed by Arby's, as it does not address the issue of-additional development on this site. Building and Construction Permit Regulations Another indicator of the relationship between the comprehenive plan, the redevelopment plan and the construction of improvements in the city is found in a section of the Code which regulates the issuance of building permits. More specifically, Chapter III of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Section 3.04 (Building and Construciion Permits: Conformity with Comprehensive Plan, Redevelopment Plans and Urban Design Guidelines) indicates in subdivision -1 that proposed construction must be reviewed to determine conformity with the comprehensive plan, redevelopment plan, and urban design guidlines. Subdivision 3 of the aforementioned section indicates a procedure to be followed when the Building Official determines that a proposal is not in conformance with is • r ,the comprehensive plan and the redevelopment plan. The adoption of these regulations by the city council clearly indicates the Council's concern for new development needing to be consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the LHN Redevelopment Plan. STAFF RECOMMNDATION It is the City staff's opinion that the facts presented above support the position that the proposed restaurant development would not be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the LHN redevelopment plan, and that adequate parking would not be provided. Because of these findings, the proposal would not meet the zoning ordinance standards for issuance of a special use permit for a restaurant, for issuance of special use permits in general and for the approval of the planned unit development plan. It is recommended that the City Council deny the special use permit and PUD plan amendment for a restaurant on the K -Mart site. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the planned unit development plan amendment, special use permit for an Arby's Restaurant on the K -Mart site with the following stipulations: 1. That the proposed restaurant design meet the LHN Urban Design Elements. 2. The design of the berm and landscaping adjacent to 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue intersection be approved by the Public Safety Department to insure that proper corner visibility is maintained. 3. The Franchise Associates, Inc. agree in writing to close the restaurant if the city determines that there is a parking problem at a future date. ectf 1 y bmitted, i ohn MG./Ca' twrig t City anag List of Attachments 1. November 25, 1985, communication from legal counsel, Lee E. Sheey of Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman and Doty, Ltd., which summarizes the reasons of support for the applicant's proposal. 2. November 18, 1985, Richfield Chamber of Commerce letter endorsing the proposed project. mil/ -y 3. Petitions both in support and opposition to the proposed project at 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue. 4. October 31, 1985, Franchise Assoc, Inc. letter to the Planning Commission. 5. November 19, 1985, Traffic Study update from Benshoof & Assoc., Inc. 6. April 20, 1984, letter from K -Mart 7. Site plans. 8. April 6, 1984, and July 19, 1984, reports from planning consultants. to Franchise Assoc. 9. July 20, 1984, communication from legal counsel for applicant to Planning Commission. 10. August 9, 1984, reports from planning consultants to Franchise Assoc. JGC /eja 0 40 POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. 4344 105 CENTER November 251 1985 Ms. Connie Hoverson Chair City of Richfield Planning Commission 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 are -/d 1240 AMHOIST TOWER 345 ST. PETER STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 TELEPHONE 612- 333 -4878 RE: Summary of Reasons for Approval of Arby's 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue Proposal Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission: 2060 PETRO -LEWIS TOWER 717 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE AND TELECOPIER 303- 292 -2660 SUITE 300 SOUTH 1800 M STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 TELEPHONE (202) 828 -5300 TELECOPIER(202) 828 -5318 As legal counsel to Franchise Associates, I wish to summarize the reasons which we believe fully support approval of Arby's proposed development at 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue. We will, of course, appear at your public hearing on November 26, 1985, to answer any additional questions you may have. I. THE ARBY'S PROPOSAL HAS WIDESPREAD SUPPORT A. Unanimous Planning Commission Approval and Majority Council Support in 1984 Your Commission in June of 1984 after two hearings and substantial testimony voted unanimously to approve a proposal identical to the one before you. You considered our detailed design, parking, traffic, and circulation data (which has been updated) and concluded that Arby's proposal was appropriate 0 0 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE AND TELECOPIER 612- 333 -4800 WAYNE G. POPHAM CLIFFORD M. GREENE JOHN C. CHILDS ROGER W. SCHNOBRICH D. WILLIAM KAUFMAN DOUGLAS P. SEATON DENVER KAUFMAN MICHAEL O. FREEMAN THOMAS E. SANNER DAVID S. DOTY THOMAS C. DAOUILA BRUCE S. McPHEETERS ROBERT A. MINISH LARRY D. ESPEL GARY D. BLACKFORD .ROLFE A. WORDEN JANIE S. MAYERON SCOTT E. RICHTER G. MARC WHITEHEAD THOMAS J. BARRETT GREGORY L. WILMES BRUCE D. WILLIS JAMES A. PAYNE ELIZABETH A. THOMPSON FREDERICK S. RICHARDS DAVID A. JONES KEITH J. HALLELAND G. ROBERT JOHNSON LEE E. SHEEHY MARK B. PETERSON GARY R. MACOMBER LESLIE GILLETTE TIMOTHY W. KUCK ROBERT S. BURK MICHAEL T. NILAN JULIE A. SWEITZER HUGH V. PLUNKETT, = ROBERT H. LYNN THOMAS C. MIELENHAUSEN - FREDERICK C. BROWN ROBERT C. MOILANEN KATHLEEN A. BLATZ THOMAS K. BERG STEVEN G. HEIKENS MICHAEL D. CHRISTENSON BRUCE D. MALKERSON THOMAS F. NELSON J. MICHAEL SCHWARTZ JAMES R. STEILEN THOMAS J. RADIO LARAYE M. OSBORNE JAMES S. LOCKHART DAVID L. HASHMALL OF COUNSEL ALLEN W. HINDERAKER KATHLEEN M. MARTIN FRED L. MORRISON November 251 1985 Ms. Connie Hoverson Chair City of Richfield Planning Commission 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 are -/d 1240 AMHOIST TOWER 345 ST. PETER STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 TELEPHONE 612- 333 -4878 RE: Summary of Reasons for Approval of Arby's 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue Proposal Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission: 2060 PETRO -LEWIS TOWER 717 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE AND TELECOPIER 303- 292 -2660 SUITE 300 SOUTH 1800 M STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 TELEPHONE (202) 828 -5300 TELECOPIER(202) 828 -5318 As legal counsel to Franchise Associates, I wish to summarize the reasons which we believe fully support approval of Arby's proposed development at 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue. We will, of course, appear at your public hearing on November 26, 1985, to answer any additional questions you may have. I. THE ARBY'S PROPOSAL HAS WIDESPREAD SUPPORT A. Unanimous Planning Commission Approval and Majority Council Support in 1984 Your Commission in June of 1984 after two hearings and substantial testimony voted unanimously to approve a proposal identical to the one before you. You considered our detailed design, parking, traffic, and circulation data (which has been updated) and concluded that Arby's proposal was appropriate 0 0 ao -ir Ms. Connie Hoverson November 25, 1985 Page 2 and met the City's needs. At that time, there was a detailed discussion of the compatibility of the Arby's proposal with the L /H /N and Comprehensive Plans, and your Commission recommended that the City Council approve the requested special use permit and planned unit development plan amendment with certain stipulations which Arby's accepted. A majority of the City Council also approved of the Arby's proposal. However, a two - thirds vote was required, and several witnesses, including the Chair of the Richfield HRA, argued that there were "some good alternative sites available." All members of the City Council spoke highly of the Nadler family and its business which has its roots in Richfield. The request was made by the Mayor and other City Officials to work with the staff to find an alternative location. As will be outlined by Mr. Nadler in his testimony to your Commission, at least 10 sites (half suggested by the staff) were reviewed during the last fifteen months before returning to the City with the current proposal. B.. Neighborhood and Community Support Under cover of a letter sent to a petition of support of residents of found over 260 Richfield citizens sup Unanimous support for any development support reflects community acceptance service" restaurant. you dated November 19, 1985, the immediate neighborhoods porting this proposal. is rare. Such widespread of this family "fast Arby's support in Richfield parallels its support in other communities. The City of Richfield has on file letters from the cities of Hopkins and Columbia Heights which commend the operating history of Arby's Restaurants in those communities. Further, the Columbia Heights Arby's Restaurant is located accross the street from apartments, very similar to the 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue situation. And 92% of the residents of those apartment buildings who were contacted signed a letter recognizing that Arby's was a good neighbor. Copies of those letters are enclosed. II. THE ARBY'S PROPOSAL MEETS THE CITY'S NEEDS AND STANDARDS A. The Arby's Pro osal is in Conformance with the Comprehensive and the L H/N Plans and Zoninq As reflected in detail in the enclosed letter from Mr. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc., Consulting Planners, the e z,Z_1,�9 Ms. Connie Hoverson November 25, 1985 Page 3 Arby's proposal fully complies with the City's Comprehensive and L /H /N Plans and is consistent with the current PC -2 zoning. The Arby's proposal addresses the needs of the area and of the City in several respects. It increases the development intensity for a better commercial climate. It attracts more pedestrians and activity along Lyndale to enhance the interconnection among surrounding businesses. It introduces family dining to an area of new residences and other business activity while increasing street activity to augment the vitality of the area. Retail and restaurant activities are complimentary and will facilitate a healthy commercial climate at K -Mart and surrounding businesses. Finally, maximizing tax base in this tax increment district and preserving jobs in Richfield are essential development goals. Also enclosed is a memorandum from Michael L. Wonson of Benshoof & Associates, Inc., which conducted the initial traffic, parking and circulation study in 1984. As is evident from the memorandum, it is their professional opinion that there are no traffic, parking or circulation barriers to this development. Further, it should be noted that the on -site parking available for the joint use of K -Mart and the proposed Arby's facility provides an ample margin of unused space even during peak use and is consistent with a national study performed by the City's own transportation consultants, Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. III. RELOCATION OF LONG - STANDING RICHFIELD BUSINESS NECESSITA EXPANS The relocation of the Arby's facility from its current location at 66th Street and Penn Avenue is necessitated by ongoing condemnation activities. As a beneficiary and proponent of this development and attendant condemnation, the City of Richfield has an obligation to assist in the relocation of Arby's. Arby's believes that it has at its own expense provided an appropriate relocation option. All parties would be served by avoiding costly condemnation proceeding through acceptance of this relocation proposal. IV. RECORD SUPPORTS APPROVAL OF THIS PROPOSAL In its initial report for the Planning Commission meeting of May 22, 1984, the City Staff made several findings, including the following: • 7o-L3 Ms. Connie Hoverson November 25, 1985 Page 4 • "The proposed restaurant would be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan map. The comprehensive plan map indicates the site should be developed has high density central business districts uses which would include restaurants." • "The addition of the restaurant on the site would increase the total floor area on the site to approximately 73,000 square feet which is well below the maximum allowed by the PUD ordinance." • "Staff observation would concur that the area of the site to be occupied by the restaurant is under- utilized." • "The proposed restaurant would not cause undue traffic congestion on surrounding streets." • "The proposed use would provide increased taxes and tax increment in the redevelopment area. The City staff did raise concern in its initial report about consistency with the L /H /N redevelopment plan and compliance with the L /H /N urban design elements. The latter has been fully satisfied with Arby's agreement to adopt certain design element changes in their proposal. -Our presentation on the former pursuaded this Commission in 1984 that our proposal was in harmony with the L /H /N Plan. The only factual additions to the record submitted by the City subsequent to the staff report was a review of Arby's own traffic, parking and circulation analysis. The City's consultant found "that there was no basis for challenging the numbers found in the Benshoof & Associates report." The City's consultant raised other possible conclusions from the numbers which this Commission considered at that time. The record contains no factual justification for the City staff's findings in the recent report that the proposal does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. For example, there is no factual basis to conclude that the development may have an adverse health - safety impact. In short, the record fully supports approval of Arby's proposal. Denial would be inconsistent with the factual record, the City's planning standards and criterias, and the City's relocation obligation. • • C� • • ,)O-d Ms. Connie Hoverson November 25, 1985 Page 5 We would be happy to answer any questions which you may have. Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before your Commission. LES /ktf /330lr Enclosures joSc.r e r. Sheehy ney for Fran e Assc}ciates, Inc. Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban /Incorporated PLANNING REPORT DATE: 26 November 1985 TO: Lee E. Sheehy FROM: C. John Uban, ASLA RE: Review of Franchise Associates, Inc. Application to the City of Richfield for an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development and Special Use Permit to Build an Arby's Restaurant at 65th Street and Lyndale The proposed plan is in compliance and consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan of the City of Richfield. 1. This same proposal received unanimous Planning Commission approval in 1984. 2. Page 2 of the May 22nd Richfield Staff Report stated that the proposed restaurant would be consistent with the comprehensive plan map, which shows the subject property designated for high density, central business district uses ( "which would include restaurants "). 3• Comprehensive plan describing general land use policies on page 46 A.3. "will be to review and modify regulatory measures and procedures in recognition of the needs of contemporary situations; a development policy will not be rigid and flexible, neither shall it be indiscriminately permissive ". A.6. "To encourage and extend full cooperation to new development proposals. However, the welfare of the general public and intent of the comprehensive plan and the regulations of the city will be the primary guide in reviewing development proposals." FRANCHISE ASSOCIATES, INC. APPLICATION REVIEW 4. Page 2 B.8. "To require commercial development to provide adequate off - street parking and on -site aesthetic improvements ". E.2. "To encourage and regulate the development and concentration of commercial land uses and higher intensity uses of land." E.3. "To provide for the orderly and systematic development of commercial activities which provide special services to high intensity residential development areas developed under a planned unit development ordinance at an appropriate. scale and location within such areas ". E.4. "To define commercial area boundaries so as to prevent intrusion into adjacent land uses and to require the land owner to provide proper screening to preserve the existing aesthetic values of adjacent properties." The central business district policies, which become quite specific to the LHN area further strengthen and support our proposal as viewed through the comprehensive plan. F.2. "To strengthen and revitalize the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet area as a viable commercial area serving the Richfield and South Minneapolis area." F.3. "To promote the strengthening of the strongest existing retail areas within the L /H /N area ". F.4. "To increase the intensity of use within the L /H /N area ". F.5. "To achieve a balanced variety of commercial businesses and services to satisfy a high percentage of needs of neighboring residents ". F.7. "To encourage new development to be organized in a planned shopping environment ". Comprehensive plan further addresses the need for the area to draw people and to be successful by stating that: "because the ability to draw people into this area is a positive attribute, traffic generation is not considered a deterrent to acceptance of a development. Traffic should be channeled so development does not cause a significant increase in traffic on nearby local, residential streets." • �D /7 0 FRANCHISE ASSOCIATES, INC. APPLICATION REVIEW Page 3 5. In the linkage between the Comprehensive Plan and the L /H /N Redevelopment plan, we find the only inconsistency to be that of the very specific designation on the subject property of "promotional department store ". This highly directive land use description goes way beyond the general guidelines of a comprehensive plan and is in conflict with the policies of flexibility. It also is designating a land use in a much more stringent fashion than anyone would normally find in a zoning ordinance.. Redevelopment plans are also to be used as a guide and a flexible document to encourage and guide . future development as well as promoting existing development desires of the city. The fact that the plan called for 100,000 square feet of promotional department store to be built on the site and only 70,000 square feet were built, shows that the site is being under utilized as contemplated by the redevelopment plan and a normal palette of uses should be expected to fill out the remaining portions of the site. The K -Mart site presently not only provides normal 49 department store goods but expands into the gardening area, which is also a major retail function at the Lyndale Garden Store and it also provides automobile services in garages. Clearly the "department store" area expands well beyond the single notion of clothing and household goods. In fact, the dependence on a great variety of services and products to create a retail arena for successful commercialism is a primary concern here. The success of businesses here depends on the interrelationship to other businesses within a framework that successfully attracts and serves customers to the total community. In this regard, K -Mart and Arby's has successfully combined together in the past on other sites in other communities in Minnesota to provide a more full palette of commercial experience to their mutual benefit. This is not unlike any other of those situations, and we feel it provides a market improvement to the benefit of the Richfield commercial area. CONSISTENCY WITH THE L /H /N REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. The goal of the L /H /N redevelopment plan is to: "revitalize the prime commercial area in Richfield to help assure that it is able to successfully compete with neighboring shopping centers." We believe that the completion of the full palette of goods and services is primary in reaching this goal. Arby's is recognized as a responsible and successful t;;2t/) -IF FRANCHISE ASSOCIATES, INC. APPLICATION REVIEW Page 4 merchant adding to the commercial palette which can successfully draw a full complex of clients to the area throughout the business day adding additional customers to the adjacent K -Mart retail store. 2. Significant objectives of the L /H /N plan further encourage the type of use in location of Arby's. "Encourage pedestrian traffic by installing sidewalk and landscape elements and provide a sense of unity in the area by encouraging buildings to utilize brick earth tones and coordinated signing." The buildings proposed by Arby's will be highly landscaped use earth tones and will have signage and other elements coordinated with the overall design framework of the area. The importance of encouraging pedestrian traffic is a prime element to consider in this case. The existing intersection of Lyndale and 65th needs more enticements to encourage pedestrian traffic. Lyndale Gardens to the north is a prime example of retail activity being exposed to the street to encourage an exciting atmosphere readily visible from Lyndale. This excitement and commercial Is activity works extremely well in creating a highly charged commercial feeling which is very competitive for the Richfield Central Business District. The Arby's proposal .includes outdoor seating, landscape features, and connections to the pedestrian system making this corner very attractive for the further encouragement of pedestrian activity in this area. 3. Another significant objective of L /H /N plan is "to provide sites for the construction of new businesses" The L /H /N plan states that "several parcels of land are currently under utilized to a level well below their capacity. Much of this under - utilization exists where fragmentation of uses results in parking duplicity. The type of development that has occurred, with each structure functioning independently, results in individual parking lots with no opportunity for shared parking ". The proposal illustrates that with Arby's placed on the under - utilized K -Mart site, the shared parking relationship works-extremely well. The peaking of traffic for the restaurant and for the K -Mart facility occurs at different times of the day in a very complementary fashion. For instance, Arby's will peak through the lunch 020-& • FRANCHISE ASSOCIATES, INC. APPLICATION REVIEW Page 5 hour where K -Mart will peak in the early afternoon. Many of.the customers that park will use both facilities or will use the drive -thru facility as they leave the K -Mart store. The shared parking situation works very well with K -Mart as it has in other cities where the same situation has been constructed. 4. The franchise Associates, Inc. proposal would accomplish the following: a. Increase the intensity of use within the L /H /N plan. b. Provide convenient, safe, and attractive pedestrian ways linking services and shopping with a high intensity residential developments to the west. c. Encourage the sharing of parking facilities as opposed to the "go it alone" approach. d. Facilitate "one stop" shopping along Lyndale Avenue, reducing the strip and "compacting" the retail area. The main concept in utilizing commercial property to its highest use in an efficient manner is shared parking. This concept is being,refined more and more these days as commercial land becomes more valuable and as the ramifications of commercial sprawl are found to be unwise. It is better to encourage intense uses on smaller parcels by mixing the proposed uses so that they complement each other and at the same time share a single parking facility which minimizes the amount of actual parking needed. This sharing of parking is a recognized and prudent method of making a commercial district more successful. It is not good planning or prudent business practices to install large parking lots for a single use that are left vacant even at their prime peak use. Such is the case with the K -Mart facility where the parking demands are much less than what has been provided on the site. Our traffic and parking studies have clearly indicated over last year that there is indeed a considerable surplus, even at peak periods with maximum snow coverage. We were very please to hear that the city had hired Barton- Aschman Associates to assist in the determination of the feasibility of the proposed shared parking agreement Not only do we agree that this firm is among the leading national experts on the subject of shared parking, but we were also encouraged because the research which we presented was taken primarily for the Land Use Institute's recent publication, Shared Parking, which was authored by the Barton- Aschman firm. This fact tends to explain why Dean Wenger from Barton- Aschman concluded there was no basis for challenging the numbers found in FRANCHISE ASSOCIATES, INC. APPLICATION REVIEW Page 6 the Benshoof and Associates report. Details of compliance with the specific elements of shared parking are included in our traffic consultant's report. ZONING AND PUD AMENDMENT 1. The proposed use is consistent with the actual zoning on the property. It allows for a restaurant use. Also this is a family restaurant and will not serve alcoholic beverages nor provide for dancing or entertainment. Its use is primarily for the families of Richfield. 2. This area is in an approved PUD and any amendment to that PUD has to go before the city council for a four - fifths vote. Within the PUD, the actual elements of design are resolved by addressing the particular needs within that PUD. Thus, the parking, setbacks, building finishes, landscaping, and other design elements are discussed and arrived at through the PUD process. The agreed upon plan is designed totally to meet the design requirements of the PUD addressing those items which are concerned with safety, screening, and adequacy of parking as proven by our traffic studies. OPERATION OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Through the use of the added tax dollars that can be generated through the Arby's Restaurant development on the K -Mart site; the bond and financial picture can be greatly improved in the redevelopment district. This will add flexibility to future proposals and give the city a cushion of security in proceeding with future plans yet to be undertaken. We know from working in other cities that the healthiness of the financial situation within these districts is crucial to perpetuating new projects which add to the overall enhancement of the community. This kind of commercial and financial relationship is a clear benefit to the city. The keeping of an existing business because of relocation due to condemnation and the perpetuation of a local business to keep local jobs should be considered in maintaining a vibrant business community in Richfield. CONCLUSIONS We believe that the Arby's proposal is consistent with the goals of the city through its Comprehensive Plan, L /H /N Redevelopment Plan, the PUD review process, and the development agreements with K -Mart. The proposal also makes good business sense and good planning sense in developing a healthy community in Richfield. BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. (X_/ TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 1191 EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 553441(612) 944 -7590 November 19, 1985 M E M O R A N D UM REFER TO FILE: 84-34-21 TO: Mr. Charles Nadler, Franchise Associates, Inc. FROM: Michael L. Wonson RE: Update to Traffic and Parking Study for Proposed Arby's Restaurant in the City of Richfield PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this memorandum is to present a brief update to our traffic and parking study of June 1984 concerning the proposed Arby's restaurant in the City of Richfield. As we understand it, the basic proposal and site plan remain as previously requested and consist of a restaurant to be located at 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue in the corner of the parking area associated with the current K -Mart shopping facility. The two issues specifically reviewed in this update are: 1) can the public roadway system still effec- tively accommodate development traffic, as °was concluded in the previous study, 2) based upon updated parking surveys, will sufficient parking be available for both K -Mart and Arby's facilities? TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The assumptions used in the previous study regarding other traffic in the area which included traffic associated with Market Plaza, as well as the most recent area traffic counts prepared by the City of Richfield, were reviewed to determine if the previous traffic analysis is still applicable. The previous study indicated that the Intersection of 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue would operate at a level of service A during the noon and p.m. peak hours, while the intersection of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue would operate at levels of service A and C during the noon and p.m. peak hours respectively. As area traffic volumes have not increased sufficiently so as to significantly affect operation of nearby.intersections, we find that the intersection levels of service will be comparable to those previously calculated. Based upon this finding and the trip characteristics of an Arby's restaurant, we conclude that the public roadway system can effectively accommodate traffic associated with the proposed Arby's. r 0,;, Mr. Charles Nadler -2 November 19, 1985, Also, as the site and circulation plans are identical to those previously proposed, the previous study conclusion that circulation patterns will operate effectively is still appropriate. PARKING ANALYSIS In order to update the parking analysis prepared in the previous study, parking surveys were conducted at the K -Mart facility on November 8, 9, and 10, 1985 to determine current parking usage. The following table presents the number of occupied spaces observed. TABLE 1 As can be noted, the observed peak parking usage occurred at 2:00 p.m. on a Saturday (171 spaces occupied). The fact that the peak parking occurred during the early afternoon on a Saturday is consistent with past studies and observations, as well as a recent study prepared by Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. for the Urban Land Institute, "Shared Parking 11, 1983. • Number of Spaces Occupied at K -Mart Richfield (365 spaces currently available) Date Friday Saturday Sunday Time Period Nov. 8 Nov. 9 Nov. 10 Average 11 :30 a.m. 147 134 73 118 12:00 noon 133 148 100 127 12:30 p.m. 146 152 94 131 1:00 P.M. 139 137 99 125 1:30 p.m. 149 154 90 131 2:00 P.m. - 171 - - 2:30 p.m. - 161 - - 3:00 p.m. - 144 - - 78 5:30 p.m. 79 77 - 70 6:00 p.m. 72 68 - 71 6:30 p.m. 82 60 - 61 7:00 p.m. 75 44 - 7:30 p.m. 74 49 - 62 As can be noted, the observed peak parking usage occurred at 2:00 p.m. on a Saturday (171 spaces occupied). The fact that the peak parking occurred during the early afternoon on a Saturday is consistent with past studies and observations, as well as a recent study prepared by Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. for the Urban Land Institute, "Shared Parking 11, 1983. • -.�:;13 C?Lo 0 Mr. Charles Nadler -3- November 19, 1985 The key parking issue is whether sufficient parking will be available for both K -Mart and Arby's during the peak shopping season (after Thanksgiving and during the Christmas period). In order to answer this question, the observed parking usage needs to be adjusted upward to account for the peak shopping season. Two methods were utilized for this purpose. The first relied upon the previously referenced "Shared Parking" analysis which indicates that, in general, parking usage in November is 80 percent of that occuring during the time of highest demand. Adjusting the observed maximum usage of 171 spaces upwards by this factor yields a maximum demand of 215 spaces for K -Mart during the busiest shopping season. The second method entailed adjusting the observed usage upwards based upon K -Mart sales volume data. According to the K -Mart management, sales volume on the Saturday before Christmas 1984, was approximately 35% higher than on Saturday November 9, 1985. Adjusting the observed peak usage of 171 spaces by a factor of 35% yields a maximum parking demand for K -Mart of 231 spaces (slightly lower than had been calculated in the study of June, 1984). A maximum of 21 occupied parking spaces were observed during the early afternoon at existing Arby's restaurants similar to that proposed (as documented in the report of June 1984). Adding this maximum demand to the calculated maximum demand for K -Mart yields a total of 252 spaces which would be required for both uses during the busiest shopping period of the year. This calculation indicates a "cushion" of 61 parking spaces available during the busiest time period. As such, this update confirms the findings of the previous study that the total of 313 spaces which will be available for both uses upon completion of the Arby's improvements, are more than sufficient to accommodate the peak parking demand for both uses. CONCLUSION This update to the traffic and parking study of June, 1984 concerning the proposed Richfield Arby's restaurant reaffirms the conclusions of that study. The conclusions can be summarized as follows: The public roadway system can effectively accommodate traffic.generated by the proposal. • The on site traffic circulation patterns will function effectively. • More than sufficient on site parking will be available for both the Arby's and K -Mart facilities.during the busiest shopping period of the year. .7 • • • MMEW CHAMBER of COMMERCE � 7 666 -5100 WORKING • TOGETHER TO GROW WITH RICHFIELD November 18, 1985 Mr. Charles E. Nadler Franchise Associates, Inc. 5401 Gamble Drive Parkdale 1, Suite 204 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Dear Mr. Nadler: On November 18, 1985, the Richfield Chamber of Commerce held a general membership meeting at the Chamber office. The main purpose of this meeting was to vote on a proposed amendment to the Chamber By -Laws and to kick -off the 1985 Blitz Drive. Bob Gunderson., Past President of the Richfield Chamber, was present at this meeting. The next scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors will be held on December 17, 1985. Due to the time frame, your request concerning Chamber action on your proposed project to construct an Arby's Restaurant on the southeast corner of 65th. Street and Lyndale Avenue South was placed on the agenda at this meeting. A copy of your letter to Bob Gunderson, dated Novem- ber 12, 1985, and enclosures were available for review. There were enough Board members present at this meeting to constitute a quorum. A motion was made by Gunderson, seconded by Orlins, stating that the Riehgetd Chamber og Commence .i.6 in 6avon o6 and .6uppont6 the p,%O ect which. Pnanchiae Aaaoeiated, Inc. tib pnopo:6.fng (a new Arby's Restaurant on the southeast corner of 65th. Street and Lyndale Avenue South in Richfield) and that wh i ten endow ement o A th i..6 project be .dent to the Rteh S i.etd Ptan- ning Commis.6 ion, the Ri.chi i.etd City Counei.t and aprupxia ie City ata66. Motion carried 9 -1 -1 (Kenealey opposed;.Jensen abstained) I hope that this endorsement will have a positive effect on keeping Arby's in Richfield. One of the purposes of the Chamber is to continually work on the retention of existing businesses within the community. cc: Mayor John Hamilton John G. Cartwright, City Manager Dennis Kraft, Community Dev. Director Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission Very t1� y yours ',z -�' f i `PaGla R. Ek rand Executivey Director The following statement was signed by the people whose names and addresses are listed below. 0 November 20, 1985 Dear Arby's: I live in an apartment building across 47th Avenue in Columbia Heights from your restaurant. We've lived here for some time and you sure have been a good neighbor. We understand that you are looking at opening another restaurant on a K -Mart parking lot in the Twin Cities. We have not experienced any problems with your restaurant being located across the street from use in terms of excessive traffic, late night noise or other problems. Good luck with your new restaurant and we hope you will keep up the good work here. Very truly yours, Deb Deitz 4654 Tyler Street NE, # 11 W.J. Roulean 950 47th Avenue #1 Barbara E. Cornwall 950 47th Avenue NE, #5 Michael E. Kovich 950 47th Avenue NE, #7 Barb Shrout 950 47th Avenue NE, #1 Irving Dean 950 47th Avenue NE, #10 Evelyn Bauer 950 47th Avenue NE, #11 Shawn M. Fischl 4653 Central Avenue NE, #9 Mary K. Lo,nsky 4653 Central Avenue NE, #1 Sheila Brown 4653 Central Avenue NE, #2 Paul Weber 4653 Central Avenue NE, #5 Denise Fisbler 4653 Central Avenue NE, #11 Dale C. Biskey 4653 Central Avenue NE, #7 Jennifer Langenbau 4653 Central Avenue NE, #10 Thomasine Bronson 4653 Central Avenue NE, #10 Rose Bazewicz 4654 Tyler.Street NE, #4 June Ziemann 4654 Tyler Street NE, #5 Kim Homer 4654 Tyler Street NE, #6 R.E. Homer 4654 Tyler Street NE, #6 Dan A. Tohn 4654 Tyler Street NE, #8 Raymond 0. Dosdall 4654 Tyler Street NE, #9 Eric Dietz 4654 Tyler Street NE, #11 • • o2G a6 The following statement was handed out to the residents in the apartment building at 400 West 65th Street. "I have been a resident in the City of Richfield for 1 -20 years and a resident in the apartment building at 400 West 65th Street for 9 months - 20 years. In my opinion an Arby's restaurant across the street from the apartment in which I reside would be undesirable." The names below indicated the people who signed against "Arby's ". Hartie K. Ahlberg Karen Hansen Penny M. Edwards M.J. Schantzen Suzan Nelson Susan Bell- Johnson Michael J. Baldassano Ruby J. LeRoy • "V3 i i I. J I I ,., I Ij U: 17.1 71 aba� • • I t 13 I' PETITION AGAINST ARBY'S ON 65TH & LYNDALE We, the undersigned, are against thebuilding of an ARBY'S restaurant in the northwest corner of the K -Mart parking lot located at 65th dLNF and Lyndale Ave. in Richfield. 46z: ADDRESS: .ha IV r a O 0" ! � -5ZaO �IZA �G L AA /4 CL p t r Ll 0 "}• 5 a w 10, " . I ILL 6Q1 % YA VS O,V PETITION AGAINST ARBY'S ON 65TH & LYNDALE ..:Cz� • We, the undersigned, are U- against tbebuilding of an ARBY' S w restaurant in the northwest corner of the K -Mart parking lot located at 65th and Lyndale Ave. in Richfield. NAME: ADDRESS: Q j.f OL- O CL l fd c1 41 cc4 c� IKIIi A/ .� � � � �� a � -S ►y� -�.s� �/ G 3 a � G� �•- -✓r�,a -yam I �r c ��c� .gin %� h4o IN F r ..:Cz� • w 9 -70 Q j.f OL- O CL l - %� h4o 0 NAME: I� J3 ,PRY i pETITION AGAINST ARBY'S ON 65TH & LYNDALE U ant We, the undersigned, are against thebuilding of an ARB Y'S restaur in the northwest corner of the K -Mart parking lot located at 65th and Lyndale Ave. in Richfield. ADDRESS: P�L" LB s �� L- w- 3t2. Lj- 5 Oq ) ss y2 3 1 cruC 2 oo c�J (0 5 ' - • -I 6 i .�k Cz L 101. EGG —Gs'— � G 3av w , 1�'` ��- n • � . (�i. PETITION AGAINST ARBY'S ON 65TH & LYNDALE We, the undersigned, are against thebuilding of an ARBY'S restaurant in the northwest corner of the K -Mart parking lot located at 65th and Lyndale Ave. in Richfield. NAME:. ADDRESS: 1 C9' AJ tt it OQ �3. Lo I' tL V o Y S a o i V �c� �C25b� • � t' �l , (E Al C 7w l it y {'V.K� M .'rtr , PETITION AGAINST ARBY'S ON 65TH & LYNDALE We, the undersigned, are against thebuilding of an ARBY'S restaurant W- in the northwest corner of the K --Mart parking lot located at 65th c 3 and Lyndale Ave. in Richfield. ADDRESS: r �3• i Ltd n � E �.. c cc- s - to �- �.,- a►- Q � 1 c1 'E l!e Al PVS j ,� / �•� f �� O �� Z %��,�ZLRi� ,-, .tee .�*✓t�''''y T / -�,o �E ry j�> E ti 'T Z E N r �5 i Ye IV "! A)?- 11f f �2%GHiDILJ ✓i � P e �ch�r21cl as S J o.v PETITION AGAINST ARBY'S ON 65TH & LYNDALE We, the undersigned, are against thebuilding of an ARBY'S restaurant 1 ,,,� in the northwest corner of the K- Mart parking lot located at 65th and Lyndale Ave. in Richfield. NAME: ADDRESS: • 0 PETITION AGAINST ARBY'S ON 65TH & LYNDALE We, the undersigned, are against thebuilding of an ARBY'S restaurant in the northwest corner of the K -Mart parking lot located at 65th and Lyndale Ave. in Richfield. Off: ADDRESS: NAME: PETITION AGAINST ARBY'S ON 65TH & LYNDALE We, the undersigned, are against thebui.lding of an ARBY'S rests =ant o2o X35 in the northwest corner of the K -Mart parking lot located at 65th and Lyndale Ave. in Richfield. ADDRESS: C7 0 INA z - G -' -' i �r e. C7 0 PETITION AGAINST ARBY'S ON 65TH & LYNDAIZ We, the undersigned, are against thebuilding of an ARBY'S restaurant in the northwest corner of the K-Mart parking lot located at 65th and Lyndale Ave. in Richfield. ADDRESS: aa-4537 The following statement was handed out to the residents in the apartment building at 400 West 65th Street. "I have been a resident in the City of Richfield for 1 -20 years and a resident in the apartment building at 400 West 65th Street for 9 months - 20 years. In my opinion an Arby's restaurant across the street from the apartment in which I reside would be undesirable." The names below indicated the people who signed against "Arby's ". Hartie K. Ahlberg Karen Hansen Penny M. Edwards M.J. Schantzen Suzan Nelson Susan Bell- Johnson Michael J. Baldassano Ruby J. LeRoy I • 'r a6& PETITION REGARDING ARBY'S RESTAURANT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF-THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ARE IN SUPPORT OF ARBY'S RELOCATING THEIR RESTAURANT OPERATION TO A NEW BUILDING ON THE K -MART SHOPPING CENTER LOT AT 65TH AND LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH. r ADDRESS G1 S T-' D abJ_� PETITION REGARDING ARSY'S RESTAURANT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF-THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ARE IN SUPPORT OF ARBY'S RELOCATING THEIR RESTAURANT OPERATION TO A NEW BUILDING ON THE K -MART SHOPPING CENTER LOT AT 65TH AND LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 il. 12. 13. 14. 15. ' 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. NAME ADDRESS q�v 14 S 6 33; (� • Zo k-)n / 6 9 kY" �/ • • 0 - Z/O PETITION REGARDING ARBY'S RESTAURANT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ARE IN SUPPORT OF ARBY'S RELOCATING THEIR RESTAURANT OPERATION TO A NEW BUILDING ON THE, K -MART SHOPPING CENTER LOT AT 65TH AND LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH. NAME 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 13. 14. 15. 1.6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. ADDRESS CA I, Lam• � � l_s',I � ��+,r �.� � ,�• v till as -y/ PETITION REGARDING ARBY'S RESTAURANT alu-� 0 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ARE IN SUPPORT OF ARBY`S RELOCATING THEIR RESTAURANT OPERATION TO A NEW BUILDING ON 71F K -MART SHOPPING CENTER LOT AT 65TH AND LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH. NAME 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. >I. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.- 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. ADDRESS A a..r i 'Y y 'Z. L •t Y /�., SSv sa • y# �c -ya PETITION REGARDING ARBY'S RESTAURANT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ARE IN SUPPORT OF ARBY'S RELOCATING THEIR RESTAURANT OPERATION TO A NE:! BUILDING ON THE K -FIART SHOPPING CENTER LOT AT 65TH AND LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH. NAME ADDRESS U •c3 / G P /C+j�x't �} 1. S 3 a �%I �' CSC e � c � •tt- 33'7 F. Phs 1( . 1J lc' 14 15 16 •°� 17 18 19 20, 21, 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 3 a �%I �' CSC e � c � •tt- 33'7 F. Phs �o -y3 PETITION REGARDING ARBY -S RESTAURANT 0 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ARE IN SUPPORT OF ARBY`S RELOCATING THEIR RESTAURANT OPERATION TO A NEW BUILDING ON THE K -MART SHOPPING CENTER LOT AT 65TH AND LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH. 1. .�• �,_�.. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1r 1: 1� 1; 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20, 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 3n NAME ADDRESS 14 Sir y r✓ �f2� V a� + eel S i L r i S� w 3 ' • • l �0 -94 PETITION REGARDING ARBY'S RESTAURANT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ARE IN SUPPORT OF ARBY'S RELOCATING THEIR RESTAURANT OPERATION TO A NEW BUILDING ON THE - K -MART SHOPPING CENTER LOT AT 65TH AND LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH. NAME +Q C l.� cb, c PETITION REGARDING ARBY'S RESTAURANT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ARE IN SUPPORT OF ARBY`S RELOCATING THEIR RESTAURANT OPERATION TO A NE14 BUILDING ON THE K -MART SHOPPING CENTER LOT AT 65TH AND LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH. NAME 1 1 1. 1: 1� it i lE 1/ lE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. ADDRESS • • .s • 0210 -4k PETITION REGARDING ARBY'S RESTAURANT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ARE IN SUPPORT OF ARBY'S RELOCATING THEIR RESTAURANT OPERATION TO A NEW BUILDING ON THE K -MART SHOPPING CENTER LOT AT 65TH AND LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH. NAME ADDRESS 1 • v 2. s J, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. ok) -U7 PETITION REGARDING ARBY'S RESTAURANT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ARE IN SUPPORT OF ARBY'S RELOCATING THEIR RESTAURANT OPERATION TO A NEW BUILDING ON THE K -MART SHOPPING CENTER LOT AT 65TH AND LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH. 13. 14. 15. 16. - 17. 18. .19. 20. 21• - 22. y: 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28, 29. 30. NAME ADDRESS WAWA MA ' .�.� ' 1 . :� r ♦ 4 A � ;awA�j_� 3 y (14 l a.4 2� �, s o r o - -_ o, r r =3{ .3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11r 12• 13. 14. 15. 16. - 17. 18. .19. 20. 21• - 22. y: 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28, 29. 30. NAME ADDRESS WAWA MA ' .�.� ' 1 . :� r ♦ 4 A � ;awA�j_� 3 y (14 l a.4 2� �, s o r o - -_ o, r 4X47 PETITION REGARDING ARBY'S RESTAURANT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ARE IN SUPPORT OF ARBY'S RELOCATING THEIR RESTAURANT OPERATION TO A NEW BUILDING ON THE_ K —MART SHOPPING CENTER LOT AT 65TH AND LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. NAME ADDRESS 63 S .2� S 6zq► 7 s x a� s'9 PETITION REGARDING ARBY'S RESTAURANT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ARE IN SUPPORT OF ARBY'S RELOCATING THEIR RESTAURANT OPERATION TO A NE14 BUILDING ON THE K -MART SHOPPING CENTER LOT AT 65TH AND LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH. 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21 22. = 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. NAME El ADDRESS � ` z i ra W-1 - ro,�.N' N • • • • ao -aa PETITION REGARDING ARBY'S RESTAURANT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ARE IN SUPPORT OF ARBY'S RELOCATING THEIR RESTAURANT OPERATION TO A NEW BUILDING ON THE. K -MART SHOPPING CENTER LOT AT 65TH AND LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH. 1 2 3 4 5, 6, 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16 17. 18. 19. _r 20. 21. . r 2?. 23. 24. _ 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. NAME ADDRESS Y3 6 �ti 1 4p. .�� .. A Ian n n t r 7 Alm Rig M, t �3 4f -T - , - 4 - e ...rte •..�.'_. i qw J aD r yam_` • 1 r S� V 4celse"Ax— so �. 420 L& bq (:k 4t _ yea4 sy. tc all, - , - 4 - e ...rte •..�.'_. i qw J aD r yam_` • 1 r S� J S� (off �D �3 AX �y s ..aa�te Q ',il'�j y _ s � �i 'y •r TJ JJ - A,RKDALE SUITE 204 October 31, 1985 ' EA 554116 612 ;5-16.339 i Members of the Planning Commission, Staff, and City Council City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 Ladies and Gentlemen: - Our company is the developer and operator of Arby's restaurants in our area. As you know, Franchise Associates developed their first facility in Richfield, at 6529 Penn Avenue South, in 1968. A drive -thru window was proposed to be added to this restaurant in 1982. As you may also recall, at the same time that Franchise Associates was planning the expansion and remodeling of this facility, the City was moving to implement needed traffic improvements to the 66th Street and Penn Avenue intersection. Briefly, these improvements included the '10 extension of the median strip to provide a protected left turn lane for southbound Penn Avenue traffic wishing to go east on 66th Street. In the Staff report which covered the 1982 Arby's expansion proposal the planned improvements to this intersection, the resulting traffic pattern, and their impact on the adjacent residentiai streets were noted and discussed,. The report concluded that, "This impact will be felt regardless whether the drive -up - window is constructed ". Although the Staff report was addressing the effects of these new traffic movements on adjacent residential areas, they had an immediate adverse impact on the Arby's Restaurant as well. As everyone realizes, Arby's must compete in the convenience food market, and any change in traffic pattern which makes it more difficult to get to this restaurant, affects the number of people who will choose to do so. The traffic improvements at 66th and Penn were clearly necessary and they have accomplished the public purpose which they were intended to. However, as soon as they were implemented, it was obvious to Franchise Associates, that if they wanted to continue doing business in the City of Richfield that a new site must be located. Their site selection search has been intensive and it has taken a long time. This process was greatly complicated by the fact that the City of Richfield is for all intents and purposes, fully developed. The City's major cor.mitment to Redevelopment and the scope of these plans has also complicated this site selection process. Both before Arby's first application in April of 1984 and the denial of its application in August F4 of that year, Arby's management has extensively reviewed all sites brought to its attention by real estate agents, city staff, city council members and its own internal searching. Unfortunately, we have been unable to locate an acceptable alternative to the K -Mart site. The 66th and Penn road construction project, which will; 1) take the Arby's sign, 2) take 7' off the front of the property (including 2 parking spaces) and 3) place a median on Penn eliminating left turn in and out movement from the Arby's is scheduled for spring of 1986 construction. IN ORDER TO SURVIVE AS A BUSINESS IN RICHFIELD, WE MUST ASK THE CITY TO RECONSIDER THIS REQUEST. As you may,recall, in order to provide the City with a well thought out first class Arby's development, we contracted and hired Howard Dahlgran Associates. They reviewed our site selection process, evaluated the proposed site, prepared some site development alternatives, and assisted in the processing of this, our first, application. They candidly identified a number of issues which they addressed in our first application. So this is basically a resubmittal of our first application of which I have attached the'relevent portion of their work. A. INTRODUCTION.TO THE SITE The site which is being proposed for approval for a new Arby's . Restaurant is located in the Southeast quadrant of Lyndale Avenue and 65th Street. It is proposed to be incorporated into the existing K -Mart store parking lot. B. SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION The subject property is zoned PC4 and restaurants are Special Uses in this zone. The site plan submitted along with this application indicates a 12.5 foot front yard setback. As this restaurant is in a planned unit development, staff found in its original review memorandum for the May 22, 1984 Planning Commission meeting that no variance is required. C. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF KEY PLANNING ISSUES 1. Adequacy of Available Number of a. Number of spaces: The first and most difficult question which had to be addressed in considering the development of this site, was whether or not a plan could be prepared which could retain enough parking spaces, to allow both businesses to function during peak use periods Not only did peak use demands need to be addressed, but also, the combined impacts of peak use and snow storage on the available parking. eX-C;�6 Fortunately, (strictly from the perspective of this application) the 1983 Christmas shopping season provided an opportunity to evaluate the adequacy of the existing K -Mart parking lot during both one of the busiest shopping seasons in recent years, and during a winter of record breaking snowfalls. The proposed site was photographed during Arby's peak use period (11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) from the same angles, on three separate days within the last week of shopping before Christmas. Significantly, this was during the time when we were at, or very near the point of most snow accumulation for the entire season. The results of this investigation convinced not only our planners but more importantly, convinced both K -Mart and us, that there was sufficient surplus parking provided on this site, under-the-most demanding and adverse circumstances to alT.dw for the development of the Arby's Restaurant. The slides taken during this study were brought to the public meetings for the Planning Commission's review and consideration. Subsequent to that first meeting, 8enshoof and Associates conducted a study addressing these and other traffic concerns, a copy of which the City has in its files. b.' Shared Parking, Maintenance Agreements The development of this site plan has been the subject of much discussion between K -Mart and Franchise Associates, Inc. Submitted along with these plans is a'copy of a letter from Mr. Larry Ross of K -Mart Corporation regarding the proposed plans. Through a private agreement, between the above mentioned parties, Franchise Associates will lease 20,208 square feet from K -Mart Corporation. This area is shown on the site plan. For the purposes of this review and approval process, there will be both maintenance and shared parking provisions in this lease agreement. 2. Ability to Oeveioa Acce a After determining to our consultants satisfaction, that there would be enough parking to service both businesses, they turned their attention to an analysis of the redesign of traffic circulation within the site. It was very quickly uc-:3rmined that under no circumstances would it be necessary. to change the external traffic movements. That is to say, no additional curb cuts or relocations or remodeling of existing K -Mart entrances would be required. • aV41 4 They began with the basic setbacks identified' in the ordinance and began to develop alternative designs. Their goal was to develop the alternative which accomplished the circulation needs of the proposed Arby's, while causing the least disruption to the existing K -Mart site. As you will note on the plans which have been submitted, the plan which has been developed locates the proposed restaurant in the northwest corner of the K -Mart parking lot. By placing the drive -up window toward 65th Street the plan allows the best possible design for stacking. It also allows traffic leaving the drive -up lane to utilize the existing western -most aisle on the K -Mart parking lot, and to exit the site at the main curb cut opening on Lyndale Avenue. It was primarily the significant advantages presented by this alternative which led our consultant to recommend the 12.5 foot setback along 65th Street. The site could be developed without doing this but 'it would both remove additional parking and disrupt circulatior}. In summary, the best placement of the proposed building, from the perspective of circulation, is as shown on the proposed plans. 3. Appropriateness of Proposed Sitinq With Adjacent Development P The Zoning Ordinance addresses setbacks in a very reasonable manner, always relating them to the existing development which it abuts. In this case, the only other development on the block is the K -Mart store. The K -Mart building is set back 50 feet from Lyndale Avenue. The proposed Arby's is set back 40 feet from Lyndale which is consistent with the required front yard setback in this zone. The difference between these two setbacks will be virtually imperceptible, although we have felt very strongly that the front yard set back long Lyndale Avenue should be honored. We have reviewed all of the goals and objectives of the LHN Plan and believe the subject proposal to be consistent with them. 4. Description of Proposed The Urban Design Guidelines for the LHN Project were reviewed and utilized in the development of the design details of this proposal. The proposed Arby's building will be attractive, utilizing fluted, decorative block painted beige or brown, stained cedar, and its roof will be of wood. Photographs of other Arby's with the same exterior appearnace have been supplied along with examples of the quality of the proposed interior. Landscaping has been proposed to compliment the building, provide desirable screening and to encourage and enhance outdoor seating and pedestrian traffic. We will address specific species and their appropriateness for the locations shown, at the public meetings. Plans illustrating the proposed signage have been previously submitted and are on file with the City. Signage proposed on the building are as illustrated on the attached elevations and previously submitted photographs. The proposed pylon sign is also illustrated on previously pubmitted materials. The location for the pylon sign is shown on the site pian. This location meets the letter of the Zoning Ordinance, dnd the developer is willing to accept this location if it is the City's wish. However, an alternative location has been identified which we feet would simply look better, without having a major impact on the signs visibility. This location is within the front yard sqt back and is illustrated on the reduced copies of these plans. The proposed development will not require a major change in the existing lighting on the K -Mart site. Some minor relocation will be required. Some additional lighting will be added around the building; The final details for this lighting have not been developed, but under no circumstances would it result in any exposed light sources or off -site glare. Franchise Associates would welcome the opportunity to review -these details with the Building or Planning Staffs. 4. There were several additional matters that were raised during the time of our last application that need to be addressed here. A. BUILDING SETBACK, 65TH STREET As you will note, the subject proposal includes.a 12.5 foot setback from 65th Street. After discussing the question of adequacy of sight distance at the intersection, the Planning Commission specifically recommended approval of this setback. In addition to our review of sight distance conditions during the design process, this matter was also reviewed by Benshoof and Associates. In their review, Benshoof and Associates agreed that sight distance would Trot be a problem. Since the Planning Commission meeting,. 'we have discussed this question with Rick Jopke. From this discussion, it is clear that Rick has also reviewed the question of adequate sight distance and has concluded that it will not be a problem. B. PARKING A question was also raised about the adequacy and feasibility of the proposed shared parking plan. Based upon indepth analysis by Franchise Associates, Benshoof and Associates and Howard Dahlgren Associates, we are convinced that there will be no parking problem. • i Ae -C V C. SCREENING OF HEADLIGHTS Another concern which has been raised is about the possibility of headlight glare from cars driving into and through the drive - through lane, causing a problem for either the apartments across the street or cars in the intersection. The proposed landscape plan has been developed to solve that potential problem. As you will note on the landscape plan, we have proposed the use of vertical timbers to block headlight glare. We have also taken this potential problem into account in the landscape plan and we know that the use of beams and landscape materials, as proposed, will screen this headlight glare. We have discussed the proposed design solution with Rick Jopke and in that discussion he expressed agreement with the approach. As we stated in that meeting, Franchise Associates is willing to make any reasonable design modifications along tk1s edge of the development, to improve the relationship with the adjacent street and neighboring properties. Arby's has been a contributing member in the Richfield community since 1968 and desires to continue that participation at the 65th Street and Lyndale location. Great time and effort has gone into preparing a_ development which will meet the needs of the citizens of Richfield. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Douglas S. Kennedy Vice President DK:mp Enclosure • BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4e4l� TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119/ EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 553441(612)944-7590 November 199 1985 M E M O R A N D U M REFER TO FILE: 84 -34 -21 TO: Mr. Charles Nadler, Franchise Associates, Inc. FROM: Michael L. Wonson� RE: Update to Traffic and Parking Study for Proposed Arby's Restaurant in the City of Richfield PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND -The purpose of this memorandum is to present a brief update to.our traffic and parking study of June 1984 concerning the proposed Arby's restaurant in the City of Richfield. As we understand it, the basic proposal and site plan remain as previously requested and consist of a restaurant to be located at 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue in the corner of the parking area associated with the current K --Mart shopping facility. The two issues specifically reviewed in this update are: 1) can the public roadway system still effec- tively accommodate development traffic, as was concluded in the previous study, 2) based upon updated parking surveys, will sufficient parking be available for both K -Mart and Arby's facilities? TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The assumptions used in the previous. study regarding other traffic in the area which Included traffic associated with Market Plaza, as well as the most recent area traffic counts prepared by the City of Richfield, were reviewed to determine if the previous traffic analysis is still applicable. The previous study indicated that the intersection of 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue would operate at a level of service A during the noon and p.m. peak hours, while the ' '- --rsection of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue would operate at levels of service A and C during the noon and p.m. peak hours respectively. As area traffic volumes have not increased sufficiently so as to significantly affect operation of nearby intersections, we find that the Intersection levels of service will be comparable to those previously calculated. Based upon this finding and the trip • characteristics of an Arby's restaurant, we conclude that the public roadway system can effectively accommodate traffic associated with the proposed Arby's. Ae4l Mr. Charles Nadler -2- November 19, 1985 Also, as the site and circulation plans are identical to those previously proposed, the previous study conclusion that circulation patterns will operate effectively is still appropriate. PARKING ANALYSIS In order to update the parking analysis prepared in the previous study,-parking surveys were conducted at the K -Mart facility on November 8, 9, and 10, 1985 to determine current parking usage. The following table presents the number of occupied spaces observed. TABLE rl Number of Spaces Occupied at K -Mart Richfield (365 spaces currently available) As can be noted, the observed peak parking usage occurred at 2 :00 p.m. on a Saturday (171 spaces occupied). The fact that the peak parking occurred during the early afternoon on a Saturday is consistent with past studies and observations, as well as a recent study prepared by Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. for the Urban Land Institute, "Shared Parking N, 1983. • • Date Friday Saturday Sunday Time Period Nov. 8 Nov. 9 Nov. 10 Average 11:30 a.m. 147 134 73 118 12:00 noon 133 148 100 127 12:30 p.m. 146 152 94 131 1:00 p.m. 139 137 99 125 1 :30 p.m. 149 154 90 131 2:00 p.m. - 171 - - 2:30 p.m. - 161 - - 3:00 p.m. - 144 - - 5:30 p.m. 79 77 - 78 6:00 p.m. 72 68 - 70 6 :30 p.m. 82 60 - 71 7:00 p.m. - 75 44 - 61 7:30 p.m. 74 49 - 62 As can be noted, the observed peak parking usage occurred at 2 :00 p.m. on a Saturday (171 spaces occupied). The fact that the peak parking occurred during the early afternoon on a Saturday is consistent with past studies and observations, as well as a recent study prepared by Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. for the Urban Land Institute, "Shared Parking N, 1983. • • • • Mr. Charles Nadler -3- November 19, 1985 The key parking issue is whether sufficient parking will be available for both K -Mart and Arby's during the peak shopping season (after Thanksgiving and during the Christmas period). In order to answer this question, the observed parking usage needs to be adjusted upward to account for the peak shopping season. Two methods were utilized for this purpose. The first relied upon the previously referenced "Shared Parking" analysis which indicates that, in general, parking usage in November is 80 percent of that occuring during the time of highest demand. Adjusting the observed maximum usage of 171 spaces upwards by this factor yields a maximum demand of 215 spaces for K -Mart during the busiest shopping season. r The second method entailed adjusting the observed usage upwards based upon K -Mart sales volume data. According to the K -Mart management, sales volume on the Saturday before Christmas 1984, was approximately 35% higher than on Saturday November 9, 1985. Adjusting the observed peak usage of 171 spaces by a . factor of 35% yields a maximum parking demand for K -Mart of 231 spaces (slightly lower than had been calculated in the study of June, 1984). A maximum of 21 occupied parking spaces were observed during the early afternoon at existing Arby's restaurants similar to that proposed (as documented in the report of June 1984). Adding this maximum demand to the calculated maximum demand for K -Mart yields a total of 252 spaces which would be required for both uses during the busiest shopping period of the year. This calculation indicates a "cushion" of 61 parking spaces available during the busiest time period. As such, this update confirms the findings of the previous study that the total of 313 spaces which will be available for both uses upon completion of the Arby's improvements, are more than sufficient to accommodate the peak parking demand for both uses. CONCLUSION This update to the traffic and parking study of June, 1984 concerning the proposed Richfield Arby's restaurant reaffirms the conclusions of that stud% -,. The conclusions can be summarized as follows: • The public roadway system can effectively accommodate traffic generated by the proposal. • The on site traffic circulation patterns will function effect i ve l y. • More than sufficient on site parking will be available for both the Arby's and K -Mart facilities during the busiest shopping period of the year. 0 Rif REIB CHAMBER of see -5100 COMMERCE WORKING TOGETHER TO GROW WITH RICHFIELD November 18, 1985 Mr. Charles E. Nadler Franchise Associates, Inc. 5401 Gamble Drive Parkdale 1, Suite 204 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Dear Mr. Nadler: On November 18, 1965, the Richfield Chamber of Commerce held a general membership meeting at the Chamber office. The main purpose of this meeting was to vote on a proposed amendment to the Chamber By -Laws and to kick -off the 1985 Blitz Drive. Bob Gunderson, Past President of the Richfield Chamber, was present.at this meeting. The next scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors will be held on December 17, 1985. Due to the time frame, your request concerning Chamber • action on your proposed project to construct an Arby's Restaurant on the southeast corner of 65th. Street and Lyndale Avenue South was placed on the agenda at this meeting. A copy of your letter to Bob Gunderson, dated Novem- ber 12, 1985, and enclosures were available for review. There were enough Board members present at this meeting to constitute' a quorum. A motion was made by Gunderson, seconded by Orlins, stating that the Uchgeed ChambeA of CommeJice ,ia in Savoh o6 and 6uppoU6 the project which FAaneWe 46oei tea, Inc. Z6 pnopoai.ng (a new Army's Restaurant on the southeast corner of 65th. Street and Lyndale Avenue South in Richfield) and that wn i iten endorsement oA thia p o jest be Gent to the Rich6 etd Ptan- ning Commission, the Richfield City Councie and apnnopniate City 6taJ6. Motion carried 9 -1 -1 (Kenealey opposed;.Jensen abstained) I hope that this endorsement will have a positive effect on keeping Arby's in Richfield. One of the purposes of the Chamber is to continually work on the retention of existing businesses within the community. cc: Mayor John Hamilton John G. Cartwright, City Manager Dennis Kraft, Community Dev. Director Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission Very t , yours,,; 42ab-la R. Ekirand- Executivef Director • ab-�y BE!_*`zMa:i:EBi:: ac6rWmdKmartCDrporMon 3100 W. 81p Novwr Rd troy. MW"m 48084 (313) 643,5000 April 30, 1984 Mayor. John Hamilton City Council City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55422 RE: Planned Unit Development of K-mart.Property Proposed by Franchise Associates,,-Inc. (Arby's) Gentlemen: We have reviewed the plans that are being submitted by Franchise Associates, Inc. to the City of Richfield in connection with the K mart location at 65th and Lyndale. We fully agree with said plans and in connection therewith recognize that the site already contains sufficient surplus parking for the addition of the restaurant proposed by Franchise Associates, Inc. We'also believe that there will be a compatible interaction between the business of K mart, Arby's and other businesses located at said site. We acknowledge and consent to the application of Franchise Associates, Inc. for a conditional use permit for the purpose of utilizing said site for the construction of an Arby's Restaurant. Very truly yours, K MART CORPORATION By w m ii i i i i --------------- ___ -- - - - - -- a 1 i I Y i i . c �b�H� 7 C. �� . • yv�z lmw __C77 LL i i --------------- ___ -- - - - - -- a 1 i I Y i i . c �b�H� 7 C. �� . • i • _ �. t- �t � Of am C n =m sr A Q i s �r n z I --�- is; 1 jL� of Y�4 i IN J I --�- is; 1 jL� i • ►• r.ti�_r►+r JM:i� � Ni. at I/ ! ,• a .y_ . ''•' a1 ." 1 : = u�ii A�iV •''t - TV twit ISIt I PIP My � 'w • � •.li!` N fikff�i� :11: •! { ✓ K '. ., t!r ' i •t► \ ` S •' �' Yrr brf �Y �' ,� Qom•• • • ••� ', 1�' L w _ • w•1 h I Y• f! » f. 4.• •��'• ► .�. .• �. p1: .• • :.� • �i( %. " "fig' ✓a {, ` =.x• yeti +so . i4r T' 9� .:'Q• �:� ��1• :•.A•v=•:'::: .. ` ..`�` e 0 164' X. Fr^ :^' �s v ,r _� \: r ��. i .a ! �,•Li : �'y me,Y::•� '••.i: a ^ !'. its,•:!3j '•x;�" 'rX:;i� ' y .• . .:, z•• . �.+, A.• . n.;:.i;.� cj; ; �:,.• r;_'�hl .. !Q .ta .• • ! . tip• •: -'•� :' ..:•. ,. .f.% c :;.;. •; }'• 1M �:'� Lr};: ' t . . . °, i ti _•' �A �:';:• '\� F�:;:�ta er4�(t: f4 . ►i ''''S•r� u t 1 ;7,`• uK' .;.iii! ? / ' � S+ �.��' . rr �: �- :',��.,•�: fi r ��:' t,• �•: 1p pp n w.d. \f ,� w Us Aq w 1 • ,Y Qi.�j�' It � f � = ` � T►►. 1 •'�, lr a lI t1• J 1 - _ "'r 'f `` '• .. ` J ig �.. N i ri '�i. , � •, 1 etc 1 � co ai �_�' Nib• Te L ' < M L < 11 = t 1 -- : 4D . d Ll Y 3 4V - JV �(7j N .. LU Iuj CD II • C 77� 11 -L"J r; • 7 Z ,--� na' m w cc cc 1& 16 o ji! -t .0 i • 7 . �r _- � ar�,1 ' w�'rsy+ F - ■i —�i .. I. •c: MIMI WE !1i iG "i!■ � Tom_ — � p *�Jjm �23, _�.. . - m» • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • �� I Id (/ • : • r • • a • r • • r r r • i a s s s s s s s z s s s s s s s s s s z ^r..• •w i. •• «+�;(>t(rr�sa�► �� :.r Saert►�i..++eawrati...rsi.+•l� t + �• .r.• .w. C ,w.. w .:�. •._.:t. -ssC �S.SC o S ='� Y•YeI� '• w..w •� r.•.r �3'�- +�.Y,t atsfi' rER..{ i ? •..rte ... CD . " INNillfst St11t1iiL �+p7r .'.'.t'i �1•`.'n!11:• • • • - •�3.�' ' • :•::: �f •pia i�.•i+j M M t.4sitsl ", Yr�w�+I ..iril.�i ".. . . •,wi «• • Liti'q � 0�1 • :.'�'i �ll1 1 .rr w �.•�+w.+��. r�.�.', Ma~ ON zr •�•� ,LAG TH+C�4"i.',yr alE.+ •• .wr• .•/ r••. w y�,�, t ��ttc�� !{�T� r 1/" rr'%��TR'1t"'•7 SM ~•� _ " {�• .r4! Z trre t•��t''f!j' { �ti !!'�I I a... r w .• f it -�► ..r•� .•q,C1C" C" .x"^ ��i""�•►l'�' •.. �; Wes.., "�' "�• . r p^�}� 4►W+ .•s. « r•••• •It r•' —lTaR r�rn'.n ¢� ffi vw .. �^�^.�s•r,s��i�.r- •+,i•,w-- .'s•s.O,mm�•�u.M •,,,.�..ww,�, ..�r— s-i:-.°.t-�h'a � • •T - •r" . •��. .,:i�r. (H ntut b ..r .r... >./i•1• IA ,•..•.f• {` +7b :+. ;•' "� 1� .= jUiiil:'ii �(��,�} 1 �.' t{ - •rO•'n WAMW :�t ';! �r ?�''�•t' !!; �suar- �•- �tS�Jt(L'}�U} [�"i '�`T4`I iill,'} �, r •..r• w t.l�• 'T'W�'_"F {F � ,�. rj�c:' i- ��"`IIIIiW ��1,ri,�'1�L'.: 111;: yi_:.;J w r �� •f i�,r.t�.� 1jT`� tf w! �" ..rte{��}{ �IlLti. ` 1 �S •1i•••a w 3��.r.rr•..s= .��.' err.... r.r.� *Uil�u4 oifntlfmmT ••••n.• w w- is -sue') rr. r—.� _.�A"YLt."ta.l ' -i�l • tSii •. 'f. •..rte s ;t s:u1 MY 1..'... "��.� vim..'` ^�:YtLS itiftli.L'..5:'.��'�+•"�- '..."' iltlU � �� .r.n .s v. hw �r �S'f.TEiR4 — M- 1111Sfil1.lw ..vuTiiil.uuI'7�i.7fR � r{ t•� .t •��.'� is "'."" S � !! , Sf�.t �..- - � ./w. s Sze :;5s ?� •r «ate '7R",� '+�� •... M wehu� �•� J!%••..i... �� {��f11.,�� {�� I I�I 11• !}. - .. �j ••�li INIII/I INM• fNN1.t1111M1n V�•:�iliiifili)1 '�'."�,. i�t�•• •'•tWW41L�r{YY� �� MMAM •I• �""•'s ' �iil f►+ t7 s•: 71T. �:::.'.' fTi.'.^ ii11i... .....u.7iiw.ietrR'•�^iLlliv'"TiF a 1::1::: ,.�?::':� ..cr an 3.ar'S 'Z;- ��z�S 1 �e'•'7+t _�`_! 1�,,.r�.y!':� •..r .a an x�t =�S 1 . .. •re.. .` •"r ' .•.-w• .r � S a air s =�• +�� -_•' .iii' �. ��Y UL� ;�:� �J��L�.!! r s Wes. y 7.r - $ ..� ..r ,•►n• •1li±v� j�r�j]"i't+'r,�",i .�•'d��,j -•y -�• •• .....:,:,..•x., .... i JG.• r -- + C,a�yta�'-_' :�y'�i� -�� " �r ..i7k• � W +y�M, • :a3• a'S� M�".+� .. 'n 3 _ z ��S.,t rl yW �� ,� �y ��.Ja�lY � � � •. w no w• Z�i ��i�13.r}.ff ��.2 J�� j �r ,�n {1 •; am 1.4 .,1 iR .. :•I �� _ s t t 1t v ,R(5 L3 Minneapa2.S - - - -- Minnesota 55403 Howard Dahigran Assoobtes / Incorporated 6 April, 1984 Members of the Planning Commission, Staff, and City Council CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield,-Minnesota 55422 Ladies and Gentlemen: We are consultants to Franchise Associates, Inc., developers and operators of Arby's restaurants in our area. As you know, Franchise Associates developed their first facility in Richfield, at 6529'Penn Avenue South, in 1968. A drive -thru window was added to this restaurant in 1982. As you may also recall, at the same time that Franchise Associates was planning the expansion and remodeling of this facility, the City was moving to implement needed traffic improvements to the 66th Street and Penn Ave iftersection. Briefly, these improvements included the extension of the median strip to provide a protected left turn lane for southbound Penn Avenue traffic wishing to go east on 66th Street. In the Staff report which covered the 1982 Arby's expansion proposal the planned improvements to this intersection, the resulting traffic pattern, and their impact on the adjacent residential streets were noted and discussed. The report concluded that., "This impact will be felt regardless whether the drive -up window is constructed ". Although the Staff report was addressing the effects of these new traffic movements on adjacent resi- dential areas, thef had an immediate adverse impact on the Arby's restaurant as well. As every one realizes, Arby's must compete in the convenience food market, and any change in traffic pattern which makes it more difficult to get to this restaurant, affects the number of people who will choose to do so. The traffic improvements at 66th and Penn were clearly necessary and they have accomplished the public purpose which they were intended to. However, as soon as they were implemented, it was obvious to Franchise Associates, that if they wanted to continue doing business in the City of Richfield, that a new site must be located. • a6 -7y Their site selection search has been intensive and it has taken a long time. This process was greatly -complicated by the fact that the-City of Richfield. is for all intents and purposes, ;fully developed. The City's major commitment to Redevelopment and the scope of these plans has,also complicated this site selection process. When we were contacted by Franchise Associates, they had completed this investigation and had identified a site which they felt would work very well for them, while complimenting the City's planning effort in the area as well. We were hired to review their site selection process, evaluate the proposed site, to prepare some site development alternatives, and subsequently to assist in the processing of this application. We began our involvement in this process by candidly identifying a number of issues which-we felt would need to be completely addressed by this appli- cation. Franchise Associates explained that they wanted a frank assessment of the site, because if it couldn't, be designed to work, they didn't want to develop it. After -a complete review of the the LHN Goals and Urban Design Guidelines, and after the preparation, review and refinement of several design alternatives, we believe that we-have developed a plan which both meets Arby's needs, and which'is fully compatible with the City's goals and objectives as well. A description of this site'and the site plan which has been prepared for it is described in summary form in the sections which follow. A. INTRODUCTION TO THE SITE The site which is being proposed for approval for a new Arby's restaurant is located in the Southeast quadrant of Lyndale Avenue and 65th Street. -It is proposed to be incorporated into the existing R -Mart store parking lot. B. SiRQMY OF THE APPLICATION The subject property is zoned PC -2 and restaurants are Special Uses in this zone. The site plan submitted along with this application requires a variance from the front yard setback along 65th Street (40 feet required, 12.5 feet provided).- C. SUMARY, DISCUSSION OF BEY PLANNING ISSUES 1. Adequacy of Available Number of Parkina Spaces to s a. Number of spaces: The first and most difficult question which had to be addressed in considering the development of this site, was whether or not a plan could be prepared which could retain enough parking spaces, to allow both businesses to function during peak use periods. . Not only did peak use demands need to be addressed, but also, the combined impacts of peak use and snow storage on the available parking. Fortunately, (strictly from the perspective of this application) this Christmas shopping season provided an opportunity to evaluate the adequacy of the existing K -Mart parking lot during both one of the.busiest shopping.seasons in recent years, and during a winter of record breaking snowfalls. The proposed site was photographed during Arby's peak use period (11:30 am to 1.30pm) from the same angles, on three separate days within the last week of shopping before Christmas. Significantly, this was during the time when we were at, or very near the point of most snow accumulation for the entire season. The results of .this investigation convinced not only our selves, but more importantly, convinced both K -Mart and Arby's, that there was sufficient surplus parking provided on this site, under the most demanding and adverse circumstances to allow for the development of the Arby's restaurant. We will bring the slides taken during this study to the public meetings for your review and consideration. ; b. Shared Parking, Maintenance Agreements The development of this site plan has been the subject of much. discussion between K-Mart and Franchise Associates Inc. Submitted along with these plans is a copy of a letter from Mr. Larry Moss of K -Mart Corporation regarding the proposed plans. Through a private agreement, between the above mentioned% parties, Franchise Associates will lease 20,208 square feet from K -Mart Corporation. This area is shown on the site plan. For the purposes of this review and approvil - process, there will be both maintenance and shared parking provisions in this lease agreement. 2. Ability to Develop Acceptable Internal and External Traffic Circulation After determining to our satisfaction, that there would be enough parking to service both businesses, we turned our attention to an analysis.of` the redesign of traffic circulation within the site. It was very quickly determined that under no circumstance would it be necessary to chan$e the external traffic movements. That is to say, no additional curb cuts or relocations or remodelling of existing K -Mart entrances would be required. We began with the basic set backs identified in the ordinance and began to develop alternative designs. Our goal was to develop the alternative which accomplished the circulation needs of the proposed Arby's, while causing the least disruption to the existing K -Mart site. As you will note on the plans which have been submitted, the plan which has been developed locates the proposed restaurant in the northwest corner of the K- Mart "parking lot. ao 76 By placing the drive -up window toward 65th street the plan allows the best possible design for stacking. It also allows traffic leaving the drive -up lane to utilize the existing western -most aisle on the K -Mart parking lot, and to exit the site at the main curb cut opening on Lyndale Avenue It was primarily the significant advan- tages presented by this alternative which led us to recommend applying for a variance along 65th Street. The site could be developed without requiring this variance, but it would both remove additional parking and disrupt circulation. In summary, the best placement of the proposed building, from the perspective of circulation, is as shown on the proposed plans. 3. Appropriateness of Proposed Siting With Ada Consistency With LEN Goals and Obiectives. The Zoning Ordinance addresses setbacks-in a very reasonable manner, always relating them to the existing development which it abuts. In this case, the only gther development on the block is the K -Mart store. The R-Mart building is set back 50 feet from Lyndale Avenue The proposed Arby's is set back 40'feet from Lyndale which is consistent with the required front yard setback in this zone. The difference between these two setbacks will be virtually imperceptible, although we have felt very strongly that the front yard set back along Lyndale Avenue should be honored. We have reviewed all of the goals and objectives of the LEN Plan and believe the subject proposal to be consistent with them. 4. Description of Proposed Building Materials, Landscaping, Siang e Lighting. The Urban Design Guidelines for the LEN Project were reviewed and utilized in the development of the design details of'this proposal. The proposed Arby's building will be attractive, utilizing fluted, decorative block, stained cedar, and its roof will be a metal standing seam with a baked on enamel finish. Photographs of other Arby's with the same exterior appearance have been supplied along with examples of the quality of the proposed interior. Landscaping has been proposed to compliment the building, provide desirable screening and to encourage and enhance outdoor seating and pedestrian traffic. We will address specific species and their appropriateness for the locations shown, at the public meetings. Plans illustrating the proposed signage have been submitted along with this application. Signage proposed on the building are as illustrated on tl a attached elevations and submitted photographs. The proposed pylo" sign is also illustrated on these materials. The location for the pylon sign is shown on the site plan. This location meets the letter of the Zoning Ordinance, and the developer is willing to accept this location if it is the City's wish. However an alternative location has been identified which we feel would simply look better, without having a major impact on the signs afu ?7 visibility. This location is within the front yard set beck and is illustrated on the reduced copies of these plans.. _- . 0 The proposed development will not require a major change in the existing lighting on the R -Mart site. Some minor relocation will be required. Some additional lighting will be added around the building. The final details for this lighting have not been developed, but under no circumstance would it result in any exp- light sources or off -site glare. Franchise Associates would welcome the opportunity to review these details with the Building or Planning Staffs. 5. Summary and Conclusion Franchise Associates Inc. has been a Richfield business since 1968 and is committed to staying in business in your fine community. Conditions.on their -. existing site on Penn Ave make it necessary to relocate. They have undertaken an involved and careful site search to locate the site which is proposed for development by this application." As planning consultants we have, frankly, approached this project with some skepticism from the beginning. We have been very candid with the developer about the tests which we felt it would need to pass and our unwillingness to represent-it if it failed. From the beginning, Franchise Associates has accepted these conditions and have welcomed our candor. They don't want to make an investment of this size if it isn't going to work. The result of our analysis and design effort is a deve lopWent_. proposal which we believe strongly will work for both the developer and the City. We look forward to meeting with you in the review of this project and to working with you to correct and improve any problems which that review may reveal. Sincerely Yours John Shardlow, Principal Planner cc. Charles Nadler, Franchise Associates Inc. Bruce Malkerson, Popham, Haik et al • • Howard Dahigren Associates / Incorporated 19 July 1984 Members of the Planning Commission, Staff CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55422 RE: Response to 26 June Staff Report, graachise Associates, Inc. Application for Amendment to Planned Unit Development, Special Use Permit Honorable Chair, Planning Commission and Staff Members: As noted above, this letter is presented in response to the 26 June Staff Report on the Franchise Associates Inc. application for an amendment to the existing Planned Unit Development, and Special Use Permit. Specifically, this letter summarizes our disagreement with the staff report's conclusions' that the subject application is inconsistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan, and the LHN Redevelopment Plan. This letter also includes additional discussion of the issue of parking on the proposed site, and the fii:dings of some additional investigation. To facilitate your review, this information has been summarized by issue below: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY On page 2 of the 22 May Staff Report it states that the proposed restaurant would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map, which shows the subject property designated for high density, central business district uses ( "which would include restaurants "). On the second page of the 26 June Staff Report it states, "Based upon the staff review, it was found that the proposed development is inconsistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan." However, the report includes absolutely no fiudings,to, justify this conclusion. Based upon our own experience, review of the Richfield Plan, and participation in this-application process, the only inconsistency which we can identify is the fact that the Comprehensive Plan follows the LHN Redevelopment Plan in designating the subject property for a "promotional department store ". We agree that redevelopment plans, by necessity, include more definitive designations for specific parcels than do comprehensive plans. We also recognize that when a redevelopment plan is 7 5 Members of the.Planning Commission, Staff CITY OF RICHFIELD Page 2 in effect, it is appropriate to illustrate the redevelopment plan land use designations on the comprehensive plan. However, it is neither reasonable, nor is it the common practice to conclude that the Compreh"z_�. -= Plan limits the ultimate use of this .property to a single, narrowly defined land use. We must agree with the findings of the original staff report, that the proposed restaurant is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Again, since the report included no evidence to substantiate this proposal's inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, we are in effect denied the opportunity to respond to the findings which have led to this opinion. CONSISTENCY WITH THE LHN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN After reviewing this matter and discussing it at some length, we must also take issue with the conclusion that the Franchise Associates proposal is inconsistent with the LEN Redevelopment Plan. There is no question that the City of Richfield has invested considerable time and energy in the development and implementation of this plan. There is also no question that the X -Mart development was and is a key element within the total LEN program. It is also true that the development of a-restaurant was not anticipated on this site, the Redevelopment Plan clearly projected the development of a promotional department store, of up to 100,000 square feet. Although it is doubtful that the site could accommodate that much building and parking, it is quite clear that the adopted plan proposed a very intensive development of the subject property. Since the existing R -Mart store contains 56,000 square feet of Gross Leaseable Area, the development which has occurred on the site is just slightly more than half of the amount proposed on the adopted Redevelopment Plana The 56,000 sq. ft. K- -Mart store has been constructed on this site and all of the contractual- requirements of the redevelopment agreement have been satisfied. Now the R -Mart property is just another underutilized parcel within the Redevelopment District. If the LHN Plan has one essential objective, it is to correct the problem of the underutilizatiou of property within the Project limits. The following finding is set forth on page 4 of the LHN Plan: "Several parcels of land are currently utilized to a level well below their capacity. Much of this underutilization exists where the fragmentation of -7 -. ^- results in parking duplicity. The type of development that has "curred, with each structure function' independently, results in individual parking lots with no opportunity for shared parking." Without belaboring the point, the Franchise Associates Inc. proposal would: Members of the Planning Commission, Staff CITY OF RICHFIELD Page 3 1. Increase the intensit 'of use within the LHN Plan.. .. 2. Provide convenient, safe and attractive pedestrian ways (logically connecting with the planned residential area accross Lyndale Ave), 3. Encourage the sharing of parking facilities as opposed to the "Go It Alone" approach, 4. Facilitate 'one stop" shopping along Lyndale Avenue, reducing the strip and "compacting" the retail area, etc. All of the above noted results of the Franchise Associates proposal are directly consistent with the goals and objectives of the LHN Plan. There are many more which could be cited, but if any one directive is clearly consistent with the findings and approach set forth in this plan, it is the concept of encouraging shared parking-to allow the intensification of land use in the area. In their 22 May Report the staff concludes on page 3, "Staff observation would concur that the area of the site to be occupied by the restaurant is underutilized." Given the goals and objectives of the LHN Plan related to underutilized parcels set forth above, and given the fact that the R -Mart Store has been developed pursuant to and satisfied the requirements of the LEN Plan and there is apparently no disagreement with our contention that the site is now underutilized, we simply cannot accept the City Attorney's conclusion that this proposal is inconsistent with the LHN Plan. ADEQUACY OF PROPOSED PARKING Since we all agree that the subject property is underutilized and the LEN Plan proposes the intensification of development on such sites, we can only conclude that if it can be demonstrated that the proposed development can be planned and designed to work, the redevelopment of this site is consistent with the LHN Plan.; We have presented considerable information in support of our contention that it will work. This information includes the findings of our field investigations during the Christmas peak use period for the K -Mart store, numerous other counts of vacant parking stalls during the peak use period for the proposed Arby's restaurant, our analysis of nationally published resources on shared parking, and the Benshoof and Associates Report. We were very pleased to hear that the City had hired Barton Aschman Associates to assist in the determination of the feasibility of the proposed shared parking agreement. Not only do we agree that this firm is among the leading national experts on the subject of shared parking, but we were also encouraged because the research which we presented was taken primarily from the Urban Land Institutes recent publication, Shared Parking, which was authored by the Barton- Aschman firm. This fact tends to • Members of the Planning Commission, Staff CITY OF RICHFIELD Page 4 explain why Dean Wenger from Bartow Aschman concluded that there was no basis for challenging the numbers found in the Benshoof and Associates Report. It is also both interesting and pertinent to note that on page 18 of the above referenced publication, it states that a recently completed study of 135 shopping centers confirmed that a ratio of 4.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA) is a reasonable standard for shopping centers having between 25,000 and 4009000 square feet. Applying this revised standard to the 56,000 square feet at the K-Mart store would result in a demand fora total of 224 spaces. Adding these 224 spaces to the 41 spaces which Benshoof Assoc. have concluded would handle the peak use at the proposed Arby's, we arrive at a total of 265 spaces. This would leave 48 spaces unoccupied: l The Barton Aschman recommendation to change the standard for parking in •shopping centers from 5.5 per 1,000 square feet GLA to 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA, has been successfully implemented in several cities within the Metropolitan-Area. The City of Burnsville has adopted this change as has the City of Minnetonka, to name just two, and neither reports any problems with the results. It is a reasonable standard based on empirical evidence and experience, and given the findings of both our research and Benshoof Associates work, :here is no reason to expect that it wouldn't work on this site. We have also used the information on regional retail monthly variation in peak parking accumulation, included in the Urban Land Institute publication, to project the percentage use of the K -Mart site during the summer noon hour period (Arby's Peak Period). At this peak level of operation, our analysis indicates that the Arbys could generate a demand for 41 spaces. Based on the Barton Aschman findings, the K- -Mart store would be functioning at 75x.of its peak. The highest measured use of the K -Mart lot was 142 cars, during Benshoof Assoc. investigation in the month of May. According to K -Mart officials, the store was operating at 70Z of peak at that time. Assuming a direct, proportional increase in number of cars, the K -Mart store would need for 203. This is an unlikely, worst case assumption, since peak sales are measured in total dollars, and store records clearly indicate that the dollar amount of individual sales increase during the Christmas Shopping Season, larger sales per customer. This 203 spaces added to the 41 spaces for Arby's, still only results in a demand for 244 spaces. This would leave 69 unoccupied spaces on the site. SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO OTHER EXPRESSED CONCERNS Before closing, I feel compelled to respond to some of the key comments made by neighboring property owners at the public hearing and two issues raised in the staff report. The first key comment which was made both • Members of the Planning Commission, Staff CITY OF RICHFIELD verbally at the meeting, and in writing in the staff development of this restaurant would devalue adjacent again, these comments were presented with absolutely substantiate this opinion. The main reason why they evidence presented to support this claim is that none Page 5 report, was that the properties. Once no facts to e wasn't any factual exists. Another comment which warrants a* response is that this stretch of Lyndale Avenue is primarily a residential street. with all due respect, Lyndale Avenue is one of the main thoroughfares through the area within the City of Richfield which is planned to be its most intensive commercial area. Urban residential development can be incorporated into this area, and care should be taken to insure that new development is compatible with it. However, with the commitment which the City has already made to this major redevelopment effort, it would be totally inappropriate to deny new development (consistent with the goals and objectives of the LHN Plan) simply because it would front upon the-,same roadways as existing residential development. We have responded to the concerns which have been raised about the impact of the traffic from this development on adjacent properties and the facts show that there will not be an adverse impact. An even more important concern is about the type of neighbor which Franchise Associates will be if approved. This company has restaurants in two of the cities in which we consult and they have not only followed through with all of the commitments which they made in both approval processes, but have also been very good neighbors in both cities ever since. If you will review the materials which have been submitted, you will see letters from other cities which say the same thing; Franchise Associates has a very good track record. There is no factual basis for concluding that they will not be a good neighbor on this site if you give them the chance which they deserve. The final comment which must be responded to was made by Councilman Ludeman. To paraphrase, he stated in effect that the City had too much at stake in the LHN Project to let it turn into "fast food row ". It is a matter of public knowledge that the City tried unsuccessfully to get rid of the Wendy's Restaurant across Lyndale from this site. That restaurant is sited too close to Lyndale Avenue, and in my opinion, neither its site, nor its architecture is as attractive as that which is proposed on this site. This site is currently a vast, underutilized R -Mart Parking lot, with minimal landscaping, and virtually none of the characteristics and site amenities which the adopted LEN Design Guidelines encourage. The proposed Arby's is an attractive building with appropriate signage, and a lighting plan which is carefully designed to be effective, but unobtrusive. The plan calls for considerable additional landscaping to be added to beautify this corner, and it adds pedestrian scaled outdoor seating areas and connections to adjacent areas within the remainder of the LHN Area. It will provide a very useful and compatible'service within the area, and all of the above is absolutely compatible with the LHN Plan. In short, the development of convenience restaurants has come a long way since the old strip commercial days, largely in response to strong opposition Members of the Planning Commission, Staff CITY OF RICHFIELD ,�o -k3 Page b 'from local governments. There is no factual basis for comparing this proposed restaurant with the aesthetic problems which were once associated with fast food restaurants. In summary, we must strongly disagree with the City Staff's conclusion that this proposed development is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. for all of the reasons set forth above, we must also respectfully disagree with the City Attorney's conclusion that it would be inconsistent with the LEN Plan. And finally, and most important, we are confident based on our collaborative research and investigation with Benshoof and Associates, that the proposed shared parking plan will work. Any change in use on this site would also require an amendment to the Planned Unit Development, and concerns about parking could be addressed at that time. In conclusion based on our experience and the findings of our planning and design effort on this site, we are confident in recommending approval of this restaurant. Far from causing problems within the LHN Project Area, we believe that an objective analysis of the existing and proposed conditions on this site reveals that this proposal provides an opportunity to achieve the goals and objectives of the LHN Plan - an opportunity which will be lost if the City insists, on preserving it in its current under- utilized state. Sincerely yours, y vYL John, . Shardlow, AICP Principal Planner cc: Charles Nadler Bruce Malkerson James Benshoof E • WAYNE G. POPHAM ROGER W. SCHNOBRICH DENVER KAUFMAN DAVID S. DOTY ROBERT A. MINISH ROLFE A. WORDEN G. MARC WHiTCHEAD BRUCE D. WILLIS FREDERICK S. RICHARDS G. ROBERT JOHNSON GARY R. MACOMBER ROBERT S. SURK HUGH V. PLUNKETT, M FREDERICK C. BROWN THOMAS K. BERG • POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. 4344 10S CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE AND TELCCOPICVI 612-333-4800 BRUCE 0. MALKERSON JAMES R. STEILEN JAMES B. LOCKHART ALLEN W. MIINDERAKER CLIFFORD M..GREENE D. WILLIAM KAUFMAN D£SYL L. PETERSON MICHAEL 0. FREEMAN THOMAS C.OAOUILA LARRY D. ESPEL JANIE S. MAYERON DAVID A. JONES LEE E. SHEENY LESLIE GILLETTE _ MICHAEL T. N /LAN Planning Commission City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 ROBERT C. MOILANEN STEVEN G. NEIKENS THOMAS F. NELSON THOMAS J. RADIO DAVID L. HASHMALL KATHLEEN M. MARTIN JOHN C. CHILDS DOUGLAS P. SEATON BRUCE B. MCPHEETERS GARY D. BLACKFORD SCOTT E. RICHTER GREGORY L. WILMES ELIZABETH A. THOMPSON OF COUNSEL FRED L. MORRISON July 20, 1984 r 2060 PETRO -LEWIS TOWER 717 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80202 TCLCPHONC AND TELCCOPICR 303 -292 -2660 SUITE 802 -2000 L STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20038 TELEPHONC AND TELCCOP/ER 202 - 607 -SIS4 Re; Request for PUD Amendment and Special Use Permit Arby's Restaurant - Dear Planning Commission: 1. Introduction This office represents Franchise Associates, Inc. which seeks to build an Arby's Restaurant on the K -Mart site. Representatives of the applicant appeared before you on May 22, 1984 and we will appear before you again at the continued public hearing on Tuesday, July 24, 1984. The planning and traffic consultants for the applicant have addressed the fact questions raised by members of the Planning Commission, staff and interested public. The purpose of-this letter is to apply the facts and evidence presented to the related legal issues which are normally discussed in any such application and should be discussed in this case. 2. Three Are No Restrictions in the Chain of Title to the Property Which Prevent the Construction of the Arby's Restaurant A question was asked at the Planning Commission meeting concerning the effect of the prior sale of the property by the City to the K -Mart developer. The agreement between the City's HRA and the developer required that certain minimum improvements )� -13 July 20, 1984 Page 2 be constructed on the site and once the minimum improvements were constructed, the site could be developed, redeveloped or modified as the owner deemed fit subject only to the zoning ordinances of the City. Those minimum improvements were constructed in a timely manner and the appropriate certificate of completion was executed by the City's HRA freeing the site from any contractual limitations. The site is now totally free from any restrictive covenants which affect its present or future use. 3. of the S Only to r The development of propertyy�in a City can only be legally restricted by two methods: restrictive covenants and the performance standards in the zoning code. In this case, there are no restrictive covenants limiting the use of the site. The zoning code provides that a restaurant is a special use. Therefore, only performance standards relating to a special use permit are relevant in the review process. The Comprehensive Plan or LHN plan of .the City cannot restrict the use of the site. In this case, both plans state that the site should be used for a "promotional department store." However, such a statement does not and cannot act to limit the use of the site to only one such use. Under Minnesota law, only a zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to M.S. 462.01 et. seq. can-so restrict the use ofland, a plan cannot. A recent opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota in support of this conclusion has been given to Mr. Dean, the City Attorney. The courts have uniformly held that the use.of property cannot be restricted to only one use. Even assuming that a "promotional department store" provides a limitation on use, it is customary to find restaurants included in or as part of the development of a "promotional department store." 4. There is no evidence to support a denial of the conditional use permit. The plans of the City do not constitute zoning restrictions and cannot be used as a basis for denial of the application. There has been no evidence introduced to prove that the restaurant would be adverse to'the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. The Minnesota Supreme Court has routinely held that reference to the possibility of noise, odor, additional traffic, possible diminution in value, etc, ar'e•not legal grounds for • • 04b July 20, 1984 Page 3 denial of an application. In this case, there have only been vague references by several neighbors. The expert testimony introduced by the applicant supports the finding that this application meets the standards of the zoning ordinance (and the City's plans, although not legally relevant for the reasons noted). Therefore, any denial would be arbitrary and illegal as a matter of law. 5. The applicant is willing to abide by any re conditions the City deems appropr ate. The applicant has shown why there will be no problems with the development including, but not limited to: a. b. C. d. e. f. 9- Noise Traffic odor Parking Effect on property values. Signage Building appearance The applicant is willing to abide by any reasonable conditions the City deems appropriate to include as part of the permit which the City requires of other similar uses. For example, if there ever is a problem with litter that the applicant causes and does not correct, the applicant will agree in writing now that the City can revoke the permit. The Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that when the applicant agrees to be bound by reasonable conditions of a special use permit, the City should inform the applicant under what circumstances the conditional use permit would be approved so the applicant can agree to those terms or decide not to accept the permit and not to proceed with the development. We ask that the planning commission attach whatever conditions are necessary to the permit so that it can be approved. The applicant will then know if it can afford to meet those conditions and preserve the jobs and its business in the City or be forced to lay off its employees and close its business activities in the City. 6. Conclusion Although I have discussed legal issues in this letter, I have purposely refrained from quoting specific cases and citing specific examples of related cases where the court found a denial to be illegal. July 20, 1984 Page 4 I wanted only to review the general legal principles with which I am sure you are familiar. Most importantly,. this applicant wants to be able to continue its business in the City and preserve the jobs of its employees. The applicant is willing to agree to any reasonable conditions so that it can continue. The applicant is so confident of its-plan and the quality of its operation that the applicant agrees that the City may reserve to itself all of the authority it needs to close the restaurant in the event there are problems. The the reasons stated, we would appreciate your approving the application on Tuesday night. Yery truly yours, Bruce D. Malkerson Oct Rick Jopke John Dean Councilmember Ludeman John Shardlow Charles Nadler • • • AUG 08 1984g� W Car of �-d�fie�"'-00 Howard DO19mn Associates / Incorporated 9 August, 1984 Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 RE: Summary of Revisions to the Franchise Associates Inc. Proposal, following the 24 July Planning Commission Meeting, to improve upon its current level of compatibility -with the LHN Design Guidelines. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council: During the discussion at their 24 July Meeting, the Commission asked Franchise Associates to agree to some minor modifications to the application. Charles Nadler of Franchise Associates agreed to those requested changes. The purpose of this correspondence is to formally set forth the details of these changes and to confirm Franchise Associates agreement with them. The following is a summary of the changes which have been 'incorporated and should be considered as part of this proposal. Also included is some additional discussion of those concerns which were raised, which have already been adequately addressed in the proposed design. These changes have been discussed with Rick Jopke and we believe that he shares our opinion that they will improve this proposal's compatibility with the LHN Design Guidelines. BUILDING MATERIALS Two questions were raised regarding the appearance and construction of the proposed building. The first question related to the fact that the plans called for white painted split -faced block, while the LHN Design Guidelines encourage the use of earth tone colors. The second question related to the metal roof which was proposed. After reviewing the original building plans, the staff pointed out that the proposed metal roof was not consistent with the LHN Design Guidelines. In response to the first question, Franchise Associates have agreed to utilize a beige painted split -faced block. In response to the second question they have agreed to incorporate a wooden roof. Through consultation with the City Building Department, a roofing detail was identified which would include 3/8 inch exterior grade fir plywood, and one Honorable Mayor, City Council City of Richfield aces Page 2 0 inch by two inch fir, tapered to resemble high batten, which would be painted bronze. We have amended the drawings to reflect these changes, as per the Planning Commission's request. nu aMING SETBACK, 65th STREET As you will note, the subject proposal includes a 12.5 foot setback from 65th street. After discussing the question of adequacy of sight distance at the intersection, the Planning Commission specifically recommended approval of this setback. In addition to our,review of sight distance conditions during the design process, this matter was also reviewed by Benshoof and Associates. In their review Benshoof and Associates agreed that sight distance would not be a problem. Since the Planning Commission meeting, we have discussed this question with Rick Jopke. From this discussion it is clear that Rick has also reviewed the question of adequate sight distance and has concluded that it will not be a problem. 1:11:4 "'a A question was also raised about the adequacy and feasibility of the proposed shared parking plan. Based upon in depth analysis by Franchise: Associates, Benshoof and Associates and this firm, we are convinced that these • will be no parking problem. The Planning Commission requested and Franchise Associates have agreed, that a condition of the conditional use permit shall be that, in the event that the proposed parking lot is found to be inadequate in the future, the City can revoke the permit. SCBSEHING OF HEADLIGHTS Another concern which has been raised is about the possibility of headlight glare from cars driving into and through the drive - through lane, causing a problem for either the apartments across the street or cars in the inter- section. The proposed landscape plan has been developed to solve that potential problem. As you will note on the landscape plan, we have proposed the use of vertical timbers to block headlight glare. We have also taken this potential problem into account in the landscape plan and we know that the use of berms and landscape materials, as-proposed, will screen this headlight glare. We have discussed the proposed design solution with Rick Jopke and in that discussion he expressed agreement with the approach. As we stated in that meeting, Franchise Associates is willing to make any reasonable design modifications along this edge of the development, to improve the relationship with the adjacent street and neighboring properties. • • Honorable Mayor, City Council City of Richfield PYLON SIGN LOCATION p,qo Page 3 After discussing this matter with Rick Jopke, we have clarified the requirement for sign location and have identified two locations within the yard area along Lyndale Avenue, both of which we believe would work better for Franchise Associates and result in a better aesthetic relationship with the building. On behalf of Franchise Associates, we agree to locate the sign at either location which the Council deems appropriate. We have submitted an exhibit illustrating the two locations to facilitate your .review. CONCLUSION We have modified the plans to comply in all respects with the changes requested by the Planning Commission, and we hereby agree to be bound by them. We will be in attendance at the-l3 August meeting to explain our plan for this development and answer any questions which you may have about it. If you have any questions between now and the meeting, please don't hesitate to give me a.call. Sincerely Yours, John Shardlow, AICP Pr' .pal Planner CC: Clayton LeFevre Rick Jopke Charles Nadler George Nadler Bruce Malkerson 0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED ARBY'S RESTAURANT RICHFIELD, MN PREPARED FOR FRANCHISE ASSOCIATES, INC. PREPARED BY BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 119 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 JUNE 1984 • • 'CONTENTS Page SUMMARY-------------------------------------- - - - - -- 1 Purpose and Background --- 1 Conclusions--------------------------------- - - - - -- PARKING AND TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ARBY'S RESTAURANTS ----------------------------------- - - - - -- 4 ADEQUACY OF PARKING ---------- ---------------- 6 ON SITE CIRCULATION --------------------------- - - - - -- 11 EFFECTS ON OFF SITE TRAFFIC FLOW -------------- 12 TripGeneration ----------------------------- - - - - -- 12 TripDistribution --------------------------- - - - - -- 12 Trip Assignment ----------------------=------ - - - - -- --- M ----- 14 Capacity Analysis -- m ----------- 14 IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES ------ ------------- 19 CONSISTENCY WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ------------- 20 CONCLUSIONS --------------=-------------------- - - - - -- 21 APPENDIX -------------- ----------- 22 a�0 -{`3 SUMMARY PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND In response to concerns raised at the Planning Commission hearing concerning.the Arby's application, Franchise Associates Inc. has retained the firm of Benshoof and Associates to complete a comprehensive study on the parking and traffic implications of the proposal. The qualifications of the firm, as well as the two key professionals involved in the report preparation, are contained in the appendix to this document. The purpose of this report is.. tnr` analyze potential traffic and parking effects of the proposed Arby's restaurant located at 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue in the City of Richfield. The restaurant would contain approximately 2,900 square feet including a drive -up window and would be located in the northwestern corner of the existing parking lot serving a K -Mart store as shown on the site plan on Figure 1. Access to the roadway system will remain the same. The reports addresses 'the following five concerns raised by the City staff and neighbors:. • Adequacy of parking available for both the Arby's restaurant and the K -Mart store. • Effectiveness of on site traffic circulation. • Effects on off site traffic circulation and roadway capa- city. s Traffic impacts on adjacent properties. r Consistency of the proposal with the transportation goals and objectives of the City's redevelopment plan. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the findings of this professional analysis, Benshoof and Associates made the following conclusions: • Sufficient on site parking will be available for the K -Mart and Arby's facilities. • On site traffic circulati -en will function effectively. 1 • • • * Adequate stacking distance is available on the Arby's site for the drive-up facility. • Traffic volumes generated by Arby's represent a small percentage of total existing roadway volumes. * Sufficient capacity is available at the intersection of 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue to accommodate projected traffic within acceptable levels of service. • The proposal has no significant parking or traffic impacts on adjacent properties. • The proposal is consistent with the transportation/ parking goals and objectives*of the redevelopment plan. r y i' i .s� MLIL . I U z C/) I:: N cC a LLI a. -• #I O zj _ 19 ate. L -� 3 �^ V a]7 ' • • o a -9,6 PARKING AND TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ARBY'S RESTAURANTS An important step in the analysis is to quantify the traffic and parking characteristics of Arby's facilities. As such, Benshoof and Associates conducted field surveys of two existing Arby's which are virtually identical to that pro - posed (2,900 square feet with a drive -up window). The restaurants located in Coon Rapids and Columbia Heights (the latter similarly located in a shared parking facility with K -Mart) were surveyed on May 31, 1984 from the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. by fifteen minute periods. Data-collected included number of trips into and out of each facility, number ..of cars utilizing the drive- up window, number of cars parked=; and number of cars stacked at the drive -up. Table 1 presents the results of .these surveys. As could be expected, the two stores exhibit similar characteristics for all data collected. The data indicates the following: • The busiest time of day is the noon hour (11:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m.), followed by the dinner period. • The number.of parking spaces used is-generally in the .teens or low twenties, with a maximum of 41 spaces occupied during one fifteen minute period. • The number of vehicles queued in the drive -thru lane usually was three or less, with a maximum observed queue of seven vehicles in one out of the 24 time periods sur- veyed. 4 ■ 1 _. ,A0 -97 N H Ili I= N ! c, J!o.0 C ' ♦ 1172 — o •- M— .• o o —— o o— W �o M •- N N o— N n id =L q IL t v c Z • 4 ■ 1 _. ,A0 -97 L_I= ! c, J!o.0 1172 — o •- M— .• o o —— o o— o �o M •- N N o— o n id =L q IL O q C O e L r • p� M N �O N O N �p N N �O aD N — N O N N N r M .� M ♦ � O n �. N r N � n N O N O J 10 O n on 0 M m 0% O 40 r m O If% N M1 ^ .. O, ^ N M .. �O f0 iD ♦ .. •n. ♦ h N — N ♦ .» .. n .. fA n .. N �O C 7 OQ id = • f f� q 9 O , ^ N N N — a° am- 0 3 O.. r n If1 «► ^ .» N O N O N N n n eD r- 40 0 1-0 Iq _ } Y1 �p �O f0 ♦ ^ r K r — — ♦ ♦ N N 1+ Q1 n H • r N N f+ {�, 10 O 1� C ^ n n H n O ^ n fn Of r O 0 .• !+ n = n O In • � pd • • • • • • ^ • • • • • • an IV O O 1 1 1 A ! I t 1 ♦ �► M1 fit 1!1 in tL O ft1 O N O � O •M1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 t 1 f ! t 1 t O — M r O — M ♦ O h O r O O n O N O in ICY }• �• ^ •� ••• r r r ♦ r to h in 'a 10 v 'a IZ (► P. L_I= ,?o -9P ADEQUACY OF PARKING Three hundred sixty five (365) parking spaces are currently available in the K -Mart parking lot. The construction of Arby's will reduce the number of spaces to 313. In order to assess the adequacy of parking available, it is necessary to determine parking usage during both average times of the year as well as the peak shopping period (i.e., the week before Christmas, which is the peak shopping week of the year). Table 2 indicates the results of parking surveys conducted by both Franchise Associates and Benshoof and Associates at the existing Richfield K -Mart store during the last week of May and first week of June, 1984. A- s''can be noted, spaces occupied ranged from 67 to 142,'with a noon hour average-of 114 spaces and evening average of 92 spaces. Table 3 presents the combined parking.demand for K -Mart and Arby's for normal business periods. The average weekday parking at K -Mart (from Table 2) is added to average Arby's parking (from Table 1) to estimate the total combined parking demand. At no time, does demand exceed 50% of• capacity. _ Discussions with representatives of K -Mart indicate that the time period surveyed (end of May, beginning of June) is the third busiest time of the year. As such, these figures reflect above average parking usage. Therefore, Benshoof and Associates concludes that during periods of normal business conditions, less than 50% of available on.site-parking will be used. The second parking concern involves usage during the peak shopping week (the week before Christmas). Two methods were utilized to calculate this-peak demand, The first involves adjusting the parking counts observed during the end of May upwards by the percentage difference in sales volume between the week at the end of May and the week before Christmas. . The second method involves estimating parking space usage by studying the slides taken of the K -Mart parking lot during - the week before Christmas 1983 (the photographs were taken by staff of Howard Dahigren Associates and have been discussed in their report). Regarding the first method, K -Mart representatives indicate that sales volume during the week before Christmas 1983 was 75 percent higher than the period for which parking counts were taken in May, 1984. Assuming a direct relationship between number of vehicles and sales (a worst case �0 -99 assumption), parking demand during the holiday period would be 75% greater than the end of May. Table 4 presents the calculations performed to determine peak parking usage. The highest number of parked vehicles observed during the survey of K -Mart usage was utilized in order to reflect minor . variations in demand. This number was then increased by 75% to account for increased Christ ma.s usage yielding the expected peak parking for K -Mart. Utilizing the,information obtained from the surveys of the two Arby's restaurants, the highest number of spaces used at either facility (a worst' case assumption) was added to the adjusted K -Mart figures to yield peak parking usage for both stores. This technique indicates that during the time period of peak parking demand, approximately 88% of the "new" parking lot capacity would be used (277 spaces used versus 313 available). These calcula- tions indicate that, utilizing worst case assumptions-, no more than 88% of the available parking for both uses will be used during the week of highest..demand (Christmas sea'son). -The second method used to calculate peak parking demand was to compare the extent to which the parking lot was used during the week before Christmas to the extent of coverage observed at the end of May. Benshoof and Associates care- fully examined the slides of the K -Mart parking lot taken by Howard Dahlgren Associates on December 20, 22, and 24, 1983. This examination reveals that the number of cars parked on s'f'�e�ran.ged from. approximately 150 to_ 225 cars. These parking usage figures are well below thi' 313 spaces -tliat would be provided after completion of the Arby's Restaurant. Furthermore, these observed parking counts are lower than the values arrived at by the calculations utilizing the worst case assumptions. The highest count observed is approxi- mately 50 cars (18%) less than the calculated demand. Based upon these two methods of determining peak parking demand, 8enshoof and Associates concludes that adequate on site parking will be available for both K -Mart and Arby's throughout the year, including the busiest week of the year. 7 • • TABLE 2 NUMBER OF SPACES OCCUPIED AT K-MART RICHFIELD1 (365 SPACES CURRENTLY AVAILABLE) DATES Time Period May 24 Ma_k 25 May 26 May 271 May 312 June I June 2 June 3 11:30 a.m. - - - - 110 - - - 12 :00 Noon 108 128 132 129 115 132 136 110 12:30 p.m. 142 101 122 117 ill 128 132 104 1:00 P.M. 120 123 119 110 109 121 138 92 1:30 p.m. 123 116 121 108 - 129 116 89, 5:30 p.m. 79 88 103 - - 100 87 - 6:00 p.m. 79 99 99 67 108 90 6:30 p.m. 86 110 110 72 104 90 7:00 p.m. 80 75 133 74 88 7:30 p.m. 89 lCounts taken by Franchise Associates Inc. except where noted. Number of available' spaces recorded; number of spaces occupied calculated from this data. 2Counts taken by Benshoof and Associates. 8 _._ -L TABLE 3 COMBINED PARKING DEMAND FOR K-MART AND ARBY'S DURING NORMAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS Time'Period K-Mart • Weekday Average From Table 2 Arby's - Weekday Average From Table 1 Average Parking For Both Uses Percent of Lot Capacity 313 Soaces Available 12:00 Noon 121 26 147 47% 12:30 p.m. 121 24 145 46% 1:00 P.M. 118 21 139 44% 6:00 p.m. 88 24 112 36% 6 :30 p.m. 93 311 124 40% 7 :00 p.m. 79 26 105 34% J 9 0. • en gQ F _N GC S U w CC O U- W CO Y W 3 ui C9 Z O � H ac LU co m Q ham- O F� Q Y CL' O _.. Z Z :Z Z_ C O LiJ Z_ CG .. V • 10 Z O Ju eu Y � 1 r A 4J a O A 3�E 3E 3'L i aE � M 3t + d co co CLOD L + OJ V N C A E a� 'v Lau • C A a t,LO V �- A y N N L 41 1 C N y C N E H O Ly • � _ V C � N r L ♦.f N r. d 41 u r to A y A A L C h M / it O E N N N G C p— e=j Y 41 N N N N O Y- 41 > � A O cr d C 04- E w co C C A 1L. L - cq X C L L O eL d d X A O O PA S7 O >_ u,.O N O a u A r to ii y +► a d ,.- y N O N w E t� +a cm :10 fa > O X Q d E IA r eIJ •� � Z W cm L J L .0 ep b Z h V a. .0 CO 1 � !•> N !� � e�� N R ¢.li Z L O U. Os r O y to L V E 0A. L6 y mr .++ 41 L eM M%r co ego ai M N N N N A V E r L mY`O Z L O eU , C L r ON in L0 Q! A C) — O- O- 0 E L 1— ".4 -4 . 4 .N.4 V-4 to � ZF AYE L O U. 'O O C • ei c c a a a a a a O M' CD E O M O ee O 10 Z O Ju eu Y A 4J a e11 i er C L C A E a� 'v • • C a O �- A y L 41 1 C N y H O Ly • � _ V C � N r d d 41 u r to A y C ; V 4 E A G C p— Y 41 r O Y- 41 > � A d C 04- C A 1L. L - cq O eL d d X PA S7 O r N O a u A r to ii y +► a d ,.- y N O E t� +a fa > O X Q d E IA O � Z W cm L J •E b Z h V o?d -1a3 ON SITE CIRCULATION The Arby's restaurant is proposed to be located at the north- west corner of the existing parking lot as shown on figure 1. Access to the facility occurs via the two way driving lanes along the western and northern portion of the parking lot. No changes to the existing access points to Lyndale Avenue or 65th Street are proposed, nor are any changes in internal circulation patterns proposed. This design will allow viable access to and from the Arby's site, as well as avoid inter- ference with vehicular or pedestrian traffic to K -Mart. The issue of an additional access. point to 65th Street was raised during the public hearing'. Benshoof and Associates would not recommend an additional curb cut for two principal reasons: lyIt is unnecessary as the existing access points have sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic to and from the site in.'a safe, effective manner. 2) Another access point would create additional points of . conflict with traffic on the roadways, increasing poten- tial for both accidents and congestion. It should also be noted that the drive through facility has sufficient length to stack 11 vehicles. As indicated by the surveys of Arby's facilities, the maximum number of vehicles observed in the drive -up lanes was seven. As such, it can be concluded that sufficient stacking distance is available for the drive -up facility.to avoid waiting cars backed up into and thus interfering with gravel in the main drive aisles. • 11 • EFFECTS ON OFF SITE TRAFFIC FLOW TRIP GENERATION The first step-in analyzing the effects of the proposal on the roadway system is to determine the number of trips which will be added by Arby's. The data on traffic in and out of the two Arby's restaurants surveyed, were averaged to obtain projections on Arby's trips occurring during the noon (11:45 a.m. - 12:45 p.m.), p.m. ('4:45 p.m. - 5:45 p.m.) peak hours, dinner peak (6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.), and off peak hours. The p.m. peak hour represents the time. when traffic volumes on adjacent roadways are the highest and thus additional traffic of the most concern. The expecte"d trip generation by Arby's is: Trips In Trips Out Noon Peak Hour 81 70 P.M. Peak Hour 50 38, ,Dinner Peak Hour 57 57- Average Off Peak Hour 21 21 These volumes include a trip reduction factor of 5% to account for multi-purpose trips between Arby's and K-Mart (persons who visit both facilities during the same trip). TRIP DISTRIBUTION The next step of the analysis is to determine the directional distribution of trips to and from Arby's. It is expected that Arby's traffic will enter and exit the site in a pattern similar to that of existing K-Mart customers. Therefore, to determine existing patterns, traffic counts were made at the K-Mart facility on May 31, 1984. Figure 2 shows existing and anticipated distribution by percentage of vehicles exiting and entering. This figure shows that the predominant orien- tation of trips is to the south and east. The distribution of vehicles at the two adjacent intersections (65th Street and Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue) was assumed to. be identical to the percentage of vehicles currently making each movement (left turn, through, and right turn). 12 13 C? ar N W F+ C.) O N N W N �r S c,a a Z O .r H p rr F- N p d �.r OC W N H p N N W W VO C W C1C 7 LL. CD =I.%. .r C O Li d 1- f- 4 C O F� W N ►.r W U- a:z V N �r CO C Q W to � Q U. 8-1 U) Z W m F� • I• 4::7 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT The final step in the traffic forecast is to' assign the pro- jected number of trips to the access points and roadways based upon the expected distribution. Figure 3 presents the projected volumes entering and exiting the site for the noon ^pet, hour and p.m. peak hour. , CAPACITY ANALYSIS The final step in analyzing off site traffic impacts is to determine the effect of the Arby's traffic . assignment on roadway capacity. Figure 4 and 5 present projected traffic volumes at the intersections of 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue respectively. The total volumes include three components: existing traffic, traffic from the proposed MarketPlaza development, and traffic generated by Arby's. Volumes for existing traffic at 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue were obtained from a field survey conducted by Benshoof and Associates on May 30, 1984. Volumes for existing traffic at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue were calculated from counts taken by Hennepin County in 1982, adjusted upwards by a factor of 7% to account for actual increase since 1982. This 7% factor was obtained by comparing 1982 daily counts with 1984 daily counts tabulated by the City of Richfield. Other development traffic consists of projected volumes for the Market Plaza development west of Lyndale prepared by Westwood Planning & Engineering Co. The volumes for Arby's were obtained via the methodology noted above and include a trip reduction factor of 25% to account for intercepted trips. Intercepted trips are those vehicles already on the roadway system which would stop at Arby's and thus are not new trips generated by the facility. The reduc- tion percentage for intercepted trips is corroborated by experience at similar quick service restaurants where surveys indicated 55 to 70 percent -of the patrons were already on the roadway system.- Additional information available from the Institute of Transportation Engineers indicates that for regional shopping centers 25 percent of the trips during the p.m. peak hour were intercepted. It is anticipated that Arby's would intercept at least a comparable figure. As can be noted, at both intersections traffic generated by Arby's represents a small proportion of total volumes through. the intersection. During the noon hour Arby's increases approach volumes at the 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue by 2.2% and at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue by 1.3 %. During the p.m. peak, traffic increase attributable to Arby's is 1% and 6 %, respectively, for the two intersections. By com- parison, proposed Market Plaza development will increase p.m. peak hour volumes by 8.7% at 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue and by 9.2% at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. 14 . Y Y U a Z ..r W C • U C 0. co C x OZ C x,• tt Zt ZZ{ x x 4 W E ..� t N _ 1 r••`� i � N \ l .. 9 .' •fi• • 15 w 0 y y 4 w N S v z er ti Z 4 LL 8. s s W CG • O z 0 x Q e•'f p F— W N S y LL �. CM a.► C9 LL }� Q F• z a �a 4 J F— W • y rr W ti QC S m C 4 ' N z LA (n Uj GIC �r w 0 y y 4 w N S v z er ti Z 4 LL 8. s s W CG NOON PEAK HOUR (11 :45 - 12:45) P rra N O �+ X to \ \O R t < xzx en N O r 65th Street J 1 ";- 94/NA/8/102 0-- 110 /NA /10/120 123/NA/0/123 —�-� X - 55/NA14159 68/NA/6/74 44 /NA /0/44 --� ) t rr. n �o Q C \.0 40 112 z r � J PM. 'PEAK HOUR (4:45 - 5:45) mr.e, eo\ N r 0 - -. W, a+ot -. Y 65th Street R- 116/0/5/121 f-- 153/11/6/180 I32/51/0/183 --"' or- 62/0/2/64 121/6/4/131 ----► ,. 31/2410/55 t r �� CO N rl f m 10 a+ ID ID J LEGEND: N x /x /x /x = Existing /Market Plaza /Arby's. /Total Not to Scale NA = Not Available FRANCHISE ASSOCIATES INC. FIGURE 4 ARBY'S RESTAURANT PEAK HOUR VOLUMES RICHFIELD 65TH AND LYNDALE NS HOOF AND ASSOCIATES ihANgPQIl1ATIpN F�,AMMgQ AM EwOn+EEhWO CONSUI�AWS ao ion PM. PEAKA HOUR (4:45 - 5:45) ono PY�CN OA►r _ = 19 \ "t OOO� 66th Street -77 /NA /3/80 40--- 456/NA/0/456 134/NA/8/142 Or-- 74/NA/0/74 387/NA/0/387 --�•► af"V .Oi d" 4 t \_ = .NOON PEAK HOUR (11:45 - 12:45) O N Ch CQa O W, %D ' 66th Street --- 535/70/0/605. 246/0/5/151—.,f /0101/0/0/101 625/0/0/625--o- 20810/0/108 - o\ d LEGEND: N x /x /x /x - Existing /Market Plaza /Arby's. /Total Not to Scale NA - Not Available FRANCHISE ASSOCIATES INC. ARBY'S RESTAURANT - RICHFIELD BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES FhgKs►QNTATIQN RANMRq ANO EMOMEEA�MO CpMSUITANfs + 1 - 17 FIGURE 5 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 66TH AND LYNDALE �o -//0 0 Volume to capacity analyses were performed for each intersec- tion tion during both peak hour to assess the ability of the intersections to accommodate the total projected volumes -. This analysis yields a measurement of the :level of service provided at the intersection. Levels of service range from A, essentially a free flow condition with no congestion, to F, a condition of severe congestion. The normal design stan- dard is level of service D. The volume to capacity analysis indicate that the intersection of 65th Street and Lyndaie Avenue will accommodate the total o projected traffic at level of service A during both the noon and p.m. peak horus, while the intersection of 66th and Lyndale operates at levels of service A and C during the noon and p.m. peak hours. The addition of Arby's traffic does not change any of the levels of service. These levels of service are well within accep- table design standards for urban intersections. The conclusion from this analysi -5 is that the proposed Arby's restaurant will have no significant effects on off site traf- fic flow. 40. - • 18 A 0 _/// .. IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES The impact of tr.affic to and from Arby's on adjacent proper- ties can be determined through consideration of effects on parking, potential congestion, and increase in traffic. As the analysis- has i- ndicated sufficient on site parking is available for both'K -Mart and Arby's; it is anticipated that no parking for these uses will occur on adjacent properties and thus not affect the parking available for these sites. Since the analysis indicates that-the proposal will not impact roadway levels.of service nor create on street • congestion, access to and from adjacent sites will not be affected. Finally, as noted, Arby's traffic increases traffic only slightly. This is'particulariy germane to 65th Street east of Lyndale Avenue where adjacent properties are located closest to the site. Arby's traffic increases .� volumes between Lyndale Avenue and the site entrance 7.5% - during the noon peak (38 trips added to a volume of 507) and 3.3% during the p.m.- peak (23 trips addded to 691). These volume and percentage increases are slight and will not _ affect traffic conditions on 65th Street nor accessibility _. ,_.to %from adjacent. p.roperties.._ 19 20 CONSISTENCY WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN A review-of the goals and objectives of the transportation/ parking section of the redevelopment plan indicates that the Arby's proposal is consistent with these statements. The proposal is specifically consistent with the following goals and objectives of the overall plan: J p 0 "Create a safe, congestion free transportation system ". • "Increase the intensity of use within the Tyndale /Hub/ Ni collet Area % • "Provide for bicycle parking-In key locations ". • "Reduce number of curb cuts where possible ". • "Encourage the sharing of parking facilities ". 20 ao i�3 CONCLUSIONS Based upon this professional analysis, Benshoof and Associates concludes the following concerning the Arby`s Restaurant proposal: 9 Sufficient on site parking will be available for both the K•Mart and Arby's facilities. During periods of normal business operations less than 50% of the available parking is expected to be used, while during the peak week of the year (the week before Christmas) less than 90% of the available parking will be utilized. • On site traffic circulation will function effectively. • Sufficient stacking distance for the drive -up facility is provided on the Arby's site, such that during periods of peak usage no interference with on site circulation will occur. 9. Traffic volumes generated by Arby's represent a small percentage of total existing roadway volumes. • Sufficient capacity is available at the intersection of 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue to accommodate projected traffic within acceptable levels of service. During the p.m. peak hour, the operation at 65th and Lyndale Avenue wiil.continue to remain at level of service A, while the intersection of 66th and Lyndale Avenue remains at level of service C. • As the analysis shows no parking or traffic problems, the proposal will have no significant impacts on adjacent properties.. e The proposal is consistent with the transportation/ parking goals and objectives of the City's redevelopment - plan.- 21 __0_ 0 • • APPENDIX BACKGROUND OF BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES Benshoof and Associates was founded in 1982 . to .provide spe- cialized services in traffic engineering and transportation planning, building on Mr. Benshoof's 14 years of experience in this type of work. At Benshoof and Associates and in prior positions, Mr. Benshoof has developed traffic plans for more than 100 development projects ranging up to a 10 million square foot mixed use development. The firm recently has been appointed as consultant traffic engineers for the City of Minnetonka for 1984. Recent projects include traffic and parking studies for the Met Center and.for Rochester Methodist Hospital. SELECTED CLIENTS Public Organizations Carver County City of Coon Rapids City of Corcoran City of Detroit Lakes City of Hanover City of Hastings City of Hopkins City of Minneapolis City of Minnetonka City of Monticello City of North Oaks Private Organizations Barton Sand and Gravel Company =� Brauer & Associates Ltd. Browning Ferris Industries Burger King Corporation Erickson's Diversified Corp. Federal Land Corporation Franklin National Bank Halley Land Corporation Kloster - Madsen, Inc. .Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson Architects Mayo'Clinic Nash Finch Corporation Northstar Financial Corporation Norwest Properties, Inc. Planmark Project Developers, Inc. Rochester Methodist Hospital Trammell Crow Company Welsh Construction Corporation Woodbridge Properties, Inc. 22 11 A I v BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119 / EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 5$344 / (612) 944.7590 JAMES A. BENSHOOF, P.E. President Education: University of Minnesota, B.S., Civil Engineering., 1966 Northwestern University, M.S., Transportation Engineering, 1968 University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, England, M.S., Traffic Engineering, 1969 Experience: ,r 1982 to Date - President of Benshoof and Associates with overall responsibility fo-r services provided by the firm. Recent projects include: redesign-of Met Center parking lot, development of an access plan for T.H. 55 in the City of Hastings, development of a plan for upgrading Cedar Lake Road, development of a concept plan for a downtown parking Tot, safety analyses for several traffic accidents, and traffic analyses for numerous proposed developments.. 1981 to 1982 . - Principal with Strgar - Roscoe, Inc., Minneapo is. Responsible for all traffic engineering, transportation planning, and transit planning projects per - formed by the firm. Projects included: traffic impact w studies for proposed Carlson Center development and for 167 -acre office /industrial dev.eiopment.and transportation planning for the Mayo Clinic in Rochester. 1980 to 1981 - Vice - President with Westwood Planning & Engineering company, Minneapolis. Responsible for all transportation services provided.by the firm. Specific projects includ -ed: MTC Bus Studies Project, traffic plan - ning for redevelopment of Met Stadium site and for Carlson Center site, and I -94 /Boone Avenue interchange study. 1971 to 1980 - Project Manager and Associate with BRW, Inc., Minneapolis. Responsible for a variety of transportation, traffic and transit projects. 1969 to 1971 - Traffic Enyinro- with Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., Buffalo, New York. Participated in various transportation planning and traffic engineering projects. Affiliations: Registrations: Institute of Transportation Engineer's Minnesota (P.E.) t BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119 / EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 553441 (612) 944.7590 MICHAEL L. WONSON Education: - Dartmouth College, A.B., Urban Geography, 1970 University of North Carolina, M.A., Urban Geography, 1972 Experience: 1984 to Date - Benshoof and Associates r Responsibilities include techiical support, analysis, and report preparation for a variety of the firm's traffic pro- ... jects, as well as assistance on planning issues. -_ 1983 to 1984 - City Planner, City of Maple,Grove, Minnesota Lead responsibility for all planning functions including development review, comprehensive planning, and administra- tion.. Major projects included site redesign, traffic analyses, and report preparation for: a 200,000 sq. ft. r shopping complex, right -of -way acquisition for a future freeway, drive -in bank facilities, 400 unit residential developments, and environmental reviews. 1977 to 1982 - Senior Planner, City of Minnetonka, Minnesota r Responsible for revision --of City subdivision and zoning codes, admini - stration of planning review process, and major development projects. Among the major projects were: site redesign and traffic analyses for the Carlson Center, including interchange construction and tax increment financing; preparation of a traffic study for a 50 acre multi -use development; revisions to the Opus 2 master plan; analyses of an 80 acre office /industrial park including freeway access consideration; and review of multiple high density residential projects. 1975 - Planner, City of Topeka, Kansas Responsibilities included: preparation of a bicycle systems plan, computer assisted housing analyses, updating the City's comprehensive transportation plan, and develop - ment of a reuse plan for an obsolete airfield and asso- ciated military housing., OF CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Columbia Heights, MN 55421 - .."" C612`788 = <9221..��.,«Ty ..� .__. „SERVJGAL1S89UR98WS1NESS" Mr, Charles Nadler 5401 Gamble Drive Suite 204 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Dear Mr. Nadler: As per our recent phone conversation, I am hereby submitting my comments and thoughts regarding the Arby's Restaurant located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 47,ih Avenue in Columbia Heights. Originally, this location was a parking area associated with the K -Mart Shopping Center also situated at this site. At the time, the lot was seldom used in conjunction with the retail operation. When Arby's applied for a replatting and conditional use permit, the Council was, at first, not receptive to the proposal. However, the company did comply with the City's replatting requirements and conditional use permit requirements. From the original request to this present date, the City of Columbia Heights has had no difficulty or lack of cooperation with or by the Arby's Restaurant operators. In fact, the City would consider the Arby's Restaurant as a good neighbor and an excel -lent representative of our commercial establishments.. The site has been well landscaped, and maintained. Most importantly, the company is extremely conscientious regarding site appearance. To my, knowledge, various City departments have never received complaints involving this .operation. In fact, from my personal visits, I would also offer .a comment regarding the apparent concern for.tidyness, in particular the elimination of garbage and rubbish which may frequently be associated with fast food restaurant operations. I personally have been very pleased with the appearance of the facility and the cooperation of the restaurant operators. ' I trust you will find my comments to be consistent with our earlier conversation. If you are in need of additional information or comments, please feel free to contact me. S'nc ely, 1 ti Robert S. Bocwinski City Manager k - RSB /bj 84/116 Bruce G. Nawrocki, Mayor Rita M. Petkoff, Councilmember Arden J. Hovland, Councilmember Edward M. Carlson, Councilmember Gary L Peterson, Councilmember EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • 1010 FIRST STREET SOUTH - HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 - 8121935 -8474 May 25, 1984 Mr. Charles Nadler Suite 204 5401 Gamble Drive Minneapolis, MN 55416 Dear Mr. Nadler, This is to confirm our Arbys restaurant location'on telephone conversation regarding your Blake Road in Hopkins. This office has received no complaints Road regarding your restaurant, from the apartment complex across Blake nor has your establishment proved to be a "hang -out" for trouble had makers. The Arbys restaurant has a good reputation with us, and seems to be well - run. Yours very truly, William P. Craig City Manager WPCtjlp: J TOTAL SPACES AVAILABLE = 361 �q- K -MART PARKING LOT OCCUPIED SPACES Friday Saturday y Sunday ME November 8, .1985 November 9, 1985 November 10, 1985 11:30 am 147 134 73 12:00 noon 133 148 100 12:30 pm 146 152 94 1:00 pm 139 137 99 1:30 pm 149 154 90 2:00 pm - -- 171 __ 2:30 pm - -- 161 -- 3:00 pm - -- 144 -- 5 :30 pm 70 77 6:00 pm 72 68 6:30 pm 82 60- -- 7:00 pm 75 7:30 pm 74 49 TOTAL SPACES AVAILABLE = 361 �q- K -Mart Parking Lot Utilization of 77 Parking Spaces to be taken by Arby's Development Which WiTT Have 30 Parking Spaces. Friday Saturday Sunday TIME November 8, 1985 November 9, 1985 November 10, 1985 11:30 am 8 2 0 12 :00 noon 8 6 0 12:30 pm 9 7 0 1:00 pm 10 5 1 1:30 pm 9 g 2 2:00 pm -- 14 -- 2:30 pm -- 10 -- 3:00 pm -- 7 5:30 pm 3 2 6:00 pm 3 5 . 6:30 pm . 2 3 r 7:00 pry 2 7:30 pm 0 1 -- i r� • /1 / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager y Council' Letter No. 486 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and .Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Special Use Permit at 6509 Nicollet Avenue South. Council Members: Richfield Shoppes Developers have requested that the city council grant a special use permit to allow a restaurant in the Richfield Shoppes North Center, Nicollet Avenue South. The restaurant will replace the Old Cotton Shoppe. The site has an area of 2,100 square feet. There would not be any structural change to the building. However, the interior will be remodeled for kitchen, dining and other amenities required for a restaurant. The restaurant will be primarily take out, but will have 28 seats for sit -down dining. The restaurant will be open 11 AM to 11 PM Sunday thru Thursday and 11 AM to midnight on Friday and Saturday. The site is within the LHN Redevelopment Plan and is zoned C- 2 General Commercial. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2 indicates that restaurants are only permitted in a C -2 zoning district if a special use permit is obtained. 2. Section 3.33, subdivision 4, of the'zoning ordinance lists regulations relating to restaurants. 3. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, list the conditions governing the issuance of a special use permit. STAFF REVIEW Staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following: 1. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. There are no structural changes proposed other than interior remodeling and new signage. Therefore, the restaurant would not impact the L /H /N Redevelopment Plan. i3. Offstreet parking guidelines adopted by the city indicate a need for 3014 parking spaces at Richfield Shoppes North. A total of 211 parking spaces are actually provided which is 93 parking spaces less than required on the site. • Retail use of the same space (2,100 square feet) requires 11 parking spaces while the proposed restaurant use would require 10 spaces. One additional space would be available due to the new use. It is staff's opinion that the new use would not create any parking problems on the site. 4. The proposal meets the standards established for a restaurant. 5. The granting of the application will not adversely affect persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental to the public welfare. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends granting of the special use permit for a restaurant at 6509 Nicollet Avenue South. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the special use permit for a restaurant at 6509 Nicollet Avenue South. JGC /eja R pectfu y s fitted, ohn G. artw ' ht City Manager. �J • a,c�oamc�0 ©c�t�G►e+b�+Cv FXNTBIT "A ►' /� Cail, a I ,r TITIV .j t i i s tl i i i 1 } ' . � • � • •• rJ° � irk =• ,rl . .^ �?• � lief Uj • o y .� •• ` 3 I I, . . - rj-, f � I � >• � iYi I �O W W. Ix cc LU ul i� .1 S6Y9 iiamis'Hi99 '• Q ., LLI :.� ' 1 '.. .;• . ..• . ,�,•_t, o •. to ; . 11 A a. Jq „r L 4 i • 3 � •....� ••r• •�.,� �' of y / �� 0 ~ I • s 6:4 r i r ,i - •� •• �J l�f'0•'�li• f +•. �;: 1`�,'_'','��T��•� I ` =n VI� 0 le ui UP as •w _ a •tier ' :+i'i3:x:3•: 'Y' ' '::2.:' I �1 1� , Ir0 ay � W F 1 Y 1 Y t Wb s i 1 „n 02 . 1' i i ; Cl) W � b p & w o I . r 1 I I • 1 •YY 1 r' I I _ -J lsw .V" ma v 2 L_- i 1 1 a r f. Rl`us r' n-=:i_a I lxtif lit all, I l�.i =sis i�r I ssF� -:TS� e•�s ass "s l Z t u �si+i 13:�i I �i3��3 ii pl�s= I +. its ;tr�_I ss = =j IialI<i:�i� srtr; 1 3F .s }Ii F -i�4 1 sSF��c.rsi� s.sipp� .'-SONGS WINGS Art Song has developed a very unique and complex recipe for preparing chicken wings and other food'. He has sold these wings in various locations throughout the Twin Cities for over 35 years. Currently, a take -out restaurant at 38th & Nicollet in _ Minneapolis, which Mr. Song does not own, features his product(s) or spices and has been at that location since about 1980. A company, K- Pars, Inc., was formed to develop a concept featuring Art Songs chicken wings and other great food.' The principals in this company have a composite food ser- vice background in excess of 100 years and have no relation- ship with the 38th & Nicollet operation. If K -Pars, Inc., receives approval from the Planning Commis- sion and the City Council, we anticipate an opening some- time before January 15, 1986 and will operate under the name "Songs Wings" or "A.S. Wi3ngzingers % • SONGS, MENU Chicken Clings (by Art Song) Fan- tailed Shrimp Catfish fillets Chicken Breasts Frog legs Boneless Pork Rib Rice Ho Jo's (skin -on, fresh sliced potatoes) Gamashio Salad Chicken /Rice Salad Soft drinks, coffee, tea, milk Yogart All sauces, etc. are made on premises and do not use pre- servatives, or M.S.G. Spices are ground fresh to make Art's secret recipe. Besides the standard soft drinks, we offer many brands of natural ingredient soft drinks and water. All products are served-on/in disposable containers and are to be priced at well under $3.00 for an average meal. • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 485 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request For a Special Use Permit to Allow the Operation of a Bakery /Restaurant at 6435 Lyndale Avenue South (Oreek Plaza). Council Members: PROPOSAL Five Points Food Service Corporation has requested that the city approve the issuance of a special use permit to allow the operation of "Mister Donut" bakery /restaurant located at 6435 Lyndale Avenue in the Oreek Plaza now under renovation. • The bakery /restaurant will be located at the southeast corner of the building. Mister Donut will occupy approximately 1,622.square feet. The operation will involve a seating arrangement for 40 customers besides the bakery. Mister Donut will be open 24 hours. The overall site is going through major rehabilitation. The concept plan, along with the off - street parking agreement•, was approved by the Council on September 9, 1985. The site is in the L /H /N redevelopment di.striet. The site is zoned commercial (C -2) and restaurant use is permitted by special use permit. .ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 4, of the zoning ordinance lists regulations relating to restaurants. 2. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, lists the conditions governing the issuance of special use permits. 3. Section 3.41, subdivision 5A, indicates the conditions governing issuance of a special use permit in an officially approved redevelopment area. E • STAFF REVIEW M Staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following: 1. The proposal Meets the standards that regulate restaurants. 2. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposal is inconsistent with the L /H /N redevelopment plan map. The L /H /N redevelopment plan indicates multiple residential use of the site. However, the city has encouraged the commercial use of the site. 4. The approved parking layout indicates 80 parking spaces on the site, forty -five spaces less than required by the city parking guidelines. Mister Donut will have 40 seats in 1,622 square feet and requires 14 parking spaces for the use. Retail use of the same space would have required 8 parking spaces. Staff's opinion is that use of the site by Mister Donut will not create any additional parking.problems on the site. The parking layout previously approved by the council provides for more parking spaces than currently exist on the site and the additional spaces are located adjacent to the space to be occupied by Mister Donut. Staff would have some concern regarding the adequacy of parking space on the overall site if the use changes in the future. 5. Staff has expressed concern regarding trash enclosure for the restaurant. The site plan does not indicate trash enclosure for the restaurant. 6. The proposal will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the special use permit request for the operation of a Mister Donut Bakery /Restaurant at 6435 Lyndale Avenue South with the stipulation that adequate trash enclosure be provided for the restaurant use. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning commission unanimously recommended the approval of the special use permit with the stipulation that adequate trash enclosure be provided for the restaurant. JGC /eja ectf 1 ' - submitted, i fUU ohn G. ar wrigh City Manager • • v K m a • .i wk rum"- 4WD im ( 46* a","- WOVA ITT. "?Oka 'Moffl "WAS lop vbwo- C."m • • 14' La o• I 71- �7 i. 71- �7 tL ...4, I� � Cj • A7_1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager r Council Letter No. 484 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application For On -sale Wine And Non- intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses For Northstar Pizza, Inc., D /b /a Shakey's Pizza Parlor Council Members: On October 30, 1985, the city received the renewal applications and required documents for the On -Sale Wine and Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses for Northstar Pizza, Inc., d /b /a Shakey's Pizza Parlor. In addition, the 1986 On -Sale Wine license fee of $620 and the Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor license fee of $376 have been paid. The Department of Public Safety has conducted the necessary background investigation and this investigation has determined that the corporate structure of•Northstar Pizza, Inc., has not changed from last year. Mr. Richard Lupu continues to serve as President and sole interest holder of the corporation, while Jerilyn Lupu serves as Vice President. Mr. Lupu is also the on- premises Manager. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. All 1985 real estate and state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The building and property continue to be owned by A.J. Bogen Company of Minneapolis. The lease agreement between the property owner and the applicant continues to be in effect with all payments current. The required $5,000 surety bond has been submitted and is carried through St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company of St. Paul. A certificate of insurance detailing public and liquor liability coverages has also been submitted by the Arthur L. Owen Company, Inc., of Dallas, Texas. Mr. Richard L. McMaken, a certified public account with the firm of Larson, Allen, and Weishair, has provided the city with the required financial statement. A breakdown of this statement for the twelve month period ending September 30, 1985, indicates that food sales accounted for 85% of the total sales, while beverage sales accounted for 15 %'of the total sales. From November of 19814 to November of 1985 there were 10 reported Public Safety contacts with Shakey's Pizza. This represents a decrease of 7 contacts from the previous twelve month period. Of these 10 reported contacts only 2 were of a criminal nature and both of these incidents involved thefts. .The 8 remaining contacts were 2 medical emergencies, inspections and assists. Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the information obtained by the Department of Public Safety there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal licenses requested. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to granting the 1986 renewal licenses requestred by Northstar Pizza, Inc., d /b /a.Shakey's Pizza Parlor. JGC /eja • r, u Rgspectful,� // witted, � ill _ (( John G. Car'twright City Manager /0/-/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 483 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application For On -sale Wine and Non- intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses For Miller's Fireside Pizza, Inc. Council Members: On October 29, 1985, the city received the renewal application and required documents for the On -Sale Wine and Non- Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for Miller's Fireside Pizza, Inc. In addition, the 1986 On -Sale Wine license fee of $620 and the Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor license fee of $376 were paid. The Department of Public Safety has conducted the necessary background investigation and this investigation has determined that the corporate structure is unchanged. Mr. David Miller remains President and Treasurer of the corporation, while Mrs. Lucille Miller continues to serve as Vice - President and Secretary. Mr. Dave Miller also serves as the on- premises manager and neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. All 1985 real estate and state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The building and the property continues to be owned by the Miller's. The required $5,000 surety bond has been submitted and indicates that Wausau Insurance Companies of Wausau, Wisconsin carries the bond. A certificate of insurance has been submitted detailing public and liquor liability required coverages and is also carried by the Wausau Insurance Companies of Wausau, Wisconsin. The accounting firm of George M. Hanson Company, P.A., of Minneapolis, Minnesota has submitted a statement detailing percentages of food and beverage sales for the period October 1, 1984 through September 30, 1985. This report indicates that food sales accounted for 93.86% of the total sales, while beverage sales amounted to 6.14% of the total sales. During the previous 12 month period there were 4 Public Safety contacts with Miller's Fireside Pizza as opposed to 5 contacts for the previous renewal period. Of these 4 contacts /W/ - ;; 91� only 1 involved a crime of theft. This year, as in past years, the Miller's should be commended for their ability to conduct a business that projects a positive image in our community. 0 Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and information obtained by the Department of Public Safety there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal licenses requested. Therefore, it is the recommendation'of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to granting the 1986 renewal licenses requested by Miller's Fireside Pizza, Inc. 3re—slp e a t f 4el A�ibmitted, JGC /eja • 0 ,Yohn G. 'Ca & ri City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 482 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application For On -sale Wine And Non- intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses For Prest Motor Inn, Inc. d /b /a The Inn Airport Council Members: On October 31, 1985, the city received the renewal applications and required documents for the On -Sale Wine and Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses for The Inn Airport. In addition, the 1986 On -Sale Wine license fee of $620 and the Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor license fee of $376 have been paid. The Department of Public Safety has conducted the necessary background investigation and this investigation has determined that the corporate structure of Prest Motor Inn, d /b /a The Inn Airport remains unchanged. Mr. John Prest serves as Corporate President and Treasurer, while Sara N. Prest serves as Corporate Vice- President and Secretary. During 1985 Mr. Jeffrey Henrich replaced Mr. John Prest, Jr., as the on- premises manager. Mr. Henrich has extensive experience as a hotel /motel manage having served as manager of the Inn Civic Center in St. Paul. Also, a hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana and most recently managed a resort in Montana. Mr. Henrich appears to be well qualified for his position as Manager at The Inn Airport. Not any of these individuals has any known criminal record. . All 1985 real estate and state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The property and building continue to be owned by Charles M. Spear. The Contract for Deed between the applicant and the owner continues to be in effect with all payments current. The required $5,000 surety bond has been submitted and Transamerica Insurance Company of California carries this bond. A certificate of insurance detailing public and liquor liability coverages has been submitted by Mr. John Howard Hagen Agency of Edina and is carried through the Columbia Insurance Company. Mr. Kevin L. Koenig of K & K Accounting firm in Cottage Grove has provided the city with the required financial statement. A breakdown of this statement for the twelve month �v period ending October 31, 1985, indicates that food sales accounted for 91% of the total sales, while beverage sales accounted for 9% of the total sales. During the past twelve months there were 45 Public Safety contacts with The Inn as opposed to 18 contacts for the previous year. Although this represents a significant increase it should be noted that all contacts are recorded 7640 Cedar Avenue South, which includes both the restaurant and the motel. In addition, the management of The Inn has always been very cooperative with regard to any type of investigation that has been conducted by the Public Safety Department. An analysis of the contacts with The Inn seems to indicate that the management has very little control over the frequency of criminal activity that occurs at their motel and restaurant. Certain criminal activity is inherent to the hotel /motel industry and does not reflect on their wine or beer licenses. The majority of increased public safety contacts during the past year has involved the motel operation rather than the restaurant portion of the business. The greatest increase in this area involved three general areas: public assistance (automobile lockouts -11), thefts from the business or from customers (13), and fire alarms (9). The fire alarms resulted from alarm malfunctions during a remodeling process. This problem has been corrected. The Public Safety Department is working with the applicant in an effort to reduce the theft problem. On the basis of our analysis of the incident problem, and the efforts of the applicant to work with the Public Safety Department on these problems, we expect the incident experience to be significantly reduced during the coming year. A breakdown of Public Safety contacts is as follows: 1984 1985 Criminal 9 22 Non- Criminal 9 23 Total Contacts 18 45 Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the information obtained by the Department of Public Safety there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal licenses requested. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to granting the 1986 renewal licenses requested by Prest Motor Inn, Inc., d /b /a The Inn Airport. JGC /eja • pectful/ZZ �p- 4bmitted, John G .' CA-twri City Man ag r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 481 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application For On -sale Wine And Non- intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenes For Davanni's, Inc. Council Members: On October 25, 1985, the city received the renewal application and required documents for the On -Sale Wine and Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses for Davanni's, Inc. In addition, the 1986 On -Sale Wine license fee of $620 and the Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor license fee of $376 were paid. The Department of Public Safety has conducted the necessary background investigation and this investigation has determined that the corporate structure is unchanged from last year. Mr. Gladstone M. Stenson, Jr. serves as President, while Mr. Roger W. Schelper serves as Vice - President. Mr. Robert W. Carlson serves as Treasurer and the position of Secretary remains unfilled. Ms. Judith Dearborn recently replaced Mr. Edward R. Johnson as Manager of the Richfield restaurant establishment. Ms. Dearborn has been employed by Davanni's for three years and most recently served as Manager of their St. Paul restaurant. Ms. Dearborn appears to be well qualified for the positin of Manager of the Richfield establishment and she -has no known criminal record. All 9985 real estate and state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The buildiung and property continue to be owned by Highway 52 Embers, Inc. The lease agreement between the applicant and the property owner continues to be in effect with all payments current. The required $5,000 surety bond has been submitted and is carried through Transamerican Insurance Company of California. A certificate of insurance has been submitted detailing public and liquor liability coverage as required. Caswell -Ross Agency of Edina has obtained the required coverage. Mr. Robert E. Stupka, C.P.A., has again this year provided the city with the required accountant's statement detailing percentages of food and beverage sales for the twelve month period ending September 30, 1985. This statement indicates that food sales accounted for 89.4 %.of the total sales, while beverage sales accounted for 10.6% of the total sales. From November, 1984, to November, 1985, there were only two public safety contacts with Davanni's. One contact was for purposes of inspection, while the other was a reported suspicious person. This is the second consecutive year that Davanni's has demonstrated an outstanding ability to conduct their business establishment in a very positive manner and they should be commended for their efforts. Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the information obtained by the Department of Public Safety there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal licenses requested. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to granting the 1986 renewal licenses requested by Davanni's Inc. JGC /eja • • *Resectful bmitted, "Ca twrigh Cty Manage CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 480 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application For On -sale And Sunday Liquor License For Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post 5555 Council Members: On November 22, 1985, the V.F.W. submitted to the city a renewal application for their On -Sale and Sunday liquor licenses together with the required documents and the liquor license fees of $316, also the base investigative fee of $248. Under the provisions of Richfield City Ordinance Code 11.06, Subd. 9 (1), the Director of Public Safety recommends the waiver,of any additional investigative fees. The Department of Public Safety has conducted the necessary background investigation and the officers are as follows: Mr. Richard G. Steinert, Commander; Mr. James W. Robbins, Senior Vice- Commander; Mr. Gerald T. Courteau, Jr._ Vice- Commander; and, Mr. Richard D. Christie, Quartermaster. Mr. Courteau and Mr. Christie are new Board members. Mr. Roy J. Hitchcock continues to be the Manager of the restaurant and has been very cooperative throughout the past year. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. All real estate taxes, state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The building and the property continue to be owned by the V.F.W., with a current market value of $589,500. The required surety bond in the amount of $10,000 has been submitted and this bond is provided by the United Fire and Casualty Company of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Public and liquor liability insurance coverage is supplied through the Ken Jarcho Agency of Minneapolis and the Transcontinental Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of C.N.A. Insurance Company, is affording the required coverages. Financial information has been supplied by the accounting firm of LaFayette & Fairchild, LTD. Their statement reflects sales from the period July 1, 19814 through June 30, 1985. Total sales for this period amount to $857,942. Food sales represents 51 %, or $1438,061, while beverage sales represents 149 %, or $1419,881 of the total sales. /j —49( Between November 1, 1984, and October 31, 1985, there were a total of 28 Public Safety contacts made with the V.F.W. This figure compares with 25 contacts for the previous year, or an increase of 12 %. A breakdown of these contacts is as follows: 1984 1985 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 10 -1I- NON- CRIMINAL CONTACTS 15 14 TOTAL CONTACTS 25 28 Although there was.an increase this year in .Public Safety contacts the V.F.W., has consistently recorded the lowest total contacts .for an on -sale establishment within our city. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety, there appears to be no reason to deny the request for the renewal of the On -Sale and Sunday Liquor License for 1986. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur_, that the council give favorable consideration to the license renewal request of the Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post #5555, and the waiver of investigative fees above the base fee paid by the club at the time of their license renewal application. • JGC /eja • peetf 1 witted, John G. Car right City Manager • 17J 0L73 (3) At the time of each original application for a license, the applicant shall also pay an investigating fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code. The investigating fee shall-not be subject to refund. If the expenses of the investigation relating to an application exceed the investigating fee paid, the city shall notify the applicant of this fact and shall require the applicant to pay an additional investigating fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code which the city manager deems necessary to complete its investigation of the applicant. The applicant shall pay such an additional investigating fee within five (5) days of being so notified. If such additional investigating fee is not paid within such 5-day period, the city shall discontinue consideration of the application. Bill 1977 -16) 8/8/77 (4) No part of the fee paid for any license shall be refunded except in accordance with this section or with city council action. (5) At any time that an additional investigation is required because of a change in the ownership, interest or control of a partnership or a corporation, the licensee shall pay an additional investigative fee as provided in Appendix D of this 'Code. Bill 1977 -16 (8/8/77) Subd', 9. Granting of Licenses. The following procedure shall be followed in processing applications for licenses under this section: (1) All applications for license shall be referred to the director of public safety, and to such other city departments as the city manager shall deem neces- sary, for verification and investigation of the facts set forth in the application. The director of public safety shall cause to be made such investigation of the in- formation requested in Subdivision 4 as shall be necessary and shall make a written recommendation and report to the city council which shall include a list of all violations of federal or state law or municipal regulations. In his report to the council, the director of public safety shall recommend the partial or complete waiver of any applicable investigative fee if the following conditions are deter- mined to exist: (a) The applicant is a fraternal, veterans, or charitable organization. (b) Revenues in excess of operating expenses are contributed to the support of community projects or programs. (c) The officers of such organization are elected by and responsible to the general membership. The council may adopt or modify the recommendation of the director. Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, the investigative fee from any. fraternal, veterans or charitable applicant shall not be due and payable until ' final action by the city council. Bill 1984 -16 (7/23/84) (2) Upon completion of the manager's preliminary report thereafter, the man- ager may rec-lo end to the council that a public hearing be held upon the appli- cation. The council shall then instruct the city clerk to cause to be published in the official newspaper 10 days in advance, a notice of the hearing to be held by the city council, setting forth the day, time and place when the hearing will be held, the name of the applicant, the premises where the business is to be conducted, and such ocher information as the council may direct. At the hearing opportunity shall be given to any person to be heard for or against the granting ` of the license. The applicant or applicant's representative must be present at the hearing to provide such additional information as may be required by the council. Failure to be so represented at the meeting shall be grounds for denial of the application. After the hearing the council may either grant or deny the license. If the license is granted, the council may withhold its issuance until the applicant has qualified in all respects for the license. If the premises 7/23/84 0RCINANCE C00E 279.5 G.TY OF RICHFFELO. MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 0 Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 479 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application For On -sale And Sunday Liquor Licenses For Richfield American Legion Post 46435 Council Members: On November 19, 1985, a renewal application and other necessary documents were submitted to the city for the 1986 on- sale and Sunday liquor licenses for the Richfield American Legion Post 46435. In addition, the 1986 on -sale liquor fee of $116, the Sunday liquor license fee of $200, and investigative fees of $372 were paid. Under the provisions of Richfield City Ordinance Code 11.06, Subd.9 (1), the Director of Public Safety recommends the waiver of any additional investigative fees. The Department of Public Safety has conducted the required background investigation and determined that the officers of the American Legion are Mr. Donald Swanson, Commander; Mr. Henry Vogelgesang, Vice- Commander; Mr. Ted Stage, Adjutant; and Mr. James Daly, Finance Officer. Mr. Stage and Mr. Daly have remained on the Board. However, Mr. Swanson and Mr. Vogelgesang are new to the Board this year. The Manager of the club, Mr. Fred Primoli, remains the same as last year. None of these individuals have-any criminal record as defined in the Minnesota State Statutes, Chapter 364, which would preclude issuance of the licenses requested. All real estate, state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The property and building continue to be owned by the applicant although First Western Bank holds a mortgage which is due to paid up November 1, 1988. The current market value of the property and building is $830,900. The required $10,000 surety bond has been submitted and is carried by United Fire and Casualty Company of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. This bond is effective until December 31, 1986. In addition a certificate of insurance has been submitted by the American Business Insurance Agency, Inc., of Minneapolis. This. certificate lists the Constitution State Insurance Company, the is /IV-01 Hartford Insurance Company and the St. Paul Surplus Lines as affording the required public and liquor liability coverages. These policies show the City of Richfield as additionally insured. The required financial statement was submitted by the certified public accounting firm of D.M. Miller and Associates, Ltd. -This report covers the period from July 1, 1984, through June 30, 1985, and reflects total sales of $1,548,812. Food sales amount to $801,135, or 51.7% of the total sales figure, while beverage sales amount to $747,676, or 48.3% of the total sales figure. Between the period November 1, 1984, and October 31, 1985, there were 66 Public Safety contacts. This figure compares with 60 contacts for the previous year and represents a 10% increase. Following is a breakdown of contacts: 1984 1985 CRIMINAL 30 33 NON- CRIMINAL 30 33 TOTAL CONTACTS 60 66 . It appears that the level of contacts with the American Legion remains very nearly the same as the previous year. Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety, there appears to be no reason for denying the license renewal request. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public. Safety, in which I concur, that the city council give favorable consideration to the On -Sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses for the Richfield American Legion, Post 4435, and the waiver of investigative fees above the base fee paid by the club at the time of their license renewal application. R pectfu bmitted, John G. Ca twright City Manage JGC /eja • • �I (3) At the time of each original application for a license, the applicant shall also pay an investigating fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code. The investigating fee shall-not be subject to refund. If the expenses of the investigation relating to an application exceed the investigating fee paid, the city shall notify the applicant of this fact and shall require the applicant to pay an additional investigating fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code which the city manager deems necessary to complete its investigation of the applicant. The applicant shall pay such 'an additional investigating fee within five (5) days of being so notified. If such additional investigating fee is not paid within such 5 -day period, the city shall discontinue consideration of.the application. Bill 1977 -16) 8/8/71 (4) No part of the fee paid for any license shall be refunded except in accordance with this section or with city council action. (5) At any time that an additional investigation is required because of a change in the ownership, interest or control of a partnership or a corporation, the licensee shall pay an additional investigative fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code. Bill 1977 -16 (8/8/77) 1 Subd'. 9. Granting of Licenses. The following procedure shall be followed in processing applications for licenses under this section: (1) All applications for license shall be referred to the director of public safety, and to such other city departments as the city manager shall deem neces- sary, for verification and investigation of the facts set forth in the application. The director of public safety shall cause to be made such investigation of the in- formation requested in Subdivision 4 as shall be necessary and shall make a written recommendation and report to the city council which shall include a list of all violations of federal or state law or municipal regulations. In his report to the council, the director of public safety shall recommend the partial or complete waiver of any applicable investigative fee if the following conditions are deter- mined to-exist: (a) The applicant is a fraternal, veterans, or charitable organization. (b) Revenues in excess of operating expenses are contributed to the. support of community projects or programs., (c) The officers of such organization are elected by and responsible to the general membership. The council may adopt or modify the recommendation of the director. Notwithstanding; any provision of this section to the contrary, the investigative fee from any fraternal, veterans or charitable applicant shall not'be due and payable until final action by the city council. Bill 1984 -16 (7/23/84) (2) Upon completion of the manager's preliminary report thereafter, the man- ager may recommend to the council that a public hearing be held upon the appli- cation. The council shall then instruct the city clerk to cause to be published in the official newspaper 10 days in advance, a notice of the hearing to be held by the city council, setting forth the day, time and place when the hearing will be held, the name of the applicant, the premises where the business is to be conducted, and such other information as the council may direct. At the hearing opportunit;: shall be given to any person to be heard for or against the granting of the license. The applicant or applicant's representative must be present at the hearing to provide such additional information as may be required by the council. 'Failure to be so represented at the meeting shall be grounds for denial of the application. After the hearing the council may either grant or deny the license. I the license is granted, the council may withhold its issuance until the applicant has qualified in all respects for the license. If the premises 7/23/84 O'nCINA-%Cg COLE 279.3 C'.TY 0 F RICHFIELD, - MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 478 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application For On -sale And Sunday Liquor Licenses For Chi -Chi's Restaurant Continuance Of Hearing Council Members: The above licenses were set for hearing on December 9, 1985, by council action on November 25, 1985. The Public Safety Department has not completed the required investigation with regard to this license renewal application. It is, therefore, the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the license renewal hearings be continued to the regular council meeting of January 13, 1986, and the council authorize licensed activities to continue, on a provisional basis, until the date of the continued hearing. JGC /eja A ohn ctfu mitted, G. Car wright! City Manager I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 477 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign. Council Members: Nordquist Sign Company has requested an advertising permit for Walser Imports to re- locate an 8 1/2' x 8 1/2' sign advertising ISUZU which is presently apart of a freestanding sign located at Walser Imports, 7745 Penn Avenue. The new proposed location is on the roof of Walser Buick, 2100 West 78th Street. The sign, as proposed, would project 11 feet above the roof of the building. City ordinances.stipulate that illuminated signs must be 00 approved by the city council. The city inspection division staff has reviewed this sign permit application and finds that the sign conforms to all applicable city ordinances. It is recommended that the city council approve the permit for this illuminated sign. JGC /eja • Rpectful 1t nm e I John G. Cart might City Manager APPROVE DENYD : APPROVE DENTYD na er Inspector g P, Date Date APPROVE a MEWF : - - APPROVE D DE 'N'YD Plannin IDeparLment Citv Council Date 11 Z7 Date Route to above �� b e for special approval per code General Sins APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota 1 Date ZZ. Zoning Sign Erected - Yes ha Fee Address of Sign ?JQU W. 75+14 S+, Proprietor NameW$,PA�SUZ DBA Sign Erector ,ne of Sion Wall Projecting Ground X Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer If Illuminated - Yes rical Contractor inA (01 (rr-. Address W (Q kjo esien Weather Cover Lichtinc Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T D AD Post D No k'atts Property Owner or his Agent Signature Estimated Cost Ia SO4 Sign Width Clear Lexon Frosted Lexon Plastic Covered Shaded Neon Other Sign Colors U( Constant Flashing Revolving Traveling Zip Lite Other(Explain) ss Phone Phonej&a�-j ight g Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? t es. ?11 the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any "ft'sSiL sight distance under, around, or over persons destined for or passing the subject premises? IV CU. ba a and Title with Firm � ;�, fn' a ��%� � Z� Phone Number �� Date / r -PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH { Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 i : 'Z:kv3�;NKriw�:.:�.�Ef.'. ^i,• �r'.<+...'. � °r•:.t +�,�i.':•�:-'2.:.Y"'s ��•:...7�n c_ tS` ti:; Yri:.:. "••u.!r:..:r?':.k�:..:.t- ..�:.. .e: :::._Yy... .:i.�....�.1,•..�,}� ..'I '.s!;: '. a,: wR:�.i'+`,'..j,L'i:�:.�::5.::, '�'"�: :y:W -t V -11. L 0 07- 0 o _ lt PWAsiom This draviM is the property of 'K I NOMIQUINT , ml INIGH COtam 312 V*9 Lake Street r7u—"Approval Date blimmols MN 55W8 —� 1 1 612.Sn-n9i Scale Address fb4t4Av5. 4. ,"4- Iva, City ?4u4fqaZl Slate Mrl. Date lt PWAsiom This draviM is the property of 'K I NOMIQUINT , ml INIGH COtam 312 V*9 Lake Street r7u—"Approval Date blimmols MN 55W8 —� 1 1 612.Sn-n9i II lt PWAsiom This draviM is the property of 'K I NOMIQUINT , ml INIGH COtam 312 V*9 Lake Street r7u—"Approval Date blimmols MN 55W8 —� 1 1 612.Sn-n9i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 476 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Authorization to Apply for Grant Council Members: The Ford Foundation, in conjunction with the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, is sponsoring a new awards program for innovations in state and local.government. In 1986, the Ford Foundation will give national recognition and one -time grants of up to $100,000 to approximately ten jurisdictions which have successfully implemented innovative approaches to government services and policies. Jurisdictions may submit multiple applications. Any monetary award must be used to advance the goals and objectives of the program or policy being recognized. Preliminary applications must be submitted by January 15, 1986. Approximately 75 Semi- Finalists will be chosen by March it 1986, and asked to submit amore extensive application. The Ford Foundation will formally present the awards in the Fall of 1986. Aspects of the Legion Lake community park project appear to meet the general criteria. It is recommended the city council authorize application for participation in the 1985 -1986 Innovations awards program. JGC /eja r�I �J R pectful witted, ohn G. ar wright City Manager. 7Z- / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 474 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor .. and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Authorization to Prepare Preliminary Engineering Report for 1986 Alley Paving Project - C.P. 822 Council Members: In November, 1980, the city council established a policy providing for the improvement of the city's alleys by concrete paving. This policy stipulates that an alley will be paved only upon receipt of a petition signed by property owners representing more than 50 percent of the abutting footage requesting such paving. The alley improvement projects are to be initiated on a yearly basis with those alleys not paved, or scheduled to be paved, subject to special assessments for the cost of on- going maintenance. In the first five years of this policy, 65 of the city's 96 graded alleys have been paved as a result of the petition process. The engineering division has received two valid petitions representing more than 50 percent of the abutting footage requesting paving in 1986: Alley Between From To Second and Third, Avenue 66—th Street 67th Street Nicollet and First Avenue 71st Street 359' North It is recommended the city council pass the attached resolution ordering preparation of a preliminary engineering . report for the petitioned alleys. The preliminary report will be prepared for presentation to the city council at the meeting of January 13, 1986. The city council will then be asked to set the date of a public hearing. R ectful V77- it . John G. Car Wright City Manager 0 JGC /eja 7,�r—,,Z RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING PRELIMINARY REPORT ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING, CITY PROJECT NO. 822 WHEREAS, petitions requesting the concrete paving of the following alleys have been received: Alley Between 'From To Second and Third Avenue 66th Street 67th Street Nicollet and First Avenue 71st Street 359' North And the petitions have been signed by the required percentage of owners abutting property necessary to proceed under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council finds it appears necessary and desirable that the city make the assessable public improvements of permanent surfacing of the above - mentioned alleys, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429; 2. A preliminary engineering report on such proposed assessable public improvement is required by law in the event that said improvement or any part thereof is specially assessed against the benefited property within the city. The city engineer is, therefore, authorized and directed to prepare a preliminary report of such proposed improvement and to submit the same to the City Council at the earliest convenient time; 3. Such report shall indicate the estimated cost of such proposed improvement, shall indicate whether such proposed improvement is feasible and whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; 4. Such proposed improvement shall hereafter be known and designated as City Project No. 822. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of December, 1985. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 John Hamilton, Mayor 7F - -/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ~ Council Letter No. 475 Agenda December 9,1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request For Hearing Of Wine License For Mammalu's Barbque Restaurant Council Members: The city has received an application for license for Mammalu's Barbeque Restaurant at As required by ordinance code, the Public Sa completing the background investigation. It the council set the hearing for this license council meeting of January 2, 1986. an on -sale wine 6344 Penn Avenue. fety Department is is recommended that request for the pectful fitted, t ohn G. rt ight City Manager JGC /eja • 70 -/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Offfice of City Manager Council Letter No. 473 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Purchase /Sale in Excess of $5,000 Council Members: 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. There are two such items on the December 9 agenda. The Uniform Municipal Contracting -Law requires similar authority be given to the city council for sale of supplies, materials and equipment. There is one such item on the December 9 agenda. • DISCONTINUED WATER METERS The,residential water meter change -out program is nearing completion leaving approximately 1,050 Neptune T -8 and T -10 meters on inventory. The city has advertised the meters in trade papers and received one offer as a result. This offer is $6.00 each for the T -8 meters and $7.50 each for the T -10 meters. This would be approximately three times the scrap price of copper which we received for the older meters. It is estimated the sale of the discontinued meters, through the offer made for purchase, would result in a revenue of $7,000. It is recommended the city council authorize the sale of discontinued Neptune T -8 meters for $6.00 each and T -10 meters for $7.50 each to S.L.C. Meter Service, Inc. of Pontiac, MI. PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLES The adopted 1986 operating budget for the central garage division includes $70,000 for replacement of six public safety squad cars. Vehicles to be replaced are all fully depreciated and include: Unit 47843, a Chevrolet Nova; Unit #8173 and Unit 48175, Chevrolet Malibus; and Units 48490, 48491 and 48492, all Ford LTDs. Hennepin County recently received bids for such vehicles. The bids have been reviewed by the public safety staff and the central garage staff. To take advantage of the bid prices, orders must be placed by December 20, 1985. 7/�-a It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of five Ford LTD CVS vehicles (3 marked squad cars and two unmarked cars) at a unit price -,,of $10,974 plus assorted options, such as painting and manuals, for a total purchase price of $56,325 from Viking Southdale Ford, Bloomington. There is one additional public safety vehicle included in the 1986 budget which remains to be purchased. It will be an unmarked police vehicle and will be a used vehicle (Hertz, Avis, etc.). LIGHT TRUCKS The adopted 1986 operating budget for the central garage includes $38,000 to replace four half ton pick -up trucks and $21,000 to replace two 3/4 ton pick -up trucks, all Chevrolets fully depreciated in 1985. Hennepin County recently received bids for such vehicles. The bids have been reviewed by staff. To take advantage of,the bid prices, orders must be placed by January 10, 1986. It is recommended the city council a three half -ton vehicles at a $7,029 unit one 3/4 ton vehicle with a unit price of two 3/4 ton 4x4 vehicles at a unit price such as heavy duty snow plow package and purchase price of $52,943.22 from Viking • JGC /eja is uthorize the purchase of price, plus options; $9,262 plus options and of $11,428 plus options, manuals, for a total Chevrolet, Fridley. Respectful"tiyt5�itted� hn G. Cartes fight ty Manager . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 472 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract - Seasonal Recreation Brochure Council Members: On November 26, 1985, in accordance with legal requirements, bids were opened for four 1986 seasonal recreation brochures. Twenty -two sets of specifications were distributed. Three bids were received. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. An appropriation for this work is in the 1986 . Community Services Department administration division operating budget. Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter recreation brochures are distributed to each residence in the city. With the exception of the Summer brochure, the school district participates in the brochures by including recreational programs offered by their Community Education Department and sharing a proportional cost of the publications. The 1985 contract was in the amount of $24,400. It is recommended the city council acccept the bid minutes and authorize the award of contract for the 1986 seasonal recreation brochures to Sexton Printing in the amount of $24,370.50. JGC /eja ect 1 y submitted, John G. Ca wri City Manager 7e,? --CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING November 26, 1985 SEASONAL COMMUNITY RECREATION BROCHURE Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Seasonal Community Recreation Brochure, as advertised in the official newspaper on November 13, 1985. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative Steven Devich, Administrative Services Department Director The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BOND PROPOSAL Printed Media Services Golden Valley-. Cert. Check $27,146.00 Golden Valley, MN . Sexton Printing, Inc. St. Paul, MN Cert. Check $24,370.50 St. Paul, MN Wallace W. Carlson Co. Cert. Check $24,836.82 Minneapolis, MN The.City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the December 9, 1985 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 1471 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Selection of a Workers' Compensation Claims Administrator Council Members: Since 1979, the City has self- insured its' Workers' Compensation liability. Thus, payments to eligible claimants are paid from the City's Self- Insurance Fund instead of an insurance provider. In addition to the responsibility for payments, the City is also responsible for processing Workers' Compensation claims, notifying the State Department of Labor and Industry (with all required documentation) of all claims, coordinating payments to doctors, clinics and hospitals, coordinating work with rehabilitation consultants, and several other related activities. Many of these responsibilities have been performed, since 1979, by'Marsh & McLennan, the firm contracted with for Workers' Compensation claims administration. On September 6, 1985, the City was notified by Marsh and McLennan that they were discontinuing their claim administration service. A Claims Administrator is responsible for providing the following basic services: A. Examine, advise and make recommendation to the City regarding all reports of employment - related death, injury or disease of employees and file the necessary reports. B. Recommend adjustment, settlement or denial on all reported claims according to the laws and regulations governing Workers' Compensation. C. Perform all reasonable and necessary administration, advisory and consulting work, including but not limited to: auditing and inspecting all losses for potential subrogation; recoveries; providing all forms necessary; and, preparing and filing all said forms. D. Provide statistical claim reports quarterly. / _C� E. Provide loss prevention and safety engineering assistance. • The. City staff compiled an experience summary of the City's Workers' Compensation claims and solicited proposals from eight firms performing Workers' Compensation Claims Administration in the public and private sector. Five of those firms submitted proposals to the City. The proposals ranged widely in the scope of services to be performed, and the price, which varied from $4,150 to slightly over $20,000 per year. The Administrative Services Director and Personnel Manager: reviewed the proposals, paying careful attention to the services provided, the quality of those services and the cost. The staff's analysis of the proposals indicated that Adjustco, Inc., of Edina, Minnesota, provided the most attactive package. Adjustco's yearly fee is based on the number of medical and indemnity claims they process per year._ Based on a 5 -year average of 10 Indemnity (lost time) and 25 Medical claims, our yearly cost will be $4,425 per year. -The City's 1985 Claims Administration cost with Marsh and McLennan is $5,175. The 1986 cost with Adjustco of $4,425 would represent a savings of $750, or a 7% reduction in costs. With the cost of administration based on the number of claims submitted, as opposed to time and expense as proposed by other bidders, the City can reduce its costs further by promoting loss prevention and safety. It is recommended that Adjustco, Inc. of Edina, Minnesota, be selected as the City's Workers' Compensation Claims Administrators for 1986 and that the contract be renewable annually thereafter at the discretion of the City. gR pec tf 1 bmitted, n G. Ca right City Manager JGC /eja • WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR 0,9-3 • BID PROPOSALS SUMMARIES 1. Adjustco: Cost based on number of claims. No minimum annual fee. Reduce claims - reduce costs. Good Loss Prevention /Safety Engineer services - this cost part of service. Local: Edina, MN. (knows the laws). Experience:. assisted in reducing workers' compensation costs by $427,000 at Blue Coach Foods (first hand experience). Aggressive in case handling. No change in current system of claims handling by City. No change in forms, etc. The least disruption. Cost first year based on last 5 years average. $4,425 . 2. Employee Benefit Administrators: Administers program for League of Minnesota Cities. Cost based on percent of payroll. Cost would increase with payroll costs. Require City to establish fund under their control (City would lose some of it's independent control). Good to excellent Loss Prevention /Safety Engineer services - this cost part of service. Local: (knows the.laws). First year: $20,812.50 3. Parker Services: Minimum annual fee. No credit for improvement in number of claims. Loss Prevention /Safety Engineer service costs are an extra charge. Not local - operates out of Stevens Point, WI. - (important due to the nature of Minnesota Workers' Compensation Laws. Not much information how they perform. Minimum first year costs: $4,150 /46-�/ 4. Crawford: Based on time spent. Clerical: $34.75 /hour. General adjuster: $48.25 /hour. Executive adjuster: $65.50 /hour. No control over costs. No local office. Operates out of Chicago, Ill. 5. Esis, Inc.: Minimum annual fee. No credit for improved claims numbers. Must establish a fund for their payment of claims — (loss of important.con,trol). Not local. Operates out of Chicago, Ill. Minimum annual cost: $5,024 , • • 5.• Engage, as directed by the City, the services of persons or firms outside its organization for services in connection with the investigation and adjustment of claims at City expense. 6. Develop a panel of physicians, surgeons and medical specialists for the treatment and care of injured employees. CLAIMS MADE SUMMARY: i WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION The City of Richfield requires the Claims Administration Service to: i 1. ! Examine, advise and make recommendation to the City regarding all 1 reports of employment - related death, injury or disease of employees and to file reports. 2. Recommend adjustment, settlement or denial to employer on all reported claims of employment- related death, injury or disease according to the laws, rules and regulations governing workers' INDEMNITY i compensation. 3. Perform all reasonable and necessary administrative, advisory. i and consulting work in connection with those workers' compensation i claims reported under number 1 above, including.but not limited to auditing and inspecting all losses for potential subrogation, recoveries, providing all forms necessary for the efficient operation of the self-insurance program, preparing and filing all said forms and preparing data for and assisting in the preparation of reports and MEDICAL other documents required by state and federal regulatory bodies and agencies. 4. Provide statistical claim reports quarterly. Such reports shall contain a report of all disbursements by the City and estimates of outstanding liability on all open claims. 5.• Engage, as directed by the City, the services of persons or firms outside its organization for services in connection with the investigation and adjustment of claims at City expense. 6. Develop a panel of physicians, surgeons and medical specialists for the treatment and care of injured employees. CLAIMS MADE SUMMARY: i 1985 YTD i 1984 1 1983 1 1982 INDEMNITY i 10 i 9 i 8 i 11 MEDICAL 19 35 30 31 ; TOTAL i 29 i 44 i 38 i 42 TAKE -OVER CLAIMS: The City currently has four active take -over claims, with 2 claims not currently active. 7161A/ / CITY -OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 470 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Recycling Program Contract with Hennepin County Council Members: On September 8, 1984, Richfield began its pilot program for curbside collection of recyclables. The pilot program was to run through August 10, 1985. This pilot program was designed to investigate the feasibility of recycling in Richfield. Grants totaling approximately $18,800 from the Community Development Block Grant program ($13,000) and the Hennepin County Department of Environment and Energy ($5,800) helped fund the costs of a part -time coordinator, promotion and public education during the pilot program year. The city contribution totaled approximately $5,800 and included: curbside and drop -off recycling contractor payments; mileage, telephone, space and storage for the Recycling Coordinator; administrative assistance; secretary; bookkeeping; additional copying; and, office supply expenses. In the past year, 18 community volunteer groups have participated in the recycling program. They collected over 900 tons of newspaper, indicating a 30% participation rate. Our contractor, Recycling Unlimited, Inc. collected glass, aluminum, motor oil and batteries in the pilot area west of I -35W and at the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store dropsite. Over 80 tons of materials have been collected for an estimated 18% participation rate in the collection of these items. Locally, as well as nationally, wastepaper markets tend to be volatile and cyclic. There was a price peak in 1983 -84 when Richfield's volunteer groups were receiving between $25 and $35 per ton, but by late 19814 prices declined. In 1985, community groups received from $10 to $15 per ton for newspaper. Current prices are extremely depressed. Increased collection, the current trade imbalance, fueled by the strong dollar, and over capacity in virgin pulp have combined to accelerate this trend. Despite this downward trend, rather than sell the paper individually when some groups have been victims,of a depressed market, Richfield's community groups have cooperatively agreed to sell the collected volume of paper jointly to one paper buyer 13 /� C;2 fora yearly set price of $22 /ton, provided there is at least 15 tons in the trailer.._ A public service is being offered to recycling participants which provides dual benefits: generating revenues for our volunteer groups and diverting paper from landfills. Due to the current conditions of the market, it is also difficult for a private recycles, such as Recycling Unlimited, to continue operating without government assistance. The city presently pays Recycling Unlimited $250 per month for curbside collection (area west of 135W). A new law, Minnesota Chapter 274, requires that by 1990 solid waste generated within the metropolitan area be first sent to a resource recovery facility. This, in effect, means that recylcing programs and resource recovery facilities must be in place to handle the solid waste of the Twin Cities area by 1990. This law also reiterates that counties may require households to separate their waste for processing. For the period 1986 - 1989, Hennepin County will provide financial assistance for source separation projects in the amount of $.25 per household or 50% of the program costs, whichever is greater. Staff has requested 50% of program costs ($14,175) from Hennepin County, and Hennepin County has sent the Contract Agreement to Richfield for signing. Effective in 1986, the Metropolitan Council will pay cities $4 for every ton recycled and an additional $.50 per household. Monies will be requested from the Metropolitan Council in the sum of $11,755 (15,510 households x $.50 = $7,755 plus 1,000 ton recycled x $4 = $4,000). For 1985, staff will apply for the Metropolitan Council household rebate funds of $7,755 in December and use-the funds for a promotion drive to further the landfill abatement goals for the metropolitan area. While it appears there is continued funding available through Hennepin County and new funding available through the Metropolitan Council, Community Development Block Grant funds are no longer available. The CDBG funding was for new programs. CDBG funds are not available for on -going recycling projects. The Energy Awareness Commission supports the continuation of the recycling program with the addition of two dropsites in East Richfield. Due to the demand of east Richfield residents, a dropsite was located at the Cedar Liquor. Store parking lot in December, 1984. There have been problems with items being brought to the site after the designated hours. If this problem can be resolved, other dropsites will be introduced. With mandatory recycling on the horizon, Richfield should continue to investigate recycling alternatives which would serve our community's needs. Staff will pursue Hennepin County and Metropolitan Council funding in 1986. Based on the state mandate and the success of the pilot program, the adopted 1986 budget includes a recycling program similar to the pilot program 7.93 with the addition of two dropsites east of I -35W. Staff is also exploring the advantages and disadvantages of combining energy and recycling personnel--positions. It is recommended the city council take the following actions: 1. Approve the use of 1985 Metropolitan Council funds for an eight -month promotional blitz. This would be a demonstration project to determine if monthly reminders will increase participation. 2. Establish at least one permanent dropsite in 1986. 3. Establish a demonstration project comparing volume and type of materials collected weekly at a permanent dropsite versus the West Richfield curbside operation. The objective is to find the more cost effective operation. 14. Authorize the mayor and city manager to sign the Hennepin County agreement which provides $114,175 for recycling activities. This contract appears on the consent agenda as Item 7A. In discussion with a Hennepin County official on Wednesday, December 14, 1985, city staff learned that the. city could increase the county payment for recycling expenses from $8,300 to $11,175 (see section 3.0, entitled Compensation). All other parts of the contract remain the same. Hennepin County will send us a revised agreement for execution. JGC /eja 46 R peetfu}T;,,7bmitted, 17ohn G. Car�twrigh City Manage i 7A -� tD co 1 LO 00 cn ri S• O 4- O C C O 4- N N O CL a C C E O O L O U to S- O U Ln co d- W cn rt E O S- 4-- rT C C O 4- (A N "t3 O U C .r C O O E O N t F- to¢ 00000 O o o O O O O O O O O O Ln c) Ln xn (?,, (Ln cN O Ln O Ln Co F- C) Cl o o Lo 0 0 M O d• h rq O to O d- O h N M M o•- c.I*- h M e-i. F- Cl ri CV 00 d- e-4 w C. +• i-' v� w co _, N ri 00 N r rr N L1) Q .-� Co 0 0 0 M O O r- 4 ri O O N co Ln Ln ( O �-- co O 0 Ln O ko o to h h o to ko t0 Cl M Lo to Cr1 O cn 0o d- d• ra Ln M N r♦ N M ri rl M h M rl F- h w •--� w to t0 M h I w D Ln O O Cl O to O O O d- LO tD ` to tD Ln C11 Ln f �n W m O O to O Ln O Ln N N M cY h tCt Gt LO D Ln Mtn .-r ri ri h d r+ I tp to W d h tD Z CO N h .-i rl h w W m rl rr 0-,-f ri r••I X W Z 4J S SZ Ln -aJ CO to .-i 0 t w O O O O Cl O rr h Ln 001 Lo to M to Ln W. cn CO O O M O O r+ h d h CO d• W O O LC) M M N CO M rr N h Ln co h O Ln M " W LL t r♦ rf cC W a C!7 O Z F-r J U U J W < d' O M Co N O M N rl N h co Lo h a co F- N d• r+ LO O O h d• ri Ch I d M r+ cn ( d Cis O N O Orr h d- r+ CO CO Ln ; d' CO ri F- d' �"� e-i M tC r••I N CJ -- O ri ri O 'v m S- •r .< O Q W rt5 to Z Z S.- > to F- d W W O S. S_ w Z Lt_ N N M: O N w +j N co S J O F- U O cn to Q CC.' a O N a. O a c •r W d a N a Q. W Q M•r >> Q J \ W O Z CL C m +> >> J o25 oZS m N CC W •r C •r �- oZS co g W J D r w C\ = F- J W W t.7 J a U O Y S_ N a- a W U Q w F- V > d 4 CC1 u- N to w Z N •r O r ++ w O >< a _ S U- O a-r a ►-i a U U U 0 a Q w F- N O CL M: > >- F- F- N ra Z W N O O W O O O O O O O N M Z O •• J Z a Ln O ri M .-r N O O O W N U O r-r r-•r r-r N N M M M o- •• O O ca ? F- rj r4 -4 .-1 .-r rr .-+ r" r-I w W •Z-t o W- a u.. 4 W < W a F- CO Z F- F- F- W F- V Z U tD co 1 LO 00 cn ri S• O 4- O C C O 4- N N O CL a C C E O O L O U to S- O U Ln co d- W cn rt E O S- 4-- rT C C O 4- (A N "t3 O U C .r C O O E O N t F- Contract No. 50406 -7zl City of Richfield County of Y.cnnepin AGREE6= THIS AGREEMEM, made between. the COUNTY OF HMOMPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County ", and the CITY OF RICHFIELD, hereinafter referred to as the "City ". WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, County Board Resolution 83- 9- 578AR2 (September 13, 1983) conceits the County to "initiating and cooperating in establishing County -wide residential curbside collection recycling programs "; and WAS, County Board Resolution 85-4 -139 (April 16, 1985) provides Hennepin County funding of solid waste source- separation programs; and WHEREAS, said residential curbside collection program is consistent with the legislative policies concerning solid waste management and resource recovery, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1984, Sections 115A.02, and 115A.03, Subdivision 35; and with Metropolitan Council's "Solid Waste Management Development Guide /Policy Plan" (adopted March 14, 1985). NOWT THEREFORE, IT IS HERESY AGREED: SECTION 1.0 Scone of Services of the City A. The City will continue its curbside recycling program with the additon of two more drop -off recycling centers, in accordance wit, the program described in the "County Staff Report on City of Richfield Recycling Program ", dated August 23, 1985, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", and made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein. 13 Contract No. 504206 7 -�j Page 2 E. The City must accept-at a minixim: newspaper glass containers ferrous containers aluminum containers C. The City will identify the County as a project cosponsor in publicity materials and presentations. D. The City will furnish the County with periodic verbal progress reports and a final written report at the end of the first year of the program, evaluating all aspects of the curbside collection project including, but not limited to, information on: - total costs; - planning, publicity and administrative costs; - publicity strategies used and those most and least effective; - participation rates; - program implementation and administrative tasks that had to be completed before and during actual curbside collection; - tonnages of materials recovered and information on seasonal variations, if available; - markets for collected materials as available; and - other information that would help Hennepin County and /or other municipalities start similar curbside collection programs. • • • .7 • I Contract No. 50406 %,7 Page 3 / SUCTION 2.0 Scope of Services of the County Hennepin County will fund a portion of the cost of the project, in accordance with Section 3.0 and 4.0 of this Agreement. Conrensation The County shall pay to the City 50% of f the net costs or an amount not to exceed Eight Thousand Three Hundred Dollars T'1y8.3, whichever is less, related to the collection of recyclables and for staff. KRAJ10 Payment A. The City shall submit invoices, not more than once per month, to the County for reimbursement of costs for staff and collection contractor fees for the recycling pr og ram, including copies of invoices and itemized billings for the collection contractor. B. The County will retain 20 percent of each payment until the receipt of the final written report. C. Payment to the City will be made as provided by law for payments of claims against the County. k 1 Effective Date/Termination Date A. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect from September 1, 1985 through August 31, 1986. Hold Harmless Contract No. 50406 7W Page 4 The City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the County, its officers and employees harmless from any liability, claim, dar- -=r7- costs, judgments or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an act or cmission (including without limitation, professional errors or omissions) of the City, its agents, officers, employees, or contractors in the performance of the services provided by this Agreement; and against all loss by reason of the failure of the party fully to perform, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement. The City warrants that it has sufficient insurance coverage to meet the requirements of the Hold Harmless Clause and Minnesota Statutes 466.02 and 466.04. SECTION 7.0 Affirmative Action Polio In accordance with Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Co=issioners' policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, handicap, marital status, affectional preference, public assistance status, criminal record, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. The City will furnish all information and reports required by Hennepin County or by Executive Order No. 11246 and Revised Order No. 4 and by the rules and regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations and orders. • • is Contract No. 50406 7d1 q Page 5 ' SECTION 8.0 Assianment of services The provisions of this Agreement shall not be assigned, sublet or transferred without the prior written approval of the County. SECTION 9.0 Independent Parties It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended, or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co- partners between the parties hereto, or as constituting the City as the agent, representative, or employee of the County for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. The parties are to be and shall remain independent with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. The City represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of the City or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the terms of this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with the County, and shall not be considered employees of the County, and any and all claim that may or might arise under thelh1orkers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against the City, its officers, agents, contractors or employees, shall in no way be the responsibility of the County; and the City shall defend, indemnify and hold the County, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent Contract No. 50406 Page 6 714-16 tribunal., agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require, nor be entitled to, any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the County including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. �4 • 1 1 The City agrees that the County, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the City and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Duly authorized representatives of the County shall have the right to inspect the work of the City whenever they deem it necessary. SECTION 11.0 Minnesota Laws Govern The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions as to the execution, nature, obligation, validity and performance of this contract. SECMIOI31 12.0 This Agreement may be terminated by the County for substantial noncompliance at any time, upon 30 days written notice to the City. Such termination shall not affect any legal right of the County against the City for any breach of this Agreement. • • • • Contract No. 50405 Page 7 =ON 13.0 Compliance with Laws The City shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, together with all ordinances and regulations applicable to the work in effect on the date of this Agreement. The City shall procure all licenses, permits, or other rights necessary for the fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement. SECTION 14.0 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the County and the City, and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended by written instrument signed by both the County and the City. Contract No. 50406 Page 8 CW"LUY -- ADMINIS-I' WTOR APPROVAL, CITY, having signed this contract, and the County having duly approved this contract on , 19 , and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this contract will be legally valid and binding. Assistant County Attorney Date: Approved as to execution: Assistant County Attorney Date: •� r to + ia+• V�A 4 We, 14 k, + W w By: Associate County Administrator and County Engineer • ast► t� +r a+r • • • •,� By: Director, Department of Environment and and Energy CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its Mayor And:_ Its Clerk City Organized under: Plan A Plan B Charter - CITY CF RICHFIELD STAVE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) • The foregoing instrument was achknowledged before me the day of 19_ by and of the City of Richfield on behalf of the City. Notary Public i My Commission Expires EXHIBIT A (x3tJI`*I'Y STAFF.. F.FPC�P.'1' OI3 CITY Off' RICaIELD "Recycling Program" August 23, 1985 Amount of Funds Requested: $ 8;3 8':88 A-i t 1 s Recommended County Funding: � o@ �38M 9 - ivq Background: On September 8, 1984, the City of Richfield began a 'city -wide curbside collection program for newsprint The collection service is provided by volunteer organizations on an once per month basis. 7W--0 A private firm collects glass, aluminum, tin cans, used oil and batteries in the western portion of Richfield on the same day as the newsprint collection. There are 3,500 residents serviced. Since December, because of the demand from the eastern portion of the city, a drop -off recycling center was established at the municipal liquor store. The .drop -off recycling center operates on the same day as the recyclables collection day. According to the city the Richfield Recycling Program has a 30% participation rate for the newprint and a 19% participation rate_for the other materials. Program: The City of Richfield is proposing the continuation of the existing recycling program and the addition of two more drop -off recycling centers. (See Exhibit A) Proposed Bu et: The City of Richfield has prepared a preliminary budget and is requesting county funding assistance ($8,300). The following table shows the program budget. Program Buget Program Cost City County Other (Total) Share Share Sources Part -time Coordinator $ 9,300 $ 41000 $ 5,300 $ 00 Publicity and Promotion 3,000 00 00 3,000 Administration (In -Kind) 4,300 4,300 00 00 Collection Contractor 51500 00 3,000 2,500 TOTALS $22,100 $ 8,300 $- 830@-$ 5,500(1) County Staff Report Page 2 (1) Note: In addition to the City and is anticipating $ 5,500 fro landfill abatement cost rec household and the $4.00 per landfill rebate assistance. 7111-ly County shares, the City Mietropolitan Council's ►very of $.50 per ton diverted from Findings: The City of Richfield is successfully operating a recycling program and needs on -going funding assistance for its continued operation and future expansion. In accordance with the "Policy Statement on Hennepin County Funding of Solid Waste Source- Separation Programs (March 19, 1985) ", municipalities are eligible for Hennepin funding assistance either at 25 cents per household or at 50% of documented project expenses, minus cost savings and revenues, whichever is greater. Hennepin's funding assistance for the Richfield application is consistent with County Board Resolution 83 -9 -578 AR2 (September 131 1983); the County's Recycling Policy, County Board Resolution 85 -4 -139 (April 16, 1985); and with the Metropolitan Council's "Solid Waste Manage- ment Development Guide /Policy Plan" (adopted March 14, 1985) . The City's grant application includes plans to connect to the County's computer system for the data management and program a&ninistration. At the present, there is no capacity for other connections to the County's data processing system. In addition, there are no future plans to provide such connections. County Staff 1. It is recommended that Hennepin County Recommendations: provide funding assistance in an amount not to exceed $ t—,Me i98 . 2. It is recommended that the County Administrator be directed to negotiate and execute a contract with the City of Richfield. MSB:mvr SRRICH • I• CITY.OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 469 Agenda, December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting to Jean Mitchell, Finance Manager Council Members: The City of Richfield has been notified that our comprehensive anual financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1984, qualifies for a Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Conformance is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management The award is made by the Government Finance 'Officers Association. To earn a Certificate of Conformance, annual financial report of a city is judged to substantially conform to the program's high standards of excellence. Such standards encompass both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. Governments that earn a Certificate of Conformance have demonstrated a constructive. "spirit of full disclosure" effort to clearly communicates its financial story, enhance understanding of the logic_ underlying the traditional governmental financial reporting model, and motivate persons and groups in society to read and use the financial report. When a Certificate of Conformance is awarded to a government, an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is also presented to the individual designed by the government as primarily responsible for its having earned the certificate. Jean Mitchell, Finance Manager, has been named to receive this certificate. Ms. Mitchell will be present at the December 9, 1985, city council meeting to receive this Certificate in Financial Reporting. Res eetfull tted, J hn G. Cartw 'ght City Manager JGC /eja • 0 -1 /1- / 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 468 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Recognition of Bill Fillmore, Liquor Operations Director and Howard Rowland, Personnel Manager, For Conducting an Outstanding United Way Campaign Council Members: In October, 1985, the City of Richfield concluded one of the most successful United Way campaigns ever conducted among City of Richfield employees. City employees increased their donations by 105% over the previous year! Bill Fillmore, Liquor Operations Director, and Howard Rowland, Personnel Manager, were honored by the United Way for spearheading this very successful campaign. Both of these gentlemen will be present at the December 9, 1985, city council meeting to receive their Certificates of Appreciation awarded by the United Way. JGC /eja • ectfu ly mitted, J hn G. art ight City Manager CITY-OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 467 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Recognition of Community Volunteer Groups Participating in the City's Recycling Program Council Members: Since September,`1984, when Richfield began its curbside recycling program, its success has depended on the volunteer , groups that pick up the newspapers from the parkways each month. It would be appropriate at this time for the City Council to express their appreciation to the following community volunteer groups who continue to participate monthly in the city's Recycling Program: Richfield Women of Today Richfield Jaycee's Wood Lake Lutheran Church Crusaders Wood Lake Lutheran Boy Scout Troop 4384 Mount Calvary School ,House of Prayer Youth Group House of Prayer Boy Scout Troop #443 Camp Fire Club Richfield United Methodist Church Youth Group Wood Lake Service Unit (Girl Scouts) Oak Grove Lutheran Church Youth Group Oak Grove Boy Scout Troop #262 Assumption School Assumption Boy Scout Troop #339 Richfield United Methodist Boy Scout Troop #64 Richfield Optimists Berea Lutheran Church Youth Group These groups pick up newspapers city -wide from the curb areas each month on Recycling Saturday. By doing so, they provide an important public service while earning monies to support community activities and their organizations. Without the continued assistance and support of these groups, Richfield's Recycling Program could not exist. Representatives from these volunteer groups will be present at the December 9, 1985, city council meeting to accept recognition (certificates) from the city council. There is a companion item (consent agenda item 7A) on this agenda that summarizes the recycling program achievements to date. Plans for 1986 are.proposed. Please refer to council letter No. 470 which can be found as a part of agenda item 7A. JGC /eja • ectf4&TY, pbmitted, john G. Ca wrigh City Manager r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 466 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Recognition of Council Members Howard Bunce And Don Priebe Council Members: Howard Bunce and Don Priebe will be leaving the Richfield City Council on December 31, 1985. Howard Bunce has served as a Council Member since January 1, 1980. Don Priebe has served the city first as Mayor during 1980 -81, and as a council member from 1983 -1985. Placques expressing appreciation for their service to the City of Richfield will be presented to them at the December 9, 1985, city council meeting. pectf y witted, L �ohn G. Car right City Manager JGC /eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 465 Agenda December 9, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: 5:30 PM Council Study Session With the City of Bloomington Council Members: The staff of the City of Bloomington and their transporta- tion planning consultant, BRW, would like to once again meet with the city council for the purpose of providing an update on the transportation planning that-is being undertaken in conjunction with -the proposed development of the Mega Mall in Bloomington on the former Metropolitan Stadium site. • Additional analysis has been conducted on the transportation element for the proposed Bloomington Mega Mall development. A new run of the transportation model which is being carried out as a part of this study, has indicated that Cedar Avenue (Trunk Highway 77) would-be operating at a service level of F. (Service level F is best described as one of extreme levels of congestion.) Because of the traffic volumes which were generated by the model, it would be necesary to widen Cedar Avenue from 4 to 6 lanes along the section running from I494 to the Crosstown (County Highway 62). If this were to happen there would then be a capacity problem at the interchange of Cedar Avenue and the Crosstown for the traffic which is going north bound to west bound. If the capacity of this interchange were to be increased there would then be a problem of capacity along the Crosstown and where the Crosstown intersects with 135W. BRW will address this subject in greater detail. The design option which has been chosen for the I494 /Cedar Avenue interchange is the one which will result in a 4 level interchange. (Both 3 and 4 level interchanges were presented to the City Council at the last meeting with the Bloomington staff and consultants). This interchange configuration will have definite physical impact upon that area of Richfield which is located between Cedar Avenue and 12th Avenue along the 78th Street frontage road. This could result in the need for businesses along 78th Street to be reoriented from facing 78th Street to facing 77th Street. Also, this interchange design • 0 will result in a design problem relative to the merging of lanes onto west bound 1494 at its location with 12th Avenue. Because of this potential utilization of the entire 78th Street right -of -way for"the new road construction it will be desirable for meetings to be held subsequently with business persons and residents who are located in the area bounded by Cedar Avenue on the east, 1494 on the South, 12th Avenue on the west and 76th Street on the north. The City Bloomington is not requesting that the Richfield City Council take any official action on this subject at this time. The purpose of the meeting is to provide additional information on the transportation planning process for the proposed Mega Mall. Metropolitan Fantasvworld ignificanee Review Report: Mall of America and The November 22, 1985, Metropolitan Council newsletter (review) summarizes the findings and recommendations of the Council's staff report on the "Mega Mall." Among the recommendations: (1) the Mega Mall can proceed, but proposed development in and around the Mega Mall site should be scaled down to avoid extraordinary costs to upgrade the transportation system; (2) the convention center portion of the proposal should be deleted; and, (3) the Mall and adjacent development should not be granted an exemption from the state fiscal disparities law. R pectf y itted, ohn G. Car right City Manager JGC /eja