01-11-88 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. /7
January 11, 1988
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of an ordinance regarding the
definition of "front yard" in commercial zoning districts.
IM- /
Background:
Lincoln Companies submitted a proposal to redevelop the old
liquor store site at 6636 Cedar Avenue South. The proposal
involves the construction of a three-story CDP corporate
headquarters office building and a three-story parking ramp
attached to the building. A provision in the zoning ordinance
defines both the east and west sides as front yards; thereby
requiring a front yard setback for the garage. This unduly
restricts development of most commercial lots similarly situated.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council give first reading
consideration to the attached ordinance amendment and also refer
the matter to the Planning Commission for their recommendation to
the City Council.
Basis of Recommendation:
Basis of staff recommendation is outlined in the following:
1. The ordinance amendment would designate a single front yard
for redevelopment purposes.
2. The proposed facility would not meet the current double front
yard requirements of 40 feet, therefore would require a
variance for the westerly front yard.
3. Since most of Richfield's commercial lots are small in size,
if any particular site abuts two streets, any redevelopment
project of modest size would have difficulty meeting the
present double front yard requirement for the C-2 general
commercial district and would require a variance.
4. The ordinance amendment still would allow front yards to be
40 feet and rear yards to be 25 feet.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to consider not giving
the first reading consideration to the ordinance amendment.
Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the January 11th City Council agenda.
City Council consideration of a second reading to the ordinance
and the public hearing is scheduled for February 8, 1988. No
public hearing is required or scheduled for January 11th.
//P- z
Therefore, notice of the Council consideration of this item is
. not required at this time.
ResYDD. ly submitted,
Jamrosser
Cit er
0
0
. 1 10.3
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V
SECTION 520 OF THE
RICHFIELD CITY CODE `
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Chapter V, Section 520 of Richfield City Code of 1987 entitled
"Zoning: Commercial Districts" is hereby amended in the
following aspect:
I. By amending Subdivision 3 of Subsection 520.13 to read as
follows:
Front yard: Each building shall have a front yard of
not less than 40 feet, and shall have a greater front
yard where required under the provisions of Section 540.
if the building let abuts upen mepe then ene stpeet the
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1988.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
v?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 16
January 11, 1988
Issue Statement:
Consideration of whether a business involving the sale of
paintings, silk flowers, selected antiques and framing of artwork
is a permitted use in a neighborhood business (C-1) zoning
district.
Background:
Mr. and Mrs. McKisson, 10252 Scarborough Circle, Bloomington, and
Mr. and Mrs. Mammen, 10209 Wildwood Road, Bloomington, have made
a request to rezone the property located at 7312 Lyndale Avenue
(commonly known as the "Tree House") from single family residence
"R" zoning district to neighborhood business (C-1) zoning
district.
The applicants propose to substantially remodel the existing
structure to accommodate an art studio with a gallery, a studio
for the production of silk flowers, and an area for the sale of
the above mentioned products, selected antiques, framing of the
paintings and allied services.
If such use could be considered as a permitted use in the
neighborhood business district, then the applicants propose to
rezone three out of the four lots from single family residence
• (R) zoning district to neighborhood business (C-1) district.
A legal analysis regarding the subject is attached.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements:
1. Section 520.04-520.05 outlines the uses permitted in a C-1
zoning district.
2. Section 520.05 indicates that the City Council may permit
other uses of the same general character as the uses listed
as permitted in this subsection, provided that such use is
not specially prohibited in the subsection i.e. neighborhood
business district regulations.
Recommended Motion:
The City Council determine that the proposed use is not a
permitted neighborhood business use.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed use is neither permitted nor prohibited in the
neighborhood business (C-1) district, and, therefore requires
Planning Commission findings if the use is an appropriate
land use for the district.
2. Staff interpretation of the zoning ordinance indicates that
the proposed use is not of same general character as the uses
• listed in the permitted use in the section of the zoning
ordinance relating to the neighborhood business (C-1)
district.
• 3. Staff believes that the proposed use is more of general
commercial nature and the business provides services not
primarily for the residents of the immediate neighborhood.
Therefore, the use is more appropriate in general commercial
(C-2) zoning district.
4. The surrounding properties are all residential except for
south of 74th Street along Lyndale Avenue. Therefore,
changing the zoning designation to neighborhood business (C-
1) for the proposed use would be incompatible with the
abutting properties.
Since there is a potential for other permitted neighborhood
business use moving in such as a convenience store if the
ownership changes in the future, it would have a negative
impact on the surrounding area.
It is definitely spot zoning in the middle of the block and
would jeopardize the residential character of the
neighborhood.
5. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site to be medium
density buffer and only existing convenience commercial use
is permitted in that designation. Therefore the proposed
change in use for the area is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be either, 1) refer the
matter to the Planning Commission to make their finding; or 2) to
amend the ordinance to permit the proposed use with specific
performance standards.
If the City Council chooses to amend the ordinance to permit the
proposed use, the City Council would be required to make the
determination that the proposed use is demonstratively a
neighborhood business and primarily services the residents of the
immediate neighborhood.
Decision Mode:
Consideration ?of this item is scheduled for City Council meeting
on January 11, 1988. No public hearing is required if the
council refers the matter to the Planning Commission for their
findings.
Respectf y submitted,
James Prosser
City ager
an t
r c/S? l
?E-- O o° r
i ? ?
r
r
r
r
L7
r
F
F
F
r
t
r
t
t
O i®
t
0
-'1 sft
,
LYNNI AYE. d 2
SMRM SEWER
0
J
U
S
J
W
i
z
a
a
a
4
Z
F-
N
X
Ltl
i
•
i
{
S
i
7
r
N t? -)
2
J
w •*1? FL=A]l
y
.`
8
N ti?h1
+ d?
m
F-
U.
OD
s
Jh
M
s
P
O
N
-Z-
i
8
O
fr-j?_?r
a £z
Nslaavls
r? to
u 12
"4102
4161
MOl13SON01
'3AV VV033
41 61
41[1
4191
N019NIw001e
4491
4t11
Y/ at
41 21
4111
41 01
101113
OOVOIN0
snewnloo
Xava
ON" Vo
3AV ONVlldOd
Y1S
41?
NOlNII0
:it
w;
MAUI
P
•3AV 13110011
1130SIV11
N1aOM1N3A
Aane5114
LNVSV31
ONVa
131aaVl
01311av,
'3AV 31VONA
NOIa0l'
1NVAai
XVi10
1NOdn
NOSa3w
1! MM
naval
laloewn
ONIAtl
s3wv
XON
NVOO
NVONOl
NO1M3
a3All
'3AV NN3
N33n
1l3SSn
NVOIa3N
------------
svwON
NOld
1N30N1
NanamSy
'3AV 93Xa3
N
~ YI N N
e
Ob b b b
r
N
0
u
o?
w
U.
z
> ?. o
F = V
?U=
d
W
a=
W -
2
W1134ON01
IAtl MV033
tel
i LI
1 91
musm"ou
4191
141
11 £1
II 21
It II
It 01
LOIll3
09VOIN0
onewnloO
l ip ware
9Ntl1XV0
3AV ONVnUGd
WS
4111,
NOlNII3
PAC
D42
SN3A31S
PI
'3Ay 131103IN
1130SItl16
N1eOMIN31A
AaneS111d
LNVSV3ld
ONVIIS
131aavN
0131.4WO
'3AV 3lVONAI
N?laGiv
1N'VAae
Xvd101
D 1NOdno
0 .4
31
NOsv3w3
17101L3ad
Oaya10
laloewnN
ONIANO
S3wVP
XONX
Ny901
Nvemon
NOIAM
a3A110
•
3AV NN3d
N33n
113SSna
NVOIa3N5
SvwoNl
NOldn
1N3ONIA
NaneNSVM
'3 AV S3Xa3X
H N N N. N N 1 H t9 t t; tp
n
' ?
a
vt r a o q
?p ?p .$ .p p A w ? r w v n
o n m
1,- t? n r, r
Zp ING
73RD S=
NI
W
a
r?
74 H ST w
SINGLE FAMILY (R"?)
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (Mft - )
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (MR -2)
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (MR-3)
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
NEIGHBOR 4C10, BUSINESS
7 T5 ST W
W`
ct
II?
1=
N
I"
IVYJ
W
Q
U_
0
Q
Z
m
APARTMENT
PARK
DUPLEX
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
SCHOOL
R
to
Q
LAND USE
i
T
W
Q
O
W
LL
Q
cr)
W
Q
Tr
r
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- - _ -_ _____ _____ _ ----------
- ------------------- ---- - ----------
-- ----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --
---- --- -- -------------- ----------
---------------- ----------
------ ___________ __ ____ _? =- ---------
----------
----------
---------- _______ ----------------
74TH ST W
73RD ST W
75TH ST W
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
cn
CD
a
Q
N ,.
m
CD
W
a
0
a
MEDIUM DENSITY / BUFFER
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
'INSTITUTIONAL
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
.... MIXED LAND USE
74TH ST W
W
a
J
O
z
Cn
W
a
0
W
N
W
a
4-
a
................
. ...............
................
................
................
------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------- - --------
---------------------- - ---------
-------------------------- ---------
------------------------ -- --------
-------------------------- ----------
----------- --------------- --------
--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
--------------------------- ------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------------
-------------------------------------
---------- ---- --
- - - ----------
73RD ST W
75TH ST W
LeFevere
Lefler
Kennedy
O'Brien &
Drawz
A PniG-4%Gnial
Ahmx fill ll +
2000 First Bank Place West December 29, 1987
Minneapolis
Minneeoto 55402
Telephone (612) 33340843
T•lwopier (612) 333-0540 Mr. T owh i d x a z i
Dayton L. LeFsvore City of Richfield
Harbert P. Lefler 6700 Portland Ave., S.
J. Donnie0'Brien
John E. Drawn Richfield, MN 55423
David J. Kennedy
Joseph 1:, Hamilton Re: 7312 Lyndale Ave., S.
John S. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue
Richard J. Sohleffer
Dear Towhid :
Charles L. LeFevere
Herbert P, Lefler III You have recently asked for our legal opinion based upon
James J. Thomann, Jr.
Thomas R. Galt
the following facts:
Doyle Nolan
John G. Kreesel The property at 7312 Lyndale is currently zoned
Steven B. Schmidt
ism" M.strommen
residential and has been used for residential purposes.
RMW H. Betty A request has been made by the property owners to convert
Vi P. Jordon the use from residential to commercial. The proposed use
Wlliram R. Skellerud
Rodney D. Anderson
involves the sale of pictures and silk flowers together
Corrine A. Helne with the making and sale of frames. I am informed that
David D. Beaudoin the frames are primarily for the pictures which are
Steven M. Tallen
Mary Fronces Skala
proposed to be sold on site. A sign, advertising the
Christopher J. Herriethel business, would be located adjacent to Lyndale.
Timothy J. Pewlenty
RoH A. Sponholm
JulloA.Bergh
On the basis of the foregoing fact situation, you have
Darcy L•Hltesman asked for our opinion concerning the proper zoning
David C. Roland
Karen A. Chom hamerllk
classification for the proposed use.
Paul D. Beeetachl
Obviously, the proposed use would not be a permitted or
conditional use in a residence 'district. Consequently,
rezoning to an appropriate commercial classification is a
necessary precondition to establishing the use.
1. C-2. The proposed use would most likely be
permitted in a C-2 district as a retail store shop.
(Subsection 520.15, Subd. 4)
However, a rezoning of the subject property to C-2
may be unacceptable to the council because of land
use considerations such as the current pattern of
land use in that area and the City's comprehensive
plan.
Mr. Towhid Kazi
December 29, 1967
Page 2
n
LJ
2. C=1. Rezoning of the subject property to C-1
appears to be more consistent with the comprehensive
plan for that area, but may still not be consistent
with the current use pattern. Moreover, it is not
entirely clear that the proposed use would be
consistent with the uses permitted in the C-1
districts. An analysis of the provisions of City
Code Subsections 520.01 through 520.03 reveals that
the proposed use is neither specifically permitted
nor specifically prohibited in a C-1 district. As
such, Subsections 520.05 and S05.11 outline a
procedure for determining the appropriate zoning
classification whereby the community development
director would request the Council to determine
whether the proposed use was consistent with uses
permitted in the C-1 district. If the Council so
determines, it would then be appropriate for the
property owner to seek rezoning to C-1. It is, of
course, important that the use not be classified as
a C-1 use unless the council determines that the use
is essentially "intended for the supplying of a
limited variety of commodities or services primarily
for the benefit of residents of the immediate
neighborhood." My personal judgment is that a
business of this type will not be financially
successful unless its market area extends well
beyond the "immediate neighborhood."
3. Procedure. In light of the foregoing, I recommend
the of owing procedure.
a. Once you have a request from the property
owner, which contains sufficient detail and is
sufficigntly definite, the director should
request that the use be classified by the
Council. I believe that it would also be
appropriate for the director to include in his
request any analysis and recommendation which
he may have.
b. before the Council considers the proper classi-
fication, it may wish to refer the matter to
the Planning Commission. However, it does not
appear that such reference is necessary with
regard to the classification issue. (5305=- F
Subd. 4)
c. If the Council determines that the proposed use
is proper in a C-1 district, the rezoning can
be processed in the same manner as any rezoning.
(Note: It would be possible to consider both
Mr. Towhid Kazi
December 29, 1987
Page 3
-the classification and rezoning in tandem.
Under that approach, both issues could go to
the Planning Commission and to the Council.
The issues, however, should be dept separate
because a negative determination on the
classification issue would probably moot the
rezoning issue.)
d. If the Council declines to classify the use as
a C-1 use, two options remain for the property
owner:
(1) seek a C-2 rezoning, or
(2) seek to amend the C-1 regulations to make
the proposed use permitted. (This could
either be done outright in 5520.01, Subd.
3 or by a provision such as the one
pertaining to auto detailing establish-
ments.) in either instance, an essential
neighborhood character would have to be
demonstrated to the Council.
if you have any further questions, please advise.
very truly yours,
rIS. Dean
JSD:rsr
0
December 28,1987
PLANNING COMMITTEE, CITY COUNCIL,
CITY OF RICHFIELD
We are proposing a soMAg_ change for the property at 7312 Lyndale Ave. So.
from residential to limited business. We feel this •-s6ning change will lead
to a unique concept for the area. It will bring to Richfield, not only a
place to purchase art and related gifts, but a place to watch the artist at
work. Art lessons would also be a possibility.
The changes in the appearance of the present exterior structure will be
minimal. Our aim is to keep it aeathetically.pleaaing by leaving the trees
and the stonework. This is in keeping with the architecture of the land,
continuing the natural setting of the Woodlake Preserve.
The front footage of the lots is approximately 150 feet. This should
allow for accessible driveway and ample parking, permitting favorable
traffic movement. An outside sign, meeting city reqquirements, will be
tastefully done by using the same type of materials (wood and sandstone).
"Tree House Gallery" would be a small business which we intend to run
ourselves. The purpose of this endeavor is to have an art gallery, framing,
unique gifts, selected antiques and working artist on premises. The hours
would be 10:00a.m. to 6:30 p.m. monday through saturday. We expect 12_36
customers a day. Although, we as owners, intend to work our own business,
it may be necessary to hire two employees.
We are very excited about this proposal•etptoially.,after cantassing the
neighborhood with our petition for rezoning to C_1 Limited Business.
The response was very favorable.
We feel we can serve the neighborhood by introducing art, in its many
pleasing forms, to be viewed and purchased at leisure in a familiar and
historic setting. We see this as an opportunity for Richfield to save
and enjoy the unique "TREE HOUSE" with its fifty years of reported legions
and history.
Sincere
OKI
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
• AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF A
PORTION OF CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH AND A PORTION OF EAST 67TH STREET.
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1.
The following described portions of East 67th Street and Cedar
Avenue South right-of-way, all located in the Northeast Quarter
of the Southeast Quarter, Section 26, Township 28 North, Range 24
West, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, are hereby vacated:
That,part of Cedar Avenue South described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 5,
Block 1, Wexler's Additions thence Easterly
on the extension of the South line of said
Lot 5 to a point 33 feet West of the East
line of Section 26, Township 28 North, Range
24 West, which point is referred to herein as
"Point A"; thence North on a line parallel
with and 33 feet West of said East line of
said Section 26 to the intersection with the
• Easterly extension of the North line of Lot
1, Block 1, Wexler's Addition, which line is
referred to herein as "Line X"; thence West
along said extension of the North line of
said Lot 1 to the Northeast corner of Lot 1;
thence South along the East line of Lots 1
through 5 of Block 1, Wexler's Addition to
the point of beginning, and there terminat-
ing; AND
All that part of Cedar Avenue South lying Westerly and Northerly
of the following described lines:
Beginning at "Point A" described above;
thence Southerly on the extension of "Line X"
described above to the intersection with the
Easterly extension of the North line of Lot
1, Block 4, Wexler's Addition; thence West
along said extension of the North line of
said Lot 1 to the Northeast corner of said
Lot 11 and there terminating; AND
That part of East 67th Street lying between the Southerly prolon-
gation of the Easterly line of 18th Avenue South and the Souther-
ly prolongation of the Westerly line of Cedar Avenue South.
Section 2.
• There are currently located within said Street and Avenue
rights-of-way hereby vacated certain sanitary sewers and utili-
ties, and their respective appurtenances. Said vacation is
subject to the easements running in favor of the City of Rich-
field, for the purpose of operating, maintaining, reconstructing,
constructing and repairing any such facilities over, under,
across and through that part of the Street and Avenue
rights-of-way hereby vacated, as described as follows:
Subject to an easement for sanitary sewer
purposes in favor of the City of Richfield
evert under, access and through all of the
above-described vacated Cedar Avenue Souths
AND
Subject to an easement for utility purposes
in favor of the City of Richfield, over,
under, across and through 50 the feet. oath rly th36
e
feet of the Northerly
above-described vacated East 67th Street.
Section 3.
The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized to take all
prof said
such action as is required to give
Avenueh South vacation
Cedareffect
ovided
portions of East 67th Street and
in the foregoing Sections l and 2.
Passed this day of , 1988 by the Richfield City
Council.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
0105od0l.c58
0
2
-AN
TRANSITORY ORDIKKNCR ¦O.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR
OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED LOTS
LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN? STATE OF
MINNESOTA (OLD CEDAR AVENUE LIQUOR STORE SITE).
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1.
The following described Lots located in the City of Richfield,
County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, are hereby authorized to
be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of, and conveyed by
the City as herein provided:
Lots 1 through 10, inclusive, Block 11
Wexler's Addition, Hennepin County, Minneso-
ta, together with all that part of the North
one-half of adjoining vacated or to be
vacated East 67th Street, and together with
all that part of adjoining vacated or to be
vacated Cedar Avenue South.
. Section 2.
The Mayor and City Manager, are hereby authorized to take all
action as is required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of
and convey the real property described in the foregoing section
1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the
execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of convey-
ance, and other instruments connected with such sale, transfer,
or disposition and conveyance.
Passed this day of , 1988 by the Richfield
City Council.
Mayor
ATTEST:
ity Clerk
0 01050d02.c58
fit,/f
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 15
January 11, 1988
Issue Statement:
First reading of ordinances; a) vacating right-of-way on 67th
Street between 18th Avenue and Cedar Avenue and 17 feet of right-
of-way on Cedar Avenue; b) authorizing sale of the properties at
6636 Cedar Avenue (old liquor store site) and the vacated right-
of-ways.
Background:
Lincoln Companies submitted a proposal to redevelop the old city
liquor store site at 6636 Cedar Avenue. The proposal involves
the construction of a three story office building with a gross
floor area of 88,200 square feet and a three story parking
facility attached to the building, a portion of which is below
grade to accommodate 386 parking spaces.
The site would be used exclusively for the headquarters of Copy
Duplicating Products, Inc., presently located in Bloomington, MN.
The firm sells and services office copying equipment.
The site has an area of 104,400 square feet (400 ft. x 261 ft.)
or 2.4 acres approximately. The land, which is owned by the
city, would be transferred to the HRA and the developer would
purchase the land from the HRA.
The redevelopment of the site also involves vacating of 67th
Street right-of-way between 18th Avenue and Cedar Avenue and a
portion of Cedar Avenue right-of-way (approximately 17 feet)
along the eastern property line of the site all the way to the
southern line of 67th Street right-of-way.
The property is zoned C-2, general commercial, and the proposed
use would be permitted. However, the developer has also made an
application for setback variances.
On April 15, 1985, the City Council gave first reading to an
ordinance authorizing the sale/transfer of the property located
at the old liquor store site. The new redevelopment proposal is
substantially different than the previous one and necessitates
reconsideration of the ordinance.
The developer has requested financial assistance to offset the
increased development cost of the site because of the parking
ramp. Tax increment financing is the only tool available for
such an assistance. The HRA is the appropriate entity to
administer such a financial package.
Details of the redevelopment proposal, including the financial
package are being finalized while this letter is being written.
Recommended Motion:
1. Approve the attached resolution vacating the public right-of-
ways described in the resolution, and give first reading
consideration to the ordinance vacating the subject public
right-of-way.
2. Approve the attached resolution and give first reading
consideration to the ordinance regarding the sale of property
including the public right-of-ways to the HRA.
3. Refer the above matters to the Planning Commission for their
findings on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is necessary to refer these items to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation prior to
consideration by the City Council.
2. In this particular case, first reading approval does not
necessarily indicate that either Planning Commission or City
Council final approval will be provided. It merely permits
the Planning Commission to review and provide a
recommendation to the City Council prior to final disposition
of these items.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to consider not giving
the first reading consideration to the attached resolution and
ordinance regarding the vacation and sale of the properties.
Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the January 11, 1988 City Council
agenda. City Council consideration of a second reading ordinance
and the public hearing on the vacation of the public right-of-
ways and sale of the properties are scheduled for January 25,
1988.
No public hearing is required or scheduled for January 11,
therefore notice of the council consideration of this item is not
required at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City anager
RESOLUTION NO. _
RESOLUTION RECEIVING STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION PETITION
AND CALLING OF PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City Clerk
requesting the vacation of a street right-of-way described as
follows:
That part of Cedar Avenue South described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 5, Block 1,
Wexler's Addition; thence Easterly on the extension of the
South line of said Lot 5 to a point 33 feet West of the East
line of Section 26, Township 28 North, Range 24 West, which
point is referred to herein as "Point A"; thence North on a
line parallel with and 33 feet West of said East line of
said Section 26 to the intersection with the Easterly
extension of the North line of Lot 1, Block 1, Wexler's
Addition, which line is referred to herein as "Line X";
thence West along said extension of the North line of said
Lot 1 to the northeast corner of Lot 1; thence South along
the East line of Lots 1 through 5 of Block 1, Wexler's
Addition to the point of beginning, and there terminating;
AND
40 All that part of Cedar Avenue South lying Westerly and Northerly
of the following described lines:
Beginning at "Point All described above; thence Southerly on
the extension of "Line X" described above to the
intersection with the Easterly extension of the North line
of Lot 1, Block 4, Wexler's Addition; thence West along said
extension of the North line of said Lot 1 to the Northeast
corner of said Lot 1, and there terminating; AND
That part of East 67th Street lying between the Southerly
prolongation of the Easterly line of 18th Avenue South and the
Southerly prolongation of the Westerly line of Cedar Avenue
South.
WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with the
requirements of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.04.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Richfield as follows:
1. The petition for vacation of that portion of the above
described right-of-way is received.
2. A public hearing on the street right-of-way vacation in said
petition shall be held on January 25, 1988.
3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing
in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of said
hearing in the manner provided by Richfield Ordinance Code
Section 820.01 to 820.09.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
11th day of January, 1988
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
0
RESOLUTION NO.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE SALE OF CERTAIN LAND
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City")
proposes to sell the real property legally described as: PIN#26-
028-24-41-0063, Lots 1 to 10, Block 1, Wexler's Addition
(the "Land") to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and
for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") in order to
carry out or cause to be carried out the provisions of a proposed
redevelopment plan which will provide that no use shall be made
of the land or any structure erected thereon which does not
conform with the redevelopment plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Charter, Section 130004, the
City is authorized to sell its Land following a public hearing
for which notice was published not less than 10 days before such
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The City shall hold a public hearing regarding the sale of
the Land on Monday, January 25, 1988.
is 2. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing
in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of said
hearing in the manner provided by Richfield Ordinance Code
Section 820.01 to 820.09.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
11th day of January, 1988
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
0
? f11 f
0
Z
O
V
O
J
I
LJ
N ? ? ? N I N Vf
O O ` L C
0! £2
NStONV15
vY zz
c is 12
4102 L -H JL
Vf 61 ????
?I
MOl13d?NOl -___,
3AV tlV03O ---•--???
4/ 91
YILI
V191
NOlONIw0019
44 91 Vi fl
VI
V111 I
4&01 Ii -
101113 i I G
09VOINO I Y
? i
I W J
SnawnlOO
XNVd
ONVlXVO I r--l -
3AV ONVIINOd 11 I?
ViS I
I
410
NO1NI10 0!£ O?L-J
SN3A31S
Isl
•3AV 131100IN
VOIAIN 3M
I
i ; i ? O
MlOM1 S
1NVIii
III - ? - i - -
.LN VSV3, 3.1
d
ONVaO I I'
1318VVH 1?I ?
0131daVO ICI D ??
'3AV 3lV0NA1
Nolaals I I?
I I ?
1NVAa9 II1, u W iu
MOOD
I u J
1Nodn0 II \ 'c
I
NOSa3w3 \\?? r--
INOw31d 444 \
0ava19 I
10109nnN
ONIANI ?II?00? =-Iir
s3nvr
XONX
`
NVOO1
NVONOw
NO1M3N
a3A110 Jl
'3AV NN3d
N33nO
I `711ti_ r'; r
113SSOtl
NV01a3NS
SVwONl
?'-
NOldn 'jam(
-
?'--
1N30NIA ?- - - _- `-' `
NanQHSVM I ?' ._ if ul l
I I
'3AV S3Xa3x •tY .,:.?r._. ..-_?--`
3 N N N N N t~II
i
C O C L =
0 HO N
N
O
u
N N
b ?
N ? H N
_
A e o
A L
A
z
?> -
m r
V C> a i
W
N N N p; z
z
H
A A Ae
i 3AV aV03O
4191
41L1
?IJ I ii 4191
-J==
1
I
11
li
NOlON1n00'1B
Yl SI
i
O 41 bl
YI £1
O LJ
?
?? III 4121
J??
?
j II;I 41 11
_
??O I?NI 4101
101113
?77 11
jII OOVOINO
snewnloa
II
I
i I
)lewd
I
ONV lxVO
I IC
I
I
, '3AV ONVUVOd
1
"IS
1 YI
1 O
NOl NIIO
ui I w£ I
042
N SN3A31S
isl
T
i
'3AV 131100IN
Isss 1130SIVIG
r- NlaomlN3M
I
ANO9Sl11d
- •1:-- 1NVSV31d
6 1 ONVtlO
?^ 1
it 131aaVN
al31dav0
'
3AV 31VONA1
NOIaOIY
? 1NVAtlB
I xVdIOO
?0?
Y LNOdnO
i
i NOSa3w3
?' LNOn3w
aaralo
----?" lOlO9wnN
--- ; - p,
?
oN1Aa1
'I S3wVr
XONx
? O NV901
11??I
'--- NVONOw
'I ?I N3AII0
'
7177
6q 3AV NN3d
' I n
N33 0
113Ssna
NVOItl3NS
? - 1-7?,?I?^f 1 SVwONI
NOldn
1N33NIA
??J l yl ??' ( NaneNSVM
r= <_-
'3AV 53Xa3X
N VI N H N N N H N N Np
Q
C + w O C C L ? L?
O O w 1? A A ? ? ? A m,
•
IN
W
Q
m
9p
w
V
CD
N
W
C'7 'Q
CO
CO
•
0
0
a
oll
-- =- -
10
? 1(
1 Q
N
•o # 1
P7.
,t
®
E7
rr rt-rr- -•?-•-
r
X ?
7
t r
y
T.
,O
Q
t 1?
(91
Aft
N
W
Q
Q
D
W
V
?i
J '
W
J
c U.
SA -- -
CL N
Z
ZONING
65TH ST E
66TH ST E
F-
f`
T
67TH ST E
GEN. COMME
MULTIPLE RE!
(MR41
GEN.INDUSTR
T
W
Q
F-
co
v-
T
71",
W
Q
cc
Q
O
W
U
,%z-
r/
N
68TH ST E
V
W
Q
H
t0
T
LAND USE
65TH ST E
-'
66TH ST E
2
F-
ti
T
COMMERCU
QUASI PUBL
DUPLEX
_ _-?- APARTMENT
PARK
VACANT
67TH ST E
T
W
Q
S
H
GO
T
TL
W
Q
Q
W
V
N
68TH ST E
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PL-AW?-
65TH ST E
66TH ST E
V,
P.,
H
h
r
67TH ST E
MIXED LAND I
--------------
MEDIUM DENS
/ BUFFER
INSTITUTION
PARKS AND
.
• :r.,. •
• OPEN SPACE
?
,
T
.
F-
s?
V,
W
Q
Q
W
U
%?z
N
68TH ST E
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 14
Agenda of January 11, 1988
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of an ordinance amendment pertaining
to the city sign regulations.
Background:
In August of 1987 the City Council approved an ordinance setting
new sign regulations for the city. At that time staff indicated
that we would continue to review the ordinance and work with sign
installers to further refine the ordinance if necessary.
Attached for your review is an ordinance which makes some changes
to these sign regulations.
The following is a summary of the changes being proposed.
1. The definition of a sign has been clarified to include
footings. This is necessary to make it clear that when a
sign has to be removed, such as an abandoned sign, that the
footings also have to be removed.
2. The definition of a temporary sign has been amended to
indicate that banners and pennants are considered to be
temporary signs. This is proposed to eliminate the
possibility of a property owner indicating that banners and
• pennants are installed on a permanent basis.
3. Subsection 416.03, subdivision 8, Uniform Enforcement and
Appeals Procedures is repealed and a new section 416.02 is
added entitled enforcement. This provision would allow the
inspections division to enforce the provisions in the manner
provided in subsection 115.11 of the city code. The
provisions in subdivision 8 would not be effective,
especially with temporary signs, because the time to carry
out this procedure is too long (approximately six to eight
weeks). The provisions in subsection 115.11 would allow the
inspectors to take immediate action such as issuing tags, to
correct a problem generally within two days.
4. Subsection 416.07, subdivision 2(d)(3) has been amended to
clarify the minimum vertical clearance required under ground
signs. This particular amendment is in response to a concern
expressed by a sign installer that most existing freestanding
ground signs would be made nonconforming, because the
previous provisions allowed a minimum vertical clearance of 7
feet while the new regulations required 14 feet. Staff is
suggesting that the vertical clearance be reduced to 7 feet,
but if the ground sign projects over a sidewalk a minimum 8
foot clearance must be maintained and if it projects over a
driveway or other area where vehicles pass underneath a
minimum vertical clearance of 14 feet must be maintained.
5. Subsection 416.07, subdivision 2, has been amended by adding
a new paragraph f which indicates that signs permitted in the
C-3 High density district are only those signs which have
• been approved as part of the site plan or review process
required by the city zoning regulations. The new paragraph
also indicates that existing signs in the C-3 district are
nonconforming signs subject to the general restrictions for
nonconforming signs. This allows the signs to continue to
exist but they cannot be expanded.
The billboards are covered by a separate ordinance, therefore
these changes do not change the provisions regarding billboards.
The city staff has also had conversations with two companies
which provide search lights and they have indicated a desire to
have the council reconsider the prohibition of search lights.
This proposed amendment does not lift or change the prohibition
of search lights.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading consideration to the attached ordinance
amendment and schedule the public hearing and second reading
consideration for February 8, 1988.
•
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed amendments are necessary to provide workable and
enforceable sign regulations for the city.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to not pass the attached
ordinance and continue the sign regulation in its present form.
Decision Mode:
This matter is scheduled for first reading consideration on
January 11, 1988. No public hearing is required for first
reading consideration. Published notice of the public hearing
and second reading consideration of the ordinance will be
provided. Staff will also provide notice of the hearing to the
Chamber of Commerce and to licensed sign installers in the city.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
Cit Manager
44
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IV
SECTION 416 OF THE
RICHFIELD CITY CODE
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter IV, Section 416 of the Richfield City Code of 1987
entitled "Regulation of Signs" is hereby amended in the following
respects:
I. By amending Subdivision 33 of subsection 416.01 to read as
follows:
Subdivision 33. "Sign" means a display used to announce,
declare, advertise and attract the attention of the public.
The term includes the sign face e-a4,_ the sign structure,
and footings.
II. By amending subdivision 41 of Section 416.01 to read as
follows:
Subdivision 41. "Temporary Sign" means a sign not
constructed or intended for long term use. Banners and
pennants are considered to be temporary signs.
III. By adding thereto the following subsection 416.02:
• 416.02 Enforcement. Employees of the inspections division
of the department of public safety are hereby authorized to
enforce the provisions of this Section in the manner
provided in subsection 115.11 of this code.
IV. By repealing subdivision 8 of subsection 416.03 entitled
"Uniform Enforcement and Appeals Procedure."
V. By amending paragraph (d)(3) of Subdivision 2 of Subsection
416.07 to read as follows:
(3) Ground Signs. The total sign area for all
freesten ground signs except traffic and directional
signs on any property shall not exceed 200 square feet in
sign area and not more than 27 feet in height. Where
ground signs are located in front of the building setback
line, a minimum vertical clearance of -4 7 feet
must be maintained below any freestaA ground sign.
located within 25 feet of any intersection oF a ftiveway
with street Light-Of-Way, OT at any uthe.L lucation where
Where
a ground sign projects over a sidewalk, a minimum vertical
clearance of 8 feet must be maintained below the sign. A
minimum vertical clearance of 14 feet must be maintained
• below any ground sign where vehicle traffic passes
underneath.
VI. By adding the following new paragraph (f) to Subdivision 2
of Subsection 416.07
(f) C-3 Nigh Density Commercial. Only those signs approved
as part of the site plan review process required by Section
520 of this code shall be permitted. All signs lawfully
existing on August 1, 1987 shall be deemed to be
nonconforming signs subject to the provisions for
nonconforming signs found in Subdivision 5 of Subsection
416.11, and in the case of outdoor advertising displays,
subject to the provisions found in Subdivision 3 of
Subsection 416.09 of this code.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of , 1988.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
0 Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
?7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 13
January 11, 1988
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of an ordinance to clarify council
responsibilities in approving various zoning matters and to
provide a process to revoke conditional use permits.
Background:
The Planning Commission has expressed concerns about developers
and property owners not following through on conditions placed on
the approval of conditional use permits. To address these
concerns, city staff has been working with the city attorney's
office to prepare ordinance amendments to help insure that
conditional use permit conditions are met.
In reviewing this matter we have also discovered the need to make
a minor technical correction regarding council responsibilities
in zoning matters.
Attached for council consideration is a draft ordinance, intended
to accomplish two objectives.
First, it provides the appropriate technical identification to
council members when they act in connection with various zoning
topics which come before them as the City Council or as the Board
of Adjustment and Appeals.
Secondly, the draft ordinance sets out a process for the
revocation of conditional use permits. This ordinance would
allow the City Council to revoke a conditional use permit if the
conditions approved as part of the conditional use permit are not
met and maintained.
The process indicates that if a violation is discovered, the city
will provide notice to the owners of the property where
violations are noted and give them a reasonable time, but not
less than 10 days, to correct the violations.
If the property owner does not comply within the prescribed time
limit, a hearing before the City Council will be scheduled to
consider the revocation of the conditional use permit. Notice of
this hearing will be provided to the property owner and to
persons within 350 feet of the subject property.
At the conclusion of the hearing the City Council will decide
whether or not to revoke the conditional use permit or alter the
conditions of the conditional use permit.
. The ordinance also indicates that if a conditional use permit is
revoked, then any other permits or licenses such as food licenses
,,0 -y
-/
or liquor licenses may be subject to termination. Many licenses
• and permits require, as a condition of their issuance, the
existence of a conditional use permit.
The procedure for termination of these permits or licenses will
be in the manner set forth in the sections of the ordinances
- dealing with those specific permits or licenses. The ordinance
also indicates that the city may exercise any other remedies to
insure compliance as allowed by the code.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended council passage
of the attached ordinance.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of the attached ordinance and schedule the
public hearing on this matter for February 8, 1988.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The attached amendment is necessary to clarify existing
ordinance language concerning how the city deals with zoning
related matters.
2. The amendment is also necessary to institute a process to
revoke a conditional use permit to insure that development
occurs as approved and that a development continue to meet
all conditions of that approval in the future.
• Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to pass an ordinance
amendment which only makes the technical corrections to the
zoning ordinance and to suggest other alternatives to assure
compliance with conditional use permits.
Decision Mode
This matter is scheduled for first reading consideration on
January 11, 1988. No public hearing is required for first
reading consideration. Staff will provide published notice for
the public hearing and second reading of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Jams D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
0
y '
•
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 545 OF
THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE OF 1987
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 545 of the City Code entitled "Zoning: adjustment:
appeals: administration" is hereby amended in the following
respects:
I. By amending Subdivision 2 of subsection 545.05 to read as
follows:
Subd. 2. Variance. The board may hear requests for
variances from th 1-e Tteral provisions of this code in cases where
their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under considera-
tion, and to grant variances only when it is demonstrated that
such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
this code. The board eeumeil may not permit as a variance any
use that is not permitted under this code for property in the
zone where the affected land is located. The eeenell board may
• impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure
compliance and to protect adjacent property.
II. By amending Subdivisions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of subsection
545.09 to read as follows:
Subd. 3. Application. Application for the issuance of a
conditional use permit is made to the director. Proceedings to
classify certain uses as conforming uses may be initiated either
by an applicant or by the beard council.
Subd. 4. Public hearing. The beard council may hold such
hearings on the proposal to issue a conditional use permit as it
may consider necessary; but at least one public hearing shall be
held by the board or by a committee of commission to be
designated by the board in any application for a conditional use
permit for the establishments of any use listed in subdivision 1,
paragraphs a and f.
Subd. 5. Conditions. The beard council may not grant a
conditional use permit unless it finds that the establishment,
maintenance or operation of the use for which the conditional use
. permit is sought will not under the circumstances of the
particular case be detrimental, W to the health, safety,
morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of the persons residing
or working in the neighborhood of the use, or (ii) to the public
welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighbor-
hood.
•
Subd. 6. Other conditions. The beard council may not grant
a conditional use permit unless it finds that the establishment,
maintenance or operation of the use for which the conditional use
permit is sought is in compliance with the (i) comprehensive
municipal plan, (ii) an officially adopted redevelopment plans
and urban design guidelines, and (iii) applicable parking
regulations and landscape guidelines.
Subd. 7. Compliance. The beard council may impose
conditions and require guarantees in the granting of conditional
use permits. Any use permitted under the terms of any
conditional use permit shall be established and conducted in
conformity to with the terms of the permit and of any conditions
imposed. If any person violates a term of the permit or any
conditionimposed by the council in connection with the grant or
issuance of a conditional use permit, the council may revoke such
permit and all rights attributable to such permit. In considering
the revocation of a conditional use permit, the city shall
proceed as follows:
(a) Complaint. The director shall review any complaints
received by the city involving property which is
• subject to a conditional use permit, and shall
determine whether, in the director's judgment a
violation of the terms or conditions of any conditional
use permit appears to have occurred.
(b) Notice of Apparent Violation. If the director
determines that an apparent violation of such terms and
conditions exists, the director shall cause a notice of
violation to be mailed to the owner of the property or
owner's agent and to any other person known to the City
to be conducting the use for which the Conditional Use
Permit was granted. The notice shall:
(1) be in writing;
(2) particularize the violation or violations found to
apparently exist and particularize the remedial
actions which must be taken to achieve compliance
with the terms and conditions of the conditional
use permit;
(3) provide a reasonable time, but not less than ten
days, for the recipient to remedy the violation or
violations particularized in the notice; and
(4) inform the recipient that if the particularized
• violations are not remedied within the stated time
period, the director will request the council to
consider revocation of the conditional use permit.
2
(c) Failure to Comply. When notice has been given in
accordance with clause (b) above and the recipient has
failed to correct the violations particularized in the
notice within the time allowed, the director shall
refer the matter to the city manager with a recommenda-
tion that a hearing be held by the council to consider
the revocation of the conditional use permit. A copy
of the director's recommendation shall be mailed to the
same persons who previously received the notice of
violation.
(d) Scheduling of Hearing. If the city manager concurs in
the recommendation of the director, the manager shall
schedule a hearing before the council to consider
revocation of the conditional use permit. The date of
the hearing shall be as soon as is reasonably
convenient.
(e) Upon the scheduling of the hearing, the director shall
furnish mailed notice of such to the same persons who
were mailed notice of the violation. The notice shall:
(1) state the time, date and location of the hearing;
•
(2) describe with particularity the violations or
violation which will form the basis of the
director's recommendation to the council;
(3) describe the recommendation which the director
intends to make to the council with respect to
revocation; and
(4) inform the recipient of its opportunity to be
present at the hearing, to be represented by legal
counsel during the hearing, to present testimony
and evidence and to cross-examine witnesses.
The director shall also provide a notice containing the
information described in subparagraphs (1), (2) and (3)
of this paragraph to all other persons who would have
been entitled to notice had the hearing been to
consider the granting of the conditional use permit.
(f) Determination. At the conclusion of the hearing, or as
soon thereafter as is reasonably possible, the council
shall render its written decision. The decision shall
state the terms and conditions of the conditional use
permit found to have been violated; and shall state the
determination of the council with regard to revocation
of the conditional use permit. - The council may, in
lieu of revocation, permit the conditional use permit
to continue subject to such further or additional terms
and conditions as in its iudgment are necessary to
III. By
insure compliance with the conditional use permit. The
council's written findings and determination shall be
mailed to the persons who were mailed the director's
notice of violation. If a conditional use permit is
revoked, all uses and activities which are permitted
only by such conditional use permit shall immediately
cease. And all other licenses and permits issued by
the -city which require, as a condition of their
issuance, the existence of the conditional use, shall
be subject to termination in the manner set forth in
this Code or other applicable law.
amending Subsection 545.09 by adding thereto the
following Subdivision 8:
Subd. 8. Other Remedies. In addition to the procedure set
forth above, the city may exercise, with or separately from such
procedure, all and any other remedies and actions available to
the city including, but not limited to those contained in
Sections 320 and 115 of this Code.
0 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of
1988.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
0
00550D08.E14
4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
. Council Letter No. 12
Agenda January 11, 1987
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an ordinance amendment relating to the
Administrative Code, Section 300.13, Public Safety Department,
Subdivision 2. Fire Division.
Background:
The Public ?Safety Department is currently going through a
reorganization that will establish five separate divisions within
the Department.
In the past, the Fire Division has been managed by a position
title of Assistant Chief, when in reality this position is that
of a Fire Chief. This was necessary due to insurance
requirements that mandated the city to have a Chief as well as an
Assistant Chief of the Fire Division.
Prior to the proposed restructuring, the Director of Public
Safety was considered the Fire Chief with the Assistant Chief
reporting to him. We have recently established a position of
Fire Marshall/Assistant Chief that will allow the current
Assistant Chief, Pat Coughlin, to assume the title of Fire Chief.
• The Director of Public Safety will still have management control
of the Fire Division, but will rely heavily on the Chief of the
Fire Division for operational issues.
The current concept of the Director as the Fire Chief with an
Assistant Fire Chief under him, who actually runs the Division,
is very confusing to outside agencies that deal with our
department. The Director of Public Safety is the administrator
of the department and generally does not, and would not, become
involved in operational fire fighting decisions, but rather
relies on the Assistant Fire Chief to make those decisions.
It stands to reason that one would assume that the position in
command of the Fire Division should be titled Fire Chief and the
overall management of the Fire Division still lies with the
Director.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of the attached ordinance amendment
eliminating the Director of Public Safety as the "Chief" of the
Fire Division.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could opt not to adopt the attached ordinance revision
and the Director of the Department of Public Safety would
continue as the Chief of the Fire Division.
40
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled for first reading at the January 11,
1988 city council meeting, with the public hearing and second
reading scheduled for February 8, 1988.
Res ec ully submitted,
Ja s D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
•
•
L_J
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 300.13,
SUBDIVISION 2 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 300.13 Public Safety Department
Subd. 2. Fire Division.- The Fire Division is supervised by
the Director of Public Sa ety is-t#e Ghref of the 91-1111-1-
and who is assisted by a Fire Chief of that Division. There
s-hrcrl-1- may be one or more Assistant Chief's in the Division.
8 council meeting.
C]
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 11
Agenda January 11, 1988
Issue Statement:
Ordinance amendment to Chapter XII, Section 1200.15, subd. 8, of
the ordinance code relating to gambling.
In November, 1987, a license for an "amusement device" came
before the council. Because of the confusion in our ordinance
related to a device such as this, the Director of Public Safety
asked that the license not be issued until a more thorough review
of the device could be accomplished. Investigation revealed that
the device was a "blackjack table". It was the opinion of the
Public Safety Department that a device such as this was a
gambling device, and the potential for abuse was certainly
prevalent.
In addition, there has been a great deal of concern by the
Department of Public Safety related to video poker machines which
currently are authorized under state statute and are regulated by
the same statute. These devices, while regulated by the state,
have the potential for illegal gambling. This type of table and
the video games of chance regulated by the state statute are for
"entertainment purposes" and not intended for "gambling". The
perception and perhaps reality, is quite the opposite.
The proposed ordinance amendment would enable the public safety
department to restrict the keeping, possessing or permitting on
any licensed premises, or in any room adjoining the licensed
premises, any slot machine, dice, blackjack table, or video games
of chance, as defined in the Minnesota Statutes Section 349.50,
or any gambling device or apparatus which is capable of being
used for unlawful gambling. In doing this, it would not permit
lawful gambling on the licensed premises for which a license has
been obtained pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 349.16 e.g., pull-
tabs, etc., as currently are being allowed at the American Legion
and VFW Clubs.
At the time of on-sale liquor license renewals, December 14,
1987, the city council passed a resolution which required certain
standards of on-sale liquor licenses. One of those standards
prohibited gambling devices on the premises. This ordinance
would provide additional restrictions to those types of devices.
Recommended Motion:
Approve an amendment to Chapter XII, Section 1200.15, subd. 8
Gambling of the Richfield Ordinance Code and schedule the second
reading and public hearing for January 25, 1988.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The ordinance amendment would provide direction to the
Department of-Public Safety for specific enforcement action
against gambling devices.
2 1 ?7_ /
• Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council could choose not to adopt the ordinance and the
Department of Public Safety would proceed as they have in
the past, dealing specifically with the resolutions on the
on-sale liquor license renewals or new licenses as they are
approved by the city council. This, of course, would be more
cumbersome in that any time one of these devices were found
it would be an issue related to licensure as opposed to a
pure violation of ordinance.
2. The council could modify the ordinance to be more or less
restrictive.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is placed on the January 11, 1988 agenda for first
reading. Second reading and the public hearing would be
scheduled for February 8. If approved on second reading, the
ordinance would become effective 30 days after publication.
Respect lly submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
• JDP/eja
0
CJ
n
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1200.15,
SUBDIVISION 8 OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1200.15, Subdivision 8 of the Ordinance Code of the City
of Richfield entitled: Gambling is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Subd.8 Gambling Exeept as eyed-b er o licensee
or any employee shall keep, possess, or operate or permit the
keeping, possession or operation on the licensed premises, or in
any room adjoining the licensed premises of any slot machine,
dice, blackjack table, video games of chance as defined in Minn.
Stat., Section 349.50 or any gambling device or apparatus which
is capable of being used for unlawful gambling on the licensed
premises er in any reem adjoining the lieensed , nor
shall such persons permit any gambling therein. This subdivision
shall not prevent lawful ambling on the licensed remises for
which a license has been obtained pursuant to Minn Stat,
Section 349.16.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of
ATTEST:
1987.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
City Council Letter No. 10
Agenda January 11, 1988
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an Amendment to Chapter I, Section 115,
subsection 115.11, subd. 4 of the municipal code entitled
penalties.
Background:
It is advisable for agents of the Inspection Division to be able
to routinely issue citations for ordinance code violations.
Richfield City Ordinance Section 115 was amended recently to
enable certain non-sworn Public Safety personnel to issue
citations for ordinance code violations. Since the Inspection
Division contracts with outside agencies for some health and
inspection tasks it is desirable that these agents of the
Inspection Division also have the authority to issue citations in
lieu of arrest for code violations that they are empowered to
enforce.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an Amendment to Chapter I, Section 115,
subsection 115.11, subd. 4 of the municipal code entitled
penalties.
. Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is desirable for the employees and Agents of the
Inspection Division to be able, in some cases, to issue
written citations for code violations rather than going
through the more lengthy and expensive formal complaint
procedure.
Alternate Recommendation:
1. The council could elect to have employees and Agents of the
Inspection Division be required to file charges of alleged
code violations through the formal complaint process.
2. The council could elect to only allow employees of the
Inspection Division to issue citations in lieu of arrest.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading of this ordinance amendment has been placed on the
January 11, 1988 council agenda. If approved on first reading,
the second reading and public hearing would be scheduled for the
February 8, 1988 city council meeting.
Respely submitted,
rosser
Jame;f
City er
-Z Z.4
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 9
Agenda January 11, 1988
Issue Statement:
Second reading and public hearing of an ordinance to limit the
parking of recreational vehicles on city streets for a maximum of
six hours
Background:
City streets are intended for movement of traffic throughout the
city. Where consistent with traffic conditions, temporary
parking of motor vehicles, not to exceed 48 hours is allowed.
For safety and traffic control reasons, streets should not be
used for the storage of motor vehicles, recreational vehicles or
equipment.
The present ordinance does restrict the parking of trucks over
one ton to a time limit of two hours on public streets. Other
types of motor vehicles are restricted to 48 hours.
Parking and storage of recreational vehicles on public streets is
not addressed in the city code. There are no restrictions for
parking and storage of recreational vehicles.
• Therefore, an ordinance amendment has been drafted that would
restrict the parking of recreational vehicles on city streets for
a maximum period of six hours. The six hour limit should provide
residents adequate opportunity to complete the normal loading and
unloading of recreational vehicles which are in use by
homeowners.
At the December 14, 1987 city council meeting, the city council
gave first reading to this proposed ordinance and scheduled the
public hearing and second reading for the January 11, 1988 city
council meeting.
At the December 14, 1987 meeting, the council made two
suggestions to amend the ordinance including: extending the time
from four to six hours, and granting authority to the public
safety department to allow recreational vehicles on the public
streets for longer than the six hour limit providing it does not
create any traffic or safety hazard such as parking on a corner
where visibility may be blocked.
After considerable staff discussion, it was determined that this
latter amendment would be contradictory to the basis purpose of
the ordinance. It has been included in the draft for council
consideration, but is not recommended.
During the past week several calls have been received by the
Department of Public Safety expressing concerns regarding the
ordinance. The concerns expressed include the following:
1. Extension of time limitation for parking from the proposed
six hours to 24 hours.
2. The alternatives to street parking of recreational vehicles
is limited due to small lot sizes in the city.
Recommended Motion:
1 Approve second reading of an amendment to the city ordinance
Section 1305, "Specific Regulations: Illegal Parking and
Stopping; (2) Approve second reading of an amendment to Section
1320 entitled "Parking: Outside Storage" by adding Subsection
1320.6: Unlawful Parking - Recreational vehicles and equipment.
Subdivision 1, Parking Prohibited; but excluding Subdivision 2,
Permit.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. It is desirable that all recreational vehicles and equipment
be stored on residential property in accordance with
ordinance code Section 1325, Parking: Recreational Vehicles.
2. The on-street parking of recreational equipment such as
boats, trailers, all terrain vehicles and snowmobiles is not
consistent with the free and safe use of city streets by the
public.
3. On-street parking of recreational vehicles has a negative
impact upon the appearance of a neighborhood and is
frequently offensive to neighbors adjacent to the parked RV
vehicle.
4. Recreational vehicles have substantially the same
characteristics of commercial vehicles and therefore should
be treated in the same manner for parking control purposes.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council may elect not to approve the attached ordinance,
or may amend it in some fashion as determined by the council.
2. The council may determine a longer timeframe for permitting
parking of recreational vehicles or equipment on city
streets. It should be noted that extending the time limit
beyond six hours diminishes the enforceability of this
ordinance and also diminishes the impact that we may have
upon correcting the traffic safety and aesthetic problems
created by the parking of RV vehicle.
3. The council may elect to table this item and to discuss it at
a later time. If the council selects this alternative, staff
should be provided with specific directions regarding
additional information to be gathered in the interim.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
If this ordinance is given second reading approval at the January
11, 1988 city council meeting, the ordinance would become
effective 30 days after publication in the official newspaper.
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City anager
JDP/eja
0
EXHIBIT
COUNCIL LETTER ON
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
The following is a list of suburban communities and the
restrictions they place on parking recreational vehicles on
public streets.
Bloomington - No restrictions
Minnetonka - No vehicle of any kind can be parked for more than
six (6) hours: Nor can any vehicle be parked on
any street between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Edina: - Permits only one recreational vehicle per dwelling
and must obtain a permit for $50. Can not park
within 15 feet of curb in front yards November
April from 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. No vehicle
Parking maximum of six (6) hours on any street.
St. Louis Pk.- Regulates parking by size; weight, and type of
vehicle. i.e., vehicles in excess of 9,000
pounds gross vehicle weight, in excess of 22 feet
long, commercial bus, tractor, tractor trailer,
trailer or any other similar vehicle. Unlawful
. to park on any public or private property except
while loading or unloading. They also have an
ordinance that prohibits parking on any street for
more than 12 hours.
Robbinsdale - No vehicle can park more than six (6) hours except
by North Memorial Hospital which is a permit
process.
New Hope - No parking 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. No Parking for
more than six (6) hours, to include recreational
vehicles. Allows for temporary permit for up to
seven (7) days because of out-of-town visitors
and construction.
Crystal - No parking for more than six (6) hours.
0
0 RICHFIELD CURRENT ORDINANCE
No vehicle can park on any street for more than forty-eight
(48) hours (1305.11 (c)).
Can not park recreational vehicles within three(3) feet of any
structure including fences or within twelve (12) feet of the
curbline of the street abutting an established driveway. ( Except
they may park in the above locations for no more than forty-eight
(48) hours for the purpuose of loading or unloading (city
ordinance 1325.05 subd. 1(a),(b),(c), and subd. 2.
Buses designed to carry nine (9) or more persons, trucks with one
(1) ton or more capacity, any tractor or truck trailer or any
type of trailer can only park for not more than tweo (2) hours on
any city street (1320.03 (a),(b),(c).
L.J
0
r-
• CZT7( OF RICHFIELD
ORDIN4NCE NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1000, SUBSECTION 1005
Off' THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE OF 1987
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
I. Subsection 1320, Subsection 1320.5 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield entitled: "Exceptions" is hereby amended by amending paragraph
(c) thersof to read as foliow4:
(c) recreational vehicles and equipment when parked on private property.
II. Section 1320, of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled
"harking: Outside Storage" if hereby amended by adding the following
Subsection 1320.6:
• 1320.6. Unlawful Parking - Recreational vehicles and aduipment.
Passed by the City COUnc11 of ;he City of Richfield, Minnesota this
day of , 1998.
ATTEST.,
Thomas Fer er, city lerk -
0055OD10.814
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
0 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1305, SUBSECTION 1305.25
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1305, Subsection 1305.25 of the ordinance code of
the City of Richfield entitled: "Specific Regulations: Illegal
Parking and Stopping" is amended by adding thereto the following
new paragraph (w):
(w: recreational vehicles and equipment as defined in
subsection 1325.03 of this code may not park or stand
continuously upon a public street abutting a residential district
for more than four hours.
•
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of
0
CITY OF _RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 8
• January 11, 1988
Issue Statement:
Approval of an amendment to the final development plan for the
Market Plaza Development at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue.
Background:
A valet parking arrangement has been instituted for the Champps
Restaurant at the Market Plaza Development at 66th Street and
Lyndale Avenue.
The developers wish to construct a permanent valet building in
the spring as weather permits at the southeast corner of the
restaurant. The freestanding 6 by 8 foot structure would be
brick on the base, glass windows, metal roof and narrow lap
siding.
The valet structure would be placed on the end island of the
parking on the east side of the Champps parking. The island
would be widened and a tree removed and relocated to the island
closest to the 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue intersection.
Parking stalls would be restriped so that no parking would be
lost.
The developer is proposing to locate a smaller 4 foot x 6 foot
temporary structure on the site during the winter months until
• the permanent structure can be completed. The temporary
structure would be a metal and glass building.
The location of a temporary and permanent valet structure was not
anticipated with the original approved plan; therefore, the plan
amendment is necessary at this time.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the location of the temporary and permanent valet
structure on the site.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The valet building is necessary to make the valet parking
work on the site. The permanent solution should tie in
aesthetically with other improvements on the site.
2. The temporary valet building is necessary because the
permanent solution cannot be cost effectively constructed on
the site during winter months.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the plan amendment and not allow the location of a permanent
or temporary valet building on the site.
El
r1
LJ
Decision Mode:
is matter is scheduled
January 11, 1988. Notice
has been published in the
for consideration by the
of the public hearing on
Richfield Sun Newspaper.
City Council on
this matter
Respectfully submitted,
rosser
James ?ager
City M 40
U
December 22, 1987
Mr. Rick Joepke
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Rick:
This is our formal request
at Market Plaza on the area
plan of the parking lot.
E. J. Plesko & Associate, Inc.
Real Estate Development, Consulting and Management
340 Parkdale Plaza, 1660 South Hi ?hv a? 100
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 61.541-0151
for City approval to construct a valet building
indicated as "Option A" on the attached site
The proposed building is shown on the architectural drawing which is also
attached. The size of this building is 6 x 8. It will be necessary to
enlarge the island to accomodate the valet building and to keep behind
site lines of the building. As is indicated on the site drawing, we will
be restriping the parking spaces in this area to a 8-6 size so that no parking
spaces will be lost. The work on this permanent valet building will begin
in the spring as weather permits.
• Of immediate concern, we are also applying for a temporary valet structure
for the winter months. Class A Valet has been valeting cars for Market Plaza
for several months and we are in need of protection from the weather for their
employees.
We propose to have placed on site by January 1, 1988, a 4 x 6.structure which
will serve as a valet structure for the winter months. A picture is attached.
The size is 4 x 6. The electrical service will be 110 volt with a 20 amp
breaker coming from the building underground. We will mount a pedestal with
an outlet on the island for electricity for this temporary building.
The tree on the island will need to be placed on another island. Its replacement
is indicated in pink on Site Plan 1. This will be done in spring when planting
permits.
Please contact us as soon as possible with your approval so we may proceed
with the temporary building. Thank you.
. Sincerely,
E. J. PLESKO & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Michael F. Gould
Vice President
blc
cc: Betty Cornelius
Silvert Hendrickson
enclosures
?w> ? u,nos
g° --
I
i
II
1
1
AL .
a' ?t? 1 1
? C
i
IV
.t t.x'•.. . ! '^i
I;
1 ?
. W lil
J
1" - s
e fla' ..
Wooo?A/ C w
Z
00
3of
u
s
IR
I I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 7
Agenda January 11, 1988
Issue Statement:
Purchase of Motor Pool Vehicles.
Background:
Five motor pool vehicles are fully depreciated and scheduled to
be replaced in 1988. These vehicles are: A 3/4 Ton Pickup (Water
Maintenance Division), A 3/4 Ton Four-Wheel-Drive Pickup (Park
Maintenance), A Compact Pickup (Police), A 3/4 Ton Pickup (Fire),
and One 3/4 Ton Pickup (Public Safety/Civil Defense). All of the
vehicles are currently in use and are scheduled for the Hennepin
County auction later in the year. Purchase of the new vehicles
has been coordinated with the Hennepin County bid process. For
each of the five vehicles desired, five different vendors
submitted the lowest responsible bid.
The total amount of the five bids is $62,623.00, and a total of
$76,000 was budgeted for the purchase of these vehicles:
1. Police Division - replaces #8377; $14,000.
2. Civil Defense - replaced #8063; $160000.
• 3. Park Maintenance Division - replaces #260; $17,500.
4. Water Maintenance Division - replaces #262; $12,000.00.
5. Fire Division - replaced 48378; $16,500.00.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the purchase of five motor pool vehicles through the
joint Hennepin County purchasing agreement as follows:
1. One(1) Chevrolet S-10 Extended Cab Pickup for $9,742 from
Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet.
2. One(1) Ram Charger 4x4 Utility Vehicle for $13,449 from North
Star Dodge.
3. One(1) GMC K-3500 3/4 Ton 4x4 Pickup with plow for $13,497.00
from Valley Sales, Inc.
4. One(1) GMC C-30903 3/4 Ton V8 Pickup for $10,052.00 from
Minnesota Viking Trucks.
5. One(1) 3/4 Ton 4x4 Extended Cab Pickup for $15,883.57 from
Thomas Pontiac Buick GMC.
0
• Basis of Recommendation:
1. Several manufacturers of the above vehicles were requested to
submit bids following predetermined specifications. Of all
of the bids submitted, the above listed were the lowest
responsible bidders for the type of vehicles requested.
2. The City of Richfield is in need of replacing five fully
depreciated vehicles.
I]
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject this bid
bids from other sources in an attempt
price on these vehicles. However, st
obtain better prices from responsible
amounts were based on prices obtained
and request staff to obtain
to receive a lower purchase
aff does not believe we can
manufacturers; the budgeted
last spring.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The purchase prices stated are guaranteed through January 22,
1988; therefore, in order to take advantage of the low bids,
staff recommends the city council approve the purchase of these
vehicles at the January 11, 1988 council meeting.
Respect lly submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 6
January 11, 1988
Issue Statement:
Purchase of New Backhoe.
Background:
The current backhoe while not depreciated, is old and worn out
from use and needs to be replaced. Specifications were written
for a more versatile model to replace the 12 year old model.
Backhoes are used for digging up the street at water main breaks
and sewer breaks; for repairing catch basins and digging out
ponds. The new model will reach farther and dig deeper; and will
not have to be remounted each time it is used.
On December 16, 1987, bids were opened in a formal bidding
process. The results are as follows:
Ziegler $57,998
Long Lake Ford $47,674
Carlson Tractor & Equipment $42,685
Carlson's Lake State Equipment $37,350
Hayden-Murphy Equipment $36,244
With the exception of Carlson Tractor & Equipment, all of the
bids met specifications.
Recommended Motion:
• Approve the purchase of a JCB Backhoe from Hayden-Murphy
Equipment Company in the amount of $36,244.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Hayden-Murphy Equipment Company was the lowest responsible
bidder that met specifications.
2. The approved 1988 Water Division budget contains $45,000 for
this purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject all bids and instruct staff to
rebid; however, staff does not believe we could obtain better
prices from a reputable manufacturer.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The bids are guaranteed through January 16, 1988; therefore, in
order to take advantage of the low bid, staff recommends the city
council approve the purchase of this vehicle at the January 11,
1988 council meeting.
Respect lly submitted,
James Prosser
City M nager
JDP/eja
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 5
Agenda January 11, 1987
Issue Statement:
Purchase of a Four-Wheel-Drive Tractor.
Background:
On Wednesday, December 30, 1987, formal bids were opened for the
purchase of a four-wheel-drive type tractor. The results are as
follows:
MacQueen Equipment Company
Base Bid $31,425.00
Less Trade-In of
Ford 4 Wheel Drive 1900 ($5,600.00)
TOTAL 25,825.00
Boyum Equipment, Inc.
Base Bid $32,825.33
Less Trade-In of
Ford 4 Wheel Drive 1900 ($1,500.00)
Less Rental Applied ($4,050.00)
TOTAL 27,275,33
• Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that council approve the purchase of a Four-
Wheel-Drive Tractor from Boyum Equipment Company for the sum of
$27,275.33.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The competitive bid on an M.T. Trackless does not meet
specifications. It does not seat two people and does not
have a utility box and consequently would not be as versatile
for summer park maintenance.
2. We have rented the Holder for over a month. It has proven to
be a versatile piece of equipment for both park and sidewalk
maintenance. The rent ($4,050) can be applied to the
purchase price.
3. Our past experience with the M.T. Trackless (we have owned
one for 8 years) has proven it to be a very expensive piece
of equipment to maintain with limited summer usage.
4. The Holder C500 is highly recommended by the Cities of
Minneapolis, Burnsville and St. Louis Park.
5. Purchase of the Holder C500 is without trade-in of our
tractor is recommended because we feel we can get a
better price than $1500 selling it out right.
6. The funding for this purchase is in the approved 1988 Central
-2 e-1
Garage Capital Outlay Budget.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject all bids and instruct staff to
obtain new quotations. However, staff does not believe we can
obtain a better price from a reputable manufacturer.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council may choose to delay a decision on this purchase, however,
staff is convinced that this tractor will most fully meet our
needs; therefore this item is on the January 11, City Council
Agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City Hager
JDP/eja
U
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
December 16, 1987
New 1988 Model Four-Wheel Drive Backhoe/Front End Loader
Bid No. 87-12
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for a new 1988 model four-wheel drive
backhoe/front end loader, bid no. 87-12, as advertised in the
official newspaper on December 2, 1987.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
John Thom, Department Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Arlan Nelson, Sewer Foreman
Donald Frondrick, Community Services Director
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR ; BID ; TOTAL ;
SECURITY
Long Lake Ford Tractor cert. check 47,674.00 ;
Long Lake
Ziegler, Inc. Mpls. 5% 57,998.00 ;
Carlson's Lake State Equip. Co. ; 5% ; 37,350.00 ;
Burnsville ;
Carlson's Tractor & Equip. Co. 5% ; 42,685.00 ;
Rosemount
Hayden-Murphy Equipment Co. cert. check 36,244.00 ;
Bloomington
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the January 11, 1988 City Council Meeting.
0
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 4
Agenda January 11, 1988
Issue Statement:
Purchase of New Truck with New High Velocity Sewer Cleaner.
Background:
On December 16, 1987, bids were opened for a new truck with a
high velocity sewer cleaner. This truck will replace one which
is fully depreciated, along with the high velocity sewer cleaner,
also known as a "jetter". A jetter is a machine that is used to
maintain the sewer mains by use of a high pressure pump which
scours the inside of the pipe with a hose. Two proposals were
submitted:
Flexible Pipe Tool $58,890
MacQueen Equipment, Inc. NO BID
Recommended Motion:
Approve the purchase of a new truck with a new high velocity
sewer cleaner to Flexible Pipe Tool in the sum of $58,890.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposal submitted by Flexible Pipe Tool Company met
staff written specifications.
2. The bid price is less than the $75,000 set aside
• in the approved 1988 Central Garage Capital Outlay budget.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could reject the bid and instruct staff to re-bid;
however, the proposal submitted does meet specification.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The submitted price is good until January 16, 1988; therefore, it
is recommended council approve the purchase at the January 11,
1988 city council meeting.
JDP/eja
Respec lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
n
LJ
CITY OF RICHFIELD
• Bid Opening
December 16, 1987
New 1988 Model Truck with New High Velocity Sewer Cleaner
Bid No. 87-11
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for a new 1988 model truck with new
high velocity sewer cleaner, bid no. 87-11, as advertised in the
official newspaper on December 2, 1987.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
John Thom, Department Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Arlan Nelson, Sewer Foreman
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR ; BID ; TOTAL ;
; ; SECURITY ;
•
Flexible Pipe Tool Co. Mpls 5% 58,890.00 ;
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the January 11, 1988 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
U
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 3
Agenda January 11, 1988
Issue Statement:
Approval of a joint powers agreement with the City of Bloomington
for the provision of public health services for the period
January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1988.
Background:
In 1977 the State of Minnesota enacted the Community Health
Services Act, which transferred the responsibility for the
administration of public health programs to local jurisdictions.
The state also provided funds for the programs, and encouraged
local jurisdictions to increase the efficiency of the programs by
grouping together. Richfield and Edina entered into a joint
powers agreement with the City of Bloomington, and the program
has been administered under that agreement since that time.
The state requires that the joint powers agreement be renewed
each biennium. The attached agreement is for the biennium 1988-
89. Under this agreement, Bloomington will provide home health,
public nursing, and health education services to Richfield
• residents for that period.
The cost of providing these health services is $118,000. Funds
are approved in the Inspection Division (4140-1130) of the
approved 1988 budget document.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the joint powers agreement with the City
of Bloomington for the provision of health services for 1988.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The city of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a
professional level of public health services to Richfield
residents.
2. Annual evaluations of their services has shown that they are
providing effective services in a very cost-efficient manner.
3. Funds for this purpose are provided in the 1988 budget
document.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council could decide to have Richfield provide its own
public health services. The cost of hiring the nursing staff
necessary to provide the same level of services and
administrative support would be more than our current
expenditures, and would require a budget increase.
40
7/_
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The joint powers agreement is for the year beginning January 1,
1988. Therefore, the renewal of the contract between Richfield
and Bloomington for the provision of public health services is
being presented for council approval at the January 11, 1988 city
council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City anager
JDP/eja
is
0
'er
E
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
by and between the CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota ("Bloomington") and the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota ("Richfield").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Bloomington warrants and represents that its
Division of Public Health is a duly certified public health
agency operating in accordance with all applicable federal and
state requirements; and
WHEREAS, Bloomington's Division of Public Health provides
community health services, including, but not limited to home
health services, well adult clinics, well child clinics, health
education, school health services, health promotion services,
prevention and control, and program administration; and
WHEREAS, Richfield wishes to promote, support, and maintain
the health of its residents by providing community health
services such as health education, communicable disease programs,
nursing services, health assessment, counseling, teaching, and
evaluation in the community, home, and clinic setting at a
is nominal fee to those making use of such services, and to contract
with Bloomington for Bloomington, through its Division of Public
Health, to provide such services to residents of Richfield; and
0 WHEREAS, the governing bodies of Bloomington and Richfield
are authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 145.914,
Subdivision 5, Section 145.917, Subdivision 3, and by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 471.59, to provide community health services
and to enter into agreements with each other for the providing by
Bloomington of community health services to residents of
Richfield.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto, and for consideration of
the covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows:
1. Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health,
agrees to provide residents of Richfield with those community
health services ("Health Services"), that Richfield has outlined
in its 1988 Community Health Services Plan, which includes home
nursing, disease prevention and control, health promotion
counseling, child and adult health, and public information and
education. Richfield agrees not to amend said Plan in any manner
that would impact the service Bloomington provides without first
contacting Bloomington.
2. The City of Richfield shall be provided and rendered
hereunder to the residents of Richfield in the same manner, to at
least the same extent, and with at least the same quality and
kind of personnel, equipment, and facilities as the Health
Services are provided and rendered to residents of Bloomington,
it being the intent and purpose of this agreement to provide and
render the Health Services equally to residents of Bloomington
0 and Richfield, without discrimination in any way.
3. Bloomington shall provide the health services pursuant
hereto on a confidential basis, using capable, trained
professionals.
4. All Health Services to be rendered hereunder by
Bloomington shall be rendered pursuant to and subject to public
health policies, rules, and procedures now or hereafter, from
time to time, adopted by the Bloomington City Council, and in
full compliance with all applicable state and federal laws,
provided, however, that (i) no policy, rule, or procedure
hereafter adopted by the Bloomington City Council shall in any
way affect, modify, or change the obligations, duties,
liabilities, or rights of the parties hereto as set out in this
Agreement, or reduce or detract from the kind, quality, and
• quantity of Health Services to be provided hereunder by
Bloomington to residents of Richfield, and (ii) all such
policies, rules and procedures shall be uniformly applied to all
persons receiving Health Services from Bloomington, whether
residents of Richfield, Bloomington, or any other municipality.
Richfield agrees to adopt the same policies, rules, and
procedures as are from time to time adopted by Bloomington, if
determined by Richfield to be necessary or desirable to
facilitate or regulate the provision of Health Services by
Bloomington to residents of Richfield pursuant hereto.
5. Richfield agrees to pay Bloomington, for the provision of
Health Services pursuant hereto, amounts and on terms as follows:
I* A. The annual sum of $118,000 shall be paid in quarterly
payments of $29,500 to Bloomington within fifteen (15) days of
• the receipt by Richfield of each of the reports to be given
pursuant to Paragraph 5.B hereof, subject, however to the
provisions of Paragraph 5.C hereof.
B. On April 15, July 15, and October 15, 1988 and on
January 15, 1989, Bloomington shall send Richfield a statement,
certified by the person in charge of Bloomington's Division of
Public Health as being true and correct, and covering the period
of three (3) calendar months preceding the month in which the
report is given, and setting forth, in such detail as Richfield
from time to time shall reasonably require, the numbers of
persons served, the kinds of Health Services delivered, the
locations where such services were delivered, and such other
information as Richfield shall reasonably request.
C. No payment or payments need be made by Richfield
under this Agreement while Bloomington is in default under any of
the terms and conditions hereof to be by Bloomington performed.
6. In the event Richfield desires to inspect the financial
books and records of Bloomington related to the providing of
Health Services hereunder by Bloomington, Bloomington shall make
its financial books and records available at the Bloomington City
Hall for inspection and copying by Richfield, or any agent,
employee, or representative of Richfield, at reasonable business
hours.
7. It shall be the sole responsibility of Bloomington to
determine the qualifications, functions, training, and
• performance standards for all health service personnel who render
Health Services under this Agreement; provided, however, that
• Bloomington agrees that all such personnel shall be capable,
trained professionals.
8. Bloomington's Division of Public Health will communicate
with Richfield relative to Health Services to be performed
hereunder by Bloomington, such communication to be in the form of
reports, conferences, or consultations, as the respective
Richfield departments from time to time shall request. All
reports relating to the providing of Health Services that are
given by Bloomington's Division of Public Health to the
Bloomington City Council or to the City Manager during the term
of this Agreement shall also, and at the same time, be given to
Richfield.
9. Bloomington also agrees to send to Richfield an annual
• report describing the activities performed and Health Services
rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such report shall be in
such detail and form as Richfield may reasonably from time to
time request. The annual report shall be sent with and in
addition to the last quarterly report required by Paragraph 5.B
hereof. Also, at Richfield's request, made not more than two (2)
times during the term of this Agreement, responsible
administrative officers of Bloomington's Division of Public
Health shall attend meetings of the Richfield City Council or
appropriate board or commission to answer questions and give
further information relative to the activities performed and
Health Services rendered under this Agreement.
• 10. Bloomington hereby agrees to maintain in force its
present policy of comprehensive liability insurance and medical
• malpractice insurance in the minimum amount of five hundred
thousand dollars ($500,000), for the term of this contract. A
copy of the policy or policies issued shall be furnished to
Richfield. Said policy shall be with an insurance company
authorized to do business in Minnesota.
11. This Agreement shall be for a period of from January 1,
1988, to December 31, 1988, provided that either party may
terminate the same by thirty (30) days' written notice to the
other. Upon such termination, all obligations and liabilities of
the parties hereunder shall cease and terminate, except the
provisions of Paragraph 11 hereof shall continue and survive such
termination. Also, in the event of termination pursuant hereto,
the quarterly payment next due shall be prorated and paid for
• only the period ended on the date of termination, and Bloomington
shall send to Richfield, within thirty (30) days after such
termination, a report in the form required by Paragraph 5.B, and
shall also then send a final report in the form of, and in lieu
of, the annual report required by Paragraph 9 hereof, and
Richfield shall pay such reduced quarterly payment for the period
ended on the date of termination, within fifteen (15) days after
receipt of both of such reports.
12. Bloomington and Richfield understand and agree that each
of them shall apply and qualify, independently and separately,
for any and all grants, matching funds, and payments of all kinds
from state, federal, and other governmental bodies relating to,
or for the provision of, any or all of the Health Services, and
any and all such grants, matching funds, and payments shall
• belong to the recipient and be used and applied as the recipient
thereof shall determine, without regard to this Agreement.
13. All notices, reports, or demands required or permitted to
be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
deemed to be given when delivered personally to any officer of
the party to which notice is being given, or when deposited in
the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or
certified mail, postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the parties
at the following addresses:
To Bloomington: 2215 West Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
Attention: City Manager
To Richfield: 6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Attention: City Manager
Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notice to the
other party give as herein provided.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed and their corporate seal to be
affixed hereto the day and year first above written.
Upon property execution, this CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
Agreement shall be a legal
and binding obligation upon
the City of Bloomington. BY:
Its Mayor
BY:
City Attorney Its City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
•
BY:
Its Mayor
0
BY:
Its City Manager
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 2
Agenda January 11, 1987
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a fee waived license to permit the Fourth of
July Committee to conduct a community celebration on July 4.
Background:
For several years, the Fourth of July Committee has conducted a
community celebration on July 4. They are now requesting a fee
waived license to conduct this celebration again in 1988.
Activities for the day include a parade which will start at noon
from Augsburg Park. Following the parade, there will be music,
games and concessions at Veterans Memorial Park. The evening
entertainment will begin at 7:30 P.M. with a musical concert
followed by fireworks.
The right to concessions will be given to the same nonprofit
organizations who have been associated with the committee since
the formation of the Fourth of July Celebration. Proceeds from
concessions are used for community programs.
40 Recommended Motion:
Approve a fee waived license for the Fourth of July Committee to
conduct a community celebration on July 4.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. City ordinance provides that the city council must grant a
license for organizations who wish to conduct community
celebrations.
2. The fee to conduct a community celebration is $5,000.
Payment of a fee of this amount would cause a hardship for
the committee.
3. The Fourth of July Committee has conducted a successful
Fourth of July Celebration in Richfield for several years.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could deny the license and designate another
group to conduct a Fourth of July Celebration.
2. The Council could deny the license and cancel a Fourth of
July Celebration.
3. The Council could grant the license, but require payment
of the $5,000 fee.
0
•
Discussion/Decision Mode:
As the Fourth of July Committee has already begun planning events
for the 1988 celebration, the request for a license has been
placed on the January 11, 1988 city council agenda for council
consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
11
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 1
Agenda January 11, 1988
Issue Statement:
Purchase of unleaded gasoline in excess of $5,000.
Background:
The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the city council for consideration. The
City of Richfield participates in joint purchasing with Hennepin
County. Rollins Oil is the Hennepin County contractor for
gasoline. On December 30, 1987, Rollins Oil delivered 7,000
gallons of premium unleaded gasoline to the city garage.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the purchase of 7,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline from
Rollins Oil in the amount of $5,019.00.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City uses unleaded gasoline for operation of vehicles.
2. The fuel has been delivered.
3. There is sufficient funding available for this purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is on the consent calendar of the January 11, 1988 city
council agenda. As the fuel has already been delivered, it is
recommended action be taken at this time to facilitate payment.
Respectfully submitted,
Prosser
Jamelanager
City JDP/eja