02-08-88 agenda;??412
I?
U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 47
Agenda February 8, 1988
Issue Statement:
Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of
Richfield and the International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 49, amending the Master Contract.
Background:
Since February 1, 1986, the City implemented a new work schedule
at the Water Treatment Plant. This schedule was required when
the Water Plant changed from a two-shift, 16 hour operation to a
three-shift, 24 hour operation. The shift schedule change
affected four Water Plant Operators.
Water Plant Operators currently work a weekly rotating schedule,
which includes all three shifts, day shift, afternoon and night
shift. Both the City and Local 49 have spent a great deal of
time examining the effect of this particular shift rotation on
the Water Plant Operators and possible ways to modify the
schedule. As a result of this study, the City has decided to
establish a 12 hour work-shift, with rotation between shifts
• occurring approximately every eight weeks. Both the Utility
Superintendent and the Water Plant Operators agree that this
change would be beneficial to the Water Treatment Plant
Operators.
While the City has the sole authority to establish work schedules
and has exercised its right in this matter, before the schedule
can be established, it was necessary for the Union and the City
to modify certain provisions of the current Master Labor
Agreement in effect. The specific changes which were necessary
included modifying the overtime provision to include overtime
payments after 12 hours per day instead of the current 8 hours
per day for employees assigned to work the 12 hour shift schedule
at the Water Plant. It also was necessary to establish the leave
accrual and leave usage provisions for Water Plant Operators
assigned to the 12 hour shift schedule. The latter issue
reflects no change in leave time paid to affected employees, but
rather denotes that the leave usage be based on the 12 hour day
rather than the 8 hour day, where applicable.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the Memorandum of Understanding with Local 49 of the
International Union of Operating Engineers, modifying the Master
Agreement.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The schedule change should not increase labor costs over
the 1988 budgeted level.
2. The language change in the Memorandum of Understanding
. allows the City to pay overtime after 12 hours per day
instead of 8 hours per day for Water Plant assignments
to a 12 hour shift level.
3. The Agreement conforms to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
4. The new schedule should provide for better
human resource utilization, increased productivity and
better work environment.
5. The City retains the sole authority to establish and modify
work schedules. Thus, the City could decide to return to
the 8 hour shift schedule for Water Plant Operators at any
time determined to be in the best interest of the City.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could elect not to ratify the attached
Memorandum of Understanding. However, that would eliminate the
City's ability to make the shift schedule change without
extremely costly overtime payments to Water Plant Operators on a
daily basis.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
In order to allow the Utility Superintendent to implement the new
schedule, it is recommended that the City Council act on February
• 8, 1988 to adopt the attached Resolution.
Sin rely,
Ja D. Prosser
Ci Manager
JDP/sae
0
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD AND LOCAL 49 OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS AMENDING THE MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT FOR THE YEARS 1988
AND 1989.
WHEREAS, the City Manager and Local 49 of the
International Union of Operating Engineers has reached an
agreement covering a Metropolitan wide Master Agreement issued
for 1988 and 1989, and
WHEREAS, the Master Labor Agreement between the City
of Richfield and Local 49 of the International Union of Operating
Engineers covering terms and conditions of employment for the
years 1988 and 1989 is currently in full force and effect, and
WHEREAS, the shift schedule change implemented by the
City of Richfield requires a corresponding change in certain
provisions of the Master Agreement concerning overtime and leave
usage, and
• WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that
contracts between the City of Richfield and exclusive
representatives of employees in each appropriate bargaining unit
shall be implemented by Council Resolution,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
does hereby approve the Memorandum of Understanding modifying the
current Master Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield and
Local 49 of the International Union of Operating Engineers
Bargaining Unit for the years 1988 and 1989 and orders the
provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding to be implemented
effective February 8, 1988.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
this 8th day of February, 1988.
ATTEST:
Steven J. Quam Mayor
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
does hereby approve the Memorandum of Understanding modifying the
current Master Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield and
Local 49 of the International Union of Operating Engineers
Bargaining Unit for the years 1988 and 1989 and orders the
provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding to be implemented
effective February 8, 1988.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
this 8th day of February, 1988.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.- 46
Agenda February 8, 1988
Issue Statement:
Request for approval of an amendment to the offstreet parking
permit at 6700 Cedar Avenue.
Background:
American Family Insurance Company, property owner of 6700 Cedar
Avenue, has requested city approval of an amendment to its
offstreet parking permit agreement.
This amendment involves the closing of the two curb cuts on
vacated 67th Street near Cedar Avenue due to the CDP development..
The applicant proposes to access the site from Cedar Avenue at
the southeast corner. These changes would not result in the loss
of any of the 21 parking spaces on the site.
Recommendation:
Adopt the resolution approving a revised offstreet parking permit
for the American Family Insurance Company at 6700 Cedar Avenue
with the following stipulations:
1. A final drainage plan, with an on-site catch basin, be
submitted and approved by the city engineer.
2. The staff recommended landscape plan be adopted.
3. Perimeter curbing be provided on the site.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed relocation of the access to the site has been
agreed upon by Lincoln Companies and American Family
Insurance Company.
2. The closing of the curb cut would eliminate any potential
vehicular traffic access problem on vacated 67th Street.
3. The change would not affect the total number of parking
spaces on the site.
4. The landscaping on the south part of vacated 67th Street has
already been shown on the CDP development proposal.
Compatibility and consistency with the landscaping plan of
CDP dictates the staff recommended plan for the site. The
Lincoln Companies, with the concurrence of American Family
Insurance Company, have agreed to carry out the necessary
changes in the parking layout and there is tentative
agreement on the staff proposal.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council may wish to approve the layout submitted by the
applicant.
0
• Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for council consideration on February 8,
1988. No public hearing is required.
Respectfully submitted,
rosser
Jame/anager
City is
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE OFFSTREET PARKING PERMIT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION 88-1
FOR 6700 CEDAR AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the geometric layout of the parking area reflecting the
staff recommended parking plan is hereby approved.
2. That the responsibility for proper upkeep and maintenance of
said offstreet parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the
offstreet parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code
800.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
8th day of February, 1988.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
0 ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
0
•
•
ZO
•
c m P _? v °• °• r°1o E
a?
XERXES AVE F1=--?'-_-_ ?- -?- - - ' -- '- - - •. . XERXES VE
WASHBURN WASHBURN
VINCENT VINCENT
THOMAS -'- - - -_ -- ?: -j THOMAS
SNERIDAN r?'- - - - JI SHERIDAN
RUSSELL I ---- , J') RUSSELL
QUEEN QUEEN
PENN AVE. rr.-•,J PENN AVE.
OLIVER
OLIVER
NEWTON NEWTON
MORGAN _J
?? t MORGAN _
LOG AN ,'-J LOGAN
JAMES I ` 9 ??? -•- --??, JAMES
IRVING'??'" IJ?_ ?'^,^ 1 ?,=??•-?'. IRVING
HUMBOLDT --^- -- _ I; HUMBOLDT
GIRARD GIRARD
FTtEMONi I
i 6 FREMONT
\ yt:
EMERSON EMERSON
DUPONT DUPONT
COLFAX !I! 18TH AVE
BRYANT S / RLY COFA%
d?I?BANT
ALDRICH ' 011 tl
v r IIi ALDRICH
LYNDALE AVE. 1 = \\1 11,7. LYNDALE AVE.
GARFIELD II ?\ /? ' Illy GARFIELD
HARRIET II ? ??^?IIII HARRIET
GRAND I I??i V'I m FOR No
PLEASANT I -
Lltl'_ PLEASANT
1 - LJ ? - I
r
PILLSBURY I, CEDAR AVE S PILLSBURY
ENTWORTH
WENTWORTH^ I? W
u
BLAISDELL III BLAISOELL
oa l l
NICOLLET AVE. NICOLLET AVE.
1st ???• Itl
r P' ,
STEVENS STEVENS
the 2nd
7-7
3rd I O? 3rd
f
CLINTON F=T CLINTON
Stn J;_J •:.. :1• ?ri •• .1 •. r.•. •• -?._. 14th
k PORTLAND AVE. I •i4 •• I PORTLAND AVE.
OAKLAND PIi?•.-,?O x:.r .. ...
1 `? •• ••~• ?I OAKLAND
i I •''C'":'•. .'• ^'••' ;• ::i• .:•i. L-J
, 1? 44 G. .. ?' hL Jf.
PARK PARK
' I ; I U :;:{dry •.'r.?;:;:;}? :?':;'i,:;:• :tir,':;:•,:;:}:;:,v,{.•'.-.
COLUMBUS
/ Y.
r! ? -J •: r•.: " •.: S'••. ::i?}:?::??i :; r m COLUMBUS
.. . yf { •. ;VCV41N Si
CHICAGO I I •,•:ti.;{: , : ,•A::• v r •t?• ., C i CHICAGO
ELLI I ? ??I11I r'rn ELLIOT
10 t th o I •} II ID th
11 to i?I ?? .., ,'• ••• 11 II 1h
12th I I L_J 1?o^1111 a •. :::•{'{:: {,r;:••:;:::. .•:'r:: •• o 01^?y, 12 t h
13 th
14th j- ~i•.•,.• 1-V %, 1 t41h
IS th IS th
BLOOMINGTON II' ?1??' u? '•:: ?;;? ?O? BLOOMINGTON
..... . :4:y:; 17th
I. th
lets! loth
CEDAR AVE. CEDAR AVE.
LONGfELLOW _ -------??--------'- ----- ________?_____ ____
-' - ""' L LONGFELLOW
°? \`o N V 0 19th
m
= o = Oj IC 7? ?? J 2? .,
m .
'z n
0 -c
0c m 0
2 ? T
?r
;c
z
z
.I I
N
a
u a w
ti N Ini
22 ed
STANDISH
23 rd
N
r
0
0
0
Z
0
0
0
0
m
v
rn
AST ?i'7Tw sT???T' <NOTG? &-i-r- 4 wTpeeT ?b w& VAGA7ep
r-. '?+•C.i?e?-?fj,?C r A,e;D+??R?F.???7y` hc?..e -?':{c?:"ta?..?
r',ti..?.n?.?c ^.l f't. F:F }QR`?'i?'t:iM'+4 ::i`.?:fl.??ie?i ?7•o7:?
' Jic -- '
O
9
1
ex LSTINCd
FAMILY
O O
,t
SIGN
• N
W
•r Q
a
0
W
V
a
,A
0
Ty P 1 ??? ?•
? INSUR/?I?G? i
? bUll.f9lr.IG
i ;
N
H U
;F
•ir-
;Zr-
,•?L HIGHBUSH CRANBERRY
4" REDMOND LINDEN
"
26
RECOMENDED PARKING PLAN
6700 CEDAR AVE S
SAS T (o'7Tw ST Ie??T (NOTE &'fr' STIzEr-,T ro SIF, VAGATI?D
I,--j
?_- REHO?E Exlb'INc? l?KIVLI?U?`?5 -
1-ANrJ? i?? 'f0 MATCit•I EX?TINC?-
ti?`"'? _?? `ExlsrlfJG LO•ND- „.?: ? 31
OIL,
tai ?+ ?? Mp.I ? ? I ?"•!T;?v?'P.y ? . ? -?_.
•
1 - - _ - _?
_ 410- 0
t, : 51r?N ?; I.ANDSGgPI fAIIa
N -'?
? ? ? •a = bI -o I
p/.Rf?ING STALL
STl?lp?nJ? -
KE-STieIPE AS
KGQUi?o --
a?
EXISTING ?eK15TING 131TUHI?40-4.
P_ I To Rf, WH
LY
I INs?lRP.N??p
auIL19IIJG
/
gamoVE .EXISTINC, GU(Zh,
°a slDShIALI?, !f LANt7?XiAPINO AS
-F
- - EXItTI06q VITIJHIOOLJO To 9&-WP
i
T
Z.-
1I
?I
W I
3 4 "'
zQ ?
PLAM
pRoFo5ao Fooi,KLIF-4 C-4
;;2?//
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 45
Agenda February 8, 1988
Issue Statement:
Adoption of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain
capital improvements from the Special Revenue Fund. First
reading.
Background:
On September 23, 1987 the city council approved the 1988 Capital
Improvement Budget (CIB) and also adopted the 1988 budget for all
funds as outlined in the budget document. The various approved
appropriations for 1988 for the capital projects are defined as
outlined below:
Veteran's Memorial Park $210,000
Optech III Voting System 60,000
Park Land Acquisition 30,000
$300,000
A transitory ordinance is now necessary to finalize these
appropriations pursuant to city charter. Charter Section 7.12,
Subdivision 2 allows expenditures for capital improvements from
the Special Revenue Fund only by ordinance.
Recommended Motion:
Give first reading consideration to the attached transitory
ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds from the Special
Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. On September 23, 1987 the city council adopted the 1988
Capital Improvement Budget.
2. Under Section 3.09 of the city charter, a transitory
ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication
of the second hearing notice. The hearing process must
be completed in 1988 so the capital projects can be
completed as approved and the funds expended.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The city council could allocate the funds to a totally new
project or projects, but a public hearing for a budget
revision would be necessary.
2. The city council could decide not to authorize the
expenditure of Special Revenue Funds. However, that would
be contrary to the previously adopted Capital Improvement
Budget.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action on this item is requested at the February 8 meeting of the
city council. This would allow sufficient time to advertise for
. the second hearing for February 22, and the ordinance to become
effective so that the capital improvements can be ordered as
budgeted.
Respect ully submitted,
Jam MProsser
Cit nager
JDP/eja
•
•
/jam
Bill No. 1988
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM
THE SPECIAL REVENUE FOR
CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and
expedient for the city to expend money from the Special Revenue
Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in Section 2
hereof, for which the city would be authorized to issue general
obligation bonds.
Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures
for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the
Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the
city charter, are as follows:
Veteran's Memorial Park $210,000
Optech III Voting System 60,000
Park Land Acquisition 30,000
$300,000
Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made
pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time
by council action.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th
day of February, 1988.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
•
f
this hearing will be provided to the property owner and to
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 44
February 8, 1988
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading consideration of an ordinance
to clarify council responsibilities in considering various zoning
matters and to provide a process to revoke conditional use
permits.
Background:
To address the concerns of the Planning Commission, and City
Council, that developers and property owners do not follow
through on conditions placed on the approval of conditional use
permits, an ordinance has been prepared.
The ordinance amendment sets out a process for the revocation of
conditional use permits if the conditions approved as part of the
conditional use permit are not met and maintained. 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 o
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 provides that if a conditional use permit is
revoked, then any other permits or licenses such as food licenses
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 ordinance amendment also clarifies the identification of the
City Council and the Board of Adjustment and Appeals when they
act in connection with various zoning topics which come before
them.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended council passage
of the attached ordinance.
The City Council approved first reading of this ordinance
amendment on January 11, 1988 and scheduled the public hearing
and second reading for February 8, 1988.
Recommended Motion:
Approve second reading of the attached ordinance.
• 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 ensure that development
occurs as approved and that a development continues 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 second reading consideration on
February 8, 1988, and proper legal notice has been published in
the official city newspaper. If the ordinance amendment is
approved at the February 8 city council meeting, it will become
effective 30 days after publication in the official newspaper.
Respect ully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/dkh
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 theme feral 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 eeesell 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 eeaneil 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 bearer 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.,05. Conditions. The bearer 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, (i) 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 heard 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 heard 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 ee with the terms of the permit and of any conditions
imposed. If any person violates a term of the permit or any
condition imposed 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
roceed 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.
(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:
41 (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 t
(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
,hall 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 judgment are necessarv to
a
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.
III. By 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.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of , 1988.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
0
0055OD08.E14
4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 43
February 8, 1988
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading consideration of an ordinance
regarding the definition of "front yard" in commercial zoning
districts.
Background:
The double front yard requirement in a commercial district, under
certain circumstances, was noted during staff review of the CDP
project. This provision may not actually improve community
appearance but would restrict development. Consideration should
be given to its affect on other commercially zoning property
which is similarly situated.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council take testimony from the
public and continue the public hearing on the ordinance amendment
until February 22, 1988.
Basis of Recommendation:
Basis of staff recommendation is outlined in the following:
1. On January 11, 1988 the City Council gave first reading
consideration to the ordinance amendment and referred the
matter to the Planning Commission for their review. The
Planning Commission will review the matter on February 16,
1988 at their regular meeting.
2. Notice of the public hearing for February 8, 1988 was
published.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative.would be to not continue the second reading
consideration of the ordinance amendment.
Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the February 8th City Council agenda.
Upon continuance the City Council would take action on the
ordinance amendment on February 22, 1988.
Respectfully submitted,.
Jam D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/dkh
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 b?ld!ngltabuts open mepe then aRe stFeet the
betweeR `Ise--b uil rAg-arid ea e h ef-'s u e•h s t F cets-shall
apea Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1988.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
0
70?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
City Council Letter No. 42
Agenda February 8, 1988
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an Amendment to Chapter I, Section 115,
subsection 115.11, subd. 4 of the municipal code entitled
penalties.
Background:
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, these agents of the Inspection Division should
also have the authority to issue citations for code violations.
At the January 11, 1988 city council meeting, the city council
gave first reading to this ordinance amendment and scheduled
second reading and the public hearing for the February 8, 1988
city council meeting.
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:
Second reading and the public hearing on this ordinance are
placed on the February 8, 1988 city council agenda. If the
amendment is approved, it would become effective 30 days after
publication in the official city newspaper.
Res ully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 115 OF
THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE OF 198
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 115 of the Richfield City Code of 1987 entitled
"Penalties" is hereby amended by amending Subdivision 4 of
Subsection 115.11 to reads as follows:
Subd. 4. Employees and Agents of Inspections Division
Employees and Agents o e nspections Division of the
Department of Public Safety may issue notices of violations and
citations in lieu of arrest for alleged violations of code
provisions which the Inspections Division and its employees are,
by this code, designated to administer and enforce. Employees
and Agents of the Ins ections Division may not take persons into
custodv for refuses i tn .,,, ,., 4- 4-
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of 1988.
•
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
is
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.41-
Agenda February 8, 1988^
Issue Statement:
Ordinance amendment to Chapter XII, Section 1200.17, subd. 8, of
the ordinance code relating to gambling.
Background
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 prohibit 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.
At the January 11, 1988 city council meeting, the city council
gave first reading to this ordinance and scheduled the public
hearing and second reading for the February 8, 1988 city council
meeting.
Recommended Notion:
Approve an amendment to Chapter XII, Section 1200.15, subd. 8
Gambling of the Richfield Ordinance Code.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The ordinance amendment would provide direction to the
Department of Public Safety for specific enforcement action
against gambling devices.
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 February 8, 1988 agenda for the public
hearing. If the council approves the ordinance amendment, it
would become effective 30 days after publication in the official
city newspaper.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City anager
JDP/e j a
??
0
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1200.17,
SUBDIVISION 8 OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1200.17, Subdivision 8 of the Ordinance Code of the City
of Richfield entitled: Gambling is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Subd.8 Gambling X4-, .No 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 eA the-lletAaed
nor
shall such persons permit any gambling therein. This subdivision
shall not prevent lawful gambling on the licensed premises 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 , 1987.
0
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 40
Agenda February 8, 1988
Issue Statement:
Second reading consideration and public hearing on rezoning from
C-2 General Commercial to PC-2 Planned General Commercial
District for 6636 Cedar Avenue South.
Background:
Lincoln Companies has submitted a development proposal to the
city for the property located at 6636 Cedar Avenue South (old
liquor store site). The development of the site involves the
construction of a three story office building with parking
facility to be used as the corporate headquarters for Copy
Duplicating Products, Inc.
The city previously considered at least two less intensive
commercial development proposals but these proposals did not
materialize. The present proposal is more intensive for the site
than the previous proposals.
40 Copy Duplicating Products headquarters building is currently
located in Bloomington. CDP is the largest distributor of copy
machines in the country. They initially would employ
approximately 240 people at the new location in Richfield and
project 280 employees. The precast decorative stone office
building would be open 8 AM to 5 PM, Monday through Friday. The
whole facility would be under a 24 hour surveillance system and
the lower levels of the parking facility would be secured during
non-business hours.
The site is currently zoned C-2 General Commercial. The
applicant is requesting a rezoning to PC-2 Planned General
Commercial district.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements:
1. Section 530, sets standards for planned unit development
districts.
2. Section 545.11, outlines the ordinance amendment procedure.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council give second reading
consideration and approval to the ordinance amendment rezoning
the property from C-2 general commercial to PC-2 planned general
commercial.
-F?-/
0
Basis of Recommendation:
The staff recommendation is based on a review of the submitted
application, ancillary information and the Planning Commission
findings as follows:
1. The city has approved the vacation of 67th Street right of
way between 18th Avenue and Cedar Avenue and approximately 17
feet of right-of-way adjoining the property at 6636 Cedar
Avenue.
2. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning
of the subject property, preliminary development plan and the
conditional use permit with stipulations which are being
reflected in the final plan.
3. Legal notice was published and written notice of the public
hearing have been mailed to the property owners within 350
feet of the subject site.
4. The Lincoln Companies have included all of the vacated 67th
Street in its plans but no documentation has been submitted
relating to the purchase of the south half of such vacated
street from the abutting property owners.
Alternative Recommendations:
The City Council may wish to deny the rezoning of the
property.
Decision Mode:
This item is on February 8, 1988 City Council agenda for second
reading consideration and public hearing on the attached
ordinance amendment.
Respectfully submitted
James Prosser
City nager
JDP/e j a
0
m V J J
J m u
a? a s
ay Ni ti
---
XERXES AVE f?l
WASHBURN
VINCENT I;
UPTON
THOMAS Il11
SHERIDAN '1 L????•yL-
RUSSELL I I?. II '?
QUEEN I I 1i?...
PENN AVE.
OLIVER
NEWTON I I??
MORGAN J
LOGANII?JI_J?i
KNOX ?u
JAMES
IRVING \\? G
HUMBOLDT
GIRARD
FREMONT
EMERSON t O`
DUPONT
II ODf-
COLFAX
BRYANT
AALDRICH
DRICH 'I ®BB
LYNDALE AVE.
13AOIFIELD II
I
HARRIET 1
GRAND I 18'
PLEASANT -.T--=
PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH
BLA13DELL
NICOLLET AVE.
1st ,w
STEVENS
2nd
3rd
CLINTON
`t" CEi
""
PORTLAND AVE.
OAKLAND I°
L
PARK I
COLUMBUS ?i
CHICAGO ?;; °ooc
ELLIOT
10th ;I
It th li
12 th " DOC
13 tN ?
14 th
i
I,
IS tN
BLOOMINGTON ?I
16 tN i? ^^?
17th
IB th ?C
CEDAR AVE. ' _ _
LONGFELLOW - -_______-LILZL--
m?
Z ;v ti 4 A
m..
A o
'6Z Zm'n
_ <r
;v
Z
I V N J V O O
o $ J a
i y y N ? y N
' ? G N M
1P0 O V
s s i
HN1 1
L
0
N
N
N
d? U j dt ? >E
a e s a ' s
ti y N N 1
--?=-• --•*- •?_?- a? XERXES AVE.
WASHBURN
VINCENT
-!J i , IL -.. _._.? UPTON
THOMAS
-?-- -'', SHERIDAN
??'• 11?---? RUSSELL
L) QUEEN
PENN AVE.
OLIVER
NEWTON
O AN
LOGA N
KNOX
JAMES
IRVING
HUMBOLDT
GIRARD
FTLEMONT
EMERSON
6w I II DUPONT
? ? - it COLFAX
i1
11 ^ o ???I BRYANT
ALDRICH
ccd????{{{\\ I? LYNDALE AVE.
GARFIELD
i1 HARRIET
?O III GRAND
I
PLEASANT
?i?l PILLSBURY
II O 1?' WENTwOATH
I
I ?? III BLAISDELI
1
OO NICOLLE7 AVE.
ST
161
VENS
2O
3rd
Irk L-J CLINTON
ILL...?JJ _ 0 4111
0 p sib
PORTLAND AVE.
-" ^ ?-??' OAKLAND
l_.J
?- I PARK
r I' COLUMBUS
r to
s I CHICAGO
m =
W G i
ELLIOT
II 10th
II th
12 th
13th
14 tN
IS ih
BLOOMINGTON
^?? -- 16th
O? I ITth
'eth
?O? •- C
EDAR
- ? CEDAR AVE.
LONGFELLOW
]C- ?c? 20th
21st
,r
22oil
STAN DISH
23 N
01 V a 4 N
p i O O
IrMI ? ?
r
0
0
A
B'
0
Z
x ::::
a
a
t
r.
i
°
0
A
rn
v
?a
E . ?.•:.::..
rn
y a
g
?
iA
a
a
V
a
N
Pon
A
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX I OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix I of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
entitled "Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended in
the following respect.
I. Section 3, paragraphs (50), (51), and (54) are repealed.
II. The following new paragraph (6) is added to Section 7.
(6) Lots l through 10, inclusive Block 1, Wexler's addition
and all 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
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.
Passed this 25th day of January, 1988 by the Richfield City
Council.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 40
Agenda February 8, 1988
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on the approval of the 1) final plat, 2) final
development plan, 3) conditional use permit, and 4) offstreet
parking permit for the CDP project at 6636 Cedar Avenue South.
Background:
Lincoln Companies has submitted a development proposal to the
City for the property located at 6636 Cedar Avenue South (old
liquor store site). The development of the site involves the
construction of a three story office building with parking
facility to be used as the corporate headquarters for Copy
Duplicating Products, Inc.
The city previously considered at least two less intensive
commercial development proposals but these proposals did not
materialize. The present proposal is more intensive for the site
than the previous proposals.
Copy Duplicating Products headquarters building is currently
located in Bloomington. They initially would employ
approximately 240 people at the new location in Richfield and
project 280 employees. The precast decorative stone office
building would be open 8 AM to 5 PM, Monday through Friday. The
entire facility would be under a 24 hour surveillance system and
the lower levels of the parking facility would be secured during
non-business hours.
The applicant is requesting a rezoning from C-2 General
Commercial to PC-2 Planned General Commercial district which is
discussed under a separate item.
On January 26, 1988, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of the preliminary development plan and
conditional use permit with a number of stipulations. The
stipulations have been incorporated in the staff recommendation.
The final development plan, plat and offstreet parking permit
does not require Planning Commission review.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements:
1. Section 530, sets standards for planned unit development
districts.
2. Section 545.09, outlines the requirements for conditional use
permit procedure.
Other Ordinance
1. Section 500,
and platting
2. Section 800,
driveway and
Requirements:
outlines the requirements for land subdivisions
procedures.
outlines the regulations for street excavations,
parking areas.
i
0
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the final
development plan, conditional use permit, final plat subject to
staff review and approval, and offstreet parking permit for the
CDP project at 6636 Cedar Avenue South with the following
stipulations:
1. The building be constructed with precast decorative stone.
2. A sidewalk with ramp be built along the island west of Cedar
Avenue in line with the city's sidewalk.
3. The building setback be maintained at not less than 31 feet
from the property line along Cedar Avenue and not less than
18 feet along 18th Avenue.
4. The developer give the city the opportunity to remove as many
boulevard trees that could not be retained as part of the
overall site development.
5. The design for the 3 foot berm on 18th Avenue and
landscaping, sufficiently screening the parking ramp from the
residential neighborhood to the west, be submitted for staff
approval.
6. The developer submits documentation of agreements with the
property owners to the south of the site regarding
landscaping and screening.
7. The developer be responsible for assuring the construction of
the driveway for the two family dwelling and new access for
the American Family Insurance building. The developer would
also be responsible for providing the landscaping and
planting along Cedar Avenue on the abutting American Family
site.
8. The parking spaces in front of the building along the west
side of Cedar Avenue be designated by the developer for short
term parking use only.
9. The loading and unloading area must be completely screened
from public view.
10. The detailed lighting plan for the site be submitted for
staff approval.
11. The detailed sign design plan be submitted for staff
approval.
12. The developer provide a cash escrow in an amount equivalent
to the amount of any exterior improvements that may not be
completed before the tenant occupies the building.
13. Any changes in the construction design of the plan be
approved by staff.
14. The development meet all building, fire and any other city
codes.
15. The mechanical equipment and the cooling tower be screened
from public view.
16. The existing spruce trees on 18th Avenue be maintained until
the exterior construction on the site is completed and the
new landscaping/screening is in place.
17. That covered handicapped parking be provided and layout
approved by staff.
18. All the stipulations be met prior to the occupancy permit.
1?1
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The staff and Planning Commission have reviewed the
development plan and concerns have been accomodated through
the above stipulations.
The appendix includes a more detailed explanation of the
analysis.
In summary, the plan was compared to the regular C-2 zoning
district requirements and found to meet or exceed all
requirements except front yard set-backs but project analysis
and other lesser set-backs on Cedar indicated
appropriateness. All basic infrasturcture is adequate.
Parking, traffic considerations and site utilization has been
reviewed.
Area zoning, land use and impact on the neighborhood were
considered, as well as landscaping and screening.
The detailed construction design, material and layout are
being reviewed by appropriate staff and appear to meet all
city requirements.
2. January 25, 1988 the City Council waived the preliminary plat
requirement. Final plat is pending staff review.
3. On January 19, 1988 the Planning Commission adopted a
resolution finding the proposed redevelopment plan and TIF
plan consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The HRA has
already approved the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan on
January 19, 1988. The City Council has scheduled the public
hearing on the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan for February
22, 1988.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council may wish to deny all the items in consideration.
Decision Mode:
A public hearing before the City Council on the above mentioned
items is scheduled for 7:00 PM on February 8, 1988. Legal notice
and mailed notice of the hearing was provided to the affected
parties.
Respectf ly submitted,
Jame F.Prosser
Cit anager
Is JDP/eja
9
North8 feet ( No
South60 feet I No
East (Cedar Ave.)31 feetl 40
West (18th Ave.)18 feetl 40
APPENDIX
A. Analysis of the Planned Unit Development Plan:
1. Since the project is within a redevelopment project area
the PUD ordinance is only applicable as a guideline for
the site plan review. The analysis below highlights the
main areas of the proposal.
PUD Proposal I C-2 Zoning District
Requirement
Minimum Setbacks: i
I
Front: l
Maximum HeightN/A
Minimum Parking376 spaces
Width of Curb Cut26 feet
40 feet
Floor Area Ratio0.84
Requirement
Requirement
feet
feet
3 story/40 feet
295 spaces
26 feet
N/A
The total land area including the vacated properties
would be 121,228.4 square feet (approximately 2.8 acres)
with total floor area of approximately 88,200 square
feet. The proposal deviates only in the area of the
building setbacks from 18th Avenue and Cedar Avenue. The
applicant has submitted a request for a variance on the
setbacks as an interim solution prior to the effective
date of a PUD.
The number of parking spaces available on the site is in
excess of that required by 81 spaces. Experience of the
city in other projects regarding parking would indicate
that this is appropriate. The floor area ratio indicates
an intense use but one that appears to cause no adverse
effect at this location. The anticipated roadway
improvement plan for TH 77 further justifies the
intensity of the project as well as its compatibility
with existing and expected land use. The three story
structure would not have any significant shadow effect on
the abutting properties.
The traffic barrier to deter truck entrance to the upper
level of the parking ramp should have similar
construction material as the building and the design
approved by staff. Staff is of the opinion that
pedestrian walkways be provided at all entrances to the
office building. The site plan indicates that all the
handicapped parking is provided on the third floor of the
ramp which is open and, therefore, may not be easily
accessible during bad whether. It is recommended that
the handicapped parking spaces be dispersed on other
floors of the ramp and are made accessible to the
building.
2. The Comprehensive Development Plan designates the site as
mixed land use and the proposed office use would be in
conformance with the city's Comprehensive Plan.
3. The site is adequately served by utilities including gas,
water, electricity and sanitary sewer service. Some of
the utilities will be relocated. Utility easements would
have to be provided to the city. A preliminary drainage
plan was submitted and approved by the City Engineer.
Most of the storm sewer will be connected to the system
on Cedar Avenue towards the northeast of the site. The
existing capacity of the utilities would be adequate
therefore would not have any negative impact.
4. Access to the site would be only from Cedar Avenue.
There will be four curb cuts on Cedar Avenue which meet
minimum width requirements for curb cuts in a commercial
district. Traffic will enter and exit to lower levels A
and B from Cedar Avenue from the curb cut located at the
southeast corner of the site. The traffic will enter and
exit the upper parking level C from the curb cut located
at the northeast corner of the site. There would be a
landscaped island with sidewalk and ramp along Cedar
Avenue in front of the building. The five surface
parking spaces shown near the island would be available
for short term parking only.
Any potential negative impact due to potential increase
in traffic on 18th Avenue will be monitored by the city
traffic control committee. Appropriate action will be
taken by the city to prevent any negative impact. The
traffic circulation system is designed properly and
should not present problems. The existing curb cuts on
67th Street will be closed and a retaining wall will be
constructed along the south line of 67th Street. Access
for the American Family Insurance office building will be
from Cedar Avenue. A new curb cut would be installed for
that site.
5. It is staff's opinion that there will be adequate light
exposure and air circulation on the site and that it
should not have any adverse effect on the surrounding
properties. A 42" wall on each level of the parking
facility and the retaining wall along the access to the
facility would prevent any automobile headlights shining
on the dwellings. The parking lot lights on level C will
be reflecting downward as well.
6. North of the property is the new Cedar Liquor Store,
south of 67th street is the American Family Insurance
office building and a two family dwelling. West of the
property is mostly residential. The landscape plan
indicates that there would be a retaining wall along the
south line of 67th Street connecting with the emergency
walkout to 18th Avenue from the ramp. A six foot wooden
fence will also be installed on top of the retaining wall
,to provide adequate screening for the abutting two family
dwelling on 67th Street. Some landscaping with
shrubberies will also be provided along the south line of
67th Street abutting the insurance office building. The
screening along 67th Street has been worked out by the
developer with the abutting property owners.
The landscape plan indicates the removal of the existing
trees on the site along 18th Avenue. The city and the
developer solicited opinion of foresters separately and
determined that the life expectancy of these trees are
very minimal. The plan indicates that a three foot berm
will be constructed along 18th Avenue and seven new four
inch caliper Sugar Maples and thirty new six foot Black
Hills Spruce will be placed on the berm. This would
adequately screen the site from abutting residential
properties.
Cedar Avenue boulevard would be landscaped with thirteen
four inch caliper Redmond Linden. The developer has
agreed to retain as many boulevard trees as possible.
The developer has also agreed to let the city remove any
mature trees not utilized as part of the landscaping for
the premises. There will be additional landscaping with
shrubberies and trees around the office structure.
The loading and unloading will be below grade on the
southeast corner of the building. A retaining wall will
be constructed to prevent any public view of the dock.
It is the opinion of the staff that landscaping and
screening provided on the site is adequate. Additional
plantings will be provided if necessary to prevent any
negative visual impact.
B. Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan:
The redevelopment would utilize tax increment financing. The
unique features of this TIF are: (1) the tax increment would
be utilized for only eight years. The first tax increment
payment from this development would be received in 1990 and
continue thru 1997. (2) No bonds would be sold. CDP would
receive a total of $850,000 in equal payments each year.
Considerable savings would be achieved because there would be
no capitalized interest and no fees related to a bond sale;
(3) Approximately 31% ($73,161/year) of the tax increment
would be distributed to the taxing jurisdictions, and an
additional 20% ($47,193/year) would be distributed to the
metropolitan fiscal disparities pool. CDP would receive
approximately 45% ($106,250/year) of the increment and the
HRA/City Administration cost would be funded by approximately
4% ($9,362/year) of the increment.
=Ws ?
9
•Z?
N
yy yy w N
M ? V N? M v V S ` r r. Y i V
• H y y ? N y y ? ? y; ? 1 N ti y N ? H V
XCRUCS Ave !i?++-_-iy_ ar.-•.w.a- - ?... n.?:a-.; •+ti+• ,_ ?1 11"x9s Ave.
WASHBURN WASN{YRM
j - '? •- _ ,_ _„ • v1NCCN1
VINCENT 4
r-W?jl ?1
THOMAS THOMAS
SHERIDAN M _i 7 SHCRIO•N
RUSSELL Ru33Ctl
*Uccle -
OU in
-PENN AVE. PENN Avg
OLIVCR OLIVCR
NEWTON NEWTON
L KNOS RNOx
JAMES J1Ygs
IRVIN{'•`?•`C II, : ?' ???D?t rr?__•???Ol?l? IRVINB
NUYBO{,DT = i'?J?= - ...??{,?')?=_s__????O?a I• NUMOOLOT
61MARO OIRARD
t 1.
i11EMp1? i = ?.
CYMSOM ?, ??? r f `` \ ?1
CMCRSOM
DUPONT li DUPONT
ORY•Nf BRVANT
ALDRICN ??0;I,??- ??' I? Si• ALDRICM
lTMOAIL AVE. I I??IJ-' ?•,J?//+///??}yyy ???'? \\ ?, LTNO•lL AVg.
OARrIClO I; _V/?`tJl \ ? ICI GARrILLO
HANNICT HARRIET
GRAND 18TH AVE S III `RAND
r j[]1:1
PLEASANT -^t' PLEASANT
PILLSBURY wwwLLL i III PILLSBURY
WENTWO11TH 1I vi I ?a II' WCNIWORTM
SLAISOC" waOCLL
NICOLLCT AVIL NICOLLET AVE.
Ip U? IAI
STCVCNS ???? STEV[MO
2N ?O 2N
3r{ Q 3r{
CLINTON I? CLIMB"
CEDAR AVE S
sIA ' ,. sIN
PORTLAND AVE PORTLAND AVE.
OARL•NO ' -• ^? lJ ?• OAKLAND
PARR IL J PARR
COLUMBUS COLUMBA
1 n
CHICa00 CHIC•{O
n O
ElUOT I;I ?O = ? Cll10T
Io /N I 1o I.
urA J ?JOO^?l?^-J?_ QQa11121A
13 to
JJO'?/ 131"
IA
IN
1A ON IS IN
@LO MIN6Tp1 !;?l?-'0??''?? ?7'^?-???^--???••++77?J' I ?Q? .? B100Y1N6Tm
,
CEDAR Avg
MAN Ave.
LoNGFt NOrgLLOW •-------- -
1 E-1 19th
•. : = C ]? 'C l 2010,
2101
e n A U _ J? ? 22.•
os Z \ ?? STANDISH
C p _ 23.{
M R
v
s L y t
•
r
O
mom
0
Z
•
? 9
•
•
t- ?
oc
0
z
-!
C - -' y
v ?.
rr1 :!? ? f
I
It
VD
N
J
.
in
a
O ; LLI
y 'o
a
0
W
O
O
r
0
O
400
2
CC
W
CO
N
O
N
?
o
W
V
D .•••. C a
O
N S
Q
V =
Q
ya ..
L n "f
"?. f0 N
W
:
•f;•.
...:.:.;.;.;.; Q W
.
.
? S
%G U1 H
r? n
?i•:
N a
1
•
I
{ ?
.
•.
a.
?i.? ", ??
?xlY.i•?:??,?M1 t~l '!iy! il +> +?'kti1'?i .'-!:?+? ?? •?i ??.•ial.".i:) ?
N
Q
h-
r
67TH ST E
GEK COW*
MIALTPLE REII
AAENJNDtW I
?7L
W
Q
S
H
ao
r,
W
Q
O
W
V
68TH ST E
LAND USE
L:±:j
65TH ST E
1!
Q
a
N
Q
T
COMWRCLi
QUASI PUBL
DUPLEX
APARTMENT
PARK
VACANT
66TH ST E
T
W
Q
68TH ST E
T
W
Q
Q
V
V4
N
67TH ST E
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
65TH ST E
66TH ST E
:r
0
H
T
67TH ST E
•::::: • MIXED LAND i
IEDKlM DENS
/ BUFFER
f /ISTITUTIONA
.^ PARKS AND
rJ?. ' ?; OPEN SPACE
W
Q
H
47
T
?L
W
IT
Q
O
W
V
%4
N
68TH ST E
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 38
February 8, 1988
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading consideration of an ordinance
amendment pertaining to the city sign regulations.
Background:
In August of 1987, the City Council approved an ordinance
establishing 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 amendment to the sign
regulations which is summarized as follows:
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
clarify the original intent of the ordinance 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 existing subdivision 8 are not 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 issue violation tags, within two days.
4. Subsection 416.07, subdivision 2 (d) (3) has been amended to
clarify the minimum vertical clearance required beneath
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 require 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.
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 change the prohibition of search
lights.
The City Council gave first reading approval of the attached
ordinance amendment on January 11, 1988, and scheduled second
reading and the public hearing for the February 8, 1988 council
meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Approve second reading consideration of the attached ordinance
amendment.
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 second reading consideration on
February 8, 1988. Published notice of the public hearing and
second reading consideration of the ordinance has been provided.
Staff has also provided notice of the hearing to the Chamber of
Commerce and to licensed sign installers in the city.
If the ordinance is approved, it will become effective within 30
days after publication in the official city newspaper.
Respectf lly submitted,
James . Prosser
City nager
JDP/dkh
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 4444 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:
G 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
€ree?t?dsr? 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
round signs are located in front of the building setback
line, - m?Y.m a minimum vertical clearance o ?4 7 feet
must be maintained below any fT°°°+°^?;^^ ground sign.
±oeated within 25 feet of any intersection of a driveway
with street right-of-way, or at any other location where
pedestrian of vehicle traffic passes dnder the s 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 High 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:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 37
Agenda, February 8, 1988
Issue Statement:
Approval of Agreement for refund of Sales and Use Taxes from
Minnesota Department of Revenue.
Background:
Based upona 1983 Minnesota Supreme Court decision, Zimpro Inc.,
v. Commission of Revenue, the City of Richfield may be entitled
to refunds of certain Sales and Use taxes for a period from 1981
to May 9, 1985. However, at this time it is unknown if the city
paid any such taxes.
While the city has an obligation to pursue its claim for any
potential refunds, the city is barred by the Statute of
Limitations governing tax refund claims. An attorney
representing a number of contractors in a refund claim has
proposed that he pursue the refund claim on behalf of the city in
exchange for fifty percent of the total of any amount due to the
city.
Since there is no cost to the city and no other avenue for the
city to use to pursue this matter, the City Attorney has stated
that this appears to be an appropriate course of action for the
city in this matter.
Recommend Motion:
Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Jon G.
Sarff to pursue a Sales and Use Tax refund.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. There is no cost or liability to the city.
2. The city should pursue a refund if possible.
3. A refund claim through the various contractors as proposed
here, is the only option available for the city in this
matter.
4. This type of work is not covered in our legal retainer
agreement with the City Attorney.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could decide not to pursue a refund.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council action on the February 8, 1988 City Council meeting is
needed to allow for a timely legal claim for this refund.
Sin erely,
Ja D. Prosser
Ci Manager
JDP/sae
??1142
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 36
Agenda February 8, 1988
Issue Statement:
City council approval of payment for payroll related Computer
Programming Services.
Background:
Since the 1986 computer conversion process, the city has been
proceeding with a number of programming efforts to meet the needs
of city staff. However, until the past week, the city has not
had a computer programmer position on staff. Thus, some of the
new programming that has been necessary has been completed
through the use of contract programmers. The remainder of the
programming has been performed by the Data-Processing Manager and
division staff as time and level of expertise permitted. With
the recent addition of a staff programmer on project employee
status, and the completion of other internal projects, additional
city staff time will be available for in-house software
programming and maintenance.
One area in which the city has been unable to utilize in-house
programming support has been the payroll and personnel related
• programs. Thus, any needed changes, improvements, or additions
project
Albers
most inddiatavidprocessing, ual who devcieloptyed staff the ff city's now customized
s o is of m the
over the 1986 maintenance computer
development of the
payroll programs. However, the extremely complex nature of the
payroll programs and the interdependence on many of the current
programs require that Mr. Giske work with city staff to ensure a
smooth transition to in-house maintenance. To accomplish this
transition, Mr. Giske will be working with staff to develop a
"Pay-Calc" feature which will allow the payroll accountant to
simulate projected net pay based upon variable deductions. He
will also work with staff on year end W-2 processing, diskette
preparation for Social Security and other miscellaneous programs.
Mr. Giske's fee is $45.00 per hour. This rate is very
competitive with other contract programmers of his experience and
ability.
At this point it is unlikely that Mr. Giske's total charges for
1988 will exceed $5,000. However, at this time city staff is
seeking City Council authorization to enter into a Master
Contract with Mr. Giske at $45.00 per hour for this period of
change over to city maintenance. City staff will inform the City
Council if the 1988 total charge for the project exceeds $5,000.
basis through Albers Associates (See Attachment A). Ray Giske of
to With the the payaddition roll sysotfem the havpe project been t done
on a praojnedct the by current
payroll software from a "package" payroll system purchased e by to the
convanedrsion.
city completely as patrt oakef o the
Recommendation:
City Council approval of a Master Contract with Albers Associates
for $45.00 per hour for payroll assistance.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The city now has available staff to take over all maintenance
and up grade of the city's payroll/personnel related
programs.
2. To ensure a smooth transition, and to complete a "Pay-Calc"
program (estimated $1,200-$1,500), Mr. Giske's assistance
is necessary.
3. Instead of using a project by project contract process
with Mr. Giske, authorization for the final two projects
which could exceed $5,000 is requested. However, staff
will make every effort to keep these costs minimal.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide to have staff award this
payroll support on a project basis, seeking authorization
only if a project exceeded $5,000.
2. Set a limit on the Support Services for the transition
to in-house maintenance. However, at this point, staff
is uncertain as to how much assistance will be necessary.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
Action is requested at the February 8, 1988, City Council meeting
so that this effort may proceed as quickly as possible.
JDP/sae
Sin r ly,
Ja D. Prosser
Ci Manager
E
0 ATTACHMENT A
During the course of 1987, from July to the present time, the
City has contracted with Mr. Giske, through Albers Associates,
for a number of small separate programs for the payroll/personnel
system. These programs which are in progress include:
Estimated Cost
Employee Change Audit Report (in progress) $1,000-$1,500
This program searches the city's payroll
records each biweekly payroll period and
generates a report which identifies any
changes in employee records, rates,
deductions, etc. This report is used by
the city's auditors.
W-2 Year-End Report, Diskette (in progress) $22500-$2,600
This program takes cumulative year-end
payroll data and generates W-2 and related
reporting. It also generates diskettes
for submission to the Social Security
Administration and IRS.
Operations Support & System Modifications (ongoing)$45/hour
Alignment form program for checks and reports; July 1987
dated registers for all reports; cumulative through
hours report for part-time employees Dec. 1987--
(personnel); support as needed for systems $4,265
crashes; system enhancements to facilitate
faster operation.
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Approved cost
Programming for modified overtime system up to $7,500.
which reconciles FLSA, contract and Actual cost
ordinance overtime for employee groups. approx. $5,000
(Approved June 13, 1987 Council meeting.)
0