03-11-85 agenda 1~/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 100
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Legislature Delays Total Takeover of
Gambling
Council Members:
The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) reports (please refer
to 1985 Legislative Bulletin, March 1, 1985, Weekly Update) that
the state legislature acted "to delay full implementation. of the
new gambling laws, thus postponing full state regulation of
gambling" (bingo, raffles, pull-tabs, paddlewheels, ar.d
tipboards).
June 1, 1985 is the new cutoff date for local licenses.
• The new law provides:
1. All local licenses expire on February 28, 1885;
2. State licensing will take over or. March 1, 1985,
but will not be the sole authority to gamble until
June 1, 1985;
3. Local organizations which hold a local license on
February 28, 1985 may continue to conduct the forms
of gambling authorized by the local license without
obtaining any state license until Jur.e 1, 1985; and,
Cities are authorized to adopt, by emergency ordinance,
a system for the licensing of organizations to conduct
gambling from February 28, 1985 through May 31, 1985.
The options available are:
1. Do nothing;
2. Regulate under a new city ordinance for the period
March 1, 1985 through May 31, 1985;
3. Continue to license under our existing ordinances
("dual licensing option"); and,
- 2- ~ 9,r-Z-
4. Enact an emergency ordinance allowing continued local
licensing (this option. assumes a city has already
repealed their local laws this is r.ot the case in
Richfield.
Conclusions
The Director of Public Safety has been asked to contact as
many of our local organizations to learn if they have already
obtained a state license. This information will be reported on
at Monday night's council meeting.
The City of Richfield has of this date removed itself from
the gambling regulatory business on the factual situation. that
the state was taking over regulation on March 1, 1985•
It is believed that most Richfield organizations have
decided to proceed under state regulations.
There are several bills in the state legislative hopper that
call for abolishing the state board that regulates gambling.
However, to base any action on this potential would be
premature.
If Richfield were to continue regulations between March 1,
1985 and May 31, 1985, the pro rata share of an annual license
fee would probably be too small to justify the cost of
regulation.
Recommerdatior.
If the Public Safety Department survey of Richfield
organizations shows all or most of the organizations have
already applied or received a state license, then. it is
recommended the city proceed under the dual licensing option
until Jur.e 1, 1985• This means an organization r.ot yet
licensed by the state can continue under the city license until
June 1, 1985•
Respectfu submitted,
ff/.~~~GP,~).~r
L
John G . Car,twr ~ t
City Manager
JGC/eja
f
T
Tee.. 1n ~~ev~eW
LEGISLATURE DELAYS TOTAL STATE TAKEGVER OF GAMBLING
Early last week the legislature acted to delay full implementation of the
new gambling laws, thus postponing full state regulation of gambling. (The
term gambling includes bingo, raffles, pull-tabs, paddlewheels, and tip
boards.) June 1, 1985 is the new cutoff date for local licenses.
The new law provides that:
* All local licenses expire on February 28, 1985;
* State licensing will begin on March 1, 1985 but will not be the sole
authority to gamble until June 1, 1985;
* Organizations which hold a local license on February 28 may continue to
conduct the forms of gambling authorized by the local license without
obtaining any state license until June i, 1985, provided that the
organization complies with the terms and conditions of the license in
effect on January 28, 1985; and
~ * Cities are authorized to adopt, by emergency ordinance, a system for the
licensing of organizations to conduct gambling from February 28, 1985 to
May 31, 1985. These ordinances must be consistent with Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 349, and may go into effect without hearing, notice,
or publication, but the city shall promptly, after adoption, hold
hearings to consider any necessary alterations in the ordinance. These
emergency ordinances can not only provide a means of licensing new
applicants but may include provisions to extend licenses in effect on
February 28, 1985, until May 31, 1985, and charge a fee for the
extension.
To attempt to explain all the options available to licensing authorities
is difficult, but here goes:
* Do nothing. This option has a certain degree of attractiveness due to
its simplicity. If a city has already repealed their local ordinance,
existing licensees would be authorized to continue to operate and new
operations could hold gambling occasions only after obtaining a state
license, if one is necessary, or if not the gambling is not covered by
state law.
* License or regulate under a new city ordinance adopted in contemplation
of a March 1 1985, effective date. Since the state has already issued
licenses which will go into effect March 1 and the state will continue
to issue licenses, cities could choose to license or regulate those
gambling occasions not covered by state law such as single bingo
occasions, and to simply allow or disapprove the granting of state
licenses. Operators of gambling who have local licenses in effect on
February 28 could continue to operate unless inconsistent with local
licensing or regulatory ordinances.
* Continue to license under a pre-existing municipal ordinance. There is
the potential for dual licensing under this option, and it is less than
clear whether a city could require a local license if the state has
issued a license, since one state law prohib its local licensing if the
gambling operator has obtained a state license and another continues to
allow local licensing between March 1 and June 1.
* Enact an emergency ordinance allowing continued local licensing. This
option assumes a city wants to license locally but has repealed their
local license. Cities would probably choose to re-adopt their repealed
gambling licensing ordinances. An additional fee is allowed for
extending existing local licenses or for issuing new local licenses.
While this mish-mash of options is certainly confusing, it reflects an
intention of the legislature to reduce the burden on local government due to
the delay in state regulation. City officials who would like to discuss their
city's options are encouraged to call Joel Jamnik at the League office.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BILL
The Local Finance Division of the House Committee on Taxes made several
amendments to H.F. 556 before recommending that it pass. This is the
Department of Revenue's bill which would clarify existing statutory language
and address administrative concerns. It would repeal the coefficient of
dispersion penalty which provides that a city`s LGA could be reduced if a
. city's sales ratio comparing the assessor's market value to actual sales was
too low. The League has long sought repeal of this provision. An amendment
the division added would provide that for a property to qualify for the
confession of judgment provisions for late property tax payment, the homestead
portion must be at least 25 percent of the total market value. The committee
also approved other amendments which do not directly impact cities. This is
the companion to S.F. 472 which the Senate Tax Committee acted on last week.
Full House and Senate action is expected soon.
PROPERTY TAX STUDY COMMISSION
A subcommittee of the House Governmental Operations Committee considered
H.F. 388 which would establish a study commission to consider a site-valuation
system for property taxation. Site valuation would tax land values much higher
than buildings and other improvements. This type of property tax system would
dramatically increase taxes on vacant land While generally lowering them on
commercial and industrial property. The goal of this type of taxation system
is to encourage development of vacant land, encourage the building of large
structures rather than small structures on large parcels, and eliminate the
current system which penalizes through higher taxes any improvements or
additions to existing structures.
Ideas the subcommittee discussed included the need for special provisions
for agricultural land, the possibility of providing this as a local option,
establishing a demonstration project before considering full implementation,
and examining the impact on owners of small homes on large lots. Members
generally agreed that additional study is necessary before the state could
seriously consider implementing such a proposal. riowever, the committee seemed
receptive to the establishment of a study commission. If the full committee
recommends this, it is likely that the bill would he rereferred to the Taxes
Committee.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA e
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 99
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Administrative Recommendation Relating to Pet
Vaccinations
Council Members:
At present, the City of Richfield licenses dogs and cats as
household pets or in cor.junctior. with kernels. Licensing
procedures are in place to record numbers ar.d types of animals
in Richfield, to return lost pets to their rightful owners and
to assure absence of nuisance factors and cleanliness ar.d
sanitation of neighborhoods.
Although the City administers a thorough licensing program,
we currently do not require a proof of rabies vaccination for
• licensure. Recently, the City Clerk's Division. surveyed several
metropolitan communities regarding the current practice with
respect to requiring rabies vaccinations. Sever. communities
responded to the survey, each indicating the rabies vaccination
was required ir. their respective City for licensure.
It appears that Richfield may be or.e of a relatively small
number of metropolitan. communities that does r.ot require rabies
vaccinations prior to issuing a pet license. Thus, I am
recommending that the City proceed with action to implement a
rabies vaccination. requirement for pet licensure and direct the
City Attorney to prepare an ordir.ar.ce on the matter for First
Reading on April 8, 1985• Timely adoption. of such ar. ordir.ar.ce
would allow the City to initiate the vaccination requirement for
the 1985-86 license year, whic'n commences Jur.e 1, 1985.
Respectfu y submitted,
' ~!i' ~v
John. G. Cartwr ht
City Manager
JGC:sb
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA /
Office of City Manager
. Council Letter No. 9g
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Council Confirmation. of Date of Joint Meeting
Of Richfield School Board ar.d the Richfield City
Council
Council Members:
The Richfield School Board would like to meet with the
city council on Monday, April 15, 1985, at 5:30 p.m., to discuss
items of mutual concern. The meeting will be hosted by the
School Board and a light supper will be served.
The city council is requested to confirm the date of this
joint meeting.
. Res ectfu omitted,
ohr. G . Car r igh
City Manager ~
JGC/eja
1 tO
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 97
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: City Council Liaison Appoir.tmer.t to the
ILN Advisory committee
Council Members:
On February 11, 1985, the city council adopted a resolution
establishing a community wide city council advisory committee
for the ILN area. This committee will provide input to plans,
proposals, and concepts which emerge from the planning process
which is being directed by staff and facilitated by the BR'~1
consulting firm. A city council liaison representative to the
committee should now be selected.
' A provision of the resolution establishing the committee
provided that the School District, Planning Commission., HRA ar.d
City Council each appoint a non-voting liaison member to the
Advisory Committee. The School District recently appointed Jim
Carlson as a liaison representative ar.d the Planning Commission
appointed Maggi McDermott-Lir.dstrar.d as their liaison
representative at their Feb. loth meeting. The HRA will be
asked at their March 18th meeting to appoint a liaison
representative. It is recommended that the City Council select
one of its members who would function as a liaison
representative to the advisory committee.
R/es~pectfu y ubmitted ,
~
L1/L/
John. G. Cart nigh
City Manager
JGC/eja
~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 96
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
ar.d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Resolution Establishing a Penalty for Delinquent
Sewer and Water Service Rates and Charges
Council Members:
Because of the large amount of delinquent water and sewer
utility bills, there is a need to establish a procedure for
dealing with ar.d collecting such charges.
According to our utility billing accounts, over $60,000 is
carried or. ar. annual basis by the Water Fund for customers who
choose not to pay their current quarterly water and sewer
bills. Once a year, these customers are assessed a $20.00
certification. fee ar.d their water and sewer bill is added to
their property bill for payment.
The city manager recommends implementation. of a quarterly
late payment fee. Sound business practices dictate a policy
that the city's Water ar.d Sewer Utility Fur.ds should not be
expected to carry unpaid accounts for a period up to 12 months
at no cost to the customer.
Attached to this council letter is a resolution. which would
provide for a 5~ late penalty to be imposed on bills that are
not paid within 30 days of the date when. the bill for the charge
is mailed. The resolution. further provides that if the charge
ar.d penalty have not been paid by the time the charges for the
next billing period are billed, the delinquent charge and
penalty shall be added to the bill for current services.
This resolution. has been placed on the March 11, 1985
city council agenda for city council action..
Res ectfu ubmitted,
\ ~
John. G. Cartwr' ht
City Manager
JGC/eja
l5~-v
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO DELINQUENT PAYMENTS
OF SEWER AND WATER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, by separate resolution a schedule of sewer and
water service rates and charges is established by the city
council from time to time, and
WHEREAS, there is a need to establish procedures far dealing
with and collecting such charges when their payment is
delinquent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield as follcws:
1. The policies and procedures hereinafter set forth,
and the penalties ar.d charges hereinafter specified
shall be applicable to ar.y and all rates and charges
for water ar.d sewer use and service.
Such rates and charges are hereinafter referred to ir. a
singular form as "a charge" ar.d in the plural form as
"the charges".
2. When a charge is not paid within. 30 days of the date
whey. the bill for the charge is mailed a late penalty
of 5% ("the penalty") shall be imposed. Payment shall
not be deemed to have beer. made for the purposes of
imposing the penalty ur_less the payment has actually
been received by the city.
If a charge and penalty have not beer. paid by the time
the charges for the next billing period are billed the
delinquent charge and penalty shall be added to the
bill for current services.
If such bill beomes delir.quer.t for r.on-payment within
30 days, the penalty shall be imposed upon the combined
billing including any previous penalty.
3. If the charges of any customer are unpaid ar.d
delinquent or. September 1 of any year they shall be
certified as a special assessment for collection along
with real estate taxes on the property involved.
•
- 2 - ~
In making such special assessment the charges and
applicable penalties shall be included along with a
certification c'narge of $20.00 for each delinquent
account so as to reimburse the city for its
administrative expenses in processing the special
assessment.
~l. The special assessment shall be payable ir. the year
following the year in which the assessment is made.
All assessments shall bear interest at the rate most
recently levied by the city council on assessable
public improvements under the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes X429.061, subdivision 2. The amount of such
interest for one year shall be added to the principal
amount of each assessment.
5. Prepayment of the special assessment without interest
may be paid to the city prior to November 15 of the year
in which the assessment is levied. Thereafter payments
of the special assessment shall be made for the full
amount that is with the full annual installment of
interest.
Partial payments and prepayments of the special
assessment shall not be accepted by t'ne city.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of 1885.
John. Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Steven Devich Acting City Clerk
~ i 4'-~/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 95
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Resolution Authorizing Temporary Financing for
1985 Richfield State Agency Storm Sewer
Improvements, CP-813
Council Members:
On January 1~, 1g85, the city council approved the plans and
specifications and ordered the advertisement for bids for
Richfield State Agency storm sewer improvements (CP 813). The
engineering estimate for the entire project was $160,000.
On February 25, 1985, the city council accepted bids and
awarded the contract for these storm sewer improvements to
Richard Knutson, Inc, of Burnsville, for $133,985.15. The cost
of this project will be financed by special assessments to
Richfield State Agency and Market Plaza which will be levied in
1986 for property tax collections beginning in May, 1987.
In order to pay for the costs of this project prior to its
special assessment, it is recommended that the city council
authorize the temporary transfer of funds, as necessary, at the
er.d of each month from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund
at an interest rate of 9~ per ar.r.um. This interest rate is
comparable to the rate that would be paid if permanent financing
were arranged.
The attached resolution. authorizes the temporary transfer of
funds from the PIR Fund to CP 813 to provide interim financing
until permanent financing is available.
Permanent financing will be provided for when. the city
issues bonds to fir.ar.ce a number of public improvements
including alley and sidewalk projects.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution, authorizing the temporary transfer of funds from the
PIR Fund .
Respectf y ubmitted,
Johr. G. Ca wrig t
City Manager
JGC/eja
i 3
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS
FROM PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND
TO CP 813, RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS,
TO PROVIDE INTERIM FINANCING OF SAID PROJECT
WHEREAS, the ordinance code of the City of Richfield
provides for a Permar.er.t Improvement Revolving Fund to be used
for the purpose of financing local improvements; ar.d,
WHEREAS, the ordinance states that t'ne proceeds of said fund
may be used to provide interim financing of capital expenditures
for projects of the city by resolution of the city council; and,
WHEREAS, it appears desirable to transfer funds to provide
interim financing for CP 813, Richfield State Agency Storm
Improvements; ar.d,
WHEREAS, the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund has
sufficient cash available to transfer necessary funds at the end
of each month to CP 813 for work completed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by resolution of the city a
9~ per annum interest rate will be charged the project each
month based on the accumulative cash transferred at the end of
each month, for the purpose of providing interim fir.ar.cir.g.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this 11th day of March, 1985.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Stever. Devich, Acting City Clerk
~ 3-~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 94
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Resolution Receiving Preliminary Report and
Calling a Public Hearing for 1985 Alley Paving
Project, City Project No. 812
Council Members:
In November, 1980, the city council established a policy
providing for the improvement of the city's alleys by concrete
paving. This policy stipulates that an alley will be paved upon
receipt of a petition signed by property owners representing
more than fifty percent (50~) of the abutting footage requesting
such paving. In the first four years of this program, 59 of the
M 96 alleys ir. the city have been paved.
At the February 25, 1985 city council meeting, the council
ordered a preliminary report to be prepared for the following
four eligible petitions which had been submitted to the city:
Alley Between. From To
Augsburg ar.d Garfield Avenue 70th Street 71st Street
Russell and Sheridan Avenue 68th Street 69th Street
Blaisdell and Nicollet Avenue 75th Street 76th Street
Upton and Thomas Avenue 68th Street 69th Street
In addition, two petitions containing exactly 50~ of the
affected property owners were included in the preliminary report
because of a request from those residents to the council to have
these alleys considered at the public 'nearing:
Alley Between From To
Xerxes and Washburn Avenue 68th Street 69th Street
Queen and Penn Avenue 68th Street 69th Street
Minnesota Statute 429.031 provides that the council may
order such a petitioned project, by a majority vote, if
presented with a petition. of more than 35~ of the property
owners. If the petition had less than 35~ of the affected
property owners, a 4/5 vote of the council would be needed.
-2- ~ 3_ z,
The attached preliminary report includes the estimated costs
and assessments for the proposed 1985 alley paving project.
The estimated residential assessment is $19.75 per foot as
compared to $18.07 per foot for the actual 1984 alley
assessment program. The staff recommends the city council
adopt the attached resolution. accepting the preliminary report
and scheduling a public hearing for all six alleys for April 8,
1985
Respectf 1 ubmitted,
v~ , Cry .
John. G. Cart igh
City Manager
JGC/eja
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AND
CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING
CITY PROJECT N0. 812
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution. No. 7014 of the city council
adopted February 25, 1985 with reference to .the improvement of
the following alleys by concrete paving:
Alley Between From To
Augsburg and Garfield Avenue 70th Street 71st Street
Russell and Sheridan Avenue 68th Street 69th Street
Blaisdell and Nicollet Avenue 75th Street 76th Street
Upton and Thomas Avenue 68th Street 59th Street
Xerxes and Washburn Avenue 68th Street 59th Street
Queen and Penn Avenue 68th Street 69th Street
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The preliminary report on the proposed City Project No.
812, dated the 11th day of March, 1485, prepared by the city
engineer, is hereby received and ordered to be placed on file.
2. A public hearing on said proposed improvement is hereby
called to be held on April 8, 1985 commencing at 7 p.m. in the
council chambers of City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South,
Richfield, Minnesota, at which time the council will consider
the improvement of these alleys ir. accordance with the report
ar.d assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the
cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429, at
ar. estimated cost of the improvement of $127,308.
3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give
published ar.d mailed notice of such hearing ir. the manner
required by law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
11th day of March, 1985.
John. Hamilton., Mayor
ATTEST:
Steven Devich, Acting City Clerk
~3+~
PRELIMI~iARY REPORT AND
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALLEY PAVING & APPURTEiVAi~iT 'WORK
PUBLIC IiMPROVEi~IENT N0. 812
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
I. TYPE OF WORK
Concrete alley paving improvements in the City of Richfield.
II. RE,aSON FOR IMPROVEMENT
The alleys identified as Numbers T through 4 in Item ^io. IV were requested
by petition representing greater than 50 percent of the abutting r"ootage.
The alleys identified as Numbers 5 and o were requested by a petition representing
exactly 50 percent of the abutting footage. These alleys are proposed as a paving
program for the City of Richfield to provide concrete alley surfacing to boner"it
abutting properties.
i
III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT
March 11, 7y65
P!. LOCATION
Alley Between From To
1. Augsburg and Garfield Avenue 70th Street 71st Street
2. Russell and Sheridan Avenue ~ 58th Street 59th Street
3. Blaisdell and NicoIlet Avenue 75th Street 75th Street
4. Upton and Thcmas Avenue 58th Strut 59th Street
5. Xerxes and Washburn Avenue 68th Street 59th Street
6. Queen and Tenn Avenue 58th Strut 59th Street
V. FEASIBILITY
The alley paving project is feasible ar,d can best be accomplished as proposed
and not in conjunction with any other project.
VI. PROPERT'( TO BE A.SScSSED
,~'iil than JrOperLy 3bl;tT,ing ~f~i2 ai_=;/S rr?ViGUSi fr.'eSSr1J2'~ _~!Tl ^~G. :~'v~.
-2-
3- `i
/ ,
VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
Cost of Aileys Cost of Alleys
11' 6Jide Concrete Alley 1 thru 4 1 thru 6
Estimated Construction Cost 376,156.00 3101,846.00
Administration, Legal, Engineering &
Insurance (25'6) 19,039.00 25,462.00
Estimated Project Cost $95,195.00 $127,308.00
VIII. ESTIMATED PROJECT ,ASSESSMEi~T
Property abutting alleys will be dSseSSed for alley construction according to the
assessment policy established in the City Council Resolution Flo. 6345.
Alleys 1 thru 4 Alleys 1 thru 6
Total Assessable Alley Frontage 4,693' 6,278'
Total Project Cost 395,195.00 3127,308.00
Less City Cost -2,508.00 - 3,318.00
Assessable Cost $92,687.00 $123,990.00
392,687.00 4,693 = 319.75/assessable foot
$123,990.00 6,278 = $19.75/assessable foot
Typical Assessment for 50' lot =x987.50
Typical Assessment for 75' iet = ;1,481.25
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Registered ~ror"essional
Engineer !ender the laws of the State or" Minnesota.
• ~~1ic~a,~1 J. cas~ling
DATE: 3/11/85
Registraticn No. 15066
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA "
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 93
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Amer.dmer.t To The Richfield Zoning Ordinance
To Restrict The Use of Individual Air Conditioning
Units In The Construction of Buildings Greater
Than Three Stories Ir. Height
Council Members:
The variance (Section 3.40) and the Special Use Permit
(Section. 3.41) sections of the Richfield Zoning Ordinance
include provisions which must be met prior to the issuance of a
building permit for a structure which exceeds three stories in
height. The attached proposed ordinance amendments would
require that four conditions be met before either a special use
permit or a variance could be granted which would allow the
installation of individual air conditioning units.
The proposed amendment would prohibit the use of individual
air conditior.ir.g units unless the applicant could demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the council that:
(1) The use of the units would r.ot impair the architectural
integrity and external appearance of the building;
(2) The units would not be located ir. such a manner as to
discharge condensation upon persons occupying other dwelling
units in the building;
(3) The units would not cause staining or leaching of
the exterior building surfaces by the discharge of condensation
upon. the exterior of the building; ar.d,
( 4) The units would r.ot be located in such a mar.r.er as to
generate noise levels which would disturb the peace and quiet of
persons occupying other dwelling units ir. the building or
adjacent buildings or persons using areas adjacent to the
building which were designed for such type of use.
-2- v
If the city council desires to amend the zoning ordinance to
restrict the installation of individual air conditioning units
for structures above three stories in height, this proposed
amendment should be referred to the planning commission for a
public hearing and recommendation. Proposed changes to the
zoning ordinance are first considered by the planning commission
before the city council takes action.
Respectfully submitted,
John G . Ca~twr ht
City Manager
Amendment to
Chapter III, Part IV
of the Ordinance Code
of the City of Richfield
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter IIT, Part IV of the Ordinance Cede of the City of
Richfield entitled "Zoning Regulation" is amended in the follow-
ing respects:
I. Section 3.~1 thereof is amended by adding the following new
subdivision thereto:
Subd. 6A. Air Conditioning Units. In grantinq a special
use permit pursuant to Section 3.39, subdivision 1 of the code
permitting a modification to the height requirements contained in
tthis chapter applicable to residential structures, the council
mad, as a condition to such approval, prohibit the use of indi-
vidual air conditioning units unless the applicant demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the council:
(a) The use of such units will not impair the architectural
integrity and external appearance of the building;
(b) The units will rot be located ir. such a manner as to
discharge condensate upon persons occupying other
dwelling units ir. the building or upon areas normally
occupied by persons;
(c) The units will not stain or leach the exterior building
surfaces by discharge of condensate;
(d) The units will not be located in such a manner as to
generate noise levels which are likely to disturb the
peace and Quiet of persons cccupyinq other dwellircr
units in the building or adjacent buildings or persons
using areas adjacent to the building designed for such
use .
II. Section 3.40 thereof is amended by adding thereto the
following new paragraph to subdivision 6 thereof:
(4) In grantinq a variance to the hei ht requirements
contained in this chapter applicable to residential structures,
the council .may, as a condition to such approval, prohibit the
use of individual air conditioning units unless the applicant
. demonstrates to the satisfaction of the council:
ice- ~
{a} The use of such units will not impair the architectural
integrity and external appearance of the building;
(b) The units will not be located ir. such a manner as to
discharge condensate upon persons occupying .other
dwelling units ir. the building or upon areas r_ormally
occupied by persons;
~c:i 't'he units will not stain or leacn the exterior building
surfaces by discharge of condensate;
(d) The units will not be located in such a manner as to
generate noise levels which are likely to disturb the
peace and quiet of persons occupying other dwelling
units in the building or adjacent buildings or persons
using areas adjacent to the building designed for such
use.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of 1985.
John N. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
!t- !
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 92
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
ar.d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Council Salaries
Council Members:
Chapter XII, Section 12.02 of the city ordinance code
establishes the salaries of the city council and provides that
salaries of the council members be reviewed by December of each
year.
Council salaries were last adjusted ir. 1978, when the salary
of the Mayor was increased from $5,670 to $6,000 per year; and
council member salaries were increased from $u,221to $4,500
annually. Ar. ordinance amendment to charge the council salaries
requires a 4/5 vote of the city council at the time of second
reading of the ordinance. A majority of the council is required
to increase salaries for council members elected in the future.
Ar. ordinance amer.dmer.t increasing the salary of the Mayor
ar.d members by $700 per year is attched to this council letter,
ar.d has been placed on the March 11, 1985 city council for first
reading consideration.. Also attached is a copy of the most
recent survey of council salaries in other Minnesota cities.
If the ordir.ar.ce is approved, the salaries would not be
increased until after the Fall (1985) elections.
A comparison. of the salaries from six selected metropolitan.
cities with the salaries paid to Richfield officials shows:
1. Richfield Mayor salary would require a 11.8 increase
to match the average salary for the position. of Mayor;
and ,
2. Richfield city council salary would requir a 9.~%
increase to match the average salary paid to council
members in the six selected cities (see council
backup).
-2- 11
Because the change in Mayor ar.d council salaries are
adjusted infrequently (although they are reviewed annually) and
because other communities charge the salaries of elected
officials from time to time which would cause the salary
difference between Richfield officials ar.d officials from other
cities, the gap will continue to grow unless ar. adjustment is
made soon. A $700 annual increase is proposed for the Mayor and
Council salaries.
A $700 increase to the Mayor's salary would represent ar.
11.7% increase. The last increase was sever. years ago. Thus,
the annual increase over the last sever. years would be less than
2% per year. A $700 increase to City Council salaries would
reflect a 15.6% increase.
Respectft,~,1y submitted ,
Johh G. Cartwr ght
City Manager
JGC/eja
3
AMEMDMENT TO CHAPTER XII SECTION 12.02
OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
COMPENSATION OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section. 12.02 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
relating to compensation of the Mayor and Council Members is
hereby amended to provide as follows:
Subdivision 1. Ar.r.ual Salary The annual salary of the
Mayor is $YT,~uJ'[$6,700] and the annual salary for each member
of the council is $~.~r5•(~(~ [$5,200] to be effective 30 days after
its publication. Salaries of such officers shall be reviewed by
December of each year.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this day of 1985.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Steven Devich Acting City Clerk
METROPOLITAN AREA COUNCIL SALARIES
SELECTED SIX AVERAGE SALARIES
MTGS. ANNUAL SALARY
CITY MONTH POP. MAYOR COUNCIL
BLOOMINGTON 4 82,490 $12,000 $9,000
GOLDEN VALLEY 2 22,380 $ 6,200 $4,650
ROSEVILLE 2 35,920 $ 6,000 $4,800
EDINA 2 45,340 $ 5,850 $3,900
ST. LOUIS PARK 2 42,640 $ 5,400 $3,600
BURNSVILLE 2 37,580 $ 4,800 $3,600
AVERAGE SIX CITIES $ 6,708 $4,925
AVERAGE ALL METROPOLITAN CITIES
WITH POPULATION OVER 20,000 $ 5,952 $4,305
RICHFIELD SALARIES $ 6,000 $4,500
~ ~ ~}~1~~g~
;`~1
C
;~~~r~~~~~1i
i~7ti~~~~~t~~i~t~
ALS SPI-ARC SOR~EY
~cipalities
~tEC~CD O~~IC
-ion of Mo~.ro~olitan Mun
rn i~o~ py ttie Associat
Co P
duly il' lg~~
i,
C I T I ES W I TII POPULATION FROM 2 , 500 'i'O 1.0 , 000 PAGE T1iREE
POPULATION 1983 REG. MTGS. ANNUAL SALARY OF MAYOR ANNUAL SALARY OF CNCLMBRS.
PER
MUNICIPALITY MP,TRO COUNCIL PEIt MOPd'PII 1984 1983 1982 1984 1983 1982
Afton 2,570 1 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 780 $ 780 780
Arden Bills 8,830 2 2,100 2,100 2,100 1,500 .1,500 1,500
Bayport 2,890 1 1,680 1,680 1,200 1,200. 1,200 720
Belle Plaine 2,940 2 1,200 1,200 1,200 900 900 900
Champlin 9,620 2 3,000 3,000 2,400 2,400 2,400 1,800
Chanhassen 7,120 2 3,600 2,~i00 2,400 2,400 1,800 1,800
Chaska 9,050 2 3,000 3,000 1,800 2,400 2,400 1,500
Circle Pines 3,550 2 1,500 960 960 1,125 720 720
Corcoran 4,480 1 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,200 1,200 1,200
Dayton 4,080 2 1,200 1,200 1,200 900 900 900
Deephaven 3,680 2 2,400 2,400 2,400 600 600 600
East Bethel 7,060 2 2,160 2,160 2,160 1,800 1,800 1,800
Excelsior 2,520 2 600 600 600 420 420 420
Falcon heights 5,140 2 3,780 3,780 3,780 3,000 3,000 3,000 j
Farmington 4,470 2 3,120 3,360 3,360 2,460 2,640 2,460
Forest Lake 4,920 1 1,200 1.,200 1,200 900 900 900
Ham Lake 8,360 2 2,750 2,500 2,500 2,200 2,000 2,000
Iiugo 3,850 2 600 600 600 480 480 480
Independence 2,690 1 900 900 900 600 600 600
Jordan 2,870 2 960 480 480 480 480 480
Lake Elrno 5,660 2 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,500 1,500 1,500
Lino Lakes 5,730 2 2,500 1,800 1,200 2,100 1,500 900
Little Canada 7,560 1 3,600 3,000 2,400 2,700 2,400 1,800
h4ahtomedi 3,990 2 1,140 840 840 900 600 600
Medina 2,700 2 1,800 1,800 1,200 1,200 1,200 840
~ ii-
•
CITIES WITH POPULATION OVI~R 20,000 PA SIX
POPULATION 1983 ItEG. h4`rGS. ANNUAL SALARY OF MAYOR ANNUAL SALARY OF CNCLMBRS.
PLR
L4UNICIPALITY h4I~Ti20 COUNCIL PIER MONTH 1984 1983 1982 1984 1983 1982
Apple Valley 24,290 2 $ 5,400 $ 4,800 $ 3,600 $ 4,800 $ 4,200 $ 3,000
Blaine 31,950 2 6,000 4,200 4,200 4,400 3,800 3,800
Bloomington 82,490 4 12,000 7,200 7,200 9,000 6,000 6,000
Brooklyn Center 30,840 2 6,480 6,480 6,480 4,140 4,140 4,140
0 3 600
Brooklyn Park 46,910 2 6,600 4,800 4,800 4,800 3,6 0
Burnsville 37,580 2 4,800 4,800 4,800 3,600 3,600 3,600
Columbia Heights 20,029 2 10,200 10,200 9,000 6,000 6,000 5,400
Coon Rapids 39,950 3 4,200 4,200 4,200 Ward 3,600 3,600 3,600
At Lge. 3,900 3,900 3,900
Cottage Grove 20,120 2 5,400 5,400 5,400 3,600 3,600 3,600
Crystal 24,890 2 5,800 5,500 4,600 4,450 4,200 3,600
Eagan 25,080 2 4,500 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,000 3,000
Edina 45,340 2 5,850 5,850 5,850 3,900 3,900 3,900
Fridley 29,810 2 6,600 6,600 6,600 Ward 4,800 4,800 4,800
At Lge. 5,400 5,400 5,400 j
Golden Valley 22,380 2 6,200 6,200 5,400 4,650 4,650 4,050
h4aple Grove 24,230 2 4,800 9,800 4,800 3,000 3,000 3,000
P~aplewood 27,780 2 4,500 4,200 4,200 3,600 3,300 3,300
Minnetonka 40,130 3 6,000 6,000 4,800 4,200 4,200 3,600
New Brighton 23,360 5,220 4,500 4,200 4,020 3,600 3,300
New Hope 22,850 2 4,888 4,888 4,290 3,705 3,705 3,250
Plymouth 35,380 3 6,000 6,000 6,000 4,200 4,200 4,200
Richfield 37,240 2 6,000 6,000 6,000 4,500 4,500 4,500
Roseville 35,920 2 6,000 6,000 5,700 4,800 4,800 4,500
St. Louis Park 92,640 2 5,400 5,400 5,400 3,600 3,600 3,600
South St. Paul 20,880 2 6,000 6,000 6,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
~'Jhito Bear Luke 22,510 1 3,960 3,960 3,9Ei0 2,976 2,976 976
i
/p-/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. g1
Agenda March 11, 1985
.The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City_Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Storm Water Drainage Utility Ordinance - First
Reading
Council Members:
On February 11, 1985, the Richfield City Council held a
study session on a proposal to establish a municipal storm water
drainage utility. At the close of the study session, the
Council directed staff to proceed with implementation of the
utility. The following schedule has been identified:
Ordinance First Reading 3/11/85
Hearing Notice Mailed to Residents 3/25/85
Public Hearing - Second Reading x/08/85
Publication x/17/85
Ordinance Effective 5/17/85
Date Bills Go Outs Jur.e/July/August
*It requires a period of three consecutive months for the city
to bill all utility customers
The attached brochure explains what a drainage utility is,
why we need one, what fees should be expected, ar.d what the
money will be used for. The brochure (a r.ew one with larger
type is being printed) will be mailed to all residents prior to
the public hearing.
The budget for the utility is as follows:
OPERATIONS
Clean lines, manholes, outfalls, $118,000
sweeping, monitoring, er.gineerir.g, etc.
MAINTENANCE
Repair rings on catch basins, dredging, 72,000
repair pipes
-2- ~p - Z
CAPITAL
Additions to the system or major 200,000
rehabilitation (see map attached)
Exact capital need to be established by
construction costs and interest rate of
bond
TOTAL X390,000
REVENUE
The proposed ordinance establishes a fee for six lard use
classifications based upon storm water runoff generated from
each land use classification. The fee would be added to the
quarterly water and sanitary sewer bills starting June 1, 1985•
The staff recommends that the city council approve the first
reading of the attached Storm Water Drainage Utility ordinance
and schedule the second reading and public hearing for April 8,
1985 .
Respectf 1 bmitted,
ohr. G. Car wrig
City Manager
JGC/eja
c
c - - ~ c c c v a v' F
° v 2 0 = c E - - - - - > = c > z
~ ~ ~ V
zFR ZE ~ AV _ _ - - _
W LSNBJRn - _ _ {Fj ~
M'ASNB~R~
viNCEn. ---'S7T ~L- _ - ~
~ ~a
_-fy G7-- _ O ~ _ viN:En-
TNOMLE ~__-___1T" Y" - TNOMLS
SNERiGnn - _Q_ _ ,
O _ - _O T _ SME RIDAn
RU SSEL_ _ ~ _
_='L _
PENN nvE PENN AvE
OuvEF __-C"__ _
II N - OLIVFR
NE M'TOh'
KNOX C-~ _ -__\L v / ~
JAMFc I ~ - ----5~ -
O - i J4ME<_
IRVING (r`. _ _
~~"t IRVING
GIR4RC tt~
I'C`I N' GIRn RG
EMERSOn ~ D
' E ~ EMERSON
DUPON i I ~ F-. c u l /r y DURONT
CCLFLX ~-~.vr \ C ? ~T- CC'_FLX
?kW
~"""'t:\ ~ /r ~~l T ^ - BRYAN'-
4LDRIC 4 l\~ ,,P \C^~ ~C 4LDRICr r
t. I '
LTNDALE AvE - ~ - ~
- ~i e ` ~ ~ C Lr NDALE nVE
GARFIE IC I ~~,1'~~ G4RFIE:C
NARRIE 1~
I_.~__, e.~~_~~_-- -YID HARRIET Tr Y
_ - - G
GRAND I, i~~ RAND -}V
PLEASANT ?._.SL .:c Lam. ~~~s-~~.~.~ _ LEASn h'T N
~ p
PILLSBUR II~ r'---~~_ I PILLSBURT O
WENTWORTh ~ _ = ~ I ~ ~ ~ WENT WORTH
BLA1$DELL ( \ - Imo, ~ I Bl?IS DELL
NICO LLET nvE ~I~J-~ r-1
~ ~ NICOLLET AVE
STEVENS ( _ Z
I ~ _ ~ STEvENS
~i 11
z~~ ~ - r ! 2nA -a ~
OLIN TOh i, til~~ _ ~ V
Hd CLINTON
ILA '~~t ~ Atn /V
Stn ~1-'. L~ C~ ~ II . O
i _ ,7, 5th
PORTLANC nvE ~ _i.`--I . T .~~_I'~--~ ~II L
PORTLAND AVE.
DAKL ANC i i - _ I ~ l~ •-'f
~ I OAKLAND
PARK ~~'.~J l J
CO~U htBU$ -I~ -~--~,:-„-~~.~~r-il r m COLUMBUS
CHICAGO I ._-J ~'~-J. _I ~I~ ~ r 'i;' !A
- i - i ~ I~'~ cNluco VJ
IC rn -
I - ~ I, ~~~i ~-1' ~I~ IO to
ss -I, ~i, ~~~i' n rh
12 rr i~
`J V~' 12 t n
I?Ih ~ -f f• ~ ~ 13 to
4f ~ ~ ~ 1 ~-II
IS tt { ~ I ~ IS to
BLOOMINGTON I ~ ~I I ~ 1 BLDOMINGTON
16 tr ~ ~ - - ~ ~~i. ~ ~I 161n
IT rh - ~ ~ ~ J
-
CFDLR AVE f=_-~-_i~_ _ Q I.
r_O._ _ _ _ _______-~h _
LONGFELLOW n~_ CEDAR 1VE
_ t
m 6 > B 6 o o - > JL L 20tn
z ^ ~r j.
r - r to 'I _ L ^ _ _ r
Z N ~ _
_ _ _
n', _ i l i s t
° zr n ~Y- ~ zz~a
~I O T ~ ~ I - STANDISN
I C. C I I 1
r
z IT7 T~ i 23 a ~
~ w
~ 1'~ ~ ¢ P C tT a u fa
V N s s
Ol ~ a a o
'j i N N I ~ 1 y N N
_ ~ I"1
i/30/85
D RAF T
ev -
CITY OF RICHFIELD
ORDINAi~iCE CIO.
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 0.00 CiiAPTER VIII TO THE CITY CCDE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD ESTABLISHING A ST0:2~i1 WATER DRAINAGE UTILITY.
The City Council of the City of Richfield does hereby ordain:
I.
The City Code of the City of Richfield is amended by adding a r.ew
Section to Chapter VIII, to read as follows:
STORM WATER DRAINAGE UTILITY
0.00. Storm Water Drainage Utility Established. The municipal. storm
sewer system shall be operated as a public utility pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Section 444.075 from which revenues will be derived subject to the
provisions of this Chapter and Minnesota statutes. The storm water drainage
utility will be part of the Community Services Department and under the
administration of the Cormmunity Services director.
0.00. Definitions.
(1) Residential equivalent factor, (REF) - One (1) REF is defined
as the ratio of the average volume of runoff generated by one (i)
acre of a given land use to the average volume of runoff
generated by one (1) acre of typical single family residential
land, during a standard one (1) year rainfall event.
O.CO. Storm Water Drainage Fees. Storm water drainage fees for parcels
of land shall be determined by multiplying the REF for a parcel's land use by
the parcel's acreage and then :multiplying the resulting aroduct by the storm
water drainage rate. The REF values for various land uses are as foli.ows:
CLASSIFICATION LAND USES REF
1 Cemeteries 0.25
2 Parks and Railroads 0,75
3 Single family and duplex residential i.00
4 Public and ori~~~ate sc:~ools ar.d
institutional 1,25
5 Multiple family residential and churches 3.00
b Commercial, industrial ar.d warehouse x.00
-2-
/a-~
For the purpose of calculating storm water drainage fees, alI developed one
family and duplex parcels shall be considered to have an acreage of
one-fifth (1/5)__ acre.
0.00. Credits. The Council may adopt policies recommended by the
Community Services director, by resolution, for adjustment of the storm
water drainage fee for parcels based upon hydrologic data to be supplied by
property owners, which data demonstrates a hydrologic response substantially
different from the standards. Such adjustments of storm water drainage fees
shall not be made retroactively.
0.00. Exemptions. The following land uses are exempt from storm water
drainage fees.
(a) Public Rights of Way.
(b) Vacant, unimproved land with ground cover.
0.00. Billings. Bills for charges for the use and service of the storm
drainage system shall be made out by the finance department in accordance
with the usual and customary practice. All bills shall be payable at the office
of the City Finance Officer. Bills shall be rendered quarterly.
0.00. Recalculation of Fee. If a property owner or person responsible for
paying the storm water drainage fee questions the correctness of an invoice
for such charge, such person may have the determination of the charge
recomputed by written request to the Corranunity Services director made within
twelve (12) months of mailing of the invoice in question by the City.
0.00. Collections. All charges of the storm water drainage utility are due
on the quarterly due date specified by the city for the respective account and
shall be delinquent 15 days thereafter. It is the duty of the city to endeavor
to promptly collect delinquent accounts, and in ail cases where satisfactory
arrangements for payment have not been -lade, all such delinquent accounts shall
be certified to the city clerk who shall prepare an assessment of the delinauent
amounts against the properties served. To each account there shall be added
a Certification Charge (Preparation for Certi~ication of Taxes of Delinquent
Accounts) in the amount provided for in Appendix D. This assessment roll shall
be delivered to the council for adoption on or before October 1 of each year.
Such action may be optional or subsequent to taking legal action to collect
delinquent accounts.
0.00. Revenues. All revenues derived frcm those rates and charges sha h
be credited to the storm cater drainage utility fund.
II.
This Ordinance shall be in full force anal effect from and aster its
passage ar,d publication.
•
F - ~ w.
11. ~ ~ ~
r+ ~
Money is needed to operate and «aalrt- ~ s GET .THE F' CTS O N
~ r
taln the present storm drainage ~ ~ ~
system. A large portion of the
storm drainage fee will be used to; ~ _ O
Maintain existing storm. , ~ ~ ~
facilities So they w111 operate ~ ' ~ ~
properly for a longer period ,u
of time. ' ~
~s ~ ~ ~ •
Enrtance wetlands ~~~to cl , < ~ , , ' ~ ;
Y ~
ell Storm ~ ~ w ~
- ~ ~ water and retard flaws, ^ ~ r ~ 4 r
"Replace existing stfacl~i ,t~~~~ ~f~ r ~ -
• , ~
~ ties winch could ~ " ~ ~
" er' ~ the years, `due tp ~ r ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`r ~ ~ ,
unusable ov A ° ~
the natural doterloration '
~ ~
3 ~
prOCeSS ~ ",3,, y Pt f ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k.
SWeep streets and Pick ~ Y ~ <; _ ` ~ r 4k
leaves, sQ this material does ~ tq f ~ ,r
not enter the system. pz ~ ` ~ 3
Make needed d~arxies and a~ 1 ~ ~
E ~
dons to existing facill~ties
to maximize the efficiency of ~ " ~ '
4
the storm watet' system. ~ 1 ~ l2tct~field proposes to use a ''hew"
' ~ ~ teetlnl9ue .to poor for the-costs of
r managing storm water runoff a Storm
• ~ F ~ ` ~ ~ ~1]rairtase Utility. ~ ihis leaflet is
ti ~ ~ preAared to introduce°youto this
~ new utility and answer your: questions
ti
' }
t
1
~ Want more Inform~tio~ ~ 7~
4 E3efore I
„ , people~~settled In Richftel~l, ~
the natural state of the land was
~ ~ ~ ' san~y prairie covered-with grass ar>d
• trees Wien it rained the water,
tyC~
The Richfield Ci Caricll plans ~ '''.soaked into the ground or flowed
'
to hold a pt.~lic hearing on the
Storm prainage tltfllty on ' z-. 'naturally to the rivers and streams'
i~ondav, March 11, -1985 at 7 p.m, l~'t people came to Richfield, they
at city FFall, You are invited to ` ~ built homes, stores,`offices, churches,
attend, Also, further information : and frayed the'land with streets,
can be obtained'bY calla the parking lots, and driveways.
n~
Caisequentiy,~ the ground caiu~ot
tneering Aivision at 869-7521, ;
a i ;absorb the water as easlly, and more .
water runs of f when It rains. g
l
yj ~ ~ F" i S ~ s./
& a
~.Wh a Mave a':~~~ ~ .Y~;~~ ,
Y,• - ; ~ W.hy,.;: s a Ut~_ Needed : What ,Portion of
Storm Drainage: Utility:;? '1 ~ . ~ ~ u. ~
a , osts pare Paid by
r` ,Recent State 1 islation now re~~lres
.~x • - .51nI y
~ Ria,field to ta~c a Tamil Pro ertffes ?
e greater and costlier 9 A
As the deveiopt~nt of the land ~ ~~actiohs.to protect water gUdllty In ~ "
continued, it became increasirx~ly our co~m~nitY. tf~an ever before. These ' '
important to ccxitrol tip storm ~ :actions wlll include forming new GurrentlY. nearly fifty percent of the . "
water. ~ Storm drainage facilities ,water ~~nage<r~ent orga<iizatians and ;citywide costs of managii>g storm water
had to be builtt maintaihed and .:developing regional and local plans` are received through property taxes
renewed to control nnoff fi order to identify problems., to single fariily homeowners. 111der a
toy . ~ ~`t""storm drainage utility. the overall
''These new costs, when combined with' ~t' ~ single family. share is reduced to about
the nearly $124,000 Richfield must": "twenty-five percent. lhat means the
` * PROTECT"PROPERTY , spend for ongoing storm drainage ~ single family.share of storm water
* f2E1)<1(1~ IidStJRI~VCE RISKS ~ maintenaxe each year, ~ represents a " casts is cut in half with a uti l i ty.
major expenditure.Today, most storm
* 1M'ROVE PROPERTY VALIJ~S >water costs are paid for using Other more intensively developed
~ ENr/IR01~NT ; g~e raj tax moriev--property-taxes. properties will assume an increased
~~~Rictifield must find a way to meet ~ share of these costs dueto the greater
* PROVIDE.~OR S1~E TRAF'f=IC :-these rising. costs~in a fairantl ~ _-;share of runoff they create. Also, an
R..~~ ~ - r liable manner, without adding additional ten percent of tgtal costs
~
additional burden to the pr tqw
e~ .l, opertY wlll be paid by tax .exempt
To control storm waters ar~i receive 'tax rolls... riles, who usually pay r>v property.
these benefits, there is a costr ~
Thepr~osed stone drainage i taxesr
~ utilltY W11I _ ~ ~
spread. these costs ~ ~
to those wl>o "create" tt~e storm
i water... r~off, ~
~ -z
:r - r
o o f
,Irl.~r~r r ~.rurr~~ `
b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ How Will My Money be
~ =z., y , ~
~,p~ 3 " ~~1Vhat is~3 My ~ Share of~~ ~
s ~ k' 3 D"- ~1 w f 1 h
' ~1Nhat~~is~~~. a .Storm ~ they Costs _ ~ t~rf~~a~~~
Drainage ..Utility:.?~ ~t,,~ ~ ~ _ ,r~ ~1.
~ ~ sQ Tie expected qu<arteriY fees In 1985"
~ ~r~$ , ~ i ~ Y to iiar'l+olrs types of Properties are Plarxting. for the future as well as the
. >r~ : ~ ? ~ ~ ' - shown below E_~~- r°' ~ ~ . " ~ : pCesatt la ~ l,mportant to Richfield. A
~ _ ~ ~ storm drainage master plan wi 11 be ,
A storm drainageutillty is a ~
service similar, to the water and" jx Sin9lep~apmlly I~bmes~'~`;~ ' developed and kept up-to-date to t p
$ 4.35/lot
sanitary sewer utilities. The fee r~~~~, ~~~Cem~ete tese~~s.' , ~ ~ ~ tennlhe; -
~ r $5.~i4/acre ~ ~ ~
I5 based oil the amount ofwater_that " Barks Railroads ~ X16.31/acre *
ls_disGrarged into the system. Wr 9ct~ools & InstitUttab{.~ $27.19/acre Now to better protect our
instance, a parking lot creates more ~ - ~ F,"Multiple, Farr+ifY " ~ - ~ ;caaital Investment.
`runoff than a grass area,the sane ~ ~ 1)welli 8 U~urches ` X5.25/acre * were or repairs to
"size,:~o it,pays a hi9her",'rate. t 5 ~ ~ '
£ { Gonmercia , c: , ~ ~ $108 J5/acre ' "existing fact l1 ties need to be made
more runoff than a small,par'cel,~:so F~ where and when future facilities
:Similarly a large parcel creates Your storm..drainage fee wi11~ be ~ will be needed.
it:too pays a higher amount. In ~ s-Included on the.same water and sewer .
this-.way,'the citizens of Richfield r,~k~ , bill you receive each quarter.. Also, ~ What sf~ould be done to protect
will pay; for the managerr~t of storm , - ;your"fee can be ra+r~ if You can > tl~e rnaality of water to our lakes
water in.;proportion to the amount _ "J' demonstrate _ that your property has ~ and ponds ;
of water they "contribute", not on '~,xr ~ r ;r :
,on-site facilities which improve ~ r .~b~ =~~d~ Try
tip valhe of ti~eir property. ~ water
4° t. gl.ial ity or reduce Its dutfloal rate. ~ ~ = A
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 90
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Driveway Widths
First Reading
Council Members:
The attached ordinance makes several changes in the city's
driveway construction requirements. The existing ordinance
indicates that r.o driveway serving any type of lard use may
exceed 20' in width. This provision is seriously outdated.
The proposed amendment would have this 20 foot limitation. apply
only to single or two family dwellings and not to commercial,
multi-family, or industrial uses. The proposed amendment would
allow the City Manager to authorize a greater driveway width for
single family and two family dwellings if it could be
demonstrated that it was of necessity ar.d for the public
convenience.
The proposed amendment increases the widths of driveways
serving commercial, multi family or industrial uses from 20 feet
to a width of 26 to 32 feet. Or.ce again, for these types of
uses, the City Manager may authorize a greater or lesser width
upon the showing of necessity and to serve the public
convenience.
This proposed amendment also requires that all driveways
serving commercial, multi-family or industrial uses be surfaced
with either concrete or bituminous concrete. This amendment
would not allow gravel, crushed rock or other similar materials
to be used far commercial, multi-family ar.d industrial
driveways.
It is recommended that the City Council give first reading
consideration to this ordir.ar.ce ar.d schedule a public hearing
and a second reading consideration for April 8, 1985•
R ~pectf~Jyl,~r submitted ,
r~~?f? ~ '
oh r. G. C twr ht
~1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 89
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Public Hearing on the Adoption of the Assessment
Roll for City Project No. 793, 198 Alley Paving
Council Members:
The city council has scheduled a public hearing to be held
March 11, 1985, concerning the adoption of the proposed
assessment roll for City Project No. 793, the 1984 alley
paving. The city staff has calculated the proper amounts to be
assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land
specially benefited by the project.
The costs for the 198 alley paving project are $18.07 per
. assessable foot. The estimated assessment rate used at the
project hearings was $19.75 per foot. The total cost for a
typical fifty foot lot is $903.50. The property owner may make
prepayment in full, make partial prepayment, apply for deferment
if qualified, or have the balance spread over a period of twenty
years.
The city staff will be available at the public hearing to
answer questions related to the special assessment that may not
have been raised prior to the hearing. The public hearing
provides ar. opportunity for all interested persons to ask
questions or raise objections, if ar.y, to the proposed assess-
ment.
Following the hearing, it is recommended that the city
council adopt the attached resolution, adopting the assessment
roll for City Project No. 7g3, 198 A11ey Paving. If the City
Council makes charges in the assessment roll as a result of the
hearing, it should add the phrase "ar.d has amended such proposed
assessment as it deems just."
Respectful submitted ,
r v~vL L~
~
~
• ~J hn G. Car nigh
City Manager
U
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON
CITY PROJECT N0. 793, 1984 ALLEY PAVING
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the city council has met and heard and ;passed upon all
objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of the
following alleys by concrete paving:
Alley Between From To
Clinton and Fourth Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Xerxes and Washburn Avenue 69th Street 70th Street
Xerxes and Washburn. Avenue 67th Street 68th Street
Washburn and Vincent Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Augsburg and Garfield Avenue 71st Street 72nd Street
Blaisdell and Nicollet Avenue 72nd Street 73rd Street
Grand and Pleasant Avenue 68th Street 69th Street
Sheridan and Thomas Avenue 67th Street 68th Street
Bryant and Aldrich Avenue 63rd Street Mildred Drive
Sheridan and Russell Avenue 69th Street 70th Street
Sheridan. and Russell Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Harriet and Garfield Avenue 71st Street 72nd Street
Sheridan and Russell Avenue 67th Street 68th Street
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. That the city clerk has, with the assistance of -the
city engineer, calculated the proper amounts to be assessed for
City Project No. 793, 1984 Alley Paving, against every
assessable lot, piece, or parcel of lard specially benefited
thereby in accordance with the provisions of law, and the
proposed assessment so made up was filed with the city clerk for
more than 15 days prior to the assessment hearing and was open
to public inspection during said period.
2. That the City Council has heretofore duly established '
City Project No. 793, and after carefully considering all the
facts, the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land ar.d
fully advising itself ir. the premises, has found ar.d determined
ar.d hereby declares that each ar.d every lot, piece or parcel of
1ar.d included ir. said proposed assessment roll was improved by
reason. of the construction of said City Project No. 793 ar.d has
been and is specially benefited in the amount set out in the
attached assessment roll opposite each such lot, piece or parcel
of lard.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at ar,y time
prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor,
pay whole of the assessment on such property to the city
treasurer ar.d he may, at ar.y time thereafter pay to the city
treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid,
with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which
-2- ~-3
payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15
or interest will be charged through December 31 of the
succeeding year.
4. Said assessment is hereby affirmed, adopted, confirmed
and shall be certified by the city clerk and filed in the office
of the city clerk, and shall thereupon be ar..d constitute a
special assessment for said City Project No. 793, Alley Paving.
5. The assessment with accruing interest shall be a Tier.
upon the property included therein, concurrent with general
taxes ar.d shall be payable in equal annual installments
extending over a period of twenty years unless prepaid or
deferred. The first installment shall be payable on the first
Monday in January of 1986. All assessments shall bear interest
at a rate to be determined at the bond sale.
6. The city clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment roll to the county auditor to
extend on the proper tax lists of the caunty ar.d such
assessments and interest thereor. shall be collected and paid
over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
11th day of March, 1985.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Steven Devich, Acting City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 88
Agenda: March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Renewal Application Of On-Sale/Off-sale 3.2
Beer License Far Sandy's Tavern
Council Members:
On December 31, 1984, Sandy's Tavern., 6612 Penn Avenue
filed a renewal application for their 3.2 on-sale/off-sale
beer license for 1885• The required license fee of $476 was
submitted with their application to the city.
The Richfield Department of Public Safety conducted the
necessary background investigation. on the owner and manager of
Sandy's Tavern Mrs. Debra Erickson., and found no known. criminal
• history. Sandy's Tavern is a small, well-run local
establishment with a fine reputation ir. the community.
The required liquor liability insurance is current and is
provided by Columbia Casualty Company through a local broker.
The City of Richfield is named as additional insured.
Only one criminal type contact was made with Sandy's Tavern.
over the 12 month period January, 1984 through January, 1985•
Based upon. the information supplied by the applicant ar.d the
investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety,
there appears to be no reason to deny this license renewal
request. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of
Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council give
favorable consideration to the approval of the application
renewal request for the or.-sale/off-sale 3.2 beer licenses
requested by Sandy's Tavern..
Respectfu s~bmi~ted ,
~~i~ ~
z
ohn G. Car nigh
City Manager `
JGC/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 87
Agenda: March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Renewal Application For On-Sale 3.2 Beer License
For Kenny's Restaurant
Council Members:
On January 14, 1985, Kenny's Restaurant, 6700 Penn Avenue
submitted to the city a renewal application request for an on-
sale 3.2 beer license. The required license fee of $358 was
submitted with the appolicatior..
The Richfield Department of Public Safety conducted the
necessary background investigation on the license applicant,
Mr. Kenneth Youngblood, and the restaurant manager, Ms. Barbara
Floback. No known criminal history was found on either of these
individuals.
The required liquor liability insurance was found to be ir.
force and provided by the Home Insurance Company through a local
broker. The City of Richfield is named as additional insured.
There were only two Public Safety contacts during the period
January, 1984 and January, 1985. Neither of these contacts had
anything to do with their serving 3.2 beer or. the premises ar.d
has no bearing on their liquor license renewal application.
Kenny's Restaurant is a small, well-run. local establishment with
a fire reputation in the community.
Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the
investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety,
there appears to be no reason. to deny this license renewal
request. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of
Public Safety, ir. which I.concur, that the council give
favorable consideration to the approval of the on-sale 3.2 beer
license renewal requested by Kenny's Restaurant.
Respectf ]ly ubmitted~
~ , _
John G. Ca.~wrig
City Manager
JGC/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Cauncil Letter No. 8b
Agenda: March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Renewal Application Gf On-Sale/Off-Sale 3.2 Beer
Licenses for The Frenchman's Inc.
Council Members:
On December 31, 19$4, a renewal application for an on-
sale/off-sale 3.2 beer license was submitted to the city by the
Frenchman's Restaurant, Inc. The required license fee of $476
was submitted with the application..
The Richfield Department of Public Safety conducted the
necessary background investigation on the owner and manager of
the Frenchman's establishment, Mr. William Snyder, ar.d he has no
kr.owr. criminal history. The Frenchman's Restaurant is a
relatively small, well run. local establishment with a fine
reputation in the community.
The required liquor liability insurance is in force and
provided by Insurance Corporation of Ireland through a local
broker. The City of Richfield is named as additional insured.
There were eight Public Safety contacts with the Frenchman's
Restaurant over the 12 month period January, 1984 through
January, 1985. Seven of these contacts were burglar alarm calls
requiring no reports by officers. Or.e call was classified as a
criminal-bar type call.
Based upon. the information supplied by the applicant ar.d the
investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety,
there appears to be r.o reason to deny this license renewal
request. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of
Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council give
favorable cor.sideratior. to the approval of the renewal
application for the or.-sale/off-sale 3.2 beer license requested
by Frenchman's Incorporated.
Respectf~ly . ubmitted ,
~~~Gni~lr
~ v /
John G: Ca twrigl~t
City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 85
Agenda: March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Renewal Application Of Or.-Sale 3.2 Beer License
For The Airport Bowl
Council Members:
On January 2, 1985, a renewal application. for an on-sale
3.2 beer license was submitted to the city by the Airport Bowl,
7711-14th Avenue. The required license fee of $358 was
submitted with the application.
The Richfield Department of Public Safety conducted the
necessary background investigation on the applicant ar.d manager
of this establishment, Mr. George Riepe, and he has no known
criminal history.
The required liquor liability insurance is in force and
provided by Columbia Casualty Company, through a local broker.
The City of Richfield is named as additional insured.
There were five Public Safety criminal type contacts with
this establishment for the 12 month period Jar_uary, 1984
through January, 1985• None of these contacts were of a bar-
type nature. Cor_siderir.g the nature of the business and the
number of juveniles who frequent this establishment, the number
of police contacts is not high.
Based upon the information. supplied by the applicant ar.d the
ir.vestigatior. conducted by the Department of Public Safety,
there appears to be no reason to deny this application renewal
request. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of
Public Safety, in which I concur, that the city council give
favorable consideration to the approval of the renewal
application for the on-sale 3.2 beer license for the Airport
Bowl.
Respectf ~ ~y omitted,
r ~G~~C~rz~
John G. Ca~twrig
City Manage?
JGC/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ ~ s
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 84
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Approval of an Amended Planned Ur.it
Development Plar., Final Development Plar., Special
Use Permit ar.d Revised Off-Street Parking Permit-
Richfield State Agency
Council Members:
1981 PUD PLAN
In September, 1981, the city council approved a planned unit
development plan, rezoning, preliminary plat and street vacation
for a development on the site bounded by 66th Street, 67th
Street, Lyndale Avenue, and Grand Avenue, subject to the
stipulation that building materials and all site lighting,
landscaping, signing and buffering conform to city standards.
The proposed development by Richfield State Agency was to
ultimately result in 138,000 square feet of bank, office, and
commercial space. Of this, 82,000 square feet was to be r.ew
construction and 56,000 square feet was to be remodeled space
within the existing building.
The construction was contemplated to occur in two phases.
In the first phase, the existing building was to be expanded and
remodeled to bring its gross floor area to 110,485 square feet.
The Richfield Bank ar.d Trust was to occupy 70,000 square feet of
this space, and 47,378 square feet of the 70,000 square feet
being new, earth sheltered construction with new drive-up
tellers, parking, ar.d landscaping located on the roof. There
was to be 5,000 square feet of new at-grade construction and
17,600 square feet of remodeled space in the existing building.
Phase I was to also include 29,650 square feet of leasable
office or commercial space. A use indicated for a portion. of
the commercial space was a restaurant. The type, size, and
seating capacity was r.ot specified. The existing medical
building at the northeast corner of the site was to remain as
well as four of the existing houses on the southeastern part of
the site. Additional surface parking was to be provided on the
-2- 3 - ~
north and east part of the site. The small office building at
6637 Lyndale Avenue, the Kentucky Fried Chicken building and the
building on the corner of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue were to
be removed.
Phase II construction was to remove the four remaining
houses, add parking ar.d three additional floors of leasable
office space to the top of the north half of the existing two- .
story bank building. A specific date for implementation of
Phase II was not specified.
1982 PUD PLAN
In October, 1982, the city approved an amended PUD, Final
Development plan and special use permit for the site.
The following is a summary of how the amended plan differed
from the previous plan:
1. Construction. of the earth-sheltered structure to the
south of the existing structure and the relocation of the drive-
up teller facility would no longer occur in Phase I. The
existing teller drive-up facilities would be remodeled and new
equipment installed. A 12 x 48 foot manufactured building would
be placed on the east end of the existing drive-up facility and
would be occupied by bark tellers. The building would have an 8
foot setback from the 67th Street right-of-way line. The
building would be brick-faced on a concrete slab, ar.d be
conr.e.cted to utilities (sewer, water, electricity). Its
appearance would be similar to the remote barking facility at
the southeast corner of 66th Street and Harriet Avenue. An
additional lane would be added to handle campers, vans, and
other higher vehicles.
2. Three additional stories would be constructed on the
north half of the existing building. This was to occur in Phase
II in the previously approved plan.
3. The house on the northeast corner of 67t'n Street and
Harriet Avenue would be converted from a residence to ar. office.
4. The second house north of 67th Street on the west side
of Grand Avenue would be removed instead of remaining until
Phase II. This house would be acquired, moved, and renovated by
the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority as part of the
Vo-Tech housing rehabilitation program.
5. The drop-off area or. the west side of the building would
not be constructed in Phase I.
6. A large area on the eastern. edge of the site south cf
the existing medical offices would not be developed as parking
ir. the first phase as shown. in the approved plan. Less parking
would be required because less floor area would be constructed
_ _ _
-S-
in Phase I, and less existing parking is also being removed.
This area would be maintained as a grass area until Phase II. A
landscaped berm would be constructed along Grand Avenue to
screen. adjacent residential properties.
The following stipulations were approved as part of the
city's approval of the amended plan:
1. That all permanent parking lot improvements constructed
meet city specifications.
2. That all building materials, site lighting, landscaping
and sign plans should be submitted to the city staff for review
and approval.
3. That the commercial building located at 6637 Lyndale
Avenue be removed in Phase I.
4. That the residential structure located at 6645 Harriet
Avenue (northeast corner of 67th Street and the previously
vacated Harriet Avenue) remain as a residential structure and
not be converted to an office structure.
5. That all perimeter traffic control and landscaping
improvements shown on the Phase I site plan. be constructed
immediately with the exception of the traffic-channeling
improvements proposed to be constructed at the intersection. of
66th and Grant.
i 6. That all Phase I improvements including the drive-up
facility renovation and the construction of three additional
stories on the existing building occur in sequential steps
acceptable to both the city staff and the developer.
7. That Richfield Bark & Trust direct their engineering
consultant to conduct a traffic study of 57th Street traffic and
report back to the council as soon as possible. This study
should specifically address a means of preventing automobile
traffic from traveling eastward on 67th Street after departing
the drive-in bank facility.
1985 PUD PLAN
Richfield State Agency has now requested that the city
approve a revised PUD Plan, Final Development Plan and special
use permit to allow a number of changes to be made to the
development. The following are the changes ar:ticipated in the
development.
1. The previous plan. indicated that the area north of the
existing bank building would be excavated exposing the basement
level of the north side of the building. Commercial store
fronts would then be constructed on the north side of the bark
building and a parking lot constructed. The proposed plan
-4- ~
indicates that McDonalds is the restaurant which would occupy
the lower level (first floor) and a 12 foot solarium addition.
which would be constructed along the north side of the
building. Other commercial tenants would then. be given space on
the north end of the second floor level rather than or. the
first floor.
2. A drive-thru service window to serve McDonald's
customers would be constructed on the northeast corner of the
space occupied by McDonalds Restaurant.
3. The parking layout north of the bark building would be
revised. The existing curb cut to 66th Street from the former
Harriet Avenue and the median. break on 66th Street would be
closed and a new entrance ar.d median break constructed further
east just west of the medical office building.
4. A two story addition on the southeast corner of the bank
building would be constructed. The previous plan anticipated a
single story addition being constructed in the second phase of
the development.
5. Additional parking would be constructed adjacent to
Grand Avenue south of the medical office building. The previous
plan anticipated this to occur during the second phase of
development.
6. The parking layout on the site formerly occupied by KFC
would be altered.
7. A small elevator addition would be constructed or. the
southwest corner of the medical office building.
8. The overall parking ratio for the development as a whole
changes from 4.01 spaces per thousand square feet of gross floor
area to 4.15 spaces per thousand square feet of gross floor
area.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 3.32 ar.d Section 3.33 sets standards for
commercial developments within the city.
2. Section 3.34A sets standards for planned unit
development districts.
a) Section 3.34A subdivision 7 indicates that the
development of a planned unit development district shall be in
substantial compliance with the approved PUD plan, final
development plan and any conditions imposed by the council.
Compliance shall r.ot be considered substantial if there is (a)
more than 10~ change in the floor area in any or.e structure (b)
more than. 10~ change ir. original approved separation of
buildings (c) ar.y change in the original approved setbacks from
-5- 3-.~
property lines (d) more than 5~ change in the ground area
covered by the building or (e) any charge in the ratio of off-
street parking and loading space to grass floor area ir. the
building.
The proposal indicates that the setback of the building from
the north property line would be reduced by 12 feet because of
the addition of the McDonalds solarium and the ratio of off-
street parking ar.d loading space to gross floor area in the
building also changes. Therefore, the PUD plan. amendment is
necessary.
b) Section 3.3~+A, subdivision 5 indicates that a special
use permit is issued by the city for the uses shown in the final
development plan. The development anticipated the construction.
of a restaurant within the bank building, so the city has issued
a special use permit for the McDonalds restaurant. However, the
plan did not anticipate a restaurant with a drive-up service
window as is being proposed. Therefore, in accordance with
the city's practice of requiring restaurants to obtain new
special use permits when drive-up service windows are added, a
special use permit is required for the proposed drive-up service
window.
3. Section x.05, sets standards for off-street parking
areas.
STAFF REVIEW
1. The proposed changes do not constitute a major change in
the development anticipated in the previous planned unit
development plan. The development, after the completion of all
of the Phase two improvements, would be substantially the same
as indicated in the previous PUD plan.
2. The reduced setback ar.d amended off-street parking ratio
would not pose any problems. The setback of the building would
still be greater than the minimum requirement in a commercial
area and the parking ratio has beer. increased.
3. At the request of the Planning Commission the applicant
conducted a traffic study to determine the impact of traffic
generated by the McDor.alds restaurant on surrounding streets. A
copy of the traffic study completed by the firm of Barton-
Aschman Associates is attached as part of the backup material.
The following is a summary of the fir.dir.gs of the study.
a) The 66th Street entrance to McDor.ald's ar.d the Lyr.dale
Avenue/66th Street intersections will operate satisfactorily
with the McDonald's traffic;
b) The McDor.ald's restaurant will generate traffic at a
rate similar to that of other alternative food service uses such
as family-style restaurants;
_
-6- ~
c) The drive-thru facility will add only about 10 vehicles
to the noon hour trip generation of the restaurant. While about
40 percent of the restaurant's business is done through the
drive-thru window, it is primarily a convenience feature for
customers who would otherwise park and walk ir. to the store;
d) McDonald's will add about ~.5 percen-t to the existing
traffic volume on 66th Street. This traffic will use about
three percent of the available capacity at Lyndale and 66th
Street. This will not degrade the level of service at this
intersection; and,
e) The drive-thru facility and internal circulation of the
site is well designed and will work well; providing adequate
storage space for drive-thru and exiting vehicles.
4. The addition of the drive-up window would r.ot result in
undue traffic congestion or traffic flow problems either on the
site or or. adjacent streets. There is sufficient internal
stacking space to handle the anticipated traffic. The drive-up
service lane is separated from the parking area and would not
adversely affect the ability of vehicles to access the parking
area.
5. The proposed change in the curb cut location ar.d median
break on 66th Street should result in safer conditions. the
change provides a greater separation between the median break
' and curb cut ar.d Lyndale Avenue which should result in safer
conditions. Sufficient stacking space in a protected left turn
lane for both the proposed new curb cut ar.d for Lyndale Avenue
would be maintained. The proposed change has been reviewed with
Hennepin County staff and preliminary approval has beer. given by
the county staff.
The layout of the parking, lot and the design and location. of
driveways will channel traffic to ar.d from 66th Street and would
not encourage traffic to go through surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
6. There will be sufficient parking provided on the site.
As indicated previously the parking ratio has been increased
over what was approved as part of the previous plan. While the
addition of a McDonalds restaurant as part of the development
would increase the reed for parking over other kinds of
restaurants, there is sufficient parking located adjacent to
McDonalds to handle the proposed usage. The addition of the
drive-up service window also would reduce the parking reed for
the McDonalds restaurant. The uses are separated or. the site
and sufficient parking is located adjacent to the different uses
to handle the parking needs.
-7- 3 - ~
7. In reviewing the proposed plan, staff has identified a
potential problem area adjacent to the west side of the bank
building. The use of the area is shown as angled parking far 13
vehicles facing the building with a narrow driving aisle
servicing these parking stalls. In reviewing the plan, staff is
concerned that sufficient pedestrian ways along Lyndale Avenue
have not been provided. As currently constructed, there is a
very narrow 5 foot wide sidewalk immediately adjacent to Lyndale
Avenue and the Richfield Bank parking area. This sidewalk is
too narrow to provide safe pedestrian passage and also to
provide sufficient snow storage space ir. the winter time. The
redevelopment plan originally anticipated that the pedestrian
way would use the existing sidewalks adjacent to the bank
building rather than the pedestrian way abutting Lyndale
Avenue. However, at the bank's request, it was decided not to
provide the public pedestrian way adjacent to their building.
Therefore, a sidewalk was constructed within the limited amount
of space available at the time. The phase two development ir.
the area anticipates removal of the parking. A drive-thru
lane for commercial customers would be maintained. There would
be sufficient pedestrian ways maintained in phase two. However,
because of the uncertain timing of the phase two improvements,
staff has discussed various alternatives with the applicant to
provide better and safer pedestrian ways within the area ir.
question. The alternative which seems to have the most
potential is to increase the angle of the parking stalls. this
would allow for a narrower driving aisle and make it possible
for the city to construct an 8 foot sidewalk through that area
which should be sufficient. The increased angle, however, would
result in the loss of parking stalls in the area. The proposed
plan also shows a parking stall within the right-of-way area.
This stall should be removed. It is staff's feeling that a
revised parking plan for this area of the site should be
developed and submitted for staff approval. RSA officials are
agreeable to this recomerdation.
8. The stipulations placed on the council's previous
approval of the plans have or will be met. The plans show that
the commercial building at 6637 Lyndale Avenue remains in phase
one instead of being removed as stipulated by the council.
However, discussions with the applicant in 1982 ar.d again prior
to the planning commission hearing in 1985 indicated that this
building will be removed at the end of p'nase ane.
Subsequent to the planning commission hearing the applicant
has requested city approval of a plan change to allow this
structure to remain and space leased to office tenants.
It is staff's opinion that the structure should be removed
as previously stipulated by the council. Or.e of the problems
which was identified in the LHN redevelopment plan was
fragmented piecemeal development which does r.ot work well from
an aesthetic or traffic ar.d parking standpoint. The structure
-8- 3 -
is located on an island within the RSA .parking area. The
structure does not meet city commercial setback requirements.
Traffic flow around the building is difficult because driving
aisle width is substandard. The traffic flow and parking are
not integrated well into the overall development. The site was
developed independently of the main bank development which
results in confusing traffic flow patterns. This is a problem
in that area of the site, because of the amount of traffic using
the drive-up teller facility during peak usuage times.
A major goal of the redevelopment plan has been to eliminate
such fragmented uses and to bring about integrated development.
The city has spent public money to assist this development ir.
removing the former Kentucky Fried Chicken structure and the
structure on the corner of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. The
developer has agreed to remove the other structures on the
overall site including the structure at 6637 Lyndale Avenue and
the residences on Grand ar.d Harriet Avenues. Staff feels that
the removal of the structure at 6637 Lyndale is important to
assure that the goals of the redevelopment plan overall and for
this particular site are met. The city should require that the
structure be removed at the earliest possible date to ensure
that a more integrated development ocurrs on the site with a
less confusing traffic flow patterns and a better aesthetic
appearance. The plan originally called for the major bark
expansion to ocurr ir. the first phase which would have brought
about the total integrated development anticipated in the
beginning. The developer changed the phasing so that the total
integrated development would not occur until phase two. The
timing of the phase two is uncertain and perhaps may never
ocurr. Therefore, it is important for the city to require the
structure to be removed to bring about a more integrated
development ir. phase one. The city has also allowed an
additional floor in the southeast corner of the main structure.
The staff also believes that such a change should have
been presented to and reviewed by the planning commission.
Therefore, if the council wishes to consider the removal of the
stipulation. the matter should be referred back to the planning
commission for their review and recommendation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council approve an amended
Planned Unit Develoment plan and final development plan special
use and revised off-street parking permit, to allow the
development shown or. the attached plans to occur with the
following stipulations.
1. That the parking area immediately to the west of the
existing bank building be redesigned by increasing the angle of
parking stalls and by eliminating the parking stall or. the
public right-of-way. A revised design. for the area should be
developed ar.d submitted for staff approval.
-9- 3
2. That the commercial structure at 6637 Lyndale Avenue be
removed at the end of phase one.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission. on a 6-3 vote recommends that the
city council approve the amended planned unit development plan,
final development plan, and special use permit for the
development shown on the attached plans with the two
stipulations listed in the staff recommendation.
Respectf ly submitted
John Cartw ig
City Manager
~
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR THE PLANNED MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT
AT
- LYNDALE AVENUE AND 66TH STREET, RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
Submitted to
the City of Richfield
-
by
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
for
McDonald's Corporation
February, 1985
. ~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
_ _ I. Summary of Findings 1
II. Introduction 1
III. Analysis
IV. Conclusions IO
Appendix 11
• _
LIST O>=' TABLES
- page
1. Trip Generation 5
LIST OF FIGURES
• Page
1. Site Location 2
- 2. Site Plan - 3
3. Directions of Approach ~
4. Traffic Assignment -Noon Hour S
5. Traffic Assignment - P.M. Peak Hour 9
.~r ~
J~ ~ 212 I21 ` ~`~~E J 3sTH sT. w. ~ ^ 3aTH y~`s _
yxCE`a~ :38TH ST. ~ W ' s y9-
~ o ~ 12H0.'r ST. W, ~ l1HD ~ ST. v G ~
100 i~: ` =/t '~f.A u: - Q F.A.u
t6 4 ST; r v'
_
'=w~•:: ~Hasriet~' 16TH ----121 ? . T• N~awathe E ~
f
w.41.TH ' ST:,, sT w A.u
< T axw
_ _ 12' 50tH ~ sT. w ~.r ~ ° M~~N fit
• W
~ F.A.U. i 1 y F.A.U ~ ~ ~ 4~~~ _ <
,121 Gr• ~ Lake r
Nokomis= .r ,.s~ N
~?o 54TH ST. w. prpM Vi~ < 51TH5T. rA E. " "Ot~~% SdTH! ST.
~ ` ' 190 <
. ~ a w. SBTH ST._ `58TH ST. W. 58TH ~ = ST. E. P ~J ~ c i
.
~"F~ Y < W w. oJTH st.- ~ P ~ ~ ~ ~Laked~~. r.. ~ oake r
M
1'~fY` < 'W 62ND:' ST.:%~::':~1'.•.ii•~?~`:a=..`a... r i~.•.
~
~t~ ..~,i Lake
,c ~ R h~ d ~ ! MINNfAPQ
_._..i 66TH~_'~,..aL. W. /~~r-._ _ 66TH $T. ~ ~ i' F SbTH ST. ~ . s~~ INT:
•r, it f.A.u I~ ~ ~ F.A.U. ~
- Lalce`~ i~ ,r: : w. 68T?I . sT. H.r S I t e ~ ~
Cornelia ~~,:j~•.: - 'j" ~
4 70TH ST. _1 ~ L : W. 70Tt1 ST. ~ o°r ~ E. 70TH 1 Si. ! f ~ _
~ ~ ~w~oo~d R1CH FIELD i
100 w. nno sT. tt`.':: ~
. Lake ~ w.73RO ake roP. a7,~3r i. , ~ yl i
_ _ _ . FORT
Edina. {K:~`•,• ~ ST. ~ ~ E 73RD ST. .I <r
. HIBISCUS AVE. ` ~ 71
w. 76TH T s7. r E. 16TH _ sT. ~
A.I. ~
~r
cqP
.
is ~ •a~i ~ . • , • T..w~ ~ - y `
~ C'
. ,,,r
5 494 ! . P , 11
? ~ a~ BDTH ST vi • 1 J
f• ~r ~ W. 82fl0 ~ 5T
t1 ~ - - =4 ~ PO .
. w. b4TH STS, 847H ST_ " W < _
- = ~ N ~ Q
~o~/~ y~ `J W~' Penn IL. w. 6~ a6TH ~ ° i st ~ w ~v$~
4
W~ yy1 W yy ~ Wli j ~I `f ~ ~ ~ .i
t~, ~ ,r
~ W. 90TH _ j y ..i? I~ ~ _ ST. _t~ _
m~ Mile" s'' ~5 <.92HO s~~ z~ I f
- ~ ~ ~ CP. J .~3 0 93RD ST. - .
~ Wr' OsboraL. z _
_ ~BLOOMING;TON , ~ i~ 45TH ST. ' ' ;
ror.af.9~o M
~t - ~ - ~ ~aTH Its ~ o~° I
tl r ~
_ r
Figure 1
- Si#e Loca#ion
G Bartwi->~schman Asaxiates~Dnc. J
\ _
4VO~TH
~~60
p to 3a
S°~th
a m
~ y
~ ~
m
AYe~u~ gouth
w~f~;$= o ~
_ ~ ~
,
a o
q ~
~
^ gauLh
brand Aye~'~e
' F ~9~'~ e 2
• ~.ay Qut
fi~an ~s~~tes,lt'~•
_ ~-~/S
the rest of the development. The plan also includes moving the existing median cut
on the east leg of the 66th Street/Lyndale Avenue intersection 1~0 feet back from
its present location of 110 feet from i,yndale Avenue. This will be accomplished by
closing the existing Harriet Avenue South entrance to 66th Street. This change
will improve the stacking distance on 66th Street and, .with modifications to the
center island, will add cleft-turn storage area (about 150 feet) on 66th Street for
vehicles waiting to turn into McDonald's.
III. ANALYSIS
The traffic analysis consists of four major steps. First, daily and hourly estimates
are made of the number of vehicle trips which will be generated by the facility.
_ Thus includes both vehicles which are "intercepted" from traffic already on the
road as well as "new" vehicle trips produced. These "New" vehicle trips are defined
- as trips which are destined to McDonald's and would not otherwise be on the .
adjacent roads. Secondly, the distribution of (vlcDonald's trips is determined. This
is based on the distribution of households within the market area of the site,
existing travel patterns, the roadway network, and the location of competing
business. Thirdly,. the McDonald's site trips are assigned to the roadway system
according to the directional distribution just determined. They are then added to
the existing traffic to arrive at an estimate of total traffic loading on the adjacent
roadways. Finally, a capacity and level of service analysis is performed to
determine the adequacy of the roads to accommodate the expected traffic.
Signalized intersections were analyzed using the methods of the 1965 Highway
Capacity Manual, in computerized form.. Non-signalized intersections used the
methods outlined in Transportation Research Circular 212 - "Interim Materials on
Highway Capacity"; which is published by the Transportation research Board,
National Academy of Sciences. Bath of these references are commonly used and
widely accepted standards in the field of traffic engineering.
Trip Generation
Table 1 shows the expected trip generation for the McDonald's site. The table also
includes trip generation estimates of alternative types of restaurants of the same
size. This allows a comparison of the trip generation impact of the McDonald's sit?
relative to other types of restaurant uses. Table 1 also includes, in parentheses,
estimates of "new" vehicles added to the adjacent roadways. As mentioned before,
restaurants. such as McDonald's attract significant numbers of customers passing by
on adjacent roadways - -customers, and vehicles, which would be on the road in
_ any case. While this effect of "intercepted" trips applies to all types of
restaurants, it is much less prevalent in high quality or family-style restaurants as
shown in Table 1. Finally, note that the effect of the drive-thru facility in terms
of trip making is to increase total trip generation by roughly 10 percent.
Approximately 40 percent of the McOonald's customers who would otherwise come
into the store use the drive-thru window instead.
Q
_
Table 2
Trip Generation Based on a 7500 Sq. Ft. Restaurant in vehicles per unit of time.
- Noon Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily
McDonald's
with Drive-Thru 105 85 980
- ~ (new traffic) (50) (30} (320)
High-Duality
Restaurant - 40 280
(new traffic) (35) (245 }
Family-Style
Restaurant 60 85 615
- (new traffic) (45) (65) (460)
Drive-Thru Window
Alone 10 5 110
(new traffic) (10) (5) (36)
Note: McDonald's generation values are from a Market Plan study.
McDonald's trip generation reflects a 20 percent reduction due to walk-
up customers.
Other restaurant generation values are from the ITS Trip Generation
Manual.
S
3-~,~
Trip Oistributian
_ Figure 3 shows the directions of approach used for the analysis. It is based on the
distribution of population in the market area for the restaurant. The market area
is generally Richfield and south Minneapolis between Penn Avenue and Cedar
Avenue. As Figure 3 shows, approximately half of the vehicle trips will approach
the site from the north. Assuming that all access is obtained from the 66th Street
entrance (a reasonable assumption), the direction of approach translates to 25
percent from the east and 75 percent from the west at the driveway entrance.
Trips exiting the site bound north are assumed to initially travel west through the
Lyndale Avenue/66th Street intersection using I-35W or local streets to travel
' north. This is a conservative assumption since another available route would use
Nicallet Avenue to the east, thus not affecting the Lyndale/66th Street
intersection at all and using aright-turn out movement onto 66th Street.
Trip Assignment
Figures 4 and 5 show the resulting traffic. assignment including non-site and site
related traffic. The non-site traffic volumes are existing volumes, including the
Market Plaza development, less intercepted McDonald's trips. The existing
volumes were obtained from 1982 Hennepin County counts and are factored to
existing volumes assuming a 3.5 percent annual growth, the latter rate based on
1984 daily counts by the City of Richfield. The volumes for the Market Plaza
development are from a report prepared by Westwood Planning and Engineering
Company far that development.
The figures show traffic estimates for the noon hour and the P.M. peak hour. ?he
noon hour is clearly the most critical time since it is the high volume hour for bath
" existing and site related traffic. Therefore, the analysis will be focused on this
time. The P.M. peak hour is included for completeness and comparison purposes.
Evaluation of Off-Site Traffic
- The traffic added by the McDonald's restaurant represents about 4.5 percent of the
existing traffic on 6bth Street on a daily basis. Further, the level of service at the
Lyndale Avenue/6bth Street intersection will not change, remaining at an
acceptable level of "C." The overall intersection capacity is decreased by less than
3 percent, At the "T" intersection of 66th Street and the McDonald's entrance
there is adequate capacity far all turning movements. Because of the change in
_ the location of the median cut, there will be an improvement in the safety and
operation of this intersection over that of the current 66th Street/Harriet Avenue
intersection. This includes increased left-turn storage at Lyndale .4.venue and a
left-turn storage lane far the McDonald's entrance. This latter storage lane for
- left turns into McDonald's will function very well for the expected traffic and no
excessive or unsafe queues are anticipated, as only eight percent of the available
left-turn capacity is used during the peak hour. There will be an adequate number
J of gaps for the left-turn out movement in the peak hour as well, and this capacity
is augmented by the gaps created by the signalized intersection at Lyndale Avenue.
The detailed analysis is included in the Appendix.
Site Circulation
As has been indicated by the city staff in previous reports, the circulation plan. for
the site is excellent. Traffic is effectively separated from other uses on the site
6
. --1
- ~ 1
m
. a -
.
J
55%
a 25%
° - 1 ..1 V V l ~ V l
10 /o
Site
Q
10
No Scale
~ {
. ~ '
Figure 3
Direction of Approach
Sartori-aachman ~lssxi~ites~~r~c. f
m
4
41
V
tLt^^/
LJ
r
O
cD
w
YI
~y
74 74j,s55 ~'`{251 ~m
- 5$5, t10~,1 14 ,y'~r 6gth St`
9 2 4 1
- ~ 5 Site
14~,s54
~~o,t ~ ~ 4
a
-
~ ~
-
SCaMe
..Site
N o ~
~Q~eratQd
site
't'Ota1
F~Ju~e 4 -~~~#~i~
~1our ~°~a~ s
~flp~1 ~~~n ~s~~te
ecf
,Q
C
T
r
tfa
~ ~ ~
M ~
et T'
,rte
650
2--- 8~ ~ {55,555 {24~
~5 Qy{10~,8fl 66th St'
1 -
585"'~
3g5,{~~),4S
~4fl
o ~
~ ,n ,n
N~
r
to
ooo,{ooo~,ooo
No Scale
Non-Site
$ite Gan~t~t~d
Total
F ~g o~ati
p •j''J1 . A~~~~
~
and adequate, off-street storage is available for queuing vehicles exiting from the
site.
Effect of Drive-Thru
As stated before, the addition of the drive-thru facility will add only about 10
percent to the total trip generation. The city staff has reviewed the layout of the
drive-thru lane and approved it as well-designed and safe. There is adequate
storage for queuing vehicles and the circulation for exiting vehicles is very well
conceived.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The traffic impact of .the planned McDonald's restaurant at b6th Street and
- - Lyndale Avenue has been evaluated and an acceptable level of service is
anticipated. Just three percent of the Lyndale AvenueJ66th Street intersection's
capacity is used by the McDonald's traffic. On a daily basis, the McDonald's
restaurant will add about 4.5 percent to the traffic volume on 66th Street. Both
.the 66th Street/Lyndale Avenue intersection and the 66th Street access driveway
. will function within capacity and. at an acceptable level of service. The drive-thru
will not significantly affect the trip generation from the site nor will it cause
- excess congestion on adjacent roadways. The geometric changes to the median on
66th Street will improve the safety and operation of the Lyndale Avenue/66th
Street intersection. On the site, adequate storage will be provided for exiting
- vehicles as well as for the drive-thru facility.
10
-
APPENDEX
i -
~
RICHFIELD MCDONALD'S SITE TRAFFIC RNALYSIS
LYNDALE AVENUE AND 66TH STREET
- EXISTING TRAFFIC - NOON HOUR
SIGNAL/TEAPAC - CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
BASIC CONOITIONS~ _
- METRO POPLTN 2000000
METRO LOCRTN OUTLNG DEGREE OF SATURATION .74
SE4UENCE 56 .
- ! PHASE 1 ! PHASE 2 ! PHASE 3 ! FHASE 4 ! PHASE 5 ! PHASE 6 !
- ! + ! + + * ! + + ! ! ! A !
I + ! + + ! + + ! ! ! !
! V ! V ! A ! A ! !
! ! ! A U t*+++ ! !
! i ! * + ! !
I t V I i 1 i V I
G/C=.183 ! G/G= .014 ! G/C= .2@3 ! G/G= .107 ! G/C= .009 ! G/C= .283 !
! G=16.51 S ! G= 1.28 S ! G=18.24 S ! G= 9.63 S ! G= .83 S ! G=25.51 S !
Y=3.0 SEC ! Y=3.0 SEC ! Y=3.0 SEC ! Y=3.0 SEG ! Y=;,.@ SEC ! Y=3.0 SEC ±
C= 90 SEC G= 72.0 SEC 8.0.0% Y=18.0 SEC = 20.0% ?ED= 0.@ SEC-_-=~@_0;'1~~:.
! ! WDTH ! CHT ! G/C ! SRVC VOLUME ! ! L ! MAi(IMUM !
MOVMNT ! /LNS ! REF ! REQO USED ! C (VPH) E ! DHV ! S ! QUEUE !
APPROACH N PHF= .90 TK= 5% P,T= 11.6% LT= 28.0% NO BUS STOP
as=====s===ars=srsx=r.===sr=xsx3=s==r==aarc===rxasxrxxa==r===a====ra=sr-=
TH+RT! 24/2 ! 4 ! .23 ! .25 ! 655 ! 785 ! 590 ! B+! 284 FEET
LT l.12/1+! 188 ! .21 ! .23 ! 250 ! 32a ! Z30 !*C+! 227 FEET !
APPROACH E PHF= .90 TK= 5% RT= 8.7% LT= 13.'_% NO BUS STOP
:a:==r==xa===x=a==sa=srr=ssmrs=e=r===rreax===r=ays=co=ra=ro===aesrooe==xr
! TH+RTi 24/2 ! 4 ! .26 ! .28 ! 765 ! 916 ! 595 !*B ! 320 FEET !
! LT ! 12/1+! 188 ! .10 ! .11 ! 115 ! 150 ! 1@5 !*C+! 1?0 FEET
APPROACH S PHF= .90 TN,= 5% RT= 13.7% LT= NO BUS STOF
as=asa=s=v==e===ar=cr=rsx oe rrrrrrro=rrarrror==r==re=rrr==.rxo=earrrres=xr
i TH+RT! Z4/2 ! 4 ~ .18 ! .20 ! 523 ~ 526 ! 4%S ~*B ! 243 FEET ~
_ ! LT ! 12/1+! I8B ! .17 ! .28 ~ 198 ! 258 ! 180 ~*C+! 189 FEET !
-
APPROACH W PHF= .90 TK= S% RT= 12.2% LT= 15.5% NO BUS STCP
_ =xrr sr===ararr=rr rr=rra=srrr====rcr=r==xr srrrr=xx=r==rrrrr========.=r=r==
! TH+RT! 24/~ ! 4 ! .29 ! :33 ! 850 ~ 1030 ! 755 ~ A ! 327 FEET I
i LT ~ I2/1+~ 19B ! .14 ~ .15 ! 161 ~ 210 ! 150 ~*C=~ 16~ FEET ~
RICHFIELD MCOONRLD"S SITE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ~p~
LYNDALE AVENUE ANO 66TH STREET`
EXISTING TRAFFIC PLUS MCDONALD'S SITE TRAFFIC NOON HOUR
SIGNAL/TEAPAC - CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
BASIC CONDITIONS=
METRO POPLTN 2000000
METRO LOCATN OUTLNG DEGREE OF SATURATION .76
SEQUENCE 76
! PHASE 1 ! PHASE 2 ! PHASE 3 ! PHASE 4 ! PHASE 5 !
i i i ~ A t
! V ! ! A A i !
! ! A ! U ! ~ ~r * * ! !
! ! c+ + t
! ! + ~ + ! ! V ! V !
! G/C= .247 ! G/C= .19B ! G/C= .107 ! G/G= .004 ! G/C= .280 !
! G=22.23 S ! G=17.60 S ! G= 9.59 S ! G= .35 S ! G=25.23 S !
_ ! Y=3.0 SEC ! Y=3.0 SEC ! Y=3.0 SEC ! Y=3.0 SEC ! Y=3.0 SEC !
C= Q0 SEC G= 75.0 SEC = 83,3'/. Y=15.0 SEC 16.7% PED= 0.0 SEC 0.@%
! ! WDTH ! CHT ! G/C ! SRVC VOLUME ! ! L ! MAXIMUM
! MOVMNT ! /LNS ! REF ! READ USED ! C cVPH) E ! DHV ! S ! QUEUE !
APPROACH N PHF= .90 TK= 5% P,T= 11.2% LT= 30.2% NO BUS STOP
_ saxm=ma===3o====~=x=m====te=a=same===v==vnvs==s=x====~a=a=ce==m=sm=====~__
TH+RT! 24/2 ! 4 ! .23 ! .?5 ! 647 ! 775 ! 530 ! 3. ! 285 FEET
! LT ! 12/1+! 18B ! .Z4 ! .25 ! 267 ! 347 ! 255 !#C ! 247 FEET !
APPPOACH E PHF= . °0 T}~:= 5% RT= 8.4% LT= 13.2.'1. NO 3U5 ST^uP
aasa===x====m=n===x=aenvn=~==s====~=v==o====nn=en=~==n==xn enxe=n==cn=n==v
! TH+P.T! 24/2 ~ 4 ~ .27 ! .28 ! 758 ! 908 ! 725 !*C+! 335 FEET
! LT ! 12/i+! 188 ! .10 ! .11 ~ 115 ! 150 ! 110 !~C ! 126 F-`r i
APPROACH S PHF= .90 TK= 5% RT= 14.4;: LT= 27.3% NO 3U5 STOP
! TH+RT! 24/2 ! 4 ! .19 ! .20 ~ 502 ! 601 ! 490 !*C+! 248 F~iT !
' ! LT ! 1211+! 188 ~ .17 ! .20 ! 211 ! 274 ! 180 ! B+! 186 FEET ~
APPROACH W PHF= .90 TK= S% RT= 12.1% LT= 16.5% NO EUS STOP
===svav=ac=e=====m=av==mm~a=o=n=o=no=a=======m=oo==n====aa=ncn=oo=nnenn=a
! TH+RT! 24/2 i 4 ! .29 ! .32 ~ 838 ~ 1004 ! 750 ~ 8+! 333 FEET ~
! LT ! 12/1+! 188 ! .l4 ~ .14 ! 155 ~ 202 ! I.0 ~+C ~ I65 FEET ~
~ 5
RICHFIELD MCOONALD'S SITE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
LYNDALE AVENUE AND 66TH STREET
EXISTING TRAFFIC PM PEAK HOUR
SIGNAL/TEAPA% - CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORF;SHEET
BASK CONDLTIONS= -
METRO POPLTN 2000@@0
METRO LOCATN OUTLNG DEGREE OF SATURATION .6a^ '
SEQUENCE 44
PHASE 1 ! PHASE ~ ! PHASE 3 ! PHASE 4 !
! + * ! ! .***t
_ _ ! ! V ! A ! !
! ! A ! V i !
! * t + + ! !
! G/C= .ZZO ! G!C= .247 ! G/C= .143 ! G/C= .256 !
- ! G=19.83 S! G=ZZ.ZZ S! G=12.91 S! G=23.03 S!
!_Y_3_@_SEC_!-Y_3_0-SEC-!_Y_3_0_SEC_!-Y_3_@_SEC-!
C= 90 SEC G= 78.0 SEC = 86.77. Y=12.@ SEC = 13.3% PED= 0.0 SEC = 0.@%
-
! ! WOTH ! GHT i G/C ! SRVC VOLUME ! ! L ! MAi(IMUM
MOVMNT ! /LNS ! REF ! REQO USED ! C tVPH) E ! DHV ! S ! QUEUE !
APP?GACH N PHF= .90 TK= 5% RT= 18.4% LT= 23.8% NO BUS STOF
_ s=xm=====~====aa===nx=sa==~====e===coo====a=a======x=====____=====o~==vsa
TH+RTi Z4/2 ! 4 ! .ZZ ! .25 ! 6?.0 ! 742 i 560 !*8+i X71 FEET !
! LT ! IZ/1+! I8B ! .16 ! .22 ! 238 ! 309 ! I75 ! A ! I75 FcET !
APPROACH E PHF= .90 TK= 5% RT= 11.6% LT= 10.9% NO 8US STOP
s==~===x=a=====m~a==c=s=o=s===c=~==~===scxns===c=x=s====.=xc========a====a
- ! TH+RT! 24/2 ! 4 ! .23 ! .26 ! 601 ! 815 + 515 !•8+~ 294 FEE'
! LT ! 1Z/1+! 18° ! .07 ! ,I4 ! 15~ ! '01 ! 75 ~ A ! 8~ FEET
APPROACH ~ PHF= .90 TK= 5% RT= B.IY l.T= 35.0'5 NO 8tJ5 STOP
-
i T}-{+RT! Z4/Z ! 4 ! .15 ! .ZS + 65$ + 709 I 400 ~ A i 193 cEE' !
! LT ! 12/1+! I8B ! .Z0 ~ .22 ! 238 ! 309 ! 215 '*C+! 215 FEE? ~
AFPP.CACH W PHF= ,90 TK= S% RT= 20.5% LT= 20.5;; NO 5U5 -STOP
_ csaaaoaacaea=aa=s~-=o=a=was==~3==x===tea=asax=v=a=as=v=v=======az=no==o==n
+ TH+RT! 24/2 ! 4 ! .22 ! .26 ! 636 ! 762 ~ 540 ! P. + 258 FEE' !
! LT ! 12/1++ 188 ~ .13 + .1~ ! 155 ! 201 ~ I40 !~Ct+ 154 FEET
--i
3_~~
RICHFIELD MCDONALD"S SITE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
i
- LYNDALE AVENUE AND 66TH. STREET
EXISTING TRAFFIC PLUS MCDONALD'S SITE TRAFFIC PM PEAK HOUR
SIGNflLITEAPAC - CAPACLTY ANALYSIS. WORKSHEET
_ BASIC CONOITIONS~
METRO POPLTN 2000000
METRO LOCATN OUTLNG DEGREE OF SATURATLON .69
SEQUENCE. 44
^ ! PHASE 1 ! PHASE 2 ! PHASE 3 ! PHASE 4
! t ! + * ! i A i
I + i+* I I t+++!
t +j I * I I (a?t+9t I
! t ~ 1 A ++++I i
_ I { (j f+~rs V I i
I <+t 1 t +j I I++++ j I
I * I + + I I++++ I
I t ! I I V i I
! G/C= .218 ! G/C= .245 ! G/C= .142 ! G/C= .201 i
! G=19.65 5! G=22.03 S! G=12.80.5 ! Ga23.52 S!
! Y=3.0 SEC ! Y=3.0 SEC ! Y=3.0 SEC ! Y=3.0 SEC !
t.
C= 90 SEG G= 78.0 SEC 86.7% Y=12.0 SEC = 13.3% PED= 0.0 SEC = 0.0%
- ! ! WDTH ! CHT ! G/C ! SRVC VOLUME ! ! L ! MAXIMUM !
MOVMNT ! /LNS ! REF ! READ USED ! C (VPH) E ! OHV ! 5 ! QUEUE
APPROACH N PHF= .90 TK= SX RT= 18.0% LT= 25.3% NO BUS STOP
r =x==s=x=s===a=====__====~3=====___====n==x=========o=====____===~=a===~=.
! TH+RT! 24/2 ! 4 ! .22 ! .24 ! 614 ! 736 ! 56@ !+B ! 272 FEET
' ! LT ! 12/1+! 18B ! .18 ! .ZZ ! 236 ! 307 ! 190 ! A ! 191 FEET !
- APPROACH E PHF= .90 TK= 5% RT= 11.2% LT= 11.2% NO SUS STGF
a=a~s~=onx=~===x=======ox=scn=s=========a========azvo====n======~===c===o
! TH+RT! 24/2 ! 4 ! .24 ! .Z6 ! 697 ! 83a ! S35 !•B ~ 301 FEET !
! LT ! 12/1+! 186 ! .07 ! .14 ! 154 ! 200 ! 80 ! A ! 88 F~_T ~
APPROACH S PHF= .90 TK= 5% RT= 8.°% LT= 34,7% NG BUS STOP
sssas.o===a===e=e====e=oe===x=e=c=~=eo=====_=====ao===~=_~====a======oo=o
! TH+RT! 24/2 ! 4 ! .15 ! .24 ! 649 ! 777 ! 405 ! A ! 196 FEET !
! lT ! 12/1+! 188 ! .20 ! .22 ~ 236 ! 307 ! 215 !~C+! 21b FEET ~
APPROACH W PHF= .90 TK= 5Y. RT= Z0.4% LT= Z2.4%. NC SU:,_STOP________
ss=r=aaas=s========xm====a=aaaaa=c~=caox=aoo==v==cn===a=~=o=-
! TH+RTi 24/2 ! 4 ! .2Z ! .26 ! 050 ! 779 ! 545 ! A ! 'S9 FEET
! LT ! 12/1+! 18B ! .13 ! :14 ~ 154 ~ 200 ! 14@ !*C+? 15a FEET ~
Unsignalizeti' "T" lniersection Capacity Calculation Form
Intersection ~ ~ ST kF. F 1 ~ti! D l~ c .ti.4 L f) ~,~~Tr? 4~(! t'_F
3-
Location Ptan_ Counts:
- i Date 1=',( (°_•'.7 ~w ~
_ ply i~ ! O.,F 5
_ A ~ 8 Timc F tit F k l} 1
, ~ r ~ ContrO) ~yTi,3 ?
1j,., Prevailing Specd
Hourly Demand Traffic volumes fram y ~ y~ to 4 ~ . i m
Approach A B C 'Y`
Movemrm AT AR Bt BT C,, ~ ~ C. ~
~ Yolume ,S~~ 6 S~ ~C N_~C% ~II Z
pch,..ztr,kr, r•~~S ~s i~'.CJ ~fs ~S t i.
Step i Right hrn trcm C C„ ~
Conflicting Flows = MH = 'h AR + Ar _
(from Fig. I) ~ 5' + ~3 = 3 ~ ~
Critical Gap from Table . T, _ ~ • ~ sec /
Capacity from Fig. 3 = M.,, = M, = S7 75 ,c,.
L' Shared i.ane -See Stra 3
No Shand Lane Demand = C,, _ ~C' ,r,~
Available Rrscrve = M, - C,, _ x•
• Delay & Live) of Servirr (Table 3) Q
Step Z Left Zltrn from B 8,. ~
Conflicting Flews = M„ _ AR + Ar =
(fromF'ig. I) + L~fr = E;S~ eM
1~'' - Cnticai Gap from Table 3 T, _ .S,S~ sec ~^r
Capacity from Fig. 2 = M.y, = M= = SAO ,K„
Demand = $t = ~ x?
Capacity Used = 100 ($t,/M=) = 4 x
I.,r,....:attce Factor from Fig. 3 = P= _ ~ ~ R
Available Reservc = Ms - BL = 4GQ
Delay do Love! of Servicr (Table 3)
Step 3 Leli Turn frwa C Ct
Conflicting Flows = MN = 'hAx + AT + BL + Br =
(from Fg. t) +.~5+'
C `3
.o.
Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = 7-~ sec
Capacity from Fig. 2 = My. _ ~ (C3
Adjust for Impedance M.v, x P= = Ms = .mod
No Shared Lane Demand = CL = 6 ~
Available Reserve = M~ - CL =
Decay & Level of Service (Table 3)
Shared Lane Demand = CR + C~ = C,e~ _ ~ S
Shared Lane with Right Turn ~ _ (CR + C~)
Capacity of Shand Lane = Mu - {C„J~t,) + {CJM=>
Mu
Available Reserve = M,J - C,~, : ,rn
Delay & L,evett! of Servicr (Table 3) C-
Overa!lEraluation Grt=T ?t,G_N Fnr•,I't G'>,~v6 i.-c? t. R~G~~rl',__ LESS 7/M~ T~~ T~•c_,,v
Ei C. U P R. L .1-fll•_ 1 S ~Cla ` 40 l F_ P+ . ,+~_~,1`"2G~ F r ~ ltlr ~ t~ RE!' 3 C 4 r-~7 r Z.1
Q u'r ~ F S r'1"~ {t, ~ ;,•r Ci : i r ti~ !-t: f R f1 S E ? / + j F ~ ~ h ~ ?'I? F ".T S , S, NA_ S
J
?hrt: Gvrt_c .4bc hT LF.I•s~ ~o G4Q=/Hr .~sz~•i~,,,~~ 7, i,t~ f*~= ~"`'~~E.
PROPOSPLAN ~ '
WEST •OTiI BTflEET '
r i
•
r
~ - _ '-•r --~..r-~., ~ a-- w --".e
r _
r - -
_ ~ 1
i - _ -
i ~ ~ max.... ~o.. ~ ~
~ '..r'' t;
COMMEflC1A4 r~
f N/Y01/ 1/ll// • ~ i
' 1~ • iMOw ullll YEOICAL OFFICE
r t ` •r ~ ~ ~ r'r• YFt
r;~;
11////~~~~~~~~IIICIIFUi4D DANK a THUBT ~ 1Z r IrNi~ it - ~
J rr r
~ 1 ~1 ' ;tc j ~ • it r
~ i ~ 1 i. ~
• ~ ,
- u,
~
r
~ , ,
~ ptgCJ~ 1 ~ i1 r~~.: ~ 1 lou/• z° [ 11
r
i~ 1
i 1 1
O~ i t"... ~ - • N I - 1~ 1
r ' ,
1
1l ~ r ti . _t u 3'
~ .N_ -
` rI i ~ ~~1.• NO ~ E `Y J- ` ~MOU/E .~~li~.
/d
u.
' - " WEST lTTH STBEET - ,r,~ • » If: MO//M
_ ur•'~
. r r _ __..-_-_~-u---'-v.~-~-:.mot=.. a ~
r I. 1 _ _ _ _
r . _ . __w._ . / 1
i
1, ~ .
. N... WEST..TH SiREE1
_ ~ C ~ a .r ~ _ .:r--T~ f"' 1 I ~t
o ~ I 1I J%/Jp/Ta//1 ~ tl AI OffIGl ! ' X23a-+~"``Q• ItI.OO. t.f•
/ / ! / / t? ~ 1 ~ Wu1C ~ AMi?1
• T;1117171T
; p ~ .lo.. LAYO
Ylr?AIIYAA4A1 ii.,aii..r.
~ ~ ' AuowAlNe aooN ATIaAI w sal.ll0 t.f.
YNNYUY OltM \?ACI.tONMI '!\•ill ..f•
p+ • • O?EN a?ACl lNOIWIOI IO..aN
7 ' • , i • ~ `r'~. ~ ~ , KOt! tUNOINO MlA1 _
+ \ t`\ • 11 \1~~;\`( `~,1~V~1`\\,l ~ t 1 F , 1/ , ~L , 1; Ali/YMAILE ILOOa A.EAt
/ ~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ Tl A?ll YsDONAlN10r .:WAN?1 la•/l0 4r-
. S~~ U _ ~
1~;6 wwtr: _
~lEl 11 /r, ~1~~..-4-? { ~,0. L O/tlCl/tOrrrAtMt .L.LK •.M•
'mil -)P 51: ~ .f ba iNCLU 1N..1. LfE l/.tl•
J)1 / L M.LAw/.M+ LN ))At• N a?AC•a
1 it 1 yc { ! / rt_~ ~ . ~ ( \OTAL il. t10 YC-1 v'
- U1Ull~l~iltlil ~ ~ t _ - 1 4 \OYAL ?AMNINr fMOV1r)Ot ()O M~C.I ~
.
~f l1~1.41NQ $tIM/AANYi___ Asuur) •
I NONIII) i[ONY - - _ (t ~ Wu~l l.Y..-IN/i~~~:
IO _ •IaLIMN )WLY/N0: •).))1 {f, t•.l)l }.I.
1 `
- / _ l)MII-•ONMIAaY )DpIL10M•
'y _1 1'_ ? iRlt•r0111N)LlO11f APEl/WNI )t.t):t?• )I•~il{~. ~~1L1
~ ~ - - - 1 ' ~ Nl-•Ala••w r•u1NU / i?. • a\. 4
` YR,..._ ~ _.-n.-. a1. ---"1 corYlllcuL)wNwW Lows 111111 iL ii.ii/~I. Y1V
J ? y ~ ~ ' rINN• AuwN.•/• )•u -L.u• I.e.
N/GIIfNit4 LAl1N - _ - _ - - Wsu LO wooNw.Nl u.w as. s~e
ArOt[101 • ~ ~ 1 LOLL 1L)fOMAN/ AOLA Y10w 4
1A111T ! YNN•T ~ _ _ _ - p' • 1 !On ?MUrO CNti1L. Q
-'1..\\\ \~\`~w~. .J/ rGrMC L"=t. _ ~r. M~~ - , ~iY V
1 r 1
- / ( IIiACINT 1'1 'c. ~ f -"a' 1 - - 4
Jl ~ 3 ~ r \j • 1 lrr~~i
J ` • "
1/ / _ _ ,1~.1 as ~ ~ JANNMY. t'1U '.1.. +
' 1 .
n
1. _
- 1. ^^^---__~r~~ ttf _
WEST Oiill 5TA^EET =
1
IOOLM W aLY• flMab ~ - - ~ k.~
_ ~ h
a
1
_ ,
tY , a _ ~ WE6T i0T11 iieEE1
Af IYtMM AW ~ / ~qr W WAx~_r•r LMi rwxlLNr
sl o•• xA~•1
WNAMf AE i r.---^-.~" - .4
v?:. ~ _ I
L I - ~ .f T-s'TSas'~ .M
. ~~..r. r Trlw•ca ' w 1~ ~ t
I .YG• R•A~N~Yl
twfxf S i
~~:x+~_.W i ~YlKA4~ ° 'f }~j` t ~ MEDICAL Off1C!
. ~ rf E r fY ¦ l~A~\Ox1
f
r tt
1 . y•: Iw '1 M'r 4 f
~i ~ ~ . r , ~ ~ BSI l~ t ~ ~ ~ rs w,w , ! .
• r [
. .1 ~ IIAW~'~
/ - . . ' ( ' Atr•MW wul s'{~) •t~r ~•p~~~ ~ y} ( /,L • ._t ' . i i I 4 -
II gxf~uN~ iii.... i Na. , 1 ~ 1:
~ , Y caKUM w•.• ~ F-1~` a~W~ ~i~ ~ •.t....~-.- ~ , ` 1
1 / p\t•.wal.r wwuor ~ ~
~ d :fi„K~PKw ~~//jj//''~~JJ ~-•xer..r•w ~a ~ : '
,I • ••wtK•~r•A•A ~ MLA1M
/ WuG•!I WA\L• \OOY IEWr .I "11// '1
~ j I~jyp
ryAXl!\E MKK KAx1{A ~ ~ U
1 ~r NORiMi EfOAV ,r ' ~W Q'
AA:NtAilO DANK E IAWr ~ ~ V '~i I
/ ° ~ ~i C`".._ ~ ` as
r CrAI Y ~ : l ..III ~
1~ ~ ~ ~
J ,
YAIVE"YY ~ I .~t~/~~..rryy....~• N ..H ~ ~ ~ _ 1 '
DANK ~,y` ' ,y lyyYMOr. fEEE
. _ -
' f 1 - 1~ 1 --ice-' r.. _ E'L\ fi. NOA\M
. t
1 ~ •."-t~'~ ~ ~"~ii' WE8T 07TH iTNEEY .I~ ~ 1 ,Y 1, . Vv
„ ,
x
J N,
r
. -
-
.
~ ..j_ : - ~-a
w . ~ ~ r M
' y
' '
i
~ ~ WEST OSTN STREET I
.
. ~ j
~ / _ _ _ _ 9
1' ~ -
Is _ o
' -
u - - r ~ lowtll lfva al.uf.e 1 l
w t,. .u.w 1wl l ~ 1 ~ W?KN l!Y/l !l. N~.~ .l
1. My K N~ 4 IM'S ~7 1• / ~ ~ 4'A- I M ' I
at .I. .l ayVlt(N u
w a. to , W// ~ ~n.» + f _.I.
41 `
~.i."ciwi r'{/,4/ IIUNOiF cAICULAT10N8:
' / ~ / ~ 3~ • ( MAMIAO/ Al11At !l,YN !JJ AC.
~,ai 1 a. It f0!!WI'AC! /LOWa r WN11Ytl.
/ 3 ~ ,r, ; ~ i •ICluolNa tNa NNrlu:u11t11ACt1oN
/ ; ~~)~.'u''~'utel`„, _ « ~ a,.tlNlwovN.lromlhlwcNevNOw
• ~ ( 111LL~11i ~ t„_ , _ ~ " ~ - ~.a,• a~' ~ CONHO[11 All IYwAC!! t0 N
I
I~111 j11111~i11~1.t1 p ~ NtlAt/YIIY NIrIMYNw4 c..!! tr 4
/ /.y ~ - ar' w ai. a •+.+..w ~-taF • • ~ ~ f 1. O.GA .,q 11 ! [ t.411.f Cf!
4 ~ ; .~•a+,~ "'~:i„"w'.w..w. i ! o. eA?Aarr AvArAN?t w oeowlu ((~~JJrr _
• , ~ r, ~ ~1 1 ~ MLL[t CA1ACIt Ya `
/ r ..M• ~ ~ ~ l--A'"r. J ~.J .I ( f C.1. Ar f-! Cif lA../h1A G!
OIIKII CA?AgrYa
~ / flNft fL0011 tN IN/ !l. IfA.A - ~ ~ I 1 f!'!C? At O.A%.f0 Cif
i1Nft x10011 fkAY1G! lil. 111.0• ' ~ u 1
i" iW111100N ~l. Ifl.f - ~ I
11Yc00NA44 11 1
/ ftCOMY Y10011 K. 1{O.f? ~ ` ~ at ~ ~ ~ i
(41cHfKW IIAN4 • 1NUt t? 1 iii I la•
a~ ;
i
.
~r ~ ~ ~-._.._..~,J l~ :..;.fit - ~ 'o.
OY 2 , A ~ \ l.._ ~ ) ~-Its `1
~ ~ ~ _ 1. / ~ 1 ' i~~
• V ITIt~
_ - 1
~ jj j ~uwNr. uu ~a.la~i~
- - A re -
_ .:a . -
.u-. -
n d ~ ~ W E
- _ •a _ ~ _ _ 7 O . _ . - - E3X OlTN 8T8 ET~.._ - t~ _ ..:S • It t• tt n. NoA/r
r' _ ~ _ _
W
i
•
i i
i
I _ _ ,
LL.
~ WEBT •oTll BTPEET
• I _ - _ _M • _ _ curt • I , • •
! 1
" • / _ _ _..L. i. a - • -
i a ' .P ~ i
~ I i' .
i ~wN
~ y Fy{~ ~ I
A w•.,1... ~~II >W TiF '7 jE+~A~~~~ c~ ~`F~.. N ~ ~ 1~, I ~ ~ -
j M.N EYN A•MD,. luwt.} ~ _•lu"F~r•
•
l , ~ A~...,w...A..I.A =•~„11Wy1 ~ SITE ll(lHTW(i
/ K ,M„.«L•„~.w,„ ,fit t .
I..+.wwl Prr~ ~ . I i 1. ETEIINEII 'ENECYTIYE'tNWMAMEE OM EODAEE
I fOtE{ TY YATGN EENTM/O IiNN EEANOAl100[E10N1
• 1
/ / ~'~~~~yy// wa.wo. -~j •w Vii; ~ f. PuE AND souwDATwN aeaNr w vAUr ro
/ l , IA II~LIJ-I~UUJ!!t+ ~ tt " ` ~ 1~ ii uiviaw
iEiMt~riP~?{~oE io f~io~A~iov~it a"EiA~ai
~-a / a ~ a wE ETNEEE>_
~ ~ ~ ~ I 1 I SITE SIGNAUE
' / - I+n" K 4AaA?• IrA .l.l. ~ ^ , I. ?YtOM EION:ENIEIWY ETON 11ELOGAIEO TO .
--D~cwa• {.afHd NK•.- _ , C. •o~r.
~ `J ' NOIItNWft1 COIIMEN AEEIIOWM. EANN ENIN PANEL N
. I ..sw.l.~w Iw+crucw i`/ t ' IyaK 1 ~ 1 A/PMON. E' N Il'.?E{:EW! YcOOMA4D{ ENiN PAMEE
Q {p[FN r..I ~ ~ 1 YNIY PEN EWE OYENAII IIENUIT INEAEUNED fIIOY
-s' _
{ l •r ! I. , ~ I 4~f{ i r~ I i. 11cDON~tlt UMECYIOMAL EIONtAE {IU EINEfT
~ ~ _ ~ RR4 awwwp .ra+KN 1~ I EMIEANCft 110M 1AMEE i' E R'-/', OYtEAtt
/ / ~ ~ t. McOONA1UE 'MENU' ENUiFUANUE It WO? Ai UMYE
J l ~ ~ " - - ~ - IIMOUOIU 110N IANtLE E' E M UvtMAll DENMI E Pf. 1"
/ l ~ ~ ~ E. NEOICAI Ofi1CE EIONAW Ai E11M EINEkTI ~i
/ / i Y. wT~ IION ?ANEL M E', OYEEA4 NEWIA • fY. ss~
I 1• ' E. /EE EUNOYID [LEYAT1011E PIM LOCATION AND w Q
/ ~ t EIT! Of EULLOWO 110NE INcOONAIDEONLYI. ?p ~
`
/ }
l d' / ~ ~ f ~ ~ r V _ Io f ~x
~ 1. } ~ 1' .•j~ _ r! 1 i
_ - - - - - - j t:~ ~ ~ JAINIAIIr. wEE L
f` d r• 1 1
W 7TII8TNEET
8T
' - L.. _ '1 _ •I p - "--,'...f`J - ~ ~ E f.ra _ r C . _ _ • _ . _ - ~ to Eo {E n. NonN ,
'r ~ ,
' 4V
1
1
1
,~~g N~.dON
• ~ NNia.~, ~O 1N~
~p,a'?w~Mr+r O O
® o ~~o C~
~~p~
~
•
:1 ~i
I - _
n...-......
s
„ ~ Ag
r:'Y o..e~ ! m ` r~,.,r trr~.w M~ ' - "~:...ii~ra••w
l~t;~l l ~ 1 ._r_.r ~ A~ „~iN,.. p• r prig _ °
,,.w w _
• ~_1
i I
~ I
I
~ ~ '
1~!!{~
~ .t
3 tEl~ tr
lf,iu
"".~(S( ~'F;'' jF` wl .i;~~ ,~.i:,t:L.tt4W M.~ , -.J.. _ A ~ ~`--~"~_,1 as ,
• !1R
- r.,nl.-
` ~ 1~,~
.~x • l 7 ~ Z.~ f~ .E~~"8 :.Y' ,w C .j '~~R-.~ ei, X15' t~
~ _
1., ~ 1
'F. tf:..
Neaa[c/wenASE '•~*"•3%r'~.'•~= ,Y ~ ":I~..-irF =35'v - - _,r•~ A3~"T"`^
- ~ - ~ r
/MNEt 1Y?,CAI x: CsII'c~°'sE}~ ,n3Ee
} ~ ~ j;Y. sa6` >
. - _
! r ~
. ~
, _
A..ae;.~
:r ~
w . „rrK
_ fdY1tF
~.r k;A. ~n a i~!- It ,:~.T ~ ~~..~.!-1:~:~ :.J~-7~:.~. ;~I~ -I - ~ji; - } ~ 11
a ~ ~ .,:w1~ElEM.nr~wir~+,utii~rvrnrr}wruareavw/aw~aw~ii::• .tie.,se~raa~d- a~y:+a~y~,- - - .dif..~ .
v _
• L +MS+a-i '3~.tisaYF:. ~ y~~~ y 7N t•
r-E• r aE'o' "1 ,yr : ' N,:~s:;;r Yr ~r , :•r~ k ~ , ;M~: j, tl ti
Y' L : - ':ISM _ t
~ f i i5.~~~'ttr'S:#d$ ' ~ saiw.iFas~
ETON AAEA 1 ` ~ i~it e~w r•-E• r » •-e j ,n ~ ~ .~:G... ~1
Nearer wic.Rr ~ k 1 ~i~r;• Now AwaA f a~'-~~ 1 i •T 9
N 4, 1 '~4"" S7Tf!fY -b- ~ tN11,' ~ .i" ry
ui
KANItE WAIL EreOMD t : fg. {^~}yM
/yq)p6~, i lY1F O/ ELOIEB
~
~ ~,~„~~~~-~:*.~~.~~i9w.,la~L~``L.. x~ .:x ~.R~ t: 'f n O/AUOIYOINI 1 !r ti
11 ~ ~ 1 - ~ : _ - z - _
_ U
. ~ -
- - /r
C---:~ "~t . - - - - - - - - = cowcwau EIAw / ,~''coNCraYS luw
- - ANE KAwIEq _ 3L.'t rte ANO III.NIW
1rAN, ADOM. MC! ENIC_-. ~ONYt•?1410wD1, EOO1N: E•y r E'-D'-~..- /•-E' ¦ tE'-E• ~ Orr[WIOIN[ ADDIININ:
DArA MONI! FACE r1NICw, OA14{ YNONLA IN14 +aN ANEA EwW ANEA ' ~-OAllw NIONIE FNANti.
600rE AND 1Nw ~ ' NE1t AIEE AMYa1C YLALIIO ~ ~ i~_
' NORTH ELEVATION i;
E~.at. „t•_,•_D• WEST ELEVATION (PARTIAL)
- 1:
F ~p'i~
- - JANNME. 100E `i. a'~t.
. 7.
w
rArlO fl
lMr rN:[ N[W ,
GOW/ructaM
Ala nGr ruN~wrt. ,
i, WYOMAI,O fY
ANN •AOMYrMNOU/r' 7 1~~~~ ~
` rwirr r?r. Iir.r " ~i'Ma`~o ~o? ua+r OOTN 9TREEr
ANM .a,~,,,,~-rA?L 111 ~ay~~
SECTION A-A
a-
• ~ h
O
j{{d ~
d1- ul
utter d
iNNf 1Y0M1t1 r 1 / 1~ 1 1 1~~ tpAq(;
CONY1rrrClgN / 1t N2( 9
~ A001?IDMi f 1~~~.~' ! iAYlM1Y F<~ J
IAMII r IhOOMAlO' rr1Yr-1NIW ` F'-7/~~_ ~Oi?NM f
'M[MII 01ND~' ~ P~
tOf LlOrt irMN rOOY~r/r, IIrN11rr rj
. N ~ 1 1 1 v ?V
Hoot ru r~e.r ~
iiY 91~.IA 4~i 1;
~1
8ECTtbN B-B ~ i~
3t
~t
1
JAIrMr1, IlN ~~/~9~
® V
r /i. MOAIM ,
J `J
• . ~ ~
tU
r
,~:ta '
MNM - __l
M ~r N ~ - - -
~tiM M r1 MaN R°"r'~~
.......-.__~1 i.~
» /~I~~~/f/ L
C" ~ ~F a ~ ; ~ ~
1 ~p - t ~a~ ly
- j ~ ~ ~j tTl l~ t _
-I -
r . ~
-~1~:Ia.111~L~
~ f
~ +F' ~ ~ - tip` _ ~ /
f ~J_
t~nun ~i±in
«'*'u.rn _ _ S-~' ISfi)~, ~Q t
wtM n+w' r.w rwt mx ~rntw.. ~ t Q~01p1~
w.. i.^n ~ .
«.y~Nw
. ~ ~ ~ X4'1'11 T'
.M\1 M• ~1~ -M---
...i~i~•w' .~nrnl hM.tM \ ~ .-r...-v t x.. s ~ 4.' ,fr
~auPN •tlww11N t1.R~ ¦ t '(1~'' ~ yl
,~+j~1 '1I ~.~~'~Y.
.'r. tN'or ~M ~41w'1 ` fl IJ• ~L./-JL-./-+JtJ"' ~ ~ ~1
' ~~r Vii. I,L4~:1.
~1S. L 1.
~ !
- - 1.
- l
~ C
-,ry cnt' ' -
x~+ _ ~
~t~.~y. 1.
! '
-
~ _
1[ 11~~M~~II~~ d'_~..~
jj
r ~ _ - - r j{1]1'Y t ~ ~
1 ~ :~1 .
•T~~ Y~•
r101.LtlA3`{~ I~~.HON ~ ~ .l
. _ ~ Wit-: -
_
l x
` ~
r.
> r
~
_.a.
gds ? . . - _ .
NtN~y~'~'1~ -
1
1 ;
M
~-e
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 83
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Award of Contract - Public Safety Vehicle
Council Members:
The adopted 1985 budget includes funds to replace a vehicle
used by the electrical inspector at an estimated cost of
$10,000. Under a joint purchasing agreement with Hennepin
County, the city may make arrangements for purchase of ar.
acceptable used vehicle as it becomes available through Hertz
Corporation. This procedure has been used successfully in the
last few years.
This used Hertz vehicle will be assigned to investigators ir.
the Public Safety Division. The car r.ow used by the
investigators, a 1980 Chevrolet Malibu with 22,000 miles on it,
will be assigned to the electrical inspector.
A four door 198 Buick Century has become available and is
acceptable to the Public Safety Department. It is recommended
the city council authorize purchase of this vehicle from Hertz
Corporation in the amount of $8,800.
Respectfully submitted,
• ~
/
ohr. G. C~twr~ ght
City Manager
JGC/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA ~
Office of City Manager '
Council Letter No. 82
Agenda March 11, 19.85
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign at
Salon Magic, 1415 East 65th Street
Council Members:
Gulf Development has requested an advertising permit to
erect an illuminated sign for Salon Magic or. their existing sign
base at 1415 East 66th Street.
There are to be two signs on the sane pedestal. One is to
be a 27" x 80" reader board below a 48" x 60" sign.. They are
both to be double faced with constant illumination.
City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subd. 19, Illuminated
Signs provides that city council approval is required for
illuminated signs.
The proposed sign. conforms to all city ordinances pertaining
to signs of this nature and it is recommended that the sign.
permit be approved.
e pect ul~ submitted,
~ ~
wt~ -~~~~U
John. G.' Ca twrigh
City Manager
i
i
JGC/eja
s
' ~ 1 ~~`5 1 ' r f:' 2 •'y~ f ' IMP ~k.P iQx~ ~k~~. 'r v/^~,~~r~s}~,~#>"~.'"P5 a
K I~, t d
Y y¢ ~t
~ it 1y~I y
i~ 5~,1~~~ ~ Y r '~i~~:~^s;
' ~ ~ ~ 1 ,:.~ll> auk; tT~„~,
r.v? J'1 r~'Ya...
~ d~xfw'~ ~ ~ sir
,,i" ~r+"`~~ s'~ fsu
tr' ~
~ .uyrTY'' 'y~'.rv~ t ~ '
1 ~1~ yY ~ ~
lw.~w .~y fi qJ, `~+;r'.
i ~
~ ~ ~~T ~y `~fi~ ~
~ t 11y~1..,J1t^~+5xf}~
~ap•., t 1 ry1~+y ~ : ~
~I}~ ~ ~ J 1~ { ~'1' Jtal FAA f~yi.
~ti,~p3 x fir. .~?'a `,"~a. ( h(~~ ^ 1~~~~17 ~ ~~~.i,
~0 ~
1;'73 ~ ~ Ifit _ T,~'NA ~ _ ; ~ SR ~~~~.id
'w x} i
r .s~5~~ +rrkr ~I •+w ~n~ .`a~ ~ itrr~~ ~ ,
r
~ ~N°. Its ~J ,^~~'il Jrrr
x .J'i i> r
r ~ S. y? ~
r 1. ~ ~ _ ~`7
~ S''~~ i~ ~~k~~ t ~ f jl ~~-,,`~f
r
n~xnq'~ '~yt~+`~. la ~t~f~i
~ a 1 ,Y 1. ~ y ff
Yr~ M
.W i~~
~4 4; _ y v ~ } 117 ak
Y f ik~~'f ~fui- - - ~ ' ,~ti ~
o ~a' ~'i at~C i, S~¢a't~
~ ~lu~ s In ~ ~ ; ~ tl ~ ~ ` T
" xr iS .~t.
t 1'~ ~LV ~~Ftiv' fr
5 1 1J1 f M1l1 ~~hr. ~ la !•n k ~
~F Z ~1- 5 '4 k K F
f~ s/ ,.r3tRlSj ~ .~i~. F F ~ s i 1
lx frtt lPh rein a~~~~ E(~ $j+L'+IX ~~r ~ ~,a t~z- yS
' { ~ , t `ty t l r b r 71 k ~iy? i {R~ r~" ; t~e ~'~„~"~T j ' r ~ w s
. n A ~k ~~p'?~'f 1t~M~ 3G t+J'4 ,t ~ f`11 C Y ,~~f ~xK1c -rK'C J
;M1G i' 1 h4 1 m2 ~ b &?`,~~t,,~,~~~~ ~+aysa.~i+S~" ~~'y r~
rk k ~ ~ v ~ ti.~ Y~ i
.`5 ~},>5r~ ~ tplf i ~ } i
~h4
~+A 't~lp X k~~r~•7~w~~asr! Vii, S3 re~*I, ~~n* 9 6~`"..
1" s Jt 1s~t~ R. ; ~t~ r,r ayr~tt l'L G~ s~,.iv~. 4`~ ~ R~ ~{r,'; 7
r , ~ 7 ~ s e ~ ~ " rx ~ r ~ i s sl ~'~~$t,~ hY"t, rr.~ ~~i~~~'~w~'~ ~~(~t~~,~ ~rY ~~}~'T,~}l ~ a~3,~ ~ 5 . ~ y~~
,mot . ..I 5 y . 1;~1 ~ ;,A. k.~tK t }~`i~ ~ :~{SJt~I~{Ab r~N-f~i:4, iAi~Mtax.u~`:+~~#t~"+ha14~`.i.~7Ft1a~3aM '',6s A...,.%t'~a~.a, am m : 1wAw
4~k:w
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. gT
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
ar.d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Permit for I1lumir.ated Sign
Weight Watchers, 36 1/2 West 66th Street
Council Members:
Universal Sigr. has requested an advertising permit to erect
ar. illuminated wall sign, single faced, with constant
illumination. at Weight Watchers, 36 1/2 West 66th Street.
City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subd. 19, Illuminated
Signs provides that city council approval is required for
illuminated signs.
The proposed sign. conforms to all ordinances pertaining to
signs of this nature ar.d it is recommended that the permit be
approved.
pectfitd^l, ,ubmitted ,
1~ s
/ ~ ~Gt, ~G~~~'?
John G. C rtwrig' t
City Manag,.r
JGC/eja
{1 ~ j
t
'r ~ !
wvr~
- _
{ \11 ' f
D
1 ~ '
~ ~ kf.
_
r
~ ~
1 -
-
. ,r ~ _
_ id-~ _
,h~JvP'~ ~ 1 r ~~4~~ r,~ ~tnc - ~f ,~~~R
~.IXd~`~ ,ij, Ji~t,E "~FOM Wh~~ 7 ~ 1 k
y ~ ~ wr,~K,N~~cCt,*,~'~~,t
i.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ r, ~y,~~j ~~i1,~t~0 >T~~V Ll) v~V G~tf~Ril~''t-~'~k
V ~ t ~ fa
NotJ-Go~Ro9iy~ '~~~1 t ILt-V1~11N/~T~G ~ ~ z ~ ~rRT NC ~a~k, s a+
to yh ~i%~ ~~,-k
_f 11G ~ N 1 ,NA
~L f~ ~.!{{~1~' l 27 ~ ~'~~;f t~ ~4 ~y J~1.S,~G.~Tj,Si
,i ~h"^'~ti~~~sir./.~ ~1tUV1rNl~CT~P) ~.1 ~4b1•MR~"'~'~`a ~~~~'~""Y~~~4~~~.
~Lp~ U~
~ Z--~ 1~'~~ ,_`-D~kK /~~;t-o'f~z~h <~~~P Iii 4 ~~~~^Y ~ R ~ ~ .
" ~X hi
-i.i~~W~Y~~`.. ~z f\~ 11 i n.-_~I~t?~/C11~',`h~ i~{~1LL ti
~L ~ ~1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 80
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
ar.d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Illuminated Sigr. Permit Request at Nautilus
Swim ar.d Fitness Center, 100 West 66th Street
Council Members:
Lawrence Sign Company has requested permits to erect
two illuminated wall signs at the Nautilus Swim and Fitness
Center, 100 West 66th Street.
The signs are to be illuminated wall signs, one each on east
and west sides. They will measure 15' x 5' each and be single
faced .
City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subd. 19 Illuminated
' Sigr.s, provides that city council approval is required for
illuminated signs.
The proposed signs conform to city ordinances pertaining to
signs of this nature and it is recommended that the permits be
approved.
pectf~a'L y bmitted ,
~
L~ ~ ~ILCu'7~-~
Johr G`. Ca twrigrt
` City Mar.ag r
JGC/eja
~.t ..i
_
1 ' ~
t \ ~ ~
1 ~
f I
! fI
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ _ ~ ~ f
.7_ff~
_ ,
1
~ ,y
. ~_J.._.~
a~ i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 79
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Award of Contract - Articulated Aerial Device
and Truck
Council Members:
On February 28, 1985, bids were opened ir. accordance with
legal requirements for an articulated aerial device and truck.
A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached for
council review.
The adopted 1985 budget includes purchase of a new
articulated aerial device and truck, used primarily for tree
trimming, to replace a fully depreciated 1972 International
truck and high ranger.
Four bids were received from three vendors. The lowest bid
by a responsible bidder was submitted by Altec with a base bid
of $59,762 less a trade-in of $13,500 for a net price of
$46,262. It is recommended the city council authorize the
purchase of an articulated aerial device ar.d truck from Altec
for a net purchase price of $46,262.
Respectfu omitted,
~v~ ,
John. G . Car r igh
City Manager
J
JGC/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BID OPENING
FEBRUARY 28, 1985
Articulated Aerial Device
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Stever. Devich, Acting City Clerk, who
announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud,
bids for ar. articulated aerial device.
Present: Don Fondrick, Director Community Service
Marshall Raaen, Techarical Oper. Coordinator
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
Steven Devich, Acting City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR BOND PROPOSAL
Base Bid Trade In Total
ABM Equipment & Supply Inc.
Hopkins 5~ $61,847 $13,650 $48,197
ABM Equipment & Supply Inc.
• Hopkins 5~ $62,882 $13,650 $49,232
LaHass Mfg. & Sales
St. Paul 5~ $67,545.36 $12,000 $55,545.36
Altec Company
Indianapolis 5~ $59,762 $13,500 $46,262
The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered
at the March 11, 1985 city councl meeting.
Stever. Devich Acting City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 78
Agenda March 11, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Certificate of Appreciation to Mark Ahlquist
Gour.cil Members:
Mark Ahlquist served as a member of the Richfield Planning
Commission for three consecutive terms, from 1976 through 198+.
Mayor Hamilton has requested that a special certificate of
appreciation be prepared to honor Mr. Ahlquist for this aut-
standing community service.
Presentation of this certificate of appreciation. has been
scheduled for the March 11, 1985 city council meeting.
Respectfu liy ubmitted,
ohr. G. Cart rig
City Manager
JGC/eja
CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION
MARK AHLQUIST
OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICE
WHEREAS, Mark Ahlquist served the City cf Richfield with
distinction both as chairman and as a member of the Richfield
Pianr.ing Commission. from January, 1976, through January 31,
1985; ar.d
WHEREAS, Nfark Anlq_uist is to be commended for his civic
responsibility and for the dedicated and professional way in
t____ he carried out his duties as a member of the Planning
Commission, for nine years.
NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED that the Richfield City
Council, in aporeciatiar_ and gratitude, does hereby honor dark
Ahlquist for his outstar.dir_g community service.
DONE this i1th day of March, 1985.
John Hamilton Mayor