Loading...
05-25-87 agenda ~ . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 167 Agenda May 25, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution establishing policies and fees for the City Assessing Division. Background: As part of the duties and responsibilities of the City Assessing Division, the assessing staff is contacted daily to provide various information to the public. Inquiries are made by realtors, title companies, and individuals selling their homes, requesting information which is ultimately used in the listing of a piece of property, including the special assessment searches of the property. _ Listing information requests by the realtors and title companies include estimated market value of a piece of property, tax information, the name of the owner or the taxpayer of the property, legal descriptions, lot size, the year the property was built, homestead status and so forth. The information is very extensive and requires a significant amount of time to research and release. With the large number of home sales that have taken place in the past year or more because of low interest rates,- these requests for information have taken up a greater portion of • the Assessing Division's time. Other types or categories of information which are often requested are items such as comparable residential property records, homestead classifications, and listings of property owners. Comparable residential property records are requested to assist a property owner who may request to see records of comparable properties in the city to make a comparison as to whether the estimated market value on the taxpayer's property seems appropriate when compared to those properties. Because the homestead classification has a major impact on the taxes of a particular piece of property, the homestead classifications are also often requested with respect to properties in the city. Finally, requests for listings of property owners are made when an individual is requesting a zoning change which requires notification of property owners within a certain distance of the proposed change. In this situation, the individual may approach the Assessing Division and get a listing of property owners and property identification numbers within a specific footage of the proposed change. With~the large number of home sales in Richfield that takes place • annually, and the limited city assessing staff available, it is especially important for the city to establish policies and rocedures for distribution of this t e of information. T ' p yp his is ~~.2 necessary so that requested information is supplied in a timely manner and still allows adequate time for the assessing staff to perform their other duties associated with the assessing function of the city. The attached policy resolution continues the current practice of charging for certain kinds of information provided by the assessing staff. However, it does change current procedure by discontinuing the practice of giving information free of charge over the telephone that would require a fee if generated on hard copy, Simple telephone inquiries by homeowners will still be handled free of charge. Recommendation:. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution establishing policies, procedures and fees for the City Assessing Division. Basis for Recommendation: 1, There is a growing demand upon the City's Assessing Division to provide information concerning special assessments, purchase, listing information, comparable property values and other miscellaneous information both in person and over the telephone. 2. There is a need to establish policies, procedures and fees which .uniformly treat requests for information. • 3. The fees contained in the attached Resolution are comparable to those fees charged by Municipalities in the metropolitan area for the same information. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide not to adopt the attached resolution and simply direct staff to continue to operate under the current practice, which would not include a required $2.00 fee for property listing information and would provide that the city continue to give complete listing information to all requesting parties free of charge. 2. The city could adopt the policies and procedures, modifying them in some manner, or decide to either increase or decrease the fees proposed therein. Discussion/Decision Mode: It would be appropriate for the City Council to consider .this matter at the next council meeting so that the policies and procedures. could be in effect to assist the Assessing Division with the normally high requests for searches and listing information which take place during the summer months. Respe fully submitted, • Ja D. Prosser Cic Manager ~ • RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND FEES FOR THE ASSESSING DIVISION WHEREAS, the City Assessing Division provides a variety of services to the public, to Title Companies and to Realtors, relating to information necessary for sale and purchase of property and WHEREAS, certain specific information, such as Special Assessment searches, property listing information, comparable residential property records and Homestead information are regularly sought by Realtors, Title Companies and homeowners in the sale and transfer of property within the City and WHEREAS, the above list of requests for information constitutes a large portion of the work load of the City Assessing Division and WHEREAS, it would be desirable to establish policies and procedures, as well as set fees for the distribution of said information by the Assessing Division. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby establishes the following policies, procedures and fees for dissemination of certain information in the City's Assessing Division. I. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SEARCHES PROCEDURES FEES Provided upon request by 1) Provide written request $10.00 Per Proper- • City Assessing Division and $10.00 fee per ty Identification identifying levied and Pend- Property Identification Number (PID). The ing assessments. Number (PID). Searches City does not are normally in the issue billing mail 24 hours after statements for receipt. assessments. 2) Provided the same day if picked up in person. a) Allow 1/2 hour before ick-u to P p~ prevent having to wait for processed search. b) Give name, firm, address of property and PID number (if available). 3) Verbal Verification of levied and pending assessments before closing. • #~~2- .3 • II. LISTING INFORMATION PROCEDURES FEES Printouts of the following A phone or written request $2.00 per PID information will be pro- and receipt of $2.00. number or per vided upon request. printed sheet. 1) Allow 1/2 hour before There is no Printouts include: pickup, to prevent charge to the EMV (Estimated Market Value) having to wait for homeowner for Tax information processed search. listing informa- Owner/taxpayer tion, but there Special Assessments (levied 2) Give name, firm, is a $10.00 ° and pending) address of property charge for a Legal Description and PID number (if special assess- Lot size available). ment search. Year built 3) Complete listing information will no longer be provided by phone. No more than 3 inquiries on a parcel per phone call will be considered without requiring purchase of a printout. Any 3 in- quiries on the following accessible information will be provided by • phone by the City: PID number Year built Lot size School district Legal description Taxes Levied and pending assessments Mill rate for Richfield Estimated difference between homestead and non-homestead tax amounts. 4) Square footage and build- ing sizes will not appear as listing information. 5) Property description (i.e. construction, ex- terior, use) will be available only upon written.. request and receipt of appropriate fee. • _ ~/,2- f III. REVIEW OF COMPARABLE PROCEDURES FEES RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY RECORDS Upon request, the Assessing 1) Request for more then $.25 per copy Division will provide a 5 properties must be for up to 5 field card record of a sub- submitted in writing comparable proper- , ject property and comparable and include individual ties. ~ ro erties. ro ert addresses (PID P P P P Y numbers will help cut Requests for more !i our res onse time). than 5 com arable P P The individual must properties will be ~ allow the City at least charged on a time 2 working days to and material gather and copy the basis. requested material. I 2) The City will not assemble or analyze data. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of May, 1987. • John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.166 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: First reading of an ordinance amendment modifying the definition of the classification of employee entitled "Project Employee". Background: Late in 1986., the city staff proposed a special classification of employee, .entitled "Project Employee". This classification was later adopted by the City Council in early 1987. The classification made it possible to employ individuals related to the operation of a specific program or project, and to tie the compensation and termination of that position directly to the revenues associated with that project, or by annual review of the City Manager. As stated, the employment of a Project Employee was designed to terminate upon the termination of the special funding or at the. end of each year, unless it was to be renewed by the City Manager. The benefit to the Project Employee is that during the course of the individual's employment with the city, the employee would be able to participate in the city's group health insurance, holiday, vacations, personal leave and disability insurance, just as a permanent employee. • The main thrust of the Project Employee classification was to enable the city to hire adequate staff to handle peak work load and special projects with-out incurring the liability of adding permanent employees to the city unless it was absolutely necessary. Operating under the Project Employee Ordinance thus far in 1987, some divisions have indicated that it has been difficult to attract employees to work under a Project Employee status. Applicants are concerned primarily with the annual renewal provision and secondarily, about termination at the end of funding. In addition, the original language developed for Project Employees did not specifically provide language for the termination of a Project Employee based on the employee's performance. The attached ordinance modifies the termination provision of Project Employees by basically doing three things: 1. It makes it clear that either the exhaustion of funds or completion of the project constitutes grounds for termination. In reality, such termination constitutes the abolition of the position. 2. It removes the annual review provision. By removing the annual review provision, it was felt that this may give a prospective employee a better feeling of security in . accepting a Project Employee position with the city. Removing the language does not diminish the City Manager's authority to abolish the position on an annual basis, which #i/ ~ could be done through the budget process. • 3, It rovides for the termination of em to ees rather than P p Y h h em to ee's the abolition of the position, in cases w ere t e p y rf rm n e i not satisfactor . pe o a c s y While the proposed changes recommended here do not make significant changes in the concept of Project Employment, the changes do address concerns that the Project Employee termination provision, as it now exists, makes such a tenuous employment relationship that it is difficult to attract employees to fill such positions. Recommendation: Approve first reading of the proposed ordinance, amending Paragraph 4, Subdivision 2, of Section 2.34, the City Ordinance Code entitled "Termination of Project Employees". Basis of Recommendation: 1. The concept of Project Employment is a very valuable concept for the city, but in order to make it more attractive to certain individuals as an employment opportunity, language modifications are necessary. 2. Those modifications provide the City Manager with an expressed opportunity for elimination of an employee from the position, based on poor performance, without abolishing the position entirely. • Alternative Recommendation: 1. -The City Council could make an amendment to the termination provision of the Project Employee Ordinance and simply let the ordinance stand as it now is. 2. The City Council could make further modifications in the termination provision or ask the staff to develop further guidelines for Project Employee termination. Discussion/Decision Mode: It is recommended that the City Council give first reading of the ordinance modification at the May 26, 1987, City Council meeting so that the second reading of the ordinance and ultimate ordinance adoption may take place in a timely manner to facilitate the recruitment of any Project Employees necessary for summer work activity. Respectfully submitted, Jam Prosser Cit Manager JDP/sae • ORDINANCE N0. AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 2, PART 3 OF THE CITY ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter 2, Part 3 of the Ordinance Code of the City, entitled: Personnel, is amended as follows: 1. By amending Paragraph 4, Subdivision of Section 2.34, Penalties and Separations, as follows: (4) Termination of Pro.iect Employees - The employment of a Project Employee shall terminate upon the ~r.:_~~ct_s:~ ~-f sc2# ~:~~i-~ cr wt t`:e c~:~ a€-e$c`: }•e~r ::'.ass c3~ta::dcd b}• tk~s Ei'~;= ~h1~r+agE~ . C;:Lr ta±~iF~,ti3~-ckall -st b~ ......ctra~--~s :.c}~s~€•S-r earlier of i) the conclusion of the pro.iect for which such employee was hired, or ii) the exhaustion of the Fund, or portion thereof, designated as the source of such employee's compensation. Pro.iect Employees may also be terminated at any time in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.34 of the Ordinance Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1987. • John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk ja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 165 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to establish the boundaries of the new C-3 High Density Commercial Zoning District Background: On the previous item on this agenda the City Council discussed and made a recommendation concerning the creation of an ordinance amendment to create a new C-3 high density commercial zoning district and related requirements. The City Council should now consider what land should be included in the C-3 zoning district boundaries. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council give first reading approval of the attached ordinance to rezone the property in the area generally bounded by 77th Street, Pleasant Avenue, 494 and 35W from C-2 General Commercial and I industrial to C-3 High Density Commercial. It is further recommended that the council set June 22, 1987 as the date for the public hearing and second reading consideration of this matter. Basis of Recommendation: The .rezoning of this property to C-3 high density commercial is critical to the successful management of the ILN area. The goals of broadening the tax base, providing for economic growth and .employment opportunities, fostering a favorable environment for appropriate businesses and the elimination of the conflicts between residential and commercial areas can best be achieved .this way. The rezoning is also consistent with the city's comprehensive plan which indicates the area should be developed as high density freeway strip type uses. The rezoning of this property will help bring about the type of development anticipated in the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the C-3 zoning district boundaries as described in the attached ordinance. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Reject the designation of the area south of 77th Street as C-3. 2. Modify the area proposed to be rezoned. Decision Mode: 1. In accordance with the strategy outlined by the city for the ILN area. it is necessary to have the rezoning effective prior to September 22, 1987 when the building permit moratorium expires. 2. Mailed and published notice will be provided for the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City anager • w ~jU c BILL N0. ORDINANCE N0. AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled-"Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended in the following respects: I. Paragraph (9) of Section 3 thereof is repealed. II. The following new Section 13 is added Section 13 High Density Commercial District (C-3) 1. That 'area lYinq between I-494, I-35W, the Minneapolis .Northfield Southern Railroad, and 77th Street and its extension to the easterly right-of-way line of I-35W. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1987. ~I John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: I Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • ILN STUDY AREA SEC. 33, T. 28, R. 24 SEC. 34, T. 28, R. 24 M WEBf 7YTN BTREET WE8T _ ~ 7~'N _ 1TllE8T- I f IU ~U~ ~ !/ll r/I /Ia Na J9 ~ !Il r/!! ~ MY /lY Wr Ul! W 11 !IY - rl ~Y• fn N~ ~ 1 !tl rr101 I (ill 091 Ill ~ (NI <Yl (11 !YJ nll (/11 USI (xl IIY !N !Y nl~Yl n1I Nl L11~2I nl Yl YU MU . . YVI ~ W _ n 1 L x 1 ~ NY tY ,11 W ~ W = ,ll ..f. d1 aJ~ nY Ntl... v rta~ nsl _ - - . 5 a ,n11 on $ ~ ml 11p1 ~ nei N/ rm Nil nn -rl~i an~ an !NI rn = ea nn xY rm a rM rl w ml . nn yr M rMl rra 11 ~!!I r~ei al ~ nel Wi-~ n 1 rta /n1 ml bl rL v xY rIl ~ av rru r-..e r r nn . nv 1 aJ IJL li~i_~ iin r ~ !u O - ¢ - - 12~ ~ 1- - {r JO _d_ pp r 1-.9 au n nu iii ru N - aro1 ~mf w 11nn YY au YY .af NN O I{ ffl J lel \ M - / I 1Nl rdll n)1 ~ - lJII ~ ISI Ua I ql ~ - rHr 1 !/II - Nl rNl 011 QY NY dl 9n n!1 Ix! Nl !U! 'Z «u (N, s wl .u ~ rm Yil ~ rst ~ av rsi m _ ~ . _ - _ ;f+r S II N•x ~I N!I \ rrU~ I1 wi 4u n: irii %Ei- Ytl ou.. NI' !V! nu rev a1 rd In Nu om +1~ < ~{Il < l' ~ rm'_ reY- -lnf rlni- nn MY (Jlf 'an $ m' m ~ -------9~--- nn ml Nn xa ou oY ~r~ (v rn ..1 l . f I ~ W -rm na rM efa rt I) - YI WI _ ^ _ ' ~ ~ - - - _ ,t,J _ _ _ I o .WEBf _en •n and ~ 1 787N _ BTNElT-- OU W[8T 78TH 8711!1` i _ r, •N, ua Nn J +»1 ±au iYN . (/111 uxv wu +YV, rw ~ rlY YY M1 IY iY nu etY NY nY } Yn v urY (mn Na r 1 rail._ a ~ Ym _ _ wl ntd uro uu nl ~ ~ _ _ ~TI 8fl M! !I4 YY all YY GYI nN 1 d uNr /W„ !NY nlro Gnl nn Oon Ja IYn !ta _ ~~'i• YY x{r lub lYNr UI I!I !/Y! !Nt Nl Yap rlel fn , (f!J 1 (t aY !YU all W nil ggp0 Y1AI \ 11t! frY W MY Nn IYH 31 a lily nn xi q'J rnn um pfn wn rul !!n ~ arY O l •)J Inl "JJ 11 ,~i ulel ii ~~X ~ Ir11 1~. iil off , Y nU Vn fN, <dl fU11 aY M1[u nrl ~b 12~, ! 2s 47 S 11n,18 „ ~ 1sM~ ~ nJa~Jln s: 83,•NI ~ 1l7~~~~~ __17- ~ 19- ~ ss ~ / _ pj Q lull < !HI < < GMI, \ 11+ 1L~ ON NY . r.J1- • .IUI !NI UU NH nPl YY < IrN WI < W MY IYU rxU ` rn! / iJlr eal rl{1 ) rla l UIt) NII Utl1 OYU _ - JI ~ _ ~ ~l.l n ~ MI /ndf 1N.1 ` !KV /lll Ih n! nll (NI IIL lN! lJe/ I/fL ~ rylll nU.~lll N/1 MY fj NN e)HI raj rYl U)1 rAl eY AY UU [W 1Wl Wn NY nY T ^ J ) IAU I IIN. It nJ! 11 . (lNl lNtl (Ji) d{/I ~ i Ij 1 B y Iw - I ~e A71 ~ Mn MI r1W' W MI rLl ~ n !7a UY aW OYI rG1Y l rl nIl .)`.1 ) rwrl nl riY_ ii81 nn /n anJ_ (In ~rJi/ as oral I Nu ' 1 - - , nY NY wr rw nn as aN fttl rn~ au sn Aw au, av Ma ~nn - n(nl Ina Ill f1Ul fw! //ill ONl Ma Osfl !/!9I ~ _ / l_a_ _-p~~ ~ ~ - -r_ 1NE ^ 8T - - ' ST E - _ ~.~_...1 rI~II~'iirE~~Ii/'Ti~.! 78TH^. ~ = r 9TA _ S ' r 1 - H j _,i ix) rIl rdU !Yl rrl !11 I n)1 rtn YL !!dl IJY nY Vf WI NY NIl UU PN !Yl ~ ~ MI NJl Wl fM/ M/ l01 ftl /!1 xxS11 • - W Ii 1 ' tr1 nJl [W : /11 (sn - NU ~ nl1. n)1 All WI ' Ya na N)I rJN • UY 411 !MI Bll NY WI UY nn eu W rY Itl _ !Ill I Nll /tl (Jn Nn Ufl a/I Qa W My IIII UM' !N! YY W LL,l ` !IJ Jl ll Itl1 nn a1 !!1 U91 (yy atJ fNl ~ _ _ _ _ _ / INl - U rill (Itl r1) Y01 (vJ YN n11 fMl !W N/l ~ .IIL ..NL , - eW Rn Yn Nll rill to - N 1 ?n r, - ' !I' 311-- =32- _ ~d13 ~ inn I "'-$;9 1 -~7-1~ 99- -39--~ 40 -41- 412- Y14 . ~ Q 1 !01 ~ W rJl1 YU Ya n!1 < NIJ !!)I mf QIl Nn (111 IIIJ AU ~ 4Y UI rHl !ta YU !JI !NI W1 1441 ~ Ut! _ J ~ !Y Yf W Nl lv .IN! !Nr^ fe! Yn nfl ~ !XY^ 1 !a/ ~ ~ ~ !rN rJa IJf/ Un NL nil ~ . nn !Ll Nt/ W _ Q' flr w / Inl - ~ p I IA V - _ W 1 30 r,, ~ nY rMl Mr I/1 %11 rN)~IJ~' . (!a - > ny I rnl O tru tSV Iii: OL ~ (Yl - n~11 rev _ YL_ Z Y!1 IL 4 m) I!n nel NU Na (Y1 OL M aY an rw !ar rlll ~ I/n !Ml lel real IJfI nl/ Nfl I - nnl TART _ - ~C WGT - - U ~rncn nTi( WE8T S z ~ 1 f w i ~ n 1 Y' i Y W Y . f:.....:... <::~:::::<:::>::>::::::<:>:::::<::<>: eY 'ii:4:::•::i:::ti::~i:~:i::::titi:ii:::•:':: ......:::?4ii:•}:: C:i: ~ Siiii::ii:•:tiL:i ::•i:•: ' ? :•i i:,: •ii i:• ir: i;, ; x {:j; "ti;{:J'' • ••i:?•.;+! n}}} gjQii: }:4i:;:; :::}}:4;{:•:• s Y 14 i::?R?:i'f;~:$:: :iti•'.6:•; }:?;.'n!:\~Y••pii;•y 17ii~•+••.~_ ••t~1J:;:~:; _.4r.. ; yyz`:# as _ w i~ffi~: - _ r rw en _ w F.. +ill y;?' ~~i: .~i • - ~S Yr . •s s:•s : : • % - U ~V - . • line 8711?if `dill;>::%...:. r•: t~,',iF+:: v"r:.: f. ".'"`+is~-'t`:~'i~:~i::>::i:::.~.:::;~:•:;•>r:".r;•;•s::.. -MI[R. .q.:.;;...;..,;.^•.'^' • •,~L'•.N.•:~;t:;;:: a:•:::•. ~ :^•.^as h::•o-: ~ s:?.•o-:•ss: so-:. x... iii:: ( /l r J J1?:*jl.• M!.....~.. :.::::::..:::.~>.::::•:;:•r:•:~:<::aa:~ ..tIY•.. f. ;1rr'el~.~Yd' Y i~ r1~1r .......~Y...;.. wry r „ • _ _ h1U: 494 ~ - ~ N ' N~ 43 ~ 1-IIG~~IVAY . 44 N ~ 33 ~ 34 l ! fll.WmtYr nlwM(MVJ/•.Yir rl.r.•!r !.inf./n xf,ir, A'wNV•it•t NI { 1,1 Nxwbr [xrM/ drnuw Vw•rr• Y,~.fr nvm1• 11 ?r /I (Yti•en al Yl NvNr,.U I >.•l~lrn Rl•/i.~1 1Wrn lnrllr ~.x ~~/flv!••r M1Y LEQEND ILN .BOUNDARY .;:;.:~:;.:.:1 AREA TO BE REZONED TO C-3 ..........:3 - _ <z;i~:, , _ _ _ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 164 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of an ordinance amendment to create a new C-3 high density commercial zoning district and related requirements. Background: On March 2, 1987 the HRA and Planning Commission met with the City Council. to discuss a strategy for managing that portion of the ILN south of 77th_Street. The primary management tool discussed was a new zoning district identified as C-3 High Density Commercial. The development opportunity which the. city has in the ILN area is unique and must be properly managed to realize its potential and the established goals.. In general the goals include: .creating a favorable environment to foster the growth of appropriate businesses; minimizing or eliminating the conflicts between the residential and commercial areas; broadening the tax base; and providing for economic growth and employment opportunities. It will probably take 10 to 15 years to accomplish these goals in the area south of 77th Street. This conclusion is based on the market conditions and the LHN experience. In the LHN area, the redevelopment plan was approved in 1975. Construction on the first redevelopment parcel was initiated three years later in • 1978. Nine years following, in 1987, the last redevelopment project may be initiated on the Graham Avenue site. Most of this development took place in a very growth orientated market. The city is ready for redevelopment in the ILN, but the market for appropriate development is "soft". The market is not growth orientated. The challenge then is to protect the redevelopment potential of the area until the market is ready. Staff has .had discussions with developers and consultants. These discussions culminated on February 10, 1987 when the BRW consulting firm invited developers active in the greater Minneapolis market to a meeting which was also attended by Mayor Hamilton, HRA Chairman Harms and staff. (Attached is a summary of the discussion). The ordinance would require that new development meet minimum standards in terms of lot size and area and floor area ratios. Height restrictions to prevent shadows on single- family and two family dwellings would also be included. Four critical elements of the ordinance warrant comment: Subdivision 3, Subdivision 6, Subdivision 9 and Subdivision 11. Subdivision 3 addresses nonconforming uses. Almost all of the existing buildings within the district would become nonconforming. Under this proposed ordinance such buildings could be expanded by no more than ten percent within any two consecutive calendar years. The existing zoning ordinance in Section 3.29, Subdivision 2, addresses nonconforming uses. There are two significant restrictions in the existing ordinance which would affect these structures. First, if a structure was damaged to the extent that it lost more than 50~ of its value, it could ~y-~ not be rebuilt. Secondly, existing uses which are not permitted under the proposed ordinance would also become nonconforming. The nonconformin uses created would be those which rely on 9 • outdoor storage. Under the provisions of Section 3.29, nonconformin uses could not be expanded to occupy a greater land 9 area, Subdivision 6 re ulates floor area ratio. The FAR or floor area 9 ratio, establishes a relationship between the number of square feet of building and the square feet of lot area. This ordinance .proposes an FAR of at least 0.75. Thus, a lot of 100.,000 square feet would require a building of at least 75,000 square feet. To accommodate development with this .FAR, multistory buildings and parking structures would be necessary. This minimum FAR requirement is key to achieving the aforementioned goals for the area.. The following is a listing of the floor area ratios of a number of existing or proposed projects in Richfield: Pro,iect FAR 1. Lake Shore Drive Condominium 1.30 2. Richfield Towers 1.03 3. Richfield State Agency ,33 4. Market Plaza/Market Towers 1.35 5. Woodlake Point Condominium 2.70 ' 6. CDR Proposal 1.07 7. Landmark Centre Proposal 1.73 • A model to help depict this concept will be used at the City Council meeting. Subdivision 9 prohibits buildings of a height which would cast a shadow on land occupied by single-family and two-family dwellings between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. An exception could be made to this restriction, however, if a developer proposed a mitigating measure. An example of such a measure would be the purchase by the developer of a solar access easement from the impacted property owner. The parking standards contained in Subdivision 11 in this ordinance vary from the present requirements of the city. Restaurant parking requirements are slightly less than the existing ordinance. For the office space the proposal requires slightly more spaces than existing requirements for small office buildings and less for larger office buildings. The lower requirements are justified because the type of development required by this proposed ordinance through the FAR and other minimum standards would result in development with shared parking. Parking provided on a shared bases is utilized more efficiently and thus the number of spaces required is less. The parking standards in this proposed ordinance. are based on the experience of the consulting firm of BRW and the Institute of • Transportation Engineers. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance creating a C-3 zoning district and related requirements. It is further recommended that the City Council set June 22, 1987 as the date for the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance. Basis of Recommendation: The new zoning district ordinance and the rezoning of this property to the C-3 designation are critical to the successful management of the ILN area. The goals of broadening the tax i i s base rovidin for economic rowth and em to ment o ortun t e ~ P 9 9 P Y PP fostering a favorable environment for appropriate businesses and eliminating the conflicts between the residential and commercial areas, can best be achieved this way. The creation of this new zoning district is also consistent with the goals and policies of the city's Comprehensive Plan, The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area along I-494 should be developed as high density freeway strip type uses. The Comprehensive Plan also indicates that the freeway strip policy will be "To establish a design plan to coordinate development of the I-494 strip which encourages high density mixed land use." The proposed ordinance revision will help bring this about. The Planning Commission on an 8-0 vote with one abstention, recommended that the City Council approve the C-3 zoning district re ulations sub'ect to a chap a to require proof of compliance 9 J 9 with the solar access regulations. The attached ordinance contains the change recommended by the Planning Commission. Alternative Recommendations: 1. Reject the proposed zoning ordinance revision. 2. Modify portions of the proposed zoning ordinance revision. Decision Mode: 1. If a new zoning district is to be utilized as a management tool for a portion of the ILN, it must be in effect prior to September 22, 1987 when the building permit moratorium expires. 2. Two informational meetings have been held. On April 21, a meeting was held for business people from the area. A meeting was also held that day for residents of the area. A total of 32 people attended these meetings. 3. Staff has met with some of the existing property and/or business owners in this area who have indicated an interest in redevelopment in this area to review the future direction of the city in this portion of the ILN. 4. Mailed and published notice will be provided for the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager ' MEMORANDUM GATE: February 10, 1987 T0: City Council/HRA SUBJECT: Summary of ILN Redevelopment Project Workshop with 8RW Consultants, City Staff, Policy Makers and Developers LOCATION: BRW Office - 700 Third Street, Mpls. Peter Jarvis, a principle with 8RW opened the meeting by stating the purpose. Three primary q,uestio~s summarized the purpose. 1 Within the next 5 years, is the market for the area in question (I494 freeway, property frontage west of Tyndale Avenue) going to be as strong as was perceived when the planning study was initiated 2 years ago for office, retail and residential development, i.e., should the city continue to pursue dense development for the area? 2 How important is it for.the city to be involved in site assembly vs. developer being responsible for most of the site assembly and allowing the development market to define redevelopment? 3 How .might the city rezone the area to allow higher density development? (Identify the incentives which a developer may need), i.e., minimum FAR, minimum parcel size • Arijs Pakalns gave a synopsis of project history and reviewed the Redevelopment Plan. Peter Jarvis then asked each developer to respond to the identified questions with their thoughts, be they positive or negative.- As-you will note,-the responses were not always directly related to the questions but are still instructive. Comments from: Boyd Stofer, Senior vice President of United Properties The COR site on an A to D rating scale is a B- to C+ sits due to several factors: -Sits is land locked (it is not on a full diamond freeway interchange} -Area lacks a positive environmental image -l.yndale Avenue is the "front" door wi~ich needs to portray an v attracts a image. Ruality of I494 & l.yndale Avenue sets. ~ the mood for CDR site. (Structures west of Lyndale Avenue should be removed, at least the area should be cleared) -This location is probably third in the southwest market after the I494 area and west as far as Eden Prairie, (this includes an overbuilt office and hotel market) There are many sites in these areas which have better access and higher quality environment. The airport area and stadium site would Ce ranked after I494 and 35W -Timing for Richfield's development in this area may be 5 years away. Comments from: 8111 Schatzlein,-Vice President of Project Development with M.. A. Mortenson Company -Area has an identity problem it is not clearly past of a "neighborhood" -When looking at the site it is questionable as to how one would get there -To be suitable for residential development, the area would need 30 to 50 residential units/acre to be feasible Cut marketability of that many units would be questionable -Multifamily housing is currently overbuilt Comments from: Warren Beck, Managing Partner of Gabbert ~ Beck -site is not a discretionary retail store location -It's questionable as to whether or not a retail project could compete in the market place even if the market was right due to the neighborhood image problem. Also appropriate retail development may not be dense enough to support TIF. -The intersection of Tyndale and 494 should be developed first -buildings should not incorporate office, retail be housing into one structure -Mixed uses do not work well structurally & physically Comments from: Chuck OuFresne, Executive Vice President of Lincoln Properties: -With-the Mega Mall development on the east the market along 1494 will improve. and thus the land value in-this area will" increase -Office, and hotel markets are tight at this time BILL N0. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance .Code of the City of Richfield regarding zoning is amended by adding a new section, Section 3.33A, to read: 3.33A. USE REGULATIONS FOR "C-3" HIGH-DENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the "C-3" high-density commercial district is to encourage redevelopment of areas of the City which have high visibility and accessibility due to their proximity to major arterials but in which pre- . vious development patterns-have precluded. realization of full development poten- tial. It is the intent of .the City in establishing this district to encourage redevelopment of such areas in a manner which is consistent with the comprehen- sive plan and any redevelopment plan and which will promote development of a scale and intensity sufficient to maximize the potential of the area. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. In the "C-3" high-density commercial district, unless otherwise provided in this chapter, the following uses are permitted: (1) Retail or service businesses, but not including businesses which involve outdoor storage or sale of goods or materials unless the goods or materials are stored in an area which is covered by a building or a parking structure. (2) Office buildings. (3) Hotels/Motels (4) Residential buildings. (5) Parking structures. (6) Other businesses which are determined by the council to be of the general character as the uses listed in this section and which would not be obnoxious or detrimental to the area in which they would be located. Subd. 3. Nonconforming Uses. All provisions of Section 3.29 shall apply to this district except that: (1) A nonconforming structure located on a single parcel or multiple con- tiguous parcels of land under a single ownership, may be expanded within any con- ~secutive two calendar-year period by no more than ten percent (10%) of its gross • .floor area provided the expansion meets all other applicable city ordinance requirements. 1 y~ Subd. 4. Procedures. All proposals shall be reviewed under the site plan • approval process as set forth below: (1) Approval Required. Without first obtaining site plan approval it shall be unlawful to do any of the following within the "C-3" district: (a) construct a building; (b) move a building to any lot; (c) expand or change the use of a building or parcel of land or modify a building, accessory structure or site or land feature in any manner which results in a different intensity of use, including the requirement for addi- tional parking; (d) grade or take other actions to prepare a site for development, except in conformance with a permit or an approved plan; or (e) remove earth, soils, gravel or other natural material from or place the same on a site, except in conformance with a permit or an approved plan. Notwithstanding the above, site plan approval shall not be required for enlarge- ment of a building by 10 percent or less of its gross floor area or changes in the leasable space of amulti-tenant building, provided no variances are required and the modifications do not significantly intensify use of 'the site. (2) Application. Application for a site plan review shall be made to the city planner on forms provided by the city and shall be accompanied by the following: (a) a plat or map of the property; (b) evidence of ownership or an interest in the property; (c) a fee as specified in Appendix D; (d) project phasing and timing; (e) complete improvement documentation as specified under Sub- division 5, signed by a registered architect, civil-engineer, landscape archi- tect or other appropriate design professional; (f) proof of compliance with the solar access requirements as specified under Subdivision 9; and (g) such other information as may be required by the city. (3) Public Hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for a public hearing before the planning commission. The hearing will be held no less than 10 days after mailed notice is sent to the owners of proper- ties located .wholly or partially within 350 feet of the site. Within 45 days i after the close of the public hearing the planning commission shall submit its 2 - recommendations to the city council.. Following such notice and hearing as the city council deems appropriate, the city council shall make a decision regarding the application. Subd. 5. General Criteria and Standards. (1) General Standards. In~evaluating a site plan, the planning commission and city council shall consider its compliance with the following: (a) consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's develop- . ment guides, including the comprehensive plan and any redevelopment plans established for the district; (b) consistency with this ordinance; (c) preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent prac- ticable by minimizing tree and soil removal; (d) creation of a harmonious relationship of all improvements and open spaces with natural site features and with existing and future improvements having a visual relationship to the development; (e) creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: • (i) an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; (ii) the amount and location of open space and landscaping; (iii) materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatability of the same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and (iv) vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in .terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (f) romotion of ener conservation throu h desi n location orien- P 9y 9 9 > tation and elevation of structures, the use and location of glass in structures and the use of landscape materials and site grading; and (g) protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reason- able provision for sound and sight buffers, preservation of view, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 3 • (2) Architectural Standards. (a) It is not the intent of the city to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site plan. However, it is in the best interest of the city to promote high standards of. architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other qualified person acceptable to the city planner and shall show the following: (i) elevations of all sides of the building; (ii) type and color of exterior building materials; (iii) typical floor plans; (iv) dimensions of all structures; (v) the location of trash containers and of exterior electrical, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment; and (vi) utility plans including water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer. - (b) Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and un- finished metal, except naturally weathering metals such as copper, shall not be • permitted as exterior materials for buildings. This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all accessory buildings except those accessory buildings-not visible from any exterior property line. i (c) Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substan- tially renovated structures. ~ (3) Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared by a I' landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the city planner, drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equaling 50 feet and showing the following: (a) boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions; (b) locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads and other improvements; (c) proposed grading and drainage plan with at least two-foot contour intervals; (d) location, approximate size and common name of existing trees and shrubs; (e) a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting instructions; • 4 (f) planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant material; (g) locations and details of other landscape features including berms, fences and planter boxes; (h) details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be sodded or seeded; (i) location and details of irrigation systems; and (j) details and cross sections of all required screening. {4) Minimum Landscaping Requirements. i (a) All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and ground cover materials. All landscaped areas shall be irrigated by an underground mechanical irrigation system. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: MINIMUM LANDSCAPING VALUES • - Minimum Landscape Value (All Project Value construction costs including (Including building. construction, plant material and installation site preparation, and site except design fees and other improvements) administrative costs) Below $1,000,000 = 2% $1,000,001 - $2,000,000 = $20,000 + 1% of Project Value in excess of $1,000,000 $2,000,0001 - $3,000,000 = $30,000 + 0.75% of Project Value in excess of $2,000,000 $3,000,001 - $4,000,000 = $37,500 + 0.25% of Project Value in excess of $3,000,000 Over $4,000,000 = 1% In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site .prior to its development, the application of the standards in this subdivision may be adjusted by the city to allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment is consistent with the. intent of this ordinance. 5 ~9 (b) A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. (c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2-1/2 inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1-1/2 inches. (d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, patios or similar hard-surf ace materials shall be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city. (e) Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be composed-of one species. No required tree shall be any of the following: (i) a species of the genus Ulmus (elm), except those elms bred to be immune to Dutch Elm disease; (ii) box elder; (iii) female ginko; or (iv) a species of the genus Populus. (5) Screening. (a) The following shall be screened in accordance with the requirements of thi's -subdivision: (i) Off-street parking facilities containing six or more spaces shall be screened from public rights-of-way adjoining the property. (ii) Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and public rights-of -way. (iii) Trash storage facilities shall be screened from all lot lines and .public rights-of-way. . (iv) Goods or materials stored in an area which i.s covered by a building or parking structure shall be screened from all public rights-of-way. (v) All rooftop or ground-mounted mechanical equipment and exterior. trash storage areas shall be enclosed with materials compatible with the principal structure. (b) Required screening may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architec- aurally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons. 6 /l . (c) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No screening shall be located on any public right of way or within eight feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway. (d) Notwithstanding any other provisions in this ordinance to the contrary, screening required by this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Subd. 6. Minimum Floor-Area Ratio. The minimum floor-area ratio (FAR) for any lot shall be 0.75. For the purposes of this section "floor-area ratio" shall mean the sum total of the gross floor area of all the floors of all the buildings on the site divided by the total site area. Gross floor area shall include halls, lobbies, stairways, elevator shafts, enclosed porches and balco- nies and below grade enclosed floor areas used for. business or habitation. Not included as gross floor areas are open terraces, patios, atriums or balconies, parking structures, carports, garages, and breezeways.. Total site area shall mean the total area of the lot. Subd. 7. Minimum Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 150 feet. Subd. 8. Minimum Lot Area. The minimum lot area shall- be 1.5 acres. Subd. 9. Height Regulations. No building shall be so tall that a shadow is cast onto a single-Family or two-family land parcel between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on any day of the year. The city council may make exceptions to this requirement if the applicant can prove to the council's satisfaction that measures have been taken to mitigate this solar access requirement. Subd. 10. Setback Requirements. The following minimum requirements apply to all improvements hereafter erected or structurally altered in a "C-3" district, sub- ject to modifications and exceptions provided in Section 3.39 of this chapter. (1) Buildings and Parking Structures. (a) Building and parking structure setbacks along public streets shall be 40 feet. (b) A building or parking structure may extend to an interior lot line if that structure and the adjacent structure are designed with such placement in mind and a compatible relationship of uses, including circulation drives, open space, parking areas, and glazed facades, results. Otherwise, the setback from • the interior lot line must be 10 feet or equal to at least one-quarter the height of the building up to a maximum of 20 feet of setback. (2) Surface Parking Areas: (a) Surface parking areas shall be set back from any public street right-of-way 10 feet or a distance sufficient to allow the placement of a .landscaped screen or berm with an average height of three feet between the street right-of-way and the edge of the parking area. 7 . • (b) Surface parking areas shall be set back from any building 10 feet or a distance sufficient to allow the placement of landscaping designed to sof- ten the appearance of the building if such building is visible from any public right-of-way. (3) Vehicular Circulation Aisles:. Lnternal driveways shall be set back from interior lot lines or structures: l0 feet or a distance sufficient to allow the placement of landscaping intended to soften the appearance of the driveway from a public right-of-way or an adjacent building or parking ramp. Subd. 11. Parking Requirements. The following minimum off-street parking requirements shall be observed. (1) Retail businesses: One space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area. (Z) Restaurants and taverns: Without liquor license, one space for every three seats plus one for every employee on the maximum shift; with liquor license, one space for every two-and-one-half seats plus one for every employee on the maximum shift. (3) Office Buildings: - Gross Leasable Square Feet Required Number of Spaces per 1,000 • of Floor Area Square Feet of Floor Area ~to 50,000 5.0/1,000 S.F. 50,001 to 100,000 250 spaces + 4.5 spaces/1,000 S.F. over 50,000 S.F. 100,001 to 150,000 475 spaces + 4.0 spaces/1,000 S.F. over 100,000 S.F. over 150,001 675 spaces + 3.5 spaces/1,000 S.F. over 150,000 S.F. (4) Residential Buildings: One and one-half spaces per housing unit plus shared parking for visitors at the rate of one-half space per housing unit. (5) Hotels: One space per.sleepin.g room plus one space for every employee on the maximum shift. The city council may reduce these parking requirements if the applicant can prove to the council's satisfaction that fewer spaces are needed by benefit of shared utilization of such parking among two or more uses or other special characteristics of the particular activity. Subd. 12. Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. All landscape material and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced. within three months of notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city planner in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. 8 I 4 • • Subd. 13. Security Deposit Required. When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required by this ordinance a security depo- sit acceptable to the city shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least one and one-half times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements. The security deposit shall be conditioned upon reimbur- sement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements. The security deposit shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to one full growing season after the date of installation of the landscaping. In the event construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other appro- . vals, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the owner and the surety. The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require. such additional security as it deems appropriate.. Upon completion of the improvements and inspection and final approval by the city, the security deposit may be released. - - Subd. 14. Terms of Approval. • (1) A building permit shall be obtained and construction of the project shall begin no later than one year following the date on which site plan appro- . val is granted, unless a different time period is specified and approved by the city council or in a developer's agreement with the city. After the expiration of such period the approval shall be null and void unless the city council grants an extension of time or a building permit has been issued and substantial work performed. on the project. Upon request by the applicant, the city council may grant an extension of time for a site plan approval. (2) The city council may impose conditions in granting approval to site plans to promote the intent of this section or to protect adjacent properties. (3) Site plans shall be valid only~for the project for which approval is granted. Construction of all site elements shall be in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications approved by the city council. Compliance shall not be considered substantial if there i's: (a) more than a ten percent change in floor area in any one structure; (b) more than a ten percent change in the original approved separation of buildings; (c) more than a ten percent change in the original approved setbacks from property lines; (d) .more than a 5 percent change in the ground area covered by the • building; 9 y~~ ~ ._J (e) any decrease in the ratio of off-street parking and loading spac e to gross floor area in the building; or (f) any increase in the height of any structure. If the project is not in substantial compliance with the approved plans, then the project shall be subject to review as specified in Subdivision 4 of this section. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this day of 1987. .John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 10 ~ i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council fetter No. 16.3 Agenda May 22, 1987 Issue Statement: Continuation of first reading consideration of an ordinance to vacate a portion of an alley and rezoning the northerly portion of 6528 16th Avenue from 'R' single family residence to 'C-2' general.. commercial. Background: At the May 11,:1987 city council meeting, the city council continued the alley vacation and rezoning request by Hines & Sons, Inca and Mt. Calvary Church to the May 26, 1987 city council meeting. It has now been requested that first reading be continued again. Recommendation: Continue the first reading consideration of an ordinance amendment to vacate a portion of an alley and rezoning the northerly portion of 6528 16th Avenue to either the June 8 or the .June 22,.1987 city council meeting. Basis for Recommendation: 1. A request has been made to continue this matter to a future council meeting. Alternative Recommendation: T. Consider the first reading of the alley vacation and rezoning at the May 26, 1987 city council meeting. However, as a request has been made to continue this matter, representatives of the church will not be present at this meeting to answer questions council members may have on this item. Discussion/Decision Mode: At the May 26, 1987 city council meeting, the city council should continue the first reading until either the June 8 or June 22, 1987 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Jame D~~osser City Manager JDP/eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA Council Letter No.-162 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: Second reading and public hearing to consider an amendment to the city charter regarding filing dates for municipal elective office. .Background: Section 4.04 of the city charter regarding the filing of nomination petitions for municipal elective office provides that the petition should be filed with the city clerk not more than n date ix nor less than four weeks before the munici al electio s p provided in Section 4.02. These filing dates are not consistent with Minnesota Statute 205.13 which state that petitions should be filed not more than eight nor less than six weeks. The current charter provision. also conflicts with compliance to Minnesota Statute 2046.35, subd. 4 regarding the availability and preparation of .absentee ballots.. The statute states: "Absentee ballots; preparation, delivery. Ballots necessary to fill applications of absentee voters shall be prepared and delivered at least 30 days before the election to the officials who administer the provisions of Chapter 2038." Under the current charter filing provisions, the city cannot meet the 30 day requirement because candidates may still file up to 28 days prior to the election. The charter commission reviewed this matter on April 9, 1987, and have forwarded a Transmittal Order to the city council for consideration. This ordinance received first reading approval at the April 27, 1987 city council meeting, and the second reading and public hearing were scheduled for May 11, 1987. However, approval of a charter amendment requires unanimous approval of the city council. Since all members were not present at the May 11, 1987 meeting, the hearing was continued to May 26, 1987. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and approve the attached charter amendment changing the filing dates for municipal elective office to conform to Minnesota State Statutes. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The filing period in the Richfield City Charter is inconsistent with the filing period provided by state law. 2. Mayoral and City Council elections will be held every two years after 1988, thus coinciding with state and federal elections. 3. Inconsistent filing periods would cause the city to use a separate paper ballot for municipal elections which would defeat the purpose of standardization of voting equipment and procedures in Hennepin County, cause confusion for voters. • and election judges, cause the city to incur additional. printing and administrative costs, and be difficult to administer. 4. The. charter commission has recommended that the city council approve this charter amendment. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The city council could propose alternative filing dates different than those recommended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public. hearing and second reading of the charter amendment have been scheduled for the May 26, 1987 council meeting. If approved by the City Council, the charter amendment will become effective 30 days after publication. Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: The City Charter of the City of Richfield is hereby amended in the following respect: Section 4.04 thereof, entitled "Nominations by Petition" is hereby amended to read: Section 4.04. Nominations by Petition. All candidates for elective office provided for by this charter shall be nominated by petition. The name of any registered voter of the City shall be printed upon the ballot as a candidate for an office whenever a petition signed by at least ten registered voters has been filed with the City Clerk in a candidate's h•i~-behalf not more than s~~ eight nor less than f-e~~ six weeks. before the municipal primary election date provided in Section 4,02. No registered voter shall sign petitions for more candidates for any office than the number of persons to be chosen for that office at the election; should a signer k~e• do so, the signer's ~~g signature shall be void as to the petition or petitions last filed. Each petition presented shall be accompanied by a five dollar ($5.00) filing fee, John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CCC~~~ Council Letter No. 161 , Agenda May 26, 1987 • Issue Statement: Purchase of fireworks for Fourth of July Celebration. Background: The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the city council for consideration. Two firms in the metropolitan area sell fireworks and provide the staff to do the display. One of the firms, Americana Fireworks Display Company, provides a better .show in the opinion of the city staff and the Fourth of July Committee. This firm has been used for the Richfield Fourth of July Celebration fireworks for the past five years. In 1982 and 1983, the cost was $5,000. In 1984 and 1985, the cost was $5,400. In 1986, the cost was $5,970, and the display was about a 3096 reduction in time and content compared to the 1985 display. When obtaining a quotation for 1987, the vendor was asked to provide an approximation of the 1985 display. Americana fl as submitted a contract in the amount of $8,900 to provide fireworks for the Celebration in 1987. The city's budgeted share of the 1987 Celebration costs is $11,000 for fireworks, additional insurance coverage and other items such as entertainment, performance stages, lighting and sound systems. To date the city has tentatively committed approximately $6,100 for the 1987 Celebration. If this contract is approved, the total will be about $15,000. The Committee has discussed reimbursing the City for any expenses in excess of our budgeted amount. Should the Committee not wish to reimburse the City by $4,000, it is anticipated the fireworks display will still be purchased. However, some other portion of Fourth of July entertainment may be reduced. Recommendation: Authorize the city manager to execute a contract and payment in the estimated amount of $8,900 to Americana Fireworks Display Company for fireworks and staff to do the display for the 1987 Richfield Fourth of July Celebration. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City of Richfield supports the Richfield Fourth of July Celebration including, in part, the financial cost of the fireworks display. 2. Americana Fireworks Display Company has submitted a contract in the amount of $8,900. 3. There is $11,000 in the adopted 1987 adopted budget for the recreation division of the Community Services Department for the Celebration. The Committee, because of its interest in providing certain entertainment, has discussed a willingness to reimburse the City for expenses in excess of the budgeted amount for the 1987 Celebration. o~/ i Alternative Recommendation: 1. The city council could decide to eliminate its financial support of the community Fourth of July Celebration. 2. The size of the display could be reduced thereby reducing the cost to the community. 3. The city council could authorize an increase in the city's share of costs for the 1987 Richfield Fourth of July Celebration. Discussion/Decision Mode: To provide sufficient time to confirm the fireworks display for the 1987 Richfield Fourth of July Celebration, this item has been scheduled for the consent calendar on the May 26 agenda. Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City anager JDP/eja • CITY OR RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 160 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: Renewal of On-Sale and Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses for Sandy's Tavern, 6612 Penn Avenue, Background: The. application and certificate of liquor liability insurance coverage have been submitted for the renewal of the on and off sale 3.2 beer licenses for Sandy's Tavern. The required license fees have been paid. The organizational structure of Sandy's Tavern remains unchanged from last year. Ms. Debra J. Erickson continues to own and manage the establishment. Ms, Erickson has no known criminal record. For the past 12 months there were three public safety contacts with Sandy's, and only one was of a criminal nature. Recommendation: Approve the renewal of on-sale and off-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses for Sandy's Tavern, 6612 Penn Avenue. • ,Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city ordinance and state statute pertaining to 3.2 beer licensing. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. Alternatives: 1. The council could decide to continue the license renewal. 2. The council could decide to deny the renewal of the license requested. However, based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Discussion/Decision Mode: Requests for renewal of 3.2 beer licenses have been delayed due to existing workload. The request for Sandy's Tavern renewal has been scheduled for May 26, 1987. Respectfully submitted, . J s D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja CY ~ P CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 159 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: Renewal of On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue. Background: The application and certificate of liquor liability have been submitted for the renewal of the on-sale 3.2 beer license for Lariat Lane, and the required license fee has been paid. The organizational structure of Lariat Lanes remains unchanged from Last year with the exception of the manager. Mr. Lloyd Freden continues to own the restaurant, while William Kingsbury is the new manager. .Neither of these individuals have any. known criminal record. For the past 12 months there were two public safety contacts with Lariat Lanes. Only one of the two was of a criminal nature. Recommendation: Renew the on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue. Basis of Recommendation; 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city ordinance and state statutes pertaining to 3.2 beer licensing. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. Alternatives: 1. The council could decide to continue the license renewal. 2. The council could decide to deny the renewal of the license requested. However, based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the license requested. Decision Mode: Requests for renewals of on-sale 3.2 beer licenses have been delayed due to existing workload. The request for Lariat Lanes renewal of their 3.2 beer license has now been scheduled for May 26, 1987. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager _ J v~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 158 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: Renewal of On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for Kinhdo Restaurant, 6345 Penn Avenue. Background: The application and certificate of liquor liability insurance coverage have been submitted for the renewal of the on-sale 3.2 beer license for Kinhdo Restaurant. The required license fee has been paid. The organizational structure of Kinhdo Restaurant remains unchanged from last year with the exception of the manager. Mr. Hugo Ngo continues to own the restaurant, while Jennifer Bui is the new manager. Neither of these individuals have any known criminal record. For the past 12-there were nine public safety contacts with Kinhdo Restaurant, of which five were of a criminal nature. Recommendation: Renew the on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Kinhdo Restaurant. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city ordinance and state statute pertaining to 3.2 beer licensing. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. Alternatives: 1. The council could decide to continue the license renewal. 2, The council could decide to deny the renewal of the license requested; however, based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses. Decision Mode: Requests for renewals of on-sale 3.2 beer licenses .have been delayed due to existing workload. The request for the renewal of their 3.2 beer license has now been scheduled for May 26, 1987. Respectfully submitted, • Ja D. Prosser Ci y Manager JDP/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 157 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: Renewal of On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for Kenny's Restaurant, 6700 Penn Avenue. Background: The application and certificate of liquor liability insurance coverage have been submitted for renewal of the on-sale 3,2 beer license for Kenny's Restaurant. The required license fee has been paid. The organizational structure of Kenny's remains unchanged from last year with the exception of the manager. Mr. Kenneth Youngberg continues to own the restaurant, while Mark A. King is the new manager. Neither of these individuals have any known criminal record. There were four public safety contacts within the last 12 months with Kenny's, and only one was of a criminal nature. Recommendation: Approve the renewal of the on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Kenny's Restaurant, 6700 Penn Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city ordinance and state statute pertaining to 3.2 beer licensing. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. Alternatives: 1. The council could decide to continue the license renewal. 2. The council could decide to deny the renewal of the license requested. However, based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the license requested. Discussion/Decision Mode: Requests for renewals of on-sale 3.2 beer licenses have been delayed due to existing workload. The renewal of Kenny's Restaurant 3.2 beer license has now been scheduled for May 26, 1987. R tfully submitted, es D. Prosser ity Manager JDP/eja l~ ~~i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 156 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: Renewal of On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for Godfather's Pizza., 2 West 66th Street, Background: The application and the certificate of liquor liability insurance coverage has been submitted for renewal of the on-sale 3.2 beer F ,license for Godfather's Pizza.. The required license fee has been paid. The organizational structure of Godfather's Pizza remains unchanged from last year. Mr. Gerald Baer continues to serve as manager of the establishment, and has no known criminal record. Due to technical difficulties with the new computer system, the, Public Safety Department has been unable to determine the exact number of contacts with Godfather's Pizza. However, in checking the manual files there is no record of any serious. public safety contact with Godfather's Pizza in 1986. Recommendation: Approve the on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Godfather's Pizza, 2 West 66th Street • Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city ordinance and the state statute pertaining to 3.2 beer licensing. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. Alternatives: 1. The council could decide to continue the license renewal. 2. The council could decide to deny the renewal of the license requested. However, based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the license requested. Decision Mode: Requests for renewals of on-sale 3.2 beer licenses have been delayed due to existing workload. The request for the Godfather's Pizza renewal of on-sale 3.2 beer license has now been scheduled for May 26, 1987. Respectfully submitted, Ja a D. Prosser City Manager ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 155 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: Renewal of On-Sale and Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses for the Frenchman's Inc., 1400 East 66th Street. Background: The application and certificate of liquor liability insurance coverage have been submitted for the renewal of the on and off sale 3.2 beer licenses for The Frenchman's Inc. The required license fees have been paid. The corporate structure of The Frenchman's remains unchanged from last year. Mr. William Snyder continues to own and manage the establishment. Mr. Snyder has no known criminal record. For the past 12 months there were 12 public safety contacts with The Frenchman's. Of these 12 contacts, only three were of a criminal nature and none of these involved "bar-type" contacts. Recommendation: Approve the renewal of on-sale and off-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses for the Frenchman's Inc., 1400 E. 66th St. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city ordinance and state statute pertaining to 3.2 beer licensing. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. Alternatives: 1. The council could decide to continue the license renewal. 2. The council could decide to deny the renewal of the license requested. However, based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Discussion/Decision Mode: Requests for renewals of 3.2 beer licenses have been delayed due to existing workload. The request for The Frenchman's, Inc., renewal of their on-sale, off-sale beer licenses has been scheduled for May 26, 1987. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 154 Agenda May 26, 1987 i Issue Statement: Renewal of On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for Airport Bowl, 7711-14th Avenue. Background: The application and certificate of liquor liability insurance coverage have been submitted for the renewal of the on-sale 3.2 beer license for Airport Bowl.. The required license fee has been paid. The organizational structure of Airport Bowl remains unchanged from last year. The partnership is shared by Doris and David White and George Riepe. Doris White also manages the j establishment. None of these individuals have any known criminal record. For the past 12 months there were 10 public safety contacts with Airport Bowl. Of these 10 contacts, five were of a criminal nature, two of which involved "bar-type" calls. Recommendation: Approve the renewal of the on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Airport Bowl. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city ordinance and state statutes relating to 3.2 beer licensing. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. Alternatives: 1. The council could decide to continue the license renewal. 2. The council could decide to deny the renewal of the license requested. However, based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the license requested. Discussion/Decision Mode: Requests for renewal of on-sale 3.2 beer licenses have been delayed due to existing workload. The request for the Airport Bowl's renewal of on-sale 3.2 beer license has now been scheduled for May 26, 1987. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 153 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: 1987 Master Purchase Order for asphalt patching materials. Background: The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the city council for consideration. . Each year the city sealcoats approximately 1/7 of the city streets. Prior to this work, city crews cut and patch cracks in the area to be sealcoated. A Hiway Mix is used for this process. City parking lots and city streets, where street cuts have been made for items such. as water and sewer utilities, are also patched throughout the year. For this work a Driveway Mix is •used. With both the Hiway Mix and the Driveway Mix, a liquid, known as 551 Tack, is applied to the area prior to patching. It is estimated 300 ton of Hiway Mix, 100 ton of Driveway Mix and 200 gallons of 551 Tack will be used during 1987. Funding for these materials is provided in the adopted street maintenance budget. • Two quotations were submitted: Driveway Mix Hiway Mix Tack Commercial Asphalt $17.00%ton~ $16.98/ton $4.00/gallon Plehal Blacktop $15.10/ton $14.60/ton .$4.00/gallon Because these are not delivered items, it is also necessary to consider the labor and equipment costs to pick up the materials. Commercial Asphalt is approximately 16 miles round trip while Plehal Blacktop is approximately 46 miles round trip. It is estimated an additional hour would be needed for each trip to Plehal Blacktop. Equipment costs about $9 per hour and labor costs about $12 per hour for a total of approximately $21 per hour. Averaging 6 ton per trip, it would take an estimated 100 additional hours to secure the 600 ton of materials from Plehal Blacktop. This would increase the cost of securing materials from Plehal 67.acktop by an estimated $2,100. Therefore, the total estimated cost of $7,594 for materials from Commercial Asphalt would be less than the $6,690 total estimated cost of materials from Plehal Blacktop. Recommendation: Authorize a 1987 Master Purchase Order for an estimated 100 ton of Driveway Mix at $17.00 per ton, an estimated 300 ton of 2341 Hiway Mix at $16.98 per ton and an estimated 200 gallons of 551 Tack at $4.00 per gallon with Commercial Asphalt Company for a total estimated purchase price. of $7,594. i~ Basis of Recommendation: 1. Asphalt patching materials are necessary for 1987 roadway maintenance and re airs. P 2. Althou h the unit rices uoted b Commercial As halt Com an 9 P q Y P P Y is higher than the unit prices quoted by Plehal Blacktop, the distance and related cost for obtaining the materials is such that materials from Commercial Asphalt would cost less. 3. Funding for these materials is included in the adopted 1987 street maintenance budget. Alternative Recommendation: The city council may ask staff to obtain quotations which would include delivery charges. However, it is the opinion of staff the cost of city manpower and equipment is less than would be charged by the vendor supplying the materials and the city has more .flexibility in obtaining the materials as needed by doing its own pick up of materials. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled for the May 26 city council agenda. Respectfully submitted, J s D. Prosser Ci y Manager JDP/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 152 Agenda May 26, 1987 it Issue Statement:. A royal of Chan a Order No. 1 for Cit Pro'ect No. 832 1987 PP 9 Y J Alley Paving and Appurtenant Work Background: It was recently discovered that the quantity calculations for the 1987 alley paving project are in error, and that an additional 2,421 square yards of 6" concrete at $15.16. per square yard is needed for the project. All bidders., including the contractor Standard Sidewalk, Inc.,. bid a per square foot cost for the project. With the addition of Change Order ~~1, the price per square yard will remain the same, the contractor will simply install more square yards of concrete than approved in the original contract. Recommendation: Approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $37,312.10 to Standard Sidewalk, Inc. for 2,421 additional square yards of concrete. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The change order is needed due to miscalculation of quantities. 2. The unit price per square foot remains the same, the contractor needs to install more square yards of concrete to complete the alley paving project. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council may choose to reject this change order, However, the contractor would not then be able to complete the alley paving project. Discussion/Decision Mode: i This item has been placed on the May 26, 1987 agenda for council consideration so that payment to the contractor may be made. Respectfull submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP/eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 151 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: Approval of an amended offstreet parking permit for the property at 6341- Penn Avenue. Background: In 1969 the City Council approved an offstreet parking permit covering the properties at 6341 and 6345 Penn Avenue. At that particular time there were two restaurants located on the site which shared parking and access from Penn Avenue and Oliver Avenue. The properties were under the same ownership. The ownership of the property at 6341 Penn Avenue is no longer under the same ownership as the property at 6345 Penn Avenue (Kinhdo Viet Nam Restaurant). S.E.J. Corporation has applied for an amended offstreet parking permit to allow them to eliminate 6 existing parking stalls on the property at 6341 Penn Avenue. S.E.J. Corporation would like to convert the existing structure into a Town and Country Fireplace Center. They wish to construct a detached storage building to the rear of the structure which would eliminate 6 existing parking stalls along the north edge of the property. The storage building would be one story and would be 13 feet wide by 54 feet long. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council pass the attached resolution approving the revised layout, which includes the elimination of 6 parking spaces. Basis of Recommendation: The basis of recommendation is that there will be a sufficient number of parking stalls maintained on the site to handle the proposed use. The layout of the area will continue to meet city offstreet parking guidelines. Alternative Recommendation: The alternative recommendation would be to deny the offstreet parking layout which would prohibit the construction of the proposed storage building. Decision Mode: This matter is scheduled fo.r council consideration on May 26, 1987. No published or written notice is required. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City anager RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING OFFSTREET PARKING PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION 87-6 S.E.J. CORPORATION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the offstreet parking as contained in offstreet parking application No. 87-6 is hereby approved. 2. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of i said offstreet parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the offstreet parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of May, 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas Ferber, City Clerk i D PLAN R~JPOS~ P N ~ ~ SCAL E~ l 40 ~ I s PROP. SIG1V 2ss. i4 - I T N ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I I I '-qce • ~ ~ f~ _ _ - - 7 0_ his'; t; F--- M 6341 o~~.a a ~ I IN1 1 I( I I i I! W N a~ PROP. S/GN ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I I I I ~ ~ S~ ~ ~ I_~ ~ l l I ( a i ..52.75 Vie.. Z ~ 72' 6345 `o M - N W - - _ F N ( I I ( + ~~e_e s..d.!.e e. a. n..-_.a~° ~}p a':°:'C;':l'~•a I y...... - . 266.13 ( y. _ - _ J Ii i~ . STORAGE BUILDING N R V~D PLA APP O N PROP. SIGN I 266.14 . t ~ L o . + ~ ~ f N I I I ~I I I I I I I I I R I ::a;'- 11 I N I I I. I I I I 1 I 4 t 72, M 6341. ~ - ~ cn ;9 v . , W et ~ :d ?o a"l'c•i: tin•6??a:.F::e'a _ a ~N I lol I I ~ I t l i l ~ w m~ ,--PROP. S/GN ° N M~ ~ L i::~IIIlIlI 1 ~ Ia ~ }o::~: .52.75e N 7` ~ b.e.Ol'. e' ~ . _ ••P ~ - ~e Z I -72 ~ 6345 0'~ "N' .N W ~^-20~ r z 24' t- 20-~ N .'Y,- I 11 I I I-- ~ I I - 1 ~ ~ M I N I I I I I I I I I p e;: ~n ..-s ~,~.'...w t. °-ii'~ d.'..r~'~:.a; CC"•..d': ~~.t:.a•. ~'.a .."e•~ •~6' .~o _ b:. e.:n.'~ i~v'Ci'._..o. a•.e_ :O _ 266.13 ~ , q . . OFF-STREET PARKING N0. 69-5 OWNER AvD ADDRESS: ` Finnemann Enterprises, Inc. 2954 No. Rice Street, St. Paul, Minn. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 6900, Plat 44828. The South l0 rods of the West of the Northwest ~ of the Northwest 4. of~8:28, T.28, R• 24 except that portion thereof taken for roads sub3ect to restrictions and easements of record: if any. 6341 and 6345 Penn Avenue South USE: Chicken Shop and Steak House LOT AREA: 43,726 Sq. Ft. N0. PARKING SPACES: 70 DATE OF APPLICATION: April 1, 1969 .COUNCIL ACTION: April 14, 1969, F. M. 4/1/69 ~i • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 150 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: Request for permits for illuminated sign at Subway, 10 East 66th .Street; Phillips 66, 1120 East 78th Street, and Champp's, 790 West 66th Street. Background: City ordinance provides that the city council must approve all permits for illuminated signs. 1. Subway requests a permit to hang a 28" x 36" interior red, blue and green neon sign in their window.. 2. Phillips 66 requests. permits'to erect six illuminated signs: Two wall .signs reading "Car Wash" and "Food Plaza", each with 15" illuminated letters; two l' x 3' directional signs; and .two Phillips logos, 2'8" x 2'8", to be located on the wall. 3. Champp's requests a permit to erect a 14' x 42" red illuminated wall sign on the building. Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council approve the permits for these illuminated signs. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Inspection Division and the Planning Division have approved the signs. 2. The .signs conform to all applicable city ordinances. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not approve the permits. However, the city has no .alternative design criteria to suggest for substitutes for these signs.- . Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the consent calendar portion of the May 25, 1987 council agenda for consideration. The businesses are requesting action to complete their sign placement. Respectfully submitted, J s D. Prosser C y Manager r ~~~i'.:iOVE ~ ~ DEN: ~ ~ : r1PPROtiE I ~ DE~1Y~ ~ : City Manager ~ Inspecto • •Date Date ~ ~ APPROVE DENY ~,~2.. ~ APPROVE DENY • Planning De artment City Council Date ~~lr/y~~' ~ Date ~ Route to above for 'special a~iproval per code General Sirzns ~ i ! APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield,. Minnesota Date 7 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes ~ x No Fee . Address of Sign ~ ~j~p Proprietor Name ~DBA Sign Erector~~ ~ p ~ n ~~y(~~Address ~''~~y~~~„ ape of Sign • _ egt~n ~ .Weather Cover Lit~htin~ Wall Si_gle Face _ Clear Lexon ~ Constant Projecting Double Face _ Frosted Lexon _ Flashing Ground Multi-Faced ~ Plastic Covered _ Revolving Roof Aerial/Blimp Shaded Traveling Pedestal _ Searchlight ~ Neon _ Zip Lite Changeable I Banner/Pennants _ Other Other(Explain) Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors _ i Trailer ~ T ~ A ~ Post ~ ~ _ ~f Illuminated - Yes No Watts~~0 /.ti'~~%~'•'- L~~ Electrical Contractor ~ p G ~Y dJ/1,~~ ~?,c l Address 7~C~/? l~__.~/~~. Phone ~Sv ~4 0 Property Owner or his Agent Signature ~ Phone Estimated Cost ~1 ~J 7 ~U Sign Width a~ Height 36 Total Square Feet 7 Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto. of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring.or fastening details .:nd a copy Cf t::c StreSS Sileei.S, C3j•,^.;Ila~iOIIS, COlor of Slgn StruCt.:urt?. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Qq~ Will the sign ( structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, und, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? ~Q Applicant s Signature and Title with Firm /1 ) Y~~.~rT 0 Date Y - ~ - ~ 7 Phone Number • Lkt • 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 ~ GROUND SIGN PEDEWID HSZGN ~ ~ PROJE WIDTHSIGN ' WIDTI? • ~ ~ ~ ( LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND . ~ ~ , - Indicate Distance From The Building 1l~ ~CRniTNi? ~ - ROOF SIGN Indicate legend on the WALL SIGN the reverse side in K *tIDTH ~ WIDTH the space below J1 LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND `"Sa~ s ~~s oPE/VJ r-- 1~ j GROUND ,~J ROOF , i. i Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the saga is from property lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. DEFINITION: Minor Signs Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board • ~ INDICATE - NORTH LILT/8/83 ~ ~ ~ S_U.~3~~~ L.. ~ 5., ~R~EN _ ~ 3 ~ 7' QRDER ~ 8. ~ ' ~ g.~ \ ppYr ~AAME v~ItN - ~1..._----_ inc. • Sertv.'~s A1~-6cite S~9n y APP~tOVE ~ DENY n : APPROVE DENY _ City Manager Inspector Da Date APPROVE ?~~ENY : ~ APPROVE DENY Plante uepartment ~ City Council. Date _ Date ~oute to above for special approval per code General Sims APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, .Minnesota Date Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee / ~ • ° ° I Address of Sign //7(~ ~~a~T `~7 ~ ~r Proprietor Name.( ~ DBA a Sign Erector °Si ~t,~• p~ ~TF-•,~s Address X775 /~,qiy~~~- /~>F' Type of Sign Design ~ Weather Cover Lighting Wall jS-ingle Face _ Clear Lexon ~ Constant rojecting v Double Face _ vF~'osted Lexon Flashing Ground ~ Multi-Faced Plastic Covered Revolving Roof I Aerial/Blimp _ Shaded Traveling ' Pedestal Searchlight _ Neon Zip Lite Changeable Banner/Pennants _ Other _ ~ Other(Explain) Temporary Portable Frame:. Si n Colorsi ~~;y~ Trailer _ ~ T ~ A ~ Post ~ - g ~ ~ rh . ~"v ~ If Illuminated ~ Yes N Watts ~/.~~'C'7/G7/).~~-S ~ectrical Contractor.. _v ~ Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost Sign Width / ' Height ~ ~ Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with signif icant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specif ications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. .Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? C cit:~ Applicant's $~gnature and Title with Firm Phone number CJ~~j Date 7/,Q/,~ j'7/-.2 / ~t 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 .APPROVE ' DENY I : APPROVE I DENYI ~ ~~i City Manager Inspector Da ~ ~ .Date i APPROVE ~ ~ ~ENY~ APPROVE ~ ~ DENY Pla~~iig Department City Council Date Date Route to above for special approval ver code General Suns APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, .Minnesota ` Date Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign //,2n ; 7,~r~'~r Proprietor Nam~`j'i~~~' DBA I~ Sign Erector ~j6~C,~j~~~ Address 77 7 ~j-' ,~',qf-, ~j ~ _ ~ Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting Wall ~ Single Face _ Clear Lexon Constant Projecting _ Double Face _ ,Frosted Lexon Flashing Ground I Multi-Faced Plastic Covered Revolving Roof _ Aerial/Blimp _ Shaded Traveling Pedestal Searchlight _ Neon Zip Lite Changeable ~ Banner/Pennants _ Other Other (Explain) j Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors~~ /~/~r-,~ y,~f, i Trailer T ~ A ~ Post If Illuminated - Yes No Watts ~ ,~%6%~$- ~t.ectrical Contractor ~ ~ Address Phone J., . Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost Oo'O Sign Widths ~ O'~tieight .2 Total Square Feet _ Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with signif icant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specif ications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by-persons destined for or passing the subject premises? `>.r,/ Applicant's &ignature and Title with Firm Date ~~,~~_¢'j Phone number 37/- 9 9 S ~t 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivezt Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 APPROVE ~ DENY APPROVE ~ ~ENY • City Manager Inspector Date Date ) APPROVE ( ' ' ~ENY~ ~ : , • X~ / APPROVE ~ ~ DENY Pla~.ng Department City Council Date Date Route to above for special approval per code General Sims APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, .Minnesota Date -5'~,Q' Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign fA~sT 7~~ , ~7T Proprietor Nam~~j,~/~ DBA Sign Erector -~j~-~-;~~,~~TF.~'S Address'7-~~S ~J~~i~ Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting Wall ~ Single Face _ Clear Lexon Constant Projecting Double Face Frosted Lexon Flashing ,Ground _ Multi-Faced Plastic Covered Revolving Roof Aerial/Blimp _ Shaded Traveling Pedestal ~ Searchlight _ Neon Zip Lite Changeable Banner/Pennants _ Other Other (Explain) Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors i~,oi-% /-~/,y~•,E- _ y, Trailer ~ T ~ A ~ Post ~ If Illuminated Ye ~ No .Watts 0/7~ ~/G" - ~~~oo~'vJ~~z/~ ~ectrical Contracto~~~i•~,~~-~-,~?_ ~ Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost OOU Sign Width Height Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Applicant`s Sign~[ture and Title with Firm Date jj~,,~/~ Phone Number S"}/-,Z99~ ' / Z'~t 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR .SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson./Building Official - 866-5061 ' ~ APPROVE I I DENYI . ~ APPROVE ~ ~ DENY :l " lf~ ~ / City Manager Insp"ector Date Date APPROVE f ' ~ENY~ APPROVE I ~ DENY PTan~i"g Department City Council Date Date Route to above for special approval per .code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, .Minnesota Date ,'j lR Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of/ Sign 2 ~ ~a,~ i . 7i~r~; Proprietor Name~~,/~;~.~ DBA ~ Sign Erector ~i~'/7C/~i~~Tf'.4~ Address ~777~ ~J~~,i-, ,~j Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting Wall ~ Single Face _ -Clear Lexon Constant Projecting _ Double Face ,Frosted Lexon ~ Flashing Ground Multi-Faced " ? Plastic Covered Revolving Roof _ Aerial/Blimp _ Shaded _ Traveling Pedestal Searchlight Neon ~ Zip Lite Changeable Banner/Pennants Other Other(Explain) Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors i Trailer T ~ A ~ Post ~ ~.~~o~ J -f ~,a y, /ti , z- If Illuminated Ye No O?7~ 5 /G/7 - ~i~~~ Z-v~~%~ Watts i ~ectrical Contractor ,'j ~~r~,p~..,~j-f,p.~j Address Phone Proparty Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost Sign Width Height Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with signif icant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? 7,~~ Applicant~~/Signature and Title with Firm Date ~~/~J Phone number S7/' 2 99 ~ ~ t 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE .SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 ~ . . p j ~ ~ ~.r,,. rove u Den A o Denv ~c rve PP Y pp ' ,~~8~ City Manager ~lnspector Date Date rove ~ Deny ~ ~.,Q(, Approve ~ Deny Planning De t. City Council Date S7 Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs i APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT (2 parts) City of Richfield, Minnesot a Date , ~-~j-] Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No ? Fee Address of Sign //~Q Proprietor Name ~ GL ~ DRA .Sign Erector ,~j./ Address 7 7,r ~ ~ ~f Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting ~~Wall L Single face Clear Lexon ~onstant ~.\~--G~} Projecting _ Double face ~ hosted Lexon Flashing 7 S~ Ground _ Multi-faced Plastic Covered Revolving Roof Aerial/Blimp Shaded I-i Traveling Pedestal _ Searchlight _ Neon ! ~ Zip-lite _ Changeable _ Banner/Pennants Other ~ (Expl.) Temporary _ Portable Frame: _ Sign Colors ~ , Trailer _ T1=? A. L Post ~ _ If Illuminated No Watts Electrical Contractor_~ Address „ Phone ~ / Property. Owner or his Agent Signatur / ~ Phone Estimated Cost ~~1~~ Sign Width'~Hei, t Total Sq. Ft. Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of maior signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate to solely the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises?~ Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for a access ersons estined for or passing the subject premises? :.icant's Signature Title with Firm Date ,y~_~f-~7 Phone Vumber ~l 1, DPS l0I 10/ 1/?9 Ground Sign Pedestal Sign Prajecting Sign ~k Width ~ j ~s Width Width ,i ~ Legend Legend Legend Indicate distance - from the building Ground Wall Sign ~ Roof Sign Indicate legend on , ~ Width ~ Width the reverse side inf. Sr the sTarP t+Pt ~w O Legend Legend Legend ©o.~ ~ ,z.~ ~~z~ ~~5~ i Ground ~ Roof y u i `f" Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property .lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. DEFINITION: Minor Signs Single or double faced sign less then 32 sq. ft. I on a common board. dPS 101 Indicate - IOj I,•'79 ~ No?th Sheet 2 of 2 Sheets v ~ ~ ft/~' ~ ' /vr it d.ee~-~. ~ ~1/f'~ 5 I-~ d¢ tvu.P~ ~ ,r r ~o~~ ~ rs ~,X 3 f t"" z. ~I~ t i ~ . . `•ya ~ X43 ~ r d-.h~ 5 u4 ~~r~ ate; t i ~ y t9' 9~ ti' i~L. ~ ~ y a X i4 y'~yil ~t ~1k ~ e ~ ~ i. ~`d'~ 9 _ - f. ,+C~, s .t F~~~~ , y-r.j;. ~ . , ~ J vx,NR f- _nl ~ ~ - _ _v~ l~ •1. . ii7erchandising with signs can be very effective if the signs are pro- fessianally prepared, strategically ~ placed and used in moderation. ; every effort should be made fo „ vey~ protect the integrity and value of 1 the Phillips 66 trademark and to f~. y follow local zoning regulations . for si~nage. s ~ _ _ ~ i 1 PN11ttPS i L~~g m~ urai , . - ~ S~-,wt_ ' j ,,~r ~ h PNNI{PS' 1 .1 1 ~ .y ~ - . C ~r/ ~ it f a! and g Uniforms of Mast rate. iiips 66 , aat to, _ ~ ' l nal : ;io ' n ~ Llll~: ~spoke~` ~i GQu~ a • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 149 A ends Ma 26, 1987 9 Y Issue Statement: .Presentation by the Mayor. and the City Council of a Minnesota Safety Council Meritorious Achievement Award plaque to the Police Division. Background: The Minnesota Safety Council sponsors an Annual Safety Seminar at .which time awards are presented to communities in recognition of outstanding accident prevention performance in traffic safety. ~ These awards are determined on the basis of examining the accident incident rate., accident injury rate, and fatality rate according to the community population rate over a three year period. The City of Richfield is the recipient of the li Meritorious Achievement Award for 1986. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council formally recognize the outstanding prevention performance in traffic safety initiated by the Police Division over the past three years that has afforded Richfield the opportunity of being chosen for this award. Basis of Recommendation: It is appropriate that the Police Division be honored for such a notable achievement. Alternate Recommendation: The City Council could choose an alternative method of expressing their appreciation to the Police Division for their contribution to the safety of the community. ' Decision/Discussion Mode: A Meritorious Achievement Award plaque from the Minnesota Safety Council is available for presentation by the Mayor and the City Council at their regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 1987. Lt. Bill Suech will be present at the council meeting to accept ~ the plaque on behalf of the police division. Respectfully submitted, J s D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 148 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation to Steve Lepinski, former Executive Director of the Storefront/Your Action, Inc. Background: Steve Lepinski recently resigned as Executive Director of the Storefront/Youth Action, Inc., a position he held for over 12 years. During that time he provided outstanding leadership to this organization. Because of his many years of service to the Richfield community, a certificate of appreciation plaque has been prepared to be presented by the Richfield City Council. Recommendation: Present the Certificate of Appreciation to Steve Lepinski at the May 26, 1987 city council meeting. Basis for Recommendation: ~1. Mr. Lepinski has served the Storefront/Youth Action, Inc. with distinction and outstanding leadership. 2. Under Mr. Lepinski's leadership, the programs of the • Storefront/Youth Action, Inc. have benefited Richfield youth for many years. Alternative Recommendation: ~1. Provide recognition to Mr. Lepinski in some other manner. Discussion/Decision Mode: Mr. Lepinski will be present at the May 26, 1987 city council meeting to accept this certificate. Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja • i • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 147 Agenda May 26, 1987 Issue Statement: Presentation of award naming the City of Richfield a "Tree City U.S.A." Background: Earlier this year, Richfield applied for the Tree City U.S.A. designation through the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The DNR then made their recommendation to the National Arbor Day Foundation, a Nebraska based organization dedicated to encouraging tree care and tree planting programs across the country. Richfield qualified for the nationwide program by meeting the following standards: -a city tree ordinance adopted in 1984 -the Community Services Commission serves as the legal tree governing body -the city has a comprehensive urban forestry program -the city has an official observance of Arbor Day Recommendation: • Accept the award designating Richfield as Tree City U.S.A. Basis for Recommendation: 1. This award is national recognition of the city's efforts to control Dutch Elm disease and replant city parks and boulevards with new trees Alternative Recommendation: 1. Accept this award at some other time Discussion/Decision Mode: Mr. Tom Polacek, Metro Forestry Supervisor with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, will present Council Members with a Tree City U.S.A. flag and plaque at the May 26, 1987 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja