The URL can be used to link to this page

05-11-87 agenda-1;e� . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 146 Agenda. May 11, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of a Resolution proposing an Amendment to the City Charter regarding purchases and contracts. Background: Sections 6.05 and 6.06 of the City Charter address the subject of purchases and contracts. Under the current provisions of 6.05, Purchases and Contracts, the City Manager may make or let a contract for the purchase of merchandise, materials and equipment or any kind of construction work, when the amount of such contract does not exceed $10,000. If such contract exceeds $10,000, but is less than $15,000, it may be let by the City Manager after first obtaining approval of the City Council. Section 6.05 goes on to say that all other purchases shall be made and all other contracts shall be let by the Council. Section 6.06 entitled: Contracts: How Let indicates that every contract for the sale or purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment or the rental thereof, or for construction, alteration, repair, maintenance of real or personal property where the amount involved is more than $15,000, shall be let only by the City Council, upon recommendation of the City Manager to the lowest responsible bidder, unless the Council shall otherwise provide by Resolution, adopted by a majority of the council and published once in the official legal newspaper of the City. There are several important considerations which are not now covered in Sections 6.05 and 6.06 which need to be addressed in the immediate future. First, Section 6.05 of the City Charter does not reference rental or lease agreements, purchase of service agreements, or the sale of City material, equipment or supplies. Additionally, the final statement in Section 6.05 makes it confusing as to what kind of routine purchases can be approved administratively by the City Manager, and which must be approved by the City Council. Under Minnesota Statute 471.345, the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law, rental or lease of merchandise, materials or equipment, or the sales thereof, is covered, thus it would be helpful to have the City Charter language conform to the Uniform Minicipal Contracting Law Statute. In addition, while the State Uniform Municipal Contracting Law does not address purchase of services, it is recommended that within the City Charter, contracts for purchase of services be specifically included, so as to clarify exactly where the authority for executing such contracts would lie. Along with the City Charter language, the City also has in place Resolution No. 6847 which directs the City Manager to inform the City Council of purchases in excess of $5,000, even though the Charter allows the City Manager to make purchases or contracts up to $10,000, without Council approval. The latter Resolution is the reason why purchases in excess of $5,000 are now included under the Consent Calendar in the City Council Agenda. If the City Council wishes to continue that practice, the Resolution should also be modified to conform with the new Charter language. The attached language drafted by the City Attorney's Office attempts to clarify within Section 6.05 the entire scope of purchases and services authority of the City Manager and City Council and includes rental or lease agreements, repair work, purchase of services and sale of City assets and equipment. Section 6.06, entitled: Contracts: How Let, would be deleted insofar as all appropriate language would be covered in Section 6.05. Under the proposed Charter language the authority of the City Manager to let contracts is basically unchanged in that the City Manager retains the authority to make purchases under $10,000 and purchases between $10,000 and $15,000 may be let by the City Manager after first obtaining.approval of the City Council. The real change in the new language of of 6.05 is that it clarifies that purchases for personal services, rentals and leases, sale of City property, is all specifically included within the dollar limits established by Charter Provision 6.05. Authority under Section 6.05 has been unclear in the past, making it difficult for City Administration to be absolutely sure we are operating under the intent of the City Charter. With the modifications proposed here, the City Charter provisions would conform to the State Uniform Bidding Law, and in fact be more specific, in that purchases and services would also be covered by the Charter. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution referring the proposed Amendment to the City Charter, amending the City Charter provision 6.05 and 6.06 to the Charter Commission for review and recommendation. Basis For Recommendation: 1. The current Provision 6.05 and 6.06 of the City Charter concerning purchases and contracts do not totally conform with the Minnesota Uniform Municipal Contracting Law. 2. The City Charter Section 6.05 and 6.06 are unclear with respect to treatment of certain kinds of purchases and contracts, such as rental, personal services, and sale of City assets. 3. It would be advantageous to both Administration and City Council for there to be a clear understanding by City staff as to the staff's authority in making purchases under the City Charter. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide not to refer the proposed Charter Amendment to the City Charter Commission for review and allow the Charter to remain unchanged. 2. The City Council could propose alternative provisions for City Charter Section 6.05 and 6.06. Discussion /Decision Mode: This matter has been scheduled for consideration on May 11, 1987 Action is requested to allow time for Charter Commission review and City Council consideration of the proposed Amendment at a public hearing so that this Amendment can be put into effect as soon as possible. JDP /sae • Respectfu -ly submitted, James '' Prosser City M nager 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER. WHEREAS, the Richfield City Charter provides in Section 6.05 and 6.06 for purchases and contracts made by the City of Richfield and WHEREAS, Charter Section 6.05 and 6.06 do not address certain types of purchases, rental and lease agreements, as well as purchases of services and WHEREAS, Charter Section 6.05 and 6.06 should be updated to conform with Minnesota State Statue 471.345, the Uniform Municipal Contracting law and WHEREAS, Charter Section 6.05 and 6.06 do not reference the sale of City property and WHEREAS, the City Administrative staff would like a consistent reference for purchasing authority of the City Manager and City Council NOW THEREFORE, be resolved by the City Council of the City Richfield, Minnesota as follows: That the following proposed amendment to the City Charter be referred to the Charter Commission for review and recommendation. (1) Section 6.05 is amended to read: Sec. 6.05. Purchases and Contracts. The City Manager may make or let contracts for the purchase or sale of supplies, materials, equipment, or the rental thereof, or any kind of construction or repair work involving real or personal property, or for the puichase of personal services, when the amount of such contract does A94 -9.x e6 is less than $10,000. If such contract exceeds the last stated amount but is 1.&Gs not more than $15,000, same may be made or let by the City Manager after first obtaining approval of the City Council. Arl--I-- o- the-r-- pu-r-chases_s4al.L I - rake an d —a l l •a_t h e-- co n tr a e-t-s sba I-- b e-..1 e.t—b y -t�h e—E e u roc i-l-. If such contract is for the purchase of personal services and exceeds 15,000, same shall be made or let by the City Manager after first obtaining approval of the City Council. Every contract for the sale or purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or the alteration thereof, or for the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real of personal property, where the amount involved is more than $15,000 shall be let only by the City Council upon the recommendation of the City Manager to the lowest responsible bidder, unless the council shall otherwise provide by resolution adopted by a majority of the council and published once in the official legal newspaper of the City. The council may, however, reject any and all bids. Subject to the LI • r� lopt (2) Section 6.06 entitles: Contracts: How Let is repealed. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1987. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 145 Agenda May 11, 1987 Issue Statement: Request For An Offstreet Parking Permit At 7525 Oliver Avenue. Background- Woodlake Lutheran Church has requested city approval of an offstreet parking permit for the site at 7525 Oliver Avenue. The applicant wishes to add additional parking by removing the existing single family dwelling at the southwest corner of the lot. Currently there are 140 parking spaces available on the site. The proposed plan indicates that there would be a total of 195 parking spaces available on the site which is 53 spaces more than currently exist for the use. Access to the parking lot is from 76th Street, Oliver Avenue and Newton Avenue. Both the curb cuts on 76th Street will be closed. The proposal indicates that the existing curb cuts on Oliver and Newton Avenues will remain the same. These curb cuts do not meet the minimum width requirement of 26 feet for nonresidential uses. A number of mature trees will be removed due to the addition of parking spaces on the southwest corner of the lot. There will be four additional landscaped islands provided in the . parking lot. Additional landscaping along the property line abutting residential streets be provided to soften the appearance of the blacktop parking lot. Perimeter curbing, on -site catch basins and additional lights would be provided on the site. Staff Recommendation: The City Council pass the attached resolution approving the offstreet parking permit subject to additional landscaping for lot area adjacent to Oliver /Newton as approved by staff. Basis of Recommendation: The changes proposed would increase availability of parking and the addition of landscaped island would be an improvement to the present blacktopped parking lot. The proposed changes are in substantial compliance with city standards. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council may deny the offstreet parking submitted. 2. Staff has suggested that additional landscaping Richfield does not have landscaping requirements offstreet parking, however, in opinion of staff landscaping is desirable. • permit as be required. for additional • Decision Mode: This item has been schedule for council consideration on May 11, 1987. No public notice is required. Respectf fly submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP /eja -#1--2 -ZI RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING OFFSTREET PARKING PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION 87 -5 WOODLAKE LUTHERAN CHURCH 7525 OLIVER AVENUE SOUTH 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 -5 is hereby approved subject to the following stipulation: a. That a drainage plan showing catch basin on the site be submitted for approval by the city engineer. 2. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of 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 11th day of May, 1987. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk • is John Hamilton Mayor NEWTON AVENUE :3 BLOOMINGTON is th CEDAR AVE, LONGFELLOW 191% L. 2016 z 22 AI C0:2 0 A maps" Z m 11 23 'd 'c O 4 51h 7 PORTLAND AVE Ln ri u i OAKLAND --4 XERXES AVE WAS URN XERXES AVE. WASHBURN L—j VINCENT VINCENT Ll PARK UPTON L— I r THOMAS [!—j; UPTON COLUMBUS SHERIDAN =L THOMAS CHICAGO RUSSELL SHERIDAN QUEEN J RUSSELL ELLIOT PE NN AVE. .", QUEEN A 101% PENN AVE- OLIVER ;L 111\ r Ll' 12 th NEWTON MORGAN 60 --- J71 OLIVER ----J ti/ NEWTON LOGAN M MORGAN KNOX JAMES LAN 1 4 I-' KNOX JAMES IRVING HUMBOLDT AKE lftvlNp; GIRARD UMBOLOT GIRARD FREMONT EVERSO FREMONT DUP T if 3- o EMERSON AX DUPONT •ANT COLFAX DRICH BRYANT L ALDRICH • GARFIELD LYNDALE AVE. L-41 HARRIET GRAND GARFIELD HARRIET 0 PLEASANT GRAND > PR. PLEASANT PILLSBURY WENTWORTH BLAISDELL 0 NICOLLET AVE. z Ist � D OOH r; 3,4 OLIVER AVENUE CLINTON NEWTON AVENUE :3 BLOOMINGTON is th CEDAR AVE, LONGFELLOW 191% L. 2016 z 22 AI C0:2 0 A maps" Z m 11 23 'd 'c 4 51h PORTLAND AVE Ln ri u i OAKLAND --4 L—j Ll PARK COLUMBUS CHICAGO ELLIOT A 101% 111\ r Ll' 12 th NEWTON AVENUE :3 BLOOMINGTON is th CEDAR AVE, LONGFELLOW 191% L. 2016 z 22 AI C0:2 0 A maps" Z m 11 23 'd 'c 0 w � s� •5 'M w w A r > 7 i 4 r —ate 3 I s V —I 2. Cn m M, Z m a a m a 0 z n > M z -�-- D � O-4 f 0 Z D r " 9 O w c = f o f N N - r > > y f 0 z n > M z -�-- D � O-4 f 0 Z D r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 144 Agenda May 11, 1987 Issue Statement: Request for an amendment to the offstreet parking permit at 6616 Lyndale Avenue. Background: In September of 1980 the City Council approved an offstreet parking permit for the Lyndale Hardware store at 6616 Lyndale Avenue to allow the construction of additional office space on the second floor of the building. As a stipulation of that approval the City Council indicated that 12 additional parking spaces should be provided. The council also suggested that the owners pursue the vacation of the north 26 feet of Circle Place to provide these additional spaces. The property owners subsequently petitioned for the vacation of the north 26 feet of Circle Place and the City Council approved that vacation. The vacation resulted in 23 additional parking stalls being provided on the site. This is 11 spaces more then required by the above mentioned stipulation. In 1985 the City Council approved an amendment to the offstreet parking permit which allowed the construction of a 2,400 square foot addition onto the southwest corner of the building. There was no net change in the number of parking stalls provided. The property owners have now applied for another amendment to the offstreet parking permit to allow them to construct a 35 foot x 44 foot outdoor storage area on the west side of the building. There would be an 8 foot high solid cedar fence enclosing this area. The fence would be stained to match the stain color of the wood on the building. The purpose of this storage area is to enclose the material that is currently stored outside the building in public view which includes top soil, landscape ties and other material. The proposed storage area would result in no loss of parking stalls on the site. Access to the three stalls immediately north of the storage area would be from a dead end aisle. Cars using those three stalls would have to backup down the driving aisle a short distance to be able to get out of these stalls. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the revised layout with the stipulation that'the three parking stalls immediately north of the storage enclosure be designated for employee parking. Basis of Recommendation: The basis of recommendation is the following: 1. The number of parking stalls provided on the site would continue to exceed the number originally approved by the City Council in 1980. 2. The storage enclosure would result in a more aesthetic appearing site. The existing exterior storage of materials on the site is not permitted by city ordinances. Storage must be within storage enclosures such as being proposed. The city's public safety staff has been working with the property owners to eliminate the exterior storage. The proposed storage enclosure is being proposed by the property owners to meet the requirements of city ordinance. 3. The three parking stalls immediately north of the enclosure do not meet city guidelines for proper access to parking stalls. As previously indicated, for cars to get out of these stalls, cars must back down the driving aisle to get out of the parking area. These stalls are angled so there is no opportunity for a car to back straight up, turn and head back down the driving aisle. This condition is not acceptable for customer parking where customers are continually coming and going. It is however more acceptable for employee parking where employee cars are parked for a long period of time. Alternative Recommendation: The alternative recommendation would be to deny the revised layout and require that the storage of all materials currently outside be within the building itself. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for council consideration on May 11, 1987. This matter does not require a public hearing so no notice has been provided. JDP /eja • Respectfully submitted, Ja Prosser City anager • • O a XERXES AVE. WASHBURN XERXES AVE. ------------ VINCENT WASHBURN jilr UPTON —41 VINCENT 7-7 r' UPTON THOMAS Ll S14ERIDAN c 7�1 THOMAS L RUSSELL SHERIDAN QUEEN F-i QUEEN RUSSELL PENN AVE. OLIVE PENN AVE. NEW TOM OLIVER r MORGAN NEWTON LOGAN MORGAN LOGAN KNOX, JAMES Ox JAMES IRVING HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT IRANO FREMONT GIRARD EMERSON FREMONT DUPONT Ll EMERSON II DUPONT UPONT C BRYANT OLFAX ALDRICH BRYANT ALDRICH LVAIDALE AVE. GARFIELD I W/f'i LYN.ALE AVE. LjN HARRIET GARFIELD HARRIET GRAND GRAND PLEASANT PLEASANT PILLSBURY Li V-1; PILLSBURY ENTWORTH ------ j WENTWORTH BLAISDELL NICOLLET AVE. 1, BLAISDELL - NICOLLET AVE. 1st STEVENS STEVENS 2fid 2&d 31d it CLINTON 3r4 ..ON 41h =r St 41 tM5,11 PORTLAND AVE OAKLAND AVE PARK COLUMBUS 3 ............ C ........... ... . CHICAGO :• :•: is ELLIOT -4 . . ....... . 12 to ..... ... 13 th . .. -j* ........ ... 13 1/1 BLOOMINGTON m `1� � - ;!- ��- ...C�u�i i FNS/ at% CEDAR IAVE. LONGFELLOW E. ----------- ELLOW 7 Ik 20 h A -4 22.d 0 .n 0 -< STANDISH C z "I 1 21 r1 z g r"'BBB'- 0 0 z D, V,! • Imo" �l� 0 m Ith m w -v r D Z O = O CD C� m m rn -v r D Z 0 F-� - - m to m -.q D O m v r D Z CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 143 May 11, 1987 Issue Statement: Request For An Offstreet Parking Permit At United Methodist Church of Peace. Background: United Methodist Church of Peace has requested city approval of an offstreet parking permit for the site at 6345 Xerxes Avenue. The applicant has proposed an addition of 8,300 square feet to the existing church building to be sued for meetings and classes. The assembly area has a seating capacity for 201 people and requires 67 parking spaces. The proposed plan indicates that there will be a total of 91 parking spaces available on the site, 24 more than required. Access to the parking area would be from Xerxes Avenue and Washburn Avenue. The radius of the curb cuts are less than 15 feet and do not meet the city requirement. The existing curb cut on Washburn Avenue will be closed and replaced by a new 22' curb cut on the northeast corner of the site. The two curb cuts on Xerxes Avenue will remain the same and would not meet the minimum width requirement of 26 feet for curb cuts for nonresidential uses. There are some deciduous trees and hedges on the northern boundary of the site. There will be some additional planting provided around the new addition and on the northwest corner of the site. The existing landscaped area on the south and southeast corner will remain the same. The rest of the area would be blacktopped. The perimeter curbing show on the plan is not adequate. Staff Recommendation: The City Council pass the attached resolution approving the offstreet parking permit with the following stipulations: 1) That a drainage plan be submitted which includes on -site catch basins to be approved by the city engineer. 2) That perimeter curbing be provided as required by city ordinances. 3) The width and radius of the curb cuts meet the city requirements. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Proposed parking layout with the building addition is a substantial improvement of the site. 2. The existing parking lot is underutilized and proposed plan provides for more efficient use of the site. 3. The site will continue to exceed the city's minimu guidelines for the number of parking stalls provided on the site. 4. A drainage plan has not been submitted for the site. 5. Perimeter curbing is not shown along the southern edge of the parking area as required by the city ordinances. Alternative Recommendation: Alternative recommendation is to deny the offstreet parking permit since it does not meet the city ordinance requirements. Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled for council consideration on May 11, 1987. Respec ,telly submitted, James'D. Prosser City anager JDP /eja • /o- � RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING OFFSTREET PARKING PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION 87 -4 UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF PEACE 6345 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 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 -4 is hereby approved subject to the following stipulations: a) That a drainage plan be submitted with catch basins on the site for approval by the city engineer. b) That perimeter curbing be provided as required by city ordinances. c) The width and radius of the curb cuts meet the city requirements. 2. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of 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 11th day of May, 1987. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk • • • • D 0 N — V C= 0 N 7 rr G N>E NN N O = !•I 1 y y H H ti y t XERXES AVE. Fes_ _- _- __-_--•__� -_._ . -. wASHNT h � `� r ,_ ��' �� —� �% � / �-_UII ' 1I�• . iI � i I'� ' �-''`-- _ -' `ham�• -'' ✓h i! ' XER %ES AVE. WASHBURN VINCE UPTON VINCENT ' ' . UPTON THOMAS .'�^„O: THOMAS SHERIDAN ^ -1 SHERIDAN RUSSELL +� :! �1�--'- 'I• Win: .i ;!1 RUSSELL QUEEN PENN AVE. I• �--�' -��_�. IL; .-�G1� I�`,f�� QUEEN cam. r _ _ OLIVER ��J 'i•-- --^-- t L -i ^�J: !�� I�U� 1 PENN AVE. NEWTON I�I I; i OLIVER Ir -^ r_ i,I ��. NEWTON YORGAM ��- �,i_�� I /J�I�Oi r��Ir LOGAN L I�-l� Ji L-:r^ LJI�•L- IL_J C� G( i` YORGAN KNOX i •i�,�,R,,)(�� _ LOGAN JAPES KNOK JAMES IRVING NUYBOLDT -- J7` GIRARO ice' ��: I� GIRARO DT - " XES AVE X E R G� FREMONi _ ;I GIRARO __ iI EMERSON - - ^� p I'MoCNT DUPONT •--- { •�: :: `�\ EMERSON COLFAX ':11,,:: ::•::iI DUPONT BRYANT :' t•::•: ••:: COLFAX ALORICN (_' jj}}}} • ".. �'�I BRYANT _ _ :•r :•l :•: :: ALDRICH LYNOALE AVE. T• III ^- 1••� C{ NDALE 11E- GA LY HARRIET :;• } }•;: ❑. ICI. GARFIEID • GRAND -. :•r:•: :v :� fI HARRIET PLEASANT I�I�I GRAND s.- t' PILLSBURY PLEASANT I,.-� A C.H •R •U •R•N • Iu`'�1�I' �'�• v B •A V E ,��'I ^I'''1� I PILLSBURY WENTWORTH BLAISDELL n ` OU 11 I WENTWORTN N ICOILET AVE �••�--� _�_ - NICOLLET AVE. STEVENS ��-- ' ^_;� 1'��----- --,,,; _ 1.1 STEVENS 2 Ad CLINTON ; I . =1 t-� �_�L �� 'I._.1 I►�.. j•i�(� tI 3 r1 .n �' J�- -� I i II i— -�� ✓�1 l=�I ii71 CLINTON SO. �r— J�tiJ�•�ji alto PORTLAND AVE -- �� jrl PLI�J Stto OAKLAND �IAVE. � Ifr PORTLAND AV PARK Li UUL' i OAKLAND COLUMBUSj3 I1-- �_ --�-J� - IL�I�Cr �� I PARK CHICAGO'` --I CHICAGO cow Yeus ELLIOT I';I I� - I��u'�Jr��J x _o II IO Ito �!• Imo_' ii_II_ -�� 1�� 1� ELLIOT 1116 t';a IF— U_��1�) gI�J'.._J�L -: (Otto 1•,• F d �;L ' r — —1111 to 12 to 13 U ZIA 13 tto BLOOMINGTON f �� Ir - -- -�t `.�♦�J IS tto •� I, f' 1;- TAO! -i -�I� j'r��O BLOOMINGTON 1611 1 I� � -� -_�� :�� ` -J '�. -111 - i I- •_. -.:I /�,- 1;�(— �! —�1—,� 1611 te,to ._ , Istto 17 rb LANGFELLOW _ '-'---- ^ ^nom__ 1�OC�OC�Gq _ —_ - -- -- - - -_ may_ -- -� CEDAR AVE. '---------Ji St -___'- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - ---- - - - - -- LONGFELLOW Isth m r r z ELI m.�., �1 'L I lotto inn S� °c - o 2 m T -< z jT— '1t•=- iii- • � tl �I L—JL_ 3TANDISM 23rd - J 7�1/a 2 r- ( `\/ 0 •V z T� V �,>rr CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 142 Agenda May 11, 1987 Issue Statement: Revisions of the boundaries of the area covered by the ILN Moratorium. Background: During previous discussions concerning the extension of the Building Permit Moratorium Ordinance in the ILN, staff has indicated that we would also look at revising the boundaries of the area subject to that moratorium. Attached is an ordinance revision which would r -educe the area covered by the ILN building permit moratorium. If that ordinance is passed, the area north of the first lot north of 77th Street would no longer be in the building permit moratorium area. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance and to set June 8, 1987 as the date for the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance. Basis of Recommendation: The purpose of extending the Building Permit Moratorium an additional six months is to allow time to complete the development and implementation of the C -3 Zoning District Ordinance and to develop a process to identify a developer or developers for the area in the ILN south of 77th Street. The area north of 77th Street would not be subject to either the C -3 Zoning District or to the developer selection process; therefore, it is not necessary to keep the building permit moratorium in place for that particular area. The first lot north of 77th Street continues to be in the moratorium area because it has been designated for acquisition for the street improvement project. It would be to the city's benefit to keep the restrictions on that particular area to minimize the city's future costs. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed revisions to the ILN moratorium boundaries and unanimously recommended approval of the boundary changes in the attached ordinance. Alternative Recommendations: The alternative recommendations would be as follows: 1. Reject the ordinance amendment and maintain the boundaries of the moratorium area as they are now until the moratorium expires in September of 1987. 2. To modify the area covered by the moratorium to include more or less area. • Discussion /Decision Mode: First reading of the ordinance amendment to change the boundaries is scheduled for May 11, 1987. No published or mailed notice is required. Published notice of the public hearing and second reading will be provided. Respectf lly submitted, James Prosser City" ager JDP /eja • • O BILL N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 17.18 ENTITLED "AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY, REGULATING, RESTRICTING AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES, DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN SUCH AREA ". CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "An Interim Zoning Ordinance Adopted for. the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process in a Certain Area of the City, Regulating, Restricting and Prohibiting Certain Uses, Developments and Subdivisions Within Such Area" is hereby amended in the following respect: Section 1, paragraph A thereof is amended to read: "A. The City is concerned with the proper and more economic use, development and possible redevelopment that area of the City generally referred to as "Interstate- Lyndale Area ", hereinafter referred to as the "Area ", the boundaries of which Area are more specifically described as follows: All of the property between Interstate No. 35W and the Minneapolis Northfield Southern Railroad tracks and south of 77th Street with the following additions: (a) the area west of Emerson Avenue, east of Interstate No. 35W, between 76th and 77th Streets; and (b) in the area between Emerson and Aidrrch Pleasant Avenues, the first parcel abutting the north side of 77th Street; (e) the entife bleek be G�TCC'7'T C 76th - St-eet- between A1dn -iTeh and I ynde1rs_ -A •en es; (e) the z-At!Ee bleekc blee k between I ynda1 a and f er fiei d n. ues Pleasant ry , the —nez t-rTside e f q th Steeet.11 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: 0 Thomas Ferber, City Clerk j� . ..... .... ......... .... ..... .......... U.S. INTERSTATE 4 i HIGHWAY NO. 35W - _ GMA00 AYE. 60. 1�. f m e �o <> A s x;a - 1 ::i::S i::':'6•i::::: 5 '`:::: :.`•:y`i::: #t`:i':::::::55:::. m a r^ Z - s O ^ � I _ L! {g: AYE 90. D{;t = _Igf$ _ 'I� '� " -, `. •. i;i 5da ls' - ,1 m n - E D ' :s >:- : >:•::.:.: i. :2, ouvowr AYE so r D i:2:$3::•:;:...:. _,gl i Ig.'s' z;�! °_!_;a'?; a i `!= alb.'_ �I �F:;:$.:.• •:,, ..•3 E•i ... r:. ?: COLFAX �.'.#�,:''7ilv.;.;:� +':.. :...L.:I•Y -7 "aI`�'elBl$1�18 or - al I?•8iE'Yi�'d g' :aa o,o .� :f .u(• 1¢� � I� i` it I MAM AVE ` •: +.: •7�:4:IY I`el tl I81 � al£��•i }.2. _ i.i r<I�'IIt I•: c - - i •r�'•�.:Tmii: :�~'r.:$: •:•l?�lill��el wll!le Y��,'b.tYE €�: yl�,�' >'a 2� �.�it� isM : ?:• }:• {:$:::$::::: ?$•i:• ?:_;;: {. w_ LLPSGfL. AYE IQ ` • .,f- .:.i:*•_L.` :.•ii j r I I i t 1 c:3 3' a e' 8' Y' a i i i i �:;:j;�.•�.,..'. -':. :.•5::.:. I °t � I _ II e.rz ,.e _ I�'9'F:. $!;`['e'il �!i•�I 1,.;._ ``:•. �- •}�.: :. #. ?: #G 34'3 =Fm e I� 1 I � I, I � ;.i: a :� S i 1 c a t . c: 9 `j O iii= {:::::v:.'.;.'•'..r•:%.:j:`: 1 LYNDALE -- «......::: :::•....` '. E'''.' }: ::i }:i• } } }:• :r�(veESi:-T:i• ?:.: AYE ao. W 'm! 1>:::: i::::: ::>;:::'T:�= .`•::'tY:::::�'F:�: 9 � B I � i E! F l t i e i � I t�F ` i = I ? .{f:... °""'° AYE w fit" 6 it m + I CI Zbi� i3 !I D illla �p��= m F;€ €i le gia €r� a m N - I Y raas�lwT AYE I Pic Slf dI�IIE igi�I €!= i E ilFi::e t. :j ,2!1:tit t t t wDrrwc� AM t a or- W � �- I t'I _I_ •li €'f +; _ !Iy��a.F �+E E i A I T. �I €IF!81Fltl €Is III;E'E:E `;e C L a. � �I�I. €I °,&I�IeISIa °IK;�:✓=N_ � �a! €.:I_ _N@ _ AM a i _ m. NICOLLET ` AVENUE SOUTH .77 - CITY OF RICHFIELD 76TH & LYNDALE "°° oa1LA "o..— -M STUDY AREA i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 141 May 11, 1987 Issue Statement: First reading consideration of an ordinance vacating portion of an alley and rezoning the northerly portion of 6528 16th Avenue South from 'R' single family residence to 'C -2' general commercial. Background: Hines and Sons, Inc. and Mt. Calvary Church have petitioned the city to vacate the easterly half of a 12 foot alley between Bloomington Avenue and 16th Avenue and to rezone the northerly 20 feet of the lot addressed as 6528 16th Avenue South from single family residence 'R' district to multiple residence MR -1 district. The lot proposed to be rezoned is vacant at the present time. The applicant.wishes to construct a three story 15 unit apartment building for the elderly. The vacation of the requested portion of the alley would allow the church building to be structurally connected with the proposed apartment building thus providing convenient accessibility for the elderly residents to participate in church activities. The vacation of the easterly portion of the alley would provide each of the abutting property owners with an additional 800 square feet of land. 40 The, properties within 250 feet north of the centerline of West 66th Street are zoned C -2 general commercial all the way from 11th Avenue to Cedar Avenue. The zoning district boundaries in most cases do not conform with property lines in this area. This results in there being many properties where a portion of a lot is zoned C -2 and the remainder of the lot is zoned 'R' single family residence. The subject property is such a case. The rezoning being requested results in the total lot being C -2 general commercial. The properties abutting the north side of the alley are single family residential uses. Two single family dwellings, the church and a commercial structure are located south of the alley. Two single family lots (6528 and 6532 16th Avenue) north of the alley along 16th Avenue are owned by the applicants. South of the alley the abutting single family dwelling west of the church is owned by a group of people associated with the church. The existing uses would remain the same except for the two properties at 6528 and 6532 16th Avenue. The single family residential uses on the properties abutting the alley are nonconforming. A special use permit would be required for the apartment use in a C -2 general commercial district. The applicant intends to apply for a special use permit if the council approves the vacation of the alley and the proposed rezoning. r Zoning Ordinance Requirement: ; 1. Section 3.42, outlines the procedural requirements for rezoning of a property. 2. Section 12.04 (city ordinance), outlines the regulations for vacation of an alley. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Deny the vacation of the easterly portion of the 12 foot alley located between Bloomington Avenue and 16th Avenue South: 2. Approve the rezoning of the northerly 20 feet of the lot addressed as 6528 16th Avenue South from single family residence 'R' district to general commercial 'C -2' district. If the City Council wishes to proceed with these matters. It is recommended that the council give first reading approval to the attached ordinances and pass the attached resolution setting June 8, 1987 as the date for the public hearing and second reading. Basis of Recommendation: The basis for the above recommendations is the following: Denial of Alley Vacation: 1. The proposed vacation would create a dead end alley. This would make snowplowing and other maintenance activities extremely difficult because trucks would have to back -up approximately 130 feet. This is not acceptable to city maintenance staff. 2. The existing alley provides access to the single family dwellings and the commercial property abutting the westerly half of the alley. The vacation of part of an alley would create maintenance problems and hinder smooth access to the two garages abutting the alley. 3. Utilities present within the alley are a 4 inch waterline and two power lines. Utility easements would have to be provided if the vacation is approved. 4. The Planning Commission motion to recommend approval of the vacation of the easterly half of the alley failed (8 -2). Rezoning: 1. The proposed rezoning would allow the property owner to have a single - zoning district classification, i.e. C -2 general commercial, for the said property. 2. The proposed rezoning would not be "spot zoning ". The area to be rezoned C -2 general commercial is contiguous to an existing C -2 general commercial zoning district. 3. North of the subject property are single family residential uses, south of the subject property is a single family use, to the east of the site is an institutional use and west of the site are single family residential uses. All the single family dwellings abutting the alley are rental properties. An apartment use of low /medium density would create a buffer between single family residences and the more intensive uses along 66th Street. 4. The comprehensive development plan designates the site to be developed as single family residential uses. C -2 general commercial zoning is therefore inconsistent. 5. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning of the northern 20 feet of the lot addressed as 6528 16th Avenue South from single family residence 'R' district to general commercial 'C -2' district. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council may choose to recommend approval of the vacation of the whole alley between Bloomington Avenue and 16th Avenue. Such an approval would have to be contingent upon proper access and maintenance agreements being provided. The City would also require utility easements. 2. The City Council may deny the rezoning of the portion of the subject property because it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, such an action would maintain the existing two zoning designations of a single parcel of land. Discussion /Decision Mode: First reading of ordinance vacating the easterly half of an alley located between Bloomington Avenue South and 16th Avenue; rezoning of the northerly 20 feet of the lot addressed as 6528- 16th Avenue South from single family residence "R" district is scheduled for May 11, 1987. While the Staff and Planning Commission recommendation is to deny the alley vacation it is necessary for the Council to vote on the ordinance granting the vacation. No mailed or published notice is required for first reading consideration. Published notice will be provided for the public hearing and second reading. Second reading and public hearing on the above request should be scheduled for June 8, 1987. JDP /sae • Respectfully submitted, Jam D. rosser City Manager TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following described portion of an alley is hereby vacated: All that portion of the alley in Block 12, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 7, 11 and 12, Girard Parkview Addition, lying between the southerly extension of the easterly and westerly property lines of Lot 9, Block 12, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 7, 11 and 12, Girard Parkview Addition. Section 2. This alley vacation shall not affect, destroy or interfere with the right of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or having control of any electric, gas, telephone, cable television, sewer, water or other utility to construct, reconstruct, operate, maintain, repair and remove any public utility facilities upon or within the vacated right -of -way. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1987. ATTEST: John Hamilton, Mayor Thomas Ferber City Clerk r� 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING ALLEY VACATION PETITION AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City requesting the vacation of an alley easement described as follows: All that portion of the alley in Block 12, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 7, 11 and 12, Girard Parkview Addition, lying between the southerly extension of the easterly and westerly property lines of Lot 9, Block 12, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 7, 11 and 12, Girard Parkview Addition. WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with the requirements of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.04, Subdivision 2. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AS FOLLOWS: 1. The petition for vacation of that portion of the alley described above is received. 2. A public hearing on the alley vacation in said petition shall be held on June 8, 1987. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of said hearing in the manner provided by Richfield Ordinance Code Section 12.04, Subdivision 3. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of , 1987 ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 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 respect: Section 3, Paragraph (52) is amended to read as follows: (52) That area between the west line of 11th Avenue and the east line of Cedar Avenue between the centerline of 66th Street and a line 250 fe.et northerly from and parallel to the centerline of 66th Street, and the north 20 feet of Lot 8, Block 12, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 7, 11 and 12, Girard Parkview except Lot 8, Block 5, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Girard Parkview. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1987. ATTEST: John N. Hamilton, Mayor Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • • • 0 �� w4 H y t XERXES AVE WASHBURN Qkmo•im •L ---J ii XERXES AVE. VINCENT WASHBURN UPTON VINCENT UPTON THOMAS SHERIDAN =1 THOMAS RUSSELL SHERIDAN QUEEN RUSSELL 1=71 6=u PENN AVE. 7-7Z I-- Z=Q QUEEN OLIVER —j L-j PENN AVE. OLIVER LIVER NEWTON 61ORG AN LO AN MORGAN LOGAN 0 , A KNOX IRVING HU BOLOT IRVI;c. :IRARD L GIRARD EMERSON FREMONT of DOPO o C, EMERSON COLFAY DUPONT BRYANT irr COLFAX ALDRICH jj .1... BRYANT LYNDALE AVE- ALDRICH =all C LTNDALIE AVE. GARFIELD 1;,F/ =--dl 1:1 , r HARRIET GARFIELD 0 GRAND 11, HARRIET GRAND PUASA PILL 1 0 PASANT BLOOMINGTON f- A LE Pit WE L—J:., c., WORTH NI BLAISDELL NICOLLET AVE. 0 lot Z cy) STEVENS Zad 3,41 CLINTON > T4 to Sob 16TH, AVE. S. PORTLAND AVE Lj OAKLAND C PARK CHI COLUMBUS 3- ELLI CHICAGO to III L 1! If It, loth ten I.: It lb 14 to ODD CCiOC ------ 14 th BLOOMINGTON 17-7 BuDoNINGTON Is It, C= =F=z: ��-77 i! ------ CEDAR AVE LONGFELLOW CEDAR AVE. LONGFELLOW 0 Ists, T-]F-I 20t• IF P P V4 =F L�j 22*4 STAND13H z 23 rd • ca r- 0 0 K Z 00 Z 4 PROPERTIES ABUTTING THE ALLEY [D SINGLE FAMILY _CHURCH COMMERCIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PROPOSED VACATION El I-q f • • REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM _single family R TO General commercial FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE construction of Apartment for the Elderl STREET ADDRESS: 6528 16th Ave S Richfield,Mn 55423 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: lot 8, block 12, Nokomis Gardens Re- Arrangement of Blocks 7, 11, & 12 Girard Parkview We, the undersigned, beina owners of land within 300 feet of the land described above, do hereby concur in this Rezoning request. _Signature of Owners* Address Legal Description 4;V1- purposes of determining if petition contains the proper number Of signatures to initiate the - rezoning process signatures may.not be removed once a petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. I c i 9 ........... 9 Qto 133.86 LOT 8 Ila• - 133.6 ALLEY EXISTING STRUCTURE to O w z w co 4 • • �l 0 • PETITION CONCERNING THE ALLEY BETWEEN BLOOMINGTON AVE S 16TH AVE S 66th ST 6 65TH ST RICHFIELD,MN We are trying to obtain City approval for 6 completion of the vacating of the east half of the 12 foot alley located between Bloomington Avenue 6 16th Avenue, and running across the northerly portions of Lots 10` hrough 15 of Block 12, No)r.-mis Gardens Rearrangement of BI CS 7,11 6 12, Girard Park( ew Addition to the City of Richfield. We are proposing to change the above described alley so that we can build an appartment building for the elderly. The new building would be attached to and constructed with brick to match the existing church. I !\ 6CGt�/rliNG7'uxJ ASE Mzvr I SHoP I AUG5y CHURCH P o � PA i l�" AvE I approve the above proposal to change the above mentioned alley so that the above mentioned construction may proceed: ignature i/ Address D' Date � c i r ��lf 7 CQf1 F cn eU • Ll" dt. I / 5- J (— —'F— /-- 6 2 -- z S' cerely j�� i z 1 cn 14TH AVE S 0 D z 0 W rn rn i Llo -4 rn i BLOOMINGTON AVE S rn 15TH AVE S O Oz m z Z -n ° K *: z > ---- — -------- -DV GO m Lei }: :: :: �' v:5 :vi t• ' xyj 17TH AVE S rn 15TH AVE S 18TH AVE S i i i i i CEDAR AVE S (STA1 O Oz m z Z -n ° K z > c/) -DV GO m ao 17TH AVE S 18TH AVE S i i i i i CEDAR AVE S (STA1 . . . . . . . . . . . . l!"ll! rillil 111111111111 I .............. .............. ................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ................ .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............. ............ Illy BLOOMINGTON- c cf) m 16TH. AVE. S. 17TH AVE S 18TH AVc* S L- CEDAR .... .... ........ ....... ..... .. .... ...... AVE S ............. ............. IXX X: 0 0 m m m z c/) 0 m m I- 0 M( z --I K T z m m cl) 0 --q T c 0 --I c CO --I m v 0 0 m z z 0) > cl) — --q r- --I m co c -n -n m m 16TH. AVE. S. 17TH AVE S 18TH AVc* S L- CEDAR .... .... ........ ....... ..... .. .... ...... AVE S ............. ............. IXX X: 0 0 m m m z c/) 0 m m I- 0 M( z --I . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 140 Agenda May 11, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration for first reading to an ordinance to rezone the property at 6229 -31 Pillsbury Avenue from single - family residential "R" district to multiple residence "MR -1" district. Background: Mr. and Mrs. Duane Mumm, property owners at 6229 -31 Pillsbury Avenue have requested that the city approve rezoning of the property from single family residence (R) district to multifamily residence (MR -1) district. The site has an area of 13,313.26 square feet. There is a two family dwelling on the site which has been there for quite sometime. The existing two family use of the structure is legally nonconforming. There is a 22 foot x 45 foot garage located on the northeast corner of the lot and meets the requirements for accessory structure in MR -1 district. Zoning Ordinance Requirement: 1. Section 3.31A, Subdivision 9 outlines the requirements for multiple residence (MR -1) district. 2. Section 3.42, outlines the procedural requirements for . rezoning of a property. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request for rezoning of the property at 6229 -31 Pillsbury Avenue from single family residence (R) district to multiple residence (MR -1) district. If the council wishes to proceed with this matter, it is recommended that first reading consideration be given to the attached ordinance and that June 8, 1987 be set for the public hearing and second reading consideration. Basis of Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the application against the city zoning ordinance and found the following: 1. The site meets the lot width,, area and lot coverage requirements for (MR -1) multiple residence districts. The existing building setbacks are 44 feet in the front, 56.86 feet in the rear, and 10 feet and 26.5 feet in the interior. The required building setbacks are 30 feet (front), 25 feet (rear) and 10 feet (interior). The existing structure meets all the setback requirements for multiple residence (MR -1) district. /7 2. 1. The existing two family use is permitted in the MR -1 multiple residence district, therefore the approval of the rezoning request would make the use legally conforming. 2. The surrounding properties within the block are zoned single family residence and the existing land uses in the area are conforming to the zoning district classification. 3. While the Comprehensive Development Plan indicates that the site should be medium density /buffer, which would include multifamily duplexes. This designation is for future development only and not intended to direct rezoning on a piecemeal basis. The zoning ordinance does allow nonconforming uses to continue legally with the intent that the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning classification would be compatible at some point in the future. 4. The comprehensive plan also suggests that "medium density housing should be built along freeways, arterial streets, and collector streets where there would be minimal disruption of single family residential neighborhood ". The site in question is near the freeway but Pillsbury Avenue is considered neither an arterial or collector street. The surrounding properties are single family residential use and are zoned "R" (single family residence) district. It is staff's opinion that the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the comprehensive plan land use policy._ 5. It is staff's opinion that the approval of the rezoning would be a spot zoning and the city has been reluctant to pursue spot zoning in the past. The existing nonconforming use could continue. The city should uphold the intent of the zoning ordinance regarding nonconforming use and follow the comprehensive plan land use policies as closely as possible. 6. The Planning Commission voted (8 -1) against the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning of the property located at 6229 -31 Pillsbury Avenue South from "R" single family residence to "MR -1" multifamily residence district. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may approve the rezoning of the property from single family residence "R" district to multiple residence MR -1 district for the following reasons: 1. The existing two family use of the site would not be changed due to the rezoning. 2. The status of the existing legally nonconforming use would be changed to legally conforming use due to the rezoning. 3. The existing two family use does not seem to have any adverse impact on the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood which is evidenced by the number of signatures obtained by the applicant in support of the rezoning. 4. The existing two family use is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan. • • Decision Mode: The City Council is scheduled to an ordinance to rezone the Avenue South on May 11, 1987. required for first reading co the public hearing and second to give first reading consideration property at 6229 -31 Pillsbury Mailed or published notice is not nsideration. Published notice of reading will be provided. Respectfully submitted, James:D. Prosser City Manager BILL N0. ORDINANCE NO. 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 respect: Section 10 is amended by adding the following new paragraph 85: (85) Lot 9, Block 3 and that portion of the now vacated portion of 63rd Street in the plat of Betchers Addition to Richfield lying between the southward extension of the east and west lines of Lot 9, Block 3, Betchers Addition to Richfield Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day. of , 1987. ATTEST: John Hamilton Mayor Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • • 1] Z • OO Q U ri w rii n vii a 2 o D MSIONVIS F .��. U .122 I w +{ 12 f�L r� N N N N Z %102 L _JL JL W WENTWORTH . AVE, IWll3l9t1p1 - '3AVav0 �___„^,__ M011Ml9N01 3AV W033 c „ Y181 L 'te�`� i r_. • I No19NIno018 �-�' 1 00010NIncom list u>.1� %1 £1 4121 j 4421 %111 I�O N ^ ^� rl 11 PILLSBURY AVE R OI I I i Eit %/ 01 _ 101113 '� _ -_� [� 1011l3 0 o9v31N3 N � 0 '��!� "'•� 09v3tM3 li SnBN11100 J --^^ Xavd ONVINvo ^fit ONvlxv0 3AV ONVllaOd i3AV ONV -tLWW its 1- 7 .£ 1601N113 1601N113 �� j NO1N113 . ti X11 li�� i— �(�(�� -.��. � ►1£ Yi I �1_il`�� .— I�L— ..'� 1 2 SN3A315 d' �— ��—' � S143A312 '3AV 1311031M -3AV 131 -IONN T3051v18 (I 1411101101113,11% AanBSTid I11' •1 �•J�— -�Jl.j AYnOSTd 1NVSV31d 7 •Li_�i,�_ Jl - - =: -- L.� -�'� -- - - - --- "' -"_'' �_'i - -�. ._._,�� ANVSV31d 1;;. I ! !'`''�-� � r. ice•+— �•= f-- - -.._. ONVa9 lit � 0Nva9 131aavM ;fst,- ii- -- Uv/ 131WVVN 0131JUV9 i[ I��. III ILT *• - -1 C1 =�� 0131sav9 •3AV 31VONAl ,� \ I+�� J '3AV 31VONAI 1,4311101v N31a01v 1NVAUS 1NVAa8 XVl103 !� I 1NOdn0 II o x �1 =�(��r t-= -�]11• 1NOdn0 MOSa3113 �` I� ; NOS1,13113 1NOFl.3a! Oava19 -'r-"� - - -- `emu ` \ d �` - i' Oaval9 �� _ � +� : 1010onnM :Lr - ^� --�` �- ---- _��`____ 101OBnnN L_ J L__: �_1 3Y_�� 9NIAtll a, =��=, � S3nvr-- J� �°� }/ .`. S301vr MIX NV901 — �J - -___ w 1 1r —•�� Nv901 '- ^-1^ Nv9aOn �'—' %�� ^�_ —� ^_ —�) Nv9a0n 1401111,3110 1 =— _.— �• r? �j 1101,114311 113AI10 ' -� .��_� - -- 'll 113A110 3AV NN3d I�r = < _: .nn -� l :• ^� - _-- - _ - .� ^ — _--- .3AV 0110113d 0110113d 3 d N33nO 113SSna t 113ssno MV31a3N- i Nv01a3NS Svnoml Jim = SVnOMI NOldn - - -- _ Noldn 1N3314IA !�. —� - •. - - ^•-� 1N33NIA NNOHNSVM ,�_. _- .- -- -- `� _ 1l -' upc1 =•�� `J: NtlOBNSV%1 '3AV S3Xa3x '..-- �R�l+._. _z_r ._- c._:= -_- _.c -�,� -. - .._�,�. _ _ _ _- 3AV S3Xa3X = f z °e °Q -N 0 N b b V V .w w 1- N N 0 0 • C m Z C m • 6229 -31 PILLSBURY AVENUE 135.16 - f N N 45 28.3 1 V N CD <-44 CD 34.3 SITE PLAN CD N j Q i 56.86 I REQUEST FOR RE ZONi1VG FROM J ` FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE z: / � y STREET ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: � zh�� m,..� w cJ,c..L .,P� -� � ate• 9j,`Q.2.�,3C� ate.,, � �4?• _��,v We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the land described above, do hereby concur in this Rezoning request. Signature of Owners* Address _Legal Description ror purposes of aetermining if petition contains the proper number .of signatures.to initiate the rezoning process signatures may not be removed once a petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. fYCt gyp. V"p irn+ j Y/ - -------- -- cn i I I iL HIaoN a d V N N011113�d v' LLD o r 1S HIV9 a m i s a a rn is OUC9 D m �'— cn i I I iL HIaoN a d V N N011113�d v' LLD o r 1S HIV9 a m i s a a rn is OUC9 a rn cn ©m M NMO46 SOH0 /M9£ M 1S W9 3118 a3SOdOad HOndd NI S83NMO A.LH3d0dd i■uum�u a rn cn ©m M NMO46 SOH0 /M9£ M 1S W9 3118 a3SOdOad HOndd NI S83NMO A.LH3d0dd � 0 LAND USE MAP ❑ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Ej TWO - FAMILY DWELLING I � ! I r-- Q APARTMENT ® APARTMENT WITH MORE 62ND ST THAN SEVENTEEN UNITS 1 35W /CROSSTOWN mmm ■mm■ ums■ Elm W w C � r I 63RD ST ! j i i i i I I I i i 64TH ST w r � _ N O Z CL I 3 D 0I I w ¢ CI �I i i J J w i C� i V) I Q ' j c ! I c ZONING MAP I � Q SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE j = MR -1 62ND Q MR-2 ® MR -3 35W CROSSTOWN m1• _m w LL) 63RD ST e 0 0 64TH ST } I = tr cn 3 J j � CL 1 K-A I J J W c!7 �- .-. I W I J LU Q i K-A I J J W c!7 �- .-. I W I hi .WAA I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 139 May 11, 1987 Issue Statement: First reading consideration of an ordinance to rezone the property at 6941 -45 Penn Avenue from multiple residence 'MR -2' district to limited business 'C -1' district. Background: Mr. Donald A. Johnson, a dentist, has requested that the city initiate a rezoning.of the property at 6945 Penn Avenue from MR- 2, multiple residence to C -1, limited business. The property is currently a vacant lot and Mr. Johnson wishes to construct a one story, 3,800 square foot dental office on the site. He and two other dentists would occupy the space. A preliminary site plan and perspective_ drawing of the proposed office building are attached for your information.. This site was rezoned from single family residential to multifamily residential in 1977. Prior to that there existed a nonconforming plant, nursery, retail sales area on the corner. Since the 1977 rezoning action, the city has reviewed a number of different plans to develop a multifamily structure on the site and has approved a number of variances to allow development to occur on that site. None of these projects have been able to move forward.. The property subsequently has become tax delinquent and is currently owned by the State of Minnesota /Hennepin County. The County is considering auctioning the property off through their normal tax sale process. The city's HRA, at one time, considered purchasing the property for a housing project, but decided not to proceed. City ordinances indicate that rezonings can be initiated in either of two ways. First, a rezoning can be initiated if a petition is submitted which contains the signatures of at least 50% of the owners of property and at least 50% of the property within 350 feet of the site to be rezoned. The second method provides that the City Council can initiate a rezoning. In this case Mr. Johnson does not own the property and it would be difficult to obtain the signature of the owner because it is owned by the State of Minnesota /Hennepin County. Mr. Johnson does not want to proceed with the acquisition of the property unless he knows that the property can be rezoned to allow him to develop the dental office on the site. For that reason Mr. Johnson has asked that the City Council initiate the rezoning process. On March 23, 1987, the City Council initiated the rezoning process and referred the matter to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Mr. Johnson has also requested that the city or the HRA purchase the property from the County. He would then purchase the property from the City or HRA. The city attorney's office has indicated that the city could not purchase the property and sell it to Mr. Johnson, but the HRA could. On March 16th, 1987, the HRA indicated they are agreeable to purchasing the property if Mr. Johnson signs an agreement with the HRA in which he agrees to purchase the property from the HRA at cost. The advantage to Mr. Johnson in dealing with the HRA is that he does not have to bid at an auction for the property. According to state statutes, the HRA will have to create a two parcel redevelopment project to do this. This has not been done yet. In accordance with state statutes the Planning Commission reviewed the purchase and disposition of the property by the HRA for conformance with the city's comprehensive plan. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council give first reading to an ordinance approving the rezoning of the property at 6941 -45 Penn Avenue from MR -2, multiple residence to C -1, limited business. It is further recommended that the council set June 8, 1987 as the date for the public hearing and second reading. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This property has been vacant for a number of years. The development of the site, as proposed, will add to the tax base of the city. 2. A number of proposed multifamily developments have failed for economic reasons. 3. The site is on Penn Avenue which is a heavily traveled arterial roadway which would also indicate that some intensification of use might be proper. 4. The proposal would be "spot zoning ". The site is not contiguous to another commercial zoning district. The site is currently zoned MR -2 which is also a "spot zone ". The type of development being proposed would be compatible with the surrounding single family neighborhood if proper screening and buffering is provided. 5. The city's comprehensive plan indicates that the site should be developed as medium density buffer uses. The plan indicates that the existing MR -2 and the proposed C -1 are compatible zoning districts in the medium density buffer areas. The plan also indicates.that principle uses should be single family residential, duplexes, and existing convenience commercial. Neither the proposed dental office nor an eight unit multifamily residence allowed under the existing zoning would be consistent with the principle uses listed in the plan. 6. Mr. Johnson has obtained signatures of a majority of the owners of the property within 300 feet of the site to be rezoned (see attached petition and map). 7. The Planning Commission voted (8 -1) to recommend approval of an ordinance rezoning the property at 6941 -45 Penn Avenue from "MR -211, multiple residence district to 11C -1" limited business district. The Planning Commission also voted unanimously to pass a resolution finding the acquisition and disposition of the property by the HRA to be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. LI • • Alternative Recommendation: The alternative recommendation would be to deny request since it would be a spot zoning and the properties are zoned single family residential such a decision is made, council would have to rezoning of the property to C -1 district would impact on the health, safety and welfare of the in the surrounding neighborhood. Determination made that the proposed rezoning of the property inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. the rezoning surrounding "R" district. find that the If have an adverse residents living would have to be would be Decision Mode: First reading of the attached ordinance to rezone the property at 6941 -45 Penn Avenue South from "MR -2" multiple residence district to "C -1" limited business district is scheduled for May 11, 1987. No mailing or published notice is required for first reading consideration. Notice of the public hearing and second reading will be published in the Richfield Sun. JDP /eja Respectfully submitted, Jam ' s D. Prosser Cit Manager — >o 0 a r r r Y •M•� r - O f f 0 f N ' a V N f dN N Y • 1r r y y ti ti y i � r N N N N z XERXES AVE. �-�— __ _— tea_.._ . rASlteuRN ��•.� V r_ - WASHBU AVE - VINCENT 1��— _ �� wASHeuaN VINCENT UPTON _ -_'_' =__ .•-^_ _ ---_�� : THOMAS �`_ - -_ UPTON SHERIDIN ! —_ �V _ -I THOMAS RUSSELL 1 � - •'• - -- SHERIDAN OUEEN •l, - I - -� RUSSELL PENN AVE. __ �-a� -� QUEEN OLIVER ... -- — ^ - - -- _ -- - - -� —_ '- - PENN AVE 1. — NEWTON i! C•J - - -- OLIVER MORGAM_� C C —- -- -� --.• NEWTON LOGAN i� _�� 1 MORGAN LOGAN ox AYES �. - /1 wl �j C : `•!'- . - -. ��i -'. -.. IRVING • .`^ !�: _.•___ .IAYES v -• �1A� ^�^ IRVING HUMBOLDT UN GIRARD `- FREMON ^-� EMERSOIT 7!I GIRARD j !'_- II ` -'L_�' `'t —Ji• FHEMONT �, EM DUPONT ERSON �jt• ' \�• •' I z I Up COLFAX I �I } s ,.'i' COLFAX BRYANf a.= --- _._,�.� L.Y, ! BRTANT LYNOALE AVE. ♦ .pC �^ �'• AIORICH _ 1!I � i �i 9 LTNDALE AVE_ CANFIELD �' 1' II I I^ -�' Chi GARilELO HARRIET GRAND �.1_r j1` ='si ^ —�71� �� r' �f'I HARRIET LJ _.1 -_r ��• u -�� ( .I I� i• :: i� I GRAND O PLEASANT •lr_..- PILLSBURY I` .- ` ----E C-JI •� .^ - --- I •v�ai- �' -'^�i PLEASANT rENTWOlTH lipPILLSBURY r BLAMOE , :I � !— ��—f M'ENTwORTN M (COLLET —_� I I n 11 BLAISDELL L_ - I NICOLLET AVE. C STEVENS PENN AVE. S. ^--_ ,� Z,d z CLINTON S _J� ^� SIN PORTLAND AVE uu& OAKLAND �I l_J I) PARK �"'�. ��-i —i 1• COLUMBUS - �� o I CHICAGO _ >< O 11 _ 'I ELLIOT loth ' OLIVER AVE. S. ,=' �C�CiG� 11" �n�l 12 tR 13 th 14th th RDOYIN ��,� -^- 15 &OOYINGTON 16th ` _ ��' • ^_�r i- �IL_.:1 loth lll.a _--- -- -- - - 1711 Is ilk i . �•- = -= I loth CEDAR AVE. _j�� -. -� LONGFELLOW -- ________Zh SL ______________ ^ —�� ZZZ,—. CEDAR AVE- ___________ • \ 'I_____i________1rY�� -e+ LONGFELLOW SIR T _ �__J < •� ��r1 STANDISH z CI'7 'n 2S IA ' ' Z Zoning Map 697H ST W. 70TH ST. W. 70 :12 ST. W. w a w > J O —Z7 W a z 0 3 w Z =� MULTIPLE RESIDENCE MR -2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN am U t C J D SITE _ TENSITY/ ONAL Land Use Map dda mm 69TH Si , W. N W Q Z ji O N 70TH ST. W. 70 112 ST. W. N W Q W J O v LL Q Z C r-- 3 LL Z MULTIPLE RESIDENCE MR -2 QUASI PUBLIC ?*-- 4/,, - PETITION MAP du mm 69TH ST . W. ui ui ui O V; C) 70TH ST. W. 70 11 12 ST. W. !151 ui 1> z C> LU z PED SITE FAVOR OF REZONING C C REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM ry) Z- TO FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE le V1 [ aQ, o �" f'1 ce STREET ADDRESS: (ql� � - �-}5 }�Qyyy� f}ut 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: WDOGIIG re }1 elanc4 Azt,d,i+i" $loc.K Ib Lof /D -r,ingdatQ t ms. LihL,olo Ni)13 2hd Aid. 15locx Id Lot 13 We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the land described above, do hereby concur in this Rezoning request. ._Signature of Owners* ., Address Legal Description _ T1'V44& 0Je0& 4Li tKOW MLLS 3w1 lo LOT 20 &DO-r- 16 �! �(/ ' !�� y ClG�i✓ Alle— `C �A�' l'�LlS. �K IK(,S 3rr� 1100. s L TIA,14DM.e Atm. c4&4t u muz 3PAI Aim Ltrr. 13 8t,ae_XIJ. rt'L a'y se T1u4d�ycF d�Pas. v.trcmur rNCCs LOT t 9 &-oce i,& -AS T�MC�D/�LE dens. caNcac.�-��cs L D a "1 3 LDC it 16 3 LAO O Tlu(a vs'�e.ff MeS. Litoxv hvLL3 LOT iy .Jj' LOCK /0 ?1 A4OALE 1�. CJ.tIQx.!!#f/tLS 3h1 A00. � S �L�x 14 TwejpALT, lades. LOWOWNMS 3WA00. LoT 7 6L.oce l6 �p O /O — /0 -6P.lI So . s�1.� LArF r�+e�t�srC a,e,�sv ears LbT I owr_ ? r 'A • �. S H+014 tjWF 4A905r GACMv tors T [~.oT �e o �cecJC�iececu A,Ncc.s % D T'1 e s "Os. u"Ibs,v C� LOT (w gLAeg 10 / oiL J '77t)�Di4L� JSZ'GS. 4.Lbecd�Nlt[S L&T R 3�ocac io Fb,e.eST LAW A! 'rH�eD L.GT 2 de,ee.1_ r LOT-,I dLOCk- s- w44. Z l T1ue��e.� as. U,uebw nvu.,s c e .50 LOT-U. oww-11 (° / 7 - LOT 17 OLOCK 71 C O % i/U( Di�LB �EOS. t-/ tJICd� -.0 M/l1S / �T 7 Bl acx in ,/•�- , n 7008' RiAvn sae�Ut rlge9e�r7 sucors LOT • t 641 3 TlukvACE � .,d UAAC Mit6 AW vO. UT-14 I3L0 IL 'A*OALE -&etc. Lio aw * For purposes determining if petition contains the proper number Of signatures to initiate the - rezoning process signatures may.not be removed once a petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. , • 0 C, REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM rn R- z �lO c . ,,^ TO FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE J V116 C 0_(T1 Ce 6 fdl STREET ADDRESS: ,qql- yf PP h h ,4L e S - LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lv iQ � ''� 8/k 10 Lot i0 X ; n04" Bros Li n,-dn 1)4i1 /.S 2�td ,j. b1g ID 46�_13 We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the land described above, do hereby concur in this Rezoning request. Signature of Owners* `, Address Legal Description J * For purposes of determining if petition contains the proper number Of signatures to initiate'the_rezoning process signatures may.not be removed once a petition is signed and returned to the Planniner Division. f 6 6 I 1 i 1 / 1 n LA TRASH ENCLOSURE 1 I I - I 41 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I i I W W I CO a) i O O a a a I O O 1 1 1 a a i 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 I C 1 1 � 1 1 1 I 1 __ ------------- _---------------- __ PENN AVE. /W z W Z J _Z Lu J LL m LU mW cic Cr -F-+ a H W W cc CO a) W O O a a a O O O = 1 a a a 1 1 i 1 1 1 LU mW cic Cr -F-+ a EICEACE ° ,I I�'ll�l II Gr C��fO■ II,I. II III; ;.r �l■ �p_,,Q I� \ \ir \ \ I Ili, I'illl� fil II 1 I �Si■ : I'; �� I• \ !;!i, I,I I If \�L IO III � O 7.�IIl' jail I!I) ':fl F -�r.O1 If I / �` l\ Iii III till II a ` lilt "MI 11 1 1 I i Niiil��il� All I Or ' �^ -Y I,Itl I ,iii! y� ��• " p � 8p v � °•� II Wit, ti it, '� t� � a �� Iy .V IS�:,�4ae•. ...l.l.. l • • -4� �/, -/,�� BILL NO. 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. Paragraphs 27 and 28 of Section 11 are repealled. II. The following new paragraphs (21) and (22) are added to Section 2. (21) Lot 10, Block 10, woodlake Hiqhland Addition (22) I nt 1'i_ Rlnnl- In T4.,.,A-1 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 138 Agenda May 11, 1987 Issue Statement: Second reading and public hearing to consider an amendment to the city charter regarding filing dates for municipal elective office. Background: The filing dates for elective office in the City Charter are not consistent with Minnesota Statutes 205.13 and 2048.35. At the April 27, 1987 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading to an ordinance amendment to change the filing dates for municipal elective office to.conform to Minnesota Statutes and scheduled second reading and the public hearing for the May 11, 1987 council meeting. Approval of a charter amendment requires unanimous approval of the Council Members. Recommendation: Open the public hearing and continue it to the May 26, 1987 city council meeting. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Approval of a charter amendment requires unanimous approval of the Council Members. Mayor Hamilton will not be present at the May 11, 1987 City Council meeting. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not continue the hearing. However, that will result in the City Charter being inconsistent with the filing period provided by state law. Discussion /Decision Mode: The public hearing for this item was published in the official city newspaper for May 11, 1987. Continuing the hearing to the May 26, 1987 council meeting will still provide sufficient time for the amendment to become effective prior to the printing deadlines for the 1987 general election. Respect lly submitted, James d't Prosser City M�rager JDP /eja y 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 137 Agenda May 11, 1987 Issue Statement: Award of Contract for the 1987 Sealcoating Project. Background: In 1979, the City of Richfield began a phased project of roadway improvements by sealcoating all of the City's bituminous streets. A thin coat of emulsified oil is applied, then covered with rock. This process rejuvenates the surface of the street, and prevents it from deteriorating. This is the eighth year of a council - directed ten -year program. On May 2, 1987, bids were opened from three contractors for the 1987 Sealcoating Project. The low bider was Allied Blacktop at $65,263.70. The bid tabulation is attached. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the award of contract to Allied Blacktopping for $65,263.70. Basis For Recommendation: 1. Allied Blacktop is the lowest responsible bidder. They also performed the 1986 Sealcoating Project in a satisfactory manner. 2. Funding for this project is budgeted in the 1987 Street Division operating budget. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new quotations. However, the three bidders are the top contractors in this field and the prices for this work are unlikely to be lowered enough to justify the cost of the rebidding process. Discussion /Decision Mode: The Council may choose to delay award however, staff would like to schedule possible.. The bidding documents spec withdraw their proposals after thirty The thirty days will be up on June 1, JDP /sae • of contract at this time, the work as soon as ify that the bidders may days of the bid opening. 1987. Respectfully submitted, James D;'. Prosser City,M�nager • • dowro�-3 a w �- ,- nK (+rrWOro (D (D t-+• (D Z (D 0 00 0 0 F h "a • ct rh (D .. O (Dco 0 0 G Q,Zj n n v, •• � Cu AOi n1< rt- 0 ~ 3 3� a OD V � H O v v -+ W � n w � o [ r C'u y � H O C-+- M H E3 Q) (D r• C1 O O o v� c W N r• Cv o a c+ a� r• o : O � C Q, 0 n N N N ZA Z�z a 0 0 0 cn (D CL Q. CL 0 C n N• fi L< rn rn rn V CSl CJl 0 Cn -+ N W Ql C31 � U•1 .� W rt w o v a o 0 dowro�-3 a w �- ,- nK (+rrWOro (D (D t-+• (D Z (D 0 00 0 0 F h "a • ct rh (D .. O (Dco 0 0 G Q,Zj n n v, •• � Cu AOi n1< rt- 0 ~ 3 3� a OD V � H O v v -+ H a w � o [ r C'u y � H O M M H CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.1 Agenda May 11, 19876 Issue Statement: Award of Contract for Joint Cleaning and Resealing of Lyndale Avenue from 62nd to 64th Streets. Background: Cleaning debris from joints in concrete streets removes inflexible material that can cause the joint to erupt during times of expansion. After cleaning, the joints are resealed with material that expands and contracts with the pavement surface. This process will reduce water intrusion into the pavement base, which weakens the street surface. The area under consideration was built over 20 years ago, and has never had the joints cleaned and resealed. The work was put off due to the LHN development, when it was unclear how much of Lyndale Avenue would be affected. The work is now overdue, especially because this is a heavily traveled area. Some of the concrete has deteriorated beyond simple repair and will need complete replacement. On April 15, 1987, bids were opened from five contractors for the 1987 Joint Cleaning and Resealing project. The bid tabulations are attached. Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council authorize the award of contract for this work to Forby Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $64,227.25. Basis For Recommendation: 1. The quotation from Forby Contracting, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder. 2. Funding for this project is budgeted in the 1987 Street Division operating budget. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may choose to reject the bids and direct staff to obtain new quotations. However, the bids obtained are not out of line for the condition of this area of roadway, and staff does not believe we could obtain abetter price. Discussion /Decision Mode: The Council may choose to delay award the contract documents allow the bidd after 30 days of the bid opening. In be up on May 15, 1987. Staff delayed this case in order to obtain evidence • of this contract, however, ers to withdraw their bids this case, the 30 days will the award of contract in of qualification for this .7 • • contractor, as this company was unknown to us. received proof that the contractor is fully able work, and would like to proceed to schedule the JDP /sae Staff has since to perform this work. Respectfully submitted, Jame$',D. Prosser City�iManager �/- 4?r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.1-35 Agenda May 11, 1987 Issue Statement: Authority to purchase variable frequency drive for backwash reclaim at Water Plant. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The 1987 budget for water maintenance includes $26,000 for the replacement of the backwash reclaim pump. This pump reclaims water used to backwash and clean the plant filters when they are dirty. The present pump, installed approximately 10 years ago, operates at 5,500 gallons per minute (GPM) which is too small for the present operation which tends to average about 6,500 GPM. A new pump, which has been purchased, is sized at 7,800 GPM and may reduce to 75% or 5,850 GPM. To pace the new pump an AC variable drive, which will vary the speed in relationship to the level of water in the wet well,.is needed. Four written quotations were received for different brands of the AC variable drive: Vendor Brand Quote Linden Electric Square D $11,400 E. H. Renner Parametrics Flow Economizer 11,620 E. H. Renner Mitsubishi 12,659 E. H. Renner Hughes Electro Speed 17,021 Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council authorize the purchase of a (Square D).AC variable drive from Linden Electric in the amount of $11,400. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The quotation by Linden Electric was the lowest submitted. 2. The (Square D) met the informal specifications. 3. Sufficient funding is available for this purchase. Total funding available includes purchase of the pump, drive and installation costs. Alternative Recommendation: As quotations received were within the price range anticipated and as it is necessary to have the variable frequency drive for efficient operation, there is no alternate recommendation. • Discussion /Decision Mode: The City Council may choose to delay action although this would mean a proportionate delay in installation of the new equipment. This item has been scheduled for the May 11, 1987 agenda. JDP /e ja • • Respectf611y submitted, I {' James) D'. Prosser City 41anager Z//Z�-' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 134 Agenda May 11, 1987 Issue Statement: Request for permit for illuminated sign at Cutler Animal Hospital, 7738 Colfax Avenue. Background: City ordinance provides that the city council must approve all permits for illuminated signs. Cutler Animal Hospital requests a permit to replace their existing 8' x 4' double faced ground sign. Recommendation: Approve the permit for this illuminated sign. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Inspection Division and the Planning Division have approved the sign. 2. The sign conforms to all applicable city ordinances. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not approve the permit. However, the city has no alternative design criteria to suggest for substitutes for this sign. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the consent calendar portion of the May 11, 1987 council agenda for consideration. The businesses are requesting action to complete their sign placement. JDP /sae • Respectfully submitted, James, q. Prosser City �nager APPROVE ❑ DENY ❑ City "tanager Date APPROVE RJ TENY❑ :c Planning Dephrtment _ Date '5/f K T APPROVE I E_ ] DE`'Y ❑: '�- �'`-_ r Inspect Date APPROVE ❑ DENY❑ : - City _ . -Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs Council - -" - - �-"--`' APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield,. Minnesota- -�-4 -- -=-- = - Date_= Z' Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No A l r " Address of Sign Proprietor Nam A Sign Erector Address Tyne of Sign Desian Weather Cover Lighting Illu-innted Yes No Yatts Electrical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner or his Ageni Signat Zr e Phone Estimated Cost Sign Width k' Height G' Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead u4ility lines, vehicle movement lines, -or public facilities on.,, -. drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as define on page Z. 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 th sign, structu ,.or bill rd restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for r acce y p so s desti d for or passing the subject premises? i- 1 Applicant's Signature and Titte with Firm Date r one Number �7/IP�,� Lkt 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face "Multi-Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T ❑ A n Post ❑ Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors Illu-innted Yes No Yatts Electrical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner or his Ageni Signat Zr e Phone Estimated Cost Sign Width k' Height G' Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead u4ility lines, vehicle movement lines, -or public facilities on.,, -. drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as define on page Z. 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 th sign, structu ,.or bill rd restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for r acce y p so s desti d for or passing the subject premises? i- 1 Applicant's Signature and Titte with Firm Date r one Number �7/IP�,� Lkt 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 y'4�7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council'Letter No. 133 Agenda May 11, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration to approve sale of used refrigeration system at Cedar Liquor Store. Background: The refrigeration system at the Cedar Avenue liquor store cannot be used in the new liquor store because current state health codes prohibit the use of wood framed refrigeration systems. Bids for the sale of the used refrigeration system were opened on April 30, 1987. One bid was received. Recommendation: 1. Approve the bid minutes and tabulation. 2. Approve the sale of the wood refrigeration system to Melvin D. Henry in the amount of $5,150.00. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Estimated value of the equipment is $5,000- $6,000. 2. Melvin D. Henry submitted the only bid. 3. The system cannot be used in the new store. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Request staff to readvertise for the sale of the system. However, as the bid received very closely equals the value of the system, it is doubtful that higher bids would be received. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the May 11, 1987 consent calendar for council consideration. However, the equipment will not be removed until the store is vacated sometime in May. JDP /eja Respectfully submitted, Jam s' D. Prosser City Manager X/ °L— CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 132 Agenda May 11, 1987 Issue Statement: Proclamation designating the Week of May 10 as Small Business Week in Richfield. Background: The Richfield Chamber of Commerce has requested the City Council to issue a proclamation in support of Small Business Week in Richfield. Members of the Chamber will be present to accept this proclamation at the May 11, 1987 Council meeting. Recommendation: Present the proclamation designating the week of May 10 -16, 1987 as Small Business Week in Richfield to the Richfield Chamber of Commerce. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Small businesses comprise almost 100% of the private enterprise in the city. 2. The city recognizes that the growth and prosperity of Richfield's small business is essential to the well being of the community. 3. Members of the Chamber will be present to accept this proclamation. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Present this proclamation at another time. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the May 11, 1987 council agenda for presention at that time. JDP /eja is Respe fully submitted, JjamD. Prosser Cnager C • 3 a r Tr W C N H z m N 3E m m A H z H I1 H m r v T� N ^O 3 r a a < 3 a � H � o m � N � H O G7 v z a . H z C7 (n 7-17 rr C-) 0 o' 0 3 CD 0 0 0 c o w H c a O a CD rr Z) a r• o I- 0- 3 0 c O H v l< (D P. z O CD 3E r• 3E O CS F- O r• cn 2 (D 2 z c r) rr cn m CD m m (n O r• H CD ;0 ;o r•crrCD wm wm rr m --b l< 0 -1 a Fr a 7 CD r• 0 2 r•N a N r• cn H 0 to m (1) O U) (n a 7-) ;0 N CD r• m CD rr rr rr ►�. 3 O N 'r1 N =r _-x a rr r• CD O cn CD I-' CD 3 r `< 3 m O toy (n Co �pp CL co -o c P. 0- r• 0 w w C H -0 CD CD CO w f o F-r m (n 0-0 m I� rr -b C1 H 00 0- CD 3 O z h- H 0 .'0 ri' M O- w -b m wrr0-0M ow r•c O N r• `< o N O O N w 3 N a w O O c-r a =r P. w r• 0C-t- a r s -b 0 •< :K O a = r• < CD 'O r• CD w `• m to CD 0 m H (D (n H m w (n v CD o 1-- (n 0 X rr-O CD w 0 (n a CD r• . %0 ZT-0 : rr 0-0 - (n w co H CD H O a S O CD (n v z CD 3 w O H P. • f 0 0) 0 rr B P. 'O O 3 CD r• 1-r r• W Ct H 0) H CD w 1-- < rr 0 << P. rr %< n T. c-r P. zr < ::r O = wO'0CD 3E 0 wCD H O O c CD -b ct H -b 7 (n 0 ;D CD C) 'C m P. O P. P. H r 3 0 > > C') P. CD c-r O v w -t CD ct 3 CS 0 0 << `< N H -b CD ? rr --I (n r• r• r• -b CD O CD F-' r• CD O" CD O r• H -b C7 0 (n c I- l0 CD "O O I :T- rr a F-- H H I-- --b . P. O a P. r• CD 0% r• w O C7 --b - (n 0 CD :3 3 r• (n CD 3 Q) N a (n rr rr - -y) (n a << :: (n P. - a a CD B w CD (n O w w D 1-- CD a a a N CD 1--� 3 a r Tr W C N H z m N 3E m m A H z H I1 H m r v T� N ^O 3 r a a < 3 a � H � o m � N � H O G7 v z a . H z C7