The URL can be used to link to this page

04-13-87 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 125 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Report to the City Council regarding legislative items of concern to the City of Richfield. Background: At the state and national level, a number of proposals have been introduced which would negatively impact local government-_. ' n cted our i Mana er have co to The Ma or and C t o erations. Y 9 P Y elected officials on a number of issues. At the A ril 13, 1987 P city council meeting, the City Clerk will read this summary into the record, along with some of the responses we have received from our elected officials. Discussion/Decision Mode: There is no specific action to taken by the city council at this time. This item has been placed on the April 13, 1987 council agenda for the information of the public and the city council. Respectfully submitted, • James Prosser City t1 Hager JDP/eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD LEGISLATION CONCERNS Opposed to Governor's recommendation for a cut in the 1987 LGA allocation and its elimination in 1988 (would cost the city in excess of $625,000 if there is a 20% reduction) Opposed to Governor's proposal to transfer the motor vehicle excise tax funds to the general fund instead of the highway fund. Opposed to HF 793 relating to the way public notice is provided for public meetings. Opposed to SF353-HF373- Ground Water Protection Bill and HF 360, Local Erosion and Sediment Control Bill Opposed to Governor's recommendation to extend the 6% sales tax and 6% motor vehicle excise tax to local government purchases.. (would cost the city $120,000 in 1987 and over $300,000 in 1988) Opposed to the Governor's proposal to extend 2% gross health insurance premium to self-insurers and non-profit insurers. (would cost the city over $10,000 per year) Opposed to HF1012 to eliminate property tax exemptions for civic organizations, including senior citizen's meeting rooms and recreation facilities. • Opposed to HF 946 which would prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to live within a certain distance of place of employment. Opposed to HF416-SF282 which would provide a mill levy of up to 4% for Hennepin County to analyze rapid transit needs Opposed to HF 469 limiting the ability of the city to establish fees for vending machines Opposed to the sale of strong beer and wine in grocery stores and supermarkets Opposed to HF936 which would create a statewide public employees insurance plan administered by the Department of Employee Relatioions Support HF239 requiring administration of school district elections in the same manner as municipal elections and on the same date Support legislation which would enable the city to obtain early payment for tax collections • Support SF433 which would require a reimbursement from the state for any expense related to implementing a state mandated program or activity -..Z . Support legislation which would make it possible for local governments to receive early payment of local government aid • ~ / ~ Phillip J. Riveness . ~ House of District40B " Representatives Hennepin County Committees: ~"i • Appropriations Fred C. Norton, Speaker Health and Human Services Division Agriculture Economic Development and Housing Future and Technology Rules and Legislative Administration, Vice Chairman March 18, 1987 Legislative Audit Commission - Assistant Majority Leader John Hamilton, Mayor City of Richfield b7CD Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mayor Hamilton: Thank you for your recent letter regarding some of the Governor's tax proposals that will affect municipalities. I appreciated your sharing your concerns over these issues. L realine,.that the proposed sales tax would put local goverment budgets in a,:. bind. I want`you to know that I disagree with the Governor's proposal and will • oppose it despite the approximately $D~;-m~illion'that i=t~ 1s'ezpected to bring in „;~o .the s~tra~te Yove?~. fhe' next"biennium: - Als:o in the Governor's proposal is a measure to reduce the amount of local government aid by $5,million~for. FY 1958 and freeze it at the reduced level for FY 1989. He feels that becatase of the'estate's increased role in the funding of K-12 education., property taxes should reflect-the cost of services delivered ,by local government. His proposal will allow more freedom and responsibility for local decision makers. in regard to property tax levels. I feel that this ;will open a Pandora's box of disparity problems and do not sup-port this proposal „ either. , The Motor Vehicle Excise Tax transfer issue is currently on hold pending the March revenue projections. It is hoped that these new numbers will allow the Governor to save face and back down on his previous proposal-for non-transfer. Although there has been much resistance, we might be forced to consider extend- ing the sales tax to gasoline purchases and combine that revenue with whatever portion of the MVET money that is put back into the Highway fund. It is important to note that by upsetting the formula that has been used to determine transit revenues the Metropolitan area might not came out as well as it has in the past. • Reply to: ? 445 State Office Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Office: (612) 296-7158 C 2209 E. Old Shakopee Rd., Bloomington, MN 55420- Home: (612) 854-3049 i ` March 18, 1987 Page 2 • I want to assure you that I will be keeping a close watch on these issues as they rnake their way through the legislative process. The basis for much of the tax reform to come out of this session will probably originate from somewhere other than the Governor's proposals. Thanks again for your letter. I hope you will contact me again regarding any other issues that. you have questions or concerns on. - ` Sincerely, Phil Riveness State Representative 2805 ~ xc: James Prosser, City Manager Edwina Garcia, Council Martin Kirsch, Council , • Ivan Ludeman Council Michael Sandahl, Council III • MICHAEL O. FREEMAN senate ~F Senate District 40 Room 122 Capitol State of Minnesota • St. Paul, MN 55155 (612) 296-9307 Apri 1 2, 1 9 8 7 Mr. James D. Prosser, City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Prosser, I am in receipt of your letters of March 18, March 20 and March 30th concerning many issues either proposed by Governor Perpich or introduced in this session of the legislature. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. As you recognized in your letter of March 30, this is a very busy time here at the legislature. In part, I am writing this letter to you at 11:20 P.M. on April 1, a day in which my first committee hearing began at 8 A.M. Such a schedule makes it difficult to to respond in writing to all your concerns. I do want to assure you however, that both phone calls and letters from constituents of District 40 and particularly Richfield and Bloomington City and school officials are brought to my personal attention soon after they are received. This information is very helpful to me in performing my legislative duties. However, responding • promptly in writing to all the concerns you raise is very difficult in the last six weeks of the legislative session. I have in the past and will continue in the future to do my best to ensure that the concerns of the City of Richfield are weld represented at the Capitol. As I am sure you are aware, revenues raised by state taxes are a significant revenue source for the City of Richfield. As you are also aware the financial picture for the state is not good - if the present rate of state spending and taxation were maintained Minnesota would face a $800 million deficit in June, 1989. As the Minnesota Constitution requires a balanced budget, we face the dilemna of .both cutting spendine aid raising taxes this session. Obviously, tax increases are not popular nor are spending cuts. Much of the money the state raises provides considerable property tax relief - tax relief from the principal revenue source for cities, counties and school districts. As you know, the State of Minnesota receives no money from property tax. I am certain you can understand our dilemna. Thanks for raising issues of concern with me and please continue to do so. We will do the best we can for our .cities, school and all our citizens. Si c e Mi hael O. Freeman State Senator cc: Mayor John Hamilton City Council Members #/9~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.'124 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration to renew licenses for on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor; restaurant and soft drink; and video game and mechanical amusement devices for Minnesota Restaurants d/b/a Chuck E. Cheese Pizza Time Theatre Background: In January of 1987, the applications for the above listed licenses were submitted by the applicant for renewal. The fees for these licenses have been paid. The city was notified by the Minnesota Department of Revenue that the applicant has unpaid sales and withholding tax obligations amounting to over $68,000. On March 9, 1987, the city received Denial of Tax Clearance Certificates from the Department of Revenue. These certificates are formal notification to the city that the tax obligations have not been met and that under MSS 270.72, the city cannot renew any of the licenses that the applicant is requesting. During the course of the background investigation relative to the renewal process, a representative from the Public Safety Department was in contact with a Karen Swanberg from the Department of Revenue, also, a Mr. Kevin Lee of the parent company, Minnesota Animated Restaurants. On April 7, 1987, Ms. Swanberg stated that the tax obligations had not yet been met and the applicant had not as yet signed any agreements concerning the outstanding tax obligation. She stated that a partial payment has been made, however, she did not know the amount and the check issued has not yet cleared the bank so it is her position that the entire obligation is still owing. On April 7, 1987, Mr. Lee was advised that the report would be completed that afternoon and based upon the information available we had no alternative but to recommend denial of the renewal of the licenses requested. Mr. Lee stated that it was his intention to have the matter cleared up by the time the council met on April 13, 1987. On April 9, 1987 the city was advised by Karen Swanberg of the Department of Revenue that all delinquent accounts had been paid. Recommendation: Based upon the information submitted by the applicant, the Department of Revenue and the investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety, it is recommended that the council approve the renewal of the licenses requested. Alternatives: 1. None ~/9'f • Decision/Discussion Mode: The request for the renewal of licenses is scheduled for April 13, 1987. The applicant is planning on attending .this meeting. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP/eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 123 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of a request by Mr. Robert Vessel for council to direct the staff to regrade and establish special maintenance standards for Milner Pond Background: II Mr. Vessel, 6428 5th Avenue, has. contacted the city and requested that Milner Pond maintenance and dredging be placed on the April 13, 1987 agenda. Mr. Vessel's request includes that the city dredge the pond in the near future and secondly that the city council establish a policy for pond maintenance, requiring monthly cleanup of the pond. Mr. Vessel cites his belief that there has been brush on the pond site for an excessive period of time and the city has not picked up the brush. In regard to the former request, city staff has surveyed the bottom of the pond and reviewed past records. We have discovered that we should move cautiously regarding any dredging for two basic reasons: 1. The elevation of the bottom of Milner Pond has not changed appreciably for 50 years according to a contour map dating • to 12/23/37. 2. There is only about one foot of mud sealing the bottom of the i pond. Ground water elevations are about five feet below the bottom of the pond. This means that disturbing the mud seal by dredging could make it impossible to hold any water in the pond. Normal static water level for the pond is shallow enough so that receding water does create an appearance problem in that area. Residents are understanderably concerned about this fact. The solution to this problem would normally be increasing the depth of the pond. However, as previously indicated, that solution has a number of serious implications-which need to be studied for that pond. Because the outdoor season is already upon us the need to undertake the analysis expeditiously is clear. Mr. Vessel's second concern relates to maintenance of the pond. City investigation of his specific reference to the pile of brush near the northwest edge of the pond indicates that the brush is on private property and not a result of city work. Currently, normal practice indicates that adjacent property owners are required to maintain the edge of the ponds. If there is a public park adjacent to the ponds, park maintenance crews do pick up debris on the pond shorelines which are abut the park. • Maintenance for the pond currently includes inspection of public ares around .pond approximately once a month. • Recommendation: 1. Permit staff to continue to examine alternatives to Milner Pond operation and maintenance. 2. Provide staff an opportunity to establish a written shore line maintenance olic for review b the city council. P Y Y Basis for Recommendation: 1. More time is needed to gather additional technical informs- tion relating to the pond. 2. Cost implications of various alternatives need to be identified and analyzed. 3. Cost implications of expanding pond maintenance should be carefully considered because of the impact throughout the community. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The city could rent equipment and perform minor work in the pand in an attempt to prevent the high spots from showing as water recedes due to evaporation and percolation. However, this could break the mud seal. Also, the benefit of this work may be shortlived if successful at all. 2. Increased maintenance to shoreline adjacent to residential property could be provided if additional funding is identified. However, the implications of increased mainten- ance to all ponds should also be considered. • Discussion/Decision Mode: A decision does not need to be made. We will seek to provide a report to the council at the May study session. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP/eja I, • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 122 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Resolution establishing a fee for an auto detailing license. Background: The City Council has previously approved an ordinance amendment to establish requirements for an auto detailing license. .Staff indicated at that time that we would bring back to the council a resolution to establish the fee for that particular license. Attached. is a resolution establishing the fee. Recommendation: Approve the attached resolution establishing a fee of $225.00 for an auto detailing license. Basis of Recommendation: The basis of recommendation is that the fee is necessary to reimburse the city for a portion of the administrative costs for reviewing the application. The amount of the fee is consistent with the fees currently in existence for automobile washing establishments. Alternative Recommendation: • None. Decision Mode: This matter is scheduled for council consideration on April 13th. The fee needs to be established prior to the effective date of the ordinance creating the auto detailing license requirement. The ordinance establishing the auto detail license will become effective on or about April 18, 1987. Respectfu y submitted, James Prosser City Hager • RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AMENDING APPENDIX D TO THE CITY CODE BE ESTABLISHING LICENSE FEE FOR AUTOMOBILE DETAILING ESTABLISHMENTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. .Resolution No. 7243 is hereby amended by adding to Section 8 thereof the following: TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION REQUIRING FEE SCHEDULE FEE OR LICENSE (17) Auto Detailing 6.24 1 year $225 Establishment 2. The city clerk is instructed to incorporate the above- described amendment into the fee schedule contained in Appendix D to the Ordinance Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13 day of April, 1987. ~ John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 121 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Referral of ordinances creating the new C-3 High Density Freeway Commercial zoning district and C-3 Zoning District boundaries to the Planning Commission and HRA for study. Background: At the March 2 Study Session staff discussed the concept of creating a new C-3 high density freeway commercial zoning district in the ILN redevelopment area to insure that proper development occurs in that area in accordance with the goals and objectives of the-ILN Redevelopment Plan. Staff has been working with the city attorney's office and our consulting firm of BRW to draft C-3 district regulations. We have completed the draft ordinance for city council consideration. Staff. Recommendation: Pass the attached resolution referring the draft ordinance to the Plannin Commission and HRA for re iew and recommendations for v g future council action. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The action is consistent with the strategy previously • discussed with the City Council and in accordance with State n 1 l r in n r irem n Thi will also allow Statute a d oca o d a ce equ a ts. s proper and adequate public input and review of the ordinance prior to council action in May. Alternative Recommendation: Not refer the ordinance to the Planning Commission and HRA. Without referral the Planning Commission would not be able to formally review the proposed ordinance. Decision Mode: This matter is scheduled for council consideration on April 13, 1987. This matter is scheduled for HRA consideration on April 20 and for Planning Commission consideration on April 28. Council consideration of the ordinance and the council public hearing on this matter have been tentatively scheduled for May 11 and 26. Properly mailed and published notice will be provided for the public hearings on these matters. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION A PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A C-3 HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL FREEWAY ZONING DISTRICT AND TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED. WITHIN THE ZLN AREA TO SAID DISTRICT BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.OI. In 1985 the City Council of the City of Richfield (City) established a redevelopment project and tax .increment financing district in an area of the city generally located east of I-35W and north of I-94, known as Interstate Lyndale Nicollet (ILN). • 1.02. The purpose of the redevelopment project is to encourage develop- - ment and redevelopment of the ILN area, which area is presently under- utilized. 1.03. The city staff has proposed to establish a new zoning district within the text of the zoning ordinance for the purpose of creating development standards for certain areas of the city which because of their visibility and proximity to regional arterials can support a high level of development. 1.04. The city staff also proposes to rezone certain property from its present zoning classification to the newly established zoning district in recognition of the appropriateness of a high level of development on such land. 1.05. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, subd. 4 permits the city council to consider an amendment of the text or map of the city's zoning ordinance only after such matter has been referred to the planning commission for study and report. Section 2. Referral Made to Planning Commission. ezonin of 2.OI. The proposed creation of a new zoning district and the r g certain property in accordance with such new district is hereby referred to the planning commission for study and report. • 2.02. The planning commission is requested to report to the city council regarding such matters as soon hereafter as is reasonably practicable, but no later than 60 days from the date of the adoption of this resolu- tion. 2.03. City staff and consultants are hereby authorized and directed to provide such documentation .and ..technical support: to the planning commission as may be reasonably necessary to accomplish the intent of this resolution. 2.04. City staff is hereby authorized and directed to cause such notices to be published or mailed to affected persons regarding .such proposed. zoning amendments as may be required by Iaw. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0055RE05.E40 2 ~0~' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 120 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Appointments to the 1987 Board of Equalization (Board of Review) Background: City Charter provides that the Local Board of Equalization shall consist of all of the City Council Members and two Richfield residents experienced in real estate matters. The purpose of the Board is to hear appeals from the property owners concerning. their property taxes. Mr. Lawrence Emond and Mr. John Janski served on the Board of Equalization as residential representatives for the first time in 1983. They have both expressed a willingness to serve on the Board again in 1987. Mr. Emond, 6325 Russell Avenue, has been an independent property appraiser for over 11 years. His primary work involves conducting property appraisals for financial institutions. He is also experienced in building. construction and has held a Real Estate License. Mr. Emond has been a Richfield resident in excess of 25 years. Mr. Janski, 6500 Second Avenue, has been a real estate appraiser for over 40 years, and is the past president of the Minnesota i • Chapter Of The American Institute Of Real Estate Appraisers. He has been a Richfield resident for over 30 years. Both Mr. Emond and Mr. Janski have three years experience on the Local Board of Equalization. They have both been active members of the Board and have contributed valuable input as the Board made determinations on appeals presented by Richfield citizens. It is recommended that the compensation for the resident members be set at $34.00 per session, or $14.00 per hour per session, whichever is greater. This is the rate established in 1986 and remains the same with no increase proposed. Recommendation: Approve the attached resolution confirming the appointment of Mr. Emond and Mr. Janski to the 1987 Board of Equalization, at the proposed level of compensation stated herein. Basis Of Recommendation: 1. Both Mr. Emond and Mr. Janski are very knowledgeable and experienced in the areas of Real Estate appraisal. 2. Both Mr. Emond and Mr. Janski have served on the Richfield Board of Equalization in the past, and .have done a very good job in that capacity. 3. It is required by City Charter that there be two resident representatives on the Board of Equalization. . Alternative Recommendation: 1. The .City Council'~could select other individuals as resident representatives of-..the Board of Equalization, in place of ~i~-~ either Mr. Emond or Mr. Janski or both. I' Discussion/Decision Mode: It is requested that the City Council set the appointment of Mr. Emond and Mr. Janski at the council meeting of April 13, 1987. The Board of Equalization will meet at 7:00 P.M. Monday, June 1, 1987. The appointment at the council meeting of April 13, 1987 ensures that the city staff has adequate time to set residents appointments to the Board. Re e fully submitted, Jam Prosser Ci Manager JDP/sae II I • ~/~~2 RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENT OF TWO RESIDENT MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota hereby approves the City Manager's appointment of Mr. Lawrence Emond and Mr. John Janski as 1987 resident members on the Board of Equalization as provided in Chapter 7 of the City Charter. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that compensation for the two ~ resident members of the Board of Equalization be set at a minimum I, of $34.00 per session of the Board, or $14.00 per hour per session of the Board, whichever is greater. I Passed by the City Council this 13th day of March, 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • ~j~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 119 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Approval of Amendment to refunding escrow agreement and Resolution amending terms of $6,265,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds of 1985. Background: In_1985, the City of Richfield issued a $6,265,000 General Obligation Refunding Bond. Proceeds of this Refunding Bond are to be used to pay off all costs and obligations associated with the $5,750,000 General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of 1984. The Refunding Bonds were sold because the net interest rate on the Refunding Bonds is 7.77%, compared with 9.45% on the 1984 Bonds. The difference resulted in a present value savings of about $300,000 to the City of Richfield. As part of the refunding process, an agreement was fashioned between the City of Richfield and Norwest Bank of Minneapolis (the escrow agent) concerning the escrow account which received proceeds of the Refunding Bonds of 1985, and which will be used to ultimately decrease or pay off the original 1984 Bond Issue. At the present time, Evensen Dodge, Inc., the City's financial • consultant on the bond sale, has approached Moody's Investors Service for a re-rating of the refunded bond issue to Aaa. There would be no cost to the city for this re-rating. The re-rating is a necessary part of the bond refunding process at this point, since Moody's Investors Service would likely not continue the present Aa rating of the refunding bonds and could withdraw any rating of the bonds unless an amendment to the Escrow Agreement is not undertaken. The amendment to the Escrow Agreement proposed would not effect the sufficiency of the escrow account or the savings achieved in the refunding bond transaction. Basically, the issue centers around language in the original Escrow Agreement which indicates that the funds in the escrow account could not be reinvested unless there was an opinion by a nationally recognized Bond Council to allow such reinvestment. The new language that is being insisted upon by Moody's Investors Service would prohibit any reinvestment of escrow funds. In essence, Moody's feels that since the escrow account now contains all money necessary to completely pay off the 1984 Bond Issue, they want a prohibition of any reinvestment of those funds to preclude any investment loss which could occur and thereby leave the escrow account insufficient. As a matter of practice, the City of Richfield and Evensen Dodge, Inc.-have no problem with making such an Amendment. Evensen Dodge, Inc. recommends that we proceed with this action at our earliest convenience. • • Recommendation: Adoption of a Resolution amending the terms of the $6,265,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds of 1985 and approval of an Amendment to the Refunding Escrow Agreement between the City of Richfield, Minnesota and Norwest Bank of Minneapolis National Association. Basis of Recommendation: 1. It has been recommended to the City by Evensen Dodge, our Financial Consultant, that the City make such amendments to the Refunding Bond Issue to ensure that Moody's Investors Service re-rate the refunded bonds to a Aaa rating. This is the highest rating that Moody's Investors Service will issue for a bond. 2. If the re-rating is not sought by the City, Moody's Investors Service would likely withdraw the original Aa rating on the Refunding Bonds. While this would have no impact per se on i the bond issue, it could be detrimental to the City to have an unrated refunding bond when any future bonds are sold. 3. The change does not effect the sufficiency of the escrow account or the savings achieved by the City in the trans- action, and for all practical purposes, does not change the way the Escrow Agreement has been administered. 4. David Kennedy of the City Attorney's Office concurs that the recommendation would be an appropriate course of action for the City with respect to this bond issue. Alternative Recommendations: City Council could decide .not to pass the attached resolution and amend the Refunding Escrow Agreement. As mentioned earlier, this would likely jeopardize the rating of the Refunding Bond Issue. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action of the City Council is desirable at the April 13, 1987 meeting so that this item may be completed and forwarded to Moody's Investors Service to complete the request. for bond re- rating. Re e fully submitted, J s D. Prosser C't Manager JDP/sae • j f~ RESOLUTION AMENDING TERMS OF $6,265,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS OF 1985 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City has heretofore issued its General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds of 1985, dated December 1, 1985 (the Bonds), for the purpose of advance refunding its $5,750,000 General Obligation ,Tax Increment Bonds of 1984, dated as of August 1, 1984 (the Refunded Bonds). 2. The City and Norwest Bank Minneapolis, National Association (the "Agent") have entered into a Refunding Escrow Agreement (as executed, the "Original Refunding Escrow Agreement") dated December 30, 1985, whereby the City has agreed to deposit the proceeds of the. Bonds with the Agent to be applied in the manner and for the purposes set forth in Section 2 thereof . 3. In connection with the rerating of the Refunded Bonds, Moody's Investors Services, Inc. has required the • amendment of certain provisions in the Original Refunding Escrow Agreement and has requested that the City and the Agent amend the Original Refunding Escrow Agreement. 4. The City hereby agrees to the amendment of the Original Refunding Escrow Agreement as set forth in the Amendment to Refunding Escrow Agreement (the "Amendment to Refunding Escrow Agreement") between the City and the Agent. The Amendment to Refunding Escrow Agreement in substantially the form presented to this Council is hereby approved. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to approve, execute and deliver the Amendment to Refunding Escrow Agreement. The Original Refunding Escrow Agreement shall, except as specifically supplemented by .the Amendment to Refunding Escrow Agreement, remain in full force and effect. 5. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its final adoption. Mayor Attest: Clerk • A3.26/4 ~iy_~ The foregoing resolution was introduced by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember and the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted again the same: ~ whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I i I~~ 2 A3.26/5 t~/~i EVENSEN DODGE, INC. FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS • March 11, 1987 ~ a ti Mr. Steven Devich Director of Administrative Services City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 RE: $6,265,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds of 1985 Dear Mr. Devich: In connection with the City of Richfield's refunding bond issue listed above we have applied to Moody's Investors Service for a rerating of the refunded bonds to Aaa. Moody's has informed us that they will not rerate the refunded bond unless the escrow agreement is amended to prohibit the reinvestment of funds held in the escrow account. This will not affect the sufficiency of • the escrow account or the savings achieved in the transaction. To amend the escrow agreement you will need to have the Council adopt a resolution and have an amended escrow agreement executed. I have enclosed copies of the resolution and amended escrow agreement. We have discussed this matter with your bond attorney, and he approves of this procedure. All expenses of the refunding including the rerating fee were paid at the time the bonds were issued so the City will incur no additional costs. The delay in the rerating is a result of a change of policy by Moody's concerning reinvestment provisions in escrow agreements. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, EVENS D DGE, IN . Charles A. Upcraft Financial Analyst ns 3608 IDS Tower, Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 612/338-3535 800/328-8200 800/328-8100 Minnesota nsedmlcau/1 AMENDMENT TO REFUNDING ESCROLV AGREEMENT between CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • and NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION • A3.26/1 ~i~ ~ THIS AMENDMENT TO REFUNDING ESCROW AGREEMENT (the "Amendment to Refunding Escrow Agreement") is made as of 1987, between CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (the "City") and NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association (the "Agent"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the City has undertaken to issue its $6,265,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds of 1985 (the Bonds) , dated as of December 1, 1985, for the purpose of advance refunding its $5,750,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1984, dated as of August 1, 1984; and WHEREAS, the City and the Agent have entered into a Refunding Escrow Agreement (as executed called herein the "Original Refunding Escrow Agreement"), dated December 30, 1985, whereby the City has agreed to deposit the proceeds of the Bonds with the Agent to be applied in the manner and for the purposes set forth in Section 2 thereof; and WHEREAS, the City and the Agent have agreed to amend the Original Refunding Escrow Agreement to reflect a modification of the reinvestment provisions; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Section 4 of the Original Refunding Escrow Agreement is hereby amended to read: In order to insure continuing compliance with Section 103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, and present Internal Revenue Service Regulations promulgated thereunder, the Agent agrees that it will not reinvest any cash received in payment of the principal of and interest on the federal securities held in the Escrow Account. Section 2. From and after the date hereof, the Original Refunding Escrow Agreement and this Amendment to Refunding Escrow Agreement shall be construed as one instrument. Except as specifically amended by this Amendment to Refunding Escrow Agreement, all of the provisions of the Original Refunding Escrow Agreement remain in full force and effect. Section 3. Binding Effect. This Amendment to Refunding Escrow Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the City and the Agent and their respective successors and assigns. 2 A3.26/2 ~ Section 4. Severabilit~. In the event any provision of this Amendment to Refunding Escrow Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. Section 5. Execution Counterparts. This Amendment to Refunding Escrow Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to Refunding Escrow-Agreement to be executed the date first above written. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (SEAL) By Its Mayor And Its City Nlanager NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Agent By Its (SEAL) 3 A3.26/3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 118 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an amendment to Chapter 4.07 of the city code, regulating house moving in the city. Background: The Public Safety Department has responded to several complaints recently concerning house movers who have left dwellings they were moving on vacant lots or city property without permission. The movers would leave the houses at these sites for weeks, and neighboring residents called to complain about the unsightly nature of the houses and the potential public hazard. The houses were being broken into, and in one case a house was set on fire. The Public Safety Department had difficulty in resolving the problems and is seeking to improve the ordinance by making it easier to enforce. The ordinance was reviewed by all city departments, and language changes to the ordinance have been proposed. One major change prohibits the "parking" of houses without city approval. -The changes will make the intent of some items clear, replace vague items with specific language, and replace outdated references with current language. The City Council gave first reading to this ordinance at the March 9, 1987 city council meeting, and scheduled second reading and the public hearing for the April 13, 1987 council meeting. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and approve second reading of the amendment to Section 4.07 of the City Ordinance. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The existing ordinance contains items and terms which are vague. 2. Some items and references in the ordinance are no longer consistent with State statutes and need to be updated. 3. The above items have made the ordinance difficult for the Public Safety Department to enforce it and resolve complaints in a timely manner. Alternative Recommendation: The city council could reject the changes. However, the outdated items and vague language would still make the ordinance difficult to enforce. ~/3 Decision/Discussion Mode: The public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for the April 13, 1987 city council meeting. If the ordinance is approved, it will take effect 30 days after publication in the official newspaper. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager . • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.07 OF THE CODE OF CITY ORDINANCES The Cit of Richfi 1 D y e d oes Ordain: Section 4.07 of the Code of City Ordinances is hereby amended by deleting the yt~'i;,ke~ material and adding the underlined material as follows: 4.07. MOVING OF BUILDINGS OVER STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC HIGHWAYS. Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms have the meanings ascribed to them in this section (tea) "Building" means a structure designed, built or occupied as a shelter or roofed enclosure for persons, animals, or property used for residential, business, mercantile, storage, ~ commercial, industrial, institutional, assembly, educational or recrea i n yn^ t o al purposes . A structure of less than 1~p~~;~,.... ~ f s-e~ iiv~i airsa 16 feet by 20 feet shall not be within this i definition. (fib) The titles "Ecity i~fmanager", "director of Ecommunity • services", "$director of Ecommunity ~Hdevelopment" and "director of ~Ppublic safety" shall include those persons and their designees. Subd. 2. Permit Required. No persons shall move any building VVC1, ~1i VYYy, on oracross any highway, street or alley over which the city has jurisdiction and supervision ~s-ele-fi:~; d ire A~~___~~~ta sLat,u~~~ 1;01, lilYGjJLrl lfi:?, without first obtaining a permit from the E;,itY New building official. This section applies r~YaL~voY. regardless of the origin or destination of the building or structure. No persons shall while in the process of moving a building, park the same on any property in the city without the prior approval of the Ei.ts :-ems building official. Subd. 3. Application. Persons seeking issuance of a permit hereunder shall file an application for such permit with the ;.iY1C~ $building ~~sgee~e-r official. Subd. 4. Contents of Application. The application shall be made in writing upon forms provided by the £:~?a€ $building official and shall contain such information as the 6::iE~ building 3-~s~ect~r official finds necessary to determine whether a permit should be issued. The following items shall accompany all applications: (tea) The owner of the building to be moved shall file with the application sufficient evidence that all real estate taxes and special assessments against the building and lot from which it is to be removed are paid in full. ~f ~ =-3 • (fib) The applicant, if other than the owner, shall file with the application sufficient written evidence that he is entitled to remove the building. (3~c) .The applicant shall file with the application prior to issuance of permit, written evidence of arrangements with all public utility companies whose wires, lamps or poles are required to be removed, for the removal thereof by the company. (d) The applicant shall furnish proof satisfactory to the building official that an approved site is readX for the building to be moved there. (fie) Except for manufactured or modular homes, or a building owned by a farmer who owns it, or anX building less than 16 feet wide by 20 feet long, the applicant shall furnish proof satisfactory to the E~i~€ $building 3-~gEet~r official that the building mover is fully licensed under all applicable laws of the testate of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes 1981, Section 221.81, and complies with and has satisfied all rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. ~i (~f) The application shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable permit fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code. Subd. ~5. Duties of Director of Public Safety The director of • public safety shall ~es-s~t~e ensure inspection of the building app-li;,ai~t' 3-efft:it,nr.aa~ by the E::ia€ $building Aofficial ~Iar~No~; L.,~ to determine whether the standards required in this section for the issuance of a permit have been met. Subd. ~6. Standards for Issuance. The C~tg P~3==~~ building official shall refuse to issue a permit if he or she finds: (~a) That the mover is not el;:l~~ licensed by the Estate of Minnesota; (fib) That the building is too large to move without endangering persons or property in the city; (3c) That the building is in such a state of deterioration or disrepair or is otherwise so structurally unsafe that it could not be moved without endangering persons s-a~ or property in the city; (~d) That the building is structurally unsafe or unfit for the purpose for which moved, if the location to which the building is to be moved is in the city; ~ ) Tom:. ~ ~.~rL,li~,~i=~-~;:`ii;:a:-~ ~a ~::z~a~~. ..l,n-~ p~ aiia~ ~iv~c~. ~y wvul~ Lr~ t~iat~aiiyCit~~ uy iL~ u~C; (§e) That the zoning or building code provisions or any other provisions of this code would be violated by the building in its new location; (yf) That, if the building is being moved from a location within the city, outstanding charges for water and sewer service have not been paid. • That for any other reason persons or property in the city would be endangered by the moving of the building. L ~i.~- ~ Subd. $7. Compliance with Building, Structural and Mechanical Regulations. If construction, alteration or repair work on such building or structure will be necessary to make it conform to the building, structural and mechanical regulations, permits for such work shall be obtained before such building or structure is moved into or within this city. The permits shall specify that such work be completed within 90 days after. such building or structure is located in the city. The building official may authorize additional time for compliance.. Failure to make such building or structure conform to such construction regulations within such 90 day period constitutes a violation of this section. Subd. ~}8. Compliance with Zoning Regulations. No building or structure shall be moved to a location within this city unless in the opinion of the Cit~ge~ building official it will conform to the zoning regulations of the city, including, but not limited to, all setback and lot size regulations, and will be a building i or structure of the same general character and appearance of those buildings or structures in the vicinity of the proposed location. Upon receipt of the application the Chian Dig IlY.1.~lCliLVl building official shall forward a copy to the director of communitya7development for review. Eti~ 1 C V 1CW , L11C7 U11 CV LVl 5ildl i 1 C~JV1 L lli.5' Vl 1101 1111tillly5 LV L11C 1.1 Ly Md1ldyCi : Ii Lilrs ~i Ly I~idlldypl i~ ill 111,uL1, dy LV The director of community development shall determine whether such building or structure will conform to the character and appearance of the neighborhood into which it is proposed tog be movaqed-_ ire--o± ~ :a aildli 1CLCSl L11C 1lld LLCl LV L11C li~.Ly liV UllVli 1Vl l1C LCllll111d L1 Vll. li `film 1:1.Ly wullvi~ aquldy ilVlt3 d ~JLLUi1V i1Cd1111y Vll LiltrJ ~aur~~L1~11 vu1, ill ~ filly C V Cll ~ildi i UC LC1111111C WiIC 1.1101 Ul 11V L SMill uUt i~illly Vl 5L1.u1:LutC w1]Ll ud ~Je3tlull,i.tsu i-ai"} iii c.o~`$~ CROSS-REFERENCE: See Chap. III, Part IV, for zoning regulations. Subd. 3$9. Designation of Streets for Removal. The ~Hdirector of j Ecommunity services shall designate streets over which the building may be moved. The director shall have the list approved by the $director of ~~ublic safety and shall reproduce the list upon the permit in writing. In making their determinations, the director of community services and the $director of ~~ublic safety shall endeavor to insure maximum safety to persons and property in the city and to minimize congestion and traffic hazards on public streets. The i~director of Ecommunity services may also designate the hours, movement, parking, or speed limit of the building mover. Subd. 310. Duties of Permittee. Permittees under this section shall: (~a) Move a building only over streets designated for such use in the written permit. (fib) Notify the director in writing of any and all damages done to property belonging to the city e~ any public utility or private propert~r, within 24 hours after the damage or injury has occurred. (3c) Cause red lights to be displayed dari tL~ r~#~tti~a on every side of the building while ~~g on a street at any time from sunset to sunrise and at any. other time when visibility is impaired by weather, smoke, fog or other conditions or there is not sufficient light to render clearly discernible persons and vehicles at a distance of 500 feet,-. Warning lights with open flames shall not be used. r m~nr~~r ~U t~ c:a~-~ ~h~ ~.:tli;, of ~bet~:::;ti~ (~d) $~d :.fj411 aii eErect and. maintain barricades across the streets in such manner as to protect the public from damage or injury by reason of the removal of the building. (fie) Remove the building from the city streets after two days of such occupancy, unless an extension is granted by the ~an~er building official. (~f) Comply with all applicable provisions of this code and other laws upon relocating the building in the city. Pay the expense of a traffic officer ordered by the city to accompany the movement of the building. t~ ~.r~;,,.;,t~}}a ~-,;:bli;; ii viu iii j ui y (~h) Remove all rubbish and materials and fill all excavations to existing grade at the original building site if within the . city .so that the premises are left in a safe and sanitary condition. ($i) Remove all structural remains such as foundations, footings, stoops, stairways, posts, etc., or any other ~trti~t~ara~ item which, if left on the property, would constitute a hazard. Provide for the displacement of any and all overhead wires and furnish proof to the city in advance of the day upon which moving operations shall be commenced that satisfactory arrangements have been made. (3$k) Ensure that the sewer line is pl;.~~Ca - ~1.~~,r~~ cut off by a licensed plumber, the water s cut off licensed plumber and the ~t~t~r~ meter returned to the city, if the original building site is within the city. Permittee shall also notify the gas and electric services companies to remove their services. (3~1) Ensure that any wells on the site have been sealed by a liscensed well contractor. (3~m) Complete within 90 days after =-~rR~~ removing of building all remodeling, additions or repairs as shown on the plans accompanying the applicatiorn. Subd. 3-11. Liability of Permittee to City. The permittee shall be liable for any expense, damages or costs in excess of deposited amounts or securities. ~~J~'lO • Subd. 3-12. Revocation. Refusal by the permit holder or any person acting on his behalf to comply with the terms or provisions of this section or to adopt any safety or precautionary device or method imposed upon such moving operation is a violation of this section and is cause for immediate revocation of the permit. Subd. ~-413. Appeal. The applicant or permittee may appeal any decision by the Ei~Y~ F~~ar,a~ buildinq official denying the requested permit or revoking an issued permit. The council may sustain or overrule the e-~ty :Re~~.g~r': building official's decision; and may grant a permit upon such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate.. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • ~j3_~ TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING TOTAL VALUATION FEE SCHEDULE FEE (4) Plan 3.02 65$ of building permit fee, except Review Fee and no fee for the following: State (a) Existing single family dwelling Building alterations when habitable area Code is not enlarged. (b) Single and two family dwelling repair and maintenance work. (c) Commercial and industrial repair and maintenance work not exceeding $1,000 or where plans are not required. (d) Residential garages and storage buildings.. (5) Moving 4.07 Pre-inspection Fee: Dwellings -IN Richfield $30 and Buildings_ -OUTSIDE Richfield $63 Other Than Moving Permit Fee: Dwellings -WITHIN Richfield $30 -INTO Richfield $63 Moving Out of City $30 (6) Garage 4.07 Pre-inspection Fee: Moving (If relocated in City) $19 Moving Permit Fee first stall $13.50 -Plus each adjoining stall S 7.50 Moving out of City $13.50 (7) Structure 3.02 Demolition (a) Commercial Demolition cost as per Building Permit Schedule with a minimum of $19 (b) Dwelling: b.l One or Two story $lg b.2 Multiple First Unit $19 -plus each additional unit $ 8.50 b.3 Residential -Garage and lesser structure $ 7.50 (8) Driveway, 4.04 $19 Sidewalk, Curb Except when survey and grade and Gutter stakes are set by City $63 Construction (9) Sewer 4.03 For each transverse excavation Excavation and each 300 feet or portion thereof longitudinal $10 excavation (9A) Utility Abandonment (a) Sewer 8.03 S10 (b) Water 8.13 $10 • (9B) Certifi- 8.12 cation Charge (Delinquent) S20 D.2 ~j~. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 117 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance which would permit the City Council to initiate proceedings to vacate public streets Background: The city code requires-that street, alleys, and public ground vacations may only be initiated upon petition of the owners of half of the land abutting the street, alley or public ground to be vacated. There are some occasions, however, where the initiation of a vacation would best rest with the City Council. It should be noted that in the case of vacations, the property reverts to adjoining property owners. At the March 23, 1987 City Council meeting, the City Council gave first reading to an ordinance amendment which would permit the City Council to initiate vacation proceedings. The second reading and public hearing were scheduled for April 13, 1987. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and approve second reading of an ordinance amending Section 12.04, subdivisions 2 and 3 of the . Richfield City Code permitting the City Council to initiate vacation proceedings. Basis for Recommendation: 1. It is desirable to have the council empowered to initiate such proceedings, especially in redevelopment project areas. 2. All Minnesota statutory cities are authorized by law to initiate street vacation proceedings. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not approve the ordinance. The city would then be required to seek adjoining property owners to petition in cases where vacation would be desirable. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing on this matter is scheduled for the April 13, 1987 city council meeting. If passed by the City Council, the ordinance would take effect 30 days after publication in the official newspaper. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser Cit anager JDP/eja -0 BILL N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12.04, SUBDIVISIONS 2 AND 3, OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE RELATING TO THE PROCEDURE FOR VACATING STREETS CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 12.04 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, relating to the procedure applicable to the vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds, are hereby amended to provide as follows: "Subd. 2. Council Authority; Petition. The council may by ordinance vacate any street, alley, public grounds, or any part thereof, on its own motion or upon the petition of the owners of half of the land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, or part thereof to be vacated. Subd. 3. Receipt of Petition; Notice of Hearing. The council • shall by resolution acknowledge receipt of t-~-g~ese~~be~ any petition which complies with the provisions of Subdivision 2. The ~eee~~t~}e~ council shall also set the date for a public hearing on the any proposed street vacation. No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so and only after a hearing preceded by two weeks published .a~l~~~.~t~l- notice." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk i ~j~.~~ if Ovti~JR-~ e~ _ 7747 STATUTORY CITIES 412.861 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS 412.831 OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER. The council shall, annually at its first meeting of the year, designate a legal newspaper of general circulation in the city as its official newspaper, in which shall be published such ordinances and other matters as are required by law to be so published and such other matters as the council may deem- it advisable and in the public interest to have published in this manner. History: 1949 c 119 s 100,• 1973 c 123 art 2 s 1 subd 2 412.$41 [Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 70] 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on ~gtitjpn of a maiority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice. After a resolution of vacation is adopted, the clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings which shall contain the name of the city, an identification of the vacation, a statement of the time of completion thereof and a description of the real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice shall be presented to the county auditor who shall enter the same in the transfer records and note upon the instrument, over official signature, the words "entered in the transfer record." The notice shall then be filed with the county recorder. Any failure to file the notice shall not invalidate any such vacation proceedings. History: 1949 c 119 s 102; 1953 c 735 s 12; 1957 c 383 s l; 1967 c 289 s IS; 1969 • c 9 s 85; 1973 c 123 art 2 s 1 subd 2,• 1973 c 494 s 11; 1976 c 181 s 2,• 1986 c 444 412.861 PROSECUTIONS, VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCES. Subdivision 1. Complaint. All prosecutions for violation of ordinances shall be brought .in the name of the city upon complaint and warrant as in other criminal cases. If the accused be arrested without a warrant, a written complaint shall thereafter be made, to which the accused shall be required to plead, and a warrant shall issue thereon. The warrant and all other process in such cases shall be directed for service to any police officer, marshal, process officer, court officer, or constable of any town or city in the county, to the sheriff of the county, or all of them. Subd. 2. Form and contents of complaint. It shall be a sufficient pleading of the ordinances or resolutions of the city to refer to them by section and number or chapter. They shall have the effect of general laws within the city and need not be given in evidence upon the trial of civil or criminal actions. Judgment shall be given, if for the plaintiff, for the amount of fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed, with costs; and the judgment shall direct that, in default of payment, the defendant be committed to the county jail for such time, not exceeding 90 days, as the court shall see fit. The commitment shall state the amount of judgment, the costs, and the period of commit- ment. Every person so committed shall be received by the keeper of the jail and kept, at the expense of the county, until lawfully discharged. The committing court may release the defendant at any time upon payment of the fine and costs. Subd. 3. Appeal to court of appeals. Appeals may be taken to the court of appeals in the manner prescribed by court rule. On appealing, the defendant shall give bond to the city, to be approved by the court, conditioned that, if the judgment be affirmed in whole or in part, the defendant will pay the judgment, and all costs and damages awarded against the defendant on the appeal. In case of affirmance, execution may issue against both defendant and the defendant's sureties. Upon perfection of the appeal, defendant shall be discharged from custody. History: L949 c 119 s 103; 1953 c 735 s 13; 1955 c 867 s 7; 1973 c 34 s S; 1973 c 123 art 2 s I subd 2; 1976 c 2 s 132; 1983 c 359 s 66; 1984 c 387 s 2; 1986 c 444 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 116 April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Approval of a final development plan, special use .permit and offstreet parking permit for the Louise Whitbeck Fraser Apartment .complex at 66th Street and Sheridan Avenue. Background: In June 23, 1986 the City Council approved the rezoning of the site located at 66th Street and Sheridan Avenue from 'R' single family residential to 'PMR' planned multiple residence. The council also approved a planned unit development plan for a 30 unit apartment for developmentally disabled adults capable of independent .living with the following stipulations: 1. That the applicant submit additional design detail of the north boundary of the site to demonstrate that a sufficient screen and buffer is provided between the site and the adjacent single family residential properties; 2. That a final drainage plan be submitted to the city engineer for approval; 3. That the applicant provide additional parking on the site as indicated if the city determines that additional parking is needed in the future; 4. That the applicant complete a shadow analysis to confirm that there will be no significant effect on adjacent properties; 5. That the applicant explore the feasibility of reorienting the location of the building on the site. The City Council also authorized city staff to transmit a proposed amendment to the city's comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment. The amendment was to change the designation of the site from medium density buffer to high density residential. On August 1, 1986 the city received approval from"the Metropolitan Council of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. On August 9, 1986 the rezoning of the site became effective. On September 8, 1986 the City Council conducted a public hearing and officially approved the amendment of the comprehensive plan. In accordance with the planned unit development ordinance requirements the developers have now submitted for city approval a final development plan. The PUD ordinance provides that following the rezoning of the property the developer is to submit a final development plan and an application for a special use permit for the development shown in the final development plan for approval by the city. Approval of an offstreet parking permit in accordance with the city's offstreet parking requirements is also necessary at this time. . Staff Recommendation: 1. Approve a final development plan for the site located at 2500 and 2516 West 66th Street with the stipulation that the applicant provide additional parking on the site as indicated if the city determines that additional parking is needed in the future. 2. Approve a special use permit for a 30 unit apartment on the site for developmentally disabled adults capable of independent living. 3. Approve the attached resolution approving the offstreet parking permit for the site. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The development as shown in the final development plan is in substantial compliance with the planned unit development plan previously approved by the City Council. Only minor changes have been made to the proposal. These include the elimination of a porch and terrace on the front of the building, substitution of fewer larger dormer shapes on the building, the elimination of the island in the turn around area north of the building, the reconfiguration of the site along 66th Street in accordance with the County street widening project and the refinement of the landscaping plan. The building size, location, number of units and building materials proposed have not changed. 2. The developer has addressed the stipulations placed on the approval of the planned unit development plan in the following manner. a. Additional design details of the north boundary of the site have been provided. It is staff's opinion that adequate screening and buffering is being provided. They have provided a solid wood screen fence along the property line and then a substantial amount of landscape materials between the fence and the driveway into the apartment site. Staff recently received the attached letter from Mr. and Mrs. McAloon, the adjacent property owners at 6533 Sheridan Avenue, requesting an eight foot high fence instead of a six foot high fence. They also requested that the fence be constructed all along their south and east property lines starting at the curb on Sheridan Avenue. Staff has no objection to increasing the fence height or the extension of the fence along the east property line. We would however object to extending the fence along the south property line to the curb of Sheridan Avenue. This would pose traffic safety and visibility problems. The developers are reviewing the request and will respond at the April 13, 1987 council meeting. It is staff's opinion that this combination of solid ~ fence and landscape materials will provide a proper screen and buffer. In the event that the provision of - - j~,~. additional parking is necessary at some future date the solid screen fence would remain to provide the screening between the parking and the adjacent residence. b. A final drainage plan has been prepared and approved by the city engineer. c. The plans indicate the location for additional parking on the site. The applicant has indicated they will provide the additional parking as shown on the drawing if the city determines that additional parking is needed in the future. d. Shadow ,studies have been completed and submitted to the city as part of this proposal. The shadow studies I, indicate that there will be no significant effect on adjacent properties. e. The applicant explored the feasibility of reorienting the li location of the building but has made no changes. A copy of a letter providing additional detail on this matter is attached. 3. All information required to be in the final development plan as provided by the PUD ordinance has been provided. 4. The proposed use is consistent with the use approved as part of the PUD plan. The proposal will also be consistent with i the city's comprehensive plan. 5. The proposal meets all the requirements for offstreet parking areas. Alternative Recommendation: The. alternative recommendations would be to approve the final development plan with additional stipulations or changes or to deny the final development plan. However it is staff's opinion that there would be no grounds for denial of the final development plan in that it is consistent with the previous city approvals. Decision Mode: A public hearing on this matter is scheduled for April 13, 1987. i Notice of this hearing has been published in the Richfield Sun ~ Newspaper. i Respectfully submitted, Jamm ~ D. Prosser City Manager • RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING OFFSTREET PARKING ~ PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION 87-3 I LOUISE WHITBECK ERASER COMMUNITY SERVICES 2500 AND 2516 WEST 66TH STREET i ~I BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, II ~ Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the offstreet parking as contained in offstreet parking application No. 87.3 is I hereby approved. 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 13 day of April, 1987. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas Ferber, City Clerk _ I ~f~ f.y Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects, Inc. - 300 First .a~-enue \orth quite $00 Minneapolis. ~I1 »401 6121339-4200 !larch 30, 1987. d Mr, Byron Wallace Director of Community Development City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55432 Dear Mr. ~dallace: SUBJECT:. Fraser Independent Living. Project Comm. No. 85-01-0153-01 - We hereby submit for you>~ review and approval the final development plan for the Fraser Independent Living Project. It is located on a 1-acre site at the intersection of West 66th Street and Sheridan Avenue South. As you are aware, City Council approved the rezoning of the site to "PMR" effective August 10, 1986. The Fraser Planned Unit Development was • subsequently approved on the basis of the positive planning staff reports which established criteria for neighborhood compatibility. The City Council approval of the Fraser Planned Unit Development was made subject to five zoning and environmental stipulations. It is our firm intention that the final development design here enclosed illustrates our responsiveness to the stipulations of Council and to the issue of neighborhood compatibility raised by the planning staff. RESPONSE TO COUNCIL STIPULATIONS - 1. Additional design details of the north boundary of the site demonstrating screen and buffer between the site and the adjacent single family residential properties are illustrated on Sheets 1 and 2. It has recently been brought to our attention that the property owner to the north of the subject site on Sheridan Avenue has requested a 6' high wood privacy fence along the entirety of the shared boundary. The majority of the plantings and bermed areas along this boundary are retained in order to enhance the appearance of the privacy fence and its ability to screen views. - , • .:.,.v,, f t J Page 2 Mr. Dennis Kraft • March 30, 1987 2. The final drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer in concert with the city engineering staff is submitted as Sheet 3 of the final .development proposal. 3. The proposed location for additional parking on the site is illustrated on Sheet 1 of this submittal. The applicant has indicated that he will increase the extent of parking as shown on the drawings as the City determines that additional parking is needed in the future. 4. The shadow studies have been completed and submitted to the City for review.. The shadow study is included as Sheet 5 of the final development submittal. 5. As stipulated by City Council, the architect and planning staff have reviewed the feasibility of reorienting the location of the building on the site. NEIGHBURHUUD COMPATIBILITY The completed project design as illustrated in the final development plans is in substantial compliance with the previously approved Planned Unit Development Plan. As directed by the planning staff, the final project design retains the character and features which allow it to be compatible in this .particular neighborhood. Specifically, the final development design is in substantial compliance with the following items cited by the planning staff: 1. The design retains an articulated massing and does not present a box like and institutional image. 2. The visual impact of the structure is reduced by a stepped form which reduces the scale to a residential level. Additionally, the exterior materials of brick and lapsiding reflect those of nearby single family housing. The bays, dormers, and gable roof forms further enhance the residential. character and scale. We appreciate your consideration of the final development plan. We look forward to continuing our vrork with you and. your staff in responding to the questions and comments you may have regarding this project. Sincerely, /fCURSUNSKY KRAfjIIF-ERICKSON CHITEGTS, INC. " C David A. Frank QIA Vice President/Partner mer I horsunsk~• Rrank Erickson architects, Inc. ~I 300 First _~~~enue \onh ~I • Suite X00 I Minneapolis. SS-t01 612/339-200 April 8, 1987 Mr. Rick Jopke Community Development Dept. City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55432 Dear Rick: SUBJECT: Fraser Independent Living .Project II Comm. No. 85-O1-U153-O1 Attached are the 8-1/2" x-11" reductions for your final development plan recommendations to Council on the above project. You have also requested additional information relating to item no. 5 on our 3-30-87 letter. This item concerns the City Council stipulation that the architect and planning staff review the feasibility of reorienting the • location of the building on the site. David Frank stated that you and he considered several possibilities which focused on a shift of the building toward the eastern property line. These studies did not appear to be feasible for a number of reasons: 1. An eastward shift of the building by more than 15' to 20' would require the removal of a number of existing. trees along the east property line. Besides providing a woodland character to the neighborhood, these trees form an excellent natural buffer between the proposed project and the neighbor to the east. 2. Due to the fact that the site slopes sharply to the north along the east property line, an eastward shift of the building would require considerable additional regrading. This regrading would put at risk a number of other existing trees along the north and east property lines. 3. The difference in elevation between the sidewalk at West 66th Street and the first floor of the building would be greatly increased as the building - ~ ' Paye 2 Mr. Rick Jopke April 8, 1987 is shifted to the east. The increased change in elevation from the sidewalk to the front door would cause special problems for physically disabled tenants. 4. Moreover, a shift in the building orientation would be oddly out of step with the patterns of site orientation in the surrounding residential .areas. From the standpoint of neighborhood compatibility, it is important that the house be oriented to 66th Street on which it fronts. I hope that the above information is adequate for your staff report. Please feel free to call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, KORSUNSKY KRANK ICKSON ARCHITECTS,. INC. Bill Correll mer ~i~ • April 6, 1987 Mayor John Hamilton City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: Fraser Independent Living Project . Dear Mayor Hamilton: ^ Our feelings on the proposed project have not changed since our letter of May 23 ,1986, a copy of which is attached. However, inasmuch as the zoning has been changed, the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Richfield has been changed and the necessary variances to the City- Ordinances have been waived, it appears that the project will be going up. When speaking to Rick Jopke, City Planner, last year about this project, he indicated that our wishes would be taken into account in determining • what would comprise the boundary between our property and the Fraser Project. After giving careful consideration as-to what we think would .give us the most privacy and quietness, we would like to have an eight - foot privacy fence between our property and the project. We would like to have the fence extending from the curb along the south side of our property and then around the back (or east side of our property) to the corner. - We would like to have the eight foot fence all the way to the curb and around the back because we are very concerned that we we will be having a driveway and parking lot (plus proposed expansion parking) for a three story building very close to our property line and home. Also, in looking at the plans, expansion parking is supposedly within five feet of the property line and this would be right out our kitchen and back windows. Last year, we had also mentioned the possibility of having the building flipflopped on the plans in order to pull the actual building farther away from our house. We are the ones most directly affected by this building and as a three story building is going to overshadow us quite a bit, we would like to have as .much space as possible between us. ~ • Mayor John Hamilton Page 2 April 6, 1987 We are respectfully submitting our concerns and suggestions and would appreciate your attention being given to our requests and ,concerns. We have been homeowners and property taxpayers in the City of Richfield for almost four years and believe it is your duty to give consideration to our rights also. Very truly yours, Christine and James McAloon 6533 Sheridan Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 cc: City Council Members - Samdahl, Ludeman, Kirsch, Garcia City Planner obert J. Kowalczyk, Fraser Project • Vii'/- /a May 23, 1986 Richfield Planning Commission i~ c/o Rick Jopke, City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 . Dear Planning Commission Members: We are unable to attend tre meeting on May 28, however, we would like to express our strong opposition to an apartment building being built on the corner of 66th and Sheridan. We like living in a single family residential neighborhood and that is why we moved to 6533 Sheridar. three years ago. If an apartment building is built, we will have less privacy, it will be noisier and there will be considerably more activity on Sheridan Avenue than there is at present. Also, if we are looking`at the plans correctly, the parking lot for the apartment building. will be facing our kitchen windows. • We feel that if this land is rezoned, it will drop the value of our property considerably and at this point in time, this would place a.financial hardship upon us if we were to try and sell. Inasmuch as the majority of the neighborhood is opposed to this rezoning, we du not understand wh$ there has been another meeting called but, in any event, we do not want to see this site rezoned and a three story apartment. building built on the corner. We wish to keep our privacy, our quiet and our sunlight. Thank you for listening to our concerns. Sincerely, . Christine and James McAloon 6533 Sheridan Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota- 55423 . • • PROPOSED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN • ~ . r+wr, w a ,-..~.~L..~.w ~~va~oa~oo ;~/....a ~ / a_-~-6.w 4x.f. J.f ly ,~~,r f. ~ : Jr.-.. pu. ~ N~M1A~ I* y~I, II ~O ~`1I _ I •SL (Ir1.y1M ? `~Y" (phi pltyy~y •T- O { U I~ Q ..MWIti.? . M o..• of rr~uf ,f, //7 \NIa01lY R..rV Ml %.I; M11Y.bYf YNAJIS f \ LIVf.h.IJ JOr1T ~ WI".:..P.. ~av ~I J . ND•~'rT" S1/D~ E~ ~ ~ ~ .WINO PROJECT u ~ . j AAA j[q`q Y~ l~i._, 1 w1 1 • PROJECT DATA _~L' ~ Lww/M MNIO/Wf/ Mi/ IW{ IA {OI// zsc tL. ~ 1•••• 11Y011 {II•{ ••,•M Y. . i \ u.;in1' euwuy r~weti n.~w - TOi{L 1••1/ N f~+w.fs wbl.af lIN T - - IYIi/M 1• ~ M•i1f. IN Y•• ~ y(If B 1410 G f r w.,n~iw.i i~,iww,u iiiy i w,~i w' `I'{^' fr.l r/v . rrr.~.. ~ \ ~/rrl/ow. r.r. w. /.~f/~, TOTY N s ba•~nwiJ. v(1 _ ~ _ ./'PV ~ MWM Q Y ~ (•`~fM}YI /f Y T l ~ k.Y]~_'.~ - I r.a ~ ` Y 1 ~ I I I ~ I I • ~Il/ty 8{rdhp PIY1 ~ INA. L \ L1w.Ofxs Ytn,wl " S \ M4,? 41I/.R D?~u . - V\ }11 / W ~.1~• e. i NI/ IYL'.1'•d ~"~~..r_... .....1._ _.i_,.~ _ ~ l~ ~Cj tl . e ~ ci. ~ 4 e . ~y ~ <r"_ •-~r~Y~, •j = ~e.wS~.fws~ y ° IN S ~ - ~ ..r.~. r.,t+.....Y vL1w • i, ~ ~ L.. W.r,.., (fi'. Iw . r ~ i~ f _ _ ~ ' ~ yea ? ~i~ ~ ~ji,`1;? Iw.f1'i:b.~ ~b s.~ ~A^.xis,-w.r - ~ ~ .1 WEST 60TH STREETS jly.lw.ly,~..r.~, ~ N 1{fr•l` r ` ~ ~ .~41J:u: 1 ~f . y Iw«.~.... ~ ...1......._ _ . I _L.~+ 1 .Ju I mob. ++a~.r i:~... _ • ` ~~:w s.:: s; •.aal•N•Y•.f _ 9~~\ L.W. ERASER I°r,r•.aY~• ,-J INDEPENDENT • •.t ~ n ~ \ LIVING PROJECT 0000OOO0I urvNOUq I ~ ~}`Jni.rw•runua.• LSNON'D~•~,O I'v ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~p o FINAL DEVELOPMENT iF • " O O O(~/~ ~ ~ ~ur~N•gF r•1aw• 1 ~ O PLAN w rr•a. Irr I!•.N'O N•r .l•NIIN• ~ 1~ O ° . - mwmuoun 'O - I p 0~`A b d O' ~-o-Q 4 6 m 0 p n iu•r glsl Q O O'O Ineouwn ~1, ~PT• l 0~~~ NOOwa°awAiQi.4.8000~p00 H0000 H 00~p0"-p000 Ft ~ fYA ~ ~ 4.0 •rrr rout Ea2VIN0% ~P.M~•aNly wry ) •n r.u 1 • O a;_... opOpp ~ ^r (U,.! _.....orR.. wp SHADOW STtAY ~ acam wx* H .w . , f w r.r •a 7 m ~ w.1.. ~ OOrt T k. ~ ~ i l • ~'rr KMIM~ ~ R~ l•4 I I Icaa.pl ~ 1 ~ / rr Ia•rl•r wen ~ j . ~ ~'_jy..: ,y j.. o°L ~"LL` ~~~~~unnlo.unur PARKING 16 CARS a•.m ulcrre t~:~rr n•r EXPANSION PARKING Z3 CARS NOTE SEE SHEETS 1 dl 2 FOR CURRENT SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPING PLAN. SITE PLAN o ~o so •o w •oern ~ - C•/1roNT. {oa•una/ aaun Ulu••N MontclR rc. KORSUNSKY KRANK ERICKSON N,w 5 1 ' ~ ~ ARCNITECrs,ulc. ..:,;,~:.;-~;-,.,,,,,,Y ~`°~j~ INDEPENDENT LIVING PROJECT r.. w.r'°.° ».'e°'° ~ «..1 r........,.N.....' RIUt1F1D, MINNESOTA ~Q ~ ~ ~ f*i •L..._..~.. i _ - ~ - KOMMMYY A[Mk 1.f1ttNP • IPG 500 pint Arnoue NoMI~ . j 6uite SW , X01 . - Minnapdu, MN 612/98y12U0 s ~ _ ~ ~`a 1. ~r..~... _ _ ~ ~ o a ~ ~ W w ~ U .W G w C1 Q ,,~.Q~_.~~~ ~~.w.FRASE~ , ~ Cl 0 ' W ~a°, INDEPENDENT L...r~= ?PK ~ _ a ` ' rr ~ ~.~•a U Bl~d~ p ! ~ _ „ t 11 © P~N DEVELOP V , ` V ,tea `M' -J_ r, ijEo.ps;.: r•a s.+awra~ ~-w= . ' ~ ~ _ _ - ~ - - h _ © ? a a © 1 ~ 1 ~ O` rt o s_+~•_e¢c_-..-. --Q' - t.u ¦ _ ~ I V s 4d~~~~~ honunr4T Arub F.drI1Nw ' AreMneN, Ine. - 31N1 Fim Armes Nunh • ' f ~ , 1N rp1 $uilr SGG r~^'Lry.17./;YC.'R / Minno~ulies MN SS~III / LEGEND J"11 617/J;14• ~slw h ~ I ~ ~ s ~ lar r on.1 CDNTROL SECTION wr~Nwr ~ IAT p11VEl) ~ - ~ _ a ass No ' i . Icm>~.N. N. ~I...n.,. ~ , F LW. ERASER • zr r .s~.:x-; :~~c.:ti1n n.r1i~ _ Na.-.r..,. INDEPENDENT ' ~ ' - 1~ NsVN. nYY Nil '-"N'N""N N•° ~ LIVWG PROJECT NN'NN ,IIII.N NM. ~ _ ~wN am SILT FENCE OEfAL ~ r+u r Im ols , .11 N•N wll, JI r .4y w. W rlwr,• rwww W Irrlw. MI/I Wlwa M w N+rwrlr. .N Tb CrNNw wll wW\ ,11 •11114 ww•N+ W Yes •+4 •wrlM Iwo NI •4114M Ww W wr4rtlr WII WI+. ,11 .rw JI NW Nn •IW 1' N IIW r.+r+l NW. .N NI ,rwlr ww1 rr•,•+.Yes r W ,Iw W Y .r411N . VI JI....r J+li :;YlVw .r~M n1~r1.4,W ra,l I r .11 NI wr JY,•, ,rWM J •rla~llr wl M wrW ,IY wt W NwM rIY~ W, rN /INa IIW+\. N M NN wlw,J 1 I W, 1 •.J. Nw aNMllr M ,++4wr11r. ,ml Yt lrN •,wl, w N Nrr Y•NI ttNrN i!N ~ J ~ . .N .tw W Nw, WII M Y+1M Iw JN. Yr1u N tr_ N 1 I Iwa w ur 114 JII rl M ,IIwN. ~ ; 1 '1 I war / 1 X / ~ 1 1 t lL ~ ~ RNhdNr~ I ~ wa ~115i' WNnsNI. ho. .tlyll fL~~\~~~ ^ / C~Iro'li.ow.~ \ GRADING,ORAINAGE B ..re lN,.. I _ ~\V~-~'~ :ea ..•.ml-.~r.. us,~+.. STORM SEWER PLAN , NllmN•n .,,o. ~I Mh, N N T.." N.,~ 'roe. ll , l . 1 , ~ ~ ~ ~N OEVEIOPMENT . C y~ \ I l •I.1++I,s•N.I.w~i•MN w..~' I~ ` _ A ~ rrv..rwc.. HLL7•R' nnl no w..a..ro w.~wwiiir•+.~•o~•l~w II . ~ ; Q.{ro N Nlllli L• a.> I „ L I r _ q+0 ar ..1L aT ~.w . r~ Ie.o . _ A.".I,S ~ ' ice t_- - ~ ~ 1 •.•k, C ~ o•. ..a o..eq i 1 sir-" µo":.:o.arN, 1- I,mr M \ I WEST 66TN STREET ~ q r - H fN-NIA 3 t_ ~Z- ~ti d ! N i t i z ~ QZa ~ ~s• j!cj •N ~s~a ~Z~ ~i~ili ~ I I li l l l l ~~~I ; ~ ~ ~ W _ ~ - ~ l0 0 4 ~ ~ _ - ~ _ o 0 _ 1 E • ~i ~ i~ ~ ~t J-- ~ ; ~ . E . ~ \ a o °~y y~; ~ ~ ~ ~ a o _ r: f J ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ t ~ 3~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 i ~ a -r ~ - ~ ~ ~i ~as~ da. ~w. 4??' APPROVED PUD PLAN • • ~ S ~ oNOUSi _ ~ ~ Exw~ bTOa~ R(i ``~~Y; , - _ 4 wy~, ~ FENCE- ~ T ,Ex18TIN0 u 1 e s ~ ' F ~ P4AIr{INQ ~ ~ - E%IS~NQ - ~ ` •REAYION 1 ` 4 I pASb1YEREG N 1 r - - tl _ tt PAI,xII1°ti ,1 ~ a t ~ I 'ExP+~?+at°~ ~ t bb,ta cues TrP~~. a t 1 ~1Q HoubE , I t f/ 1 a ' t I EXIb~'slOII I F NEW p1,ANTINO ~ (DIC1DUOp81 t t ` ~ I tom, 1 PLANTING -t- ~ t - ~ t O , ~ 'Y NE NtFER) -T 1 j } • n ' t ~ \ ~ t ~'F' t" r' t` , wt. , *AytNO ~ i EX1 _ N_O_bUN.D~_ ~ _t E%tb7tNQ P4~?NT ' ' t .•+-i ~ ,I, r .N ~ .p,ANTIN 91TUMiNOUS. t ~ t t t t I ~D1C1000US) t Y1S1 TRANC / ~ t ` ` n t ~ tOR EN E ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ M . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EW P4ANTINQ~`` It._-=--C ppMP ~ -E?CyC4#NCL°p UR i ~ t • ~ a ' 2. NtON eER._ t, . *EMOYEO i~ CONtfER} ~ r r-, iRA$N .t'C ~ yi ~ O bU1LDIN0 i ~~~tyyL}; ~'1 0~' ' ',a a ~ ' ExISTIN 1. T FLOOW*'OM`;~t t t ~ ~ a _ WAt•4 N N ''',sECURITY z ~ _ `~sb l ( in Y ,1 ~ N 10' ttY i i` ibZ + • ~ - ~ OOt ~6N • L MOUNT Ft.O~_ x ~ . t.,~' WAL o b At. _ 10' 7 t k TOT } i ( ..r';, . ~1 s _ 16 GAR ~ - + ~ RI .,U ' 0~~ ~ ~ r p' ' , _ _ ?1;, NEW ou ° ~ 4~.t ~ ~ ' ~l~ r-^a. -}~•NEW pN,FEPNO t',l T3••i ~t ~n ~~lExlBTitN?P6ANT1N0~ f_-_.- - 't N - ~4~NTINQ IL/LACSl O, OLLTSO~ 104.bb W P ~ pEND1N4 ~1pN i 134.bb RAH'gTRUCTION 0 ST AIR LOCATION AND L7REET RECON LNEW ftNAL WEST 6b _ try'' t ,h ` ~x18TIN4 pETA1N?NO" , - ~ , , . : . ' Y y~ I i ~ ~ _.r_-.~ _ wa.M". .L.... ~____"-Jl ~ 11 ..~w~{:w ~ . ~ . ~tOCX MAN aeaix+o Hoar n,w „N, Kam, ~ ......,r , ~ ~ L~ _ ~ u 1= . -1 s~co?o »+o Halo rtoar ,u„ ,u.. FLp~R PVWS e.wwr, w ¦n».~ w r d ~.-~,i,.~.~.. .i'.1Y. IOOa9t1f~ICT KRAMK fRIpC90N ~ I~E~ rT f h A~i ~O'E~ ~ ~ . yap ua ~ ~ RICHFIELD. MINNESOTA "'r 'I w wu. Mawr . ss~.~ ~.n • ~ \ t^ wra+a...~~ ww w.r.+r f . r _ ~ r~ i ,f ~y _ _ ~1 ~ ? ; t ~ r ' • k~^c ~ / { , P! * ~ ~ V{ t a ~ r °-1~~J' R~~,~~~. _ Council 'linutes -4- June.. 23, 1986 published in the official newspaper. Acting City Manager Devich stated that because the council denied the petition for vacating the alley on June 9, 1986, it is recommended that the city council acknowledge the public notice-for the hearing and take no further action on this matter. :-1/Garcia, SjKirsch to close the public hearing and take no further action on the alley vacation,. Motion carried 5-0. Item Y8 PUBLIC HBARING ON A REQUBST TO RBZONB lnri SITE AT 2500 AND 2516 WEST 66TA STRBBT FROM R 3INGLB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL TO PMR PLANNBD MULTIPLE RBSIDBNTIAL ZONING TO ALLOW THB LOUISB WHITBECg ERASER SCHOOL ,TO CONSTRUCT A 30-UNIT APARTMENT FOR DBVBLOPMBNTALLY DISABLED ADULTS ON itt~ SITE AND A REQUEST FOR A PLANNBD UNIT DBVBLOPMBNT PLAN. C.L. 247. Acting City `tanager Devich reviewed Council Letter No. 247 regarding the public hearing and second reading for an ordinance to rezone the property located at 2500 and 2516 West 66th Street from R single family residential to PMR planned multiple residential zoning to allow the Louise Whitbeck Fraser School to construct a 30-unit apartment for developmentally disabled adults on the site and a request for approval of a Planned Unit Development Plan. Community Development Director~Kraft reviewed the site plan of the proposed project, noting that the plan now shows an increased buffer area with a reduced amount of parking spaces. He stated the council was to be asked to take three actions: ~I 1. Conduct a public hearing and approve on Second Reading an ordinance to rezone 2500 and 2516 West 66th - Street from R to PMR; 2. Approve a Planned Unit Development Plan subject to the four staff stipulations; 3. Authorize the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to show the site as high density residential so that the Comprehensive Plan will be consistent with the zoning of the site. Community Development Director Kraft also indicated that Mr. Mrs. McAloon, 6533 Sheridan Avenue, have suggested that the possibility of reorientation of the building on the site be explored by the developer. ' i //Y~~- Council :~inutes -5- June 23, 1986 Council yember Ludeman expressed concern that the number of parking spaces had been reduced from 39 to 15 and that future uses on the site would need more parking. 'iayor Hamilton directed staff to investigate Hennepin Count;-'s acquisition of this property and determine if more trees can be saved. Community Development Director Kraft stated that because the residents of the. apartment would not drive, fewer parking spaces are necessary. In addition, the staff is recommending that council stipulate that the applicant provide additional parking on-the site if the city determines it is needed in the future. Bob Gunderson, attorney for the Fraser Community Services Apartment Project, stated that they are willing to discuss the building orientation suggestion and landscape buffering with the city. Nan Corazalla, 2412 West 66th Street, stated that the rezoning would be detrimental to her property and that Hennepin County was also taking additional land for 66th Street resulting in a loss of trees and landscaping to the property. Emil ~Iattila, 6527 Sheridan Avenue, reviewed the accident i statistics and traffic volumes on-66th Street in the vicinity of Sheridan Avenue. Because of the high accident rate and high traffic volumes, he stated that th2s site was not appropriate for this type of housing. Paul Knutson, Minneapolis, stated his support for assimilating the developmentally disabled into the community through this type of housing project. Sheilla Mattila Flanders stated she had previously lived on Sheridan avenue for 20 years and stated that the size of the building was inappropriate for the lot. She stated that this site presented health and safety problems to the proposed residents because of its proximity to 66th Street.- She stated other locations were available that would be safer and still be close to shopping and transportation. Steve Carroll, 6526 Sheridan Avenue, stated that this _ location was not the only place Fraser Whitbeck could build with the HUD funding and stated his opposition to the rezoning of the site. Paul Kosmides, 2516 West 66th Street, stated that the project would have a positive impact on the community by increasing the tax base. acting as a buffer between 66th Street and the neighborhood,, and establishing Richfield's leadership in .providing this .type ~of housing opportunity. . Council Minutes -6- June 23, 1986 `isrna Hammer, 6345 Grand venue, Chairperson of the Human Seri-ices Commission Serving Seniors and Disabled, stated that this Commission has endorsed and supports the Fraser project. Todd Spinner, 2609 West 66th Street, stated that the site c:as not a good place for housing and allowing variances for the project would set a bad precedent. Council Member Ludeman stated his opposition to the proposed parking layout and his disappointment that Fraser did not pursue the purchase of the property. to the east to provide a larger site. M/Garcia, S/Sandahl to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Kirsch, S/Garcia that (A) this constitute a Second Reading. of Bill X10. 1986-10. that it be published in the official newspaper and that it be made part of these minutes.; (B) the Planned Unit Development Plan for the site. located at 2500 and 2516 West 66th Street is approved suh.iect to the following stipulations: 1. That the applicant submit additional design detail of the north boundary of this site to demonstrate that a sufficient screen and buffer is provided between the, site and the ad.iacent single family residential properties; 2. That a final drainage plan be submitted to the city engineer for approval; 3. That the applicant provide additional narking on the site as indicAted if thP~c.it.v determines that additional parkiz~g~is needed in the future; 4. That the_ ~.nrlic~.nt nomplPtP shadow analysis to confirm th~t.~thPrP w_i__t_t be_ no significant effect on ad.iacent properties; 5. That the applicant. Px~l~re the feasibility of reorienting the location of the building on the site; and, _ ~ Council `iinutes -7- June 23, 1986 (C) authorize city staff to transit to the Metropolitan, Council. a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change, the desisnation of the site located at 2500 and 2516 West 66th Street from medium density buffer to high density residential for. their review and comment. Motion carried 4-1. (Ludeman opposed). Iteffi #9 PUBLIC HEARING ON A RBPBAL OF A VARIANCE RBQUBST BY WALSBR CORPORATION CONCERNING THB PROPBRTY AT 7700 TO ?750 MORGAN AVENUB 7701 NEWTON AVENUB AND 2002-2026 WEST 78TH STRBBT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW AUTOMOBILB.SALBS SERVICE BUILDING WITHIN FIVB FEET OF THB MORGAN AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY. C.L. 248. Acting City Manager Devich reviewed Council Letter No. 248 rewarding an appeal of the denial of a variance request by Walser Corporation relating to the property at 7700 to ?750 Morgan A~-enue, 7701 Newton Avenue, and 2002-2026 West 78th Street to construct a new automobile sales and service building within five feet of the Morgan Avenue right-of-way. Community Development Director Kraft reviewed the site plan of the proposed project and recommended that the council continue the hearing to July 14 to allow staff to obtain further information necessary to further evaluate the parking issue. Dick Sjoquist, representing Walser Corporation, stated that Walser had scaled down the .project and changed the location of the building in response to the concerns of the neighboring ~ property owners. Paul Ragatz, 7624 Oliver Avenue, spoke in apposition to the expansion of the Walser dealership due to the problems that it had caused on the adjacent streets. Lorie Bilbee, ?628 Oliver Avenue, stated that employees of Walser had been observed working on cars, littering and test driving cars on Oliver Avenue creating a disturbance to the _ residents of the area. .Ron Leviton, 7644 Oliver Avenue, related several incidents that he observed that created disturbances in the neighborhood which were a result of the Walser dealership. Dick Sjoquist, Walser Corporation, stated that the proposed expansion would provide increased parking for employees and customers on the Walser site, thus, solving the problem of parking on adjacent residential streets. i BILL N0. 1986-10 AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28, subdivision 1 of such code is hereby amended in the following respect: Appendix C, Section 8 is amended by adding the following new paragraph 4: 4. Lot 7, Jacobsen's subdivision of the west half of Lot 14, Richfield Gardens Addition (2516 West 66th Street) and Lot 1 Richfield Gardens Pree Manor Addition (2500 West 66th Street) Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of O~~Y , 1986. ~ ~ - f ~Jonn HamiYt6n; Mayor A~~T . / i >J~T,c"1vLCti~ Thomas Feroer, City Clerk -~j/ f 4oZita~ ~O ~0 Metropolitan Council i',~ 300 Metro Square Building i Seventh and Robert Streets -1~ St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 t~~~<. Telephone (612) 291-6359 .August 1, 1986 t•1r. Rick Jopke -City of Richfield 6700 Portland Av. S. Richfield, h1N 55423 RE: City of Richfield Comprehensive Plan Amendment 30-Unit Apartment for the Developmentally Disabled tetropolitan Council District 12 Metropolitan Council Referral File tJo. 13844-1 Dear_ t•1r. Jopke: The t•letropolitan Council staff and I have reviewed the city's comprehensive plan amendment received by the Council on July 17, 1986. We have determined that the proposed amendment has no potential impact upon any of the metropolitan system plans. Therefore, the city may place the amendment into effect immediately. Because the proposed amendment appears unlikely to affect policies and plans in other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, the Council will waive further review and comment on this amendment. The amendment, explanatory materials supplied and the information submission form will be appended to the city's plan in the Council's files. This concludes the Council's review. Sincerely, l-- / r n ~ Sandra S. Gard`ebrin Chair 9~ SSG:ms ' cc: Gertrude Ulrich Metro olit n ncil Di p a Cou strict 12 John Rutford, hletropol i tan Counci l Staff Tori Flood, tletropol itan Counci l Staff Art Equal Opportunity Employer j/.,~ ~ t Council Meeting Minutes 15 September 8, 1986 Street and Lyndale Avenue to change the designation from multi- family development to commercial development. M/Ludeman, S/Kirsch to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Ludeman, S/Kirsch that the following resolution be adooted; that it be spread in the resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION N0. 7224 RESOLUTION AMENDING. THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNING PROPERTY LYING BETWEEN 65TH STREET AND 65TH STREET ADJACENT TO .THE EAST SIDE OF LYNDALE AVENUE Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 7224 in Resolution Book No. 54. M/Ludeman, S/Kirsch that the following resolution be adooted; that it be spread in the resolution book and that it be made Dart of these minutes: RESOLUTION N0. 7225 APPROVING MODIFICATION N0. 5 IN THE LYNDALE HUB NICOLLET COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 7225 in Resolution Book No. 54. Item X21 AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE SITE AT 66TH STREET AND SHERIDAN AVENUE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY BUFFER TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE ERASER SCHOOL SITE. C.L. 356. City Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 356 regarding an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of the site at 66th Street and Sheridan Avenue from medium density buffer to high density residential for the Louise Whitbeck Fraser School Apartment site. Lawrence Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue, questioned why the rezoning of this property had been approved prior to amending the Comprehensive Plan and what notice had been given regarding this action. _ i ~//d~~' .Council Meeting Minutes 16 September 8, 1986 ment Director Palmbor stated that Acting Community Develop 9 published notice had been given regarding the Comprehensive. Plan amendment. b Mayor Hamilton asked Assistant City Attorney Dean to meet individually with Mr. Wozniczka to explain the sequence of procedures. M/Sandahl, S/Kirsch to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MlKirsch, S/Garcia that the following resolution be adopted; that it be spread in the resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION N0. 7226 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE SITE AT 2500 AND 2516 WEST 66TH STREET Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 7226 in Resolution Book No. 54. • Item ~~22 REVISED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF EDEN PRAIRIE, EDINA, BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD AND THE SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL. C.L. 357. City Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 357 regarding revisions in the Joint Powers Agreement between -the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Bloomington and Richfield and the South Hennepin Human Services Council and recommending that the council continue consideration of the agreement to the September 22, 1986 City Council Meeting pending the reconsideration of the agreement by the Bloomington City Council. M/Ludeman, S/Sandahl to continue consideration of the revised Joint Powers Agreement between the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Bloomington and Richfield and the South Hennepin Human Services Commission to the September 22. 1986 City Council Meetino. Motion carried 5-0. , RESOLUTION N0. 7224 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNING PROPERTY LYING BETWEEN 64TH STREET AND 65TH STREET ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF LYNOALE AVENUE WHEREAS, the Richfield Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing concerning changing the land use designation of a site at 6401-6453 Lyndale Avenue South from multi-family residential to commercial; and 'rVHEREAS, the Richfield Planning Commission approved the change on April 22,-1986; and WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council accepted the proposed change on May 27, 1986 and submitted it to the Metropolitan Council and affected governmental agencies for review; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has found that the proposed. amendment has no potential impact on any metropolitan system plans and that the city can officially adopt the amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that figure 14 of the Richfield Comprehensive Plan entitled "Redevelopment Plan" is hereby amended to change the designation of the property at 6401-6453 Lyndale Avenue South from multi-family residential to commercial. Passed by the City Council of the C~.~ty of hfield, ' Minnesota this 8th day of September, b98"6. ~ ~ 1~~ j?'ohn Ham,~l'ton," Mayor ATTEST: ~ ~ cam, ~~J, ~U.,~~L~~,~ Thomas Ferber, City Clerk r ~jd • CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 115 April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Appeal of city staff's interpretation of the city's drive-thru window ordinance. by Burger King at 28.00 West 66th Street. Background: Burger King Corporation has indicated a desire to add a second drive-thru window to the rear of their existing building at 2800 West 66th Street. The second drive-up window would be used for cash exchanges. A customer would go to the existing order board, order their food and would then proceed to this new window, pay for the food and then proceed on to the existing .drive-up window and pick up their food. The purpose of the second drive-thru window is to help speed up drive-thru service due to the loss of one stacking space in the drive-thru lane and the minimum loss of three parking spaces do to the pending 66th Street widening project. The proposed addition will not change the existing drive-thru traffic flow patterns on the site. In November of 1986 the city passed an ordinance which indicates that the City Council cannot approve a special use permit for a new drive-up service window located within 150 feet of any residentially zoned property. The restaurant in question is within 150 feet of residentially zoned property. All restaurants with drive-up service windows require special use permits. A special use permit for the existing restaurant with a drive-up has been approved. However, that approval is based on a specific plan and because the current proposal involves a change to the approved plan the city attorney's office has indicated that a new special use permit would be necessary. As previously indicated the restaurant in question is within 150 feet of residentially zoned property and according to the new ordinance the city council could not approve the new special use permit. Therefore the proposed second drive-thru window would not be permitted. Burger King Corporation has subsequently appealed this interpretation to the City Council acting as the board of appeals. The applicants have indicated that they feel that this is not an addition of a new second drive-thru window, it is just minor improvements to the existing drive-thru service window to make it operate more efficiently. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council uphold staff's interpretation that the second drive-thru window would not be permitted. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The intent of the ordinance was to prohibit the construction • of new drive-thru service windows and the expansion of the existing drive-thru service windows at restaurants in close proximity to residentially zoned property. Residents living ~jd • in the vicinity of these operations have noted an increased level of noise traffic and litter accumulation in the area due to drive-thru service windows at fast food restaurants. 2. This proposal involves the expansion of an existing drive- thru service window which is not consistent with the intent of the ordinance to prohibit drive-thru service window ,expansions. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Make the interpretation that the proposed improvement is minor and would not require a new special use permit. This would allow a building permit to be issued for the proposed minor expansion. The City Council may want to refer this matter to the Planning .Commission for further study. Decision Mode: This matter is scheduled for council consideration and hearing on April 13, 1987. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City Ma Eger • ~„B+XIl;ER KING CORPORATION MINNEAPOLIS REGION March 9, 1987 Mr. Rick Jopke City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, P1N 55423 Re: BURGER KING Restaurant #116 2800 West 66th Street Richfield, MN Project #0116-7-5-2 Dear Mr. Jopke I am requesting that the City of Richfield schedule BURGER KING CORPORATION for. the April 13, 1987 City Council Meeting. BURGER KING plans to appeal ~ the City's interpretation of Chapter 111 Part IV, Section 3.33 Subdivision ~ 1 I ~ i ~ 4 of the zoning regulations , which says the City Counci 1 shal 1 not approve ~~c ~ a special use permit fora restaurant with a drive-up window located • ~ within 150 feet of any residentially zoned property. BURGER KING presents the stand that we already have a drive-up window at this location, which was constructed in May 1979 and that the second drive-up window which we are requesting is only used for cash exchanges. We are proposing the second drive-thru window to help speed up the drive-thru service due to the loss of one stacking space in the drive-thru lane and the minimum loss of three (3) parking spaces due to the pending street widening project scheduled for this coming summer. The proposed second drive-thru window will be a small (5'-0" x 7'-6") building addition to be constructed at the rear of the existing building. The construction materials would match the current red brick and brown wood trim. This addition would house a cashier for the peak noon lunch crowd. Currently, when a customer enters our drive-thru lane, they stop and order at the menu board, then drive around to the existing drive-thru window and exchange money, then the food is passed to them. With the proposed "second Drive-Thru Window", a customer would order at the existing menu board, then .drive to the "Second Drive-Thru Window" and exchange money, and then proceed to the "first" or main drive-thru window to pick up their food. 9800 BREN ROAD EAST, SUITE 300, MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55343 TELEPHONE: (612) 933-7773 City of Ri chfi el d Mr. Rick Jopke Page Two • The cashier would enter and exit this addition from the interior of the restaurant. This proposed addition will not change the existing drive- thru traffic flow patterns on the site. Please contact me if you have any questions: Thank you .for your cooperation. Cordially, BURGER KING CORPORATION Dane Randolph Site Development Engineer DR:cs . cc: Jim Nunn Mike Nordstrom Mark Rodahl Rick Kelley File • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 114 April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Public hearing on the special use permit request by Wendy's restaurant at 6500 Lyndale Avenue. Background: Chabot Management Company has requested that the city grant a special use permit to increase the seating capacity. from 74 to a total of 90 seats at the Wendy's Restaurant, 6500 Lyndale Avenue. The applicant wishes to construct a six foot glass addition on the east side of the existing structure to accommodate the additional 16 seats. Subsequent to the Planning Commission review of the request the applicant has submitted a revised site plan. The site plan indicates that the restaurant would now have a seating capacity for 90 people instead of 98 as originally proposed. A special use permit for the restaurant with a seating capacity for 74 customers was approved by the City Council on May 22, 1978. Staff investigation of the site indicates that the restaurant currently has seating for 80 people which is in violation of the approved special use permit. As a stipulation • in the granting of the special use permit the property owner granted the city a 20 foot landscape easement along Lyndale Avenue. The offstreet parking agreement dated June 26, 1978 indicates a total of 34 parking spaces on the site. The proposed site plan indicates that the parking layout will remain the same. The property is located in a C-2 General Commercial zoning district. The structure meets all setback requirements except that the setback from Lyndale Avenue which is only 20 feet. The required building setback from Lyndale Avenue is 40 feet. The proposed addition would reduce the building setback from Lyndale Avenue from the existing 20 feet to 14 feet. On February 13, 1987, the hearing examiner granted a variance to allow the applicant to reduce the building setback from Lyndale Avenue to 14 feet. The following stipulations were part of the hearing examiner's approval: 1. That all existing nonconforming conditions be brought up to the city code. 2. That the width of the curb cuts be increased to 26 feet to meet minimum requirements. 3. That all landscaping be subject to staff approval. • A copy of the hearing examiner's decision and the applicant's response to the stipulations for granting of the variance is attached for your information. ~ Zoning Ordinance Requirements: 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, indicates that restaurant use is permitted with a special use permit. 2. Section 3.33, subdivision 4, outlines the regulations for restaurants. 3. Section 3.33, subdivision 6, indicates the setback require- . ments in "C-2" General Commercial district. 4. Section 4.04, subdivision 8, of the City Ordinance code indicates that the minimum width of a curb cut in commercial zoning district be 26 feet. 5. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, outlines the conditions governing the issuance of the special use permit. Staff Recommendation: City Council grant the special use permit request to increase the seating capacity from 74 to 90 at Wendy's restaurant located at 6500 Lyndale Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. That the width of the curb cut be 26 feet as stipulated by the hearing examiner. 2. That the improvements on the site meet all city codes. 3. That the accessory structure located in the southwest corner of the subject property be removed. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The site is within the LHN redevelopment area. The proposed • improvement would enhance the aesthetic appearance of the structure and be consistent .with the overall redevelopment activities that have taken place in the LHN area. 2. The City Council in 1978 found that the development of the site for a restaurant use by Wendy's was consistent with the comprehensive plan and the LHN redevelopment plan. The proposed changes on the site are minor and would not significantly alter the previous determination of the City Council. 3. None of the three existing curb cuts meet the minimum width requirements. The revised site plan indicates that the curb cut on 65th Street would remain as 23 feet. The curb cuts on Lyndale Avenue would be 26 feet meeting the minimum width requirements for curb cuts in commercial district. It is staff's opinion that all the curb cuts be brought to ' compliance with city code requirements. The applicant has indicated that the width of the curb cuts including the one 'i on 65th Street would be brought to compliance to meet the 26 feet minimum width requirement. 4. The proposed plan indicates that 34 parking spaces would be provided which is four spaces more than required by city guidelines for a 90 seat restaurant. It is staff's opinion that the number of spaces available on the site would be adequate for the use. 5. The revised seating layout would meet the minimum building • code requirements of 44 inches for aisles. This has reduced the total number of seats in the restaurant from the originally proposed 98 to 90. ~y-oG 6. The applicant has proposed a new single pedestal ground sign of much smaller size than the existing sign shown in the original proposal. The proposed sign would be located in front of the building. The location of the sign has been changed so that it would be outside of the landscape easement area. Preliminary staff review of the sign indicates that it would meet the city sign ordinance requirements. A detail design plan of the proposed sign would be reviewed prior to the issuance of the building and sign permits. 7. The proposed addition would reduce the amount of open space and/or landscaped area. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that indicate additional planting on the site. Previous actions by the city, the size of the structure and configuration of the lot does not provide room for substantial increase in landscaping without jeopardizing the traffic flow or the number of arkin n h i p g spaces o t e s to Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the landscaping plan as submitted is adequate for the site. I-n the LHN redevelopment area, the city requires that all landscaping on city-owned boulevards or boulevards within landscape easements be irrigated. Currently, there is no irrigation system in place on this site. Staff recommends that the applicant install irrigation sleeves with 4-inch p.v.c. under the three curb cuts. The City will install the irrigation system as we have done in other areas and maintain the system as part of the LHN maintenance assessment district. • 8. The a licant has indicated that the buildin facades would PP g be changed to include a new metal fascia. The LHN Urban Design Guidelines indicate that the primary building materials should include deep tone brick, stone, stucco, and wood in natural or earthy tones. The proposed installation of metal fascia would not meet the LHN Urban Design Guidelines because of the use of metal instead of brick or wood. The City Council has previously made an exception to the LHN Urban Design Guidelines in the Richfield Shoppes building. It is staff's opinion that the appearance of the proposed building with the metal facie would definitely be an improvement of the site. 9. Staff review of the site plan indicates that the proposed addition would not interfere with the sight lines at 65th and Lyndale intersection. There is a 20 foot landscape easement along Lyndale Avenue-and the proposed addition would still be away from the intersection. The 50-foot corner visibility triangle would be maintained. Also, the addition would be approximately 30 feet away from the public sidewalk, therefore, should not interfere with pedestrian traffic. 10. There is a wooden accessory structure located at the south west corner of the parking lot which is used for dry storage. The site plan indicates that the accessory structure would be removed. • 11. The planning Commission voted 5-4 to recommend the City Council approval of the special use permit request to increase the seating capacity from 74 to 98 at Wendy's restaurant located at 6500 Lyndale Avenue South with the following stipulations: a. That the width of the curb cut be 26 feet as stipulated by the hearing examiner. b. That the improvements on the site meet all city codes. c. That the accessory structure located in the southwest corner of the subject property be removed. d. That the new location of the sign should be outside of the easement area and in conformance with LHN Urban Design Guidelines. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may deny the special use permit to increase the number of seats from 74 to 90 at Wendy's restaurant located at 6500 Lyndale Avenue. If the Council chooses to deny the special use permit, findings of fact should be made that the addition to increase the seating capacity would negatively impact the health, safety and welfare of the people residing or working in the surrounding neighborhood. Denial of the special use permit would .prohibit the expansion of the restaurant use in any way into the six foot solarium addition. This effectively cancels the previous variance approval. The applicant could change the ~ use of the structure to a use permitted in a C-2 zoning district and utilize the whole expanded structure. The variance will lapse a year after the approval if the addition • is not constructed. Decision Mode: A public hearing before the City Council to hear the special use permit request by Wendy's is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 13, 1987. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Richfield Sun newspapers. R e tfull submitted es c , p Y Ja i9. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja • i ~ ~ ~ ~~WENDY'S RESTAURANT NORTH 5~~ 6y~~ c4 N 23 ui Q ~ ~ w :ti; 14 Q ~ EXISTING Z STRUCTURE ~ ~ 'J ~ ~ 4 to N SIGN LOCATION P R O P. A D D IT IO N ~I ~i _ . . , . I 1 f _ t 1 4 ~t ~ ~~r ~ ~ B ; _ g gF nor t t - ~ ~ E iii ,q ~~~ti. ~ _ C I-:- ro E - CCC TT I I ^ 11 ~ ~D !1 f1 2y i ~iB~q~ ~ ~ s i 8 §ggg s ~ _ ~ ' ~ _ _ _ F _ ~ - , ~'I~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ r n I ~ ~ I - - ~ o-.---- - ~ I p ~ ~ ~ - --7_-:.... _ - - 1,. _ rte. I - i ~ _ Y yy • I I e`~ _ W N ~ 3~"~° :,w o a W E N D Y' S ~ w ~_¢s~~e ,f! ~.T/;,,!_ ';C:!'GJ ; REMODELING _ i 0500LYNOAI F AYEIvUE SOU7N ~ RICHFIELD ~ I1IWNESOIa LfgEN OPgE MCHIIECI ]IN fNNlAaHWU. COlUM9U5. ONq ~)}}I • }IwN~10}1 _ _ _ _ _ IJ I "WP68 PYLON, FEATUREBOARD AND READERBCARD • 01 /15/85 02-02-20 VACUFOF~M PREVIOUS REV. PAGE NO. WENDY'S CORPORATION ww cc Q 'IB77 E. 17TH AVENUE 08/OAT/8v WP 68 am Box loses CURRENT REV. DESIGN NO. co~unneus. or+io Ie,411?B4-eB,B ~3 PRODUCT INFORMATION 7,,3" .T 6'-4" 1 A a'-7" = HA~IBQR88R8.~ B 19'-1" = = 8,-D" ~ / FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS: Concrete base 3'-0" diameter by 5'-0" deep. (Foundation specs subject to local soil conditions and code requirements.) Direct burial installation. ITEM UNIT QTY. PRICE ENG. EFFECT. QTY. PER DRAW. REF. NO. DESCRIPTION PRICE BASE REVIEW FROM TO PARENT NO. WP68' 'PYLON,FEATUREBOARD AND READERBOARD PYLON A 823156 PYLON 76 x 87 14X 2F 1P 823155 CABINET: 14" aluminum extrusion painted dark bronze. FACE(S): .150" polycarbonate plastic hinged for servicing. READERBOARD B 812304 READR 55 x 87 14X 2F 1 P 812365 CABINET: 14" aluminum extrusion pamted dark bronze. FACE(S): .125" polycarbonate plastic hinged or servicing. Tracked for 3 rows of 6" Zip Change letters. COVER POLE ITEMS 820411 'PACK ABS POLE COVERS WOFH 8-0 820709-1 Formed ABS pole cover painted dark bronze with copper inset. 820806 POLE COVER MOUNTING KIT 8 x 8 SQ 820709-3 820429 POLE 8 x 8 x .187 SQ STL 13-2 803530-2 Painted with rust primer. 060.2245 FONT 250 EZ ALT SLD 6 IN BLACK 250 6" solid black E/Z Change Alternate letters. 330.5015 CHANGER 6 & B IN 6'•12' ZIP 330.5050 CABINET STORAGE EZ-ZIP 6 INCH Storage cabinet for 250 6" letter font. ® Total Amps 10.2 at 110 volts 1-15 amp circuit. VACUFORM CORP. FORM NO. 82092 1 x ~ 3 sb 1~1 'S Z > J V \ G. J i D 1 - - ~ l ' _~3~_T 1, ( ~ \ -1 1 ~ ~f ~l Sri ~ r~__~ - / _ ~ '1 ' /~~T ~ p~ o~ ~Q v a 1+ \ ~ x~ `1 F'.~~~'S ~ ..ill ~I J 3 r,l~ d , 1 {tG' ~ ~ ~ • ~ ` ~ ~ ,I i1 `1~_`• i~Ic I I ~ j;i ~ ~ ~ ~ 'c ~ ~ ~f r • / 1 \ ~ SAU~"IZ OF R•a-,~- M~~t-~-t? I I l-I EE V b~ R RJ ER I LI UND~STUP-.PAD SoIL~GOn aG - rnN• n~N. ~ P T~~ P~GK-SILL _ r t; niu...~ ~ PLAN T iIJG SoI L = ~?M =~=IiNiJll =1111~IIIl~ NO'('E: pLUM~ PLANT AND NAT ER TFfioFZoUVMLY. ~ \ 'V i ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ,li_ _ ~U~b~K HosE t-1PdP TR.1J~~K To Flit ~{zANGHINC~ = IZ GA. C~ALVIf.I1ZP~ tJIR.E 3911.0° INTEFVA~ • u~ rfr ~u~ 4'~aAUGF{Z of Got1PAGt~ ~.JO~D GHiPS ( rn?~• y+`~ N~?+ ' ,1 U~JDK?UP.fSE~ SolL(GOr-+P~GTr',t~ ~+~GKFILI 11C- Y I'I.ANTI~JC, soi~ . ITII~ II~III[rllll~lllk~l~l~lllif~llu .,.5. / i iA~^, ~ + ~ t' ~ ° * ~,~,i ' , ~ ` ~ ~ ` ? . ~ ~ .a 1. , :,'t`~ t1 ~ ~ 4 ' ~ ~ : III ~ ~ p L f ' 1 ~i 1 , ~ - . ~ ~ , i 4 ~ OLD FASI3IOi~iED I • ' March 2, 1987 Communit}• Development Department Planning Division City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. South Richfield, Minn. 55423 RE: Special Use Permit - Wendy's Restaurant, 6500 Lyndale Ave. South, Richfield, Minnesota Dear Sirs: On January 28, 1987, Chabot "lanagement Co. (Wendy's) attended the variance hearing of its. request to reduce the building setback from 20 feet to 14 feet. Mr. Vern Luettinger was the hearing examiner. In granting the variance, several stipulations were made by iir. Luettinger: A. That all nonconforming conditions be brought up to code. Response All nonconforming conditions will be brought up to code. B. That curb cuts be increased to 26 feet to meet current require- . ments. Response All curb cuts will be increased to 26 feet to meet requirements. C. That all landscaping be subject to staff approval. This is to include size and conifer planting along Lyndale avenue. It should be noted the building and landscaping is approaching 9 years of age. Much of the landscaping has shown little growth. Response A landscaping plan has been submitted and we welcome any staff recom- mendations. All recommendations will be met. WENCO OF MINNESOTA, INC./7808 Creekridge Circle/Suite 230/Edina, Minnesota 55435/612-944-5003 _ 1 1 T - Community Development Department March 2, 1987 Page Two C. I would further suggest that the council, in this determination of the .Special Use Permit, give strong consideration to the removal of the outside accessory building located in the S.tJ. corner of the subject property. At it now stands, it could become an area that would harbor rodents. Response We would appreciate it if the staff would allow us to retain the building at its present location. We will do whatever is necessary to see that the building area does not become an area for rodents. tJe would also put in some planter boxes that would make the building less conspicuous to~the overall development of our property and the neighborhood. The building is used for dry storage of cups, napkins, etc. Sincerely, rrr Ca~ es Chief F ecutive Officer PC/bb I - _ 4~ _ variance Request C CASE N0. 87-v-1-VL-1 APPLICANT: Chabot Management Company ! PROPERTY LOCATION: 6500 Lyndale Avenue South HEARING EXAMINER: VERN LUETTINGER ~ HEARING DATE: January 28, 1987 M [!1 APPEARANCES: Mr. Perry Carnes L!1 ~ Based upon the Qvidence presented at the hearing, ~ the undersigned makes the following findings of O fact, conclusions and decisions. y ~ A. FINDINGS OF FACT: _ 1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice ~ was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the site in question as required by city ordinances. The ten day notice requirement was U also met. • ~ 2. The street address and legal descriptions of the ~ ~ property in question are as follows: ~ Tract A and that part of Tract 8 lying easterly ~ and northerly-of a line described as beginning ~ at southwest corner of said Tract A than ~ southerly along southerly extension westerly line thereof, distance 8.62 feet than easterly O ~ deflecting left 82 degrees 13 minutes 28 seconds = to easterly line of Tract B and there ~ terminating excluding road. RLS No. 1318. Street Address of the property is 6500 Lyndale Avenue South. L 3. The zoning of the site in question is "C-2" ~ General Commercial District. ~ 4. The variance requested is to reduce the building ~ setback from existing 20 feet to 14 feet along ~ Lyndale Avenue. 5. The reason for the request is to allow the -addition of a 6 foot greenhouse in front of the .building setback area to increase the seating capacity for 98 people. The request for the addition is needed to improve the image and competitiveness with other similar businesses in the area. telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer 1 _y~.,~~~ 8. CONCLUSIONS Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision 6 provides for the granting of variance to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship to the o~+rners of the property under consideration. In determining whether to grant or deny the requested variance, I specifically make the following conclusions: 1. Is the granting of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights? I conclude that the proposed design, landscaping and the blending of color will be more appropriate with new adjacent development in the LHN redevelopment area. I view this improvement beneficial for the city's LHN redevelopment efforts and also the property owners. 2. Are there special circumstances or conditions affecting the particular land or building referred to in the application, not caused by the property owner, which are not common to other properties in this or similar districts? I conclude there are unique circumstances present on this particular site only to the extent that the configuration of land is not similar in shape to other lots in the surrounding area. 3. 4Vi11 the granting of the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood or locality? I conclude it would not. The improvement as proposed and the stipulations as set up would basically enhance the character of the neighborhood. 4. Are them any conditions which must be attached to the granting of the variance to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties? I conclude there are. In the granting of this variance I would set forth the following stipulations: a. That all nonconforming conditions be brought Up t0 COde. _ _ ~~f~~% { b. That curC cuts ~e increased to 26' to meet (r .current requirements. e. That all landscaping be subject to staff approval. This is to include size and conifer planting along Lyndale Avenue. It should Ce noted the building and landscaping is approaching 9 years of age. Much of the landscaping has shown little growth.. I would further stipulate that as much sodded ar?a that could Ce maintained and would support good growth Ce utilized rather than stones. iYe are striving to beautify the area wit`s as much greenery as possible. I would further suggest that the council in t`~e dstermination of the special use permit - give strong consideration to the removal of the outside accessory Cuilding located in the SW corner of the subject property. As it now stands it could become an area that - would harbor rodents. It is my considered opinion that the material stored in the building would be more appropriately stored in the interior of the main building. C. DECISION Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned determines that the request be granted. DATED: 1 l Hearin Examrner 9 City of Richfield CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 113 April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Public hearing on the request for a preliminary plat approval creating two new single family residential lots at 7234 14th Avenue. Background:, Mr. Tim Gleason, property owner at 7234 14th Avenue has requestecl that the city approve_a preliminary plat. The existing single family residential lot would be subdivided into two new single .family residential lots. The existing lot has an area of 15,955.98 square feet. There is a single family dwelling .with a detached garage on the site. The site is in single family residential ('R') zoning district. The newly created lot 1, would have an area of 9,141.988 square f h e i in wellin with a ara e. The eet and accommodate t e x st d 9 9 9 g existing garage would be relocated, but the exact location is not: yet determined. The garage could be relocated and meet the requirements for accessory structure in the single family residence district. The existing dwelling would continue to meei: minimum setback requirements. • The newly created lot 2, would have an area of 6,813.988 square feet and would accommodate a new single family dwelling with an attached garage. The proposed dwelling on lot 2 would meet minimum setback re uirements. q Both the newl created lot 1 and lot 2 would meet the minimum lot Y area and lot width requirements. There is a concrete driveway which provides access to the existing garage from Diagonal Boulevard. The existing driveway would be relocated but the future location is not yet determined. The dwelling on the proposed lot 1 fronts 14th Avenue and the proposed dwelling on lot 2 would front Diagonal Boulevard. All utilities are available within close proximity of the site. Considerable neighborhood opposition was expressed at the Planning Commission hearing. The opponents felt that the lots would be too small, that the houses would be too close together, I that the proposal would not be in character with the surrounding neighborhood, and that there could be parking and traffic problems in the neighborhood. ~I Zoninq Ordinance Requirement: 1. Section 3.30, subdivision 4, indicates the minimum lot area, lot width and setback requirements in 'R' district. 2. Section 3.59, outlines the requirements for approval of the preliminary plat. • Staff Recommendation: Approve the preliminary plat as shown for the property located at 7234-14th Avenue South with the stipulation that the existing garage be removed and/or relocated to comply with city setback requirements. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Subdivision and zoning ordinance requirements for the subdivision approval have been met. 2. The Planning Commission voted 7 to 2 to recommend approval of the preliminary plat at 7234 14th Avenue with the stipulation that the existing garage be removed and/or relocated to comply with city setback requirements. Alternative Recommendation: Deny the subdivision request. The Council would have to make findings to justify the denial. Staff is of the opinion that the .information provided on the preliminary-plat is adequate for approval of the request and the proposal meets the city's minimum standards for lot area and width. Therefore, there may not be .sufficient basis for denial of the preliminary plat. Decision Mode: A public hearing has been scheduled before the City Council at 7:00 PM, on Monday, April 13, 1987. The public hearing will be held at the Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall to consider the • subdivision. Respectfully submitted, Ja s D. Prosser Ci Manager i i • .7234-14TH AVE. SO. NORTH j s ~ °y~ ~ 50 t 6 LOT ~ ' O 5~ ~ J LOT 2 , ~ ~O O -ice ~~G ~ ~2 ~ ~ . ~ ~ G,O~{~ STRUCTURE o~~ . PROPOSED LOT LINE . PROPOSED STRUCTURE 'SITE PLAN - the reas~ns ~~,e or;Pct is that this area is a beautir'ul area ~f Richf iei_d and h~ s been so for over 30 years.. It would spoil the asy~^metrlcal Look ^f the area. and give it a squeezed in and cro~~rded look. Due to the c~nto~ar of the location of said new dwelling it vaill cause congestion in the movement of traffic both on 14th A~Te. and Diagonal Blvd. B,y adding another new dwelling you are also adding a nev;~ ~~%?.ra~-e whose only access will be on Dia#onal Blvd. Also as you ca.n see lath Ave. makes a dog leg at Dia~~nal Blvd. which further complicates the traffic problem. Also if this petition is approved it is very possible it will set a precedent and others will follow suit, thus causing ovlr crowding and traffic rroblems. . - " - - ' s r REQUEST FDR SUBDIVISION/PRELIMINARY PLAT ~t ?2?~ lath Ave So. FOR PURPOSE OF Crea.tint?' t~^~~ new sin_~^i e ~'-.milt' residential lots Legal Description: f i ~Ve, the undersigned, being of mmediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby ~tx~~i~~~ the subdivision/preliminary-plat requested. Signature of Owners* Address ' i ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I ~ I ~ 1 I ~ ` ~9 ~ I I ~!r /7`i~ ~ .YI ~ /lr~ ~I~ I ~ ~ J ~ L'V V ~ . ~V V ( J I I h ~ I i ~ I ~ I Signatures may not be removed once the petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. • v_~ _ _ _ - , i _ ~ REQUEST FpR SUBDIVISION/PRELIMINARY PEAT FOR PURPOSE OF ~~~:~7/r4[. I.n~' - legal Description: .V?, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as move described, do hereCy concur with the su~division/preliminary plat requested. Signature of Owners* Address I ~ i ' I I j j 1 I I i I I I I I I I I - I I I i 1 i I I I I I I I~ I I I I I I I { I I I *Signatures may not Ce removed once the petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. • - _ o'T,oN LF-A?~°N A° - T OF~ T1M ~ 1NpR~t P~-p` PRELIM _ t I ~ ' . „ ~ ~ ` ppf[M1S iUtHS'•t('l plat twit. .`w ~ ~ \ \ - ~ FnlRTM yaJt IOy. a:<aai+l to P'e 9 \ tot i. 61ay 17s*y~y.U . . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ t.S ~ ~ in CAM 6feH N,y' ~y.tF t yy lyle pM1lR1CU t t w ! ~ J .punt cell. - ' ~ 'y_ E." G ,1 , ~ ° j i ryas mcr.~0 tq`' JJJ oAtUgi:ui.. eP~tP ~ .t ~ i1n GlNete tt r ~ ~a \ 41St p117A: scree) . ~ ~ ~ t.~t tl w` ~~y ~ ~ ~i~~, e\ / ~ait?'1e~~15^ratvn w+^ tom. yF~",.y,E \ 1 /15.2 L,t~x.t,' } ' y+'` X83 NTP°8~ mi'x' s• 3, a~aw,'„mn \ o - ~ r ` r - tjpe'yie:: r.. - ' ~ 6•~i+ t1~' y W U~ M ~ 55G1 . s tit r tY , ~ ~,j ' ~ ~ Mywq~n„e e~ gpoleta }t!M"e i +y~.~nd .~:ni l~tyl y, t. rn~ ""de• . ~ / ~ h..yyp , ^ ~ IA. Y6' . !1. ~ j > i ieMY t mt~ rl ~tt~µt t r e~.7r ~1fce~ ~ ~ e i ~ Yd's t.-f'. 5 `J ~-Qj / It' ry~'~'tyT ~ u 1 l J~ 1 yfty lC S ~ s" w n •f•1t i~ii•~ / ~ y ~ t ~ _ r i ,ll s s•' ' , ~ fig y d! p w` ~1 'F' ? ~ ~ f I UAP •T a'8j t er ~i r s CASION bi i I ~ 1t~' LQ a 4 1 5 E ' e ~ //j ~ ~ ' :yyptet t M pU+t~t / _ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 112 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Approval of a resolution .approving plat of Blaylock Plumbing Addition. Background: On October 13, 1986 the City Council approved a plat of Blaylock. Plumbing Addition which lies generally at 4th Avenue and 78th Street. The property owners attempted to file this plat with the County and the County has indicated that they cannot accept the plat for filing because there was no legal description of the property being platted in the council minutes. To correct this the property owner has requested that the City Council confirm their previous action by passing the attached resolution which includes the proper legal description. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council pass the attached resolution approving the plat of Blaylock Plumbing Addition. Basis of Recommendation: Basis of the recommendation is that the council has previously approved this plat and this action is needed to allow the plat to • be filed with Hennepin County. The plat remains the same and this action would be consistent with the previous council approval. Alternative Recommendation: None. Decision Mode: This item is a housekeeping type of item which does not require a public hearing or public notice. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JAMES P. LARKIN LAKKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY ~C LINDGBEN, LTD SH ERRI LL OMAN KU RETICH ' ROBERT L.HOFFMAN GERALDL. SECK JACK F. DALY THOMAS B. HUMPH REY, Jq. O. KEN HETM LINDG REN ATTO RfJ EY 5 AT LAW DAVID J. PEAT ANDREW W. DANIELSON JOHN B. LU NOQUI$T • WEN DELL R. AN DER50N MICHAEL T. MCKIM GERALD H. FRIEDELL ANDREW J. MITCHELL ROBERT B. WMITLOCK 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER JOHN A. COTTERK ALLAN E. MULLIGAN ROBERT J. HENNE55 EY 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET - KATHLEEN M. GATES. RONALD R. FLETCH ER BEATRICE A. ROTH WEILER PAUL B. PLU NKETT JAMES C. ERICKSON ~ BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 - MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 5u5AN R. BURNIG HT ' EDWARD J. DRISCO LL AMY DARR GRADY JAME$ P. MILEY TELEPHONE (612) 835-3800 TELEPHONE 1612) 338-6610 ALAN L. KILOOW GENE N. FV LLER KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEW MAN DAVID 0. SELLERGR EN TE LECOPIER 1612) 835-5102 TELECO PIER{6121 338-1002 uRRr A. KDCH RICHARD J. KEENAN ' JOHN D. FULLM ER PETER J. COYLE ROBERT E. BOYIE CATHERINE BARN ETT WILSON• FRANK 1. HARVEY BETTY A. MORNINGSTAR ' RICHARD A. FOR SCH LER JEFFREY C. AN DER$ON RICHARD A. NORD BYE DANIEL L. BOWLE$ CHARLES 5. MODELL - JONATHON G. LANDE CHRISTOPHER J. DIET2 EN Bloom i Il.g ton TODD M. VLATKOVICH JOHN R. BEATTIE REPLY TO TIMOTHY J. Me MAN U$ JILL 1. FRIEDER$ LINDA H. FISHER CRAIG A. PETERSON THOMA$ P. STO LTMAN LISA A. GRAY STEVEN G. LEVIN ' GARY A. RENNENE FORREST D. NOWLIN ~ THOMAS H. WEAVER MICHAEL C. JACKMAN JOHN E. DIEHL JON S. SWIERZEW$KI THOMAS J. FLYNN OF COUNSEL JAMES P. OUINN - JOSEPH GITIS TODD 1. FREEMAN STEPHEN B. SOLOMON JOHN A. MGH VGH PETER K. BECK JAMES A. BALOGM JEROME H. KAHNKE K AL50 ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN April 7, 1987 Mr. Jim Prosser City Mar>.ager CITY OF RICHFIELD - 6700 Portland Aver>.ue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: Blaylock Plumbing Addition Our File No. 14461-00 Dear Mr . Prosser As we discussed by telephone last week, we represent Blaylock Plumbir>.g Co. in connection with the plat of Blaylock Plumbing Additior>, which was approved by the Richfield City Council or>. October 13, 1986. Hennepin County recording officials have advised us that the er>.closed Council Resolution approving the plat is deficier>.t because it does r>.ot include a legal,description of the property being platted. I have prepared a new Resolution which will apparently meet the requirements of the County by referring to the name of the plat and the legal descriptior>, of the property. I would appreciate it if you could place the matter on the City Council's agenda for its next meeting. Please give a call if you have arty questions or> our request or if you need add' i >al ir>,formation on the matter. Sin rel , T Stoltman, for A IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Er>closure ~cc: Michael Blaylock TPS:GZIS i r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLAT WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, as a municipal corporation organized and existing. under the laws of the state of Mir~resota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision plat for Blaylock Plumbing Addition., as submitted by Blaylock Plumbing Co., Lamont J. Jankord and Marjorie N. Jankord and Richfield Bank & Trust Co., for property legal-_y described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby approves the plat of Blaylock Plumbing Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. .Dated this day of , 19_ • Mayor Attest: City Clerk • TPS:GZ2S EXHIBIT A Legal Description: Parcel 1. The .West 169.4 feet of the East 660 feet of the North 160 feet of the South 462 feet of Government Lot 1, Section 34, ,Township 28, Range 24. Parcel 2: Lots 3, 4 and that part of Lot 5, Block 2, Ranft Addition, lying Northerly of State Highway No. 100 and that part of-the West 139.4 feet of the East 630 feet of the South 302 feet of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying Northerly of State Highway No. 100. All in Hennepin County, Minnesota. • TPS:GZ2S Council Meeting Minutes -9- October 13, 1986 w~ John Alt9 owner of 7614-16 Logan Avenue, stated that because the council has approved the Mazda dealership for Morgan Avenue they should approve this request also. M/Garcia, S/Kirsch to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-®. M/Sandahl, S/Ludeman to deny the request of Mr. James W. Checco for a special use permit to operate an automobile sales and leasing showroom at 7713 Morgan Avenue. Motion carried 5-0. Item #9 PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE~THE FINAL PLAT FOR ' PROPERTIES AT 7715 AND 7731 4TH AVENUE AND 7720 AND 7732 5TH AVENUE. C.L. 389. City Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 389 recommending approval of a final plat for properties located at 7715 and 7731 4th Avenue and 7720 and 7732 5th Avenue. M/Kirsch, S/Ludeman to close the public hearing. • Motion carried 4-0. (Council Member Garcia was absent during this vote) M/Kirsch, S/Sandahl to approve the final plat for the properties located at 7715 and 7731 4th Avenue and 7720 and 7732 5th Avenue with the following stipulation: 1. That the drainage plan for Lot 3 be submitted to and- approved by the City Engineer. Motion carried 4-0. (Council Member Garcia was absent during this vote.) Item #10 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE PERSONNEL ORDINANCE BRINGING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. SECOND READING. C.L. 390. City Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 390 regarding and ordinance amendment to the Personnel Ordinance bringing it into compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA City Council Letter No. 111 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Application from Consul Restaurant Corporation d/b/a Chi-Chi's, for permit to sell beer in parking lot during Muscular Dystrophy Association fund raiser. Background: On March-16, 1987, Mr. Jim Rockholt, Banquet Manager for Chi- Chi's Restaurant, submitted a request for a permit to sell beer in their parking lot in conjunction with a volleyball tournament fund raisin event for the Muscular Dystrophy Association. All 9 beer and pop would be donated and the proceeds from the sales will be given to M.D.A. Dates for permit request are May 16, from 9:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., and May 17, from 11:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. Permit request is for the sale of beer and pop only, with no alcoholic beverages and no food to be sold in the parking lot. Applicant has indicated that this event will be given local media coverage by television station KARE 11 and radio station WLOL. Applicant has indicated that the event will be conducted in the south portion of their parking lot, adjacent to the fence that separates their property from the property owned by the Best Company. In addition, the applicant has made arrangements with the Best Company for supplemental parking in their parking lot. Access to the Best Company lot will be controlled by security personnel to ensure that beer is consumed only in Chi-Chi's parking lot. The security will also ensure that the area of activity is kept away from the residential area to the north of the restaurant. Applicant has contacted their insurance company and if permit is granted the applicant's liquor liability insurance will be extended to cover the parking lot area for the two days of the tournament. Applicant will supply proof of coverage to the city prior to the event. Recommendation: Based upon the information supplied by the applicant, the fact that the tournament is a fund raising event for M.D.A., it is recommended that the council approve the permit. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the city ordinance concerning the granting of a permit. 2. The event is a fund raising event for M.D.A., and as such all proceeds will be going to charity. Alternatives: 1. The council could decide to continue license request. 2. The council could decide to deny the permit requested. • Decision/Discussion Mode: The request for the permit is scheduled for April 13, 1987. The applicant is requesting a decision at this meeting in order that proper and necessary arrangements can be made for this event. Respectfully submitted, J ~ D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP/eja I i I . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 110 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Request for illuminated signs for Northstar Cleaners located at 6525 Nicollet Avenue South, Market Plaza located at 700 West 66th Street, Communications Center located at 7601 Lyndale Avenue and ~ the Barber Shop located at 6537 Cedar Avenue South. Background: City ordinance provides that the city council must approve all permits for illuminated signs. Northstar Cleaners wish to erect an illuminated wall sign with a size of 8'9" X 2' on the existing sign band. Market Plaza requests permits for two entry signs. They are to be 5' X 1'10", illuminated ground signs. Communications Center requests permits for two illuminated signs. One is to be a 12' X 4' pedestal sign and the other is to be a single faced wall sign with a size of 22' X 4'. The Barber Shop requests a permit to erect a barber pole on the north side of their front window. • 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 4/13/87 council agenda for consideration. The businesses are requesting action to complete their sign placement of these new business establishments. Re fully submitted, s D. Prosser • Ci Manager APPROVE ' ~ DENY APPROVE .DENY • R .City Manager .Inspector ' 3 L 4 Date Date ~ / APPROVE ~ ~ ~ TlENY` ~ : ~ '~~~1he~ APPROVE ~ ~ DENY ~ : ~ Plannin Deb rtment g City Council • Date ~l2~ q,"j Date Route to above for special .approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING .PERMIT SSG. ~1., ' ,y/~'~ , City of Richfield, .Minnesota /1~ Date 3~1-~~~ Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No ~ Fee ~ ~ _ o~~~ ~ ~ n 81-3 X5.1 Address of Sign CPJ Proprietor Name ~ DBA ~ Sign Erector Address J Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting Wall Single Face _ Clear Lexon Constant Projecting Double Face Frosted Lexon _ Flashing Ground j 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 Trailer ~ T ~ A [~~j Post i If Illu in ted Yes No Watts ct cal Contractor^ Address Phone Property Owner or his Agert Signature -~~~f~ Phone i~~~ 9y~ D ~y ~ Estimated Cost ~~G1`~~~ Sign Widthp ~j' JHeightpZ~~l Total Square Feet ~ ~i ~ 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? c~'j - _ Will the sign, ~tructure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? ~c~ . a y Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm /r~j~ J / Q Date Phone Number /7 / T ~ ' ~t 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-506.1 ~ --,fit . • • ~ ~ + X _ rr _.Q p / ~ ~ ~ , t ~ ~ 1 r' 1 , ~ ~ / t_._._..._ .._.....J D ' ~ \ j r ,.a t f ~ APP~ivVE ~ I DENY ~ : APPROVE ~ DENY d~2'~/c.-~~-- City Mana er Ins ector g P Date Date ~ / L7 J67 [ ~ APPROVE DENY ~~-'fr~OP _ APPROVE ~ DENY • Planning Dep rtment City Council Date ~-7 ~1 Date Route to above for special approval per code General Siens APPLICATION:-FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, .Minnesota Date ~~~'"r/U ~ Zoning ~ ~ ~L. Sign Erected - Yes No c/ Fee Address of Sign 7ou CJ fp- Proprietor Name 1~~}(Zillc.a' ~rf~ DBA .Sign Erector /Vg~L~6 ~c S~ S(~,~,~ Address 3cz, t.c.) ,rte f ~P~S x Type-of Sign Design ~ Weather Cover Lighting ,Wall Single Face Clear Lexon c` / 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 Trailer _ T ~ A ~ Post ~ '~'~!^~l ~'Cd.4f f !°2cc 2 'Te ILLWC~ 1'~G<J c,~ ~c~~t1L_ ~f Illuminated Ye No Watts ' Electrical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner ~ his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost ./DDS Sign Width ~ r Height /--/U y Total Square Feet /(J 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 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? Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm _ Date Phone Number • Lkt _ 1985 PLEASE SEE RnvracSE,SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION a~iCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 ~~pss ~,Xr a,Ya ~ 8Oy55 NW's11£ yCgQ vxy ~l- ar~L'1 ~M ~1~ i ~Kt ~ ~ ~ zr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y • i ~ 1 t ;`~'~4 'fit'' ~ ~y ' • 2 ~ - ,q ~ j'. . ~ ~ '1~ 111 2 ' ~ Q 1 ~ ~i ~ ~ t- 1 ~ n ~ ~ ` X Y JI`~ 1 7 ' / ~ • lit ate ~ ~ i 1~ ~ ~ t f~=`~ fit; t . ~ r x ~ / / ~ i , 1 G i Y e. qty • r~t ~ 11 t ~f ~ \ 3 S s t J l iq lI ,•''T7'~7~~+'-~~-- _ ' /r~~~ 1.x.1 J:! 1~ - ~ A •4 ' _ NI ~ ' ~z . , i11 v 1 City Manager . ~ Inspecto ~~J _ Date Date ~ b" l 9S~ . APPROVE pENY ~ : K.cc.1~•- ~ , APPROVE DENY ~ : ~ ~~1-~.. . _ _ Planning De artment City Council Date ~ ~ ~ . Date . Route to above for 'special approval per code General Signs ~ I APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT . City of Richfield „ Minnesota Date 3 - 2 6 - 8 ? Zoning Sign Erected - .Yes g No Fee ~ 9 . ~ ~ Address of Sign 7601 Lvnd~le Ave. Proprietor Name Mike t~,rtPi 1 ~DBA ~ei11;,,_~;f`r1i';,I Center Sign Erector Attracta SianT Inc. Address 0417 Penn Ave. Sa. Richfield Type of Sign Design ~ Weather Cover Lighting Wall ~ Single Face Clear Lexon „,.Constant Projecting _ Double Face ~ Frosted Lexon Flashing r~~ Ground Multi-Faced _ Flastic Covered Revolving Roof ~ AerialiBlimp Shaded Traveling Pedestal Searchlight Neon ~ Zip Lite _ Changeable ~ Banner/Pennants Other Other (Explain) Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors R1 ink wh; to 1 Trailer T ~ A ~ Post ~ ~ 1 If Illuminated - Yes Nox Watts -Electrical Contractor Address Phone ~~roperty Owner or his Agent Signature Phone • Estimated Cost 700.00 Sign Widths + Height q + Total Square Feet RR . 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 or, 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? Yes Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for saf ccess by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? ~je ' ~ face of existing building sign over entrance door. ~C~~ . ~ Applicant" s Signature and Title with Firm Date 3-26-8? • Phone Number 866-3047 Lkt PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 c ~ - _ f~ ~ _ : r ' ` 3 i I - _ _ cora~ S - -~_i P~ wja , 2Z, _ _ --~y~.~ ~ r r 0 ~ 4 ` ~ n - . ~ ~ _ ~ . I 'City Manager 'y l.~ ,Inspector Date ~ - : :Date ,•~:~'3af,~~,:-.•, . • ~~.r APPROVE DENY ~ ~ : ~~2 : ~ = APPROVE ~ DENY ~ ~ /l~~- ~t" Pla~inin Dep rtment ~ - . - • City Council"_...•~~<..,,:.r;. • _ , Date 3~2'j~"7.. - <<Date t •~oute to above for's ecial a t• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ipioval per code " - ~ ~ General Sisms . APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT .City of Richfield, ,Minnesota • . Date 3- 2 6- 8 7 Zonia~t ~ Sign ~ Erected Yes ~ ~ No • Fee •.1 R '~i n Address . of Sign 7 6 01 Lvriclale ` AVe+:- Proprietor Name Mike 'J~`~ P i i DBA~~~r„r;,;Tn i gat- ~ ~I = enter Sign Erector Attracta Sian . INc . Address641"7 Penn Ave So _ R; c-hf ~ P•1-~_NtN , ' Z~pe of Sign' - Design ~ • ~ .WeaL-her.. Cover LiAhtinA t" ' Wall Single Face _ Clear Lexon Constant Projecting X 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 Black & Whit e Trailer ~ T ~ A ~ Post ~ If Illuminated -Yes X No ~ Watts - ~ectrical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner or-his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost 900.00 Sign Width 12' Height 4' Total Square Feet 48 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? y~ Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict nay sight distance under, around, or over for safe/ ss by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No . ,Rye. ace of fisting sign Applicant's $ignature and Title with Firm Date ~3 'oZ(~ - Phone Number 866-3047 t ~85 PLEASE SEE R~vr.nSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-506 1 . ..,r~..w..~..~.__ _ . _ ~~,.,..v.._ ,,..w. A . ~Gi , - . { - s - f , _ = i~ I 1 ~ ® ~ ' ~ I _ ate:^cs•:a :f~:::, :.....:=:<:c ` r :::c ~ ::i?a~ i vY~ ~ ~ / M \ ~ ~ I ,0 a I J~ ?v:~ ~ I ~J J i 1 i~ ~o raj ~ I ~ ~h _ APPROVE I ~ DENY1 APPROVE ~ DENY' .City Manager •hispector Date Date t~.1'PROVE k ~ENY~ ~ : r~~ ~~.yl'~ r~ APPROVE ~ ~ DENYI ~ t`~ ~5,;.' Planning~De~artment City Council Date ~1 /r ~ Date • Route to_above for. special approval-per code General Sins APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, .Minnesota Date ~ / % Zoning Sign Erected -Yes No Fee Address of Sign,;~~ ; ~f j • Proprietor Name i f~,.~ -,-~~DBAj':;//i~,"< t%~f>>,~. "G;.•U Sign Erectors ,.t .."~a~, 7.^f, Address./~i%/i= i~ /jI%/!=~~`~%' Type of Sign Design ~ Weather Cover Lighting Wall Single Face _ Clear Lexon ~ Constant Projecting Double Face _ ,Frosted Lexon _ Flashing Ground Multi-Faced ~s- 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~,,~=..~~, %/,'f,-. ~ j,;,~_ Trailer ~ T ~ A ~ Post ~ ~ ' If Illuminated -Yes No Watts . vQ electrical _Contractor .,;;<<•~ i= ~ ~ Address Phone / Property Owner or his Agent Signature ~ Phone.~~~~-'~!-~~' . Estimated Cost_ ~~!ii= 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 i 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? -1: ,c/ ~ / Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm _ _ Date Phone Number /,~~L ~kt 1985 PLEASE SEE Rnvr,.tcSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-SOb1- GROUND SIGN PEDESTAL SIGN PROJECTI G SIGN ~1IDTH ~ WIDTH I'E ~3IDTH t~ LEGEND ~ LEGEND LEGEND + u Indicate Distance. From The Building GROUND WALL SIGN ROOF SIGN Indicate legend on the F~IDTH ~ WIDTH ~ the reverse side in the space below LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND V ~ ~ ~ ' fl i'1 GROUW ROOF 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 ar double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board INDICATE NORTH LRT18/83 _ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 109 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Authority to submit outdoor recreation grant application for development at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield (Legion Lake). Background: Preliminary applications must be submitted by May 4, 1987 for fiscal year 1988 Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LAWCON) and State Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) grants to acquire and develop outdoor recreation facilities. This is .the traditional LAWCON/LCMR grant program which focuses funding on trails, boat and/or canoe accesses, fishing piers, swimming beaches and campgrounds. Eligible support facilities include park roads, parking areas, walkways, landscaping, site improvement, signs, visitor station/contact building, picnic shelters, restroom buildings, changehouses, warming houses, nature centers, storage buildings, lighting, sewer and water for park buildings, fencing, drinking fountains as well as design and engineering (up to 10~ of total project cost). Proposed state legislation for .fiscal year 1988 would provide a $1 million funding level, for projects in the seven county Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area. The state portion of a grant has these restrictions: 1) an applicant may not receive more than one state grant per biennium (fiscal years 1988 and 1989) and 2) the per-project limit is proposed to be $400,000 for the life of a project (regardless of the number of grants awarded). Neither of these restrictions apply to the LAWCON grants. LAWCON funding levels are contingent on congressional action. The Outdoor Recreation Grant program provides matching federal/state funds. Applicants should be able to fund at least 50% of the total project cost. The "local share" can consist of cash; donations of materials, labor and equipment usage; in-kind contributions; or any combination thereof. It should be stressed that once a park facility is acquired and/or developed with LAWCON/state grant funds, the site and any subsequent additions are to remain and be maintained as outdoor recreation facilities by the applicant into perpetuity. Recommendation: It is recommended the city council authorize submission of the grant application for community park improvements at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield (Legion Lake). Basis of Recommendation: 1. The .proposed community park encompasses outdoor recreation I f r f n in under the LAWCON/state ro ram. facilities eligible o u d g p g 2. The proposed community park has been identified as a priority in Richfield's comprehensive master park plan. 3. The proposed community park has been identified in the Recreation and Open Space Development section of the Capital Budget and .the five year Capital Improvement Program. Alternative Recommendation: As the city has indicated a desire to seek outside funding sources wherever ossible for the development of a community park p and as the city has successfully participated in the Outdoor Recreation Grant program in the past, there is no alternative recommendation at this time. i Discussion/Decision Mode: As the preliminary application deadline is May 4, 1987, the city council should take action in April, 1987. Respectfully submitted, uam D. Prosser Iii, Cit Manager JDP/eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 108 April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Approval of a resolution appropriating Municipal State Aid construction funds to S.A.P. 157-020-06, installation of an "Opticom" Emergency Vehicle Preemption System on 66th Street. Background: On March 10, 1987 the City Council awarded a contract for Opticom equipment for 66th Street at Nicollet Avenue, Pillsbury Avenue, Lyndale Avenue, Lake Shore Drive and the 35W ramps. 'The delivery of equipment was completed in November. a A new state Iaw, effective August 1, 1986, allows the cost of an Opticom System to be eligible for State Aid funding. It is anticipated that a portion of .the cost for the system can be recovered from the City's MSA construction fund if city labor is used to install the equipment. Earlier this year, however, a portion of 66th Street from Lyndale Avenue South to Trunk Highway No. 77 (Cedar Avenue) was revoked from the MSA street system to allow West 77th Street to be designated as an MSA street. In accordance with State Statutes, a municipality may request authorization to use part of its MSA allotments for improvements of streets not on the State Aid Street System. The attached resolution shall serve as formal authorization for this appropriation. ."y' Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council pass the attached Resolution appropriating $60=000 of MSA construction funds to S.A.P. 157-020-06, installation of an "Opticom" Emergency Vehicle Preemption System on 66th Street. Basis for Recommendation: 1. In order to spend Municipal State Aid monies for an improvement on an off-system roadway, a resolution authorizing this appropriation must be passed by the City Council, as specified by MnDOT regulations. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council may choose to decline to use MSA funding for t-his project and direct staff to find alternative funding sources. Discussion/Decision Mode: The decision on this item can be delayed; however, the funding for this project should be determined soon in order to proceed with the anticipated spring installation of the system. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City anager JDP/sae ; . / RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING MUNICIPAL STATE AID CONSTRUCTION FUNDS TO S.A.P. 157-020-06, "OPTICOM" EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION. SYSTEM ON 66TH STREET WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable and necessary for the City of .Richfield to participate in the cost of the installation of an "Opticom" Emergency Vehicle Preemption System for 66th Street at Nicollet Avenue, Pillsbury Avenue, Lyndale Avenue, Lake Shore Drive and the 35W ramps, and WHEREAS, said project has been approved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and identified in its records as S.A.P. 157-020-06. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield does hereby appropriate from our Municipal State Aid Construction Funds the sum of $60,000 to apply toward the installation of said system and request the Commissioner of Transportation to approve this authorization. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of April, 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA W Council Letter No. 107 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Purchase and installation of three dump boxes for new one-ton trucks used for city maintenance operations. Background: The central garage 1987 adopted operating budget (602-4862) provides $40,500 for the purchase of three one-ton dump trucks for hauling and routine maintenance purposes. The purchase of the trucks and chassis were approved by the city council on January 12, 1987 in the amount of $31,121. Staff has now received quotations for the purchase and installation of hoists and boxes for these dump trucks. The low quotation was received from Crysteel Truck Equipment in the amount of $11,811. Total cost for chassis and boxes was $42,932, $2,432 greater than budgeted. There is sufficient money within the central garage bud et for the urchase. g P Recommendation: Approve the purchase of three dump boxes complete and installed from Crysteel Equipment in the amount of $11,811. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The three dump trucks purchased earlier are useless unless they are equipped with dump boxes. 2. The quotation from Crysteel Equipment is the lowest quote received. 3. Sufficient funding is available for this purpose. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not accept the quotation of Crysteel Truck Equipment and direct the staff to obtain other quotations. Discussion/Decision Mode: To assure sufficient time for installation of the boxes and to put the new units into service before the heavy spring hauling and maintenance demand, this item has been placed on the April 13, 1987 consent agenda for council consideration. Respec fully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 106 _ Agenda Ap~i 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Presentation of Government Finance Officers Association Award for Distinguished Budget. Background: The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) has recently announced that the City of Richfield, Minnesota has received GFOA's Award for Distinguished Budget Presentation for its 1987 budget. This award is the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting. Its attainment represents a significant accomplishment to the Management and elected officials of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. To receive the Award, governments submit their budget document for review by a panel of independent budget experts. Using extensive criteria, the .reviewers evaluate the effectiveness of the budget as: 1) A Policy Document 2) An Operations Guide 3) A Financial Plan 4) A Communications Device To receive the Award, the Budget Document must be rated as proficient in all four categories. Since 1984, the first year it was issued, only two hundred governmental entities have received the Award for Distinguished Budget Presentation nationwide. Winning budgets represent truly pioneering efforts to improve the quality of budgeting and provide excellent examples-for other governments throughout North America. Since 1984, this year represents the third time the City of Richfield has received this Award. The City of Richfield was also the first City in Minnesota to ever receive the Award For Distinguished Budget Presentation. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council present the Budget Award Plaque to the Administrative Services Director on behalf of the City of Richfield, and commend the Department Heads and Finance Manager, Jean Mitchell, for the 1987 Budget Document. Discussion/Decision Mode: Presentation of the Budget Award should be made at the April 13, 1987 City Council Meeting. Res ec.fully submitted, Jame ? D. Prosser City Manager JDP/sae ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 105 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to Communications Supervisor, Rey Freeman and full-time and part-time Telecommunicators: Jay Carlson, Janet Menning, Dawn Nilsen, Lynn Holden, Cindy Belbeck, Jeff Dickie, Alan Fjerstad and Lisa Williams for their contribution to the city. Background: The Public Safety Dispatcher is frequently the first contact between a resident and the city when assistance is needed. In many cases, the caller is desperate, panic stricken, and in immediate need of assistance. The Dispatcher must simultaneously deal effectively with an anxious caller while dispatching-and coordinating numerous Public Safety units. The Richfield/Eden Prairie Communications Center handles all "911" and administrative "calls for service" for the cities of Richfield and. Eden Prairie. The Center is operated by the Administrative Services Division of the Public Safety Department under a Joint User Agreement which was entered into in 1983 with the City of Eden Prairie. All Public Safety Police and Fire units for both cities are dispatched and monitored through the Communications Center. The Communications Center handled approximately 33,000 calls for service during 1986..- Approximately 20,000 of the calls were from Richfield residents and approximately 13,000 from Eden Prairie residents. Of the 33,000 calls for service, 40~ (13,000) were received via the 911 system and required emergency or immediate assistance. The Communications Center is staffed twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Between the hours of noon and midnight, the Center is staffed with two fully trained Dispatchers. The staff consists of four full-time Dispatchers, four part-time Dispatchers and a Communications Supervisor. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council formally recognize these individuals with a Certificate of Appreciation for their contribution to the safety and welfare of the community. Basis of Recommendation: It is appropriate that these individuals be recognized for their notable contribution to the community. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could choose an alternative method of expressing their appreciation for the ongoing support these individuals provide to the community. Decision/Discussion Mode: Certificates of Appreciation will be available for presentation by the Mayor and the City Council to the members of the Communications staff at their regularly scheduled meeting of April 13, 1987. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~`C, Council Letter No. 104 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Presentation of Proclamation to Richfield Exchange Club Designating April, 1987 as Child Abuse Prevention Month Background: The Richfield Exchange Club has requested that the Mayor designate the month of April as Child Abuse Prevention Month to focus community awareness on the problem and to rally more widespread support of all legitimate efforts to reduce child abuse and neglect. The Richfield Exchange Club in working with Exchange Clubs nationwide to establish a nationwide network of Child Abuse Prevention. Center. Members of the Exchange Club will be present at the April 13, 1987 council meeting to accept this proclamation. Recommendation: Present the proclamation designating April, 1987 as Child Abuse Prevention Month to members of the Richfield Exchange Club. Basis for Recommendation: 1. This matter is of concern to all responsible and compassionate persons. 2. Members of the Exchange Club will be present to accept the proclamation. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Present the proclamation at a later date. Discussion/Decision Mode: At the request of the Richfield Exchange Club, this item has been scheduled for the April 13, 1987 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, i I Jame Prosser i, City anager JDP/eja I, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 103 Agenda April 13, 1987 Issue Statement: Presentation of a proclamation designating May 2, 1987 as Loyalty Day in Richfield and receipt of a cash donation to the Fire .Division by the Richfield VFW Fred Babcock Post 5555. Background: The Richfield VFW Fred Babcock Post 5555 has requested the Mayor to proclaim May 2, 1987 as Loyalty Day in Richfield. VFW Commander Jim Robbins and Jerry Courteau will be present at the April 13 city council meeting to accept this proclamation. The proclamation is the kick-off for the VFW Loyalty Day Parade on May 2. The members of the VFW will also present a check in the amount of $1,000 to the Fire Division for purchase of certain fire equipment. Recommendation: Present the Loyalty Day proclamation to members of the Richfield VFW Fred Babcock Post 5555, and accept the generous donation of $1,000 to the Fire Division. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The VFW has established May 2, 1987 as Loyalty Day in Richfield. 2. Members of the VFW Post 5555 will be present to accept this proclamation. 3. Members of the VFW Post 5555 have agreed to donate $1,000 to the Richfield Fire Division. Alternative Recommendation,: 1. Schedule the presentation of the proclamation and donation to another council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter has been scheduled for presentation at the April 13, 1987 city council at the request of the VFW Post 5555. Respect lly submitted., Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP/eja