03-23-87 agenda . ~f
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 102
Agenda March 23, 1987
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a request for council initiation of a rezoning
of property at 6945 Penn Avenue.
Background:
Mr. Donald A. Johnson, a dentist, has requested that the city
initiate a rezoning of the property at 6945 Penn Avenue from MR-
2, multiple residents to C-1, limited business. The property is
currently a vacant lot and Mr. Johnson wishes to construct a one
story, 3,800 square foot dental office on the site. He and two
other dentists would occupy the space. A preliminary site plan
and perspective drawing of the proposed office building are
attached for your information. The site plan has not yet been
formally reviewed by staff but is included to illustrate
generally how the site would be utilized.
This site was rezoned from single family residential to
multifamily residential in 1977. Prior to that there existed a
nonconforming plant, nursery, retail sales area on the corner.
Since the 1977 rezoning action, the city has reviewed a number of
different plans to develop a multifamily structure on the site
and has approved a number of variances to allow development to
occur on that site. None of these projects have been able to
move forward. The property subsequently has become tax .
delinquent and is currently owned by the State of
Minnesota/Hennepin County. The County is considering auctioning
the property off through their normal tax sale process. The
city's HRA did consider purchasing the property for a housing
project in the past, but decided not to proceed.
City ordinances indicate that rezonings can be initiated in
either of two ways. First, a rezoning can be initiated if a
petition is submitted which contains the signatures of at least
50% of the owners of property and at least 50% of the property
within 350 feet of the site to be rezoned. The second method
provides that the City Council can initiate a rezoning. In this
case Mr. Johnson does not own the property and it would be
difficult to obtain signature of the owner because it is owned by
the State of Minnesota/Hennepin County. Mr. Johnson does not
want to proceed with the acquisition of the property unless he
knows that the property can be rezoned to allow him to develop
the dental office on the site. For that reason Mr. Johnson is
asking that the City Council initiate the rezoning process. The
HRA on March 16th indicated they are agreeable to purchasing the
property if Mr. Johnson signs an agreement with the HRA in which
he agrees to purchase the property from the HRA at cost. The
advantage to Mr. Johnson in dealing with the HRA is that he does
not have to bid at an auction for the property.
/G/ II
Recommendation:
The City Council initiate the rezoning process as requested and
refer the matter to the Planning Commission for public hearing,
review and recommendations.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This property is vacant. and has been vacant for a number of
years.
2. A number of proposed multifamily developments have failed.
3. The council initiation of the rezoning would allow the city to
explore a possible alternative use for the site. The
initiation of the rezoning process would allow public hearings
to determine neighborhood reaction which may be negative.
While the proposal would be spot zoning, the type of
development being proposed is one which could be compatible
with the surrounding single family neighborhood.
4. The site is also along Penn Avenue which is a heavily traveled
arterial roadway which would also indicate that some
intensification of use might be proper.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to not initiate the
process and require Mr. Johnson to obtain the necessary ~
signatures on a petition.
Decision Mode:
The item before the council is whether or not to initiate the
rezoning process. This matter is not a public hearing item. If
the council chooses to initiate this process, the matter would go
through the normal rezoning process. The Planning Commission
would have a public hearing and then the matter would be brought
back to the City Council for first and second reading of an
ordinance amendment and a public hearing. Proper notice would be
provided for those hearings.
Re/sps~t~f"` lly submitted,
t
fir' j--~
Jame; ~ D. Prosser
Cif Manager
~
~ ~ c ~~C !
V D ~
q' ' -
i o
e~ ~ - ~ ~s ~
4~ I :r . .
° ~ , . Ali •COC~~O¦ ' +'~~a?c'~ ~
i I 1, j~ il-lI i~
,I~~i ~
~ , ~
i ~ ~ ' 1
,rG
~ ~ ~ .
Ii~! i ~ ~ a~#
II~I~,~:lily I~ I I I I ~ is F
~
r I,
~ ~ C
I
;III ' j'jj \ ~ ~ ~'t ~ ~ ~
. i i ~\~l
'i• 4
~ ~
~r i ~C'R ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 1 t t`~~`' lid ~
. e sue. :
~ ,,,2 : ~~~ii ~ \ti ~ .
ter. a~ . ~
- .
` /
_ h,~ " - r
~ ~ Vim:- ~ T.`- y'r'! "'.~-~.~+•`.`.~::.~~r%'•-..- ~"1C~ - 1' ,s ~ : ~ 1
-...w-'
~ ~ ~_sr l
y w,.~..~
_ , i s ~ X .
p" ' '
_ _ _ .
I
~ ~ !
1111 ~a-c-" ~
~ ~ ~I1 ~ ~ „i 1
~~l _ 3. ~ 1. Il ~ ~ .,`I l1
`
I 0` 1 fit': I ~~;`.i~.'~~
~ _
~ _
~ _
r
. .
C"..,
_ ~.T
. _
~ t by : „ -
a _
- - r ~ ' P : TwE -
~j.. y,__ -
~ . •
I-4tNp O
.:4+i t~
l•~ to'.d F
{ ~ `
I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 101
Agenda March 23, 1987
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an ordinance which would permit the City Council
to initiate proceedings to vacate public streets
Background:
The city code requires that street, alleys, 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.
Recommendation:
Approve 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. i
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:
This matter will be presented for action at the council meeting
of March 23.
Respectf ly submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
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
I
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-h~-g~ese~~Hed any
petition which complies with the rovisions of Subdivision 2.
P
The ~ese?-ttt}ems 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
Zli'K~ O'St "
eel- not ice .
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, ~I
this day of , 1987.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST•
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
•
_ ~
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
412.841 [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 petit{Qn of a maiority of the owners of land
abuttine on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated.
When there has been n'o 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 sufTicient 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: 1949 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 1 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. 100
Agenda March 23, 1987
Issue Statement:
Second reading and public hearing to an ordinance to vacate a
portion of public right-of-way on the northwest corner of 67th.
Street and Sheridan Avenue.
Background:
The property owner of 6644 Sheridan Avenue has requested that the
city vacate a portion of the unimproved right-of-way at the
.northwest corner of 67th Street and Sheridan Avenue. The
property owner wishes to add on to the front of the existing
dwelling on the site but cannot do so without obtaining a
variance to the city's front yard setback requirement of 30 feet
because of the unusual way in which the property was platted. In
this subdivision (Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Addition) none
of the corner lots are rectangular as they have a curve adjacent
to the intersection. This has resulted in an extra amount of
boulevard area adjacent to the intersection when compared to a
majority of the residential intersections in the city. The new
addition to the house would have a setback of approximately 10
feet from the "current" right-of-way line.
The property owner does not wish to apply for a variance because
of the expense involved and as an alternative, has requested the
vacation of the extra right-of-way area. If a normal right-of-
way line had been drawn, no variance would be required.
On February 23, 1987 the City Council gave first reading to the
ordinance and referred the matter to the Planning Commission for
review.
Recommendation:
Conduct a public hearing and give second reading approval to the
attached ordinance vacating the portion of right-of-way as
requested.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The right-of-way to be vacated is not needed. There will be
sufficient boulevard area to provide adequate snow storage
space. The street itself would continue to exist as shown in
the Comprehensive Plan. The process being followed and the
actions recommended are consistent with the process for
vacating streets outlined in ordinance 12.04.
2. The Planning Commission at their regular meeting on March. 5,
1987 on a 7 to 0 vote found that the proposed vacation of a
portion of the right-of-way is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and recommended City Council approval of
the attached transitory ordinance.
Alternative Recommendation:'
Deny. the ordinance vacating the street and require the property
owner to go through the variance process.
Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled before the City Council on March
23, 1987 to give second reading to the transitory ordinance
vacating portion of the right-of-way as mentioned. Notice of
this hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Newspaper.
Resp 11y submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
Cit~ Manager
i
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR
THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF
WEST 67TH STREET AND SHERIDAN AVENUE
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The following described public street is hereby vacated:
Those portions of West 67th Street and Sheridan Avenue bounded on the
east by the following described LINE A, on the south by the following
described LINE B, and on the northwest by the southeasterly lot line
of Lot 14, Block 4, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills:
LINE A: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 14, thence
southerly along the easterly lot Iine of said Lot I4 a distance of
3.7 feet, thence continuing southerly along an extension of the
aforesaid portion of said easterly lot line to the point of
intersection with LINE B and there terminating.
LINE B: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 14, thence
easterly along the southerly lot line of said Lot I4 and distance of
81.3 feet, thence continuing easterly. along an extension of the'
aforesaid portion of said southerly lot line to the point of
intersection with LINE A and there terminating.
Section 2. This street vacation shall not effect, destroy, or interfere with
the right of any person, corporation or municipality owning or having control
of any utility located within the vacated right-of-way to operate, repair,
maintain, reconstruct or remove any public utility facilities upon or within
the vacated right-of-way.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of
1987.
John N. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST: '
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
00550D03.E14
i
6b44 SHERIDAN AVENUE.
w
~ o ~ a Z
z z N z < w
~ ~ O O w ~
~ v~ w a ~ Q
o - ~ ~
ui o a s ~ m Q
O
P
_ 16 i LU
PROPERTY LINE ~ ! _
~ ~
. : ally :~Yi11 r~ 'I~~' i
GJ
BOULEVARD
67TH STREET
PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE VACATED
~
i
y
v1 ~ ~ -
..v FROM THE DESK OF
Manion faker
March 02, 1987
Planning Commission
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: APPLICANT JEFFERY DOYLE-,.6644 Sheridan Ave. So.
Time of Hearing: 7:30 PM., Wednsday-03/05/87
Council Chambers
We heartly approve and request the Commission
the granting of a vacation of a portion of
street right-of-way at the northwest corner of '
the intersection of Sheridan Avenue and 67th
Street abutting the property addressed as
6644 Sheridan Avenue South.
I J~
6 40 SHERIDAN AUENUE SOUTH
G~1at,~„ ~
MARION A. BAKER
6640 Sheridan Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
P.S. In discussing this with most of the residents
in the block, we find no opposition whatsoever.
We are unable to be present at your meeting.
=T ova?eq re o...,s eoati.:oc.. ao. xs. a.s..ws
- ~ --rt,r,
. ! .
i
-
s
To K~Y:om it ~~y concern:
1Gr. Doyle is a good neighbor, ar.d
we welccye his efforts to in:prcve
his ~:roYerty. `•.e hav. absolutely
IBC GEJECTIC~ to this Uro ~c~osal .
&obert +r. Gecr~e
6624 Sheri3an kve.So.
3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
City Council Letter No. 99
Agenda March 23, 1987
Issue Statement:
Amendments to the contract For Private Development with PALSCO,
Inc. developer of the Hampton Inn, 77th Street and Lyndale
Avenue, ILN area..
Background:
In December, 1985, the City Council and HRA approved a
developer's agreement for a Hampton Inn to be located in the ILN
on the property now occupied by the Colonial Lodge Inn and a
print shop. Construction was to begin in the spring of 1986 of a
'five story Hampton Inn containing 149 rooms and 135 parking
spaces. Once construction started, the city would initiate
certain right-of-way improvements on the east side of Lyndale
Avenue. The cost of these improvements would be supported by the
.tax increment generated by the Hampton Inn.
The Hampton Inn construction was not initiated as the developers
were unable to obtain financing. The developer now reports that
financial arrangements are nearing completion. They have
requested amendments to the developer's agreement in three areas:
amending the dates regarding construction performance, including
the assessment agreement, and accepting modifications in the site
S plan to increase the number of on site parking spaces and provide
for a swimming pool.
Recommendation:
1. Amend the Contract For Private Development
.Section 5.2 Completion of Construction.
Change the completion of construction date from December
31, 1987 to December 31, 1988. Change the 50 percent
completion date from December 31, 1986 to December 31, 1987.
Section 7.1 Real Property Taxes
(a) Change the dates in Exhibit E, the Assessment Agreement
and Certification of Assessor as follows:
Page 1 and 2, 1. The minimum market value of $2,060,000
shall be assessed January 2, 1989 rather than as stated
January 2, 1988. The minimum market value of $2,660,000
shall be assessed January 2, 1990 rather than as stated
January 2, 1989. The minimum market value of $3,402,000
shall be assessed as of January 2, 1991 and until the last
date on which the. tax increment will no longer be remitted
to the HRA rather than January 2, 1990 as stated.
Exhibit C Project Plans for the site which indicates 135
parking spaces be modified to show 147 spaces and the
addition of an attached structure of approximately 1,536
square feet to house a swimming pool.. The revised site plan
is attached.
Basis of Recommendation:'
1. There is no construction currently underway which would
permit conformance with the original dates in the agreement.
2. The developer has requested the date changes in anticipation
of closing on the project financing and initiating
construction in a timely manner so that the revised dates
are appropriate.
3. The development plan changes have been found acceptable by i,
staff, Planning Commission and HRA. The Council has
previously approved the addition of the swimming pool but
not as an amendment to the agreement.
4. The permanent tax increment bonds have not yet been sold,
thus there is no impact on bond amortization.
Alternative Recommendation:
Not approve the amendments.
Decision Mode:
The developer has requested the amendments to facilitate the
closing and initiation of construction. The HRA approved the
modifications on March 16, 1987.
I
Respectfully submitted,
Jamey Prosser
City Manager
~l
• .....I
'~6 i~Y'YU~I~~/ ~I'lval~l`i
(Qfi r
~111L~1l~ JNF~Fdvd~7~-II/AGf~ ~1~df3-~.L~Q3~1~ _ _ . _ _ _ : - _
_ r
~
E~.•Ul•R 'N N M ~
Nob :wwoc%tcu.J ~ tir ~ .
r~5G1 l'~11;1,(t 1GiA - / 1
'Li ~6(47aff J.'k NFD i G O\ ~ ( ~~.cV ~,i '4./' ~i p'
zu a~.t: outiuc ~ca~.y_ ' ~ i , 1TJ 1•' _
~~iOLLY7f17~Q~JNhId~ Quw,rraf f 1 ~ ~ _ ~ (~r 1
.OdfM71 .w~ ~
.
rN UCm 6 =N9 1_ i
NAYIY70 ~ 4-sbtrl4~~ ~ ~
.n Ina r •..NU•.
wie l _ .1. _ ~ ~
NI. •A wIY 1.ru ``Ia ` I ' :.4 Vt ~ - - ~MD .
Wl 'r11+.M~~..~WA
WIN N •l.1 ~ 1
l~( fl.q ~ /
I+.I N.M '1V Y Wf NiV11t ly~{~W!'~ Q'.~
c
•GQ07W 'Y.iM II{ •Alll Ll.llS. (/'e^"'~-
ur • I ~ c1aK ~ 4 v~-~
lY i71~14 ' Q CC4I01.0
r •al
.."..~.1..
_ _ - -
..y .ate Aaf ~4~N~.._.. _/~Ln _ . _
OrC - W'lll XiJtl/ +•r ..I'.v ~.y„
• ~ EIQJVQIIIP~A '1512(31 wlua IT+u:?a
ul~ •(rlawnala
~liu~
~u~u~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
City Council Letter No. 98
Agenda March 23, 1987.
Issue Statement:
Consideration of approval of an amendment to the final
development plan for the Hampton Inn project.
Background:.
On February 9, 1987 the City Council approved a final development
plan for the Hampton Inn project located at 78th Street and
Lyndale Avenue. Subsequent to that approval the developers have
been attempting to find a lender to finance the project. They
have determined that there is a need 'to increase the parking on
the site to satisfy the requirements of a potential lender. They
have submitted an amended final development plan for the site
which increases the parking on the site from 126 spaces to 147
spaces. This increase in parking has reduced the green area
along 78th Street and resulted in the loss of some parking lot
end islands. Some additional green area adjacent to the south
end of the building has been gained, however.
The city's PUD ordinance indicates that the development must be
in substantial compliance with the approved final development
plan and planned unit development plans. The ordinance indicates
• that the development would not be in substantial compliance if
there is any change in the ratio of offstreet parking to building
floor area. Because there is an increase in the number of
parking spaces provided on the site, while the building floor
area remains the same there will be a change in this ratio.
Therefore, an amendment to the final development plan is
necessary. The Planning Commission reviewed this matter and felt
that this was not a substantial change to the plan and
recommended that the City Council approve the amended plan. The
Planning Commission also encouraged the developer to maintain as
many of the existing trees as possible on the site.
Recommendation:
Approve an amended final development plan and offstreet parking
permit for the development.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The change is not substantial.
2. The proposal increases the amount of parking rather than
decreasing it.
3. Sufficient landscaped area will be maintained around the
site.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the request for the amended final development plan and
require the developer to develop the property as previously
approved. This could jeopardize the financing of the project.
•
Decision Mode:
A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for March 23,
1987. N i
of ce of this public hearing has been published in the
Richfield Sun Newspaper.
Respec fully submitted,
Jard D. Prosser
Ci Manager
W+v
_ _ ~r
V
Rti'.ltFiti4i/• r1N
o
MIA M•
. aA•t M~Vt~ ~
M
w ~
.a
ado' r e : ~ Vrtt~ °'tiit.~i. i aw'
' ~ _ ..~.y~""ti ~ w
p 9 t ~ e er''~ ~wi_,,,~r i J yny~lt ~n'?~tq 19'µ ~ tae
11.........! •r ~i11°•-~ ~.v.w tKw.
' .~t. +t
'',~..(y'~~M'/'~'+.l_~I apt N~~InI
_ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tIM Mt, M \wH
?
' r
,fix.. _ _ ~ r""°
l~ ~ t
~ "s~' _ 1,(" " tom-
' 1 ~ ~ j
J ~ o ~rti+o .~}pLeA14~ 3
i Qy.,,.cr ,fie
~ ~ kvr~ cwt- ~a
. 7D yr' ,.w~ ~ ~\44 yy ,
~CD 4
. ' l+'r_.~ "'"IY:~~) L. _ ,1r~~ may/ ~Q if/i
~ I N _..r.------ -[?fit ~,v,~~Y1'~-"`v?. '4~ 1!6
„r
.
_ ~
_,.1---'
- ED ~ A
REV~s
1
i c.~f~~
I'
' RICIIPRsLD. SIN
} ~4 EXIST. BUILDING
4~~ ~+~a_I ~~~•:+',_~•o- _-~_~_--420-p _ _ v _
a ~ m.oo u•.
W1
M
~ Q' ) C eC C C C C C C C • r~iL.®ow.l.v I.mL~, Irt.
_ ~ 4 ~ - w ; v ~ I ~ L uu.ertv m... s4L. la
- v ~ . I - Niiriiio I• )wn
, I ~ I 3- Ica eemtm;n
Q ~ SH 1 N i ,a.. r. v., ar. wrnLL.w
~ Q I \I i81 { i'D ~i ~A A ~ w. w~vnni
Q ,„~,tl_ J ( _ \ I I II SHED ns i?wn
C . C I/ ~ 9 ~wsD~cv:`io lw liul• rLL. no
na ul-r+-.L~.
~ ~ ~c e~ I / \ ~ I MWrA. )r1011brtNrtY Lrtl., fWt. LJ LID.
= ~ o_ cry o~ ~ ~ iwwe iuiu-Iwr w /lw
~ ~ ~ ~ 5 STORY HOTEL x e u ^ o
I - Iii tT 8P yi
' ¢ x r
_ 9 I `r`te
~l_--; J ii~ ro KEY ems!®:
it ~ I ~ ~ \ -..L-"` ~ .
~l i
n W
III T .I _ eo II ~ - 5 / ~ / .1/ ~ ' B ~ ~.~e~ =NtlM
1 Q`~ ~ .y ~ ~ 1~ E.'nKS LD
_ _
.rt D ~ ? / O
¢¢W I. I~ ~ i ~ / `-CBI Iw. 1 J ~ ~ ~ \v D ~ 9,,~ CE ROAD ^ W.r~
i0 z I L___ a O-- Gr
r~ ~ ~ i
~ '~o ~ j D ENTRY D i ~ oo C>•rtk(.Y "JNT'
' ~ ! I i ~sJ. ~ EDOE OF CARf7PY ^ r>`~ \ ~ roS: ~'m rtraol: :uzS~ara
- ~ b v 1
~ • ~ ~ 1 ~ ! AufO DROf l~ • X04\T• ~ , ^ v
J' r~ -
t ! C ~ _C I H H ) ,ate
~ ~ SIGN ~I L ~ r..uh LtiL w. ola.
v i
~ ~ 1 ~ . • 31(il1 1S/ ~ M ~ or L~.r .r ni ~,r`L .w..L.Lm
i ' ; ~ 12 0 WY.rttl~Nrr Nrlww~e/ [ti
i a_I moo
cocoo_~ g or?_=»3:.~ _ - ~TM uw nL an..w
' I I AMU A.+.r: Lm»
I
• , L I
F'~-y I
_ 1 {
__.___.-mac
~i - ° ° ° PLANTING PLAN
- LYNDALE AVENUE SO. _ r:2o•
- - _ °
APPROVED PLAN
~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
.Council Letter No. 97
Agenda March 23, 1987
Issue Statement:
Purchase of an electric check valve for high service pump ~~1 at
the Water Plant. i~
Background:
The city's Water Plant has four high service pumps which pump
.treated water to the distribution system. Removal and '
replacement of high service pump ~~1 was recently approved by the i
city council as a preventative maintenance effort. As part of
this replacement, a 12" electric check valve will be necessary to
replace the surge check valve presently serving high service pump
~~1. The existing valve is water activated which means a constant
flow of water is required. The electronic valve eliminates the
water demand and prevents pressure surges in the city's water
system. The new valve would allow the pump to begin and then
start opening at a slow rate until it is fully open thus
eliminating pipeline surges caused by the starting and stopping
of the pump. Quotations were received from two vendors:
R. E. Mooney and Associates, Inc. .$6,200.00
E. H. Renner & Sons 8,280.14
An appropriation of $20,000 was approved in the 1987 Water
Maintenance capital outlay budget and in the 1987 Capital Budget
for the whole of the high service pump ~~1 project which includes
not only the purchase of the replacement pump but installation
and other incidental work.
I
Recommendation:
It is recommended the city council approve the purchase of an
electric check valve for high service pump #1 from R. E. Mooney
,and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $6,200.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Sufficient funding is available for this purchase.
2. Because the constant water flow will no longer be needed,
replacement of the check valve will result in enough water
saving in approximately one year to virtually pay for itself.
3. The quotation of R. E. Mooney and Associates, Inc. is the
lowest quotation submitted by a responsible vendor.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The city council may choose not to approve the quotation of
R. E. Mooney and Associates, Inc. and direct staff to obtain
quotations from other companies in an effort to obtain a
lower bid price.
2. The city council may choose not to replace the valve at this
time; however, parts are no longer available for the existing
valve. In addition, significant water savings would be
realized with the replacement of the check valve.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the March 23, 1987 city council
agenda for consideration. This will insure that the valve will
be available for installation at the same time that high service
pump ~~1 is replaced .
Respect lly submitted,
Jamb' D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 96
Agenda March 23, 1987
Issue Statement:.
Request for approval of 1987 alley paving contract.
Background:
In 1986, the city council revised the city's alley paving policy
to provide for the paving of all remaining eligible alleys during
the 1987 construction season without submittal of petitions.
During previous public hearings, three alleys were deleted from
the project as a result of petitions submitted by affected
property owners.
Six bids were received for the 1987 alley paving:
Progressive Contractors, Inc. $184,075.50
Arcon Construction 163,575.94
Shafer .Contracting Co. 162,210.00
Gunderson Cement Contractors. 161,522.25
Halvorson Construction 148,047.80
Standard Sidewalk Inc. 140,158.55
The engineer's estimate for the cost of the project was
$20.50/assessable foot. The bid submitted by Standard Sidewalk
would be approximately $14/assessable foot, or approximately $700
for a 50 foot lot. This is one of the lowest per foot dollar
amounts to be received since the alley paving project began in
1981.
Funding for the alley improvements is provided through interim
financing from the Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund.
The PIR. Fund was established by ordinance for the purpose of
providing temporary financing for such local improvements pending
the sale and receipt of special assessment bonds. A special
assessment bond issue will be sold later this year to cover 1986
and 1987 special assessment projects. Once proceeds from the
bond. issue are received the PIR Fund will be reimbursed for the
interim funding provided to these projects.
In addition, a per annum interest rate must be established and
charged to the project for this interim financing. The interest
rate charged is the same as interest rates charged by the City
internally for other interim financing. Currently the interest
rate is 7%.
Recommendation:
1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations
2. Adoption a Resolution authorizing transfer of funds from the
PIR Fund to C.P. 832 to provide interim financing at 7%
interest per annum.
3. Adopt a Resolution awarding a contract for City Project 832,
-qty ,
1987 Alley Paving and Appurtenant Work, to Standard Sidewalk
Inc. of Minneapolis in the amount of $140,158.55.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The PIR Fund was created to provide a source of interim
financing for local improvements such as this and has
sufficient funds to provide such interim funding.
2. Standard Sidewalk Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder for
the project.
3. Standard Sidewalk Inc. was the city's contractor for the 1985
alley paving project and performed satisfactorily.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council may choose to reject all bids received and direct
staff~to readvertise in an attempt to receive lower prices.
However, prices will probably increase as the construction
season approaches and more concrete paving contracts are let.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Construction is anticipated to being in April; therefore, this
item has been placed on the March 23, 1987 consent calendar .for
council action.
Respectfully submitted,
• Jame ~/D. Prosser
City~~%lanager
JDP/eja
~`y~'_
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS
FROM PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND
TO CP 832 ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE
INTERIM FINANCING OF SAID PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
provides that a Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund be used for
the ur ose of financin local im rovements• and
P P
9 P
WHEREAS the ordinance state h h r f f
s t at t e p oceeds o said and
ma be used to rovide interim financin of ca ital ex enditures
Y P P P
9
for projects of the city by resolution of the city council; and
WHEREAS, it appears desirable to transfer funds to provide
interim financing for CP832 Alley Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund has
sufficient cash available to transfer necessary funds at the end
of each month to CP832 for work completed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by resolution of the City
Council a 7~ per annum interest rate will be charged to the
project each month based on the accumulative cash transferred at
the end of each month, for the purpose of providing interim
financing.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this 23 day of March, 1987.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
• RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
ALLEY PAVING AND APPURTENANT WORK
CITY PROJECT N0. 832.
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of
the following alleys by concrete paving:
Alley between From To
E. 65th Street & E. 66th Street 15th Avenue Bloomington Avenue
E. 66th Street & E. 67th Street 13th Avenue 14th Avenue
Nicollet and First Avenue 68th Street 69th Street
Harriet and Grand Avenue 67th Street 68th Street
Harriet and Grand Avenue 73rd Street 74th Street
Lyndale and Garfield Avenue 73rd Street 298' South
63rd Street and Mildred Drive Colfax Avenue Bryant Avenue
63rd Street and Mildred Drive Dupont Avenue Colfax Avenue
Humboldt and Girard Avenue 63rd Street 64th Street
Irving and Humboldt Avenue 63rd Street 463' South
Logan and Knox Avenue 63rd Street 223' South
Morgan and Logan Avenue 63rd Street 243' South
Penn and Oliver Avenue 63rd Street 443' South
Queen and Penn Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Russell and Queen Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Washburn and Vincent Avenue 67th Street 68th Street
Bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; and
WHEREAS, it appears that Standard Sidewalk Inc. of Minneapolis,
Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the total base bid of Standard Sidewalk Inc. of Minneapolis for
construction of the above-mentioned project at a cost of $140,158.55 is hereby
accepted;
2. That the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized and directed
to enter into a contract for City Project No. 832 with Standard Sidewalk Inc.
in the name of the City of Richfield for such improvement according to plans
and specifications therefore approved by the city council;
-2- ~ ~
3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith
to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits
of the successful .bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until
a contract has been signed.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this
23rd day of March, 1987.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
March 12, 1987
11:30 a.M.
198 alle~r Paving & appurtenant Work
C. P. 832
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for 1987 alley paving and appurtenant
work, C.P. 832, as advertised in the official newspaper on
February 18, 198?.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative.
Art Bailey, Senior Engineering Technician
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
I
VENDOR BID TOTAL ; i
SECURITY
1 I'~
' ~ ~ ~
Gunderson Cement Contractors 5% Bond 161,522.25; 'I
' ;~ipls.
~ ~ i
' ~ ~ ~ i
Shafer Contracting Co. 5% Bond 162,210.00; I
Shafer, MN
Standard Sidewalk, Inc. 5% Bond 140,158.55;
' !~Ip 1 s .
~ ,
arcon Construction Co. 5% Bond 163,575..94;
Mora, AIN ~ ~ ~
~
' ~ ~
Halvorson Construction 5% Bond 148,047.80;
Anoka, SIN
Progressive Contractors, Inc. 5% Bond 184,075.50;
Osseo, ~iN
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the March 23, 1987 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
.Council Letter No. 95
Agenda March 23, 1987
Issue Statement:
Approval of the Master Labor Contract with Local 49 of the
International Union of Operating Engineers for the years of 1987,
1988 and 1989.
Background:
The Metropolitan Area Management Association Negotiating
Committee and Local 49 of the International Union of Operating
Engineers, which represents most of the cities' maintenance
employees, have reached an agreement over the terms and
conditions of employment covered in the Master Agreement. The
Master Agreement involves 22 municipalities, including Richfield,
that traditionally have been .involved in joint negotiations. A
majority of the Bargaining Unit Employees have approved the
contract and City Managers are now in the process of recommending
approval to their respective communities.
The 1987 contract year is the first of a three-year agreement.
The contract has a reopener for wages and insurance contributions
for the years 1988 and 1989. The changes which have been
negotiated for 1987 are as follows:
1. An adjustment of 3% over 1986 rates for all classifications.
2. A $10.00 per month increase in the insurance contribution, to
a maximum of $175.00 per month per employee.
City staff is currently negotiating over local issues. These
include such items as vacation and sick leave provisions,
longevity, holidays, compensatory time, coffee breaks and uniform
allowances. Local issues ,are not included in the Master
Agreement and are left for each separate community to negotiate
with the Union.
Recommendation:
Approve the terms of the Master Labor Agreement with Local 49 of
the International Union of Operating Engineers.-
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Contract provisions, when viewed with respect to other City
1987 settlements and settlements of comparable metropolitan
communities for other bargaining unit groups, reflect a
favorable settlement for the City.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve the labor agreement, removing the City from
the Metropolitan Area Management Association for the purpose
of bargaining an agreement with.. Local 49 of the Operating
.Engineers, requiring the City to bargain a new agreement.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It is recommended that the City Council act on March 23, 1987 to
approve the contract in order to allow both the City's accounting
personnel to modify payroll records and Bargaining Unit Employees
to receive back wages in a timely manner.
Respect ully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:sb
cc: Personnel Manager
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS -LOCAL 49 AFL/CIO
FOR THE YEARS 1987, 1988 AND 1989
WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Metropolitan Area
Management Association have reached an agreement with the
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 over the
Master Agreement terms and conditions for the years 1987, 1988
and 1989.
WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts
between the City and the exclusive representative of the
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented
by Council Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does
hereby approve the Master Labor Agreement between the City of
Richfield and the International Union of Operating Engineers
Local 49 for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989, and order the
provisions of the Master Agreement to be implemented, effective
January 1, 1987,
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 23rd day of March, 1987.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 94
Agenda March 23, 1987
Issue Statement:
Request for approval to purchase seven moving radar units for. the
police division.
Background:
In the past few years the Police Division has equipped all of the
marked squad cars with moving radar units to enable each officer
on the road to utilize this equipment in traffic enforcement
efforts. The present MPH radars are five to six years old and
the warranty period on all of them has long expired. Maintenance
of the present units has become quite expensive so the decision
was made to replace all of the radars with new units over a two
year period. Quotes for various radar units were received and
MPH had the lowest quote of $854.14 for each radar unit including
trade in, for a total purchase price of $5978.98. The 1987
capital outlay budget of the police division (4110-1540) provides
$6,000 for this purchase.
Recommendation:
Approve the purchase of seven moving radar units.
Basis of Recommendation:
r 1 fi
1. Funds in the amount of $6,000 were budgeted to ep ace ve
of the moving radar units in 1987. The remaining three units
were to be bud eted in 1988. At this rice we are able to
9 P
replace seven of the radar units in a package deal with the
monies budgeted for 1987.
T r n r days are old and need ex ensive maintenance.
2. he ese t a
i P P
3. The units are necessary for traffic enforcement.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Authorize the purchase of only five radar units this year and
direct the Police Division to renegotiate for that number of
moving radars.
2. Not purchase moving radars.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the March 23, 1987 consent calendar
for council consideration.
Respec lly submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Ci Manager
JDP/eja
~y~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 93
Agenda March 23, 1987
Issue Statement:
Purchase of four pumps for sludge dewatering plant
Background:
The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the city council for consideration.
Various equipment must be purchased to implement the lime sludge
dewatering. system. Four pumps are needed in this process. Two
of the pumps fill the press with sludge material and two pumps
force the water to separate from the sludge and then be taken to
the sewer. Two quotations were received:. JWI Inc. - $11,430,
and General Repair Service -.$7,512. Funds for this purchase
have been appropriated in the 1987 Water Maintenance (703-4836)
capital outlay budget.
Recommendation:
Approve the purchase of four pumps for the sludge dewatering
plant from General Repair Service in the amount of $7,512.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. General Repair Service's quotation meets all requirements
and is the lowest quotation submitted by a responsible
vendor.
2. .Sufficient funding is available for this purchase.
3. The pumps are needed in the sludge dewatering process.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Delay purchase of the pumps to a later date. However,
funding is available and delaying the purchase of this
equipment would postpone implementation of the entire
sludge dewatering system.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the March 23, 1987 consent calendar
for consideration. Purchase at this time will insure that the
equipment is available for installation by the contractor
constructing the sludge dewatering .building addition.
Res t lly submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 92
March 23, 1987 I
Issue Statement:
City Council approval of payment in excess of $5,000 for computer
equipment purchase.
Background:
During the 1986~computer conversion/installation, the original
plan of the computer hardware configuration provided that the
City would utilize a megaframe computer processor and a large
Control Data Corporation disc. For the first year, it was
anticipated that the entire City would run off this disc and that
in 1987, the City would begin to utilize the flexibility benefits
of the Burroughs/Convergent Technologies hardware by "clustering"
off various operations of the City to be freestanding, while
still retaining the option of operating on the megaframe.
computer. "Clustering" is anticipated in order to provide
greater reliability of system capability.
In the 1987 Data Processing budget, $137,.000 was. set aside for II
hardware and software purchases to continue the upgrade and
cohversion to the Burroughs system. One portion of that planned ~I
upgrade was to provide for a Public Safety cluster of computer 'I
hardware. However, during the past few months, as the City has ~i
experienced some difficulties with the Burroughs hardware and
software configuration, it became apparent that it would be
beneficial for the City to immediately cluster off the Public
Safety operation so that it could operate independently of the
megaframe computer. This would take a tremendous burden off of
the megaframe and its data storage capacity.
To that end, the City solicited quotations from Insight
Technology Systems, Inc. of Wausau, Wisconsin, which is the
Central United States Convergent Technologies. hardware
distributor, and from MTI Office Systems, the Bloomington firm
which sold the City the Burroughs hardware we are now utilizing.
In addition., the State Joint Purchasing Contract was reviewed for
price quotations. Based on the needs of the Public Safety
Department .and the size of the cluster necessary, it was found
that the State contract could not provide a single computer disc
large enough to handle the data processing storage that was
necessary. The alternative of purchasing several smaller discs
and "stringing them together," so to speak, provided for a much
higher-priced alternative than the City was seeking.
Additionally, it was learned that deliveries off the State
contract could take three to four weeks and the City had an
immediate need to create the Public Safety cluster.
The quotations submitted by Insight Technology and MTI Office
Systems are as follows:
#y~~
MTI Office Systems $9,200
Burroughs B-28 Processor
20-Mg disc with controller
85-Mg data storage disc
2 power supply boxes
Alternative Quotation $9,000
(Same configuration, but
using Convergent Technologies
products)
Insight Technology Systems, Inc. $8,193
B-28 Processor j
24-Mg disc with controller
85-Mg data storage disc
3 power supply boxes
It should be noted that Convergent Technologies is the firm that
builds Burroughs computer equipment and the two types of hardware
are for the most part interchangeable. Insight Technology
Systems guaranteed next-day delivery. MTI Office Systems could.-
also have provided the system within one or two days of the ~
quotation.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the payment of
$8,193 to Insight Technology System, Inc. for the purchase of the
Public Safety cluster computer equipment. '
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The City must continue with the conversion of hardware and
software as quickly as possible. It is essential that a
cluster be established for Public Safety immediately.
r
2. Funding for hardware and software upgrades are provided for
in the 1987 Data Processing budget. I,
3. The price of computer hardware, such as the equipment i
utilized in the Public Safety cluster, is competitive.
4. While Convergent Technology and Burroughs equipment are
virtually interchangeable, at this time the opportunity
presents itself to acquire the Convergent Technology hardware ~i
at a much-reduced cost.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. While the City Council could choose not to approve payment of
the equipment, it is important to note that this freestanding
cluster for Public Safety is a very important part of the
overall operations of the City Dispatch Center and Public
Safety.
i
~I
I
I
I
Discussion/Decision Mode:
City Council ratification of this purchase on March 23, 1987 is
desirable so that staff may proceed with the improvements
necessary to the City's new computer system.
Respectfully submitted,
J m' D. Prosser
Ci Manager
JDP:sb
.C^
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 91
Agenda March 23, 1987
Issue Statement:
Award of Contract for 1987. Lime Sludge Removal
Background:
The 1985 contract for removal of sludge from the water plant lime
pits was held by Bradley and David Fredrickson at a unit price of
$7.03/cubic yard. The contract provides that "said contract may
be extended yearly by mutual agreement of the-City of Richfield
and the Contractor". The contract was extended in 1986 to
include hauling operations and the Fredrickson brothers have
again indicated a willingness to extend the contract through 1987
at the 1985 rate. The 1987 water maintenance budget (703-4836)
contains a budgeted amount of $105,000 for the removal of the
sludge from the south lagoon and hauling dry material from the
lime sludge dewatering plant, which is expected to go into
operation approximately October 1, 1987.
Recommendation:
Approve the extension of the contract for the removal of lime
sludge to David and Bradley Fredrickson at the unit price of
• $7.03/cubic yard for an estimated total contract price of
$70,300.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Frederickson's quoted price of $7.03/cubic yard is very
reasonable
2. Sufficient funding is provided in the 1987 budget
3. The vendor performed very satisfactorily in 1985 and 1986.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Deny the extension of the existing contract and direct staff
to follow the formal bid process for 1987 lime sludge
removal.
.Discussion/Decision Mode:
The contractor has indicated that work could begin approximately
May 1 and be completed by mid-July. In order to have the
paperwork completed in time to 'promptly begin this work, this
item has been placed on-the March 23, 1987 consent calendar for
council consideration.
Respec fully submitted,
Jamie ~ D. Prosser
Cit~~Manager
JDP/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
.Council Letter No. 90
Agenda March 23, 1987
Issue Statement:
Request for permit for Design Framing, 6423 Penn Avenue South,
request for permit to illuminate balloon at Walser Mazda,
7745 Penn Avenue South, request for temporary sign for Subway
Sandwiches at 10 East 66th Street.
Background:.
City ordinance provides that the city council must approve all
permits for illuminated signs.
Design Framing requests a permit to erect a 12' X 3' single
faced, illuminated wall sign.
Walser Mazda and Skytracker Promotions request a permit to
illuminate the rooftop balloon to be used 3/23/87-3/30/87.
Billboard Balloons requests a permit to erect a temporary
illuminated balloon and a banner (5' X 12') at Subway.
The balloon will be tethered to the roof.
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 j
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
3/23/87 council agenda for consideration. The businesses are
requesting action to complete their sign placement of these new
business establishments.
Respec ully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City~Manager
APPROVE ? DENY APPROVE ~ ~ DENY ~ : ~,~~u-`''"~~`---,
City ager Inspector ,
Date ti~~t-'~-4-'~~ Date 7
APPROVE DENY
-7L ' ~ENY~ ~-rt•~
-Plannin+g iD1`partment City Council
Date X71 r r I Q? Date
Route to above for .special approval per code General Signs
APPLICATION. FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield, .Minnesota
G
Date M3,~ r h 5 r h . 1 ~~ng Sign Erected - Yes No Fee ~
Address of Sign 7705 pPnn AvP.So. Proprietor Name Walser Mazda DBA same
Sign Erector Sky-Tracker Promotions Address 3647 Cedar Ave . So . Mills . Minn .
Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Li~htin~
Wall Single Face _ Clear Lexon 'x Constant
Projecting ~ Double Face Frosted Lexon _ Flashing
_ Ground I Multi-Faced ~ Plastic Covered _ Revolving
~ Roof ~ Aerial/Blimp _ Shaded _ Traveling.
Pedestal I Searchlight Neon I Zip Lite
Changeable ~ Banner/Pennants ~ Other ~ Other(Explain)
Temporary I I Portable Frame : ( ~ Sign Colors ti i „ o _ ~ ~ n o r p ~
Trailer ~ I T ~ A ~ Post
Illuminated Yes No Watts 1000 v~~~?' ~
~ectrical Contractor Address Phone
i y~ I/ r 1 Phone
Property Owner or his Agert Signature ~.-c_~~ (/~i(,,N~.:~v ~ ~ ti .
Estimated Cost renting 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
de=fined 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 cony of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does tze sign copy relata solely to t:~e business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises?
:ril'_ the sign, structure, or bill:~oard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
nor same access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises?
~ `
_ ~i l .
. ~i" ~ 1
3ppiicant's Signature and Title with :firm
David R. :~rundel/ President Date 3/6/87
?hcne Suncer
72'+-1209
Lea ~
logj ?L:..~Sc SEE 3E~{~.R5E SZDE FOR SIGN LOCATION, Si:F.TCH . t~
Sivert ciendrickson/Building Official - 566-061 ~ ?
_ ~
~ ® • .
.spy TR~a~kfR Promotions
3647 Cedar Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55407
Telephone: (612) 724-1209
March 7, 1987 .
P1r. Sivert Hendrickson
Building Official
City of Richfield
Dear Sivert,
Enclosed are two applications for a promotion that Walser Mazda has requested.-
The promotion would include a roof-top balloon and a searchlight.The respective
dates would be as follows;
Balloon: would go up March 23rd and come down~March-30th.
Searchlight: would be used for 3 hours on March 23,24,25,26,30
I realize that council approval is needed to-use a light inside the balloon.
Here is what I propose...Can we get staff approval to put the balloon up
without the light on the 23rd for a week. Then, if the council approves.
the light at their. meeting on the 23rd, we would add the light on the 24th.
I have sent the applications in for the balloon and the searchlight and I
will contact you next week about their approval and to make the necessary
payment.
Truly yours,
v.~ `
Dave Arundel
President, Sky-Tracker Promotions
"The Ultimate People Puller"
y ' . City Manager ( . . , .:.Inspector ,
Datppe . _.j . : _ Date ~:7
' APPROVE ~ENY~ ' 1: C.t,t~CL ~ ~ APPROVE ~ DENY . ~ ,.v
. Planning De ~ rtment . ~ City Council
. Date 3 Jr, R~ . _ -':Date _ r
Route to above for 's ecial a royal '.v~"`~'`~°"
p dip per code ~ General +Sistns'
APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT .
City of Richfield „ Minnesota ~ ~ '
Date 3-3-87 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes ~~:X :.;.'No~~~`:.. ~ Fee 18.O.d
- Address.of Sign 6423 Penn Ave. So. Proprietor Name Todd Wiessner DBA Design
- - ~ ~ _ ~ Framing
Sign Erector ~'Attracta Sign, Inc. Address -6417 Penn Ave. So. Richfield. '
Type of Siva - Design .Weather Cover Lighting
X Wall X Single Face Clear Lexoa ~ X Constant
_ Projecting Double Face _ Frosted Lexon _ Flashing
_ Ground ~ Multi-Faced ~ Plastic Covered _ Revolving
_ Roof ~ Aerial/Blimp ~ _ Shaded Traveling
_ Pedestal Searchlight Neoa _ Zip Lite
_ Changeable Banner/Pennants _ Other ~ Other (Explain)
Temporary _ Portable Frame: Sign Colors
s Trailer T ~ A ~ Post ~ ~ ~ i „A wh; A ~ Tvnr~r
~rnn~a
Illuminated - Yes X No Watts
ectrical Contractor Address Phone
Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone
Estimated Cost 50 0.00 Sign Width 12' Height 3' Total Square Feet 3 6
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility-lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with signif leant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Mr.nor sig^_s as
defined on page 2.
'I~~o 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? Yes
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? No
:r-.
Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm
Date 3-3-87
i, Phone Number 866-3047
~t
PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SitETCH
1985
Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061
.
.
1
~ .1
~ • ~~~y
. Ia
. .
f _ ey - r -
~
a+•
~.,y.::
. _ _
g_ r
.F ~y
4 X I
tQ r~
` _ + ~ •
Ny _
iL-~~tr~''K~. • » •=4y~...:d'"X!u~l .i+!s3s„'~, _ :e16.~.' -"°"+i 'gyp _ , . - - - ..~i `'•~-s T. ^ k
~T' S r au. r~'°{'Sry,~"Tzkg it ,zi....' ~tjy ~a++) a~a~: _
.r... ~MTyM'`~4r Tom.. y
r
t
f`{I{
l ~ ~
' 1. s.
t
• t
r
b '
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
.Council Letter No. 89
Agenda March 23, 1987
Issue Statement:
Presentation of proclamation designating April 11-18, 1987 as
Richfield Community Development Week
Background:
Richfield has benefited from Community Development Block Grant
funding since 1975. This revenue source has aided property
acquisitions, energy loans, and improvements to the community
center, just to name a few. During the years 1975 to 1987
Richfield has received over $3.2 million in CDBG funding.
The federal government has targeted CDBG funding for a
substantial cut in 1987.. Representative Henry Gonzalez has
introduced a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 91) designating April
11-18, 1987 as National Community Development Week. The U.S.
Conference of Mayors' has recommended that local governments show
support of this extremely beneficial program by forwarding copies
of the proclamation to their congressional representatives.
Recommendations
Proclaim the week of April 11-18, 1987 Community Development Week
and direct the staff to contact Richfield's congressional
representatives to ask for their support in continuing this
funding source.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The above action will h Richf' 1
s ow ie d s support of the CDBG
program and the need for continued funding.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not proclaim April 11-18, 1987 as Richfield Community
Development Week.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This proclamation has been placed on the March 23, 1987 council
agenda. Letters to the federal legislators requesting continued
CDBG funding will be sent the week of March 23.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame, D. Prosser
Ci~t Manager
JDP/eja
1' I
~ ~ - li
~1. ~q~t f,N ~t '
.,t~~•'~ GsS !f!^,.,~M C ).ir. I '~X W . ,u, • % .,d:
S";sS•.. i /t. ?v'••,?~! :f\. t: .•,7,tr•'T' 'Ty: ..t 't~.rY::s:9.. t'.. ! •.r"vi•ti•••' S.•y 4.'•,.. ay3, .•'r
'S) t/.. y. ..t . ,.j~. •.`•r . .,rY :tG„ !?t . t . • /brnr
.tV. • .,A~ f of ,.7t., .,..q.5.5 } .V ~ IF_':.?;rr. .,4t r' .trt tl' .
,
>:t; d5i' yd.. r'r }ti, tt• .q. f% t ..}.C~t•): J
7.> .i • t s' S ..a• Lrt7 ,¢/..rr .;r;~~~')• t S : ak t' 7YI-.
r,.." ..•.~TS'f. •u~ •F '".x: a.;,.: •:i qy ...t.. a•C. 3~ ~.."••t yif r. :5 • .ti:. ...~•.'•55t. .1. - :J.:..:
v ::r4 r{r ~n ,+i, yr.•. f, tti/;., tk) ,t.? .;~i;' 1i .w"
{!r. s. t}.:fr;: °a i•i ,f;?> ii ~'1tG•. .rt" .`r ;:'r's'%` _:c'.
..Y n y~
.9 s••. .J•' '•~a.
rr rt. ' ' ~ ~e f..t! ~ yflit,'. yF.i M`• /;i• :H• •.%.4.i,i.. Y
h.. a f ...,•i iifit a' ,,.,y. e.. ru .'l .jk,1.; _~,'r..7r.. t, p~' ;r. 'Ytn~U+•t ~ 3 W>,r !u4 ld3 ~i~. }'y~Gi ! Rr~.'3
r~tl.~:, s:; earl i, "•..i r:.••`:h.,,a-.. d r.. e ~ ~ \ y1c ii•.. .'{+i.. i/~.'- y; ..1 i•! ~,r,.;5/. !,,/r{..s.
4: V... ''ll ~,•r. ~ 1 'r :i `i'i~.t'•r. ,i1.4..1. i••. .\iA +J'I'r 1 N :Y s'i1JC t tl ffiJ '':r~,,' .'3•'. ti. !
~ r ~ d .;.;,.r i,,t,.i;•:r,•:rii. i•i,,:• ,irii , ,r•,i. n,
i7 nr.. ~ , a i r
'V y d r .s;Y .:a:;h'rN .L.h,. .iU. , h .fi'1. ryr ,~1 r
•s n.:.. + .t..• V ,..i. V, 7 .~.A!7 ;a? i•:`<r•h•rA•,7st!i s i
' V, p;tt~y '4 t V ~ w V - tit r / ~ ff p ~ r f x
d :t. ,p va . 4.`e F; ? F' <-x ;_.^:%t s ?o~ t• o ti s s "V t . .c
3 ~ ag~.• ff sr` fg • .3a1,, ret t rc, t ~ s r i ~:QIF 1 e'~' "V x q,
,e, ,+ip/+ii - i< .r+titi+l .,1.11,. .Nil' 'tsc~ t rfs •'c9 ~....a~ /
•,,i 11 ,,111 i/lll - u Iltr„ ~ .rii0r~p. ali•}', ,/lii`. //ii•,• iii' ~ r
~ "~.,i{lu, K ..1•., 1? "~C'rr~?
n ~ ~ •N +I, ~fi3}` ,;,trrl r _ ,r t14i Ir ~i Nti a .r4rr it j~ .:,i i, liiiv . ~(~c,O+
! ~~t., 1 1 t _ _ . 1 c,'~l.,lt~~.,,-r..:1 •,V}.lei!r ~°i.~ ; . rg ht.:uf 'ye~lilf /!z`:, tr„rl+l/ir ~ ~ zt:. •;Ni4i1l lam` hn z.~'
• I
_ . -
~e i PROCLAMATION , °~qq„ . -
APRIL 11-18 , 198 7 J~ ;p ' ~~s
' g` "~~r RICHFIELD COMMUNITY UEVELOf'MENT WEEK `~'~•H'~4.,
,4~` _ ~ ~I ; ~r ;d. s~
t r ~r. i ii
4 m, ,
~s~~.~~~,r WHEREAS, the City ~of Richfield has received Community Deve lol.~rnent ~i'~~~...~.cs
~~~i I~ 54
~'~~~.t~?;~i Block Grant funding since 1975; and ,~H'''~`~ ~r%'...
~
WHEREAS the Cit of Richf e r~+=== ~
>t. , r,.;; , Y i ld has exceeded $3.2 mi.t.lion of Cornmrinit - I
~ Y
~
qql~d t
r Development Block funding hetween the years of 1975 and 19f37; 1 ~
Y( ~a mod ~
and ,
=i 1' ~ T ~l~s
y... \ F 1i iry rat" ~
%
„ WHEREAS, the residents of Richfield have benefited from the Cornrnuriity ~
;~,E~? Bevelopment Dlock Grant pro~~.r. am by revitalizing ne ighhonc~~ods ;,:~3;;, .
,E:~, d ass ist iri low and mods >
E,t., 9 ,rate inco(ne citizens in the ~
community. `°~t4~`~~ ~i::
~ 1 ~ ~
`'~N ~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, John Hamilton, Mayor of the 1"yam ~ •
••~`;„b~ ! City of Richfield roclaim A ril 11-
. ~i; ~ p p 18, 1987 as „
~ ? . 1.tJ ~,a r'
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK ti
John Ilarni.lton, Mayor
_ r
~ ~ _ t1; City of Richfield ~ ~ ~;w.,
•
9 e .i
(,.7i 1 t: ~:F:,ill c x: i 1/1 :ai ~~•1 ~ ,f -:a- .•r-e ~ •s;T_
}~$:'.ilR.
v`^ ,II~~T~~;~~~'/,, Ir /lr.a:'~a - ^rlll t, ~ / Ii 11+i, a_i: = i 11,1 ~i Ilii e a s27 I~ji1T~ e 1 i /ir tq I"'?' S. rn•1 i, 'T't~{ iu ~ .5 /
y '`Mj .,,„'/ji t. .~/s~,~//,.~~ '31. i,/,tyr ,:,.5::5%i.;ii~1,t/1,,4•' :~p'>_a ai~rlltlltr• ~ y~lltlt~iq. .n~jjt.x_.~9,i~llt~~i!•~'~)l1~at!$1„I,,h...C.ki~.;ra~... (,d liil~y Yliii.l i/.K (,iiltiliii4~`~'Y ~cu..at
~1'~ "c1l~A ~ i}ai°ie"ss's31~,{ ~\Sa~,~;i~y ~ Is. ~ q tT t:e~ ~ ~ - y /j, 1•' Q y~ t •110:• ''~11 ~(~c o~ /
! i! li , F{,~;. ( ,p n, ..3 Hwy tt.n>i:r. ,+'I~~S9`~"w'~;3,-y, fi, f+$'~is7f, `}~Q~~w°at$J,.u~. „ k`-"o
\ rs/ i `.v.,tt:,t `/a 1 ,r: t!1 f . n f::r ^a f ri tf i! ..~A 't{ s„ t ~ , 3 ~4. ,4; t `i ~ ~ f
~,1~~ ,t,a„ • fa~ d i,l...i i, i'3 v iii r?n;,r,; ,I~ q,h(i'i 'i(,t, ~ f.::.,,;;,;(l.~r, ^
,;r•r 4i1, J dt.. i : d, r ,~i, l 'n;;tf•i~,~ 1 ,.I;. y7,;
% A' i, ,,step ,r,. ,w- •,o, ':?•:a'Y ,ia,.,,•~'J. :•„,i.,l,,.,tl:.:
~.;2 3i trig 1. °A ''ail : tA` ..,:.1,. > ,di. , r• . a
.1 1. ;•111 „ 1.A • 1111 4• A\,. „ r A` ,•r •!rt Ai!• -l\
.At{ .,IAA .iii{. '11 iN. 'f 'l iiil. .f i•Iitir A~ ••ri °A- fiii: rtil• :A~` %f, '!4
1 ssi.r . ~ ,.:{i:+•r ~ s alirr.•• .~i. eii'i'la. >:R
M r' i i ~ ..L.'.'t%
~~Ii~~ ~Yi ~t~,t x t t f
` 4 t^'• r~ ) :xe 'v !
~+Ma/4 ul, n} IJ~ ~,5 i .u • V 5 • 1 !l f ':i i tv ' ,~y~ 1%, i t~•`.ii t
tG .5 J r . ~•~.L 4 ~ls' :r.,rutG iKu i VI % ,Yii+ . 1,.4. :.yM1. , r ~ ~ it
I ,v - 1 ~ 6 a ii.~ s'Y+, a r s it J i;:. r ..1,. 4 !t
~1'•,.' :j'• Y• t, ~ ~S.t. °•u• t. .S, .t..r•' ../m t a't•i•''. 't,rr, t. .•r~ 1~.,+'• :•r-
,l , lt. i ••v 7• i/S•~ •nst . t Y :w !w ~;F,. :Nfi~. it a.. . o'~s..Y.•'. ..~s. t • {t,. .''R i .~7. ..I. (a4,.,,.. ~ ~~t,. ,.L.; ~ir~ .
"i ~t;a 5t. ,+v,. :,y 5z, r t't 5:?,.•>' . wa •t s0 ""tti•":Yi'%rT:
•{t•' tr/f+•' .,;7iy < t , yy,,,, "lr, sC'• ';1,N 4Jy ;,t ;'`E,, v
• i . ~ t ••{U' - au;>f . tj a}y. bYf. •tatu}a.•. Y::::~";,r..f • d1ii,' ~'e'<?tbittt } Sl • ^roef.~~t ! -ti
:Vb. • t,~~i • r l~~rt. _ i r.{f "lt y <1,,•.'T t
. i
~ 4r
i \ ~ ksSNi,'• ~ !P WyF•'• i5tij ~ : ~t t,AO ht k.'tsi: ~ jJ.. a"3U.q@}}`
. _ ~y/