Loading...
01-27-86 agenda rj[ . ~ ITY F RICHFIE D A C 0 L MINNESOT Office of City Manager. Council Letter No. 60 Agenda .January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Mall Of America And Fantasy World (Mega Mall) - Council Members.: At the January 13, 19.8.6, meeting the Richfield City Council adopted a position statement on the "Mega Mall" Project. The Council also directed that a letter be sent to Bloomington reflecting the .city's position: The letter has been sent. A .copy is .provided in your .council backup. In summary, the City of Richfield is not opposed to the development of the former Metropolitan Stadium Site. However, if transportation improvements west of 12th Avenue at I~9~ cannot be made in conjunction with the Mega Mall development, there is a definite possibility that metropolitan roadway .system (namely Interstate X94 and Trunk Highway 77 will become congested to the point where traffic will be diverted onto arterial streets in Richfield. If this happens, the City of Richfield is opposed to development of the Mega Mall until solutions for these potential traffic problems can be found. The City of Richfield is also concerned about any type of land use managment practices which might result in restrictions on development within the City of Richfield. The third area covered by the position statement was that of noise which would be emenated from Trunk Highway 77 and whether noise walls should be constructed in order to mitigate traffic noises. ' Lyndale Avenue - I49~4 Bridge The City of Richfield is presently in the final stages of a redevelopment plan for the ILN area.. One element of this plan calls for the widening of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over I49~+ from ~ lanes to 6 lanes. This extra capacity on this bridge will be needed in order to aecomodate anticipated traffic levels and turning movements once the entire ILN area is redeveloped. In that the southern portion of the bridge is in the City of Bloomington, it is appropriate that both the Bloomington and Richfield City Councils discuss the timing and financing of the project. Richfield plans to seek FAUS funding. Bloomington Road Plans For 79th And 80th Streets / At a recent meeting between the Richfield City Council, the Bloomington Community Development Director and their consultant (BRW), a brief discussion was held relative to the improvements of 79th. and 80th Streets in Bloomington. It was indicated that the City of Bloomington is presently improving .79th and 80th Streets in order to upgrade them to an arterial roadway (a ring road concept) which will parallel I-49~. This item. should be discussed with the City of Bloomington to determine the potential impacts of this roadway .improvement on the City of Richfield and its similarity to the possible development of 77th Street in Richfield as the commerical traffic artery. Respectf ly ubmitted, G~~1~ ~ ohn G. C twri t City Manager JGC/eja i /r BY LAWS of the RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON '~IATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION SECTION I - DEFINITIONS I. I' "Organization" - The Richfield-Bloomington .Watershed Management Organization 1.2 "Board" - The Board of Commissioners of the Organization I.3 "Commissioners" - A1I members of the Citv Counc~_ of the Cities of Richfield and Bloomington, who serve as the Board of the Organization 1.4 "Cities" - The Cities of Richfield and Bloomington SECTION 2 - MEETINGS ,2.1 Annual~Meetinq. The Board shall hold an annual meeting in January of each year, at which time the Board shall. elect its officers and conduct any other necessary business. The Chairman sh~Il deter- mine the time and place of the meeting and sand written notification of .the meeting to the Commis- sinners. 2.2 Other Meetings. All meetings other than the annua'_• meeting shah be held either (a) pursuant to a meeting schedule adopted by the Board, if the Board chooses to adopt. such a schedule, or, (b) upon the call of the Chairman of the Board, the Vice Chairman, or any two Commissioners. When a meet- . ing is called pursuant to paragraph 2.2(b), move, ten (IO) days written not:.ce of the meeting shall- be provided to the Commissioners by the party (s) calling the meeting. 2.3 Location of Meetings. Unless otherwise specified, all meetings shall be conducted in the Bloomington -City Council chambers.. 2.4 Open Meeting Law. All meetings shall be subject to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. 2.5 Quorum. A majority of the entire Board sha'_'_ cons- titute a quorum for the purposes cf Board ac*_ion, but less than a majority may adjourn a meeting. ~ 2.6 Rules of Procedure. Except as may be otherwise pro- vided by the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the Organization or by these by-laws, all meetings shall be conducted in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order. - 2.7 Board Action. Each Commissioner shall have one vote with respect to Board actions. Unless other- wise specified in the Joint Powers Agreement or these by-laws, substantive Board action shall be by a majority vote of the entire Board. SECTION 3 - OFFICERS 3.1 Officers. The Board shall have and elect the foI- lowing officers: Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secre- tary, Treasurer. The officers may be from either City Council, but the Chairman and Vice Chairman shall he from different City Councils. 3.2 Election. Officers of the Board shall be elected by the Board at its annual meeting.- 3.3' Term of Office. The term of all officers shall be for one year or until a successor is elected. Officers may be reelected without limitation. 3.4 Vacancies. An office vacancy will occur by reasor, of the officer's resignation or his removal by vote of the Board, or at such time as the officer is ro longer a member of~the City Council of one of the Cities. When an office vacancy occurs, the Board shall, at the first opportunity, elect a suc- cessor who shall serve for the remainder of the term. 3.5 Duties. The officers shall have the following duties: . ~ (a) Chairman - The Chairman shall preside over all meetings of the Board and execute docu- ments on behalf of the organization. (b) Vice .Chairman - The Vice Chairman shall assist the Chairman and shall perform the Chairman's duties in the 3atter's absence. (c) Secretary -.The Secretary shall be responsible for providing recorded minutes of organization meetings, for maintaining organization records, and-.for. .providing other c?erical services re- quired by the organization. _Z_ . _ I • ~ (d) Treasurer- The Treasurer shall be responsible for receiving, maintaining and investing any funds the Organization may acquire, for the payment of expenditures authorized by the Organization., and for the maintenance of any necessary financial records. 3.6 Compensation. No compensation shall be provided by the Organization to Commissioners for serving as Officers. ' SECTION 4 - STAFF ASSISTANCE 4.1 Executive Director. and Assistant Executive Director. From the staffs of the Cities, and with the ap- praval of the respective City Managers, the Board shall select and appoint an Executive Director and Assistant Executive Director. The two appointees shall be from different City staffs and shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. 4.2 Duties of the Executive Director. The Executive Director shall have the following duties: {a) He shall manage. and direct the day-to-day affairs of the Organization and implement the directives of the Board. (b) He shall, with the approval of the respective Cit Managers select and assi n staff ersonnel y _ g P of the Cities to tasks the Organization must perform. (c) He shall, with the approval of the respective City Managers, select and assign staff personnel of the Cities to assist Board officers in the performance of their duties. 4.3 Duties of the Assistant Executive Director. The Assistant Executive Director shal_ assist the Ex- ecutive Director and perform the tatter's duties in his absence.- 4.4 Compensation and Other Benefi=s. Personnel of the Cities which are utilized to assist the Organiza- tion and its Officers shall at aI'_ times remain em- ~t'v hies for purposes of ployees of _heir respe__z e C compensation, insurance coverage, and all other -3- _ a. _ ~7 benefits.. The Organization itself shall not provide any compensation ar other benefits to city personnel • who provide services to the Organization unless the Cities agree to that procedure. APPROVED and adopted this day of 1984. Chairman Vice Chairman _4+ r r i ~r~.~? U January- 21 , 1986 _ Mayor James Lindau City of Bloomington ~ Municipal Building 2215 W. Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, M[V 55431 M ~y Re: The Draft Environmental.Impact Statement on ~ Mall of America and Fantasy World ~ ~ ~ Dear Mayor Lindau: ~ The City of Richfield appreciates the opportunity to comment on ~ the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mall of America ¦lll~ ~ and Fantasy World. We recognize that the former Metropolitan N Stadium site will be developed for some sort of high intensity ~ use. The City of Richfield is not opposed to the development of ~ this site and does recognize that certain positive benefits will = accrue to the city as a result of development of this site. However, the city does have si-gnificant concerns about the proposed Mall of America development. ¦ After reviewing the above mentioned Draft Environmental Impact ~ ~ Statement (DEIS) the city has found potential adverse impacts in ~ the areas of transportation, noise and economic impact. A r ffic level of t a = The transportation impacts relat.. to a high con estion which could be antici ated on Interstate 494 west of g p t Richfield Trunk Hi hway 77. According to the projections tha _ ~ g ~ has reviewed, we believe- that the congestion will be at an unacceptable level following the completion of the Mega Mall O ~ project unless roadway improvements are made. ~ The anticipated levels of traffic congestion on Trunk Highway 77 ~ and on Interstate 494 could divert traffic meant for the L regional system onto" local Richfield streets such as Lyndale, O Nicollet, Portland, 12th and Bloomington Avenues. The State of Minnesota has programmed highway improvements for the next 5 Q. years and there are no improvements scheduled for this part of . _ O Interstate 494. The lack of funding, and subsequent lack of 0 system improvements could be a problem for tt~ City of ~ Richfield. The DEIS also suggests that "an alternative to ~ mitigation (of .over capacity conditions) would be a decision to accept service levels below desired designed values." Any ~ reduction in service levels which would divert regional traffic onto the street systems is opposed by the City of Richfield. telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer a Page Two Mayor Lindau If the land use management concept contemplated as a traffic mitigation element prohibits further development in Richfield;- - this is unacceptable to the City of Richfield. The DEIS concludes that the proposed improvement of Trunk Highway 77 reduces noise impacts west of Highway 77. The question is whether this includes property which is located along the west side of Trunk Highway 77 and north of I494. If the traffic volumes increase on Trunk Highway 77, how will the _ poise be reduced? Are noise walls to be constructed? It would appear reasonable that noise mitigation measures be implemented along both sides of Trunk Highway 77 north of I494. The DEIS indicates that the City of Bloomington is proposing to raise $8.5 to $10 million per year of operating subsidy by dis arities x m ti he Mall ro 'ect from the fiscal e e p ng t p ~ P contribution levy. If this occurs there would be a negative economic impact upon the City of Richfield, in that the city receives a significant amount of revenue from the fiscal disparities pool. The City of Richfield is opposed to any fiscal disparities exemptions for the Mall of America and Fantasy World project. These comments are being provided in response to the City of Bloomington's rzquest for comments on the Mall of America and Fantasy World DEIS. Also, this item can be discussed in greater detail at the. joint meting between the City Councils of Bloomington and Richfield on January 27, 1986. Very t ly yo rs, J i on ayor _ cc: John Cartwright ,~nnis Kraft r . ~ ~ ~ ~ s Hostile race tion reets m - e a mall traff ~c Ian p g g p A group of 75 Richfield residents the final cosf may be higher. and business people were unhappy There was a wncensus among with their first look Jan. 6 at the .residents that closing the 78th transportation plans developed for Street frontage road will result in ~ ~ rf+~ Bloomington's mega-mall serious traffic problems on 77th _ The plan is to widen Cedar Ave- Street. - ~ ; , nue to six lanes from KIllebrew The two streets are parallel to ~ << ~ ` " A ' Drive in Bloomington to Diagonal one another; while the 78th Street _ - w~ ~ ~ Boulevard in Richfield. Interstate frontage road lies in front of busi- ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ' ~ ~ ~ - ` ~ 494 will span eight lanes from . nesses located there, '77th Street ~ r` „ , Cedar to 12th Avenue. has the backs of those businesses ~ ' s .:4 ~ Richfield's 78th Street frontage on its south side and homes on its 'r'` ~ . road and some additional property north side. ~ w~ ' s - _ would be acquired ,for the I-494 Wolsfeld explained that the 78th ..n°', widening project. The 79th Street Street businesses would have to - ~ " :.frontage. road on Bloomington's "reorient themselves to 77th . side of I-494 also would be ac- Street." . quired. - "Then 77th. Street is going to Dick Wolsfeld of BRW, Bloom- become the frontage road In Rich- ~ ington's mega-mall traffic consul- #ield?" a man asked. tant,told the group the mega-mall "You could say that," Wolsfeld may be open by fa111989. replied. "The goat is to have as much of "Well, 77th Street can't handle 'I - the needed traffic improvements the traffic it gets today," said in by then as possible," said another resident. ~ r~ ~ ;t. ' Wolsfeld.. He added that a "If you've ever driven down-the ' .projected 119,000 vehicles will (78th Street) service road, you can t enter and leave the mega-mall hardly drive for all the cars parked Photo by Mark Johnson daily. The .cost, including land ac- in the road," said William Gillick, Concern was mirrored in the Laces of residents Jan. 6 as the viewed a ma showin quisition, was estimated by Y p g proposed Wotsfeldat$1lsmillion,buthesaid MEETING: To Page 13 roadway improvement plans for Bloomington's mega-mall. There was unanimous agreement that the plan will adversely aNect Richfield. . . RICHFIELD - ~ ~ MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS • • • ' • ~ ~ • e a From page and I think there's a t~ s ~~C n'Y ~ roaomful of '~°abouL 't;'w he ,,...o ~ 7~ „ wholehe a way - Qt`n~ ~ hfare for us. ativn was feel t sam Cedar v ~.If You th No ~ ti 1now ~e roadwaY inter out that ov- enoug said. rem Wo~feld Po w~den~bbetween ve. 7~g gloon~ng~o ~ h Street, a 1. I .provided w~ impact Re ~offacials Avenuthel median d ac~uirinb mote. all thab1e to drive at than adding that g~chf tgger role in in g lanes ~ ar. The ve play by .said, edab eted 'northlsoue of Cedar will remain hardly ~ .Said traffic should ha lion condo n City on the east s object: residents res- resentnti ploorningt° west lan ssto76th geveral by 78th Street if wolsfeld an~• roblems dnowesterna generated. Ric1~_ yi'~ssett access to mY fixed, an ~ Providetdh' at no golf willt Pose t T d, 15~ E planner ,t dot to see more than S twill add taurants T7th Std Roun E.7atb ` I don notied uP anYwaldeland. t wolsfeld ~ taken m - shif `dare Groun „said land would ~ of Cedar' ,fir; 5tea ,1424 business call in course east side k advance on the on eastbound ran St ,and' it arrea Y uentlY ar 78th downer °f Qe5 PeaPle out out how to get there, he the e will be a~~utl~b°und C~the 5t. Vlaldelan , a r to find Coun- Streetfrom traffic into Reid Thursday he g City 75th to .conduct said • comments said.. Wand Richfield ues- Steak, residents urant .East an Edwina Garcia q mega mall area. ental several of testa, the roadwaY the Environm _ with the impact cilwom are three about 77th Stree to ~ the tione what impact th Street and ~iearings tement for th o d S . traffic on , be me d have one Impact Std rovements to waY~ will be the .~If thae r ad l~will Ce~he People ~2th Avenue.. 12th Avenue w~ potation imps acc tronat n ighborhood~ldeland said. ,•Traffic onnificantlY,,, Garcia month a le to uP the ere," teak cos- .increase sig may become anath- Wo>`e for R chfae d tan i{ they, s° . whO live ~ that Ntr • S He added etimes must Pa when predio t~ dlAvenu he a$r~` with tob}ections to the P som frontage roeQihis80 er waldeland said choose. t Q 18th Street ent• sounds like - ` wtaUstakesom Garcia s assess eeting , heavy snou1g Places. e a mau •This whole m what w~li happen' t° ~ phe~ er or no anX ousgo~have we re being tol ave it shoves down" - pe5 in, I'm not front door, said I.doo t Pike to h ht ~ din -~g4 rig at ~ s been.. e m . • • . W aldeland - - . 1 / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager . Council Letter No. 59 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and. Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Fourth Amendment to the Marker Plaza Corporation Developer's Agreement Providing for Occupancy on The First Four Floors of Woodlake Point Condominium Council Members:. On May 1~4, 198+, the City of Richfield (City) and the Housing and, Redevelopment Authority (HRA) entered into a contract for the Sale of Land for Private Development with Market Plaza Corporation (Developer), Arkell Development Corporation (Co-Developer) and E.J. Plesko Association, Inc. (Co- Developer). In November, 198, an increase in the number of condominium units from 136 to 157 was approved along with the mix of number of bedrooms and unit size. On September 9, 1985, the following modifications to the i Woodlake Point Condo were approved: 1. The use of a flat roof on the elevator penthouse instead of a pitched hip roof. 2. The use of metal siding instead of wood on the sides of the balconies. 3. The reconfiguration of the pedestrian walkway west of the building so that the sidewalk is totally on the subject site. Minor adjustments in the access road to Bridgemans and adjacent landscaping. The necessity for a fourth amendment to the Developer's Agreement is based on the January 17,-1986, communication from Roger D. Derrick to the HRA. The developer seeks City Council approval to permit owners to move into their units starting on or about January 31, 1986. The units to be occupied would be units on only the first four floors. In accordance with the state building code, the fifth / and sixth floor units which are finished, would remain unoccupied. Work on units above the sixth floor will continue. The City Council is asked to approve the issuance of Certificates of Completion for no more than half of the total .units in Woodlake Point Condominium subject to the following preconditions: 1. A Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the city's building official; 2. All safety items are completed by the developer; and, 3. The purchaser of each unit enter into an agreement stipulating to a minimum market value for said unit in order to assure that our TI redevelopment bond debt service will be met.. The HRA approved this fourth amendment at .their January 21, 1986, meeting on a 3-2 vote. The buildinofficial has rovided the develo er with a list g P P (copy included in this backup) of requirements that must be taken care of before he can issue individual Certificates of Occupancy. The .purchaser of a living unit must sign the assessment agreement which is an obligation to pay the taxes levied. The minimum market value that the purchaser of the unit agrees to is about 90~ of the purchase price of the condo unit. The a royal to ermi pp p t some occupancy at this time is similar to the permission given to residents of Lake Shore drive when that ..condominium was first opening. This action will greatly assist purchasers who are renting or have closing dates on their homes approaching soon. It will also avoid the problems of so many persons trying to move in the building during a very short period of time. The streets and off-street parking areas cannot handle a mass move-in situation. Too much traffic congestion will be created. Mr. Krier reports that the following items will be completed before any move-in: 1. All common areas will be finished except for a dropped ceiling in one of the rooms; 2. All cupboards will be installed; 3. Floor covering in all public areas; and, All elevators working. City administration recommends approval of the fourth amendment which is the approving mechanism for the issuance of a Certificate of Completion subject to the following stipulations: 1. All safety items are approved by the .city; 2. All items requiring completion by the city building official are done; 3. A Certificate of Occupancy is issued; and,. 4. The purchaser of each unit executes an assessment agreement with the city. R pectf ubmitted, ohn G . Ca~twrig}~t City Manager U JGC/eja 4 I t FOURTH AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into. this day of January, 1"986 by and. between. the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City. of Richfield, Minnesota, a Minnesota public body corporate .and politic (HRA), the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation (City), and Market Plaza Corp., a Minnesota business corporation (Developer) and The Arke11 Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation (Housing Component A Co-developer) WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties hereto did on May 14, 1984 enter, with others, into an Agreement entitled "Contract for the Sale of Land for Private Development" which Agreement together with amendments thereto dated December 27, 1984 (First Amendment to Developer.'s Agreement), February 5, 1985 (Second Amendment to Developer's Agreement) and September 15, 1985 (Third Amendment to Developer's I'~ Agreement) are referred to herein as the "HP,A Agreement"; and 'WHEREAS, the City and HRA have been informed by the Develop- er that in order to conform to its timetable for clos?rg and occupancy, certain of the provisions contained in the HRA Agree- nent must be amended as they relate to Housing Cor.:ponent A as described in the HRA Agreement; and tr:HEREAS, the City and HRA have reviewed the proposed modi- fications and find them appropriate and necessary to the prompt completion of the project. Q. ` NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed by and between the undersigned that the HRA Agreement be amended by amending Arti- cle IV, Section 4.9 to read as follows: 4.9) Certificate of Completion - Promptly after notification by the Developer of completion of the Improvements contemplated by the Project Plan as to any component, the HRA shall inspect the construction to determine whether such Improvements are completed substantially in accordance with the terms of .this Agreement as to such component. If the HRA is sat- isfied, it will furnish the Developer with a Certifi- cate of Completion for that component. Such Certifica- tion by the HRA shall, except as further provided in this Section 4.9, be a conclusive determination of satisfaction and termination of the. agreements and covenants in this Agreement with respect to the obliga- tions of the Developer to construct the Improvements as to the component covered by such Certificate of Com- pletion. The certification provided for in this section shall be in recordable form. If the HRA shall refuse or fail to provide the Developer a certification in acccrdance with the provisions of this Section 4.9, the HRA shall, within thirty (30) days after written request by-the Developer, provide the Developer with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Developer has failed to complete the .Improvements in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what mea- sures or acts it will be necessary, in the reasonable opinion of the HRA, for the Developer to take or perform in order to obtain such certification. The Developer- may, prior to completion of con- struction on any component, request the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for such component. The request shall indicate all of the Improvements, includ- ing parking .area, .walkways, driveways, landscaping and building exterior not completed, the percentage of completion of each, the cost to complete, and the time needed to complete. Upon receipt of such request, the HRA shall, after verifying the information furnished by the Developer, issue a Certificate of Completion for such component after first entering into an agreement with the -Developer secured by a Letter of Credit in favor of the HRA in an amount not less than one hundred twenty percent (120$) of the- anticipated cost to .complete the .Improvements fora -that component. The 2 I 7 agreement shall provide that if the Improvements are not competed by the times specified for completion in the request, the HRA may enter onto the site and complete the Improvements and draw upon the Letter of Credit to pay the actual cost of such work. If the Developer completes the Improvements by the times specified for completion in the request, the Letter of Credit shall be returned and such return shall consti- tute complete discharge of the Developer's obligation under this Section 4.9 as to that component. If the Developer does not complete the Improvements by the times specified for completion in the request, the HRA shall, upon completion of the. Improvements and after drawing upon the Letter of Credit as provided above, return the remaining .balance. Such return shall constitute complete discharge- of the Developer's obligation under this Section 4.9 as to that component. With respect to Housing Component A only.the HF.A maY issue separate Certificates of Completion for individual units if the following preconditions have been met: (O1) A Certificate of Occupancy has been issued bx the city, building official permitting occupancy of such unit. (02) The purchaser of such unit has entered into, an agreement with the City and the HRA stipulating to a minimum market value for such unit, which agreement shall remain in effect and binding uDOn the purchaser, its successors and assigns until March 31, 2.002. Such separate Certificates of Completion may be issued ' for no more than one-.~ of the total units in Housing Component A. `j~ ~~,Z~ This Fourth Amendment shall not be effective until it has been consented to by the holder of any encumbrance with respect to Housing Component A which is permitted by the HRA Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the .parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year first above written. . 3 ~ .4 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND .FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its Chairman By Its Executive Director CITY OF RICHFIELD BY Its Mayor By Its City Manager ,MARKET PLAZA CORP. By Its President THE ARKELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION By Its President 4 ~ Q. ~~L / ` V knutson construction company 5301 East River Road, 101 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55421 (612) 572-5757 January 17. 1986 City of Richfield 7600 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 ATTENTION MR. SIVERT HENDRICRSON RE: WOODLAKE POINT CONDOMINIUMS EARLY OCCUPANCY Dear Mr. Hendrickson: The owner and developer of Woodlake Point Condominiums have requested early occupancy in the building before final completion. The basis of this early occupancy is to be consistant with the attached memorandum identified as Ezhibit 1 - Sub"ect Earl Occu anc Re uirements - Woodlake Point J y P y q Condominiums. Timing of this occupancy is Floors I through 3 and the lower level of the garage February 1, 1986. From j that point on the next floor above is to be turned over to the owner for occupancy each succeeding week. In other words, Floors 1 through 3 - February 1st; adding Floor 4 - February 8th; Floor 5 - February 15th; and so on until the entire building is turned over for occupancy. consistant with the early occupancy requirements and the owner's request, we have scheduled our activities to have the lower level of the garage and Floors 1 through 5 completed n un' loor above February 1, 1986, and completing the e$t it f each succeeding-week thereafter. To provide time for your inspection and issuance of the required occupancy permit for the first group of floors, we have scheduled our activities to be completed and ready for your inspection on January 27, 1986. The one exception to this is that the final shipment of parts for the fire alarm panel will not be until January 23rd or 24th. Therefore, the fire alarm system will not be .completely ready for inspection on January 29, 1986. Your scheduling of the required inspections for issuing an occupancy permit for Unit Floors 1--through 3 and lower -garage level to occupy those areas February 1, 1986, will be r ~ - / appreciated. We plan to have each of the nest floors to be _ turned over ready for your inspection on the Tuesday before occupancy.. In other words, the project inspection dates for _ the remaining floors are February 4 - Floor 4; February 11th - Floor 5; February 18th - Floor 6; and so on. I should point out these are the Latest dates and we expect to complete mare floors with the inspections of February 4, 11, and 18th moving up the final occupancy or completion date. If there is any reason why you cannot inspect consistant - with this schedule or other requirements, we request that you ..advise us immediately since the owner has committed the move- in dates to the tenants based on this schedule. Sincerely yours, KNUTSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY P `l lip 0. Olson Proj ect Manager 9/646 cc: Steve Yurick, Arkell Gerry Rygh, KCC Supt. 2 'M'EMORAN DUM • EXHIBIT 1 ~ ~ Early Occupancy Requirements - Woodlake Point.Condominiums. :loth exit stairs must be totally complete with pressurization system operational. :stairway,doors kept closed at alI times. Path of exit travel from stair enclosures to• • ;:he public way must be complete and unobstructed.. All exit signs and illumination .n service. . ?prinkler system must be complete and in operation - alarm systems must be complete end in operation with security person on duty 24 hours a day. Elevators must be operational, one assigned to. tenants and one to construction personnel. Tenant ~~I • i :Ievator must be programmed so.as not to stop at floors under construction. Standby ~I ' I power must be available for all emergency•systems, fire pump and elevators. ' ~1 common tenant areas on the first floor must be comple*_e so that construction Eic does not impair exits. All partition walls, shaft walls and corridor walls nust be covered with drywall on all floors - two floors must be completed above the II =loot of occupancy at all times. Floors are to be occupied from the bottom up. °aved fire department access must be completed and maintained. 4nytime it is necessary to shut off sprinkler system or emergency alarm and communication system, the fire .department and building security person must be notified. Shutdown only permitted during construction hours. Final inspections and a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained prior to ~ _ occupancy of each ~lnit. ~ ' . • _ - . t ' • • • . T The Der:icic Compan,es 1650 $nelard power • Minneapc'is. MN 55426 • 612;546-2276 17 January 1986 RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55427 ATTN: Bruce Palmborg SUBJECT: tdoodlake Point Request for HRA Certificate of Completion Dear Commissioners: On 31 January 1986 we will begin real estate closings on units at Woodlake Point.. As you can imagine, the seniors who will be occupying this develop- ment are extremely anxious. Many of these people have sold their homes and are now living in apartments. Others have scheduled closings on their homes to coincide with the move-in dates. Those livings in apartments have can- celled their leases. As you can imagine, moving is a dramatic experience for many of these people. We have scheduled move-ins to lessen the burden. The first move-in is scheduled for 31 January 1986 with continuous move-ins during the month of February into March. The schedule is very tight so if the first move-ins are delayed subsequent move-ins will be delayed and a massive chain reaction will occur. We have been discusing early move-ins with the City (building inspector) for the last two months. The Inspection Department 'has agreed to facilitate .move-ins and issue certificate of occupancy providing certain safety code related itmes are completed. These items will be completed before our buyers begin occupying their homes.. In accordance with the Redevelopers Agreement, I am requesting on behalf of the Partnership that the HRA issue a Certificate of Completion for the housing units completed to date.. Sincerely, i . ~~~~~~r ~~oger D. trick, Partner. RICHFIELD LAKE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ~CG~~veLl. 1_Z1-g~ RDD:slh ~ ~ C cc: J.Cartwri ght . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA / Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 58 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of. the City Council City of Richfield Subject: A Proposal To Contract For Reimbursable .Community Audits: An Element of "Bundle Up Richfield" Energy Conservation Program Dear Council Members: On September 9, 1985, the City Council had an opportunity to review the "Bundle-Up Richfield" Residential Energy Conservation Program. The successful 1983/8~t and 198/85 heating season programs were reviewed.. The anticipated elements of the 1985/86 heating season program were also summarized. Some of these activities, conservation workshops and "housedoctoring" activities, are already occuring. A new element, a community energy-audit program in cooperation with NSP, was then under consideration. An audit program has now been formalized and this letter requests the city to authorize entering into an agreement for community based auditing services. As part of its Conservation Investment Program (CIP), NSP is offering to pay communities for the costs of audits. NSP will finance the audits provided that the community (rather than NSP) arranges for and provides personnel to perform the audit. NSP will pa.y $60 per audit. Ten dollars is actually paid by the audit customer to DISP who then passes it through to the community with the additional $50 contribution for a total value of $60. Thus, NSP wants communities to take the audit initiative. This arrangement is part of an "Energy Workshop Agreement"'that is NSP's contractural method of implementing its CIP with Richfield. -This agreement would be effective until March 31, 1986. There are several ways to provide audits in the community: 1. Have the utility provide the audit through its employees or contractors;. 2. Have a business firm, non profit organization, or government agency perform the audit; or, 3. Hire additional qualified .city employees on a temporary basis, NSP prefers that communities perform the audits. Thus, Met-hod 1 is-not feasible. This is consistent with the concepts of the Governor and Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development (DEED) of having the community be responsible for energy conservation initiatives. This is one reason why DEED, provided an energy program grant during 1985, so that energy conservation programs such as the community based audit could be initiated locally. Methods 2 and 3 may help to provide for local control over the quality of the audit service, allows for services to Richfield residents not available through the utility audit, and creates employment opportunities within the community. There is also an opportunity to expand the scope and value of the auditing service by offering a basic home improvement weatherization ("housedoctoring") package to eligible residents who desire this service with the audit. The additional "housedoctoring" services available with the audit would be marketed toward low-to-moderate income residents. An eligibility guideline based on Section 8 income levels would be used. It should be noted that the housedoctoring to be done is basic work-only that which can be performed within the audit time limit of 3-3-1/2 hours. The audit will uncover a range of weatherization needs, from "do nothing-your residence is tight already", to "total weatherization badly needed". The auditor will give do-it- yourself advice to those who can/will use it. If major. weatherization is needed, higher-income residents will be given information on financing and a list of qualified housedoctor contractors (list being developed, 2 contractors currently eligible). Lower-income residents who need total weatherization may take advantage of CDBG grants, for which the auditor will 'I have applications if the project were to continue into CDBG Yr. XII when funds may be available (July 1986-June 1987). ' Staff believes at this time, that it is preferable not to I, hire additional staff if another qualified organization could. deliver audit services with the Energy Technician coordinating the activity. An organization known as Self Reliance Center (SRC) of Minneapolis could d.o the audits. SRC has been responsible for the last few years for delivering energy workshops, audits, and home improvements to Minneapolis residents though the Energy Bank/Neighborhood Energy Workshop program. The services SRC can provide are unique for the following reasons: it is a non-profit organization, it is experienced in community audit programs (with programs in place in Fridley and Hastings), and it has employees experienced in audits and housedoctoring. Staff has negotiated an agreement, summarized below, that would allow a community based audit program to be initiated in Richfield. The elements of the proposed agreement between the City and SRC have been reviewed and approved by legal counsel. The contractual elements ire: - SRC will provide state-approved residential audits to Richfield clients identified by the City, and additional audit services such as infiltration testing, heating system balancing, and infrared thermography when requested by the client and equipment is made available by the City. - Housedoetorin services will be rovided with the audit at g P the request of the client and the City, and may include interior caulking and weatherstripping, selective insulating, bypass detection and sealing, and heating system balancing. - Richfield auditing and housedoctoring services will be performed at a high standard of workmanship. Work will be monitored by the Energy Technician to ensure it is satisfactory. - Richfield audits will be performed by Richfield residents who are state-certified auditors, if available. In the event a resident auditor is not available for a particular assignment, a non-resident certified auditor may be substituted. - -SRC staff will schedule audits at the convenience of the client. Housedoctor services will be scheduled only in conjunction with an audit. - SRC will be paid $41 per completed audit, or $90 per audit if housedoctoring service is included. (The funds provided by NSP will allow the inclusion of housedoctoring services with every third audit, on a first come-first serve basis). SRC will bill the city bi-weekly and the city will pay for .services following confirmation that work is properly completed and the audit reporting forms have been submitted to the Energy Technician. - SRC and its employees will act as independant contractors, not employees of the city, but it is recognized that SRC auditors will perform as representatives of the city. - SRC will be responsible for all claims arising from actions of SRC during this agreement. SRC will maintain Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance and General Public Liability Insurance. - This agreement will be in effect through March 31, 1986. The agreement may be extended if agreed in writing by both parties. The extension would be likely if NSP desires to continue the program in 1986-and 1987. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement to implement community based auditing services by adopting the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, ohn G C ~wr' C~. City Manag r JGC /e ja RESOLUTION NO . _ /~p 'A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH SELF RELIANCE CENTER TO PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL AUDITING AND WEATHERIZATION SERVICES WHEREAS, the Community Energy Audit Program, funded by Northern States Power, was reviewed by the City Council as part of proposed "Bundle Up Richfield" activities for the 1985-86 heating season, and WHEREAS,. it has been found perferable to contract with an experienced organization to administer the audit services rather than hire additional city staff, and WHEREAS, a contract has been developed for Self Reliance Center, Inc. to provide the .residential auditing and weatherization services to Richfield residents with the Richfield Energy Technician coordinating that delivery, and WHEREAS, the Self Reliance Center is a non-profit corporation with long-term experience in the provision of quality energy audit and weatherization programs. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, MN that: -The City Manager is authorized to enter into a contract between the City of Richfield and Self Reliance Center, Inc. to provide auditing and weatherization services to Richfield residents; and, -The contract shall terminate on March 31, 1986, unless it is extended in writing by both parties. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this 27th day of January, 1986. John .Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk ~ lcJ"/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City-Manager Council. Letter No. 57 Agenda January 2~, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the .City Council City of Richfield Subject:. Request for Amended Off-street Parking. Permit at 6~~+5 Nicollet Avenue South Council Members: First Minnesota Savings Bank (formerly First Federal Savings and Loari), 6445 Nicollet Avenue South, has requested an amended off-street parking permit to allow them to expand their drive-up .banking .facility. First Minnesota is proposing to remove the existing two bay drive-up facility and replace it with a four bay drive-up facility, generally in the same location as the existing facility. The new drive-up bays would be angled towards the building rather than the existing situation where the cars in ~ the bays are parallel to the building. Access to the drive-up facility would be from Nicollet Avenue and cars would then exit onto 65th Street. The curb cuts to the site would remain at their current locations, but the curb cut on Nicollet Avenue would be widened, and the existing curb cut onto 65th Street would be narrowed and angled to encourage traffic to make a right turn towards Nicollet Avenue rather than a left turn onto 65th Street through the adjacent residential neighborhood. Other changes on the site include the expansion of the north parking area towards the bank building to facilitate parking for .additional ears and to facilitate the traffic movement into the drive-up facility. The existing parking in the northeast corner of the site-would be eliminated to facilitate the traffic movement into the drive-up area. The total number of parking spaces provided on the site would be 38 spaces. This would be one less than the 39 spaces required by the existing off-street parking permit. The number of parking stalls provided on the site would, however, still exceed the number of spaces required by city guidelines. The proposal would result in the removal of seven trees along the north and south sides of the parking area north of the existing building. First Minnesota proposes to provide 8 additional trees in new islands north and east of the existing building. Q. Staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following: 1. The proposal. would reduce traffic congestion on adjacent streets by providing additional bays and stacking space for ears waiting to use the facility. 2. On site traffic circulation is also improved by providing separate parking circulation and drive-up circulation routes. 3. .The proposal would provide sufficient number of parking spaces on the site. 4. All general off-street parking dimensional requirements would be met. 5. Staff is concerned with the design of two parking spaces shown on the site plan because ears using them could cause overhang problems. One of the stalls would allow cars to overhang into the driving aisle used by cars going to the drive-up facility. Another parking s ace wo 1 p u d allow cars to overhan into an adjacent g J _ parking stall making it difficult to use. 6. A landscape plan has not been furnished. 7. A drainage plan has not been submitted. 8. Details of the design of the canopy over the drive-up facility has not been submitted for the review to determine compliance with the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Area Urban Design Guidelines. 9. There is a potential setback problem with the equipment in drive-up.lane ~4. If it is interpreted that the equipment is a structure or building, then it would have to have a ~0 foot setback from the north right-of-way line of 65th Street. The proposed equipment as shown would have a setback of only 31 feet. However, if the equipment is not considered a building or a structure then the X40 foot setback would not have to be adhered to. The drive-up facility could be shifted slightly to the north if necessary to provide the required 40 foot setback. It is staff's opinion that, while technically speaking,. the equipment probably violates the ordinance, it would be of the same character and have the same impact as a gasoline pump which is allowed in a front yard setback area. Therefore it could be allowed. 10. The plan does not show whether or not perimeter curbing will be provided.as required by the ordinance. The applicant has indicated that perimeter curbing will be provided. It is recommended that the city council-approve the revised off-street parking permit for First Minnesota Savings Bank and 64 'collet A ~+5 Ni venue South subject to the following stipulations: 1. That a drainage plan be submitted for approval by the city engineer. 2. That a landscape .plan showing the types and sizes of the .proposed planting materials be submitted for city-staff approval 3. That the most easterly parking stall in the center parking bay north of the existing building be _ eliminated to prevent cars from overhanging into the driving, aisle servicing the drive-up facility. 4. That either the parking bay immediately north of the building be shifted 3 feet to the west or the parking bay immediately to the east of the building be shifted 3 feet to the south to prevent cars from overhanging into the adjacent parking stall. 5. Lf the council determines that the equipment in the drive-up facility is subject to the 40 foot setback that the drive-up facility be shifted approximately 9 feet to the north to ensure that the equipment in bay number 4 has at least a ~0 foot setback from the north right-of- way line of 65th Street. (City staff recommends that the proposal as submitted be approved - see Item 9 under staff review). A resolution is attached for council consideration which would make the recommended approval. Respectfully submitted, hn G. Ca wr' t City Manager JGC/eja /5- RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING OFFSTREET PARKING PERMIT FOR FIRST MINNESOTA SAVINGS BANK 645 NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street parking as~contained is Off-Street Parking Permit Application No. 86-1 is hereby approved subject to the following stipulations: a) That a drainage plan be submitted for approval by the city engineer. b) That a landscape plan showing the types and sizes of proposed planting materials be submitted for city staff approval. c) That the most easterly parking stall in the center parking by north of the existing building be eliminated to prevent cars from overhanging into the driving aisle servicing the drive-up facility. d) Either the parking bay immediately north of the building be shifted 3 feet to the west or the parking bay immediately to the east of the building be shifted 3 feet to the south to prevent ears from overhanging into the adjacent parking stall. e) If the council determines that the equipment in the drive-up facility is subject to the 40 foot requirement, that the drive-up facility be shifted approximately 9 feet to the north to ensure the equipment in bay number 4 has at least a X40 foot setback from the north right-of- way line of 65th Street. f) That perimeter curbing be provided in all areas of the- . parking lot. 2. That the owner provide to the City of Richfield with surety in the form of cash, passbook saving withdrawal authority or performance bond in an amount equal to the estimated cost to construct the off-street parking improvements shown in the approved plan. 3. That responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of said off-street parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code x.05. /5 ,5 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1986. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 1 - ~ ~ f Min i . - v hHils~Ai'"~ • ~ G ~7VM ~IS~y~ ~ ~ 1 i •f ~ t' . V, 1, .V . 1i I ~ 1 ff ~'tL~1N ~ L_____~ ~I I, ~ V _ 3nOF1 ~pdQ rylb I \ . ~ L_- _ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ,r t , fir.: ~ pY'~F +r,5, ~ r \ \ ~ ~'!`•'Z D~r.IVLl. t,: ~Z z b rY i 1st x 3 t ~ •-i- _ - ~ ~ ~ ~ .o n ' sM~-7ntaC 1d awls dt ~~•-r,~---1--~ _ ~ ~••za S'hl-3htZJ4 ~ {fa. Y8J rWiy~ ~ Q.`~Z-w~avul 4101 :"3D?d: gfi ~ - . M7N \ ~ yloy ~'3~?d~ SS' hNr L~.IX3 ~ ~ ~ i , ~ , f - ~n 1 / / . C--~ _ r T ' ~ ~ ~ ' r 4 ~illk;D UFY"'~~~~ PAIU;SNG NU' .f 3'w N P ~ ~ vinfn and Wtm A.tuu~lutiou of X~ST~NG ;n E Ylrat }'edcral ANU pvllNG+=~~ Miv"`'rNicollet Avonue :',o,tttt of Nr ~ and Lotx, 3 041N~ bGtF~~ Wcst S'~ ~,d Ln~ .n Lot>3 5 , b , ~ wz, :rz1l; ,.rv i L1~1`i' UY5CIiIP`;I0;1: o4k5 Nic ',lut Avcnuo ;o4r'~,ellct cc. Lot and ilr:vr-"ln purkln8 13> 19 (k 8paR1Ea CUaN Fenca os sat Se4tE~Uer ~ tt~ Street.. N usa.: ~tiyNDt+~N'~: x aaJaceut t~ 5 Nedge y...._ ~ AppS.,1CAfIUN rUX o t t,ete Wnl of drivcrtr''Q~ tV a'lsU w`~eE-UP ~ llAP~ OY llelete o Ncot aidu . l~. ,n.: ;ti'-_ fence' FUtUaE ~ r c1TIYew~ pkl'r'.tavAtklr'T ~ lr) i 4 1. ,flt / Ppq~(tN~ gt+~t`~~ t1 ~ Profosed sidewolk d`eNew Myck wotl OCtot)er ly, t r ION 39 It k9..eYr~ r t y aancrete w°Ika .y,. CUUIICIL A~ t ~ ~ ~ New _ ew50 ta~ ~ KING SPACF~~ V5 cne Y \ \ ~ ~ - ~ R rr New tree- ~ ,~Cc.~ ~ 0 Ek.treee ~ U0, PA fence ~\II~~PA~!<tN~k ~ Ituminous _ 1 Wand ~ ,,,.,?.+.>°..~U'~eO'~~- ~ wplk ~ t _ New i 2Ui - 20..+~-ZU~~~. \EF.trees FI/51 ~ 1..04Ft W S. Savtn9s ` wntk lot::1`ta 1,~ --,EF,etml•`~~ ~c,c ~ e y 1~i,~,rt~„ , Ee Sur{ocr~` ~ ~ d~ ~~iqn _ , f 1 ~ ~ /i ~ rick wort j 111©nce-ntt ((canc. w°Ik f _ '~.paod once ~ d _ 1 grrc _ _ - ineus --e......-..... i ,i,. ' `i P•~ROPOSE:D PLA~'~ I;~ • ~ _7 S nt63~ i....... I ~ ~ uA j ~ ~ ~ EXI:.."'(INC~ S~ -=P/~CES ToTAt ~ ~ NEW 3$ ~P/ICES TUTAI N' s1417A ~ -L.~~~.~ i,~~ 0- ~e ' ,~'TI~ c ~ ~ D n I V E • ! V .S _ I ~ I Ni w 4 r C . ~i ~ _ ~~SPAcaY i~ I. ~ ST.~cK AT O0.rvc.-wS ~ f ~ • ~ .~-L--..1 L t•--tt • ~ I ExISTINq Z • 2 ~ 1 1 ~ I i i 1 t t-+cw /2 P • 1. yr r' ' i~ (-J ~ ? 1 E ~ ~ ~X15TINC,t ~ U , ` ~F~y:,/ raj c,~r+~aY ~,aovE • ~ \ r ' 11 ~ ..t j ~ I I . I' ______1~.~_____ EMI ~'f IN~-1 } i. ' Nr[W . c.~ rr:~. ~y ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City.Manager Council Letter No. 56 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable .Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield- Subject: Authorization to Apply for A Grant to Fund a New Position to be Known as Outreach Worker to Serve the Elderly Council Members: The City of Richfield is currently involved in researching the needs of its older population. As a result of this process, information and referral .assistance to senior citizens has been identified as having one of the highest "priority needs" from the following sources: (1) Department of Community Services "Needs Assessment of Older Citizens Survey" focal group; (2) the Humphrey Institute report for Richfield entitled "A Local Strategy on Aging: Richfield's Opportunities"; (3) the Metropolitan Council "Reshaping the Long Term Care Report; and, (4) the South Hennepin Human Services Council community survey. Justification for the Outreach Worker Position The Human Services Commission, the task force composed of city council, HRA, Planning Commission and Human Services Commission members (A Local Strategy on Aging Task Force) and city staff have identified an important need facing our elderly. Our senior citizens need an informed person who they can seek assistance from on: (a) housing options (rental; cooperatives; shared housing; condominiums; etc); (b) health care providers; (c) transportation; (d) Medicare/Medicaid; (e) home improvement programs; (f) home maintenance help. The Outreach Worker would be assigned to the Community Center. The Outreach Worker would be the person who helps put the senior citizen in contact with the appropriate oraniza- tion(s). A-job description is included with this letter. The Metropolitan Council on Aging administers federal grant funds under the Older Americans Act (Title III - B funds). Below is a list of the service categories for which Title II - B funds are available for 1986. The amounts available are estimates. Service Catagories Transportation Coordination 24.7 $299,805 Homemaker ~.5 54,621 Home Health Aide/Personal Care 0.6 7,283 Chore/Housekeeping Coordination 26.5 324,081 I Le al Parale al g / g 10.2 123,806 Adult Day Care 7.5 91,034 Nursing Home Ombudsman 4.5 54,621 Multipurpose Senior Center Facilities 6.6 80,109 I, Multipurpose Senior Ctr. Administration 11.7 142,013* Special Access Services 3.0 36,413 'i 'This is service category for Richfield application. The Metropolitan Council on Aging says that when an Outreach Worker position is provided with senior center administration, Outreach will be given a high priority for Title III funding. The deadline for filing an application is February 3, 1986. I Financing the Outreach Worker Position ~I The three year, grant funding is on a sliding scale with the city required to provide matching funds of 15% the first year, 25~ the second year, and 50% the third year. In-kind services by the city would cover year one and year two funding responsibilities. Year three could be a possible exception with $3,000 to .$5,00.0 being required from the operating budget. This program can be reviewed each year for continuation after the initial three years. At the end of three years, if the city wishes to continue this position, it would have to be totally. funded at city expense. Projected budget for the grant would be: $14,838 Salary 4,566 Benefits $18,404 $ 600 Travel $ 400 Printing and Supplies $ 125 Phone installation $ 1,500 Brochure Materials $21,0.29 0 /~J-~2/) VVV// Conclusion and Recommendation Richfield has a growing elderly population. Person 65 and older will increase 61~ between 1980 and 1990. The studies and surveys rank the need for an Outreach Worker to assist the .elderly as a top. priority for Richfield. One note of caution is necessary. In a federally assisted program such as this, it is easy to initiate the new service because Uncle Sam picks up 85~ of the costs in the first year and 75~ in the second year. The city can provide its match in the early. years with in-kind services (office space, furniture, supplies, etc). After the second full year, assuming the need is supportable, the city will begin to use tax dollars to help fund the position. In the fourth year, the .city will be responsible for 100 of the activity cost. If the service proves to be popular and needed, it will be difficult to not continue the program after the first several years. The writer believes it is fair to say that once we add this service of an Outreach Worker, the position is probably here to stay. Approval of the position now in 1986 probably means we are making a long term budget committment. City Administration recommends that the city council authorize city staff to submit the grant application for the Outreach Worker position with the understanding that the position can be terminated, but that more likely, it will be a long term committment to provide outreach services to our senior population. Respectful bmitted, ~ ,r.~ f , T~hn C~, Cart t i M na er C ty a g JGC/eja i /y ~ FIGURE 2.2 ~ ~ ~ ana i~" MALE ~ FF24ALE 85+ 84 ~ ~ 224 308 80-84 191 ~ '366 557 ~G~ 75-79 191. ~ ~ 366 557 ! ill 70-74 548 ~ ~ 725 ~ 1, 273 ~ 6ys 65-69 548 ~ 725 1, 273 3~i6 ~ 60-64 _ 1,031 1, 238 2, 269 foZ 3 7 55-59 ~ 1, 304 ' 1, 542 ~ 2,846 ya~3 50-54 ~ 961 ~ 1,132 2,093 45-49 ~ 961 ~ 1,132 ~ ~ 2,093 40-44 ~ 953 1,083 ~ 2,036 ~z . 35-39 ~ 953 1,083 2,036 30-34 1,376 1,515 - 2,891 25-29 1,737 1,915 3,652 ii i 20-24 1 2,021 2,253 i 4,274 15-19 ~ 1,632 ~ 1,691 3,323 i 10-14 1,326 1,197 ~ 2,523 5-9 970 986 1 1,956 0-4 935 X79 1,914 37,851 RICFg'IELD rvrJiATION 1980 . -b- FIGURE 6.1 MAID : ' 226 FFSIALE 309 85+ 83 80-84 286 ~ ~ 492 778 /O~ 7 75-79 ~ 366 ? ' 579 91+5 Zo 3 z 70-74 801 1, 073 ~ 1, 874 ,3rj0l~ 65-69 ; 1,110 ~ 1,400 ~ 2,510 ~~1 60_~ 866 ~ 1, 057 ? 1, 923 ~ 3 3 q 55-59 j 899: 1,078 ~ 1,977 i03 /b 50-54 ~ 912 1,045 ' 1,957 45-49 ~ 925 1,058 ~ 1,983 40_41x. 1,348 ~ 1,493 i 2,841 35-39 ~ 1,707 ~ 1,890 3,597 30-34 2,032 2,280 4,312 25-29 ~ 1,443 ~ 1,507 2,950 20-24 1,120 1,016 ~ 2,136 15-19 ~ 822 838 ~ 1,660 r i 10-14 ~ _790 ~ 829 1,619 5-9 1,158 1,111 2,269 - - 0-4 ~ 1,191 1,141 ~ 2,332 37,972 RICHFIELD POPULATION PRO. r~rrr~ 1990 -34- . r r -a I ~'~f/ JOB DESCRIPTION Information & Referral/Outreach Position Salary Starting Salary: $13,838.50 plus city benefits Salary Range; $13,838.50 minimum to $17, 908.28 maximum Nature of Work: Nature of Work Under general supervision of Center Manager, provides comprehensive outreach to individuals who are 55 years and older and performs other duties as assigned. Examples. of Work: 1. Develop and coordinate a community based information and referral system utilizing the Center based computer system to allow individuals to access existing city, county, state and. private service providers. 2. Coordinate with city and county staff to utilize systems effectively and avoid duplication of services. - Work with police officers and paramedics to establish a referral system in order to identify residents needing. assistance. - Coordinate and disseminate housing information inclu- sive of nursing homes, day care providers, subsidized rental units, moderately priced rental units, condo- miniums/cooperatives, and life care centers. - Coordinate information on health care providers and make available upon request. II - Coordinate and provide current information on trans- portation services available to Richfield residents. - Provide information on how to receive assistance regard- ing Medicare/Medicaid forms, taxes and legal services. - Have current listings of available home improvement i loans, fuel assistance programs, and home chore services. 3. Meet with individuals and/or their families to identify II'~ needs and appropriate services from both the public and private sectors. 4. Be knowledgeable of eligibility requirements in order to I. appropriately refer residents. 5. Assist individuals who are utilizing city and county sys- tem for the first time.. • fi. Provide limited coordination'of se v"c s 'n " r i e to insure i di- vdual is 'receiving the correct assistance. 7. Identify gaps in accessing the service system and where coordination of-services./agencie could be enhanced. i a. /y 7 8. Conduct follow up interviews of clients and provide information back to appropriate city or county staff. 9. Compile statistics on types and frequency of services requested, services provided, services not available, and make monthly report. Desirable Knowledge, Skills and Abilities - Knowledge of needs of senior citizens. - Knowledge of the existing human service system. - Ability to communicate and work with the older population. - Ability~to learn to use a computer. - Ability to organize an informational system. - Ability to work independently and as part of a team. - Ability to direct the work of others.,. - Ability to do basic arithmetic. calculations. - Ability to perform basic data entry functions on a computer terminal. - A bachelor's degree or equivalent experience in social -work, the field of aging, information and referral or a closely related field. r s CITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 55 Agenda January 27, 1986 I The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City .Council City of Richfield .Subject.: A Joint Proposal of .Richfield/Eden Prairie/ Bloomington to Seek a Grant to Provide Transportation-for Elderly and Disabled Residents. Council Members: The Richfield Community Center received a letter from West Metro Coordinated-Transportation indicating that Minnegasco is giving them a grant with which they intend to buy six lift- equipped wheelchair accessible vans. The intend to lease the vans for three years at no charge to coalitions of suburban communities, to provide transportation across city boundary lines for elderly and handicapped persons. They will also provide fuel and maintenance costs up to an amount of $1,583 per van per year.. The trips would be for medical appointments, .shopping, visiting relatives,-etc.. Our staff attended the information meeting and made contact with staff persons in our neighboring communities. Eden Prairie and Bloomington expressed an interest in exploring the matter. I There are two possible organizations to subcontract with to operate the bus. First, there is a private, not for profit transportation service, Suburban Paratransit, which currently operates in our area (a program of the MTC). A second possibility is Metro Mobility. A limitation of the Metro Mobility program is that they won't allow a program unit to roll unless they have a full load. If they have one .cancellation on a subscribed trip, the trip is cancelled, leaving the expectant elderly or handicapped persons without transportation. This is an important reason why Metro Mobility is not recommended to be the subcontractor. The three cities' staff proposal. is to apply for one van. We havebeen advised that only one bus can be obtained. for the three cities. The already existing joint powers agency, South Henne in Human Services £ounci A 1 {SHHSC) seems an a ro riate ~ PP p a. entity to receive the grant and enter into a contract with Suburban Paratransit to operate the service. Suburban Paratransit has expressed a desire to do so and has even prepared a detailed proposal. In summary, they .propose to provide administration, insurance, drivers' salaries and other costs of operation for the amount of $25,000 per year. The projected budget will be $.25,.000 with sources of funding to support the program .being: - $15,000 ($5,000 each) three cities: Richfield, Bloomington, Eden Prairie - $2,500 Ridership donations. - .$7,.500 SHHSC seeks .grant This grant can be reviewed after each year for continuation. At the end of three years, the on-going support for this. program would end and would have to be funded out of city expense if continued. The grant, if awarded, will mean that Richfield's share ($5000) will be allocated for in the revised 1986 General Fund budget. There are many unanswered questions that need to be worked out. This item is brought to the City Council at this time to seek approval of .the concept and the city's $5,000 funding obligation. If this plan is also approved by the other two cities,. it will be submitted to West Metro Coordinated Transportation. Applications must be submitted by the first .week of February, 1986. Respectf y submitted, ibt:J ~ w ohn G. Cartwr ht City Manager JGC/eja . ~rr~.~rrr+~.~=--~ 1 VOLIJN~EE~S E~VLISTE~ T~ ASSIST PEOPLE Ecumenical Ministry Serving Richfield, Bloomington 8 Edina "Because We Care " 3anuary 8, 1986 - Review Committee West Metro Coordinated Transportation 3614 Bryant Avenue S. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409. Dear Committee: - A proposal has. been made to form a coalition of transportation pro- eiders in South Hennepin County. This coalition has submitted to your Committee a grant for two vans that would serve the communities of South Henepin County, which are Bloomington, Eden Prarie; Edina, and Richfield. If these two vans were granted, it would relieve some of the burden from our program. Because the population we serve is aging, we are seeing an increased number of transportation requests. Added to this, we have exper- ienced a decrease in the. number of available volunteers to provide this service. If vans were to be awarded to this coalition, we feel. they could handle many of the transportation .requests. that we must now turn down-because of lack of drivers. Our service is provided to elderly, disabled, and low income people in need of transportation, who can- not financially provide for their own, physically unable to use public transit, and have no family available to help. Most of the requests are for medical appointments and, secondly, for personal ¢ business and shopping. If vans were able to provide door-to-door service in the area we € serve for some of these needs, we feel we could then turn our 3 attention to individuals who specifically need one-to-one service such as the very ill or physically and mentally disabled. We look forward to additional service in South Hennepin County .and the end ~ of our continual frustration because•of needs not met. i Sincerely, n ,fin/ 1-i`~i~''~ Susan Freeman Executive Director, VEAP SF/rmp 7000 Nicoilet Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423 861-7478 ~cJ-~ January 8, 1986 .West Metro Coordinated Transportation Program: PROP (People Reaching Out to Other People) is a volunteer human services agency working in the South Hennepin area. Transportation has been identified as a high priority need by PROP. At the present time, there is minimal public transportation into and out of Minneapolis. There is no public transportation within Eden Prairie. Public transportation for wheelchair bound residents is not available. PROP provides a limited transportation program for Eden Prairie residents, using volunteers. driving their own vehicles. Arranging rides into _ Minneapolis and the surrounding suburbs is especially difficult and sometimes impossible. The van proposal that Bloomington, Eden Prairie and Richfield is presenting to your agency could remedy some of these difficult requests. van ro ect a lication that As the Director of PROP, I support the concept of the p j pp is being submitted to your organization by these cities. I believe this proposal would be a welcome response to many people and their transportation needs. Sinc rely, / ~i~ Gerry Beckmann, PROP Director { :-1~ ~ ~J .-L V:_. ?7rq}~. * January 8, 1986 N West Metro Coordinated Transportation M I'~ d' Van Project Committee ~ ~ 3614 Bryant Avenue S. Ltd Minneapolis, MN 55409 ~ Dear Sir, ¦ ~ N The City of Richfield is currently involved in ~ identifying the needs of its older population and establishing what types of services the city _ will provide for its residents. The lack of _ transportation services for the elderly is an issue which has been brought before the city by the South Hennepin Human Services Council, the West Metro Coordination Transportation Agency- • and the Richfield Human Services Commission, ~ serving Seniors and Disabled. ~ In addressing the need of transportation, this ~ joint proposal was developed through a coopera- ~ tive effort of three cities. It needs to be recog- ~ nized, however, that this proposal is still in the , ~ reviewal stage with the City of Richfield and that official application for the grant will be made on O ~ January 18th, pending approval by city officials. ~ Yours truly, , i c~ i ~ ill'an Hi L ~ pp ~ Community Center Manager. O LH vs I telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer a~" - `'fiCES / a9~0 EDEN PRAIRIE ;TOAD i fOEN °RAIRIE. MN 55344-2499 i TELEPHONE ;6i 2) 937.2262 ~ ' ~ ~I G: c, is o S January 8, 1986 Chairperson West Metro Coordinated Transportation 3614 Bryant Ave. South Minneapolis, Minnesota .55409 Dear Chairperson: As the Human services Coordinator for the City of Eden Prairie, I am writing this letter in regards to the Minnegasco vans available through West Metro Coordinated Transportation Program. Adequate public accessible handicapped transportation is a serious problem faced by older and disabled residents, or perspective residents of Eden Prairie. Presently, the City of Eden Prairie has no public-accessible handicapped transportation and very limited MTC public transportation. Recognizing these needs, the proposed program aimed at improving special transportation services for the elderly and transit dependent to destinations within the three participating communities and downtown would benefit Eden Prairie greatly. By combining services and utilizing two vehicles to their maximum use, we could begin. to provide reliable, cost effective, accessible transportation with varying routes and destinations to Eden Prairie residents. While we support this program concept, final decision on the proposal will be contingent on approval through proper City administrative commissions and City Council.. Eden Prairie appreciates Minnegasco's generous donation of six vans and West Metro's willingness to coordinate the project. We look forward to optimal use of these vans. Sincerely, Jan Calhoon Human Services Coordinator JC:md r j I CJty Of bloommgton, minnesota fUtvnicipal Building • 2215 West Old Shakopee Road • Bloomington, Minnesota 55431-9971 • (612) 881-5811 i Januarry 8, 1986 Ms. Beverly Miller, Director West Metro Coordinated Transportation 3614 Bryant Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409 -Dear Ms. Miller: SUBJECT: Van Project Application Submitted herewith is a West Metro Coordinated Van Project application, prepared by staff from the cities of Bloomington, Richfield and Eden Prairie. Our submission is contingent upon the approval of our respective City Councils and their appropriation of the necessary funds for our operating budgets. We already have a Joint Powers agency, the South Hennepin Human Services I Council, which is qualified to be recipient of the vans. We are in the process of finalizing negotiations with Suburban Paratransit, Inc.,, to be the operator. That agency, as you know, fully complies with the requirements of Title III B grants, as well as the State Operating Standards. i We hope that you will give our application every consideration as we tarry our proposal forward to our respective City Councils. If there are any questions about the application, Ms. Kerry Stone, 887-9604, is our staff coordinator for this project. Sincerely, DEPARTP4ENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES 'l~~, ' James D. Truax Director Enclosure AN. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Telecommunications Device'for the Deaf: (612) 887-9677 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~p~ " / Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 5~ Agenda.January 27, 1986. The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Gity of Richfield Subject: Aviation Chapter Public Hearing January 21, 1986, Metropolitan Council - Metropolitan Development Guide Council Members: Request Council approval to submit this position statement to Metropolitan Council - Dear Ghair Gardebring and Members of the Metropolitan Council: You have encouraged-review and written comments to the Metropolitan Council until February 5, 1986, on the proposed new Aviation Chapter to the Metropolitan Development Guide. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Richfield residents and officials have long enjoyed a special relationship with MAC. The airport is an important source.of employment for many of our residents. The municipal golf course, Rich Acres, is on land leased from MAC. A close and cooperative relationship has been appreciated. We look forward to continuing this fine association with MAC even when we may strongly disagree about expansion plans for the MSP Airport. We have the following concerns: 1. The Airport Aviation .Chapter should not be adopted until it can be revised based upon the 1986187, updated master plan for MSP International Airport. The objective of the master plan is to reassess the operational capability of the airport in light of deregulation, especially as it relates to environ- mentalconstraints such as noise. Your summary (p. vii} states "The results of the .master plan update may require changes to the Aviation Chapter". You r.. summary adds "The Chapter. saysa new major airport will not be needed, although this decision may have to be reconsidered after the MAC completes its master plan for MSP International in late 1986". ° Deregulation of the airline industry and the change in operations by Northwest and Republic to a "hub and spoke" service have strained the capacity of MSP International such as: • Physical Facilities - gate capacity/auto parking • Operations - air traffic control/runway capacities • Surrounding Environment - particularly aircraft noise The MSP International should not be .expanded unless acceptable solutions can be implemented to satisfy environmental issues such as noise. It is important i that capacity problems not be ignored. These problems (noise) as your report says .are "early warnings" of capacity limitations at MSP International. The master plan for MSP International should be completed first and the capacity of the airport determined taking into account the environmental noise issues before adopting the proposed Aviation Chapter. 2. On page 3, an erroneous statement is made; namely: "As a result, operational and technological improve- ments, such as a preferential runway system and acoustic insulation, as well as local land use planning efforts have been initiated to help reduce aircraft noise impactsrr. Yes, the preferential runway system was initiated to help reduce noise. The preferential runway system has had to be abandoned in the last two years except for a few hours each day. The noise problem at MSP International has reached a crisis. We would like to trace very briefly the nature of the problem and present why Richfield and other MASAC communities believe that a solution to the noise problem is urgently needed. During 1979 there were 284,764 total aircraft operations at MSP. That was just after the 1978 Deregulation Act was signed into law. Now, in 1986, we are paying the noise price of the 1978 legislation. In 1984 there were 337,838 operations at MSP, an increase of 19~ over 1979 oper- ations. MASAC's estimate is that operations in 1985 will top 370,000, an increase of 30% over 1979. In the peak months of 1979, there were. 700 average daily operations at MSP; now, there are 1,100, an increase of 58%. MAC's preferential runway system is used Less and less as the increasing traffic forces use of the two parallel runways, which aim at dense population concentrations in Richfield and Minneapolis. The constant parade of DC9's anal 727's has made life unbearable. Darrel Weslander of MAG has told Richfield officials that in the last three weeks of June and the first two weeks of July, the airport had to rely to a great extent on the parallel runways because of increased traffic. He pointed out that in 198~t in a typical three week period, parallel runways were used about. 100 hours in the month. In 1985. it jumped to 180 hours. 3• On pages 32 and 33, the Aviation Chapter recommends Alternatives 3 or 3a to best achieve the goals and objectives of the system plan (i.e. construction of a . new general aviation airport). This recommendation rests on the basis that more general aviation will be diverted to the reliever airports in order to have more commercial and cargo operations at MSP International. This recommendation may compound. the efforts to improve environmental concerns. It is obvious that when MSP International expands its facilities by adding to a concourse or adding additional parking for vehicles, it encourages more aircraft operations. With more aircraft operations the airport must go to the parallel runway system which then generates more noise to the residents who live in the direct flight path of the parallel runway system. Recently, it appears that the preferential runway system program at the airport has broken down due to the high number of operations on a daily basis and the need to use the parallel runways more and more regard- I, less of wind conditions. This recommendation for alternative 3 or 3a should be put on hold with the understanding that the entire analysis of all five alternative plans (1, 2, 2a, 3 and 3a) will be reconsidered immediately upon completion of the MSP International master plan update inlate 1986 or early 1987• 4. Data used for, the Aviation Chapter is 1983 data. A comparison of 1983 and 1985 data for the MSP International demonstrates why the Aviation Chapter conclusions and recommendations are outdated because of the tremendous growth in operations since 1983• The Aviation Chapter supports utilizing the ,MSP International. to its fullest capacity while assuming environmental concerns will be addressed satisfact- orilY (A• 33). ~ MASAC, as well as many other study commissions and committees, is working on proposals to improve noise problems. MAC and MASAC are currently working with a consultant to select the most cost effective solutions. Some solutions may restrict the number of operations. On page 25, the Aviation Chapter says the demand at MSP International in 1983 totaled 307,800 aircraft operations. In 1979, according to MASAC, the total number of operations was 28,764 at MPS International. For 1985, MASAC reports total aircraft is expected to top 370,000, a 30~ increase over 1979. At this rate of increase, the estimated capacity at the airport of 445,000 to 500,000 will be reached or exceeded by 1991. The bigger issue is whether the airport should continue to expand its facilities to take more aircraft or whether the airport should stop its expansion. Airport growth is necessary, one can argue, to grow with the needs of the economy and the need to meet business needs in the Twin Cities and for the State of Minnesota. Consideration should be given to the environmental capacity concept. This is a relatively new concept and it means an effort could be made to determine how many aircraft operations an airport is capable of handling in a 24-hour day. The idea would be to establish an environmental capacity and then the number of operations could not exceed that amount. MAC's noise complaint logs reflect dramatically the community reaction to the noise assault. In July of 1979, 140 complaints were recorded. In July of 1985, 1,252 people called the airport to complain, an increase of 890. 5. The land use compatability guidelines as contained in the proposed revision to the Aviation Chapter Metro- politan Guide remains essentially the same. We do not see any major changes to those guidelines. Our comments concerning the adoption of this revised Aviation Chapter are mainly that we-would concur with the people that spoke at the informational public meeting in Richfield that the adoption of these chapter amendments is premature. It seems that there are a lot of suggestions being made on regulating noise generated by the planes using the airport. We should let final decisions be made concerning those suggestions so that they can be incorporated. into the Aviation Chapter. It also seems that one of the goals that. Richfield tried to do when ~5 the guidelines were passed originally was to come up with a single set of guidelines which all governmental agencies bought into so-that local communities. such as Richfield knew what to enforce. In light of the fact that the Metropolitan Airports Commission is participating in a part one-fifty study which will hopefully result in financial assistance to adjacent communities in doing noise compatability planning on the local level, and the fact that FHA uses a. different noise metric in determining noise zones, we should also allow the completion of the part-one fifty study again for consistency and regulations so that local communities know what to enforce. Once these decisions are made again, these findings should be incorporated into the Aviation Chapter. This is especially important because the proposed revision on page 52 sets forth some time periods for local communities to act. It seems to Richfield officials that we will be required to move forward based on the guidelines currently found in the Aviation Chapter. Conceivably, these could be changed by the results ' of the part one-fifty. study. We would then have to go back and repeat the process or not receive the financial assistance which we need to do the planning at the local level. 6. In conclusion, we believe the proposed Aviation Chapter should be delayed until the following actions are taken: (a) MSP International master plan update is completed; (b) The MASAC and MAC noise study is completed; (e) The. MAC One-Fifty Study is completed for MSP International; and, (d) Metropolitan Council completes its study of items 8(a), 8(b) and 8(e). Until the above action steps are completed, no further expansion of physical facilities at MSP International Airport should be undertaken that would permit an increase to the number of annual operations that occurred in 1985. Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns in the process of developing a metropolitan guide to airports for the Twin Cities. We trust that. the Aviation Guide when finally adopted will be based upon the data obtained from studies now underway (See No. 6 above). We also wish to express our appreciation to you for conducting one of the two informational meetings in Richfield.. Sincerely yours, John Hamilton, Mayor John G. Cartwright City of Richfield City Manager Respectfully submitted, ohn G. Ca twr' ht City Manager JGC/eja NOTE: A copy of the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide was sent to each member of the city council with my memo dated 12/30/85. If you need another copy, please. call Eileen Anderson or myself. f. - _ _ _ - _ - - - - - ~ - ~ ~ Minneapolis Star and Tribune Tue., Dec. 31. 1985 . ~ 1 B New it a .port plan . - S .seeks 425 million t_ ¦ - 3` _in em rwements p Anew plan for the growth of the was to open $ west terminal; ' said metropolitan airport system calls for Chauncey Case, a council transporta- an investment of about 5425 million ~ lion planner. in airport improvements between ~ = now and 2003, most of which would But, Case said. the recommendation be spent on a second passenger ter- for expansion is not intended to ig- urinal at Minneapolis-St. Paul Inter- pore that in the short term, the prob• 0ationai Airport, ~ lem of airport noise must be ad- dressed. ?he plan, drawn up by the Metropol- ~ itaa Council, will be explained at two It's possible that efforts to curb noise public meetings next week: at 7 p.tn. will result in limits on the airport's Tuesday at the Richfield Community growth, which could alter the plan Education Center, E. 70th St. and for a second terminal, Case said. Elliot Av. S., and ? p.m. Thursday at - the Hennepin-Brookdale Library, Noise and land use problems gill 6125 Shingle Creek Pkwy., Brooklyn have to be' solved not only at the Center. main airport but also at the si: re- - Bever fields to make the most effi- Following those meetings, the coup- ~ dent use of the system, Case said. ~Ci2, will hold a hearing on the plan . Jab. -21 to receive .comments from If the smaller • airports cannot be ` the public. used to capacity, a seventh reliever airport may have to be built in west- A .,;,,,~..d` passenger terminal at the central Hennepin County, Case said. airport ~ .now appears essential to - meet fuiaue passenger demand, the Of the 5425 million needed for im- Plansays. provements, the federal government ' would be expected to prov[de 5300 Accordmg'to . pulation and employ- million, the state 550 million and 575 meat foiecast~ the number of peo- million would come from airport ,ple traveling 6y, air will grow from revenues, according to the plan. about-11 million now to 19 million in 19li3 and roughly39 million by 2003. Such an investment io the airport 3 - ' assumes that a replacement airport That_~'will mean sII, increase in the will not be bullt, Case said. "We number of takeoffs and landings at think we still have a lot of capacity the ai,.r...., from 1701000 a year in left in the existing airport if we do 1983 to about 271,000 lii 2003, some planning." "We looked at fhe existing system i :and said you Could develop that air- . o S to p rt to haadle_ _ t more passengers and aircraft, and, one of the ways of meeting addition8l future demand ~W R~ r ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 53 .Agenda .January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor _ and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject.: City Street and Sidewalk Snow Equipment Requirements Council Members: At the January 13, 1986, city council meeting, Councilman Ludeman asked that the subject of city street and sidewalk snow removal be placed on the January 27 agenda. ~ i It is the writer's understanding that the key issue is I~ whether the city should purchase additional equipment to provide improved street and sidewalk snow plowing for the very heavy snow falls of 10 to 15 inches or more. Sidewalks After the deep snow fall over the Thanksgiving weekend, it has taken between four and eight days to initially clear the public sidewalks adjacent to the curb. The problems in plowing or blowing snow off sidewalks next to the curb are: 1. The street plows have to throw the snow from the street onto the deep snow that has fallen on the sidewalks. This has proven at times to be too big for our sidewalk snow blowers to handle.. The city has gone to using the eight foot wide street snow blower on walks but this is difficult on a five foot wide sidewalk to say the least. 2. Property owners and occupants, mostly in commercial areas, clear their driveways and parking areas by placing the snow on the public sidewalk. This sometimes creates a pile of snow from four feet to six feet high or higher. Thus takes a front end loader with a bucket to clear. _ - _ ~ Q. ~ . We-have discovered that we do not have an adequate ordinance to deal with persons who place snow on the public sidewalks. The City Attorney's office has been asked to prepare such an ordinance. With the Market Plaza commercial mall and the two housing components being built in .1986, it is anticipated that the demand for more timely and better removal of snow from our public sidewalks will be made in the winter of 1986-87 unless something more is done. One solution is additional backup equipment to eliminate or reduce delays due to equipment breakdown. Another solution is to add more powerful and expensive equipment. Streets The Director of Community Services is trying out an underbody blade on one of our snow plowing trucks to see if this equipment will improve the clearing of loose snow from the _ streets after the street has been initially plowed. Other cities use this approach. The initial plowing of a street leaves some snow on the avement. When the tru k p c oes throu h an intersection a g g , "row" of snow is left in the intersection. The experiment with an underbody blade harnessed to our snow plow trucks might be a solution to improving snow cleanup on our streets. This matter will be gone into in greater detail at the city council meeting. The remainder of this council letter describes the city's equipment now in use and the equipment capabilities. 1. Sidewalk Plowing or Blowing A. At the resent time three tractors e ui ed with lows P ~ q PP P and blowers are used to clear snow off the city sidewalks. One tractor uses a power take-off blower and the other two use separate diesel engines to power the blowers. These three pieces of equipment are the extent of .our sidewalk snow- plowing capabilities, so if a breakdown of either a tractor or attachment occurs, the level of service becomes greatly reduced. B. The city also recently purchased a new hydraulic blower to be used on the sidewalks. C. Any expansion of service would require the purchase of more sidewalk tractors and blowers and, ultimately, an increase in manpower. 2. Street Plowing A. Currently the city is divided into eight snowplowing districts. These districts are plowed with the use of three road graders., two front-end loaders, three truck plows, and a truck used as a back-up. B. The. city also recently purchased an undercarriage plow for use on one of our trucks as a trial clean-up plow. I C. Any expansion of service would require the purchase of ~ additional equipment such as new wings for the loaders and undercarriage plows. ~ City-staff.. will be present at the January 27, 1986 city council meeting to answer any further questions which might arise relating. to snowplowing operations in the city. 'i pectf~ ubmitted, J. ohn G. Cart righ City Manager ~ JGC/eja • ~ January 13, 1986 M N Mr. Clayton LeFevere 'I Attorney at Law ® ~ 2000 First Bank Place West ~ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. •i•+ ~ ~ ~ Dear Clayt: I' The Community Services Department has been experiencin g ~ severe problems this winter season with property owners ~ plowing snow onto sidewalk areas. It is my understand- . ing that this problem is particularly critical at I, commercial establishments where snow from parking lots is plowed onto sidewalk areas. ¦ ~ ~ ~ In discussing this matter with Mr. Cartwright and Mr. ~ Fondrick we believe that it would be advisable to _ ~I = develop .an ordinance to deal wiah the problem. We can use the provisions of Minnesota State Statute 169.42 (Subd.l), but I believe that enforcement would require ~ officers to observe a violation. If an ordinance code ~ could be developed, similar to environmental health code provisions, which holds a property owner responsible for O violations we would have an easier basis for enforcement. ~ Thanks for your help with this issue. L 0 Sincerely, ¦e Q ~ Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. ~ Director of Public Safety TAM/lje cc: Mr. John Cartwright Mr. Don Fondrick Captain Richardson telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer `y 4 3anuary 13, 1986 M N Mr. Donald L Hib ' ~ bits _ ~ Ltd 7401 Chicago Avenue South - 1,O Richfield, MIS 55423 Dear Mr. Hibbits: f+ ¦i• ~ We are in receipt of your December 10, 1985 letter to Mayor Hamilton wherein you express concern about-the .condition of ~ sidewalks in Richfield:. 1) the time it takes to remove snow, 2) - _ the snow remaining after the equipment .has plowed and 3) ~ homeowners and .plow operators putting snow back on the sidewalks. When it snows, the first priority is given to streets and ¦ alleys. Then we move onto the sidewalks. If there is a large ~ volume of snow .containing alarge degree of moisture, it will take longer to get to and complete the snow removal from L ~ sidewalks. We_have-been known to work around the clock to remove ~ snow from sidewalks although we more typically work double ~ shifts. We are still in a "clean-up" process of snow removal ~ from the Thanksgiving week-end snowfall(s) this season. The majority of sidewalks in the city are directly adjacent to O ~ the curb and street. As you have noted this leaves little or no = boulevard space for. snow storage. Again, if we have a large ~ volume of wet snow, it is very difficult to remove. The city does have a variety of equipment used for sidewalk snow removal. +r Which piece of equipment used depends greatly on the L' circumstance; i.e. volume and moisture as well as temperatures 0 which may have frozen the snow plowed from the street onto the Q sidewalk. -Our sidewalks-are basically five feet wide, often with ~ - O signage, light standards, retaining walls and lack of boulevard O adding to the problem of snow removal. Our equipment and the ~ problems noted do not permit removal of snow to a "clean" ~ surface. In some instances, the adjacent property owner will clean the sidewalk down to the surface once the city equipment has removed. the majority of the snow. telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer Mr. Donald L. Hibbits I January 9, 1986 / (f Page 2 The majority of "abuse" related to snow pushed or blown back into to the street or onto the sidewalks is found in commercial districts. The Community Services Department is working with the Public Safety Department for greater enforcement of existing ordinances or new ordinances related to this problem. We have, in .the past, sent letters to each. property owner abutting a sidewalk requesting assistance by not moving additional snow into the streets and onto the sidewalks and by providing as much sidewalk "clean-up" as possible. The majority of responses have been that the property owner feels he is already doing everything he can to be of assistance, especially as the sidewalks are of benefit to more than just the adjacent property owner. You have suggested that to solve the problem, Richfield should consider an ordinance, similar to what Minneapolis has, giving the responsibility of cleaning the sidewalk to the property owner and giving a short and specific period of time for compliance. As we have mentioned, some property owners already. do clean-up of sidewalks. Previous efforts of encouragement have not been successful. Much of the reason behind having the city do the work is that it is a very difficult job even with heavy-duty equipment designed primarily for the task. Major responsibility for snow removal from sidewalks would be an almost impossible task for the typical resident. Another reason. the city _ performs the task is that to require the adjacent property owner to do snow removal would mean that a limited number of residents would be responsible for a facility (sidewalks). that benefit. more than the particular owner. We can understand and sympathize with your concerns. We are currently looking at equipment that may improve the operation. We continue to look at operation methods that may bring improvement. However, there does not appear to be an easy. or simple solution to the problems you outlined. We do thank you for your .suggestions and hope we have been able to shed some additional light on the problems and provide ,information on our system and process for sidewalk snow removal. Sincerely, L. on irectoY~ Donald A. F ~ D Community Services Department cc: John Harmlton, Mayor John Cartwright, City Manager .December 10, 1985 Mr. John Hamilton, Mayor City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 Dean Mr. Hamilton: I"am writing this letter in regard to the condition of the sidewalks in Richfield. I use about two miles of sidewalk on -76th street. and Cedar Ave every day. Every winter. the same problems are encountered. * After alargesnowfall., it taken several days~to several weeks to get the snow. removed from the sidewalks. Last year it was two weeks after one snow before.. the sidewalk on 76th street was cleared (I use the term "cleared" loosely). * Even after. the plow or blower does try to clean the .sidewalk, so much snow is left that one could hardly call the sidewalk usable. This is particularity true where .the sidewalk joins the street without a boulevard between them. * Some homeowners and some plow operators blow and push snow back on the-just plowed walks. Other homeowners blow snow into the just plowed street also (There should be an .ordinance and .fine for doing that). The end result, especially on sidewalks that butt right up to the street, is that for most. of the winter there might as well not be a walk.. I assure you that the above is not an exageration. If you doubt me, try walking for several blocks sometime. I do, however, have several suggestions :for solutions to the ~II above problems. First, The use of city equipment to remove the bulk of .the snow, especially the windrows on arterial streets is badly needed. The problem is the final cleanup after the plow has been through. I believe the City of Richfield needs an :ordinance similar to what Minneapolis has, giving the responsibility of cleaning the residue to the property owner, and giving a specific and short period of time for compliance. Many, if not most homeowners have snow blowers, and this should not create any great hardship. Those who could or would not comply could be charged by the city to have this. residue properly and completely removed. I also use .Minneapolis sidewalks, and compared to Richfield's, they are in far better shape. ~ U • t` I m sure that you would get the usual amount of whining and crying from some people if you were to implement the above. You ' must consider, however, that the effect of the above would benefit more people than it would inconvience. I'm also sure that some .senior citizens would complain about their ability or the expense of having .the sidewalks cleaned. Since they are probable major users of the sidewalks, however, it would be of even greater benefit to them. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Donald L. Hibbits 7401 Chicago Avenue S. Richfield, MN 55423 m ,a. V ? I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: December 20, 1985 T0: Don Fondrick -Director Community Services FROM: John G. Cartwright -City Manager SUBJECT: Donald Hibbits Letter Concerning Snow Removal on Sidewalks Attached hereto is a letter Mayor Hamilton received from Donald Hibbits of 7401 Chicago Avenue. Mr. Hibbits is seeking better snow removal from the public sidewalks. Mayor Hamilton wants either the Director of Community Services or the City Manager to answer this letter. I am turning a copy of this letter over to the Director of Community Services for an answer to Mr. Hibbits. Please provide. the City Manager and the Mayor with a copy of your letter. JGC/eja 1 ~ ~ gat ~ ~ i ~ ri~ i :p ~ y` ' 1 + t y f t' ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ Minneapolis Star and Tribune , Comm~n~t ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ . ' ~ ~ , f ~ i `ir?. Thursday - ~ - South Hennepin zone pages inside r } ' ~ ' ` ~ ~ r ~+w.~p;° ~tltcember 5/1985 ~ 1 Y+ 'Q ' ~ ~ ~ , ~ Snow gate does ~o ~ w ien =d~na ~ ows 3ut notee , , , sew sere By Candace Renew ~ ' • Stelt writer i, t M 60 slow that 1f we were to plow the whole city with It, we wouldn't finish . k Anyone who has dug out asnow- l ~ - ~ r until July first.... I wouldn't advise tilled driveway only to see a It for anyone. It's a bigger headache. snowplow plug It up again has i" ~rxb . to Gave IL" thought there ought to be a better ` f It s plowing Job took eight hours, for way. ~ - x'-~ ' * • example, using snow gates would There b. A Ilttle•known device ~ ~ lengthen the time to 12 hours, said Invented and patented by the city of ' l~ r ei ~ ' , Hoffman. Edina has been quietly keeping that ~ , 'city's driveways clear for 20 years. ' ~ ,x Because of the time involved, he said, snow gates are not used for It's a snow gate, a metal plate that ~ . Initial plowings or during 4f~,, can be lowered at the end of a plow a * ~ snowstorms when the city b Just blade to trap the snow ea the plow ~ trying to keep the streets open. The passes a drtveway or Intersection , gates ere used during cleanup .M t and r i e f' Iced to de si tthe sn w 0 on Po the ~ Iowla an d to widen narrow streets. P g other side. w., > , - ~ Although the city crew Mes to go "It'snothing lancy,just nhydraulic i ~ ,ar' down every street with these plows, ~~i ~ arm, built and welded by in-house , ttb~~' ~ , Y~ Holtman Bald, with 200 miles of ~ ..a mechanics and welders "Bald Fran ~ ~ 11 streets to plow and only three road Hoffman, Edina's director of publtc ~ - n ~ S Y t " graders equipped with snow gates, It works. "It's home-built and Staff Photo by Rob Levine ~ ~ j usually Isn't possible: "It's not a cumbersome but It's very effectlve." cure-all to plowing problems;' he The mow gate on this Edina grader prevenb driwwsyra hom belnp blocked with plowed snow. said. °It's a tool and aid to us." [f such a wonderful Invention exbb, then why b Edina apparently the But the snow gates Just weren't Mlnnea Ib has a It's more. than that to Edina ' my city In the metro area to Gave + . P Po xpeHmented with Differences between Edina and ~ concerns It needs to address. residents, however. The snow gates oneT Prectlcel, said ublle works ~ snow gntea, but found no way to Minneapolis partly account for this, Somet6ing that works for them may may be slow and cumbersome and directors. make them prectlcel, sold Brteq he said. Whereas Edina des 100- to n of work a wall ~ y enaugY tar us; ' 6e tnettlcleot, but they do the job Lokkesmoe, publle works operotlom 150-loot spacing between some of Its sold, adding that Mlnneapolb b one resldenb want done. It's not that other cities haven't St. Paul tried using them about 10 director, drtveaeys, Mlnneepoib has 20• to 25- of the largest U.S. cities that has to considered the Idea la 4he two years ago, but dlscorded them. They fool spacing and many driveways deal with heavy snows. ` "Pao le know the decades the snow gate has been tended to malfunction, and using "We're ewero It (plowing past ere next to each other. P y (snow gates)' are around. Although snow gates weren't them was found Impractical on St. driveways) b a problem. We get a lot around,",Hoffman said. They see on the market, Minneapolis, St. Paul Paul's streets, where houses are of com taints, but snow tes ate pot '7here's more o rtuN W lose Even In Edina the snow gate b not them occasionally, so they esk,'Why and other suburbs have looked at closer together than In the suburbs, : e practtcel way to solve hat snow between dH~waya 14 Edina," popular among plow dHvers. don't we use them more often?' " Edlna's model and some have tested recalled one St. Paul public works Particular problem In Mlnoeapolls," he Bald. 'it's the biggest can of worms we Bartz Bald, "Ninety-nine percent o/ their own versions. worker. Lokkesmoe said. ever opened up;' Bald Gerte Bartz, the calls ere from people yelling at "Every municipality has !b own superintendent of publtc works. "It's us for not using them." i j /0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 52 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City. of Richfield Subject: Request to MnDot Regarding Jurisdiction Over a Portion of Cedar Avenue Council Members: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has jurisdicition over Cedar Avenue from 66th Street south to the Highway #77 entrance. This right-of-way includes a 17' wide strip of .property west of Cedar Avenue (shown on the attached map). The proposed development for the liquor store. site could utilize excess right-of-way for parking and. landscaping. City staff recommends that the City of Richfield try to obtain MnDOT's right to this land and allow the developers to utilize it for parking by requesting MnDOT to release its jurisdiction over the frontage road to Richfield. If the excess frontage road right-of-way can be acquired, it will permit a large retail service center (i.e. greater value to aid the city's tax base). The Cedar Avenue roadway south of 65th Street is 44' wide, i.e., four lanes wide, which is wide enough for present and future use. Ten feet (10') of right-of-way will be reserved for snow storage and sidewalk. The 17' strip is west of the 10' snow storage area. MnDOT does not own the frontage road in fee; rather, MnDOT has an easement which gives them the right to use the land for roadway purposes. The easement for the 17' strip area must be extinguished before the land. may be utilized for development. Richfield would retain the right. to use the balance of the land for existing Cedar Avenue purposes. In addition, Richfield may be eligible for trunk highway turn-back funds. The trunk highway turn-back fund is a supplement to the MSA system. As Cedar Avenue is old State Highway 36, a trunk highway, Richfield may be eligible for construction or maintenance. funds. The resolution asks that all of Cedar Avenue be considered for turn-back funds. /d Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution which requests MnDOT release jurisdiction. of the frontage road on the 6600 block of Cedar Avenue. Respectfu submitted, John G. Car wr' t City Manager JGC/eja i g ~3 RESOLUTION N0. _ RESOLUTION REQUESTING MNDOT TO RELEASE JURISDICTION OF THE CEDAR AVENUE FRONTAGE ROAD FROM 66TH STREET TO THE HIGHWAY 77 ENTRANCE SOUTH OF $6TH STREET WHEREAS, the frontage road to Highway 77, also known as Cedar Avenue between 66th Street and. the Hi hwa entrance 77 ~ g Y ramp is now located within the Highway 77 right-of -way; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to release jurisdiction of frontage ` roads to local jurisdictions whenever practical; and WHEREAS, Cedar Avenue is old Trunk Highway No. 36; and WHEREAS, Cedar Avenue is already built to Richfield city standards and in good condition.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The City of Richfield requests the Commissioner of the Minnesota De artment of Trans ortation to release 'urisdiction p P J including all maintenance responsibilities, of the State Highway 77 west side frontage road from 66th Street to the entrance ram south of 66th Street and from ' east of centerline to p 33 the west edge of the right-of-way south of 66th Street to the City of Richfield. 2. The City of Richfield requests the Commissioner of the Minnesota De artment of Trans ortation to consider Cedar Avenue p p eligible for trunk highway turn-back and Municipal State Aid designation. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of January, 1986. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~ 4. . RICHt= tE~D- 42 ~~V ~ 41 ~ - - MnDOT 2615 ?7Rts. ~ R 0 W 1616.3• C.E.Cwl4er ~ 1.1 ~ - - , - 3 1 ej5 nth _ ----~-3Zl.oi4 - ~~.i.. ~ of 3/ I!e r"i1.03 3~•3e 1» 91 Iy til ~ al r 17i YI ' U I oZ ~ S) ~\~?,tl~ .1+1 ~f I ~ 30 ~ 'Yl~liy ~ 1 '01'. 1 ~ / I\ i :r~s .-i 3? ` I ' ~ r ~ • C~ ! 'g r 1134 r 133.41 r r 1~1.~f 1~4~ " ~ I ~ 13145_ _ 1)11~~ H.K ~1.4i Iflx ,It.~c b.x wl l ,r, ISM K ~ a ~ ~u b 1 ~ ~ b ~fgl l ~ ~''~Ij ~ ! . i'f (c') ~ 131.,, ' ~ HtR 3.44 13L~ f 19°!.N i ~s 1>!e.N ~ ~ t ~ Gil ~ 2 it 4} S R (~5) 3 - 1 ~ / 1 i r ` ~ AREA 1l.n - ~ 133.41 ~ ~13.4t I1s.41 ~ 133.~t ~ I.~t ~ Illg_ 13 ~ 3i ~ REQUESTED 3 f 4 3 (5s~ ,11s~i (tee G ~ ~ ?~1 ~ G G lb3)' 3 ~ ' ` BY DEVELOP 33.4. ~3 1l3.4~ 133.31 N3.4+ ~,.1.~ Nf 4 1311° i ~ 111.1. ~ . , r`~ ~ ~ ~ I>13.3~t 133.31 133.)1 133.31j~ ~ 1~;]L_ 1lf.l~ 1 ~ 4~ ~ } I M13.33 143lL i~ .c , IN 1ss•I,c ? 1}~ Iw'.ec ~ ,1. ST. ~ Ify'S~ ~ » 1'13.X ItS. 173.~Ir 1 ` ~ I1S.14 If714 'A 1?o p~ 11~G! ~ I ~K ~~)1 oKCII~ a ~ '~16 ~~p)1 ~ e16~~~~~1 a - 1?~i~ 1'13.34 ~ ~ 13l.3j (3).3~ ~ 1 ~3 11)+?e ~ II~.LS~ L ~ I~j ~ (3t) t ~ ~~~g ~ {1y~ t ~ IS ~ LIl 2~. (10 li ~ t~ Q 33• H3.31 133.31 133.31 133.31 111.11 133.)1 uG GI Q i~+1.3• 133.1. 133.3e 113.2 133.1e la>~ . 133.29 4 . 13 ~ 4 t3 tip) 4 . h~) ~ . ~ l ~ 4 {dk)13 4 tt 133.21! 133.t1 133.1! H~.t1 IIG13 l3.K t3).t~ _n3.u 13'1.i5~ 133tL ~ \ll:;~ ~ "111.tS 11G~ 1 L , 11 ~ ~ L 11 it~ 6 I 1 e~ 11 1~} G ?3.U 1'1.:3 t3~l.u 113.ts \ 133.U : ~j 1•~ `~11! ~ ~ nG 1i }SL_ ~}3.:~. 133.tt ?33.u 133.u ~ Ill.t+ 1~} tl Q - Ilc ~2 l i ~ 1~.t,. !3n ~ 13l.M 133b ,3e ~}.M _ 133.to ,3o,3>e 1+{}N Hj.M Go 130 11611 ~ ~ , ` ~n s... ...........~r_._ _ ~ c5t.i2 ~ . _ _ r H7.1 1'i3.17 I!~).1~ I1'1.20 ~p 1!).q Ilf.l7 ~ I2~~ KS.ID s~ SC 0 16 1~ 1 a ~(4~16 x (~.3~ I e x 16 $ (11) l ~ ~it) I6 ~ (i~ 1 I,1't<.?. 1.11 1113.16 r" 133.11 ~ )~(3.1c ~ t` 133.11 izC3.u 123.1 ' r ~~~5. r 7~ t r i-~1~'7 ~ ~A~ t ~ t~~1~7. r ~`U1 2. r - ~1y~7 ~ (tilt la?a I11.1G 133 N 131.16 I)3.14 ( 113.K 123.14 '?i3.IS ~ ~~ti~ 14 : 3 ~ .~N~~ 14 3 (30~ l~ , 3 ~ aA)14 = (3~ 3 - W . 133.12, 13314 1331E 133.14 133.1? 133,14 23 It 1i313 h- r ll;~~~ ~~,a,~ (s~113, ~ ~3~~4 (,g11j, ~~i^~d , `1~~ z ~ , a Q - - - _ C, 0 0 ,o oa a o i ~J i J'J' J~JJJ~ . 65th St ,,,j, J, , ~ i J,,~, ~ ~ 7 u' T t r ' ',~JJ, W ~ r i rr tr rrr i`y IM JJ ,J r` ~ ~ r r r r r i w` ~ w J V~ ~ r t rr rr r rrri W ~ , J J_ r r r rr r r J J ~ rr rr rr r r i d? Q y W ' r r ?ct t ~ i,,, v ~ t" iJJ JJ~~ J'~ . ~,1~'E ore ?h ~ ' ' ~ r St ~ , er~~~e: Sta JJ'J>>, J~. J, ia,'J J J ~+~J J~~ Jl JJl ~ ~ l~ ~ ~ l J ' ' ~ ~ ~ammerc~a ~~~~~:~~`t} lndustr enc :e+f a- p o 0 z4Y ~ ~ltip~e Re 'N? hur~h ~ 6zt S~ : miry j Sin ~e ~a C~ ~denGe Res ` / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office. of City Manager Council Letter No. 51 Agenda January 27, 1986. The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing on Ordinance Relating to Regulations of Various Commercial Enterprises Providing Adult-Oriented Services. Council Members: As council members are aware, the Public Safety Department has aggressively been dealing with prostitution and related criminal vice problems in the city. As a result of this enforcement activity, the Public Safety Department has determined that organized vice activities are occurring in the community within the framework of certain legal commercial "fronts". Currently, the only business license required by the city of commercial enterprises susceptible to operations which might support criminal vice .activities is the sauna and masseuse licensing requirements contained in Richfield City Ordinance Code 5.25 and 5.26. These particular license requirements in our community have not been really effective because they are so specific in nature that commercial enterprises have been able to change the form of their activities to avoid the requirements of these regulations. For some time, the Public Safety Department in cooperation with the City Attorney's office, has been reviewing established business license practices of other communities to regulate businesses which are particularly susceptible to illegal operations. Business license regulations in other communities which appear to have been successful in this regard generally deal with something of an "umbrella" regulation of adult- oriented services. Based upon the study conducted by the Public Safety Department and the City Attorney's office, a new ordinance regulating commercial enterprises providing adult-oriented services was given first reading at the January 13, 1986, city council meeting. Second .reading and the public hearing was scheduled for the council meeting of January 27, 1986. The ordinance herein ro osed is ver p p y much like ordinances in other o / communities that have been upheld by Federal and State courts. The advantage of the proposed ordinance is that it is more general in nature than existing ordinance regulations, and, therefore, more easily applied to business activities which may be susceptible to illegal conduct.. The cities of Bloomington and St. Louis Park have ver Y similiar ordinanc es to the one being recommended to the Richfield city council. Both cities have demonstrated that the ordinance has been very effective in either preventing the locations of illegal enterprises with adult oriented services or their discontinuance. The new ordinance repeals the existing sauna and masseuse license rovisions 5.25: and .26 We p [ 5 ] believe that this new ordinance should be of great assistance to the Department of Public Safety in attempting to rid Richfield of prostitution related activity. It certainly would provide a much stronger legal foundation for the Public Safety Department's enforcement efforts in this area. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the city council hold-the public hearing and give second reading approval to the attached ordinance regulating commercial enterprises providing adult- . oriented services. Respectfy~~ ubmitted, /~ohn G. a twrigh`; City Manager lJ JGC/eja ~ 'City of Lichfield ` r , lOtflclal PubilcatiooL' LEGAL NOTICE ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE * Notice is hereby given that the City i Council of the Ctty of Richfield will meet on Januaryy 27. 1188 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall.'; 8700 Portland Avenue. to consider an ordinance to REPEAL Sections 6.251 and 5.28 of the Municipal Code ot, Ordinances relating to regulation oL', saunas aad massage parlors and rag- , ulation of the practice of massage • and to add a new section 5.251 relat-<: ~ ing to the regulation of various com- merc~al enterprlaes providing adult-.~ oriented cervices to the Municipais Code of Ordinances. ' All persona interested in this mat- • ter are hereby notified to be present ,t and they will be:heard, Copies of the Y ;full' ordinance may be obtained by , . - calling 8b8-7521 ~r stopping at -City a' Hail. . THOMAS P. FERBER - i Clty Clerk ~ a (Jan: 15:1888)-RICH ".L... "1 = a. ~ .I i I I I i . ~ - ~ I _ - i i ~ ~.J l'~ ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTIONS 5.25 AND 5.26 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RELATING TO REGULATION OF SAUNAS AND MASSAGE PARLORS AND REGULATION OF THE PRACTICE OF MASSAGE, AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 5.251 RELATING TO REGULATION OF VARIOUS COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PROVIDING ADULT-ORIENTED SERVICES. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 5.25 and 5.26 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, relating to regulation of saunas .and. massage parlors and regulation of the practice of massage, are hereby repealed in their entirety. A new Section 5.251, relating to the regulation of various commercial enterprises providing adult-oriented services, is hereby added to the Ordinance -Code of the City of Richfield, to read as follows: 5.251 Regulation of Various Commercial Adult-Oriented Services. Subdivision 1. Statement of Policy. In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to guard against 'the inception and transmission of disease, the City Council of the City of Richfield deems it necessary to provide .for the special and express regulation of businesses or commercial enterprises which operate as massage parlors, saunas, rap parlors, conversation parlors, adult sensitivity groups, adult encounter groups, personal escort services, dancing services, hostess services and. similar adult-oriented services. operating under different names.- The City Council further finds that commercial enterprises such as the type described above, and all other similar establishments erhose services include sessions offered to adults, conducted in private by members of the same or the opposite sex, and employing personnel with no specialized • training, are susceptible to operation in a manner contravening, subverting ar endangering the morals of the community by being 1-5 the sites of acts of prostitution, illicit sex and occasions of violent crimes, thus requiring .close inspection,. licensing and regulation. In the case of commercial enterprises such as those de- scribed above. which are currently licensed, such establishments may be allowed to retain their licenses but not beyond March 1, 1986, provided that the establishments do not violate the pro- visions of this .ordinance and that the City Council determines that it is in the City's best interest to renew the licenses annually pursuant to the procedures set forth in this ordinance. Subdivision 2. (1) The term "massage" means the rubbing, stroking, knead- ing, tapping or rolling of the body of another with the hands or objects for the exclusive purpose of physical fitness, relaxation,. beautification• and for no other purpose.- _ (2) The term "masseur" means a male person who practices or administers a massage. (3) The term "masseuse" means a female person who practices or administers a massage. (4) The term "massage parlor" means any establishment or place providing to the public at large massage ser- vices, other than a hospital., sanitarium, rest home, nursing home, boarding home, or other institution for the hospitalization or care of human beings duly licensed under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 114.50 through 144.69, and other than a health and fitness club as described in Subdivision 19 of this ordinance. (5) The term "massage services" means a business offering or providing massages to others where a fee is charged, whether or not the massage services are rendered at the licensed location. (6) The term "sauna" means any public facility used for the purpose of bathing, reducing or relaxing, utilizing steam as a cleaning, reducing or relaxing agent. (7) 'The terms "rap parlor" or "conversation parlor" or "adult encounter group" or "adult sensitivity group" mean any person, establishment or business advertising, .offering, selling, trading or bartering the services of .itself.,. or its employees or agents as nonprofessional counselors, or teachers or therapists who may talk to, discuss or have conversation with patrons or who deal in any way with a patron's physical senses, whether or not other goods. or services are simultaneously _ 2 _ ~j / , /'(U _ • advertised, offered, .sold, traded or bartered and regardless of whether said goods or services are also required to be ,licensed. (8) The terms "personal escort service" or "model service" or "dancing service" or "hostess service" mean. any person, establishment. or business advertising, offering, selling, trading or bartering the services of itself or its employees or agents as hostesses, models, dancers, escorts, dates or companions whether or not goods or services are simultaneously advertised, _ offered, sold, ,traded or bartered and regardless of whether said goods or services are also required to be licensed. (9) The term."similar adult-oriented services" is meant to include all other services which fall within the definitions of subsections (4)-(8) of this subdivision but are operated under different names.. (10) The term "certificate" as used herein means a certifi- cate issued by the City .authorizing the holder thereof to practice or administer a massage- in the City of Richfield. Subdivision 3. License Required. (1) No person shall engage in the business of operating an .enterprise as defined in Subdivision 2, (4) through (9),. of this ordinance, either exclusively or in connection with any other business enterprise, or hold himself or herself out as being a masseur or masseuse or engaged in or 'offering his or her services as a model, hostess, dancer, escort or counselor in a rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult sensitivity group or -adult encounter group without a license. (21 No person shall hold out any establishment as providing services as defined in Subdivision 2, (4) through (9), of this ordinance, unless such establishment is li- censed as provided in this section. hThenever any establishment ceases to be licensed as a massage parlor, sauna, rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group or model service, personal escort service, dancing service, hostess service or similar adult-oriented service, whether through the suspension, cancellation, revocation, nonrenewal or lapse of its license, its owners shall immediately remove from public view any sign or .display which identifies .the establishment as being an enterprise as defined in Subdivision 2, (4) through (9), of this. ordinance. 3 ' Subdivision 4. Contents of Application for License. Application for a license shall be made only on the forms provided by .the City Manager. Four complete copies of the application must be submitted to the City Manager's office containing the following: (1) Address and legal description of the property to be used; (2) The name, address and telephone number of two persons who shall be residents of Hennepin County who may be called upon to attest to the applicant's, manager's or operator's character; (3) Whether the applicant, manager or operator has ever been .convicted of a crime or offense and, if so, complete and accurate information as to the time, place, and nature of such crime or offense, including the disposition thereof; (4) The names and addresses of all creditors of the appli- cant,.owner, lessee or manager insofar as and regarding credit which has been extended for the purposes of constructing, equipping, maintaining, operating, furnishing or acquiring the premises, personal effects, equipment or anything incidental to the establishment, i maintenance and operation of a massage parlor, sauna, rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group, personal escort service, model service, dancing service, hostess service or similar adult-oriented service. , (5) If the application is made on behalf of a joint busi- ness venture, partnership or any legally constituted business association other than a corporation, it shall submit, along with its application, accurate and complete business records showing the names and ad- dresses of all partners, officers and owners and,~in the case of a corporation, the names and addresses of all officers, general managers and members of the Board of Directors. (6) If the application is made on behalf of a joint busi- ness venture, partnership, legally constituted business association or corporation, the applicant shall also submit the-names and addresses of any and all creditors who have extended credit for the acquisition, mainte- nance, operation or furnishing of the establishment. (7) All applicants shall furnish to the City, along with their applications,- complete-and accurate documentation .establishing the interest of the applicant and any other person having an interest in the premises upon 4 Q ! - • which the enterprise is proposed to be located or in the furnishings thereof. Documentation shall be in the form of a lease, deed, contract for deed, mortgage deed, mortgage, credit arrangement, loan agreement, security agreement and any other documents establishing the interest of the .applicant or ..any other person in the operation, acquisition or maintenance of the enterprise offering services as defined in Subdivision. 2, (4) through (9), of this ordinance. (8) The application shall also contain blueprints, dia- grams,.plans, .layouts and. the. like, showing the con- struction, revision, remodeling, alteration or ad- ditions of or to the premises and specifically showing the layout, design and arrangement of the bathing and restroom facilities and the size and type of equipment and facilities to be used. (9) All applicants shall state whether they are licensed in other communities, and if so, where. - (10) All applicants shall state any other licenses for which they have applied within the last ten years and any denial, suspension or revocation of a license along with an explanation of any such denial, suspension or revocation. Subdivision. 5. License Fee, License Investigation and License Year. The annual license fee is $1,500.00 and the annual fee for the investigation for the purposes of issuing a license is $1,500.00. The license fee and fee for the investigation of the license shall be paid when the application is filed. In the event that the license is denied upon application, the license .fee shall be refunded; however, no part of the license inves- tigation fee shall be returned to the applicant. In the event that the license once issued is revoked, cancelled or surren- dered,- no part of the annual license fee or fee for the inves- tigation for the issuance of a license shall be returned to the. applicant unless by express action of the City Council. A separate license. shall be obtained each calendar year for each place of business. The licensee shall display the license in a prominent place in the licensed premises at all times. A li- cense, unless revoked, is for the calendar year or a part thereof for which it has been issued. The fee for the investigation for issuance of a license must. be tendered with each new application for a license if the establishment has violated the provisions of this ordinance or if the Department of Public Safety has received an inordinate number of complaints concerning the establishment or if the City Council should act requiring that the investigation fee be paid. The investigation fee- must also be paid>at any time when there is a proposed change of ownership or 5 ~ • reapplication for a license wherein additional or different parties other than the original licensee and parties are .proposing to be licensed. All licenses granted herein are nontransferable. Subdivision 6. Conditions Governing Issuance of a License. (1) Licenses shall be issued only if the applicant and all of its owners, managers, employees, agents or interest- ed parties are persons of good moral character and repute. (2) Licenses shall be issued only if the applicant and all of its owners, managers, agents, employees or interest- ed parties are free of convictions for offenses which involve moral turpitude or which relate directly to such person's ability, capacity or fitness to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of the licensed activity. (3) Licenses shall be issued only to applicants who have not, within three years prior to the date of applica- tion, had a license of this type revoked or suspended in or by any community or political entity and whose owners, managers, or any interested parties have not been similarly revoked or suspended. (4) Licenses shall be issued only to applicants who have answered fully and truthfully all of the information requested in the application who have paid the full license fee and fee for investigation and have coop- erated fully and truthfully with the City in the review of the application. (5) If the applicant is a natural person, a license shall be granted only if such person is 18 years of age or older. (6) Licenses may only be granted when the premises involved are in complete conformity with the zoning code of the -City of Richfield. (7) Licenses shall be granted only to establishments which meet the safety, :sanitary, and building code require- ments of the City of Richfield. (8) A license shall not be granted if granting the license (a) would be inconsistent with the comprehensive development plans of the City of Richfield or (b) would otherwise have a detrimental effect upon other property or properties in the vicinity. 6 I ~-~a Subdivision Certificate Required. No person shall engage in or hold himself or herself out as being. engaged in the practice of massage nor shall any person administer or practice massage commercially or for hire, or for the exchange of any valuable consideration without first having obtained a certificate as herein provided, except that a certifi- cate shall not be required for any person who is currently registered by the State Board of Medical Examiners or except as elsewhere provided in this ordinance.. Subdivision 8. Contents of the Application for Certificate. Application 'shall be made only on forms provided by the City Manager. The application shall include the following information together with any other information which the City Manager may require- (1) .Evidence of the applicant's educational qualifications, including originals or certified copies of degrees, diplomas or certificates, if any. (2) Evidence of applicant's practical qualifications to practice massage. (3) Evidence that the applicant is of good moral character. {4) The names and addresses of two persons, residents of Hennepin County, who can attest to the applicant's character. (5) Whether the applicant has ever been convicted of a crime or offense and, if so, information as to the time, place and nature of such crime or offense. '(6) Evidence in the form of a current certificate from a licensed physician practicing in Minnesota indicating (a) that within the past 30 days he has examined the applicant, and (b) that such examination was for the purpose of determining whether applicant had any c~+~u~.unicable disease and (c) that as a result of such I~ examination he believes that applicant is not suffering from any communicable disease. (7) Evidence that. the applicant is at least 18 .years of age. Subdivision 9. Certificate Fee, Certificate Investigation Fee and Certificate-Year. The annual certificate fee shall be $50.00 and an inves- tigation fee for the purposes of issuing a certificate is $100.00. The certificate fee and fee for the investigation of 7 _ ! ' the certificate shall be paid when the application is filed. In the event that the certificate is denied upon application, the certificate fee shall be refunded; however, no part of the certificate investigation fee shall be returned to the applicant. In the event that the certificate, once issued, is revoked, cancelled or .surrendered, no part of the annual certificate fee or fee for the investigation for the issuance of a certificate shall be returned to the applicant unless by express action of the City Council. A separate certificate shall be obtained each calendar year. The certificate holder shall display the certifi- cate in a prominent place on the premises of the certificate holder at all times.. A certificate, unless revoked, is for the calendar year or a part thereof for which it h•as been issued. The fee for the investigation for issuance of a certificate must be tendered with each new application for a certificate if the applicant has violated the provisions of this ordinance. A certificate permitting the holder thereof to practice massage is nontransferable. Subdivision 10. Conditions Governing Issuance of the Certifi- sate. (1) Certificates shall be issued only to persons of good moral character and repute and persons who are in good health and free from any communicable disease. (2) Certificates shall be issued only. to persons free of convictions of offenses which involve moral turpitude or which relate directly to the person's ability, capacity or fitness to perform the duties and discharge the responsibility of the occupation. (3) Certificates shall not be issued to persons who, within one year prior to the date of application, have been denied certification licensing or who have had their certificate or license revoked or suspended by any c~.~u.~unity political entity or by the State of Minnesota. (4) Certificates shall be issued only to persons who have fully and truthfully answered all of the information requested in the application and have paid the full certification fee and certification investigation fee. (5) Certificates shall be issued only to persons 18 years of age or older. Subdivision 11. Granting or Denial of Licenses and Certificates. License applications and certificate applications shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Safety, Planning Depart- ment, and such other departments as the City Manager shall deem necessary.-.The review of license applications shall include an 8 i inspection of the premises covered by the application to deter- mine whether the premises conform to all applicable code require- ments. Licenses shall be issued upon the approval of the City , Council only after a public hearing has been conducted. The general provisions of Chapter 5 of the Richfield Code relating to the issuance of licenses shall govern except as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance. A license permitting the conduct of an establishment offering services as a massage parlor, sauna, rap parlor, conver- sation parlor,: adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group, personal escort service, model service, dancing service, hostess service or other similar adult-oriented service is nontransfer- able and nonrenewable, and. application must be made each year for a license permitting and allowing .the conduct of such business for the succeeding year. A certificate permitting the holder thereof to practice or administer massage commercially is nonrenewable and nontransfer- able and application. must be-made each :year for a certificate permitting and .allowing the holder thereof to administer or _ practice massage for the succeeding year. Subdivision 12. Restrictions and Regulations. (1) The licensee and any persons in his or her employ or agents or officers thereof and any and all persons with an interest in said business shall comply with all applicable ordinances, regulations and laws of the City of Richfield, the State of Minnesota, and the United States. (2) If the licensee is a partnership or corporation, the applicant shall designate a person. to be manager and in responsible charge of<the business and employees. Such person shall remain responsible for the conduct of the business and employees until another suitable person has been designated in writing by the licensee. The licensee shall promptly notify the Department of Public Safety in writing of any such change, indicating the name, address and telephone number of the new manager and the effective date of such change. (3) Every licensee shall allow an examination and inspec- tion of every part of the premises by any police, fire or health authority of the City during normal business hours four times each year. Refusal to allow such inspection or to answer the request of City police, fire or health authority to be admitted to a licensed premises shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of all licenses. 9 ' . (4) The licensed premises shall not be open for business nor shall patrons be permitted on the premises between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on any day. . (5) Upon demand of any police officer, any person employed in any licensed premises shall identify himself by giving his true legal name-and his correct address. (6) No person under 18 years of age shall be employed in an establishment requiring a license under the provisions of this ordinance. (7) The licensee shall furnish the Department of Public Safety with a list of current employees, indicating their names and addresses and designating the duties of the employees within the licensed premises. The licensee shall promptly notify the Department of Public Safety of any additions or deletions in the list of _ employees or changes in their job descriptions or duties. (8) The licensed premises must be kept and maintained in a sanitary condition defined as being free from the vegetative cells of pathogenic microorganisms and all equipment, personal property, tables, beds, towels, clothing and the like used in or for the licensed premises shall also be maintained in a sanitary condi- tion as defined herein. (9) No .licensee shall employ any person as a masseur or masseuse without first insuring that said employee possesses a valid certificate for the administration or practice of massage, except as otherwise provided in this ordinance. (10) Every person to whom a certificate is issued shall appear personally at the Department of Public Safety to receive delivery of the certificate and upon such appearance, shall be photographed for identification purposes. One copy of the photograph shall be perma- nently affixed to the certificate and a second copy thereof shall be kept in the files of the Department of Public Safety. (11) Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, any person acting as a masseur or masseuse shall have his or her certificate displayed in a prominent place at his or her place of employment and upon demand by any police officer or other authorized officer or agent of the City of Richfield, any person engaged in practicing massage shall identify himself or herself giving his or her true legal-name, correct address and phone number. (12) Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, any person practicing massage within the City of Richfield 10 • shall. initially advise the City of his or her address and telephone number and shall further advise the City of any changes in address or telephone number within 30 days of such change. (13) Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance,- it is unlawful for a masseur. to practice massage upon any person except a male ar~d for a masseuse to practice massage on any person except a female. (14) Any masseur or masseuse practicing massage shall remain - fully clothed in a nontransparent uniform or clothing at all times. At all times during the operation of any - enterprise as defined. in Subdivision 2, (4) through (9), of•this ordinance, both employees and customers must be and remain fully clothed in nontransparent clothing. Subdivision 13. Construction and Maintenance Requirements. (1) Each licensed premises -shall have a separate restroom and separate. locker room for members of each sex. (2) All massage rooms, locker rooms, restrooms and bath- . rooms used in connection therewith shall be constructed of materials, including ceramic tile, quarry tile, glazed-finish cement block or other similar material, which .are .impervious to moisture, bacteria, mold or fungus growth and shall be maintained in a sanitary I, condition defined as being completely free from the vegetative -cells of pathogenic microorganisms. The floor-to-wall joints shall be constructed to provide a sanitary cove with a minimum radius of one inch. All equipment, personal property, beds, towels, clothing and the like used in the massage parlor shall be of a sanitary design and kept in a sanitary condition. (3) All restrooms shall be provided with mechanical ven- tilation with 2 cfm per square feet of floor area, a hand washing sink equipped with hot and cold running water under pressure, sanitary towels and a soap dispenser. (4) All rooms in the licensed premises including, but not limited to, massage rooms, sauna rooms, restrooms, bathrooms, rap rooms, conversation .rooms, modeling rooms, dancing rooms, janitor's .closets, hallways and reception areas shall be illuminated with not less than 30 foot candles of illumination, measured 30 inches from the floor. (5) Each licensed premises shall have a janitor's closet which shall provide for the storage ,of cleaning sup- plies,. Such closet shall have mechanical ventilation 11 - • ~ with 2 cfm per square foot of floor area. Such closet shall. include a mop sink. (6) Floors, walls and equipment in massage rooms, sauna rooms, restrooms, bathrooms, rap rooms, conversation rooms, modeling rooms and dancing rooms must be kept in a state of good repair and sanitary at all times. Linen and other materials shall be stored at least 12 inches off the floor. Clean towels, washcloths and linens must be available for each customer. (7) Individual lockers shall be made available for use by patrons. Such lockers shall have separate keys for - locking.. (8) Such establishments shall provide adequate refuse receptacles which shall be emptied as required. Subdivision 14. Health-and Disease Control. - No person while afflicted with any disease in a communicable form or while a carrier of such disease or while afflicted with boils, infected wounds, sores or any acute respiratory infection shall work in or use the services of any licensed premises and no person known or suspected of being afflicted with any such disease or condition shall be employed or permitted in such area or capacity. Subdivision 15. Revocation, Suspension or Nonrenewal of License. (a) The license may be revoked, suspended or not renewed by the City Council upon recommendation of the City Manager by showing that the licensee, its owners, manager, employees, agents or any other interested parties have engaged in any of the following conduct: (1) Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in connection with the securing of the license. (2) Habitual drunkenness or intemperance in the use of drugs including, but not limited to, the use of drugs defined in .either 26 U.S.C. S. 4731 or Minnesota Statutes, Section- 152.02, barbituates, hallucinogenic drugs, amphetamines; benzedrine, dexedrine or other. sedatives, depressants, stimulants or tranquilizers. (4) Engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude or permitting or allowing others within their employ or agency to engage in conduct involving moral turpitude or failing to prevent agents, officers, or employees from engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude. 12 (5) Failure to fully comply with any requirements of the ordinances of the City of Richfield regarding sanitary .and. safety conditions, .zoning requirements, building code requirements or ordinances,,the violation of which involves moral turpitude, or failure to .comply fully with any requirements of this ordinance.. (6) Conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude by any court of competent jurisdiction. (7) Operation of the establishment without a valid license or during periods in which the licensehas..been sus- pended or revoked, (8) .Engaging in any .conduct which would constitute grounds for refusal to issue a license herein. (b) The licensee may appeal. ,.such suspension, revocation or nonrenewal to the City Council. The Council shall consider the ..appeal pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 5.14, Subdivision 4-of the Richfield Ordinance Code. The Council may appoint a committee.. of the Council or an independent hearing .officer to hear the matter, report findings of fact and a rec~,~LL.~endation for disposition to the Council. Hearings on the appeal shall be open to the public and the licensee shall have. the right to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer evidence in its behalf. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council may order: (1) That the revocation, suspension or nonrenewal be affirmed. (2) That the revocation, suspension or nonrenewal.be lifted and that the license be returned to the license holder. (3) The City Council may base either suspension or issuance of the. certificate upon any additional terms, con- ditions and stipulations which they may, in their sole discretion, impose. Subdivision 16. Revocation, Suspension or Nonrenewal of Certifi- cafe. II, (a} Certification may be revoked or suspended by the City Manager or not renewed by the City Council for any of the follow- ing: (1) Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in connection with the securing of certification. (2) Habitual drunkenness or intemperance in the use of drugs including, but note limited to, the use of drugs defined either in 26 U.S.C. S 4731 and Minnesota .Statutes, Section 152.02, barbituates, hallucinogenic 1:3 ' drugs, amphetamines, benzedrine, dexedrine or other sedatives, depressants, stimulants or tranquilizers. (3) Conduct inimical to the interests of the public health, safety, welfare or morals. (4) Engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude. (5) Failure to fully comply with the requirements of this ordinance. (6) Conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude. (b) The certificate holder may appeal such suspension, revocation or nonrenewal to the City Council. The Council shall consider the appeal pursuant. to the procedures set forth in Section 5.14, Subdivision 4 of the. Richfield Ordinance Code. The Council may appoint a committee of the Council or an independent hearing officer to hear the matter and report findings of fact and a recommendation for disposition to the Council. Hearings on the appeal shall~be open to the public and the certificate holder shall have the right to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer evidence in behalf of the certification. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council may order: (1) That the revocation, suspension or nonrenewal be affirmed. (2) That the revocation, suspension or nonrenewal be lifted and that `the certificate be returned to the certificate holder. (3) The City Council may base either suspension or issuance of the certificate upon any additional terms, condi- , tions and stipulations which they may, in their .sole discretion, impose. Subdivision 17. Prohibited Acts. Except as provided elsewhere in this ordinance, no employer shall employ a person to practice or administer massage nor permit, suffer or allow a person to practice or administer massage unless that person has been granted a valid certificate pursuant to this ordinance and every employer shall require that the certification be prominently and openly displayed on the premises in plain view. Subdivision 18. Massage Distinguished. The practice of massage is hereby declared to be distinct from the practice of medicine, surgery, ostopathy, chiropractic, physical therapy or podiatry, and per ons duly licensed in this state to practice medicine, surgery, osteopathy, .chiropractic, physical therapy or podiatry, nurses who work. solely under the 14 direction of any such _persons, athletic directors and trainers are' hereby expressly excluded-from the provisions of this sec- . tion. Beauty culturists and barbers .who do not give, or hold themselves out to give,. massage treatments, as defined herein, .other than are customarily given in such shops or places of business for the purpose of beautification only, shall be~exempt from the provisions of this section. Subdivision 19. Exceptions. (a) This ordinance does not apply to bona fide health/sports establishments which meet the following criteria: (1) .The establishment has conducted business in the City of Richfield for one year and is in good repute. (2) The primary purpose of the establishment is health and fitness; massage service is subsidiary. (3) No more than 20$ of the establishment revenue is derived from massage. (4} The financial records of the establishment are at all times available to the City for inspection. (5) The establishment has an ongoing membership which list is available to City officials for inspection at any time. Establishments which meet the above provisions shall not be .required to pay the annual- license fee or investigation fee, unless specifically ordered by the City Council. Masseurs and masseuses employed by such establishments are not required to be certified under this ordinance. (b) In addition, this ordinance does not apply to nor include: (1) Bona fide legal,. medical, psychiatric, .psychological,.. family or marriage counseling services by a person, persons or businesses appropriately licensed by the State of Minnesota or by local units of government or any other appropriate licensing authority; (2) Bona fide financial- counseling services or bona fide educational institutions completely complying with State and local regulations or the regulation of any licensing authorities; (3) Bona fide non-profit organizations or institutions, including those organized in compliance with ~501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or to seminars, panel discussions or group classes sponsored by such bona ~ fide non-profit organizations or institutions. 15 _~9 ` Subdivision 20. Separability. Every section, provision or part of this ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision or part to the extent that if any section, provision or part of this ordi- nance shall be held invalid, such holding shall not invalidate any other section, provision or part thereof. Subdivision 21. Penalties. Whoever does any act forbidden by this ordinance or omits or fails to do any act required by this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof by lawful authority, be punished by a fine not to exceed $700.00 and by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days or bath or any combination of either. Each day that a violation exists constitutes a separate and distinct offense. Subdivision 22. Liability for the Crimes of Another. Every person who commits or attempts to commit, conspires to commit or aids and abets in the commission of any act constitut- ing a violation of this ordinance or any act, which constitutes an omission and, therefore, a violation of this ordinance, whether individually or in connection with one or more persons or as principal, agent or accessory, shall be guilty of such offense . and every person who falsely, fraudulently, forcibly or wilfully, induces,. causes, coerces, requires, permits or directs another to violate any of the provisions of this chapter is likewise guilty of such offense. Passed this day of , 1985, by the City Council of the City of Richfield. Mayor, ATTEST: City Clerk 16 / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City. Manager Council Letter No. 50 Agenda .January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield ~ I Subject: Ordinance Providing for Minimum Liquor Liability .Insurance..for Municipal Liquor Operation Council Members: ' i In the Fall of 1985, the City was notified by the Home Insurance Company that the Liquor Liability: (Dram Shop) - insurance policy for the municipal liquor stores would not be renewed-for 1986. City staff immediately proceeded to secure alternate coverage. Liquor liability insurance was secured by City staff through. the State Assigned Risk Pool, underwritten by the Transcontinental Insurance Company. However, the City would only be able to obtain a $100,000 level of primary insurance coverage for the Cedar Avenue store if the City did not have an ordinance requiring greater limits of liability. The City would be able to obtain a $500,000 level of coverage for the Lyndale and Penn Avenue stores without. any ordinance requirement. The reason for the difference in coverage is that the City currently has a dram-shop claim pending at the Cedar Avenue store. Thus, the Assigned Risk Pool is unwilling to voluntarily offer the City better coverage for the Cedar Avenue store. The ordinance provides the legal authority for the City to secure $.500,000 for .each store location.. From a risk management perspective, this $500,000 primary limit is a much preferred liquor liability coverage to the $100,000 available for the Cedar Avenue store without the ordinance amendment. In previous years, the City has maintained a $500,000 primary limit of liquor liability and an umbrella policy of .several million dollars on top of the primary limit. No umbrella policy is available to he City for liquor liablity insurance for-1986. Thus, the primary limit is the only liquor liability insurance coverage available to the City for 1986. This factor makes it .even more critical that the City secure the highest primary limit possible for all store locations. City Administration will present to the-City Council at the February, 10, 1986, council meeting a report with recommendations on the establishment of a Self Insurance Reserve Fund which will serve as umbrella coverage for claims in excess of policy limits. The City Council gave first reading consideration to the ordinance at the January 13, 1986, City Council meeting and scheduled second reading and the public hearing for January 27, 1986. It is recommended that .the City Council hold .the public hearing and approve second reading of the ordinance providing legal authority to require and carry liquor liability insurance _ of $500,000 at each municipal store location. Re ectfu witted, ~hn~ G. Gfar righ -City Manager JGC/eja cc: Administrative.Services Director Liquor Operations Director Finance Manager Personnel Manager i 1 . ~ ~-3 ~~x s. , =fOlficlai PublicatiotO LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC NEARWG NOTICE i Notice is hereb~•.gicen that the Cit>>• .Council of the Cuy of Richfield K•iti meet on Januar>• n. 1f186 at 7:00 P.Jf. p in the Councft Chambers of Ciq• Hafl. > 6900 Port{and Avenue. to consider as° srdinance amending Chapter XLSec- Unn 11.01 of the unictpal•Code of _ Ordinaneec. entitled ":Hunictpal LtQ . uor Stores", by adding to Subdit tsion 4 thereof a provision that the MunIN ' 7E pal1iquor stores sha8 at all times be ~ " ~ • g insured by a liquor liability policy < cocertag liabtlfues under the pro visions of~dinnesota Statutes. Seaton.,., ; 34oA. 801. Such policF shat be m a -combined singte time of at least r f500.t100. All persons interested In this p- matter are hereb3• notified to be Area I ent aadthey wilt be heard. Coptes of y:, the full ordinance ma3' be' obtained 6v caUittg. ti89 7511 or atoppinfi at CNS ~ Half. '.THOMAS P: F£RSER~ City Cterk i - ~ z ~ s:~w„i~.;~-:a: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI ..SECTION 11.01 OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter XI, Section 11..01 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled: "Municipal Liquor Stores" is hereby amended by .adding to Subdivision 4 thereof the following new subparagraph: . (12) The municit~a.t liquor stores shall at all times be insured by a liau~r liability policy covering liabili- ~ ties under the provisions of Ainnesota Statutes, Section 340A.801. Such policy shall be in a combined single limit of at least $-500,000. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota - this day of , 198 I John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~ 'd ~ MUNICIPALITIES L People inured by police officers some• V times file lawsuits; poAutants can leak :from town ,dumps; and official vehicles . 'have accident3. 'As insurers avoid -the - • - most, unpredictable risks, dries and towns • ;pre among the first abandoned: Boston has been without liability incur ante since the end of 1984, when a policy covering claims over Sl million was can- celed. The city's insurer. like many otlr ~ Viers, got out of the municipal liability bust- - , entirely, says Robert J. Cicelek, dep• ,~uty director~foi fiscal affairs. Mr. Clcelek says he considered a foreign insurer, but • the city decided :against buying coverage , ' >after •premiums of more than 3100,000 ,were quoted. Previously, the .city. paid 530.000 a year:. ~ . Wilmington, Ael., ,dropped its liabiUty ''polkies this month,.says finance director _ { . LG. Cleaver, because premiums jumped . Y 90°k to 31.1 million for coverage reduced i to is million from S15 mWion. "We thought it was a horrendous situation con-> sidering our excellent record; ' Mr..1 C Deaver says. The city also believes a ;;state law.wili limit its liability to 5300,000_ per accident.:::. .Fort Lauderdale, Fla:, stW has liabil- ity Insurance for its police and public ofiy ..:dale, bpt lacks a general liability policy: that would cover accidents on sidewallca or the Intracoastal Waterway. "It's s1m- not 'available;' says risk manager, f'At least 30•Californfa cities are operat-- . ing without insurance: Blue Lake, a lum-~ ',her ~ town of 1,200 people 1n the northern part of the state, limits access to public buildings and may close Its roller-skarin~ ?t rink. "We eould;be wiped out" hit with a big damage award. says Richard Platt, gity torney. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. ~9 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the CDR Project Council Members: At the January 13, 1986, city council meeting, the staff presented comments on the EAW for the CDR Project which is located in the .northeast quadrant of Interstate 35W and x+94. At that meeting, the findings of the EAW were reviewed by the staff and a recommendation was made that the city council, acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), make a negative declaration on the need for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the CDR Project. Subsequent to the staff presentation, Mr. Richard Krier presented a series of comments questioning the content and conclusions drawn in the EAW. Mr. Krier indicated that potential significant environmental impacts do exist in the project area and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared for the project. He further stated that the Richfield City Council should declare a need for the preparation for an EIS. Upon the recommendation of the City Manager, council postponed a decision until the 27th of January to allow the developer and city staff an opportunity to respond to the issues raised by Mr. Krier. The staff subsequently conducted meetings with both the city's planning consultant (BRW) and various consultants working for CDR in an attempt to formulate responses to each of the points .raised by Mr. Krier. This council letter responds to each point raised in the order in which they were mentioned in Mr. Krier's letter which was resented to the Cit P y Council on Janaury 13, 1986. Mr. Krier's statements are in lighter type and the responses are in bold type. z According to applicable state legislation, the City Council must make a decision on the issue of whether there is a need for the prepartion of an EIS. within 30 days of the closing of the comment period on the EAW. The comment period closed on Januar 2 1 86 Ther efore the Ci o n '1 must Y , 9 t C u ci ~ Y make a decision no later than Febr uary 1, 1986. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution making a negative declaration relative to the need for an .Environmental Impact Statement for the CDR project. Re ectfu witted, J n G. art right City Manager j JGC/eja I 'i ~~i r I ~-3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY RICHARD KR1ER ON .THE CDR INVESTMENTS EAW 1. It is possible the EAW should be a scoping EAW, rather than a regular EAW. The development's square footage should be verified. Response: None of the public agencies reviewing the EAW indicated the need for the preparation of an EIS. The EAW adequately addressed and resolved all of the significant issues. The square footage of deve- lopment is proposed to be approximately 740,000 square feet but will not under any circumstances exceed 749,000 square feet. 2. Accumulative effects are not considered. Other nearby development which are proposed or planned and are not included in this EAW are: A. Hampton Hotel Development at 77th and~Lyndale Avenue South. Response: The effects of the Hampton Hotel development were included as part of the assumed background information for the traffic, noise and air quality impact analyses. B. Redevelopment of the entire area as recently approved in the Redevelopment Plan and Tax increment Financing Ptan. Response: Redevelopment of the entire area is not an issue. The Environmental Review Process is intended to address projects. A project is defined as "a governmental action, the results of'which would cause physical manipulation of the environment, directly or indirectly. The determination of whether a project requires environmental documents shall be made by reference to the physical activity to be undertaken and not to the governmental Qrocess of approving the pro,lect" (MN Rules 4410.0200 subp. 65>. C. Major housing, office and public developments at 76th Street and York. This development will use some of the same local transpor- tation networks and the same sanitary system. Response: The development west of the site in the vicinity of 76th and York is not part of the same geographic area. The trat- fic from the two sites is distinctly separated. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, in their comments on the EAW specifi- catly stated that the sanitary sewer system has adequate capacity to provide sanitary sewer service for this development (MWCC letter to John Rutford from R.A. Odde, dated 12/18/85>. D. Major developments at France and I-494 which uses the same sani- tary sewer system. Response: See Response for 2C. E. Area of 5 acres + immediately north of the proposed development. The correct parcel acreage is 2.55 acres rather than 5 acres. Presently there are no plans for the development of-this parcel. 3. Item 11 in the EAW states, "List all known state, local and federal permits/funding/approval required for the project." In addition to those listed in the EAW, there are several more which should be listed. They include: A. Metropolitan Council - Metropolitan Significance Act requires the Metro Council to review any local action which effects the metro- - politan systems. This development creates a need for expansion or change to the I-494-Lyndale Avenue Bridge and interchange would require the Metro Council's review. Response: The environmental review and other studies completed for the project area did not indicate that the proposed project required any changes to the I-494/Lyndale Avenue Bridge or to the regional roadway system in order to meet the forecasted traffic demands from the site. The project does not require Metropolitan significance review. The Metropolitan Council did not indicate the need for Metropolitan Significance review in their comments on the EAW. B. Metropolitan Waste Water Management Commission. This Metro Agency must approve the proposed sanitary sewer system. Response: The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission reviews per- mits for sewer system extensions which are submitted to and approved by the PCA. The site is presently .served by a sancta ry sewer lateral. No MWCC approval is required. C. Minnesota Department of Transportation. This State Agency must approve of changes to the storm water run-off systems as it effects 1-494 and I-35W. MnDOT must also approve plans for a reconstructed Lyndale Avenue-I-494 Bridge. Response: No changes to the freeway stormwater management system or for the reconstruction of the Lyndale Avenue bridge are pro- . posed or required as part of this project. D. City of Bloomington - Must approve I-494-Lyndale Bridge. Response: No changes to the I-494 Lyndale bridge are proposed as part of this project. There are several permits which are not listed and two contradictions as to what has been proposed to happen.. The permits or approvals not fisted are: Response: The. purpose of listing the permits is primarily advi- sory for the project proposer as well as the decision-making units of government to be certain that all approvals are obtained. The failure to list all permits does not mean that environmental review is incomplete. The purpose of the EAW is to collect infor- mation about the physical features of a project, the physical ` _ effects the project will have on the environment and public ser- vices and utilities and :the measures which might be taken to avoid, minimize or mitigate project-related impacts on the environment. The EAW did recognize certain project-related impacts and recommendations were made to minimize those to the extent possible. a. Variance to zoning ordinances to allow 749,500 square feet of development, a 65% increase over what is allowed. by City ordinance. Response: The zoning ordinance is being revised to reflect cer- - tain changes in city policy. -The proposed changes go beyond the issues s ecific to this ro osat. P P P b. Street vacation to vacate Emerson Avenue as proposed by the site plan. Response: Street vacation approval will be required, c. Liquor I icenses issued by the City. Response: A liquor license will be required. d. .Authorization to acquire the single family homes on Emerson Avenue, an action of the HRA. . Response: Authorization to acquire the single family homes will be required. In addition,. the plat and plat review as stated in the EAW have not been done as of yet. Contrary to environmental regulations. A Redevelopment Plan, Developer's Agreement, Demolition Permit. and Rezoning have not been approved by the City or HRA or both. Response: The environmental regulations specitically state that final, governmental approvals are expressly prohibited until the environmen- tai review process has been completed. No final governmental appro- vacs have been issued for the project at this time. 4. Item 12 for the EAW states, "Is the project inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan?" the project is inconsistent with the Plan because of the extreme land use intensity that is being proposed. Changes in the Comprehensive Plan must be reviewed by the City of Bloomington and the Metropolitan Council. Response: The project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan in density and intended use and further is also consistent with the Metropolitan Urban. Development framework as defined by the Metropolitan Council. In the Metropolitan Council Memorandum from Paul Baltzersen to the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee, the memorandum concludes that the proposed project is not in conflict with the Council plans. No changes in the Comprehensive Plan are required. ' 5. Item 14 of the EAW states, "Approximately how many acres of the site (11 acres) are in each category, (i.e., woods, grassland, wetland, crop land, impervious surface and others) before and after development occurs." The EAW shows the categories by percentage, rather than acres. However, there is a contradiction. The percentage of grassland presently existing is 67$. After development the percentage of grassland is 0~. Item 21 is contradictory to Item 14. One of the methods Fisted in Item 14, which will be used for erosion control is grassland (sod). Thus, either Item 14 or 21 is incorrect. Also, the increase in the wood and forest category from 19~ to 25~ of the site should be confirmed. Response:. The percentages. have been coverted to acres. The change in land cover is broken down as follows: TYPe Before (Acres) After (Acres) Forest-Wooded 2.02 0.75 Grassland 7.14 0.00 Impervious 1.49 7.04 Landscaped 0.00 2.86 Total 10.65 10.65 6. Item 17 of the EAW states, "An average ground water depth cannot be concluded at 25 feet from one soil boring." Response: The average was obtained from two borings, not one as the • comments indicate. The results of the two measurements were within five feet of each other (Soil Report by GME Consultants, Inc., Aprii 20, 1985). 7. Exhibit C, Site Plan - This plan shows a significant original oak forest to remain to the north of this project on a separate site. It is improbable that this separate forest would remain if the site north of the subject site is developed.. The City has nod ordinance to require the retention of this wood/forest area. Response: The site concept plan for the proposed project indicates that. the trees are to remain. The project does not propose any deve- lopment in the mature. stand of oaks to the north.- 8. Exhibit E, Project Descriptions - The project is described as 500,000 square foot office,."restaurant, banquet and coffee shop facilities having a seating capacity of 600." Exhibit I of the EAW states the p roject has a restuaruant with 200 seats, a cocktail loung with 150 seats, a coffee shop with 200 seats, and banquet facilities with 600 seats. This is a contradiction of 550 seats of that described in Exhibit E. Response; The project as described in Exhibit I is correct and is the size for. which all analyses were completed. 9. Exhibit F, Surrounding land Uses = the single family homes which are described as adjoining the site, are actually part of the site and are part of the public acquisition as described in the Redevelopment Plana The statement. is correct. 10. Exhibit I, Storm Water Runoff - The Existing runoff is estimated to be 18 c.f.'s on a 10 year occurrence. It is estimated after development that the run off would be 40..59 c.f.'s on a ten year occurrence. Exhibit I proposes the construction of a holding pond to accommodate this additional storm ..water runoff.. However, the site plan (Exhibit C) does not provide fora holding pond. It is also difficult to determine where a holding pond could be located without major vegeta- tion changes. Response:- Stormwater is to be ponded in a dry pond immediately east. of the proposed` parking ramp. using the natura i ,terra i n characteristic of that location. Also, the pond shown on the concept plan south of the office tower is also part of the on-site stormwater management system. 11. Exhibit J, Noise and Air Quality Analysis - There appears to be three errors in this analysis. The first is .the traffic generation flow and traffic noise figures do not seem the same. Knowing the fine work .that Stagar Roscoe performs, I am certain there is some explanation for this difference. Response: The traffic volumes used in the noise analysis (Table 1) ~ are peak hourly daytime and nighttime. volumes. The traffic volumes shown in Table 3 are peak hour and average eight-hour lane volumes. The traffic analysis memorandum only reports average daily traffic volumes which cannot be compared directly to the hourly traffic volu- mes used in the air and noise analyses. Second, the assumption is made that this development will not signifi- cantly impact noise quality at -the observation post because of such general noise from I-35W and I-494. Yet, existing noise levels are below .state standards and post development levels are above stated standards. Response: Predicted existing noise levels are slightly above state .standards. .Reconstruction. of 77th Street will result in a reorien- tation of traffic from 76th Street to 77th Street which will also reduce noise along 76th Street and increase noise along 77th Street. The redevelopment plan for the area includes a noise wall along the north side of 77th Street.. The project proposer should provide addi- tionai information on future noise levels with this barrier in place. The increment of noise generated by project-related traffic is insignificant when compared to the increment of noise generated by the construction of 77th Street and will be mitigated by the proposed noise barrier. Third, an assumption is made that 77th Street will be built, and, assume, a new bridge will be built at Lyndale and I-494. The "with no development" is a misnomer. It is my understanding that this may or may not occur.- In that the following must occur for the street and bridge to be built: A. Acquisition of R-O-W including relocation of businesses and families; Response.: This statement is correct. B. Approval of MnDOT; and Response: See response to 3C. C. Approval of the City of Bloomington. Response: See response to 3D. If the development proceeds without the new 77th Street and Lyndale Bridge, new assumptions would change the noise analysis.. A noise analysis should compare existing conditions with post. development conditions. Response: The assumption about the construction of a new bridge and the need for one. is not part of nor required for this project to proceed. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS It is my contention that enough signi#icant environmental effects exist to .warrant the preparation of an EIS for this action and the '~accumutative" actions. Potential environmental effects which should be addressed i nc Nude: 1. Geological Hazards. Thais area, along with most of Richfield, is part of an Aquafere (sic) Recharge Area (See Comprehensive Plan). An Aquafere (sic) Recharge Area filters storm water through the ground and porous bedrock to replenish the aquafere. Aquaferes (sic) are large bedrock formations which hold and. store water. Richfield gets its water from the Jordan and Mount Simon Aquaferes (sic). It is unlikely that this small area will significantly effect the aquafere (sic). However, the accumulative effect .and potential effect should be known. Response: The attached tigure shows the recharge areas for the Jordan .Aquifer.. The size of the recharge area in the approximate project location is exteremlysmall. Further, given the small (11 acres) size of the parcel, any contribution to groundwater recharge is quite small and .insignificant relative to the total aquifer. Major groundwater .recharge areas are located outside of the primarily intensely deve- loped urbanized area and are located to the north and west. 2. Solar Access. The shadow diagram-prepared by Korsanky, Krank {attached) indicates a winter shadow will be cast. into several of the surrounding. single family residential areas. An 1.1:00 A.M. shadow 7- will cast slightly .into the 76th Street and Girard area, a 1:00 P.M. shadow will be cast slighfily more into the 76th Street and Fremont Avenue ara, and a 2:00 P.M. shadow even slightly more into the 76th Street and Emerson area. The most significant shadow casts from the 25-story building are after 3:00 P.M. when the shadow will effect all .the neighborhood from 76th Street and Dupont to 76th Street and Colfax. By 4:00 P.M. the shadows will effect the block south of 76th Street between Emerson and Dupont. If other projects in this redevelopment area are given the same zoning ordinance variance consideration, or are as tall as this project, (65~ greater land use intensity than is allowed by ordinance), the accumu- lative shadow effect could shade single family areas ail the way from 77th Street to 75th Street and from east of Lyndale Avenue to Girard Avenue. Response: The effects of the shadow cast by the building va ry from day to day throughout the season and effect a particular residence or residences only for short periods of the day depending upon their directional location relative to the office tower. At 4:00 P.M. during the winter solstice, the shading effect of the building would last for one-half hour or less since total darkness is in effect by 4:30 P.M. There are no regulations in effect protecting rights to solar access at the present time. The effects of several similar developments on residences in the neighborhood is purely speculative since there are no proposals currently under consideration for other similar structures. 3. Storm Water Runoff.- The EAW states that 74% of the site will be .impervious surface .once development has occurred. This major change will increase storm water runoff from 18 c.f.'s to 40+ c.f.'s. A ten-year occurrence in a probability factor that a heavy storm generating 4.1 inches of rain in a 24 hour period would occur once every ten years. P~fost municipal storm water systems are designed to ten-year occurance standards. This large additional runoff from the impervious surface will require a holding pond which does not appear on the site plan. Also, holding pond details are not provided in the. EAW to determine the effects on perculation to ground water, flooding, or the effects on the city storm water system, which has been sensitive to flooding. A few years ago, Richfield experienced two, 100+ year storm occurances with substantial flooding and property damage. The effects of the 1.00 year storm should also be known because of the sensitive location adjacent to a major metropolitan transportation link. Also, flooding has beena significant issue in Richfield. Response: See response to Point 10 above. • 4. Noise. Referring to Noise and Air Quality Analysis prepared in October 1985 for CDR Investments by Stagar Roscoe tExhibit J), I reach the following conclusions: ~ A. The Noise Analysis is based on traffic generation assumptions con- twined on Page 6, Table One. The segment map of the table refers to a missing from EAW.. Response: The segment map is not shown in the EAW. B. Comparisons are made between two nonexisting conditions with no comparison to existing conditions on 76th Street. Of course, the noise from this development would not increase significantly if all of the are were redeveloped but would increase significantly over exisitng conditions. Again, the accumulative effect must be considered and appears to be significant. - Response: See response to Point 11 above. C. Traffic generation figures used in the Noise Analysis do not appear to agree with traffic directional flow diagram. Response: See response to Point 11 above. D. The existing noise levels are within the minimum Minnesota State Noise Standard. With post development both day and night, noise levels will increase so that noise will exceed state standards. This increase from existing levels is significant. Response: See response to Point 11 above. f. The Noise Analysis concludes that increases are .due to I-35W and I-494, which are beyond the scope of the project. Yet, if the present background noise and i-35W and I-494 is below state stan- dards, then it .follows that increases are due to development of this project or the accumulative actions and not I-35W and I-494. Afso, the EAW is being preps-red by the City as the Responsible Governmental Unit. One of the purposes of .Minnesota Environmental Policy Act is.to "minimize adverse effects and to restore and enhance environmental quality." Because noise is beyond the scope of the project, does not mean it is beyond the scope of the E!S or the responsible units of government's ability to mitigate the adverse effects. .Response: See response to Point 11 above. 5. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety. A site trip generation calculation and directional flow chart have been included in the EAW. The site trip generationcalculations include a 500,000 s.f. office building and a 400 room hotel. These calculations do not include the 200 seat restaurant, 200 seat coffee shop., 150 seat cocktail lounge, or 600 seat banquet facility. The traffic distribution diagram relates to street a.nd bridge development which may or may not occur because of the need for funding from the City of Bloomington, .approval of MnDOT, and a Federal Environmental Clearance which I understand has not been applied for. Trip generation study should also be done for the ~ situation where 77th Street is not improved and/or the Lyndale Avenue- I-494 Bridge is not improved. This should be done as part of the EIS scoping exercise so that mitigatory measures, should the existing con- dition remain, can be planned. Response: The hotel trip generation rate used in the analysis reflects driveway traffic counts at existing hotels. -The surveyed .hotels contain restaurants, coffee shops, lounges and banquet facili- ties. The total trip generation is reported in terms of trips per room. The issue of the roadway improvements proposed in the area has ..been addressed in other responses. Traffic study completed for an intergovernmental Task Force in the early 1970~s indicated that the voFume to capacity ratios (V/C) for effected streets were then as follows: V/C 1.25 76th Street from Lyndale Avneue to I-35W V/C 1.10 67th Street from I-35W to Penn Avenue V/C 1.05 Penn Avenue from 76th Street to I-494 V/C 1.0 Lyndale Avenue from 7bth Street to I-494 All of the streets are overloaded.. Traffic project was prepared Westwood Planning and Engineering Company in the early 1980's and recent BRW projections, indicates a signifi- cant capacity problem if this property were to develop. The traffic problems not only associated with the 76th Street or (if built 77th Street), but with the area west of I-35W and with the access to i-35W, the scoping EIS should address this issue. Response: The redevelopment plan for the area contains a traffic forecast and analysis. The analysis did not indicate traffic problems associated with the proposed development. Pedestrian safety was not considered as part of the EAW. There are three major pedestrian generator exist along near 76th Street. These a re A. Richfield Junior High School; B. Large apartment complexes just west of I-35W; and C. Little League field east of Lyndale. Several serious pedestrian accidents have occurred along 76th Street. The 76th Street - I-35W Bridge is unsafe for pedestrians and impassable for periods of time. The interface between increasing t raffic and edestrian resents a ma 'or safet roblem which soul P , P d be J Y P a ddressed and mitigated. The scoping EIS should address this issue. Res onset Pedestrian p movements are addressed in the redevelopment plan for the area and are not an issue with respect to the proposed project. a. -~Z 6. Wildlife and Plant Life. The EAW states that the site is covered by original oak forest. Of course, part of the forest will be destroyed by construction and replaced by what appears to be small, less signi- ficant tree cover. In addition, it is logical to assume that natural prairie flora and fauna may exist on the site , because it is one of the only sites where urban or freeway development has not occurred. A naturalist should observe the site (dig through the snow) so if such prairie spe- cies do exist mitigating measures can be taken. ~esponsec The City of Richfield requested that BRW's wildlife biolo- - gist examine the site to determine the status of the oak forest and the project site in general. The wildlife biologist visited the site to identify the primary tree species present, their approximate age, and whether the site might possibly include any native prairie plant species. The primary tree species present are bur oak, a member of the white oak family. Two age classes of trees are present. The majority of the trees are about 75 .years of age, i.e., the stand was formed. around 1910. A few scattered trees of approximately 120 years of age are also present and are almost certainly the parent stock from which the stand originated.. The southern one-third of the site has no oak trees presently and the ground cover is that which is characteristically associated with abandoned farm fields. The eastern part of the oak stand has moderately dense underbrush and has not been disturbed since the 1950~s. The western part of the . stand has no brush present and is quite open. The field inspection suggested that the area had been previously farmed and pastured. To substantiate this hypothesis, old aerial pho- tography for the site was examined using the aerial photo archives located at the University. of Minnesota. An examination of the earliest available aerial photography for the site, flown in 1940, substantiated the hypothesis. The southern one-third of the site was agricultural field and was farmed until the early 1950's. The oak stand was pastured as evidenced on the photography by the presence of a cow lane from a farmstead to the woods and also by evidence of a north-south fence across the eastern one-fourth of the wetland within the oak woods. Further, the 1940 aerial photography shows the area north of 76th Street as having already been subdivided .and the 1951 aerial pho- tography reveals the presence of a home in the northwest part of the oak woods.. Evidence of several large apparently discarded objects within the woods is also evident in the 1951 photography. Given this history of land use, the site has been disturbed to the point that all characteristics of native prairie have been lost and it is not likely that any native prairie fauna or flora are present. ~~3 CONCLUSIONS 1. Potentenial significant environment effects exist to the extent that a n EIS shou I d be prepared; Response:. The facts do not support this conclusion. 2. The responsible unit of government should declare a need for an EIS; ' and Response: The facts do not support this conclusion nor did any other reviewing agency see the need for an EIS. 3. No final approvals or permits shou)d be issued until the EIS process is complete. Response: No final approvals or permits will be issued until the environmental review process has been completed. r. SECTION 5 HYDROLOGY r~i~iJ~rti= ~-L i;t~;Uivuvvt:l EK RECHARGE iHiiEAS OF THE JORuAN AQUIFEk ,j ? 1SANT1 CO. ~ CH4SAG0 r- - CO. SHERBURNE ~ - - C 0- f ANOKA CO. ' f . ~ WRlGHT -~F~ CO. r' - _ 0- ~ O t ~ ~ WIN ~o CITY • BASINS--;-- , ~ a~ c" - ~ o c v a 0~ _ .CARVER ~ _ - - °,1 o r JO - _ `0' eoo c~z' ----y s~ SCOTT - DAK ermitlion e S I B L E Y m / Anticline 8 CO. 7 ~ ~ ~ \ - oc r+u~ J i l g~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~ J ~ • ; ~ LE SU UR ICE CO. \ ~ ~ • i I 6'~ 92 Source: Geology of Minnesota, 1972 r r e CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT THERE IS NO POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL .IMPACT STATEMENT FOR. THE PROJECT. PROPOSED BY CDR INVESTMENTS IN THE ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council. of the City of ~ Richfield, Minnesota (City) as followss ~ Section 1. Background. 1.01. The City is the responsible governmental unit for the purposes of preparing an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) - for the project proposed~by CDR Investments (Project) in the ILN Redevelopment District. I 1.02. An EAW has been completed and distributed to the Environmental Quality Board staff, other agencies, and persons as required bylaw. 1.03. Notice of the EAW availability has been published in the official City newspaper. 1.04. Notice of the EAW availability has been published in the EQB Monitor as provided by law. 1.05. The thirty-day comment period on the EAW as provided by law has expired. 1.06. The City Council has considered the EAW and the comments submitted by various entities and persons in response to the EAW. T.07. In determining whether the Project has potential for significant environmental effects, the City compared the impact that may be reasonably expected to occur from the Project with the criteria established by law. 1.08., In determining whether the Project has potential for significant -environmental effects the followin criteria hav e g been considered: a. The type, extent, and reversability of the environmental effects of the Project, b. The cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects, c The. extent to which the environmental effects _ are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority, and d. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and .controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken, by public agencies or the Project proposer, or of the environmental impact statements previously prepared on similar projects. Section 2. Findings of Fact. 2.01. The City accepts and adopts the information, conclusions, and determinations made in the EAW. 2.02. The Project will generate environmental effects of the type typically generated by similar office and hotel developments. These environmental effects include traffic effects, noise effects, air quality effects, sanitary and storm sewer capacity effects, shadow effects and soil movement. 2.03. The environmental effects of the Project, including those referenced in the EAW, have been reviewed by relevant public bodies and agencies in accordance with required procedures. None of the public bodies or agencies determined that the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 2.04. It is not anticipated that the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects would add materially to the environmental effects of the Project. 2.05. The City has conducted a study that includes an intersection/interchange analysis. It is anticipated that the environmental effects relating; to increased traffic flow with respect to the Project will be mitigated through City participation in the I-494 corridor study with the Metropolitan Council and through further study and analysis, if necessary, by the City of the design of (1) ~ the 77th StreetlLyndale Intersection and its coordination with the adjacent I-494 interchange; and (2) the capacity of the following highway interchanges: I-494 and Penn Avenue; I-494 and Lyndale Avenue; and I-35W and 76th Street. 2.06. In evaluation of the Project and in preparation of the EAW, City staff has reviewed other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies .and other. third parties and also information previously prepared on other projects. The City has sought to anticipate and control the environmental effects. of the Project as a result of review. of these studies, particularly in the area of traffic generation. r I t 2.07. The extent of the environmental effects has been reviewed by City staff and, to ttie extent possible, environmental effects have been reversed in•the planning process. 2.08. The Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. Section 3. Conclusion. 3.01.. The Project does .not have the potential for significant environmental effects and therefore the City Council issues a Negative Declaration declaring that the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not necessary. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • a. I • . 12 January 1986 Mayor and City Council _ CITY OF RICHFIELD , 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota. 55423 Subject: Comment on Environmental Assessment Worksheet Office-Hotel Development I-35 and I-494 Dear Mayor and Council: As you know, Chapter 4410, Minnesota Environmental Review Regulations designates the City Council as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RG?;} .for the preparation of Environmental Documents, including this EAW and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This letter is provided to comment on the EAW which is before you and request that you order the preparation of an EIS. ' I have been asked by my neighbors and, specif ical 1y, by Mr. Ernie Lindstrom to review the proposed EAW and provide comment to you. I am qualified to provide comment because of: 1. Being Planning Director of City of Richfield from 1973 to 1979. 2. Having been a consultant, who prepared planning information for Mrs. Lyons before her death. 3. Having been a consultant who prepared initial land use alternatives to the City Manager in 1983. 4. Having prepared or supervised the preparation of several EAW's. 5. Professional and educational planning background. 1 0 To assist the Council, I have divided this letter into four parts as follows: 1. Short Summary of the environmental process. 2. Review of proposed EAW. 3. Identification of potential significant environmental effects. _ 4. Request that an Envioonmental Impact .Statement be prepared to address the potential environmental impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES REVIEW The purpose of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act is to insure the significant environmental issues are addressed. The Act states that the environment is critical to the welfare of the state. However, - neither a EAW or EIS are to be used to justify a decision or to disapprove of a project. Roth are to be used as a guide to permitting agencies in amending or denying permits and .carrying out other responsibilities. The environmental review process is constructed to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects. Two instruments are used to assess the environmental effects. The E.AW and the EIS.. The EAW or Environmental Assessmenet Worksheet is used to deterine if any potentially significant environmental effects are present. It should include a particular project or a group of related projects to determine the "accumulative effect". The environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which may be "scoped" to address only specific areas, is used for an in-depth look at specific environmental effects. In this case, an EAW has been prepared as a mandatory requirement of Minnesota Regulations. That is, any commercial facility over 300,000 square feet or any parking ramp over 1,000 spaces require the preparation of an EAW before any final governmental decisions are made, including rezoning or agreement to provide public facilities or a demolition permit. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required when the commercial facility is over 750,.000 square feet or when the City Council orders an EIS.. In ordering an EIS, the Council must determine that the EAW or comments to the EAW show that the proposed hotel- office development has a potential for significant environmental effects. Accumulative effect, i.e., this development, ILN Redevelopment, the large development in Bloomington, must also be considered. .The proposed development is to be 749,000 square feet. This square footage should be carefully verified because 750,000 square feet is the mandatory threshold requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The 'Council should ask the City Staff to verify the square footage. 2 ~ 4. REVIEW OF EAW ' I have reviewed the EAW and find the following:. 1. It is possible the EAW should be a scoping EAW, rather than a regular EAW. the development's square footage should be verified. 2. Accumulative effects are not considered. Other nearby development .which are .proposed or planned and are not included in this EAW are: A. Aampton Hotel Development at 77th and Lyndale Ave. So. B. Redevelopment of the entire area as recently approved in the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan. C. Major housing, office and public developments at 75th Street and York. This development will use some of the same local transportation networks and the same sanitary sewer system. D. Major developments at France and I-494 which uses the same sanitary sewer system, E. Area of 5 acres + immediately north of the. proposed .development. 3. Item 1 I in the EAW states, "List all known state, local and ' federal permits/funding/approval required for the project." In addition to those listed in the EQW, there are several more which should be listed. They include: A. Metropolitan Council - Metropolitan Signficance Act requires the Metro Council to review any local action which effects the metropolitan systems. This development creates a need for expansion or change to the I-494-Lyndale Avenue Bridge and interchange would require the Metro Council's review. B. Metropolitan Waste Water Management Commission. This Metro Agency must approve the proposed sanitary sewer system. C. Minnesota Department of Transportation. This State Agency must approve of changes to the storm water run- off systems as it effects I-494 and I-35W. MnDOT must also approve plans for a reconstructed Lyndale Avenue- I-494 Bridge. D. City of Bloomington - Must approve I-494-Lyndale Bridge. There are several permits which are not listed and two contradictions as to what has been proposed to happen. The permits or approvals not listed are: 3 ~-a a. Variance to zoning ordinances to allow 749,500 square feet of development, a 65X increase over what is allowed by City ordinance. b. Street vacation to vacate Emerson Avenue as proposed by the site plan. c. Liquor licenses issed by the .City. d. Authorization to acquire the single family homes on Emerson Avenue, an action of the HRA. in addition, the plat and plat review as stated in the EAW have not been done as of yet. Contrary to environmental regulations. A Redevelopment Plan, Developer's Agreement, Demolition Permit and Rezoning have not been approved by the City or HRA or both. 4. Item 12 for the EAW states, "Is the project inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan?" the project is inconsistent with the Plan because of the extreme land use intensity that is being proposed. Changes in the Comnprehensive Plan must be reviewed by the City of Bloomignton and the Metropolitan Council. 5. Item 14 of the EAW states, "Approximately how many acres of the site (11 acres) are in each category, i.e., woods, grassland, wetland, crop land, impervious surface and others) before and after development occurs:` The EAW shows the categories by percentage, rather than acres. However, there is a contradiciton. The percentage of grassland presently exisitng is 67%. After development the percentage of grass land is 0%. Item 21 is contradictory to Item 14. One of the methods listed in Item 14, which will be used for erosion control is grassland (sod). Thus, either Item 14 or 21 is incorrect. Also, the increase in the wood and forest category from 19% to 25% of the site should be confirmed. b. Item 17 of the EAW states, "An average ground water depth cannot be concluded at 25 feet from one soil boring:' 7. Exhibit C, Site Plan - This plan shows a significant original oak forest to remain to the north of this pro j.ect on a separate site. It is improbable that this separate forest would remain if the site north of the subject site is developed. The City has no ordinance to require the retention of this wood/forest area. 8. Exhibit E, Project Description - The project is described as 500,000 square foot office, "restaurant, banquet and coffee shop facilities having a seating capacity of 600". Exhibit I of the EAW states .the project has a restaurant with 200 seats, a cocktail lounge with 150 seats, a coffee shop with 200 seats, and banquet facilities with 600 seats. This is a ~ ; contradiction of .550 seats of that described in Exhibit E. 4 I ' i Land Uses -the sin le famil homes 9. Exhibit F, Surround ng g y which are described as adjoining the site, are actually part of the site and are paYt of the public acquisition as described in the Redevelopment Plan. 10. Exhibit I, Storm Water Runoff - The Existing runoff is estimated to be 18 c.f's on a 10 year occurrence. It is estimated after development that the run off would be 40.59 c.f.'s on a_ten gear occurrence. Exhibit I proposes the construction of a holding pond to accomodate this additional storm water runoff. However, the site plan (Exhibit C) does not provide for a holding pond. It is also difficult to determine where a holding pond could be located without major vegetation changes. 11. Exhibit J., Noise and Air Quality Analysis - There appears to be three errors in this analysis. The first is the traffic generation flow and traffic noise figures do not seem the same. Knowing the fine work that Stagar Roscoe performs, I am certain there is same explanation for this difference. Second, the assumption is made that this development wil 1 not significantly impact noise .quality at the observation post because. of such general noise from I- 35W and I-494. Yet, existing noise levels are below state standards and post development levels are above state standards. Third, an assumption is made that 77th Street will be built, and, I assume, a new bridge will be built at Lyndale and I-494. The "with no development" is a misnomer. It is my understanding that this may or may not occur. In that the following must .occur for the street and bridge to be built: A. Acquisition of R-O-W including relocation of businesses and families; B. Approval of MnDOT; and C. Approval of the City of Bloomington. If the development proceeds without the new 77th street and Lyndale Bridge, new assumptions would change the noise analysis. A noise analysis should compare existing conditions with post development conditions. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS It is my contention that. enough significant enviornmental effects exist to warrant the preparation of an EIS for this action and the "accumulative" actions. Potential environmental effects which should be addressed include: 5 Q. 3 ~Z 1. Geological Aazards. This area, along with most of Richfield, is part of an Aquafere Recharge Area (see. Comprehensive Plan). An Aquafere Recharge Area filters storm water through the ground and porous bedrock to replenish the aquafere. Aquaferes are large bedrock formations which hold and. store water. Richfield gets its water from the 3ordan and Mount Simon Aquaferes. It is unlikely that this small area will significantly effect the aquafere. However, the accumulative effect and potential - effect should be known. 2. Solar Access The shadow diagram prepared by Rorsanky, Krank (attached) indicates a winter shadow will be cast into several of the surrounding single family residential areas. An 1 1:00 A.M. shadow will be cast slightly into the 76th Street and Girard area, a 1:00 P.M. shadow will be cast slightly more into the 76th Street and Fremont Avenue area, and a 2:00 P.M. shadow even slightly .more into the 76th Street and Ilnerson area. The most significant shadow casts from the 25-story building are after 3:00 P.M. when the shadow will effect all the neighborhood from 76th Street and Dupont to 75th Street and Colfax. By 4:00 P.M. the shadows will effect the block south of 76th Street between Emerson and Dupont. If other pro jests in this redeveloment area are given the same zoning ordinance variance consideration, or are as tall as this project, (657 greater land use intensity than is allowed by ordinance), the accumulative shadow effect could shade single family areas all the way from 77th Street to 75th Street and from east of Lyndale Ave. to Girard Ave. 3. Storm Water Runoff. The EAW states that 74T of the site will be impervious surface once development has occurred. This major change will increase storm water runoff from 18 c.f.'s to 40+ c.f.'s. A ten-year occurrence is a probability factor that a heavy storm generating 4.1 inches of rain in a 24 hour period would occur once every ten years. Most municipal storm water. systems are designed to ten-year occurence standards. This large additional runoff from the impervious surface will require a holding pond which does not appear on the site plan.. Also, holding pond details are not provided in the EAW to determine the effects on perculation to ground water, f looding, or the effects on the city storm water system, which has been sensitive to flooding. 6 A few years ago, Richfield experienced two, 100+ year storm occurrences with substantial•flooding and property damage. The effects of the 100. year storm should also be known because of the sensitive location adjacent to a major metropolitan transportation link. Also, flooding has been a significant issue in Richfield. 4. Noise. Referring to Noise and Air Quality Analysis prepared in October 19$S for CDR Investments by Stagar Roscoe (Exhibit J), I reach the following conclusions: A. The Noise Analysis is based on traffic generation assumptions contained on Page b, Table One. The segment map of the table refers to a missing from EAW. B. Comparisons are made between two nonexisting conditions with no comparison to existing conditions on 76th Street. Of course, the noise from this develoment would not increase significantly if all of the area were redeveloped but would increase significantly over existing conditions. Again, the accumulative effect must be considered and appears to be significant. C. Traffic generation figures used in the Noise Analysis do not appear to agree with traffic directional flow diagram. D. The existing noise levels are within the minimum Minnesota State Noise Standard. 'With post development both day and night, noise levels will increase so that noise will exceed state standards. This increase from ~ existing levels is significant. E. The Noise Analysis concludes that increases are due to I-35W and I-494, which are beyond the scope of the project. Yet, if the present backgound noise with I- 35W and I-494 is below state standards, then it fo1 lows that increases are due to development of this project or the accumulative actions and not I-35W and I-494. Also, the EAW is being prepared by the City as the Responsible Governmental Unit. One of the purposes of Minnesota Environmental Policy Act is to "minimize adverse effects and to restore and enhance environmental quality". Because noise is beyond the scope of the project, does not mean it is beyond the scope of an EIS or the responsible units of governement's ability to mitigate the adverse effect. 5. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety. A site trip generation calculation and directional flow chart have been included in the EAW. The site trip generation calculations include a 500,000 s.f. office building and a 400 room hotel. These • ~ calculations do not include the 200 seat restaurant, 200 seat coffee shop, 150 seat cocktail lounge, or 600 seat banquet facility. The traffic distribution diagram relates to street and bridge development which may or may not occur because of the need for funding from the City of 7 ~ - ~ Bloomin ton a royal of MnDOT and a Federal Environmental g ~ PP Clearance which I understand has not been applied for. Trip generation study should also be done for the sitaution where 77th street is not improved and/or the Lyndale Ave-I-494 Bridge is not improved. This should be done as part of the EIS scoping exercise so that mitigatory measures, should the existing condition remain, can be planned. Traffic study completed for an intergovernmental Task Force in the early 1970's indicated that the volume to capacity ratios (V/C) for effected streets were then as follows: V/C 1.25 76th Street from Lyndale Ave. to I-35W V/C 1.10 67th Street from I-35W to Penn Avenue V/C 1.05 Penn Avenue from 76th Street to I-494 V/C 1.0 Lyndale Avenue from 76th Street to I-494 All of the streets are overloaded. Traffic project was prepared by Westwood Planning and Engineering Company in the early 1980's and recent BRW projections, indicates a significant capacity problem if this property were to develop. The traffic problems not only associated with the 76th Street or (if built 77th Street), but with the area west of I-35W and with the access to I-35W, the scoping EIS should address this issue. ° Pedestrian safety was not considered as part of the EAW. There are three major pedestrian generator exist along or near 76th Street. These are: A. Richfield Junior High School; B. Large apartment complexes just west of I-35W; and C. Little League field east of Lyndale. - Several serious pedestrian accidents have occurred along 76th Street. The 76th Street - I-35W Bridge is unsafe for pedestrians and impassable for periods of time. The interface between. increasing traffic and pedestrian, presents a major safety problem which should be addressed and mitigated. The scoping EIS should address this issue. 6.. Wildlife and Plant Life.. The EAW states that the site is covered by original oak forest. Of course, part of the forest will be destroyed. by construction and replaced by what appears to be smal 1, less significant tree cover. In addition, it is logical to assume that natural prairie flora and fauna may exist on the site, because it is one of the only sites where urban or freeway development has not occurred. A naturalist should observe the site (dig .through the snow) so if such prairie- species do exist 8 ° y I • ~r~ mitigating measures can be taken. CONCLUSIONS 1. Potential significant environment effects exist to the extent that an EIS should be prepared; 2. The responsible unit of government should declare a need far an EIS; and 3. No final approvals or permits should be issued until the EIS process is complete. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. ncerely, 1 Richard C. Krier, AICP RCK:clb 9 .r dt' ~ ~ ~ , ~ rrrr rrrr'••r.... .•••'rrrrr ' rrrrrrrr wiMr!! r r r rr .............1 \ / ~ ? ? ? a~ rr ~=~~~o f rrrr.......•rrr•rrr•rr• • . . f.rr~r rrr +1 ~ ~ - urr ~ 1 \ • r lOUIM01f ,V\ 1 / ? rrN' ~ nr r i ' 7 • •rrr rr.r vQ~•i x . ~ ~ . rr , rrr+ I - ~ .,`4,: - ~ ~ rrr• tfo Y O.. rrr, r ~ i. •.ab . w . \ r . ur ` ~ _ 1 1 I (/(n/ W ~ / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office. of City Manager Council Letter No. 48 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield .Subject: .Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign. Nordquist Sign Company. has .requested an advertising permit to erect a single faced wall-sign measuring 6' by ~4', with constant illumination, at the Richfield Bloomington Honda located at X400 West 78th Street.. The sign will read "Parts and Service". City ordinances provide-that the city council must a rove _ PP all illuminated sign permits. The inspection division has reviewed the sign permit application and finds that the proposed sign conforms to all pertinent city ordinances. It is recommended that the city council approve the permit / application to erect an illuminated si n at 400- West 8th Street. g 7 Respectfully submitted, John G . rtwr~ght~- City Manager. JGC/eja A.pPROVE I I DENYI APPROVE ~ DEA'Y~ ~~C-.-•s~~ti . Gity Manager lnspector Date Date ~~7/ ` ~1O APPROVE ~ hENY~ ~ : ~ APPROVE DE1'YI Plannin epartment City Guuncil pate ~ Date R~ to above for special approval per code Genera 1 Sims APPLICATIO.~ FOR AD~'ERTISIfiG PER*1IT City of Richfield, *iinnesota r Date I ! Zonin_g Sign Erected - Tes ~o k Fee ~8. Address of Sign M/• /7~ 'S-f; Proprietor Dame K./~j~[~ (Q,a,~y~j Sign Erector ' S' Address w, ' Type of Sicn Desicn ldeather Cover Lichtinc Wall Single Face ~ ~ T•Clear Lexon Constant Projecting Double Face ~ Frosted Lexon Flashing Ground Multi-Faced ~ Plastic Covered t Revolving koof Aerial/Blimp Shaded Traveling Pedestal Searchlight Neon Zip Lite Changeable Banner/Pennants Other Other (Explain). Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors Trailer T ~ A ~ Post ~ _ If Illuminated Yes No Watts E~rical Contractor. ~ ~ _ Address Phone I~ hroperty Ok~er or his Agent Sgnaturef~ ~ Phone Estiaated Cost ~ ~Q~ Sign 1,'idth Height Total Square Feet Zy Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, .curbs, roadwa~•s, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement Lines, or public facilities on Craving with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. *4inor signs as ~ defined on page Z. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. - - ' Does the sign copy relate solely Lo the business~instiaufion, or activity conducted on Lhe .premises? .'V ps , - _ _ . . - . ~1 _ ~ - - 4,'' I the~sen, structure,- or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over r s "e ~~c ss by persons destined for or passing the subject premises?-~ , ~ ~ •Y ~A ica t`s Si ~ture and Title w' - P a.th Firm t Date ~ / 7 / ~b Phone :~ur~ber ~ ' - 1 • gt:•=±yr~_+a.°.;aw•~~:.*•~~:;~:.,,.R;.-.PLEASE SEE R£~'£RSE SIDE FOR SICId I.OCATIOh SICF~'CH""'`-'' ~'~`~`""'~~:'-°`:"-'~'1-'M";. Sivert~Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061. ~ • ~ - a't:N-~ ~n+1~!dL'.'~k:!~,~hyti.~ii~iriYrt~islwfh•:.W.'^sp'!~'!i'1~r4.i•.'.•E~y;~h's'F''wvf'.i[~"•!+7N:"~f:.E:'4X «t' "1 Y: 4 ~ !~Y3'?'t•{,+:~C. l.',f::.,:~,'4a s~ T4 .'~.'NYI'; ~,''!'.'R-.aS%£.z!D. JR ~,w ^(Ils:~'Vr ~J~'~ ors-. . - - t ~ ~ k.~ rt ` _.J ~ , NCO C y n N i d~ a z~y m ~ ~ ~ _ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ a~ OS 1 dr~'^~~ 5ca~e yb w 312 ` MN 5`. ~~ey Mj 612 4t'~P ~~,es[~~ A~„tival pzite J~ ~,~y~,M~r1/1ft~'y Cust~~ b ~ ~ tiz•~"~' S ° a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA... Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 47 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council - City of Richfield - Subject: Request for Fee Waived Permit to Erect Oversize Temporary Signs: at 66th and Penn and 66th and Nicollet by the Richfield Soccer Association Council Members: The Richfield Soccer Association has requested that a fee waived permit be approved to permit them to place temporary, oversized port-a-panels at the intersections of 66th and Penn Avenue and 66th and Nicollet for the period February 18-22, 1986. The signs would measure 12' x 6' or 72 square feet. City ordinances provide that the city council must approve i all permits for temporary,. oversized signs. It is recommended that the city council approve the fee .waived permit to allow these temporary signs to be placed for the .period February 18-22, 1986. Respectfully submitted, ohn G. Ca twr' ht City Manager JGC/eja • APPROVE ~ DENY ~ ~ : APPROVE ~ ~ .DENY I ~ ~ : y~e K.~C"~ to---~. City Manager ~ Inspector/ ~J/~~ J .Date Date ~/4'b (/~T~~~. APPROVE ~ DENY I : W~/1~ w~R/ APPROVE DENY Plannin Department City Council i ~ sq F= Date ~`3!v Date R~iite to above for s ecial a p pproval per code General Suns APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, ifinnesota Date J ll?,f~j~ Zoning Sign .Erected -Yes No f Fee i Address of Sign 6~0 ~ ~ ®cn/~ ~tlC cJ , .Proprietor Name~~-1'~~ ~a~c.Q°~BAE'~5..j . Sign Erector~Gl~•~'i SCiG~~~ l~ss,~, Address 6~10~ G'(~..17a•~ A't/Lr ~ ' (7~~G;~1~ . ~hl~3 ICI Type of Sign Design ~ Weather Cover Lighting Wall _ Single Face Clear Lexon Constant Projecting ?C Double Face _ Frosted Lexon _ Flashing Ground Multi-Faced _ Plastic Covered _ Revolving Roof _ .Aerial/Blimp Shaded _ Traveling. ~i 1G Pedestal _ Searchlight _ Neon Zip .Cite ~D~Ls- Changeable Banner/Pennants )l Other x Other (Explain) Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors tniN~'~'E ~A~~-Gt1-ecfr0. ;Lf Trailer T A Post ~a//kr,~' Do r?--~t'~~,~ p~A?~s~s ~ i-~h i~-.~.~~-,,-/ in.~a ~I J If Illuminated -Yes ~ Watts ~trical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost Si n Width ~ g Height ~ Total Square Feet ~ Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as .defined on page 2 Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: " including specifications,;list of materials, and explicit anchoring or. fastening details and a copy of the stress`•sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, struct re or billboard restrict any sight distance•runder, around, or over ^~--a.::.~s by rso s destined for or passing the subject premises? JV~ App~~~dnt's Signature and 'Tit ~e with Firm aM Loc~JC~ Date 1 f /1 Phone Number ~ ~~lv a- ~ / 17u5.- PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION`SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson/.Building Official - 866-5061 /C - ~~I-3 GROUND SIGN PEDESTAL SIGN tt~~ PROJECTING SIGN '~~IDTH ~ WIDTH ~ i'~• WIDTH ~'I LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND f~~ Indicate Distance ,I,3 ( From The Building VI ~ GftOUIv'D WALL SIGN ROOF SIGN Indicate legend on the E•E IIIDTH ~ WIDTH ~ the reverse side in the space below LEGEND ~ LEGEND LEGEND GROUND ROOF I < S/ //~~W, ~ ~ , l ~ 5 'v~A~ ~ Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any `traffic light$ within 300 feet. r DEFINITION; Minor Signs Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board INDICATE NORTH LILT/8/.83 - APPROVE:.: ~ DENY APPROVE I DENY' ~~~.~t:~,~ City Manager' Inspector / /1~( Date Date ~`j~/~ WP -7 APPROVE ( ~ DEIJYI K ~ ; Q~ ~ APPROVE ~ I DENYI Planning~DCpartment City Council j px~i.. is yQ F( ra Date t'zt ~q./o ~a bate Route-to above for special approval-per code.- General Signs i APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of :Richfield, 2linnesota I .Date / 1$ ~ Zoning Si n Erected -Yes No ? Fee II! g ~ ~ I~tc4F~Et-I~ Soc~~. ~Ssoc-~~~o~,J Address of Sign r /(io LLC''f - Proprietor Name DBA Sign Erector iC~F~ or'~ _ ~ ~ S ~SN Address~l~~ Cuif~~ ~1G ~o ~~.li~1E~ .tZ_-c._~.13 Type of Sign Design Weather Cover / Lighting Wall Single Face _ .Clear Lexon Constant Projecting ~ Double Face _ Frosted Lexon Flashing Ground Multi-Faced _ Plastic .Covered _ Revolving Roof Aerial/Blimp Shaded Traveling X Pedestal Searchlight _ Neon _ Zip Lite ~~,(E-- - Changeable Banner/Pennants .Other ~ Other (Explain) Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors Wl~t-ice .Trailer ~ T A Post If Illuminated -Yes ~ Watts ~trical Contractor Address Phone I%rop~erty Owner or his Agent Signature. Phone Estimated Cost Sign Width Height ~ ~ Total Square Feet '~,1 ~,~7".~ - ~ 7 /i,'~~ Gib ~k~~ //-E,~ Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to ~e 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 o£ 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, arou d, or over fo cess by p sons destined 'for or passing he subject premises? /~o . Applicant's Si~fiature and Title with-Firm I rj'~ LOt~.1 ~'Trf - Date ' ~ / l ~ Phone Number U IQ ~ 1985 ~ PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR-.SIGN LOCATION SKETCH i Sivert..Hendrickson/Bulding.Official - 866-5061 ~ 1 C01 ~ GROUND SIGN' _ I ~ PEDEWIDTHSIGN ~ ~ PROJECTING SIGN y ~G WIDTH IDTH LEGEND LEGEND n LEGEND ~ /t ~D . ~ , Indicate Distance 3r~ From The Building ' GROUiQD WALL SIGN ROOF-SIGN. Indicate legend on the EC TTIDTH ~ WIDTH ~ the. reverse side in the space below- LEGEND ~ LEGEND. LEGEND GROUND ~ ROOF V / , ~ ~ ~ , Place location of sgn,on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feed. DEFINITION: Minor Signs. Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board INDICATE NORTH LILT/8/83 i - 4. J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. ~+6 Agenda January 27, 1986 _ The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Illuminated Sign 6509 Nicollet Avenue Council.Members: _ Leroy Signs, Snc. has requested an advertising permit to .erect a single faced-wall sign measuring 5' x 2', with constant illumination at the Moppo's Kitchen located at 6509 Nicollet Avenue. The sign will read "Moppo's Kitchen". City ordinance provides that the city council must approve • all illuminated sign applications. The inspection division has reviewed the sign permit application and finds that the proposed sign conforms to all pertinent city ordinances. It is recommended that the city council approve the permit application to erect an illuminated sign at 6509 Nicollet Avenue. ~ Respectfully submitted, ohn G . Ca twri t City. Manager JGC/eja I • APPROVE i DENYI APPROVE ~ DENY' ~ ~I - City Manager Ins ecto Date J-' ~ Date ~ APPROVE DENY ~ : ~~j~p~-. ~ APPROVE. ~ DENY, Planning De artment. City Council Date ~ J.t Date I Route to above for special approval per code General Sims ..APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT- City of Richfield, .Minnesota Date ~ lZ~, $ ` Zoning Sign Erected -Yes No ~ Fee Q ~j Address of Sign 1~, ~ p q t~11~c, c~ ~~c3 T Proprietor Name ~1 bP P 0' S ~1 t rcrldnaDBA Sign Erector ~ 2 ©b ~ t ~ ti~.t ~ Address ,~a S ~r-~.G/5 m ~ 1Q Uri , /ll0 , - ~'ll°~5 ~ /h /lI Type of Sign Desi¢n ~ Weather Cover Litzhtin~e 55 y~~ Wall Single :Face _ Clear Lexon Constant Projecting Double Face Frosted Lexon Flashing Ground Multi-Faced Plastic Covered Revolving Roof _ Aerial/Blimp ~ Shaded Traveling - Pedestal.Searchlight Neon Zip Lite Changeable Banner/Pennants Other Other{Explain) Temporary Portable .Frame: Sign Colors „ "/j~fAroO C " Trailer ~ T ? A ? Post ? ~t_us) (o~e~l,Tti? ~ " IC i~"r: l-i c~iu i lluminated - I'es No Watts ~ ~ p E~ctzical on C tractor ~ R.~ / S; ~ ids .~N c Address ~3v?~ c.~/Yt ~ Phoney~j,3 5 - D o~ ~ Property Owner-or his Agent. Signature ~ Phone Estimated Cost t~j, Apo .o Z~ Sign Width ~Si 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 cf-sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Y~ S ..Will' the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight.distance under, around, or-over for safe access by p so destined .for or passing the subject premises? / II Applicant's Signature a~t' Title with: Firm , Date f I ~s~ gL ~I Phone Number S 3 S - D 4 Rd / Ikt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE-..SIDE FOR SIGN...LOCATION SKETCH Svert Hendrickson/Building.•Official - 866-5061 I //Q. ' .GROUND SIGN PEDESTAL SIGN PROJECTING SIGN ~e WIDTI' ~ ~ WIDTH ~ '?dIDTi: LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND l _W Indicate Distance From The Building `i V GROUND - - WALL SIGN ~ ~ ROOF SIGN' Indicate legend on the EC '?IDTH ~ ~ WIDTH ~ the reverse side in the space below LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND f Sew y~ a i1 GROUND ~ 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 or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board IN~ICr1TE NORTH LET/8183 CZTY OF RICHFIELD PUBLIC .SAFETY DEPARTMENT INSPECTION DIVISION T COMMERCIAL/INDUS~..RTAL ELECTRICAL PERMIT A_pPLICATION JOB SITE (009 ~IGc~LL~?'- OWNER //!Df PDS K/T'C'(-{t~/J _ _ CONTRACTOR ~ ~ (Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ c , ADDRESS 3 ~ LV ~ Go /17 ~ Uc~ : /I ~v . CONTRACTOR LICENSE N0. ~ ~4 Jh ~ PHONE N0.~3ES-©OSt~ JOB COST g~OCa O. ~ ~ 1. 2% of Job Cost with a minimum of $24.00-----------------------1.$ 2. Over $50,000.00 - $1,000.00 + 1~% of Cost over $50,000--------2. Upon completion of the job, the electrical contractor will furnish the City with a notarized statement of the full cost of the job to the customer. TEMPORARY SERVICE FOR CONSTRUCTION: 3. 0 to 100 amps - $1.9.00 ---------------------------------------3. 4. Over 100 amps - $30.00 ---------------------------------------4. SIGNS Fee schedule based on cost of electrical .job: .5. First $100.00 or fraction thereof - $24.00 Mjnimum------------5. 6. $101.00 through $50,000.00 - 2% of job cost with $24.00 Min.--6. ~L/C~O c~ 7. $50.,001.00 and over - $1,000.00 plus l~% of cost over $50,000-7. FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS: For the installation of Fire Alarm Systems Connected to the Municipal Fire Alarm System: 8. 1 to 5 Stations------------------------------- $18.00---------8. 9. Each additional group of 10 stations or less-- $13.50---------9. 10. JOB DESCRIPTION: J...L L c.G M l ~t) ~ J1 ~ w' TOTALS FROM ABOVE: $ ~~0. U c~ **SPECIAL NOTE: State Surcharge **STATE SURCHARGE: $ O C is ".0005 X Total i ob Cost. TOTAL FEE CHATtGE • $ , D C~ The undersigned agrees to do all work in conformance with. City Ordinances and rulings of the Inspection Division and herewith declares that all facts and representations on 'this application are true and correct. He/She agrees to notify the Inspection Division when r for spection SIGNED• ~ ~ / DATE: ~ I b ~ I~~~ Lkt/86 v Lincoln Property Management 7205 Ohms Lane Edina, Minnesota 55435 (612)893-9000 January 14, 1986 LeRoy Sign Co. 6325 Welcome Ave. No. Brooklyn Park, MN 55429 ATTN: Kaj RE: Moppo's -Richfield Shopper Dear Kaj I have enclosed the sign drawing for Moppo's at the .Richfield Shopper. The sign meets the approval of Lincoln Proper~y Management Company. However, the K-I-T-C-H-E-N portion of the sign must light in back also,- this is not indicated on your diagram . Please call me with any questions you might have regarding this matter. ! , .Very truly yours, LIN L PRO RTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY on i n JF:sc attachment Lincoln Property Management Company -One of The Lincoln Companies ~ 4 ~ ~ r ` wNtTE fluTr..iNC L. _ - -L5 ~ ~ ~ F11GR~Ut~ CtiW 1Y ~ _ _ . SSofg ~ix1 - . ~~~^p: . JJ LL • + ( T~yINS/~1•N.f~• e ' ,~".L.o~n.l Kam- . • r3M+~a~ ~6• ~ _ . ~ - c~o,~ R ~ - 4 l ~ I ~ - • _ ~ ~ - C _ • i k'J'f4r~P ~ }4~: CA-~ DN ~ r ~ D trAe,~- T>+€~•'-+~+ W~ ~ L . a.~ d _ w~u. _ . iN ~O?- L~F~6 l Fy I~~O t-.~GC2... (~"'h.atlL LETj'`~i~ - 4't4r~) ' NO ~l~' i AUTHORIZATION i ~ CUSTOMER DATE . ~ SALESMAN DATE ALL CHANGES MUST BE INITIALED BY CUSTOMER. Q(~ AND SALESMAN ON THE . ~QY S G VS V~j. 5~~ ~OOV V FINAL APPROVED PRINT D. 4 • _ / o a~ c~ a~ o a~ ~ N C'7 U ~ c~ G ~ W J CUSTOMEA rM f r' F~ C _ DATE I ~ I/1 ' 7 i~ ADDRESS SALES e'A~y t%t INSTALLATiONADD. DWG i...,_.~ . This is an original unpublished design, created b)r LeRoy Signs incorporated. It is submitted for your personal usein connection with the project being planned for you by LeRoy Signs Incorporated. It is not Eo be shown to anyone outside your organization, nor is it to be used, reproduced, copied or exhibited in any fashion whatsoever. All or any part of this design (excepting registered trademarks) remain the property of LeRoy Signs incorporated. , - L - 4. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 45 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council. City of Richfield Subject: 1986 Local Board of Review-Date Council Members: State law provides that the County Assessor set the date for Local Board of Review meetings. After consulting with City - staff, the County Assessor has selected the date of Monday, June 2,.1986, for Richfield's Board.-of Review meeting. City staff will schedule the meeting to start at 7:00 p.m. Approximately a month prior to the Local Board of Review meeting, the Administrative Services Director and staff of the Hennepin County Assessor's office assigned to Richfield will arrange a study session with the City Council to brief Council members on the Board of Review process and of typical cases that may come before. the Board. It is recommended that the City Council confirm the County Assessor's selection of June 2, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., for the .Board of Review meeting.. Respectfully submitted, ohn G. Ca twr ht City Manager JGC/eja ` CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 44 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and - Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Bid - Sludge Dewatering Equipment Council Members: On January 6, 1986, bids were. opened in accordance with legal requirements for sludge dewatering equipment for the city's water treatment facility. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is provided for council review. The adopted. 1986 water division budget includes the purchase of dewatering .equipment. The benefits are: - 1. Lower operating costs; 2. Better results in hauling sludge by truck; and, 3 Significant reduction in the volume of sludge to be disposed of. Six bids were submitted. for this equipment. The apparent low bidder-was Eimco Process Equipment Co. at $111,798. Upon review of the bid submitted, however, it was noted that they had not included everything specified- in their bid proposal. It is recommended, therefore, that the city council authorize the purchase of .sludge dewatering equipment from the second low bidder, J.W.I. Inc., in the amount. of $162,000. F spec.tf submitted, C~~G~~ ~t1/~ John G C rtwrg: it ~ City Manag JGC/eja i 4. k t~~~~~~ I ~ P ORR •SCHELEN • MAYERON ~ ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors January 20, 1986 ..City. of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield,.Minnesota 55423 Attn.: Mr. Donald A. Fondrick, Director Community Services Department Re: BideProposals for Sludge Dewatering Equipment City Project No. 703-1574 OSM Comm. No. 3693,. Dear Mr. Fondrick: Bids were received for the Sludge Dewatering Equipment Monday,.January 6, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. Six bids were received. They ranged from a low of $111,798 to a high of $214,250. A copy of the Bid Tabulation is attached. Since the bid opening,. we have had several meetings with the apparent low bidder, Eimco Process Equipment Co., Shriver Division. Our concern .was that because of their extremely low -bid they possibly had not included everything specified in their bid proposal. After reading their l0 page proposal and meeting with them, . this appears to be the case.. In three specific areas they deviated .from the specifications. They are as fol- lows: 1. Plate Shifting System: Automatic plate shifting was specified. They bid on asemi-automatic system. 2. Cake Thickness: A 1-1/4" cake thickness was specified. They bid on a 1-1/2" cake thickness. While this may not seem significant, it would .add to .the running time of the filtration process.. 3. Number of Chambers: Approximately 60 chambers-were specified with the capability to expand to 100.. Their bid was based on 40 chambers and -with the basic machine they proposed it could not be expanded to 100 chambers without additional support.: • 2021 East Hennepin ~k vonue , Q Suife 238 Minneapolis, Minnesota 554; ~ 612 f 33 - 8c~FO ` / Page Two City of Richfield Janinary 20, 1986 II i For these reasons, we recommend the project be awarded to the second low bidder, WI - J Inc 2155 423 ' 112th Avenue Holland MI 49 ~n the amount of $162 000. In our review of their bid. they have not taken any exceptions, and in discussions I with them- they. have. stated they wilt meet all aspects of the specifications. Should you have any questions, we will be happy to discuss this matter with you at your convenience. Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ I Ja~~~es P. Norton, P.E. Protect Manager . JPN:mI j cc: Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations Coordinator, City of Richfield John Thom, Utilities-Superintendent, City of Richfield Roger L. Sines, Kidde Consultants John B. Dean, LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, Obrien & Drawz I _ ~ BID TABULATION FOR SLUDGE DEWATERING EQUIPMENT AT THE WATER TREATMENT-PLANT CITY PROJECT N0. 703-1574 .FOR THE BIDS OPENED:1-6-86 CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON .1.1:00 AM & ASSOCIATES, INC. BID CONTRACTOR SECURITY TOTAL BID CPC, Sturbridge. MA X ~~ia ~~n_nn EIMCO (Shriver), Salt Lake City Cashier's Check 1ll.79R_f)fl R & B Filtration, Merida, GA X 207.4~,j.00 Netzsch, Exton, PA X 168.92,_00 Wm. R. Perrin,'Ontario, Canada X 171.015.00** _ **Add $6,700 for Auto. Blow Down Valves J.W.I., Holland, Michigan Money Order 162,000.00 Note: The order of the bids is as thev were opened at the Bid Opening. II I hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as received ~ ~ *Denotes Corrected Figure ' OSM COMM. N0. 3693 CfJ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City. Manager Council Letter No. ~+3 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council. City of Richfield Subject: Award of Bid - Three-Wheel Type Mechanical Street Sweeper Council Members: On January 17, 1986, bids were opened for a three-wheel type mechanical street sweeper. A copy of the bid minutes and ~ tabulation is attached for council review. .The adopted 1986 budget includes the purchase of a new street sweeper to replace a fully-depreciated Elgin Pelican three-wheel sweeper, purchased in 1970 for $13,808. The city has-two other Elgin Pelican sweepers. This sweeper is the only sweeper that meets our requirements for both street sweeping and . leaf pick up. Specifications for the sweeper were requested by three vendors. MaeQueen Equipment, Inc., however, was the only vendor to submit a proposal, with a base bid of $72,682 less a trade-in of $13,500 for a net price of $59,182. It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of a new three-wheel type mechanical street sweeper from MaeQueen Equipment, Inc. for a net purchase price of $59,182. Respeetf ly submitted, ' I John G . Ca tw ' ght City. Manager JGC/eja ~D CITY DF RICHFIELD BID OPENING January 17, 1986 One Three-Wheel. Type Mechanical Street Sweeper Bid No. 86-1 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open. and read aloud, bids for One Three-Wheel Type Mechanical Street Sweeper, Bid No. 86-1, as advertised in the official newspaper on January 1, 1986. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative Marshall Raaen, Technical Operator Supervisor The following bids were submitted and~read aloud: VENDOR BID SECURITY BASE BID .LESS TRADE-IN TOTAL • MacQueen Equipment Co. 51 Bid Bond $72,682.00 $13,500 $59,182.00 ~ St. Paul, MN The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the January 27, 198.6 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk II a. i~! CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. X42 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of .the City Council City of Richfield Subject: League of Minnesota Cities 1986 Legislative Policies • Council. Members: City staff .has reviewed the 1986 League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) legislative policies. City officials will adopt legislative policies at the Legislative Conference on Wednesday, February 5, 1986, at the St. Paul Radisson Hotel. The LMC Legislative Study Committees have developed these policies and the LMC Legislative Committee is recommending them to the membership.. Each policy has an A, B, or C priority. A copy of the-LMC Legislative Policies has been previously sent to each member of the City Council. The two. most important policies may be the 1987 local government aid (LGA) formula based on policies RS-2 and RS-3. The proposed LGC formula for 1987 is basically the same as the LGA formula passed by the legislature for 1986.. The only differences involve the amount of the appropriation increase and the size of the maximum increase for individual cities. The policy seeks a 6~ overall increase in total state appropriation. Because this is two percent less than the increase granted for 1986, the maximums are proportionately reduced so that they continue to have the same. relationship to the overall .appropriation increase. Cities that received more than $150 in LGA per capita in 1986 would receive no more than a 4.5~ increase in 1987. Cities that received less than $150 per capita in 198.6 would be subject to a maximum increase equal-to the lesser of 9$ over their 1986 LGA or $156.75 per capita (the $156.75 figure is equal to $150 plus-4.5~). i Projected 1987-LGA-% Change from 1986 Bloomington 9.0 Brooklyn Center. 5.3 Brooklyn Park 9.0 Columbia Hts. X4.6 Crystal 9.0 Eagen 9.0 Eden Prairie 9.0 Edina. 0.0 Fridley 1.2 Hopkins 0.0 Mendota Hts. 9.0 Minneapolis 3.1 .Minnetonka 0.0 Richfield- 5.2 Robbinsdale 8.7 St. Louis Pk. 1.2 St. Paul 6.5 Policy RS-4 seeks repeal of the interest rate limitation on municipal bonds in the event cities are forced to enter the taxable bond market. Policy DS-~ supports legisl-ation which would allow cities to create municipal service districts. Recent court decisions concerning special assessments have made it more difficult for cities to .use special assessments to finance public services and improvements. J, In the memorandum from the Public Safety Director, Thomas Morgan, dated January 16, 1986, Mr. Morgan recommends that all public safety issues be supported except two (PPS-7 and PPS-12). PPS-7. LMC recommends that legislation be enacted that gives public employers the option of either requesting arbitration within a specific time or allowing essential employees to legally strike. Richfie d opposes .the right to strike for essential employees. We support binding arbitration. PPS-12. LMC requests the legislature to eliminate the presumption that heart and lung ailments of police and fire personnel arise from-their employment. Richfield opposes this request. Recommendation- City Administration recommends that Richfield's delegates to the LMC be authorized to support all the LMC Legislative Policies except PPS-7 and PPS-8. Copies of the LMC Legislative Policies have been furnished to each council member. If you would like another copy, please contact either Eileen Anderson or the writer. e tf ~~,~y~submitted, John G. Cartw ght City Manager ~3 C~~ MEMORANDUM DATE: January 16, 1986 T0: John Cartwright - City Manager FROM: Thomas A. Morgan., Jr. Director of Public Safety - SUBJECT: PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE POLICIES - LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES _ I have reviewed the Legislative Policies presented and have comments in the area of Government Structure and General Legislation, as well a Personnel and Publie Safety. Comments on specific issues which are of concern to us are included in this memorandum. I have not provided a commentary an the Revenue Sources portion of the League Report, but from a city-wide perspective I think we might wish to endorse all League positions in this area. Policy 4~ Topic of Policy GSGL-2 Open Meeting • Support- Anything to make the existing open meeting law more • realistic and. understandable would be a move in the right direction. GSGL-3 Purchasing Authority of Plan B Managers Support - As a matter of housekeeping this position should strongly be endorsed. GSGL-4 Towing of Abandoned Vehicles Support - In almost every city in Minnesota towing is handled on a contractual arrangement between the city and the towing service. In an attempt to force a city into the towing business would be costly and simply not warranted as a matter of practice. .The prevailing practice of a public-private contractual arrangement for towing services has proven effective for many years. GSGL-5 Mandates Support - Costs of mandatory programs must be considered by the legislature in mandating programs. The simplest way to finance mandatory programs is for the legislature to derive the fund- - ing source at the .same time they enact mandatary requirements. a. ~C' ` GSGL-6 State Licensing of Contractors Follow legislation- Single source licensing would seem to be advantagous for contractors. The situation-here is much the same as it with taxicab licensing. Government regulations should not be unreasonably restrictive for individuals, but should seek to facilitate private enterprise. While local control must be maintained, it would appear that building codes would seem a more appropriate process for regulation than the licensing of practioners. I think we should follow this legislation with a concern far enhancing private enterprise, while at the same time maintaining local control of end product. GSGL-9 Charitable Gambling Enforcement Fees. Support - Local communities continue to have primary responsibility for enforcement of licensed gambling activities. To this end, some portion of license fee revenue should be returned to local government. PPS-1 PERA Benefits, Financing, and Administration. Fallow Legislation -.This is a complex mix of numerous pieces of legislation I think we have a responsibility to maintain retirement programs for municipal employees that are adequate to provide retirement years which one might enjoy with dignity, Therefore, we should be equally concerned with benefit decreases and public cast im- plications. PPS-2 Comparable Worth Support - This is a prime example of mandatory legislation which needs to provide a financial resource from which the mandate may be funded. PPS-3 Time and Distance Residency Requirements Support - This issue failed in the last legislative session. I think we should continue to strongly support the adoption of this statutory amend- meat. PPS-6 Veterans1s Preference Support - I think we should strongly support ..any action that will provide single source remedy for labor rebated disputes. Multiple avenues. of - appeal currently exist, often with conflicting.. decisions. Under the current process it can take up to a year to resolve a job related grievance. PPS-7 Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act Oppose - The right of essential employees to strike can be tremendous- ly disruptive to important and essential municipal services. The binding arbitration process has worked well far many years. .Support - Single choice of disciplin- ary review, as noted in comments on Veterans Preference, should be strongly supported. PPS-12 Workers Compensation Oppose - Both statutory provisions and case law have long supported the cept that heart and lung ailments are an inherent risk for police and fire personnel, I do not believe that the position of the League in trying to support change in this basic concept is reasonable: It certainly is a dis- service to the public safety em to ee's uni ue ersonal health r' P Y 4 P isk in this area. PPS-13 Local .Police and Paid Fire Relief Associations. Support - Given the "independent" nature of Relief Association business activities, there should be a better system of checks and balances in re- lotion to the large contributions of public money to support such Associa- tions. At a minimum there should be public audit control of funds. Additionally, there should be some system of accountability for invest- . meat practices. I will be happy to discuss any of these comments. with you if you wish further clarification-of my observations. (D LJ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 41 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council . City of Richfield _ Subject: Purchase in Excess of $5,000 (Unmarked Police Cars) Council Members: 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. There is-one such item on the agenda. PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLE The adopted 1986 operating budget for the central garage division includes $70,000 for replacement of six public safety squad cars. Vehicles to be replaced are all fully depreciated. Five Ford LTD's (three. marked squad cars, two unmarked squad cars) were ordered in December, 1985, under the Hennepin County bid. The total purchase price for the five cars, including assorted options, was $56,325. The sixth vehicle will be an unmarked police car and will be a used vehicle. It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of one 1985 Pontiac LE (unmarked squad) from the Hertz Corporation for a total purchase price of $8,800.00 pect 1 y ubmitted, ~ ~ ~i' John G. Ca~rtwri t g City Manager JGC/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City-Manager Council Letter No. 40 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and - Members of the City Council - City of Richfield - I Subject: Request for a Fee Waived License to Conduct ~I Fourth of July Community Celebration Council Members: In May, 1985, the city council approved an ordinance which provided that community organizations must secure a license to conduct community celebrations in city parks. The li-cense grants the organization holding the celebration to reserve the city's parks and to control the concession sales at the celebration. Paul Kaiser, Chairman of the Fourth of July Committee, has submitted an application to hold the 1986 community celebration on the 4th of July. The committee requests that the $5,000 license fee be waived. The 4th of July Committee has provided the necessary schedule of activities and a copy of their Articles of Incorporation are on file here at city hall. Subdivision 5 of the ordinance, "Application-for License", subsection (d), provides that when the .Detailed Activity Plan (DAP) includes 'the sale of concessions, a statement of the uses to which the proceeds will be put be spelled out. Mr. Kaiser indicated in his letter (copy attached) that the right to concessions will be given to the same non-profit organizations who have sold concessions since the Fourth of July Celebration started. The proceeds of the concessions will be used for community programs. It is recommended that the city council approve this license and waive the $5,000 license fee subject to the applicant executing an agreement containing the following provisions. (Subdivision 5, paragraph 5): (LT/~~ 1. Hold harmless provision to the city in the event of injury or property damage claims; 2. Removal of trash. within 24 hours; and, 3. Release city from any claims in the event the city must terminate all or part of the celebration. Re pectf ubmitted, , ~ii~Cu C/ l ohn G. Car wrigh City Manager JGC/eja 3 i January 7,1986 Mr.John Cartwright City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave.So. Richfield,Mn.55~+23 Dear Mr.Cartwright, As per city ordiance 4.18 Subdv 5 Sec 1 the Richfield 4th of July Committee,Inc. i does hereby apply for a license to conduct a community celebration on the 4th of July, 1936 in the City of Richfield,Mn. A copy of .our. by-laws and articles are on file. The Detailed Activity P1an(DAP) of the day follows the events of the DAP submitted for your approval in 1985.The parade starts at 12.00 noon and will: originate at 66th and Portland Ave.So. It will proceed along 66th street west to Nicollet Ave. and south ' on Nicollet Ave. to 72nd st. Approximate time of the parade is two hours. Festivities in Augsburg Park,70th and Nicollet, begin at 2:OOpm short]}y after the termination of the parade. These events which include music,games, and concessions will last to 4:30pm. The evening event begins at 7:30pm at Legion Lake,66th and Portland Ave.So.with a musical concert followed by fireworks. This will conclude the days events. The right to concessions will be given to the same non profit organizations who have been with us since this celebration-started. The proceeds of the concessions are used for community programs. We request this application be approved and the fee waived. Items 1,2, and 3 of Subdv 5 article 5, which is a precondition of issuance, is agreed to. S ' c ely, G Paul M Kaises~ 5201 west. 48th St. Minneapolis,;Mn.55#36 4.18 COMMIINITY C~BRATIONS (D - Subdivision I. Definitions.. The following teaus shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: (l~ "Cc......~.nity Celebration" means .Independence Day and any other event designated by resolution of the City Council as a community celebration. (2) 'CelebrationSite" means any public areas designated by resolution of the Council or in a license granted under this Section as areas in which the celebration will be conducted.. The term . may include public parks, parking areas and streets adjacent thereto.. In .events in which a parade o= march is to be conducted as part of t.':e celebration, the tern shall also include the parade or march route. (3) "Celebration activities" means all•of t::e events and prograias designated by resolution of the Council or is a license granted under this section to be conducted by the City or~ licensee on the celebration site. The term includes the sale or other furnishing of concessions. (4) "Concessions" means all food, beveraces or souveniers furs.shed for monetary corsiceration as part of the the celebratior. activities. (5) "Nonprofit Corporation" Weans a domestic corpo- rat~on organized and existing ;ursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 31? tail:nesota ~loapraf- it Corporation act). (6) "Family~aitd Individual activity" means an activity involving a group of individuals or a family watch has 25 or fewer participants. (7) "Group Sponsored activity" means an activity sponsored by any group. or entity which has more than 25 participants . The tern also includes any .farm? y cs :d.ividtia? act:vty Gav~C ZCre than ZS pa_~cipa nts . . Subd. 2. ' ?iadires . Tie City Yates tSe .al? ow~rs ^dicgs as t::a basis .or the ret; ulat=oas cow=a'..:ec i.'r (1) The Ci ty owns cer+~.a=n ? a nos waic~ are avai? a:~le .er various pu.-:ores~c?c:d~:,g ==c==atior., a+~ 1 et3c,- cs:? t^..r:? znd ci sic. act.: it'__s , caaests , calebrat=cns and events.. • 6/22/85 ORDINANCE CODE 124.7 C3TY OF RlCHFlE! D, MINNESOTA _ _ ~ f- n Itl Z Z N N U r-i U VI Ir Q W .1; 41 1? tit AI ;~t N nl a/ 11 'U ;mot tI • 'V •••1 'Lf ; •.1 [ j 11 11 U U U I t 9f •tf .t ,t, 1 n1 ,1 t) t} t j ' i ~ . (1. n~ ~11 t-)l t1 tq N •?I !f 1~ q ( '1I 11 I 1 a/ nl ni 1 't1 ~ 41 r-1 a •?••rl n N N •1~~ V) V 11 Vl ~1 N n} ' • ~ dl LL. /-i ~i r~ lr ~ Ci, ~i t) o a) V is .tl nl t'i a •r• T. ~ t) r N V nl t 1) ••1 U •'1 t0 i'• V t) nl 3; -•1 •rl ,t~ N ono V W t3 U r cf N .,1 t •-1 U ~ ~ u J t3 +l to V ~ 1 ~ . ~ [t' nl FI N V V i.l 4} a ~ V N of t) ••1 N '}•i 11 'tf n N N .r1 O tli ~ th ~ 01 [ 11 1 t-) fl• l.) r • 41 N rl ~ a~ ~ tJ fl. al rj J 1•? 11 VI [S t: 11 U ~ ~ .[1 tll .}1 n1 J nl Ir ~1 tP Qi w •ri t.[ t N. 1., a} _ V a? tll rf ~ 1i ~I 1J N N t) i W a) j'[f .~i n; V la'd tS .O t) 1} jr r~ t) •-t Et N .t) ~t 11 r; ~'tV ~i tro' •v a.? F •'1 inrV ai ui ~ !t n? u ii ai + •r, v .,1 a l n N n~ rj iri } 1 V ~ pj ~ V} ~ r-} [1 41 N rl •tf Ut •`1 rJ. ' tl ~t$, ~ N tJ .11 y ~ r.1 s a! t), DI V q l t , / ' t A! .(t 't) N • ..r 1 1 .Il } 11 11 t}} VI al U N }.j 11 t, O V Vl N ~ S d1 ~ j'y i ~ •v a) .V N U al vNi •.1 U "1 ) O .,1 V • 1 1, t) r, ;d a? n? 1 y Vt ••'1 a? D ri tt n .ct ••t j ~ 1 r_ r~ - D, vt n? a, ••1 t') ?t r V -rl a) a~ m t) n} ~ ( rtl n [I~ n1 V to .-1 •r 1 U . t t' ~ 'V V .ta r-1 V ,tl nl to N •t1 [ a) nl .}1 Al ~ t It r l! rl •,t nl ,.1 •.1 W U 11 [3 t i U ~ 11 11 ~ " ! i ~ U r-1 r ' 'J t! t' ' ti J r 1 N ~U N r-1 .tl .,1 r) •.-1 a) 11 Qr'f ••1 nl {1 t) QI r N •s~ t: ~'11 •U Q N ~ •rl U at N N •li r-1 N ttl n) ni ?-1 ••af o ~ ~,'11 n? 11 t3 ' •V to c) n c) v ~ J, !i .tj b to ~i w •?1 r-} 11 {1 , N O rl 11 O 11 j VI Q q r-i •1) Ol t) •rl l1 O N U •t1 +t V 1 tJl tl jt d) a) RI •rl ~'rt N N U. t) t) dl tJ yl O O t t rt; [a 11 .q aJ V ~ t)t nl D nt 11 a} U [1r U U .-1 1 t+ U ra . j n} V N 11 •r) p U~r-1 41 M 'U A) J tlt tl V `'1 ~ V rl• r.? r~ tl-1 a.t N 41 u Ir? N ro to ~ a1 0 j al t 1i N tl i / N •rl •t? tr N a) O tV 11 11 U •r} 17• •r~ ' j al •t1 n1 N nl O •rl ,1~ rl V pp 4! Nal 11 n u.-t u f n u ~ 1, U U ••1 +.j r .i 1) It ~i i It h r l) p• ~ t ~ v+ •U • :*I U r tr r: a l n) •t 1 v al ' .~I N .r 1 t, •~t O U •tl O .1~ • N . ~ ~ V 1 . rl V, ' p• a.j +l t~ :3 •r~ •`t ~ • t~ t 11 r P) / 1 ;J •.1 N Q ; ;J V f t r ?-1 U) ~ N .r.l r U O of U -.1 EI ti 1 V .1 11 ,tl w D al •rl N U , i n, d .r--1 ~ c1 o V ' 1 u c` a~ N -r1 'tf t, •v ~I 'j U ~ ~ a O V V r..l 'r O ~ V .r-1 ;f •-1 •tl` r-1 C1 'tf al V 1) a 1 n/ ?'i { 1 r7t N to ~ Q { ~ t 4) ?-1 r- ~•1 11 ;t .U h l 'V •-1 At t4 t 11 ~ r 0 •?1 V N ~ N t1 f q~ ~ ~ p. q ~ N ~,.t h N 1 '1•t p ra O Q N V ~ _ V al 1 11 r-1 d 'U d •tl M o u 11 ?-r ij c, h ; N 1! t! H t) m n 1 V c. >7 ~ / ~ v r-t o 3 • 11 O V•- U 11 , n r It jy ~1 ~ i 11 1 u ( t) O t, r *1••1 q 1 tf 'ri ~ •t ( r N R7, N W -t~ t~ 'v ~*t N h.~ N .t, t r rl N 1 01 r`, ~*r•• 1 r U `f W VJ ~ to ~ ~ p ,rq~.c U tr F •cl of a •al y a~ ~ al U to [ ,t ~j U. o N tl N / r ral U fd ~ vpi ~ ~ 1) N 'tl r-I.1C1 Id C) 'Ll V b •r ( •rl n! VI }'t t~ Q f) N ' {l a a) rV 1 i S•. v U a o •r a N ~ a1 1 It •ri •~t ri tt rt N bt ~ ti •y~ ~ ali ~ N 11 aJ u u tU 1 ar to f D •rt ~ u q l D VI o q 1 rl v ~ n. N v N'} tf •C1 .p row ro r u ~•r~ !~1 ~ al T a •a, ~ . •?1 O ~ ff,, . a Q} ~ tl i al q to b ~ r' u 'cf b 1 al al rl w ~ h rl t l 11. ~ FI i c) • ~ I j u~ ~ N . of tti tU al li a1 m cl •r1 c1 n a! q n a~ •t[ P t t7 a1 t~ Q N d t) Q n t~ ~ nl ~ ar r~ ~j .ra .q al 1a fl w E t 'tf U rV N ~ r-i t! N ~ •tf t-t a? i~ O u / -r u 1c~~ L V V r.t t7 •r t 11 ~ t l r H Et EI .U E+ E ? • 'tl •al v 't] • 1 al .i J~ ~ O N ~ N N i N r +t •--1 + to q .c r. V V N •rt 1S Q ~ ~ N t+•1 ~ itt lU .r to V rq ~ to FL' V E t U V v ,.r V Q 7_ O • ~ O The tanager will approve th.e G~oup Sponsorec Activity ~{jfl'(O only if he fi:ds (I} That tSe activ.ty •.~il'_ not. " ntsrdew e wa : ;:a .orderly conduct o 'r::e CCI~.ZL'.^..y Celebration. (Z} That the naxin~. a*•*~'^e: o ` rer soar expected to attend the activ;ty when added to t.:Ze n~--*^er c . persons e_~rpected to att_nd the Cammun:.ty Cel.e- bsation and ot7er Group S~ar.sored Act:vices 'Dr27',..U~S? V app=C7Ed SdCU? d aOt CverC~:rwL. :tee Ce? e- bratoa Site. .he manaser i.: approv~.g a. Group S: erso_ zd Act .vitr nz.~ place 1' ^T is upon the au~^er o f part:.cipa is , t.:s areas of the Ce? ebratica Sits involved ,and t e t..~e :or bsgiar ~ .,q of ending tie activi ~~s. Subd. S. C.,.......tnit-~~ Celebration - Lice^se. ~t is a violation. o. uis 52CL:.OII for any i :divduai yr ent:ty,~ other titan tar City, to conduct a Ccr~..a~ity Celebration or any of the CQ1.ebration Activi ties wi.taout ,having first obtai:.ed a 13canse to de so. The. City nay. ' license ~ioaprafit CarForatioas ~ to eoad::et Cemau t y • Calebratioa act:.vitios. (I) Aa~licat; oa for cease . har Vorprof_t Cor ro- ratioa wis;, ~ ~g to conduct Celebration ~,ctivitias , is connec'..ioa with a designated Ccrmt:.-icy . Cele~b-atian stall hake azplicat:.oa to .tMs City ;iaaager. T.~.e application shall contas.a the following izfo~atioa togetaer w.ts any additional information re:~iLi.~red by the C=ty ?!a.Zager: (a) aaae o= corporation. (b) Capy o= Articles and 3y?aws. (c) Detailed Activity ?laa (DA-~) descri3sg c.....~.letely tie, Lacatioa and natt:re of all . proposed activities. - (d) 2. DA.a includes 'tae sale of ccacessio s, • a statescerit o- t:e. uses to whoa t e prccee_s wfll be pnt. (2) Rev_ew of Aaolicatioa. The City Maaacer wall review tre agplicatioa and nay refe_ it to any denaryeat for review and coa~e:tt. r ollewinS rev; ew; ~ tre City ,iaaager shall matte a _ sport and • recor^^~adatioa to t:e C:.ty .Council.. . 6!22/85 OAOINANC~ COOS 124.9 CITY OF RICNFISLO. ~1tNNESO ' i3) Ceuacil Action. The City Council shall, consider the application, the reccamzendation o~_ the City - Manager and may consider any other i_^.formaticr. it deems appropriate. Follcwisq its review, the • Couaeil may eitaer grant ar deny tl^.e license. Iz grantinS the license, ~~e Council may modify the De~P and place such terms and corditiors upon the Zicease as it dete_~=nee advisab?e. (4) License Fee. The license .se s~^.all be 55,000 welch must be paid prior to t::e ?ssuance o= t e license. Tie Council may, :.a its discre t_o : wai~•e . ~ all or pa_~-t of the fee. _ (5) 2_ecnaCition os~ Issuance. `to license which as been grantee shall be issued unto to licensee executes as aq_eemeat conta* g t::e :ollcwiag proQisic~s: 1. I.zdp*^^idyi :g a :d 'ao? d:~.g ha wless t:.e C_ty, . its o.ficers, agents and eap? ogees ._cr. a.:y claia? for perscnal i :Ju.:-y, property damage cr - dente, cccasioaed by or ar:.si :C cut o: we conduct o~ the licensed acti•,~ities. . 2. Agreeing to re.~cove all r:bisa and ?itt.r cm the Celebraticn Si_s and to restore t::e a_eas . to their crior ecndi t;on and appearance : of later than 24 hours follcwiag t:e conc_csior. o~ the licensed activ=ties. 3 . ~eleas ing and d:.scharg:nq the City, its vf`icers, agents and emplcyees cm any ciao or cause of action. cccasicned by or arising out of any acticn taken by the City to c_ose all or -part of tze Celebration Sits aNd ter.~inate .all or Fart. of the Celebration Activities i.z order to protect or restore order or -end or prevea-~ breac::es of t:Ze peace or public order. Sind. 6. Effect bf Issuance a License. Tue issuance of the license shall confer upon the licensee to exclusive right to conduct the activities centained in -the DAP as approved by the Council within the Cele- bration Site for. the pericd of the Coamunity Celebration. E:ccept as provided. in Subdivision 7 of *~~s Section, it shall. be a violation os this Section for any. other individual .or entity to conduct any activity contained. f.a the approved DAP withi.Z the Celebration Sipe during the Celebration. • 6/22/85 ORDINANCE COOS 124:10 CITY OF RICHFIELD, ,VIINNeSOT,:, i . Subd. 7. Licenses Wav Desic^.ate Others . :Tot:`:iaq coataised here: shall be deemed to prevent the licens- e ee, in the exercise of its. sole discretion, to des:g- ~nate other individuals or entities to per::orm.or assist iz the perforaance of any licensed activity, provieed, however, that such desigaatica will net he construed as a transfer of all or part of the license nor shall it " relieve tie licensee of aay of its obligatiors under this Section. • Srbd. 8.- Other Ord~.nznce ?:ovisions ~aclicablQ. The activities licensed u:der this Section shall ce su5ject to all other provisions of the Code relati:q to the conduct o° such activities. Bili No. 1985-IO (6/22/85) 6/22/85 r ORDINANCE CCOE 124.11 CITY OF RICHFiELJ, MtNNESOTa 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 39 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Presentation by Hennepin Parks Council Members: The Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, formerly the Hennepin County Park Reserve District,. has requested an opportunity to appear before the Richfield city council on Monday, January 27, 1986. Commissioner Judith Anderson, who represents the Richfield area, and a member of the Hennepin Parks staff, will be attending the meeting. The purposes of the Hennepin Parks presentation are to: * Improve communications between the Park District and the municipal governments; and, * Explain changes at the Park District. One question that the writer will ask the park commissioner to respond to is: what is the rational for a resident of Minneapolis to pay less in property taxes to the Hennepin Park District than a Richfield resident assuming both homes have the same assessed valuation? The Community Services Advisory Commission has been invited to the city council meeting for this presentation. Lt is anticipated the presentation will take about 15 minutes including a slide show. Respectfully ,submitted, L.,~/,. ~j J ohn G. Cartwr ht City Manager JGC/eja ~ Q CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council .Letter No. 38 Agenda: January 27, 1986 The Honorable.Mayor and Members of the City Council .City of Richfield .Subject: Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to .Andrew Ritchie and Michael Ritchie Council Members: On November 8, 1985, the Richfield Fire Division responded to a r a a e fire at 62 g g 33 15th Avenue South.-This fire was originally detected by two neighbor children: .Andrew. Ritchie (a e 6 and Michael Ritchie g ) ( age . The boys were playing outside and recognized the odor of .smoke which they promptly reported to their mother. Andy and Mike's alert and prompt action resulted in Mrs. Ritchie notifying their neighbor and also contacting the fire division for assistance. A defective flue on a garage heater was the cause of the fire and resulted in heavy damage to the garage and to contents stored in the garage. Had. it not been for the very alert, prompt and effective reactions of Andy and Mike there could well have been even greater and far more serious damage resulting from this fire, as propane gas tanks were stored in the garage. Had these tanks exploded, untold damage to surrounding dwellings in the area might have occurred. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that Andy and Mike Ritchie receive recognition for their. outstanding public safety effort in fire detection in our community. Respectfully submitted, ohn G . Ca~twr ht .City Manager JGC/eja. I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 37 Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation to the Richfield Jaycees/Richfield Women of Today for Funding a Tot Lot at Augsburg Park Council Members: The funds raised from the Richfield Jay cee/Richfield Women of Today Christmas tree lot are being donated to the city. The $1,600 contribution has been earmarked for replacement of a tot lot in Augsburg Park. A Certificate of Appreciation is to be presented by the city council to the Richfield Jaycees/Richfield Women of Today for their donation to the city's parks and recreation program. Res ectfu witted, Z~ ~ohn G. Car ig t City Manager JGC/eja i I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 36 .Agenda January 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and _ Members of the City Council City of Richfield. Subject: Annual Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization.(WMO).Meeting, 5:30 P.M. - Bloomington Council Members: The Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization met for the first time in 198. The third annual meeting is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. in the Bloomington City Hall Council Chambers on Monday, January 27, 19$6. The first order of business will be the election of officers - Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer. Present officers are Mark Mahon,. Chairman; Don Priebe, Vice-Chairman; Ivan Ludeman, Treasurer; and, Neil Peterson, Secretary. The Executive Director is John Cartwright, and the Assistant Executive Director is Russell Langseth. The city managers of Richfield. and Bloomington propose, if time permits, a discussion on the following items of mutual ' interest to our cities: (1) The proposed Mega Mall potential impacts on Richfield streets (Bloomington, 12th Avenue, Portland and Nicollet) and fiscal disparaties; (2) The Lyndale/I494 Bridge CDR Project; and, (3) Bloomington's road plans for 79/80th Streets. A light supper will be served by the City of Bloomington. Res ectf y submitted, John G. Cartwright City Manager JGC/eja NOTE: A separate council letter.is included which discusses the issues_of the Mega Mall highway issues and the Lyndale-I~9~+ bridge project.' Also, please review our letter to Mayor Lindau on the `Mega_Mall draft EIS..