The URL can be used to link to this page

11-25-05 agenda• 19-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 463 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor -and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Approving Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement Between the Cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield (Southwest Suburban Cable Commission) Council Members: In 1982, the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield entered into a joint powers agreement for the on -going administration of cable television. Although each member city of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSCC) agreed to contribute $2,500 per year to the • annual budget of the commission, this was.not spelled out in the original 1982 agreement. This was an oversight by the author(s),of the joint powers agreement. As a result, the former cable administrator'did not bill member cities on an annual basis for this amount, and, therefore, member cities did not pay it. To correct the mistake, the (SWSCC) is requesting that Article XI, Financial Matters, Section 4, Contribution for Subsequent Years of the joint and cooperative agreement be amended to r- eflect each city's contribution of $2,500 per year to the annual budget of the commission. The $2,500 is the "base" amount each city pays regardless of population or number of subscribers. Additional payments by the member cities are based upon the percentage of,subscribers in each city to the total number of subscribers in the five member cities. The section has been amended by adding the phrase "Contribution for Subsequent Years. Beginning in the calendar year 1986 and for each year thereafter, each Party shall contribute Two Thousand Five Hundred and No /100 Dollars ($2,500). Budget amounts required in excess of this minimum amount shall be paid by each Party contributing... ". A copy of the amendment to the-agreement is attached to this council letter. 0 It is recommended that the city council pass the attached resolution approving the First Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement. i Respectf y bmitted, JGC /eja • 0 0 John G . 'Cahtwri City Manager , RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO EXECUTE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE ON- GOING ADMINISTRATION OF CABLE TELEVISION BETWEEN THE CITIES OF EDINA, EDEN PRAIRIE, HOPKINS, MINNETONKA AND RICHFIELD. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement with the Cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, and Minnetonka in May, 1982, for the purposes of providing the on -going administration.of cable television. NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED that the City-Council of the City of Richfield does hereby approve that Article XI, Financial Matters, Section 4, Contribution for Subsequent Years of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement be amended to provide for an annual contribution of $2,500 by each member city to the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission. Passed this 25th day of November, 1985. ATTEST: • John Hamilton Mayor • • *IF- / CITY OF RICHFIELD,,MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 462 Agenda November 25, 1985 i The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Bid for Photocopying Equipment and Service Council Members: On Monday, November 4, 1985, bids were opened for photocopying equipment and service. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. Six vendors responded to the city's request for bids. The City Manager recommends that a contract for the equipment and service be awarded to the IBM Corporation for a 36 -month lease of an IBM Model 60 copier. This recommendation, if approved by the city council, will mean the city is replacing the larger, 120 per minute Xerox copier with the more cost effective IBM model. The bid specifications allowed vendors to propose one medium speed copier (70 copies per minute) or two lower speed copiers (40 - 50 copies per minute). Vendors were also requested to bid a purchase price, a 36 -month rental and a 36-month lease. The staff reviewed each of the proposals received for compliance with the equipment and service specifications detailed in the bidding documents. Staff found that all of the copiers bid met the city's specifications with three exceptions. One of the-small copiers bid by Kodak (Model IM40) runs at a speed of 30 copies per minute. The minimum speed required by the specifications is 40 copies per minutes. Both small copiers proposed by Xerox (Model 1048) do not meet the minimum paper tray capacities required. The two small copiers bid by IBM do not have fully automatic document feeders as required in the specifications. Staff recommends that these bids be disqualified for these deviations. The total operating costs of each of the qualified bids were reviewed. These costs include monthly rental and lease costs, installation, maintenance and supplies. Prices for maintenance and supplies were included in the bids submitted to the city, but are not reflected in the tabulated results reported in the attached minutes. Whereas leasing, rental and purchase costs are fixed, maintenance and supply costs vary according to monthly copying volume. calculated the costs of. monthly copying volumes • April, 1985. The 3 -year rental of each copier we • To make our comparison, staff these items based on the city's actual for the period from May, 1984 through operating costs for purchase, lease and re then calculated. The summary of these costs listed below reflects 3 -year operating costs, including installation, maintenance, supplies and monthly lease and rental payments. The equipment purchase price is included in the 3 -year operating costs only for the outright purchase option bid. The "buyout" figures list the .cost of purchasing the equipment at the conclusion of the 3 -year leasing period. The lease buyout is optional and is therefore not included in the total 3 -year costs. The low bid for each of the financing alternatives is marked with an asterisk( *). Summary of 3 -Year Operating_Costs One Mid -Sized Copier: Make /Model Kodak 225F (Kodak Alternate) Multigraphics 7700 Xerox 9400 Xerox 1075 IBM 60 (IBM Alternate) Two Small Copiers: Savin 7055 Ricoh FT6085 Kodak 85 (Kodak Alternate) The lowest bid for a 3 -year rental is significantly higher than the lowest bid for both a purchase and a 3 -year lease. Although the leasing arrangement costs $3,225 more than an outright purchase over three years, staff recommends a 3 -year lease as it affords three benefits to the city not available with a purchase. First, the Central Services fund does not currently have a cash reserve sufficient to support this capital outlay. A lease enables the city to spread payment over a 3 -year period. Second, the leasing arrangement offered by the low bidder, IBM, allows the city to terminate the lease at the end of the fiscal year if funding to continue the lease is not available and therefore, not appropriated by the council. The third benefit of the lease is that the city can choose to have the equipment removed at minimal cost if it determines that taking ownership of the copier is not in its best interest. Technology has and continues to change quickly in the copier industry. A lease Lease ;Purchase; Rental ; Lease Buyout 11 ; 0� ,507 ; 68,785 , Not Specified 66,763 1 0 38,760 ; 50,220 *; 43,391 ; 21045 579413'1' 91,682 1 5,81827 1 31601 63056 it 66,743 ; 64,822 ; 49240 1 37,240 *; 569589 ; 41,099 1 1 40,465 *; 0 52,419 539539 57,893 2,080 52,811 ; 57,963 56,520 It 2 62,348 ; 609466 ; 67,084 ; Not Specified -659426 11 0 The lowest bid for a 3 -year rental is significantly higher than the lowest bid for both a purchase and a 3 -year lease. Although the leasing arrangement costs $3,225 more than an outright purchase over three years, staff recommends a 3 -year lease as it affords three benefits to the city not available with a purchase. First, the Central Services fund does not currently have a cash reserve sufficient to support this capital outlay. A lease enables the city to spread payment over a 3 -year period. Second, the leasing arrangement offered by the low bidder, IBM, allows the city to terminate the lease at the end of the fiscal year if funding to continue the lease is not available and therefore, not appropriated by the council. The third benefit of the lease is that the city can choose to have the equipment removed at minimal cost if it determines that taking ownership of the copier is not in its best interest. Technology has and continues to change quickly in the copier industry. A lease -.� If3 arrangement provides greater flexibility "to the city to change copiers if there is justification to do so. During the past three years that the city has been renting a copier, monthly costs have averaged approximately $2,100. The IBM lease will reduce these costs to approximately $1,200 per month. • The IBM copier has been reviewed by city staff and found to meet all specifications. Performance v. -- showed the copier to meet productivity expectations for special copying jobs, such as the council agenda packets. Reference checks indicate that the copier is reliable and IBM's response to service calls is timely. Therefore, it is recommended that the council adopt the attached resolution to award the bid for photocopying equipment and service to the IBM Corporation for the 3 -year lease of their model 60 copier. ;peetf y ohn G. Car h City Manager JGC:sb cc: Administrative-Services Director Data Processing Manager right tted, r !_ J Z RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PHOTOCOPYING EQUIPMENT WITH SERVICE /MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for photocopying equipment and maintenance agreement, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; and WHEREAS, it appears that IBM Corporation of Minneapolis, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the bid of IBM Corporation of Minneapolis, Minnesota for the lease and service of the above- mentioned equipment at the following costs is hereby accepted: 36 -month lease $23,715.00 Base Service Contract $ 191.00 /month Service for copies 1- 140,000 per month $ .006 /copy Service for copies exceeding - 140,000 per month $ .015 /copy Installation $ 328.00 2. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract for the above - mentioned equipment and service with the IBM Corporation of Minneapolis, Minnesota, according to specifications therefore approved by the city council; 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of November, 1985. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • John Hamilton Mayor - 4 CITY OF 'RICHFIELD / BID OPENING November-4, 1985 Photocopying Equipment and Service 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, Coen and read aloud, bids for Photocopying Equipment and Service for Richfield Cil-, as.advertised in the official newspaper on October 23, 1985. Present: Eileen Andersen, City Manager Representative Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Steven Devich, Administrative Services Dept. Director Sally Morton., Data Processing Manager The following.bids wer submitted and read aloud: CONFIG -.� MAKE BIDDER URATION & MODEL 3 YEAR 'RENTAL 3 YEAR LEASE PURCHASE Metro Sales, Inc. #1 No Bid - - - Richfield, MN (representing Ricoh Corp.) RICOH I j #2 /A j ;FT6085 12,184.00 11,463.56 } 9,608.00 , ID SECURITY: 5% Bond #2 /B FT6085 12,184.00 11,463.56 ' 9,608.00 1 Copy Duplicating Products #1 No Bid - - - Bloomington, MN SAVIN BID SECURITY: $600.00 #2 /A 7055 21,376.00 14,171.50 i 10,395.00 Cashier's Check a SAVIN #2/B 7055 21,376.00 14,171.50 10,395.00 Eastman Kodak Co. #1 Extaprint 225 F 58,550.24 51,071.56 43,847.00 Minneapolis, MPS #2 /A Extaprint 85 26,635.06 15,682.84 f 13,315.00 BID SECURITY; 10% Bond #2/8 Kodak IM4.0 20,409.40 15,682.84 13,315.00 Eastman Kodak Co. #Z Extaprint 225-F Conditional Minneapolis, MN - Sale Contract *ALTERNATE A* 49 049.44 #2 /A Extaprint Conditional 1 85 j _ Sale Contract - 14 853.40 I..Kodak Conditional { #2/8 IM40 _ Sale Contract ` 14 853.40 ' _ r BID OPENING November 4, 1985 Page -2- ( CONFIG- MAKE , BIDDER � � ORATION &MODEL 3 YEAR RENTAL 3 YEAR LEASE PURCHASE Mul.tigraphics Mendota Heights, MN #1 Multi- graphics 46,895.00 27,120.66 20,445.00 { 7700 : #2 /A No; Bid BID SECURITY: $1,175.00 Bond j #2/B No Bid 4 year rental #1 'Mul 19 p 57,635.00 ' w Multigraphics 7700 , Mendota Heights, MN *ALTERNATE A* #2 /A No Bid - .. #2 /B No Bid - - Xerox i Xerox Corporation #1 9400 94,726.00 41.,022.64 36,007.2.0 Edina MN #2 /A Xerox 14,450.00 12,280.52 ! { 10,793.00 BID SECURITY: 5% Bond Xerox #2 /B 1048 14,450.00 12,280.52 10,793,00 Xerox Corporation #1 Xerox 1075 49,956.20 48,606.84 42,701.00 Edina, MN _. *ALTERNATE A* #2 /A No Bid - _ #2 /B No Bid LBM Corporation Minneapolis, MN ( #1 IBM 6Q 57 ,514.00 24,678.49 .20;818.00 j j #2 /A IBM ,I 40 37,084.00 11,933.33 10,093.00 BID SECURITY: 5% Bond IBM #2/B 40 32,754.00 11,933.33 10,093.00 IBM Corporation #1 IBM 60 - 24,043,00 Minneapolis, MN #2 /A 40M - 11,632.00 - *ALTERNATE A* #2/B IBM 4 - I 1 1,632 .00 - • • T H 0 S A N D S I MONTHLY COPYING VOLUME - 1984/85 184 185 • �Y, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 461 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Corporate Travel Building, 1400 West 76th Street, Dedication of Street Right -0f -Way for New ILN Roadway, Release of Dacotah Properties from its Obligation to Construct the Traffic Signal at 76th Street and Girard Avenue and Release of the Off- Street Parking Performance Bond Council Members: On May 12, 1980, the city council granted a variance to construct the Corporate Travel building at 1400 West 76th Street, subject to a stipulation that a traffic signal be constructed at the 76th Street entrance. City staff then approached MnDOT to arrange the signal installation. MnDOT officials informed staff that the intersection did not meet warrants for a signal. The traffic at the.intersection has been monitored since, and no significant change in the traffic has occurred. Mr. Erickson is now asking that this traffic signal stipulation be waived. The city attorney has advised that because highway department approval has not been obtainable in the five years since the project was approved, this stipulation may no longer be enforceable. A more than reasonable length of time for installation of the signal may have elapsed. Dacotah Properties built a private road to city street standards as part of the development in hopes that the private road could be turned over to the city for use as a city street (Girard Avenue South) some day. The location of this private road coincides with a proposed street in the ILN plan. Dacotah Properties is now offering to dedicate its rights to the right -of -way with improvements in return for a release on the obligation to construct the signal. The city attorney is investigating any rights that CDR may have to this right -of -way. A "trade" of the street right -of -way for the obligation to install the signal appears to be a prudent exchange from the city's standpoint. 17-c� In addition, Dacotah Properties is asking for release of the performance bond on the off - street parking contract. The work required by the off - street parking contract is now complete except for the traffic signal. Some changes were made to the landscape plan. The finished landscaping is still of a high quality and well - maintained, so city staff recommends waiving any discrepancies in the landscape plan4 The ILN Redevelopment project public improvements provides for financing a traffic signal installation at 76th Stret and Girard Avenue South. Staff recommends that the city council: 1. Accept Dacotah Propertie's rights to the right -of -way identified in the attached map corresponding to Girard Avenue south of 76th Street; 2. Release Dacotah Properties from its obligation to install a traffic signal at the 76th Street entrance to Corporate Travel; 3. Release the off - street parking performance bond. • JGC /eaj • ectfu� itted, John G. Car4wright City Manager- � • . ._.... , r 1<'• SreG•r \ ,.,... „ . . _ ... ... % ', r�T �! i s .. f!. • ;r f s Z 1 ��.///7 ... ..... i T 1i. L iUt t ` ` -_ ��= +ssac`__ +� f.s+ - -�i- _ s. �•r t r . ig ..i. f s., SCi A ,♦. '.- __ - - - - -- -!!S t i. 3 r arc 7 tli':- i•. �.....� «� �� =�� - _ ----- .-- .... -" - -f 1. ` �.; __. i•r '. .it 5:1 �� l=:Z� ..� jL Ulf .' °'='_-. _--�- `-:('ais�,:rt►.«..•yl+..iw :.�_ilu�r�.i '� ':r jr i '�. �i a' psi: Sig •gis_ iI r ' T �r� -� "'- ars.f•.--- ♦` +, �' �I /'' }' Ott -; i-�C • S ?is 17 _ SA � , i - � I � , ', \ tit / , , j - - : £. � • • I r '.( r ./' n,v...• ; r•, w.:r„•.nnr �` I�` ♦ � �� t it 2 �� -!�. •Ai.. i�. - S • � . r'i I I iY �� .�� ..�. �� 1 :..3�, t 1, ff'._ ,/li r' . °t f � ;.5�_ r�g �. � �• ��, I� G ! i =t, /!\, ' �� tt•, r it / .d i� si ;311 �� 's�: �� jy.�., . � I t f. t t ��t" c!r ••i � � `,. Y+,.. �, 1 � � �Sa t. 1: A ♦r � A CD rn UAL It, • , � I it t �=I / N�.J I r i \ ( '+ - .. O ,,,�w1 " t I � t � , � s . ♦�' r S Sii Is t't a ��..h`rw-.. �~M F•r •r `i� � i � i �C 1 x! j�l I � a ....M •' •[w - 11.1 I I, / � e M`, t; , D s ,. i p • �. .^ � 11 1. ,t,'. ` iir= '` I `�♦` 1.11 1. " �.." i a \ 4 ` �'i tt ! r ,`'• j! is . i i3 •�`• ::'".� � `.. : Ski �'1. - i.� .r fir. "M. rn• I ;. '�. _ifs. I.L. .'•'t• ?fo ta� ni: 14 f IT-2V :-. 3 ' ? i + ♦tit • • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 460 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subjpactt Hampton Inn Development Proposal Council Members: City staff will review with the City Council the major issues that have been considered in negotiations with the developers (PALCO) at Monday's council meeting. The negotiator for the developers, Tom LaSalle, has said he will recommend to the development team: 1. The estimated market value of $3,402,000 as of January 1, 1988 (this is 90% of EMV) ; and, 2. The sale of excess land to the city for street widening purposes for $11.62 per square foot. Based upon some preliminary estimates on the amount of right -of -way the city requires, the payment to PALCO could be in the neighborhood of $116,000. City staff recommends approval of these two negotiated issues.. If the city council concurs, it would be appropriate for council to direct staff to finalize a developer's agreement with PALCO. JGC /ej a Respectf y submitted, John G. Cartw ght City Manager . BILL NO. DMEiT TO TRANS ORDINANCE CIO. 17 . 18 .A2'l AM_MND11M_NT TO TRANSITORY OP.D T�;ANCE NO. 17.18 EN'TI_ED_ "A:. I� TBRT`? ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED FOR THE PrJRPOSE OF PROTECTING T-E PL LUNING PROCE 1N A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY, REGULATING, RESTRICTING AND PRCQ73 =T_NG CERTAIN USES, DEti;LOPM -ENTS ALND Su3DIV_SIONS WITHIN SUCH AREA. C.T.TY OF R- TCH'- F=.=.D DOES ORDAIN: Sec-tion 3, Sub.div si on 2, Paragraph A, of T=a- nsiCory Ordi- ;ance No. 17.18 entitled "An Interim"Zoning Ondinance Adopter' =or the Pu -,ose of Protecting the Planning Process Jn a Certain Area of the City, Re7ulatin g, Restricting and Prohibiting Certain Uses, Developments and Subdivisions within Such ?area" is hereby amended to read: "A. The Pra iect wi'_'_ be on a sincTle -tract of . land having an area o*. at Least 000- scuare -ee : and wi_linvolve deveiopment or redeve?.opnenTt wi grin the Area which will have an estimated market value in excess or $�9;3e -799-3 $2,000,000 per acre." Passed by the City Council of the Citv' of Qchf eld, N;,zne- Bata, =his day o= i 1985 . ATTEST : Ci :y C_er±c • `kayo r • • • 159-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 459 B Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: The Future for the Richfield Municipal Liquor Stores Council Members: There are six options to consider when addressing the question of what should the city do about the future of the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store. The options are: 1. Repair the existing store and continue to operate from the present location. The former service station site could be leased as has been past practice. This option anticipates that future development at Bloomington's Met Statium site will make this liquor store site more valuable in the future; 2. The city could sell off a part of the site and build a new store on the southwest corner of 66th Street and Cedar Avenue; 3. The city could sell the entire site and lease back a store for municipal liquor sales; 4. The city could sell the entire site and continue to 'operate two stores (Penn Avenue and Lyndale Avenue). Take the proceeds from the land sale, invest the principal, and appropriate the annual interest earnings to the Special Revenue Fund for capital outlay projects. Profits from the two stores would also be transferred to the Special Revenue Fund; 5. The city could test the water to see if the city could sell all three stores and combine the land sale proceeds with the cash fund balances from the Special Revenue and Liquor Funds for a long term investment. The interest earnings would be used to fund the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB); and, Ll U 6. The city could sell the entire site and relocate the east side liquor store to the northwest corner of the intersection or somewhere else on east 66th Street. An Analysis of the Six Options Option 1 - Repair the existing Cedar Avenue store. The Cedar Avenue liquor store needs a new roof and walk -in cooler. The parking lot needs resurfacing. The cost to upgrade this site is estimated to be $120,000. This option has a number of disadvantages: (a) the site is too large and therefore underutilized; (b) the store area is twice the size that is ideal; (c) the area needs a project that may spark additional redevelopment along the east side of Cedar Avenue north of 66th Street. The principal advantage is: (a) the site may become more valuable in the future when the City of Bloomington Airport South /Met Stadium site is developed. Option 2 City Build a New Store It is estimated that the new store would be more cost effective to operate. The estimated savings in the first year is approximately $20,000 in operating expenses. If the city sold part of the site, it is anticipated, depending upon the type of use that would be built on the site, that the city could get $250,000 or more. The cost to build a new store including fixtures is $375,0000. The land sale proceeds and Special Reve0ue Fund cash balance could easily finance the project. The SRF is expected to be $305,000 by December 31, 1985. The Liquor Fund cash balance is $375,000. Revenue from the investment of SRF or Liquor Fund would, of course, be less in the future because some funds would be used to help pay for the new building. This interest reven- ue reduction would be more than offset by the savings from operating a new energy efficient store. Option 3 - Sell the Entire Site and Lease Space for a Municipal Liquor Store 159-3 The cost to lease a new fully equipped liquor store is nearly $60,000 more per year to operate than a new store owned by the city including depreciation expense for a new store. This estimate is based upon a $11.00 per square foot rental rate. The advantages are: (a) if competition or other outside forces caused a continual decline in profits, the city could walk away at the end of the lease or sell its lease intersts. (b) the city would be able to use the land sale proceeds to: 1) pay for the liquor store fixtures ($140- 50,00); 2) use the balance to initiate a redevelopment project on Cedar north of 66th Street; or, 3) deposit the balance in the liquor fund to help fund the development of Legion Lake.Park. The principal disadvantage is the higher annual operating costs. Option 14 - Sell the Cedar Avenue Site and Operate Two Stores The city's consultant, Beverage Marketing, Inc. (BMI), believes the sale of the Cedar store would see only one third of the Cedar Avenue sales going to our other two stores. There would be savings in operating expenses. The cost of personal services as a percent of sales which now averages around 7.14 %, would problably drop to 6.5% or so. Staff's initial judgment is that with a two store operation, one of the two remaining liquor store manager positions could be replaced by the Director of Liquor Operations. Option 5 - Sell all Three Stores If all three stores were sold at their fair market value, and the land sale proceeds were added to the cash fund balances of the SRF and the Liquor Funds, the city could anticipate an annual net income of $390,000 (assumes a 10.33% yield on the investments). The advantages of selling all three stores are: • (a) avoid the risk of lower net profits because of: 1) more competition; and, 2) increasing expenses with no increase in sales (b) the potential of greater insurance premiums could be avoided. The recent history for city -wide insurance premiums: 1984- $104,OOO 1985- $385,000 1986- $435,000 estimate (c) without the need for dram shop insurance, the city may be able to lower its overall insurance premiums since more bidders might be attracted. The key to this option is the question can the city achieve $3.1 million for the liquor business, the land and the stores? If not, the option to sell should be eliminated from further consideration. Option 6 - Sell Entire Site and Relocate Liquor Store Elsewhere The major disadvantages are: (a) the cost to acquire another site in the area could run $300,000 or more; and, (b) the most advantageous site is the site owned by the city (southwest corner of Cedar /66th intersection, iThe advantage of this option would be to maximize private development on the existing liquor store site. is s Ito Wy tn ct � 6d � � � N N � Z 3ZK td . N R f R � fi to ED �W K ooF-iK K t? g O ro 00, rt N rt� N LOS � 08 "' F'n `t r COD 10 rto m m (D N N W t h .P .rs O O coo ft V1 0 L 01 0 0 6n N OD O S" A) to O to lLn " ,la v O N N O N W m P dt�� low) . . . . . . . . . . . . 0D �¢ N 01 ,{a N O .ia O O 00 co V0 N N )s8 -s pWi 1 �t EQ fD n W W to .rs tD O L" 0 w 0 as 0 .Ls .D .a OD 0 O N N O 01 to N 00 (n "A 0w 0 hn 0 (D En ft . it R,8 m t r rt 1 + A w -� c to -- O N SriS . W . W O . O 1,,n . . O O O W �l OD .ra N N M Ln 00% Ci M m N ON O.Is�0Pv v w O NOD N � N Ln ft • O . . v co 01 O Is O N tD N O %00 O cn O 0 0 O o to W cn 01 0) O -.� —► O S • ,Ri O N �P �,� C71 01 !V OD O 0 RD N Q 1 OD a S aw, 0 Ch O 0 0 O Ow l ° g Ch •Owi O 0 0 o oO W N ' s N Q to EQ 00, Ich C0 °o a0i 00 m00 a m & 0) (D to m rt N E. • 15,610 Conclusions and Recommendations Based upon the analysis which estimates total net profit for the various options, the conclusions are: -If the three liquor stores could be sold for the business value plus the market value for the land and the buildings, the potential for earning the greatest annual profit lies with this option. This could be a big IF! -If the city were successful in selling all three stores for $3.1 million and invested the sale proceeds,at 10.33% interest rate, and add to this the cash balance in the Liquor Fund ($375,000), the city could expect to receive $360,000 for capital improvements. -Also, the Special Revenue Fund cash balance ($305,000) could be invested at higher yields than.at present. These earnings could be added to the $360,000 to make a grant total available of $390,474. The City Manager recommends the following decision process to the City Council. First, determine if there is a council majority in favor of selling all three liquor stores for $3.1 million. If the majority favor such a sale, the city should immediately test the market to learn if $3.1 million is a realistic value. The BMI formula says yes. Based upon discussions with developers, the price maybe totally unrealistic. We can only know for sure if we try. The effort to try and sell the three stores would delay employing an architect to prepare plans, specifications and receive bids for a spring construction start on the liquor store. Second, assuming there is either no support for placing all three liquor stores on the market for sale or there is not a bid or the bids for the three stores fall short of our minimum price, the city council and HRA would select the best development proposal and authorize city staff to negotiate a developers agreement. The analysis of 'the development proposals is contained in a separate council letter (459A) under this agenda item. Respectfully submitted, J n G. Car wri t City Manager 0 JGC /eja • l5A-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No.459A Agenda Nov. 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Development Proposals for the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store Site Dear Council Members:. This item was on the November 12, 1985, agenda. However, because of the length of that meeting the item was deferred to the November 25th City Council meeting. Consistent with past reviews on this project, a mailing was sent to approximately 300 residents living around the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store Site inviting them to the November 25th council meeting. An analysis is presented on the proposals submitted by the Lincoln Companies and by Nacon /Henning and the Republic Airlines Employees Credit Union. Representatives from each development team will be present at the meeting to make presentations on their proposals. The staff analysis discusses neighborhood compatibility, employment opportunities, property taxes generated and land disposition proceeds received for each of the projects. Land Disposition Proceedings Received There are several combinations of parcels of land which could be offered for sale by the city. The accompanying map illustrates the four parcels of land which are considered in this analysis. Parcel A is the former gas station /car sales lot; Parcel B is the present liquor store site; Parcel C is the north half of the 67th Street right -of -way; and, Parcel D is the westerly 17 feet of the Cedar Avenue right -of -way. • 0 1514— c�2— Parcel D is apparantly owned by the State of Minnesota and there is serious doubt at this time as to whether.they would convey this to the city for resale to a private developer. In that there 'are several variables relating to the disposition of land for this project, several options are' - presented for City Council consideration. The attached site .plan depicts four parcels of land (parcels A, B. C & D) and also includes the approximate areas of each. At this time the State of Minnesota appears to own parcel D. Conversations with Minnesota Dept. of Trans.(MNDOT) representatives indicate that the State may be unwilling to convey this parcel to the City for subsequent resale to a developer. The staff has officially requested MNDOT to convey this property to the City. .SITE, PLAN East 66th Street • 157 ft. M w A • EXISTING OFFICE 27,632 ± sf 13UILDING 90 it. 1 .c 1 • y , z a � 98,688 +. -sf i co o r to : .: +I o of a co i co 1 1 i L1 i i i . i 247 it. 7410 ± sf 1 East 67th Street • • 1-514- Y Other options which can be considered by the Council include either the sale of parcel A, or its retention for a new liquor store. The vacating of the northern half of 67th Street (parcel C) and its conveyance to a selected redeveloper can also be considered, or the Council may choose to allow 67th Street to remain in its current state. Sale of Parcels A, B, C & D The NACON /Henning proposal offers two sale prices depending upon whether the existing gas station parcel (Parcel A) is included.or excluded. The price per square foot,including Parcel A is $2.77 per square foot. The price per square foot excluding Parcel A (future site of the new liquor store) is $2.58. Total land areq,= 140,530 square feet Lincoln Companies Proposal Nacon /Henning Proposal 140,530 Land Area Purchase .1401530 $2.70 Price per Sq. Foot $2.77 $379�p431— Land disposition proceeds Sale of Parcels A, B, C (Excludes land on west side of Cedar) Area = 133,730 square feet Lincoln Companies 133,730 $2.70 $361 P071 $389,268- 17' strip of state owned Nacon /Henning 133,730 $2.77 $370, 432` Sale of Parcels B & C (Excludes state owned land and new site for liquor store) Area = 106,098 square feet Lincoln Companies Nacon /Henning 106,098 106,098 $2.70 $2.25 $5 $273,733 Sale of Parcel B (Existing liquor store site only) Area = 98,688 square feet E, 1.5,4--5 Lincoln Properties Nacon /Henning 98,688 98,688 $2.70 $2.58 $266,457 $254p615 The above analysis indicates that under two of the options the Nacon /Henning proposal would generate a greater amount of land disposition proceeds, while under the othe— ,-c options the Lincoln Properties would be higher. Annual Property Taxes Generated by Improvements .For comparative purposes the taxes generated by the land have not been included in this analysis, only property improvements have been evaluated. It should be understood that the values of improvements are only estimates provided by the two developers and that they have not been validated by the Hennepin County Assessor. Once, and if, a developer has been selected, the Hennepin County appraiser will be contacted on this subject. It should also be recognized that the approximate figures on taxes generated represent a total tax contribution for these improvements. These figures will be reduced by the amounts contributed to the fiscal disparities pool, and, of course, the city only received about 20% of every tax dollar collected after the fiscal disparities deduction. Option 1. Redevelopment of Parcels A, B, C, & D This option.assumes no city owned liquor store on the entire site. Lincoln Companies Nacon- Henning 40,000 to 143,000 square feet Credit Union EMV $ 11007,700 x 43% EMV $ 1,345,175 to 1,420,569 x 107 mills x 43% x 107 mills $46,365 Strip Center @ 17,000 square feet EMV $695,000 x 43 %. x 107 mills $31,977 - strip center $46,365 - credit union C 154 *16 Total improvement taxes: Lincoln = $61,892 to $65,360 Nacon /Henning = $78,342 Option 2. Redevelopment of Parcels B, B & C, or B, C & D This option assumes the city will build a liquor store on the gas station site (Parcel A) Lincoln Companies Nacon /Henning 30,000 to 32,000 EMV $838,535 x. 43% x 107 mills Strip Center 8 08 0 square feet EMV = $308,OOO x 43% x 107 mills 14,171 +Credit Union 46,365 See Option 1 above Lincoln = $382581 Nacon /Henning = $60,536 The above figures indicate that the Nacon proposals, with or without the city owning and operating a liquor store on this site, will generate a greater amount of property tax. With an estimated net 20% contribution to the fiscal disparities pool the city would annually receive $2100 to $3500 more in real estate property taxes from the Nacon / Henning improvements. Neighborhood Ccompatibility Lincoln Companies Proposal This proposal will be compatible with the neighborhood. It will be a one and one -half story building,which will be visually unobtrusive adjacent to a single family residential area. This project was previously identified by area residents as being the most compatible of the three proposals which were presented to them in 1983. The principal hours of operation of the office service center (7:30 a.m. to'5:30 p.m. on weekdays) will not be detrimental to the adjacent residential area, nor will traffic generated by this development. The architecture of the building is interesting and should be an asset to the community. 40 1 1,5A-7 Naeon /Henning Proposal The credit union facility will have operating hours that are comparable to those of'a bank or savings and loan institution. This facility will be closed on Sundays and would close no later than the early-evening on weekdays. The traffic generated by this facility should be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The strip center commercial facility could pose a problem relative to neighborhood compatibility. It would not be unusual for a.convenience store to be one of the tenants in this facility. Hours of operation are typically from early in the morning until late in the evening seven days per week. This facility will not be as compatible with the neighborhood as either the credit union or the office service center. At this time Nacon /Henning has not indicated who the tenants would be for this commercial facility. The architecture of the credit union building will be compatible with the neighborhood. Even though it is two stories in height, it should not be detrimental to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The commercial strip .center architecture will be less of an asset to the community than either the office service center or the credit union. Employment Opportunities The Lincoln Companies proposal will provide 60 to 80 jobs. These jobs will'be of a permanent nature and will be mostly in the skilled workerrmid- management level. The credit union facility presently has 24 employees and is projected to have 50 employees in five years if the credit union continues to experience growth. These employees would be comparable to those typically found in a financial institution, including tellers, clerical staff, loan officers and middle management personnel. Data has not been furnished on the employement base of the strip center but it is assumed that it would be comparable to that of other commercial facilities, i.e., primarily sales .persons with a limited amount of management personnel. Conclusion & Recommendations It is recommended that the city construct a new liquor store on the northeast corner of the subject property (at the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Cedar Avenue). This item is covered in greater detail in Council letter No. 459B. Based upon the materials presented, it is recommended that the City Council authorize the staff to complete negotiations with the Lincoln Companies for the construction of an office service center with a floor area of 30,000 to 32,000 square feet on the site of the present Cedar Avenue Liquor Store. This proposal will provide the greatest degree of neighborhood compatibility and will provide a better selection of permanent jobs in the community. In the staff's opinion there is presently an excessive amount of strip commercial development along east 66th Street and Cedar Avenue. The Nacon /Henning proposal would add an additional 8,800 square feet, including the liquor store, or 17,000 square feet without the liquor store. The introduction of additional strip commercial development in this part of Richfield will exert a negative influence on area land use patterns. Also, city staff recommends that staff be directed to continue working with Nacon /Henning to find a suitable site for the credit union building in Richfield. JGC /eja C Respectfully submitted, 9W4V hn.G. Car wri t City Manager is CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The "nnorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield ;11/�/-/ Council Letter No. 458 Agenda November 25, 1985 Subject: Project and District Boundary Change, Modification No. 1, Technical Correction, ILN Dear Council Members: On November 12,, 1985, the City Council approved the establishment of the ILN Redevelopment Project and Tax Increment Financing District. Hennepin County as apart of determining the Original Assessed Value for the Tax Increment District (base value) has reviewed the boundary location and list of parcels included in the district. They are requesting a slight modification in the tax increment district boundary and parcel list. This letter requests the City Council to adopt the attached resolution approving these modifications. The HRA approved the'modification on November 18th. A copy of the HRA resolution is attached. At the present time, the eastern boundary of the ILN District splits two tax parels occupied by tracks of the Minneapolis, Northfield Southern Railroad. (Attachment "Existing "). It is proposed that the location of that boundary be shifted to that marked "proposed" on the same attachment. The parcel occupied by the north -south railroad track would be completely deleted from the project. The parcel occupied by a spur track servicing Lambert Lumber would be included entirely within the ILN. Also the parcels owned by the railroad and located within the district were inadvertently not included in Exhibit IV, Tax Increment Financing District Parcels. Thus, page 51 has been modified to add these two parcels. The appropriate changes have been made in the pages of the Plan document and have been attached to the resolution. Legal Counsel has indicated this is a technical amendment and would require the adoption of an appropriate resolution by both the HRA and City Council. . The modification right -of -way between modification adds the crosses to the lumber west of the railroad deletes the westerly half of the railroad I494 and West 77th Street. The parcel upon which the railroad spur line yard and the railroad parcel immediately right -of -way. This latter parcel has L J • always been in the redevelopment project and tax increment financing district, but it was not listed on page 51 of the October 21, 1985, document. The HRA approved this item at their November 18th meeting. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the modification of the ILN district boundary. JCG /e ja eat ohn G. art City Manager ight tted, _ - - /y3 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING MODIFICATION NUMBER 1 TO THE INTERSTATE LYNDALE NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN DATED OCTOBER 21, 1985 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For The City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) adopted resolution number 267 on October 21, 1985, approving a redevelopment plan and tax increment financing plan for the Interstate Lyndale Nicollet Redevelopment Project (the Plan) pursuant to provision of Minnesota Statutes Sections 162.11 to 462.585 and Sections 273.71 to 273.78 (the Act); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (City) adopted resolution number 7101 on November 12, 1985, approving the Plan pursuant to the Act; and WHEREAS, the tax increment financing district boundary is depicted in Figure B1, page 145, and, is described in Exhibit V, page 52, in the Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan dated October 21, 1985; and WHEREAS, Exhibit IV, pages 148 through 51 contains a list of the Tax Increment Financing District Parcels in the Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan dated October, 21, 1985; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County in reviewing the boundary location has found that it inappropriately divides two tax parcels, and that two parcels were inadvertently omitted from the list of Tax Increment Financing District Parcels. WHEREAS, the HRA adopted resolution number 272 on November 18, 1985, approving modification Number 1 to the Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED City of Richfield as follows: 1. Figure B1, page 145, dated Exhibit V; page 52, dated Exhibit IV, page 52 dated attached are hereby appro by the City Council of the November 18, 1985, and, November 18, 1985, and, November 18, 1985, as ved as Modification Number 1. 2. The Executive Director is requested and directed to present this Modification Number 1 to the City Council and request their approval. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of November 1985. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk U ERA RESOLUTION NO. 272 APPROVING MODIFICATION NUMBER 1 TO THE INTERSTATE LYNDALE NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN DATED OCTOBER 21, 1985 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For The City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) adopted resolution number 267 on October 21, 1985, approving a redevelopment plan and tax increment financing plan for the Interstate Lyndale Nicollet Redevelopment Project pursuant to provision of Minnesota Statutes Sections 462.11 to 462.585 and Sections 273.71 to 273-18 (the Act); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (City) adopted resolution number T101 on November 12, 1985, approving a redevelopment plan and tax increment financing plan for the Interstate-Lyndale Nicollet Redevelopment Project pursuant to the Act; and WHEREAS, the tax increment financing district boundary is depicted in Figure B1, page 45, and,.is described in Exhibit V, page 52, in the Redevelopment and Tax Inerement.Financing Plan dated October 21, 1985;. and WHEREAS, Exhibit IV, pages 48 through 51 contains a list of the Tax increment Financing.District Parcels in the Redevelopment and'Tax Increment Financing Plan dated October 21, 1985; and WHEREAS,.Hennepin County in reviewing the boundary location has found that it inappropriately divides two tax parcels, and that two parcels were inadvertently omitted from the list of Tax Increment Financing District Parcels. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment in and for the City of Richfield as follows: 1, Figure B1, page 45, dated November 18, 1985 and, Exhibit V, page 52, dated November 18,.-1985, and Exhibit IV, page 52 dated November 18,1985, as attached are hereby approved as Modification Number 1 2. The Executive Director is requested and directed to present this Modification Number 1 to the City Council and request their approval. Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota this 18th day of November, 1985. Thomas E. Harms, Chairman ATTEST: Joan Helmberger, Secretary :D _ - i D, Dlpioi I DIDLD.iD� u...J i1 x My (111!1 i � 10 1 ❑ 01 ! i I I I0!p+Dial ! 6�L.L� , �.✓.i. wV. 1.NIn91 j 7-77 T -; 1 ! j IDID10101 _.. T . T.. I { 1 ! I IOID;OIDt 0I0IDIDiD1O +DGiGii 110 Dj1I D -10 loiDil i T- T t T TT i I• o,c,c� :00'0: � ❑: CO�0!D `O D0 j l i l 1 1 11 1 1 i i Id Di- 1 0iojn-bb!l lido !C�Gidd(310bbb 3G 013 Q i p�' a!C' 'oT Ic palm .all I if 10, 1 °I ; .1 1 L.J�.1.li ti. 1-L 1i11.1.L.L.1.1 - 'o �aetl 1a11o� �ioo,o!a�O b ."Ong +t �gOo�D;Dj131 t -i . t` �ID�p 1 la'❑Db! lodo'ciol 1 c3lplpbo 11i _LJ_ _ og a +tl Inc IN1 T 77 ];Dick �:7�❑ O;OOj �caDicxnlc�oo pao'' ��❑bi 1 ❑I / 0laooiQOiaial mobs T I o a +r uoslawg _ , I* r T •— �- •I '' i Ial � roiaolao;�❑; `^ i - `OQ R.y IVa,WI, Q oloio;a�a1, Mp 10; aica lob +o' ❑I �� iD ❑ �D�D' o$ 'Mtl ''❑ GIC3 it ip AiaD _. + T ma 'C 1 C31 -1 i 0!. ialo 1 C3 01 y u ■ DID 'DtOIDC 3 a i I ❑ ❑7- C '7—'7—' O IG 'n �D .D Ggap ti ; {o 010 1 C3 I ❑ iO 10 113 1 ❑Al i 0 oo Pe • Q' al G a l 0 10 i �PLN\ � �.L.L U a . I 1� T —17 T. G !p ,GIG 10 '0. IL�� I Ij p � 01 o!n la c;ao� e +..1_..J m I 1 C7iO 4f�ao'a ;Q 113 ;o 113,1 oa c ''oj D a - - -1�— i al I. DI o I l i o ! i • I I 1 D!O 10101 O'O 10 I I I i t T 7- T' II 01 cola 1C 10 iD 10 `3 ii CAD {Did 1� Q �C3, I� 13 i13j=3; i 'I� r I 1 ai qiA �I .A m�C I v I I� I�. I �i zpc ro co O m _C �s m U rX 0 u r 7 zz o a:a z u� H 1 ai qiA �I .A m�C I v I I� I�. I �i zpc ro co O m _C �s m U rX 0 u zz o U u� H U.. oo , —JF'U 7701 Lyndale Avenue 7745 Lyndale Avenue ,512 W. 78th Street 501 W. 77th Street 7724 Harriet Avenue 500 W. 78th Street 7701 Harriet Avenue 7713 Harriet Avenue 7737 Harriet Avenue 416 W. 78th Street 400 W. 78th Street 401 W. 77th Street 300 W. 78th Street 320 W. 78th Street Any other right -of -way property. NO ADDRESS NO ADDRESS PLAN MODIFICATION NO. 1 11/18/85 51 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 34- 028 -24 -33 -0001 34- 028 -24 -33 -0002 34- 028 -24 -33 -0003 34- 028 -24 -33 -0004 34- 028 -24 -33 -0005 34- 028 -24 -33 =0006 34- 028 -24 -33 -0007 34- 028 -24 -33 -0008 34- 028 -24 -33 -0009 34- 028 -24 -33 -0010 34- 028 -24 -33 -0011 34- 028 -24 -33 -0012 34- 028 -24 -33 -0013 34- 028 -24 -33 -0079 34- 028 -24 -33 -0014 34- 028 -24 -33 -0030 • • • • EXHIBIT V Tax. Increment Financing District y Boundary Description All that real property within an area as described; Commencing at the intersection of the southerly line of Section 34 with the westerly right -of -way line of the Minneapolis Northfield Southern Railroad, thence northerly along. said westerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the, easterly line of Pleasant Avenue, thence south along the easterly line of Pleasant Avenue to its intersection with the easterly extension of the north line of 77th Street, thence westerly along said line to the southwesterly point of Section 34 Township -28 Range 24 Quarter 33 Parcel 72, thence northerly to the northeasterly point of Section 34 Township 28 Range 24 Quarter 32 Parcel 56,thence westerly to the southwesterly corner of Section 34 Township 28 Range 24,Quarter 32 Parcel 21, thence northerly along the east right of way line of Lyndale Avenue South to the point of intersection of the north right of way line of West 75th Street extended, thence westerly along said right of way to the southwesterly point of Section 33 Township 28 Range.24 Quarter ,41 Parcel 5,thence southerly to the southeasterly point of Section. 33 Township 28 Range 24 Quarter 44 Parcel 49, thence westerly along the northerly right of way line of West 77th Street to the southwesterly point of Section 33 Township 28 Range 24Quarter 439 Parcel 8, thence along the easterly right 'of way of Emerson Avenue South to the north right of way line of West 76th Street, thence westerly along said right of way to the southwesterly point of Section 33 Township 28 Range 24 Quarter 42 Parcel 108, thence north to the northwesterly point of Section 33 Township 28 Range 24 Quarter 42 Parcel 109, thence westerly to the center right of way line of U.S. Interstate -Highway No. 35W, thence south along said line to the southwesterly point of Section 33 Township 28 Range 24 Quarter 43, thence east along the southerly boundary of Section 33 Township 28 Range 24 Quarters 43 and 44, and Section 34 Township 28 Range 24 Quarter 33 to said point of beginning. MODIFICATION NO. 1 11/18/85 52 EXISTING i 4 f i V 1 �J !tt t f - PROPOSED 1 I'm i f a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 457 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: 66th Street /Penn- Xerxes Avenue Street Improvement Project - Approval of the Final Plans Council Members: The Federal Aid to Urban Systems (FAUS) process requires' that the City Council approve final construction plans prior to their submittal to the Federal Highway Administration for final approval. The Hennepin County Transportation Department has completed the plan for the 66th Street /Fenn- Xerxes Avenue Street Improvement Project and is asking the city council for its approval. This construction plan is consistent with the preliminary plans reviewed at past public hearings, neighborhood /business meetings, and city council meetings with the following exceptions: 1. One -half block of on- street parking (nine stalls) was eliminated on the west side of Penn Avenue. The original proposed parking lane between 6600 and 6620 Penn Avenue left no room for snow storage. Businesses adjacent to this lane preferred increased snow storage over the parking lane. Off - street parking is readily available to these businesses. The businesses adjacent to the change have been contacted by city staff and /or county right -of -way agents. All are in agreement to the plan which is identified on the attached sketch. 2. A raised concrete median was added between Washburn and Xerxes Avenue to allow safe left turns from westbound 66th Street to southbound Xerxes Avenue. Carlson Companies, the owners of Southdale Square, agree with the change. Goodyear Tire does not use any entrances to 66th Street. 3. Details of the street lighting are now completed. New street lights with 30' poles will be installed on Penn Avenue. New street lights on 66th Street will be installed on relocated NSP power poles. Street lights and sidewalks in the 6700 block of Penn Avenue will be handled as a separate project as this block falls outside the project limits. • !I :7 /S � Notices to property owners have not been mailed regarding this item for final approval of plans. City staff believes that the individual contacts made with property owners and tenants during the past year have fully acquainted all concerned with the changes made to the final plans. Copies of past city council letters which review past public input and council action are attached. The staff recommends that the council approve the 66th Street /Penn- Xerxes Avenue street construction plans by passing the attached resolution. JGC /e ja ect Sohn G. City Ma 1 itted, rt right er R /3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECTS NOS. 8026 AND 8443 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 32 WHEREAS, plans for Hennepin County Projects Nos. 8026 and 8443 showing proposed alignment, profiles, grades, and cross sections for the construction of County State Aid Highway No. 32 within the limits of the City of Richfield as a State Aid Project have been prepared and presented to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that said plans be in all things approved and that the City agrees to provide the enforcement for the prohibition of on- street parking on that portion of said Projects Nos. 8026 and 8443. ° Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 25th day of November, 1985. 0 ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk • John Hamilton Mayor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 8056 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 53 WHEREAS, plans for Hennepin County Project No. 8056 showing proposed alignment, profiles, grades, and cross sections for the construction of County State Aid Highway-No. 53 within the limits of the City of Richfield as a State Aid Project have been prepared and presented to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that said plans be in all things approved and that the City agrees to provide the enforcement for the prohibition of on- street parking on that portion of said Project No. 8056 within its corporate limits. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 25th .day of November, 1985. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk • John Hamilton Mayor y I i a Lu i Lu 6636 SOUTNTOWN I' i k PLUMBING t@ l it a 6634 PET CENTS m 602 N NO —i� COIFFURE CD 6630 THE WAX Z Z i a MUSEUM N ENCORE CHOW 2 N 1EIN 6637 i t 6628 LEES BARBER DECORATING SHOP 6635 j I Y � TRENDSETTERS .rD j �j t 6626 GERTRUDE'S Z 1 j APPAREL SHOP O THE SUNTAN - PLACE 6629 1 _ SUNSHINE I CA O CLEANERS 6627 HOLMSTEAD PICKIN _ PARLOR 6625 O ij LUNOGREN PHOTO STUDIO 6623 2 BOOK SWAP �� / I > t�Lto ' m Nth i ARTHUR TREACHER'S FISH d CHIPS LIUV II m K _ SUSSEL ADJUSTABLE 1 BEDS CO , N MISTER m O I n�d �- iI DONUT X .Tl m r O co O O rn o z c v rn CD .-- CO t8• g' _ '— a C. S. A. tee. CO D _ r -� 9S Q I1O - ✓ n rn l �. i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 224 Agenda June 25, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Proposed Street Traffic Control and Storm Sewer Improvements for 66th Street Between York and Newton Avenues C.P. T80 and C.P. T92) Council Members: At the.June 25, 1984, city council meeting, the city council will be asked to consider alternative designs for street and storm sewer improvements. The design alternatives to be considered are: T. A center fifth lane to function as a two -way left turn lane for both east and westbound traffic on 66th Street from Russell. Avenue to Washburn ,Avenue; and -==-.27. Storm_ water control. The city staff has reviewed with Hennepin County and the City ofEdina engineers on the suggested changes. The Hennepin County Department of Transportation is seeking.City of Richfield input on the changes as part of their location design study report from which a final design is drawn. On March 14, 1984; a neighborhood information meeting was held on the proposed improvement to 66th Street from Sheridan Avenue to York. Avenue.. All of the owners and residents living along 66th Street were invited. On April 9, 1984 the city council approved a preliminary design which included raised concrete medians and protected left -turn bays along the entire Length of the proposed 66th Street improvement. It was antici ated that if there were no major changes suggested by the remaining hearing process, the council would next review the plan when the final plans and specifications were completed. The staff believes that the two issues outlined above merit consideration before the final plan preparation is begun. I. A Center Fifth Lane for Two-Way Left Turns For Both East and WestBound Traffic on 66th Street from Russell Avenue to Washburn Avenue Carlson Companies owns the shopping center at 66th Street and Xerxes Avenue known as Southdale Square. Carlson Companies hired the engineering firm of Strgar- Roscoe Inc. to investigate alternatives to the proposed plan. The primary feature of the Page Two _ s., alternative plan was to introduce a common center lane to be used as a two —way left turn lane instead of the concrete median protected left turn lanes. Both eastbound and westbound traffic would use this middle lane for left turns. The plan also proposes the closing of some driveway openings on 66th Street at the west end of the project. Hennepin County is in the process of completing the drawing of this proposed alternative and investigating the traMLi impact. Ai the council meeting, members of the Hennepin County Department of Transportation Design Division will present this alternative. II'. Storm Water Control Street flooding occurs on both Xerxes Avenue and Washburn Avenue near 66th Street during heavy rainfalls. In addition, the low alley between Washburn and Vincent Avenue, 66th to 67th Street, experiences frequent flooding.. An analysis of the area. performed as part of the over —all storm sewer.study for the city indicates that it may ble logical to have both Edina and Richfield upgrade the capacities of the storm sewers serving the area, and, in so doing, reduce the frequency and intensity of the flooding. Cost estimates associated with this option in the past have beem substantial because they have included the cost of repairing the street. Because 66th Street will be- excavated for the street _...... improvement project_,_ it is logical to, proceed with - -Richfield's portion of the-- st- orm�--sewer improvement. The storm sewer improvement that Richfield could do as part of this project would decrease the flooding hazard in the Washburn — Vincent alley and on Washburn Avenue. This would increase the rate of water going into Sheridan Pond. It would, however, have little . affect on the Xerxes Avenue flooding. The flooding situation on Xerxes Avenue is such that the water can pond in the street and then overflow down the alley between Xerxes Avenue and Washburn Avenue to Washburn Avenue and contribute to the Richfield storm sewer system. In order to reduce this problem, staff recommends that the Richfield City Council request Edina and Hennepin County to upgrade the pipe sizes from Xerxes to York Avenue as part of the proposed improvement. In addition, Edina and Hennepin County would enlarge the pipe sizes from York Avenue to France Avenue when this section of roadway is upgraded. The improvement of 66th Street, York Avenue to France Avenue., should be added to Hennepin County's Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. OSM Consulting Engineers, conclude that this design plan for storm water control will have aslight additional flow to Sheridan Pond, but not creating major problems as it will be of an interim nature (until. 66th Street west of Xerxes is improved• including additional storm sewer capacity. Details of the cost sharing between Hennepin County, state aid and the city will be identified with the final plan preparation this fall. I• li Page- Three. /3 8 Conclusions and Recommendations The staff recommends approval of: 1.- A center fifth lane to function as a two -way left turn lane on 66th Street from Russell Avenue to Washburn Avenue; and 2. The estimated $200,000 storm sewer and water control project involving. Sheridan. Pond, and, 3. Communications to both Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and the Edina City Council urging these governments to undertake 66th Steet storm sewer improvements west of Xerxes within the next two to five year time period. No formal action needs to be taken at the June 25 council meeting. The staff will prepare resolutions based upon council reaction to the alternatives for consideration at the July 9,' 1984 . city council meeting. pectf 1 witted, ohn G. ar rig City Manager. -= JGC /eja • .7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 378 Agenda December 13, 198.2 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Public Hearing -'66th Street and Penn Avenue Improvements CP 780 On November 22, 1982 the city council set the'date for a public hearing on the proposed reconstruction of the 66th Street and Penn Avenue intersection for December 13, 1982. Ten days mailed notice and two weekly publications of the re- auired notice were given as required by law. City and county_. staff members will be at the December 13, 1,982 city council meeting to present the proposed plan and answer questions. Background The proposed plan has resulted from previous actions by the city council, the city.staff, and the county staff. -March 23, 1982, the city council passed a resolution encouraging Hennepin County to reconstruct the inter- section and to submit an application for this project for Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funding. The county did submit the project for FAU funding, and the project was approved.' However, no additional projects were being funded and the FAU program's future is in question. Therefore, funding for the project would be shared by the city and the county; -May 10, 1982, a city council study session was held to discuss the design alternatives for the improvement of the 66th Street and Penn Avenue intersection. The reasons for the improvements and preliminary designs were discussed. In addition, the city engineer dis- cussed the possibility of using city right -of -way to enhance parking and access in the area by closing some streets. The council directed the staff to meet with the adjacent businesses to discuss the need.for the improvements, as well as design alternatives, parking issues and access issues; Council Letter No.-378 -'2- December 13, 1982 C, -June 7 and 8, 1982, informational meetings were held for businesses and residents of each quadrant of the 66th Street and Penn Avenue intersection. The prop- osed improveemnts were presented and input received from those in attendance. Since those meetings, the city engineer has met with most of the property owners on an individual basis to explain the proposed improve- ments and to explore the feasibility of the use of right -of -way to enhance parking and access; November 22, 1982, a city council study session was held to discuss the revised plan which is to be pre - sented at the December 13, 1982 city council public hearing. Reasons for the Improvements Improvements to the intersection of 66th Street and Penn Avenue are proposed for three reasons: 1. This intersection is the busiest in the city, with 35,000 cars a day using this intersection. An im- provement to the traffic carrying capacity would re- duce the delays and congestion which now occur. i 2. The accident rate at this intersection is higher than the county average. 3. The intersection has physically deteriorated to a point where major repair is necessary. Proposed Plan The proposed plan consists of a raised concrete median, left turn lanes for all four legs of the intersection, and recon- struction of the pavement surface. A new eight -phase traffic signal would be installed at the intersection. Sidewalks and street lighting would be installed on Penn Avenue., 65th Street to 68th Street, where they do not currently exist. Revisions to Original Plan In response to input received from property owners, the city engineer and county engineer made several changes in the plan to better accommodate the needs of the businesses in the area. Revisions were made where it was feasible within the framework of the design needed to handle the tarff is volume, turn movements and safety considerations of this intersection. Several businesses requested median breaks or no medians be used. The city and county staffs do not recommend that these requests be granted as median breaks, or lack of medians, would severely limit the increased traffic flow'and safety s • Council Letter No. 378 -3- December 13, 1982 characteristics which are needed to resolve the problems at this intersection. The following revisions have been made to the plan: 1. Median width was reduced from six feet to four feet. 2. Median length was reduced at both ends of Penn .Ave- nue and the east end of 66th Street. 3. Off- street parking in front of 6623 -6637 Penn Avenue will be accommodated. 4. vehicles will be allowed to overhang the right -of -way along the 66th Street side of the 66th Street /Penn Avenue shopping center. 5. An additional entrance on 66th Street will be allowed to accommodate the Standard Oil Service Station re- modeling. Ricrht -of -Way Acquisition Additional right -of -way will be required for construction of the project. Generally, ten to twelve veet will be needed on both sides of Penn Avenue, and eighteen- twenty feet on the north side of 66th Street. This right -of -way acquisition will be necessary to accommodate the turn lanes, medians, and side - walks. Special Assessments Property anutting Penn Avenue will be assessed for street lighting and sidewalks where they do not currently exist. As has been the policy throughout Richfield, special assessments for street lighting will be $2.00 per abutting foot, and for sidewalks it will be 50 percent of the cost (estimated assess- ment to be $9.15 per abutting foot - in 1984 dollars). The project will be primarily funded from the city /county gas tax apportionment. Response to Parking Lot Changes The adjacent businesses have shown interest in the closed street parking lot concept. The owners of the Sir Waxer site have indicated that they will request that a portion of 67th Street be vacated and be used in development of this property. Before proceeding with any parking lot plans, the staff and businessmen will need to know the final plans for improve- ments to the intersection. The city staff will continue to work with businesses who are interested in pursuing this issue. Council.Letter No.. 378 Land Value Issues -4- December 13, 1982 Mr. 0. J. Janski, an appraiser, will be present at the December 13, 1982 city council meeting to address the issue of the impact that these street improvements may have on businesses and land values. Mr. Janski has had previous ex- ,,perience with the effect street improvements of this type have had on land values. Recommendation • The plan concept as presented addresses the traffic cap- acity, vehicular safety, and pavement deterioration issues. Reduced accidents should save $60,000 per year in medical bills and property damage. An analysis of the-two peak hours of traffic at the intersection reveals that over $40,000 will be saved in user fees, i.e. vehicle costs and driver time. In all, over $100,000 per year will be realized in savings. � It is recommended that the city council approve the attacheA- resolution, ordering the project, su seauen o con clusion of the-e pu Tic hearing. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Engineer KN /ej a • • 13-13 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 7 Agenda January 10, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Reconstruction of the 66th Street and ,Penn Avenue Intersection On December 13, 1982, a public hearing was held for the proposed improvement of the 66th Street and Penn Avenue inter- section. After the close of the public hearing, the council de- ferred action on the proposed project until January 10, 1983: Background The proposed plan has resulted from previous actions by the city council, the city staff and the county staff: -March 23, 1981., the city council passed a resolution encouraging Hennepin County.to reconstruct the inter- section and to submit an application for this project for Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funding. The county did submit the project for FAU funding, and the project was approved. However, no additional projects were being funded and the FAU program's future was in question. Therefore, the decision was made to fund the project from shared city and county gas tax allotments (MSA funds). -May 10, 1982, a city council study session was held to discuss the design alternatives for the improvement of the 66th Street and Penn Avenue intersection. The reasons for the improvements and preliminary designs were discussed. In addition, the city engineer discussed the possibility of using city right -of -way to enhance parking and access in the area by closing some streets. The council directed the staff to meet with the adjacent businesses to discuss the need for the improvements, as well as design alternatives, parking issues and access issues; -June 7 and 8, 1982, informational meetings were held for businesses and residents Of each quadrant of the 66th Street and Penn Avenue intersection. The proposed Council Letter No. 7 -2- January 10, 1983 /� I improvements were presented and input received from to those in attendance. Since those meetings, the city engineer has met with most of the property owners on an individual basis to explain the proposed improvements and to explore the feasibility of the use of right -of -way to enhance parking and access: - November 22, 1982, a city council study session was held to discuss the revised plan which was presented to the city council at the December 13, 1982 city council meeting; - December 13, 1982, the public hearing was conducted and testimony was received by the city council. The council deferred taking action until the January 10, 1983 city council meeting, so that they would have an opportunity to address questions raised during the December 13, 1982 public hearing. Reasons for the Improvements Improvements to the intersection of 66th Street and Penn Avenue are proposed for three reasons: 1. This intersection is the busiest and most congested, in the city, with 35,000 cars per day using this inter - section. An improvement to the traffic carrying cap- acity would reduce the delays and congestion which now occur. 2. The accident rate at this intersection is higher than the county average. 3. The intersection has physically deteriorated to a point where major repair is necessary. Proposed Plan The proposed plan includes the construction of a raised concrete median and left -turn lanes for all four legs of the inter- section, and reconstruction of the pavement surface. A new eight phase traffic signal would be installed at the intersection (similar to those on 66th Street at the Lyndale Avenue and Nicollet Avenue intersections). Sidewalks and street lighting would be installed on Penn Avenue from 65th Street to 68th Street where they do not currently exist. Revisions to the Original Plan In response to input received from property owners, the city engineer and county engineer made several changes in the plan to better accommodate the needs of the businesses in the area. Re- visions were made where it was feasible within the framework of the design to accommodate the traffic volume, turn movements and safety considerations of this intersection. • • • Council Letter No. 7 _3- Right -of -Way Acquisition January 10, 1983 Additional right -of -way will be required for construction of the project. Generally, 10 to 12 feet will be needed on both sides of Penn Avenue, and 18 to 20 feet on only the north side of 66th Street. The right -of -way acquisition will be necessary to accommodate the turn lanes, medians, and sidewalks. Special Assessments Property abutting Penn Avenue will be assessed for street lighting and.sidewalks where they do not currently exist. As has been the policy throughout Richfield, special assessments for street lighting will be $2.00 per abutting foot, and for sidewalks it will be 50 percent of the cost (estimated assessment to be $9.15 per abutting foot - in 1984 dollars). The project will be primarily funded from the city /county gas tax apportionment. Recommendation The plan concept as presented addresses the traffic capacity, vehicular safety, and pavement deterioration issues. Reduced accidents should save $60,000 per year in medical bills and property damage. An analysis of the two peak hours of traffic at the intersection reveals that over $40,000 will be saved in user fees, i.e., vehicle costs and driver time. In all, over $100,000 per will be realized in savings. it is recommended that the city ?•ouncil a porve the attached resolute ion ordering the project. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: City Engineer Community Development Director KN/ e j a RESOLUTION NO. ,RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR 66TH STREET AND PENN AVENUE INTERSECTION - C.P. 780 WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 22nd day of November, 1982, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvement of Penn Avenue between the centerline o 65th Street and the centerline of 68t1h Street; and 66th .Street between the centerline of Morgan Avenue and the centerline of Sheridan Avenue by widening, construction of left turn lanes and medians, reconstruction of the pavement surface, curb, gutter, sidewalk installation, street lighting, and traffic signal installation, and appurtenant work, AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weekly publica- tions of the required notice was given as required by law and the hearing was held thereon on the 13th day of December, 1982, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in Hennepin County Traffic Division Layout No. 3. 2. Michael Eastling is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The Hennepin County Traffic Division is hereby authorized to prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. 3. Hennepin County is hereby authorized to acquire the neces- sary right of way for the making of such improvement. Adopted by the city council of Richfield, Minnesota, this 10th day of January, 1983. AT" .EST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk t John Hamilton, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 456 ' Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract - Muck Excavation - Legion Lake Park Development Project CouncilMembers: On November 14, 1985, bids were opened for muck excavation, path construction, storm sewer, and, appurtenant work at Legion Lake. A copy of the bid tabulations is provided for council review. The specifications call for muck excavation to create open water areas as part of the Legion Lake park project. The muck may be used to construct islands and the excess muck will be stored on site for later use in the park project. Preparatory work on the park path system is called for in the specifications. This includes provision of engineering fabric, such as was used at Richfield Lake, as a base for the paths and placement of granular fill materials. The city continues to seek free fill material in an effort to keep project costs at a minimum. Work related to the Norby Pond and Wilson Pond storm sewer improvements is also called for in this contract. This storm sewer work is primarily excavation, piping, manholes and riprap. Areas disturbed during the construction are to be seeded and mulched. Work will begin as soon as possible this winter and is scheduled for completion no later than June 15, 1986. Fifteen bids were received. These have been reviewed by the consultants. The engineering estimate for the work was $348,000 for the park improvement portion of the contract and $150,000 for the storm sewer improvement portion of the contract for a total estimated contract amount of $498,000. The bid received by the lowest responsible bidder was in the amount of $470,719.13 *. The sources of funding for this project are the 1985 and 1986 Capital Improvement Budget, the Sewer Utility Fund (FY1985), and, a storm sewer revenue bond issue in 1986 which will pledge the storm utility user fees to meet debt service requirements.. a • • 0 la? -a It is the recommendation of the consultants and city staff, in which I concur, that the city council take the following actions: 1. Accept the bid minutes; 2. Pass the attached resolution to award the contract for muck excavation, path construction and appurtenant work at Legion Lake Park to Veit and Company, Inc. in the amount of $470,719.13. ^f ` ?.is amount, an estimated $335,612.73 would be charged to City Project No. 802, Legion Lake, which is funded by Special Revenue, An estimated $135,106.40 would be charged to storm sewer improvements; approximately 50% to City Project No. 708- 1564, Norby Pond, and approximately 50% ,or $67,553.20 would be charged to City Project No. 708 -1565, Wilson Pond. Both storm sewer projects are funded by User Fees. *The $470,719.13 figure is an arithmetical correction from the original opened bid of $469,069.13. Contractor remains the same. JGC /eja Respect John G. Cart City Manager tted, RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND.AWARDING CONTRACT FOR MUCK EXCAVATION, PATH CONSTRUCTION AND APPURTENANT WORK AT LEGION LAKE PARK WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for muck excavation, path construction and appurtenant work at Legion Lake Park (Phase I), bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; and WHEREAS, it appears that Veit and Company, Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesotan 1. That the bid of Veit and Company, Inc. of Rogers, MN for construction of the above- mentioned work with an estimated construction cost of $470,719.13 -is hereby accepted; 2. That the Mayor, City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into a contract with Veit and Co., Inc. of Rogers, MN in the name of the City of Richfield for such improvement according to the plans and specifi- cations; 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all.bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next two lowest bidders shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, MN this 25th day of November, 1985. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING November 14; 1985 Legion Lake Park Phase I Muck Excavation, Path Construction & Appurtenant Work City Project No. 802 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 Legion Lake Park Phase I, -City Project No. 802, as advertised in the official newspaper on October 23, 1985. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk.' Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative Steven Devich, Administrative Services Department Director The following bids were submitted and read aloud: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID SECURITY Veit & Co., Inc. Rogers, MN 5% Bid Bond $470,719.13 C.M. Barry Construction Lake Wilson, WI 5% Bid Bond $487,804.00 L & G Rehbein Bros. Inc. Centerville, MN 5% Bid Bond $494,483.00 D.H. Blattner & Sons, Inc. St. Paul MN 5% Bid Bond $511,919.20 Buesing Corp. Long Lake, MN 5% Bid Bond $542,749.00 LaMettey & Sons Hugo, MN 5% Bid Bond $544,000.00 Park Construction Co. Mpls, MN 5% Bid Bond $572,153.30 Shafer. Contracting Co. Inc. Shafer, MN 5% Bid Bond $624,895.00 Richard Knutson Inc. Burnsville, MN 5% Bid Bond $639,065.70 Enebak Construction Co. Northfield, MN 5% Bid Bond $639,534.00 Wangerin Bloomington, MN 5% Bid Bond $723,489.00 Progressive Co tractors Osseo, MN �nc. 5% Bid Bond '$760,940.80 Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. Osseo, MN 5% Bid Bond $843,790.00 Carl Bolander's Sons Mpls, MN 5% Bid Bond $860,677.00 C.M. McCrossin Construction Maple Grove, MN nc. 5% Bid Bond $878,370.00 -he City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the November 25, 1985 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 455 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Amateur Radio Tower Regulations Council Members: In May of this year the Planning Commission, at the request of an amateur radio.operator, began consideration of amendments to the city's zoning ordinance concerning the way the city regulates amateur radio towers. An amateur radio operator questioned why the city imposed a special use permit process and fee on a person who desires to place an amateur radio tower on their property, while a person who erects a satellite dish antenna does not need to go through a special use permit process. Attached for your review and consideration is the ordinance changes recommended for City Council consideration by the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance eliminates the special use permit process. However, it sets up a series of standards which must be met in order for the tower or antenna to be, constructed. The following is a summary of the ordinance provisions: 1. The ordinance defines antennas and towers. Antennas are defined as any exterior equipment used to transmit or receive radio, television, or telecommunication signals. Towers are defined as any pole, spire, or structure to which antennas are attached. 2. The ordinance incorporates the regulations for satellite antennas. No changes are proposed to the existing regulations which regulate satellite antennas. The regulations are incorporated into this ordinance because satellite antennas are covered by the definitions of an antenna and to have all regulations in one place to make ordinance interpretation easier. 3. The ordinance requires that a building permit be obtained for the construction of antenna towers. Permits are not required for antennas which do not 49 exceed a height of 10 feet above the highest point of attachment to the building nor for antenna and towers used by the city for city purposes nor for adjustment repair or replacement of existing antennas. 14. The regulations restrict the location of antennas and towers to rearyards except that an antenna may be in a required interior sideyard provided they are securely attached to the structure and are at least 4 feet from an interior side property line. 5. The ordinance restricts the height of antennas or towers to 70 feet. 6. The ordinance sets up construction requirements which provides that the tower must withstand the applicable wind load requirements of the state building code; that they be constructed of or treated with corrosive resistant material; that they are grounded for protection against lighting strikes ;'that climbing of towers by unauthorized persons is discouraged; and, that there be no lights, reflectors., flashers,, platforms, or catwalks or similar attachments except as might be required by the Federal Avaiation Agency or the Federal Communications Commission. 7. The ordinance allows existing, nonconforming installations to continue to exist and to be repaired as long as the cost of repairing the tower does not exceed 50% of the cost of a new tower of like kind or quality. The amateur radio tower operators of the community have indicated support for the ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission. The ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission eliminated on restriction contained in the ordinance drafted by staff. The provision eliminated was that the height of a tower shall not exceed the distance from the base of the tower to the nearest overhead electrical power line which serves more than one dwelling less five feet. The Planning Commission eliminated this provision as they believed because of the small lot size existing in Richfield, this provision would overly restrict amateur radio towers. It was also the belief that if the towers were properly constructed as required by the building permit process, there would not be a danger of towers falling and knocking out power lines. The trees would fall before the towers would and, therefore, the trees are the real danger to power lines. Staff discussed this matter with a representative of Northern States Power who indicated that the city should regulate both the type of construction and the distance of antennas to power lines. He said that the city should limit the height of antennaes and towers so that if they fall they would not hit power lines. As previously indicated, the ordinance • 11-3 recommended by the Planning Commission does not contain such a provision. It does, however, regulate the type of construction. It is recommended that the city council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance and schedule second reading and the public hearing for December 9, 1985. ectf itted, ' JGC /eja li.L l.y rlCUla6ul- 0 AMENDMENT M QiAPTER III, PART IV OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IY of the Ordinance Code of the "Zoning of Richfield entitled Zoning Regulation" is hereby amended in the following respects: I. Section 3.27, subdivision 3 is amended by adding the following new definitions and renumber existing definitions appropriately. II• Section 3.27. subdivision 3, paragraph 31 is amended to read as follows: (31) "Satellite Antenna" means a structure and all supporting apparatus which is used for receiving. satellite signals. ..._r -- -� -� - , - - -v --- •..�..�....v i✓vsaf�. f • III. By adding the following new Section 5.29A: 3.29A. Antennae and Towers Subdivision 2. Permit Requirements (- 0 -2- 2. .Permits small not be rewired far a) Any antenna or combination of.antenna and tower rigidly attached to a buil din rovided that the combination of antenna and tower does -not exceed a total height of 10 feet above the highest point of attachment. b) Antennae and towers used by the City of Richfield for city c) Adjustment, repair or replacement of the elements of an antenna, provided such adjustment repair or replacement does not reduce the safety factor. ) Temporary antennae and /or towers erected for test purposes, -emergency communication or for broadcast remote Dick up operations. Temoorary antennae and towers shall be removed within 72 hours following installation. Subdivision 3. Location Requirements. 1_. No tower or antenna or combination thereof may be located in any front or sideyard except that towers or antennae rigidly attached to the side of the buz ding may protect into required interior sideyard provided they are at least 4 feet from an interior property . 2. Groundbased satellite antennae shall only be permitted in the rear seand shall considered the same as an accessory building. It be snail to the requirements for ;c-cessory buil ' s listed in 5-action 3.30 su vision 5. 3. No tart of any antenna or tower nor any lines, cable, equipment or wires, __or braces in connection with either sham 1 at any time extend across or over any tart any public right -of -way, std g_ hwwayys_ sidewalk or alleys or over ayy property line. Subdivision 4. Height Restrictions. 1. The total height of any tower, antenna or combination thereof shall not exceed 70 feet from the lowest grade level at Erie base to the highest point of tower, antenna o mbcorbiination thereof. 2. The total height of roof mounted towers antennae I or combination thereof shall not exceed 70 feet above the average elevation of-the lot along the front building line of the building it is mount on. • • II '0 Subdivision 5. Construction Requirements. :-'Towers "with'antenna Subdivision 6. Non - conforming Installations 1. Antenna and towers in existence as of the effective date of the ordinance which does. not conform to or comply with these regulations may continue to-exist for the purpose now used but may not be replaced or structurally altered except as hereafter specified without complying in all respects with these regulations. 2. If such non - conforming towers are hereafter damaged or destroyed` due to any reason or cause whatsoever, the tower may be repaired and restored to its former use, location and physical dimensions upon obtaining a building permit therefore, but without otherwise complying with these regulations provided however, that the cost of repairing the tower to its former use, size or location does . not exceed 50 per cent of the cost of .a new tower of like kind or quality. IV. Section 3.30, subdivision 2, paragraph -k is amended to read as follows: (k) 8ete�e Antenna and Towers. Provided, that if fteh;witenm seetien .3 -1 be aaatsd AR the VOQV yea-, ap Such antennae and towers meet the requirements contained in Section 3.ZA. -4- V. Section 30301 subdivision 3; paragraph f is amended to read as'follows: (f) Freestanding or ground -based antenna structures on interior lots abutting on two,streets or corner lots abutting on more than 2 streets; and roof - mounted satellite antenna higher than ten feet from the highest point of the root—.s VI. Section 3.30A, subdivision 3, paragraph b is amended to read as follows: (b) Freestanding or ground -based antenna structures'on interior -lots abutting on two streets or corner lots abutting on two streets or corner .lots abutting on more than 2 streets, and roof - mounted satellite antenna higher than ten feet from-the highest point of the roof . Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1985. ATTEST: homas Ferber, `City erk i John Hami lton, Mayor • i 7 .kM1 QQM\ f11 Rt NN N N r c � v � M �r W � O 01 co N �D LM M N r I ; 2 I 1 N ;`— x ti I x 1 s%'a' I N I ; —�; —`I It _3 x ; x; x I x; 1 I x ;Nm S 1 x; I I I_x I x x; T73 l 73 o l i I I - -i 1 i i tr _ —r'1 I-- >'C - I r 1 I x 1 1 x I —�I 1 x— N I N 1 1— 1 Ia1 O m 1 1 "— I x 1 Am is s s - -I x _I I - -1 I 1 ti I N ; x �tf't 11 x 1. 1 x 1 ; I x x I s 1 0 A N x 1 —`I ` ` x l 1 N 1 1 1 I x 1 in N " ` 1 x t M1 1 I .1�.x 1 I x 1 ; x ; 1 I 1 +r+n t —I 1— 1 1 1 `I .S 1 N 1 C%l 1 1 I x t 1� I I x 1 x s 1� It — --- t'" x-::r x x 1 1 l— I x --- 1 s ��s T x _ __ ---- x I I I I I 1 en _ _ 1 1 1 I I tI t I 1— —~ - - -I x l x N t .S 1 -7 I M 1 1 t 1 x 1 1 x I x 1 1 s x 1� 1 � I _M x 1 1 x 1 —• � —. 1 —_ � x - -. � 1 1 y 1 1 1 1 I x t 1 u� I i 1 1 N 1 — 1 1 x 1 1 x l 1 Is I 1 ; I -x . x 1 1 1 I I 1 x I x ; it 11*4 1 1 It _ —I _ _ "1 1 1 con e•1 1 1 � x I 1 x 1" 1 I _N' t 1 1 ! 1 I x 1 fn 1 1 x 1' , x 1 1 x 1 1 I 1 1- t 1 I 1 I 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 I t 1 Cs7 1 V] 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 t1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t O 1 O t Z 1 1 1 Cn 1 t 1 ist 1 to 1 1 1 [s7 � 4 1 a I < 1 Cs7 1 1 w 1 I _ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 454 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Second Reading Of An Ordinance To Allow The Expansion Of Nonconforming Structures. Council Members: On October 28, 1985, the City Council gave first reading approval to two amendments to the zoning ordiance relating to the expansion of nonconforming structures. The first amendment would allow a nonconforming structure to be expanded, if the expansion meets all applicable city ordinance requirements. This change allows additions to be constructed but would insure that any addition would not increase the existing nonconformity of the structure. The second amendment would allow a single family dwelling to be converted into a two family dwelling even though the existing dwelling would not meet the interior sideyard setback requirements necessary for a two family dwelling. Any additions or expansions of the single family dwelling necessary to convert into a two family dwelling would have to meet the applicable setback requirements for a two family dwelling. It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to the attached ordinance. JGC /e ja • R pectful �u�itt$ &ohn G. Cart ight City Manager • io a AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled "Zoning Regulation" is hereby amended in the following respect: SECTION 3.30, SUBDIVISION 3, PARAGRAPH E IS AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING NEW SUBPARAGRAPH 4: (4) The structure shall meet all setback requirements for two - family dwellings except that a single family dwelling which does not meet the required two family interior sideyard setback may be converted into a two- family dwelling if the dwelling is not expanded or if the expansion meets all applicable city ordinance requirements. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of November, 1985. • ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk John Hamilton Mayor _- - AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III t. PART IV OF THE ORDINkNCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES 'ORDAIN: . Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code of Richfield entitled "Zoning Regulation" is hereby amended in the following rispect: Section 3.29, subdivision 2 is amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Nonconforming Uses. Any use., building or structure lawfully existing as of the date which it was rendered nonconforming by this part or any previous zoning ordinance of the city or its corporate predecessory may be continued even though such use, building or structure may not conform with the provisions of this chapter for the district in which it is located, with the following exceptions and restrictions: (9) No existing building or premises devoted to a use not permitted by this chapter in the district in which the building or premises is located may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, substituted,or structurally altered, unless the use thereof is changed to a use permitted in the district in which it is located, except when required by law to do so. (2) No such nonconforming use may be extended to occupy a greater area of land, or be . moved to another part of the parcel. cture rements (3) (4) A nonconforming use may be extended throughout an existing building provided non structural alterations. Are made. (4 ) (5 ) If such nonconforming use ceases for a period of two years, any subsequent use shall be in conformance with. the provisions of this chapter. (5 ) ( o) 1.06 any nonconforming use of lands on which there is no substantial building is discontinued for any period of time, any subsequent use of land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. (o) (7) If at anytime a nonce ___ -.ng building or structure is damaged by fire, earthquake, wind, water, explosing, riot, war or an act of God to the extent of more than 305 of its then market value at the time of the damage, then without further action by the council, the said building and the land on which the building was located shall from and after the date of such damage conform to all regulations of this chapter excerpt . that "any lawful nonconforming single family residential use which existed at the time of the adoption of this: amendment may be A reconstructured ii it .. is damaged or. destroyed.. by.. fire ' - explosion, or an act of God, provided that the degree of nonconformity is not increased. The determination of the extent of the damage and the fair market value of the building or structure 'shall be made by the city council (Bill 1982 -18) 6/14/82 (7) (8L Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code, no Junk yard existing as a nonconforming use in a Residential or Commercial District shall be continued unless in a Commercial District, such junk yard be completely enclosed within a building or within a continuous solid fence not less than eight (8) -feet in height and in any case - of such height as to screen completely all the operations of such junkyard. The plans of such building or fence shall have first been approved by the Chief Inspector. (8) (9) Nothing in this Code shall be construed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any part of any building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1985. john Hamilton, 1 syor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • • • • r'G/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 453 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing And Second Reading Of Ordinance Concerning Bloomington Honda Council Members: On October 28, 1985, the City Council gave first reading consideration to an amendment to the ILN Moratorium Ordinance to allow Bloomington Honda to construct an addition to their building. The ordinance expresses the city's intent to allow the development to move forward and allow the city to process the special use permit amendments and to issue the appropriate building permits. The ordinance amendment does not remove the property from the moratorium area. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended tha remove the subject property that the proposed ordinance resolving the matter. City Commission findings. reviewed this amendment and t the council take no action to from the moratorium area. and also is not an appropriate method in staff concurs with the Planning If the City 'Council wishes to proceed on this matter, the council should conduct the public hearing and give second reading approval to the attached ordinance. JGC /eja R eetful y 'tted, S ohn G. rt light City Manager I• AMENDMENT TO TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 17.18. AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY, REGULATING, RESTRICTING AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES; DEVELOP - MENTS AND SUBDIVISONS WITHIN SUCH AREA. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Transitory Ordinance No.,17.18 of the City of Richfield entitled "An Interim Zoning Ordinance Adopted for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process in a Certain Area of the City, Regulating, Restricting and Prohibiting Certain Uses, Develop- ments and Subdivisions -Within Such Area" is hereby amended in the following respect: Section 3 thereof is amended, by adding at the end thereof, the following additional subdivision: "Subd. 4. The provisions of this ordinance shall not prevent the CiEy from processing and 9rantin permits and. licenses relating tote special se permit for an automo ile sales agency granted by the City-Council on Dece er 17 1984, for the area excenaea ana rlarri.et Avenue, nor shall it prevent the Cityf from granting amendments to Such special use Permit. Such special use permit was granted on t%e same date that the City began the process omen c+-ing this ordinance. It was the i Fention of the City that actions necessary to give effect to that special use permit would be permitted to proceed to completion notwithstanding the provision of this ordinance. It is the urpose of this, - sud2vision.to express and give effect to that intent." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of . 19 ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of, City Manager Council Letter No. 452 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject.: Variance Request at 6228 Penn Avenue Council Members: Proposal Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects, Inc., representing the owner of Lunds Supermarket, has requested that the city grant a variance to the city's frontyard setback requirements. The applicant proposes to build a Walgreens store on the east side of.the existing Lunds Supermarket located at 6228 Penn Avenue. The proposed new addition will reduce the frontyard setback from 40 feet to 11 feet. The subject property is in the "I" (Industrial) zoning district and currently meets all the setback requirements. The existing building area is 32,000 square feet. The proposd new addition will increase the building area on the site to 43,0140 square feet. -The new addition will have a building area of 11,040 square feet. A new service area and loading dock for the Walgreens store will be located to the south of the new addition. Currently, there are 201 parking stalls on the site. The new layout indicates a total of 215 parking stalls which is exactly the same number of parking stalls required on the site according to the city parking guidelines. However, the new parking layout indicates that 32 parking spaces would be located on the unimproved easement for Queen Avenue on the west side of the parking lot. Applicant's Case for a Variance (Summary) The applicant has indicated that the variance is justified because it is a reasonable development which ties into the existing structure well, minimizes impact on the existing store and parking, and is not detrimental to the area. The reduced setback is also appropriate because the building fronts the parking lot and not Penn Avenue. They also feel the variance is justified because, in their opinion, there are no i viable alternative locations for Walgreens to build on the site. The proposal allows them to maximize the use of the . site, and will result in increased tax base and jobs for the city. Council consideration of this matter has been continued from October 28, 1985, to allow the applicant to complete traffic studies and to explore alternative locations for the Walgreen'-s store on the site. The applicant has determined that the proposed location on the site is the only viable location for them. A copy of their analysis is attached in the back up. Zoning Ordinance Requirements 1. Section 3.34, subdivision 1(1), indicates that any use permitted in a C -2 district is permitted in an I (Industrial) district. 2. Section 3.32, subdivision 4(2), indicates that each building in C -2 district shall have a frontyard of 40 feet. 3. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists the three conditions which must be met for a variance to be granted. is • Staff Review Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions which must be met for a variance to be granted and found the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions fecting this land not common to,other properties or similar stricts. It is staff's opinion that there are no special circumstances present on the site. The site is similar in shape and size to other commercial sites in the community. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance would not be detrimental to reasonable use of the property. The existing (grocery store) use could continue if the variance is denied. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of Dersons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to improvements in the neighborhood. Staff finds that granting of the variance for the frontyard setback could adversely affect the health and welfare of the persons in the neighborhood. The location of the proposed i service area /loading dock may create traffic hazards on Penn Avenue when the trucks enter the service area. Large trucks would have to either back into or out of the site onto Penn Avenue. This could create traffic congestion because of the traffic volumes,on Penn Avenue and the site's proximity to the Penn Avenue /Crosstown interchange. At the Planning Commission meeting the applicant indicated they do not feel this would be a problem because there would be a maximum of two semi -truck deliveries a week which would be during off hours. Other deliveries would be made by smaller step vans which typically use the front door. The traffic analysis completed by the applicant concludes the following: 1. The Walgreens addition will increase peak hour traffic movements by as much as one -third but should have very little effect on Penn Avenue. 2. The number of conflicting traffic movements at the entrance and exit to the site will continue to be below the threshold level for congestion. 3. Congestion present on Penn Avenue adjacent to Lunds is caused by insufficient capacity of the ramp intersections at Penn. Avenue and the Crosstown. Widening of Penn Avenue to provide left turn lanes would help alleviate this problem. The proposed 11 foot setback would provide sufficient space for future widening of the street to accomodate left turn lanes. 4. The location does not represent an undue accident risk at the present time and that the additional traffic generated by the Walgreens will not materially affect the accident rate. 5. Sufficent sight distance will be maintained at the exit from the site. 6. The proposed loading dock should not create undue safety hazards or restrictions to traffic on Penn Avenue, provided large truck deliveries occur before 7:00 AM. Staff has reviewed the traffic analysis and concurs with the basic conclusions that the additional traffic generated by Walgreens will have little effect on the operation of Penn Avenue. However, staff continues to have concerns about.the safety of the loading dock configuration. Staff also has concerns that if the street is widened at some future date the proposed addition could be right up to the sidewalk. Nine to eleven-feet of additional right -of -way would be required while there is just eleven feet between the proposed addition and the existing right -of -way line. • • Staff also has a concern regarding the proposed parking area on the west side of the parking lot within the Queen Avenue easement. The street easement area is currently zoned multiple family residential and, as such, cannot be used for commercial parking. If the variance is granted it must be contingent upon the easement area being rezoned to commercial or industrial. If these spaces are not provided for, there will be insufficient. parking on the site to meet parking needs. It is also staff's opinion that the city should maintain the easement until such time as the vacant parcel west of Lund's is developed so that the need for the street can be evaluated. It is staff's opinion that an overall development plan should be submitted covering both parcels so that the access, parking, loading, and neighborhood impact issues can be properly reviewed. Staff Recommendation While staff concurs with many of the findings presented by the applicants regarding the benefits of the.existing use and the proposed Walgreens to the community, staff recommends denial of the variance since the three conditions for the granting of a variance have not been met. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously recommends denial of this variance request because the three conditions are not met. JGC /eja Respect John G. dart righ City Manager e tted, I. • C REF: APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR RETAIL SALES ON LOT ADJACENT TO LUNDS EAST SIDE. WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO SUCH VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IN AN ALREADY CONGESTED AREA. WE FEEL THE SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS9BOTH PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR9WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. WE ALSO FEEL A BUILDING SO CLOSE TO THE STREET WILL OBSTRUCT THE VIEW OF THE PARKING LOT EXIT AND CERTAINLY NOT ADD TO THE AESTHETIC VIEW ON PENN AV. NAME ADDRESS 2 �- -- - - - - -- c -S `= s= �� =' -L ? _- - - -- Lj 1 - - - -i1_ REF: APPLICATION FOR. VARIANCE TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL BUILDING • FOR RETAIL SALES ON LOT ADJACENT TO LUNDS EAST SIDE. WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO SUCH VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IN AN ALREADY CONGESTED AREA. WE FEEL THE SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENSgpOTH PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR,WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. WE ALSO FEEL A BUILDING SO'CLOSE TO THE STREET WILL OBSTRUCT THE VIEW OF THE PARKING LOT EXIT AND CERTAINLY NOT ADD TO THE AESTHETIC VIEW ON PENN AV. NAME ADDRESS - -- - - - - -- -----=------------ '= ----- - - - - -6 L -- - -__ -------- - - - - -- =� ----------- �/1S�rs,� ---------- _L'_�?..L_,�- .L,.c! --j- ` - -- - - - - -- ----- - - -___ t------- - - -.._ - ----- - - - - ---- - '� -�zf�' --- t - -"=� —ol J - -- �- REF# APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR RETAIL SALES ON LOT ADJACENT TO LUNDS EAST SIDE. C WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED.TO SUCH VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IN AN ALREADY CONGESTED AREA. WE FEEL THE SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENSgBOTH PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR,WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. WE ALSO FEEL A BUILDING SO CLOSE TO THE STREET WILL OBSTRUCT THE VIEW OF THE PARKING LOT EXIT AND CERTAINLY NOT ADD TO THE AESTHETIC VIEW ON PENN AV. NAME ADDRESS ..------------- ti--- '- - - --------- - - - - -- - -- -C -�'- _- ------- ----- - - - - -- >: -5 -_ -' - - - -` - ---- --- - -- tz - -_.� 'mss - - - -c• L_,•+ -:_ �.i.t�------ `l� -�`= � c=f '-' - - - -= .. ----- - - - -_- --------- Co acs: --------- - - ...`wi.Zib -iZ /1_ CZ 4,- Ia REF: APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR RETAIL SALES ON LOT ADJACENT TO LUNDS EAST SIDE. WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE OPPOSED TO.SUCH VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IN AN ALREADY CONGESTED AREA. WE FEEL THE SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS,BOTH PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULARgWILL BE JEOPARDIZED.` WE ALSO FEEL A BUILDING SO CLOSE TO THE STREET WILL OBSTRUCT THE VIEW OF THE PARKING LOT EXIT AND CERTAINLY NOT ADD TO THE AESTHETIC VIEW ON PENN AV. NAME ADDRESS _---- - - - -_- «._.._.. -- - - - - -- -- / r'_____ � - `-_ -` �� :. _?_---- - - - - -- ----------------------------.........- ,.----------- _------- =- - - -- -------------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------------------- • • k KORSUNSKY KRANK ERICKSON ARCHITECTS. INC. August 30, 1985 Board of Adjustment & Appeals City Council, City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Members of the Board: SUBJECT: Walgreen's - 62nd and Penn Comm. No. 85 -01- 0076 -01 ARCHITECTS - PLANNERS - INTERIOR DESIGN As agent for the Owner, we are, herewith, applying for a variance on the front yard setback requirement along Penn Avenue South. Approval of the requested variance will permit the construction of a Walgreen's store on the east side of an existing Lunds Supermarket. The uniqueness of this site dictated siting of the proposed 11,000 square foot addition on the east side of the existing building. However, such placement will require approval of a reduction in the, front yard setback along Penn Avenue from 40' -0" to 11' -011. As Architects for the project, placement of the building in this location allows optimization of building and parking design considerations. The proto- typical building foot print for Walgreen's has been reduced by placing 2,200 square feet of storage area on a mezzanine level allowing incorporation of the service area and loading dock to the south of the new addition. The parking lot will be expanded along its west edge to accommodate the 215 parking spaces required by ordinance due to the increase in the total building area. A total of 217 spaces will be provided. Siting of the proposed addition on the east side of the existing building will provide reasonable use of the site and not disrupt the existing parking or access to the supermarket and nor will it be detrimental to the public health or safety. Therefore, we request that a variance of the front yard setback requirement be granted. Sincerely, K KY KRANK William J. Lawr WJL:skt ,Y) 570 GALAXY BUILDING ITECTS, INC. 330 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MNNEAPOLIS.MINNF»SOTA 55401 (612)3394200 • C • KI 0 ED-1 3nN3AY NN3d 'J'I III III i Wl I I 1 u CFF F "LL u� t i Lw- i U-11111.111 all A 31BI1Y 1�1� W9DAW a • u� cn pz t IQ N.� t�•� 1 1 1 t/ { i 1 f 1 gma" NIS : -- A U I I nij TM11 FTI a] M hilli 114 FITI I III u U-1 I 11.1111 u RI** I ITT ITI I W94MVNOrb CWOdM z Z zt ca uii Niy 4AJ iC ; 91 • • KORSUNSKY KRANK ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. August 30, 1985 Board of Adjustment & Appeals City Council, City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 ARCHITECTS - PLANNERS - INTERIOR DESIGN Members of the Board: SUBJECT Walgreen's - 62nd and Penn Comm. No. 85 -01- 0076 -01 As agent for the Owner, we are, herewith, applying for a variance on the front yard setback requirement along Penn Avenue South. Approval of the requested variance will permit the construction of a Walgreen's store on the east side of an existing Lunds Supermarket. The uniqueness of this site dictated siting of the proposed 11,000 square foot addition on the east side of the existing building. However,'such placement will require approval of a reduction in the front yard setback along Penn Avenue from 40' -0" to 11' -0". As Architects for the project, placement of the building in this location allows optimization of building and parking design considerations. The proto- typical building foot print for Walgreen's has been reduced by placing 2,200 square feet of storage area on a mezzanine level allowing incorporation of the service area and loading dock to the south of the new addition. The parking lot will be expanded along its west edge to accommodate the 215 parking spaces required by ordinance due to the increase in the total building area. Siting of the proposed addition on the east side of the existing building will pro- vide reasonable use of the site and not disrupt the existing parking or access to the supermarket and nor will it be detrimental to the public health or safety. Therefore, we request that a variance of the front yard setback requirement be granted. Sinq6r-e-Ay, Y KRANK PICKSON ARCFyITECTS, INC. W 1liam J. , AI di 570 GALAXY BUILDING 330 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS: MINNESMA 55401 (612 )339 -4200 /3 0 • • !- PENN AVENUE AT 62nd STREET Richfield, Minnesota -- November, 1985 Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. J'14 C/ J4 Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. 1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612- 332 -0421 10 November 18, 1985 Mr. Tim Igo Fuller Commercial Brokerage Company 6458 City West Parkway _ Suite 100 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Traffic Issues Penn Avenue South at West 62nd Street Richfield, Minnesota Dear Mr. Igo: Fuller Commercial Brokerage Company commissioned a study to evaluate traffic entering and leaving the Lunds Grocery Store properties located in the southwest quadrant of the 62nd Crosstown /Penn Avenue interchange. The City of Richfield has expressed concern for identifying the traffic impacts from the proposed addition of a Walgreen's Drug Store adjacent to the existing Lunds Grocery Market. To evaluate the present traffic situation on Penn Avenue, we conducted a manual traffic 0 count on Friday evening, October 25, 1985. Our study included counts of Penn Avenue traffic as well as vehicles entering and leaving the Lunds parking lot and these traffic volumes, represent the weekly peak traffic period for this location. The attached report details these studys and our evaluation of the traffic implications of this proposal. Findings Approximately 60 percent of the traffic entering or leaving the Lunds parking area has an orientation to or from the north. The remaining 40 percent approach or leave via Penn Avenue, south of the store. Street traffic on Penn Avenue is almost evenly split during the evening peak hour; 55 percent northbound and 45 percent southbound. During the peak hour, 184 vehicles entered the Lunds parking lot and 150 left the parking area. o is Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Tim Igo - November 18, 1985 Page 2 • The interchange ramp terminals are congested during the P.M. peak hour. We noted that queues of cars in the left northbound lane, awaiting access to the Crosstown freeway, extended as far south as the Lund's driveways. This "occurred at various times over approximately a 20 minute period. At those times, left turn traffic, exiting the Lunds parking lot, was delayed until the northbound street traffic began to move. Conclusions Although the proposed Walgreens addition will increase peak hour traffic movements entering and leaving the Lunds parking area by as much as one - third, this increase should have very little effect on street traffic operations. A critical movement anlaysis of the driveway intersection with Penn Avenue shows that conflicting traffic movements are significantly below the threshold level for congestion. After adding the Walgreens traffic, these volumes still fall well below the area of concern for traffic congestion. The ramp terminal intersections create a traffic constraint which controls traffic flow and congestion on Penn Avenue. Although traffic from these intersections "backs down" through the Lunds store driveway intersection, the capacity of Penn Avenue is controlled by the freeway intersection and not by traffic from the Lunds parking lot. Increased utilization of this site will increase the number of vehicles using these driveways during the peak hour and consequently will result in longer delays during periods when traffic is presently delayed by congestion on Penn Avenue. The amount of this delay and duration of blockage time Is a function of the interchange operation rather than any development on the Lunds Properties. Therefore, it Is our opinion that, this project can be allowed to proceed without creating unusual traffic or access problems. Sincerely, Kenneth W. Anderson, P.E. Senior Associate K W A:kro j7 • LUNDS STORE PROPERTIES PENN AVENUE AT WEST 62ND STREET RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA PROPOSAL The Fuller Commercial Brokerage Company and Lund's Store propose to expand the existing grocery mart from approximately 32,000 square feet to 43,040 square feet. This building expansion will house a Walgreen's Drug Store to provide an expanded service to - their customers. The proposal anticipates no changes to the two major driveways presently serving the Lunds Store. An existing curb cut, near the south boundary of this property, will be retained as a service drive for the Walgreen's. truck dock. The Lund's _ Store truck receiving area will remain at its present location, west of the building. CONCERNS AND ISSUES A number of concerns have been expressed throughout review of this site. Because of specific questions, Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. was retained to evaluate traffic and safety issues related to this project. Various concerns have been expressed regarding additional-traffic volumes, congestion or safety hazards associated with the increased retail activity at this site. In addition, concern has been expressed for the sight distance for traffic exiting the existing parking lot and for delivery truck movements to the proposed loading dock. The grocery store parking area is serviced primarily by two driveways from Penn Avenue. A one -way operation through the parking lot allows entrance via the northerly driveway to approximately the center of the parking area. The exit is directly in front of the building, approximately 90 feet south of the entrance, and is located as far as possible away from the signalized intersections at the 62nd crosstown ramp terminals. TRAFFIC STUDIES A traffic study was conducted on the evening of October 25, 1985. This was a warm Friday evening immediately prior to halloween and was one of the last nice weekends of the fall season. Therefore, traffic counts represent not only the weekly shopping peak, - but also can be considered a higher than average Friday evening volume for traffic flow at the store and on the street. Peak entering and exiting movements occurred early in the evening rush hour, from 3:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M. A second peak occurred from 5:15 P.M. to 6:15 P.M., corresponding with a similar peak for Penn Avenue. This second peak, 279 vehicles, was only approximately 75 percent of the earlier peak, 357 vehicles. Heaviest traffic flows on Penn Avenue, 518 southbound and 678 northbound, occurred from 3:15 P.M. to 4:15 P.M. This was also one of the times at which traffic from the 62nd _. Street Crosstown interchange signal reached, and passed, the Lund's Store driveways. The second peak, 432 southbound and 686 northbound, occurred from 4:45 P.M. to 5:45 P.M. as with Lunds, the second peak was lower than the earlier volume. Although traffic delays on Penn Avenue and delays for vehicles entering or leaving the site were not excessive, L__� -- there were two periods approximately 10 to 15 minutes each when vehicles left - turning from the exit driveway had to wait until Penn Avenue traffic began moving before they " entered the traffic stream. At no time, did we note rude driver behavior or drivers leaving the Lunds Store parking lot and blocking the southbound lanes of Penn Avenue. The peak activity period occurred from 3:15 P.M. to 4:15 P.M. These volumes turning movements are shown on attached drawings. ivy • L__� -- there were two periods approximately 10 to 15 minutes each when vehicles left - turning from the exit driveway had to wait until Penn Avenue traffic began moving before they " entered the traffic stream. At no time, did we note rude driver behavior or drivers leaving the Lunds Store parking lot and blocking the southbound lanes of Penn Avenue. The peak activity period occurred from 3:15 P.M. to 4:15 P.M. These volumes turning movements are shown on attached drawings. ivy i 62nd St. Crosstown LUNDS 184 - Q c c m a 518 678 3 285 132 I, 68 300 ,•215 Critical Movements .•368 C.M. • 461 Critical Movements 377 C.M. •224 C.M. •190 C.M. IT • C7 Lunds Access Drive Traffic Volumes 3:15 -4:15 PM10 Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. Friday, October 24, 1985 417 761 132 285 i I loo,�..f........... .. 92— 7 .•�}........ ............ 154 I ........ � l 369 300 475 669 ,•215 Critical Movements .•368 C.M. • 461 Critical Movements 377 C.M. •224 C.M. •190 C.M. IT • C7 Lunds Access Drive Traffic Volumes 3:15 -4:15 PM10 Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. Friday, October 24, 1985 4 62nd St. Crosstown 248 m c c m a 553 710 9 304 • 225 Critical Movements '`••. .•418 C.M. 113 ♦•'�� '112 396 314 i i 417 822 113 304 1 �I 124 --1 -i' ••.....• .I............ 202 78 MmTia V♦ 384 314 495 698 LUNDS WALGREEN ••508 Critical Movements •428 C.M. ••237 C.M. •191 C.M. ?'�D IT Lunds with Walgreens Estimated Peak Hour ._. Traffic Volumes k,)- / r- CRITICAL MOVEMENT ANALYSIS Critical Movement Analysis techniques provide a barometer of a streets traffic capacity. Since two vehicles cannot occupy the same space at the same time, the percentage of time utilization for the common area, where two traffic flows intersect, measures the capacity and level of service. Typically, utilization of a common roadway area by 1,200 vehicles per hour (representing average headways of three seconds per vehicle) is considered level of service "C " Fewer than 1,050 critical movements represent a level of service "B" (free -flow conditions) and 1,500 critical movements per hour represent level of service "F," (the lowest service level at which traffic can effectively move). As noted on the drawings, critical movements at all merging, or crossing points provide a level of service "B" or better during the peak hour. Walgreen's will have very little impact on traffic congestion at these driveways. Even if future reconstruction of Penn Avenue at the 62nd Crosstown .interchange can remove the capacity restriction at that location, movements entering or leaving the Lund's parking area will not become a capacity constraint for Penn Avenue. Note that, in calculating additional traffic generated by the Walgreen's store, no reduction was made for dual purpose trips (shopping at both Lund's and Walgreen's). Also, our capacity calculations on Penn Avenue did not account for the fact that many of the P.M. peak hour trips to Walgreen's are "interrupted trips," by drivers who are already on Penn Avenue and are making an intermittent stop at the drugstore. Although these factors actually reduce the traffic impact of this store, we tested the "worst case" traffic potential to insure a conservative evaluation of traffic conditions. ACCIDENTS We requested a print -out of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety's Accident Record Log for the period of 1982 through mid 1985. This print -out identified 48 accidents in the area from 62nd Street and 64th Street. A detailed review of Lund's driveways area indicated that only two of these accidents involved vehicles entering or leaving Lunds. One accident involved a southbound vehicle which struck a vehicle which was turning left as it left the Lunds lot. The second accident involved a vehicle turning to the south from the south driveway (at the proposed truck dock). A southbound vehicle struck the. exiting auto. A third accident in this vicinity was a single car which ran off the road and hit a street light. This location does not represent an undue accident risk at the present time and there is no reason to assume that additional traffic generated by Walgreen's Store will materially affect the accident rate at this location. SIGHT DISTANCE The proposed Walgreen Drugstore will be located 11 feet from the property line (18 feet from the curb line). The driver of any vehicle using this exit point will have a clear view of on- coming traffic, unrestricted by any portion of this development. Since the driver's gap selection process involves a view across the southbound lanes to northbound Penn Avenue, the clear sight triangle is limited only by street furniture and vehicles in traffic. • • r— TRUCK DOCK As proposed, the truck dock serving Walgreen's proposed structure requires a semi -truck to "back in" from southbound Penn Avenue. There are no opportunities for off- street turn around of these large vehicles. Walgreen's, and similar chain retail drug stores, typically receive one truckload of - merchandise per week from their warehouse, usually in a 50 to 55 foot long semi- truck. During the Christmas shopping period (early November through December) two loads per week are frequently delivered. In addition, a minimal number of specialty delivery trucks (vans, UPS trucks and city- delivery vehicles) visit the store on an irregular basis. Such vehicles can- either use the front door for deliveries or can turn around in the dock loading area. In addition, trash removal will require a urge garbage truck to either back -in or back -out of the service area approximately once each week. We have discussed traffic flow on Penn Avenue with Hennepin County. The county engineering staff indicates that heavy traffic begins to appear at approximately 7:00 A.M. and volumes remain heavy throughout the day. Street blockage time for large trucks to maneuver from the street to the dock area is very short. The wide driveway and open design of this service area allows very rapid movement from the street to the dock. Therefore, two to four trucks at the service dock per week should not create an undue safety hazard or a restriction to traffic, provided such movements occur before 7:00 A.M. FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS The City of Richfield and Hennepin County are jointly working to improve Penn Avenue in the area several blocks south of this site. This improvement will involve widening of the street and construction of a raised center median with channelized turn lanes at intersections. This project is expected to greatly improve traffic flow and safety for Penn Avenue as well as 66th Street. Because of the existing development along the northerly portion of Penn Avenue in the area near the Lund's property, construction of a divided highway would have a dramatic impact on the business community. However, widening of Penn Avenue by 12 feet to provide a two -way, painted left -turn lane would provide protection for vehicles turning into or out of the many driveways serving this commercial community. _Roadway widening would also require widening of the existing bridge over 62nd Crosstown. With a wider bridge, the heavy northbound left -turn could be accommodated on two lanes, which would materially improve the present congestion problem. Since Penn Avenue has a four -lane, 56 foot wide pavement in a narrow, 66 foot right -of- way, construction of a third lane would require acquisition of additional right -of -way from all abbuting prc --"- owners, on both sides of the street. In reviewing the Walgreen's proposal from the stati. point of such an improvement, we feel that the proposed 11 foot setback area allows a sufficient setback for future widening of six or seven feet without creating either sight distance or traffic problems. Therefore, construction of this project will not restrict future improvements on Penn Avenue. k,)3 • 0 • Appendix Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 2-2 _ r r' t: r C h ': r n 1. t. P O' .. !t. �'^. :. R► f i! f t r f O i r 4 l t /V / /�� N 1 in.0t"mV, N0•rQL"oW)NN0 m.0•0•- QNtnC,-MM in 0- V 10 .DNi? -M zIx i MO•V3•010 MVCO010N DrC-- NCDMU)- M0wim—inco-rN •C CJ -C- :N a -NMU .r WW 1 Nzmo; NC.MwCJNrrC'JOrCQOrC6OrCOr+ -OC rr OM Sri -N000 t Ai7Gl 00000 ooc00000000QOOOOCOOOCO^C C 0 1000000 ¢ OQM-O CWNWf- -coot- 00,O7Si -—lyocr M-4 -ION ^-.0 Ntv n nDcOr r C US 1 NwMC -Or,ONMV-00NMMMl�1rrMAQMN'ODr.O r- r 4- Vi Nom. in 0,0 UZ 0-MOO NMMOOrrCJCCCrCJ_e4_Noo _ rJ•i-Cir .=N -NM Crr -C•JO M Q 1 NNNMM MMMQ4QQ Q{niAlnlnMMCJY1fJMRtt <inlnin 4 MM CJMMMM4 LD O. !- Z 1 N 1 -&.0, - �O QO.0 l f- 1 w.O.O.rr -w ww Q O 0 O 0r0 wwrf- �-O.wA w.r .wr rrO rr rwQrrrw OO A ; \ i I N r� •rD•rNON N is -o � worCrO o •►- f Zisiva I W t N N M 0 Nin D OOONCCJ "Q< C 1> 1 0 O O r OQ C f -�MCrC rr r LWCiYG ¢ Q 0C Q in C' O.ZU 1 1 i Q Ln r ' Or QUii 1 W I CJ NM in IN Q Q ON In 1nQ<D • i> t O 0 0 C O r in C O C r w C C O + i N 1 O.00•AO• N 0.410O•r f_ I MOO.Oor. 000-00.0-00, Me CCQOGCOWO•NCO N 0- 0-0O0.O O O O H Z I W I W Z Z W 3 100 1 > t WWWWy y.Z LIDZZ4JD3L1 Z22titgvJZVJWZWVi Z Zvi WZWViv" F U Z M I ¢ W¢i- 1 1 O�-.rrwr -0 - O•rM - 0, rint nNwf .0•.'wf.Iny- rf..Qi+lf- Inrr., -- ----mac a0 0. OOOwrCOO• wrC000.O0CwOGrC�COOGCCrCONrOCC� -COON V H QI=i r A 1 t vJVJf�iZvJVJZt4�y3vJZZ tiJltJVJ3ZVJyvJ3Z3vJZ i•4WZviW ZVt rvJi3'iW3 LON A z W Z _ A O W AWLJt:JZ I voovv t QQOC • J r H I USQO:1 NO. O. N.- ►aJO - wO�O.CJO•�w- N- ION f-0, ---rw rr r - rwO.L► CJ w 0 3OOCX 1 - 01 .Q. O. w N "=,Ww 1 QNNrQ - NOMOwr -C CJNfJNwr +rN.- rCJ � - Nr r CV etrVl Q L: Z O 3W¢F -=I NMN. -N f- MNNQrwrOw�NMrrMC INC4rltJrMr wf MCJ . MCJCJMr Q ZIn + - .J"LsYtf I .r-4T V M - O• C N U A 1 N In N N N N 0• :. N N 2t? !n in N N fJ tJ N rJ N CJ co C A :CC C `O O O O OOOCO -C ,- 16 O f>S '3 > O aW Ls 9L m 1 N M -- O Z -JO U •.r 1 rO.O.e -r wrQ.ww0.- O�rO.wr,�rr O.r0. rrr rr rr r r r r r r0•Q• f M c.+aLs f InO0Inw In ino 0 0 M0In.0 N0 0•0- 0000InIT 01n N in oo JnotnO00 x01 z u OW W W FD- p- W i rrr — - rr Mr r rr-r Dr r rrr rein rin r N r r rrrr L60. W s► 1 a000Q QcoQOOOQOOCCOOOCOOOOOOao ao Qo 00OOOo 'mow .11-4 =r.i- 1 00000 0000000QOCOInovl000u , oocooln co Oo OCOL-100 � t "Comm 1'7MCMMCMMOMMMMMOMOMMMMMMtn -MM MM M.MMM0O N 7OZU I QO.1l•NM NNO• Mt n0.0•QO,r,NNrQO.40•MQCJintn'C'Q in .Intn NeJCJCJO•P vi Q } C Q O O >Wx I NNNNN NCJtJNNNNCJNNNrNNNNNtJCJ.wNN. -CJN r CJM Negr4ritJC,i j O i _ Z H + tiW} f O. Ris`Q G4Q- 0.0:a.>LC6 Q. Q. aa,ccamejQ. fiJ :G C t- ¢G.i_uf- W F i-raZW i •OCQdN NAr.OtnlntJDCJNO �00.00•GDf�.0M0 AEN r0 CJv N Ntnmt- c• A y W i rNrrr — ONE -N— r w orOrr CJ C O O r r w Orr_ rr +- CJrrrO M M F .... U J O 1 NNNMM MMM <CQ«tlnblt0InMlnNinNMvvv0 Ir. tn My MM NMMMMV U O 1 DDWDW DGiDDDDDWWDDWWQ)DDCOWWDDDWW WC'7 DD DWDWQ;D ¢ I- Ix 41 i \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \\\ \\ \\\ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \\\\\ Z Hi .OQO•• -A NQDDwInMQNND1nInNCrDWONQinCD C*M O.Q .0inDMO.r W I -XI -COMC rrNNMtJrrNOOrrtJMrrrCJCJCJCMr CO NN NONOrO A AI \\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\ \\ \\\\\\ ►� L t rinrrCJ O•rNrr1AV3ArNCJInPQ NinONM.0 CNN N.O mm O•N r004,NM _ U W f w r w w w U H ' ¢ rn «+ I 000Qo to ©000000000000OOOOOOOOOO co co m n000in r. Zi _r _ Wrrrrwrrrrrwrrrrrrrrr _ -- WO-0-0 ' -- cl 1 NNNNN MNNCJNNNNNNN N N N NNNNCJNNN NN NN N N Jr inNInCJIn S i MMMMM OMMMMMMMMMMMMIIMMMMMMM iMM MM MM CJNMNMN W H U Z 1� I NNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N "'- O I NNNtJN NCJNNNNNCJNNCJNNtJNNNNCJNNNNN C N Cr'N NCJtJCJtJN it Awyi- 1 u+Z >WLJ t M MM MM MM M MMQMM M MMMMMMM mm MM "mmm Q -U ..__ I r Nr N C-0 W J W Z to H in in In in _ O. O. O. O- O. Ol 1 COOGC COCCCCOCCOOCO.O•M•OCCOCOO^�!' N 00• 000C0C W 1 NNNNN CJ CJ NCJCJNNCJNNCJfJC •JCJO N ON MM - C1010`0•a•0 NNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNDCOWWDD=mow Aar O•A O. Q•- 0.0.0• WZWi COCCC 00 GC CCOCOO _j 00000 000000000000000000000000 00 CO 000000 4 D 0.4 + + + + + + + F + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + t + + + + + + = + + + + � = t Q.u.z I vcQCQ PlwVV%, QQQQQPCCCQE ce etc ve -C zae W -1 00000 C C O C O C O C C C 0 0 0 0 C o G C 0 0 0 C C 0 00 cc O O O G 0 O Ix i 00000 OQOOGCCCCGCCCCCOOCOCC000 00 00 000000 - I NNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNC CJN C14 C: CJ CJCINCJCJN MMMMM M MM MMMMMM f• iG 1 OS ! r +22S SS 22 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTSS "' SS 2222 TS -- O �2 7 t7t�vititit +7tihyhti nLittnC1 1-1 riJyL,w,tgt:t,c:1. iii::c,ir: co t.2 to I.; LJSn =J N W u c o. ( C t E G C 0 0 0 1 .:) 0 3 ) a #3 -ar.e ma•r : - - .�nwisa73ki.`wA si'7a .:i:• oi>e ° e -<a av: :.• i .. ZPL NrdvnfT,OVO 0 J a. i r W:sJ.i OMroON00 aW t Iami 00 ©0000 0 00 t-qi 4 H2 1 NnnnoNMV f.,t Qsrt 1 ¢ U = f In ION 0 .0 .4 r% N P N t- , I U Z t N N M.M 0 0 N N M- U i y ¢ 1 vvvcinvvv ew. ¢ f i LtiZLsw t arz I N t coor. -.�� • ! f- CL t ; i z 1 ri 1 v Co o _ y In gziin Zm" 1 W f n oiNn v W f La Co- P Quf+.fWt n in -a v O 1 1> 1 O r0 r ix 1 0 _ C` 1 ..O.r•Onn,4r _ v Z f i i Or. -rCOC� O 0 1-- G O 1> t v3 z 14 JAI w" 2 1 r4 Q?!• c F- I +� r- WCM a -r.�. -re- NM— 0 ! C: U I I I 0r000000rO o !-C`Z J u w Q 1 S 1 P O= W 1 Q in I 4.4 1 > 1 3Z2yzytri2yy. �Za+ 1 LJ CD 2 r C y 1 Q P W. AW"LSZ t e000'CQCe I. It ¢ J J r V- ! USQCL T rPPPrrNr r CJ ii r 3000Y 1 t0v 1 Lt > Sti. yS3fJ£L6 I rrCO. V;r+1r�r M O • �^ z 3Wa•t -s r r°ne..r r� N o o w s In + J►!L9St� I vvrgvrr•- ••, N >32 1 w o v P 0 F-U I NrirdNNPr.IN • yxts 1 O f 000000-00 C Y Z_ U I >z , fl o4 oN W fJ I- ¢ 1 0°• o Q ! >W 0 z aim I Ir Q C. JOU .r t rPID-0, Nr 0- 0. W l� In { ,y L) o-zi O"CL.2 I nOOCnNina. O � W i •0 Z O Oo W W 1- > CL. W I rr r y J >�-! ::.P x JL 1 oc000000 o � =m 1 U. .� • W ra tt--ucc w u W i M y-?Q ! cQ � Zr W 1 MMMOMMMM C O yZ►+ f QZ I - r.e Ct N 0 O" U I t I Q t-Z M -7= =U t N ID, PPMVNN P O Q. .0 I r 4' i Wa iti d0- >WS f rlNNfdNNNM N N Hw Z r yW> t iLiLiLiLUO.UY iL QYPt = W i• f-�rSW 1 Onom -m'cf� n Z Z 1 W q y W 1 NN-NN--O +-. 1 "4 I CSd O G w M 1- W F 1 \H C J U J r vvvvnvvv v 1- c l e in y N W U 0 } 000ROoOO o O 1- F- 1 0 0W W " ¢ H LX W t \\- \ \\� \\ N. O . 0.4 I 0N It u W T Z _ r- f W-00-00 f- x r.)C:W ! r We ix Is: t c i CNMMCO-N QnQ 1 f-0. i LT Q q 1 N\ \\ \� \\ .v a.:7" r N c F -i r Z I PCCNMWoo r C ¢2U 1 - 0E- ti' w U W 1 r r r• r .. q tj L) r" ! y ¢ r+ i in n n O 0 n° in .n r " 1 O C J y P4 woo—oro o y 1 y O i inn n N N n N n n 1 Z I r Ci N 0 = f NNNMMfLMf1 N W 0 I 1 y0 M y z i o o L)ZF -�- 1 t`r`r`tiNti►�ti r` Z 1. W =o I NraNraNrINN ca zz o C^ ix CC q •r. y !•- 1 Y f m v, i W I -- Z 2 ►yZ> W`J 1 M MMMM M y Z I y I c 11 LUC- Q W r•E y J N G. Q S Q. - Iiq CGWJ)- I rrr.- +-.--r - 1 O w I U � cYZ 2 tY+- 1 n1t*NrP O rvrW W-iW= f ncnno C: "no i r- >-S W W 1 PPaPP + 1 = Q > > QZU t ow 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O W iL U 1 Ix y O Z Q W 1 10.014 .0%00 0 0 o O c c l 0 !-t- = «� i PPP11`PPPP P W U t U. xy I- 1 ZHy l W Z:N 1 . .. 00000000 0 � Z I �+ i Z p" W►•� v y m CC►-iJ 1 CGOCCQGC C C: "W It Wco" l + ++ + +t++ + c Z L) y P U.a.s I vvvvvvvv a W v ( 00000000 C S �" cUyinyx ` t 00000000 0 O }- 1WIWWr f NCJCJfdt'dNNN N Y F J C: -+ O�►+UC IX Mf'^.MMMMMM M a• JZ 1 O J CCCF -U W. J 1 .•+ c W 1 C6 1- 0 t C: 1- Q I i7 Z OL 1 rSS' -SS2= S W C� t t ¢ C I Q c c c Q c Q c c > W U U E CC CGZ 1 igyyytit..y y W 1 WQQWUWUU U y 1 —_ y• Tm ACCOENI - -- DDLumons 1. OTHER mpTO11 KNtICLE • $QfOORIE01 • 1 f "OTONKMCLENOTNERROAOWAv •- 01.4R0RIECT 4— f PAR EDmOTOItvENRuE NON40LUf10N 1"ROAO TRAMI q OVE5411/M 1 6 OcTCt6T to SUEEAftolow • Pl0EfINam q S~051011 T.ANAWt 1T *"air i i4 1 ON IK 0040WAV INCLUDE ALLtT.ORIVEWAV ETC t 2 f. CFO, led wOADWAV ON •NNOAtDER T OUTSIDE I101143r•WAT f Orr THE ROADWAY ON TILDIAN a OTHER• a Orr T+E ROADWAY a"AOAO.OE S. PARNMG LOT 6 PRWATE PROPERTY - q AT 1_ SCNIDOL CROf6N4 OANMG SC,.Om NOLIRS f AT NTERSECTION f NOTATWFOUCT*k AREA ,1 A Wff%5ECT*m.ftLATW vAtCCESSFJI►REL►Tt0T01 wr4TY0M I I 71 t. OAVL1GIff ! oAMN/IIoRHIyp, f OUSAIEKNNGI A. DARK • STREET LOWS OM � 1 CLEAR -CLOUDY . AR e ;� A. SNOW 6 Ulc?%NLPREEZM RAN 1. DoT f WET 5 f. •NOWSLUSH A. CEfACNEDSApW 1 alsE ! =TRUC ,. ZONE ! ONAUP(ENANCE wo1YE AREA 1O A. N UTUn "Oft AREA t. STRACAT a LEVEL f STRAIGHT i GRADE 11 s STRAIGHT AT MLLCREST A 61'11AGfTNfAG t. PwEtVnvINNICLLOW RAMPS, 83 OTHER D/TIDED NIIQNW/AT 12 .0m- wAvSTREET A 44 LAACSt000 mo !`f LADES EAON wAT s OARR•STREETWAORS,orr 6 p�K.110ST1EETuwas O OTHER' s rocsNPoG•ANpRE 7 &00,04 SAND. OUST an yq" • SEVERECROE&WOOS !D OTNEM 6 w6J00v 6 vao" I Oav •D OTNt1r S CARVE A LEKL • CURK a GwI10E 7 CkovE A/ "PACKST 6 CURVE N SAG 6 iLANESWDWCEo 6 PLANES 1 LAM EACH VIAV T ALLEV OWKWAV K OTN[R• 13 1 wRN "ONE TWIN ONE MID &AMT Ai THE ACCIpENNT. COM M RMR ONE ow 1 0004S/RMGWA0EAOVOLLOVAND o CM0651NGARIM!dGAIItt.. ADADWAT - a CROSSNDAGANST SIGNAL f rtwONGwav Ono OPPOLNGTwAMC tl fwpLLrt.MwKEOCrgSSwgK NO f WWI Sum$ON4WD SArJNQ 6 UFTIUWON RED . r CwOSSM4 WOW, 0kV&ftNLoLCN4wtA S WANDwIGNT tuft A 0041101M01N(IAD WIIM SkMOC i WAtNGIiPTTUwe A "La RNN Me W.00 46A441 TRArfc t.WRNGUTIAmm Af SIAtDAIGNNRoAp • STAwTNQFNOwpAwREO M C""4 "ADM #1K DPARREDVENHCtE • STARTNG N TAArrC a C"" CETtN6 ON Coo WAOM WS N SLOWN4N1RARC 16 CETTNG CPO Orr vEHCLE is STOPPEDNIWFC $I r941ANi WO-04 ON VEMICLE tf ENTEMNGPAw sopoSITDN W wjOIfANGNNaaD ft 1L 1i- MARRO.LECALLV 63 PuawIOAlft" N PAAREO•a.LEGAuv 1M NOTOAROAD IS "01004 KMCLE C"CT PEDESTAM 1 60 DTMER P909ST111ILN ACTION' «ROADWAY OvfocvcLlfT 16 DO NOT USE— NO LOWAA VALID CODE) to mao Wt1MTRArrc 11 CkWAGN4&AKi It Now* AGAINST ?Marc N O4RTAmoapA6sNG 73' "A1UtGMGHT TURN to MEwGP16 " WAR" LEFT TURN 02 15 K OACW4 Is NWNNGu TARN h STALLED van= T6 VA*4 ACROSS ROAD 10 OTHER vENCLS ACvww 17 SLOWNC STO-04 STARTND "ROAD •D DINER 01CKLtLT ACTION STATE OF YNESOTA rl0a1N DEPARTUffa Or PA•LC SAFETY rl!* t` f 1 16 POLICE TRAFFIC ' f PRE Aenolmr rT7 +a4LT w"CTIOM OF ACCIDENT REPORT PS We"Lo3n4s, S01rtN f2 17 "OOH t. CO1fT1IUCTIDM OARwCADEi 11 CAUN cuS/MoN 6 taUrAEM, tTE: 1? AEOMN SAPE1v MNNER t VAIL K To VELD RGa4r.wAV. ! TMPFICslop.,L 13 6IWUPERSIMAw" f VAGAL UNSAFE SPERO a /NI CRDSSNG DeVea GA*Acmu 5 •. Uwa TOLE v �TERCtWl GUARDR I4 s OWUGARDTRAFV C CONTROLOEwCE S. uTArtv POLE CTEtEr 404. E¢ECTRICI 1S rEMCNG NOT MEo" umm&ly - 6 SIGN STMCTUmE POST % cmvfwTNItADWALL n OIMER• f. MLi•OXESANDORPOST IF allow" ERTDOC" cum a OTHERoms POSTS64j"40"S w 9uLDR4W4L a oft MVDwAwI-AAMING""lot - M ROp10Afmn N. 11EL6HRyyERY •0 o7NER• 71 t. OAVL1GIff ! oAMN/IIoRHIyp, f OUSAIEKNNGI A. DARK • STREET LOWS OM � 1 CLEAR -CLOUDY . AR e ;� A. SNOW 6 Ulc?%NLPREEZM RAN 1. DoT f WET 5 f. •NOWSLUSH A. CEfACNEDSApW 1 alsE ! =TRUC ,. ZONE ! ONAUP(ENANCE wo1YE AREA 1O A. N UTUn "Oft AREA t. STRACAT a LEVEL f STRAIGHT i GRADE 11 s STRAIGHT AT MLLCREST A 61'11AGfTNfAG t. PwEtVnvINNICLLOW RAMPS, 83 OTHER D/TIDED NIIQNW/AT 12 .0m- wAvSTREET A 44 LAACSt000 mo !`f LADES EAON wAT s OARR•STREETWAORS,orr 6 p�K.110ST1EETuwas O OTHER' s rocsNPoG•ANpRE 7 &00,04 SAND. OUST an yq" • SEVERECROE&WOOS !D OTNEM 6 w6J00v 6 vao" I Oav •D OTNt1r S CARVE A LEKL • CURK a GwI10E 7 CkovE A/ "PACKST 6 CURVE N SAG 6 iLANESWDWCEo 6 PLANES 1 LAM EACH VIAV T ALLEV OWKWAV K OTN[R• 13 1 wRN "ONE TWIN ONE MID &AMT Ai THE ACCIpENNT. COM M RMR ONE ow 1 0004S/RMGWA0EAOVOLLOVAND o CM0651NGARIM!dGAIItt.. ADADWAT - a CROSSNDAGANST SIGNAL f rtwONGwav Ono OPPOLNGTwAMC tl fwpLLrt.MwKEOCrgSSwgK NO f WWI Sum$ON4WD SArJNQ 6 UFTIUWON RED . r CwOSSM4 WOW, 0kV&ftNLoLCN4wtA S WANDwIGNT tuft A 0041101M01N(IAD WIIM SkMOC i WAtNGIiPTTUwe A "La RNN Me W.00 46A441 TRArfc t.WRNGUTIAmm Af SIAtDAIGNNRoAp • STAwTNQFNOwpAwREO M C""4 "ADM #1K DPARREDVENHCtE • STARTNG N TAArrC a C"" CETtN6 ON Coo WAOM WS N SLOWN4N1RARC 16 CETTNG CPO Orr vEHCLE is STOPPEDNIWFC $I r941ANi WO-04 ON VEMICLE tf ENTEMNGPAw sopoSITDN W wjOIfANGNNaaD ft 1L 1i- MARRO.LECALLV 63 PuawIOAlft" N PAAREO•a.LEGAuv 1M NOTOAROAD IS "01004 KMCLE C"CT PEDESTAM 1 60 DTMER P909ST111ILN ACTION' «ROADWAY OvfocvcLlfT 16 DO NOT USE— NO LOWAA VALID CODE) to mao Wt1MTRArrc 11 CkWAGN4&AKi It Now* AGAINST ?Marc N O4RTAmoapA6sNG 73' "A1UtGMGHT TURN to MEwGP16 " WAR" LEFT TURN 02 15 K OACW4 Is NWNNGu TARN h STALLED van= T6 VA*4 ACROSS ROAD 10 OTHER vENCLS ACvww 17 SLOWNC STO-04 STARTND "ROAD •D DINER 01CKLtLT ACTION STATE OF YNESOTA rl0a1N DEPARTUffa Or PA•LC SAFETY rl!* t` f 1 16 POLICE TRAFFIC ' f PRE Aenolmr rT7 +a4LT w"CTIOM OF ACCIDENT REPORT PS We"Lo3n4s, S01rtN f2 17 "OOH 1.1104 • SCMOD12ow SIGH 6 2 TRA"CW^kS >0 RRCwO6smaGATES t VAIL K To VELD RGa4r.wAV. & OVERHEAD FLASHEIIS t1. MCOOSS04PLASNUGLIG-TS f VAGAL UNSAFE SPERO A POP so" • ALL APP04ACHU /f RNCROSSNG STOP SG4 A fOLLOvlw4TOOCLOSELY R STOPSGI.011EA 31 NICROSSNG•OTNER s OWUGARDTRAFV C CONTROLOEwCE a vELDSIGR T.O"CiR FLAGMAN SCI10OLPATNOL u NOPASSR420NE 6 OW4*4 LE07 OF ROADWAY CENTER- • GCNNDOL •US STOP AMA n OIMER• 71 t. OAVL1GIff ! oAMN/IIoRHIyp, f OUSAIEKNNGI A. DARK • STREET LOWS OM � 1 CLEAR -CLOUDY . AR e ;� A. SNOW 6 Ulc?%NLPREEZM RAN 1. DoT f WET 5 f. •NOWSLUSH A. CEfACNEDSApW 1 alsE ! =TRUC ,. ZONE ! ONAUP(ENANCE wo1YE AREA 1O A. N UTUn "Oft AREA t. STRACAT a LEVEL f STRAIGHT i GRADE 11 s STRAIGHT AT MLLCREST A 61'11AGfTNfAG t. PwEtVnvINNICLLOW RAMPS, 83 OTHER D/TIDED NIIQNW/AT 12 .0m- wAvSTREET A 44 LAACSt000 mo !`f LADES EAON wAT s OARR•STREETWAORS,orr 6 p�K.110ST1EETuwas O OTHER' s rocsNPoG•ANpRE 7 &00,04 SAND. OUST an yq" • SEVERECROE&WOOS !D OTNEM 6 w6J00v 6 vao" I Oav •D OTNt1r S CARVE A LEKL • CURK a GwI10E 7 CkovE A/ "PACKST 6 CURVE N SAG 6 iLANESWDWCEo 6 PLANES 1 LAM EACH VIAV T ALLEV OWKWAV K OTN[R• 13 1 wRN "ONE TWIN ONE MID &AMT Ai THE ACCIpENNT. COM M RMR ONE ow 1 0004S/RMGWA0EAOVOLLOVAND o CM0651NGARIM!dGAIItt.. ADADWAT - a CROSSNDAGANST SIGNAL f rtwONGwav Ono OPPOLNGTwAMC tl fwpLLrt.MwKEOCrgSSwgK NO f WWI Sum$ON4WD SArJNQ 6 UFTIUWON RED . r CwOSSM4 WOW, 0kV&ftNLoLCN4wtA S WANDwIGNT tuft A 0041101M01N(IAD WIIM SkMOC i WAtNGIiPTTUwe A "La RNN Me W.00 46A441 TRArfc t.WRNGUTIAmm Af SIAtDAIGNNRoAp • STAwTNQFNOwpAwREO M C""4 "ADM #1K DPARREDVENHCtE • STARTNG N TAArrC a C"" CETtN6 ON Coo WAOM WS N SLOWN4N1RARC 16 CETTNG CPO Orr vEHCLE is STOPPEDNIWFC $I r941ANi WO-04 ON VEMICLE tf ENTEMNGPAw sopoSITDN W wjOIfANGNNaaD ft 1L 1i- MARRO.LECALLV 63 PuawIOAlft" N PAAREO•a.LEGAuv 1M NOTOAROAD IS "01004 KMCLE C"CT PEDESTAM 1 60 DTMER P909ST111ILN ACTION' «ROADWAY OvfocvcLlfT 16 DO NOT USE— NO LOWAA VALID CODE) to mao Wt1MTRArrc 11 CkWAGN4&AKi It Now* AGAINST ?Marc N O4RTAmoapA6sNG 73' "A1UtGMGHT TURN to MEwGP16 " WAR" LEFT TURN 02 15 K OACW4 Is NWNNGu TARN h STALLED van= T6 VA*4 ACROSS ROAD 10 OTHER vENCLS ACvww 17 SLOWNC STO-04 STARTND "ROAD •D DINER 01CKLtLT ACTION STATE OF YNESOTA rl0a1N DEPARTUffa Or PA•LC SAFETY rl!* t` f 1 16 POLICE TRAFFIC ' f PRE Aenolmr rT7 +a4LT w"CTIOM OF ACCIDENT REPORT PS We"Lo3n4s, S01rtN f2 17 "OOH N DwnfwNERPERENCE t.'goow" PERACTNID4 K PEDESTRIANVIatATNDNEMaw 10 t VAIL K To VELD RGa4r.wAV. 17 PMT61CAL NPAIwyENT f VAGAL UNSAFE SPERO IS volDN amumED•wooDsmaLO GLASS f i A fOLLOvlw4TOOCLOSELY N MIW_O•SCARED•SuNMEAmcodi 19 s OWUGARDTRAFV C CONTROLOEwCE fD w of O•SCLIaEMENT.OTMER 6 OW4*4 LE07 OF ROADWAY CENTER- b OTHaR Nw"AN V44AUW FACTOR. NOT PASSRIG vEwCY4R: 7 "PROPER►ASSRK,Owm"04 Al DEFECIV14sa is a MaPROPER UNSAFE LANE USE 42 oEFECT/TE TNRt IW4 v"uftf I — PROPER PAMItNG START STOP D OEFECTNK LGNTS MR I RDPERTLPN AA NADEOUATt WMCSNNELDCLASS 20 11 L%wc MCMM4 AL OVERSIZE OVEAMPLa T VE"C" 02 12 N0 "PROPER Sca"L K SNIODNC ' D SWED04 TRAPPC t• DI,IER VtP Al WPM FAMOM 21 N OW4ft'RATTEW40"DISTMCTtON ENfCELLNIEOt4 1 NORMAL IMO DRUGS. DR WA'4j 6 vaTIGLIEO *1 it : o"m THE PNrLUENCE T. Y f mo•EENDRrA oo •. wmw.Amo Q 1 A NOD KEN US04 DRUGS • owner • ASLEEP f2 23 I OWDRESTNANTUUO '��•••••••'�`•�w"A - - 2 SEATSELTSNOTSIVALLED T RELAETUS[OAPDIGrtfOFr S KAI KL1S 047A4LED— 1of USED • MELUCI NOT USED A SEAT KLTS "STALLED —USED • IELMET NAT USED AND IIGNTS OM 6 81"mrTUSED 10 "UWET NOT USED AND LGrtSOFF 6 HELMET USED AND LCWM OM 11 UOIORCTCLE LIGNTS ON . - If UOTMVCLE LIGHTS Orr Po•reNON r ON KIPCit 17 "04 CIOTNNG STANDARDKNKLE me•Rtt•NOWOOD E . LIGIItPEFLICTWECLOTMNG 1 ONWER a DRIVER n EASE" EQUIPMENT wismo fT PASSENGER ro PASSENGER 66 OTHER• • N K MANG ON wl"10.1 n SIDEC:ARSLw"ANONG ON KHICLE IRIKNINNT • LrtCTWN room D NAURT 1 LINR1 No 1 KNKK 7rPE a LOOT 010 1 7 S • , TRAPPED R RtLEO L LNITno 1 ETC J 1 A• o I EXTRICATED A PICAPAC. 0 •ICvCNST f 2 PANTIAUV TATNG P KDESTRIAN • 11 EJECTED • 1DI ►N. W ""NE U S EJECTED CAPACITATNG O OTHER KR A N u OT ECTEo C POSSIhE YOR a •L11IIT 24 2S 26 27 28 29 30 F LOGPOINT LISTING - HENNEPIN CSAH 0310 LOCAL ROADS LOG POINT LISTING ........:.......... CSAH ROUTE SYSTEM -ROUTE 27000032 - BEGINNING AT 000 +00.000 - ENDING AT ... .. a ..._............... .. ..... ._. .. ...... _...n ROUTE REF- POINT NUMBER (MILES) CNTY CITY FEATURES --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - -- - - -- ------------------------------------------------ CSAH 32 003 +00.600 27 3210 W 73RD ST X -ING ` CSAH 32 003 +00.730 27 3210 W 72ND ST X -ING CSAH 32 003 +00:790 27 3210 W 71 1/2 ST LT CSAH 32 003 +00.850 27 3210 W 71ST ST RT CSAH 32 003 +00.920 27 3210. W 70 1/2 ST LT . CSAH 32 003 +00.980 27 3210 W 70TH ST X- ING,MSAS -360 RT CSAH 32 004 +00.100 27 3210 69TH ST XING CSAH 32 004 +00.220 27 3210 W 68TH ST X -ING CSAH 32 004 +00.340 27 3210 W 67TH ST X -ING' CSAH 32 004 +00.470 27 3210 CSAH 53 66TH ST XING,S ^RFC CHNG CSAH 32 004+00.590 27 32JQ W 65TH c - r - GNAH 32 004 +00.720 27 3210 W 64TH ST LT CSAH 32 004 +00.840 27 3210 W 63RD ST RT M -i5 CSAH 32 004 +00.940 27' 3210 EXIT RAMP FROM,CSAH-62EB LT,ENT RAMP RT -- CSAH. 32 004 +00.946 27 3210 S END BR' 7268 PENN AVE OVER CSAH 62 * STREET NAME PENN AVE S ' CSAH 32 004 +00.960 27 3210 CSAH -62 UNDER BR '7268 CSAH 32 004 +00.974 27 3210 N END BRA 7268 PENN -AVE OVER CSAH 62 CSAH '32 004 +04.980 27 2585 W 62ND ST & ENT RMP TO CSAH -62WB LT, EXIT RMP R, CSAH 32 005 +00.070 27 2585 W 6i ST ST RT CSAH 32 005 +00.200 27 2585 W 60TH ST X- ING;MSAS -i99 ..._,... ,......: CSAH 32 005 +00.380 27 2585 W 59TH ST X -ING - CSAH 32 005 +00.450 27 2585 W 58TH ST X -ING CSAH 32 005 +00.570 27 2585 W 57TH ST RT- ...: ,.,._ .. _ _...._...... CSAH 32 005 +00.700 27 2585 W 56TH ST X- IN6,MSAS-323 RT CSAH 32 005 +00.820 27 2585 W 55TH ST X -ING CSAH 32 005 +00.950 27 2585 W 54TH ST X -ING, MSAS -i 67 CSAH 32 006 +00.010 27 2585 CROMWELL DR LT CSAH 32 006 +00.070 27 2585 W 53RD ST X -ING CSAH 32 006 +00.160 27 2585 BR'90490 PENN AVE.S / MINNEHAHA CR CSAH 32 006 +00.200 27 2585 W 52ND ST X -ING CSAH 32 006 +00.320 27 25$5 W 5i ST ST X -ING CSAH 32 006 +00.450 27 2585 TH -12i,W SOTH ST,XG PENN AV S AHD,CSAH -32 END • i r oc/ar - Day & Date Time Period i000000000mmmim HCA 7 Z9 R1 sg IV's N6 FF k�f Total r- 1 day VEHICLE VOLUME-SUMMARY 10 Cq City & State 6 Cr SHEET 4 Day & Date Time Period, 10MiiiiiOMcfliMii ��Wzffilrx MWOMMINIMN-10, M M161M INEWOMMEMENEW1 • • • r i COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE COMPANY r City Council City of Richfield Subject: Variance request at 6228 Penn South I Dear Council Members: Proposal Fuller Commercial Brokerage Company and Korsunsky Krank Erickson - Architects, Inc., as agents for the owner of Lunds Foods, have requested that the City grant a variance to the City's frontyard and setback requirements. The applicant proposes to build a Walgreens Store on the East side of the present Lunds Supermarket. The proposed new addition will reduce the required i. frontyard and setback from 40 feet to 11 feet. The subject property is in the "I" (industrial) zoning district and currently meets all the setback requirements. The existing building area is 32,000 square feet. The proposed new addition will increase the building footprint to 40,840 square feet and will include an additional 2,200 square feet on a mezzanine in - Walgreens. Walgreens will have a building footprint of 8,040 square feet. A new service area and loading dock for the Walgreens Store will be located on the South side of the new addition. Currently, there are 20.1 parking stalls on the site. The new layout indicates a total of 215 parking stalls which is equal to the number of stalls required on the site according, to the City Parking guidelines. However, the new parking layout' indicates that 32 .parking spaces would be located on the unimproved easement for - Queen Avenue on the West side of the present parking lot. Zoning Ordinance Requirements I. Section 3.34, subdivision (1) indicates that any use permitted in a C -2 district is permitted in an "I" (industrial) district. { 2. Section 3.32, subdivision 4 (2), indicates that each building L in a -2 district shall have a frontyard of 40 feet. 6458 City West Parkway, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (312) 829 -0626 a Royal LePage company vv � 3. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists the three conditions which must be met for a variance to be granted. We hope to demonstrate to the Council that the proposed development substantially r°eets the three conditions of the code required for a setback varia.c- and will be a strong asset to the community. That Walgreens is an accepted member of Richfield's retail community is evidenced by the fact that their store at 66th and Nicollet serves 1,150 people per day and fills hundreds of prescriptions daily for these customers. As a result of its acceptance, this store will be completely remodeled to bring its physical plant to like new status during 1986. Walgreens is committed to Richfield and is attempting to locate additional stores to further serve the residents of Richfield and - surrounding areas. The trade area for the proposed store includes 30,000 people, and their market research indicated that within one mile of the site, nearly 25% (twenty -five percent) of the population is 60 years or older. As this population moves into retirement, statistics indicate they will need between 25 to 30 prescriptions per person per year. Walgreens is a leader in providing low cost generic drugs and it is an accepted fact that their overall pricing is competitive with all retailers and drug stores. Conditions required for a variance: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting this land not common to other properties or similar �- districts. The Planning Department Staff report to the The Planning Commission of October 22 states "There are no special circumstances present on the site.'' With the information available to the staff when their report was made this may have been correct because a complete study of a potential Walgreens on the property had not been completed and was not available to them. In addition to the proposed site, two other locations on this property were considered, but rejected. One was on a pad approximately opposite the present Lund's Food Store (Appendix A), but this location would be contrary to good retail principles for a number of reasons among them: it would result in a reduction in site lines and j visibility from Penn Avenue for both Walgreens and Lunds; would make fora poor customer pedestrian traffic flow based on recognized successful retailing concepts; it would provide a poor location for the delivery and unloading of merchandise, since the delivery truck would have to be parked in the parking lot while servicing the store. The second consideration was for Walgreens to be located perpendicular to Lunds (Appendix B). This site also has serious drawbacks which include: disrupting the visual appearance of Lunds, resulting in an apparent visual shrinking of the food store, which is bad for a retailer; an unacceptable loss of parking spaces; a necessity to utilize a portion of the Queens Avenue easement for the store, which' - would be considered unacceptable in light of the site's basic retail unacceptability. Because of the foregoing reasons, we want to assure The Council that if the variance is disapproved, no other location on the property will be considered, and there will be no second request forthcoming. .While other locations studied on this site `are unacceptable for a successful retail operation, the proposed site is considered to be beneficial for both Lunds and Walgreens. It is our contention that special conditions do exist and should be considered in evaluating this request. When the Lunds store was originally constructed in the late 19601s, it was located approximately 131 feet from the east property line to accommodate a future addition in that direction. The Lunds store has been expanded and this expansion was designed so as to meet the present and future Lunds' needs and still leave sufficient space for a compatible retail operation. We believe the development of Walgreens.on that site meets the needs of everyone concerned. 2. The Planning Staff's opinion states "that denial of the variance would not be detrimental to reasonable use of the i property. The existing grocery store use could continue if L- the variance is denied." Certainly this is correct as far as It goes, but we would ask that the Council consider a basic tenet of real estate - that is, "it should be utilized to its maximum and best use." We believe this tenet should be applied to this property because if some measure of consideration is given to a small reduction in parking spaces, a Walgreens Store at this location would maximize and - improve the use of the property, not only for Lunds, which is a given, but more important, we believe for the City and residents of Richfield for the following reasons: a) An increase in the tax base for the City of Richfield. b) An increase in full and part time jobs, which would likely be filled by Richfield ..residents, at least in part. .e i' 3. r- c) The combination of Lunds and Walgreens in one location offers local residents the optimum in convenience shopping. d) Walgreens is the exclus1ve outlet for prescriptions for the SHARE Health Plan, and this will greatly reduce the travel required by numerous area residents, including many senior citizens, for prescription service. e) Walgreens is the leading national chain pharmacy, and its services include a national computer network which allows local resident's prescription filling wherever they are in the country , providing a Walgreens is in the area, f One of the considerations relates to a possible traffic hazard on Penn Avenue created by large trucks creating congestion on Penn while backing into the loading dock. The Walgreens Store would be serviced by a single truck once, or at most twice a week, and Walgreens will make every effort to schedule this delivery during off hours to reduce traffic congestion. In fact, it should take less than 5 minutes for the truck to complete the maneuver into the loading dock. We believe it is reasonable to say that this should not violate the requirements of condition 3, above. Also see Appendix C which will show that the truck, once parked, will not be in the way of vehicle or pedestrian traffic. It has been suggested that visibility onto Penn Avenue would be obstructed if the variance were allowed, but we believe that the sightlines as indicated in Appendix D show that more then adequate visibility to the South is available for traffic exiting to the North. In summation, we respectfully request that the Council give serious consideration to the many positive aspects of this proposed development as weighed against the limited negatives and vote for its approval. Robert R. J,�hnson FCB Co. i Korsuns rank Ericksojn Architects, I c. Y-33 C � I C �r m m N G. O Q, >Z G ` a S _ r-- 1 I t_ M � M a a� use n iJJ ittS Ycj �c{ If •! • • Y-35 P� A\15— 4U5 P� o Na a = to \\ X rn aN e P� A\15— 4U5 P� o Na a = to \\ doff PROPOSED QLUN aw 1 ULF 2.2 !o 1 ill. �=--PEMN -AVENUE • LIN fill J11!F I it L5 rn !R Flo > z vi LL, II It; -79 11 doff PROPOSED QLUN aw 1 ULF 2.2 !o 1 ill. �=--PEMN -AVENUE • LIN Y! t , CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 451 Agenda: November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Application for On -Sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses Ground Round Inc., d /b /a Ground Round. Restaurants (Remainder of 1985 and for the-year 1986) Council, Members: As council members are aware, the Ground Round Restaurant located at 1500 East 78th Street holds an On -Sale and Sunday Liquor license and the city was notified that Imperial Group Limited Company, the parent corporation of Howard Johnson Company, intends to restructure their organization with regard to their chain of Ground Round Restaurants. On September 25, 1985, Mr. Mark W. Gehan, Jr., an Attorney for the law firm of Collins, Buckley, Sauntry and Haugh, contacted our City Attorney's office regarding the process involved in transferring the On- Sale and Sunday Liquor License from the current license holder. Mr. Gehan was informed that our Richfield city ordinance code does not provide for a "transfer" of an On -Sale and Sunday Liquor license and, therefore, a new application would have to be submitted. On October 3, 1985, the Ground Round, Inc., submitted an application for an On -Sale and Sunday Liquor license, along with all of the required documents. In addition, one -half of the 1986 On -Sale Liquor license fee ($5,209450), together with one -half of the On -Sale Sunday Liquor license fee ($100), and $1,240 for investigative fees was submitted. The balance of the 1986 fees, and the pro -rated 1985 license fee of $827 will be paid at the time the license is issued. The application has been submitted by Ground Round, Inc., a newly formed and duly certified Delaware Corporation. The Ground Round, Inc., has received all of the assets of the Ground Round Restaurants from Howard Johnson Company. Both corporations, however, are indirectly wholly -owned subsidiaries of the Imperial Group (USA) Limited (see attached Schedule A). The intent of Imperial Group is to operate these restaurants in the same manner as they are currently being operated. Ground Round, Inc., will operate the restaurants as a wholly, seperate and distinct corporation from the rest of the Imperial Group �a business. The corporate structure of the Ground Round, Inc., consists of a Chairman, President, Vice - President, Secretary and Treasurer. Mr. Eric Bernard of Palm Beach, Florida, serves as Chairman of the Board,and Chief Executive Officer of this corporation. Mr. Bernard is not a U.S. citizen, but a French citizen who possesses valid immigration and naturalization documents that allow him to remain in this country indefinitely due to the specialized nature of his business interests. Mr. Bernard has previous experience in the restaurant and hotel /motel business having served as President of hotels in both Palm Beach, Florida and Memphis, Tennessee. Mr. Bernard's Florida operation is primarily a consulting firm that has done business with Howard Johnson Company for the several years. Mr. Bernard has no known criminal record. Mr. Fereydoon Zia of Hingham, Massachusetts, serves as the President and Director of the corporation. Mr. Zia is a naturalized citizen of the United States, who was born in Iran and lived in Lucerne, Switzerland; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Memphis, Tennesee. Mr. Zia has served as Group Vice- President of the Ground Round Restaurant Division of the Howard Johnson Company for about two years. Prior to this he served as Vice - President and Chief Executive Officer of Perkins Restaurant in Memphis, Tennesee. Mr. Zia appears to be well qualified for his position and has no known criminal record. Mr. David Goebel of Bingham, Massachusetts, serves as Vice- President and Director of the corporation. Mr. Goebel is a U.S. citizen, born in Cincinnati, Ohio. Mr. Goebel has been associated with the restaurant and motel industries since 1978. Mr. Goebel was managing partner of two restaurants in Cincinnati, Ohio and Memphis, Tennesee. Mr. Goebel appears to be well qualified for his position and has no known criminal record. Mr. Robert F. Brady of North Quincy, Massachusetts, serves as Secretary of the corporation. Mr. Brady is a U.S. citizen who was born in Hempstead, New York. Mr. Brady has been employed as Director of Personnel for the Howard Johnson Company and previoiusly served as Personnel Representative for the Burger King Corporation. Mr. Brady appears to be well qualified for his position and has no known criminal record. Mr. David L. Halligan of Quincy, Massachusetts, serves as Treasurer of the corporation. Mr. Halligan is a U.S. citizen who was born in Wrymouth, Massachusetts. Mr. Halligan has been employed as an accountant with the Howard Johnson Company for the past ten years. Mr. Halligan appears to be well qualified for his position and has no known criminal record. The building and property located at 1500 East 78th Street continues to be owned by the A. G. Bogen Company. All real estate taxes, state withholding and.sales taxes have been paid by the Howard Johnson Company. In addition the payments on the 7 -3 lease agreement between the property owner and Howard Johnson Company have been paid. The applicant, Ground Round, Inc., will be assuming responsibility for all taxes as well as a new lease agreement between the A. G. Bogen Company and the applicant. A $10,000 surety bond has been submitted and indicates that the Reliance Insurance Company of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, carries the bond. The required public and liquor liability coverages are provided by The Travelers Indemnity Company through Frank B. Hall and Company of Massachusetts. Since this is a new application, the ordinance does not require a statement from a Certified Public Accountant showing total gross sales for the preeeeding twelve month period. However, the applicant has supplied the city with the gross sales information for the twelve month period ending October 30, 1985. The total gross sales amounted to $1,863.1400. Food sales amounted to $1,156,100 or 62% of the 'total sales, while beverage sales amounted to $707,300 or 38% of the total sales. During 1985, Mr. Jarl J. Gaardsmoe of Minneapolis replaced Mr. Trent Trehan as Manager of the Richfield establishment. Mr. Trehan is currently the Regional Manager of the Ground Round, Inc Mr. Gaardsmoe has been employed by the Ground Round for over four and one -half years having served as Manager of the St. Paul and West St. Paul establishments before his transfer to the Richfield establishment. Prior to his employment with the Ground Round, Inc., Mr. Gaardsmoe was the Manager of a restaurant in Northfield, MN. Mr. Gaardsmoe appears to be well qualified for his position as Manager of the Richfield establishment and has been very cooperative during the course of the investigation by the Public Safety Department. Mr. Gaardsmoe has no known crimial record. Between November 1, 1984, and October 31, 1985, there was a total of 33 Public Safety contacts with the Ground Round. This figure compares with 142 contacts for the previous year, or a decrease of 11 %. The breakdown of contacts is as follows: 19814 1985 Criminal Contacts 16 13 -19% Non - Criminal Contacts 26 20 -23% Total Contacts 142 33 -11% The above listed contacts represents a noticable decrease from the previous year and seems to indicate a concern on the part of Ground Round to promote a positive image within the community. The applicant is aware that if the request for the license is approved, the license fee for one month of 1985 (December) and the remainder of the license fees for 1986 will be paid. Therefore, based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the information obtained during the investigation by the Department of Public Safety, there appears to be no reason to deny the request for the issuance of an On -Sale and Sunday Liquor license to the Ground Round, Inc. for December of 1985 and the entire year of 1986. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the city council give favorable consideration to this license request. JGC /eja • • ectfUD /y fitted, John G. tar krigh City Manager Schedule A Cornorate Structure Before Reorganization After Reorganization Imperial Group Limited Imperial Group Limited Various wholly owned Same wholly owned holding companies holding companies Imperial Group Imperial Group (USA) Limited (USA) Limited Howard Johnson Company Howard Johnson The Ground Company Roun'd, inc. A • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 450 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Fee Waived License to Sell Christmas Trees, and For the Placement of Temporary Trailer Signs Council Members: The Richfield Jaycees have applied for a fee waived license to sell Christmas trees at a lot located at 77th Street and Colfax Avenue. They have also applied for a permit to adver- tise the tree lot by use of a double -faced sign placed on a trailer. The trailer would be parked at the corner of 77th and Lyndale Avenue from December 2, 1985, to December 23, 1985. Proceeds from the sale of these Christmas trees will be donated to the Community Services Department. It is recommended that the city council approve the issuance of fee waived licenses for the sale of Christmas trees, and for the temporary advertising sign. The approval for the temporary advertising sign should stipulate that the trailer not be located on public right -of -way. JGC /eja 5 R ectful a tted, ohn G. Cartes ight City Manager APPROVE Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer DENY Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T ❑ AM Post D - City Manager Date APPROVE 7-,�, DENYQ : Planning 'Department Date bl c °u•,h1 �� - Route to above for special approval per code APPROVE 7 DENY: , Inspector f�/ s- Date APPROVE DENY : D City Council Date General l %t, Spy) opt, APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT .5 r ^ n �=` f- �'� `�''� /�' City of Richfield Minnesota g? �(jfiar Date J n/ Zoning Sign Erected yes No Fee i Address of Sign 7f ;'i.�t/7 c� /lr . Proprietor Name�,(�; �'� 1 1, ID'$A Sign Erector Address Ap 4 Tvne of Sien Desien Weather Cover Lighting - Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T ❑ AM Post Clear Lexon. Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colorsii/� If Illuminated Yes No Watts / r {� ' al 1 lorical Contracto ..,..--; C H JZ naress G.1 ,...� , � Phone IV zz,n Property Owner or his Agent Signature /7 •T,/, -),4/ /! ; -.1'�_ Phone { Estimated Cost Sign Wi''dth 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 r,he premises? >... Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? ,f b :' ��.. �4.F ; ''a_. — 1v /`,``S1•e:� .Li `1L -;:� ,C:�F.�t�' r'�"��✓!�?.!.!/,�i'.J, " .l"�•��.i"'R.'.�'ii7",[/'� -'�=, i%�J.iv2.• `'�.1,e,Y'l Applicant's Signature and Title with 'Firm , Date Phone Number ,4_ :i ?'- dr. -.e.. . . : ..,. . ... ,r.. ., ... .. .. .. - •. .- ... .., .. ... .. .. .. - .. - . .. ,_ . • _ .... - ':; PLEASE' SEE. REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION'S •: < :• , • .:. ,.4 KETCI� . Sivert.rHendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 i" 4•' St a.v'7 sc" �i: tt•:•. q''fi'•'4hvw•9'.«'ti;d'de3j�•'. aI?�.'R^csat'.S.Zft�S . :s. �.l tfs �; _ ..'r'.$i .+i!;�k' r:. y: w : A Y •. ' •+ i:. u . • i Y . - - .. .- - >• .+•- I it'F 2'Yp;:st .. t[. .w:.,.t }•..:..a';e"!''xs -. k.h::; RS �.�.e :�eM; ;�?'4'r,?r:M '�:S=aw:��:'; }. .'�ni:•� S1 JtOL., SIGN -,-CL ;D I an I WALL SIC,.; WIDTH fi ROOF SICK ROOF -.. qn-dicarce Distance '16"he 3uildinq From Indicate legend on the the reverse side in L,--�- tance the sign is from property lines. sign an this sketch with dis place location of within 300 feet. Locate any traffic lights A sign less than 32 sq. ft Single or double Lace DEFINTTION: Minot Signs on . a co=on board 0 �RT P. / I �� j - �. -h. ;�; .� � /� ^ i ..� l �= J l . t • • G6' -5 AGREEMENT FROM APPLICANTS FOR LICENSES TO SELL CHRISTMAS TREES IN RICHFIELD In return for the approval and issuance of a license to sell Christmas trees at specified locations in Richfield, the applicant agrees to the following: 1. That the applicant has read the municipal code regulating the sale of Christmas trees and agrees to conform to all regulations contained therein. 2. That designated off - street parking spaces covered by existing off - street parking contracts for active businesses not be used for the storage or sale of Christmas trees. 3. That all temporary electrical connections utilized in the sale of Christmas trees be approved by the electrical inspector, 4. That the sale of Christmas trees be terminated as of midnight, December 25 and the Christmas tree storage and sale area be cleaned up no later than midnight, December 30, 1970. 5. That in the event the Christmas tree sale area is not cleaned up by the December 30 deadline, city crews and equipment will be used to clean the area and the applicant will be_ charged for all equipment, manpower, and overhead involved in any cleanup activities. Signature of Applicant: Date:' f Address of Applicant: r� // � Location of Christmas Tree Sale Lot: % �� /74 4 Approval by City Clerk: Date: Attachments: 1. Copy of Ordinance 2. Copy of Off- Street Parking Plan (If Applicable) 3. Copy of any Special Conditions Stipulated by Fire Department (If 'applicable) f CTL 111 • fZa4lov% etotsli F4C i,¢1Ci1UeJ CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH RICHFIELD, M. 55423 RECEIPT NO._ LICENSE NO.. NEW4 RENEWAL FEE: $59.00 APPLICATION FOR CHRIS74AS TREE LICENSE per season per lot. For Season of 1985 ................................................... ............................... . Definition - (p. 194 in City Ordinance 6.18) "Christmas Tree" means and includes any cut evergreen, fir, spruce or other of 137ke kind for use as what is generally kiown as a Christmas Tree. ................................................. ............................... The Fire Department will inspect the proposed sites prior to issuance of said license. Licensees are responsible for cleanup of sites subsequent to termination of said license. ................................................................................ Applicant's Name: , 1A, - - c- C 0 VP - �� -�-� ►e � � ._� c� v G� e� Applicant's Address: _6 E V- i V Q Applicant's Telephone Number: Firm's Name: , V L t k 1d 1� ckg Lei n a Firm's Address: 4 S �t ^c:�. ie, Icy of N •. S Sy 3 Firm's Telephone Number: 7 Are you a Richfield resident? YES X N ` 2. Location of lot. (Must be in commercial area): % 4- 3. From whom are the trees purchased? POI- fit,. 4. From where are the trees cut or secured: SGl V►. C. ....: ............................................. ............................... CONTINUED �9— 7 Cf�tISTMAS TREE LICE[JSE - (cont.) I (we) hereby agree . to operate such business in accordance with the. laws of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of Richfield. The foregoing, statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. FIRM NAME: DATE AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: TITLE: Ir (SEE ATTAQ3 ED AGREE M AND COMPLETE.) � � ................................................. ............................... FOR CITY USE ONLY FIRE DEPT. APPROVAL: YE ,i N _ Signed: Date INSP. DEPT. APPROVAL: YE _ NO Signed: Date: 5 0 , Page 2 • 7 • • �9_9 NOTICE Pursuant to Laws of Minnesota, 1984, Chapter 502, Article 8, Section 2 (270.72) (Tax Clearance; Issuance of Licenses), the licensing authority is required to provide to the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue your Minnesota business tax identification num- ber and the social security number of each license applicant. Under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the Federal Privacy Act of 1974, we are required to advise you of the following regarding the use of this infor- mation: 1. This information may be used to deny the issuance or renewal of your license in the event you owe Minnesota sales, employer's withholding or motor vehicle excise taxes; 2. Upon receiving this information, the licensing authority will supply it only to the Minnesota Department of Revenue. However, under the Federal Exchange of Information Agreement the Department of Revenue may supply this information to the Internal Revenue Service; 3. FAILURE TO SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION MAY JEOPARDIZE OR DELAY THE PROCESSING OF YOUR LICENSE ISSUANCE OR RENEWAL APPLICATION. Please supply the following information and return along with your application to the licensing authority. Applicant's Last Name First Name Middle Initial pplicant's Address City, State, Zip MR Applicant's Social Security No. Position (Officer, Partner, etc. Business Name RL L_-_, Business Address P 6 & x ; 3 City, State,.Zip Code 1, j e / :Q of < S Minnesota Tax Identification Number �. a tr v 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 449 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign At Richfield Bank and Trust Council Members: Nordquist Sign Company has applied for a permit to erect three directional signs indicating bank parking and drive -ups at the Richfield Bank and Trust Company located at 6625 Lyndale Avenue. Each sign will measure 2' x 51, will be white and bronze-in color and be illuminated. City ordinance stipulates that illuminated signs be approved by the city council. The inspection division has reviewed the sign application and finds that the signs conform to all applicable city ordinances. It is recommended that the city council approve the installation of three illuminated directional signs at the Richfield Bank and Trust Company. JGC /eja ectf 1 s itted, o G. Car Wright City ty Manager APPROVE DENY City Manager Date APPROVE Q T)ENYa : Plannin De'tment Date " g APPROVE � DEN `�-- lnspect <lr / e1 J 5 n Date APPROVE FIDENTY D : City Council Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date w r lcJ Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No k Fee Address of Sign 0,10' r- k;e` 5?, Proprietor Name R.-(�Ct"j&' L414 CUBA Sign Erector0(_CWi S ((i . (rc . Address .3 (Z t ' T • III I ftl Type of Sign Design Weather Cover T Lighting 011uminated - Yes No Watts trical Contractor Address Phone y Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost 6�'e /�, Sign Width Height` otal Square Feet �16E ", 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? !(e5 q111 the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over a e &eby persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Y)o Applicant's 'gnature and Title with with Firm Date- ,VrC- ��if�.�+ -[�� Phone Number 72��4 1 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Siveri Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061' Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: Post [ Clear Lexon' Constant Frosted Lexan Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded " Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors (;.`h ,fQn 7 C (. V }C X 0 gTnAn 011uminated - Yes No Watts trical Contractor Address Phone y Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost 6�'e /�, Sign Width Height` otal Square Feet �16E ", 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? !(e5 q111 the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over a e &eby persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Y)o Applicant's 'gnature and Title with with Firm Date- ,VrC- ��if�.�+ -[�� Phone Number 72��4 1 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Siveri Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061' � t;, W606� / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 448 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Approval Of 1986 Personal Health Services Contract . With The City Of Bloomington Council Members: Since 1977, the City of Richfield has contracted with the City of Bloomington to provide certain personal health services to our residents. These services include such program areas as community nursing, home health, disease prevention and control, health education, and parent and child health programming activities. The services are supported, in part, by a Community Health Services Grant from the State of Minnesota. During the current year this grant award has been in the amount of $76,364. For 1986, the grant award to the city is in an amount of $80,366. In addition to the basic grant, Richfield has been awarded an additional subsidy in the amount of $23,018 to support a special project related to maternal and child health problems, as well as providing an expansion of the maternal and child health service provisions of the base contract. The total subsidy grant award for the City of Richfield for 1986 will be in an amount of $103,384• Our 1985 contract with Bloomington for personal health services has been in an amount of '$97,650. We have negotiated a 1986 contract in the amount of $112,000. The difference between the $112,000 and $103,384 is the dollar amount the city allocates to the personal health services program. Given the current controversy involving the manner in which many home and community nursing services are provided, we have been extremely fortunate to have the Bloomington Department of Health providing a significant number of services in Richfield for our residents. As one might expect, these private "for profit" providers of home health care service limit their programs to those clients with the ability to pay. As a result of this competition we continue to experience some decrease in our services for which fees are received. At the same time, we continue to experience some increase in requests for services provided through this contractual program from home clients have limited income with which to pay fees. __ �Z �'a Bloomington continues to do an excellent job of managing our personal health service program for our community. It is the • recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the city council authorize the Mayor and the City Manager to enter into the proposed 1986 contract with the City o.f Bloomington for personal health services in a total amount of $112,000. Funding for this service will be provided by the grant subsidy awards to the city, in addition to the amount approved in the 1986 budget program of the Public Safety Department. JGC /eja • • tfully' q)Vb�rited, V VV~ hn G. Ca tw, ity Manager • JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 19_, by and between the CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, a Minnesota atunicipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ( "Bloomington ") and the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ( "Richfield "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Bloomington warrants and represents that its Division of Public Health is a duly certified public health agency operating in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements; and WHEREAS, Bloomington's Division of Public Health provides community health services, including, but not limited to home health services, well adult clinics, well child clinics, health education, school health services, health promotion services, prevention and control, and program administration; and WHEREAS, Richfield wishes to promote, support, and maintain the health of its residents by providing community health services such as health education, communicable disease programs, nursing services, health assessment, counseling, teaching, and evaluation in the community, home, and clinic setting At a nominal fee to those making use of such services, and to contract with Bloomington for Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, to provide such services to residents of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the governing bodies of Bloomington and Richfield are authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 145.914, Subdivision 5, Section 145.917, Sub- division 3, and by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, to provide community u health services and to enter into agreements with each other for the providing by Bloomington of community health services to residents of.Richfield. u NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto, and for and in consideration of the covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, agrees to provide residents of Richfield with those community health services ( "Health Services "), thatiRichfield has outlined in its i986 Community Health Services, Plan, which includes home nursing, disease prevention and control, health promotion counseling, child and adult health, and public information and education. Richfield agrees not to amend said Plan in any manner that would impact the service Bloomington provides without first contacting Bloomington. 2. The City of Richfield shall be provided and rendered hereunder to the residents of Richfield in the same manner, to at least the same extent, and with at least the same quality and kind of personnel, equipment, and facilities as the Health Services are provided and rendered to residents of Bloomington, it being the intent and purpose of this agreement to provide and render the Health Services equally to residents of Bloomington and Richfield, without discrimination in any way. 3. Bloomington shall provide the health services pursuant hereto on a confidential basis, using capable, trained professionals. 4. All Health Services to be rendered hereunder by Bloomington shall be rendered pursuant to and subject to public health policies, rule, and procedures now or hereafter, from time to time, adopted by the Bloomington City Council, and in full compliance with all applicable state and federal laws, provided, however, that (i) no policy, rule, or procedure hereafter adopted by the Bloomington City Council shall in any way affect, modify, or change the obligations, duties, liabilities, or rights of the parties hereto as set out in this Agreement, or reduce or detract from the kind, quality, and quantity of Health Services to be provided hereunder by Bloomington to residents of Richfield, and (ii) all such policies, rules and procedures shall be uniformly -2- • • • applied to all persons receiving Health Services from Bloomington, whether residents of Richfield, Bloomington, or any other municipality. Richfield agrees_to adopt the same policies, rules, and procedures as are from time to time adopted by Bloomington, if determined by Richfield to be necessary or desirable to facilitate or regulate the provision of Health Services by Bloomington to residents of Richfield pursuant hereto. 5. Richfield agrees to pay Bloomington, for the provision of Health Services pursuant hereto, amounts and on terms as follows: A. The annual sum of 5112,000 shall be paid in quarterly payments of $28,000 to Bloomington within fifteen (15) days of the receipt by Richfield of each of the reports to be given pursuant to Paragraph S.B hereof, subject, however, to the provisions of Paragraph S.0 hereof. B. On April 15, July 15, and October 15, 1986,'and on January 15, 1987, . Bloomington shall send Richfield a statement, certified by the person in charge of Bloomington's Division of Public Health as being true and correct, and covering the period of three (3) calendar months preceding the month in which the report is given, and setting forth, in such detail as Richfield from time to time shall reasonably require, the number of persons served, the kinds of Health Services delivered, the locations where such services were delivered, and such other information as Richfield shall reasonably request. C. No payment or payments need be made by Richfield under this Agree- Pent while Bloomington is in default under any of the terms and conditions hereof to be by Bloomington performed. 6. In the event Richfield desires to inspect the financial books and records of Bloomington related to the providing of Health Services hereunder by Bloomington, Bloomington shall make its financial books and records available at the Bloomington City Hall for inspection and copying by Richfield, or any agent, employee, or representative of Richfield, at reasonable business hours. -3- 7. It shall be the sole responsibility of Bloomington to determine the qualifications, functions, training, and performance standards for all health service personnel who render Health Services under this Agreement; provided, however, that Bloomington agrees that all such personnel shall be capable, trained professionals. S. Bloomington's Division of Public Health will communicate with Richfield relative to Health Services to be performed hereunder by Bloomington, such communication to be in the form of reports, conferences, or consultations, as the respective Richfield departments from time to time shall request. All reports relating to the providing of Health Services that are given by Bloomington's Division of Public Health to the Bloomington City Council or to the City Manager during the term of this Agreement shall also, and at the same time, be given to Richfield. 9. Bloomington also agrees to send to Richfield an annual report describing the activities performed and Health Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such-report shall be in such detail and form as Richfield may reasonably from time to time request. The annual report shall be sent with and in addition to the last quarterly report required by Paragraph 5.B hereof. Also, at Richfield's request, made not more than two (2) times during the term of this Agreement, responsible administrative officers of Bloomington's Division of Public Health shall attend meetings of the Richfield City Council or appropriate board or commission to answer questions and give further information relative to the activities performed and Health Services rendered under this Agreement. 10. Bloomington hereby agrees to maintain in force its present policy of comprehensive liability insurance and medical malpractice insurance in the minimum amount of five hundred thousand dollars (5500,000), for the term of this contract. A copy of the policy or policies issued shall be furnished to -4- Richfield. Said policy shall be with an insurance company authorized to do business in Minnesota. 11. This Agreement shall be for a period of from January 1, 1986, to Beceaber 31, 1986, provided that either party may terminate the same by thirty (30) days' written notice to the other. Upon such termination, all obligations and liabilities of the parties hereunder shall cease and terminate, except the provisions of Paragraph li hereof shall continue and survive such termination. Also, in the event of termination pursuant hereto, the quarterly payment next due shall be prorated and paid for only the period ended on the-date of termination, and Bloomington shall send to Richfield, within thirty (30) days after such termination, a report in the form required by Paragraph S.B, and shall also then send a final report in the form of, and in 'Lieu. of, the annual report required by Paragraph 9 hereof, and Richfield shall pay such reduced quarterly payment for the period ended on the date of termination,.within fifteen (15) days after receipt of both of such reports. 12. Bloomington and Richfield understand and agree that each of them shall apply and qualify, independently and separately, for any and all grants, matching funds, and payments of all kinds from state, federal, and other governmental bodies relating to, or for the provision of, any or all of the Health Services, and any and all such grants, matching funds, and payments shall belong to the recipient and be used and applied as the recipient thereof shall determine, without regard to this Agreement. 13. All notices, reports, or demands required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally to any officer of the party to which notice is being given, or when deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail, postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the parties at'the following addresses: -5 (aE-B To Bloomington: 2215 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington. Minnesota 55431 Attention: City Manager To Richfield: 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota SS423 Attention: City Manager Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notice to the other party give as herein provided. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed and their corporate seals to be affixed hereto the day and year first above Written. Upon proper execution, this Agreement shall be a legal and binding obligation upon the City of Bloomington. City Attorney CITY OF BLOOMINGTON By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager -6 • C • #l'4-/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 447 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Purchase in Excess of $5,000 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, the authority to pur- chase shall be submitted to the city council for consideration. There are 3 such items on the November 25 agenda. BOX FOR BRUSH PICKER The revised 1985 budget includes $26,000 for the replacement of Unit 154, a 1969 Chevrolet fully depreciated in 1979, with new cab, chassis, hydraulics and box. Because the Barco brush picker is still in good condition, it would be remounted on the new equipment. The major purchases related to this equipment are the cab and chassis, which were purchased earlier this year for $17,787.50, and the box. Quotes for the box were received through the joint purchasing agreement with Hennepin County (Bid No. 5568). It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of a 12' long by 36" high Crysteel tree body with double acting hoist and other specified items installed and ready for service from Crysteel Truck Equipment in the amount of $6,221.00. SODIUM TRI POLY PHOSPHATE FOR CONDITIONING WATER Six vendors were contacted in an effort to obtain quotations for this chemical which is used to condition the water.and the sand filters used in the water treatment process at the water plant. Two quotations were received for the estimated 12,000 pounds to be used in 1986. Hawkins Chemical, Inc. quoted $.5075 /pound while Van Waters and Rogers quoted $.495 /pound. Previous unit prices have been: 1985: $.4935; 1984: $.44; 1983: $.449 and 1982: $1.089. It is recommended the city council authorize a 1986 master purchase order to Van Waters and Rogers for an estimated total expenditure of $5,9+0 based on 12,000 pounds usage.at $.495 /pound. w 6b-C2' HYDROFLUORSILIC ACID FOR WATER TREATMENT Three quotations were received for an estimated 6,000 - gallons of this water treatment chemical to be used in 1986. Chemtech Industries, Inc. quoted $13,230, Jones Chemical, Inc. quoted $5,700 and Hawkins Chemical, Inc. quoted $5,070. Previous unit prices have been: 1985:$.78; 19814: $.80; 1983: $.88. It is recommended the city council authorize a 1986 master purchase order to Hawkins Chemical, Inc. for an estimated total expenditure of $5,070 based on 61000 gallons usage at $.845 /gallon. JGC /eja pectf�yYly'ZOI 4 ted, Y/ Yo G. Cartt=g . t. City Manager .% 11 • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 446 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract - Quick Lime Council Members: On November 7, 1985, bids were opened for the 1986 supply of quick lime, a water softening chemical, for the city's water treatment plant. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations are provided for council review. Two bids were submitted. The lowest responsible bid was $62.95 /ton, proposed by Cutler- Magner Company of Duluth. Unit cost comparisons to previous years are: 1986 $62.95/ton 1985 $67.95/ton 1984 $70.35 /ton 1983 $71.35/ton 1982 $68.95/ton 1981 $66.90 /ton 1980 $63.08 /ton The total estimated 1986 cost is $88,130 for supplying 1,400 tons of lime. This total is $7,000 less than the 1985 costs. Competition in the water chemical bid market is credited for the exceptionally low unit price quote. Funds for this purchase are included in the 1986 budget of the Water Fund. It is recommended that the city council accept the bid minutes, bid tabulations and award the contract for the 1986 supply of quick lime to Cutler- Magner Company of Duluth, Minnesota in the amount of $88,130. Respectful s itted, ohn G. C r right • City Ma g r JGC /e ja ' 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING November 7 1985 1,400 tons Water Treatment Chemicals - Quick Lime 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 Water Treatment Chemicals - Quick Lime, as advertised in the official newspaper on October 16, 1985. Present: Thomas Ferber, City.Clerk Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative Steven Devich, Administrative Services Department Director The following bids were submitted and read aloud: • VENDOR BID SECURITY AMOUNT Western Lime & Cement Co. We Bend, Wise. None $113,540.00/$81.10 per toi Sted Brothers NO BID Linwood Stone Products Davenport, Iowa NO BID Cutler Magner Co. Duluth, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 88,130.00/$62.95 per tot The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the November 25, 1985 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk _ s + CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield �dv Council Letter No. 445 Agenda November 25, 1985 Subject: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids - Sludge Dewatering Equipment Council Members: Sludge Dewatering is a concept that has been included in the long -range Capital Improvement Program for a number of years. The council adopted 1986 Capital Budget provides funding, through user fees, for sludge dewatering. Orr- Schelen- Mayeron and Associates, Inc. are the consulting engineers for this project. , The water softening process creates a sludge or liquid like waste sediment made up primarily of lime. At the present time, this sludge is stored in pits to the east of the water treatment plant and the city contracts to have the material hauled away. The sludge is not a hazardous material. For the last several years the sludge has been used primarily for agricultural purposes and has also been used as a liner in a land fill area. Because the sludge has high water content, most of the cost related to disposal has been associated with trucking. Contract prices for sludge removal were $53,550 in 1982, up to $63,270 in 1985. Although sludge removal costs continue to rise, prices are leveling off compared to earlier years ($59,905 in 1978) as the agricultural community has become more interested in use of the material. It appears the time has come when it is to the city's economic advantage to: 1) remove as much water as possible from the sludge, thereby reducing hauling costs; and, 2) promote the use, rather than the mere disposal, of the material. The city staff and consultants have been examining the variety of methods available for sludge dewatering. The "press" method, which has been determined to be preferrable, would increase the total solids from approximately 10% to 60% The resulting "cookie" (dewatered sludge) is much easier to handle and less costly to haul. The liquid that has been removed can be recycled. This reduces the volume to haul and the volume to be temporarily stored. A building addition to the water • y treatment plant will be needed to house the dewatering equipment and the configuration of outside storage pits will be reduced and realigned. The plans and specifications under consideration at this meeting are for the dewatering equipment. Due to the variety of operating possibilities and configurations related to the press type of dewatering equipment, the bidding period has been scheduled to be be longer than legally required to afford bidders ample opportunity to prepare proposals. Plans and specifications for the building addition will be prepared as specific equipment needs are selected. The entire project (equipment, building, etc.) should be completed in 1986.. The Community Services Director and the consultants will be available at the November 25 city council meeting to answer questions about the sludge dewatering process and the proposed specifications. It is recommended the city council approve the plans and specifications for sludge dewatering equipment and authorize the advertisement for bids. - Respeetfu s mitted, s John G. wrigh Crty Mana e JGC /eja • • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 444 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Hearing of Liquor And On -Sale Wine Licenses Renewals Council Members: The on -sale liquor and wine licenses for restaurant establishments and private clubs in our community will be expiring the first of the year. The city has received renewal applications for liquor licenses from Chi Chi's Restaurant, the American Legion Post- #435, and the VFW Post #5555 for 1986. The on -sale wine license applications received are from Miller's Fireside Pizza Restaurant, Shakey's Restaurant, Divanni's Restaurant and The Inn. It is recommended that the city council set the date of hearing for renewals of on -sale wine and liquor licenses for the December 9,-1985, city council meeting. JGC /eja ectfu /� submitted, __# // . ohn G. ar right City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 443 Agenda: November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members. of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Presentation to the Public Safety Department From the South Suburban Exchange Club Council Members: For many years the South Suburban Exchange Club, as one of their public service projects, has provided funding for the program materials used in the Junior Police Program of our Department of Public Safety. The Junior Police Program is a crime prevention and personal safety course conducted by the Department of Public Safety for third grade students in all Richfield public and 'parochial schools. The program has been very successful in developing an awareness in the students on issues related to safety and the role of the Public Safety Department in city government. On August 31, 1985, the South Suburban Exchange Club voted to disband, primarily because of shrinking membership. As a part of the clubs process to disband, the club has voted to contribute all remaining club funds to the Richfield Department of Public Safety to continue the Junior Police Program in our community. In meeting with club officers, the Public Safety Director has agreed to match club funds with city funds to continue the Junior Police Program as long as this funding resource is available. From that point on, the Public Safety Department will attempt to continue the program with other funding resources. Mr. Bert Bulen, the Past President of the South Suburban Exchange Club, will be present at the council meeting of November 25th to present their check to the city, conditional on the city agreeing to match these funds and to continue the Junior Police Program which the club has worked so hard to support in the past. We anticipate that this donation will be in excess of $2,500. We are very pleased that the South Suburban Exchange Club has chosen the Junior Police Program operated by our Department of Public Safety as the recipient of the remaining club funds. JGC /eja • • ectf�l rlv I e I John G. C Wright City Mana er a • 11 -;t?-/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 442 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Human Rights Day Proclamation Council Members: Governor Perpich has proclaimed Wednesday, December 4, 1985, as Minnesota Human Rights Day. Local commissions and the State Department of Human Rights have planned many activities for this day. The Richfield Human Rights Commission has requested that the city council issue a proclamation designating Wednesday, December 4, 1985, as Human Rights Day in Richfield. A copy of that proclamation is attached to this council letter. Mr. Tollie Flippin, Chair of the commission, and other commission members will be present at the November 25, 1985, city council to accept this proclamation. In addition to the proclamation, the commission asked junior high students to write essays on the subject "What Human Rights Means to Me ". Commission members reviewed the essays submitted by the students, and selected three of the essays to be read aloud at the November 25, 1985, city council meeting. The students submitting these essays were Kris Bros, Nancy Burtis, and Becky Pearson. This presentation has been placed on the November 25, 1985, city council agenda. JGC /e ja RR ectfuIS �t ted, ohn G. Ca twright City Manage • • �a HUMAN RIGHTS DAY PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, December 4, 1985, is Human Rights Day and has been set aside to think about human rights and the way people treat each other not only throughout the world, but here in the City of Richfield as well, and WHEREAS, the City of Richf 1-' ares about the rights of its residents, and for that reason has had an active Human Rights Commission for many years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the city-council strongly supports and encourages the upholding of the rights of all citizens and to urge all residents to know and respect the laws that protect the rights of all citizens. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council of the City of Richfield is pleased to join with the Richfield Human Rights Commission in proclaiming Wednesday, December 4, 1985., as Richfield Human Rights Day. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 25th day of November, 1985. Sohn HaiillEon Mayor s r��,, . Y` - J-3 y November 15, 1985 /f • Mr. Alden Stoesz, Principal Richfield Junior High School 7461 Oliver Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Stoesz: As part of Human Rights Week in December, the Richfield Human Rights Commission asked junior high students to write essays on the subject "What Human Rights Means to Me ". Members of the commission were to then review the essays and select one to be read aloud at the November 25, 1985, city council meeting. Last week, members of the Commission reviewed over 30 essays. It was impossible for the Commission to select just one essay, and almost as difficult to narrow the selection to just three. All of the essays submitted were excellent, and the commission was most impressed with the students knowledge and awareness of Human Rights. As part of the "kick - off" of Richfield Human Rights Week, the commission would like to invite Kris Bros, Nancy Burtis and Becky Pearson to the November 25, 1985, Richfield City Council meeting to read their essays aloud. We would also like to extend an invitation to all students who submitted essays to attend the council meeting. The council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the city hall council chambers. The Human Rights Week proclamation by the Mayor and the reading of the essays will be one of the first items on the agenda. I, and other members of the commission will also be present at this meeting. We would like to express our thanks to you, to the teachers, and to the students of Richfield Junior High School for your cooperation and enthusiasm on this project. Sincerely yours, Tollie Flippin, Chair Human Rights Commission ea/ telephone: 669 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer co C'4 �" LO LO ICU O s CU • Mr. Alden Stoesz, Principal Richfield Junior High School 7461 Oliver Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Stoesz: As part of Human Rights Week in December, the Richfield Human Rights Commission asked junior high students to write essays on the subject "What Human Rights Means to Me ". Members of the commission were to then review the essays and select one to be read aloud at the November 25, 1985, city council meeting. Last week, members of the Commission reviewed over 30 essays. It was impossible for the Commission to select just one essay, and almost as difficult to narrow the selection to just three. All of the essays submitted were excellent, and the commission was most impressed with the students knowledge and awareness of Human Rights. As part of the "kick - off" of Richfield Human Rights Week, the commission would like to invite Kris Bros, Nancy Burtis and Becky Pearson to the November 25, 1985, Richfield City Council meeting to read their essays aloud. We would also like to extend an invitation to all students who submitted essays to attend the council meeting. The council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the city hall council chambers. The Human Rights Week proclamation by the Mayor and the reading of the essays will be one of the first items on the agenda. I, and other members of the commission will also be present at this meeting. We would like to express our thanks to you, to the teachers, and to the students of Richfield Junior High School for your cooperation and enthusiasm on this project. Sincerely yours, Tollie Flippin, Chair Human Rights Commission ea/ telephone: 669 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer -6-d am O O • Mr. Alden Stoesz, Principal Richfield Junior High School 7461 Oliver Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Stoesz: As part of Human Rights Week in December, the Richfield Human Rights Commission asked junior high students to write essays on the subject "What Human Rights Means to Me ". Members of the commission were to then review the essays and select one to be read aloud at the November 25, 1985, city council meeting. Last week, members of the Commission reviewed over 30 essays. It was impossible for the Commission to select just one essay, and almost as difficult to narrow the selection to just three. All of the essays submitted were excellent, and the commission was most impressed with the students knowledge and awareness of Human Rights. As part of the "kick - off" of Richfield Human Rights Week, the commission would like to invite Kris Bros, Nancy Burtis and Becky Pearson to the November 25, 1985, Richfield City Council meeting to read their essays aloud. We would also like to extend an invitation to all students who submitted essays to attend the council meeting. The council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the city hall council chambers. The Human Rights Week proclamation by the Mayor and the reading of the essays will be one of the first items on the agenda. I, and other members of the commission will also be present at this meeting. We would like to express our thanks to you, to the teachers, and to the students of Richfield Junior High School for your cooperation and enthusiasm on this project. Sincerely yours, Tollie Flippin, Chair Human Rights Commission ea/ telephone: 669 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 441 Agenda November 25, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Certificate of Appreciation - Rod Lidenberg Council Members: Rod Lidenberg, manager of Richfield's Rich Acres Golf Course, was named 1985 Professional of the Year by the Minnesota Section of the Profressional Golfers Association (PGA). The Professional of the Year Award is given annually to the professional who has demonstrated continued service,to the PGA through the promotion of golf. In achieving this award, Rod has joined 38 other professionals throughout the country competing for national honors. Rod has also completed requirements to be considered a Recertified Class "A" PGA member for a three year period. This status was earned by participation in the continuing education programs of the PGA of America, by involvement in National and local PGA activities and through service to the Association. In 1983, Rod was named winner of the Minnesota PGA Horton Smith Award. Horton Smith, the first Masters Champion in 1934, not only played on the tour, but served as the National PGA president (1952 -54) and spearheaded the first golf education programs. In 1983, the six -part "Fundamentals of Golf" series and the 12 -part "Golf Talk" series, written and hosted by Rod for cable television, earned the coveted Horton Smith award. As Rich Acres Golf Course was nearing completion of construction in 1980, Rod was appointed the first manager of the facility. Not only is he in charge of the golf program, he is responsible for the height of the grass on the course, how the hamburgers are cooked and everything in between. The operation is well in line with the projections forecast in the feasibility study conducted prior to the construction. Capital improvements continue to be made on the course. The total number of rounds, about 50,000, are at the level recommended. Financially, the ieoperation is self- supporting. I* ,i 6".. The city council wishes to take this opportunity to extend its appreciation to Rod Lidenberg for his contributions to the Richfield golf facility and programs and its congratulations for the well deserved honor bestowed upon him by his peers as the Minnesota 1985 Professional of the Year. JGC /e ja Re pectfu y s itted, ohn G. ar wrigh City M age CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield SS/-/ Council Letter No. 440 Agenda November 25, 19$5 Subject: Study Session Investments Council Members: During the budget review process,.City Council members indicated that there was interest in discussing the City's investment program. It was suggested that the City might be able to increase its average yield by investing funds for a longer period of time than currently utilized for most investments. There was also some interest in learning more about the types of investments utilized by the City. In response to these concerns, the Administrative Services Director and Finance Manager have invited representatives of DeLoitte, Haskins and Sells, the City's auditors, and representatives from Merrill Lynch, Dain Bosworth, and Minnesota Federal to join with City staff to present and discuss the City's current investments and the type of investments available to the City. It is intended that this study session provide a forum for discussion concerning various aspects of the City's investment program and be the first step in redrafting an investment policy for the City. Respectful " // tted, // II ,Tohn G. qAr right City Manager \ JGC /e ja cc: Administrative Services Director Finance Manager • r Page 1 of 2 5s� CTTY OF RICHFIELD FINANCE D'vISION SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS DER 30,1985 DATE MATURITY YIELD ACQUIRED DATE VALUE Federal Home Loan - Discount Notes 8.99 12 -31-84 10 -03-85 300,000 Certificate of Deposit - People Savings & Loan Sallie Mae -Bank Norwest- Minneapolis 12.875 10 -09 -84 10 -09 -85 100,000 Certificate of Deposit- Minnesota Federal Manufactures 11.41 11.65 10- 16-84. 10 -15 -84 10 -09 -85 10 -10-85 250,000 100,000 Hanover (BA) Federal National Mortgage Association 8.63 -8.80 4 -30-85 4 -15-84 10 -11-85 10- 15-85 231,934 300,000 Certificate of Deposit - Midwest Federal 10.65 10- 24-84 10 -17-85 300,000 Certificate of Deposit- Siverado Banking - Denver 12.25 10 -18-84 10 -18-85 100,000 American Express (BA) Certificate of Deposit -First Federal 8.77 11.00 4 -30-85 10 -25-84 10 -24 -85 10 -25 -85 400,000 100,000 United States Treasury Bonds Certificate Of Deposit-Freedom Savings &Loan 8.35 11.25 5 -21-85 11 -20-84 11 -15-85 11 -20-85 308,000 1009000 Certificate of Deposit -F & M Federal National Mortgage Assn Residential 8.25 9.60. 5 -24-85 11- 29-.84 11 -20-85 11- 26-85 100,000 Certificate of Deposit -First Western Bank 7.90 5- 30-85 11 -27-85 300,000 300,000 United States Treasury Notes Certificate of Deposit Mc Lean Savings & Loan 7.44 8.625 6- 03-85 6 -06-85 11 -30-85 12 -03-85 200,000 100,000 deral National Mortgage Association 7.73 6 -14 -85 12 -10-85 3009000 qW,deral National Mortgage Association Certificate of Deposit -Paris Savings & Loan Assn. 9.45 10.25 12- 18-84 12 -11 -84 12- 10-85 12 -11 -85 200,000 Certificate of Deposit -First Security S & L Certificate of Deposit -Twin City Federal 10.375 12 -11-84 - 12 -11-85 100,000 100,000 United States Treasury Bills 9.90 7.16 12 -15 -84 6 -20-85 12 -15 -85 12-19--85 1009,000 500,000 Certificate of Deposit - Investment Savings & Loan United States Treasury Notes - 10.375 12 -21 -84 12 -23-85 100,000 Federal National Mortgage Association Notes 7.57 7.35 6 -14-85 6-11 -85 12- 3 ?-85' 1 -07 -86 510,000 400,000 Federal National Mortgage Association Certificate of Deposit- Midwest Federal 7.45 9.50 7- 11-85 1 -07 -86 7009000 Certificate of Deposit- Midwest Federal 9.55 1 -11 -85 1- 18-85 1 -11 -86 1 -13-86 300,000' 300,000 Chase Manhatten (BA) United States Treasury Bills 7.853 8 -21 -85 1 -21 -86 300,000 Ford Motor - Commercial Paper 9.01 8.05 2 -21-85 8- 08-85 1 -23-86 1 -27 -86 115,000 200,000 Commercial Paper - Gateway Fuel Certificate of Deposit - Farmers Savings & Loan 8.06 11.50 9 -03-85 1 -13-84 1 -27 -86 1 -31 -86 662,000 United Sates Treasury Bills Federal Home Loan Bank Notes 7.26 7-12 -85 1- 31-86 100,000 235,000 - Federal National Mortgage Association Resident,.ial 8.57 7.86 5 -07 -85 8 -21-85 2 -03-86 2 -04-86 .5851P000 200,094 Certificate of Deposit - Mainland Savings Certificate of Deposit -San Francisco Federal 10.125 2- ►12 -85 2-r12-86 100,000 Certificate of Deposit -Bank of Oklahoma 9.60. 9.70 2 -27-85 3 -04 -85 2 -27-86 3 -04 -86 1009,000 100,000 Certificate of Deposit -Twin City Federal Federal National Mortgage Association Residential 10.00 7.89 3 -05-85 3 -05-86 1009000 deral Home Loan Bank Dotes tificate • 7.74 9 -10-85 9 -05-85 3 -05-86 3 -12-36 200,000 600,000 of Deposit- B�stterfield ertlficate of Deposit -First Federal 10.85 3- 13-85 3- 13-86 3o'� r• ra , ,r; �P._ .._ _.catn_ of Deposit Vernon Savings and Loan 7.85 10.75 9 -24-85 4 -24 -85 J' -24-86 4 -24-86 130,00 1009000 Total Investment Page 2 of 2 551-3 MATURITY DATE 4 -25-86 5 -01 -86 5 -07 -86 5 -13-86 5- 15-86 6 -03-86 6- 11-86 6 -11 -86 6- 18-86 6 -19 -86 6 -24 -86 7 -16-86 7- -25-86 7 -25 -86 8 -06-86 8 -12 -86 8 -13-86 8 -14 -86 8 -27 -86 9 -13-86 9 -19-86 9 -22 -86 9 -23-86 9 -25-86 9 -26-86 12 -23-86 1 -14-87 3 -20-87 8 -30-87 12 -25 -87 1 -25-88 5 -10-88 7 -25-88 2 -15-89 4 -25-89 TYPE YIELD BOOK VALUE Government Agencies rtificate of Deposits rc ?.a? Paper Is Acceotance L,-hor-; -Term U.S. Government Securties Sh0*'T -`T eN ' M Savi s 7.26 13.36 7.85 - 12.88 8.05 - 8.06 7.85 8.77 7.06 5.25 $ 9,124,117 5,829,000 862,000 931,934 187,842 84,056 17 018,949 VALUE of ••$ •• •e! •• ••• •! ••• •• !e! •• ••• !• ••• •• ••• • ••• • e ! •• !•• ee ee •• ••• • of •• ••• •! ••• se eee ••!• ••s • •ee !! •se e . . • 84,056 •: PERCENT OF TOTAL 53.6% 34.2 5.1 5.5 1.1 -.5 100.E DATE YIELD ACQUIRED Certificate of Deposit- Western Savings and Loan 10.25 4 -25-85 Certificate of Deposit-Encino Savings and Loan 10.25 5- 01-85 Certificate of Deposit- Western Financial Savings 10.00 5 -07-85 Certificate of Deposit -Money House 9.625 5- 13-85 ,Certificate of Deposit - Platte Valley 9.50 5 -15-85 Certificate of Deposit -Bell Savings & Loan 10.15 6- 03-85 Certificate of Deposit -Santa Barbara S & .L 9.25 6 -11-85 Certificate of Deposit- Guarantee Savings,Fresno 8.00 6- 11-•85 Certificate of Deposit - Commerce Savings & Loan 9.00 6 -18-85 Certificate of Deposit - American Diversified 9.25 6 -19-85 Certificate of Deposit -Loan Rock Bank,N.A. 8.25 6- 24-85 Certificate of Deposit -Key Savings & Loan 8.25 . 7-16-85 Certificate of Deposit - Beverly Hiles Savings& Loan 9.15 7:25 -85 Federal Home Loan Banks 8.25 9 -25-85 Certificate of Deposit- Norwest Bank- Bloomington'. - 8.45 8- 06--85 Certificate of Deposit- State Federal Savings & Loan 9.50 8 -12 -85 Certificate of Deposit- Presidio Savings & Loan 9.25 8- 13-85' Certificate of Deposit - Centennial Savings & Loan 9.30 8 -14 -85 Certificate of Deposit -First Federal 8.10 8 -27-85 Certificate of Deposit - Twin Cities Savings & Loan 9.25 9• -13-85 Certificate of Deposit- American 9.30 9- 19-85 Wtificate of Deposit- Pacific.Savings & Loan 9.50 9 -20-85 rtificate of Deposit- Southmore Savings &.Loan 9.25 9- 23-85 Federal Hare Loan Banks 12.25 9 -25-84 Certificate of Deposit -First Federal Savings & Loan 9.00 9 -26-85 .Certificate of Deposit Sandia Federal S &._L 9.25 6 -24 -85 Certificate of Deposit -Long Beach 11.125. 1- 14-85 Federal Hoene Loan 11.05 3- 20-85 Freddemacs 8.81 7 -11-85 Federal Home Loan Bank Notes 8.45 6- 25-85 Federal Home Loan Banks -Bonds 10.625 1 -25-85 Federal Nat'l Mortgage Association 10.50 5 -06-85 Federal Home Loan Banks 9.15 7 -25-85 Certificate of Deposit - Brookside Savings & Loan 11.125 2- 11 -85., Certificate of Deposit -Sun Belt Savings & Loan 10.50 4 -26-84 Franklin Government Securities 13.36 Trust. for Short Term 7.06 Richfield Bank and Trust- Savings 5.25 Total Investment Page 2 of 2 551-3 MATURITY DATE 4 -25-86 5 -01 -86 5 -07 -86 5 -13-86 5- 15-86 6 -03-86 6- 11-86 6 -11 -86 6- 18-86 6 -19 -86 6 -24 -86 7 -16-86 7- -25-86 7 -25 -86 8 -06-86 8 -12 -86 8 -13-86 8 -14 -86 8 -27 -86 9 -13-86 9 -19-86 9 -22 -86 9 -23-86 9 -25-86 9 -26-86 12 -23-86 1 -14-87 3 -20-87 8 -30-87 12 -25 -87 1 -25-88 5 -10-88 7 -25-88 2 -15-89 4 -25-89 TYPE YIELD BOOK VALUE Government Agencies rtificate of Deposits rc ?.a? Paper Is Acceotance L,-hor-; -Term U.S. Government Securties Sh0*'T -`T eN ' M Savi s 7.26 13.36 7.85 - 12.88 8.05 - 8.06 7.85 8.77 7.06 5.25 $ 9,124,117 5,829,000 862,000 931,934 187,842 84,056 17 018,949 VALUE of ••$ •• •e! •• ••• •! ••• •• !e! •• ••• !• ••• •• ••• • ••• • e ! •• !•• ee ee •• ••• • of •• ••• •! ••• se eee ••!• ••s • •ee !! •se e . . • 84,056 •: PERCENT OF TOTAL 53.6% 34.2 5.1 5.5 1.1 -.5 100.E / -212- CITY OF RIC I&Zi t ba &_Vjj S ,A SCH MULE OF CASH AND IhVE STS TABU 18 December, 31, 1984 Treasurer Cash Cash in banks: ;.._ Richfield Bwnk and Trust Co.. $ 81443 First Western Bank 71,747 Minnesota Federal . ,1890 Change and petty cash funds 11,125 Total Treasurer Cash :z $ 104,205 Snort- Term Investments (Various Maturities) _ Interest Rate /Yield. t Amoun Amoun . Certificates,of Deposit 9.35- 13.45% > $ 6,030,398 U. S. Treasury Bills: 8032 481,285 Federal Farm Credit-Bark 8.08- 9.30 1,3'i0,148 Federal Home Loan Discount Notes 8.99 280680 • Federal Home Loan Bank 12.25 545,000 Federal National Mortgage Association Discount Notes -8.95 -12.04 9,080,211 Student Loan Marketing Discount Notes 230,182 Banker's Acceptance 9.18 - 12.36 2,842,503 Commercial Paper 8.46::- 11.15' 29285,145 Short -Term U. S., Government Securities.8.91 1,205,936 Short -Term Savings 5.25 1329161 Total Short -Term Investments $24,423,649 / -212-