Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
07-14-86 agenda
...r s I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESDTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 274 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: 1986 National League of Cities and Exposition November 29-December 3-San Antonio, Texas Council Members: The 1986 NLC Congress of Cities and Exposition will be held November 29-December 3, 1986 in San Antonio, Texas. The 1986 budget document provides funds for two council members to attend this conference. It would be appropriate at this time for the city council to determine which members shall attend so arrangements can be initiated for attending this conference. A copy of the conference highlights is provided in the council backup. Res ct ully s bmitted, oevic Acting City Manager SD/eja - i~- (~~I 1111 J~~ league of minnesota cities MEMORANDUM July 2, 1986 T0: Mayors, Managers, Clerks FROM: Ann Higgins, Federal Liaison SUBJECT: 1986 NLC CONGRESS OF CITIES, NOVEMBER 29 - DECEMBER 3 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS Several weeks ago I sent a memorandum encouraging city officials to make early reservations and complete registration for the NLC annual conference in San Antonio. Enclosed with this memorandum is a copy of the NLC program brochure on the conference as well as information on air fares and schedules. Please use this information to make plane reservations so that you can take advantage of lower fare savings. • The Lea ue has contacted travel a encies to determine available g g de~.;arture and return flight schedules to enable city officials to attend conference programs and return to Minnesota between November 28 and December 4. Below please examine the flights on which space has been booked for LMC delegation reservations. By contacting the firm listed below, you will be able to secure early reservations and assure that you will be able to arrange your conference itinerary to permit attendance at conference sessions. It is important to note that the NLC Annual Business Meetin on 8~ Wednesda December 3, is the important part of the conference at which 1g~7 NLC policies are adopted. Officials designated by their NLC direct member city as voting delegates should plan to remain at the annual meeting until adjournment. In those instances, it may be advisable to plan departure for Thursday, December 4, to assure that voting privileges are effectively exercised throughout the policy adoption session (which may extend into mid-afternoon on December 3). Tne NLC Annual Banquet is also scheduled that evening, and city officials often complete the conference at that point if they remain until Thursday morning. Programs at the conference are organized in four tracks or series of workshops dealing with partnerships, management, capacity, and people. Current schedule information indicates that these sessions • will be held Monday and Tuesday, December 1 and 2, following the meetings of NLC steering and policy committees on Sunday, November 30. 1 88 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 [81 2l 227-5800 s ' ~~j~ Refer to the enclosed brochure for more information.MATION .FLIGHT DEPARTURES/RETURNS AND RESERVATION INFORMATION Friday, November 28 11:53 a.m. Mpls/St Paul - Dallas/Ft. Worth AMERICAN 4546 arrival Dallas/Ft. Worth: 2:10 p.m. lunch/non-stop departure Dallas/Ft. Worth AMERICAN ~~281 at 2:49 p.m. ARRIVAL SAN ANTONIO at 3:52 p.m. .non-stop or 4:45 p.m. Mpls/St Paul - San Antonio CONTINENTAL 4237 arrival SAN ANTONIO at 9:00 p.m. dinnerlone stop Saturday, November 29 8:00 a.m. Mpls/St Paul - Dallas/Ft. Worth AMERICAN ~~541 arrival Dallas/Ft. Worth: 10:27 a.m. breakfast/non-stop departure Dallas/Ft. Worth AMERICAN 4531 at 11:12 a.m. _ ARRIVAL SAN ANTONIO at 12:14 p.m. non-stop • or 11:53 a.m. Mpls/St Paul - Dallas/Ft. Worth AMERICAN ~E546 arrival Dallas/Ft. Worth: 2:10 p.m. lunch/non-stop departure Dallas/Ft. Worth AMERICAN 4281 at 2:49 p.m. ARRIVAL SAN ANTONIO at 3:52 p.m. non-stop Wednesday, December 3 12:05 p.m. San Antonio - Mpls/St Paul CONTINENTAL ~~236 ARRIVAL MPLS/ST PAUL: 4:05 p.m. lunch/one stop or 5:05 p.m. San Antonio - Houston CONTINENTAL ~~142 arrival Houston: 5:55 p.m. non-stop departure Houston CONTINENTAL #232 at 6:55 p.m. ARRIVAL MPLS/ST PAUL: 9:25 p.m. non-stop Thursday, December 4 9:16 a.m. San Antonio - Dallas/Ft. Worth AMERICAN ~~289 arrival Dallas/Ft. Worth: 10:18 a.m. non-stop departure Dallas/Ft. Worth AMERICAN 4629 at 11:15 a.m. ARRIVAL MPLS/ST PAUL: 1:21 p.m. lunch/non-stop or • 12:05 p.m. San Antonio - MPLS/ST PAUL CONTINENTAL 4236 ARRIVAL MPLS/ST PAUL: 4:05 p.m. lunch/one stop PLEASE CONTACT CINDY ARENDTS AT INTERNATIONAL TOURS AT (612) 291-7500 TO MAKE RESERVATIONS. PLEASE NOTE THAT RESERVATIONS MUST BE MADE 45 DAYS PRIOR TO DEPARTURE AND PAYMENT MUST BE REMITTED AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO DEPARTURE. (OCTOBER 13: RESERVATION DEADLINE; OCTOBER 28: DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT) Rates available now range from $198 - $268 per person round trip, limited availability. Lower rates available for early reservation and ticketing. .Call Cindy Arendts for details. PENALTY FOR CHANGES OR CANCELLATIONS IS 50 PERCENT. PAYMENTS MAY BE SENT TO CINDY ARENDTS INTERNATIONAL TOURS _ 203 SKYWAY LEVEL AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING ST. PAUL, MN 55101 • F ANT~N~~ San Antonio is a city of in- triguing-and surprising- )st Clty for the contrasts and one of the '86 Congress of Cities most exciting cities of the Southwest. I~ ~I / V Iii , ~,.u1? e metropolitan area is home to • re than a million people and the banks. The headwaters of San nmercial threshold to Mexico -s~ Pedro Creek became the second i South America. It is a city oldest munici al ark in the United It on the traditions of many cut- : ~ - States; only the Boston Common 'es; more than half the city's is older. Today, the reaches of ~ulation have Spanish surnames,- •~:i~:•.~~::~: ~~t/ the San Antonio River above the letting the significance of the r ~ ~ ~ city are home to the San Antonio >ximity of the national border. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Zoo and Brackenridge Park, the 1 Antonio today is a city with ~.~''A'~M~~'~~~~ ~ s city's largest inner city park. ,at ambition, and local leaders ceconom dbased tithe needs '••~~~~~'~M ~ Four of the missions of early San g Y ~ _ Antonio are active Catholic parish :he next century. Between churches today. During Fiesta or 70 and 1984, San Antonio grew ~ on feast days, they are filled with 8 percent while maintaining the the descendants of their earliest Nest cost of living of all major The first settlement was the The new community was estab- parish members. The Mariachi • xas cities. Nineteen major na- Presidio de Bexar, the Spanish fished around two plazas, Plaza de Mass at Mission San Jose remains :gal corporations maintain their military presence. Today San An- Armas and Main Plaza. Plaza de one of the most frequently cited idquarters in San Antonio; tonio, the birthplace of military Armas, or Military Plaza, is the events of San Antonio's cultural ong the largest employers in aviation, is home to five major site of the Spanish Governor's traditions. The mission nearest i Antonio are advanced technol- military installations. In its military Palace and San Antonio's City the Villa de Bexar was the mission corporations. hospital and research facilities, Hall. Main Plaza, or Plaza de Islas San Antonio De Valero, now fa- San Antonio is influenced by the Canarias, is the site of the first mous as the Alamo. S oruo remains aprod- great medical progress being parish church, known today as San of it eritage. The cultural in- made within its own borders. Fernando Cathedral (where the San Antonio's history will unfold to once of the Spanish Empire is ashes of the heroes of the Alamo anyone who visits the San Antonio Mound. The churches, fortifica- The Villa de Bexar, the civilian .are entombed), and the 19th Cen- River, the Missions or La Villita, ~s, acequuu, granaries and mili- settlement, was established at the tury Bexar County Courthouse. where soldiers from the Presidio y barracks that delight the visi- same time as the Presidio, but or- The life of the villager was not un- settled with their Indian wives. contain the seed of a way of ganized civilian settlement did not like the life of many Mexican vil- From the Governor's Palace to that is embodied in the mod- begin until 1731 with the arrival of lagers, and two favorite traditions the Alamo, San Antonio has much i San Antonio. settlers from the Canary Islands. continue to this day: Las Posadas to offer everyone. Each genera- and Los Pastores, a medieval tion that came to San Antonio left ~ Antonio was established in ~ #3 ~ Spanish miracle play that sur- its mark, and it is from the• blend- 18 where the flat coastal plain j' eves in the folkloric traditions ing of cultures that San Antonio ets the hills. The settlement ~ of San Antonio's inner city draws its strength. As you visit ~n was the crossroads of the ~ ~ neighborhoods. our city, you will find the unique- jor Spanish roads that trav- ~ ness we draw from each of our red the northernmost depen- j The San Antonio River provided forefathers. We are a city that has icia of Mexico. Today, San An- water for the five missions that learned to build, work and play o is the transportation center ~ , ~t• I were to be established along its together. South Texas. I• } ~ . 't~ ~ 1, w t~ t ~~i e ~ ~ i - R. 1 - t ~1 \t _ S " r "tea. • ~4~-e{ wIF fr"7d~~ h t1~ E - L.~ C ~ ~ • .i- - e ~ i.~ 114 Polic ~evelo ment Activities General Sessions Win Two Tickefs Y P Sunday's main business is the meeting of the The purpose of the general sessions at the Con- A special drawing will be held from the name standing policy committees. During the year, the gress of Cities is to give the city official a national all attendees who travel to the conference or 35-member steering committees of NLC's 5ve perspective on local issues. At the Monday morn- ticket purchased from Conference Travel Ce; standing policy committees-Finance, Administra- ing general session, the Tuesday luncheons and The winner will receive two free round trip t lion and Intergovernmental Relations; Energy, the Wednesday morning general session, speakers ets to the city of the recipient's choice in the onment and Natural Resources; Transports- of national reputation address the delegates on tinental U. S. CTC reserves the right to sele~ d Communications; Human Development; current urban issues. carrier. The tickets can be used anytime wit' Community and Economic Development- the 12 months following the Conference. have debated possible changes to the National Municipal Policy. At the Congress of Cities, the full standing committees meet in business ses- Constituency Group Meetings signs at which the .consider recommendations for Some of the special interest groups that will be POSt Conference Study Tour Y n me in n other activities co ducting busutess et gs a d policy changes. The meetings are open to anyone during the Congress of Cities include the Small A MexiCO registered for the Congress of Cities, although post-Congress of Cities trip to Mexico hay only policy committee members may vote. Cities Council (SCC), National Black Caucus of organized by the NLC Conference Travel Ce Local Elected Officials (NBC/LEO), Women in from December 4 to December 13. The prig Policy committee recommendations are sent to Municipal Government (WIMG), Hispanic Local the study tour is $550 per person, plus air fa the Resolutions Committee which. in turn creates Elected Officials (HELD), Asian Pacific American based on double occupancy, and includes thr~ Munici al Officials (APAMO), Mayors' Executive a composite slate of proposed changes for the del- P ntghts hotel accommodattons to Mextco Cit egates to act on at Wednesday's annual business Staff, and University Communities Caucus. nights hotel accommodations in Puerto Vallai meeting. meals; round trip transfers, maid service, po baggage handling and special meetings with The voting membership adopts the National Mu- State Municipal League Meetings ico City Council officials. Call the NLC Confe nicipal Policy and elects the League's officers and Many state municipal leagues hold meetings and Travel Center at (800) 368-3239 for more in' new members of the Board of Directors at the receptions for their delegates attending the Con- mation and for specific quotes on air fares frc Wednesday business meeting. gress of Cities. For information on the time and Your home city. While all delegates to the Con~-ess of Cities may Place of any meeting planned for your state dele- gation, consult your state league executive attend the business meeting, only the official vot- director. To Make Your Planning and You ing representatives of direct member cities and member state municipal leagues have floor privi- Stay In San Antonio More leges, may speak on issues, and may vote at the Pleasurable-A Few Helpful Hin business meeting. Each member state municipal Guaranteed Lowest Air Fares Remember that the Thanksgiving weekend tl league is entitled to cast 20 votes, and each direct The NLC Conference Travel Center guarantees coincides with the Congress of Cities is one. member city may cast from 1 to 20 votes, based to book you on the lowest available air fare at the year's most active weekends at major city air o the city's size. To cast those votes, the city time of reservations. This air fare may be a re- ports. Unless you make your plans early an designate a city official as its voting stricted published discount or an unpublished un- to them, you may find too late that you don't gate. restricted special negotiated fare, whichever best plane reservations that coincide with your h~ suits your travel needs. Air fare discounts could reservation. Changes in your reservations r?: If you would like more information on how to in- range from 5% off Ultra Saver with restrictions to not be possible. troduce policy proposals for consideration at the the unpublished unrestricted negotiated fare of _ 30% or more off coach. These fares are available Con ess of Cities write to William E. Davis Di > sector, Office of Policy Analysis and Develop- exclusively through NLC Conference Travel Cen- ment, National League of Cities, 1301 Pennsylva- ter at toll-free (800) 368-3239. Residents of nia_Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20004. Alaska, Hawaii and Virginia call collect at (703) 471-0460. ~ k-r~.,;,'"'~''3 To Avoid Problems: 1. Register for the conference now so that can make your hotel reservations. NLC will make hotel reservations for you unless you 1 i'~} re 'stered for the Con ess f Ci - ~ gt gr o Ues. a . 2. Don't change your plans. If you changer ti~ I arrival date, the hotel may not be able to acc modate you with a room. And arrive when say you will; otherwise the hotel will release room and retain your deposit. ' ~ ~ 3. Make your airline reservation now. Call t; ~ + ~ t ~ NLC Conference Travel Center toll-free at i r ; ~ ~ 368-3239; residents of Alaska, Hawaii and Vi e ti • ~ may call collect at (703) 471-0460. •M { I 4. Most important of all: Guarantee your hit v 4 . room by credit card, or by sending the hotel posit as soon as you receive your confirmatit ( from the hotel. - ~ ' ~ ~ ~ - The First Key: The Third Key: ~ ~ ~ ! You're not on your own. Partnership and coopers- To go ahead with your future, your city must b - lion will play a key role in your community's fu- able to act and to grow. It needs the legal auth~ tore, and state governments, other local govern- ity, the political strength, the promotional abiht~ .,r ments, private industry, and community and civic as well as the financial resources, to govern any ~ organizations make valuable and dependable to deliver services. partners. These workshops will show you how to build of ~ These workshops will equip you to create the as well as build up-your city's capacity to mak k partnerships that will sustain your city in the decisions and put them into action. future. Workshops Workshops What Tax Reform Has Done to Municipal Bond Working With The Feds Tax Reform and Your City Ganging Up on Crime Attracting Travellers' Dollars ~ L~ . Sharing Services and Resources ~ Protecting Your City from Lawsuits ~ ~ Working with the State Government Insuring Against Insurance Problems Private Resources for Public Purposes The Supreme Court and Your City Is Economic. Development Right for. Your City? ~ Capitalizing on City Assets Bienvenidos Amigos! Working with Local Schools Give Your City a Raise Ethical Dilemmas in Public-Private. Partnerships Fifteen Ways to Raise Money (That You Never It is my pleasure to invite the membership Negotiating a Development Deal Thought Possible) ~ of the. National League of Cities to join us in Housing Partnerships Your City's Role in World Trade San Antonio for the. 1986 Congress of Cit- Public Transportation: Future Options Suburban Cities: Surviving and Thriving in the ies San Antonio is preparing a very special Shadow welcome for the NLC delegates who will be Your City's Infrastructure: AReport Card traveling to San Antonio for the Congress, November 29-December 3, 1986. There will be so much to be done. The ~bership is facing some of the most crit- issues our generation of leaders has had to face-providing adequate-police and 5re protection for our communities and proper The Second Key: The Fourth Key: health care for indigent persons, controlling escalating insurance costs and maintaining a ~ °s`°'~ ~`t ~ ~ ~ - beautiful and healthy environment-coupled a _ ~.~k~~ ~ ~ __m.:~ - , n,., ~ with the prospect of a reduced federal com- , mitment to solving domestic problems. This Today s management techniques can make your People are among the most valuable assets of year, the Congress of Cities will meet to city government more productive, more efficient, city, and the investments you make in human c. det~,.,,:..e the course of action for our com- and more effective. ital-in education, health services, family life, munities, large and small. We will share in- food, and shelter-are investments in your cite' novations and strategies that will insure that These workshops will bring you up-to-date on future. our cities remain the economic centers of techniques for managing everything from your our nation and meet the challenge of the , own time to your city's paperwork. These workshops will show you how your cite i, provide for the needs of its residents and for it> late 1980 s. Workshops own future. This wfil be done in my city, San Antonio. Time Management ~I Small Computers Can Do Big Jobs ~ Workshops The city is very proud to be hosting this Shaping Your City's Future ~ Employing the Hard to Employ meeting and wants everyone to come to Managing Your City: Making Ends Meet Education for Your City's Future San Antonio-first, to impact the direction Contracting Out Aiding the Victims of Crime of the National League of Cities, and sec- ondly, to savor the sights and sounds, Managing Growth Health Services in Small Cities tastes and excitement of the many cultures New Applications for Cable Television Why You Should Worry if Your City Can't Read that contributed to San Antonio. Come for Marketing Strategies: Finding Out What Public Housing, Public Amenity ' the queso flameado y fajitas, the entertain- Residents Think Feeding the Hungry, Sheltering the Homeless ment of Mariachis on the RiverWalk, mar- Technologies to Help Your City Grow Stronger Immigration and Your City garitas and the shopping in El Mercado. What Do You Do When the Worst Happens? Cities of Many Cultures Come for the time of your life!.. CounciUManager Relations Who Would Want to Live in Your City? Employee Rights, Municipal Responsibility Regulating Vice in Your Community us in Texas' most exciting city-San nio! :.Sincerely; -Henry. G. Cisneros Mayor Indicates sessions of special interest to small city. officials. • - ~ PRE-CONFERENCE SEMINARS AND SPECIAL EVENTS Pre-Conference Seminars Telecommunications Management LOGIN Seminar Shaping a New Influence The LOGIN (Local Government Information Net- Sat ay, November 29 Telecommunications is influencing the perform- work) display will be open during the conference P Leaders Seminar ante of local governments now more than ever, registration hours. It will show you how you can ' as telephones, computers, satellite technology, save time and money by quickly finding solutions Improving Council Effectiveness and cable television play a role in the management to local government problems, and will also show As the federal system continues to shift responsi- of our cities. you special NLC services available on LOGIN. bilities to local governments, and as the resources Special training will be available for LOGIN users available to cities to meet these responsibilities This one day workshop will provide a regulatory who want to learn how to use the service to its become increasingly scarce, policy leaders are update on legal issues challenging cities authority fullest. recognizing the importance of generating more ef- to levy franchise fees, while providing guidelines fective methods of policy making, problem solving for cities during transfer of cable ownership pro- and program monitoring, and of communicating. ceedings or franchise modifications. It will also ex- more effectively with each other and the public. amine how city productivity can be improved Police Consultation Service If you need specialized assistance on police prob- through new telecommunications technology, iems that may be troubling your community, This all-day seminar is designed to provide policy highlighting economic development applications for NLC's Police Consultation Service will be availablE leaders with the tools and skills necessary to city infrastructure. carry out the functions of their public office. at your convenience during the Congress of Cit- Among the issues to be examined will be: council A separate registration fee of $75 will be charged ies. A meeting room has been set aside for confi- policy making and goal setting, effective use of for this seminar. dential individual consultations with Tom Crockett. staff resources, conflict management and consen- Director of the Police Consultation Service. The sus building on the council, communicating with service will be available throughout the the public, and the policy leader's role in evaluat- conference. ing city programs and services. A separate regis- Economic Development Seminar: tration fee of $75 will be charged for this seminar. Negotiating a Development Deal One of the keys to maintaining or expanding a 1986 Exposition n city's economic base, creating jobs and building a This year's Congress of Cities and Exposition is Financial Management Seminar ~ base is the local officials' ability to increase the expected to be one of the largest ever, with the amount of private investment in the community. A exhibits on display Sunday through Tuesday as an Today s economic climate demands tight manage- successful economic develo ment a roach ma ment if cities are to avoid 5sca1 calamity. For city p pp Y integral partP f the cog erence. More than 150 policy leaders, this means mastering some basic rely heavily on private sector decisions while rec- exhibitors, s onsorin more than 260 booths, are financial management concepts in order to effec- ognizing the need for influence and support for expected to display products and services for the tiv~e and account for city resources. these decisions from the public sector. maintenance and management of municipal gov- ernment and municipal services. Exhibits will in- This all-day seminar will give local officials the This all-day seminar will focus on the art and sci- clude airport management services, hospital man- tools to understand and participate in the fmancial ence of negotiating a development deal. The sci- agement systems, fire equipment, computer management game. Workshop sessions will tell ence lies in knowing the fmancial tools, the legal hardware service and software, waste manage- you about the latest in tax-exempt and taxable Processes and the other technicalities of the de- ment equipment, and manufactured housing. Don't bond options; how to develop cash management velopment business. The art lies in your ability to miss them. strategies for investing idle funds; how to improve p~ the deal off-to know what personal skills are needed and which political strategies will lead to your.city s bond rating, and when, and with what the desired results of a stronger local economy. A ~ ~_J r _ st" package, to go to market. The seminar will also separate registration fee of $75 will be charged tell you what to look for in your budget and finan- for this seminar. cial statements and help you ask your auditor the right questions. A separate registration fee of $75 will be charged for this seminar. • q. M ~ t ~ i ~ ` ~ ' 3~.~ ~ . Saturday, No~ei r 29 ~-~y, ~.r ~ ~ . 4 > . - - .8:00 a.in.-6:00 m."' ~ Re ~l.a on P {;k.;: ~ b LO Seminar: Special Events 9:00 a.m 5:00 p m ` ~ Pre-Con. ..~e Se Polic Leaders Emerging Electorate y < . , ~ f s all-day seminar sponsored by NLC's Hispanic Women in Municipal Government Finanaal Management -~s~-1 _ Elected Local Officials (HELD) caucus will review NLC's Women in Municipal Government (WIMG) Hispanic Elected Local Officials _ will kick off this year's Congress of Cities with a ~ Tele.,,,..,.a.,mications{~ ~ ~ . the role of the Hispanic community as an electo- s ecial reconference luncheon, includin an ad- rate, as well as those concerns which are at the p p g Economic Development z~~,h forefront of the community. Workshop topics will dress by a nationally.known speaker, for its mem- National Black Caucus of Local Elected OfSc include citizenship and immigration; voter educa- bers and friends. A separate registration fee of 12 00 -noon 2:00 p ma~~~Women m M funicp~- lion; the 1990 Census; and economic develop- $20 will be charged for the WIMG luncheon. G...:.......ent Lich ment. In commemoration of its 10th year anniver- (These pre-conj , seminars and the W1111~ sary, activities will begin with coffee and pan =luncheon require a separate registration fee) - . F dulce at the Centro de Artes at the Market National Black Caucus of Local ~ . - r Square and end with a reception at the end of the ~ Elected Officials day. A separate registration fee of $75 will be The National Black Caucus of Local Elected Offi- Sunday, N , . ber 30~ a~, charged for this seminar. cials (NBC/LEO) will hold a full day of pre-confer- 8'00 am -6:00 p. m` Registratto' ence workshops on a variety of issues. A separate 00 a '-4 00 registration fee of $100 (advance) and $125 (on- ~ P - ~ ,.>i site), which includes a luncheon with a guest a'~-~'~ pO~-~o speaker, will be charged for the NBC/LEO ~ - - program. 430 p. "-6.00 p." ce,~~ F. _,6:34 p: ~ . _ ti~ LINUS Demonstration _ LINUS, the joint electronic messaging service of- Monday, Dom:: beck ~ fered by NLC and ICMA, will be demonstrated AG throughout the Congress of Cities. Come and see 8 ~ a=II'-5 ~ P-wRP ' ati~. how rapidly this service can bring you information 9:00 a;m 10 30 am." Opening General Sr on the latest happenings in Washington, and other " special services from NLC and ICMA. 10'`15 a.m 12:00 noon ~~onci'. ~...i "I~ey" v- Theme S~essro~~.:: _ 11.00 a.m-5:00 p m=`~`~ E.y;,,aLon Open'" 12:00 noon-1:15 p m.,'I,unch in t'he Extnbi~ 1 00 pm-4:00 p m Resolutions Commit Meeting t, ~ . 130. p. m 3.15 p m ~ iii.,. Concurrent ,Woiksh _ 3:30 p.m-5:00 p m. Con.,,...~~.~ Works:~~ _ , . y 400 p.m-5:00 p m.~`~3~Nominating C. ~ t' _ . _ , _ _ eating . ~ ~4 « - -'Tuesday; December 3 ~ iA ~ - 8 00 a m~ 5 00'p Registry - r ~ 00 - °a0 ~;`t~- ` na......~h"Key" - e SessEOns - : '~9~ a_~n. 12 00 ~ ~ xposit~on Ope w - A~ _ ~ .;1/ - - _ ? _ 0 45 a: ~ 1215 p.~ . Corici.. it ~ork§h~ ' 12 30 p m 2.00 p m:. Delegates~~ ,1:~ - ~ 30 p_.m-4 00'~'p m Cond.. Worksht. "J~ ~ A J~ ~3 00 p m OO p m < Speaal Workshops. , -r t ~ ~ ,-s~~ r,~ .Mart, To Wednesda .December 3 y~ ' ' 8.30 a. m. 12:00 noon i Registration ~ , - 9.00 a.m, 10.30 a.m~ Closing General Ses~ 10.30 a:m Afternoon ' Annual Bum , ;~5 Me, 7.00 pm'~~'" Annual Banque :~-'t _r . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA - Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 273 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Property/Casualty Insurance Program Modification Council Members: During the January, 1986 insurance renewal process, the City Manager recommended to the City Council that the insurance coverages for 1986 be placed with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). In conjunction with placement of that program with the League, it was also recommended that the city look into the establishment of a Tort Liability Insurance Account which would enable the city to strive towards greater self- insurance of risk exposures. To that end, in May of 1986, the Acting City Manager presented a series of proposed modifications to the city's insurance program which were to be presented to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for their reaction. Those proposed insurance modifications contained in the attached Council Letter No. 194, were the result of an extensive review by the city's auditor, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells. As Council Members may recall, the auditor was engaged to assist the city in reviewing the entire insurance program of the city to help determine appropriate fund levels for the self-insurance fund currently established, and for the proposed tort liability account. During the past month, the LMCIT has reviewed modifications proposed to them by the City of Richfield. The city with the assistance of the auditors, has been in contact with the League to attempt to formulate an appropriate insurance package covering those modifications. On June 26, after an extensive inspection of city facilities and consideration by the League underwriters, a modified insurance proposal was presented to the City of Richfield. The letter which is attached indicates that the League would propose to rewrite the city's property and casualty . coverages for a period which would be retroactive to July 1, 1986. In addition to rewriting those coverages and requoting the insurance premiums, the reserve assessment, a onetime payment of $28,733, which was paid on the inception of the League's insurance coverages, would also be modified on a pro-rata return basis. LMCIT Proposed New Coverages The basic provisions of the modified coverage would be as follows: '~i i -The deductible per occurrence portion of property,(currently $10,000) inland marine,(currently $5,000) aut omobile physical damage, (currently $1,000) and crime ~ coverage,(currently $10,000) would be increased to $25,000 per occurrence; -The per occurrence deductible portion of general liability (currently $5,000) and public officials E & 0 coverages except I, for water slides, and first dollar coverage for automobile liability, uninsured motorist, underinsured motorists, personal injury protection, would be increased to $50,000 each occurrence. In addition, the two city water slides, one which is located at Fairwood Monroe Park and the second which is located at Memorial Park directly behind city hall, were identified by the League as unique risks which the League did not feel comfortable in providing coverage for. However, insurance coverage for the water slides was offered in the proposal under the following conditions: -if the water slides continue to operate as they are now under current design and unsupervised, the city would be required to assume the first $200,000 of any loss for each occurrence; -if the-water slides were to be redesigned, fenced in, and were to be supervised at all times they were in use, the city would assume the first $100,000 of loss for the city would assume the first $100,000 of loss for each occurrence. One final component of the deductible provisions provided in the proposal is that the city would be subject to an annual aggregate deductible of $300,000. Under that provision once the city has incurred $300,000 of deductible losses in one year, the deductible for each of the exposures listed would revert to a maintenance deductible of $1,000 per occurrence.. Thus, the city's loss in any one year for deductible would pretty much be limited to $300,000. Finally, the LMCIT ended its proposal by saying that it really did not feel that it wanted to be involved in issuing insurance coverage for the water slides because they felt that the City of Richfield had a unique play feature in the water slides. Therefore, the LMCIT they felt that their financial exposure should be limited since other cities do not have a similar exposure. In addition, the LMCIT has indicated that if the city would dismantle the slides an additional $7,500 of • premium savings would be realized. Unlike the BMX track which was previously cited by LMCIT as a serious potential liability, and subsequently dismantled, the water slides are used by quite a few youngsters during the course of the summer. Thus, many more individuals would be affected by the dismantling of the water slides than were affected by the dismantling of the BMX track. However, even if the water slides were redesigned, fenced and supervised, the city would still assume a very significant risk by having a $100,000 deductible on any claims relating to the water slides. From a risk management perspective the exposure is a very serious one which could have serious implications for the self-insured portion of our risk management program. .During the course of the past several years the city has received a number of injury claims for the water slide at Fairwood Monroe Park. At the present time the water is turned off at both water slides, thus rendering them inoperable unless, of course, someone would bucket water to the slides. Premium Considerations When the city acquired coverage from LMCIT for the period commencing January 1, 1986, the total. premium paid for the property/casualty package, including the one time reserve assessment, was roughly $323,000. The proposal received from the LMCIT for a revised insurance program, provides for a policy which would become effective retroactive to July 1, 1986 for a one year premium of $228,000 ($7,500 less if there were no water slides included). The $28,733 that was paid for the onetime assessment• would also be reviewed and a portion of that reserve assessment would be returned to the city on a pro-rata basis. Perhaps $5,000 or $6,000 of the original reserve assessment would be returned to the city. Thus, in terms of a premium comparison, the city is looking at a premium reduction of $66,000 on an annual basis, plus another $5,000 reserve refund. For 1986, that .would roughly equate to a $33,000 savings in premium plus another $5,000 in returned reserve assessment. The premium savings plus returned reserve assessment should be placed in the tort liability account once it is created to serve as a funding source to build up the fund. That tort liability account would provide the city with a fund to pay out the cost of claims which come within the deductible amount. In addition, the Acting City Manager is also pursuing alternative coverage for liquor liability insurance and other specialty coverages. It is possible that the city may find another liquor liability provider which has just recently entered the market and which provide the city with some savings in liquor liability insurance. Summary . ~ y- In summary, what the city is being presented with at this juncture is the opportunity to further expand the self-insurance philosophy that has been targeted by the city staff and city council for the past few years. The assumption of the deductible schedules offered by the League, is a major step toward self- insurance.. .While the-city-does place itself at greater risk in paying first dollar claims under the deductible level, the city also attains greater premium savings and provides the city with the opportunity to have. more control over annual insurance costs. Of course, hand in hand with any type of reduced premium and greater risk assumption is the: necessity to provide a funding mechanism to pay out the claims which might occur in this .deductible level. At a future city council meeting in July or ' August, the Acting City Manager will present the city council with a tort liability self-insurance account resolution with recommended funding levels and sources. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council authorize the Acting City Manager to convert the current insurance program to .the alternative coverage proposed by~the LMCIT. With respect to the water slides, the city council may wish to take a period of time to consider the alternatives for a final decision.-.The city staff could take further steps to prevent the use of the water slides on a temporary basis before ultimately deciding on dismantling or reopening the water slides.. ' Respe t-fully submitted, teven L. vi h Acting City Manager cc: Personnel Manager ~ s 1 4g CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 272 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: May 30, 1986, Management Letter in Connection with Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 1985 Council Members: The May 30, 1986, Management Letter submitted to the writer by our independent municipal auditors offers for review their observations and recommendations on certain internal control weaknesses. This letter also makes suggestions for changes in procedures which would strengthen internal control or contribute to the improvement of operating efficiency. This Council Letter identifies each of the observations made by the auditors, and presents the City administrations response to the observation. 1. Observation: The Payroll Clerk has incompatible duties as her responsibilities include determining employee payroll, updating the payroll master cards, signing payroll checks, distributing payroll checks, handling employee inquiries regarding gross pay and withholding. These combination of duties could allow the Payroll Clerk to alter individuals paychecks or to add fictitious employees and then process the checks. Recommendation: The auditor recommends that the responsibilities of assigning and distributing payroll checks be given to an employee other than the Payroll Clerk. City Response: The City has assigned another employee to sign payroll checks and to monitor the distribution of such checks. 2. Observation: The City does not employ dual custody and dual operation of the check signing machine. Recommendation: The City employ dual custody and operation of the check signing. equipment. One employee should operate the machine while the other records the check numbers processed for signature. • City Response: The City has now employed dual custody and operation of check signing equipment. s5 ~ ~ 3. Observation: During a review of receipts for utility . billings, the auditors observed that checks received by the City are not .stamped "For Deposit Only" prior to being forwarded to the Utility Clerk. Recommendation: That utility billings received by the Switchboard Operator be stamped "For Deposit Only" prior to routing them to the Utility Clerk. City Response: The City now brings all .utility billings received directly to a clerk that marks them "For Deposit Only". 4. Observation: The Minnesota Legislature recently passed laws in 1986 relating to Police and Fire Relief Associations, which make significant modifications to those boards. Recommendation: It is suggested the City carefully study the complex legislation, and provide for reorganization of duties as may be appropriate. City Response: The City is reviewing this matter in conjunction with the City Attorney's office, and a resolution will be forwarded to the City Council to modify membership on the Police and Fire Relief Associations at a future date. 5. Observation: In auditing the investment balances, it was • noted the investment activity is recorded manually. As a result, a substantial amount of time is required to consistently maintain accurate and reliable investment records. Recommendation: It was recommended that the City automate the investment recording operation by designing or purchasing computer software which will perform the necessary functions. Once that is complete, updating and maintenance of investment records be performed on the automated system. City Response: The City is looking into such software on the new Burroughs computer system, and would look for an early 1987 implementation. 6. Observation: The City had invested approximately 99.39K of its' idle cash as of December 31, 1985. Recommendation: Continue the current procedure implemented to determine those investments that are most appropriate, secure, and conform with State law. City Response: The auditor has indicated to the City that the Finance Manager has done an excellent job in terms of investments. The investment policy of the City states the City would invest 98~ of its idle cash on a continuous basis. At 99.3 invested,. the City is consistently exceeding the • performance standard of its policy. . ss~-_.3 7. Observation: Presently there are insufficient controls in • place to assure that all liquor store sales are being processed properly through the cash registers. Recommendation: That signs be posted on the cash registers at the liquor stores indicating that "You will receive $10 if we fail to give you a receipt". By posting such signs, the customer. ~ will serve as a control that all sales are being keyed into the cash register. City Response: The City is looking into procedures and signage which will assure that customers all receive a cash register receipt. This will be implemented during 1986. 8. Observation: That the City has established a formal code of ethics policy. Recommendation: Auditors recommend that the City adopt a process by which Department Heads would sign an annual confirmation that they have read the City's policy, and they are not aware of any violations of the policy. Such confirmations would then be filed with the City Manager. City Response: The writer concurs that such a annual confirmation statement would be a valuable part of the code of ethics policy, and will seek the implementation of such a • confirmation notice immediately. 9. Observation: In review of transactions of the .Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, the auditor noted that the City's estimated payments during the year have exceeded the actual expense computed at year-end by $166,000. Recommendation. The auditor recommended the Cit communicate Y with MWCC in an effort to compute estimated monthly payments that will more closely equal actual charges so as to reduce or eliminate the overpayments. City Response: The City will contact MWCC to establish a more accurate monthly charge system, so that the City can retain the funds as long as possible to be included in the City's investment portfolio. 10. Observation: The City currently records General Fund expenditures for unused vacation, personal leave and compensatory time when paid, rather than when it is earned. The City has acknowledged this obligation to its employees by designating a fund balance of $536,800 as of December 31, 1985. Recommendation: The City should consider implementing an Employee Benefits Fund. .City Response: Prior to year-end 1985, the City did not designate a specific portion of fund balance for accrued I ~ss ~ benefits. This was done during the 1985 fiscal year, and is an • 'acceptable method of recognizing such liability. However, City Finance Mana er and the writer will ex lore the feasibilit of Y 9 P establishing an Employee Benefits Fund and report back to the City Council on this matter at a later date. 11. Observation: The auditor noted that the City has not established a formal capitalization and depreciation policy. Recommendation: The auditor recommends that the City consider adopting a formal capitalization and depreciation policy, and that policy would consider the guidelines for capitalization of property expenditures and termination of useful life of depreciable property. CitX Response: The City will formally compile such a capitalization and depreciation policy, and indicate a minimum value of a fixed asset and the appropriate useful life formulas for calculating depreciation. 12. Observation: During the review of the water utility operation, the auditor noted that the City collected a deposit on all commercial and residential water meters. As of December 31, 1985, those deposits totalled $525,000. Recommendation: Insofar as the City received these deposits upon. • installation of the original water meter, and that over the past year the City has replaced many of the original meters which have worn out, and that water meters are very seldom, if ever, returned, it would appear that the funds collected will not be refunded, and would be more properly classified as contributed capital instead of liability. It is recommended that the City consider adopting a resolution whereby the amount of the water meter deposits be considered to contributed capital of the Water Utility Fund. City Response: The City will approach the City Council at a future meeting to discuss this item. 13. Observation: The results from operations of the Ice Arena and Swimming Pool are currently being recorded in the General Fund. -Due to this, the net income or loss from operations is covered by the General Fund and depreciation expenses for the building and equipment is not charged against the operation. Recommendation: The auditor recommends the City consider reclassifying the Ice Arena and Swimming Pool as Enterprise Funds. Also, a review of the current user fees should be performed in an effort to determine if the fees being charged are consistent with the cost of services being provided. (From the auditors experience in other governmental units, it is not • unusual for Ice Arenas and Swimming Pools to have a net loss after depreciation, however, an attempt is made in setting fees to at .least achieve a positive earnings before depreciation with . S 5 =j respect to the City's operations). In 1984 and 1985, both the Swimming Pool and Ice Arena showed net losses before considering depreciation. City Response: The City staff will analyze the possibility of converting these two General Funds to an Enterprise Fund, and discuss this matter with the City Council at a later date. 14. Observation: The physical inventory of the Liquor Operation at year-end and other tests performed on inventory balance noted only minor variations. Recommendation: The auditor congratulates the City on the improvements in this area, and. anticipates similar results in the future. 15. Observation:- The City depositories have not been instructed not to cash checks made payable to the City. Recommendation: In order to improve internal control over cash, the auditor recommends that the City instruct its depositories not to cash checks made payable to the City. City Response: The City has taken such action. 16. Observation: -The City does not maintain a numerical log of • business or non-business licenses sold. Recommendation: In order to maintain control over the sale of licenses, the auditor recommends the City obtain pre-numbered licenses. This would allow the City to account for all licenses issued and un-issued. i City Response: The City currently has an inventory of licenses, however, City staff will take this item into consideration before purchasing additional licenses. 17. Observation: The City does not perform annual or cyclical physical observations of assets, including the General Fixed Asset Account group. Recommendation: The auditor recommends that the City adopt a policy whereby the assets, including the General Fixed Asset Account group, are physically observed on a periodic basis. City Response: The City staff will implement such a policy. SUMMARY In conclusion, the reader will note that several excellent observations have been made by the auditor. The City staff has taken action to rectify or change the situations noted in many of the observations, and is in the process of making other changes. in the near future. The writer would like to take this ~ opportunity on behalf of the entire City staff to thank the auditor for the very comprehensive and professional job done in the auditing of the City's financial records and related services. Resp c fully submitted, .,t en L. DC~ ch Acting City Manager SLD/eja cc: Program Directors Finance Mana er 9 I i. J~~~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 271 Agenda July 14,.1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Appointment of City Manager and Approval of Memorandum of Understanding With City Manager Council Members: Following the resignation of John G. Cartwright as Richfield City Manager in February, 1986, the City Council engaged the firm of Arthur Young to undertake the executive search for a City Manager. Four finalists were selected from among the applicants for extensive interviews with the city council and department directors. These interviews were held the weekends of June 28- 29, 1986 and July 11-12, 1986. An item to appoint a City Manager and to approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City Manager and the City of Richfield has been placed on the July 14, 1986 City Council agenda. The Memorandum of Understanding has been reviewed by the City Attorney and executive search consultation. Res tfully ubmitted, •~1.~ Devich Ac ing City Manager SD/eja r.' a /~I// /7 . Q / /'/1///V/ EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 14th day of July, 1986, by and between the City of Richfield, State of Minnesota, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Employer," as party of the first part, and , hereinafter called "Employee," as party of 'the second part, both of whom understand as follows: WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Employer desires to employ the services of said as City Manager of the City of Richfield, as provided by the Home Rule Charter of-the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Governing Board, hereinafter called "Council," to provide certain benefits, establish certain conditions of employment and to set working conditions of said Employee; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Council to (1) secure and retain the services of Employee and to provide inducement for him to remain in such employment, (2) to make possible full work productivity by assuring Employee's morale and peace of mind with respect to future security, (3) to act as a deterrent against malfeasance or dishonesty for personal gain on the part of Employee, and (4) to provide a just means for terminating Employee's services at such time as he may be unable to fully discharge his duties due to age or disability or when Employer may otherwise desire to terminate his employ; and WHEREAS, Employee desires to accept employment as City Manager of said City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Duties Employer hereby agrees to employ as City Manager of Richfield to perform the functions and duties specified in the Home Rule Charter of the City and the City Code, and to perform other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as the Council shall from time to time assign. Section 2. Term A. Nothing in this agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the Council to terminate the services of Employee at any time, subject only to the • provisions set forth in Section,3, paragraphs A and B, of this agreement. I II J c--~ B. Nothing in this agreement shall prevent, limit or • otherwise interfere with the right of the Employee to resign at any time from his position with Employer, subject only to the provision set forth in Section 3, paragraph C, of this agreement C. Employee agrees to remain in the exclusive employ of Employer until , 19_, and neither to accept other employment nor to become employed by any other employer until said termination date, unless said termination date is affected as hereinafter rovided. p The term "employed" shall not be construed to include occasional teaching, writing, consulting or military reserve service performed on employee's time off. Section 3. Termination and Severance Pay A. In the event the Employee is terminated by the Council before expiration of the aforesaid term of employment and during such time that Employee is willing and able to perform his duties under this agreement, then in that event Employer agrees to pay Employee a lump sum cash payment equal to three months aggregate salary; .provided however, that in the event Employee is terminated because of his conviction of an ille al act involvin Y 9 9 personal gain to him, then, in that event, Employer shall have no obligation to pay the aggregate severance sum designated in this paragraph. B. In the event Employer at any time during the term of this agreement reduces the salary or other financial benefits of Employee in a greater percentage than an applicable across-the- board reduction for all employees of Employer, or in the event Employer refuses, following written notice, to comply with any other provision benefiting Employee herein, or .the Employee resigns following a suggestion, whether formal or informal, by the Council that he resign, then, in that event, Employee may, at his option, be deemed to be "terminated" at the date of such reduction or such refusal to comply within the meaning and context of the herein severance pay provision. C. The Employee shall give Employer 45 days notice in advance, unless the parties otherwise agree to voluntary resignation. Section 4. Disability If Employee is permanently disabled or is otherwise unable to perform his duties because of sickness, accident injury, mental incapacity or health for a period of four successive weeks beyond any accrued personal leave, or for twenty working days over a thirty working day period, Employer shall have the option • to terminate this agreement, subject to the severance pay . requirements of Section 3, paragraph A. However, Employee shall be compensated for any accrued. personal leave, vacation, holidays, and other accrued benefits. Section 5. Salary Employer agrees to pay Employee for his services rendered pursuant hereto an annual base salary of payable in installments at the same time as other employees of the Employer are .paid. In addition, Employer agrees to increase said- base salary and/or other benefits of Employee in such amounts and to such extent as the Council may determine that it is desirable to do so on the basis of an annual salary review of said Employee made at the same time as similar consideration is given other employees generally. Section 6. Performance Evaluation A. The Council shall review and evaluate the performance of the Employee at least once annually. Said review and evaluation shall be in accordance with specific criteria developed jointly. by Employer and Employee. 'Said criteria may be added to or deleted from as the Council may from time to time determine, in consultation with the Employee. B. Annually, the Council and Employee shall define such goals and performance objectives which they determine necessary for the proper operation of the City, and in the attainment of the Council's policy objectives and shall further establish a relative priority among those various goals and objectives, said goals and objectives to be reduced to writing. They shall generally be attainable within the time limitations as specified and the annual operating and capital budgets and appropriations provided. C. In effecting the provisions of this Section, the Council and Employee mutually agree to abide by the provisions of applicable law. Section 7. Hours of Mork It is recognized that Employee must devote a great deal of time outside the normal office hours to business of the Employer, and to that. end Employee will be allowed to take compensatory time off as he shall deem appropriate during said normal office hours. Section 8. Outside Activities • .Employee shall not spend more than ten hours per week in teaching, counseling or other non-Employer connected business without the prior approval of the Council. Section 9. Moving Expenses Employee shall be reimbursed, or Employer may pay directly, for the expenses of packing and moving himself, his family, and i his personal property from to Richfield with said payment or reimbursement not to exceed the sum of $ , which shall include unpacking, any storage costs necessary and insurance charges. The City will also pay the expenses of moving the Employee's famil to Richfield. This will include travel ex enses for his Y P search for a home in Richfield (to include one spouse visit) and will also cover out-of-pocket expenses for the Employee prior to the move of the family to Richfield if he precedes the family due to delay in moving because of housing availability limited to 90 days. Section 10. Automobile Employee's duties require that he shall have the exclusive and unrestricted use at all times during his employment with Employer of an automobile provided to him by the Employer. Employer shall be responsible for paying for liability, property damage and comprehensive insurance and for the purchase, operation, maintenance, repair and regular replacement of said automobile. Section 11. Vacation, Personal Leave and Military Leave A. As an inducement to Employee for him to become .City Manager, at signatures hereof, Employee shall be credited with 18 days of vacation leave and six days of personal leave. Thereafter, Employee shall accrue, and have credited to his personal account, vacation and personal leave at the same rate as other Management employees of Employer who have ten years longevity. B. Employee shall be entitled to military reserve leavetime pursuant to state law and city policy. Section 12. Disability, Health and Life Insurance A. Employer agrees to put into force and to make required premium payments for Employee for insurance policies for life, accident, sickness, disability income benefits, major medical and dependent's coverage group insurance covering Employee and his dependents. B. Employer agrees to purchase and to pay the required premiums on whole life insurance policies equal in amount to two times the annual gross salary of Employee, with the beneficiary • named by Employee to receive one-half of any benefits paid, Employer the other one-half. ' r~ C. Employer agrees to provide hospitalization, surgical and comprehensive medical insurance and dental coverage for Employee and his dependents and to pay all of the premiums thereon. 0. Employer agrees to provide 122 days of short term disability coverage providing 100 of salary and long-term disability insurance providing 606 of salary .coverage. The Employer will also provide adequate professional liability coverage to protect the Employee in the event of lawsuits. E. Employee agrees to submit once per calendar year to a .complete physical examination by a qualified physician selected by the Employer, the cost of which shall be paid by the Employer. Employer shall receive a copy of all medical reports related to .said examination. Section 13. Retirement Employer agrees to execute all necessary agreements provided by the International City Management Association Retirement Corporation (ICMA-RC) for Employer's (continued) participation in said ICMA-RC retirement plan and, in addition to the base salary paid by the Employer to Employee, Employer agrees to pay an amount equal to 4 percent of Employee's base salary into the ICMA-RC on Employee's behalf, in equal proportionate amounts each • pay period, and to transfer ownership to succeeding employers upon Employee's resignation or discharge. The payment is made in lieu of the state pension plan. Section 14. Dues and Subscriptions Employer agrees to budget and to pay for the professional dues and subscriptions of Employee necessary for his continuation and full participation in national, regional, state and local associations and organizations necessary and desirable for his continued professional participation, growth, and advancement, and for the good of the Employer. Section 15. Professional Development A. Employer hereby agrees to budget for and to pay the travel and subsistence expenses of Employee for professional and official travel, meetings and occasions adequate to continue the professional development of Employee and to adequately pursue necessary official and other functions for Employer, including but not limited to the annual conference of the International City Management Association, the state league of municipalities and such other national, regional, state and local governmental groups and committees thereof which Employee serves as a member. • B. Employer also agrees to budget and to pay for the travel and subsistence expenses of Employee for short courses, institutes and seminars that are necessary for his professional development and for the good of the Employer. Section 16. General Expenses Employer recognizes that certain expenses of a nonpersonal and generally job-affiliated nature are incurred by Employee, and hereby agrees to reimburse or to pay said general expenses, and the Finance Manager is hereby authorized to disburse such monies upon receipt of duly executed expense or petty cash vouchers, receipts, statements or personal affidavits. Section 17. Civic Club Membership Employer recognizes the desirability of representation in and before local civic and other organizations,. and Employee is authorized to become a member of such civic clubs or organizations, for which Employer shall pay all expenses. Employee shall report to the Employer on each membership that he has taken out at Employer's expense. Section 18. Indemnification . Employer shall defend, save harmless and indemnify Employee against any tort, professional liability claim or demand or other legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of Employee's duties as City Manager. Employer will compromise and settle any such claim or suit and pay the amount of any settlement or judgment rendered thereon. Section 19. Bonding Employer shall bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bonds required of the Employee under any law or ordinance. Section 20. Other Terms and Conditions of Employment A. The Council, in consultation with the manager, shall fix any such other terms and conditions of employment, as it may determine from time to time, relating to the performance of Employee, provided such terms and conditions are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the provisions of this agreement, the City, charter or any other law. B. All provisions of the City Charter and Code, and regulations and rules of the Employer relating to vacation and personal leave, retirement and pension system contributions, • holidays and other fringe benefits and working conditions as they now exist or hereafter may be amended, also shall apply to Employee as they would to other employees of Employer, in • addition to said benefits enumerated specifically for the benefit of Employee except as herein provided. C. Employee shall be entitled to receive the same vacation and personal leave benefits as are accorded department heads with ten years longevity, including provisions governing accrual and payment therefore on termination of employment. Section 21. No Reduction of Benefits Employer shall not at any time during the time of this agreement reduce the salary, compensation or other financial benefits of Employee, except to the degree of such a reduction across-the-board for all employees of the Employer.. Section 22. Notices Notices pursuant to this agreement shall be given by deposit in the custody of the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: (1) EMPLOYER: City of Richfield, Minnesota John Hamilton, Mayor 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 • (2) EMPLOYEE: Alternatively, notices required pursuant to this agreement may be personally served in the same manner as is applicable to civil judicial practice. Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of personal service or as of the date of deposit of. such written notice in the course of transmission in the United States Postal Service. Section 23. General Provisions A. The text herein shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties. B. This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs at law and executors of Employee. C., This agreement shall become effective commencing 1986. • D. If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained in • this agreement. is held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement, or portion hereof, shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Richfield has caused this agreement to be signed and executed in its behalf by its Mayor and dully attested by its City Clerk, and the Employee has signed and executed this agreement, both in duplicate, the day and year first above written. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber Cit Clerk Y APPROVED AS TO FORM: Clayton LeFevere City Attorney • Employee i _ ~ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 270 _ Agenda July 14. 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: New Cedar Avenue Liquor Store.- Council Members: At the April 14, 1986, Regular Richfield City Council meeting, the City Council advised staff members to take necessary steps related to construction of a new liquor store at 1825 East 66th Street (Council Letter No. 158). Prior to that action, the council and staff were awaiting a decision from the Republic Airlines Federal Credit Union on concerning the pending merger between Northwest and Republic Airlines and its affect upon the purchase of the Cedar liquor store property and construction of a proposed the Credit Union facility on the site. However, the council felt that it was imperative to begin planning and construction of a new liquor store facility regardless of any future negotiations or plans for development on the property (6636 Cedar Ave.). In Council Memorandum No. 54 on April 29, 1986, the Acting City Manager reported to the Mayor and City Council members of the intent to enter an architectural agreement with Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson Architects, Inc. (KKE) for services related to the planning and construction of a municipal liquor store on 1825 East 66th Street. As per council direction, the City entered into an architectural agreement with KKE. The Acting City Manager, City Planner .Rick Jopke, and Liquor Operations Director Bill Fillmore have been working with KKE on the preliminary design of the new liquor store since the agreement was signed. The council action request on July 14, 1986, is to approve the preliminary design plans, approval of an off-street parking permit and authorization for staff and the architect to proceed with the development of construction documents. The proposed structure would be a 5585 square foot brick structure with a basement for storage and an employee breakroom. L ' • • / i The proposed structure would be smaller than the existing store (10,500), but would represent a much more effective use of selling area and would be able to accommodate sales in excess of 2 million dollars. The existing Cedar Avenue store now generates sales of 1.7 million dollars annuall . Y Structurally, the store would be more energy efficient than _ .the existing store which is in need of costly repairs, such as a new roof. .The proposed facility would comply with all City set back requirements. The architect will be present at the July 14 council meeting to explain the .architectural concept. A profit statement is attached to show projected sales, expenditures and net profit figures for the~new operation. The. figures generated are based on the premise that the corner of 66th Street and Cedar Avenue would be a more desirable location with more visibility from Highway 77, and therefore generate more sales. The proposed parking layout meets all city off-street parking area standards concerning the number of parking stalls provided, the dimensions of parking stalls and driving aisles, and the location of curb cuts. The parking area should adequately meet parking needs and will not result in congestion on surrounding streets. Cost It is the City staffs intention to complete the new facility. at a total cost of between $450,000 - $500,000. At the July 14 council meeting the architect will have a preliminary estimate of the building cost. Funds for the new facility would come from the working capital of the liquor fund and proceeds from the sale of the current liquor store site. The following is a list of future actions and an anticipated schedule which will be followed: July 14, 1986 City Council approves preliminary design and off-street parking permit and authorizes staff and consultant to proceed with construction documents. August 11, 1986 City Council approves final design, plans and specifications, and authorizes bidding. Sept. 11, 1986 Bid opening Sept. 22,-1986 City Council awards contracts Oct. 13, 1986 Contracts executed M rch 1 1987 Li uor Store o en for business a ~ q P Recommendation << / --___3 It is recommended that the City Council approve the preliminary design, approve an off-street parking permit by passing the attached resolution, and authorize staff and the architect to proceed with the development of construction documents. _ Respec fully submitted, . i ven Devich Acting City Manager SLD/eja cc: Liquor Operations Director City Planner RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION N0. 86-5 RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE 6600 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street parking as contained in Off-Street Parking application No. 86-5 is hereby approved. 2. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of said off-street parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 14th day of July, 1986. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk s - JI CEDAR AVENUE LI UOR STORE Q 1981/1987 SALES ANALYSIS Year Sales 1981 $1,805,706 1982 1,762,523 1983 1 719 680 > > _ 1984 1,743,307 1985 1,702,474 Projected Year Sales 1986 $1,753,550 1987 $1,800,000* PROJECTED 1987 SALES/PROFIT DATA Sales $1,800,000 Cost of Goods Sold 1,413,000 Gross Profit (21.50 . 387,000 Personal Expenditures 108,000~~ Other Services & Chgs 110,000*** Supplies 5,500 Total Oper. Expend $ 223,500 Sub Total Net Profit $ 163,500 Additions to Income 25,000*~** Net Profit before Transfers $ 188,500 * Grand Opening Year Includes Benefits. Personal service reduction is result of elimination of full time cashier position and expected personnel cost reduction from property maintenance Reduction result of elimination of property management costs, energy output, inventory costs, constant repairs and replace- ment of store equipment that was in need of replacement due to age. **~*Cigarette commissions, space rental and interest earned NET PROFIT FROM PREVIOUS YEARS Year Amount 1985 $102,471 1984 $138,791 1983 $160,879 Dram Shop Insurance increased drastically in 1985. However, this expenditure decreased in 1986 from 1985, and that may increase net profit slightly in the future.. J 1 I N el Sao ~ ~ I~j,, ~ I i l l l l l l s , ~ a rY :~~Y - ~ ~~~ib~ yl l i i l l l l l s< m~%Fa C~ 1 I ~ R i I 'I ~ ~ I ~ ~_T ,a= - ' i ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ T--~L ' I__ _i . _s _ , I_ ~ - F - - ''~'~~J Y - ~ ~171T-~~1 _ I I, ~~-----1T1~ V I I I ~ , , i I, to I ~ - F l~ ~l-I I { { i I I~ _ I~ ~ ~ - 1...._ _ . _ _l l l~_- Y I - ~ ~ _ ~ , - ~ 1 _ a--- . - 1 ~ _ ~ ~ j I ~ ~ ~ j J - i I ~ ' Annun+.M Knnk kiid•on - ~ Arrhitrrl•, 6ir. - 9UU Fires Avrnur KonL Suisr SuU ~ <,Lnurrl~,Ls. M1 5.5101 61'!/.1:14-1~II11 •1 I ~ I RIG-IFlF1D ~ - CEDAR AvE. MUNIGPAL ' - CrtF BATA 26,425 SF. uouoR srrE AREA I f ~ r' euunvoG AREA FIRST FIR 5,807 SF. M 5,807 SF. ' l / TOTAL 11,614 Sf. V I I I- I I I I I r~Ti ~i 7(YJNC: fIISTRN'T C2 GD4:RAL CONYv1ERC1AL .I fG PARKPK; REOLARm ~ ~I~ I °I I I I I ~ I I ,ul - PARKNC RATIO: REEAL 1/200 SF. PARKUJG RATK)~ STORAGE 1/1000 SF W i i GFA OF PROPOSED RETAIL 21b N ~ ~ ~ ~ 4323 SF. •200 Sf. S r~ r. a _ it 'r r •S' ~ _ ; ' ~~o ~ • Gf.A. OF PROPOSED STORAGE 7b ! A aamcru a 7291 SF. • 1000 SF. - .,UQupi.ySTgtEi TOTAL Pcrv mm 29 SPACES , _ i TOTAL FRONDED 31 SPACES PREUMNARY SRE PLAN ' ~ PARKIN(. SFTSACKS: NOI4E REQUIRED 1 i W lE f~NC: SFTBA«S: ALOIJC PUB[1C STREETS 40 Ff. I REAR YARD 25 FT. l SDE YARD 0 FT. i i . I I SIEE PLAN I won"~ ~ 1D ij rr+r ~~r wrw~.~e.• ~ . ~a•rrl+ ~,.~yrw~~~w~ F~_ ri I~ ~ ~ ti~ n~ ~ ~ r...vr ro+ ti ~ w-- ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 269 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Supporting Continuation of General Revenue Sharing Council. Members: As council members are aware, the revenue sharing program has been a target for federal budget cutbacks during the past few years. Most recently, the general expectation was that the revenue sharing program would not be renewed past the current September 30, 1986, expiration date. However, many individuals and organizations have fought • tenaciously for the renewal of revenue sharing. Recently, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution calling for the reauthorization of General Revenue Sharing. Additionally, that organization is seeking active help from municipalities across the country in support of the reauthorization of General Revenue Sharing. Federal Fiscal 1987 Budget Both the House and Senate have passed fiscal year 1987 budget resolutions which expressly provide for the extension of revenue sharing under certain conditions. Differences between the two versions which are now being addressed in conference committee are outlined below: Senate Version House Version Allows $1.8 billion for two Allows $4.6 billion (full quarterly payments in FY87 funding) in FY87 if: if: 1. the program is reauth- 1. the program is reauthor- orized ized 2. the Finance Committee 2. The Appropriations raises additional revenues Committee finds off- • to cover the cost. setting savings elsewhere in the budget. ' ~ 'iC~ In late April the House Government Operations Committee • voted 28-10 to approve legislation to reauthorize general revenue sharing for three years at $4.6 billion annually (full funding). The bill (H.R. 1400) also would change the program from an entitlement program to one subject to an annual appropriations process. The latter provision would bring the issue of funding levels to~annual review, but would be politically more palatable in the light of the Graham-Rudman Act. Richfield's Use of Revenue Sharing Funds The City has utilized revenue sharing funds for the Capital Improvement Program for the past several years. In 1986, revenue sharing funds were set aside for the City Hall cooling tower, energy. improvements, and reserves for Fire vehicle and Public Safety communications equipment acquisition. In the past, several other very worthwhile capital projects were realized with revenue sharing funds. While the City has never placed itself in the undesirable position of funding current operations from revenue sharing, revenue sharing has been a significant part of the City's Capital Improvement. Loss of revenue sharing funds does place significant restraints on the City's ability to accomplish needed capital improvements. j • Recommendation Attached is a listing of Minnesota's congressional delegation and their respective position on revenue sharing reauthorization. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution supporting the reauthorization of General Revenue Sharing and that the resolution be mailed to Richfield's Congressional representatives in the U.S. House and Senate. Resp~ t ully submitted, i n L. ich Acting City Manager SLD/eja • RESOLUTION N0. • RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE REAUTHORIZATION OF GENERAL REVENUE SHARING WHEREAS, general revenue sharing has, since 1972, provided a predictable and stable source of funding to 39,000 of this nation's local governments; and WHEREAS, many cities used general revenue sharing to provide basic services such as public safety, health, and education; and WHEREAS, the authorization for general revenue sharing will expire on September 30, 1986; and WHEREAS, cities have already suffered the loss of some twenty-three percent of federal aid in non-inflation dollars; and WHEREAS, the movement on tax reform threaatens to inhibit the ability of cities to generate municipal financing; and WHEREAS, general revenue sharing has proven to be the most efficient and helpful of all federal programs upon whiiich cities have come to rely; and WHEREAS, in many cities alternative sources of income do not exist to replace general revenue funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield urges Congress and the Administration to extend the authorization of general revenue sharing at a $4.6 billion level. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of July, 1986. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk • _ ~ Y ` Congressional positions. on H.R. 1400 As of June 13, 1986 Congressional Box Score on KEY: H.R. 1400 P(pro): supports extension of revenue sharing beyond fiscal year 1986. C(con): opposes extension of revenue For 2 3 9 sharing beyond fiscal year 1986. U(uncommmed): uncommitted on the extension. of revenue sharing beyond Against fiscal year 1986. t: Cosponsor of H.A. 1400. favors extension of revenue sharing with modifications or an Uncommitted 183 alternative program. NOTE: Members are listed by state. Names of Republicans are in italics. Alaska Schroeder P Lipinski! P Smith C Oakart U Andrews C Young P Strang P Madigan P Mlehigan Oxley C Archer C Wirth C Martin C Boniort P New Jersey Pease! P Armey C Alabama Michel C Broomfield U Courter C Regu/a U Bartlett U Bevil) P Connecticut O'Brien C Carr P Owyert P Seiberling U Barton U Callahan C Gejdenson P Porter C Conyers! P Florio U Stokes! P Boulter P Dickinson U Johnson P Price P Crockett! P Gallo U Traficantt P Brooks C Erdreich P Kennelly P Rostenkowski U Davis P Guarinit P Wylie" U Bryant U Flippo P McKinney U Russo P Dingell P Howard P Bustamantet P Nichols C Morrison U Savage P Ford P Hughes U Oklahoma Chapman C Shelbyt P Aowland C Yates P Henry U Rinaldo P Edwards C Coleman U Hertel Q Rodino P English U Combest U Arkansas Delaware Indiana Kildee? p Roet P Jones U Delay C Alexander P Carper C Burton U Levin P Roukema U McCurdy C Fields C Anthony U Coats U Pursell P Saxton P Synar P Frost U HammerschmidttP Florida Hamilton U Schuette P Smith! P Watkins U Gonzalez P Robinson! P Bennett U Hiler U Siljander P Torricellit P Hall P Bilirakis Hillis U Traxler P Oregon Leath C Arizona Chappell U Jacobs P Vander Jagt U New Mexico AuCoin U Leland! P Kolbe C Fascell U McCloskey! P Wolpet P Lujan U Smith C LoeNler U McCain C Fuqua P Myers C Richardson! P Smith U Ortiz! P Rudd U Gibbons C Sharp Minnesota Skeen U Weaver U Pickle U Stump U Hutto P Visclosky P Frenzel C Wyden U Stenholm C Udall C Ireland C Oberstar P Nevada Sweeney C Lehman C Kansas Penny! P Reid P Pennsylvania Wilson C California Lewis U Glickman C Sabo U Vucanovich P Borskit P Wright U Anderson! P MacKay C Meyers C Sikorskit P Clinger P de la Garza P Badham C Mack C Roberts U Stangeland C New York Coughlin U Bates P McCollum C Slattery C Vento U Ackerman! P Coyne! P Utah ~eilenson U Mica P Whittaker P Weber P Biaggi! P Edgar P Hansen P erman U Nelson Boehlert P Foglietta P Monson P Bosco C Pepper! P Kentucky Missouri Carney U Gaydos P Nielson C Boxer! P Shaw P Hopkins P Clay P DioGuardi P Gekas Brown! P Smith U Hubbard! P Coleman U Downey P Goodling C Virginia Burton P Young P Mazzolit P Emerson P Eckert C Gray U Bateman U Chappee P Natcher P Gephardt P Fish P Kanjorskit P Bliley U Coelho! P Georgia Perkinst P Skelton U Garcia P Koltert p Boucher! P Dannemeyer C Barnard P Rogers! P Taylor U Gilman P Kostmayer U Daniel U Oellumst P Darden U Snyder P Volkmer P Green U McDade p Olin C Dixon P Fowler P Wheat P Horton P Murphy! p Parris P Doman C Gingrich P Louisiana Young! P Kemp Murtha p Sisisky U Dreier U Hatcher P Boggs P LaFalce U Ridge p Slaughter U Dymallyt P Jenkins P Breaux P Mississippi Lent P Ritter p Whitehurst U Edwards P Ray C Huckaby P Dowdy! P Lundine P Schulze U Wolf U Fazio P Rowland U Livingston U Franklin C Manton! P Shuster U Fiedler U Swindell C Long P Loff U Martin P Walgren p Vermont Hawkins! P Thomas U Moore P Montgomery U McGrath P Walker p Jetfords P Hunter U Roemer P Whitten U McHugh P Yatron P Washington Lagomarsino C Hawaii Tauzin P Molinari C Lantos P Akakat P Montana Mrazek U Rhode Island Bonkert P Lehman U Hettelt P Massachusetts Marlenee U Nowak! P Schneider U Chandler U Levine U Atkins C Williams P Owens! P St Germain p Dicks! P Lewis U Iowa Boland P Range) p Foley U Lowery C Bedell U Conte U North Carolina Schauer P South Carolina Lowry U Lungren C Evans P Donnelly U Broyhill U Schumer P Campbell U Miller C Martinezt P Leach U Early U Cobey U Solarz P Derrick U Morrison U Matsui! P Lightfoot P Frank! P Coble C Solomon P Hartnett C Swift P McCandless C Smith P Markey! P Heiner P Stratton C Spence U Wisconsin Miller P Tauke P Mavroules! P Hendon P Towns P Spratt P Aspen P Minetat P Moakley! P Jones! P Weiss! P Tallont P Moorhead C Idaho O'Neill U McMillan C Wortley p Gunderson U Packard P Craig P Studds! P Neal C South Dakota Kastenmeiert P Panetta P Stallings P Roset P Ohio Daschlet p Kleczka C Pashayant P Maryland Valentine P Applegate! p Moody! P Obey C Roybal P Illinois Barnes! P Whitley U OeWine U Tennessee Petri U Shumway C Annunzio! P Bentley P Eckartt P Boner P Roth P Stark P Bruce Byron! U North Dakota Feighan P Cooper P SenSenbrenner P ~omas U Collins P Dyson P Dorgan U Gradison C Duncan P orrest P Crane C Holt C Hall P Ford P West Virginia Waxman U Ourbint P Hoyer U Nebraska Kaptur P Gordon P Mollohan P Zschau C Evans! P Mikulskit P Bereuter U Kasich U Jones P Rahallt P Fewep C Mitchell! P Daub U Kindness P Lloyd! P Staggers P Colorado Gray P Smith U Latta C Quillen P Wiset P Brown P Grotberg C Maine Luken P Sundquist P Kramer C Hayes! P McKeman U New Hampshire McEwen P Wyoming Scheeler C H de C Snowe i hene C Y U Gregg C M ller P Texas C y Positions of the U.S. Senate on Renewal of Revenue.. Sharing As of June 13, 1986. Delaware :Minnesota Pennsylvania Box Score on Eiden P Boschwitz U Specter P Revenue Sharing Renewal Roth C Durenberger P Heinz P U.S. Senate For extension 42 Against extension 54 Florida Missouri Rhode Island Uncommitted 4 Hawkins p Danlorth C Chalee C Chiles C Eagleson C Pell C Georgia Mississippi South Carolina Mattingly C Cochran C Hollings P Nunn C Stennis C Thurmond C KEY: P(pro): supports extension of rev- Hawaii Montana South Dakota enue sharing beyond fiscal year Malsunaga P Baucus C Abdnor P 1986 Inouye P Melcher U Pressler C C(eoo): opposes extensionol rev- enue shaping beyond fiscal year 1986 Iowa North Carolina Tennessee U(uncommiited): uncommitted On Harkin P East C Gore P the extension of revenue sharing Grassley C Nelms C Sasser P beyond fiscal year 1986 favors extension of revenue Idaho North Dakota Texas sharing with modilications Or an Gramm C alternative program Symms C Andrews p Bentsen C McClure C Burdick P NOTE: Senators are listed by state. Names of Republicans are in ital- ics. Illinois Nebraska Utah Simon P Exon C Hatch U Dixon P Zorinsky p Garn C Virginia Indiana New Hampshire Trible C Ouay/e C Rudman C Lugar C Humphrey C Warner C Alaska Kansas New Jersey Vermont Murkowski P Kassebaum C Lautenberg P Leahy P Stevens C Dole C Bradley p SraHord C Alabama Kentucky New Mexico Washington Denton C McConnell C Bingaman p Evans Heflin P Ford P Domenici C Gorton C Arkansas Louisiana Nevada W isconsi n Pryor P Johnston P Hecht C Kasten P Bumpers P Long P Laxalt C Proxmire C .Arizona Massachusetts New York West Virginia DeConcini P Kerry P D'Ama10 P Rockefeller P Goldwater C Kennedy C Moynihan p Byrd P California Maryland Ohio Wyoming Wilson C Sarbanes P Metzenbaum p Simpson C Cranston C Mathias U Glenn p Wallop C Colorado Maine Oklahoma Armstrong C Mitchell C Nickles C Hart P Cohen C Doren C Connecticut Michigan Oregon Dodd C Levin P Packwood C Weicker C Riegle P Hatlield C « ~ - - / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 268 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Sign Ordinance Amendment Council Members: Background: As Council Members may recall, Terry Feldman Imports requested a permit for a freestanding sign which would exceed the 27 foot maximum height allowed by the city sign ordinance. There was no provision in the city sign ordinance to grant a variance to the 27 foot height standard because the site is in a general commercial district rather than an industrial zoning district. • Thus, at the request of Terry Feldman Imports, an ordinance amendment to exceed the 27 foot maximum height under certain conditions has been prepared. This ordinance amendment has been placed on the July 14, 1986 city council agenda for first reading consideration. Ordinance Amendment Provisions The proposed amendment to the sign ordinance would permit the City Council to issue a special use permit to allow signs up to 35 feet in height if a number of conditions are met. These conditions have been amended to allow the council the ability to grant special height permits for property not only in industrial zoning districts, but in general commercial districts situated within redevelopment project areas as well. This amendment would allow the council to consider a special height permit for the Terry Feldman site because the site is zoned general commercial, and is within the ILN Redevelopment project area. The Feldman site is along a freeway so the council could approve a 35 foot high sign on the site. The scope of the ordinance amendment is limited. The amendment would only apply to a very limited area. First of all, only property within redevelopment project areas would be affected and then only properties which are zoned C-2 general commercial. This amendment would not apply to property zoned in planned unit developments. Therefore, the amendment will not open the door for a lot of higher signs. . ~ • The second. change that has been made to the ordinance affects properties not adjacent to freeways. The maximum height has been changed from the highest part of any building located on the same premises to 35 feet or the highest part of any building located on the same premises whichever is less. The third change would allow the Council to approve higher signs in planned unit development districts if they are shown in the final development plan and approved as part of the planned unit develoment review process. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council give first reading consideration to the attached ordinance at the July 14, 1986 city council meeting and schedule the public hearing and second reading consideration of the ordinance amendment for the July 28, 1986 City Council meeting. ResF.e fully submitted, L . i c ~v~ Acting City Manager • SLD/eja • ~~r~ r ~ AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART V, • SECTION 3.49 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter III, Part V, Section 3.49 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Construction, Design, Location and Maintenance of Signs" is hereby amended by amending subdivi- sion 4 thereof to read as follows: Subd. 4. Special Permits - Height. The council-may grant a special permit for a ground sign exceeding 27 feet in height, but only if it finds that such struc- ture (1) if located on property adjacent to a federal freeway, will (a) not exceed 35 feet in height or the highest part of~ any building located on the same premises, whichever is higher; or (b) not exceed the height for such sign as shown on the approved Final- Development Plan for the property; (2) if not located adjacent to a federal freeway, will not exceed in height 35 feet or the highest part of any building located on the same premises, whichever is less; (3) will be located on industrial property or on 'a general • commercial (C-2) property situated within a; redevelop- went project area of the city; (4) will not be within 300 feet of any single family residence property; (5) will not unduly obstruct visibility from neighboring properties; (6) will not in any event exceed elevation of 204, Richfield datum; and (7) will not adversely affect the value of any adjacent property. If the sign for which the special permit is issued is a double-faced sign the council may permit the sign to have screening standing not more than i0 feet above the face of the sign, in addition to the maximum elevations hereinbefore specified; provided that such screening must .consist of a plain metal surface bearing no advertising matter, lettering or writing. The provi- sions of this subdivision do not apply to outdoor advertising displays. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minne- sota this day of , 1986. John N. Hamilton, Mayor • ATTEST Ferber, City Cleric .Thomas 0055P?M01.E14 r b / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council. Letter No. 267 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Ordinance Amendment Related to Taxicab Driver Licensing Deleting the Requirement That Drivers Must be U.S. Citizens. Second Reading Council Members: Recent modifications to state law and court decisions have indicated that restricting taxicab licensing to only U. S. citizens is invalid. Chapter VI, Section 6.21, Subdivision 4 (2) of the city ordinance relating to licensing of taxicab drivers, • includes the provision that "He must be a United States Citizen". Therefore, it is necessary to modify our ordinance code relating to taxicab licensing to delete this qualification. The City Attorney's office has prepared the attached ordinance amendment to deal with this housekeeping matter. The proposed ordinance amendment provides that while taxicab drivers need not be U. S. citizens in order to be licensed, it is proper for the licensing authority to inquire as to the status of aliens (i.e., the city can determine if the aliens are in the country legally and that they have the necessary authorization to work while they are in the United States). Staff Recommendation At the June 23, 1986 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to this ordinance amendment and scheduled the public hearing and second reading for the July 14, 1986 city council meeting. • It is recommended that the City Council hold the public hearing and approve this proposed ordinance amendment at the July 14, 1986 city council meeting. Res e tfully submitted,. r S n L. vic Acting City Manager SD/eja • i AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI, SECTION 6.21, SUBDIVISION 4 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD. Subdivision 4 of Section 6.21 in Article VI of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, relating to the license application requirements for taxicab drivers, is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 4. License Application - Requirements. Any person desiring a taxicab driver's license shall make application to the clerk. Each applicant shall meet. the following requirements in making such application: (1) He must possess the required class of license from the State of Minnesota. (2) He must be a-~T~3~ee1--6~1:a.:.s ~i~~}, over. 18 years old, a resident of Hennepin County or any county contiguous thereto and able to .read and write the English language. (3) If not a United States citizen, the applicant shall furnish information necessarv to establish that he is legally in the United States and has the right to obtain employment. ~3} (4) He shall furnish a statement on the form provided by the city attesting that he is in good physical condition, has good eyesight and is not subject to any disease or infirmity of body or mind which might render him • unfit to operate a taxicab. In addition to such statement, the applicant shall furnish, if required to do so by the city, additional information concerning his physical condition, eyesight or health including a physician's certificate. f4} (5) He must be clean in dress and person and not addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors or drugs. f5} (6) He shall provide testimonials to his good character from two reputable city citizens who have known him personally and observed his conduct during the year preceding the date of his application. f5} (7) He, when requested to do sc, shall demonstrate his knowledge of city and state traffic regulations and his skill and ability in driving an automobile. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1986. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST . Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0055ODO1M14 ~J LeFevere Let ler Kennedy . C)~Kr1CC1 ~C llrawz 1 1'ruh•siuual atiuu iariuu )00 First Bank Place West May 5 , 19 g linneapolis 'innesota 55402 ~lephone (612) 333-0543 ~>lecopier (612) 333-0540 Lieutenant Barry Fritz iayton L. LeFevere Richfield Department Of erbert P. Lefler Pub11C Safety DE:nnisO'Brien 6700 Portland Avenue S. ,hn E. Drawz avid J. Kennedy Richfield, MN 55423 ,hn B. Dean lenn E. Purdue chard J. Schieffer Dear Barry: narles L. LeFevere erbert P. Lefler III EriclOSed for your review is a memorandum prepared by one 3mes J. Thomson, Jr. ~iomasR.~Galt or our law clerks on the subject of req:uiririg U.S. ayietvoian citizenship to obtain a Richfield cab driver's license. rran F. Rice ~hn G. Kressel xraine S. Clugg As you will note, the memorandum suggests -that such a ;mes M. Strommen requirement is most likely invalid. Consequently, we Id H. Batty WOUld suggest the following: P. Jordan r5ein Dickel Minsbery .irt J. Erickson 1. That you not deny licenses on that basis even though Jdliam R. Skallerud the ordinance suggests that you should. odney D. Anderson vrnne A. Heine ~~hn R. McDonald, Jr. 2 . That an amendment be proposed to the ordinance which avid D. Beaudoin removes the citizenship requirement. Although we should not be requiring U.S. citizenship as a .requirement for licensure, we do believe that it is proper to inquire as to the status of aliens. To that end, you should determine that aliens are in the country legally and further that they have the necessary au- thorization to work whi a here We will shortly be preparing an amendment to the ordi- nance code and submitting it to you for review. Respectfull yours, - J n B. Dean 0 5LTO1.E14 Enc. MEMORANDUM • TO: John Dean FROM: Andrew Parker .DATE: May 2, 1986 RE: Validity of citizenship requirement for taxicab licensure. This memorandum responds to your question of whether a city ordinance requiring U.S.. citizenship to obtain a taxi- cab license is valid. The Equal Protection. Clause of the fourteenth amendment applies to aliens. Heins v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941). Laws denying aliens the right to get licenses to pursue ordinary callings are invalidated by the constitutional • guarantee of equality. Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 60 L. Ed. 131, 36 S. Ct. 7 (.1915). If a calking is one which. is subject to abuse and likely to become injurious to the community, the state, through its police powers, may deny access due to alienage. Wright v. Mai, 127 Minn. 150, 149 N.W. 9 (1914) . The question of whether a mere privilege or a right is being restricted by licensing is sometimes used as the criterion to determine the validity of such requirements. 39 A.L.R.. 346 (1925). If the licensing restriction is applied. to a privileged activity, the city may require citizenship. If the ordinance, however, is restricting a public right, i the city may not discriminate. I Minnesota courts have not ruled on whether an ordinance denying issuance of taxicab licenses due to alienage is valid. However, operation of motor buses on public streets for transportation of passengers for hire has been ruled a public. right. City of St. Paul v. Twin City Motor Bus Cc., 'i 245 N.W. 33, 187 Minn. 212 (1932). This suggests that. 'i i restricting taxicab licenses to U.S. citizens is invalid. I Such a ruling was explicitly made by the New York Court of i .Appeals in Sundram v. Niagra Fa11s, 77 Mich.2d 1002,.357 N.Y.S.2d 943 aff'd 4.14 app.div.2d 906, 356 N.Y.S.2d 1023. Examples of businesses which may be restricted to U.S. .citizens under a state's police power include auctioneering, selling intoxicating liquors, and operating pool rooms. • Wright, l27 Minn. 150, 149 N.W. 9; George v. Portland, 114 Or. 418, 235 P. 681, 39 A.L.R. 341; Clarke v. Deckebach, 274 U.S. 392, 71 L. ed. .1115, 47 S.Ct. 630 (1927)(where the court held a pool .room was a place with "harmful and vicious tendencies" and therefore alienage restrictions were not prohibited). Alienage laws regulating peddlers and hawkers have been ruled invalid. Luria v. We ener 69 Minn. 206 72 g ~ , N.W. 67 (1897); Mudeking v. Parr, 109 Minn. 141, 123 N.W. 408 (1909). . / i / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 194 Agenda May 12, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Self-Insurance Account Progress Report Council Members.: On January 2, 1986 the city council was presented with a staff report concerning the renewal premium for the city's property and casualty insurance package for 1986 (Council Letter No. 9). Pursuant to city council direction, staff secured liability and property insurance coverage up to a limit of .$600.,000 through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust and $500,000 of Liquor Liability insurance through the Minnesota Assigned Risk Plan (this was the maximum amount of liquor liability insurance available to the city). In addition, the council approved city staff's recommendation to establish to a self-insurance account. The purpose of this city council letter is to report to the council on the progress of the establishing the self-insurance account. On February 10, 1986 city staff reported to the council that in order to establish the proper levels of self-insurance and a adequate self-insurance account, professional help would be needed tQ make certain actuarial findings on the proper deductible level and exposure to city resources. To-that end, the city council approved the hiring of Deloitte, Haskins ~ Sells, (I3. H. & S.) the City Auditor, to do an analysis of the current elf-insurance fund which provides for workers' compensation, unemployment compensation and dental insurance; as well as to make a recommendation as to the funding levels of the proposed tort liability account. Deloitte, Haskins do Sells has now made two interim reports to the city and has done extensive amount of research and analysis on the city's past loss experience in the self-insurance fund and in the claims experience associated with the property and casualty insurance the city has purchased for the past several years.' Based on the findings made by Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, this Council letter will summarize the actions that are being T proposed by the Acting City Manager as an interim measure and _ preliminary step to finalizing the level of funding necessary for the ro osed tort liabilt account. P P Y Excess Liability According to the interim- report provided by Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, (attached), on an overall basis the city prgperty and liability insurance program is generally sound and well suited to the city's exposures in financial resources. Deloitte, Haskins & Sells believes that the absence of excess liability coverage (umbrella insurance) in the city's portfolio is a potentially serious deficiency. However, in light of statutory limits for tort liability awards and the relatively low policy limits and high premiums for excess liability. coverage that was available to the city, they concur with the judgement of the city that it would not be cost effective to purchase excess liability coverage under present market conditions. However,. O.H. Ec S. also feel that as capacity problems in the insurance. market ease in the liability market place, excess liability coverage should become more affordable and accordingly, the city should. endeavor to purchase this coverage in the future as that. occurs. The writer concurs with that opinion. Modifications to the Citv Insurance Program Attached to this council letter is a schedule developed by Deloitte, Haskins ~ Sells which presents a summary of the city's incurred (including reserves) and paid claims for the past six policy years, 1980 through 1985. Policy year 1985 excludes claim activity for the last three months of that year. Based on that review, Deloitte Haskins & Sells has made recommen~Jations to the city staff regarding the city's basic property and liability exposure and current insurance package. The following sections indicate areas where the Acting City Manager feels that the recommendations of Deloitte, Haskins & Sells on the respective insurance coverages are in the best interest of the city and should be implemented immediately. 1. Implement a deductible of $10,000 for liability losses arising under the business (automobiles) liability. policy. The administrator for the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) estimates that the annual premium savings for this $10,000 deductible would be approximately $7,000 annually. The city's total losses incurred for auto liability in the prior six years was $26,000. Thus, it appears very cost effective to implement this higher deductible level. 2. Increase the collision deductibility for city automobiles to $10,000. Marsh and McLennan, Inc. indicated that a collision deductible of $10,000 would reduce the annual premium by $3,300. This does not appear to be a significant savings, however, the city s total physical damage losses during the prior six years were approximately $7,400. t ' 3. Exclude park shelters well .houses, lift stations and dwellings from building and contents coverage under the special multi-peril policy and self-insure these loss exposures. According to the city's property schedule, exclusion of these properties would reduce the buildings and contents coverage base by approximately $2.4 million, thereby reducing the city's annual premium by about $9,600.. The city's total incurred losses for buildings and contents during the prior six years were about $18,000 and no_losses have occurred since 1980. It should be noted that city staff recommended going from a $3,OOD to a $10,000 deductible limit for this type of coverage in the 1986 renewal package. The $1D,000 deductible was the largest deductible allowed by the I.MCIT at that time. However, the approach proposed here is another way of increasing deduc ibles - by simply eliminating the properties from the total listing of city properties quoted for insurance coverage. According to the six year record of the city and in accordance with the city's policy to assume more self-insured risk in each area of risk exposure, this seems like a reasonable approach toward those goals. 4. Increase the deductible for losses to machines and equipment under inland rain coverage from $5,000 to $10,000 per occurrence. This coverage would include voting machines, golf carts and low value contractor's equipment valued at $20,000 or less from the inland marine coverage base. It is estimated that the city could realize annual premium savings of approximately $4,000 by implementing this recommendation. Deloitte, Haskins & Sells was unable to identify any losses to machinery or equipment covered by inland marine in the past six years. 5. Completely cancel the city's liquor store business interruption insurance coverage (loss of income). Since the city owns three liquor stores which are in close proximity to another,. business interruption at one location should not result in significant loss of income to the city. Deloitte, Haskins & Sells expects that the sales of a store which was damaged or destroyed would be substantially shifted to one of the other city facilities. Moreover, the city's business interruption coverage has a 50X coinsurance provision and the coverage limits are relatively low. By the self-insuring this exposure, the city could save approximately $3,100 in annual premiums. There have been no incidents of business interruption losses during the past six years. 6. Cancel the city's coverage for theft and destruction of money and securities. Deloitte, Haskins & Sells believe these losses should be self-insured because the value of each potentia l loss should be low, coverage limits are low, and the city can control such losses to high degree through effective cash handling and deposit procedures. Many of these procedures have been in place for several years. By self-insuring this exposure, the city would save approximately $2,200 in annual premiums. y - During the past six years, total losses of money and securities were $3,060. 7. Negotiate with the LMCIT to increase the city's per- location ($10,000) and-per-occurrence ($100,000) deductible for buildings and contents coverage. Deloitte, Haskins & Sells believes that the city has adequate financial resources to prudently retain larger shares of potential property .losses. However, the highest. deductible level allowed by the LMCIT policies per location and .per. .occurrence were $10,000 and $100,000 respectively.. The city. should enter into negotiations with LMCIT to explore the opportunities that may exist for increasing property deductibles and the impact of those modifications to the City of Richfield's annual premiums. A decision could then be-made to determine if the increased retention is cost effective in light of premium savings. Deloitte, Haskins & Sells would encourage the city consider implementing higher property deductibles. This strategy is something that the city .has considered for the-past several I, years. With the implementation of a tort liability account to set aside funds for such losses, it becomes more and more, a reasonable approach to saving annual insurance premiums while providing adequate coverage to the city for such exposure. It is the Acting City Manager's opinion that the City of Richfield is, in and of itself, a significant enough "insured" of the League's program to have the ability to make an impact on the deductible policies allowed by the LMCIT programs. 8. Negotiate with the respective carriers for per claim deductibles for comprehensive general liability, public officials- liability, and liquor liability coverages. The city should establish a cost effective retention limit in view of its prior loss experience, premium credits that are provided by the carrier for various deductibles and the city's capacity to retain losses. During the past six years, the city has incurred $671,000 of general liability losses and paid $67,600 of general liability losses. During that same period there were no public official liability or liquor liability losses. For the first time in 1986, city staff recommended that a $5,000 deductible for general liability losses be implemented. Prior to that time, the city had always carried a first dollar - coverage for general liability losses. Summary If negotiations with the incumbent carriers would provide enough of a savings for the city to increase the deductibles in these areas, it would be a prudent move for the city to pursue these higher deductibles.. The city must also 'establish a . properly funded tort. liability account to compliment the additional risk. that the city is assuming by deleting the coverages mentioned in this council letter and increasing deductibles as recommended. Once the city has approached the various. carriers to find out the exact savings that could be attained by going to $100,000 ' property retention plus. increasing general liability, public official and liquor liability deductibles,., the final computations can be made to determine the proper level of funding that the new tort liability account must have. The insurance modifications proposed in this letter would result in at least $30,000 of annual savings of insurance premiums. More savings might be realized pending. negotiations with the LMCIT and the other insurance providers. If implemented immediately, the League may be willing to return some premium dollars for 1986. Recommendation It is the recommendation of the Acting City Manager that the. city council authorize the Acting City Manager to pursue the deductibles and self-insurance procedures outlined in this council letter. Once this has been done, the Acting City Manager will be able to finalize a proper funding level for the tort liability account and will make a final report to the city. Res/p tfully ubm'tted, C ~ St n . -D-evi 'h Acting City Manager SLD/eja Deloitte ~ Has;ins~Se Is Suite 1000 625 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis. Minnesota 55415-1660 (612) 333-2900 Telex: 290234 Mr. Steven L. Devich April 17, 1986 Director of Administrative Services City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Steve: We have completed our review of the City's property and liability (P&L) exposures and loss .experience for the six (6) year period January 1, 1980 through December 31, 1985. Except as noted below, we have also reviewed the City's insurance policies and current premiums for P&L coverages that were effective on April 9, 1986. The purpose of this interim report is to summarize the principal findings and recommendations that resulted from our review of the City's P&L exposures and loss history. There are several open items related to insurance coverage provisions and current premiums which are being researched by representatives of Marsh and McLennan (M&M). To the extent that resolution of these issues materially impacts the findings and recommendations presented herein, we will advise the. City of the nature of these items and the modifications to this letter that are deemed necessary in the circumstances. We have also- asked M&M to inquire whether the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT), would be willing to underwrite several lines on a modified basis which incorporates our recommendations for increasing deductibles and removing certain exposures from the premium base and to determine the reduction in premiums resulting from such modifications. As .this information is provided to us, we will advise you of LMCIT's responses to-these inquiries. On an overall basis, the City's P&L insurance .program is generally sound and well-suited to the City's exposures - and financial resources. We believe that the absence of excess liability coverage from the City`s portfolio is a potentially serious deficiency; however, in light of the statutory limits for -tort liability awards and the. relatively low policy limits and high premiums for excess liability coverage that was available to the City, we - r ~ / 1~.. Devich April 17, 1986 2 c~.~r ~:w:~.~~r. th:e Zudgement of City management that it would Ott ~ ~~a~t-efrfecti~reto purchase excess liability coverage ~~si.er ~}~r~~~t::ztket: conditions.. As capacity problems ease. :aim ~tthe :l.i<~tb~.l4tq mar&etplace, excess liability coverage ~s{h:o¢?~ltd br~:c~zme more affordable and, accordingly, we believe ~tl'~s~t ~he~„ittt~ should: ena~.~vor to purchase. this coverage. iha~ ~.t.~~~hed t~x~ schedules for your review in ~mni~st~ti~ w.Tir_h tt~e recommendations which follow. h~~d~z~L:e shw,~as 't~f~ City's current .annual premiums for cth s~ep~am~t~Iy id~~ztifiab,e line of coverage. Schedule 2 ~rrr:~s~n~t~s ai sIlm~,.y of tea amity's incurred (including ir~sre~rv~~e~sl) ;maid claims for the six (6) policy years L.~~~SC it~~r,~nL+~B;S'~ P~~icy year 1985 excludes claim ~a`ett~ivrutit>y ~:~.t three months of that year . &~;s;;e~i ~.e~p_~ ~a~r rev~-~~u -she City's P&L exposures and prior f? ~ < :mss ~..~~Serr%-~„ w-ce ;=ear©~end that the City consider. the W~m iT~II~:~ale~az~it :urtibLe: $I0, 000 for liability losses =~r:t7..~~i11,'E'~ la1YFY.k~71 f~'.R. Ran~~tII~C.SS Automobile PO11Cy. NOrth `Sz~.~r ~.P,.c:~k ~ce;raPr~,„ tthe: :administrator for the LMCIT ~ir~~rxrz„ ::~Et~m=aces drat -'[he annual premium savings .for a ~.~~~3S.,t~~' cd~e:t}il~~Ie ;~vuld be approximately $7,000. The "t"iit~t1yi3~s tt~t~~51 -~4~,rired+ losses for auto liability during tp~:;~r ~sz>x w~~e about $26,000. ,Q Elncr.~~~_e ti~:,.c 2xr~~~i~iam ~,~ciuctible for City automobiles t~ ~agaLfl~,(~i~. ~ we~r~ ~~s~~ised by M&M that a collision f¢3:e~~c~tii`h~ire :a~~ '$I0, (~:Q~i .w~au:ld reduce the annual premium by ;~:3.,~a0.. `?axe ~i~tx' ~ tcoi*:a~ physical damage losses during tt~xe ~ir2:R271r rb~~ ~,e~~r~ wire approximately $7,400. :o ,~~e~l~r~de k ~~elters, well houses, lift stations and ,::11:;v .~T:S.m~ buildings and contents coverage under the ~}pce;c~:a1 ~SL.~~Li-Peri.. ~Lhcy (SMPP) and self-insure these ~a~s ~w.w~~;r~rr-e?s. ~co~~c~A~~ to the City`s property :~re~dr~ce ~:i~i:~ ~ attached to the SMPP, exclusion of ~x~:~ ;yrL•.~L~ts~~i~a~3' waulc~i re~d.uce the buildings and contents ~a~;r:~~e F~s~ ~yi a~prm~m~tely $2.4 million, thereby m~~c~~ anntta~ premium by about $9, 600. The - ~,li~":s ~~r~ur~~l. Lasses for buildings and contents ~'iu~rii;ng ~ ~sa~rr ears were about $18, 000 and no l.~s:s~ ~ i race 19 8 0 . ® ~~.:n,e¢~~a~se ine ~fle~nnct.F~lte far losses to machines and e~~~~t: ~~~de~ inLatad ear ine coverage. from $5 , 000 to • ~l'~.,,?D~Q~~ ~~urteace. Exclude voting machines, golf ~a~rit~ ~.~a¢~ ram e~a~cre c~atractors' equipment (e.g. , ~~0}g~ ~r L~~ ~ from the inland marine coverage base. r ` Mr. Steven L. Devich April 17, 1986 3 We estimate that the City would realize annual premium savings of approximately $4,000 by implementing both of these recommendations. We were unable to identify any losses to machinery and equipment covered by inland marine insurance during the prior six years. o Cancel the liquor stores' business interruption (loss of income) coverage. Since the City owns three liquor stores which are in close proximity to each other, business interruption at one store should not result in significant loss of income to the City. We would expect that the sales of a store which is damaged or .destroyed will be substantially shifted to one of the other stores., Moreover, the City's business interruption coverage has a 50% coinsurance provision and coverage .limits are relatively low. By self-insuring this exposure, the City would save approximately $3,100 in annual premiums. We were unable to identify any business interruption losses during the prior six years. o Cancel the City's coverage for theft and destruction of money and securities. We believe these losses should be self-insured because the value of each potential loss should be low, coverage limits are low, and the City. can control such losses to a very high degree through effective cash handling and deposit procedures. By self-insuring this exposure, the City would save approximately $2,200 in annual premiums. During the prior six years, total losses of money and securities were $3,360. o Negotiate with LMCIT to increase the City's per location ($10,000) and per occurrence ($100,000) deductibles for buildings and contents coverage. We believe that the City has adequate financial resources to prudently retain a larger share of potential property losses. However, it is our understanding that the highest deductibles generally included in LMCIT policies are $10,000/$100,000. The City should discuss with LMCIT any opportunities that may exist for increasing property deductibles and the impact of such modifications on annual premiums. To the extent that increased retention _ would be cost-effective in light of premium savings, we would encourage. the City to consider implementing higher property deductibles. o Negotiate with incumbent carriers to increase the City's per claim deductibles for Comprehensive General Liability Public Officials' Liability and Liquor Liability coverages. The City should establish a cost-effective retention limit in view of its prior loss experience, . e //9 Mr. ~fi.~w~~~u. L.•. ~e~i.c}~ April: 17, 1986 4 • ~~,,,,;;.,_tssm ~rec~lAt~ gnat ase provided by the carrier. for ~~r~~~ :~teclu~~~t:zT~l.e:~ aac~ the City's capacity to retain Lc~s;~~~„ T~i~ tune ~~ti~r six. years, the City has n~~ur~~~ paAC~ ~„~,,~~ensive General Liability losses ®f_ ~~°~7~1,I~ and4 ~~?I~57~;, respectively. We were unable tm icsf;~*~~lf. and ~ub~LC- Officials' Liability or Liquor :r~gr~~~*~~ ross~ ~~Lf.~ this period. ® ~lsk'~ ~ t~Au~ ,tom ac~~unt for insurance premiums , c~~wzett~~e~,, ~~e;.C.f:-nsur:~ losses and associated nnes;e~•~r~a ~ wi.~ assist 'the City with determining the ~~~,~~i~~.1 ~yfa~n. requirements for this fund. after tEc~ Irc~••~•••••~~~a~tion~ presented above have been reviewed ~e ~ncma~~'I;,~i •~t,~ mePFt sand discuss these recommendations g~~axn~r ;r?+ ~;-~s~ en.%e. In the meantime, please feel f:,rcx ~ :~t:.:~~.'~+~3~~. if you have any questions. /1 II:a~~ !Bed,,; ~ons~Ztant • M=am~g~e.~e~it i1~~ir~~~.~1 es • • • N f - / /''/v CITY OF RICHFIELD Schedule l Schedule of Premiums for Policy Period January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986 COVERAGE .PREMIUMS Buildings and Contents $101,409 Money and Securities 2,211 Inland Marine 6,778 Loss of Liquor Income. ~ 3,055 Comprehensive General Liability 133,231 Automobile 34,813.. Public Officials' Liability 14,853 Liquor Liability 56,000 LMCIT Reserve Assessment 28,256 Total Premiums $380.606 I - - 1 • City of Richfield - Schedule 2 s Schedule of Incurred and Paid Claims for Policy Years 1980 through 1985 a 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Total Description Incurred Paid Incurred Paid Incurred Paid -,Incurred Paid Incurred Paid Incurred Paid Incurred Paid Water $ 166 $ 166 $ 92,OU4 $32,004 $ 3,814 $ 3,814 $ 183 $ 183 $ 931 $ 931 $ 0 $ 0 $ 97,098 $ 37,098 Glass 964 964 1,162 1,162 1,715 1,715 183 183 331 331 208 208 4,563 4,563 Personal Injury 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 2,500 2,500 0 0 0 0 4,500 4,.500 - Property Damage 132 132 2,327 2,327 2,606 2,606 1,216 1,216 745. 745 .1,415 25 8,501 7,051 Fire 18,059 16,059 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 18,059 18,059 Forgery 0 0 2,500 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 2,500 Crime 0 0 0 0 3,360 3,360 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,360 3,360 Bodily Injury 3,500 1,000 1,200 1,200 35,179 20,179 521,058 1,058 4,238 2,538 4,350 0 569,525 25,975 Auto Physical Damage 1,542 1,542 1,989 1,989 2,488 2,488 156 156 858 858 330 330 7,363 7,363 Liability 4,150 4,150 4,311 4,311 2,754 2,754 9,393 4,393 3,676 3,676 1,711 1,011 25,995 20,295 Other 0 0 0 0 154 154 0 0 367 367 536 536 1,057 $ 1,057 $26,013 $107.493. 47.493 52.070 537.070 5534,689 59.b89 511,146 59.4468.610 2 110 742.521 131 821 TOTAL 528.513 . A v. i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager I' Council Letter No. 266 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council .City of Richfield Subject: Special Use Permit Request By Walser Corporation Concerning Property at 2100 West 78th Street, 7700 Penn Avenue and 2002-2026 West 78th Street. Council Members: Proposal The city has received a special .use permit request from Walser Corporation to allow them to construct some additions to the existing Walser Buick facilities at 2100 West 78th Street, 7700 Penn Avenue, and 2002-2026 West 78th Street. The proposal • involves the construction of a 768 square foot addition to the existing used car sales office; a 1,950 square foot addition to the existing Buick showroom; the relocation of the ramp to the roof top storage area; the relocation of a sign; the installation of additional customer and display vehicle parking; and the removal of the existing rental equipment building at 2002-2026 West 78th Street. This request does not include the new dealership on the Viking Center site. A separate special use permit will have to be obtained for that site. That special use permit will be scheduled for Planning Commission and City Council hearings after the variance issue is resolved. Walser Corporation has conducted a neighborhood meeting and has had a traffic and parking study completed by the firm of Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Copies of Walser Corporations response to the issues brought up at the neighborhood meeting and the traffic and parking study are attached for council information. Zoning Ordinance Requirements: 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, requires that car sales lots obtain a special use permit before locating in C-2 General Commercial zoning districts. When existing car^ sales lots are expanded they are required to obtain new special use permits. . . 2. Section 3.33, subdivision~3, lists standards for granting special use permits for car sales lots. 3. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, governs the issuance of special use permits. Staff Review: Staff has reviewed the proposal against the standards- for car sales lots and has found the following: 1. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site should be developed as high density .freeway strip type uses. .The automobile sales and service use would be consistent with the types of uses which the Comprehensive Plan indicates for the site in question. It can be argued that an automobile sales and service use would not meet the high density test, however. 2. The site does not abut single family residential zoned property. The site does abut apartments, but these apartments are on property zoned C-2 general commercial. 3. There is a history of traffic congestion in the area on Penn Avenue and on 78th Street. There has also been • numerous complaints from the single family residential area north of the site concerning traffic and parking on the residential street in the area due to the Walser use. Care must be taken in reviewing proposals in the area to insure that they do not increase existing problems in the area. The proposed improvements should not significantly increase traffic in the area. The Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. study indicates that Walser's proposed improvements will not increase traffic in the area and are necessary to better accommodate business already occurring on the site. The study also concludes that the proposed new auto dealership would generate less traffic than Viking Center and rental equipment uses which would be replaced. Staff has some doubts about this conclusion because the types of uses in the existing Viking Center do not generate a significant amount of traffic and because we are not sure if the traffic generation numbers adequately addresses such things as customers and employees test driving vehicles. 4. There should be sufficient parking space provided on the site. The city's parking guidelines indicate that 173 parking spaces be provided on the Buick dealership site, and an additional 94 spaces on the new dealership site • for customer, employee, and service related parking; a total of 267 spaces. The plans indicate that there will be a total of 271 spaces provided, 172 spaces on the 4 ~ 0 t ' Buick site and 99 spaces on the new site, four more spaces than would be required by city guidelines. Walser Corporation has provided information showing that the number of employees, customers, and service vehicles at the site on an average day is 243 vehicles. This 28 vehicles less than the number of parking stalls which are proposed. on the site. The 243 vehicles would not be there at the same time either. There would therefore be sufficient extra capacity present to handle eak arkin demand on the busiest da s. P P 9 Y The Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. study also indicates that there should be sufficient parking capacity to meet the parking needs on-site. Staff continues to have the concern that the customer, service, and employee spaces will be used .for inventory leaving insufficient parking for customers, and employees. They are then forced to park on surrounding streets which leads to congestion and continued problems in the residential neighborhood to the north. Customers, service, and employee parking areas should be separated from display spaces and clearly marked to ensure they are available for customer and employee use. 5. 101 display parking stalls are located all or partially • within the 78th Street right-of-way. This results in a negative aesthetic appearance in the area and also poses problems in terms of cars overhanging into the traveled roadway and reduces snow storage space in the winter. This matter will become even more serious in the future as studies are completed concerning the possible widening of I494 and the improvement to the I494/Penn Avenue interchange. It is possible that 78th Street right-of-way will be required for the expansion of 494. If this happens, Walser's use of. the right-of-way for display would be eliminated which would put additional pressure on the customer, employee and service vehicle parking spaces. The area between the curb of 78th Street and the north right-of-way line has been blacktopped and display vehicles are tightly parked right up to the curb. As previously indicated this provides an unsafe condition and does not present a good aesthetic image. In other areas and for other uses the city has consistently required parking areas to be within property lines and that perimeter curbing be provided to keep cars off the boulevard areas. The city has also worked hard to correct this problem where it existed in the LHN area and have called for its elimination in the ILN area. • Another problem related to the use of the right-of-way area by Walser for parking is the lack of landscaped ~ ? 1G~G / areas on the site. Landscape areas soften the appearance of the vast amount of hard surface areas on the site and provide a better aesthetic image in the area. Elimination of parking on the right-of-way and the installation of landscaping would provide a better aesthetic image in the area and provide sufficient snow storage space in the winter time. A final problem related to the use of the right-of-way for display of vehicles is that it contributes to i con estion in the area. The dis la vehicles restrict 9 p Y visibility at the curve in 78th Street; at times overhang the traveled roadway thereby reducing its width• restrict snow lowin in winter a ain reducin P 9 9 9 the width of the roadw and v hi le re driven ay, e c s a over the curb into and out of the spaces on the ~ ri ht-of-wa which oses traffic hazards. 9 Y P ~ Walser Corporation, in a letter attached in the ~i backup material, have requested formal right to use the right-of-way for display purposes and indicated a willin Hess to enter into an a reement holdin the 9 9 9 ~ city harmless from liability in relation to their I, use of the right-of-way. It is staffs opinion that I, in light of the problems and concerns discussed above that Walser Corporation not be allowed to use the • right-of-way for display purposes; that the blacktop be removed and landscaping be installed; and that perimeter curbing, as required by city ordinance; ~ be installed on the perimeter of the Walser parking areas. 6. Driveways are located a sufficient distance away from intersections and do not encroach on adjacent properties. 7. Staff does not have information on whether or not ~ banners or similar attention distracting or visibility obscuring devices would be used on the site. 8. Staff has not seen details on the exterior lighting of the site. 9. There will be no outdoor operation of vehicle service equipment or display of merchandise for sale. Although there have been complaints about Walser employees working on and testing cars on surrounding streets. 10. The facility will not be operated between the hours of 11 PM and 6 AM. 11. There are vehicles parked in corner visibility triangles at the intersections of 78th Street and Penn .Avenue. and 77th Street and Penn Av n e. e u ` ~ • 12. Walser Corporation has indicated a willingness to address a number of the concerns expressed by the residential neighbors. Walser is proposing the following: A. To reduce glare onto the neighbors homes from the Walser Buick's used car lot, Walser Corporation will plant and .pay for the installation of trees in the boulevard area between their property line and the south curb of 77th Street. Staff has no problem with this as long as they follow the city's forestry policy concerning this. B. Walser Corporation will monitor employee parking. C. Walser Corporation would support the installation of a traffic diverter at 77th Street and Morgan Avenue to cut down commercial traffic on Morgan Avenue. While this idea has some merit, it is staff's opinion that this should not be done until overall traffic problems in the area the potential impact of improvements on 1494 can be evaluated. D. Walser Corporation will establish a demonstration • and service route to discourage traffic in residential areas. E. Walser Corporation will extend the existing decorative wall along their north property line to discourage parking on 77th Street and in the residential area to the north. F. The sign to be relocated does not meet current city sign ordinance regulations. It exceeds the maximum sign area requirement by 108 square feet and is supported by more than two poles. The sign should be brought into compliance with city ordinances when it is relocated. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission on a 7-1 vote recommended approval of the special use permit with the seven stipulations recommended by staff. The commission also recommended that a study be done to determine the feasibility of installing a traffic diverter at 77th Street and Morgan Avenue. This should be considered as part of the special use permit for the new Mazda dealership on the Viking Center site. ' ' V J Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the special use permit request with the following stipulations: 1. That a minimum of 17.3 parking stalls be provided on the Buick. site for customer, service, and employee vehicles. These spaces should be separated from display spaces and clearly marked. 2. That there be no parking of vehicles within the right- of-way of 78th Street. The existing blacktop area between the curb and the Walser Buick property line should be removed and landscaped. 3. That perimeter curbing be provided. The design and location of the curbing should be approved by the City Engineer. 4. That there be no testing or servicing of vehicles on adjacent residential streets. 5. That trees be planted in the boulevard area between the Walser Buick north property line and the south curb of 77th Street consistent with the city's forestry policy. • 6. That the existing wall along the north property be extended to east property line to close off pedestrian access to 77th Street. 7. That all new signage including the relocated sign be in compliance with the city's sign ordinance. Respe t ull Abu, mitted, en L. Devic Acting City Manager SLD/eja i OVERALL PARKING ANALYSIS ~ EXISTING AFTER PARKING PARKLNG AREA/EMP/BAYS REQUIRED AREA/EMP/BAYS REQUIRED BUICK SHOW ROOM 26000 SQ.FT. 13 4550 SQ.FT. 23 OFFICE 1380 SQ.FT. 6 2324 SQ.FT. 10 SERVICE 41 EMP,26 BAYS 119 41 EMP,26 BAYS 119 PARTS 10200 SQ.FT. 11 11144 SQ.FT,13 EMP 12 13-EMP. BUICK USED CAR SALES OFFICE 1,452 SQ.FT. 6 2,220 SQ.FT. 9 NEW DEALERSHIP VIKING CENTER SITE .SHOWROOM - - 4332 SQ. FT. 22 OFFICE - - 2660 SQ. FT. 11 SERVICE - - 16 EMP,14 BAYS 58 PARTS - - 2240 SQ. FT. 3 • TOTAL PARKING - 155 267 REQUIRED TOTAL PARKING EXISTING: UNCLEAR AT THIS TIME TOTAL PARKING PROPOSED: _533 i *PARKING REQUIREMENT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: SHOWROOM: 1 SPACE FOR EVERY 200 SQ. FT. OF GROSS FLOOR ARE A OFFICE: 1 SPACE FOR EVERY 250 SQ. FT. OF GROSS FLOOR AREA SERVICE: 3 SPACES FOR EVERY BAY AND 1 SPACE FOR EVERY EMPLOYEE PARTS: 1 SPACE FOR EVERY 1000 SQ.FT. OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OR 1 SPACE FOR EVERY 1-1/2 EMPLOYEES WHICHEVER IS GREATER. J ~ raw we so. I ~ r `1i ~ I ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 9 . ~ C ~ K = ~ - ~ ' 1 1 S ~ ~ g 7p N A ~p~ 1'- .~t~ s - o ~m o ~ g _ZZ//~~ I 6i N - ' C I1 ~ 1 7C F / " •1 { \ I • 'i ~ - \ I~ ~ i £ 3 ~ \ J ` S ~C' r I . ~ ~ ~ i $ ~ i ~ ,o / ~ ! ' ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ y ~ w lf' A [M 511 lR ~ , ~ ~ ~ _ ' a : 0 IA 'f5 ~N ' IA~tING SR/AGR I- I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ g 1 ~ ~ ~ - - , K - I . . _ ~ ~ , ~ fie, . ~ - ; t;i~i~t11~t11~tt"~ ~ . q '."j'~ ~F, ~:ti;,•„l,t?1 •t c1?3:i.s`~."t,'ii!),!; - ~ .R. ~ _ ~.I I I l• I I I i f~I I I I I I I AAORCAN AVE. So. / ,,I ~ ,1 • ~C _ ~ antwG soon fa s~ ~ tc+u~" • USED CARS ~to.~ns+o o°°s'"` wa+o.ar°'°6"'~ scrrn+~"'~` w~ a"° t • h~ tw W Af.SEa BUICK so~N ~v~na+ A O H Ad~ON 70 EX lL•~~ 4 _ N~..? ~ RSWp ` WA~~R AUS NNESOTA RICHFIELD, ~ KpgSUHSKY IqG :H~~,~,~syy . ~ ~ ~ .rte w,r+e' ~'t ,...w r. _ ' ~ tf.~%; Q ~ ~ fl ~~i' 04 ~T6G~ t~s t Z"" av,?~r 8 C Q ti }3 ' ~ ` 1 ~^i;r~sYC~t • ~~~k"p'"~yir `Ht St t~•' U~+ii• yr. t ro .s..N ~ - ` ~ _ ''~'Mft1 k'~ rL"'~Zsr s~1,;vt ~3; s 4r, 3 = k.-~ ¦~r s, : r+;r: r; r ~:tiriy'J,,~v~"'~ N w ~ N ` 3' •.{~JI =t, ~:ti"k ~i~.• .tNy '•'•'k'r•R1!'i:.,, ~ / ~i, w~ n`'t 'm .r yy .ra t s f; .;n• f.•=s~t r Y~"S,t j.a~1~' ~ ~...^-'q 7 rjt= rlsrtw+.•,,•,,Y.~:;.;::~~LS t„`F .9` ~ y it y~ '•ys t .f} {AS r1 ~2~~ fix., ~~lY ~ ~ ~ pi A ~ a :s t..~,~:5 N; ~ • w Sij'JS• r2 Y : is y`i't ~tf,'~~.<'~ ~ ZQ '1 ts'i s,P F,{•w.. is ~ia?t 1'':<:' 26 yr= ~t,{i a `f'Is'~ S3 ~ %Lt~Fii' %V ~ ,t-ysi:+'y{'-+ i 6n Da ~ - `t t _ \ t I }4~} .`1 - 7- li',:F:Xi ,~i`•fJJtil~'"•. J,~':L., 't y- r tt a F:t?«`i`~ "~`~i "~~1'fi'dt~i; •'~S,it1. 3 2g i y 1 v ~ t ~ i~~cJ .,~tt ~.`•.~l i„i^«1.~~~ '^L `~•'~(j I ~ \ ~~)~Ytv ti;:= ti ~ s t: , k4SlE )~t',,f:"K rtr,~ }`y;ti 'q~,~~. ~t 1 ,~!'_r4'` sf• t;~:7 n fit-- ` •k`z ~ ~ ~ . 'usfi:§i ^ wi ~i• ;t',;::'-: •Fxi:. S•= t C, b`~:i;.i}~~'. ~ I. ~ k N 1 r {:~S~:'~~.}, ,•+~~1rYf 1 M s ~:C:• r4~: u + . ' si'•%y4 ~ , ~ T _ ~'x"Jd'~'hc? t t , •s 1, ~'F.'t ';'a'j~rF`~ti'. ~st + sa ya~'J r.k ~ S. . ji ~ti~ L~R f'-~•'~a F`~7:" Fa \tr~~s~Y)y ~ ~ ~ ~ D tt~ rK;: Q't'~'w''~ ~r' tk,:ia,'f "a it `fSf; :vi.','tiV' 1 f J 3 q~F~.t~•1 L, ri. ~l,t ij; '4,tf 1'C 1 `'~"ti 3 r ty M t:' •e'~ J' •ri:'S `ie+`il.'}at' ~':s ~4t?,i$•~i~trX't+•.~+n' ~'~f''t+ •j ~ ~g 24 1 2p kl--•'^~ i t it: V",:~. ':i a i '}`%:tESt ~i+,°:;fi'. tir.. t.• ti r t~. 4~` ~1 :1y ~{ii4v °'tt 'FTtr1`,~ yyyy }t?~?'++y• a~~•+~i•' Ii~ k5 •iyir! q '1Si ttt a{ttf'l:t•= 1 ";i. S.:- r.= s<„ ~ iti! tiY,~;.,:; i~it'',14:. 1,,~,-^"""~~ ZI ' 1.. •t,. }q.~: w•-t u~tty ~'45CPs•,.t,.L .F n.~j- ' t= } JJ _ ~~lR%:#'~f~ str<,~Y~+e~k~~i~: •rr~' ~ , ~ , 9 Z 9 _ f-. ~,::K ~f..t5 a ~?q ~`rG LLt t F ~ rr`t rt' yx ~~i - ~ t ,:t~v~w~ ~ tai a•r y 1,..• r?{', ' - ~y_ ~ z, J s ;i.'.':i'i%ii:ii ~:a;%r.:; ~.:1:>:'. ~ ~ . r~ ~ t:?t~i',•.+ ::.}.S: • J _ ly ~ i.~F.:'t'1.'•?nira'rt.Y~;il/`'=:f^w`SK~.t~,.,;e:'.s ,,~~.;,t;~. ~a. S~ ..41yi.:;..~.•+'; u= ' Sri ~"T;')w ;L; .a 0 1 .rte .'.q~'y~~fN~y~-~iyi~:fr. .!,,si,`.,7,~•;t;•i^~.:i+'`~° .~:r ,;3: ~t rif.. .r.••'yr~~+ fi. 'C R ~i ,1t, ~~t~~t':{a.^r:, :~'•5~,,£sr~.•~'SSY'3'+•t:;T~ O '~5^.y:^ .r:'~• :~~'p',T-•y t~fw:i;q'.•`~C-r•':;r:S~n ~y y`~;: t+~ 2 ~ `1 r~•;;.~t';=' +ry<,.. sir •te t,,~~, _ _ -t s,w;.s« sa:t!r"c.'+. r,~'f 3,`J•.,?t' d tS: ~'~.~Y~;, a..-• : 5 7 t T y"• :,'.~~`.l tiaf'~~"~.~i•~llx; ^Sfi t~ . v, a:•y 'sir.' T{ 61 ,~~~y~ 3y}s~v~~,~;x: iS~,S'::~.',•`~yy~~ti'~` ~-.)st:{~•iy _ 3 ,29 .L.~"" t ?!F3r,,:.- ' a..• ';,s'.y k~,,,.,.. i -,r~•a.'fijr .;:ti .4,rMftr`f~, y,. p `y'%r: yr, ~F.r t ~ V ~ ~ r'r'~.. sa^J:-f'1~irjf ~`a';IQy rNi+eSK: ;r'`a2A~1ly:. iT: ~?'~'l~~k)1'~ _ ~ 1 #i5. ..q 3ktb'S~ti."+-taJ::~:ic, s=;,,, "n' ' .f;•:??,.•. y1.X' ^ y y .r1 ~ _ ~at:t~ ?~:•3Rt;%,,::r; ;h; S: ,;-~,t:}a 'iy Ci:'t. ;f 1~.~ .~~T,,~ °iittl,~+r,, _ •w,:l ~.i.~''Y .i •i!' N r.••)yfi1;„ f,t~a j ~'L'. • ~.r~ fJ f;.,L^^: •.t~`^.,.~L~-f :•ZC, e!.~.r rx:: ri ,~.'r tys ~ -'yiiti:- •`i'7. { Y,y... '•:;vf! L:; .~.~~yy)),yyr~.!~:;x '.r.: •,li. • ;in ls•. siayy4s~t`>,,.T,YSt~y:3v.,iY`L :iif:'.i' %:A:? ;w; ~1 9. '.:JS?li :it' t}: ~ •',J,::,, ~1~' ^ Na s :s` •fi?i: :r`„t X~ ~ ~•..~.tlf .{1 ::y~.ai•::: ,~.r•t ` ..4:!+'~.`: ;:t..). ..aa`.`s?ux .-tF..'„ ^:..J•t'~,.'at<r, :•i%rss:~4..!+..-..: •.:YY,R.A 1/:~..;.'s ei:~t• 'i,~','.::;:i:.:~c:'r!,•: ~ .,f- ??.ic„'•>~' •.'it. r...Y;•. •.7.. s'J:.J ;.~1;}:. .:G~,:;;p. +.t. 'mss. 7.,.,..t_ ~~'f'a°.. s':7 x,:=.?~:. a1J';;:•: .r <r:, •i ..t,: ia: •;i¢ik',~,•.:'i>7:.. .~;.~t:S.gg.•.''.i'' ;r., ,f:, ~ rN~rt G:.t"•.L} • _ `f isi'`;<.::: V ~ t~A,'~t•~ .t5;• F, .Zinc r .,;:rr t?i - 4 ?i~',.Ji€;'::.~a i,'=~.'..,Sa : ~ :f,: ~,:.4*:; • .:i~ ;tom ~.t iv~~~ ~ ~~:',,t :3•,. xith . V, / Y.t~ _y.arr r...~)!, h „rs':i^~•w:. e :.A • . t.•k..., C.,ti t,~" r..,~~ ' . ~~J''{ ~ rti1:C.. ,:e:::, :f:::G~F:a., .:t., :.,J,?.;.:; s5=;~., ~.,'.~gt•i j ~4::Ft<=: .•s... v;a. ,;)a: ;;as.s:,f:, +6.::,~'`jw3:5y<;, ~1 ..aar-,.I':%CS;:;i5 :;4~~t.}C<.tis,.;+~':<;.s:... .,r.'t.:.t:..r..: 5:i.: ~i .,.~Jii'ti;:f;•y: t•. ""~l• .eC:=9tr.$~-..YY~t ~';s. ir, ~S .,;o y.., i:~y ArLn•f} , ii . s: a•x;;=': r+. 'a._..t • : E^ :.1. tt .4M i "sti~;;?ti2. d:^,~.: p;. ,.~y., . (;J•. S:.- .;C i': w.~ [ C~::C''• y.r ~ .~Y:,4.~ !3 {'i„=: .,tyie ,r+' ..r. O 3%f~:..rii. •.,5. rd?:t rrcitu y.v~• ,:=s<' .'y t 2iit~+~? ;{4....:: ~ i'•F•+c? V r`~~ C{j 'S,x. i:).. ,~i`;'.: ,-rs:•?.. <•.,-;3 ~~s~r" r~:f.:•..•~:+:~ ~r.i,:. -=,.t:ki•" •`~)~~ii~:::.:>. ..i „tJyi+•!L ~":i::~~ :,`1,..e .1%s;t: •L~:: 'T.~t ~fr~:~, iltr•" ,sr'y^ • ..r_.,,: a,•r ::•'i!~`.. ,...s j;,a,. _.S.$,i :,s_ t..7' . $ X . ;L'4. •t.. ;ri?'•' ..t.: •s .wi at<~.tiG .^lf.•. ~...~ML''.r.i•S :y.. i•,t:. ;!C•• •!T:y it. h!'ii ~~,,yr~T~.{.r.l v,•:e :.a.,•i~,.'~;:L..: ~!i• it•,'v`':=:r 1:,). - 't•::);nP-ii' .•ts4•~" !C--':,,~~k..•' .~..3... i. ?Y •.}keA.•,.i~. i. t:n.z 1.t ..1'.. ,.:rr ' ~ :t',Y'; .;:5':. -•^,:~:,a.%:r ' k{'2~=E'h~~,fci A •h .tt, t5~ ~ ;r;^,:..,, :#%.s= '3t: :+i: Vii' S .{F`: k~, ~4; f ~Jti •:r%~'•:i2r1; r•x:. •k• r1~a ,~}i.d~~~~'~aw'~.-,,..~.,,.••,•,_-.~~y~.' •L: ) • ~ yv~1 A;:r' Fv.walyi-':•': •t.^:.•' j p..:,i; r'•,.,• ,',k.''.,,' i+"a't'" ;~7~a'`.~'.:: 't„'S.:}, t ' ~,~;•kj` ,~yi.: kt T :4.•x':,~si'f::=ja: a~~ s,• ill' ;ta • t:,' i rfx ,~y'.'7~~.. m '~y2'R,"y;,~~? ~y:,.`:. ,.•;j % ~AT~ t~~r' 1~.~,' L~i,YS`"", "•,'"1?.it'"..ii':''':)iri•'•l:` v';:s~:'!C.~~a~ts:-Y~ ~fy~{,M/k;}:, '1 ~''fJ ~~!,i~tt:... 'tit' rM/. 4':t. JJJ'''11\~~ i,'..,,5, Si~w:.A ~.+.'',`Si~~. ± (J~~'w:i~.. S~i,• ~r.4[•~~i~:l~i~ ::L•":~• •O •,'t • /y `G3.~'~'f' iit~'Y4t '.s f~ *•:~:.^.,lSir:.;Ssr •i'`. ~.f,,i}~;~+i'.,;•~:' ::~.u...it ~:,y=l:r.~,•, s' is V~~.,.} 'Y'~ % ;&=5;`.~E z. L`. q4. ` f .r' a,`•~~j' ..•.n '•,;-%i5-r>7'}:•`^A;,~~ti3~,.dt:t;:J ~>.3~?~';i..srp~~w •v~^J+.';tsc ~f3~;:',:rt+`.;c~4•~}~7'3.' :rrui+':.i ' xd _ ~_l A15~ - June 27, 1986 %380 France Avenue South it Suite 102 Edina. MN 55435 1612)831-3131 Mr. Rick Jopke Walser Buick City Planner 2'00 ~TJest 78th Street Cit of Richfield I' 'Ainneapolis. PAN 55423 y ' 1612) aa9-1a92 6700 Portland Avenue South. Walser Chevrolet Richfield, Minnesota 55423 X825 - 56th Avenue North Plymouth. MN 55442 (0121559-9300 Dear Mr. Jopke: Walser Chrysler • Plymouth This letter is a res onse to + 4 Main Street p your le..ter of June 24. ~opk,ns. MN 55343 your questions and my responses are as follows: ;612)935-2400 i W I r aserF•~ your question #1; What is the existing parking layout ?555 South Highway 100 St. Loins Park. MN 55416 Of the site including the Mazda dealership? 1612)926-5500 Walserlmports Site layout is attached. r"'745 Penn Avenue South Richfield. MN 55423 x612) s81aa4a 267 parking spaces are required by city parking Walser Leasing guidelines. A) How will this requirement be met on 317r~1ainStreet the site? B) Where will the 267 spaces be? C) How Hopkins. P,4N 55343 will ou insure that these s aces are not used for 16 t 2) 933-3083 P inventory? Walser Mazda ~.0 East Speed~+vay Boulevard ~ucson.AZ85716 A) See the attached site layout. All requirements X602) 881-G340 are met. B> See attached site plan. C) There are several ways to regulate this, however, the best way will be by way of signage, striping the designated areas and by closely monitoring these designated areas through the vpera~:.icn's management. What will happen to the existing Mazda site when the new Mazda dealership is constructed on the site currently occupied by the Viking Center? Firm plans have not been approved, however, we are planning on a luxury low volume car line at this location such as BMW and Austin Rover or the like. Will the new dealership require a separate license? The Mazda relocation would not need a new license and the luxury line would. Auto Dealerships and Leasing ~i~~ Mr. Rick Jopke Page 2 June 27, 1986 What will be the design of the buffer areas between the dealership and the adjacent residential property? Please provide additional design detail. Section cuts of the buffer zone are included on our enclosed site plans. The proposal indicates that there will be parking in corner visibility areas which is prohibited by ordinance. How will you redesign these areas to meet the ordinance. requirements? Refer to the site plan. They have been redesigned to comply. Because of the uncertainty of the potenttal widening of I494 and relocation of the frontage road, there are questions about Walser's use of the right-of-way for storage of vehicles. Please advise us on what _ Walser's position is on this matter. We understand that there is a study presently in process regarding the Freews I494 and that this stud Y y is not yet completed. We also understand that it is possible that the 78th street frontage road may be eliminated. -Our position regarding this, if I understand the question correctly, is that Walser Buick is willing to deal with the potential loss of the frontage road whey. the time Arrives. Walser B•ui: k feels that their current position would not be changed as a result of the proposed construction. These entities would, however, like the continued use of the City's right of way on 78th Street and would be willing to sign an agreement to hold the City harmless of any liability. The City's assistance in this matter would be appreciated. _ - ~ Mr. Rick Jopke Page 3 June 27, 1986 I trust that these answers comply with your requests. If your have any further questions .please feel free to contact me. Respectfully, Walser Corporation ~S Richard L. S~oquist President RLS/ecb - Encl. ` R ~5~ UU R ~~~~~N %380 France Avenue South Dina. MN~ssass June 26, 1986 ;612)831-3131 Walser Buick 2100 `!'Jest 78th Street Mr. Rick Jopke '"inneapoiis. iJiN 55423 x6121889-1492 City Planner Walser Chevrolet- City of Richfield X825 - 56th Avenue Norh 6700 Portland Avenue Plymoutn. PION 55442 Richfield Minnesota 55423 ~'2t X59-9300 ~ '~l/alser Chrysler • Plymouth Dear Mr. Jo ke• ,~'4 t/'a~n S?reef t~ H~j OKInS. i,^N s5343 ,g12J 935-2400 Walser Buick, Inc. is in the process of remodeling its New Car Walser Ford Showroom and Used Car Offices. In addition, Walser Mazda, Inc. 3555 Sou?r. H~r,7Nay 10o is lannin to relocate from 7745 Penn Avenue South to the Vikin S,. Louis Park. '~1N 5~4 i6 p g g ~61z1926-5soo Center property on 7700 Morgan Avenue South. This move will pro- Walserlmports vide both the Buick and Mazda dealerships with additional room 7745 Penn Avenue South for employee and customer parking which is so desperately needed. Richfield. MN 55423 Walser Buick and Walser Mazda are convinced that with the addition :612j881-7444 of the land, (Viking Center and Rental Company), recently purchased Wal ~21neasQn~9 by Mr. R.J. Walser, the major parking problems that now exist will riopkins. "?'N ssaa3 be resolved. However, Walser Buick and Walser Mazda will need {6121933-3083 assistance from the City to accomplish this objective. Therefore, Walser Mazda these entities are requesting that the City allow them to continue '30 East Speed son,A Z 185716 parking their vehicles on the City's right of way on 78th Street, 602)881-0340 (as designated on the site map enclosed). These entitiies would be willing to execute an agreement with the City to hold the City harmless in-the event of any liability. They also feel that two hour parking on 78th Street would provide for additional customer parking. Please make this proposal known to the council so that they will consider it for approval. Thank you. Respectfully, Walser Corporation Richard L. Sjoquist President RLS/ecb • AUtO cc: Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director Dealerships and Leasing • i • W ,7(11 sl, _ 1'N[H lartKIVl Y1M ~Y ~.r,._ ~r~_rL__Ir_~.~~-~~ri.~~..,.L._~~_ _~.~__•._~•r~.f ~s~ r-.-- i„a~.: ---_-T'~1 \ RIlOfJ1iT0 S[RVIC ` ~ , I I I ~ ~ I rT^I'•~''I I 1 I ~ ~ I i~ 11- ACClSS ROAD .~I i-°'-u•l4ti•1~ ai~••~(.'il\i~i1`^_~ i - tffltMG yava KOtf aOM aAt ` laq M" I. vT~1M1G{ ~ -~V~~~~' \ \ / ~ 1 f1N A\ • O6N"rte 1 ( I ~ ~ 1 i . ~ ~ pWlllw IUap~•f • I I.elllE wno t y ~ I 1 1 11 'r~71 11 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ Y ((4irr~ I ~ I I` I~ 3! .1 ~ =1 i 1 ( ~ V 1 C • Ia41MG YAlryrt M.atl1Y•C , ; 1 • (tlfllR[ rAt» ANO ~ ._r+tw snt ~ -t-- StRVIC~ AAT7ltlorT- ~ rnCE womo ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ sT. I) .~uiuuuu.4~.ut~ ~4-k+llluU ~ -r-- 1 1 ~ ~ i ~I ~ ~r ~ • ~ ~ WYl N•' wt~lNfS tO\ ; • • ~~~¦•••yyy1 11I1NC JMOtWf O s Iu1nC w10 p.WIW "~rf tM av/~ ~ n-os.® ocslv4 DAtA ~ ~!7 ~ ~ ' nr.•G M110"f0 Yo•- I to-.•t r1 co•+•+adf " lawv.aflr~nf r/an b rur wltu4 uawo ~ N[W SHOD :OOM AL~CMTION - Ia'pyoc mo mnt .ao t~~ ,c fa\ r•(NnowlO 1'95051. I1, I i- 1 J I al/1 11 rat .I i~~ ih I'D•!UVl(!~•S<}I IInCLJ 1 /NawC 111..0. q•novwi+t \O/aM,rrlG lltl°IM1W Vfl1 - ` I 4 . o.~...~t. l~~ ~ l l l 1.~ 1111111 } nutnn SITE ~ 1 1 J IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII , - ~ ~,a~ ~ ~ ~i"°wl,~"''° PROPOSED ADDI'~IONS .~tR4110 w KOASUNSKY NHANK EAICIt50N ` 1 ~ ~ - - ~y a ARCHITECTS. INC. ~`v'J~rj1" I~1 '~•r~lt: 1'~•"•I~ WNSER AUTO DEfiLFRSHIP 1 :~~.r~L~,•~ warms, h9`11~dSOSA : - C` .....e....o,. \...r ' i V ' /K.° Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. h 'xth t Mir~nea olis Minnesota 55454 612-332- 4 1610 Sout Si Stree p 0 21 i i MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Richard Sjoquist, President _ Walser Corporation FROM:. Deane M. Wenger 1 ~;~,L~_ ~ Barton-Aschman Associate, Inc. , 1 .DATE: June 30, 1986 SUBJECT: PROPOSED AUTO DEALERSHIP CHANGES 78TH AND PENN AVENUE RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA As requested, we have reviewed the proposed development of a new .dealership and the moderate expansion of existing facilities along the north frontage road of I-494 for traffic impacts. We conclude that the proposal will be an improvement with regard to parking and can better conform to the objective of minimizing use of 77th Street in connection with your car sales and service areas. The reasons are summarized by the following text. TRIP GENERATION Current trip generating uses to be removed are: II 1. Strip c~.~??ercial center - 22,390 sq. ft. 2. Road equipment building - 7,020 sq. ft. 3. One existing house - 2,330 sq. ft. J/ Barton-Aschman Associates, .Inc. dune 30, 1986 Page 2 The total square footage to be removed is 31,740 square feet. The proposed immediate new construction is: 1. Sales office addition - 768 sq. ft. 2. Showroom addition - 1,950 sq. ft.` 3. New dealership - 20,572 sq. ft. Total 23,290 sq. ft. ~i With the proposed changes, the building area square footage on the property is reduced by about 8,450 square feet. i A strip commercial center, though not having a large square footage, is among the highest trip generators. For purposes of III design and in determining the potential for congestion on adjacent streets, only the F.M. peak hour has to be analyzed since it will I~,I control street design requirements. A strip commercial center generates about three trips. per hour inbound and three trips per hour outbound during the evening peak hour. Similarly the office-services use such as Road Equipment generates about 1.5 trips inbound and 1.7 trips outbound. • Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. June 30, 1986 Page 3 The proposed new uses will generate roughly two-trips per hour inbound and two trips per hour outbound. All of these rates are expressed as the number of auto trips per hour per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. The source of such rates are ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) published data or counts taken by the consultant for similar types of development. If the strip commercial center were upgraded to remain a viable use, the trip generation would be even higher. The net effect of the ro osed develo went in terms of P.M. peak hour trips may be P P P summarized as follows: Existing P.M. Peak Trips Proposed P.M. Ptak Trips Use In Out Expansion In Out Commercial 67 67 Auto Sales Office-Service 11 12 & Service 47 47 Residential 1 TOTAL 79 79 47 47 The proposed new development can be expected to generate 32 fewer trips inbound and 32 fewer trips outbound or 64 total trips per hour. This is a reduction of about 40 percent of the existing development trip generation. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. June 30, 1986 Page 4 PARKING The proposed development is to have 26.6 parking spaces. Ten of these spaces are for the showroom and 20 are for. service. There is also adequate space for car storage and display of cars. The owner will designate separate parking spaces for employees, customers, and vehicles awaiting services. Identification of each area is important in that it is a device whereby the different types of users can be directed to separate entrances. Em to ee s aces are rou ed around the lot so that the are P Y P g P Y convenient to the user's area of employment. Since great walking distances are not required and the spaces are more convenient to employees, they will be discouraged from using any adjacent on- street parking. The latter is recognized as being obnoxious to adjacent residential property owners. If employees chose to use on-street parking on 77th Street, they would be blocked from entering the Walser area directly by screening fence or raised landscaped berms. This further discourages that undesirable parking. Barton-Aschman Associates, Ina June 30, 1986 Page 5 There are more than 600 car parking or storage area spaces on-site. If there are any deficiencies in the parking by designated type, the owner has the flexibility of altering the on-site storage of display vehicles or used cars. In our view the parking and vehicle storage proposed are very adequate. One of the prime reasons for investing in expanded facilities for the auto dealerships is to insure all employees could park on site. In addition the proposed plan better screens the proposed parking along 77th Street. ACCESS TO THE EXPANDED SITE Nearly all access to the site is oriented to the north frontage road. No access drives are provided along 77th Street. The smaller Mazda dearlership would have a single drive off Morgan Avenue as a convenience. Trips to and from Morgan Avenue are expected to be minor since it is. easier to enter and exit via the signal on Penn Avenue at the existing north frontage road intersection. Auto dealerships normally attract longer trips than uses such as the strip commercial center. Therefore they orient toward major ' ~ / Barton-Aschman Associates,. inc. June 30, 1986 Page 6 arterials such as Penn Avenue rather than using local residential streets. So long as the access is made convenient from .the arterials, drivers typically will not divert to lesser streets. SUNII~IARY ' 1. The proposed expansion of the dealerships should decrease the traffic service or parking demand on the site. The proposal is to better accommodate business already occuring on the site. • 2 . One of the key issues in this expansion project is to better accommodate employee parking and storage of vehicles on the site. The plan is more than adequate for this purpose. 3. The resultant trip generation for the proposed use is less than continued use of the site with the commercial center and office-warehouse uses that are to be replaced. 4. Traffic capacity to the site is adequate and heavily reliant on the north frontage road of I-494. . / V / ~G/ Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. June 30, 1986 Page 7 5. The proposed land use change should not increase traffic on adjacent residential streets. In fact the demand for such movement should be decreased. 6. The revised plan does not require, and significantly discourages, employee parking on 77th Street and other residential streets in the area. This is accomplished. by making assigned employee parking spaces very convenient to the area of employment and berms along 77th Street. II 7. The revised plan does a better job of screening the proposed development from the residential area along 77th Street. 8. If desired, the owner would require employees to place stickers on their vehicles to help identify parkers on any residential streets. ~,~3 A ~ '380 France Avenue South July 2, 1986 Suite 102 Edina. MN 55435 r612j831-3131 Walser Buick Mr, RI.Ck .TOpke 2100 West 78th Street ~lt Planner Minneapa~s. MN 55423 Y ~s,2> Bas-14s2 City of Richfield Walser Chevrolet 6700 Portland Avenue South 9825 - 56th Avenue North Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Plymouth. MN 554x2 ±612)559-9300 Dear Mr. Jopke: Walser Chrysler • Plymouth 314 Main Street Hopkins. MN 5343 On July 1st myself and the General Managers of [dalser Buick and is12) s35-240° Walser Mazda held a meeting with a group of neighborhood people Walser Ford who live around the 7600 block of Newton, Oliver & Morgan avenues. 3555 South Hianway ' ~~0 St. Louis Park. ~1N 5~-s These people have concerns that have to be dealt caith and we are :x121 s2s-s~;,~o prepared to comply with them. The major issues were: Walser Imports 7745 Penn Avenue Sou;n 1) Eanployee parking on 77th street, Oliver, Newton Richfield. MN 55423 rs,2i sal-7.:.: and P•lorgan avenues. Walser Leasing - 3?7 F:'ain s:r~et 2) Lights glaring onto the neighbors lawns from our Nppk~nS. :'N 55?~3 Used Car lot. 'S?2i 933-3~3;i Walser Mazda 3) Concern for increased traffic on 77th street . .'_30 East Speec~.vay i3owevara ~uCS.^.,n. AZ $^r .502183,-0340 4) Using 77th street, Oliver and Newton for demonstration and service drives. 5) Incomplete decorative fence on tJalser Buick's Used Car lot as it approaches 77th street. 6) Will there be enough room for employee parking on our lots? In response, our discussion led to the following agreement by us and a proposal to the City of Richfield. First I dem onstrated that tae will most definately have enough room for employee parking with our new land acquisition as in- dicated b the drawin which the Cit curre a Y g ntl h s. In additio Y Y n to providing these designated spaces for our employees, the General Managers will monitcr it closely. Second, to reduce glare onto the neighbors' homes from Walser Buick's Used Car lot, I am making the following proposal to the AUtO City. GJalser is agreeing to p1an~ and pay for the installation Dealerships and Leasing ' ~ Mr. Rick Jopke Page 2 July 2, 1986 of trees north of the existing brick fencing (on 77th street) and on the City's right of way. It Baas discussed and the feelings were that this would greatly reduce the glare as it now exists, plus it would provide a nice aesthetic view. Third, the concern for traffic in the area was the next issue which needs the City's approval as well. A neighbor made the recommendation to erect a road blcck kitty-cornered on the south side of 77th street-and at the intersection of Morgan avenue. Several of the neighborhood people agreed and thought that this was a great idea. (I have enclosed a diagram for example). The feeling was that it would not effect Walser's, McCarthy's, Cannine College's,P.epro printing's or any other business. Walser would agree to this road block for detour purposes. Fourth, Walser will establish a demonstration-and service route, post it so that all sales employees are aware of it and will monitor it so that it is adhered to. Fifth, [falser will complete the exisitng fense to their property line on the north side of their Used Car lot. The feeling here was that currently people use this unfinished area as a walkway. Sixth, this point was answered in statement number one. i I feel that the neighborhood meeting was very constructive and that the [falser Corporation has dealt with the neighborhood concerns. It is my hope that the City of Richfield will cooperate by granting aY~,~oval of two additional requests made in this letter in items number two and three. I hope this helps in the decision making process. .Respectfully, G7alser Corporation Richard L. ~ joquist President RLS/ecb ' ~ ~ LQT ~ML'LpyC'ES 4N ~ N~BER OF ~ ~V1;LZ~CG DAY TOTI'~ QUGrNC AN QFFiCE S~RViC~ 62 p~l2TS USNB 35 ~ 34 NL''~ ~ 1D 7 g2 ~ S`~RE g ~ 8 5 G5 Buick ~_1 Mazda 12 1~ days at any given day' TpTAL d °ut aver the last 30 a typical day as a~eLage rs ding t° the lQt Zn CustOme New: Buick 22 2p Mazda Used' . Buick ' 28 e~i ea and P a~ tS Buiclc - 25 S Mazda y gi d ~ y REPAIR OROERS Tpta. r FoY 5u Im t~Y by MZ ~ Y ~a 3 a ro ~~38'~~'~ gepait pays:~ TUCSON {{47 ' ?y2 L ~ 3 6 37 .CI N43 p~y5;~ Nc vc urs ` CNEVR03L£ IUT UYS ~ j ~ I ,3 '$6 Sellin8 ~KRy5LER N46 t 31 S; DA•1'E~~ q ~ tARppRAT10N / / IMPORTS ?!4 B 4 I USER O i ~ UC Up5 , NC NT t ~ ~ ~ t S ~ ~Z ~ ~s H I urs 3L 3 3 ~ D 39 M46 NCICUF 4; NC UPS ~ 6 ~S ? ~ t ~ ~ tf i~ ID J~~; eoRC . /B f 3 . G I I g 0 ~'rl 1 ~0 ~ • l9l 19 t~s~ UT UY S t W~ ~ f ~ .e~ ~ ,B Qt /9 Nc 3 ~ © 3 tL ~ 1 tS /3 ~ 23 / ~ ~ .;1.~ 8 7 Q ~ L ~ 2 lP tBt bO 17a f38 ~3 ~3 ~5'., s~~ ~ 3I o~ z 3 z o D ~ P S~ z 37 3 f t t t'I yJ a d Z 8 ~ ~ ~ls 7 i 3 / ~ t /0 b / P 12- ~ ~ /z I! ~9 ~ .~l r8 ~ 3T ~y b 3 s- Q 3.~ iG t 11 ~ 3 33 / 3z 3 5 / 2 / %{0 t I 23 /S.3 30 ~ tG t7l 2r ~0 f 3B 2~ 9 1~ a3 : ~ 39 ~~f G l 8 0 t?.~ BP 3 l3i 2~ /.~3 3P Z ~ 33 2 S ~ 33 3(~ ~ lI ~ , 33 b8 t~• ~ r ~ 2? ~ 3 3 ~ tt~ 31? ' 3 31 ~S 8 ~8 3S /D ,r I ~ / ~ 0 ~ 1,2rI. • D 8/3 ~ 31 2r 3 l / O 3 ~ S • ~ 33 ~ i S p z b t 3s't 3bz t 3~ z ~ 2p 22 3~ 3 S t /D ,$1 ~ ~s ! ~ 3~ f 1 5 t i P /0 3D Q ~ 70 68 3 0 SZ G .3 S ~ ~ IB Il 9 7 5© I t t ~ 3z 33 8 zG ~ ? ~ 2 f G 0 2a S 0 ,r 11 ~ l~ 33 D 7$ D ~S • tD 3 2. 3~ 3d S t ~ 18 t SG 3P 3 ~ to t9~ ~ r~P 3 3~ ~ J f ~ ~ 0 G ~ ~3 3 33 is 38 3 t( 3S ~l ,~o! z~ is ~ ~s 39? 3~ I ~ 0 6B ~ p ~ Ib ~ D lI S P ~ 3 P 8 qiL ~~31Z~ tl( ~I ? g 91 ~ , 13 8 7 s z p fP t 2~ t Z~ S3 2, L2 z p, l .0 ~ 3 3r, 31 ~ ~ 3 fd t~ /9 ba ~ 50 / 1 I / p Ib P~ 36 qr, ~ K 3P Z ~ la / 3B ~ D / ~ ~ ~ ~ 3~ 4 /,~q ~ 3 ~ p ~ P~ 3~/ 4 a 133 38 / g i i 2 5~ t 3~ G 3 ~ ' G 9 ~ / ~2 0 ~ ~ S ~ Jq ~ 2~ G 3l ~ 3 ~ ~2 a~ S !¢4 2 - ~z P ~ ~p5 17 / / ~ Q & t ~ p 3 ~ ~ / /P 14 q 32, I'~ 3 n$ ~ t ~ ~ ~ 135 6 ~ C t 0'~- D l3 37 7 ~9 37 3 3 7 ~8 q G r/o J9 3~ ~ t K 9 % b 396 ~ ~N 38G ~ I $ 28 ~ ~ ~ 3 D © ~ 3 t9 3b7 7~ ~ IG 8 a 53 ~ ~ ~3 5 s~ ~ I ? ~ /8 ~S3 1 ~ ,t3 ~ 2G I 3z ? go a3 ~e ~ t3 I ~ ° a9 ~ ~ I° P 3~ 2 ~ t •t ~ 3 t ~ ~ ~ ©o S~ ~ 30 S z t ~ z~ ~ zI /j ~ al 8 38 9~ t~~ L ~3 t 9 8 ~ 0 f CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 265 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Appeal of the Denial of the Variance Request By Walser Corporation Concerning the Property at 7700-7750 Morgan Avenue, 7701 Newton Avenue, and 2002-2026 West 78th Street Council Members: Background: In March of this year the Richfield Hearing Examiner denied a variance request by Walser Corporation to allow them to remove the existing Viking Center structure at 7700-7750 Morgan Avenue • and construct a new automobile sales and services building within minimum 40 five feet of Morgan Avenue right of way instead of the foot setback. Walser Corporation appealed that decision to the Richfield City Council. At the Council meeting on April 14, 1986, the Walser Corporation requested that consideration of the appeal be deferred until June. On June 23, 1986 the council deferred action until the July 14, 1986 city council meeting in order that staff could obtain additional information necessary to review this matter. Current Proposal: Attached for council review is the previous council letter relating to this matter. Also attached is a revised site plan recently submitted by Walser Corporation, which not only shows an altered building configuration, but also the relationship of this site to the overall Walser Corporation site. The building configuration on the site has been changed to move the building further away from the adjacent apartment buildings. Additionally, the previous plan indicated that the building would be approximately five feet away from the property line adjacent to the apartments. .The revised proposal shows that the nearest point of the building would be approximately 52 feet from the west property line adjacent to the apartments. Also the proposed building would be set back approximately 12 feet further from 78th Street right-of-way than was indicated in the previous proposal. However, the building remains within five feet of the Morgan Avenue right.-of-way. Finally, the overall size of the building has also been reduced in the revised proposal. The existing Mazda dealership, which is currently located in a renovated gas station adjacent to Penn Avenue, would be relocated into the new building. The applicant has also submitted an alternative design which would not require the variance, but would place the building right up to the property line adjacent to the apartment. Staff Review The proposal has been improved in terms of smaller building size and increased setbacks from adjacent apartments. However, it is staff's opinion that the proposal still does not meet the conditions for granting a variance. Staff has reviewed the requests for a variance against the city and state requirements for granting variances and find the following: 1. There are no unique circumstances present on the site in question. The narrowest depth of the site along Morgan Avenue is approximately 135 feet. This is a typical lot depth in this area and other commercial areas of the city. While the total site is irregular in shape, it is staff's opinion that the site is large enough to • negate the irregular shape. The irregular shape is the result of the combination of the multiple parcels. There are no other unique aspects such as topography or poor soils present. 2. In staff's opinion there are no undue hardships present. Denial of the variance would not prevent the property owner from putting the property to a reasonable use. While the existing Viking Center structure does not conform to the present setback requirements (setbacks on north-8 feet; east-24 feet; and south-31 feet instead of the required 40 feet), the existing use could be continued. The existing structure could also be removed and a new sales and service facility or other permitted use could be constructed on the site which would meet the city's setback requirements. Walser has an alternative design which would not require a variance. 3. The proposal could alter the essential character of the area. The granting of the variance would result in the reduction of open space, and result in additional visual and vehicular congestion in the area. The area already has problems with vehicular congestion, and with aesthetics because normal setbacks have not been maintained and • because of the number of automobiles parked in the area. The alternative design, which would not require a ~ , variance, would also have a negative effect on the • character of the area because there would be a zero setback adjacent to the apartments resulting in a commercial building being approximately 14 feet from an apartment building. This would have a negative effect on the apartment. The zero setback is allowed by the ordinance because the apartment site is zoned general commercial. In terms of the impact of the proposal on the adjacent apartments the original design placing the building further away from the apartments and within five feet of Morgan Avenue is better. It is also staff's opinion that the proposed building on the site needs to be considered as part of the overall Walser site and not just as a separate proposal. There is a history of problems in the area including congestion on 78th Street, on- street parking in the adjacent single family residential neighborhoods, congestion on Penn Avenue, use of the public right-of-way for display of vehicles, excessive traffic in adjacent residential areas and congestion on Morgan Avenue. The proposed new auto dealership on the site will have an impact on the area and can potentially add to the existing problems. Therefore it is important that the city consider the overall development and closely review matters such as on-site parking to insure that there is sufficient parking on the site for customers, inventory and employees, and that adjacent streets are • not used to meet parking requirements. The additional information received from Walser Corporation indicates that they will provide sufficient parking on-site to meet the customer, employee and service vehicle demands. They are also taking actions to reduce the impact of their use on the adjacent residential neighborhood. More detailed discussion of these matters is provided in the council letter concerning the special use permit request in a separate council item on this agenda. The city will also have to approve a separate special use permit for the new dealership on the site. Once the variance issue is decided the special use permit for the new dealership will be scheduled before the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Staff is comfortable at this point that we have information regarding the plans for the overall site and sufficient information to be able to review the proposal and be able to assess the impacts of the development on the area. • • ' • Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council uphold the Hearing Examiner's denial of the variances because the conditions for granting a variance have not been met. Resp c fully bmitted, n L. Devic Acting City Manager SLD/eja • l • w. nn, x ' ' 1 1lD1 Wt)fCAll M!M ' ~.•REIOCATEDSERVICE \ \ \ M I ~ ~IT"`YiP,I I~I_ ~ -ACCESS ROAD / / ' i I 6 I i ~ - ~ _ _ arc I ! ; 1 1 - B / uuovl/lrc111.c/lolel- ~j•••• r•"•y-f"n„a 1 tlai.lc xlna Access loAO A ~ ~ 1 _ Fh LI~'/~ICE~~ I. ~ 1 1 1 1 t_ 1 fIf } 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 f I 1 1 If ~O_, /1/~ I [l6iNL AVIO ~ + I l i l I I I I I Il• Sj p1AltlylY wnln.lc ~YJl) f f 1 1 I f I 1 l I I I I I I I ,I I I IT 1' ••..jj-- } 1.~ a 1' ~ / i ~ 1 I ~ t167MC NMiKM M1tO?.C 1 1 ~ Ai •r':: I 1~~'k+~A~S'~!~? "~I NEW SALE ^ '1=^ ~::i`.,r~.,: ':•:•:v:~:•: j1 SEl;Y,1Gf,.el4,[+,~,1',l~,Y,6~.< ~ FE!CE ADDIT! r I i~I ~ ::•.•:ti.:r. ` w' fAUfuc, xTrxla J i 1'~''•''{•, . I 1 1 1 1 • V•' 1 :'l 1 1 :.Li.~su. • R wlv~AUlauuslm ~ 1 t1 I :Sr..~;: t ai?/c Alrto sAlts ~ ( 1 ~ ~ ~n 1r1 I I i I : jt;:~ ;::w;.l;;. ; ' 'Al1S UnIOAdIM.~ I 1'M.S~ 'i=:'•1'f`:'. to YAOS ! ,o ~1 j --1- ....--,~:.i•iviyi•,~: ; : 1 y~ DES!GNDATA tltlIMC.AU! 't__"~M=_j~= i ~ :~+cY.t•R'.v.;:'' ~ 1[>rlIIG 4! COwlilpN /MC !.•l':~ '.•i• ••:'l': NEW SHOW tCK1M ADDITION 1 •'•:1; «aaw+lisAas /lola b mt vAlw.ct uquem 1,950 5f. ~oantr Nul11Alo slur' ~ ~ }'r:..:.:.: ? . sa wla uaualn - ~ 1 rAel.Iostiuns +s'AOlAalntolmiwc!!va«IS,?uus -t----'--1~-~~lio~_t11a1~_•• / 1 _ I I 'ITI I n1.I I I ti I I i I I III - 1-o•sllo Ira nlocAns w. Tan! s< t . >e >a \ • ~ KOASUNSI(Y KRANK ERIG(SON y. ~ x. ~ ~ ~ .._..l.~ ~ ~r _ ~cNrrECTS.wa ~vp~'~~;~. WALSER AUTO DEALERSHIP ~ ~ .».....~'"«.1 '..~1~ . ~ 'ir-~ .:.:..~,__I RIC]-F~1.D, fvYt~50TA Ito ~ yyttM4 ~OOf ;IGtt t0 ~(MAIt1 I • USED CARS taw.at+•s'°te`°"' _ - - - I fit{ f},EVATION I _------~f~~ wmap" o~ ~ o~ taw ~VATICN~ 1NEST C~ ~ ~ ~pf,M~p yampa+~ II App(QON 7O ~ ;~i ' auk e,ra,» ~~I ~ ,aw r re?• ~o~y pw~eo°'"a~w+~ --1---- WA~tCK - - ~ - Anat+ - _ taw KTa* sno'"tc°°++ AtJfO SHOWR ADDp10N TO EXISrtN ~ pEAtERSHiP vo • wALSER AUTO NESarn ' - ~ • RICHFIELD, • KpRSUNSKY KR 1N~C. +y~£~. ~ ~ - • ~ ateAasoim+ ;~31'~~ ttw~ yotlv.'~+ ptp~.af00 y ~ 1900 West 78th Street ~Car~'s MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 . _ - (612) 869-1414 OLDSMOBILE Ju.~e 20, T9~G R~cfz J~pfze C~.~y P~avwtelr C~~y o'~ R~chU~e:~d G700 Pa~c~Xa:v~d Avenue.. R~chb~:e.~d, M~nne~o~a 55423 ne: App~2~ca~~ove ab (Ua-P~se~c Caxpana~~.an bon. vcur~.av~ce 7700-77:_50 Mongan Ave. So. Deatc Mn. Jaj~Fze: A~~aehed 'p~2eu~e owed oevc easy ab ocvc 2e~~en ~o you dated ~ , ~eb~cucvcy 25, 19$6 negancl~:~cg ~Gi~~s vcvc~.anee: ~c,vr pa~~.~%yv~ xema~.vvs, the game. Shau.ed eov~~.de~ra~~an be ~n ondvc pen (~ia~en ner~ue~~ I'm ~stvice we wau.Ed ~mmed~.a~e.ey pe~:~~~.6n, botc the ~axne va~c~avcce ~a add ~o ou~c Body Shap 'avcd etc. ~o add ~a och pcuc~~.cu:~2a~c cavened cvicea. yocvc~ ~u~y, r - 1 ~ by - , be W, J, McCarthy February 25, 1986 Rick JJ~ihb City Plar???ar Li Y 6 %00 Yur tlc?r?d Rver?ut Ilicl?f1e1~, f';t~ 55413 re: Application of y~alSer,Corparation for variance 7 700-7750 tiuraan Ave. S. Dear trtr . .Iopke: Ttris letter is on behalf of Wally tlcCarthy's Oldsmobile, Inc., 1900 Zest 78t1? Street, Richiielcl, irr oppvsitiun to the applicativn by Walser Cvrporatiun for a variance to allow construction of a Luilding at 7700-7750 tforgarr Avenue South within fivE reet of the streat right-of-~~aay instead of the 40 f~eut required by the regula- tions. The 40 foot set back requirement imposed by the city is to address • public health, safety anc general welrare concerns, and to provide for orderly development in light of those concerns. A view of tt~e subject property aver not demonstrate that enforcement of the regulation will cause legal undue hardship because of circum- stances unique to the property. The subject property can be put to reasonable use without tyre granting of the variance. This is par- tlcularly true since the proposal is to construct a new building, not to use an existing building which is in noncompliance. It would appear that any claimed undue hardship would be that created by the landowner and r?ot caused by a unique circumstance of the subject property. When Wally ticCarthy's Olr,'sraoUile, Inc. (then Lindahl Oldsmobile, Inc.) several years ago desired tv build a body shop, it was re- quired to naintain ttre required set back from Morgan Ave. So. ince tide subject ro~ert does not resent uni ue circumstances S 7 P 1? Y P 9 (other than landowner created),. it would appear that equal enforce- ment militates against granting the variance. We would appreciate consideration given to this letter, and request that it be made part or tlrc hearing record. Yours truly, • Roger C. Miller RCM:lac ' ID:0093M _ ~ t T Y o f ~ Z C F Z e L ~~S~.S3 ^Sr~~i L_t?.C..L.L~E.LR_C.I T Y a rZ.D,1.r..CS.; X 2 4 L - ;J~I~~fZ _ 2 R._4.P ~ X I.,_~ C ? .ti. ! LOtATIG~ 04iWER'S NAME / ADDRESS CIF DIFFcRtNT THAN LGCrTI0N1~ 33-028-24-33-0040 ,VARY C ~iAGtiER 7001 MORGAN AV S 33-G28-L4-33-C041 VICKY L yELSON 7009 MORGAN AV S 33-~JZ3-2=+-33-OJ3a R iGRYPcL € R KLU?CAS 76J0 ~;ORG;,N 33-C23-24-33-GJ39 EUGE~lE A3ELSON 7bJ8 MORGAN 33-0[8-24-33-0040 3RUCE € D ~IETTcRNACH 7x14 MORG;,N 33023-24-33-Lu41 THOMAS R McAD 702J MOZuAN AVE SO ~3-023-24-33-~:,78 FRIcDA L~IVZtiGcR 76x1 N=wTCh 4226 VALLEY VIc'~ RD EJiyA MN 55424 33-028-24-33-0:,74 RICriARD dEi1NING ?505 NE~+TON 3 23-64-33-0::30 ROGER R oLZDD=1v ?611 NEdTO~. AV S 33-t725-Z»-33-CJ31 t KITTY LcFFzLAAR 76.17 Nci~T011 33-J2o-24-33-~30.2 CAROL hEVSLEY 75J0 NEwTCN 33-028-24-33-053 LEONARD A NARDIE JR 7008 Nc~TO'v AV. SO ' 33-u23-2y-33-~::0:4 REUSEti g Cr+RCL TULIKA'~GAS 7014 N_=~iTOti AVE 33-J23-Z4-33-~C;S L~VINA cISCN.N 7620 NE'++TO's AV S 33-J23-24-33-GCbz aRAD S € J~LZE M JOHNSOu 7b33 :.LZ~'ER AV S 33-023-24-33-CJ53 A F GitESEr?INK '6J9 :;LIVeR :3-023-24-33-C~o4 JcAN":c A SEC::FF 70~ JLI'J~~ av S 4001 CGNCGr~D TrRRACE EDINA, N!N 5542.4 ~ . 33-028-24-33-Cu21 S STOTcSdEriY 760J OLiVER ~~,~1j~, I ~ ~j~ t ~T Y F R 1 C N F' t 1 ~_g C C F C C ~E_.'r Y~3::.~ ~ E O~Z-C_i T Y__ P_3.L` J ~T ' X..Z4~ - etA1 S' Q--PROP C ~I~:~.D s N. / LGCATiGN Ow;iER'S ,yA;~E /ADDRESS tiF DIFFERENT THAN LGCATiON) aS 33~JZo-_>4-33-CJ22 J « CR~TZ'•ltYtR ?~74 OLIVER _ 33-020-24-33-G023 ANDRE« KRA,WER ?b10 CLIVER _ 33-026-24-33-u0Zy 4NN L STRU3 . 7ti14 OLIVER 33-028-24-33-0025 GUY ASTELL ?620 GLIVER ~ S 33-028-4-33-0026 PAUL F RAG:~TZ 7024 CLIVER AVE SC 5 33-023-24-33-0027 RANDY s LCr?Ic ~iL3cE 7b28 CLIVER AVc SC 5 .3-G26-24-33-3028 RC~cRT c GI;ThE '034 CLIVER 5 33-028-24-33-0029 GERARO D FOX ?.533 GIIVER AV_ SO ~Zo-24-33-GG30 RONALD LEV:TCN S~v OLZVER - ~3-X728-24-33-G031 BARSARA ~CRCHN '539 PENti :3-~J2b-Z4-33-Ou32 cLL«YN c NY"~MN '033 P=Nrt AVc SC I 3-u28-L4-33-G033 EL~'".cR u AMO 'b27 PENN AVE SO 3 :3-G28-24-33-G034 JCc T JENS~N '321 Pc~lti 3-020-24-33-6035 r~C~+a~iAD SHARIEF 615 PENN 3 3-x28-24-33-0036 ST RFCHAr2Da CNIi?,CH 5J9 ?ENN 7561 PcvN AV. S KIC.riFitLDi "'v 55423 5 3-023-L4-33-6337 S7 2ICHaRDS CHURCH 501 PENN S 3-028-24-33-0012 =UNICE TvAVIS ~t,~la N N 3 3-U Lis-24-33-C014 waLS_R SMPORTS INC 74~ PcNN S TC7AL ASSESS'1ENT IS: ~.`Jy,- ~ f/ 1 - / / v _ t x April 2, 1986 M N ~ Dear Property Owner, t•~¦~t Ln ~ The Richfield Hearing Examiner recently denied the variance request by Walser Corporation to reduce the required setback Q from a street .from 40 feet to 5 feet for ~ their proposed new Suick Sales and Service . facility on the site which includes 7700-7750 _ Morgan Avenue South, 7701 Newton Avenue and = 2002-2026 West 78th Street. Walser Buick is appealing that decision to the Richfield City Council. The City ~ Council, acting as the-Board of Appeals, will be conducting a public hearing concerning ~ this appeal at 7:00 PM on Monday, April 14, i ~ 1986. The hearing will be held in the ~ Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall at ~ 6700 Portland Avenue. ~ I invite you to attend this hearing and make ~ your feelings known on the matter. O ~ If you have any questions ~ , please feel free to contact me at 869-7521. ~ _ ,r Sincerely, L Q Rick Jopke ~ C City Planner O RJ/jle telephone: 869-7521 (.612) • an equal opportunity employer ~~2- r Owners -Managers ~ ~ • ¦ APARTMENTS ! SHOPPING CENTERS ¦ COMMERCIAL - INDUSTAOAL ~ ! HEALTH CARE FACELETEES SAGE COMPANY F 6490 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD - MEADOWBROOK BUILDING PHONE (612) 920-9131 - MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55426 March 31, 1986 The Honorable John Hamilton & City Council Members City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Variance Request by Walser Corporation Gentlemen: It is our understanding that on April 14, 1986, the City Council of Richfield f will be considering an appeal of a denial of a variance requested by Walser Corporation to reduce the required setback on Morgan Avenue from 40 feet to 5 feet for their proposed new Buick Sales and Service facility. As property owners of 7701 and 7705 Morgan Avenue, we would like to express our support for the denial of Walser's request. As adjacent property owners, we feel that the observance of established setback requirements is essential in maintaining existing character of the neighborhood and is the only sure way to prevent both visual and traffic congestion. Thank you for your consideration. Please advise if we can provide any addi- tional information. _ Yours truly, LEASEBACK PROPERTIES Sohn Goodman, CPh1 Managing Partner JBG:ngd cc: Abbe S. Epstein Commercial Property Manager The Meadowbrook Building is located on the Campus of Methodist Hospital //X(a7 `//(/Y I J Variance Request CASE N0. 86-V1-Cri1 APPLICAiu~ ih'ALSER CvRPORATION * PROPERTY LOCATION 7701 Newton, 7700-7750 Morgan Avenue 2015-2026 West 78th Street H._,ARIr~ EXAMINER Connie. Hoverson -._y - M HEARING-DATE 2/27180 N ~ APPEARANCES 1. Rick Jopke, City Planner ~ 2. Dick Sjoquist, Representing Walser Corp. ~ 3. Jan Soucy, Representing Southto-rrn Apartments Based uvon the evidence presented at the hearing, the 0 undersigned makes the following findings of fact, conclusions ~ ~ and decisions. ~ FINDII~'GS OF FACT = 1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice was mailed to ~ property owners within 350 feet of the site in question as required by city ordinances. The ten day notice ~ requirement was also met. ~ ~ ~ 2. The street addresses and legal descriptions of the property ~ in question are as follows: ~ 1. 2016 West 78th Street: Tract G, RLS No. 800 ~ 2. 2020 ~+est 78th Street: Tract F, RLS No. 800 > 3. 2022 west 78th Street: Tract E, RLS No. ~o ~ 4. 2024 west 78tr. Street: That part of Tracts A and E, O ~ RLS No. 800 lying East of tY~ West 30 feet thereof. ~ 5. 2025 West 78th Street: That part of Trtact D, RLS No. 800 lying East of the west 30 feet thereof. ~ 6. TT00-7750 Mor?an Avenue South: Commencing on the South lire of the Soutnwest quarter of the Southwest quarter L. of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 at a point 320 feet east from the southwest corner thereof, thence north Q 055.28 feet; thence East 163.8 feet, thence South 650.28 feet; thence best 164 feet to beginning except roads. ¦ ~ ~ 7. 7701 Newton Avenue South: The East 59 feet of the a Nortn 1a~ ieet of tnat part of the Southwest quarter of r. Section 33, Township 28, Range 24 lying south of Robert ~ Weoers First Addition and 'viest of tre Soutrerly exrznsion of the East line thereof except roads. 3. Tim zcning of the site in question is C-2 General COT'!:°rC131 telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer _ ~ -2- r . , • 4. The variance requested is to reduce the required buildine setback from I~IorQan Avenue from 40 seer to 5 tees. 5. The reasons for the request are that the depth of the lot Tess ~~tback ?reas is riot sufficient to allow the size of C buiidin? nacessGrv nor tree proposed automooile sales and SerVI~~ LSe. s Cv~:CLUSIOtiS ~ Minnesota Statutes Section 452.337, subdivision 5 provides for-`~_ tl~ granting of variance to tt~e literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship to tY~ owners of the property under consideration. In determining whether to grant or deny the requested variance, I specifically make the following conclusions: 1. Is the erantin? of the variance necessary for the preservation ana en,iovment of supstantial croperty rights? I conclude that tt~ granting of the variance is not necessary for t~ preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Denial of the variance would not preclude reasonable use of th? property. The existing commercial use of the property could be continued. The existing structure could also be removed and a new automobile sales and service e' facility or other permitted use could be constructed on the site within try setback limitations of try ordinance. 2. Are there special circwTStances or conditions affecting the particular lana or buildin? referred to in the application, not caus2a by tre property o•~ner, which are not comvon t0 otr_ar croperties in this or similar aistricts? I conclude that there are not special or inique circumstances present. T~ site is sufficiently large to allow reasonable development. The size of the site also is similar to otr!er commercial sites in the area and the community as a ;,mole. There are no unusual topographic or soils conditicns present on tY~ site. The srape of tY~ site is irregular but was created by the applicant. 3. will the ~ra_ntir.~ of tre variance alter the essential craracter oI tre reirrorrooo or locality I conclude that the eranting of the variance will not alter tt~ cr~racter of the area but could contribute to existing visual end vehicular congestion problems Ln the area. _ ~ ' f i -3- ' 4- Are trere anv conditions which must be attacred to the prantin~ of me variance to ensure compliance and to protect _ adiacenL properties'? I conclude N/A ~ ~':L C. DECISION Based upon the foregoing, the ~mdersi~ed determines that tY~ request be denied . DATr D : ~Jt~~, ~a , ~ 9 . nearing ~,xaminer City of Richfield I C}, o r,~ r~ 7 ~ CXISTING VIKING CE~TER . . .~J. 7 t h . .9~ ~24- ~ - C m - I-~ 1 , - - - •L a. . - GUTTER TO BE • ~ _ . PUT IN "a . _ ~ _ :f..; _ W C~ E-' S~ CONCRETE StDENALK _ i.. O ;.a - TO HE PUT IN •-`i-. i. • y _ ~ _ _ _ i;; APPLICATIGY FOR OFF-STREET AIRKIN6 9 - N0. bl-+2 - ! ~ OJtFRt i~FiLL1YAN~LAYBIN, INC• ~'1 _ - - _ 1 738 BEST b~TH STREET . ~ . --~=J ~ LEOAL DESCRIPTIOUi THAT PART OF THE Sf4 OF THE S~~ OF. ! ~ Q SEC. 33, T. 28, R. 24, Y. of THE 4TH , ~ a ~•1 - PRINCIPAL ARID{Ati OEBCpIBEO AE FOLLO>r6t `~I Q . ~•1 " COYYENCINB AT A POINT O18TANT 820 FEET ;raLE EAST CF. THE S•1'. CORNER OF SAID SEC. 33, V 1"_60' - THENCE N. A D{BTANCE OF 556.28 FEE7i - _ _ - _ _ THE`JCE E• A Ot6TANCE of Ib3rEET, ~NCE~$. " - - - ~ • _ A 018TANCE OF 656.28', THENCE T. A 0187ANG _ ~ _ _ - :-".f=-si OF (64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BECtNNING~ • W I" _ 770Q-T.-±a~ ibAaJ1N AVEtJUE - ` . U - - ~ - r CS.. RETAIL SALES b SERVICES - .70. PA.2Y,;t;G SPIlCESs 84 ~ ' - • _ ~AZC :F APrt1CAT101:s~FEeRUARY 1, 1961 - - z ~ - . • ~ Q C0:21CIL A.T IOSis FE BAUARY 13, 1961 _ a ~ cO . • ~ M. W 20 ~ 2/6/5 J " 90 -24- • . cp. j _ ; y - SERVICE RD. - ~ ~ _ ? • - BARRIER CURB _ - - • ~-n''- fy f. f (3) Zn the case of an interior lot a'outting upon too or more streets, no detached accessory shall be erected or altered so as to encroach upon the one-fourth of the lot nearest either street or in .any case nearer. co the established building line on either street frontage. {4) In the case of a corner lot abutting upon two streets, no accessory building shall be erected or structurally altered so as to encroach upon the ~•front•half of the loo nor so~that the building will be nearer to the lot line'. along the street side of the lot than a distance equal to the width of side- - yard an .the streetside of the to t; .but on a corner lot ad}acent to a key lot, no detached accessary building shall be located nearer to the street line of the street upon which the key lot faces than a distance equal to the depth of front yard requires on the key lot. A garage with doors opening toward the street shall not be closer .than 20. feet to .the lot Line. - (S) In -the case of a corner lot abutting oa more than two streets, no detached accessory building shall be erected or altered so as to be nearer to the lot line along the street side of the lot than a distance equal to the width of the side yard on the street side of the lot or nearer to any street line of the lot than a distance equal to one-fourth the depth of the lot.- - (b) No detached accessory building shall be within five feet of the side Iine of the front half of any adjacent lot except as hereinbefore specifically permitted. (7) No garage with doors .facing upon the street shall be within 20 feet of the lot line. • (8) The foregoing rules shall not require: (a) Any detached accessary building to be more than 75 feet from any S~ street Iine bounding the lot. (b) The street side of any detached accessory building to be nearer to the lot line opposite the street line than 20 feet. (c) A private garage to be separated from the front and side lines of ' the lot where the slope of the front half of the lot is greater than one foot rise or fall~in a distance of seven feet from the established street elevation at the property line oz where the elevation of the lot at the street line is five feet or Wore above or beloc~ the established elevation. Subd. 4. Conversion of Single Family DwellinQS Prohibited. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, a one-family dwelling structure located- . in an "C-1" or "C-2" or "Z" districts shall not be converted into or used as a two-family or multiple dwelling unless the owner thereof has first obtained a special perait in accordance with t'~e procedures outlined in Section 3.41 of this chapter. (Bill 1982-5) 2/8!82 3.40. BOa..RD OF ~DJLST`~`;T ?~YD :LPPr~I.S - Subdivision 1. Creat;on. The board created in this section is established in conformity with Liinnesota Statutes, Section 402.354, Sucdivision 2, and the provisions to which it refers. 1 2~V~V~ ORDINANCE CODI: 79 CITY OF RICH FIELD,MINNESC'?A _ I ` - ~ ~-~l j Subd. 2. Counci3 Shall Act as Board.; Powers. The council shall serve as the board•to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in ~ any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of this part of this chapter. Hearing examiners from the Committee of Hearing Examiners created pursuant to Section 3.40A of this Code shall hear, subject to the right of appeal to the council as provided in Section 3.40A, requests for variances from the literal provisions of this part in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions are consistent with Minnesota-State Statutes, Section. 462.354., Subdivision 6 and any amendments thereto and .will be keeping with the spirit and intent of•this part. In the event that the authority of the Committee of Hearing Examiners shall expire pursuant to Section 3.40A, Subdivision 10, such expiration shall automatically vest authority in the council to act as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals with respect to the matters previously within the jurisdiction of the Committee of Hearing Examiners. Subd. 3. Application for Appeal-Fee. .Application for any appeal permissible under provisions of this section shall be made to the city manager .by writtem application. An application for appeal shall be accompanied by payment of a fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code in addition to the regular building fee, if any. (Bill 1917-16) 8/8/77 Subd. 4. Public Hearing on Appeal. Upon receipt of any application, the council may seta time ana place ror a public hearing on such application. At least 10 ~ ~ days before the date of any such hearing, a notice of the hearing shall be published once in the official newspaper. Subd, 5. Requirements for Compliance. In all cases in which adjustments of variance appeals are granted unaer the provisions of this section or Section 3.40A, the council shall require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary to insure compliance with the conditions designated in connection therewith. Subd. 6. Orders. The council shall within a reasonable time made its order deciding the matter and shall cause a copy of its order to be served by mail upon the petitioner. Subd. 7. Record of Proceedings. The council shall maintain a written retard of its proceedings wnich shall include minutes or meetings, its findings in cases before it, and a record of action 'taken on each matter before it including the final order. (Bill 1985-21) 8/31/85 - 8/31/85 OROINaNCE CJOE 80 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA _ _ ~ ~ _ oar ~ ~ ~6 8407 HOUSING. REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING. ZONING 462.357 t and shall .the existing ordinance would take effect when adopted, and shall have considered tub' its whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such .changes and ~its alterations renders the obtaining. of such written consent impractical,. and such ~ ,,^gu~Ons; planning. commission or planning board shall report in writing as to whether in its caries less opinion the proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably related to the s side of a _ overall needs of the community, to existing land use, or to a plan for future land use, town or and shall have conducted a public hearing on such proposed ordinance, changes or ~ ;hereafter = x alterations, of which hearing published notice shall have been given in a daily - 'rtY were a newspaper of general circulation at least once each week for three successive weeks adopts a prior to such hearing, which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such hearing, and shall have reported to the governing body of the city its findings and land use recommendations in writing. out the Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals. and ' >rdinanee _ adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any Subject reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and _ opt and r=` adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: i _ (I) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any eto shall order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in icy or by --i-` the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. • shall be (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in ~r to the instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of ~.:ndaries _ ; circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant ; .east ten such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with , *o~rty i the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with :ndment - the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a mailing --:~s~ reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of "esses of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the , rich the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the -r?afj^ a ~ locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if _ 't~ reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue 2 r hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for made. y{= solar energy systems. .Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as initial- defined in section 116J.06, subdivision 2, when in harmony with the ordinance. The o board of a als and ad ustments or the overnin bod as the case ma be, ma not ' party PPe J g 8 Y Y Y 5y the permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property -study _ in the zone where the affected person's ]and is located. "The board or governing rceived _;'z body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family ntil 60 dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be port by _ - may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to =~"e_ protect adjacent properties. of this ~~t Subd. 6a. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children coning should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations shall from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions ers of • ba through 9, "person" has the meaning given in section 245.782, subdivision 2. e total ' Subd. 7. Permitted single family use. A state licensed residential facility party - `f=; serving six or~ fewer persons or a licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer . t, and - persons shall be considered a permitted single family residential use of property for ~f the - the purposes of zoning. ~ by a _ Subd. 8.~ Permitted multifamily use. Unless otherwise provided in any town, thout - municipal or county zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivision, a state -such ~ licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 persons or a licensed day care :less .4}~~ facility serving from 13 through 16 persons shall be considered a permitted ins of multifamily residential use of property for purposes of zoning. A township, j - ' ^ 1: ir,. vt a' •t' ~ t~{,. ,I,''1' ~'1 r) 'r', • ,~'~u~. s~~.1rJ ' i ~!I' ~1 i IJ ((Ili'!; !Uy i~t'ljl'•~ ',:l'~1 1,1'';: ti 1 j•t::I li .t• , (I'trT ~i'• 1'~~' 1 jc~f f~.+'I, • .a 1, , •r 11, ,pJfA .l'.I'. ,,1. I. ~ .•11}. ,1~~• ~ ~ ' 1~ ~ 'Li + 1 ' j+1 t. ' N f.: ~y1, I ~ ( 1 v hr. I r• f r ' { t{ h I ~ ~ . k!, ~ ~ ',r, ~.tl jj:,!It,qI''U,~4~1 vZ ~1l~"trll~,~!r (•(,4}. , rr',,,.. }y 1, :!i~i~.(i,~ 'I'~ •:~1.,.~I~j. ',ft! rl i 1t;1~„) ij';' ti:~-t.r1R~'':4,r.•.Itl,f+I;jFI ~'~V`I;,; t ' , ( t.• n, I 1 Jl h ~1 1 +I ' F',rt• . ~'1 f~ ~ j n ~1' ~V~t S' 1\ •t h' 1. 1•. r~.'j: + V •1 ,I . ' i' •f: ,~illtr 'l{Er ,t !I Ir. J•.f~:7 Mk ),5 '.(i, ,,i71i 61 ''f;i,r tt r~t.fi'1 k , '.Al; a j,~l.l;~ •:f.l~l:fl~'•'1' •4~(''a,: `1'lr jl, ^.I: ' '1r I .1. t. f' j~.li.l,, •I' !r { Ir 7,!.'1,1) q r'l. ~1~„i 1.~, 1~ ~.vt'tl 11, :I~ '1: 1' •I. I;ll~ ,k I.(. i,il F 1'•^: j .,h;1 .rl 1 'Z '!r ~~''lr' .rr,t 14,. 'r, f }`Jr ~~`1i,•l.t~',' 'M~ 1 i F'~; n '1. 1' •1'1~. r, 1 1~,: •fi ilk"'1 ~ „f~ t r.9 ~"..~i .q yl (ri~ 1'i 1' jr!'t',• s 'j r' " y.r1t~P~ (.i • y, I{~ ,';t3• ,111 'i,`t.~ 1.•.. .t i A ;•1 tiV".i r~K''~ Ja. N'+~'•' i ay/.• a , .,.1~'• .i~tl• ~r.r~~K•1: :f . ,T~ ''I I,' ~1y.•1 r ~.r '1 .ll~''1. 1'?, 11 .r 4' ~S '•t',.. r ,r •:Il - r. \.t: .j '''1 :t 1 1 'j. .1. •1.. •1. )1,.1•S\iY ~~'..,1 ,a,.r ~ T ..1 ~r .•t 1 ;~~~5~ ~r,'I'1'r~~fl~ ~ li, .li•.'.: rl.f 1'. nf:~i ,)'7t,f .I,, '4' r n iw , ',•J. c 1 ~ Y .{11,', r~r ,Ij t ~r { t 1 1?' ''lr' ~ 1. 'I !,1 .I i'~~ Z.' 't~ ..7 J. ll.',':~..'~YCjS; r1 '.r:~r 1, M„f•~l~,r I I.r: Id 2~[.l'~'. n.'t .!'1 ilj.+ ~.Ir. +i '.1• Tr,1. jd" t(.~ ~.i ~~s. 11 t' 't 7. r~~tl,'~ '1 ~I'i 1'i~~• ..j. Nor ~}i Av'~: .t.l•• ri:~ ~1,1'~~ ~ 1 r. t:;:'ii. , •1 ' •1. , ~ ~1 . ' ( 1,11 i''' %1 t `I:! . t, Y I r•''.1 ~,1. yl . lyl( Sf (~'r' t!~'},. r ~,,1 ~~'S \ I rl. J it r ~ ~ G .NJ a.v:,~4/. if , t i ~ ,J( f i. ~'.~1 r' r~ '1. •~1 (a ' ,'1 lrfi t.. i, r; ~ar•.li ~ (:r'' ~1 t,. ~'i' ! r9 ,rl ( , ;I i .i 1'(1 1., t 'Ir t, .1 I'.It•~"',l.t.•1.'tr. yfi p•;i:.,t' I'. ii.'!•,11,1 1, 1`-:" i 'j '.{"i• LA , ~I, 'f... r, ,t /,r J`,'.'a` 1:.~1~.. I,, ~1~ 1'.{•, 'r.. 1. I~ 1 , .'1~ .f 't~ , ~ i . ~1,~,, j ,~1.:~,~ tly~r wll~T~} ' fq i~tr ~I ' 11'~,\" r • t ,r•} ..1•rl .{1 ~'?•j.~: ~,v~' ~ ~ ' ( ,fi i 1 ' f fl 11 1 1 !r l~ai r t.I~ 1 i' 1.,• . {'S- l ' t / I 1, .'rl 'O 1 r.r j' r i ,r ~ 1.,., i ti'i • , 5 ~ . ,1•~ rl'~•1 rt r:~ li<CJ'y,A. i:.„{ I ' i, , ,t '~c j. ';i.• , . t a4 ~ . i._;,~ . 1 i ,',1 1'.i1f ~ +i;.~ '1 A, .l:'df•.~__.~"'•~'_-•.. _ tp~~fA 1''` . ~ , i p , J 1 , . J ' % , . Ir ` 1~1~. I ~ Y'~, ll~ ,I ,11~y1 ,~1 1 • 1 ,r ;i ~ I q , {Il•r • ,i.i \ ~ II + 1 r } ~...ti , ~ , 1 4 11 t 1 14 ;iti( -11ij(it i~•{ l~'~ / ,t 'C/Z 1 ~{~''1 .1'r, 1 ; r( I jilt 1: ~ I.• .Y• 1 ~I (t tql r;' n ,'rit t•~~`Iv ly}'•,1,. t :l, I,". r,, ' . . ' 1' ' + y 1 • 1 • •,t' ~Ji r1({~IIq..Vtf4J•.F(, 61 :r t.'i t`'~'!~\li 11{' i 1. 1 ~P 1' 't j+ 'S,, rtl.,(t~f.+,' ~1+~(((i j,,' i:4.;1. 1' tr 1 1t~ .,L j'; ` 11 Y' f: tl, tt` 'f da • jl: ,,.'f'. !~tr 'I .i'.~'~''1{, {7~,tttil' t 7• 5~`t!~ ,I r'' 1' r:i~ r 1! ,S ' io r. ~ i,, '•i`i,,.t4.1{;f11)..,.a•~~t't}r; I' , ~1n 1~ l^. S • ~ ,,1 ,'}111 i, `•.I 1': ,1 I.(ij~t.:..~;~ 1 a ' I ~ ' p,' ~ >tt' " t,r ,;I i •`i';ti.~, ,y ~ / 1. ,';i * •..a.:.:. I \T I .'!r}:~j ~ .rt.• 9 <Q I„ >~h•StJr ~1.~ t~J~ ~++i~. .lr :j .i~:' 1 ~t '~l""1 1 : , ~ ~i~li , ''•,1 t 11~ ~S~' I 1 i:~'•: ~ .~~!,IIrA. .:l 9i~. r:1~, 11' .i •'ll •i1. ~ SeS ~ ; „ t Ir,V1 1,. ~ , _j' r ~..F•_ ' 'i' li`'711+ A' 1•~3 .~''I' ~ 3/ ~ ~'C . 7r i ! QO ~ r`r, i ~ I ~ I , 1 .t t 1 r ,b f•` S O, ~ V ' ~'T1 • 1r( .1, ~tilj 4 ,N'~7 i. L ! e• ;1 ?`~1 ..'1,.. ,~~t,; ,i 1 N~ • ~ ~ rr ~(,'.:1'r yt.t' ,i1~'!1. .Zr ~•tr' .I ~;~''.t~:'~} 1 .ty D ' 1 : ' tj\ 'j,: }r ~ ~ n .c. 1i 1' . 1~f •fj.R ri.~ : ~4T~,.C i '•'i r ` \ ~~~J`_ ~ . - oJ/ a P.i~jM~~r' u~NDGFA. ~ S ; i' 1 '"'?,,.~`~..f'_ _ _ _ • i'( ' rl +v11t ,J', --i I. 1 ..BSI ~ a,~ (f' ut j~'•V~~y M~dA~ AVEt y' J; ~r., r !i~ 1. r IF t t. ~ ,.1~4 i 1 ~ ,lr ~ Z" ( f 'J 'r' { 1,1:j ! ~ t, aA , I~ al, I fit. 'I' i .r.• .y.rl , M .1,^`.,: 4 ~i I ,'/J'I}\ y• { . r •1. i , ~``.'f. , . ,t 6 t +•a I"~? i i. r.',: 1,•„ ' w j'y Vii, t r'~, rr r t .jr ; ~ ' J' ll ~ I' j rlr (I l'~,ti ' :v rA Yr 1 ti i1{, %f,, i Ijj..' :,'~t 1 "1., 1 •t. r h .:1 t 1!l.RY !'r 1r . ~ , 1, rv N oN OP-AO6 '`I'MatJ~° l-6VEL t'PL~.1~ ~'~{;t !',E ,,r .~,1;"t.,r~:.(1 ~Q~, ~l l ~~I • , ".t t , t ,`t ' ~ (nm VJ f1 ON ~F • ; ~ 'I"' .,1 t 1 a• j ! ~t; r; ~ '.i . E C t n, jr , a i~ T. i ~.•i• Z.,,M: jlOj ~(1~(G6 ' ~1'•-- f~t,~j"WA~~~",.,it7~IG1~'~,~l.l~,~j'i'f~'. :f'TS:.j~~ t:+l~l !''~~rrN ~;~r~~~ '1~t /1 'I~i•t. r r4r '(it:;l; ~,r'.,j 14, f ! r.f i• ir' •.L1 1 /71 -I!1 (^v .,t..1'1~' 'i•E' `M v' ~ ,j`~f .1 . / r, ,.i:.~• r~ ~r'A'` Y ~ ~~^~ii 1 ~ P ~7 ~L'~~'i+l., rr' 'l~ ~4``~w: dl. {/\1jtS 'lr.•t w'~.'L~b(/' 'v1 •It;:,a,. r +'t• ~A Df„~~~ ..•t- ~i.~ ~ I r'~t+'• ~~a, i .'f'0 ' ~ :j•i ;1C' 1:',1•.t~,.gr 1 1. ~ '1 t', '~'J.(,dr~' f,''l,. ~yt 1''' t: ''J' 1'!i rl • 1 ,h 4,,1, •~i :1, `•41r~' .1.. i' tS Cl!"i7}~M~ ~'a:. i• t. ,~l 1J :r ra•.S, p'.. .1P" j.rrr .9 j .~r•1•'Y. ;t i '•r ( 1" I -~.~o,. t.,'L ri, .p~ /I,r°• C.\i rl~r~ I '1• 1r,~ h nI~: 1S: :J11., ,f.. ,,1.lai)r. ,,~~'~ry ~::r r.i i' 1~1~'~ } },'•it;... i'.((,7. 7} •.4~. ~ ,Y •t *t - l;f :1 .~'..'i° ~tt .r~ M'li' ~.j''.t'7// Iw• t~ r rf •1' 1.' ,Ir .h '+r,t t .1',1 , . (D 4 L1.S) ~'J•.UITb . 1 , fr , ~ rT' .1, .a , tel. ai r:,lr) M~.r~l f.5'~ ,~{(R~f_•16 ftJ7., Mfr'. ,~^.ly y r:.• ~'1 ) l::j: a:. p ''1..~1 ,'r r. t:. :1j 'J'~1~1, .Iw L) 1 11 l.l• t.,~k:' ..I•~• 1,-~."\, i~• :I: ~\,''i, 'lll ly ;,l•'I L,!•.~•:~t1'};~ qq1 i• ~}r .E;'I.tii~.. L: J~f'.• ,~y w~. 1,'\ ,.1". ;n' K',i.'' (A 'AtAti~A~~i,, rty~1}1~~1.~kr ~1~' C'11 M" .i. +1.it~'S~( ;'!p• 1t,~`!r` 1}~.,•j:y,1.., ~'k.• ..I~•b''' 11' ,,11. \~h.,i":' .'i 1r:' ~ ~MN 8~..y~N 1"1 ~t,• S a,~-.1,~'~ 1,.. ~t~,J~}!'~. .9f'~5.1 ,:L/j ~ •j/ l,.r .r,~.r, .1, t ..~Ir%~lii'Iq•t~~A a+~,~'~/:.~? r~.i! ( tl'~, '.:4' w,• (ji~t Jr Y :S' 6:' •t~ k ~ 't• :19' t"I 1 ~~~(It1 1 1~~ l t, 1, • , 7 j ~ w,l ~ •'\r•• 4 r: ,j. u • 1. 1 ! .'/':;I' •:.~f~ •1 .y' 1;.e'r ~?~I '~r~ j. ',irt.~r..Z~ .l,a ! 5x11. ~ 'j1. '1•'i`r S','~,.~ yy•f. .JI: .Lai~f~~1'~•.I .'f'.. i,t•t1 k! t 1•~ 4;1- 1 :~,.tia r j i .A r , +.'J , ,1, ~ }7,.f Vy ~ #j SS 1, y 1 A t~• r '1, tt {y,' .Y •r h 't : 'f 1. 1 't y. , 1 ~ ~ ,•w ,l.;,l'; Sl:: 1 ' . d, ' ,y ' ~:~rlti,..'tir •I 1.. r,lv.~'~` ~ f 1 ' 9 . ~ tJ t, ~,yy ! J l 11~~ ;:r r t •JI , i • ~ a t !j f :7' ` f ,Jr h{j yP~••./:'t~; :ja :1'~,.; Nt ~.F.~ •h; ttis f,. t'1: '•~r J I .1 i,~ '•Y •6• t, 1 • :tir ° 1 T 1. f l t,,, w Jj'..li. ~,~..J I 1 nar; ~ ~ 1. :1~, "i l+.Y'1' r~ r, 17., h. '1 1•~ tS'iti; .i':: ''A.'p,C . '7:. 'i,~ ~ . •'f rt' f:.M~,~~ °y 1 ,t , A , '•.r ~ rt 11 .Yf1 ~I• 1.:., , ~~r 'ii . , 1, •r%i ~ 1 ,.t ~ ..'`r.e=` .,Y ..1t. I IF It ,,,t. r q 1., .t,. ,1+. •;~r Yr 1(j}} t •ot• •1 .r JiA. 'f.;,' tt ,k' ~~'~t 1 i.. .nJ'.~. 15: / •t r 7: •!J\ ti+"/r~,'f• 1 I( l.':r •'•1 •',>t,• .r ,r t` 1 'rl',gY~ +f~1'.q• t 7. n I... •[T. f, '~i l,~ ..M t.; ]r. J~.~1(, ~•rr. .,1. .v11 ~~I~f .L•1•.[k^1.r', .ii, t ~y .i, Ij:: •'.r,.i... •;j i tt` G.: ' =:ri ~;j i ~ i'~, t; 1j il;, ~tW . w.. ~ q f Y' 1~`l.y , : ~ r, I . y ~ t.. • C!`~ rl ';~,'+•I. '1 t S i' ~ N r,. -.T .1 .1; h: I i r.. h A.. l~';., .,,~1i~ ;a y1. ,f R~` F.:~ y t ! .F•'1 .Yf. 1 ! t, ~ e. .C "'V •4. 't, r• :'•r'lu! .t~ !.,.i I~`I: Y- E,. r. ' { E•/ WI:l[~'tlt' ~~i r 11 1 .'t! .1~'~ ~i i r~~ ~ 4' , ~i '.j. '•l. '1 l'tL, 1~ .n. ,1\ 1 . ~~R! •~'j;t• t:~~ ',~,1' •'y1 's:`~~,'0 •,1 r4~• f' l,t~ ~ 1~.' t' rl,~ I~.t - . ~ 1 I . f ' i . < +•r; e i r,~ n.• tl'. , r .,+t .r i'• r li t, I Id. 1. , tr u 11 i 4, , . r \11,' t 1 r a ~ ~ , 1'7].^ Ih !1' ' S 1, : f rl. j 1 ~t ti:•,' i .t ~ , 1 ! ~'rr.i ' C. ' , ~ r r .1. 1 w .t. '~'1 yI. .i '"ri'i.'`~'~r. ,r'J~':' •fI'11 'Yell t; •1,1:, ''1,..~) t,..r, ( ,~4 ltufwl';lj.•jr t1 •~~!;•,,•,°.~c_ U a~ 1 r. j.~.t'h, d':F'•~Y~ •~t. £P fi .1t f '1, \L' .~4'•~p.t'G. :r~., ti~•...t.r .1, ,•r,q. TF 'I,. I•;?Fl11j, 1: ..ti;. 1. •CP 1 ' / 1 jr 4, . ! .l'l,i ~'r SP'' 1' •.t. u~.l+ 71,1]'; l.t. j •f~ d • t 4. :d' ~ 1 J` 'r' ~iA.,., ~p' i t ~J'1," : t . 1~1' '~'li .f; •Y~~.t.., . Z~` `t' ~ • '~1{/`q i" ' l/,.~ ~'.t.~ t ~'ih' 1~•,~• t i r>~ ''1' •a' i.r , jq, ' 1'• t, .t. , ,t,,.t~,i,..l: ti'SS . tS ` , .t 1 t'r~ yµ! .1 r P!• 1:Y ~ ~ ',V.1 fiil1, ~ 1 y, / j!>3,, rI1S'~ ~ 'S A, 1 • y a. 1 •r~. • i i , h 4 ~c', f, 1 t~ ~qq,, ~ i a, 1 f1. 1'•i ~ , 1 1•~JS ,~M~ ~ ~ F l:...,,. 1.:1 ,~a , r • t ia.t 1 1 t. t' 1• i •r^ 1 '1 f .11~f !t• ur , 'f',.l~~ 1 t'n'~rlf ,AY.;~ ,~i~1'~•~'Ij•}I llrr`+.'1'tl,. }.!j •k. , r,~1~11 'I i .1, / :Iy'h•If"•;t~ 1:'• 11• t• . t Yl~j~•'' - ~ , ~ t 1 •1, ` ,,Y. r.i.,,,~;~, i .i ~a1.`/ 1 j ,r,' l., tl,. 1 ~ WALSE~,I~CK l' r ~ 'r • ,i~ 11,,;..(~ ti r,,r, r~1r 1~ ,,k~' 3:\ ;'11~ ~;'~'jSl '~]{t1'f .'1 f ft 1 1 I~ ~4t; ~~~'RICHFIELDf,I~i. f90TA~•;,~;,;~(~rl.rai~ ~~~'h~"ti'~Y'~1t• 'r~'?'tf; r' ?r•'r~. +'f (i i a t t I:Jr 't~t?.~t. .....a.~ ~ `1 . I r r '~:P ~ 7,MN Y7 .•,r l/'[c~t~,., 'S'fl I,.~ f; :l r ' , r•[ •.r ro ~ - ~ ,,,~~,,,,,,[„r~ts`t"`i-"`"""~'I~r""'.. ""'pu"~''j~ltf~ij.~~'~'•"~~~f~llfl'}1`"R~'+1'~f'~Q1"'~~"37YiSi*-iln+.".'~Iw}"[i'1u"~t...~r 1 Ir ~ 11. , ~ 'P. • 1 •Pi1'~L,?a't.arZytw~p~[x~a! ~ r- ~ ~ ~ ~ _ C SI;r ~ '1, ~ r Q f't tl1 `•4 tl ,~r p 1. h ,m ~ ~ 1 ' . i ~ ~ n' \ (r ` '~f~ •,`.~1-~` ` ~1 L]I ~t~/l, ~ r :~'I )~~~.1. ~1 ~ t~ , li..•Jf i`1 . 1 t M 1 1 r.~ ! > 1+ R I.I. , i ~ l•111 - ~ ~ • .1 0 ~ ~ . ~ /`F 1~ rl it ~ ~ i ~LI ~ JIIV. •',I .r.n.{ 3 , ,1, w t ~ 0. I,ZI~ [ el ~ w ~ to 1 \y ~ 1 . 3 ) 1 ~ ;1 W ~ _ 19r ~ .t~} (old `cl~ ' +~r~f~ ~ U 1'~ • • ~ Q'l) ~ l l L~ . l'1L~ ~ w.J f: r 1. D ~ 1 ..~av.y• 1S 411E '•M'~ rn • ^ • ttil~ .7~ t 1 r{? _ p' ~,-.;R'Tl~ • lb) ••.n u1t';{+- v, '•.,''iit •1i R ~ Q~,.i y~ ,~l ~ Z.` ~ ~4. v 0 ~ I ~•2 : t liy~LC' lp~b•~ ItL:..tf,~ O L" O~W • i:'~. o. t': \ ~ X ~ •n u, N•,1 i - 2t~ C 1111,y '~'i{' ~ ~~O u' afl ~ .~.ol~t [ ~ .t' 1 t.r~' p-y ` (m J•. ~ ^ ~ ~ [nl• .;'7#~' ~154~~~ .Z1~CD Ilu51li;~'~~ •.r.r! '~p d1,~' 3 3 - J ~ pd'. 1 (b)• j.".uxi`J. :1:1 ~l'~ i .,~;t~;.~i~m ~ '115))i~t~=,, ~ "}Y~~~t'~ .t:. P ' ~ o`c' ~ lt, S S' 1~ R,s m O S ~ t rl , cC`~ ~ i • cJ•?a • l 1 1 `!•1~1 ` 1.°~ ~ Ztll7fl~ ~ y~~ .~.1 sll ~ 'G D ,..t I a,:, Q a ~ y0~ 1. ' ' +y~ G> QA ,,4 ' O Z M . ~ A p1m ~ t+t5si'.- O b m .!~~S Ao ~ ~~r, 'I n i 1 d - 1 <S~ ~ OG: l4) z - Y rr',~ d ~ ZY t~11 O>t.~ •1„ r,:t~ t~r O °n,ir w 4 ~O 1• 4~. r~f- ~1. 1 _ ~tcM f l1S) U)' r,:•^I tst)!' i . 11 ~ . 11 i.J • ~ , t.~+; cry z to r[„ j,,, ~vr i 'p'ar,r f d n ~i; ~ 1. . . i'« .ti• ~ t _ ' ~ r 'n r [ n! 'It~it p' ~ ~I. IIiL/ r~ ' i. r'1 M . i 1 R ~Z l r e , (.M - lh,l N 1.~~t ~ 1~tS~ ~ i'!y I t U~ e m11 ht/ 1 iK~ lu y c S «~1 ;r p•••M~i rN 1[1• Jfl .1 t. 1'l ~rlslyT l?~/I Gi ~ •I .,,~~t~~lll_I j 'sue ~ M Y , t M _ _ ' ~..1.•l!L! ~1Et61_'"_rl 1. [ 'r r ~',r~ ZS3M / ,Il: , • ur - 'C'[~• •,a t~ rt 1 ~ xi(X yj• J~'~.~ ' ...~..,H r. • v~ A'N f }~~t~•~~ i ~ ~~e I I[nor,~ 1 Z trf ~ • ~ ^ ~ _ ~ l.~'i r! a • tS~ C `~1V. ~u7Lf ,•:•r i ~ ['1. ,~~O pN, tLl1 u'K r. i ~ -1 ~ ~ ~tl V•:~q ~ ~ t145 ,r~iQ R, wN ~ ( QS r.~, r 3* ' )1 ~ Lill •ro•,s .•~i, .S ry ~ Q s[ _ ~1 ,r T • j x.10 ~1~ '1 ~ 1- l!S IN YtJr ! r. `~t. ~ • ,~~1 ' ~ t j ~ .171 l'`'` ~1 ~ t' ~ olfl ".a.,'t~J1~,•lL? S'~' mr qN ll`} ~ ty l c, j ~ N . _ ?trt:` ?n ~,n1. 1 ~ Vic! l , ~ * r 4l{crc ,a[.h~ ..,,,Il _K. •'•S t. .0 rF~•t~::a. r,\ is I ~~~7F1 K ic'lVt J O r,~ i ~ ~ l~) ~y ! G~ ~tt~ ~ ~ v~) tY' 'y rt r C~^~K rlr ; r , ) t,U col) ' d) 1 'v 4 • a • f 1» fj (tl•1 a !t• e _ S 1;- ttn l 1 IS) l r / w j O t ~ v E=_AV E N V . to ct ; C -y ~ ~ r r o cn z 4 ~ ~ ~ 4 i l i N Av Eau E ' ~ , NEwT O y 'rn j rr R ~ ~StNOLE ~ ~EC2UjpMENT~ F AMt~Y ~ 1 ~ KiNG CE~T~R ~ AN AvE~VE ~ 1 N i ~ ~ ~ m --r-„"`- ~ ~ ~m .e. ~ LpOpN A~ENV~ 1 . 1 ~ ~ • 4 1 -'--'''r ~ NpX I ' AVENUE ~ i , _ 4 w ~ ~ ~ ~ , L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ W ~ N ~ tt7 Z 4 t} D y ~ to ~ 7J 'p N i _ ? NOT1 PUBLIC HEARING • CITY OF RfCHFiELD HEARING EXAMINER ~ `~C ~ ' ~ mo _ rep°rty o::rers uit .i.. 30 feet of 7700-7750 Morgan Avenue Sc•.a ar. 2016, 2020, 2022 and 2026 W. 78th Street. • ? I ' _ i.i ~ - r,r=L:C~.,`~!T `j( ~ iaiser Cor.,~ration ~LCC:,T:CN 77~~-7750 ::organ revenue South CF rRC~~-siY Cc~.encirg on South line of Southwest ~ of Southwest at a ~oirt 820' was ~ frow Sout'rwes ~ corner theref then North 656.28' then mast 163.8' then South 656.28' then West 164' • to begirni^g except road.. S 33, T 28, ~ 24. 2016 -Tract G, Registered Land Survey (RLS) X800, 2020 - Tract y, RLS n800; 2022 - Trac ~'E, ~,LS ,-,'80~, 2026 -That v~rt ~F •T'++~`t P 11^O_ .°_St Cf ~.;oc± Zl1~ of ETC e:'R(J IJ. t r c_ ~iaiser Corpor2tion wisres to reWvve the esis Ling Viking rl'Rr-""" CeLter str•.:cture at 7 7 CO-7750 i•iorgan Ave. S. and construct a rew autoWobile sales and service structure. They have attlied for a variance to allow the new.structu_~e to be :rit ir. 5 feet of .:organ Avenue right-of-way line instead of t'.:e rpa::ired ~0 feet. A heari::g_ examiner is conducting a 6 public :ear i. g on this :..aster Lo decide whet:.er or not the i~ variance s :ou13 be approved. The hearing examiner will issue a :.-r=teen decision within 30 days of the close of . the ^eari^g. Copies of the written decision will be available uaon request. %.'r~~ C: r'~i-:I:•eG 7:30 Pii, Thursday, February 27, 1986 r' ~ Ci- t:e:yrzItiG Ccu^cil Cha.:.bers, Rich field City hall 7^'~ ;-orb+1e - ~ 1. Attend tae hearirg aIiQ give testi.:.ony for or against the ^rc~csal. T::ose perscns wisrirg to testify should notify t'r.e ci~• s taf° person listed below prier to the hearing. 2. .+.-,••'..it a letter to the Hear:.^g Sx2.~iner expressive your , S :.ic:; ~ cp :e ,,.'.'Y ,~.,iV City ?'_a.^.ner City of Sic^°ield 6700 rortlard =venue Sic f ~el~, ,•~i 5;423 ~ 269-7521, ixt. 511 ,1~,'~1 L:.NG C.". ~ ~ Februa.-•y 11{ , 1986 C. _ TX_ ~ ~T `I~.~._,as=~'~ -~L-:r-i~.~i CITY °-C~~T- X:~~~ - ,ail .=c =11- a ' ~ ~.~.I.N. / LCt.yTIGrf ..,d'~c?'a !~Ai~iE / ACDkESS CIF DIFFeRENT THAN L _ - ~ -x25-2»-3J-Ctit.4 v~JKJ.. N ,:crrvNT '7045-7~~7 ~GaGAr: 33-vZ3-L4-33-OOi:S; - ^iCCr.RTHY E~.Tc~i??'.aES I;~C. !f 77JJ LC3.4N _ 190:, ~ 70TH ST ?:CHFIELD MN 5:423 it :3-JGO-24-:3-Oi:G6 ".CC:.?Tr.Y ENT=?r?:SES ~ 77u6 L,;:a,r 19Ju :v 7oTri "'?LS h,ti 53423 ~:3-J23-24-33-GGJ7: THE VIKI~rG C~tiTE? ~II, :77JJ ~40RuAy i 7720 >!CiRv.~if~ nVE ; '~iCHFIELD MW 55423 '>;-JG3-2y-3:.-JGuS a ?ICK3Y/~: i~_TcS ~^vvNDS II cJ15 77TH - bo25 LYNDAL: AVE SC X520 ~:CtiFiELDi '1N 5:423 ~ '33-J23-Z4-3::-GJv9 wiLL:Ah? ~ KGSS I'I ~ ~77J1 N=w70N ~33-J23-24-?3-;;1L THE DI?L,;,MATS = - »-~Za-?4-3~-u~11 ~CHY_=L~ ~NTcR??USES _ I'~ 210J rrcST 7hTH STS :525 ViiL~a't C? E;::,,A ^1 `2 55435 . i 33-J2o-24-3_-x;,13 IC~YCL~ cNTcic??I...S - _LC 77;;u 77/70 ?Etiti _:=5 VILLN.iE JR _~:`Ja ~1N >j435 Z3-:i23-2»-33-OC17 JcN STKA:;a C 7c25 23 LCGAN SC 33-023-_~-3J-OJ13 "/??T:.`i ? S:.hKvc??Er~ ~ 7532 34 ~DGAN A~• S 00-~23-Z4-~~-G~~1 Y ROJta „ 50~c.~ScN =703 ~CGA; AVE SC 33-J20-~4-~3-;.J2~ JCHN~C~~ 7~4w LC.i4.•: 12;1^, Y=.yJC~ Lw ':r "~I~~NETCivKAi i1N 55343 - 33-:.23-2.-.._-t;J~2 ~:,?Y .LL=:'i ~~`ATHI=G ~ 7024 i'~Crton~. 7.7.20 :rd.'.Jn V ~ 734 ~~t0~v:+'v A`,/ S ..33-OZ::-_'=.-_ X45 ~VL J L:.:ick..-' _ 1 •L -705b ~~C4.Srt~ 5Gt5 « 1vOTH jT i~?L5 My ::4~1 ' '0-U2~-C~--3-Gi4~ LOkIti L -A 7042 44 i~IC?GAh 7220 Yvk~ hVE S ~SJ4 ~GItiA yN 55435 L . ~ .fJ.~_~iTY ;)F R:CH~ c._~: ASS_S..'~c'eT f~'~ LiTY ~~i.J:CT• X42 - 'AHLS~R aU:CK ~ - ~ ~ ?.I.'~. / LCCAT:CN v.~~\cn' S :+y•."c / ~SDR55S tIF DIFFGr2~N7 THAy L0~/,T:uN) f • 725 ~tCRGi.~l ~V~S _ _ . 3J-uZo-L4-33-r.=: riLT_~ :,::Lc?S~ ( 7a C9 YiCt2vAN ~33-JZo-24-33-.._:1 ~ f 7c3r-41 MORG,;'; ~V~ S "33-U 2'3-24-33-~::iC Li~Vli•i~i L T:;V~CER C •7b2;, ir'CWTON J 73x4 ;;~IYcR SC RI CHF:~LD ~iN 55423 ~..3::-GZS-2a-3Z-J1=7 ~~n'+ ~ s~r~DtN ?c~Ar; C '7o3Z ~icv1T0~.rAV S C1033 NEwTO': AV S ~1:;-J23-G4----=-~'' _ ~C:S A LJVDAL C > 76•.4 NcaTG~. MU _ _ 33-:128-24-~r-~~cC u~~:'+V i! ~h;:7ri C -•7645 OIIV`c~ MV S •7639 OLiV~n '~~~33-G2d-24-33-J~oS w:,L38R CGS? t .:77JJ 77/75 .\_aTGty 738:: FnK~~Cc :,VF NPLS./ NN :5=«35 „ 33-uZ;:.-Z..-33-:.:::o ~!4L~~R C::k? C -•77J3 77/78 tic~TC~ 73;,G Frc%+~`C= MV. ftPLS./ MN 5:"435 •3.i-J23-24-:~-;.Jct viMi..JCK CGsit' ~~-2ii25 a 7oTH S7 733G Fr2:.ivC"c %;VE "1?LS./ MN 55435 } .33-?e~-24-53-~~c" ~;LS.R CvRr' _JZZ N 75Th S i 73;;.C Fr~4~iCS ~;VE ~'~?LS/ 'tN 55435 .,»-OGJ-?v-r,~-LJC7 +•ALJ~:? Cv~P ~ -=ZJGJ . 73Ti+`ST 73 c.2 FKMvC_ :+Vt MPLS./ My 55435 ,.~.~-JL:.-G'+-?r-.. .ifs: .vi.L.i:- ~vnr' t, 2,;ic w ,'oTn rrtr.\r ..v_ ~1P~S/ fN SJ~•3~ SS-'.+2~-2»-3:-..u7 i j0;; i'~'i~~Aiv .+JL ;.•<TIS:i:S ~ 19zy 7a7~ T 19Cu 7:;Tri ~T RIC!?FIcLD ?1V 5:423 3-::24-:1-3_ ;,,UT~ li" 7725 ~;ORuati `S~ i ~uC ~ 7::Tri JT RICHFI:Lu "IN 7~42~ 4~ ~ SCJ7HTG;JN :+Dv:.RT:SINu ~ ~ :.~1y22 7~7H ST 1YDG W 7oTii ST RICaFi=LD MV 5:423 L i i i ' - ~ t`.`.~ • j C;..L.Y ~;F :~H""yj,7 ~..=SSA='aT k44~ r R CITY ?r.CJECT: ~i242 - ~NALScR U'CK ' = j ,'~P.:.~i. ! LOCATION; G~.NER' a (vA~~ic / ADDRESS (IF DIFFcr~ENT THAN LCCAT~ "`••:~-;.~~..-~~-~=-G.74' ~OJTnT„rl'~ nJVcriTiSL~~i:; ~ 19zJ wcST 7:TH'ST 1>uG w 7~Tn ST ,2:CHFI=LD MN 554L3 33-°,:~2~-24-33-OJ75: _ SOUTHT,:«ni ADUcnT:SIhu 1913 w 7c.TH 5T i9Ju ~ 7TH ST RICHFIcL'J i•iN 5:423 :~-'JZ.K.-2~+-J~-U:7~ LC.~S~?MCiC rK~1P i:;~iiGE CG~~ 77J1 VJkGn"~ ~49u cXCcLSiGF' =LV^. 5T LCJIS PX !7N 55420 33-u28-:24-33-uC77- h;AkY L NhTTi~:~ ~ 7713 ~GkGAN ~ 5221 KELLOGG aVc ~1~LS .MN :5424 - .3-vZ3-~4-33-OC,E2 ?GAT '".cY=R loZ3 rct~TON •33-23-24-33-QGc3~ TJti: h ECKS7EI.'d 7529 NEwTGti , • 7635 ,YcwTC~v 33-OZc,-c4-33-~~~5 =L''~R R SE:+Hck~ 7039-4i NE'r1TGN S - • 33-JZ:-~'+-~2-L~:O K=`vP~=Tn ~~cJLJND •7043 •.5 rrc«TCN 24u1 GVc:iL:,CK DR oLC~~~I~:GTC^i MN • 33-:J28-Z"-34-OOi 3 3URTJN J LI!~DAHL t ~19JJ ~cST 78TH ST 30X 32 «AYZATA yN 55391 << r ,.33-:.~2b-~»-34-C0;:7 •;LL=.'r ~ ~1U~Lcec ( 77J1 LS::A` :x.24 C~__KVI_n L~1 3DZV%, by 55435 ~ TCTaL ASScSShSENT IS: ~~-C~ rlvbC'c?J t 5 Ct Nit _ - k• _ • f"TY ~c Att'HFI=LD~ A;;=S.S_•~=NT ROLL FCi~CITY P30J..E~T' X24» - KALS.~R 'B.0-P ..EST=. . t•N• / L^vCaTZON O;~NER' S i~At'Sc 1 ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT THA~~ LOCATIOti) 023-24-34-OJG1 C"cJi,3 FRG?cRTiES 7bJ1 11 Z1 KVGX 5Zyi1 Vili_A ~IAY MPLS MN 55436 33-~3Z8-Z4-34-0302 DALL FGGJS INC 7b00 K~:OX 33-C2d-24-34-GC03 SHARI PRJPcr~TitS . 7503 K'VOX 7700. LUGA1: AVc SO R;CHFZELD. ESN 55423 33-OZo-24-34-0004 LEASE3r~CK PROP yS.AGc CGRP '7024 45 LCGAiV c49C EXCcLSIOR BLVD ST LOUIS PK MN 55426 33-GZ3-24-34-0005 CcNTURY LODGi: V0 33d 76T5 LOGAN 33-028-24-34-001;6 JOSEPH KLOS CCNT PURCHSR 7601 LOGAN 45[1 HIEISCUS AVE S EDINA MN 35435 33-02$-Z4-34-G•J09 LEASE3ACK PROP XSAGE CGR? 7526 744 KNOX 54y~ ExC~L~IUr? 9LVD ST LOUIS PK ~~N 55426 33-023-24-34-0010 CITY GF RICHFIELD 7700 KNOX .Z3-24-34-C'.^.12 !~A>:~S'cLc OUTJ,^,OR ACV INC a 78TH ST iiE~S 2~DS1723 9RCAD ST AUuUSTAi GA 30901 33-024-24-33-OJC1 THOMAS K ScTRE 1915 ;v 7b H T ST 33-028-24-33-GuD2 JaMcS A TACK 7003-1J LOGAN 9102 3LAISDELL AVE SO bLOOMZNGTCN. M!v 5;420 ~ 33-J28-24-33-0015 JOHN D ALT 1014 -1o LOGAf~ AV S 0500 :IILRYAN AVE EDZNA MN 55423 I 33-JZO-24-33-0+J16 Dc"LAZNE RUD '520 22 L%GA~ Ay S 33-72?-24-33-6047 STAN SCHREYER 7515 '''.ORGAN ~ 33-v23-Z»-33-;;J48 MAURZCc cNGE~~ JR ?521 `:O~tGA'~ c ~:-J2$-Z4-33-0687 JA"!ES E 3ERuI~: '027 OLIVER ~ :3-023-24-33-GJ88 aRNCi_D P LhRSE!v OLLVER ~ ~3~8-24-33-0089 KENN=_TH C ASTELL '513 OLIVER ~ x. + a ~ ~ June 23, 1986 ~ , City of Richf field METES & BOUNDS Management Company 6700 Portland Avenue South 6625 Lyndale Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (612) 861-1627 Attention: Mr. Rick Jopke RE: Walser Buick Development Dear Mr. Jopke: We are the managers of the apartment homes at 2015-17-25 West 77th Street, adjacent to the existing Walser Buick site and the strip center which Walser Buick proposes to change to addi- tional car dealership land. We have attended the previous meetings held before the Planning C.,..LL«ission and the previous Council hearing at which time the matter was withdrawn for presen- tation at this evening's Council meeting. At the Planning Commission meeting we expressed two primary concerns over the • development: 1. There is an existing. traffic and parking problem which we feel will be greatly increased by the proposed rede- velopment. 2. It is our opinion that the redevelopment will substan- tially change the character of the neighborhood and greatly devalue our property. Neither our company nor our apartment home tenants have been provided with sufficient answers or information on either of these problems and we would therefore emphasize our continued objection to the proposed variances which would allow the deve- lopment. It is a continued attempt to put two pounds of candy in a one pound box. We have been told that it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the matter be tabled at tonight's meeting. We are unable to attend but would wish to express our concern and dislike for the proposed plan should the matter be acted upon at this meeting. We would request that we continue to be advised of any future hearings or discussions on this matter. Very truly yours, • METES~~ ~OUNDS N EMENT CO. (i J Henry Susee BY President JHS/cc Quality Apartment Living by METES & BOUNDS Management Company • 6625 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 248 Agenda June 23, 1986 I The Honorable Mayor and II Members of the City Council !i City of Richfield- _'I Subject: Appeal of the Denial of a Variance Request By Walser Corporation Concerning the Property at 7700 to 7750 Morgan Avenue, 7701 Newton Avenue, and 2002-2026 West 78th Street. Council Members: In March of this year the Richfield Hearing Examiner denied a variance request by Walser Corporation to allow them to remove the existing Viking Plaza structure at 7700 to 7750 Morgan Avenue and construct a new automobile sales and services building within 5 feet of the~Morgan Avenue right-of-way instead of the minimum 40 foot setback. Walser Corporation appealed that decision to the Richfield City Council. At the council meeting on April 14, • 1986 the Walser Corporation requested that consideration of the appeal be deferred until June. The City Council granted the request for a deferral. This matter is scheduled to come before the council again on June 23, 1986. Background Attached for your review is the previous council letter relating to this matter. Also attached is a revised site plan which was recently submitted by Walser Corporation, which not only shows an altered building configuration, but also shows the relationship of this site to the overall Walser Corporation site. The building configuration on the site has been changed to move the building further away from the adjacent apartment buildings. Additionally,- the previous plan indicated that the building would be approximately 5 feet away from the west property line adjacent to the apartments. In the revised proposal shows that the nearest point of the building would be approximately 52 feet from the west property line adjacent to the apartments. Also, the proposed building would be setback approximately 12 feet further from the 78th Street right-of-way than was indicated in the previous proposal also. However, the building remains within 5 feet of the Morgan Avenue ri ht-of-wa . 9 y Finall y, the overall siz.. of the building has also been reduced ~ in the revised proposal. ` 1 Staff Review While the proposal has been improved in terms of smaller building size and increased setbacks from the adjacent apartments, it is the staff's opinion that the proposal still does not meet the conditions for granting a variance. It is .also staff's opinion that the proposed building on the site in question needs to he considered as part of the overall Walser site and not .just as a separate proposal. There is a history of problems. in the area including congestion on 78th Street, on street parking in the adjacent single family residential neighborhoods, congestion on Penn Avenue, use of public right-of- way for display of vehicles, excessive traffic in adjacent residential areas and congestion on Morgan Avenue. A proposed new auto dealership on the site. in question will have a major impact on the area and can potentially add to the existing problems. Therefore, it is important that the city consiciPr the overall development and closely ~~~lctir wa~~~rS ~L'1Z5D aS On site pa~King-LO insure that--t~lere is sufficient n~rkina on the site. for. c~~~~omers, inventory and employees and that adjacent streets are not used to meet parking requirements. Another matter that warrants careful consideration is the use of public right-of-way for display of vehicles. The overall _ plan shows approximately 95 spaces which are all or partially in the 78th Street right-of-way. This results in a negative aesthetic appearance in the area and also poses problems in terms of cars overhanging onto the traveled roadway and the reduction of snow storage space. This matter will become even more serious in the future as the studies are completed concerning the possible widening of I-494. It is possible that the 78th Street right-of-way will be required for expansion of 494. If this happens it would eliminate Walser's use of the right-of-way. This will have a critical affect on the auto dealership. All of these considerations make the issue of on-site parking even more critical and casts some doubt about the appropriateness of a new auto dealership on the site. To properly evaluate the parking needs of the site staff needs additional information concerning such things as number of employees and a specific area breakdown of all of the different parts of the proposed operation to be able to properly determine what the on site parking needs of the use will be. This information was received late Wednesday afternoon and did not leave sufficient time prior to the preparation of this council letter to completely review the additional information. Additional Information Council Members will also find a letter attached from Wally McCarthy's Oldsmobile to Rick Jopke, City Planner, concerning Walser.Buick's variance request. Mr. McCarthy feels that if the council would grant the. requested variance for Walser Buick, that (McCarthy's) would immediately petition for the same variance to add to their body shop and add to their covered areas. Staff Recommendation It is staff's recommendation that the City Council defer final action on the variance appeal until July 14th to allow staff to obtain the information necessary to further evaluate the parking issue. Resp~ fully submitted, en L. Dewic i Acting City Manager SLD/eja - - t~• ~ , _4 •a+iT ~ 'j,-Y ~ iii t ~ ~ - ~%/~,,'/',/~y_/`i/ ~ . `1900 West 78th Street ~ , ` MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 /~1 ~ ~ ' _ r _ (612) 869-1414 . 1 it ' a {a- r,{n. ~ _ - ~ _ OLDSMOBILE ' ~Fw~ t . ~q~~~ : ~ t ~ - _ _ > , ~ . r. a.~s.-. s a, F - c - ~ t ~ 3 y, n¢P srt 'b June 20, 1986 - ~ - - ~ _ u.~ , , I..ty 3'.- Yi . f :li ~'~C t. 'Y..y, 'f '{r•: {A.yy ;.~C',Y~~-t:.~ tiY~ R•CCkL Jopf2e ' _ ~ ~ 1 _ ? _ City P.eannen : ~ ~ = ~ + ~ - - - ~ ~ r ~ ~ Y City o~ Rtch~te.ed . t '~;t ~ _ = 6700 Pox•teand Avenue ' _ - - _ - - K - . f.b _ R•~eh~~e~.d,. M~.nne.aota. 55423 - - _ ~ - - ne: App.e~.cat~.on o~ waebelC Conponat~on ion vcvc~Qnce , ~ ' . .7700-7750 Mongan Ave. So. - - f ti Dean Mac Jopke. _ - _ L ~-a~ - _ - ~ ~ a. ~ Attached ~p.eea~se ~•cnd ~owc copy o~ oun .eetten to you dated . ra r ~ `s 1 ~ebnuany 25, 1986 aegand~.ng ~'li.•e~5 vcUCtanee. Oun po~ttton':- a ` ' x nematna. the same.. -.'Showed eorvs~denat~on be to onden pen - ~ ' - ~ _ wa,P.aen neque~st I' m- ~swce we. wou.ed tmmed~.ate•ey peti.t~.on . on • . , - a the same vaa~.ance- to add to owc Body Shop and etc. to ~d ~ x . - - Y to oun pant~.cu.ea~c eovened. aaea: ~ 4 ; r i a f ~ r _ . _ , Y~~ by _ - - ~ ~ a ~k~ ~ ~ . s - - it - ~ ~ + _ T _ _ t ~ ~ . - Vr~~ f . ~ be W. J. McCarthy r Fef;~ruary 25, 196ti kii:k J:~~+wt City Pla,?„I~r City vi ttlCf,ilCliJ 6700 Put tld,iv Avcr,u~ ItiCl,Llrlu, Fitt :i59~a re: Application vi ~~alser. Curporatic,n for variance 7700-7750 t•furgan Ave. 5. Dear E9r. Jopke: This letter is on behalf of Wally tfcCarthy's Oldarno~ile, Inc., 1900 ?~est 78tf, Street, Ricc,iield, iu opposition to tt,e application uy Nalser C~rporatiun for a variance to alluu construction of a t,uildii,g at 7700-7750 t•~oryan Avenue South witt,in £iv~ teat of the btraat rigi~t-ot-way ir,atead of the. 4U feet required by the regula- tions. The 40 foot set back requirement imposed by the city is to address public t,edltii, safety arc general welrare concerns, and to provide. w for orderl develo mint in li ht of those concerns. A vie of ttie 9 Y subject property sues not demonstrate that enforcerlent of the regulation will"cause legal undue .hardship because of circum- statfces unique to the property. Ttre subject property oan be put to reasonable use witt,out tt,e yrai,ting of the variance. This is par- tlcularly true since the proposal is to construct a new building, not to use an existing building whicn is in noncompliance. It would ap~:c:ar tnat any clai~aed undue hardship would be that created by the lanceowner and r,oc caused by a unique circumstance of the subject property. When Wally t~~cCarti,y's Olas~rol~ile, Inc. (tt,en Lindahl Oldsmobile, Inc.) several years ayo riesired to build a body shop, it was re- quired to naintain tt,e requireu set back from Morgan Ave. So. Since tite subject property does not present unique circumstances. (other than lar,oowner created), it would appear that equal enforce- ment militates ayair,~t yrantiny the variance. We would appreciate considc~ratiun givers to this letter, and request that it oe made part vi tl,e l;earing record. Yours truly, Roger C. Miller RCM:lac ID:0093M L CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of Cit -Mang er Y 9 Council Letter No. 152 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Appeal by Walser Corporation of Hearing Examiner's Denial of Variance Request Council Members: On February 27, 1986 the Hearing Examiner held a hearing on a variance request by the Walser Corporation to reduce the required setback from a street in a C-2 General Commercial zoning district from 40 feet to 5 feet. The variance request was subsequently denied by the Hearing Officer, and Walser Corporation has appealed the ruling to the City Council as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Proposal: Walser Corporation has obtained options to purchase an isolated single family dwelling at 7701 Newton Avenue, the Viking Center property at 7700-7750 Morgan Avenue, and the commercial structure located at 2002-2026 West 78th Street. Walser Corporation wishes to remove the existing structures on the sites and replace them with a new sales, service and parts facility. The variance requested is to reduce the required setback from the Morgan Avenue right-of-way from 40 feet to 5 feet. Zoninq Ordinance Requirements: The property is located in a C-2 General Commercial District. Section 3.33, subdivision 6, and Section 3.32, subdivision 4, require that a frontyard setback of 40 feet be maintained on all street frontages in C-2 General Commercial Zoning Districts. Section 3.40 Subdivision 2 governs the issuance of variances. Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 subdivision 6 outlines conditions which must be met for variances to be granted. ~ Staff Review: 6 Staff has reviewed the request for a variance against-the. city and state requirements and found the following: 1. There are no unique circumstances present on the site in question. The narrowest depth of the site along. Morgan Avenue is approximately 135 feet. ' .This is a typical lot depth in this area and other .commercial areas of the city. While the total site is irregular in shape, it is staff's opinion that the site is large enough to negate the irregular shape. The irregular shape is the result of the. combination of the multiple parcels. There are no other unique aspects such as topography or poor soils present. 2. In staff's opinion there are no undue hardships present. Denial of the variance would not prevent the property owner from putting the property to a reasonable use. While the existing Viking Center structure does not conform to the present setback requirements (setbacks on north - 8 feet; east- 24 feet; and south-31 feet instead of the required 40 feet), _ the existing use could be continued. The existing structure could also be removed and a new sales and service facility or other permitted use could be constructed on the site which would meet the city's setback requirements. 3. The proposal could alter the essential character of the area. The granting of the variance would result in the reduction of open space, and result in additional visual and vehicular congestion in the area. The area already has problems with vehicular congestion, and with aesthetics because normal setbacks have not been maintained and because of the number of automobiles parked in the area. Staff Findings and Recommendation: Staff found that the required standards for granting a variance have not been met and recommended that the v ariance be denied. Hearing Officer Findings: A hearing on the variance request was conducted on February 27, 1986. At that time, the hearing officer denied the request for a variance based on the following: A / 1. That tshe granting of the variance was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; 2. That there are no special or unique circumstances present on the site. 3. That the granting of the variance would not alter the character of the area, but could contribute to existing visual and vehicular congestion problems in the area. It is .recommended that the city council, functioning as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, conduct the ublic hearin and P 9 determine if the Hearing Examiner's decision on the matter should stand or be overturned. A written notice of the council appeal hearing was sent to all property owners of record on the area bounded by 76th Street, I-35W, I-494 and Penn Avenue. The notice of the hearino officer was sent to all property owners within 350' as requiredrb Y ordinance. Res~~ ~ fully submitted, ~ Stev n L. Uevich Acting City Manager . . J , Li V ER Av E NU E O m r Vi r r -t v ~ - z ~ ~ ~ --J - - TON A'v ENU E NEW rn „r,~r.~r~~ ? _REN,r AL ! - ~StN~LE ~ ~E~UiPMENT~ F AMtL'~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ rn ~ m TER AVENUE '1 utKING ~EI`~ M~RGAN 1 .r (n 1 1 tD .1 CTi ~u ~ ~ ~1 _ Lp G AN AVE.--- i s f t 1 KNOX ~ ~ 1 n N ~ ~ N ~ Z m n .'may ~ ~ N ~ c ~ s ~ nfl ~ ~ ~ s ~i CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA I' Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 264 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Special Use Permit Request To Expand The Pantry 7545 Lyndale Avenue Council Members: Proposal Mr. Ken Johnson has requested that the city approve a special use permit to allow him to expand the existing Pantry Restaurant at 7545 Lyndale Avenue. Mr. Johnson proposes to construct a 9 foot x 39 foot addition onto the west side of the existing structure. Also proposed is the addition of three parking stalls in the landscaped area between the structure and Lyndale Avenue. The seating of the restaurant would be increased • from 54 seats to 57 seats. The exterior of the existing structure would be renovated as part of this proposal. History In 1970 the city council approved a special use permit for a 42 seat Fish-N-Chips restaurant on the site. The proposal involved renovating an existing service station into the restaurant. The council at the time placed the following stipulations on the approval: 1. Approval of site and building plans. 2. Approval of the offstreet parking contract. 3. Approval of a landscape and lighting plan. 4. Approval of drainage and grading plan. 5. Approval of exterior business and circulation signs. 6. Approval of internal circulation system which will be constructed to channel traffic movements in a one-way pattern. 7. The portions of the contract bond relating to landscaping be increased from $2,000 to $4,000. i 8. An agreement between the city and the applicant providing for the landscaping and maintenance of the 17 foot public right-of-way adjacent to the site be executed. . The property was subsequently purchased by Mr. Johnson and in 1976 a building permit was issued for interior remodeling of s t the restaurant. At that time the restaurant was converted into the present Pantry Restaurant. It appears that during that remodeling the number of seats in the restaurant was increased from the previously approved 42 seats to the present 54 seats. There is no record of an amended special use permit being obtained to allow the increase in seating on the property. In 1983 the parking lot was expanded to provide five , additional parking spaces on the east side of the structure. Zoning Ordinance Requirements 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, indicates that restaurants. are required to obtain special use permits prior to locating in C-2 general commercial districts. ~I 2. Section 3.33, subdivision 4, sets standards for restaurants and C-2 general commercial districts. 3. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, governs the issuances of special use permits. Staff .Review Staff has reviewed the proposal and has found the following: 1. The proposed restaurant use would be consistent with the • City's Comprehensive plan which indicates the site should be used as medium to high density mixed land use, which would include eating establishments. 2. The site is within the ILN redevelopment project area. The existing and proposed expanded restaurant would be consistent with the ILN plan which indicates no change in land use on this particular site. This site was also recently removed from the area covered by the building permit moratorium. The ILN plan also does not anticipate the acquisition of additional right-of-way from the site. 3. The existing restaurant structure does not meet the city's current standards for frontyard setback from the Lyndale Avenue right-of-way. The applicant is proposing ~ to add an addition onto the building which would reduce the setback from the existing 31 feet to 22 feet. A 40 foot setback is required. Therefore, a variance would be required to allow the addition onto the building. A hearing on the variance request has been scheduled before the Richfield hearing examiner on July 23, 1986. ~ 4. The proposed number of parking stalls on the site would meet city offstreet parking guidelines. The applicant • proposes a total of 57 seats within the restaurant which would require 19 parking spaces. The site plan J . t indicates that there would be a total of 22 parking spaces provided on the site. One of those parking spaces would, however, be located within the Lyndale - f-wa line. It is staff's o inion that ~I Avenue right o y p the applicant not be allowed to use the right-of-way because it would restrict snow storage space. Comments have been made to staff that during peak times there is nd that cars ark in not sufficient parking on the site a p the residential area to the east of the site. 5. It is staff's opinion that the proposed addition to the building would not result in increased traffic on adjacent streets. The proposed addition would add only three additional seats and provide a better interior layout.. It would not necessarily generate increased- . customer traffic. 6. According to the Public Safety Department there are a number of health related problems with kitchen area equipment which need to be corrected. The applicant has indicated that these problems will be corrected in conjunction with the remodeling of the restaurant. 7. The construction of three additional parking stalls on ~ the west side of the building will result in the reduction of the landscaped area in front of the wo over-stor trees. th loss of at least t building and e Y • It is not clear from the plans submitted exactly what would happen with the remainder of that landscaped area. Staff would like to see a revised landscape plan for the site. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission on a 7-2 vote recommended approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. That the variance be obtained or that the proposed addition on to the building not be constructed. That a detailed landsca a lan be submitted for staff 2 P P approval. 3. That the three new parking stalls not be added and that the landscaped area be maintained. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve a special use permit for a 57 seat restaurant at 7545 Lyndale Avenue with the following stipulations. • 1. That the proposed addition to the building not. be constructed unless a variance is obtained. i • 2. That a detailed landscape plan be submitted for staff approval. 3. That there be no parking within the Lyndale Avenue right-of-way. Resp c fully bmi ted, e en L. Devic Acting City Manager SLD/eja i I I i • r r : pUMPSTER M • ;QTAL PARKING22 SPACES ~l ~ i~ - ~ 1,,,,. ~ ,i ,{STING - _ ` - c ~ ~ s~ _ ~t r _ j„ANDSCAPED AREA ` i'. ` Q SIGN . 76TH STREET RIGHT-0F WAY ~.INE - ..,nrrtnN r • F,~.:e !a'i`R+~':. "{y;t. ~<+i('G,~1+r~t~.+ ~.!!fS~~~t~''t+~"Lt' r~'+~^1?Y'~iR'".i+ ;h•(~,~'~rii~n~l~e~S,`In".tii}~i.r" .d :+~1 +~:,%:~g-.h I, ycr• ij 'a' f.;1 ^ ~ I Q V' ~ ~~L " ~ ,/~.I.~r{ ~ „"Jr 1 t . ~ 1 ~yL,~y~!y~~1 ~1~ rk~J' ~ I ~ qi,:. . ~ . rM .,1 ~1. "Y: }I ,y.. ~{~wr 7!'~~..{ ~ } 1!' 1'- •'~C~~i 1. Y .~.ii..+•~ ~;,f1 y+ ~!N , , lli C 7Y„~ h ~:d'' ~{;:r' 7 'K,: ( 7' J 1t~.. t' ~7,t t •w I ~i "y •r. ~ ~li !l ' { r r as • r;'. p~ 1~' \\1 y: .;,+I~R• ' M ,r+ t t:_{;~ r11~ t f . 1 7 t' 'a '1 n + (r"IY"~t. t. ••,:,`rt+.; :w;::i t',~, . ~~7 ~,f„~'~~' , ~•t '1 F~' -'1 ~ - . 'li'f•+~.'• 1~ ..1~'4 w•~L..'?' .i ~~T~~ ~w ~~~:{L4•,f 1~.:. .~l ,i f ~i rl :T". , _ ~ ~rN Il I .tA ~I~. ri~'f, e,^ ~A. ,N ..ti,,~l~i't .w .,.r „_STf.,r~iS. ?,.-lr~~:al°: .•fS •b'y r! . t r.. ~.:..•._..=n: .:Y :r. i a yr ~ ~ K r.. }~,~i.«.., ` !7y' R ~ t 1 f: ~ ' '+r,,ky{~ _ h+ Y . NA,1.: rti"~•,~L. f rri i ~ - , -z - - • .:`s~iiw7 - Y "E w'w'! w'~"^'~'r.~i'.~'iii~~rT(~ir I v; } •T,~ y 3,~ y e e ~ +Y . •~~t~.+,,v.. ti. r~+ r >fr."'J+itr,. +'k ar',1 r'v }t{'f'.+i. r' L ~ '"+xA' x- . •t / "i '.m~,'~ tA' Y ~ f ' ~A aL 't j. i ~•.'i+/. yr +1. ~ xv. I I~ i`~.`~i, - ~YWn... M.: ~ : ij 1f Vl i S{S,~r r~~%µ. .•~I . ~w .ii ti' 4e ~'rd ,~'F J ~ t r ' :~i 1,1 iKrt~:'1. I 7'; ^'ytr ';bi; '•iT.11 ~{~+1 r'M~' . ¦ ~t+. . 1tt~:1:~" N' - ' i°:.' ~ 3~ ~ l M }fi{~'1;' , ' ~ 'LT,1.'jJt~~~~,+i:• i(•~ S :4+~' { tom, 1. R!1 f I ••'L^.,~~.~t r~ F~~"A ~i, ~A'. Jl ,{r ~ ~ rj.~~• h KI. .p M1 _q. t9,.i i ! t _r `?:~!.t'. $k~>1. '•~~c` :,i{r ~ ti .~:a r ?r ,L~'t'l. .'~,~~'~}'f',; l+x '.t l'~~t: i. li;iq.' ,.'!"y' +.•w I F' ~3~ 1 .'C jyt,`~, r;., e _ , YL• T~ . { ,+r,. :'I*'~„• j:..~~,:i~.F,'..°~:. yy'~"~3 . r, ,N <,et .!K ,L~, Y +~Y~fF.:'F' 44,~ ~j c ~q;Il iA~ r . - i J d ~ i .1$,d~. ~+,.5t' ,A, b r' .t`yy\,, .~C ~ ~3N+'~ '"~:r4'~xs1*v~i" _ ~1 ir4. ~li S1.dR~~'Z:~'+ 2~i1 r:.~`•t~1 Mi..S *i fl x(' J{~'~ +.A,' L t~~.~'~. r + \ t _ i r i = ~ , ' 1 1 r~t'.N~:T1~ .ry ~ a: ~ 'Z~ /+f,• , k.i~ ~~y ti. T;- S '^..y v 'w - L: 1 t, hT t~~ P ~ ( ~ ~ i ' r T, J ' T,:lkp~ St - Idittl't r i I i + , t iii + t ~ ~ 9 i ' ( 0 7 r v:~ yy+ r • ; *tS ~ •'i'~~ ,It ~ L 7; c*{,$; r.. ~ I~:ytx?+; r r` ~6/~~!'\yr' ~y ?QQ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ;+r ~ ~L Y~>X ,!>`l i,l fit, wO'fil a f~' I !'.T3.' '~~I ~(l~v\'~• ~ a s i.' : ~ \ ~ t .'Y ~ A . t ~ r ^2 ~ 1 Z;,} Ike tb : 7t i 1. ti'\`•~:~ ~ 'i, + 'rF'~o`~.{: i cs i?t A,Y'11 :t,•: t: (.i!2ti ,'q ~`,~<3; ,;i~~;~74~ aKl" '~i.,l rr'' ~~:t p1LC a'3 ~ - r' . t " 1 ~ ~ '~C'`}h Y 4+ Y~~ ~ Y' ~1 w s s L';" i 1 S _•y n'S t J . 1 ' tL y,;tFP~s~ 1 +f !i 2 }}~tf ~1l1;, FS1,?li,~~'ah~rq ~4` is ~L $,i~ e~1i tR. L . +t ~...h 't 1 ~ L 5: ~ '`t'~''.xFt ~YP~ .t. .t r~~''I +',1 -11~ Y~'+*':r llh~ t; '1 ~ w~.(}; ~ ~ 'Y't, d' siw:~y~•. ? -I, ~.r' 'ja ~ !'q't'i y~j ~r~.t. Z. ,t •''~rr ~~tl ;'.ir ttfi.~'~ 1~~~i ~1,~ }pity ist-~: T}1 ;.,j _i'gtf t` ~ ~ , .r ~ a! t~• : I #A4t'Eq ?Y(t~,!~I.,:""'r•.~~ ~ 1lf 1~} :k. ~1 f' r 1 t f: ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~3rF f. ~•L'~,'.~ .1': ..1.,.~ r ' +t 1- \r~~ ~ k ~ p~xt~~tY7tS`~.i t +v i.~W ' r.(li. Y {LS;'/~rillr. t~ .7~ .1;~:„ r _ ~ t k ? ~ ~ r~•' i 'fl S i'~I s,~. l S a 1 t l '.nt( ,a~ ~ ~'+j.' I_. Y 7~ i ~ f fi - .t < fit. j 1 i4 ~ I f ~ .r ' I }f , f~t~l~' fi. try{ 1 ti. I . s `a p I v t ' .,t I ,fit + • ' ~ 1~ •Y'/~ S - ~ 1 ~ 1 ~~4. r } ~ Rf +J } i at~Y4~.S~~„q tt ' t` a i~ rsy}t4 ~,~~SCr3r'h~' - ~ ~ 1'\\+. ' ~ i ~ ~ 1 ~ ' ~ r~,: {t Vx ' .t ~ : t ~ ~ 2t(. i \ .Itl , • } ~ , 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l .i ' . L .,A 'r .~rW 1 t {f1:i•}~ ~ 1l ) 1 `Y 1 ~ I ~s tit p 4. Yr, I ~ i~. Y f ~ 4v, j ~p1 ~ { I' \ /r.r ~ 1 { 1 1 P y~ I) i j h t. _ .r L T 3,7- t Y ~~,I~ ' ~ i 'ro~ n ~ - r. F 1 - S I I 1,. ~ t w r4 • + \ \ 11 • 1 t't x {1 { ( ~ ~ r } ~ is _ ' TT 1 r t F f \ I I ,.~R a w . n: ~t ~ ~ I , ' ~ F ? ..+.y ~1 ...~M .r a .+r +i.. ~ IF 1t.. +:1' '~t ~'~tr~= ~,t^)y t.r ¦ t~'• I _ Y ~t ¦R'i Iii i L.. r ~ t A ~ ' i`,;t S i i tT.S..-yL .,¦r w.. 7;. r~-1 {i ~ e t ) ~ ~ ,l~~ I ~ ~ ~ 1 . y ' r . ]s~~ r '~x »wy a f * N,"4r _ (L ~ ~ 1 ! 1 ~ e 1 p'r'y,-~ ~i r i L T. ..w I h .d ~ }r + n+}-'!+i.'^'•.t 'i~"~ i ~t-~ 7i n f et P, t f i, .v, - ~t . ~ .l ~ .3 t r . Y rs.. w v - 't ~ 1t rr' t S~~ t t ' ..r t ,~s } r ; ~ c t di , _ S Y, ~ f . • ~`r !!L ;p' ~t 1~ 7~ ~'~i'~e?~..~s3~+rS ' I,14 t`~y ~1~,, ~ ~r ~ Y'' '.y ' . C X , w • ~ ~ ~ M ~ j S ~ TEL., I~ l4 =r J~ ~ J ~.tri{' I + ~ ~ »f.• L~,'e~. ~ - a ~ -t a, ~ I I ~ t r _ T 1 ? •`T1t`"z ~ ^Gy~AF ~ ~3r w S' f 'jr.• ~ ~ III fS..~ ~n r4t?.+ ? ~ y I, :?Lr ~ s '~~J` L.. tt t ,(A,~ if.i14 T ~ ~Ir `J ..L 7~r~. ~G~~i7Mt1?+4r4~. l.i:~«' ~'tri?~;!~t.i"'... .._~:y~~t~«~ liN:~.,.'. Y .~~C' j'~! lft; ~.f•'_' ! # . I ; ~ 4; ~ ~ . ( . f ~ s i ~ ~ ~ . ~ t`^ i=x { ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ , . III ~ f ' ~ \ 'K*~~'. ~ . ~ ~ y~ ~ ~i~ 1I ~ i ~ . ~t IY ' ' , ~ ~ ~ ~ ` • t _ ~ . ~COl1APREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PL~iN: BEY flESCRIPTION DENSITY ZONING PRINCIPAL USES ' MR-2,' MR-3, ~ination~of Office and Retail • SAL BUSINESS High -Cam~erciai with Multiple. Family DISTRICT C_2 and Eating & Entertainment Estab- lis:.u,~..ts. 5 Ftcr:unTAY STRIP High MR-2 , MR-3, Hotel/Nbtel, Dining/Enterta~~,~..t, ~ C-2 , I Retalj~lholesaie, Offices, Light ~ Industrial, I~lti-Family, Offices. MIXED LAND U.SE Medium to MR-2, C-l, Fietail/lrJt~oiesale, .Eating Estab- iiigh C-2, I. lishments, Light Industrial, t~.ilti-Family, :Offices. ' M®I[Nl DIIJSITYf Medium _ R, MR-1, l~alti--Family Duplexes, Single 8[,rrr R MR-2 , C-1 Family, and E~cisting Convenience _ C~,.~.~~:rcial. , MULTIPLE High MR- 3 Multi-Family Apace u«nts RESIDENTIAL . SINGLE FAMILY Law R, R-1 Single Family Residential RESIDENTIAL - ~ w - _ . INSTITUTIONAL J ; ~ PARKS AND ~ iii;{; urr~J SPACE _ r . ~ ~ _ - • _ - • fIGUFi~ 13 ! i! ! Z i y E 5 i i i i E E E; E E E E E E i E t E ~ Cl VE ; E F F I i i E I 11 E ~ I. ~ E i I E E j j t ~j E ii i i l E E J 1~`l;" E s i ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ e ~ ~ ~ Ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i ~ ~ t ~ i ~ ! d ! S ~ ~ It ! ~ ~ i ~ i = e .t ~!{~~yy `~~~~•e ~ e ! a a ~ 'o . w..N ~m - . - _ ~ v ~ l~_- Y. - _ Cl1n p••~/ ~d ~ t,~.~i... ~ /fit 1:` • ~''•'T•S ~ , , ?-~~4•. ~ . _ _ C`...s- ~j ~ ~ S 5~~ a~Y ~___.iii T..YY ~ri~~~~~,.~y,/~ ~ i II it ~ : I1~~'[~,-~~~ 3~~t~ I s r~ 4;, 1 11 '1~~.r.:na~•.. ~~'~~in.... N I. t: I • ( i I;, ! . ~a I ~ : i I II II -.1111 lr~ ~~.n~ •w+u _ ~ i.. `~~I .II.. I.:_ I i I~ ~ _ I j ~ . ~ .Y~ ~ ~ ~I~~ r r':~:i,.r+b.J~i't•s~f y= E 3e ~ ~:L"--f° E ~ ~ I•i~'+~ I~ ~•~l , I ~ F I ~ ~ ~®~~.4~~+ ~a~`F ~i~ ~ I~~ I~~ _ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ fT ~ ~L. ll~f~ ~ i^ f~ !y~.~br~ )^Il-hi. •y~'t. I I `11l ~1171 t~ ~ I al• I~ ~4, ~ ~'II I ,lyrk'~1•II•)' ~ 1 ~ I l_.1.i: i 1.I •1n, . r w N I ~ _ ,,~y'r II. ~ l:•tT.ty x4Y~ 1 -r ~ s~ti ~ ~ ~L~'t'; I Yl ~ ~`i=3+~~~ . nt N A;tr' ~ C~ ~ ~°rrr~i,` i,~+~~kt `s ~ [ 1 ~ f.:~ `4 ~ f ~ i ` ~ I ~I. _ ~ ~~G ~ . I ~ 1 r• • 1 ~'l. u ~ f I ~~3'`•` • : a~ '~~y E ~~~rt .•y _7 t.. Ly ~ i' _ _ - ?77.`}Yt`f> ,w _i ~''t ~ rr ,,7 r . w N Ott ~ I 0" S ti ~ 4 ~ ~ ~.1 I ,~'1'[)+y~~.,~ry~ ~`fzs'I ( i ~ II If 1 11~ I) I) ~ t ~ I f : ~ _ ~ .II ~ ~ - ~,;v~('ITY OF R1CIIFIEI-U N xl~~l w ' I ~ jl, ~ 1 II ~ = ( ' ~ ( - _ ~ _~f T i ~ I f ~ ~~1. fENNEPN COIIJfY. MINt~SOTA :5~::::. ~t~ ~ ~ site . ~ . 1 1 ~ _ ! I ; „ s~ ~ N . It. N . v ~ , 7 v. t - t .3 t 1!" I[ r i i T * e! e ! e i tl t= f COIV~PREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN , 7i0URCE: RIcA1Nld Community Owdopm~nl O~pl. „ ~ - _ t - \ J I w8 Plannin Commission g Richfield City Ha11 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN. 55423 Dear Planning Commission Members: This is regarding the special hearing being held on Tuesday, June 24, 1986 concerning the Pantry Restaurant at 7545 Lyndale Avenue South. We are unable to attend tonight's meeting .but would like to bring the following problems we .have had with this property to your attention. 1) We still continue to have some overflow parking on the .75th and Garfield block by patrons of the restaurant. 2) Garbage/refuse/debris from the restaurant are still being found and picked up by us in the rear of our property. This is probably as a result of the dumpster being out of the garbage enclosure from time to time and animals/birds carrying it off. We have•also witnessed employees tossing garbage over the fence into our yard when-they are apparently on breaks, etc. We are opposed to an addition to this restaurant and feel that problems have not been addressed by the owner that currently exist. We appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Chris and Betsy Christensen 7538 Garfield Ave. S. Richfield, MN. 55423 ' 866-4763 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 263 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and ' Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution Giving Preliminary Approval To IDRB Financing For Hampton Inn Council Members: Background The HRA and City Council have taken actions in the past to support the construction of a 149 room five story Hampton Inn on the northeast quadrant of Highway 494 and Lyndale Avenue. In December, 1985, both the HRA and Council approved a developer's agreement which contemplates the construction of this project • within the context of the ILN Redevelopment Plan. The City Council approved the Final Development Plan for the project under the PUD Ordinance in February,1986. At the June 9, 1986 City Council meeting, Resolution No. 7177 was adopted, setting a public hearing for July 14, 1986 regarding the use of tax-exempt Industrial Development Revenue Bonds to finance the construction of the proposed Hampton Inn. Current Request For purposes of financing this project, the developers of Hampton Inn have named themselves the Richfield Hotel Associates Limited Partnership. The Partnership is seeking $6.6 million in IDRB financing. As shown on the attached Form D, the funds will be expended as follows: Acquisition of Land $ 820,000 New Construction 4,109,000 Fees: (Architectural, engin- eering, inspection, fiscal, legal, administration) 471,000 Construction Interest 600,000 Initial Bond Reserve 600,000 Total Cost of Project $6,600,000 • The Allocation Criteria is also attached to this council letter. Beginning with 1986, Richfield does not have a reserved IDRB allocation. A developer seeking IDRB's for a Richfield • project must compete on a statewide basis for the funding. The state uses the developer's response to the Allocation Criteria to help select the projects to be funded. If the applicant claims the project meets a criteria an "X" is placed in the box in the left column. If the state agrees with the claim, it indicates its agreement in the box in the column on the right. If a project does not qualify for a criteria, the words "Not Eligible" appear. A resolution giving preliminary approval to the project and to the use of IDRB financing for the project is attached to this council letter. The resolution authorizes the Mayor and Acting City Manager to execute the Memorandum Of Agreement and the Comprehensive Statement. These documents contain basic understandings which would exist between the developer and the City regarding the obligations of each. It also directs city staff to work with the developer to complete the arrangements for the financing.- If the project is authorized by the Department of Energy and Economic Development to utilize IDRB's, a Revenue Agreement and other documents will be presented to the Council in the future for action. City policy requires IDRB applicants to pay a non- refundable $2,500 fee for access to this type of financing to help defray city costs. That fee has been paid. • Recommendation It is recommended that the Council hold the hearing and following testimony adopt the attached resolution giving preliminary approval to IDRB financing for the Hampton Inn. Resp tf lly submitted, f tiev~: L. evich Acting City Manager SD/eja • i r i cy ~ D ? STATE OF 1VIINNESOTA DEPARTME~iT OF ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL. MANAGEMENT DIVISION APPLICATION FOR ALLOCATION FROM COMPETITIVE POOL UNDER THE FEDERAL VOLUME LIMITATION ACT Pursuant to Minn. Laws 1986, Ch. 465, Article 1, Section 19, Subdivision 2. Note Allocations awarded under the Federal Volume Limitation Act will be evidenced by a Certificate of Allocation which will require that the obligations must be iaaued and a Notice of Issue be submitted to the Department .within the time limitations set forth as follows: (1) fora Certificate of Allocation issued on or prior to August 15, 1988, or any time in 1987, within 30 days of the date of issuance of the certificate; (2) for a Certificate of Allocation iaaued between August 18 and September 1, 1986,. by September 18, 1986; {3) for a Certificate of Allocation iaaued on or after September 1, 1988, and before the second to the last Monday of December, 1988, within 15 days of the date of issuance of the certificate; (4) for a Certificate of Allocation iaaued on or after the second to the last Monday of December, 1988, by the end of that year or within the time permitted by a federal volume limitation act; and (5) for a Certificate of Allocation- iaaued to an Entitlement Issuer for a Qualified Multifamily Housing Project, within 30 days of issuance of this Certificate of Allocation. • all references to sections herein are to Minnesota Statues as amended NAME OF ISSUER: CITY OF RICHFIELD NAME OF PROJECT' RICHFIELD HOTEL ASSOCIATES LTD. PARTNERSHTP AMOUNT OF ISSUANCE AUTHORITY REQUESTED: $ 6,600,000 (if this application is submitted prior to September 1, a deposit in the amount of 1°~i of the requested allocation from the issuer and a copy of the issuer's preliminary resolution approving the project moat be submitted with this application. A 2°~b deposit is required after August- 31. An application for a qualified multifamily housing project must include an additional deposit of 1°.b. A public hearing is not required to obtain an allocation, but is required I~ for project approval.) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 11+9 Room, 5 story hotel and related improvements TYPE OF ISSUER: NON-ENTITLEMENT ISSUER. ? ENTITLEMENT ISSUER. Applicant has adopted a final resolution(s) authorizing sale of bonds eQual to allocation under 474.17 (attach copy). ? Applicant has returned any remaining. allocation for reallocation. ? First Class City r TYPE OF PROJECT: (Must conform to definitions attached) ? MANUFACTURING ? POLLUTION CONTROL. OR WASTE MANAGEMENT i U COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT ® A. Qualifies as a redevelopment district. L The project site is included in a Tax Increment Financing District. ? A. TIF plan attached. ? B. TIF plan previously filed with Department. 2, The project site would qualify as a redevelopment district as defined in section 273.73, subd. 10 {definition attached). _ Please explain how the project qualifies: City Cauacil Resolution #f7101 dated 11/12/85,:designates this area as a redevelopment site. II B. 7596 of the proceeds will be used to acquire and rehabilitate or replace an existing structure. ' ? C. The project will be undertaken and the obligations issued pursuant to a written program administered by the local issuer and the financing provides for a substantial commitment of local public funds. (Submit copy of issuer's written development program one copy will suffice for all commercial redevelopment projects for • the calendar year.) D. The project financing includes an Urban Development Action Grant which has been made under section 119 of the Federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Address of Project: Northeast quadrant of Highway 1+91+ and Lyndale Ave. So., Richfield Proceeds from the sale of the bonds of approx}mately $ 6, 600, 000 will be applied toward payment of costs now estimated as follows: Acquisition of land: $v0' 000 New construction: ~ ' Demolition and site preparation Acquisition and installation of equipment Rehabilitation or replacement of existing structure Fees: Architectural, engineering, inspection, fiscal, 1+31,000 legal, administration, or printing: Construction Interest: 600,000 Initial Bond Reserve: 600,000 Contingencies: U.D.A.G. _ Equity Other (describe): Total private and federal funds: ~ Local public funds (see definition attached): Total Cost. of Project. x6.,600,000 , ^ H ALLOCATION CRITERIA ? 1. The current rate of unemployment for the applicant is °r6 and is at Not.El.igble least 110% of 96 which is the most recently available statewide . average unemployment ''rate.. as determined by the Department of Jobs and Training .(formerly Department of Economic Security). Source; the greater of: A. Q The. most recent estimate available of unemployment by the Dept. of Jobs and Training (formerly Dept. of Economic Security) for the .smallest jurisdiction enclosing the jurisdiction of the applicant. B. Q Applicants <estimate for its jurisdiction (attach documentation to support estimate). ? 2. Decline of Employment: Not Eligible Number of employed 2nd calendar year before application is ; number employed 1st calendar year before application is must be same source each year. Source: A. ? Dept. of Jobs and Training (formerly Dept. of Economic Security) for same jurisdiction as Item 1.A. B. Applicants estimate for its jurisdiction (attach documentation to support estimate). • ~ ? 3. The project will provide additional general tax revenue to the taxing jurisdictions in which the project is located beginning no later than three years after sale and issuance of the obligations. ~ ? ? 4. The number of jobs to be created by the project is at least two Not Eligible jobs per $100,000 of issuance authority requested. II R 5. Total market value of taxable property in applicants jurisdiction, as of Not Eligible this date, as most recently certified to Commissioner of Revenue is $ 1.0].0.149.000, and has either: A. ? .Declined from the previous year's certification to Commissioner of Revenue of $ B. ? Increased from the previous year's certificatioq to the Commissioner of Revenue of $959,149,200 at a rate of 5.32 which is not greater than 90% of the increase of the state average market value as determined by the Department of Revenue. ® Q 6. The total capital expenditures for the project $ exceed by 10% the amount of the obligations to be issued $ Lnot ;yet ~y~.~,lable ? ? 7. The project is wholly located in an enterprise zone designated pursuant to Not Eligible section 273.1312. D 8. The project. site meets the criteria necessary to qualify as a tax increment • redevelopment district as defined in Section 273.73, Subd. 10. To qualify for this point, the project need not be included in a tax increment financing district. _ NOlkr{ h OMd - f+ ? ~ 9. The project meets one of the following energy conservation criteria: Not Eligible' ~ ~ A. ~ The project is eligible for the additional federal. investment tax credits for energy property. B. ~ The project involves construction or expansion of a district heating system as defined in Section 116J.36. C. ~ The project involves construction of an energy source as .described in section 116J.26, clause (a), (b), or (d), or 116M.03, subdivisions 22, 23 and 26. ~ 10. The project consists of the renovation, .rehabilitation, or reconstruction of Not Eligible an existing building which is: A.II Located in a historic district designated under section 138.73, or on a site listed in the State Registry of Historical Sites under sections 138.53 to 138.5819. B. ~ Designated in the National Register pursuant to United States Code, title 16, section 470a. 11. Service connections to sewer and water systems are available to the project at the time the application is submitted. 12. As provided by a binding agreement with the municipality, at least 1096 of the individuals employed by the principal user or users of the project will be minority or low income individuals (attach a copy of the agreement). 13. As of the date the application is submitted either: A. ~ Neither the anticipated owner of the project, nor any party of which the owner was a controlling partner or shareholder, or which was a controlling shareholder or partner of the owner, owned or operated a substantially similar business within the state, or B. II The project is an expansion of the operations of an existing business which is not likely to have the effect of transferring existing employment from one or more other municipalities within the state to the minicipality in which the project is located. Q ~ 14. A controlling interest in the project will be ..owned by one or more women or Not Eligible minority persons. D II IS. 7596 of the proceeds of the proposed issue will be used to rehabilitate an Not Eligible existing Structure. Q 16. The project is a multifamily housing project. - N~ E~gible 17. The project is a multifamily housing project designed for rental primarily Not Eligible to handicapped persons or to elderly persons. I, TOTAL POINTS AWARDED ii The following authorized Official is designated for contact by the Department of Energy •and Economic Development: NAME:: 6 - ~ ~ :CERTIFICATION / THE .UNDERSIGNED CERTIFY THE ACCURACY OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION: Date Mayor/Chair of Local Issuer Date Attorney for Local Issuer • PLEASE RETURN TO:Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development _ Financial Management Division ATTN: RICHARD NADEAU 900 American Center Building 150 E. Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612/297-4398 II _ ` ` - RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT: REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROVAL; AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS f Ri hfield BE IT RESOLVED By the. City Council of the City o c , Minnesota (City), as follows: 1. It is hereby found, determined and declared as follows: 1.1 The welfare of the State of Minnesota requires active promo- tion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce through governmental acts to prevent, so far as possible, emergency of .blighted lands and areas of chronic" unemployment, and the state has encouraged local government units to act to prevent such economic deterioration. . 1.2 Richfield Hotel Associates Limited Partnership, a Minnesota partnership (Company), has advised this Council of its desire to acquire land and to construct and equip thereon an approximately 149 room, five story hotel and related site improvements (Project). 1.3 The existence of the Project within the City would signifi- cantly increase the tax base of the City, County and school district in which the-City is located, would provide opportunities for employ- went for residents of the City and surrounding area, and assist the City in reaching its redevelopment goals in the Interstate-Lyndale- Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area. 1.4 T'ne pity has been advised by the Company tixat conventional, commercial financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is avail- able only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be signifi- cantly reduced, but that with the aid of municipal financing, and its resulting low borrowing cost, the project is economically more feasible. 1.5 This Council has been advised by Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, investment bankers and underwriters, that on the basis of information submitted to it and the discussions with representatives of the Company that bonds or notes to finance all or part of the cost of the Project can be successfully sold. 1.6 The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, to issue its revenue bonds, notes or other obligations (Bonds) to finance capital projects. consisting. of properties used and useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise, such as that of the Company, and the issuance of such Bonds by the City would be a sub- stantial inducement to the Company to construct the Project within the City. 2. On the basis of information given the City to date it presently appears that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue its industrial development revenue Bonds under the. provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474 (Act) to finance the: project of the Company at a cost presently estimated to be approximately $6,b00y000. 3. The Council declares that it is its present intent to issue the Bonds. The Project above referred to is hereby given preliminary approval by the City and the issuance of Bonds for such purpose and in such amount approved, subject to approval of the Project by the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority (Authority) and to the mutual agreement of this body, the Company and the initial pur- chasers of the bonds as to the details o£ the Bonds and provisions for their payment. In all events, it is understood, however, that the Bonds shall not constitute a charge,. lien or encumbrance legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the Project, and each Bond, when, as and if issued, shall recite in substance that the bond, including interest thereon, is payable solely from. the revenues received from the Project and properly pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional, charter or statutory limitation thereon. 4. The form of Memorandum of Agreement relating to the issuance ~ of the Bonds to finance the cost. of the Project is hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Memorandum of Agreement in behalf of the City. 5. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 7A, the Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Authority for approval. • The Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney and other officers, employees, and agents of the City and LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O`Brien & Drawz, a Professional Association, as bond counsel and City Attorney, are hereby authorized to provide the Authority with any preliminary information needed for this purpose, and the City Attorney is authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project, if it is approved by ~i the Authority. II Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11+th day of July, 1986. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) • ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday, July 14, 1986, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and correct copy thereof, insofar as the same relates to the preliminary approval of an Industrial Development Revenue Bond Project for Richfield Hotel Associates Limited Partnership, a Minneso- to partnership. WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the • City this day of 1986. City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota (SEAL) • _ MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, dated as of , 1986 between the City of Richfield, Minnesota (City) and Richfield Hotel Associates Limited Partnership (Company) provides as follows: 1. Preliminary Statement. Among the matters of mutual induce- went which have resulted in this Agreement are the following: (a) the City is authorized and empowered by the provisions of Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, as amended (Act), to issue revenue bonds to defray the costs of a project as defined in the Act; (b) the Company has proposed that the City, pursuant to the Act, issue its revenue bonds to defray the costs to be incurred in connection with acquisition of land and the construction thereon of a hotel (Project), and that the City and the Company enter into a lease, sale or loan agreement or similar agreement satisfying the requirements of the Act (the "Revenue Agreement"); (c) the Company wishes to obtain satisfactory assurance from the City that the proceeds of the sale of the revenue bonds of the City will be made available to finance the costs of the Project; (d) subject to due compliance with all requirements of law, the City by virtue of such statutory authority as may now or hereafter be conferred by the Act, will issue and sell its reve- nue bonds or other obligations in an amount not exceeding $6,600,000 (Bonds) to pay the costs of the Project; (e) the Bonds shall be limited obligations of the City and the principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely out of the revenues derived from amounts payable to the City by the Company pursuant to the provisions of the Revenue Agreement. i 2. Undertakings on the Part of the City. Subject to the con- ditions stated in (d) of paragraph 1 hereof, the City agrees as follows: i i (a) that it is its present intent to authorize the issuance and sale of the Bonds, pursuant to the terms of the Act as then in force, and the terms and conditions of this Agreement. (b) that, if it issues. and sells the Bonds, it will as requested by the Company enter into the Revenue Agreement with the Company. The lease rentals, installment sale payments, loan payments or other. amounts payable.. under the Revenue Agreement will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest and redemp- tion premium, if any, on the Bonds as and when the same shall become due and payable. 3. Undertakings on the Part of the Company. The Company agrees as follows: (a) that it will use all reasonable efforts to find one or more purchasers for the Bonds. (b) that contemporaneously with the delivery of the Bonds the Company will enter into the Revenue Agreement with the City under the terms of which the Company will provide security to the City for payment of sums sufficient in the aggregate to pay the principal of and interest and redemption premium, if any, on the Bonds as and when the same shall become due and payable. • (c) that it will pay all costs of the City in connection with the financing of the Project whether or not the Project is carried to completion or approval by the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority. 4. General Provisions. (a) All commitments of the City under paragraph 2 hereof and of the Company under paragraph 3 hereof are subject to the condition that within 12 months from the date hereof (or such other date as shall be mutually satisfactory to the City and the Company, and as set forth in an amendme:at to this A,~reemert) , t?~,e City and the Company shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and. conditions of the Revenue Agreement, the Bonds and of the other instruments and proceedings relating to the Bonds. (b) If the events set forth in (a) of this paragraph do not take place within the time set forth therein, or any modification thereof, and the Bonds are not sold and delivered within such time, the Company agrees that it will reimburse the City for all reasonable and necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses which the City may incur arising from the execution of this Agreement and the performance by the City of its obligations hereunder, and this Agreement shall thereupon terminate. . (c) This .Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of the parties at any time, provided., however, that the City ~e~ reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to withdraw its ap- . proval of the Project if at any time the City Council determines that the public interest and the purpose of the Act will not be served by the Project. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement by .their officers thereunto duly authorized as of the date first written above. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its Mayor sy Its City Manager RICHFIELD HOTEL ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By General.Partner • DRAFT • Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT CONCERNING A PROPOSED PROJECT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474 The undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of Richfield, Minnesota.. (City), hereby certify that the City has been provided by Richfield Hotel Associates Limited Partnership, (Company) with certain information concerning a proposed project (Project) under the- Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (Act). On the basis of such information, the City Council, by resolution adopted on July 14, 1986, has given preliminary approval to the proposed Project and the financing thereof by the issuance of revenue bonds or other obligations of the City as set out in Council resolution. The following are factors considered by the City. Council in determining to give preliminary approval to the Project: 1. Representatives of the Company state that the Project consists generally of the acquisition of land in the City and construction and equipping thereon of an approximately 149 room , • five story hotel and related site improvements. 2. Bond counsel is of the opinion that the Project consti- tutes a project within the meaning of Section 474.02, Subdivision la of the Act and that the public hearing requirements of state and federal law have been complied with. 3. Representatives of the Company estimate that the acqui- sition and construction of the Project will result in an annual payroll of approximately $ 283,00.0 based on wage rates currently in effect for 1q new jobs.- The City Council believes that a substantial percentage of that payroll will be spent on housing, food and other goods and services in the City and surrounding area, thus benefiting the local economy. 4. The Project, when in place, will add to the tax base of the City and assist the City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield in achieving their redevelopment goals. 5. The City Council has reviewed the preliminary plans and drawings for the Project and believes that the Project, when com- pleted, will be compatible with present and projected development in the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area. The City will provide the Minnesota Energy and Economic Develop- went Authority with the information required by Section 474.01, Sub- divisions 8 and 11 of the Act, upon entering into a revenue agreement, as defined in the Act, with the Company. ` The Project does not include any property to be sold or affixed • to or consumed in the production of property for sale, and does not include any housing facility to be rented or used as a permanent residence. In addition, the Project does not include: an airplane; a private luxury box; a facility primarily used for gambling; or a store the principal business of which is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off premises; and no more than 10 percent of the proceeds of revenue bonds will be used to finance movable equipment not con- stituting a fixture, no more than 25 percent of revenue bonds will be used to finance the acquisition of land, and not more than $10,000,000 in revenue bonds which are industrial development bonds subject to the exemption described in section 103(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended December 31, 1983, will be issued with respect to any one. building which is used for commercial, office or industrial purposes, without regard to ownership of condominium units withir_ the building. The City will undertake to encourage that the employment oppor- tunities made available by the Project will, if feasible, be offered to individuals who are unemployed or who are economically disad- vantaged as contemplated in Section 474.01, Subdivision 11. The City will comply with the reporting requirements set forth in that section. A public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project was conducted pursuant to Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b of the Act and federal regulations on July 14, 1986, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. • in the Richfield City Hall, at which public hearing all interested parties were afforded an opportunity to express their views. A copy of the notice of public hearing is attached. Dated: 1986. Mayor City Manager • r~ ~ J/~ [Company Letterhead] Honorable Mayor and City Council The City of Richfield, Minnesota City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority 900 American Center Building 150 East Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: Proposed Issuance of $6,600,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds City of Richfield, Minnesota (Richfield Hotel Associates Limited Partnership Project) The undersigned submits the following plan for compliance with Minne- sota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subd. 11 (Act). The undersigned shall make every effort to comply with the require- ments of the, Act for the purpose of providing employment to those individuals who are unemployed or who are economically disadvantaged and who otherwise qualify for employment with the Company. It is the intent of the undersigned to use the Job Service Bureau of the Economic Security Department of the State of Minnesota as a first source for employment recruitment, referral and replacement. It further is the intent of the undersigned to provide such reports as may be required by Statute to the Commissioner of Energy and Economic Development. RICHFIELD HOTEL ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By General Partner • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 262 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Amendment to the Existing Special Use Permit and Off-street Parking Permit at 6401 Nicollet Avenue Council Members: Proposal: Mr. Huyen Tang Nguyen and Ms. Yen Thi Bui have requested for an amendment to the existing special use permit to allow the operation of a Vietnamese "sitdown" restaurant at 6401 Nicollet Ave. The amendment would also allow the closure of the access to the adjacent Stewart Building north parking lot which was previously required by the city as part of the special use permit approval. The site is zoned C-1 neighborhood commercial. A restaurant which does not involve dancing, on-sale beer, or the serving of alcoholic beverages is permitted in this district. The restaurant will operate 11:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday; 5:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday; and 5:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Zoninq.Ordinance Requirements: 1. Section 3.32, Subdivision 1 (3) indicates that a sit down restaurant which does not involve dancing, on sale beer, or the serving of alcoholic beverages is permitted in a C-1 district with a special use permit. 2. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, governs the issuance of a special use permit. Staff Review: Staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following: ~ 1. The site has a land area of 13,545 square feet. The • existing structure has a floor area of 1,824 square ~ feet. The applicant has indicated that there will be no structural changes on the site. There will be some . L~ - interior remodeling. to improve the condition of the building. The site has a building setback of 40 feet on Nicollet Avenue, 5 feet on 64th Street and 29 feet to the east of the property. However, these setbacks have been in existence since 1974. The city granted a variance to allow the structure to be within 5 feet of 64th Street. 2. The restaurant has a seating capacity for 56 people. The city off-street parking guidelines require 1 parking space for every 3 seats. The site will require 19 parking spaces according to the parking guidelines. Currently, there are 21 parking spaces on the site which is 2 spaces more than required. There is still the potential for 2 additional parking spaces, if access to the adjacent Stewart Building north parking lot is closed bringing the total amount of parking spaces to 23. 3. The existing curb-cut on Nicollet Avenue will remain the same. Joint parking and access agreement between the property owners of the two properties was required by the city as part of the original off-street parking permit. The applicant wishes to close the access to Stewart building north parking lot. U.S. Land Company, the current owner of the Stewart Building, has notified the city of their intent to cancel the agreement. However, U.S. Land Company also indicated their willingness to cooperate with the new property owner at 6401 Nicollet Avenue to improve flow of traffic from their site, if such a need arises. 4. The site abuts residential properties to the east. There is a wooden fence to screen the site from the residential properties. However, the fence is in poor condition. Adequate screening and landscaping already exist along 64th Street. 5. The remodeling of the structure to operate a sitdown restaurant will be a definite improvement of the site. Granting of the amendment to the existing special use permit will not in any way impact the health, safety, or welfare of the neighborhood. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the amendment to-the existing special use permit to allow the operation of a "sitdown" restaurant and also allow the closure of the access to the Stewart Building north • parking lot with the following stipulations: 5 1. That the property owner obtain a revised off-street parking permit from the city. 2. That the remodeling of the structure meets all city requirements. ' 3. The wooden fence at the rear of the property be repaired to the satisfaction of city staff. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the existing special use permit to allow the operation of a Vietnamese sitdown restaurant at 6401 Nicollet Avenue and also to allow the closure of the access to the adjacent Stewart Building north parking lot with the following stipulations: . 1. That the property owner obtains a revised off-street parking permit from the city. 2. That the remodeling of the structure meets all the Building, Fire and Health codes of the city. 3. That the wooden fence at the rear of the property be repaired to the satisfaction of city staff. Staff also recommends approval of a revised off-street parking permit for the property. Res c fully submitted, r n L. [~evic Act'ng City Manager SLD/eja ~ C - . . - 64th - ST.- - N { ~ ~ .p 126.16 , Scale= 1°= I Z5• 1 • , Green ~ 20' _ i..._Ep'---~ ONE STORY BLDG. I Area W Conc 32~ x 57' - - ~ Porto ' Z ~ W { I Exiat, fence on Q { ~ property line. I ~ i ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ! 1 I I 1 I i 1 1 I ~ 1 j 1 I l 1 I 1 i I 1 1 I I 1 f i t 1 1 { I I W I I J -1 ~1 BITUMINOUS SURFACE ~ ~ ~ U - 1 I I 1 T' T i ~ i 1 I t I 1 1 I 1 ~ I I I I i I ! I I 1 I 1 1, i i i i j i I{ i - . . LL.. - 126.14' BARRIER CURB 3TEWART BUILD{NCi PARKING LOT - - - - - ' . _ ~ - t , !!fin FcC~iVED ~1~Y ~ i.,:S US-land rea estate investment partnerships/ Tvp ®f the Rocker consuhing/management _ ti N. 4th Sveet Suite 700 Minneapolis MN 55401 David Bueide -612 333-2628 President May 1, 1986 Huyen Tang Nguyen Yen Thi Bui 5625 Woodlawn Blvd. Minneapolis MN 55417 . RE: Parking Agreement .Dear M/M Nyugen and Bui: Enclosed is a copy of a parking agreement between the owners of the Stewart Building and Arthur Treacher's Fish and Chips .which was required by the City of Richfield at the time the . Arthur Treacher's building was built. . This will serve as notice that as~successor to the Stewart interest, I intend to cancel the agreement by giving 90 days' notice according to terms of the agreement. If you wish to discuss a new parking arrangement, please feel free to contact-me at the above address. If you would prefer to work through attorneys on this, my attorney's name is Doug Carney at Curtin, Mahoney and Cairns, 4150 City Center, Minneapolis, MN. His phone number is 333-5411. urs ~ David Bueide Enc. . cc: Steve Devich City Manager, City of Richfield Towhid Kazi City Planner, City of Richfield _ i • ~ r ~ l PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF RICHFIELD . PLANNING COMMISSION TO To property owners within 350 feet of 6401 Nicollet Avenue South APPLICANT Huyen Tang Nguyen and Yen Thi Bui LOCATION Block 8, Lot 1 and Lot 2 except the south 63.5 feet OF PROPERTY fiowns Edge Addition (.6401 Nicollet Avenue South) PURPOSE To amend the special use permit to allow the operation I of a Vietnamese 'sitdown' restaurant and to allow the closure of the access to the adjacent Stewart Building north parking lot which was previously required by the city. 1 TIME OF HEARING 7:30 PM, Tuesday, June 24, 1986 , PLACE OF HEARING Council Chambers, .Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue HOW TO PARTICIPATE 1. Attend the hearing and give -testimony. for or against the proposal. 2. Submit a letter to the Planning Commission expressing your views. ANY QUESTIONS Towhid Kazi Assistant Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 869-7521, Ext. 512 MAILING DATE Tina l 7 l4RFi ' I ~ o • ~ ~ ~ i ~ CITY OF RICHF1c"LD ASSESS^'1ENT RuLi_ FCR CITY ?ROJECT: X259 - 5401 NI COLLET P.I.N. 1 LOCATION OWNER'S NAMc" / ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT THAN. LOCATION) i• 27-028-24-12-0J19 R SWkNSO~S I~ 6325 NICOLE=_T 547 HAitRltvuT:,N RD 'HAYZATAr MN 55391 i•~ _ 27-018-24-12-J~20 THOMAS C DANIEL ~ ,331 33 NIGGLE=T AVE 2410 W 54TH ST MPLS.r MN 55400 e27-°J26-24-12-uJ~21 ?AUL MGORHcAD ];~~~6337 39 NICCI.LcT 2817 W 1^vBTH ST BLOOMINGTCNr MN 55431 i~= 27-02d-24-12-G;,~22 PAUL J MuORHcAD 6343 NI COLLET 2817 W 1G87H 9LOOPiIN:iTONr MN 55431 ~•27-028-24-12-G:;23 EDkARD P SCHATZLcIN 3~„ 5344 1ST AVE =.27-028-24-i1-OJ24 DECOKES F SMcRUD 6338 1ST AVE ==~27-02$-24-12-J:~25 GtRALD AVDtRSOh 5332 1ST AVE 27-028-24-12-O~JZ6 r~.ANDY J COLEMA~i 6 3.2°:bt~~:1 S T A V S { , ~27-023-24-12-uJ29 VcRNO~V FISCNBACH 532T 1ST AVE •=27-028-24-12-u~30 ALERT L JOHwSLN } 0333 1ST AVc '•;27-028-24-1Z-u 31 MIlDRCO KAr~L 6339 1ST AV=_ 27-028-24-12-~~::32 MARY JANE UILLHA~S } 6345 1ST AV 27-028-24-12-CJ33 J S ?ETEt2SON d M !tiOFFARTH 5344 STEVENS ~ 27-028-24-12-QJ34 RiCHARt~ E J 5'v1cDCAN 0338 STEVENS 27-024-24-13-::x::36 JA"icS SUcSS 5401 1ST AVE 27-G28-z4-13-C~J37 KARL KF,LLENBcRG 5409 1ST AVE Z7-028-24-13-'38 JERRY wESTMAiv 5415 1St AV S „I27-02ts-14-1?-i;J~9 R03T L JOH(~iSEN ~ "I 0421 1ST AVE y . ~ CITY nF RICHFIELD ASSFSSYENT_ROL~ FOR CITY PROJECT: X259 - 5401 NICOLLET P.I.N. / LOCATION OtiNER'S WANE / ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT THAN LOCATION) •127-028-24-13-00~+~ GLENN vAASVIG ~ • 6427 1ST AYE 27-028-24-13-0041 CATHERINE AN;~A VARNO 7 • 6433 1ST AVE. 27-026-24-13-OJ46 3 A CASs 54Z0 STEVENS 27-028-24-13-OU49 LYNN S MAHON 0414 STEVENS AVE SO 1'•127-02b-24-13-0050 ED~iIN G WATTS " 5403 STEVENS x;27-028-24-13-0051 BERNHARD G STINGER ~i=° 5400 STEVENS. AV S ~ r~ 27-028-24-13-0052 RONALD NAS~CVITZ );=''0401 NI COLLET AV S 10G0 IDS BLDG MPLS., MN 55402 >27-028-24-13-0053 J S LANDSHARES ~1A 0425 NI COLLET A'vE SO 18 fV 4TH ST t~700 MPLS., J+t~ 55401 27-u2d-24-13-0054 TIMOTHY ~ ccTH FLAhI~AH 5~Z5 1ST AVE " 27-023-24-13-00:5 JAY & HG~LI nIcTMULDER )i== 5420 1ST AV S 27-020-24-13-OO~a J k DAhI~LS S41 4 1sT AVE ~•i L7-JZS-L4-13-00~'l KENNETH 6 CY•tiTHIA MANDL )~=•~408 1ST AV S 0529 LOGAN AVE SO RICHFIELD, HN 55423 - , 27-J2is-24-13-0056 wM CULLcN 540u 1 S7 AYE Z7-~Z8-Z4-13-OOC1 FIRST FED SAV & LOAN )~••~6445 hICOLLET' 77 SO 7Th ST MPLS.. MN ~540L ;••27-028-Z4-13-OOG2 FIRST FED SAV y LOAN 6432 1ST AV S 77 SOUTH 7TH ST MPLS NN~ 55402 'j27-OZ8-L4-21-OOE~ IVGE30RG SLAdE }I•~I o324 NICOLLET 7-023-24-21-OOt6 CHARLEa oR0[ 3L5 BLAISDELL 27-028-24-21-0071 JEFFREY A HAnfSON 5330 -32 NZCOLLET n • CITY OF RI CHFIFLD ASS ESSYEirT RCLL rOr~ CITY PROJECT: X259 - 5401 NiCOLLET P.I.N. / LOCATIUN O~INER'5 NAi4E / ADDRESS CIF DIFFERENT THAN LOCATION) • 27-028-24-21-G~72 C riA,tiSON • 6336 NICULLET 3528 f,iE;~1UtiT AVE S MPLS 14N 554J8 = 27-U2a-Z4-L1-UJ73 CHAS Na?VSUN • b342 hICGLLET 352E FkEi40tiT AVE S ,MPLS MrJ 55408 27-028-24-21-u~=74 ~lARGURETTE HAiJLO"~ 634 aLAiSDELL ==127-028-24-Z1-Ou75 A1RS FLuRA GROUSE =.16337 BLAISDELL _•27-028-~4-Z1-0:;76 GERALD HUG~ETT 6331 BLAISDELL =•27-023-24-24-Uu39 uARY E 06ERG =•6400 NICGLLET 12 GVEnHOLT PASS EDINA MN 55435 27-02i3-24-24-U~~40 DR GARY c GoERG ~==6408 NICGLLET 6410 NICv""LEFT AVE RICHFIELD MV 55423 =•27-025-24-24-041 THE LEIGH CO b412 NI COLLET 27-028-[4-24-~~43 MARGARET HAM;~IER b429 BLAISDELL >o _ ==27-028-24-2y-G~44 JAi~E OLSUN b421 BLAISDELL AV S '•27-028-24-24-045 JOR~= TtiTARKG b415 aLAISDELL s* 27-028-24-24-%u46 GLADYS N; GuC;C 6409 3lAISDELL E ~r ••i 27-028-24-24-~J47 D'JI:GLAS s JA;~ET LUND5ERG 6401 SLAISDE~L AV S •=27-028-24-24-JJ54 DCLGRES L tiE~SON 6420 NICOLLET AVE SO 7244 YURK AVE S APT 116 EDINA y1N 55435 27-024-24-Z4-GJSS CITY OF r~ICiiFIELD j 649V irI~OI.LET aVE 670u PORTL:~~i;j AVE S RICHFIELD M'J 55423 ~ 7UTAL ASSESSiMcNT IS: Z 3 ~ / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 261 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Vacation of The Alley Located East of 19th Avenue, West of 20th Avenue Abutting Properties at 6532 20th Avenue and. 6533 19th Avenue Council Members: Background: At the June 9, 1986 City Council meeting, the City Council received a petition requesting the vacation of the alley running between 19th Avenue and 20th Avenue, North of 66th Street and South of 65th Street from the property owners at 6532 20th Avenue and 6533 19th Avenue. The City Council gave first reading approval to an ordinance to vacate the proposed alley and set July 14th, 1986 as the date of the public hearing. At the June 9th meeting the applicants indicated that they might withdraw the petition because they would not gain ownership of the total width of the alley, but only the north half of the .alley. This would not allow them to construct a wide enough driveway to gain access to their existing garages. The property owners to the south has indicated an unwillingness to sell the south half of the alley because of a fire exit issue connected with this vacation process. If the property owner sold that portion of the alley, his existing structure would not be in compliance with building and fire codes of the city, and alterations would be required to the building. The property owner indicated he would grant the petitioners the right to use the alley, but he would not sell the property to them. As of the writing of this letter the applicants have not reached agreement with the business owner on this matter. A copy of the previous staff report concerning this matter is attached for council information. Recommendation: . It is recommended that the council conduct the public hearing on this matter and give second reading consideration to the attached ordinance with the following stipulations: 1. Maintenance of the vacated alley be the responsibility of the property owners abutting the .alley. 2. Utility easements be provided to NSP for the maintenance of the electric poles located on the alley. 3. If the vacated alley becomes a private driveway the North Star building must comply with all the building and fire code requirements. Res c fully s it ed, ~i! -mot v n L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD/eja • • i TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0. • AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF THE ALLEYWAY IN BLOCK 3, NEW FORD TOWN ADDITION CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN Section 1. The following described alleyway is hereby vacated: The alleyway in Block 3, New Ford Town Addition lying between the east line of 19th Avenue extended, and the west line of 20th Avenue extended. Section 2. This alleyway vacation shall not affect,. destroy or interfere with the right of -any person, corporation or municipality owning or having control of any electric, gas, telephone, sewer, water, or other utility to construct, reconstruct, operate, maintain, repair and remove any public utility facilities upon or within the vacated right-of-way. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of July, 1986. John Hamilton Mayor • ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk ~i I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4t iJ Y ~ UGC w'jt vb , v7 7 ~'7 ~5 ~+5~ u ' ~7 (uy Vy a7 y '7 Vy ~ J y Vy ~{5 y5 y'Uy 0 ~y ..sue.{~..«.......?' •Nr ~ £1 al 11 a '~bl ~ 1 1 a~ ~yl , £t tt o?~ j , % -a til ~1 a1 ~ i l ' a ~ t?i £1 ' zT ~ 1~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1' ~ ~ • 09 t ~ •~Og oS oS e~ ~•o~ 04 _ oS o9 909 OS SOS l09 0 o s~ ~..os oS o~ ~t ~`b` Dr o ~o "(Ga 6! o ~>:h~~l ~ 61C+t~~~' CI I o 61@t~` o ~S~ 4! r _ ~ .,~.~gi~~l~~ ~ sl v.. s I (~U i t, , } 6 ~ +a,z 91 ~ j 9 ~ti) • ` (dl 91 9 z~ ' • (95 91 >i ~tig~ (0~'1 91 8 (5 ~ ~ ~ ` ~ { ~~1.~~.~'`•' ll ~ ~~1 ~ N '\~LI i~.-'' ~ `11' (65~~I t ~ ~ O ~~tL ~ t (b~) tD ~'`1y~11 ° ~yl~ t~ ~ ~ ? ~~y~t ~ C' ~ 101 ~ .4 ` 9 oti~~' ~ ~~l`01 ~ 9 (W~ ~ • BI . 9 81 = 9 ~,C~9 _ ~ ;~W~.s~~. to ,<'~1~, oC~ ~ ~d 't , - ~ ~ C ~ ! _ ~r,'~{oz . ~ .t~~l ' C''~ oz ~ ~ oz ~ ~ ' ~ ' C4~, oa . e. C~~} , oz ~~)>r ~ . .-`l ~ J ,4i 4 'C~ ia~ , tul~ ' <4l~la: f'.. G~~.1Z ' ` F. `la ~ 4~ tz' t:~. _ ' ` , tr v ~ o(~~ ZZ p~ h Z • o r 'ZZ •_.o Y Z : - • o ~ ZZ a • ~~v Zt ~ (~1) Z u rr~~ ~a ~ Iv Z 1~ ~ V~ 1~ t o • Z o ~ ~ Z ?`~k L: ~ ~~91~ ICs~~~ `t~ k 1' (41 £Z.~N 1 -(C4 £z ' (t~ ~ - ~ s r 1 +Q41 ti ~ '1 n S£1 ? " ~j~l Srl a yY. 'F ~'~1 S~I .A r^. 'S£I S£t ~"sh i+44'~~., ~ ~ ~ ! w„+ '•'i~ { L , rr 7.7 a'` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ Y ~ ~ o ` fib, ~ : • , . • ~ . , . 4l ~ b'k~„ t,, . Jy1u ytJ ~u' yYl, u SYI a 7bkl o, ,b~tl~M11u, t~:.~ 5~i by v =,'~I 0, t~5£I v ~ ~ A6~ v ~..~Zl_: b ~~;."..QI~1~~' ai•~~~ `y; '~~''1~£I .°;;~al(~~° °~o;~~ ° ~xl~~1o b~' ~t11~~£1 0 •ZI~'lo oK'~l£I ° ~1 ZI o ~ (u)zl o r _ ~'S"{t~~' ~ ' "'~;..til~~ t 11'f(1.~ ~ ~ ' ,;1~1 „~11~?., '<w~bl ' '<=~11 ~ti>' '`~~'IbIA ' ~'1{~1~1~, 'c~~~~l• c~'/1~ `d~ll - ?-oi~~~ 'r~',szi ~ a ' ~w~,' >il~~.~~~ =oJ~~~ 1 ~<<~ >rl ~ :ol Y of ' 1~ a - H - j` kt 91(~ ':~,.t; ~ ~ '91~,~ ~:,~~4' .t <ti 91 "•g'(S'~~' ,l~qit"""' S ~l,~l~ • ~4~91 ~u~ 6 t t(~~6 - rYr t,.=` o c~ ' :~~I.;~~~ ~~t E ~ ' ~H 'r+a~1`~~ ~ ~ : e ~ . (~1t1 , cwl ~ ~ - ,~.1,111)~ ~~RI' `~yr''W)' r«iM y01 ~~44`?B1 J ~ r'. ~`~°I~81 ~i ~ ~0~~ S(tib)91 ~(1~'lc , l~lt ~ ` A ~ \'~s~i~'•~.:\__/' e.~," , 4, `~~`'J9 ' J •`'?y~.6I r.. ` ~•'.~9. ` .r;`' `.~~1 j~61 ~ _9 (lrbl' ~fl61 9 , Cltl~ 9 _ ~ ~ ;~Yjoa ~ ~ _ >r ' ' ' - '.0t ~ • r~~' ~ ot,=~a s oz +j ' ~ t~ ti~ .C`g,~,•..o~ s w (~}s • - v it ~ Ib ' r f ' (~~l It ~ ' 11 f.~.. ~ ~ ~ ~j41~ IZ , f ~ r;; i.' ~y ' ~4~1 IZ " s-0: . (ob IZ s e p • ' r ~ ~F~~~,~ _.~~)aa ' (v1]za.~`~ £'~~°s•;• ' (?~')za.~' .:~~s(r(~ ~ ~(;~~zz' 11~~.., R , ~~1~£ ~ _ ~ ; (bk~Z~~ k'~ o }r,Q$',r~ ,,'a(~~ o \I~~`••~ (~~Z ,i.o ~~J£a•,'VO ~•~Z~ti~>o (y~?}o '~~£Z..v (41.12. o ' Z ~o t. ~ ' gb idz • . ~ t~l~ ~~l >ra ~ r, ~ (yt~ z • ~ : ~ ti.~~) ~ ea i~ i~a~ ~t ' ~ ~~+ba ~ (1.1,) ; ~ - ; C;~ 1 ~ t A, ~ ~ ~ q " iii !•~^I . ~ ~ ~ ! I 54.1 ~'S£i S£ a~ 9'S41 SScI ^ J 5 y it ' 7 ytt; . '7'et reI Stl ~r' , 5~1 v, ~ ~ SStI '7`e1 ~r 'i bkl tr 1 S41 v ~ 1 : Iv tlC+ U 1 ~~~.~,~>rt~.$;';a~ (a~~ ~a.~~' ?:.~tl.•1~1~ .d.;~(1f?1Ql.z°. ..zl.~)~ _ ~~~1 . zl t+'~ ~(~I)£1, ° ~6)zl ° • . t•/a v~. ~~~J F, t ~}`1.1~{~~ ~ t ~',~;I,~~M + •~'~;,1y1 r`6~' • (~.41ti1 , ,':+l II ~w~ ~`y' ' ~~`/.fl, . 11 `~d~~l t1 ` ~ . _ 11 ~/An.~' 4r ~ ~C4x `a' , ,K~, ^~J , •P" :.~r r ~ 1 t ~ 11 • ' 01 ' -01}}/A,,~~ r~L..v 11Q~ 'r11n'' +1;~' ~~:~ii ' •~`i ~1'~.~'1 Qt Cl.•~`~~~~S 1,~~ OC ~ 'ol . .~/s~~l ~ ~ la ~ . • r~';~~~~, ',91~'~1~+~~"b`~t+'~~~ -b? ~aa,.~t~a'~~,"'~"II•'(~1'. P. ,t~+~14~ .'•i',A _ . 5~ -av-a. rITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA _ p ~ Date Received. ~ O`er T0: The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota ' ~e, the undersigned, owners of not less than. 51 percent in frontage of the real property abutting on 7fl~' %GL~y Between ~S3a~~~~~ ~ ~3.3 And ~n~n~ ST~~E-D HEREBY PETITION THAT SUCH STREET- BE IMPROVED BY SIGNATURE OF OWNERS ADDRESS 1.. ,.,d ~ X2,533 19~i4U~ . Sb . - - _ ~ " a 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. I . 9. " I0 . 11. 12. 13_ I4. I5. I6. 17_ ~8. 19. 20. ~xamined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for. Percent City Clerk RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION RECEIVING ALLEYWAY VACATION PETITION AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING - WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the city requesting vacation of an alleyway easement describe d. as follows: The alley in Block 3, New Ford Town. Addition, lying .between the east line of 19th Avenue extended, and the west .line of 20th Avenue extended. WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with the requirements of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.04, Subdivision 2. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The petition for vacation of that portion of Block 3 of New Ford Town Addition described above is received. 2. A public hearing on the alley vacation in said petition shall be held on June 23, 1986. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of said hearing in the .manner provided by Richfield Ordinance Code - Section 12.04, Subdivision 3. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of June, 1986. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk i ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ' Council Letter No. 260 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Gity of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract - Water Plant Sludge Dewatering I~ Building Addition Council Members: On June 25, 1986, bids were opened in accordance with legal requirements for a building addition at the Water Plant. The purpose of the building addition is to house the equipment and operation for sludge dewatering. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is enclosed for city council review. • Although there were five plan holders, only one bid was received. This bid, submitted by A & K Construction, Inc. in the amount of $543,990, far exceeds the engineering estimate for the work. It is the understanding of city staff and the consultant that other vendors felt they were already committed to projects which would make it difficult, if not impossible, to meet the time line and schedule as specified for the Richfield project. City staff and the consultant feel that by amending the time line for the work, additional bids will be received. It is the recommendation of staff and the consultant that the city council reject the bid received on June 25, 1986 for the sludge dewatering building addition at the Richfield Water Plant and that the city council authorize a readvertisement for bids. Res fully ubmi ted, /C,~ n Devi h Acting City Manager SD/eja i • CITY OF RICHFIELD . BID .OPENING June 25, 198 6 Sludge Dewatering Addition to Water Treatment Plant City Project No. 703-1574 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called. by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Sludge Dewatering Addition to Water Treatment Plant, as advertised in the official newspaper on June 4, 1986. Present: Thomas. P. Ferber, City Clerk. Eileen Anderson, City Manager ' Representative Steven L. Devich, Administrative Services Director The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID TOTAL ;STATEMENT ;AFFIDAVIT; ;SECURITY BID ;OF INTENT ;OF NON- ; • ~ ;TO COMPLY ;COLLUSION; ~ ~ , ;A & K Const. Inc.; ; ; ; ;Stillwater, MN. ;5% Bid Bond; $543,990 Yes Yes ; The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and ' considered at the July 14, 1986 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • i ~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 259 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Permit for Temporary Sign at 6630 Penn Avenue Council Members: Billboard Balloons has requested an advertising permit for a 25 foot high balloon announcing the grand opening of the Down in the Valley Record Shop located at 6630 Penn Avenue. The balloon would be used from July 16 to July 20, 1986. The city ordinance provides that the city council must approve all permit requests for temporary signs. Staff Review and Recommendation The inspection division staff has reviewed this permit application and finds that the temporary sign conforms to all applicable city ordinances. It is recommended that the city council approve the request for a temporary balloon at 6630 Penn Avenue for the period July 16 - July 20, 1986. Resp tf ly sub tted, ~LCV~n ich Acting City Manager SD/eja City :Sanager ~ Inspect ;,~.r' Date Date ~ ''PROVE ~ DENY c APPROVE I ~ DE:tY+ ~ : ~ Planni De rtment City Coundil t ~ i kaS a ~o ~ eP y~ Date-~~~~ Date fwtti~ r?~ ~Lt X557 `j""y'"~ Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISZNG PERMIT City of Richfield,, Minnesota 't Date 7 -L Zoning Sign Erected -Yes No Fee G~ Address of Sign (r, ~.,~,r,! ~-C .proprietor Name ~ ~c"? r DBa.~Lic.,t.,.= i~nT~PV~+II~ /7 ~ ` ~ SGT c Sign Erector,' y,~,%/'..~j~. ~ Address Type of Sign ~ ~v ~ /.3~si'Qn ~ r~ ~P ~~at-he=~rCs~~i y~~ ' `~~Li~hting ,Wall ~ I Single Face ~ Clear LeYOn ~ Constant _ Projectiag Double Face Frosted LeYOn - Flashing Ground Multi-raced ~ Plastic Covered Revolving Roof Aerial/Blimp ~ Shaded ~ Traveling pedestal _ Searcalight Venn Zip Lite C:~angeable I Banner; Pennants Other Other(EYp1ai,; f`74 Temporary I Portable Frame: Sion Colors r~rFJrv~o~-=~ - ,r'L='~/~w .nJrr~-rir*F 1 1 Trailer ~ T ~ 3'~~ Poste / //1 4 Illuminated -Yes '7C Vo Watts c.TZ> ~.Iectrical Contractor address Phone rop~erty Owner or his Age^.t Signatzre Phone Est=rated Cost ~ .,ig*: Widt : :iei;ht _~J / TOt31 Square Fee*_ ?osition of tae ad-~ertiseWe^.t str::ctsra in relatiorsaip to tae ad'acent buildings, side~aalz:s, curbs, road~.~ays, overaead utili_j l'_nes, ve:^.icle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attac:.ed 'Hereto of major signs. Minor signs as de:ined on page 2. Two blueprints of tae sign, billboard, or outdoor advert=sing st^scture construction plans: _^clud~g specifications, list o= materials, and e::piicit ancaoring or fastening details and a copy o= the st=ess s;.eets, calculations, color of sign structure. Jces t:.e sign copy reiata solel;~ to tae bus;ness, institut'_on, or activity conducted on tea o-_~'ses? Will the sign, str•.:cture, or billboard rest=ict a^.y sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? /l L.t.l J C' 1 !~'i CG ~i~ ,C~+r*%/ oc:.~-S~- ?'~C _ ~J if rOc' i ADDliC3nt~~~Slgnature and Title vita Firm Data ~"2- ~e p::ore Number ~ ? • Lkt 1983 PLE.~SE SEE RE4'E.RSF. SIDE FOR SIG:i LOCATIOY S'~TCH Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 860-306? • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 258 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor ~,I and Members of the City Council ~ City of Richfield Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign At the Heritage Central Apartments, 710 East 78th Street Council Members: Contracting Services Company Incorporated has requested an advertising permit to replace the existing pedestal sign with a new pedestal sign. The new sign will measure 7' 6" x 4', and read "Heritage Central Apartments". The sign will be located at the Heritage Central Apartments, 710 East 78th Street. City ordinances provide that the city council must approve all illuminated sign permits. Staff Review and Recommendation: The inspection division has reviewed this sign permit application and finds that the sign conforms to all applicable city ordinances. It is recommended that the city council approve the permit for an illuminated pedestal sign at the Heritage Central Apartments, 710 East 78th Street. Res c fully s mitt d, ~A L. evich Acti g City Manager • / City :".anagar Inspectg~~/~,G .Date Date • APP20VE ~ DE:f'L ~ ~v~,"'~ APPROVE I I DEV`L ~ ~v`v - Planning Debartment City Council Date ~25 ~R(o Date ~outa to above for ~ special approval per code Gzneral Signs ~ APPLICATION FOR' ADVERTISING PERMIT _ City of Richfield, ,Minnesota 7 _ ~'y Date Z f3"~Zoning Sign Erected -Yes No Fee . Address of Sign 7/O - E ~ 7~ MKS",--, Proprietor Name~~R~TfjG~ ~F~vr,Q,~,D~ ~~,4RTi~„tci s~.~',~Yii~G fcw ,~~c: ~~75 E- Sign Erector~eti~~hn~/NG S~a~icft ~o Address /q„~d S'e , 2~LQ ST / ~sAicir~t~ ~i..i SSr3 Tyne of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting Wall Single Face ~ Clear Leson ~ !Constant _ Projecting ~ Double Face _ rr^rosted Le_YOn _ Flashing 7~fGround Multi-Faced ~ ~~Plastic Covered Revolving ~ROOf Aerial/Blimp I I Shaded Traveling (.Pedestal Searchlight ~ ~ Neon i Zip Lite _ Changeable Barrer/Pennants ~ Other ~ ) Other(EYp1ai::; _ Temporary j Por_able Frame: Sign Colors ~,eo ~ r! et- % PrN _,l Trailer I T I A ~ Post ~ . If I'_luminated G-~ No /Watts Z o a electrical ContrLa-ctor~t p7- ,4~, „_,~~b Address Phone L zop~rty Owner or his Age^.t Si;^.atsre j,.~r/LLI~~~ilc/Q~t~ _ PhoneQ3S' 7a 7D ~ ~ Est::ated Cost 3~a0 Sig~dth 7~~ aeight~ ~~0~ Total Square Feet 3o~ ~OSi~iOn Or C::e ad'ie~'.~32_^.e^.L SJ._::C:;S~e i:l rSlat_OL:Silip tJ C 2 cC?aC°nt bLlildingS, S.'.de~da~:GS, C::rJS, road*«avs, OVeraead utili_, _iz2S, Ve^iCle mOVement 1=neS, or puo1~C iaCiliCies On draw~g with significant diWensicrs and attached hereto of major signs.. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, bi'_lboard, or outdoor advertising structure constrsction plans: .chiding specifications, List of materials, and e::plicit anchoring or fastening de*_ails and a cony of the stress sheets, caic•.aations, color of sig^. st_scture. .-'iC2S t:.e Sign CODV relatd SOlel`~ tJ t:.e ~i7LlS~^.eSS, ~:7SC~t:St~On, Or aC_iV~CV COnduCt2d OA t e prate' ses? 3 Wil? the sign, strscture, or billboaz3 restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons desti:.ed for or passing the subject premises? /lip ~ioiicant's Signature aad Title with Firm Date ~ - Z - Phor_e Number q ,~5~ 70 7'0 • • Lkt 1485 PLc.~SE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIG:i LOCATION S'~:.TCH Sivert Eendric~CSOn/Building Official - 366-5061 CONTRA#CTINGV SERVICES cos ~ GOMPAN 1 1 INC. SHEET N0 ~ OF . 191Q South Second Street S _ HOPKINS, MINNESOTA-55343 cALCULATeosr ~A oATR . (612) 935.7070 i9 v~~- / CHECKED.BV DATP BCALR J i i 1 I ff I. I. ~~J j . ! i i. i' I I i t i ~ j / I.. i ' ~ ~ i i.. .....j... i _ i / 1 1 ~ ~ ~ 6... ~ ~ ~ : . . 1 ~1 f. - ~ i ~ t 1 i. 1. ~ t ~ t ~ l • a " ' ! { ' I~~ 1 ( i . ~ .....i . . ~ t . _f - 1 _ ~ _ y , : p.. ~ : r ~ T. • ......i i .........1........ j 1 ~v / V: ':i : ' j j... ` - 1. . I ` _ + i ~ i ' i i I ' . . ~ ` _ ~ ...y. ip ~ ~ ~ 4 ``1 . L. I ~ ~ ~ t. ~ . 1.~ ; 1 p............ 1 t ~ ~ \ _ , - ~ ; ~ I . _ f ~ I ~ - ~ ..T " . 1...... t . t/ ( i j ~ t ? L a, ' 1 i . f+T y. ~ 5• ...s ^ ~ . ' i : . . ~ ~ i 'v i IIOgR1i?17~/Me. C~MK Ilraa 1101. . CONTRACTING SERVICES ~oB /~i ~ ,~r A ~ n <-yn o S ~ f COMPANY, INC. sHEer No of - , • 1910 South Second Street ~ r HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 cA~cu~ATED eY ~~''1 ~ DnrF ~ ~ Z' ~ (612) 935-7070 ~ G SS~ / ~ - 8l0 CHECKED BY DATF ~ J,c~ r' _ ~ ~ ° " scA~ _ 'i i _ O ' ; ! ~ i _ _ _ _ . . _ 3'g~~ , _ _ ~ ~ _ . r I c~ n ...........q........ . 7 ........:...:.4 _ , ~ ~Q !i PPOOOCt3041(-N£SS/Inc. CMOs, ~M~a OIgL . /u, w ,5',~FZ.IJ C A nr BAS/ S R CONTRACTING SERVICES cos COMPANY, INC.. sHeeT No. 3 of ~ r~ f 1910 South Second Street HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 cA~cu~.ATED ar r~~ oat= ?5..'.' / 2-~6 II (BIZ) 93'J'7070 CHECKED BY /4 G DATA ~7 t ~ r" ~fQ . s..... i i i _ . _ ~ _ a. i , 1' ' ~ ~ . ~ ' . i ~ ~i 3; _ l y ' ~ ~ ~ . ~4 .i . ...i:. 1 ..Y . ~ _ _ . . _ ~ t a . i i... 3 ~ T... . i .i........ F ...e.... . a . 7 . i 1 t ~ e....:.. i ".N . W ............e......... ...o . ..c ...c ..i.. ~ 7 4Y .o I~. 1:'. .i.... - i ~ ~ ~ .w. ..t... - - i i i I....... ~ . AIM i . . .1 i ..i.... ; _ i r(~ ..........o........ _ _ ` i i ; ~ , ..4.. s. t. j I ~ r IAOgCltoll/NtaB/Inc.6n~0on. Wp Oltll. CONT~?RA~CT/I~NG SERVICES roe /w #F ~ -s' ~ ti'- I5 ~ ~ ~~S/ r ; r~/ . f%/ COMPANY, ANC. SHEET N0 ~ OF ~ 1910 South Second Street ~ ~ z g+~ HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 cA~cu~Areo sv ^rw r= oATe / ~y ~612~ 93S'7070 CHECKED BV lT ~ DATE ~ ,Lr O" - ~ ~4" 9CA1 -i ,w - ~ ~ - , 1'\ ~ , / G 7 _t' r . ' r- -t . , . : i i • I ~oaiaa?i t rc. ow. w. uu~. , CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 257 Agenda-July 14, 198.6 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Permit for Temporary Sign at The Amoco Station, 6545 Portland Avenue Council Members: Portland Amoco, located at 6545 Portland Avenue, has requested an advertising permit for a temporary sign to be used from August lst - August 30th, 1986. City ordinances provide that the city council must approve all temporary signs. The sign is to be a 4' X 3' non-illuminated sign advertisin "Free Carwash With Purchase". 9 Staff Review and Recommendation: The inspection division has reviewed the sign permit application and finds that the sign conforms to all applicable city ordinances. It is recommended that the permit for a temporary sign at the Portland Avenue Amoco be approved. Re ct ully sub fitted, ~t~~~ evic Acti g City Manag r SD/eja • ~ City aana;== .v ,y ~ I _ ~ ~ Znsoactpt. 1• Date Date ,.1~,~~;::, ~ AP P R rJ V E ~ ` D EN`I ~ ~ : ~-~s~G c APPROVE I D E:IY I : ~ ~ Planning Department City Council Date 6 ~ 25 ~Q(Q Date Route to above for special approval per .code Ganeral Signs =1: APPLICATION FOR' ADVERTISING PER.'~fIT / City of Richfield, ,Minnesota ? - ~'J Date ~ %~j.~oning ..Sign .Erected - Yes No Fee Address f Sign/ ~O.S~~~ ~07r~«~'i Proprietor Name ~/~.r~C~U' ~r/'/~CWsA Sign Erector Address u~'h'G~. Tope of Sign Design Weather Cover rr Lighting ` Wall Single Face _ JClear Lexon F ~ Constant Projecting V'~Double Face V Frosted Lason ~ Flashing (Ground I Multi-Faced Plastic Covered _ Revolving !`Roof Aerial/Blimp _ Shaded Traveling pedestal Searchlight _ Neon I I Zip Lite Changeable I Banner/Pennants _ Other I• ( Other(E:cplai; ~t"Temporary ~ Portable Frame: Sign Colors i Trailer I T I A Post ~ ~ ~ If I'_luminated - Yes No Watts Electrical Contractor ~ Address Phone gyY- S~~ Prorerty Owner or his Age^.t Si;::ature e~il~Q~,.Q~i2~ ~ . one~8~ -lo~o'b ~ Est=.sated Costr~`~ Sign Width ~ Height-~~~~~Total S4uar= Feet ?os~tion of tae advertiseWe^.t st_.:ctura iz relationship to tae ac;acent buildi gs, sidewal'.cs , curbs, roadways, overhead utili=;: lines, vehicle mcvement lines, or public facilities on drawi.Zg wita signi=ficant d We_^.siors and attac:.ed 'hereto of mater signs. :"_inor signs as de=iced on page 2. Two blueprints of tae sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising st=ucture construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and e::~iicit ancaoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress shee*_s, calculaticns, color of sign st=ucture. Does _ae sign copy relate solely to tae busi::ess, _stitutior., or activit;~ conducted on tae ,T_raises? (,/.80 'Nill~tae sign, structure, or billboard rest=ict any si;ht distance under, arou d, or over .for safe access by persons destined for or passing tae subject premises? ~,~~c~~~ Gam, , ~,q ~ . ADplicajlL'S~1gIIature and Ti~'le with Firm pp / Date P`~cre dumber w~'~p3o'~ v C ~L~t lgsj PLE.~SE SE RE4r..RSc SIDE FOR SIG:( LOCaTZO;i SiZTCH S Wert Hendrickson/Building Official - 366-5061 I K • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 256. Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Permit Application for Illuminated Sign at APCO Station,. 6445 Penn Avenue Council Members: Suburban Lighting Inc. has requested an advertising permit to erect an 8' x 5' illuminated pedestal sign at the APCO Station located at 6445 Penn Avenue. The sign will be erected on the existing base and post. City ordinances provide that the City Council must approve all requests for illuminated signs. Staff Review and Recommendation: The inspection division has reviewed this sign application and finds that the sign conforms to all applicable city ordinances. It is recommended that the city council approve the permit for an illuminated pedestal sign at 6445 Penn Avenue. Res t ully su fitted, t L. evic / Acti g City Manager SD/eja • l City ~.anager Inspectq ~-b &y Date Date 'G~ l .-~,P°ROVE I~` DENYI ~ : Q~ ~ APPROVE ~ I DE:tY~ I : ' Planning Depa tment City Council Date Z'j Date ~oute to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR' ADVERTISING PER.'~IIT City of Richfield,, Minnesota Date G'- zl - y,~ Zoning Sign Erected -Yes No X Fee Address of .Sign y/'y.~ i Proprietor Name DBA Sign Erector~-v~'~.,r~a,¢-~ ,[i6.~>,vs Addressr~7~ ~,y,~f .~<<c.f~ ~tic~~~ Type, of Sign Desire Weather Cover Li'htinQ Wa11 Single Face _ Clear Lexoa Constant Projecting ~ Double Face ~ Frosted Lexoa _ Flashing Ground I Multi-Faced _ Plastic Covered Revolving 'Roof Aerial/Blimp Shaded ~ Traveling pedestal Searchlight ~ Neon I I Zip Lite Changeable ~I Banner/Pennants _ Other ~ Other(Eapla;^; Temporary ___i Portable Frame: Sign Colors I Trailer (T C 3 ~ Post ~ _ _ ~L~/c ~L ~~lr r,i ~.~i; d~'~i~ i ,5 . _ L'r~-i ` ~ ~U .AS i0 i'J ~/J~~£G''Y Tf I'_luminate~ Yes, No Watts l~'~' lectrical ContractorS~ti;•.2a.~r~, L~~G~-~G Address Phone~i~y- ~fiy~G l ?roperty Owner or .his Agert Signature Phore v cst;.:.aLed CoSL ~-G'~`~~ Sim^. tril~tai ~V ~eigtlt iOtal SQllai= C°°t ~G/J ~OS~tiOn 02 t7e ad'Ter~~52.'^..e^.t S :~'..:C~:lrZ i:l rZ1at~0IISA1p t0 t ~e aG•', aC°nt tiJlI11C:~ n'S, S1deSJa1:~ , C1r~S, road*.Javs, OVeraead utilit'~ liileS, Ve.^.iC?e mcvement 1=1eS, Or DLLb1iC LaCilit~eS On drawi.Zg with SlgniiiCanL d~~e_^.S~OLIS and att3C:led her''ct0 OL ~a~Or S?gnS. :'t~nOr Sl'nS aS de=iced on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: _n eluding specifications, List of materials, and e:~iicit ar_chor'_ng or fastening details and a copy of the stress sneers, calc•,aations, color of sig^. structsr_. DOeS tale Sign COp'j reldte SOlel`~ t0 the buSii:eSS, ir.StitltiOn, Or aC~iVity COL1dL'Ctdd On t he premises'. y~S ~Nil'_ the sign, structure, or billboard restric_ ar.;J sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? r~:rrav~t~uA~ ~ Ey - c4~ App~cant''s Signature and Title with Fira / Date ZF - d~.6 Phone Number ~{3y- ~~~t> . • Lkt 1985 PLE.~SE SEE Ry4~RSE SIDE FOR SZG:( LOCATION SiZETCH Siver~ Hendric?cson/Building Official - S6c-5061 ~ ~ „ ~ - - I - I t-~ I ~1--" III,, w. Iz~w -~f s 4 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 255 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and .Members of the City Council City of Richfield i Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign at .The Transmission Shop, 6958 Cedar Avenue i Council Members: i Crosstown Sign Company has requested an advertising permit I!, to erect an illuminated double-faced pedestal sign, measuring 12' x 4' at the Transmission Shop located at 6958 Cedar Avenue. Staff Review and Recommendation: The Inspection Division staff has reviewed the application and finds that the sign conforms to all applicable city • ordinances. However, city ordinance provides that the city council must approve all permits for illuminated signs. It is recommended that the city council approve the permit for an illuminated pedestal sign at 6958 Cedar Avenue. Res~~c fully submitted, r ev~~h Acting Ci y Manag r SD/eja t City u-anager Inspector '1 Date Date ~,~~°/J~ APPROVc x I DE:fY I : ~ ~ APPROVE I DE:l`LI ~ : / Y-' P1Dep rtment City Council 5~, t'`t- {+0 515?~ Date T z Date ~oute to above for special approval per code Ganeral Signs ~I APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT Cite of Richfield, ,Minnesota J Date ~ Zoning Sign Erected -Yes No Fee . Address of Sign /~G~.~ ~ w.,~~,;- ~va. `;,Proprietor Name~~.; ~ ~ DBA .r Sign Erector is.~ ~ ' :J°•~~~, S i~;;,~ Address /d~~~ ,r: „ c ~"~/~s Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting Wa11 _ Single Face - Clear Leson f~Constant _ Projecting ii Double Face _ Frosted Laxon _ Flashing Ground ~ Multi-Faced ~f Plastic Covered Revolving Roof _ Aerial/Blimp Shaded ~ ( Traveling pedestal ~ .Searchlight Neon I I Zip Lite Changeable Banner/Pennants 0they ~ 0they(E.iplai,). 1 I Temporary Portable Frame: ~ Sign Colors ~~.ci, ~%r s- C.11,'fc~. 1 1 Trailer E T C A~ Post If Illuminated ,Vies No Watts ~lecuical Contractor Ks-; Cr,-,,-,~,~ddress /Z ~ ~/~-v~ S: Phone ~~f~-~G~~~ ?rc rt Owner or his A ~^t Sim^.ature , ~ C•~ ~ ~ , ~~~/'~•%'/L I~ y g--- o % ~ » ~ Phone r Esti:ated Cost ~I' Sign width Height To tai Sauarz Feet ~~'~T~ ~ ?osition of the advertisement str::ctsre in relationship to the ac;acent buildings, side~rals curbs, roadways, overhead utility Lines, vehicle movement lir_es, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attac:.ed hereto of major signs. w~nor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising strscture construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and es?licit anchoring or fastening•details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign st=uctur=. Joes tae sign copy relate solely to the busi^.ess, institution, or activit;~ conducted on the premises? Yz~?% Hill the sign, str~.:cture, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, aro~d, or over fors "e acce s by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? /VQ . F ~pplicant`§ Signature and Title with Fir•~a _ Date ~'"Z~c" ?hone :somber %~~-/%~/Z . Lkt I98~ PLE.aSE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATIOY SRF.TCH Sivert Eendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 ' ~ ~ Z~ - /h D '--7 a ~7~~ ~ f~ _ 1~ i ~ -b ~ ~a ~ ~ i ' ~ ~ U I l _ _ , , _ - - _ s J ~ ~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 254 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield. Subject: Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation To Tom Hanson, American Legion Employee, for His Lifesaving Actions Council Members: Mr. Tom Hanson, an employee of American Legion Post 435, has at that .establishment responded to life and death situations twice in the past year, and his actions have saved the lives of two persons. • Mr. Hanson gave CPR and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a gentlemen who had suffered a heart attack, and in June of this year saved a woman who was choking on a piece of meat. I Mr. Fred Primo, Manager of Post 435, has requested that Mr. Hanson be honored for his lifesaving actions. A Certificate of Appreciation has been prepared for Mr. Hanson and is scheduled for presentation at the July 14, 1986 city council meeting. Res c fully s mitted, ~ t L. Devich Acti g City Manager SD/eja • MINNEAPOLIS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION POST 435 650'1 PORTLAND AVENUE SO. * RICHFIELD. MINN. 55423 * Telephone 866-3647 16 June 1986 The Honorable Jo1in 1~amilton Mayor City of ZZichfield dear Sir, fLs Manager of the Mpls-1Zichfield fl.merican Legion Post 435, Z would like to call your attention to a person in our employ who we all consider very special. Z am referring to Tom Hanson, • bartender, who has worked with. us three and one half years. Cn two occasions in the past year, Tom while on duty was called upon to aid in a life and death situation. Zn the first instance an older gentleman had suffered a heart attack, had stopped breathing and for all practical purposes was dead. Tom resp onded immediately and began C.P.n. and mouth-to-mouth resusci- tation, upon the arrival of your Para Medic Team, which has always been a credit to our community, the gentleman was responding and had begun to stabilize. flour Para Medic Team congratulated Mr. N_anson on his performance in this emergency. On June 1st, 1986, Tom Hanson once again was called upon to act in a smilax situation. Zn this instance a woman of about 70 years was choking on a position of steak and had collapsed to the floor. Tom responded and when he could not dislodge the meat using the "Heimlich" method he,through mouth-to-mouth resuscitation,forced the portion of meat downward, freeing her to breathe. Both situations required a clear head and split second reactions, in both instances Zom Hanson maintained both. Normally when we think of a person with these abilities, we think of a person with some formal medical training who is say thirty- five or older. Tom Hanson has neither formal medical training and is twenty three years of age. i - continued - ` / • Page - 2 Considering the .times many of us are guilty of criticizing younger people for a variety of reasons, this young man is reason to reflect on our youth in general. We at the Mpls-ZZichfcield ~Lmerican Legion are rightly proud of Tom Hanson as a caring human being, an employee of this Pos t and a credit to our community. We salute him as a representative of all youth and join in the congratulations so well deserved. Sincerel , '~/red Primo Manager - Post 435 • ~ ~ / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 253 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Highlights for Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1985 Council Members: The annual in-house financial report for the period ending December 31, 1985, was completed by the Administrative Services Department in late March, 1986. The audited financial report was not completed at that time due to the provisions of our audit agreement with Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, which provides that the audit will be undertaken after April 15. The City, in turn, • received a reduced audit fee for this delay. A report on the highlights of the 1985 financial statements was prepared by City staff and submitted to the City Council prior to April 10 in conformance with the Richfield City Charter. The City staff subsequently received the City's comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1985. The Finance Manager, staff of the auditing firm, and the writer will review the financial report and the accompanying management letter at the July 14 Study Session (starts at 5:00 p.m.). The highlights of the 1985 financial report are: General Fund 1984 Actual 1985 Budget 1985 Actual Revenues $8,459,816 $8,965,880 $9,215,530 Expenditures 8,094,876 8,820,500 8,560,696 Net Transfers (36,728) (7,590) (6,761) Increase to Fund Balance $ 328,212 $ 137,790 $ 648,073 12/31 Fund Balance $3,115,656 $3,253,446 $3,763,729 As shown in the chart above, the General Fund of the City at 1985 year-end had a fund balance of $3,764,000 (all figures • rounded off to the nearest $1,000 for discussion purposes), compared to $3,116,.000 at the end of 1984. The fund balance increase of $510,000 over budget resulted from reduced ~..J~`~~ expenditures in the city's operating departments and increased • revenues. It should also be noted that the financial report reflects that $537,000 of fund balance is designated for accrued employee benefits (i.e. vacation, personal leave). This was done at the suggestion of the auditor. Total revenues (including net transfers) for the year came in at $250,000 over budget, while expenditures came in $260,000 under budget. In addition, the 1985 budget provided for a built- in $137,000 addition to fund balance which is to be utilized for the computer purchase in 1986. The 1986 budget reflects a $125,000 deficit or reduction of fund balance. The fund balance is necessary to fund the operating costs of ,the City until property tax settlements and state aids are received in July of each year. Revenues in the General Fund were $250,000 over budget in 1985, due to significant increases in every category, especially miscellaneous revenues ($111,000), licenses and permits ($41,000), fines and forfeits ($38,000), charges for services ($38,000), and taxes ($20,000). Cable television franchise fees budgeted at $53,000 in 1985 came in at $80,000. Interest income, which was budgeted in the • amount of $100,000, exceeded estimates by $77,000. Expenditures in the General Fund came in under budget by $260,000. The Legislative/Executive Department was under budget by $24,000, mainly due to reductions in expenditures in the Mayor-Council, City Manager and Legal Divisions. The Administrative Services Department came in $10,000 under its budget of $749,000. The Public Safety Department was under its budget by $97,000, while the Community Development Department was underspent by $14,000. The Community Services Department came in $114,000 under budget with reduced expenditures in virtually every division. All of the City departments showed a. continued commitment to containing the cost of operations. As a result, the City has been able to significantly enhance its fund balance position as of 1985 year end. Water Utility Fund 1984 Actual 1985 Budget 1985 Actual Revenues $1,453,295 $1,520,000 $1,570,325 Expenditures 973,061 1,184,490 1,069,891 Net Transfers (48,678) (29,380) (49,251) Net Income 431,556 306,130 451,183 Retained Earnings 1/1 1,058,531 1,490,087 1,490,087 • Retained Earnings 12/31 1,490,087- 1,796,217 1,941,270 The Water Utility Fund also experienced a positive financial position at the end of 1985. Total revenues exceeded the budgeted amount by $50,000, while expenditures for 1985 were $115,000 below budget. The result was an .actual net income for 1985 of $451,000, as compared to the budgeted amount of $306,000. Retained earnings of the Water Fund increased in 1985 from $1,490,000 to $1,941,000. This is greater than expected. As the City Council is aware, the improved financial performance of the Water Fund has enabled the City to accelerate the Capital Improvement program for water meter replacement and other needed improvements on a pay-as-you-go basis. Additionally, it should be noted that the cash balance of the fund improved significantly, increasing from $533,000 in 1984, to $782,000 in 1985. It shall be noted that the Water Utility Fund currently contains $525,000 of Customer Deposits collected for water meter installations. The $525,000 is shown as a long-term liability. In reality it is highly unlikely that any such deposits would be returned, as water meters will remain in homes as part of a water utility system. The auditors have suggested that the $525,000 be converted to contributed capital instead, since customers are really paying for the use of the water meters. Those water meters eventually wear out and are periodically replaced at significant cost to the Water Utility Fund. Formal City Council • action would be necessary to effectuate a change from Customer Deposits to Contributed Capital. Sewer Utility Fund 1984 Actual 1985 Budget 1985 Actual Revenues $1,176,446 $1,408,400 $1,412,454 Expenditures 991,494 1,207,390 1,062,223 Net Transfers (19,178) (121,630) (121,600) Net Income Before Extraord. Item 165,774 _ 79,380 228,631 Extraord. Income 0 0 1,186,286 Retained Earnings 1/1 1,151,228____ 1,317,002 1,311,002__ Retained Earnings 12/31 $1,317,002 $1,396,382___ $2,731,919 The Sewer Utility Fund showed net income (before extraordinary item) of $228,631, which is significantly higher than the budgeted amount of $79,000. In addition, the gain on the sale of the system to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission was recognized in 1985. The result is a $1,415,000 increase in Retained Earnings to $2,732,000 at year end 1985. At year end 1985, the Sewer Fund reflects an $85,000 decrease in cash. This is due to a $370,000 advance to the Storm • Utility Fund, which will be repaid in 1986 by bond proceeds. In addition, the Golf Course .also owes $135,000 to the Sewer Fund from an original .loan (1982) of $230,000. Golf Course Fund 1984 Actual 1985 Budget 1985 Actual Revenues $ 676,667 $ 761,490 $ 741,660 Expenditures 653,049 712,57 0 721,504 Net Transfers (19,213) (19,740) (19,720) Net Income 4,405 29,180 436 Equipment Transfer (6,160) - (26,600) Retained Deficit 1/1 (67,930) (69,685) (69,685) Retained Deficit 12/31 $ (69,685) $ (40,505) $ (95,849) Total revenues increased by 9.6% over 1984 to a 1985 total of $742,000. However, expenditures increased by 10.5% over 1984 to a 1985 total of $722,000. The Golf Course has been affected by tremendous increases in the cost of liability insurance, which adds to the increase in expenditures normally expected. While net income was only $400, the Golf Fund made a $5,000 repayment of its loan to the Sewer Fund. The Fund Balance deficit of ($70,000) at 1984 year-end was increased to ($96,000) in 1985. A large portion of the increased deficit is attributable to the transfer of a piece of equipment out of the Golf Course Fund. Continued capital improvements were made on the course throughout 1985. • Storm Sewer Utility 1984 Actual 1985 Budget 1985 Actual Revenues $ N/A $ 197,100 $ 280,400 j Expenditures 2,720 116,170 111,009 Net Transfers N/A - N/A Net Income $ (2,720) $ 80,930 $ 169,391 12/31 Retained Earnings $ (2,720) $ 78,210 166,671 The newly initiated Storm Sewer Utility Fund performed well I in 1985. Net income was $169,391 for the year and the retained earnings position of the fund for year-end 1985 was $166,671. The effective date for billing properties for the storm sewer utility was June 1, 1985. Liquor Fund 1984 Actual 1985 Budget 1985 Actual Revenues $5,682,276 $5,686,900 $5,518,752 Expenditures 5,202,405 5,293,680 5,105,945 Net Transfers (457,533) (283,770) (283,761) Net Income $ 22,338 $ 109,450 $ 129,046 12/31 Retained Earnings $1,507,841 $1,617,291 $1,636,887 Year-end revenue totals for 1985 were $5,519,000, as compared to $5,682,000 for 1984. Based on comparisons with other • cities which operate major municipal liquor operations, it appears that Richfield had a very successful sales year. ~ Income before operating transfers for 1985 was $413,000, which is a 14% decrease from the 1984 figure of $480,000. The decrease in the operations' profitability can be attributed directly to a dramatic increase in the cost of insurance for the City's general liability and dram shop liability exposures. Summary A complete presentation of the highlights of the 1985 Financial Report will be presented by representatives of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, the City's auditors, at the Study Session prior to the July 14 City Council meeting. Resp ully submitted, ~i< e en L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD/eja cc: Program Directors Finance Manager • •