Loading...
02-24-86 agenda• • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 103 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: ILN Redevelopment Plan - A Discussion on the Use of Committees Council Members: Council Member Ivan Ludeman has requested that an agenda item on the possible alternative committee approaches that Richfield could consider to help disseminate information on the ILN Redevelopment Plan and the proposed changes to the CDR project be placed on the February 24, 1986 agenda. The resolution that established the ILN Advisory Committee provides for the sunset of this committee on March 31, 1986, unless extended. Council Member Ludeman has indicated that this would be an appropriate time for the City Council to discuss the use of committees and how best to disseminate information about the ILN Redevelopment Plan and possible redevelopment projects. JGC /eja pectfiCil ubmitted, John G." CArtwr�g t City ManageqZ CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA AN Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 102 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Designation of Official Newspaper Council Members: The Richfield Sun {published by the Minnesota Suburban Newspapers, Inc.) has been the city's official newspaper for many years, with legal rates as set forth by Minnesota Law. Attached to this council letter is a copy of a letter from the Minnesota Suburban Newspapers, Inc., formally requesting that they be designated the. official newspaper for the City of Richfield for 1986. The original of this December 9, 1985, letter was not received by the city to the best of our knowledge. A copy was requested recently. This is the reason for the delay in placing the matter on the February 24th agenda. It is recommended that the city council renew its designation of the'Richfield Sun as the city's official newspaper. JGC /eja • espectf 1 ubmitted, __j_ ohn G. Cartwright City Manager MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS. INC. December 9, 1985 City Council City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Council Members: We would appreciate your designation of the Richfield Sun - Current to be your official newspaper for the year 1986. The rate for legal publications as set by Minnesota law is 35C p-er line for the first insertion and 15C per line for each subsequent insertion. All publications should reach this office by Thursday a.m, preceding Your Wednesday publication. In order to expedite our services to you, it is requested that you direct your publications to the attention of Meridel Hedblom, Legal Publications, 7401 Bush Lake Road, Edina, MN 55435. We will provide at no additional charge, two notarized affidavits on each of your publications. Additional notarized affidavits, on request, will be furnished at 251� each. We appreciate being considered as the official newspaper for the City of Richfield for the ensuing year and thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, MINN TA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. L. IJ , Canning Pu isher • Publishers of Current Newspapers. Sailor Newspapers, Sun- Current Newspapers and Focus Newspapers 7401 Bush Lake Road • Edina, Minnesota 55435 • (612) 831 -1200 17-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 101 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Upgrade of City Council Cable Broadcasting Equipment Council Members: .The 1986 City Budget provides for the acquisition of additional cable television equipment that would significantly improve the quality of City Council meeting television broadcasts. Since the City began live broadcasting of City Council meetings, the program has been produced with one camera and a minimum of additional equipment. Consequently, the overall quality of the production is severely limited. The City Manager discussed the proposed upgrade of the cable equipment with council members during the 1986 budget process. Approximately $20,000 was included in the 1986 budget for the purchase of additional equipment. The equipment acquisition which is now being proposed would include the following major components: - 1 camera with commercial broadcast level quality; 1 character generator, which would provide for the ability to place, roll or crawl subtitles (such as agenda item descriptions) on the screen before, during or after city council meetings; - 1 control panel, including camera switcher, monitors and the character generator controls; - 2 or more 25" color monitors to be placed in the council chambers so visitors to the council meeting can also view what is being shown on Cable TV, especially drawings, charts, and, other materials that may be difficult to see from the rear half of the council chambers; 0 - additional lighting; and, - one television monitor for the lobby. • / 7_41� (See attached drawing of possible council chamber layout of cameras and related equipment.) The additional equipment proposed will cost approximately $10,000 and provide the City with the necessary equipment to produce a high quality live broadcast of City Council meetings. Home viewers would see a much improved picture, including head - on views of the entire council dais and front of the council chambers. In addition, close -ups of council members and persons addressing the City Council would be seen in a clear, high resolution picture. Twenty -five inch color monitors could be placed on each side of the chambers to assist citizens in the rear of the chambers to see all meeting activities, including transparencies projected onto the side screen. The proposed equipment might also be used to view and enlarge letter -sized handouts that are periodically given to the council. In the future, additional equipment may be added to further enhance the City's cable broadcasting and video training capability. Such additions might include a film editor /recorder and additional color monitors. The equipment would be operated by the current video production staff with the possible addition of another camera operator. Video production staff members are high school aged youth who have received training and experience in video production through the schools or Rogers Cablesystems. The operation of the cable television broadcasts and equipment acquisition is coordinated by the Administrative Services Director. Funding The City receives annual franchise fees from Rogers Cablesystems, Inc. for costs associated with cable television. In 1985, the City received approximately $53,000 in cable franchise fees and $65,000 has been budgeted for franchise revenues in 1986. Funds are available in the City's Cable TV budget and allocated for the purchase of additional broadcasting equipment. In previous years, Cable TV funds could only be expended for cable- related costs. Congress recently enacted legislation which further limits local control to regulate Cable TV. This legislation also removed the restriction on the use of cable franchise fees paid to cities. Thus, cable franchise fees can now be expended for any governmental purpose determined by the City Council. Recommendation Because of the uncertainty of what action the Minnesota Legislature is going to take on the Governor's proposal to cut municipal aid to help meet the state's financial shortfall, it is recommended that the action to proceed with the purchase of cable equipment be delayed until the legislature acts. /73 If it is determined, once the legislature acts, that adequate funding is available for the cable equipment, this item will be returned to the City Council for consideration. At this time, any additional input from council members concerning this proposed upgrade would be welcomed as the staff finalizes the planned improvements. pect 1 ubmitted, John G. Ca twri t City Manager JGC:sb cc: Administrative Services Director 40 • M Ayo& L. MEKI CckS (D CA10-10A 25" MON,Tb2 CAMERA • Fil Z' MoNlro2 / 7- -il COMr4O L P414t L IN OFFIGZ 10 J4 A LL vi "rit O PeR,ATO k, 16-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 100 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: A Resolution Extending the Effective Period of Transitory Ordinance 17.18 (ILN Building Moratorium) Entitled "Interim Zoning Ordinance Adopted for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process in a Certain Area of the City Regulating, Restricting, and Prohibiting Certain Uses, Developments and Subdivisions Within Such Area" Council Members: The above designated interim zoning ordinance was enacted by the City Council during late winter of 1985. This interim • zoning ordinance will expire on March 22, 1986. Since the adoption of Transitory Ordinance 17.18, substantial progress has been made on planning for the future development and /or redevelopment of the ILN Study Area. However, at this time, there are no regulatory devices in place which can ensure the redevelopment of the ILN area in a matter consistent with the provisions of the ILN Redevelopment Plan. Also, as the City Council is well aware, the proposed redevelopment of the former Clover Leaf motel site, which is located in the Northeast quadrant of Interstate Highways 35W and 494, has been temporarily stopped and the redevelopers are currently reexamining their -plans and proposals for the development of this site. The public improvements which can be made in the ILN area will depend upon the type and density of development which occurs on the Clover Leaf Motel property. The tax increment generated from the Clover Leaf property will be used to finance the public improvements proposed in the ILN area. As a consequence of this activity on the Clover Leaf property, the final redevelopment plan for the ILN area can not yet be determined. There is also a need to formulate and adopt regulations applicable to the redevelopment of the ILN area so as to assure a desirable intensity, kind and arrangement of land uses, in conformance with the redevelopment plan. It is in the best interest of the city that the attached resolution be adopted so as to protect the planning process until such time as the recommendations contained in the ILN Plan can be effectively implemented. Without the extension, property owners could begin piecemeal development that would hinder or prevent implementation of the'ILN development plan. The effective period of ordinance 17.18 is hereby extended for a period of one additional year from the anniversary of its effective date, i.e. the ordinance will be continued in effect until March 22, 1987. If the planning and implementing activities required for the redevelopment of the area are completed prior to the expiration of this one year period the City Council can terminate this interim zoning ordinance at an earlier date. It is recommended that the City Council schedule a public hearing on this resolution for March 17th, 1986, and that it also refer this item to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation on March 11, 1986. JGC /eja • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 17.18 ENTITLED "AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY, REGULATING, RESTRICTING AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES, DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN SUCH AREA ". BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. It is hereby found and determined: A. Many of the conditions which led to the adoption of Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18 continue to exist. B. Substantial progress has been made on planning the future development and /or redevelopment of the Interstate - Lyndale Area, which is the subject of that ordinance. C. Such planning was significantly influenced by a proposal for the development of the so- called "CloverLeaf Motel property" lying west of and adjacent to Emerson Avenue between 76th and 78th Streets. D. The owner and developer of the CloverLeaf Motel property`is currently re- examining its plans and proposals, in an effort to develop the property in a manner generally acceptable to the owners of neighboring properties. E. The public improvements which can be made in the Interstate - Lyndale Area will depend upon the type of development which occurs on the CloverLeaf Motel property, especially to the extent that tax increment financing is to be used to finance any such improvements. As a consequence, the final plan for the development and /or the redevelopment of the Interstate - Lyndale Area cannot be yet determined. F. There is a need to formulate, consider and adopt regulations which will be applicable to the development and /or redevelopment of the Interstate- Lyndale Area so as to assure a desirable intensity /:3 / kind and arrangement of development and/or 5 p / redevelopment. G. It appears that a continuation of the planning process, taking into account any revisions in the plans for the development of the Cloverleaf Motel property, will be of benefit to the area and the city at large. H. The continuation of the planning process and the protection of it can best be accomplished by the extension of the effective date', of Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18. 2. The effective period of Ordinance No. 17.18 is hereby extended for a period of one additional year from the anniversary of its effective date, i. e., the ordinance is continued in effect until March 22, 1987. • • /C�- / • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 99 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Special City Council Meeting For March 17, 1986, at 7:00 P.M. Council Members: City administration has prepared two items that will require a Special City Council meeting on March 17: (1) a proposed resolution to extend the moratorium ordinance; and, (2) an ordinance to exclude certain properties and small improvements of $25,000 or less from the moratorium ordinance. Both the proposed resolution and ordinance are being scheduled as public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. In order to meet the ten day notice provisions for offical newspaper publication notices and mailed notices for both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the earliest the resolution and the second reading of the ordinance can be scheduled for City Council consideration is after the March 11 Planning Commission meeting. The first City Council meeting in March is the 10th. The moratorium ordinance expires on March 22, two days before the second regular meeting date of March 24 for the City Council. Therefore, the writer requests that the City Council approve the call for a special City Council meeting for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 17, 1986. Both of these items appear on the February 24, 1986, council agenda. The City Council is requested to refer the resolution to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. The City Council is also requested, after giving first reading approval to the ordinance on February 24, to refer this ordinance to the Planning Commission for a public hearing before it is returned to the City Council for a public hearing and second reading. • 0 TIMETABLE Resolution to Amend the Moratorium Ordinance March 11, 1986 - Planning Commission Public Hearing March 17, 1986 - City Council Public Hearing Amendments to Moratorium Ordinance to Provide for Certain Exclusions JGC /eja • February 24, 1986 - City Council- First Reading March 11, 1986 - Planning Commission Public Hearing March 17, 1986 - City Council Public Hearing and Second Reading March 26, 1986 - Ordinance Published April 26, 1986 - Ordinance Effective Date Actf mitted, G. Car 'ght City Manager /Y -/ -CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 98 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Cancelling Special Assessments for Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) GSA Surplus Property Area "C ". Council Members: On August 23, 1985, the City received a letter from MAC requesting that the City abate three outstanding special assessments. This request, along with additional information, - was forwarded to the City Attorney for legal interpretation. The City Attorney and legal representatives of MAC have met several times to discuss the abatement request, and have come to a tentative resolution of this matter. The three properties and special assessments included in the MAC abatement request are as follows: 1. GSA Surplus Property Area "C" This property is located in the area between the northeast ends of the parallel runways near the intersection of Cedar (Hwy. 36) and the Crosstown Highway. The GSA Surplus Property was assessed beginning in 1979, for blacktopping done in 1977 on 68th Street, 69th Street, and 21st Avenue. These are the streets that border the several blocks of homes that.cut into Rich Acres Golf Course. This section of streets is in the southwestern quarter of Section 25 while the GSA property is located in the northeastern quarter of Section 25. However, the assessment was levied against the GSA property because there is no Hennepin County property identification number for the MAC property in the south half of Section 25. Instead, the Hennepin County P.I.D. number for the northeast quarter of Section 25 is used to identify all undeveloped MAC property in that section and used to levy the special assessment. The assessment is identified by Hennepin County as a 20 year asssessment for a 1977 permanent street, beginning in 1979, for approximately $38,200.00. The taxes have not been paid since the assessment was - .levied. Thus, penalties and additional,. interest have also been added to the original $38,200.00. The City Attorney states that the "so- called GSA Surplus Property Area is an area which appears to be outside of the City limits of Richfield." As a consequence, the City Attorney states that the special assessments should not have been placed on the property and recommends that action should now be taken to cancel the special assessments on this parcel. 2. Sun Country Airline Property The second piece of property in. question is located just north of the Airport Medical Center and west of the Republic Airlines Building. This property is now being leased from MAC by Sun Country Airlines. The assessment on this property, which began in 1953, is for a trunk sewer or sanitary sewer interceptor. The levy was a 20 year assessment which is delinquent for 1965 -1968 for a total of approximately $1,281.62. The City Attorney states that it is his recollection that certain MAC property was specially assessed by informal agreement with MAC (even though it was outside the City limits) because the property was to be served by the City's sewer line. Attorneys from MAC conclude that there may have been such an agreement and are willing to pa,y up the delinquent installments of the special assessments and resume payments on any future installments if necessary. 3. East Richfield School Property The third property is located at 1917 66th Street East. The assessment which is for a water lateral, is a 20 year assessment that began in 1963. Taxes are delinquent from 1976 to 1982 for an approximate total of $1,220.00 The assessment was originally levied while the Richfield School District still owned the property. Currently, the City's Rich Acres Golf Course is located on property leased from MAC which includes the East Richfield School property. Attorneys for MAC asserted that the City may have assumed responsibility for the assessment under terms of the lease. The City Attorney took the position that the City did not assume such responsibility and that the Golf Course lease excused MAC only from payment arising "by reason of the uses permitted...". Attorneys for MAC have agreed to the City Attorney's interpretation and are willing to pay the delinquent assessments due. • • • Conclusion /y 3 Under the terms of the tentative agreement proposed, it is the understanding of the parties that the assessments would be disposed of as a package. Thus, if the City Council concurs with the proposed disposition, the following actions would be set into motion: A. A resolution cancelling the current, remaining, and, delinquent special assessments on the GSA Surplus Property would be adopted. The City Attorney states that it is clear that the City lacks the legal power to assess MAC property which is outside the City limits (see attached letter); and, B. MAC would pay up the delinquent assessments due for the Sun Country Airline property in the amount of approximately $1,282.00; and, C. MAC would pay up the delinquent assessments due for the East Richfield School property in the amount of approximately $1,220.00. The $38,200.00 of principle plus interest and penalties which are delinquent, in addition to the special assessments which would have been collected over the next 12 years for the GSA Surplus Property, results in a total loss of approximately, $72,000.00 in special assessment revenue for the improvement. This loss of revenue has been and will continue to be made up by the City levying an ad valorum levy provided for in the special assessment process to cover not only the City's share of the cost of the improvement, but the airport's cancelled special assessment share. The City's share of this street improvement project was 47 %. However, in the past year, the City could have levied $123,200.00 to cover the City's share of the project but, in fact, only levied $69,100.00 or 56% of the levy. The City is able to levy at a lower rate because of the added revenue received from investment earnings on the prepaid collections for the improvement. These investment earnings have been better than anticipated. The net interest cost of the bonds for this improvement is 5 %, while the City is able to invest pre -paid assessments at approximately 8 %. Thus, nothing would significantly change in the way the City is currently retiring the debt for this improvement with the action to cancel the delinquent airport special assessment. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution cancelling special assessments for the "GSA Surplus Property Area" owned by the Metroplitan Airports Commission. JGC /eja Respectfully submitted, / ohn G. ?4'7-7, twr City Manger RESOLUTION N0. �y A RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE CURRENT, REMAINING, AND, DELINQUENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON P.I.D. 25- 028 -24 -11 -0001 "GSA SURPLUS PROPERTY" FOR LEVY NO. 7106, A 1977 PERMANENT STREET IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, a certain special assessment was made by the City of Richfield in 1979 for a 1977 permanent street improvement identified as Project #686, Levy No. 7106; and WHEREAS, said special assessment was levied against a number of properties including a property identified as P.I.D. 25-028 - 24 -11 -0001 GSA Surplus Property owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), also known as Plat # 44825, Parcel 600; and WHEREAS, said P.I.D. 25- 028 -24 -11 -0001 is property located outside the City limits of the City of Richfield and not subject to proper special assessment; and, WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has properly requested that said special assessment be cancelled so as to correct the property records. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the aforementioned special assessment on P.I.D. 25- 028 -24 -11 -0001 is determined to have been erroneously made and is hereby cancelled for the current, remaining, and, delinquent years and that the Hennepin County Assesor be notified of said action. Passed'by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of , 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 71 John Hamilton Mayor t 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333 -0543 Telecopier (612) 333 -0540 Clayton L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler J. Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawz David J. Kennedy John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III Jeffrey J. Strand John G. Kressel Dayle Nolan Michael A. Nash Brian F. Rice Lorraine S. Clugg Jame J. Thomson, Jr. J . Strommen M Nielsen Ter ?7'r Hall Ronald H. Batty William P. Jordan Susan Dickel Minsberg Kurt J. Erickson William R. Skallerud Thomas R. Galt Rodney D. Anderson Gary R. Bryant -Wolf • LeFevere Lefler Kennedy O'Brien & DraNvz A Professional ,1stiodalion February 3, 1986 Mr. John G. Cartwright City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Cartwright: fil/-6 We have been corresponding with the attorneys for the Metropolitan Airports Commission concerning disputed special assessments. I am enclosing several of the letters which the MAC has sent concerning this subject. After several conferences with MAC attorneys, I have come to the following conclusions: 1. The so- called "GSA Surplus Property Area" is an area which appears to be outside of the city limits of Richfield. As a consequence I believe that the special assessments should not have been placed on this property in the first place and appropriate action should be taken to _cancel the.special assessments on that parcel. 2. As to the so- called "Sun Country Airlines Property" I come to a different conclusion. Even though this property is also outside the city limits, the information that has been supplied concerning this parcel of land indicates that the special assessment was paid for several years and that payment has been discontinued. I indicated to them that my recollection was that certain MAC property was specially assessed by informal agreement with MAC, even though it was outside the city, because the property was going to be served by the city's sewer line. (The city had a sewer line in the northeast quadrant of Cedar Avenue and Highway 494 which at one time provided a sewer outlet for the Metropolitan Stadium.) It was my recollection that the property owner was agreeable to paying the special assessment. I therefore l5!b Mr. John G. Cartwright February 3, 1986 Page 2 suggested that the MAC attorneys check on the history of this parcel of land to see whether it came within the facts which I have described. I believe that the MAC attorneys tried to check on the history of this tract but found their records to be inadequate. They have concluded, however, that there may have been such an agreement relating to this property and they are willing to pay up on the delinquent installments of the special assessments and resume payments, if any, on future installments. (There is an agreement which.is cited in the MAC letter of October 1, 1985. I do not think that the agreement relates to the sewer which was involved in Levy No. 1629.) • .3. As to the "East Richfield School" property, I took the position that the golf course lease excused MAC only from payment of assessments arising "by reason of the uses permitted * * *." The amount is not very great and the attorneys for MAC have decided to agree with my interpreta- tion of the lease. 0 Our discussion assumes that all three,of these special assessments will be disposed of as a package, i. e., we would cancel the first one and they would pay the other two. I told them that I would seek concurrence from the city and would get back to them as soon as possible. It is clear that the city lacks legal power to assess that MAC property which is outside the city limits, so I think that the proposed disposition of this matter is a good one. Very truly yours, Clayton L. LeFevere�'! CLL:jpf Enclosures 0 • • I August 23, 1985 P 17 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION ?OX t17;•G TWIN CITY AiR?ORT "of iiN tiESC? cc OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • PHONE (612) 726 -1892 Ms. Anabelle Thomas City of Richfield Assessor's Office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 RE: DELINQDEN T SPECIAL ASSESSMMM CN P.I.D.'s 25- 028 -24 -11 -0001 36- 028 -24 -43 -0001 25- 028 -24 -32 -0002 Dear Ms. Thomas: We have recently reviewed unpaid property tax statements received by the Metropolitan Airports Commission from Hennepin County and in the process have uncovered three parcels which include delinquent special assessments levied by the City of Richfield. The assessment on P.I.D. 25- 028 -24 -11 -0001 ( "GSA Surplus Property ") is Levy No. 7601, a twenty year assessment for a 1977 permanent street, beginning in 1979. The assessment on P.I.D. 36- 028 -24 -43 -0001 ( "Sun Country Airlines ") is for Levy No. 1628, a twenty year assessment for a sanitary sewer interceptor. The assessment on P.I.D. 25- 028 -24 -32 -0002 ( "East Richfield School ") is for Levy No. 2654, a 1963 water lateral. Both the GSA Surplus Property and Sun Country Airlines Property lay outside the boundaries of the City of Richfield at the time the assessments were made. Consequently, it is our view that these assessments are invalid. As to the East Richfield School Property, we believe that responsibility for this assessment was assumed by the City of Richfield under the terms of the Gold Course Lease for Rich Acres Golf Course. We would be happy to work with you in whatever way possible to help in clearing up these outstanding delinquencies. I would be happy to discuss the matter further with you or the City Attorney and answer any questions which you may have. Very , - ly your Thomas W. Anderson General Counsel ZWA/s jp CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 97 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution to MNDot Regarding Possible PALSCO (Hampton Inn Project) Usage of a Portion of 78th Street Immediately East of Lyndale Avenue Council Members: The Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MNDOT) presently has jurisdiction over the 78th Street frontage road from Harriet Avenue westward to Lyndale Avenue. The developers for the proposed Hampton Inn ( PALSCO), earlier requested that MNDOT vacate the 78th Street right -of -way in the area immediately contiguous to and south of the Colonial Lodge Motel for the purpose of constructing a new Hampton Inn. MNDOT recently indicated that, because of the I -494 corridor study which is going to be initiated in the near future, they will not relinquish any right -of -way along either side of this part of the 494 corridor at this time. MNDOT, however did indicate that they would be willing to grant a two year temporary permit for the usage of this right -of -way by PALSCO. MNDOT also indicated that this temporary use permit could be renewed if there was not a need for the property for the widening of I -494 at the time of permit expiration. The developers agreement as amended provides that the City and the HRA both agree to work with PALSCO in an attempt to provide for their usage of this right -of -way. The site plan shows this R -O -W to be used for an entrance to the site from Lyndale Avenue and for landscaped green space. Commercial property owners in the immediate vacinity of this frontage road have been sent a letter informing them of this agenda item. • The staff recommends that the city council approve the attached resolution which requests that MNDOT temporarily release jurisdiction of the 78th Street frontage road from Harriet Avenue westward to Lyndale Avenue. R pectf� bmitted, John G CaN`wrig City Manager JGC /eja • -- • 1 • D REALTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FEB 12 REALTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. 2001 Killebrew Drive, Suite 308 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55420 Phone(612)854 -8800 February 11, 1986 Mr. Dennis Kraft Director, Community Development City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Dennis: Re: The Hampton Inn Hotel This letter formally requests that the City of Richfield and the HRA of the City of Richfield initiate the process to vacate (if that is indeed the proper word) the frontage road running through the southern portion of the Hampton-Inn Hotel site located at West 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue and to obtain the approval from MnDOT to allow ingress /egress off Lyndale Avenue as shown on our-latest site plan. The latter.may, for example, involve MnDOT granting us an access easement, resulting in us having an "easement on an easement." We will, of course, assist you in any way we can. Let me know of any meetings set up with MnDOT, as I would like to attend. Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. If not before, we'll see you on the 24th. Sincerely, William L. Brusman Vice President Development WLB /be cc: Tom LaSalle Tom Price "THE REALTY SERVICES COMPANIES" OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS. CHICAGO. ROCHESTER /3i3 RESOLUTION NO. / L/ REQUESTING MNDOT TO TEMPORARILY RELEASE JURISDICTION OF THE 78TH STREET FRONTAGE ROAD FROM HARRIET AVENUE WESTWARD TO LYNDALE AVENUE WHERE AS, the frontage road to Interstate Highway 494 (also known as 78th Street) between Lyndale Avenue and Harriet Avenue is now located within the I -494 right -of -way; and WHERE AS, it is the current policy of the Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MNDOT) to not relinquish any additional rights -of -way along I -494 in Richfield until such time as the I -494 corridor study is completed; and WHERE AS, the developers of the proposed Hampton Inn Motel would like to temporarily use this right -of -way for open space purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the ------- - City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The City of Richfield requests the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to release jurisdiction, including all maintenance responsibilities of Interstate Highway 494 north side frontage road from Harriet Avenue westward to Lyndale Avenue to the City of Richfield. 2. The City of Richfield recognizes that, because of the proposed I -494 corridor study the Minnesota Department of Transportation will not grant a temporary use permit for a period to exceed two years. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of February, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0 John Hamilton, Mayor 2tie _ - -Jdo I i j = i • 1 Z• '.� - �� -� h I I N ai l I I• • _ a -sue' • \_�__ _� � .III �• R �\ Lo / a I IF qu1u4��m to E+�Y� 4iK¢ m m C CO m v mo r z CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 96 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: An Ordinance Amending Transitory Ordinance 17.18 Which Modifies the Restrictions on the Issuance of Building Permits in the ILN Area. Council Members: The Interim Zoning Ordinance which was enacted by the City Council in 1985 imposed certain restrictions on the issuance of building permits for construction in the ILN study area. The attached ordinance amendment has the effect of deleting all property along both the east and west sides of Lyndale Avenue north of 76th Street from the effects of the building code moratorium. The moratorium would remain on the Lyndale Avenue properties south of 76th Street because the _ILN plan provides for some limited acquisition for creating off - street parking facilities. The ordinance also permits the issuance of permits by the city (without requiring the applications to go to the City Council) when the standards contained in section 3, subdivision 1 of the attached amendment are met. The Amendment also permits new buildings or the enlargement of the existing buildings throughout the ILN study area as long as the cost does not exceed $25,000. This ordinance will also permit construction which will result in the better utilization of an existing structure even . though the construction is not in the nature of a repair, maintenance or an interior improvement to a property. This amendment will permit new buildings or the enlargement of existing buildings (both commercial and residential) as long as the cost does not exceed $25,000, if the construction will permit better utilization of an existing structure on the same property. While the ordinance does not specifically exclude residential properties the amendments contained in paragraphs A and G are sufficient to cover residential properties in the area covered by the ordinance, i.e. improvements will be able to be made to residential properties located in the ILN study area provided that the ordinance conditions are met and the value of the improvements does not exceed $25,000. • • • It is recommended that the to the attached ordinance, and ordinance for March 17, 1986 a that the City Council refer th Planning Commission for their back to the City Council prior JGC /eja is -a- City Council give first reading then set a public hearing on this t 7:00 PM. It is also recommended e attached ordinance to the review, recommendation and report to the meeting of March 17th. Respect ly ubmitted, John G. Ca twrigh City Manage J -3 BILL NO. ` AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 17.18 ENTITLED "AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY, REGULATING, RESTRICTING AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES, DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN SUCH AREA ". CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "An Interim Zoning Ordinance Adopted for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process in a Certain Area of the City, Regulating, Restricting and Prohibiting Certain Uses, Developments and Subdivisions - _ Within Such Area" is hereby amended in the following respects: I. Section 1, paragraph A thereof is amended to read: "A. The City is concerned with the proper and more economic use, development and possible redevelopment of that area of the City generally referred to as "Interstate - Lyndale Area ", hereinafter referred to as the "Area ", the boundaries of which Area are more specifically described as follows: All of the property between Interstate No. 35W and the Minneapolis Northfield Southern Railroad tracks and south of 77th Street with the following additions: (a) the area west of Emerson Avenue, east of Interstate No. 35W, between 76th and 77th Streets; (b) in the area between Emerson and Aldrich,Avenues, the first parcel abutting the north side of 77th Street; (c) the entire block between Aldrich and Lyndale Avenues south of 76th Street; (�kr - -t}�e- �-erst- - o-- }ra-1� $lv c.. }r -a f -tires -blv�}c �etwe�rr I�lo�l� -be•� ��1� -��- - G�-��i e-1�- �,�.,,,,�. -¢� �cxrt�r -off (!Ed) the entire block between Lyndale and Garfield Avenues between 76th and 77th Streets; and (ge) between Garfield and Pleasant Avenues, the first parcel abutting the north side of 77th Street." II. Section 3, Subdivision 1 thereof is amended to read: "Section 3. Subdivision 1. Notwithstanding the limitations, restrictions, and prohibitions contained in the foregoing S t' 2 ec ion , the city eeune }1 may grant permits for development or redevelopment within the Area, but only if it finds that the development or redevelopment involved will comply with the following criteria: A. The permit will not involve the construction of a new building or the enlargement of an existing building at a cost of more than $25,000. B. The construction will not materially change the future use, development or redevelopment of the property involved or any adjacent properties. C. The construction will not increase the fair market value of the property involved by more than ten percent. D. The construction of the improvement will not intensify traffic or parking problems on the subject property, adjacent properties, or adjacent highways and streets. E. The proposed project will not exacerbate or intensify conflicts between residential and non - residential _ traffic within the Area. F. Granting of the permit will not make a material difference in or create a serious impediment to the development or redevelopment of the property involved upon completion of the planning process. G. The permit -w4:11- involve construction will permit (a) the better utilization of an existing structure on Eh--e same property or (b) the repairT', maintenance or safeguarding of existing structures or (c) the completion of building interior improvements which are necessary to the proper continued utilization of the property pending the planning process." Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1986. ATTEST: Clerk Mayor is • r_,� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 95 Agenda February 214, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing and Second Reading of an Ordinance That Amends the Moratorium Ordinance (Transitory Ordinance 17.18) to Permit Approved PUD Development Projects to be Released from the Moratorium Restrictions Council Members: On January 13, 1986, the City Council gave first reading to the ordinance amending Transitory Ordinance 17.18. Transitory Ordinance 17.18 instituted a building moratorium in the Interstate - Lyndale- Nicollet (ILN) redevelopment area. The present ordinance allows proposed development projects with an estimated market value of $2 million per acre or more to proceed through the planning process, but prohibits the issuance of a building permit until such time as either the property is removed from the moratorium area or the moratorium ordinance is no longer effective. The proposed amendment would allow rezonings to planned unit developments to occur, and would allow the issuance of any licenses, permits, plattings or land divisions in connection with approved planned unit developments. This would allow building permits to be issued and development to proceed in planned unit developments without having to wait for the moratorium to expire or for the removalof individual properties from the moratorium area. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed ordinance change and unanimously recommended its approval. If this ordinance is adopted and published, the provisions would apply to the proposed Hamton Inn project, assuming that the City Council at its February 24th meeting will approve the final development plan, special use permit, the planned unit rezoning (PC -2) and the developer's agreement. U ll-a�, It is recommended that the city council conduct a public hearing on this matter and then give second reading approval to the attached ordinance. spectf 1 bmitted, John G. Cartwright City Manager JGC /eja 1] • • • //--3 AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A, TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 17.18 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD'DOES ORDAIN: Appendix A, Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled: "An Interim Zoning Ordinance Adopted for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process in a Certain Area of the City, Regulating, Restricting and Prohibiting Certain Uses, Developments and Subdivisions Within Such Area" is hereby amended in the following respects: I. By amending Section 3, Subdivision 3 thereof to read as follows: Subd. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing subdivision 2, except as provided in subdivision 4 of this Section, no license, permit, rezoning, platting or land division shall be- issued for any project described in that subdivi- sion unless the site for the project is removed from the provisions of this ordinance by an amendment to Section 1 -A hereof. II. -By adding to Section 3 thereof the following new Subdivi- - sion 4: -. Subd. 4. The provisions of this ordinance shall not prevent rezoning to any of the districts specified in Section 3-34A nr the i GG,ianr•P of An-—- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk John N. Hamilton, Mayor I • • . (Official Publication) EAU ,.NOTICE OF F PUBLIC HEAitING ON PROPOSED AMENDME" TO APPENDIX A. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0. 17.18 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD PERTAINING TO • REZONING OF PROPERTY TO PERMIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ' INTERSTATE -LYNDALE- NICOLLBT REDEVELOPMBNT DISTRICT Notice Is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Richfield at 7:00 P.M. on February 24, 1066 In the ' Council Chambers of City Hall at 6700 Portland Avenue to hear reasons for or against amending Tranaitory Or- dinance No. 17.16 to permit rezoning of property in the Interstate -Lyn- dale-Nicollet redevelopment project area to permit planned unit develop- ments and the Issuance of licenses, permits, plattings or land divisions In connection with any such planned unit developments. A copy of the pproposed amendment Is available for Inspection at the City Clerk's office during normal business hours. All persons Interested in this mat- ter are hereby notified to be present SO that they can be heard in cotmec. ' Usa with this matter. THOMAS FERBER City Cleft (Feb. 11, IOM) -RICH /Or / GITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 94 Agenda: February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request For Continuance Of Hearing To March 10, 1986, for On -Sale Wine License for Mammalu's Barbeque Restaurant (Formerly Frogies Restaurant at 6344 Penn Avenue Council Members: At the regularly scheduled city council meeting of January 2, 1986, the above applicant requested a continuance of the hearing for an on -sale wine license. At the applicant's request, the hearing was continued to February 24, 1986. The applicant requested the continuance based upon negotiations in process to sell the business for which the on -sale wine license was requested. The applicant has not finalized the issues related to the potential sale of the business. Therefore, the applicant has requested that the hearing for the requested on -sale wine license be continued again to the regularly scheduled council meeting of March 10, 1986. JGC /eja • pectVp ubmitted, 11 John G: Car\twrig City Manager Wo CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 93 Agenda: February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Ordinance Amendment Related To Snow Storage Second Reading Council Members: During the council discussion on January 27th of the issues related to snow removal, city staff reported that a problem exists with some private property owners putting snow onto city sidewalks or roadway areas. The problem is an inadequate ordinance to enforce snow storage regulations. This practice by some private property owners results in the deposit of snow on sidewalks, roadways, and alleys which have been plowed by the city. The result is that some sidewalks, alleys, and roadway areas continue to be obstructed with snow following city snow removal efforts. Sometimes our sidewalk plows cannot remove snow when piled too high on the public sidewalks. The City Attorney's office has prepared an ordinance to prohibit the placement of snow onto any public sidewalk, street, or alley. This ordinance was given first reading consideration at the February 10, 1986, city council meeting, and the public hearing and second reading were scheduled for February 24, 1986. At the request of the Council, alleys have been included so as to make it very clear to persons who read this ordinance that alleys as well as sidewalks and streets are regulated by the provisions of the ordinance. It is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing and approve the ordinance at the February 24, 1986, city council meeting. Respectfu s mitted, i *John . ,Cart ight City Manager rtti JGC /e ja • • • AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IV, SECTION 4.01 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter IV, Section 4.01 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, entitled: "Regulation of Littering ", is hereby amended in the following respects: I. By adding thereto the following new subdivisions: Subd. 21. Snow and Ice. No owner of person in control of private property shall shovel, plow or cast or permit to be shoveled, plowed or cast any snow or ice from such private property onto any public street, alley, sidewalk, or public parking lot. II. By renumbering the remaining subdivision of said Section 4.01 accordingly. Passed.by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of February, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk John Hamilton Mayor Z. (Official Publication) LIC NodceBIs her bAy giv n that the city, ell of the Clty of Richfield will pPmeet on Februarrlplyy Z<, IBM at 7:00 Ha 1, 570Oeort Ian dCAv venue, n. cCoiny alder an ordinance amending chapter U. jo r of ordinances, l' Reahutatloncof Ltttere I. In now ayad Ice No a new owner orbpersotn in control of private property shall shovel, plow or cast or permit or ailow to be shoveled, plowed or cast any snow or Ice from such private property onto any public street side- walk or public parking lot." , All persons Interested In this mat- ter are hereby notified to be present and the will be heard. Cop /es of the full y ordinance may be obtained by Hall, calling ti5a -7521 or stopping at City THOMAS P. FERBER City Clerk (Feb- 12, 10E5) -RICH i �I� C7 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 92 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Certain Capital Improvements. Second Reading. Council Members: In October, 1985, the city council adopted the 1986 budget document. Included in that document was the 1986 Capital Improvement budget, which includes a number of projects to be funded from the Special Revenue Fund (liquor profits). The following projects in the 1986 Capital budget include financing from this source: Projects Special General Revenue Revenue Fund Sharing All no Allno Energy Improvements* $ - $ 10,000 City Hall Improvements 20,000 Legion Lake Park 225,000 Forestry 25,000 Park Land Acquisition 15,000 Parking Lots /Drives ** 15,000 Nature Center Improvements 15,000 City Hall Cooling Tower 10,000 Fire Vehicle Reserve 30,000 Public Safety Communications Reserve 15,000 15,000 Tntalc $ 10,000 20,000 225,000 25,000 ✓ 15,000 15,000✓ 15,000✓ 10,000 30,000 30,000 ✓ 15,006 Total $315,000 $ 80,000 $395,000 * Install double doors at Fire Station #2 Tower; install exterior arena lights; replace paint stall furnace at garage. ** Donaldson Park While the attached ordinance gives authority to transfer funds from the Special Revenue Fund to the projects identified, no cash transfers are made until work on the project has commenced and charges for payment have been incurred. To that D end, city staff may delay work on certain projects until after more information concerning the state cutbacks to local governments for 1986 are known. At the February 10 , 1986 , city council meeting, the city council gave first reading to this transitory ordinance, and scheduled second reading and the public hearing for the February 24, 1986, city council meeting. The total 1986 Special Revenue expenditures for capital improvement purposes is $315,000. Because these projects are scheduled to be implemented in 1986, it is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing and give second reading approval to the attached transitory ordinance, appropriating monies from the Special Revenue Fund for these projects, at the February 24, 1986, city council meeting. JGC /eja • 0 Re ectfu y s mitted, ohn G. ar wrigh City Manager b3 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of Capital Improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Sub. 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Nature Center Improvements $ 15,000 City Hall Improvements 20,000 Legion lake Park 225,000 Forestry 25,000 Public Safety Communications Reserve 15,000 Parking Lots /Drives at Donaldson Park 15.000 Total $315,000 Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of February, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas. P. Ferber City Clerk so John Hamilton Mayor r • • (Official Publication) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Richfield will meet on February 24, 1999 at 7:00 Of,m. In the Council Chambers of City Nall, 9700 Portland Avenue; to con- sider an ordinance providing for the aspendlture of money from the Sppee-- cial Revenue Fund to the 1008 Capital Improvement Budget for tks falls -- Ing Improvements: Nature Center g 18,000 City Hall 20.000 Legion Lake Park 225.000 Forest Is.f� Public Safety Communlcatleos 16,000 Park Roads and Parking Lots 18,000 To All isl persons Interested Is this m� ter are hereby ootifled to be present and they will be heard. Copies at tbs full ordinance may be obtained by calling OW7151 or stopping at City flail. THOMAS P. /SRSIZR City Clerk (Feb. Is, im)•RICH �y 7 -� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 91 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Cancellation of the February 24, 1986, Public Hearing and Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Planned Unit Development Ordinance Council Members: On January 13, 1986, the City Council gave first reading approval to an ordinance which would amend the city's planned unit development district regulations. The purpose of that ordinance amendment was to eliminate the need for variances for floor area ratios within planned unit developments in officially adopted redevelopment areas (L /H /N and I /L /N). Because of the controversy and opposition generated against the CDR planned unit development project being proposed on the former Clover Leaf Motel site, the recent court case and the call for a referendum concerning the project, it was decided shortly after January 13, 1986, that it was not appropriate to pursue this ordinance amendment at this time. The Planning Commission, at the request of city officials, cancelled their public hearing and took no action on this matter. The City Council on January 13th, gave first reading approval to the ordinance and scheduled the public hearing and second reading consideration of this ordinance for February 24, 1986. Residents who received notices of the proposed ordinance have been notified in writing that the hearings would be cancelled and that new notices would be mailed if the ordinance was to be considered at some future date. The Planning Commission in their discussions concerning this matter strongly indicated that they feel that the proposed amendment which eliminates the need for variances for floor area ratios within planned unit developments in redevelopment areas is necessary. The Planning Commission continues to be of the firm opinion that it is in the best interest of the city if the city council would move forward on such an amendment as expeditiously as possible once the CDR development project is resolved and concluded. • W. • • 1'-). -It is recommended that the city council confirm the actions taken by the city officials by officially cancelling this public hearing. If and when this ordinance is to be considered again, the process of new notices and public hearings will be repeated. JGC /eja ctfu](ly John G. Cart City Manager fitted, knight . 73 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV, SECTION 3.34A OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.34A of the Ordinance Code entitled: "Planned Unit Development Zoning District" is hereby amended in the following respects: I. By amending subdivision 1 thereof to read'as follows: Subdivision 1 . Purpose. fit- is-- tie-- g�rz�ose- o-f th }s- seet�en- -tv-- gr- e� -i-e� f-o-� -- €lie- estal9 } }sl�errt- -et the- -d-1 -rre iec - of - - --0-f - planned e €- 3-d- fta --Wh-i-ch stt }tali }e -3R- and eharaeter-- €er-- t4te---u­s,,- -- arm.- +he-- s true ture9 gregesed--- A } }- st�eh- PHB- sen }n�- d }str }ets- ere -te -be planned--- ark[- - -deye }aped-- -err -- a-- -bas }s - Sr�}tab3llty-et- the - treats -e�- lamed - €er- the- de*�e }eg- x�ent- ro�o-sect -- she y- -bp re�erenee -te- ire-- e- i- �- �"- s-- eceeit�g�ekerrg��e- de�e }egx�er�t glen - and - any - cede* ae} egxter�t- g }an- �e�- tke- a�ee- Wh }el� - has- been- adegted -by- the - a }ty--- Eenslderatlen -she}} 6vhen-- es�ah�3s�.3�g--- e- --�1 -aim -- tr�r�t-- de�e }epx►eat dlstr }et - - -3t is - - }ate eel- that- �2e- ��i- ei- e�rs-et this - -seat eh--- �rrre� - -- airy- - -adc} �ra�-- requi-reraeats estab1 fi shed - by- -t-- re- -e-irt-�- -eet }rte- rj- - €rr- eataH } }sk }rrg -a PHB-- dlstrlet-- wi } }-- eeeeatp }lsh -- the-- ptrrgeses - -e� eening- a-e-- set -- slen- }---- �t-- i-s- �Y3e-- uses ; -xn-i- eel-- e- € €i -e -3a uses , - --a- -high ereatl�e- des} gn - and- greser�at }en- a € - natural- seenle and-- rbrrfrl-- elta } }t }es- frf-- o�e�r- saees- f� -a better- }i�lne}; - were }rre�- and- sheggln�- eh�alrenx�ent- It is the purpose of this section to provide for the establishment, at the discretion of the city council, of planned unit development (PUD) zoning districts on tracts of land which are suitable in location, area and character for the use and for the structures proposed. It is the objective of the city to provide for flexibility in planning mixed land uses, economic and efficient land uses, a high level of amenities, creative and superior design, greater intensity and increased community economic benefit, improved public safety and 7 -y preservation of natural scenic and recreational qualities of open spaces for a better living, working and shopping environment. To accomplish those objectives, the suitability of a tract of land for the development proposed must be de- termined primarily by reference to the city's comprehensive plan and any redevelopment plan for the area which has been adopted by the city. Standards and criteria relating to such matters as design, building size, height and location, lot coverage and parking requirements contained elsewhere in the city's zoning regulations should be considered as merely guidelines in considering any PUD proposal and may be departed from in the approval of any PUD proposal if the city deter- mines that the PUD proposal is consistent with the purposes and objectives above described. II. By amending subdivision 9 thereof to read as follows: Subd. 9. Criteria and Standards. In considering any PUD proposal, the city shall be guided primar- ily by the purposes and objectives described in subdivision 1 of this section. In considering any PUD proposal in any redevelopment project area, the city also shall be guided by the goals and objectives contained in the plan for.such redevel- opment project area, and the guidelines contained in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subdivision, and subdivisions 10 and 11 shall not apply to such PUDs. Except as to applications for PUDs in officially adopted redevelopment project areas, the city shall apply the standards contained in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this.subdivision and subdivisions 10 and 11. (1) Land Use Intensity (LUI). The maximum land use intensity rating permitted in a PUD district shall be determined by the gross land area of the tract of land, the proposed type of planned unit development district, and the uses assigned to the PUD district. (2) The land use intensity rating for those parcels of the PUD district designated for res- idential uses, or a combination of residential and nonresidential uses, shall be as follows: • 75 GROSS LAND AREA PR & PC -1 PMR, PC -2 & SQUARE FEET ACRES LLTI RATING PI LUI RATING 43,560- 87,120 1 -2 40 48 87,120- 130,680 2 -3 43 50 130,680- 174,240 3 -4 45 52 174,240 - 217,800 4 -5 48 54 217,800 - 261,360 5 -6 50 56 over 261,360 6+ 55 58 (3) The land use intensity rating for those parcels of the PUD district designated solely for commercial and industrial uses shall be as fol- lows: GROSS LAND AREA PR & PC -1 PMR, PC -2 & SQUARE FEET ACRES LUI RATING PI LUI RATING 43,560- 87,120 1 -2 30 38 87,120- 130,680 2 -3 33 42 130,680- 174,240 3 -4 35 44 174,240- 217,800 4 -5 38 48 217,800- 261,360 5 -6 40 50 over 261,360 6+ 45 52 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1985. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • John N. Hamilton, Mayor 7-6 (Official Publication) LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE, CHAPTER III, PART IV, SECTION 3.34A PERTAINING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield at 7:30 p.m. on February 4, 1986 in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 6700 Portland Avenue to conduct a hearing on a proposed amendment to Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.34A of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield to modify and clarify the purpose of the planned unit development zoning district and to modify the criteria and standards applicable to planned unit developments in officially adopted redevelopment project areas. A copy of the proposed amendment is available for inspection at the City Clerk's office during normal business hours. All persons interested in this matter are hereby notified to be present so that they can be heard in connection with this matter. Publish: 1/22/86 • THOMAS FERBER City Clerk (d) more than 5 percent change in the ground area covered by the building; or (e) any change in the ratio of off - street parking and loading space to gross floor area in the building. (2) Building Permits. No building permit shall be issued for any structure within the PUD district unless and until the planning director certifies that it conforms to the provisions of the PUD Plan, the Final Development Plan and any other conditions imposed by the council. Upon approval by the planning director, the building permit application along with the appropriate information required for building permits shall be submitted to the chief inspector who shall process the building permit in conformance with applicable building codes. Subd. 8. Bond for Conformance. Prior to the issuance of a special use permit, the applicant shall provide the city with a performance bond in the amount of ten percent of the estimated value of the proposed buildings and improvements in the area designated as a planned unit development district conditioned on the satisfactory development of the PUD in accordance with the PUD Plan and Final Development Plan and any additional conditions imposed by the council. Upon completion of the planned unit development as approved by the city council, inspections by the planning director and chief inspector and approval by the city council, the performance bond may be released. Subd. 9, Criteria and Standards. (1) Land Use Intensity (LUI). The maximum land use intensity rating per- mitted in a PUD district shall be determined by the gross land area of the tract of land, the proposed type of planned unit development district, and the uses assigned to the PUD district, (2) The land use intensity rating for those parcles of the PUD'district designated for, residential uses, or a combination of residential and nonresi- dential uses, shall be as follows: GROSS LAND AREA PR & PC -1 PMR, PC -2 & SQUARE FEET ACRES LUI RATING PI LUI RATING 43,560- 87,120 1 -2 40 48 87,120 - 130,680 2 -3 43 50 13031680 - 174,240 3 -4 45 52 174,240- 217,800 4 -5 48 54 217,800- 261,360 5 -6 50 56 over 261,360 6+ S5 58 (3) The land use intensity rating for those parcels of the PUD district designated solely for commercial and industrial uses shall be as follows: GROSS LAND AREA PR & PC -1 PMR, PC -2 & SQUARE FEET ACRES LUI RATING PI LUI RATTING 43,560- 87,120 1 -2 30 38 87,120 - 130,680 2 -3 33 42 130,680- 174,240 3 -4 35 44 174,240 - 217,800 4 -5 38 48 217,800- 261,360 5 -6 40 50 over 261,360 6+ 45 52 (Bill 1976 -16) 8/23/76 ORDINANCE CODE 70.5 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO fA D J Subd, 10. Method of Computing Floor Area Open Space, Livability Space, Recreation Space, Parking Requirements from Land Use intensity Rating. (1) For the purposes of a planned unit development district, the land use intensity rating applicable to the particular type of planned unit development (PR, PMR, PC -1, PC -2, and PI) shall be established by the above tables. The ratio of the maximum permissible floor area and required open space, livability space, recreation space, -and parking to gross land area shall be determined by reference to the LUI Table, subdivision 11 of this section. (2) Definitions and Methods of Measurement Relating to the Land Use Intensity Ratios; Requirements and Limitations, (a) Gross Land Area Definition and Method of Measurement. Gross land area is defined, for purposes of this section, as the total area of land within the proposed district boundaries plus half of the area of adjoining permanent open space such as streets, parks, lakes, cemeteries, and the like, provided that the width of such adjoining permanent open space shall be considered to be no more than the number of feet equal to the land use intensity rating applied to that portion of the PUD district to which the open space adjoins. (b) Floor Area Definition and Method of ;Measurement. To determine the maximum permissible floor area, the LUI ratio in subdivision 11 shall be applied. The floor area of the buildings shall be considered to be the sum of the areas of the several floors of the buildings measured from the outside faces of the exterior walls, or from the center line of the wall separating two buildings, in- cluding halls, lobbies, stairways, elevator shafts, enclosed porches and balconies, and below grade floor areas used for habitation. Not included as floor area art: (1) open terraces, patios, atriums, or balconies; (2) carports, garages, breeze- ways, tool sheds; (3) special purpose areas for common use of occupants, such as recreation room social hall; (4) staff space for therapy or examination in care housing-; (5) basement space not used for living accommodations. The maximum permissible floor area in a PUD shall be determined as follows: In parcels des- ignated for non - residential uses the maximum permissible floor area shall be derived by multiplying that portion of the gross land area contained in such parcel by the applicable land use intensity ratio. In parcels designated solely for residential uses or for a combination of residential and non - residential uses, the remainder of the gross land area shall be multiplied by the applicable land use intensity ratio. (c) men Space Definition and Method of Measurement. (i) For purposes of this section, open space shall be defined as the total horizontal area of uncovered open space plus half the total horizontal area of covered open space. (ii) Uncovered open space is the total gross area of land not covered by buildings, open exterior balconies, and roofed areas that provide recreational space. (iii) Covered open space is usable open space closed to the sky but unobstructed along at least 50% of the sides of the space. The area includable as covered open space shall not exceed the area of its open sides. Covered open space may include covered balconies, covered portions of improved roofed areas, or spaces under buildings supported on columns or posts, (Bill 1976 -16) 8/23/76 • 8/23!76 ORDINANCE CODE 70.6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO fA (iv) The minimum amount of open space required shall be determined by multiplying the applicable open space ratio shown in the land use intensity table, subdivision 11, by the gross land area which is not designated solely for commercial or industrial uses. (v) Open space requirements shall not be applied to those portions of a PUD district designated solely for commercial or industrial uses. (d) Livability Space Definition and Method of Computation. For purposes of this section, livability space shall be defined as that portion of the total open space which is so improved and so located as to provide aesthetically pleasing areas of outdoor living space for residents. Livability space includes lawns and other landscaped areas, walkways, paved terraces and sitting areas, outdoor recreation areas, and landscaped portions of street right -of -ways. Livability space shall not include space used for vehicles, except for inci- dental services, maintenance or emergencies. The minimum amount of livability space shall be determined by multiplying the applicable livability space ratio shown in the land use intensity table, subdivision 11, by the gross land area .which is not designated solely for commerical or industrial uses. Livability space requirements shall not apply to those portions of a PUD district designated solely for commercial and industrial uses. (e) Recreation Space Definition and Method of Measurement. For purposes of this section, recreation space shall be defined as that portion of the total open space which may appropriately be used for recreational purposes. In gen- eral, such space shall be a minimum of 102000 square feet on any one side. Smaller areas may be considered if the recreation space is a suitably improved roof area. Smaller areas may also be considered if a 10,000 square foor area would provide more than the total recreation space required or if anticipated needs of residents require smaller facilities, such as tot lots. Permanent public recreation space and facilities located outside of the PUD district may be approved as meeting up to one -half of the recreation space requirements if the inclusion of such space is consistent with the purposes of this section and if said space abuts the PUD district. The minimum amount of recreation space required shall be determined by multiplying the applicable recreation space ratio shown in the land use intensity table, subdivision 11, by the gross land area which is not designated solely for commercial or industrial uses. The recreation space requirements shall not apply to those portions of a PUD district designated solely for commercial and industrial uses. (f) Car Space, Occupant and Total; Definition and Method of Computation. For purposes of this section, an occupant car space shall be defined as a parking space in a garage, carport, or other off - street parking area which is available to residents without a time limit. For purposes of this section, total car spaces shall be defined as the occupant car spaces plus other parking spaces which may be used for unlimited or seldom limited time periods, and which are intended primarily for use by guests. The minimum number of occupant car spaces and of total car spaces in those portions of a PUD district designated for residential uses shall be determined by multiplying the applicable occupant car ratio and the applicable total car ratio respectively by the number of dwelling units. (Bill 1976 -16) 8/23/76 8/23/76 ORDINANCE CODE 70.7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO fA l Subd. 11. Required Land Use Intensity Ratios LUI Table. The maximum floor area ratio}_ the minimum recreation space ratio, and the minimum car space ratio for each land use intensity rating shall be as follows; LAND USE INTENSITY (LUI) RATIOS Land -Use LUI RATIOS LUI RATIOS Intensity X GROSS LAND AREA X LIVING UNITS Ratings Floor Open Livabil- Recreation Occupant Total (LUI) Area Space ity Space Space Car Car 30 .100 .80 .65 .025 2.0 2.2 33 .123 .79 .58 .028 1.8 2.1 35 .141 .78 .54 .030 1.7 1.9 38 •174 •77 .52 .033 1.5 1.8 40 .200 .76 .52 .036 1.4 1.7 42 •230 .75 .51 .039 1.4 1.6 43 .246 .75 .49 .039 1.3 1.5 44 .264 .74 .48 .042 1.3 1.5 45 .283 .74 .48 .042 1.2 1.5 48 .348 .73 .45 .049 1.1 1.3 50 .400 .72 .44 .052 1.1 1.3 52 .459 .72 .42 .056 1.0 1.2 54 .528 .71 .41 .062 .96 1.1 55 .566 .71 .40 .062 .93 1.1 56 .606 .70 .40 .065 .90 1.1 58 .696 .69 .40 .070 .84 1.0 Subd. 12. Amendment of Special Use Permit. Amendment to any special use _permit issued under this section or for land within a PUD district shall be by two- thirds vote of the council. The council may hold such hearings on a proposal to amend such permits as it may consider necessary; but at least one public hearing shall be held. In acting on such a proposal the council may consider all factors considered in connection with rezoning the PUD district and issuing special use permits therefore as well as any other factors relevant to the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare and to the protection of property or improvements in the neighbor- hood. (Bill 1976 -16) 8/23/76 Subd. 13. The application requesting the establishment of a planned unit development district shall be accompanied by the fee provided in Appendix D of this Code for such application together with all other fees required by this Code. (Bill 1977 -16) 8/8/77 3.35. USE NOT LISTED. When the use of any proposed building, structure or premises is not specifically.described in this code, the requirements for the use most similar to the proposed use applies. If, in the judgment of the chief inspector, a proposed use does not come within any existing use classification, he shall refer the matter to the council for an appropriate classification or the granting of a special use permit as provided in section 3.41 of this chapter. 8/8/77 ORDINANCE CODE 70.8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO rA 3.36. SPECIAL PROVISIONS - OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BILLBOARDS REAL ESTATE AND OTHER SIGNS. CROSS- REFERENCE: See Chap. III, Part V, for general provisions relating to signs and billboards. Subdivision 1. Outdoor Advertising Signs, R MR R-1, MR -1, MR -2, or MR -3 Districts or Portions of Planned Unit Development District Designated for Residential Uses. No outdoor advertising signs, billboards, or real estate signs shall be erected in an "R ", "MR" 11R -1" "MR -1" "MR -2" or "MR -3" district or in any portion of a planned unit development district designated for residential uses, except as follows: (Bill 1982 -5) 2/8/82 (1) A sign not to exceed two square feet displaying the name of the owner, occupant or lessee and the nature of a Home Occupation, if any. (Bill 1975 -3) 1/27/75 (2) Nonilluminated or Nonreflecting signs, not exceeding ten square feet in area pertaining only to the sale, rental or lease of the premises which displayed; or bulletin boards of schools, churches and other public institu- tions permitted in such districts.. (3) Signs advertising the sale of a subdivision when located thereon, provided that the sign, location, and length of time that such signs shall remain have first been approved by the council. (4) Direction and information signs of a public or quasi - public nature, including signs serving as directional signs to properties not situated adjacent to the street next to which the signs are located, upon first securing approval by the council. Subd. 2. Outdoor Advertising Signs, C or I Districts. - Outdoor advertising signs,.billboards, real estate signs and the like shall be permitted in any "C" or "I" district provided the following conditions are met: (Bill 1976 -16) 8/23/76 (1) Such signs meet the requirements of this city relating to signs as set forth in part V of this chapter. (2) Any such sign must be set back from the street equal to at least as far as the required front yard from the district in which it is located, provided that on a major city street or federal or state highway such signs may be required to be set back such additional distance as may be required to insure proper vision and safety to the traffic on such streets and highways. (3) No such sign shall be permitted which fases on the front or side lot line of any lot in an "R ", "MR", "R -111, "MR -111, "MR -2 ", or "MR -3" district used for residential purposes or portions of planned unit development districts designed for residential uses within 100 feet of such lot or within 200 feet of any public parkway, public square or entrance to any public park or public or parochial school, library, church, or similar institution. (Bill 1982 -5) 2/8/82 Subd. 3. Compliance with Part V of this All advertising signs erected or used within the city shall be subject to the provisions of Part V of this chapter. 2/8/82 ORDINANCE CODE 70.9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA J J C I T Y O F C; 0 Ai M U N I T Y Planning Commission City of Richfield R I C H F I E L D, 7 -/02 M I N N E S O T A D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T Item #1 Information Letter #4 Agenda of February 4, 1986 Subject: Ordinance Amendment'Concerning Planned Unit Developments in Redevelopment Project Areas. Dear Commissioners: The Planning Commission previously set a public hearing date on February 4th to consider an amendment to the Planned Unit Development section of the city's zoning ordinance. This amendment is to clarify the purposes of planned unit development zoning districts and to modify the criteria and standards applicable to planned unit developments in officially adopted redevelopment areas. Because of the controversy and opposition generated against the CDR PUD being proposed in the ILN area and the recent court case and call for a referendum concerning this project, it has been determined that it would not be appropriate to pursue this ordinance amendment at this time. It is therefore recommended that the Planning Commission cancel this public hearing and take no action on this matter at this time. If appropriate this item will be brought before the Planning Commission-at a future date and the appropriate people will be notified of this hearing. Notice of this hearing was sent to persons within the LHN and ILN areas and also persons within 350 feet of those redevelopment project areas of the hearing. Notice has also been sent to those people of the cancellation. Respectfully submitted, (Lk- ,� Rick Jopke City Planner RJ %jle • • • 73 M N qe LO U) Q Q ■ L Q Q O � i . Q M O ■� Q Q January 30, 1986 Dear Property Owner /Tenant: You recentiy received a notice of a public nearing to be conducted by the Planning Commission on February 4, 1986. The purpose of the hearing was to be a proposed amendment to Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.54A of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield to modify and clarify the purpose of the planned unit development zoning district and to modify the criteria and standaras applicable to planned unit development in officially adopted redevelopment areas. This public hearing has been cancelled and will not occur on February 4,. 198b. We will send out new notices if it is to be considered at some future time. - A scheduled hearing on an amendment to Transitory Ordinance No... 17.13 (the "moratorium ordinance ") will still be held. If you have any questions concerning these public hearings please feel free to contact me at 369 -1521, Ext. 511. Sincerely, Rick Jopke City Planner RJ /jle telephone: 869 - 7521(612) an equal opportunity employer -CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 90 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: First Amendment to Contract For Private Development For The Hampton Inn, ILN Area. Dear Council Members: On December 9, 1985, the HRA and City Council approved a contract with PALSC.O, Inc. for the construction of a Hampton Inn within the ILN area at 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue. The Contract must now be amended. The HRA approved the amendments on February 18, 1986. The Hampton Inn was to be developed on a site which included the to be vacated frontage road right -of -way. A restaurant was contemplated for a portion of the right -of -way. This was based on earlier support from MNDOT that they would vacate the right - of -way. However, at a meeting in December, 1985, with Mr. William Crawford, the District Engineer for this area, staff was told that there would not now be support for the permanent vacation of the frontage road right -of -way because of the possible future need to widen I494. Even though MNDOT would not release its highway easement for the frontage road which runs across the southerly portion of this site, Mr. Crawford did indicate that he would look favorably upon issuing a temporary right -of -way use permit to PALSCO for a two year period with possible 2 year renewal options. That is, MNDOT would cease to use the right -of -way for road purposes, and permit PALSCO to utilize the area for open space. This would.be done on the basis of a temporary use permit. In the revised agreement, the HRA and City pledge their best efforts to help PALSCO obtain the right to use this right -of -way from MNDOT. In the future, MNDOT may decide it does not need all, or a portion of, the right -of- way easement and would then permanently vacate it in favor of PALSCO. The First Amendment reflects the position of MNDOT and the revised plans of PALSCO. Only the motel would be built at this time. It would be a 149 unit, 5 story Hampton Inn (previously the concept was a 146 unit four story building or a five story 135 unit structure with a freestanding 150 seat "family" type restaurant). Everything in the December 9, 1985, contract remains unchanged except for the items contained in the First - Amendment. Below is a comparison of the Contract and the First Amendment provisions. 1. Contract 2.1(b) Project The construction and development of a motel facility and related parking facilities and site improvements by the Developer on -the Project Property pursuant to the Project Plan. The Project may also include the construction of a restaurant as shown on the approved Project Plan. First Amendment 2.1(b) Project - The construction and development of a 149 unit motel facility and related parking facilities and site improvements by the Developer on the Project Property pursuant to the Project Plan. 2. Contract 3.2(b) The HRA will use its best efforts to cooperate with Developer in its efforts to obtain the release of the highway easement running in favor of the State of Minnesota over and across the southerly portion of the Project Property. First Amendment 3.2(b) The HRA will use its best efforts to cooperate with the Developer in its efforts to obtain the release of the highway easement running in favor of the State of Minnesota over and across the southerly portion of the Project Property; provided, however, that the failure of the Developer to secure the release of such easement shall not in any way release or diminish the obligations of the Developer pursuant to this Agreement. 3. Contract 3.3(d) The City will utilize its best efforts to cooperate with the Developer in its efforts to obtain the release of the easement running in favor of the State of Minnesota over and across the southerly portion of the Project Property. First Amendment 3.3(d) The City will use its best efforts to cooperate with the Developer in its efforts to obtain the release of the highway easement running in favor of the State of Minnesota over and across the southerly portion of the Project Property; provided, however, that the failure of the Developer to secure the release of such easement shall not in any way release or diminish the obligations of the Developer pursuant to this Agreement. I' 9 4 Contract 5.1 Section 5.1. Construction of the Project. The Developer agrees that it will construct the Project on the Project Property in accordance with the Project Plans which plans are hereby approved or any modification thereto approved by the City and the HRA and will at all times operate, maintain, preserve and keep the Project in good repair and condition. The Project Plan shall be in conformity with the TIF Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, this Agreement and all local, state and federal regulations. The Developer's decision whether to construct a restaurant on the Project Property shall not be deemed to affect the stipulation minimum market values contained in Exhibit E.. First Amendment 5.1 Section 5.1. Construction of Project. The Developer agrees that it will construct the Project on the Project Property in accordance with the Project Plans, which plans are hereby approved or any modifications thereto approved by the City and the HRA, and will at all times maintain, operate, preserve and keep the Project in good repair-and condition. The Project Plan shall be in conformity with the TIF Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, this Agreement and all local, state and federal regulations. 5 Contract 5.5 There was no 5.5 section. First Amendment 5.5 If, in'the future, MNDOT permanantly vacates the frontage road right -of -way it would be possible to construct a building on it or on a portion of it. This provision is intended to address that possible situation. Section 5.5. Development of Easement Area. The Project Plans do not contain provisions relating to development of the portion of the Project Property which is subject to the State Highway easement. In the event that the Developer is successful in obtaining the release of such easement, it may present to the HRA and the City a proposed amendment to the Project Plans which provides for development of such area. The City and HRA, subject to complying with all procedural requirements and the exercise of their legislative disgression, shall consider in good faith the proposed amendment and not unreasonably withhold their approvals if the proposed amendment is consistent with the TIF Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, this Agreement and all local, state and federal laws, ordinances and regulations. Neither the City nor the HRA may require, as a precondition of such approval, that the minimum market value determinations contained in Exhibit E be increased. Exhibit E is the • .Assessment Agreement which is part of the December 9th Contract -. (The minimum market values in Exhibit E remain unchanged in the First Amendment). 6. Contract, Exhibit C Exhibit C consisted of five pages of plan sheets. The plan sheets showed the motel site as a five story 135 unit structure with a restaurant or an alternative four story 146 unit motel. Other pages included the elevation, typical floor plan and ground floor plan. The site plans from Exhibit C of the Contract are attached. First Amendment Exhibit C The Exhibit C plan sheets are attached to this letter. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution which approves the First Amendment to the Contract For Private Development dated December 9, 1985. Re�pectfo bmitted, / w JGC. /eja �ohn G. / C*rtwriot Executive re t r RESOLUTION NO. -5 RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITH PALSCO, INCORPORATED WHEREAS, The CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA approved a Contract For Private Development dated December 9, 1985; and WHEREAS, because of certain events which have occurred since that date it is necessary and desirable to amend the Contract; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Amendments herein identified Amendment Number One and determined that such is in the best interests of the City and serves the health, safety and general welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Richfield that Amendment Number One is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the same on behalf of The City of Richfield. Passed by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of February, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk t John Hamilton, Mayor • • • AID LK 17; I kt * M -4.m m o Ci) C > CD c m -0 > z > Z 13 t4z A * M -4.m m o Ci) C > CD c m -0 > z > Z 14.17TSt _ ter -40' L- 4— A� -- — • � - - -. , _ � .. `•.�T . t i _ i _—� -fir — i� � - -J4, � C km • t rawtuax) - -' 1 .rte \` :l Sr vooll F. In 7o�Ue 'Y i r � p i A 1 r -- - -_L�� 3. Fla, Lo _ w M C Y rT U 0 - K O. O O �s Q ti 0 • . e. N 1 �•�l�q•• G • IT I CE �• i R 1' .. B' y�j S 5: w I f- I - III I I -` : W z tp • ^y1:N Ic. I ME P LO _ c� S f'' "D m . CD - � r 1 [C a H N O x .O o r v► � /3 J� S Z5 7 xZ' m m cn m v r �Z • • S-/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 89 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Final Development Plan and Special Use Permit Approval for the Hampton Inn Project Council Members: At the December 9, 1985, city council meeting, the city council took a number of actions concerning the Hampton Inn project proposed for the site located at 78th and Lyndale. Actions taken by the council included: (1) first reading approval of an ordinance to rezone the site from C -2 general commercial to PC -2 planned general commercial; (2) the granting of a-variance from the PUD ordinance requirement for floor area•, and, (3) the approval of the special use permit for the development of the site as a planned unit development subject to the following stipulations: 1. Approval and publication of the PUD ordinance. 2. Lifting of the moratorium ordinance for this property. 3. Designation of one of the two alternative designs (135 motel units with a freestanding restaurant or 146 motel units without a restaurant). 4. That the required easements for additional right -of -way along Lyndale Avenue and along 77th Street be provided as required to carry out the planned street improvements. 5. That the 78th street frontage road be vacated. 6. That a development proceed as shown on the site plan with the added provision that the parking demand should be closely monitored and, if parking shortage occurs on the site when it is complete and operating, that a minimum of 13 additional parking stalls be provided on the site. 7. That the property be platted and the proper preliminary and final plats be filed for city approval. ' The PUD plan for the site was recommended by the Planning Commission and considered also by the City Council on December 9, 1985. In accordance with the PUD ordinance requirements the developers have now submitted for city approval a final development plan. The PUD ordinance provides that following the rezoning of the property the developer is to submit a final development plan and an application for a special use permit for the development shown in the final development plan for approval by the city. If the council's action on the previous item concerning the rezoning of the site was to approve second reading of the ordinance, then the council should proceed with the review of the final development plan and special use permit. However, if the council did not give second reading approval to the ordinance to rezone the site, then the council should take no action on the final development plan and special use permit at this time. Staff has reviewed the proposed final development plan and found the following: 1. The final development plan differs from the PUD plan recommended by the Planning Commission and considered by the council on December 9th in the following ways: a. Because of the inability to use the 78th Street right -of -way for building purposes, the developers have chosen the option of developing a hotel on the site without a freestanding restaurant. b. The number of hotel rooms has increased from 146 to 149 units. C. The total building area has increased from 57,885 square feet to 58,272 square feet. The plan indicates that the total floor area is 55,564 square feet. Staff has determined the developer incorrectly excluded certain areas from the floor area calculations. d. Total parking on the site has decreased from 160 spaces with a restaurant, or 135 spaces without a restaurant, to 125 spaces. e. The ratio of off - street parking spaces to floor area of the building has gone from 1 space per 417.01 square feet of building area to 1 space per 462.48 square feet of building area. f. The location of the building remains at the approximate location as the previous proposal with a restaurant. • • • 5 -.3 A table comparing various aspects of the different proposals is attached in the backup materials. 2. The PUD ordinance provides that a development must be in substantial compliance with the PUD plan, final development plan and conditions imposed by the council. It also provides under what conditions a development would be considered to be in substantial compliance. The proposal would meet these tests with one exception. The ordinance indicates that there cannot be any change in the ratio of off - street parking and loading space to the gross floor area in the building. In this case the amount of building area has increased slightly and there has been a drop in the number of parking spaces on the site, therefore, this ratio has changed. It is staff's feeling, however, that there will be sufficient number of parking spaces provided on the site to meet the need. There is also potential for providing additional parking on the site if additional parking is necessary at some future time. The planning commission reviewed the revised plans and concluded that the revised plan would be in substantial compliance with the previous plans if the developer agrees to maintain the same ratio of offstreet parking spaces to floor area, if necessary. The commission felt that there would be sufficient parking provided and that if additional parking is provided, that there would be a loss of landscaped areas and trees which would be detrimental to the project. 3. The proposal would or would not meet the previous council stipulations in the following ways: a. The City Council has considered second reading approval of the ordinance to rezone the property to a planned unit development as part of the previous agenda item. b. The moratorium ordinance is scheduled to expire on March 22, 1986. The Council will be considering a resolution to extend the moratorium on March 17, 1986. The council is also scheduled to consider on February 24th, second reading of an ordinance which would allow building permits to be issued for approved PUD development sites. This would allow the issuance of a building permit for Hampton Inn once the PUD approval process is completed. C. The developer has designated the "hotel only design" as the final alternative they will construct. 5- Z/ d. The actual easements have not been provided. However, the development in the plan takes into account the easement areas required by the city for the improvements of Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street. The developer's agreement provides for the sale of easements to the city. e. The 78th Street frontage road cannot be vacated at this time because of the reluctance of the State Highway Department to relinquish their interest in the easement. However the developer is continuing to pursue the matter with the State and is negotiating the right to use the right -of -way for parking and open space purposes. Also, as discussed in agenda item number 13, the city council is being asked to request that MNDot grant the developer a two -year lease on the 78th Street right -of -way. f. As previously indicated, the proposed plan shows an increase in number of hotel rooms and a decrease in the number of parking stalls provided on the site. Staff feels that sufficient parking would be provided, but as the previous stipulation indicated, parking demand should be closely monitored and, if a parking shortage occurs when the motel is completed and operating, additional parking stalls should be provided. The minimum number of additional parking stalls provided should be increased from 13 to 25 to a count for the additional rooms and floor area. g. Neither the preliminary nor the final plats have been filed for city approval. 4. The proposal would be consistent with the ILN Redevelopment Plan and the city's comprehensive plan 5. All information required to be in the final development plan, as provided for in the PUD ordinance, has been provided with the exception of detailed planting and a drainage plan. Information has been provided concerning general types of tres and general locations of planting materials, but exact locations have not been specified. 6. A shadow study has been completed for the proposed development which indicates that there should be no detrimental shadow effects from the proposed 5 story hotel building. The shadow study shows that the shadow would only extend into residential areas after approximately 3 PM and around the winter solstice on December 22nd. The shadow would possibly be cast upon 55 two or three houses for a 60 to 80 minute period. At that time of the day the sunlight is already diminished . and existing trees and buildings would also be casting shadows within that area. It is recommended that the City Council (1) conduct a public hearing on this matter and then (2) approve a final development plan and special use permit for the proposed 149 room Hampton Inn hotel. The approval should be subject to the following stipulations: 1. Approval and publication of the ordinance to rezone the property to PC -2; 2. Amending or removing the building permit moratorium as it would apply to this particular property; 3. That the required easements for additional right -of -way along Lyndale Avenue and 77th Streets be provided as required to carry out planned street improvements; 4. That the development proceed as shown on the site plan; 5. That the parking demand be closely monitored and if a parking shortage occurs on the site when it is complete and operating, that a minimum of 25 additional parking stalls be provided on the site; 6. That the property be platted and that proper preliminary and final plats be filed for city approval; 7. That a detailed planting plan be submitted for approval by the Community Development Department staff; and, 8. That a drainage plan be submitted for approval by the city engineer. JGC /eja Re pectful s itted, ohn G. Cart ight City Manager d 9gg1 < g a ® ® oA M \ � J �_• � i o � m i - � I I - M f J A T } • • • �a W i J i a� 5 -y 2 • • :2 ............. 40 AP -T, all, 3z 1 v too, 70 S1 . ....... ...... cr W I-- as ii i CL a. It P9 40 AP -T, all, 3z 1 v too, 70 S1 . ....... ...... cr W I-- as "l- luTlum iM I I PREP ;WITH RESTAURANT ! 1 ! 1. SITE AREA ; 105005 SQ.FT.i I 1 1 I 7 I 2. GROSS LAND AREA i 147,310 SQ.FT.i i 3. TOTAL BLDG AREA ! 57,885 SQ.FT.1 I 1 4. FLOOR AREA RATIO 5. TOTAL PARKING 6. # HOTEL ROOMS 7. # RESTAURANT SEATS .39 160 SPACES I I 1 1 135 ROOMS ! I 1 i 150 SEATS 1 'IOUs WITHOUT REST. 105,105 SQ.FT. 147,310 SQ.FT. 56,296 SQ.FT. ME 5-11 PROPOSED 1 WITHOUT REST. 79,563 SQ.FT. ! I I I 147,310 SQ.FT. I I I I 583272 -SQ.FT.11 .40 135 SPACES ! 126 SPACES 146 ROOMS 8. BUILDING HEIGHT 1 5 STORIES ! 5 STORIES 9. PARKING RATIO ; 1 SPACE PER ! 1 SPACE PER 1361.78`SQ.FT. OF1417.01 SQ.FT. OF ;BUILDING AREA ; BUILDING AREA 10. ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA! 38,890 i 38,890 149 ROOMS ; I I 1 I I I I 5 STORIES ! I I I 1 1 SPACE PER ! .462.48 SQ.FT. OF! BUILDING AREA i NORTH:; 80 i FEET i 110 FEET i 80 FEET i 11. SETBACKS EAST:! 75 FEET i 75 FEET i 74.86 FEET i WEST:! 24 FEET ! 24 FEET 124 FEET (CANOPY)! SOUTH:'HOTEL: 180 FEET ! 92 FEET ! 100 FEET ! !REST.: i I 1 25 FEET I 1 1 I 1 i ! I I 1 I ! I 1 i ! I 1 I I ! I ! • • 7 .. . - � , . : - I , (, . • .. 11_i1. .( i .; - , , , , I I . , . . ", -,. - , 11 - - . . ; ..i.,% ; " , I , I j .q:1[',-, -,­­ - ;.­,'­':1 .. I I . � . . � . l.* I I , , � ,-, i, , �_� . , I - . ­ ( - , . . - ,F � '. �, , � . i "'. : . , - ,,�: " � 4 .. a 1 , . . - I . . , . : , " �! � Yl I - !� , -i �� I , . , - i I I . j , " . , '. . - 'I'- _ k, , I " �1 , , . , � - .1 A�'- . � 1 , " , : � - I , . . A - i � I , . . - ; - -, .." ,; . . .� .. I t; f .I � �'..�J-.�!�:_,,.'L�.-,", i , k � - � . -. i . j .4 J� , "' ..", � f I " . . I , . ,; it - : � s .. i, , � ." , , 4. '� f,� ; 1�- ��*, :` -1 ., � , . Ti, � . I % I '. oq� ,I -z -v � 'I . '.'�'�, j,i� - 1 f!j, - , �.�j 4, I ,� . , j � i.� , I . I ;; 4 , ,;. I I 0,;, .-e I - �,f , � . V. - ( - I - - , - I - - , . . . - .. �1 �� ,, - , " I � t , I , 1. � , , , . 1"', 1�' . , 4 v , , I f A v _� , 1.0 i � F , - , , , * , /z . . 1 -4 i -�,)'k.', 1. S. - .1 ..., A .�.,, ,11,�Z,� T' t !wi, I � " * ` - .� , , - � - , t yyl.S'11',� , � �,,f ' 1 - .A�` I • �,.� 4..!i.i­,-�� .41ir.1 , , , 'k. , "! � Y_ � 11 I � - I,.. & "I . ; . ­ � -,I, ! It , .'­,�. , I - .(,�j� ! f. ". �_ .. 4- -% .,4 - I - - - , If i A ."I i\ ��I�i, � ,� "i --. I , � . I I, -I , ; - -r; " k , il ,;­ -, I ,' A, , � ­4 'I ,� V, % , - �' -,' , . ­%] .. 7� lf� �.4 :.,%, _'iv,-�� I , , V � , � �: � �* 1, -If A, M,�L L � - 11' t 4 k . k-, t ,� - �' ! � I � , 4, : , , -, ."A ,�,% A 'i ;;-, 'I ri, `41141 ,'- � i " �. I , I � �, - , � ;;�­"-J�ii '-'�,. •�-, :; '. . .�C, 1, 'A. - .A.: , � - : :, � ,.,.�, i ) t�., �� �% IL'j , � 'I�_�._I�"%j"" I � �, . , � A' I ,L ; .. . 1, .11 ; j ., � , , I . P. J, 5 I I . " t., � I. , , k,;, � �A , I ­� - � . . V'. � � - - . , -� :­%� i ? �-. '. � 0� i;-It � }1 :1 " i I ,i , � � k ��,!,f '. v� ,.-, - :, � , ., , *-?�kl " "' " . , , � . 1. A A , f4 'I ,". , " ,k �t , j � j -,i - � ': �� J�' I , - I _� t_�-­ I,.*' I . . , , , '. , i� �'. :1 � . "i - " �, . '. I I IS i A e! , ", _ , , ;, . � .. - . _�. j �, I �, �rkl I - , Y', � , , 4 1. I ♦- I . 11 ; 4,110 - I""N. I i ;*� -, . � j , - ;i 1�1. 1, � . -i i771 11� j I , - -V, , i, %, , V , -A I , S . , - C. ; __1 .. I , . ".. ,�­,;j�tq­7 I'll-' k �. I �, .. . . I . _.�� !I -.11 I , , � I . t! - I - I- " I t� .1 ,� " ; -- , , I , ", -1 '.. ,,, '! - , t, i. ji.-I.' -1-1 11�� ..­ , " 4 � i�­ v �� ,.tic i t',*.' , , '. I - . , ,, '. r c , , . , '�� - I". ,I -1 ` �1, � -;;.- i� " 1 , '! "; .* i , 1 , I .1 � I I , , , , - Fiji, , I I .1 - 4- . i ". . I lo I - n I , , . � . 1�_Iil - - I - "i � , ; , 0- I - . :,_x , 9 I­ , . - I 'i i , I 'A m ", I . I ; . �I ;. , z - - i :1 -': - - , , , , . - � , ; . , I ". - I .1 .I I I " i , % - ,� � - 1, . .. , I I ,�. V I +,t .1 - ZI. � �`:11'-�Illil_` t!,, It, I �', . .i . . , . I I � i I. . , . � . . . .- 0, . :1, �i , - ;� ;ii I— , t - I � k "-_ � I J�_ i .1 I , ! ,,, �, : f ". � I I .. - K, � _� , _- , , - -, , � - I , , . I 1, %; ". -4.,t � I � - 'i , ii,� t i. , I. . -� � - " r, � �I �1, � I 1. . . I , , � . . . , . - . .. .1 I , , .1 * "", I � ". ,, . "W", -1 . - � '. .. j I. . 't� , , I , - - ,� " :',t ., ". ; �. , . I � , . I 1 1 - . .4 1 lo ; .,.�, � -.# t -1 .i � - -, - -, - , 4 I , , - �A,i i . .. -i'l...." ; , � ,I - �_ I - i, -'t i.i '. . I ; � - z - . t, 1 4. ,� j 1, 4' A � � . . . . - I � " �� t I i � , k , ,..',� - I .. �, � , , , ; ,o o , , 1 " , � � i:4 ': f.,. I � ;; . �.�;I.i , i i 7 , . . -1 � , - i i� � . •� . j -1 .,; ; , �, � . k . S - � , � I , , :.. ,� , - I I �i � , �; :1, - �, ;, , , : , I .. . I - : I .. I,I. ,� ., � , : � ,." I . I � �- " i N - q. , � �- � 4'. :. I 1 1 .. -, � : � , 1 i '� � ,j . , :: il - - :,. . , i. , I 1, I ., i, '� t o�. I � '. - I 1. - 11; f i . . . , .1 . � , . , , � - I I . 1� I � � , : - . � " I t I i. .1.1,11 - . . . , . . . t i ; A , , . � . � . . . � , . . . o . ... � I - . � . , .4. WNUKI D VAN DYKE, I � . I . . I . , . � � . i� -.1 . � , . . P%K%,n"C%,j . I -� - V, , ) �, �, ROUTE t %) DUA _/W , PMtHY W1, 04UU1. ;715 . . . '' .1, , I. � .. ' , , - ,rt,�6-.I%, ". 11 ".. � . T.;)­­AI.1­. 3� � ;.-,- k 1.1, � .: , . I, � �.".!�,, j, �.; � k'_' il �'-. , , .: 1'. ''. - - _ 'i.�i,,.,,,,,,,,,.,,--,,..,"; I - J�i�4'j'­­ IZ .� , - . .� � I .1 -. -, � : , i.3. -%:,j 1, I i'.' . - 1. i � . . I ­ . ,� 4. ;_1i..1_�1'1.1.; ­1 ­v_;,� it, . " I it . . , 'i �­' C i� " ''. _- " - .:. z. - j ... 1: _. , ''. i ';. I , �: In- , - . . � o k�,�_ ,,�� i"�. �!;., i .-'--, "') - Id'.."l.".. '", _ �.11-11� I.i � � i I'-,. 1%'�,�!i! ,,j -4*,�*..'�'_�,,I­s I %.. i , � . - -, - J. A I I , , I- 4 , If."V., il: . I � , 14"'i, , , A , " , - _;,L '. , , `.1 "!, " . � .."4­` j - - � - . . . " ., '1% ­I - . �. p . -,) j 4��- * 6. 4 I.- , e " ; 1.� � 1, . I ,� , .� * I... , �.4�� P ,k I 1 ,z ", . , . . I C- I -1 ., i j �:� ." ,­ I A � I . - v '� ­ - - -I f . A, )r - I .- . - ; - i . , , I , � i. . , '. . , . � , I � . : -1� : , : c I � I 11 -A I ­ ' j A , r, t . , , - .i� , ��. r- t., ;t�, I - - - -.1 N I , � . % , - , .- . � - I . 1 - : . , , , . - , , I . . . I I , 11 "� �,,.,;, , I , ,I . � ! I � , � , � ,_ . A, , , . . .. I , I .: , � ;� - - . I - , " - , - , .1 I - . I . , � " - -i I , ; , . . � ., I , j �, . I il I .* .�* '. . . '. � _ . I - • . L 4 I.-, -i � � , . , , j , 1, , i. -1 • . I . I . I a , - I,� ,I . , ;. � .; ; .ji, ., '. i", - i . -,' ,�.. , � . . . , - . . t , - , ,� .-j � �. - - , "i . � i I , , .. t%i, S 7 , � I- " : � " ( I .�, ( I , I , . " �� � . i: . , - - . � � : , , I - ) I �,' , �, -- i 'z - ,., X, v . . - I " :. i.�, Oi t ,, tf-i�2 . k o I-� � :j �)., i - , , - , W, , � s . , � , , � 11 11 I % , I .1) ". , , .- , ,- I I * I :�' ' . , ' , 1. . , , . . 1; ; I I i � � � , . i �, O .�♦ , _ � _ . _, 1.4 "� I 1* , I , - . i . 1 ': z , a . . . I - . I - I 13 I I. '� ,,, . -..;', � I. ,�� I ' � � . . . I j ; ,�., , ig , i" _1 _ :, - • 'r I- I . ,� ` i. i" , 1. ,. '.I , , � . I % , ;I , I t '. ,. . .1.1 � � . . I " I, t, , � It - ;* I, " ��,­ I. .1 - I - � I` It - 41,11, I . � . i� � '. � 1 : . 1 .*, ". iv. , ; � , , I , e � -, , , . 'I , 1, ., , '. � . . ,-'I I , j , " , , , k j , i, - . . " . , z ; .� ­,-JI , . - , '4 ; I ;,, -L;.:j, - � , I . . .i : I � I ::� ,,� - ; 1, " • I , . -, �-�t,�� . . - - �_ r�, ,", - . . I I 1, . I . . , .. I . . i I - . �., � , � 1 i,i " � � t � _, I , - . 4� � - i . . I �1; i� - ­:: ; 1I,1 I . I ; I . I 1, � " . I i , 'I I , I I . 4,ij , -, � , - ,.� Ir 4 . , - � h . . I I : . �, - %�, . .1 � , " :I...­ . , "', , * \ '. o,, 1 I ! I , 'A - , . - : ,� " - " , . - . 4 .1, I . � . . I . I . t 1. 11 I , . * �i -v, I i , , ,III, -i,f , , ." , _ 1, .. , , I . . iI§T' 1 ". ,�` "­�­­ " --.,.I ". �.!,4 1,11 -,..,,t, ,:. , " RAMFMN IM, RICHF=,MN. PLANT . . , , 1 '6�2% , . . ."".. �i--­�­4� IJX,� �_, , .. , J'­tl I- I I ­1 .k-t, -, ­­ , ,:. I . . - . . . . 11 - �. , ; �,., A-,�V­ ,,;(�l-�����,,,��::"":,�kl,z -1-Z., .; I . I , 'i, - I ..'�� .1 !�k_ ,_.. .il_� 4 . , - 1,­"'s,:.141�- 1z,:: , , - ( -I �4 t.v__', : f� .!:;�tv " .-�', 1; � ;. - I . , �;, i, �, :J�Ai;_V,� --, .." ,"'- I - - .,..4: .'-�_ I' � !:;e4I... I ";.. I . �, I 04 ­11"l),i-4:­. . I . � , i �,_ --% ;.. �! , 1; 1 I k w� 1. , 1 � �". � I:; t, i (- ., �.._.11 4' -Vi-p.. �,illfo,'�O­- .. I .1 , jA ... I..�"i';, i.;'4',: , 1. . ,I �-- - %,i t�i.Z`All I 1-411,71iaWf� -.1 A-i-, � � � i k i ' The following is A list of plant material proposed , f6r­ landscaping I- " .- ` ." - : Hm t '' V, � i,-K';' L416 11 I , . th, - , e, p on, ��,,t. a, - - , ` , " - . . . .�� 71 .",it­--­, . f-.�il"-,.,.:!.Il�i�.).�,..�%,��i,,,;/,�Ni�'t . . �­ . 4.�''v - �r I i ... , . .-I '�­ .I t i - ,�!i .�, �. ,,-'I � Vj,?,�f j Al I I* , i . , i ,,,� ., F.., )1,,:. � , 115�- , , -. (. f .,Z .. i�".*,;,�_ .1 " ­­ :'�-.ikl . . I", . I � 10iW'.it I � � � � , . . .ii i ' " " Inn,' lUchlield3 M -� , , .X , , , I ;. - " �'11 ,�,� - ".,.- I ;,.1ij.'i i�w,,,_ 'I, , , , , ., % , . I .If 1, - .1 � . , , ,,� �', '. ,,,, , - , . I *A �� ',%-, � . . k , , , " 1. " �'.. .i;.i,if �' , , � , - , . _ - - - I .i. 1i I I .. i -,� " t ,.,�-' ,.; v , I . I - I � , 1i ��.,,,,v ,� ir ,� !I v , , ", , , - . . i ,� , .� ,;� h � . " ,; . " , '. ,-. i , , � k�V, i -�..A , , " " ,, I " I,I . . � - . � . . I ,4i. 1�1 , � ,�r 1", � .1 - - i , , " � .;,r* - � . - . , . .. . � - . .1 ., � . '. '$1,' , % - A , >, -"ii ..-, - re", ;.!,�, � A I , � � , �1 , 1, , � ­,�i!-�J� � - c- - - ii i I -, f - , I , -, V� .,yv,5-: � �i,*�,' $&�, .�i,,;f,�, t K-4 , . . ., '. , � i; 1 ,I') ,� ­, r, wl � , . v.3 I * . , . , I . I . " ... 1 4 , .,, , 'V, . 1 A I 0%) � � . , ,A ., -, .. ; , _'-, , , " I i ? -,"4 A r %k ii ,f "', k. I V I - I , , ',',%-:' � . I -.11111 �i � "I - . if ! " ,,^� I I , " " ., . I VIA., "'�.4 - , . I , ,­, I ­­ I14JAA, .. t 'i, .�". . I .,. , I 1 i'l T, - i zj'� . . . .1­t-11_'A i , ! -11 - - 1, �,' � . ­ .1 * I - -1� i - 11. N � -,i �, 1. I '. , I .� ,i- I 4% , .,!,'� , , .1 I , � . , t, I i! I I, . , . , . •. � ., t A , ) I, I- , P ."AII j, .. 1, 4 '. -'. t. , - , . . ..� , .�� .J., . , . � . - - , I ., - ` ", " , I , � 'I , ;, V vl I i �':, . 1,G '�,'� . �� ..�; � , �� ,� 1�;�-.j .."i ; v., -�, , ` . � , . k I t e . - T. O :4vA. � ", -, 1, p, . I 1 1 . Ail; '' .4! - 1:*Y1 . "!"'V,111"? "Is . ?. I ��;; - �'- "..4; 1. , PN 1. ", - W� DeclduoLis Shade Trees It', ;� 1� I , �ku�, � 4, , Q. .. ...; ­ . 1,j� J'(v't " .,­,%_�,j _ I... - , ..., v k - ,��_,� -� ­� � .. 11 - . . - 1­ ' _J�,,�i-.t 's _A­J�:,� K � � 1.1.�11­ �- ., . . .. . I I .". , �,, ,1 I %,�, I, - I I , ,7�1,�',.'?�j !­� : # - . . .1 I '.. ...- ­ ­A­ " I I -Z, -,- '.. - "I ., Q, __ '. - �i' 'Marshall's Ash (Flra3dnus i ' ' " ' ' ..1.4!- .V;�', �(_ I - I ::.!L1Af1 ill'_­,wi,li . - i:: ;Cj -1�1f' I 11 .. PennsylNiAnica,land6olata: ,14arghAll")-.41" , I k,., , . �* , �_ . *: .1. ).-Au" - . , ... , , , ­ ­1 . I � -, • - �, At I ­ I'% , , 1 1. - -3,0 fie Sat t-1 -*�,� "'i - - :4 ��I . , Li, � , t 11 ­%Ii I-- 444�.-�,4W. :1 *' - " " � i - I .Ii,�"A;�,�&K'. `V ,� , - - Sugar Maple (Acer Saccharum)-21I cal. 'il��N:,.,�'ji',"�j;,_ � �� it!) .,.;,�, - I . -, , 1,,.� - - _. � - . t.�-�',klfinj,j;'aa,�-, I - i i �. il- I " ♦ y lj,�,4.j., ,,,�,.-. I 11, �;O i � - - - . . � . _% I" I - ;.I - , 1-i o.,;Ai� li.�_41,.A:W�. Lo" ' ' 1jD ,*, " 1 60 ... a - . , .. 1, #-I �' , * , , . �_z , ;-1 ;,"- �, 3 * " �' Imperial cmt­(Gleditsia triacanthos . , ITTpetial f) (Pat. , NO I .*.' I )_ I '1� � . " . ''.1". - . ''.11. A.1;.'? � � . . '' , , j i� .1 I i+t, - �,,;.­ _�, �i - - I � .. I. 1. . " - ;, i A, 4 - , . , - . � - - '' . -f. it, A- .� i- � �. - � �ikjtlf-�:�ni� , .7"_., -,.! '. 7� . _ � ,�' j ' , "i VZI �il " i 1, M It. , I "; , , V `� !��Z�H,V� 4: !Q0 �,i '. . , �, ,klU`�%".,j, NIA" .. 4 _11., .7%, 11:� .:. 4; �1 . !" VAV' ,j,,, - - A� - �_ hUt -&+n�.!, �­ .. - A 1, - K,!!i�,K. 7, ., - -;,;�, -I.. f, P I— ­ 14.0, , ,A' .t�� 14 .�.,A,'�Iv� . !M -1-47 O"iAM ,. . �'��­ 13- ; L:-VZL r,L V-t:!L L Lrt!e-S ' ' I i q I, A 1, S -�-11-4-ek 'v-11"'i-I i-N 6A i ;5"At VAVI'.;'�F%14­,.P.�ip it.-i-a'-va ?4'vj',%Ff1 .1'��%'--�Af,0153 &, i �,*Orl � I 'd , i , , "j, � - , ", .. 1 . I . , . ,t., I � " , : , . i .�i - . - -1 , , t"4 . � im . 1 , . . . . � I' -, , ,_1, ., 4- ,�, -,0 - W. ,i-. I - - ' ' ' I ,-. �* , , I *; ?, . - , - , I � .1 . . . I . , - M i , I , A , �- . I I - � ,,, 4 i I, �. .(� I ,,, ,ti - A .. , �; , N .� I -i , * - - ' , ,� - ;�j�,r;'�'N,'(j,j�`�4.,�. Colorado Blue Spruce (Picea pungens glauca) 8 ft - A � I. _� I - I , I , _. ., _ 114 . ?I t-1 �.., , �', -% t,. , - "Y. ,�.-. -,., ­. 1i -3', f - " ,f I. �,t,.�Z,_ � ��_:, ) 11 � '. ,A,i4' � �, I ` 2. -Black Hills Spruce .(Picea glauca. densa�a)-'8 ,)""'��.�- , � , I.( _,$ 4 ­. 4 .1 1, 11,�4­ ."; k, , , " , ,, I, ,. - ft,:111___;�I�.'17'111i , � .�tl -,; 11 - p I . I 1. I I . 4 - � .. , , �, � , - . - , I . 'A ., , �.__J'i � '.", ', ; P � 4.� � - I I . , . . . -, 4* ,;� :� .­' ­�� .�t "... . t I ,% � - � - � ,I I : � . , , j , , ,�� � ., . I.; . - , �,�.j A, y � - o I - jl- - ,� I I .-. 1, I . I , � -,--. I .* , i - ;I I :. I i . I 0- . I,, �. :":?� `.;W1 � .�, I 0 �fi.k tP., " '-IO � • 1- lili , :i . �:� , , I ,, _ , . - � - -, �,­_ i k I ��VVVI ", 9"d *4.4', . .:�.Ak ,; I ( , . ., � � ,;,� , , -1 , i "I �fii'4 A-1- - . . 1 4 � . ,1 � - . - I t t i ­� o . 1. ; , }' v�', � , , � . I , ... ) ""t , - .- '.,� - .-. .Y,., , - , , . . .:, W411tf N, lo QVIW,,�; q "". , , '.. -, 4 , i I " � ,.-� 4IL 14,v­-, � . � , ,; k" - - . �Ixl I 1 'yl .,;��'�,O - , � � 4 , - . I . O . k i , . , ,�_ , L r, . I !;��,Iji, -g"?,"Qi ; 1 . I .., I I --. 1, - -,- .� - , ��'-i,.,­i A., . , ., � )i :,4, " - .. ',.Ornamental Trees ' "' �,­ ' -A "' ' ' 1�r -"-`-'i�,1r*._'1 V!:%_11.�If I F-3 . �, "', , .1., .' it k Al -� A ,-, , - 'i - ; `� " , � 1, _­ '.,A-#* ,4-W­)*_ t��P;A%t'j,� . .. , . , ... � ' �' '."" .�� : 111,4"'k-ki q; W� -.1 , � : I I �; � _- I , - i . form . , ,­ , 'L 4 ' , , .( � , � , lfl-Ai4l �V `,t-t'i� ,,ii". " .-: . - - " ' i " I i . - - - _ I . ,-, " , x; . . . . . ,Ao; -41 �, Paper Birch (Betula 1, " � .ji-I � .. , -'­ ... I pApyrifera) .c ump -�-:l 211 Ca I 11 . . 11. . . i'l . I, . . - - I .. . (" .!' i � ,., , "o - .,.,. ,, - , `-1: . ­-1, " ..- ,. � , ." - � � . -1,1.t.1111 11 .,1�4�,,'i �v, . - "t � 1 11).71VI cal. .1- -­_ - - �-.�; � ­� i ," � � I ;�I,; 2. � - Red Splendor Crab (Halos 'Red Splendor ti�.J+�.�,­j Wilk, It, ., ,. 14 - �. � , ... I � �, " . . I . , r � � S, O.., .."?!, i. " I � I , ,,,,,' � , � - "I r, .. �, ­.� ,,: , - -� .. * � .. ­,, - - . - " A . . . . . j"i ' ' ,­� 4 "I.; , i ,.,. , . .. 4 I:- - -Canada Red Cherr�_(Prunus virginiana "Shul��') 7-1-2" �al." �,,� . ;� ,� � ....... � - I' "' "3 " , �, ,I � .. ql�t " . V­­%41��t I ­k" � . �. ,I. 1 � . , . 14 . ­i; � , �, , tl .? t! W: it I .:�� -,I."-." v ­­ . .... .e­­ � ;,,.4,V.1411j�f,'Y�:-�!, 'I - 1; i i -.i J'.i , k xe­-A,�p.,AuIl,� ­4­ .. . .I:A�C,4 , 'm ;.,.,i `�T_,q4 V`� - 4 , -`t 'I' 'j, - ` -, ,!., 1, i­',t, mi'v O I � !; �'.'�i " , 1, ,,; �,O i�i,i� i,jj � _. i - �, . i I , 1 1_1�1. 4" �,V�-J'jt,7 �.­i ,. 1. .- . " 1 2! . _1 .�, � ir ,.,- . -, 1. flit, y , t I - _ �� ­ .. I �(pl lqr�!�i:-'­V ,,:,-, , 'Ll x­? , -, ­'I I il, lftmlvrl.l"Vt� . . , I - I� ?-,". I 1: . . -, 1, I I , * - ,­ �.�4 - Ij� i +, .k. f . , , I t 1" �-' -- I 1, ,-A . i I , i v - ­ - y.,­ . - i-`. -.4 V 4 k, % i . I . � � I,- . I i � i'V�11:1 � -, , . - ��, I '.. w,.k I I I ,_. : - � , , , . - ' 11 � 1. . � , , ,!. '! .. - -� , I , X i 11. i I � , lb� � - ' ' f7-. c"i A I 'I �,"�" #Y I � '� . ci Sh37U.bS � . .. - i,,141 I . ."-i,.�j1,­,,00f,'J!', �c N I" , "I' '�' "' . , ; 4i;i _-Yvq.i'­ , . . I . , , , ?. ;"-, f.'?4%!,'4 JtAV.-� : k-, A � A 1 A .; c , , , . - � . ' .' " � - ­ � - '. - : - - �, : I Pot , , , I-1i . i I +. I - - �, I t1*.,;...Pi!.i1t­1. - Japanese Red teaf Ba:z:t,�ri:3�,(Berberi'tt��rgi atro 'I . A J­ 4 , � :­i, I , , s . . . 4 , . -�a) 46t'� ' � I , , purpur . - - '�;,�, I k ' ' P:. -(, If ,$_. 1 L8� - . , ,,�.. .- .. � -. 'I'k- .. . . � 1, , 1,1, - -2 • � -Purp - - - .r'v�it,�� �,-;1114,�� ...., � .. . le Leaf Sand Cherry,'(Prumis x: cistend) 'Pot " `4�1`d, ,'.f fi­ ,��:g -ji,-; 4 .Af�.:.�Ii;_'* - - , � . 1 14. VA . � . 11 j ��_ " .11.� , . - , , , -] �, , , ; I t A IAV,pA_i 11 it . W01V. - , _ .1 vj �..'..',.. ,;... _ �,,�,`,I,,, 1��)�-�4. t t�.*;, I �5 I-i:y"i" �U,JA,,k�A, 1 "� *aA3.. Amx Maple � (Adergirniala, , Corrpactall).-Pot"�',';'�� v..., ,,�,!� ... I . P 1.11 - ti . . .. _,-').%;,, I . `7,',� '" . - I I.-I. I..iz:,.;Ii-,�.���V--��,��r.��i-�".;" _ N N I - , 4.;j,:I, 1, f � . . , !, I _11KA, � �4 f il't- - - winger - " 1 --�r , .,.-,., 1 , , . , d ­�o� 4'. 1 Wi k'-11�,A�1-j.j �-).J'j,�4 � ''i ,;-V�; . I k TI" , I A.i ., y ..N;T, . . - `;,)NA1.?_."i`,",A, 4AM- --;':-,--�,,I�N ,,,�._y!" ., ... _ It - I , T11 .1f_ ­­ * ,v �.":� ; , . I . , ­,. .iijt io.4- ­t-, - ­ ­�11,',,It,�,,S�Ii­ % - I I "'I" _(,, - �.�;��.,�ri,t-,;-,-"4,4,��l�4,, � I �;Ilq �,4 I; 4 (.-. 4. ") ; . - V . - i �� , • I ,,"..,:,,,.,,,,,,�,(EUonym(is alatus) Pot (" , ,;,., i, ,4."' � � �,.J,�w�j - .., ,� _�4.",),,' . . .t , - - i, t �� 2, =o�' � . dA .11 ,., . . ��Z, � . -- I 11 '. I _. ,�'IYI� - "_� 4 , i ,;�,(,. .41 . I + �-­tA F'lf - 3'. V�l ;',I -41' _ V�S. �;,. 'i i I ; ". V - "" • .� -�j:r - "'j,j, -:i';�,` _ �� :. , ", .kQk, Imi, �yV. " ." I I— � �'. � �� i?"" . 1, ,11., I .k. ,'G�'+i�_�,., - t;'; t, � - r. �i " i �, � 1:6, ��,,ii iqt� �V - � "...",!I -,,�- , w­ . . , k .I.P.I.." t .- t,j' y 1 " " I , 1 4 ­­.P'., ­�, "., J .P,%�Gi, ., I Evergreen � .­ * "AW, I . ,­ ., _._ . I , tf�; I . ;', _­­v._jt�jl1j1'j . - , � , T .,A .,I a ,16 ,P A A i�l en Shrubs` ) I V.'A, 1 - 1, . �. , ,� .Otff 4xi I �,�--., ij ,,� I� j, 111W _ik C%, 4A 4, I � ; M fN .414" W I -A " v-k , - � � . . - !! _�,__V%�iA'114_'�,�-:1.,;, _ � �� I . , -­ I -1 1. M. . r ., - ' ' " " " I " ' "' * ' )� , ; t .1 , � ' "I .'k ... V . �J. '. �, Savin Juniper ,+(' '� �,,11 !i. - - .11-ni". _? I : I '. iuniperus,�abina -'Po�.,�'- �-�tl­'I'A.Y"I" - �j�,*O­J.: ;.., :_ 1i ". � . I % I , - ,( zill �;, . " I ,�� i i. - , " - -1� " -j! �j i­�,',� i�?' 1. " ., -� ­ - 1 N ... . _-2. Tauton Spreading Yew (Taxis 'XmediAj-r-yL;,.,.,.ji.1.�!' ',­,'�,_j �k':Z!� � , X­1y"j­_.,z - , 11'.. ., � - I; � ,,, � - 4 -i ftv . '1.%7, *' I , , . - � - 11 I - � " 11 I i � I-� �`�-'- .? I , I'll. . .71- I' i �, ­� '.... %, .. - I � It W; I , . , 1 .1 m , 11 . - I , , . i �. V.44 . � I �,Z; .11 _: I , A It � �. - -, "' ,.' 1: .�'. �' � ,�i 3. ` Techny Arborvitae ,(Thu'' , , . f---t -t�, , . , ja occidentalis .,'TecjUj3e,) �6t - I .. Af z._ , , .it I 11..t" �.. ', 'A ., , - ��( , I ­ - i;,-',. �, ',!'!�­ I � 4�.�:� " ��l-Azi�l-,�.,',J�s�L:%,,�;',�l�I '�, 1�":'11;1"-�11 i,;P, . _!J��; , , .1�'. ­ I v . . , , , I- k . ; � . . I 11�444A; I" �, , �W I A, - ,_ i ,� � 1��'111 111 A, NIAI �i.,� �!'._�- ,,, . 44 V41 , ;, � 1 A V I . ­ " � i v % 9'. L k. t "u, � �. �� �, � k . . ;, " 1 ­7 ", � ..-i, : �­-., t­%_l I- I 1­111 .. .�'l � - , . � .) 'i­_­­: ",­,- b-C.1�111_ Ir ­1­1111'�, ­_`IV,� 4, , . �;�116-1_%.A' iM,14j, �i, I' � 1, , I . . . , , . - 1j, Vl:.�, ,. , " �'!,­,� ` , , �,,'�.�,�,�-.�,,--,ki-��",�,.,��,�"4 .111. t - - .. _� � - " . , , � 6,z iir.,�'_ � . fi�� �. .. . ., !,:: 41, � �f. - . � v�� ,f, -­,-k,­-. 0�11tf;IifL,)'I -, Z ,'..I - )j T"f"_,* � �-,,!,f­3,!r �,-,4`,j!� , , "" , , t I .1 I I., J4 ",j); I I'd, ��-A-W'?"t;.APAX,,­ , . O � � - ��',�., ,�.,; t 4t�'.' .-� !tk,,.­ , : .. . , - T ( - �":' -".,�r.i','i,.�,..t,�l)"k,�'-.t-.; . e , � .. . � : .. 6r, ay. .. � I I , 1 X.1 I,. , L K Ywi; _�'111 , ��;-x,� ".,V;,., � , .'', '11­'.-­�­'j�,�:Vbii� , ' I _ `, ,< 4�,, - r , - .�, f "I .. Y .L44i:i,,,1, ,,�'.-�Ij�,s ..'.'j.1�,.?1-V,, k1-1-1 � .I.- I I . ..I ., -�,,C,,I�,-j,.I�rs-..,:!;;t",,,,�,2,.*,!*",,,�)t-*-�,-i,!,�'N �' -�O-,4�4,,­�`- _4�5,Lill. , - .., "ei '4V -A if,i� Sr � � I . , . - � I ,_1 I �. , - , , .4; .0- 1� -, _1 I .. OW,j�,:�,) ',A � .k, - A , j;�-;,ti,,,,k`i­'ki!;� 1 . . , .1 . � ,., ,,, _�, I :� I � I j � a j;;'A .; Iii , "!'d, 7: " , , 6 - .. �01-j.t:.­�-,f�jf I L, .. - . � ­ �. " 1 I.' '' i "., i: , - . - - � %, t .,- " , N,� �,;.iu, '! ­1 I 1, -jtl�_..j, . , i - .." 11, . .I 1, . I I �I: . . I . ,it. h,1.-4j �- ,-!,�. , � , I... � .-- - 11, _. " . , , _ 1, - ',, 4.,_ "I. I i 1, A I � 1;� 1, ,"�j �,v � 3 � �..i I I' � I � ('� , . 4* "', � �`A : ltlll�, � 1�1� . :�, --I t� i .. , - - . "., , ­AI, _10. , - -;, I-` , -� --1 �, - ., 0. , � ... . .,�� I ".. , - .., " . 4 " -. ,J i " . . i I , . _. . �4­_,.�i.i�;f I I, k i ,_v fair � ,'!� , .. � . ._.' ,� ;. 1�4:9­_ i .1 , - " ,54 � , . ., V. � A. " �11 k � .. Noi, � I 'L _�' ), I y - I � . . I P-- - ,,,, : ,4.. f I �Ilkt - I ".., .. t - i % , ,i "t ., ( 64, , j I � , j, I , - - i. z , - , . , . � . - . .. ! �� ,� f, C �- - � -. ii, �. I I, �, ­;�, 1, - I � � I, , . -,, 1 . . t � , , - , �;, _. ( < }4i; , ,.,,. " , , 1. . . . , . - , ". , . , I . . , I i V i + . - �, � , 1­�, I.. . .� - '. ­1 " . . - , , " k 11. ; " % *' - I . . . ­ .. - , i - , _)�. " - " � - I - . , , " , - ,,.j - I ­_ { _ .I,. , ji > 4 , , N - I - � l'.i�, 4 -, I � . , , �, �,� T, , � I 1. lo _ - i ,� k � .t - . , , ­1 t , I, -, - I _�-­�,,,; - ,.i . . , . . , 6 ,0'r , 11 i i - , , � 4, ". -, -,� , " -.'I . , , I I' ... �jtT . "� I t;� . � . IV" I L t" �.- Z ,� ... & �' I -, I I , ,". '_-, , , ; i -,.,., -+ 1. - ". - . . , , , I - , , 'I -4 '. - " .4. . ;,4 4 . _­�i- : : -it,,��." -Z J,ilt�v.,A-J,�,.� �-­qrj-�,,-.�:; I' '�' "f �i- , �'..... - , , , , , .". a� " " � ; �. ,, m4' �' , . � ;., � - I 0 V. , � , . . . ", , . . I . . . ; . . .!,_t�, .1 - - � , . ... - � , . , " � I. *ir �, :_ I , ,J%.; . , � r - 1, � .,I , . - ,� " 'I , : K.".. ,�.! � .* .s! , , 1. , , I . � {,1f -I �, �. �k o. I v- � 4 t "; I , ,� � � , - � -1 - `4 X'i -- . ;, .., � _� , it A , .--, ,­�, A � , . � 1� ". I , � I­ . V_� . . . . , . . , , , - I � .. I., .�. , t"', 4 'A , , � , , . � . . � - , I , - I . . . - � .�, .., . l ' :'.If, L 7, I 1 )4 , _j - '. . . ( , , " , � -� . ­�� � j ; J� , . � " ` t , , I �. � �-. , *�_, i. � I - . _. I I - . t, ", � 4 I -_�­ i., kl. k) A.1 .3 ,� , " !A, i. t '4' ,W !+ 4.'.i, .,:- � � I, , 1, - I.: - ".+ . I - ,� % , . , I 1.4`1 11 � 1* I ; : C:iI.:--, " i - , . . '. % � L -, , - , , � 4. I'll I i. � - r- '. I 'i _�Z� i_, '. : 4 " ii,; ,v �4 - k �' - '. - ,­1 1 -, . ,z - ,I '. , . *j ; . � . - -, *� I, , ., .. , I - I . t I , I - � I . . I . .. I , . . . - "I i � - .;!.- .i - I - � I I )'r" '. C. 1, i, - - � ...... :I,, � , � I , , - - .. '... ,1 i. " 1. 4 �)­j � � - , , r "I" , , I , .. ) � . .1 I I - f sw ..4.11 1. � . � "' , , - . �,Ii­,- � % :Jy-".. '. "­ ­ , ,+' .. I -,AT ,�i, .- y � I t­ p . . .� , - - ­` . . , + . - . . _ . . ... � , , 5i,f,�', , � . . \},1 , , I a I , I , , .. , 'I ,,,',� � j I , ., � . j� v I �', - --, , . I 1 -, - .. � ., i _ . I , � , ,� , � " L , 1 v., , I � " �+: -, " ,. - i , . - I 1. i ,I . i , .i. . t i; ��z , ; " i � " 1, : .. ;, ? -, A .1 - , . ,, � " . : " - , A, ` !� - - -, a � 'i I . . j i i " . � . , �, .. , - , . , � " , .. I " . � r is ! i'-�rl "- . I � '. A . : � 4 1. 1, I I 1:91� i,v`. - eig , . * I I �,i - , .,.1 4. i k i 4 _-,'*,,� . _ I .1 I.. ... 1; � , ",;.11 � I � I" , ' 4i.. � . 4 I "A �. L I K. .1 *1,-,,. - �,- -� %,� ,--. � ., - - ,. I � � . . ::, �,. - " . � q. 1, - .. i I 11 I , -, I 1­1 I , I " " , . ,­' . k, I .i� . . - t . �, - � - - ,, � . .: ; i i ,-,... .,�� �, \ 11 , - , , ,t .� � *., . . � ), 'j �';`4 . : � � I ' , . , . . I L * ' I ' j , . , . �, A � .. c , ; . . . � I .1 '. i 1 j �.'. � � I - � � �� ,� ,"�. , _ , , - '. �-, I . ­ :_- , . - I j I!.- , . . , I : �1.�, , I i ; . I I , - , . , 5";, . � I . , ;,I . . I 1. - - ': ` . . ,; , - , - � , I , . I I A : *N.1 '. "' , I I �., . .I . I t �� - - .- , - , . - i ,.: ". r . , -11.1 .. " 4 - .0 - � . - i 3, ., � I ! 1 1 Y . , . I, �, : A � ; k , 1 " " � . .. 4 : : : - I 111 I - , .it I A vi , 1 1 - I � a I I z � � " . I, � � , , I .. ,, . . I , ; . .4.­,.40.��- � ­J; ", �� _ . - . - . : . . , . I ,� �4 1 A ,rm '­r, . - , : - t I . 1% _.�, � I '.,.: f;.a � . L ) I , P, . I , , ­ f , i. - I I , -­ i - I I � ... ­ ". .� ... ;......, , " � ' , J, __ " '. .1 * , ., - ,.,..,A, , f­'!,- 1�1 , . ;�_ - - -- ­` 1i , . - I, i f'� -, I'..'-A .-Ij, -ir., 1. , , - - ''I"'-" '�" -- . , : .,;�+11_ - , I , , t; " ;�,, %. " � J:, , . . . .,, '� 1 0:, ;".; . ".1, ... , � I i �,­., �­­,, , I, - I ,0,, 1'� ., � . . . , f 4." i .- CV_ . ....., , � . , ..,...... �., , ,. I "O. ". . , "..'_.. . . 'D. .11 I . - - , ItIVIV� 1_4 �..­., , �:.-;i­ , , , + t�---:w-, _k, I":�l _.'�.,%� 1;-�,'_-, +; � ­1 , � , , - I ­,�� N . 1, . ,j'.+,I--s-1., :% ­,.�.17:� , ,,I, ", , 1,1.�� ". 1.4:..-��i. -,.-,,-i- ,..:j_.`�',­,4,✓ �All : -, f­� .'-!� c- I .��'.".,i-ii4i��,,�--".;.I-�l- .�-+�_­- `�z` ill I f, I-,,, -,,jjk,- ­!, 'j,'" _j­� .11, !�� o­ �-,­­­:,+�,_' '", . -, _;�.k,�j , . �, j., I r - +', - �;' i , ' i- , . , ­ I . "I. " �-, 4 _,i_ . i'.,_ :'� , - � -, --:.! � ­­ � , ;.�._� �":� L C � -1 � � I _­ . I,. I...,. 1, V, � - ­ . '. 7� ­� ;­- . I , f. - .4 , � �, .. I - I " - .".- I � �.,�., V. -f _,­1 � . 'I � ,_ i - � �1­ .I: -- � � .111­.___. I . - . . ., . � . _; � -it � . ­j;� -. _. .I... '-. .a�,.-j , ­. .1 ­­.­ .-I'­­ '? 1­:.,- 1.--,.-,';.-� . - 1. f ... �.. I I " I � , I ­V-, .i , !'. t . , i ;I .I. .'I I . � '. ­"*.,�� " -1­ -.1i - I I .� -...+ I. ';'-, �?.,.-., 1. �:a - ': - : - �, , , ­ - � �, I , , I - I 1. ., - I-- I."..., I . , 1- , .. - . � I :+ i �': . q. "., 1, : ,I .... - 1,1 . - �i,'�. - ­f 1­i "". ... ­ .. ), -­­­�I,tv11Ik­­.I �, _ � �.� . ... I . I - 1, - - 4__� , , .�: , . . -- /..�,-- �_­ , .- - ;,_ . I ; I _ �;., It 1. _ � , , , - _� 1: , ICII � I - k, F - - -,,� 1. . �. " .. _,,­ i I - - . I "..'; ,�,;�,�,,,�",�!l��,;,�.�.,�..'�;, �! ', . I .'� I . I I-. v ._i, ',I .. 1, , , , . : - :�, _. I . " � ­:'k i ­\ � - 11 + � - �:.. - I " " ,��'_ ­.­', e­­, ',, f - . � • � JV,.­::�-�)�A..-,,� I _. , , i� ., ,,, .. I I _W,,"'.%:",,`t! ­_,�',i� " ',I I �" . , �­ , ,,� f-� _, ,;.;.­kr;--" . � , b � � .4 .. , ".., i -. - , - .;,.,- .";,�'?_'. 4' ., �' * ; , ..;iIj . _ i ,.-I �, � �i�,� 1. .,;,-+.I _ I r .�,- ", , , , I W i-o " - '.; �_ - � -, . _i� � .. %­ 1--i i I f . . . 1. ? 1., " ��; .:,..I. "Ix �4I ­­ -&-.1111 . - , W., . 0 ?),.1�­,11`­ '�­ .­ - . L . � , , " , -.;; j', ��.�j�,t._, A. _`� ,',- " �j _ ;. " _- I 1* I , , , - -- . . I - . . I .1 ... j ! . - , -Y �, )� I I , ,,;�j 4.it , , � . �', ", :, i , , , , � V� U, 7 i f -. ••b, ,5 .-'A -,.t,: ", `,-i .-,-- ilia IL ..... ��' , . a ��', I 4.11 � - - j . , (. _. " ­ -1 -1--l-10 - fw", .A?.;I 'ji,tC P-_It .J.i. : _I, , , �', ;, � I . - - - 1. " 4 , 1, I tl� � z . I . I A � 1. . ,-d . - I ".t , I - ,., 4i, " � , " ,� , . 'I+. I -lipl-, -j�­ . � .1, '.. : - . - ,�. 1.�. : ',� , , -- - - - 1-,.�_, I , ;4,4- t , ." ,f � 1. 1� -,4 � � ��­i -A", &,i_ . Q., �: .X � , , .t;,ikj�f�lj'�J�,-A% 5 I . .. _ � , .�: i , �4 1 1 .� " � �,' - . , - " � � 11 , ., ', "" . - " �;­J%._j ,­*� ..", _f;,_:,--,4 ,.-,- : t.. j� -. i! � I v � I � . ., . I .- I . . 1-1 .1 - �� f. I I �,"i,, �-,i -, " Y. ,� �! T�', j��j _� IV'i_�_* .� j' AlItf" ?1­4 1 ­;�� ,' -- - , � . I " .1 -, � 1, a k, � , , �,� -. 4, ". ;, i - ' - ' "A I ti'O'l- v, ir", Z, , - i - ;!'-,i- " , � '4 , . ,) k - X � _j­ � �", � � f, - , - , ,� i -i A ;�, i�.,M,� -, - �J-j , _14.,it'­ 1,;,,': - - ,*A - " . . - �,j ! � i i'tst - A .- ^ " ,I) i.. � - � .; � ,,,�, i"'. � �, i � - .. , I, . �i­.,. 4'. 'I'p , f 4t,lx I � .4' . . - . i,`­ � _1, 4 WN' . - - ',, _J . , , "'.. . 'i - I - � ii.-�'�li!�":�,,,-,,'�-!,�.�',:'-. .;.. I N, _ �t': - . .v4f 4: ,P � ,'j ,�,Y.-,'T Y* !� � � I- , , �. Y.U., 4 - � " t.". ;' i 1, , � , ,,, ��- �,a�,., v -A �i"' -.1 . �".� � � , IV. I i,--j W�w �,"�­­---.'T-ai'��,4.i� IQVIAIXV " �,��iS.t,"�i,�.�'ft'.'�,-,�,-��.-,.�i;l�""�,�i+".', ,_6 :1- .� , I I . I I , 14 Itl I., t� �� I ­.,.+�'. " ., 11 I "', -,1,!.'.i".' � ; '1�' � - � - V - , -,' , " I i�, JW14 1,;_ - , , , . i � I I ' , ` - . I t - " ". i-:2..J . I ­1. 11 at. I .11 � , � ­ , - 'A . - - .,�,j �7 ,,, "i �, 1 i 'At, , , - ,� � : - .!jl 111* I I - I I:., �_�.. ) , � ..z- -1,.1-,4 1 -Xii"i" � ", f , - -�'.' -t. ; . , . � " 11 � ,:� � t:,,,� � 4 , , !A V � I � , , - 5 '.. A I , , �- i" I ,-�. a 'k 4 , I , - �`, p, . , � ; � �� ` ; . I ! ,_ . , � i , . . , ; - , - ,�� ... ,�,� 4 ! , ; - ,�� -Fj�A ., I -, �- ,­4 .t, � ;�j , t I 1 ,: - i " .-'. i , N ; � Zj,Az�'q , -4 �. i I iz- .C�z�z ,,i;" , , , � t":!.. �',,, I - -, � ,:,�, I ", �,-�,,,�,jI,'j " -� :,:"�' , ,� ., . ". , , , I - I. . , , + ! (fpn" � � . O* . 1�1. !, I _�,�' � ,I ,� . . I '.� , , __ ,,� �,4:,t� ,,, ��- , �,.,, - I . �� - 7! . , . , i , - . , , -� - :1,111�.' _ , ., �. . , . 11 � �; M, . .,�,� . , , I - t, I��, , VN,� ".", ,41 ,1, IV- . t , jti - , ...., I : � � , , . . � � . - I . : , ,,,I,. , - ., ; _ :1, ,� �� �,, - 4 ,-I 4,�, -4 -I i 1. I . , �,, , I , �;, � , z " ,.,- - I , , . - , . . . _ , t - , *.' %,- j . , , 1�', C - � � i 'r .� :;'. I - ,N.` I II ., ': 4 - .. " v *. � '. i.I. � .1 - �,��,1,41k�_� ` ,-,,i�-;_ - , - I k I' � :' - ,1.il,�: i �­ , , , 'i -, i, i�l." - � , � - A .. � "'� ..;.1,1_ . 1. I ,.,;. I., Sit i. � , . I - 1� - 1�' �i. .. - & i i '. t, j, 4 �% I - , I ; - ,- VI... � . . t. I -, , 11 ".: • * + � .i �, �: -, - '. �,- -.', �: .. . ( � I -, J. ,�., -, . , _j� i - -i i� " I , . I , , - � , I, ,-I , ,+ - -1 i %­I .I- I - . - 4� . - : . I I .1 , I - , ; -i . 1,1 .!.. ­i' t� "'�'; i z . ._, _ � 4'r- " I I- - I -, �l . , , . . , .i. 1;4 el .. 1 4-_ , �, � � -ff - , I �,mot' j�..,.. Y 11`,4---',j" -,I, ."I.,­ " - . . _ ­Iij�_ � - • - �. , - . S-115 u,. Q, SECONDARY I.D. SIGN SIGN MODEL: P -82 FACE AREA: 85 SO. FT. s•2 MONUMENT SIG�P SIGN MODEL: P -32 FACE AREA: 32 SO. FT DIRECTIONAL SIGN SIGN MODEL: P -13 FACE AREA: 13 SO. FT. 1GEMENT 3ULTANT8 sic CITY CIRCLE �Llt. TM 87214 ENG04EEEV,G OELAWNG FRONT ELEVATIONS SHOWING SIGNBOX SIZES AND MOUNTING HEIGHTS SKIN MODEL - HAMPTON INN SIGN PROGRAM GROUND SIGNS ALL MODELS mKV,5Oaf Joe „O Hm 100 b4 DRAW -0 - JM*E0. ••.wo aTE an 10 '25 b+ Sy + wcETnw.E� u.touo �. wr�G •"'"o"E°" rb K•L-E w • --Y • • 1.._J �J i i 1 1 1 � +I 3.21 & 9 o22 i II 5' /� i • • L (a) L 0 >1111 U M Wt LO LO O 4) E ■ O L O Q O O n. ly,k February 19, 1986 Dear Property Owner, The Richfield City Council will be conducting two public hearings on Monday, February 24, 1986, concerning the proposed Hampton Inn project at 78th Street and Lyndale Avenue. The first public hearing will be to consider an ordinance change to rezone the site from C -2 general commercial to PC -2 planned general commercial. The second public hearing will be to consider approval of a final development plan and special use permit to allow the construction of a 149 unit Hampton Inn hotel on the site. The council meeting begins at 7:00 PM and will be held in the Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall at 5700 Portland Avenue South. I encourage you to attend these hearings and make your feelings known on these matters. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 859 -7521, Ext. 511. Sincerely, Rick Jopke City Planner RJ /jle 3 So Fee -r- o r T+4 E 5 1-re � L_ u s -ro TZ.es I D eN-,-5 oN 45A2FJec-21> A/,/D Fi,E'�2 /ET �1�/P/IUPS /j'eicvteAv 76'�A A,&1t7 7 % t 5T2QeT5 , telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer (Official Publication) f4OTiCE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON APPROVAL OF A FINAL *DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR . HAMPTON INN hearinQ� will bebhold beforelthe City Council of the City of Richfield at 7:00 the ouncil Chambers ofrCity Hdl at 6700 Portland Avenue, to hear rea- sons for or against the granting of a Final Development Plan and Special Use Permit at the following location: "Colonial Motel" Parcel (7745 Lyndale Ave. S.) : All that part of oOf he l SouthwestS1 /4 of tthe Southwest 114 of Section 34, Township = North, RenYe 24 West of the 4th Principal Merl - dion, lying Northerly and East erly of the State IllQhivay, Except the Northerly 106 feet of the Westerly 163 feet thereof. Also that part of the West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4o( r the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34, Township 26 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Merl- dian lying Norther )yy of State Highway, exceppt the Eastlbofeet thereof. All being situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Mln- Desota. jj Parcel"Rainbow 7701 Lyndale Ave. Sj: The Northerly 103 feet of th a tiy tf hlh e of Westerly 1/4 Southwest 114 of Section 34, Township 2s North, Range 24 blast of the 4th Principal Merl - than, except therefrom the Northerly 30 feet and Westerly 50 left for public streets, together with all the HIM. Nile and in. Wrest of Land Ord in and to a certain Easement dated A st lo, 1662, which Is recorded 18 Deed Book 2M7 at Page >a. USE: Hotel All persons Interested in tills that. tar are herebyy aotlfled to be pro"" and they wW be heard. THOMAB FERBER Wob. 12, iu%.ItICHty Clsqk /9 • C, r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 88 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Second Reading and Public Hearing on the Rezoning of the Hampton Inn Planned Unit Development Project. Council Members: On December 9, 1985, the City Council gave first reading to the ordinance to rezone the proposed Hampton Inn site from C -2 general commercial to PC -2 planned general commercial. Second reading of this ordinance and the public hearing on this matter have been continued a number of times and is now scheduled for February 24, 1986. _ _As has been previously indicated to the council, PALSCO, the developer of the project, has had to redesign their project because of'the inability to obtain additional site area from MNDOT. For this reason the restaurant that was originally proposed on the site has been eliminated. PALSCO is negotiating with MNDOT to utilize the frontage road at this time for a curb cut for an entrance road to the motel. The remainder of the frontage road right -of -way would be used for open space and over flow parking if necessary. The land area to be rezoned remains unchanged. The details of the project are discussed in the following council letter concerning the final development plan and special use permit approval. It is recommended that the city council conduct a public hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to the attched ordinance rezoning the property from C -2 general commercial to PC -2 planned general commercial. If the ordinance is adopted its publication will proceed. If the moratorium ordinance expires on March 22, 1986, the Hampton Inn project can proceed. If the moratorium is extended, the ordinance on this agenda (Agenda Item No. 11) that amends the moratorium ordinance to permit approved PUD projects to proceed will govern and allow the motel project to proceed. TIMETABLE 2 -24 -86 Approve rezoning of Hampton Inn site 2 -24 -86 Approve second reading of ordinance amending moratorium ordinance to allow PUD approved projects to proceed 2 -24 -86 Refer proposed resolution to extend the moratorium to the Planning Commission 3 -11 -86 Planning Commission holds public hearings on resolution to extend the ILN moratorium 3 -17 -86 City Council holds public hearing on the resolution to extend the ILN moratorium 3 -22 -86 Moratorium expires unless extended 4- 5 -86 Ordinance rezoning Hampton Inn becomes effective after 30 day publication requirement 4- 5 -86 Ordinance amending moratorium ordinance to allow PUD projects to proceed becomes effective after 30 day publication requirement 5- 1 -86) Anticipated date PALSCO expects to start 5- 15 -86) construction of Hampton Inn NOTE: This timetable assumes that the City Council approves the other February 24, 1986, agenda items dealing with the Hampton Inn project (special use permit, final development plan, and, amendments to the developer's agreement). _ R pectf bmitted, JGC /eja • �- • �— 0 h G. Ca twri City Manager AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield enti- tled "Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended in the following respects: I. Paragraph (9) of Section 3 thereof is amended to read as follows: (9) That area lying between the center 14nes of 77th and 78th Streets and between the center lines of Garfield Avenue and Interstate Highway 35W except that part of such area zoned as PC -2 and described in Section 7 of this Ap endix C. II. Section 7 of Appendix C is amended by adding paragraph (6) thereto to read as follows: �7 (6) The following 2 parcels collectively: Parcel 1: All that part of the West h of the Southwest 4 of the Southwest 4 of the South- west 4 of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, lying Northerly and Easterly of the State Highway. EXCEPT the Northerly 105 feet of the Westerly 165 feet thereof. ALSO That part of the West h of the East of the Southwest 4 of the Southwest of the Southwest 4 of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian 1 yi ng Northerly of State Highway, i;;CEPT t::c East 150 feet thereof. All being situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Parcel 2: The Northerly 105 feet of the Westerly 165 feet of the South h of the Southwest 4 of the Southwest 4 of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, except therefrom the Northerly 30 feet and Westerly 50 feet for public streets, together with all the right, title and interest of Landlord in and to a certain Easement dated August 10, 1962, which is recorded in Deed Book 2357 at Page 33. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of lgg John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferlber, City Clerk • • • Jl) cuuuut�awU captna Jep,. JU• 1369. (Feb. 12, 19 City of Richfield (Official Pablleatlon) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Qlt Council of the City of Richfield will conduct a public hearing Monday, February 24. 19" at 7:09 P.M.-In the-. Council Chambers of City Hall. /700 Portland Avenue, to consider an or- dinance u rezone the property le - catod at 7741 and 7746 Lyndafe Ave," . Sae Boat& from C -2 General Com- merelal ts PC -11 Planed General Commercial. The propgoed Sae of the-. property Is a 141 room Hampton 1*a Hotel. The property is question IS described as follows. "Colon ►al Motel' Parcel (7749 _ ' Ly*dale Ave. 8.): All that part of the West 0 o/ ' the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Sectlos 34. Township /S) North. Range 24 West of the eth ' "'Principal Meridian. lying Nor" , erly sad Easterly of the State . Highway. Except the Northerly !SS feet of the Westerly 145 feet ` thereof. Atop that part of the West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 -of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34. Township 29 North, Range H West of !k 4th Prloelpal Merl.., - _ dlan lying Northerly of State ' Highway, except the East 134 feet thereof. All being siWated in the County of Hennepin. State of MMilt- as",,. "Rainbow [*$taxi Prlatles.. Parcel (7741 Lyadale Ave. S.): The Northerly 163 feet of the Westerly 143 feet of the Booth 1/2 of the Soathweat 1/4 of Me Booths, 1/4 of Beetle* 34. Township 119 North. Range f:4 . west of the 41h Principal Mori- dies. except therefrom the Northerly IN feet and Westerly 34 foe1 for pSbUe $trusts. Ienlbor with ail the rl``Y6. title sad In. ,area, of Landc d 1* and a a csrtnle Basement dated AS/a" Is. IM. which Is recerde/ In Deed Rook 11367 at Pogo U. All persons interested In ibis Met- ter are hereby notified to be present and they will bs heard. Copies of the full ordinance may be obtained by calling 4p-79L or stopplag at City Hall. THOMAS P. FERBER City Clerk (Feb. U. IM) -RICH 4-"5 3K -! CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 87 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Requests for Permit for Illuminated Signs at: Minnesota Federal, 98 West 66th Street; Richfield Evangelical Free Church, 1856 East 66th Street; Kayo Oil, 6744 Penn Avenue; and, Penn Avenue Health Spa, 6620 Penn Avenue Council Members: Minnesota Federal At the February 10, 1986, city council meeting, the city council continued a request for a permit to install four single - faced wall signs measuring 108 square feet each at First Minnesota, 98 West 66th Street. The council wanted to know if • this was an increase in signage at that location and if the proposed signs conformed to the L /H /N illuminated sign guidelines. The signs reading "First Minnesota" will replace the four "Minnesota Federal" signs on the building. The signs will be similar in size and shape, only slightly longer, going from 56 feet long to 64 feet. The signs conform to the L /H /N sign guidelines. Richfield Evangelical Free Church Richfield Evangelical Free Church seeks approval to erect a permanent, double -faced ground sign at 1856 E. 66th Street. The sign will measure 8' x 7' 611, with constant illumination. They have also requested a waiver of the $29.50 permit fee. Council policy has been to waive permit fees for certain charitable and other organizations when no inspection is required. Penn Avenue Health Spa The Penn Avenue Health Spa has requested a permit to replace an 8' x 4' double -faced pedestal sign with constant illumination, and a single -faced wall sign measuring 8' x 3' at 6620 Penn Avenue. The signs will read "Penn Avenue Health Spa ". The two signs will replace similar signs reading "Shangri La Sauna ". Recommendation Jn I6� City ordinances provide that the city council must approve the permits for all illuminated signs. The above signs comply 40 with all applicable city ordinances and it is recommended that the city council approve the permits for their installation. Kayo Oil Corporation Kayo Oil, 6744 Penn Avenue, has requested a permit to erect a temporary A -Frame advertising sign measuring 6' x 6'. The ordinance permits temporary signs up to.a maximum size of 12 square feet. This proposed sign will measure 36 square feet. The sign is non - illuminated and will be in place for approximately two months. The sign is a promotional sign advertising "super unleaded gas at unleaded prices ". City ordinances provide that promotional temporary signs may be in place for one month. They are seeking approval to have the sign up for two months. City ordinances provide that the city council must approve the permits for all temporary, over -size signs. Recommendation City staff recommeds denial of this permit for a temporary advertising sign because it is oversize. • JGC /eja • ectf John G . "Ca City Manag �ubmitted, r\twri e . Scale Revisions This drawing is the property of � Drawn By mess NRIGN CO INC Sale -4>e son i' J �y 'I— ate l'-f. Customer Ap�xoval Dare M lnneapolis N 55408 1' state P-* i - <: 612.873-7M M-3 s 0 i 4- s � x V ' .j y { e a a J i (♦ -- ---- -- -- -- r, . Scale Revisions This drawing is the property of � Drawn By mess NRIGN CO INC Sale -4>e son i' J �y 'I— ate l'-f. Customer Ap�xoval Dare M lnneapolis N 55408 1' state P-* i - <: 612.873-7M M-3 APPROVE F-1 DENY :Citti :tans APPROVE ,�' DE,%`Y . Manager z' S Inspecto / • �� Date Date � 6 APPROVE MENl'Q : 'L�i. L �� -,��� APPROVE DEN :Ya : Planning bepartment Citv Council Date Date �- 1 I Route to above for special approval per code General Si ns APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISIN0 PEKUT City of Richfield, hinnesota Date Zoning Sign Erected - Yes ::o k Fee 3. Address of Sign I;MGr�k 5+, Proprietor Name nty+ Minn' A Sign Ezectoro 171, Address ,'317, W, tQ�, S"► TvDe of Sien De cn Weather Cover Lizhtin= If IlluminatedYes No Watts jj • ���y��� Electrical Contracter-��/�! �' ��dress'��� Div. ��� 7T• Phone Property Owner or his Agent Estimated Cost �G #j_ Sign • Phone Width Heic-ht "' ' total Square Feet 37 3'' / /O.�ZS Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto o: major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. �L- 7 O. Two blueprints of the sign., billboard, or outdoor advertisin_ structure construction p1 "s:� including specifications, list Of materials, and explicit ancacrin,g or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate the premisus" • Wil he si •�, structure, for )s)4 kc by persons solely to the business, instituticn, er activity conducted on . or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over destined for or passing the subject 7-remises' Applicant's S nature a d Title with Firm Phone *:ut:ber G� -7L Date ? . lkt 1' ?iJ� 4 s !�+'• 1YiV�,� i�E�J� 3/83 PLEAS! SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN: LCC .110', SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 `" • W F 14T M1gNf,5 0TA, • Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Te=porary Trailer Single Face Double Face *Sulti -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T M :; 17 Post Clear Lexon x Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered ..... Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors If IlluminatedYes No Watts jj • ���y��� Electrical Contracter-��/�! �' ��dress'��� Div. ��� 7T• Phone Property Owner or his Agent Estimated Cost �G #j_ Sign • Phone Width Heic-ht "' ' total Square Feet 37 3'' / /O.�ZS Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto o: major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. �L- 7 O. Two blueprints of the sign., billboard, or outdoor advertisin_ structure construction p1 "s:� including specifications, list Of materials, and explicit ancacrin,g or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate the premisus" • Wil he si •�, structure, for )s)4 kc by persons solely to the business, instituticn, er activity conducted on . or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over destined for or passing the subject 7-remises' Applicant's S nature a d Title with Firm Phone *:ut:ber G� -7L Date ? . lkt 1' ?iJ� 4 s !�+'• 1YiV�,� i�E�J� 3/83 PLEAS! SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN: LCC .110', SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 `" • W F 14T M1gNf,5 0TA, • APPROVE DElryL +—� City Manager Date -- APPROVE © I)ENY7:� �� Plannin L partment APPROVL llE..Yu: lnspector Date APPROVE U DENZYD : City Council 0 Date 2 io he. Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PER MIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date —&--Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sigma/`,, lG�I� ✓1/ roprietor Name ,- = -Ljf� DBA � z Sign Erector Tvoe of Sign Desien Address 6677Y C!57 Weather Enver LiQhtinr If Illuminated -(Yes) No Watts E rical Contractor /`?j/ v �� �% ' Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature �i/ �� / >` Gl� Phone1/�- - r ' Estimated Cost 0 Sign Width Hght Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Ylinor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction. plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution., or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe a cess by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? /Applicant s 'Signitiur6 and Title with Firm Phone Number ,/jx 7 Date �/`— ,ten ,p.rt °l v'` g PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866-5061 Wall ojecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer /Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T n A n Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon KFlashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors If Illuminated -(Yes) No Watts E rical Contractor /`?j/ v �� �% ' Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature �i/ �� / >` Gl� Phone1/�- - r ' Estimated Cost 0 Sign Width Hght Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Ylinor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction. plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution., or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe a cess by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? /Applicant s 'Signitiur6 and Title with Firm Phone Number ,/jx 7 Date �/`— ,ten ,p.rt °l v'` g PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866-5061 I 'T richfield evangelical 1856 east 66 st free mpls, mn 55423 church phone 869 -2732 February 6, 1986 City of Richfield Dear Sir: This church is filing for a permit for the installation of a new sign for our church. Mr. Howard Nelson, one of our Trustees, indicates that the permit fee is waived for churches. -..,We request.-that such. a waiver be granted to this church. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Cordially, gon woo Pastor, REFC JLE /mkc • P�t�rrq Fct�C C; E I F,73 N7 rr N7 I 0 C 0 0 c 0 t0 M r I Barrier curb 1 LONGFE.LLOW AVE. �-1 Green Area Present Church Green sir Area V � Breen Area I I I 1( 1 i ♦♦ �♦ ""Indicates new parking *'-Indicates °i 1 existing I parking �o 66th" ST. Y7",� • AYFLICATION- FOR' A17VERTISING :PERMIT ` ' R41= ' . r _€ tKCit Y of 'Richfield Minnesota Date 2-10 -86 Zoning w Sign .Erected Yes X r No Fee `u d, 29.50 Address of Sign 6620 .Penn Ave.. So. � t j,: _ Proprietor Name Sandra Cho = °- DBA Penn Ave y 1 Health Spa ; Sign Erector Attracta Sign,. Inc.` Address 6417 Penri Ave. So. Desig6 Weather Cover''?' "" `'Li htill ITrailer Wall ` * , r X Single Face ,- Clear Lexon ConstantProjecting Double Face ` � Ground Frosted . Lexon Flashin Multi -Faced Plastic Covered Revolving . Roof Aerial /Blimp Shaded Pedestal Traveling Searchlight Neon Zip Lite Changeable Banner /Pennants Other Other (Explain) Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors El T A Post White & ue If Illuminated - Yes X No Watts trical Contractor Address _. _ _ Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost 11000. I Sign Width 81 Height 4v Total _.Square Feet 8' 3' Single Faced 24 Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on • the premises? Yes Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe ccess by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No Applicant s ignature and Title with Firm Date 2 -10_86 Phone Number ' 8 66-3 0 4 7 We are refacing the existing signage on this property, 4x8 DF pylon & 3x8 SF wall sign. 80 .- 3 •.�,. i PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH r Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 a ■ f'. 1 i �Jll y i JrAr- J i' ax I j .r. e s ••: S t O ) Y•Y ?vii �t , '', �- Y . � � .) ' ` s i` 10, yy ,�,' V r •r APPROVE a DENT � : APPROVE U DENY X : �� ��,., C',•L� City Manager `��� at Inspector Date Date 'T� �.i APPROV E DE.�'Y APPROVE DENY << t a a . Planning Lep rtment it G _ /��Q(,. --.City -Council Date _ ...� _ ate *Route to above for special approval P pproval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date Zoninf *'W /~ 'Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign �iRl VC S, Proprietor Name / g±4 g- Sign Erectors lr Address? p�,y,y AVM S Type of Sin Design Weather Cover Liehtinc '• Wall Projecting. Ground .,. Roof ' Pedestal �- Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Clear Lexon As Constant Double Face... Frosted Lexon Flashing Multi- Faced Plastic Covered Revolving. Aerial %Blimp Shaded Traveling Searchlight "�'" Neon ° °" Zip Lite Banner /Pennants Other Other( lain) Portable Frame: S' n Colors It. T� A Post If Illuminated - Yes Watts *trical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature �_ .�_... Phone Estimated Cost Sign Width_d_Height_id / Total Square Feet- 3& Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement -lines, or public--facilities on--- --- drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does-the sign co y relate -solely -to- 'the - business; - institut the premises? ion, or activity conducted on krill the sign,''structure, -or'billboard restrict any ..sight distance under, ar und, or over for safe access by persons destined for %r passing the subject premises? 0 CAI, � ii s � � � ['L �! � '• APpffli nt's Signsture- �!!fJ(tIe wit F , 3 �� �i �l0 D Date _ Phone .'umber � IF 8 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 . � � j ��''"`a t of A �r�s r�ier� Ada •C S'9 ,� japw� w� a �� *S t� GROUND SIGy CIO PEDESTAL. SIGN I'DPROJECTUX 4!*,A "X /D;H WIDTH_'_' InT4- LEGEND St1 ftR U9940 AT upursba h joss /* 1J.q Res t • WALL SIGN ----WIDTH LEGEND IUD AM LEGEND T _ ROOF SIGN WIDTH LEGEND rmoui D ROOF �O 41 PtN.y �9v� r i Indicate Distance From The Building Indicate legend on the the reverse side in the space below LEGEND o0N,6 "Mg# rM AUSs1/AlC- % S�y►�/ Place location o ign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any traff' lights within 300 feet. DEFINITION: Mino Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board L.O ( UIDICATE NORTH oc I� LKT /8/83 IC s • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield 3T Council Letter No. 86 Agenda February 24, 1986 Subject: Award of Bid - Water Meters Council Members: On February 5, 1986, bids were opened for the purchase of 550 water meters in accordance with the city's bidding procedures. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached for council review. The water meter change out program began for residential properties in 1983. This current request to purchase an additional 550 water meters is a continuation of that program. These meters will be installed in commercial buildings in the City of Richfield during 1986 and 1987. ___ Specifications for the meters were sent to three vendors who sell Rockwell water meters. However, only one bid was submitted. The specifications as written called for Rockwell model water meters in order to match the city's present reading system. Water Products Co. of Eden Prairie was the only vendor choosing to bid to the city's specifications. Under the program, city staff is responsible for installation of new meters. The adopted water fund budget includes monies for this purchase. The prices bid on the various size meters (5/8, 3/4, 1, 1 1/2, 2_and 3 inch) were lower than prices the city has paid over the last few years. It is, therefore, recommended that the city council award a contract to Water Products Co. for the purchase of 550 various sized commercial water meters -at a total price, including delivery, of $108,295. JGC /eja R spectf 1 bmitted, ohn G. Car wrigh City Manager • • • 31 -�L CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING February 5, 1986 Purchase of 550 water meters and related accessories Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for purchase of 550 water meters and related accessories,-as advertised in the official newspaper on January 15, 1986. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative Marchall Raaen, Technical Operations Supervisor John Thom, Utility Superintendent The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Vendor Bid Security Amount Water Products Company Eden Prairie, MN 5% Bd on $108,295 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the February 24, 1986 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 85 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Bid - Removal and Replacement of Well Pump No. 7 Council Members: On February 5, 1986, bids were opened in accordance with legal requirements for the removal and replacement of Well Pump No. 7. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached for council review. Seven bids were received for this work. The lowest bid was received from Mark J. Traut Wells, Inc. of St. Cloud at a cost of $17,383.31. The adopted 1986 water division budget includes this work, which involves labor and equipment to pull and replace the motor, column and pump assembly of Deep Well Pump No-.7, located at the Richfield Water Plant. Well number 7 was installed in 1978. This is the first preventive maintenance /repair check. City staff has reported a drop of approximately 100 RPM for the pump motor. The Department of Community Services schedules one well and pump check each year. Staff recommends that the city council award a contract to Mark J. Traut Wells Inc. for removal and replacement of Deep Well Pump No. 7 at a total price of $17,383.31• JGC /eja • Re ectful itted, ohn G. C rtw fight City Manager • • CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING February 5, 1986 Remove and Replace Well Pump No. 7 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Removing and Replacing Well Pump No. 7, as advertised in the official newspaper on January 15, 1986. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations Coordinator John Thom, Utility Superintendent The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Vendor Bid Security Amount E. H. Reuner & Sons, Inc. Elk River 5% Bond $18,798.00 _Loyne, MN Mpls 5% Bond $ 22,625.00 McCarthy Well Co, Mpls 5% Bond $30,425.00 Keep Well Drilling Co. St. Paul 5% Bond $25,500.00 Bergerson Caswell Inc. Maple Plain 5% Bond $21,740.00 Thein Well Co., Inc. Rochester 5% Bond $21,086.00 Mark J. Traut Wells, Inc. St. Cloud 5% Bond $17,383.31 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the February 24, 1986 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 3X-1- / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 84 Agenda: February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application Of On -sale Non - intoxicating Malt Liquor License (3.2 Beer) For Lariat Lanes, Inc., 6320 Penn Avenue Council Members: On December 30, 1985, Lariat Lanes, Inc., 6320 Penn Avenue South, submitted a renewal application to the city for their on- sale non - intoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer) license for 1986. The required license fee of $376 was submitted with their application. The Department of Public Safety has conducted the necessary • background investigation and finds that Mr. Lloyd Freden continues to own and manage this establishment. Mr. Freden has no known criminal history. The required liquor liability insurance certificate has been submitted and is provided by the Transcontinental Insurance Company, affording the required coverage. During the previous twelve months there were four Public Safety contacts with Lariat Lanes. Of these four contacts two were of a criminal nature that involved thefts. Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety, there appears to be no reason to deny this license renewal request. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to the approval of the on -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer) license renewal-requested by Lariat Lanes, Inc. R ectfu bmitted, John G. Car wrigh City Manager JGC /eja • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 83 Agenda: February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject.: Renewal Application Of On -sale Non - intoxicating Malt Liquor License (3.2 Beer) For Chuck E. Cheese Pizza, 2900 West 66th Street Council Members: On December 26, 1985, the city received a renewal application from Chuck E. Cheese Pizza, 2900 West 66th Street, for their on -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer) license for 1986. The license fee of $376 was submitted with the application. The Department of Public Safety has conducted the necessary background investigation and finds that Chuck E. Cheese continues to be owned by Minnesota Animated Restaurants. Mr. John D. Tidd replaced Mr. Daniel L. Normandin as manager of the Richfield establishment. Mr. Tidd has no known criminal history. _The required liquor liability insurance certificate has been submitted and is provided by the Blackburn, Nickels and Smith Insurance Company, affording the required coverage. During the previous twelve months there were twenty -four Public Safety contacts with Check E. Cheese. This compares with twenty -five contacts in the previous year. Of the twenty -four contacts, eight were of a criminal nature and only two were of a "bar- type" nature. Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety, there appears to be no reason to deny this license renewal request. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to the approval of the on -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer) license renewal requested by Chuck E. Cheese Pizza. JGC /eja Respectfu City Manager ubmitted, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager 3/ Council Letter No. 82 Agenda: February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the,City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application Of On -sale Non - intoxicating Malt Liquor License (3.2 Beer) For Airport Bowl, 7711 14th Avenue Council Members: On December 31, 1985, the Airport Bowl, 7711 -14th Avenue South, submitted a renewal application to the city for their on- sale non - intoxicating malt liquor license for 1986. The license fee of $376 was submitted with the application. The Department of Public Safety has conducted the necessary background investigation and finds the Airport Bowl a partnership shared by Doris and David White and George Riepe. Doris White is the manager of the establishment. None of these individuals has any known criminal history. The required liquor liability insurance certificate has been submitted and is provided by the Transcontinental Insurance Company, affording the required coverage. During the previous twelve months there were sixteen Public Safety contacts with Airport Bowl. This compares with five contacts last year. Of these sixteen contacts, eight were of a criminal nature and two of which were of a "bar- type" nature. Although the number of contacts is higher than last year, Airport Bowl has always been very cooperative with the Public Safety Department and has, on occasion, requested advice from our department when attempting to resolve various Public Safety concerns. Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety there appears to be no reason to deny this license request. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to the approval of the on -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer) license renewal requested by the Airport Bowl. ectf ubmitted ohn G. Ca twrig City Manager JGC /eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 81 Agenda: February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Aplication Of On -sale Non - intoxicating Malt Liquor License (3.2 Beer) For Godfather's Pizza, Inc., 2 West 66th Street Council Members: On December 31, 1985, the Godfather Pizza, Inc., 2 West 66th Street, submitted to the city a renewal application for their on -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer) license for 1986. The required license fee of $376 was also submitted with their application. a The Department of Public Safety has conducted the necessary background investigation and found that during 1985 the stock of the parent corporation of Godfather Pizza, Inc., (Diversifoods, Inc.), was purchased by The Pillsbury Company. A chart is attached outlining the corporate structure of the organization. Mr. Gerald Baer continues to serve as the manager of the Richfield establishment and Mr. Baer has no'known criminal history. The required liquor liability insurance certificate has been submitted and is provided by the St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, affording the required coverage. During the previous twelve months there were nine Public Safety contacts with Godfather Pizza compared to thirty -one contacts last year. This represents a significant decrease and seems to reflect a concern on the part of the applicant to promote a positive community image. Of the nine Public Safety contacts only two were of a criminal nature and neither of these contacts were of a "bar- type" nature. Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety, there appears to be no reason to deny this license renewal request. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to the approval of the on -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer) license renewal requested by Godfather Pizza, Inc. Res ectVar bmitted, hn G wrig h City Manager • • GODFATHER'S PIZZA OF MINNESOTA, INC. CORPORATION STRUCTURE THE PILLSBURY COMPANY Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN Owns 100% of outstay shares of GODFATHER'S PIZZA, INC. 9140 W. Dodge Road - -- Omaha, NE Owns 100% of outstay shares of GF -PV, INC. 9140 W. Dodge Road Omaha, NE Owns 100% of outstar shares of GODFATHER'S PIZZA OF MINNESOTA, INC. 9140 W. Dodge Road Omaha, NE 0 11 /85 /rb idi ng ding ding 1j:6-cl CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 80 Agenda: February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor. and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application For On -sale Non - intoxicating Malt Liquor License (3.2 Beer) For The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street Council Members: On December 23, 1985, The Frenchman's, Inc., 1400 East 66th Street, submitted a renewal application for their on -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer) license for 1986. The required license fee of $376 has been paid. The Department of Public Safety has conducted the necessary background investigation and finds that Mr. William Snyder continues to own and manage the establishment. Mr. Snyder has no known criminal history. The required liquor liability insurance certificate has been submitted and is provided by the CNA Insurance Company, affording the required coverage. For the past twelve months there were ten Public Safety contacts with The Frenchman's. There were six contacts of a criminal nature, two licensing inspections, one public assist and one recovered property contact. There were no "bar - type" contacts. Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Deaprtment of Public Safety, there appears to be no reason to deny this license renewal request. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to the approval of the on -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer) license renewal requested by The Frenchman's, Inc. Respectf ubmitted, John G. Car rig City Manager JGC /eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 79 Agenda: February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application Of On -sale Non - intoxicating Malt Liquor License (3.2 Beer) For Kenny's Restaurant, 6700 Penn Avenue Council Members: On January 8, 1986, Kenny's Restaurant, 6700 Penn Avenue, submitted to the city a renewal application request for an on -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer) license. The required license fee of $376 was submitted with the application. The Richfield Department of Public Safety conducted the necessary background investigation on the license applicant, Mr. Kenneth Youngblood, and the restaurant manager, Ms. Barbara Floback. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal history. The required liquor liability insurance certificate was submitted with the application and is provided by the Home Insurance Company, affording the required coverage. During the previous twelve months there were seven Public Safety contacts with Kenny's Restaurant. This compares with two contacts last year. Of these seven contacts, three were of a criminal nature, with two of a "bar- type" nature. Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety, there appears to be no reason to deny this license renewal request. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to the approval of the on -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer) license renewal requested by Kenny's Restaurant. JGC /eja pectf/Ciljy_5�lsubmitted, John G: Caletwri City Manager ,M / CITY OF RICHFIELD; MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 78 Agenda: February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application Of On -sale Non - intoxicating Malt Liquor License (3.2 Beer) For Sandy's Tavern, 6612 Penn Avenue Council Members: On December 31, 1985, Sandy's Tavern, 6612 Penn Avenue, submitted a renewal application to the city for their on -sale non- intoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer) license for 1986. The required license fee of $376 was submitted with the application. The Richfield Department of Public Safety conducted the necessary background investigation on the owner and manager of Sandy's Tavern. Debra and Jeffrey Erickson continue to own this establishment and Debra serves as manager. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal history. The required liquor liability insurance certificate has been submitted and is provided by the Transcontinential Insurance Company, affording the required coverage. During the previous twelve months there were three Public Safety contacts with Sandy's Tavern. One was a lock -out and the other two were for routine inspections. Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety, there appears to be no reason to deny this license renewal request. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to the approval of the on -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer) license renewal requested by Sandy's Tavern. espect 1 submitted, John G. C twr' t City Manager • Subd. 7. Investigation and Issuance. Each application may be referred to appropriate city authorities, who may investigate. the applicant and make report to the council, based on their findings. The applicant for an on -sale license or the applicant's representative must be present at the meeting where-the initial license application will be considered to provide such additional information as may be required by the council. Applicant or applicant's representative shall also be present when an application for - renewal of a license is to be considered by the city council provided that such attendance has been requested in writing by the city's director of public safety. Failure to attend the meeting shall be grounds for denial of the application`- for an on -sale license. Bill No. 1985 -9 (6/1/85) Subd. 8. General Conditions Governing Issuance; 411 Licenses. (1) No minor shall be permitted to enter or remain on that part of the licensed premises where nonintoxicating malt liquor is being sold or served, unless accompanied by his parent or guardian. (Bill 1982 -16) 6/14/82 (2) Nonintoxicating malt liquor shall not be sold to or served to any minor, nor shall any minor be permitted to consume beer on the licensed premises. (3) Nonintoxicating malt liquor shall not be sold by any licensee between 1:00 AM and 8:00 AM on any weekday, other than Sunday', nor between 1:00'AM and 12:00 noon on Sundays. — 4)_Ronntoxicating` malt — liquor shall sold only during the days and hours and to the extent that the sale of intoxicating liquor is authorized by law. Bill 1984 -20 (10/22/84) (5) Every place where nonintoxicating malt liquor is kept or sold shall be closed to the_..public between 1:15 AM and 5:00 AM unless the licensee operates a cafe or restaurant which serves food all night, at least six nights per week. This provision shall not apply to establishments where food alone is served. If both food and nonintoxicating beverages are served at an establishment, a separate and distinct room shall be maintained for the sale of food, and if no nonintoxi- cating beverage is sold therein, such room may be kept open for the sale of food at all hours, provided the balance of the establishment is entirely closed at such times. (6) A bona fide club may sell nonintoxicating malt liquor only to its own members. (7) No licensee shall sell or serve nonintoxicating malt liquor to any person who is,.or appears to be, intoxicated. No such intoxicated person shall be allowed to remain on the licensed premises. (8). No licensee shall permit any mixing or spiking of nonintoxicating malt liquor or any other beverage, on the premises unless licensed to do so under Section 11.03 of this chapter. (9) No licensee shall permit the consumption of liquor on the licensed premises unless having a license issued under Section 11.03 or 11.06 of this chapter. (Bill 1971 -4) 2/2/71. (10) Any Iicense'shall be for the location specified thereon only, and shall not be transferred to a different location without the approval of the council. (11) The license shall at all times be posted in a conspicuous place on the licensed premises. , (13) Any establishment licensed under this section shall be open to inspection by the police or health department at all times. 6/1/85 OROINANCE COOS 270.1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA SW-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 77 Agenda February 24, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Purchase in Excess of $5,000 Council Members: The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the city council for consideration. There is one such item on the agenda for February 24. Dump Truck The adopted 1986 budget includes replacement of a 27,500 G.V.W. 1975 Ford dump truck which was fully depreciated in 1985. Through a joint agreement, Hennepin County has obtained bids for such a replacement unit. It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of a Diesel powered single axle dump truck including such options as right hand gas tank mount, air - operated windshield wipers, automatic transmission, hydraulics, painting and various manual from North Star International Trucks, Inc. in the amount of $39,752.00. JGC /eja s AResectfu 1 bmitted, . Car ri City Manager