06-25-84 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 228
Agenda of June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Continuation of Energy Conservation Program
Council Members:
Since October, 1983, when the City Council authorized a
energy conservation program, Richfield residents have had
increased access to:
-energy audits
-information concerning energy improvements
-7 1/2 to 8 1/2 percent energy loan financing for
energy improvements
This letter reviews activates occurring in 1984, and
requests the City Council to authorize continuation of the
program during the 1984/85 heating season and to apply for state
funding that is available for energy conservation program
financing.
On January 3, 1984, a report was drafted for the state
legislature which provided information concerning the interim
success of the "Bundle-Up Richfield" promotional efforts (see
Council Memo ~t9). The legislature monitors our program since
Richfield has legislation permitting revenue bonds to be sold to
finance energy improvements. Since the report was written,
final data on program evaluation indicates:
1. 366 audits (approximately 3.3 percent of eligible
Richfield households) were requested by Richfield
homeowners; •
2. 164 loan committments were processed by Richfield
banks. 57 Richfield residents received these loans. The
average loan amount was $3,170. The types of
improvements most often being financed included furnace
replacement, attic and wall insulation, and window and
door replacement; and,
3. 10,000 pieces of energy related information were
distributed through display racks and 1,000 "Bundle-Up
Richfield" buttons were distributed to residents and
staff.
Page two
• As indicated to the City Council in October, 1983 (see
letter ~~332) the program was to be evaluated using the following
objectives:
1. An audit request greater than the present response rate
of less than 2~ of eligible households.
2. Loan commitments by local lenders in the range of 173 to
260 loans.
The audit response rate was slightly better than might have
been originally received if the Energy Program had not promoted
the audits. The loan funds available to Richfield Banks were
completely distributed by May, 1984. The participation by
Richfield residents was below what was originally forecasted.
As competition for the funds required the lenders to issue the
loans on a first-come, first-serve basis, which left some
interested Richfield residents with no loan money available.
On April 25, 1984, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
(MPUC) conducted a public hearing discussing public utility
investment in residential energy conservation program. The
Energy Awareness Commission and City Council officially took the
following position:
-Richfield supports pilot energy conservation programs that
may be initiated in Richfield by a concerted effort of
Minnegasco and NSP.
-Richfield requests the MPUC to require utilities to expand
Conservation Investment Programs (CIP) to include all
communities in the respective service areas, not just
Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Since April, Minnegasco has responded to our concern by
modifying their Conservation Investment Program (CIP) to
include programs for Richfield and other communties, and have
met with city staff to suggest possible programs. The types of
programs suggested by Minnegasco may include:
-training "workshops"
-"energy bank" home improvement financing
-"house doctor" program
-multi-unit housing conservation
The programs could be targeted to persons with a variety of
household incomes and conservation needs. It is too early to
determine the extent of Minnegasco's administrative and
financial role in providing some or all of the programs.
Recently, Minnegasco and Hennepin County have initiated a
pilot program. City council members and energy commissioners
have received preliminary information on this "house doctor"
program. A "house doctor" program utilizes a contractor to
Page Three
audit the energy needs of a particular house and then
immediately make low cost (between $800 to $2,000)
improvements. The improvements selected provide the fastest
payback in addition to a projected 20-25 percent reduction in
energy costs. A discussion of the way the pilot program is
being administered in Robbinsdale and New Hope is attached.
Staff has also determined that recent state legislation may
permit assistance in financing energy programs in Communities.
The Department of Energy and Economic Development (DEED) will
accept grant applications this fall that will provide Richfield,
with access to approximately $9,000 to $15,000 in funds that can
be used to provide additional energy programs to residents.
These funds are only eligible to communities such as Richfield
who have "community energy councils" (our Energy Awareness
Commission) meeting certain requirements.
To initiate a promotional program in the 1984-85 heating
season, to secure home improvements financing sources, draft the
application for DEED funds, and work with Minnegasco and
Hennepin County on initiating a pilot house doctor program in
Richfield, the City Council needs to authorize a temporary
staff person to administer an Energy Program as it did in 1983•
The Energy Awareness Commission has reviewed this proposal for
continuation of an Energy Conservation Program for 1984-85 and
adopted the attached resolution supporting the continuation of
• the "Bundle-Up Richfield" energy conservation programs. The
resolution expresses some reservations the Energy Awareness
Commission has regarding particular aspects of the program.
The additional availability of resources through Minnegasco,
Hennepin County, and DEED will make the 1984-85 Energy
Program a more comprehensive program by offering more
programs to more segments of Richfield's population.
It is expected that the Energy Aide position will
operate from August 1 - December 31st, 1984. During this
time, the Energy Aide will be responsible for administering the
program that was originally established last year as well as
develop and implement any new programs made available to the
City through Minnegasco, Hennepin County and DEED.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize
continuation of the Energy Program for 1984-85 and the hiring of
an Energy Aide by authorizing the attached resolution.
i
Page Four
• The Energy Program Budget allocates $7,960 for the August -
December, 1984 period. It is anticipated that a portion of the
$7,960 may be offset from the State of Minnesota energy grant if
the City of Richfield is successful in obtaining one of the 15
community grants.
pectf 11~ mitted,
,
n art r' ht~ .
Joh G.. ig
City Manager
JGC/eja
tot=-cu
' JOHN E. DERUS ~ ~ . ~ ?HONE
cxni,wwrr 4 ~ ~ s•4e-soee
K
r
C
~fN
=
c;
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487
June 5, 1984
Dear Homeowner:
You may be eligible to participate in Hennepin County's new energy program
designed to reduce energy costs for qualifying homeowners without any
financial risk or upfront costs.
This demonstration program is being introduced to selected homeowners in the
Robbinsdale and New Hope areas of Hennepin County. We have selected Sentinel
Energy, one of the nation's largest independent residential conservation
.companies, to help the County implement this special program to reduce energy
costs.
The central feature of this project is a-new concept called "shared savings."
This approach allows us to help you reduce your energy costs without using
your tax dollars. Under this concept, the contractor installs needed energy
improvements at no cost to you but is repaid only if and to the extent your
utility bills are actually reduced.
To determine if you qualify for the program and if your home could signifi-
cantly benefit from cost-effective weatherization improvements, Sentinel
Energy will provide you with a free, no-obligation home energy audit. To
request your audit, please return your enclosed request card as soon as
possible or call the Shared Savings Demonstration Project directly at (612)
537-6858.
The results of your audit will be provided to you by Sentinel Energy.
Sentinel will suggest home improvements which, based on the audit, can be
made to lower your energy consumption and will tell you if you qualify for
the Shared Savings Demonstration Project. If you do qualify for the project,
Sentinel Energy will install the needed energy improvements with no upfront
cost to you. As you realize the energy savings, you split the savings with
Sentinel Energy.
if the program does not save you money, there will be no cost to you.
Sentinel Energy will guarantee the quality of their materials and workmanship
and your utility bill savings. Under this special program, they will be paid
only if you save! Since you pay for the improvements by "sharing" with
Sentinel Energy a portion of the resulting savings, Sentinel has a special
interest in making the most cost-effective improvements to your home using
high quality materials and workmanship.
-
June 5, 1984 Page 2
The installation of energy savings improvements will not only reduce your
utility bills, but will increase the value of your home and reduce drafts and
Bold spots, thus making your home more comfortable and healthful.
Hennepin County has initiated this program to help you reduce your energy
bills. In our climate, heating and cooling bills represent a substantial
part of a family's budget. Improving the energy efficiency of your home will
keep more dollars in our local economy and provide local jobs. Hennepin
County, therefore, encourages you to consider this shared savings approach to
reducing your energy consumption.
Your first step to participation is to request your energy audit. To request
this audit, return the enelased postage paid card as soon as possible or call _
the Shared Savings Demonstration Project at (612) 537-6858.,
Si cerely,
Commissioner John E. Derus, Chairman '
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
tf
Enclosure
„c ,H
i
USII16 THE SHARED SAYIIl6S CA1~fCEPT TO ACI~MPLISN
ca+cxfiY I1~PROYQ£I~(TS FflR SI?46LE FAHILT RESIDEIiCES:
AM IJiMAYATIYE PU8lIC1PRIYATE APPRflACtt
Hennepin County has developed, and is implementing, a research project on
"Shared Savings for Single Family Residences." The-project is funded by the
U.S. Department of Energy and conducted under the auspices of the Urban
Cansnrtium's Energy Task Force.
Shared savings occurs when an energy service company (ESCo) finances and
installs energy, improvements in a customer's property and i s compensated by
receiving a share of the savings which results. although shared savings is a
concept with a broad variety of potential applications, energy service
companies have concentrated on implementing this approach in the industrial,
commercial and multifamily markets. The purpose of this project is to
demonstrate the etonornic and administra-t~v.e feasibility o~using the shared_
• savings concept co accomplish energy improvements to owner occupied, single
family dwellings.
During December of 1983 an extensive search was conducted for local and/ar
national firms interested in participating in this demonstration project.
Four companies expressed interest and twa of these eventually submitted
formal proposals. These proposals were reviewed against project objectives
and the 9711 Corporation, doing business as Sentinel Energy of New Jersey,
was invited to participate.
_ Sentinel Energy of New Jersey has extensive experience with residential y.;
conservation programs, including the General Public Utilities RECAP program.
The firm has installed improvements in more than 6,500 homes in Pennsylvania,
New Jersey and New Hampshire. '
_ -
During this demonstration project Sentinel will:
• Perform an energy audit of the residence of interested homeowners.
• Identify needed improvements. .
s .Select the most cast-efficient improvements for that structure.
• Submit art improvement proposal and energy service agreement (contract) to
the custamer far their approval.
• Finance the improvements. ~ '
• Purchase necessary materials and install the improvements.
• Inform and educate participating homeowners on how they can conserve
energy and maximize their benefits from the installed improvements. -
• Maintain the improvements during the contract period.
The improvements to be made are based upon the U.S. Depar l~«ent of Energy's
"50-50" program. Primary emphasis wi 11 be placed on conserving energy by
sealing the envelope of the house using "weatherization" measures. The
improvements may also i nc1 ude i n sul ati ort; heating system controls, etc..,--but
will not include more extensive changes such as super insulation ar active
solar systems. The per unit investment by the energy service company is
expected to be in the range of~5800 to $3,500.
The custamer will make their energy service payments based upon a percentage
of the actual savings which results (with degree day and energy price
adjustments) during the period covered by the Energy Service Agreement. At
the end of the contract pert od al 1 subsequent soul ngs wi l l accrue to the
homeowner.
The proposed approach offers an opportunity to extend the shared savings
concept to a presently untapped, but significant marfcet: single family
residential dwellings. It has the potential for leveraging a small amount of
public money into a significant public/private program that uses primarily
private sector oriented concepts (profit, performance incentives, return on
equity and venture capital) to accomplish public purposes: reducing energy
consumption, and improving the housing stock in a metropolitan area. Through
an actual demonstration project, costs and savings will be monitored and
2
...,r
specific methodological variations wi11 be identified and evaluated that wi11
encourage energy service company involvement, stimulate changes in consumer
energy use behavior and minimize third party costs. It is anticipated that
the transferability of this pro~ett wi11 be very high and that the benefits
of the program wi11 make it potentially attractive to a•variety of jurisdic-
tions and private contractors interested in saving energy and improving urban
housing.
4 ,
e
Questions or comments regarding this demonstration project should be directed
to Robert D. Miller, Planning Supervisor, Office of Planning and Development,
Q-2308 Government Center, Minneapoiis,~ Minnesota 56487-0238 or (6I2)348-2601. _
_ _
tf
4/19/84
3
RESOLUTION NO. 19
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUATION OF AN
ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR 1984-85
WHEREAS, the Energy Awareness Commission has as one of its
objectives to promote energy conservation; and
WHEREAS, the Energy Awareness Commission endorsed funding for
the development of an energy conservation program for 1983-84; and
WHEREAS, the Commission questions the value of some programs
as presented.
BE IT RESOLVED, THEREFORE, by this Energy Awareness
Commission of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: -
That the Energy Awareness Commission supports the maintaining
of the Bundle-Up Richfield concept and public awareness literature
but is opposed to experimental use of funds for new program
research.
Passed by the Energy Awareness Commission of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota this 19th day ~of June, 1984.
Dean Sturgis, Acting Chairman
.~r n.
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTINUATION OF THE
ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR 1984-85
WHEREAS, the City Council appropriated $28,000 in 1983 for
the development and implementation of an Energy Conservation
Program in Richfield; and
WHEREAS, the results of the 1983-84 Energy Conservation
Program show that some increase in services and their use were
demonstrated; and
WHEREAS, additional availability of resources through
Minnegasco, Hennepin County and the Department of Energy and _
Economic Development (DEED) will provide a more comprehensive
energy program to Richfield residents during 1984-1985; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary that a part-time, temporary staff
position be funded from August 1 through December 31, 1984 to
inplement an Energy Conservation Program; and
WHEREAS, funding is available from the uncommitted balance
of the original appropriation for 1983-84; and
WHEREAS, the Energy Awareness Commission has endorsed the
continuation of the Richfield Energy Conservation Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. that the Energy Conservation is authorized to continue
for the heating season of 1984-85;
2. that a part-time, temporary staff position be filled to
implement the Energy Conservation Program for August 1
through December 31, 1984.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this 25th day of June, 1984.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST: '
i Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
e,,._~. ~ r-
. `!!M+raTftllYPQ .a .r ~;..1L-:.'. w.'.-..,s r Y r .a v~ ~ w- y
4085 Enemy Program
1984/195 Budget
(included in 4081 Hfi~ Budget)
Budget: $28,000.00
1983 Expenses: -11,742.7E
Balance: $16,257.26
Aug.-Deg. Aug.-Dec.
1984 1985
1050 Interdepartmental Labor ,6,580 6,580
Energy Program Aide 4,850 4,850
(SP12.E - approved in 1983; 30 hours/week;
August - December; $7.45/hour)
Housing Specilist (5p) 630 630
Housing Aide (10~) 850 850 -
Clerk-Typist (Sp) 250 250
i110 Advertising, Publications, Printing 500 500
1130 Expert and Professional 180 180
1210 Travel and Subsistence 200 200
1301 copying Char?es 500 500
4085 Program Total 7,960 7.960
MEMO
Date: June 20, 1984 -
To: Dennis Kraft
From: Marcia Hale
Subject: Funding of Energy Aide Position
I have the following concerns in funding.. the Energy Aide position
solely by the Department of Energy and Economic Development
(DEED) grant available as detailed in the attached City Council
letter:
the applications for the grant funds are ranked on a
competitive basis - there is not guarantee Richfield will
receive such funds.
the funds will not be available until October, 1984 - an
Energy Aide would be needed in August to adequately
administer the program
a criteria for ranking the DEED grant application is the
amount of local contribution. A minimum of 10% of the
requested grant in local contribution is needed. The City's
general funds used to finance the Energy Aide position could
be used as that local contribution. Otherwise another source
of contribution is needed to make Richfield's application
competative.
the Energy aide is needed to develop the grant application
for the DEED funds. As programs must be preliminarily
developed before they are outlined in the application, the
Energy Aide would also be reponsible for program development.
I have attached a copy of the memo by Bruce N. outlining the DEED
Grant process for further information.
MEMO
A
4
DATE: June 1984
T0: John Cartwright, Dennis Kraft, Bruce Palmborg, Mike Eastling, Marcia Hale
FROM: Bruce Nordqui~t~r_
SUBJECT: Energy Program Funding Sources, The Results of Recent Legislation
In May, the State Legislature adopted what has become Chapter 654, Article II,
Section 106 of the Laws of Minnesota, 1984. This legislation contains
provisions to make grant monies available from the Department of Energy and
Economic Development (DEED) to support community energy council activities.
Rules have been developed by DEID which provide administrative detail to the
legislation. According to the proposed rules, the kind of activities that
could be funded may include:
~ -Energy conservation program planning, promotion, coordination, and
implementation of energy audits, workshops, distribution of energy
conservation materials and information, and financing programs.
-Relevant costs for salaries, fringe benefits, in-state travel, space
rental, lease of equipment, printing, postage, telephone, etc.
According to a DEED representative, a total grant pool of approximately
$145,000 will be available to distribute to communities which have a community
energy council, submit an application for grant funds at the appropriate time,
and intend to pursue eligible activities.
The maximum grant to one community would be $15,000 and this requires at least
a 10 percent local contribution (ie. a minimum $1,500 local contribution).
Applications will be assigned points based on certain criteria and then ranked
to compete for funding. The general criteria include:-
-the type of representation in the membership of the energy council
(must include representatives of labor, small business, volunteer
organizations, senior citizens, low and moderate income residents; and may
include local officials and other interested persons).
-the adequacy of the applications proposed "work plan" providing details of
how the grant funds would be used and how the grant funds could leverage
other financial and administrative contributions to the communities energy
efforts.
-clarity, conciseness and completeness of the application.
The application process will not start until the rules have the required public-
review and are finalized. It is estimated that application taking could start
in late August and grant funds could be distributed in October, 1984.
Competition will likely be stiff since the pool of funds is small. If each of
the 15 active "corr~nunity energy councils" (of which Richfield is one) applied,
requested a similar amount of funds, and were ranked equal; then each community
would receive approximately $9,600. The "energy aide" to be hired later in the
summer would be responsible for preparing the application.
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 227
I
A enda June 2 4
g 5, 198
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Members of the Advisory Board of Health
City of Richfield
Subject: Non-Smoking Regulations for City Hall and
Public Safety Buildings
Introduction: - -
At the May 29, 198~t city council meeting, City Council
letter No. 198 summarized the three plans for regulating
municipal buildings by designating certain areas as either
smoking or non-smoking areas.
The Richfield Advisory Board of Health recommended Plan B.
Plan B prohibited smoking in employee work areas.
• The City Manager recommended Plan C which prohibited smoking
in employee work areas unless the work area qualified under the
Minnesota Department of Health regulations, namely:
(a) have a continuous barrier, except for door portals,
at least 56 inches high; or,
(b) have a least four feet of space separating it from a
work area; or,
(c) be in a room with ventilation of at least six air
changes per hour (work areas in the public safety
and city hall buildings meet this provision).
The City Council took two votes. The first vote adopted
Plan B. The second vote ended in a deadlock (2-2) over the
motion to designate the communications (public safety
dispatching) center as a permitted smoking area. The tie vote
meant the motion was defeated.
The Issues and Recommendations
There are two issues the City Manager now presents to the
City Council and the Board of Health for consideration.
The first issue is the non-smoking designation for the
communications center. It is recommended that the
communications center be designated as a smoking area.
Page Two
The second issue is the smoking/no smoking designations for
all work areas. The City Manager recommends to the City Council
that Plan C be implemented as Phase One. The longer range plan,
Phase Two, will be to implement Plan B.
The Analysis
The City Manger and management staff recommend
implementation of a two-phase program for these reasons:
1. Many employees were consulted about the three possible
plans and both those employees who smoke, as well as
those employees who do not smoke, supported the
compromise plan - Plan C.
2. The implementation to adopt should take into account
the equity issue, i.e., employee opinions should be
given great weight when implementing regulations that
affect their work areas.
Plan C is a more restrictive plan than Plan A, which is
now in place. Plan C is a plan in conformance with
health regulations. Plan B is the desired objective
which can be implemented once there is experience under
Plan C.
• 3. The administration of regulations in employee matters
has a tradition of being administered by the management
staff. Plan C recommended that the implementation of
of smoking and non-smoking designations should be sep-
arated into two parts. The public areas would be regu-
lated by the City Council. The employee work areas
would by regulated by the City Manager and staff.
This separation of responsibility for public and
employee work areas is deemed important. Work area
regulations should remain a personnel matter adminisis-
tered by the management staff.
~4. The Communications Center (dispatching) should be
designated as a permitted smoking area because this
work station is usually scheduled with one person on
duty. During 76~ of the time, regular public safety
and city hall business offices are closed and the
employee on duty in the public safety communications
center is not free to leave the work area. Relief
personnel are not readily available except during
regular business hours.
Implementation
• The City Manager has been informed that the Board of Health
at its June 18, 198~t meeting discussed the City Couneil action
to regulate smoking and non/smoking work areas in the city hall
and public safety buildings.
Page Three
• It is the City Manager's understanding that the members of
the Board of Health and the city liaison members reached an
understanding that the implementation of Plan B could be done in
phases so as to gain improved employee acceptance.
There are a number of excellent programs to both inform
employees about the health dangers of smoking, programs to quit
smoking and programs to improve one's health.
There are economic benefits to the City o•f Richfield if
employees will participate in such programs. The Park Nicollet
Medical Center says that each employee who smokes cost the
employer $62~ per year in increased health care costs, increased
absenteeism and decreased productivity.
Therefore, the City Manager recommends that the City of -
Richfield proceed to implement a two phase plan that will
achieve Plan B. The two phase plan would start with enforcement
of Plan C.
During implementation and administration of Plan C, these
additional health programs will be provided to employees:
1. Offer freedom from smoking at your worksite in
conjunction with the Park Nicollet Medical Center
• and the American Lung Association. The city would
finance a part or all of the $90 investment (cost)
per employee (or a similar program such as Fresh
start by the American Cancer Society);
2. Provide Freedom from Smoking Self-Help Manuals in
cooperation with the American Lung Association to
employees at a city cost of $12 per person;
3. The Personnel Division will sponsor self-help quit
smoking programs as a part of the employee brown bag
luncheon meetings. Qualified personnel from the
Bloomington Health Department have offered to
participate in such programs; and
4. Provide each employee with literature on the health
problems caused by smoking, such as•:
(a) Secondhand Smoke - effects on health provided
by the Association for Nonsmokers Rights;
(b) Why do You Smoke? provided by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services;
(c) Calling It Quits - provided by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services;
(d) Information. on stop smoking clinics and programs
in the Twin Cities; and,
Page Four
• 5. Provide employees at least twice a year information on
health care courses and activities. The courses and
activities will include:
(a) fitness (aerobics, slimnastics, swimming, etc.);
(b) health skills (CPR, First Aid, etc.);
(c) nutrition and weight control;
(d) stress management; and,
(e) smoking cessation programs.
With implementation of Plan C in place, the City Manager and
staff will then proceed to implement Plan B. -
The city Manager has not put a timetable together for
implementation. However, the City Manager should submit written
progress reports to both the Board of Health and the City
Council at least twice a year. In this way progress can be
monitored and, if necessary, target dates and objectives can be
adopted to aid in the longer range goal of reaching Plan B as
recommended by the Board of Health and supported by the City
Manager and City Council.
City Council Requested Action
The City Council is asked to:
1. Designate the communications center as a
permitted smoking area; and,
2. Direct the City Manager to implement a two phase plan
in accordance with this memorandum; and,
3. Designate the City Manager as the city official
responsible for designating which work areas in all
city buildings shall be designated as a permitted
smoking area.
e pe~ctf :,,y bmitted,
ohn G. Car wrigh~/
City Manager
JGC/eja
s PETITION
We, the undersigned employees of the Richfield Public Safety Department are
hereby petitioning the Richfield City council to reconsider their adoption of
the so-called "SMOKING PLAN B" at their May 29th, 198 meeting for the foll-
owing reasons:
o ncil assumes
1.As professional public servants, we are offended that C u
that we are unable to negotiate mutually respectful arrangments-with
respect to smoking etiquette and chooses to enact a policy that allows
for no individual latitude for employees and which was rejected by a
2 to 1 margin in a poll of Public Safety employees.
2.We believe that the responsibility for establishing smoking regulations -
does not extend past the scope of the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act and
that Plan B is so restrictive as to be well in excess of the state law.
"s he dut of the Cit Mana er to establish
.We believe that it i t y g
3 Y
regulations within private work areas of City Hall in consultation with
employees and Program Directors and without regard to the input of un-
affected members of citizen advisory bodies. We further believe that
these regulations should not exceed the requirements of State Law.
4.We believe that implementation and enforcement of Plan B will be very
difficult, decrease worker productivity and increase tension between
employees where none exists now.
S.We believe that the City Council should reconsider it's action of May 29
and adopt Plan C.
/ I/ ~yl / ///,//J/
e ` ~ ~ I / j ~ ~ / C 1 ' 7~_~ _ '~7 / A .fit-/~
~ ~ li
'S ~ _ • ~
~~i ,~7" ~
/ .
V ~ v~ ~CK/I~Ci /.~~77 //~~C
"~7 . J L~=ice-i`.'~_
/ '}~_/=i
\ ~ ~/J /~//j //n
a
P E T I T I O N
We, the undersigned employees of the Richfield Public Safety Department are
hereby petitioning the Richfield City council to reconsider their adoption of
the so-called "SMOKING PLAN B" at their May 29th, 198 meeting for the foll-
owing reasons:
1.As professional public servants, we are offended that~Council assumes
that we are unable to negotiate mutually respectful arrangments with
respect to smoking etiquette and chooses to enact a policy that allows
for no individual latitude for employees and which was rejected by a
2 to 1 margin in a poll of Public Safety employees.
2.We believe that the responsibility for establishing smoking regulations
does not extend past the scope of the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act and
that Plan B is so restrictive as to be well in excess of the state law.
3.We believe that it is the duty of the City Manager to establish
regulations within private work areas of City Hall in consultation with
employees and Program Directors and without regard to the input of un-
affected members of citizen advisory bodies. We further believe that
these regulations should not exceed the requirements of State Law.
• 4.We believe that implementation and enforcement of Plan B will be very
difficult, decrease worker productivity and increase tension between
employees where none exists now.
5.We believe that the City Couneil should reconsider it's action of May 29
and adopt Plan C.
~ fir ? ~-~i `
e
~v ~ ~
~
~
r-- J
~ ~
M M ~ ~ r. tr L, V
DATE: MAY '9Q~=
TC:~~S~.
FROM: PAUL LI'Jt1EE
SUPJ : YOUR PEdUEET FCR DATA ON SMOKING IN COt~UtrICATIOr:S CENTER
Let me begin by stating that I am displeased with the Council's action in
adopting "Plan I believe the plan is entirely too restrictive and 'r1ILL
HA`JE dramatic and detrimental impaet on worker productivity. We do not have a
history of prcblems in this area, our employees are respectful of each other°s
rights and I believe "Plan C" would have received unanimous compliance. I can't
ensure a similar level of compliance with Plan B, particularly when one takes
into account the fact that we are a 24 hour a day operation. Who will enforce
Plan B on the patrol officer in the station writing a report at 4:00 a.m. who
chooses to smoke?
Enough of my soap box, perhaps what is done is done. With respect to your
request, I appreciate your efforts in achieving ar. exempt status for the
communicaticas center. If anyone ever doubted the stresses of this job, one
need only view the videotape of the now infamous "911 stabbing". I urge you
to see it. ~'cr those who smoke, smoking does provide a stress reliever and
for this and ether reasons outlined in my earlier memo, I strongly support ,
any efforts to provide an exempt status to this vital room.
TF.AINED COMMUNICATIQNS PERSONNEL:
_ .
SMOKERS t1O*I-St"OKERS _ _ _
Jay Ann Carlson Lynn Holden
Janet Mennin¢ Linda Erstad
Cindy ~elbeck Lynn Werner
Paul Linnee Carpi Tloyes
Sharon Mattson Elaine Elsen
Shawn Fitton _ Shannon McNally
Jeff Dickie
Dawn tJilsen
pentley Jackson
Richard Hansen
You are reminded that only one of these persons is the SCHEDULED OPERATOR
at a time and all others serve as AVAILABLE ASSISTANTS outside the Center
summonable on a ,moment's notice. To a person, they were in favor of Plan C.
Thanks for ycur Help on this matter. Unfortunate as it seems, this single issue
has generated more controversy over here and unrest than any other single issue
in my 9 years here. I hope we can resolve it soon.
Finally, I wil'_ be cut of the office all of June. If you need further detail,
Captain Richardson is familiar with the issues as well.
o
Park Nicollet Medical Center Wpst St,P°'
Minnea olis, Minnescta X54' o
612/927/312
: t
June 14, 1984
Ms. Charlotte Anderson
Richfield City Health Board
6429 Vincent Avenue S.
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Ms. Anderson,
In response to your request for information and/or programs that we
would have to help your employees with smoking cessation, we have
the following options available.
1. Freedom From Smoking. Park Nicollet h1edical Center in
cooperation with the American Luna Association has a smoking
cessation program that is offered in several of our clinic
locations. This 8 week program is open to all your employees,
however, employees who are covered by MedCenters Health Plan are
eligible for reimbursement for the cost of the program. (Please
see enclosed brochure).
2. Freedom From Smoking at your worksite. Park Nicollet
Medical Center in cooperation with the American Lung Associa-
tion can present the Freedom From Smoking program at your
worksite. Your investment is 590.00 per person.
3. Freedom From Smoking Self-Help Manuals. Self-help manuals
are available in cooperation with the American Lung Association
for an investment of 512.00 per person.
I would encourage you to consider the Freedom From Smoking Program at
your worksite. We know that each employee who smokes cost you, the
employer, 5624.00 per year in increased health care costs, increased
absenteeism and decreased productivity. Advantages of programs that
are at the worksite are:
- convenience to employees
- employees presume quality if the program is company sponsored
- offers chance for social support for behavior change
- potential economic return of employee's health care costs.
P
Mrs. Charlotte Anderson
June 14, 194
Page 2
If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me
at 927-3454. _
Sincerely,
Kathy Pickard
Health Education Specialist
KP:kdn °
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 226
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Proposed Amendment to the Ordinance Regulations
Relating to Liquor License Investigative Fees
for Fraternal, Veterans or Charitable Organiza-
tions
Council Members: _
At the time the American Legion and VFW liquor license
renewals were heard by the city council, a request was made by
both organizations to reduce the invesitgative fee charges by
eliminating the background investigations which have
traditionally been conducted on the officers of the two
organizations. The Public Safety Director has been working
with the city attorney's office in attempting to develop an
appropriate amendment which will not reduce the level of
control related to licensure of these particular liquor
establishments.
Attached is an ordinance amendment developed by the city
attorney's office to accomplish the objectives of the request
pursuant to the direction of the City Council. The proposed
amendment to Chapter VI, section 11.06, provides that the
Public Safety Director shall recommend the partial or complete
waiver of any applicable investigative fee if certain
conditions exist and the City Council may adopt or modify the
recommendation.
It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in
which I concur, that the City Council give first reading
consideration to the attached ordinance code amendment, and
schedule the public hearing and second reading far July 23,
1984.
pectf 1 ~ 1 mitted,
~ ~LGG~ZL ~'L.
ohn G.' artwright
City Manage
JGC/eja
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VI,
SECTION 11.06 OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter VI, Section 11.06 of the Ordinance Code of the
City of Richfield entitled: "On-Sale Liguor" is hereby
amended by amending paragraph (1) of Subdivision 9 thereof
to read as follows:
"Subd. 9. Granting of Licenses. The following
procedure shall be followed in processing
applications for licenses under this section:
(1) All applications for license shall be
referred to the director of public safety, and
to such other city departments as the city
manager shall deem necessary, for verification
and investigation of the facts set forth in the
application. The director of public safety
shall cause to be made such investigation of
the information requested in Subdivision 4 as
shall be necessary and shall make a written
recommendation and report to the city council
which shall include a list of all violations of
federal or state law or municipal regulations.
In his report to the council, the director of
public safety shall recommend the partial or
complete waiver of any applicable investigative
fee if the following conditions are determined
to exist:
(a) The applicant is a fraternal, veterans,
or charitable organization.
(b) Revenues in excess of operating expenses
are contributed to the support of community
projects or programs.
(c) The officers of such organization are
elected by and responsible to the general
membership.
The council may adopt or modify the recommendation
of the director. Notwithstanding any provision of
this section to the contrary, the investigative
fee from any fraternal, veterans or charitable
applicant shall not be due and payable until final
action by the city council."
. +.C
_ y._
,s
.f
' #t`I,
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield
this day of 1984.
John N. Hazniltan~ - Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh - City Clerk
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA a~"~ v
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 225
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Minutes, Tabulation of Bids, and Award of
Contract for Sprinkler System for Richfield
Shoppes North
Council Members:
On Thursday, June 21, 1984, at 10:30 a.m., bids were
received and opened for the above noted project. One bid was
received and the bid tabulation sheet is attached hereto.
The project is being conducted under a recently passed state
law allowing cities to provider revenue bonds to fund fire
protection systems in existing buildings for the purpose of
reducing the demand on the public fire protection system. The
• law requires that we advertise for bids on the project, select
the bidder and turn the project over to the building owner, who
would repay the obligation created by the revenue bonds from
special assessments.
The law was passed so that this funding vehicle could be
used far reducing the fire risk in communities and allow the
building owners to pass the cost along to then tenants
immediately. Since the repayments are made by special
assessments, the cost can be passed on to tenants before their
leases expire. This is an incentive for property owners to
build in better fire protection when improving their property.
This expenditure is the first phase of installing fire
sprinkler protection for Richfield Shoppes North. It is
expected that additional expenditures, and subsequent special
assessments, will be made as the fire sprinkler system is
extended throughout the shopping center.
It is recommended that the City Council award the bid to
Viking Auto Sprinkler, St. Paul, MN in the amount of $29,690.
Respectfu].~y submitted,
• ohn G. Car wr' ht
City Manager
B
I= Tp.gU LAT~_
for Richfield ShOppes North
Cp8060 Stem
tid Number Sprinkler SY
project: 6_21-84 TOTAL
Bids Opened: BID CO5T
Council Action : SAFETY SYSTEM
$ID AS SpECIF IED
_ INTENT TO BOND
CTOR COMPLY 1 $29,690.00
CONTRA
present Present
king Auto. Sprinkler present
2400 Rose place55113
St• Paul, MN'
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
i Council Letter No. 224
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Proposed Street Traffic Control and Storm Sewer
Improvements for 66th Street Between York and
Newton Avenues (C.P. 780 and C.P. 792)
Council Members:
At the June 25, 1984, city council meeting, the city council
will be asked to consider alternative designs for street and
storm sewer improvements. The design alternatives to be
considered are:
1. A center fifth lane to function as a two-way left
turn lane for both east and westbound traffic on 66th Street
from Russell Avenue to Washburn ,Avenue; and
2. Storm water control.
The city staff has reviewed with Hennepin County and the
City ofEdina engineers on the suggested changes. The
Hennepin County Department of Transportation is seeking City of
Richfield input on the changes as part of their location design
study report from which a final design is drawn.
On March 14, 1984, a neighborhood information meeting was
held on the proposed improvement to 66th Street from Sheridan
Avenue to York Avenue. All of the owners and residents living
along 66th Street were invited. On April 9, 1984 the city
council approved a preliminary design which included raised
concrete medians and protected left-turn bays along the entire
length of the proposed 66th Street improvement. It was antici-
ated that if there were no major changes suggested by the
remaining hearing process, the council would•next review the
plan when the final plans and specifications were completed.
The staff believes that the two issues outlined above merit
consideration before the final plan preparation is begun.
I. A Center Fifth Lane for Two-Way Left Turns For
Both East and WestBound Traffic on 66th Street from
Russell Avenue to Washburn Avenue
Carlson Com anies owns the sho in center at 6 th Street
p 6
pP g
and Xerxes Avenue known as Southdale Square. Carlson Companies
hired the engineering firm of Strgar-Roscoe Inc. to investigate
alternatives to the proposed plan. The primary feature of the
Page Two
. alternative plan was to introduce a common center lane to be
used as a two-way left turn lane instead of the concrete median
protected left turn lanes. Both eastbound and westbound traffic
would use this middle lane for left turns. The plan also
proposes the closing of some driveway openings on 66th Street
at the west end of the project. Hennepin County is in the
process of completing the drawing of this proposed alternative
and investigating the traffic impact. At the council meeting,
members of the Hennepin County Department of Transportation
Design Division will present this alternative.
II. Storm Water Control "
Street flooding occurs on both Xerxes Avenue and Washburn
Avenue near 66th Street during heavy rainfalls. In addition,
the low alley between Washburn and Vincent Avenue, 66th to 67th
Street, experiences frequent flooding. An analysis of the area
performed as part of the over-all storm sewer study for the
city indicates that it may be logical to have both Edina and
Richfield upgrade the capacities of the storm sewers serving the
area, and, in so doing, reduce the frequency and intensity of
the flooding. Cost estimates associated with this option in the
past have been. substantial because they have included the cost
of repairing the street.
Because 66th Street will be~excavated for the street
improvement project, it is logical to proceed with Richfield s
portion of the storm sewer improvement. The storm sewer
improvement that Richfield could do as part of this project
would decrease the flooding hazard in the Washburn-Vincent alley
and on Washburn Avenue. This would increase the rate of water
going into Sheridan Pond. It would, however, have little
affect on the Xerxes Avenue flooding. The flooding situation on
Xerxes Avenue is such that the water can pond in the street
and then overflow down the alley between Xerxes Avenue and
Washburn Avenue to Washburn Avenue and contribute to the
Richfield storm sewer system. In order to reduce this problem,
staff recommends that the Richfield City Council request Edina
and Hennepin County to upgrade the pipe sizes from Xerxes to
York Avenue as part of the proposed improvement. In addition,
Edina and Hennepin County would enlarge the pipe sizes from York
Avenue to France Avenue when this section of roadway is
upgraded. The improvement of 66th Street, York Avenue to France
Avenue, should be added to Hennepin County's Five Year Capital
Improvement Plan.
OSM Consulting Engineers, conclude that this design plan for
storm water control will have aslight additional flow to
Sheridan Pond, but not creating major problems as it will be of
an interim nature (until 66th Street west of Xerxes is improved
including additional storm sewer capacity.
• Details of the cost sharing between Hennepin County, state
aid and the city will be identified with the final plan
preparation this fall.
Page Three
Conclusions and Recommendations.
The staff recommends approval of.
1. A center fifth lane to function as a two-way left
turn lane on 66th Street from Russell Avenue to Washburn Avenue;
and
2. The estimated $200,000 storm sewer and water control
project involving Sheridan Pond, and,
3. Communications to both Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners and the Edina City Council urging these
governments to undertake 66th Steet storm sewer improvements
west of Xerxes within the next two to five year time period.
No formal action needs to be taken at the June 25 council
meeting. The staff will prepare resolutions based upon council
reaction to the alternatives for consideration at the July 9,
1984 city council meeting.
e pectf~.-.~" mitted,
' ~ /
. ~ ~ Y~~/
ohn G. .Car righ~
City Manager
JGC/eja
ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consu/tirg ~rrireers
Land Surveyors
June 18, 1984
Mike Eastling, City Engineer
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Re: Sheridan Pond Analysis -
Storm Water Management Modeling
Dear Mike:
The first computer runs of the Richfield Drainage System, as we reviewed last
Friday, provide some data needed for the Sheridan Pond and tributary area
analysis. In the model we are utilizing a rainstorm event that has peak inten-
sities correlating to the 10 year return frequencies but with total rainfall of
• 6 inches to review design for ponding. The peak intensities are anticipated to
cause surcharging in many conduits and allow review of specific problem areas.
The Data Base prepared for SWMM input on the Sheridan Pond drainage basin in-
cludes 73.2 acres of Richfield in the area generally bounded by 63rd Street,
67th Street, the alley between Washburn and Xerxes Avenues and by Sheridan
Avenue. The total impervious land within the basis is 28.22 acres or 38.6% of
the Total. The Data generated agrees with previously submitted information
prepared by Rational Method analysis with the following comments made.
(1) Sheridan Pond, with infrequent overflow into Sheridan Park areas can
contain the 6 inches of total rainfall utilized as the Richfield
Ponding area design standard (100 year rainfall).
(2) As anticipated by selecting the rainstorm, most of the pipe system in
the area is fully surcharged by the 4.8 in/hr peak rainstorm event
intensities. The pipe serving the alley between Vincent and Washburn
Avenues and the pipe in 66th, between Vincent and Washburn Avenues
are shown to flow in a reverse direction which contributes to the
known flooding conditions at those locations.
(3) The conduit leading from 64th and Sheridan, just north of Sheridan
School, shows excessive surcharging indicating that a potential
exists for surface flooding. The conduit from mid-block of Thomas
Avenue, between 64th and 65th flows with very significant surcharging
but seems to handle the flows very well. The only area conduit not
• showing major surcharge is the pipe in 66th Street from Upton to
Thomas, probable since the flows in this pipe are relieved by flood-
ing of the Washburn intersection.
2021 East N,ennepin Avenue Suite 238 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55113 612 331- 8660
_ _ _ _ _ _ r~_ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ : ~ " _ _ m _ s ~ .
i
Page Two
Mike Eastling
June 18, 1984
I am going to re-run this subcatchment data with some modifications
in order to get refined output. The data indicates that the following
conclusions can be made.
a) The conduit system in 66th Street needs to be replaced or supple-
mented, as has been recommended, to provide a reasonable level of
protection from local flooding. This work is as proposed in the
previous reports on this area and is proposed to be done in con-
junction with the paving of 66th Street.
b) The Drainage system upgrading work required should not cause neg-
ative impacts on the Sheridan Pond or Park areas. The increased
conduit sizing will convey water to the pond more quickly, and
may convey more absolute water volume from flow that now floods
the 66th and Xerxes intersection, but such increased flow should
not result in an increased problem in Sheridan Pond to the point
of creating property damage.-
I recommend that the City continue its co-operative efforts with Hennepin
County towards construction of the required drainage system in 66th Street with
the provisions that the low point in 66th treet be kept at Xerxes, that the
drainage from 66th and Xerxes be kept tributary to a system that leads westerly
and that an ultimate drainage system from 66th and Xerxes to the west be de-
signed and committed to for ultimate construction. The net result of these
recommendations will be occasional continued flooding of 66th and Xerxes and
some added flow volume to Sheridan Pond from surface flood waters. It is my
feeling that the County will have to concur with the occasional flood potential
as an interim measure and that Richfield can concur with the slight additional
flow to Sheridan Pond as not creating major problems as it will be of an in-
terim nature.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
--John A. Harwood, P.E.
JAH:mIn
M A
CITY OF RICHFIELD, INNESOT
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 223
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield .
Subject: Request for Planned Unit Development Plan, Special
Use Permit, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat Approval
and Variances by Market Plaza Corp.
Council Members: - _
Market Plaza Corp. has requested that the city approve a
rezoning, preliminary plat, a revised Planned Unit Development
Plan, and variances to allow construction of a mixed multiple
residence and commercial development to occur on the block
bounded by 65th Street, 66th Street, Lyndale Avenue and Graham
Avenue.
The following is a brief overview of the previous and
current development proposals for the block in question:
PREVIOUS PROPOSAL
In April of 1982 the city approved a Planned Unit
Development Plan, Preliminary Plat, Special Use Permit and
Variances for a $40,000,000, 874,000 square foot, mixed
use development on the site, submitted by Derrick Land Company.
Also, the City Council gave first reading approval to an
ordinance to rezone the site from "C-2" general commercial to
"PC-2" planned general commercial. Second reading of the
ordinance has not been given. The development approved included
the following:
1. 191,000 gross square feet of office/commercial space on
three levels on the south and eastern portion of the
site.
2. 357,316 gross square feet of multiple family
residential development in three towers providing 288
semi-luxury condominium dwelling units on twelve floors
on the north and western portions of the site.
3. A five level 590 car public parking ramp adjacent to
65th Street.
• 4. A separate two level residential parking ramp to accom-
modate 300 cars under the residential towers.
Page Two
5. Exterior plazas, walkways and park areas along the
streets.
The variances required were:
1. An increase in the maximum percentage of gross floor
area occupied by multiple-family uses in a "PC-2"
district from 33~ to 69.6.
2. An increase in the maximum allowable floor area from
259,954 square feet to 431,000 square feet.
The City Council also passed a preliminary resolution
approving the issuance of just over $9.5 million dollars of
Industrial Revenue Bonds to support the project. The
development did not proceed because of economic reasons.
CURRENT PROPOSAL
Market Plaza Corp. has revised its development plan
for the site in question. The new proposal varies substantially
from the previously approved proposal. The current proposal
includes the following:
1. A thirteen story, 147 unit condominium structure on the
west end of the site. ,There will be two to three
levels of parking underneath the structure which will
accomodate 127 - 187 cars. There will be surface
parking for an additional 8 cars. The-third level of
arkin will be constructed if 0 of the s aces can be
P g 5 ~ P
sold. The condominium structure will be designed for
people 55 years of age and older.
2. 70,000 gross square feet of commercial space on one
level with an interior mall. The commercial space is
intended to be a neighborhood service center. Types of
stores and offices which could be located in the
service center include: restaurant, delicatessen/snack
bar, sporting goods, hair stylist, health and sports
club, jewelry, electronics, clothing, computer,
professional offices (doctor, dentist, insurance, legal
and financial), printing, instant photo, drug
store/variety store, pharmacy, travel service, shoes,
optical, ice cream, candy, card and specialty stores.
The commercial structure will be on the north side of
the site. On grade parking for 290 cars will be
provided in the southeast corner of the site.
3. 162 units of rental housing will be provided above a
portion of the commercial space. The rental housing
structure will be eight stories in height. The
apartment units will be marketed to a targeted adult
community and not families with children. This would
include seniors, empty nesters, young professional
Page Three
couples and singles. Parking for 222 cars will be
• provided for the rental housing. 209 of these spaces
will be located in a parking garage located underneath
the commercial space.
4. The existing Wendy's restaurant on the corner of 65th
Street and Lyndale will remain.
The following zoning related actions are necessary at this
time based on the new development plan:
1. Approval of a planned unit development plan.
2. Approval of variances.
a. To increase the maximum allowable foor area from
269,462 square_ feet to 385,170 square feet.
b. To reduce the minimum amount of livability space -
provided from 154,863.2 square feet to 58,326
square feet.
c. To reduce the minimum of recreation space provided
from 27,101.06 square feet to 16,410 square feet.
(Subsequent to Planning Commission action,
the applicant has been able to meet this
requirement, so this variance is no longer
necessary).
• 3. Rezoning of the property from "C-2" general commercial
to "PMR" Planned Multiple Residence.
4. Approval of the proposed preliminary plat.
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 3.31A sets standards for multiple family
residential developments in multiple residence zoning
district.
2. Section 3.32 and 3.33 set standards for commercial
developments in commercial zoning districts.
3. Section 3.34A sets standards for planned unit
development districts.
4. Section 3.40 sets conditions which must be met to grant
variances.
5. Section 3.41 establishes criteria for issuing, special
use permits.
6. Section 3.42 establishes procedures for zoning district
changes.
• 7. Section 4.05 sets standards for offstreet parking
areas.
Page Four
• STAFF FINDINGS
1. Relationship to Ordinance and Plans
The PUD ordinance requires that a PUD project be
compared with zoning ordinance requirements otherwise
applicable to this type of development. Shown below is
a comparison of the city standards and what is proposed
in this development.
Required Proposed
1. Parking 659 6'47 or 707
2. Maximum Floor Area 238,141.23 385,170
sq. ft. sq. ft.
3. Setbacks Front: 40' Front 66th St.:
Condo Parking
Garage: 30'
Commercial
Building: 50'
Condo Bldg: 30'
Front Lyndale 120'
Front Graham
Ave. 18'
• Front 65th St.
Condo Parking
Garage: 5'
Condo Bldg: 48'
Commercial
Building: 0'
4. Building Height 3 stories - 13 stories
40'
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this site should be
developed as medium to high density central business district
development including multiple dwellings and retail commercial
and office establishments. The site is within the boundaries of
the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment area. The L/H/N
redevelopment plan calls for the development of commercial
and/or multi-family development on this site. The project would
meet the following objectives of the LHN redevelopment plan:
1. Reduce underutilization of land by intensively developing
the block in a unified and integrated manner;
2. Provide a compatible environment for living and shopping•
3. Provide for "one-stop" shopping opportunities in a planned
and organized manner;
4. Provide for pedestrian amenities;
5. Provide additional housing choices which will relate to the
amenities of Richfield Lake;
Page Five
6. Reduce the number of curb cuts on major streets to provide
improved traffic flow;
7. Provide employment opportunities and tax revenue.
It is the opinion of the staff that the proposed project is
in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the L/H/N
Redevelopment Plan. The proposal does depart from the general
commercial zoning district requirements in terms of setbacks and
building height. It also departs from the PCYD ordinance ,
requirements for maximum floor area, and the minimum amount of
~ livability space.
The reduced setback along 65th Street is a negative aspect
of the project. There will_be a two story structure, 420 feet
long, within 10 feet of the street. On top of about one half of
this length will be 8 additional- stories of apartments. This
will create a massive wall along 65th Street which could have a
negative aesthetic affect. However, this impact is softened by
the permanent open space on the north side of 65th Street. The
lack of setback minimizes the amount of landscaping that can be
done to soften the appearance of the building.
No sidewalk will be provided on the south side of 65th
Street. There is inadequate space to provide sidewalk, snow
stora e s ace and landsca in within the ri ht-of-wa of 65th
• g P ~ P g g Y
Street adjacent to the commercial building. A sidewalk
presently exists on the north side of 65th Street. A sidewalk
will be provided adjacent to the condominium building and to the
apartment entrance on the northwest corner of the building.
There will be no traffic visibility problems created by the
reduced setbacks because of the design on streets with medians
and traffic signals. The fifty foot visibility triangle would
be maintained at all intersections.
The proposed condominium building would become the tallest
building in Richfield, approximately 2 stories taller than Lake
Shore Drive Condominium. The proposed location would not affect
any existing views from single family residential property to
Richfield Lake. The views from some of the units of the Lake
Shore Drive Condominium to the east half of Richfield Lake will
be restricted. However, the proposed condominium and apartment
buildings have been angled to reduce this effect. The project
would block late afternoon sun from the adjacent multiple family
residence on the north side of 65th Street. It is staff's
opinion that because the site is located in a commercial area in
the LHN project at the "main" intersection, the additional
height is appropriate. Because of its location adjacent to
Richfield Lake, the effect of the building's height on adjacent
uses would be minimal.
Page Six
Provisions for Public Service
There are adequate public water, sanitary sewer, and storm
sewer capacity in existing lines in 65th Street and in 66th
Street to adequately serve the site and surrounding area.
Traffic and Parking
The proposed uses on the site would generate a total of
5,920 Average Daily Trips (ADT). The existimg traffic volumes ,
and capacities on surrounding streets are shown in the following
table.
Design
Existing Volumes Capacity
Lyndale Avenue 13,206 28,000
Graham Avenue 1,717 7,500
66th Street 15,977 28,000
65th Street 3,852 17,500
There is sufficient capacity on surrounding streets to
handle the traffic generated by the proposed development. As
indicated in the attached report., the proposal would not present
peak hour traffic problems. The projected traffic generation of
the proposed uses are 4,380 trips per day less than the
previously approved proposal.
Access to the residential parking will be from 65th Street.
Access to the commercial parking will be from 66th Street and
Lyndale Avenue. There will be a break in the existing median on
66th Street to allow westbound traffic to enter the site from
66th Street. Traffic leaving the site will not be able to make
a left turn onto 66th Street, because of the design of the exit
from the site. A protected left turn lane will be provided for
the median break. Staff has some concern about the effect of
this median break on the traffic flow of 66th Street. However,
because of the design of the median break and entrance and the
importance of the entrance to the project, staff believes the
median break should be allowed. The county has approved the
median break with two changes. The county indicates that the
protected left turn lane for eastbound traffic entering the site
from 66th Street should be lengthened and that a protected
right turn lane be provided for westbound traffic entering the
sine from 66th Street.
Parking will be provided for at least 647 cars. The
proposal provides 135 to 195 parking spaces for the
condominium. If the third level of parking is not constructed,
there would be 12 spaces less than is required by the PUD
• ordinance. 222 spaces will be provided for the apartments which
is 60 more than is required by the PUD ordinance. 290 spaces
Page Seven
will be provided for the commercial uses which is 60 spaces
short of what is required by city parking guidelines. It is
staff's opinion that because of the mixed uses on the site, that
an adequate number of parking spaces are provided in the project
proposal.
Light Exposure, Air Circulation, and Open Space
There will be adequate light exposure and air circulation on
the site. There will be adequate space between the proposed
buildings and adjacent buildings which will insure sufficient
light and air circulation to all buildings. The shadow effect
on surrounding properties will be limited because of the
location of the towers adjacent to Richfield Lake. There will
be some late afternoon shadow effect on the adjacent multi-
family residences on the north side of 65th Street west of
Lyndale Avenue.
Landscaped open space will be minimal because of the intense
use of the site. There will be landscaping provided on the end
islands in the commercial parking area to break up the large
expanse of asphalt. The plans do not indicate whether or not
these and other landscaped areas on the site will be irrigated.
Staff believes irrigation is important to insure proper
maintenance. Under the terms of the developers' agreement, the
city will be responsible for providing the landscaping,
sidewalks, and other pedestrian amenities adjacent to the
streets. To insure that sufficient area is available to do
this, a 20 foot wide area from the curb along 66th Street and
Lyndale Avenue should be maintained for landscape and other
pedestrian amenities. Because the right-of-way widths vary,
easements of varying widths will be necessary.
Impact of Project on the Neighborhood
The project should have no detrimental affect on the
surrounding neighborhood. No single family residences will have
to be removed to allow for the proposed development. No undue
increase in traffic will occur in surrounding residential areas
because access to the site will be from Lyndale Avenue and 66th
Street and 65th Street. The primary building materials to be
used will comply with the Urban Design Guidelines and relate
well with surrounding buildings.
Preliminary Plat
All required information has been shown except a subdivision
title, existing buildings, and surrounding subdivision names.
VARIANCE REVIEW
Staff has reviewed the request for two variances against the
three conditions for granting variances and found the following:
Page Eight
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting this land not common to other properties of similar
districts.
It is the opinion of staff that there are special
circumstances present on this site. The type and amount of
development on this site required to insure that the project
supports itself is high.. This requires a higher intensity of
development and higher total floor areas than is permitted
allowed by the PUD ordinance.
h t th rantin of the a lication is necessar for
2. T a e g g pp y
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
The redevelopment plan goals and HRA policies which require
that the development on the"block be self-sufficient do place
constraints on the use of the property. However, because the
site is being acquired by the HRA and the sale to a private
developer would be contingent upon developing within these
constraints, reasonable property rights would be protected.
3. That the granting of the application will not
materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
• improvements in the neighborhood.
The proposed project would not be detrimental to the general
public welfare. The project would, in fact, be beneficial
because it meets or exceeds city and HRA goals for development
on the block and will result in substantial long term tax
benefits to the city. Existing land use problems will be
corrected and a well planned development will be constructed
which will meet an important goal of the comprehensive plan and
redevelopment plan will be completed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
1. Preliminary PUD Plan, Special Use Permit, and
Rezoning:
It is staff's opinion that the proposal is in
substantial compliance with applicable city plans and
policies. The project fulfills the goals of the city's
comprehensive plan and the LHN Redevelopment Plan. The
site is located in a commercial area and will have
minimal impact on residential neighborhoods. Traffic
generated can be handled by surrounding streets.
Therefore, it is~recommended that the City Council
approve the PUD plan subject to the following
• stipulations:
1. That all landscaped areas be irrigated.
Page Nine
• 2. That the appropriate easements be provided for
landscape purposes adjacent to 66th Street and
Lyndale Avenue.
3. That a final utility and drainage plan be
submitted for approval by staff.
4. That a fire protection system be submitted for.
approval by the Public Safety Department.
2. Rezoning '
It is recommended that the City Council give second
reading to the attached zoning ordinance amendment.
3. Preliminary Plat
It is recommended that the preliminary plat be approved -
subject to provision of a subdivision title, and
information on existing buildings and surrounding
subdivision names.
4. Variances
The proposed development would be beneficial to the
community and necessary to complete the LHN project.
While the variance request does not meet the three
conditions for granting a variance, staff believes that
• because of unique nature of the proposal and benefit to
the community, the project with variances should be
approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
aprove the rezoning of the site from C-2 general commercial to
PMR planned multiple residence, and approve of the preliminary
plat with the possible addition of Graham Avenue to the site,
should it be vacated. The commission further recommended that
the planned unit development plan and special use permit be
approved with the following stipulations:
1. All landscaped areas be irrigated.
2. A 20 foot easement be provided for landscape purposes
adjacent to 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue.
3. That a final utility and drainage plan be submitted
for approval by city staff.
That a fire protection sysem be submitted for approval
by the Public Safety Department.
5• That the possibility of re-orienting the condominium
structure on the site to provide more open space and
the possibility of vacating Graham Avenue to accomplish
this end be re-submitted for approval.
Page Ten
6. That the proposal include prohibition of parking on the
south side of 65th Street.
7. That moving van access off of 65th Street be provided.
8. That the zero foot setback of the commercial building
adjacent to 65th Street be eliminated.
The Planning Commission recommended that a zero foot setback
along 65th Street not be allowed. The Planni-ng Commission did
not include a specific setback recommendation. While the staff'
is not particularly pleased with the zero foot setback along
65th Street, they are of the opinion that to require the
building to be moved southward from 65th Street would tend to
create a parking problem on the site.
The site plan provides 290 spaces for the commercial site
and 222 spaces for the apartment building and the combined total
of 512 parking spaces just meets city code requirements.
However, 209 apartment parking spaces are located under the
building and are not available to others. Thus, there is a
shortage of surface parking spaces for the commercial site
(approximately 49 spaces). Code requirements, of course, only
establish minimum requirements. The City of Richfield has, as
an example, the recently opened Richfield Shoppes South. The
Country Buffet Restaurant has proven so popular, that there is
insufficient off-street parking. In this case, the residential
neighborhoods suffer from the commercial site shortage of off-
street parking.
pectfu y„ u fitted,
ohn G. art right
City Manager
JGC/eja
Y ~ i
~ ~
~ ~
E
1
.N
I~
i' '
~ ~ 1
r
r~M~111M~ ~rMr~ ~ wiw ~~iri.. •1 ~ ~ .r ~ t
i ~ • ~ P 3 ~ _
v ~ ~ • ~
~ j ~e` ~
i.
I ~
?a: o
^o ; i ~R
,
_
• MINIM :.r '
.ql~ ~ • NAM
~ _
.may ~ k
R
j ~ ~ '~L+~ g g9 ~ ~ ~ ' N/YM FMi•rwN
~ u`
i ~ -
~MMN ~ ~ ~ ~ M~~1 w,
r a
I L~~ , ' I~ N
~t 1/A
• _ ,
• ~dsaaa~~ sna~n~
tad
. ~L
f
r
~ .
. ,f ' 1
t - . .
r j
t r /
~ e
i J// .'rf wwrr`
~ ~.aw.t~
a ~
yz.. MM~~
~~y+ ?,tr
~ ~ t iMr
tNia'' T :.ice` i:.~ al ..::i.. tisT.._
}i
~ _f
„s 11A
Y'~S
.Y
? 68TH $Te WEST _ -.i---~~~ J' , _
G .•~iQ ~ v i tw
Jam,. r $IT~ PEA
.
KET PLAZA ~~s
r~r~.-,..~"=."'w'"~~
~AAH so~~?
p~C61~i~1O pER{UCK 4AND C01~~~..•
REVBIOf'E11'
r _ _ _
+ ~ 1
! AA
1 V ~
r f
• .
~$~.~i '~-yJ
e4 ~
~ , -
(,a ~J i ~ .
~ ~ _
eeni sT. wEST
1 ~
COMMERCIAL
r ~ f ~ ~ LEVEL
MARKET PLAZA elu-i.Ep 1 / ~ ~ ~ ?
HICNFIELp 1111NNE80TA INFSiEpBECK _
\ OEVFLOPEA: pERRICK IANQ COi1P'ANY seN~ ~L ~
~ ~ J \ I1iiCi111E....o InIC....ax~:-.;:,_:~~.:",! ! ~ ~ }
~ ~
F
~ E
_
s
~
.
s~
' ~ ~ 4 ~
ors,
~ ,
~ ~ ~ ~
~ i ~2a i e
~
i ~
. I"'_
` ~ t f~ ~
~ t` t~ i t 1 4t
~ ~ ~ ti ~
~ 1 1 ~ `
~ ~ ~ „
` • 1•
``fie. ~ ti L
~~r ~ ~ ~ ~ 11
ee ~ \ t~
~9l" ~ e ~ ~ ~ I
l'i~. ~r
,
~ / S
1 ~ .
~ `r
~ ~ \ n
~ ~
r
- ~ ~
f
~ yy
~ ,~V A~
b
~
4
r
L 1
.
~ ~ ~ _
i
. ~ x
f
y
A 8
w~^"' Q 1?
_
' ~ -
~ ~
~,r„ err
Y Q 0
~
~ ~ t
~ A
. w.n.+^ie°°'~ ~ A of ~ i,
aw _ ----""Z ~
f
A
~ ~ ~ ~ N
~ ~ u ~
iv~'_ _ ~
i ~
+ •
~ ' ~ ~
ICY"' . ~ • ~ : • • ~ • +
MARKET ~
c~c~~ ~?ort .
,''"`i `a
e
M
~j
i
A
• C ~
-
l C G t ~ ,A C to CD ! - .
t _ p ~ - _ _
e .a.. ? ~ ~3 , O l~ l ll_:.~ C ~ i }18 `:~~e ~r, ~ , t ' r •y F ~~~e f ~ .iki ~ ~j e \,+~~~f`^~ ` .
.:Y ..t a le'/ y.~~ '~e le t ~ ~~i. ~ fir- f 1 _'~Y
. r
. ti `a
•
.
t:o
r _ _
_e
-r _ .
•
. , . ~ ,
t
_ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ Ea81 ~y81~011 ~
~K 8ce>r Uli' tY
c~~~8V8tkltl ~ •
:.r
~Af-~iET Pi.-AZA ~ ~ .
a
Fa ~ C~~ ,xrt AT10N ~ ~
zt~E MKG-tl. t~EVElOT• Coar~+ •
~/w~_~
bV'c5TN00D PLANNING & tci+lGlyE=SING COP.SPANY
Fiarch 6, 1984 ~
_ ~ I
- ~ i
C•tr. Ric.'~ard SCrier
C$rrick t.and Company
1650 Shelard Tourer
Miruieapclis, MN .5526
Sub,j: Ftar;cat Plaza Estimated Traffic Generation
Oear Mr. tCri.er:
•
- _ i
At your request, vre have evaluatEd the potential traffic generation and li
trip distribution parameters of the Market Plaza development. Ile have
based this analysis an the following assumptions for development on the
. 'black betrleen West b5th Street and idest 66th Street, frao Graham Avenue .
- to Tyndale Avenue South. Your proposed develaprrent for. this site will
provide approximately 70,000 square feat of mixed use commercial area
-plus I60 apartments and 1~i0 condominium units. .
The following traffic movements ors anticipated- for this .development:
- - MARKET PLAZA _
ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC GfiIERATIII~V
. Cbmrrercial Area Aoartrr~nts Condominiums Total
Size of development 70,400 s.f. I60 units 140 units
Estimated Bail tri
s 4
Y p ,230 980 7I0 5,920
~Mornin eak hour -
9A
Outbound 55 - 65 70
Inbound 90 ~ IS
Total ~ - 145 ~ 80 . 85 3I0
Evening peak hour
Outbound 205 30 30
Inbound 180 65 55
Total 3S5 95 85 565
TRAFFIC OISTRISUTION _ .
Anti.ci,:ated traffic pattarns for vehicles approaching or leaving t<'^e sift
- are shown an the attached drawings. These diagrams also depict the anti-
cipated distribution of these trips. Vote that a traffic move.~ent imhalanca
occurs for home-based work trips generated from the condominium and apart-
. meat units. Because of incomplete interchange access at L-yndale Avenue
and I-35i~/CSAH 62, a number of home-to-~uork trips during the morning peak _
. hour will use 66th Street to reach the freaway system, although their
return moverrsnt can be made via t.yndale Avenue.
TJti W1rafA eOUIS'/aAD. 1NpIMf~VOt.1; MIMNESOT~ SS~2~ IfT21 S~iOtl3
•
Ptr. Richard Krier
~tarrfi 6, 1984
Pats 3 _
can be readily accommodated by tie signs] at this location. With no cr~edian
cut on 66th Street, the Left .turn from a stbound 66th Street to Graham -
avenur will show a significant increase wring the p.m. peak:naur. An
additional Left turn opportunity micivay et7reert Graham Avenue and Lyndale
avenue wou.Id disburse this movement bet' en tyro intersections. The left
turn from sauthbawid Lyndale Avenue to a stbound 66th Street is also anti-
cipated to increase because of traffic leaving the snapping cantor rritti
destinations south and east of the site.
REL'Di~tENOATZDNS ~ ~ -
6asad on the •faregoing analysis, vre offer tine fallowing recammendatians
ragardu,g traffic services far this site,
• E°rom .the standpoint of servicing c..u,.~.:rciai traffic ~ approaching this
site, a median island break should be provided, either an 66tH or on
Lyrxlale avenue.
• In the euent that a median island bra is not feasible, extraordinary
attention should ba given to signing. or traffic approaching from the
_ _vrest and traffic from__the c~mnercial a departing to 65th Street.
• Traffic movements far -the-residential. developments are ade~csately
r~..~ided far and,. therefore, snau3d nc t raticrirr any .special treatment.
- Yours truly,
WESTwODD PLANNSNG do EilGIiticuclNG CIIMFANY ~ °
. ~ ?
Kenneth W. Andersen, P.E. .
KWA/dg
22
•
Cor~m~rcia~ Tra##ic j-'r;A
s ~
,it. uliiW• ~
1,
~ ~
4 ' ~:~x' : .
~
+Y ~
as vo w w
p' '1 ~ r f
~
sw
~`y "'~i7". tf~ fib CaLi Afi e0
7
IV11'
~NNi~lNlt lti12 ~ cY~
~ ~...y l.~
29~ot i .
220
22r"a !t •
•
d~
N
~ ~
~
w ~ ~
,.off' .?fi'b`
e'a qp ~ Q X74 qV'
??tit ~l ,
lN1/MN~
~~1~NN+~~NMtNN
~ w, ath n ~
~ S ~f
296 22~
tW~th Medsan Cu~~)
' i a~e~ Traffic Pa~~e~ns APPPC3AC
Anti c p
. ~ 1111arke~ :Plaza _
ww.a, ~
ESTINIATE~ PFAK SOUR VOLU~]ES 3
1 ~
•--6/2 6
ooi oo
P.M. P~K tfOUR 12/fi~
? Q»M. PE.'lK HOUR 4/2
/3 ~ ~ ~
X8/34 ~ a
o ~ ~ -
54%24 rC ~ ? ~ ; \
~ T W N t c+~ eat ~ -
~5tt G i
3172 ~.65~~1~
.v.,,.•
. _ ~ , T Q '
2. /~Z00
~r
a
~m
Q ~ ~o to r
~ ~
~ , ~ ~ r ~
1
~'r W. 66 th. ~
~ tr~i .','0/70
t ~ ~ /
~ 2/45 /
fi/fi 1~/5v-~ ~ t
4/24 L.-6/22- ~ 4/88 d• m
~ N
fi/52~ 7 ~ ~ ~
6/ ZC~
~~(With Median Cud)
'
t,~ Er,GtNfiER NG COM ANY ~AR~C~~' f~LAZA
rats w~rt~?r,? ecuuv~?+~o. MINNZAlO{,LS, 1~IN. S3a1~ lH~ Su.otls
_ ~
. ` 22
• 9
~amr~erc3a~ Traffic r'
~ ~:f
'
Wis. ~,~~~d~ 1
~ ~3K!wetaras>dr
i fl i ^x.M
: AAA ~4 Av
r x...91. ^'A .
. ` ~J~
29"'x• ~ ~ .
'r .
• ~ 22~
~~'?~--..~g~
Reside~fia~ Tra##iC
~ ~
1:~
i
_ ~ _ _
_ .
- - - i
a
- co ~ ~ ~
1. / - w ~ ~
~
Notch on 1-35 ~ _ - '
~ a
' ' '
..s,~...
N ~
2~ 1 2 2~'0 ~'"7 .
. ~ ~ -
(1Ntth Median Cut)
An~ic~pated Tra##ic Patterns D~EPAR'Tt~~~
Mat~Ce# Plaza ~
ans~a~ra asr~ r~T+e
BILL N0.
ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
s. THE trll Y OF RICF~r 1r.~.D, .MINNESOTA
1.11 OF RIChrlr.s.D DOES ORDAIN: .
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the city enumerated•
' in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28, Subdivision 2 of such code is•her8by
amended in:the following respects:
1. Appendix C, Section 3 is amended by repealing the following paragraphs
19 and 20:
L(19) That area lying easterly of a line distant 256.6 feet easterly
acu3 parallel to the west line of Section 27, Township 28, Range 2~,
southeasterly of 65th Street, northerly of 66th. Street and westerly o€~--~
Lyndale Avenue.
(ZO) That area lying south of 65th Street extended and north of 66th
• Street between Grahac~ Avenue extended and a line running garallel with
• the easterly line of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, distant 256.6
feet easterly thereof.l -
2. Appendix C, Section 8, is amended by adding the following new
Paragraphs (3): ; _
TRACT 1•
AL1 that part of the following described premises lying Easterly of
• the center line of Graham Avenue as deeded to the Village of Richfield
in Deed recorded in Book 2052 of Deeds, page 639,•- That part of
Gov~..~..ent Lot 2 described as beginning at the intersection of the
.center line of West 66th Street with the Westerly line. of Government
Lot 2, which is the Old Military Reservation line; thence
Northwesterly 11.6 feet along the said Military Reservation line to _
Judicial Landmark No. 11 set pursuant to Torrens Case No. A-257;
thence North along a line extended to Judicial Landmark No. 9 set
pursuant to Torrens Case No. A-257 to the intersection of said line
with the Southerly line of West 65th Street, which is the Southerly
Line of premises conveyed to the Village of Richfield in Deed recorded
• in Book 2053 of Deeds, page 131; thence Northeasterly along the
Southerly line of West 65th Street, which is the Southerly line of the
premises conveyed to the Village of Richfield in said deed, to the
_ East line of Government Lot 2; thence South along the East line of
Gov~...~..ent Lot 2 to the caner line of Tdest 66th Street; thence
Westerly along the center line of West 66th Street to the place of
beginning; all in Section 28, Township 28, Range 24., according to the
recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
r
.3_ -
Parcel 2: That part of Government Lot 1; Section 27; Township 28,
Range 24; described as beginning ai; a point in the South Iine of said
Gove......ent Lot 1; distant 152.80 f~~eet.East of the Southwest corner of
said Gove..W.ent Lot 1; thence Easterly along the South line of said
-Government Lot 1 a distance of 103,80 feet; thence Northerly parallel
With the West Iine of said Gov~~..~.,.~;nt Lot 1, a distance of 229.60
feet, thence at a right angle West ly 2.20 feet; thence Northerly
deflecting to the right 89 degrees 38 minutes a distance of 104.07
feet to the Southerly line of Registered Land Survey ,Number 1318;
Files of Registrar of Titles; Coon y of Hennepin; thence Westerly
a];ong Last said Southerly line to intersection with a line drawn
Northerly frcm the point of beginn ng and parallel with the West line -
of said Govey.w.ent Lot 1; thence utherly along last said parallel
line to the point of beginning. T~iat the. East line of said tract has
been judicially determined and mari,ed by Judicial Landmarks set
pursuant to Torrens Case Ncs. 1001" and 17641 and the West line of -
said tract has been judicially determined and Judicial Landmarks set
pursuant to Torrens Case No. 1764-T, according to the Government Survey
thereof . .
Parcel 3: All that part of Goverru:ent Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28
North, Range 24 West of the Fourth Principal Meridian, described as
. fr+i i ~ws: Ccannencing on a line par llel to and 256-.6 feet East of the
West Iine of said Section 27 at a oint therein which is 123.7 feet
North along said Line from the Sou line of said Gov~.,w.ent Lot 1,
which point is marked by a Judici Landmark; thence North along said.,.:
t~ parallel line a distance of 105.9 eet; thence East a distance of
306.5 feet, more or Less, to ~ in ersection with the Westerly line of
Lyndale Avenue, which point of int rsection is determined by returning
to the point of beginning of said ine and continuing North along said
parallel line a distance of 103 fe t; thence South 82 degrees 56 -
minutes East 141.7 feet; thence No th 82 degrees, 34 minutes East to
the West Iine of Lyndale Avenue; ence Southerly along said latter
line, 115 feet to said point oft 'nation of the North line of the
land now being described; thence 5~uthwesterly along the Westerly line
of said Avenue a distance of 113.4 feet, more or less, to a Judicial
Landmark located in said line at a distance of 95.5 feet Northeasterly
along said Iine frcm a Judicial Landmark placed at the intersection of
the Westerly Iine of said Avenue and the North line of 'Test 66th
Street; thence West 229.2 feet to the point of beginning, according to
the Government Survey thereof.
Parcel 4: Tract D, Registered Lane Survey No. 1318, Files of
Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin.
-7-
Passed by the City Council of the.City of Richfield; Minnesota this
day of , 1984:
John Hamilton, Mayor
~ll~r:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 222
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor -
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Presentation to Miss Richfield Candidates
Council Members:
Council Member Bunce has requested that a presentatiaon of _
the Miss Richfield candidates be placed on the June 25, 1984
city council agenda.
The six candidates, Becky DaWald (sponsored by Hub
Merchants); Andrea Doeden (sponsored by Richfield Jaycee Women);
Robin Doeden (sponsored by Richfield Optimists; Rhonda Kimler
(sponsored by Dairy Queen); Lynn Resler (sponsored by Richfield
Jaycee Men); and Anne Sloan (sponsored by Burger King), will be
present at this meeting to receive a memento from the City
Council and to be publicly introduced as Miss Richfield
candidates for the 1984 Fourth of July Celebration.
I' pectfu 1 mitted,
i
John G. Car right
City Manager
JGC/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA Iv
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 221
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Market Plaza Corporation Request for Four
Temporary Ground Signs and Fee Waiver
Council Members:
Market Plaza Corporation has requested four temporary ground
signs for the Market Plaza Shopping Center to be built on the
site of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue.
One is to be a double-faced ground sign, x 12' (192
square feet), and advertise the Market Plaza Condominiums.
The other three signs are to be single faced, x 8' (64 square
feet), and advertise the Market .Plaza Shopping Center (space for
lease).
Richard Krier, of Market Plaza Corporation, has requested
that the fees be waived. The total permit fee for the four sign
permits is $128.00.
Cit of Richfield ordinance code .4 subdivision 1
Y 3 9, 9, (5)
provides that city council approval is required for temporary
ground signs. A copy of that ordinance is attached.
Staff Review
City ordinance provides for a maximum of 12 square feet for.
temporary ground signs. Three of the proposed signs are 64
square feet; and one is 192 square feet.
City ordinance 3.47, subdivision 12, provides for fee
waivers only to civic or religious organizations and is not
applicable in this case.
Co ncil etter o. _ _ i
u L N 221 2 i
City Manager Recommendation
Although the signs are oversized, they will be located on
essentially vacant land earmarked for major redevelopment. The
City of Richfield has entered into a Developer's Agreement for
the Market Plaza Developments. Therefore, the city manager
recommends approval of the four sign applications. It is the
City Manager's understanding that the city has not waived permit
fees for businesses and, therefore, the recommendation is to
continue this policy and require the permit fees because the
city will have the expense of inspecting the sign installations.
for conformance.
spectf ly- bmitted,
~i/~
John G.~ Car right
City Manager j
JGC/eja
i
~
® h rd T w r Minnea olis MN 55426 612 /54b-2276
Dernck Land Company 1650 S ela o e p
14 June 1984
Mr. Bruce Palmberg
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Bruce: -
. Attached are the signed applications for four
temporary signs on the redevelopment site.
Please have John Cartwright sign the application
(marked with an x} and bring them over to Sivert.
Z know the city is going to waive any fees, right?
Have Sivert call me should he have any questions.
Sin rely,
Richard C. Krier, AICP
Vice President
Derrick Companies
RCK:clb
Enclosures
,APPROVE ~ DEIQY APPROVE ` I DE:~'YI I:
City Manager Inspector
Date Date
APPROVE ~ ~ I)ENY~ I : APPROVE ~ ~ DENY
Planning Department City Council
Date Date
Route to above for special approval per code General Suns
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERi`SIT
City of Richfield, Piinnesota
Date(//,Z/~~{ Zoning~~~~~ Sign Erected - Yes No ~ Fee
Address of Sign Proprietor Name h~'~i~t DBA -
Sign Erector ~d~lQ.~ Ct~ Address ~6~ ~ ~ J1^~S~
Tvpe of Seen Design Weather Cover Lighting
(Wall Single Face - _ Clear Lexon ~ Constant
Projecting ~ Double Face _ Frosted Lexon Flashing
Ground Multi-Faced ~ Plastic Covered Revolving
Roof ~ Aerial/Blimp Shaded Traveling
Pedestal Searchlight Neon Zip Lite
Changeable Banner/Pennants Other ~ Other(Explain)
Temporary ~ Portable Frame: ( ~ Sign Colors
Trailer ~ T ® A ~ Post
f Illuminated - Yes No Watts
~ectrical Contractor Address Phone
i rop~erty Owner or his Agent Signature X Phone ~J6-~~-'~~
Estimated Cost Sign Width ~~Height 1G~ ~ Total Square Feet 7G ~J~
T ~a-~ ~l ~~0 1 ~a S d•
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or publie 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? n(~
Wi e sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
f r s acc ss by pe ons destined for or passing the subject premises?
applicant's Signature and Title with Firm
L _ Date Y
Phone Number ~~~~~~~U ~
~t
8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SZGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061
/~,I I ~
•
I,
r, ~ _
~;a
~r
e
. ark _
_
~
' P A
V
is
/ i 1
6
`
f
i
w~.
I -
r
ACO~~o~~~U
~ ~ ~ ~
_co ~ ~ Y -o
~
. .
A~U_-S
o ~
C~~ o p
~ D ~ ~
I ~ r
~ ~ f
f
s
~ "101 _ - ~ ~!-~i~ _
APPROVE I I DE`~~YI APPROVE I DENYf
City Manager Inspector
Date Date
APPROVE ~ 7~ENY APPROVE I I DENYI I:
i Planning Department City Council
Date Date
Route to above for special approval per code General Signs
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield, .Minnesota
Date b/~a2,/8Y Zoning(~UI'1~LW(C'f~,Ul-t Sign Erected - Yes No y Fee
Address of Sign Proprietor Name DBA
Sign Erector m(~¢~ ~'<i?4. ~r ~ Address tb~ ~~er~d.`r°d ~~~z~CV ~.~,c.5 t'~?Z6
Type of Sien Desi,gtl ~ Weather Cover Liightin~
Wall ~ Single Face - _ Clear Lexon ~ ! Constant
Projecting Double Face _ Frosted Lexon l Flashing
Ground Multi-Faced ~ Plastic Covered Revolving
Roof Aerial/Blimp Shaded ~ Traveling
Pedestal ~ Searchlight _ Neon I Zip Lite
Changeable ~ Banner/Pennants f Other ~ i Other(Explain)
Temporary ~ Portable Frame: I 0 Sign Colors ~(tte.
Trailer ~ ~ T ~ A ~ Post
Illuminated - Yes No Watts
ectrical Contractor Address Phone
Property Owner or his Agent Signature ~ ~ Phone Lv~=7~
Estimated Cost ~X1V Sign Width~_Height~ Total Square Feet 6'7'
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? n
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
f afe acce ~s by ersons destined for or passing the subject premises? n~
~~4pplicant's Si/gnat}ure an/d Title rw~it/h Fib
I ~ ~b - ! b Date ~,/off/~'t
Phone Numbe~ '
~t
8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061
APPROVE fDENYI APPROVE 1 I DENY
City ;Manager Inspector
Date Date
APPROVE ~ DENY APPROVE l DENYI I:
Planning Department City Council
Date Date
Route to above for special approval per code General Sims
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield,. Minnesota
Date ~/r~1${{ Zoning~~~~,~i'CUfQx Sign Erected - Yes No N Fee
~ ' n^
Address of Sign Proprietor Name DBA -
Sign Erector ~?j~L~~~4 ( plZ~ Address jC~ ~IC1~Lxp~LLX11~ . C~T~~
T,pe of Sir. Desis~n ~ Weather Cover Lighting
Wa11 Single Face - _ Clear Lexon ~ ~ Constant _
Projecting Double Face _ Frosted Lexon i Flashing
Ground Multi-Faced ~ Plastic Covered e Revolving
Roof Aerial/Blimp Shaded Traveling
Pedestal Searchlight Neon Zip Lite
Changeable I Banner/Pennants ~ Other ~ / C~~U,4?, ~~UP Explain)
Temporary Portable Frame r ~ ~ Sign Colors ,
Trailer ~ T ? A ~ Post
Illuminated - Yes No Watts
ectrieal Contractor Address Phone
Proparty Owner or his Agent Signature ~ Phone ~ 7-7 So~f
Estimated Cost ~ Sign Width. ~ Height ~ Total Square Feet
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalles,
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 sib billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
ineluding 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?
W' the sig structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, aro~~, or over
or sa a ac y persons destined for or passing the subject premises? ,
Applicant's ignature and Title with Fif-~ ~
~ Date ~ _
Phone Numbe~~~ ~ ~ 7 7'/J
~t
8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061
APPROVE I DEIv'YI I: APPROVE I DENY I:
City Manager Inspector
Date Date
APPROVE I T1EN'Y ~ : APPROVE ~ DENY+
Planning Department City Council
Date Date
Route to above for special approval per code General Suns
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PER_`~IIT
City of Richfield, riinnesota
Date t9/ro~~'T Zonin~Sign Erected - Yes No Y,' Fee
Address `of Sign Proprietor Name ~ DBA -
Sign Erector~~t~X~L~i ~~,C(~ ~ Address 1~~~SCJ ~~~X~tC1'~~-~°~ ~Jt"'~'~~r~
Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting
Wall X Single Face ~ Clear Lexon Constant _
Projecting Double Face Frosted Lexon Flashing
Ground { Multi-Faced Plastic Covered ~ Revolving
® Roof I Aerial/Blimp I 1 Shaded Traveling
Pedestal Searchlight { ~ Neon Zip Lite
P Chan eable i Banner/Pennants Other DD ~,Q~ther(Ex lain)
Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors 1~~~+, LL3bLt.a~(-~l~E' p
Trailer T ~ A ~ Post
. Illuminated - Yes No Watts
"~!lectrical Contractor - Address Phone
I°rop~rty Owner or his Agent Signature Phone i
Estimated Cost Sign Width g Height ~ Total Square Feet E5`Y
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? n,~
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for\ti I e a cess by persons destined for or passing the subject premises?
f
~,pplicant s Signature and Title with Firm / ~j
G Date C~/~.2~CJ y
Phone Number~),S~lj - `
~t
8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION .SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061
_ ~ 1 r
4_ 1 ~ ` E
~
~ I \ \ ~ ~ ~ 1
~ ~
~ /
_ ~ _
.
v ~
1 ~ ~ 1 1 / \ p \
/ ~ /
~~~~-f~ F. ~\IEL~C~\f °a GEORGE ~~~TR~M ~6 s;.~,v~~~
~
1'~ ~ -
C~~~~1P~\f~14ES and PCSKO ~r~ci r\S~UCI~\TE~
i .
s ,
iuail and t'~a (v' :L .O[. 1Q:.~2d 'ia at t, ~%cd S' ~I'i,
:~li ~11~ '1. :5 ~!13~'L ~e ~T ..^.On-co:~blst~bl~ i'13t_Y'1a1j, Or J= ~Ot !c._
than one hour fire resistive construction.
Subd, 14, Roof Si=ns: Construction and Desi?n, The following standards shall
be maintained for all roof signs: _
(1) No roof sign shall be located nearer than five feet from the ol~tside
wall toward whicz it =aces, nor exceed 2~ feet in hei:;ht above the roor le;•ti
of the building unless constructed integral with the building or structure,
nor shall it project beyond the edge of said roof in any direction. For the
purposes of this subdivision, lights attached to the sign structure and 1i~_hcs
attached to the building and beamed toward the sign structure shall be con-
sidered part of the sign structure.
(2) Every such sign shall be either metal, metal clad, incombustible, open
wire or open metal sign, except that such .sign may have letters, figures,
characters, or borders of wood if such borders do not exceed four inches in
width, and such wooden Letters, figures or characters do not cover more than
25 % of the area of such sign, provided that in place of sheet metal, sub-
stitution may be made of the following materials; tempered pressed wood or
other similar materials approved by the chief inspector, having equal proper-
ties as to strength, fire and moisture resistance.
(3) No such sin shall be so pierced as to prevent free passage of persons
from one part of the roof to another,
(4) The building or structure upon which such sign is placed, and all
attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to safely resist the dead
l~ load and the wind load added by the attached sign, and in such a manner as not
l to cause damage to the building or structure on which such sign is placed,
(5) No roof sign shall be more than 65 feet in length nor shall it e:ttend
more than 25 feet above the surface of the roof of the building on which it
is located, No roof sign shall extend more than 45 feet above the average
ground level of that Dart of the street toward which it faces.
Subd. 15. Wall Signs: Construction and Design, The following standards shall
be maintained for all wall signs: •
(1) No wall sign shall have a projection over a private sidewalk or an
established building line of more than 12 inches.
The materials, construction and attachment of anv_ such sign shall meet
the same standards and requirements as roof signs.
Subd. 16. Banners and Temporars~ Signs. The following standards shall be
maintained for all banners and temvorarv signs:
(1) Temporar~a signs and banners attached to any building and constructed
of canvas, plastic maceriai, cloth or other combustible material with or with-
out framework; shall be strongly. constructed and shall be secure l•; attached
to their supports. They shall be removed (including all frameworks and
supports) as soon as damar,ed or torn and in no case Tatar than o0 days after
erection.
Temporar-~ si;r.s of combustible material shall got be 1ar~er tha, 1~0
sgl!are reef in area for each twent•; fees or buildir.~ irenta~e. There 5[•:aii
not be more than one _~-;eorar~• s:~n on an•_,- builcin~ ~_or.tae.
. ~ ~~d%o~
ORDINANCE CODE 91 CITY OF RICHFIELD, ^~11N!VcSO?A
a-~---. - - - _ - ~ - - -
?L1U11C JrOUt'rt`i ~..~r i__:!:t-Ui-WaV, Gilt maV C:;t2PU 3 `la:~:l a i^. OT• 0 1nC=:E'S trOa .
the [ace of the buLiuin`J.
(=+j Temporary suns of combustible construction shall not be hung so as to
cover either partially or completely any door, window, or opening required for
ventilation.
(5) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material, and no tem-
poraryground sign shall be located on any multiple-residence, commercial or ._ry
industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit
therefor from the council. If the council determines to grant an application
for a special permit for any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such
temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon tY~e granting thereof, a~;d ,p
it shall be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a
longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special-
permit. No such special permit shall be for a period of more than b0 days.
No such special permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs
a'r banners are prohibited by other provisions of this code.
Subd. 17. Application of Other Provisions of this Part. Temporary ground
signs as defined in Section 3.41, Subdivision 1, of this art shall com 1
P ~ P Y
with the provisions of Subdivision 16.
Subd. 1B. Approval of Sign Permit Applications. Upon presentation of ap-
plication, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information,
the sign construction permit shall be issued by the manager, or his represent-
ative, except as provided in Subdivision 19 of this section.
Subd. 19. Special Approval from Council. In the case of an application for
a sign requiring a special permit, or which will be illuminated, or moving, -
or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such
sign to the council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred,
shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council.
Subd. 20. Variance from Terns of Approval Prohibited. No sign shall be
erected, used or maintained in a manner at variance from the provisions of
this code or different -from that approved by the council. No building or
electrical permit for a sign shall be granted until the sign permit has been
approved.
Subd. 21. Future Permits. A permit shall not be issued for any new bill-
board or advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised
product is sold, if such billboard or sign would be within 300 feet of any
other such billboard or sign already in existence in the interior of the
same city block or its equivalent area. Permits may b'e issued for directional
or identification signs. Any billboard removed under the provisions of Sub-
division 22 of this section shall not be reissued. Any billboard destroyed
by storms or acts of God :-lay be rebuilt within 90 days, if complying with this ~
part.
x/3/68
ORDINANCE CODE 92 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO?A
I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 220
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of. Richfield
Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign, Glad
Raggs, Hub Shopping Center
Council Members:
Graff Signs have requested an advertising permit for a sign
for Glad raggs to be located in the Hub Shopping Center.
It is to be an illuminated si n 10' " x 0" (2 .6 s ware
g 3 3 5 3 q
feet) with white faces, orange-glod neon with black returns.
City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 19 -
Illuminated Signs provides that city council approval is
required for illuminated signs.
The staff review of this proposal finds that the sign
request is in compliance with Richfield city ordinance. Staff,
therefore, recommends approval of the sign as proposed.
pectfu y s mitted,
/
ohn G. ar Wright
City Manager
JGC/eja
•
- -
APPROVE ~ JDENY~ I: APPROVE ~ DE2vY /
City Manager Inspect~~~ Ivy
Date Date /
APPROVE ~ 'DEh'Yj ~L ~c-,r~.Z~ APPROVE I ~ DENYI
i ~ Np\~ Planning Department City Council
~I,H~ i+u6 71vN Y~~ Date ~,~I~+~~-j Date
~ ~
Route to above for special approval per code General Signs
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PER.*IIT
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Date June .15,1984 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes Nora Fee
Address of Sign ~u 6 Proprietor Name Phase I DBA Glad Rugg
sign Erector Cra~>~ Signs Address 9686 85th Ave.Ne. Marle Grove,MN
Tvpe of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting -
X Wall ~ Single Face ~ Clear Lexon ~ Constant
Projecting Double Face Frosted Lexon _ Flashing
r~Ground Multi-Faced X ~ Plastic Covered _ Revolving
_ Roof Aerial/Blimp ~ Shaded ~ Traveling
_ Pedestal Searchlight ~ ~ Neon Zip Lite
Changeable ~ Banner/Pennants Other ~ Other(Explain)
r_ Temporary Portable Frame: ~ Sign Colors White faces,Oran~e-Gold
Trailer T ~ A ~ Post neon, Black returns
~ Illuminated - Yes XX No Watts 2400 maxiuffi
~ctrical Contractor Galindo Electric Address 15545 Traprock ~~hone 42'7-3086
Anoka~MN
iroparty Owner or his Agent Signature Phone
Estimated Cost $2000.00 Sign Width10~3"Height 30" Total Square Feet 25.53
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? des
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for ,~5~ ac ~ s ~~Ge,r~sons destined for or passing the subject premises? IlO
Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date June 15,1984
Phone Number 425-8526
8/g3 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061
~'~JLlc orcpcrt`; Ur ri~[:t-OT-Wa`J, hilt ^1aV ~Ytend a .^.,d_ti1^um OL b i:1CheS frC:~;
t1-ie taca of tt~ie building.
(~j Temporar,,~ signs of combustible construction shall rot be hung so as to
cover either partially or completely any door, window, or opening required for
ventilation.
(5) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material, and no tem-
porary ground sign shall be located on any multiple-residence, commercial or
industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit
therefor from the council. If the council determines to grant an application
for a special permit for any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such
temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and
it shall be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a
longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special
permit. No such special permit shall be for a period of more than 60 days.
No such special permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs
or banners are prohibited by other provisions of this code.
Subd, 17. Application of Other Provisions of this Part. Temporary ground
signs as defined in Section 3.41, Subdivision 1, of this part, shall comply
with the provisions of Subdivision 16.
Subd. 18. Approval of Sign Permit Applications. Upon presentation of ap-
plication, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information,
the sign construction permit shall be issued by the manager, or his represent-
ative, except as provided in Subdivision 19 of this section.
Subd, 19. Special Approval from Council. In the case of an application for ,
a sign requiring a special pemit, or which will be illuminated, or moving, -
or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such
sign to the council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred,
shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of Che council.
Subd. 20. Variance from Terms or Approval Prohibited. No sign shall be
erected, used or maintained in a manner at variance from the provisions of
this code or different from that approved by the council, No building or
electrical permit for a sign shall be granted until the sign per-,nit has been
approved,
Subd. 21. Future Permits. A permit shall not be issued for any new bi11-
board or advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised
product is sold, if such billboard or sign would be within 300 feet of any
other such billboard or sign already in existence in the interior of the
same city block or its equivalent area. Permits may be issued for directional
or identification signs. Anv billboard removed under the provisions of Sub-
division 22 of this section shall not be reissued. Any billboard destroyed
by storms or acts of God may be rebuilt within 90 days, if complying with this
part.
t
_
4/8i 68
ORDINANCE CODE 9~ C1TY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 219
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Public Hearing for Addition to Alley Paving
City Project 793
Council Members:
A public hearing was held on June 11, 1984 and continued
to the June 25, 1984 city council meeting to consider the
concrete paving of one additional alley as part of CP 793:
ALLEY BETWEEN FROM TO
Russell and Sheridan Avenues 67th Street 68th Street
There is still time to add this alley to the 1984 alley
• paving project. The estimated residential assessment is $19.75
per abutting foot, resulting in an estimate of $987.50 for a
typical fifty foot lot.
At the close of the public hearing, the staff recommends
that the city council adopt the attached resolution ordering the
project and its inclusion by change order in City Projct 793•
pectfu y mitt~ed,
ohn G. ar wrigh
City Ma ager
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PAVING OF
ONE ADDITIONAL ALLEY AND PREPARATION OF PLANS
C.P. 793B
WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council fixed a date for a
council hearing on the proposed improvement by concrete paving of the
following alley:
Between From To
Russell Avenue and Sheridan Avenue 67th St. 68th St.
AND, WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice of the hearing and two
weekly publications of the required notice was given as required by
law, and the hearing was held thereon on the 25th day of June, 1984
at which all persons desiring. to be heard were given an opportunity
to be heard thereon,
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the
council resolution adopted the 14th day of May, 1984.
2. Michael J. Eastling, City Engineer, is hereby designated
as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare
plans and specifications for the making of such improvement.
3. That this alley improvement shall be included by a change
order addition to City Project No. 793 and hereafter
be known as C.P. 793.
Adopted by the council of the City of Richfield this 25th day
of June, 1984.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 218
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Receiving Annual Report and Goals and Objectives
from the Advisory Board of Health
Council Members: - _
At the June 25, 1984 city council meeting, the city council.
and the Advisor Board of Health will hold a 'oint meetin at
Y J g
6:00 .m. to discuss the Board of Health~s oals and objectives
P g J
and their 1983 Annual Report.
These items will be formally presented to the City Council
for receipt at the regular council meeting.
pectf 1 mitted,
John G. Car Wright-
City Manager
JGC/eja
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 217
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Temporary Ground Signs, Hope
Presbyterian Church
Council Members: ~ -
Hope Presbyterian Church has requested a permit for a
temporary ground sign to be used July 1 through August 1, 1984.
The sign is to be 8' x 4' (32 square feet), will not be
illuminated and is to publicize their vacation Bible school
program.
City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 16 (5),
provides that city council approval is required for temporary
grund signs. A copy of that ordinance section is attached for
council review.
Staff's review of this proposal finds the sign request is in
compliance with Richfield city ordinances. Staff, therefore,
recommends council approval of the temporary ground sign as
proposed.
pectf 1 mitted,
ohn G. ar Wright ,
City Ma age ~ /
JGC/eja
•
APPROVE ~ _---I DENY I ~ : APPROVE ~ DENY I ~ :
. City Manager Inspector
Date Date bf~'~~~-
APPROVE ~ I DENY ~.~il~ APPROVE DENYI
Planning Depazatment City Council
Date L~~LI~~ Date
i
oute to above for special approval per code General Sims
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield, ,Minnesota
Date Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee
/ Q ~i'a'~~
Address of Sign ~/3~-~,~r~A~/~' ,$'O_ Proprietor Name~~E~~3 j~~,~jf,~ DBA ~ .
/ c~ /a/l/iPC'~Y
Sign Erector~/7/~".~ (~~~~e/ Address ~/~~_,~d,/~~~~~//7 ,q~/~. s'G'
Tvpe of Sign Design Weather Cover Lil~hting
Wall ~ Single Face - Clear Lexon ~ ! Constant _
Projecting Double Face Frosted Lexon Flashing
Ground Multi-Faced Plastic Covered Revolving
Roof Aerial/Blimp I I Shaded ~ Traveling
Pedestal Searchlight ~ Neon ~ Zip Lite
Changeable I Banner/Pennants Other Other(Explain)
Temporary ~ 1 Portable, Frame: ~ Sign Colors /3.~AC' ~~Gr/«h.~ _
Trailer ~ T ~ A Pos -S/fr'h/ f~s h7.4 ry ~ v~G/~0,~7
If Illuminated - Yes o Watts
ectrical Contractor. ~ A dress Phone
Property Owner or his Agent Signature~l~, i+-p' Phon l
' ~ i i
Estimated Cos3~5-/~ Sign Width S Height y Total Square Feet
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, 0r 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 c`,o~ relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises? T~s
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around,. or over
for safe cegS by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? /j/~~
Applicant's Signature and Ti~'l.e with Fi=m
r Date (IJ/~j~~f ~~T
Phone Number L~k^ll, ' ~{OS-.5 ~ ~ v ~
-
t L_
8/83 ~ PLEASE SEE REVERSE S IGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061
I
! _1 T}~F ~ ~r _ tr'iC _._re c`.r.., ,'?1_~tl a~ cuC"1 _ nr~ J _ ~ ~ 1 i
attachments or ~astenin~s ~:ust be so constructed as to sa~el',- resist the ead
Load and the wind load added by the attached s.gn,
(5) All such signs shall be of non-combustible materials, or of not less
than one hour fire resistive construction.
Subd, 14. Roof Signs: Construction and Design, The following standards shall
be maintained for all roof signs: _
(1) No roof sign shall be located nearer than five feet from the outside
wall toward which it faces, nor exceed 25 feet in hei;~ht above the roof level
of the building unless constructed integral with the building or structure,
nor shall it project beyond the edge of said roof in any direction. For the.
purposes of this subdivision, lights attached to the sibn structure and lights
attached to the building and beamed toward the sign structure shall be con-
sidered part of the sign structure,
(2) Every such sign shall be either metal, metal clad, incombustible, open
wire or open metal sign, except that such sign may have letters, figures,
characters, or borders of wood if such borders do not exceed four inches in
width, and such wooden letters, figures or characters do not cover more than
25 % of the area of such sign, provided that in place of sheet metal, sub-
stitution may be made of the following materials; tempered pressed wood or
other similar materials approved by the chief inspector, having equal proper-
ties as to strength, fire and moisture resistance.
(3) No such sign shall be so placed as to prevent free passage of persons
from one part of the roof to another,
(4) The building or structure upon which such sign is placed, and all
attachments or fastenings :rust be so constructed as to safely resist the dead
load and the wind load added by the attached sign, and in such a manner as not
to cause damage to the building or structure on which such sign is placed,
(5) No roof sign shall be more than. 65 feet in length nor shall it extend
more than 25 feet above the surface of the roof of the building on which it
is located. No roof sign shall extend more than 45 feet above the average
around level of that part of the street toward which it faces.
Subd. 15. Wall Signs; Construction and Design. The following standards shall
be maintained for all wall signs: .
(1) No wall sign shall have a projection over a private sidewalk or an
established building line of more than 12 inches.
(2) The materials, construction and attachment of any such sign shall meet
the same standards and requirements as roof signs.
Subd. 16. Banners and Temporary Signs. The following standards shall be
' maintained for all banners and temporary signs:
(1) Temporary signs and banners attached to any building and constructed
of canvas, plastic material, cloth or other combustible material with or with-
out framework; shall be strongly constructed and shall be securely attached
to their supports. They shall be removed (including all framewor'.~c and
supports) as soon as damaged or torn and in no case later than 60 days after
erection.
(2) Temporary signs of combustible material shall not be larger than 120
square feet in area for each twenty feet of building frontage. There shall
not be more than one temporar-~ sign on anv_ building frontage.
ORDINANCE CODE gl C{TY OF R{CHFiELD, MINNESOTA
s e
CllD11l propert`y' or rl`hr.-Oi-WaV, b:1t Via:' ~Yt~_'nC -1a~i:^.l1ii? C~ :%Ci:zS
the pace of the building.
(4) Temporar~~ suns of combustible construction shall .^.ot be ~~.ir.= so as to
cover either partially or completel:; any door, window, or opening required for
ventilation.
(5) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material,. and no tem-
porary ground sign. shall be located on any multiple-residence, commercial or
industrial property in the. city without first obtaining a special permit
therefor from the council. If the council determines to grant an application
for a special permit for .any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such
temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon th'e granting thereof, anL'
it shall be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a
longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special
permit. No such special permit-shall be for a period of more than 60 days.
No such special permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs
or banners are prohibited by other_provisions of this code.
Subd. 17. Application of Other Provisions of this Part. Temporary ground
signs as defined in Section 3.41, Subdivision 1, of this part, shall comply
with the provisions of Subdivision 16.
Subd. 18. Approval of Sign Permit Applications. Upon presentation of ap-
plication, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information,
the sign construction permit shall be issued by the manager, or his represent-
ative, except as provided in Subdivision 19 of this section.
Subd. 19. Special Approval from Council. In the case of an application for
a sign requiring a special permit, or which will be illuminated, or moving, -
or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such
sign to the council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred,
shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council.
Subd. 20. Variance from Terms of Approval Prohibited. No sign shall be
erected, used or maintained in a manner at variance from the provisions of
this code or different from that approved by the council. No building or
electrical permit for a sign shall be granted until the sign permit has been
approved.
Subd. 21. Future Permits. A permit shall not be issued for any new bi11-
board or advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised
product is sold, if such billboard or sign would be within 300 feet of any
other such billboard or sign already in existence in the interior of the J
same city block or its equivalent area. Perrnits may be issued for directional
or identification signs. Any billboard removed under the provisions of Sub-
division 22 of this section shall not be reissued. Any; billboard destroyed
by storms or acts of God clay be rebuilt within 90 days, if complying with this
part.
t'
'~/S/68
ORDINANCE CODE 92 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 216
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request to Reject Bids for Articulated Aerial
Device and Authorization to Rebid
Council Members:
On Thursday, May 31, 1984, three bids were received by the
Department of Community Services for the purchase of one
articulated aerial device. This unit is budgeted to replace an
existing high ranger.
However, the required legal notice was not published.
Therefore, legal requirements were not met for this bidding
• process.
It is recommended the city council reject all bids and
direct the staff return the bid securities submitted May
31, 1984 and authorize a readvertisement for bids. Award of
contract is tentatively scheduled for July, 1984.
spectf 1 omitted,
~ _
John G. Car Wright
City Manager v
JGC/eja
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 215
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Cit of Richfield
Y
Subject: Presentation by Lions Club to Community Center
Council Members:
The Richfield Lions Club held. a pancake breakfast at the
Community Center on Sunday, April 1, 1984. The proceeds,
(approximately $700) from the breakfast are being donated to
the Community Center. The Young at Heart Club will determine
the specific use for these funds. Representatives of the
Lions Club will be in attendance at the Monday, June 25, 1984
council meeting at 7:00 PM to make the presentation.
pectfu 1 s mitted,
c ~
z-~~
ohn G . ~artw fight
City Ma ager
JGC/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 214
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Sub'ect. Re uest for Permit for Illuminated Si n Great
J q g
Clips, Hauser/Sndyer Shopping Center
Council Members: -
Macey Sign Company has requested an advertising permit for
Great Clips, located at 6510 Pillsbury Avenue (next to the
Nautilus Building).
It is to be an illuminated sign, 15' x 2', with the caption
GREAT CLIPS.
City of Richfield ordinance 'code 3.49, subdivision 19 -
Illuminated Signs provides that city council approval is
• required for illuminated signs. A copy of that section of the
ordinance is attached for council review.
Staff's review of the sign as requested finds the proposal
is in compliance with Richfield city ordinance. Staff,
therefore, recommends approval of the illuminated sign as
proposed.
spectfu mitted,
//ff ~
' ~v/
John G. ar Wright '
City M ager
JGC/eja
• 4
MACE1(
corporal. Offices
4111 Central Avenue Sulte2o4
MlnnesPotia, MH 55421 612-788-9188
INSTALLATION OF:
INDIVIDUAL IDENTIFICATION LETTERS READING: Great Clips
LETTERS ARE ~4" T3PPER CASE & 15" LOWER CASE. _
LETTER STYLE IS HELVETICA. THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED
OF 5 4'" ALUN~INUM RETURNS (painted blue to match face
color) WITH l~?" PLYMETAL BACKS. BLUE PLEXIGLAS
FACES WITH 1" GOLD TRIM CAP. INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED
WITH SINGLE-STROKE NEON TUBING (white).
ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS BY OTHERS.
NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING - LETTERS TO BE INSTALLED
• TO BRICK STORE FRONT.
If you have any questions, please
contact Sandy Meerkins at our office.
THANK YOU
Ruvelson Design Consultants
Macey Slgn Retail Stora
4111 Central Avenue Minneapolta
Macey Sign Manufacturing
Macey Sign Installation
Macey Sign Maintenance
451 Wllaon Street MlnneaDolls
r~-pprove C Deny ? Approve a Denv
City Manager Inspector
Date. Date
pprove Deny LJ Approve Deny
Planning Dept. City Council
Date Bate
Route to above for special
approval per code General Signs
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PER.*tIT (2 parts)
City of Richfield, Minnesota
~ ~ ~ --j
Date (,~'j~jf~ Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee
Address of Sign 6510 Pillsbury Ave Sproprietor Name Great Clips DRA
Sign Erector MACEY SIGN COMPANY Address 4111 Central Avenue NE - Mpls MN 55421
Tvpe of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting
Wall ~ Single face Clear Lexon ~ Constant
Proiecting ~ Double face Frosted Lexon Flashing
Ground Multi-faced Plastic Covered ~ Revolving
U Roof Aerial/Blimp Shaded Traveling
H ~ Pedestal Searchlight ~ Neon Zip-lite
H _ Changeable BannerjPennants Other Other (Exnl.)
~ _ Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors See attacYjed
w Trailer ~ T~-j A.~~ Posh
~ ~
If Illuminated - Yes XX No 1Vatts
Electrical Contractor by others Address Phone
Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone
Estimated Cost JL~~~ Sign Width ~ 5~ Height 29 Total Sq. Ft. AvpRl~
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 maior 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 to solely 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 access by persons destined for or passing the suhiect premises?
~ V ~~,~~~i President iCxaner
, icant's~ ~i~nature and Title with Firm Date JI1NE 13, 1984
Phone Number 788-9188
DPS 101
10/1/79
_ i
f
_iUl-:_ arcpert~•:- or ~ ~:nJ-c.-~.,;a`,~, ullt :na'; __:t2P.d 3 :^.3~:'_:?L':'1 OL FJ inches =rG:^
file iacc Ot file C'ui1~:i:1„
(ij Temporary: sins or co,~,bustible construction. shall not be hunk so ss to
cover either partially or completely any door, window, or opening required for
ventilation.
(5) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material, and no tem-
porary ground sign shall be located on any multiple-residence, co:r,~nercial or
industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit
therefor from the council. If the council determines to grant an application
for a special permit for any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such
temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, anal
it shall be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannerin~ for a
longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special
permit. No such special permit shall be for a period of more than 60 days.
:;o such special permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs
s or banners are prohibited by other provisions of this code.
Subd. 17. Application of Other Provisions of this Part. Temporary ground
signs as defined in Section 3.41, Subdivision 1, of this part, shall comply
with the provisions of Subdivision 16.
Subd. 18. Approval of Sian Permit Applications. Upon presentation of ap-
plication, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information,
the sign construction permit shall be issued by the manager, or his represent-
ative, except as provided in Subdivision 19 of this section.
Subd. 19. Special Approval from Council. In the case of an application for
a sign requiring a special pernit, or which will be illuminated, or moving, -
or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such
sign to the council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred,
shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council.
Subd. 20. Variance from Terms of Approval Prohibited. No sign shall be
erected, used or maintained in a manner at variance from the provisions of
this code or different from that approved by the council. ti'o building or
electrical permit for a sign shall be granted until the sign permit ilas been
approved. <
Subd. 21. Future Permits. A permit shall not be issued for any new bi11-
board or advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised
product is sold, if such billboard or sign would be within 300 feet of any
other such billboard or sign already in existence in the interior of the
same city block or its equivalent area. Pernits may be issued for directional
or identification signs. Anv billboard removed under the provisions of Sub-
di~°ision 22 of this section shall not be reissued. Anv billboard destroyed
by storms or acts of God -lay be rebuilt within 90 days, if complying with this
part.
c
4/8/68
ORDINANCE CODE 92 CITY OF RICHFIELD, !V1INNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 213
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council .
City of Richfield
Subject: Consideration to Authorize Execution of Labor
Agreement with the Richfield Police Officers
Federation
There is an item on the June 25, 1984 City Council agenda
providing for Council approval of a labor contract which has
been negotiated between the City and the Richfield Police
Officers Federation, which is represented by Law Enforcement
Labor Services, a statewide police labor union. The contract
covers the period from January 1, 1984 through December 31,
1985. This bargaining unit represents all Public Safety
employees assigned to the position classifications of Police
Officer and Investigator/Agent. There are presently 32
employees represented within this unit. The bargaining unit
has ratified the proposed agreement on a vote of 21-4.
The major changes in the 1984-85 contract with the Richfield
Police Officers Federation are as follows:
1) Effective January 1, 1984, a 4.61 adjustment over the
1983 wage rates for both the Police Officer and Investigator/
Agent classifications. The 1984 top Police Officer rate
would be established at $2,339 per month. A 4.85% adjustment
over 1984 rates would become effective January 1, 1985 for both
the Police Officer and Investigator/Agent classification,
yielding a top Police Officer rate of $2,452 per month.
2) Effective January 1, 1984, the maximum employer
contribution for health, life and dental insurances would be
increased from the 1983 level of $104.10 per month to $138.10
per month. The 1985 maximum contribution for employee insurance
coverages increases to $158.20 per month. The insurance
contribution increases set for 1984-85 bring the Richfield
Police Bargaining Unit employees more in line with comparable
employee units in the metropolitan area, based on other
settlements for police employees.
3) The Educational Incentive Program will be increased,
• effective January 1, 1985, from $.90/credit to $.95/credit.
Thus, the maximum monthly Educational Incentive payment for
eligible Officers would increase from $162 to $171.
Council Letter No. 213 -2-
4) The clothing allowance for Federation members would be
increased from $250 in 1983 to $275 in 1984 and $315 in 1985•
These amounts are comparable to other metropolitan communities.
5) Leadworker compensation has been changed to reflect the
past practice of granting five overtime hours per month for such
assignment.
6) The Grievance Article has been amended to specifically
exclude probationary employees from eligibility to file griev-
ances. ,
7) Several language changes and clarifications were made
relative to the work schedules of employees. These changes
collectively better emphasize the city's authority to determine
work schedules.
There were no other changes with economic impact, and no
changes in Vacation, Holiday or Sick Leave accrual rates.
In negotiating the 1984-85 Police Officer rates, the
following factors were considered:
1) 1984 top Police Officer rates in other area communities,
which range from $2,335 in most Teamster Local 320 and LELS-
represented communities to $2,385 in Eagan. Bloomington's top
• Police Officer rate for 1984 is $2,339/month. (See Attachments)
2) The 1985 top Police Officer rates for other metropolitan
cities established as of this point in time. Most such rates
have been settled at $2,452/month. (See Attachments)
3) Benefits provided to Police employees in other
metropolitan area communities, especially the insurance and
educational incentive benefits. (See Attachments)
4) The duties of Police Officers in Richfield as compared
to other comparable communities.
5) Wage and benefit settlements of other City of Richfield
employee groups.
Staff believes the 1984-85 Contract which has been
negotiated with the Police Officers Federation recognizes these
concerns and represents an equitable settlement for both the
City and the bargaining unit employees. It is recommended that
the City Council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing
implementation of this labor agreement.
• s ectfu y b fitted,
~ti~GGG~
Y
ohn G. art right
•
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES,
REPRESENTING THE RICHFIELD POLICE OFFICERS FEDERATION
BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEARS 1884 AND 1985
WHEREAS, the City Manager and Law Enforcement Labor
Services, representing the Richfield Police Officers Federation
Bargaining Unit, have reached a complete understanding
concerning rates of pay, hours and other conditions of
employment for the years 1984 and .1985, and
WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts
between the City and the exclusive representative of employees
in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by
council resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does
hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield
. and Law Enforcement Labor Services, representing the Richfield
Police Officers Federation Bargaining Unit, for the years 1984
and 1985 and order the provisions of the labor agreement to be
implemented effective January 1, 1984.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of June, 1984.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
•
I
STANTON CROUP V
1984 TOTAL COMPENSATION (Base Waye, Longevity I~
Education Incentive, Insurance)
• FOR TOF' PATR01_ 01 F-[CSR
1984
1984 Annual 1984 1484 Deferred I
Rate 1984 Annual 1984 Max. 1_ong/E.I. Ins, 1984 Annual income Per 1984 Annual 1984 Totai i
CammunltY Per Mo, Base Salary Long/E.I. Pay Per/Mo, Insurance Month Deferred Income Cnmpensatton I,
Anoka $2,3)5.(x) $ 28,020.(10 7 % $1,961.40 $154.53 $ 1,A54.36 $ )1,935.76 ~
Apple Valley 2,335.00 28,020.00 9 % 2,521.80 145,00 1,740.00 32,2.81.80
111a1ne ?,735.00 28,020.00 9 % 2,521.80 145.00 1,740,00 32,281.90
Bloomington 2_,3)9.00 28,069.00 $171.24/mo 2,054.88 173.00 2,076,00 32,199.88
ITrooklyn Center 1_,335.00 2H,07.0,(x) 9 % 7_,521,80 145.00 1,740.00 32,281.80 I
Drookyn Park 2,3f5.00 2A,020.00 9 % 2,521.80 145.00 1,740.00 32,2.81.80
Burnsville 2,377.(x) 28,524.00 9 % 2_,567,16 170.On T_,040.00 3),131,16
Coltmbla Heights 2,335.00 28,020.00 9 % 7,521.80 145.00 1,740,00 32,281.80
Coon Rapids 2_,375.00 28,500.00 9 % 2,565.00 140.00 1,680.00 32,745. W
Cottage Crove lenlative Agreement
Crystal 2,335.00 2A,020.00 9 % 2,521.80 145.00 1,740.00 )2,281.80
Sayan 2,385.00 7.8,6?_0.00 S % 2,575.80 180'.00 2,160.00 33,355.80 i
Eden Pra[r(e See Footnote? None 145.00 1,740,00 Sec Footnote?
Edina 2,362.00 28,344.00 9 % 2,550.96 130.00 1,560,00 )2,454,96
fr(dley 2,335.00 28,020.00 9 % 2,521.80 145.00 1,740.00 32,281,80
('.olden Valley A( Impasse
Ilast:ings 2,325.00 27,900.00 $ 65.00/mo 780.00 204,60 2,455.20 ~ 31,135.20
Ibpklns 2,316.00 27,797_.00 9 % 2,501.28 160.00 1,97.0,00 25.00 300.00 32,513.28
Inver Grove Flgts 2,335.00 28,020.00 $165.00/mo 1,980.00 145.00 1,740.00 31,740,00
1_akevllle 2,252.00 27,024.00 9 % 2,432.16 195.00 7_,340.00 31,796.16
Maple Crove A(. Imlra~; se
Maplewood 2,335.00 28,07.0.00 9 % 2,521.80 120.00 1,440.00 ?_0.00 2.40,00 32,221,80 li
Minnetonka 7.,358.00 28,296.00 $100,00/mo 1,200,00 198.50 2_,382.00 31,878.00 I,
Mounds Vlew 2,335.00 28,020.00 9 % 2,521.80 145.00 1,740.00 32,281.80
New Rrlyhton 2,335.00 7.8,020,00 9 % 1.,521,80 145,00 1,740.00 12,281.80
New Ilnpe 2,335.00 28,02.0,00 9 % 2,521.80 145.00 1,740.00 32,281.80
North Sl, Paul 2,335. W 28,02.0.(10 9 % 2,521.80 140.00 1,680,00 37_,221.90
Oakdale In Mediation
Plymouth 2_,335,00 28,07.0,(x) $175.00/mo 7_,100.00 187_.00 2,184.00 32,304,00
Ramsey ?,336.00 28,032.00 9 % 2,522.88 140.00 1,680.00 32,231+,88
I
(continued next page) ~
i i? !
STANTON CROUP V
1985 TOTAL COM'ENSAf[ON (Base Waye, I_ongevlty '
Education Incentive, lnsur.?ncel
FOR TOF' PATROL. 01-FTCER
1995
19A5 Annual 1985 1985 Deferred it
Nate 1995 Anrural 1985 Max, Long/E.l. Ins, 1995 Annual Income Per 1995 Annual 1995 Total
Community Per Mo. Oase Salary Long/E.I. Pay Per/Mo. Insurance Month Deferred Income Compensation
Anoka S S $ S $ $
Ample Valley
Rlainr-
Rlorxnington 2,456.00 29,472,00 S171.24/mo 2,054.89 TDD
I)rookl yn Center
Nrookyn Park
flurnsvllle reopener 9 % reopener
Coltmhla Neights
Coon Rapids
Cott.aye Grove
Crystal
f aq an
Eden Pralrle
Fdlna 2,490.00 29,760.00 9 % 2,679.00 reopener
I rldiey
Golden Valley it
Nasllnys
Ibpklns
Inver Grove Ilyts
I_akev t t 1 e
Maple (rove
Maplewood 2,452,00 29,424.00 9 % 2,649.16 120,00 1,440.00 40,00 480.00 33,992.16
Mlnnet.onka
Hounds Vlcw
New Orlghlon 2,452.00 29,424.00 9 % 2,648.16 155.00 1,860.00 37,932.16
New Ikrpe
North St. Paul
Oakda 1 e
Plymouth reopener $175.00/mo reopener
Ramsey
(continued next page)
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 212
Agenda June 25, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Special Council Meeting June 25 with Advisory
Board of Health
Council Member`s: -
The Advisory Board of Health has requested an opportunity to
meet with the City Council on Monday, June 25, 1984 at 6:00
p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the board's 1983
Annual Report (copy previously furnished to council members),
and to discuss their goals and objectives for 1984/85•
It is also recommended that ,t he Smoking/No Smoking
regulations for the city hall facilities be discussed once again
• with the Avisory Board of Health. Both Council Member Kirsch
and Thomas Morgan (council and staff liaisons to the Board) will
be available to discuss this issue with Council Members.
The city manager has prepared a memorandum for the June 25,
1984 joint City Council and Board of Health meeting concerning
the smoking/non-smoking issue. The memorandum sets forth a plan
to implement the smoking and no/smoking regulations.
The meeting will be in the council chambers at 6:00 p.m. on
Monday, June 25.
e pectf y fitted,
t , I~GZ~~tJz
ohn ~G . ,Car twr fight/
City Manage
JGC/eja
cc: Public Safety Director
e