Loading...
08-13-84 agenda• • 2. D, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 290 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Providing for Polling Places and Designating Judges for Statewide Primary Election - September 11, 1984 Council Members: There is a resolution on the council agenda for August 13, 1984, designating polling places for the statewide primary election on Tuesday, September-11, 1984. This resolution also provides for election judges at this primary. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution. TAM:sb cc: City Clerk Respectfully submitted, C", Thomas A. M17rgan, Jr. Acting City Manager C • I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR POLLING PLACES AND DESIGNATING JUDGES FOR STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION- SEPTEMBER 11, 1984 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. That there will be a Primary Election on Tuesday, September 11, 1984; 2. That said election shall be held at the polling places as herein appear specified, and that the following are hereby appointed as judges for said election: Precinct No. 1A Mt. Calvary Educational Bldg. 6541 16th Avenue South Election Judges: Chairperson: Shirley Gisselquist (D) Cc Chair: Ralph Roberts (R) Myrtle Lindgren (R) Bernice Utter (D) Norma Skogheim (D) Edith Nye (R) Joya Morrel (R) Philip Carney (D) Lois Ball (D) Scott Spranger (R) Precinct No. 2A St. Peter's Church 67th & Niccllet Ave. S. Election Judges: Chairperson: Elayne Gilhcusen (R) Cc Chair: Ellen Brandon (R) Pauline Huber ( R) Icne Waller (D) Mary J. Suess (D) Fern Oreck ( D) Vernon Kuhl ( D) Mildred Cochran (R) Florence Habegger (R) Lorayne Sutton ( D) Precinct No. 3A Sheridan Hills School 6400 Sheridan Ave. S. Election Judges: Chairperson: Jan Anderson (R) Co Chair: Lois Awes (D) Rose Hcppenrath (R) Linda Blcomgren (D) Bob Mack (D) Cher Merrill ( D) Charles Fanning (R) Meredith Anderson (D) Virginia Nitke ( D) Ted Chao ( R) Precinct No. 4 Lincoln Hills School 7440 Penn Ave. S. Election Judges: Chairperson: Dave Arnold (R) Cc Chair: Catherine Alfanc (D) Ethel Hcmmes (R) Mike Vclgren (R) Jaclyn Schwab (D) Kathy Barta (D) Franc Gray ( R) Gerry Ascher (D) Jean Anderson ( D) Marilyn Wagner (R) Precinct No. 5 Richfield Jr. High 7461 Oliver Ave. S. Election Judges: Chairperson: Phyllis Reinmuth (R) Cc Chair: Lois Karnas (R) Bev Stelman (D) Ccarl Carey (D) Esther Wiedenmeyer (R) Judy Tcoley ( R) Barb Vinge (D) Ind. Donna Jcrdahl (D) Angela Aylward (D) Margaret Mortensen (R) Precinct No. 6 Central School 7100 Harriet Ave. S. Election Judges: Chairperson: Viv Bennis (R) Cc Chair: Betty Halloran (R) Gertrude Ulrich (D) Alice Strom (R) Muriel Bernstein (D) Pat Farnham (R) May Farr (R) Barbara DeLcng (D) Alta Harmon (D) Kathleen Leckner (D) Precinct No. 7 Portland Scheel 72nd & 4th Ave. S. Election Judges: Chairperson: Donna Vidas (R) Cc Chair: Jean Frenz (R) Pat Brenner (D) Rosemary Reynolds (R) Fabiola Sullivan (D) Bernadetter Lais (R) Richard F. Cameron (D) Loraine DeMay ( D) Eunice Johnsen (D) Joan Wong ( D) Mary Wocd (R) Precinct No. 8 Richfield Intermediate School 7020 12th Ave. S. 0 Election Judges: Chairperson: Gertie Herll (D) Cc Chair: Audrey Winslow (R) James Jungels (D) Ilene Holen (R) M. Ann Mullerleile (D) Marilyn Holt (R) Ind. Eloise Friend (R) Ind. Harry Waller (D) Arvelle Beckman (D) Carol Josephs (R) Precinct No. 9 Centennial School 7315 Bloomington Ave. S. Election Judges: Chairperson: Corrine Cosgrove (D) Cc Chair: Barb Cook (D) Dee Wilcox (R) H. Darrell Koss (R) Nancy Winslow (R) Patricia Haupt (D) Lois Kovach (D) Clifford Martinson (R) Mildred Carlsen (D) Rosemary Keelln (R) Absentee Precinct Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Ave. S. Election Judges: Chairperson: Joanne Wilmes (.D) Cc Chair: Pat Toney (R) Edwina Garcia (D) Maxine Evans (R) Della Shuck ( D) Mary Morton (R) Alternates Democrat Republican Marge Fleming Judith Mcquist Jchn Gera Gertrude Broker Helen Hillstrom Eunice Aulwes Helen Vclz Howard Mortensen Patricia O'Hare Susan Lewis Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this 13th day of August, 1984. 0 John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk • 0 Iq CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 289 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: 1985 Alley Maintenance Special Assessment Project CP 810 Council Members: The policy adopted by the city council in 1980 for the permanent improvement of the city's alleys by paving provides that paving of an alley will be undertaken by petition of the owners representing more than 50% of the abutting property alley footage. The alley paving projects are to be initiated on a yearly basis, with those alleys in the city which are not paved or scheduled to be paved subject to special assessment for annual maintenance costs such as patching. In order to implement this alley maintenance policy, it is necessary for the city council to initiate a specific alley maintenance project. The policy states, "all costs involved in maintaining an alley will be assessed against the property abutting the alley." In 1981, the maintenance functions covered sweeping, cleaning of potholes and cold patching. In 1982, the maintenance functions covered by this assessment included not only the repair work but also an assessment to all alleys for snowplowing. Community Services Department personnel estimate the 1985 alley maintenance cost for the period January 1 - December 31 to be $17,500. Assessments will vary according to the amount of repair work necessary on any individual alley. Alleys which were paved in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 or are to be resurfaced in 1985 will not be assessed for the repair type maintenance. The second part of the estimated annual cost is the cost for snowplowing. Weather conditions will have a major impact on the actual assessment costs for snowplowing. All alleys in the city are assessed for snowplowing whether permanently improved or not. Therefore, the current maintenance costs for alleys to be assessed to abutting property owners in 1985 will be based on a per alley block calculation of actual cost for alley repair and a calculated shared cost of the actual cost for snowplowing. Council Letter No. 289 -2- August 13, 1984 • It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution which proposes to specially assess the costs of 1985 services for alley maintenance and sets the public hearing on this special assessment project for September 10, 1984. TAM:sb • • Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD JANUARY 1, 1985 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1985 CITY PROJECT NO. 810 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That area which includes the property which abuts improved alleys in Richfield (the "District ") is hereby established as a special assessment district for the purposes of assessing for current services provided by the city; 2. That the following current services of the city are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the city in the District with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against the benefitted property within the District: the repair, maintenance and snowplowing of alleys; 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of every assessable lot and parcel of land within the District. It is proposed that special assessments on property be made on the basis of pro -rated share of assessable abutting footage as defined in the alley improvement policy, Resolution No. 6345; 4. The city clerk is authorized and directed to publish notice of a public hearing by this council at which time the council will consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. Such notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least once and at least two weeks prior to the date of hearing. Such hearing shall be held on Monday, September 10, 1984, commencing at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the costs of the aforementioned services for the period from January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985. The estimated cost of prcviding,all of the aforementioned current services, using day labor, during that period is $17,500. 6. The project is feasible. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor 0 ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk 15- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 287 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolutions Declaring Costs to be Assessed for Alley Maintenance and Snowplowing for the Period April 1, 1983 to December 31, 1983 and Setting the Date of Hearing - CP 791 Council Members: The costs incurred for alley maintenance and snowplowing for the period of April 1, 1983 to December 31, 1983 have been determined to be $18,100. Property owners on permanently paved concrete alleys are assessed for snowplowing only, while property owners on all other alleys are assessed actual maintenance costs for their individual alley and snowplowing costs. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolutions declaring the costs to be assessed, ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll, and setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for September 10, 1984. TAM:sb C7 Respectfully submitted, �dYr► � � Thomas A. Mo'Fgan, Jr. Acting City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE AND SNOWPLOWING CITY PROJECT NO. 791 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance and snowplowing of the following alleys in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance and snowplowing for the period of April 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983, amount to be $18,100: Number Surrounding Avenues Surrounding Streets 1001 Xerxes - Washburn 66 -67 1002 Xerxes - Washburn 67 -68 1003 Xerxes - Washburn 68 -69 1004 Xerxes - Washburn 69 -70 1005 Washburn - Vincent 66 -67 1006 Washburn - Vincent 67 -68 1007 Washburn - Vincent 68 -69 1008 Washburn - Vincent 69 -70 1009 Vincent - Upton 66 -67 1010 Vincent - Upton 67 -68 1011 Vincent - Upton 68 -69 1012 Vincent - Upton 69 -70 1013 Upton - Thomas 66 -67 1014 Upton - Thomas 68 -69 1015 Upton - Thomas 69 -70 1016 Thomas - Sheridan 66 -67 1017 Thomas - Sheridan 67 -68 1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68 -69 1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69 -70 1020 Sheridan - Russell 66 -67 1021 Sheridan - Russell 67 -68 1022 Sheridan - Russell 68 -69 1023 Sheridan - Russell 69 -70 1024 Russell - Queen 66 -67 1025 Russell - Queen 67 -68 1026 Russell - Queen 68 -69 1027 Russell - Queen 69 -70 1028 Queen - Penn 66 -67 1029 Queen - Penn 67 -68 1030 Queen - Penn 68 -69 1031 Queen - Penn 69 -70 2001 Penn - Oliver 63 -64 2002 Oliver - Newton 63 -64 2004 Morgan - Logan 63 -64 2005 Logan - Knox 63 -64 2007 James - Irving 63 -64 2008 Irving - Humboldt 63 -64 2009 Humboldt - Girard 63 -64 2010 Girard - Fremont (35W) 63 -64 2011 2012 Girard - Girard - Fremont (35W) Fremont (35W) 64 -65 65 -66 2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 64 -65 2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 65 -66 -2- 2015 Dupont - Colfax 63- Mildred Dr. 2016 Colfax - Bryant 63- Mildred Dr. 2017 Bryant - Aldrich 63- Mildred Dr. 2019 Graham - Lyndale 66 -Lk. Shore Dr. 2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 75 -76 2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76 -77 3002 Lyndale - Garfield 68 -69 3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70 -71 3004 Augsburg - Garfield 71 -72 3005 Lyndale - Garfield 72 -73 3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73 -74 3007 Garfield - Harriet 71 -72 3008 Garfield - Harriet 72 -73 3009 Garfield - Harriet 73 -74 3011 Harriet - Grand 67 -68 3012 Harriet - Grand 68 -69 3013 Harriet - Grand 72 -73 3014 Harriet - Grand 73 -74 3015 Grand - Pleasant 68 -69 3016 Grand - Pleasant 72 -73 3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 66 -68 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72 -73 3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73 -74 3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74 -75 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75 -76 3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue 68 -69 3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 70 -71 3026 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71 -72 3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72 -73 3028 1st - Stevens Avenue 71 -72 3029 1st - Stevens Avenue 72 -73 3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71 -72 3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72 -73 3032 2nd - 3rd Avenues 66 -67 3033 2nd - 3rd Avenues 71 -72 3034 2nd - 3rd Avenues 72 -73 3035 3rd - Clinton 66 -67 3036 3rd - Clinton 73 -74 3037 Clinton - 4th 66 -67 3038 Clinton - 4th 73 -74 3039 4th - 5th Avenues 66 -67 3040 4th - 5th Aveues 73 -74 4001 13th - 14th Avenues 65 -66 4002 14th - 15th Avenues 62 -63 4004 15th - Bloomington 62 -63 4005 15th - Bloomington 65 -66 4006 Bloomington - 16th 65 -66 4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63 -64 4008 Cedar - Longfellow 64 -65 4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65 -66 4010 19th - 20th Avenues 65 -66 4012 22nd - Standish 65 -66 4013 13th - 14th Avenues 66 -67 -3- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: • 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefitted property owners is declared to be $1$,100; 2. The city clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected, without regard to cash valuation as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection; 3. The clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of August, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: is Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ALLEY MAINTENANCE - C.P. 791 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the city council of the • City of Richfield on August 13, 1984 the city clerk was directed to prepare assessment of the cost of maintaining the following alleys in the City of Richfield for the period of April 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983: Number Surrounding Avenues Surrounding Streets 1001 Xerxes - Washburn 66 -67 1002 Xerxes - Washburn 67 -68 1003 Xerxes - Washburn 68 -69 1004 Xerxes - Washburn 69 -70 1005 Washburn - Vincent 66 -67 1006 Washburn - Vincent 67 -68 1007 Washburn - Vincent 68 -69 1008 Washburn - Vincent 69 -70 1009 Vincent - Upton 66 -67 1010 Vincent - Upton 67 -68 1011 Vincent - Upton 68 -69 1012 Vincent - Upton 69 -70 1013 Upton - Thomas 66 -67 1014 Upton - Thomas 68 -69 1015 Upton - Thomas 69 -70 1016 Thomas - Sheridan 66 -67 1017 Thomas - Sheridan 67 -68 1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68 -69 1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69 -70 1020 Sheridan - Russell 66 -67 1021 Sheridan - Russell 67 -68 1022 Sheridan - Russell 68 -69 1023 Sheridan - Russell 69 -70 1024 Russell - Queen 66 -67 1025 Russell - Queen 67 -68 1026 Russell - Queen 68 -69 1027 Russell - Queen 69 -70 1028 Queen - Penn 66 -67 1029 Queen - Penn 67 -68 1030 Queen - Penn 68 -69 1031 Queen - Penn 69 -70 2001 Penn - Oliver 63 -64 2002 Oliver - Newton 63 -64 2004 Morgan - Logan 63 -64 2005 Logan - Knox 63 -64 2007 James - Irving 63 -64 2008 Irving - Humboldt 63 -64 2009 Humboldt - Girard 63 -64 2010 Girard - Fremont (35W) 63 -64 2011 Girard - Fremont (35W) 64 -65 2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 65 -66 2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 64 -65 2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 65 -66 2015 Dupont - Colfax 63- Mildred Dr. 2016 Colfax - Bryant 63- Mildred Dr. • • -2- 2017 Bryant - Aldrich 63- Mildred Dr. 2019 Graham - Lyndale 66 -Lk. Shore Dr 2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 75 -76 2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76 -77 3002 Lyndale - Garfield 68 -69 3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70 -71 3004 Augsburg - Garfield 71 -72 3005 Lyndale - Garfield 72 -73 3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73 -74 3007 Garfield - Harriet 71 -72 3008 Garfield - Harriet 72 -73 3009 Garfield - Harriet 73 -74 3011 Harriet - Grand 67 -68 3012 Harriet - Grand 68 -69 3013 Harriet - Grand 72 -73 3014 Harriet - Grand 73 -74 3015 Grand - Pleasant 68 -69 3016 Grand - Pleasant 72 -73 3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 66 -68 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72 -73 3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73 -74 3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74 -75 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75 -76 3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue 68 -69 3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 70 -71 3026 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71 -72 3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72 -73 3028 1st - Stevens Avenue 71 -72 3029 1st - Stevens Avenue 72 -73 3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71 -72 3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72 -73 3032 2nd - 3rd Avenues 66 -67 3033 2nd - 3rd Avenues 71 -72 3034 2nd - 3rd Avenues 72 -73 3035 3rd - Clinton 66 -67 3036 3rd - Clinton 73 -74 3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 66 -67 3038 Clinton - 4th Avenue 73 -74 3039 4th - 5th Avenues 66 -67 3040 4th - 5th Avenues 73 -74 4001 13th - 14th Avenue 65 -66 4002 14th - 15th Avenue 62 -63 4004 15th - Bloomington 62 -63 4005 15th - Bloomington 65 -66 4006 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 65 -66 4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63 -64 4008 Cedar - Longfellow 64 -65 4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65 -66 4010 19th - 20th Avenue 65 -66 4012 22nd - Standish Avenue 65 -66 4013 13th - 14th Avenue 66 -67 -3- WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the city council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in her office for public inspection. 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 10th day of September, 1984, in the council chambers of city hall at 7 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. She shall also cause mailed notice to be given tc the owwner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • 14 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 286 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Preparation of Assessment Rolls and Setting Hearing Date for City Project No. 782, 1983 Sidewalk Construction Council Members: v Attached are resolutions declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment rolls, and setting the hearing date for the proposed assessment for City Project No. 782, the 1983 Sidewalk Construction. It is recommended that the city council pass these two resolutions to set the date of the hearing on the proposed assessment for the September 10 city council meeting. 0 Respectfully submitted, TAM:sb • Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 782 - SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION 3. The city clerk and city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 4. The clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor 0 ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk WHEREAS, cost has been determined for the improvement of the following streets by construction of concrete sidewalk: On Side From To Lyndale Ave. West 74th Street 76th Street 65th Street North Penn Avenue Russell Avenue 65th Street South Upton Avenue Xerxes Avenue Xerxes Ave'. East 62nd Street 65th Street Rae Drive West 65th Street 66th Street Vincent Ave. East 65th Street 350' south 78th Street North 12th Avenue 250' west 78th Street North 12th Avenue 13th Avenue 78th Street North 14th Avenue Cedar Avenue Bloomington A East 75th Street 76th Street 77th Street South Nicollet Avenue 130' west 76th Street South Xerxes Avenue Sheridan Avenue And the contract price for such improvement is $137,321.29 and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvement amount to $28,837.47 so that the total cost of the improvement will be $166,158.76. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid . by the city is hereby declared to be $130,614.80 and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is at least 20 percent of the total cost and is declared to be $35,543.96. 2. That said assessment shall run for a period of five years and include interest at the rate determined at bond sale. 3. The city clerk and city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 4. The clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor 0 ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 782 - 1983 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, by resolution passed by the council on August 13, 1984 the city clerk and city engineer were directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost for the construction of concrete sidewalk at the following locations: On Side From Lyndale Ave. West 74th Street 65th Street North Penn Avenue 65th Street South Upton Avenue Xerxes Ave. East 62nd Street Rae Drive West 65th Street Vincent Ave. East 65th Street 78th Street North 12th Avenue 78th Street North 12th Avenue 78th Street North 14th Avenue Bloomington A East 75th Street 77th Street South Niccllet Avenue 76th Street South Xerxes Avenue To 76th Street Russell Avenue Xerxes Avenue 65th Street 66th Street 350' south 250' west 13th Avenue Cedar Avenue 76th Street 130' west Sheridan Avenue AND, WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer have notified the council that such proposed assessment has been completed, and filed for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 10th day of September, 1984 in the council chambers of city hall at 7 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. The city clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • • /3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 285 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Preparation of Assessment Rolls and Setting Hear- ing Date for City Project No. 786, 1983 Alley Paving Council Members: Attached are resolutions declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment rolls, and setting the hearing date for the proposed assessment for City Project No. 786, the 1983 Alley Paving Construction. It is recommended that the city council pass these two resolutions to set the date of the hearing on the proposed assessment for the September 10 city council meeting. • TAM:sb D Respectfully submitted, I rk d' I Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 786, ALLEY PAVING WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the improvement of the following alleys by reconstruction and concrete paving: Alley Between From To Garfield and Lyndale Avenues 68th Street 69th Street Garfield and Lyndale Avenues 72nd Street 73rd Street Grand and Harriet Avenues 68th Street 69th Street Thomas and Upton Avenues 66th Street 67th Street Vincent and Upton Avenues 66th Street 67th Street Vincent and Upton Avenues 69th Street 70th Street Nicollet and First Avenues 72nd Street 73rd Street Upton and Thomas Avenues 69th Street 70th Street 62nd and 63rd Street 15th Avenue Bloomington Ave Sheridan and Thomas Avenues 69th Street 70th Street Nicollet and Blaisdell Avenues 74th Street 75th Street Thomas and Sheridan Avenues 68th Street 69th Street And the contract price for such improvement is $188,082.65, and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvement amount to $37,616.53 so that the total cost of the improvement will be $225,699.18. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the city is hereby declared to be $17,544.75 and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is at least 20 percent of the total cost and is declared to be $208,154.43• 2. That said assessment shall run for a period of twenty (20) years and include interest at the rate of ten percent (10 %) per year on the unpaid balance. 3. The city clerk and the city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 4. The clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment notify the council thereof. • RESOLUTION N0. 1. A hearing shall be held on the 10th day of September 1984, in the council chambers of city hall at 7 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. The city clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor 0 ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Cler RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 786 - 1983 ALLEY PAVING • WHEREAS by resolution passed by the council on August 13, 1984 the city clerk and city engineer were directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost for the reconstruction and the concrete paving of the following alleys: Alley Between From To Garfield and Lyndale Avenues 68th Street 69th Street Garfield and Lyndale Avenues 72nd Street 73rd Street Grand and Harriet Avenues 68th Street 69th Street Thomas and Upton Avenues 66th Street 67th Street Vincent and Upton Avenues 66th Street 67th Street Vincent and Upton Avenues 69th Street 70th Street Nicollet and First Avenues 72nd Street 73rd Street Upton and Thomas Avenues 69th Street 70th Street 62nd and 63rd Streets 15th Avenue Bloomington Ave Sheridan and Thomas Avenues 69th Street 70th Street Nicollet and Blaisdell Avenues 74th Street 75th Street Thomas and Sheridan Avenues 68th Street 69th Street AND, WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer have notified the council that such proposed assessment has been completed, and filed for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 10th day of September 1984, in the council chambers of city hall at 7 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. The city clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor 0 ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Cler z. a. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 284 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council - - - -- -_- City of Richfield Subject: Request for Permit for Advertising Billboard at 7609 -13 Lyndale Ave. S. —' Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company has applied for a permit to relocate the rooftop billboard which is currently located at 7609 -13 Lyndale Avenue South. They wish to install it on a single pole adjacent to the south wall of the Tom Thumb store. The existing sign is now approximately 37 feet high from the ground level at the building. They are proposing a total height of 40 feet from the ground to the top of their sign. The following sections of the City Ordinance code are • applicable. Section 3.49, Subd. 8 (i) limits advertising displays to 27 feet in height but permits the council to grant a special permit for a ground sign exceeding 27 feet under certain conditions as follows: (i) No outdoor advertising displays may exceed 27 feet in height above the ground level of the nearest street towards where it faces. The council may permit an increase in the allowable height to a maximum of 48 feet in the event that the following findings are made. i) As a result of unique circumstances, a sign 27 feet in height could not be located on the premises so as to be visible from the abutting street which it faces or that visibility of the sign from such street could be substantially obstructed. ii) The increased height of the sign would be unlikely to have any adverse or detrimental impact upon traffic safety, pedestrian safety, aesthetics, or the value of other properties within the area. Section 3.49, Subd. 8 [2](9) provides that the sign faces may not be visible from residential areas within 300 feet of the sign. The proposal is to mount the sign in substantially the same configuration as the existing one so the sign faces are oriented toward the commercial area. r � �J 0 Council Letter No. 2814 -2- August 13, 19814 Staff Recommendation: It appears that the additional height is not necessary for visibility from Lyndale Avenue unless a higher building might be erected on adjacent parcels of land. The staff therefore does not recommend approval. TAM:sb Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager APPROVE DENY ❑ City Manager Date PROVE ❑ DENY ❑ Planning Department Date Route to above for special approval per code APPROVE F-1 DENY FI: Inspector Date APPROVE a DENY a : APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PEP -MIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date '�F Zoning �° - Sign Erected - Yes Address of Sign 7 6 o y-13L yrcl '4q Lt 4) !o Proprietor dame City Council Date General Si No Fee —6 /� 7 Sign Erector f S / g / �. 3 �i �� C.; L-004=4_ Jl+J Address ( I CIO CU _J 0' Trc S, Tyne of Sign Design Weather Cover DBA Liehting Illuminated No Watts �Electrical Contractor 2", ez4r__ (30 •r,r.o� Address 1;�aG-C!% -, Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost t-OO _ oG Sign Width �-S� Height /Z Total Square Feet D 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 Z. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. I es the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on . a premises? GL�7 Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? AGO - Applican 's Signature and Title with Firm 0 Phone ?;umber • lkt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SICK LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendricks-7n/Building Official - 866 -5061 Gull Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face H Multi -Faced L Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T 7 A n Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other k Other(Explain) Sign Colors Illuminated No Watts �Electrical Contractor 2", ez4r__ (30 •r,r.o� Address 1;�aG-C!% -, Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost t-OO _ oG Sign Width �-S� Height /Z Total Square Feet D 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 Z. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. I es the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on . a premises? GL�7 Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? AGO - Applican 's Signature and Title with Firm 0 Phone ?;umber • lkt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SICK LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendricks-7n/Building Official - 866 -5061 76 TH ST. so. EX 20' G CIP ;7WN 36 high 'fencence . 4 y L!ghl 6 75 I TYPItAL slo-noo'd t, iGg h f f 11 CON". CURS ,c I CONC. ; [!I C cel > I CUR a upr i < F, 12447' E Y. < tspHALT 6 Screen I G,:.R-GE �4 DR:VEV---AY bohl 8 6 e r- C f ixiure SiTE z r W.1, enc. Asr, —/ - r 7601 EX FENCE x n 2..90 Bidg. go. f 92.47' EX. BLDG. Cl 7601 13 Pot T- ----------- 7— S141" 'k# as t� s4ree Z6of —t,7. • l Ca f' it `a t! 0 r LD J Ica �£�6 rcX �v • • 0 • • v� S V� ti J `J 'fl�p-y V1 " Ln N J 4 ° J � M� L' I t /Lease No. AG R'E E M E IN T made rule 23 ig 84 by and between_ ELILOT WOLSON and NAEGELE Cu. t,__R ADVERTISING COMPANY OF THE TWIN CITIES — A DIVISION OF NAEGELE, INC. "Les sor') 1. The Lessor does hereby lease and grant exclusively as �s: �� qty /rf �p �ZriCC1 cSiny lv =,7° �Siga l�.v le A? 2I i TS S� ]P], ECT Street Address: 7609 Lvndale Avenue South TO SECURI?'ttC PERMIT City or Town: Richfield State: tinnesota Legal Description: Single pole sign to be erected by South wall and not to interfere with new door entrance to be built at Tom Thumb. Sign on Tom Thumb buiLding to be painted by Naegel.e. in the County of Hennepin State of Minnesota , for thQ term of S (} years, beginning on Completion 1g_ at the yearly rental of Dollars ---� payable in equal monthly installments at the office of the Lessee, with the right to the ..... lease from year to year upon the same terms and conditions, it being understood that this fbyase s% automatically renew itself from year to year after the term hereof, the total of such extensions not to xceed ten years, unless it is terminated by Lessee at the end of the original term or any annual extension period, mailing written notice thereof to the Lessor not less than thirty (30) days prior to the end of such term or extension period. Prior to construction and during such times as no advertising copy is being displayed on the premises by Lessee, the rental shall be at the rate of ten (10%) percent of the annual rental set forth above. 2. The Lessee shall have the right to erect, place and maintain advertising sign structures and equipment therefor on the premises and post, paint, illuminate and maintain advertisements on such structures. 3. All structures, equipment and materials placed upon the premises by the Lessee shall not be deemed to be a fixture and shall always remain the personal property of, and may be removed by the Lessee at any time prior to or within a reasonable time after the expiration of the term hereof or any extension thereof. 4. Lessee shall save the Lessor harmless from all damage to persons or property by reason of accidents resulting from the negligent acts of agents, employees or others employed in the construction, maintenance, repair or removal of its signs on the premises. 5. Lessor shall have the right to terminate the lease at any time during the term hereof if the Lessor is to improve the premises by permanent construction or remodeling requiring the removal of Lessee's sign structures. Lessee shaft remove its signs within ninety (90) days after receipt of a copy of the applicable building per all rent paid for the unexpired term. If the Lessor fails to commence construction within thirty ($�j��j� ess removes its signs, Lessee shall again have the right to occupy the premises and maintain adverb the provisions of this lease. If any portions of the premises are not to be utilized for such construe ion, the Lessee has the option to use such portion on the same terms, except that the rent shall be adjusted to reflect-the value of the new location. 6. If the view of the premises or advertising sign or signs erected thereon is partially or wholly obstructed, or their advertising value impaired or diminished by reduced vehicular circulation, or the use of such signs is pre- vented or restricted by law, the Lessee may immediately, at its option, reduce rental in direct proportion to the loss suffered as a result of such obstruction, impairment, prevention or restriction of use, or keep the lease in force except that no rental shall accrue while such conditions continue, or cancel this tease and receive all rent paid for the unexpired term hereof, by giving the Lessor notice in writing of such obstruction, impairment, prevention or restriction of use. 7. 4t-- L-essee• s-�evemed- by- laA--0r- state, - local- oc- rnatio"- emergency, -Gr- ether -cave- beyond - Lessee%_ -COn- 40 1-# com- llu mina aiag4 madvomisinq- sigr---t he -rep taJ�rovi&AI- io"erein s4a11 -be reduced _ by- fift -y- (.50_%51 er ten t-, - with- suck- reduced -rental -to -rem a4n, 4Re# fec+ -as - longassu oh- con dition..ceRtanues- to, exist- 8. Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, the Lessor represents and warrants that Lessor is either the owner or the agent of the owner of the premises above described, has full authority to make this lease and cov- enants that Lessor will not permit any adjoining premises, owned, or controlled by Lessor, to be used for adver- tising purposes or permit Lessee's signs to be obstructed. In the event of any transfer of Lessor's interest in the above - described premises, Lessor agrees to promptly give Lessee notice of such transfer and to deliver to Lessor's transferee written notice of the existence of this lease and a copy thereof. 9. It is expressly understood that neither the Lessor nor the Lessee is bound by any stipulations, represen- tetions or agreements not printed or written in this lease. This lease shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto, provided however that this lease shall not be binding upon any secured party until delivery of written notice to the parties hereto by such secured Party. ACCEPTED: NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY OF THE TWIN CITIES - A DIVISION OF NAEGELE, INC. Sy: Its 19 — n,,� '`� Sc Lessor (Please print name) Signature Address Soc. Sec. or 1. D. No. Phone No. 21.a. • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 283 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for permit for illuminated signs at 4 East 66th Street Signcrafters Incorporated has requested two advertising permits for Payless Shoes to be located at 4 East 66th Street in the Richfield Shcppes North Center. The signs are to be illuminated wall signs, single faced, with constant, neon illumination. The sizes are 26' X 2' (52 sq.ft.) each. • City of Richfield Ordinance code 3.149, subdivision 19 - illuminated signs provides that City Council approval is required for illuminated signs. A copy of that section is attached. Staff Review: Proposed sign is in conformance with City Ordinances pertaining to signs of this nature. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. TAM:sb Respectfully submitted, idM �".r. Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager J i Q -A V� iL APPROVED BY: L Hh LANDLORD PAYLESS SHOESOL'RCE �oL01 - LOCATION: TENANT � HAG 4 HlZoLLt.-f ,,�_-_. acaLE :I �' Q ntvnioM ni DATE —i .J -+r_ ORAwn BY J CHECKED NY APPROVEO EY it PLANKING SECT'()- 4k i Q J � J i Q -A V� iL APPROVED BY: L Hh LANDLORD PAYLESS SHOESOL'RCE �oL01 - LOCATION: TENANT � HAG 4 HlZoLLt.-f ,,�_-_. acaLE :I �' Q ntvnioM ni DATE —i .J -+r_ ORAwn BY J CHECKED NY APPROVEO EY it PLANKING SECT'()- 4k APPROVE ❑ DENY a : APPROVE 117 DENY City Manager Ins` sector - ¢ Date Date _ APPROVE DENY .7: - g,1 S APPROVE a DENY : 5kg3 EL7 y�LK) Planning Department City Council 4e.gQ,4 ' Arrpok4L'- - Date j3TC� Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, .Minnesota Date D ^ 2- It Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign le 5-5 i �� Proprietor Name&o ILU DBA -f Sign Erector p,�,� Address 77 T7ne of Sign Design Weather Cover Lizhtin If Illuminated (f5p No Watts Electrical Contractor ,j Address ` ?hone --; Property Owner or his Agent Si nature Phone f Estimated Cost % Sign Width__,2,4�:Height .Z.� Dotal Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets; calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access- by p ns des ned for or passing the subject premises? 07d-,' applicant's Signature and T' e Firm Date Phone Number 7/ Ikt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer X Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T F7 A n Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon I Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors If Illuminated (f5p No Watts Electrical Contractor ,j Address ` ?hone --; Property Owner or his Agent Si nature Phone f Estimated Cost % Sign Width__,2,4�:Height .Z.� Dotal Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets; calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access- by p ns des ned for or passing the subject premises? 07d-,' applicant's Signature and T' e Firm Date Phone Number 7/ Ikt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 GROUND SIGN PEDESTAL SIGN PROJECTING SIGN L.f-- WIDTH WIDTH ---WIDTH ---�� LEGEND -i T L WALL SIGN WIDTH —� LEGEND pa���5s�/��so� LEGEND ROOF SIGN) WIDTH LEGEND T LEGEND Indicate Distance From The Building Indicate legend on the the reverse side in Lilo JUdt„C UC1.VW LEGEND GROUND I ROOF 42� Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet.. DEFINITION: is L!=/8/83 Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. on a common board LF:FI. 5' SOt1Tri 4 i 1` it -� Pr'!I �� 1� I? • � I n• o w viol r � WI� EXISTI::C I.CTAI- SHOPS I:-, "L iLl I WI ulr tu 1 [ILI �; cz I v (_� try HICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH t c.E1' —T 1 L -W-i'1 I PAYLESS SHOESOURCE = X _ rl = = "� SF. C—i WO BARRIER RECIPROCAL CROSS - EASEMENTS FOR PaRKING —J UTILITIES. DRAINAGE. INGRESS. EGRESS APPROVED BY, LANDLORD TENANT i PROPOSED SITE PLAN PAYLESS SHOESOURCE No. 2501 LOC"TInN• " NEC 66th STREET & NICOLLET A ENIJE RICHFIELD, ttlNNESOT�'I SCALE ti ogre 2 ✓� (� r DRAWN IT i ly-yri C„CCaCO IT APPROVCO IT tTOR( PLANNING SECTION. REAL (STATE ! C0049TRUCTION OC►ARTrERT VOLUYC SMOC CORPORATION ►O_ $O3 i100. TOPCRA. KANSAS •440I - (913) t3S-6171 ExmiSIT -'rj' I".%I NEVIsIOM i PMT I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 282 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request fo Permit for Temporary Sign at 6439 Lyndale Ave. S. Arrow Sign Company has requested an advertising permit for The Sound Center located at 6439 Lyndale Avenue South in Richfield. The sign is to be a double faced, temporary sign to be used August 14, 1984 through September 4, 1984. The requested sign size is 4' X 8' (32 sq. ft.) City of Richfield Ordinance Code 3.49, Subdivision 16(5) provides that City Council approval is required for temporary ground signs. A copy of that section is attached. • Staff Review: The requested permit is for a temporary ground sign that is 32 square feet in size. • Ordinance Code 3.47, Subdivision 1 (15) limits temporary ground signs to a maximum of 12 sq. ft. Ordinance Code 3.47, Subdivision 16 (5) and Subdivision 19, require council approval. Subdivision 19, stipulates that applications for signs of unusual height , size , design or location be referred to the council for approval. Staff Recommendation: �1 Due to the limitation of Ordinance Section 3.47, Subd. 1(15), staff recommends denial of the application. Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager • TAM:sb APPROVE DENY a ��� City Manager Date PROVE F7 DENY OJ e4- 1i 54 F7 to Plannin epartment �A Date q D APPROVE 7 DENY❑ Inspector Date APPROVE F7 DENY a : City Council Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Rich-field,. Minnesota i Date r" � !` /�� �� Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign p roprietor Name � � r' DBA Sign Erector �l /: /�. /.`CL� _`- � <'`f?'l Address 1 -Cj CZ'� - Al Tvve of Sien Design Weather Cover Lighting l i — 7 77 � v #Nominated - Yes/ No Watts Electrical Contractor I C` 1 ' i _ Address Phone Al Propparty Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost (� �';� Sign Width Height �'l Total Square Feet 5• Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets; calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T E A n Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors Signature and Title with Firm ` Y, l i — 7 77 � v #Nominated - Yes/ No Watts Electrical Contractor I C` 1 ' i _ Address Phone Al Propparty Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost (� �';� Sign Width Height �'l Total Square Feet 5• Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets; calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? P e Number - Date lkt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCE Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm P e Number - Date lkt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCE Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 GROUND SIGN PEDESTAL SIGN PROJECTING SIGN w'IDTH — WIDTH —�} �` WIDTH —� �/ LEGEND WALL SIGN L< WIDTH LEGEND LEGEND ROOF SIGN WIDTH — �I LEGEND LEGEND Indicate Distance From The Building ?'ND Indicate legend on the the reverse side in the saace below LEGEND GROUND III /! ROOF `jllu =v' ` Y ?lace location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet.. DEFINITION: Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board INDICATE NORTH LIC /8/83 • Ir r,,RTER muble Sided 0— Marquis '� , z- Tubes shing Bar Dulbs �ya�► y' L&... ,ble, Sturdy _- • • WON; ... -. .� j Ap le Sided I . .� '.',yi }j J k L 4"9 ���+� `�. �"'�ylm;iiT {Tg14'"'77' ��' �,4�7t A,'�''T ?* •` �,�'� -' Sturdy ,nd Symbols r - fi• J� +. �' �� d 4 .. 'ire -� ;�R` 0 n 11 z.� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 281 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Permit for Temporary Sign at 7645 Lyndale Ave. S. Total Petroleum has'requested an advertising permit for Vickers at 7645 Lyndale Avenue South in Richfield. The sign is to be a portable, temporary ground sign to be used from August 15, 1984 through September 15, 1984 to advertise grand opening sale items. The requested sign size is 4' X 8' (32 sq. ft.). City of Richfield Ordinance Code 3.49, Subdivision 16(5) provides that City Council approval is required for temporary ground signs. A copy of that section is attached. Staff Review: The requested permit is for a temporary ground sign that is 32 square feet in size. Ordinance Code 3.47, Subdivision 1(15) limits temporary ground signs to a maximum of 12 sq. ft. Ordinance Code 3.47, Subdivision 16 (5) and Subdivisoin 19, require council approval. Subdivision 19, stipulates that applications for signs of unusual height , size , design or location be referred to the council for approval. Staff Recommendation: Due to the limitation of Ordinance Section 3.47, Subd. 1(15), staff recommends denial of the application. Respectfully submitted, 1 e; Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager TAM:sb APPROVE DENY ❑: Wall. Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer APPROVE DENY: Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Awl Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors City Manager Date Ins ea or Date_ APPROVE ❑ I)ENY© : KJ4 APPROVE DENY Fl: - •bver Z. 4g• - �~ Planning De artment Date 7 t-{ City Council Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield,. Minnesota Date Zoning Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign 5 /� ���- g a �E Proprietor Name D DBA r_ --, Sign Erector .se`N�_, Address Type of Sign neG;vn LTaat}icar rnirnr T.4 oi�tinn Illuminated - Yes / N Watts Electrical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost �� Sign Width---,' Height Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? t Will t sign, s ructure, or billboard restrict an -,r sight distance under, arqund, or over for acc by per2ron# destined for or passing the subject premises? IV6. 7V7rl l Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone k� Date :lumber � o Ikt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall. Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T E A n Post 7 Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Awl Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors Illuminated - Yes / N Watts Electrical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost �� Sign Width---,' Height Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? t Will t sign, s ructure, or billboard restrict an -,r sight distance under, arqund, or over for acc by per2ron# destined for or passing the subject premises? IV6. 7V7rl l Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone k� Date :lumber � o Ikt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager f The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Letter Agenda 0 No. 280 ,tip b� August 13, 1A84 A Subject: Execution of Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Bloomington for Inspectional Services Council Members: Since 1982, we have been contracting with the City of Bloomington for technical food and restaurant inspection services as well as some plumbing, heating and ventilating inspection services. The 1984 contract is in an amount of $38,000. The Public Safety Director has negotiated a contract for 1985, based on increases in the number of inspection services required, for an amount of $40,355. • As outlined in Council Memorandum Number 111, we are proposing to expand this contractual arrangement to also include forestry related inspectional services. The price negotiated with Bloomington for this additional component to the existing contract is in an amount of $7,645. By including this forestry component in our inspectional contract with Bloomington, we anticipate saving approximately $10,000, while maintaining a quality forestry inspection program. The total amount of the negotiated contract is for $48,000 and the contract itself runs from November 1, 1984 through October 31, 1985. A copy of the contract is attached for the information of members of the council in considering this matter. It is recommended that the council approve the contract as presented. Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager TAM /eja A G R E E M E N T • This Agreement is made this day of , 1984, by and between the City of Richfield (hereinafter "Richfield ") and the City of Bloomington ( "Bloomington "). WHEREAS, Richfield is authorized and empowered to provide for various types of inspections and code enforcement to ensure the public health, welfare, and safety; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties and the purpose of this agreement that certain of such services be performed by Bloomington on behalf of Richfield; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below, the above parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The period of this agreement shall be from November 1, 1984, • through October 31,1985, unless termination occurs. 2. For the period of this agreement, Bloomington shall provide Richfield with the following services, in and on behalf of Richfield: a. Plumbing inspections and code enforcement as necessary. b. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning inspections and code enforcement as necessary. C. Food service inspections and code enforcement as necessary (a minimum of two inspections will be done of all restaurants and at least one inspec- tion will be done of all grocery stores). d. Tree inspections and code enforcement as necessary. 3. Bloomington shall have control over the manner in which the inspections and code enforcement activities are conducted and over the determination of what enforcement action is appropriate. 4. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the inspec- tions and code enforcement. ' I 5. Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of $48,000 for services provided pursuant to this agreement. One -half of this amount shall be due . on May 1, 1985, and the remainder shall be due on October 31, 1985. 6. This agreement shall terminate as follows: a. Upon the expiration of 30 days after service of written notice upon the other party; or b. At any time, upon agreement of the parties; or C. In any event on October 31, 1985. 7. In the event of a termination prior to October 31, 1985, a pro - rata reduction of the compensation owed by Richfield to Bloomington shall occur which reflects the period remaining on the agreement at the time of termination. 8. Bloomington agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Richfield, its officers, agents and employees from all actions, liability and damages for property damage, personal injury or death resulting from the • acts, omissions or neglect of Bloomington's employees relating to the perfor- mance of its obligations hereunder. 9. Any employee assigned by Bloomington to perform its obliga- tions hereunder shall remain the exclusive employee of Bloomington for all purposes including, but not limited to, wages, salary and employee benefits. Upon proper execution, this CITY OF RICHFIELD Agreement shall be a legal and binding obligation upon the City of Bloomington. By: City Attorney By: Its Mayor Its City Manager CITY OF BLOOMINGTON By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager -2- s • r� • N CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 279 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Authorization for a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Personnel and Equipment - Regional Mutual Aid Association Council Members: Experience has shown that no single organization is able to adequately deal with the problems that occur when a major tornado, windstorm or flood strikes a community. Manpower and equipment levels are often inadequate to cope with such events. To help overcome this problem, the Minnesota Chapter of the American Public Works Association (MPWA) has concluded that a cooperative approach would be very beneficial to most local governmental organizations. This approach would provide a manner by which governmental agencies could set up mutual aid assistance groups around the state to provide the basis of aiding each other when such major events occur. Police and fire departments have successfully used similar approaches for many years. Such aid would be done totally on a voluntary basis with no requirement to provide either manpower, or equipment to any other organization unless they chose to do so. By entering into a cooperative agreement now for the use of other organizations' personnel and equipment, the city will be prepared for prompt action if the need arises. Information showing what equipment is owned by participating local govern- ments and personnel contacts (including after working hours) would be immediately available, facilitating prompt action. Questions concerning insurance, equipment repair, and payment for services would be answered by the agreement already in place. The annual membership fee is $10 per year. Attached for city council review is a copy of the joint cooperative agreement for the Regional Mutual Aid Association and a copy of its constitution and by -laws. Council Letter No. 279 -2- August 13, 1934 The city staff recommends that the council pass the attached resolution authorizing the mayor and the city manager to sign • the Joint and Cooperative Agreement with the Regional Mutual Aid Association on behalf of the City of Richfield. Respectfully submitted, TAM /eja • r� Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT - REGIONAL MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield is the official governing body of the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield has approved the concept of a Mutual Aid Association; and WHEREAS, a mutual need exists between members of the Regional Mutual Aid Association to share and assist one another in the areas of emergency and disaster control; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield considers it to be in the best interests of the City to enter into a mutual agreement with the other members of the Regional Mutual Aid Association. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that: the City of Richfield desires to become a member of the Regional Mutual Aid Association and its Director of Community Services is its authorized representative, and the Technical Operations Coordinator its alternative representative; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Richfield enter into an agreement with the Regional Mutual Aid Association and hereby authorizes its Mayor and City Manager to sign said agreement in behalf of said City of Richfield; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of Richfield is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution, together with executed copy of the agreement to Charles Henchell, President, Regional Mutual Aid Association, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, Minnesota, 55113. Passed this 13th day of August, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: is Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 278 Agenda of August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Vacation of Graham Avenue Between 65th Street and 66th Street Council Members: City staff has received a petition from Market Plaza, Inc. and the owner of Bridgemans Restaurant requesting that the city vacate the portion of Graham Avenue lying between 65th Street and 66th Street. Assuming that the planned sale of property by the HRA to the Market Plaza developer proceeds as planned, this petition would include 100% of the abutting property owners of the portion of the street to be vacated. . The vacated street would be utilized for pedestrian amenities such as pathways and outdoor eating areas for the proposed condominium project. Vehicular and pedestrian access . to Bridgemans would be maintained. Staff has reviewed this request for a street vacation and found the following: 1. The proposed vacation would result in additional open space and pedestrian amenities for the proposed condominium project. It is staff's opinion that this would enhance the condominium project and provide additional open space on a sight of limited size. 2. There are existing electric, water and sanitary sewer lines within the present Graham Avenue right -cf -way. If the street is vacated, utility easements would need to be maintained for these utilities. This should not pose a major problem in that no building improvements are planned within the vacated portion of the right -cf -way. 3. A traffic count completed in April, 1984 indicates that there is an average daily traffic count of 1,635 vehicles on Graham Avenue between 65th and 66th Street. If the street were vacated these vehicles would be 40 forced to proceed either to the intersection at 66th and Rae Drive or the intersection of 65th and Lyndale. This would mean additional traffic on 65th Street and on Rae Drive. A portion of the 1,635 trips are generated by the Bridgemans Restaurant which would be unaffected by • • Council Letter No. 278 -2- August 13, 1984 the vacation of Graham Avenue because access would be maintained to Bridgemans from the vacated portion of Graham Avenue. The existing entrance from 65th Street would also not be affected. The private road on the Market Plaza site running from 65th Street and 66th Street between the condominium tower and the commercial /apartment structure will also provide an alternative route for traffic. The median on 66th Street will prevent left turns, from or to 66th Street from this private road. This would reduce the traffic increase on the other streets. Rae Drive between 65th and 66th Street and 65th Street between Rae Drive and Lyndale Avenue are designated as collector streets and have been constructed to handle the amount of traffic which could be expected on collector streets. There is sufficient capacity to handle the increase in traffic due to the proposed vacation of Graham Avenue. There is an existing area of congestion adjacent to the Post Office at 65th Street and Rae Drive due to the lack of off - street parking at the Post Office and due to the 90 degree turn which traffic must make at that point. While the proposed vacation would force additional traffic through that area, it is staff's opinion that there would not be a significant increase in traffic congestion in the area. The proposed vacation results in safer conditions on 66th Street because the number of left turn movements at the uncontrolled intersection of Graham Avenue and 66th Street would be eliminated. The vacation would force these movements to be made at the controlled intersections of 66th Street and Rae Drive and 66th Street and 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue. 4. The portion of Graham Avenue to be vacated is a designated state aid street. The State Department of Transportation has indicated that if this portion of the street is vacated, the city would have to reimburse the state for the value of the roadway because state aid funds were used to improve the street. The city engineer has estimated that the present value of the roadway would be approximately $15,000 to $20,000. The state has indicated that the city would not have to make a cash payment to the state, but that a future allocation of state aid funds to the city would be reduced by the amount determined to be the value of the roadway. The applicant has agreed to be responsible for this cost. U • Council Letter No. 278 -3- August 13, 1984 5. The portion of the street to be vacated would have a market value of approximately $68,000. While, if vacated, the street would revert back to abutting property owners at no cost, the additional land could generate a tax increment of approximately $2,400 as part of the Market Plaza development and as such would benefit the redevelopment area. It is recommended that the City Council approve the vacation. To accomplish this, it is further recommended that the council pass the attached resolution acknowledging the receipt of the petition and setting a public hearing on this matter for August 27, 1984. Finally, it is recommended that the council give first reading approval of the attached ordinance. The Planning Commission reviewed this matter at their July 23, 1984 meeting and on a 7 -1 vote recommended council approval of the vacation. TAM /eja Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager BILL TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 0 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF THAT PORTION OF GRAHAM AVENUE LYING BETWEEN THE SOUTH LINE OF 65TH STREET AND THE NORTH LINE OF 66TH STREET CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following described street is hereby vacated: "That portion of Graham Avenue lying between the south line of 65th Street and the north line of 66th Street." Section 2. This street vacation shall not affect, destroy or interfere with the right of any person, corporation or municipality owning or having control of any elctric, gas, telephone, sewer, water or other utility to construct, reconstruct, operate, maintain, repair and remove any public utility facilities upon or within the vacated right -of -way. This vacation shall be subject to perpetual easements on the street to permit improvements of maintenance on existing utilities. Section 3. The mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right -of -way as provided in the foregoing Section 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1984. ATTEST: City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 0 RESOLUTION RECEIVING STREET VACATION PETITION AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, petitions have been filed with the City Clerk requesting the vacation of a portion of Graham Avenue described as follows: "That portion of Graham Avenue lying between the south line of 65th Street and the north line of 66th Street" WHEREAS, said petition comply in all respects with the requirements of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.04, Subdivision 2; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The petition for vacation of that portion of Graham Avenue described above is received. 2. A public hearing on the alley vacation in said petiticn shall be held on August 27, 1984. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such . hearing in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of said hearing in the manner provided by Richfield Ordinance Code Section 12.04, Subdivision 3. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13 day of August , 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: y via K. Bergh, City Clerk • PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT City of Richfield, �`eT Petition No. Date Received To: The City Ceuncil of the City of Richfield, :iinneesta. i We, the undersigned, owners of not Less t':an 51.E in frcatage of the real ;roper ty abutting an Graham Avenlle between 66th Street and 65th Street `! hereby petition that such street be vacated. Sicnat•., c:f Cwners* Address -Legal Description I[] �J 4- Examined, checked. and found to be in proper fords and to be siq=ed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improve- ment petitioned for. per cent - , - City C lerk _. ►`f M �7 � MEN ■ 4- Examined, checked. and found to be in proper fords and to be siq=ed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improve- ment petitioned for. per cent - , - City C lerk _. I a i �1 I Y /� � !•?��:r; >� 'ice p �je r ,L ii.' • � Ott t C 1 CD a' m O �e L ,• cv s yam. l y^ � M '�s,�q ,.• .� v / Y` = ,. I•f A$ Fri 'r•. 4 rte. `,:� ,• �.�.; �.`�•` •" /' �/ /� �`� :' �' ,. ,% *� k. M -►_� -•1�1� ` .It < `•Z' � �' _�t: =�,y a "�" n w � `. .� ' Q _ fr /- ,.� �„•.. �}` • i .. � M _ m 0 .� . ,c" __♦ — a —"�► -- S...i;�i::,.�� ` 1 r! !'' ^•t 11.'1 �.....�� ���':_ 549,,z'[.4 .+ •a ���[iO�� \�S• � < <a r.f �• O : 1 \'1"t• �. �1 i y: ,, r. -T .`•✓ .�i` `A��l � !�',',a4�.'� _ wf — —�� r � ��•� � `� ° • ��" ^: •�i -��' • - )• is la 1A I NO - ... - =1* J / ' .'.i ! ` \ 4• � — �'.Sl .:i!9�_Yff r� r• . � � Iii%: \ Y � � a'ri d � f ' :, t. � � n �' � y/ � �� ; to � }�i c -.�„ .. \ Cd,�� % %'. • tis �1a rt { +. , �`.,, r G `� 7 �`w'a 1l.TZ' Mt.J z'i0�' ♦n � _• � A •r /tt M rV•,•af /ft ~�t • a, ` y`'��f•�.l •r �•` i`O �e V \\ }f �1 1I44 •'•a — — ,•�,.o t.. J ! _`• ' e} J rf` . �. I •' ,et yLX o / 2 ". _ 'S ' " ' v J s... HARRIET + • >v � 11 M • t - �`y.'• { it : � I ' � I � -i •� *,� � s � - f v 7i, y'� �_ � to L ^� -� • e. • V . p '� sn .. *, � - 0. ;,� E --r i�:i a tI � I- r j � • v � •� rs �. o •i cz _ •, c cS �3' -: .5; s4 �s 'h;.St `� , ' f S._ : J! • —'• .. f �•1 • r1 I JI. .. ... J'•,., - • GRAND ~� ,�` c. S0. 0 71 S r W • J � V k � �a y..tl ., v— •{ ;s. ,• '_! - L{ I �;tte '1), rra I ; .� •� 1 '� ) 0 S U i fwO . 7 — • b 1� 7 �� • ,S a• ^ = n �/'' of .. y. to W .+ _ � �.• '•• .•. 1f- \ye N -� 'e_ .• NM;,,e// 'e C0. ✓ • // .+ [''1 ��i 7 7 s -MfP+N E A POtI S— '•• V RWY IM O R T 4 F 1 E t 0 r,l ''` x12yI EAST PLEASANT /0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 277 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: An Ordinance Amending the City Charter to Provide for Four Year Terms of Office for the Mayor and Members of the City Council. Second Reading. Council Members: At the July 12, 1984 meeting of the Richfield Charter Commission, the Commission approved an amendment to the Richfield City Charter changing the length of terms for the Mayor and City Council,Members. The charter amendment provides that commencing with the 1987 election, the Mayor shall serve for a term of three years. Commencing with the 1990 election, the Mayor and at -large Council Member of the City Council shall serve four -year terms. Commencing with the 1988 election, the district council members shall serve for a term of four years. This charter amendment was given first reading consideration at the July 23, 1984 city council and the public hearing was scheduled for the August 13, 1984 city council meeting. A copy of the charter amendment and the transmittal order is attached to this council letter. State law provides that charter amendments may be adopted only by unanimous approval of the City Council. This item has been placed on the August 13, 1984 city council agenda for the public hearing and second reading. TAM /eja • Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Mor an, Jr. Acting City Manager • is • TRANSMITTAL ORDER To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: We, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting members of the Charter Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby respectfully submit and deliver to you the attached proposed ordinance amending Section o?.03 of the City Charter of the City of Richfield. We hereby respectfully proposed, reconu and and submit for adoption, by unanimous vote of the City Council and approval by the Mayor of the City, the attached proposed ordinance this day of L ' 1981q. /1 w O- CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. 0 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: The City Charter of the City of Richfield is hereby amended in the following respect: Section 2.03 thereof, entitled "Elective Cfficers" is hereby amended to read: Section 2.03. Elective Officers. The council shall be composed of a mayor and four council members all of whom shall be registered voters. Commencing with 1981 election the offices of mayor and at -large council member shall be filled by election at large. Commencing with the 1982 election the offices of the three district council members shall be elected from apportioned council districts in which they reside. The mayor shall serve for a term of two years, and the at -large and district council members shall serve for a term of three years. Commencing with the 1987 election the mayor shall serve for a term of three years. Commencing with the 1990 election the mayor and at - large council member shall serve for a term of four vears. Commencing with the . 1988 election the district council members shall serve for a term of four years. The regular. term of an office commences on January 1 next following the general election at which balloting for the full term of office occurs. A candidate for the office of district council member must reside while seeking election and while serving in office within the district from which he or she is elected. A- eaenetl- member -Ana- Mai- effected- ender- the -et -large sy5te.vft- prier -te- the- l98l- e lee tlen- and - where- term -hae -net - expired may- eentynee- in- effyee- ent s -tern- expires. - -- Prier - to - areh lS�_198i�_ end_ every -tzme- there- ta- a- 8nl tea - States - Genres- tnere- a €ter, within two years after each United States Census the city council shall by ordinance establish compact and continguous council districts to be apportioned by population as nearly equal as practicable. (Parsee -by- the - voters- Nevexer- Y - -1 °78 EeneYa1- E?eetien.) Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1984. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • 0 PROPOSAL FROM THE SUB - COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER COUNCIL TERMS AND ELECTION YEARS Proposal: To extend the terms of Mayor and Council Members to 4 years to coincide with Presidential and Gubernatorial election. The Mayor and At -Large Council Member would run in the same years. Rationale: 1. Save city money by not having off year elections. 2. Increase voter participation in city elections. There is a larger turn out of voters in State and Federal Election years. 3. It would result in more stability in long range policy making, projects could be seen through to completion. 4. Longer terms would enable elected.city officials to consider city as a whole and depoliticize issues. Adjustments in Terms: See attached chart Mayor, 1985 1987 1990 At- Larne, 1 084 1987 1990 two year term three year term four year term three year term three year term four year term District Council members, 1985 three year term 1088 four year term Essentially by 1988 the Cities election Schedules would be set. All Elected officials would start their four year terms at about the same tide. No term would change before 1987, which allows us ample time to discuss these changes and perhaps bring the issue to the voters if the changes become contraversial. All present agreed this proposal would be worthwhile to bring back to the total Charter Commission. Presented By: Edwina Garcia Sue Sandahl Tom Scaglia (Sub - Committee chair) TR FS IDENTIAL i N t ^ N 6 G3ERNATORIA4 J r PRESIDENTIAL u N en a N T v 77 o � O S G WS E RNATORIA I J C i A f N ^ N `u u p itc S t DENT IAL c �I o «L+ U N V _N en O e'f O qt C qI S. S. ^I a J ^I 1 oo J � 6u3ERNATORIAL ! GI 0,1 ^ N O ++ •,' co V N = I M O I V N A i Fm O P R E��DENTIAL �� o• ° q' J J t+f q L O ^ N r N V + N V V C r co aj�, E (Z1u7 ORIAL L 6 W O rQ W r q C v < 6 N S N11k CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA �✓, Office of City Manager Council The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Letter No. 276 Agenda of August 13, 1984 Subject: Request for Planned Unit Development Plan Amendment, Special Use Permit, and Variance for an Arby's Restaurant on the K -Mart Site Council Members: In 1979, the city approved a planned unit development and rezoning of the site bounded by 65th Street, 66th Street, Lyndale Avenue and the Northwestern Bell property to allow the construction of a K -Mart store. In 1982, the city approved an amendment to the planned unit development plan to allow the construction of a Fastbank remote teller facility on the site. The Fastbank facility was ultimately constructed on another site. Franchise Associates, Inc. and the K -Mart Corporation have recently requested city approval of the construction of an Arby's restaurant in the northwest corner of the K -Mart site adjacent to the intersection of 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue. To allow this development to occur, the city must approve an amendment to the K -Mart planned unit development plan and a special use permit. The applicant has also requested a variance to._rg e the setback�a on treat from 40 feet to-T-2.5 feet. (S a aFi s, however, determined that this variane is not required because the proposed restaurant is in a planned unit development and therefore, not strictly subject to setback requirements.) PROPOSAL Franchise Associates, Inc. is proposing to construct a 2,876 square foot Arby's restaurant with a drive -up window in the northwest corner of the K -Mart site. The restaurant would have a maximum of 88 seats. Arby's would lease a total of 20,208 square feet of the K -Mart site. Vehicular access to the restaurant will be through the existing K -Mart parking lot via the existing curb cuts on 40 Lyndale Avenue and 65th Street. The drive -up window will be located on the north side of the building. A one -way access to the drive -up window will be provided with considerable stacking Council Letter No. 276 -2- August 13, 1984 space. Parking for 30 cars will be provided within the space • leased from K -Mart. Exterior building marterials will be split face concrete block painted white. There will be a mansard type roof constructed of dark brown metal panels with battens. Medium brown wood panels will also be used above the main entry way. The site plan indicates that landscaping will be provided around the building as well as in the end islands of the K -Mart lot. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 4 lists requirements for restaurants. 2. Section 3.33, subdivision 6 and Section 3.32, subdivision 4 lists setback requirements in commercial zoning districts. 3. Section 3.34A lists the regulations applicable in Planned Unit Development districts. 4. Section 3.41, subdivision 5A lists conditions governing the issuance of special use permits in redevelopment areas. 5. Section 4.05 lists the city's regulations for parking areas. STAFF REVIEW The planned unit development (PUD) ordinance requires an amendment be reviewed using the same factors as are considered when a PUD is originally approved. Staff has reviewed the proposal against these requirements and found the following: 1. The proposal departs from the requirements of the zoning ordinance in a number of ways. The proposed setback adjacent to 65th Street is 12.5'-feet instead of t^ he require eet. Front yard setbacks are important to separate uses from negative impacts of vehicular traffic. It is also important adjacent to intersections to provide sufficient visibility_ for vehicles and pedestrians and to not cause confusion with traffic signals. The reduced setback and drive -up location adjacent 5th Stree cou d create con usion in the intersection bec of head1i hts tersection. g .3-�g into _he,_ he applicant has indicated _that berm1n_g._and "Sand aping willrcvide� to screen the intersection from ead1ights. Setback requirements al "open" character and im open up intersections i example of this. There businesses on the site including the previous so are important to create age. The city has attempted to n LHN. The K -Mart site is an were a number of smaller with insufficient setbacks, tenant on the site, Cliff's Council Letter No. 276 -3- August 13, 1984 Apco, which had a setback of approximately 13 feet from 65th Street. This point is further evidenced by removal of the Standard service station, the development of the Civic Plaza, the planned removal of the Hagen Fur /Carousel Travel building and the Godfather restaurant at 66th and Lyndale. The removal of the Richfield Automotive and the Jackie Ann building at 66th and Niccllet is another example of this attempttc provide for a more__ open character arcu_n_d�. intersections in the LHN Redevelopment area._ Insufficient parking will be provided on the site if this proposal is approved. Minimum Guidelines indicate that 380 parking stalls are necessary on the site. Only 313 will be provided. The applicant contracted with the firm of Benshoof and Associates to do a parking and traffic analysis for the proposed restaurant. Benshoof and Associates concluded that there is a parking surplus on the site and that there would be sufficient parking available to serve both K- Mart and the proposed restaurant. City staff contracted with the firm of Barton Aschman and Associates to also review the parking and traffic situation. Mr. Dean Wenger of Barton Aschman Associates made the following general comments concerning the situation: • a. The parking ratios required by Richfield ordinance are more flexible than most municipalities and are reasonable. b. Data collected nationally by Barton Aschman and Associates indicate that for a discount store such as K -Mart, the peak annual day parking ratios greatly exceed an average day and, in fact, might be higher than those ^� predicted by Benshoof and Associates. C. That although mixed land use can reduce parking needs, the proposed two uses in this �Y \� particular case tend to have their highest parking accumlaticns during the midday and so are not generally good land uses for shared parking. d. The typical design parking ratio should provide for some space vacancies. They indicated that as lot occupancy approaches the 90% level, spaces become more difficult to find and drivers begin circulating in the aisles searching for spaces, or they stop in the aisles near the building waiting for a space to become vacant. These waiting vehicles tend to be near the store front. They may use fire lanes for parking and the waiting or circulating cars can create Council Letter No. 276 -4- August 13, 1984 unnecessary hazards in the zones of heaviest pedestrian movement. Investigation of 6 other communities in the urban area indicated that requirements ranged from 397 to 571 for the combined uses. One community would require 344 which is less than our standard but more than is proposed on the site. This further indicates that the Richfield standard is reasonable. Staff is concerned about the undesireable precedent that might be set by approval of a-develcpment which is considerably below city parking standards. Staff is also concerned that future problems could be created if the parking demand increases, either due to an increase in business for the existing uses or to a change in the uses on the site. There have been two recent experiences in the LHN where uses have changed and the new uses have created considerably more parking demand than the previous uses. These were the development of the Marshalls store in the HUB and the Old Country Buffet restaurant in the former Red Owl building. The city went through considerable time and expense in assembling the K -Mart site to insure that the site was developed according to local standards, and that • problems were not created in the future. For reasons discussed below, the proposal would be inconsistent with both the city's comprehensive plan and LHN rid- evglopment plan. Because of these inconsistencies, -the zoning ordinance prohibits the issuance of special use permits and the approval of planned unit develop- ment plans and amendments thereto. 2. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to assist in the implementation of the comprehensive plan by regulating the location, size, use and height of buildings, the arrangement of buildings and lots and the density of population within the city and to conversely prevent that type of development which is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The LHN redevelopment plan map is included as a part of the comprehensive plan. The purpose of including the redevelopment plan map is to provide for a more detailed guide in the development of the LHN area. The redevelopment plan indicates that the subject site should be developed as a promotional department store, and does not include the development of a freestanding restaurant on the site. A staff review of the proposal by Franchise Associates has indicated that it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. More specifically, the proposed restaurant would be inconsistent with the following comprehensive plan policies: Council Letter No. 276 -5- August 13, 1984 General Land Use Policies 4. To require all public improvement programs or private applications for rezoning, special use permits, variances, or land subdivisions, be approved only if shown to be in accordance with the comprehensive plan or any officially adopted redevelopment plans. 5. To prohibit development proposals which tend to produce undesired effects to the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare. 7. To maintain compliance of all development with the intent, if not the letter, of regulations established by the City Council to guide and direct the development within the community. Land Use Concept Policies 1. To regulate existing and future development so it will not adversely affect adjacent land uses. 8. To require commercial development to provide adequate off - street parking and on -site aesthetic improvements. • Commercial Land Use Policies 1. To promote commercial development that is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and with Richfield's residential community. Central Business District Policies 8. To facilitate the consolidation of commercial uses along Lyndale Avenue through the proper location of new developments. 10. To require integrated development of areas to be acquired by the HRA to ensure that the LHN re- development plan is carried out. 3. The proposal would also be inconsistent with redevelopment plan. As indicated previously, the proposal is inconsistent with the city's LHN redevelopment plan. The development of the plan was the result of many years of study by consultants and city staff along with considerable time and effort by business persons and area residents. The plan was reviewed and approved by • the Planning Commission and City Council and adopted by the HRA. Considerable effort has been expended to insure that the plan developed would best serve the LHN area and the community as a whole. Council Letter No. 276 -6- August 13, 1984 The development of the promotional department store site was the first priority in implementing the redevelopment plan. Considerable time and expense went into the property acquisition and other site assembly costs to bring about the K -Mart development. It was the goal in redeveloping the site to not only provide the anchor use for the entire LHN area, but to replace the existing piece -meal development on the site which was, in some cases, characterized by inadequate setbacks and parking. The LHN plan required the construction of a 500 car parking area to serve the promotional department store and adjacent retail uses. It was deemed to be important to provide adequate parking for both the promotional department store and also to promote additional shared parking and promote foot traffic to and from other business in the area. The HRA sold the land to the developer at a considerable write -down as an incentive to develop the promotional department store in accordance with the plan and the standards of the city. The proposal by Franchise Associates is contrary to these goals and prior actions taken by the HRA. 4. Testimony at the previous planning commission meeting indicated that adjacent apartment owners and residents had concerns about such negative elements as noise, traffic, trash, and glare which could emanate from the site. The restaurant would intensify the use of that part of the site which is in close proximity to the apartments located on the north side of 65th street and could result in additional negative impacts upon the apartment residents. 5. The city attorney's office has concluded that the developers agreement between the HRA and the developer of K -Mart site does not specifically preclude the development proposed by Arby's, as it does not address the issue of additional develcment on this site. 6. The proposed uses of a metal panel mansard type roof and the white color on the restaurant are not consistent with the Lyndale Hub Niccllet redevelopment area urban design elements. The urban design elements indicate that primary building materials should be warm earth tone brick, stone, wood, or certain types of concrete. The applicant has indicated that they would change the design to be consistent with the urban design elements. They indicated that the metal roof material would be changed to wood and that the split face concrete would • be painted biege or brown instead of white. • • Council Letter No. 276 -7- August 13, 1984 Building and Construction Permit Regulations Another indicator of the relationship between the comprehensive Plan, the redevelopment plan and the construction of improvements in the city is found in a section of the Code which regulates the issuance of building permits. More specifically, Chapter III of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Section 3.04 (Building and Construction Permits: Conformity with Comprehensive Plan, Redevelopment Plans and Urban Design Guidelines) indicates in subdivision 1 that proposed construction must be reviewed to determine conformity with the comprehensive plan, redevelopment plan, and urban design guidelines. Subdivision 3 of the aforementioned section indicates a procedure to be followed when the Building Official determines that a proposal is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan and the redevelopment plan. The adoption of these regulations by the City Council clearly indicates the Council's concern for new development needing to be consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the LHN Redevelopment Plan. In summary it is the City Manager's and City staff's opinion that the facts would support findings that the proposed restaurant development would not be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the LHN redevelopment plan, and that adequate parking would not be provided. Because of these findings, the proposal would not meet the zoning ordinance standards for issuance of a special use permit for a restaurant; for issuance of special use permits in general and for the approval of the planned unit development plan. The City Manager therefore recommends that the City Council deny the special use permit and PUD plan amendment for a restaurant on the K -Mart site. The Planning vote recommended and planned unit stipulations: 1. That the Design E Commission reviewed this matter and on a 7 -0 -1 that the council approve the special use permit development plan amendment with the following proposed restaurant design meet the LHN Urban lements. 2. That the design of the berm and landscaping adjacent to the 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue intersection be approved by the Public Safety Department to insure that proper corner visibility is maintained. Council Letter No. 276 -8- August 13, 1984 3. That Franchise Associates, Inc. agree in writing to close the restaurant if the city determines that there is a parking problem at a future date. TAM /eja is 49 Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager Hanners it 0". rrnvpfanrH T Minnesota 55403 Howard Dahlgren Associates 1 Incorporated 6 April, 1984 Members of the Planning Commission, Staff, and City Council CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55422 Ladies and Gentlemen: We are consultants to Franchise Associates, Inc., developers and operators of Arby's restaurants in our area. As you know, Franchise Associates developed their first facility in Richfield, at 6529 Penn Avenue South, in 1968. A drive -thru window was added to this restaurant in 1982. As you may also recall, at the same time that Franchise Associates was planning the expansion and remodeling of this facility, the City was moving to implement needed traffic improvements to the 66th Street and Penn Ave intersection. Briefly, these improvements included the extension of the median strip to provide a protected left turn lane for southbound Penn Avenue traffic wishing to go east on 66th Street. In the Staff report which covered the 1982 Arby's expansion proposal the planned improvements to this intersection, the resulting traffic pattern, and their impact on the adjacent residential streets were noted and discussed. The report concluded that, "This impact will be felt regardless whether the drive -up window is constructed ". Although the Staff report was addressing the effects of these new traffic movements on adjacent resi- dential areas, they had an immediate adverse impact on the Arby's restaurant as well. As every one realizes, Arby's must compete in the convenience food market, and any change in traffic pattern which makes it more difficult to get to this restaurant, affects the number of people who will choose to do SO. The traffic improvements at 66th and Penn were clearly necessary and they have accomplished the public purpose which they were intended to. However, as soon as they were implemented, it was obvious to Franchise Associates, that if they wanted to continue doing business in the City of Richfield, that a new site must be located. • Their site selection search has been intensive and it has taken a long time. This process was greatly complicated by the fact that the City of Richfield is for all intents and purposes, fully developed. The City's major commitment to Redevelopment and the scope of these plans has also complicated this site selection process. When we were contacted by Franchise Associates, they had completed this investigation and had identified a site which they felt would work very well for them, while complimenting the City's planning effort in the area as well. We were hired to review their site selection process, evaluate the proposed site, to prepare some site development alternatives, and subsequently to assist in the processing of this application. We began our involvement in this process by candidly identifying a number of issues which we felt would need to be completely addressed by this appli- cation. Franchise Associates explained that they wanted a frank assessment of the site, because if it couldn't be designed to work, they didn't want to develop it. After a complete review of the the LHN Goals and Urban Design Guidelines, and after the preparation, review and refinement of several design alternatives, we believe that we have developed a plan which both meets Arby's needs, and which is fully compatible with the City's goals and objectives as well. A description of this site and the site plan which has been prepared for it is described in summary form in the sections which follow. A. INTRODUCTION TO THE SITE The site which is being proposed for approval for a new Arby's restaurant is • located in the Southeast quadrant of Lyndale Avenue and 65th Street. It is proposed to be incorporated into the existing K -Mart store parking lot. B. SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION The subject property is zoned PC -2 and restaurants are Special Uses in this zone. The site plan submitted along with this application requires a variance from the front yard setback along 65th Street (40 feet required, 12.5 feet provided). C. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF KEY PLANNING ISSUES 1. Adequacy of Available Number of Parking Spaces to service both Z -Mar*_ and Arby's after development. a. Number of spaces: The first and most difficult question which had to be addressed in considering the development of this site, was whether or not a plan could be prepared which could retain enough parking spaces, to allow both businesses to function during peak use periods. Not only did peak use demands need to be addressed, but also, the combined impacts of peak use and snow storage on the available parking. 0 Fortunately, (strictly from the perspective of this application) this Christmas shopping season provided an opportunity to evaluate the adequacy of the existing K -Mart parking lot during both one of the busiest shopping seasons in recent years, and during a winter of record breaking snowfalls. The proposed site was photographed during Arby's peak use period (11:30 am to 1:30pm) from the same angles, on three separate days within the last week of shopping before Christmas. Significantly, this was during the time when we were at, or very near the point of most snow accumulation for the entire season. The results of this investigation convinced not only our selves, but more importantly, convinced both K -Mart and Arby's, that there was sufficient surplus parking provided on this site, under the most demanding and adverse circumstances to allow for the development of the Arby's restaurant. We will bring the slides taken during this study to the public meetings for your review and consideration. b. Shared Parking, Maintenance Agreements The development of this site plan has been the subject of much discussion between K -Mart and Franchise Associates Inc. Submitted along with these plans is a copy of a letter from Mr. Larry Ross of K -Mart Corporation regarding the proposed plans. Through a private agreement, between the above mentioned parties, Franchise Associates will lease 20,208 square feet from K -Mart Corporation. This area is shown on the site plan. For the purposes of this review and approval process, there will be both maintenance and shared parking provisions in this lease agreement. 2. Ability to Develop Acceptable Internal and External Traffic ri rc-ii 1 a t i on After determining to our satisfaction, that there would be enough parking to service both businesses, we turned our attention to an analysis of the redesign of traffic circulation within the site. I*_ was very quickly determined that under no circumstance would it be necessary to change the external traffic movements. That is to say, no additional curb cuts or relocations or remodelling of existing K-Mart entrances would be required. We began with the basic set backs identified in the ordinance and began to develop alternative designs. Our goal was to develop the alternative which accomplished the circulation needs of the proposed Arby's, while causing the least disruption to the existing K -Mart site. As you will note on the plans which have been submitted, the plan which has been developed locates the proposed restaurant in the northwest corner of the K -Mart parking iot. By placing the drive -up window toward 65th street the plan allows the best possible design for stacking. It also allows traffic leaving the drive -up lane to utilize the existing western -most aisle on the K -Mart parking lot, and to exit the site at the main curb cut opening on Lyndale Avenue It was primarily the significant advan- tages presented by this alternative which led us to recommend applying for a variance along 65th Street. The site could be developed without requiring this variance, but it would both remove additional parking and disrupt circulation. In summary, the best placement of the proposed 'building, from the perspective of circulation, is as shown on the proposed plans. 3. Appropriateness of Proposed Siting With Adjacent Development, Consistency With LHN Goals and Objectives. The Zoning Ordinance addresses setbacks in a very reasonable manner, always relating them to the existing development which it abuts. In this case, the only other development on the block is the K -Mart store. The K -Mart building is set back SO feet from Lyndale Avenue The proposed Arby's is set back 40 feet from Lyndale which is consistent with the required front yard setback in this zone. The difference between these two setbacks will be virtually imperceptible, although we have felt very strongly that the front yard set back along Lyndale Avenue should be honored., We have reviewed all of the goals and objectives of the LHN Plan and believe the subject proposal to be consistent with them. 10 4. Description of Proposed Building Materials;, Landscaping, Signage, Lighting. The Urban Design Guidelines for the LHN Project were reviewed and utilized in the development of the design details of this proposal. The proposed Arby's building will be attractive, utilizing fluted, decorative block, stained cedar, and its roof will be a metal standing seam with a baked on enamel finish. Photographs of other Arby's with the same exterior appearance have been supplied along with examples of the quality of the proposed interior.. Landscaping has been proposed to compliment the building, provide desirable screening and to encourage and enhance outdoor seating and pedestrian traffic. We will address specific species and their appropriateness for the locations shown, at the public meetings. Plans illustrating the proposed signage have been submitted along with this application. Signage proposed on the building are as illustrated on the attached elevations and submitted photographs. The proposed pylon sign is also illustrated on these materials. The location for the pylon sign is shown on the site plan. This location meets the letter of the Zoning Ordinance, and the developer is willing to accept this location if it is the City's wish. However an alternative location has been identified which we feel would simply look better, without having a major impact on the signs visibility. This location is within the front yard set beck and is illustrated on the reduced copies of these plans. • The proposed development will not require a major change in the existing lighting on the K -Mart site. Some minor relocation will be required. Some additional lighting will be added around the building. The final details for this lighting have not been developed, but under no circumstance would it result in any exposed light sources or off-site glare. Franchise Associates would welcome the opportunity to review these details with the Building or Planning Staffs. 5. Summary and Conclusion Franchise Associates Inc. has been a Richfield business since 1968 and is committed to staying in business in your fine community. Conditions on their existing site on Penn Ave make it necessary to relocate. They have undertaken an involved and careful site search to locate the site which is proposed for development by this application. As planning consultants we have, frankly, approached this project with some skepticism from the beginning. We have been very candid with the developer about the tests which we felt it would need to pass and our unwillingness to represent-it if it failed. From the beginning, Franchise Associates has accepted these conditions and have welcomed our candor. They don't want to make an investment of this size if it isn't going to work. The result of our analysis and design effort is a development proposal which we believe strongly will work for both the developer and the City. We look forward to meeting with you in the review of this project and to working with you to correct and improve any problems which that review may reveal. Sincerely Yours John Z Shardlow, Principal Planner cc. Charles Nadler, Franchise Associates Inc. Bruce Kalkerson, Popham, Haik et a1 • if ! W I za �j 1H11 uj (j Li LO rl I i� -I Q O. u • • i i .I W W 1 11 � � \ I SI I�10 j • i • i L i w • • i i • s i v: e i Y a y •� • t � • to s a Y • j � g6 • • A � a .Y• 16 • LLJ e i e y •� ■ i uj is Y T,I • 2 J 1 11 � � \ I SI I�10 o LLJ uj w T 7 I\ in A -_ _ 1 � • 16. a I • Q.• is• T {I I 1 I , I 1 11 � � \ I SI I�10 K mart Development .. .::...... .:: a cii�nsJon of K rrurT Corporanon 3100 W. Big Beaver Rd. Troy. MICNCUn A808A . (313) 643-5000 April 30, 1984 Mayor John Hamilton City Council City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55422 RE: Planned Unit Development of K mart Property Proposed by Franchise Associates, Inc. (Arby's) Gentlemen: We have reviewed the plans that are being submitted by Franchise Associates, Inc. to the City of Richfield in connection with the K mart location at 65th and Lyndale. We fully agree with said plans and in connection therewith recognize that the site already contains sufficient surplus parking for the addi -tion of the restaurant proposed by Franchise Associates, Inc. We also believe that there will be a compatible interaction between the business of K mart, Arby's and other businesses located at said site. We acknowledge and consent to the application of Franchise Associates, Inc. for a conditional use permit for the purpose of utilizing said site for the construction of an Arby's Restaurant. Very truly yours, K MART CORPORATION irl is • \ � s� / tl rm IY ZM OF LD 00, 2 or °D 2 ve I-z OIA lu '-� L� In 0 M z 13 M m r o 3o O 13 m 00, 2 or °D 2 ve I-z OIA lu '-� L� In v 106- H 4 TA rl j t i i 1 i m -- Oirr..t C n E 0 a n s • v 0 u. .a ..� ?'�+•..�� _'aj11t111l� 2`0 list "'nrills owl �,., —"—,."`ss`-- .— ,r*— s•�cr-�ln r,ImnTmrurrnmr,:.R.�•. -M• wt .� A.rs M r� C7 J CR�G4N lo__d/ �o %Q.4�1�•lG�� Loll o- _Cj c�� AMA -f Alic 7 f7 l � 741 41 4�1 S4LZ��3,�c� y �U�C 6 5 e c � /)/ I - - / _,, - - /7 , �l /11 - A_�a� - 7"FNz 41 4�1 S4LZ��3,�c� y �U�C 6 5 e c � /)/ I - - / _,, - - /7 , �l /11 - A_�a� - NIO ^' G' -�' 7 4 ,r `.'� ;�' ^tea'.''• �- �"'�l'S °� v � - �"y�'i�•f.+• !:° w .s -� ' et :� 'F z- oo fi - -T- T _ fit rl- e-"• .. } s`a ��. M j_ - -_�." _ l . ?'i "P j' ^� - :�rY.}£ -yam F. � Y .- y ) — •. - ._. _ _ .' -.. ' } Sic. -+ �-�"^� �•�• -"t•� �e�.� --±� —.- - * {y�` y. +�.f_�7w y, � Y. .fir �,.� �� j •��-. r ..i;. _� � ,,,, Via,.• � _ - _ - a�,�,,.•� m X_"a- •-3• -{ . :mow i s �^' k — - -.. - _ __ _- -- - 7T, 1 :--ate= - - - - - I-z BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATESIP TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119 ' EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 1 (812) 944 -7590 • TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED ARBY'S RESTAURANT RICHFIELD, MN PREPARED FOR FRANCHISE ASSOCIATES, INC. PREPARED BY BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE SUITE 119 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 JUNE 1984 CONTENTS Page SUMMARY--------------------------------------------- 1 Purpose and Background ---------------------------- 1 Conclusions --------------------------------- - - - - -- 1 PARKING AND TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ARBY'S RESTAURANTS ----------------------------------- - - - - -- 4 ADEQUACY OF PARKING --------------------------- - - - - -- 6 ON SITE CIRCULATION --------------------------- - - - - -- 11 • EFFECTS ON OFF SITE TRAFFIC FLOW -------------- - - - - -- 12 TripGeneration ----------------------------- - - - - -- 12 Trip Distribution --------------------------------- 12 TripAssignment ----------------------------- - - - - -- 14 Capacity Analysis --------------------------- - - - - -- 14 IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES ---------------- - - - - -- 19 CONSISTENCY WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ------- - - - - -- 20 CONCLUSIONS ----------------------------------- - - - - -- 21 APPENDIX-------------------------------------- - - - - -- 22 is • SUMMARY PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND In response to concerns raised at the Planning Commission hearing concerning the Arby's application, Franchise Associates Inc. has retained the firm of Benshoof and Associates to complete a comprehensive study on the parking and traffic implications of the proposal. The qualifications of the firm, as well as the two key professionals involved in the report preparation, are contained in the appendix to this document. The purpose of this report is to analyze potential traffic and parking effects of the proposed Arby's restaurant located at 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue in the City of Richfield. The restaurant would contain approximately 2,900 square feet including a drive -up window and would be located in the northwestern corner of the existing parking lot serving a K -Mart store as shown on the site plan on Figure 1. Access to the roadway system will remain the same. The reports addresses the following five concerns raised by the City staff and neighbors: • Adequacy of parking available for both the Arby's restaurant and the K -Mart store. * Effectiveness of on site traffic circulation. * Effects on off site traffic circulation and roadway capa- city. • Traffic impacts on adjacent properties. • Consistency of the proposal with the transportation goals and objectives of the City's redevelopment plan. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the findings of this professional analysis, Benshoof and Associates made the following conclusions: s Sufficient on site parking will be available for the K -Mart and Arby's facilities. x,# On site traffic circulation will function effectively. 1 • Adequate stacking distance is available on the Arby's . site for the drive -up facility. • Traffic volumes generated by Arby's represent a small percentage of total existing roadway volumes. • Sufficient capacity is available at the intersection of 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue to accommodate projected traffic within acceptable levels of service. • The proposal has no significant parking or traffic impacts on adjacent properties. • The proposal is consistent with the transportation/ parking goals and objectives of the redevelopment plan. t7 1�J E i ii LLJ a U z Z co �3 0 i _9 C Y J . t / Ii /O /lam\ - .r� -F -- _�, 1_� ►- 3 .S?7vC' � ) Z J W F- Z Q �o Q J F- w N ... w LL. z� U m z Z < Q O g y w in y Q Q O Z v Z � Q z N Z LL ` ¢ O W N Z — W z V (n z Q z :,L PARKING AND TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ARSY'S RESTAURANTS An important step in the analysis is to quantify the traffic and parking characteristics of Arby's facilities. As such, Benshoof and Associates conducted field surveys of two existing Arby's which are virtually identical to that pro- posed (2,900 square feet with a drive -up window). The restaurants located in Coon Rapids and Columbia Heights (the latter similarly located in a shared parking facility with K -Mart ) were surveyed on May 31, 1984 from the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 4 :00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. by fifteen minute periods. Data collected included number of trips into and out of each facility, number of cars uti 1 i zi ng the drive- up window, number of cars parked, and number of cars stacked at the drive -up. Table 1 presents the results of these surveys. As could be expected, the two stores exhibit similar characteristics for all data collected. The data indicates the following: • The busiest time of day is the noon hour (11:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m.), followed by the dinner period. • The number of parking spaces used is generally in the teens or low twenties, with a maximum of 41 spaces occupied during one fifteen minute period. • The number of vehicles queued in the drive -thru lane usually was three or less, with a maximum observed queue of seven vehicles in one out of the 24 time periods sur- veyed. • 4 • �w J m Fes-• • Vf ZH 4 H N w N_ } 6 N U V9 w U 2 v v U- tL Y ti 9 w F� Q N w N a a Cz 1 o a 0 1 0 C 4 O O O M N O - O M 0 } L } O q O '7 0 a a� M 10 O 10 - 10 L 0 - - - N N N N N •- N N N M M C M M N N N N N CL 0 w J p N u1 n m 10 J 00 Y0 1 9 10 �O N O. m m i!1 M m M m O% C 10 v m O u1 N to N> +- L 00F H q } C m N 1'. �O N O% M M 10 10 m V1 N �O = L O a 0 1 - - - N 10 O 1 N - - - - N ^ N O O M1 O O •- U 0 CL q a o as 0= L M v 0% to - m M1 O m Q1 P n m M a - - - N M N N N - - - .- -- N N N ^ r- • CL �Lp } O. 0 0 q t < M1 M O O M M m r` m P O �o O M v N It M 00 N H I -> v v N N r h M r v v N N N n } L L 0 O f- q } C M M O N M�.. - .- M n 0% v - O - 10 • .-. •-• - • ..• O� - f` - M . 9 - M1 . f- E n 0 E E E O E E E E q A N a a E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E u� O v, a n n n n n a n n n n n n n n n - M v t - M .� o _ o v� O n o n o to o v, o n o ul% O n o O -- - -- N N N - M < O - M v O - M C O L I I I q 1 t I t V.% n .O o 'o G n n n n m CL I I I I i I I 1 I I 1 I I i t t O u'1 O � O to O u'� O - M < O - M < O C O = O 11 O O n O n O to �•- - - - - - - - - < Q v v to u'� N In 10 10 %O z n � 1-1 I- ADEQUACY OF PARKING 0 Three hundred sixty five (365) parking spaces are currently available in the K -Mart parking lot. The construction of Arby's will reduce the number of spaces to 313. In order to assess the adequacy of parking available, it is necessary to determine parking usage during both average times of the year as well as the peak shopping period (i.e., the week before Christmas, which is the peak shopping week of the year). Table 2 indicates the results of parking surveys conducted by both Franchise Associates and Benshoof and Associates at the existing Richfield K -Mart store during the last week of May and first week of June, 1984. As can be noted, spaces occupied ranged from 67 to 142, with a noon hour average of 114 spaces and evening average of 92 spaces. Table 3 presents the combined parking demand for K -Mart and Arby's for normal business periods. The average weekday parking at K -Mart (from Table 2) is added to average Arby's parking (from Table 1) to estimate the total combined parking demand. At no time, does demand exceed 50% of - capacity. Discussions with representatives of K -Mart indicate that the time period surveyed (end of May, beginning of June) is the third busiest time of the year. As such, these figures reflect above average parking usage. Therefore, Benshoof and Associates concludes that during periods of normal business conditions, less than 50% of available on site parking will be used. The second parking concern involves usage during the peak shopping week (the week before Christmas). Two methods were utilized to calculate this -peak demand. The first involves adjusting the parking counts observed during the end of May upwards by the percentage difference in sales volume between the week at the end of May and the week before Chri stmas . The second method involves estimating parking space usage by studying th-e slides taken of the K -Mart parking lot during the week before Christmas 1983 (the photographs were taken by staff of Howard Dahlgren Associates and have been discussed in their report). Regarding the first method, K -Mart representatives indicate that sales volume during the week before Christmas 1983 was 75 percent higher than the period for which parking counts were taken in May, 1984. Assuming a direct relationship between number of vehicles and sales (a worst case r� �J A assumption), parking demand during the holiday period would be 75% greater than the end of May. Table 4 presents the calculations performed to determine peak parking usage. The highest number of parked vehicles observed during the survey of K -Mart usage was utilized in order to reflect minor variations in demand. This number was then increased by 75% to account for increased Christmas usage yielding the expected peak parking for K -Mart. Utilizing the information obtained from the surveys of the two Arby's restaurants, the highest number of spaces used at either facility (a worst case assumption) was added to the adjusted K -.Mart figures to yield peak parking usage for both stores. This technique indicates that during the time period of peak parking demand, approximately 88% of the "new" parking lot capacity would be used (2;7 spaces used versus 313 available). These calcula- tions indicate that, utilizing worst case assumptions, no more than 88A of the available parking for both uses will be used during the week of highest demand (Christmas season). -The second method used to calculate peak parking demand was to compare the extent to which the parking lot was used during the week before Christmas to the extent of coverage observed at the end of May. Benshoof and Associates care- fully examined the slides of the K -Mart parking lot taken by Howard Dahlgren Associates on December 20, 22, and 24, 1983. — This examination reveals that the number of cars parked on sire— ranged from approximately 150 to 225 cars. These parking usage figures are well below the 313 spaces that would be provided after completion of the Arby's Restaurant. Furthermore, these observed parking counts are lower than the values arrived at by the calculations utilizing the worst case assumptions. The highest count observed is approxi- mately 50 cars (18 %) less than the calculated demand. Based upon these two demand, Benshoof and site parking will be throughout the year, • methods of determining peak parking Associates concludes that adequate on available for both K -Mart and Arby's including the busiest week of the year TABLE 2 NUMBER OF SPACES OCCUPIED AT K -MART RICHFIELDI (365 SPACES CURRENTLY AVAILABLE) DATES Time Period May 24 May 251 May 26 May 27 May 3121 June 1 June 2 June 3 11:30 a.m. - - - - 110 - - - 12:00 Noon 108 128 132 129 115 132 136 11O 12:30 p.m. 142 101 122 117 111 128 132 104 1:00 P.M. 120 123 119 110 109 121 138 92 1:30 p.m. 123 116 121 108 - 129 116 89 5:30 p.m. 79 88 103 - - 100 87 - 6:00 p.m. - 79 99 99 - 67 108 90 - 6:30 p.m. 86 110 110 - 72 104 90 - 7:00 p.m. 80 _ 75 133 -_ 74 88 7:30 p.m. - - - - 89 - - - ICounts taken by Franchise Associates Inc. except where noted. Number of available spaces recorded; number of spaces occupied calculated from this data. 2Counts taken by Benshoof and Associates. : • • TABLE 3 0 COMBINED PARKING DEMAND FOR K -MART AND ARBY'S DURING NORMAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS Time'Period K -,Mart - Weekday Average From Table 2 Arby's Weekday Average From Table 1 Average Parking For Both Uses Percent of Lot Capacity 313 Spaces Available 12:00 Noon 121 26 147 47% 12:30 p.m. 121 24 145 46% 1:00 P.M. 118 21 139 44% 6:00 p.m. 88 24 112 - 36% 6:30 p.m. 93 31 124 40% 7:00 p.m. 79 26 105 34% • • d W J H Cn d Cn C C U W O Li W C] Y W W 3 W cv z ae O _N Y z d Q d I Y C O W O Z Q f W Z �G d a O W Z d O U y y O x • y v J M ro 3 Y r- W- I •r- ro y O ro a¢ 32 3•Q I 3.2 a•e a2 3^e a C L C vrvy L O_ U a • C y ro ro L r X 7 Y y a U L N Q �w. `ro N w a ro o � y C N � t C 7 r• N y N Y CJ N E 'v ro � O L �.: N •r •r y Q L N > ro 0O L T \ M I d O r+ O _ CL O_ to r` to +s U � M Cp •r L C-) N N N N N N N E U r r 3 v � E L c •r o a y ro C C r y y = d C i y N ro )C •N •r r-� •- C tV � °rte C >r •r � X O � O ro O O y C N O i L.L 0 rc y C ro co LC) r L CO, N y � N � .•� a > C y O y _ C L N � y r yr. y y � Y N N r° O CL L � y ro ro 4.J y +.+ Q ro O .- y N O O � � c � y •� N y > � d >> R y y .. L N Cn c � C O •r L 7 N - X d L O L J X ro iL rC y Z M: Cx O � L .•-• N C••) O av C L •r O N L U E ro ro .0 O. LL N •r CO CT N 1p O O� M M rt 4.4 L M d d N CO N 41 M E L Z N N N N .-+ --+ r, N U .m •r I L Y ro � L O L�. .Q y an > C L r yN Y N L _*3 y roOr- �D N 00 rJ1 M CXJ O M a.j 7 ro E f •.- I O X Y L ro LL- L- 0 L+_ O C O y O M 0o O O 00 O - 00 N N .. .. .. .. .. LO �c to n 10 y O x • y v 3 Y ro y d y a C L C c a • C }J L r X 7 Y y O L O_ Q �w. `ro w m o � y t C 7 r• N y N E 'v ro � O •r y Q L N > y ro � O. U y CJ +s U � •F� N ro N C O ro 3 v � E L a y ro C C r y •r A i y N ro )C •N •r r-� tV � °rte C >r •r � O � O y y C N O N O rc y C ro co LC) r L CO, � N � .•� 'Q C y O y _ N � y y y � N r° O CL U ro ro 4.J y +.+ Q y y N O O � � c � y •� N y > X d >> R y y .. L N Cn C O 7 N - y O L J X U rC y Z M: Cx O .•-• N C••) • ON SITE CiRCUl.AT10N • The Arby's restaurant is proposed to be located at the north- west corner of the existing parking lot as shown on Figure 1. Access to the facility occurs via the two way driving lanes along the western and northern portion of the parking lot. No changes to the existing access points to Lyndale Avenue or 65th Street are proposed, nor are any changes in internal circulation patterns proposed. This design will allow viable access to and from the Arby's site, as well as avoid inter- ference with vehicular or pedestrian traffic to K -Mart. The issue of an additional access point to 65th Street was raised during the public hearing. Benshoof and Associates would not recommend an additional curb cut for two principal reasons: 1) It is unnecessary as the existing access points have sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic to and from the site in a safe, effective manner. 2) Another access point would create additional points of conflict with traffic on the roadways, increasing poten- tial for both accidents and congestion. It should also be noted that the drive through facility has sufficient length to stack 11 vehicles. As indicated by the surveys of Arby's facilities, the maximum number of vehicles observed in the drive -up lanes was seven. As such, it can be concluded that sufficient stacking distance is available for the drive -up facility to avoid waiting cars backed up into and thus interfering with travel in the main drive aisles. 11 EFFECTS ON OFF SITE TRAFFIC FLOC/ TRIP GENERATION The first step in analyzing the effects of the proposal on the roadway system is to determine the number of trips which will be added by Arby's. The data on traffic in and out of the two Arby's restaurants surveyed, were averaged to obtain projections on Arby's trips occurring during the noon (11:45 a.m. - 12:45 p.m.), p.m. (4:45 p.m. - 5 :45 p.m.) peak hours, dinner peak (6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.), and off peak hours. The p.m. peak hour represents the time when traffic volumes on adjacent roadways are the highest and thus additional traffic of the most concern. The expected trip generation by Arby's is. Noon Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Dinner Peak Hour Average Off Peak Hour Trips In Trips Out 81 70 50 38 57 57 21 21 These volumes include a trip reduction factor of 5% to account for multi - purpose trips between Arby's and K -Mart (persons who visit both facilities during the same trip). TRIP DISTRIBUTION _ The next step of the analysis is to determine the directional distribution of trips to and from Arby's. It is expected that Arby's traffic will enter and exit the site in a pattern similar to that of existing K -Mart customers. Therefore, to determine existing patterns, traffic counts were made at the K -Mart facility on May 31, 1984. Figure 2 shows existing and anticipated distribution by percentage of vehicles exiting and entering. This figure shows that the predominant orien- tation of trips 'is to the south and east. The distribution of vehicles at the two adjacent intersections (65th Street and Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue) was assumed to be identical to the percentage of vehicles currently making each movement (left turn, through, and right turn). 12 • • is U z�Z W W cc rr N cn dp Ln � t f 11 I I 'I\ w w Oi w 1• � � rl \ O t ,.t o 13 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 0 The final step in the traffic forecast is to assign the pro- jected number of trips to the access points and roadways based upon the expected distribution. Figure 3 presents the projected volumes entering and exiting the site for the noon peak hour and p.m. peak hour. CAPACITY ANALYSIS The final step in analyzing off site traffic impacts is to determine the effect of the Arby's traffic assignment on roadway capacity. Figure 4 and 5 present projected traffic volumes at the intersections of 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue respectively. The total volumes include three components: existing traffic, traffic from the proposed Market Plaza development, and traffic generated by Arby's. Volumes for existing traffic at 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue were obtained from a field survey conducted by Benshoof and Associates on May 30, 1984. Volumes for existing traffic at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue were calculated from counts taken by Hennepin County in 1982, adjusted upwards by a factor of 7% to account for actual increase since 1982. This 7% factor was obtained by comparing 1982 daily counts with 1984 daily counts tabulated by the City of Richfield. Other development traffic consists of projected volumes for the Market Plaza development west of Lyndale prepared by Westwood Planning & Engineering Co. The volumes for Arby's were obtained via the methodology noted above and include a trip reduction factor of 25% to account for intercepted trips. Intercepted trips are those vehicles already on the roadway system which would stop at Arby's and thus are not new trips generated by the facility. The reduc- tion percentage for intercepted trips is corroborated by experience at similar quick_ service restaurants where surveys indicated 55 to 70 percent of the patrons were already on the roadway system. Additional information available from the Institute of Transportation Engineers indicates that for regional shopping centers 25 percent of the trips during the p.m. peak hour were intercepted. It is anticipated that Arby's would intercept at least a comparable figure. As can be noted, at both intersections traffic generated by Arby's represents a small proportion of total volumes through the intersection. During the noon hour Arby's increases approach volumes at the 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue by 2.2% and at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue by 1.3 %. During the p.m. peak, traffic increase attributable to Arby's is 1% and 6 %, respectively, for the two intersections. By com- parison, proposed Market Plaza development will increase p.m. peak hour volumes by 8.7% at 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue and by 9.2% at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. 14 Y Y l6 rC C D L C7 O E p L x -- F Q C Q (OZ LZ. x cn z ! (ZIiZZ t r = w Q O 1 In tr C C LL F- Q l i \ Q J \ F- W N \ \. �• W LL cn ID U I cLr. Zl, LLJ ° N LL �ZJ9� w � � �• - ~ LU i U z FRANCHISE ASSOCIATES INC. ARBY'S RESTAURANT {LICHFIELD BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES InA"P�)WAT" RANWNO ANO E40"FMNO CO"Ut TANTS FIGURE 4 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 65TH AND LYNDALE PM. PEAK HOUR (4 :45 - 5:45) Onc r en .r d d d = Z Z 66th Street)) t e�17 /NA /3/80 - 456 /NA /0/456 134/NA/8 /142 —� x -74 /NA /0/74 387/NA/0/387 --� 133/NA/0/133 —� N 01 Fi ~ � J .NOON PEAK HOUR (11:45 — 12:45) m N P N O \ \ T N O O a� tff \ Kf b O �\ O N +lf 66th Street 1 �- 70/0/2/72 - 535/70/o/605 146/0/5/151 146/0/5 /151 625/0/0/625---p- 108/0/0/108 —� t I � y G7 Gp O \\ K'f \ r T t•'f J LEGEND: N x /x /x /x = Existing /Market Plaza /Arby's /Total Not tl Scale NA = Not Available WANCHISE ASSOCIATES C. ARBY'S RESTAURANT RICHFIELD BENSHOOF ANC) ASSOCIATES inANSP7lITAT10N r AN0 ENQINEEA1Mp C0N$(JLTANTj FIGURE 5 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 66TH AND LYNDALE Volume to capacity analyses were performed for each intersec- tion during both peak hour to assess the ability of the intersections to accommodate the total projected volumes. This analysis yields a measurement of the level of service provided at the intersection. Levels of service range from A, essentially a free flow condition with no congestion, to F, a condition of severe congestion. The normal design stan- dard is level of service D. The volume to capacity analysis indicate that the intersection of 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue will accommodate the total projected traffic at level of service A during both the noon and p.m. peak houus, while the intersection of 66th and Lyndale operates at levels of service A and C during the noon and p.m. peak hours. The addition of Arby's traffic does not change any of the levels of service. These levels of service are well within accep- table design standards for urban intersections. The conclusion from this analysis is that the proposed Arby's restaurant will have no significant effects on off site traf- fic flow. • 0 • • IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES The impact of traffic to and from Arby's on adjacent proper- ties can be determined through consideration of effects on parking, potential congestion, and increase in traffic. As the analysis has indicated sufficient on site parking is available for both K -Mart and Arby's; it is anticipated that no parking for these uses will occur on adjacent properties and thus not affect the parking available for these sites. Since the analysis indicates that the proposal will not impact roadway levels of service nor create on street congestion, access to and from adjacent sites will not be affected. Finally, as noted, Arby's traffic increases traffic only slightly. This is particularly germane to 65th Street east of Lyndale Avenue where adjacent properties are located closest to the site. Arby's traffic increases volumes between Lyndale Avenue and the site entrance 7.5% during the noon peak (38 trips added to a volume of 507) and 3.3% during the p.m. peak (23 trips addded to 691). These volume and percentage increases are slight and will not Y affect traffic conditions on 65th Street nor accessibility --to/from adjacent properties. - - - - - -- - -- _ 19 • CONSISTENCY WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN A review of the goals and objectives of the transportation/ parking section of the redevelopment plan indicates that the Arby's proposal is consistent with these statements. The proposal is specifically consistent with the following goals and objectives of the overall plan: * "Create a safe, congestion free transportation system ". • "Increase the intensity of use within the Lyndale /Hub/ Nicol let Area ". s "Provide for bicycle parking in key locations ". • "Reduce number of curb cuts where possible ". * "Encourage the sharing of parking facilities ". • 20 • CONCLUSIONS Based upon this professional analysis, Benshoof and Associates concludes the following concerning the Arby's Restaurant proposal: • Sufficient on site parking will be available for both the K -Mart and Arby's facilities. During periods of normal business operations less than 50p of the available parking is expected to be used, while during the peak week of the year (the week before Christmas) less than T 90% of the available parking will be utilized. • On site traffic circulation will function effectively. s Sufficient stacking distance for the drive -up facility is provided on the Arby's site, such that during periods of peak usage no interference with on site circulation will occur. • Traffic volumes generated by Arby's represent a small • percentage of total existing roadway volumes. Sufficient capacity is available at the intersection of 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue to accommodate projected traffic within acceptable levels of service. During the p.m. peak hour, the operation at 65th and Lyndale Avenue will continue to _ remain at level of service A, while the intersection of 66th and Lyndale Avenue remains at level of service C. 4 • As the analysis shows no parking or traffic problems, the proposal will have no significant impacts on adjacent properties. • The proposal is consistent with the transportation/ parking goals and objectives of the City's redevelopment plan. 21 APPENDIX 0 BACKGROUND OF BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES Benshoof and Associates was founded in 1982 to provide spe- cialized services in traffic engineering and transportation planning, building on Mr. Benshoof's 14 years of experience in this type of work. At Benshoof and Associates and in prior positions, Mr. Benshoof has developed traffic plans for more than 100 development projects ranging up to a 10 million square foot mixed use development. The firm recently has been appointed as consultant traffic engineers for the City of Minnetonka for 1984. Recent projects include traffic and parking studies for the Met Center and for Rochester Methodist Hospital. SELECTED CLIENTS Public Organizations Private Organizations Carver City of County Coon Rapids Barton Sand and Gravel Company Brauer & Associates Ltd. City of Corcoran Browning Ferris Industries City of Detroit Lakes Burger King Corporation City of Hanover Erickson's Diversified Corp. City of Hastings Federal Land Corporation City of Hopkins Franklin National Bank City of Minneapolis Halley Land Corporation City of Minnetonka Kloster- Madsen, Inc. City of Monticello Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson City of North Oaks Architects Mayo Clinic Nash Finch Corporation Northstar Financial Corporation Norwest Properties, Inc. Planmark Project Developers, Inc. Rochester Methodist Hospital Trammell Crow Company Welsh Construction Corporation Woodbridge Properties, Inc. • 22 BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119/ EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344/(612) 944 -7590 JAMES A. BENSHOOF, P.E. President Education: University of Minnesota, B.S., Civil Engineering, 1966 Northwestern University, M.S., Transportation Engineering, 1968 University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, England, M.S., Traffic Engineering, 1969 Experience: 1982 to Date - President of Benshoof and Associates with overall responsibility for services provided by the firm. Recent projects include: redesign of Met Center parking _ lot, development of an access plan for T.H. 55 in the City of Hastings, development of a plan for upgrading Cedar Lake Road, development of a concept plan for a downtown parking • lot, safety analyses for several traffic accidents, and traffic analyses for numerous proposed developments. .-Is 1981 to 1982 - Principal with Strgar- Roscoe, Inc., Minneapolis. Responsible for all traffic engineering, transportation planning, and transit planning projects per- formed by the firm, Projects included: traffic impact studies for proposed Carlson Center development and for 167 -acre office /industrial development and transportation planning for the Mayo Clinic in Rochester. 1980 to 1981 - Vice - President with Westwood Planning & ngineering Company, Minneapolis. Responsible for all transportation services provided by the firm. Specific projects included: MTC Bus Studies Project, traffic plan - ning for redevelopment of Met Stadium site and for Carlson Center site, and I -94 /Boone Avenue interchange study. 1971 to 1980 - Project Manager and Associate with BRW, Inc., Minneapolis. Responsible for a variety of transportation, traffic and transit projects. 1969 to 1971 - Traffic Engineer with Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., Buffalo, New York. Participated in various transportation planning and traffic engineering projects. Affiliations: Registrations: Institute of Transportation Engineers Minnesota (P.E.) BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119 /EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA .45344/ (612) 944 -7590 . MICHAEL L. WONSON Education: Dartmouth College, A „8., Urban Geography, 1970 University of North Carolina, M.A., Urban Geography, 1972 Experience: 1984 to Date - Benshoof and Associates Responsibilities include technical support, analysis, and report preparation for a variety of the firm's traffic pro- jects, as well as assistance on planning issues. 1983 to 1984 - City Planner, City of Maple Grove, Minnesota Lead responsibility for all planning functions including development review, comprehensive planning, and administra- • tion. Major projects included site redesign, traffic analyses, and report preparation for: a 200,000 sq. ft. shopping complex, right -of -way acquisition for a future freeway, drive -in bank facilities, 400 unit residential developments, and environmental reviews. 1977 to 1982 - Senior Planner, City of Minnetonka, Minnesota Responsible for revision of City subdivision and zoning codes, administration of planning review process, and major development projects. Among the major projects were: site redesign and traffic analyses for the Carlson Center, including interchange construction and tax increment financing; preparation of a traffic study for a 50 acre multi -use development; revisions to the Opus 2 master plan; analyses of an 80 acre off icejindustrial park including freeway access consideration; and review of multiple high density residential projects. 1975 - Planner, City of Topeka, Kansas Responsibilities included: preparation of a bicycle systems plan, computer assisted housing analyses, updating the City's comprehensive transportation plan, and develop- ment of a reuse plan for an obsolete airfield and asso- ciated military housing. CcnsulUn Planners One Groveiand Terrace 612)377 -3536 Minneapolis Minnesota 55403 Howard Dahigren Associates / Incorporated 19 July 1984 Members of the Planning Commission, Staff CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55422 RE: Response to 26 June Staff Report, Franchise Associates, Inc. Application for Amendment to Planned Unit Development, Special Use Permit Honorable Chair, Planning Commission and Staff Members: As noted above, this letter is presented in response to the 26 June Staff Report on the Franchise Associates Inc. application for an amendment to the existing Planned Unit Development, and Special Use Permit. Specifically, this letter summarizes our disagreement with the staff report's conclusions that the subject application is inconsistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan, and the LHN Redevelopment Plan. This letter also includes additional discussion of the issue of parking on the proposed site, and the findings of some additional investigation. To facilitate your review, this information has been summarized by issue below: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY On page 2 of the 22 May Staff Report it states that the proposed restaurant would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map, which shows the subject property designated for high density, central business district uses ( "which would include restaurants "). On the second page of the 26 June Staff Report it states, "Based upon the staff review, it was found that the proposed development is inconsistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan." however, the report includes absolutely no findings to justify this conclusion. Based upon our own experience, review of the Richfield Plan, and participation in this application process, the only inconsistency which we can identify is the fact that the Comprehensive Plan follows the LHN Redevelopment Plan in designating the subject property for a "promotional department store ". we agree that redevelopment plans, by necessity, include more definitive designations for specific parcels than do comprehensive plans. we also recognize that when a redevelopment plan is Members of the Planning Commission, Staff CITY OF RICHFIELD Page 2 in effect, it is appropriate to illustrate the redevelopment plan land use designations on the comprehensive plan. However, it is neither reasonable, nor is it the common practice to conclude that the Comprehensive Plan limits the ultimate use of this property to a single, narrowly defined land use. We must agree with the findings of the original staff report, that the proposed restaurant is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Again, since the report included no evidence to substantiate this proposal's inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, we are in effect denied the opportunity to respond to the findings which have led to this opinion. CONSISTENCY WITH THE LHN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN After reviewing this matter and discussing it at some length, we must also take issue with the conclusion that the Franchise Associates proposal is inconsistent with the LHN Redevelopment Plan. There is no question that the City of Richfield has invested considerable time and energy in the development and implementation of this plan. There is also no question that the R -Mart development was and is a key_ element within the total LHN program. It is also true that the development of a restaurant was not anticipated on this site, the Redevelopment Plan clearly projected the development of a promotional department store, of up to 100,000 square feet. Although it is doubtful that the site could accommodate that much building and parking, it is quite clear that the adopted plan proposed a very intensive development of the subject property. Since the existing R -Mart store contains 56,000 square feet of Gross Leaseable Area, the development which has occurred on the site is just slightly more than half of the amount proposed on the adopted Redevelopment Plan. The 56,000 sq. ft. R -Mart store has been constructed on this site and all of the contractual requirements of the redevelopment agreement have been satisfied. Now the R -Mart property is just another underutilized parcel within the Redevelopment District. If the LHN Plan has one essential objective, it is to correct the problem of the underutilization of property within the Project limits. The following finding is set: forth on page 4 of the LHN Plan: "Several parcels of land are currently utilized to a level well below their capacity. Much of this underutilization exists where the fragmentation of uses results in parking duplicity. The type of development that has occurred, with each structure functioning independently, results in individual parking lots with no opportunity for shared parking." Without belaboring the point, the Franchise Associates Inc. proposal would: 0 I . Increase the intensity of use within the LHN Plan, 2. Provide convenient, safe and attractive pedestrian ways (logically connecting with the planned residential area accross Lyndale Ave), 3. Encourage the sharing of parking facilities as opposed *_o the "Go It Alone" approach, 4. Facilitate "one stop" shopping along Lyndale Avenue, reducing the strip and "compacting" the retail area, etc. All of the above noted results of the Franchise Associates proposal are directly consistent with the goals and objectives of the LHN Plan. There are many more which could be cited, but if any one directive is clearly consistent with the findings and approach set forth in this plan, it is the concept of encouraging shared parking to allow the intensification of land use in the area. In their 22 May Report the staff concludes on page 3, "Staff observation would concur that the area of the site to be occupied by the restaurant is underutilized." Given the goals and objectives of the LHN Plan related to underutilized parcels set forth above, and given the fact that the K.-Mart is Store has been developed pursuant to and satisfied the requirements of the LHN Plan and there is apparently no disagreement with our contention that the site is now underutilized, we simply cannot accept the City Attorney's conclusion that this proposal is inconsistent with the LHN Plan. ADEQUACY OF PROPOSED PARKING Since we all agree that the subject property is underutilized and the LHN Plan proposes the intensification of development on such sites, we can only conclude that if it can be demonstrated that the proposed development can be planned and designed to work, the redevelopment of this site is consistent with the LHN Plan., We have presented considerable information in support of our contention that it will work. This information includes the findings of our field investigations during the Christmas peak use period for the K -Mart store, numerous other counts of vacant parking stalls during the peak use period for the proposed Arby's restaurant, our analysis of nationally published resources on shared parking, and the Benshoof and Associates Report. We were very pleased to hear that the City had hired Barton- Aschman Associates to assist in the determination of the feasibility of the proposed shared parking agreement. Not only do we agree that this firm is among the leading national experts on the subject of shared parking, but we were also encouraged because the research which we presented was taken primarily from the Urban Lard Institutes recent publication, Shared Parking, which was authored by the Barton- Aschman firm. This fact tends to Members of the Planning Commission, Staff CITY OF RICHFIELD Page 4 0 explain why Dean Wenger from Barton- Aschman concluded that there was no basis for challenging the numbers found in the Benshoof and Associates Report. It is also both interesting and pertinent to note that on page 18 of the above referenced publication, it states that a recently completed study of 135 shopping centers confirmed that a ratio of 4.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA) is a reasonable standard for shopping centers having between 25,000 and 400,000 square feet. Applying this revised standard to the 56,000 square feet at the { -dart store would result in a demand for a total of 224 spaces. Adding these 224 spaces to the 41 spaces which Benshoof Assoc. have concluded would handle the peak use at the proposed Arby's, we arrive at a total of 265 spaces. This would leave 48 spaces unoccupied. The Barton- Aschman recommendation to change the standard for parking in shopping centers from 5.5 per 1,000 square feet GLA to 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA, has been successfully implemented in several cities within the Metropolitan Area. The City of Burnsville has adopted this change as has the City of Minnetonka, to name just two, and neither reports any problems with the results. It is a reasonable standard based on empirical evidence and experience, and given the findings of both our research and Benshoof Associates work, there is no reason to expect that it wouldn't work on this site. We have also used the information on regional retail monthly variation in peak parking accumulation, included in the Urban Land Institute publication, to project the percentage use of the R -Mart site during the summer noon hour period (Arby's Peak Period). At this peak level of operation, our analysis indicates that the Arbys could generate a demand for 41 spaces. Based on the Barton- Aschman findings, the x -Mart store would be functioning at 75X of its peak. The highest measured use of the R -Mart lot was 142 cars, during Benshoof Assoc. investigation in the month of May. According to K -Mart officials, the store was operating at 70% of peak at that time. Assuming a direct, proportional increase in number of cars, the { -Mart store would need for 203. This is an unlikely, worst case assumption, since peak sales are measured in total dollars, and store records clearly indicate that the dollar amount of individual sales increase during the Christmas Shopping Season, larger sales per customer. This 203 spaces added to the 41 spaces for Arby's, still only results in a demand for 244 spaces. This would leave 69 unoccupied spaces on the site. SUM�LARY OF RESPONSE TO OTHER EXPRESSED CONCERNS Before closing, I feel compelled to respond to some of the key comments made by neighboring property owners at the public hearing and two issues raised in the staff report. The first key comment which was made both verbally at the meeting, and in writing in the staff report, was development of this restaurant would devalue adjacent properties. again, these comments were presented with absolutely no facts to substantiate this opinion. The main reason why there wasn't any evidence presented to support this claim is that none exists. Page 5 that the Once factual Another comment which warrants a response is that this stretch of Lyndale Avenue is primarily a residential street. with all due respect, Lyndale Avenue is one of the main thoroughfares through the area within the City of Richfield which is planned to be its most intensive commercial area. Urban residential development can be incorporated into this area, and care should be taken to insure that new development is compatible with it. However, with the commitment which the City has already made to this major redevelopment effort, it would be totally inappropriate to deny new development (consistent with the goals and objectives of the LHN Plan) simply because it would front upon the same roadways as existing residential development. We have responded to the concerns which have been raised about the impact of the traffic from this development on adjacent properties and the facts show that there will not be an adverse impact. An even more important concern is about the type of neighbor which Franchise Associates will be if . approved. This company has restaurants in two of the cities in which we consult and they have not only followed through with all of the commitments which they, made in both approval processes, but have also been very good neighbors in both cities ever since. If you will review the materials which have been submitted, you will see letters from other cities which say the same thing; Franchise Associates has a very good track record. There is no factual basis for concluding that they will not be a good neighbor on this site if you give them the chance which they deserve. The final comment which must be responded to was made by Councilman Ludeman. To paraphrase, he stated in effect that the City had too much at stake in the LHN Project to let it turn into "fast food row ". It is a matter of public knowledge that the City tried unsuccessfully to get rid of the Wendy's Restaurant across Lyndale from this site. That restaurant is sited too close to Lyndale Avenue, and in my opinion, neither its site, nor its architecture is as attractive as that which is proposed on this site. This site is currently a vast, underutilized R -Mart Parking lot, with minimal landscaping, and virtually none of the characteristics and site amenities which the adopted LHN Design Guidelines encourage. The proposed Arby's is an attractive building with appropriate signage, and a lighting plan which is carefully designed to be effective, but unobtrusive. The plan calls for considerable additional landscaping to be added to beautify this corner, and it adds pedestrian scaled outdoor seating areas and connections to adjacent areas within the remainder of the LHIN Area. It will provide a very useful and compatible service within the area, and all of the above is absolutely compatible with the LHN Plan. In short, the development of convenience restaurants has come a long way since the old strip commercial days, largely in response to strong opposition Members of the Planning Commission, Staff CITY of RICHFIELD Page 6 from local governments. There is no factual basis for comparing this proposed restaurant with the aesthetic problems which were once associated with fast food restaurants. In summary, we must strongly disagree with the City Staff's conclusion that this proposed development is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. for all of the reasons set forth above, we must also respectfully, disagree with the City Attorney's conclusion that it would be inconsistent with the LAIN Plan. And finally, and most important, we are confident based on our collaborative research and investigation with Benshoof and Associates, that the proposed shared parking plan will work. Any change in use on this site would also require an amendment to the Planned Unit Development, and concerns about parking could be addressed at that time. In conclusion based on our experience and the findings of our planning and design effort on this site, we are confident in recommending approval of this restaurant. Far from causing problems within the LHN Project Area, we believe that an objective analysis of the existing and proposed conditions on this site reveals that this proposal provides an opportunity to achieve the goals and objectives of the LIM Plan - an opportunity which will be lost if the City insists on preserving it in its current under- utilized state. Sincerely yours, !iv! ,J John. Shardlow, AICP Principal Planner cc: Charles Nadler Bruce Malkerson James Benshoof • POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOSRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. • 43 a4 1 D 5 CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE ANO TELECOPIER 612- 333 -4+800 WAY N E G. POPHAM ROGER W. SCMNOSRICH DENVER KAUFMAN DAVID 5. OOTY ROBERT A. MINISH ROLFE A. WOROEN G. MARC WHITEHEAD BRUCE O. WILLIS FREDERICK S. RICHARDS G. ROBERT JOHNSON GARY R. MACOMBER ROBERT S. BURK HUGH V. PLUNKETT, T.II FREDERICK C. BROWN THOMAS K. BERG BRUCE O. MALKERSON JAMES R. STEILEN JAMES S. LOCKHART ALLEN W. MINDERAKER CLIFFORD M. GREENE O. WILLIAM KAUFMAN OESYL L. PETERSON MICHAEL O. FREEMAN THOMAS C. DAOUILA LARRY D. ESPEL JANIE S. MAYERON OAVI0 A. JONES LEE E. SHEEHY LESLIE GILLETTE MICHAEL T. NILAN ROBERT C. MOILANEN STEVEN G. HEIKENS THOMAS F. NELSON THOMAS J. RADIO DAVID L. HASHMALL KATHLEEN M. MARTIN JOHN C. CHILDS DOUGLAS P, SEATON BRUCE S. Mc PHEETERS GARY D. BLACKFORD SCOTT E. RICHTER GREGORY L. WILMES ELIZABETH A. THOMPSON OF COUNSEL FRED L. MORRISON July 20, 1984 2060 PETRO-LEWIS TOWER 717 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER,COLORAOO 80202 TELEPHONE ANO TELECOPIER 303 - 292 -2660 SUITE 802 -2000 L STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 TELEPHONE AND TELECOPIER 202 - 887 -SIS4 Planning Commission City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Request for PUD Amendment and Special Use Permit - Arby's Restaurant Dear Planning Commission: 1. Introduction This office represents Franchise Associates, Inc. which seeks to build an Arby's Restaurant on the K -Mart site. Representatives of the applicant appeared before you on May 22, 1984 and we will appear before you again at the continued public hearing on Tuesday, July 24, 1984. The planning and traffic consultants for the applicant have addressed the fact questions raised by members of the Planning Commission, staff and interested public. The purpose of this letter is to apply the facts and evidence presented to the related legal issues which are normally discussed in any such application and should be discussed in this case. 2. Three Are No Restrictions in the Chain of Title to the Property Which Prevent the Construction of the Arby's Restaurant A question was asked at the Planning Commission meeting . concerning the effect of the prior sale of the property by the City to the K -Mart developer. The agreement between the City's HRA and the developer required that certain minimum improvements July 20, 1984 Page 2 be constructed on the site and constructed, the site could be as the owner deemed fit subject the City. once the minimum improvements were developed, redeveloped or modified only to the zoning ordinances of Those minimum improvements were constructed in a timely manner and the appropriate certificate of completion was executed by the City's HRA freeing the site from any contractual limitations. The site is now totally free from any restrictive covenants which affect its present or future use. 3. Development of the Site is Subject Only to the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Richfield The development of property in a City can only be legally restricted by two methods: restrictive covenants and the performance standards in the zoning code. In this case, there are no restrictive covenants limiting the use of the site. The zoning code provides that a restaurant is a special use. Therefore, only performance standards relating to a special use permit are relevant in the review process. The Comprehensive Plan or LHN plan of the City cannot restrict the use of the site. In this case, both plans state that the site should be used for a "promotional department store." However, such a statement does not and cannot act to limit the use of the site to only one such use. Under Minnesota law, only a zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to M.S. 462.01 et. seq. can so restrict the use of land, a plan cannot. A recent opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota in support of this conclusion has been given to Mr. Dean, the City Attorney. The courts have uniformly held that the use of property cannot be restricted to only one use. Even assuming that a "promotional department store" provides a limitation on use, it is customary to find restaurants included in or as part of the development of a "promotional department store." 4. There is no evidence to support a denial of the conditional use permit. • The plans of the City do not constitute zoning restrictions and cannot be used as a basis for denial of the application. There has been no evidence introduced to prove that the restaurant would be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the . citizens. The Minnesota Supreme Court has routinely held that reference to the possibility of noise, odor, additional traffic, possible diminution in value, etc, are not legal grounds for July 20, 1984 Page 3 denial of an application. In this case, there have only been vague references by several neighbors. The expert testimony introduced by the applicant supports the finding that this application meets the standards of the zoning ordinance (and the City's plans, although not legally relevant for the reasons noted). Therefore, any denial would be arbitrary and illegal as a matter of law. 5. The applicant is willing to abide by any reasonable conditions the City deems appropriate. The applicant has shown why there will be no problems with the development including, but not limited to: a. Noise b. Traffic C . Odor d . Parking e. Effect on property values. f. Signage isg. Building appearance The applicant is willing to abide by any reasonable conditions the City deems appropriate to include as part of the permit which the City requires of other similar uses. For example, if there ever is a problem with litter that the applicant causes and does not correct, the applicant will agree in writing now that the City can revoke the permit. The Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that when the applicant agrees to be bound by reasonable conditions of a special use permit, the City should inform the applicant under what circumstances the conditional use permit would be approved so the - applicant can agree to those terms or decide not to accept the permit and not to proceed with the development. We ask that the planning commission attach whatever conditions are necessary to the permit so that it can be approved. The applicant will then know if it can afford to meet those conditions and preserve the jobs and its business in the City or be forced to lay off its employees and close its business activities in the City. 6. Conclusion Although I have discussed legal issues in this letter, I 10 have purposely refrained from quoting specific cases and citing specific examples of related cases where the court found a denial to be illegal. July 20, 1984 Page 4 I wanted only to review the general legal principles with which I am sure you are familiar. Most importantly, this applicant wants to be able to continue its business in the City and preserve the jobs of its employees. The applicant is willing to agree to any reasonable conditions so that it can continue. The applicant is so confident of its plan and the quality of its operation that the applicant agrees that the City may reserve to itself all of the authority it needs to close the restaurant in the event there are problems. The the reasons stated, we would appreciate your approving the application on Tuesday night. Very truly yours, Bruce D. Malkerson cc: Rick Jopke John Dean Councilmember Ludeman John Shardlow • Charles Nadler • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager 18 Council Letter No. 275 Agenda of August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Application for Rezoning at 7645 Nicollet Avenue South. Council Members: Mr. Tom Gegax of Tires Plus has made application for a change in the zoning of 7645 Nicollet Avenue South from C -1 limited business to C -2 general commercial. The rezoning would facilitate a proposed tire store in a building formerly occupied by a service station. The building has been vacant for the past 18 months. The 47' x 29' structure cn the site would be expanded toward • East 77th Street with an addition of 60, x 291. Exterior materials would be earthtone brick and wood. Two curb cuts on the site would be closed and the one closest to the intersection on 77th would be moved five feet to the east. The curb cuts proposed to be closed include the most easterly out on 77th Street and the most southerly on Nicollet Avenue. Tires Plus presently has nine stores. The firm contends that it is very sensitive to aesthetics and neighborhood concerns and a bi- monthly image report is done on each of the sites. The new store would have floor space for retail tire sales as well as three bays fcr tire and wheel service of passenger cars only. With three bays and four employees, parking guidelines indicate a need for 14 stalls. Eighteen are proposed to be provided. Hours of operation for the store would be 7 AM to 7 PM Monday thru Friday, and Saturdays from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM. SITE BACKGROUND The parcel was originally zoned single family residential. This classification was amended in 1954 to C -1. Shortly thereafter, a dairy store was constructed on the site. In 1964 the dairy store was demolished and a Mobil Service Station was built in its place. The zoning ordinance was changed in 1968 to prohibit service stations in C -1 districts. In 1977 Super- 40 America applied to rezone the site from C -1 to C -2 for the Council Letter No. 275 -2- August 13, 1984 . operation of a service station store. The request was denied. SuperAmerica attempted to initiate the rezoning process once again in 1980, but failed to procure the signatures of 50% of the property owners within 300 feet of the parcel. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 1, lists the permitted uses in the C -2 general commercial district. 2. Section 3.42 outlines the procedure for rezoning a property. STAFF REVIEW A rezoning may be initiated by petition of owners of no less than 50% of the land within 300 feet of the property proposed to be rezoned. Zoning Petition Land Area Calculation Gross Land Area 445,631 s.f- - 138,911 s.f. Public R.O.W. - 18,269 s.f. Area to be Rezoned Net Land Area 283,451 s.f. • Owner's signatures account for 148,982 s.f., which is 51.6% of the net land area. Since only 50% is needed, the applicant has fulfilled this requirement. All property north of 77th Street between Pillsbury and Portland Avenues is zoned (R) Residential. This single family classification affects the lots to the east, north and west of the subject site. Across 77th Street from this residential area is an industrial zone. Land uses in the industrial zone near Nicollet and 77th include restaurants, a gasoline service station, and a catalog showroom /retail center. A C -2 zone at 7645 Nicollet Avenue would not provide zoning district continuity and could not be considered an extension of the I zone across the street. This proposal represents an encroachment of a general commercial use into a residential area. The Richfield Comprehensive Development Plan shows the site as a medium density /buffer district. Such a district allows for R, MR -1, MR -2, C -1 zoning, but disallows the proposed zone change. An amendment of the Comprehensive Plan would be in order, were the proposed rezoning to be adopted. 77th Street serves, in effect, as a physical barrier to general commercial activity in this area. It may even function as a psychological barrier and border fcr the integrity of the residential status quo. The breach of that barrier and zoning Council Letter No. 275 -3- August 13, 19814 • boundary would likely have a negative impact on the character, and possibly value, of the residential neighborhood. While the present proposal might represent an improvement to the property rezoning of the property to C -2 will allow any use permitted in this zone, not just a tire store. Wherever C -2 and R districts abut the potential for land use conflicts exists, some of which are potentially more aggravating and dangerous than others. In this case with C -2 and R uses sharing lot lines, problems could be more acute. A C -2 use here will increase the traffic cn Nicollet and 77th Street, create non - residential noises - lights - activities - hours, produce litter and generally clash with residential life styles. While the proposed use would not operate late hours nor produce significant litter or traffic problems, other uses which are permitted in the C -2 zone do create these problems. If the rezoning is adopted, staff suggests that the city require the applicant to maintain the existing vegetation and decorative block buffer on the north and east edges of the parcel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since the rezoning would make possible the intensification of the present business encroachment into a residential district, and because the rezoning would nct be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends denial of the rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On a unanimous 8 -0 vote the commissioners recommended denial of the rezoning application. TAM /eja Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr Acting City Manager ZONING PETITION MAP • 1 i F7, L 10 9 Is 9 B ❑ 9 Is 0 ~j O 0* 0 5 1 �7 so N L ao 4 3 70 C U) co 1 14 3 13 4 12 5 4N lz j3 6 to + ........... 0 5 1 �7 so N L ao 4 3 70 C U) co I - -- .. I - Nklll7 �4 10 7 16 1 ❑ 14 3 ❑ 13 2 lz j3 ... .. ........ + ........... . I - -- .. I - Nklll7 �4 10 7 16 1 ❑ 14 3 ❑ 13 4 ... .. ........ + R+ I - -- .. I - Nklll7 �4 10 7 16 1 ❑ 14 3 ❑ 13 4 .......... ......... .......... x ............ ................. + + ---- ......... 2 30 �a- FW loI 9 ti 761 16 14 Z w 13 > C. uj C. to 9 77 T701 NI SIGNATURES -7-7 5 ft'�if'- ^,ITC'iS7'i�,�`•f_ `•+ 1. r...: , w r. G7ia�7 .er 'r�.t^ �,`f•r r�, 1r::,; E •tj�i l'•'i . •: �.. .. _ .. _� ,ielli;., -. • .... '. r .. ..'. r, w ter- Y ..,... ��t�t�,�� s"#_. �+--• �w�- �'�`�y J� _J Tyr u. ae „a Q » ..n,r i � •..!fcc(si i ( c l iilfliliil., ls�! itv. iiti::..r a.u..r:t���._uitci:a...L•jL(;t luuui:uei� — iQIIITIITt(t SSA lIA SSSSTf iSiiiti• .” ^,+.� Y^ � 1 T M; — mi:iWi Ri,. TMTTIi`rt"�' ' * � Pt T ,:.. f S�tsmi T�7X'" ' • �• �• �. �.''�n 1«I+}'•'R1llt�ttt!lIIlSli±Il� {i %,LU111LL� tr,rtf!rlltl�r rm (In,TT'hfrfffls,ci L�y�y�L— sf� a. ,a,�a. l Ylllluli •�F 77f7%711ii 17i17SSST L'..ra '�^^n' -'r "�� C� T77777r rresT" Sul i IX, ltttttu ml » u n� 1 t�{�{ {��5 "irfy .:,rte^ rr,,,un•- ;ay.:.`�i�: ,.. .�I » ,rr,a •. �.� (.t^••Il .•�' '(I J wC '�r•7� liJ tlLilf! llY4u.?•�! y. .ai«w a » uare � `. ����I ('— ('1$I L1 -1�1! w a.e.a 7.• a-.a 11.�3+i: alt— _ �•�+ �• '•r•.1��.,.31_ {sift t •. -�s::. ,., .a. W Al zl 7p Iii Lu uj ,..... �, _. �-; _ =_i�;i1; 7 _y� ;.:� %� T i i • ^— • r� v ', .; �— �—� s — 11 1111i i > _ iii •T� �— �.c"itTT'Ti1 SiST° 17FIi1�ITT !I7)H„n( 7Tr's',� I Lu 71 tom_ a W .» ...� _ .. 7a•�.. ; `� — —_ — - --- - ail �) ,.. ,o (7 » •.w- -?e_.� —�' .: fT� = 1iY "�./.', _ —.i 11 ; w .wrw O i � w w... ,nnu „re...';'.,n nrtsn• .:.•. ___`.- r'- r__-____r__r_�- r_ --.. � >?.:tl� :_— :n•`z— rr'�'____ l r�_• •� w v.,. V 1 � • _J i +J vi ro A 1 =+ w 4j w41 C G ccnn w�i ° Q� 4j -4 -,-1 w 41 1 •� w rtf U C � z C C Z w rn Z N N N • I N i N I N I 1 uj = Z a W o GL a as O w V �Hy W 0 a A >, :n � O H Z � x uj = Z a W o GL a as O w V �Hy W 0 a A >, :n � O CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 274 Agenda of August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Variance and Special Use Permit for 1912 East 66th Street Council Members: In November, 1981, the North Star Bumper Exchange suffered a fire which did considerable damage to the building at 1912 East 66th Street. Mr. Ray Wood, the owner of the property, requested, and was granted, a special use permit and three variances to allow him to renovate and expand the fire - damaged building. The variances granted were as follows: 1. To reduce the required front yard setback from 34 feet • to 25 feet. 2. To reduce the required rear yard setback from 18 feet to 2 feet. The existing structure had a two foot setback, but was nonconforming because a variance was never obtained. 3. To allow a ten foot high fence instead of an eight foot fence around the outside storage area. - Mr. Wood has now requested a special use permit and variance to allow an addition to be put on the existing building. PROPOSAL Mr. Wood is proposing to construct a 104 -foot by 80 -foot addition on to the west side of the existing building at 1912 East 66th Street. The proposed building addition would be constructed on two vacant lots adjacent to the existing building owned by Mr. Wood. The proposed addition would have a front yard setback of 54 feet and a street side sideyard setback of 15 feet. The rear yard setback would match the existing 2 foot rear yard setback of the existing building. The building materials will be a combination of smooth face concrete block and split face concrete block consistent with the materials used on the previous addition to the front of the existing building. • Parking for a total of 17 cars will be provided on the site. There will be access to the parking area via a relocated Council Letter No. 274 -2- August 13, 1984 existing curb cut off of 66th Street and a delivery access into the building off of 19th Avenue. Planting areas will be 40 provided alcng the front of the proposed addition. The proposed addition will be used for storage and shipping and receiving. Because it was determined in 1981 that a special use permit was needed for this particular kind of use, an amendment to that special use permit is necessary to permit the proposed expansion. Staff discussed the necessity for a variance in this case with the city attorney's office and it was concluded that while a variance was previously granted for the existing building, that the approval was given based on the plan proposed at the time. Because the proposal involves a major expansion of that building, a variance would be required to permit the expansion. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, lists uses permitted by special use permit in a C -2 general zoning district. 2. Section 3.33, subdivison 6 and Section 3.32, subdivision 4, lists setback requirements in a C -2 general commercial zoning district. 3. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted. • 4. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, lists conditions governing the issuance of a special use permit. STAFF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW Staff has reviewed the request for a special use permit and found the following: 1. The proposed use of the site is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan map indicates the site should be developed as medium density buffer land uses which includes such uses as single family dwellings, multiple dwellings and existing convenience commercial. The auto parts use would not be a neighborhood convenience commercial type use. However, the site is currently zoned C-2 general commercial which allows uses other than convenience commercial uses. It also can be argued that because of the airport noise present at the site that this type would be appropriate because it would minimize the number of people exposed to noise and the exposure would be limited to the business hours of the use. The use has been established on the site for a number of years and the city has issued a special use permit allowing the use on the site. 2. The proposal would meet city off- street parking guidelines for design and for number of parking stalls provided on the site. Council Letter No. 274 -3- August 13,'1984 3. The proposed use would not result to congestion of surrounding streets. STAFF VARIANCE REVIEW The staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted and found the following. STAFF REVIEW 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting this land not common to other properties or similar districts. It is the opinion of the staff that there may be special conditions present on this site. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment or substantial property rights. It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance request would not preclude reasonable use of the • property. The applicant could construct a substantial addition on the building without requiring a variance. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety cf persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to improvements in the neighborhood. It is staff's opinion that the proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposal would be an improvement to the property. The character of the block has been established by the setback of the existing building on the block and the proposed addition would be consistent with that character. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposed use has existed on the site and is consistent with existing zoning, the staff recommends that the special use permit be granted. Because the variance does not meet all three conditions necessary to grant the variance, the staff must recommend that the variance be denied. 0 L` • is Council Letter No. 274 -4- August 13,1984 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously recommends that the City Council approve the special use permit. The commission could not forward a recommendation on the variance request because of a 4 to 4 vote on motions to deny the variance and to forward it without a recommendation. Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager TAM /eja LI f t) T, 7, LU S u � � 2 � � � �j �• ». 7� 0 0 � � � 2 ; � i © � a / ; � I � � 2 � � � �j �• ». 7� 0 0 � � — I - — zi -j z I 1 Y J<u JHF- Z I °� m W W I� 0:mm �CZ i m m u jl LL. ID I V t } Q 0 LLJ U i Uf 4 d � 4 • 4 t11 tj d S r - e Q �Q I � 2 e � i w ! I r da • J I rf r � I I � i t _ _ t11 tj d S r - V MT 2 O� C p � N Z � e ' i n w ! I rf V MT 2 O� C p � N Z � QL W v. + - a rZ Qs J c � ( . � I I� 1 o -�� ,c =off ° �= LLJ Q 7z cc; L z. CY CY 4 ob It C_Y 07-07 ir ..r t4 Zr - Llrl In:; C%j C�j cy CY 0 A In cr p li> en 0 v LLJ Q 7z cc; L z. CY CY 4 ob It C_Y 07-07 ir ..r t4 Zr - ol I ca 7= p 0 v CC ,a c m O4 L4,z 61 pc LLJ Q 7z cc; L z. CY CY 4 ob It C_Y 07-07 ir ..r t4 ...... ...... pi CU ui CIO -dr, H S I C N �JS ti 3— ClJ — N c%i Cu 17% N pu ZZ 1� � Zr - ol I ca Cm p ...... ...... pi CU ui CIO -dr, H S I C N �JS ti 3— ClJ — N c%i Cu 17% N pu ZZ 1� � Lu lL LLI A Z uj LU Cl) LLJ 0 LL. W -j < Lu a. = -j ; W 0 z Z UJ 61 Lu lL LLI A Z uj LU Cl) LLJ 0 LL. W -j < Lu a. = -j ; W 0 z Z UJ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 273 Agenda of August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Special Use Permit and Variance request at 6745 - 12th Avenue South Council Members: Mrs. Norma Jean Sims is proposing to remodel the second story of her residence for use as an accessory apartment. Such a use is allowable by special use permit on collector streets such as 12th Avenue. The one bedroom accessory apartment will require no exterior alterations unless the entrance and private interior stairway layouts are not tenable. In the process of reviewing the application, it became evident that a sideyard variance of five feet is also necessary. The present five -foot setback conforms to ordinance requirements for a single - family residential structure. However, with the altered use of the second floor as an accessory apartment, the structure must meet the setbacks for a two - family structure, including the sideyard setback of 10 feet. Since the applicant's residence is setback only five feet, a five foot variance is necessary. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.30, subdivision 3e, indicates that two family dwellnns are permitted by special use permit in 'R' residential zoning districts, subject to the following conditions: a. The site shall abut on an arterial or collector street. b. Two off- street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. One of these two spaces must be enclosed. C. Only one access should be allowed. 2. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, requires that it be determined that the use requiring a special use permit not be found to be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare cf the neighborhood or community, and that it not be injurious to property or improvements. 0 Council Letter No. 273 -2- August 13, 1984 0 3. Section 3.30, subdivision 4, establishes the minimum requirements for a two - family structure in a single family district. 4. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, enumerates three conditions which are to be satisfied prior to granting a variance. STAFF REVIEW A. Upon reviewing the application and proposal, staff has made the following findings concerning the special use permit request: 1. The site abuts on 12th Avenue which is a collector street. 2. Two off - street parking stalls will be provided for each unit, one of which will be enclosed. 3. There will be only one access to the site. 4. The proposal will not be detrimental to the public welfare. The city has determined that the slightly increased density and associated activity generated by a two - family home is appropriate on arterial and collector • streets. B. Subdivisions 4 and 5 of section 3.30 outline minimum requirements for specially permitted two - family structures within the single family zoning district. A comparison of these standards against the applicant's proposal give the following results: Subject Minimum Property Lot Area 9,000 s.f. 12,750 s.f. Lot Width 60' 85' Front setback 30' 50' Rear setback 25' 76' Streetside setback 15' 37' Interior side setback 10' 5' As can be seen, all minimums are exceeded except the interior side setback, for which a variance is being sought. C. Concerning the variance, staff finds: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting this land not common to other properties or similar districts. • Neither the land, the building nor the use represents any unusual circumstance or condition unique to this application. Council Letter No. 273 -3- August 13, 1984 0 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Granting the variance is not essential to the preservation of substantial property rights. The permitted single - family use may continue. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety cf persons residing or working in the nelgHbcrhccd an will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to improvements in the neighborhood. Staff believes that the variance will not adversely affect the neighborhood, as the physical building separation and setback will not change at all. The present five -foot setback will remain, only the second floor interior will be physically altered. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As all the conditions set forth in section 3.30, subdivision 3e are met, staff recommends approving the special use permit for an accessory apartment. However, since the conditions required of a variance have not been satisfied, staff recommends its denial. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended unanimously that the special use permit for an accessory apartment be approved. On a 5 -3 vote the commission also recommended the 5 foot sideyard setback variance. TAM /eja • Respectfully submitted, d"L .�... Thomas A. Mcrjan, Jr. Acting City Manager r� L • • SITE PLAN i 6745 12TH AVENUE i 0 a GAR A GE HOUSE DRIVEWAY fog I I t 0 I i i 12TH AVENUE H w 'u b - a 0 � 12TH AVENUE H w 'u b July 9, 1984 City of Richfield This is a request for a special use permit to do some remodeling of my upstairs area in order to use it as an accessory apartment. I have lived at this address for 30 years. Presently my adult son is using the upstairs and is planning to move out. I want to add a bathroom and kitchen and put in a private entrance and separate stairway. The house has a 30 foot dormer on the back and no outside changes are planned except for a stairway. We are seeking ways to do an inside stairway necessitating minimal or mo outside changes. _ Since my son presently has a car, I am not anticipating any additional vehicles to be stored or,parked. The driveway is 32 x 32 ft. and the double garage is 20 x 20 ft. There are 3 rooms upstairs, space fora bathroom and a hall 9 x 19 ft. This is unused space for me as the only person living there and it seems a more efficient use of housing to share that space with another person. Further, I would feel more comfortable with someone else in the house since I am away from home a great deal. I would feel more secure if I knew someone else was there.. My monthly house payments are very small and living at 6745 - 12th Ave So., is very economical. However, it does seem that the space could be better utilized in a way that would be to my economic well being and would also increase the value of the property. Sincerely, Norma Jean Sims • • • • • REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF' FOR PURPOSE OF Legal Description: We, the under'-signed, being owners of i=ediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the Special Use as requested. Signature of Ow-ners* .------Address- Signatures may not he removed once the petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. 7--/ Z, Signatures may not he removed once the petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. /Z CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 269 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Preparation of Assessment Rolls and Setting Hearing Date for C.P. 787, 1983 L /H /N Maintenance Council Members: Attached are resolutions declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment rolls, and setting the hearing date for the proposed assessment for City Project No. 787, the 1983 L /H /N Maintenance project. It is recommended that the city council pass these two resolutions to set the date of the hearing on the proposed assessment for the September 10 city council meeting. • TAM:sb • Respectfully submitted, /-,-- I t--%A Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT • FOR L /H /N MAINTENANCE - JANUARY 1, 1983 - DECEMBER 31, 1983 CITY PROJECT NO. 787 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the Lyndale /Hub /Niccllet (L /H /N) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to $33,812.10 for the period of January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $33,812.10; 2. The city clerk, with the assistance of the city engineer and the facilities /project coordinator shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 40 3. The city clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment notify the city council thereof. Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 1984. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR L /H /N MAINTENANCE JANUARY 11 1983 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1983 CITY PROJECT NO. 787 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the city council of the City of Richfield on August 13, 1984, the city clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of maintaining the Lyndale /Hub /Niccllet (L /H /N) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield, Minnesota for the period of January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983; and WHEREAS, the city clerk has notified the city council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in her office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held 1984 in the council chambers of such proposed assessment and at owning property affected by said given an opportunity to be heard assessment. on the 10th day of September, city hall at 7 p.m. to pass upon such time and place all persons maintenance assessment will be in reference to such 2. The city clerk is hereby_directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The city clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager isCouncil Letter No. 288 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Relating to Maintenance Assessments, L /H /N Redevelopment Area - C.P. 809 Council Members: On January 26, 1981, the city council adopted Resolution No. 6372, which established a policy that the actual cost of performing current maintenance services in the L /H /N area (area approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue) would be specially assessed. The special assessments to commercial property would be made on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an equal amount. All single family, two family and multiple family residential property within this area were eliminated from the special assessment levy. For the third assessment period, January 1, 1982 through December 31, 1982, agreements were reached with owners in the L /H /N related to maintenance of property. For the most part, each owner was to be responsible for property to the curb while the city is responsible for common areas such as street islands. Although the city does do some maintenance work for individual property owners, these costs are directly assessed to the appropriate owner and maintenance of common areas continues to be assessed to the entire district. Current maintenance services for the district would include, but not necessarily be limited to, one or more of the following: 1. Landscaping, including tree trimming; 2. Sidewalk sweeping in summer; 3. Snow removal in winter; 4. Sidewalk deicing; 5. Painting and repair of wood furniture; 6. Trash removal; 7. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement; 8. Irrigation maintenance. • These items are extra services provided directly to the L /H /N Redevelopment Area and do not include services provided to the entire city. For example, all city streets are swept twice a year, and for this service there would be no charge to the • w 0 Council Letter No. 288 -2- August 13, 1984 L /H /N maintenance assessment. However, any additional street sweeping in the L /H /N area would be an assessable item. It is recommended that the city council take action to adopt the attached resolution proposing to specially assess for the costs of current services provided within the L /H /N project area for the period of January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985 and set the public hearing for September 10, 1984. TAM:sb Respectfully submitted, 1 Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE LYNDALE /HUB /NICOLLET PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1985 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1985 CITY PROJECT NO. 809 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. There is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which are conterminous with the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area, for the purposes of assessing for current services provided by the city. 2. The following current services of the city are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the city in the district, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefitted property within the district: Snow, ice or rubbish removal; Weed elimination; Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; Installation or repair of water service lines; Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian walkways; Operation of the street lighting system; Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right -of -way; Maintenance of Civic Plaza; Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; Painting and repair of wood furniture; General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of every assessable lot and parcel of land within the district. It is proposed that special assessments on commercial property be made on the basis of the area with each square foot of assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an equal amount for maintenance of common areas. Exempt from the special assessment levy shall be all single family, two - family, multiple family residential property within the L /H /N redevelopment district. Special maintenance of individual commercial properties shall be assessed directly for costs incurred in performing said maintenance to said property. 4. The city clerk is authorized and directed to give public notice of a hearing by this council at which the council will consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. The city clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such -z- hearing as required by law. Such hearing shall be held on Monday, Sepember 10, 1984, commencing at 7:00 o'clock p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the costs of the aforementioned services for the period from January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985• The estimated cost of providing all of the aforementioned current services during that period is $42,840. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • • 5 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 272 Agenda of August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Special Use Permit by Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center at 7145 Harriet Avenue Council Members: Ms. Kathy Loken, the program director for the Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center, has requested a special use permit to allow the expansion of the existing child care facility located in Central Elementary School at 7145 Harriet Avenue. The current program operates within two existing rooms of the school and expansion into a third room is proposed. This would allow an increase in enrollment from 40 school age children to 60. • The existing day care facility is a nonconforming use because it was established prior to the requirement that day care centers obtain a special use permit before locating in "R" residence districts. Because they wish to expand, a special use permit will now be required. Land uses surrounding this site are single family residential to the south and west and a senior high school and related school facilities to the north and east. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.30, subdivision 3a, indicates that day care centers for more than 10 children are permitted in "R" residential districts if they are licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities and if they are granted a special use permit by the city. 2. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, outlines conditions governing the issuance of a special use permit. STAFF REVIEW Upon reviewal of the proposal against the above mentioned • conditions, staff has made the following findings: Council Letter No. 272 -2- August 13, 1984 is1. There is a continuing need for day care facilities in Richfield. There is a demonstrated need for the proposed expansion. The Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center is currently operating at capacity and has a waiting list of approximately 30 people. 2. The proposed day care center should not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Adequate parking and drop off space exists on the site to handle the proposed increase in use. 3. There continues to be some fire code violations present in the building. However, the Richfield School Board and .the Richfield Public Safety Department are working together to resolve the violations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the special use permit to allow a day care facility for 60 children at 7145 Harriet Avenue be approved. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously recommends that the City Council approve the special use permit. Respectfully submitted, low.. % q... -. Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager TAM /eja • W1 a June 25, 1984 Richfield Planning Commission Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Ave. So. _ Richfield, MN 55423 Commission Members, The Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center (Fun Club) is making a request to obtain a Special Use Permit in relation to our child care facility. pro.-ram. This would allow us to increase our enrollment from 40 school -age children to 60. Enclosed you will find the application for the Special Use Permit, as well as an interior drawing to indicate our expansion intentions. In a conversation with Rick Jopke it was decided that an exterior plan need not be submitted, as the playground and parking areas will not change at all. The school district has approved the use of the additional space. I am also working with Bev Moran at the DPW State Licensing Division. We hope to take possession of the additional space in August. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, x� Kathy LokejY Program Director We are located in Central Elementary School, 7145 Harriet Ave. So. isCurrently we are using two of the rooms located in the south -east wing of the building. We plan on moving into a third room for further expansion of our pro.-ram. This would allow us to increase our enrollment from 40 school -age children to 60. Enclosed you will find the application for the Special Use Permit, as well as an interior drawing to indicate our expansion intentions. In a conversation with Rick Jopke it was decided that an exterior plan need not be submitted, as the playground and parking areas will not change at all. The school district has approved the use of the additional space. I am also working with Bev Moran at the DPW State Licensing Division. We hope to take possession of the additional space in August. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, x� Kathy LokejY Program Director � la r 3 s I ZONING AND LAND USE MAP w law sia ' soa soy i ; s +s saa soi ❑ Lam❑ a ! i ❑. [� I ' ;Cl l ❑ [ 7 Ir 14 ji N ❑ I 4 N �° A-b �J ; "� � �L7 N ^ A ❑ " T �{ C 13� o 17 Izl i7 l L7 I A A E T tds QQ � �❑ l 9 ❑� � 7t st [7zl ❑' 7; h 3 ❑r 1 2z 3 U.1 Lill r « ❑ I r V I I .t41tt A C I Z, • Y f7., ^ 1 • 2! =Q zs �� l5 �❑ I�'g. L� h= j <a -L7 t bi 19 (� A r Ito •� l4� it "C r3l Im 7 C 3Z 7 zj , N -^ ' (_ 2✓I �5 L F7 R SINGLE FAMILY I—� 1 6" M R -1 DUPLEX =�7 lv I ;i Ito v - �, . H r-i YC 0�7 u W U Q W a. U u� C'3 � Z_ W X W E • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 271 Agenda of August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Special Use Permit Allowing the Operation of an Adult Day Activity Center at 7145 Harriet Avenue South Council Members: Day Activity Centers (D.A.C.'s) of Minneapolis, Inc. began its first program about 24 years ago in Minneapolis. Subsequently, they sought and received a special use permit to operate a D.A.0 in Richfield. The special use permit was granted in April, 1976 allowing the operation of a program for 40 ambulatory Richfield adults. The program facility is presently located at Oak Grove Lutheran Church (7001 Lyndale Avenue South). PRnPnSAT. Dianna Krcgstad, representing Day Activity Centers (D.A.C.'s) of Minneapolis Inc., proposes to relocate their Richfield program from Oak Grove Lutheran Church to the Central Elementary building at 7145 Harriet Avenue, which is zoned residential. The program would have more than 10 mentally handicapped adult participants and, therefore, requires a special use permit. The center plans to utilize the north wing of the Central School building, including the six classrooms and two lavatories. Five of the rooms will function as classrooms and one will be partitioned for use as a staff lounge and the program coordinator's office. A staff of six teachers, one aide, and the program coordinator will be present weekdays from 8 :00 AM to 4:00 PM. The state will license the facility for 40 participants, which will attend from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM. No meals will be served as the participants will bring bag lunches each day. The service area for this day activity center consists of • Richfield, Edina, Eden Prairie and Bloomington, as well as portions of St. Louis Park and Minnetonka. • Council Letter No. 271 ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS -2- August 13, 1984 1. Section 3.30, subdivision 3a, provides for day care facilities with more than 10 persons in residential areas if they are issued a special use permit. 2. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, stipulates conditions to be fulfilled in order to grant a special use permit. STAFF REVIEW Upon reviewal of the proposal against the above mentioned conditions, staff has made the following findings: 1. The physical and mental well -being of persons working or residing in the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. The complex of buildings on the site is used for Richfield High School and its associated activities, the school bus garage and the community oriented services within Central School. With this in mind, the D.A.0 will not create additional noise or disruptions to the neighborhood. 2. Even with the other uses within the building, there • will be ample parking and traffic circulation. The participants themselves will be dropped off and picked up in vans or mini - buses, thus minimizing the number of trips generated and parking spaces required. Sufficient parking space exists for the eight staff members. 3. The Public Safety Department and D.A.C.'s of Minneapolis have come to an agreement on the installation of smoke detectors and emergency lighting. 4. The new location would be preferable to the old from the standpoint of the participant's outdoor safety. Presently the center is located on Lyndale Avenue which has a heavy traffic volume. The new site does not present these same safety concerns. 5• The proposed use will not likely have any adverse affects, nor be injurious to the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Day Activity Centers provide a beneficial public service and have not created hazards or sizeable problems for host neighborhoods. City staff concludes that the applicant has met established requirements and recommends issuance of the special use permit. Council Letter No. 271 -3- August 13, 19814 C7 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMi,ENDATION The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the special use permit. At the request of the applicant, the commissioners increased the maximum number of participants to 50 to allow some future expansion. TAM /eja • r� Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager -1 Z r 3 S Q V' ZONING AND LAND USE MAP 621 6V 61a 3 sOS I $01 l j $13 i08 -*.'A t oU - I f 19 !20 2i 22123 124 19� 23 a N ( �. y o C 1� Z �... - Ay �r'j I31 .t7 7 12, 7 ❑ " 1 17 L Iii s Q ° =_7 I!f a u !d9 �?❑ !a 9 �� 71 st S.T o n Z 2 � 1� ^' 3 8 Lam: (- 15l 19 1-� 110 , 14� 11 � 131 112 PROPOSED SITE 72nd �j 1.1 Gq It = 2'' 4 arl _ :7 + 5 •, ry -, !i 16 a n R SINGLE FAMILY 1- -- — N i 7 16 « i7 J « MR- 1 DUPLEX ----- C� 7 7 VJ 7 IC 9 j 7 16 9 ICF 7ic 7, --� 111 �' ! '1 r 14 l!I Lit y �I I il� Q I� -1 Z r 3 S Q V' ZONING AND LAND USE MAP 621 6V 61a 3 sOS I $01 l j $13 i08 -*.'A t oU - I f 19 !20 2i 22123 124 19� 23 a N ( �. y o C 1� Z �... - Ay �r'j I31 .t7 7 12, 7 ❑ " 1 17 L Iii s Q ° =_7 I!f a u !d9 �?❑ !a 9 �� 71 st S.T o n Z 2 � 1� ^' 3 8 Lam: (- 15l 19 1-� 110 , 14� 11 � 131 112 PROPOSED SITE 72nd �j 1.1 Gq It = 2'' 4 arl _ :7 + 5 •, ry -, !i 16 a n R SINGLE FAMILY 1- -- — N i 7 16 « i7 J « MR- 1 DUPLEX ----- C� 7 7 VJ 7 IC 9 j 7 16 9 ICF 7ic 7, --� 111 �' ! '1 r 14 l!I Lit y FLOOR PLAN AND PARKING 29 K .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dft . . . .......... ............ ............ ....... ...... .......... . PROPOSED SPACE- ao 27 0 14 sm • 3 r� �J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 270 Agenda of August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for a Special Use Permit at 7746 Morgan Avenue South Council Members: The applicant, Mr. Paul Knudson, has requested that the City Council defer this matter until its August 27, 1984 meeting. Since legal notice of the public hearing has been published, staff recommends that the Council continue the hearing until August 27, 1984. TAM /eja Respectfully submitted, Ao-- Thomas A. Mor Acting City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 268 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for permit for Illuminated Sign. Council Members: Leroy Signs Incorporated has requested an advertising permit for Standard Oil, located at 1820 East 66th Street. The proposed sign is to be an illuminated wall sign, double faced with constant illumination. The sign will be the red and blue Standard Oil logo with black lettering. The size is 6' 6" X 1' (6.5 sq.ft.) City of Richfield Ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 19 • Illuminated Signs provides that City Council approval is required for illuminated signs. The proposed sign is in conformance with city ordinances pertaining to signs of this nature. It is, therefore, recommended that the city council approve the sign permit as requested. TAM /eja is Respectfully submitted, /k"^--, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager APPROVE DEIFY a City Manager Date APPROVE 7 VENY a : Planning Department APPROVE F-1 DENY a Inspector Date APPROVE L DENY : City Council II 0 Date Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota n Date �Ta4 Zoning �_. Sign' Erected' - Yes No ✓ �% Fee / G 7 Address of Sign IS A 0 Q. (o Cc _" Ste- Proprietor Name S - 0 1L, DBA Sign Erector �,,ErzoY tC'�5 �noc, AddressL3QS LLIC(.CO/rt,6E /qVc: -.Ne -, /9)PLS, Type of Si En Design Weather Cover Lighting 16Illuminated es No Watts 2 d ctrical Contractor �C2ny SiCoNS . Svc Address6 W LCOMd hone a'U Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost 0c) Q G Sign Width 4, Q,"Height I Total Square Feet (o "� 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? ` a Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? /%/o \ 1 A � � I r Applicant's Signature a 'd Title with Firm Date Phone Number _S 3 2 �' - Q Cri ,� O 0 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face _ Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T D A n Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors REP 4,o C 0 , L A cx_ Lt! TTc'2! -.dc, 16Illuminated es No Watts 2 d ctrical Contractor �C2ny SiCoNS . Svc Address6 W LCOMd hone a'U Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost 0c) Q G Sign Width 4, Q,"Height I Total Square Feet (o "� 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? ` a Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? /%/o \ 1 A � � I r Applicant's Signature a 'd Title with Firm Date Phone Number _S 3 2 �' - Q Cri ,� O 0 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 GROUND SIGN PEDESTAL SIGNc/i,'I PROJECTING SIGN —WIDTH �; WIDTH -- ----WIDTH- LEGEND WALL SIGN WIDTH LEGEND �r� T ^� �rzTA cn✓Lcf " S lane GROUND if ROOF LEGEND I LEGEND Indicate Distance From The Building Indicate legend on the the reverse side in L IC MWCI_C Ut: VW LEGEND Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any traffic Lights within 300 Beet. DEFINITION: Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. i on a common board LNDI CAT E "CRTH Liar /8/83 zQ. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 267 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for permit for Illuminated Sign, 719 West 77 112 Street Council Members: Signcrafters Outdoor Display Incorporated has requested an advertising permit for Twin City Tire, located at 719 West 77 1/2 Street. The proposed sign is to be an illuminated ground sign, double faced with constant illumination. It will measure 3 feet by 1 foot. (Three square feet). City of Richfield Ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 19 - Illuminated Signs provides that City Council approval is required for illuminated signs. The proposed sign conforms to all pertinent city ordinances. It is, therefore, recommended that the council approve the permit as proposed. TAM /eja • Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager APPROVE 7 DENY7: Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T 7 A F7 Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors City Manager. Date APPROVE 7 DENY a Plannin D pa tment Date �N APPROVE 21 DENY 7: Inspector Date APPROVE a DE2v is : City Council Date Route to above for special approval per code General Sims APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield,_ Minnesota Date 7-17-107 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No t� Fee Address of Sign j -w� `� Proprietor Name DBA Sign Erector .Address 7775• - ' �•- Tote of Sinn Desi Weather Cover LiQhtin3z uninnted - Yes Electrical Contractor Watts /,Zj D 4one - � ZZ a 2 �4 � ?roperty Owner or his Agent Signature X "� Phone Estimated Cost Q Sign Width �_Height_�_Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, a: und, or over for fe acce by pe s dest; d for or passing the subject premises': AppLa ant's Signature and TitA with Firm Datel `- 5�--� Phone :lumber 0 lkt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Cfficial - 866 -5061 ' Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T 7 A F7 Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors uninnted - Yes Electrical Contractor Watts /,Zj D 4one - � ZZ a 2 �4 � ?roperty Owner or his Agent Signature X "� Phone Estimated Cost Q Sign Width �_Height_�_Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, a: und, or over for fe acce by pe s dest; d for or passing the subject premises': AppLa ant's Signature and TitA with Firm Datel `- 5�--� Phone :lumber 0 lkt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Cfficial - 866 -5061 u:' 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 266 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Presentation of Proclamation Honoring West Richfield Girls Softball Teams Council Members: The West Richfield girls softball team, Minnecomputers, has had an outstanding softball season. This team is not only the champion in its division, but is also the city -wide champion and the Class B Senior Champions in the State of Minnesota. In addition, the West Richfield girls softball team, Kokesh, is the Senior State Runner -Up Champions, and the Erik's Bike Shop team is the junior State Champions. • Mayor Hamilton has requested that all team members be present at the August 13, 1984 city council meeting so that a proclamation honoring these softball teams may be presented to team members and their coaches. These certificates have been prepared and will be available for presentation at the August 13, 1984 city council meeting. TAM /eja • Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager • • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No 265 Agenda August 13, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Presentation to 4th of July Committee Members Council Members: Mayor Hamilton has requested that a Certificate of Appreciation be prepared for presentation to members of the Fourth of July Comittee at the August 13, 1984 city council meeting. Attached to this council letter is a copy of such a certificate. Members of the Fourth of July Committee will be present at the August 13, 1984 meeting to accept this certificate. TAM /eja Respectfully submitted, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager