11-24-86 agenda40
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. i/ 58
November 24, 1986
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on the appeal of Hearing Examiner's denial of a
variance request for the property located at 7731 -4th Avenue
South, to allow the installation of a 6 foot high chain link
fence forward of the front of the building setback.
Background:
Mr. Michael A. Blaylock has requested a variance to allow the
installation of a 6 foot high chain link fence forward of the
front line of the building. The property is located at 7731 4th
Avenue South and has recently received preliminary plat approval
from the city.
The case was heard by the Richfield Hearing Examiner on October
7, 1986. The Hearing Examiner denied the variance. The
applicant is now appealing this decision. A copy of the hearing
Examiner's findings is attached.
The property is in the I (General Industrial) district and
existing commercial use is permitted in the- "I" district.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements:
1. Section 3.29, subdivision 15, indicates that no wall, fence
or hedge more than four feet in height shall be constructed
or permitted forward of the front line of the building
extended to the side lot lines.
2. Section 3.40 and 3.40A, outlines the process for granting a
Variance.
State Statute Requirements:
Minnesota State Statutes 462.357, subdivision 6 outlines
conditions which must be met for variances to be granted.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the variance request for installation of a
6 foot high chain link fence within the required building setback
area at 7731 -4th Avenue South be denied.
Basis of Recommendation:
Recommendation for denial of the variance is based on the staff
review and conclusion that the variance request does not meet the
•
city and state standards for granting of the variance. The
review of the proposal against the city and state legal
requirements is outlined in the following.
1. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
There is an eight foot fence securing the property which
currently does not extend into the building setback area.
Applicant proposes to replace the existing fence with a 6
foot chain link fence and extending it into the building
setback area to accommodate a trailer on the lot. It is
staff's opinion that the denial of the variance would not
preclude reasonable use of the property. A 6 foot chain link
fence could be installed securing the property without
extending into the building setback area.
2. There is no unique circumstances present on this particular
site that necessitates granting of the variance.
3. The granting of the variance would not alter the character of
the neighborhood. The abutting property to the north is used
both for residential and commercial use. To the east of the
property would be the new Arby's restaurant. The proposed
fence would not adversely affect traffic visibility.
Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled before the City Council on November
24th, at the City Hall. Legal notice of this hearing was
published in the Richfield Sun Current Newspaper on November 12,
1986.
Respectfully submitted,
JDP /eja
•
James D. Prosser
Executive Director
0C
i
ttttttl•
U
N
qe
Ln
L0
cc
40+
O
N
E
■
O
i
O
a
O
O
Variance Request
CASE NO. 86- V- 9 -VL -5
APPLICANT: Mr. Michael A. Blaylock
PROPERTY LOCATION: 7731 4th Avenue.South
HEARING EXAMINER: MR. VERN LUETTINGER
HEARING DATE: October 7, 1986
.APPEARANCES: Mr. Michael A. Blaylock
7731 4th Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, .
the undersigned makes the following findings of
fact, conclusions and decisions.
A. FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice
was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of
the site in question as required by city
ordinances. The ten day notice requirement was
also met.
2. The street address and legal descriptions of the
property in question are as follows:
That part of the West 139.4 feet of the East 630
feet of the South 302 feet of Government Lot 19
Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying
Northerly of State Highway No. 100.
Street address of the property is 7731 4th
Avenue South.
3. The zoning of the site in question is I (General
Industrial) District.
4. The variance requested is to allow the
installation of a 6 foot high chain link fence
forward of the front line of the building.
5. The reason for the request is to provide
security to the premise.
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
-. +i- .,- �.a�.,. ? n ...... ..... - ,,.L. , .. ..... _ , ... , r ,...,...w.s,a�Sn - ..�'"*" >. �w:Sw"r�. . ,..�.,.,....a -� w.x.�•:za,3ia�.
B. CONCLUSIONS
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision 6
provides for the granting of variance to the literal
provisions of the zoning regulations in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause undue
hardship to the owners of the property under
consideration. In determining whether to grant or
deny the requested variance, I specifically make the
following conclusions:
.1. Is the granting of the variance necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights?
I conclude, %` 71 l-r
�0fce'sS�r2�,
2. Are there special circumstances or conditions
affecting the particular land or building
referred to in the application, not caused by
the property owner, which are not common to
other properties in this or similar districts?
I conclude �� )
3. Will the granting of the variance alter the
essential character of the neighborhood or
locality?
I conclude
4. Are there any conditions which must be attached
to the granting of the variance to ensure
compliance and to protect adjacent properties?
I conclude �pov
r
.,Y�r ..._ �•"`w�.... -.. .... -'. :,, w;,._.�.,. a..,.,.....,r. .` �.vt3r.. -ems* .. �.`�= :._.�.+-'"s.�:f::- ..+.:wi'
•
C. DECISION
Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned
determines that the request be
DATED: /0 AZ 7 1986
Hearing Examiner
City of Richfiel
d
BLAYLOCK PLUMBING CO. O ®® 10F MRS
ft...:
7731 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH 612- 869 -7531 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423
October 28, 1986
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. So,
Richfield, T -IT. 55423
Attention: Towhid Kazi
This letter is to inform you that we would like to appeal
the decision of the Hearing Examiner, regarding the Variance
Request Case x`86- V- 9-VL -5.
r1
�.J
Sincerely,
Kichael A. Blaylock
President
b
SURVEY FOR:
BLAYLCK PL-HMRImr. rnumAKit'
1, PROPOSED
_.Pf�qkjMl NARY PLAT
11
-AM So rr
t
0 t0000
00000000 00000 -- METAL
Jr OUILD.NG
0 0 0
"A' 0000000000000 0 0
-0-
? 00000
0006
0 10
Fo?o 6 0
.12 0 00 00000000000 CI_ dl
0000 00000000 _ ^as —s•
0
0000 000000000
69
-A DD i
N4
i HIGHWAY
StATE No
zll�
w
INTER
N (STATE
'416114WAY
4
EXISTING
lb,003o ST F t U C T U R E
CURB LINE
LOCATION MAP
A
T
cTz_
Sonde Land foursv-.Ylnit Inc.
PROPOS D FENCE
e
IX.
. ..... •. ... ..
ZZ, M..•
4
.••, %..—
.11,111ts
A--
Im
w WWI.. lK.
EXISTING
lb,003o ST F t U C T U R E
CURB LINE
LOCATION MAP
A
T
cTz_
Sonde Land foursv-.Ylnit Inc.
• (OFFICIAL PUBLICATION)
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice of Public Hearing on
AN APPEAL TO THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DENIAL
OF A ZONING ORDINANCE VARIATION
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held
before the City Council of the City of Richfield at 7:00 PM on
Monday, November 24, 1986 in the Council Chambers of City Hall at
6700 Portland Avenue, to hear reasons for or against the granting
of a Zoning Ordinance Variation at the following location:
7731 4th Avenue South
Variance: To allow the installation of a 6 foot high chain link
fence forward of the front of the building setback
All persons interested in this matter are hereby notified to
be present and they will be heard.
•
PUBLISH: 11/12/86
U
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
ii
♦•
Subd. 2. Council Shall Act as Board; Powers. The council shat
board•to hear and decide app ea s where it is alleged that there i1 an erve as the _
• any order, requirement, . decision or determination made by an administrative.
error in _
officer in the enforcement of this part of this chapter. Hearing examiner
the Committee of Hearing Examiners created pursuant to Section s from
Code shall hear, subject to the right of appeal to the council as4pr of this
Section 3.40A, requests for variances from the literal provisions provided r
in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because
of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to
grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions are consistent
With Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 6 and any amendme nts
thereto and will be keeping with the spirit and intent of this part. In the
event that the authorit
pursuant to Section 3 y of the Committee of Hearing Examiners shall expire
.40A, Subdivision 10, such expiration shall automaticall
vest authority in the council to act as the Board of Adjustment and A Y,
respect to the matters previously within the jurisdiction of the Committee Hearing Examiners. ittees with
ee of
Subd. 3. Dolication for ADDeaI F
under provisions of this section shall bepmadettonthercity manager-b
application. An application for appeal shall be accom anied permissible
• fee as provided in Appendix 0 of this Code in add' g Y writtem
fee, if an addition thebregularnbu� ding
Y• {Bill 1977 -I6) 8/8/77 .
Subd. 4. Public Hearin on Aooeal.
may seta time and place ror a publicphearing�on such application. the council
days before the date of any such hearing, a notice of the hearing shall best 10
published once in the official newspaper.
Subd. 5. Requirements for Compliance. In all cases in which adjustments of
variance appeals are granted under the provisions of this section
3.40A2 the council shall require such evidence and guarantees as it may Section
deem
necessary to insure compliance with the conditions designated in connection
therewith.
Subd. 6. Orders. The council shall within a reasonable time made it
deciding the matter and shall cause a copy of its order to s order
upon the petitioner. be served by mail
Subd. 7. Record of Proceedinas. The council shall maintain
of its proceegings which shall include minutes or meetings, its findings
before it, and a record of action taken o a written record
final order. n each matter before it inclung the
cases
he
(Bill 1985 -21) 8/31/85
OROINANC` COLE
80 8/31/85
C17"Yna n8..,, ... -- -
-' •••v4 &rICL.iJ.MILAN
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 457
Agenda November 24, 1986
Issue Statement:
Request for an amended offstreet parking permit for the Richfield
Shoppes South Development at 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue.
Background:
Lincoln Companies, the owner of the Richfield Shoppes South
development at 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue, has requested an
amended offstreet parking permit to allow an increase of on -site
parking spaces from 117 to 122. This would be accomplished by
removing the landscape strip along the west side of the building
and installing additional angled parking stalls adjacent to the
west side of the building. The parking row adjacent to Nicollet
Avenue would be restriped to have additional angled parking
stalls. The driving aisle parallel to Nicollet Avenue west of
the building would be designated a one way going south. Based on
the previous use (Old Country Buffet, Gentleman's Warehouse, and
the Hammond Organ store) the site was 16 parking spaces short of
the city's offstreet parking guidelines. This expansion of
parking would reduce that shortage to 11.
The usage of the building is changing. Currently the building is
occupied by Old Country Buffet and the Adventures in Video store.
Additional space is proposed to be occupied by a Marty Irvings
Golf Supply store. A Leeann Chin's restaurant had planned to
occupy a portion of the space formerly occupied by the
Gentleman's Warehouse store. Because of concerns about parking,
the property owner has withdrawn their request for a special use
permit for the restaurant and is attempting to find a new tenant
for the space. The applicant has already removed the landscaped
area adjacent to the building.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the request for an amended offstreet
parking permit be approved.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed layout meets all city offstreet parking
guidelines with one exception. The 14 foot driving aisle
west of the building would not meet city guidelines which
require a minimum width of 15 feet. The 14 foot driving
aisle width is consistent with the previous city offstreet
parking permit approval on the site, however. The 14 foot
width has not caused problems on the site and is consistent
with the minimum width recommended by some national parking
design experts.
2. The proposed change would provide 5 additional parking stalls
on the site which is important because of the high parking
• demand on the site. A parking study completed by city staff
during peak times during the week of November 10 -16 indicated
that adequate parking existed on site on weekdays. The
highest occupancy during the week was 6 PM on Friday when
there was a 95% occupancy. The highest occupancy on Saturday
was also at 6 PM when parking exceeded capacity because cars
were parked in non - designated spots. A portion of the center
is vacant so parking demand will increase when the center is
fully occupied.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to deny the request for
an amended offstreet parking permit as requested and order the
reinstallation of the landscaped strip along the west side of the
building which softened the appearance of all the asphalt on the
site.
Decision Mode:
This matter was originally scheduled for City Council
consideration on October 27, 1986. At the request of the
applicant this matter was continued to November 24, 1986. City
ordinance does not require that this action be taken at a public
hearing; therefore, no mailed notice or legal notices have been
published.
JDP /dh
•
Respect lly submitted,
James Prosser
City anager
m
. 'M
r�
m
O
66th
roo Cl)
z
0
F, F
10 7 cum.
o
N
R
c
C
c
0 m
0 9 3c
u u
OD oo j
so
i
Street East
N !Z:21 N
0)
N
•
on
1
N
F
Ch
c
iii
V
'0
V,
m
-v
r
Z
Ch
c
iii
is
RICHFIELD SHOPPES SOUTH
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN
Nicollet
N
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTAQ
Council Letter No. 456
November 24, 1986
Issue Statement:
--------------- -
Referral of CDR rezoning and planned unit development plan
requests for site at I35W and 1494.
_Background:
CDR Investments /Minnesota, has requested that the city formally
approve the rezoning of their site at I35W and 1494 from C -2
general commercial and "R" single family residential to PC -2
planned general commercial. They have also requested that the
city approve a planned unit development plan to allow the
construction of an office hotel complex on the site.
Recommendation:
--------- - - - - --
It is recommended that the City Council pass the attached
resolution referring this matter to the Planning Commission for
review and recommendations.
Basis of Recommendation:
The recommended action is in accordance with state statutes and
local ordinances which require Planning Commission review of
rezoning and planned unit development plan requests.
Alternative Recommendation:
---------------------------
None
Decision Mode:
If the council takes the recommended action, this matter will be
considered by the Planning commission on December 16, 1986.
Council consideration of the matter has been tentatively
scheduled for December 22, 1986 (first reading) and January 12,
1987 (second reading and public hearing). Staff is working with
the city attorney's office to insure that proper mailed and
published notice is provided for these meetings.
Resp ctfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP /dh
t
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 455
Agenda November 24, 1986
Issue Statement:
--------------- -
Public Hearing on Amendment to Richfield City Ordinance, Section
10.05, Subd. 5, Para. 3, Relative to Keeping of Pigeons
Background:
A recent request for a license to allow pigeons on residential
property revealed a defect in the existing ordinance code. The
existing language requires that the applicanntt must obtain the
written approval of all occupants of privately -owned property
abutting the premises of the applicant.
It is the opinion of the City Attorney that this language
restricts the right of the city council to consider licensing for
the keeping of pigeons unless all occupants of property abutting
the premises of the applicant approve in writing, the keeping of
pigeons on the property. Such a restriction on the ability of
the city council to consider the licensing request essentiially
gives an individual abutting property occupant a veto power that
was never intended and would be an infringement on the due
process rights of the applicant.
• At the November 10, 1986 city council meeting the council gave
first reading to an ordinance amendment which provides that "the
applicant shall seek the written approval of such applicaion by
the occupants of all privately -owned real estate abutting the
premises for which the license is sought."
Recommendation:
-------- - - - - --
It is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing
and approve the amendment to Section 10.05, subdivision 5,
paragraph 3 of the Richfield Ordinance relating to the keeping of
pigeons.
Basis for Recommendation:
-------------------------
1. The granting of licenses of this nature lies within the
discretion of the city council and cannot be delegated to
individuals or groups of citizens.
2. The recommended change in this ordinance, requiring the
applicant seek approval from residents of adjacent
properties, does accomplish the intended purpose of the
original ordinance. The council will have available
information on the reactions of those affected by the
proposed license. This will also insure that the neighbor-
ing residents will be aware of the license application if
they care to be heard at a council meeting when the
• license is considered.
Alternative_ Recommendation_
--- -- - - -- — -------- - - - - --
1. The city council could disagree with the recommended
ordinance amendment and not approve second reading.
2. The city council could request further study on the matter.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
If the city council approved this ordinance at the November 24,
1986 city council meeting, the ordinance would become effective
30 days after publication in the official newspaper.
JDP /eja
0
•
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 10.05, SUBDIVISION 5,
PARAGRAPH (3) OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF PIGEONS
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 10.05, Subdivision 5, Paragraph (3) of the Ordinance Code
of the City of Richfield relating to applications for a license
for the keeping of pigeons is hereby amended to provide as
follows:
"(3) �Phe- agg�teatten- e- �eease- sl�e��- be- aeeemgsneel -bp The
applicant shall seek the written approval of such application by
the occupants of all privately -owned real estate abutting the
premises for which the license is sought. The approvals which
are obtained shall accompany the application.
The license application shall include a plan showing the
construction of the proposed or existing loft and its location on
the property. The loft shall be regarded as an accessory build-
ing and shall conform to the building and zoning regulations of
the city.
The loft shall conform in design with the principal build-
ing on the premises."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this
ATTEST:
City Clerk
1155ODO1L04
day of , 1986.
John Hamilton, Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 454
November 24, 1986
Issue_ Statement:
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of a Transitory Ordinance
Providing Funding for Certain Capital Improvements from the
Special Revenue Fund. Second Reading.
_Background:
On October 1, 1986, the City Council approved a revision to the
1986 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) and also adopted the
revised 1986 budget for all funds as outlined in the budget
document. The original 1986 CIB budget approved $315,000 to be
used to finance certain capital improvements with Special Revenue
monies. The total CIB expenditure remains the same. The various
appropriations for 1986 for the capital projects have been
revised as outlined below:
1986 1986
Budget Revised_Budget
Legion Lake Park $225,000 $225,000
City Hall /Elections Improvement 20,000 12,000
Nature Center Improvement 15,000 15,000
• Forestry 25,000 30,000
Public Safety Communication 15,000 15,000
Parking Lots /Drive 15,000 10,000
Park Land Acquisition __ __8000
$315,000 $315,000
A transitory ordinance is now necessary to procedurally
effectuate those changes pursuant to City Charter. Charter
Section 7.12, Subd. 2 allows expenditures for capital
improvements from the Special Revenue Fund only by ordinance. At
the November 10, 1986 city council meeting, the city council gave
first reading to this ordinance and scheduled second reading and
the public hearing for November 24, 1986.
Recommendation:
-------- - - - - --
It is recommended that the City Council hold the public hearing
and approve the attached transitory ordinance providing for the
expenditure of money from the Special Revenue Fund for certain
capital improvements.
Basis for Recommendation:
-------------------------
1. The City Council on May 27, 1986, approved the second reading
of the transitory ordinance providing for the original 1986
expenditure of $315,000 from the Special Revenue Fund for
certain capital improvements.
2. On October 1, 1986, the City Council adopted the 1986
•
0
Revised /1987 Proposal Capital Improvement Budget, adjusting
original expenditures of Special Revenue Funds.
3. Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory
ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication of the
second hearing notice. The hearing process must be completed
in 1986 so the capital projects can be completed as
proposed and the funds expended.
Alternative__ Recommendation:
I. The City Council could allocate the funds to a totally new
project or projects, but a public hearing for a budget
revision would be necessary.
2. The City Council could decide not to authorize the
expenditure of Special Revenue Funds. However, that would be
contrary to the previously adopted Capital Improvement
Budget. Based on that budget, work on named projects has
proceeded and will require payment.
Discussion/Decision_ Mode:
Action on this item is requested at the November 24 meeting of
the City Council. This would allow sufficient time for the
ordinance to become effective prior to the end of 1986.
JDP:sb
Respec ully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
'11W. ,
0
Bill No. 1986 -
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR
CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and
expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue
Fund for the making of Capital Improvements listed in Section 2
hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general
obligation bonds.
Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures
for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the
Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subd. 2 of the City
Charter, are as follows:
Legion Lake Park $225,000
City Hall Improvements 12,000
Park Land Acquisition 8,000
Nature Center Improvements 15,000
Forestry 30,000
Public Safety Communications 15,000
Parking Lots /Drives 101000
• Total $315,000
Section _3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made
pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by
council action.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th
day of November, 1986.
J----- H------------- - - - - -- - Mayor
amilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Th-----omas P. F-------erber ----------------y
Cit ------
Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 453
Agenda November 24, 1986
Issue Statement:
--------------- -
Consideration of a request for approval of an amended final
Development Plan and a special height permit for a sign for the
Hampton Inn Development at 78th Street and Lyndale Avenue.
Background:
At the October 27, 1986 City Council meeting the City Council
continued a public hearing concerning a request by the developers
of the Hampton Inn for city approval of an amendment to their
final development plan and a special height permit. This request
was made to allow a number of signs including one which was 48
feet high. The continuance was to allow further discussions and
review concerning the location and height of the signs. The
hearing was continued to November 10th, at which time it was
continued to November 24, 1986.
Recommendation:
--------- - - - - --
It is recommended that the hearing be closed and no action taken
because the information needed is not yet available. When it is
received, a new hearing will be scheduled with proper publishhed
and mailed notice.
gft _Basis _o_f_Recommendation:
The applicant has not completed their investigation of the
necessary location and height of the signs and, therefore, has
not presented the results of this investigation to staff for
review.
Decision mode:
No information is available so the process should not be
continued.
Respe y submitted,
James lager osser
City
JDP /dh
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 452
November 24, 1986
Issue Statement:
Consideration of whether or not an automobile detailing business
is a permitted use in a C -1 (Neighborhood Business) district and
whether or not a special use permit should be issued for an
automobile detailing use at 7301 Penn Avenue.
Background_
Kit V. and Sumonda V. Arom have requested that a special use
permit be issued for an automobile detailing use in a C -1
(neighborhood business) district. The property is located at
7301 Penn Avenue. The applicant intends to purchase the property
and expand and remodel the building for the proposed use.
The proposed use involves hand waxing and polishing of the
exterior and interior of automobiles as well as cleaning of
engines. Automatic washing equipment is not used. The applicant
has indicated that it takes four to six hours to detail a car and
that a maximum of five to six cars a day would be processed. The
cars would be stored inside the building when completed. The
business will be in operation from 7 AM to 6 PM Monday through
Sunday, and will have four employees.
The staff has determined that an automobile detailing use would
not be permitted in a C -1 zoning district. The City Council on
October 13, referred the matter to the Planning Commission to
determine if the proposed use is an appropriate land use in a C -1
district. The Planning Commission considered three issues: (1)
whether or not the proposed use is appropriate land use in C -1
district. (2) if it is determined to be an appropriate land use
in C -1 district, then whether it would be appropriate to review
the automobile detailing use similar to other automobile repair
services uses, and make the determination that a special use
permit is required for the proposed use. (3) if the first two
determinations are affirmative, then the applicant's request for
a special use permit for automobile detailing at 7301 Penn Avenue
should be considered.
Recommendation:
--------- - - - - --
1. The Planning Commission unanimously voted (8 -0) that
automobile detailing use is a garage use and is prohibited in
C -1 neighborhood business (C -1) district. The commission
also recommended unanimously that because automobile
detailing use is a prohibited use, the request for a special
use permit for the property at 7301 Penn Avenue should not be
considered.
2. Staff recommends that the City Council take the following
actions:
-Find that an automobile detailing use is not an appropriate
land use and should not be permitted in a C -1 (neighborhood
business) district.
-Deny the special use permit request for automobile detailing
in C -1 (neighborhood business) district at the proposed site.
Basis of Recommendation:
------------------------
1. In the opinion of staff and the planning commission, the use
would violate the city's zoning ordinance Section 3.32
subdivision 1, paragraph 6, which indicates that a garage
should not be permitted in a C -1 zoning district. The zoning
ordinance Section 3.27, subdivision 3, paragraph 20, defines
garage as "any premises except herein defined as private or
storage garages used for the storage or care of self
propelled vehicles...... ".
2. While the proposed use by the applicant would most certainly
be an improvement over the current use, and while staff is
confident that the applicant would endeavor to maintain a
good operation which would not have a negative impact upon
the surrounding neighbors, establishing this precedent would
be dangerous in that we cannot absolutely insure that any
other auto care operation such as this would maintain the
same high level of standards consistently.
While the city can implement performance standards, the
monitoring of these performance standards and correcting the
violations is not only costly, but also difficult at times in
that we do not always gain the cooperation of the property
owners or the courts in resolving these matters to our
satisfaction. It would be much better to avoid those
situations which could be problems.
It should be noted that the current operation of that
business is considered an auto detailing business. It is
important to note that the city is not simply dealing with
just one specific application for an automobile detailing
operation at this specific site. Approval of the revised
definition would permit automobile detailing operations in
any C -1 district within the community. C -1 districts are
typically immediately adjacent, or within residential areas.
3. Representatives of the petitioner state that the proposed use
would be an improvement over the current operation. The
existing use, an auto cleaning and repair business, is non
conforming and violates the city's zoning ordinance. City
staff has initiated procedures to remove this operator from
the building. The existing condition of the building and
site is a mess and an eyesore to the neighborhood. Staff has
also initiated proceedings to clean this area up.
Approval of the petitioner's request on the basis that the
area will be improved places the city in a rather unusual
position. Essentially, the current owner has permitted the
business to become a liability to the neighborhood and to the
city. The current owner will reap significant financial
rewards if the proposed use is accepted. In essence, we are
financially rewarding the owner by approving a change in use
for not properly maintaining his business and conforming with
city ordinances.
4. Representatives of the petitioner state that if the proposed
use is not approved, the owner will permit the property to
revert to its previous use; that is, a legal nonconforming
gas station operation. It is not clear that the owner will
be permitted to do this. However, if the owner is able to do
so his motivations appear questionable and in any case, the
basic question remains whether or not an automobile detailing
operation is appropriate for a C -1 district.
5. Representatives for the petitioner have made a significant
effort to gain the support of the neighborhood for the
proposed use. Although these efforts are laudable, it is
important to note that essentially the representatives for
the petitioner have indicated a willingness to agree to a
number of very specific performance standards. Enforcement
of those standards would inevitably fall on the shoulders of
the city. It is not clear whether the city has the legal
capability or the technical capacity to enforce these
performance standards.
6. See Technical Findings which are attached
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Find that an automobile detailing use is an appropriate land
use in C -1 district, is similar to other permitted uses in
is the C -1 and could be permitted by special use permit. This
permit should include a stipulation that any revision of the
parking layout be approved by city staff and that the
proposed structure meet all city building and fire codes.
The granting of the special use permit would only be possible
if the council makes the finding that the proposed use, would
not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort,
convenience or welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such use. Also, the proposed use would not
be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property
or improvements in the neighborhood.
2. Find that under the present terms of the ordinance that auto
detailing uses are not permitted in C -1 zoning districts but
that the ordinance should be amended to designate them as a
permitted use if certain standards are met. Those standards
could include the following:
A. That there be no mechanical car washing equipment.
B. That there be no overnight outside storage of vehicles.
C. That there be adequate screening of the site from
adjacent residential properties.
D. That the use does not result in undue congestion on
surrounding streets.
E. That there be adequate parking on -site for customers,
employees, vehicles waiting to be cleaned, and completed
vehicles to be picked up.
F. That all work be conducted inside the structures.
If the council wishes to take this course of action it is
recommended that the council give first reading to the attached
ordinance and refer the matter to the Planning Commission for
recommendation. The public hearing and second reading
consideration could be scheduled for December 22, 1986.
Decision /Discussion Mode:
------------------- - - - - --
The public hearing originally scheduled for November 10, 1986 has
been continued to the November. 24, 1986 city council meeting.
JDP /eja
41
Respec fully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City anager
•
TECHNICAL_ FINDINGS
Zoning Ordinance Requirements:
1.
Section 3.32, subdivision 1, paragraph 5 indicates that no
gasoline service station, garage, car sales lot or other
similar or related activities is permitted in a C -1 zoning
district.
2.
Section 3.32, subdivision 6, paragraph 6, indicates that a
garage shall not be permitted in the C -1 district.
3.
Section 3.32, subdivision 1, paragraph 7, indicates that any
other uses may be permitted which is determined by the
council pursuant to the provisions of section 3.41 of this
chapter to be of the same general character as the uses
listed as permitted in this section provided that such use is
not specifically prohibited in this section.
4.
Section 3.41, subdivision 5, indicates the condition
governing issuance of the special use permit.
The
basis for recommending denial of the request for the proposed
use in C -1 (neighborhood business) district is discussed in
the following staff review:
1.
The city's zoning ordinance in Section 3.32, subdivision 1,
paragraph 6 indicates that a garage shall not be permitted in
a C -1 zoning district (see attachment). The zoning ordinance
in Section 3.27, subdivision 3, paragraph 20 defines
•
"garages, public" as "any premises, except those herein
defined as a private or storage garage, used for the storage
or care of self - propelled vehicles or where any such vehicles
are equipped for operation or repair or kept for
remuneration, hire or sale" (see attachment). Because this
use involves the care of self propelled vehicles it would be
considered a garage, staff has made the interpretation that a
auto - detailing use would not be permitted in a C -1 zoning
district.
2. Structure and Setbacks.
Site plan indicates a new structure 5,120 square feet. The
building would have five bay and 1,000 square feet of office
space. Two bays would be used for car wash and the rest are
used as detailing work stations. The building meets all the
setback requirements.
3. Parking and Traffic Issues
City parking guidelines indicate that three parking spaces
for each enclosed bay and one space for each employee is
required. Using this standard the proposed use would require
19 parking spaces for the site. The plan indicates three
parking spaces on the east side of the structure, one along
southwest corner of the building, five parking spaces along
Penn Avenue and three spaces along 73rd Street. The total
number of parking spaces available on site is 15 which is
four less than required for the site. Based on applicant's
projection of parking need, it is staff's opinion that 15
parking spaces on site is adequate for the proposed use.
However, there is potential for shortage of parking if the
use changes in the future. The applicant has submitted a
revised plan indicating that 19 parking spaces could be
provided on site but there would be loss of landscaping to
accommodate the increase in parking. The applicant has
indicated that there would not be any cars parked outside the
building overnight.
Presently there are four curb cuts on the site, two on Penn
Avenue and two on 73rd Street. The proposal shows that there
would be only two curb cuts, one on Penn Avenue and the other
on 73rd Street. Both the curb cuts would be used for two way
traffic. Automobiles for servicing will enter the building
on 73rd Street side. One way traffic around the building is
highly desirable to allow smooth traffic flow on the site.
4. Screening, Landscaping and Buffering
There is an existing fence north of the site separating the
property from abutting single family dwellings. Portion of
this fence needs to be repaired or replaced. The applicant
also proposes to put a new fence on the south side of the
property separating the site from abutting single family
dwellings. Adequate screening, buffering and landscaping is
provided in the plan. To provide 19 parking spaces on the
site, there would be a loss of landscaping and greenery which
is not desirable. The proposal would be a significant
improvement over the present appearance of the site.
• 5. Impact on the Surrounding Neighborhood
North of the site across 73rd Street is a church parking lot.
The site is a corner lot and all other lots within the block
and /or close proximity of the site are zoned single family
residential. The proposed site plan is a significant
improvement when compared to the existing condition of the
site. It is staff's opinion that the proposed use would not
have an significant impact on the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
6. Comprehensive Plan
City's Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is
designated as a medium density buffer. The proposed use
would be inconsistent with the uses indicated for medium
density buffer areas (i.e. single family residential,
multiple family residential, and existing convenience
commercial).
•
S �
•
F-4.lµit�� i•
fKoftT-,Y LUNG r . moomt46 rmex --I - -
Lo
Lbw .•laa: • H+.`U.••i. -
i� N
I SPACE 11SPACE RACE
1
-- MECHANICAL 22x8
DETAILING Y osaNeruoa*IYP.
STEP 1
- DETALNG
DETALM EXISTING BUI.DN('s-
STEP 1 I �i�weo •A . t— 13
api
DETAILING
• EMPLOYEE $TORAG2.-
(a r � LOUNGE 15xv
YYYVVV �
OFFICE 16x11
Lu
Qp'�. i � carwl.mv
� rte,. "yam,( sa+lva.mws
1
x Q LOUNGE 1603
d+txf Wo
1 SPACE '
.r` •`+. a.• �._ - - - --
(oPTIoNAU I
4 `"Y�• - i 15`
ACES 20 i ,r �` �•
- PpOflM1TY U� IDb Pt[T
PENN AVENUE
WEST ELEVATION _
F -.
NORTH ELEVATION
•
Preliminary Design (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
AUTO DETAILING BUSINESS
73rd & Penn Richfield, MN
5120 TOTAL SO. FT.
12 ON SITE PARKING SPACES
north
......— .. ....�.,:d '.....:;:.�..,X. _ - .- ...... .._._ _.... Y...,... -. .,.r..�..�....:- w::- :e:.;�.<.. 4....:..s3.., wed-. ...r...._ «,o...,_.-......:.;;a
i
i
I
i r
r
i
f
I
I
I'' L ILI
e
py p.
a
W
4
❑ 16
1 ❑
STREET
o_ ❑ Is
2 �o
A
e
2 ❑,
14
N o
3 �
0w
o❑ 152
0
DA
�❑ 134
ti
«❑ 12
�
❑ •
is "
w
I^
!12 ❑ 12
3 N
Q
N
�N
N
A
7' ❑ N
❑ 10
w
r
T 00.
w
o
� 9
w
�
8
❑�
❑ 16
0
1 ❑M
N
STREET
0 13
2 �o
A
14
N ❑
3
❑N
w° ❑ 8
o❑ 152
»
13
N
❑o
4 ^'
A
ti
«❑ 12
�
❑ •
is "
w
N ❑ it
6 ❑ N
2
w
❑ 10
7' ❑ N
A
r
I- ❑
N 9
r
8 ❑a
w
w
60
73rd
STREET
w D
16
0
1 ❑ ^
w° ❑ 8
o❑ 152
n❑
w
0 N
A
w
`"❑
13
2
❑ s
A
125
w
❑ N
A
"'
e
n
14
r3 •
0;;
l
e ❑ 6
q
'
7
❑
.,o
n ❑
13
4 ❑N
� ❑ ..�
N
0 °
�
w
A
^ ❑
w ❑
❑e
❑ a
12
S
W
w
a
w
11
6 ❑..
N
w ❑
w
w
10
T
w
w
A
A
-
•
9
8
C3
A
�
t
74th STREET
1 C7 a
60
,,
0
72nd
A
❑
o❑ 152
n❑
113
0 N
A
❑
`"❑
134
`
❑ s
N❑
125
❑ N
A
"'
I 1
6
❑ A
l
4
10
7
❑
.,o
$
❑ .
o
A
3 0 �.
4 ❑ °
N
A
A
ZONING MAP
R SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
MR MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
C--1 LIMITED BUSINESS
72nd
1� 0
lei
.
0 N
A
.0
15'2
❑ °
O
Z„❑
13
❑=
O
� ❑
l
4
❑ N
Z
N 0
1215
N
0 °
In
„ ❑
1116
❑ N
w ❑
1 T
❑ a
N
1"o
98
0
•
N
73rd
3 0 �.
4 ❑ °
N
A
A
ZONING MAP
R SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
MR MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
C--1 LIMITED BUSINESS
TYPE OF BUSINESS
• AUTOMOTIVE DETAILING:
Meaning - waxing and polishing by hand the entire car, using
toothbrushes and "Q" tips for the small areas on the dash -
board etc. The engine also gets a thorough cleaning by hand
The car will not be stored outside after the job is completed
it will stay inside until the owner picks it up.
About 5 or 6 cars a day will be just about all that could be
handled - it takes 4 to 6 hours per car.
CONCERN OF NEIGHBORHOOD
PICTURES: Take note of the pictures of the present day users
at the location now. The operation there is messy and cars
are parked all over. Note the condition of some of these cars.
Also, seems to be a parking lot for boats and camper equipment.
Tires, refuse, and weeds abound. Take note of the office area
and bathrooms- -the sinks look just like the toilet.
• PLANS FOR REMODELING: Y
The new owners will have some clients who own very expensive
automobiles and who take excellent care of them, thats why
they would bring their car to a Detail Shop. This is not a
Car- Wash!!!! The car will be washed when it comes in.
A plan of the new extention on the present building is en-
closed. This property will be in a new and high class con-
dition with a nice reception room.
The city would be very pleased to see a newly remodeled
structure on this site, let alone the increase in city property
taxes generated from a building with increased value, and also
the quietness of this business compared to the one already in
the building.
•
October 21; 1986
Ladies and Gentlemen Of The Planninq Commission
My name is Jack Defier, 7300 Oliver Avenue South, telephone 866 -7847. I write you
reference your meetino scheduled for Tuesday, October 28th, 1986. On the agenda
will be a request to determine if "Auto Detailing" use is permitted in C -1. Also,
to hear orantino of a "Special Use Permit" for "Auto Detailing ", 'fir i3o4 P ra�.1
Our residential property is directly behind, or east, of the property in question.
I will try not to bore you with too much past history reference this property.
However, some is necessary. For the past two to three years the owner of the property
has leased or rented it to a party called "Denny's Complete Car Clean Up ". Please
see copy of business card attached. It is my understanding that "complete car clean up"
and "auto detailing" are one and the same kind of business. If you want to see a complete
mess, junk, carbace, doo feces, and anythinq else bad, elesse, not only drive by, but
walk around 7301 Penn. The current problem is before the City.•Mlanager now.
We own our home and have lived at 7300 Oliver since 1955, a total of 31 years. Durinq
this time I I personally stood before the City Council or contacted various departments
pertainino to various problems at 7301 Penn. The most recent was before the Planning
Commission June 26, 1984. At that time, item four on the agenda was a proposal for
"rezonino 7301 Penn. Staff recommended denial; the Commission unanimously recommended
denial. On July 9, 1984 I appeared before the City Council and they unanimously
supported the Planning Commission and denied the rezoning. Now, I understand that
rezonino and "special use permit" are not necessarily the same thing; however, they
certainly seem very close.
I was appalled when the City Council came within a whisker of approving the "special
use permit" Monday nieht, October 13th, 1986 over the objection of the City Manager.
At least three of the council members ressonino was as stated "anything is better than
what we got now ".
May I suooest to this Commission that we take our time and, to the best of our ability,
do the job proper. Please, before a decision is reached, review the "staff
recommendations of the June 26, 1984 proposal. Please do this for the neighborhood.
How an "Auto Detailing" business could fall within the realm of a neighborhood business
is beyond my comprehension, or how it could fall within a C1- Limited Business is
beyond me.
Now then, what about the proposal before you? Can we look upon it as an opportunity
to uporade this property. This I would think is the important decision. I have no
particular argument with the current owner (that's not quite true as I think it is a
sin that he did not watch his property close enough and allowed it to become the raq =tag
mess that it is.) - -
I have no particular quarrel with the proposed new owners. Their real estate agent-
informs me they are a "franchise ". There are plans for either a new buildino-or---- - --
addition to the existing one.
If it is this commission's feelino
neighborhood that this property be
permit" be approved, please do not
who are asking. Be reasonable for
they are doing the requesting,
that it is in the best interest of the city and the
used for "auto detailing" or that the *'special use
sell the neighborhood down the chute. It is they
both sides. Put some restrictions on their side, since
- continued -
''STRICTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. The buildino or addition must be esthetically pleasing to the eye on all
sides, including the rear.
2. Hours of operation limited to 12 hours per day, six days per week (Mon.
through Sat.)
3. I quote the "Planning Commission of June 1984. "There must be proper
year round screening of the property to the east and south, whose property
abuts 7301 Penn." In addition, it would seem appropriate along Penn Avenue
and 73rd Street to screen the property from the north and west.
4. The current oas tanks, in the around 35 years, must be removed before any
construction begins.
5. No outside storage of anything, most particularly cars, trucks, busses,
boats, motorcycles, etc. Parkino on site be limited to employees only, -
no on site parkino of finished vehicles which runs into 3 -6 -8 weeks. Absolutely
no parkino of customers or employees alono 73rd Street.
6. Absolutely no vendino by truck, bus, etc., such as has been allowed by the
shrimp vendors. The smell is terrible and the traffic worse.
7. No sions along Penn or 73rd be allowed. The only sionino would be attached to
the front of the building, such as N/E corner of 66th and Nicollet. This would
mean the current light standard that sits in the N/W corner of the property be
removed. In this same N/W corner, remove the drive -up phone service.
8. Absolutely NO vending machines of any kind permitted. The proximity to the
Jr. High School makes it a natural "hano out" for soft drinks, etc. Then it
is up to the residents to pick up the discards.
9. It would seem that beino so close to a neighborhood environment, extra ordinary
effort should be daily to keep the area clean of papers and any debris,
leaves picked up sprino and fall, and service doors kept closed to minimize
noise.
10. Winter snows will NOT be piled or windrowed along the private fences running
north and south behind the property of 7301.
I respectfully thank you for your patience.
f
Sincerely,
Lac_ t �- 1 c �� ✓
Jack a Dolores De 9 er
7300 Oliver Avenue South
Richfield, Minn, 55423
866 -7847
•
":STRICTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
. 1. The building or addition must be esthetically pleasing to the eye on all
sides, includino the rear.
2.
3.
5.
6.
7
Hours of operation limited to 12 hours per day, six days, per week (Mlon.
through Sat.)
• t•
I quote the "Plannino Commission of June 1984. "There must be proper
year round screening of the property to the east and south, whose property
abuts 7301 Penn." In addition, it would seem appropriate along Penn Avenue
and 73rd Street to screen the proPerty from the north and west.
The current gas tanks, in the ground 35 years, must be removed before any
construction begins.
No•outside storage of anything, most. particularly cars, trucks, busses,
boats, motorcycles, etc. Parkino on site be limited to employees only,
no on site Parkino of finished vehicles which runs into 3 -6 -8 weeks. Absolutely
no parkino of customers or employees along 73rd Street.
Absolutely no vendino by truck, bus, etc., such as has been allowed by the
shrimp vendors. The .smell is terrible and the traffic worse.
No signs along Penn or 73rd be allowed.' The only sionino would be attached to
the front of the building, such as N/E corner of 66th and Nicollet. This would
mean the current .lioht standard that sits in the N/W corner of the property be
removed. In this same N/W corner, remove the drive -up phone service.
B. Absolutely NO vendino machines of any kind permitted.' The proximity to the
• Jr. High School makes it a natural "hang-out" for soft drinks, etc. Then it.
is up to the residents to pick up the discards.
90 It would seem that being so close to a neighborhood environment, extra ordinary
effort should be taken daily to keep the area clean of papers and any debris,
leaves picked up spring and fall, and service doors kept closed to minimize
noise,
10. Winter snows will,NOT be piled or windrowed along the private fences running
north and south behind the•property of 7301.
I respectfully thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
i
Jack & Dolores Deger
7300 Oliver Avenue South
Richfield, Munn, 55423
866 -7847
• October 21, 1986
Mrs, James D. Prosser, City Manager��� _
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minn. 55423
Dear Mr. Prosser:
I met you, with the Mayor, on a fleetino moment the other day at the City Hall. May
I welcome you and your family to Richfield.
I write you reference the October 13, 1986 Council Meeting, item five on the agenda,
reference "Auto Detailing" "special use permit" at 7301 Penn Avenue South. We live
directly behind this property on the East. I appreciate what 1 think you were implying
when you indicated to the Council that current use of the property was, in your
judgement, "non- compliance with current zoninc" You indicated, as I took notes,
that a letter had been sent by your office to the current owner of the property.
May I say that we have the darndest mess on our hands at this property. Please,
for the sake of Richfield, the neighborhood, will you see that pressure is put forth
immediately to clean up the mess. What it is like inside, I can only guess. The
outside is a jumble of junk cars, several boats, other cars, a truck in back piled
with brush that's been there for at least two months, there is dog feces all over,
assorted trash, oarbaos, and junk all over.
Tell me, sir, what 1 can do, if necessary to qet this mess cleaned up. I'm going
to wag my Pinner and admonish our City Inspectors, our Council, and the neighborhood,
(including myself) for allowino this garbage dump to happen. Now the, regardless of
zonino or whatever -- what's it ooino to take to clean it up.
Play I refer back to the council meeting of October 13, 1986. I addressed the council
and most, if not all, seemed surprised that the current (2 -3 year) tenant was in
the "auto detailino business" Some may call it "complete car clean up", others
"auto detailing ". Please see copy attached of current owners business card.
One other thing reference this location. In approximately an area 20 feet long by
8 feet or less wide there is a laroe wide based light standard, a drive -up phone -from
car station, a newspaper sales stand, an advertisino bench, and a bus stop. Now then,
Suppose you are in your car coming west on 73rd from Oliver. When you stop at this
point before entering Penn Avenue and try to view the traffic coming from the south
going north on Penn, it is a niohtmare. Add to this scenario, several people waitino
for the bus, etc.. Perhaps Mr. Moroan's Public Safety Department would take a look at
it. Also, added to this confusion is when the shrimp truck comes to town - you would
think you are on 66th & Penn at the height of the rush hour. My suggestion for
consideration would be to remove the light standard, the telephone drive -up, and the -
newspaper sales stand.
Please, do not just drive by this property. Stop and walk all the way around it.
Bring an instant camera if you can. If I can be of any help, please feel free -to-
call on me.
CC: Council Members
Plannino Commission Members
.Respectfully su mitted, i_.
aclF'6c'es� �eg
7300 Oliver Avenue South
Richfield, MN, 55423
866 -7847
■
961 -6260
s Q G 6RA�c�
KNN i �'
12Ld -i`j tRA0.eLE Lwat
4•.�tG�a,�J
DZrlw,Mr9-Z 00c l #L,-Dl s14,,
7301 PENN AVE. $O.
RICHFIELD. MN 55423
•
0
0
TIMOTHY R. ERLANDER
Attorney at Law
SUITE 210
1518 EAST LAKE STREET
MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55407
AREA CODE 612
825 -6857
HOME: 869 -5866
October�21, 1986
Mr. Rick Jopke, City Planner
City of Richfield
Richfield City Hall
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Re: 7301 Penn Avenue South
Dear Rick:
OF COUNSEL:
SUZANNE C. SANDAHL
On October 20, 1986, I received a phone call from a person who identified
• himself as Jack Deger, 7300 Oliver Avenue South in Richfield, He advised
me that the owners and /or users of the above property were applying for a
special use permit apparently to allow auto work on the property. He
stated that the place was a "pigpen." He was not specific in the relief
he wanted, but it seems clear he wants the present use of the property
halted or curtailed. He asked me to go look at it. I am generally familiar
with the area and know that the site had a gas station that is no longer
in use.
TRE:ml
cc: Jack Deger
0
Yours very truly,
Timo y R. Erlander
Robert L. Knol
7324 Oliver Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423
October 23, 1986
Mr. Towhid Kazi
Asst. Planner City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Towhid:
I am writing you concerning the property at 7301 Penn
Ave. I feel that a automobile restoration company is not in
the best interest of the neighborhood it surrounds. I have
driven by the area several times and looked at the rusting,
decrepit automobiles sitting in the lot. The area gives the
impression of being a junk yard. I think that this
impression is not desirable for this residential area.
Being a resident within a stones throw from this junk yard I
ask you to refuse to license this property for anything like
this which would lower property values along with the
aesthetic qualities of this neighborhood. I ask you to do
your duty in enforcing the views of those who would have to
live with the mistake of this business next to our homes.
Sincerely
7 �
Robert L. Knol
•
i
U
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV,
SECTION 3.32 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.32 of the Ordinance
Code entitled "Use Regulation for Neighborhood Business
(C -1) District" is hereby amended in the following way.
By amending subdivision 4, paragraph (5) to read as follows:
(5) No gasoline service station, garage, car sales
lot, or other similar or related activity is permitted in
this district except that auto detailing use would be
permitted in 11C -1" district if the following standards are
met:
(a) That there be no mechanical car washing equipment.
(b) That there be no overnight outside storage of
vehicles.
(c) That there be adequate screening of the site from
adjacent residential properties.
(d) That the use does not result in undue congestion
on surrounding streets.
(e) That there be adequate parking on the site for
customers.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this day of , 1986.
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
John Hamilton, Mayor '
r
.7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 451
Agenda November 24, 1986
Issue Statement:
--------------- -
Request for permits for illuminated signs at Skippers, 6613 Penn
Avenue South and a Christmas Tree lot located at 6636 Cedar Ave.
_Background_
City ordinance provides that the City Council must approve all
permits for illuminated signs.
Skippers - A permit has been requested to erect a 6'1" X 14'6110
double -faced pedestal sign reading "Skippers - Seafood 'N Chowder
House ".
Christmas Tree Lot - A permit has been requested for a temporary
illuminated sign measuring 3' X 4' to be erected as of November
28, 1986.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council approve the permits for
these illuminated signs.
Basis for Recommendation:
-------------------------
1. The Inspection Division and the Planning Division have
approved the signs.
2. The signs conform to all applicable city ordinances.
Alternative Recommendation:
--------------------------
1. Not approve the permits. However, the city has no
alternative design criteria to suggest for a substitute
for these signs.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
------------------- - --- --
This item has been placed on the consent calendar portion of the
November 24th council agenda for consideration. The businesses
are requesting action to complete their sign placement.
Respe fully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
TF Illuminated - e-S) No Watts
•Electrical Contractor j A dress 31? (d�. �{, Phone
2rop�erty Owner or his Ag °_.^.t Si- ^at lre Phone 92-�
.st=ated Cost Sigr Wid '� 6`1" deignt �c�a" _oral Squar_ Peet Sq
?OSttion of the adTert- same ^.t St_.:C=ur_ in r °?at'^ a buildings, sideway .S
_„nsn�p t0 the aC� aC...nL buy in�S,
curbs, roadways, overhead aril__ lines, vehicle movement lines, or public 'facilities on
drawing with signi_icant d_nensicns and attar ed heraco of v1a1Cr signs. Hiaor Si ,,ns as
de:ined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the si; , billboard, or outdoor advertising st= .:cure cons=accion plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and exmlic_t anC hor_mg or fastening details
and a copy of the stress s..e_ts, calculations, color of sign St_�.CL'1re.
'.oes the sip co-ov relate solely to the business, i^_stit:lticm, or actiVit7 conduc=ed on
:'.a pre='seS? qeS .
N' the Sign, Structure, or billboard restrict a=v Sight distance under, around, or over
a c s by perso s dest -mad for or passing the subjec= premises? 170.
ApDl— cant`s S ature and Title with Firm
T13 Data I1 101a
Phone Number OTi3 % Z-q)
Lit
kt PLZUSc SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SE:.TCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
Wall
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
Temporary
Trailer
lL..
�J
Clear Lexon
r4r at, eed T LeAh
Plastic Covered
Shaded
Neon
Other
Sign Colors JP f U<Q
Ci--,,
Data
..anagar
Inspector
✓ :,E
AP °ROVE
DENY❑ : �t. -?. { ��/
APPROVE
Date
DVTY�
,
I
Planning Department
City Council
•
Date
!% %�� /' j�
Date
Route to
above for special
approval per
code
General Signs
APPLICATION
FOR' ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield, , Minnesota
Date
Zoning
Sign Erected - Yes
No X Fee Z .
Address
of Sign
6613 2by
tip. S•
Proprietor Name Sl pp
DBA
Sign Erectorkba
pp��
a j
4 T 5 ,oN
&Q iii.
Address W, take
Tvoe of
Sian
U Desis*_i
r_mr r T.icnr {.,a
TF Illuminated - e-S) No Watts
•Electrical Contractor j A dress 31? (d�. �{, Phone
2rop�erty Owner or his Ag °_.^.t Si- ^at lre Phone 92-�
.st=ated Cost Sigr Wid '� 6`1" deignt �c�a" _oral Squar_ Peet Sq
?OSttion of the adTert- same ^.t St_.:C=ur_ in r °?at'^ a buildings, sideway .S
_„nsn�p t0 the aC� aC...nL buy in�S,
curbs, roadways, overhead aril__ lines, vehicle movement lines, or public 'facilities on
drawing with signi_icant d_nensicns and attar ed heraco of v1a1Cr signs. Hiaor Si ,,ns as
de:ined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the si; , billboard, or outdoor advertising st= .:cure cons=accion plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and exmlic_t anC hor_mg or fastening details
and a copy of the stress s..e_ts, calculations, color of sign St_�.CL'1re.
'.oes the sip co-ov relate solely to the business, i^_stit:lticm, or actiVit7 conduc=ed on
:'.a pre='seS? qeS .
N' the Sign, Structure, or billboard restrict a=v Sight distance under, around, or over
a c s by perso s dest -mad for or passing the subjec= premises? 170.
ApDl— cant`s S ature and Title with Firm
T13 Data I1 101a
Phone Number OTi3 % Z-q)
Lit
kt PLZUSc SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SE:.TCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
Wall
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
Temporary
Trailer
Single Face
Double Face
Multi -Faced
Aerial /Blimp
Searchlight
I Banner /Pennants `
I ?or_able Frame: I_j!
T Ci A n Post
Clear Lexon
r4r at, eed T LeAh
Plastic Covered
Shaded
Neon
Other
Sign Colors JP f U<Q
Constant
Flashing
Revolving
Traveling
Zip Lite
Other(E:{p1a_-
ct�i��P
X
I
TF Illuminated - e-S) No Watts
•Electrical Contractor j A dress 31? (d�. �{, Phone
2rop�erty Owner or his Ag °_.^.t Si- ^at lre Phone 92-�
.st=ated Cost Sigr Wid '� 6`1" deignt �c�a" _oral Squar_ Peet Sq
?OSttion of the adTert- same ^.t St_.:C=ur_ in r °?at'^ a buildings, sideway .S
_„nsn�p t0 the aC� aC...nL buy in�S,
curbs, roadways, overhead aril__ lines, vehicle movement lines, or public 'facilities on
drawing with signi_icant d_nensicns and attar ed heraco of v1a1Cr signs. Hiaor Si ,,ns as
de:ined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the si; , billboard, or outdoor advertising st= .:cure cons=accion plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and exmlic_t anC hor_mg or fastening details
and a copy of the stress s..e_ts, calculations, color of sign St_�.CL'1re.
'.oes the sip co-ov relate solely to the business, i^_stit:lticm, or actiVit7 conduc=ed on
:'.a pre='seS? qeS .
N' the Sign, Structure, or billboard restrict a=v Sight distance under, around, or over
a c s by perso s dest -mad for or passing the subjec= premises? 170.
ApDl— cant`s S ature and Title with Firm
T13 Data I1 101a
Phone Number OTi3 % Z-q)
Lit
kt PLZUSc SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SE:.TCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
,sN SIGN WITH FLEXIBLE VINYL FACES.
Of .
14'6"
L.
0
w
O
N
s�R�illi111111'
All
k�-Kt
1 ram t Y`F v ' iYi
1
..Z+. +. - .:.......+�...,_... •�-• � a +Lae v .. q:.it .ty. �, �:�- r`} �i� t�'i�;LM` Y'��.�:� ?��..._ F.e
a
C'.g_ ._ +.Y.rs�r•r11�..,wYWr: a. _ t-`, }Y _- r _ _
C
— ' r
Ci:-! Manager
Dace
AF ?ROVE ❑ DEY'f ❑:
Planning Department
Date
Inspac:or
Date
APPROVE ❑ DENY❑
City Council
T_ Illuai.natad - No Watts
electrical Contractor Addrass ?pore
? =cper_a Owner or his Agen: Sc;natura /�,, z+ri ch �= /, /� ?hone
=ataC C.s t ��?^ ;v1CL:. ,} S4? ^t - cal Sc are = ° - °_t 1_2
?csi =i.cn of t.a ad-:art'_za=ar.t st_- _ =- _
-� e_3L.�..S ' : to .a ad f aca ^.- buy_ . :gS , S_de•.�al Ga
C:.._ * s , road«ays , over head nes , ve icle Wcvemenc Lines, or pub l.c f aci__t-' as on
d_ erns -_;z =s and aL_ac 2_ heraco of =a-:Cr Hinor si, =s as
de__ :ed on page 2.
T «O bluepr acs of t e S_gn, b_llbca= , or outdoor advert_Si ^.g sz=uc ura ccnsc=uction plans:
. .c_.:d'- :g specifications, list OC =at_r.al s, and ex-:1ic4_t a ^_C cr_ g or =ascani.n g details
a =d a copv of t e Stress s..e°_cs, calculations, ccl C= S_g^ Str- :Ct1ra.
.:-Ces t :e Sig- Copy ralata So,ely tC t e business, _ :Stmt aiC :, Cr act =r_t• ccnC.;cza . on
_ .a ra —_'ses:
s_g^, st=uct...ra, or restrict a^_;r sighc distance under, r, ,
arcund or over
safe access by persers destined :or or pass_:; the subject pran4ses'
a T6 I; -. Fi
S�Sgnatsr a..d � +,, a �r;,,... rm ,r
Date
0
i985 ?T_ iSE S-cR REVE—ZSE SIDE FC.1 SIGN LCC'_AT :OY S=_CM
Siver- Hendrickscn /Bui_d� :g Of:icial - 366 -:061
Wall
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
Trailer-_
Date
Clear Lason r'`. Constant
Frosted Lexon Flashing
Plastic Covered Revolving
I Shaded Traveling
Neon Zip Lite
Other Other (Explain
on Colors
Icuce to above
for special
approval per code General Signs
AP ?L -_CATION FOR' ADVERTISING PERMIT
l
!Temporary
I
C_ty of
Richfield, . Minnesota
`
-
Date �� f
6 Zon_ng_,•.
c Ltc t�
Sign Erected - Yes No "� Fee
Address of Signs
j
t
��'! <:
n�
Proprietor Name DBA
Sign Erector
Address
Tvre of Sign
Desi ?n
Weather Cover Lighting
T_ Illuai.natad - No Watts
electrical Contractor Addrass ?pore
? =cper_a Owner or his Agen: Sc;natura /�,, z+ri ch �= /, /� ?hone
=ataC C.s t ��?^ ;v1CL:. ,} S4? ^t - cal Sc are = ° - °_t 1_2
?csi =i.cn of t.a ad-:art'_za=ar.t st_- _ =- _
-� e_3L.�..S ' : to .a ad f aca ^.- buy_ . :gS , S_de•.�al Ga
C:.._ * s , road«ays , over head nes , ve icle Wcvemenc Lines, or pub l.c f aci__t-' as on
d_ erns -_;z =s and aL_ac 2_ heraco of =a-:Cr Hinor si, =s as
de__ :ed on page 2.
T «O bluepr acs of t e S_gn, b_llbca= , or outdoor advert_Si ^.g sz=uc ura ccnsc=uction plans:
. .c_.:d'- :g specifications, list OC =at_r.al s, and ex-:1ic4_t a ^_C cr_ g or =ascani.n g details
a =d a copv of t e Stress s..e°_cs, calculations, ccl C= S_g^ Str- :Ct1ra.
.:-Ces t :e Sig- Copy ralata So,ely tC t e business, _ :Stmt aiC :, Cr act =r_t• ccnC.;cza . on
_ .a ra —_'ses:
s_g^, st=uct...ra, or restrict a^_;r sighc distance under, r, ,
arcund or over
safe access by persers destined :or or pass_:; the subject pran4ses'
a T6 I; -. Fi
S�Sgnatsr a..d � +,, a �r;,,... rm ,r
Date
0
i985 ?T_ iSE S-cR REVE—ZSE SIDE FC.1 SIGN LCC'_AT :OY S=_CM
Siver- Hendrickscn /Bui_d� :g Of:icial - 366 -:061
Wall
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
Trailer-_
Single Face
Double Face
Multi -Faced
I Aerial /Blimp
Searcl_ght
I Barn er /Pannants
?ort3bla Frame:
T ! A 17 Post ❑
Clear Lason r'`. Constant
Frosted Lexon Flashing
Plastic Covered Revolving
I Shaded Traveling
Neon Zip Lite
Other Other (Explain
on Colors
❑
l
!Temporary
I
T_ Illuai.natad - No Watts
electrical Contractor Addrass ?pore
? =cper_a Owner or his Agen: Sc;natura /�,, z+ri ch �= /, /� ?hone
=ataC C.s t ��?^ ;v1CL:. ,} S4? ^t - cal Sc are = ° - °_t 1_2
?csi =i.cn of t.a ad-:art'_za=ar.t st_- _ =- _
-� e_3L.�..S ' : to .a ad f aca ^.- buy_ . :gS , S_de•.�al Ga
C:.._ * s , road«ays , over head nes , ve icle Wcvemenc Lines, or pub l.c f aci__t-' as on
d_ erns -_;z =s and aL_ac 2_ heraco of =a-:Cr Hinor si, =s as
de__ :ed on page 2.
T «O bluepr acs of t e S_gn, b_llbca= , or outdoor advert_Si ^.g sz=uc ura ccnsc=uction plans:
. .c_.:d'- :g specifications, list OC =at_r.al s, and ex-:1ic4_t a ^_C cr_ g or =ascani.n g details
a =d a copv of t e Stress s..e°_cs, calculations, ccl C= S_g^ Str- :Ct1ra.
.:-Ces t :e Sig- Copy ralata So,ely tC t e business, _ :Stmt aiC :, Cr act =r_t• ccnC.;cza . on
_ .a ra —_'ses:
s_g^, st=uct...ra, or restrict a^_;r sighc distance under, r, ,
arcund or over
safe access by persers destined :or or pass_:; the subject pran4ses'
a T6 I; -. Fi
S�Sgnatsr a..d � +,, a �r;,,... rm ,r
Date
0
i985 ?T_ iSE S-cR REVE—ZSE SIDE FC.1 SIGN LCC'_AT :OY S=_CM
Siver- Hendrickscn /Bui_d� :g Of:icial - 366 -:061
_1� =
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 450
Agenda November 24, 1986
• Issue Statement:
-; �,/' _
Authorization to execute a contract for "Housedoctoring" energy
conservation services with Minnegasco and identifying contractors
that perform these services.
Background:
Since December, 1984 the City of Richfield and Minnegasco have
cooperatively pursued a housedoctor energy conservation service
for low and moderate income homeowners. "Housedoctoring" is the
analysis of a home for air infiltration problems by a qualified
contractor using a measuring device called a "blower door ". The
contractor,.by identifying the leaky areas, can seal these leaks
and perform other conservation services that will improve a
home's comfort level and reduce fuel consumption and energy
costs. Minnegasco contributed $50,000 to assist 130 households
in 1985 and under a new contract for 1986 and 1987, would provide
$10,000 to the city to expend in assisting approximately 25
additional homes. Minnegasco has requested that a contract be
executed quickly and that funds be expended prior to the end of
the year. To ensure that this can occur, the city will need the
resources of several contractors.
Since March, 1985 the city has had a contract with Self Reliance
Center (SRC) to deliver both audit and housedoctoring services to
residents. To expend the Minnegasco funds in a timely manner,
• SRC may not be able to handle the additional volume of work.
Since alternate contractors are available to distribute the
workload, it would be desirable to engage their services to meet
Minnegasco requirements.
Each of the following contractors has been checked for their
basic competency and professionalism, the use of calibrated
equipment, job references, and at least two years of experience:
- Energy Outfitters (the firm that performed the 1985
Richfield Housedoctor Program), Minneapolis
- Fitzgerald Contracting, Minneapolis
These contractors and SRC are familiar with the Scope of Work
required by Minnegasco. Minnegasco will pay the city $420 per
housedoctor visit completed and the city would reimburse the
contractor the same amount. Thus, the city will enter into
agreements with contractors similar in form to that already
utilized with SRC which specifies responsibilities, including:
-the firms will act as independent contractors rather than
employees of the city
-the firms will maintain workers compensation, employer
liability, and general public liability insurance
-the firms will be reimbursed $420 per service provided
• All contracts are to be reviewed by city legal counsel prior to
execution.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached
resolution authorizing the City Manager and Mayor to enter into
contracts with Minnegasco, Energy Outfitters, and Fitzgerald
Contracting to ensure the timely delivery of housedoctoring
services to Richfield residents.
Basis for Recommendation:
-------------------------
1) Minnegasco has made the offer of $10,000 and desires to
enter into a contract
2) The city has the administrative capability to initiate
the program within the assigned time frame and does not
need to contribute funds to implement the program
3) The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) supports
Minnegasco efforts to assist in providing community based
programs
Alternative_ Recommendation:
The city could choose not to participate in the Minnegasco offer.
This would prevent approximately 25 households from benefiting
from this energy conservation service. An action such as this
may also set a precedent, discouraging Minnegasco from making
additional offers in future years.
As this letter was being prepared, the State Department of Public
Service (DPS), was requested to comment on the contract to ensure
that it meets the directives of the PUC. DPS findings may mean,
following review with Minnegasco, that:
• - expenditures would still be made by the end of the year; and
-the contract would be lengthened to 6 to 12 months possibly
providing for additional contributions in 1987 from
Minnegasco.
Decision _Mode:
If the City Council approves authorization of this contract, the
SRC could initiate housedoctor work immediately. Contracts would
be executed with additional contractors in early December to
ensure the timely expenditure of funds. Eligible housedoctor
clients have already been identified and more would be solicited
by staff.
JDP /eja
Res fully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
syyy
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 449
November 24, 1986
Issue Statement:
Request for authorization to enter into a maintenance agreement
for the city's Burroughs computer system with MTI Office Systems
in the amount of $20,107.50 for the calendar year 1987.
Background:
In January, 1986, the City Council authorized the purchase of the
City's new Burroughs computer system and an accompanying
maintenance agreement from MTI Office Systems. MTI was the
successful bidder on the City's computer hardware and software
contract.
An ongoing cost of owning any computer system is the overall
maintenance of the system. Careful maintenance by competent,
trained staff is essential in keeping the equipment in continuous
service and in proper working order. The most economical method
of securing such maintenance is to contract the service with a
qualified firm. In the current situation, MTI is presently
assisting the City in completing the installation of the system
and to complete the conversion. Additionally, MTI has provided
the City with a very good level of maintenance service for 1986
• under the existing agreement.
The current maintenance agreement provides two types of services.
Small portable equipment, primarily terminals and printers, are
covered by depot service. These items are picked up at the city
and brought into MTI's shop for servicing. They are returned
within one working day. The larger pieces of equipment, such as
the central processor, are repaired by MTI on -site at city hall.
The response time for this service is normally the same day,
usually within a couple of hours. This arrangement has worked
well and saved considerable service expenses, as depot service is
less costly than on -site service.
Similar service agreements for our equipment are available from
Burroughs directly, as well as from third party vendors, such as
MTI. Staff sought and received a written price quote from MTI
for an agreement with the same depot /on -site arrangements as are
currently in effect. Other quotes for this service have not been
requested for the reasons detailed in the "Basis for
Recommendation" section below.
Recommendation:
-------- - - - - --
Staff recommends that the Council authorize the city to renew its
maintenance agreement with MTI Office Systems in the amount of
$20,107.50 for the calendar year 1987.
•
Basis for Recommendation
- - - -- --------------- - --
Renewal of this maintenance agreement with MTI is recommended for
the following reasons:
1. Staff feels that it is in the city's best interest to retain
a close tie with MTI because the implementation of the new
system is not yet complete. Two components will not be fully
operational until early 1987. These are the network which
will link all of the sites with the central computer at city
hall and the communications link between the electronic cash
registers at the liquor stores and the central computer.
MTI's continued cooperation and assistance will be necessary
to complete these tasks.
2. The price quoted by MTI is within industry standards, which
indicate that annual maintenance costs should.not exceed 10%
of the purchase price of the computer equipment. We have
about $235,000 invested in our equipment, consequently, the
$20,107 amount quoted by MTI represents 8.5%. The approved
1987 budget allocates $20,650 for maintenance, so this
agreement falls within the budgeted amount.
3., The service provided by MTI has been prompt and problems are
rectified in a reasonable amount of time. They are also
willing to provide the city with "loaner" equipment when they
have it available.
• Alternative_ Recommendation:
The Council could choose to direct staff to obtain written quotes
from other vendors before awarding the agreement to MTI. Staff
has not pursued, nor is it recommending this course of action
because the service provided by MTI to date has been prompt and
competent, and the price quote for 1987 is judged by staff to be
very reasonable. In addition, the Data Processing Division
staff's time is completely consumed with the conversion effort
now underway. Selection of an alternative vendor would require
that staff time be diverted from the conversion. The cost of not
completing the conversion on time would far exceed the savings,
if any, realized by obtaining price quotes from other vendors.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
------------------- - - - - --
Action on this item is requested at the Council's November 24
meeting so that staff can take the steps necessary to obtain a
new maintenance agreement prior to the expiration of the current
agreement.
R es, J ully submitted,
Jam Prosser
Citager
JDP:sb
0
•
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 448
Agenda November 24, 1986
Issue_ Statement:
Award of Contract for the Purchase of Chemicals for the Water
Plant
Background:
On November 6, 1986 bids were opened for the 1987 supply of
quicklime and liquid carbon dioxide for use at the city's water
treatment plant. Two bids were submitted for quick lime:
Western Lime & Cement
Cutler Magner Co.
$75.31 /ton $105,344
$62-95/ton 88,130
The Cutler Magner Co. bid is identical to 1986 prices.
Three bids were submitted for carbon dioxide:
Liquid Carbonic CO2
Airco Indust. Gases
Cardox Corporation
$120 /ton $ 24,000
$190 /ton $ 38,000
$ 65 /ton $ 13,000
The Cardox Corporation bid is $5 /ton less than the 1986 cost.
Funds for these purchases are provided in the 1987 Water Division
budget.
Recommendation:
Accept the bid minutes and tabulations and award the contract for
quick lime in the amount of $88,130 to Cutler Magner Co., and the
contract for carbon dioxide to Cardox Corporation in the amount
of $13,000.
Basis for Recommendation:
----------------
1. Cutler Magner Co. is the lowest responsible bidder for quick
lime. Their bid equals the bid submitted in 1986.
2. Cardox Corporation is the lowest responsible bidder for
carbon dioxide. The bid submitted is $5 /ton less than 1986
costs.
_Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council may choose to reject all bids submitted and
readvertise for bids in anticipation of receiving lower
prices. However, as the quick lime bid is equal to 1986
and the carbon dioxide bid is less than the bid received
in 1986, this would probably not be possible.
y
r
•
LJ
Discussion /Decision Mode_
------------------ - - - - --
The chemicals will be used at the water treatment plant beginning
in 1987. Therefore, an order should be placed soon to guarantee
delivery in January, 1987.
JDP /eja
Respe tfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
City Manager
V,
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
November 6, 1986
11:30 A.M.
Quick Lime Chemicals for Water Plant
Bid No. 86 -18
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for quick lime chemicals for water
plant, bid no. 86 -18, as advertised in the official newspaper on
October 15, 1986.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
John Thom, Utility Superintendent
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the November 24, 1986 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber
•
City Clerk
VENDOR
BID
SECURITY
TOTAL
;
Western Lime & Cement Co.
None
105,434
West Bend, Wisconsin
;
Cutler Magner Co.
5% Bond
88,130
Duluth, MN
;
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the November 24, 1986 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber
•
City Clerk
• CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
November 6, 1986
11:30 A.M.
Liquid Carbon Dioxide Chemicals for Water Plant
Bid No. 86 -18
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for quick lime chemicals for water
plant, bid no. 86 -18, as advertised in the official newspaper on
October 15, 1986.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
John Thom, Utility Superintendent
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
•
TOTAL
24,000
pro
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the November 24, 1986 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
VENDOR
BID
'
SECURITY
'
Liquid Carbonic CO2
None
Glen Ellyn, Illinois
;
,
Airco Indust. Gases
5% Bond
Broadville, Illinois
;
Cardox Corporation
5% Bond
Willow Brook, Illinois
;
,
•
TOTAL
24,000
pro
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the November 24, 1986 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
-.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 447
Agenda November 24, 1986
Issue Statement:
Award of Contract to Print Four Seasonal Recreation Brochures in
1987.
Background:
On November 5, 1986 in accordance with legal requirements, bids
were opened for four 1987 seasonal recreation brochures. Five
bids were received:
Bolger Publications, Mpls. $29,883.00
Wallace W. Carlson Co., Mpls. 26,025.92
Crosstown Printing, Bloomington 32,791.76
Nystrom Publishing Co., Maple Grove 26,434.70
Sexton Printing Inc., St. Paul 26,025.92
The 1985 contract amount with Sexton Printing, Inc. was $24,400
and the 1986 contract amount, also with Sexton Printing, Inc.,
was $24,370.50.
Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter recreation brochures are
distributed to each residence in the city. With the exception of
• the Summer brochure, the school district participates in the
brochures by including recreational programs offered through
Community Education. For the three shared publications, the
school district pays a proportional cost. An appropriation of
$19,000 is in the adopted 1987 Community Services Department
administration division operating budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the city council award a contract in the
estimated amount of $26,025.92 to Sexton Printing, Inc. for four
seasonal recreation brochures in 1987 pending a clear
understanding of the basis for award which is a unit price
extended to the total estimated amount. In the event this
understanding is not reached, it is recommended the city council
award a contract to the second low bidder, Nystrom Publishing
Co., in the amount of $26,434.70.
Basis_ of Recommendation:
------- - - - - --
1. Sexton Printing, Inc. submitted the lowest bid, with unit
prices extended, for the 1987 contract.
2. Although the basic working relationship between Sexton and
the city has been good during previous contract periods, some
confusion and possible misunderstanding has arisen related to
charges for publications in 1986. It appears Sexton has been
billing on a "lump sum" basis although the city award of
contract was on a "unit price" basis. It is hoped the
•
situation will be resolved shortly.
3. Although the city has not worked previously with Nystrom
Publishing Co., they are the second low bidder and would be
acceptable to city staff in the event differences with Sexton
cannot be resolved.
Alternative_ Recommendation:
The city council may choose to delay award of contract until any
differences with Sexton Printing, Inc. are resolved.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Should the city council select the alternative recommendation, it
will be necessary to obtain an extension from Sexton Printing,
Inc. and Nystrom Publishing Co. for the period of time during
which the bid prices of November 5 remain in effect. To remain
on schedule, it would be to the city's advantage to award a
contract prior to January 1, 1987 so the necessary paperwork may
be processed in a timely manner for issuance of the Spring
brochure.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame )77D. Prosser
Cit V anager
• JDP /eja
•
W.
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD '
Bid Opening
November 5, 1986
11:00 A.M.
Seasonable Community Recreation Brochure
Bid No. 86 -17
Rursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive.
open and read aloud, bids for seasonal community recreation
brochures bid no. 86 -17, as advertised in the official newspaper
on October 15, 1986.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
Mary Ruhme, Recreational Supervisor /Designer
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
Wallace W. Carlson Co.
` Mp1s
,
Sexton Printing Inc.
St. Paul
,
,
,
Nystrom Publishing Co.
:Maple Grove
,
,
,
Crosstown Printing Inc.
Bloomington
Bolger Public
' Mpls.
The City Clerk announced that the bids
considered at the November 24, 1986 Cit
would be tabulated and
.y Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
BOND
PROPOSAL ;
Cert.
$30,244.20 ;
Check
;
Cert.
$26,025.92 ;
Check
'
,
Cert.
$26,434.70 ;
Check
'
,
Money
$32,791.76 ;
Order
'
,
Cert.
529,883.00
Check
'
,
would be tabulated and
.y Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
• Issue Statement:
Award of Contract
Use by the Water
Stations
-Z�-4yW
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 446
Agenda November 24, 1986
for Purchase of a Programmable Controller for
Plant in the Operation of Wells and Lift
Background:
Currently, city wells are operated by use of telephone signals.
This type of signal is sometimes inefficient, as it occasionally
inadvertently turns the wells.on and off. The revised capital
budget and operating budget of the Water Maintenance Division
(703 -4836) includes $45,000,for the purchase of an FM radio link
to replace the telephone signal. Use of the radio link will make
it possible to reduce the operating cost of the present telephone
system.
On October 28, 1986 three bids were opened for this equipment:
Automatic Controls and Communication Systems $33,544
Sterling Electric Company 37,416
Graybar Electric Inc. 31,190*
* Graybar Electric has asked to have their bid retracted because
they failed to include two items. This error adds $4,096 to
their bid ($35,286). A letter from Graybar Electric is attached.
• Recommendation:
Accept the bid minutes and tabulations and award the contract in
the amount of $33,544 for a programmable controller for use by
the water plant to Automatic Controls and Communications Systems.
Basis for Recommendation:
-------------------------
1. Automatic Controls and Communication Systems of Richfield is
the lowest responsible bidder for this equipment based on the
bids received.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council may choose to reject all bids received and
readvertise at a later date.
2. The council may wish to attempt to hold Graybar to their
original bid.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
-------------------------
As provided in the bid specifications, this equipment is to be
delivered before December 31, 1986. Staff would like the entire
system to be in operation by February 1, 1987. Therefore, award
of contract should occur as soon as possible to allow sufficient
time for the equipment to be ordered and delivered.
Respec ully submitted,
James Prosser
City anager
JDP /eja
E
i�i
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
October 28, 1986
11:30 a.m.
Programmable Controller for Water Plant
Bid No.: 86 -16
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose
of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for programmable controller
for water plant, bid no. 86 -16, as advertised in the official newspaper on October
8, 1986.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations Supervisor
John Thom, Utility Superintendent
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Vendor
Bid Security
Amount
Gray Bar Electric Inc.
5% Bond
$31,190
Mpls.
Automatic Controls & Communications
5% Cashiers
$33,544
Systems -. Richfield
Check
Sterling Electric Co.
5% Bond
$37,416
Mpls.
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
November 24, 1986 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
-,4V" IL
R. F. WETHEKN
DISTRICT MANAGER
G. V. CjjEATHAM
ICT SA RICT SALES MANAGER.
DIST
E. L. TROLANDER
DISTRICT OPERATING MANAGER
R. L. NOWAK -
DISTRICT FINANCIAL MANAGER
1=1 ao►4ONE (AREA CODE 612) 721-3545
Gn
IN O.
Z16ZOISIO OOILPANTO
23W EAST 25T14 STREET
p. O. BOX 160
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55440
October 30, 1986
city of Richfield
Attn: Mr. Tom Ferbes
6700 Portland Ave* o.
Richfield, MN
Dear Mr. Ferber,
to you per our phone. conversation of
I am writi ,n g
October 29 h
E. . Bid No.
We submitted a
bid on your prop °sal form,
86 -1,6, for a programmable controller* a error
Due to unfortunate circumstances we have made a larg
in pricing this bid.
- minable controller specialist Mr. Mike Richie,
Our programmable with your Utilities
recently left our company.
whom I believe had John Thom,ng quote
this bid and made
Superindendent Mr• to ee q
In has absence another emp y SCP -721
two large errors: ro osal f( asks for ry. This
1. Item #1 on your P p,
MicroProcessor.721twas ail bubble., bid °bblelmemory
employee
thought The price for the bu
price of $2.729.00' Plus the MicroProcessor of
alone is'! for ,a o P 6125.00.
21729.00 for .a totQ3ie�er�rs oer�t with your
2-.1n your C.,,oral EPe 3 Item K In- - Service Training
proposal form, page This cost should have
was completely overlooked.
been included at $700.00.
The total
of our bid should have been $35,286.00.
to raise our bid or
I am asking you to allow us
disqualify our bid.
d we also
our request an
We thank you for our have caused You* .
apologize for any problems this may
ncerely yours,
y rry eber
eld Sales Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 445
Agenda November 24, 1986
Issue Statement:
Purchase of a one -way plow and wing attachment for city snow
removal operations.
Background:
In 1974, the city purchased a Balderson plow and wing attachment
for snowplowing use. It is presently mounted on the city's 930
Caterpillar rubber - tired loader, which plows the snow in a
section on the east side of Richfield. Years of plowing city
streets has forced replacement of this plow and wing attachment.
Three quotes to replace the plow and wing were received:
Itasca Equipment Co.- Savage -Craig wing and plow $13,896
(includes trade -in of $1,500)
Carlson's Lake State Equip.- Burnsville -Falls wing
and plow (includes trade -in) $10,051
LaHass Mfg. & Sales -St. Paul -Falls wing & plow $11,645
(no trade -in)
The revised 1986 capital outlay budget for the Central Garage
Division provides $16,000 for this purchase.
Recommendation:
Accept the quotation of the Itasca Equipment Company in the
amount of $13,896 for the purchase of a Craig model hydraulic
wing and one -way plow attachment.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The city presently owns a Craig wing and plow. It is a
durably constructed; well -known and tried product capable of
improving the city's snow removal operations.
2. The Falls equipment is the first model manufactured by this
company for use on front -end loaders. It is untested under
normal use conditions.
3. Installation would have to occur at the Little Falls, MN
facility, which would tie up the front end loader for at
least two weeks during a crucial time of the year. City
workers would be able to perform the installation of the
Craig equipment.
Alternative Recommendation:
--------------------------
1. Approve the purchase of
Falls model plow and wi
equipment, insufficient
• that the equipment will
Given the critical need
is not recommended.
the Falls equipment. Although the
Ig may be comparable to the Craig
data is available to be assured
perform adequately for Richfield.
for this equipment, "experimentation"
.-Ao� -1"
U
U
Discussion/Decision_ Mode:
This item is placed on the consent agenda for consideration by
the city council on November 24, 1986. If the plow and wing
attachment is ordered this week, it would be delivered and
installed by the end of December and available for a significant
portion of the current winter season.
JDP /eja
Resp_R,Afully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
4ZI ///- '��
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 444
Agenda November 24, 1986
•
Issue Statement:
----------------
Purchase of fertilizer for Rich Acres Golf Course in 1987.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
The City of Richfield and other agencies have a joint purchasing
agreement with Hennepin County for various merchandise, materials
and equipment. One of the items cooperatively bid is fertilizer.
The low bidder for three of the fertilizers, 24 -4 -12, 20 -0 -16 and
13- 25 -12, was Turf Supply, in the estimated amount of $14,381.
This includes a discount for early delivery.
The 1986 cost for these fertilizers was $14,289 from Turf Supply.
The adopted 1987 budget for the golf course includes $16,000 for
all fertilizers to be used in 1987.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of
fertilizer to be used in 1987 at Rich Acres Golf Course from Turf
Supply in the estimated amount of $14,381.
Basis of Recommendation:
------------------------
1. Turf Supply is the lowest responsible bidder.
2. By participating in the joint purchasing agreement, staff
believes the best possible price has been obtained. There is
the added advantage of discount for early delivery.
3. Sufficient funding is available in the adopted 1987 budget..
Alternative Recommendation:
As the participation in the Hennepin County joint purchasing
agreement appears to be working well and as Turf Supply, again
the low bidder, provides a quality product and reasonable service
for the needs of our golf course, there is no alternative
recommendation.
Discussion/Decision_ Mode:
------------------
If the city council approves the purchase at the November 24
meeting so that an order for direct delivery may be placed by
December 2, 1986, the city will realize a discount in the amount
of $1,292.19.
Respec ully submitted,
. James Prosser
City M nager
JDP /eja
Issue Statement:
Consideration of
facilities.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 443
Agenda November 24, 1986
Master Purchase Order for trash pickup at city
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
Five quotations have been received for monthly and extra trash
pickups at all city facilities as follows:
Buckingham Disposal, Inc. $754.82
Waste Management- Savage 855.00
Quality Waste Control, Inc. 858.00
Expert Disposal, Inc. 931.85
Browning - Ferris Industries of Minnesota, Inc. 1,071.00
The monthly cost for trash pickup in 1985 was $572.50 and in 1986
it was $752.83. Funding for this service is included in the
individual operating budgets for each division affected.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the city council authorize a Master Purchase
• Order for 1987 trash pickups at city facilities with Buckingham
Disposal, Inc. at a monthly cost of $754.82.
Basis of Recommendation:
--------- - - - - --
1. Buckingham Disposal, Inc. submitted the lowest quotation for
an average monthly cost for trash pickup at city facilities.
r�
U
Alternative Recommendation:
-------------------------
Although it is unlikely vendors will be interested in such a
proposal, the city may wish to make separate arrangements for
trash pickup at each individual site rather than one citywide
agreement as proposed herein. Having one vendor for all city
facilities provides better coordination and control of service as
well as the best overall total price.
Discussion/Decision_ Mode:
The existing agreement expires at year end 1986. Should there be
a change in vendor, as is proposed, it would be to the city's
advantage to establish an agreement for 1987 with sufficient time
for the existing vendor to remove dumpsters and for the new
vendor to provide dumpsters.
JDP /eja
Respe f lly submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
C�
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 442
Agenda November 24, 1986
Issue Statement:
Presentation of Gene Jacobsen Citizen of'the Year,Award
Background:
Each,year the Richfield Human Rights Commission selects an
individual, family or organization in the community who has made
an outstanding coritributi_o.n -to the betterment of human rights in
the community,-as.;the Gene Jacobsen Citizen of the Year. The
commission solicited nominations from the community during the
months of September and October, 1986.
This year the commission selected the VEAP Pantry Staff as the
recipient of this award. VEAP's Richfield food shelf provides
emergency food assistance and outreach to approximately 350
residents in need each month. The commission felt that the 36
volunteers should be recognized for the compassion and
sensitivity they demonstrate while helping residents through
difficult periods in their lives.
_Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council, in cooperation with the
Richfield Human Rights Commission, present the VEAP volunteers
with the Gene Jacobsen Citizen of the Year Award.
. Basis__ for Recommendation_
1. This award has been presented annually since 1972, and is an
excellent way to recognize those persons who volunteer their
time and talents to help others.
Alternative__ Recommendation:
I. Not make the presentation. However, members of the VEAP
Pantry Staff, and members of the Human Rights Commission will
be present to accept this award.
,I//&
Discussion /Decision Mode:
------- - - - - --
This item has been placed on the November 24, 1986 city council
agenda for presentation. Joseph Sausen, Chair of the
Commission, will be present to assist at this presentation. A
punch and cookie reception for the recipients will be held in the
main conference room following the presentation.
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
0 JDP /eja
VOLUNTEERS ENLISTED TO ASSIST PEOPLE
Ecumenical Ministry Serving Richfield, Bloomington & Edina
"Because We Care ..."
VEAP RICHFIELD PANTRY STAFF
There are individuals in our community who cannot physically,
financially, or emotionally provide for themselves or their
families with life's basic need of food. Vand,outreachele
food shelf is an emergency food
program to serve those in need.
Outstanding services of 360 alleviate hunger, 'referrals.
supply nutritional educate
irements that may need to be addressed. This
for other requ managers, fort is
coordinated ef substitutes, pantry
food transporters, stockers,
workers (10 weekly), sub
and a pantry maintenance person.
The volunteers serve an average of 350 Richfield residents
a.month. The food distribution is approximately 6,100 pounds
monthly. The Projection for the end of the year is a 12.5%
increase in clients from 1985.
We at VEAP appreciate the approximately 80.hours,a month of
dedicated service the Richfield Pantry °Richfield donate
ensitivity to help esidents
with compassion and s
. Therefore,
during difficult times in their lives are
proud to nominate the VEAP Richfield Pantry Staff foor r the
i
"Gene Jacobsen Citizen of the Year" award.
Telephone
References /Sponsors
Address
Charles Mott, Chairman 5514 Penn Avenue S. 926 -0481
VEAP Food Committee Minneapolis,' Mn. 55419
Gerhard Dybdahl, Pres. 10925 Mne•55431 881 -2512
VEAP Board of Directors Bloomington,
Pastor Chuck Carlson 7625 Chicago Ave. S. 866 -8471
Outreach Commission Advisor Richfield, Mn. 55423.
House of Prayer Lutheran
Church
70n1 Frnirth Avenue South, Room 303, Richfield, MN 55423 • 861 -7478
r
Pantry Managers
Marcia Shaw
Penny Halliday
Maxine Dahl
.Daily Food Staff
8204
Nicollet Ave. S.
55420,
888 -1426
7320
- 17th Ave. S..
55423
861 -6792
7439
Oakland.Ave. S.
55423
866 -4305
Anita Guadian
Richfield Towers
55423
1717 Chicago Ave. S.
,.
7049
#702
55423
John Kelly
7336 Colfax Ave. S.
55423
Margaret Berg
Richfield Towers
55423
Carl & Marge Slettom
7717 Chicago Ave. S.
Park Ave. S.
55423
#109
Margaret LaVallee
Jeanne Kruppstadt
6542 Sherwood Ave,
55435
Ar_dith Clarke
6812 Washburn Ave. S.
55423
Bob & Dorothy Dahl
7544 - 16th Ave. S.
55423
Mark Erspamer.
201 West 72nd St.
55423.
Leonard & Marge Beilke
6644 Emerson Ave. S.
55423
Audrey Manske
7209 = 1st Ave. S.
55423
Aleida VanDyke
715 East 78th St.
55 423
Trailer Lot #166
Belva Revak
8213 - 14th Ave. S.'
55420
861 -6980
869 -3539
869 -9318
920 -8452
869 -3673
869 -7207
869 -8808
866 -6516
869 -1315
8`Y -1967
854 -4047
Substitutes
Nora Hanson
7049
- 17th Ave. S.
55423
869 -9521
Val Pearson
6826
- 5th Ave. S.
55423
869 -0533
Carl & Marge Slettom
7621
Park Ave. S.
55423
866 -6472
Margaret LaVallee
7225
Harriet Ave. S.
55423
869 -2704
Duane Howard
7527
Bloomington Ave.
S. 55423
866 -9496
aStockers
Viv Peterson 7614 - 10th Ave. S.
Pat Lind 6624 - lst Ave. S.
Mary Richardson 6915 - 5th Ave. S.
Debra Schultz 6820 - 13th Ave. S.
Mary Hanson 6716 - 14th Ave. S.
Robert Dahl, Jr. 7439 Oakland. Ave. S.
Maintenance Person
Ed Boernke
Food Transporters
Dorothy Barlament
Elaine Carlson
Mac & Phyllis McKisson
.Tim St. Albin
Leonard Beike
Don Buck
Bruce Peltz
40
55423
55423
55423
55423
55423
55423
8339 Dupont Ave. S 55420
7044 Stevens Ave. S. 55423
7338 - 10th Ave. S. 55423
6428 Wentworth Ave. S. 55423
6914 Elliot Ave. S. 55423
(Listed under daily workers)
6748 Grand'Ave. S. 55423
1600 East 77th St. 55423
#206
869 -6812
866 -7626
869 -9017
861 -4947
866 -6247
866 -4505
881 -2340
869 -0700
869 -5388
866 -7323
861 -5420
866 -0151
888 -2018
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 441
Agenda November 24, 1986
Issue__ Statement:
Proclamation Designating December 1 -5, 1986 as Human Rights Week
in the City of Richfield.
Background:
The Governor of the State of Minnesota has designated the week of
December 1 -5, 1986 as Human Rights Week in the State. The
Richfield Human Rights is planning special activities for that
week, and in conjunction with their activities has requested the
Mayor to proclaim that week as Human Rights Week in Richfield. A
copy of the proclamation is attached to this council letter. Mr.
Joseph Sausen, Chair of the Commission, will be present at the
November 24, 1986 city council meeting to receive this
proclamation.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Mayor proclaim December 1 -5, 1986 as
Human Rights Week in Richfield and present the proclamation to
Mr. Sausen at the November 24, 1986 city council meeting.
• Basis_ for Recommendation_
- - - -- - -- -------- - - - - --
1. The week has been designated by the Governor of the State of
Minnesota, and is worthy of recognition.
Alternative Recommendation:
-------------------- - - - - --
1. Not proclaim December 1 -5, 1986 Human Rights Week in
Richfield.
Discussion/Decision_ Mode:
Members of the Human Rights Commission will be present at the
November 24 city council meeting to accept this proclamation.
Therefore, this item has been placed on the council agenda for
that date.
Respectfully submitted,
JameIma Prosser
City age r
JDP /eja
. 49.
"A ' n
w
CD A N 3 CD H
sus' O ? 7 0) T.
to H c+
Ao. •p B 0 w N• Z � �'• ,-r JE
• ; 0.0 (D c+O X= o O S
g � n; H O a to ;o
-- r O c+ :9 O 7 m U) H m
G r a c 0 a S -n -4 c+ D O a f
'
N W C o V1
0 N a.Xm
s;r m A CD o 0) H. ;o `r v �
p P. 7 0 M CD c+ S N• c+
c+ :9 -) O = -'A O )7 CD 9 w CD
5
or C N."M Cv o
�• o= tOrnm wf ova
/ "` e:_. to �• c a ? D CD c+ H.
• c N Cv N m 3 T. tom• Q CD
CD m I• to to --b A
► 7 O H 0 CD O 1.4 7 -4 ct C CD 9
a *to C X Q' O O "h a CD
� :' E •�? iv 7' H CD :0 O CD D CD H
o N to tD m to in N cr H c F•r
O a CD 7 Cr O
•� !
• V I � o w < cD w w o
Z c+ r
O
01 H N In H N S r
Y►' ?I o 0 H p a0 ;D C a
< cr w to O H t-•• Zs..
1 CD 3 X CD 0 c+ t tom• to O a
►` g I rn -t C) ZF rn cr o to S O
s' ) wl C CD W. Z
C (A CD f p `• OD P. Q 7
'
01 r H O t- w CD CT O a C+
;a cr (n 7E
:..
►x I c+ CD c+ CT o (D to cD
3 CD H N. CD
I-- a G) CD C 7
c : •: I O CD X N 9 CD to
- �'•`': _ I N o 1.. I tom• o ? E
O 3 C+ a CD N
H CD
CD H a CT 3 O 0 Cv
c+ *3 CD
CD i--• C (!) O CD CD a
z
CD ^=` H a O
O
r.
• _ �S
Yv ZS �: ,�y �yx,:iy .•� �„�� %hy� rA, 'jt ' to A ' t - A' � cA� :�.
r ��� 533��''� °ry "� 11. � "'�s�A .cS„•A f A :� A'.a °A ;
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 440
City Council Study Session
November 24, 1986
n
U
Issue Statement:
Demonstration of Optech III -P Voting Equipment
Background:
Hennepin County established a task force in 1985 to examine
various types of voting equipment and to assess the feasibility
of implementing a uniform county wide voting system. Following
an in -depth investigation of all available voting systems and
their associated costs, the Hennepin County Voting Equipment Task
Force recommended utilization of the Optech III -P optical scan
voting equipment on a county wide basis.
In light of these findings, the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners has strongly endorsed the concept of this new
voting technology, and allocated funds for the purchase of
support equipment in 1987. This equipment is necessary for the
programming of voting devices used in each precinct and
subsequent accumulation of election results for each
municipality. Consistent with the County Board's commitment, the
Department of Property Tax and Public Records has agreed to
provide programming and accumulation services for city elections
at no cost to municipalities.
Marge Christianson of Hennepin County Election Division and Otto
Johannes of voting equipment company will be present to
demonstrate the Optech III -P voting equipment at the November 24,
5:30 p.m. study session.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council take this opportunity to
review the Optech III -P optical scan voting equipment and ask
questions of the representatives of Hennepin County and the
voting equipment company.
Basis of Recommendation:
----------------------
1. The voting equipment currently used by the City of Richfield
is over 30 years old and needs to be replaced.
2. The Hennepin County Voting Equipment Task Force has
recommended utilization of the Optech III -P as voting
equipment for the entire county.
3. During the budget hearing process, the city council gave
consensus approval to modifying the Capital Improvement
Budget to provide for acquisition of election equipment.
Alternative_ Recommendation:
The city council could ask that the presentation be rescheduled
for another date.
LJ
r�
U
Discussion/Decision_ Mode:
This matter will be presented at the 5:30 p.m. City Council Study
Session Representatives of Hennepin County and the voting machine
company are scheduled to be present at this study session. No
city council action is requested at this time.
TPF/n js
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City anager