The URL can be used to link to this page

11-10-86 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 439 November 10, 1986 Issue Statement: The Assignment of a Richfield Police Officer to the Drug Enforcement Administration, State and Local, Task Force for a Period of up to Two Years to Participate in the Coordinated Attack on the Trafficking in Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Background: In 1985 the city council expressed their commitment to an increased enforcement in the area of vice, narcotics and organized criminal activities when they authorized special investigative funds in the police division budget. In the two years that this funding has been available we have been able to experience considerable success in confronting the targeted crime areas and have been recently concentrating on narcotics and drug trafficking, as it relates to Richfield, with a degree of success that is encouraging. As a result of our efforts, it has become apparent that any effective narcotic control program involves developing and maintaining an effective multi - jurisdictional effort. This • effort must include the federal, state and local drug enforcement teams. We have been successful in a number of instances as a result of this multi - jurisdictional approach. A number of our investigations have brought us into contact with agents of the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Task Force and have brought to the attention of the Resident Agent in Charge the officers who at this time.are directing our undercover narcotics operation. It is the responsibility of the Resident Agent in Charge to furnish support and coordination for the state and local agencies in their narcotics enforcement efforts. One of the primary methods used by DEA to accomplish this task is to recruit, train and use select local police officers into their Joint Task Force for an extended period of time. The Resident Agent in Charge has expressed the desire to have one of our officers join the Joint Task Force for a period of at least two years. For this two year period, the City of Richfield would benefit from the experience, knowledge and resources that our officer would have access to as a member of the Task Force. Richfieldd would continue to pay the regular salary of the officer with overtime paid by the DEA. . For this two -year period the agent would work for the DEA. While the agent may in all likelihood consult with the City of Richfield, the primary responsibility would be to work for DEA s and under the direction of the DEA. It is usual, but not • required, that the agent would maintain contact with the city in order to follow up on any Richfield drug cases. Recommendation: It is our recommendation that the City of Richfield agree to participate in this venture with the Federal DEA Joint Task Force and authorize execution of the attached agreement. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The DEA is very selective in the quality of officers that they invite to participate in the Task Force. That fact that we would have an officer on the Task Force would be a testament to the City of Richfield's commitment in narcotic and drug enforcement. 2. The training, experience and contacts that our officer will receive in this tenure with the DEA Task Force will probably never be available to us in such quality or concentration were he to be involved with state and local training programs. 3. Our participation in the Task Force will permit us under certain circumstances to benefit from the Federal Forfeiture Statutes and may enable us to obtain money, materials and • equipment that will sophisticate our local enforcement efforts and reimburse our salary expense of the officer. 4. While the city will lose the services of a resident agent for a period of two years, our ability to directly participate in DEA activities expands rather than limits our ability to address,' drug enforcement in Richfield. 5. The City Attorney and staff have reviewed the agreement covering the program and believe the city is adequately safeguarded for risks. 6. Appropriate measures have been taken to assure that we will have sufficient resident agents available to perform the necessary investigative services within Richfield during the absence of the resident agent on loan to the DEA. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council could defer a decision on this matter and request a more detailed outline of the proposal. 2. The council could determine that it would be in the best interest of the city to concentrate our drug enforcement efforts on a more local level concerning ourselves with immediate drug problems in Richfield. Discussion /Decision Mode: Although this matter has been set for presentation to the city council to consider on November 10, 1986, circumstances have made it necessary to take advantage of this opportunity to detach a Richfield officer to the DEA Joint Task Force for a trial training period. It may be terminated within 30 days notice from now. If final approval of the agreement is not provided by November 30, 1986 the officer would return to duties in Richfield. JDP /eja • n U Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci y Manager 31 M This agreement is made this first day of October, 1986 between the City of Richfield, hereinafter called the Department, and the Drug Enforcement Admini- stration, hereinafter called DEA. Whereas there is evidence that trafficking iri narcotics and dangerous drugs exists in the Richfield area and that such illegal activity has a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the people of Richfield, Minnesota, the.parties hereto have agreed to the following: 1. The DEA Task Force will perform the activities and duties described below: (a) disrupt the illicit drug traffic in the Richfield area by immobilizing targeted violators and i trafficking organizations; (b) gather and report intelligence data relating to the trafficking in narcotics and dangerous drugs; and, (c) conduct undercover operations where appropriate and engage in such other traditional methods of investigation in order that the Task Force's activities result in effective prosecution before the courts of the United States and the District Courts of the State of Minnesota. . 2. That, to accomplish the above, "the Richfield Police Department agrees to detail one (1) experienced officer to the Drug Enforcement Administration Joint Task Force for a period of not less than two years. During this period of assignment, the one officer will be under the direct control and supervision of DEA supervisory personnel assigned to the Task .Force. 3. The officer assigned to the Task Force shall adhere to all DEA policies and procedures. Failure to adhere to DEA policies and procedures shall be grounds for dismissal from the Task Force. 4. The officer of the Richfield Police Department- assigned to the Drug Enforcement Administration Joint Task Force shall be deputized as a Special Deputy United States Marshal., 5. To accomplish the stated objectives of the Drug Enforcement Admini- stration Joint Task Force, the DEA will assign three (3) special agents to the Task Force and provide the necessary funds and equipment to'support the activi- ties of the officer assigned to the Task Force. This support includes office space, overtime payments described below, vehicles, office supplies, travel funds, funds for the purchase of evidence and information, funds for clerical support, investigative equipment, training and other support items. 6. DEA will provide the Department with funds as set forth below out of annually appropriated funds, or any continuing resolution thereof to reimburse the department for the following: • Overtime payments for officers assigned to the program shall be paid at the rate of one and one -half times their base hourly salary rate not to exceed $6,003.00 dollars annually. 7. That in no event will the Department charge any direct cost rate to DEA for the administration or implementation of'this agreement during the term thereof. 8. That the department shall maintain on a current basis complete and accurate records and accounts of all obligations and expenditures of funds under this agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and instructions provided by DEA to facilitate on -site inspection and auditing of such records and accounts.., 9. That the Department shall permit and have readily available for examination and auditing by DEA, the United States Department of Justice or the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized agents and representatives, any and all records, documents, accounts, invoices, receipts or expenditures relating to this agreement. In addition, the Depart- ment will maintain all such foregoing reports and records until all audits and examinations are completed and resolved-, or for a period of three (3) years after termination of this agreement, whichever is sooner. 10. That the department will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1954 and all requirements imposed by or ,pursuant to the regulations of the • Department of Justice (28 C.F.R., Part 42, Subparts C and D) issued pursuant to Title VI relating to discrimination on the grounds of race, color, creed, sex, age or national origin and equal employment opportunities. 11. The terms of this agreement shall be from October 1, 1986 to September 309 1987. This agreement may be terminated by either party for good cause shown by notice in writing given to the other party thirty (30) days prior thereof. Billing shall be received by DEA on all obligations that are outstanding on the above prescribed termination date within ninety (90) days•thereof. DEA will only be liable for obligations incurred by the Department during the term of' this agreement. For t Enforcement Administration Title: car . . Foi By By • /Va na ek Date: 1pj -4 L Richfield, Minnesota Date: /o /yZh 6 Date: CZC"11-36 2)7639 20 r, 02? J -);jz GCT 60 iii LcA Huy TU• D E A SA.N t• R A W C I SC0 D0// llGH CHICA0 1-0 -� SEA i 1 I N L A P 0 L I S IW t ' liL.J.. SAiV JOSL C.- ±� UPICL AS LE A-)3136 a °' OU J: �TATt--/LUCAL TASK FORCE ACiiEEi• ENTS o THE F LLOWINC PROPOSED AGREEMENTS FOR TASK FORCES- ARE APPROVED 1 Iii VEAPOL I S .,UAPUL I S .POL I CE.. L'EPARTINE NT' f; ICHr icl: ;'OL IGE DEPAHTMENT i�itTrtuPCJL ITAN A IRPORT POL ICE DEPARTMENT �il N JOSL :. C I T Y U IIAiV Just IjLEASE PROVIDE SI ONE L COPIES TO OS. .'_ILNTtrti :; T � 0 U.S. Department of Justice,�j� �o •... Drug Enforcement Administration 110 South Fourth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 October 10, 1986 Mr. James Prosser City Manager City of Richfield Richfield, Minnesota Dear Mr. Prosser: . In response to your inquiry, please be advised that while Detective Rick Loewen is a member of the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force, he is covered under the Federal Tort Claim the same as DEA Agents are covered for all liability. In the case of injury or death, whatever policy Detective Loewen has with the Richfield Police Dent would apply. If you have further questions, please give me a call at 349 -3866. JPB /ms Sincerely, ames P. Braseth Resident Agent in Charge LeFevere Lefler Kennedy O'Brien & Drawz A Professional Association 000 First Bank Place West October 1, 1986 linneapolis linnesota 55402 elephone (61.2) 333 -0543 elecopier (612) 333-0540 Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. layton L. LeFevere Director yours, ierbertP.Lefler Richfield Department of Public Safety . Dennis O'Brien ohn E. Drawz 6700 Portland Avenue South savid J. Kennedy Richfield, M n. 55423 oseph E. Hamilton ohn B. Dean ilenn E. Purdue Re: DEA Agreement ichard J. Schieffer J O ri B. Dean )avid D. Beaudoin harles L. LeFevere Dear Tom aul E. Rasmussen ierbert P. Lefler III teven M. Tallen ames J. Thomson, Jr. homes R. Galt Enclosed please find my revised agreement relating to )ayleNolan the DEA Joint Task Force. Please let me know if more rian F. Rice G ohn G. Kressel should be done with it. orraine S. Clugg M. Strommen Very truly yours, H. Batty J. m P. Jordan urt J. Erickson Aliam R. Skallerud odney D. Anderson orrine A. Heine J O ri B. Dean )avid D. Beaudoin aul E. Rasmussen JBD : dl teven M. Tallen -71�-XX • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 438 November 10, 1986 Issue Statement: Consideration to Adopt Legislative Policy Recommendations for the League of Minnesota Cities Background: The City of Richfield has received and reviewed the League of Minnesota Cities 1987 Proposed Policies and Priorities. The League's policy adoption meeting will be held on November 20, 1986. The policy statement is a vehicle through which cities can define common problems and develop policy proposals to solve them. Recommendation: Adopt the proposed policies with the exception noted on Attachment A. Basis for Recommendation: I. To pursue those policies and practices which will better enable Richfield to address the current and future issues of our community. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Individual council members may have alternative viewpoints to those expressed by staff. Discussion /Decision Mode: This matter will be presented at the council meeting of November 10, 1986. JDP /eja • s ectf 1 bmitted, 7Jaes'D.Prosser anager ADDENUM A 1. GSGL 19 Election Day Registration Administrative Improvements. Agree with policy. Upgrade policy to A. 2. GSGL 20 Optional Poll Hours. Opposed 3. GSGL 22 Primary Dates. Support. Upgrade policy to A. 4, 1O License Fee.s. Support. Upgrade policy to A. 5. RS 5 Local Government Aid. Support League policy. However, League should be advised that while a 6% increase would be beneficial to the City of Richfield in.terms of added revenue, the exact amount of the increase should be determined on the basis of economic trends and conditions. 6. RS 6 State Funding to Cities. Support. Upgrade to Priority A. • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 437 November 10, 1986 Issue Statement: Amendment to the Richfield City Ordinance, Section 10.05, Subdivision 5, Paragraph 3, Relative to the Keeping of Pigeons. Background: A recent request by a Richfield resident for a pigeon license to allow pigeons on residential property revealed a defect in the provisions of the existing ordinance code. The existing language requires that applicant 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 the existing 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 essentially gives an individual abutting property owner a veto power that was never intended and would be an infringement on the due process rights of the applicant. The license application was continued until such time as an amended ordinance was brought before the city council for consideration. Recommendation: It is the staff recommendation that the city council give first reading to the proposed amendment to Section 10.05, Subdivision 5, Paragraph 3 of the Richfield Ordinance Code relating to the Keeping of Pigeons. Basis of 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 neighboring residents will be aware.of the license application if they care to be heard at the public hearing. .1. .. . Alternatives: 1. The city council could disagree with the recommended ordinance change and not approve first reading. 2. The council could request further staff study on the matter. Decision /Discussion Mode: If the city council approves this ordinance amendment at the regularly scheduled meeting of November 10, 1986, and holds second reading and the public hearing on November 24, the ordinance would become effective 30 days after publication. The pigeon license request could then be considered by the council at the January 12, 1987 council meeting. JDP /eja n LJ 0 Respect ully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager . - , _. 4- • CITY Of RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 436 November 10, 1986 Issue Statement: Adoption of a Transitory Ordinance Providing Funding for Certain Capital Improvements from the Special Revenue Fund. First 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 89000 $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. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council give first reading consideration to 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 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: 1. 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 10 meeting of the City Council. This would allow sufficient time to advertise for the second hearing for November 24, and the ordinance to become effective by the end of 1986. 0 JDP:sb • Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager u • 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 10,000 Total $315,000 Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this - - -- day of November, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk John Hamilton Mayor 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 435 November 10, 1986 Issue Statement: Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Ordinance Concerning Standards for Review of Projects. Background: In 1976 the city adopted regulations for planned unit development zoning districts. The objective of the planned unit development (PUD) section was to permit greater flexibility in zoning for certain developments than was permitted under standard zoning requirements. Under the PUD section the city reviews the overall impact of specific uses and configurations of structures on a specific parcel of land which may not meet standard zoning district requirements such as lot coverage, setback, permitted uses, or height. The PUD process has generally worked very well and the community has benefited in many ways by developments in PUD districts which could not have been developed under traditional zoning district requirements. Under the current ordinance, the Planning Commission and City Council are required to initiate a duplicate review of the • development if any of the components of the development such as lot coverage setback, permitted uses or height, do not comply with the standard zoning ordinance. The review is duplicative in that the original PUD review requires an analysis of each of these components. The Planning Commission, staff, and City Council experience with the PUD process that this duplicative review is not necessary and has not proven beneficial. Rather, the experience has shown that when a proposed development is subjected to the PUD process, which includes review of design, land use, community benefit, as well as lot coverage setback, permitted uses or height, the same consideration is given to review these issues as when a separate variance procedure is undertaken. On October 13, 1986 the City Council gave first reading to the attached "Recommended Ordinance Amendment" and referred the matter to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The Planning Commission reviewed this matter on October 28, 1986 and unanimously recommended that the City Council pass the attached "Alternative Recommendation ". The Planning Commission's "Alternative Recommendation" would make the criteria and' standards guidelines in all PUD districts, whereas the original amendment referred to the Planning Commission limited the change to redevelopment districts only. The commission stated that variances should not be required in PUD's, and that PUD's should • be treated the same whether they are in redevelopment districts or not. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing on the matter and give second reading approval to the attached "Recommended Ordinance Amendment ". Basis of Recommendation: 1. The current planned unit development ordinance requires a duplicative review process for variances to the standard zoning requirements. 2. The Planning Commission on several occasions has indicated the need to eliminate the necessity for variances in the PUD projects. 3. Application of these general standards as strict limitation rather than general guidelines is contrary to the PUD concept, which encourages creative property uses. 4. The proposed amendment would not alter the way projects are reviewed. Projects would still be reviewed against the standards and criteria. The degree to which a project differs from the standards and criteria would have to be determined and the impact of that difference determined. 5. The proposed amendment would not reduce the public's ability to comment on a project. The Planning Commission and City Council will still conduct public hearings before approving any rezoning or plans for a project. Proper mailed and published notices will still be required. 6. The proposed amendment may result in better decisions. it allows all aspects of a plan to be reviewed at once and its overall impact determined. Without the amendment, variances could be required which would be reviewed separately. Variance decisions are made based on state mandated criteria rather than on local criteria and needs. The amendment would also allow the city to review each project on its own merits. Decisions can be made based on the specific positive and negative aspects of a specific project on a specific site rather than by precedents which may have been set by past approvals or based on regulations which may not address the city's current needs and concerns. 7. There are developments being proposed which would require variances to the current provisions of the zoning ordinance unless the ordinance is clarified to indicate that these are guidelines and not strict ordinance requirements. These projects would include the revised CDR proposal and proposals that are being developed for the Graham Avenue Development site south of Lyndale Hardware. • 8. Richfield's PUD ordinance is overly restrictive when compared to other local and national community ordinances. A study of PUD ordinances from four other suburban communities in the area and from numerous communities around the country has indicated that there is a range of ways PUD projects are reviewed. Some communities such as St. Louis Park have no specific standards or criteria while other communities such as Robbinsdale, Bloomington and Edina have standards and criteria for PUD's which are both extremely flexible and non- restrictive when compared to Richfield. 9. It is staff's opinion that the criteria and standards should be guidelines in redevelopment areas only and not in the community as a whole. Redevelopment areas are areas which the community has indicated to have special needs and which need special attention. The city has completed planning studies and public hearings to set up goals, objectives, and guidelines in these areas. The greater flexibility is an incentive which can be offered to developers to entice them to develop in these areas. The redevelopment areas tend to be larger so that any adverse impacts of more intensive development can be more easily mitigated. The city also has additional safeguards such as developers agreements in redevelopment areas. PUD's in other areas of the community will be on smaller isolated sites which could have the potential for greater impact on surrounding properties. Alternative Recommendation: • 1. To approve the alternative ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission 2. To not consider any ordinance revisions at this time. However, this would again require that projects either meet the strict requirements of the PUD ordinance or proceed through a variance process. It is extremely difficult to meet the state statutes and local ordinance requirements for granting variances, however. It would seem to be much better to provide the flexibility in the ordinance to review projects which would benefit the community as the PUD process is intended to allow without subjecting them to strict standards of a variance process. Discussion /Decision Mode: A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for November 10, 1986. Notice of the hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current newspaper. 4Respe fully submit ted, . Prosser nager • RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER. III, PART IV, SECTION 3.34A OF THE ORDINANCE'CODE OF THE CI-Y OF RICHFIELD C TY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.34A of -the Ordinance Code entitled: "Planned 'Unit Development Zoning District" is hereby amended in the following respects: I. By amending subdivision l thereof to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Purpose, t ?pis- seet3eti- •to- �rr-c�vrtde- fe-tk�- estebskr�er:t- -et t3�e --c�_ - �.:. �i• cl i�— e€-- t��- �it�- •- eattrre��,-- rtrf-- p }crsr�er} a r. i t- ele�ve�e �,rte�t- -(�3U� _ �-�3,. �.�•�K„�,s, _are _ t r e e t 9 of -3titre; -- h-irt r- are•- stlitab9 :e -• -n- j-ec-at-te n_,-- area• -an6 grepesed --- i4 } }_9eeh_P8B- serving -d €streets- ere -te -br -- ba9ts- Sttitebi�ity-e€- the- treets- a €- }ertd- fer - tine- deve }ep- Mer:t-- gro�osec}.- -s�rai3 y re= erertee- te-- tom- �i- t��- s-- eat�gr�kerrs te- deve}egMent P�ee-ertd- arty- rede�te }egMerit -g }ere- fer - the -eree -which hes- been- edepted -by- the - city.--- Eeasideretie:z -she }} be- gi•Derr- tc�- e�tst# rye;- �rtr�-- sttrrc��i�rg- de�reiapmerit when pest$ �3s�3flg__ �_- g�ec�eve iepment diet €tee. - - -3t -} s-- rrterreleel- th$t-- i*e•-- �rc�rtx- si-orrs -ef. the s--• seet3o�-- �eric�--- arry--- a�•r�ierra�- -ree�a tre:ne rots e s teb� # sued -err -- tire- e�t�y-- csot�re-i- 1-- i•�r- estab�is�r €rig -a PHB-- di9triet-- W } } }-- aeeernp }ish -- the-- flt:�peses - -e€ rarzirlg- -as• -- set - -•€e -3-.-2 7-, - - S tj b d j: V!i -i-a- -titre e4ty - -te .rti- xe°d - -iaad j_(-et►t•- 3•atrd-- tsseg; T- a-- htgh etp; ereeti*�e- design:- er�d- gresereetien- ef- rzett3rai- seeeie ene«- :eeree• tai -orrei-- e�eeitties -rtrf- - s�aees- f01- be', _er- iidtng;- r,rer3etng- cad- sheppir:g- en�irersmer:t- It is the urpose of this section to provide for the establishment, at the discretion of the city council, of planned unit develo m.ent (PUD) zoning districts on tracts of land which are suitable in location, area - and character for. the use and for the structures nrnnnc=A Tannin mixed land uses, economic and efficient land uses, a high level of •amenities, creative and superior design, greater intensity and increased community economic benefit, improved public safety anA preservation. of natural scenic and recreational ualities of open spaces for a better living, working and shopping environment. To accomplish those objectives, the suitability of a tract of land for the development proposed must be de _terminec primarily by reference to the city's ccT-prehensi,Ye plan and anN, redevelopment plan for the area which has been adopted by the cit . Standards and criteria relatin to such matters as design, building size,' height and location, lot coverage and parking requirements contained elGewhere in the city's zoning re ulations should be considered as merely uidelines in considering any PITD proposal and may be departed from in the approval of any PUD proposal if the city deter- mines trat the PUD croposal is consistent with -the )urroses and objectives above described. II. By 'amending subdivision 9 thereof to read as follows: Subd. 9. Criteria and Standards. In considering any PUD ProDosa l, the city shall be uided primar-y by the purposes an o ectives described in subdivision 1 of this section. In considerin ar_ PUD pro osal in any redevelopment project area, • the city also shall be guided by the oals and objectives contained in the plan for such redevel- opment project area, and the guidelines contained in Paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subdivision, and subdivisions 10 anal 11 shall not apPIY to such PUDs. Except as to a plications for PUDs in Officially adopted redevelopment project areas, the city shall apply the standards contained in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subdivision and subdivisions 10 and 31. (1) Land Use Intensity (LUI). The maximum land use intensity rating permitted in a PUD district shall be determined by the gross lane, area of the tract of land, the proposed type of Planned unit development district, and -the uses assigned to the PUD district. (2) The land use intensity rating for those parcels of the PUD district designated for res- idential uses, or a combination of residential and nonresidential uses, shall be as follows: 0 Jch_n N. Hamilton, Mayor I ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk i GROSS LAND AREA PR _ & PC 1 PN!R PC-2.& SQUARE FEET T ACRES L•i1_ RATING PI . Lti.I RATING 43,560- 87,120 1 -2 40 87,120- 130,680 2 -3 43 50 50 130,680- 174,240 3 -4 45 52 174,240- 217,800 4 -5 48 217,800- 261,360 5 -6 50 56 over 261,360 6+ 55 58 (3) The land use intensity rating for those parcels of the PUD district designated solely for commercial and lows; industrial uses shall be as fol- GROSS LAND AREA PR & PC -1 PMR, PC -2 & SQUARE FEET ACRES LUI RATING PI LUI RATING 43,560- 87,120 1 -2 30 38 871120 - 130,680 2 -3 33 42 130,680 - 174,240 3 -4 35 44 174,240- 217,800 4 -5 38 48 217,800- 261,360 5 -6 40 50 over 261,360 6+ 45 52 'Passed by the City Minnesota this day Council of the City Rich o field, of 1985y Jch_n N. Hamilton, Mayor I ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk i ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION . A14ENDMENT TO CHAPTER. III, PART IV, SECTION 3.34A OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.34A of -the Ordinance Code entitled: "Planned Unit Development Zoning District" is hereby amended. in the following respects: I. By amending subdivision I thereof to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Purpose. fit- is-- t�se-- pfirrperse -erf this- seet3en -+0- r►{ •- 0-r - the- estab} sk�errt - -et the-- c�----- - - - -.. unit t r meta ef- 3a�re:-- �rh -i��r- are•- su }tel� }e- -iri- �e�ca�iore -,-- area -anei ekare eter - -fer -- the -- use t -he--s true tarea proposed- - -A }i- suck -3�BH- $erring- districts- ere -te -br p} ginned--- a•nd - -- deck } efled--- cm--- e--- tzsri- �- i- ed - - -ba e t 9- Suitabi }ity- et- the- tracts -ef- }end - fer -tire- dove }gip- re= eretsee- te-- t- ire-- �i- ty- �- s-- eei�grekerrsi- �►e- de�e }apn+e�t p }en- end - any- redede }epment -p }en- fer - the -erea -"hick kes- been- edepted- by -the- city.--- Eensideretien -she }} be -y3.�r -do-- exist$ rig-- rrrrd-- s�trrcx��c- i- ng- de�►eiepn�ent when uni-t -- development district: - -3t �- frterreleei- •t�$t-- t�*e-- prc��ri- s- ic�n� -ef tki 9-- seet3en-- rtttrd-- �iy--- adcirtrarra�-- ree�ttt reme nts catch} irked -fir -t- ire- �t- y- �rr�rl-- rrr- estsbiiskirrg -a . PHB -- district-- rtii }-- eeeernp }irk -- the-- pnrpeses - -ef seninef - -as set ;-- Sabdi�T3- sien- i---- �t-- � -�3e -- = -- - - -• - - - -- -�- -tom- city - -ta pre*aide- �£c3•r- f- i- e�itYi -3.-3 .tom-- tn-- ph�ri- erg--- xr�.�ced- -lend us e a ► - Seri -c- arid-- e- ��i�ie►irt- 3�•rrd-- �tseg - --e- -Sigh 9:e* Lei-- -0,f--- ar:errrti- gig,--- 3rt�-- pt�l- i- e• - -se =eta` ereetire- design- and- pre9ers *st3an- ef- nstnre?- seersie end - 9rerf-- open- s�eees- fo-� -e bolter- }itring; - v +erieing- ene�- shegping- ens+iro� men } - It is the purpose of this section to provide for the establishment, at the 'discretion of the city council, of planned unit development (PUD) zoning districts on tracts of land which are suitable in location, area and character for the use and for the structures proposed. It is the objective of the city to provide for flexibility in planning mixed land uses, economic and efficient land uses, • a high level of amenities, creative and superior design, greater intensity and increased community economic benefit, improved public safety and u � preservation of natural scenic and recreational qualities of open spaces for a better, livinq, working and shopping environment. To accomplish those objectives, the suitability of a "tract of land for the development proposed, must be 'determined primarily by reference to the city's comprehensive plan and any redevelopment plan for the area which has been adopted by the city. Standards and criteria relatinq to such matters as design, building size, height and location, lot coverage and parking requirements - contained elsewhere in the city's zoning regulations should be considered `as merely guidelines in considering any PUD proposal and may be departed from in the approval of`any PUD proposal if the city determines that the PUD proposal is consistent with the purposes and objectives above described. H. By amending subdivision 9 thereof to read as follows: Subd. 9. Criteria and Standards. In considering any PUD proposal, the city shall be quided primarily by the purposes and objectives described in • subdivision 1 of this section. In considering any PUD proposal the city. also shall be guided by the goals and objectives contained in the plan for any redevelopment project area hard the guidelines _contained in paragraphs 1 through 7 3 of this subdivision, and subdivisions 10 and 11 shall not apply to such PUDs. (1) Land Use Intensity (LUI), The maximum land use intensity rating permitted in a PUD district shall be determined by the gross land area off the tract of land,, the proposed type of planned unit development district, and the uses assigned to the PUD district. (2) The land use intensity rating for those parcels of the . PUD district designated for residential uses, or a combination of residential and nonresidential uses, shall be as follows: GROSS LAND AREA PR & PC -1 PMR, PC-2 & SQUARD FEET ACRES LUI RATING PI LUI RATING 43,560- 87,120 1 -2 40 48. 87,.120- 130,680 2 -3 43 50 130,680 - 174,240 3 -4 45 52 174,240 - 217,800 4 -5 48 54 217,800- 261,360 5 -6 50 56 over 261,360 6+ 55 .58 (3) The land use intensity rating for those parcels of the PUD district designated solely for commercial and industrial uses shall be as fol- lows: GROSS LAND AREA PR & PC -1 PMR, PC -2 & SQUARE FEET ACRES LUI RATING PI LUI RATING 43,560 87,120 1 -2 30 38 87,120- 130,680 2 -3 33 42 130,680- 174,240 3 -4 35 44 1740,240- 217,800 4 -5 38 48 217,800- 261,360 5 -6 40 50 over 261,360 6+ 45 52 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1985. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City CA".erk 40 Jchn N. Hamilton, Mayor } w CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 434 November 10, 1986 Issue_ Statement: Consideration of an ordinance restricting the location of restaurants with drive -thru service windows within 150 feet of residentially zoned property. Background: Within the past several years, several restaurants in Richfield have added drive -thru service windows to their existing facilities. Additionally, new restaurants with drive -thru service windows have also been constructed. This type of operation is new not only to Richfield, but throughout the restaurant industry. Residents living in the vicinity of these operations have noted an increased level of noise, traffic and litter accumulation. City staff has received and verified a number of complaints relating to fast food restaurants with drive -thru service windows. On October, 13, 1986 the City Council gave first reading to the attached ordinance which prohibits restaurants with drive -thru service windows within 150 feet of residentially. zoned property. • The council referred this matter to the Planning Commission for recommendation. The City Council public hearing and second reading of the ordinance were scheduled for November 10, 1986. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance and unanimously recommended that the ordinance not be passed. The basis of the Planning Commission recommendation was the following: 1. The ordinance would create too many nonconforming uses. A nonconforming use is troublesome for businesses in that they would not be able to substantially alter their structure without coming into conformance, i.e., removing drive -thru facility. 2. The ordinance does not address the noise and litter problem directly. Staff Recommendation: 1. The Planning Commission recommends to not approve the ordinance. 2. Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing and give second reading approval to the ordinance in an amended form as attached. The amendment provides that no future special use permit shall be provided for drive thru t resaurants within 150 feet of residentially zoned property. • • Basis of Recommendation: 1. This ordinance is necessary to minimize the adverse impact of drive thru facilities in residential areas. 2. The revised ordinance addresses one of the concerns of the planning commission regarding creating too many nonconforming uses by essentially grandfathering existing uses. Alternative Recommendation: 1.� Do not approve second reading of the ordinance. However, residential property within the vicinity of drive -thru restaurants would not be adequately protected in the opinion of staff. 2. Consider use of performance standards in lieu of the ordinance. Performance standards were considered by staff. However, the types of problems relayed to the city by neighbors of fast food restaurants including litter, noise and traffic, are ongoing problems that would require substantial investment of staff time to adequately monitor on a continuing basis. In addition, the support of the courts are required if violations are noted and not corrected. It is often difficult to obtain this support. In any case, it would appear appropriate to attempt to avoid the challenges of enforcement altogether by removing these businesses from the proximity of residential areas. Decision Mode: • The public hearing and second reading of this matter is scheduled for November 10, 1986. Therefore, the public hearing should take place at that time. Final action at the pleasure of the council. Respectfully submitted, Jame . Prosser City Manager 0 ORDINANCE NO. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 111, PART IV OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter 111, Part IV of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled "Zoning Regulation" is hereby amended in the following respect: Section 3.33, Subdivision 4 is amended by adding the following new paragraph: (i) After the effective date of this ordinance, the City Council shall not approve a special use permit for a restaurant with a driveup service window located within 150 feet of any residentially zoned property. The terms residentially zoned property shall include any planned unit development which contains residences within it. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1986. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 433 November 10, 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the matter be continued to the November 24, 1986 City Council meeting. Basis of 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: The council continued the hearing on this matter to November 10, 1986. The council must again continue this matter to a time certain. No additional legal notice is required when the council continues a hearing to a time certain. JDP /eja is Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 432 November 10, 1986 � Ig Issue Statement: Request for rezoning of the property located at 6721 -23 Penn Avenue South, from MR (Multiple Residence) to C -2 (General Commercial) district. Background_ Mrs. Kathleen R. and Mr. Henry P. Baron have made a request to rezone their property from MR (Multiple Residence) to C -2 (General Commercial) district. The property is located at 6721- 23 Penn Avenue South. The property is currently used as a double bungalow and has an area of 7,268 square feet. Rezoning of the property would allow the applicant to use the lower level for a yarn shop and to give knitting lessons. The applicant has indicated that there will be a maximum of three students taking knitting lessons for five weeks. These lessons will be offered twice a year only. The upper level of the structure would be used for residential purposes. Retail commercial uses such as yarn shops are not permitted in MR district. • Maps showing the comprehensive plan designations, existing land use, and existing zoning maps for the surrounding area are attached for your review. Also attached is a map showing the properties whose owners have signed a petition favoring the rezoning. Section 3.42, indicates the regulations regarding ordinance amendments including changing zoning district boundaries. Recommendation: 1 The Planning Commission unanimously voted (8 -0) to recommend City Council denial of the proposed rezoning of property at 6721 -23 Penn Avenue from Multiple Residence (MR) district to General Commercial (C -2) district. 2. Staff originally recommended approval of the ordinance amendment for rezoning of the property located at 6721 -23 Penn Avenue from MR (Multiple Residence) to C -2 (General Commercial) district with the stipulation that a site plan showing adequate screening and buffering be approved by the city staff. However, after considering the information obtained at the Planning Commission hearing, and the Planning Commission recommendation, staff now recommends denial of the rezoning request. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The planning commission felt that the rezoning would create a nonconforming structure that might be considered spot zoning, could create traffic problems, and that future commercial . uses could adversely affect adjacent residential properties. 2. Staff is concerned about the potential reuse of the site in the future by a commercial use which could adversely impact the adjacent residential uses. Alternative Recommendation: 1 The City Council could approve the rezoning of the property if the council determines that the proposed rezoning to general commercial would not have the potential for creating adverse impact on the abutting single family (R -1) district to the east and multiple residence to the north and south of the site. The approval should be subject to providing buffering and landscaping to separate the site from abutting residential properties to the north and the south and that the curb cut meet city standards. If the council wishes to proceed with the rezoning, first reading approval should be given to the attached ordinance and schedule the public hearing and second reading for December 8, 1986 2. Deny the rezoning request and direct the staff to investigate an ordinance amendment to allow this type of activity without requiring a rezoning to C -2 general commercial. Decision /Discussion Mode: • Notice o'f a public hearing at 7:00 P.M., November 10, 1986 to consider rezoning of the property at 6721 Penn Avenue has been published in the Richfield Sun Current. The notice, however, was incorrect in that it indicated the property would be rezoned to C -1 rather than C -2. If the council wishes to proceed with the rezoning, a correct notice will be published for the public hearing and second reading on December 8, 1986. JDP /eja • Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager TECHNICAL_ FINDINGS 1. Parking and Traffic Issues According to the city parking guidelines 1,600 square feet of building area would require 8 parking spaces for commercial use. The site plan indicates that there are three parking spaces in front of the building, four parking spaces at the backyard and three spaces in the garage. Review of the site plan shows that only two parking spaces in the garage, three spaces in the front setback area and two spaces at the rear setback area would be available to maintain smooth flow of traffic. Therefore a total of seven parking spaces are available on site. As indicated earlier, the upper level would be used for residential purposes and the lower level would be used for commercial purposes only. It is staff's opinion that seven parking spaces would be adequate for the proposed use. If the use changes in the future, adequate parking may not be available. There is a 14 foot curb cut and a bituminous driveway on the north side of the property which will remain. The required minimum width of a curb cut in commercial district is 26 feet. The rear yard at the present time is gravel and will remain the same. 2. Screenings Buffering and Landscaping There is a 6 foot high wood fence at the back of the property separating this property from the adjacent single family dwelling. The fence is in need of repair. There is no screening separating this property from the abutting single family dwelling to the north or the multiple family dwelling to the south. It is staff's opinion that adequate screening and /or buffer and landscaping should be provided in order to make the site aesthetically pleasing. The applicant has indicated that they would provide adequate screening. 3. Comprehensive Plan Richfield's Comprehensive Plan designates the site to be medium to high density mixed land use. This designation suggests that the property could be zoned MR -2, C -1, C -2 and I. Retail commercial use would be an appropriate use, if the property is zoned C -2 or I district. The proposed rezoning of the property from MR to C -2 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Impact on the Surrounding Neighborhood The applicant has received signatures from most of the property owners within a 300 foot radius supporting the rezoning of the property. There is a poorly maintained single family rental dwelling to the north of the property. To the south is an apartment building. The owner of this apartment building has objected to the rezoning. East of the site is a number of single family dwellings. Across Penn Avenue are a number of commercial businesses. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposed use of the property would not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. However, staff is concerned about the potential reuse of the site in the future by a commercial use which could adversely impact the adjacent residential uses. C. • I j •CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. LAND SURVEYORS • P. O.'BOX 24021 a 841 -3030 EDINA, MINN. 55424 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY /- � I Kathleen R & Henry P. Baron 4LOY Ft*: t721-23. Pmts Aver, File NoBook_Page ?� 11�yS- 5 � `b717 i !•: I / / I t7 � , pp i 7.5 � ;I W �. K I 5 M Double - in W I I WORTH Scale• I " =20� 1 twn" 1 M4; L� CY slow. I 1 If- 151-57 N� I o s? (� 48.9 PI I DESCRIPTION Lot 9p Except. the North 64 feet thereof, and except the South 8 feet of the North 72 feet of the East 26 feet thereof. Block 7, Fhirwood Park Addition. • 1 hereby certify that thbli a tree and rest reprelent"on of a survey of the boendories of L.VIG COQ Y' GC O i Q h ►lenne int4oaMy, Nnnesato and of the I io of all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by am thi to ay of BLA i Id ing loCStior% revised 9-24/%. all CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. '3AV MON)l 4 A& I i-fl --4D O'll •� L :I L '3AV MONA Qo.i r -f— I Pyt I ;1.1 .6 I . . lii I • 3'� IT, Fil 0 77 0 -dd f 3 .......... w % > NVEMOVI jr e's LLJ CL A WIT jr -AD '3 NOIM3N, AI, rs ♦ L ONE IT Ron EIP)OVI 001A om:� A t 'j -M. .'3AV NVONOW IT U) 4p i'. TA uj jq; '3A'll ww U3A110 '3AV I -NN3d 'Ve - --AlNnop 09 In V In 10 - wi- NvalN3HS g .r i, 71- Z N !j_ r_ IJ N,M IT, Fil 0 77 -NN3d 'Ve - --AlNnop 09 In V In 10 - wi- NvalN3HS g .r i, 71- Z N !j_ r_ ol ZZ 77 A% i 01 in 'D r* cf V F%A, t IV C In. '�.;W 31, IT! L I is ; 0 REQUEST FOR REZON(4G FROM M TO FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE j / STREET ADDRESS: 7a LEGAL DESCRIPTION: f ;tie, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the land aescr -bed above, do hereby concur in this Rezoning request. Sic:.ature of Owners* Address Legal Description A;%J.L purposes or determining if petition contains the proper number Of signatures to initiate the rezoning process signatures may not be removed once a petition is signed and returned to the Planning .Division. �i is • REQUEST FOR REZONfG FROM _L R 0?- TO FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE STREET ADDRESS: & 7 a / - a .3 -P�� - --�t- X112-� mot• -1/' G�-- W�'L(i1.v 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the land described above, do hereby concur in'this Rezoning request. �N '76 * For purposes of determining if petition contains the proper number of signatures to initiate the rezoning process signatures may not be removed once a petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. - - r:�++:.1..a -o .a- a= �rua.rs.aia§+i �MY'� °'�Obit'�^ 1'^_^S•V':� a,v t- 'i`CA� 40 >3 -7 REQUEST FOR REZON ,4G FROM a TO FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE STREET ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION; We, th.e undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the land described above, do hereby concur in this Rezoning request. f Signature of Owners* Address Legal Descri nt -inn - -•7 -� r- 1 -4. L.lun contains the proper number Of signatures to initiate the rezoning be removed once a petition is signed and returned to the Planning • Ll • • • J REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM TO >>� FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE V!o k,.-iJ Al A,4, , a- 0 , , ., > STREET ADDRESS: al a "�`"G`' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ��009 007 We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the land described above, do hereby concur in this Rezoning request. Signature of Owners* Address Leaal Descrint;nn - I * For purposes of determining if petition contains the proper number .of signatures to initiate the rezoning process signatures may not be removed once a petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. F • 0 0 • • REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM TO FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE STREET ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the land described above, do hereby concur in this Rezoning request. Signature of Owners-* Address Legal Description it petition contains the proper number of signatures to initiate the rezoning process signatures may not be removed once a petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. EE it petition contains the proper number of signatures to initiate the rezoning process signatures may not be removed once a petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. :DT OT ic) 4 . I 1. is el 2 La :n uj X uj x ZONING -7 Z - Tl- tZ 0 X z 0 ca IX: N.Nv 2 _j r v. F -mi v7- ,,1 . WEST 66TH STREET .0 -A. 7 rZ -4---1 _0 i — —31 Is, z 67th STREET WEST 7col Ail m SIN V 'lei Lu so 7=7.— Fos cr z pl ua STREET— T INDUSTRIAL E ew 71 Wis. ".4 GENERAL COMMERCIAL MR (MULTIPLE RESIDENCE) lsa e --- ----- MR-2 (3-17 DWELLING UNITS) WEST STREET LA MR-1 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE) USE PERMIT SPL.0 t A -A A U• 0 VARIANCiF fs) pl, tAl p) , 41 IS's WEST 64th Z Lm 61 Q 0 4 -1 — 8 vtr WEST WEST 66TH STREET .0 -A. 7 rZ -4---1 _0 i — —31 Is, z 67th STREET WEST 7col Ail m SIN V 'lei Lu so 7=7.— Fos cr z pl ua STREET— T INDUSTRIAL E ew 71 Wis. ".4 GENERAL COMMERCIAL MR (MULTIPLE RESIDENCE) lsa e --- ----- MR-2 (3-17 DWELLING UNITS) WEST STREET LA MR-1 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE) USE PERMIT SPL.0 t A -A A U• 0 VARIANCiF • OT tits 9 2 L A 1\4 L) U z Z. o 'o Q -v) A, ct 7" L k: 2 0 V) 0 0 A Z t7l ow(wl-' j AF WEST F - 4L. STREET 'is �'I. 'z _7I 70r, P) 3 11) r L"i), Z- WEST' ,STREET c z S1.90AVISIJN 3 0 w Lwu WEST 66TH STREET 3 CL p 7T7 L 4 39 67th STREET WEST w-ff Lu FO# A cf) w' o i'p t6. 3 F_ WEST go2 "r , &I - r- -7 .1 -irw :'pl' � : r _21 rr 01 shoON (.,) 3 lttj 4A3 • a �z lil-0-0 1. taw _1-1) s— -2.0) WOF W' Or 0,, ;W_ - COMMERCIAL _ K WEST it DUPLEX SCHOOL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE !.7ja le .• .v tv ?;.4f APARTMENTS PARKS AND OPEN SPACE !.7ja le .• .v tv ?;.4f IDT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Z. ,2- 9z"e -3 10 Z 4 ll - I ri Fs w Lu WEST 66TH STREET _jA o Q 7-7 y, 4 ; 'k 41r IS 67th STREET WEST —'N !K tv), :.N) t. 7;41 f. -Alt. 4 FoF 17 WEST G&W tz( ( „a brat no, —.04 (.0 on.- ri�jj,,t— I I :75r If 0 WEST c Em-1 W 1” —it �r' c a 11 :!�� - i M r EDIUM TO HIGH MIXED LAND USE to MEDIUM DENSITY BUFFER W v boa t INSTITUTIONAL 'EST 641, ui Z X (c 2 ui X U ,or Lwu r v A uR�G 4 ll - I ri Fs w Lu WEST 66TH STREET _jA o Q 7-7 y, 4 ; 'k 41r IS 67th STREET WEST —'N !K tv), :.N) t. 7;41 f. -Alt. 4 FoF 17 WEST G&W tz( ( „a brat no, —.04 (.0 on.- ri�jj,,t— I I :75r If 0 WEST c Em-1 W 1” —it �r' c a 11 :!�� - i M r EDIUM TO HIGH MIXED LAND USE to MEDIUM DENSITY BUFFER W v boa t INSTITUTIONAL 0 11 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 431 November 10, 1986 Issue Statement: Continuation of Consideration of Whether an Automobile Detailing Business is a Permitted Use in a C -1 Neighborhood District Background: Kit V. and Sumonda Arom have requested a special use permit for an automobile detailing buiness at 7301 Penn Avenue. The city staff has determined that this is not a permitted use. On October 13, 1986 the applicants appealed this determination to the city council. At that time, the city council continued the hearing to the November 10, 1986 city council meeting and referred the matter to the planning commission for consideration. The applicants have requested that the matter be continued to the November 24, 1986 city council meeting because they will be unable to attend the meeting on November 10th. Recommendation: Continue the hearing to November 24, 1986. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has requested the continuation. 2. The applicant will not be present to respond to questions or comments the city council may have on this matter. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Hold the hearing. However, the applicant will not be represented at the hearing. Discussion /Decision Mode: At the October 13, 1986 city council meeting, the city council continued this hearing to November 10, 1986. At this time it would be appropriate for the council to continue the hearing to November 24, 1986. JDP /eja Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser City anager November 7, 1986 City of Richfield Richfield City Council $700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, Mn. 55423 RE; Council Meeting, November 10, 1986 We would like to postpone the hearing on 7301 Penn Ave. So. until November 24th, 19861 because we will not be able to attend the hearing. Thank you for your consideration. • Yours truly,. r K' & Sumonda Arom KSA : maw 'eo', / a4-6 � V r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 430 Agenda November 10, 1986 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1987 On -Sale Wine and Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for North Star Pizza Corporation d /b /a Shakey's Pizza Parlor, located at 500 E. 78th Street. Background: On October 20, 1986, the city received renewal applications for the on -sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses for Shakey's Pizza Parlor. The required license fees were submitted with the application. The corporate structure of the organization remains the same as in previous years. Mr. Richard Lupu continues to serve as President and sole interest holder of the corporation, as well as the on- premises manager of this establishment. Jerilyn Lupu serves as Vice- President of the corporation. Neither of these individuals have any known criminal history. The investigation conducted by the Richfield Department of Public Safety determined that all 1986 real estate, state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The building and property continues to be owned by the A.J. Bogen Company. The lease agreement between the applicant and the landlord continues to be in effect with all payments current. The required five thousand ($5,000) surety bond has been submitted and lists the Continental Insurance Company as carrier of the bond. The applicant has indicated that the insurance certificate regarding public and liquor liability coverages will be supplied to the city through the John H. Crowther Insurance Agency prior to the issuance of the requested license. An accountant's statement has been prepared Earl K. Jensen, the Office Manager for the statement covers the period from October 1, September 30, 1986, and indicates that food 94% of the total sales, while wine and beer total sales. and submitted by Mr. company. This 1985 through sales amounted to amounted to 6% of the From November of 1985 through October of 1986, there were sixteen (16) public safety contacts with Shakey's. This compares with ten (10) contacts for the previous year. Of these sixteen (16) contacts eight (8) were of a criminal nature. It should be noted that in January two individuals robbed the restaurant at gun point. One of the employees was able to obtain, at his own risk, the license number and description of the vehicle used by the suspects in this robbery. This information was quickly passed on to the responding Police Officers who were able to apprehend the suspects and recover the stolen money. This • ultimately led to the solving of several robberies committed by these individuals. Shakey's should be commended for their effort and cooperation in this incident. Recommendation: Based upon the information supplied-by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the license requested. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city ordinances and the state statutes pertaining to wine and 3.2 beer licensing. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. Alternatives: I. The council could decide to continue the hearing. 2. The council could decide to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Decision /Discussion Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewals of all on -sale wine and beer licenses have been scheduled for November 10, 1986. These licenses expire on January 1, 1987, therefore, if the council decides to continue the hearing regarding the renewal of these licenses beyond November 10th, any subsequent hearing must be held before the licenses expire. JDP /eja .7 Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser City anager .01 a >> AV CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 429 November 10, 1986 Issue Statement: 416) Renewal of 1987 On -Sale Wine and Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses for Prest Motor Inn, Inc. d /b /a The Inn Airport, located at 7640 Cedar Avenue South. Background: On October 20, 1986, the city received renewal applications for the on -sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses for The Inn Airport. The required license fees were submitted with the application. The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Mr. John Prest serves as Corporate President and Treasurer, while his wife Sara Prest, serves as Corporate Vice - President and Secretary. Both John and Sara Prest reside in Florida and Mr. Jeffrey Henrich continues to be the Manager of the motel and restaurant. None of these individuals have any known criminal history. • The investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety determined that all 1986 real estate, state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The property continues to be owned by Mr. Charles M. Spear. A Contract for Deed between the owner and the applicant continues to be in effect with all payments current. The required five thousand ($5,000) surety bond has been submitted and indicates that Western Surety Company is carrier of this bond. A certificate of insurance detailing both the public and liquor liability coverages has been supplied to the city. This certificate shows the Auto - Owners Insurance and Western Surety Companies as affording the required coverages. The applicant has supplied a statement detailing a breakdown of sales for the previous twelve month period and indicates that food sales amounted to 91% of the total sales, while wine and beer sales amounted to 9% of the total sales. From November of 1985 through October of 1986 there were twenty - five (25) public safety contacts with The Inn, as compared to forty -five (45) contacts for the previous year. This represents over a 40% decrease in total contacts. Nine (9) of these contacts were of a non - criminal nature. Sixteen (16) were of a criminal nature. It should be noted that the applicant cooperated with the Public Safety Department during an ongoing investigation of prostitution related activities. The applicant should be commended for their cooperation in this matter. iRecommendation: 0 Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the 'city ordinances and the state statutes pertaining to on -sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council could decide to continue the hearing. 2. The council could decide to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Decision /Discussion Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewals of all on -sale wine and beer licenses have been scheduled for November 10, 1986. These licenses expire on January 1, 1987. Therefore, if the council decides to continue the hearing regarding the renewal of these licenses beyond November 10th, any subsequent hearing must be held before the licenses expire. JDP /eja Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager 0 J., , . .- -- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 428 November 10, 1986 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1987 On -sale Wine and Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor license for Miller's Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. Background• On October 9, 1986, Mr. David Miller submitted applications for renewal of the on -sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses for Miller's Fireside Pizza, Inc. The required license fees were paid. The corporate structure of Miller's Pizza remains unchanged from previous years. David Miller continues to serve as Corporate President, Treasurer and Manager, while his mother Lucille Miller serves as Corporate Vice - President and Secretary. Neither David nor Lucille Miller have any known criminal record. The investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department determined that all 1986 real estate, state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The building and property continues to be owned by the Miller's. The required five thousand ($5,000) surety bond has been • submitted and lists the United Fire and Casualty Company as carrier of the bond. A certificate of insurance detailing public and liquor liability coverage has also been supplied and lists the Wausau Insurance Companies as affording the required coverage. An accountant's statement was submitted and prepared by the George M. Hanson accounting firm. The statement covers the period from October 1, 1985 through October 1, 1986, and indicates that food sales accounted for 93.5% of the total sales, while beer and wine sales accounted for 6.5% of the total sales. From October of 1985 through October of 1986, there were eight (8) public safety contacts with Miller's. This compares to four (4) contacts for the previous year. Of these eight (8) contacts only two (2) were of a criminal nature and both of these contacts involved suspicious persons. Recommendation: Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both • the city ordinances and the state statutes pertaining to wine and 3.2 beer licensing. • 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to'the community. Alternatives: 1. The council could decide to continue the hearing. 2. The council could decide to deny the renewal of the license requested. Decision /Discussion Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewals of all on -sale wine and beer licenses has been scheduled for November 10, 1986. These licenses expire January 1, 1987, therefore, if the council decides to continue the hearing with regard to the renewal of this license beyond November 10th, any subsequent hearing must be held before the licenses expire. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser City Manager JDP /eja • 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 427 November 10, 1986 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1987 On -Sale Wine and Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses for Frogi's Sandwich Shop d /b /a Spanky's, located at 6344 Penn Avenue South. #J Background_ On October 24, 1986, the city received renewal applications for the on -sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses for Frogi's Sandwich Shop d /b /a Spanky's. The required license fees were submitted with the application. Mr. Morton B. Snyder of Bloomington, continues to be the sole owner of Frogi's and Gloria Miller is the Manager. Neither of these individuals have any known criminal record. The investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety determined that all 1986 real estate, state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The owner of the building is the Pioneer Mutual Life Insurance Company. The Contract for Deed payments between the owner and the applicant are current. The required five thousand ($5,000) dollar surety bone has been • submitted and lists the United Fire and Casualty Company as carrier of the bond. A certificate of insurance detailing public and liquor liability will be supplied by the applicant prior to the issuance of any licenses. The applicant supplied a statement showing total food sales for the period October 1985 through September 1986. The applicant has indicated that even though the licenses to sell wine and 3.2 beer were first granted by the council in May of 1986, they have not as yet started to sell either wine or beer in their establishment. Total food sales for this period amounted to $229,864.60. There were seven (7) public safety contacts with Frogi's since their licenses were issued in May of 1986. Of these seven (7) contacts, only two (2) were of a criminal nature while the remaining five (5) were of a non - criminal nature. Recommendation: Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the license requested. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city ordinances and the state statutes pertaining to wine and • 3.2 beer licensing. • 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. Alternatives: 1. The council could decide to continue the hearing. 2. The council could decide to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Decision /Discussion Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewals of all on -sale wine and beer licenses have been scheduled for November 10, 1986. These licenses expire January 1, 1987, therefore, if the council decides to continue the hearing regarding the renewal of these licenses beyond November 10th, any subsequent hearing must be held before the licenses expires. JDP /eja Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 426 November 10, 1986 Issue_ Statement: Renewal of 1987 On -sale Wine and Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor license for Davanni's Pizza & Hot Hoagies at 2312 W. 66th Street. Background: On October 20, 1986, the city received renewal applications for the on -sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses for Davanni's Pizza and Hot Hoagies restaurant. The required license fees were submitted with the application. The corporate structure of the organization remains the same as in previous years. Mr. Gladstone M. Sternson, Jr., serves as President; Mr. Roger W. Schelper serves as Vice - President; and Mr. Robert W. Carlson serves as Treasurer. The position of Secretary remains vacant. Mr. David F. Koenig serves as a Director of the organization. Mrs. Judith Dearborn continues to manage the Richfield restaurant. None of these individuals have any known criminal history. The investigation conducted by the Richfield Department of Public Safety determined that all 1986 real estate, state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The building and the property continue to be owned by Hwy. #52 Embers, Inc., and the lease agreement between the applicant and the landlord continues to be in effect with all payments current. The required five thousand ($5,000) surety bond has been submitted and lists the Transamerica Insurance Company as carrier of the bond. The applicant has indicated that the insurance certificate regarding public and liquor liability coverages will be supplied to the city through their insurance agency, BHK &R, Inc. of Edina, prior to the issuance of the requested licenses. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted by Mr. Robert J. Stupka, C.P.A. This statement covers the period from September 24, 1985 through August 31, 1986, and indicates that food sales amounted to 89.8% of the total sales, while wine and beer sales amounted to 10.2% of the total sales. From November of 1985 through October three (3) public safety contacts with contacts, one was a general licensing reported theft and the last was for a This is the third year that Davanni's outstanding ability to conduct their a benefit to the community. of 1986, there were only Davanni's. Of these three inspection, one was a complaint of drunkenness. has demonstrated an business in a manner that is Recommendation: Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. .1 -e�i/ 0 Basis of Recommendation: I. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city ordinances and the state statutes pertaining to wine and 3.2 beer licenses. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. Alternatives: 1. The council could decide to continue the hearing. 2. The council could decide to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewals of all on -sale wine and beer licenses has been scheduled for November 10, 1986. These licenses expire on January 1, 1987, therefore, if the council decides to continue the hearing regarding the renewal of these licenses beyond November 10th, any subsequent hearing must be held before the licenses expire. • JDP /eja 0 Respe tfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci y s Manager M • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 425 November 10, 1986 Issue Statement: Special Use Permit Request For a Restaurant At 6601 Nicollet Avenue Background: The city received a request for a special use permit to allow a LeeAnn Chin restaurant to locate in the Richfield Shoppes South. The developer requested that consideration of the request by the Planning Commission be deferred one month to allow them to work out some concerns expressed by staff regarding the request. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing on this matter unit December 8, 1986. Basis of Recommendation: The Planning Commission has not reviewed this matter yet. However, because the deferral request occurred after the publication deadline for legal notices, legal notice of the public hearing before the City Council on November 10, 1986 was published in the Richfield Sun Current Newspaper. Notices of the continuance of the Planning Commission hearing were sent to property owners within 350 feet of the site. Discussion Mode: Since the notice of public hearing has been published, this item has been placed on the November 10, 1986 city council agenda so that the council may continue the hearing to the December 8, 1986 city council meeting. JDP /eja • Respectfully submitted, JameY Prosser City Manager �� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 424 November 10, 1986 Issue Statement: ---- - - - - -- Special Use Permit request for a drive -thru window at the existing Dairy Queen restaurant located at 7533 Lyndale Avenue. Backuround: Mr. Thomas Austin, owner of the Dairy Queen restaurant at 7533 Lyndale Avenue had requested a special use permit to allow a drive -thru window at the northside of the existing structure. The Planning Commission, on October 28, 1986, held a public hearing and recommended approval of the special use permit request with the following stipulations: 1. That the applicant is able to acquire sufficient land from the north parcel to meet the requirements for two lane traffic exiting from the drive -thru and the parking lot. 2. That the applicant shall negotiate alternative parking layout that will add more parking on site. 3. The curb cuts meet the minimum width requirement. The applicant informed staff on November 3, 1986 that he is withdrawing the case from any further consideration since he was unable to acquire the property needed to meet the city ordinances. • Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the withdrawal of this special use permit request for a drive -thru window at the existing Dairy Queen restaurant located at 7533 Lyndale Avenue. Decision/Discussion_ Mode: Legal notice of the council hearing to be held on November 10, 1986 was published in the Richfield'Sun Current newspaper. Therefore, this matter has been placed on the November 10, 1986 city council agenda for council consideration. Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 423 November 10, 1986 Issue__ Statement: Request for Illuminated Signs at State Farm, 6417 Penn Avenue; Andon Balloons, 1230 East 66th Street; The Drug Emporium, 780 West 66th Street; and NAPA Auto Parts, 718 West 77 1/2 Street. Background_ City ordinance provides that the city council must approve all permits for illuminated signs. State Farm -A permit has been requested to red, white and black wall sign. The sign Andon Balloons -A permit has applied for a 5', red, yellow and blue illuminated wall The Drug Emporium wishes to install a 44' sign. NAPA Auto Parts has applied for a permit 36" illuminated signs. Two signs will be wall and one on the west wall. erect an illuminated, will measure 4' X 61. permit erect a 12' X sign. X 48' illuminated wall to install three 36" X placed on the south 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: I. Not approve the permits. However, the city has no alternative design criteria to suggest for substitutes for these signs. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the consent calendar portion of the November 10, 1986 council agenda for consideration. The businesses are requesting action to complete their sign placement at their business establishments. Respec fully submitted, Jame D. Prosser • City Manager ' Ai'PROGE DENY: VL Jl u X APPROVE DENY: X ->'-7 — City Manager g Inspector _ /:-• C Date PROVE DENY © �, Date - - �•t.t,� APPROVE _ -- y/. DENYF]. Planning D artment City ouncil . y Date IG �c �h Date Route to above for'special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, , Minnesota - Date 10/28/86 Zoning Comm. Sign Erected - Yes No Fee -. -- - - Address of Sign718 W. 773, St. Proprietor Name DBA NAPA- Sign Erector Arrow Sign Co. Address 18607 Highway-65 N.E. Cedar, MN 55011 _� �1_�' noe�a„ :'f• Weather Cover Lighting JyV= VL Jl u X - Single Face Clear Lexon (3) X Constant Double Face Frosted Lexon Flashing Multi -Faced X Plastic Covered Revolving Aerial /Blimp Shaded Traveling Searchlight Neon Zip Lite Banner /Pennants Other Other(Explain) Portable Framer Sign Colors Blue, white and yellow T [] AM Post Napa Auto Parts, unlite Machine Shop X Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer � If Illuminated Yew 3 No No above Olectrical Contractor 3u Watts Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone See a .,ac e L�� , Estimated Cost 2,000.00 Sign WidthHeight� Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans.: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business,'institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Yes Will the sign, structure, or billb rd restrict any for ssfe . -access .by....persons_destin� for or passing Applicant's Signature a Ti e with Firm Phone Number 434 -6134 •Lkt 1985 sight distance under, around, or over the subject premises? No Date October 28, 1986 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 L - `• i _ I J �1 a�. �J 1 R r T� f i td I `q 'cl 1 C w �L 1 �D I o-J 6 I I I V 1 I O 1 I 1 r E DENY": APPROVE A, - -- City .Manager ?""" Inspector Date . �.�s�. APi'ROVE 0:1)ENYFT.._..&1 j _ APPROVE DENYD Planning De artment City Council Date �D _._ ., Date toute to above for *special approval per code _"""General Signs APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT.. City of Richfield,., Minnesota Date Zoning Sign Erected Yes: }: No Fee 18.00 Address of Sign 6417 Penn Ave. So, Proprietor Name Gerry Davison DBAS.tate'<Farm Sign Erector Attracta Sign, Inc. Address 6 41:7 Fenn Ave.- S. e of Sign_,;._ Design c:Weather Coffer Lightin If Illuminated - Yes X No Octrical Watts Contractor Address Phone I Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost 600.00 Sign Width 4' Height 6' Total Square Feet 24 Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Yes Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No Applicants Signature and Title with Firm Date October 21, 1986 Phone Number 866-3047 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: TF-1 A n Post Clear Lexon X Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors Black Red & White X If Illuminated - Yes X No Octrical Watts Contractor Address Phone I Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost 600.00 Sign Width 4' Height 6' Total Square Feet 24 Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Yes Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No Applicants Signature and Title with Firm Date October 21, 1986 Phone Number 866-3047 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Y � `. ,L,.. _.,... r _�,. , .. ..r . ::� _: =; �' � s ,> = K -. :;'ROVE I I DENY": APPROVE L.t�J DENYu: 44 .c,� ` - - --- City Manager Inspector Date Date 1 APPROVE ©:1) ENY f —] : APPROVE a DENY : Planning rtment City Council • tDep Date (Q I?- �{��P .':Date Route to above for'special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, , Minnesota Date 10 -20 -86 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes X No Fee 29.50 Address of Sign 1230 E. 66th St. Sign Erector Attracta Sign, Inc. Type of Sign Design Proprietor Name Dale Moore -DBA Andon Address 6417 Penn Ave. So. Richfield Waathar rnvor 7.iohtino X Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer X Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T [] An Post n Clear Lexon X Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors Red, Yellow, Blue If Illuminated - Yes X No Olectrical Contractor Watts Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost 1900.00 Sign Width 12' Height 5' Total Square Feet .o Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Yes Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe- access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No Applicant's"Signature and Title with Firm Date October 20, 1986 Phone Number 866 -3047 41kt 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 0 e 0 x n r 0 0 0 3 ,r i �► �J L i L oQ-� � r�� J Ol y• Ci Marla; =r Dace ?ROVE F_Z_7) E:i'la : Planning D martmenc D I Inspac -_J Date APPROVE F1 DE` Y7 : L City Council. Date •acute to above for special approval per code General Si s APPLICATION FOR' ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, , Minnesota Ti - /�' Data -" Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign ��j Proprietor Name Rq I +/V, DBa Sign Erector �J ��'� Address �0`' /y j �- Tyre of Sin Design Weather Cover Lighting Z Zlluminata °es !. No electrical Contractor - il��'_� 'rcpert 7 Owner or his Agent Sig::atsra Watts Address 41 ( 1� l Phon� e U i ?ha. o 16 P 7-s z_.:.ated Cost '7 'nidt3t/q.' I ieignt i -ocal Square Fe et ' ?csit -on Of the ad'rertisa^en= st.:c_..ra in ralacionshi' to _h-e. adfacent buildi:gs, sidawal'sS, . chubs, roadways, overhead tlt±li_j ',es, ve: ^.icle mcvement lines, or puiblic - 'acuities on arawing :Jitn Sign_,zicant C =easicns and act-ached hereto of major signs. H nor signs as desized on page 2. Tao blueprints of the sign, billboard, or Oucdoor advertising sz=uctura conscrucz_on olans: _.cludi= Spec -- -cations, list O= =acerials, and explicit anchor-_ g or fastaning details and a copy of Che stress sheets, calculations, color Of Sign sz__Uctura. maces a Sim copy ralace :,.a e Signs t=u -use, for safe access by _son el solel7 to c.-.e business, inStiCat_On, or act_Ii_7 CCndUcted On 0 'lbcard restrict any Sight distance under, around, Or over Z ^ P for or Dassing c1ne subject premises? Applicant's Signattfra ana Title with... Firm ?'.:tae ;iuWber� � 9, C� Date Lk` PLE.46SE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH 1985 1. Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searc::lig. 13anner /Pennants ?ortable Frame: I T F i i r 1 Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other f Other(Explain Sign Colors L 4:" j ! Z Zlluminata °es !. No electrical Contractor - il��'_� 'rcpert 7 Owner or his Agent Sig::atsra Watts Address 41 ( 1� l Phon� e U i ?ha. o 16 P 7-s z_.:.ated Cost '7 'nidt3t/q.' I ieignt i -ocal Square Fe et ' ?csit -on Of the ad'rertisa^en= st.:c_..ra in ralacionshi' to _h-e. adfacent buildi:gs, sidawal'sS, . chubs, roadways, overhead tlt±li_j ',es, ve: ^.icle mcvement lines, or puiblic - 'acuities on arawing :Jitn Sign_,zicant C =easicns and act-ached hereto of major signs. H nor signs as desized on page 2. Tao blueprints of the sign, billboard, or Oucdoor advertising sz=uctura conscrucz_on olans: _.cludi= Spec -- -cations, list O= =acerials, and explicit anchor-_ g or fastaning details and a copy of Che stress sheets, calculations, color Of Sign sz__Uctura. maces a Sim copy ralace :,.a e Signs t=u -use, for safe access by _son el solel7 to c.-.e business, inStiCat_On, or act_Ii_7 CCndUcted On 0 'lbcard restrict any Sight distance under, around, Or over Z ^ P for or Dassing c1ne subject premises? Applicant's Signattfra ana Title with... Firm ?'.:tae ;iuWber� � 9, C� Date Lk` PLE.46SE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH 1985 1. Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 J, m 6 : * r m I �JJ CD O(E -50 SIGN CRITERIA E2HIBIT E rT m X. MQQ QQ V 0) U) n 0 a c w w 90 FA LL r-t Q.re M 0 n NOaB cr o • M M 0 OD -A r 0 cn rh P.- F . eD OQ O go I..• to ►• t- 0 " N" = U) A3 ac as F.- rr f n m z zr- F% 0 w oo rr 0 7 a W. • =* zr Pl. a n to A C: co 0 m m rA 0— I.- " *a 0 0 Obi m J-00 m m (A M :x ;' OrnYL'Artap- n 0) • rT :r a) (4 z n 3c 0 10 W C) rt rh p— I-.- 00 to r 0 go rt in v cr 0 C (A 0) cr co a n r• (A m CA 0 to 0 r. .17' ago C *-• M 0 J, m 6 : * r m I �JJ CD O(E -50 SIGN CRITERIA E2HIBIT E .. r • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 422 November 10, 1986 Issue Statement: Request for authorization to purchase Computer Aided Dispatch software and related services from R. M. Webster & Company at a cost of $10,000.00 for the software and $5,000.00 for installation and training. Background: Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) is a computerized system for the processing of calls for service which are received from the public by the Public Safety Communications Center (dispatch center). CAD would replace the current "paper and pencil" system by allowing dispatchers to enter and retrieve incident information directly into the department's automated records management system. The proposed CAD software operates on the new Burroughs computer system. Since January of this year, both city staff and MTI Office Systems have conducted a search for this type of software through industry and public safety publications, trade shows and personal contacts.. The CAD system from R.M. Webster & Company is the only computer aided dispatch software which runs on the Burroughs • computer system owned by the city. A member of the Public Safety management staff visited the city of Clearwater, Florida earlier this year where this software is being used for both the police and fire departments in their dispatching center. His observations and interviews with Clearwater public safety personnel elicited favorable reviews of the CAD software. A demonstration version of the system was installed on Richfield's computer this summer to allow public safety personnel to obtain "hands on ".experience with the programs. Staff concluded that the CAD software, with some minor modifications, will meet their requirements. The vendor has agreed to make these changes at no additional cost to the city. In addition to the installation in Clearwater, the CAD software is also being used in the following locations: Tallahassee, Florida Lakeland, Florida Columbia, South Carolina Orlando, Florida Gaston County, N. Carolina Miami, Florida Tampa, Florida Palm Beach County, Florida CAD software in the amount of'$10,000, and $5,000 for installation and training was approved by the Council in the adopted 1986 Revised budget. The funds are appropriated in Public Safety Administration 4100, Line 1798 Data Processing. .f Recommendation: Staff_ recommends that the Council authorize the purchase of CAD software, installation and training from R.M. Webster & Company of Tampa, Florida in the total amount of $15,000.00. Basis for Recommendation This CAD system meets four critical Public Safety needs: 1. CAD provides the Public Safety dispatcher and responding Public Safety police and fire units with instantaneous access to department files which can identify potential hazards known to be present at the location to which units are responding prior to the units' arrival. 2. CAD enhances the Public Safety dispatch system by automating many of the administrative and operational tasks currently performed by the dispatchers which conflict with their primary tasks of eliciting vital emergency data from the public and managing field units of the department. 3. CAD allows the dispatch facility to instantly expand its capabilities during an emergency or disaster by bringing additional terminals located in other Public Safety work areas "on line" with the CAD system, thus providing additional dispatch facilities for the duration of the incident. 4. CAD automatically documents the time critical activities of • the dispatch operation so that a permanent record is available if questions of proper response or other issues of potential liability to the city should arise. The system also provides extensive management information which is invaluable in the management of the dispatch center, field units and personnel resources. Alternative Recommendation: An alternative to purchasing CAD software would be for the city to develop its own system, as we are doing with the public safety record keeping and case management applications. The design and programming efforts to develop a computer aided dispatch system are very complex and staff estimates that in -house development of a comparable system would be considerably more costly, however. Discussion /Decision Mode: Action on this item is requested at the November 10 meeting of the city council. This will allow the vendor and city staff to begin the installation and staff training, with full implementation targeted for April of 1987. Respe tfully submitted, jJa D. Pro sser anager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 421 November 10, 1986 �z Issue Statement: Presentation of Proclamation Designating American Education Week Background: Mr. Steven George, American Legion District Commander, and Chairman of the Legion's American Education Week Program, has requested that the Mayor proclaim the week of November 16 -22 as American Education Week in the City of Richfield, and that this proclamation be presented to representatives of the American Legion at the November 10, 1986 city council meeting. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Mayor present a proclamation designating November 16 -22 as American Education Week to Mr. George at the November 10, 1986 city council meeting. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The American Legion has requested this proclamation, and will be present at the November 10th meeting to accept • the proclamation. 2. Issuance of such a proclamation demonstrates the city council's interest and support of an excellent education system. Alternative Recommendation: Not present the proclamation. However, this would not be in the best interest of public relations. Discussion /Decision Mode: The week of November 16 -22, 1986 has been designated as American Education Week. Therefore, it would be appropriate to present this proclamation at the November 10th city council meeting. JDP /eja C] Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager yam/ � C�'n ty ... .•.t�1 �. •�•T'T' "r .� n- rYirw � gr� n �+ .Ii'°.r s.• ,.��+s�._:.,.d`� r w� � •:,rK � -�s': 1 va kbAS s a is .nom+.': •^y 4 `i ...'9[�. . '�+. nytti• ��W`- .a.W t'a •e xv'tl.�'''�"-'.' . I.�C+. ?•• 3 ._ .+.• r Y I op h}+y cyk 1+ �t� tiAtl< y.. rgsNy ro x}t 47 ^' �e <br1 ft^� ...%�4T .aGj �H'Airlr• ` .. :r ,� ry.?i' -,t t . ✓ - N I \t xt ;4.'s�iSY✓r� }iifrrrr K , 'Sz�Ab'r! ,riS ✓�. - .yjai.✓Pyr I�itir✓ Y ` �,5 y �y. v1 �Y' y:xr r ! ''y �. �7, 4' "� I rr 4` V �R ': u ✓'>`` V R"Te, N' `? 'L nb "✓ ^rte ✓ i'�$.ga r %ava�ii s ywxc L 1 r "' .. s rir•1• %i+' spa s R•ti••�iii!/y" �--• v.- ri 1�•Awl,✓ A }Ri ¢ i' Iq /P/ l s i� rjiPi'rt is`9j; e'" ti Y S , /. i O H •� N •--4 W 10 3 O O > L o 4- r1 L H H OL N H (/) (0 (O •-•1 (n 4J Yw► z+)1 r" H N 0 i O N-4 4-) ovs a\t 1 O N H H E H (0 . 1 Q1 :� 1 lltwc.lr Su a. \`\ `', O J-) N +•► O C> O 4J U i.) H O O H (0 O C r� O 4- (n •r-1 N •rl 4- C O H 41 H CL E +\ ., . <•x...... (n U O O N N +) O U1 iw ?' <+ N .O (0 E (0 N 4-) U 010 +J r Yr�\ �,tl 4 U O U C N •r1 0 C Q \ co c'0 (n O (D 4J U E �r � 1 1; W CO Q. O O L 1-1 01 (n _ 6 Z ._...`. "` o\ ►' ~ N N >. 0) 10 U (0 CO H 0.0 N O\ n ct 1 (0 •ri O (0 4-) 10 4J U O. C co ?L a' r. r•1 >. c0 L 1 _ 10 U r1 .O H C 4 > U J >, C c (O Q) E N C -r'-1 N N N O > ; eP`� • z_? d j1 V N (4— N 01-4 O •-4 W H Y C1 +) O O 1� O H N Q. 10 .-4 (Y N 'N c C 41 Z � . ;1 �� p (i I ��.. ` �� f Z 4J N (0 U H X 1-1 O O T C O Q c -4 •• N O C H C a) < _ ( n C {: u 7 L 4 41 L v a;`aQ. a - . M �� 1i .f•� a U O •r•) r•i (O •r-1 1 ';` , >. H (z •r•1 7 41 E C 4J .I.a Aa M! N O U O N 04-- 'C O (0 O f }\ +-i CL > LL L W 4-) U .-4 s)i' [, W W 4-) W co L 0 $4 E N ; / 3.x RI / Q: C (O U 0) w O E N +1 W r (� �► a \ \r►; W W o C W o•ri 3 >, C- o •N (0 Z t Z Z •ri Z Q L O 4J Q U (13 C O f { 1 3 3 4••) N 3c a) O C 1 1 7 (n (0 N N (0 U 1 O O N N L O L H C O 4-3 - .Q H 4-) i� •1••) +-1 CO - 1 v µ `3�.'�• a Wi 0. \ {@ • -� ma" e JI 1 1•At a 11j1 r }zv f 1= t 1 }� rl yl�l .,. -s rlrvjjl JIItl�llvll :z �i -_ `..� ti 4( �..h�1�`I�M 1 I�I�IIyt L " ra" tiMI `stir c ?sfa •• c �' 1� / /'.in.: � �,,,lfR q wit ,y ra► t 7 r ,w � r A. i , � .}t .A v �jr - h. •^, :i' \ /r• J -yA.:, �yf . �'� .g A �%yf.�'✓' "xy � ' A br ��!'v � �.��' a f22f :: $�>� � f S flr,.;rA•��,�I i . ,R� ��+y� f:rn�� i� � F r +0r i ••'l�•T �� t '�`�L� +V �t aril�A�r� +_.�� "'�y;� ar��6'S �fi�Y ��;•1T •z�r� �,,,� �+' {�•� r y � '�.. 2, r'4+` ✓. r+? a�.•. tl"�i T tr.:.1v r� � ; �. � \'� � � � �\ ...r•!^ %.. n LJ L_ J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1986 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 1986 PRESENTATIONS 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY ITEM NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA 2. PRESENTATION TO THE AMERICAN LEGION OF A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 16 -22 AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD COUNCIL LETTER NO. 421 AGENDA APPROVAL 3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR (NOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION.) 4. A. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH SYSTEM C.L. 422 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) B. REQUESTS FOR PERMITS FOR ILLUMINATED SIGNS AT STATE FARM 6417 PENN AVENUE; ANDON BALLOONS, 1230 E. 66TH STREET; DRUG EMPORIUM, 780 W. 66TH STREET; NAPA AUTO PARTS, 718 W. 77 1/2 ST. C.L. 423 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) C. FINAL PAYMENT TO RICHARD KNUTSON, INC. CONCRETE JOINT SEALING $60,461.23 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) D. ESTIMATE #1 GUNDERSON BROS. CO. SIDEWALK, CURB AND • GUTTER REPAIR $30,649.82 (RECOMMEND APPROVAL) • HEARINGS 5. HEARING OF A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT A DRIVE -THRU WINDOW AT THE DAIRY QUEEN, 7533 PENN AVENUE. (REQUEST WITHDRAWN) COUNCIL LETTER NO. 424 6. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AT 6601 NICOLLET AVENUE TO ALLOW A LEEANN CHIN RESTAURANT TO LOCATE IN RICHFIELD SHOPPES SOUTH (TO BE CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 8, 1986) COUNCIL LETTER NO. 425 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON RENEWAL OF ON -SALE WINE AND NON- INTOXICA- TING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR DAVANNI'S PIZZA AND HOT HOAGIES 2312 WEST 66TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 426 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON RENEWAL OF ON -SALE WINE AND NON-INTOXICA- TING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR FROGI'S SANDWICH SHOP D /B /A SPANKY'S, 6344 PENN AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 427 • 9. PUBLIC HEARING ON RENEWAL OF ON -SALE WINE AND NON- INTOXICA- TING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR MILLER'S FIRESIDE PIZZA, 6736 PENN AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 428 10. PUBLIC HEARING ON RENEWAL OF ON -SALE WINE AND NON- INTOXICA- TING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR PREST MOTOR INN, INC. D /B /A THE INN AIRPORT, 7640 CEDAR AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 429 11. PUBLIC HEARING ON RENEWAL OF ON -SALE WINE AND NON- INTOXICA- TING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR NORTH STAR PIZZA CORP., D /B /A SHAKEY'S PIZZA, 500 EAST 78TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 430 12. HEARING ON INTERPRETATION OF CITY ORDINANCE RELATING TO WHETHER THE USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE DETAILING BUSINESS AT 7301 PENN AVENUE IS A PERMITTED USE ON THAT SITE (PETITIONERS HAVE REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE TO NOVEMBER 24, 1986) COUNCIL LETTER NO. 431 • r 13. HEARING ON REQUEST FOR REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT 6721 -23 PENN AVENUE FROM MR— MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL COUNCIL LETTER NO. 432 14. HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF THE HAMPTON INN TO PERMIT THE INSTALLATION OF AN OVERSIZE SIGN (HEARING TO BE CONTINUED) COUNCIL LETTER NO. 433 15. HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT DRIVE THRU SERVICE AT RESTAURANTS WITHIN 150 FEET OF RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY COUNCIL LETTER NO.�434 16. HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE CONCERNING STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF PROJECTS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 435 PROPOSED ORDINANCES 17. FIRST READING OF A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FUNDING • FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND COUNCIL LETTER NO. 436 18. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES TO KEEP PIGEONS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 437 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS do OTHER BUSINESS 19. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES PROPOSED BY THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES FOR LEGISLA- TIVE ACTION IN 1987 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 438 20. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF A RICHFIELD POLICE OFFICER TO THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION (DEA) FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS TO AID IN DRUG ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 439 • COUNCIL CHOICE 21. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 22. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS ADJOURNMENT • 0