The URL can be used to link to this page

10-13-86 agenda0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 402 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: First Reading of An Ordinance Restricting the Location of Restaurants with Drive - Through Windows Within 150 Feet of Residentially Zoned Property -;V /s74 Background: Within the past several years, restaurants within Richfield have added to their facilities to provide for drive - through windows for patrons to receive food for carry -out. Additionally, some new restaurants with this capability have also been constructed. This type of operation is relatively new, not only to Richfield, but also generally throughout the restaurant industry. Residents living in the vicinity of these operations have noted an increased level of noise, traffic and litter accumulation since the addition of these operations. A number of complaints have been received and verified by the city staff relating to, this operation. Recommendation: Approve first reading of an ordinance which would prohibit the • location of drive- through restaurants within 150 feet of residential districts and refer to the Planning Commission for hearing and recommendation prior to public hearing and second reading of the ordinance. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Minimize the negative environmental impact caused by the operation of these facilities upon residential areas. 2. Adequately safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of residents of residential property located within the vicinity of restaurants. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do nothing. However, residential property in the vicinity of drive - through restaurants would not be adequately protected. Discussion /Decision Mode: This matter will be presented at the council meeting of October 13 for discussion and action. Respectfully submitted, Jame . Prosser City anager • 0 r L..J 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 hereby amended by adding the following new paragraph is (i) No restaurant with a drive be located within 150 feet zoned property. p service window shall of any residential 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. 401 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Appointment to South Hennepin Human Services Council Board of Directors Background: The City of Richfield has four representatives on the Board of Directors for the South Hennepin Human Services Council. One of the appointed directors, Myrna Hammer, resigned recently leaving a vacancy on the Board. The other Directors are Council Member Ludeman, Sgt. John Nelson and Lia Ozols. After an advertisement in the local newspaper, two residents submitted applications to be considered for appointment to the SHHSC Board of Directors. The applicants are Margot Avey and Ione Bullis. Copies of their applications are attached to this council letter. Recommendation: • It is recommended that the city council appoint one of these persons to the SHHSC Board of Directors to fill the present vacanc.y. This term will expire in January, 1988. Basis for Recommendation: 1. A vacancy currently exists on the SHHSC Board of Directors. 2. Two persons have submitted applications for consideration. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The city council may wish to delay appointment to this vacancy to a later date. 2. Not filling the vacancy may result in meetings of the Board of Directors lacking a quorum to conduct business. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the October 139 1986 city council agenda for council consideration. Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City anager JDP /eja r' DATE O a9 g� CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION /COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM NAME R VE:�j MC TRGO R��N L f+ HOME ADDRESS (011-.5 -115, < SOUTH HOME PHONE S6 ao \,9 BUSINESS RL- 4 —zgSa APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: (Number in order of preference) Advisory Board of Health Planning Commission Civil Service Commission Human Services Commission) Community Services Commission (Serving Seniors do Disabled Energy Awareness Commission Sister City - Internat. Human Rights Commission t he r— S 14 H 5G. Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this advisory commission and why you are interested in serving: �J��;,na «nom � c4�ex�ds .n �ves� �c��,ors�� •�com e@c9n� �-o �;. \�.�ex� � ti�emae..L� �.�\ , c��<1e.).� � iv�•�es��i e�-S, CW ar4-o t w °"�� too-c � � L1-4 SQ s CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: REFERENCES (OPTIONAL) o N W u 5 b)) LS lC-�t1 FiNI� V 1y\ Cay*- - NM-5,0& 4 ae- ?,&S 1 DEtnS Avg 50 • WL-5. Ra . ��-1m4,��ra9s� V�zo.aol� 1—PVN — 130\/c 5 woc��q�k+k ga, L"Lk b— lci�g, "'u-- �cc� sQrvY�aa 1 :-ANo ft5Eid)C -(QCs- 465 5 C_©, �. `-la 1�tt� t� � �-�z�5-1� -K11 �� OCCUPATION (NO-T D kVk1t-(-\TCR, C-co� Qppz? . � Return to City Manager's Office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. DATED • CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION /COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM NAME LAST //',,// FIRST MIDDLE 6 HOME ADDRESS 401 I s+ V� -T-�L HOME PHONE BUSINESSI"�l APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: (Number in order of preference) CJ Advisory Board of Health Planning Commission Civil Service Commission Human Services Commission Community Services Commission (Serving Seniors & Disabled Energy Awareness Commission Sister City Internat. Human Rights Commission T S.H.H.S.C.LK Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this advisory commission and why you are interested in serving: i 7224 CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: REFERENCES (OPTIONAL) OCCUPATION Return to City Manager's Office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. N CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 400 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Appointment of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioner Background: The term of HRA Commissioner Joan Helmberger will expire at the end of October, 1986. Commissioner Helmberger has served on the HRA since 1980. Under state law, the Mayor appoints HRA Commissioners subject to confirmation by the City Council. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council confirm the Mayor's appointment of Joan Helmberger to the HRA for a five -year term which will expire in October, 1991. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Joan Helmberger wishes to be reappointed, and is an able and experienced HRA Commissioner. 2. It is Mayor Hamilton's intent to appoint Joan Helmberger to another five -year term on the HRA. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Mayor Hamilton could appoint a member of the City Council to the -HRA, with council confirmation. 2. Mayor Hamilton could appoint another citizen to the HRA with council confirmation. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the city council agenda for council consideration on October 13, 1986. The council could continue their confirmation, and Commissioner Helmberger would continue to serve until an appointment is made. Respec ully submitted, • Jam D. Prosser Ci Manager • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 399 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Adoption of a Resolution Certifying a Deferral of Special Assessments For An Eligible Homeowner Background: On March 8, 1982 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 6586 establishing procedures for deferment of special assessments against owner occupied homestead properties of persons 65 years of age or older and persons permanently and totally disabled. It has been the policy of the City of Richfield to approve qualified requests submitted to the City pursuant to that resolution. One application for deferral of payment of special assessments has been received for this year thus far. The application was properly submitted on forms prescribed by the County auditor and the homeowner has furnished the City with the necessary information for determining eligibility in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435.195. The request for deferral is for the combination of 1976 street paving and 1982 alley paving assessments. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the eligible special assessment deferment. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Compliance with Resolution Number 6586 establishing procedures for deferment of special assessments against owner - occupied homestead properties. 2. Finding that a qualified hardship is deemed to exist pursuant to resolution Number 6586. Alternative Recommendation: If members of the City Council have information which would indicate that the property is non -owner occupied, non - homestead, or that the hardship conditions are not warranted, staff could reassess the eligibility of the applicant. The City Council could also discontinue or modify the current special assessment deferment policy. All information presented to staff would indicate that the applicant is eligible for the deferment request. Additionally, the deferment procedure, as it now exists, has been a valuable alternative to eligible homeowners in need of this assistance. n U ?-��/y -/ • Decision Mode: City Council action on the request should take place as soon as possible so that the information may be submitted to the County prior to the preparation of property tax bills. Respectfully submitted, mes D. Prosser City Manager JDP /eja 41 is _#j�F -"z - • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING ELIGIBLE DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST OWNER OCCUPIED HOMESTEAD PROPERTY OF PERSON PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED WHEREAS, Resolution no. 6586 was passed by the City Council on March 8, 1982, establishing procedures for deferment of special assessments against owner occupied homestead properties of persons 65 years of age or.older and persons permanently and totally disabled; and WHEREAS, application for deferral of payment of special assessments have been made on forms prescribed by the County Auditor and the homeowner has furnished the city the necessary information for determining eligibility in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435.195. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the following owner - occupied property be approval for deferral of special assessments as listed below: PROPERTY ID ADDITION NO. AMOUNT 29- 028 -24 -44 -0144 46793 $1,064.61 1. Such deferral of payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated, plus applicable • interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) death of the owner, provided that the surviving spouse is not eligible for the benefits hereunder; (b) the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; (c) if the property should for any reason lose its homestead status; or (d) if for any reason the taxing authority deferring the payments shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of October, 1986. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas Ferber City Clerk 0235 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, OTHER PROCEEDINGS 435.195 Subd. 5. This section shall not modify any law or charter provision authoriz- ing the imposition of special assessments against governmental units. History: 1943 c 609 s 1; 1953 c 209 s 1; 1957 c 510 s 1; 1967 c 144 s 1; 1967 c 596 s 1; 1969 c 399 s 49; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7 NOTE: See also section 429.061. 435.191 TIME LIMIT ON IMPROVEMENTS. When the governing body of a city determines to make any local improvement, it shall let the contract for all or part of the work, or order all or part of the work done by day labor or otherwise as may be authorized by law, no later than one year after the adoption of the resolution ordering such improvement, unless a different time limit is specifically stated in the resolution ordering the improvement. History: 1978 c 518 s 3; 1980 c 509 s 165 435.193 SENIOR CITIZENS OR RETIRED AND DISABLED PERSONS ?,HARDSHIP SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL. Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, any county, � ,: statutory or home rule charter city, or town, making a special assessment may, at its discretion, defer the payment of that assessment for any homestead property owned - ^by a person 65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. Any county, statutory or home rule charter city, or town electing to defer special assessments "shall adopt an ordinance or resolution establishing standards and guidelines for etermining the existence of a hardship and for determining the existence of a disability, but nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the determination of '.hardship on the basis of exceptional and unusual circumstances not covered by the standards and guidelines where the determination is made in a nondiscriminatory 'i manner and does not give the applicant an unreasonable preference or advantage over other applicants. s History: 1974 c 206 s 7; 1976 c 195 s 3; 1981 c 80 s 1 435494 PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN DEFERRED ASSESSMENT. The homeowner shall make application for deferred payment of special assess - ments on forms prescribed by the county auditor of the county in which the homestead is located. Where the deferred assessment is granted, the auditor shall record a notice thereof with the county recorder of said county which shall set forth the amount of the assessment. The taxing authority may determine by ordinance or resolution the amount of interest, if any, on the deferred assessment and this rate .,.shall be recorded by the auditor along with and in the same manner as the amount :: of the assessment. History: 1974 c 206 s 8; 1976 c 181 s 2; 1976 c 195 s 4 435.195 TERMINATION OF RIGHT TO DEFERRED PAYMENT. The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all P � P Y P amounts accumulated plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) the death of the owner, provided that the spouse is otherwise not eligible for the benefits hereunder; (b) the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; (c) if the property should for any reason lose its homestead status; or (d) if for any reason the taxing .authority deferring the payments shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. History: 1974 c 206 s 9 t; RESOLUTION NO. 6386 �y� I RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR ` DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST OWNER- OCCUPIED HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES OF PERSONS PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that Resolutions No. 6519 and 6552 are amended as follows: 1. It is the policy of the city to consider requests for the deferment of special assessments upon homestead properties owned by persons 65 years of age or older or by persons retired by virtue of a permanent total disability for whom it would ,*be a hardship to make payments of such special assessments./ Permanent and total disability for the purpose of this section means a condition which is permanent by nature and totally incapacitates the person from working at an oc- cupation which brings him an income. In the adoption of such policy and the procedures established by this resolution the city is acting pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435.195.' 2. A qualifying hardship shall be deemed to exist if the = -- owner of the homestead property and other occupants of the homestead, taken together (a) had a gross income of less than $11,000 in the previous calendar year and (b) will have an . estimated income for the current calendar year and subsequent years which will not exceed said sum. 3. Application for deferral of payment of special assessments shall be made on forms prescribed by the county auditor. The home owner shall furnish the city wish such information as it may require at the time of the original application and at any time thereafter while the special assessment remains unpaid which will permit the city to establish, verify or continue the deferral of special assessments or to determine whether elig- ibility for such deferral has ended. 4. Interest on deferred special assessments shall accrue until the special assessment is paid, at the rate established by the city at the time of levying the special assessment. 5. The city manager or designee shall examine all applications for determiiatoii _oT his /her eligibility for deferral of .. - payment of special assessments (a) in compliance with said statute and (b) in accordance with the standards and guidelines for determining hardships contained in this resolution or any subsequent amendment thereof. " 6. vo deferment of- payr.,ent of "a special assessment shall be • Tade unless the owner furnishes the city with an application and such supple..aentary documentation and verification as may be required to establish the following: 1. The legal description, plat and parcel number of the property; 2. The street address of the property 3. Its status as homestead property; 4. The description or designation of the local improver 't-I 5. The name of the homestead owner - occupant;. 6. That said owner- occupant is over 65 years or age or permanently and totally disabled; 7. That payment of the special. assessment on the ordinanrl time basis would be hardship as defined herein. 7. Within 30 days after the filing of said application for deferment of special assessments, the city manager shall review the application for consistency with and conformance to, the .. council prescribed standards and guidelines; and then either grant or deny the application. In the event of the existence of exceptional or unusual circumstances not covered by the standarc and guidelines, the city manager shall make a full report to the city council within 30 days of the filing of said application' along with i 'recdirihdriaWE on as to whether said application shout be granted'or "dehie3: °'-I the event of the denial of the applica tion by the city manager, any applicant shall have the right to have the application considered by the city council. In those instances where the city council considers an application, it shall, by resolution, either grant or deny the application; and the decision of the city council shall be final. The city manac shall report to the city council on a quarterly basis on def errF!. granted by him /her. 8. The option to defer the payment of special assessments • shall terminate and all amounts accumulated, plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) death of the owner, provided that the surviving spouse is not eligible for the benefits hereunder; (b) the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; (c) if the property should for any reasons lose its homestead status; or (d) if for any reason the taxing .authority deferring the payments shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. Special assessments for current services cannot be deferred. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 8th day of March, 1982. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 398 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Purchase of Property at 6301 Portland Avenue for Park Purposes. Background: The city has indicated its willingness to purchase property on the east side of Portland Avenue north of 66th Street for park purposes when such property is available for purchase. The owners of 6301 Portland Avenue contacted the city expressing a . willingness to sell their property. The Community Services Advisory Commission has recommended purchase of 6301 Portland for park purposes. The Planning Commission has found the purchase of this property for park purposes to be in conformance with the city's Comprehensive Plan. Two appraisals were conducted for 6301 Portland Avenue. The market values indicated in the appraisals were $79,000 and $73,500. The city, as buyer, and the owners of 6301 Portland Avenue, as seller, have agreed on a purchase price of $72,580 with real estate taxes and installments on special assessments to be prorated as of the date of closing. The seller has waived relocation benefits. The city has agreed to provide a rental • opportunity to the seller at $250 per month for a period not to extend beyond September 1, 1987. Funding for purchase of this property would be borrowed from the Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund and repaid with scheduled future allocations to the park land acquisition account. It would be the city's intention to sell the structures sometime in 1987 for removal from the site. Any proceeds from this sale would be placed in the park land acquisition account. Recommendation: It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of property at 6301 Portland Avenue for park purposes as outlined in this council letter by adopting the attached resolution. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Community Services Commission and Planning Commission recommend the purchase of 6301 Portland Avenue for park purposes. 2. The city's history of willingness to purchase property on the east side of Portland Avenue, north of 66th Street, for park purposes at Legion Lake. 3. The willingness of the owners to sell and waive relocation benefits. 4. A purchase agreement, prepared by the city attorney, which • has been negotiated to the satisfaction of the city staff and the owners. Alternative Recommendation: Do not purchase at this time. Discussion /Decision Mode: As the owners are willing to sell to the city at this time, it is to the city's advantage to purchase now. A new owner may not be willing to sell to the city for some time and, if the time comes when the city had another opportunity for purchase, the purchase price would likely be much higher. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP /eja • r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT 6301 PORTLAND AVENUE FOR PARK PURPOSES WHEREAS, the city council has indicated its willingness to purchase property on thee east side of Portland Avenue north of 66th Street for park purposes when such property is available for purchase, and WHEREAS, the property at 6301 Portland Avenue is available for purchase and the city staff has negotiated a purchase agreement for this property, and WHEREAS, the city as buyer and the owners of 6301 Portland Avenue as seller have agreed to a purchase price of $72,580 with real estate taxes and installments on special assessments to be prorated as of the date of closing, with any relocation benefits for the seller to be waived and with the buyer agreeing to rent the dwelling at 6301 Portland Avenue to the seller for a period not to exceed September 12 1987 at a rental rate of $250 /month, and WHEREAS, funds for the purchase of this property are to be borrowed from the Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund and • repaid from future allocations to the park land acquisition account, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the purchase of the property at 6301 Portland Avenue, for the terms outlined above, is hereby approved. Passed this 13th day of October, 1986. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 397 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Award of Contract for Construction of New Municipal Liquor Store at 66th Street and Cedar Avenue. Background: KKE Architects prepared plans and specifications, which were approved by the city council, for a building with a total of 11,770 square feet of area. This building, to be located in the southwest sector of the 66th Street and Cedar Avenue intersection, will house one of Richfield's three municipal liquor stores. The engineer's construction estimate was between $460,000 and $490,000. Funding for the project is available through the municipal liquor store enterprise fund and proceeds from the sale of the existing liquor store site. On Wednesday, October 1, 1986 bids were opened in accordance with legal requirements. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached for city council review. Proposals included a lump sum bid (with two unit prices specified within this lump sum bid), a cost for the required performance bond and four alternates. The first alternate was for the elimination of a retaining wall to be located to the south of the site housing the new liquor store. • The second alternate was for addition of PVC sleeves or the conduit to be used for irrigation of green spaces. The third alternate was for elimination of the foundation to the sign for the liquor store. The fourth alternate was a variation for the paint to be used. Each bidder also indicated the calendar days for completion of the work. Eleven of the twelve general contractors holding plans submitted proposals. Recommendation: It is the recommendation of staff and the architect that the city council approve the minutes and tabulation and award a contract to Glanton Construction of Minneapolis, MN, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $453,005. This contract award includes the following: 1. Acceptance of the lump sum base bid $448,770 2. Acceptance of Alt. #1 (retaining wall) ( 3,400) 3. Acceptance of Alt. #2 (PVC sleeves) 885 4. Acceptance of Performance Bond costs 6,750 Part of the lump sum bid shall include the unit prices for pendant sprinkler heads (add $90 /head, deduct $75 /head) and for upright sprinkler heads (add $80 /head, deduct $70 /head). As a stipulation of the contract award, the 240 calendar days for completion, as proposed by the contractor, shall be clarified to indicate 150 calendar days for completion of the building and the • balance of days, not to exceed a total of 240 calendar days for all of the work specified, for completion of the parking lot as weather permits. F Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposal of Glanton Construction is within the engineer's estimate for the work. 2. Indications by other contractors, under whom Glanton Construction has served as a subcontractor, are that Glanton is a very capable contractor. 3. Indications by other owners, for whom Glanton has worked, are that the work performed has been satisfactory. 4. While the financial status of Glanton Construction is not substantial for this project, it is acceptable being that Glanton is a small, minority contractor. Alternative Recommendation: The city council may wish to consider using a larger, better known contractor. However, the cost of having the work done will be higher, and the city will not meet exact legal requirements. For example, a contract award to Kraus- Anderson would amount to $501,650 and an award to M.A. Mortenson Company would amount to $512,291. Discussion /Decision Mode: If the existing facility housing the Cedar Liquor Store is to be vacated by next spring, it is essential that construction begin as soon a's possible on the new facility. Once an award is made, it will take approximately two weeks to complete the necessary • documents to insure a properly executed contract. When there is a properly executed contract, the specified work may begin. Should the city council award a contract on October 13, it is anticipated work may begin about November 1, 1986. With a 150 calendar day completion time for the building, the new facility should be available (and the existing facility vacated) about the first of April, 1987. JDP /eja L� Respectf y submitted, James Prosser City Hager a • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 396 October 13, 1986 Item Under Consideration: Award of Contract for Sludge Dewatering Building Addition. Background: At the July 14, 1986 city council meeting, the council rejected the only bid received June 25, 1986 from A & K Construction, Inc. in the amount of $543,990 for the sludge dewatering building addition at the water treatment plant. The council also authorized staff to readvertise for bids. On September 25, 1986 bids were opened in accordance with legal requirements for a building addition at the Water Plant. The purpose of the building addition is to house the equipment and operation for sludge dewatering. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached for city council review. Although there were four or five general contractors who had picked up sets of plans and specifications, only two bids were received. It is the understanding of city staff and the • consultant that although the timeframe for construction was changed in the readvertisement for bids, the contractors that may have bid on the project were too busy at this time to prepare a bid proposal. Late winter is a better time for busy contractors to prepare bid proposals. It has come to light that only one mechanical subcontractor has been located or contacted by the bidders. The 1986 and 1987 water maintenance operating budgets and the 1986/1987 Capital Budgets include a total of $432,500 from user fees for the sludge dewatering project with approximately $250,000 earmarked for the building addition. The latest engineer estimate for the building addition was $366,000- $388,000. Recommendation: It is the recommendation of staff and the consultant that the city council reject the bids received on September 25, 1986 for the sludge dewatering building addition at the Richfield Water Plant and that the city council authorize a readvertisement for bids. Basis of Recommendation: • 1. Only two bids were received. 2. The bids exceed the engineering estimate ($366- $388,000) and the amount budgeted ($250,000) for the work. • 3. By bidding during the winter months, contractors may have more time to prepare bid proposals and to meet the construction schedule. 4. By making modifications in the design of the building addition, a wider range of contractors may be willing to submit proposals. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Accept the low bid of Company and negotiate of the project. This potential contractors option because the de award of contract. $537,000 submitted by change orders to redu option, however, does for the work with the sign change would take M. A. Mortenson ce the total cost not provide all same bidding place after the 2. Shelve the project for an indeterminate amount of time. However, bidding has already taken place for the presses to be housed in the building addition. 3. In the event the city council would like additional information or further exploration, the council may consider a third option of indicate bids are opening. Council November would be • Discussion /Decision M • delaying action as the specifications to be firm for 60 days from the date of action later in October or in early permissible within this time frame. ode: By taking action at this time, contractors, the consultant and the city staff would know the status of the project and could proceed accordingly. JDP /eja Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 395 October 13, 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 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. With the passage of time the city has gained a great deal of experience and knowledge in the use of the PUD process. With that experience and knowledge has come the realization that i certain provisions of the PUD section have not always worked well in practice. Among the most notable examples are the criteria and standards contained in subdivisions 9, 10 and 11 of the PUD sections. Those criteria and standards were designed to regulate such matters as floor area, open space, livability space, recreation space and parking requirements. Experience has shown that when a proposed development is subjected to the PUD process and possesses the qualities of design, land use, and community benefit which fulfill the purposes and objectives of the PUD section, those same projects may depart radically from the PUD criteria and standards contained in the subdivisions above. It has been interpreted in the past that those criteria and standards must be met by PUDs and if they do not meet them a variance would be required for the development to proceed. As previously mentioned this appears to be contrary to the concept and theory behind planned unit developments because it does not allow the flexibility which the PUD ordinance is intended to provide. An example is the Market Plaza PUD project. In that instance, the city needed to approve a plan and variances for a PUD which had approximately one -third more floor area, two - thirds less livability space and two - fifths less recreational space then was required by the PUD criteria and standards. In spite of • those significant departures, the development itself was the kind of land use which the PUD section was intended to permit. • In January of this year the city council considered an amendment to the PUD ordinance which indicates that the criteria and standards used to evaluate PUD's would become just guidelines for reviewing planned unit developments that are in redevelopment areas. The City Council tabled consideration of the proposed ordinance amendment because the opposition to the CDR project at 35W and 494 project strenuously objected to the city considering the ordinance. That ordinance is attached for council review and consideration again. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council give first reading consideration of the attached ordinance and refer it to the Planning Commission for their study and recommendation. It is further recommended that the City Council set November 109 1986 as the date of the public hearing and second reading consideration of this matter. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The current planned unit development ordinance does not allow the flexibility which the PUD ordinance is intended to provide. 2. The Planning Commission on many occasions has indicated the need to eliminate the necessity for variances in the PUD • projects. The Planning Commission has indicated this even prior to the CDR development proposal. 3. Application of these general standards as strict limitation rather than general guidelines is contrary to the PUD concept. 4. There are developments being proposed which would require variances to the provisions 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. Alternative Recommendation: 1. 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: It is desirable to review this potential ordinance amendment prior to official submittal of any developments, such as the CDR development. Representatives of CDR have indicated tentatively that they would like to submit their revised proposal for official review to the Planning Commission at their regular meeting in November. Council consideration would then be in December. Therefore, the council should act on the ordinance amendment prior to the Planning Commission review of the proposed development on November 25th. To meet this deadline the action and timetable outlined in the staff recommendation would need to. be followed. Respectf lly submitted, Jame l. Prosser City anager 0 • AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV, SECTION 3.34A OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.34A of the Ordinance Code entitled: "Planned Unit Development Zoning District" is hereby amended in the following respects: I. By amending subdivision 1 thereof to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Purpose. -1 t- i-s-- the- -pt+rgo-s& --of tht s- seet3eri -moo-- err- oirr�e- �o-r-- tl�- egtal��sl�merrt- -et the --c - - - -- - ef --tt,-- a -itj-- eatrrrek1-r-- Frf-- gIamnea - unit- - err- traeto et- 3'at-r1- -WYr -ic4r a - 0tiiteb -1 e -4-ft- 1-E c t- rcm-,- area- -anez eharae ter- - €er- t - -jee- -- and- --€&r-- +- he-- a true ture9 pregesed--- P��- sttek- PHB- rentne�- dtstrtets- ere -te -be St�ftabt�ttp-et-tbe-treets-e€-�end- ter - the- de*�e�eg- ment-- p-repese&- be- rm!fted-- Vriffrari- 1-y- -bp reterenee- te- t4w ---4-- t,y -te- eoiffftpr err&ive- deve +epment gran- and- etn�+- rede*ae�egment- g�erl- far -the- area -Wb #eh etas- been- e�degted -bp- the- ett�*--- Eenstderatten -sbe�� be- gist - o- -e fsttng -rtrrt - -s rrc s i- rig - development When-- - trrrirt-- develepment dgstriet - - -3t -!-s-- intended- tb$t --t die --pr i-c�rrs -ef tbt s-- seetiern--- a�re� - -- arty--- ad�tt�na�-- ree�tZtrex�ents estabItshed- by-t4ie- -e -ice-- cou-rtL-r1- -- rr- eatab/lie ring -a PHH-- dtstrtet-- Wt��-- eeeemg� #sh -- the-- gttrgeses - -et nentng- as --set 4er +_b - -irrt c i r -3zZ -7 ,-- Subdtvt- seen- l---- It- 4-& --t1te - =----- - - - - -- -- o-f-- ttie- -eity - -te provide- €o-r- -- €-ice -i+- i- 13th -tn -i+ fAitd - -Iand uses; - �i-c- -an d - - trse& - --a- -hi gh Ieve +--- &f--- ermerrttfes�,- - --i. peel-- -pjtk- j-ie--- sefetp; ereatt�*e- dest�n- end- greser�atten- ef- nett3ra�- seente end -��?�; =- rnrs- l-- e�t:a�fttes -�€ apes-- s�aees- f�crr - -e better- }f�tng; - wer�tne3- end- sbegpfne}- en�frenxtent- 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 communitZ economic benefit, improved public safetv and • preservation of natural scenic and recreational qualities of open spaces for a better living, working and shopping environment. To accomplish those objectives, the suitability of a tra 'ct of land for the development proposed must be de- termined primarily by reference to the city's comprehensive plan and any redevelopment plan for the area which has been adopted by the city. Standards and criteria relating to such matters as design, building size, height and location, lot coverage and parking requirements contained elsewhere in the city's zoning regulations should be considered as merely guidelines in considering any PUD proposal and may , be departed frorm in the approval of any PUD proposal if the city deter- mines that the PUD proposal is consistent with the purposes and objectives above described. II. By amending subdivision 9 thereof to read as follows: Subd. 9. Criteria and Standards. In considering any PUD proposal, the city shall be guided primar- ily by the purposes and objectives described in subdivision 1 of this section. In considering any PUD proposal in any redevelopment project area, the city also shall be guided by the goals and objectives contained in the plan for such redevel- opment project area, and the guidelines contained in aragraphs (1) through (3) of this subdivision, and subdivisions 10 and 11 shall not apply to such PUDs. Except as to applications for PUDs in officially adopted redevelopment project areas, the city shall apply the standards contained in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subdivision and subdivisions 10 and 11. (1) Land Use Intensity (LUI). The maximum land use intensity rating permitted in a PUD district shall be determined by the gross land area of the tract of land, the proposed type of planned unit development district, and the uses assigned to the PUD district. (2) The land use intensity rating for those parcels of the PUD district designated for res- idential uses, or a. combination of residential and nonresidential uses, shall be as follows: I� LJ GROSS LAND AREA PR & PC -1 PMR, PC -2 & SQUARE FEET ACRES LUI RATING PI LUI RATING 43,560- 87,120 1 -2 40 48. 87,120- 130,680 2 -3 43 50 130,680- 174,240 3 -4 45 52 174,240- 217,800 4 -5 48 54 217,800 - 261,360 5 -6 50 56 over 261,360 6+ 55 58 (3) The land use intensity rating for those parcels of the PUD district designated solely for commercial and industrial uses shall be as fol- lows: GROSS LAND AREA PR & PC -1 PMR, PC -2 & SQUARE FEET ACRES LUI RATING PI LUI RATING 43,560- 87,120 1 -2 30 38 87,120- 130,680 2 -3 33 42 130,680- 174,240 3 -4 35 44 174,240- 217,800 4 -5 38 48 217,800- 261,360 5 -6 40 50 over 261,360 6+ 45 52 0 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1985. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • John N. Hamilton, Mayor �1� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 394 October 13,, 1986 Issue Statement Ordinance Amendment Related to the Sale of Automobiles. First Reading. Background Richfield presently has an ordinance code prohibiting the sale of automobiles on Sundays and legal holidays. The code is based on an old provision in the state statutes. Several years ago the statute was amended to prohibit motor vehicle sales only on Sunday, and allow sales on legal holidays. A problem has developed with Richfield motor vehicle dealers who have not realized that the city ordinance code is different from state statutes and have been conducting business on legal holidays. Recommendation The staff recommendation is to adopt the ordinance code amendment allowing sale of motor vehicle on legal holidays. Basis of Recommendation 1. State law has been changed to prohibit motor vehicle sales only on Sunday. 2. Surrounding communities have followed state law and prohibited motor vehicle sales only on Sunday. 3. Richfield motor vehicle dealers are presently at a competitive disadvantage if the ordinance code prohibiting • sales on both Sundays and legal holidays is enforced. Alternative Recommendation 1. Not adopting the code change recommendation will put the Richfield motor vehicle dealers at a competitive disadvantage to dealers in neighboring communities. 2. Enforcement of the ordinance code prohibiting motor vehicle sales on legal holidays may result in litigation. 3. Not adopting the proposed code amendment would place the city in the position of appearing not to support the local business community in a manner similar to that of other communities. Decision /Discussion Mode It is recommended that council give first reading approval to the proposed code change on October 13, 1986, so the rather lengthy amendment process may proceed in a timely manner. The public hearing and second reading of the ordinance could be scheduled for the October 27, 1986 city council meeting. If the ordinance is approved on second reading, the ordinance would become effective 30 days after publication in the official newspaper. Resp ully submitted, • James Prosser City anager JDP /eja AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VI, SECTION 6.07 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE • OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD • 0 . -#r�1-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter VI, Section 6.07 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to Motor Vehicle Dealer licensing and regulation is hereby amended by amending 6.07, Subdivision 7, Paragraph (1), thereof as follows: Subd. 7. Conditions Governing Issuance. The following conditions are imposed upon all licensees: (1) Business Hours. The premises shall be closed and there shall be no transactions relating to motor vehicles on or adjacent to such premises on any Sunday, +ega+ ho +idap or on any other day between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber John Hamilton, Mayor { t` w- • 40 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 393 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: * /3 Replatting and Common Element Residential Subdivision of Property Located at 66th Street and Rae Drive. Background: Mr. George E. Branton, property owner at 66th Street and Rae Drive has requested a replatting and common element residential subdivision of Outlot A and Outlot B, Rae 2nd Addition (see attached plat). The said outlots would be replatted into 10 separate lots. The City Council has previously approved the rezoning of the property from "R" single family residence district to PMR -1 planned two family residential district and approved a final development plan and a special use permit for the development. Outlot A, Rae 2nd Addition will become lot 1,2,3,4 and 5, Block 2, Rae 3rd Addition and will house two -two family dwellings with common open space. Lots 1 -4 will each contain a dwelling unit and the remainder of Outlot A will be the new lot 5 which will be common open space (see attached plat). Outlot B, Rae 2nd Addition will become lot 1,2,3,4 and 5, Block 1, Rae 3rd Addition and will house two -two family dwellings with common open space. Again lots 1 -4 will each contain a dwelling unit and the remainder of Outlot B will become the new lot 5 which will be common open space. The property is being developed by George Branton Construction Company in conjunction with Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. This replatting action is necessary to allow 8 new dwelling units to be sold to owner occupants. The Planning Commission voted (8 -0) to recommend that the City Council approve the replatting and common element residential subdivision of property at 66th Street and Rae Drive. On . September 29th, the HRA also approved the plat as a part of the agreements for developing the site. Zoning Ordinance Requirements: 1. Section 3.55A, outlines the common element residential 2. Section 3.59, outlines the preliminary plat. requirements subdivisions. requirements for approval of for approval of �/.� 1 . Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the plat as shown and approve common element residential subdivision as submitted with the following stipulations: 1. No owner may remove or alter any intervening common wall separating two units for the purpose of joining such units without amending the plat to permit such joinder; 2. Except to adjust for settling or lateral movement of structures, the boundaries between adjoining units may not be relocated without amending the plat; 3. Units may not be subdivided without amending the plat; 4. Common areas or facilities may not be subdivided without amending the plat; 5. In the event that any unit is damaged or destroyed, it must be rebuilt to the boundaries of that unit as described in the subdivision plan; 6. Common areas may not be used for any purpose other than the purposes described in the subdivision plan and contained in the plat. Basis of Recommendation: The basis of the staff recommendation is that all the information required to be shown on the plat and common element subdivision • plan is shown and this action is consistent with previous plans and approvals. Alternative Recommendation: Not approve the plat. However, this would jeopardize the closings for the sale of the eight units. Decision Mode: The item was published on October 1, 1986 in the Sun Current for a public - hearing on the October 13, 1986 City Council agenda. Hennepin County must complete its processing of the plat prior to the end of October. Thus, timely Council action on the 13th is desirable. JDP /eja • Respec ully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager J ` A^ l J k N n�' c • a cy .- a, ^SF•E Q i o= OF c 9 `h ; 5 r. �h �o ti`s ol ," ov f#7 °:- J, q5 3 •F�c \v ?"ate �_J �' sts" pv \\ . H co \5- + .f, N i Ax c� F6 ` J r. &6 l J N 72b0 � SO ml" 0 °Ot3.13';E 7. :.0 00 � p, ' U tR c — "' cl o ( n Z2 30 009E v ry �Ai .6 wilC Etc :• Z . 1 wIC - �IKIr i plm _1 Z ... V ^ccjf Sr' �� n n0 c► _7C y ` `^ -. —0 6 i Ax c� F6 ` J r. &6 i k", �K- Z O V, m 0 'W V/ O (L 0 1.L l J N i k", �K- Z O V, m 0 'W V/ O (L 0 1.L �11 41 n j �11 41 ! 0 v9 r we ID r Z .+s > O A : a •9 d • 1 w » c i s •c -e • A i A > � •+ re r r > •1 Z �e v » •0 G >G m a m •e �- r o » A x s � m n CL 'O D O K.N a to r m A 'p r y 7 y _ S m .y :D CO m • G m 7 r O A 10 G •e z A y P -e a a Z < z A w co D > a Q O 6 a h C r n► h 0 1 f r r a a O. o. s ■ A o- A C6 0 e S r � v 0 a w A 1 O 19 0 1 A i -c A 0 C z A r O ! z n m r v 2 r Z Z m N Q i 2 0 1 ■ ••9 z 1 A R S r a �a —es e O 110 S o » e •-• r O A C A T Q a S L O N A » S » • rR C 2 » 1 7 O = A R O S1 N N 0. --7 a rt L r at A C o -•ccev C 9 A -• � r C r• ¢ ¢ Z C7 O -�• C O I O al W S R • D -7 ■ D N C' C O T G •z < • D n �• 2 e O G 0 2 01 7 Ic � • 1 1 G » r� C r R » C I A 711 T 1 » m G r c » S A - — C •e A A O •+ a c tD A e eln r r n 2 r ■ a c » ! r O D 00 T O � as .• 7 fY •�•• 1 6 O A A A C S O A r• r >• - A A < G e A r- L S m cA O 7 Z e a ■ 1 R A .+ a fl » O A A r m r• 7 m a e A • L n •- �v e � v■ o `c ■ m < A ..• r 7 L T » 1 A R ¢ A G 7C A C r s -- c » 7 5 3 ZI �e o R PalR l ■'<i ■ m c' m c, O a n' X 5 c o 1 � � A rt S I el A) O C I �X'l e) a 0 al Vi AO! Z S O M 14 e O v � ! • oe 2 C � r - -oez •-� zz 7 A 2 00 C 7G N a T O 4 c z > 7 1 r •e a - N ¢ c < R C � S- Z D f n t 7 C I @ G 1; G c @ 0 r ■ a S m G D ! 0 w c 3 �- r• .A.. e 7 n e 1 P A o 1.e r CD e r A r A 7 � o P o •a + A Z 7 c- ■ v r A s 1e D r A O1 we V � m< A 0 jg ,2 a r o -•• e o a S G • » » O =r A D • v r•- 1 » K A = e • D n f; r• A A c c � n n •e •- C •t 7 1 S L ^ a R 6 1 oaPr, e- 7 � 9 •- a a O R < » L C O S a •! e R < A O O ac • A P C d O C � —e �1aa it G Q A • » » D 7 A » Cv r A T r S G 7 4 Q-- O A -- v 10 A e a� a • •e 1 O r 1 C a a 7 G ear.• c a n a • + i • a o err. e G ? O e • 1 O 1 �+ C 3 A S •s n .- c m --• _cG • f r• q > w m r f > »a • 44 —W 7 7 > Z w A o s � •c m e w • » A 70 » p w » o >v > A � v o• _ v A O o � O ec o 0 7 C •'- a c » S ro >• A c • .+ C o a�eo• w t0 C G 7w • t s a c w 1 M O y n r o ao • r M S. ••i r D r •! :0 T C • m sa • o z •- -+ o • •.-z oz f ! z S G +1 1 ►` Z O_ ■ +SO e y O O n r p O. '► a ro: • f o Z o. s0 3r r. a Z w= s rw o � • O Z a I O a r' MZ O • y O � 2 ee •o > 'o f sa 01 r O r 94.4 O > A •+ A - •1 f.1 O t0 O !1 t W t N v D i0 a r v �+ O v N S > • M C C ". _ M 1 • Or w < r O A V z O~ " o s •+ • O ■ S m - r r - c o e 6 O 7 m h m 01 •7 4 c • 7 1 .• O O A O A •7 6 .a ' w K `J ? r ? a O M h r n a O f i M Q =� A s �e r � ! 0 v9 r we ID r Z .+s > O A : a •9 d • 1 w » c i s •c -e • A i A > � •+ re r r > •1 Z �e v » •0 G >G m a m •e �- r o » A x s � m n CL 'O D O K.N a to r m A 'p r y 7 y _ S m .y :D CO m • G m 7 r O A 10 G •e z A y P -e a a Z < z A w co D > a Q O 6 a h C r n► h 0 1 f r r a a O. o. s ■ A o- A C6 0 e S r � v 0 a w A 1 O 19 0 1 A i -c A 0 C z A r O ! z n m r v 2 r Z Z m N Q i 2 0 1 ■ ••9 z 1 A R S r a �a —es e O 110 S o » e •-• r O A C A T Q a S L O N A » S » • rR C 2 » 1 7 O = A R O S1 N N 0. --7 a rt L r at A C o -•ccev C 9 A -• � r C r• ¢ ¢ Z C7 O -�• C O I O al W S R • D -7 ■ D N C' C O T G •z < • D n �• 2 e O G 0 2 01 7 Ic � • 1 1 G » r� C r R » C I A 711 T 1 » m G r c » S A - — C •e A A O •+ a c tD A e eln r r n 2 r ■ a c » ! r O D 00 T O � as .• 7 fY •�•• 1 6 O A A A C S O A r• r >• - A A < G e A r- L S m cA O 7 Z e a ■ 1 R A .+ a fl » O A A r m r• 7 m a e A • L n •- �v e � v■ o `c ■ m < A ..• r 7 L T » 1 A R ¢ A G 7C A C r s -- c » 7 5 3 ZI �e o R PalR l ■'<i ■ m c' m c, O a n' X 5 c o 1 � � A rt S I el A) O C I �X'l e) a 0 al Vi AO! Z S O M 14 e O v � ! • oe 2 C � r - -oez •-� zz 7 A 2 00 C 7G N a T O 4 c z > 7 1 r •e a - N ¢ c < R C � S- Z D f n t 7 C I @ G 1; G c @ 0 r ■ a S m G D ! 0 w c 3 �- r• .A.. e 7 n e 1 P A o 1.e r CD e r A r A 7 � o P o •a + A Z 7 c- ■ v r A s 1e D r A O1 we V � m< A 0 jg ,2 a r o -•• e o a S G • » » O =r A D • v r•- 1 » K A = e • D n f; r• A A c c � n n •e •- C •t 7 1 S L ^ a R 6 1 oaPr, e- 7 � 9 •- a a O R < » L C O S a •! e R < A O O ac • A P C d O C � —e �1aa it G Q A • » » D 7 A » Cv r A T r S G 7 4 Q-- O A -- v 10 A e a� a • •e 1 O r 1 C a a 7 G ear.• c a n a • + i • a o err. e G ? O e • 1 O 1 �+ C 3 A S •s n .- c m --• _cG • f r• q > w m r f > »a • 44 —W 7 7 > Z w A o s � •c m e w • » A 70 » p w » o >v > A � v o• _ v A O o � O ec o 0 7 C •'- a c » S ro >• A c • .+ C o a�eo• _ •.rco no's ,ze.eo--- �' — — �aa e z Zags +1 3-3 5 ✓ � i O r a r of 0 m 1_= .� Zia CD r j - •....w . ..� . e S. ao. a.aawr. V / 7 _ w.r. - - - - --- co i p o O - J • - 1 1 - aP r � 1 Q SS 7� j � + O• A VA z -4 7 a -4 A S ■ t s O 1 9 Q z �r77z o•7sa �zN K t4 = x O A C S A < -� seo ~-oA e +! .- -7 O G e •- A B r +a • o .f r S 3 r ■ ■ e c a -4 ■ a ■ r• a �r ! c a 9 70 • n ■ + Z A O O x" 7 � J r ■ O . r Z o -1 as O. 9 O A C 0 -V -t b °• c r A e O S � 3 O O � o o ■ iZt O a ■ •7 i 70 S act O a • � J ti s • of : = b —y f 1 3 a 1 A A 4 o; O � a o s •� 'O � 1 o s a 771 ° O a .� 1 Ot a 0 i e ■ > O C t o co �) rI `t t 3 =t Al A a O '1 ■ SCI r tlf i TI r +1 o AI to X —I v o�r 7 � of o JI wvl 7 o v A a a • 1 Z .4 -4 b o_ A O O • 2 o i oe z 7 Z N O I w a S - O O e i r 7a 7 • I � 1 , c a R o ! a m {- 7 r A + z S � ■ r A ob • z a • e S O S • O ..e !t e y r t• 7 S • � a A e ■ 7 b a a O `! • O o s A Al OI 7 Of < 7 w 0 r` a 7 7 D ■ O O o- v -- o <o S� -+1 3 ZI �! O A D ■SCI ■ cl ■ c1 r ► O r a A x sl v AI r 7 t ivl 3 AI OI 7� KI 7 e 0 o. w A O-A01 D O A• A v... .AS aD mFl o e 7e o •e O.4 n m ■ mo o e•b�= as o o u by = C p.471 A t:1 A ►i0 r-•• D e•-1A O a a 7 S D e G A O '> > i 0 O QL rm O 9 S"r r7 ■ ° _ -. a C 7 0 S r- e• 7 S! 3 ° C e 70 - Z p Z + 1 T • .+ O OR lip 0 IN r > 1 e■ b —0 7 � = N 7 b D r � .4 '7 S 7 A A r O S, A 7 7 A e+ O Z O w h 02 A a o r- m c e ■ A m w 0 7 2 .• a o • a AO O 7 � ■ O A ! c A A �► m r A O A O : + b e S r O go ' - . y A - _ 3C A 2 p Q �v W 7 o < vG w . > 7 v L ■ e7e r7 e bo* a a"° O ■ w S •q{ m O b r o ■ o7 eae S,r D ■ obo ' .K S - r G c A • N A 7 n o • wo 0 G v O e ° O l ► 'a ■ � 7 ! 0 A -m � o ,O 7 A 7 O • A C 7 o ■ 3 r 7 e • D ' 1 n •vb■ r? • 7 7 r. e7 r • • ■.S ° v 'O ' a � < O � oe 0 - � A ° a � -�O • 7 o b�O GA ..7 . + . - Iz y > v �- A '7• -A A r „ O � » 6 • ' A r ' .A O c �3�O � i + 0 4 a�A - -A 63O � 7 ■ O r 3✓o ' A ° - r. ° f P O 7 0 a O • O »A•^r O D r ■ , t 0 i (7� •o A ■ a 0 — C n a '• i ^ o D A � O A pA ► ' � . - - �- ., - �- _ - _ -- _ . p O•e 0 Is 18 9L r. -1 O ■r" -% r. c Irl 22 O A 96 ep a ° v° D P- M cc A 4 W AO -7 0 O v IN oo wO i -t 0 a S AI v� O of o' 0 7 7 0 0 0 A o■ f e 7 7 3 - r o ISO A - • A r b � � O n O S a 0 •. ° O ■ .'D 011 •C r1 .C.r rb � y' _ • O ° i S q ■ -1 ■ 7 a o• • ,°y i o S • y p r ° �. • = > o• w o tv °• x a 7y o b s A " ,� c c. a .. a a w o0 w • ■ b • m ° A AO •K ?.. • Q tr O �•. O - �-+ 77 1 i b r S a -oar D Pr a a • A O 0-3 r A l tl o r wt a '► cr A e A • ° � � > oI e » • O A.a „� ■ A .� r O as v_ p of •'► o. r c -4 r. r • .. tl 1 � r C '■ `t ' too cr > a o e r • Z • w• ✓ 1T' �CO.a •.� to ■ • b o • Lx— C C • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 392 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Ordinance Amendment Related to Providing Identification to a Police Officer. Public Hearing and Second Reading. Background: The present provision of Richfield City Ordinance Code 10.16 (Subd.8), which requires an individual to identify himself when so requested by a police officer, has been found to be constitutionally invalid in a recent Richfield case. The circumstances involved related to a situation where an officer had probable cause to question an individual based upon certain circumstances which caused the officer to be suspicious about the individual's behavior. However, at the time the officer did not have probable cause to make an arrest. Under these circumstances the court has ruled that, absent a basis for arrest, an individual is not required against his will to identify himself to a police officer. Attached for council review, is a copy of current Richfield City Ordinance Code 10.16 and the amendments requested thereto. Also • attached are the two memorandums of the case involved and the notice of dismissal awarded by the court. To clarify the legal frame of reference, Amendment IV of the Constitution of the United States of America is also attached. The city council gave first reading to this ordinance amendment at the September 22, 1986 city council meeting, and scheduled the public hearing and second reading for the October 13, 1986 council meeting. Staff Recommendation: Approve the attached ordinance amendment which eliminates the requirement to identify self to a police officer under probable cause, except for arrest, and add a violation related to falsely identifying one's self to a police officer when so requested. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Court decision ruling present ordinance unconstitutional. 2. City Attorney recommends approval of amended ordinance. 3. In order to provide our officers with appropriate investi- gative tools, an alternative to the existing ordinance code is highly desirable. The alternative suggested serves that purpose within the framework of constitutional law. U Alternative Recommendation: 1. Enforce existing ordinance, however if the current ordinance is enforced, the city would be subject to significant liability expense including payment of compensatory damages, attorney fees and punitive damages. Therefore, the code, as it presently exists, can no longer be enforced. 2. Do not enforce city ordinance. This alternative would deprive our officers of a valuable investigation tool. Decision Date: Until a suitable alternative ordinance is approved, officers have no local ordinance basis for requiring proper identification in certain circumstances. If the ordinance is approved by the city council at the October 13, 1986 council meeting, it will become effective 30 days after publication in the official newspaper. Respectf lly submitted, Jame Prosser City e,anager • JDP /eja 0 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER X, Part III, Section 10.16 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter X, Part III, Section 10.16 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to miscellaneous misdemeanor acts, types and causes of behavior is hereby amended in the following respects: By amending §10.16, Subdivision 8 thereof as follows: Subd. 8. Aid to Law Enforcement Offic- es; Pal se- Every person who provides any police officer with inaccurate informa- tion as to his identity and place of residence when requested to do so;. ver €€ €eat €es- theree €- 4 €- regeesteel; Subd. 8A. False Registration. Every person who falsely registers himself or willfully obtains or permits false registration of any other person at any tourist camp, cabin camp, hotel, rooming house or other place furnishing sleeping or overnight stopping accommodations for transient guests. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minne- sota, this daj, of 1986. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: 0 __ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 391 October 13, 1986 • Issue Statement: City Ordinance Amendment Relating to the Minimum Age for the Purchase and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages. Public Hearing and Second Reading. Background: As of September 1, 1986 the minimum age for the purchase and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the State of Minnesota is 21 years of age. At the August 11, 1986 city council meeting, the city council approved a resolution establishing a policy pertaining to the hiring of minors at our municipal liquor operation. This policy provides that persons employed by the liquor operations must be a minimum 21 years of age. The city's ordinance code must also be amended to reflect the change in minimum age. The city council gave first reading to this ordinance amendment at the September 22, 1986 city council meeting and scheduled the public hearing and second reading for the October 13 city council meeting. Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council approve the attached ordinance which provides that one must be 21 years of age to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The legal drinking age as of September 1, 1986 in the State of Minnesota is 21 years of age. 2. The Richfield City Ordinance should be brought into conformance with state law. 3. Bringing the Richfield City Ordinance into conformance with state law will reinforce prosecution of those violating the minimum drinking age in Richfield. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not approving the ordinance amendment will mean it is not in conformance with state law. Discussion /Decision Mode: If the city council approves the attached ordinance amendment at the October 13, 1986 city council meeting, the ordinance will become effective 30 days after publication in the official newspaper. Respect lly submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP /eja AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI OF THR ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter XI of the Ordinance: Code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended in the following respects: 1. Paragraph (4) of Subdivision l of Section 11.01 is amended to read as follows: "(4) 'Minor' means any person under the age of -19 21 years whe- has - -not- - tail- t+t--- a e -e-f- 18-- yee-rs Persons born on or before September 1, 1967 shall be treated as being 21 years old for the purpose of this section. 2. Paragraph (2) of Subdivision 4 of Section 11.01 is amended to read as follows: 0 3. 4. � 0, "(2) The Liquor Operations. Director shall be assisted by such other employees as the council may authorize; - - =i;wevn, --no- ri ro-r- may, -lge autherieed- to -be- art- emplyyee. " Paragraph (3) of Subdivision 1 of Section 11.02 is amended to read as follows: 11(3) 'Minor' means any person under the age of -19 21 years whe- hes- -met- fire - age --o-f- 18- -years e -o-r- die- foLe- rg�rs�r- 1�-�6. Persons born on or before September 1, 1967 shall be treated as being 21 years old for the purpose of this section." Subdivision 2 of Section 11.02 is amended to read as fol- lows: "Subd. 2. Limitation on Application. Nothing in this section shall be construed - to prohibit or restrict the serving of nonintoxicating malt liquor to guests in a private home, except that it shall be unlawful for a minor gene -en- tinder- the -age e!F-- 9- -year,s to consume any intoxicating or non- intoxicating -malt liquor unless in the household of his or her parent or guardian. The council may also permit any nonprofit social organization, lodge, labor organization, political party, church or corporation not included in the definition of bona fide club to serve nonintoxicating malt liquor without a license free of charge, for a period not exceeding 12 hours and not more than t three times per calendar year. 'Political party' as used in this subdivision includes city -wide political organizations but does not include individual candidates or the campaign committees of individual candidates." 5. Paragraph (1) of Subdivision 8 of Section 11.02 is amended to read as follows: 11(1) No person under the age of 18 years miner shall be permitted to enter or remain on that part of the licensed premises where nonintoxicating malt liquor is being sold or served, unless' accompanied by his parent or guardian." 6. Paragraph (13) of Subdivision 8 of Section 11.02 is amended to read as follows "(13) No person under the age of 18 years miner shall be employed in any rooms constituting the place in which nonintoxicating malt liquor is sold at retail 'on- sale', except that persons under 18 years of age miners may be employed to perform the duties of a bus boy or dishwashing services in restaurants in which nonintoxicating malt liquor is sold at retail 'on- sale'." 7. Paragraph (14) of Subdivision 8 of Section 11.02 is amended to read as follows: "(14) No person under the age of 18 years miner shall offer for sale, sell, or in any way assist in the sale of nonintoxicating malt liquor at retail 'off - sale'; said prohibition shall not extend to activities merely incidental to the sale of nonintoxicating liquors such as stocking beer on shelves or carrying beer from the store at customer's request. 8. By adding to Subdivision l of Section 11.03 the following new paragraph (7): 11(7) 'Minor' means any person undez the age of 21 years: Persons born on or before Se tember 1, 1967 shall be treated as being-_21 years old for the purposes of this section." 9. Paragraph (6) of Subdivision 14 of Section 11.03 is amended to read as follows: " (6 ) No person under 18 years of age miner shall be employed in a room where 'set -up' sales are • . made and no such person shall be allowed to be or remain in such room unless accompanied by his .1 • parent or legal ,guardian except that persons under 18 years of age miners may be employed to perform the duties of a bus boy or dishwashing services in restaurants in which set -ups are sold. "` 10. Subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 of Section 11.04 are amended to read as follows: "Subdivis Minnesota following Statutes, reference fully set ion 1. Adoption of Certain Provisions of Statutes Ekapter -349 by Reference. The provisions and sections of Minnesota Chapter 340A are hereby adopted by and made a part of this chapter as if forth herein: (1) Minnesota Statutes Section 3407835; Perseae- emder - +9 340A.503, Persons Under 21; Illegal Acts. {� }-- Mfe�eseta-- Stete�tes -- 348.- �3�,-- Pe�bfddea Aets- ef- Statements- Subd. 2. Giving to or Procuring for Minors. Any person who shall give to, procure or purchase intoxicating liquor or nonintoxicating malt liquor for any minor as that term is defined by statute or other person to whom the sale of intoxicating liquor or nonintoxicating malt liquor is by law forbidden, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Subd. 3. Inducing Minor to Enter Saloon. Any person who shall assist, procure or induce any minor as that term is defined by statute or other person to whom the sale of liquor is by law forbidden to enter or visit any saloon, bar, buffet or other public drinking place for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor or nonintoxicating malt liquor is guilty of a misde- meanor." 11. Subdivision 1 of Section 11.05 is amended to read as fol- lows: "Subdivision- 1. Loitering. No person under the age of 21 +8 years who leas - met- attafr�ee�- tbe- ae}e -ef �$- pews - erg -er -be €ere- �4tgt�st -3�; -�9�6 was not born on or before September 1, 1967, shall loiter in or near any place where liquor or nonintoxicating malt liquor is sold unless accompanied by his parent or legal guardian. • 12. Paragraph (7) of Subdivision 1 of Section 11.06 is amended to read as follows: "(7) 'Minor' means any person under the age of -19 21 years whe - ,hes --n --at ai tre -t-i-re-- age --o-f- 18- ps Persons born on or before September 1, 1967 shall be treated as being 21 years old for the purpose of this section." 13. Paragraph (6) of Subdivision 12 of Section 11.06 is amended to read as follows: "(6) No person under the age of 18 years miner- shall be employed in any rooms constituting the place- in which intoxicating liquors are sold at retail 'on- sale', except that persons under the age of 18 years miners may be employed to perform the duties of a bus boy or dishwashing services in hotels or restaurants licensed under the provi- sions of this section." 14. Paragraph (1) of Subdivision 16 of Section 11.06 is amended to read as follows: 11(1) No licensee, its agent or employee shall serve or dispense upon the licensed premises any • intoxicating liquor to a minor, nor shall such licensee or his agent or employee permit a minor to be furnished or consume any such liquors on the licensed premises, nor shall such licensee or its agent or employee permit a person under 18 years of age miner to be _present at any part of the licensed premises where intoxicating liquor is sold unless accompanied by his parent or legal guardian." 15. Paragraph (5) of Subdivision I of Section 11.08 is amended to read as follows: "(5) 'Minor' means any person under the age of -9 21 years. Persons born on or before Se tember 1, 1967 shall be treated as being 21 years of age for the purpose of this section." 16: Paragraph (6) of Subdivision 13 of Section 11.08 is amended to read as follows: "(6) No person under the age of 18 years Miner shall be employed in any rooms constituting the place in which wines are sold at retail 'on- sale', except that miners persons under the age of 18 years may be employed to perform the duties of a bus boy or dishwashing services in restaurants licensed under the provisions of this section." 17. Paragraph (1) of Subdivision 17 of Section 11.08 is amended to read as follows "(1) No licensee, its agents or employees shall serve or dispense upon the licensed premises any wine to a minor, nor shall such licensee, or its agent or employee permit a minor to be furnished or consume any such wines on the licensed premis- es; nor shall such licensee, or its agent or employee permit a person under the age of 18 years miner to be pfensent at any part of the licensed premises where wine is served if not accompanied by such ehildle person's parent or legal guardi- an Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minne- sota this day of , 1986. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • 0055AM04..E14 i Issue Statement: Public Hearing and Amendment To Bring Standards Act Background: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 390 October 13, 1986 Second Reading of a Personnel Ordinance it into Compliance with the Fair Labor The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was enacted by the Congress in 1938 to guarantee employees of private employers, certain minimum wages and overtime standards. In 1966, the Act was amended to include for the first time certain specific public employees, schools and colleges, public hospitals and public transit systems. In 1974, Congress again amended the Act, this time making its provisions binding on all public employees. The extension of the Act to cover all public employees did not take full effect, however, due to a court challenge filed by the National League of Cities and National Governors' Conference. The result of the challenge was that the Department of Labor was enjoined by an interim order of the Supreme Court from enforcing its regulations against public employers. That court challenge culminated in 1976, with the landmark Supreme Court decision in National League of Cities vs Usery. In the Usery decision, the Court held that the commerce clause of the Constitution did not give the Federal Government the power to regulate the wages of those states and local government employees engaged in "traditional governmental functions." On February 19, 1985, the Supreme Court overruled Usery in Garcia vs City of San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. The Court did away with the "traditional" vs "non - traditional" governmental test. The language of the opinion stated that the 1974 amendment to the Act making all public employees subject to its provisions was constitutional. In November of 1985, the President signed legislation amending the Act and setting the implementation date of April 15, 1986. Effective on that date, the City has implemented administrative policies and procedures to bring its personnel practices into conformity with the FLSA. It is now necessary for the City to also bring Chapter III of the Personnel ordinance into conformity with the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The changes in the personnel ordinance are summarized as follows: 1. All hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work period (including training time will be paid at the rate of time and one -half. (Subdivision 7 Pay Plan Administration (14) Training Pay) 2. A change in the time interval to record time for overtime calculation purposes. FLSA requires that time of 7 minutes 11. or less be rounded down to the nearest quarter hour and that eight minutes or more be rounded up to the next quarter hour. (Subdivision 8). 3. The base rate for calculation of overtime must include educational and other incentive pay, awards for performance on the job, merit bonuses and longevity pay (Subdivision 8). 4. Establishment of exempt and non - exempt personnel. 5. Discontinuance of the use of flex time scheduling. (Subdivision 8). The city council gave first reading to this ordinance amendment at the September 22, 1986 city council meeting, and scheduled the public hearing and second reading for October 13, 1986. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the following changes to Chapter III of the City's Personnel Ordinance, which are required to bring the ordinance into compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act as Amended 2. The chanqes to the ordinance have been reviewed and approved by Attorney Dayle Nolan of the City Attorney's office. Alternative Recommendation: If the city does not comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act we are subject to penalties including, but not limited to, repayment to employees for any lost wages. Damages may also be awarded to employees if we do not comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act as Amended. While the city has changed practices to comply with regulations, we have not yet modified the Personnel Ordinance in accordance with the requirement. Discussion Mode: The City should implement the changes to its ordinance code as soon as possible. The Act's implementation date was April 15, 1986, and it is necessary to bring the legal code into conformity with the Act and the City's administrative practices. If the city council approves the ordinance at the October 13, 1986 city council meeting, the ordinance will go into effect 30 days after publication. Re tfully submitted, J es D. Prosser ty Manager JDP:sb • AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER II, PART III OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter II, Part III of the Ordinance Code of the City entitled: "Personnel - Position Classification - Compensation and Merit System" is hereby amended in the following respects: 1... By amending paragraph (14) of Subdivision 7 of Section 2.32 to read as follows: (14 ) Training Pay. ige- eitke�- eex�gensate�p- ti�te -e�- easy- ee�+gensatie�; betk-- a-siic -tote- motes-- tcj-- emg�oees . Employ - ees, non- exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, who are required to partici- pate in authorized training programs which take place outside their regular work schedule, shall be paid overtime for all hours worked, to include training time, over forty hours per work period, or may agree to the use of compensatory time in lieu of paid overtime. • 2. By amending Subdivision 8 of Section 2.32 to read as fol- lows: Subd. 8. Overtime Pay and Compensatory Time Off. Overtime is all time ordered and worked (in units of ene- trait -heap fifteen (15) minutes or more) by employees who are non- exempt from the provisions of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, which is in excess , of the- emplayeels- regularly- sekedeled work -week forty hours per work period. Authorized overtime for eligible. employees shall be compen- sated at the rate of one and one -half times the employee's regular base rate of pay, eampensatien eempeasatery-- t- ime_- e-€-f;- at- - -o-f- -the eit - ra gs - arre�- to-- tke -e�x t = t-i t�ec-- br -law-7 or in compensatory time, in lieu of paid overtime, at the rate of one and one -half hours for each hour of overtime ordered and worked. The city manager shall adopt policies regarding overtime and the limits, accrual and use of compensatory time to the extent permitted.by law. (1) Managerial Exempt Employees. The --peerit -ion eiassitieatien -- lapr - -- ems;- ab- 14-9he &--- atl.rs*kft--- te • Seetien- 2.40 -- of -+hh —_ - 9rdieanee --E- cede-- ei- �Y� -eity skaii- �n:�� -a- -of -- Wioee --managerial (b) �Phe- totes- �ahea- ee�pesatep -xte -e -tap He- ta3�en- sha��- be- at- tke- d�se�e�iea -e €- the- depa�t- ateat- lreac�,-- ��cc. �-- t- Yta�- t- he-- e�t�epee1s-- e�es��es 91% a .11- -be- - - gessible- Wl�es-- eorttperrgate�p -- i- s- -erele -reel - -by - -the depa�txteht-- o-r-- �ee�t�esteel -- kip - --t- ire- -erxp� epees; reasonable -- ativaeee-- -&he-1-1- -- be-- provideel- Employees requesting to use accrued compensatory time shall be permitted to use such time off within a reasonable period after making the request, if such use does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employee's department. All use of compensatory time shall be approved in advance by the department head or his authorized re resen- tative. 3. By amending Subdivision 1 of Section 2.33 to read as fol- lows: 2.33 ATTENDANCE AND LEAVES. Subdivision 1. Work Period. Except where other- wise specified, the regular work period for city employees shall be forty hours e- aa- ar�eta�e -tetp hears. The normal work day shall be eight hours; however, various departments and divisions may • establish a different work day with the approval of the city manager. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minne- sota this day of , 1986. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • 0055AM05.E14 • employees- -wke -- hare-- �espessi�ili�ies-- whiek- -aye supervieery-- 3-ft- --ra re -. - ueh pesitiens- ia- tke- �+txaieipal- se�siee- may- He- �e�e��ed te-- ag-- �' masage�ial-- empleyees�:--- Streh -- employees ether -- ka - --t ro e-- wrted--as -- t-l- re-- f eremea; Employees' classified as exempt under the provi- sions of the Fair Labor Standards Act shall not receive overtime compensation either in the form of pay or time off,'as provided for herein for other nonexempt employees. The city manager may, however, grant reasonable periods of time off to managerial exempt employees when he determines that such time off is warranted. �� }-- 6kitt- Tmp�eyees- -- Shift - employees- wl�e -He�3t -are average- - f-OT-t-yr-- katrn- wee-c- s4ta1-1- -be- -by rate � € -;t ate- afrd-eae- half -fer work- - in-- emeess - -&€- i- L- - 44-xst -eight hears- -pew- -day- -ate et-- t�Tei -�- sehedule- { p�eHatieaa�y- emp�o�ees; -z;T�r �-- �tarrage� -�a� -and s�iit- employees; - Shall- ae�x�all�+- lie- ee�t}�essateel- €ems wee# -e de ed- a�nel- -f � 3 r- emeesq -&f--a- regular forty- doe s -- r -- eE - .--- ��,-- employees- weEkiag €lexible- -C-i-rne- -at -- Akre-- reqireeC - &f- -the employee - - eempensated -4-n -. aeeerdeftc& -with the -e�re� time- pay- p�e�al9ieas- establis�ed- he�eie- €ems enly- Arose- 4tout-s-- erder-ecl- and- Ic-- &x-ee&& -of the-- eet-a45-I4-&he& - P 5 -1 eeheele -1e-- .4elghtY hetzs -- gem ---i- tree -1 -- paw - -tidy- -ems -- forty - eight hears- per- `aee#- {4} (2) Administration of eem5ensable Overtime Compensation. (a) -be given- e -4-n- - -j me - a-&s-iiq- nments - w-r € € -He -made ie- seed -� wa�tlrat - tine- ��rre�i- o-rts-- o- €- �l�e- mesieipal se �*iee- iri�3- -3�e -- most- �f- f -eE�t3 l r -_OOMI e-teek- .- - -All eempeesable --awe time-- iftuIwL-- --be -- Trff te:r -a +- -the di�eetier� -e €- the- depa�tmest- tread -ems- his- aatke�iged representative; -and- overtime- eredit- may- be- aeerued tee - - -etke --pt se All compensable overtime must be performed at the direction of the Depart- ment Head or his authorized representative. Overtime credit may be accrued for no other purpose. Overtime assignments will be made in such a way that the functions of the municipal service will be most effective. 0 . I I - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA City Council Letter No. 388 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Special Use Permit for an Automobile Sales and Leasing Company Show Room, Located at 7713 Morgan Avenue. Background: Mr. James W. Checco has requested a special use permit to operate an automobile sales and leasing company at 7713 Morgan Avenue (the former Carpet King store),. The property has a total land area of 12,292.5 square feet with a building area of 4,800 square feet. The property is located in a C -2 (General Commercial) zoning district and automobile sales and leasing is permitted in C -2 zoning district with a special use permit. The Planning Commission on a vote of (8 -0) recommended denial of the special use permit for automobile sales and leasing company at 7713 Morgan Avenue on the grounds that adequate information is not available regarding the operation, landscaping, and also because the proposed operation could have a negative impact on the existing traffic and parking related problems in the surrounding neighborhood. 0 Zoning Ordinance Requirements: 1. Section 3.33, subdivision to car sales lots. 2. Section 3.41, subdivision the issuance of a special Recommendation: 3, lists the regulations relating 5, lists the conditions governing use permit. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend denial of the special use permit for an automobile sales and leasing company at 7713 Morgan Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The use will have an adverse impact on the health, welfare and safety of the people living in the surrounding area and because insufficient information was provided. 2. The proposed plan provides for only 15 of the required 24 parking spaces. Alternative Recommendation: The city council could approve the special use permit for an automobile sales and leasing company at 7713 Morgan Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. That there shall at any time. 2. That there shall sales on the site stored inside of be no cars parked on the public right -of -way be no more than 10 vehicles for lease or and the vehicles for such use shall be the building. 3. That a landscaping plan be submitted for staff approval. 4. That the proposed remodelling of the structure meet all the city fire and building codes. • Decision Mode: The item has been placed on the City Council agenda for a public hearing on October 13, 1986. The public hearing advertisement was published in the Sun on October 1, 1986. JDP /eja • Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager ADDENDUM ISSUES AND FINDINGS The basis of the staff recommendation is that the site parking is inadequate and has the potential to generate traffic levels which will increase the already existing problems in the area.. The following issues and findings were considered: 1. Structure The first floor of the existing structure has a floor area of 4,800 square feet and meets all setback requirements. There will not be any structural change of the building. The operation will involve a showroom with two small offices and three employees. The applicant has indicated that most of their cars will be stored in lots located outside of Richfield. There will be approximately 10 cars available at any given time in the showroom for leasing and sales purposes. There will be no servicing of vehicles on the site. The basement of the building is used by Canine College and used mostly in the evenings of Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. The structure may need a sprinkler system and the floor system will have to be analyzed to determine if it can hold the weight of the automobiles stored in the structure. A considerable amount of carpet was stored in the building without problems. The operating hours have not been determined yet. 2. Parking and Traffic Issues According to the city parking guidelines, 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for retail use is required. Using the standard for retail use, the proposed use would require 24 parking spaces. The site plan indicates only six parking spaces available in front of the building. The applicant indicated that approximately 10 cars would be stored inside the building for leasing and sales purposes. There is 15 feet of existing bituminous space to the north of the building which is used for a side door to the basement of the building. The applicant has indicated that this space would be used for 3 employee parking spaces. This indicates that there will be a total of 19 parking spaces available on site (10 inside, 9 outside the building). Mary Lee Whitting, Director Canine College and owner of the property, indicated that there should be at least 4 parking spaces available on this site for Canine College. She also indicated that most of the students of Canine College park their cars at the vacant lots north of the building and at Lindahl Old's service center lots. Therefore, the applicant would have only 15 parking spaces available for the automobiles sales and leasing purposes. a It is staff's opinion that the on -site parking is inadequate. • The automobiles sales and leasing company has the potential to grow and could cause additional traffic problems in the area. The testing of cars will also take place in the area. 3. Consistency With Comprehensive Plan . The City's Comprehensive Plan indicates high density freeway strip development in the area. The proposed use would be consistent with the types of uses called for in freeway strip designation in the Comprehensive plan. However, it would not meet the high density requirement. 4. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering The applicant indicated that he would complete minor repairs of the building along with some landscaping to make the site more aesthetically pleasing. At this point staff has not received any landscaping plan for the site. It would be highly desirable that the site is landscaped along Morgan Avenue and that the public right -of -way is not used for parking purposes. 5. Impact On The Surrounding Neighborhood As indicated earlier, there are neighborhood concerns regarding high traffic volume, disruption of smooth traffic flow, and commercial traffic driving through or parking on residential streets. It is important that when new uses and /or new development is proposed in the area that it not add to these existing problems. The city staff is closely evaluating the overall area in terms of traffic volume and parking issues. Mr. John Alt, 7614 -7616 Logan Avenue has expressed his opposition to the proposed use. 0 0 201 (n y v r Y Z J J K 1 c A n� D I m� � D n < 0 to I I° n !b-� i n I D r m it N I r. O i� 113 r b_ Z it {l N + r• 1 � �i - -- 75,0 - -- —.. M, ORG A AvE N l-1 E So, I r 1 I I Q ��k ESr�jTiNG I 1 � I/ ex*15-rIN6- PARKING LOT ' eITUMINOL4r, =� I � TO T►4C GtdRZ - I i Ext5rtN6 coNC, w�K ( 1 I m w �x w I Im iiz i I ix I c I t Im 0 I i Z lit i I; U h r- !Im I I TAO RTN Y� � t 1-*:-4 4. . 4. 1. a - - - : e - • _ - f r i. s • s i t +..' s r s i s s r a i � .� u •.tier eY! r•r_ art rn�« 0 _.. rn�« Ze.nrr « wrelfer « .carer. « nrera...! .slur K • m.s K !r ri p !w «. u.r.e K •w « .» K rntr K _ scar K c. rest « cw..lr K .w K nw « A nn r• MM.trer_ K • • 9 .races r sew N O ne K nr « ,recce « nw « miz ksi _ q _ •..._5 `�_ u!{lssmssst; ss �iL� rr,lttrt;iitiii;lma'R�ilztzrnn¢ fi(lutftly L;>lu;yL�c;:••..•:.:.'.$rx7n 31 {111;513135{,! R7IIJI7It1 7FfITJi:71777i1tATf1 .Ti.'uliii.TiTii^Tr7C7:711'T. �., a {',(lifl((IIGTi(�^j;jj l o gym 111111 IIIHII .. — "ilia•— +mss .ww..... it —= •'�(-� yfeM f 'l:t:ii7 Ili7i�L iji;iW ' �•� >�,,..a rfer tre• « T,7 I WOnl J �� i"� wos a �il '�l'�l ■ ■r([ur(i�(1(��t�{1(!!r( }.ir�{�([�� 1��9J .r�. a 'Y41WL LL[1L1111LL 1 }�f �r « Illtllll; mo EM �_�rftncattnn.nn ynrrvlsurrnf;7� i— rn,r a ��I•tft'' �'. ee4r « �•�..�- rte}" .... w r T•' - , ra r j a ... « 1 / • *.r• n �� • T � + ro� rotw 0 P cn C l K A 1 (~D to m n O 0 En b = rn rn z W IV j N I N I N I Z Z rn ax w w r ' N c r PA rAi - r fD � � r n % f II' z rt r r FFr- N�FF�- N p� �� N= N O r ga v �.,, m k O �- �I, Cl) ft I" Uri tin W- Fl. rA� r (AD rte �n rt rsv ~ rt t -h H. N � - 1 W IDL I , Imst CIPT 1111. - \ �. 11�[,I INN7 rrrrr 14 II+I 1 +111111 O )I- (A CA CA (A z 2 (A 31 cl- , Imst CIPT 1111. - \ �. 11�[,I INN7 C3 SOU _71 --MIT z4k,"Do VI aZ of MM nJYYT K. • • • rrrrr 14 II+I 1 +111111 C3 SOU _71 --MIT z4k,"Do VI aZ of MM nJYYT K. • • • 1 0 9 8 6 T 8 aaqura-4 aS 31VO JNIIIVW 1 lie ZTS '4xa 'TZSL -698 £ZVSS NW 'PTaT3140T -d anuanV puET -4aod OOL9 PTaT ;uoTH ;O A4TZ) aauuaTd -4ua4s-SSV TzPx pT14mol •strain anod buissaadxa uotsstunuoD buiuuaTd Oq4 oq a9449T a gturgnS • Z •Tpsodoad aqq gsuzaba ao aoj AuourT4sa-4 antb- puP buiaPGq auk. puaggV • T LZgnoB anuanV puaT -4aod OOL9 TTaH ti4TQ PTaTjLIoTg I saaquraLIQ TzounoD 986T ' £Z aaquragdaS 'Appsanl Wd 0£ s L *ggnoS anuanV uabaOW £TLL 4p a4Ts „buix -4adaa:)„ .zauizo3 ail-4 -4p t upduioo bu-rsEaT pup saTas aTTgourogna up aoj 4Turaad asn Tazoads P Jo TPnoaddP aqq gsuTpbp ao aoj suosaaa aaaq of (ggnoS anuanV uabaOW £ILL ) 008# AananS pupa paaa4sz59g L1 goaal 90 4a99 S£Z LI4aON 9u4 90 4999 SL ugnoS aul la*w '000ago •M saurar ggnoS anuanV uPbaoW £T.LL 30 4aaJ OS,£ uTggTM saauMo tgaadoad NOISSIWWOO ONINNdId a131dHOIU d0 A110 30110N JNIad3H onend SNOT 1S3no ANd 31ddIOIJLHdd Ol MOH JNI8d3H d0 33VId JNIHV3H d0 3WI1 0 3SOdund AlH3dOHd d0 NOIldOOI 1Nd011ddd 01 • w John Alt, 6506 Wilryan Edina, Minnesota 55435 (612) 944 -1439 Caw Q�ew+.vv 'Q� �nN' (Ic :.. 7614 -1b1 August 29, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This letter is in reference to my request for a "special use permit" at 7131 Morgan Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. The proposed business is a low volume, low profile automobile leasing company, leasing newer automobiles to the general public and small businesses. Currently, the site has a 60 feet x 80 feet building with parking areas located to its North and West (refer to site plans). Under the proposal, no structural changes will be made to the building or parking areas other than minor cosmetic alterations to enhance the aesthetic quality of the site (such as paint and minor landscaping). To address possible concerns of the city of Richfield, the operation and mechanics of my business are as follows: The vehicles which will be at the site, number six to ten, will be displayed within the building itself. Thus leaving the entire parking area around the building for customers, employees and demonstration vehicles. There will be no need for any street parking. The business itself consists of the leasing and selling of vehicles to the general public and small businesses. Our company and sales traffic are very small requiring only two employees. The sales traffic brought to the area would therefore be less than that of the previous renter, Carpet King. In summary, we are a small company with high standards insisting on quality. We believe this, together with our low profile, will make us an asset to the community. Re pectfully, James W. Checco, M.D. • r• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 387 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Special Use Permit-Request for A New Mazda Automobile Sales and Service Facility at 7700 -7750 Morgan Avenue, 7701 Newton Avenue and 2016 -2026 West 78th Street Background: The City has received a special use permit and offstreet parking permit request from Walser Corporation to allow them to remove the existing structures on the site including the existing Viking Center and to construct a new Mazda automobile sales and service facility. The new structure would be located on the site so all building setback requirements would be met. The proposed building would have a total area of 24,160 square feet, of which 20,519 square feet would be on the first level. Exterior building materials will consist of decorative concrete block, glass and prefinished metal panels. The building would front on 78th Street. Curb cuts to the site would consist of three 30 foot curb cuts. One curb cut would be from 78th Street and two curb cuts from Morgan Avenue. Access to the service area would be via the north curb cut off of Morgan Avenue. Designated parking stalls for 101 customer, employee will be provided on the site. Another 93 shown for inventory and display purposes. landscape buffer area would be provided edges of the site to buffer the site from uses. and service vehicles parking stalls are A 15 foot wide along the west and north adjacent residential In related matters the city has previously approved a special use permit request for the adjacent Walser Buick dealership with the following stipulations: 1. A minimum of 173 parking stalls shall be provided on the Buick site for customer, service and employee vehicles. These spaces should be separated from display space and clearly marked. 2. No perimeter curbing be provided. The design and the location of the curbing shall be approved by the City Engineer. 3. Testing or servicing of vehicles on adjacent residential streets shall be prohibited. 4. Trees shall be planted in the boulevard area between the Walser Buick north property line and the south curb of 77th Street consistent with the city's forestry policy. 5. The existing wall along the property shall be extended to the east property line to close off pedestrian access to 77th 6. Street. All including the relocated sign shall be in new signage compliance with the city's sign ordinance. • 7. Vehicles shall not be parked in the visibility triangles on the frontage road. 8. City will study the feasibility of the installation of a traffic diverter at 77th Street and Morgan Avenue. 9. Walser Corporation and City shall negotiate a satisfactory lease for the use of the frontage road right -of -way as shown on the applicants plan, including landscaping. The lease shall be a renewable yearly lease with the city retaining the right to end the lease at the city's discretion. As of October 10, 1986 it appears as though Walser Corporation has partially complied with stipulation No. 1. Areas of the lot are signed for service vehicles and there are numbered parking stalls which staff assumes are employee parking spaces. There did not appear to be designated customer parking spaces, however. Stipulations 2 and 6 have not been met. Walser Corporation has indicated that stipulation 3 has been met. They have issued a written policy to their staff indicating that vehicles should not be tested in the adjacent residential area. Staff, however, has observed a service vehicle being tested on Morgan Avenue. Stipulations 4, 5 and 7 have been met. The city has studied the feasibility of the installation of a traffic diverter at 77th Street and Morgan Avenue and will be discussing this matter later on in this report. Walser Corporation has pulled a majority of their cars back from 78th Street and have submitted a draft lease for the use of the 78th Street frontage road right -of -way as shown on the approved plan. They propose to pay the city one dollar a year. The lease would be renewable yearly and the city would have the right to end the lease at the city's discretion. The draft lease has been reviewed by the city attorney's office and is being processed by city staff. On September 23, 1986 the Planning Commission reviewed this matter and unanimously recommended denial of the special use permit because the introduction of another car dealership in the area would add to existing traffic and congestion problems in the area. The commission also expressed concerns about receiving incomplete information on landscaping and screening. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting staff has discussed concerns about traffic and congestion, landscaping, screening and about Walsers plans for the existing Mazda dealership on Penn Avenue. Walser has revised their plans to provide detailed information on landscaping and screening and indicated that they would support any measures to limit access to 77th Street from Morgan Avenue, but would only pay for a portion of any improvements necessary. They also indicated they intend to continue to operate the old Mazda site as an automobile sales facility. Low volume luxury vehicles would be sold from the site. A concept plan for this site indicates that no major physical changes would be made to the site or buildings on the old Mazda site. y The city has previously denied a variance to allow the proposed new Mazda dealership to be located within 5 feet of the Morgan Avenue right -of -way line. As previously indicated the current plan does not require variances. Zoning Ordinance Requirements: 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, requires that car sales lots obtain a special use permit before locating in C -2 general commercial zoning districts. 2. Section 3.33, subdivision 3, lists standards for the granting of special use permits for car sales lots. 3. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, governs the issuance of special use permits. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council deny the special use permit request for a new Mazda automobile sales and service facility at 7700- 7750 Morgan Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site should be developed as high density freeway strip type uses. The automobile sales and service use would be consistent with the types of uses which the Comprehensive Plan indicates for the site in question. It could be argued however, that an automobile sales and service use may not meet the high density test. 2. The site'does not abut single family residentially zoned property. The site does abut apartments but these apartments are on property zoned C -2 general commercial. There is single family residential use across 77th Street which would be impacted by the proposed use. 3. There is a history of traffic congestion on Penn Avenue and on 78th Street. There has been numerous complaints from the single family residential area north of the site concerning traffic and parking on the residential streets in the area. The applicant contracted with Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. to complete a traffic study for the proposed improvements. The Barton Aschman study indicates that Walser's proposed improvements will not increase traffic in the area and are necessary to better accommodate business already occurring on the site. The study concludes that the proposed auto dealership would generate less traffic than the existing Viking Center and rental equipment uses which would be replaced. Staff has some concerns about this conclusion because the existing Viking Center does not generate a significant amount of traffic and because it appears that the traffic generation numbers do not address such things as customer and employee test driving vehicles. We are also concerned that there could be an increase of traffic on x� -�- y Morgan Avenue. The traffic levels on 77th Street and Morgan Avenue indicates that commercial traffic is using these streets. 4. There should be sufficient parking space on the site. The proposed plan indicates that there would be a 196 total parking spaces on the site. Of these 98 would be designated for customer, employee or service vehicles. City parking guidelines indicate that 99 parking stalls should be designated for employees, customers, and service vehicles. One additional parking space should be designated for employee parking. Walser Corporation has provided information showing that the number of employees, customers and service vehicles on the site on an average day is 89 vehicles. This is 10 vehicles less than the number of designated parking stalls which are proposed.on the site. The 89 vehicles would not be there at the same time, therefore there would be sufficient extra capacity present to handle peak parking demand on the busiest days. The Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. study also indicates that there should be sufficient parking capacity to meet the parking needs on the site. Staff continues to have concern that customer, service and employee spaces will be used for inventory leaving insufficient parking for customers and employees. Customer, service and employee parking areas should be clearly marked to insure that they are available for customer and employee use at all times. 5. Staff does not have information on whether or not banners or similar attention distracting or visibility obscuring devises would be used on the site. 6. Staff has not seen details on exterior lighting of the site. 7. Insufficient detail has been provided on the design of signs to enable staff to determine if sign ordinance requirements would be met. 8. The area in which the site is located suffers from visual blight. A major factor in this is the amount of vehicles and hard surface area present. There is a lack of landscaping to soften the appearance of the area. No detailed landscape plan has been submitted. The proposal as presented appears to do little to help this problem. The landscaped areas in the north areas of the site are an improvement, but little is provided on the south end. It is staff's opinion that additional landscaped areas should be provided on the south and east sides of lot to soften the appearance of all the hard surface areas on the site. A limited number of display pads for vehicles and signs could be provided in these landscaped areas if done well. Bloomington /Richfield Honda at Harriet Avenue and 78th Street is an example where this has been done and where a much better appearance is provided. The visual appearance of the building when compared to the existing structures on the site would be an improvement. 8. The proposal also involves the removal of a single family dwelling which is inappropriately located in a commercial district. 9. As previously indicated as part of the stipulated approval of the special use permit for the Walser Buick improvements, the city was to study the possibility of constructing a traffic diverter at 77th Street and Morgan Avenue. City staff has studied the feasibility of constructing a diverter and has concluded that it should cut down on the commercial traffic on Morgan Avenue in the residential area north of 77th Street. Commercial traffic would no longer be able to go from 76th Street into the site via Morgan Avenue. The residential property owners have indicated a concern about the amount of traffic on their street. Traffic would be channeled from the commercial area to Logan Avenue which has commercial and multifamily development on one side or to Knox Avenue which has commercial and multifamily development on both sides. It is staff's feeling that the relocation of the Mazda dealership adjacent to Morgan Avenue would increase commercial traffic on Morgan Avenue. Therefore the construction of the diverter would be justified. Staff does have some concerns about the amount of existing traffic on 77th Street. The traffic counts recently conducted by staff indicated a high level of traffic on 77th Street. Staff is concerned that a certain segment of this traffic is not traffic which is bound to the commercial areas but short cutting from Penn Avenue through the area to avoid the intersection at 76th and Penn. If the amount of this traffic is significant we would be channeling that traffic up Morgan Avenue and may not be solving the traffic problem on Morgan Avenue. The other factor which we have some concern about is the potential for the removal of 78th Street as part of the 494 improvements. This would necessitate the use of 77th Street as a commercial roadway to provide access to the area. The presence of the diverter could hinder proper traffic flow in the area. This matter was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and was not viewed favorably by the neighborhood or the commission because of the previously indicated staff concerns and because it would affect residential garage access and school bus routes. Some support was indicated for blocking off Morgan Avenue on the south side of 77th Street. This would pose maintenance and snow plowing problems for the city, however. A better option in staff's opinion, would be to make Morgan Avenue a one -way going south. Walser could be required to escrow $5,000 which would be used towards the construction of barriers, cul -de -sacs, or diverters in the future if the one -way solution does not work. Staff would monitor the one -way for a year and evaluate its impact on traffic in the area. By the time the one year monitoring is completed staff should also have a better idea of the planned or necessary improvements along 494. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review. This would be appropriate in light of the additional discussions and revised plans which have been submitted subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting. 2. Approve the special use permit with the following stipulations: A. That a drainage plan be submitted for staff approval which includes on site catch basins if deemed necessary by the city engineer. B. That the row of display car spaces along the south property line be removed and a landscaped area be provided in its place. A limited number of car display pads and a pylon sign could be constructed in this area outside the corner visibility area. Design of this area should be included in the landscape plan. C. That there shall be no testing or servicing of vehicles on adjacent residential streets. D. That there should be a minimum of 99 on site parking spaces designated and maintained for customers, employees and service vehicles. E. That there be no display of banners, noisy ribbons or similar attention - distracting or visibility- obscuring devices in front of building setback lines. F. That all exterior lighting be so designed, placed, and operated as not be a nuisance to adjacent properties. G. All signs must be designed to meet the city's sign ordinance. H. That Walser Corporation escrow $5,000 with the city for use for construction of barriers, cul -de -sacs, diverters or other traffic control improvements at 77th Street and Morgan Avenue if deemed necessary by the city. The city will initially make Morgan Avenue a one way southbound south of 77th Street and monitor the impact on traffic in the area. If this solution does not reduce traffic in residential areas north of 77th Street especially on Morgan Avenue, the city will explore other options such as barriers, cul -de -sacs and diverters. 0 Decision Mode: A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for October 13, 1986. Notice of the hearing has been published in the Richfield Sun Current Newspaper. Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser Executive Director C � y y p� J � � 8NNINN �Y a LLLL LLLL - e ^ 77 W W 0 N e< � 6666 N 0 00 e N 3 Iel elel Mlblel MlblalMl N N M tllp KK a t }I � 9 T a - - i� -- < I ,wa < ou>,xv. aawm m. 3� e =M --x �t Oil .1 ! al F �Z3 2 ia a Q V Iel elel Mlblel =M --x �t Oil .1 ! al Mu FQi E� J � F u tj ---------------- --- i L�. b r J1 T �IIIII III �� M X� 1 R 3 r 0 v1 R ti t5 ; 0> f d [Q� P p z 3a EN; e ❑ E3.8 Rip 19 d I i.- elbl dll..' Iel elel Mlblel MlblalMl oww"d wmolwm t III I - - -- - fnvms�xavadvrotstec-- -- < I ,wa < ou>,xv. aawm m. II .7 A - Mu FQi E� J � F u tj ---------------- --- i L�. b r J1 T �IIIII III �� M X� 1 R 3 r 0 v1 R ti t5 ; 0> f d [Q� P p z 3a EN; e ❑ E3.8 Rip 19 d % K a W ° 4 111 e m .n 0 [7 � �� a W ° 4 111 e 11 `il ' 1 , 11 I� il! b i hill II F T N z eg J a a 0. J= Lu N c to ;j dl al l l l I I I I $ Q 30x2 5 apwr O r Fir I - _ - [[�F�� S+ MYJ Ik]I,- .��- i�.."��__' "yMMrJ '✓r�0� i/-� -V n-�` .r, � 1 � . • a e, • a • .+ a a + • • . a� - - -- orawna eeeoaeno �. - n i� r• - -- - -- - sar�'eaww-taoarar— ° a A ae)Wd ao,nxae ul T ° ° ., • H a - - - =ir�_�� .+..: �i -" - - -- u4 • Il a SL v so— 5 d v t-.wr-wr A mx { l � �FSCi � x d 'a rR uj 10 5 � — c y u - Q 3 arao d � 41 3 s A•J � :ri • C = R Bs e apwr O r Fir I - _ - [[�F�� S+ MYJ Ik]I,- .��- i�.."��__' "yMMrJ '✓r�0� i/-� -V n-�` .r, � 1 � . • a e, • a • .+ a a + • • . a� - - -- orawna eeeoaeno �. - n i� r• - -- - -- - sar�'eaww-taoarar— ° a A ae)Wd ao,nxae ul T ° ° ., • H a - - - =ir�_�� .+..: �i -" - - -- u4 • Il a SL v so— 5 d v t-.wr-wr A mx { l � �FSCi � x d 'a rR uj 10 5 � — c y u - Q 3 arao d � 41 3 s A•J � :ri • C = R Bs e 3� � ��t , I I I I I I I I �� EF u t; 1 s A Z AS g t; 1 i$ ! I 1 1 _ 11H 1 I _ il. i A Y w 9 i Z a i C i A 3cc i$ ! I 1 1 _ 11H 1 I _ il. i A Y w 9 i Z a i C i A c I'll 10 M � i Ln ON I� u 'V ca t� E `V ON CO Ln ri N r-i �O Ir Q -c .r.1 ca ca cn ca 'd O M cn ca r-1 N N O .0 O Tl ca '4 ca —1 ca U •1 Ilr A G •r-I O r--I N Ic O El L V H r=4 W O H Q G:7 U W H d cn C Z O C:] C7 N 1..1 W ca ON F-1 Zi O H Q1 �i r-1 NO N t!1 N 00 Q Cl] Z II II II it W C/] c I'll 10 M � i Ln ON I� u 'V ca t� E `V ON CO Ln ri N r-i �O Ir Q -c .r.1 ca ca cn ca 'd O M cn ca r-1 N N O .0 O Tl ca '4 ca —1 ca U •1 Ilr A G •r-I O r--I N Ic O L bA � G 1..1 -� ca ON P-4 "D Ln r-1 NO N t!1 N 00 U II II II II II it co co cz 41 U 'CJ C) •rl N E Ca E NOQ. co V Z � Cn 1 11, f iBarton - Aschman Associates, Inc. 1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612- 332 -0421 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Richard Sjoquist, President Walser Corporation FROM: Deane M. Wenger_ ((/I �,(� Barton- Aschman Associate §, Inc. 1 DATE: June 30, 1986 SUBJECT: PROPOSED AUTO DEALERSHIP CHANGES 78TH AND PENN AVENUE RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA As requested, we have reviewed the proposed development of a new dealership and the moderate expansion of existing facilities along the north frontage road of I -494 for traffic impacts. We conclude that the proposal will be an improvement with regard to parking and can better conform to the objective of minimizing use of 77th Street in connection with your car sales and service areas. The reasons are summarized by the following text. TRIP GENERATION Current trip generating uses to be removed are: 1. Strip commercial center - 22,390 sq. ft. 2. Road equipment building - 7,020 sq. ft. 3. One existing house - 2,330 sq. ft. 0 O Barton Aschrnan Associates, Inc. June 30, 1986 Page 2 The total square footage to be removed is 31,740 square feet. The proposed immediate new construction is: 1. Sales office addition 768 sq. ft. 2. Showroom addition - 1,950 sq. ft. 3. New dealership - 20,572 sq. ft Total 23,290 sq. ft. With the proposed changes, the building area square footage on the property is reduced by about 8,450 square feet. A strip commercial center, though not having a large square footage, is among the highest trip generators. For purposes of design and in determining the potential for congestion on adjacent streets, only the P.M. peak hour has to be analyzed since it will control street design requirements. A strip commercial center generates about three trips per hour inbound and three trips per hour outbound during the evening peak hour. Similarly the office- services use such as Road Equipment generates about 1.5 trips inbound and 1.7 trips outbound. C Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. June 30, 1986 Page 3 The proposed new uses will generate roughly two trips per hour inbound and two trips per hour outbound. All of these rates are expressed as the number of auto trips per hour per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. The source of such rates are ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) published data or counts taken by the consultant for similar types of development. If the strip commercial center were upgraded to remain a viable use, the trip generation would be even higher. The net effect of the proposed development in terms of P.M. peak hour trips may be summarized as follows: Existing P.M. Peak Trips Proposed P.M. Peak Trips Use In Out Expansion In Out Commercial 67 67 Auto Sales Office - Service 11 12 & Service 47 47 Residential 1 -- -- -- TOTAL 79 79 47 47 The proposed new development can be expected to generate 32 fewer trips inbound and 32 fewer trips outbound or 64 total trips per hour. This is a reduction of about 40 percent of the existing development trip generation. 1 1 N Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. iJune 30, 1986 Page 4 PARKING The proposed development is to have 266 parking spaces. Ten of these spaces are for the showroom and 20 are for service. There is also adequate space for car storage and display of cars. The owner will designate separate parking spaces for employees, customers, and vehicles awaiting services. . Identification of each area is important in that it is a device whereby the different types of users can be directed to separate entrances. Employee spaces are grouped around the lot so that they are convenient to the user's area of employment. Since great walking distances are not required and the spaces are more convenient to employees, they will be discouraged from using any adjacent on- street parking. The latter is recognized as being obnoxious to adjacent residential property owners. If employees chose to use on- street parking on 77th Street, they would be blocked from entering the Walser area directly by screening fence or raised landscaped berms. This further discourages that undesirable parking. L-] C C /6 Burton- Aschman Associates, Inc. June 30, 1986 Page 5 There are more than 600 car parking or storage area spaces on -site. If there are any deficiencies in the parking by designated type, the owner has the flexibility of altering the on -site storage of display vehicles or used cars. In our view the parking and vehicle storage proposed are very adequate. One of the prime reasons for investing in expanded facilities for the auto dealerships is to insure all employees could park on site. In addition the proposed plan better screens the proposed parking along 77th Street. • ACCESS TO THE EXPANDED SITE Nearly all access to the site is oriented to the north frontage road. No access drives are provided along 77th Street. The smaller Mazda dearlership would have a single drive off Morgan Avenue as a convenience. Trips to and from Morgan Avenue are expected to be minor since it is. easier to enter and exit via the signal on Penn Avenue at the existing north frontage road intersection. Auto dealerships normally attract longer trips than uses such as the strip commercial center. Therefore they orient toward major 0 Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. June 30, 1986 Page 6 arterials such as Penn Avenue. rather than using local residential streets. So long as the access is made convenient from the arterials, drivers typically will not divert to lesser streets. SUMMARY 1. The proposed expansion of the dealerships should decrease the traffic service or parking demand on the site. The proposal is to better accommodate business already occuring on the site. 0 - 2. One of the key issues in this expansion project is to better- accommodate employee parking and storage of vehicles on the site. The plan is more than adequate for this purpose. 3. The resultant trip generation for the proposed use is less than continued use of the site with the commercial center and office - warehouse uses that are to be replaced. 4. Traffic capacity to the site is adequate and heavily reliant on the north frontage road of I -494. Q �lU Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. June 30, 1986 Page 7 5. The proposed land use change should not increase traffic on adjacent residential streets. In fact the demand for such movement should be decreased. 6. The revised plan does not require, and significantly discourages, employee parking on 77th Street and other residential streets in the area. This is accomplished by making assigned employee parking spaces very convenient to the area of employment and berms along 77th Street. 7. The revised plan does a better job of screening the proposed development from the residential area along 77th Street. 8. If desired, the owner would require employees to place stickers on their vehicles to help identify parkers on, any residential streets. K-1 - P 7330 F -ante Avenue South Sufte -.;2 : _,na.. ;i4 b =435 '012)831 -„131 Walser Buick 2'00 'Nest 78tn SS,-et :tinneaoous. %N 5 423 ,512)2 °9-1492 Walser Chevrolet 9325 - :5in Avenue morn Plymoutn. MIN 55442 512) 559- 93:A Nalser Chrysler • Plymouth .,14 lAa,n 5t ec-t Hc:)K :ns. 'N 5- 43 012)935 -2» 0 Walser Ford 3555 _Cut.^ ",. ^ -.!a! 612)1925 -_= _-0 Walser lmoorts »5 • enn Avenue :n r +cnf•eia. MN == »2- 512; 881-• _. is Walser Leasing 3 -7 Al2) .53 Walser Mazda .30 East Sceec•.aav Scu;evara gc- Auto Dealerships and Leasing c c WA ER CORPORATION July 2, 1986 Mr. Rick Jopke City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Jopke: On July 1st myself and the General Managers of Walser Buick and Walser Mazda held a meeting with a group of neighborhood people who live around the 7600 block of Newton, Oliver & Morgan avenues. These people have concerns that have to be dealt with and we are prepared to comply with them. The major issues were: 1) Fnployee parking on 77th street, Oliver, Newton and tlorgan avenues. 2) Lights glaring onto the neighbors lawns from our Used Car lot. 3) Concern for increased traffic on 77th street. 4) Using 77th street, Oliver and Newton for demonstration and service drives. 5) Incomplete decorative fence on Walser Buick's Used Car lot as it approaches 77th street. 6) Will there be enough room for employee parking on our lots? In response, our discussion led to the following agreement by us and a proposal to the City of Richfield. First, I demonstrated that we will most definately have enough room for employee parking with our new land acquisition as in- dicated by the drawing which the City currently has. In addition to providing these designated spaces for our employees, the General Managers will monitor it closely. Second, to reduce glare onto the neighbors' homes from Walser Buick's Used Car lot, I am making the following proposal to the City. Walser is agreeing to plan& and pay for the installation ., Mr. Rick Jopke Page 2 July 2, 1986 of trees north of the existing brick fencing (on 77th street) and on the City's right of way. It was discussed and the feelings were that this would greatly reduce the glare as it now exists, plus it would provide a nice aesthetic view. Third, the concern for traffic in the area was the next issue which needs the City's approval as well. A neighbor made the recommendation to erect a road block kitty- cornered on the south side of 77th street and at the intersection of Morgan avenue. Several of the neighborhood people agreed and thought that this was a great idea. (I have enclosed a diagram for example). The feeling was that it would not effect Walser's, McCarthy's, Cannine College's, Repro printing's or any other business. Walser would agree to this road block for detour purposes. Fourth, [falser will establish a demonstration and service route, post it so that all sales employees are aware of it and will monitor it so that it is adhered to. Fifth, Walser will complete the exisitng fense to their property line on the north side of their Used Car lot. The feeling here was that currently people use this unfinished area as a walkway. Sixth, this point was answered in statement number one. I feel that the neighborhood meeting was very constructive and that the Walser Corporation has dealt with the neighborhood concerns. It is my hope that the City of Richfield will cooperate by granting approval of two additional requests made in this letter in items number two and three. I hope this helps in the decision making process. Respectfully, Walser Corporation Richard L. joquist President RLS /ecb ��cn Ln O n Ln I rn r- I U 'G C E N Ln rl N e-i �10 I R .C--4 C ca b G •ri OD cli 4-J ca a ca 'C O M 41 ca O O O O W a ` ca •� V cc U L1 C r--i yJ O L-: V C ca r-, Z r o ° N•t N U T--4 100 C c U, C14 L N II II w— Z CrjG II II N u a N N� ca �n Zro aro •, z � Z 00 Z p E r1 '_, Cn ��cn Ln O n Ln I rn r- I U 'G C E N Ln rl N e-i �10 I R .C--4 C ca b G •ri OD cli 4-J ca a ca 'C O M 41 ca O O O O W a ` ca •� V cc U L1 C r--i yJ O J.,) ca o ° N•t N a -,o Ln T--4 100 c U, C14 II II 11 Ii CrjG II II Q) u a co U "0 N� ca E Zro aro •, z � J 3 00 Z p E W 1,)-f John Alt 6506 Wilryan Edina, Minnesota 55435 (612) 944 -1439 tj� WS" '-4i 101 � MN Ss`� 1-3 SrC ns� Pia` W�.O��aN A�St- tJv.9`_ 'vo Ak saw 'C a�ob t s i V J L U - ,; j': •i J � X Z LU LL J 2 Lij (L J M a U Q _Z r N cc �. ir m a U OC w O U � _ a a � w �. Q z co a w M a 0 o ri Z N — U - ,; j': •i J � X Z LU LL J 2 Lij (L J M a U Q _Z r N cc �. ir m JJ� Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. 1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612- 332 -0421 MMRANDUM TO: Mr. Rick Jcpke City Planner City of Richfield FROK: Deane M. Wenger Barton- Ascimian Associates, Inc. DM: October 2, 1986 SUBJECT: PROPOSED WA= CORPORATION EXPANSION 78TH STREET AT H ORGAN AVENUE RICITI~=D, MM4ES0TA We have reviewed the staff comments on the original request of Walser Corporation at the 78th Street and Penn Avenue site. A few points should be clarified. We do not disagree with the comments but more explanation seems appropriate. The primary point regarding our estimate on the P.M. peak hour trip generation of the proposed new development will be the same or less than for the current uses. The staff is correct in noting that the estimates are based on the assumption that the present Viking Center is successful. It is apparent to all that the present center is generating fewer trips than a normal center. The assumption was made that the present center cannot continue as is indefinitely and that eventually it will be rebuilt or reorganized for new viable tenants. J,a3 Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. October 2, 1986 Page 2 All of the recommendations suggested by the staff can be met and will be committed to by the developer. We suggest, however, that the city consider closing Morgan Avenue immediately south of 77th Street rather than installing the traffic diverter listed as staff reocam*mdation 5 in your report. To address the neighborhood concerns we have looked into cul-de -sacs on the residential streets, a diverter and the street closure. The street would merely be closed off to traffic but not vacated since it must serve some 0 access to the McCarthy property as well as Walsers. The closure appears to us to be the most positive way to guarantee that Walser and McCarthy's customers and employees will not use residential streets north of 77th Street. The developer is agreeable to such a restriction and will contact McCarthy Oldsmobile as well. The Carpet Company being the only other owner served by Morgan, south of 77th Street, may be and could be acquired by Walser. Cal-de -sacs and diverters create an inconvenience to both residents and for city services. If alternate solutions are available, we suggest they be considered. Our experience with diverters is that the residents themselves frequently request they be removed because of the restrictions on movements. Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. • October 2, 1986 Page 3 In addition, they are a temptation for some drivers to cross and ruin plantings or whatever. The City of Omaha, for example, found that to prevent crossings, posts and chains had to be installed. This caused problems for emergency vehicles. The count data supplied to Kraus - Anderson indicate that the residential streets north of 77th carry low volumes with Morgan handling about double those on parallel streets. Closing Morgan should reduce those volumes as much as the developer is capable of. The frontage road, east of Penn, handles less than 2,000 vehicles per day. With the proposed new development and no vehicular or pedestrian access to 77th, the frontage road will have adequate capacity. Me plans for reconstructing I -494 are relatively long range. Zhe property proposed for reuse is sufficiently distant from Penn Avenue and is not likely to be required for reconstruction of that interchange. WA ER IMPORTS 7745 Penn Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 861 -7444 ' "` e` "`'° October 1 1986 21004'• /��st i._thStfp+ t , Ricnti:fld. .qN 55423 �3i23;3:;5 ?492 TO: All Personnel Please remember that the designated route for all demo " t rides and service test drives is: West on 494 to Bush 'r:oGku, s, M 553-13 Lake Road and back. Under no circumstances are demo rides colt.. _,... •. nr, auc. or test drives to take place on any residential streets. A ol CK UP -- It's the law!!! •Jack Lucking 4ohn Eaton Dan Klick �,a 7 lt's 0 AllAt Walser 9-�a C2 MARY LEE (Marty) WHITING, Director ®® CANINE COLLEGE 5221 KELLOGG AVENUE • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55424 • (612) 922-5015 (612) $122-6485 September 17, 1986 TO: Richfield t,lannin,�,, C;ommission �D corporation ap--lication whici would result in a -alser "or, U r at 1.orL--,,,an Ave. So. �raffic diver ter tn E- -.or,--an Avenue South and .-s the owner of thle property at 7713 ' � c., f urt' '-' er as the operator of Ca--,-iine Cloller-e which has been in business at 7713 .-:orj-a-,)- -P�vcriue Sout'i'l for over tu-ae--rity-four years 0 1 stron,;Iy object to the installation of a traffic diverter at and •,.torGan ,,,-venue South. Th-is iris tallation uou!6 -.,-e my clie--its arid., further:..-,or of tra.-L'f--*Lc on Lor:=- Lve-riuc 0 A-'(-, the i,,resent t-JL-.-?1e canine o 'h is diffused in t,-,-r 6 G. undue ai-count of traffic on an inconvenienjce and deterrent for t;!ou16' create an additional load durine the hours of our cperati or.. Coller,"p, traffic to and from the directions t1lereby not -,lacing an any one street. ' han---- you for vour consideration. V co-py: Lc--': Jojp'�e 1- o w h JL d i,- a z ..-ayLee `o`hit-Lric; • Y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 386 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Public Hearing To Consider a Request for Special Use Permit for a Restaurant Serving Liquor at 1200 East 78th Street And a Resolution Approving An Off- Street Parking Contract Background: In August, 1978, the City Council granted a special use permit and variance for a restaurant serving liquor at 1200 East 78th Street. In July, 1979 the City Council granted the property owner a one year extension to the special use permit. No development occurred and the special use permit expired. In December, 1982 the City Council granted a special use permit for a revised restaurant proposal on the site. Subsequently, a six month extension from December 12, 1983 and a 90 day extension from June 11, 1984 was also granted. The only work which occurred on the site is the removal of some trees on the north side of the structure and the asphalt from the site. The site has been regraded and a gravel base put in place for the new parking areas on the site. Mr. David Webb of Restaurant Ventures Two Inc. has requested that the city grant a special use permit to allow the combination of a sit -down and drive -thru restaurant serving liquor by the drink at 1200 East 78th Street. A new special use permit is required because the concept is different, involves a new building, and involves a drive -thru service window. A separate public hearing and public safety department review.will be required for the liquor license. The special use permit issue must be approved - prior to scheduling the hearing on the liquor license. The applicant has removed the existing structure and proposes to construct a new structure on the site. The structure would be smaller than the existing structure and would meet all setback standards. The proposed structure would have an area of approximately 5,000 square feet and have.185 seats. The previous proposal involved a structure with 8,400 square feet and 200 to 254 seats. The proposed restaurant would not have a separate bar, but liquor would be available with meals. Customers would order and pick up food and beverages at a counter and then either take the food and beverages out, or eat at the tables provided. There would be no waitresses or waiters. . Parking for 81 cars would be provided on the south, west and north sides of the structure. Access to the parking areas would . be from a 26 foot wide curb cut from 78th Street in the southeast corner of the site. A 26 foot wide curb cut would be provided onto 12th Avenue in the northwest corner of the site. The curb cut locations would approximate the location of the existing curb cuts. The proposal includes two drive -thru service lanes. The drive -thru order boards would be located on the east side of the structure and the pickup window would be located on,the north side of the structure. Access to the drive -thru service windows would be from the south parking area via a one way drive. The site is located in a C -2 general commercial district. In August of 1986, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously that the special use permit for a combination sit - down and drive -thru restaurant serving liquor by the drink at 1200 East 78th Street be approved with the following stipulations: 1. That the parking area as presented at the Planning Commission meeting be redesigned to provide end islands, additional landscaping, access to all parking spaces without having to use the drive -thru service lane and to meet all city parking guidelines. 2. That a detailed landscape plan be submitted for city staff approval. The design of the screening and buffers should be included in this submittal. On September 8, 1986 the City Council continued the public hearing on this matter until October 13, 1986 to allow the applicant to complete a revised traffic study (copy attached) and to allow the applicant to address a number of other concerns identified by staff and surrounding property owners. Notice of the September 8, 1986 hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current. On September 30, 1986 the applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting, attended by 24 persons. Concerns expressed included increased traffic, noise and litter, and about the precedent that may be set by serving liquor at a fast food restaurant with a drive -thru service window. Zoning Ordinance Requirements 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, indicates -- that -a- restaurant serving liquor is only permitted in C -2 (general commercial) districts if a special use permit is obtained. 2. Section 3.33, subdivision 4, list regulations relating to restaurants. 0 3. Section 3.41, subdivision 51 list the conditions governing the issuance of a special use permit. 0 Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the special use permit for a fast service restaurant with a full liquor license and drive -thru service windows be denied. Basis of Recommendation: 1. City staff has concluded that a liquor license cannot be issued for the proposed restaurant because meals will not be regularly served at tables to the general public. Therefore, the facility will not satisfy the definition of the requirements for such restaurants as set forth in Section 11.06 of the Richfield Code. 2.' Since meals will not be regularly served at tables there is serious concern that the consumption of alcoholic at tables could be supervised properly. 3. Serving liquor at fast food restaurant with drive thru facility provides general problems with liquor control. It is more difficult to insure that liquor will not be taken off the premises and consumed by minors. 4. A resolution of findings of facts will be presented by the attorney on Monday, October 13. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The only other alternative would be for the city council to change the definitional requirements for a restaurant that would permit sale of alcoholic beverages at restaurants where meals are not regularly served at tables to the general public. Decision Mode: The City Council has continued the public hearing on this matter from September 8, 1986 to October 13, 1986. A reminder of this hearing has been sent to persons within 350 feet of the site. JDP /eja • Respectfully submitted, Jame _.- _Prosser City anager • ADDITIONAL ISSUES AND FINDINGS A traffic and parking study recently conducted for the applicant by the firm of Benshoof and Associates, Inc. concluded the following: A. Development traffic will primarily orient to I -494, to the 78th Street frontage road system and to the south on 12th Avenue. B. The development will increase daily volumes on 12th Avenue north of the site by just 4.5 percent. This limited increase would not cause any perceptible change to the traffic safety or other characteristics of this street. C. Intersections along 12th Avenue presently provide effective traffic controls - traffic signals at the I -494 ramps and four -way stop control at 77th Street and 76th Street. It is expected that the roadway system will be able to effectively accommodate the development trips without any change in traffic controls. D. The proposed site plan with access both to /from 78th Street and 12th Avenue, is appropriate and is the preferred means • for site access. E. The 81 parking stalls included in the plan are expected to effectively meet the restaurants parking needs based on parking demand surveys at other quick service restaurants and on other sources. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING OFF -S— T E' ET PARKING PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION NO. 86 -6 TWO PESOS RESTAURANT 1200 EAST 78TH STREET BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off - street parking as contained in Off- Street Parking Application No. 86 -6 is hereby approved subject to proper screening being provided between the parking areas and adjacent residential property. The applicant should work with adjacent property owners to come up with an acceptable design of the screening. 2. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of said off - street parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off - street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. . Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of October, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor • 0 BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119 /EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344/(612) 944 -7590 September 30, 1986 REFER TO FILE: 86 -34 -49 M E M O R A N D U M TO: John S i rny, Restaurant Ventures Two, Inc. FROM: James A. Benshoofy RE: Traffic Study for Proposed Two Pesos Restaurant in City of Richfield PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND This is to document the results of our traffic analysis for the proposed Two Pesos Restaurant, which would be located in the northeast corner of 12th Avenue South and East 78th Street-in the City of Richfield. This analysis has involved updating the analysis I previously conducted, while with another firm, for the Too Good's Restaurant that previously was proposed for this site. This report is to account for the specific characteristics of the current Two Pesos Restaurant and to address the following two particular points: Implications of development traffic on roadways in the area, with notation regarding the effects of the proposed drive - through operation on the traffic char- acteristics. Adequacy of parking for the restaurant, whether the proposed site plan will provide sufficient spaces to meet the expected parking demand. The traffic and parking analyses have been based on the size of the proposed restaurant, which we understand consists of about 5,000 square feet GFA and 166 seats. Our analyses and results are presented in the fo /lowing foursections: traffic forecasts, traffic analyses, parking analyses, and conclusions. 14 0 Mr. John Sirny -2- September 30, 1986 TRAFFIC FORECASTS The first step in the traffic forecasting process is to project the volume of traffic that the proposed restaurant would generate. For this purpose, we have forecasted development trips both on a daily basis and for the p.m. peak hour (4:30 to 5:30 p.m.), the hour during the day in which the adjacent roadways would be carrying their greatest volumes. In order to accurately project the development traffic, we have related to data on usage characteristics at other existing Two Pesos Restaurants in Houston, Texas, to data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the document entitled, "Trip Generation ", and to data collected by Benshoof & Associates. Inc. Key usage charac- teristics that influence trip generation are as follows: 1) Weekly sales volume. Data provided by David Webb for Two Pesos Restaurants in Houston indicate that the weekly sales volume for the proposed restaurant would be $38,000 to $42,000. To be on the conservative side, the $42,000 value has been used for traffic forecasting purposes. • 2) Percentage of weekly business that occurs on a typical Friday. Experience at existing Two Pesos Restaurants indicates that the typical busiest day of the week is Friday. This experience is consistent with studies by Benshoof & Associates at other quick service restau- rants. The specific Two Pesos data indicate that 19.9% of the weekly sales volume occurs on a typical Friday. Therefore, the expected sales volume on a typical Friday is $42,000 x 0.199 = $8,358. 3) Proportion of daily business that occurs during the p.m. peak hour (4:30 to 5:30 p.m.). Based on Two Pesos data plus other experience by Benshoof & Associates, it is estimated that seven percent of the daily volume would occur during the hour of 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. Therefore, the expected sales volume during the hour of 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. is $8,358 x 0.07 = $585. 4) Average check per person. Data provided -by David Webb based on experiences at the Two Pesos Restaurants in Houston indicate that the expected average check per person is $5.50. Therefore, the number of persons expected to patronize the proposed restaurant on a typical Friday is $8,358/$5.50 = 1520 persons. During the p.m. peak hour, the expected patronage would be • $585/$5.50 = 106 persons. • Mr. John Sirny -3- September 30, 1986 5) Vehicle occupancy and resultant trip generation. A survey by Benshoof & Associates at another quick service restaurant indicated that the average occupancy was 1.5 persons per car. In applying this ratio to the projected Two Pesos person trip generation from step 4), another factor that needs to be accounted for is that each trip generated by the restaurant involves two trip ends - one when the customer arrives and the second when the customer leaves. Therefore, the resul- tant protected trip generation for the proposed Two Pesos Restaurant is (1520/1.5) x 2.0 = 2030 daily trip ends and (106/1.5) x 2.0 = 140 trip ends during the p.m. peak hour. Data from other Two Pesos Restaurants indicate that the drive - through operation accounts for about 30 percent of the total restaurant trips. This finding is consistent with surveys performed by Benshoof 8 Associates. Utilizing this percentage, the drive - through operation would account for about 305 vehicles per day and about 20 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour. • The next step in the traffic forecasting process is to project the trip distribution, i.e. the allocation of development trips among the roadways in the area. Based on a review of current roadway and development patterns, it is expected that trips to and from the proposed Two Pesos Restaurant will distribute in the same manner as for the previous proposed Too Good's Restaurant. The resultant trip distribution projections are as follows: Route and Direction 12th Avenue north of 76th St. 76th St., west of 12th Ave. 78th St., east of 12th Ave. 12th Ave., south of I -494 I -494, west of 12th Ave. I -494, east of 12th Ave. Percentage of Trips to /from Two Pesos Restaurant 2 6 2 15 45 30 Tota 1 -_" - - T "0-0 - Utilizing the preceding trip generation and trip distribution projections, the restaurant trips then have been assigned to the roadway system. The results in terms of existing and post - development daily volumes on affected roadways in the area, are as follows: • Mr. John Sirny Roadway /Location -4- September 30, 1986 12th Ave., north of 76th St. 76th St., west of 12th Ave. 12th Ave., btwn 76th and 77th Streets 12th Ave. btwn 77th and 78th Streets 12th Ave., over I -494 Post Existing Development Daily Daily Volume Volume Increase 2,974 3,015 4,646 4,768 3,5801 3,743 +41 ( +1.4 %) +122 ( +2.6 %) +163 ( +4.5 %) 4,8201 5,551 +731 ( +15.2 %) 12,714 13,780 +1066 ( +8.4 %) 1 Estimated based on 1978 counts and volume increases on other roadways from 1978 to 1985. With the exception of a possible few trips by persons who live in the immediate neighborhood, no significant development trips are expected to use other local streets in . the area, such as 77th St., 11th Ave., and 13th Ave. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS In addition to the traffic forecasts, it is important to understand major characteristics of roadways in the area in order to analyze the effects of the development traffic. One such characteristic is functional classification. In this context, the City has designated 12th Avenue and 76th Street as collector routes. All other roadways north of the - site serve as local, residential streets. East 78th Street is a frontage road for I -494 and serves as a local route. Another important characteristicc is traffic control. The existing controls at major nearby intersections are as follows: Four -way stop sign control at intersections of 12th Avenue with 76th Street and 77th Street Stop sign on E. 78th Street at 12th-Avenue Traffic signals at intersection of 12th Avenue with westbound and eastbound ramps for I -494 The preceding points, supplemented by site observations, indicate that 12th Avenue has an effective set of traffic controls which enable this roadway to serve its designated 0 Mr. John Sirny -5- September 30, 1986 collector function. Given these effective controls and given the limited volume of restaurant traffic that would use 12th Avenuel and 76th Street, it is expected that those roadways would be able to effectively accommodate the development trips. A capacity analysis was performed for the intersection of 12th Avenue and East 78th St. for the p.m. peak hour to assess the effects of development traffic at this location. The results indicated that all movements through the intersection, including left turns from the east to the south, would operate within normal performance standards (i.e. level of service D or better). The site plan indicates two access /egress locations for the site - one on 12th Avenue and the other on 78th Street. We concur that this is an appropriate access plan for the fo llowing two reasons: Reduce potential for congestion on 78th Street east of 12th Avenue. If the site had access only to /from 78th Street, development traffic would interfere more with existing traffic using 78th Street. • Avoid unnecessary on -site circulation and the associ- ated potential for conflicts among vehicles and between vehicles and pedestrians. Under the proposed site plan, drive - through traffic will be able to exit directly to 12th Avenue, without interfering with other on -site traffic and pedestrian movements. PARKING ANALYSIS In order to assess the parking adequacy for the proposed Two Pesos Restaurant, we reviewed several sources of informa- tion. These sources of parking needs data and the resultant parking space needs for the proposed restaurant are as follows: • ` On a daily basis, the volume on 12th Ave. between 76th and 77th Streets would increase by 4.5 percent. During the p.m. peak hour, the proposed restaurant would add just 12 trips (one every five minutes to this segment of 12th Avenue. 9 • Mr. John Sirny -6- September 30, 1986 Resultant Calculated Parking Space Parking Need for Source of Parking Demand Two Pesos Needs Information Ratio Restaurant Survey by Benshoof 8 Assoc. ave. for four 66 at four Burger King stores - 13.19 per Restaurants 1000 sq. ft. GFA Projections for rest- aurants with liquor applied by Benshoof & Assoc. on other projects City Code max. for four 81 stores - 16.04 per 1000 sq. ft. GFA 15 per 1000 sq. ft. 75 GFA 2.5 per seat (166) 74 plus 0.5 per employee (14) As we understand, the proposes site plan would provide 81 parking spaces. Since this supply equals the greatest above calculated demand and exceeds City Code requirements, it is our conclusion that the proposed site plan will effectively meet the restaurant's parking needs. CONCLUSIONS Based on the preceding analyses, we have established the following conclusions: Development traffic primarily will orient to I -494, to the 78th Street frontage road system, and to the south on 12th Avenue. The development will increase daily volumes on 12th Avenue north of the site by just 4.5 percent. This limited increase probably would not - cause -any percep- tible change to traffic safety or other characteristics of this street. Intersections along 12th Avenue presently provide effective traffic controls - traffic signals at the 1 -494 ramps and four -way stop control at 77th Street and 76th Street. It is expected that the roadway system will be able to effectively accommodate the development trips without any change in traffic controls. • 9 0 Mr. John Sirny -7- September 30, 1986 The proposed site plan, with access both to /from 78th Street and 12th Avenue, is appropriate and is the preferred means for site access. The 81 parking spaces included in the plan are expected to effectively meet the restaurant's parking needs based on parking demand surveys at other quick service restaurants and on other sources. 0 0 ZTH AVE a rh 4 A XP -- --- - I Droj.�- no o- n try oate- reviSKM --l.. I., F- -ICHFIFLD VINNISOIA N I A-11 -2,67 7T LA in 2 5pwlols a •-C. o z Z.03 vc rh 4 A XP -- --- - I Droj.�- no o- n try oate- reviSKM --l.. I., F- -ICHFIFLD VINNISOIA 0 0 u it s N� I. i1 I li II i � III II :ill:Ii1 � i II I ;lil ii; i i I I Ii I I (,jII I II I Li ' I Ili II i it III II ! J IN � cc I I I Ii I I I !i jl f i Mai iii II tI !i ' it Iliila�F` I� - I I (I I N I I li II I 4 I w J I I xgea ro —_ mawn cy s..... crate MFIIC:N 11F • 51f Hf IFID YINVFSCtd .K TTI •L. —4 • ! ri IA 6-4 -7n Ola-� Dy cale- I', 1 Mf IIC�M CLi[ • 41C wf IELC 4•.:4 ME S0'l F 0 0 0 •'o• is ..e :•e- �.•s. 1 •,.1. I pZq 4 E. �G c � I t .. o I O Lrl ��- 15 n .. ' sate �r pf-1-01-11- .It•91..NREID NIINNF5070 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 385 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Appeal Of a City Staff Interpretation of the Uses Permitted in the C -1 Limited Business Zoning District. 771'j— Background: Kit V. and Sumonda V. Arom have approached city staff concerning their interest in purchasing the property located at 7301 Penn Avenue. They wish to expand and remodel the building and establish an automobile detailing use on the site. Detailing involves very detailed and thorough hand waxing and polishing of the exterior and interior of automobiles as well as thorough cleaning of engines. The proposed use is not a car wash in that it does not contain the automatic washing equipment typical of a -car wash. The car owner must have the car washed prior to bringing it to this proposed automobile detailing facility. The applicant has indicated that it takes 4 to 6 hours to detail a car and that a maximum of 5 to 6 cars a day would be processed. The cars would be stored inside the building when completed. The site in question is zoned C -1 Limited Business. The existing use (a auto repair business) on the site is nonconforming. The existing condition of the building and site is a mess and an • eyesore in the neighborhood. Pictures of the existing conditions are attached. Staff has made the interpretation that the proposed auto detailing use would not be permitted in a C -1 zoning district. The Aroms are appealing this interpretation to the City Council. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council review this matter and determine that the automobile detailing use is not a permitted use in the C -1 zoning district. Basis of Recommendation: The city's zoning ordinance in Section 3.32, subdivision 1, paragraph 6 indicates that a garage shall not be permitted in a C -1 zoning district (see attachment). The zoning ordinance in Section 3.27, subdivision 32 paragraph 20 defines "garages, public" as "any premises except those herein defined as a private or storage garage, used for the storage or care of self - propelled vehicles or where any such vehicles are equipped for operation or repair or kept for remuneration, hire or sale" (see attachment). Because this use involves the care of self propelled vehicles it would be considered a garage and therefore would not be permitted in the district. Alternative Recommendation: The alternative recommendation would be for the council to make the determination that this type of use was not intended to be • classified as a public garage and therefore it would not be prohibited in a C -1 zoning district. The council could then determine that the use is of the same general character as uses permitted in the district and could be permitted by special use permit. • • If the council chooses to use the alternative recommendation then the matter should be referred to the Planning Commission for review as part of the normal special use permit review process. Discussion /Decision Mode: A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for October 13, 1986. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun on October 1, 1986. Respect lly submitted, Jam D. Prosser Executive Director • • 7301 - PENN AVENUE SOUTH, RICHFIELD, MN. STORAGE ROOM WITHIN BUILDING - NOW USED AS THEIR OFFICE. PUBLIC BATHROOM - North Side of building with outside entrance. The sink looks just like this. Note the door knob on the floor, belongs bn the door. Second bath- room is inside - dirty also. r .. 44 a �+ fj d Ft71 �t 'S`F sAf' 4 " �S 9 F t 8.r.. Y� „,�” "^�, • ��i III ' f +�. } Y `A `r "'"'£'°�'- ..,�'� - -�''.� ,r• 'r� ,� - 'rM" ;1- � z� r�. '�"xr "`, ,ter - 7 <rr a Y uE nr F r � I �ui �e��rat?cn. There shall 0e a .w:aincc seats • ze_::e e _ - tuna__ �. 66A t.a �.'• ^c_..�� .^.L•1 a L':. .y ' project °ts'Sa iv cr LN.° taller o_ - �'O ad �_ c:,zg ? -�J 1. to tats_ e ;acen� sc__ctes. (3 _L I082 -5) 2/8/82 Subd. 10. ?er_ _ _ ,r a ca -cs - =- ' =S =a= ,..e_,_ _ _ d;�e1l nzs ccr- sz=ucteG a�t8 Che a °c._:2 -.:ace of �3• ^ -5., �I s ordinance Baal l beTcons a_,:cted and =aint4ined accordance :M.• h e zer- :o—ance s tazcards =rand 3.30 5uodi:�.sion 7 ( i1T Ta .a Sectio:: i 3 _.8 —7) 3/..3/x3 3.32 USE REGULATIONS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (C -1) DISTRICT. Subdivision 1. Permitted Uses. In the neighborhood business district, unless otherwise specified in this chapter, the following uses are permitted: { (1) Any use permitted in an "R", "MR", "R -1119 "MR -1111 "MR- 211, or an "MR -3" district, upon compliance with the procedural requirements for each such district provided that no one family or two family dwelling shall be constructed in this district !' without the procurement of a special use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.41 of this chapter. (Bill 1982- 5) 2/8/82 0 • • (13) "Dwelling, One - Family" means a building used exclusively,for occupancy by one family. (14) "Dwelling, Two- Family" means a building used exclusively for occupancy by two families living independently of each other. (15) "Dwelling, Multiple" means a building or portion thereof used for occupancy by three or more families living independently of each other. (16) "Dwelling Unit" means a dwelling or portion of a dwelling or of an apartment hotel used by one family for cooking, living and sleeping. (17) -."Family" means one or more persons occupying a premises and living as a single, onprofit housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity, or sorority house. The term "family" does not include a group of individuals, exceeding three in number, not related by blood, marriage or adoption. (1982 -5) 2/8/82 (18) "Floor Area Ratio" means the sum total of the gross floor area of all floors of the structures on the site divided by the gross site area. Gross .floor area shall include halls, lobbies, stairways, elevator shafts, enclosed porches and.balconies and below grade floor areas used for habitation. Not included as gross floor areas are open terraces, patios, atriums or balconies, carports, garages, breezeways, tool sheds, special purpose areas for common use of occupants, such as recreation room social hall, staff space for therapy or examination in in -care housing, and basement space not used for living accommodations. Gross site area includes the site plus one -half of abutting streets and alleys. (1982 -5)- 2/8/82- (19) "Garage, Private" means an accessory building for only the storage of self- propelled vehicles. (20) "Garages, Public" means any premises except those herein defined as a private or storage garage, used for the storage or care of self - propelled vehicles or where any such vehicles are equippped for operation or repair or kept for remineration, hire or sale. (21)' "Height of Building" means the vertical distance from the average elevation of the lot along the front building line to the highest point of the roof for flat roofs; to the deck line of mansard roofs; and to the mean height between the eaves and ridge for gable, hip and gambrel roofs. (1982 -5) 2/8/82 (22) ' "Home Occupation" means any activity conducted within a dwelling or building or upon the parcel of land containing the dwelling, which is incidental - to the use of the dwelling for dwelling purposes and does not change the character thereof.. (Bill 1974 -10) 7/8/74 (23) "Hotel" means any building or portion thereof where lodging is offered to transient guests for compensation and in which there are more than five sleeping rooms with no cooking facilities in an individual room or apartment. (24) "Junk Yard" means land or building used for the storage or keeping of junk, including scrap metals, or for the dismantling or wrecking'of automobiles or other vehicles or machinery other than the storage of materials which is incidental or accessory to any business or industrial use on the same lot. (25) "Lot, Corner" means a lot situated at the intersection of two or more streets, or bounded on two ormore adjacent sides by street lines. (26) "Lot Coverage" means the.total ground area covered by structures. (1982 -5) 2/8/82 (27) "Lot, Interior" means a lot other than a.corner lot. (28) "Lot, Key" means the first lot to the rear of a corner lot,-the front line of which is a continuation of the side line of the corner lot, exclusive of the width of any alley, and fronting on the street which intersects or intercepts the street on which the corner lot fronts. 2/8/82 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINN.ESO rA ORDINANCE CODE 6o 1 i September 7, 1986 City of Richf ield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Attention: City Council` Re: 7301 Penn Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Gentlemen: Enclosed please find an application for a Permitted Use Permit to expand and remodel the property at 7301 Penn Avenue South. The plan is to make this corner on Penn Avenue look • more attractive than it does now and along with the remodeling to landscape the area around the building. It is believed the neighborhood will be very happy to have such an improvement done in their area. The proposed business Detailing and all the inside the building,n for less noise on the problems. Also included are the setbacks to be within use would be for Automotive work will be done by hand and othing done outside. This lends corner for the neighbors and no plans for the building, with the city boundry requirements. Thank you for your consideration to this matter. Yours very truly, Kit V. Arom Sumonda V. Arom K V A :maw enc. TYPE OF BUSINESS AUTOMOTIVE DETAILING: Meaning - waxing and polishing by hand the entire car, using toothbrushes and "Q" tips for the small areas on the dash - board etc. The engine also gets a thorough cleaning by hand The car will not be stored outside after the job is completed - it will stay inside until the owner picks it up. About 5 or 6 cars a day will be just about all that could be handled it takes 4 to 6 hours per car. CONCERN OF NEIGHBORHOOD PICTURES: Take note of the pictures of the present day users at the location now. The operation there is messy and cars are parked all over. Note the condition of some of these cars. Also, seems to be a parking lot for boats and camper equipment. Tires, refuse, and weeds abound. Take note of the office area and bathrooms - -the sinks look just like the toilet. • PLANS FOR REMODELING: The new owners will have some clients who own very expensive automobiles and who take excellent care of them, thats why they would bring their car to a Detail Shop. This is not a Car- Wash!!!! The car will be washed when it comes in. A plan of the new extention on the present building is en- closed. This property will be in a new and high class con- dition with a nice reception room. The city would be very pleased to see a newly remodeled structure on this site, let alone the increase in city property taxes generated from a building with increased value, and also the quietness of this business compared to the one already in the building. 0 • ■ Now say "Aah ": the taillight of a Jaguar undergoes toothbrushing at Steve's Detailing in Newport Beach. ■ A Mercedes -Benz hood ornament gets the star', treatment at Lonmark Enterprises in Ne, r York City. ■ the outsides of most cars rarely get as clean as the underside of the Ferrari's hood. d z �t Ey W Q F W F a W x E4 vi eR as H�w AA .�7 zo p Q cFi� O U w w cn cn z z o °� U') °� O o z c>F _ID w coiQ .cH z. o(D o `� a O N C F L J U) Oq t3� i3 a o N Ci _ w v ^ _o O z o i3 ✓� O rso n H as xo3 U o - j 0 0 0_ o .oc b� n. E c°n o a' ci o o` n o o > U cn �- ¢ O - c Q D E t O U m° m ti c 3Q ; o O U N � rtf '�o yN L7N� E�> �mTV �by 7 .rO . 0 0, N N O O .� ... ..�-. sue. w r _ 6N0 Fro .O o`° ?a .d b.� �oN a) CD '� ..Ua', 00. R b N o F O � ��munb�.'. a0 o .� 2 0%� a 0" , Q -2 -A 0. . & a. � F waEO � o °may z ^OR ° % W r F Oz N ONa)_ . :E 0 C4 O _ a gg .0 00 iO z= EoEOo.x9:3 oa,00m z�� ;�o9 xAE<�w��G = : c o Ngy;O A-- ' O .ao?SF? oo�z zo p Q cFi� O U w w cn cn z z o °� U') °� O o z c>F _ID w coiQ .cH z. o(D o `� a O N C F L J U) Oq t3� i3 a o N Ci _ w v ^ _o O z o i3 ✓� O rso n H as xo3 U o - j 0 0 0_ o .oc b� n. E c°n o a' ci o o` n o o > U cn �- ¢ O - c Q D E t O U m° m ti � 2 1 0.21 u _ ) oa a i3 00 O� N i-_: O N N 0) - o sZ Z° o a 1-- o o ...� o o� C) > q Owl - a> o u- m a) tj 0 -M � j - ° Qoo �a ' : ID N+� m �aN� oa�°ia�oR °> - -5 °�.: °Yo �o�°OC4U z�0 ° °� (1) - ,\ 8 `' jE y� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 384 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement Renewal of Purchase of Services Agreement with the City of Bloomington for Inspection Services. Background For the past four years the City of Richfield has purchased certain inspection services for the Department of Public Safety from the City of Bloomington. In the past these services have included plumbing inspection, heating and air - conditioning inspection, food service inspection, and forestry services. In addition to the basic inspection functions provided under the Agreement, the City of Bloomington manages the code enforcement program in the areas served. For the current year, the purchase price for these combined services has been $50,400. The Public Safety Department has negotiated an agreement for 1987 in an amount of $52,750. This agreement continues the same level of service the city has purchased in the past. In addition to the foregoing services, the city has also negotiated for purchase of services of a plan check engineer for 1987. These engineering services will be basically related to commercial kitchen and food establishment building or remodeling • projects. The addition of these services in 1987 will generally eliminate the past problem we have experienced with correcting equipment problems at the time of installation. The limited ability we have had in the past to pre- screen food service installations has been an embarrassment to the city and created confusion within our business community. We believe that the addition of this engineering service will also be valuable as a consulting resource to members of our business community who are planning equipment replacements or modifications. Based upon the past activity in this area, we have negotiated the addition of this service for $5,250. Therefore, the combined Purchase of Service Agreement for inspection services with the City of Bloomington for the period of November 1, 1986 through October 319 1987, is $58,000. The Public Safety Department is developing a plan check fee for this service similar to the fee schedule presently used by Bloomington. This new fee schedule will be presented to the city council later this fall for consideration. It is anticipated that the cost of this new service will mainly be supported by user fees. One final change we will be including with the 1987 contract year is the development of a "quality control" process related to food service inspections. This will provide a monitoring process to assure such inspections are conducted in a professional and constructive manner so that they will be of maximum benefit to our business community. A copy of the proposed 1986 -1987 contract is attached for council review. Recommendation It is staff's recommendation that the council authorize the Mayor and the City Manager to enter into the Agreement for inspection services with the City of Bloomington in an amount of $58,000 for the period November 1, 1986 through October 31, 1987. Basis of Recommendation 1. City of Bloomington has been providing these services for the past four years and Richfield does not have current staff to conduct the activities in the areas under agreement. 2. The services purchased involve technical specialities. In no area does the City of Richfield utilize the services of one full -time individual. Therefore, contracting to share the services of full -time staff with Bloomington has proven to be economically desirable. 3. Over the past four years the quality and expertise of the services purchased from Bloomington has been satisfactory and has provided both the code enforcement and consulting resource appropriate in our community. 4. The purchase of services outlined are provided for in the 1987 Public Safety budget program. • Alternative Recommendation 1. The city could phase out the Purchase of Service Agreement with Bloomington and employ full -time staff to provide the services now purchased. This would be more costly and less efficient then the present arrangement. 2. The city could seek another vendor for services now purchased from Bloomington, but in examining this possibility in the past, the city has not found a single source vendor capable of providing the services responsible from local government. Decision /Discussion Mode It is recommended that council take immediate action to approve this Agreement. The Agreement has yet to be considered by the Bloomington City Council and the expiration date of the current Agreement is October 31, 1986. Resp tfully submitted, i s D. Prosser C y Manager 9 JDP /eja is A G R E E M E N T y� 2 This Agreement is made this day of 1986, by and between the City of Richfield (hereinafter "Richfield ") and the City of Bloomington ('Bloomington "). WHEREAS, Richfield is authorized and empowered to provide for various types of inspections and code enforcement to ensure the public health, welfare and safety; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties and the purpose of this agreement that certain of such services be performed by Bloomington on behalf of Richfield; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below, the above parties hereto agree'as follows: 1. The period of this agreement shall be from November 1, 1986, through October 31, 1987, unless termination occurs. 2. For the period of this agreement, Bloomington shall provide Richfield with the following services, in and on behalf of Richfield: a. Plumbing inspections and code enforcement as necessary. b. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning inspections and code enforcement as necessary. c. Food service inspections and code enforcement as necessary (a minimum.of two inspections will be done of all restaurants and at least one inspec- tion will be done of all grocery stores). d. Tree inspections and code enforcement as necessary. e. Plan Check for food services. 3. Bloomington shall have control over the manner in which the inspections and code enforcement activities are conducted and over the determination of what enforcement action is appropriate. r 0 4. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the inspections and code enforcement. 5. Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of $58,000 for services provided pursuant to this agrement. One -half of this amount shall be due on May 1,'1987, and the remainder shall be due on October 31, 1987. 6. This agreement shall terminate as follows: a. Upon the expiration of 30 days after service of written notice upon the other party; or b. At any time, upon agreement of the parties; or C. In any event on October 31, 1987. 7. In the event of a termination prior to October 31, 1987, a pro- ,r ata reduction of the compensation owed by Richfield to Bloomington shall occur which reflects the period remaining on the agreement atthe time of termination. $. Bloomington agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Richfield, its officers, agents and employees from all actions, liability and damages for property damage, personal injury or death resulting from the acts, omissions or neglect of Bloomington's employees relating to the performance of • its obligations hereunder. 9. Any employee assigned by Bloomington to perform its obligations hereunder shall remain the exclusive employee of Bloomington for all purposes including, but not limited to, wages, salary and employee benefits. 10. In addition to the services mentioned in Paragraph 2 above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide electrical inspection and code enforcement services for and on behalf of Richfield. However, such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at the rate of $21.00 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by Paragraph 5 of,this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the electrical inspection services being provided. 0 -2- Wi v a Upon proper execution this CITY OF RICHFIELD Agreement shall be a legal and binding obligation upon the City of Bloomington. By: Its Mayor City Attorney By: Its City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its Mayor City Attorney By: -3- Its City Manager • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 383 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Approval of a Revised Budget for the Year XII Community Development Block Grant Program (August 1986 - June 1987) Background: In February of this year, the City Council allocated approximately $138,000 of Year XII Community Development Block Grant Funds to five projects including day care assistance, the H.O.M.E. program, energy grants, housing rehabilitation loans and scattered site acquisition. In April of this year the City Council allocated an additional $60000 to the projects and program. The following table shows the specific allocations. TABLE #1 Feb. 102 1986 April 14, 1986 Change Allocation Allocation 1. 442882 49 9990 70000 +5,108 0 g ab Loans HousinReh 2. Scattered Site Acquisition 70,000 5,000 5 000 0 3. Energy Grants 5,300 5 300 0 4. 5. H.O.M.E. Program Day Care Assistance 13,400 13 400 0 • Public Service 0 900 +900 6. Project Administration TOTAL $138,582 $144,590 $ +62008 We have been recently informed by Hennepin County that the city will have an additional $29,710 available for eligible Community Development Block Grant Projects in Year XII. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the allocation of the additional $29,710 of Year XII Community Development Block Grant Funds to the existing Year XII projects as indicated in the following table. 1. Housing Rehab Loans 2. Scattered Site Acquisition 3. Energy Grants 4. H.O.M.E. Program 5. Day Care Assistance Public Service ri 6. Project Administration TOTAL TABLE #2 April 14, 1986 Recommended Change Allocation Allocation 49,990 70,000 5,000 5,300 13,400 •ii 61,990 85,000 5,000 8,010 13,400 WE $1449590 $174,300 +12,000 +15,000 0 +2,710 0 $ +29,710 Basis of Recommendation: 1. Scattered site acquisition funds for Year XI and Year XII, when combined with the additional $15,000, will allow two acquisitions to be completed in 1986 for the two Vo -Tech projects anticipated in 1987. To meet Vo- Tech's needs two lots are needed in 1987. 2. The Rehabilitation Program suffered the severest cuts in Community Development Block Grant Funds for Year XII and the funds requested will help reduce the waiting list of eight clients by assisting two additional households. 3. The funds requested for H.O.M.E., when combined with what they received in the original Year XII project, closely approximates the amount they originally requested for 1986. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The city can release the additional funds to the county wide discretionary account. The county allocates these funds on a competitive basis to communities requesting the funds based on the recommendation of the Hennepin County Citizens Advisory Committee. We would recommend against this alternative because the city would probably not benefit by receiving the funds. 2. The city could allocate the funds to the Suburban Hennepin County Employment Training and Diseased Tree Removal program being proposed by Tree Trust (see accompanying project proposal). The city could receive some benefit from this program but we do not know how much and would not have control of the project. 3. The city could allocate the funds to Day Care Assistance or the Energy Grant Program. However, only 15% of the total allocation can be for social services. The allocations for social services are presently at 15 %. 3. The city could allocate the funds to a totally new eligible project. We would have to conduct a public hearing and the projects would have to be reviewed by the Hennepin County Citizens Advisory Committee. There is inadequate time to complete this action with the October 15th deadline established by the County. Discussion /Decision Mode: The County has indicated that we need to inform them by October 15th on how we want to allocate the additional $29,710. Council action is therefore required on this matter at the October 13th City Council meeting. R fully submitted, Ja a D. Prosser Ex tive Director 0 DATE: September 4, 198.6 _ TO: Cooperating Units Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program HENNEPIN FROM: Hennepin County Office of , Planning and Development t v 1J Ll SUBJECT: CDBG YEAR XII SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS/ PLANNING ALLOCATION /PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Our recent survey indicated an overwhelming preference for using the existing planning allocation formula as a basis for distribution of the $450,000 which has been restored to the Year XII grant. The accom- panying schedule shows the planning allocation to each cooperating unit. In order to gain approval to use the restored money, HUD requires that the Year XII Statement of Projected Use of Funds be amended to show intended expenditures. Each community is therefore obliged to develop a program for the use of the restored money. In doing so you may use any of the four alternative approaches outlined below following the process described thereunder. I. Merely assign your planning allocation to an existing Year XII activity. To do this you need not hold a local public hearing. Just submit a letter designating the activity to receive the added funds and explaining why they are needed. Hennepin County will hold a public hearing on the revised Year XII Statement of Projected Use of Funds prior to its submittal to HUD. 2. You may release your planning allocation to the Countywide Discre- tionary Account for programming as part of the next round of funding from the account soon after the first of the year. This option can also be accomplished with just a letter. 3. You may undertake a new activity; however, you will need to conduct a public hearing and submit a Request for Funding for review by the Citizens Advisory Committee. This option requires that the same process be followed as for the development of the original statement. 4. You may assign your planning allocation to the suburban Hennepin Employment Training and Diseased Tree Removal program being proposed by Tree Trust (see accompanying project proposal) by submitting a letter to this effect. Because the program is targeted to suburban Hennepin, the County's public hearing on the revised Statement of Projected Use of Funds will meet the Citizen Participation requirements. In the event that sufficient funds are not designated to the diseased tree removal program, please indicate the alternative approach you desire for use of your planning allocation. Since the additional $450,000 is from FY 1986 and we are therefore held • to Year XII program requirements, it is necessary -°to omp� ete the program development process as soon as possible to expedite execution of the amended grant funding agreement. It is therefore requested that all local program decisions and required public hearings be completed and Funding Requests and /or program letters be submitted to the Office of Planning Development by October-15, 1986. Please contact your assigned program representative with any questions and /or comments. ml Enclosure 0 is SUBURBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY SHADE TREE DISEASE CONTROL PROGRAM SYNOPSIS PURPOSE The purpose of this project is to provide temporary employment, training and income for unemployed "hard -to- employ" Hennepin County residents who participate in the program. The project will implement a Shade Tree Disease Program in suburban Hennepin County to remove damaged trees, trees infected with Dutch Elm disease, and trees infected with Oak Wilt disease. Services will be offered to all 46 Hennepin County municipalities, excluding the City of Minneapolis. OBJECTIVES The primary objectives of this project are: (1) to maintain 9 full-time labor intensive public service employment positions; (2) to remove in excess of 1,000 diseased and /or damaged trees; and /or do in excess of $120,000 of tree removal, based on valuations given in Cost Data for Landscape Construction 1986, Kerr and Associates. PROJECT DURATION Six Months. 13 October 1986 - 10 April 1987 • FUNDING REQUEST V1149895 PROJECT EMPLOYEES Unemployed low income "Head of Household" residents of suburban Hennepin County who have exhausted unemployment insurance benefits and are not receiving workers compensation will.be hired as public service employees under this project. They will be encouraged to apply for positions in the private and public sectors prior to their employment at the Tree Trust. SERVICE PROVIDERS 1. Hennepin County Department of TEA - outreach, pre- screening, participate intake, evaluation and overall administration. 3. Tree Trust - Diseased Tree removal operations. PROBLEM STATEMENT Suburban Hennepin County has lost approximately 25 percent of its shade trees (elm /oak) to Dutch Elm disease and Oak Wilt disease over the last ten years (Ref: U of Mn Forest Pathology Department). An additional 30,000 suburban shade trees are projected to succumb to disease in 1986. 1 The Minnesota State Shade Tree Program operated from 1977 - 1982, but terminated operations in 1982 because for funding reductions. Without a diseased tree control program, accelerated loss of community forests can be expected loss of 90 -95 percent of the elm and oak trees within five years (Ref: U of Mn Forest Pathology Department). In addition, failure to continue disease tree programs will result in the loss of all control efforts to date. A detailed description of Dutch Elm disease and Oak Wilt disease is included in Appendix A. A concurrent problem facing Hennepin County is employing the hard -to- employ. According to the Minnesota Research and Statistic Center, there are over 11,000 members of the suburban Hennepin County labor force without jobs. In addition, Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training estimates there are 22,618 economically disadvantaged individuals residing in Hennepin County. This proposal describes a program that will provide labor intensive public service employment for hard -to- employ Hennepin County residents and address the suburban Hennepin County diseased tree problem. PROJECT DESIGN • Pre- Screening This project will "target" individuals who are head of a household in which every person: (1) is unemployed, and (2) is not receiving unemployment compensation or workers' compensation. In addition, females and minority groups will be served consistent with their incidence in the eligible population. Specifically, 25 percent of participants are projected' to be women and 20 percent are projected to be members of minority groups. Intake /Assessment Eligibility will be determined and the individual will be enrolled as a project participant. This component will insure participant compatibility with project work requirements and enhance the opportunity for permanent full time unsubsidized employment following participation in the program. Program In coordination with Hennepin County municipalities, project staff will identify diseased and /or damaged trees on Hennepin County public property. Participants will be exposed to the following: Limbing and pruning, tree felling, belt and rope climbing methods, chain saw use and maintenance, tree skidder operation, loader operation, chipper operation, and general timber stand improvement techniques. Participants will perform labor intensive tasks such as tree felling, preparing trees for removal, and physically removing trees from the work site. �--7 • Participants will work under the supervision of a crew leader whose responsibilities include direction an discipline of participants, completion of participants' evaluations, daily payroll records and bi- weekly time cards, and on -site liaison with work site support personnel. Following completion of the Public Service Employment experience, project participants will be referred to Hennepin County TEA to receive services as appropriate to individual needs to include job- seeking skills, job retention skills, counseling and job development. OBJECTIVES 1. To provide temporary employment, training and income to unemployed suburban Hennepin County residents. 2. To assist project participants in obtaining permanent unsubsidized employment 3. To implement a suburban Shade Tree Disease Program to control Dutch Elm disease and Oak Wilt disease. 4.To coordinate with Hennepin County municipalities and to obtain municipality commitment for program support. • The project will make substantial improvements in suburban Hennepin County form two perspectives: - Unemployed suburban Hennepin County residents will benefit from the PSE experience which may lead to permanent unsubsidized employment. - Dutch Elm Disease /Oak Wilt Disease will be controlled through sanitation. GOALS OF PROJECT 1. To contact all 46 municipalities within Hennepin County, excluding the City of Minneapolis to offer services. 2. To provide services at some level to any municipality that requests assistance depending upon the appropriateness of the services requested. 3. To develop a method of prioritizing services based on location, need, size of project, in -kind support and equitable distribution of services. 4. To remove in excess of $120,000 of diseased trees based upon Cost Data for Landscape Construction, Kerr and Associates. 5. To maintain 9 full time Public Service Employment positions. 6. To serve 18 unemployed suburban Hennepin County residents. 3 1_J' 4 BUDGET Public Service Employment Budget A. Participant Wages $ 469368 B. Participant Fringes $ 11,257 C. Training 1. Timber Stand Improvement $ 53,119 2. First Aid $ 225 D. Total PSE Budget $110,969 Administrative Budget A. Tree Trust- $ 3,926 1_J' 4 1 APPENDIX A DUTCH ELM DISEASE Cause The fungus Ceratocystis ulmi invades and grows in the water - conducting vessels of elms, inducing the host tree to produce tyloses and gums which together with the fungus plug the vessels, preventing water uptake. This causes the tree to wilt and die. Vector European elm bark beetle and native elm bark beetle. Adult beetles carrying fungus feed in crotches of small branches of healthy elm trees introducing fungus spores into the large springwood (water conducting vessels). After feeding on healthy trees, the adult beetles seek suitable breeding sites under the bark of recently -dead or dying elm trees or logs. Adults burrow into the bark and excavate tunnels for egg laying in the soft inner bark and adjacent wood. The infected wood becomes filled with fungus spores resulting in internal and external contamination of bark beetles. Emerging young beetles carry on the cycle. Transmission through root graphs The fungus can also be spread from tree to tree through root • grafts (roots naturally fused together), especially if spacing is less than 30 feet between elms. Root grafting may occur between larger trees up to sixty feet apart. Control The primary emphasis in Dutch Elm disease control programs is preventative action. The basic elements are: 1. Detection. The systematic inspection of every elm in control zone for the early symptoms of Dutch Elm disease. 2. Isolation. The disruption of root grafts between infected and healthy trees. 3. Removal. The prompt elimination of all dead and dying elm for the control zone. 4. Disposal. The destruction (burn, bury, chip, debark) of elm material with tight bark. 0 OAK WILT DISEASE • APPENDIX A (cont.) Cause Oak wilt is caused by the fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum which develops in the outer sapwood of trees mainly in those vessels that conduct water and nutrients from the roots to the leaves. The tree attempts to protect itself from the fungus by producing tyloses and gums, which plug the vessels and prevents water uptake. This causes the tree to wilt and die. The trees that pose the greatest risk are those wilting in July and August and then sporalate in May or June. Vector Sap feeding beetles are the primary vector for new infection centers. The beetles feed on the mycelium mats of infected trees then feed on healthy oaks with open wounds, spreading the fungus. In established stands with the fungus present, the infection is spread primarily through root graphs (roots of neighboring trees naturally fused together). Spread of the fungus through a common root systems accounts for the circular patches of dead trees, which gradually increase in size. The fungus can also be transmitted by pruning tools and /or equipment that has not been properly cleaned after working on an infected tree. Control The primary emphasis in Oak Wilt control programs is preventive action. The basic elements are: 1. Detection. Systematic inspection of oaks in control zone for the early symptoms of Oak Wilt disease. 2. Isolation. The disruption of root graphs between infected trees. 3. Removal. The removal or debarking of diseased trees that wilt in July and August. 4. Prevention. Do not prune oaks in May or June, when the the fungus is sporalating. 5. Sanitation. When pruning oaks clean pruning tools between trees. Attachment A PLANNING ALLOCATIONS YEAR 111 (1986) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBS PROGRAM Deferred Total Community 111 Alloc. Ailec Alioc Brooklyn Center 169216 34770 203985 Brooklyn Park 252640 51912 304552 Champlin. 2755 "n 5664 33222 Chanhassen 27288 5608 32896 Corcoran 26757 5498 32255 Crystal 99383 20226 118599 Dayton 21162 4348 25510 Deechaven 13406 2755 16161 Eden Prairie 535699 11034 64133 E:din3 11694 24024 140971 _ M,Cicr 11642 2392 1 =034 Solder al I e" 59663 12259 71±22 :reen!le:d bC^,J :JC9 BA'J2 Greenwood 2674 549 3223 Hanover 4476 920 �,. , JJ _YO iassan 10113 2078 12191 Hopkins 79258 16_286 95,544 :nceperae. ^.ce 12494 25567 :5061 :.nr etto IJ34 274 Maple Grove 72,637 14925 87562 • Maple ?lain 5779 1187 6966 Medicine Lake 1301 267 1552: Medina 11481 2359 13840 Mi. ^,mtc.nka 103642 21296 124939 J. atcnka Peach 676 13. pi . 1=Z J 456 07.n 226 a;. a 5J I 0) 7 2 649577 eq Houe vY.6'J,5 29563 1153 Crcno 1. 9764 41261 23825 usseo 15499 3185 18684 ?lym�u h 107257 2'2:;39 ,29 . A 29� ic1h 111, 2id 144590 2 9 7 1 -.0, 174300 cc�ins' dale C .,4427 It �9 ,;1. Cc�� 6J5i:. ..L.�k Poo iCrd 1 � 005 C 'v� 32:.. 012 1,,.94 Boger . 5737 1179 6916 Shcreceo 16724 3436 20160 Spring Park 7949 1633 9582 St. Anthony 21995 4520 26515 St. Bonifaclus 59555 1225 7180 St. 'cu:s Park 176694 36307 2130;1 Tonka Bay 4364 899 5262 avuta 13954 2967 16821 Woodland 2822 5BO 3402 • Total 1971000 4u ��0 �376001 Hennepin. Cty. 219000 45:200 2641:00 Total Alloc. 2190000 450000 2640000 0 a ISSUE STATEMENT: Consideration for Equipment for use of Wells and Lift Background: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTAA Council Letter No. 382 October 13, 1986 Approval of Purchase of Radios and Related by the Water Maintenance Division in Operation Stations. The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The 1986 revised Capital Budget and operating budget of the Water Maintenance Division includes $45,000 for an FM radio link. By using a radio link, it will be possible to reduce operating costs for telephone lines which are currently used in the operation of wells and lift stations. The programmable master control system for the FM radio link will be formally bid for presentation to the city council in late November. . Two quotations were received for the radio equipment. $10,815.28 was quoted by Communications Center. However, adaptors were not included in this price. Automatic Controls and Communication Systems quoted $11,831.60 for the eight radios and related accessories, including $1,752 for the necessary adaptors. Recommendation: Appprove the following purchase from Automatic Controls and Communication Systems: Item Unit Price Amount Eight Model 84 Esteem radios $ 1,195.00 $ 99560.00 One Model 84 -05 Outside Antenna (1/2 Wave) 69.95 69.95 Seven Model 84 -02 Antenna Wrap 49.95 349.65 Eight RS422 to RS232 Adaptors 219.00 1,752.00 200' Coaxial Cable .50 100.00 TOTAL $11,831.60 Basis of Recommendation: This is is the lowest quoted price for a complete package of the radios and related accessories needed. y';"Z/ Alternative Recommendation: Delay purchase of the radios until after the formal bids are received for the programmable controller. Discussion /Decision Mode: By ordering equipment now, the project may proceed in a timely fashion allowing the telephone lines to be disconnected at the earliest possible date. JDP /eja • Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 381 October 13, 1986 • Issue Statement: Purchase of Four Snowblowers for Sidewalks and Skating Rinks Background: During discussions on sidewalk snowplowing in the spring of 1986, the council authorized the purchase of three additional sidewalk snowblowers. Funds for these snowblowers in the amount of $9,900 are in the street maintenance revised 1986 operating budget, (101 -4220) Park maintenance also uses a snowblower in the maintenance of outdoor skating rinks. The adopted 1987 Central Garage operating budget, 602 -4862, includes $3,300 for replacement of the snow blower used by park maintenance. The purchase of four snowblowers will give the city a total of seven snowblowers for use on sidewalks and skating rinks. Generally only five are required. However, two of the three current snowblowers are not considered reliable for heavy duty work. Recommendation: It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase from Mary Nelson Distributing of four 5' hydraulic Loftness snowblowers for a total price of $11,980 (2,995/ea.) The 1986 • street maintenance budget would be charged $$8,985 for three snowblowers, and $2,995 would be charged to the 1987 central garage operating budget. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Loftness snow blower ordered in 1985 appeared to be very reliable for sidewalk snow removal during the 1985/1986 winter season. 2. The Loftness brand appears to be of sufficient power and proper size for operation on Richfield sidewalks and rinks. 3. The quoted price is within the budgeted amounts. Alternative Recommendation: Not order any snowblowers and continue sidewalk plowing and skating rink maintenance with the equipment now available. Discussion /Decision Mode: The ordering of snowblowers should be coordinated with the ordering of the new tractor. The award of contract for this item is also on the October 13 agenda. By placing orders now, it is anticipated the equipment will.be available for the majority of the 1986/1987 winter season. Resp_ecAfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP /eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 380 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Award of Contract for new Four -Wheel Drive Type Mechanical Front End Loader. Background: When the city council discussed snowplowing of sidewalks in the spring of 1986, the council authorized purchase of a new tractor. This item has been included in the 1987 budget for the Central Garage at an estimated price of $35,000. On October 6, 1986 in accordance with legal requirements, bids were opened for one new four -wheel drive type mechanical front end loader. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached for city council review. One bid meeting specifications was received. Minneapolis Equipment Company bid $25,985 with the date of delivery to be seven weeks after receipt of order. Recommendation: It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of one new Prime Mover Model LD -50 Four -Wheel Drive Type Mechanical Front End Loader from Minneapolis Equipment Company in the amount of $25,985. • Basis of Recommendation: 1. The bid by Minneapolis Equipment Company is in accordance with plans and specifications. 2. The bid by Minneapolis Equipment Company is less than the estimated amount for purchase of a loader to be used for sidewalk snow plowing. Alternative Recommendation: As there was only one bid received which met specifications, the council may wish to readvertise in the hope of securing additional prices. However, it would be late November before an award of contract could be made and it would be well into the 1986/1987 before equipment would be delivered and available for use. Discussion /Decision Mode: Should the city council authorize this purchase at the October 13 meeting, the order could be placed the next day. The new equipment should be available prior to year end 1986 and for the majority of the 1986/1987 winter season. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP /eja . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 379 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Request for authorization to enter into a contract with Brown Computer Services for up to 400 hours of programming services to assist city staff with the conversion from the Four Phase to the Burroughs computer system. Background: In February of this year the city began the installation and conversion to a new computer system. At the time the decision was made to purchase the new system, it was also determined that the existing lease purchase agreement for the Four Phase computer should be terminated at the end of the 1986 calendar year. In order that this goal be met, the conversion of all applications to the new Burroughs computer must be completed by Dec. 31, 1986. The data processing division staff requires programming assistance to complete this conversion by the end of the year. To this end, written price quotations were solicited from six local firms which provide on -site programming services. Three responses were received: • Brown Computer Services of Roseville, Minnesota ..... $26.00 per hour Cap Gemini America of Edina, Minnesota ......... $32.00 per hour Technalysis Corporation of Edina, Minnesota ......... $32.00 through $36.00 per hour These hourly rates are for one experienced COBOL programmer available from late October through late December. The contract programmer would assist the data processing staff in the conversion of public safety annual reports, general accounting and utility billing applications. Funding topay for the cost of this service contract is provided in the 1986 Data Processing budget (603- 4851). Total programming services in the amount of $30,000 were provided as a part of the initial computer purchase and conversion package. This service contract is a part of that package. Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council authorize the city manager to enter into a contract for contract programming services with Brown Computer Services in an amount not to exceed • $10,400.00 (400 hours at $26.00 per hour). Basis for Recommendation: 1. The data processing staff requires programming assistance to complete the computer conversion on time. 2. If this conversion is not completed on time, the city will be required to continue the lease purchase agreement with Motorola Four Phase for an additional year at a cost of $90,000.00. 3. Funds for conversion assistance of this type are included in the data processing division's revised 1986 budget. 4. The individual proposed by Brown Computer Services exceeds the minimum qualifications requested by the city. 5. While quality of service and not price was the prime consideration, Brown Computer Services submitted the price quote with the lowest hourly rate for the services requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The city council could choose to award the contract to one of the other vendors who responded to the request for price quotes. All three vendors proposed qualified individuals and comparable services. If this course of action is taken, however, it is recommended that the contract remain at 400 hours of service. The recommended contract amount with Cap Gemini America would be $12,800.00, and $12,800.00 or $14,400.00 with Technalysis Corporation. 2. The council could withhold approval of a contract for these services entirely or until a later date. Staff cautions that • this is a very risky alternative. If the conversion to the new system is not completed by the end of 1986, either the Four Phase agreement would have to be continued for an additional year at a cost of $90,000.00 or the continuous operation of city functions such as utility billing and accounting would be interrupted. Discussion /Decision Mode: Action on this item is requested at the October 13 meeting of the city council. This will allow the vendor and city staff adequate lead time to schedule the selected programmer for service at the city beginning on or about October 20. This start date would allow the city to take advantage of the programming assistance for 10 weeks before the December 31 deadline for completion of the conversion. JDP /eja L' Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager e. ..- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 378 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Master Purchase Order for Salt to be Used in Ice Control During the 1986/1987 Winter Season. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the council for consideration. Each year the city purchases rock salt, which is usually mixed with sand, to control ice on road surfaces during the winter season. A recent history of prices for this product is: Year Unit Price 82/83 18.34 /ton 83/84 16.69 /ton 84/85 21.41 /ton 85/86 23.47/ton Delivery Total 1.91 /ton 20.25 /ton 2.00 /ton 18.69 /ton 3.15 /ton 24.56/ton Included 23.47/ton Funding for the purchase is included in the 1986 and 1987 operating budgets for street maintenance. Recommendation: It is recommended the city council approve the purchase of an estimated 1,000 ton of rock salt for the 1986 /1987 Winter season from International Salt Company at a unit price of $20.05 /ton plus $1.95 /ton delivery for a total estimated purchase price of $22,000. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The city participates in a joint purchasing agreement with Hennepin County. 2. Hennepin County solicited bids for all the participants in the joint purchasing agreement. 3. Under this particular joint purchasing agreement, the City of Richfield has an obligation to purchase from the low bidder. 4. International Salt Company was the lowest responsible bidder for rock salt. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not approve the purchase. This would mean that the city would not use salt on city streets during the 1986/87 winter season. l..J .7 2. Order the rock salt later. However, the city would then lose the 750 /ton discount for delivery accepted before October 15. Discussion /Decision Mode: The ordering of rock salt could take place closer to the winter season, however, the city has the opportunity to take advantage of a 750 /ton discount for delivery accepted before October 15, 1986. With the amount of covered storage available at the city garage site, approximately one - fourth of the estimated total tonnage could be ordered at the discount rate if the recommendation is accepted. JDP /eja Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager n .0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 377 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Request for Permits for Illuminated Signs at Five Locations: Moto - Photo, 12 East 66th Street; Kinney Shoes, 14 West 66th Street; Certified Rustproofing, Inc.; 6625 Cedar Avenue; Marty Irving Golf Center, 6605 Nicollet Avenue; and State Farm Insurance, 6620 Penn Avenue. Background: City ordinance provides that the city council must approve permits for all illuminated signs. Moto Photo - Arrow Sign Company has requested an advertising permit to erect an illuminated wall sign measuring 30" x 13' 211. The sign will be bronze with red faces advertising "One Hour moto- photo ". Kinney Shoes - Universal Sign Company has requested a permit to install a single- faced, illuminated wall sign measuring 26' x 31. The sign will be white in color advertising 'Kinney Shoes'. Certified Rustproofing, Inc.- Lawrence Signs has requested a permit to erect a 16' x 6' illuminated wall sign. Marty Irving Golf Center -Arrow Sign Company has requested a 40 permit to erect an illuminated wall sign measuring 33' x 21. State Farm Insurance - Attracta Sign has requested a permit to erect an 8' x 4' illuminated pedestal sign. Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council approve the permits for illuminated signs at Moto - Photo, Kinney Shoes, State Farm Insurance, Arrow Sign Company, and Certified Rustproofing. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The signs conform to all applicable city ordinances. 2. The building inspector and the city planner recommend approval of the signs. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council could reject the requests. However, at this time the city has no alternative design criteria to suggest for substitutes for these signs. Discussion /Decision Mode: The item has been placed on the consent calendar portion of the October 13, 1986 city council agenda for consideration. The businesses are wanting action to complete the sign placement. . Res tfully submitted, J D. Prosser a r City Manager APPROVE X DENY Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T ❑ A ❑ Post m APPROVE „'� DENY ,•- - City Manager ' Date Inspector�1 �. , ' ' ` Date %/ APPROVE IIENYQ : L1_1;,A` ,;` ILA APPROVE a DENY FI: Planning Department City Council . Date�lq Date *Route to above for'special approval per code- General Sins Date 9/18/86 APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield,, Minnesota Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign 12 E. 66th St. Proprietor Name MARY W2tERG .DBA Sign Erector Arrow Sim Co. Address 18607 Highway 65 N.E. Cedar, MN 55011 R4s.. wF Cinr' (`ho., -1 1 -4- 4- -M, a4 C'__ ,.4- 4-- _L...4 TA ohftino . If Illuminated - Yes No Watts Electrical Contractor Property Owner or his Agent Address Phone Signature Phone Atc Estimated Cost $3,395.00 Sign Width See Heig t 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 billboard restrict any for safe access . by - persons, destined for or passing Cwner Applicaat=•`s:-, natgte - ang Title with Firm C., Phone Number 434 -6134 sight distance under, around, or over the subject premises? No Da&Pterher 18, 1986 •Lkt PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH 1985 Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 X Wall �k4r ; va) Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T ❑ A ❑ Post m Clear Lexon X Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors X X If Illuminated - Yes No Watts Electrical Contractor Property Owner or his Agent Address Phone Signature Phone Atc Estimated Cost $3,395.00 Sign Width See Heig t 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 billboard restrict any for safe access . by - persons, destined for or passing Cwner Applicaat=•`s:-, natgte - ang Title with Firm C., Phone Number 434 -6134 sight distance under, around, or over the subject premises? No Da&Pterher 18, 1986 •Lkt PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH 1985 Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 L I f i LW %J —� • a 0 4i 2 Q b to C e^ •� (((333 • O () C v w A2 = Rc i,PPROVE City :tanager Date © DENY❑ :_! Planning a artment Date at APPROVE F-1 u Ins ecto.r Date D EI, Fa : City Council _ Date Route to above for 'special approval per code General Signs ' APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield,, Minnesota Date 9 Z Z 1� Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No� Fee . Address of Sign. �j'y� ��,✓f BIZ Proprietor Name f NL Y S 71dGS I DBA Sign Erector11/1 /i411•x_S,-_G S.ZG� G4 Address /,.?3 �/ /a' -►.- Az✓_r P'owz T e of Sign Design Weather Cover Li.htin If Illumin ?electrical ted Yes No Contractor Watts Address Phone Property Owner Wall " Projecting Ground -` Roof Pedestal, Changeable Temporary Trailer Signature Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced = Aerial /Blimp.... Searchlight .- _.. Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T Q A n Post -for safe access y persons destined for ors passing the subject premises? Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon _ Flashing - Plastic Covered :.,., Revolving - Shaded Traveling Neon _. Zip Lite Other Other(Explaia) Sign Colors Esti»ated Cost Sign Width 26' Height �� Total Square Feet zi r Applicant's Signature and .Title with Firm i TIN ar .�. Dte. , ..k. If Illumin ?electrical ted Yes No Contractor Watts Address Phone Property Owner or his.Agert Signature 5& -for safe access y persons destined for ors passing the subject premises? Phone Esti»ated Cost Sign Width 26' Height �� Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement st =uctsra 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. N.inor 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 ?�J�r - -< `rill the sign, structure, - or billboard restrict- any, sight "distance under, around,-"'or over - -for safe access y persons destined for ors passing the subject premises? .w0 3 4 zi r Applicant's Signature and .Title with Firm i TIN ar .�. Dte. , ..k. !hone 'Number Gys�o��3 4t PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE .FOR SIGN LOCATION `SKETCH t: Sivert end ricksoniBuilding Ofticial =`866 -5061 o7:) Le I �; i _� i I I APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date -9 'zoning Sign Erected - Yes No �� Fee Address of Sign/, Proprietor Name j ?,, •, DBA Sign Erector A ijce,; � it c F `7.,.� ►.�� c AddressJ�/ i tc:� c .N 1�., T %r�� > ?%c •r a of Q4 nn T)Pai on Weather Cover Liehtine Wall ,r4jrJd)t'_. Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer L' APPROVE ❑ DENY U : APPROVE u DENY u • City Manager Date Inspector Date "� APPROVE ® I)ENY� APPROVE DENYF1 Plannin D par ment City Council Date 'Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date -9 'zoning Sign Erected - Yes No �� Fee Address of Sign/, Proprietor Name j ?,, •, DBA Sign Erector A ijce,; � it c F `7.,.� ►.�� c AddressJ�/ i tc:� c .N 1�., T %r�� > ?%c •r a of Q4 nn T)Pai on Weather Cover Liehtine IMlluminated Electrical Contractor M , h;l (<-- F.9� Watts Address Phone Property Owner oYr� his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost 6 `t Sign Width (1 , '_Height Total. Square Feet %C 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 L Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises ?' Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Al n A lican 's Signature and Title with Firm Date I 2 Phone Number y91,J?" Lv 7// U lkt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall ,r4jrJd)t'_. Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer L' Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T n A M Post n Clear Lexon �y Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors r IMlluminated Electrical Contractor M , h;l (<-- F.9� Watts Address Phone Property Owner oYr� his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost 6 `t Sign Width (1 , '_Height Total. Square Feet %C 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 L Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises ?' Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Al n A lican 's Signature and Title with Firm Date I 2 Phone Number y91,J?" Lv 7// U lkt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 ,O I i 1 i 9 i O k evil Q r • it Q [IMP Y. 0 1 � tV LC Z O O V W � f- O p N t U) V APPROVE I (DENY - -- .City Manager Date _ APPROVE TJENY� :�4�. 2k P an'i D partment Date Z'- APPROVE DENY ' r :, Inspector6 . � . Date APPROVE F-1 DENYO _ IZI- - City.Council -Date Goute to above for'special approval per code I General 'Signs APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT _ City of Richfield,, Minnesota Date September 25, Zoning CommericalSign Erected - Yes No Fee 1986 Address of Sign 6605 Nicollet Proprietor Name Marty.-Irving DBA Marty Irving (Richfield Shoppes) Golf Center Sign Erector Arrow Sign Co. Address 18607 Highway 65 N.E. Cedar, MN 55011 Ty e of Sign Design _:. Weather Cover Lighting —1 If Illuminated - Yes No Watts I lectrical Contractor Property Owner or Address Phone his Agent Signature Phone See 4- 4- In Estimated Cost $4,925. Sign Width t. f,/ ft eigh 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 billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Owner Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone Number 434-6134 Date September 25, 1986 •Lkt PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH 1985 Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer X Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T ❑ AD Post Clear Lexon X Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors X X —1 If Illuminated - Yes No Watts I lectrical Contractor Property Owner or Address Phone his Agent Signature Phone See 4- 4- In Estimated Cost $4,925. Sign Width t. f,/ ft eigh 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 billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Owner Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone Number 434-6134 Date September 25, 1986 •Lkt PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH 1985 Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 0 i 10% CCt I-V XU ll 10% 2' i. XU ll Oil, f,l hl A 2' i. City Manager Date APPROVE pENY Plannin D parltment Date Route to above for'special approval per code tll "Y1W VL' U LL'1V 11 _J Inspector Date '-, ,� APPROVE a DENY City Council Date 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. Sign will be installed on existing sign pole 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 sa_fe.- .a cess by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No Replaces Shangra la sauna sign Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone Number 866 -3047 Date 9 -22 -86 kt 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield,. Minnesota Date 9 -22 -86 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes X No Fee 18.00 Address of Sign 6620 Penn Ave. So. Proprietor Name Roger KarjalahtbBA State Farm Sign Erector Attracta Sign Address 6417 Penn Ave. insurance So. Richfield Ty e of Sign Design Weather Cover Li htin Wall Single Face Clear Lexon X Constant Projecting Ground Roof XX .Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Double Face Frosted Lexon Multi -Faced Plastic Covered Aerial /Blimp Shaded Searchlight Neon Banner /Pennants Other Portable Frame: X Sign Colors Red T 0 A0 Post Flashing Revolving Traveling Zip Lite Other(Explain) White & Black f Illuminated - Yes X No Watts W lectrical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost_ 975.00 Sign Width 8' Height 4' Total Square Feet 32 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. Sign will be installed on existing sign pole 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 sa_fe.- .a cess by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No Replaces Shangra la sauna sign Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone Number 866 -3047 Date 9 -22 -86 kt 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 • y ?a CITY OF RICHFIELD, - MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 376 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Application from the Academy of the Holy Angels To Conduct Raffles under Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Regulations. Background: The city has received a copy of a license application submitted to the Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board by the Academy of the Holy Angels to conduct raffles on three dates in 1987. Under provisions of the new state gambling statute the council, by resolution, can request that the Charitable Control Gambling Board deny the requested permit. The city has thirty days to take this action should this be the desire of the council. No action is necessary if the city does not wish to request denial of the permit. The new Richfield Gambling Ordinance is not yet effective, but this matter is being processed under the terms set forth in the new ordinance regulations. The Public Safety Director has reviewed this matter and finds the requested permit consistent with raffle events previously conducted by the Academy of the Holy Angels. The Gambling Manager, Mr. Gary Bartlett has no known criminal record. Under provisions of the ordinance, the city can charge an investigative fee of $100, but the applicant has requested that this fee be waived. Recommendation: It is the recommendation of the city staff that the council simply receive and note the application of the Academy of the Holy Angels to conduct permitted raffle activities during 1987, and deny the request for the waiver of the investigative fee. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The provisions of the existing ordinance requirements related to raffles are not consistent with the new provision of the State Charitable Gambling Control Act. 2. The new ordinance regulations related to gambling under the new state act are not as yet in effect, nor is the city license investigative fee related to this ordinance in effect. However, this does not preclude the city from charging an investigative fee. 3. No action (that is receiving the application without approval or denial) on the part of the city council will permit the State Gambling Control Board to issue the requested raffle permit. Alternatives: 1. The council could vote to request the Charitable Gambling Control Board to deny this license request. City staff has no basis on which to recommend council denial of this application. 2. The council could note and receive the application and waive the investigative fee. Decision /Discussion Mode: - -------- - - - - -- The city council has 30 days in which to take action once a gambling permit has been received. This application was received by the city on September 17, 1986, therefore council consideration should take place prior to October 17. JDP /eja r_j Respe A fully submitted, i s D. Prosser C y Manager •�• .¢tE;'s�i;7:..: Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board ;�"�"- ci Room N475 Griggs- Midway Building 1821 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 -3383 .,1 (612) 642 -0555 LAWFUL GAMBLING EXEMPTION FOR BOARD USE' ONLY INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Submit request for exemption at least 30 days prior to the occasion. 2. When completing form, do not complete shaded areas. 3. Give the gold copy to the City or County. Send the remaining copies to the Board. The copies will be returned with an exemption number added to the form. When your activity is concluded; complete the PLEASE TYPE financial information, sign and date the form, and return to the Board within 30 days. Organization Name ' . `� License Number Ot currendy or previm* kcansadl Academy of the 11oly Angels A01889 -001 Address City, County, State, Zip Code 6600 Nicollet Ave. So. Richfield 1411\ 55423 Chief Executive Officer's Name. Phone Number Manager's Name Phone Number Sr. Mary W=(lter I3uVs1 866 -8%62 Gary Bartlett Type of Organization If Other Nonprofit Organization (Check One) F-3 Fraternal O Veterans O IRS Designation ;,.aReligion ❑ Other Nonprofit Organization O Incorporated with Secretary of State 0 Affiliate of Parent Nonprofit Organization Name of Prerises Where Activity Will Occur Date(s) of Acibtf. . 1. 1987 Acaderr:y of the Holy Angels 6t � Premises Address Y1-,.�y�p 11 1 190 6604 hicollet Ave So. July 1 1987. Games Yes No Gross Receipts Value of Prizes Expenses Profit Bingo X Raffles e71 Tipboards X Pull -Tabs I I x Use of Profit fi Distributor From Whom Gambling Equipment Acquired Distributor's License No. 1 affirm all information submitted to the Board is true, accu- I affirm all financial information submitted to-the Board is rate, and complete. true, accurate, and complete. Chief Executive Offic (ff Signature Date Chief Executive Officer Signature Date ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTICE BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of this application. By acknowledging receipt, I admit having been served with notice that this application will be reviewed by the Charitable Gambling Control Board and will become effective 30 days from the date of receipt (noted below) by the City or County, unless a resolution of the local governing body is passed which specifi- cally disallows such activity and a copy of that resolution is received by the Charitable Gambling Control Board within '30 days of the below noted date. CITY OR COUNTY TOWNSHIP Name of ocal Governing Body (Zit r County) Township Name (Must be notified when County is the approving body) Rigne of Person Reco' 'ng ca ' Signature of Person Receiving Application ��i _ � . '7-17- 1 L ' L // ® Z Date Received ' Title Date CG 00070 -01 (4/86) White — Board Canary — Board returns to Organization to keep Pink Organization Gold — City or County CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 375 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Award of Contract(s) for City -wide Curbside Recycling Services. `1H Background: In September, 1984 the City of Richfield began a pilot recycling program. Each month, volunteer organizations collect newspapers placed on the curb from the entire community. Aluminum and tin can products are collected only in the area west of I35W, by a private contractor, Recycling Unlimited, Inc. Newspaper recycling currently has a 30% participation rate and other recyclables show a 15 % -20% participation rate. In keeping with Hennepin County's proposed Solid Waste Master Plan, specifications were written for an expansion of the pilot program to include city -wide pickup of aluminum, glass and tin. This program expansion was approved as part of the Revised 1986 and Proposed 1987 city budget. Newspapers will continue to be picked up by volunteer groups. For this contract, the city was divided into three areas (using ward boundaries) with the bidders given an option of bidding on one, two or all three areas. Specifications and proposal forms were sent to nine area recycling contractors. On August 22, 1986, bids were opened in accordance with legal requirements. Only one bid was received for Areas #1 and #2. Two bids were received for Area #3. Bid Summary Table Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Contractor Mo. /Annual Mo. /Annual Mo. /Annual Watkins Aircraft Support Products $12250/$151000 $990/$11,880 $840/$10,080 Center Community Action Rejected $779/$ 9,588 Contractor collection costs for the twelve month contract period total $36,468. An earlier projection of this cost was estimated to be $24,000. The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners recently approved the city's request for 60% funding of our Recycling /Yard Waste Collection Program, effective June 1, 1986 through December 31, 1987. These funds will fully cover contractor costs, salary for the Recycling Coordinator position, and program promotion. Hennepin County has a recycling funding policy which indicates that funding for future program years will be similar to the 1987 funding. A copy of the -1987 recycling budget is provided: 0 /. 1987 Recycling Program Budget Curbside Recycling Expenditures: Coordinator $222840 Promotion /Publicity 29500 Contractor 36,468* Administrative 1,180 Total $ 62,988 Leaf Sweeping /Yard Waste Collection: ** Equipment $18,652 Labor 22,905 Water 205 Administration 2,090 Total $ 43,897 Total Program Cost 1061885 * Assumes same contractor costs for November and December * *Estimated from 1985 costs Metropolitan Council Hennepin County City Share Total Revenues Revenues $13,755 $55,878 $37,252 $106,885 The city share is in the Storm Sewer Utility Fund (708- 4880), line 1050 labor, and line 1100, equipment. The city's share of the increased contractor costs for the last two months of 1986 is $1,984. This cost will come from funds budgeted for additional recycling dropoff site services. As long as expanded contractor curbside services are available, the additional dropoff site is not needed. The city is committed to the leaf sweeping program at a cost of $44,000. With reimbursement from the Met Council and Hennepin County of $37,000, there is already a net benefit of $6,000 to the city. Recommendation: Award a one year contract in the amount of $26,880 for curbside collection of glass, aluminum and tin cans to Watkins Aircraft Support Products, Inc. for Recycling Areas #1 and #2; and a one year contract in the amount of $9,588 to the Center for Community Action for Recycling Area #3. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The recommended contractors will provide the requested services at the lowest price. 2. Both companies have extensive experience in this type of service. Watkins Aircraft Support Products, Inc. presently provides recycling services to Minneapolis, St. Louis Park and Plymouth. Center for Community Action presently provides services to the Minneapolis Recycling Program. 3. Funding for the contracts is available through Hennepin County. If the Hennepin County funding were not available, the staff recommendation would change. f-"�i ,--7 Alternative Recommendation: 1. Due to the small number of bids received, the city council may choose to reject all bids submitted and readvertise for the monthly collection service. However, the city staff believes that a rebid will not get any better prices. 2. The city council may elect to reject all bids and have Hennepin County conduct any recycling program in Richfield. Recycling is mandated by Hennepin County who has encouraged the municipalities of the county to conduct their own programs. If the city council chooses to have Hennepin County conduct Richfield's recycling program, they will do so on their own schedule and system. Without funding from the County, it is not economically to the city's advantage to conduct its own program. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is placed on the city council agenda of October 13, 1986 for city council consideration. Should the council elect to postpone award of contract(s), the first month of the contract period (November, 1986) must be postponed correspondingly to allow ample time to sufficiently promote the new program to residents in Richfield Recycling Areas #2 and #3. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser C Manager JDP /eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 374 October 13, 1986 Issue Statement: Recognition of Fire Lieutenant Steve Sutter and Firefighter Brad Sveum for Obtaining Certification as Hazardous Material Technicians Background: The above noted members of the fire division have completed over 225 hours of training in dealing with emergency response to hazardous material incidents.. As a result of the training, the two firefighters received state certification as Hazardous Material Technicians. These efforts provide,a significant resource for the city in dealing with hazardous material accidents. Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council acknowledge the accomplishments of the two firefighters in becoming certified as Hazardous Material Technicians. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The two firefighters made a significant personal commitment in completing the course work necessary for certification. 2. The efforts of these firefighters provide a significant asset to public safety operations in the city. 3. Recognizing employee accomplishments in developing job related skills demonstrates community support for employee efforts related to career development. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not recognizing employee accomplishments in developing job related skills may demonstrate a lack of support for employee efforts related to career development. Discussion /Decision Mode: Lt. Sutter and Firefighter Sveum will be present. at the October 13, 1986 city council meeting to accept Certificates of Appreciation from the City Council. JDP /eja Respectfully submitted, jJaD. Prosser nager 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD MEMORANDUM August 28, 1986 TO: Tom Morgan, Public Safety Director FROM: Pat Coughlin, Fire Division Commander6.1-1— SUBJECT: COUNCIL RECOGNITION FOR ACCOMPLISHMENT Firefighter Brad Sveum and Lt. Steve Sutter have recently completed 225 hours of training in hazardous materials, and have been certified by the State of Minnesota as Hazardous Material Technicians. They were in the first group of people in the state to be certified. I received the certificates from the Minnesota Commissioner of Emergency Services and thought that it might be appropriate to have the city council award them at a council meeting. The content and length of the courses make certification as a Hazardous Materials Technician a difficult undertaking. Brad and Steve volunteered to participate in this program. Their participation required many hours of off -duty time to attend . classes, and countless hours of studying in order to master the technical material. Brad and Steve have already put their expertise to work for us by working with our neighbor fire departments to design a hazmat team within our mutual aid network. The mutual aid members agreed to the concept of sharing equipment and personnel for hazardous materials emergencies.in order to reduce each city's cost of equipment, and to develop a team of individuals who are highly qualified to handle serious hazmat incidents. Since our needs for this service are infrequent yet have an extremely serious potential to harm Richfield citizens, the team will be an excellent resource for us at a fraction of the cost of doing it by ourselves. I would like to see Brad and Steve receive some recognition of the value they are to the city, and I thought that it would also be a good idea to use this as an example to the city council of how we are striving to provide a high level of'service for our citizens in a cost - effective manner. a:s< 1!j) U Ilk W CL 4 r� .`f c "0 ' Q LL z, W a t LL x -�..F' W z -' v s IN 1 z its � i >• o i _ M 1 „�4 �. > a , x Y..i t _ i�i 1 a i1 µ WOW r� w a t'> alt / I H O 4- 4- 4- O O A to C 7 4-) O co H -H 0O CO -H A J V T H v U) L CO CO (1) C1) 4-) C1) H N 'O -C M L •1-J CO M 4-> -44-) _ > 4- O c fn 4- O CO H -H ••-I O a L (1) U V x 4-)lllHCOC4-J m c :) O H w .-i O O c0 •,4 O c > "-I L�4-)4- O V 0) O CO 4- 41 C c ul Cn U N r-i p :3 •r•I N N -H •rl Q O CL) NC4 ->% E G' C.) .0 C -H +- O m CV •r-I 4-t N 2 >%4- 4-) X H 4- 4' 4-) O C1) N c0 C w -H r-q 4- U N L i— U E a O O Z OE (1) C.) r7 C.7 'O -H O N •r-I •rI H 1-4 4-) U�Lr -j C) -H c -0 w •ri C 04-) D 4- 0)4-t V) C. H L O U. U C) N C) C 0 ••-I CU 4-) L CO 4-) W H CO 4-> •.-I +t U -i-) N C N >% -H N L •rl L c N +) N L (n �D L C U c0 >>O 4-3 O N L a% •rl I-- 4-) -I c 4-) C 'C) •H CO N c0 '0 a) C) r-I U r-I +-� H N •r•I CO •r-1 (V C N C 4- 4- •.-i N L O •ri H "-1 4- N O N 41 O C L C1) 4-) H H d-) CT U H U (1) C1) CO -H •r-I 0-0 QUA U) = s IN 1 z its � i >• o i _ M 1 „�4 �. > a , x Y..i t _ i�i 1 a i1 µ WOW r� w a t'> alt / I