04-23-84 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 162
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: City Position on Utility Conservation Investment
Program
Council Members:
On April 25, 1984, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
will be conducting a public hearing that discusses public
utility investment in residential energy conservation programs.
This investment by utilities is required by law and all rate
payers share in the cost of these efforts. Richfield has an
opportunity to improve Minnegasco's participation in
conservation programs within their entire service area by taking
a specific position confirming the importance of "service area
wide" utility investment. Without action, it appears
Minnegasco's conservation efforts will be directed only to the
City of Minneapolis.
Additionally, actions of the Energy Awareness Commission,
April 17, 1984, evaluated and gave support to a specific pilot
program concept directed to Richfield. This pilot effort would
require Minnegasco's support to be successful. This letter
requests City Council support for actions of the Energy
Awareness Commission to develop specific programs in Richfield
and directs the City Manager to notify the PUC of Richfield
concern that Minnegasco's conservation program efforts be
delivered to all communities in their service area, not just to
Minneapolis.
The attached letter from "Energy Outfitters", a private
energy conservation contractor, details the history of utility
involvement with the PUC to establish energy investment programs
for utility customers. Initially, in 1981, the PUC requested
Minnegasco to work cooperatively with the City of Minneapolis in
a pilot investment program. The successful "Minneapolis Energy
Bank" was the result. In 1983, a state law was enacted which
requires that pilot utility efforts be expanded to permanent
"Conservation Improvement Programs" (CIP). The State Department
of Public Service (MDPS) evaluated Minnegasco's proposed CIP, in
February 1984, and found that Minnegasco proposes to deliver its
conservation programs only within the Minneapolis city limits.
MDPS believes Minnegasco should expand its Neighborhood Energy
Workshops and Energy Bank to include the entire service area,
not just Minneapolis. The PUC has to be informed that Richfield
has had an interest in promoting conservation efforts.
Council Letter No. 162 Page Two
A second letter (also attached) outlines a pilot program
Energy Outfitters wishes to propose as a joint venture with the
City of Richfield. The "house doctor" program, as it would be
called, requests financing from Minnegasco for grants or loans
for reducing air leakage in Richfield homes. It is suggested
that 200 to 250 homes could be weatherized with $100,000 from
Minnegasco. The proposal from Energy Outfitters requests
Richfield support, but requires no direct expenditure of funds
or commitment of personnel. Specific questions can be answered
at the April 23, 1984 Council meeting by Michael Nobel,
President, Energy Outfitters.
This proposal has been reviewed by the Energy Awareness
Commission and as a result, the attached resolution supports a
pilot program that measures air flow to improve the energy
efficiency of Richfield buildings. However, the commission
would not go so far as to endorse this program to only one
particular contractor.
The City of Richfield and other suburban communities would
better benefit from Minnegasco's conservation efforts if their
conservation improvement programs were directed outside the City
of Minneapolis. One result might be more financial
participation in the "Bundle Up Richfield" campaign the City
Council will consider in the summer of 1984. It appears that
with the pilot program endorsed by the Energy Awareness
Commission, there are contually newer ways that Richfield
homeowners can benefit by Minnegasco participation. However, to
accomplish these types of efforts, the PUC has to be informed
that communities such as Richfield have needs that Minnegasco
should attend to.
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution which supports the pilot program concept endorsed by
the Energy Awareness Commission and directs the City Manager to
notify the PUC that Richfield wants conservation program support
by Minnegasco in their entire service area with particular
consideration of Richfield for implementing a pilot program
concept.
Re ectfu(r_jy?,;submitted ,
Trt rht
John G. City Manager
JGC/eja
0
ENERGY ®UT I ?TFRS
245 Aldrich Avenue North Suite 301
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405
6121377.8587
April 11, 1984
Mr. Bruce Stone
Chairman
Energy Awareness Commssion
6700 Portland Avenue So.
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Stone and Committee Members:
Mr. John Cartwright and Ms. Marcia Hale requested that I write to the
Energy Awareness Committee seeking your input and endorsement for a
proposal for presentation to the Public Utilities Commission and
Minnegasco.
The proposal provides for approximately $100,000 worth of low cost, high
return energy efficiency improvements to be made in the homes of 200-250
low and moderate income Richfield residents.
First some background on the proposal which will place it in a context
for Committee members. Some members will be aware of some or all of the
events which proceed this proposal.
BACKGROUND
1981, 1982. In response to a Public Utilities Commission (PUC) order,
certain Minnesota utilities, including Minnegasco established pilot
conservation programs. RCS energy audits have been offered in the full
Minnegasco service area. Minneapolis Energy Coordination Office, and
the Minneapolis Community Development Agency initiated the Minneapolis
Neighborhood Energy Workshops (NEW) and the Energy Bank with financial
support from Minnegasco.
Summer, 1983. The :Minnesota Legislature enacted a new law directing the
PUC to implement two new utility investment programs. One is a pilot
program in renewable energy development, such as solar, wind and biomass
(URRP). The other is a mandate requiring each utility with revenues in
excess of $50,000,000 to develop programs making significant investments
in conservation improvements, expanding the pilot programs of previous
years to a full-scale Conservation Improvement Program Plan (CIP).
November 23, 1983. The PUC issued its order to the affected utilities to
develop URPP and CIP plans. The order also requested public comments on
the utilities plan and proposed alternative plans.
January, 1984. Utility plans were due. Minnegasco's plan said it
"intends to submit a new CIP proposal targeted primarily at...renters
and low-income customers later in 1984... after present programs are
•
in the non-Minneapolis portion of their service area.
2) Richfield is the obvious Hennepin County community in which to begin
this process due to its prior commitment to energy and to its special
designation by the Governor.
3) The "house doctor" approach is now being proposed by Minneapolis and
several St. Paul community organizations. The approach was created at
Princeton University and has a track record of saving 19% space heating
costs in experiments on homes via New Jersey utilities.
4) The Department of Public Service is specifically recommending the
"house doctor" approach due to its high cost-effectiveness.
5) Energy Outfitters capabilities in this area are as strong as any
Minnesota small business. We have pioneered in the local offering of a
"house doctor" solution to home heat waste.
6) The public-private nature of this effort will provide a excellent
model for other utility efforts, and will be very useful if the level of
conservation investment sought by the the Governor's office and the
legislature is to be achieved.
7) The PUC is actively seeking innovative approaches to delivery of
conservation services through utility financing.
The proposal as presented does not call for any direct expenditure or
personnel commitment by the City of Richfield. Clearly, as more
investment is made in your community over the coming years, there will
be opportunities for involvement by the City if it chooses.
John Cartwright hopes to present this proposal to the City Council for
its approval prior to the April 25 public meeting of the PUC. Those
interested in supporting this proposal in person or expressing opinions
about the Minnegasco proposed plan may wish to attend the public
meeting. Comments may also be written and sent to Randall D. Young,
Executive Secetary, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. American
Center Building, Kellogg and Roberts Sts., Saint Paul, MN 55101.
I may be reached at 377-8587 during business hours and at 825-7698
evenings and weekends if members of the Committee wish to discuss this
proposal.
I am grateful for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
ENERGY OUTFITTERS
Michael Noble
President
April 18, 1984
John Sweney
Director of Customer Energy Programs
Minnegasco
201 South 7th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Dear Mr. Sweney:
I am writing to propose a pilot program for the utility to include in
their Conservation Improvement Program. I am offering this pilot in the
spirit that the utility may gain some clear benefits from it while
meeting the requirements of the Public Utility Commission's order.
A PILOT HOUSE DOCTOR PROGRAM.
The proposal is for direct grants or deferred loans to individuals for
air leakage reductions and other "house doctor" type energy improvements
in residences located in the non-Minneapolis service territory of
Minnegasco.
These grants or deferred loans would be principally offered to low and
middle income ratepayers and/or renters, with two sub-groups of that
larger group more directly targeted: fuel assitance recipients and
exhorbitant users. This effort would differ principally from past
utility efforts in house doctor services in that durable, commercial
quality materials would be used, giving the measures an extended life,
and each unit serviced would have its air leakage measured before and
after the service, as a documentation of the reduction achieved.
The pilot project might 'be best served if it were administered in a
single suburban Hennepin County municipality; limiting the geographic
scope of the pilot would minimize costs, and support of a municipal
government would maximize participation, as it has in Minneapolis.
Accordingly, I have approached the City Manager of the City of Richfield
with the idea and he has directed it to their Energy Awareness Committee
for review. Tentatively, the proposal will be reviewed by the City
Council on April 23.
USE OF A CALIBRATED BLOWER DOOR AND ITS BENEFITS.
Energy Outfitters has the capability to provide a 25%-40% reduction in
air changes under pressure, while assuring sufficient ventilation for
indoor air quality and combustion air.
• Energy Outfitters utilizes a blower door with a calibrated venturi
nozzle and a computer assisted analysis of air leakage. We measure air
infiltration with two measurements: air exchanges per hour at 50
Pascals pressure difference between indoors and outdoors, and equivalent
leakage area.
1
•
The service would entail the following components at a minimum, and
other low-cost services could be added at the utility's discretion:
(1) Measurement of the initial air infiltration rates of the building;
(2) Determination of whether the existing rate warrants further sealing;
(3) Sealing of air leakage points with highest efficiency means; i. e.
concentrating in high leakage areas like attic and basements.
(4) Other miscellaneous reduction of leakage as needed, eg. durable
door weatherstripping installed as needed, fireplace dampers tightened,
dropped soffits sheetrocked, etc;
(5) Certification of level of reduction achieved.
(b) Installation of direct combustion air if needed.
Other low cost improvements would be easily added to this basic package
on an as needed basis: low-flow shower heads, insulating water heater
blankets, setback thermostats, furnaces measured for combustion
efficiency to determine need for servicing, ducts or pipes through
unheated space insulated, insulation of rim joists.
The pilot program proposed would include services to 200-250 homes with
an approximate budget of $100,000. The full performance specification
and budget could be developoed between Energy Outfitters, the City of
Richfield and Minnegasco upon approval of intent of the proposal.
If the pilot program is determined to be successful, the utility might
consider offering a similar program to its full service area in the
following ,year.
Sincerely,
ENERGY OUTFITTERS, LTD.
Michael Noble
President
0
•
RESOLUTION NO. 18
RESOLUTION ENDORSING UTILITY INVESTMENT IN ENERGY
PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALL RESIDENTS OF RICHFIELD
WHEREAS, the Energy Awareness Commission has as one of its
objectives to promote energy conservation and citizen awareness
of energy usage;
BE IT RESOLVED, THEREFORE, by this Energy Awareness Commission
of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the Commission endorses the concept of Minnegasco
investing in an efficiency testing of air flow in
buildings program being made available to all residents
in the City of Richfield.
2. That said endorsement is presented to the City Council.
Passed by the Energy Awareness Commission of the City of
Richfield this 17th day of April, 1984.
Dean Sturgis, Acting Chairman
•
RESOLUTION #
CITY POSITION ON UTILITIES ENERGY
INVESTMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has re-
quired utilites to make expenditures in energy conservation
improvements; and
WHEREAS, Minnegasco proposes to provide programs only to
limited geographical areas; and
WHEREAS, the Energy Awareness Commission has endorsed
the concept of Minnegasco including in its Conservation Improve-
ment Program Plan an investment in efficiency testing of air
flow in buildings, this program being made available to all
residents of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, funding by Minnegasco is important to suburban
communities to provide programs such as the one endorsed by
the Energy Awareness Commission,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the City Council support the pilot program
concept as endorsed by the Energy Awareness Commission
on April 17, 1984.
2. That the PUC is requested to require utilities to
expand the Conservation Investment Program to all
communities in their service area with particular
consideration of Richfield for implementing a pilot
program concept.
Adopted by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this
23rd day of April, 1984.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
. Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 161
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request from Superamerica for 30-day Temporary
Ground Signs
Council Members:
Superamerica Division of Ashland Oil Company is engaged in a
promotional effort in which they are giving away a car, and they
are requesting approval of a temporary ground sign at each of the
four stations that they own in Richfield. These sites are:
Sign Location
826 West 66th Street 66th Street, behind public
sidewalk
2913 West 66th Street 66th Street, behind public
sidewalk
7720 Nicollet Avenue Nicollet Ave., between
sidewalk and curb
7500 Lyndale Avenue Lyndale Ave., behind
public sidewalk
City Ordinance Code 3.49, subdivision 16 (5) provides that
City Council approval is required for temporary ground signs. A
copy of that section is attached. The city manager recommends
approval of these temporary ground signs.
Superamerica has also submitted applications for promotional
display devices (banners) for each of the four service stations.
The applications have been approved by the city manager in
accordance with Chapter II, Part V, "Signs", Section 3.47, sub-
division 3, subsection (8). The promotion period is from April
25 through May 25, 1984.
Respectfully submitted,
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
JGC/eja
ter,
•
SUPERAMER1C.Am
1240 W. 98TH STREET
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431
612-887-6184
OIVIIIIION OF ASHLAND OIL. INC.
WEST REGION
0
0
April 5, 1984
Mr. John Cartwright
City Manager Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Cartwright:
SuperAmerica is having a nationwide car give away beginning the middle of
April and going through the end of the summer.
We would like to hang,04?miei-s and pennants along with a portable sign in
front of our Richfield SuperAmerica locations.
I would like to apply for a permit to cover April 20th through the end of
May. I have enclosed an application for this permit for all of my Richfield
stores.
We will also have a car parked at each location during this promotion so
our customers will be able to see what they can win.
If you a have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact
me at the above number.
Sincerely,
Steven D. Nielsen
Area Manager
SN/mbo
Attachment
(3) No temporary sign of combustible construction shall project over
public property or right-of-way, but may extend a maximum of 6 inches from
the face of the building.
(4) Temporary signs of combustible construction shall not be hung so as to
cover either partially or completely any door, window, or opening required for
ventilation.
(5) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material, and no tem- _
porarv g_ro-und_sign`shall be located on any multiple-residence, commercial, or
industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit
therefor from the council. If the council determines to grant an application
for a special permit for any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such
temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and
it shall be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a
longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special
permit. No such special permit shall be for a period of more than 60 days.
No such special permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs
or banners are prohibited by other provisions of this code.
Subd. 17. Application of Other Provisions of this Part. Temporary ground
signs as defined in Section 3.41, Subdivision 1, of this part, shall comply
with the provisions of Subdivision 16.
Subd. 18. Approval of Sign Permit Applications. Upon presentation of ap-
plication, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information,
the sign construction permit shall be issued by the manager, or his represent-
ative, except as provided in Subdivision 19 of this section.
Subd. 19. Special Approval from Council. In the case of an application for
a sign requiring a special permit, or which will be illuminated, or moving,
or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such
sign to the council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred,
shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council.
Subd. 20. Variance from Terms of Approval Prohibited. No sign shall be
erected, used or maintained in a manner at variance from the provisions of
this code or different from that approved by the council. No building or
electrical permit for a sign shall be granted until the sign permit has been
approved.
Subd. 21. Future Permits. A permit shall not be issued for any new bill-
board or advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised
product is sold, if such billboard or sign would be within 300 feet of any
other such billboard or sign already in existence in the interior of the
same city block or its equivalent area. Permits may be issued for directional
or identification signs. Any billboard removed under the provisions of Sub-
division 22 of this section shall not be reissued. Any billboard destroyed
by storms or acts of God may be rebuilt within 90 days, if complying with this
part.
•
4/8/68
ORDINANCE CODE 92 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA /
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 160
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request to Waive Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet
Redevelopment Area Urban Design Elements
For a Sign at the Dairy Queen Located at
66th Steet and First Avenue
Council Members:
Mr. David Dahl, owner of the Dairy Queen business at 66th
and First Avenue, has requested permission to construct a roof-
top changeable letter reader board. The existing Dairy Queen
logo sign on the roof would be raised and a 4 x 8 reader board
would be constructed underneath it.
It is staff's opinion that such a sign would be contrary to
the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment urban design guidelines.
It is staff's opinion that the proposed sign would not be in
character and scale with the building and would detract from the
aesthetic appearance of the structure. The proposed sign would
also not be consistent with the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet
redevelopment area goal to work toward the elimination of roof-
top signs. Further, it would detract from the proposed improve-
ments to the Richfield Shoppes north building.
Other concerns which staff has about the proposed sign in-
clude: the potential difficulty in reaching the sign to change
the copy and the safety of the person attempting to do that.
Staff also has some concerns about the structural safety of the
proposed sign on that particular rooftop.
•
It is recommended that the City Council deny the request to
waive the L/H/N urban design elements in order to erect a
rooftop changeable letter reader board.
JGC/eja
RespectCu.1ly submitted,
L
John G . C rt,/?ight
City Manager
;0 /0
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No.159
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for an Amended Off-Street Parking Permit
for St. Richard's Church and School, 7540 Penn
•
0
Council Members:
St. Richard's Church is proposing to replace their present
worship space by constructing a new narthex and worship space in
its place. In conjunction, the church wishes to expand its
existing parking lot. The capacity of the,parking lot
would be expanded from 258 to 311 parking spaces. The existing
parking lot would be expanded to the east. The entrances to the
parking lot would remain as they currently are. To allow this
construction, a request has been submitted for an amended off-
street parking permit.
Staff has reviewed the proposed expanded parking lot against
the city standards and guidelines and has found:
1) The depth of the parking stalls shown is 18 feet
instead of the 19 feet required by city guidelines. There is
sufficient space on the site to provide 19 foot stalls without
reducing the number of parking stalls shown on the site.
2) The existing lot and the proposed expanded lot do not
have perimeter curb as required by city guidelines.
3) There is at present a sufficient number of parking
spaces on the site to handle proposed use.
4) The expanded parking facilities will not result in
undue traffic congestion on adjacent streets.traffic congestion
5) Staff has some questions remaining concerning the
drainage of the site and would like further detail to ensure
that adequate on-site drainage is provided.
Page Two
It is recommended that the City Council approve the layout
with two stipulations. First, perimeter curbing be
provided of a design of the perimeter curbing should be
approved by the City Engineer. The second stipulation is that
the drainage plan be submitted to the City Engineer for review
and approval. It is further recommended that the City Council
authorize the execution of an amended off-street parking
contract. A resolution to make these approvals is attached for
your consideration.
Re ectfi?-lr3.y,submitted ,
John G. Cartwr ht
City Manager
JGC/eja
•
0
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR
OFF-STREET PARKING WITH THE CHURCH OF ST. RICHARD
NAME: THE CHURCH OF ST. RICHARD
7540 Penn Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
LOCATION: 7540 Penn Avenue
USE: Church and School
•
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 is hereby
approved subject to and upon completion of performance of the contract for such
off-street parking as hereinafter authorized.
2. That the proposed off-street parking contract for the improvement of
said off-street parking, be placed on file and that the city manager be
authorized to sign said contract and the city clerk be authorized to seal the
name for and on behalf of this city subject to the following provisions:
A. That perimeter curbing be provided on the entire parking area and
the design of the curbing shall require approval of the city
engineer; and
B. That a parking lot drainage plan be approved by the city engineer
before the issuance of a building permit.
3. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of off-
street parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off-street parking
lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 23rd day of April,
1984.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
0
s?C? rri _-D
THE CHURCH OF ST, RICHARD MAR 15 1??Y
7540 Penn Avenue South City of Pjchfle,, '
Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (612) 869-2426
March 14, 1984
Mr. Rick Jopke
City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Jopke,
I hereby request that a permit be issued allowing St. Richard's Catholic
Church to expand its parking lot in conjunction with a building project
scheduled to begin on or about May 7, 1984.
The present worship space will be demolished and a new narthex, worship
space to seat 895 and chapel for daily use to seat 75 will be built in
its place. The present worship space along with the gymnasium, to which
it opens, have a combined seating capacity of 1,100.
A new main entrance to the building will face the parking lot to the
north. The parking lot, which presently has a capacity of 258, will be
expanded to a capacity of 311 including 6 spaces for handicapped.
Entrances to the parking lot will remain as they presently are.
Enclosed are two copies of the plan.
I would appreciate any assistance and information you may give in
securing that permit.
Please call me if you require further information.
Sincerely,
s
Thomas E. Johnson
. ST. R[CfUUtD'S GiURpI & SpI00L, 7540 PEffI AEOIfiH - RICHFIELD, I•11NVESOTA, 55423
1, I o m o ;r fp ? ? w w ?' rp r_?i?w I o l0 101 10 w W ? Ib ?' ?I i I 1
r
,.e. IA4
?• Y- //
- 9•-o rn 1 r?
r F?• as ry uf- • ? ? 11 N,/eaP'c ? •l ? I
iw"i I1 1 ir/l .1/.? 114"T \ Ill
lot
T_l / 1
I (fM9tW 7'M' ? ? ,
`,, _ rte t>«, ?,. ?
6.;rtit ,,, ?7R?g3
- P.+PL-,3"(-4
II J e r - ao•-Q.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 158
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Mobile Ice Cream
Vendors. First Reading.
Council Members:
Blue Bell Ice Cream, Inc. has submitted
mobile ice cream and concession business in
representative of Blue' Bell appeared before
its meeting of April 9, 1984, and agreed to
city restrictions if a license to operate t
vehicle would be approved. The agreed upon
a request to operate a
Richfield. A
the city council at
comply with several
he mobile ice cream
restrictions are:
1. The vehicle would not be operated on July 4;
• 2. The vehicle will not sell products on arterial streets;
and
3. The operator of the vehicle will not compete with
concession stands operated in the city parks.
The city attorney's office has prepared an amendment to
Chapter VI, Section 6.14 of the Code of Ordinances, entitled
'Sound Trucks', as follows:
1. An amendment to subdivision 1 expands upon the defini-
tion of a broadcast vehicle by including vehicles that
have "any unamplified projection of sound for the pur-
pose of attracting attention to a commercial enterprise
whether or not conducted in or on such vehicle." The
amendment permits the Blue Bell Ice Cream truck to be
included under the broadcasting type vehicle which is
permitted in Richfield; and
2. The second amendment amends subdivision 6 by providing
that a broadcasting vehicle may operate in residential
areas of the city if granted special permission by the
city council with the added proviso that the council
if it wishes to grant special permission may place certain
conditions and restrictions on the activity concerning the
mobile ice cream vehicle.
-2-
The City of St. Louis Park has furnished the city manager with
a communication dated April 2, 1984, entitled "Noise Ordinance
Amendment", which is a report from Harvey McPhee, Director of
Inspectional Services for St. Louis Park, that states the bell on
the Blue Bell Ice Cream vehicle has been checked by his staff and
found to be 64.5 decibels. Mr. McPhee says this decibel level
meets the ambient noise requirements in the residential neighbor-
hoods. A copy of this report is provided in your backup material.
The city manager recommends to the city council approval of
the proposed amendments to Chapter VI, section 6.14 of the
Municipal Code of Ordinances so that Blue Bell Ice Cream Inc. may
be granted the appropriate licenses for operation subject to the
restrictions outlined in the first paragraph above.
RespectfrLly submitted,
John G. C tw'ght
City Manager
JGC/eja
•
0
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VI,
SECTION 6.14 OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE ENTITLED "SOUND TRUCKS"
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Chapter VI, Section 6.14 of the Ordinance Code of the
City of Richfield entitled "Sound Trucks" is hereby amended
in the following respects:
1. By amending Subdivision 1 thereof to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. Definitions. "Broadcasting
vehicle" is any vehicle, motor propelled or
otherwise, on which is attached:
(1) any device for amplifying and broadcasting
through one or more loud speakers speech or
music, whether produced from records, radio
reception or vocally through microphone, and
which projects sound from such vehicle with a
total speaker volume of more than one watt; or
(2) any unamplified projection of sound for the
purpose of attracting attention to a commercial
enterprise whether or not conducted in or on such
vehicle.
II. By amending paragraphs 3 and 4 of Subdivision 6 thereof
to read as follows:
{3}--$ eadeastlsg-VeAleles-shall- set-3??eae?eaet
Wh4:1e-es-the-8 tree4--5-amd-alleys-4:s-res4:dent4:al
areas-e?-tie-elt?-
44}(3) No broadcasting vehicle shall be operated
on Sundays, election days, holidays nor any other
day between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.,
nor on streets and alleys in residential areas of
the city, except by special permission of the
council. In granting such permission, the council
may place conditions and restrictions on the
activity which relates to the time, location and
manner of broadcasting.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of , 1984.
0 John N. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
LOU i S ?? r21?
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Council
James L. Brimeyer
Harvey McPhee
Director, Inspectional Services
Noise Ordinance Amendment
April 2, 1984
8b
The City Council at the meeting of March 5, 1984 directed staff to
prepare an amendment to Section 11-511, item (3) of the Ordinance Code
relating to noise created by vehicles on the streets selling frozen
dairy and frozen novelty food items. The proposed amendment to the
ordinance (attached) requires such vehicles to meet the ambient noise
requirements of the particular zone in which the vehicles are operating.
The 65-decibel requirement must be met at a distance of 50 feet from
the source of the noise (bell, horn, music, etc.). It also restricts
the hours of operation to noon to 9:00 p.m.
The bell on the vehicle of the firm requesting the ordinance amendment
has been checked by staff and found to be 64.5 decibels. This decibel
level meets the ambient noise requirements in the residential neighborhoods
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council waive first reading
of the attached ordinance amendment, set second reading for April 16,
1984 and authorize the proposed summary for publication.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 157
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
LICENSED TAXICABS IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
Council Members:
The City Manager has received a communication from Ronald P. Wells, owner and
operator of Wells Taxi, who wishes to apply for Richfield taxicab licenses.
The City of Richfield grants 115 taxicab licenses and for the first time in the
recent history of Richfield, all taxicab licenses have been issued. Because
the taxicab ordinance sets a limit on the number of licenses, the city is
unable to issue additional licenses to Mr. Wells or any other taxicab operator.
Mr. Wells explains in his letter that not only is he a resident of Richfield
and lives at 7600 Penn Avenue, but his business serves neighboring Edina as
well as other communities in the Metropolitan area. Also, Wells Taxi has a
license from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport.
Mr. Wells explained to the City Manager that his taxicab business is somewhat
different from most taxicab companies because he emphasizes personalized
service dispatched on a 24-hour basis per day. He attempts to seek repeat
business for his drivers and encourages clients to call and request a certain
driver.
Because Mr. Wells has a number of passengers that live in Richfield, or wish to
do business in Richfield, he wishes a Richfield license. The City Manager
has discussed this question of taxicab licenses with the Director of Public
Safety, and Mr. Morgan has no objections if the city council wishes to increase
the number of licenses from the present 115 to 120.
The City Manager asked the City Attorney why the City limited the number of
taxicab licenses. The City Attorney advised that historically many cities
limited the number of licenses based upon concerns that too much cutthroat
competition might result in (1) the use of unsafe or inadequately maintained
equipment, (2) cheating on fares, and (3) engaging in illegal activities such
as making illegal liquor purchases and pandering. Cities therefore undertook
to issue additional licenses only if such licenses appeared necessary in order
to provide adequate, reliable and viable service. He indicated that on several
occasions in the past, the City of Richfield has held a hearing on the need for
additional taxicab licenses and after the hearing has amended the ordinance to
increase the number of authorized licenses.
Council Letter No. 138 -2- April 9, 1984
•
•
Recommendation
The City Manager recommends that the city increase the number of licenses to at
least 120. The number of taxicab licenses issued by other units of government
are:
Minneapolis-St. Paul Int'l. Airport 600+
Bloomington (3 companies are licensed, they are 95
presently considering increasing this number
because of additional requests)
Edina (no limit, number is open based on need) 197
Minneapolis 248
St. Louis Park (licenses one company only) 40
If Wells Taxi is granted a license(s), it appears service for Richfield
residents and persons who wish to visit Richfield may be improved. On the
other hand, the city has not been asked by the public to expand the number of
cabs.
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM)
The AMM has been seeking state legislation for the past several years to place
the responsibility for taxicab licensing on a Metropolitan basis with MNDOT.
This proposed legislation would remove all local units of government from the
authority to license taxicabs. The advantage of this proposed legislation
would be to eliminate all anti-trust questions over any refusal to license
taxicabs, because states are exempt from anti-trust suits. Present federal
law does not exempt municipalities from anti-trust litigation. AMM says it
is very unlikely this proposed legislation will be considered in 1984.
Therefore, there is a need to consider Wells Taxicab license request.
Proposed City Council Action
A public hearing has been scheduled for April 23, 1984 for the purpose of
obtaining from citizens and interested parties (cab companies) information on
the question of the need for more licenses. The city council at the close of
the public hearing shall make a finding and then either increase or retain the
number of taxicab licenses.
A proposed amendment to the Municipal Code of Ordinances has been drafted to
increase the number of licenses from 115 to 120. If the council agrees there
is a need to increase the number of taxicab licenses, then the ordinance should
be given first reading, and the public hearing and second reading be scheduled
for the May 14, 1984 city council meeting.
ec ful ' aibmitted ,
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
JGC/eja
0
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VI,
SECTION 6.20 OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
ENTITLED "TAXICABS"
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Chapter VI, Section 6.20 of the Ordinance Code of the
City of Richfield entitled "Taxicabs" is hereby amended by
amending Subdivision 12 thereof to read as follows:
"Subd. 12. Maximum Number of Licenses Granted.
The maximum number of taxicab licenses to be
granted pursuant to this section until next
amended shall be limited to 19-5 120."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of , 1984.
John N. Hamilton, Mayor
0 ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
•
•
Inter -Offir,e I•AerncrandUrn
DATE April 3,1984
TO John Cartwright, City Mananger
FROM Elaine McGuire, License Department Ext. 245
SUBJECT Cab Companies Licensed in 1984
1. Robert; I. Zimmerman dba Airport & Airline Taxi Cab company
and Airport & Airline Taxi cab corporation. 19 Cabs
2.Blue & White Cab Company 2812 University Avenue South
Contact Person Mary Ann Parks 19 Cabs.
3. Suburban Green & White Cab Company 6 Cabs
4. Town Taxi 7570 Highway 65 North, Fridley, 21 Cabs
5. Yellow Cab Company 50 Cabs.
Total Cabs Licensed in 1984
115
0
.3
Taxi. law change
called clarification
by Robbinsdale.....
By Neal Gendler allow Blue -and White to reapply.
Staff=Writer 'With the possibility that the suit
would be dropped." Berry Mack,
Robbinsdale changed its taxi ordi- Blue and White general manager,
mince- Tuesday to require cabs to said yesterday, that the company
have-a city license before they can would reapply, but lie wouldn't com-
pick up fares in the city. But that ment further or say whether the suit,
isn't likely to help Town Taxi keep would be dropped. _
out Blue and White.
Dick Blerbrauer, president of Tower
Robbinsdale officials called the Tall, said he didn't think that Blue
change a clarification - puffing into and White should be licensed by
words the policy the city had been Robbinsdale as long. as his drivers
fpilowing; The city attorney re- can't pick up people they've taken
k the: taci ordinance laeF talk Into Minneapolis and return them td
after Robbinsdale dented Blue and Robbfnsdale. He said that Blue and
Wbdle s request for licenses; and de- . White may have a separate suburban
chded that more specific:lamgmayr fleet, but that it would be easy for
was needed to aware a legal basis city driven to cheat. because city
suburban cabs look alike
' . for the dtY s practice. .. > jaw
$tnce, its request was denied, Blue ' Asked whether this was the end of
IM White has sued Robbinsdale, al- his fight I& Robbinsdale, be said sim-
leging antitrust violation, and Rota pry, "You can't fight city hail," but
binsdale has reconsidered and asked he suggested that Robbitsdale ought
Blue and White to reapply. City Man- to be able to do the same as Mime-
ttger Walt Feist said that the Ian- apolls He said his suit is awaiting a
Snags of the ordinance was, not date. In the Minnesota Supreme
chaoged.becatne of the lawsuit but Court
becaumBlue and White's application
led toa review of the law. Blerbraner contends that many cab.
Hams are interested only in profit-
Denial, of t@w- Blue, and White it-' able long runs and shun. calls for
canaes.wasa victory for Town Taxi, trips within suburbs or between
tae only firm with Robbinsdale li- nearby suburbs.
caenses. The company didn't ask Rob- .
biasdale for the.ordhnsnce,.bat it bw ..we're the only people who ever
sought such ordinances in. other sub- gave the west suburbs service," he
aria. Town Taxi's. goal is to end said. "Nobody else ever has"' He
reciprocity - allowing cabs licensed- said. he was very disappointed by the
in one city to pick up fares in anoth- Robbinsdale, reapplication decision
er - and•.W force Minneapolis to and by- action, in Golden Valley, .
allow cabs beyond the 249 it licenses which also changed its cab law to
in pickup fain Minneapolis require license& but now issues 11-
censes to firms other than his.
TbwwTaid aim has asked the courts i e
fbr relief from the Minneapolis poll
cy which began In 1981 in an effort
to keep Airport Taxi from grabbing
-- the-profitable long runs from cabs
license& by the city that were re-
quired teaccept all fares
Robbinsdale's. policy was Invoked,
!89 November when Blue and White
applied for licenses for its suburban
fleet. The licenses were denied
shortly after Robert Utley, then Blue
and White president, admitted to
Mayor Ray Mattson that he was the
seams Blue and white official who
1 had asked the Minneapolis City
Council not to Issue any more 11-
Last, mouth Blue and White sued,
acting 11500,000. attorneys' fees, com-
petsadon for last business and an
order directing Robbinsdale to issue
the license. If successful, the firm
could get triple damages, or $1.5
miWon.
On Feb. 21, Robbfnsdale's council
Invited Blue and White to reapply.
-Here's no question that the suit
precipitated our action," Feast said
yesterday, speaking of the invitation.
Feint said that last tall. "a couple of
the members of the council felt that
the present company had provided
good service and there was no addi-
dotlal need for cab Ikenses to serve
the city of Robbimdale. Upon reflec-
tion, I guess It was the general feel-
ing that perhaps that wasn't justifica
lion enough for not issuing the 11-
censes to a new company."
Feast said that It might be possible
to limit the number of licenses and
require an applicant to prove need
for more.
.
:?Z6
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 156
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING "JUNKED" OR ABANDONED VEHICLES,
SECOND READING.
Council Members:
Recently, a question arose regarding the city's ability to enforce our
"junked" or abandoned vehicle ordinance under the existing language provisions
in the ordinance code. The city attorney's office has examined this matter and
has found that there are some minor language inconsistencies regarding the
definition of a "junked" or abandoned vehicle as defined in the city ordinance
code 3.38 (sub-8) and ordinance code 6.02, subdivision 2 (3). Therefore, the
city attorney and staff are suggesting an ordinance code amendment that will
correct the minor language inconsistency that presently exists. This amendment
should enhance the ability of the city to enforce the provisions of this
ordinance concerning junked or abandoned cars on private property.
The Department of Public Safety will soon submit for city council
consideration, an amendment to the code of ordinances that will vehicles to be
parked in the front yard during a snow storm of three inches or more until the
street has been plowed from curb to curb.
At the April 9, 1984 city council meeting, the city council gave first
reading approval to this ordinance and scheduled the public hearing and
second reading for the April 23, 1984 city council meeting.
proposed amendment to the code of ordinances.
It is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing and approve
the attached ordinance amendment at the April 23, 1984 city council meeting.
Res ectfu?} , submitted,
John G. Cartwrigy
City Manager
JGC/eja
0
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III,
SECTION 3.38 OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Chapter III, Section 3.38 of the ordinance Code of the
City of Richfield entitled "Special Provisions - Outside
Parking and Storage" is amended by amending subdivision 8
thereof to read as follows:
Subd. 8. It is unlawful for any person in charge
or control of any property within the city,
whether as owner, tenant, occupant, lessees or
otherwise, to allow any gaa??p-?iaa?led;
non-operating, wrecked, dunked; or discarded
vehicle, or any vehicle not displaying a current
license valid for the vehicle, or not equipped
for lawful operation on a public street or
highway, or lacking in its vital component parts
to remain on such property longer than 96 hours,
and no person shall leave any such vehicle on any
property within the city for a longer time than
96 hours; except that this ordinance shall not
apply with regard to a vehicle in an enclosed
building; a vehicle on the premises of a business
enterprise operated in a lawful place and manner,
when necessary to the operation on such business
enterprise; or a vehicle in an appropriate storage
place or depository maintained in a lawful place
and manner by the city. "Vital component parts"
means, for the purposes of this section, those
arts of a vehicle essential to its mechanical'
functioning.
Passed by the City of Richfield, Minnesota this
day of , 1984.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
0
_mss
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 155
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Amendment and Resolutions Relating to Forestry Policy.
Second Reading.
Council Members:
At the April 9, 1984 city council meeting, the city council gave first
reading approval to an amendment to the municipal code of ordinances
concerning the forestry policy for the City of Richfield, and scheduled the
public hearing for April 23, 1984.
The proposed amendment to Section 4.10, Planting, Maintenance, Care and
Removal of Trees on Public Property, sets out the rights and responsibilities
of the city and the homeowner with regard to planting, maintenance, care and
removal of trees located within the municipal street right-of-way areas and
other public grounds. The ordinance provides for a permit process for trimming
or alterations to boulevard trees. A copy of the permit conditions (a $1.00
fee) is attached for council review. The ordinance also provides for a Shade
Tree Commission. The Community Services Advisory Commission has previously
been designated by the City Council to serve in this capacity. A copy of the
tree planting plan referred to in the ordinance is also attached for City
Council review.
The Community Services Advisory Commission has reviewed the basic content
of the ordinance proposal and has recommended approval. It is recommended that
the city council hold the public hearing and approve this ordinance at the
April 23, 1984 city council meeting. It is further recommended that the
council approve the attached resolution Relating to Certain Charges for
Forestry Permits, and the resolution Approving and Adopting a Comprehensive
Tree Planting and Maintenance Plan for the City of Richfield.
Re pectfull. 5Ubmitted,
s41L
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
JGC/eja
0
ORDINANCE NO.
AIMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IV
"REGULATIONS OF STREETS, PUBLIC WAYS,
GROUNDS AND PLACES", OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BY ADDING A NEW SECTION
PROVIDING FOR THE PLANTING, MAINTENANCE, CARE AND REMOVAL OF
TREES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Chapter IV of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield regulating the
use of streets, public ways, grounds and places is hereby amended by adding
thereto Section 4.10 to read as follows:
4.10 Planting, Maintenance, Care and Removal of Trees on Public Property.
Subdivision 1. Declaration of Policy. The city determines that the
planting, maintenance, care and removal of trees located within the
municipal street right-of-way areas and other public grounds are matters of
important concern to the city and influence the public health, safety and
welfare of its citizens in numerous ways including their effect upon the
public right of passage, their effect upon the value, use and enjoyment of
properties within the area, and the impact which they have upon municipal
services such as street cleaning and sewer maintenance. As a consequence,
it is of importance that the City adopt and enforce regulations on the
subject designed to promote and preserve the public health, safety and
general welfare.
Subdivision 2. Permit Required. No person shall trim, cut, remove or
plant any tree on any public property, including street rights-of-way,
without having a valid and current permit as hereinafter provided.
Subdivision 3. Permit Application and Permit Fee. Any person desiring to
obtain a permit required by Subdivision 2 shall make application to the
Community Services Director on forms provided for that purpose. The
application shall be accompanied by the fee established in Appendix D of
this Code.
Subdivision 4. Review by Shade Tree Commission. The Community Services
Director shall refer appeals on any application to the Shade Tree
Commission for its review and recommendation.
Subdivision 5. Standards Governing Issuance. The Community Services
Director shall issue the permit if, in the Director's judgment, the
proposed work is desirable, and the proposed method and workmanship are of
a satisfactory nature. In the case of requests for removal permits, the
Director will consider such factors as the tree species, its general
condition and form, its location and by whom it was planted. In granting a
permit, the Director may establish conditions to be met by the applicant.
The conditions may include a requirement that the tree to be removed be
replaced by the applicant by a suitable species placed on a suitable
location within the right-of-way. The Director may not issue a removal
permit based only on a claim of sewerline blockage by tree roots.
PAGE TWO
Subdivision 6. Tree Planting Permits - Additional Conditions. In
determining whether to issue a permit to allow tree planting the Community
Services Director may also consider the species of the tree, its proposed
location and spacing, size, grade, method of planting and support.
Subdivision 7. Permit Duration. All permits issued under this section
shall be for a specified period of time unless earlier suspended or
revoked.
Subdivision 8. Protection of Trees on Public Ground.
1) Unless done pursuant to a permit issued under this Section, no person
shall intentionally damage, cut, carve, transplant or remove any tree,
attach any rope, wire, nails, advertising posters or other contrivance
to any tree, or allow any harmful substance to come in contact with
them; or set fire or permit any fire to burn when such fire or the
heat from such fire will injure any portion of any tree.
2) Reasonable care shall be exercised by any person excavating,
trenching, tunneling, or constructing near any tree to avoid injury or
damage to such tree. Reasonable care may include the erection of a
guard or barrier to protect the tree from machinery, debris or dirt.
All tunnels, trenches and construction shall be located as far from
any tree as practicable under the circumstances of the project.
Subdivision 9. Community Services Director Duties. The Community Services
Director may cause the planting of trees on public grounds and may direct
the trimming, removal, treatment or other care of any tree in order to
preserve or restore its condition or to protect the public from damage
or injury. The cost of any such work may be assessed against the property
on which the tree is located.
Subdivision 10. Tree Planting Plan. In addition to the other
responsibilities under this section the Community Services Director shall
prepare a comprehensive tree plan regarding the planting of trees on public
grounds within the city. When approved by resolution of the City Council,
the comprehensive tree plan, and any modifications thereto, will be the
official plan of the city. Thereafter, no tree planting permit will be
issued which does not conform to the tree planting plan.
Subdivision 11. Tree Planting Plan - Contents. The tree planting and
maintenance plan shall address the following matters together with any
other matters deemed appropriate by the Community Services Director:
1) List of acceptable varieties. The list may provide for the planting
of certain varieties or mixes of varieties in certain locations.
2) Minimum size.
3) Grade.
4) Location and spacing.
• 5) Method of planting and support.
6) Maintenance.
-3-
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this
day of , 1984.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
•
0
•
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A PERMIT CHARGE
TO PERSONS WHO WISH TO PLANT, REMOVE OR MAINTAIN
TREES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY
WHEREAS, Section 4.10, Subdivision 3 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield authorizes the establishment of a fee for a permit to trim, cut,
remove or plant any tree on public property, including street rights-of-way;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
as follows:
1. A permit fee to trim, cut, remove or plant any tree on public
property, including street rights-of-way, shall be One Dollar ($1.00) for
each tree to be planted, removed, or maintained.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield thi 23rd day of April,
1984.
•
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING
A COMPREHENSIVE TREE PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
WHEREAS, it has been deemed necessary, expedient and in the best interests
of the city to establish a Comprehensive Tree Planting and Maintenance Plan for
the City of Richfield, and
WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehensive Tree Planting and Maintenance Plan has
been reviewed by the city council during public hearings related to amendment
of Chapter IV of the municipal code of ordinances, specifically Section 4.10,
Planting, Maintenance, Care and Removal of Trees on Public Property, and
WHEREAS, the Community Services Advsiory Commission has reviewed the
Comprehensive Tree Planting and Maintenance Plan and recommends its adoption,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
that a Comprehensive Tree Planting and Maintenance Plan is hereby adopted.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of
1984.
•
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
0
0 TREE PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
The definition of a boulevard tree; i.e., a tree that would have the city
assuming responsibility for maintenance and removal if necessary, shall be that
it is a city boulevard tree when it can be touched at Dbh (diameter breast
height or approximately 4$" above ground level) when measured from back of curb
to city easement line. Accepted or approved arboricultural practices shall be
those of the National Arborist Association unless otherwise specified.
Planting Schedule Priorities
A. 10-25% of the trees to be planted during a given year shall be for the
replacement and new plantings in public spaces such as parks. The variable
shall depend on the circumstance of a given year, based on such factors as
storm damage.
B. The remaining 75-90% of the trees to be planted during a given year shall
be planted according to the following priority schedule:
1. Replace and provide new boulevard trees on the avenues, north/south,
in accordance with current policy, which is one tree per lot unless
there is an exceptionally wide lot; i.e., duplex lot, corner lot, or,
if the city forester determines that the lot can support more than one
tree while maintaining the policy of a 40' minimum spacing between
boulevard trees insomuch as possible and a minimum of 20' distance
from a corner or intersection insofar as possible. Such planting
shall be dependent upon prior notification to the resident of the
intent to plant on the boulevard and with the acceptance by the
resident of such proposed planting.
2. Should the needs and desires of priority schedule 1. listed above be
met and trees are still available, boulevard trees would be placed on
streets, east/west, on a request basis in accordance with the policy
in priority schedule 1. with preference to homes fronting on a street,
secondly to homes with a side facing to the street.
3. Should the tree planting priority schedule 1. and 2. listed above be
met and trees are still available, requests for trees to be planted on
the boulevards of county roads would be approved if easements and
other factors such as utility placements make such planting possible.
4. Should the tree planting priority schedules of 1., 2. and 3. listed
above be met and trees are still available, a systematic system of
planting boulevard trees on the streets, east/west. shall be initiated
and implemented as outlined for the avenues, north/south, in priority
schedule 1.
Species, Cultivars or Varieties
A. Only desirable, long-lived trees of good appearance, beauty, adaptability
and generally free from injurious insects or disease shall be planted in
public sites. The Shade Tree Commission, in conjunction with the City
Forestry Division, shall review at least once every two (2) years the
-3-
E. Spacing of trees should be determined by the City Forestry Division
according to local conditions, utility locations, the species, cultivars or
varieties used, their mature height, spread and form. Generally, all large
trees capable of growing to a height greater than sixty feet (601) shall be
planted forty to sixty feet (401-601) on center; all medium-sized trees
capable of growing to a height greater than thirty-five feet (35') shall be
planted a minimum of thirty-five feet (35') on center and all small trees
capable of growing to a height greater than twenty feet (201) shall be
planted a minimum of twenty-five feet (25') on center.
Methods of Planting and Support
A. All deciduous trees shall be moved balled and burlapped or with a tree
spade unless otherwise indicated. Roots should be prevented from drying
out at the surface of the ball and protected against injurious freezing.
B. All coniferous trees shall be moved balled and burlapped or with a tree
spade. Balled roots should be prevented from drying out at the surface of
the ball and protected against injurious freezing.
C. For balled trees, the pits shall be a minimum of six inches (611) larger in
diameter than the diameter of the ball of soil to allow proper backfill.
D. Plants shall be planted no deeper than previously gorwn with due allowance
for settling.
E. Acceptable topsoil, compost, peat moss or other acceptable soil mixtures
shall be placed about the roots or in the backfill around the ball. When
the planting is completed, the entire root area shall be thoroughly
saturated with water.
F. Excessive pruning at the time of transplanting should be avoided. The
extent of top pruning should be based on the ability of the plant roots to
function.
G. If it is determined necessary by the City Forestry Division, trees shall be
suitably wrapped and guyed or supported in an upright position according to
accepted arboricultural practices. The guys or supports shall be fastened
so that they will not girdle or cause serious injury to the tree or
endanger public safety.
Early Maintenance
A. General
Newly planted trees require special attention to maintenance practices
during one or two growing seasons following planting. All maintenance
practices shall follow approved arboricultural standards.
B. Watering
Ample soil moisture shall be maintained following planting. A thorough
watering each five (5) to ten (10) days, depending on soil type and
drainage provisions, is usually adequate during the growing season,
-5-
6. All tools used on a tree suspected to be infected with a contagious
disease shall be disinfected before being used on another tree.
7. Whenever streets are to be blocked off to public service, police and
fire departments shall be notified of the location and length of time
the street will be blocked. Notification shall be given these
departments upon the removal of such barriers or if such barriers are
to remain longer than originally expected.
8. To protect the pubic from danger, suitable street and sidewalk
barriers, highway cones or signs shall be used when pruning a tree.
Flashing signals or flares shall be placed on all barriers or
obstructions remaining in the street after dark.
9. The stumps of all removed trees shall be cut to at least six inches
(611) below the ground an soil shall be replaced and the area leveled.
B. Spraying
1. Suitable precautions shall be taken to protect and warn the pubic that
spraying is being done.
2. Spraying shall be done only if determined necessary by the City
Forestry Division for the control of specific diseases or insects,
with the proper materials in the necessary strength and applied at the
proper time to obtain the desired control. All spraying practices
shall conform to federal and state regulations.
3. Dormant oil sprays shall not be applied to sugar maple, Japanese
maple, beech, flowering dogwood, hickory, walnut and most crabapple
trees. Dormant oil sprays shall be applied to other trees only when
the air temperature is 40 degrees F. or above and when it is not
likely to drop below this temperature for a period of twenty-four (24)
hours.
C. Fertilization
1. Fertilization of public trees, if determined necessary, shall follow
accepted arboricultural standards.
2. Formulations, rates and methods of application of fertilizers shall be
specified by the City Forestry Division.
D. Cavities
Extensive cavity work should be performed on trees only if they are
sufficiently high in value to justify the cost. All cavity work shall
conform to accepted arboricultural standards.
E. Cabling and Bracing
Cabling and bracing will only be done if determined necessary and cost
effective by the City Forestry Divsion.
1. As a general rule, cables should be placed approximately two-thirds
(2/3) of the distance between the crotch and top branch ends.
Rust-resistant cables, thimbles and lags should be used. The ends of
a cable should be attached to hooks or eyes of lags or bolts and
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
PERMIT CONDITIONS
0 GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. Permit Required - No person shall trim, cut, remove or plant any tree on
any public property including street right-of-ways without having a valid
and current permit.
B. Application for Permits - Must be made at the office of the City Forestry
Division not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time the
work is to be done.
C. Standards of Issuance - The City Forestry Division shall issue the permit
provided for herein if, in their judgement, the proposed work is desirable
and the proposed method and workmanship thereof are of a satisfactory
nature. Any permit granted shall contain a date of expiration and the
work shall be completed in the time allowed on the permit and in the
manner as therein described. Any permit shall be void if its terms are
violated.
D. To protect the public from danger, suitable street and sidewalk barriers,
highway cones or signs shall be used when pruning, removing or planting a
tree.
E. Notice of completion shall be given within five (5) days to the City
Forestry Division for their inspection.
• F. The homeowner shall be responsible for all damages or injury to property of
any character resulting from any act, omission, neglect or misconduct in
the manner or method of executing the work, or due to the homeowner non-
execution of the work or at any time due to defective work or materials.
The homeowner shall restore, or have restored at their own cost and
expense, such damaged property to a condition similar or equal to that
existing before such damage or injury occurred, or shall make good such
damage from injury in the manner acceptable to the City. In case of
failure on the part of the homeowner to restore such property or make good
such damage or injury, the City may, upon written notice under ordinary
circumstances (and without notice when a nuisance or hazardous condition
results) proceed to repair, rebuild or otherwise restore such damaged
property as may be determined necessary and assess costs to the homeowner.
G. All work shall be in accordance with accepted aboricultural standards.
TREE REMOVAL
A. Permits - It shall be at the discretion of the Community Services Director
or an appointed member of his staff to determine when a request for removal
shall be authorized.
B. Whenever streets are to be blocked off to public service, police and fire
departments shall be notified of location and length of time the street
will be blocked. Notice shall be given to these departments upon removal
of such barriers or if such barriers are to remain longer than expected.
C. Obstructions (trimmings, logs and other debris) blocking sidewalks and
streets shall not be allowed to remain overnight.
-3-
• B. All large established trees shall be pruned to sufficient height to allow
free passage of pedestrians and vehicular traffic: Nine feet (g') over
sidewalks, ten feet (101) over streets except those streets subject to
truck traffic which shall have a clearance of sixteen feet (161).
C. If the tree is in the vicinity of a light standard, traffic sign or other
city utility or interfering with private property trees or structures, it
shall be trimmed so as to eliminate any present conflict and so as to
develop a tree which will prevent future problems while maintaining an
acceptable appearance.
D. All aspects of the tree trimming shall be related to the shaping of the
tree to its natural and characteristic growing form while maintaining the
appearance of an even balanced crown.
E. All cuts shall be made with a saw or pruner and only at the nodes or
crotches. No stubs shall be left.
F. No spurs or climbing irons shall be used in the trees, except when trees
are to be removed.
G. All dead crossed and rubbing branches shall be removed.
H. Obstructions (trimmings, logs and other debris) blocking sidewalks and
streets shall not be allowed to remain overnight.
i I. It shall be the homeowner's responsibility to remove all trimmings, logs or
other debris resulting from tree trimming operations from the immediate
site by the date of expiration of the permit.
J. All elm, red oak and pin oak wood not chipped or shredded shall be
delivered to disposal sites approved by the City. No elm, red oak or pin
oak wood from any trimming project may be left on the site or transported to
unapporved disposal sites without the homeowner first removing all the
bark. Bark removal and/or disposal of limbs must be completed by the time
of the expiration date on the permit.
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
•
Council Letter No. 154
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Application for Gambling License
Richfield Intermediate School, Summer
School Program
•
•
Council Members:
On March 30, 1984, Mr. Robert Nelson submitted an
application fora gambling license to conduct a raffle on behalf
of the Richfield Intermediate School, Summer School Program.
The purpose of the raffle is to raise funds to help defer the
cost of conducting the summer school program that, for the last
several years, suffered budget cut backs. Tickets for the
raffle will be sold from May 1st through June 1st with the
raffle being held on June 1, 1984.
This is the fifth year that the Richfield Intermediate
School has applied for a raffle license. This year, as in the
past, the applicant is requesting that the city council waive
both the license fee of $225 and the gambling bond. The council
has in previous years granted these requests.
Mr. Nelson, who is a teacher at the school, is a member of
the Summer School Committee, along with Mr. Denny Davis and Mr.
Robert Burkhardt. None of these committee members have any
known criminal record. Mr. Burkhardt, the designated gambling
manager, has been advised of the ordinance requirement to
furnish the city with a financial report after the licensed
event and has agreed to comply with this ordinance requirement.
Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and
the investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety
there appears to be no basis for denying the license requested.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public
Safety, in which I concur, that the city council give favorable
consideration to the approval of the gambling license request
for the Richfield Intermediate School.
Respectfully submitted,
John G. Cartwr?'
1?ht
City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
•
Council Letter No. 153
Agenda April 23, 198+
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Setting Joint Meeting of City Council, Housing
and Redevelopment Authority, Community Services
Commission and Planning Commission to Discuss
Alternative Housing Sites on April 30, 1984
•
Council Members:
On April 2, 1984, a joint meeting of the City Council, Housing
and Redevelopment Authority, Community Services Commission and the
Planning Commission was held to discuss a proposed housing project
in the Portland Avenue/Legion Lake area, and the potential
conflict with the park planning process. This meeting was held to
elicit responses from the above noted commissions and the
surrounding neighborhood.
At the conclusion of the April 2 meeting, Mayor Hamilton
directed the city staff to study housing project alternatives and
report back to the four bodies at a later date.
It is recommended that the City Council schedule a joint
meeting of the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
Community Services Commission, and the Planning Commission to
review this report at 7:00 p.m., Monday, April 30, 1984 in the
city hall council chambers.
Respectfu?y submitted,
twr ht
John G. Ca
City Manager
JGC/eja
is
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
•
Council Letter No. 152
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Award of Contract, 1984 Alley Paving Project
•
Council Members:
On Thursday, April 12, 1984, bids were opened for the 1984
Alley Paving Project, C.P. 793. The bid minutes and tabula-
tions are attached for council review.
The engineers cost estimate for this projectt was
$236,132.00 Standard Sidewalk Inc. of Minneapolis, Minesota was
the low bidder, with a bid of $202,284.25.
The staff recommends that the city council take the
following action:
1. Receive and file the bid minutes and tabulations;
2. Award a contract to Standard Sidewalk Inc. of
Minneapolis, Minnesota for CP 793, Alley Paving
in the amount of $202,284.25.
Respect,,?lly submitted,
John G . arty fight
City Manager
JGC/eja
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BID OPENING
April 23, 1984
1984 Alley Paving Project No. 793
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of
the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 1984 Alley Paving
Project, City Project No. 793, as advertised in the official newspaper on
March 21, 1984.
Present: Ron Rankin, Assistant City Manager
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
The following bids were,submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR AND
BID SECURITY AMOUNT
Arcon Construction Co.
B.B. 5% $203,085.10
D. H. Blattner & Sons
B.B. 5% $295,482.50
MN Curb-Gutter & Fischer Sand/Assoc.
B.B. 5% $208,225.90
Progressive Contractors
B.B. 5% $275,046.50
Schafer Contracting
B.B. 5% $226,580.40
Standard Sidewalks, Inc.
B.B. 5% $202,284.25
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered
at the April 23, 1984 city council meeting.
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT -7?9
ALLEY PAVING AND APPURTENANT WORK
C.P. 793
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the
improvement of the following alleys by concrete paving:
Alley between From To
Clinton and Fourth Avenue South 66th Street 67th Street
Xerxes and Washburn Avenue South 69th Street 70th Street
Xerxes and Washburn Avenue South 67th Street 68th Street
Washburn and Vincent Avenue South 66th Street 67th Street
Augsburg and Garfield Avenue South 71st Street 72nd Street
Blaisdell and Nicollet Avenue South 72nd Street 73rd Street
Grand and Pleasant Avenue South 68th Street 69th Street
Sheridan and Thomas Avenue South 67th Street 68th Street
Bryant and Aldrich Avenue South 63rd Street Mildred Dr.
Sheridan and Russell Avenue South 69th Street 70th Street
Sheridan and Russell Avenue South 66th Street 67th Street
Harriet and Garfield Avenue South 71st Street 72nd Street
Bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; and
WHEREAS, it appears that Standard Sidewalk Inc. of Minneapolis,
Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the total base bid of Standard Sidewalk Inc. of Minneapolis,
Minnesota for construction of the above-mentioned project with
estimated construction cost of $202,284.25 is hereby accepted;
2. That the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to enter into a contract for CP 793, with Standard Sidewalk
Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota in the name of the City of Richfield
for such improvement according to plans and specifications therefore
approved by the city council;
3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return
forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except
that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder
shall be retained until a contract has been signed.
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this 23rd
day of April, 1984.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
#y/..9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
•
Council Letter No. 151
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Purchase in Excess of $5,000
Council Members:
The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides
that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, the authority to
purchase shall be submitted to the city council for
consideration. There are four such items on the April 23
agenda.
Vac-All
On January 23, 1984, the city council approved the purchase
of a truck cab and chassis with the understanding that the
existing Vac-All unit would be transferred to this new equipment
although a new Vac-All unit may need to be ordered at a later
date. A new unit would cost an estimated $60,000 - $90,000.
Since the cab and chassis had the greatest need of replacement
and because the Vac-All unit had received major repairs in 1983,
staff investigated the possibility of refurbishing the existing
Vac-All unit. Central Engineering, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was
the manufacturer of the unit. They indicated the local dealer,
Ruffridge-Johnson Equiment Company, Inc., would need to provide
price quotations and coordinate any refurbishment. This contact
was made and based on the current condition of the Vac-All unit,
it is recommended authorization be granted to remount the
existing Vac-All MOdel E5-16 on new truck chassis, install new
GM453 Diesel Power Unit , new sub-frame, engine control, battery
and battery box, fuel tank, PTO drive to blower, muffler and
supports, all necessary hardware and to sandblast, prime and
paint. The total cost would be $26,500 to Ruffridge-Johnson
Equipment Co., Inc. This will save the city at least $30,000
compared to the cost of buying a new unit.
Air Compressor
The 1984 budget includes $22,000 for replacement of an
existing air compressor which would be retained as a back-up
unit. Three quotations were received:
Council Letter Page Two
• Ingersoll-RandEquipment Company $11,617.00
Hayden-Murphy Equipment Company $12,491.20
Minneapolis Equipment Company $12,868.00
The Sullair unit quoted by Hayden-Murphy is of a smaller
size and has greater versatility, especially in traffic.
The unit also has a larger motor which provides a quicker
recovery time, thereby expanding the work capacity of the
unit. The location of Hayden-Murphy Equipment Company in Bloom-
ington provides a convenience for parts and service. It is
recommended the city council authorize the purchase of a Sullair
Air Compressor from Hayden-Murphy Equipment Company in the
amount of $12,491.20, as it best meets the city's equipment
needs.
Asphalt Heater and Applicator
The 1984 budget includes $13,000 for equipment to heat oil
for crack sealing in preparation for seal coating of streets.
Three quotations were received for this new unit:
Cimline, Inc. $10,400.00
Maxwell Products, Inc. $13,500.00
Hayden-Murphy Equipment Company $14,535.00
• It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of an
asphalt heater and applicator from Cimline, Inc. for $10,400.
29 HP RIDING MOWER
The 1984 Central Garage budget provides funds for a riding
lawn mower. The primary use for this piece of machinery is
mowing grass in the park areas. Three quotes were received:
Bryan Equipment, Inc. - 1 Excel
width -
- 1 Excel
width -
Land Care & Equipment - 1 Grave
cutting
Hustler with 14 feet total
$16,000.00
Hustler with 10 feet total
$13,700.00
ly GMT 9000 with 9' 11"
width - $13,260.00
It is recommended that the city council authorize the
purchase of a Gravely GMT 9000 from Land Care and Equipment Co.
with a ten foot wide cutting area, in the amount of $13,260.00
less $2,260.00 trade on a Ford 3000 tractor and cab for a total
amount of $11,000.00.
Respectfj'_?Lsubmitted,
U ?rh/
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
JGC/eja
?c
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 150
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Appointments to the 1984 Board of Review
Council Members:
The city charter provides for the Local Board of Review for
the property assessment to be made up of the city council members
and two Richfield residents experienced in real estate matters.
Mr. Lawrence Emond and Mr. John Janski served on the Board of
Review for the first time last year. They have both agreed to
serve on the Board in 1984.
Mr. Emond, 6325 Russell Avenue, has been an independent
property appraiser for approximately nine years. His primary work
involves conducting property appraisals for financial
institutions. He is also experienced in building construction and
has held a real estate license. Mr. Emond has been a Richfield
resident for 24 years.
Mr. Janski, 6500 2nd Avenue, has been a real estate appraiser
for over 40 years and is a past president of the Minnesota Chapter
of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. He has been
a Richfield resident for over 30 years.
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached
resolution confirming the appointment of Mr. Emond and Mr. Janski
to the Board of Review. The Board of Review will meet at 7:00
p.m., Wednesday, May 30, 1984.
Re e tful y 'u fitted,
G,LL?? ? ??Z?6tii'LL'
J hn G. Cart ight j
ity Manager J
JGC/eja
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING CITY MANAGER'S
APPOINTMENT OF TWO RESIDENT MEMBERS TO BOARD OF REVIEW
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield
has hereby approved the city manager's appointment of Mr. Lawrence
Emond and Mr. John Janski as 19824 resident members on the Board of
Review.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that compensation for the two resident
members of the Board of Review be set at a minimum of $32.00 per
session of the Board, or $13.00 per hour per session of the board,
whichever is greater.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 23rd
day of April, 1984.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
•
Council Letter No. 149
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Award of Contract for 1984 Sealcoating Project
•
Council Members:
On April 1, 1984, bids were opened for the 1984 sealcoating
project. This is the fifth year of a planned ten-year project to
sealcoat all of the city's bituminous paved streets. An
appropriation of $95,000 is included in th,e 1984 street division
budget.
Attached is a map depicting the area to be sealcoated in this
year's program. Also, bid minutes and tabulations are attached
for council review.
Five bids were received for this work. Allied Blacktop Co.,
of Maple Grove, MN submitted the low bid, in the amount of
$69,507.90. It is recommended that the city council take the
following actions:
1. Accept the bid minutes; and
2. Adopt the attached resolution awarding the contract
for the 1984 sealcoating project to Allied Blacktop
Co., in the amount of $69,507.90.
R spectq; y submitted,
f
John G. Cartw ight
City Manager
JGC/eja
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR
1984 SEAL COATING PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the
improvement of 9.953 miles of roadway in Richfield by seal coating,
bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law;
AND, WHEREAS, it appears that Allied Blacktop Co. of
Maple Grove, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. The mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed.
to enter into a contract with Allied Blacktop Co. in
the name of the City of Richfield for the improvement
of 9.953 miles of roadway by seal coating according
to the plans and specifications approved by the city
council and on file in the office of the city engineer.
2. The city is
forthwith to
bids, except
and the next
contract has
hereby authorized and directed to return
all bidders the deposits made with their
that the deposits of the successful bidder
lowest bidder shall be retained until a
been signed.
Adopted by the city council this 23rd day of April, 1984.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
0
n
p
O
N
N
5 T U - O O b a T S ? T T N O
i i
s v i v s ?
•
•
•
F'd
?D
00
4?6
C/l
CTJ
r
n
O
H
H
Z
0
Cl
.7
n
y
a ti ti 1 N r N ti r r , ti ti -? y r N
r r ? ?
XERXES AVE ?- - - --_ -- -._ - - _ _ -_ _
- "---'-'- '? - -- --- .:xERxES AV E.
WASHBURN
'NASHBURN
VINCENT
._'1t VINCENT
-
UPTON
UPTON
THOMAS ?HOMAS
SHERIDAN
SHER104H
RUSSELL IG,
RUSSELL
QUEEN
QUEEN
PENN AVE - -
PENN AVE.
OLIVER
kph ^? _. _ --, ?J q OLIVER
NEw TON
NEWTON
MORG AN '•i-? =- ?N/„'_ 'I-.JIr MORGAN
I I I __
LOG AN
•I-_
r---? LOGAN
KNOX
i JAMES
IRVING
IRVING
a
HUMBOLDT HU MBOLOT
GIRARO
?I, GIRARO
FREMpff FRE.MONT
EMERSON
91 ?? !?I 1I > o - ?? EMERSON
DUPONT I DUPONT
COLFAX
COLFAX
BRYANT
il"iit--!,I BRYANT
`4LDRICN ?I
ALDRICH
Lj
IYNOAIE AVE.
??? - ??\\ .?,?• ." LYNDALE AVE.
GAAFIELD ?7 L ,ate ?. I;) GARFIELO
L
r/ HLi
ARRIET_ ??II ?-,I ?'I1 HARRIET
GRAND I,I AM u? '"`r-?11 ''yam I GRANO
PLEASANT '-_-- _ ? ?,1 I,
- - - - i. - - .-.-_ PLEASANT
-1
PILLSBURY ill PILLSBURY
WENT WORTH if I' I- ??./ II WENTWORTH
3LAISOELL
n1ll -
- I3LAISDELL
NICOLLET AVE. _ -`-- - - 'O} NICOLLET AVE.
?-
, Q7
STEVENS
-- STEVENS
2nd ??I ? -? 2nd
CLINTON CLINTON
4th
511% ?-l
5th
PORTLAND AVE
PORTLAND AVE.
OAKLAND
OAKLAND
PARK -,'
PARK
COIU MSUS 11 l? IL_- t r COLUMBUS
CHICAGO II ,, ,?i II s ?I
^ CHICAGO
ELLIOT :;I ^? 'i?JII ??I I = ELLIOT
10th ?? ?•
10th
11 rh ??I - ?F--7 I_?; 1--?.
12 to ,-'?? 12 rn
13 to
f 3 to
14th 14rn
15th 15 IN
9UOOM4NGTON BLOOMINGTON
r- ?I
16 rn J,
16th
17 n I r? -- ?? ??-- __ 171h
I i
ath lath
CEDAR AVE._ CEDAR AVE
IONGFELLOw _________? ti
-------- ------
LONGFELLOW
19th
2
20th
z N N y y N N N Lti y Ul ?- •I
~ '? ~ ~ ? ? 21 It
m r - !
V A? -?I 22nd
z i
.r
C!,
O < I--T-= STANDISH
C O
23 rd
z -1
--,
-< .
sC i i - ? i a o
a
I
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BID OPENING
April 11, 1984
1984 Seal Coating Project,
Bituminous
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Steven Devich, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the
purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 1984 Seal
Coating, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 28, 1984.
Present: Eileen Anderson, City Manager's Designee
Steven Devich, Acting City Clerk
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Mike Eastling, City Engineer
Art Bailey, Senior Engineering Technican
•
The following bids were submitted and read aloud
VENDOR BID SECURITY
Midwest Asphalt Corp., Hopkins Bond - 5%
Allied Blacktop Co., Maple Grove Bond - 5%
Bituminous Roadways, Inc., Minneapolis Bond - 5%
Batzer Construction Co., St. Cloud Bond - 5%
Buffalo Bituminous, Buffalo
Bond - 5°%
AMOUNT
$76,966.40
$69,507.90
$78,911.20
$73,256.35
$72,736.80
The acting city clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered
at the April 23, 1984 city council meeting.
Steven Devich Acting City Clerk
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 148
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Approval of HUB Superblock Final Plat
Council Members:
In June of 1979, the City Council approved a final
development plan for the Phase I improvements of the HUB/Summit
Bank planned unit development. One of the stipulations on that
approval was that the United National Corporation submit a final
plat and easements to the City Council for city approval.
City Staff has recently received the signed final plat for city
consideration and approval.
City Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat and finds
that all the required information appears on the site and all
the required easements are shown. It is, therefore, recommended
that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving
the final plat.
Respect u,I Ly submitted,
John G. Cart ight
City Manager
JGC/eja
0
y ,
fl
k
f 1
9
. X
L?
ild )!Q:A,.u _11 u b u V11 L Wj
HEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK, INC.
-DENOTES F-?CM MONUMENT SURVEYORS
?i
I
60
u I I Ex ar,d ?
?'' :. . h n std 54'IOr. V 19A 01 Br?liF Ir.f
c
N.89^39W W:, NIi Sr,.1
?65TH ?x:oST REET
I I ? t ? tee..z
3z.11? (160606'f. v4+a l e50
?? pr Jlp ??? U ( ti; =
'I .al I -n 'hr S WA pa. P ?Z - !U dr A.. rO^m ? 301 ., .'Ll ;1, 1, - ?-Z n r+9 tb'd.f N 3<.. I
- I 1 t I ?_ G lf. d .., , J'eil ?E4 •s •M9 ee.r K t. I I ea nlre SB PO ? i
i 1
• 5 77 ?.'..; 9:.79 lan
.. - - ? s - ? r i 1 N ? D3 a9 E La j•-?'
_ N.Bu•;cTT,a
?Yti? --
•
----14 L
• I ? ZSF.GS I! I F e. - - t i > rr r. W lac°afed •s pe .. w ^ M+ o
. I •, IV hN urn., P _ - - Doc. Na. r -09
r? '', F,r lr f,elarlsza' 1,1. ty ? ` >< ? W
' _ i We rlerll r•irryo ! Ih Mo.fh I?ne ;Apt I'0?•if.. 0 I ', ? -
_: - I f dhte T. 'B'<hr i p a o' I h Y t !! 5„ i ?r
_ I I ? I ?i;r lh !rr V..i z ', / Ilr I _ ? tv
t ` 1J? ,ne ! p 'F h d P1ara' Ohl fayl e n 't ii .•? i. `
- ` I _a>r i. Ih• her r SE a "?S 'D
scc `
__ . _ .'f tole.' c.'•, .ter: •nr s: .:.? w r•t ? .
! ,.n t E•o_x !, B•chfeld plaza" 'LJ 3-AA 45 rJ. 'e Z ` R
_ 'J:? a` I e r ... Se 5. L: 7r. nr NW .cps -r 8c, `1 s ,
c - Z50
- I >
n.l O O b U J•rt 2 O
I? h. I N ..^ S?9e h I u
\V{ hr ? ? E ? I z
o ul
ve 59Bz•L sr
?. 51 ^ (. t h ixc Y Wr .le 1 Irna o I Ih< Snulh r .' ?. rt, I ,
.? r• ? •'. - I N.e9°595°.E. 1 _ _11 r
_j V
I?t t0 ?-_- -' zi e! NIy. S.L. cc. ner el' fL 4 ? ob i .
N'.u. y o? .fcc..
1 , , r , s xe r. .: d,l F 14 i ..
I a ., o. I I
I
I
I 'I t
1
I I ? _
I JJ
1p
I?
0 0 9
RESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLAT
OF RICHFIELD HUB SUPERBLOCK
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota must approve
all plats and subdivision of land in the City of Richfield, Minnesota by
resolution pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 462.358, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota has found
that the proposed plat of Richfield HUB Superblock is in compliance with the
subdivision regulations of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota that the proposed plat entitled "Richfield HUB Superblock"
is approved and the appropriate city officers are directed to take the
necessary steps to evidence this approval.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd
day of April, 1984.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
0
A3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 147
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Respect for Law Week Proclamation
Council Members:
The Richfield Optimist Club and their members sponsor and
support programs aimed at combating crime and disrespect for law
through year-round efforts.
"Respect for Law Week" has been set for the week of April 29
- May 5, 1984. Attached to this council letter is a copy of a
"Respect for Law Week" proclamation which will be presented to
the Richfield Optimist Club at the April 23, 1984 city council
meeting.
Respectfuxl1 mitted,
?__ /hn G. Ca twrigYrt
City Manage
JGC/eja
0
"RESPECT FOR LAW WEEK"
k
WHEREAS, cn-ime and its e66ect upon the fives and pxopenty oU ouA
citizens is oU utmost conceAn, and the continued e66onts oU oun tocat
government, citizens' ongan.izat-ions and individuatz to cuhb this pnob-
tem is gneatty appreciated, and
WHEREAS, the pnobtems oU cAime -touch and a66ect aft segments oU
oun society, and can undermine and epode the monaf and economic
strengths oU oun communities and the.ix citizens t6 unabated, and
WHEREAS, pubtic awaheness and determination to pkesenve taw and
orders and to appAeciate the itinpontance oU taw enboAcement o6Uicens .is
everyone's nesponsib-it.ity, and
WHEREAS, Optitiiist Ctubs and the.in members continue to sponsors and
support pnognams aimed at combating cAime and dimespect {yon taw
through yeah-round e{4oAts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that 1, John Ham.itton, Mayor oU the
City oU R-ich6 ietd, do pnocta.im the week o6 Apnif 29 - May 5, 1984 as
"RESPECT FOR LAW WEEK" and do join with the Optimists in canhy.ing this
message o6 "Respect 60A Law" to others citizens, and by exampte, exex-
ci.6e xespons.ibte citizenship.
DONE at the City ob R.ich6ietd this 23Rd day ob Apnit, 1984.
a
I ]
John Hamilton Mayon
0
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No.146
Agenda April 23, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Proclamation for a Safe Halloween for Richfield
Children
•
Council Members:
For Halloween 1983, the Richfield Optimist Club, in
cooperation with several civic and church groups in the city,
sponsored Halloween parties for Richfield youngsters on Halloween
as an alternative to the traditional door to door "trick and
treat". This program was started after some unfortunate
incidents made Halloween unsafe for youngsters. The planned
parties also keep youngsters safely off city streets. The
1983 project was an outstanding success. Each sponsored party
was held without an unsafe event occuring.
The Optimist Club has already begun planning activities for
Halloween in 1984, and has requested that the Richfield City
Council issue a proclamation in support of this project. This
proclamation has been prepared for the April 23, 1984 city
council meeting, and a copy of the proclamation is attached
hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
John G. ?artb,-Y'ight
City Manager
JGC/eja
40
•
PROCLAMATION IN SUPPORT OF A
SAFE HALLOWEEN FOR RICHFIELD YOUNGSTERS
WHEREAS, Halloween is a holiday much celebrated by young
people, and
WHEREAS, the old tradition of door to door trick and treating
can be unsafe for youngsters; and
WHEREAS, in 1983 the Richfield Optimist Club in cooperation
with civic and church groups, sponsored special activities for
children on Halloween night so that they could enjoy the holiday
and yet be safe and off of city streets, and
WHEREAS, this plan was so successful that the Richfield
Optimist Club is again preparing to sponsor Halloween parties in
1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Richfield City
Council does heartily support and endorse this program, and does
hereby urge civic and church groups to join with the Richfield
Optimist Club in planning now for a fun, safe, Halloween for all
Richfield youngsters.
DONE this 23rd day of April, 1984.
John Hamilton Mayor
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA /
Office of City Manager
•
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Letter No. 145
Agenda April 23, 1984
Subject: Volunteer Recognition Week Proclamation
Council Members:
Governor Rudy Perpich has established the week of May 6-12,
1984 as Volunteer Recognition week in Minnesota. In the City of
Richfield, programs too numerous to list owe their success to
the unselfish efforts of volunteers.
In an effort to recognize the many volunteers in the City of
Richfield, the week of May 6-12 is proclaimed as Volunteer
Recognition Week in Richfield. Attached to this council letter
is a proclamation setting this week as Volunteer ,
40 Recognition Week, and urging all citizens to express their
appreciation to those persons who give so generously of their
time and talents to do for others.
John G. Cartw ght
City Manager
JGC/eja
R pe/ctf 1] submitted,
0
VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the success of numerous programs, activities and
organizations is made possible only through the efforts of
volunteers; and
WHEREAS, volunteers who generously give of their time and
talents to athletic groups, church activities, social welfare
programs and other efforts, exemplify responsible citizenship
and concern for others; and
WHEREAS, volunteers are seldom thanked or recognized for
their achievemants and contributions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, John Hamilton, Mayor
of the City of Richfield, do hereby proclaim the week of May 6-
12, 1984 as VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK in the City of Richfield.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all citizens are urged to
express their thanks and appreciation to those persons whose
volunteer efforts contribute so much to the quality and
enjoyment of life in the City of Richfield.
DONE at the City of Richfield this 23rd day of April, 1984.
•
John Hamilton Mayor
0