The URL can be used to link to this page

01-11-82 agenda? y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager .y1 / /l Ly? Council Letter No. 21 Agenda January 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Subject Council Consideration of Possible Bond Sale In November, 1981, the city council authorized the sale of a $2.5 million dollar general obligation bond issue. This bond sale was authorized upon request of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and is necessary to recover the HRA's costs related to the Lake Shore Drive Condominium development, the Lyndale Garden Center development and other miscellaneous property acquisitions on Graham Avenue. The bond issue was structured in such a way that the tax increment to be generated by these projects would be adequate to meet the debt service obligations for the bonds. On December 16, 1981, bids were to be solicited for this bond sale. Because of the 12 percent interest rate ceiling imposed by state law, the.city received no bids for the bond sale. Interested bidders indicated that the bond market was so high that they could not realistically purchase the bonds and charge an interest rate of less than 12 percent. On that same date, the council authorized the staff to seek a negotiated sale of the bonds. State law per- mits bonds to be sold through negotiation within 30 days after a public sale is offered. However, the bond market has continued to rise, and our ability to negotiate sale of the bonds within this 30 day period is questionable. The city's financial consultants have advised us that the bonds would be more marketable if the 20-year term were shortened some- what. Accordingly, the staff has adjusted some of the assumptions made in preparing the original bond issue, and has developed a potential debt service schedule which would mature the bonds in 16 years. Potential purchasers of the bonds are being contacted this week to determine if the market is such that these shorter term bonds might be marketable under the constraints of the state law. If we receive some indication that there might be a market for these bonds, a resolution will be presented to the city council on January 11, 1982 requesting authorization to receive bids and seek sale of these bonds. Because the bond sale has been restructured, and the duration of the maturity shortened, it is necessary to again solicit sealed bids for the bonds, rather than to seek a negotiated sale. The appropriate resolutions will be presented to the city council on Monday evening, if it is appropriate to take action on this matter at this time. Respectfully sunmittea, Earl Nollenbergei City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 20 Agenda January 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Report on City's Fiancial Status On December 31, 1981, the Minnesota Senate passed a bill which would, if adopted, clarify the city's financial status with regard to our local government aid and homestead credit payments. As council members are aware, because of the state's financial problems, Richfield's November and December 1981 local government aid and homestead credit payments were delayed, along with those for all other'cities in the state. For Richfield, this meant that we received $967,000 less during those months than we had • budgeted. Council members have previously received cash flow projections which demonstrate the impact on the city's General Fund of losing these revenues. Although Governor Quie has committed to ultimately making these payments, if these November and Decem- ber aid payments are not received by the end of February, 1982, we cannot count them as 1981 revenues, and we will also exper- ience a cash deficit beginning during that month. One component of the bill passed by the Senate includes a guarantee that the November and December local government aid pay- 4 ments will be made by February 28, 1982. This legislation also ? provides, however, that the actual 1982 local government aid alloca- : tion for a city such as Richfield will be reduced by 8 percent. For Richfield, this means a loss of approximately $200,000 from our budgeted revenues. The League of Minnesota Cities feels that it is more likely that 1982 local government aids will be reduced by at least ten percent, which is equal to $250,000 for Richfield. The Legislature has not taken any final action; it appears to be stymied in developing a compromise proposal which is acceptable to both chambers of the Legislature and the Governor. It appears quite certain, however, that whatever legislation is adopted will result in some reduction in the city's 1982 local government aid payments. It also appears that, unless additional legislation is enacted, the guarantee by the state to pay the November and December delayed payments by February is in jeopardy, for there has been no . corresponding appropriation or designation of monies to make those Council Letter No. 20 -2- January 11, 1932 _a 5 i • payments. Council members have previously been advised that because of the withheld November and December payments, the city would experience a cash deficit by February, 1982 and would be forced to short-term borrow through the issuance of Tax Antici- pation Certificates. The staff has been working with the city's financial consultants to prepare the necessary documents and com- plete the legal work to authorize issuance of the Tax Anticipation Certificates. However, because of the extreme uncertainty regard- ing receipt of the delayed November and December local government aid and homestead credit payments, the staff is recommending to the council that we delay issuance of Tax Anticipation Certificates until early March, at which time we will, hopefully, know more certainly when the delayed payments will be received. If the pay- ments have not been received, the city's General Fund will be in a deficit cash position. However, there are adequate monies avail- able in other city funds to support the General Fund's cash needs for a period of several days, if needed, while we finalize issuance of Tax Anticipation Certificates. I think it is wise to delay that process until we have a firmer commitment from the Legislature regarding their intent for repayment of the local government aids. The Administrative Services Director and City Manager will be present at the January 11, 1982 city council meeting to present additional information regarding these matters. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Program Directors Finance Coordinator 1 2 `3 L? . r? ?t ? o n c V\-s i IJJI?C?T 1C? Sti-'? a.?s? ,-- 1`? I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ?Y ?.v The Honorable Mayor and < Members of the City Council J n? City of Richfield Council Members: Council Letter No. 19 Agenda January 11, 1982 Subject: Recommendation from Redistricting Committee In August, 1981, the city council appointed a seven member citizens committee to work on redistricting. The committee was appointed pursuant to the requirement in the Richfield City Charter that, beginning in 1982, three council members are to be elected by district, one from each of three districts which are to be established in the city. The committee was requested by the city council to develop at least two alternative recommendations for city council consideration in establishing these election dis- trict boundaries. The committee was also requested to develop recommendations regarding the establishment of precinct boundaries within each of the proposed election districts. The redistricting committee has been meeting regularly since November, 1981 to work on this task. The committee has now com- pleted developing their recommendations, and there is an item on the January 11, 1982 city council agenda providing for council con- sideration of the committee's recommendations. A copy of the committee's report and related background materials is attached to this council letter. Mr. Wes Sorgeson, committee chairman, will be present at the January 11, 1982 city council meeting to present the committee's report and recommendation. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: City Attorney City Clerk KN/ea TO: Mayor and City Council • 0 FROM: Richfield Citizens Redistricting Committee DATE: January 7, 1982 Attached are two redistricting plans, as requested by the city council in its direction to this committee. One of the district plans (Plan 1B) has an alternate division of the districts into four precincts each. We are recommending Plan lA for adoption into a new ordinance. This recommended plan, Plan lA, divides Richfield into three districts, as required by the city charter. The west district extends from the western city limits to Interstate 35-W. The central district is bounded by 35W on the west and Portland Avenue on the east. The east district is comprised of the balance of the city, extending from Portland Avenue eastward to the city limits. All three districts run from the northern to the southern city boundaries. The recommended plan has been developed as the we consider the population requirements of the and the existing precinct layout of the city. recommended precincts has been reduced by one, achieve the population balance. The committee the population of Richfield has decreased from 37,851 in the 1980 census. most simple when three districts The number of to nine, to also considered that 47,231 in 1970 to Plan 1B has the same district layout but has four precincts per district. This alternate would have less voters per precinct, although the committee perceives no other advantages to this plan. Plan 2 has been laid out as shown on the attached map, and has Richfield from Interstate 35-W to the eastern city limits divided horizontally through the approximate center of this section. This division has no apparent advantage over Plan 1. The following chart shows the data considered in arriving at this recommendation: 1980 population of Richfield Ideal population of each of the 3 districts Population of ,tiTest Richfield Plan 1 Population of Central Richfield Plan 1 Population of East Richfield Plan 1 Maximum deviation from ideal number Maximum deviation from ideal percentage 37,851 12,617 12,560 12,908 12,689 291 2.3% Maximum deviation between districts 348 Maximum percentage deviation between districts 2.8'/„ Population of [lest Richfield Plan 2 12,560 • Population of Northeast Richfield Plan 2 12,577 Population of Southeast Richfield Plan 2 13,020 Maximum deviation from ideal number 403 Maximum deviation from ideal percentage 3.2% Maximum deviation between Maximum percentage deviat Number Voters Richfield (It is interesting to note of the total population; districts 540 ion between districts 4.3% 24,370 that registered voters are 64% The proposed plan is within the required deviation of 5% from the ideal. The precincts have been laid out, with polling places as shown. Layout 1B, with 12 precincts, would give problems in finding enough good polling places, as well as requiring three additional groups of election judges, to man each polling site. The suggested precinct boundaries would cause minimum changes in polling locations for the voters, and would allow the closing of one of the polls that is somewhat limited in facilities. It is the recommendation of the committee that the city council adopt the attached transitory ordinance, implementing the recommenda- tion described herein as Plan IA. It is further recommended that the city council forward its adopted district and precinct boundary plan to the Minnesota Legislature, with the request that the legislature seek to recognize the already-established municipal election boundaries when drawing the boundary lines for legislative districts. Respectfully submitted, Wes Borgeson?; Chairman Richfield Citizens Redistricting Committee, on behalf of the committee, comprised of: Mr. Gordon Anderson,/ Mr. Dayle Erickson- Mrs. Irene Janski Mr. Vern Luettinger./ Ms. Annette Margarit? Ms. Suzanne Sandahli 0 f? LIST OF PROPOSED POLLING LOCATIONS PLAN 1A PRECINCT 1-----------MOUNT CALVARY EDUCATION BUILDING 6541 16th Ave. S. PRECINCT 2-----------RICHFIELD CITY HALL ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS 6700 Portland Ave. S. or 6600 Nicollet Ave. S. CHURCH OF ST. RICHARDS 7540 Penn Ave. S. PRECINCT 3----------- SHERIDAN SCHOOL 64th and Sheridan Ave. S. PRECINCT 4-----------LINCOLN HILLS SCHOOL 75th and Penn Ave. S. PRECINCT 5-----------WEST MIDDLE SCHOOL 75th and Oliver Ave. S. PRECINCT 6-----------CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 71st and Harriet Ave. S. or PRECINCT 7-----------PORTLAND SCHOOL 72nd and 4th Ave. So. PRECINCT 8----------- ELLIOT SCHOOL 7001 Elliot Ave. S. or PRECINCT 9-----------CENTENNIAL SCHOOL 73rd and Bloomington Ave. S. RICHFIELD SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL,' 7001 Harriet Ave. S. EAST MIDDLE SCHOOL 7020 12th Ave. S. Is TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES OF COUNCIL DISTRICTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.03 OF THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.03 of the City Charter of the City of Richfield, the boundaries of the three council districts of the city are hereby established as follows: District 1. All of the city lying west of Interstate 35-W. District 2. All of the city lying between Interstate 35-W and Portland Avenue. District 3. All of the city lying east of Portland Avenue. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, 0 this day of 198. Mayor ATTEST: City Cler 0 N N N N N N N ? H ti H H H -. ti H y _. ------------------------------------------- --------- i I<'mm o - --- ?r p "'? e 7c o -- „ - - rx • ,a tERYtS AVL _.__ -_ i I L 1 i - WASRBVRN AVE *ASNBURI VINCENT AVE VINCENT ' JPTON AVE _? _ _- 1 - __.._- hh??+ ? f 'JPTCN ` • . _ l ? ` - i l THOMAS NCRAAS AVE C _ ?L SNf RICAN AVE I - _- cHE RIDAN RUSSELL AVE A E?= OUE EN AVE 11-11 IN A PENN °E NA 4VI HEW `ON AvF -? 3 i -. - t - NE MOAGAN AVE I ORGAN LOGAN AVE h LOGAN Al, VNOk A' F 4Q P, ANO. AVI . PA AMES AI ? Ncri POE FE D _ E iRwmN A.E RVING A. NV+9G? MnOLDT 1 ( GIa ARC AYE - '.`?. (flr ?2D ARC A c FREMpNi AVE - -- - - mom m ! \ 8 ma : H?Nr rl EMERSON AvE Q ` ? 'wc u5OH DUPONT AVE D A r 1 \ l . GI.-ONT A /f1 COLFAX AVE - -. - . i r? _ J I 1 \ S mcn • m D , .?4. 4 Efl DO .R9YAHT AVE J -?. O 7i 6P..4NT A ALDRICR AVE G? Y a m 0 .,/ ALDRICH .NDALE AVE LTNDALE ` ? ;ARFIELC AVE ---- --- _ GARFIELD - A HARRIET RARRIF VE GPANF ... iN GRAND AV ag :; PLEA".'.' ... WSW PLEASANT I _ PILLSe„P. - _ ? - PILLSBURY NEN'WDPTN AvF C WEN: WGR' C. I'SDELL . _.E evE TE ". -vE • ,:L YENS S . ? 2,4 AVE 2nd AVE bcA AVE _ - _- -- 7•a avE _LIN' CLINTON •.• AVE AVE .LIEU^v '., t iA. AVE ANC ! -LANC pGR L ,kF,ANG oARLANo PARK AVE _ 1 _ 1 PARK AVE LJ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 18 Agenda January 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Legislative Position Statements There are a number of legislative policies attached to this council letter for review by the city council. The legislative policies relate to issues that have been, or are, a concern to the city. Each of the policies speaks for itself, but discussion at the council meeting may be appropriate to clarify any issues. For this reason, a joint city council/state legislators meet- ing has been scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on Monday, January 11, 1932 to discuss these legislative policies, as well as other items of concern to -the city. .;J • It is recommended that the city council adopt these legisla- tive policy statements. t r 3 j t 0 t KN/eja cc: Program Directors Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR PROOF OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE RELATED TO BUSINESS LICENSURE The purpose of this statement is to convey the City of Richfield' opposition to a requirement enacted by the 1981 Legislature that proof of workers' compensation insurance must be provided to the city before any business license may be issued or contract may be entered into by the city. Current Legislation Effective July 1, 1981, state law requires that every state or local licensing agency shall withhold the issuance of a license permit to operate a business in Minnesota until the applicant presents acceptable evidence of compliance with workers' compen- sation insurance ocverage requirements. Furthermore, the city is prevented from entering into any contract before receiving from all contracting parties some acceptable evidence of compliance with the state's workers' compensation coverage requirements. Impact on the City of Richfield It is the position of the City of Richfield that this legislation puts the burden of enforcing the state's workers' compensation law on the municipality, with no accompanying financial support for undertaking such an enforcement activity. The City of Richfield annually issues hundred of business license for purposes ranging from vending machines to operation of liquor establishments. The administrative costs in soliciting proof of workers' compensation insurance, and the corresponding ill will engendered by the bus- inesses who see such requirements as another proof of government gone awry represents a major cost to the municipality. It is the recommendation of the City of Richfield that this requirement be withdrawn, and that the state maintain responsibility for enforcement of its workers' compensation regulations. LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION The purpose of this statement is to convey the City of Richfield' request for designated representation on the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Current Leaislation The Metropolitan Airports Commission is designated in state law with responsibility for administering the airports in the seven- county Twin City metropolitan area. Representatives on the MAC are appointed by the governor, with each of the seven counties to have one member, and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul to each have a member. The chairman is appointed by the governor with no specific constituency of representation required. Impact on the City of Richfield It is the position of the City of Richfield that the significant impact of the Twin Cities Internation Airport on the city, which is as great as that experienced by any other municipality in any of the seven counties, is significant enough that Richfield should have a designated representative spot on the MAC. 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT SUBJECT: Tax Increment Financing The purpose of this statement is to convey Richfield's opinion that no substantitive changes in Minnesota's existing tax financing law are necessary. Position of the City of Richfield Tax increment financing has permitted many cities in various parts of the state, including Richfield, to initiate and develop rehabilitation, redevelopment, housing and economic development projects. Presently, tax increment financing represents the most feasible and effective legal strategy available to cities to pre- serve and improve the physical and economic environment in their communities. It is the position of the City of Richfield that no substantive changes in Minnesota's existing tax increment financing law are nec- essary, and the city recommends that no substantitive changes be made in the law until there is sufficient experience with this finan- cing tool to determine if changes are needed. The one deficiency which the City of Richfield feels does need correcting, and could most appropriately be corrected immediately, is that which allowed the City of Eden Prairie to create a redevelopment district inclusive of a significant amount of vacant land. The creation of that dis- trict appears to be contrary to the intent of the tax increment law, and represents a deficiency which should be studied and corrected in order to maintain the credibility of the financing vehicle as a tool for Minnesota communities. ?f CITY OF RICIiFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 17 Agenda January 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf ield Council Members: Subject: Request from South Hennepin Human Services Council (SHIISC) to Provide Payroll Services The South Hennepin Human Services Council has approached the City of Richfield with a request that the city consider assuming responsibility for processing and producing that agency's bi-weekly payroll. The payroll services for SI?MSC have previously been pro- vided by the City of Eden Prairie. Council mei<<bers might recall that the SIIIISC had requested a significant increase in Richfield's contribution toward that agency's support for 1982. Because of the city's financial con- straints, however, the actual 1982 budget adopted by the city council appropriated $2,972 for SHHSC, an increase of only 5 percent over out 19°v1 contribution. Since the cities of Eden Prairie, Bloomington and Edina, the other municipal contributors toward support of the South Hennepin Human Services Council, all increased their 1982 support to the agency by more than Richfield, South Hennepin has requested that Richfield assume responsibility for production of ttier payroll in an effort to increase our proportionate share of this agency's support. SHHSC has indicated that they will consider Richfield's contribution of fee in-kind payroll services to be equal to $1,500. The city staff has reviewed this request, and determined that the city's cost to produce the SIIIISC payroll will be equal or less than the $1,500 which SIIIISC is proposing to provide to the city for this service. There will be little, if any, additional expense to the city to provide this serivice due to our computerization of the payroll function. It is recommended that the city council discuss this matter and make a response to the South Iiennepin human Services Council Agency at the January 11, 1982 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, l J Karl Nollenberger City i,tanager cc: Director-administrative Services Executive Director, SIIIISC C CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 16 Agenda January 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and members of the city Council City of Richf ield Council members: Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Certain Capital Improvements. First Reading. In October, 1981, the city council approved the proposed 1982 budget for various city activities. Included in that budget was the 1982 Capital Improvement budget, which includes several pro- jects which are to be funded by monies from the Special Revenue Fund (liquor profits). The following projects included in the 1982 capital budget include financing from this source: Park Land acquisition $30,000 Forestry 45,000 Public Safety Building 130,000 Energy Building Improve. 7,000 $212,000 In addition to these projects, the city council has previously approved a transitory ordinance appropriating, Special Revenue monies in the amount of $176,250, to be used in conjunction with state grant monies and general revenue sharing funds for redevelop- ment of the Monroe/Fairwood Park complex. The total 1982 Special Revenue expenditures for capital improvement purposes is $388,250. Because these projects are scheduled to be implemented in 1982, it is recommended that the city council give first reading consid- eration to the attached transitory ordinance, appropriating monies froi:i the Special Revenue Fund for these projects, at the January 11, 1932 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Earl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Program Directors Finance Coordinator KN/eja TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of Capital Improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the city would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, subd. 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Park Land Acquisition $ 30,000 Forestry 45,000 Public Safety Building 130,000 Energy-Building Improvements ?,Q00 Total S?1 000 Section 3. The expenditure herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk 3 t CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City :Manager Council Letter No. 15 Agenda January 11, 1932 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Nei-abers : Subject: Council Purchases in Excess of $1,000 s 0 Y Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the City Charter stipulates the city council must approve the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are four such items on the January 11, 19L.2 city council agenda. Tractor-Loader The golf course budget includes funding for the purchase of a loader tractor-to facilitate construction and maintenance. To purchase such a tractor complete with bucket loader and cab, Carlson Tractor and Equipment Co. quoted a new Ford model 340 at a price of $24,544. We would estimate that othsr new models on the rlarket would be in this $20,000 - $25,000 range. F owever, we were able to locate a used tractor co;T)lete with loader bucket and cab. Examination and testing of this used vehicle found it to be quite satisfactory to meet our neeOls. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of a used Ford 340 tractor-loader, serial No. C611049, from Carlson Tractor and Equipment Company in the amount of $0,825. Rnc-k q,-Alt Hennepin County has received bids for rock salt through the joint purchasing agreement in which Richfield participates. The City of Richfield anticipates using 1,500 tons of rock salt during calendar year 1982. It is recommended that the city council approve a master pur- chase order for rock salt (to be used primarily for winter street maintenance) at a unit price of $19.29 per ton from Domtar Industries, Inc. The total estimated purchase price will be $28,935. Funding for this purchase is included in the 1982 street division operating budget. ., Council Letter No. 15 -2- January 11, 1932 Fertilizer The city's park maintenance program requires 24-4-12 fertil- izer for the majority of uses in the parks. Hennepin County re- cently received bids for this fertilizer. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of 10 tons of fertilizer at a unit price of $G75 less a 7 percent discount (or $627.75 per ton) for a total purchase ;rice of $6,277.50 from Turf Supply Company. Sand The city uses sand for winter estimated that 1,000 tons of sand season. The unit prices obtained 1902 calendar year. Northwestern per ton, delivered. SA-AG quoted per ton. maintenance of streets. It is are still needed for this winter by quotation are good for the Aggregares, Inc. quoted $3.02 a delivered unit price of $2.30 It is recommended that the city council authorize a master pur- chase order with SA-AG for winter sand during calendar year 1932, at a delivered unit price of $2.88 per ton, for a total estimated purchase price of $2,830. Respectfully submitted, I Xarl Nollenberger City :Manager KN/ej a cc: Community Services Director 0 ?!ry li CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 14 Agenda January 11, 1832 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Citv Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Contract - Water Treatment Chemicals On January 4, 1982 bids were opened for various water treatment chemicals. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations is attached for council review. Quick Lime The only bid submitted for quick lime, a water softening chemical, was by Cutler-Magner, in the amount of $68.95 per ton. The estimated total expenditure for the 1,400 tons of this chemical to be used per year will be $96,530. In 1980, the cost of quick lime was $63.08 per ton, and in 1981 the cost was $66.90 per ton. Liquid-Aluminum Sulfate Two bids were submitted for liquid aluminum sulfate, a water softening chemical. The lowest bid by a responsible bidder was $133 per ton, submitted by Hawkins Chemical. The estimated total 19C,2 expenditure will be $13,300, based on an estimated 100 tons usage. The 1980 cost was $101 per ton, and in 1981 was $121 per ton. Liquid Anhydrous Ammonia Three bids were submitted for liquid anhydrous aramonia, a water softening chemical. The lowest bid by a responsible bidder was $.2895 per pound, submitted by Van Uaters and Rogers. The estimated 1982 total expenditure will be $863.50 based, on a 1 1/2 ton usage. In 1930, this cost was $.30 per pound, and in 1931 it was $.29 per pound. Sodium Silico Fluoride Three bids were submitted for silico fluoric:c. The lowest bid by a responsible bidder was $23.56 per 100 pound unit, submitted by Van Waters and Rogers. The estii:lated total 1982 expenditure for 21,000 pounds will be $4,947.60. The city paid $24.50 per 100 pounds for this chemical in 1980, and $24.30 per 100 pound unit in 1901. Council Letter No. 14 -2- January 11, 1982 Sodium Polyphospate This chemical is a conditioner of water and of the sand fil- ter used in the water processing. Typically, 12,000 pounds would be used in ball form, but with modifications and improvements to the water plant, the specifications were written to receive bids for both the ball form and the pulverized form, with the city having the option to order either form, but anticipating 6,000 pounds of each form to be used in 1982. For the ball form, two bids were received. The lowest bid by a responsible bidder was $1.089 per pound submitted by Nalco Chem- ical. The estimated 1982 expenditure for 6,000 pounds would be $6,534. For the pulversized form, two bids were received. Van Waters and Rogers submitted a bid that does not meet specifications as to the chemical formula. The company has confirmed that the chemical in their bid does not meet specifications. 't'herefore, there is only one bid meeting specifications. This bid was submitted by Nalco Chemical in the amount of $1.089 per pound, for an estimated 1932 expenditure for 6,000 pounds in the amount of $6,534. In 1979, this chemical was not bid, the 1930 cost was $.7478 per pound and in 1981 the cost was $.881 per pound. Summary Funds for these purchases are included in the 1982 operating budget of the water treatment plant. It is recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations on the water treatment chemicals; 2. Accept the bid for quick lime in the amount of $63.95 per ton and award the contract to Cutler-Magner; 3. Accept the bid for liquid aluminum sulfate in the amount of $133/ton and award the contract to 11awkins Chemical; 4. Accept the bid for liquid anhydrous armnonia in the amount of $.2895 per pound and award the contract to Van Waters and Rogers; 5. Accept the bid for solidum silico fluoride in the amount of $23.50 per 100 pounds and award the contract to Van PY'aters and Rogers; 6. Accept the bid for sodium polyphosphate in the amount of $1.089 per pound for either the ball form or the pulver- ized form and award the contract to Nalco Chemical. Respectfully submitted, l Earl Jollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director Chemicals for Water Plant CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening January 4, 1982 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 Chemicals for the Water Plant as adver- tised in the official newspaper on December 23, and 30, 1981. Present: Joyce L. Wilde,Assistant City Manager Don Fondricl,, Community Services Director Sylvia Bergh City Clerk c The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR & QUICK LIQ. ALUM. LIQ. ANHY. SODIUM SIL. SOD. POLY. SOD. POLY. BID SECURITY LIME SULFATE AMMONIA FLUORIDE (BALL FORM) (PULVERIZED Jones Chemicals, Inc. 46.50/U nit $24.50/Unit B.B. 5% $930 $ 5,145 Nalco Chemical Co. $653.60 Check Hawkins Chemical, Inc. $133/Ton 35c/Unit $25.75/Unit B.B. 5% $13,330 $1,050 --$5Z407.50 - 1.089?/lb. 1.089?/lb. $6,534 $6,534 Allied Chemical $181/Ton B.B. 5% $18,100 Cutler Magner $68.95/Ton B.B. 5% _$96,530 - _- Van Waters & Rogers B.B. 5% 43.425c/Unit$23.56/Unit 1.18q/Ib. .658?,/Lb $868 _50_-- 4 947_50 -_$7080 -_-$3,948 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of January 11, 1982. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 13 Agenda January 11, 1982 41. w 2 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Various Fees and Charges In November, 1981, the city council adopted a resolution establishing the schedule of permit and license fees which will be charged by the city for various licenses, permits and other miscellaneous activities during 1982. The city attorney's office, in the course of finalizing that resolution, discovered that certain of the fees included in that resolution ar e?not now clearly provided for in city ordinances. Although the fees have been established by council resolution, it is the determination of the city attorney that such fees and charges will be given additional legal substantiation if the city ordinance is amended to specifically authorize these fees and charges. Attached to this council letter is a copy of a proposed ordinance amendment which would authorize the fees and charges contained in the license fee resolution relating to housing inspection fees and various water and sewer service items. It is recommended that the city council give first reading approval to this ordinance amendment at the January 11, 1982 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: City Clerk City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION (1), (4) OF THE RELATING TO INSPECTIONS TO AMENDING SECTIONS 3.06, 8.03, (1), 8.13, AND 8.21, SUBDIVISIONS and (S) OF THE ORDINANCE CODE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, FEES TO BE CHARGED FOR HOUSING AND FOR CITY SERVICES RELATING SEWER AND WATER SERVICE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: (1) Section 3.06 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Building and Construction Permits: Issuance and Procedure" is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subdivision: Subd. 11. Housing Inspection Fees. A fee for each house inspection shall be charged by the city. f a (2) Subdivision 1 of Section 8.03 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield relating to connections of city buildings to the city sanitary sewer system is hereby amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Unauthorized connections. No unauthor- ized person shall uncover, make any connections with or openings into, use, alter, cap off, abandon, or disturb any public sewer or appurtenance thereof without first obtaining a written permit from the building inspector and otherwise complying with the terms of this chapter. (3) Section 8.13 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield relating to the use of the city's water system is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 8.13. Use of Water Restricted to Authorized Persons. No person, firm or corporation shall make, construct or install any water service installation or make use of any water service, or cap off or abandon any water service connected to the municipal water system except pursuant to application and permit as provided in this part, nor shall any person, firm or corporation otherwise make, construct, install or make use of any installation connected to the municipal water system contrary to the regulatory provisions of this part. Additions [Deletions] 4 (4) Subdivisions 1, 4 and 5 of Section 8.21 of the ordi- nance code of the City of Richfield relating to the use of the city's water system are hereby amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Curb Box Connection Permit. A permit must be obtained to connect to existing water service leads at the curb box. The fee for each such permit [is $10.00] shall be as provided in Appendix D of this code. No permit shall be issued except to a plumber registered with the city. Subd. 4. Turning on Water. For turning on water where service has been turned off for non-payment of water bill, failure to repair a leak, discontinuance of service or any other cause, a service charge [of $10.00] as provided in Appendix D of this code will be made. Subd. S. Adjustment of Curb Box. For raising or lowering stop-box tops to correspond with ground level change made by the property owner, a service charge [of $15.00] as provided in Appendix D of this code will be made. 11 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1981. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • Additions [Deletions] r .: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 12 Agenda January 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Subj ect : Council Review of City's Off-Street Parking Guidelines 7 Statistics provided by the automobile industry indicate that 1 the number of small cars in use has been increasing, and will continue to increase in the future. In 1980, it was estimated that 45 percent of all cars in use were compact or subcompact in size. _K It is estimated that this number of small cars could increase to 75 percent of all cars by 1985. As can be seen in Exhibit 1, auto industry statistics also show that, since 1974, the size of each class of car (full size, intermediate, compact and subcompact) has also decreased. The length of cars has decreased by as much as 2.7 feet, depending on the class, with the largest decrease in length occuring in the subcompact class. The width of cars has also decreased by as much as .7 feet, again depending on the class of vehicle. However, there are still larger vehicles being made and used, such as vans, trucks and recreational vehicles, which typically are larger than automobiles. In light of this trend toward smaller cars, the staff has recently conducted a study to see if Richfield's off-street parking guidelines are consistent with national standards, other community standards and local demand. The study was to evaluate the effect, if any, that the trend toward smaller cars had had on parking lot standards and to see if Richfield's standards are excessive. In this study, we were particularly interested in three types s of standards. First we looked at dimension standards for parking stalls and driving aisles. As can be seen in Exhibit 2, Richfield's standards are, in most cases, within the range of the standards required by other communities and within national standards, although on the middle to high end of the range. A number of communities, such as Bloomington and Burnsville, do not have specific driving aisle width requirements, but instead require that each parking space include a minimum of 300 square feet of parking and maneuver- ing area. 0 Council Letter No. 12 -2- January 11, 1982 In response to the trend toward smaller vehicles, many com- munities have modified their regulations to permit compact car parking spaces. These ordinances normally specify stall size, percent of compact car parking spaces permitted, location of stalls and sign requirements. Richfield does not currently have such provisions. Exhibit 3 describes compact parking stall standards for a number of other communities. The third area researched was the number of parking stalls required for certain uses. There was specific interest in the following three types of uses: Business and Professional Offices, Retail Commercial Uses, and Medical and Dental Clinics. There have been indications from various developers that Richfield's office and retail commercial standards were excessive. Medical and Dental Clinic standards were reviewed because the current standard is confusing and difficult to interpret. Exhibit 4 compares Richfield's requirements for these particular uses with the standards of other area communities and with national standards. In summary, what was found was a typical standard for office uses of one space for each 200 square feet of floor area. However, most communities use gross leasable floor area or exclude halls, mechanical spaces, stairways, storage areas, bathrooms, utility rooms, and similar spaces. Richfield's current standards do neither of the above, so it is the opinion of the staff that our standards do appear to be excessive. Richfield's standards for retail commercial uses is well within the range of other standards and there would appear to be no justification for changing that. There appears to be a wide range of standards for medical and dental clinics. Richfield's standard, as it is interpreted, appears to be in a reasonable range so no change, other than to clarify the language, would appear to be necessary. Based on the study, it is recommended that the following changes be made to the city's off-street parking guidelines: 1. Reduce the minimum parking stall depth from 20 feet to 19 feet. 2. Reduce the minimum parking stall width from 9 feet to 8.5 feet. 3. Reduce the minimum driving aisle width for two-way traffic from 24 feet to 22 feet. Required fire lanes must be maintained to the Public Safety Department standards, however. 4. Allow up to 20 percent of the spaces in parking lots to be designed for compact cars. The minimum size for these spaces should be 8 feet wide by 16 feet deep. These stalls should be properly signed for compact car use only. 0 5. Reduce the number of car spaces required for business and professional uses from 5 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area to,3-:5_spaces for each 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area. 4_«_? Council Letter No. 12 -3- January 11, 1932 6. Establish the number of car speces required for medical and dental clinics at five spaces for each doctor and one space for each two employees for medical clinics, and three spaces for each dentist and one space for each two employees for dental clinics. The Planning Commission has reviewed these proposed changes and recommended that the city council amend the city's off-street parking guidelines as recommended. To implement these changes, the council need only to approve the policy change. No ordinance change or resolution is necess- ary. City Ordinance, in Section 4.05, subdivision 9, indicates that standard specifications for the construction; marking and equipping of parking areas shall be prepared and made available for use by applicants for off-street parking, permits. These specifications have been prepared in the past, and if approved, the changes recommended above would be incorporated into those specifications. Respectfully subi:iitted, i Karl Nollenberger City Llanager cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Engineer KN/ea N O c n / \ O r \ -w O a 3 O o 3 17.4' 16.4 CL - 0 PM N j O o 0 - o ,.« Cr (D 07- N ti N N \ / N 0 < 14.9' d cz 12.2' CL N f \\ O N N M - 0 cD (D a d Q d c / \\ O 0 0 o Q d n - r. / 15.5' 14.9' IT n N O m 3 - Ell n P. K t ! 191HXD m 5l 17.6' A ,ik E .r` r?K 4 .???5 Ac R I C fI F I E L D X 300 450 60° 90° EXHIBIT 2 O T II E R S I D S 30° 45° 60° A 91 91 - 9 ' B 20' 20' - 20 C 18' 15' - 24 D 58' 55' - 64' X = angle of paring stall 8.5-9' 19-20 10-15' 48-55' 8.5-9' 18-20 12-16 45-56 18-20 17-18 53-58 90° 8. 5-10 18-20 20-28 60-65 December, 1981 • 0 i :t EXHIBIT 3 COMPACT PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF CERTAIN COMMUNITIES MUNICIPALITY SPACE SIZE MINIMUM NUMBER (in feet) OF SPACES Alexandria, ( Virginia 8 X 16 25 Concord, Massachusetts 7.5 X 15 40 Des Plaines, Illinois 8 X 16 100 Fullerton, California 8 X 16 0 -;x Hopkins, Minnesota 8 X 16 0 t Helena, Montana 7.5 X 15 20 Los Angeles, California 7.5 X 15 10 Modesto , California 7.5 X 15 0 Newton, Massachusetts 7 X 17 or 19 50 Novato California 7 X 14 0 St. Louis Park, Minnesota 7.5 X 16 50 ' Walnut Creek, California 7.5 X 15 0 MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF COMPACT SPACES 30 15 20 20 40 25 20 20 10 25 10 30 *iSinimur,l n Aber of spaces?a parking area mus? contain before compact spaces can be ut?lized. December, 1981 -IT . x x - w H N r-1 UI CQ A ??e+ .b C) rd E, ro w ^+ W ? a w H tf1 a a H •? W H x C) a o ? w x a u a o 2 W H Q H J-1 N b N W i 14 8 '1 0C) C) 0 b ro ° w 1 U) C) O 8 NO 14 r - U) US' H 1 I U O D rryJ C) U) W 113 O CD Cr, M M U ccjj CD N J 1 " M :? w r3 0 m ? Q x O a x x x 1 O i Q,4 W RS O U) sJ 173 O N W f0 W I O N 1 W Q C 1 CJ W 1 O l? 1 O r S .. ? N y ) a) u • . ro N ji NO 0 -A 44 -A J w w 4 10 0 8 ?.I 8 8 N 1v ' r 1?CW N 11 44 ° w w 8 ro N N ? S 1 ? .? Sa N 0 O ro O n,w vv C? ro 0 0 w a w N O a U V w ?o co U U O ? 0 O O? 24 U) U R Rjj ?4 Q • J JJ W C 2 ? rro ? U? ' Q) w . 4 a O v In v 8 ro o - l4 wm8 0v0ri 08 8 11-4 ? CChjow C) In O N W U.-iw Urw -1 44 w N r? w w co -1 0 w rt rd J .-? C ra U 1 O U O W N S.! 8 W J1 Or-i 44 0 JJ 0 N w 8 N? w N o w N 8 1 w w U N W + U CN W U O N O 0`)4 ( A ro O mm ro -1+C) C ?u ?ro o ro G L N O N ac ro UI u N 4 . 0 N N O G 4-1 c i :%. n Iro, 44 CD 44 U N U O U1 O ? r ? ro * CL w ? 0 W a w C) ? O 44 0 oo 44 - u 3 b U Uw ?r o n + pw auf? g s U) CN1 a e g O Oa N H 1? Ln w w LT rl ri J JJ G'y 0 O w O N U7 U7 N SJ O O U? O J 8 8 0 c -9 0 U) s? C J O (D UP ?-4 U) UO w U W U) r-I W U 'O U) .c 0 0 ? C 10 C) 4-j LH M N QJ•? U7 N L 1.1 N N O O 2 0? (1 W E 114 ?A O ? 44 ?4 U J CJ 0 w NO ?ro NO ?N 1J w S N 8 U N W U N W U 'LJ U) U1 %y N 0 u a. ry 0 14 L L -C 8 N N -1 N O U v Ul 8 U7 r UI ? M 1J .-1 ,-? f w W N 1) .--1 .-i W w C? N In N U) J U w . ro t rJ y r 0 r ?4 C r-i r! F 4 f? C .D U) 'i :J G7 r-1 N U --? w N rl f: '.? O 11 ri G U -rl N I7' U N ?4 (1) 41 O U 4 G 1J r ^ co 7 N 0 v) 41 0 O 3U 'O to A O b ?3 AcNi ? - o 0 o (D V) G A 44 w o,? w ? ro 0 N r?-I S4 U r6 U O U C) fn N u7 Q) 4j a? rcl uo) 24 a? N ro C2 l Q LI ,-+ 0 T Z3) ro U) ?4 U) w b +4 satin > m 3 ,3 b ro a ro N v N N ro ro 0 q:5 b ..Ui U '.? 3U N ? u v-, U p to CUC - O -? N ?%i -r1 N 4j 4j 2 C C) G 'U W r- N ? E u) -Grl C U) u88tr ?3 b 2ro say A 8 N trA ro ro S4 C S-1 U1 88W 8 8 W W O •q1 W Q O , O ?L lNC - N C +NJ N U7 ?4 JOJ x 41 ? x x • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 11 Agenda January 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 7401 Lyndale Avenue South HISTORY On November 9, 1981, the city council considered a request for a variance and an off-street parking permit at %401 Lyndale Avenue South. As part of the off-street parking requirements, the applicants were required to construct a fence along the east property line to screen the property from the adjacent multiple residential-zoned property. The property owner indicated that he did not believe he should have to provide this fence; therefore this matter was referred back to the Planning Commission. The city attorney's office has indicated that because the matter of the fence is a land use matter, it should be processed as a zoning variance. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 4.05, subdivision 8, of the zoning ordinance requires screening of parking areas adjacent to multiple residences; section 3.04, subdivision 6, lists three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted. STAFF REVIEW In the opinion of the staff, there are no special conditions affecting this particular site. It is a typically-sized commercial site of regular shape. Denial of this variance would not preclude reasonable use of the property. The applicant could continue to use the property for its present or other commercial use. The variance is necessary to protect the property rights of the property owners of the adjacent multiple residence property. Council Letter No. 11 -2- January 11, 1982 The proposed variance would have a detrimental effect on the residents of the townhouse project to be developed on the adjacent multiple residence property. Screening is important to separate commercial property from adjacent residential property. Screening helps to protect residences from the noise, headlights and other problems which can arise from commercial uses. While the commercial use is not a high volume, intense commercial use which could have a significant negative effect on the adjacent residences, the use at any time could change to such a commercial use. The city gets numerous complaints from residential property owners adjacent to commercial uses in other areas of the city. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the requested variance does not meet the three conditions necessary for granting of a variance, the staff must recommend denial of this application. PLANNING COMISSSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that this variance request be denied. Respectfully submitted, KN/sh Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner L? m - z m tP M L3I ?: ? '^^x"44... ? 3j y f? n n t ? f I Z t t? ? ? i LI i t! ? ? ? n?• tA2 r itlY ;? ? ? ? 7il t ? F ? Z a ,. r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager /%./ Council Letter No. 10 Agenda January 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Contract for Kennel Services with the City of Bloomington For the past seven years, the City of Richfield has had a contract with Oak Crest Kennels to care for the animals impounded by the Public Safety Department. The kennel facility is housed some distance from the City of Richfield, in the City of Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. During the time the present contract has been in effect, the City of Richfield has had periodic dis- cussions with the City of Bloomington with regard to the possibility of jointly using the kennel facility operated by Bloomington, which is located at West 96th Street and James Avenue South. The problem with utilizing the Bloomington facility has been related to the fact that it has historically been an unattended kennel facility. Therefore, to release animals to their owners, a Richfield employee would have to go to the Bloomington facility to handle each release. During the past year, Bloomington has changed the operation of their kennel facility so that they currently have an attendant on duty during portions of each day. As a result, the City of Bloomington is now contracting for kennel services with the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie and Chaska. Richfield now has an opportunity to enter into the joint kennel facility in Bloomington with the other four communities involved. The cost to the City of Richfield would be identical to the present cost charged by Oak Crest Kennels. Therefore, there would be no direct cost savings in terms of impounding, boarding and disposition fees. However, the Oak Crest facility is located 26 miles round-trip from our city hall, while the Bloomington facility is located only six miles round-trip from our city hall facility. The transfer of our kenneling activity to the Blooming- ton facility would be significantly more convenient for Richfield residents in terms of transportation time and location, as well as being of a significant cost savings in terms of personnel time for our Public Safety Officers. In addition to the savings in personnel costs, there would also be a savings in the mileage accumulated on our animal control vehicle. 0 wi t L x - I 0 Council Letter No. 10 -2- January 11, 1982. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which T concur, that the City of Richfield enter into a contract with the City of Bloomington for joint use of their kenneling facility for the calendar year 1982. The contract change would become effective on February 1, 1982. A copy of the proposed contract is attached for council consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Public Safety Director THIS AGREEMENT executed on the 14th day of December 1981, by and between the City of Bloomington, a municipal corporation, Hennepin • County, Minnesota, party of the first part (hereinafter called "City"), and Richfield, party of the second part. WITNESSETH that: WHEREAS, the City has facilities available for the impoundment of dogs available for the use of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Richfield is desirous of making use of the City's facilities for the impoundment and storage of animals which are impounded pursuant to the ordinances of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the parties are agreed on the type of use and manner of us by Richfield of the City's impoundment facilities; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to reduce their understanding in the premises to writing: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Richfield may deliver animals to the City's impoundment facilities, and the City will. keep said animals for five dollars (55.00) per day, per animal, to be paid by Richfield. 2. That Bloomington shall assume the responsibility for releasing animals which have been delivered to the City to those owners wishing to redeem said animals. 3. That in the event an impounded animal- needs to be disposed of pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, City or Richfield ordinances, the City will do so at a charge of five dollars (55.00) per animal to be paid by Richfield. 4. That Pichfield will hold the City of Bloomin?Iton harmless from, any liability arising out oI the impoundment or destruction of animals delivered to tfie City by kichffieId. a f Z - 5. This Agreement shalt be for a period of one year from the date of its execution by the last party to execute it and shall be auto- matically renewable from year to year unless either party gives thirty r.,., days' notice that it wishes not to renew the Agreement. The fees charged by the City against Richfield shall be subject to review and negotiation prior to thirty days (30) before the yearly renewal date. Signed and sealed on the day first above written. / IV In presence of: / In presence of: CITY OF SiLQOMINGTON By 0 Actin; May and • t Nlana?r CITY OF RICHFIELD By Nlavnr and Ci ty Manage r LJ ,I i STfJE OF MINNESOTA ) s s COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 14th day of December 1981, before me, a Notary Public wit in an for said County, personally appeared Roger A. Blessum and John G. Pidaeon to me personally known, who, being-each by me u1y sv;nrn di say t at they are respectively the ACTING MAYOR and CITY M"'%NAGER of the CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was sicTned and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its CITY COUNCIL and said Acting Mayor and acknowledged said instrument to e the corporation. S ;: t F NCiAP r".. i t r ,+. 4 My corn:. "'= YV?A?W?yVWJ?Mn/V ,/VJ?'N.',MPvW NV!f• . STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss On this day of ), 1981, before me, a Notary Public within annE-for said,County, personally appeared and to me personally known, wtio, being each y me my si•:orn id say that they are respectively the MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER of the CITY OF RICHFIELD, the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its CITY COUNCIL and said and ~ acknowledged sai3-instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. City manager free act an ee o said CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 9 Agenda January 11, 1982 3 t The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 211 West 76th Street PROPOSAL Mr. Timothy Gleason, owner and operator of Gleason Mortuary, has submitted an application for a variance to allow the construction of an attached roof over an existing entryway. The proposed roof would extend 10.5 feet from the front of the main building, replace- ing an old roof that extended 4.75 feet into the front yard. The proposal would reduce the front yard setback from 14.75 feet to 7.5 feet. The structure, which is partially constructed at this time, will architecturally match the existing building. The property, located at 211 West 76th Street, is zoned "I" industrial. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.34, subdivision 5 of the zoning ordinance lists yard requirements for Industrial Zoning districts, including 40__t?t front yard setbacks. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, sets three con- ditions which must be met before a variance may be granted. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed this request against the three conditions and made the following findings: 1. That there are no special conditions affecting this particular lot not common to other properties in this or similar districts; 2. That denial of this application will not preclude existing or reasonable use of the property; is 3. That the applicant had already begun construction of the roof, and was issued a stop work order until the variance requirement is resolved. The main structure is 18 feet from 76th Street; the proposed roof would reduce this to 7.5 feet. Although the proposal is an improvement to the property, and would not pose any hazards or be injurious to properties in the area, the staff is of the opinion that a setback reduction of this magnitude would be contrary to community standards set forth in the zoning ordinance. Council Letter No. 9 -2- January 11, 1982 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposal does not meet all of the three conditions necessary for granting of a variance, the staff must recommend denial of this application. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission, on a 6-3 vote, recommends approval of this requested variance. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenebrger City Manager KN/ sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner - L- r 1 r i I I ? _ i I I i I I F I I n 1 --r- x } j I-T i i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 8 Agenda January 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit, 6300 Lyndale Avenue South PPnPng7\T. Mr. Edward Bird, representing Food-N-Fuel, Inc., has submitted a request for a special use permit to allow the conversion of a gasoline service station into a gasoline/convenience store. The applicant is proposing to remodel the interior of the building, including closing the existing service bays. The applicants are not proposing.any plans that would expand the building. The property, located at 6300 Lyndale Avenue, is zoned "C-2" general commercial. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.33, subdivision 2 of the zoning ordinance lists gasoline service station stores s as a permitted use by special use permits, in "C-2" general commercial zoning districts. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, lists criteria governing the issuance of special use permits. STAFF FINDINGS The staff has reviewed the proposal and found the following: 1. That the proposed use is in compliance with the regulations relating to gasoline service stations except that the property abuts residentially zoned property; 2. That the use has existed for a number of years, and the city has received no complaints from surrounding property owners; 3. That the retail commercial use will remain as the principle V use. The addition of a convenience store should not pose any additional negative impacts; 4. That the proposal is in substantial compliance with the conditions governing the issuance of special use permits. The staff has been contacted by several neighbors, expressing support for this request. Council Letter No. 8 -2- January 11, 1982 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposal is in substantial compliance with the conditions governing the issuance of special use permits, the staff recommends approval of this application. NECESSARY ACTION The Planning Commission, on a unanimous vote, recommends approval of this requested special use permit. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner 43 a t 4.rE +? 1 1 (? r ' d I f? ` • I ? P i i r Z 4 REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF Food-N-Fuel FOR PURPOSE OF convert tire repa into grocery gas score s1`? PrI - ? Da a ?ZuS Legal Description: Lyndhurst 2nd addition. Blockl...lots 1,2,3,4 We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the Special Use as requested. Signature of Owners Address Legal Description c. ,3G t- 5-2 0 A ", [r i FT i Z Chi' ? ? ? 0 \ I • i REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF Food-N-Fuel FOR PURPOSE OF Convert tire repair s op grocery ggas store Legal Description Lyndhurst 2nd addition, block 1, lot 1,2,3,4 We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land 'as at,:,ve do hereby concur with the Special Use as requested. Signature of Owners t-' a 3 `- e?l Fx. hN • 3 REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF r,J _ .4- FOR PURPOSE OF Legal Description: Wei the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land 'as above sc. :bid, do hereby concur with the Special Use as requested. Signature of Owners Address Leiai Description ??, '? t o ^J ?41?4 ?? -- -- fc. i REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF Food-N-Fuel _ FOR PURPOSE OF convert tize rena.ir into grocery/has store Legal Description: Lyndhurst 2nd addition/block 1, lots 1,2,3,4 We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land 'as above do hereby concur with the Special Use as requested. Signature of Owners Address Legal Dcscrioti,rn y 3 c78 C?? i (0 -3 !?? i J I I gqm?MAP -O 0 ° 1)0 000y °O ° 0 ° °0 ..Ov°vOOt?Oc?OVQ - O° ° 0° ° l 0° -- - 09 o o oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0: o o o o 0 0 0°0 3 °0°0°0? . 0 0° o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- - - 1 - ' 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 cooooo 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0°0°0° oooo-ooo -.0-, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ° 1° 0 0 0 , _• /1 / /1? 000000- i? O°°°ooo 0 4 0 0 00000 I oo°OO°°° .-.o' J 0 0 1 0 0 '.0000000000 0 ° ° o n ? ' ?., - o°o°o°OO°o°o 000000 0 0 0 0 0 •e o o o o o o o o000000 ° o° °°°O ?I --- 0 0 0 0 0 0000 p > o o 0 0 0 0 0000000, 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?? 00000 00000 >°0°00 0 0 ?° 00000000 00000 0 00000000 - a y c ? - '? - 0 ooooo ° 0 0 0 0 0) O O 0 o' 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0000000000O' X0000000 - -- - - --- ' . 0 00 • O O o 0.". 0 1 o 0C00 O 00 Q' ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O0000 O O00 0 0 00 J 000 .J - ooa°o°o`oo R°oo b 00000 ?o0 00o00 0 00o 00o0 00o0 0000 0 0 0. I o 00 0 r T 6, ?_• 0 0° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c ? O 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10000000 ? -- ' 000 O .. 0 00 000 0 0 0 0 0 C 00 0 ° ° ° 0 0 0 0 o O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° ° ,? - - - ,? _- i' o o S 0°o° 0 o°O°° 00° 000°0 °o o o 0 0 0 0? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Iooooooo C _I v Z , 00000,,00004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u _ ro 0 0 0'11'0- ?y _ o 0 0 0 o 0 10 ?p5 M - - - a - - - - 0 0 0°°°0 0°0 00 o° 0 0 0 X000000 00 C 0000 0 0 0 0 0 co 00 90 - - --? _ " Q 10 D - 'J 6 s J{ - _ 1°°°o 0 0 0 0 °1 :'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; y. , 1 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0- ).,.o ° W °°° 0 0 ° co o 0 J •::-•_:- ?J ?oaoaoa _ _ioo0 fF:>; r• --- -- ,ono o o o o ° GENERAL COMMERCIAL J SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL t.; MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL e i , . I ?'.iJWuIO d.'ithc vyltF' Y "O OOO 0 0 .... 0 0 0 0 0 0( `-2 n O 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c 9 0 0 0 c o o n o 0 0 o n o 0 o n° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n c a o 0 0 0 o n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0„0„000?0?0?o0o0ono 0 o„c , _'. _. T 'LAAP LLJ g > i, >; 9 8 -- a 8 5 :+ o L] " .fir. " I ~- , __ - - 6 7 6 tc -- y • r 1 00 0 0000 L- ?.y 4. 0 0 0 0 o a c o0 ooooco - - - w ? _y r - _ _ t . rfs .. . . O J S P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °oo°oob, 4 0 0 0 0 0 o i I + n L y V om 7 r _ 2 ?; --_. ? i O O O O O O t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y .? _? - ... ST ,,- o f3 .. oooo•OOOO o00o I o 0 0 o°b° I % c I I 0°0 ngo°o o c ?. I .J _ I m .- 1a 2 p b o°o - j - 0o as I I r i ' ,?? y? 00000 2 ? .air 3 a °o`co°o L- J J - - i9 4 oa°o°? °°? ri r4 , I r - L73 611 w ! j6 - - .1 Q 7 I c ' .;. .Z g 7 6 5 4 3 2 I 3 i ? ti x b=? ih 1 I f- I Signatures of tennants of multi-family dwellings ? I Signatures of residents of single family dwellings ti n0 .'IJ1 - - 6 4 ? T 6 ? \ f eilS h CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Letter No. 7 Agenda January 11, 1982 Council Members: D J+?J a' Subject: Request for Variance, 7504f-en Avenue South PROPOSAL Ms. Ruth Bingham has submitted an application to reduce the required front yard setback of 33 feet to 29 feet. The variance would permit the construction of a vestibule onto the front of the house. The proposed addition is four feet by eight feet, and will architectually match the main structure. The property, located at 7504 Dupont Avenue South, is zoned "R" single family residential. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.30,subdivision 4,of the zoning ordinance lists lot area requirements for the residential district. Section 3.39, subdivision 2, states that the average front yard setback on the block shall be the required front yard setback; in this instance 33 feet is the required front yard setback. Section 3.40, sub- division 6, lists three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed this request against the three conditions and made the following findings: 1. That there are no special conditions affecting this particular property not common to other properties in this or similar districts; 2. That denial of this application will not preclude reasonable or existing use of the property; 3. That the proposal is an improvement to the applicant's property and should not pose any hazards or be injurious to the public welfare. _2- January 11, 1982. Council Letter No. 7 STAFF REVIEW AGAINST PENDING RESIDENTIAL ZONING ORDINANCE Review against the proposed residential zoning ordinance revisions indicates that the applicant could extend the vestibule into the front yard by three feet, instead of the proposed four feet. This would reduce the front setback to 30 feet and require no variances. This was discussed with the contractor; however, the contractor felt the need for a four-foot vestibule. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposal does not meet all of the three conditions for granting of a variance, the planning staff -must recommend denial of this application. However, the city manager recommends approval of the variance application. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission, on a 5-4 vote, recoim-ends denial of this requested variance. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner glnoS anUOAV luo dnCl Y v- ? O? I 4 4 ` I N 00 O 10? L Q? I a I ? ? I _I Lr) r 1OS a W m w LLa O tr O O N _N O' O R r d co 0 (1) 4Z ?t I i I ?I - I I ` I - I t ! I I I r + I I 1 I I ?i 14 ? 11 Na35 •