Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
12-14-81 agenda
:41 / y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City manager i Council Letter No. 431 Agenda December 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Charter Amendments Relating to City Purchasing Practices, Amending Sections 6.05 and 6.06 of the City Charter. First Reading. The Richfield Charter Commission has recommended amending provisions of the city charter relating to purchasing and contracts. A copy of the two ordinances which implement these two charter amendments are attached. One ordinance relates to Section 6.05 of the city charter, while the other relates to Section 6.06 of the city charter. Section 6.06 of the current charter provides that contracts exceeding $2,500 shall be let only by the council based upon the lowest responsible bid after sealed competitive bids have been taken. The charter commission has suggested increasing that amount to $10,000. Currently the state law provides for a $10,000 require- ment for sealed competitive bidding. An attorney general's opinion in 1971 indicated that the Uniform Purchasing Law of the State super- ceded local home rule charters. For that reason, the city practice since that time has been to require sealed, competitive bids only for contracts in excess of $10,000, despite our local charter pro- vision. In addition, the new charter language would clarify the types of contracts covered by the provision of 6.06. The additional language would clarify the relationship to state law and bring the charter into conformity thereof. Since the state law supercedes our city charter on this issue, and since our existing practice has been to utilize the state law, it is recommended that the city council adopt the ordinance amending Section 6.06 of the city charter entitled "Contracts How Let." The second ordinance recommended by the charter commission re- lates to the specific authorization that the city manager has for purchases and contracts. The new amendment would provide that the city manager may make or let contracts for purchases which do not exceed $5,000. This increases the city manager's authorization to make purchases without prior city council approval from $1,000 to $5,000. 0 Council Letter No. 431 -2- December 14, 1981 By raising the limit under which the city manager can make acquisitions without approval by the city council, we are not eliminating or by- passing, good purchasing practices. As a former director of finance in charge of purchasing activities in another community, I am well aware of the necessity to ensure competitive purchasing practices in order to produce the best buying situation for the city. Our current practice is to require at least three competitive quotations for any purchase in excess of $1000. That practice would not be altered in the event that the ability to let contracts by the city without council approval was raised from $1,000 to $5,000. Please be assured that the intent of the charter amendment is not to raise the purchasing costs of the city, by paying higher prices in a less competitive situation, but rather to decrease operational costs to our community. The amount of items subject to the purchase in excess of $1,000 limitation has mushroomed in the last three years. Attachment A to this letter indicates the types of items which fell into the purchases in excess of $1,000 category in 1978. The second attachment shows the types of items which were subject to the purchase in excess of $1,000 from 1979 through 1981. The toll that inflation has taken on the $1,000 limitation has been ex- cessive. Extremely routine matters such as the purchase of paper, freon at the ice arena, chemicals for the water plant, carpet shampooer, paint, diving boards, sod, tires, and signs have come to the point of being part of the purchase in excess of $1,000. The biggest amount of loss comes in the operating inefficiencies that this limitation imposes upon city departments. In order to understand that operating ineffic- iency, a more detailed explanation follows,: Wherever it is possible,the city work forces are combined in order to create a pool of resources for operational needs. For instance, our maintenance activities are all grouped under the maintenance division in our Community Services Department. Activities are dele- gated to the maintenance workers on a cyclical basis as the seasons change. We can frequently anticipate wort: activities and have the needed supplies and materials on hand for the smooth operation of our maintenance function. However, from time to time, situations which are not easily forseeable arise. For example, in event of a winter slow work period when there is not an excessive amount of snow or ice to clean from the streets, we will allocate our manpower to tasks which can save us time in the ensuing summer months. As an example, we may be building fences to be erected in the follow- ing summer. We will then make a visit to lumber stores to find the lumber necessary to build such a fence, only to find that the cost of lumber has escalated to the point that the materials cannot be purchased for less than $1,000. Council Letter No. 431 -3- December 14, 1981 The alternatives weeks necessary lose the benefit a slow time), or a subsequent day forth, until the available at that time are to wait the two to three for city council approval of the acquisition (and of being able to work that particular activity into acquire $900 worth of material on one day, return on for an additional $900 worth of material, and so proper amount is accumulated.. There are significant implications to this manner of purchasing. First, it flaunts the charter requirement and encourages disrespect for the legal framework within which we operate. Secondly, it re- quires an excessive amount of staff time to continually make trips to suppliers to pick up materials, but on the offset side, it saves staff time when work fill-in jobs could not otherwise be accomplished. Thirdly, it prevents us from purchasing in quantity and achieving discounts where appropriate for quantity purchases. Finally, it produces a lack of control over operations resulting in an inefficient, uneconomical system which is a disservice to our taxpayers. The specific example I have related to you is repeated from time to time in the city. For each purchase in excess of $1,000, a memorandum must be prepared by an administrative assistant in each department, put together by the departmental secretary and forwarded to my office. At that time, it gets put together into another memorandum which conforms with the • agenda format, and utlimately ends up in the city council hands. It appears on the city council agenda under the Consent Calendar, at which time it is approved with no discussion by council members. I cannot recall an occasion in the last two and one-half years where a purchase in excess of $1,000 has been questioned by a council member. One reason could be that there are so many of them that due to their quantity, a person tends not to give them much attention. In addition, the council members are 'no doubt aware that you. have looked at each and every one of these items during the course of the budget review in September and nctober of the previous year. In addition, you are well aware that you will review and approve all claims made upon the city by approving the check register at each council meeting. Thus, adequate safeguards do exist for council control of administrative activ-1-ies. I believe the above factors are justification for updating the Rich- field City Charter to provide a framework for the 1980's in our pur- chasing procedures. The intent of the charter provision when it was adopted back in the 1960's was to allow council review of capital out- lay types of purchases. At that time, $1,000 clearly deliniated a large operating expense of the city. However, today the $1,000 limi- tation requires that many operating materials come under this provision and cause problems such as those I have outlined above. ?. y n'c't:: ?S Council Letter No. 431 -4- December 14, 1981 Questions have been raised by city council members concerning the practice in other communities as it relates to administrative discretion over purchases. The state law does not address the council administrative discretion process, but rather the situation is left to the individual city as to legislative delegation of purchasing powers to the administrative staff. However, in the state statutes for Plan B City Manager Cities, there is a specific provision that allows city managers to make purchases up to $1,000. Because of that limitation there have been a number of special laws granted to specific cities in recent years allowing them to exceed the $1,000 limitation found in the state statute. For example, the City of Edina had special legislation passed last year which would allow the city council to grant administrative discretion to the city manager up to $10,000 in their community. There is no central repository of information concerning what all the cities in the state do, but in order to give the city council a better feeling on the subject, we made a telephone survey of some cities in the south Hennepin County area. The maximum limit that city managers in those cities are authorized to make purchases are as follows: Bloomington - Edina St. Louis Pk 40 Hopkins Minnetonka If council members would Monday night, please contact we can make provision to do $3,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 like me to survey other cities prior to me at your earliest discretion so that so. Some council members have indicated concern to me over increasing, the charter provision from $1,000 to $5,000 at this time, and have indicated that a $2,500 limitation would be more acceptable at this time. To that end, I would suggest the possibility that the city council might like to supplement this charter amendment with a resolution which would place a limitation on the city manager's role in purchasing and contracts. In that regard the city council's resolution could indicate the following points: 1. All purchases which are in excess of $2,500 but below $5,000, could be made only after the city manager notified the city council at least 5 calendar days in advance of executing a purchase order. If any council member makes a request to the city manager than that purchase would have to appear on the next city council agenda for dis- cussion by the council as a whole. 2. All purchases in excess of $2,500 per year which are not in- cluded in the city's operating budget as a planned for operating expense, would have to appear on city council agendas for the council consideration. Council Letter No. 431 -5- December 14, 1981 There may be additional concerns which the council has which could be included in such a resolution. By passing such a resol- ution, the city council could maintain any controls they would like to have on purchases in excess of $2,500, without returning the charter amendment to the charter commission. This would give the council the opportunity to make adjustments in the future without having to go through the cumbersome procedure. If the city council desires a resolution of this sort, it can be prepared and be ready for the December 28, 1981 city council meeting, if the ordinance receives unanimous approval at the Decem- ber 14, 1981 city council meeting. It is recommended that the city council approve this ordinance on first reading. ROspectfully submitted, t ? Karl Nollenberger City Manager i KN/eja cc; Program Directors 0 Bill 1981-36 CILIRTER AME',M ENT ORDIL.ANC- NO. 10 AN ORDNANCE VME,:DI'G THE CITY CHAi.TER OF THE CITY OF PICllFl--L6, CITY 017 RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: The C.--t-,- Charter of the City of Richfield, adopted November 1954, as subsequently amended, is hereby amended in the following respec*_s: Section 6.05 thereof, entitled "Purchases and Contracts" is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 6.05. Purchases and Contracts. The city manager may make or let contracts for the purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or any kind of construction work when.the amount of such contract does not exceed [$1,000.00] S5,000.00. If such contract exceeds the last stated amount but is less than [$2,500.001 $10,000.00, same may be made or let by the city manager after first obtaining the approval of the city council. All purchases shall be made and all other contracts shall be let by the council. Proposed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk TRANSMITTAL ORDER To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: We, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting members of the Charter Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby respectfully submit and deliver to you the attached proposed ordinance amending Section 6.05 of the City Charter of the City of Richfield. We hereby respectfully propose, recommend and submit for adoption, by unanimous vote of the City Council and approval by the Mayor of the City, \) the attached proposed ordinance this day of 1981. 0 CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: The City Charter of the City of Richfield, adopted November 3, 1964, as subsequently amended, is hereby amended in the following respects: Section 6.06 thereof, entitled "Contracts: How Let" is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 6.06. Contracts: How Let. Every contract for the sale or purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or the rental thereof, or for the construction, alteration, renair or maintenance of real or personal nrooerty, [or for any kind of construction work] where the amount involved is more than [$2,500.00] S10,000.00 shall be let only by the council upon the recommendation of the city manager to the lowest respon- sible bidder, unless, the council shall otherwise provide by resolution adopted by a vote of a majority of the council and published once in the official legal newspaper of the city. The council may, however, reject any and all bids. Subject to the provisions of the charter, the council may by ordinance adopt further regulations for making of bids and letter of contracts. Proposed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk 0 TRAVSMITTAL ORDER To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the City of Richfield, !Minnesota: We, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting members of the Charter Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby respectfully submit and deliver to you the attached proposed ordinance amending Section 6.06 of the City Charter of the City of Richfield. We hereby respectfully propose, recommend and submit for adoption, by mous vote of the City Council and approval by the Mayor of the City, ?.1 L ttached propNed o?dinance this day ofj D','- -, , 1981. 10 0 ATTACHMENT A • E%A'-1PL S OF "PURCHASES IN EXCESS $1 ,000" ( 1978) Insulated heating pipes at Community Center Vehicles Autoclave (equipment) for water plant Light bulbs Newsletter postage Mapping of golf course site Repainting fire truck Bleachers Draperies for Nature Center Radar Unit Street lights and bulbs Paging units for Public Safety personnel • Rock salt Installation of accelator track Bearings for track Employee Assistance Program • PURCHASES IN EXCESS $1,000 July 1979 - June 1981 • • DATE AMOUNT ITEM. 7/9/79 $ -0- none 7/23/79 5,026.00 Fall brochure 8/13/79 1,639.00 Tot lot slides, Nicollett Park 4,998.40 Crushed limestone, Wood Lake Nature Center trai- 2.76/l ineal foot Fencing, golf course 8/27/79 9,997.70 Grass seed and fertilizer, golf course 1,672.50 Herbicide, golf course 1,500.00 Used overseeder, golf course 9/10/79 8,976.00 Grass seed, golf course 9/24/79 2,184.00 Relocation of two free-standing advertising signs to acquire easement for Lyndale Avenue improvement project 10/9/79 9,200.00 Fencing, golf course 8,386.00 Carbon dioxide feeder unit, water treatment plant 10/22/79 2,155,86 Paper, winter brochure 11/13/79 23,534.00 Rock salt 1,636.25 Gravel, golf course maintenance roadway 11/29/79 1,878.00 Replacement coil, ice arena snow melt pit 12/10/79 3,000.00 Underground electrical service to golf course 12/27/79 1,951.04 Fertilizer, ballfields 1/14/80 5,277.54 Station Wago , central garage/motor pool 7,347.00 Police Sedan 7,347.00 Police Sedan 1,509.00 Three data processing disc packs 1/28/30 1,293.84 Paper for joint city/school district brochure 1,683.00 Window screens, Christian Park shelter building,- 2/11/80 -0- None 2/25/30 1,232.00 Cross country skis and bindings, nature center 1,393.50 Street signs (prox. 100) 9,000.00 Used gai:g fairway mower, Golf course 3/10/30 1,950.00 Replacement of three radar _;peed monitcring deyicp - • • i -2- 3/24/80 $2,510.00 Chlorine and pH controller, swimming pool 1,950.00 Security system, golf course 7,980.00 Two tee mowers, golf course 4,525.00 Sand trap rake, golf course ?`. 2,889.00 Miscellaneous golf course equipment 1,350.97 Air compressor and tank, golf course 2,200.52 Machinery Grinder, golf course 1,935.00 Greensprayer, golf course 4/14/80 3,678.00 Turf truckster attachments (11), golf course 4/28/80 3,840.00 Greens soil, golf course 5,612.00 Bleachers, girls' softball diamonds 2,496.00 Replacement of light poles and luminaire assemblies due to vehicle accidents, LH`i 1,192.50 Window blinds, golf course clubhouse 1,043.80 Two well pump capacitators 7,536.00 Extension of utility lines to Coach Homes site 5/12/80 -0- None 5/27/80 -0- None 6/9/80 -0- None 6/23/80 1,089.00 Replacement tire changer, central garage 21,200.00 Nature Center boardwalk improvement materials (timbers, wire, styrofoam) 7/14/80 2,148.48 Brochure paper 7/28/80 2,408.86 Fencing and gates, water plant 2,816.10 Purchase through donation of 27 redwood benches , golf course 2,533.95 Purchase through donation of 27 permanent waste receptacles, golf course 1,096.50 Purchase through donation of 17 ball washers, golf course 1,681.00 Replacement air compressor for air unit, community center 8/11/80 2,785.00 Sign, Lyndale Avenue Liquor Store 8/25/80 8,970.00 Water treatment chemicals 1,600.00 Payment to Hennepin County for painting center stripes on several Richfield streets 2,092.45 Replacement paint for striping 9/3/80 4,950.00 Extending and fencing pony league field 2,271.00 Carpeting, ice arena lounges 4,506.00 Starter gr a_,s seed, golf course 6 620.00 t,;eed grass prevenLer , golf course 9/22/80 1, 200.00 Paving :lat eriaL, lo r pat-h-ways, Sheridan Park 10/13/8( 1,()11.3 Paper for gt;arter-Lv brochure (half to 1-,e paid by school (listrict) 10/27/80 • 11/10/80 11/10/80 11/24/80 12/8/81 12/22/80 1/12/81 1/26/81 • 2/9/81 2/23,81 3/9/31 3/23/81 4/ 13/81 -3- $ 9,925.00 Replacement well pump 19,270.00 Carbon dioxide feeder control unit 5,360.00 Ten tons fertilizer, city parks 98,202.84 Twelve public safety cars( a$8,183.57 each less prox.$19,200 trade-in for existing cars 3,855.60 24 uniform armor vests, public safety 8,700.00 Tennis court lighting, Donaldson and ;•1as:ington parks 1,664.74 Two tires for front end loader 1,471.72 Transplanting trees, golf course 2,847.00 Three permanent recording snow/rain guaaes, city garage, golf course, nature center 21675.00 25 catch basins @ $107 28,600.00 Rock salt -0- None 9,780.00 1974 Cadette Mini-Van 2,130.00 600 tons ice control rock 2,275.00 500 dozen driving range golf balls 2,134.80 96 dozen golf balls for resale 1,047.00 Replacement light fixtures 1,618.11 Brochure paper, to be split with school district 1,630.00 Cutter attachment for rnowers 2,500100 NSP underground wiring, Lift Station -4, Wilson Pond 2,232.00 Eight Ear Comm Transmitter-Receiver attachments for portable radios 1,038.00 Electric hoist 11350.00 Freon, ice arena 3,000.00 Fireworks 1,646.00 Heat exchanger, ice arena ($1,446 plus est. $200 for assembly parts) 1,705.00 Electric ball dispenser, golf course 4,450.00 50 Honeylocust trees 3,600.00 50 American Linden trees 4,125.00 50 Sugar Maple trees 4,450.00 50 Hacl:berry trees 2,069.32 Brochure paper, summer ne%.isletter 5,0-10.00 80 Do,.j Billet:; flotation components for bricige structure q,415.oo 20 street li(jht pole`; and gases 1, 300. r)0 30 ton:, lii?ie 1 , S 1 3.30 T%vo c'.u al f tie L convern,? ion units _50.(10 50 ,iC';",'iOCUSt t2 c'C5 + ?) r. Q. a 50 :,?:.zr aple trees 3 , -50 . 0C 50 .., .e, ican ', i::c?on t r u(2 4 , `25 . U;, 70U to:-.S 1/4 stor:e, col course 2, 500. CO 700 to.-,,s cola mi:: pate:: 1,428.00 Car pet shamcccer -4- 4/27/81 1,660.00 30,000 scorecards 2,587.20 Four sets of bleachers, East Richfield Little League 2,175.00 145 yards greens soil mix, golf cours 3,557.00 Bathhouse locker room partitions 3,403.00 Paint for bathhouse 1,720.20 Paint for swimming pool 3,755..00 Tot lo't equipment, Christian Park 3,755.00 Tot lot equipment, Sheridan Park 5/11/81 2;605.00 Three 16' diving boards, swimming pool 3,607.50 Replacement sod for L/H/N boulevards 5/26/81 2,200.00 Emergency repair of sanitary sewer line, 65th Street and Penn Avenue 6/8/81 5,355.00 Pumping equipment 6/22/81 1,664.74 Two tires for front-end loader 'with Dossible _ $180 rebate) 1,669.90 Traffic control signs 1,433.18 Emergency repaits to the hi-ranger at central garage • 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 430 Agenda December 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Vacation and Park Disposition, West 74th Street and Upton Avenue South Mr. John Lindholm is withdrawing his application to vacate a portion of unimproved right-of-way and disposition of a small tract of park land in the vicinity of 74th Street and Upton Avenue. The city council has continued the public hearing on this matter several times in the past, and is scheduled to consider this matter again on December 14, 1981. Mr. Lindholm has indicated that he will continue to pursue the necessary legal work involved. When this is completed, he has agreed to present these findings to the Planning Commission, and re-start the process for council action at a later date. The staff recommends that the council accept withdrawal of this application. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Planner 0 ;,? 1q/,l t? Jam.- of ti? L,bja / .r ?7c e,,-t tL-C J,4 V-t CL! U -L .e , ? -? OEr Czt 9k EZicr??e;c? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 429 Agenda December 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Charter Amendment Ordinance Relating to Procedure for the Adoption of City Ordin- ances, Amending Section 3.05 of the City Charter and Adding a New Section 3.12. First Reading. At the initiation of the city council by referral, the Richfield Charter Commission has recommended an amendment to the city charter relating to the publication procedure for the adoption of city ordinances. A copy of an ordinance which would implement this charter amendment is attached. • The City of Richfield currently has a charter provision which requires that the city publish in the legal newspaper ordinances of the city after both first and second reading. In 1979, the second publication costs amounted to $634; in 1980 the second publication costs were over $800, and through October of 1981, second publication costs of ordinances amounts to $1383.13. The proposed charter amendment eliminates the requirement that every ordinance be published in the legal newspaper at least one week prior to final passage. The result of this proposed charter amendment would be to require that ordinances be published only once, after second reading. In addition, in special circum- stances, when the city council determines by unanimous decision that costs of publishing an ordinance are not justified, a summary of the ordinance may be published in its stead. State law provides that charter amendments may be adopted by ordinance, after recommendation of the Charter Commission, by a unanimous vote of the city council. Respectfully submitted, L? Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja CC: City Clerk CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. • CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE RELATING TO PROCEDURE FOR THE ADOPTION OF CITY ORDINANCES AMENDING SECTION 3.05 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 3.12. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 3.05 of the Richfield City Charter is amended to read: "Section 3.05. Procedure on ordinances. The enacting clause of all ordinances shall be in the words 'City of Richfield does ordain'. Every ordinance shall be presented in writing. No ordinance except an emergency ordinance shall be passed at the meeting at which it is introduced and at least seven (7) days shall elapse between its introduction and its final passage. CHv?rp-ardi?aece;-eti?er-thaw-an-arnerge?ep-ard3ea?ee;-steal}-be • ptz3?}fished-za-the-}ega}-newspaper-at-least-ene-weerpr}ar-te-the f??a}-passage-?" Section 2. Chapter 3 of said charter is amended by adding, at the end thereof, the following additional section: "Sec. 3.12. Manner of Publication of Ordinances. If the city council determines that publication of the complete text of an ordinance is not worth the expense and that a summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance, the council may by a unanimous vote direct that only the title of the ordinance and a summary be published with notice that printed copies of the ordinance are available to any person during regular office hours at the office of the city clerk and any other location which the council designates. Prior to the publication of the is title and summa the council shall approve the text the summary and determine that it clearly informs the public of the • intent and effect of the ordinance." Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective thirty (30) days after its publication, subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 410.12, Subdivision 7. Proposed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor Attest: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk • TRANSMITTAL ORDER To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: We, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting members of the Charter Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby respectfully submit and deliver to you the attached proposed ordinance amending Section 3.05 and adding a new Section 3.12 to the City Charter of the City of Richfield. We hereby respectfully propose, recommend and submit for adoption, by unanimous vote of the City Council and approval by the Mayor of the City, rth th4 attached proposed ordinance this '1 day of -\) Pce-""-c•-X1981. A ( ' z I-t i 0 E+ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager . Council Letter No. 428 Agenda December 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amending City Charter Provisions Relating to Nominations for City Elected Offices At the initiation of the city council by referral, the Richfield Charter Commission has recommended an amendment to Section 4.04 of the city charter, relating to the nomination of candidates for city elected offices. A copy of an ordinance which would implement this charter amendment is attached. The proposed amendment would clarify the time prior to a municipal primary election during which nominating petitions can be received by the city clerk. The proposed language is con- sistent with state law, and eliminates confusion which previously existed regarding the earliest time that a candidate might submit a petition filing for office. State law provides that charter amendments may be adopted by ordinances after recommendation of the Charter Commission upon a unanimous vote of the city council. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: City Attorney City Clerk LEGAL NOTICE Bill 1981-34 46 CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. 3 CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE RELATING TO NOMINATIONS FOR CITY ELECTIVE OFFICES, P;IENDI 1G SECTION 4.04 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CIiARTER CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 4.04 of the City Charter of the City of Richfield relating to the nominations of candidates for City elective offices is hereby amended to provide as follows: "Section 4.04. Nominations by Petition. All candi- dates for elective office provided for__b_y_ this charter shall be nominated by petition. The name-of-any registered voter of the city shall be printed upon-the-ballot as a candidate for an office whenever_a petition signed by at least ten registered voters has been filed with the city clerk in his behalf at-least not more than six nor less than four weeks before the municipal primary election date provided in • Section 4.02. No registered voter shall sign petitions for more candidates for any office than the number of persons to be chosen for that office at the election; should he do so, his signature shall be void as to the petition or petitions last filed. Each petition presented shall be accompanied by a five dollar ($5.00) filing fee. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective thirty (30) days after its publication, subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 410.12, Subdivision 7. W TRANSMITTAL ORDER To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: We, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting members of the Charter COmTdssiOn of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do respectfully submit and deliver to you the attached proposed amending Section LA} 0 y of the City Charter of the City of Richfield. We hereby respectfully proposed, recommend and submit for adoption, by unanimous vote of the City Council and approval by the Mayor of the r? City, the attached proposed ordinance this 11 r day of , 190 . I It • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 427 Agenda December 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment to City Charter Defining Status of the Public Safety Director in Relation to Civil Service At the initiation of the city council after referral, the Richfield Charter Commission has recommended an amendment to the city charter which would clarify the status of the Public Safety Director in relation to the Civil Service. A copy of an ordinance which would implement the proposed charter amendment is attached. The proposal would amend the provisions in the city charter relating to the city manager's appointment powers. This language is proposed in order to clarify any consideration of the public safety director position and its applicability to civil service. While the existing public safety director position is not con- sidered to be covered by the civil service, some dispute or confusion regarding this matter_ could arise under existing state law due to the way this position is handled in other cities. The proposed amendment will clarify the status of that position for the future. State law provides that charter amendments may be adopted by the city council by ordinance with the unanimous approval of the council. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Public Safety Director City Attorney City Clerk 0 LEGAL LfOTiCL • ' r Bill 1981-35 CHARTER AMENDNENT ORDINANCE NO. 9 0 An Ordinance Amending Section 6.02, Subdivision 3, of the Richfield City Charter, Defining the Status of the Director of Public Safety in Relation to Civil Service. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 6.02, Subdivision 3, of the City Charter of the City of Richfield, is amended to read: "Sub. 3 The City Manager Ehe7' shall appoint and remove, upon the basis of merit and fitness and subject to applicable civil service provisions, if any, the city clerk, all heads of departments and all subordinate officers and employees in the departments. The director of public safetv, having_ administrative and supervisory control- over the ponce and fire divisions of the Department of Public Safety, is not under the jurisdiction of the police and fire civil service commission of the city. Appointment or removal of department heads shall be made final only upon a majority vote of the council." • Section 2. Subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, Subdivision 7, this ordinance is effective 30 days after its passage and publication. Mayor ATTEST: City CIer TRANSMITTAL ORDER To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the City of fih day of?:2,f , 1981 0 A Richfield, Minnesota: We, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting members of the Charter Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby respectfully submit and deliver to you the attached proposed ordinance amending Section 6.02, Subdivision 3 of the City Charter of the City of Richfield. We hereby respectfully propose, recommend and submit for adoption, by unanimous vote of the City Council and approval by the Mayor of the City, of 1 - i 711 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager E Council Letter No. 426 Agenda December 14, 1981 ?. OP The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Council Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Personal Leave/Disability Insurance Benefits - Management Employees. First Reading. The City of Richfield provides a number of fringe benefits to employees of the city in addition to the salaries that are paid. In the case of four employee groups (police officers, police super- visors, firefighters, supervisors and maintenance workers), the salaries and fringe benefits are determined through the negotiation process. In the case of general service and management employees, the city council determines the level and types of fringe benefits and salaries, upon recommendation of the city manager. The city manager consults with the management team and frequently with other employees when making these recommendations. The city provides one such benefit referred to as "sick leave." All general service and management employees receive 12 days of sick leave accrual at the rate of one day per month. The employees may utilize those sick days for the following purposes: 1-physical incapacity incurred on or off-duty; 2-personal illness, including medical and dental appoint- ments during work hours; 3-enforced quarantine of the employee in accordance with community health regulations; 4-serious illness or death in the immediate family. • Much discontent is generated in most cities that have sick leave plans similar to ours (as almost all cities do) due to the use of sick leave by employees. While there are some tools which the city has and uses to administer the sick leave benefit, an equitable use of sick leave for all parties in line with the purposes outlined above is impossible. There are cases where employees abuse sick leave for reasons not stated above when it is not feasible to verify the actual illness (i.e. requiring a doctor's excuse for one-day illnesses) and there are cases where people nearing retire- ment seek to utilize sick leave since the accumulation of sick leave is lost upon retirement. In addition, there are cases where employees utilize sick leave on a one-day at a time basis instead Council Letter No. 426 -2- December 14, 1981 of accumulating days, only to find when an extended illness occurs, that they have accumulated no leave to cover their loss M of pay during the time of illness. Employees who are conscientious in their use of sick leave sometimes feel frustration at the in- equity of the situation which creates morale implications that are a detriment to good working relations. All of these reasons have led us to look for alternatives to the traditional sick leave programs that might better serve the employees as well as the city. We are recommending that we be able to pursue one such alternative which consists of a personal leave plan, short-term disability, and long-term disability insur- ance in lieu of sick leave. We are suggesting the new program just for management personnel at this time, however, the city may wish to provide the benefit to general services employees in the future. In addition to the concerns outlined above with the sick leave program, there is a need for income protection in the event of extended non-job related illness or injury. This is a signifi- cant gap in our existing benefit program. Employees also frequently request a severance pay benefit which would be based upon unused sick leave. Due to that type of benefit in police and fire labor contracts, I would expect that request to be repeated until such time as the issue is resolved. The implementation of this program to a smaller group such as the 40 member management group will give us time to evaluate the program. Following is a description of the provisions of the new plan. 0 PERSONAL LEAVE Commencing January 1, 1982, all employees classified and com- pensated as part of the Management Pay Plan will be granted 40 hours (5 days) of annual personal leave, with pay, which may be used by the employee as follows: 1-Time lost as a result of non-job-related illness/injury to the employee or a member of the employee's immediate family; 2-Medical/dental appointments for the employee or a member of the employee's immediate family; 3-To attend to personal business; 4-Leisure time. Employees may accrue unused personal leave from year to year provided, however, that no employee may accrue in excess of 160 hours (20 days) of personal leave. Hours in excess of the 160 (20 days) limit shall be forfeited by the employee, without compen- sation. Utilization Personal leave shall be scheduled and administered under dir- ection of the Department Heads. In the event of illness/injury • for which personal leave is requested, the employee requesting such Council Letter No. 426 -3- December 14, 1981 leave shall notify the supervisor prior to the scheduled reporting • time. Requests for personal leave for reasons other than illness/ injury must be submitted to the supervisor a reasonable time in advance of the period of time for which such leave is requested, to enable the supervisor to arrange for normal continuance of the department functions. In each request for personal leave, the city shall have the authority to grant or deny such leave based upon the merit of such request and the reasonable needs of the municipal service. Sick Leave Conversion Management employees who have accrued sick leave on December 31, 1981, may convert such accrued leave to personal leave accord- ing to the following formula: Accrued Sick Leave Hours _ Conversion Personal Leave Factor Hours 0-240 3 0 - 80 (max.) 241 - 720 (480 Hours) 6 0 - 80 (max.) Total Personal Leave Hours 0 -160 (max.) Examples: • Employee X Sick Leave Accrual as of 12/31/81: 375 hours First 240 hours 3= 80.0 hours personal leave Remaining 135 hours (375-240) 6= 22.5 hours personal leave Total 102.5 hours personal leave Employee Y Sick Leave Accrual as of 12/31/81: 840 hours First 240 hours 3= 80.0 hours personal leave Next 480 hours (241 thru 720) 6= 80.0 hours personal leave Total 160.0 hours personal leave The remaining 120 hours of sick: leave (840-720) would not be elig- ible for conversion to personal leave. Council Letter No. 426 -4- December 14, 1981 SHORT-TERM DISABILITY i Definition Short-term disability is leave provided for injury or illness which prevents the employee from performing his/her duties as a city employee. Short-term disability benefits become effective on the eleventh (11th) continuous day of such absence of any eligible employee. The benefits paid will be coordinated with workers' compensation or any other supplemental pay plan. Prnw i c i nn Commencing January 1, 1982, all employees classified and com- pensated as part of the Management Pay Plan, will become eligible for an employer paid short-term disability benefit, which will pro- vide eligible employees with a paid leave for qualifying absences at the rate of 100% of the employee's regular base wage up to a maximum of 122 working days of disability, or until such employee's accrued "benefit days" of coverage have been exhausted, whichever comes first; provided, however, that employees shall not be elig- ible for short-term disability benefits once they have qualified for long-term disability benefits. Effective January 1, 1982, eligible employees will accumulate 24 benefit days of short-term disability coverage per year for each full year of service, provided however, that such leave shall be cumulative to a maximum of 122 benefit days. Vesting of Current Management Employees Eligible employees with accrued sick leave as of December 31, 1981 will be vested with short-term disability coverage according to the following formula: Total Hours of lNccrued Sick Leave (Prior to Personal Leave Conversion) -Total Hours of Personal Leave Vested (From Sick Leave Conversion) =Total Vested Hours of Short-Term Disability Coverage Examples: Employee X Total hours version pro 375.0 hours -102.5 hours 272.5 hours EmDlovee Y - Sick Leave Accrual as of 12/31/81 of personal leave vested from sick cess = 102.5 hours (see conversion sick leave accrued personal leave vested of short-term disability insurance - Sic]-, Leave Accrual as of 12/31/81 - 375 hours leave con- example) (34.05 benefit days' - 040 hours • Total hours of personal leave vested from sick leave conver- sion process = 160.0 hours (see conversion example) Council Letter No. 426 -5- December 14, 1931 840 hours sick leave accrued . -160 hours personal leave vested 680 hours of short term disability insurance (85 benefit days) Utilization In order to qualify for short-term disability benefits, the eligible employee must provide the city with a written statement, provided by a duly licensed physician, which verifies that the employee is unable to satisfactorily perform his/her assigned duties. At any time during the period of absence in which short-term disa- bility benefits are paid to the employee, the city manager may re- quire the employee tosubmit to an examination by a city appointed ;hysician to verify that the employee is unable to satisfactorily perform required duties. In all cases, requests for short-term disability benefits must be apporved and determined valid by the city manager. LONG-TERM DISABILITY Definition Long-term disability is income protection provided for injury or illness which prevents the employee from performing his/her duties as a city employee. Long-term disability income becomes effective after six continuous calendar months of any absence which • is due to non-service related disability. The benefits paid will be coordinated with workers' compensation or any other supplemental pay plan. Provision Commencing as soon after January 1, 1982 as practicable, all employees classified and compensated as part of the management plan will become eligible for an employer paid long-term disability benefit, which will provide eligible employees with a disability income for qualifying long-term absences at the rate of 60% of the employee's base wage up to a maximum of $3,000 per month (final details depend- ent upon insurance package selected). Long-term disability income will not accrue beyond the disabled employee's 65th birthday. The city manager should annually review the maximum monthly disability payment and make adjustments as deemed necessary. Utilization Guidelines or restrictions relating to the utilization and qualification of this benefit are quite lengthy and complex and would be developed as part of the bid specifications for this cov- erage. SUMMARY The city currently self-insures the sick leave program of the city which allows employees to be absent from work for periods of time up to six months. It is highly unusual for sickness of Council Letter No. 426 -6- December 14, 1981 these durations to occur with a low frequency occuring in the last five years. The city would continue to self-insure the short-term disability, with insurance for the more significant long-term costs of long-term disability coverage. The city has a self-insurance programs now covering the workers' self-insurance fund will cover the long-term disability insurance. T activity budgets from onerous, but illnesses which require a position fund for employer paid leave compensation insurance. The costs of both short-term and nis would relieve the individual infrequent costs of extended to remain vacant. Attached to this council letter is an ordinance amendment relating to personal leave/disability insurance benefits. This ordinance amendment has been placed on the December 14, 1981 city council agenda for first reading consideration. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Program Directors Personnel Manager • KN/eja 0 • ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, BY ADDING A NEW SUBDIVISION 12 TO SECTION 2.34 THEREOF PROVIDING PERSONAL LEAVE BENEFITS TO CITY EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN; AND BY ADDING NEW SUBDIVISIONS 3 AND 4 TO SECTION 2.35 THEREOF PROVIDING SHORT-TERM DISABILITY AND LONG-TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS, RESPECTIVELY, TO THE EMPLOYEES COVERED BY SAID PLAN. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: I. Section 2.34 of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended by adding a new Subdivision 12 to read as follows: i 2.34 ATTENDANCE AND LEAVES. Subd. 12. Personal Leave. (1) Eligibility and Accrual. Effective January 1, 1982, each permanent full-time or full-time probationary employee classified and compensated under the Management Pay Plan, as that Plan has been adopted and may be amended from time to time pursuant to Section 2.33 of this Code, shall be eligible to accrue and use personal leave. An eligible employee shall accrue 1.54 hours of personal leave per. -p-- and may accumulate such leave from year to year up to a maximum of 160 hours of personal leave unless written author- ization extending this maximum is obtained from the Depart- is ment Head and the City Manager. Hours in excess of 160 hours shall be forfeited by sation. (a) Restrictions. provision of this Code, sonal leave shall be e leave. the employee without compen- • Notwithstanding any other no employee eligible for per- Ligible to accrue or use sick (b) Conversion of Sick Leave Benefit. Each employee who becomes eligible for personal leave and who has accrued sick leave hours shall convert such sick leave hours into personal leave hours in accord- ance with the formula developed and amended from time it to time by the City Manager and set out in the City's Personnel Policy. In the event that an employee ceases to be classified under the Management Pay Plan but remains in the employ of the City, that employee's personal leave shall be converted back to the then applicable sick leave benefit in reverse application of the abovementioned formula then in effect. (2) Usage and Administration. An employee may use accrued personal leave for any reason, subject to the re- strictions stated herein, but shall be required to use accrued personal leave for illness or injury necessitating absence from work, except that personal leave shall not be used if the employee is eligible for short-term disability or long-term disability benefits provided in section 2.35 of this Code. Personal leave shall be scheduled and adminis- tered under direction of the Department Heads. In the event . 2 of illness or injury necessitating work absence, the • employee requesting such leave shall notify his or her supervisor prior to the scheduled reporting time. Requests for personal leave for reasons other than illness or injury must be submitted to the supervisor a reasonable time in advance of the period of time for which such leave is re- quested to enable the supervisor to arrange for normal continuance of the department functions, and in such cases, requested personal leave will not be unreasonably refused but shall be subject to and coordinated with the adminis- trative and managerial needs of the City. Personal leave shall be chargeable only when used on regularly scheduled work days or work periods. When a holiday occurs during an employee's personal leave, and the employee is regularly • entitled to time off on the holiday with pay, such time will not be charged against the employee's personal leave. II. Section 2.35 of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended to add new Subdivisions 3 and 4 to read as follows: 2.35 GROUP INSURANCE PROVISIONS. Subd. 3. SHORT-TERM DISABILITY: ACCIDENT & SICKNESS BENEFIT. (1) Eligibility and Accrual. Effective January 1, 1982, each permanent full-time and full-time probationary employee classified and compensated under the Management Pay • Plan, as that Plan has been adopted and may be amended from 3 time to time pursuant to Section 2.33 of this Code, shall be eligible for a short-term disability benefit providing a • disability income for qualifying absences at the rate of 100% of the employee's regular base wage up to a maximum of 122 benefit days of disability, or until such employee's accrued benefit days of coverage have been exhausted, which- ever occurs first; provided, however, that an employee shall not be eligible for short-term disability benefits once he or she has qualified for the long-term disability benefits provided below. Effective and beginning January 1, 1982, an eligible employee shall accrue two days of short-term dis- ability coverage per month, and such unused coverage shall accumulate to a maximum of 122 benefit days. (a) Restrictions. Notwithstanding any other • provision of this Code, no employee eligible for short- term disability benefits shall be eligible to accrue or use sick leave. (b) Conversion of Sick Leave Benefit. Each employee who becomes eligible for short-term disability benefits, and who has sick leave hours which exceed the number of sick leave hours which can then be converted into personal leave hours under the formula provided in Section 2.34, Subd. 12(1)(b) of this Code, shall con- vert such excess sick leave hours into short-term disability benefit days in accordance with the formula developed and amended from time to time by the City Manager. In the event that an employee ceases to be . classified under the Management Pay Plan but remains in 4 the employ of the City, that employee's short-term disability benefit days shall be converted back to the then applicable sick leave benefit in reverse applica- tion of the abovementioned formula then in effect. (2) Usage. Short-term disability is a benefit which provides disability income for injury or illness which pre- vents the employee from performing his or her duties as a City employee. Short-term disability benefits become effec- tive on the eleventh (11th) continuous day of such absence of any eligible employee. Benefits paid will be coordinated with and offset by workers' compensation or any other supple- mental pay plan. (3) Administration. In order to qualify for short- term disability benefits, the eligible employee must provide the City with a written statement from a duly licensed physician verifying that the employee is unable to perform satisfactorily his or her assigned duties due to injury or illness. At any time during the period of absence in which short-term disability benefits are paid to the employee, the City Manager may require the employee to submit to an exam- ination by a city-appointed physician to verify that the employee is unable to perform satisfactorily required duties. In all cases, requests for short-term disability benefits must be approved by the City Manager. Subd. 4. Long-Term Disability. (1) Eligibility and Benefit Amount. Effective July 1, Is 1982, each permanent full-time and full-time probationary 5 employee classified and compensated under the Management Pay Plan will become eligible for an employer-paid long-term disability insurance benfit, which will provide eligible employees with a disability income for qualifying long-term absences. (2) Administration. The City Manager shall annually review the long-term disability insurance benefit and shall cause such modifications in that benefit as deemed neces- sary. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1981. Mayor ATTEST: y Clerk E 6 Sao • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Council Letter No. 425 Agenda December 14, 1981 Subject: Resolution Relating to Communications/ Dispatch Services The issue of communications/dispatch services provided within Hennepin County has been a matter which has been the subject of controversy for more than a decade between local law enforcement bodies, firefighters emergency-medical providers, administrators and local elected officials. A multitude of studies have been produced and innumberable meetings held. Despite this massive investment of manhours and financial resources over an extended period of time, very little movement toward resolution of dispatch • issues has occurred. One of the primary factors contributing to communications and dispatch problems in Hennepin County has been the lack of clear and consistent statements of current policy and future policy from Hennepin County. Under current organization, broad dispatch policy is established by the county board upon recommendation from the county administrator and in consultation with the county sheriff, who is responsible for policy administration. The position of municipal government has also fluctuated somewhat over the period that this debate has ensued. There is a lack of consistent positions shared by all municipalities on dispatch services. Presently, 11 cities within Hennepin County provide their own dispatch services. Those cities are as follows: Minneapolis, Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Edina, Golden Valley, New Hope, Hopkins, Richfield, Robbinsdale and St. Louis Park. These cities constitute 75.6 percent of the county population. The remain- ing 24.4 percent of the county population is served by the Hennepin County sheriff's department for dispatch and communication services. There are five cities over 10,000 population which are served by Hennepin County (Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, maple Grove, Minnetonka, and Plymouth). The county operation is financed by a county wide tax levy, so that the cities wherein 75.6 of the population reside, are taxed for the county operation even though they are also respons- ible for providing their own local dispatch services. The county operation does not have the facilities presently to take on any additional services and for a number of reasons, it would not be best Council Letter No. 425 -2- December 14, 1981 for public safety administration to have the county providing these • services. The communication dispatch center is the central process- ing point for police and fire and other emergency calls. A close coordination of these activities with the other public safety functions is imperative to provide a well run service with a high degree of delivery. The large cities that receive services from the county have indicated that they are displeased with the county services, but find the cost to the individual city governments quite attractive. In addition, in most cities providing their own dispatch service, the dispatch allows them to keep their police station open 24-hours a day, at no additional cost of clerical time. The level of service provided by the county, the ability to keep police stations open 24- hours a day, the issue of public safety service delivery, and the inability for city governments to have any control over the county dispatch service, has led the 11 independent cities to maintain their separate systems despite past county overtures. There is some desire among these 11 independents to provide a clustering of services, so that one dispatch center could serve more than one community. We are currently talking with the City of Eden Prairie, who has in- dicated an interest in receiving those services from the City of Richfield. The county has recently come out with a draft report which will be submitted from the county administrator to the county board. The draft report has a number of policy recommendations of which the first two are of critical concern to Richfield taxpayers. They are • as follows: 1. The Hennepin Board of Commissioners should establish as policy that emergency communications and dispatch services is most appropriately a county function and responsibility. 2. Consistent with (A) the above policy statements, (B) existing legislation and (C) the belief that dispatch services can be most cost effectively provided to residents through a consolidated county system, the county should provide financial incentives for the development of a consolidated dispatch center system by offering dispatch services without charge to all municipalities in suburban Hennepin County who wish to participate in such a network. As can be seen by these policy recommendations, Hennepin County staff report is desirous of gaining control over all communications within Hennepin County. In the event that cities do not subject themselves to the county dispatch service, they would continue to pay twice for dispatch services. At our initiation, the represent- atives of the 11 independent systems have met and are interested in taking concerted action to convince the county board not to adopt the county staff recommendation. The resolution attached to this council letter is suggested for council adoption which would take a preliminary position against the county administrator's recommenda- tion. In addition, the resolution would appoint a council member and a staff person to represent the city on a coordinating body Council Letter No. 425 -3- December 14, 1981 for this issue. The group is currently formulating a "majority report" representing the 76 percent of the county's population served by the independent communications systems to go to the county board to counter balance the county administrator's "minority report." That report should be finished in January for a meeting of the group on January 20, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. in Golden Valley. Final details of the report have not been worked out at this time, however, a clear position against the county staff's policy report will be taken. It is recommended that the city council adopt the resolution attached to this council letter, taking a position against the county administrator's draft report, and appointing a council member and the city manager to represent the city on a coordinating committee. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager 0 KN/eja cc: Public Safety Director RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE ISSUE OF PROVIDING COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH SERVICES WITHIN HENNEPIN COUNTY WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has reviewed and analyzed the draft report on Communication/Dispatch Services prepared by the Hennepin County staff, and WHEREAS, the draft report recommends that the "Hennepin County Board of Commissioners should establish a policy that emergency communications and dispatch is most appropriately a county function and responsibility," and WHEREAS, the County draft report suggests that cities providing their own communications/dispatch services should be taxed for the county provided system in addition to the costs of providing their own system. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Richfield appoints Council Member L-ot r,,- and C ry ("\ ( to participate on a committee to represent the city's interest in this matter. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Richfield takes great exception to the draft county report and requests the committee estab- lished in Section 1 to prepare and present a Majority Report repres- enting the 76 percent of the county's population serviced by cities providing their own communications/dispatch service. Passed by the City Council of the Cityof Richfield this 14th day of December, 1981. 0 Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 424 Agenda December 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Certain Capital Improvements, Second Reading VJ On November 23, 1981, the city council gave first reading approval to a transitory ordinance appropriating money from the Special Revenue Fund to implement the Monroe/Fairwood Park(s) project. This transitory ordinance provided an appropriation of $176,250. It is recommended that the city council give second reading and final approval to the transitory ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Services Director Finance Coordinator -k;i L?.L Biil No. 1981-32 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 16.88 . AN ORDINANCE FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The City of Richfield does ordain: Section 1. It is found and determined 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, and as further detailed in the city's 1982 Capital Improvements Program, and are projects which the city would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2. The capital improvements and the amounts of expenditure for such improvements, which are hereby authorized to be paid from The Special Revenue Fund under Chapter 7, Section 7.12, subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Monroe/Fairwood Park $176,250 Section 3. The expenditure herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council resolution. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, this 14 day of December, 1981. i Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 423 Agenda December 14, 1981 Continued December 28,1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amendment to Driveway and Parking Area Regulation Ordinance, Second Reading In conjunction with the ordinance amendment revising the residential zoning district regulations, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment on November 23, 1981 which changed the Driveway and Parking Area Regulations, to reflect the additional zoning district designations. The public hearing and second reading of this ordinance amendment were scheduled for December 14, 1981. It is recommended that the council conduct the public hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to the attached ordinance amendment at the December 14, 1981 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.05, SUBDIVISION 1, OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, BY ADDING THE "RSD" DISTRICT WITHIN THE SCOPE AND COVERAGE OF THE PARKING REGULATIONS OF THAT SUBDIVISION. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: I. Section 4.05, Subdivision 1, of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.05. DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. Subdivision 1. Parking Areas - Permits. It is unlawful for any person to establish or make available any lot, tract, or parcel of land or portion thereof as a parking area in any zone except the "R" or "RSD" district as defined in Chapter III or to permit any such land to be so used for other than single-family residence parking in any zone without first having obtained a permit as provided in Subdivision 2 of this section. No building permit may be issued pursuant to Chapter III of this code for the con- struction of any industrial, commercial, business, trade, institutional, multiple residence, or similar building or structure unless adequate provision has been made for off-street parking, unloading and for the safe accommodation 0 of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in accordance with Subdivision 2 of this section and until the permit required by this Subdivision has been issued. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 198 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 0 0 -01 k CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 422 Agenda December 14, 1981 Continued December 28, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amendment to Residential Zoning Ordinance, Second Reading. On November 23, 1981, the city council gave first reading approval to amendments to the sections of the zoning ordinance relating to residential development. The council set December 14, 1981 as the public hearing date on this ordinance amendment, and also referred the matter to the planning commission for additional review and comment. Due to the lateness of the hour, the city council passed the ordinance on first reading with no discussion and deferred the discussion to the December 14, 1981 public hearing. For that reason all of the information contained in the first council letter is repeated here for your convenience. In August, 1981 the city council met jointly with the planning commission to discuss a draft revision to the residential section of the zoning ordinance. The staff has subsequently developed the attached draft ordinance amendment for council consideration. As you may recall, the city council and the planning commission began discussions concerning the concept of a revised residential zoning ordinance in July, 1979. Because the city is fully developed the major goal of the ordinance, which was agreed upon, was to establish zoning regulations which conserve and enhance the resi- dential character of the city rather than control new development. The ordinance was to carry out this objective by protecting the existing residential character of the city, by promoting remodeling and conservation, and by enhancing property values and public in- vestment. The draft ordinance implements the above objectives in a number of ways. First of all, it expands the number of residential zoning district designations from two to five. This will help insure that the zoning district regulations accurately reflect existing conditions in the community. a Council Letter No. 422 -2- December 14, 1981 The draft ordinance has two single family zoning district desig- nations. The two single family districts are the RSD district, -? which is intended to protect unique neighborhoods in Richfield by preserving existing low density large lot development in those neighborhoods, and the R district, for the majority of the resi- denital neighborhoods of the city. The RSD district regulations increase the minimum lot area re- quirements by 2,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet, and maintain the minimum lot width of 75 feet. The proposed RSD district re- quirements also change the setback requirements. The front yard setback requirement will be changed from 30 feet, or the estab- lished average on the block, to 30 feet in all cases. In most cases, this will mean a reduced setback requirement. The rear yard setback will be changed from 20 percent of the depth of the lot or 25 feet, whichever is least, to 25 feet. This will have little effect because most rear yards are greater than 25 feet. The interior sideyard setback requirement for one and one-half story dwellings will be increased from five feet to ten feet while the requirement for two or more story dwellings will re- main at ten feet. On corner lots, the sideyard requirement on the street side will-.be reduced from 30 feet to 15 feet. The Oak Grove, Fairwood-Monroe, Apple Lane and Lynwood Boulevard areas are examples of areas which have been suggested for designation as RSD districts. The proposed R district regulations will decrease the minimum lot area required from 8,000 square feet to 6,750 square feet and will reduce the minimum lot frontage requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet. The proposed setback requirements will be the same as for the RSD district, with one exception. The interior sideyard setback requirement will be five feet in all cases. This a five foot reduction from the existing requirements of 10 feet for two or more story dwellings and will allow property owners to add second story additions to their existing dwellings without going through the variance process. Another change being proposed in the R district will be to allow two family dwellings if a special use permit is obtained. In the existing regulations, two family dwell- ings are only allowed in an MR district. The draft R district regulations establish requirements which must be met before a special use permit can be issued for two-family dwellings, includ- ing that they must be located on arterial or collector roadways. The draft ordinance has three multiple family residential zoning district designations instead of the one designation con- tained in the present ordinance. This is done to insure that a variety of housing types are available, while controlling density to insure that multiple family developments are consistent with the existing character of Richfield. Specific uses permitted in the proposed multiple family district designations include single and two family dwelling units in the MR-1 districts, multiple family developments containing three to 17 dwelling units in MR-2 dis- tricts, and developments'-containing over 17 units in the MR-3 district. Developments containing more than 17 units must also Council Letter No. 422 -3- December 14, 1981 be developed in accordance with the existing PUD ordinance re- quirements. Other differences between the proposed and existing multiple-family district requirements include minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements instead of just minimum total lot area requirements, and maximum lot coverage requirements. Of the proposed changes, the one which may evoke the most con- troversy is the provision of allowing two family dwellings in the R single family district by special use permit. The prop- osed comprehensive plan indicates that the city will allow in- creased density of housing, along arterials and collectors to provide an increased number of housing units, and variety of housing types and to "buffer" single family areas from the ad- verse effects of heavily travelled roadways. The proposed ordin- ance would allow that to happen in three different ways with varied amount of city control. The first way that this increased density could occur under the new ordinance is if the city rezoned all of the property along the arterials and collector roadways to MR-1. This would allow two family dwellings to be constructed or existing dwellings to be converted to two-family dwellings without any special city approval, as long as they meet the MR-1 district requirements. The city would have very.little control after the property is rezoned. The second way which this could happen is if the properties along arterial and collector roadways are zoned R single family. Two family dwellings could then be constructed if the city approves a special use permit. The property owners would have to meet the standards set out in the ordinance. The important thing to re- member is that, unlike a rezoning action, the burden of proof in a special use permit action is on the city, if the ordinance ordin- ance provisions are met. In a rezoning, the property owner must prove that the rezoning action is proper; in a special use permit request, action to deny a special use permit requires that the city prove that the proposed development would be detrimental to the public welfare. This limits the actual control which the city has. A way to deal with this is to attempt to identify under what conditions a two-family dwelling would be detrimental to public welfare and then list standards in the ordinance which a development must meet in order to minimize those conditions. This would be relatively difficult to do. A third method of allowing two-family dwellings to develop along arterial and collector roadways is the method which is in the existing ordinance, but which is not possible in the proposed draft. This method is to zone property "R" single family resi- dential and then require property owners to go through a rezoning process before constructing a two-family dwelling. This would give the city the maximum amount of control, but would discourage property owners from constructing duplexes because they would be required to go through a drawn out city approval process which includes petitioning the surrounding property owners, a planning commission hearing, two readings by the city council (in addition to a four-fifths vote of the council), and a thirty-day publica- tion period. As mentioned before, the burden of proof in a rezon- Council Letter No. 422 -4- December 14, 1981 ing action is on the property owner so it would be easier for the city to turn down the request for a rezoning. To use this method . in the proposed oridnance the city would have to remove two family dwellings from the uses permitted by special use permit in "R" single family districts. The city will need to make some basic policy decisions on this, if in fact the city wants to allow increased housing density along arterial and collector roadways by allowing two-family dwellings to develop, and on the amount of control the city wants to have over that process. In any case, because Richfield is fully developed now, the change from single family development to two-family development along arterials and collector roadways would be a very slow process. It is anticipated that the new ordinance will be implemented in phases. The first phase is to adopt the propsed ordinance amendment. This will create the new regulations, but will not rezone any property. With the exception of the "R" single family district regulations, the existing regulations will remain and the property will be subject to the same regulations they curr- ently are. In the case of the "R" district, because the district designation will not change, no rezoning action will be taken. After the new regulations are in place, then property can be re- zoned from its current zoning district designation to its new zoning district designation as appropriate. It is anticipated that the planning commission will conduct hearings and make recomm- endations on all rezonings. Once the rezoning process is complete the existing regulations can then be repealed as necessary. After the November 23, 1981 first reading of the proposed ordinance, the ordinance was reviewed by the planning commission. They have recommended 14 changes to the council for amendment as follows: 1. That (e)(1) on page 14 be amended to read "Jots shall front on arterial or collector streets." 2. That the rear and interior sideyard setback requirements for detachec_ accessory buildings be changed from two feet tc five feet. This requirement appears on page 15, Subdivision 5(c) and on page 22, Subdivision 5(b). 3. That daycare facilities for more than 10 children and foster family or group homes for more than six children or mentally retarded or physically handicapped persons not be allowed in the "RSD" district, even by special use permit. This requirement is found on page 21, Subdivision 3(c) and (d). 4. That the maximum lot coverage in the MR-2 district be increased from 25 percent to 30 percent. This requirement appears on page 26, Subdivision 4(c). 0 Council Letter No. 422 -5- December 14, 1981 5. That Subdivision 3 beginning on page 44 be omitted. The following language should be added to the end of the "Building Main" definition on pages 2 and 3: "A structure, housing or containing an accessory use which is attached to the main building shall be made structurally a part of the main building and shall comply in all respects with the requirements of this chapter applicable to the main building." 6. Page 4 (19) in the definition for "Garages, Public" in the second line, the words "or storage garage" should be deleted since there is no definition for storage garage. 7. Page 7(33) in the definition for structure a suggested change was "any main or accessory building" because the present definition could infer such things as driveways, patios, etc. and that is not the intent. 8. Page 8 (37) in the third to the last line, delete the words "that non-accessory." 9. Page 13, Subdivision 2 should become Subdivision 2 on page 20 and Subdivision 2 on page 20 will become Subdivision 2 on page 13. • 10. Page 16(6) and (7) should be combined. 11. Page 20 (3.30A) the word "conserve" should be changed to "preserve." 12. Pages 23(4) the word "adjoints" should be corrected to "adjoins" and (6) and (7) should be combined. 13. Page 24 Subdivision 1(a) "RSD" should be changed to "R." 14. Page 9, Subdivision 8 should be consistent with (2) and (3) on page 14. It would appear that the first five have some policy implications while the last nine are really differences of opinion over semantics and phrasing between the planning commission and the city attorney's office. In the normal course of ordinance writing, I accept the word- ing from the city attorney's office unless there is a basis for change. The recommendations of the city staff for the fourteen items are as follows: ?1 1. The planning commission has identified a problem in their first concern over how to determine which houses along arterial and collector streets should be open to higher density development as duplexes. The ordinance restricts it to lots that "have vehicular access to arterial or collector streets." This excludes houses that are served Council Letter No. 422 -6- December 14, 1981 by alleys and is, thus, inadequate. The planning commission's recommendation is lots that "front on arterial and collector streets." We have numerous situations where lots front on the side streets, while the houses front on the arterial or collector street. In addition, there are houses adjacent to the arterial or collector street that front on the side street that are adversely impacted just as much and in some cases, more than the houses fronting on the arterial or collector street with greater setbacks. While there does not seem to be a best way of resolving this problem, it is recommended that (e) (1) on page 14 be amended to read "lots shall abut on arterial or collector streets." In that way the council can exercise its discretion when proposals are submitted for special use permits. 2. The planning commission has recommended that accessory build- ings in residential areas have a required rear and interior 1 sideyard setback of five feet. The existing practice is to allow two foot setbacks for accessory buildings such as garages. f t:. The impact of requiring a five-feet setback would be to make hundreds, and probably thousands, of garages in the City of Richfield, non-conforming uses. Most garages are located be- tween two and five feet of the rear or sideyard lines. In- creasing the setback requirement would reduce the amount of rear yard available for general open space and use to the • homeowner, as it narrows the usable part of lawn. Construction of garages two feet from-the sideyard is not a life safety factor and would seem to be an unwarranted additional require- ment on the property owner. It is recommended that the requirement which appears on page 15, subdivision 5 (c), and on page 22 subdivision 5 (b) be left as proposed in the ordinance. 3. The planning commission has recommended that day care facilities for more than 10 children, and foster or group homes for more than six children, or mentally retarded or physically handi- capped persons, not be allowed in the RSD district, even by special use permit. While having some reservations concerning the deletion of the foster home or group homes, I would concur with the planning commission's recommendation that the special use permit provision C? on page 21, subdivision 3 (c) and (d) be deleted from the ordinance. 4. The planning commission has recommended that the maximum lot coverage in the MR 2 district which relates to developments containing not less than 3 or more than 17 dwelling units, be increased from 25 to 30 percent. In the recent townhouse development on 74th.Street, the lot coverage was 290, and did . not appear to impact the quality of development. Council Letter No. 422 -7- December 14, 1981 ?Q It is recommended that the maximum lot coverage provision for MR 2 districts on page 26, subdivision 4 (c) be increased from 25 to 30 percent. 5. The planning commission is recommending that the entire accessory buildings section on pages 44-46 be omitted, with a substitution for language in the definition. It is the opinion of the city staff and the city attorney's e office that if this provision is eliminated there will be `t no guidelines for accessory buildings in commercial areas. For that reason, it is recommended that the provisions be retained as in the original ordinance. The following items are of minor significance and recommendations are made as follows: 6. Page 4 -(19) It is recommended that the words "or storage" be deleted. 7. Page 7 (33) It is recommended that the words "any main or accessory building" be substituted for the word "anything". 8. Page 8 - It is recommended that no change be made in the ordinance, since this accompanies Item No. 2 above. • 9. It is recommended that subdivision 2 on page 20 become subdivision 2 on page 13 and vice versa, with the change in reference in the item currently listed as subdivision 2 on page 13 to R district rather than RSD district. 10. It is recommended that the items be left as noted. 11. It is recommended that the word "conserve" be changed to the word "preserve" on page 20 3.30A. 12. It is recommended that the word "adjoints" be corrected to "adjoins". 13. It is recommended that RSD be changed to R on page 24, sub- division 1 (a). 14. It is recommended that the ordinance be left as worded currently. With the above recommendations, it is recommended that the city council conduct the public hearing on this matter and amend the attached ordinance to include the above mentioned changes and give it second reading approval. • Respectfully submitted, 4rif ollenberge City Manager KN/eja PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I? MINUTES DECEMBER 22, 1981 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Ertman, Commissioners Blevins, Kamprud, Ketcham, Russell, Hoverson, McDermott, Anderson, Ahlquist, Council Liaison Ludeman. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director; Rick Jopke, City Planner; Thom MacGibbon, Planning Aide; Judith Kunz, Administrative Aide. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Blevins, S/Ketcham to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of November 24, 1981. ITEM #1, CASE #81-V-34, VARIANCE REQUEST AT 211 W. 76th STREET Thom MacGibbon presented the staff report. Commissioner Russell asked how far along the project was. Staff indicated it is 60-70 percent complete. Chairperson Ertman asked why the project was started before a variance was obtained. Staff indicated the applicant did not know they needed a permit or variance and that a stop work order was issued by the city inspection staff. Phillip Gleason, part owner and vice president of Gleason Mortuary, appeared indicating they did not know they had to get a permit since a canopy was removed and the new one is to replace the old one. Chairperson Ertman asked the applicant why they or their contractor did not know they needed a permit. The applicant replied the con- tractor became involved after construction was started. Chairperson Ertman asked staff how close this structure was to the street. Staff indicated approximately 13 1/2' to 14'. Commissioner Anderson asked if the step had been eliminated for wheel chair access. The applicant indicated the step would remain. M/Russell, S/Ketcham to close the hearing. M/Ketcham, S/Blevins to recommend to the City Council that the • variance at 211 West 76th Street be granted. -2- Chairperson Ertman stated his objection to the variance because the canopy would be too close to the street and because they neglected to apply for a permit. Commissioner Russell stated the change created by the new canopy was not,in his opinion, substantial. Motion carried 6-3 with Commissioners Kamprud, Ertman and Ahlquist voting no. ITEM #2, CASE #81-SP-12 and CASES #81-V-35, 36, 37, REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT 1912 EAST 66TH STREET Rick Jopke presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Staff passed out a list of prior complaints on this property. Commissioner Ahlquist asked about the surrounding land use and zoning. Staff explained the use and zoning. Commissioner Russell asked why,with this list of complaints, the public nuisances were not taken into account in the special use permit review. Staff indicated the complaints are a concern but with proper screening and enforcement of nuisance ordinances the use would not be a problem. Raymond Wood, 4219 Queen Avenue North, applicant, appeared in response to the complaints in the seven years that they have had the business. Most of the complaints were taken care of, or were not on this property. He did not recall any complaints in the last 2-3 years. Commissioner Ketcham asked about the addition in terms of building materials. The applicant responded that the exterior would be split face or light weight insulated concrete block, meeting the energy code throughout the building. He also indicated that they would be able to meet the off-street parking requirements. He also stated damaged bumpers would be kept in the storage area for a maximum of two days before they are removed. Chairperson Ertman asked if they deliver rather than customers coming there. The applicant indicated that was correct. The chairperson then indicated that he felt that this was a warehouse rather than a retail operation and as such, would not be a permitted use in a C-2 district. Mark Black, 6532 20th Avenue South, appeared, stating the fence was broken by the fireman and his weeds are always mowed. He also stated he can see the building from his kitchen and the building provides a sound barrier to his neighborhood from traffic noise. He would prefer to see a consistent fence between the applicant's build- ing and the building to the east. He also indicated that airport noise was not a problem in the area. Staff stated a phone call was received from a Mrs. Olson, 6529 19th Avenue South, stating she was in favor of the proposal. • -3- John Olson, 6529 19th Avenue South, appeared asking about future fire possibilities. Staff indicated that the fire chief reviewed the plans and approved them. Rick Jopke reviewed uses permitted in C-2 districts and stated the city attorney classified this use as a public garage and, therefore, would require a special use permit. Commissioner Russell asked if the use were determined to be a wholesale operation, what would its status be in a C-2 district? Staff indicated either a rezoning would be necessary or the council j would have to find that less than 50 percent of the market value of the property was destroyed in the fire. M/Ahlquist, S/Ketcham to close the hearing. r1 L_J M/Ahlquist, S/Hoverson to recommend to the City Council that the proposed use at 1912 East 66th Street require a special use permit. If the council determines that a special use permit is needed, the Planninq Commission recommends its approval. Chairperson Ertman stated that this, in his opinion, is a warehouse operation and that he would not support the motion. Commissioner Russell stated that, in his opinion, this is a wholesale operation and is not sure if that fits in the C-2 district. Commissioner Ketcham stated that regardless of what you call it, the use would be compatible with the neighborhood and, therefore, he would support the motion. Motion carried 8-1, with chairperson Ertman voting no. M/Blevins, S/Ketcham to recommend to the City Council that the front yard setback variance be granted with Stipulation #1. 1. That the parking areas be designed to meet city offstreet parking area standards including number of spaces provided, perimeter curbing, and sidewalk. C] Motion carried 8-1 with commissioner Ahlquist voting, no. M/Blevins, S/Ketcham to recommend variance and the fence height var and setback ITEM #3, CASE-"81-V-38, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 7401 LYNDALE AVENUE S. Rick Jopke presented the'staff report to the Planning Commission. Motion carried 9-0. -4- Bob Kost, landscape architect for the property owner, Mr. Balkowitsch, appeared reviewing the proposal, stating that because of numerous vandalism attempts and other incidents in the rear yard, they feel that the fence should not be constructed. This would deter incidentse of vandalism because the police would be better able to observe the area. A wood retaining wall is proposed and landscaping for a pleasing appearance. He also indicated that a 6 foot fence would only screen the lower 2 1/2 feet of the building because of the topography of the site. Commissioner McDermott asked whether dumpsters would be kept. Mark Kawell, architect for the project, appeared, stating that customers purchase items in boxes so trash is minimal; that on the day of pickup the dumpsters would be taken out of the garage and placed in the driveway. Commissioner Russell stated that every business could make the same complaint that fences provide lurking spots and that the primary objective is to screen the asphalt and driving areas from adjacent multiple family uses. M/Ahlquist, S/McDermott to close the hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Ketcham stated that granting this variance would set a bad precedent. The city has a buffering policy between competing land uses which results in expense to developers but we don't want too encourage applications for variances which would undercut buffering policy. M/Russell, S/Ahlquist to recommend to the City Council denial of the variance request at 7401 Lyndale Avenue South. Motion Carried 9-0. ITEM #4, CASE #81-V-39, VARIANCE REQUEST AT 7504 DUPONT AVENUE SOUTH Thom MacGibbon presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Patrick Johnson, 775 Rainy, St. Paul, sales representative for Panel Craft, appeared representing the applicant. He stated the need for the vestibule as a place for people to enter and the landing will have a railing. M/Ahlquist, S/McDermott to close the hearing. M/Blevins, S/Ketcham to recommend that the City Council grant the variance at 7504 Dupont. Commissioner Ahlquist stated that he is opposed to the variance because it appeared to him that sufficient grounds were not • presented and the applicant's proposal would only be granted if we were willing to accord a variance to anyone who deviated from the present or proposed setbacks in small increments. -5- Commissioner Ketcham stated each variance should be reviewed individually and in this case, it's only one foot. Motion failed 4-5 with Commissioners Hoverson, Russell, McDermott, Anderson and Ahlquist voting, no. M/Ahlquist, S/Russell to recommend to the City Council denial of the variance request at 7504 Dupont. Motion carried 5-4 with Commissioners Ketcham, Ertman, Blevins, and Kamprud voting no. ITEM #5, CASE #81-SP-13, SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST AT 6300 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH Thom MacGibbon presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Edward Bird, 11192 Unity, Coon Rapids, representing the applicant, Food-N-Fuel, Inc. appeared. M/Russell, S/Ahlquist tc close the hearing. Motion carried. M/Kamprud, S/Ahlquist to recommend that the City Council approve the special use permit at 6300 Lyndale Avenue South. 0 Motion carried 9-0. ITEM #6, FINDING THAT THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT 6822 QUEEN AVENUE SOUTH IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN M/Ahlquist, S/Anderson to approve Resolution No. 42. Motion carried 9-0. ITEM #11, INFORMATION LETTER #36, REVIEW OF CITY'S OFFSTREET PARKING GUIDELINES Rick Jopke presented the staff report. M/Blevins, S/Ketcham to recommend to the City Council the following changes to the city's offstreet 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 main- tained to the Public Safety Department standards, 24 foot roadway up to and around buildings without internal fire protection, however. -6- 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. w 5. The number of car spaces required for business and pro- fessional uses be reduced 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. 6. The number of car spaces required for medical and dental clinics should be set at 5 spaces for each doctor and 1 space for each two employees for medical clinics and 3 spaces for each dentist and 1 space for each two employees for dental clinics. Motion carried 7-2 with Commissioners Ertman and Kamprud voting no. ITEM #7, SCHOOL BOARD LIAISON REPORT Commissioner Hoverson gave the report to the Planning Commission. ITEM #8, PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION LIAISON REPORT Commissioner Kamprud gave the report to the Planning Commission. ITEM #9, CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Commissioner's Ertman and Ketcham gave the report to the Planning Commission. ITEM #10, HRA LIAISON REPORT Commission McDermott gave the report to the Planning Commission Commissioner Ahlquist reported on a meeting with city staff and the city attorney on the residential zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission was asked to comment on the setback requirements for accessory uses, and whether or not the intent of the Planning Commission was to exclude group homes in the RSD district. The commission indicated that it is their recommendation that the side and rear yard setback of accessory buildings be 5 feet. M/Russell, S/Ahlquist to allow group homes by special use permit in RSD districts. Motion carried 6-3 with Commissioners Kamprud, Ertman and Ketcham voting no. M/Kamprud, S/ to allow day care centers by special use permit in RSD districts. Motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Ahlquist then discussed the need for further commission • input concerning the possibility of increased density along arterial and collector streets by allowing two family dwellings to be developed. Discussion occurred about the ways this could occur and the degree -7- of control the city should have over this process. M/Russell, S/Ahlquist to recommend the zoning map as previously developed showing MR-1 zoning along arterials. Motion carried 8-1 with Commissioner Blevins voting no. M/Ahlquist, S/Russell to allow duplexes on collector streets in the R districts by special use permit. Motion carried. M/Ahlquist, S/Blevins to indicate that lots should abut collectors or arterials to qualify for a special use permit to allow a two- family dwelling in R districts. Motion carried 5-4 with Commissioners Hoverson, Russell, Ketcham, and McDermott voting no. M/Russell, S/McDermott to recommend the map as presented showing MR-1 districts as buffer areas adjacent to commercial areas. Discussion ensued about the use of progressive use buffers between residential uses and commercial uses. Motion carried 8-1 with Commissioner Blevins voting no. Commissioner Russell indicated that the City Council will be meeting on Decmeber 28, 1981 at 5:30 PM to discuss the residential zoning ordinance and requested that as many commission members as possible should attend this meeting. Staff was requested to call and remind commission members of the December 28, 1981 meeting. M/Ahlquist, S/McDermott to adjourn. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT: 11:05 PM Erich J. Russell, Secretary Richfield Planning Commission CL Y -Z 11/18/81 INDEX TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING AMENDMENTS RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (This index is provided for reference purposes only and is not a part of the zoning amendments). Ordinance Section No. Subject Matter Paae No. I Amending Section 3.27, Subd. 3, including 1 providing new or amended definitions for arterial streets, collector streets, family, floor area ratio, height of building, lot coverage, lot width, outdoor open space, yard, front yard, required yard, and side yard. II Amending Section 3.28, Subd. 1, providing 10 for new zoning classifications RSD, MR-1, MR-2, and MR-3. III Amending Section 3.29 by adding a new Subd. 11 15 concerning walls, fences, and hedges. IV Deleting the existing Section 3.30 and pro- 12 viding an entirely new provision and section on the Residence (R) District. V Adding a new Section 3.30A to follow Section 20 3.30 and provide the basic definition of the new (RSD) Residential Special District. VI Adding a new Section 3.31A with definitions 23 of the new multiple residence districts, MR-1, MR-2, and MR-3. VII Providing a technical amendment to Section 30 3.32, Subd. 1(1). VIII Providing technical amendments to Section 30 3.32, Subd. 4. IX Providing technical amendments to Section 32 3.33, Subd. 1(1). X Providing technical amendments to Section 33 3.33, Subd. 3(a). XI Providing technical amendments to Section 33 3.34A, Subd. 2(5). XII Providing technical amendments to Section 34 3.36. i. r Ordinance Section No. XIII XIv Xv Subject Matter Providing technical amendments to Section 3.38A. Providing minor amendments to Section 3.39 and repealing Subd. 2(_l)(e) entirely. Amending Section 3.57, Subd. 1 in regard to minimum lot area and minimum lot width requirements. Page No. 37 38 47 Note: Also provided is a separate ordinance amending Section 4.05, Subd. 1, dealing with parking areas and permits, by adding the new RSD zoning district to the coverage of that section. This appears at page 49. i 0 11/18/81 Draft • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: AMENDING SECTION 3.27, SUBD. 3 BY PROVIDING NEW DEFINITIONS FOR "ARTERIAL STREETS", "COLLECTOR STREETS", "FLOOR AREA RATIO", "LOT COVERAGE", "LOT WIDTH", "OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE", AND "REQUIRED YARD" AND MAKING OTHER CHANGES; AMENDING SECTION 3.28, SUBDIVISION 1, BY PROVIDING FOR NEW ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS RSD, MR-1, MR-2, AND MR-3; AMENDING SECTION 3.29 BY ADDING A NEW SUBD. 15 WITH PROVISIONS CONCERNING WALLS, FENCES, AND HEDGES; AMENDING SECTION 3.30 BY REPLACING THE EXISTING PROVISIONS WITH NEW PROVISIONS FOR THE RESIDENCE (R) DISTRICT; ADDING A NEW SECTION 3.30A WITH PROVISIONS FOR THE NEW RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL (RSD) DISTRICT; ADDING A NEW SECTION 3.31A WITH PROVISIONS FOR THE NEW MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (MR-1, MR-2, AND MR-3) DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTION 3.32, SUBDS. 1(1) AND 4, SECTION 3.33, SUBDS. 1(1) AND 3(a), SECTION 3.34A, SUBD. 2(5), SECTION 3.36, AND SECTION 3.38A BY ADDING REFERENCES TO THE NEW ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS AND MAKING OTHER CHANGES; AMENDING SECTION 3.39 BY DELETING SUBD. 2(1)(e) CONCERNING REGULATION OF WALLS, FENCES, AND HEDGES, BY DELETING SUBD. 4 THEREOF CONCERNING USE OF EXISTING LOTS, AND BY MAKING OTHER CHANGES; AMENDING SECTION 3.57, SUBDIVISION 1, BY PROVIDING THAT THE MINIMUM LOT AREA AND MINIMUM LOT WIDTH STANDARDS OF THAT SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUPERSEDED WHEN OTHER SUCH STAN- DARDS ARE SPECIFIED FOR PARTICULAR LOTS ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: I. Section 3.27, Subdivision 3, of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Definitions. The following terms have the mean- ings ascribed to them in this section: (1) "Apartment" means a room or suite of rooms which • is designed for, intended for or occupied by one family and equipped with cooking facilities. 2) "Arterial Streets" means the following streets and roadwavs in the City: The Crosstown (Highway No. 62); I-35W; 10 I-494; Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 77; 66th Street between Xerxes Avenue and Highway No. 77; 76th Street between Nicollet and Xerxes Avenues; Penn Avenue; Lvndale Avenue; Nicollet Ave- nue; Portland Avenue; and Xerxes Avenue between 62nd and 66th f34 (3) "Automobile camp" means land or premises used or intended for occupancy by trailers or movable dwellings, rooms, or sleeping quarters of any kind, including trailer coach parks. f3J (4) "Automobile court" means a group of two or more detached or semi-detached buildings containing guest rooms or apartments which group is designed, intended or used primarily for the accomodation of automobile travelers; including groups of buildings designated as auto cabins, motor lodges, motels and similar designations. f43 (5) "Automobile Wrecking" - See Junk Yards. f5J (6) "Block" means that property abutting on one side of a street and lying between the nearest intersecting or intercepting streets or projected streets and another street, railroad right-of-way or unsubdivided acreage. • f6i (7) "Building, Accessory" means a sebed}xate-hHlldlxg, the-xse-e€-Hhieh-}s-ixeldextal-te-that-ef-a-malx-h?}ld}xg-ex the-same-let- detached building used for any permitted accessorv use. (8) "Building Main" means a building in which is 2 conducted the principal use of the lot upon which it is situated. "?? Collector Streets" means the following streets and roadways in the City: 69th Street between Xerxes and Penn Avenues; 65th Street between Nicollet Avenue and Rae Drive; Rae Drive between 65th and 66th Streets; 70th Street between Lyndale Avenue and Diagonal Boulevard; 73rd Street between Tyndale Avenue and Diagonal Boulevard; Diagonal Boulevard; 76th Street between Hiqhway No. 77 and Nicollet Avenue; 12th Avenue between 66th Street and I-494; Cedar Avenue; Bloomington Avenue between 62nd and 66th Streets; 66th Street between High- way No. 77 and Standish Avenue; and Standish Avenue. +83 (10) "Court" means an open, unoccupied space bounded on two or more sides by the exterior walls of a • building or buildings on the same lot. +94 (11) "Dwelling" means a building or portion there- of used exclusively for residence occupancy, including one-family, two-family and multiple dwellings but not in- cluding hotels, or lodging or boarding houses. +194 (12) "Dwelling, One-Family" means a building used exclusively for occupancy by one family. +}}j 13 "Dwelling, Two-Family" means a building used exclusively for occupancy by two families living indepen- dently of each other. +123 14 "Dwelling, Multiple" means a building or portion thereof used for occupancy by three or more families living independently of each other. 3 A +4:;j 15) "Dwelling Unit" means a dwelling or portion of a dwelling or of an apartment hotel used by one family . for cooking, living and sleeping. f114J (16) "Family" means one or more persons occupying a premises and living as a single, non-profit housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity, or sorority house. The term "family" does not include.a group of individuals, exceedinq three in number, not related by blood, marria ge, or adop tion. (17) " Floor Area Ratio" means the sum total of the gross floor area of all floors of the structures on the site divided by the Toss site area. Gross floor area shall include halls i lobbies, stairways, elevator shafts, enclosed porches and balconies and below grade floor areas used for habitation. Not included as gross floor areas are open terraces, patios atriums or balconies, carports, garages, breezewavs, tool sheds, special purpose areas for common use of occupants, such as recreation room social hall, staff space for therapy or examination in in-care housinq, and basement space not used for living accomodations. Gross site area includes the site plus one half of abutting streets and alleys. f154 (18) "Garage, Private" means an accessory building for only the storage of self-propelled vehicles. +4:63 19) "Garages, Public" means any premises except those herein defined as a private or storage garage, used for the storage or ease care of self-propelled vehicles or where any such vehicles are equipped for operation or repair or kept for remuneration, hire or sale. • 4 fl:?J (20) "Height of Building" means the vertical distance from the average elevation of the lot along the front building line fke-average-level-ef-eke-k}glies f-ap:d Iowes t-peiRt-ef-tkaf-peEtien-of-tke-let-eeve-i--ed-by-tke building to the highest point of the roof for flat roofs; to the deck line of mansard roofs; and to the mean height between the eaves and ridge for gable, hip, and gambrel roofs. f18i (21) "Home Occupation" means any activity con- ducted within a dwelling or building or upon the parcel of land containing the dwelling, which is incidental to the use of the dwelling for dwelling purposes and does not change the character thereof. f19J (22) "Hotel" means any building or portion thereof where lodging is offered to transient guests for compensa- tion and in which there are more than five sleeping rooms with no cooking facilities in an individual room or apart- ment. f2e3 (23) "Junk Yard" means land or building used for the storage or keeping of junk, including scrap metals, or for the dismantling or wrecking of automobiles or other vehicles or machinery other than the storage of materials which is incidental or accessory to any business or indus- trial use on the same lot. f213 24) "Lot, Corner" means a lot situated at the intersection of two or more streets, or bounded on two or more adjacent sides by street lines. 5 (25) "Lot Coverage" means the total ground area covered by structures. 0 f 22 j (26) "Lot, Interior" means a lot other than a corner lot. f23j (27 "Lot, Key" means the first lot to the rear of a corner lot, the front line of which is a continuation of the side line of the corner lot, exclusive of the width of any alley, and fronting on the street which intersects or intercepts the street on which the corner lot fronts. (28) "Lot Width" means the distance between the two side propertv lines measured along the front property line. f243 (29) "Non-Conforming Use" means a use lawfully in existence on the effective date of this code that does not conform in use, height, location, or size, or any one or more of these, with the regulations of the district in which it is located, except that such a use is not non-conforming if it would be authorized under special use permit where located. 30) "Outdoor Open Space" means open space which is improved and located so as to provide outdoor living area for residents. This shall include lawns and other landscaped areas. walkwa recreation areas. aved terraces and sitting area and outdoor Outdoor open space areas shall be at least 20 feet wide and shall not include driveways, parkinq areas or front or sideyard setback areas. f2Fnj (31) "Story" means that portion of a building included between -the surface of any floor and the surface of 6 the next floor above it, or if there is no floor above it, then the space between the floor and the ceiling next above it. f263 32) "Story, Half" means that portion of a build- ing under a gable, hip or gambrel roof the wall plates of which, on at least two opposite exterior walls, are not more than two feet above the floor of such story. a +27'i (33) "Structure" means anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires location on the ground or attachment to something having location on the ground. f2281 34) "Structural alterations" means any change in the supporting members of a building such as bearing walls, columns, beams or girders. f29j 35) "Use" means the purpose for which land or premises or a building thereon is designed, arranged or intended or for which it is or may be occupied or main- tained. f38j 36) "Use, Accessory" means a use incidental and accessory to the principal use of a lot or building located on the same lot as the accessory use. f3-I? 37) "Yard" means any open space etke-t?iax-a-eeat-ex the-sage-1et-HitA_a-bUi1diRff7 on the same lot with a building, which open space is unoccupied and unobstructed. flFaf-the g?at?xd-apHa?d--e?eept-a9-etke?Wiee-p?ejai?3ed-ix-beetiex-3-39-a€ this-ekapte- In measuring a required yard, the line of a building means a line paailei-te-tke-xeaeet-iet-iixe-daN? through the point of a building a-tie-peixt-e€-a-dHei?ixg 7 greup above grade and nearest to sueh the lot line, emelasive e€-the- eepee ire-a eh ee teal-€ea a es-emtmefated-gym Seetien-3-39-e€-tkis-Ehap?eE-as-net-te-be-eons i4eKed-lx tfleaetdfing-yard-d};feneien6-eiF-as-tie ing-pe_;FFftitted-te-extend irate-any-€ ext--aide,--e -EeaE-yaEd--.f espeetiziely- and- the-feasi-ifefe:at-sliali-be-tal?en-€ e -the-l}ne-ef-the-l3t3ilEl- except that non-accessory buildi cornices, c Dies or eaves may extend into the z not more than two feet six inches. fired vard +-;24 38) "Yard, Front" means a yard extending across the front of the lot between the inner side yard lines and lying between the front line of the lot and the nearest line of the building. Ground level landings or uncovered porches may extend into the required front vard no more than six feet. +334 39) "Yard, Rear" means a yard extending across the full width of the lot and lying between the rear line of the lot and the nearest line of the building. (40) "Yard, Required" means the minimum setback herein- after imposed by this chapter. f34j (41) "Yard, Side" means a yard between the side line of the lot and the nearest line of the building and extending from the front line of the lot to the rear yard. Ground level land=ings or uncovered porches may extend into required sideyard no more than three feet, but in no event shall be closer than four feet to the side lot line. •. f4F-j 42) The term "recreational vehicles and equip- 8 ment" means travel trailers, including those which telescope is • or fold down, chassis mounted campers, house cars, motor homes, tent trailers, slip-in campers, converted buses and converted vans: 1. Travel trailers, chassis mounted campers, house cars, motor homes, tent trailers, slip-in campers, converted buses, converted vans and units that are designed and used for human living quarters and meeting the following qualifications: a. Are not used as the residence of the owner or occupant, b. Are used for temporary living quarters by the a owner or occupant while engaged in recreational or vacation activities, c. Are self-propelled or towed on the public streets or highways incidental to such recreational or vacation activities. 2. Slip-in campers are mounted into a pick-up truck in the pick-up box, either by bolting through the floor of the pick-up box or by firmly clamping to the side of the pick-up box. The term includes snowmobiles and snowmobile trailers, boats and boat trailers, and all terrain vehicles and all terrain vehicle trailers. The term does not include mobile homes or house trailers as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 168.011, Subdivision 8. k-;63 43 The term "established driveway" means a 9 permanent concrete, asphalt or other surfaced area of a lot designed to provide ingress and egress for motor vehicles from the street to a garage or other off-street parking area authorized herein. The term does not include any non-con- tiguous area exclusively set aside or used for the parking and storage of recreational vehicles and equipment, or parking lots. II. Section 3.28, Subdivision 1, of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Establishment of Districts. For the pur- poses of this chapter, the city shall be divided into the following use districts: R Residence District MR Multiple Residence RSD Residential Special District MR-1 Two Family Residential District MR-2 Multiple Family Residential District MR-3 High Density Multiple Residential District C-1 Neighborhood Business District C-2 General Commercial District I Industrial District PR Planned Residential District PMR Planned Multi-Family Residential PC-1 Planned Neighborhood Commercial is 10 PC-2 Planned General Commercial 0 PI Planned Industrial The symbols opposite the names describing each use district above may be used in place of the name of the use district in succeeding provisions of this chapter. III. Section 3.29 of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended by adding the following new Subdivision 15, providing as follows: Subd. 15. Walls, Fences, and Hedges. A wall, fence or hedge may occupy part of a required yard except as follows: (1) The term hedges as used in this subdivision shall not include trees. (2) No wall, fence or hedge more than four feet in height shall be constructed or permitted forward of the front line of the building extended to the side lot lines. (3) No wall, fence or hedge more than six feet in height shall be constructed or permitted elsewhere on the lot, except that in General Commercial ("C-211) and Indus- trial ("I") districts the maximum height shall be eight feet. (4) All walls, fences, and hedges abutting on the public right-of-way shall be set back three feet from the public right-of-way except that walls, fences, and hedges abutting on any non-collector or non-arterial street right- of-way may be exempted from this setback provision when in 0 the opinion of the city manager such exemption shall not 11 conflict with any exis anv sidewalk snow stor city sidewalk polic roblems, and in the c r create e of a collector or arterial street, the city manager may likewise grant exemption from this setback provision when there exists at least three feet for snow storage. (S) On any corner lot nothing shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow in such a manner as to obstruct vision between the height of two and one-half feet above and ten feet above the intersection of the center lines of the intersecting streets in the area bounded by the street curb lines abutting said corner lot and a line con- necting points on the abutting curb lines fifty feet from the intersection of the extensions of the curb lines. 6) Barbed wire and electric fences are prohibited (7) All posts on any fence located on or near the lot line shall be on the inside of the fence unless they are designed as an integral part of the fence. (8) All fences, walls, and hedges legally existing on the effective date of this amendment shall be allowed to continue to exist and to be repaired and maintained. IV. Section 3.30 of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.30. RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R). The "R" district is intended to preserve the single family residential character of Richfield neighborhoods insuring that new or replacement development will be compatible with the detached single 12 family dwellings of the neighborhood, preserving neighborhood densities. Subd. 1. Principal Uses: (a) Single family dwellings; (b) Elementary, middle, junior high and senior high schools; Publicly owned and operated recreation and park facilities; (d) Churches, synagogues, places of worship, convents, parsonages, provided that such convent or parson- age shall house no more than six unrelated indivi- duals. 0 Subd. 2. Accessory Uses. Any accessory use permitted in an "RSD" district, and private schools that are under the supervision of and on the premises of the principal use set forth in Subd. 1, (b) and (d) of this section. Subd. 3. Uses by Special Use Permit: a) Davcare centers for more than 10 persons licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities; (b) Foster family or group homes licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities caring for more than six children or mentally retarded or physically handicapped persons. (c) Private recreational facilities; 13 (d) Major public utilities; (e) Two family dwellings, subject to the following additional requirements: 1) Lot(s) shall have vehicular access to arterial or collector streets; 2) Two off-street parkinq spaces i must be enclosed, shall be rovi - dwelling unit; 3) Only one access shall be allowed. of which for each f) Freestanding or ground-based antenna structures and roof-mounted antenna higher than ten feet from the highest point of the roof. Subd. 4. Requirements for Lot Area, Width and Coverage. (a) Minimum. lot area; Single family dwellings: 6,750 square feet. Two family dwellings: 9,000 square feet. Other uses: 43,560 square feet. b) Minimum lot width: Single family Dwellings: 50 feet. Two family dwellings: 60 feet. Other uses: 150 feet. (c) For res idential uses, maximum lot coverage shall be 250, for other uses, 50%. No accessory build- ing may occupy more than 30% of the area of any rear yard. 0 14 Subd. 5. Minimum Buildinq Setbacks. Sideyard Use Front Rear Streetside Interior (a) Single family 30' 25' 15' S' (b) Two family 30' 25' 15' 10' (c) Accessory 30' 2' 15' 2' (d) Other uses 30' 25' 15' 25' (e) Additional sidevard setback requirement: On a corner lot adjacent to a kev lot, the sidevard on the street side of such corner lot shall have a width at least equal to the front vard of such key lot. (f) Additional requirements for accessory buildings: (1) An accessory building shall not be closer than five feet to the main building; (2) In the case of an interior lot abutting one street, no accessory building shall encroach upon the half of the lot abutting the street, nor be situated forward of the front building line; (3) In the case of an interior lot abutting upon two streets, no accessory buildings shall encroach upon the one-fourth of the lot abut- ting each street; (4) In the case of a corner lot, no accessory 15 building shall be located forward of the building front line or its extension; nor nearer the side street than the street side building line or its extension where the adjoining lot is a key lot; (5) In the case of a corner lot abutting more than two streets, no accessory building shall encroach upon any one-fourth of the lot abutting any street; 6) Every foundation, floor, wall, ceiling and roof shall be reasonably watertight, weather- tight, rodent proof and shall be kept in good repair, including external appearance; (7) Every window, exterior door, and basement hatchway shall be reasonably watertight, weather tight and rodent proof and shall be kept in sound working condition and good re ap i r . (g) Additional requirements for other allowed uses: No building shall be located within 50 feet of anv lot line of a residential district. The required setbacks shall be increased by one foot for each foot of building height in excess of 42 feet. Subd. 6. Maximum heights. one and two family dwellings shall not exceed 25 feet; accessory buildings shall not exceed 15 feet. All other buildings shall not exceed 42 feet, except that public and semi-public buildinc churches shall not exceed 75 feet. 16 i • schools, is 0 H6E-REGHEAT4r9H6-RBR-RES+BENEE-B+STRIET-fR e€Re.f wise -g e i?e?-ix-€Ris-eRa?€e IElimff-e-f -lamEl-sRalI Re-xseel-amEi-me-Rmil4img-shall-Re?ea€tieE-Re-e-f ee€eEl-e-f -s€yee- €xall-alee?-emee?-€e -erne-e-ee-e€-Re-€elle?im?-roses- f€3 6im?le-€a?il?-?Wellim?s-amp-€Re}?-aeeesse??-?????imQs- f33 Here-eeex?a?iems- f4? -is-€emm?-amp-fie e ime?-€Ra - Re-eeex?aRey-e€-a s}mffle-€aid-esi?emee-im-a-sim?€e-€ai€-esi?emee-mei?R?eRee? -a-mom e -a€-xmfela€ed-ge-f sews-€emE1s-te-Eli si-mpt-amEI-6.istufb • ?Re-eRa?ae?e?-e€-sxeR-mei?Rbe?Ree?;-€Ra?-smell-eeex?ame?-€em?s-€e aElve.f sely-a€€eeto-pEepe-f ty-valmatiems-e€-the-ether-simEjle-€ahily Eesidemees-im-sxeR-me}ffRReEReed;-€Ra€-saeR-eeempamey-temds-te im?el?e-?a?€ems-e€-li?im?-axe-eem?me€-wRieR-awe-??€€e?em?-€?e? amp-e€€emsi?e-amp-amme?im?-€e-€Re-?esi?em?s-e€-e€Re?-simile €amily-?esidexee-s€_f me?a es-im-€Re-me}?13be keel;-€Ra -sxeR eeem?ame?-€em?s-€e-e?ea€e-s?eeial-?eliee-??eRle?s-€e?-?Re-e}??; that.-smell-eeempamey-is-feEe-im-€Re-xa€x±Fe-e€-a-fRmltiple -f esidem€ial-use-e€-p?epef€y-amEI-sRexIEl-femme-app_f epfia€el-y-Re in-€Re-fal€iple-iFesidemee-areas-e€-?Re-eit ;-axEI-that-saeR eeex?ame?-e€-a-tesi?em€ial-axi€-im-a-?xl?i?le-?esi?exee-$exe a€-eke-eit?-is-less-liRel?-€e-?esm}€-im-sxek-a??e?se-ix€laexees eE-saeR-aElveEse-im€laemees-Hill-Re-to€ally-aRsem€-im-sxeR 0 fxl€iple- esi?exee-$ernes--- €-is-xmlaH€xl-€e -a-six?le-€aFRilY 17 Eesidenee-stEuetxt?e-ix-the-Eesident-iial-aEeas- e-?e-eeex? eH- net-feIated-hy-bleed--maffiage-ef-aelep?_;iex- bxiIElixgs-finelxding-nape-plates-anEl-ballet}n-bea?Els meeo?_inff-#-Ae- e?x e en s-a€- ? f23--EIxbs--gel€-eea ses--?a?Qes--€_;Fa#_e_f nity-e?-sexeEit-;y henses--withext-9efv}ees- e- ie-exs€afa.;Eily-ea.;FE?ed ex-as-a-?xs?ness- • f3?--Hest}?a:ls--e??n}es-and-e??e?-?x?€??n?s-xse?-€e?-??e f43--Rk}-Iaxo_A.f -axe-eta }ta??e-ins€ x ens-e e -shah these-hefe?e€eEe-1ftext?eneq7 f53--The-keepiREj-ef-mere-tlian-twe-HeafEleaFs-by-a-.f esidexee €afiIY7 nstalla }exs- 6xb4--3---He}ak€-ReelxIat-}ens---He-HxiIEli! ng-shaII-kefea€teiF-He e ee e?-e -s xe ? a?€ -al e ed-}n-4-He-fesielenee-Ells€ }e€-€e eeee?-35-€eel-e-?-sa ies-}n-lie ?k-sa?ee-a-e?€}eat}exs and-e?ee???exs-??ew??e?-?n-see??en-3-39-e€-?H}s-eka??e?- 0 18 6Hbd--47--Tnet-Afea7 -R-fentaffe-and-Yafd-Rene±fefents---The-€ellewiRE ?e?nl?e?ents-shall-he-ehse??e?-??-al€-??€l??x?s-??-the-uRu-??sG??F heEea€tee-e eete?-e -st aete all -alte ee7-s?ibjeet-te-the-.ieEli€}- eat}ens-?alhe?--?eeten-3-39-e€-this-ehapteiFt f€?--het-Area---E?e??-ka}l?}n?-?esl?ne?-€e?-the-keasln?-e€ ene-€a}--€e?etke-wt?-€s-aeeesseicy-hictlld}nQs--shall-ke €eeate?-en-a-let-ln-ene-ewne?sk?g-ka?}n?-an-area-a€-ne€-less than-87 899-sEjeaEe-€eet-ineleh}ng-tie-aEljaeent-ene-Rat€-e€-the ahatt}nQ-alley- f?3--?xent- a h---Raeh-he l? n?-sha€l-have -a-€Eent-yafEl-e€ net-less-€Ran-38-€eet-sah?ee€-te-Leh}€}e?-?e?el?e?ents-een- €a?ne?-}n-6eet?en-3-39-e€-th€s-eka?te?- +44--81de-YaEh---Raeh-helIEIinQ-shall-have-twe-Side- YaEds- exe-en-eaeh-side-e€-the-ke}IEIlnEj---The-slhe-yaEds-in-the- ease e€- -sta -a -sfalleE-hniIElinEjs-shall-have-a-w}elth-e€-net less-tkan-€}ve-€eet-anEI-}n-the-ease-a€-lade-hn}?}nQs-shall have -a-wl?tk-e€-net-less-than-ten-€eet--seh4eet-te-feEIl€}eatlens and-s?ee?€leatlens-??e?}hey-€e?-}n-feet}en-3-39-e€-th}s-eha?te?- Eaeh-dwell}n?-leeate?-en-a-ee?ne?-let-}n-seek-?lst?let-steal€-hare a-s}fie-a?-en-the-sloe-ahntt}ng-even-a-sheet-e€-net-less -than the-Rilnlfaf-€went-yaEEI-EIeptk-?eEja}Eefent-en-the-aE14e}x}ng lnte}ate-let-het-tks-sha€€-net-e?aee-the-ka}l?ahle-w}nth e€-any-eefne-let-te-less-than-38-€eet- f43--Rear?a??---Eaeh-kn}l?ln?-shall-ka?e-a-?ea?-?a?? equal- te-twenty-pe±Feent-e€-the-Elepth-e€-the-let-te-a faxlfaf-feEjalEed-4epth-e€-85-€eet- • 19 V. The following new Section 3.30A is hereby added to The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, after Section 3.30 0 thereof, and it shall read as follows: 3.30A. RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL DISTRICT (RSD). The "RSD" district is intended to conserve the residential character of selected areas by insuring that new or replacement housing will conform to the established character of the neighborhood and by preserving the existing low density large lot development of these neiqhborhoods. Subdivision 1. Principal Use: Single family dwellings. Subd. 2. Accessorv Uses: (a) Private garages; (b) Greenhouses and garden houses; (c) Storage buildings; (d) Private swimming pools subject to the requirements found in Section 3.16 of this code. (e) Minor public utility facilities; (f) Family and group family day care homes licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities for ten or fewer children; Foster familv or croup homes licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities cari for six or fewer children or mentallv retarded or physically handicapped persons. 0 20 (h) Home occupations; (i) Private driveways and sidewalks. Subd. 3. Uses by Special Use Permit: a) Private recreational facilities. (b) Freestanding or ground based antenna structures and roof mounted antennae higher than 10 feet from the highest point of the roof. (c) Daycare facilities for more than 10 children. (d) Foster family or group homes licensed by the appropriate governmental authorities caring for more than six children or mentally retarded or physically handicapped persons. I* Subd. 4. Requirements for Lot Area, Width and Coverage: (a) Minimum lot area shall be 10,000 square feet for a single family dwelling; (b) Minimum lot width shall be 75 feet; (c) Maximum lot coverage shall be 25%. No accessory building may occupy more than 30% of the area of anv rear vard. 0 21 Subd. 5. Minimum Building Setbacks: Sideyard Front Rear Streetside Interior (a) Single familv 30' 25' 15' 10' (bj Accessory 30' 2' 15' 2' (c) Additional sideyard setback requirement: On a corner lot adjacent to a kev lot, the sideyard on the street side of such corner lot shall have a width at least equal to the required front yard of 0 such kev lot. d) Additional requirements for accessory buildings: 1) An accessory building shall not be closer than five feet to the main building. 2) In the case of an interior lot abutting one street, no accessory building shall encroach upon the half of the lot abutting the street, nor be situated forward of the front building line. 3 In the case of an interior lot abutting upon two streets, no accessory buildings shall encroach upon the one-fourth of the lot abutting each street. 22 (4) In the case of a corner lot, no accessory building shall be located forward of the building front line or its extension. If a corner lot adjoints a key lot, accessory buildings shall be set back a distance equal to the front yard setback of the key lot. (5) In the case of a corner lot abutting more than two streets, no accessory building shall encroach upon any one-fourth of the lot abutting any street. (6) Every foundation, floor, wall, ceiling and roof shall be reasonably watertight, weather- tight, rodent proof and shall be kept in good repair, including external appearance. (7) Every window, exterior door and basement hatchway shall be reasonably watertight, weathertight and rodent roof and shall be kept in sound working condition and good repair. Subd. 6. Maximum Height. Single family dwellings shall not exceed 35 feet in height; accessory buildings thereto shall not exceed 15 feet in height. VI. The following new Section 3.31A is hereby added to The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, after 0 Section 3.31 thereof, and it shall read as follows: 23 3.31A. MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (MR-1, MR-2, AND MR-3) DISTRICTS. The multiple residence districts are hereby established and shall be designated "MR-1", "MR-2", and "MR-3", respectively. The purpose is to allow the establishment and maintenance of a variety of residential densities without regard to the ownership of individual dwelling units. Subd. 1. Principal Uses: (a) District MR-1: Residences containing two dwelling units and any use permitted in the "RSD" district; (b) District MR-2: developments containing not less than three nor more than seventeen dwelling units, and any use permitted in an "MR-1" district; (c) District MR-3: Multi-residential projects devel- oped under the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, Section 3.34A of the Chapter. Subd. 2. Accessory Uses: (a) Parking areas and garages; (b) Greenhouses and garden houses; (c) Storage buildings; (d) Recreational facilities, courts, swimming pools, play areas, tot lots, benches and picnic areas; (e) Paved driveways and walkways or bicycle paths; f) Minor rliblic utility facilities. • 0 24 Provided that all of the forecgoi.nq are intended for the use and enjoyment of the residents and their quests. Subd. 3. Uses by Special Use Permit. Any use permitted by special use permit in an "R" or "RSD" district subject to any requirements for lot area, setbacks or height in such districts. Subd. 4. Requirements for Lot Area, Lot Dimensions, and Lot Coverage. (a) Required Lot Area: The minimum lot area in an "MR-1" district shall be 9,000 square feet and the minimum lot area in an "MR-2" district shall be 10,000 square feet in all events. In an "MR-2" district the total area shall not be less than 2,500 square feet per dwelling unit times the total number of such units; adjusted as follows: (i) For each parking stall under the multiple residence structure or underground, subtract 500 square feet per dwelling unit from the minimum lot area; the total number of such reductions shall not exceed the number of dwelling units. (ii) For each bedroom in excess of two in any one dwelling unit, add 500 square feet to the minimum lot area per dwelling unit. (b) Required Lot Dimensions: The minimum lot width in 25 an "MR-1" district shall be 60 feet for residen- tial uses. The minimum lot width in an "MR-2" district shall be 75 feet for residential uses. All other uses in either the "MR-1" or "MR-2" district shall have a minimum lot width of 150 feet. (c) Maximum Lot Coverage: District Max. Lot Coverage MR-1 25% MR-2 25% For other uses, the maximum lot coverage shall be 50%. (d) Outdoor Open Space: District Sq. Ft./Dwelling Unit MR-1 600 MR-2 300 Increased by 100 square feet for each bedroom in excess of two per dwellinq unit. Subd. 5. Minimum Building Setbacks, All Buildings: (a) MR-1 District: Sideyards Front Rear Streetside Interior 30' 25' 15' 10' (b) MR-2 District: Side Front Rear Streetside 30' 25' There shall be yided equal to building or 20 is greater. yards Interior sideyards pro- the height of feet whichever 26 (c) MR-3 District: Sidevards Front Rear Streetside Interior 35' 35' There shall be sideyards pro- vided equal to the height of building or 35 feet whichever is greater. (d) Additional sidevard setback requirement: On a corner lot adjacent to a key lot, the sidevard on the street side of such corner lot shall have a width at least equal to the front yard of such kev lot. (e) Additional requirements for accessory buildings: (1) An accessory building shall not be closer than five feet to the main building. (2) In the case of an interior lot abutting one street, no accessory building shall encroach upon the half of the lot abutting the street, nor be situated forward of the front building I line. (3) In the case of an interior lot abutting upon two streets, no accessory buildings shall encroach upon the one-fourth of the lot abut- ting each street. (4) In the case of a corner lot, no accessory building shall be located forward of the buildinq front line or its extension; nor nearer the side street than the street side 0 27 building line or its extension where the adjoining lot is a key lot. 5) In the case of a corner lot abutting more f than two streets, no accessory building shall encroach upon any one-fourth of the lot abutting any street. 6) An accessory building located within the rear yard shall have a minimum five foot interior sidevard setback, and may have a zero rear setback. Additional requirements for other allowed uses: No buildinq shall be located within 50 feet of an lot line of a residential district. setbacks shall be increased by one fo foot of building height in excess of Subd. 6. Maximum Heights, Residential Buildings: MR-1 District: 25 feet. required for each feet. • MR-2 District: 42 feet. MR-3 District: 50 feet. Accessorv buildings shall not exceed 15 feet. All other buildings shall not exceed 42 feet, except that public and semi-public buildings, schools and churches shall not exceed 75 feet. Subd. 7. Minimum Floor Areas, Net Sq uare Feet: Efficiency dwellin g unit: 500 s quare feet. 28 One-bedroom dwelling unit: 650 square feet. • Two-becroom dwelling unit: 800 square feet. Dwelling units containing more than two bedrooms shall have 150 additional square feet for each bedroom in excess of two. Subd. 8. Minimum Parking Provided: MR-1 District: There shall be provided on the site at least two parking spaces, one of which shall be enclosed, for each dwelling unit, and only one access shall be allowed to the property from anv public street. MR-2 District: . There shall be provided on the site the following parking spaces: Twelve dwelling units or less: two parkin spaces per dwelling unit. Thirteen dwelling units or more: one and one-half parking spaces per dwelling unit. Subd. 9. Minimum Building Separation: There shall be a minimum separation between the principle buildings of a multi-building project equal to the height of the taller of the two adjacent structures. 0 29 VII. Section 3.32, Subdivision 1(1), of The Ordinance Code of the • City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Permitted Uses. In the neighborhood busi- ness district, unless otherwise specified in this chapter, the following uses are permitted: (1) any use permitted in an "R", dietie-e-ax "MR", "RSD", "MR-111, "MR-211, or an "MR-3" district, upon compliance with the procedural requirements for each such district provided that no one family or two family dwelling shall be constructed in this district without the procurement of a special use permit in • accordance with the provisions of Section 3.41 of this chapter. VIII. Section 3.32, Subdivision 4, of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 4. Lot Area and Yard Requirements. The follow- ing minimum requirements apply to all buildings here- after, erected or structurally altered in a 11C-1" dis- trict, subject to modifications and exceptions provided in Section 3.39 of this chapter. (1) All single family dwellings shall conform to the requirements of an "R" district as 30 set forth in Section 3.30 of this chapter and • all multiple family dwellings shall conform to the reauirements set forth in Section 3.31 of this chapter. i (2) Front Yard: Each building shall have a front yard of not less than 40 feet, and shall have a greater front yard where required under the provisions of Section 3.39, Subdivision 2, Paragraph (2). If the building lot abuts upon more than one street the area between the building and each of such streets shall be regarded as front yard. (3) Side Yard: No side yards shall be required except as follows: (a) On a corner lot adjacent to a key lot in a residential district there shall be a side- yard adjacent to the street of a width equal to not less than one-half the depth required for front yards on the lots to the rear of such corner lots. (b) Along that side of every lot in a commer- cial district bordering upon property in the "R" or "RSD" district, there shall be a sideyard of not less than 15 feet. (4) Rear Yard: There shall be a rear yard in every lot in a "C-1" district equal to 20% of the depth of the lot to a maximum required 31 depth of 25 feet for such lot, provided that such. rear yard may be reduced one foot for each one foot of front yard provided in excess of the minimum requirements for front yard set forth in this code for a "C-1" dis- trict and provided that said rear yard must be at least ten feet. No rear yard bordering upon an "R" or "RSD" district shall be used for storage, loading, unloading or similar activities. IX. Section 3.33, Subdivision 1(1), of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Permitted Uses. In a General Commercial district, unless otherwise provided in this chapter, the following uses are permitted: (1) Any use permitted in an "R", d}e}e-a-are "MR", "RSD", "MR-111, "MR-211, or an "MR-3" district upon com- pliance with the procedural requirements for such district provided that no one-family, two-family or multiple-family dwelling shall be constructed in this district without first obtaining a special use permit therefor in accordance with provisions of section 3.41. n 1`J 32 X. Section 3.33, Subdivision 3(a), of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Regulations Relating to Gasoline Service Stations, Public Garages and Car Sales Lots. A special use permit for a gasoline service station, a public garage or a car sales lot shall not be granted unless the council finds that the proposed use will be in substantial compliance with the following standards: (a) The use site will not abut a lot which is in an "R" or "RSD" district. For the purposes of this paragraph, a lot which merely adjoins the use site '• at one corner will not be deemed to abut the site. XI. Section 3.34A, Subdivision 2(5), of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: (5) Type of Planned Unit Developments; Allowed Uses. (a) There shall be five types of planned unit development districts, viz: Planned Single Family Residential (PR) Planned Multiple Residential (PMR) Planned Neighborhood Commercial (PC-1) Planned General Commercial (PC-2) Planned Industrial (PI) 33 (b) Uses allowed in a PUD district shall be as follows: . Uses allowed in a an "R11 or "RSD" district shall be allowed in a PR district Uses allowed in a an "MR" "MR-111, "MR-2", _ or "MR-3" district shall be allowed in a PMR district. Uses allowed allowed in a Uses allowed allowed in a Uses allowed allowed in a in a "C-1" district shall be PC-1 district. in a "C-2" district shall be PC-2 district. in an "I" district shall be PI district. (c) Uses other than the permitted uses, as listed above, are allowed in a PUD district provided the use is one which is authorized in one of the five types of PUD districts, and provided further that such additional use cannot occupy more than 33 percent of the gross floor area of the PUD district. XII. Section 3.36 of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.36. SPECIAL PROVISIONS - OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, BILLBOARDS, REAL ESTATE AND OTHER SIGNS. • 34 I" • II Subdivision 1. Outdoor Advertising Signs, R, or MR, RSD, MR-1, MR-2, or MR-3 Districts or Portions of Planned Unit Development District Designated for Residential Uses. No outdoor advertising signs, billboards, or real estate signs shall be erected in a an "RI I, "MR" "RSD" "MR-111, "MR-211, or "MR-3" district or in any portion of a planned unit develop- ment district designated for residential uses, except as follows: (1) A sign not to exceed two square feet displaying the name of the owner, occupant or lessee and the nature of a Home Occupation, if any. (2) Non-illuminated or nonreflecting signs, not exceeding ten square feet in area pertaining only to the sale, rental or lease of the premises which displayed; or bulletin boards of schools, churches, and other public institutions permitted in such districts. (3) Signs advertising the sale of a subdivision when located thereon, provided that the sign, location, and length of time that such signs shall remain have first been approved by the council. (4) Direction and information signs of a public or quasi-public nature, including signs serving as directional signs to properties not situated adjacent to the street next to which the signs are located, upon first securing approval by the council. • Subd. 2. Outdoor Advertising Signs, C or I Districts. Outdoor advertising signs, billboards, real estate signs and 35 the like shall be permitted in any "C" or "I" district provided the following conditions are met: • (1) Such signs meet the requirements of this city I relating to signs as set forth in Part V of this chapter. (2) Any such sign must be set back from the street I equal to at least as far as the required front yard from the district in which it is located, provided that on a major city street or federal or state highway such signs may be required to be set back such additional distance as may be required to insure proper vision and safety to the traffic on such streets and highways. (3) No such sign shall be permitted which faces on the front or side lot line of any lot in a an "R", eE "MR", "RSD", "MR-111, "MR-2", or "MR-3" district used for residential purposes or portions of planned unit development districts designed for residential uses within 100 feet of such lot or within 200 feet of any public parkway, public square or entrance to any public park or public or parochial school, library, church, or similar instituion. Subd. 3. Compliance with Part V of this Chapter. All advertising signs erected or used within the city shall be subject to the provisions of Part V of this chapter. • 36 XIII. Section 3.38A of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.38A. RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT: PARKING AND STORAGE. a Subdivision 1. Declaration of Purpose. The standards established for recreational vehicles and equipment in this section are designed to regulate their storage and commer- cial use and to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The standards are established to promote the safe use, storage and parking of recreational vehicles and equipment and to eliminate those conditions or misuses which are unsafe and cause deterioration of property • and property values. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Recreational vehicles and equipment may be parked or stored in an "_R" er „_MR,f ,fRSD,I "MR-111,11 MR-21I or "MR-3" districts or in portions of planned unit development districts designated for residential uses in accordance with this Section and other provisions of the City Code as follows: (a) On any rear or side yard of a lot except the side yard of a corner lot adjacent to the street. (b) Not closer than three feet to any building or structure, including fences. C ( ) In an t established driveway of a lot but not closer than three feet to any building or structure not beyond the 37 lot line and not closer than twelve feet to the curb line of the street abutting an established driveway. (d) A recreational vehicle may be stored on a lot without regard to the location on the lot for the sole and express purpose of loading and unloading for a period not in excess of 48 hours. .(e) Unmounted slide-in pick-up campers must be stored no higher than 20 inches above the ground and must be securely supported at least at four corners by solid support blocks. Subd. 3. Prohibited Uses. A recreational vehicle may not be stored, parked, or utilized in an "R", er "MR","RSD", 11MR-1" "MR-2" or "MR-3" districts or in portions of planned unit develop- ment districts designated for residential uses as follows: (a) Recreational vehicles and equipment shall not be used as a permanent residence. (b) A recreational vehicle which is in a state of externally visible disrepair or partial construction must be stored or parked in a rear or side yard but not closer than three feet to any building or structure and for not more than one year. XIV. Section 3.39 of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.39. EXCEPTIONS AND MODIFICATIONS. The provisions of this • 38 code as applied to any-axd-all commercial and industrial • districts emeept-etke3?wise-giFevided are subject to the following exceptions and modifications: Subdivision 1. Height. (1) In any district, public and semi-public buildings, schools and churches, hospitals and other institutions per- mitted in the district may be erected to a height not exceeding 75 feet. The front, rear and side yards shall be increased one foot for each one foot by which the building exceeds the height limit hereinbefore established for such district. (2) Upon acquiring of a special permit as provided in Section 3.41 of this chapter, any building may be erected to a height exceeding that hereinbefore specified for the respective district; but the total floor area of the build- ing shall not exceed that possible for a building in the district erected within the height limit specified in this chapter or a total of 75 feet,, whichever is the lower. (3) Subject to any other provisions of law, towers, gables, spires, penthouses, scenery lofts, cupolas, water tanks, similar structures and necessary mechanical appurte- nances may be built and used to a greater height than the limit established for the district in which the building is located, with the following qualifications: (a) No such exception shall cover at any level • more than fifteen percent in area of the lot nor have an area at the base greater than 1,600 square feet. 39 (b) No tower, gable, spire, or similar structure shall be used for sleeping or eating quarters or for • any commercial purpose except one incidental to the permitted uses of the main building. (c) No building or structure in any district shall ever exceed a maximum height of 150 feet, except that the height limitations of this code shall not apply to chimneys, church spires, flag poles, monuments and radio towers. I (4) When the average slope of a lot is greater than one foot rise or fall in seven feet of distance from the established street elevation at the property line, one story in addition to the number permitted in the district in which the lot is situated shall be permitted on the downhill side of any building if the height of the building is not • increased above the limit specified for the district. Subd. 2. Yards. (1) For the purpose of computing front yard dimen- sions, measurements shall be taken from the nearest point of the front wall of the building to the street line, subject to the following qualifications: (a) cornices, canopies or eaves may extend into the required front yard a distance of not exceeding two feet, six inches. (b) Fire escapes may extend into the required front yard a distance not exceeding four feet, six • inches. 40 'i (c) A landing place or uncovered porch may extend the required front yard to a distance not exceeding six feet, if the landing place or porch has its floor no higher than the entrance floor of the building. An open railing no higher than three feet may be placed around such place. (d) The above enumerated architectural features may also extend into any side or rear yard to the same extent, except that no porch, terrace, or outside stairway shall project more than three feet into any sideyard and then in the case of an outside stairway, only if it is unroofed and unenclosed above and below the steps. In no case shall a porch, stair landing or other architectural feature extend closer than four feet to the side property line. fed--A-Hall--€enee-ems-kedge-x;a?-eeeapy-past-e€-tke ?eq?i?ed-yard;-e?eept-tkat-fly-ne-wall,--€enee-ems-kedge ?e?e-tkan-€et??-€eet-in-height-9kal?-be-eanet?t?eted-e?- pe-;Fffiitted-between-the-€rent-line-e€-tke-let- and-the-€.;Fent line-e€-the-building-extended-te-the-eide-let-lines--f?? ne-wall--€enee-sue-kedge-?e?e-tkan-ei?-€eet-in-height 9kall-be-eenet?xeted-e?-pe??itted-ex-any-?ea?-?a?d-ems eide +a d--and-f3}-ne-wall--€enee-aE-hedge-FRe±Fe-than-€enE €eet-ix-keigkt-shall-be-eenstfueted-eE-peEfitted-en-the eideya?d-en-the-eide-abutting-xpen-a-et?eet-e?-ee?ne? let-whisk-abut-t?gen-a-fey-let---All-paste-en-any-€enee • leeated-en-e?-neap-tke-let-line-ekall-be-en-tke-inside 41 e?-the-?eeee--eeless-they-awe-desl?eed-as-ae e€-the -€eeee----The-teEFR-uhedtesu-as-esed-fie te??al-?a?t is-?a?a- • ??a?h-shall-eet-}eelade-tees---Ail-Halls,--leeees-aed hedgee-abett=tee-ae-the-Pub lle-E}E_Fht-e€-way-shall-be-Set. baek-thEee-feet- -fEef-the-?abl}e-L-lEjht-e€-Way-exeept that-Halls--+eeees-aed-hedges-abattle?-ee-?eblle- l?ht- e?-Wad-Wh}eh•-ls-eeet}?eees-te-eee-eelleete?-e?-eee- a?te?lal-?eadWa?s-as-des??eated-b?-the-adegted-ee???ehee- s}tee-?laa-?a?-be-exe??ted-??e?-this-set-bae#-??e?ls}ee Whew--lam-the--egl?lea-e?-the-elt?-?aaa?e?-s?eh-e?e??t}ate elewalk-pel -Ley ee.?-e_;Feate-aey-peteetlal-seew-ste.f ate-19.f eblel;R---BaEbed Wl.f e-aed-eleet.f le-€eeees-aEe-j3.f eh}blted---Beeees-shall be-set-baeh-thee-feet-€?e?-?a?hleg-areas---ee-aed eaee-let-eethle?-shall-be-e eeted7-plaeed7-151aeted-eE alleWed-te-EJ3r6W-le-SUeh-a-Maeee.16-as-to-ebst eet-?l8}ee betWeee-the-height-e€-twe-aed-eee-half-€eet-above- aed tee-€eet-abesae-the-fete seetlee-ef-the-eeeteiF-l}Res-e-f the-fete_f seetleg-stfeets-}e-the- area-beeeded-by-the-stree t ee b-lees-abettle?-said-eeyeer-let-aed-a-Iine-eeeeeetleg gelets-ee-the-abettle?-ee b-lees--fl-fty-€eet-€Eef-the }ete seetlee-e€-the-extees}ees-el-the-ee-f 13-1}ees---All €eeees--Walls-aed-hedges-legal ly-existing-ee-the- e€feetive date-e€-thls•-ameedmeat-shall-be-alleWed-te-eeetleee-te exist-aed-te•-be-?e?al?ed-aed-?a}etaleed- (2) In any _Eesldeet}al commercial or industrial dis- trict where 25% or more of the lots in any block located in 42 the same district, exclusive of the frontage along the side • of a corner lot, have been heretofore improved with build- ings of a character permitted in the district, the required front yard depth for the district shall be disregarded in the block and instead the front yard required on each lot in the block shall be of a depth not less than the average depth of the front yards on the lots on which are located such existing buildings, to-a-x?aix?tx3-e€-€i€ty-€eet---The-eafRe tile-shall-a??ly-im-axy-etke-d}etiet provided that ?lj the minimum front yard otherwise established by this chapter shall be maintained in any commercial or industrial district facing upon an "R" or "RSD" district_ amd-f2?-tke-€i€ty-€eet ?a?ix?t3?-ekall-Het-be-a?plieable-}?-aHy-ee?e?eial-e?-imdtiet?ial • distEiet. A "block" as used in this paragraph, is the area, regardless of size or shape, which faces a street and lies between the nearest two cross-streets. (3) On a corner lot adjacent to a key lot, the side- yard on the street side of such corner lot shall have a width at least equal to the front yard of such key lot, provided that this regulation shall not reduce the buildable width of the lot to less than 30 feet. f4?--?m-eaee-a-dwelling-ie-leeated-eH-a-let-ee-tkat-ite €?eHt-amd-?ea?-€aeee-aHy-eide-let-lime,--tke-dHellimg-eka€€-be Hot- lees-tiiam-25-€eet-€iFeRi-tlie-let- lime . f53 (4) A church, library, museum, school or other memorial, institutional, or public building shall have a 0 minimum side yard of 25 feet on each side adjoining a dwelling or vacant land in an "R" or "RSD" district. 43 N f63 (5) In determining the depth of rear yard for any building where the rear yard opens into an alley, one-half • the width of the alley, but not exceeding ten feet, may be considered as a portion of the rear yard subject to the following qualifications: (a) The depth of any rear yard shall be reduced to less than ten feet by the application of this excep- tion. (b) If the door on any building or improvement, except a fence, opens toward an alley, it shall not be erected or established closer to the center of the alley than a distance of 20 feet. f:?4 (6) In commercial and industrial districts front and rear yard areas may be used for parking, provided that side yards are maintained adjacent to such use. • Subd. 3. Accessory Buildings. The following requirements apply to all accessory buildings as defined in section 3.27 of this chapter. (1) In case an accessory building, is attached to the main building, it shall be made structurally a part of the main building and shall comply in all respects with the requirements of this chapter applicable to the main build- ing. An accessory building, unless attached to and made a part of the main. building, shall not be closer than five feet to the main building, except as otherwise provided in this section. i 44 (2) A detached accessory building not over one story and not exceeding twelve feet in height may occupy not to exceed thirty percent of the area of any rear yard. f3J--Betaehed-aeeesseEy-btu}ldiRgs-ix-?esldeRtial-d}stxiets shall -eex€eyf-te-the-€elleHix?-add}tleal-e?i effieRts- as -'r_9 they-leeatiexe-t?pe?-the-letr fa-? lam-the-ease-ef-a?-??te?ie?-let-abatti?g-apex-ewe street--xe-detaehed-aeeesse y-btt}ldlxg-shall-be-e eeteEl-ef altered-se-as-te-exe?eaeh-a?e?-the-€?e?t-kal€-e€-the-let- f41 (3) In the case of an interior lot abutting upon two or more streets, no detached accessory shall be erected or altered so as to encroach upon the one-fourth of the lot nearest either street or in any case nearer to the estab- lished building line on either street frontage. f53 (4) In the case of a corner lot abutting upon two streets, no accessory building shall be erected or structur- ally altered so as to encroach upon the front half of the lot nor so that the building will be nearer to the lot line along the street side of the lot than a distance equal to the width of sideyard on the streetside of the lot; but on a corner lot adjacent to a key lot, no detached accessory building shall be located nearer to the street line of the street upon which the key lot faces than a distance equal to the depth of front yard required on the key lot. A garage with doors opening toward the street shall not be closer than 20 feet to the lot line. f6J (5) In the case of a corner lot abutting on more 45 than two streets, no detached accessory building shall be erected or altered so as to be nearer to the lot line along the street side of the lot than a distance equal to the width of the side yard on the street side of the lot or nearer to any street line of the lot than a distance equal to one-fourth the depth of the lot. F:?J (6) No detached accessory building shall be within five feet of the side line of the front half of any adjacent lot except as hereinbefore specifically permitted. +84 (7) No garage with doors facing upon the street shall be within 20 feet of the lot line. +94 (8) The foregoing (a) Any detached than 75 feet from any (b) The street s building to be nearer rules shall not require: accessory building to be more street line bounding the lot. • ide of any detached accessory to the lot line opposite the street line than 20 feet. (c) A private garage to be separated from the front and side lines of the lot where the slope of the front half of the lot is greater than one foot rise or fall in a distance of seven feet from the established street elevation at the property line or where the elevation of the lot at the street line is five feet or more above or below the established elevation. 6abd--4---t3ee-e€-1??istixg-?e?s---?r?-axy-diet?iet-Hke?e-dHeiiixgs ? aye-permitted,-a-9iRQ€e-€aFRily-EIWe€€ixg-FR ay-be-Iaeated-ex-axy 46 lei-e?-pla€-e€-e€€ieial-?eee?d-as-e€-8etebe?-?--X954;-i??espee- • ire-e€-ids-area-e -Wid€h--p evided--hewevef-- ha -Re-le#--shall be-deexjed-to-be-less-€.hax-SA-€ee€-kids-ice-any-ease. Subd. 5 4. Conversion of Single Family Dwellings Prohibited. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, a one- family dwelling structure located in an "MR", "C-1" or "C-2" or "I" districts shall not be converted into or used as a two- family or multiple dwelling unless the owner thereof has first obtained a special permit in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 3.41 of this chapter. XV. Section 3.57, Subdivision 1, of The Ordinance Code of the • City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Minimum Lot Area. The minimum area and minimum width of any lots in a plats or subdivisions shall be 8,000 square feet- , and The the standard width of such a lots shall be at least 75 feet- , except when any other standard for minimum lot area or minimum lot width is specified for such a lot elsewhere in this code, in which case such other standard shall apply. Where corner lots rear upon lots facing the side street, the corner lots shall have extra width sufficient to permit the establishment of front building lines on both the front and side of the lots adjoining the 47 streets. Extra width shall be provided on all corner lots irrespective of whether they rear upon lots facing the side • streets. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 198 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 48 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNFSO TA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 421 Agenda December 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Acquisition of Skelly Oil Station, 1825 East 66th Street At various times in the past two years, the city council has discussed the potential development of the site now occupied by the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store. It has been recognized that this site is larger than needed for a liquor operation and might be conducive to a commercial or multiple-family residential development. The city owns all of the property in the block between Cedar Avenue and 18th Avenue from 66th Street to 67th Street except the gas station and the office building, both of which front on 66th Street. Several months ago, Karen and Maynard Johnson, owners of the • gas station property located at 1825 East 66th Street, contacted the staff to determine if the city would have any interest in purchas- ing the property. Because of its location, ownership by the city would provide opportunity for more flexible future use of the liquor store site, and would probably be a :worthwhile investment. The city council discussed this acquisition durinq the budget discussion in October and indicated interest in the property if it could be acquired for less than $160,000. The property is approximately 27,254 square feet in area. The three-bay service station structure contains approximately 1,970 square feet. It was built in 1969 and remodeled in 1980. The property has been well maintained and is in good condition. The real estate and fixtures were appraised at a value of $170,147 by an appraiser hired by the city. The property owner wishes to remove some of the fixtures which brings the appraised value by the city's original appraiser down to $141,391. The property owners' appraisal indicated a value of $225,608. The city's review appraiser determined that a value of between $159,391 and $163,391 was more equitable due to a low value in the real estate by the city's original appraisal. The staff has negotiated a purchase price of $158,900, which includes relocation benefits to the owner of an amount approximating $2,500. L Council Letter No. 421 -2- December 14, 1981 The acquisition would be financed by monies from the Liquor Fund and held as an asset in that fund. Monies are available due to the significant decrease in inventory which has been achieved in recent months. Until the future of the liquor store is decided, the property will be rented for a commercial use. Gas- oline will not be sold, however. It is anticipated that holding costs will be approximately $7,000 annually: $5,000 for taxes and the balance for maintenance, insurance, etc. It is anticipated that rent will cover all of the holding costs. On November 24, 1981, the Planning Commission found the proposed purchase of the property to be in conformance with the comprehensive plan. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution approving the acquisition of the Skelly Oil Station property. Respectfully submitted, KN/sh Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director Liquor Operations Director City Planner Finance Coordinator 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL • PROPERTY AND IMMOVABLE FIXTURES AT 1825 E. 66TH ST. WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council proposes to purchase certain real property and immovable fixtures to permit maximum utilization of the liquor store site, and the real property being described as: That part of the East 2 of the Northeast 4 of the Northeast a of the Southeast 1,4 of Section 26, Township 28 North, Range 24, West of the 4th Principal Meridian, lying North of the South 430 feet thereof, and East of the West 125 feet thereof excluding roads. (1825 East 66th Street); and WHEREAS, the city has caused appraisals of the subject property to be made and has carefully considered such appraisals; and WHEREAS, the negotiations for the real property and immovable fixtures have resulted in the execution of a purchase agreement by the owners. WHEREAS, there are sufficient monies available in the Municipal Liquor Fund to finance the purchase of this property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield: that the City Manager is authorized to execute the purchase agreement and to purchase the above described property for $158,900, which includes relocation benefits, and the monies are to be drawn from the Municipal Liquor Fund. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 14th day of December, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 420 • Agenda (, 4 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield ? Jt4 yJ Co *v? ? v Council c3 Council Members: Subject: December 14, 1981 v X C ? Request for Rezoning, 6717 Lyndale Avenue South, Second Reading On November 9, 1981, the city council gave first reading approval to Mr. Norman Gilbertson's request for rezoning of his property, located at 6717 Lyndale Avenue South. Mr. Gilbertson has submitted a valid petition with signatures of owners of 51.3 percent of land within 300 feet of the subject site, which initiated this request. The proposal would rezone the property from "R" Single Family Residential to "C-1" Limited Business, and allow removal of the existing single family house and construction of an office building on the site. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.42 of the zoning ordinance lists procedures and requirements for zoning district changes. STAFF FINDINGS As indicated at the November 9, 1981 city council meeting there is a conflict in the existing comprehensive plan as it relates to this request for rezoning. Many of the neighbors feel that a commitment was made to this neighborhood during the estab- lishment of the L/H/N Redevelopment Project. The staff findings have been changed as a result of the further research done on this matter and they are as follows: 1. That the applicant has secured signatures of the owners of 51.3 percent of land within 300 feet of the subject property. This petition is therefore valid to initiate the rezoning process. 2. That the subject property is adjacent to residential property on the north, south and east, and commercial property across Lyndale Avenue to the west. 0 Council Letter No. 420 -2- December 14, 1981 The staff does not consider this spot zoning. The "C-1" limited business district is intended for supplying a limited variety of services primarily for the benefit of residents of the immediate neighborhood. The "C-1" district would therefore be a compatible zoning district with the surrounding zones. Furthermore, since there is commercial property across Lyndale Avenue from the proposed site, this requested rezoning would constitute continuity in zoning patterns in the area. 0 3. That the existing single family residential use of the property is not necessarily the best use. Lyndale Avenue average daily traffic is 12,030 in this area. The typical average daily traffic on residential streets in Richfield is 200-1,000 vehicles per day. The subject property is directly across the street from a "C-2" general commercial zoning district. The staff feels that rezoning of this site to Limited Business will provide the applicant better utilization of his property, and will maintain a "buffer" for the residential property east of the site. Proper setbacks and screening will add to the buffer effect. Mr. Gilbertson's proposed building meets all setback requirements, including screening, and will require no variances. 4. That the subject site is in the "Central Business District" as indicated on the current land use map of the comprehensive plan. The rezoning to limited business is, therefore, in compliance with the current land use map of the comprehensive plan, which also indicates this site to be developed with high/medium densities and principle uses, which includes limited business district uses. 5. That the portion of the Goals and Policy Statement of the comprehensive plan which reads, "To minimize encroachment of future commercial development into presently residential zoned areas" was specifically addressing this area, gen- erally south of 67th Street along the east side of Lyndale Avenue. This goal was added in 1978 when the L/H/N Project goals were amended into the comprehensive plan. However the land use map was not amended at that time. The staff believes that this was a city commitment to the residents that there would be no commercialization south of the existing Richfield Bank and Trust parking lot, which is north of the subject site. 6. That the comprehensive plan land use map pending before the Metropolitan Council reflects this commitment and therefore if and when the pending comprehensive plan is adopted, the proposal for rezoning would not be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Council Letter No. 420 -3- December 14, 1981 7. That some of the neighboring residents who did not sign the petition have expressed opposition to the proposal. The concerns expressed include the possibility of a restaurant locating at the site, negative impacts on property values and a "promise" by the city in years past not to "commercialize" property south of 67th Street on Lyndale Avenue. Although a restaurant is not proposed at this time, the rezoning remains with the property indefinitely or until another rezoning is granted. Certain types of restaurants are allowed in the "C-l" zoning district; however, a special use permit is required before a restaurant may locate anywhere in the city. Thus, if a restaurant were proposed in the future, council actions would be required and it would be necessary to find that such a use would not cause adverse impacts or be detrimental to the neigh- borhood before a restaurant could locate on the property. 8. That the city is not initiating this rezoning application. The applicant and owners of 51.3 percent of land within 300 feet of the subject site are initiating this application. 9. That the property is outside the L/H/N redevelopment project area; therefore, review by the RING Committee is unwarranted. 10. That the property is approximately 88 feet long by 150 feet, and can support the proposed development with no variances required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because additional investigations have indicated that commitments were made to limit commercial development on the east side of Lyndale Avenue south of 67th Street, and because the proposal would not be consistent with the pending comprehensive if and when it is adopted, staff must now recommend denial of this rezoning application. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends denial of this rezoning application on a 6-1 vote. The commission's position was that this rezoning would constitute commercial encroachment on the neighborhood and that the neighbors felt that the city has indicated a commitment to minimize such commercial encroachment during discussions of the redevelopment activities in the overall L/H/N area. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner X?Z? • December 8, 1981 Mr. Loren Gasterland 6717 Garfield Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Gasterland, I looked through our records and have come up with the following daily traffic volumes on Lyndale Avenue between 66th Street and 68th Street. 1980 : 12,030 ADT 1977 : 12,184 ADT }1975 : 12,821 ADT 1970 : 12,514 ADT 1968 : 10,685 ADT 1955 : 16,754 ADT I have also attached copies of the minutes of the October 27, 1981 Planning Commission meeting and the November 9, 1981 City Council meeting. As I indicated in our phone conversation written transcripts of these meetings are not available. The City Council meetings are tpped and you could listen to that tape if you wished. If there is any other information you need please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Rick Jopke City Planner Enclosure Bill No. 1981-28 0 AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota defining the various zoning districts of the city, enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28, Subdivision 2 of each code, is hereby amended in the following respect: 1. Appendix C, Section 2, is hereby amended by adding after paragraph (20) the following new paragraph: "(21) lots 21 and 22, Block 4, Lyndale Shores on Woodlake" Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk IT -1 ?icfiel d Cit?r Council Uciif i`'ld, n. 1,55423 Re: Acnlicati on for Rc -zonin? of pror?crt-y -t 6'(13-('717 Lyrd :+1 :^ Av.t . from y 'o 1-1 Gc nt lc men : it is my belief and conviction that the fo1-1ovring points of information clearly justify tl-Li.s pro- ?o -1. (1) The prcpt-rty located 50 ft . to the north of e is zoned C-1. (2) the vievi from .icy home across "n- street cst side of Lyndslc) includes the Cricket Photo shop, th° VF',a Club (with it's twice- w.e-ck Dingo parties and the. attendant conge-tion of hundreds of c,irs), the Um-Sauna (vlth it's flashing lights and 24-hour a day service), and the Auto Pa.rts building. (3) On-going construction, toacthcr with announc.?d and future plar_^, indicates that this area is going to continue to develop commercially and to =attract more Pecplc and more trf?f f is . (4) Lyndal^ Avenue, in front of my house, is approx. 50ft. wide, liar, four loncs of tr,-lffic -=a c:?irries mcra then 15PGOvehic1gtF (carp, bu-nses, trucks, et.c.) r,--r J.:xv. `l'hia cornpar?!s to ,gin nV?^ra c of 260-400 cars on resident;i=i1 qtr.-?,?t.? . i Page T,qo - k-)-l_ic.-it i on for i "-zor-rv 6 ? 3-5717 Lynd.'--le nve . (K) "?":opt Pee;?le, includir core City off ici< Is, belicv:? that the logical and r. Aur=31 sennr°,tion of Co:-n-°:er,; ::1 .^i !r'- Y th c ,? ='. ;-hO ?? l b=c ?7?'_F' intersecti or -n Rf,r,, id,, _-L,i_,1 i_1 i r_ _z. of L-vnd.-'le Ave. :tit?^ LRIrc!«horc? fir. Th^ d;o.rirm orrr_c of Lot 20, i d ni - to tht rct...th boar, CCrct r .1 1 Y^: it':) t11 ? . (6) The Real Est-at`t Tpxe,-? (Honnestead) on my lots 21 _?, 192 are < pprox. 900.0C. pnr ye-r. Th,,^ prop0 ed bui ldir_y would 'ca;-Svc taxc5 of ?-,p pro>, . *"7 '300.00' (7) nor,, s 1 1l. on ?. e`rm of three to four f '-,et T`y prl T ?.nt _. . L, above Lyndale Yive. The hci-ht of the house 24 to 25 feet ect ?Abov-- -LyndalA rov!A . P.y prod c cd Eing o- story Est ate building, 3200 oqu .re fcct, with rfmbl(r tyre roof, w:)uld, in f-:ct, ? much lofv?r th_,r ail,^.tlbl:ei 1,^Tit'1"i r*aZr rJr P$r°_'nt 7ic±nn - 'ard ?VCLil,,.l bF' V'ry T cc.,'.' i 1 Dcsi,zAnti-.1. (8) The most-o sc fin^ncirig for the sale of my home has be-!.r checked with F.P.A. nd oti°r consensus is Indic~ltcda by th; s quote- from the -.t .i "ul Ftacr?-)l Fiou!-iing huthori?,; . 1,rcm what T,;e ur?._?i st-+nd cL thi£ ?^ i?if'rCl l env? rc)ilm-- t, ]_t is very nosci lb1r?. t nt o rPnues t for :a mort?,=,!.-fe L cr,? ; d be tur}7;D(l dol,7n. ? Zol.?lu ors ce; -'ado', i_t wcula h- cc ! ider-bl.y r_?,r. ;n equiv,l:mr,t ra?i:]encc _•,? ., re?;i:,?=rti _ =r°?.". ..itf? thy- pcndinV e l ar?em nt of ':`c it's bein ;-APprcvirr?te,1v • 2C,'O ft. north of :;;y home, ipy prcrerty :aculd be rtill urther de -reci-°ttend )s -? re--i. onct - or even •'%.S rert ! rcper%T. 'iespectfully, ArW71 I " r j= .silb t .: ov ^' mb'r 21:11 , 1 y ?' l Hichf iel, City COUno 1 1 icnfieId, :':n. -, +K, Gent en : I own thy- rc ?idenec at 6725 Lyndole Pvenue?, sout,? of Er. 7ilb rtscn. I eert.?inly concur iti1 h'?s recautst to r6zone his property to limit_i business. I also strongly urge you to J i-vn consicl?r:tion tc include my property in the rezoning. It is only natural and lozie ?1 that. the cut-nI"f between Cl and ail should be it line with L•'ic Shore Drive. iy prCJ''rty iS uCrO S f rOTi CO i T .rl i al%ro:crtie Evcry otht°r residence south of me is ?sicross frog t'ht ?Joodl?ke Preserve. crci l The Inequity I have suffer°d boc.usn of the Com: g -a ' n<;ture of they property across the street, the 1500orlus cars, trucks, •ctc. , prompt9d me to miove my wife; and teen age children out of the neighborhood. I have 2tt^Tpted to sell the house but cannot met i, reasonable. price for it. I have rented it to v%rious tenrntc but, du- to the- environment, the rental fee is bolo:; normal and th? tenants do not st! •y. it has no,ra been v scant since. August. I acra n r,,°cuest t1-1at you ir,ccr ?ratc my proiocrty ,,iit'n Ti r. Gilbertsen' in rc zo_qir7 to Cl. 3c°spectfully, Ten; '.c1rdq`;oT • C 6717 Lyndale Avenue Soutn. Richfield, 1'2,'. 55423 November 5, 19`'1 Richfield City Council 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, IsN- 55423 Res Meeting of October 27, 19E1, with the Planning Commission Sirs: Unfortunately I had no opportunity for rebuttal at the time of the meeting of October 27th. I wish to state some facts in this matter, and clear up some misleading statements made by some parties at the time. 1. Some of my neighbors in back of my property on Lyndale Avenue feel their property values will go down, if my request is approved. I wish to point out that the Rickert residence is already backed up to the Richfield Bank parking lots for at least two thirds its width. I would also point out Mr. Gasterland has an oversized garage, 48 feet in length, covering well over half the width of my two lots, one foot from my back property line. The remainder is heavily treed, allowing complete privacy from my property. 2. Mr. J.B. Flesche, 6725 Garfield Avenue, complained about the . possible decline in property value. The fact is Mr. Flesche resides on the east side of Garfield, some distance away. 3. An opponant stated that a "commitment" had been made to them some years ago. I seriously question such a commitment. It's obvious to all concerned that conditions change. Certainly Richfield is a changing and developing city. Lyndale A venue has changed greatly in just the past few years. The Planning Commission must be free to act responsibly on behalf of the entire city allowing for any change that makes sense. 4. Mr. Gasterland stated that I had built my house knowing full well that I was on a street that would turn out as it hass commercial- ized. The facts are not as Mr. Gasterland would have you believe. I did not build my home. I purchased it from the previous owner in 1953. At that time Lyndale was a modest country "thru" street, with very little commercial development. Since that time the V.F.W. has been built, the Unsauna and auto parts building, Trestmen Music store, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Richfield Bank all have been built. I had nothing to do with this changing environment. What my opponents want of course is for me to continue to be a buffer for them as I have been since 1953. The problem is that now the traffic and commercialization was gotten many times worse over the past 2P, years, to the point of being unbearable now (as a residence). 5. A remark by one of the opponents was "if you want a buildinc, why • don't you go buy the one on 74th and Lyndale." Obviously, this in- dividual is missing the major point of this issues the property I presently own is not suited as a residence any longer. I believe I can sell the house (to be moved), and build this proposed single story real estate building in this commercial area and come out of this better financially. I also feel my present property is in a exceptionAl commercial area. I don't believe this proposed single story building would adversely effect my neighbors, but rather would • serve as in ideal buffer between the residential area on Garfield and the commercial area on Lyndale. 6. Chairman J. Ert.^ia.n made a couple of remarks which were derogatory and uncalled for. He stated he didn't like "the way the petition has been put together" in obvious reference to two signers that later had written letters requesting their names be stricken off. They of course had been pressured by the immediate rear neighbors. One of these parties resides on the east side of Garfield, the other on Harriet Avenue, both a significant distance away. Secondly, Yx, Ertman, referring- to Kentucky Fried Chicken, saids "I don't think its worth much, because they won't be there much longer and I believe they won't be in Richfield much longer either". I fail to see where this has or should have any bearing on this matter. The fact is I paid $150.00 to attempt to secure support of at least 51' of the owners within 300 feet, in compliance with the law. It's disappointing to hear the chairman, of all people, speak in such an irresponsible manner. In summary, I would like to make a couple additional points. Several of Richfield's Planning Consultants, including the first ones Mr. Jorvig, had initially planned this area, south to Lakeshore Drive, to be com- mercial. Commercial is now up to Lakeshore Drive opposite my property on Lyndale. Lakeshore Drive is a natural cut off point, Woodlake being across from the remaining residences on the east side of Lyndale, to the south. I would also like to address a couple of negative opinions solicited from real estate agents by Mr. Gasterland. One of my instructors this past spring, in a continued education for real estate brokers seminar, was Mr. D. Montaque. Mr. Yontaque is the Chief Assessor of Coon Rapids, and certainly qualifies as an expert in property values. When I asked Mr. Montaque for his opinion, he pointed out on his zoning map the many similar situations in Coon Rapids. He stated that in no way is there a loss in property value as far as they were concerned. He pointed out that while perhaps Richfield was different, he seriously doubted it. I would again point out that Y:c Montaque is a practicing assessor, and instructs appraising for several schools in the evenings. In short, he knows what he's talking about. Finally, I need your help and I am reauesting it. Commercial property is to my property and across from my property. The street construction and lighting at my property is commercial in nature, as is the traffic flow. The situation can only get worse as the bank enlarges, including a parking ramp at 67th and Lyndale, barely 200 feet away, and the new 11 story high rise condos being- built directly across Lyndale on Lake- shore Drive. Now is the time to make this decision dictated by common sense and planning, not just rhetoric and emotion. Thank you for your consideration. • Respectfully, Norman H. Gilbertsen /-Y i 3 -,:)- 3 Ml 99 I? i?ob 1• ran , r r LEGAL DESi,R IPT ;C':: ?.ttrtd. G(.^ Jita,?e? .L a •tij 2f ail--, 6 %/. t 4 7 < aa<'?CrC? r L/-Pi7(G1; =t Q... J. % P? ]i C.? ?Jyn/ Jnn TH.E UNDERSIGIEO, :E IN THIS REZONING REQUEST. 'I CGfFo nC?it n? , G1%Cf Fc C`% 7 L ?2 T? F ^? CVA lrc C t c %" J F v, r, I k=L J ? ?„C t c.J `yf T Ln r,(iA . L.rG'4 L' u J p?; p,J L.. S I CIN, TURE CF 0'. ^CE^n5 -.D1 EIS LE 3- L =57 1I'T L - Lrr.ru/_2Lc? ?'ya_.. Sa. I I_-t 1 ?i K j .gl/-l ?•?_ ?.; ??7^}?, •??i ? '! ?-?..s?745 I • ? n !? e' _ /3/ ./ I ? tl /v: '. 3-Le S fx%;e S - 2:J:-i/ ?al i ^ 5 r.rG vim. Sa. ?o 737 ?733 ?c e v?• ?a• ?a'?? 1?-1sIJ UU??t LajN Y/.3$/Y` 5 7 a rt G e vim , c i r raC A :f,,L f: , 2 ._ ,_ . . , r ;p i 0? L-'J-v..,!,Le ._UC:. Jai C'?t LC'tZY°L•=?< 4 :_t! Sa (t Ue i t 7 I a . . . . _ - • =7!,n Sa. l ? G,, ?'^' - .'y_3?1 ,!L? ?- L '''?c.•? ??L/, ?%?? JCG I?L(a1:v tII ` i0 ? j3LK4 •. kslt .SiYc. s L-=[ - . -- - -- - - --- - -- I- ---'?' 1:.1j '•ri,cii/vim-?`? / ' % 7 • c't ? Ca Jr'•'/z.o/-ca i f,r N?.'fL ?"? 6, r r?' Sc 4 -7 1 1 ? I , r' DP';I 99 I/ I/oo LECAL DESCR IPT ; .... Z - "E, THE 1-NGER51Gt.E:) 'E I' IN THIS REZONING REOUE_7. SICNI T"Rc' CF C •n?E S 30C cS's C;'E - 1_EJ, Cl LE -.AL 7S^? IFT I" ^j • 'L.4i•1?/. ?• ? l i.l. :.?i..??,Y- ? ? ! `?? /?'t .-T:??a -. ? C Jy./,i..?; "?r'f+ GL? 9? -.-G/. L' S `(} a- i ft i i t I i v r ' 1 I • I h, ' y fvi2E? `1 -so Ors r1 rv T-CD TC e L Ol'?T1. CJV C^_?La TcY ?. ?E. JI2? IG?azZCzEvz. cso. 6730 ?icYz?ii?cY, olilirzrz??ofa 5542= ?.fJ G f I ?L{?,4.C ,G1t?:.-. ,eJ ? l N YL? f l..i ?I kl 51- G / / 1 _ t )LLB-cr-U_J / L , • • 0 rl _ _ 'Ff?c/v F' i'Sii%? G'iZi;.J,^_ j`3 ?'-??? ?n.? 7.-? %s L°• ¢. ? ?r r? elevations F b } o F r • west 77, s - - -3rr : i r.-? ^lr i east .n • Ti m? i ?-? south a i th 'th i L 69th Signatures on Petition 1 j (PETITION MAP) 66th ST woob LAKE 66th / w: H a 67th J Lj ,Q 68th J 1 YL- <•L ct ; 0 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 69th ® MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-PUDI ar f w J cr- GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING MAP LAND USE MAP ST - T T Condominiums C,9 ?F O VFW Hardware Store / CIRCLE DF Music '9L Store ealth a" .Auto Par s SITE ICr O J W Q 68th Jr i? e? N N r'^ (L C? 4 69th ours Jewelry Bank Li a I1J a 6 7th 0 0 f- pQ IV r2 ? I rt - - 4 --- -- -- - j 'l0- 0 Zt ?? I proposed site plan • December 14, 1981 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Richfield City Council RE: Rezoning Petition, 6717 Lyndale Avenue South Statement of Lorin A. Gasteriand I am the owner of a 4 bedroom, 3 bath, single family residence located at 6716 Garfield Avenue South, immediately to the east of the property in question. With my family, I have resided in this home for 28 years. Prior to that, I lived in the neighborhood at 6712 Grand Avenue South for 10 years. I was Chairman of the first Village of Richfield Long-Range Planning Commission, holding that position until becoming a member of the Richfield Board of Education in 1968. I oppose the granting of the Rezoning Petition for the following reasons: 1. The rezoning is opposed by ail residents of all the owner-occupied residences within the prescribed 300 feet of the property in question. 2. Denial of the petition was recommended by the Planning Commission by a vote of 6 to I • 3. While rezoning this property would be in conformance with the existing Com- prehensive Plan, revisions to the Comprehensive Plan now in process, and approved by the Planning Commission, will cut off commercial zoning of Lyndale Avenue at 67th Street, with the exception of the Richfield Bank parking lot. The Richfield Bank (through the Agency) has stated it has no plans for further commercial development south of 67th Street. 4. The proposed rezoning would constitute "spot zoning", by definition provided by the Richfield Community Development Department. Contiguous property on three sides of the lot in question are zoned residential. 5. The proposed rezoning would damage the property value of all homes in the neighborhood, as attested to by expert appraisers. 6. Petitioner's statement that his location is untenable for residential use is untrue. Homes on Lyndale Avenue were constructed at a time when Lyndale Avenue was U. S. Trunk Highway #65, the main north-south artery into Minneapolis, with high traffic counts. If Mr. Gilbertson's lot were to be rezoned because of traffic count, the Council may be looking at the rezoning of 62 single- family residences between 67th Street and 74th Street. is r Honorable Mayor and Members of the Richfield City Council December 14, 1981 Page 2 In support of the statements above, I submit the following attached documents: Page 1. Copy of petition opposing rezoning, signed by 13 affected residential property owners. Page 2. Petition map showing locations of property favoring rezoning and opposing rezoning. Note that there is only one residential signature from the block, by a non-occupying owner. `-? Pales 2A and 2B. Copy of Planning Commission minutes recommending denial of the petition. Pale 3. Copy of letter from Richfield State Agency stating that the residences at 6700 Garfield and 6709 L ndal 1,>uwjf South will continue to be used as residences. Page 4. Definition of "spot zoninc," i,y hf<< u ;,,crnity Development Department. Pages 5A, 5B, and 5C. Copies of letters from Thomas S. Maple, Inc., and • Bankey Realty, stating that residential property is reduced in value if contiguous property is zoned commercial. Page 6A. Tabulation of average daily traffic count on Lyndale Avenue, from 1953 to 1980. Page 6B. Verification of traffic count from Richfield Planning Staff. Sincerely yours, A0 -I Lorin A. Gasterland LAG/cw Attachments 0 ' RLQUESI FOR REZONING FROM "R" RES. TO "C"1 - OFFICES FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE__Office Buildi_nq___- ?- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lyndale Shores Woodlake, District 42, Plat 45740, Parcel 2550/2500 Lots 21 and 22, Block 4 46 5713 and 6717 Lyndale Avenue South • 0 We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the land above described, do hereby state that we are OPPOSED to the granting of this rezoning request. Date Signature of Owners Address Ienal Description 14 I 3 X c 1// 6L I 1 'Y"Tel r r CP:ETITION MAP 0 ST l 0 woob LAKE FAVOR OPPOSED W Q? Jl ?I f D Z. cr: (DI C?" " - 4 4 ?Zotl 69#h 7 F G 7+h o ? PL ,iJN ii]G COMMISSI N EE'All'Ic, M 0, 9 ? 0 tuber 27 , 1 • 1 ITEM #6, C:, 'r: a, 81-i,`:- 2 , --LON INC UIS` 1?,,ICT:, CHANGIJ, AT 6717 LYNDAL: AVENUE SOUTII r, t Rick Jopke explained the petition process in general and the history of this particular petit.i-on. Mr. Jopke indicated that after dis- cussion of this matter with the City Attorney's office it was concluded that the petit-ion was valid and that' the review and public nearing process should continue. Thom MacCibbon presented the staff report to the Planning Commission stating the petition was initiated by t4he app?.,icant. Commissioner Ahiquist asked what the use and zoning of the property to the north was, Staff indicated both are single family residential, Norman Gilbertso:r, 6;17 Lyndale Avenue South, applicant appeared j ? stating that he prupcsod to put in an offic bui.ldirl,g... that of a Twin City Federal building;c?ore stor1y700 square feet. ) He stated that in checking on finanglnq if_.,hewere to sell his hdn-Te -7- ; he would either be rejected or several percent less'b`•cause of loca- tion. Commissioner Hoverson asked what kind of office buildinn. The applicant stated real estate. Chairperson Ertman as;•ced the applicant' if his property was giver going to be included in the LIIN. :Ivan Lddeman stated it was talked about. i Loren Gasterland, 6717 Garfield Avenue Sotith, appeared stating that earlier discussions of the LHN included a?staten*?nt that the commer- cial would be cut off at 67th Street iiith` the excention of the bank's parking lot just south of 67th Street., Ce,:cerns are the C-1 and the effect on his property value_- He' feels that it is not up to the Planning Commission to cor.recttan error in building a home on Lyndale Avenue. Ha feels that this' wou-1d be s ot zoning; and p that it's unreasonable to add more commercial in the center of a residential block. He distributed a letter from an appraiser from 1955. He indicated FHA told him that his property value :would decrease if the property behind were zonod commercial. John Rickert, 671.0 Garfield Avenue South, appeared o-posec. to the rezoning and slating his property would be ad•,erseiy of :acted it this property were rezoned to commercial. mom Warren Zetzman, 6733 Lyndale Avenue South, appeared stating that he signed the petition but if the neighbors objected he t,,ould also 0 bject r Commissioner i3levins lpo:e aq.:inst, thc, mote-c:?. T?ic 10 oot side yard setback is in t.hi s case; and i_ZC:r:i.,g t1e ullo. abe building size has Lccn talked al-,out. Commissioner Ahlqulst >tate,l eels opposition to the ftiO ClOi: an ti.a the ordinances should be put i.n order. Commissioner Ertman al .so stated that the ordinances should be changed to provide for this type of developr;ent:. The applicant stated that he feels the unite are desi.g,ied reasonably with square foot,:lge available. The builder stated they wanted to keep the hLilding with a low profile. Commissioner McDermott asked that applicant:: ?:plai ri why they want the variance at the be(ii.nning of their prese.-.cation. Motion failed 3-3-1 with Conunissioner.s Ertmin, I31evins, and Hoverson voting no and Commi_ssi.uner McDermott abstain(_A. M/Ahljuist, S/Hoverson, to send this to the City Council with no recommendation. Commissioner. 3, Icvin_, said the Planning Comm, :.;lion should make a decision. 5 Minute Recess Commissioner Blevins spoke in favor of the rezoning in that C-1 would not-have that great affect on abutting residential neighbor- hoods and that the comprehensive plan does Support-this rezoning. Chairperson Ertman stated that he defends the applicant's right to make this application. He also stated he has some problems with the validity of the signatures on the petition including that of Kentucky Fried Chicken. He does not see a need for commercial in this area. Commissioner Russell stated he supports the :notion because the purpose of the LHN boundaries was not to allow commercial to creep outside. Commissioner Blevins stated there are other C-1 areas abutting residential. Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Blevins voting no. Council Liaison Ludeman left the meeting. is IJ TE'•' = 7 , CASE #181-V-33, VARIANCE AT 6412 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH Rick Jopke presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Burt Rutman, 6400 Lyndale Avenue South, applicant appeared stating the fence is good for a buffer but they havo been having security problems and we Auld like it to be 10 feet h' c-h. • Julian Flaaten, 67=19 Ll ndale Avenue South, appeared in favor of the rezoning. Paul Marchessault, 672-1 Garfield Avenue South, appeared opposed because it would be slot zoning. Brad Diamond, 6725 Harriet Avenge South, appeared opposed to this rezoning because it's a nice area and neighborhoods should not be destroyed. Brian Flesche, 6725 (;arfield Avenue South, appeared opposed to the rezoning, concerned. 1lbout commercial creeping i_nt,o his residential neighborhood. M/Anderson, S/Russell to close the hea.rincy. Motion carried. M/McDermott, S/HovOrsoi, to recommend t0 the City Council denial of the rezoning roque__t at 671.7 Lvrldaie Avenue South. Commissioner Hoverson stated she agrees that. this is spot zoning and is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. • Commissioner Ahlauist stated that it was the intent that there would not be any coaunercial expansion outsiJe? the LHN boundaries he agrees with the motion. A ar.d Commissioner Blevins spoke in favor of the rezoning in that C-1 would not-have that great affect oiZ abutting' residential neighbor- hoods and that the comprehensive plan 'does support-this rezoning. Chairperson Ert-nan stated that he defends' the applicant's right to make this application. He also stated he has some problems with the validity of the signatures on the-petition including that of Kentucky Fried Chicken. He does not see a need for commercial in this area. Commissioner Russell stated he supports the motion because the purpose of the L,HN boundaries was not to allow commercial to creep outside. Commissioner Blevins stated there are other C-1 areas abutting residential. Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Blevins voting no. Council Liaison Ludeman left the meeting. W d STEM #7, CASE 481-V-33, VARIANCE AT 6412 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH Rick Jopke presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Burt Rutman, 6400 Lyndale Avenue South, applicant appeared stating the fence is good for a buffer but they have been having security problems and would like it to be 10 feet high. Chairperson Ertman asked what materials will be used and will it withstand Minnesota winds. The applicant indicated it would be of the same material as the existing fence and would be built to withstand winds. Commissioner Russell asked why it is necessary to go 10 feet in this area only. The applicant stated there is a chain link fence next to Richfield Lake and they don't have security problems because of the lake. No residents appeared. M/Ahlquist, S/Anderson to close the hearing. Motion carried. M/Russell, S/Eioverson to recommend to the City Council grantino of the variance for `er--e I I o ,::It at 1e Avenuc South. Commissioner Russell stated he has some problems with the existing fence ordinance and that with security problems there should be some flexibility. Chairperson Er•tman asked if there are any standards to comply with. Staff responded that the PUD calls for a wood screen fence and that would apply. Telephone: (612) 861-7355 861-8305 Malw& ..Mate _A nc Jnc. INSURANCE -- 6625 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH • RICHFIELD BANK BUILDING • RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 November 16, 1981 Mr. Lorin A. GaSterland 6716 Garfield Ave. South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Lorin: Thank you for your letter of November 13 regarding our develop- ment project. The Richfield State Agency, Inc. is currently working with the City of Richfield and our architects to develop the property between 66th and 67th Streets and from Lyndale Avenue to Grand Avenue. We will continue to use the commercially zoned lots at 6601-05 Lyndale Avenue as parking lots, and the residences at 6700 Garfield and 6709 Lyndale Ave. S. will continue to be used as is. The Richfield State Agency does not take a stand on the request for rezoning at 671.7 Lyndale Avenue South. Sincerely, Carl E. McBride Vice President CEMcB:lw 0 • Definition of spot zoning by Rick Jopke, Richfield Community Development Department: Spot zoning would be a change of zoning that does not relate to zoning around it. Also, zoning that benefits a single property owner without particular benefit to the community. • 0 {SAG iD LOAN Ci'){R fi I=2±F'a NI"?F riT ) 1"4 ?J e NORT'iWESTERta FEVIFRAi_ SAVINGS REALTOR LAKE MINNET"ONKA OFFICE COUNTRY CLUS CORNER tk LOAN ASSN, IiENNEPIN AT E1G1iTH FOSHAY TOWz:H EXCELSIOR, MINN, MINNEAPOLIS 2, MINN. THOMAS S. MAPi_E ILL. MAIN 7871 TELEPHONES. OFFICE 'I 6L, EXCVLSIOli 1266 MAIN 1871 THOMAS S. MAPLE, JR. TEL. EXCELSRJR 177LW EXCELSIOR 600 WILLIAM J. MAPLE THI... EXCL.LSIOR 1268 GLENN GULLICKSON TEL. KENWOOO 0471 October 17, 1 955 Mr. Lorin A. Gasterland 6716 Garfield Avenue South Richf ield, Minn. Dear Sir: We are pleased to confirm the tact that we were prepared to testify in your behalf at the Richfield Village Council meetinge which were helC. the evenings of September 12th and 19th,1355, -for consideration of the petition to extend commercial zoning about one half block along the east side of Lyndale Avenue South from West 67th Street toward West 68th Street, The east side of this blook on Garfield Avenue South was to remain zoned residential, including the present dwellinr;s of yourself and your neighbors to the north,east and south. • Each of the undersigned has had over thirty years experience in selling and appraising both res?dentlal and commercial property in Minneapolis and its suburbs. Mr. Maple was for ten years chief appraiser in the local FHA office and Mr. Guilickson was for 28 years the local Loan Agent for the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company of Milwaukee. Both of us have made residential sales and mortgages in all sections of Richfield, including your immediate neighborhood. It has been our invariable practice to depreciate the sale and loan values of residential properties which adjoin land zoned commercial, regardless of the improvement upon the commercial ground or the fact that it may still be entirely unimproved. -Its liability to future commercial use is a warnin to a1_-7-o en d buyers and en ers at th ae acent r e s3-`? „? - e n t itL 1 _a an A. Y+ Ct n owner - is possible that some special commercial use of the Lyndale Avenue frontage in question might give no serious annoyance to you and your neighbors, an appraisal of your pro_pert7 for sale or mortgage - urposes must as assume sume that the commercially zMM d and maw bg?uge?_ for_an_-y a`ri? purposes perms ch1igld Zonir. Ordinance. It ie a`well`reco n3zed rule of r©sidential appra s ng Wt---- blighted areas result when residential and business districts adjoin each otter too closely. 0 ( i e it Tf--lON1ASs M" P E? e ivvtLAKE tAiNNETONKA OFFICE 'LOAN CORRESPONDENT 'NORTHW.ESTERN FEDERAL SAVINGS 'REACT COUNTRY CLUB CORNER 6 LOAN ASSN. .y EXCELSIOR, MINN. XXXF09Ff Y Ts,?,WER HENNEPIN AT EIGHTH +27# MINIAP IS 2.MIN • - Q. T.EI_9PHONES, OFFICE THOMAS S. MAPLE TrL. MAIN 1671 MAIN 1671 TEL. EXCELSIOR 1266' ^f EXCELSIOR 600 THOMAS S. MAPLE, JR. TEL. EXCELSIOR 177LW WILLIAM J. MAPLE TEL. EXCELSIOR 1266 .? 4QLENN GULLICKSON TEL. KENWOOD 0471 ?p f s, Page 2. It is our experience that the e??p_a.nsion of commercial zoning into a residential area has a more __ _m L in of f ect percentage-w ae upon hig ier rieedomes_ ;hen_o11_tha_ lower priced dwellings. -People who are able to own homes costing from15,0'00 t0 25,000 will not knowingly locate next to a business or eommerbial property.'We estimate that the commercial zoning of the west one-half of your block along Lyndale Avenue would immediately make it im- possible for the owner of a $15,000 home on your side of Garfield Avenue to sell his property for more than $10,000; that is, the depreciation would be at least 33 113%• Upon a X20,000 home the depreciation would be fully OJ to $`12,000 and upon a $25,000 home 'the depreciation might easily be 500 or $12,500., Since t}-ie homes of yourself and your neighbors appear to range from w15,000 to $25,000 • in present day replacement cost, we can testify that the proposed commercial zoning of the Lyndale Avenue frontage of your block would at once reduce the sale and loan values of your residential property from 33 113% to 50%, as outlined above. You are at liberty to submit this letter to the Richfield Council and to your interested neighbors, it you so desire. Very truly yours, `THOMAS 84 b1APLE, INC. $y I 6 r B PAC ? 5B i October 26, 1981 • • Lorin A. Casterland 6716 Garfield Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Mr. Gasterland, Re: proposed zoning change on Lyndale Avenue South Ion s changed to zoning other than res dWn a ven though many of the new Commcia propertifes are requ red-`Yu mei?ti?n their green areas and parking lots and landscape better than many residential property owners, the adjoining property, which will be yours, will become the "Buffer Zone" and suffers a loss of value because of it. Having a choice, most buyers will shy away from the property next to comercial in favor of all residential. { espectfuIly ?. axles E Sankey - I have read the letter sent to you by the Thomas S. Maple firm back in September of 1955. The letter is valid today on all points with the exception of the property values t to -£Fi y reTer to and they have increased three to four times. My background is in the mortgage lending field and real estate. I was associated with Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association from 1961 to 1966 and with the Richfield Bank & Trust-Co. as their mortgage loan officer and appraiser from 1966 to 1974. Since 1974 I have been a Real. Estate Broker selling Real Estate, the majority Residential, in South Minneapolis and the South Suburbs. It is true that a residential property that has been surrounded by residentia zoned property will loose desireability and thereby value when the surroAdin Broker n.. ' 0,: . PACE s? 4100 Grand Avenue South/ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409/1612 823-7231 Bankey Realty AMP lir_'?",Zn A. ;;'Ifs :a[V'7 • December 9, 1981 Honorable Mayor and the City Council City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Gentlemen: Members of South Ar??;iu? .`_?auth I have undertaken to investigate the historical traffic count on Lyndale Avenue South in connection with the request for a zoning change at 6717 Lyndale Avenue South, where the petitioner states that traffic conditions have become intolerable and it is therefore necessary for him to abandon it as a residence and convert it to an office building. The petitioner purchased the property in 1953, the same year in which I purchased 6716 Garfield, immediately to the east. Mr. Dudley Gjersvig of the Planning Department of the Minnesota Department of Transportation advised me that Lyndale Avenue South was State Trunk Highway No. 65 from 1953 until 1959, when it was replaced by the opening of 35W west of Wood Lake. The traffic count furnished to me by Mr. Gjersvig is as follows: 1953 13,172 1957 19,600 1954 13,580 1958 16,300 • 1955 15,000 1959 9,300 1956 18,100 I also investigated the traffic count for years subsequent to the opening of 35W, which were furnished to me by Rick Jopke, Richfield City Planner, as follows: 1955 16,754 1968 10,685 1970 12,514 1975 12,821 1977 12,184 1980 12,030 I submit that the petitioner purchased his house in full knowledge that it faced on a Trunk Highway (with commercial zoning across Lyndale Avenue), and that these negative factors were very probably of substantial consideration in the determina- tion of market value in 1953. It is apparent that the traffic count has stabilized at approximately 12,000 daily for the past 11 years. I therefore submit that the Planning Staff reference to satisfying the applicant's desire to terminate his residential use at this undesirable location should not be considered as a factor in the zoning petition. Sincerely yours, r 9? Lorin A. Gasterland 0 LAG/cw PAGE 6 73 N r U 411111111111111 0 U 9 V) C\I Wt N V) 4-0 0 U) e L December 8, 1981 Mr. Loren Gasterland 6717 Garfield Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Gasterland, I looked through our records and have come up with the following daily traffic volumes on Lyndale Avenue between 66th Street and 68th Street. 1980 : 12,030 ADT 1977 : 12,184 ADT 1975 : 12,821 ADT 1970 : 12,514 ADT 1968 : 10,685 ADT 1955 : 16,754 ADT I have also attached copies of the minutes of the October 27, 1981 Planning Commission meeting and the November 9, 1981 City Council meeting. As I indicated in our phone conversation written transcripts of these meetings are not available. The City Council meetings are taped and you could listen to that tape if you wished. If there is any other information you need please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, n ? Rick jopke City Planner Enclosure ?RGE 68 telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer Ij • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 419 Agenda December 14, 1981 Continued December 28, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Hearing of Appeal with Regard to Fire Prevention Code On November 23, 1971, the city council held a hearing of appeal with regard to orders issued to Mr. Richard Cheng, owner of property at 7727 Wentworth Avenue, to comply with certain provisions of the fire prevention code. At that time, the council received testimony from the Public Safety Director, the Assistant Fire Chief, and the property owner. After receiving all testimony the council continued this hearing to December 14, 1981. The city council, after receiving testimony on November 23, . 1981, concurred with the orders issued by the Public Safety Department to bring the property into compliance with the city's Uniform Fire Code provisions. The council continued the hearing and directed the City Attorney to prepare a formal Findings of Fact in this matter. A copy of the Findings of Fact, as prepared by the City Attorney, is attached to this letter. It is recommended that the city council close the hearing and take formal action on the Findings of Fact as presented, on December 14, 1981. Respectfully submitted, n Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Public Safety Director City Attorney • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ORDER OF ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: I. The City Council makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. 7727 Wentworth Avenue South is owned by Richard Cheng and is occupied and used as a rooming house. 2. The structure located upon such premises is comprised of a basement, first floor, and second floor. 3. Normally 7 or 8 roomers reside in sleeping rooms which are located in the basement and on the second floor. 4. Beginning in 1980, the State of Minnesota contracted with the City of Richfield to make certain inspections of room- ing houses located within the City of Richfield. The contracted inspections included fire inspections to deter- mine compliance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code which • had recently been adopted by ordinance by the City of Richfield. 5. On September 9, 1980, representatives of the Fire Division of the Richfield Department of Public Safety inspected the premises located at 7727 Wentworth Avenue South. 6. Following that inspection, on October 14, 1980, the owner was given written orders to make corrections to the prem- ises. The orders were based upon the Uniform Fire Code and other state laws. A copy of that communication is attached herewith as Exhibit A as though fully set out at this point. The communication further afforded the owner an opportunity to appeal this order to the Board of Health and Fire Appeals (City Council). 7. Evidence was presented by Thomas A. Morgan, Jr., Director of Public Safety; Patrick Coughlin, Assistant Fire Chief; Richard Cheng and others wishing to testify. The specific items of evidence will, to the extent relevant, be dealt with in Part II below. II. The Council makes the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW based upon the evidence presented: 1. The individual .sleeping rooms do not have approved smoke is detectors as required by law. 2. That individual areas throughout the building are not interconnected with any alarm system which will permit sufficient advance warning of fire. 3. The sleeping room doors are not equipped with an approved closure device as required by law. 4. The sleeping room doors do not have a fire resistance rat- ing of at least 20 minutes as required by law. 5. Each sleeping room is not separated from other rooms by • walls and ceilings having a one hour fire resistance rat- ing as is required by law. 6. The door between the first floor and second floor stairs does not swing into the first floor as is required by law; and is not at least 20 minute fire rated as is required by law. 7. The basement sleeping rooms do not each have two approved means of exit as required by law. 8. The furnace is not separated from the rest of the premises by one-hour fire rated walls and a door having a 20 minute rating as are required by law. 9. The furnace and attic area do not have heat detectors which are required by law, nor are such heat detectors inter- connected with any alarm system which will permit sufficient advance warning of fire. III. Based upon the foregoing, the Council makes the following ORDER: 1. The orders of the Assistant Fire Chief contained in his letter of October 14, 1980, to Richard Cheng are hereby in . all respects affirmed. 2. \?J o0 3. Passed this The imposition of this order is hereby staye of forty (y0? days to permit the owner an on present to this Council an acceptable progra complete and full compliance within a period two years of this order. Such program shall sented to the Assistance Fire Chief within t of the date of this order for his review and to this Council. a for a period .Dortunity to n calling for not to exceed first be pre- lirty days recommendation ATTEST: In the event no program for compliance is submitted, or no program having been submitted is found to be acceptable, then from, and after the fortieth (4,0t-h) day following the date of this order, the owner of the premises located at 7727 Wentworth Avenue South shall discontinue all uses of said premises requiring such compliance. by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, day of , 1981. Donald Priebe Mayor 0 Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk EXHIBIT A FIN Is 411111111111111111 0 U i M N d' LO LO 4-1 O U) E e CU CU L O C. O O (fl October 14, 1980 Mr. Richard Chong 6405 Nordic Circle Edina, 1 LN 55435 Dear Mr. Cheng: On September 9, 1980, your rooming house at 7727 IVentworth Avenue South was inspected by Captain Kaiser and myself. 'Ilse following corrections must be made for the building to meet the requirements of the Minnesota Uniform Dire Code. 1. Install an approved smoke detector in each sleeping room. 'Ilie smoke detectors must be powered by the house electrical system and must be wired so that when one detector operates, ail of the detectors will sound an alarm. 2. Each sleeping room door must be equipped with an approved self- closure device. 3. Each sleeping room door must have a fire resistance rating of 20 minutes. The Milinesota Uniform Fire Code will accept a 1-3/4 inc:dr solid bonded door as a substitute for a fire-rated d6or in this case. 4. Each sleeping room must be separated from other room by walls and coilings having a one hour fire resistance rating. S. Ilre -door on the first floor which opens into the second floor stairs must be reswulg so that it swings into the first floor. 6. 'dlie door in Item S. must be a 20 minute door. the substitution of a 1-3/4 inch solid bonded door may be used. 7. "I%vo smoke detectors must be added to the detector on the first floor, and all three of thelli c,-ired into the rest of the smoke detectors. 8. l;acli sleeping room in the basement must liave an exit will-C-11 goes di.rcctly outside. Ne will accept large window wells with the bottom of the opening not more thud 4 feet ab0?e the slcepilig 1-00111 Moor. '111(2 City (iuildill(? In>1)ectioll Department cull supply the miniuuuil dlllte11si011s ZuiLl the details of construction. telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer C Mr. Richard C hemp October 14, 1980 - Page 9. The furnace i ii-mot he separated from the rest of t11c ]louse with tdall.s and ceiling of 1 ]lour fire resistance. ,I,he door to the fuzliace room must have a 20 minute fire resistance. 10. The furnace room ajid the attic must be equipped with approved heat de- tectors and wired to the smoke detector alai7ns. The normal ti"1e allowed for meeting Fire Code requirements is 30 days. Since some of the above corrections are going to require planning, please contact me if you wish to extend the time required for compliance. You also have the right to appeal these orders. You may do so by i,riting to the City Clerk within 1S days from the date of this letter. The City Clerk will refer the appeal to the City Council, whic1i is the Appeals Board. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, Patrick J. Coujilin Assistant Fire Chief Fire Division Richfield Public Safety Dopartment PJC:hf • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager 0 Council Letter No. 418 Agenda December 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchases in Excess of $1,000 Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment in excess of $1,000 must be approved by the city council. There are four such items on the December 14, 1981 city council agenda. Nozzles As part of the water treatment process, water is directed to the filter beds through a system known as the Leopold Surface Wash Equipment, which includes a whole series of nozzles. These • nozzles are in need of repair and replacement. Due to delivery schedules, it is necessary to order the 725 Flexi Jet Nozzles now for delivery after the first of the year. Because it is patented equipment, there is only one vendor. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of flexi jet nozzles from Leopold Company in the amount of $2,726. Funds are available in the 1982 budget document for this purchase. Storm Sewer Repair On September 14, 1981 the city council authorized repairs at Smith Pond, in the City of Bloomington. Based on an agreement be- tween the two communities, the cost of these repairs is to be shared. After starting the work, it was discovered that a headwall was tipped over and that new pipe would be needed as well as the removal or breaking up of the existing pipe and headwall. In a meeting at the site, it was agreed that the City of Richfield would purchase the new pipe and the additional costs for labor and equipment would be charged accordingly. It is recommended that Elk River Concrete Products It is also recommended that G. L. Contracting, Inc. for charges in the amount of $2 the for the the ,012 city council authorize payment to this pipe, in the amount of $1,553.60. city council authorize payment to additional labor and equipment .05. Council Letter No. 418 -2- December 14, 1981 Milner Pond Cleanup The city has been working with neighbors on the east side of Milner Pond to obtain easements for storm sewer purposes. One of the concerns of the neighbors and the city has been clean-up of the Milner Pond neck. Easements have been obtained from five of the neighbors, with the sixth, or northernmost, not critical to the storm sewer maintenance work. The staff has obtained three quotations for cleanup of the pond neck, conditions permitting. Each of the companies provided costs for mobilization, hourly rates for a backhoe, hourly rates for a dozer and hourly rates for tandem trucks to be used in hauling. To calculate an estimated total cost, a factor of 30 hours to complete the job was used. The companies seemed to feel that less time than that would be needed, but this figure was used to account for some variables or unanticipated circumstances. Carl Bolander and Sons Company quoted $9,320.00; Park Con- struction quoted $10,240.00; and G. L. Contracting, Inc. quoted $8,040.00. It is recommended that the city council authorize the work to be done as conditions permit by G. L. Contracting, Inc. Funding for this work is included in the 1981 sewer enterprise fund budget. Overhead Electrical Service • In conjunction with the undergrounding of electric service on 66th Street, it was necessary to maintain and provide for a temporary overhead service for 744 W. 66th Street. Since the under- ground installation of utilities on the entire "Godfather Block" will not occur until that block is developed, it was necessary to provide the overhead service because the existing overhead service on 66th Street was put underground. The cost of the construction for this overhead service is $1,135. It is recommended that the city council authorize the payment of $1,135 to Northern States Power Company. Funds are available in the CP 7053 project budget. Telephone Equipment The addition to the public safety facility which is currently underway, requires expansion of the city owned telephone system. The additional telephone instruments will cost $1,660. North Supply Company, is the only vendor with equipment compatible with the existing Telamerica system. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of this equipment from North Supply in the amount of $1,660. Funds for this purchase are available in the public safety building expan- sion project fund. i Res,pectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 417 December 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Transitory Ordinance Relating to the Vacatio of a Portion of Lake Shore Drive. Second Reading. At the November 23, 1981 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to a transitory ordinance vacating the portion of Lake Shore Drive which was eliminated after it was realigned to meet Rae Drive, as part of the 66th Street improvement project. After the street is vacated, the vacated right-of-way will become part of the Lake Shore Drive Condominium project site. A copy of the November 23, 1981 staff report on this vacation is attached for your information. It is recommended that the city council conduct the public hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to the attached ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Engineer City Clerk U LEGAL NOTICE Bill 1981-29 TRANSITORY ORDINA NCE NO. 16.87 A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE FOR T11E V _C??TIO'I OF A PORTION OF LANE SHORE DRIVE Section 1. The follo:jing portion of Lake Shore Drive -; i whin the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of :11 11a _?, is hereby vacated: All that part of Lake Shore Drive as dedicated in the plat of "Fair,,iood Shores" according to the duly recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies northerly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 38 feet northerly of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the center line of Emerson Avenue South (as shown in the plat Silverw ood Second Addition) and the south line of the North 1/2 of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24; thence run easterly for a distance of 253.0 feet to a point distant 8.0 feet north of the south line of North 1/2 of said Section 28; thence deflect right at an angle of 10 48' 43" for a distance of 54.06 feet; thence deflect right along a tan- gential curve having a radius of 572.96 feet (delta angle 180 07' 00") for a distance of 181.17 feet; thence run tangent to said curve for a distance of 409.77 feet; thence deflect left along a tangential curve having a radius of 572.96 feet (delta angle 40 55' 19") for a distance of 49.22 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence de- flect right at an angle of 810 37' 25" (measured from a tangent of said curve) for a distance of 77.03 feet; thence deflect left along a tangential curve having a radius of 100 feet for a distance of 113.45 feet (delta angle 650 00' 00"); thence run tangent to said curve for a distance of 77.20 feet; thence deflect right along a tangential curve having a radius of 373.52 feet for a distance of 195.47 feet (delta angle 290 59' 02") and there termi- nating, a and southerly of a line drawn from the northeasterly corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Lynn4ood, to the northwesterly corner of Lot 12, Block 3, Fainvood Shores, according to the duly recorded plat thereof. Section 3. The City of Richfield, Minnesota .Dill retain a permanent easement over, under and across the above described tract of land for maintaining existing utilities. Section 4. The Mayor and Manager are authorized to ta'-e such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public rir.ht- of-way as provided in the foregoing section. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1981. DOn,I !"--7s-: S, l la H. Berch CIt 12 If .'.a1'Gr C c 0 i 0 A N 0 66th STRE?? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 407 Agenda November 23, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Transitory Ordinance Relating to Vacation Of a Portion of Lake Shore Drive. First Reading Historv In February, 1981, the city council considered an ordin- ance which would vacate the portion of Lake Shore Drive elim- inated after it is realigned to meet Rae Drive as part of the 66th Street improvement project. Because negotiations were still going on between Hennepin County and owners of the proper- ties necessary to carry out the realignment, no final action regarding the street vacation was taken. Subsequently, nego- tiations have been completed, Hennepin County has acquired the necessary properties, and Lake Shore Drive has been realign- ed. It is now necessary to proceed with the street vacation so that the vacated right-of-way can become part of the Lake Shore Drive condominium project site. Staff Findings ing: The staff has reviewed the proposal and found the follow- 1. That the proposed vacation is in substantial com- pliance with the regulations governing street va- cations; 2. That utilities exist on Lake Shore Drive. These utilities are os?m ed by the City of Richfield, Northern States Power Co., Minnegasco, and North- western Bell; 3. That, since the street has been realigned, the por- tion of right-of-,,lay to be vacated would not serve any public purpose. If this portion of Lake Shore Drive is not vacated, the city would be responsible for unnecessary maintenance costs, Council Letter No. 407 -2- i;ovember 23, 1981 4. That the proposed vacation would not be detrim- ental to the safety or welfare of the general public. Staff Recommendation Since the proposal will not be detrimental to the public welfare the staff recommends approval of vacation of this por- tion of Lake Shore Drive, with the following stipulation: 1. That the necessary utility easements be granted. To accomplish this, it is recommended that the council give first reading approval to the attached transitory ordin- ance. It is further recommended that the council schedule the public hearing and second reading consideration of this matter for December 14, 1981. Plannina Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends approval of this street vacation, with the noted stipulation, and with the stipulation that the vacation take effect subsequent to acquisition of the three parcels of property necessary to carry out the realignment. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager CC: Community Development Director Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator City Planner City Engineer KN/eja 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 416 December 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Council Salaries The Richfield C' r provides that the salaries of the council members be reviewed in December of each year. Therefore, a discussion of this item has been scheduled for the December 14, 1981 city council meeting. Council salaries were last adjusted in 1978, when the salary of the Mayor was increased from $5,670 to $6,000 per year; and council member salaries were increased from $4,221 to $4,500 annually. An ordinance change to change the council salaries requires a 4/5 vote of the city coun cil for immediate implementa- tion. A majority vote of the council is required to increase salaries for councilmembers elected in the future. An ordinance amendment relating to council member salaries is attached for council consideration. The most recent survey that we have of council salaries in other cities is attached for your reference. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh a 0 0 Q' d L7 CJ7 J Q U r--r L.L l? O Q L:J V L_LJ J L? U) Q) .,1 N Qa 'rl U -U 'H ^i O O U q-i O rl O ?J 'N U O U 41 A `LS Q) H 'N O U H CO G ti ti M ti h 0 PP, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O\ CO I to N O "O N t0 N O O 1 1 -'t t\ I N N Lc,\ O o O a1 L? r? I M M r 1 r I M M I I tl) N M 1 ?t N O\ ?t ?O ti O` a r-+ z co Cd 0 0 o O o o O O ,-A O O O O O O (DE1 0 H O O O O O O O U 'Do 07 N 1C)o N O "D N to N O O O 1 L1 \,O ti N N O O O f d` { r{ '- i ?t m M cd ri r1 v' M M M I N cd m N L? N ON -t D H a O o ? Z P? O C? O O m O O O to CY o CD 0 O C O O O O O ON M 2 ?D M N c l ?O M ?t Z M M H N ON r? rl * X * * * },C JC H 69- O L- O O O O O O O O O O O u\ O O O O O O O a` --t I N O O to 110 to o ?t O 1 1 -,t \,O to 1 O \,O 0 O o O ri N I -'t N U\ _+ V r- t ON ir\ I I co m -t I \D O\ u\ N \J cl, ? H H ri r' ? C H o ?H O 0 O O O O O H O O O O O O P? cc\ r1 O O O O O (D O O ? tC ? ? O o CO IaD to O -\t N O 1 to N O \O O O o c N ri N N Lr\ -,t- cd rJ v ON u\ ?t 1 M cd ?' \o O` LC\ N \ N a r ?, r-i cn co r-i r-+ ? a? O o `? c? o ? o 0 o z o 0 0 0 o rz cz r? o z o ? c? o 0 0 o c r i o 0 0 0 \D O O -t 0 • to to \O O O O O co Z ?J Z t0 ?C\ \ M \O N u\ \O Z O\ L C\ N \D c •Z O\ * JjC }C SC -I i ? !-y ri r--I C_I r r 69- E-+ ,? ? ri N ri N r--I N r-i r-I ri r1 ri r-i ri (`. N ri r-I r-I n r- i N r--I N r- I N C1, o Z N G N U\ ri - c* t ri M d t` N r- i \D 61 v'\ O ? r 7 W ? \ M O -It ?1 ? ON ON U ON ?t r-I H L- ? L 'M tr\ r d -t O` N O U N O ? L- N L\ L` N M M "o -,t N \J W to ri r1 O` -1 ? N ? ri r1 r I ri r-1 N r1 r1 P, Q O a O O N W Q z 0 H C-+ P, O P, W H Fi H U F]' H v H 2 U cd U U c co ? O k H F+ •r-I 1 1 cc o ? Q) H ) D bi) O o 7 C) x H ,d -A U •,A Id O o ) ::J ~ 41 r > , 'P v r: f-A O CS r~ r1 O U -p r1 r ?H ) r--i CS rz::3 C) + O 4-3 N C) H 14 C",, o 1-1 -yam C) M . V ?-i m U -P >-. C) CD cd 0 U o r? o CD - 1 r l o Q C `1. ra w F C) 0 t-i U N ? C) U r? `l L] C' ?3 Nr P, •-ry W O C w H H •rI ? U •`,4 co a U S4 m a U `-S 0 a --1 r, cl a -7 ?l cd a -A X c) a ? ri •r1 a ^ o a U S q 01 r-1 R, ? ti co hL G U CJ cS 4' U < U) U a ? H * r--I * G 0 : O ZEE P. ? w C P- C (D y 0 co cn `d cn c+ U) c+ to c+ "I o ? O w `TJ N• z O z (D z (D z CD _ ?'• ?? F-'• y (D 7- (D - ? " :) H ( ? O P, F ( D ? N• (? l Q• N = co P, P- (D P. H H q F-j (D " 0 P. w P. ti a f? ?7 tU S 7 o O H C] O O ?7 y _ ' 7 ( CD + ? P- O + 0 F'• ?:l CD n '---I J C/) ( ? n5 N ? o CID ` ` w D c c ( D co R N• O • ¢? H P. td W til i ? w `.j '.S' N• ?S R d d h R P. N x ? O ? F FJ w ?j CD O "J 0 n 0 ?C r w ?- - () h (D + w (D r ? H O i w • i co w ? c U w w U) 3 :- m N. 0 x (D r `d Cf) m ? P- Cl) b x c+ ?c (D w 0 ?• I? co (D + 0 Y, ?3 H O z i 'd C:? d d 7J F' F- N F? I N 1 3 N H N \n W w W F-J C0 C` W N N F' N W \n N N W \n C7 O \Ji W N ' N W vT =? Qa \J1 \Jl O \n ON F--' N Ca +? ? F N 0a z O ON -? C? Vi G4 T 1` <1 N oa N \O o\ \n \D \D \D Ca W Z O O O c+ N. `.j 'd ?3J h4 C=] i? (D ? O R• N 1-1 - N N F-' c J H (J N N N N ?- N N N N f? I- FJ F' I- FJ F ? H co 4fi ? f z C7\ w C\ Ca G\ -Z- O\ Oa Z ? o \D Z w Z N w W F--' W ?? O ON O -p- 0 M 0 0 o z 0 0 ? N 0 O 0 ON o x G\ O z ?:u O` O ON O z O 0 Ca 0 !Z ON 0 0 0 ' O O O o r 0 0 0 » Cl) Cn N C f) ci) r ~ w I C\ a` \n -J` D` w o N o W w w I` H N w w F-j c 1-j w ON ti CD \ O G\ 1 o O ca w O O 1- O O ;-- O N O O O oa O a, O G\ O F? CQ O oa O Ca o 7 ? O O o O Ca 0 O 0 O C O 0 O w O r w W w -r-9 0 I ? I M w \ I 1 O\ O w O \n \n N ?, G\ O Co 0 N -?- -Q N O O Ca W G\ w a` w G\ Co M z • N \n F Co N m W ON \n O y \O G O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O 0 O O O O O -a O z ? N W 1? N <y, ON Da N Pi z N N FJ N F' O C7'i ^.? N al ON N O d O O o N o 0 \n o 0 0 0 \n 0 C Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O r z z z cr) 0 o O Cl) C/) cr N I +? W w N H O` 04 W W N P) \ J F F w V-' F- ' F N f-' b \D 4 I Cc Cn w ON N O crl O O GIN O Gv N N m N ON -z- N C, O O O W O O F' O O O CD O O O H O O O ',?O 1 O O O O O 00 y p w w `?J r C7 z C-) ?k \O N I N ~ N) N F O 6 O CXl O W 6\ W O W O W C\ f N F N z F' F \n ' I N ON to -r- u iJ 7 b7 \D ? ? I O J1 0 ? 0 0 O 0 CXl 0 N 0 O 0 : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?:o 0 0 0 0 0 Cl) W W E so 4 W H C=+ C=, O Q W H U W W W. Gl O O O O O () O C7 O O O O (3 O O O `-) O O O 'j C? U , j r J O a+ ON to O O O O O ?t O Cat O O O O N O O CII O I'D -r O O O O -t' W C rl ? Lf', a, CO _I N ? G G M to ? ? H -,t LCN --t N Lr'? t N (D, to `O t0 a r--I N r-i r 1 r i r1 r i N N r-1 i r I U cr?l z U w I 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O to to O O N O O ?t O N O O O O N N to Lr,\ O {YJ to O O O O --t d` L- H Ll ()l to I LC\ C> .o G` M to - ? N -t O --t N ?t L',, G` to ?D co P'-, -1 ^ ^ N r1 rI rI r 1 N N N I 1 a r? r-i o n z o o o O o o o o r z o o o o o o o o o o 0 o x 00 CC t•J O C1 O O O O C O O O N -?t \,G O O to -t to O O O 't ::D ( Z L'\ ?- G` CO Oo u? N z M Co d` O v+ N ?t G z J CJ z H a z H H H rI I N N N r 1 U} CY CD (7N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C7\ C) O O O O O O O v7 O O O \.0O O O O O O \o ?+ 000-,TO r I N r i N N -,t N N A \D O L? \6 to \'O cn LC\ O N ? to N r_ H ^: N :--1 r-I N -1 r= r I r-I r l N M N r-1 N H N H W 64 O ?-O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lc-\ O O O O O O O O O O O fl, CID O O O O O O O O \J O O O \J O N CO O O O \J \o O O O ?t O G'\ N r-{ N N L1 to G\ N N L^ r I \G O co \G tLl \,D M G` O N -,t CO N r N N r-i H N r-1 H H H H N M N N N H N H U? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cx O O O O O O O O O O o 0f:? 0 0 ? H O O O O O O O \,D O O \O O O N O O O \D \0 O O -t O to N Z r7 N N ?t CO G, to ri \D M H N Lr, \D M O N to N zG x x Z H H N ri H N N H ri H N M M -i N N H rA co x 0 H O ,?, r-I C?1 N r-I N N N N N r--1 N N N N N N r--I N N r-i N N N r-I N N W a, O O 0 0 0 -P O O C\l O Of, ti O H H a, O C14 x H H H H C; OCO ?-D Z O C? N N ?-r \,G ON \G H N O \O \J r1 r I O \G N H O M ? \D N H M W u-\ 'Co ri M L'? O tC\ _ N rf\ C` H N N ON ?- G\ M L- t \o G` \O O LC? N O O Lc'\ M O ON L- O M M M N O L? \O Lf-\ N M to L- \O ? N G` 1-1 to \O F--1 H N O m C,N C to M ?t ?t M O N n M N N L ?t M N Q O a, m H 4 PH v ? 5, o? x ;11 '0 G ) +S, o ?l -i ` C) r?-i C) al i P, N C! U cJ, -? q C! U d ej ?; v a, N •ri C) i ii 0 O U 0 ? Cj q 3 ) (1) Q + cll C 1 m U CC W O ri ca r-i r x W r `Li o U1 co W O to ri F C,S w " 1 m F?-1 o W G c3 CJ i , ?j j r N P 'd H r d ? h W s? m X C3 F l O Cil r? -j C) o F• j N m 0 C. ) Q) 0 * W W W ? cn cn (f) ? c ? cn rd 10 O O O Z ti ya c? cF O ?-i co O m (D O ?• m Z C-4 c) Fi O w C co P. cn O = ? O P. F1 P ? (D O m ' J C+ w ?j p `.j m Ollq 10 ?A n O O -J '.3' b 0 ¢ m o ?Dj c+ +'• F'• CrQ " m P O p 1i ?-S c+ c+ m p p GI O (D r- CF ?- t-' Ft O W c+- U) r O m Y O? ?o C - U' 0 (D x b m CO m c+ m P- (D F . Cq G.) G --l (D t--31 Id C7 H H r? Z H H 'd H y c+ W c+ cn b c: cl) H H O Z t7 `mod W N ?n d` O W ti U d` yJ N N W QO w ?? H N O` G\ \O O W \O O N \O W \n m \.O w N N 11-1 n O ? N W Y v. OJ O?L W - O ? \-n N 03 W W I O Y W ' Y W Vn Y N W O (j\ W Z O Y ? C\0 c+ Q O O Y i O 't7 ?7j O t=1 tt o ? O N N N N N N N N + N N Y TJ O N N W N N 0 7 O H 'J 3 O c+ Un P. m R• ffl Y W Y Y W W Y W i'J W Y N Y N Y W N \O N O v, W O` O Cn O` ? O N W W Y O` 2- ? O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O ,1U O Y N Y Y w w Y w N w N Y F-' f-' ?? \O N Y `n M ON O W G, O \O \-n W Y ON N W O4 -p- 01\0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?1O W O O o? o O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fa N Y Y W W Y W Y W N ' ?' \O W Y `n 01 O\ O v, ON \-Tl O O W Y C\ N W Oa ON O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O -?- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a u Z u- a • r a Y r a 0 O O K O ?ld N ' Y W N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y >k ON \,O N) 0 0?? COL X- N) ND N) cla O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O N O O O ti O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O O O Y Y Y W N Y Y Y N N Y ?' F'' O O O O O O O O O O O io GO^ O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Y O O O O O O O Y Y Y W N Y F-' N Y Y Y Y O 6 O ?n O N O N O O O O N O W O O 0 1 0 - O O N O Y 0 O` 0 O 0 N 0 O O N 0 a u O N a r W a r a \D K O O C? ,J r Cx. W O N U) vl H U H 0 Q W E- U W a w s L O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D-, o O O O O N N O O N o o LO O O CA ? -'t ? .t N H L 0- to co 0\ Lrl W U1 to to G? a r1 cv N cv r-i cat r-i 'i H r-I C\l ri cv ri ri ri CD z U 1Tl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m O O O O O N ? O O N O O -It O O M O'\ -t -t tit N H Lam- M to co G-\ u-\ to G\ to -.t N N N H N N r--1 H r-I N H N r-1 N r? a e?l o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o ? o o ? 10 ° to to N ° 0- ? coo ° ? 2 H I Z M ('Q N? N N r-i N H H N N N N 1 C I { ID" O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ? ON N O O O O \J O O O N O O 't O O n L? tv J \15 m ON CS t? --t o L c\ O -,t ? ? O ( M r N n? N M N M N M N M N O 1 W 5+ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O It x 0 N O O O O \L-) O O O N O O O O O N CO to ?D \D to O'\ G` M -< O u,\ O -t G'\ L- O ri ? r-i N M M rl N M N M N M N M N M N a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r O O O O O to O O O t0 O O O O O N o O \J \D o (5, (J- M -3t o co o 0, Lam- O H H --- M M M N M (`.I M N M M M N M N ?Ti G° N N N N N N N 1 N N N N N N N N w c. O O 0 0 N 0 -P O O O (D r--I O z 0 H H P-, O E- E- H W E- H L to DO O?--D z mot -t M L? % rI O -M r-i M M N O O M 0" \O N M L- CS C7, N N G, N O ON N ON O \C) G- N tO M rl L?- 41 G? H O ?t M N U-\ N E-i a ?1 m N L1 ?t N r I N O ?t N LO O O a w U1 bJ N H H Cil a i o C) •ri b-0 1 0 CJ H U R1 b-0 z p-+ ri rl r ri ?A •ri G7 H Cd 2 C 0 W 'ZI C13 x 0 x C-3 a O co O N to r? r-? \ N ;J r-i Cf] (U Cd ri r I ?4 0, N 0 H 4 ? co co •rl Cd -? cl) U U •ri N r--I .n N ?? O F r 1 +' O 4 O Z o (D O W W,, Cf) U] T - rl " t=1 N C? C7 C) '::J W W W W n C7 t17 O c?+ O P- V ? -? O CJ ((DD O F- R W 1? 0 d O O O ? d V- d 1-t W. g-: ca 0 Y• N• Qq 0 H ? (D (D ? t ' C (D ?Dl P, p + t 0 W ((D (D (~D ((D R ?+ m ? ? ?j OFD ? H 0 O tJ P• G O ?-i c+ :i `.j (D SU ?IJ u' H t F'• D Cn N• 0 ?+- N• (D Gq ?5 O S ? 'd 4 W n e co (D a ?:5- x c), o w P• r ci- F t r O (D t-' m n W (D :j N H (D 'i `+ (D P? CD (V N O O (D H '-rJ?? N x N x (D o CQ Ji H H O b O N N +'? W W W N N W N N N W -? N N W N W ? W G4 N N N F' N \n F W W Cn- O` G N G ON C vn \-j O \n w 1-1 I' O? r H N G \n N \0 C5 03 G` O N O, \O \n ? rJ O \n \n ?1 G UN W N Or \n O} O w w W N \n - C(l O, O N N W N N W W W \n !' O \n -' O F \n --1 \O `J O \n \n Oa w N W d, \O N O F 01 03 Z O Cf) ? C O t=] t? F N V N N W N N W N N N N N N N W rJ N N N z- N V _ 2 ? C=j H O n ? to ti C G w Q, \; \n C \n W W ` -P- \n d, \n W <1 T O, ? w w " ti C7 G` O ^ O N \O (D-\ \n 01 ON 01 O, G` N N 1 03 OQL N O, CQ O O O O O O \O O O G G O G \n O O G G G O O \n O H O O O O O O O O O O O O O G O O O O O G O O O G ti „, Ln w G, \n \n d` W W W J- O, w W F W T W ON W W N N O` O - FJ O O, O, 00- \O CA N ON \O G, O, G` N 03 O, N ? O` cx xC O O O O O G O O G O G O G O O O C O C CO O \n G O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O G O C O O O O O G K G C_ ffl O F C W O, W W O, \n W W W W W W O, W N W W T w ON \n W W N K y O, O O, \O O -? ON G ON ON G O` 0r \O O, C N ro O` -t- ---I ON <1 O O G O O O O O G O O G O O O G O O (D O Oc)? O \n O \O K O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G O O C O O O O O C O c+ c+ Ga t'o R G N W W +? W W w N W W i W W W W W +? W W 4?- ON N W N y l O C^ N \n r), N O J- W O O CY3 \O O O\ ,O O, N C 0` H O M O \J O O O O O O \n G G G G \n 00 C O G 00 O G C T- G \n O Da O O O O O O C C O O O G 0 0 O O O O O O O O G O C O J cj? 63 ? PO w W W ^ W N r,-) w W W W n N w W W W +? W N d\ N w H -,I O G` \O \n O, G, v G, O O, Cxl O, O G, W (J rJ G` G ()K1 C \O K O C O O O CD O O C O O O O O O O -) O O G C O \n O CC? O O O G G O O O O O O O O O O O O G O O O O O O O O G O C) rtfl n tJ W N \J W N N N I`J W N \n 1- N N W \, \J N +? N W FJ \O a ti O T W \n G, G, ;-- ? ? G ? ^ x C, rn W ;J N G, z- N C` CJ. G ? W O O O O O O G O O O O C G G O 0 O O J C G O Z- \n \n O \O -IJ O O O C O O O C O O G O 00 G G O G C O O O O O O O c CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 415 December 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Charter Amendment Attached to this council letter is an ordinance which would amend Section 3.10 of the city charter relating to the amendment and repeal of ordinances. The ordinance was discussed at the last city council meeting by the city attorney. The purpose of the ordinance would be to amend the charter in such a way as to indicate that, on ordinance changes, "old matter to be omitted" would be indicated in the ordinance by "lining it through." Presently the charter requires that the material to be omitted be enclosed in brackets. Reading ordinances which have substantial changes being made in them can be confusing when the brackets • are used to denote deleted material. It is traditional for the lining method to be utilized in such bodies as the state legislature. It is recommended that the city council refer the charter amendment ordinance to the charter commission for review with the indication that you desire to see such an ordinance proposed. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: City Attorney 0 CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE RELATING TO AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF ORDINANCES, AMENDING SECTION 3.10 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 3.10 of the City Charter of Richfield relating to amendment and repeal of ordinances is hereby amended to provide as follows: "Section 3.10. Amendment and Repeal of Ordinances. Every ordinance repealing a previous ordinance, section, or subdivision thereof shall give the number, if any, and the title of the ordinance to be repealed in whole or in part. No ordinance, section, or subdivision thereof shall be amended by reference to the title alone. Such an amending ordinance shall set forth in full each section or subdivision to be amended and shall indicate new matter by underscoring and old • matter to be omitted by eneleei?---l?ae}?es lining it through. In newspaper publication of ordinances the same indications of omitted and new matter shall be used except that italics or bold-faced type may be substituted for under- scoring and omitted matter may be printed in capital letters within parentheses." Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 410.12, Subdivision 7. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 198. Mayor 0 ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 414 Agenda December 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Approval of Resolution Holding State Harmless, Approval of Minutes, Tabulation of Bids, and Award of Contracts for Lighting and Traffic Signals, and Street Improvements, CP 757 and CP 757-1 The State Aid Variance Committee has recommended and the State Commissioner of Transportation has approved the city's request for a variance to reconstruct Lvndale Avenue between Lake Shore Drive and 74th Street at a width of 47 feet. As in normal in granting of such a variance, the State Commissioner of Transportation has requested that the city council pass a "hold harmless" resolution, which absolves the state from any liability which may arise as a result of constructing the roadway at a width narrower than the state standard of 52 feet. It is recommended that the city council pass the attached resol- ution prior to awarding the contract for CP 757. On Friday, December 11, 1981, bids were opened for the Lyndale Avenue Improvement Project (CP 757). The Community Development Director, the Acting City Clerk, a designee of the City Manager, the City Engineer, and a representative of the engineering consulting firm were present at the bid opening. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. Street Paving and Appurtenant Work The street paving and appurtenant work were bid separately from the traffic signal systems and street lighting systems for cost accounting efficiency, and to hopefully receive better bids. Ten bids were received for the street paving and appurtenant work. These bids have been reviewed by the city staff and it is recommended that the city council award the contract for street paving and appurtenant work to the apparent responsible low bidder meeting specifications, Alexander Construction, Inc. of Apple Valley, in the amount of $526,464.50. A final analysis of the proposed work schedule indicated that the maximum cost savings can be realized with Council Letter No. 414 -2- December 14, 1981 to a detour of 15 working days, rather than the two calendar weeks previously indicated to the city council. The bid specifications were written to reflect this schedule. Street Lighting and Traffic Signals The plans and specifications for the traffic signals call for installation of fully traffic actuated traffic signals at the in- tersections of 70th Street and Lyndale Avenue and at 73rd Street and Lyndale Avenue. These signals will have pedestrian indicators and pedestrian activator buttons. Both signals have met the warrant justifications necessary for State Aid funding. Seven bids were received for the Street Lighting and Traffic Signal project. These bids have been reviewed by the city staff and it is recommended that the city council award the contract for street lighting and traffic signals to the apparent responsible low bidder meeting specifications, Botzli Electric Company, Minneapolis, in the amount of $127,158.00. Summary The construction budget for this project was $768,500, and the combination of both bids is in the amount of $653,622.50, making a net savings in the project of $114,877.50. • It is recommended that the city council take the following actions: i Approve the resolution holding the State of Minnesota harmless; 2. Approve the minutes, tabulation of bids, and award the contract for street paving and appurtenant work to the Alexander Construction, Inc. in the amount of $526,464.50; 3. Approve the minutes, tabulation of bids, and award the contract for street lighting and traffic signals to Botzli Electric Company, Minneapolis, in the amount of $127,158.00. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Development Director City Engineer Finance Coordinator ORR °SCHELEN • MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. r Consulting Engineers Land Sunleyors December 14, 1981 City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Attention: Mr. Karl Nollenberger City Manager Re: Street Paving and Appurtenant Work Lyndale Avenue - 74th Street to Lakeshore Drive S.A.P. No. 157-363-07 OSM COMM. No. 3107.01 Dear Mr. Nollenberger: •?i Bids were received on the above referenced project and opened by two City representatives at 10:00 A.M. on Friday, December 11, 1981 at the City Hall. A total of ten responsive bids were received. These bids were checked by this office, and a tabula- tion is attached. The lowest responsive bid was submitted by Alexander Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $526,464.50. The Engineer's Estimate was $571,844.10. The recommendation of this office is to award the contract to Alexander Construction Co., Inc., 14561 Johnny Cake Road, Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 in the amount of $526,464.50 as the lowest responsible bidder. Please call if you have any questions. Yours truly, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Wayn . Lon , P.E. Vice President • 1 WRL:nlb Enclosure 2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Minnesot;j 55•^13 . 61213,31- 8660 BAD TABULATION For STREET PAVING AND APPURTENANT WORK CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA PROJECT NO. 757 S.A.P. 57-363-07 Wft Opened s 10:00 A.M. Orr - Schdan - Mayerm December 11, 1981 ® Aeeoclfes. inc. Contractor SEC BID Y TOTAL wD ALEXANDER CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. 50 526,464.50 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC. 5% *528'403-85 TOTAL ASPHALT CONST. CO. % 536,936-50 McNAMARA - VIVANT CONST. CO. INC. 5% *547,533.50 VALLEY PAVING INC. 5% 547.674.8ra HARDRIVES INC. 5% *556,870.45 ARCON CONST. CO., INC. 5% 567 027.10 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC. 50 *577 012.95 BURY & CARLSON INC. 50 606,489.60 VICTOR CARLSON & SON INC. 50 688,482.14 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as se vad on Dece er 11, 1981 BY D"es Corrected f*we ONW. No. 028-3107.01 ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON Ft ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors December 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Street Lighting, Traffic Signals City of Richfield Project No. 757 Gentlemen: Bids were received for the above referenced project on Decem- ber 11, 1981, and have been checked and tabulated by this office. The lowest responsible bidder was Batzli Electric Company for the amount of $127,158.00. We recommend that a contract be awarded to Batzli Electric Company, 1807 First Street South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404, in the amount of $127,158.00. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. C erald R. Chartrand GRC:nlb • 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Suite 238 • Minneapolis, ltlinnesota 5541.:' • 61213,31-8660 W TABULATION STREET LIGHTING; TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND APPURTENANT WORK FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA PROJECT NO. 757 S.A.P. NO. 57-363-08 !lids OporMd s 10: 00 A.M. Orr " fthdon - Mayeron December 11, 1981 d Ass tkfts. Inc. Contractor -- EL TOTAL BID BATZT,T ELECTRIC-COMPANY 5% $127,158.00 CONSERVATION SYSTEMS, INC. 50 $127,830.00 EGAN - McKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. 5% $130,733.00 ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPANY 5% $145,983.00 COLLINS ELECTRIC COMPANY 5% $146,050.00 HOFFMAN ELECTRIC COMPANY 5% $147,352.00 RIDGEDALE ELECTRIC, INC. 50 $175,000.00 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as received on December 11, Hy ?E QonOta+ Corrected fi4tlrt Own. No. 028-3107.01 • Street Improvements CP 757 CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening December 11, 1981 a? Q? Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No.1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Dennis Kraft, Community Devel- opment Director, who announced the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for street improvements and appurtenant work on Lyndale Avenue between Lake Shore Drive and 74th Street, as advertised in the official newspaper on November 18, and November 25, 1981. Present: Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director A. Jean Mitchell, Acting City Clerk Eileen Anderson, City Manager Designee Michael Eastling, City Engineer • The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID SECURITY TOTAL BID Alexander Construction, Inc. 5s I $526,464.50 Northwest Asphalt Construction 5% $528,403.85 Total Asphalt Construction 5% $536,936.50 McNamara - Vivant Valley Paving Hardrives, Inc. Arcon Construction Norman C. Hagen Bury and Carlson Victor Carlson and Sons 50 $547,533.50 50 $547,674.86 50 $556,370.45 5% $567,027.10 50 $577,012.95 5% $606,489.60 56 $688,482.14 The Community Development Director announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of December 14, 1981. A. Jean -litchell Acting City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening December 11, 1981 0 Lighting and Signals CP 757-1 Lyndale Avenue Between Lake Shore Drive and 74th Street Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Dennis Kraft, Community Devel- opment Director, who announced the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for lighting and signals on Lyndale Avenue between Lake Shore Drive and 74th Street, as adver- tised in the official newspaper on November 18, and November 25, 1981. Present: Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director Jean Mitchell, Acting City Clerk Eileen Anderson, City Manager Designee Michael Eastling, City Engineer 0 The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID SECURITY TOTAL BID Botzli Electric Company Conservation Systems Inc. Egan McKay Electric Con. Inc. Electric Service Co. Collins Electric Company Hoffman Electric Company Ridgedale Electric, Inc. The Community Development Director announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of December 14, 1981. 50 $127,158.00 5% $127,330.00 5% $130,733.00 5% $145,983.00 5% $146,050.00 5% $147,352.00 5% $175,000.00 A. Jean Mitchell, Acting City Cler' 0 RESOLUTION NO. 49 RESOLUTION TO HOLD HARMLESS THE STATE OF MINNESOTA IN GRANTING VARIANCE FROM MINNESOTA STATE AID RULES 14 MCAR 1.5032 FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF LYNDALE AVENUE, LAKE SHORE DRIVE TO 74TH STREET. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has ordered the reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue, between Lake Shore Drive to 74th Street, to a 47 foot width; AND, WHEREAS such a variance was recommended for approval by the Variance Committee and was granted by the Commissioners of the Minnesota Department of Transportation; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota, that the City of Richfield indemnifies, saves and holds harmless the State of Minnesota and all agents and employees of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, or causes of action of whatsoever nature or character arising out of or by reason of, in any manner, the reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue between Lake Shore Drive and 74th Street in any other manner than as a 52 foot wide curb to curb street in accordance with the Minnesota State Aid Construction Standards to be found in the rules of the Minnesota Department of Transportation 14 MCAR 1.5032, or arising as a result of the Commissioner's decision to grant this variance. Passed by the City Counci 14th day of December, 1981. of Richfield, Minnesota, this Dona J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening December 11, 1981 • Lighting and Signals CP 757-1 Lyndale Avenue Between Lake Shore Drive and 74th Street Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Dennis Kraft, Community Devel- opment Director, who announced the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for lighting and signals on Lyndale Avenue between Lake Shore Drive and 74th Street, as adver- tised in the official newspaper on November 18, and November 25, 1981. Present: Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director Jean Mitchell, Acting City Clerk Eileen Anderson, City Manager Designee Michael Eastling, City Engineer • The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID SECURITY TOTAL BID Botzli Electric Company $6,358 $127,158.00 Conservation Systems Inc. $6,392 $127,330.00 Egan McKay Electric Con. Inc.$6,537 $130,733.00 Electric Service Co. $7,299 $145,983.00 Collins Electric Company $7,303 $146,050.00 Hoffman Electric Company $7,368 $147,352.00 Ridgedale Electric, Inc. $8,750 $175,000.00 The Community Development Director announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of December 14, 1981. A. Jean Mitchell, Acting City Cler 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening December 11, 1981 Street Improvements CP 757 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No.1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Dennis Kraft, Community Devel- opment Director, who announced the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for street improvements and appurtenant work on Lyndale Avenue between Lake Shore Drive and 74th Street, as advertised in the official newspaper on November 18, and November 25, 1981. Present: Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director A. Jean Mitchell, Acting City Clerk Eileen Anderson, City Manager Designee Michael Eastling, City Engineer The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID SECURITY TOTAL BID • Alexander Construction, Inc. $26,323 $526,464.50 Northwest Asphalt Construction $26,328 $526,558.25 Total Asphalt Construction $26,847 $536,936.50 Valley Paving, Inc. $27,384 $547,674.86 MacNamara Vivant $27,444 $548,883.00 Hargraves, Inc. $27,848 $556,954.45 Arcon Construction $28,351 $567,027.10 Norman C. Hagen $28,852 $577,032.95 Bury and Carlson $30,324 $606,489.60 Victor Carlson and Sons $34,424 $688,482.14 The Community Development Director announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of December 14, 1981. A. Jean Mitchell Acting City Clerk STEVEN O. LINDGREN Senator 37th District I2y State Office Buildine St. Paul. Minnesota 55155 Phone: 161 21 296-1736 and 7141 Oak Grove Boulevard Richfield. Minnesota 55423 December 9, 1981 Dear Richfield Resident: Senate State of Minnesota I am writing to you regarding the proposed construction of a four- lane arterial roadway on the existing Lyndale Avenue between 67th and 74th Streets. As a concerned citizen, I have closely followed the discussions on the proposed city project since the City Council took action on May 26, 1981. At the May 26 hearing, I asked the City Council to delay action on their resolution until other options on width and number of lanes had been explored under the variance procedure of the State of Minnesota. The Council did not act on my request. Also, I offered my assistance on the variance but no request by • the City Council was made to me either that evening or in the six months since their resolution was passed. As the State Senator, I have been concerned about any unnecessary intrusion into matters of local government jurisdiction. On October 6, an open forum was conducted by Fred Amram in the City Council Chambers. My wife and I attended this session. I asked the question of whether any State Department of Transporta- tion officials had been invited to the open forum and whether the variance matter had been pursued. Mr. Amram indicated "no" to both matters. On October 8, I was informed that the variance hearing had been held on September 29 and no residents were present. I acted immediately at this point to set up a meeting with the Commissioner of Transportation. On October 12, Representative Hokanson and I met with Commissioner Dick Braun, Department of Transportation, to discuss the variance matter and alternatives to the 52 foot four-lane roadway. There clearly was an atmosphere of compromise at this meeting. In reviewing a provision in the Minnesota Statutes, I was pleased to find a requirement for notification of interested individuals which went beyond the normal legal notice requirement. I spoke at the City Council meeting reconsider their variance request to Fred Amram presented a letter to the October 12 to request them to the State of Minnesota. Also, Council which summarized the (over) COMMITTEES • Education • Gwernrnental Operations . Health. Welfare and Corrections d Page 2 December 9, 1981 October 6 forum and stated: "A compromise should be achieved and that compromise could include an improved street (resurfacing, curbs,) with turning lanes. Such a compromise creates what can be visualized as a three lane width." I spoke to Commissioner Braun on Monday, October 19, about the language in Minnesota Statutes not being met where "interested" persons were not notified of the variance hearing. Consequently, a second hearing was conducted by the Variance Committee on Monday, November 9. On November 18, the Commissioner informed the City of Richfield that based upon the advice of the Variance Committee he was grant- ing Richfield's request for a 47-foot width, rather than the state standard of 52 feet. He stated that "the decision is based on the fact that the elected governing body representing the citizens of Richfield affirmed and reaffirmed their intent over a period of time. During this time, it was determined that ample opportunity was afforded the citizens for input". His decision is based almost entirely on the City Council's wishes. While he has not considered the wishes of Representative Hokanson and myself or the Richfield School Board, he has granted a variance as requested by the official local authority. The City Council has jurisdiction over this matter. Therefore, without the political subdivision's willingness to seek a compromise, there is nothing further which can be done by the Department of Transportation under the current statute or regulations. letter today from ncil will meet on for the Lyndale should try to be I want you to know that I have drafted a bill which could be intro- duced in January during the Regular Legislative Session. The bill would apply specifically to a three lane alternative. If anyone is interested in this alternative, I would appreciate hearing from you. Also, you might want to contact either the Richfield School Board or the Board of Oak Grove Lutheran Church. Both these jurisdictions will be asked to sell land to the City of Richfield for purposes of allowing the project to proceed as planned. To those of you who have attended the meetings and participated in this six month process, I want to thank you for your interest. If I can be of assistance to you in the future, please contact me. Scerely yours, 4en in en State Senator P.S. I recei T a me that the C Cou P.M. to award the bid ou are interested, you SOL : RP r • the City Manager stating to Monday, December 14, at 7:00 Avenue improvements. If you in attendance. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager 0 $ 68.84 106.77 189.06 December. 14, 1981 \J The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of RiPhfiPl(l • Council Members: Subject: 1982 Insurance Contribution for General Services and Management Employees The purpose of this letter is to recommend 1982-adjustments in the insurance contributions made by the city'for General'Services and Management employees. At the present time, the city contributes to the cost of premiums for three kinds of insurance made available to city employees. The first type of insurance is a-$5,000_term life insurance policy for employees. The city pays:the full-$1.10 monthly premium cost for this insurance, which will remain the same in 1982. ,_.The second type of insurance is group health-coverage of which there. are five optional plans. available through the Hennepin County Joint Purchasing Organization. The 1981 and 1982 monthly premium costs for these plans are as.follows: Blue Cross/Blue Shield 1981 1982 Individual Family (Low Plan) Family (High Plan) Physicians Health Plan Individual -Family Group Health .Individual Family Med Center Health Plan individual Family 53.02 156.77 38.33 111..4 5 Council Letter No. 413 $ 67.15 104.32 283-. 61 69.30 171.77 45.45 132:82 45.85 50.50 138.42 142.45 Nicollet Eitel Health Plan Individual 49.05 54.75 Family 131.50 138.20 C r Council Letter No. 413 -2- December 14, 1981 The city in 1981 has contributed a maximum of $92 per month for health insurance for eligible employees covered by the general services and management pay plans. It is recommended that this amount be increased by $8 per month in 1982, to a maximum of $100.00. By increasing the maximum city contribution for health insurance to $100 per month, the city would be able to match the average monthly premium increases charged by the participating carriers, excluding the Blue Cross/Blue Shield High Plan, which indicated a 50% increase in premium costs for their most popular plan variation. The proposed 1982 city health insurance contribution represents an 8% increase, and will prevent sizeable increases from being passed on to the employees. The third insurance benefit provided to eligible employees is the dental insurance plan. The city is currently in the first year of a contract with Delta Dental and will enter the second year of the contract on April 1, 1982. The 1981 premium rate of $7.85 per month for employee only coverage remains the same for 1982. Employees who choose dependent coverage as a part of their dental insurance plan continue to be responsible for those additional premiums at their own expense. A proposed resolution to accomplish these recommendations is attached. It is recommended that the city council adopt this resol- ution, authorizing the city's insurance contributions for 1982. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Administrative Services Director Personnel Manager Finance Coordiantor • Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM WHEREAS, a hospital-medical/surgical group health insurance plan is available from the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing Organization for city employees and their families, and WHEREAS, a term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan is available from the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing Organization for city employees, and WHEREAS, the city is entering into the second year of a two-year dental insurance contract with guaranteed premium rates for employee and dependent coverage, and WHEREAS, the City council is required to determine by reso- lution the city's contribution toward the premium for health insurance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city shall contri- bute a maximum of $100.00 per month toward an employee health insurance premium for all non-unionized employees; in any event said contribution shall not exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. The city shall also pay the $7.85 monthly premium for the employee dental insurance plan and the $1.10 monthly premium for the term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan for city employees for a total possible maximum insurance premium contribution of $108.95 per month. Such contributions shall be for coverage effective January 1, 1982. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall deter- mine the city's contribution toward insurance premiums for all organized employee groups by the adoption of the appropriate resolutions concerning labor contracts with the respective organized employee groups. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk 0/y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 431 Agenda December 14, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Charter Amendments Relating to City Purchasing Practices, Amending Sections 6.05 and 6.06 of the City Charter. First Reading. The Richfield Charter Commission has recommended amending provisions of the city charter relating to purchasing and contracts. A copy of the two ordinances which implement these two charter amendments are attached. One ordinance relates to Section 6.05 of the city charter, while the other relates to Section 6.06 of the city charter. Section 6.06 of the current charter provides that contracts exceeding $2,500 shall be let only by the council based upon the lowest responsible bid after sealed competitive bids have been taken. The charter commission has suggested increasing that amount to $10,000. Currently the state law provides for a $10,000 require- ment for sealed competitive bidding. An attorney general's opinion in 1971 indicated that the Uniform Purchasing Law of the State super- ceded local home rule charters. For that reason, the city practice since that time has been to require sealed, competitive bids only for contracts in excess of $10,000, despite our local charter pro- vision. In addition, the new charter language would clarify the types of contracts covered by the provision of 6.06. The additional language would clarify the relationship to state law and bring the charter into conformity thereof. Since the state law supercedes our city charter on this issue, and since our existing practice has been to utilize the state law, it is recommended that the city council adopt the ordinance amending Section 6.06 of the city charter entitled "Contracts How Let." The second ordinance recommended by the charter commission re- lates to the specific authorization that the city manager has for purchases and contracts. The new amendment would provide that the city manager may make or let contracts for purchases which do not exceed $5,000. This increases the city manager's authorization to make purchases without prior city council approval from $1,000 to $5,000. Council Letter No. 431 -2- December 14, 1981 i By raising the limit under which the city manager can make acquisitions without approval by the city council, we are not eliminating or by- passing, good purchasing practices. As a former director of finance in charge of purchasing activities in another community, I am well aware of the necessity to ensure competitive purchasing practices in order to produce the best buying situation for the city. Our current practice is to require at least three competitive quotations for any purchase in excess of $1000. That practice would not be altered in the event that the ability to let contracts by the city without council approval was raised from $1,000 to $5,000. Please be assured that the intent of the charter amendment is not to raise the purchasing costs of the city, by paying higher prices in a less competitive situation, but rather to decrease operational costs to our community. The amount of items subject to the purchase in excess of $1,000 limitation has mushroomed in the last three years. Attachment A to this letter indicates the types of items which fell into the purchases in excess of $1,000 category in 1978. The second attachment shows the types of items which were subject to the purchase in excess of $1,000 from 1979 through 1981. The toll that inflation has taken on the $1,000 limitation has been ex- cessive. Extremely routine matters such as the purchase of paper, freon at the ice arena, chemicals for the water plant, carpet shampooer, paint, diving boards, sod, tires, and signs have come to the point of being part of the purchase in excess of $1,000. The biggest amount of loss comes in the operating inefficiencies that this limitation imposes upon city departments. In order to understand that operating ineffic- iency, a more detailed explanation follows;: Wherever it is possible,the city work forces are combined in order to create a pool of resources for operational needs. For instance, our maintenance activities are all grouped under the maintenance division in our Community Services Department. Activities are dele- gated to the maintenance workers on a cyclical basis as the seasons change. We can frequently anticipate work activities and have the needed supplies and materials on hand for the smooth operation of our maintenance function. However, from time to time, situations which are not easily forseeable arise. For example, in event of a winter slow work period when there is not an excessive amount of snow or ice to clean from the streets, we will allocate our manpower to tasks which can save us time in the ensuing summer months. As an example, we may be building fences to be erected in the follow- ing summer. We will then make a visit to lumber stores to find the lumber necessary to build such a fence, only to find that the cost of lumber has escalated to the point that the materials cannot be purchased for less than $1,000. • Council Letter No. 431 -3- December 14, 1981 The alternatives weeks necessary lose the benefit a slow time), or a subsequent day forth, until the available at that time are to wait the tvio to three Eor city council approval of the,acquisition (and of being able to work that particular activity into acquire $900 worth of material on one day, return on for an additional $900 worth of material, and so proper amount is accumulated.. There are significant implications to this manner of purchasing. First, it flaunts the charter requirement and encourages disrespect for the legal framework within which we operate. Secondly, it re- quires an excessive amount of staff time to continually make trips to suppliers to pick up materials, but on the offset side, it saves staff time when work fill-in jobs could not otherwise be accomplished. Thirdly, it prevents us from purchasing in quantity and achieving discounts where appropriate for quantity purchases. Finally, it • produces a lack of control over operations resulting in an inefficient, uneconomical system which is a disservice to our taxpayers. The specific example I have related to you is repeated from time to time in the city. For each purchase in excess of $1,000, a memorandum must be prepared by an administrative assistant in each department, put together by the departmental secretary and forwarded to my office. At that time, it gets put together into another memorandum which conforms with the agenda format, and utlimately ends up in the city council hands. It appears on the city council agenda under the Consent Calendar, at which time it is approved with no discussion by council members. I cannot recall an occasion in the last two and one-half years where a purchase in excess of $1,000 has been questioned by a council member. One reason could be that there are so many of them that due to their quantity, a person tends not to give them much attention. In addition, the council members are no doubt aware that you - . have looked at each and every one of these items during the course of the budget review in September ann netober of the previous year. In addition, you are well aware that you will review and approve all claims made upon the city by approving the check register at each council meeting. Thus, adequate safeguards do exist for council control of administrative activL ies. I believe the above-factors are justification for updating the Rich- field City Charter to provide a framework for the 1980's in our pur- chasing procedures. The intent of the charter provision when it was adopted back in the 1960's was to allow council review of capital out- lay types of purchases. At that time, $1,000 clear __: large operating expense of the city. However, today the $1,000 limi- tation requires that many operating materials come under this provision and cause problems such as those I have outlined above. Council Letter No. 431 -4- December 14, 1981 Questions have been raised by city council members concerning . the practice in other communities as it relates to administrative discretion over purchases. The state law does not address the council administrative discretion process, but rather the situation is left to the individual city as to legislative delegation of purchasing powers to the administrative staff. However, in the state statutes for Plan B City Manager Cities, there is a specific provision that allows city managers to make purchases up to $1,000. Because of that limitation there have been a number of special laws granted to specific cities in recent years allowing them to exceed the $1,000 limitation found in the state statute. For example, the City of Edina had special legislation passed last year which would allow the city council to grant administrative discretion to the city manager up to $10,000 in their community. There is no central repository of information concerning what all the cities in the state do, but in order to give the city council a better feeling on the subject, we made a telephone survey of some cities in the south Hennepin County area. The maximum limit that city managers in those cities are authorized to make purchases are as follows: Bloomington - Edina St. Louis Pk Hopkins Minnetonka If council members would Monday night, please contact we can make provision to do $3,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 like me to survey other cities prior to me at your earliest discretion so that so. Some council members have indicated concern to me over increasing the charter provision from $1,000 to $5,000 at this time, and have indicated that a $2,500 limitation would be more acceptable at this time. To that end, I would suggest the possibility that the city council might like to supplement this charter amendment with a resolution which would place a limitation on the city manager's role in purchasing and contracts. In that regard the city council's resolution could indicate the following points: 1. All purchases which are in excess of $2,500 but below $5,000, could be made only after the city manager notified the city council at least 5 calendar days in advance of executing a purchase order. If any council member makes a request to the city manager than that purchase would have to appear on the next city council agenda for dis- cussion by the council as a whole. • 2. All purchases in excess of $2,500 per year which are not in- cluded in the city's operating budget as a planned for operating expense, would have to appear on city council agendas for the council consideration. Council Letter No. 431 -5- December 14, 1981 • There may be additional concerns which the council has which could be included in such a resolution. By passing such a resol- ution, the city council could maintain any controls they would like to have on purchases in excess of $2,500, without returning the is charter amendment to the charter commission. This would give the council the opportunity to make adjustments in the future without having to go through the cumbersome procedure. If the city council desires a resolution of this sort, it can be prepared and be ready for the December 28, 1981 city council meeting, if the ordinance receives unanimous approval at the Decem- ber 14, 1981 city council meeting. It is recommended that the city council approve this ordinance on first reading. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager 0 KN/eja cc; Program Directors 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURCHASING • PRACTICES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. All purchases of the City of Richfield which are in excess of $2,500, but below $5,000, shall be made only after the city manager notifies the city council at least five calendar days in advance of executing a purchase order. If requested by any one member of the city council, this proposed purchase would be placed on the next city council agenda for discussion by the city council as a whole; 2. All purchases which are in excess of $2,500 per year which are not included in the city's operating budget as • a planned expense, must be placed on the city council agenda for city council consideration. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of December, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk n U f ' LEGAL NOTICE Pill 1981-36 CiL\RTE :CIE ;'D:-'!- NT ORDINANCE NO. 10 . AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER OF TEE CITY OF RICH IEW CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: The City Charter of the City of Richfield, adopted November 3, 1964, as subsequently amended, is hereby amended in the following respects: Section 6.05 thereof, entitled "Purchases and Contracts" is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 6.05. Purchases and Contracts. The city manager may make or let contracts for the purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or any kind of construction work when.the amount of such contract does not exceed [$1,000.001 S5,000.00. If such contract exceeds the last stated amount but is less than [$2,500.00] $10,000.00, same may be made or let by the city manager after first obtaining the approval of the city council. All purchases shall be made and all other contracts shall be let by the council. • Proposed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk 11