The URL can be used to link to this page

08-24-81 agenda~#i90 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 303 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Nlembers of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchase in Excess $1,000 Chapter 6, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are two such items on the council agenda of August 24, 1981. GRAVEL The Rich Acres Golf Course proposes to have additional parking installed at the site in the fall of 1981. The final sub-grade work and materials are to be furnished by the city. It is estimated that 900 ton of Class II gravel will be needed to provide the sub-base of the parking lot. Three quotations have been received. Bryan Rock quoted $4.80 per ton delivered price. J.L. Shiely Company quoted $4.68 per ton delivered price. It is recommended that the city council authorize a Master Purchase Order for an estimated 900 ton Class II gravel at a delivered price per ton of $4.25, for a total estimated purchase from Edward Kraemer and Sones, Inc. in the amount of $3,825.00. CENTRAL GARAGE ROOF City Project No. 754, Building and Energy Improvements, included work to be done on the city hall roof and the central garage roof. This work was delayed until such time as the plans and specifications for the public safety building expansion could be put together and bid. The contract for this project has been awarded and the city hall roof will be done as part of this contract. Therefore, the majority of monies in CP 754 will be transferred to this project to cover the costs of the city hall roof repair and replacement. Approximately $10,000 will be retained in CP 754 to repair the most crucial sections of the central garage roof. The long-range Capital Improvement Program would include additional funding for the future to complete the roof repair and replacement at the central garage. The two most critical areas at the central garage are the areas over the office and public section and the area over the mechanics section of the facility. Council Letter No. 303 -2- Three quotations have been received for the roof these two sections. T.R.C., Inc. quoted $10,400. Brothers, Inc. quoted $9,325. It is recommended the authorize the work to be done by Richardt Roofing an Inc. in the amount of $9,280. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ., -.2 ~o c~~D Karl Nollenber er City Manager August 24, 1981 repair of Keehn city council d Insulation, KN/sh ~~~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 302 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Contract, Golf Course Overflow Parking Lot On August 10, 1981, bids were opened for expansion of the golf course parking area. The city clerk, director of community services, a representative of the city manager, and various bidders were present, A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations is attached for council review. The base bid included three sites. One would be a small triangular-shaped piece just north of the existing parking lot, adjacent to the water hole on the par 3 course. A second area to be paved would be a large, rectangular-shaped overflow parking lot to be located on the west side of the entrance drive immediately across from the existing parking lot. This site would provide for additional parking of approximately 65 cars. The third area included in the base bid was a square-shaped space west of the clubhouse. This would be a holding area for golf carts, to allow for a visable, safe and scheduled arrangement of golf carts to be used by the public. An alternate was also bid which would provide a paved area by the maintenance building for storage of vehicles and equipment used at the golf course. The bids provide that the city would grade and lay the sub-base for the parking areas, while the contractor will complete the asphalt paving of these areas. The staff estimated a cost of $3.23 per square yard for the asphalt paving of these areas, with an estimated project budget of $12,000. In the event the prices bid were higher than estimated, the maintenance storage area was listed as an alternate. Six bids were received, and have been reviewed by the city staff. It is recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations Council Letter No. 302 -2- August 24, 1981 2. Award a contract to the low bidder, McNamara Vivant Contractin Company, Inc. for this asphalt work, at a unit price of $3.10 per square yard, making the base bid equal to $10,617.50, and the alternate equal to $837.00, for a total contract award of $11,454.50. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ ~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Services Director City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening August 10, 1981 Golf Course Overflow Parking Lot Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for the Golf Course Overflow Parking Lot as advertised in the official newspaper on July 29, and August 5, 1981. Present: Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Joyce L. Wilde, Assistant City Manager Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER ~ BID SECURITY BASE BID ALTERNATE l Prior Lake Blacktop B.B. 5% $12,809.50 $1,009.80 Daily & Son Blacktopping B.B. 5% 11,883.00 934.20 Total Asphalt Construction Co. B,B. 5% 11,097.00 874.80 Bituminous Roadways Inc. B.B. 5% 11,473.75 918.00 McNamara - Vivant B.B. 5% 10,617.50 837.00 Blacktop Service Co, B.B. 5% 12,261.50 923.40 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of August 24, 1981. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, D4INNESOTA Office of C ity Manager Council Letter No. 301 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable Nlayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council I,Zembers Subject: Report on Alternative b~iaterials to Repair L/H/N Crosswalk Areas Crosswalks and some of the sidewalks in the first phase of the L/H/N public improvement project were constructed of a material called bomonite. Crosswalks in the second and .third stages of the L/H/N project are being constructed of colored con- crete tinted'to closely match the bomonite pedestrian areas ad- joining the street. Some~af the area of bomonite crosswalks in the first phase of the project are already requiring repair, probably due to the combination of vehicular traffic and weather conditions which require salt, sand and a large blade snowplow. On July 27, 1981, the city staff submitted a proposed purchase in excess of $1,000 for repair and replacement of bomonite on the crosswalk in the vicinity of 66th Street and I~licollet Avenue, work around the bus shelters and street light control panels and patch- work in other areas. The quotation from Concrete Design Special- ties, Inc. the only distributor and processor of bomonite in this area, was an estimated $4,050 for such work. At that time, the city council requested that the staff investigate other alternatives for materials that might be used in replacing the crosswalk areas. The repair work needed at this time would be done on the four crosswalks at G6th and I~icollet, and the crosswalk across Nicollet Avenue at the east end of the HUB shopping center. One alterna- tive would be to replace that bomonite crosswalk with the same type of colored concrete crosswalks being constructed in phase two and three of the L/H/N project. The contractor working on that project estimated the replacement of the five bomonite crosswalks with concrete would cost $25,000 ($5,000 per crosswalk). I believe it is important to include coloring of the concrete or an etched type of design to provide some uniqueness and aesthetics and to visually blend better with the bomonite. Altogether, there are 11 bomonite crosswalks in the L/H/N which will probably need replacement over the long term. The second alternative would be as originally suggested, i.e. repair and replace the bomonite as necessary to get the maximum life out of the material before changing to the colored concrete. Council Letter No. 301 -2- August 24, 1981 The cost of $4,050 would take care of major repairs as well as some less significant deterioration in the five .aforementioned crosswalks. This would give us. time to evaluate the durability of the colored concrete crosswalks now being installed on Lyn- dale Avenue and west 66th Street. A thixd alternative would be to retain the bomonite and simply take care of the major cracks, the deepest breaks. Such repair work to the bomonite would cost an estimated $1,000. A fourth alternative would be to provide an asphalt or con- crete patch. This would not be aesthetically pleasing and would not be very long lasting. The .cost for this work is unknown as it would need to be a More continuous process than the other alterna- tives. After analysis of the alternatives, it seems that the best economical decision is to get the longest life possible out of the existing bomonite crosswalks with the knowledge that they will need to be replaced in the future. By that time we will have eval- uated the colored concrete being built in the remainder of the L/H/11 for strength and durability. It is recommended that the council authorize a contract with Concrete Design Specialties, Inc. in the amount of $4,050. Respectfully submitted, i ~ ( ~ Karl Nollenberger City P-Tanager cc: Finance Coordinator Community Development Director ;~ f~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 300 Agenda August 24 , 1 9£31 The Honorable Mayor and l~:embers of the City Council City of Richfield Council riembers: Subject: Kennel License Application, 6726 Chicago Avenue Ms. T•Zyrtle 6ickstrom, 6726 Chicago Avenue, has applied for a kennel license at this address to license three dogs. At the August 10, 1931 city council meeting, the city council deferred action on this kennel license request until August 24, 1981 in order to give ~~~s. Wickstrom an opportunity to appear before the city council in support of this license application. This application has been scheduled for the August 24, 1981 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl A~ollenberger City P~anager KN/ ej a cc: City Clerk 6726 Chicago Avenue 1) - Number of occupants residing in dwelling. 3 2) - Does the house and garage appear to be in good repair? Yes 3) - Is the yard enclosed with a fence - yes Will the fence keep dogs on owner's property? No - one dog jumps over fence 4) - Is garbage kept in metal garbage cans? Yes 5) - Are garbage cans kept out of public view? Yes 6) - Are there inoperable vehicles in outside storage? No 7) - Is the lawn well kept and grass under 6" in height? Yes 8) - Is driveway in good repair? Yes 9) - How many animals requiring licenses reside at this address: 2 male, 1 female dog 10) - Was food in open dish and available outdoors for pet at all times? Yes (If so, advise owner to stop this practice) 11) - Are .pets kept for breeding purposes? NTo 12) - How many pets were licensed last year? 3 13) - How are pets exercised (areawise) - Yard 14) - Are there unpleasant odors present? No The resident at 6720 Chicago Avenue did not sign the petition because she felt there was a problem with barking and other problems caused by the dogs. ~J rn Q J V ~ ,~ ~ N ~' :~ ~ ~~ ~~. ~~~ ~ ~ Jn ~J~ '~~; y! f! August 8, 1981 To The Honorable Mayor, Donald J. Priebe and City Councilmembers, Juanita Collin, Howard A. Bence, Ivan Ludeman, Donald Hesser~stab xEt Dog Kennel at 6726 Chicago In May of this year we called the 8at~ety Department, as per Carl Nollen- berger's letter at the time this license was approved, regarding the nuisance and noise of these dogs, to ask for help in resolving a situa- tion which is causing damage to our house. They said they would check. it out and get back to us. The third ~:nd largest of those dogs kicxs mua all over the side of our house, and the sun bakes it on and it does not wash oif. It will have to be painter:, but are slave not yet received any assurance that tree situation will be remedied, so we are still wait- ing. In the meantime, our homeovrner's insurance company has aavised that damage caused by domestic anims,ly is riot coverea, and that the dogoRner shoulu•;aay for this. At the doing rate of 45~ per square foot, the cost of painting tc~e one side of the riouse that is muddied up comes to :~89.10:~ ,.,~.a Recently dike Johnson, w~i works at City Hall, stopped here to ask if we knew why Mrs. Gr'ic~strom had not ootained the signatures of all three of her adjacent neighbors on r~er applicatiion for renewal of the ken~~~l license. ';re sho;~en rim t:~ze property aamag~e to our house, and also ment- ionea tihe unsanit:-yry condi dons .long the ielice. •rhis tall mail dog lifts his leg on tree fence, and it comes through on our grass, and at- tracts the loose dogs, who in turn deposit their waste on our yard. The dogs are also extremely noisy, and people who come Here are ~rig•ht- ened by tree loud barking. ~1~e also wonder how these dogs' bones occas- ionally fina trieir way into our yard. iwie would appreciate being advised how you plan to resolve this problem. 0720 Chicago ave. a. Richt'ield, l~irn. 55x23 O~ ~U~ Yours truly, ~~ j ,. ~-~ ,~ • „~ ~~-ova/ Floyd J. t'erson and ~~ ~~ ~g ~~ ~.- CSC-- ~~, ,CE.?~zt_ 3 ~ ~~ Elizabeth a. Person .~~ .~ ,.~.:.: *~, ... E August 8, 1981 To The Honors:ble Mayor, Donald J. Priebe and City Councilmembers, Juanita Collina, Howard ti. Bunce, Ivan Ludeman, Dorialc~ Hesser.stab xE: Dog Kennel at 6726 Chicago In May of this year we called the aa.ety Department, as per Carl Nollen- berger's letter at the time this license was approved, regarding the nuisance and noise of these dogs, to ask for help in resolving a situa- tion which is causing damage to our house. they said they would cn.eck it out and get back to us. 'i'he this ana largest of those cogs kicr,9 mua all over the side of our house, and tre sun bakes it on and it does not wash oif. It will have to De paintea, but we nave not yet received any assurance that tree situation will be remedied, ao we are still wait- ing. In the meantime, our homeovmer's insurance company has aavised that damage caused by domestic animals is not covered, and that the dogovrner should pay for this. At th:e going rate of 45¢ per square foot, the cost of painting tre one side of the douse that is muddied up comes to :89.10. Recently Mize Johnson, wo works at City Hall, stopped rere to ask if we knew why Mrs. Yiic~strom had not or,tained the signatures of all three of her adjacent nelgnbors on r~er application for renewal of the ken~~~l license. ~,~e sho-rreu him the property dau~ag~e to our house, and also ment- ionea the unsaniti~,ry condi pions .long the fence. •rhis tall mail dog lifts his lee on the fence, anti it comes through vn our grass, and at- tracts the loose dogs, wrro in turn deposit their waste on our yard. The dogs s.re also extremely noisy, and people wino come here are ~rig•ht- ened by the loud barking. ~'de also wonder how these dogs' bones occas- ionally fina their way in~;o our yard. ~iE would appreciate being• aczvisea riow you plan to resolve this problem. Yours truly, Floyd J. Person and Elizabeth A. r; ~ Person o72U Chicago Ave. S. Rictifield, l~iir~n. 55~Jz3 r'• ~-. / ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 299 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and b4embers of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Approval of Plans and Authorization to Ad- vertise for Bids, Monroe/Fairwood Park Im- provement Project In the fall of 1980, neighborhood meetings related to the major redevelopment of the Monroe/Fairwood Park complex began. The park complex consists of four park areas. Monroe Park is an irregularly shaped rectangular park in the vicinity of 67th Street and Irving Avenue. Fairwood Park is a dumbell, or hourglass shaped park in the vicinity of 67th Street and Logan Avenue. Apple Blossom Park is a small, four lot park, adjacent to the sound wall along 35W in the vicinity of 67th Street and Girard Avenue. No Name Park is a small triangular shaped park in the vicinity of 68th Street and Oliver Avenue. The neighborhood for this four park com- plex was designated by city council to be that area bounded by Goth Street, 35W, Penn Avenue and 73rd Street. The final neighborhood meeting was held July 15, 1981, at which time the neighbors present at the meeting reached a consensus on the proposed design. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission reviewed the plans at their regular meeting of August 11, 1981, and recommended the city council approve the plans. A sketch of the proposed design is attached. No Name Park is just a fraction of an acre in size and would remain essentially unchanged with improvements concentrated in the area of additional plantings. Apple Blossom Park is also just a fraction of an acre in size and the proposal here would be to add plantings, a small play area and potentially an alternate bid item for a single tennis court. Some members of the neighborhood had a desire for the addition of a tennis facility. The majority seemed to feel that if funding were available, the neighborhood would not object to an additional .tennis court. The staff cannot recommend the addition of a tennis court, based on the statistics related to use of existing facilities around the city. Fairwood Park is approximately 2.5 acres in size and would become the more passive oriented of the two larger parks in the complex. The proposal is to retain the two existing tennis courts, and resurface or rehabilitate them as needed. An alternate to the bid would provide a practice wall if the overall funding permitted. A Council Letter No. 299 -2- August 24, 1961 play area and equipment would be provided with additional plant- ings in the park. The existing trees on this site are all elm. A~onroe Park is the largest space of land in this project with approximately 8.5 acres in total. It is intended that this would be the most active park area in the complex. The shelter building/ c.~arrning house would be located at this site along with playfields and trails as shown on the schematic. The design of i•ionroe Park should consider the storm water drainage needs of the area surrounding the park. There are four intersections near I•Ionroe Park that have flooded during rainstorms e 66th Street and James Avenue, 6~3th Street and James Avenue, 66th Street and Humboldt Avenue and 68th Street - Oliver to newton Ave- nue. The first two intersections can currently contribute overland storm water flora to the park. The flooding at the other two inter- sections could be relieved by constructing conduit to the park at a significant cost to the park in terms of recreational development. For existing conditions, 2.3 acres feet of storm water runoff needs to be allowed to be contained in the park area. I~1ost of that run-off comes from existing lands tributary to the park (1 .5 acre feet} and the remainder comes f. r. cam relieving the conditions at 66th Street and James Avenue (.3 acre feet), and 68th Street and James Avenue (.5 acre feet}. The flow of storm water from 66th Street and James Avenue to the park would be handled by constructing a curb cut at the intersection while the 68th Street and James Avenue water flow would be resolved by rernoving a flap gate on the conduit from the park to 68th Street and James Avenue. Design for the storage of 2.3 acre feet poses no major prob° lerns for I~lonroe Park. The duration of inflow does not exceed 12 hours and the duration of storage is less than one hour. The south portion of the park can easily accomodate the requirement without creating a pond or damaging the turf. Resolving storm drainage problems at the other two intersections listed above (66th/Humboldt and 6Bth/Oliver to Newton) are signifi- cantly more complex and costly situations. The G6th Street/Humboldt Avenue intersection is a locally low intersection with drainage from four directions. There is potential for flooding in this area as happened in the 1977 and 197s major rainfall events. The convey- ance of the water from the intersection has a cost of $200,000 and seems excessive, since no damage has been reported in this area in the past. It appears that the condition can be left as is with continued street flooding during excessive rainstorms. The 68th/Oliver to I~Iewton storm drainage problem is an area that is a locally low spot. (See attached map). The drainage is corning from three directions and inundating the backyards of the east side of Oliver and the west side of rdewton Avenue. The solutions which have been identified for this area are: 1) filling and berming the south side of 68th Street where the alley provides access to the properties including raising the elevation of the alley to prevent overflow ($20,OOC); 2) ponding in the park area Council Letter No. 29g -3- August 24. 1981 north °f 68th a relief Street itself line tO Monroe a temporary basis would force Park !$60, 000. ($40, 000) : and 3 second alternative the story The first ~ buildi~ diverte would ge °f water in alternative d from the residentiallde a retent• the street, while the water to Monroe floodin lon area for increases Park is not onl g areas. the water acre feet the needed story y the most ex The conveyance to 11.3 acre fee to capacity for storms1ve, but it al°o th lama Ions of rlonroe Park would t that f acility, water 2.3 ge done from should be P t each rainfall toecome a detentionhe entire south bid for thex a°red furtYier the turf. Altern area with more on P rk develo with the altern atlve one the most cost effectPment so that ative included the lve solution in f final decision canin fall It is Proposed that .conjunction with th bs mace with award °f bidding on this pr°ject struction could contract to project take year.- The archibegln as soon abe made in__late 1g81 s place this present at the Au cts and Communitossible after the ° that con- questions. The gust 24, 1981 city councils Director 1rst obe the for the informatattached tentative meetin will on of timetable and g t° answer It the city council. cost estimates Monr is recommends are oe/Fairwoo Complextim city council a the takin d Park g of bids. Provement Pro• pProve the plans the sect, and authorizefor cc: Community Services KN/eja Director Respectfully submitted, !~~ ; . Karl Nollenberger City Manager i i I _ f sere .~ .o ~~ ~„ ~N ST. r° I r I GUTTER m ~ I ~p ~ ~ PROPERTY -- mX ~ LINE 60~ ~ ~ ~ x~ ~ ~ u a .Z 1 ~ ~ / ~ -r ~ - r' r s m / s+g OLIVER AVE. ~ pm mD '` ~ z ~~ ~ z iio i ~~ °' ° ° < D / ~ A a -• + o - g 6ti - .t-...:-~.:,~~ wiNyiMl'liii~ __..,~ wo ov N ~ N1 //' ~~ //~ ~ i ' ~ ~ M Q ~ I D z I 9 - 0 ~ n m ~ C ~y v" Q~`v `02 I _ s. _ x I IA . m I . _ _ ..~ ~ m ~ ~~ D ~ ~~ \\ \\ ~ ~o ~~ _ / ~~ ~ ~~ I ~ -- ~ $ / ' - mN ~~ is A •' tiff m 0. `~ o_ 4 NEWTON AVE. `\ -O r- so' g-N-~ P~~ I d •.-'~ ~~ 1 }' ( j^^ c PRELIt~'IINARY COST ESTIP~fATES FOR MONROE/FAIRWOOD' f ~` REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT \~' ~ , O4`~ ~ ~~ e ~` c°~ Site Development: ~, ~' Base Bid Items (includes 5°s contingency) ~ $264,00~~ Alternates 36,00 $300,000 Building Development .- 130,000 5% Contingency for building development 6,500 Fees: Site Architect Building Architect City Staff Engineering Consultant Survey (In-House) Soil Brings 38,842 9,400 15,941 2,000 66,183 Miscellaneous: Printing, computer usage, equipment, insurance and bonds, office supplies, postage, copying, ads, etc. Construction of Ballfields and Concession Stand, West Middle School Construction Observation (Yet to be authorized) POTENTIAL GRAND TOTAL TIMETABLE FOR REDEVELOPMENT Monday, August 24, 1981 Friday, October 2, 1981 Wednesday, October 7, 1981 Wednesday, October 14, 1981 Wednesday, October 21, 1981 Thursday, October 29, 1981 Thursday, November 3, 1981 Tuesday, November 10, 1981 Monday, November 16, 1981 Monday, November 23, 1931 4,440 3,000 4,000 10,000 10,000 $534 ,1 23 Council approval of plans, bid authorize Submit bid notice to Sun Newspaper Ad appears in Sun Newspaper Ad appears in Sun Newspaper Ad appears in Sun Newspaper Bid opening Mail commission agenda package Park and Rec Commission Reviewal of bids Prepare city council letter on bids City Council award of bid contracts ,: ~~~ .- , ~~ ~~~: ~~y CI^1Y OF RICHFIELD, 1~SIPdI~ESOTA Office of C ity :,tanager Council Letter T~'o. 298 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable T~iayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Second Mortgage Position on Housing for I~ioderate Income Families. First Reading. In conjunction with the sale of property at 6500 Standish Avenue, the HRA has authorized placing a second mortgage on the property it sells to moderate income families when utilizing FHA Section 235 subsidized housing program. The FHA 235 program estab- lishes sale price limits on housing sold by the HRA (currently $52,8000. Usually a 235 property has a market value in excess of the sale price limit. The difference between the sale price and the actual value becomes a subsidy which the local HRA provides to the FHA 235 program. HUD also provides a subsidy to the home buyer in the ford of a belova market mortgage interest rate.. For example, fair market interest rate on-the mortgage may be 16%, but the buyer may pay 6 3/4% with HUD subsidizing the difference.. Both HUD and the HRA are pursuing programs to recover their sub- sidy when the initial buyer receiving the subsidy, sells the prop- erty. By imposing a second mortgage on the property, the HRA can recover its subsidy or writedown at the time of resale. Reg- ulations irlposed by HUD stipulate that the HRA may have this second mortgage position only if it is a requirement of city ordin- ance; without this requirement HUD could recover the HRA subsidy. The attached ordinance will resolve this matter so that the HRA will have the second mortgage position. To illustrate how this process could operate, the recently completed Voc-Tech rehabilitation house at 6500 Standish Avenue will be used as an exaraple. The property must sell for $62,800 according to the FHA Section 235 program. However, it has an appraised value of $70,000. To recover this HRA writedown of $17,200, the HRA would like to place a second mortgage on the prop- erty. However, because of recent regulation changes, HUD takes the second mortgage position, thus moving the HRA to the third mortgage position. HUD's second mortgage position entitles them to receive the actual interest subsidy paid on behalf of the pur- chaser, or 50% of the net appreciation of the property, whichever is less. The HRA could find it difficult to recover any portion of their writedown investment from the third position. HUD could Council Letter I.1o. 298 -2- August 24, 19G1 gain approximately one-half, or $x,600 of the HRA writedown. To ensure that HUD's claim to the net appreciation of the property occurs after the HRA recovers its subsidy, the HRA should be in a second mortgage position. Because of the timing of events, it is possible that the HRA may have to sell the Standish Avenue property before this proposed ordinance becomes effective. However, the HRA plans to sell three additional Section 235 houses in the coming twelve months, so this ordinance would be beneficial to the HRA for those properties. It is recommended that the city council give first reading to the attached ordinance, requiring; the HRA to have a second mort- aage position in its housing sales to low and moderate income fam- ilies and schedule a public hearing for second reading of this ordinance on September 14, 1981. Res ectfully submitted, ~p Karl Nollenberger City P•4anager cc: Community Development Director Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator City Clerk TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 16 AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THE RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LIENS AS SECONDARY City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1. Statement of policy. The City of Richfield has from time to time loaned monies and sold real property to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield for the purpose of assisting it in carrying out its redevel- opment activities within the City of Richfield; and anticipates that it will continue to do so in the future. As a result, the City is desirous that the Authority be able to obtain sufficient security to assure the repayment of such loans. Section 2. Direction to HRA. The City of Richfield requires that, consistent with Federal law, all repayment notes and mortgage deeds executed in favor of the Authority, involving Federal Housing Administration Section 235 insured mortgages, be designated as second liens which will be junior to the Federally insured mortgage but senior to any FHA recapture note and mortgage deed. Section 3. Transactions Effected. This ordinance shall be applicable to all HRA sales on which the closings are pending as of the effective date of this ordinance. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1981. Donald Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk ~.: ; ~~ ~~ _. #I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 297 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable bIayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Presentation of Award to "Employee of the Quarter" An item has been scheduled for the August 24, 1981 city council meeting providing for formal council recognition of Harvey Tam, a Water Plant Operator, who has been selected as the "Employee of the Quarter"for the period April - June, 1981. The "Employee of the Quarter" award gives recognition to the city employees who make significant contributions to the overall city organization. In addition to being a consistently reliable employee, Harvey Tam was nominated for his conscientiousness and initiative the night of the Lyndale Garden Center fire in December, 1980. Harvey had just arrived home after working the late shift at the water plant, when he sat down to relax and watch television and heard the announcement about the Lyndale Garden Center fire. He immediately, on his own, called the Public Safety Dispatcher to inform them that he was returning to the water plant to make sure they had adequate water supplies. After putting on more pumps, Harvey notified the Chief Plant Operator of his actions and that he was standing by at the plant. Mr. Tam will be present at the August 24, 1981 city council meeting to receive this award. Respectfully submitted, ~,.~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh #9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, AiINNESOTA Office of C ity Dianager ~~ ~`-~ The Honorable I~tayor ~ i~_. and ~ `~~ P~4embers of the City Council 'G ~ City of Richfield ~,~ Council Members: Council Letter ido. 296 Agenda August 24, 1981 Subject: Transitory Ordinances Providing for the Vacation of a Portion of the Alley on Fairwood Shores and a Portion of Graham AveiZUe South. Second Reading. The city council gave first reading approval to two ordin- ances to vacate the northerly 430 feet of. Graham Avenue and the northerly 350 feet of the alley lying between Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street, on Ilovember 24, 1980. These approvals were part of the approval for the Lake Shore Drive Cooperative Living. Center project. Second reading of these ordinances was scheduled for December 3, 1980, and then continued to February 23, 1981 to allow additional time to resolve alley access issues.. Second reading did not occur on February 23, 1981 because the future of the Lake Shore Drive Cooperative project was in doubt. Now that the Lake Shore Drive project is again progressing, a public hearing has been scheduled for August 24, 191 to deal with the street and alley vacation question. The city staff has met with the three property owners adjacent to the alley and have reached an agreement on a concept to solve the access problems which the property owners raised previously. The alley ~-~ould be deadended, a turnaround would be provided for snowplows and other vehicles, and there would be some regrading of the alley to reduce the slope. The staff is currently working out the final design details of this solution. It is recommended that the city council conduct the public hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to the attached ordinances to vacate portions of Graham Avenue and the alley between Lyndale Avenue, Lalce Shore Drive and 66th Street. The planning commission has recommended approval of the sub- ject vacations. Respectfully submitted, tom. ~\- +'~~ ~ L~:,.` ~_ ~,5-~.- Karl Nollenberger City r:anager cc: Community Development Director Bill 1980-27 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0.16.70 A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PIYJVIDING FOR THE VACATIC~I OF A PORTION OF GRAHAM AVENL]E SOLJ'IIi AND CIRCLE PLACE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following portion of Graham Avenue South, and Circle Place, within the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated. "That part of Graham Avenue and Circle Place as dedicated in the plat of Fairwood Shores lying Northwesterly of a lien drawn from the most easterly corner of Lot 6, Block 3, said Fair<aood Shores to a point on the Southeasterly line of Lot 10, Block 1, said Fairwood Shores, distant 123.34 feet Southwesterly of the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 10." Section 2., This vacation shall be subject to perpetual easements running in favor of the City of Rich.fi~~ld, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk and landscaping purposes to permit improvements to West 66th Street. Section 3. Zhe mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right-of-~vay as provided in the foregoing Section. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk ~~ Bill 1980-28 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 16.71 A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ~ VACATIGN OF A PORTI~1 OF AUTO LANE ~iVI'IIiIN FAIRWOOD SHORES ''rv Section 1. The following portion of Auto Lane within the Fairwood Shore Addition within the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated: "That part of Auto Lane as dedicated in the recorded plat of Fairwood Shores lying northerly of the Northeasterly extension of the Southeasterly line of Lot 15, Block 3, Fairwood Shores." Section 2. This vacation shall be subject to perpetual easements running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk and landscaping purposes to permit improvements to West 66th Street. Section 3., The mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right-of-way as provided in the foregoing section 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk Bill 1980-27 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0.16.70 v A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDIi1G FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF GRAHAM AVENUE SOUTH CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following portion of Graham Avenue South, within the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated. "That part of Graham Avenue South, lying between the south right-of-way line. of West 66th Street, and a line extending between the most easterly corner of Lot 6, Block 3 Fairwood Shores Addition and a point lying 127.05 feet southwesterly of the most easterly corner of Lot 10, Block 1, Fairwood Shores Addition." Section 2. This vacation shall be subject to perpetual easements running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns,'for public street, sidewalk and landscaping purposes to permit improvements to West 66th Street. Section 3. The mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public. right-of-way as provided in the foregoing Section. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Dlayor ATTEST Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk Bill 1980-28 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 16.71 ;~ ~~ A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE ALLEY ON FAIRWOOD SHORES Section 1. The following portion of the alley on Fairwood Shore within the City of~Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated: "That part of the alley in Block 3 Fairwood Shores Addition lying between the south right-of-way line of 66th Street and the northerly extension of the easterly line of lot 15 Block 3 Fairwood Shores Addition." Section 2. This vacation shall be subject to perpetual easements running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk and landscaping purposes to permit improvements to West 66th Street. Section 3. The mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right-of-way as provided in the foregoing section 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk >~: -_ t~~,, CITY OF RICHFIELD, P•iITdNESOTA Office of City manager Council Letter T`IO. 295 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable Diayor and Diembers of :the City Council City of Richfield Council Tfembers: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to, and Licensing of, Certain Gambling Activities Second Reading At the July 27, 1981 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to several amendments to the city's gambling ordinance. A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment is attached to this council letter. The changes proposed in this ordinance amendment were auth- orized by the 1981 I•Iinnesota Legislature. rlost of the changes are of a housekeeping nature, and include the following: 1. The addition of pull tabs to regulation through this ordinance; 2. A provision that raffles may be excluded from the requirement that gambling devices may only be oper- ated on premises owned by the licensee; 3. A provision that the ~~rson condy~ting a bingo-occasion may be ~9mpensat~ for such ~ponsibility, and a certain dollar~amount,,and certain persons actively members of the sponsoring organization; f- ~- ~,+ ~, , ~ _ ~~ ~ , , ~ ~;~~ ,_ • d ~_~ ~ . 4. An increase in the meximum prizes for the operation of various gambling devices; 5. A provision that the license fee for pull tabs be established at $200 per year, and that the license fee for all four types of gambling be established at $450 per year. This item has been placed on the August 24, 1931 city council agenda for second reading consideration. Respectfully submitted, ;` Karl Nollenberger City Tanager cc: City Clerk Public Safety Director LEGAL NOTICE Bill 1981-15 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V PART II, SECTION 5.19 AND APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: I. Chapter V, Part II, Section 5.19 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to the regulation and licensing of certain types of amusements and recreation is hereby amended in the following respects: A. Paragraph (1) of Subdivision 1 thereof is amended to read: "(1) The following terms shall have the meanings given to them by Minnesota Statutes [1978] 1981, Sections 349.12 to 349.26: (a) Active member (b) Bingo (c) Bingo occasion (d) Checker (e) Lawful purpose (f) Organization (g) Profit (h) Bingo manager (i) Gambling devices (j) Paddle wheel (k) Tipboard (1) Raffle (m) Pull-tabs" B. Paragraph (2) of Subdivision 1 is hereby amended to read: "(2) As used in this section, the term 'gambling' shall refer to and be limited to the operation of paddle wheels, tipboards, pull-tabs and the conduct of raffles . " C. Paragraph (6) of Subdivision 8 is hereby amended to read as follows: "(6) No organization may be licensed to conduct bingo [or gambling] on any leased premises with- out a written lease for a term at least equal to the term of the license sought and in no event for a term extending less than six months from the date the license is issued. [In the case of bingo,] Lease payments shall be at a fixed monthly rate or rate per bingo occasion, not subject to change during the term of the lease. No such lease shall provide that rental payments be based on a percen- tage of receipts or profits from bingo occasions." D. Subdivision B is hereby amended by adding the follow- ing new paragraph (7) to read as follows: "(7) Gambling devices may only be operated and raffles only conducted on premises owned or operated by the licensee, provided, that the cit may authorize raffles to be conducted by a licensed organization or premises not owned or leased by the organization. Absent such author- ization, no organization may be licensed to con- duct gambling on any leased premises without a written lease for a term at least equal to the term of the license sought or six months from the date the license is issued whichever is greater. Lease payments shall be on a f-axed monthly rate or a rate based upon the period the premises are actually used for gambling. No lease shall provide that rental payments be based on a percentage of receipts or profits from gambling." E. Paragraph (2) of Subdivision 9 is hereby amended to read as follows: "(2) No compensation shall be paid to any person in connection with bingo or gambling activities except [that] as follows: (a) In the case of bingo, compensation may be paid to an active member of the organization or its auxiliary, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member, conducting the bingo occasion. In the case of bingo only, a person not an active member of the organi- zation or its auxiliary, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member may participate in the conduct of a bingo occasion by resolution of a majority of the membership recorded in the approved minutes of the organization. Non-management assis- tants who are not active members of the organization, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member may be hired to assist members in conducting the bingo occasion. Beginning August 1, 1979, com- pensation shall not exceed $20.00 per bingo occasion. (b) No compensation in excess of $25.0.0 a week shall be paid in connection with-the oper- ation of a gambling device or the conduct of a raffle by a licensed organization except a licensed organization may elect to pay a percent of raffle ticket sales to non- profit organizations selling for the licensed organization. No person who is not an active member of an organization, or its auxiliary or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member may participate in the organ- zation's operation of a gambling aevice or onduct of a raffle except the licensed organization may utilize non-member non-profit organizations in raffle ticket sales." F. G. Paragraph 7 of Subdivision 9 is hereby amended to read as follows "(7) Total prizes from the operation of paddle wheels, pull-tabs and tipboards awarded in a single day in which they are operated shall not exceed [$500.00] $1,000.00. Total prizes resulting from any single spin of a paddle wheel or from a single seal of a tipboard, each tip- board limited to a single seal, or from a single pull-tab shall not exceed [$100.00] $150.00. The total prizes awarded for [both] paddle wheel pull-tab and tipboard by any organization shall not exceed [$15,000] $35,000 per [license] organization." Subdivision 11 thereof is hereby amended to read as follows: "Subd. 11. Records. Each organization shall keep records of its gross receipts, quantity of free plays, if any, expenses and profits for each single gathering or occasion. Gross receipts shall be compared to the checker's record for the bingo occasion by a person who did not sell cards for the bingo occasion. All deductions from gross receipts shall be documented with receipts or other records indicating the amount, a description of the purchased item on service or other reason for the deduction and the name of the recipient. The distribution of profits shall be itemized as to payee, amount and date of payment. Gross receipts from each activity required to be licensed under this section shall be segregated from other revenues, including other activities licensed hereunder, and placed in a separate account. Each organization shall maintain separate records of each licensed operation. [The person who accounts for gross receipts, expenses, and profits shall not be the same person who accounts for other revenues of the organization.] Records required to be kept by this section and by Minnesota Statutes 1981, Chapter 349 shall be preserved for at least three years. Licensees shall make their bingo and gambling records available to the Public Safety Department at any reasonable time and after proper notice." II. Appendix D, Section 5, Paragraph 3 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield establishing fees for various licensed activities is hereby amended in the following respects: A. The following new subparagraph f is inserted after the existing subparagraph e: "f. Pull-tabs - calendar year $200 B. The present subparagraph f is amended to read as follows: "[f] g. Annual Licenses. If the licensee is granted a license for any two gambling activi- ties other than Bingo (i.e. tipboard, paddle wheel, pull-tab or raffle), the license fee shall be $300; [and] if the licensee receives an annual license for [all] three types of gambling, the license fee shall be $400 and if the licensee receives an annual license for all four types of gambling, the license fee shall be $450." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1981 Donald Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk ~ r q /~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 294 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for Continued Participation in Urban County Community Development Block Grant Program Hennepin County has recently developed a revised joint cooperation agreementwhich the city must execute in order to continue receiving-Communi.ty Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds through the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program. The revised agreement differs from the current agreement in the following ways: 1. The term of the agreement is now three years. If the city executes the agreement, we would automat- ically be included in the program for three years. If the city does not execute the agreement we could not participate in the program for at least three years. Under the current agreement, the city could chose not to participate in the program one year and then go back to the program the next year. This change was required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2. The agreement clarifies the city`s application re- quirements. A three year community development plan covering program years VIII, IX, and X (August, 1981 -July 1984) and an annual plan for the appropriate program years, must be submitted to the county. This requirement is consistent with current practice and will not result in any additional paperwork for the city. The change merely makes the cooperation agree- ment consistent with current procedures. 3. The agreement continues the existing requirement that funds be--spent within two years of approval of.projects by HUD, but clarifies the process by which the county can extend the expenditure deadline. The city must now submit a revised activity implementation schedule or program amendment. Council Letter No. 294 -2- August 24, 1981 4. The agreement allows a community the option of re- questing that the county administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs. If the city were to request this, the county could charge the city an amount equal to seven percent of the funds allocated to the city for housing rehabilitation to cover the county's administrative costs. This should have no effect on Richfield since we administer our own housing rehabilitation program. 5. The agreement clarifies the process which the county uses to reallocate unexpended or unallocated grant funds. The county will now conduct a public hearing prior to allocating unexpended funds to a contingency account within the appropriate planning area. The county will inform each community when there are funds in their planning area contingency account. Communities will then have the opportunity to apply for these additional funds. The current agreement only says that the county may reallocate unexpended funds within the same planning area. This change could have both posi- tive and negative effects on Richfield. If, for some reason, we had unexpended fund:; we could lose them. We could also get more funds by applying for any funds unexpended by other cities that are put into our planning area contingency account. 6. The agreement changes the procedure by which the county handles program income. Under both agreements, the city must return program income to the county. Under the current agreement, the county would reallocate these funds to the city for any eligible community de- velopment activity. The revised agreement requires that the county shall make returned program income funds available to the city by increasing the generating project budget. This change was required by HUD. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, approving the revised joint cooperative agreement and authorizing its execution. It is the opinion of the city staff that the changes would not be detrimental to the City of Richfield and are required to bring the agreement into conform- ance with current practice and HUD requirements. Respectfully submitted, ~. , ~ i Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner KN/eja RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. 90464, for the purposes of the United States Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant program; and WHEREAS, the City and the County wish to terminate the Agreement and execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. 10401. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the current Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County, County Contract No. 90464 be terminated effective September 30, 1981 and a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County, County Contract No. 10401, be executed effective October 1, 1981, and that the Mayor and the City Manager be authorized to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of August, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk ~ I.3 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 293 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Application for On-sale Liquor, Sunday Liquor and Tavern Licenses, Consul Corporation (dba Chi Chi's Restaurant and Maximillians), 7717 Nicollet Avenue South At the August 10, 1981 city council meeting, the council set [august 'l4, 1981 as the Gate for a public heGring on the request for an on-sale liquor, Sunday liquor anti tavern license, to be issued to consul corporation, which is presently involved in the purchase of the Left Guard corporation. •1•he Left Guard Corporation holds current on-sale liquor, Sunday liquor ana tavern license. The applications for the licenses nave been referred to the Public Safety Department for the required background investiga- tions, which have now been completed. Consul Corporation is a publicly held Minnesota corporation which owns the franchise rights to the Chi Chi's Restaurant chain in Minnesota, North Dakota, parts of Wisconsin and certain areas in the Candaian provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. The stock is publicly traded on the "over the counter" market. The corporation is presently operating four Chi Chi's Restaurants within their franchise area. The Left Guard Corporation is owned by Mr. Marno McDermott and DZr. Max McGee. Mr. McDermott is a member of the Board of Directors of Consul Corporation and both Mr. McGee and Mr. McDermott serve on the Board of the Chi Chi Francise Division of Consul Corporation. The Public Safety Department has conducted background investigations into all of the officers and directors of both the parent company, Consul Corporation; as well as the Chi Chi Franchise Division of the corporation. The background investigations reveal no criminal history record with regard to any officer or director which would preclude the issuance of ;, the licenses requested. Additionally, the Public Safety ~~. ~ Department has examined the certified financial statement of the ~y ~~ Consul Corporation prepared by the certified public accounting (\~~ firm of Segal, Sudit, Yablonsky and Company. The certified ~. ~ financial statement of the Chi Chi's Restaurant Division was ~ also examined by the Public Safety Department. This financial ~~~ statement was prepared by the certified public accounting firm Council Letter No. 293 -2- August 24, 1981 of Arthur Young and Company. The corporation intends to continue the lease presently held by the Left Guard Corporation on the property in which the business will be located. The lease has been examined by the Department of Public Safety and appears to be in order. During the background investigation, the Public Safety Department conducted site visits to three of the Chi Chi Restaurants operated by the applicant corporation. These included the restaurant operations in Brookfield, Wisconsin; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Madison, Wisconsin.. During the site visits, no operational problems were noted at the restaurant establishments themselves. Additionally, contacts were made with the police agencies in each of the three communities in which the restaurants operate, relative to police incident experience at the establihsments. All restaurants had minimal incident experience and no recorded violations of local or state codes. In all three locations, the police agencies of the communities indicated that the restaurants appear to be operated in a responsible manner and provided no police problems within the communities in which they were located. In addition to the Wisconsin site visits conducted by the Public Safety Department, a contact was made with the Fargo, North Dakota Police Department regarding their experience with the Chi Chi restaurant operated by the applicant corporation in that community. Again, no significant problems were reported and the restaurant created no police service problem in Fargo. The Public Safety Department has examined the purchase agreement between the Left Guard Corporation and Consul Corpor- ation. The agreement appears to be in order and as noted above, both the principal officers of the Left Guard Corporation will be retained on the Board of Directors of the Chi Chi Francise Division of Consul Corporation. The restaurant premises have been inspected and appear to y~ be free of any significant fire code, building code, or health Liz code problems. It is the intent of the applicant to continue ~~ ~r to run both the existing Chi Chi Restaurant and the Maximillian ~ ~ establishment in a manner similar to the operation under the ~\~g, Left Guard Corporation. The present restaurant satisfies all ordinance code conditions regarding licensure and the required ~~~ special use permit for liquor sales has been issued to the property as a result of the operation of the Left Guard Corpor- ation. The applicant corporation has obtained the necessary liability insurance coverage required by our ordinance code and is in the process of obtaining the required surety bond. The assessed valuation of the property involved is $569,750 and the current real estate tax on the property is $27,802. All tax payments are current. The applicant corporation has not yet named a resident manager for the establishment. Until the ~ r resident manager is appointed, the applicant corporation will bey^,r;~ transferring a temporary manager to the Richfield location from ~~ the Madison, Wisconsin operation. `~,~' Council Letter No. 2.93 -3- August 24, 1931 Unrelated to the license application, is the fact that there has been concern about extending the privacy fence from LaBelle's to Nicollet Avenue. The previous licensee had initiated negotiations with the property owner with regard to this matter. However, up to this time, the negotiations have not been successful. The city council. may wish to request as a condition of licensure that the new licensee continue these negotiations with the property owner, Pro- ctrammed Land. The anticipated date of transfer is September 1, 19P1. Based upon the information provided by the applicant corporation, and in- formation developed during the background investigation, it is the opinion of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that there are no existing conditions which would prohibit the issuance of the requested on-sale liquor, Sunday liquor, and tavern licenses. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Cl Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Public Safety Director City Clerk CITY OF' RICI~FT~LD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ~# /~ Council Letter No. 292 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Application for On-Sale Wine License, Prest riotor Inn'S, Inc. 7640 Cedar Avenue At the August 10, 1981 city council meeting, the city council set August 24, 1901 as the date for a public hearing on the request for an on-salt wine license and a non-intociating malt liquor license for Prest Motor Inn's, Inc., operating Heidi's Stuberl Restaurant, at 7640 Cedar Avenue. The application has been referred to the - .~ Public Safety Department for the required background investigation, which has now been completed. The applicant corporation has only two officer's and stock- holders. John M. Prest is the President and Treasurer and his wife, Sara N. Prest, is the Vice-President and Secretary. The corporate address is at the Prest's residence at 1575 North Willow Drive, Long Lake, MN. The corporation is registered under Minnesota law to conduct the business for which licensure is sought. The corpor- ation operates the Inn Motel at 7640 Cedar Avenue, as well as the Inn Motel at 175 West 7th Street, St. Paul, MN. In addition to the officers of the applicant corporation, the named restaurant manager is Mrs. Heidi Larson. The background investigation of the applicants and the named restaurant manager, reveals no criminal history record which would preclude issuance of the licenses requested. Additionally, personal reference checks have been completed on the officers of the corpor- ation and all references were favorable, indicating that the applic- ants are of good character and qualified to operate the business establishment in a responsible manner. The public safety department has reviewed the financial state- ment of the applicants and verified all sources of funding utilized in the business operation. The corporation is purchasing the prop- erty in which the business will operate and has made a significant investment in remodeling the building to accomodate the restaurant operation. Additionally, the corporation is leasing all of the furniture and fixture items utilized in the business. The purchase agreement, the warranty deed, and the equipment lease agreement have been reviewed and appear to be in order. All required payments are J C~ ~ 41 ~~ ~ ~ Council Letter No. 292 -2- `'~ August 24, 1981 current. The property has a current. arse sed valuation of $369,800 with an annual real estate tax of $1$.,26 All tax payments are current. The applicant has provided the. regtsire.d certificate of insurance in connection with the license request and the required surety bond has been obtained. During the past year the public safety department has responded to 18 incidents at the motel. All of the requests for public safety service came from the management and involved problems which might be considered inherent in a motel business. The management has been very cooperative in working with the Public Safety Depart- ment in resolving these situations as they arose. The restaurant satisfies the ordinance seating requirement and the applicants have been advised of the conditions set forth in the wine licensing ordinance code related to the operation of the business. On July 28, 1981, the planning commission approved the required special use permit for liquor sales at this location. At the August 10, 1981 regular city council meeting, the council expressed concerns regarding the adequacy of the off- Street parking for this business. A random sample of a few days this past week was taken of the available parking spaces as shown on the attachment. There appeared to be adequate parking at those times, but I have personally observed two occasions when parking was overflowing to surrounding streets.. The impact that wine will have on the parking situation is unclear at this time. The greatest shortage of parking could occur late at night and early in the morning when wine will not be served. Based upon information provided by the applicant, and informa- tion developed during the background investigation, it is the opinion of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that there are no existing conditions which would prohibit the issuance of the re- quested on-sale wine license and the non-intoxicating malt liquor license . Respectfully submitted, ~~ „ Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Public~Safety Director City Clerk KN/eja NUMBER OF VACANT OFF STREET PARKING SPACES HEIDI'S STUBERL/THE INN TIME WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY MONDAY 7:30 AM 7 6 13 19 35 12:00 33 51 35 28 27 5:30 PM 4 empty spaces 1 Handicap 15 20 14 28 8:00 PM 14 28 CITY OF RICHFIELD, I`ZIT\;I`IESOTA Office of C ity Dlanager Council Letter I~Io. 291 Agenda August 24, 1931 The Honorable AZayor and ~ ~~ ;,,,-, ,.7 ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~. ~R~ ~~~~~ Diembers of the City Council J`'` ~ City of Richfield Council P•iembers: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Public Bathhouses. Second Reading. At the July 27, 1981 city council meting, the city council gave first reading consideration to an ordinance amendment which would regulate public bathhouses. A copy of that ordinance amend- ment is attached to this council letter. Richfield city ordinance presently does not regulate public bathhouses, and several health related questions have been raised on which the city code is silent... This item has been placed on the August 24, 181 city council agenda for second reading consid- eration. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City I,~Ianager cc: Community Development Director Public Safety Director City Planner City Attorney AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER ~j. PART II AND APPEYJDrx D OF THE ORDINP~cE CODE OF Tx~; Cr~Y OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: I. Chapter V, Part II of the. Ordinance Code of the City regulating certain recreational activities is hereby amended by-adding thereto the following new Section 5.261 to read as follows: "5.261. Regulation of Public Baths. _- Subdivision 1. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the terms defined in this subdivision shall have the meanings ascribed to them: (1) "Bath" means a container or receptacle designed to hold water and in which the human body may be entirely or partially immersed for the purpose of bathing, cleaning, or relaxing. The teem also includes a shower bath but does not include a sauna as defined in Section 5.25 of the Code. The term does not include any device which is being used under the direction of a doctor, chiro- praetor, nurse or licensed physical therapist for the purpose of physical therapy. (2), "Public Bath" means a facility open to the public or operated as a club where, for a consideration one may use a bath. The term public bath does not include baths located at primary or secondary schools. Subdivision 2. License Required. (1) It is found and determined that the type of business activity subject to licensure under this section is particularly subject to abuse which may take a number of forms contrary to the morals, health, safety and general welfare of the community. Further, it is found that control of these abuses requires intensive efforts of the public safety department as well as other depart- ments of the city. These efforts may exceed those which are required to control and to regulate other business activities licensed by the city. This concentrated use of city services tends to detract from and reduce the level of service available to the rest of the community and thereby diminishes the ability of the city to pro- mote the general health, welfare, morals and safety of the community. The number of public bath licenses which may be in force at any one time shall be one. (2) Na p~rso~ shall operate or engage in the business of operat~.n~ a public bath exclusively or as a substantial part of a business enterprise without being licensed as provided in this sectit~n_. (3) No person shall hold ~sut any establishment as providing public bath services unless such establishment is licensed as provided in this section. Subdivision 3. Contents of Application. Applica- tion for a license shall be made only on forms provided by the city manager. The application shall contain a description of the property to be used, the names and addresses of the owner, lessee, if any, and the operator or manager, the names, residences and addresses of two persons, residents of Hennepin County, who may be refer- red to as the applicant's, the manager's or operator's character, whether the applicant, manager or operator has ever been convicted of a crime or offense other than a traffic offense, and if so, information as to the time, place and nature of such crime or offense; and such other information as the city manager may require. If the application is-made on behalf of a corporation or a partnership it shall submit along with its applica- tions, its business records showing the names and addresses of all individuals having an interest in the business, and, in the case of a corporation, the names and addresses of the officers. All applicants shall furnish to the city along with their application, doc- uments establishing the applicant's interest in the premises on which the business will be located. Docu- mentation shall be in the form of a lease, a deed, a contract for deed or any other document which establishes the applicant's interest. Subdivision 4. License Fees and License Year. (1) The annual license fee is as provided in Appendix D of this Code. The license fee shall be paid when the application is filed. In the event that the application is denied or in the event that the license once issued is revoked, cancelled, suspended or surrendered, no part of the annual fee shall be returned to the appli- cant unless by council action. (2) At the time of each original application for a license, the applicant shall also pay a minimum invest- igating fee. This minimum fee shall be as provided in Appendix D of this Code. If the expenses of the invest- igation relating to any application exceed the minimum investigating fee, the city shall notify the applicant • of this fact and shall require the ,applicant to pay such ~_ additional investigating fees as the City P~tanager deems _ necessary to complete its investigating of the applicant. ~~~ ,. ... The applicant shall pay such an additional investigating fee within five (5) days of being so notified. If such ' additional investigating fee is not paid within such five- day period, the city shall discontinue consideration of the application. (3) A separate license shall be obtained for each place of business. The licensee shall display the license in a prominent place in the licensed business at all times. A license, unless revoked or surrendered, is for the calendar year or part thereof, for which it has been issued. - Subdivision 5. Granting or Denial of Licenses. ;- License applications shall be reviewed by the public safety department, community development department, and such other departments as the city manager shall deem necessary. The review shall include any inspection of the premises covered by the application by the inspection division and fire division to determine whether the premises conforms to all applicable code requirements. Recommendations shall be made in writing to the city manager. Thereafter, licenses shall be granted or denied by the city manag'e'r subject to the provisions of this section. The applicant may appeal to the city council from the manager's decision. Subdivision 6. Conditions Governing Issuance. (1) No license shall be issued if the .applicant or any of its owners, managers, employees or agents is a person of bad repute. (2) Licenses shall be issued only if the applicant and all of its owners, managers, employees and agents are free of convictions for offenses which involve moral turpitude or which relate directly to such person's ability, capacity or fitness to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of the licensed activity. (3) Licenses shall be issued only to applicants who have not, within one year prior to the date of appli- cation, been denied licensure; or who have not within such period had their license revoked. (4) Licenses shall be issued only to applicants who have provided, fully, all of the. information requested in the application, have paid the full license fee, together with all other fees required, and have cooperated with the city in review of the application. (5) If the applicant is a natural person, a license shall be granted only if such person is 18 years of age or older. ~~~'. ` (6) Licenses may be granted only for locations in the general commercial districts. A license shall not be granted for any property which abuts upon property located within a residential district or upon property which is used for residential purposes. Properties shall not be deemed to abut if they are separated by public street or alley right-of-way. (7) Licenses shall be granted only to establishments which meet all applicable code requirements of the city. (8) A license shall not be granted if granting the license (a) would be inconsistent with the comprehensive development plans of the city, or (b) would otherwise have a detrimental effect upon other property or properties in the vicinity. (9) No premises licensed as a public bath may also be licensed as a sauna or massage parlor pursuant to Section 5.25 of this code. Subdivision 7. Restrictions and Regulations. (1) The licensee and the persons in its employ shall comply with all applicable regulations and laws of the city and state relating to safety and morals. ,_._ (2) If the licensee is a partnership or a corpor- ~'~ ation, the applicant shall designate a person to be manager and in responsible charge of the business. Such a person shall remain responsible for the conduct of the business until another suitable person has been designated in writing by the licensee. The licensee shall promptly notify the public safety department in writing of any such change indicating the name and address of the new manager and the effective date of such change. (3) The licensee shall furnish the public safety department with a list of current employees indicating their names, addresses and dates of birth. The licensee shall promptly notify the public safety department of any change in the list. (4) The licensed premises shall be closed at 10:00 p.m. each day and shall not open until 9:00 a.m. on week days or until 12:00 noon on Sundays. (5) The licensee shall permit and allow the inspec- tion of the premises during business hours by all appropriate city employees. (6) Upon demand by any police officer any person employed in any licensed premises shall identify himself ~'. by giving his true legal name and date of birth and his correct address. (7) No person under 1H years of age shall be employed in an establishment requiring a license under the pro- visicns of this ordinance. (8) The licensee shall take all necessary steps to prevent the consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages and controlled substances on any part of the premises by either customers or employees. (9) The licensee shall refuse to accept as a customer any person obviously under the influence of alcohol or drugs. (10) No person shall be permitted to bathe nude or in a bath or in a roome which is also occupied by a person of the opposite sex, including employees of the licensee. (11) No employee of the licensee shall be permitted to touch any customer or to scrub, massage, wash, or apply lotion to any customer. (12) No part of the licensed premises may be used for sauna or message activities as those terms are defined in Section-5.25 of this code. Subdivision 8. Construction and_A~aintenance Require- ments. (1) All bathing rooms and all restrooms and bath- rooms used in connection therewith shall be constructed of materials which are impervious to moisture, bacteria, mold or fungus growth. The floor to wall and wall joints shall be constructed to provide a sanitary cove with a minimum radius of one inch. (2) All restrooms shall be provided with mechanical ventilation with 2 cfm per square feet of floor area, a hand :washing sink equipped with Yiot and cold running water under pressure, sanitary towels and a soap dispenser. (3) All rooms in the licensed premises including, but not limited to bathing rooms, restrooms, bathrooms, janitor's closet, hallways, and reception area shall be illuminated with not less than 30 foot candles of illum- ination. (4) Each establishment shall have a janitor's closet which shall provide for the storage of cleaning supplies. Such closet shall have mechanical ventilation caith 2 cfm per square foot of floor area. Such closest shall include a mop sink. i (5) Floors, walls and equipment in i~athin~; rooms and in restrooms and in bathrooms used in connection therewith must be kept in a state of good repair and clean at all times. Linens and other materials shall be stored at least 12 incites otf the floor. Clean to;vels and ~~:ash cloths must be made available per each customer. (6) Individual lockers shall be made available for use by patrons. Such lockers shall have separate keys for locking. (7) Such establishments shall provide adequate refuse receptacles which shall be emptied as required. (8) The doors to the individual dressing and bath- ing rooms shall not be equipped with any locking device and shall not be blocked or obstructed from either side. (9) Baths shall be completely drained and cleaned after each use. Subdivision 9. Liability Insurance. (1) Prior to the issuance of a public bathhouse license, the applicant shall file with the city clerk a liability insurance policy providing coverage of at least $200,000 and $500,000. (2 ). .The policy shall provide that no cancellation for any cause shall be made by either the insured or the insurer without first giving written notice of such cancellation to the city at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the cancellation. (3) The policy shall further provide that no pay- ment of any claim by the insurance company shall in any manner decrease the coverage provided for in respect to any other claim or claims brought against the insured or the insuring company. (4) The policy shall be subject to approval by the city attorney as to form and execution and shall be issued by companies who are duly licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota. The policy, .when approved, shall be deposited with the city clerk. Subdivision 10. Revocation and Suspension of License. The license may be revoked, suspended or not renewed by the city manager upon a showing that the licensee, its owners, managers, employees or agents have enc_7aged in any of Lhe following conduct: (1) Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in connection with the securing of the license. (2) Habitual drunkeness or intemperance in the use of drugs including, but not limited to, the use of drugs defined in either 26 USC S 4731 or Minnesota Statutes, Section 618.01, barbiturates, hallucinogenic drugs, amphetamines, benzedrine, deledrine, or other sedatives, depressants, stimulants, or tranquilizers. (3) Conduct inimical to the interests of the public health, safety, welfare or morals. (4) Engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude. (5) Failure to fully comply with the requirements of Subdivisions 7 and 8 of this section. (6) Conviction of an offense involving moral turp- itude by any court of competent jurisdiction. (7) Engaging in any conduct which would constitute grounds-for refusal to issue a license under Subdivision _- 6 of this section. (8) Failure to keep the insurance required by Subdivision 9 of this. section in full force and effect. The licensee may appeal such suspension, revocation, or non-renewal to the city council. The council shall consider the appeal at the next regularly scheduled council meeting on or after 10 days from service of the notice of appeal upon the City Clerk by the certificate holder. Hearing on the appeal shall be open to the public and the licensee shall have the right to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer evidence in ' behalf of certification. At the conclusion of the hearing the council may order: . (1) The revocation, suspension or non-renewal of 'the license. (2) That the revocation, suspension or non-renewal by the city manager be lifted and that the certificate be returned to the certificate holder. (3) The city council may base either suspension or issuance of the certificate upon any additional terms, conditions and stipulations which they may in their sole discretion impose. Subdivision 11. Every person who commits or attempts to commit, conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of, any act constituting a violation of this ordinance, whether individually or in connection with one or more other persons or as principal, agent, or accessory, shall be guilty of such offense, and every person who falsely, fraudulently, forcibly or willfully induces, causes, coerces, requires, permits or directs another to violate any of the provisions of this ordi- nance, is likewise guilty of such offense." II. Appendix D, Section 5 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield establishing fees for various licensed activities is hereby amended in the following respects: A. The following new paragraph (11) is inserted after the existing paragraph (.10).: "(11) Public Baths 5.261 1 yr. 1,500 Investigation Fee 5.261 Actual Cost, 1,500" Minimum B. The Current paragraph (11) is hereby renumbered (12). Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1981. Donald Priebe, Mayor ATTEST; Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, I~iIr?T~IESOTA Office of City T~ianager Council Letter T~?o. 290 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable riayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Aiembers: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating, to Sunday Sale of Intoxicating Liquor at 11:00 A.~:. Second Reading. At the July 27, 19u1 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment which would extend the authorized period of Sunday liquor sales from noon to twelve midnight to 11:00 a.m. to twelve midnight. A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached. Minnesota Laws 1981, Chapter 368, authorized the extension of Sunday liquor sales. The Left Guard Corporation, dba Chi Chis and T~Iaximillians, expressed an interest to the city when filing their applications for their 1981 liquor license in expanding their liquor operatio~.s on Sunday, if the legislature authorized such an extension. This ordinance has been placed on the August 24~, 19u1 city council agenda for second reading consideration. Respectfully submitted, Karl P~ollenberger City Manager K~?/ ej a cc: Public Safety Director Legal Notice Bill 1981-16 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI SECTION 11.07 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter XI, Section 11.07 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to the Sunday sale of intoxicating liquor is hereby amended by amending Subdivision 1 thereof to read as follows: "Subdivision 1. Eligibility. Notwithstanding the other provisions of the Ordinance Code, establishments to which on-sale licenses may be issued for the sale of intoxicating liquor, which are (1) hotels and restaurants qualified for licenses in Section 11.06 of this Code, or (2) clubs as defined in Minn.Stat., Section 340.07, which have facilities for serving not less than 30 guests at one time,.may-serve intoxicating liquors on Sundays between the hours of [12:00] i1 :00 o'clock [noon] a.m. and 12:00 o'clock midnight in conjunction with the serving of food, grovided that the establish- ment is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1981, Sections 144.411 to 144.417, the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1981. Donald Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk #y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City t~4anager Council Letter I~;o. 239 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Pdernbers of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment, Relating to Detached Accessory Buildings, Second Reading At the July 27, 1981 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment relating to detached accessory buildings. A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment is~attached. This ordinance amendment would provide the city staff with the authority to require certain standards to be met in the main- tenance of detached accessory buildings. Essentially, the ordin- ance amendment extends the same maintenance standards to accessory buildings as are now applicable to main buildings. The necessity for this ordinance has becorae evident on several occasions when the public safety department has sought to enforce maintenance standards to property owners for garages, storage buildings, etc., only to f ind that the lack of specif ity in the city code has made it im- possible to take firm corrective action in demanding compliance with certain maintenance standards. It is recommended that the city council give second reading approval to the proposed ordinance amendment. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City P~7anager KI~~/ej a cc: Public Safety Director LEGAL NOTICE Bill 1981-14 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV, SECTION 3.39 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.39 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to the exceptions and modifications of the provisions of the Code involving land use is amended by amending Paragraph (1) of Subdivision 3 thereof to read as follows: "(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 building. 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. Detached accessory buildings shall comply with the following additional a) Every foundatio e reasonably water ance. e floor, wall, ceiling and roof shall ht, weathertight, rodent proof and repair, including external appear- (b) Every window, exterior door and basement hatchway shall be reasonably watertight, weathertight and rodent proof and shall be kept in sound working condition and food repair." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1981. Donald Priebe, Mayor ATTEST Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk .~ ~ r~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, I~4INP~ESOTA Office of City I~ianager Council Letter D:o. 2~8 Agenda August 24, 1931 The Honorable Nlayor and P~Iembers of the City Council City of Richfield 'L Council Members: Subject: Public Hearing, Additional Alley Paving City Project 734 On August 10, 1931 the city council adopted a resolution re- ceiving a preliminary engineering report and calling for a public hearing on the paving of three additional alleys as listed below, as part of CP, 734: Between From To Queen and Russell Avenue GSth Street 69th Street Stevens and 2nd Avenue 72nd Street 73rd Street First and Stevens Avenue 72nd Street 73rd Street Petitions have been received from the property owners adjacent to these alleys, requesting the resurfacing in accordance with the alley paving policy adopted by the city council. These three alleys may be added to the 19£31 alley paving project by execution of a change order addition to the CP 734 contract with Arcon Construction. The estimated assessment to the property owners is $15.25 per foot, or $762.50 for a 50 foot lot. At the close of the public hearing, the staff reconunends that the city council adopt the attached resolutions ordering the project, accepting the plans and specifications, and approving the change order with Arcon Construction in the amount of $56,250. Respectfully submitted, 7 Karl I~lollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Eningeer RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PAVING OF THREE ADDITIONAL ALLEYS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 10th day of August, 1981, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvement of the following alleys: Between From To Queen and Russell Avenue 68th Street 69th Street Stevens and 2nd Avenue 72nd Street 73rd Street First and Stevens Avenue 72nd Street 73rd Street AND WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held thereon on the 24th day of August, 1981, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon,' NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the council of the City of Richfield, :Minnesota: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 10th day of August, 1981. 2. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron Associates, Inc. is .hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. They shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improve- ment. Adopted by the council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of August, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND CHANGE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL ALLEY PAVING WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the council on August 24, 1981, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron Associates, Inc. has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of the following alleys: Between From To Queen and Russell Avenue 68th Street 69th Street Stevens and Second Avenue 72nd Street 73rd Street First and Stevens Avenue 72nd Street 73rd Street NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the city council of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such plans and specifications are hereby approved, 2. That the paving of these alleys shall be included as part of City Project 734, by execution of a change order addition, 3. That Arcon Construction, Mora, Minnesota, shall be the contractor and complete the work at the unit bid prices as stated in the contract for CP 734. Adopted by the council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of August, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk ,, (.1 .~ ~ PtTITION FOR PERMANENT ALLEY IMPkUVEMENT CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA v C C t~~; ,~~~:~-~ •'! ~1~~ L ~N • Date Received ~,/~/Lt.~~,j ~~~~~ T0: The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (f l We, the undersigned, owners of more than 50 percent~2G~ frontage of the real property abutting on the alley between _ ~;Z ~/ and ~3 Streets and ,5~~ i/~n 5 and JS Y Avenues hereby petition that such publ i c a 1 1 ey be imp roved 6y permanent paving of its surface. 1 ,~ ~f ~5~i rnci~~P~ Goj~ % t?12 ,SC.> ~~ /ot- ~~~s,~;z~ SIGNATURE OF OWNERS ~ ~~ ADDRESS J . •.~- ~ ~ ) : ` - _ _ ' r Jl L'L'~ ~ .vim ~ - _. ,~ _../ ~ /, 4 . , ~ .,'e- `~.r ~',,_ci- i ~ t. _ _ (w ~ t ,.Q,.-`r -__ 4 . ? °~ I Lr L~-L 1 5 . ' <- --, :, , _, 17. 18. -- 19. Examined, checked, <3nd found to be in pr~p~r fc,rcn .ui~l to he 5i<;nt~d by th~~ required nuc~,b~ of owners of property affected by the m~kinq ~~f the nprwement petitioned for. 2 ~ ~ ~~ I `` -~ Percent ~ ~~~%,... 't.~i , . y s~~ -:~,~:;. Cit Clerk ? ote• Additional forms available from the D.ep~rtm~nt of Community Development _`~~.- 869-7521. Ext. 237. > _, ~-~' 1, ~ PtTtTION FOR PERMANENT ALLEY IMPkUVEMENT CITY C~ P,ICHFIELD, MINNESOTA L (~ 4},i f, / ~'~ C e c l ~~1 ~I • Date Receive~~~ °' -.0 T0: The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota We, the undersigned, owners o_f more{than 50 percent in frontage of the real property abutting on the al le~between ~,~ h ~' and '7,~~' Streets and ~ ~'~? Z~f.'~) and .~ n Avenues hereby petition that such public alley be improved by ~.Gi~C ~ e~~ permanent paving of its surface. ~, .._. ~ I' ~ / L1 fit,, Y - ti 5 a•~G1' /..-~`~7 ~~r'a C~ ~a U SIGNATURE OF OWNERS ADDRESS ~ ~'Ytly ~ ^~wv> L ' !% ~ ~ •.~ ~ ~ C ~XJ i 7 ~ ~' ~ ~' '~ ~ ..,. i l 722 ~-- ~,-~' .~~ ` ~~ ,a` J 7,~~~ - ~ -~~~> llt~`; - 1. ~~ _ ~ ~r~-~~Xs a~ -~~ ~~ wa~c,F-c.~u ~ ~,~~~ ~~ ' ~, ~~ ~ ..~-e. _~',~ ~ an, ~ ~, ^.~ ~- ~~ 72 a ~1-~.~~ sue- ~ , 14. 15. 16. ., 18. -, .. ,, .. ;,~ 19. ~ i"i 20. Examined, checked, and found to be in groper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the ~~•aking of the nproyement yeti coned f r. 1 Percent ~' ,~~C~~ ~' City Cl~ k ote: Additional forms available `rom the Department of Community Development 869-7521, Ext. 237. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. .F PtTITION FOR PERMANENT ALLEY IMPkUVEMENT CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Date Received ~ `~ .3l °~~~ T0: The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota We, the undersigned, owners of more than 50 percent in rootage of the real property abutting on the allex betti•~een ~~ and ~_~j Streets and S~e~/~/?S" and ~~i Avenues hereby petition that such publi alle be im roved b ~v permanent paving ofd i/ts surface. / ~/~'~~/( Ysf?%~f{!~,,~~P~~L3L~h //~' ~Unr°'LC3J`~ C7dl~~ ~~ a rla l !'-"~ / ~ < ~ v }'1 ~.t ~c? ~ P ~ Tom ,E/P ~ ~:/ ~- ~ /-P % 1i L SIGNATURE OF OWNERS ADDRESS 2. 3• 4. ' 5. 6. - - _ ~. _ 8.. ~ ~ - - 9. 10. ' Il. 12 3. .-,.- , 17. 18. .'~. ~~~ , 19. i -' ~ -' ~ r Examined, checked, and found to be i n prr~per fora; .;nri to he 5 i r;nrd by the required nun;ber Of owners of property affected by the makinry ~~f the ~mr-ov~~r~.ent petitioned for. ~, ,i `, Percent ~ ' ,~4>"= City Clerk . .Note: Additional forms avai labl~ frUr~ the Department of Co:;;muni ty Development ~ ~ PtTITION FOR PERMANENT ALLEY IMPkUVEMENT CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Date Received -~ y - ,~ f L .~~~ `~~'1-i ,~'~ L 4 c c •/ L c T0: The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota We, the undersigned, owners~f^mor~~ than 50 percent 'n fr~tage of the real prop~~ty abutting on the l ley between ~^ .~ and~~ Streets and _^,~'e' ,c-~j~ and i~' 'Z Avenues hereby petition that such public a11ey be im'rov d by permanent paving of its surface. SIGNAT RE OF OWNERS ADDRESS •1 - ~ Q ~ _ ~4 • ~ D G' .'Q-O, '-,~ ' .G , ~f1"~~ ~ ~-f /J• ~ i ~ v'V V l h7 moo. mil- ~ -1 1 . ~ /,..~~Js~~ La ~ ~~ ~ «c~- ~ . I ' ~ ~ / ~ ~ P /~ r• / ~ 19. .-, .~; _ Examined, checked, and found to be Vin proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the nicking of the uprovement petitioned for. -~ Percent ~ ~ . ~ ~ c i .. ,1 ~'~ City Clerk ~, "z. Note: Additional forms available from the Department of Community Development 869-7521, Ext. ~s7. ~ (` ~. July 31, 1981 Ms. Susan Hanson City Managers Office City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Susan: Per our conversation of today, in regard to a petition submitted to your office today about paving the alleyway on the 7200 block between Stevens Avenue and Second Avenue, please remove my name from the list. After careful consideration on this matter I feel I cannot justify the cost of this project at this time. Thank you. Sinc~r~ly, cam- ,~, ~~ / ' ~ ~ _~ ~~/ ,i ~.C<nti~ Barbara Kashmark 7217 Stevens Avenue So. Richfield, MN 55423 (Owner of said property) BK =:n:. sFS'-~'~]~~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager '~ ~, t ~~`~ The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Vacation the Northwest Corner Upton Avenue South Council Letter No. 287 Agenda August 24, 1981 and Resubdivision at of West 74th Street and At the July 13, 1981 city council meeting, the council continued a request for street vacation, subdivision and dispos- ition of city-owned property until August 24, 1981 council meeting, at the request of the applicant. The staff recently received a letter from the applicant requesting the council to further defer this item until the necessary legal work is accomplished. The staff reconunends that the city council continue this application until October 12, 1981 in order to allow P4r. Lindholm to complete the necessary legal and survey work. Res ectfully submitted, ~ ~ ~ (} .~t-X. ~ w-~~t ;t,Y,,e,~c~.2"~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Services Director Community Development Director City Planner ~ l ~ t3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 286 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: L/H/N - Related House Moves As the redevelopment activities in the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (L/H/N) Redevelopment Area continue, there will be periodic times where groups of houses will be moved as the land is prepared for more intensive development. Typically, once a developer has been identified and the houses have been sold, the parties involved need to-move in a relatively expeditious manner. The present city house moving ordinance is a complex and time consuming procedure that defies quick action on the part of the house mover. Therefore, in order to expedite the L/H/N Redevelopment pro- ject, it is requested that the city council grant the city manager authority to review and administratively approve all house moves within the L/H/N Redevelopment Area. This will include the houses within the Lake Shore Drive condominium site, the Richfield State Agency redevelopment site, and the Lyndale Garden Center site. Prior to issuing any approvals for house moves, the city manager shall insure that all applicable regulations, with the exception of those requiring council approval, shall be adhered to. It is recommended that the city council grant the city manager the authority to administratively approve all house and accessory building moves within the L/H/N Redevelopment area. Respectfully submitted, r ~h~tiC ~1~: ~~:..~ ~ ~~-. Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director Public Safety Director Community Services Director RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATIi`dG TO THE MOVING OF BUILDINGS OVER STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC HIGHWAYS WHEREAS, Richfield City Ordinance Code 4.07 provides for a systematic manner in which permits to move buildings may be issued, and WHEREAS, the organizational structure of the city has changed since the adoption of Ordinance Code 4.07; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 4.07 no longer can be applied to the issuance of permits for moving buildings on the basis of the language requirements contained therein, and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 4.0"7 ultimately requires a final action on the issuance of such permit by the city council; and WHEREAS, a number of such permits are expected to be issued over the next few weeks with regard to clearing land for future develop- ment in the Lyn~dale/Nicollet/Hub development area; and WHEREAS, the timing of the issuance of such permits is of critical importance to facilitate the development of the L/H/N redevelopment area on established schedules, as well as to more efficiently and effectively serve the citizens of the community at large; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council, by unanimous action, authorizes the City Manager to act in behalf of the council and under the terms and conditions set forth in City Ordinance Code 4.07 in authorizing the issuance of permits to move buildings over streets, alleys, and public highways. In granting this authority the city council retains the right to hear any appeals from permit applicants who may disagree with the City Manager's decision in this matter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of August, 1981. Donald J. Priebe P~4ayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk :~ 19 ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 285 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council P•7embers Subject: Release of Bond for Off-Street Parking Contract, Howard Johnsons (Ground Round Restaurant) On February 12, 1979, the city council authorized execution of an off-street parking contract with Howard Johnson Company, to operate a restaurant with entertainment and liquor' at 1504 E. 78th Street. An inspection of the site by the city staff indicates that the owner has complied with all terms of the off-street parking agreement. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing release of the performance bond for this off-street parking contract. Respectfully submitted, i E :~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Engineer RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND ON OFF-STREET PARKING Off-Street Parking No. 79-1 Contract No. 2288 Location: 1504 East 78th Street Use: Restaurant with Entertainment & Liquor WHEREAS, Howard Johnson's, 1801 S. Green Bay Road, P. O. Box 927, Racine, Wisconsin, had an off-street parking agreement with the City of Richfield relating to 1504 East 78th Street, which contract bears the designation of Contract No. 2288, and which contract was guaranteed by a bond in the amount of Twenty-four Thousand Dollars ($24,000), and WHEREAS, Said Howard Johnson's has substantially complied with the provisions of said agreement and now seeks to be relieved of any further obligation under said bond, and WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring said Howard Johnson's to continue to provide a bond for security on the performance of said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to release Howard Johnson's for any and all acts committed or incurred in violation of said Contract No. 2288, on and after the 24th day of August, 1981. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of August, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk .~ ~ g CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 284 Agenda August 24, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Airport Noise Council Member Collins has requested that an item be placed on the August 24, 1981 city council agenda to discuss the adverse impact of airport noise on the northeast portion of the City of Richfield as,a result of the air controllers strike. It is my understanding that the preferential runway system has been aban- doned during the air controllers strike due to the lack of man- power at the control tower. I believe that Council Member Collins would like to raise the matter for council attention and discussion. Respectfully submitted, -~ ~~-~,~L h;cL ~ ~. ~~ ~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a cc: Director Community Development 0 z c :~ N rt w O _. N r- - o v N • -n D - -1 3• rt m cn ~- v fD '~ ~ N 'S fD C7 O S v a m ~ v N fD C r -~ w m ~ ~ -z Q. ~ D -r~ rt fD • < ~ fD ~O N Z rt O -s -i m v ~ c c cu ~ rt N O rt ~ ~ fD fD -t ~ D ~ -t rt d -i ~ ~ m a ~ ~ -fi rn n• fD o >> O rt rr -z O d < -- ~1 (D -• '~ N ~- ~- fD c r OD 0 rt d D N ca (D v d• 0 v cncn~3332c~mmvo ~-* N ~-~ n. n 3 3~~ rt rt -• -• -• (D -• O a v -- f rt~ (D v -- -• -• C O -~ n ~ 7 7 cp -• in O O O ~ -t C v+ ~ u> o ~-~~a~a~v o ~ ~ a.~ o ~. a rt ~ r -t, O fD O - (D ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ f1 fD fD rt O c i v ~ p -• rt a rt v~ -• n N a~ D O ~ to -• v -- -n n N O c c ~ n ~ ~ _ • ~ ~ ~ ~ S • O ~ < c 3 N O ti S v v d cn n. ~ -- x a, rr ~v ~- ~ ~ cn > > ~ ~ -• N v -- O r ~ v v v O - O ~D ~ ~ • ~ ~ D • F • • c O cn fD ~ cn D ~ ~ n C - s -s ~ ~ `G Z (~ ~ -• ~'* to O to v> T. rt -1 (D r'f 'S N ~ N l!1 N -• O 'p rt n - • ~ O f fD O ~ W ~ 7 ~ (D ~ ~ ~ ~ rt ~ ~ ~ m ~ O D V m _ • o~ ~ w~ D v a, O ~I IO 0 .~ -~ O W O O O N ~I O ~ C -s rt~ 7 -• m in -o T (D a ~ 4. D O ~ n rt ~ (D (D v~ V~ rn m r ~-* ~ -• ~o ~ -, N ~ O ~ O ~ ~ -. O _. ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ N N z Z m D 'D O r N N D C r z m Z D O z D r D z .D O 2 O C r ~` S -~ m n m z D m i c N m O ~'I c z D N o~ o~ W r~ O - o~ 3 = _ ~ z - c~ m --I r ov z~ ~ \U _\ r - O rt ~ -• 3c'~d 3 c~DD~ rt ~ rt ~ ~c>> ~ n~ n~ n~ n~ rt `G `C -• ~ D <• cu O d ~ ~I N ~ "t 00 W ~ W W D\ ~ O V lD N ~ O fD• 0 -~ m D 0 Z N N C 3 3 D i 0 3 m z 0 0 m --I D D G~ D = Z m c-~ C/1 n 3 Z ~ z s a N ~ ti p C r L to tih I 0 IA L J ~l v ~ /~ 2 / ~ a ~ -v 0 des C r O 2 r D z v D 00 y% ~ ,~i ~_ cn X 3 3-= m m w _ rt -•-•m ~ -•av •m ~ ~ ~ ~ o p -~ o c ~ D1 ~ -• 41 r+ N -• C (D ~ v G7 C -. p ~ ~ to ~ O - K G 'o O to N (D N ~ _ ~ rt !n -I O~ w O N ~ O U1 ~ -~ N O~ 0 0 O C"'1 O 3 -v r D_ Z ---I N W D m D r N ~ v ~ ~ O V O O Q` O -~ ~ O ~~ ^~~ D C1 3 3c O ~~ ~ ~ -s ~ O O ~ C ~+ •-1 in ~ -' -a m ~ ~ a n o ~1 1 CL o cn ~ ~ rn r+ m c l ~ ~ N r ~ ~ P7 C1 ~ • .r S • o ~G ~ 'i S N d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~n • ~ • O c D 41 7 rt (1 C C "1 -• n rt N O In vs c -, u, -p ~ O O ~. ~ c f N a m -~ ~ -n ~ v~ -D TI D N O ~ ~ ~ ~ _ a • ~ ~ ~ a n O ~ ~* ~ -s (D to In ~ rt -• co _ • rt ~ (D O ~ N p~ ~ CL ~ I O ~ -a I o v,.~~ n O z C =~ N rt W O -• v~ r - o v N• -fi D ~' rt m ~n ~ v 'p V1 N -, co ~ o = ~ a, m -, o 41 fD C r -s w m n -s ~ a ~. Oi D -n - n rr fD ~ C co r 00 f1 d "L fD• C Z rn 3 Z Z m = D O ~ C O ~ r ~ N \ ~ cn m ~ z n m ~ z D --~ C D r c~ m z c ~ N m m Z O D ~i --I o c z z D ~ r D D C/f O v r~ o- o~ 3 = - -r7 z - c~ m --r r ov z~ \` O ,..r m ~ r - ~ O rt w ~ n ~ ° D 3n ~ 3G'>DD~ _ °\ < - - -• co -• -• m o !y rt~ rt -Z -1 n 7 (a N N ~ D1 41 rt w N ° < ~ 3 w ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ rt . I O o v ~ V V N ~" W ~ ~ N ~.n 'O ~ Cow CO N 3 m z v 0 m --I D D O D = z m c~ N n ~ ~ ~ ~ --I r T ~ D C z r c~ 2 r D z v -v D rn O ~ °\o ao °\° o~ N O I y'// °~ N O o\° 0 o~~ 3 Z r z m 0 D ~ O 0 r = N I= VI V o\° o O\~ -~ _m ~ 3 ~ n ~,O a C1 3 3~~ ~3 ~ a • O O~ 7 a -- _. -• C O ~ c ~ < -• n ~ ~ o rn -~ c v+ -~ ~ ~ - ~, fD O 's N O n m~ ~ coc i -• ~ rr 3 ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ' (D 'O 4i G7 ~ . 7 ~ • ~ ~ rt ~ ~ ~ S O a D ~ fD ~ 7 ~ ' . -. rr < - N v~ O -• fD f9 O ~ ~ Z _ • a _ • C C .{ -n D 7 t r C1 't _ -~ -• rr v+ O v+ V+ W N ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ l0 N ~ -~ O A C'f { ' -Z rt to ~ *1 rr 7 (1 7 -• r m am a~ a ~ p ~ -. rr ' N ONOOO G'> '~' < ~ ~ D g rn cD -• o a ~ - • r j j ~ N W O LO n O Z C %~ N rY W O - o v N• ~ D ~• ~ m ~ ~ v ~ t/~ N ~ t0 c~ O 2 ~ n~ m N fD C -• r -s w m n ~ •, a .-~ d D ~+ -- n K ([) v fD ~ V O e f1 N •\ ~. ~\l '{ 3 D 3 Z Z m = D O 'p C O ~ r r N \ '~ v~ m --~ z n m '9 Z D -~ C D r c~ m z c -{ N m m Z O D '*~ 'O C z z D ~ r D D N 0 ~~ W rz O c7 3 = . T Z - c~ m -~ r O ~ z~ ~~\ ,U \ _\ o O ~ rr m r+ D ~ "'~ ~ o D 3c~n, 3C'~DD~ \ < -• -• -• -• fD -• -• fD O ~ Q1 t,~ -• -• rt ~ O1 -• !D ~ f'f ~ -~ C-I N v d tL rY. N N O c~ ~ -~ - x ~ • • C w ~G K -• ~ 3 b • D o i < tD -. • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rr i O O• ~ 3 v N r ~ W -+ W N W O W Q~ W O~ W N o\° W \~ o ~ o~ 3 m z 0 0 m -1 D D L7 D = z m C7 S N n r 0_ L ~' '~ ~ D r _ ~~ r c-> 2 r D Z '~ D N ~/, N N o\~ O//, 3 Z Z w m N p o r = N ~"' I 0 oW ~ cn~33-= W O ~ p an 3 3~~ ~ ~ o n~ m ~- ~ a c~u ~ o n r~-r ~ ~ a ~ a -- -o -~, (D O -s -• 3 -• O 3 l1 N O N (D fD ~~ rt ~ N C i -• ~ n v -• ni rt v c N ~o v c> >> -v rt 3 - T v -~ s a, ~ -• -. O -s a ~n r ~ s •D (D 7 7 ~ d~ 2 0 rt D -• rt< 'o O v~ ~ O O fD V1 llt (D tL 7 • Z ~ ~ - C c• rt (1 C G ~ ~ ~n O ~n in -. tin -WG p rt n -• O ~ cu o ~ ~ ~ o --.woo-~ to ~ ~ N ~~ m _ • m D rr ~ ~ 01 fD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _. a~ a _ r rt r woooo~NO Ip <• ~ ~ D ~ _. fD • C1 - . ~ a ,~ ~ ~,,~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ N O ~ C.t..,.~ii ~~/ . I~d,~ I p z C :: N ~'* ~ O ~ r -• O v N ~, D ~• rt m in ~- v m 'p !!~ (n ~ fD n O = v n~ m -~ v d N C -• r ~ w m n ~ N ~ D ~ r r+ (9 < ~ O ~ n n, -t ~_ tD • D r N D C r z m Z D -i O z D r D O --i O C r m n m Z •-i D m c N m O T1 c z D N J f r~ O - c-~ 3 = - ~'1 Z - c~ m -{ r ov z~ ~~\ U \ .\ p o -~ rt m v r D r ~ • ~ oho D 3c~4r 3 G~DD7 ~ ~,. _. ~ _. ~ _. _. m o fD ~ ~ .. ~ ~ -s -t -t Z -t -• -. -. fD ~ N 41 rt ~ rt Z -~ C1 7 lQ D1 Ql Ql 4J DJ R V1 O w cu -s -, -- x ~ • • c ~G K -• ~ 3 < D ~ (D -. • -c ~ ~ ~ ~ rt I o O ~ ~ v 3 z z rn D "9 O r N ~ W ~ N N ~ O ~ U'1 .~- 00 ~ O N ,o N r O ~ x 3 m z v 0 m -i ~ D D = z m cn n ~; _ ~` --i r~ • L ~' ~ o D ~tL C r r D z v v D 0 N ~~/ o W \o // / 3 Z Z 0 D N p L N ~n ~ \o i r ., ` /; f 0 Y ~ \ Q N a. F- Z O C7 Z W Z J 2 Q C.7 ~ ~ W = O J z Z O ,~` ~ ~ Q a ~ ~ H ~ N ZW ~ O ~ 01 ~ I O M ~D N N .D U L.L C L ~ N O ~ N E c ~0 (D L vi v a .- i ~ N v i u •- C Vf 3 ~ E rp O H 1 i c •c O N ~ N C ~ - C •~0 ~0 a~ E s- O ~ a N O N 7 U +-+ O •- L U ~ O c v a cp .C L ~ .~ N N u~ T V1 7 L ~ U ~ ..0 L (D j ~ .. - N +-~ •~ ~ L U L ~ N t a In L .IJ L 7 - O L 1.1 ¢ C a> L c ~ 3 a o In L ~-.~ ~ ~ •- C U c 4 3 _~ O •rp tp o •E a~ ..Y E ~ 7 L O Q ~ a~ u d 3 E C O O N L- +~ 3 ~ 4- (n ~+ Q W Q r m N t- Z J d O U C7I D J 1 Q E N N Z O H Q W a. O O 00 N Ol ~D M M •- ~' N C O .~ L ~ N •> •L •- ~( T • L )( .- L C U F- L a.~ ~D N .- L L L C ~ N C Q Q (.7 ~ \\~ •--~ O •-- •- •- O ~ O •- N ~ I ~ H I n N O O O M O~ O O I n ~- M ~O V1 ~-+ ,C ~ .L L L- N L Q~ (p C t0 •- to d O --d O•- ~0 Q1 ~ 'O O C ~ - c c~ n 0 O> C ~0 a.+ rp +~ •- O ~0 ~0 •E c co N- O N O 4- J d i.+ O ~o C v s 'a c c t O O O •- 01 C C C U F- ro ~ O .- N .- .- _ ~..+ ~.+ CO W W C7 = ~ ~ ~ ~ In N I~ O M C d O ~9 T L ~ (0 Q~ .- a.+ ~p - •- L .. •~ ~ ~ .- .- - rov~ U O J t0 O F- F- 0 cn Q J 3 Q z z ~ o ~ - F- LL o z w w N F- ~ Z W C7 J Q ~ F- Q Z 4. W U ~ F- W (n d N } J J ~ O ~ d O Q = W Z Z Cl } J N (0 M ^-- L •- N c9 •--. ~ O L }J }J O C C O U ~ L U N 3 ~ N ~ ~ {"' rp i-~ L C Q U ~ N s a T O co +~ 3 C N ~ ~ L C) N .. ,~ w •- F- L O +-+ Z N L L L ~9 U ~ ^" Q1 U ~-. y ~., U ~- 4- Q ~ v 'D L L U W M L J - o ~ •ro O L W (p Q 2 O U U L N V1 d O L Q1 W a.r C F- Q ~+- •N ~_ O •- J N - O M +-~ N is 7 Z O v 1 N`CLf~ McNec ucu~r, i, n. , ~. 0 O r ~ u1 O ~ ~ ( ~ O i C '~ c ~0 N C O N ~6 +~ - ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ • N ~ ~ L L ~-+ u O v ~ cc i ~- E N ~ ~ O L N Q E i- N ~ c O a~ 3 ~ ~+ . - U +-+ O +~ ~ a ~ -- c Vf ~n O ~ +.+ v •- L ~ O U a~ C ~0 ~ O O ._ i- - rn --. .n O a~ ~- O ra c n E c c a~ a - E ~ ~o ~o ~ s L ~ o a ~ ` • u + p ~ ~ a - ~ in co s.. o u ~ ~ U ~ a o ~ , ~ c v i v o L L •- ~G f ~ U v H~+- ~+Q Y Q Z Q J C:7 N F- 2 c.~ w Z 2 4 C7 I¢" W O O N 00 M 00 l!~ N l71 -7' N ~ O n M 00 n C ~ O O J s W 1 •- ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ f a ~ ~ ~ L `0 - ,'~ ¢ N •> ~ f... Z W ~ •-- •- ¢ T ~ N zZ O O .. L X~ L - L O Z ~L. M tJ') ~..+ ~0 ~0 ~9 ~0 N Q1 C v F- L +-+ -- a.+ tp In fp Q1 •- L Z L L L c .~ .. •~ N ono °- caa~E vUE M ~ •~ J 1B W ~ O ~ yk oo .D o 6i ~n ~ ~ O~ .-~O~OOO~Or-I N 0 J Q w ~ O O O~ O N ~ O M O~ Q ~ N r m N F- z_ Q J a 0 v ~ x L C ~6 N V1 V1 O n- =^ O .o p~ ~ L O c c c~ ~o a a~ ~ • ~ E L O N '+- a C f0 ~-' C O C U ~ •C Q> > F- tD ~ •- C O •- •- +~ m W W 2 - ~ ~ ~ to 0 w N W C.7 Q F- Z W U W d J O S 0 Q J Q z _o z w, I- Z' J Q F-- N !/') J O G. Q W Z Z E m W Z N L N .` L U Q1 ~ O 1 ~-. y a.+ V •--. w. Q N ~ ~ L L U W M L J O ~ ~t0 ~ L w ~ a v ~ ~ N V1 d D .C Q1 ~ ~ •C Q 4- N ~_ O •- J L!1 - O M •++ Z ,~ O U M\O M~ M O M N M .- M ~ Y ~ -~' N I~ ~ Q N a ~ . O U Z ~ w Z ` J 2 Q S U Q ~ C7 h- W C = ~ o c 0 a 0 0 z o Qom- : ~ I ~~' >~ Q o a ~ ~ ~ L ~ - a~ ~> .~ ~ ~ W E •L •- ¢ T T O (/~ Z~ O O .. L X L L ~ Z d to a.~ ~D ~0 ~D N ~0 Ql C U ~ L u = a~ fp L Z L L L C ^- •• > d c\ - C Q 4' C.7 ~ fp U f Q ~ - U f-- ~ ~ _ O ~. J (D W ~ ~ O O ~ i~ c\ -7 O ~ /~, n ~6r ~ 61 O M v LL c ~a L 7 ~ 0 ~ ~ E C ~D ~ L in U C ~ ~9 I 7 N +~ ~ I u O C ~ F- 3 ~ ~ I C C O •- u a~ ~ ~ C v _ c ~m m Q l!1 L O i a v, O ~ ~ U +~ ~ - L ~ ~ c a~ tZ fp ~ L -- of •tp CJ ~ U ~ >~ N ~ L .- ~p ~ u ~ I L ~ 3 Q > +~ • a~ -o co u C +~ ~ ~o ~ L >~ J.-+ L tf~ L U 3 a E L yJ .- L . C Q ~+- ~0 ~0 V1 ~ ~ ~. O C E c •- O Q ro u •- E a +-+ N O E L C L O O o ~+- u a 7%'`'~ '7"~'L~7 ~~ ooo~ol Q w Q p ~ ~ N 01~' t~ N M ~ F- N m +-' F- Z ~ ~ > yA .- O = o 'v J a ~ ro a o~ t.+ ~D •- O ~ L O ~ "- U C N"O CL ~ - > c c u +~ C ~ ~ d' W H 0 ~. ~Q Q J 3 Q z z ~ o H ti Q O Z w w, N H ~ Z W L7 J G O F- Q Z tl w v ~ H W N ~ \ N -! J ~ O d O Q = w Z Z f Ql Q II 1/ I /( :~ L Y .~ 00 ~ ~ t1'~ O ~O •~ ~ ~ ~' N N •-- M ~ L C N ~' N ~ L n" = U p (' pp _ Q W Z ~ ~ J = cal •--. N +.+ v .- ~ U t¢- w In Q Ip = O C ~~ ~ >„ ~ p C d L U J = Z O O W M L W 1 •~+ T O ~ •(p Q ~~ `c ~ ~ L w ro a ~. , ~ ~! E • ~ Q p U v ~ tit ='~ E L •- T T N in d Z ~ .. L X •- i- L N N Z d `"`~ N a., fp 10 ~0 N ~0 O p L Q1 C U ~- L +-+ _ +-+ ~0 W a~ C N r9 U •- L H- Z L. L L C •- •• > N Q ti- •N o C Q Q (.~ E ~0 U f d ~, Q a~ O ~ O ~ a.+ ~ J t0 N ., ~ W ~ Z a O O O F- U •- o\ / ~~ o I 'M w ~'Ct o\o /~ M / L(1 o~ ~6r V ~ z p O J F- W Z LL - 2 ~ ~ U O - O /~~ ~ J o] c\^- N = ~ O J ~ W ~ ~ W r o\ ~~ ~' Z J N ~ N Z E N N o\o 1 s n"r `rir~^j^J -~' O N ~O C O 1 N N N >¢ p O N ~ O 00 O M .~' ~ •N C J ~ c -v U 3 - C O O Q E L Ip O ~- ~ N C O N 3 0 ~- ~ U ''' m a-r t!1 V1 O ~ C 7 F- L L 7 7 U +-+ • O O O •- L •- to z C ro O in cn .o O O - O ~ n- - O a > ~ .- N ~0 10 L L L L t!i - ~ - E a.~ tL C C C7 fp d N 7 U n. ~ rp •- vi ~tp OU N ~ .E rp ~+ tp •- ro 1 7 v +-+ N N ~ L O N ~+- d E i ~ O~> c c u ,~ ~ C t/l 4- t/~ 7 L OC ~ Q. d] S = ~ f ~ cn F- 3 ~ ~ ~ u ~ r i ... 0 N Q } Q J 3 Q z z O ~ - F- LL Q O Z W w N V- O Z W (,~ J Q ~ F- Q Z ~ W ~ 1- W (n lL \ N } J J ~ O ~ tZ O Q = W Z Z E J d Q