Loading...
11-27-78 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA- . Office of City Manager i The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Council Letter No. 344 Agenda November 27, 1978 i, b i. ~,k„ ~~ ~. e~A ~~ /'L~p a-.-.~.f- -- ~11 /~.~ . - Subject:. Report on Storm Water Drainage Problems The purpose of this council letter is to provide information requested by the city council on possible solutions. to storm water drainage. problems which have occurred at certain locations in the city during periods of very heavy rain. It is not intended that the material contained in this council letter be the subject of a hearing at the November 27, 1978 city council meeting. Rather, it would be appropriate to initiate a special. assessment project should the city council determine to pursue any significant improvements. The state statutes prescribe a specific procedure for such projects which include mandatory public hearings. Use of such special assessment hearings would .assure all property owners, who would receive potential benefit and, therefore, bear part of the cost, an opportunity to partici- pate. A procedure for further possible action and hearings is de- scribed at the end of this letter. . Background Information Certain locations in the city experienced storm water prob- lems during periods of extremely heavy rainfall on August 30, 197.7 and again on two occasions in the spring and summer of 1978. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron, consulting engineers for the city, were asked to study these areas and make a report to the city council. A total. of 38 locations were identified and investigated. The OSM report was submitted and a presentation made to the city council on September 25, 1978. Following that presentation the city council requested fur- ther staff analysis. The city manager was directed to study and review the OSM report and make recommendations on procedures which could be followed for improvements on a storm drainage area basis. These recommendations were to be submitted no later than the second council meeting in November. In addition to this OSM study, the City of Richfield initi- ated a joint effort with the City of Edina this past summer to ,Council Letter No. 344 -2- November 27, 1978 study similar problems along Richfield's western boundary. This study is proceeding, but as yet no. formal report has been pre- pared, and one is not anticipated until-easy next year. Alternative Solutions At the September 25th meeting the. 38 -locations studied by OSM be basis. While alI locations cannot such districts, those most deservi ation fall into four areas. These and are as follows: the city council asked that considered on a drainage basin be neatly grouped into a few ng of some corrective consider- are shown on the attached map Area I: .That .part of Richfield which is included in -the joint Richfield-Edina storm water study. Area Area Area Ref e: solutions II: III: IV: rence desc A storm drainage district generally bounded by 70th Street., Sheridan Avenue,-63rd Street and Humboldt Avenue. The drainage basin served by Norby Pond, The drainage basin served by Wilson Pond. will be made to these four areas in the alternative ribed in this letter. Financing Storm Sewer Improvements ..Prior to February., 1972 it had been city policy to finance storm sewer improvements through special assessment bond issues and special assessments levied against private property. That policy provided for a maximum .storm sewer assessment of 3.5~ per square foot. Virtually all property within the City of Richf field has paid or is in the process of paying this maximum of 3.5G storm sewer assessment for storm sewers and related. appurtances. In February, 1972 the city council adopted a new storm sewer assessment policy. (Resolution No. 4735, copy attached). The new policy provides that all storm sewers or appurtances constructed . in 1974 and future years be fully assessed. The alternative solutions described in this council letter have significant estimated costs. Therefore, the only feasible way of financing such improvements is through the special assess- ment process in accordance with city council policy. Alternative A This alternative would provide for the construction of addi- tional storm sewers and improvements at Norby Pond and Wilson Pond. Essentially, it represents an effort to provide the conveyance of storm water through underground .storm sewers to the pond or outfall area. This alternative would provide a greater level of protection to all of the 38 problem areas with the exception of those locations included in Area I which is not being addressed in this report. The estimated cost for this alternative is 4.2 million dollars. Council Letter No. 344 -3- November 27, 1978 While this alternative would provide. greater storm water pro- tection, consideration should be given to whether the benefits justify the cost and whether potentially benefited property owners would feel there is a great enough benefit to justify paying 4.2 million dollars plus interest costs in storm sewer assistance.. Alternative B This alternative would .provide increased drainage facilities to Areas II, III and IV. In addition, other minor incidental im- provements to streets, storm water catch basins and manhole covers .could provide greater protection. Improvements would be made to -Norby Pond and Wilson Pond and a new relief sewer constructed in the Logan Avenue area of .West 68th Street. The total estimated cost for this alternative is $1,925,000. Norby .and Wilson Ponds would be deepened and provided with permanent pumps. .This would increase the capacity of both systems and improve the ability of these ponds to store large volumes of runoff.- These pond improvements are estimated to cost $800,000. A larger relief sewer would be constructed in the West 68th Street-area. This sewer would provide increased pipe conveyance capacity to the 70th - Penn Avenue, Queen Avenue and the adjacent areas of Oliver-James-Logan Avenue areas of 68th Street. This sewer is estimated to cost 1.1 million .dollars. Alternative C Alternative C would provide for improvements described under Alternative B for Norby Pond .and Wilson. Pond and for other miscell- aneous limited improvements in the street right-of-way to street grades, catch basin facilities and manhole covers.. The estimated cost of this alternative is $870,000. The improvements which could be made within the street right- of-way at an estimated cost of $70,000 would provide a higher level of protection to certain locations within Area II. Other improvements would be located around the city in areas where some meaningful benefit could be derived from this type of corrective action. We believe that the remaining properties could privately undertake improvements associated with flood proofing the structures on these properties. The degree to which a property owner might wish to provide flood proofing would vary considerably as would costs depending on whether work was completely contracted or whether property owners did much of the work themselves. It is estimated that. some form of flood proofing could be done on 125 structures throughout the city in .scattered locations. While it is extremely difficult to place an estimated cost on such work without extensive detailed studies, OMS has .estimated that the cost of such-flood proofing could be as high as $230,000 in the aggregate. Again, it must be emphasized that many homeowners may ultimately conclude Council Letter No. 344 -4- November 27, 1978 not to pursue such work and if such improvements are made, it is conceivable that they would never be required, depending on rainwater volume and velocity. .Alternative D Alternative D provides for public expenditures to be limited to the minor improvements described previously within the street right-of-way. This alternative would .not preclude private property :owners from pursuing corrective flood proofing efforts on their own property. A storm water drainage system is customarily designed to handle normal rainstorm expectancies. It is unusual and generally pro- hibitively expensive to construct a storm water collection system to handle infrequent peak level problems. While flooding can occur to low lying properties under virtually any storm water system, the statistical chance for reoccurrence of the recent heavy storms is very low. It .can certainly. be argued that the City of Richfield currently .has an adequate storm water system-and that barring unusual and very dense redevelopment in the city that no further major improvements to the system are necessary. Summary of Estimated Costs for Four Alternatives In summary, the alternatives listed above are estimated to cost as follows: Alternative A -Norby Pond Improvement $ 500,000 Wilson Pond Improvement 300,000 Citywide Storm Sewer En- largement 3,400,000 Total Cost .$4,200-,000 Alternative B Norby Pond Improvement 500,000 Wilson Pond Improvement 300,000 68th Street Relief Sewer 1,100,000 Right-of-Way Improvements 25,000 Total Cost $1,925,000 Alternative C Norby Pond Improvement .500,000 Wilson Pond Improvement 300,000 Right-of-Way Improvements 70,000 Total-Cost $ 870,000 Alternative D Right-of-Way Improvements Total Cost None of the above. costs include pr provements or improvements which may be Avenue area. Cost estimates for Area I the joint Edina-Richfield. study. 70,000 $ 70,000 ivate flood proofing im- recommended in the_XerXes will be developed under Council Letter No. 344 - 5 - November 27, 1978 Suggested Alternative It is recommended that Alternative C be selected as the most feasible approach to solving these problems. Improved drainage would result to all areas if the solutions proposed under this alter- native were irnplemented (see attached listing of 38 sites prepared by osr1~ . At Norby Pond, the area would be enlarged to better serve the adjacent areas and the bottom would be lowered to improve drainage in nine of the 38 areas involved in the engineering study. Making this improvement would: 1. Reduce flooding threats to the properties on Third Avenue bordering the east side of the pond; 2. Improve drainage at Stevens and tdest 68th Street; 3. Reduce pressures in the Columbus Avenue-storm sewer, near 69th Street and 70th Street; 4. Provide better drainage to the 73rd Street-First Avenue intersection and reduce the flooding to the adjacent three residences. Using the. area designated as Area III on the attached map, the staff has prepared very preliminary figures on the cost assessments which would be necessary to make the Norby Pond improvements. Based ~ on an estimated cost of $500,000 and a typical lot size of 75 feet frontage, it is estimated an individual's total assessment would be $365, excluding interest. Deepening tailson Pond would improve drainage in four of the 38 areas studied by our engineering consultant.. It is their belief that the pond can be lowered and provided with pumps for a cost of approx- imately $300,000_. This would provide increased protection from unusual rainstorms to Area IV and the residences-near Centennial School. Using this estimate and a benefited area of 86 blocks, we believe the typical assessment for the owner of a 75 foot by 175 foot property would be less than $200. This figure does not include interest although if spread over 20 years would not be unusually high for the benefits derived. While the city would not provide financial assistance to any property owner wishing to engage in flood proofing activities, we could provide technical and code compliance assistance through the public works department. Suggested Procedure State statutes specifically prescribe the public hearing process and the assessment procedure for special assessment projects. It is recommended this procedure be used. if the city council wishes to pro- ceed with any major storm-sewer work. The procedure would be as follows: Council Letter. No. 344 - G - November 27, 1978 1. Adopt a resolution initiating public improvements and ordering preparation of the preliminary engineering report. 2. Adopt a resolution receiving the preliminary engineering report and ordering the public hearing. 3. Adopt a resolution ordering. the improvement and pre° paration of final plans and specifications. 4. Adopt a resolution for approving final. plans for specifications and- advertising. Respectfully s mitted, C. .Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/ea:j1 cc: Public Works Director Finance Director City Attorney Sunmary of Potential Alternates anti Recommendations Richfield Stoma Water Study & Analysis of Flooding Report Dated September 22, 1978 Location 1 64th 5 Xerxes Potential Alternates Area studied by Edira Recommendations Solution provided by Edina through asphalt placement Cost of Reco.^~mendation Not Applicable Location 2 69th ~ Xerxes, Washburn Location 3 66th Street near Xerxes to Vincent Location 4 6700 block of Washburn Potential Alternates under analysis by joint Richfield-Eirda study Potential Alternates under analysis by joint Richfield-Edira study Potential Alternates under analysis by Richfield-Edina study Location 5 Potential Alternates 62nd & Russell A. Conveyance to Highway 62 800 l.f. 27" diameter RCP $40,000 B. Development of Pond $60,000 C. Flood proofing S10,000 Location 6 Potential Alternates 66th & 67th, A. Conveyance (part of 68th Queen to Penn St, system) to 68th & Oliver, 1200 l.f. 36" diameter $120,000 from 68th & Oliver to Wood Lake $500,000 (see 68th & Oliver) B. Fill alley, eliminate basement access $55,000 C. Flood proofing 515,000 Location 7 Potential Alternates 69th St. Sheridan A. Conveyance (part of 68th St. ~ Russell system} 700 l.f. 24" diameter $35,000 from Penn to 68th & Oliver $260,000 (see 70th S Penn) from 68th & Oliver to Wood Lake $500,000 (see 68th & Oliver) B. Change of grades, slopes or elevations of streets and/or boulevards: not applicable C. Flood proofing: less than $8,000 Location 8 Potential Alternates 70th St. Thomas A. Conveyance (to GBth St. system) '200 '_.f. 36" dia- mater 5100,0.00 B. Modifications to street grades, slopes and/or ' elevations: not applicable C. Flood proofing: less than 58,000 Recommendations to be made by study results Ccst of Recormendation unknown at this time Recommendations to be made by study Cost of Recommendation unknown at this time Recommendations to be made by-joint study Cost of Recommendation unknown at this time Recommendations flood proofing affected garage and residences, eventual flood assistance to be provided by develop- ment of inundation area in conjunction with future commercial development in the block Cost of Recommendation Flood proofing: less than $10,000 Future inundation area: by developer, ro cost Recommendations flood proofing of affected structures Cost of Recommendation less than $15,000 Recommendations flood proofing of window wells and affected structures Cost of Recommendation less than 53,000 Recommendations flood proofing? affected residences and enrages as applicable Cost of Recommendation less than 58,000 Location 9 Potential Alternates 70th S Penn A. Conveyance (part of 68th St. Recommendations flood system) 1800 l.f. 60" diameter proofing with increased $260,000 from 68th & Oliver to sump pump size, encourage fill along Penn Wood Lake $500,000 (see 68th & near 70th St, Cost of Recommendatio Oliver) n $30 000 B, Fill and berm along Penn from , 69th to 70th $40,000 C. Fill low backyards, eliminate basement entrances $70,000 D. Flood proof with sump pump $30,000 Location 10 72nd & Sherida Potential Alternates Recom-nendations n A. Conveyance to Adams Hill Por_d• 1600 l f 24° flood proofing of affected . . diameter $75,000 B. Storage or inundation: not structures as necessary applicable Cost of Recor,.mendatien C. Flood proofing less than $5,000 . Location 11 76th & Washbu Potential Alternates Recommendations rn A. Conveyance to Adams Hill Pond flood proofing affected 1500 l.f. 42" diameter $170,000 B. Pondinq and inundatio t residences, possible filling _ n: no effective or berming at NE corner. C. Flood proofing Significant flood depth in - less than $10 000 the intersection may inter- , section may interfere with traffic movements Cost of Recommendation $10,000 Location 12 66th & Potential Alternates Recommendations Newton A. Conveyance (to 68th St, system) flood proofing affected 1100 l,f, 24" diameter $60,000 strictures with possible from 68th & Oliver to Wood Lake retaining wall $500,000 (see 68th & Oliver) Cost of Recommendation B, Change of street grades or elev- less than $12,000 ations: not applicable C. Filling backyard areas, eliminat e walkout $60,000 D. Flood proofing affected proper- . ties with retaining wall less than S12,000 Location 13 68th & Oliver Potential Alternates Recommendations t~ Newton A. Conveyance (part of 68th St. 72" diamet t initiate preliminary design. er o Wood Lake $500,000 aimed at a composite solution B, Ponding in Park Area North of involving development of an inundation 68th $40 000 area :worth of 68th , C, Fill and berm South of 68th St., to raise overflosv eiev- ation and flo d $20,000 o proofing D. Relief line to Monroe Field properties as necessary Cost of Recommendation inundation area, 1500 l,f, 36" $60,000 diameter $60,000 E. Flood proofing affected resid- ences: less than $15,000 Location 14 63rd & Girard Potential Alternates Recommendations A. Conveyance (under 3 35W) flood proofing as necessary $150,000 B. Change of street and alley grade Ccst of Recommendation less than $8,000 or elevation: not effective C. Flood proofing: less than $8,000 Location 15 69th & Irvin Potential ALternates A C Recommendations g . onveyancc_~ (under I 35W) flood proofing affected $180,000 B. Charge of street grade or ele:'- structures as necessary Cost of Recor;:me.^.~:~tior ation: not applicable . less than Sb,00i~ C. F1eod proofing: less than $8,000 Location 16 66th s Irvin ?ote.^.tal ~,~teri:ates A :~eeo::unencations g . _„nveyance (~~art of EiBth St, " fl a oo.. proofing affected a•:•stem) dc diameter ,200,000 residences B. Filllnq ar,d harming at both 6 Cost of Rerommen.iation .;a^;es partial solutio,^. S20,OG0 less than S10,OJ0 C, cl~oc: proofing af~ected resid- _..ces: less than 510,000 Location 17 Potential Alternates Recommendations 68th b James A. Conveyance to 68th St. system Monroe Field as inundation could be included in 68th & area for excess flow volumes Oliver Cost of Recommendation B. Encourage overflow inundation $2,000 of Monroe Field $2,000 C. Flood proofing as necessary: less than $5,000 Location 18 Potential Alternates Recommendations 73rd 5 Humboldt A. Conveyance 30" diameter to Wood No action due to minimal Lake under Z 35W $200,000 potential dar;age B. Ponding and inundation continued Cost of Recommendatio.^^. as currently occurs: no cost no cost Location 19 Potential Alternates Recommendations 7Jth & Bryant A. Conveyance (to I 35W system) flood proofing garage and 30" diameter $120,000 commercial structure B. Elimination of basement garage entrances with flood proofing south of Cost of Recomme.9ati<n 77th (new garag-': less than less than $8,000 $15,000 C. Flood proofing affected struc- tures: less than $8,000 Location 20 Potential Alternates Recommendations 77-1/2 & Colfax A. Conveyance 24" diameter $20,000 flood proof affected struc- B. Fill areas subject to inunda- tures investigate potential tion: less than $20,000 for fill West of Colfax ~ C. Flood proofing affected struc- South of 77-1/2 tures and areas: less than Cost of Recommendation $8,000 $10,000 Location 21 Potential Alternates Recommendations -65th-66th ~ A. Relief line now under construe- no action Pillsbury- tion Cost of Recommendation Pleasant no additional cost Location 22 Potential Alternate Recommendations 75th 6 Pleasant A. Conveyance, 75th & Pleasant and flood proofing affected 76th & Pleasant to 3rd Avenue structures system $80,000 Cost of Recommendation B. Ponding area for inundation less than $15,000 along Lincoln Field $45,000 C. Flood proofing $15,000 Location 23 Potential Alternates Recommendations 66th 6 Stevens A. Conveyance to Milner'.; Pond flood proofing garages $100,000 Cost of Recommendation B. Raise overflow elevation on by less than $6,000 filling and berming $1:,000 C. Flood proofing affected struc- tures: less than $6,000 Location 24 Potential Alternates Recommendations West 3rd St. ~ Area will be partially received by no further action ' storm line sewer now under construe- Cost of Recomme:3aticn tion near 65th & Pillsbury no further cost Location 25 Potential Alternates 66th s 4th A. Conveyance additional catch basin type leads to Milner's Pond $8,000 B. Flood proofing as necessary $5,000 Location 26 Potential itlternatives 68th & Stevens A. Construction of boulevard berms s driveway grading to reduce flood overflow $20,000 B. Improvement via Norby's Pord development (see Loca- tion :'7) C. Prevision of a backyard sump pump to reduce time of area inundation $15,000 D. Flood proofing as neces~_.y $5,000 Recommendations no major action, excess flood water flow over curb to Mil- ner's Pond. Encourage flow by modifying North curb to provide overland area Cost of Recommendation $500.00 Recommendations Norby's Pond improvement with flood proofing as necessary. Investigate options involving berming of boulevard and pro- vision o~ backyard sump to offer cost alternates. Cost of Recommendation $5,000.00 Location 27 Potential Alternates ,Norby's pond A. Conveyance to Milner's Pond, 84" Norb~~snPcndoimprovements are diameter $1,300,000 identified as providing bene- B. Deepen pond and provide pumped ficial impacts on a number of outlet $500,000 problems in drainage district ~4, These include-73rd ~ 1st, 76th & 3rd, 67th & Columbus and 68th & Stevens as well as the pond vicinity, Improve- . ment by deepening and pumped outlet is recoaznended. Cost of Recom-nerdation $500,000 Location 28 Potential Alternates 73rd s 1st Ave. A. Conveyance (to Au sber Pond Recor:~mendations $140,000 g g ~ Norby s Pond improvements B, Improvement via Norby's Pond with local flood proofing as development necessary (see Location 27j Cost of Recommendation C. Flood proofing affected resid- less than $10,000 ences: less than $10,000 Location 29 Potential Alternates 76th ~ 3rd Ave. A. Conveyance- not practical, no flood proofings ready outlet Cost of Recommendation B. Improvement via Norby's Pond less than $8,000 development C. Flood proofing as necessary: less than 58,000 Location 30 Potential Alternates 67th ~ Columbus, A. Conveyance to Legion Lake, 36" Norby'snPOndoimprovement will 66th & Columbus diameter $160,000 B. Improvement via Norb 's Fond arfect the area. Place flap development Y gate at 70th and Colu.~nbus to prevent reverse flow. Flood C. Flood proofing: $10,000 proof as a ppropriate. Cost of Recom-nendation $10,000 Location 31 Potential Alternates 66th & Chica o A, Recommendations g Conveyance- catch basin type Aid intersection drainage by conduits in intersection towards modifying North curb of 66th Legion Lake $10,000 Street to provide overland B. Develop overland flow route to flow path to Legion Lake Legion Lake via curb modifica- Cost of Recommendation tions $2,000 $2,000 C. Flood proofing as necessary Location 32 Potential Alternates Recommendations 63rd ~ Bloomington A. Conveyance- 36" diameter: $200,000 flood proof affected struc- B. Filling and berming boulevard Parks encourage flow to Taft partial solution $30,000 Cost of Recommendation C. Improvement of overland flow to- $10,000 wards Taft Park and use of park as inundation area: $10,000 D. Flood proofing: less than $8,000 Location 33 Potential Alternates Recommendations 63rd & 16th A. Conveyance- no practical flood proofing of affected additional outlet structures and development B. Improvement of overflow route flow towards Taft Park to Taft Park and utilization of Cost of Recommendation park as inundation area $5,000 $8,000 C. Flood proofing as necessary $5,000 Location 34 71st & Cedar Location 35 73rd & Bloomington Location 36 73rd 5 16th, 17th, 18th Avenues WILSON POND AREA Potential A. Conveyance pipe system to Wilson Pond: $280,000 B. Change of street grades or elev- ations: not effective C. Wilson Pond improvements: $z7o,occ D. Flood proofinq: $20,000 Recommendations Improve Wilson Pond by excav- ation and provision of pump- ing station. Pond improve- ments will have beneficial impact on this area and others nearby. Conveyance without pond lowering will have re- duced effect Cost of Recommendation $270,000 Location 37 77th & Bloomington Potential Alternates A . B. Conveyance- no practical outlet Pond develcment i n park land East of Bloomington and North of 77th as inundation area: unknown cost C. Modify street boulevard to raise overflow elevation $10,000 D. Flood proofing $5,000 Location 38 68th Pot ential Alternates & Wentworth. A. Conveyance- to wooa Lake $180,000 B. Modify street or boulevard grade or elevations: not effective C. Flood proofing: less than $10,000 Recormiendation s flood proof affected struc- tures. Initiate investi- gation into park de~:elopment and improvement as inundation area Cost of Recom-nendation $8,000 Recommendations flood proofing, investi- gation possibility of water detention on church parking lot Cost of Recommendation $10,000 ~.- _ ,.i -._ . -i 1 Y_'_.~' ,.,_ tl G G _ ^ Y w w.„~ y. e.+v,o. ~+ .. i w iuv.v lL H.Y., ...~• Q ~,. ,..a.,.~ ZO ,.. ,...,. )r ,r,lC, Q w 1x49 U O G. ,a.a, i...w. ^...,,.v W vrsJa Y ,~eu w .o,r a~...rr 4 r' . ~' ~ r .,~~ i~ a ;, HI ami! Y~ tw H) W ~n~~nsf Yw e..~m w w.,.o, ~.r .u ~~ ~t ~... a 1,~ ,r,ro) u. ..o.n w u....• - ,~ ~,... w ....o. w .o,.r w ..o~.,r W ~~, w ~,w __ w ,•Yr.n p. n.~n ' C t t C C C C C C C C C G C C C ~ t ^ ^ 1 7 S i i t ! t t L F [ ^ .. RESOLUTION NO. 4735 RESOLUTION ON POLICY FOR STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, the city has been constructing storm sewers throughout the city according to a master plan prepared in 1953, and WHEREAS, the city council has had a policy of assessing this storm sewer construction at a maximum assessment of $.0355 per square foot, and WHEREAS, the construction of these storm sewers throughout the city has been sub- ` stantially completed, and WHEREAS, the cost of constructing these storm sewers has increased considerably -over the years , and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to change the existing storm sewer assessments "~ :'policies to more accurately charge the benefited properties with the cost of providing the improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield that ;the City adopt the following general policies.- for storm sewer assessments: 1. That all remaining storm sewers constructed in 1974 and future years , should there be any, be assessed at its full cost of construction. 2. That the assessment be spread over a 20 year period at 8% interest with the privilege of prepaying the storm sewer assessment at any time without additional interest. 3. That the above policies begin with the storm sewer hearings held in 1973. 4. That the policies contained in this resolution shall be subject to modification if necessary in individual cases if the council determines that the assessment or assessments resulting from the application of the policies will exceed the benefits received. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of February, 1972. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 4 3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA .Office of City Manager Council Letter No: 34.3 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor. and Members. of the .City Council City of Richf field Gentlemen: ~ ~ -- "~' Subject: Hearing on Year V, Community Development Block Grant Program -The city council has scheduled a public hearing for November 27, 1978 on the city's application for. Year V Community Develop- ment Block Grant funding. Inasmuch as the Richfield application is part of the Hennepin County Urban County Application for-the Community Development Block Grant monies, the hearings are technic- ally being held as joint hearings with .Hennepin County. The November 27, 1978 city council hearing will be informa- tional in nature, providing the city council an opportunity to receive testimony from interested residents regarding possible uses of the Community Development Block Grant monies. The city council should schedule a second hearing on the Community Devel- opment Grant Program to be held in early 19.79. That hearing will provide an opportunity for the city council to review the staff's recommendation for the use of Community Development Block Grant funds, as well as to review and adopt the Community Development Plan and the Housing Assistance Plan. Richfield will receive $328,000 for Year IV. Estimates for Year V tAugust, 1979 through July, 190) are not yet fully deter- mined, but we .can assume the receipt of approximately $300,000. In preparation for the public .hearing on this subject, a legal notice has been published in the official city newspaper. The following community groups and organizations have also been invited to appear at the November 27, 1978 hearing and provide testimony regarding community needs which should be addressed with Community Development Block Grant monies: Richfield Planning Commission Richfield Human Rights Commission Richfield Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Richfield Senior Citizens Advisory Commission American Association of Retired Persons Richfield League of Women Voters Meals on Wheels Council Letter No. 343 -2- November 13, 1978 Minnesota Valley Women's Club Richfield American Legion Post #435 _ Richfield~Chamber of Commerce Richfield Historical Society Richfield Jaycee's Richfield Kiwanis Club Richfield Rotary Club Richfield Young at Heart Club Town and Country Mother's Club ..NEAP (Volunteer Emergency Assistance Program) It is the opinion of the. staff that these and other efforts made by the city meet the requirements of the federal regulations for citizen representation in the development of the Community Development Block Grant application. It is recommended that the city .council receive testimony at the November 27, 1978 city council public hearing regarding proposed uses for Community Development Block Grant funds. After the close of that hearing, it is recommended that the city council authorize the staff to prepare a plan for use of the Year V Commun- ity Development funds in accordance with the Community Development and Housing Assistance Plans. Respectfully submitted, i ~. Wayne S . , Burggr aaf f City Manager WSB/eja cc: Planning & Redevelopment. Director _. ~ ~_ s.; ~ _ a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 342 Agenda Novembez 27, 1978 ~J rj - The Honorable Mayor - ~,~,`; t~.,~-- ~~~' ~( and ~ d.~:~~-T ~~--+~~ ~~ ~ ~y-e.. Members of the City.Council ~_ ~q~ ' U ~.}- . City of Richfield ~_~~ ~~ Gentlemen : ~--(~-.~,_;, Qom- ~ w.~-~r--e,/'' ~.~ Subject:.- Request for Approval of Final Plans and Specifications for the Golf Course Project, And Authorization to Advertise for Bids On August 28, 1978 the city council approved the preliminary plans for the .golf course site, and authorized preparation of final plans and specif ications. On September 11, 1978 the city council approved preliminary plans .for the golf course buildings, and authorized preparation of final plans and specifications. An informal review of the final plans and specifications for both tYie site and the building was held by the city council on November 13, 1978. There is an item on the November 27, 1978 city council agenda providing for final council approval of plans and specifications and authorizing a call for bids. The final plans and specifications will provide for a regula- tion 18 hole course, a nine hole par. three course, a driving range, accessory parking lot, a club house and a maintenance building. The site plan also includes a somewhat enlarged neighborhood park for the Rich Acres subdivision. The proposal is that 69th Street would beclosed at the east edge of last Avenue and that a cul-de- ? sac would be constructed at. the. south end of 2Rnd Avenue. These changes would permit expansion in a southerly direction at a later date. Tt,is estimated by the architects that the golf course facility as planned can be constructed within the overall project budget of $1,885,000, which was adopted by the city council on September 11, 1.978. Final 'approval of the plans and specifications for the golf course in late November will permit the receipt of bids bymid- January, 1979. The-sale of a-gross revenue bond issue is scheduled for the end of March, 1979 which would permit the award of con- struction contracts- in early April, 1979. The timetable, assuming that all phases of the project proceed on schedule, is as follows: .w Council. Letter No. 3.42 -2- November 27, 1978 November 27, 1978 December 21, 1978 January 4, 1.979. January 15, 1979 January 22, 1979 March 21, 1979 March. 26, 1979 Council approve final-plans and authorize advertisement for bids- Pre-bid conference Pre-bid conference Bid Opening. Council authorization of Gross revenue. bonds Special City Council Meeting for sale of ~ bonds Council award construction contracts April 15, 1979 Begin construction August,.. 19.80 Course open for play The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and the Golf Course Citizens Committee have both reviewed the final plans and specifications for the golf course project. It is the recommenda- tion of both bodies that the. city council approve the final plans and specifications and authorize the advertisement for bids. The park and recreation director and the project architects will be present at the November 2?, 1978 city council meeting to present the final site and building plans and to .answer questions. After review of the final. plans and: spec ifications, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, approving the final plans and specifications for the golf course project, and authorizing the advertisement of bids for this project. Respectfully submitted, ~. Wayne S. Burggraaf City Manager WSB/eja cc: Park and Recreation Director Finance Director Public Works Director RESOLUTION NO, RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL-PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND CALLING FOR ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE GOLF COURSE PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO, 688 WHEREAS,' the City. of Richfield has for some time considered the possibility of providing a municipal golf course, and WHEREAS, various preliminary and final approvals have been received from such agencies as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Airports Commission,-the Minnesota Historical Society, the Federal Aviation Administration, and WHEREAS, the city council has executed architectural agree- ments with Brauer and Associates for site planning and Richard Schwarz/Neil Weber, Inc. for building planning, and WHEREAS, on August 28, 1978 the city council approved prelim- inary site plans and authorized the preparation of final site plans and specifications, and WHEREAS, on August 28, 1978 the city council approved a total project budget of $1,885,000 including $560,000 in Special Revenue Funds, $25,000 in Revenue Sharing Funds and $1,300,000 in gross revenue bonds, and WHEREAS,-on September 11, 1978 the city council approved preliminary building plans and authorized preparation of final building plans and specifications, and WHEREAS, the Golf Course Citizen Committee and the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission have been extensively involved in the planning process, including meetings with various special in- terest-groups such as the Rich Acres neighborhood residents and representatives of the East Richfield Youth Softball and Baseball Associations, have reviewed the final plans and specifications "~ and recommended acceptance, and WHEREAS, the architectural firms have presented final plans and specifications to the city council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. That such plans and specifications are hereby approved. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authrozed and directed to advertise for bids on said improvements as required by law. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of November, 1978. ATTEST: Loren L. Law Mayor T omas Moran City C er CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager.. Council Letter No. 341 Agenda November: 27, 1978 ~~~ y~ ~~~~~ I~'$ The. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Gentlemen: Subject: Commercial Planned-Unit Development United National Superblock, Second Reading United National Corporation, the principal applicant for the. commercial planned unit development rezoning in-the block of the. Hub Shopping Center, has advised that the PUD will not be finalized by the November 27, 1978 city council meeting. They have requested that the hearing on this item be continued to the December 11, 1978 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, s .~~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/ e j a cc: City Clerk Planning & Redevelopment Director 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, Office of City The Honorable Mayor .Members and of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: MINNESOTA Manager Council Letter No. 340 Agenda November: 27, 1978 Subject: Ordinance Sauna Amendment Relating to Licenses, First Readincx At the November council requested the amendment relating to licenses permitted in The licenses standing on file. 13, 1978 city the numbernof the city. municipal code currently to four, At the present license, and there are no Attached is an ordinance attorney which amendment parlor licenseSwould reduce the n drafted by the city in force umber. of sauna and tO one license, at any one time massage the November 27 This ordinance from four licenses consideration.. 1978 cit amendment. is bein Y council agenda for. city pouncal °n WSB/eja Respectfully submitted, VV ~- Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager council meeting, the city to draft an ordinance saunas and massage parlor limits the number time, there of such aPPlicationss only one out- for new licenses cc: City Attorney Public Safety Director 8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 339 Agenda November 27, 1978 t_.~._~l ~ ~ - D The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council. City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Setting Date of Hearing .for Capital Improvement Program The preliminary 1979/84 Capital Improvement Program. was submitted to the city. council several weeks ago. The staff is in the process of finalizing the recommendations for this Capital Improvement Program .and. it is anticipated that the final recommendation will be submitted to the-city council by the end of November. It is recommended that the city. council schedule a public hearing on the 1979/8.4 Capital Improvement Program for the regular council meeting of December 11, 1978. Respectfully submitted, ~. ~~r~ Wayne S. Burggraaff' City Manager WSB/ej a cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director Public Works Director Public Safety Director Park and Recreation Director Finance Director Administrative Assistant .. ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager 9 Council Letter No. 338 Agenda November 27, 1978 ~rnVP~~ 'S-D The .Honorable Nlayor and Members- of the City Council City of Richfield ' Gentlemen: Subject: Moratorium on the Filling of Position Vacancies During the 1977 budget hearings, the city council established a moratorium on filling full time position vacancies. The purpose of this letter is to request the city council waive this. morator- ium to permit the following full. time positions to be filled: Clerk Stenographer II--This position .vacancy results from . a resignation,. This position is responsible for handling the more difficult licensing activities including the preparation of the daily cash summaries. Parks Maintenance Person--This position vacancy also is the result of a resignation and is one of two position respons- ble for the care and upkeep of the ice arena. Since both of these positions are crucial in terms of work. load and are fully funded in the budget, it is recommended that the moratorium be lifted to permit their immediate filling.. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ti Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Finance Director Parks & Recreation Director Personnel Director e .+.~ .~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of ..City Manager Council- Letter No. 337 Agenda November 27, 1978 ~ ~~°~~ The Honorable Mayor ~-~- -~`-~°~-D--~~ and d_n ~~,~ ~ ~,_.,) Members of the City Council ~ ,- e1-„a~.~ City of Richfield .~~~„- '~-~ ~a-.e`~J g Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit, Off-Street Parking Contract and Right-Of-Way Agreement 6545 Penn Avenue On November 13, 1978 the city .council deferred action on a request from Cardco Investment Company for a special use permit to allow them to convert the existing vacant service station at -6545 Penn Avenue into a Clark's Submarine Sandwich Restaurant. A copy of Council Letter No. 324, providing background information on this request, is attached. a The city council requested the staff to meet with the appli- cant in an attempt to resolve right-of-way questions. along. 66th Street and Penn Avenue adjacent to the site. City and county staff members have met with Mr. Tiesdal, the property owner, and reached the following agreement: 1. The property owner will enter into an agreement with the city providing that no improvements will be con- structed within the 12-foot additional right-of-way on either 66th Street or Penn Avenue. This right- of-way designation conforms with .Hennepin County long-range design for the intersection. 2. The city or county will acquire the additional right- of-way when it is needed for street construction.. 3. The applicant will provide 17 off-street parking spaces, resurface the parking lot and close the two curb. cuts closest to the intersection of 66th Street and Penn Avenue. 4. Sidewalks will be provided along Penn Avenue and. 66th Street, and a bus shelter provided .on 66th Street 5. The curb cuts are increased from a 20-foot width to a 24-foot width. ~ ~.. 4. Council Letter No. 337 -2- November 27, 1978 It is the conclusion of the Planning and Redevelopment Director -and the Public Works Director that the agreement nego- tiated with Mr. Tiesdale would. resolve the right-of-way questions raised by-the city council at the last meeting. The Public Works Director has also reviewed this application to insure compliance by the applicant with all ordinance provisions regulating off- street parking contracts, and has concluded that the applicant's off-street parking proposal complies with all applicable ordinance provisions. It is, therefore, recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1.. Approve the special use permit in accordance with the attached site plan, with the stipulation that the property owner enter into an agreement preserving the Penn Avenue and 66th Street right-of-way. 2.' Approve the,off-street parking contract. 3. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute an agreement with the. property owner, as described herein, providing for preservation of the 66th Street - Penn Avenue right-of-way. .Respectfully ubmitted, ~ • ~% Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public .Works Director Planning & Redevelopment Director r ~~, ~ 'i~'' - - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ,::~ `~ ~ ~ Office of City Manager Council Letter No. '~~~ k -_ "5'~• Agenda November 13 , -:The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Special•Use Permit Request at 6545 Penn Avenue A request has been received from Cardco Investment Company 324 1978 -for a~special use permit to allow them to convert the existing °''"" vacant service station .into a Clark's Submarine Sandwich Restaur- ant at Ei545 Penn Avenue. The following items are attached for your reference: -~! - A - Proposed site plan _ B - Elevation drawings of proposed restaurant L - Zoning map D - Land use map E - Comprehensive Plan map -F - Conditions for issuing a special use permit (Section 3.33, Sub. 4 and Section 3.41, Sub. 5) `` G - Petition and map indicating property owners contacted by applicants H - County turning movement study °I - Staff plan showing how right-of-way can be dedicated BACKGROUND Tne applicants are proposing to renovate the existing gasoline service station structure into a 32-seat restaurant with carryout service. The proposal would involve. substantial improvements to the structure and site including addition of windows, facial treat- ment and landscaping. Site Area: Site Zoning: Existing Site Use: Proposed Site Use: Surrounding Zoning: Surrounding Land Use: Parking Spaces Prop- osed Parking Spaces Re- quired: 100' x 128' (12,800 square feet) Industrial Vacant service station Restaurant North and East - Industrial South and t4est - General Commercial Commercial 20 11 { Council Letter No. 324 -2- November 13, 1978 ,_ ,~, Building Area: 28' x 48' (1,344 square feet) Comprehensive Plan: High/medium density mixed 1a.nd,.use ,i The zoning ordinance in Section 3.33, subdivision 2 and Section 3.34, subdivision 1, requires that restaurants can only be located in industrial districts of the city if a special use permit is ob- taned. No special use permit for. a restaurant currently exists on the site. STAFF REVIEW Special Use Permit The staff .has reviewed the proposed restaurant site plan against .the following: ,~ 1. Comprehensive Plan 2. Conditions for issuing a special use permit (Section 3.33, sub. 4 and Section 3.41, sub. 5 of the city code) Comprehensive Plan - The comprehensive plan indicates the site should be developed with high to medium density mixed land use including such uses as office, institutional, light and research oriented industrial,- retail commercial and multiple dwellings. -The restaurant is a re- ;tail commercial type use and is in compliance with the comprehensive ` plan use category. However, the restaurant is not medium to high .:density and does not conform to the comprehensive plan density `goals. Conditions for Issuing a Special Use Permit '.The conditions. for issuing a special use permit for a restaur- ant use require that the use be in substantial compliance with the standards found in Section 3.33, subdivision 4 and and not be detrimental to the public welfare tSection 3.41, subdivision 5). ..Staff has reviewed the proposed use and found it to be in substant- ial compliance with Section 3..33, subdivision 4 and in making this finding, staff has considered the following potential detriments: Parking Requirements - Twenty (20) off-street parking spaces would be provided. This is nine more than would be required by city parking guidelines. The restaurant would have a high turnover rate with carryout service which creates a high, short term demand for parking. ``~ The twenty spaces provided should be sufficient to meet the needs. Traffic Circulation - The applicants proposed to close - the two existing driveways closest to the Penn Avenue- ' 66th Street intersection and relocate the otfler two entrances to better relate to the parking layout. The remaining driveways will allow two-way circulation into {. Council Letter No. 324 -3- November 13, 1978 ~, and out of the site and driving aisles will be wide K enough to allow proper vehicle circulation on the site. Pedestrian Amenities - Sidewalks would be maintained on ali building frontages to allow for proper pedestrian movement. The applicants have also agreed to relocate their proposed sign and to provide additional sidewalk on the corner between their landscape area and the exist- ing sidewalk which will help to alleviate the existing narrow sidewalk problem in .the area. The applicants :have also agreed to provide an 8' x 16' easement to the city so that a needed bus shelter can be located on the corner of 66th Street and Penn Avenue. Congestion on Surrounding Streets - Existing traffic .volume on Penn Avenue is 15,800 (slightly under capacity) 'and the volume on 66th Street is 20,675 (over capacity). Public safety department records indicate that the number of accidents from 1972 to October 11, 1978 at the Penn _ Avenue/66th Street-intersection is as follows: 1972 - 18 1973 - 16 1974 - 26 1975 - 27 '"'.; :~. 1 976 - 21 1 977 - 1 7 1978 - 13 Total -138 Existing congestion in the area is high and the accident -'rate is.high compared. to other areas in Richfield. Public improvements such as street widening to provide separate turn lanes and signalization for left-turn movements are necessary to improve the existing congestion. A turning .movement study conducted by Hennepin County in May, 1978 . indicates that there is a need for left-turn lanes at the intersection with the greatest need being for westbound traffic on 66th Street wishing to go south on Penn Avenue and for southbound traffic on Penn Avenue wishing to go east on 66th Street. Twelve. feet of additional right-of- way would be necessary for each new turning lane. AIr. Tiesdale, the property owner on which the proposed Clark's Restaurant would be located, has indicated that he is unwilling to provide additional right-of-way for turning lanes. The attached site plan (Exhibit I) shows how right-of-way could be dedicated on 66th Street resulting in the loss of only one parking stall and providing the same amenities. However, because the property owner is not voluntarily willing to dedicate right-of-way, a requirement to dedicate right-of-way as a stipulation for the special use permit may be successfully challenged. Also, the city may lose some of the other amenities which the applicant has agreed to provide. Council Letter No. 324 -4- November 13, 1978 ~, < To analyze the effect which the proposed restaurant would have on the existing condition, it is necessary to compare the trip generation rate of the restaurant.. -and the service station use which the restaurant is replacing. A study conducted by the Ohio Section of the Institute of Traffic Engineers showed the following: Peak Hour Daily Land Use (trips/1,000 sq.f t. GFA){trips/1000 sf GFA) Fast Food Rest. 73 561 'Service Station 43 622 '', The study indicates ghat a fast food restaurant would generate more peak hdur trips than a service station but would generate less daily trips. _This means that there would be more congestion-during certain hours (noon and dinner time) but less ongestion on a daily basis. _ ~ The proposed closing of ', the .two entrances nearest to the intersection will result in safer turning movements into and out of the site. Th`s.would have a positive effect on congestion in the are4i. '~ I It is the staff's opinio ,`that the proposal will not result ., ;. ~~- in a substantial increase~in traffic or congestion from the previous use on the s`te. Aesthetics - The ro osed ~ evelo meet w u h P p ~ p o ld aye a positive effect on the aesthetic appearance of the site and the area. The building renovation and~tthe additional .site landscaping ,- will greatly improve the vi~~ual appearance of the site. This is particularly import~.nt on a highly visible corner - for creating a positive imag'~e of-the community and for acting as a stimulus for other prop{arty owners in the area to im- . prove their property. It wi~_1 also. have a positive effect on property values. Best Use of Land - The Penn A~,enue - 66th Street intersection . is a high volume intersection ~cvhich makes the area surround- . - - ing it desirable, valuable commercial property. The best use of land from a tax benefitlbasis would, therefore, be one which maximized the intens%ty of development to maxi- mize the tax benefit to the city. There are .market factors which limit the intensity of development in the area, how- - ever. The nearness of Southdale, Southtown, and the L/H/N .area reduces the marketability of the area for high in- tensity uses. This limits the type of development which - can reasonably be expected to occur in the area to less intensive uses such as the proposed restaurant. In summary, the staff has found that the proposed restaurant would be in compliance with the standards for restaurants, would result in beneficial improvements to the building and site, and would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Council Letter No. 324 -5- November 13, 1978 ~. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the above review, the staff would recommend that the special use permit be issued. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The planning commission considered .this matter at their October 24, 1978 meeting. One area property owner appeared before the planning commission and expressed concern about the number of existing restaurants in the area. The planning commission on a vote of 6-2, moved to recommend that the council issue the special use permit with the stipulation that staff is satisfied that the -'size and location of sign and that the sign does not result in any visibility problems on the corner. Commissioners Ertman and Helmberger.voted "no" on the motion. Some of the commissioners expressed concern about the size of the sign. being proposed and the close proximity of the sign to .the 66th Street and Penn Avenue corner. The applicant agreed to move the sign back. The proposed sign conforms to the sign ordin- ance. :The commissioners were also concerned about the congestion on 66th Street and Penn Avenue. Several commissioners expressed the-need for dedication of right-of-way on Penn Avenue or 66th 4~,~ =`Street to help solve the problem. Respectfully submitted, - ~ ~ . ~~~~ ~~ .Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director- Public Works Director iG Fs 4~: -_ ~ ~; :_ ~ ~ ' ~ 4 F _- -. ~ ~- ~ _ NIJ ~ F __ G - _ ~ YiFnF s~D 2 F -"- - ~ tla J'y f ~ E~9. _ ,_ zvs ~~ Ol ~~8 ~ _ •e=d ~ a - ~ _ / - tz-C ' ' • ~. z . I _ ,\J I ._ o ,-.~ ! ~ s _ __ z __ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~{ -_ / i - { s t _ ~~ _ ~ _ I to I' ~ - ~ I i 4 I Irv ' ~ -; -. t I I.~ _ t __ . I_ 1 rr_ ¢ ~ hI ~ --- - -- Ic :ti _ ~l~ z •-' ~~ ~ + 11 ~ I ~ ~ - _~ [ r '!Y rlv .~ e ~ ~~ ,ti iw v ' • I ~ I ~ I --'~ it ~ 1 ~! .. ~~- n .-. ti n -~ -, .-, h 1; rT ~ ~ ~ ~ r^ , ~: ,. ~(~l ~~ j~~ 1a~_ ~ -"tip ~? ~ - I; I :~~`'~ t~~~1~`.]LYJ~ ~ t~ l ` I uo~..+~....,,.....w..,.....>.~e.ou.amveeen _, .. '~ .Y >.. .i t lil'.'. :.aJC CIA N•.' - - _____._. _ _..__. _~ --_ .., - Fy a~ is ^.~, 1 -. ~'- .'wtl _ ~. ~-y:- :r:::.r - ... .,~f -~:3~a _ ~ _ .. . ~ _b.er. f __ __ - . . a :' .4yyLv ~ '~.i2~ ya ..Q ~ L - - __.. u~- ~ r, _ . ~ ~_ - € t~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~~ ~- <: _ ~ --, ~ ~ ~._ _ '^ a _ j ~ ( ( k ~/ '{~`~ { - - - _ i ~ ~/ `~~rSv C~V+ts~ x~f~ sy i I ~ i ' I x _ ~~ - -. li ,~ i ~-- Q c U. ~__ m ~ ' / / y ~ I ~i,: ~ I ~ a ~ '/ .~ ~<~ /~ II • I ' ~~ j ~~ '/ ' r ~i ~>~/ 1 I I ~.~ ~ ~ `~ jj ~~ ~ I ~-~• t-~1 ,, ~, .I ~~ :/ ~- ~-- ~~~ .:,,,~~. I ~ i' `~ ~ ~ ~._,, I - t: ~ I ~~: ~~~ ~~. ;. ~~~~ i ~,.,.. ~ i \\\\~ S' • ~ - it r f t' t~ .' ~ n .-. ~ -.., -z__. ! ~ '~-.~.i ~ A '~~~}. f'^Y i~ 1..n ~ ;'/w t.:.; ~~:d. ul I ...,..,._.......~.,.....o.,,,.~,.m~..~, ~:K .,-r--- - -- . - - x ,. , _ - - ~_ - _ _ . t~^C ~.~. .. - - ~ • ,~ ~ ~ Y ' ~ ~ 6aaa eayba .e d a ~ : aRea a _ y~prr4;~ E:s. ~r 1 I: liakFKi{ c0 Atli ~ 1;i~ d L s nir?:ij~.:~4c ii - eta:a~S'siid~3l~,ie73dd~i3jlii~i ~'_•'•~•' •a:v:s_s=zasza:zsscazs: ~.. . _ ~:~_~_ .i-: r_ . •. i. ;j: ~. ~ . - - I- ;Y,' I Y.-~ n.- ~~- :~-~;. --- ~:i - :.,.; _ - -~ _ }._ ••h.~4• ~ - k....rY_- ~ Y ~- r~ _ '~ ~^S~t °k;; U.` rr 1)~•i~i ia,\~w -a .Y- ._ _: .:. _ ti ~a : `•' ~ ~' ~: •_ ~ s ~i^ ~~.} ~a~ \ ~ t - :- . . ,,~.~ .,- ;~ ~y~ ~ . ~, -- -- - ---~-,, ----i _.. _ ~__~ T~s! lei ~ 3 r t ~ ~~ .. y ~ '- ~_ ~~ ._ - - - ...sic: y _ "'t - . ~`.'~ 1 ~'~- - - ~~ : s' ,. 3 -. t 2 - : --- • ~ ~- - - - - I -- - - ---- -~ •~ . , 1} ~~p "'ITTS~ ~ i;-_ ~.~R~ - s~ ~ ~ J - ~ ''l1 `,a"i _ 1 ,- ., ~ 'tea"~` ~ _ • ~ "~ ' _ . - ~ - ~~ - _ ' GENERAL C~MMERCIA~~_-=~ ~_ _ A ~~~ - --~ ~: '' - MULTIPLE RESIDENCE GENERAL I(~JDUSTRIAL ri_ Zoning _ _ Land Use Map - -- .4 ~~ ., ~~' ~ 1~^>- -r~-j~-, -; ~~ ~f ~. ~ ~~ `~~ i3.ti3~ 13~ 3i , 3 ~ lz 73~3f Za A, 6~ ~ 11. `.-~. ,~,, i0 ~ 11.x,`- . ~ 9y ~ w@ `J (/3z6)'~ a ~..... ,:?z..~ a ...w. h ~e,c< -_~ _ (f~.e) o _.~ ,~ . ~ ~ .A, a F: ~~ ~- z ~~ 4 0 i ~ ~~°.,, ~~ IY 41 ~. ~ ggLY6 I Jg `' i ~' ~'~ i. ~ 134x h ~ ; 15. ~~ ~-- ~~; ~ ~ 4~~: w ~~ " z ~ r:. ~ ,a f • ~ ~ a .1; 4y~ T ro t G. .2io-- M .. .-, .. - o ~ + ,...,_ n 0 _ ` ~' ~. . J ~ r 4 7 '{ 1 _ c N bc. - h ' ~ r ~ .. ~ n .. r i 1 .~ .r ~ O .Y e M 1t 4 '.^,~". ~ p 'i a -'~` ` i~ v, .fl w n I q ~ >` v 5~.; i::_in ,.. i.` '3 I = S. l,__ ~~ `, ~ -9. -. • . ~ .~{A .ir ~. ~J L ~' 2; ~ + -~ --~ ~ - . 3. = 4_~ -=-___ ~ ~ ~ ' ____ I _ __ 19 V 1' ~Vf___ `• ~ _ _ ---'-~ ~ b -- - "' 7 •~__-- :1 ~- __ __ .. _. ~ .: _ ~ ~y ... 'T( • _ ~N-~ ~~ IpUBLIC .SINGLE FA1`Y1lLY ~ RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAJ~1ILY RESIDENTIAL cor~~r~-IERCiAL IN~7USTRIAL ,~- r ~:~ ~. ~, ,_ ~_ •~ i ., µ __ i v~ ~-° - ~; a.~...E ~~ - - E. ..E ~'~ ~~ - -- T" ,.....E ~..EE C e~ ,~y ~,,- - _- --- ---_~_ ~ -- - _ - 1.~ ..... N..E ,..e:..e '- f }.~ x ; } _ _ - - = M ~"' ~ - -$-~ - r ...E:..e _ - - - ~.~.' r z uoa cx ..c ~Itft~\ ~-~ .. .~~~. -~:...r°~°`.~.. e{~i..~~'^i+~',g~ ~{\~ ~' ~~~ ~E ..E (~ ~ - ~ .fir - - - '~ F^a.°"~` _-~ .s ~ ~ -~ .,E.:..., ... .~o.,~~ ..E ~~i ~~ ~ _ ~a ,; 111 ..E ..~ ~ ~' ~ _ - _..._ _'.rL. ~ i.._- - li J~ .-_,-__ ..--_----____ ._. _ _ - _ ~, r .,,, . ......~ ~I .~ .. - _ .. ,,., ... ~~I =- - - ~ j ,,.... ,.. ,. ..a - x,. #i , ~~ ~. (k) A11 exterior lighting will be so designed, placed and operated as not to be a nuisance to adjacent properties. (1) If the station or garage is to be located in a shopping center or other integrated development, it will be in architectural harc:ony *.aith the rest of the center or development. (m) The station or garage will not provide for the outdoor operation of lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts or service pits, or the Outdoor display of merchandise; but the outside underground storage of gasoline and other petroleum products between pumps, or the temporary display of merchan- dise within 4 feet of the station building is per.~.itted. (n) If the station or garage is not to be located on a count-:- roams or state highway, it shall not be operated bet:aeen the hours of 11:00 .m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day. (o) If the site is at an intersection, provision will be made for an unobstructed area on the site, adjacent to and within 50 feet of the in- tersection, free of vehicles, signs (other than a pedestal sign), displa-s or other materials which tend to obstruct intersection visibilit~~. Subd. 4. Regulations Relating to Hotels, >`lotels; Restaurants and Cafes. A special use permit shall not be granted for a hotel, motel, restaurant cr cafe unless the council finds that the proposed use will be in substantial compliance with the following standards: (a) The use will not create undue traffic hazards or traffic con- gestion either on the public streets adjacent to the site or on the parking areas on or adjacent to the site or on streets adjacent to the site unto which traffic to or from the site is channeled. (b) Adeouate provision will be made, through the use of building setbacks, buffer areas, screening, and exterior treat ;lent or placement of the building on the site to avoid noise, glare, fumes, dust, and any other sources of nuisance or annoyance to adjacent properties. (c) Adequate provision will be made through the use of building setbacks, screening, landscaping, exterior design and placement of the building on the site to avoid noise, glare, fumes, dust and any other sources of nuisance or annoyance to users, or patrons of the facility. (d) Adequate off-street parking space is available for patrons and • employees. (e) If liquor is to be sold on the premises (1) of the property abuts upon a main thoroughfare of the city, (2) access to all off-street par!:in; space is from internal driveway systems and is not directly from public streets, and (3) provision is made for well-designed vehicular stacl:in,~ spat; allowing for an efficient and orderly flow of traffic from the site unto adjacent main thoroughfares of the city. "Main thoroughfares of the city", as used in this paragraph, means a street designated cis a state trunk hi~t::,•ay or a service drive adjacent to the state trunk higttway, a state si~i i~i~,hway, a county aid highway, a county highway, or a street which is so lu`att:d as to serve, primarily, commercial development. (E3i11 197u-10) 4/?6/7~ (f) The proposed facility will provide an aesthetic appear~in~c whi,:1 will not detract from or conflict with the existing or proposed architectural form of buildings in the same area. (g) Ttte use will noC create an excessive burden on publ i~ p.ir'::s, public open-space, streets, ur utilities re~uirin~ public ;er~,~icea t~i~i~:; are proposed to serve the facility. ~+%~5/7b GS.l C1TY OF RICHFIELD, ti1iNNESO~A ORDINANCE CODE ~` (h) The proposed development will not conflict coith the comprehensi~:e development plan of the city-. Subd. 5. Height Regulations. In a "C-2" district no buildin shall hereafter be erected or structurally altered to e:cceed three stories of ~0 feet in _height, subject to the modifications and exceptions provided in Section 3.39 of this chapter. Subd. 6. Lot Areas and Yard Reauire:^.ents. (The sa~~~e require^;ents shall be observed for the "C-2" district as are provided for a "G-1" district in Section 3.32 of-this chapter.) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subdi~~ision the same minimum requirements shall be observed for "C-2"' district as are provided for a "C-1" district in Section 3.32. (2) A gasoline service station may construct a canopy extended into the building setback area of the lot on which it is Located provided that such canopy complies with the following regulations: (a) It must be designed and constructed to serve as protection for customers and attendants from inclement weather. (b) It may extend into the front yard area distance of 10 feet, as measured from the centerline of the ~asolir.e pump island closest to the street lot line but in no instance Moser than five feet from this lot line. (c) Only one canopy shall be permitted at each service station, unless it is located on a corner lot. c~~~~ L (d) It shall be designed and constructed as an integral part of the main service station building and shall extend from such building. (e) The canopy shall r.ot be constructed to a ilei~ht esceedin si:~teen feet. (f) The canopy shall not be designed for use nor shall it be used as a location for any business or advertising sign of a permanent or te:~porary construction. (g) LightinG located on the canopy shall be designed as an inte`ral part of the canopy providini; that fixtures shall not extend below the bottom surface of the canopy structure and shall be beamed downward. (h) The canopy shall not be used as the location for lights or lighting fixtures used to illuminate the service station building, off-street parking areas or other areas not directly beneath the ,canopy. Flashing lights and rotating lights shall not be located on or attached to the canopy. (i) Vo canopy, whether it conforms-with the foregoing; regulations or not, shall be constructed in a location or manner which will block or obscure the vision of automobile traffic on an}• street adjacent to the servi:~e station or the vision of an automobile entering or leaving t!)~ strvicc statio;:. (Bill 1972-6) 3/,13/72 Subd. 7. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.'~0 the co:,ncil m(t~• <~rnnt an exception or an adjustment to an~,~ of the reduire:aents uE this section whore the council finds that the project en~oura~~s a more creative ;iiid efticicnt approach to the use of land and to c~n~. ironmuntal desi~,:1 than is provided (: ci~r the strict application of t`:~ zonin ; r.~::ulati.Ons of thr city, hrovi~lcd th ~t the pr0)eCC LS CO[lSl.;;t('nC 4I1Lh thc? ~t~Ch~)SE'S ~)l stl~h '.'~`;:'1;1tL~~ilti, (Bill 1972-v) 3/13/7_' ORDINANCE CODE 3! 13i 7? 6ti ~ CITY OF RICNFIELD,'~1iNNESO?a 3.41. SPECIAL USE PERi~fITS Subdivision 1. Issuance. Special use permits may be issued for any of the following: (1) Any of the uses or purposes for which such permits are required or _permitted by the provisions of this chapter. (2). Public utility or public service uses or public building in any --.:istrict .when found to be necessary for the public health, safety, convenience or welfare. (3) Commercial excavating or natural materials used for building or con- struction purposes, in any district. (4) To classify as a conforming use any institutional use existing in any district at the time of the establishment of such district. (5) ~To permit the Location of any of the following uses in a district fre:~ which they are excluded by the provisions of this code: airport, library, community center, church, hospital 4nd institution of an educational, philan- thropic or charitable nature, cemetery, crematory, mausoleum or any other place for. the disposal of human dead. (6) For any use covered by Section 3.35. - ,~.} ~~~: r Subd. 2. Limitation on Issuance. A special permit may not be issued for the purpose of granting an adjustment or appeal pursuant to. Section 3.40 nor for any use not authorized for the specific district for which the permit is sought, nor for any use prohibited in all districts by the provisions of this part. Subd: 3. Application. Application for the issuance of a special use permit shall be made to the chief inspector. Any proceedings to classify certain uses as conforming uses as provided in this section may be initiated either by sue:: application or by the council. . Subd. 4. Public Hearing. The council may hold such hearings on the proposal to issue a special use permit as it may consider necessary; but at least one public hearing shall be held by the council or by a committee or commission to be designated by the council in any application for a use permit for the establishment of. any use listed in Subdivision 1, Subsections 5 and 7, of this section. Subd. S. Conditions Governing Issuance. The council shall not grant a permit for any of the uses enumerated in Subdivision 1 hereof unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use for which a use permit is sought will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental, (1) to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, or (2) to the public wel- fare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Subd. SA. Conditions Governing Issuance of a Special Use Permit in an Officially Approved Redevelopment Area. The council shall nut gr~rnt a permit for any uses enumerated ~in Subdivision 1 hereof unless it finds that the es- tablishment, maintenance ur operation of the use for which the permit is sou~nt is in compliance with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan, with any ufficiall~~ adopted redeveloprnent plans and :irban design guidelines thereof, and with the city's parking res;rilations and landscape guidelines. (Bill 197S-1) 2/13175 ORDINANCE CODE 2113/73 81 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA •y ;~ '. .. - REQUEST FOR SPECInL USE PER'•iIT OF 6545 peen Avenue South FOR PURFOSE OF restaurant remodelln~ Legal Description: Slid quarter of the SYJ quarter of the SW quarter of the NW quarter of Section 28,Township 28, Range 24, located at NE corner of intersection of peen Ave south and ~,1est 66th Street, Village of Richfield, Hennepin county, p~Iinnesota. ~ommencin~ at ' SW corner of Nt.~ quarter of 5.28, T-28, R-24; thence easterly 133 feet; thence northerly at right ancles to said half section line - 158 feet,- thence westerly 133 feet. W 66th on South and peen on West We, the undersigned, being owners of itr^ediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the Special Use as requested. ~ ~ ____SiQnature of Owners '~ ~ :.~~tt ~ •~ ~b~ ~ ~\J~ ~? • ~ ~~ Address Le;~31 Pescriat'_ :~ ~~..~,.sd 1 V ~ ~' ~ ~5 ?~ j~~.~ I 1 J "~~~ .< i ' • '}'~ ~ t> Q--s ~ ' ~ = si :.-i. ~ . ~ +•• r : + -~t ~. } t •Y ii-.v tf ~i~ es i-- I 3727 HILLTOP fiOAt") b1IYNETONi~A, MNo ` Jj " _'u J.r"~ 4 1~ ~ ~3 1~~1~'. '~~ ~ + '; Y f -~'Z,~?..r-' . ~--. . ~ `• of ~ - s 1 j .. I _ _ . ` --._~. I _ _-_- __~ _____.____.___-__~_ --~1 ___-_ __ ~~_y _____- - ~___. ___ I_ ' - -- - -- - I _, _____ .-___ __ I_ _ _-_ _ I I --, - --- -.---- - ____.. ~- v ~ --~ ti - _ _ • ' Y " V - I j; A. - Q' : 'L4 ; i i34 3i-- Q ~_ X40 ---- j I ' r- - -i ! 14 - ~ ~,s 7. ~ i µ-~; ~_ ~ ., , _ . i J iei 11. -- v +i ~ I ;,, i 0 ~ 1 1.. t,..s+e.~.t4:. X't• is ~' ~s~ ti• ~ L~~.y 3 J~~ 3 j j _ ~ I. n '2. o • ~ ~_ `;a _ cn- . ,, ~^,~.~~.~ ~ 651. sST.., ~,~? 1 s.as !. ._-;~ F. _ z '0 ~' I~cax~ ~ ~ 26~~ ~~ '..h"Sri•;~!1-. ` tff s- P ,col ~ lo. VVV~~~ { ri ~. ~~'^ .s ,,}} o ' i U ` G ~~ --- - --- L f ~ i Y ~ ~` f `4 ~ ~~~ - ~.:: ~ •19,x_ 35~ ,~~ ,,-- f , i .io l a ! E ~ 7y ~ ~ i i ~. k`' ~~ !' r°° r i~;r9~ ~ '.x - O tS,p:, ~. 14~. ~ 17 ~ -- ~ I . ~~ . v.r ~ f Z kl' V ` 4 ~ ' F ` ~~(. kS y J ~ ~i~ "r ,l _ -- ~ ~ - -^ - - - - ~1 ' r-`H~~I.T ~S,'~4 j i•1~'t.?I !y~I.i}~j:t i!~;+ ` ~~', a C ~ 1 "~ I c 1 r• z- -Y-- c ; ~----- - ~ -_y 1~.-._,-J ~. ~~~_~' ~ _- ~ :~_ I i _ _ _` _ __ fix, ,--.-_- ~_ 1 _ It __~_~ - ~ ~^ 'T Jy a ~ Il ^ i ~. I/ ~ 1~ f f ~ ~ ~ ~+ V °'~ !~ .~.o ~ '~ a 'e `t -.~ ~_.,_ _ i pp r ,?~-~----. ~ `i !---- --- • I----- t- -- - - -- p~qp yy ~ n u ., we ~~ ~ I I' ~~ ' - I O I '~ ~ ~ I T I 13 ~ 3x0~O ~'-~'+._ - Y, ..-i ... _--~ ~ ._~! I h ~ ~__ ~ - '~ { . -~ I ~ ~ ) g e I t; 1 I f ~ ~-- I lr I a C !~+ ~-o ~ t - ~ ~` ~ 1---r : ter. o ~ ~ 1 ;., ' . ~ a lT J --17 n I 12 ~ I 13 I ^ 10 I ::''~~ ~ ---^ I~ t~r I ~ "~ '- ~ r} ~~ "yR~"i~-~ ~- `.~„ .-~ ~~~ __~.."+.= ;~? `II ''a'rk j w _ '1~ °~ ~5 •`j ~` 1'-~ - ~ M~~ by ~v~ ~ ~i tit .~~~ e~ I ~' "~ `I'i ~' a .. ~ ~~~- - e- LS a ¢~~ ~_ 4~ ~Iv 'c + i.i+ \ '.'.~ `1' I j '~ ~',:. ' ~ ~v~ I 1 . -~ ~ r` t ~ n ~ J.. ~ - ~~ t- ~# ~.I+ _~ (~~,1 .~t~ J'~ ''~ I ~ ~ ;J ,,off t~s.~ _. e.;'a ~ ~I I;,. lio ` .rra. ems.- - ~ i s_ _1 ~.__~ _ I a r. N r,j. a t, ~ Z ` << j, , . ~ Y :, ' 1 ' „! v- ' ~ + '' a ~~' ~ ( „ -1 1 ; ~ a-r. w G `' ~ s . I 4 _ ~ 3 r ---~ ~--- c l I i ~`- _ ~ i Zn ~ ~ S •. , ~ S a ~ ~! ~ -, 4 I 9 `~-~~ -~ ~ F" Q R ~' ~ T ti -- ;; , I r ~ _- B I; ,; ~ ~ E i r ~ - A a' `~ ----~" PROPERTY OWNERS CONTACTED . ~ ~ ~ I ~;, E, TURNING MOVEMENTS ` 6C TH & PENN ~~~ P =PEAK HOUR D= 6AM-IOPM 1=?19 ' ~' 18564 D P 868 D 10023 N~~~+,~~~-ICI PENN AVENUE alolal~lal~l _~ ~~ a o __ ::ao .. ;= _ _ w,= ~,~ NIL) ~ ~ - Q';- ~ ti ~ ~ 70 P 54 D ~ N m 525 P °' c~ cO ~ 4543 D l0 P 1295 D I 1 n. o c~ ~ m In co tim ~ }--- 653 P 7023 D W W (n f--- cfl tD P 15: D 162 ~~ P 59 D 985 P 470 LD ~ D 4217 ~ ~ P 179 D 1584 P 711 n aaaa \~ Exist. D/W to ~ -~~ --+- ~ Exist D/W to ~~ ~ be closed. ~ / be moved. / Sidewalk ~ ~ ~ 125 / / / / - ~ _ _ _ New D/W. ~ ~ ~~ ~°,5 t• >~ ` 24 ~ ~, -~~ ~ ~- ------~ i Future MTC 1 ~ , :~; ~,~ '~ -8us Shelter. s;3 tom- I ~ 1 ~ ~~~ Grass area ,,, ~ EXIST. D/W. ' 9~ 4' to be F--20~ Closed ~ PLANTING S Grass ~ area ~ ~ ~ ~~ x.r- 1 -:'T Y ~ - ~ - - ASPHALT OVERLAY -- '. ~~ rc{ ~ - - r{ (REMOVE CONC. iSIANDS) ' a _". t DRAINAGE TO BE UNDERGROUND RAMP H/C PRKG. ' I i i I I NEW ~ l i ~ D/W ~ - ~~ ~ N I R•0•W Line by AGREEMENT ~~t. ~,~,,~~ .;.. ausr i DATED -~~~;. _ to bs GRAS3 rt+avad AREA 9~ 1 . / /~ OWNER AND ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: USE: DATE OF APPLICATION: COUNCIL ACTION: NO. PARKING SPACES: _i Conc. walk - - ---~ I------- f 6545 Exist. Bldg. 28~ x 45~6~~ ~ 13~ F}-- ~ -~7 CARDCO Investment 703 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, 'Minnesota Sec. 28, T28, R-24, Plat 44828, Parcel 1320 6545 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, >`1inr.esota Restaurant (Clark's Submarine Sancwich? Novc~rr~er 1, 1978 ;'?o~~ember 2 ~ 1978 17 /~ ,~, The. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Gentlemen: Subject: Agreement for Lyndale Avenue Liquor Store Architectural Services -s ~~ ,~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 336 Agenda November 27, 1978 ~~ ~~ u~- ~. ~~ • There is an item on the November 27, 1978 city council agenda providing for approval of an agreement with Lindberg Pierce, Inc. to provide architectural services required for the Lyndale Avenue Municipal Liquor Store. The 1977 budget provided for construction of secondary basement exits at both the Cedar Avenue Liquor-Store and the Lyndale Avenue Liquor Store. The architectural firm of Lindberg Pierce, Inc. was retained at that time to perform the design work required for these projects. The work at the Cedar Store was completed late in 1977. However, when it became apparent that a portion of the Lyndale Avenue store property might be sold for other commercial development purposes it was decided to defer any design or construction of the secondary basement exit at the Lyndale Store. We made this decision in 1977 inasmuch as we did not know at that point im time how the 'construction of a new commercial building north of the Lyndale liquor store might impact our store operation. Moreover, the Lyndale Avenue liquor store is nearly 15 years old and it was concluded that there were several other items which should be addressed if any significant changes were to occur. Since-that time a portion of the Lyndale Avenue liquor store parking lot was acquired for the sum of $40,591 to provide for the~_lauridry/veterinary commercial building to the north. In addition, certain parking lot improvements have occurred along 65th Street on the south side of the liquor store. Street im- provements on Lyndale Avenue, including sidewalk construction are planned for 1.979 and will have. some impact on the area in front of the Lyndale Avenue store. Therefore, an $80,000 project consisting of the land sale profits and some additional liquor store profit funds has been proposed for 1979. The general items to be addressed in this project consist of the following: liquor store entrance-exit renovations; modifications to the check-out area inside the store; a general sprucing up of the general appearance of the h ~+ Council Letter No. 336 -2- November 27, 1978 interior of the store, including new carpeting, painting, etc.; possible redesign of the loading dock at the rear of the store; construction of a secondary. basement exit and exterior redesign to improve the appearance of the store to make it .consistent with other major development going on in the area. An agreement covering this work has been negotiated with the architectural firm of Lindberg Pierce, Inc. Architectural services would be provided on the basis of 9°s of total con- struction costs up to $100,000, with a maximum fee of $9,000. It is anticipated that preliminary plans could be prepared _ and :available for city council review early in 1979 which would permit the renovation work to occur during the early 1979 summer months. It is recommended that the .agreement-with Lindberg Pierce Inc. be approved. Respectfully submitted, ~- Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/ e j a cc: Liquor Store Manager Public Works Director Planning & Redevelopment Director