The URL can be used to link to this page

11-13-78 aqenda .. . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager ~r Council Letter No. 335 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: . Subject: Report on Proposed 1979 CETA Program We have recently been advised by the Hennepin County CETA office that it will be necessary for us to anticipate a 500 reduction in federal CETA funds effective November 17, 1978. These CETA funds will cover the 15 on-going CETA positions which the city has funded with CETA money for several years. Exhibit A lists the 15 original. 1978 CETA funded positions.. Each of these positions is shown in the annual operating budget as a CETA position. Exhibit A also briefly describes the responsibil- ities of individuals filling these positions. Exhibit B compares the original 1978 CETA positions with proposed changes to become effective November 17, 1978 and prop° osed changes to become effective January 1, 1979. It is anticipated that CETA funds will continue to become. available during the balance of this year and for next year to fund seven positions.. The changes proposed on Exhibit B indicate which positions would be dropped, which positions would be funded by the city and which positions would continue to be funded by CETA.- A relatively new CETA regulation prohibits us from filling a CETA funded position in the event the incumbent leaves. Therefore, unless this regulation is changed it is conceivable that the. number of CETA funded positions could fall below 7,later this. year or in 1979 in-the event we experience incumbent terminations. Although our CETA position allocation has been cut for the last one and one-half months of 1978, our total CETA revenues for the year are going to be higher than originally anticipated. Therefore, these higher than anticipated revenues will be sufficient to offset the additional cost of funding six positions for the last month and one-half of 1978. In 1979- the net additional cost ing the additional city positions is tween$11,000 and $23,000. The range to the fact that the new~CETA legisl level per position based on regional expect to have complete and accurate to the general fund for fund- estimated to be somewhat be- in the cost estimate is due ation provides a higher funding salary levels. 69e do not information on our 1979 Council Letter No. 335 -2- November 13, 1978 position funding levels for several weeks. Tt is recommended t CETA changes as outlined next in 1979 it would be contingency by an amount to reflect these changes not exceed 1979 revenues hat the city council approve the proposed in Exhibit B. Later this year or early necessary to reduce the 1979 general fund of somewhere between $11,000 and $23.000 and to insure that 1979 expenditures do because of these CETA changes. Respectfully mitted, • W` c~~ Wayne S. Burggraa~ City Manager. WSB/eja cc: Park and Recreation Director Personnel Director Finance Director .Public Works Director •r-I -~ ,c W W H H H a H w H z 0 a w 0 H H H a H W U w O 2 0 H H a. H 0.i U. ~~ W' Q' +~ ~ z~ i i i a ~ c d N ~ ~ u1 ~ 4-a N ~ +~ a~ ~ as ~ ~ ~, ~, +~ a a~ m ~ ~ O U O ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ a 3-i +~ ~ U ~ +~ ~ rd r-I rti N ~ '~ N •rI O rd N •,~ O ~ ~ N ~ w -t~ •~+ a~ a U ~ ~ a.~ c~ •~ ~ ~ o o ~ cn ~ •~ +-' ~ x ~ •~ (~ r-I U r-~ cti cd O r--I ~ u) U rtf cn •rl .-I tJ) ~ ~ ~ rl U ~ rl U O ~ R~ ~ m cd •~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ Q tR, U O ,.~ ~ ro •~~ ~ o ~ a~~ a ~~ +~ a~ a a ~ •~ U ~, •~o a~~ •~a~o a~~.~ ~~ a~ a +~ o a~ o b v a ~~ U •~ ~ -~ m •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o a~ ~ ~ .~ o ~ ~ .~ a~ ~ cn w3 a a~ a•+-~ a~~ H~,o ~ E-+~~ U •r-1 .,~ ~-I .r{ A .r{ m a~ a 0 ~r ro ~~ 0 .,-i ~ ~ cIi •r•I ~ m •~ OI .~ a ~-1 ~ 0 ~ rn ~, +~ .~ •rl U as O .,-i .~, O a v U .'..{ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ +~ma ~+~~ o ~ v ~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ M O N a -I, N ~ U •~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ •~ o ro ~~ •~ O ~ o .R ~ ~ ~ a cn b'~ •~ x ~ O •~ 3 A~ ~~ r+ o ~~ ~Y U N N U U .N .~, b +~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ v ~ O h~ a~ a~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U •rl ~ ~ °i~ U1 U cd ~-I 3-1 •ri ~' U ~ ~ ~ ro ~ ~ ~}'' us .~ ~ ~~ vo U ~ ~ •rl •~,~sx~ H ~ ~ ~ oa~oa~ a-~3~ m U •~i H ~ ~ U ~ ~ U i b ~ U r•I U ~ N •r-I ~ rtS U ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ °'~x°~' ~a~~~ «f ~ a rtS ~ •~ ~` ~ menus ~ ~ ~ ~ O tr ~ ~ ~, ~ a ~ •~ ~ a~ ~a~~ x,-+x ~ •ri U b~ ~a~os~ a ~u ,.~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +~ t7~ b ~ .r{ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ r-I O ~ ~ ~, .,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~' •~ •r•i ~-I U m ~ v Q H cn~ r O m N a a~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ N U ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ xx ~ ~ as v ~ ~ ~~ •~ U r-I r~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ v .~ +~ rtS ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro O ~ 0 ~ •~, o +~ .~, oa ~ ~ •~ O ~ • ~ •r•i +~ ~ ciS cn O ~ U ~ ~ ~~ ~ N O ~ O r-I In U b~ ~ N rd rti ~ ~ ~ m aO ~o~ o •~ ~~~ a 3 ~ r ~ U ~ ~ .~ r~ U ~7 H A ~ v O '~ ~ ~a ~ ~ w ~ ~ U +~ ~ ~ ~ O •~ ~ •~ ~ +-, ~ ~ •~ ~ mH m a° v 3 ~ +~ o •~+ ~-+ 3 b~ • ~ cn ~ ~ ~ ~ N •r•I ~ •ri •r•I a •N U a -~ ~ ~sro~m ~-I U •ri CSC O '~ ~ rd ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~~~~ ~ ~ •~ a~ob~ ~.,•~~~ U ~ O .~ U N O •t-~ a m U o r 0 U o~ ~-~ ~ ~ b~ 00 aU ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ w v v U +~ ~ ~ ~ O •~ ~ •~ m ~ +~ ~ •~ ~ ~N~ a° v 3 O .,-~ I rl ~ U1J U ~-1 •4-~ ~-I •ri -I-~ ~ N 3-1 Ul o~a~•~ aa~r+ u N ~-i U N .~ f' RS m•~~~ rti 'b N :-I UH ~ O a.~~'a ~~~ a~ ~x a~xo~ ~ rd •ri O a ~ •+~ 3 r +~ ~ ~U .,-{ a~ ~ +~ H •~ .~" .~ o U U PROPOSED CETA CHANGES Original Position & Budget Activity 1978 Positions Public Works Maintenance Person 3 Street Maintenance Janitor 2 Government Bldg. Maintenance Mechanic- 1 Central Garage Park Maintenance Person 5 Park Maintenance Naturalist 1 Nature Center Janitor 1 Ice Arena Programmer 1 Community Center Clerk Typist 1 Community Center Total City Funded Positions 0 Total CETA Funded Positions 15 * One of these positions to be funded by city. ** Position to be funded by city. 11/17/78 Positions 2* 2** 1** 4 1 1 1** 1** 6 7 Exhibit B 1/1/79 1 2** 1** 4 1 1 1** 1** 5 7 r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 334 Agenda November 13, 1978 .The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Payment for Slurry Kote Project The city council deferred action on approving -phis payment at the last city council meeting and .asked. that a representative of the company be present at the November 13th meeting. We have advised the company and asked that a representative be in atten- dance at the meeting Monday evening to respond to any questions which council members may have on this project. Respectfully submitted, ~~. S.~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/jkI cc: Public Works Director ` CITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 333 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: .Walser-Buick Temporary .Sign Application A Walser Buick temporary sign permit application was deferred from the October 23, 1978 city: council meeting to the November 13th meeting. Walser Buick has requested a permit to install 46 banner type signs along the south. side of their property. -These signs would each be two feet wide and four feet long and would be attached side to side in pairs. to 23 light pole standards fronting West 78th Street. The application filed by Walser Buick describes the signs as nylon banners. Banners are regulated by Richfield city code in the following manner: 53.49. Subd. 16. which reads in relevant part: (5) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material, and no temporary ground sign shall be located on any multiple-residence, commercial or industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit therefore from the council. Lf the council determines to grant an application for a special use permit for any such temporary sign or banneringy or any such temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and it shall be un- lawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special permit. No such special permit shall be for a period of mare than 60 days. No such special permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs or banners are prohibited by other provisions of this code. Walser Buick is requesting that these banners be permanently installed. Richfield ordinance Section 3.33, subd. 3(j) limits the number of permanent detached ground display signs of the pedestal type to one along a street frontage of .150 feet or less .and two for .~ Council Letter No. 333 - 2 - November 13, 1978 a street frontage in excess of 150 feet. Under these provisions, the signs could be permitted in .one of the following ways: 1. Placement of all 46 banners for a period not to exceed 60 days. 2. Permanent location of two banners if the street frontage is greater than 150 feet, which it is. At the last meeting, the city council asked the staff to research the circumstances surrounding any similar situations at the Lindahl Oldsmobile property. There are currently eight pedestal signs on the-north side of West. `78th Street and fronting the Lindahl Oldsmobile lot. These signs are approximately. the same size as the Walser Buick banners. They are constructed of metal, wood and plastic, mounted on free standing poles, and contain the "For Sale" caption on both sides. City records indicate six pedestal signs were approved by the city council in 1963 with the condition that all temporary signs be removed. To our knowledge, this removal took place except for the temporary banners that still remain over the new and used car lot east of the showroom. In 1966, two additional signs with the legend "For Sale." were permitted. In summary, there are three alternative courses of action avail- able to the city council in responding to .the Walser Buick request. for an erection of 46 banner type signs. These three alternatives are as follows 1. Permit placement of all 46 banners for a period not to exceed 60 days. It would not be possible to continually extend the 60 day permit period. 2. Permit permanent location of two of these banners. The municipal code does not permit the city council to grant permission for permanent placement of any more than two banners. 3. Ask the planning commission to make a recommendation on a, specific revision to the sign code which would give the city council greater latitude in responding to this request than is permitted in the two previous alternatives. Respectfully bmitted, , ~' Wayne S. Burggraaf City Manager WSB/jkl cc: Public. Works Director City Attorney ~~+~ 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 332 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Parking Restriction. in 6600 Block of Grand Avenue The city has received a petition from seven residents in the 6600 block of Grand Avenue-South requesting a parking restriction of "no parking-9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays" for. both sides of .the street in this block. A copy is attached. Seven other residents and two commercial establishments at -the corner of Grand Avenue and 66th Street did not sign the petition. The traffic committee has not had an opportunity to review this petition. However, Mayor Law asked that it be placed on the November 13th council agenda. All residents and the two commercial occupants. of the 6600 block on Grand Avenue South have been notified of the meeting. Respectfully submitted, G~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/jkl cc: Public Safety Director Public Works Director Planning & Recevelopment Director Administrative Assistant PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT City of Richfield, Minnesota Petition No. Dated Received T0: The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. We, the undersigned, owners of the real property abutting G800 b10Ck Of Grand Avenge So. hereby petition that such street be improves: by a Sian 1. 2. 3• ~~ 5• 6: 11. 12. n\ Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be ~igred by the required nwaber of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for. per cent City Clerk ._ /3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Council Letter No. 331 Agenda November 13, 1978 Subject:. Preliminary Review of Final Plans and Specifications for. the Golf Course Project The schedule for the golf course project provides that final city council. action approving plans and specifications should occur at the ~TOVember 27, 1978 city council meeting. Development of the plans are proceeding on schedule and will be available for action at that meet- ing. In addition, the architects and the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and the Golf Course Committee will be prepared to make formal presentations at that time. However, inasmuch as the golf course is a ject, we would like to take the opportunity to begs with preliminary final plan review at the meeting. The Park and Recreation Director wil available to present and will provide a status of this project. .large complicated pro- provide council mem- November 13 city council 1 have a number of items report on the progress All of the individuals associated with the development of this project have been directing their activities toward a quality golf course facility which can be constructed within the overall project budget of $1,885,000 adopted by the city council on September 11, 1978. The final plans and specifications will provide for a regulation 18 hole course, a nine hole.par three course, a driving range, access road and parking lot, a club house and a maintenance building. The site plan also assumes a somewhat enlarged neighborhood park for the Rich Acres subdivision. The proposal is that 69th Street would be closed at the east edge of 21st Avenue and that a cul de sac would be constructed at the south end of 22nd Avenue. These changes would permit expansion in a southerly direction at a later date. Worlc on the relocation of four ball fields-has begun with earth work and seeding to be completed this year and the remainder of the ball field work completed next year. Final approval of the plans and specifications for the golf course in late November will permit the receipt of bids by mid-January, 1979. The sale of a gross revenue -- ~ ~` ,Council Letter No. 331 - 2 - November 13, 1978. bond issue is scheduled toward the end c5f March which will permit the award of construction contracts in early April. Assuming that all phases of the project proceed on schedule, the golf course should be open for playing during the latter part of the 1980 season. Respectfully submitted, ~. Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/jkl cc: Parks & Recreation Director Finance Director Public. Works Director L. ~~ ., ~ / d CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager . Council Letter No. 330 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City. of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Utility Easement Provision for North Liquor Store Development.. The purpose of this council letter. is to propose city council approval of a gas line utility easement to serve the Robert Jahn and Woodlake Veterinary Hospital development north of .the Lyndale liugor store. All of the parking lot area immediately south of the Robert Jahn ,and Woodlake Veterir_ary Hospital development is city owned property. The development agreement with the HRA provides that parking easements will give the developers access to city owned parking areas and give the city access to the developers parking area located in front of the new building on Lyndale Avenue. It had been originally anticipated that the gas service to the new building would .run .through the portion of the parking lot owned by the developers. Subsequently, it was necessary to realign the gas service and place it underground immediately south of the new building. This change makes it necessary for the city to provide a ten foot easement immediately south of the new building for this purpose.. The proposed easement has been reviewed by city staff and an agreement prepared by the city attorney. It is recommended that the city council authoriize approval of this. easement agreement for the purpose of providing gas service to the new building. The location of the easement is shown on the attached. sketch. Respectfully submitted, ~. Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/ e j a cc: City Attorney Liquor Store Manager Planning & Redevelopment Director Public Works Director s {- /rrrt ~ij7 ///,i de ~ e f ~'r. ,S~crck' 7`L, e .2 2 r9 P~g ~` .'~'2 e~ ~rff~r~ .tee f ~.s' 33 ~•~1,~` ~ orner ~rs~arsi6/~ . / -4. 1 .: ~ ~•.V t ;.. ~ _~ a .~.' . / ..,: ` ~: b t -~ fai%r ~?° nl ~as~d /D ~ .~ ~~ ~~'/may/-f~ G~/?_. ;.. ~in/~E~"~CO .~"er r/fcE ~:- - - - .~ ~, ~ ~r Store 5~ 1 1 ~ ~ L; ~~ ~ ~~ ~1 J ! Q t -- ~ ~ ~ A __ "" ~~ 0 ~, -_ ~c1S fG ~ ~r ~ ~' E G~~Gi~ c' c' ~ ~~ 6l~"~~C1~0~ I ~ro~OCS~~ ~~~ ~' /S/o - B/o .SEr v i c e 1 ~, R ~" N , r 39 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 329 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of .Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Off-Street Parking Contract for 6545 Penri Avenue Cardco Investment Company has submitted an application for an off-street parking contract.. -The applicant proposes to convert an existing vacant service station into a Clark's Submarine Sandwich Restaurant at 6545 Penn Avenue. A related item concerning a special. use permit for this purpose is also on the November 13, 1978 city council agenda. The restaurant, more fully .described in Council Letter No. 324 concerning the special use permit, would involve the renovation of the existing service station building to include a food preparation area, restrooms, and a 32 seat dining area. The application for an off-street parking contract provides for 20 parking spaces as shown on the attached sketch. City regulations would require 11 off-street parking spaces for the proposed use: The off-street parking contract application indicates that the existing service station lot would be resurfaced, that two driveway aprons nearest the intersection would be closed, and that landscaping would be provided. along both Penn Avenue and 66th Street. .The public works director has reviewed this application to in- sure compliance by the applicant with all ordinance provisions regu- lating off-street parking contracts. It is his conclusion in which I concur, that the proposed off-street parking contract complies with all applicable ordinance provisions. If the city council acts to approve the special use permit for this restaurant, it is recommended that .the city council also approve execution of this off-street parking contract. Respectfully submitted, ~• Wayne S. Burggraaf City Manager WSB/ e j a cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director Public Works Director -. j EXIS D/W to _, be moved. Nsw D/W. Plant(nga & green aroa ' 2 tom- 20' w.,..,~_ H/~ Prkg. ~ o~. ~~~ I D/W. ~; ~Y ~ 6tbt ,,:. fi to b. moved. Piantings N 9~ i I g- N _~_ Scales I ~~- 20~ OFF STREET PARKING NO. 78-15 OWNER AND ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: USE: DATE OF APPLICATION: COUNCIL ACTION: NO. PARKING SPACES: CARDCO Investment 703 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota Sec. 28, T28, R-24, Plat 44828, Parcel 1320 6545 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota Restaurant (Clark's Submarine Sandwich) November 1, 1978 November 13, 1978 20 CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 328 Agenda November 13, 197$ The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City .Council City of Richfield .Gentlemen: Subject: Hearing on Vacation Request for a Portion of Lyndale Avenue Right-of-Way Mr. Bradley Pieper,~owner of Bradley Exterminating Company, located at 6237 Lyndale Avenue, has requested that the city vacate a 17 foot portion of the Lyndale Avenue right-of-way in front of his business to permit construction of a parking lot. The city ordinance provides that the city a public street upon petition of the owners of abutting the part of the street to be vacated. further provides that the cGUncil shall, by re: receipt of the petition and set the date for a the requested vacation. council may vacate half of the land This ordinance solution, acknowledge public hearing on At the October 10, 1978 city council meeting, the city council adopted a resolution receiving. Mr. Peiper's petition for a street vacation and scheduled a public hearing for November 13, 1978. Background Materials attached to this council letter for your reference on this matter include the following: 1. A copy of Mr. Pieper's letter petitioning for the street vacation. 2. A map showing the area of requested vacation. 3. A proposed ordinance which would implement the requested street vacation. 4. A resolution denying the street vacation petition. The Lyndale Avenue right-of-way width north of 63rd Street varies from 83 feet to 100 feet. The distance from property lines to the centerline of the street on the west side of Lyndale Avenue is 50 feet, while the distance from property line to centerline on the east side of Lyndale Avenue varies from 33 feet to 50 feet. Most of Lyndale Avenue has a 100 foot right-of-way. Council Letter No. 328 - 2 - November 13, 1978 The distance from the applicant's property line to the center- . line of Lyndale Avenue is 50 feet while the property adjacent to the south is 33 feet from the centerline of Lyndale Avenue. The applicants are requesting that 17 feet of the right-of-way immediately in front. of their property be vacated so that their front property line is even with the front property line of the south adjoining property. ..The proposed vacation will not affect the width of the existing street but will reduce the size of the boulevard from 28 feet to 11 feet. Staff Recommendation It is the recommendation of the staff that the requested vacation not be approved for the following reasons: 1. The right-of-way is r~e2ded for pedestrian movement in the area. There are existing problems in the area because of existing traffic volumes and the lack of sidewalks. Vacating the right-of-way will only serve to make the situation worse by providing. less land for future pedestrian movement im- provements. 2. The right.-of-way is needed for future traffic because that portion of Lyndale Avenue is presently being used near capacity. Future •~idening of the street will likely be ,. necessary. If the street is vacated now and future widening takes place, the city would have to buy the land back result- ing in increased public expense. 3. Because Lyndale Avenue provides a major access to the .community and to the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet area, it should be enhanced and improved through landscaping and other pedestrian .and traffic improvements. If these improvements are to occur, sufficient right-of-way must be maintained. L/H/N plans call for a 110 foot right-of-way for street, utility and landscape improvements. The existing right-of-way in the-area to be vacated is 100 feet. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission considered this item at their September 26, 1978. meeting. Two area residents appeared in favor of the request. The Planning Commission on a 5-0 vote moved to recommend denial of the request for the vacation of a portion of the Lyndale Avenue right-of-way adjacent to 6237 Lyndale Avenue South and to recommend that the city attorney`s office explore a possible lease arrangement between the city and the Piepers to allow them. to use the right-of-way until such time as it is needed for public purposes. Recommended Action In summary, it is the recommendation of the staff and the Planning Commission that the petition for vacation of a 17 foot portion of Lyndale Avenue at 6237 Lyndale Avenue be denied. It is further recom- Council Letter No. 328 - 3 - November 13, 1978 mended that the city council authorise the staff to discuss the possibility of a lease agreement covering use of this right-of-way for a limited period of time until-the area is required for more active right-of-way purposes. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggr f City Manager WSB/jkl cc: .Planning & Redevelopment Director Public Works Director City Attorney N _ = C. i.~-. ,= IVIIIV IV C.`i t'ULIJ, iV11iV ItiLJV I N JJ'+L.~ cc~. 'i ~ ~_ . _ ~ 1 __ ~~. _ti. - ~ TELEPHONES: (612) 866-4079 • 866-8739 • 535-5810 • 298-0919 ~ ~ `~_ ~\ ;~,> - " ~, Honorable Members of ichfield City Council Richfield, i~iinnesota Gentlemen: We hereby formally reeuest that the attached property described be vacated to Bradley and Dianna ?leper. Thank you. Sin, ly, / ~ v _ Br ley G. Plepe v ~ L -~na Z. Piep Cd' ~~~=-~~ 9-12-7s Att. ~ h ~ rr~ nit L~'G:~L ~~3CR! :: I..~. That part of Lyndale Avenue in r;'±.iyDAL A~:;ITICPI, according to the recorded plat thereof, ~:en.nepin County, ~`innesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of Lot 6, Block 1t of said K~iDALE ADDITIO~d 50.00 feet south of the north~;rest corner thereof'; thenca southerly along said w*est line to the southwest rorner of said Lot b; thence suesterly along the westerly extension of the south line of said Lot 6 a distance of 17.00 feet; thence northerly parallel to the west line of ~i.d Lot 0 to an intersection ;with the westerly extension of a line parallel with the north line of said Lot 6 anti ~6.U0 feet south of said north Tina; thence easterly 17.00 feet to the point of begin..in:;. _;: . - _. ~~„ -__ PETITION FOR STREET VACATION CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA PETITION N0. DATE RECEIVED T0: The City Council of the City of Richfield, il2innesota We, the undersigned, owners of land abutting on Lyndale Avenue South between State Highway 62 and 63rd Street South hereby petition that the part of such street, described in Attachment A be vacated by the City of Richfield. Signature of Owners Record Owners and Legal ~ ,~ ,-~ ,~ ,,--~ Description of Property c _ ~ South 56 feet of Lot 6, Block 4, Kendale Addition ~.. t Examined, checked and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of land abutting the street, alley or public grounds (City Code of Ordinances, Section 12.01). per cent checked by City Clerk Map Attached ~. 5 ~ t Io 510 Cros to~ __ 456° ~'~ack of curb to b. of curl 6~1~~~i . Measurements are from the face of the pillar to the back of curb. ~ LU I > Q W J Q Z J portion to be vacated I 6radley Co. ~ property 63rd Next to the last /plllaro on the north. iE//~' u n I K-5~1° -Lay pillory on the south. I ST. >~ 1 V Scales I ~~= 100 3 3 ~ 28 ~ ~ 22 22 " sidewalk ORDINANCE NO. AN OPDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF RIGHT OF WAY OF LYNDALE AVENUE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: "Section 1. The following described area, comprising a part of the right of way of Lyndale Avenue, is hereby vacated: That part of Lyndale Avenue in KENDALE ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west-line of Lot 6, Block 4 of said KENDALE ADDITION 56.00 feet south of the northwest corner thereof; thence southerly along said west line to the southwest corner of said Lot 6; thence westerly along the westerly extension of the south line of said Lot 6 a distance of 17.00 feet;- thence northerly parallel to the west line of said Lot 6 to an intersection with the westerly extension of a line parallel with the north line of said Lot 6 and 56.00 feet south of said north line; thence easterly 17.00 feet to the point of beginning. "Section 2. 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 described and provided for in foregoing Section 1." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1978. Loren L. Law, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Moran, City Clerk Y L RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING STREET VACATION PETITION WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City Clerk requesting vacation of the following described portion of the Lyndale Avenue South right-of-way: That part of Lyndale Avenue in KENDAL ADDITION,. accord- ing to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of Lot 6, Block 4 of said KENDALE ADDITION 56.00 feet south of the northwest corner thereof; thence southerly along said west line to the southwest corner of said Lot 6; thence westerly along the westerly extension of the south line of said Lot 6 a distance of 17.00 feet; thence northerly parallel to the west line of said Lot 6 to an intersection with the westerly extension of a line parallel with the north line of said Lot 6 and 56.00 feet south of said north line; thence easterly 17.00 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, it has been found that the vacation of the above described portion of street right-of-way would not be in the public interest because of the following: 1. The existing street right-of-way width is needed for safe pedestrian movement in the area; 2. The existing street right-of-way width is needed to insure sufficient right-of-way width for future public improvements including street widening, bus lanes, turning lanes, landscaping and other pedestrian ameni- ties and public utility improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the petition for a street vacation is denied. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of November, 1978. Loren L. Law, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk f CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA `~ Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 327 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members. of the City Council :City of Richfield Gentlemen:. Subject: Renewal of Interceptor. Sewer Maintenance Agreement with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission This agenda item provides for renewal of an agreement with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to reimburse the City of Richfield for maintenance costs on interceptor sewers owned by the commission . The interceptor sewers throughout the City of Richfield are the property of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. How- ever, the most efficient and economical means of insuring proper maintenance of the sewers is for the city to provide the mainten- ance and be reimbursed by the Waste Control Commission. All communities within the seven :county area served by the Waste Control Commission use this same .arrangement. The attached Statement of Agreement Renewal provides for a one year extension of our existing agreement under the same terms and conditions as the existing agreement. The basic agreement provides that all city costs. will be reimbursed and that if the estimated reimbursement is-not adequate, an additional adjust- ment is made on an annual basis. The actual cost in 1977, reim- bursed under the terms of this agreement, was $995. Costs for 1978 through October are similar.. This agreement has been reviewed by the city staff and it is recommended that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the city. Respectfully submitted, f, G~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Works Director Finance Director STATE[~1ENT OF AGREEMENT RENEWAL LNTERCEPTOR [~1AI[JTENAWCE AGREEMENT N0. 131 The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the City of Richfield agree to renew the Interceptor P~laintenance Agreement No. 131 which is currently inforce between these parties. The terms of the Agreement for the renewal period shall be the same as those contained in the Agree- ment which was executed for the January 1, 1978 - December 31, 1978 period with the exception of Section 6.02: "Section 6.02 Cost Estimates; Payments." The parties estimate that the total amount of costs which the Commission will be required to pay to the Municipality for performance of this Agreement in 1979 will be $2,100.00. Such amount shaii be paid in twelve monthly installments as an advance payment of such costs. On or before February 1, 1980, the Municipality will submit to the Commission a detailed statement of the actual costs incurred by the Municipality which the board is required to .pay in accordance with Section 6.01, and will remit to the Commission any amount paid to the Municipality which is in excess of such actual costs. If the total of the monthly advances paid by the board is less than the actual amount of such costs, the Commission shall pay to the Municipality on or before March 1, 1980 an amount equal to the difference between the actual costs and the monthly advances previously paid. The Municipality shall keep detailed records supporting all costs of the types specified in Section 6.01 which it expects the Commission to pay, and shall make the same-ava-i-Table--to- the-Commission-on-request. -- -- The renewal period for Interceptor Maintenance Agreement No. 131 shall be January 1, 1979 - December 31, 1979. That both parties agree to the renewal period and terms is evidenced by the signatures affixed. to this statement. FflR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION ~ ~ ~ . ~.L, Title Barbara L. Lukermann, Chairwoman Title chard Doug r hi f Administrator Dated Uated /~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager. Council. Letter No. 326 Agenda November 13,.1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Authorization to Call for Bids for Water Treatment Chemicals Bid prices on water treatment chemicals expire at the end of the year. Therefore, it is necessary to call for new 1979 bids at this time. Estimated quantities to be included in the bidding documents are 1,400 tons of lime, 100 tons of alum, 3,000 pounds of a~unania and 21 ,000 pounds of flouride. Lime and alum are necessary for the softening process, chlorine-and ainmoni-a are used to sterilize the treated water, and flouride is added as required by law. Last year's unit prices were 17 cents per pound for flouride, 25 cents per pound for ammonia, $85 per ton for alum, and $50 per ton for lime. Eight suppliers bid on supplying these chemicals and three companies were awarded contracts for these chemicals at the. December 12, 1977 meeting. of the city council. Funds to cover the anticipated costs for these supplies have been incorporated in the 1979 water utility operating budget. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council authorize this call for bids. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Works Director Finance Director Administrative Assistant t y CLTY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 325 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit, 7720 Nicollet Avenue Amoco Oil Company has requested a special use permit to allow them to remodel their existing vacant service station at 7720 Nicollet Avenue. into a service station store. The following are attached for your reference: A - Site plan B - Land use map C - Zoning map D - CompreYiensfive Plan. map E - Conditions for Issuing a Special Use Permit. (Section 3.33, sub. 3 and Section 3.41 sub. 5) BACKGROUND .The existing service station was closed due to a fire. The station has been vacant for 12 months. The applicant is now proposing to remodel the interior of the existing structure to pro- vide space for the sale of various snack. foods. The service bay would be eliminated, but the car wash bay would be retained. The four gasoline pumps on .the south portion of the site would be eliminated and a vacuum cleaner unit placed on the southernmost pump island. The exterior of the building will be painted. Site Area: 17,825 square feet Building Area: 1,798 square feet Existing Parking: 5 spaces Proposed~Parking: 10 spaces. Required Parking: 10 spaces Site Zoning: Industrial Surrounding Zoning: North, East, West - 'Industrial South: I494 Surrounding Land North and East - Commercial Use: West-Multiple family residential South: I494 Comprehensive Plan: High density mixed land use Council Letter No. 325 -2- November 13, 1978 Section 3.33, subdivision 2 and Section 3.34, subdivision 1 of the zoning ordinance requires that service station stores can only be located in industrial districts of the city if a special us.e permit is obtained. The existing service station has a special use permit, but .because the applicant is proposing to expand the existing use to include a store, a new special use permit is required. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed the request for a special use permit against the following: 1. Comprehensive Plan 2. Conditions for Issuing a Special Use Permit (Section 3.33, sub. 3 and Section 3.41, sub. 5) Comprehensive Plan The comprehensive plan indicates the site should be developed with high density mixed land use including such uses as multiple dwellings, office, research-industrial, hotel, motel, institutional and retail commercial.. The proposed service station store would be a retail. commercial use and .would be in compliance with the use category. of the comprehensive plan. It would. not be in compliance .with the density goals of the comprehensive plan because it is not. a high density use. The 'service use has already been established on the site and the proposal. would not reduce the existing' density of the development.. Conditions for Issuing a Special.. Use Permit The conditions for issuing a special use permit for a service station require that the-use be in complaince with the standards found. in Section 3.33, subdivision 3 and not be detrimental. to the. public welfare. Staff has found that the proposed service station would be in substantial compliance with Section 3.33, subdivision 3. In our findings, staff has considered the following: Parking.- Because the proposal involves expansion of the .existing use on the site, additional parking is necessary. The applicant will provide ten parking spaces on the site which will meet city parking guide- line requirements. Congestion of Surrounding .Streets - The projected ex- pansion of the use would not generate a substantial increase in traffic, but would serve existing service station customers why are at the. site primarily to purchase gasoline. Because there would not be a sub- stantial increase in traffic generated by the. use, there would be no increase in congestion due to the proposal. Council Letter No. 325 -3- November 13, 1978 Pedestrian Movement.- There currently is no public sidewalk adjacent to the site. Nicollet Avenue is a high volume street, so it is important to provide. pedestrians with sidewalks to insure pedestrian safety. There also exists an T~ITC bus stop on the- corner adjacent to the site which further increases the need for sidewalk.. Impact on Adjacent Multi-Family Residences - The gasoline -pumps closest to the adjacent multi-family residences would be eliminated which-would reduce automobile use of that portion of the site... This would mean that there would be less negative impacts on the residences due to headlights, and exhaust. Parking would be maintained on that portion of the site so some negative impacts. will remain. A screen fence will remain between the service station and the multi-family residences. Best Use of the Land - The site is located on a high volume street adjacent to the I494 highway. The site is zoned industrial and away from single family residences. It would, therefore, seem that the-site is well suited for an automobile oriented use. In summary, staff has found that the proposed expansion of use would be in substantial compliance with the standards for service stations, and would not be detrimental to the public welfare. STAFF REC01~1MENDATION Based on the above review, the staff would recommend that the special use permit be issued with the stipulation that a five-foot sidewalk be installed to city standards along Nicollet Avenue and. the frontage road to .provide safer pedestrian movement. PLANNING COMMISSION.RECOMMENDATION The planning commission considered this item at their October 24, 1978 meeting. No area property owners appeared concerning this matter. The planning commission on a vote of 6-0 recommended that .the special use permit b~ granted with the stipulation that sidewalk be installed along Nicollet Avenue and the frontage road to provide safer pedestrian movement. Respectfully submitted, ~. Wayne S. Burggra City Manager WSB/eja cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director Public Works Director ~ -. «-- - - t~ c> ~^; i ~~ 5 ~ W 1 i '.a ;9i _ 1 Q W J J O U_ Z .: v j .mac, . _ ('16'-" . ,-e~~ c~ I Lam' ~ -~6 - ~ -~~~ `~'-`~ FRONTAGE ROAD Z/l ~P .` X v~ ~P ~,~o / ~~ ~ _ d ,~ ~ - 1 3 a. .i4~~', ~ 3~ ~ J h ~ 4 ~~' . ~ 13 ~ 4 , ,. -~ - i2 ~ I + x 5 , , .,~ 6~ ~, ~ - . '. ~ n ~ 6 r . ? ~' C ".. r - ' _ ... ~ O X r ~-- ,a a ~ ' ~ a _~ '~ - S I '' ~' 134.5 i ~ " -. _ i34 ~ ~ '":~. 3 ~ ; 4 ~. "~i 1 t 4 "3 = ~, 4 q -4 =" .. ~: a _. .. 1~ ~ s ?ti`.C: '~~s• a.' o `~ a ~ m~ ~ ~~: .~• n ~ , r r ~~ _ ~ r ! 5t : ~ r Ii P . 9 ~ I 4 4 N ,~ jf ~~ ; v ~ 2 l ~~ n 13 ,~ ~ i ~: e t ` 4 q ~ aa3 [ t4. I ~ ~ 41 i4 ~ 1 1 ~~ • ry Y r 4. '~ 3' ~ {. ~_; ~1 NI ' o ry t V t+ ~ r ~ ~)4 )G ^_ 1 a-- ---- - o !4 ~~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ II i, o ;4 ti 3 4 :' 3 ^ ti d . .114.}4 ,_ . 13 ~ Land Us e Niap 4 ~~ ~` ~` ---- W !2 ~ ~ 5 - .cKis ~4' \' ` ~ ' 7 - 1~4 r_ ~ ji4 24 Q 0 i i o " 6 j ~ `' o ^~~~ ,' ,~ 6 ~ ? lit Zf ~ -- ~~ a v -{ r ~ ~ r _ t Q ~µ ..J ;~ ~ ,^ / o ^ f ? t 8 AA ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ r ~ '~ ~ ~ 1 ~ B -_ -~-{- p~ ~ y ~ __---_ ~ ~ i2 4 ,~ ~ ~3 °~{' 2 1 ~ 12 !~~ 3 34.44 -y -=4:14 1- '~ i 4 :z, . ;ze 41 +~ Q 9 ~~ ~ 6 .~ J 0 8 e r! D ~ A o~ol ~ m _ _i 4.35_ :4. so ! "' 4 i i I 50 -- ~ . - ~... __ - 3 111 -+~ $~~e o ~' ./" _/;' ~:.~ ._ S s, .I =-== a t.~b ~ ~ :: i ~ o .' r 15°~'2 ~ ~___ _~ ~ i .Zj 14 ~ t ~3 i 2c~2a~z 13 ~ : 4 " 4 Z2 y:4.12 --±---- I2 ~~~5 --~~t``-~-+--`' ~ ZZ I o i r ~~--t a ~ - ~V ~ ~:Y-.7 14 ~ y 3~ , ;3 ~ ° 4 ~r 1 .:34.._24 :.~ ..34_-"-- ~Z ~ 5 ii A y 6 T ~ _,3 ~ Z3 ~ -- -~` - - G !0 }r! 7 '" y ~.~3 ,s4 23 - D o 4 '~ n' D ?4 1i? ~ '~ ~S N ?G 23 ..-- ~~- - ~3+ '3 ~ _ ~ : 3 r - ~6 0~, ~ '~ ~i.23 ~`~ "~7~+ 1j r '" ~ Tot ~ ~, i __ ~~-__T. 77- C7 _-~ - !4 ~ 0 3 ~as,~ T ' M~~.z- - ~ c - ~ ~ ~~ °~ ~ 4 m ~ 1 ~~. ° a - ~5 .. ,1,,. T ~~.. -' '~ L"a ~~~~~'_~6 _ ' r (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~-~~-Z____+ 3~ a~ -~ -_ - ,- Q N; -.~ 9 ,,~;~ j~ L. ---~~.:I 31 ~~~ I ~~~--- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL r y _ _ ~._{4~ '~342~ ~ ~_.~.~5 ~_ 3a ._5 ~ I _~_~s : A t ! ~.. M 7 ~ ~ IY o i ~ '~ ~ ~._ f1~ w I l.~ ~ ~ r Iii - J ~ > j "'S 4' .I ~ --~ Zoning Map .3~ ~,;, 3a :4~ s _- ~ _ - } y ~. q ~ 1 ~• ---- - ~ - ~ ._ __ . _- _ - --- -= - r F t, Q g N . ~ r~i ~ V ~' ira a G.ci " I ~ ~ f~ t ' !34 Z3~ ~ '` t34 z3 ~ ~~4 ? ~__ 134: t t-, , --~-4 t .~ Z ,. 5 ~ ~ r ~~ f 4 f 4 . ~ . •rr~~,s~ ~,r ._`~ .C ti N i1a ~ N r- f s .,.~ ~` ~ ? :r; rr.. n` > 4 IFS " ~ ~ '~ °'_-y t4 _ ~ . ~ 77ii ° { C ~ i a .' ~ J ~ a I ~ ` ~ ( +B --r n $ ~ _ ~ t a ,rte.' ~ Is C '' ~ ~ # - - I moo. rtq r- V! ~r ~r 1 r- ~iE a _ry~s~ `'-! r i -o. ! 'r0 ...}x icy .~ L; J 34 Pi' ..f ~ ~. r. :a < .., :. C°~` ~A 1 v ' . _ \ ,n - ! , - ..133 - , G ii A p • i r v ~ \~ i i o .. / ," '; x 1 -qy E~'{WI ~ t I , x. I _ ~ G ~ - _ ° f ~I ~ _ ~= . - s_ '_ _ ~ " 1. ' ` , _ = '~ ,,,~ ~ 1_ - ~ w.1, / ~ d':3__ ~ . ;{ ~ r a " ' ;' -. ' ~ ~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL _ i ---- - ~ -~.~ =-~.-::.~:- ,- ::r::~~~~:: L I M I T E D BUSINESS - ._ . -~. _ ~; . __. . .. .. ~ .° _ f-~ _ _ ~ _ 5i ' "~"~~~f~ • a ~ >;. ~~ 1~4 43 `.-K , ~ g 3:-- . ` f t2. ~;~ 4g~ I Z ~ 40 ,i 7 _~34:~L~'t ?~~_~ a ` ~ ~i ~ a h 34,ib _ - vtEE ,.,mss ..E . E„o,,, ..~. ` ~.n wcE \ c...o re~ .tea ,L..E1 ~=.E~:, .~E ~ ., , ... - ~~. _ ~, ~ i _y~ - - -- -- _ ~. °_~.=,- a ~ fix-,. -- ---- .off -. - `P,?~4te °. _i , r '- - '' ~ ` ~ ~, ~s } ~ IT '%'`'y~-fir 1 -~..~_ r~` ~ ~_ '"ice" ~ r ~ 'j i ~.-- ~ _ ~ - -_~ 3r-_ ~ ~_ 3 ~ Y~ yq~ - ~-.1r-'.~ ~~ ICI ~ = ~-- -- _ _ __ _- -y=_ --, ~ ~ ~-- __ - -- - ~, -j ~- ~: s> ~ 'r i u sYt - _ ~^' ~ Y .w 7TW~ _ _ __ - i t'1T4~ -_ - -_ ~ - - ``5-h r-~a h-, _ _ i _ _ _S _ ~ .~' .~t' V 3 3i_ ;i~ t° < Si`.,Y:a __ ______ _, - n _ _._. ........,,k(~ ~..v.,~ .vv.x~'rxxvY?44,?~` e®mpr~hensiv~ evel~~rner~t glean for the city of r~chf~eld LAND USE: description density principal uses Combination of multiple dwellings, office, research Mixed Land Use High industrial, hotel, motel, institutional, and retail commercia l Combination of office, ~ institutional, light and `-.~ Mixed Land Use High/Medium research oriented industrial, retail commercial, and multiple dwellings Combination of office, retail commercial, entertainment and Central Business eating establishments, small ® District Hiyh/Medium comparison shopping and service Mixed Land Use businesses, institutional, limited cultural, recreational facilities, and multiple dwellings Combination of single family dwellings, multiple dwellings, Mixed Land Use Medium townhouses, and neighborhood convenience commercial Industrial Medium Light and research oriented industrial uses . Multiple High Multiple units with related accessory uses . Convenience Sh i A Low Grocery, drug, hardware stores. opp ng rea Single family or two family Single Family Low u nits and accessory uses Residential co~~~paz~ble with single Or two family units COMMUNITY FACILITIES: t.;~4 ----- Public parks and open space ® ----- Public schools Churches or church-related ----- facilities ----- Other public, quasi-public, or private institutional facilitie •TRANSPORTATION: ~- ----- Major arterial thoroughfare adopted by th• city of richfi~ld thisl5th day of January ,,q 73 w . P ~~~ 3/23/70 68 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNES07A (1) Undertaking establishments (2) Any drive-in business where people are served in automobiles (3) Automobile camps and courts (4) Hotels,- motels, restaurants, cafes, gasoline ser~~ice stations, service station stores, public garages, car sales lots and theaters. ~'o service station may be converted into a station store without a special use permit for such use issued in accordance with Section 3.41 of this code. -(Bill 1973-21) 2/11/74 (5) Other business uses which are determined by the Council to be of the same general character as the uses enumerated in this section and which will not be obnoxious or detrimental to the area in which they would be located. Subd. 3: Regulations Relating to Gasoline Service Stations, Public Garaes and Car Sales Lots. A special use permit for a gasoline service station, a public garage or a car sales lot shall not be granted unless the council finds that the proposed use will be in substantial compliance with the following standards: (a) The use site will not abut a lot which is in an "R" district. For the purposes of this paragraph, a lot which merely adjoins the use site at one corner will not be deemed to abut the site. (b) The use will not create undue traffic hazards or traffic con- gestion by reason of the turning movements which vehicles would make in entering or leaving the site. (c) No driveway, at the point it crosses the property line of the site will be within 40 feet of an intersection. An "intersection" as used in this paragraph means the point of intersection of the extended curb lines if the curbs on the near side of the site, and measurement shall be along such extended curb lines. (d) The station or garage will not display any banners, noisy ribbons or similar attention-distracting or visibility-obscuring devices in the area in front of building setback lines. (e) The minimum frontage on any street will be 120 feet and the minimum area of the site will be 12,000 square feet for a station with four pumps or less; and stations with more pumps will have sufficient additional frontage area to provide equivalent and sufficient space for servicing vehicles, for off-street parking, for safe vehicular approaches into the station, and for good visibility for pedestrians and drivers. (f) No driveway will be flared outward on the boulevard in such a way as to encroach upon the boulevard of adjacent property. (g) The station or garage will comply with the off-street parking, sign construction and other regulations of the city. (h) Any required buffer or screening area will be so constructed as to obstruct headlight beams of automobiles on the station property from beaming onto adjacent residential property. (i) Pump islands will not be so close to street or adjacent property lines as to create the likelihood of encroachment by vehicles upon street right-of-way, sidewalk areas or adjacent property. (j) Only one permanent detached ground display sign, pedestal type may be erected on the street frontage at or near the property line adjacent to the street, except that if the frontage on the street is in excess of 150 feet, two such signs may be allowed by the council on such frontage, subject to any other applicable si;;n regulations. (Gill 1970-10) 3/23%70 ORDINANCE CODE r (k) All 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 harmony with 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 permitted. (n) If the station or garage is not to be located on a count;' road or state highway, it shall not be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.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), displays or other materials which tend to obstruct intersection visibility. - Subd. 4. Regulations Relating to Hotels, Motels, Restauraz~.ts and Cafes. A special use permit shall .not be granted for a hotel, motel, restaurant or 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) Adequate provision will be made, through the use of building setbacks, buffer areas, screening, and exterior treatrnent 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 parking space is from internal driveway systems and is not directly from public streets, and (3) provision is made for well-designed vehicular stacking space allowing for an efficient and orderly flow of traffic from tEle site onto adjacent main thoroughfares of the city. "Main thoroughfares of the city", as used in this paragraph, means a street designated as a state trunk highwa}- or a service drive adjacent to the state trunk highway, a state aid highway, a county aid highway, a county highway, or a street which is so located as to serve, primarily, commercial development. (Bill 1976-10) 4/26/7 (f) The proposed facility will provide an aesthetic appearance which will not detract from or conflict with the existing or proposed architectural form of buildings in the same area. (g) The use will not create an excessive burden on public par(cs, public open-space, streets, or utilities requiring public services which are proposed to serve the tacility. 4/26/76 ORDINANCE CODE 68.1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA i • - ~- ~` 3.41. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 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 .district 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 from which they are excluded by the provisions of this code: airport, library, community center, church, hospital and 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. 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 such 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. 5. Conditions Governing Issuance. The council shall nat 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 wet- fare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Subd. 5A. Conditions Governing Issuance of a Special Use Permit in an Officially Approved Redevelopment Area. The council shall not grant a permit for any uses enumerated in Subdivision 1 hereof unless it finds that the es- tablishment, maintenance or operation of the use for which the permit is sought is in compliance with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan, with any officially adopted redevelopment plans and urban design guidelines thereof, and with the city's parking regulations and landscape guidelines. (Bill 1978-1) 2/13/78 .1 L_ _ ORDINANCE CODE ?/13/78 81 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MlNNES~JTA ( ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Letter No. 323 Agenda November 13, 1978 Gentlemen:. Subject: ..Request for Special Use Permit and Variance at Arby's Restaurant, 6529 Penn Avenue A hearing on these requests was held at the October 10, 1978 city council meeting. •A copy of council letter No. 294 presented at the October 10, 1978 meeting is attached for your review. Both the city manager and planning commission recommended denial of the applicant's request for a special use permit and • variance. Council members indicated general .agreement, but de- ~ferred a final action to permit the city attorney to draft a resol- cation incorporating the essential findings discussed in the council letter and at the hearing. The hearing was closed and final action. deferred to the November 13, 1978 meeting.. A copy of the resolution is being drafted by the city attorney arld will be available at the city council meeting on Monday. Respectfully submitted, ~~.~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director Public Works Director City Attorney CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 294 Agenda October 10,1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject:. Request for Special Use Permit and Variance, 6529 Penn Avenue, Arby's Restaurant Ray Tharp, property owner; and Franchise Associates, operators of Arby's Restaurants, have requested a special use permit and variance to allow them to enlarge their existing restaurant at 6529 Penn Avenue. The purpose of the proposed addition is to pro- vide additional seating. The following items are attached to this council letter: Proposed site Elevations of Land use map Zoning map Comprehensive Conditions for use permit plan proposed development plan issuing a special Petition and map inaicating properly owners contacted by applicants Map indicating surrounding setbacks Background The applicants are proposing to add an addition onto the front of the existing building measuring approximately 20' x 23', and five-foot wide additions on the north, east and south sides. The proposed additions will almost double the seating capacity from 36 to 62 seats, will provide increased storage area, and will pro- vide interior access to the restrooms. A new mansard style roof will be added. The. existing freestanding sign in front of the building will be removed. Site area: Existing Building area: Proposed building area: Existing seating capacity: Proposed Seating capacity Parking spaces existing Parking spaces proposed Parking spaces required Site zoning: 22,220 square feet 1,500 square feet 2,367 square feet 36 62 50 50 21 Industrial (133'x170') Council Letter No. 294 -2- October 10, 1978 Surrounding Zoning: Surrounding Land Use: Commprehensive plan: North - industrial East - multiple family residential West - general commercial South - industrial North - commercial East - multiple family residential West - commercial South - commercial High/medium density mixed land use Section 3.33, subdivision 2, and Section 3.34, subdivision 1 re- quires that restaurants can only be located in industrial districts if a special use permit is obtained. The existing restaurant has a special use permit, but because they are proposing to expand the restaurant beyond the intent of the original special use permit, a new special use permit is required. Section 3.34, subdivision 5 back of 40 feet. The existing of 20 feet. The building front six (6) feet from the property the proposed building would be property line at the northwest ing. A variance of 34 feet is Staff Review requires a minimum front yard set- structure has a front yard setback of the proposed expansion would be line. In addition, overhangs from within one and one-half feet of the and southwest corners of the build- necessary. Special Use Permit - The staff has reviewed the proposed restaur- ant site plan against the following: 1. Comprehensive plan 2. Conditions for issuing a special use permit (Sections 3.33, subdivision 4 and Section 3.41, subdivision 5 of the city code). Comprehensive Plan - The comprehensive plan indicates that the site should be developed with high to medium density mixed land use in- cluding such uses as office, institutional, light and research- oriented industrial, retail commercial and multiple dwellings. Since the restaurant is a retail commercial type use it is in com- pliance with the suggested use category of the comprehensive plan. However, the restaurant use is not a medium to high density use and in such respect does not conform to the comprehensive plan. Conditions for Issuing a Special Use Permit - the conditions for issuing a special use permit require that the proposed use not be detrimental to the public welfare. The staff has determined that the following potential public detriments exist with the proposal: Parking Requirements - The existing number (50) of parking spaces on the site would be maintained, and provide 29 spaces more than required by city parking guidelines. The additional seating will mean that turnover time should be reduced because more people will be able to eat on the premises which will mean a greater demand for parking spaces Council Letter No. 294 -3- October 10, 1978 because cars will occupy spaces for a longer period of time. However, the proposed parking lot is not in compliance with the following city parking standards: 1. Perimeter curbing is lacking on some portions of the lot . 2. Sidewalk is not provided along .all building frontage. 3. Water drains onto adjacent property. 4. Insufficient landscaping is provided. 5. A 15 foot buffer is not maintained between the parking lot and the adjacent multiple family residences to the east. Traffic Circulation - The applicants are intending to con- tinue to use the present driveways into the site from Penn Avenue, and close the existing "exit only" driveway which feeds into 66th Street. Traffic flow on the site would be changed from two-way to one-way. in a counterclockwise direct- ion, with the south driveway on Penn Avenue an "entrance only" and the north driveway an "exit only". It is the feeling of the staff that the proposed changes would pose the following traffic circulation problems: 1. Customers would have more difficulty entering or leaving the site because there would be one entrance instead of the presently-existing two and one exit instead of the three current exits. This would mean that during periods of heavy traffic, cars waiting to leave the site would back up in the lot, preventing proper traffic flow and blocking access to parking spaces. Also, cars waiting to enter the site would disrupt proper traffic flow on Penn Avenue. 2. The closing of the exit onto 66th Street means that customers wishing to leave the site and proceed west on 66th Street would have to make a potentially unsafe left turn out of the site, cross three lanes of traffic to get in the right-hand lane on Penn Avenue, and then make a right turn onto 66th Street, instead of making a safe right turn onto 66th Street. It should be noted that the driveway onto 66th Street is not usable at the present time because of its poor condition. 3. There could be additional problems because two-way traffic flow has been established on the site and there are no physical design measures such as angled parking or directional signs to discourage or prevent future two-way traffic flow on the site. The driving aisle north of the building would be too narrow to accomodate two-way traffic. The proposed aisle of 24 ~~~~~=L~er ivo. 294 -4 October 10 , 1978 feet is necessary for proper two-wa 4• The P Y traffic flow. - the front of wouldr~educe the1visib~n~ ility of cars exitinbuilding site, thereby increasing the accident g the - the area. potential in The change to a one- - tive effect in waY traffic flow would have the site that left-turn movements into a Posi- of the leftutarb movementnf usin and out of g and safer, since one-half ated. s at each drivewa Y would be elimin- Pedestrian Movement .front of the existin-Since the proposed addition cars exitin g building will decrease visibility of public sidewalk ewilleincreasazard for e. pedestrians using the = The five-foot additions on the sides building would eliminate the and rear of the building, and thus force existing sidewalk aisles to Pedestrians to use thealong the get to the entrances, driving potentially unsafe condition. This would create another Con estion on Surroundin on Penn Avenue is Streets - Existin volume on 66th Street800 20T67slightl g traffic volume safet P . 5 ADT Y under capacity). The Y de artment records indicate thevfollowinit traffic accidents for the y~• Public tween 65th and 66th Streets ears 1872_77 on p g number of enn Avenue be- 1972 - 10 1973 - 12 1974 - 14 1975 - 15 1976 - 17 1977 - 26 Because the proposal involves ex existing restaurant, it can be pansion of seating at the will generate some additional trafficd that the in traffic ma restaurant y not be large because the uselistalreadrease tablished, any increase would be ing volumes on surroundin detrimental because exist- design capacities g streets are over or near their dent rate is hi h~ existing congestion is hi h g compared to other g and the acci- Health Considerations areas in Richfield. would not provide an The proposed expanded restaurant ant would have adequate front setback. The restaur- one-half f a front setback of only six feet eet at the overhan s ( one and 40 foot setback required b g ~E or 34 teet less than the of the restaurant would thenobeinance. The seatin travelled roadwa within 1tt feet g area equate distance too Perin Avenue. This of the fumes Protect restaurant would be aiz road- , and other nuisances presented bPatrons from the noise, volume on Penn. Avenue. Y the hi gh traffic ~~~.,. .. ,_ . ,:., •• ,w _ C .qr'~ k;.. ..... -__--. -..- Council Letter No. 294 -5- October 10, 1y78 Property Value - The proposal could have a potentially negative impact on property values in the area due. to decreased visibility of surrounding businesses, reduced aesthetic desirability of the area and decreased site distances and separation of adjacent uses. Increased Public Expense - As previously mentioned, Penn Avenue and 66th Street are nigh volume streets near or over their capacities. The intersection of the two streets and the large number of driveway entrances in the area pose many traffic problems. Public improvements such as left turn lanes, median. strips, bus turn lanes and pedestrian amenities would be desirable to alleviate some of these existing prob- lems. The 494/100 Southdale Corridor Transportation Study under- taken by the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Highway Department indicates that Penn Avenue should be widened and improved to be a six-lane major highway trom County Road 62 (Crosstown) to I494. According to that study, the minimum right-of-way width necessary for a six-lane road (street only) would be 80 feet, with the desirable width being 90 to 96 feet. An additional 24 feet of right-of-way would be. necessary to provide pedestrian amenities.. The existing right-of-way width of Penn Avenue adjacent to the site in question is only 66 feet, which means that at a minimum, 38 additional feet of right-of-way would be necessary to accomplish the identified improvements.. If decreased, front setbacks are allowed and the streets are widened, increased public ex- pense would be necessary to obtain the needed right-of-way. Not only would the city face increased land costs in such a case, but also additional costs from damages if structures had to be removed. Under the applicants proposal, the restaurant. would only be setback six feet, leaving little land available for street-widening purposes. Past experience with acquisitions in the L/H/N area indicates that acquisition of such an area can be very expensive. Blight and Deteriorating Effect - Setback requirements are established to ensure proper spacing of buildings, to allow .proper circulation of air, proper light penetration, suffic- ient access to structures by emergency equipment, property separation of structures from negative noise and pollution impacts of streets, provision for open space amenities and to give areas a commercially viable, aesthetic appearance. GVhen these standards are not enforced or are varied, the purpose of the setback regulations are defeated, and the area will decline. The existing structure on the site is already non- conforming to city zoning standards because its front set- back is 20 feet less than the ordinance requirement. Every effort should be made to ensure that development in the area has positive impacts to mitigate deteriorating con- ditions, rather than promoting conditions which will in- crease deterioration. Council Letter No. 294 -6- October 10, 1978 If the variance is granted a precedent will be set, and it would be difficult to deny any requested var- iances from surrounding property-owners to the north and the south. Granting of such variances would further reduce the commercial vitality and desirability of the area, and have a negative effect on the area. In summary, the staff has found that the proposed project would have possible detriments to the public welfare in terms of parking, traffic circulation, pedestrian movement, congestion on surround- ing streets, health considerations, aesthetics, property values, public expense and blight and deterioration. Therefore, it is the. recommendation of the staff that the special use permit not be granted. Variance to Section 3.34, Subdivision 5 The zoning ordinance in Section 3.40, subdivision 6 of the zoning ordinance establishes three conditions which must be present on a site if a variance is to be granted. The city council must find that-all three conditions are present in order for the vari- ance to be granted. The staff has reviewed the request for a variance against these conditions, and found the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the particular land, building or use referred to in the .application, not common to other properties in this district or similar districts. It is the opinion of the staff that there are no special con- ditions present on the site. The lot is not irregularly .shaped, and corresponds in size to other lots used in a sir~ilar way within the city. The following survey of similar restaurants uses within the city indicates that the existing lot at 6529 Pena Avenue is larger than average, and the buildircj is smaller than the average building size. These other sir;tilar uses co~aply with the front- yard setback requirertilen-ts , alt~dour~~h so=_1e are oi~ s_~,.aller lots . The proposed expansion would mean this restaurant use would be average in lot area, building area, seating and capacity. SURVEY OF SIMILAR USES Lot Lot Bldg. Bldg. Restaurant Address Size Area Size Area Seating A. Treachers 6401 Nic. 107x126 16,002 32 x 57 1,824 56 A. Treachers 6613 Penn 150x133 19,950 32 x 66 1,984 Burger King 2800 W. 66 165x170 27,220 Burger King 140 E. 78th 150x268 40,305 Dairy Q. 7533 Lyn. 124x125 15,500 K. Fr. Chick.645 Lyd. 100x142 14,200 Taco Bell 2208 W. 66th 107x142 15,195 Wendy's 6500 Lyn. 26,000 50 x 55 2,750 30 x 39 1 ,170 24 x 66 1,5u4 29 x 46 1,334 40 x 56 2,240 64 100 100 36 6 48 72 AVERAGE 21,796.5 1,840.9 60.3 Council Letter No. 294 -7- October 10, 1978 Lot Lot Bldg. Bldg. Restaur. Address Size Area Size Area Seating Existing Arbys 6529 Penn Ave Proposed Arbys 133x170 22,250 23 x 64 1,472 36 133x170 22,250 23 x 84 2,367 62 The existing front setbacks on the same block vary from 20 feet {the property in question} to 70 feet, with the average being 43 feet. The applicant is asking-for special privilege not enjoyed by other land uses on the immediate block or by other similar restaur- ants-within the city. 2..-:That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial propert rights. The variance is not necessary to preserve property rights. Denial of the variance does not prevent use of the site for the existing restaurant. Other alternatives, such as expansion to the rear, moving the entire structure back on the lot, or construction of a new building are possible which would allow the proposed use to comply with the city codes and.to allow the expansion desired by the applicant. 3.. That the granting of the application will not materially or adversely affect the health and safety of persons re- siding or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not be materially detrimental to the up blic welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. As previously discussed, staff has found that the proposal would be detrimental to the public welfare in terms of parking requirements, traffic circulation, Pedestrian movement, congestion on surrounding streets, health considerations, aesthetics, property values, public expense and blighting influences. In summary, staff has found that none of the three conditions which must be present on the site are present and, therefore, would recommend that the variance be denied. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission considered this matter at their Septem- ber 26, 197$ meeting. No area residents or property owners appear- ed before the commission. The planning commission voted to recommend that the city council deny the special use permit and variance. ' Council Letter No. 294 -8- October 10, 1978 Re commended Actions It is the recommendation of the planning and redevelopment director, in which I concur, that the city council take the follow- ing actions: 1. Deny the special use permit because the proposal would be detrimental to the public welfare and safety; 2. Deny the requested variance because the three conditions for granting a variance have not been met. Respectfully ubmitted, S.~ ~~,~ ~~~ Wayne S. Burggraa City Manager WSB/eja cc: Planning and Redevelopment Director ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~. ~f P ~ ~E F~ ~ ~ ~ o G i~ s 9 ~~ i ,i 'E _ ~ p II `~ ~ .~ _ ~ ~ . ~ 1 :- ~ ~ 3 ~a s~ ~~ ~..-~ r~ r~_ cam. r=-i ~ t ,~-~ ~~ ~ } rZ ..~ i ~ . ;s ~~ 1" a ~ ' .' :~- ~ ;~• 4 1 ~' 7~ ~~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ i .. ~~ ,i g3 ~ - _ ~. ~ - - ~ vi ,~ - - ~ ~ w a`~ ~ ~ ti .~ - _,:. ` ~ ~ _~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ a... .. .; < ~ : 1 .~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ /~ - ~~ ~~ ._ ~ 1 _ ~~~ ~ -~ fi i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! n I _ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ _, i~- 1 -_ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~d~ ~~ L OZ ,~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ - ~ a0 ! i -,~~~~~ ~ 7 ~ J~ s ' j d`1D~ ~ ~ ~~ NN c C ~~~_o ~~ ~ ~ j ~ \ a-. _ _ ~.~ - - - `- c K - - `r ^ ~ r ~ ~i ~~ j #ji, ~ . - f ~ ''/..- ~ ~J - ~ ' _ ~/ ~S / .i -r`i. ,~l .~5 .0 S` ~ Rte /O ~:- 1 .i S[ J~- I, ~J I /- L - ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ( l 1~ l ~ 7 s e ~ i _ s -- ,t _ ~ ~ xj 1 ' ~ .2L. , ~ Fa, j i i:. -. ' ~~ l~ri r - / 3 I •~ ~ _ _-._r~ ~--~ ~ !y, b i! 5i ~~ .. ~ i ~~~ i - t - <i ~ / r ~ ' 1 . r: 1 t 1 S , i ~.. ~ -c:.ea~v. ~ e v uz .. ~ • ~. ~ r . - .~. iv ~ 154.43 ~ ~ ~ 4a 14 • >O - 9 j i j y~ e v 1$.. ~ 1. ~ t ¢. 7. • ~; a T ~ rt. ~~ IS47L 3. ~ ,s. ~.,,~ l34.7 ~ ~. '- I'9,r' ~ ~+~4~7 ~ ~ ~ c, ~ - t , 77 .., ~ ,yo c. .4 1 ~• ~. ie - ~ , ~ .: 7 ,e`e `o ~ ~ ' ~.- o ~b ~{ r ` G. n . ~^ ~~ c ~ j7 + ~ '35 `. q~~ M a •~ ~v yl o~ • I ~ q - ~ n C~ N Gc: n ( - M- ~ r ~ i r 1 0 vt I C - d ` • M Q .-~ rZ ~r ' e~ c ---~--i._w 1 ~ _IC LE FA('r1lLY -RESIDENTIAL -I-FA(~iILY RESIDENTIAL ;v1ERCIAL ISTRIAL 3~Q 1.Y 4 .+ ~., ~ ...~ rp. Q ~_ ~ ~: ..~.. t~ ~` `~ Y, ~U ~"'. ,1 ~. r `1 1 ., d 30 ~~ "O .ZA°FL tp 1-f/ ~ ~yt t~ 2i -.- __ CI="7! atl 4 .- '.. 40, ' t ,4 1 ~ ~ ~ .Zoning Map ~~ ~ .~`9 - ~s.~~ w:. _~~~~_ _i .~ o - ', I _ I •Y 'j ~~ My 1, P - - - ~ s - 4-- `~ - i 4ti ~ `t ~ t ~ s _ { YS t(t a~ ~ t. _-.-~L 3r ~.,} a ..~. ,.v $~Jt :iS'~ .' 3C d7uw. ?I9.S; w~..s. ~ ~ _ 'e_ _ .~ .^ a.~ .-._~__k.ix.f '}2.r~.,:~ ~c....w..w.ry • p i ~ .. n ~ V ,{ 'J ~ Vy ~' i r~ _ i..._._..' ty n , " _ ~ `' L _ GENERAL COMMERCIALr_ ~~--=•. , 1. ; ,_ ~~ ~. MULTIPLE RESIDENCE _ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL _ _ ^_ a __ _ _ _ _ 3 - - - - ._._ _ ~ 7;Fr -~ ,. ,, - ~' a ~ - - - -- --- - i ~WE, ..E - ~ - - - ~, _ _ a.E...E inns .vE -.--.7.= -_-- -- -- ~nr x6 .vE ~wlY_Ot I ~1 ~. -...T^~ ' ~. ~ _~_ -- -_ me ~x c,w..o ..c. l a-s,-. ~=. r ~ t~'„'d.~h.~ _- - ~_ .a..o ..E_ E.E..-« e.c - ~ ~~ -_ ~~y ~ ~ .~a~ wE °` i ~yC; ..., ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _-_- .°-, ~.~ . ; ~ -y <.~f Era ..E ~~ ~ _ ~ _ ~.b .e i ~ - 1 vwo ..E < ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ -- -- v .~..vc ~ K ~ - - _ - ~ ~ Y.. -~ .., we 79Y -- -/"~ - - - - ~' ~ `T ~ ..~ e .~.aE J_- i___ _ ~ -~- } '', ' '~ s~ st' roe. ..c (~ v. .~.e ~ _-. - - _ _ _ _ _- _.___ -_ .e 'c 1 .,....E ~}f /" `` 4 ~ - _ ~, ..E ~'_li 3 ' 9 ~\ ~I c®rnpreh~nsiv~ de~rel®pmen~ p~a~ for the city of richfield LAND USE: dsscription Mixed Land Use ~,\~`~ Mixed Land Use ® Central Business District Mixed Land Use 0 Mixed Land Use Industrial Multiple Convenience Shopping Area Single Family Residential COMMUNIYY FACILITIES: ~ t y(; TRANSPORTAT s ION: density principoi us®s Cumbinat~on of multiple dwellings, office, research High industrial, hotel, motel, institutional, and retail commercial Combination of office, institutional, light and High/Medium research oriented industrial, retail commercial, and multiple dwellings Combination of office, retail commercial, entertainment and eating establishments, small Hiyh/Medium comparison shopping and service businesses, institutional, limited cultural, recreational facilities, and multiple dwei li ngs Combination of single family dwellings, multiple dwellings, Medium townhouses, and neighborhood convenience commercial t4edium Light and research oriented industrial uses. High Multiple units with related accessory uses. Low Grocery, drug, hardware stores. Single family Or two tomily Low u nits and accessory uses compa n ble with single Or two tamily units ----- Public parks and open space ----- Public schools _____ Churches or Church-related facilities _____ Other public, quasi-public, or private institutional facilitie ----- Major arterial thoroughfare adopNd by th• city of richfi~ld this 15th day of Jonu ar y ,,q 73 (1) Undertaking establishments (2) Any drive-in business where people are served in automobiles (3) Automobile camps and courts (4) Hotels, motels, restaurants, cafes, gasoline service stations, service station stores, public garages, car sales lots and theaters. `o service station may be converted. into a station store without a special use permit for such use issued in accordance c•.=ith Section 3.41 0~ this roc2. (Bill 1973-21) 2/lI/74 (5) Other business uses which are determined by the Council to be of t_:e same general character as the uses enumerated in this section and whic~~-aili not be obnoxious or detrimental to the area in which they would be located. Subd. 3: Regulations Relatir.R to Gasoline Service Stations Public Gara_es and Car Sales Lots. A special use permit for a gasoline service station, a _ public garage or a car sales lot shall not be granted unless the council finds that the proposed use will be in substantial compliance with the following standards: (a) The use site will not abut a lot which is in an "R" district. For the purposes of this paragraph, a lot which merely adjoins the use site at one corner will not be deemed to abut the site. (b) The use will not create undue traffic hazards or traffic con- gestion by reason of the turning movements which vehicles would mare in entering or leaving the site. (c) No driveway, at the point it crosses the property line of the site will be within 40 feet of an intersection. An "intersection" as used • in this paragraph means the point of intersection of the extended curb lines if the curbs on the near side of the site, and measurement shall be along such extended curb lines. (d) The station or garage will not display any banners, noises ribbons or similar attention-distracting or visibility-obscuring devices in the area in front of building setback lines. (e) The minimum frontage on any street will be 120 feet and t'tie minimum area of the site will be 12,000 square feet for a station with four pumps or less; and stations with more pumps will have sufficient additional frontage area to provide equivalent and sufficient space for servicing vehicles, for off-street parking, for safe vehicular approaches into the station, and for good visibility for pedestrians and drivers. (f) No driveway will be flared outward on the boulevard in such a way as to encroach upon the boulevard of adjacent property. (g) The station or garage will comply with the off-street parking, sign construction and other regulations of the city. (h) Any required buffer or screening area will be so constructed as to obstruct headlight beams of automobiles on the station property from beaming onto adjacent residential property. (i) Pump islands will not be so close to street or adjacent prc~porty lines as to create the likelihood of encroachment by vehicles upon strut right-of-way, sidewalk areas or adjacent property. (j) Only one permanent detached ;,round displa~~ sign, pedestal t~•pe may be erected on the street fronta~,e at or near the property 1ir.e adjacent to the street, except that i.f the LrontaL~e on fife stmt is in excess of 150 feet, two such signs may be alluwed b~• the council on such frontage, subject to any other applicable si~.;n re~~ulations. (Rill 1970-10) 3/`?3, 70 3; ?3i' 70 ORDINANCE CODE 6S CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA k~.. i~~ "b Y,Y„• ~~- ~. (k) All exterior lighting will be so designed, placed and operated :~~c=~e• ~ '~ as not to be a nuisance to adjacent properties. `~ _ "' (1) If the station or garage is to be located in a shopping center ~~ ~F' or other integrated development, it will be in architectural harmony with ~~~,._ =.~~: the rest of the center or development. ~ _ (m) The station or barage will not provide for the outdoor operation -*,:~ = =-of lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts or service pits, or the outdoor ~~-x~= _-=display of merchandise; but the outside underground storage of gasoline and t: a: *Y7`; :other petroleum products between pumps, or the temporary display of merchan- '-- dise within 4 feet of the station building is permitted. (n) If the station or garage is not to be located on a count_;- road ~- or state highway, it shall not be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. ~` ~ and 6:00 a.m. of the following day. '~~.r- (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- ~;,~~ r ;-~tersection, free of vehicles, signs (other than a pedestal sign}, displays R~rT .;"or other materials which tend to obstruct intersection visibility.. ~~` '- - ~, ,'Subd. 4. Regulations Relating to Hotels, Motels, Restaurants and Cafes. awn: -'`A special use permit shall not be granted for a hotel, motel, restaurant or ~~~~ 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 s -~ ~" r ~~ ~•areas on or adjacent to the site or on streets adjacent to the site unto `tom ;:which traffic to or from the site is channeled. "~,~` (b) Adequate provision will be made, through the use of building setbacks, buffer areas, screening, and exterior treatment or placement of ~ - the tuilding 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 rte: 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 _~.~£~ti - 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 pa.rkin~; space is from internal driveway systems and is not directly from public - streets, and (3) provision is made for well-designed vehicular stacking space --- allowing for an efficient and orderly flow of traffic from the site onto adjacent main thorou~,hfares of the city. "Main ttioroughEares of the city", as used in this paragraph, means a street designated as a state trunl: highwa~- -. or a service drive adjacent to the state trunk highway, a state aid highway, a _ county aid highway, a county highway, or a street which is so located as to _ serve, primarily, commercial development. (Fill 1976-10) 4/26/70 (f) The proposed facility will provide an aesthetic appearance which • will not detract from or conflict with the existing or proposed architectural form of buildings in the same area. (g) The use will not create an excessive burden on public par(:s, public open-space, streets, or utilities requiring; public services which are proposed to serve the facility. :+~ (h) The proposed development will not conflict with the comprehensive development plan of the city. - ..«;;.: -~: _. ~~~ <. t.~.~' T*-. t ~ \~`J, ~1 _;« ~;r ;fit; ~~: , ~,.` i' _T:r. Y~ }~ ~~ -, ~. ~'r t ;z Y -:a . ~- ,~'~ i ~'~~~' ,..~~3.41. ,SPECIAL USE PERMITS :.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 .district -when found to be necessary for the public health, safety, convenience or welfare. :(3) Commercial excavating or natural materials used for building or con- y 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 from '.which they are excluded by the provisions of this code: airport, library, ASv community center, church, hospital and 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. - _- ;.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 such appl~.cation 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. 5. Conditions Governing Issuance. T1ie~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 Che 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 wet- 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 not grant a permit for any uses enumerated in Subdivision 1 hereof unless it finds that the es- tablishment, maintenance or operation of the use for which the permit is sought is in compliance with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan, with any officially adopted redevelopment plans and urban design guidelines thereof, and with the city's parking regulations and landscape guidelines. (Bill 1978-1) 2/13/7S ORDINANCE CODE 2/13/78 81 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA _,.,~, `: '' .-. ..._ : ,: ~, ~ "r . wean M. Akins 6801 Hillside Lane Edina, MN 55435 (Owner - 6526-32 Oliver) September 19, 1978 Richard Kriez Planning Director City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. So. riiciYf~eid, I~iiJ 55423 Dear Mr. Kriez, Per our telephone conversation, I wish to remove my name from the "Arby`s Petition" with regard to expanding their building closer to the street. At the time of signing, I was not aware of how close they presently are and the fact that all others in the area have maintained a setback. Further changes in the area should involve grass areas along the street, brick facing on all sides of building;;, smaller signs, and other changes to improve the area. Further enchroachment toward the street would be very bad. I am particularly concerned about noise from the Air Conditioner on the roof and also the appearance of the building from the back;.. This area should be shielded for noise and for aesthetic reasons. (I get complaints in the summer about A.C. noise from Arbys from tennents at 6532 Oliver). Sincerely, 11 j,,.~ / (~ ~ ,. ~y~ Dean M. Akins :cl SEP 2 _ ~i°7i~ ~''s$Y Ofi e~cG~cIfS:1:1 _ REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF ~.{?~~y l5 FOR PURPOSE OF ~p~,-~-~p ~.~-~~ ` Legal Description: That part of the West 166 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest 'Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 28, Range 2~ Hennepin County, Minnesota lying North of the South 175 feet thereof; also the North 17 feet of the South 175 feet of the West 133 feet ,of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 28; subject to the rightrof-way of Penn Avenue South over the Westerly 33 feet thereof. We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the Special Us$ as requested, Signature of Owners Address 0 C Leal Description ~ s rs ~'.~, s v ~ ~~ !~_. ~ ~~ tel. ~ /- iJ r iJ /~~~/~/~/J/ ~z._ J/7G' /1/~/dl Ll ~}iy'~j~ ~~y.' ~~l~ •^--77 _ ~ / ! ~~ ~` ° ~ G' C~ ~ P` fG N ice- '~ y 6;~.,. -tx- t Y' c~ _ , u ~ ~ r /3- •- 1 ~ ~(/-~/• /°r~d7L ~ fC ° ~aP fs ~} ,,*~ f I,,,j (',a. v~- `t.''r :~~ ~ 'l ~/ ~1 ~ { r J ~~//jj,, / ' ~~,y~ j -t , ~ ~ ~~1`F E s Y ~ i . - ~ C ' ~ /~~V ~ ~J/t~ e-~,f~ ~ =--~ ~ S2 -~ -~2 C~ ~ ~ v~ << - - ~` --~- -- ' - - ~ j ~ Z C[~s'~ - -- - -- - l --- j /' .. _~ .REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF ~ < FOR PURPOSE OF (~ e .. ~- ~ ~:.~aiv Legal Description: That part of the West 166 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter..i~.f the Northwest Quarter'.of Section-28, Township 2~8, Range 24 Hennepin County, Minnesota lying North of the-South 175 feet thereof; also the North 17 feet of the South 175 feet of the West 133 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 28; subject to the rightrof-way of Penn Avenue South over the Westerly 33-feet thereof. We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. Signature of Owners _ Address Leal Description a ~~.c~ l/~~~~ ' ~ Ft ~ ~ ~ ~~G ~.~ ~~ ~ <~r~ ~ ~ ~~'i~l J ~ `~ ~ cc' - -~ o,~~ ~ I L ~f~ ' ~ G s i/'/ i s/N E~ ~ ~ c y- L t, ~ ~ c . ,,. c / / ~ a ~!` ~ ~ ° Est t/ ~c./ ~ ~------t~_r-...~ __ - _ /~~, ~y.~ l ~'•J( ~.s~ l SC' ~liL` j~.v, r.- r,"~+ . .~-'~~~ rt L--_1 ~~u ~ ' / ~-~ ~ am ~- -- j -- - f-- -t--- - --- r ~ c f - ~ --- - ~ -- - f J '-. _ - v V - +~ „ V ti ~°~ ~~ ' b ~ ~ v ZO ~ ~O A Yr ~~ 34 m 1r0 + ZI ~' ~ - "" ~" 'I 1!4'.24 W z s 3q~b t `~ \, \~ ~_~ 3. .~ \A\~ 4 ° .. ;.-- '1, r,~ r 5 '' i~ ~ ^~ ~~~..s.~. ,.r^ ash /i~ ~ ~, z j ' ~~° t~ .m ;~~. 4 ~p~ .~ > ~ 420 ~. S ~; N ~iV: ,H Z rs ~' ;_:ta~rn-to iyi.~os f ~ ~ ://70i ~ __ ~° ~l ~ I.~SAa ~ _ M Sa - ~~-;°' ' R Vp ZIP ~T?~ i n ~.; Ft' ~: i t : i4 eT a? o ,sa R- - ~ a a C23..) I^~ 2t A. 1 x'000 _ C 24..) °o v 0 5p "' 31p ~ --- -- ---t--, ~. s ~ 32 A. ---~ : - '° ZSZ ~ ;H h t D 340 1 -- - ---- - IN h ~7g10~ ~" u _ a ~ ZSo oN ~4~. V) (7G 10 )o J ~ \ so ~- ~ c 2 a .t. 6 0 ~5'4~7a ~ 4. ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ -- N ~~{ ' JT 6 ~ I~ 1 O t 1 ~ ~. 1 t . tS ,,a~S: 4 ,,~ i i 14, , a''~ i t 114 • 13. „~r'4 14 .~,o S 3 i ~ 1 : ~~ . I i. *l~~ ~ ~~o t0. - - Q • v 33 (T32b bo ,. ~t..) , b ~9 ~~ M I lV `~ ~ ! ~.. M ~ ~ `• o ~ ~ O a ~ r3m 3 4 c _~ tt z [• i ''~ ILL ~` ~ t ~ j~ ~ (•n ~ ` ~ In ~ e~ n (~ ~ X10 * ~Q . i - 3 3 jA ~ '^ ~~ ~ ~ w I. k 4 j. ~ tt 'I. '1 3 14 I~ ~-tl a q '`" ip ~o~n ^ ~ ~, ~ _ _. __ ~ ~ a 1 _ 0 ~_ 3 I ~ { '~ ~ ~ i _ , __ ~ :r ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ;,, ~, , .~ N d j- ,~ v ~ Pe~i~'ton St Hers 9 ~~~~~~~~ Pe-~~hor, S~9n~r- R ues-~-~ Mme .9 u _ s a.' . ~ •: , .; ~. '.t T M . ~ ~. ~~ _ i , • ~- ~_ )~• ~ i~ ~ ~ f ---- - o ,I d ^ =•d W ~-}-I~d r~wa I ~ ~ . ~ • , ~ ~ - ~~~ . YY. 12 ./: 6 c ~ '' ' e it C 9 13 . .-~{ ~4 . t 4 9s 11• o-° 1, (r. ~ Ij47G ~ 3, I Is ,,,~4 134.E ~ a. 1 97 1 ~4. 7 t. I Z. ~..~ 3 ,`11 ~. ~• L7.49 . T 49 r u. ,o 0~~ h n m 75' 65TH ST W Q z W Q_ FRONT SETBACKS ON 66TH S T ~:-~:~,.~.us.-PENN LiVF .; __ ..~~ A f x_ ~r~: 66TH ST ~~- ~,. a N IN I~ W Q z z w ~. ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ~• i _ ~ i ~ ~. ,e - TURNING MOVEMENTS 66TH & PENN P =PEAK HOUR D= 6AM-IOPM ~-- N ---Q 1819 P 18564 D 8s8 10023 N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (D = - 1 a c~ ~ O a o a o' PENN AVENUE ~ ~ ~ ~ a o F~ ao P 59 D 985 P 470 0~ ~ D 4217 ~ c~`c P 179 D 1584 -- _ rn ~ N ~ ~~ ~ h M M 70 P N 54 D as m 525 P °' ca t° ~ 4543 D 10 P 1295 D 633 P 653 P 7023 D 7023 D ~ I `l i f 1 F- W W F- 2 F- cD CO 75 8 ID i) P 1552 D 16204 P 711 D 6869 ~y /~ CITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA. ' Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 321 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield .Gentlemen: Subject: .Setting Date of tearing for Community Development Block Grant Process As part of the citizen participation requirements for the city's Year V (August ~~, 1y79 to July ~1, i98U) Community Devel- opment Block Grant program application process, the city must conduct at least one public. hearing to inform citizens about the Community Development Block Grant Program and to obtain their views on the city's community development and housing needs. It is recommended that November 17,.1978 be set as the. date for this hearing.- Respectfully submitted, .-~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director City Clerk r ~- ~ ..5 .CITY OF RICHFIELD, NIINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 321 Agenda November i3, i97~ The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City- of Richf ie].a Gentlemen: Subject: Metro Clean Air~Committee Presentation Mrs. Barbara Hughes, Director of the Metro Clean Air Committee will be present at the. November 1~, 1y78 city council meeting to make a brief presentation on the amendments to the Clean Air Act. Attached hereto you will-find corresponaence concerning this matter. Respectfully submitted, ~Qu~,u,Q ~ ' W Wayne S. Burggraar City Manager W5B/eja cc: Environmental Health Director r <, ,,, tJi~ 1e. ;~a at a~ ~Se ~Ir~tal ~'or~.i~o.:.xesr~ METR® CLEAN AIR C®IOIIMITTEE ~~ 1829 PORTLAND AVENUE, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55404 • 871-7332 October 11, 1978 Joyce Wild City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Joyce: This letter is to confirm our phone conversation of last week that Barb Hughes will come to the city council meeting on Monday, November 13, at 7:00 p.m. She will speak on the Clean Air Act amendments. Enclosed is a copy of the letter which was sent to Mayor Law in September. Also enclosed is a brochure. Thanks so much. You are appreciated. Sincerely yours, Dorie Anderson Assistant Project Director Enclosures ~ ~ ~-~ ~ Uj ~;~ l; I (~ , ,9 r ~ --- U u ^Cl~ iw ~- ~\I~,kii'~~~ SPONSORED BY THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION OF HENNEPIN COUNTY t September 11, 1978 y4~ ca j~°"$ °~ '"~ `~~ L'o:ui~oic~xeosl Dear Mayor Law: We request a few minutes on your agenda in October or November to acquaint you with developments under the new Clean Air Act which are important to your community. Also, we will ask you to designate yourself or a council member as a liaison we may contact during the next several months with information related to required state plans. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 encourage local and regiona l governments to assume a greater responsibility for air quality planning. The planning involves developing, implementing and enforcing measures needed to attain ambient air quality standards. Two important deadlines, January 1, 1979 and July 1, 1979, are only a few months away. The opinions and desires of your community must be considered in the process of revising state plans. Much information important to your community will develop while the state plan is prepared. The involvement of local elected representatives, as yourself, is greatly needed to make sure plans are reasonable, can work, and are needed. lie would like to attend one of your upcoml`ng council meetings to-give a short explanation of the requirements under the Clean Air Act and to answer any questions you currently have. We'11 call for an agenda slot of 5-7 minutes in the next couple weeks. At that time we wi~71 ask you to designate one of your council, or yourself, as the liaison with whom we may exchange information in the future and who can relay your opinions and positions on particular programs, strategies and plans. A conference for these elected officials will be held this winter. The Metro Clean Ai'r Committee, part of the American Lung Association of Hennepin County, has long been interested in public participation in clean air planning. We are working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Metropolitan Council to help those agencies be sure that people affected by clean air decisions help make those decisions. We pledge ourselves to help in any way we can. We look forward to a fruitful meeting. Sincerely yours, Barbara L. Hughes Director BLH;I~~ONSORED BY THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION OF HENNEPIN COUNTY CITY OF RICHFIEL-, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 320 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield. Gentlemen: Subject: Canvass of November 7, 1978 Election The city council must canvass the November 7, 1978 election local ballot and certify to the results by adopting a resolution at the November 13, 1978 city council meeting. A resolution ful- filling this requirement is being prepared and will be presented at the meeting Monday night. Respectfully submitted, ~. Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/jkl cc: City Clerk /~' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINPdESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 319 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject:. Release of-Bond for Off-Street Parking Contract, 1800 E. 66th Street On March 13, 1978, the city council authorised execution of an off-street parking contract with Mrs. .Merle Meyer for property located at 1800 East b6th Street. Mrs. Meyer operates an automobile appraisers service (Minnesota Auto Damage Apprais- ers), and uses this site for an off ice facility. An inspection of the site by the indicates that the owner has complied street parking agreement. Therefore, city. council adopt the attached resol lease of the performance bond for the for 1800 East 66th Street. public works department with all terms of the off- it is recommended that the ation, authorizing the re- off-street parking contract Respectfully submitted, ~. ~ r ~~~~ V~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/ej a cc: Public Works Director. ~. RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND ON OFF-STREET PARKING Mrs. Merle Meyer 6636 Second Avenue South Location: 1800 East 66th Street Use: Off-Site Vehicle Appraisal Service. Clerk`s File No. 9816 WHEREAS, Mrs. Merle Meyer, 6636 Second Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, had an off-street parking agreement with the City of Richfield, relating to 1800 East 66th Street, which contract bears the designation of Contract No. 2259, and which contract was guaranteed by passbook savings withdrawal authority in the amount of $5,500, and WHEREAS, Mrs. Merle Meyer has 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 Mrs. Merle Meyer 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 Mrs. Merle Meyer for any and all acts committed or incurred in violation of Contract No. 2259 on and after the 13th day of November, 1978. RESOLUTION NO. ATTEST: Loren L. Law Mayor Thomas J. Moran City Clerk ~_ ~° CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 318 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor 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 moratorium to permit the following full time positions to be filled: Assistant Liquor Store-Manager--This position is responsible for the general management of the Cedar Liquor Store including the supervision of staff, receipt and storage of merchandise, safes. and report activities. En~c.ineering Technician II (Operations Analyst)--This is a new position. resulting from the reorganization of the engin- eering section which resulted in an engineering technician I position being abolished and this .position being created. This position will function as an operations analyst for the public works department and will assist the public works director in developing service and maintenance productivity improvements. It is recommended that the moratorium be lifted to permit the immediate filling of the assistant liquor store manager position and the filling of the engineering technician II position in January, 1979. Respectfull submitted, ~, Wayne S. Burggra City Manager WSB/jkl cc: Personnel Director Liquor Stores Manager Public Works Director /6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 317 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Continuation of Animal Contract The City of Richfield currently has a contract with Oak Crest Kennels. to handle animals impounded by the city. This contract was implemented to be effective January 1, 1975 and is on-going, remaining in effect unless either party gives (30) thirty days notice requesting some change. Oak Crest Kennels has recently notified the city of a proposed change in the con- tract for 1979. The present contract provides for a boarding fee of $2.75 per day for any species of animal. .The kennel has requested that this fee be increased to $3.OO per day, to offset their increased costs of handling the animals. -.The public safety department has contacted other animal boarding facilities and .found that the requested $3.00 per day charge is competitive. Additionally, the city has experienced satisfactory service with. Oak Crest Kennels during the past four years.. The environmental health department has recently inspected the kennel facilities and found them to meet all applicable codes and standards. When. animals are claimed, the boarding fee is charged directly to the owner of the animal. The 1979 public safety administrative services budget does provide sufficient funds to accomodate the proposed rate increase in those situa- tions in which animals are not claimed. It is the recommendation of the public safety director, in which I concur, that the city adopt the attached resolution authorizing this amendment of the boarding rates in the contract with Oak Crest Kennels for the year 1979. Respectfully bmitted, ~. Wayne S. Burggraaff ' City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Safety Director Finance Director , Administrative Assistant .1 ~_ ~ AMENDMENT TO ANIMAL SERVICE CONTRACT DATED JANUARY 1, 1975 BY AND BETWEEN OAK CREST KENNELS AND CITY OF RICHFIELD it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between Oak Crest Kennels (here- inafter, "Oak Crest") and the City of Richfield (hereinafter, "City") as follows: WHEREAS the parties have entered into an animal services agreement dated January 1, 1975 and which is attached herewith and incorporated herein, and WHEREAS this agreement has been amended effective as of February 10, 1976 and again on December 27, 1977, and which amendments are attached here- with and incorporated herein, and WHEREAS the parties wish to continue in full force and effect such agreement subject to the amendment hereinafter stated, NOW THEREFORE, upon the mutual consideration of the parties, the animal. services contract by and between Oak Crest and the City is amended by amending paragraph 12 (a), to read as follows: "Three ($3.00) dollars for each twenty-four hours or fraction thereof for boarding any species of canine boarded under the terms of this Agreement." . And by amending paragraph 12 (b), to read ,as follows: "Three ($3.00) dollars for each twenty-four hours or fraction thereof for the boarding of any species of feline boarded under the terms of this Agreement." The foregoing amendment shall become effective as of January 1, 1979. Otherwise the agreement of January 1, 1975 attached herewith shall remain in full force and effect as therein provided. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals this day of CITY OF RICHFIELD OAK CREST KENNELS Loren L. Law, Mayor Paul S. Brust, Owner Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager /d~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 316 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Refund of Sauna Business License Fee Ms. Kyang Cha Roberts, dba Shangri-La Sauna On June 6, 1978, Ms. Kyong Cha Roberts applied for a sauna business license in connection with her purchase of the Shangri- La Sauna, 2401 W. 66th Street, and the public safety department conducted the required license investigation. of this application. Based upon the information developed during. the course of the public safety department investigation, on September 13, 1978, I denied issuance of the requested license under the conditions set forth in Richfield City Ordinance 5.25, subdivisions 5 and 6. Subsequent to my denial of this license, the applicant re- tained an attorney and requested an opportunity to appeal the denial to the city council. This appeal was originally scheduled to come before the city council. on October 10, 1978. Upon request of the applicant`s attorney, we arranged to reschedule the hearing for the council meeting of October 23. In the meantime, however, the public safety director and the assistant city attorney met with the applicant and her attorney to discuss the issues involved in the denial of her license application.- Based upon these dis- cussions, the applicant has agreed to withdraw her. request for a hearing before the city council. The purchase contract for her acquisition of the sauna. business has been terminated and the ownership has reverted back to the original l~.censee. At the time Ms. Roberts filed her application for the sauna business license, she paid the required $1,500 license fee and the $1,500 investigative fee. Richfield City Ordinance Code 5.25, subdivision 4 provides for the refund of a license fee when such license is not issued. However, such a refund requires council approval. Based upon the negotiations concerning this matter between the public safety director, the city attorney's office and the applicant's attorney, it is the recommendation of the public safety director, in which h concur, that the city council author- . ize the refund of the $1;500 sauna business license fee paid by Council Letter No. -2- November 13, 1978 Ms. Roberts. The city will retain the $1,500 investigative fee ~to offset our actual costs in this matter. The original owner does have a valid 1978 sauna license which will permit continuation of the operation of the business through the remainder of the year. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~~~~ ~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Safety Director City Attorney Finance Director :t . r' 1/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 315 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Approval of Off-Street Parking Contract, 2800 West -66th Street On October 23, 1978 the city council. approved issuance of a special use permit and variance to the Burger King Corporation, to enable alteration of its existing facility at 2800 West 66th Street by adding a drive-through window entrance. Because sev- eral modifications to the present parking lot will be necessary to accommodate this .new drive-through window, it is necessary to execute a new off-street parking agreement with. the Burger King Corporation to reflect these parking lot changes. The applicant has requested number of parking spaces from 47 lanes., and to add a median to se drive-through window on the west gram of the parking lot with the to this council .letter. permission to reduce the total to 38, to revise existing traffic parate the service lane from the side of the. restaurant. A dia- proposed modifications is attached The public-works director has reviewed this application to insure compliance by the applicant with all ordinance provisions regulating off-street parking contracts. It is-his finding that the proposed off-street parking contract complies with all ordin- ance provisions, and it is, therefore, recommended that the city council approve .execution of this off-street parking contract, subject to the conditions of the special use permit and variance previously approved by the city council.. These conditions include: 1. Relocating the trash enclosure to provide two moving lanes of traffic in the rear of the parking lot; 2. Completion of landscaping in accordance with the city policy; 3. Completion of landscaping and buffering as described in the agreement developed between the applicant and neighbors from the adjoining residential area; Council Letter No. 315 -2- November 13, 1978 4. Posting of a height restriction warning sign to protect the roof overhang area. Respectfully submitted, S .~ ~~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director Public Works Director ! ~. ~~ 170, I:.~ x 9' x ,~~ ~ ' l i-0 4n _ ~ E- N 1 -.: -~~- -- N ( ~--- _ 1=- rn ~ ' 1 - +t- 10• t0 ' M ,~., .~ ~~~' 4 °' ~ 'Drive-thru°sign °-' ft~~ ,> E. ``S ~ with arrow s x x 9 II ~ M x ~l 160 "X~~ indicates plantings, green area. g.- N --~ . Scais~ I°= 30~ OFF STREET PARKING No. 78-14 OWNER AND ADDRESS: Burger King, Inc. 8210 Penn Avenue South, Bloomington, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract "B" & "C", Registered Land Survey PIo. 1018, Hennepin County, Minnesota 2800 West 66th Street USE: DATE OF APPLICATION: COUNCIL ACTION: NO. PARKING SPACES: Restaurant and parking lot September 19, 1978 '~?ovember 13, 1978 38 ~~.~ ~ ~. OFF-ST. PARKING ~ - _:7 E.K.S. TKO. ..•,a, ~: ~x y2800 W. 66th SX ; ..., . _ _. __ _ - - - - - _ . ., ~ ... .... t0/ 12/78 ." ~.:~<~ 1 +, / Y I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 314 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Purchases in Excess of $1,000 Chapter VI, Section 6.05 of .the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are -tWO such items on the T~?ovember 13, 1973 council actenda. L~Tater Plant-Circular Track Bearings At the Richfield water plant, water is softened in a large circular-tank by mixing it with chemical coagulants.. These coag- ulants fall to the bottom of the softening chamber and are continu- ally scraped from the floor by a rotating paddle device, called an accelator. Last November, the city council authorized replacement of the circular beam which supports this accelator. Current plans are to make this replacement in early January, 1979 during low flow intervals. Closer inspection of the circular track reveals that signif- icant wear has taken place on the 16 roller bearing assemblies which separate the accelator and the track. Two of these rollers failed in mid-September and were temporarily repaired.. However, as normal wear is expected to continue, it would be advantageous to replace these bearings while the accelator is disassembled and the track is being replaced. The cost to replace these bearings is $4,900. The accelator, track, and bearing assemblies are manu- factured by a single supplier, Infilco-Degremont, Inc., 1011 South First Street, Hopkins. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of these replacement bearings from this manufacturer,in the amount of $4,900. Funds for these parts are available in the water util- ity operating budget. Council Letter No. 314 -2- November 13, 1978 Newsletter/Brochure Postage The 197$ Winter Newsletter and Park and Recreation Brochure is scheduled for distribution to Richfield. residences the first week of December. It is recommended that-the city council approve the purchase of Newsletter/Brochure postage in the amount of $1,357.02. Respectfully ubmitted, rr ~~ lsti ~ • ' . Vv~ Wayne S. Burggraaf City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Works Director Administrative Assistant Finance Director c CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City. Manager Council Letter No. 313 Agenda November 13, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Transitory Orclinanee Appropriating Special .Revenue Funds On October.10, 1978 the city council gave first .reading approval to a transitory ordinance appropriating funds from the special revenue account_to the-fire truck reserve fund and the general public buildings fund. A copy of the.. transitory ordinance is attached. This transitory ordinance appropriates $10,000 of special revenue monies to the fire truck reserve fund.. The transitory ordin- ance also includes an item to appropriate $50,000 in special revenue funds to the general public building account provided for in the 1979/84 capital improvement program. It is recommended that the city council give second reading to this transitory ordinance at the, November 13, 1978 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted,. ~~ S.1 a~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Finance Director Public Safety Director Public Works Director BILL 1978-22 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE 16.53 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. It is found and determined necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, and are further detailed in the City's 1977-1983 Capital Improvement Program and are projects which the. City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2.,, The capital improvement and the amounts of expenditure for such improvements, which are hereby authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subdivision 2, of the City Charter, are as follows: Fire Truck Reserve $10,000 General Public Buildings $50,000 Section 3. The expenditure herein authorized shall be made pursuant to. such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council resolution. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of November, 1978. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk _.-'" ~./ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No.312 Agenda November 13, 1978. The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Retirement, Second Reading. On October 10, 1978. the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment relating to retirement. Re- cent changes in the Federal Age and Discrimination Act, which apply to the political subdivisions, prohibit mandatory retire- ment for most employees. Since this federal legislation is effective January 1, 1979, .the proposed ordinance amendment pro- vides for changes in Richfield ordinance which will comply with the new federal provisions. A copy of-the proposed ordinance is attached. It is recommended that. the city council give. second reading consideration to this proposed ordinance amendment at the November 13, 1978 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~• Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Personnel Director City Attorney City Clerk r fT .~ ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER II, PART III, SECTION 2.37 OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter II, Part III, Section 2.37 of the Richfield Ordinance Code dealing with employee terminations is hereby amended to read as follows: "2.37. TERMINATIONS. Subdivision 1. Resignation. Any employee wishing to leave the municipal service in good standing shall file with his supervisor or department head, at least fourteen days before leaving, a written resignation stating the effective date of the resignation and the reason for leaving. Failure to comply with this procedure may be considered cause of denying such employee future employment by the municipality and denying terminal leave benefits. Unauthorized absence from work for a period of five working days may be considered by a department head as a resignation without benefits. Subd. 2. Lay-off. The city manager may lay off any employee whenever such action is necessary because of shortage of work or funds, the abolition of a position, or changes in organization; provided, however, that two weeks advance written notice shall be given to the employee. However, no permanent employee shall be laid off while there are temporary employees serving in the same class of position for which the permanent employee is qualified, eligible and available. Length of service in the same position class may be given consideration. Subd. 3. Retirement Age. The retirement age for all employees of the city except elected officials but including the city manager, city attorney and health officer, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.20, Subdivision 5, shall be [age 65 subject to the following provisions:] as provided in the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967, P.L. 90.202, as amended P.L. 95-256, 92 Stat. 189 (1978), and subject to all applicable exceptions contained therein, such retirement age shall be subject to the following provisions: [(1) Any employee except police and firemen other than the heads of these departments who was over 60 years of age on April 1, 1967, shall be eligible to continue in the employment of the city until April 1, 1972, or until reaching age 70, whichever is earlier unless a medical examination of such an employee discloses that the employee's ability to perform the duties of his position has been impaired by reason of any physical illness or deficiency in which case the employee shall be retired.) [(2) Any employee except police and firemen other than the heads of these departments of the city as of April 1, 1967, shall be eligible to continue in the employment of the city until he has accumulated 20 years of service with the city or until he has reached age 70, whichever is earlier, but this provision shall .not require retirement before age 65 unless a medical examination of such an employee discloses that the employee's ability to perform the duties of his position has been impaired by reason of any physical illness or deficiency in which case the employee shall be retired.] [(3) Any employee retained in the municipal service beyond the age of 65 years under the provisions of the two preceding paragraphs, or reinstated or appointed from a reemployment list after said age, shall be required to submit a satisfactory report of medical examination by a physician approved or designated by the city manager which shows the employee to be physically and mentally able to perform the duties of his position.] (1) [(4)] Where the city manager finds that the continued employment of an employee beyond age [65 not covered under the preceding paragraphs) 70 would be of special benefit to the city, he may extend such retirement age on a year-to-year basis not to exceed the age of [70] 75, upon receipt of adequate medical information indicating the employee is in good health and able to perform his work. Upon written notice to the employee, the city manager may cancel a deferral of retirement at any time. (2) [(5)] The city may require verification of the age of any employee, and failure of the employee to provide such verification shall permit the city to determine that such employee has reached the age of mandatory retirement. Failure to provide verification in the form requested shall be grounds for dismissal. (3) [(6)] Employees will retire at the end of the month in which they reach retirement age. Subd. 4. Service After Retirement. The provisions of this section shall not prevent a former employee of the city from '"w being engaged as a full.-time or part-time consultant of the city on specific projects after retirement." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1978. Loren Law - Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Moran - City Clerk