Loading...
10-23-78 agenda~' , r r' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 311 Agenda October 23, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen• Subject: Walser Buick .Sign Application At the October 10, 1978 city council meeting, the city council reviewed a request for a temporary signboard for Walser Buick Company, 2100 West 78th Street. At that. time, the council author- ized Walser Buick to use this sign for the following two Saturdays, and requested an opportunity to review the sign permit application again at the October 23, 1978 city council meeting. The application is to enable use of a signboard on the Walser Buick property on Saturdays only. The Richfield sign ordinance does not specifically provide for the-use of signboards as tempor-. ary signs.. Furthermore, temporary signs are limited in use to 60 days. Although Walser Buick has interpreted this ordinance pro- vision to imply. that the signboard .could, therefore, be used for 60 Saturdays,-the intent of the ordinance provisions seems clearly to limit the use of temporary signs to a period not exceeding 60 consecutive days. In this regard also, the requested signboard would-not •f all within provisions of the citys temporary sign ord- finance. Approval of this signboard for this location would set a preced- ent that would make it difficult to deny similar requests for signboards in other parts of the city. It is recommended that the city council deny this request for a temporary sign permit. Walser Buick has also 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 inpairs to 23 light pole standards fronting West 76th Street. The application filed by Walser Buick describes the signs as nylon banners. Banners are regulated by Richfield city code. in the following manner: S3.49. 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 ` Council Letter No. 311 -2- October 23, 1978 or industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit therefore from the council. If-the council determines to grant an application foz` a special use permit for any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and it shall be unlawful 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 more than 60 days. No such special permit shall be granted, how- . weer, where such temporary signs or banners are prohib- ited by other provisions of this code. Walser Buick is requesting that these banners be given perman- ent placement. As such, Richf field 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 a street frontage in excess of 1.50 feet. Under these provisions, the: signs could be permitted in one of the follow- ing 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. It is recommended that the city council deny this request for permanent signs, since banners are classified by ordinance as tem- porary signs and, are,- as such, provided for by ordinance as a temporary use. . Respectfully submitted, ~, -~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Works Director r The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Gentlemen:. }~ I D Council Letter No. 310 Agenda October 23, 1978 Subject: Request for Designation of CATV Service. Area As you know, Northern Cablevision, Inc.. has requested that the .city council adopt a resolution supporting their petition for the designation of a CATV service territory including .the City of Rich- field. The purpose of this agenda item is to bring you up to date on the questions that have been. raised with respect to this prop- osal. It is unlikely we will have received adequate answers on these .-'- matters and action on any resolution should, therefore, be deferred until such time as that nformationis available. Respectfully ubmitted, ~j~~~~~,~~/~~~ ~ . Wayne.S. Burggraa City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager WSB/ ej a cc: City Attorney ~5 CITY_OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 309 Agenda October. 23, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Traffic Control Requests Amendment to Parking Regulations at Community Center On May 12, 1975, the city council established a "No Parking" restriction between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. on week- days for the Community Center parking:_lot. This restriction was consistent with other restrictions in the high school parking con- trol district, and was established primarily to assure that adequate parking space would be available for participants in the various senior and handicapped programs housed at the Community Center, which begin at about 10:00 a.m. each day. However, a problem has developed. with these Community Center parking restrictions. Park and recreation and HRA staff assigned to the Community Center report for work at 8:00 a.m.,-and the restrict-. ions prohibit them from using the parking lot before 8:45 a.m. The public safety director has discussed this matter with the community center coordinator and the high school principal in an effort to achieve a parking regulation which will discourage students from using the lot, while providing for necessary parking for staff mem- bers. Since high school classes begin at 7:45 a.m., the parking re- strictions-could be amended to provide for "No Parking Between-1:00 A.M. and 8:00 A.M. on Weekdays." This change would provide oppor- tunity for staff members to use the parking .lot, and still secure adequate parking for participants in the various community center. programs. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, amending the parking. restrictions at the Richfield Comm- unity Center to provide for "No Parking Between 1:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Weekdays." Amendment to Parking Regulations in 7600 Block Stevens Avenue On August 28, 1978,-the city council authorized removal of "No Parking Anytime" restrictions from. the 7600 block of Stevens Avenue, with the exception of the parking restrictions adjacent to 7644 and 7645 Stevens Avenue. Since these signs were removed, sev- eral residents of the area have expressed confusion regarding where the remaining parking restrictions are to apply. In addition, the Council Letter No. 309 -2- October 23, 1978. residents of 76.38 and 7639 Stevens have experienced problems with people parking in such a way as to block their driveways, and have requested that the former parking restrictions adjacent to their properties be reinstated. It is recommended that the .city council adopt the attached resolution providing. for:"No Parking Between Signs." regulations to ,, be placed between the north property line of 7638 .Stevens and 7639 Stevens Avenue and. the intersection: of Stevens Avenue and West 77th Street.. These regulations would clarify the parking prohibitions authorized by the-city council on August 28, while also extending those restrictions slightly to accomodate the residents at 7638 and 7639 Stevens who wish to have the parking prohibitions adjacent to their properties continued. Traffic Signal on. 66th Street Adiacent to Wood Lake School Propert In May, 1976, the city council adopted a resolution authorizing Hennepin County to remove the traffic control signal on 66th Street adjacent to the Woodlake School, at such time as the school is demol- ished and the site cleared for new development, Hennepin County last week informed us of their intent to comply with-the provisions of that resolution and indicated that they wish to remove. the traffic signal .within the next few weeks. Residents of the. area~mmediately to the. south of 66th Street -have submitted a petition to the Traffic Control Committee, request- ing that a traffic signal light be retained on 66th Street, at Lynn- wood Blvd., which is about 60 feet east of the existing traffic. signal. Although this petition has not-yet been acted upon by the committee, it appears that there is no need. to remove the traffic signal at this time. It might be-more difficult to arrange with Hennepin County to install new traffic controls in this area at some future date if the present signals are removed than it will be to arrange to relocate the signals from the existing locations to a new location if con- . timed signalization appears desirable after completion of the Wood- lake School site development. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution requesting that Hennepin County delay removal of the traffic signals on 66th Street adjacent to Wood Lake school property until further notice by the city. Respectfully submitted, oyc L. 6Vilde Acting City Manager JLW/eja cc: .Public Works Director Public Safety Director Planning & Redevelopment Director Park and Recreation Director RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION PLACING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE SENIOR CITIZEN/COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDING LOT AT 7000 NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned that all citizens of the community shall have reasonable and equal access to the public parking lot located at the Senior Citizen/Community Center Building, 7000 Nicollet Avenue South in Richfield, and, WHEREAS, it has come to the Council's attention that those indi- viduals who wish to use the Senior Citizen/Community Center Building have been unable to find parking space in the lot, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department is directed to place sufficient numbers of signs in appropriate locations in the Senior Citizen/Community Center Building lot which contain in substance the following language: "NO PARKING" Between 1:00 AM and 8:00 AM Weekdays" 2. When and after such signs shall have been erected by the Engineering Division it shall be a violation of the parking ordinances of the City of Richfield to park during the period for which parking is prohibited. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 23rd day of October, 1978. Loren L. Law P4ayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS, ESTABLISHING "NO PARKING BETWEEN SIGNS" FROM NORTH LINE OF PROPERTY AT 7638 and 7639 STEVENS AVENUE TO 77th STREET INTERSECTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That-the City Engineering Division is hereby authorized and directed to install the following signs at the following location, to wit: "NO PARKING BETWEEN SIGNS" signs on both sides of .Stevens Avenue from the intersection with 77th Street to-the north property lines of 7638 and 7639 Stevens Avenue 2. That part of Resolution No. 5946 dated August 38, 1978 is hereby rescinded. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 23rd day of October, 1978. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTIO~T-5537 WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council on May 24, 1976 adopted a resolution authorizing Hennepin County to remove traffic control device at Wood Lake Elementary School and CSAH 53 (66th Street) and WHEREAS, residents of the adjacent neighborhood have petitioned the city to retain traffic control devices at 66th Street and Lynnwood Blvd, approximately 60 feet from-the site of the existing traffic signal, and WHEREAS, the housing development now being undertaken on the Wood Lake Elementary School site may necessitate the need for additional review and modification of traffic control devices, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that Resolution No. 5537 is hereby amended, and Hennepin County is requested to retain the traffic con- trol device on 66th Street adjacent to the Wood Lake Elementary School site until further notice. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 23rd day of October, 1978. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ~. The Honorable:Mayor and Members of the-City Council City. of .Richfield b Council Letter No. 308 Agenda October 23, 1978 Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Approvah of Off-Street Parking Contract, 801-803 West 77 1/2 Street Robert F. Adelmann has submitted an application for an off-street parking contract for the property at 801-803-West .77 1/2 Street. This situ is the former location of Baden's Bowling Alley, which was sub-` stantially damaged by fire. earlier this year.. The off-street park- ing contract proposes to establish 24 parking spaces to serve an office and warehouse building which is to be constructed on the property. y~ . Several off-street parking contracts have been issued for this general area many years ago. The property for which the new off- street parking contract is requested falls within the area covered by some of these previous parking contracts. The dates, contract num- bers, and areas covered are as follows: No. 318-09-10-56 Lots 3-11, Block 1, Strand Bowen Addition No. 319-09-10-56 Lots 4-5, Block 2, Strand Second Addition Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 Strands Second Addition, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 Strands Second Addition No. 320-04030-56 Lots 4-7, Block 2, Strand Bowen Addition No. 321-09-10-56 Lots 1-3, 8-11, Block 2, Strand Bowen Addition No. 423-10-29-57 Lots 1--1, Block 1, Strand Bowen Addition .These contracts cover parking provided on either side of West 77 1/2 Street between Lyndale Avenue and Colfax Avenue, for the shopping and commercial areas. Subsequent to the approval of the original parking .contracts, a revision was made to allow the construct- ion of curbs and gutters in lieu of a barrier around the perimeter of the parking lot.- Sketches on file in the public works department also indicate that this revision authorized parking on boulevard sections of public right-of-way. The requested off-street parking contract provides for establishing parking on the boulevard area, in accordance with the revision to-the previous contracts. If the council wishes to approve this off-street parking contract it is recommended that the following stipulations be attached: 1. That the applicant exercise a hold harmless agree- ment with the city for the area used for parking which falls within public right-of-way. Council Letter No. 308 -2- October 23, 1978 2. That the applicant provide adequate drainage, as determined by .the public .works director, on Market Drive; 3. That-the: applicant provide adequate exterior lighting at the front and rear of the parking facility.. Respectfully submitted, r~ yc L.-Wilde Acting City Manager JLW/ e j a cc: Public Works Director Planning & Redevelopment Director c~rb~, r 7 i/~ ST. s, 9• ~% i _ 16 Parking Spaces N ,~ N sidewalk 72 ,,, PROPOSED BLDG. 0 a~ ~ - N ~ o ~' N N 20~ ~-24~~-20~ ~ 8 Parking Spoces ~ FRONTAGE RD. OFF STREET PARKING N0. 78-12 OWNER AND ADDRESS: Robert F. Adelmann 805 West 7712 Street, Richfield, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2, Strand-Bowen Addition to Richfield, 801 West 7712 Street USE: Office Space & Warehouse DATE OF APPLICATION: September 3, 1978 COUNCIL ACTION: October 23, 1918 NO. PARKING SPACES: 24 OFF-STREET PARKING 801 W. 77 !/2 ST. N Scale= 1~~=40~ E.K.S. 9/15/78 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 307 Agenda October 23, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and. Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen:. Subject: Request for Special Use Permit and Variance, Burger King Restaurant, 2800 West 66th Street Mr. James Nunn, representing Burger King Corporation, 8120 Penn Avenue, Bloomington, has requested a special use permit and variance to allow the. construction of a drive-through service window at the existing Burger King Restaurant at 2800 West 66th Street. The following items are attached to this council letter: -Proposed site plan -Zoning map -Land use map -Comprehensive plan map °Conditions for issuing a special use permit (Section 3.33, subdivision 4 and Section 3.41 subdivision 5) -Petition and map of area residents opposed to the proposed development -Letter from Burger King stipulating. agreement with the surrounding neighborhood BACKGROUND The applicant proposes to construct a drive-up/serve-through. window on the west side of the existing building. This serve-through window is designed primarily for customers who purchase large quant- ities of food and/or those who come during their lunch hour. A food order is first placed at a menu/speaker sign, which will be located on the north side of the building. After an order has been placed, the customer would drive around the northwest corner of the build- ing to pick up and pay for his purchase at the service window on the west side of the building. Customers would then exit the site from the driveway on the west side of the property onto 66th Street. The traffic flow will move counterclockwise around the building. A separate driving aisle will enable cars to use the parking spaces on the western edge of the property without going through the ser- vice window. Addition. of the drive-through service window will result in the loss of nine parking spaces on the site, because angled parking will be necessary on the north half of the property in order to separate the drive-through service lane from the park- ing lot. October 23, 1978 Site Area: Building Area; Seating Capacitys Parking Spaces Provided: Parking Spaces Required: Site Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: Surrounding Land Use.: Comprehensive Plan: -2- Council Letter No. 307 164.37' x-170' (27,219 sq.ft.) 45' x 50' (2,250. sq. ft.) 104 38 35 General Commercial N-general commercial E-multiple family residential W-general commercial S-single family residential N-multiple-family residential E-multiple family residential W-commercial S-single family residential High to medium density mixed land use Section 3.33, subdivision 2 of the zoning ordinance provides that restaurants can be located in C-2 general commercial districts only if a special use permit is obtained. If a restaurant wishes to ex- pand or change the nature of its business beyond that which. was approved in its original special use permit, it must obtain another special use permit. Because the applicant is adding a.drive-through service window which was not included in the original proposal, a new special use permit is necessary-. In investigating this matter, the staff was unable to determine whether a special use permit was ever issued for the existing restaurant.. To resolve the matter, it is recommended that any new special use permit issued by the city council be for the existing restaurant as well as for the drive- through service window. Section 3.33, subdivision 4 of the zoning ordinance requires that adequate buffer areas be provided between restaurants and ad- jacent properties, to protect adjacent properties from noise, glare, fumes, dust and other nuisances. City ordinance also requires that 15-foot wide buffer areas. be maintained between parking areas access ory to commercial uses and single or multiple family residential property. Since the applicant's proposal provides only a three-foot. buffer area, a variance of 12 .feet is necessary. STAFF REVIEW Special Use Permit: The staff has reviewed the proposed restaurant site plan against the following: 1. - Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan indicates that the site should be developed with high density mixed land use, including such uses as multiple dwell- ings, office, research-oriented industrial, ~~otel, motel, institutional and retail commercial. Tne proposed res- taurant is a retail commercial type use and is, there- fore, in compliance with the use provisions of the comprehensive plan. 2. - Conditions for- Issuinq a Special Use Permit. The con- ditions for issuing a special use permit require that the proposed use not be detrimental to the public wel- fare. October 23, 1978 -3- Council Letter No. 307 In evaluating this proposal, the staff reviewed customer accessibility, parking requirements, traffic congestion and turn- ing movements on the site. No changes are proposed in the location of the existing parking lot entrances. Access to the drive-through facility will be from-the east side of .the restaurant building, with exiting from the west side.- The applicants will provide stack- ing space for nine-cars, which should be adequate to .allow for a r~as~onabT`e buildup of customers waiting to order without causing backup onto 66th Street. Because traffic movement would be one-way counterclockwise around the existing building., some traffic congestion and conflict- ing traffic flow could occur at the west exit/entrance on 66th. .Street and at the. rear of the building. Another potential traffic conflict-could result from crossing movements as vehicles from the driving aisle on the west side of the property and the vehicles leaving the drive-up window approach the western driveway exit. Cars in the driving aisle wishing to proceed east on 66th Street and cars in the drive-through window. wishing to proceed west on 66th Street must cross. There are also potential traffic conflicts on .the north side of the building. Trucks servicing .the .building or picking up gar- bage would block traffic circulation, preventing use of the drive- through window, and blocking access to parking spaces on the west half of the site, and the site exit. There are only 19 feet be- tween the curb on the north side of the building and the concrete posts protecting the trash enclosure, which is insufficient space for two traffic lanes. The applicant is exploring the idea of re- locating the trash .enclosure to provide more room. Vehicles higher than 8' 6" would be restricted from using the drive-through facility because of the roof overhang of the restaur- ant building. A warning sign regarding the height restriction will be installed. Parking Requirements The average monthly customer count at the restaurant for the period from October, 19.77 through September, 1978 was 25,153 cust- omers per month, with a peak during this period of 29,565 customers for August, 1978. Approximately two-thirds of this volume is ex- perienced during the noon and evening meal periods of about four hours daily. Approximately ten percent increase in business is anticipated to result from the drive-through window. A conservative estimate of average. customers per auto is 1.33. Thus, estimated average daily traffic based on the peak month would be: Noon and evening meals (four hours) 546 cars (67%) Other (eight hours) 269 cars (33•°s) 815 cars 100% Congestion of Adjoining Streets The existing traffic volume on 66th Street in the area of the October 23, 1978 -4- Council Letter No. 307 proposed development is 20,675 ADT which is the rated capacity of 66th Street. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposed development would not generate a significant increase in traffic. Therefore, there should be no significant additional congestion on 66th Street resulting from addition of the drive-through window if the exits and entrances are designed to facilitate traffic move- ment. Construction of the drive-through window would result in the removal of-nine off-street parking spaces, reducing the total number of spaces provided on the site from 47 to 38. The .estimated peak one-hour traffic would be 136 cars. Burger King's experience shows -that 25 percent of the traffic would use the drive-through window (34 cars), resulting in a peak parking lot demand of an estimated -.102 cars:. For the proposed 38 car parking .lot., this would result in a turnover of 2.7 times, which appears to be adequate. Staff Findings .The staff has found that the proposal would be in substantial compliance with all of-the standards for. restaurants found in Section 3..33, including subdivision 4, except for the requirement to provide adequate buffering from adjacent properties. Section 4.05 of the ordinance requires that a 15-foot setback (buffer area) be maintained between commercial: property .parking. lots and resident- ial property. The restaurant parking lot will be located three feet from the east property line, which abuts on multiple family resi- dential property. The applicants have requested a variance to this .requirement. Construction of the drive-through window will reduce the demand placed on existing parking facilities by .allowing customers to re- main in their cars while placing and receiving their order. Addi- tion of the drive-through window will create the potential for some traffic conflicts on the site. In response to concerns expressed by area residents, Burger King-has agreed to take specific actions to insure adequate noise and property maintenance controls. (Letter attached). It is the opinion of the staff that issuance of this special use permit would not have a detrimental effect or be injurious to other property in the immediate neighborhood if the agreement reached between the neighborhood and Burger Icing is carried out, and if landscaping along the east property line is accomplished and maintained. Variance to Section 3.33, Subdivision 4.6. Section 3.40, subdivision 6 of the zoning ordinance sets forth 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 variance to be granted. The staff has reviewed the request for a variance against these conditions, and found the following: 1. That there are special curcumstances 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. ~~_ , ~~ October 23, 1978 -5- Council Letter No. 307' It is the opinion of the staff that special conditions are present on the site. The proposal involves construction of an addition onto an existing structure and parking area alterations. `.The existing parking lot already has parking within the required 15 foot setback. The applicants are proposing to continue this existing parking with modifications. Another special condition is the fact that the .parking area abuts on the parking area of ad- jacent multi-family residences. The applicants will prowide a fence to screen the .parking area from residential property. .2,.. That the granting of the application is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights• The variance is not necessary to preserve property rights.- The denial of_the variance does not prevent the use of the site for the existing restaurant. . 3.. That the granting of the a~~lication will not materially or adversely affect the health and safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property _ _ of the applicant and will not be materially detrimental _ to the public welfare or injurious to property or improve- -- ments in the neighborhood. Based on the previous analysis, it is the opinion of the staff that. the proposal would .not be detrimental to the public welfare. In summary, the staff has found -that only one of the three conditions which must be present on the site are present,-and would, therefore, recommend that the .requested variance be denied. _ -- - - Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission considered this matter at their Septem- ber 26, 1978 meeting. One area resident appeared in opposition to the proposal and presented a petition; signed by 27 other residents, requesting that the special use permit and variance not be granted. One adjacent .property owner appeared in favor of the proposal. The planning. commission voted to recommend that the city council approve the special use permit and variance. Recommended Actions It is the recommendation of the Planning and ,Redevelopment Director, in which I concur, that the city council approve the special use permit only if the variance to reduce the buffer area between the parking lot and the adjacent multiple family resident- ial property is also approved; with the stipulation that an off- street parking contract be executed to reflect the proposed changes in the parking lot, and the following other provisions: 1. Relocating the trash enclosure to provide two moving lanes of traffic in the rear of the parking lot; October 23, 1.978 -6- Council Letter No. 307 2. Landscaping in accordance with city policy; 3. Landscaping and buffering as described in the agreement with the adjoining neighborhood; 4. Provision of a height restriction warning sign to protect the overhang area. Respectfully submitted; ,~ ~ _ o ,-_ _ f ~~ d ~J J y L, Wilde cting City Manager JLW/eja cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director Public Works Director \' - ~ WEST 66 th. ' ~ ADD.•'ORrvf - THHU' PANES ' TO EX1571NG BK C~GO YIGN STREET .: ~ _ - ~~ :az ~ ;~ Ott ~ LBZ~ :tl, .Laid else ~Jiap I !; i(`85 ~ Q! ~ ; ` ~' ~ _ _ ,~ L I i ~ 2l (1 'i ~ 2930 ~. r c ~ J W ~/4 ~ ~`~ _ -. ~ i • i t.~5[ c 7 ~ S , 72, ~4 ~b6o ~ • !<td~.23' ~:s414. i i~lc ~• ~ , So ~ ~ X31: .~: ~ __._ ~°w ~Z4 4~ ~ ~ ' I ills _ ~ ~ 1675 ~ ( . LZ - ~- 11. ~_~.. _ 7o to __- - -- _. '- a ~~.: si s*°~ _~~. • •~ sx51. 3? 1 -~ ,,~ h~ ,: ~~ «. ~' -- ~ ~~ ~' --~ S zj ~~. `~T 2 t y~ ~ t ---Zt--~4t ~ ~-_-.~ ,~LI. 'yam ~ ~„ $__-L --~ ~.._-~ -r-~-~rti o- - ~-~ 1 ~ ~ 14 ~~ IAoo ~~ ~+ - - - -- , -- ~ ~ a ~-~ - - 1R ~ x l '~ ~ ~ ~ , 'v'ia ,,.~•, ~ ^ ~+ ~•- .yb •t:`~i Ire `(i4~S - ._..~.~: ~ v ..- , ,~±, -~;~ Ij t ~- n ~; ~~3 ~~ ' ~ 11 ,~ ~ ~ 4 -- :- ~' N ~ ~ _ 41 is t X 4 ~ ,. 7 0 30~ ~~ ~~ ~j _ 4_ ~ i ~~ ; ~~---- ' ~~__ '' .~ I~ ~ ~'~s-,~`~ i f, ` I•q ' :. .Z_ __~ _L ~o- '7 ~ ~s4 ~ - 'Sod ; ~_~ q'y 9 --- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ; ~ ~ _ ~, "r' ' r `'t` ~ ~, ,~ ~' :'ti= '! ~ "J1ULT1-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ,j-.h •~ ~~ ,. -- z .' 3 -- ~ ~ -- .~ I s. l- ,o ; ~ __ co~1~r~~1ERCIaL . ..t~ .~ r --i i ~9 -- I ,x ;Ija7 Y~ ,, r - -~- i a ~~ T a • ,,,~ 2 1~4,.+ ~~ ,~ 3 I o. ti s of • ~~.~ M •c ~a.m ~ ~a~S ~~t~ ,, b~ ~q~ h- ~ I A~~ ~~ ~r? ZNnI. ~ M~~ 3.~1~T N/~1 ~ - _~. a.-... .._._. ~ ~ _ 'S' t, i ~ ~ ir:J ~ ~ *~. F ~. I ;~ ~ , `,. - ---- .. Z®ning iVfap . y.. y t~i y r a - - ; t ~ ~•~ ~ ~ ! ~~ ~ ! ~ 4 ` ' _ ) ~~+t a ~- ~- .N - _ it ~'7 j ~'~li ' JCZ ~~ ., i zj~'O S l~nC~ .v SY q, '~ 1 __._ _ .. +t . _ ;;~ . ~ f_ J.; iY> * :~ :._K ;- _: +~.~~ .~~{ .' ~. :+.~..J~ ~_ 1 .: 7 1 : t ~1 ^~ s. ~ ' r -+° S, r - --~J ~~ ~ 1 °n rv f ~~ `y ? ' ... i t .. _ . ~._- e ..y r.~ ~-_~ ~ 11 - r _ ~ ~ t 5~~~ ~ ~ Q .>^ .: , _. ~ 1_ ^K~ ~ -. •.~f 1. ___~ i',.W_ '_ ~-.1.-- ~ 1 ~ ...L r` C~ ~. ~ Y ( .,- -=~5' ' t. !1.1 st-, h 9 ~4~, ~~. ~ n ?, ~ ~ Rri ,aft ~} - tLLw~~ .i O ' ~ S ~ ~1'e~ •j pfd 3~k~4 -is 3;} ZH~i. ~ ' . F a '2' ~"i a - )) i.. ~y~/ ~~.~ j.~,W Z. ~.,y l.~ i ` ~ ~~~ - '~`~--a-~ '~~r1'3 t , ~ ~7.~j x . / fC> .g';;~1 a ~.~ ' ?53 T-- ~ v .. !, __'_7 ; --~ f` _--r-rim. ~ a ~: ' ~ .~ / ' ~ ` i ~ s ~ ~ .,~.~ ~~ ~ _~ ?~ ~ =' ~~~ <.; 0.a --: ~. ~ ~ ~ ,_ 1 h _'I ~ _l '~ .~:c.ZG.~.r1 _~~c::Y_ "F-(~ ,,• i~~_,°.,,_'l .+~,___~--•~~ y~~'~_.~'~ ~~__~k-^t> ~:,~j, !_~i ~ ti,t ~ ~ t ~ ._._.~_ ~- ~~ / 1 31. GENERAL COMMERCIAL ~-, ~ ~ . ~ -~`' -- ~-_=~ *~ = ;~ ,_ _~~ 7 i; MULTIPLE RESIDENCE _a -S ~~ _ { V i , 'f+ • V -. 1 . -. -. ~.~._...__~ ^1^-T-J-y ~___ _ ~~--__ I• ~ ti ... s__ L -.. -_ ti. ! _~__ _.~ L__. _- ~ l_- -_ `j .~ - - a ~µ~ a'.: M ~ =-m ~ =~ J -~.~.~ ~p=~::. ::u ._w. ~..~ ~. z ~ \_~ ~ i. _s _ { - -- _ , -._ _ ~ ~~ __ - -as ..c ,. _ _ ~ c~ _...~ ~ ~`` ,~ ~ ~ rte. ~~ ~ `r~ -~ '~ ~ - ~ ,~ ~ ~~~..•..E ~' si ~f '~~ _~ ,~_ `,.«..aq~ ~r- JAY ~0. ~-_~ .:.o.rH sc ~ u ~! ~ -_.-- nsoc« ..c ~~ __ - _ _ - -_~ .E.~ ..E ~ ~~~ , ~ r Y -_ ~ "y ~ __ ~- - ~~ - - ,~ .~..o ..E ~y i _ ~./ y ~~ t Y ___ - _ . L ~_o. we {{{ - . 4F l _ _ _ \/\~\ • f~ - .•.•;'~- : _. ,K. ScX ~ Y,~zYz~.525252~ ~~~~~ ~ `4 £: c~~~~~h~~si a clevel®prnent pecan for the e~ty of r~chf~e~d LAND USE: description Mixed Land Use ~,\ `. ~ Mixed Land Use ® Central Business District Mixed Land Use Mixed Land Use Industrial Multiple Convenience Shopping Area Single Family Residential COMMUNITY FACILITIES: TRANSPORTAT ION: density principal uses Combination 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 High/Medium comparison shopping and service businesses, institutional, limited cultural, recreational facilities, and multiple dwellings Combination. of single family dwellings, multiple dwellings, Medium townhouses, and neighborhood convenience commercial Medium Light and research oriented industrial uses. High Multiple units with related accessory uses. Low Grocery, drug, hardware stores. Single family or two family Low u nits and accessory uses cou~paL~ble with single Or two family units ----- Public parks and open space ----- Public schools _____ Churches or Church-related facilities _____ Other public, quasi-public, or private institutional facilitie ----- Major arterial thoroughfare odopttd by th• city of richfi~ld this l~fh day of Janu a r y ;tq 73 (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 arage will not provide for the outdoor operation. of lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts or ser~.~ice pits, or the outdoor display of merchandise; but the outside underround 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 narage is not to be located on a countt- road or state highway, it shall not be operated betc:-een the hours of 11:00 p.m. and u:00 a.m. of the followinC 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, A1otels. Restaurants 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 c•~ill 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 t'r,e 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 treatmen~_ 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 caill be made throutrh 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 otf-street parkin~_ space is from internal driveway systems and is not directly from public streets, and (3) provision is made for well-designed vehicular staclcin' space allowing for an efficient and orderly flow of traffic from the site onto adjacent main thorou~,hfares of the city. "~4ain thorouhEar~s o>_ t!le pity", as used in this para~,raph, means a street ciesi~~nated as a suite trunk highwa~~ or a service drive adjacent to the state trunk hi•~hw,iv, a state aid hihway, a county aid highway, a co~inty highway, ur a street which is so lo~.ited .is to serve, primarily, commercial develupment. (Pill 19%~-10) =+1'~ui7~ (f) The proposed 1acili.ty will provide an aesthetic appearance whi~!t will not detract 1'ro~a or conrli_~t with the. e~:istin, or pr~noseci :cr~iiite~tur:;1 form of buildin,;s in the ~~~me area. (};) The Ilse will not create an excessive hurcfen .~n hubli~ ;~,~res, public open-space, c;treets, ~?r utilities reduirin:r, publ.ie ~eryi~e~ •.~hi~i; are proposed to ~crye the iacilit~:. (h) The proposed Jevcl~pment will not conflict with ~hc c~mprehensi~•e development plan of tli~ ~_ i ty. l . ,--, s~ , . ~, ,; ~~~_~ ,:-. `'~ ` w~,_`~3.41. SPECIAL USE PERMITS Subdivision 1. Issuance. Special use permits may be issued for any of the _ ~fi- ~i i '~ following: ._;, (1) Any of the uses or purposes for which such permits are required or ``aw" ,permitted by the provisions of this chapter. ~l{ ~~~ ;~~. :.,_:.;(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. k'•:l. - (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 ,;,x`,._ for the disposal of human dead. (5) For any use covered by Section 3.35. a~ --,.-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, ~~F_ _ nor for any use prohibited in all districts by the provisions of this part. '~ _ .- - iLSubd. 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. b~ r 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 not grant a permit for any of the uses enumerated in Subdivision 1 hereof unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use for which a use permit is sought will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental, (1) to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, or (2) to the public wel- fare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Subd. SA. Conditions Governing Issuance of a Special Use Permit in an .Officially Approved Redevelopment Area. The council shall 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 ;~: ~ ~ 2/13/78 ORDINANCE CODE 81 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~. ~' t 4,- " V ~-C September 22, 1°7~ Nlr. Richard C. Kr; er Planning and ~ed.evelonment director C._ty of ;~.ichfie~..d. Dear Sir; Re: rer..uest by BurF.er 1'.ing restaurant for ~,, p::r`nit to allota construction of a drive ~$,rir~~ow ^t tr.e elristi~~g loci.-:icn at 200 ~i.6C~th St. plus a variance to reduce the east side of t'.~e parking 1_ot from 15 feet to 3 feet. jde the undersigned who live accross from Burger nine- feel ~.ae ha.ve more tha:- enough _loise and confusionto de~_l with at the present tire. :'+2 have t'e br1.~l'1t li%"1"1tS s_^:111~7_YiP' eV°X'Z~ ?:1€''_'^:t ii1 O'•7r '.J1n40i~iS~a.?~~' I'iOre additio?gal li.~hts rao-~ld on?_;- be adc ing to our discor.~fort. 4!e feel the traffic si_t~aatl_on is bary e:~!ough ?aitl:cut tl~e a.d~ iti oval traffic a d--•ive u~, t>.il~_ 'ori n~. Taki~1~' frog th<: ~a.rkin~' brill put~dc_ition~_l rarl~in~' o~~_ ouwr si~~e streets. •:e not only have ~~11 t~~e e~~tra *__oise off' traf.-~ic going in and o~~t of Bur. F•er ~~1~i~ during :JuJines.~7 Y10~'•~'s hUt lOi?E' ?fter C~.OSl'?~" :Je h~.~etlie s~ueali ng of tires ^.nd loud zroi ces from a;~d on .lie par';in g lot. The ~'outh sic7.e of ti~i s bloc=;: is ~,ot zoned co:~TMe?~ci al. yJ_1owi:~~g t1:is b:>rmit will :~'tstha~ decrea4 e the v~.lue of our real estate. ti•Te comrend tie r~ana.~-e~?ent for piclri.r.:~ un tr_e ]_itter better t:~is sun~er. I~otreve-r t:s stro-r:rl~ -°eco~~me~~n the-,~],~^.i7ing Cor~unission not gra;~t the reacae~;c for the above nerr~it. r( 12305 1-'j• ~~th ~~t J F L' ,r ', ~~~ -=- ~ L;, ~ E r° J_ • '~ V /J r vZz.-rte f C -~. ~~ ~~-~-~ ~xc~ vc,. \ ~ (~ / 3.._ 9 ,_~,. l k~„ ~~ ~ ~ `mil ~~ . ~, .~- J t~ ~:~,~ ~, _ j ~ J ~ ~ 1 ,'~'~.o ~312~-vtJ re' L,: ~-~C.t~e.-'' .fit ~.h-ti ~ ~ ~' C~ / ~ ~ (j ~j ~ ,~ /~~ ' °' c' _~ r ~` ,~ ~/ ~-.- (~ (, oar ' ~.. ~ . ~_ L~ ~~y~ ~ :,-- -~ (~ ~ ~O :~ ~. ~L<. Yi `~~`" `~~ec~ ~ ~ ~7.- GCS `~L;~.- 7 ~ i ~,, ~ ~~" .. 1. ~~ i,R < -~ ~~2.._... ~. ~. ,~ ;. i t i p~g° ~ I Fr4.7o j i. J }. a =. ~ ~ I. i ~ ~ N ~/ ~ ~i ae.o 3Z 0 ~ ;~ ~ w •.IO3. N~0 q_J , ~ ~ ~ r 4 b v' , ~ 3 ~ ' .a ,I ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 1 ~ ~ ° ~_ i 3 5 O~~ ~ s Q ~ n ! ~ ~~ ~ n ^ ,~ ~_ E p yo Q 6~ 1 \ 3230 ~ b ~,I,f7 r ~ f:. Z r ~ ~ '' ' y~p~,. or o ~. ~It@B A , z ~ s e. y ~ .c o, t/ s a30 , isc' ~ ~> > ~ t f f ~ '~l _ ~ .. _ ,4:j4.'10 /`~9 55i5'~ `1i ;! j ,419 ~ t ,h i yt N ~ 'N u ! ' , 1 `~k 4 ~ rZ7•Gr^ ^/ Z i ~ M i 7. .4 w~ ^ ~ d 21. ~4 v $ , ~ 8 _ w o ~ 1!• ~ ~ H• ~ r 1~ v 10. ~ ~ , I~ R ~ 10. '~___-_. ~ ~ ~ 11 ~ t ~.~ ~ 11 ~ \ ~ Ii. t1 ?~~ ~ I~, I ~ I~. ~ 12. ~ ~ ~ ^ 11. ,'~I~ a1t_ e~~* ~w ~ ''ails. ~.o nn 14.i~i 3 f.S•. --`7'LrS .. .. W fi-__ j'~ V ~.7- ~~I`~'y dy^.~-ii. ~ ~ 24 "~` `~ I• t~ ~ Z4 * ~~I ~ I , Z4. y ' '" ~*, n~ '~ 1~7.G o T 8lZJ.G ~ o l.ZZ~ :, 0!1 ~ Z o v r ,~ y'1J. F 1; ~ av Z. ~ h Zj H a 2. h ZS ., •" Z. 3 ~ 2 `~ 23~ ~ `' Z t2. a , 3. tZ 7 N ;. zz ~ ~ 3 j ~ tt ,~' c" 3 w .. 0 • ` _ 21. ~ ~ 4. ^-~_..~ 4. ~ ZI ~ z 4 Zi j ,4 _ -21 a `o --~- , y 1i h a 6 Ze h _ Q S. Zo. ,3 .?" ~ L. 3. Ze ~ c 3. 16. n u i 7 lil. ~ ~ 7. IS ~~, j ~ 7 4 lb ,~,~ ~ Its ~ ~ 7. _ ~• ~ M ~ t. a 1 ~ r. n 4~ ~~ t; 9 1~ ~! ~ 9. 9 ~ ~ 1G ,J ~ 9. _ _ ___ n ,: --- µ ~: ,, I I f _ _ ^ 11 Pe+i~'ton S t Hers ~: ', ~ ~ ~; >4. ~ --~ 1 • ~ `I e ~) ~ ' ~I~ ..~ h~'IL''~~ s~ tjl e~ ~~IZ.~ 1 it ,~ .f' It ,~.. , , - _ ~~:~: ~_. ~ - ~-f ~. v T -- -t-- w ti ~ I Z. T I;,• . . ~~ 3. ~i. • I d, ~ bra ~ ~ Q. ~• ~ • M G. a n ~ dr r. r 1. '1' yl I I. >~ W ;. i!' 33 ,~.,~ G. '(E;~l+~~-~i~fCING CORPORATION MINNEAPOI~ EAL ESTATE & SITE DEVELOPMENT `` ~_ October 9, 1978 To Whom It May Concern Re: Burger King Restaurant 2800 W. 66th Street Richfield, Minnesota 55423 'A ~_ In response to the petition dated September 22, 1978 and filed with the City of Richfield by citizens residing in the proximity of this restaurant, a meeting between Burger Kirig representatives and the petitioners was held October 5, 1978 to resolve the complaints stated in the petition. As a result of this meeting, Burger King agrees to the following: 1., Burger King employees will twice daily pick up litter generated by our restaurant in the neighborhood in general, and the 2700 and 2800 blocks on West 66th Street and from 66th to 67th Street on Upton and Vincent Avenues in particular. ®~~~ 2. Burger King will receive deliveries between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. ®~ 3. Snowplowing in the Burger king parking lot will be done, as - ~ necessary, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. 4. Burger King employees will assist the petitioners to obtain parking restrictions on Upton and Vincent Avenues between 66th and 67th Streets by attempting to secure signatures of residents of both blocks. 5. Burger King will attempt to have any contractual garbage/ trash pickup from the restaurant between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. 6. Burger King will include in the construction of a drive-up service window a screening device (i.e. fencing and/or shrubbery) agreeable to the owners of the properties located at 2801, 2805, 2809, 2813 and 2817 West 66th Street. Such screening device will be installed facing West 66th Street on said properties at a cost not to exceed $1.00 per property owner. Such screening device will be erected in accordance with applicable city codes and will be owned by said properties owners. Burger King will stain and repair, as necessary, any fencing so installed but will assume no other liability concerning such fencing. (612) 881-5317 (Real Estate) 8120 PENN AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 345 i BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 TELEPHONE: (612) 881912 (Site Development) ~ ~ ~ w ~~ r To Whom It May Concern October 9, 1978 Page Two 7. Burger King will include in the construction of a drive-up service window two speed control devices (speed bumps) in -the restuarant parking lot. Sincerely, James F. Winstead Region Manager JFW/lt ~:? a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 30~ Agenda October 23, 1978 The Honorable:. Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Gentlemen: Subject: Vacation of Grand Avenue between 65th Street and 66th Street,. Second Reading. A hearing on the vacation of Grand Avenue between 65th Street and 66th Street has been scheduled for the October 23, 1978 city council meeting. The vacation of this block of .Grand. Avenue was requested by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to permit the HRA to in- elude this street right-of-way in the K-Mart redevelopment parcel. Under terms of the development agreement with Financial Properties, Inc. it is the responsibility of the HRA to convey the K-Mart par- eel free and clear of any liens and encroachments. This require- ment applies to the Grand Avenue right-of-way as well as to all other parts of the K-Mart parcel. First reading of the street. vacation ordinance occurred at the September 25, 1978 city council meeting. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached transitory ordinance va- eating Grand Avenue between 65th Street and 66th Street at the .October 23, 1978 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, o c L. Wilde cting City Manager JLW/ e j a cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director ..Public Works Director City Attorney ', , ;, ~~; , ;~?' - ~. Bill 1978-16 #;~ " TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0. 16.49 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR _~~ THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF GRAND AVEi~TUE _s CITI' OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following portion of Grand Avenue South ~vithin the City of Richfield is hereby vacated: "All that part of Grand Avenue South adjoining Lots 1 through 8 inclusive, Block 3, and Lots 1 through 8 inclusive, Block 4, Lying between the extensions across it of the north line of Lot 1, Block 4, and of the south line of Lot 8, Block 4, all in 'J. N. Hauser's Second Addition' according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Titles in and for Hennepin County, li2innesota. " Section 2. The 14ayor and City Manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right-of-cvay as provided in the fore- going Section 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this day of 1978• - Loren L. Law, lllayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Aioran, City Clerk r, ' f=- .~ ~ / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 30.5 Agenda October 23,-1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council -City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Discussion of Minnesota Department of Transportation Grant Application Earlier. this. year the Richfield Lion's Club asked the city to participate in a grant application which th.e club wished to submit to the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The purpose of the-grant application. wauld be for the Lion's Club to receive a vehicle which could be used to provide transportation for hand- icapped individuals and senior citizens.. The Richfield Lion's Club would provide approximately $2,500 toward the purchase of the vehicle.. It would be necessary for the city to also provide approximately $2500 toward the purchase and to agree to operate the vehiche for a minimum of five years. The vehicle-would be the property of the Richfield Lion's Club. In March, 1978 the city council authorized participation in this grant application with the understanding that the city would have the opportunity to review this decision once initial priorities were determined. The grant application has now been reviewed and it has been determined that it has a high priority designation.. The Minnesota Department of Transportation must now assemble all priority projects from the state into a single application which must be forwarded to the U.S. Department of Transportation for final fund- ing approval. It is anticipated that any projects included in this summary application will be-funded. A final decision on whether to include the Richfield Lion's Club application must be made by October 25, 1978. It is not possible for the Lion's Club application to be included unless the Richfield City Council is willing to make a five year commit- ment to operate the vehicle. The Lion's Club while willing to make an initial $2500 contribution to the project is not in a position to operate or provide continuing support to the program. The City of Richfield has been providing some senior/handicapped transportation services during 1978 with the assistance of CETA funding. This CETA project will terminate on November 14, 1978, although the council has made a commitment to continue the program ~ '~, Council Letter No. 305 -2- through the end of the year,. as well as to provide some kind of seniorfhandicapped transportation services .during 1.979. The estimated annual cost of providing the same service which has been provided through the CETA project is approximately $15,000. This service has provided transportation primarily for seniors and mobile handicapped persons, to and from programs at the Community Center.. The program which the city could provide if the grant were received and a vehicle purchased,. would be slightly different than the existing program, primarily because the vehicle would be equipped to handle wheelchairs as well as ambulatory persons. The vehicle would not be delivered for at least a year after federal funding approval is given,. and it would likely be early 1980 before the vehicle would be available for use. Present guidelines re- quire that the city. make a five year commitment to use the vehicle for purposes of senior/handicapped transportation, although state officials have .indicated that a three-year commitment might be all that would be necessary by the time the vehicle would be received. Furthermore,- the grant provides only for purchase of the vehicle,. and does not include any funding for operations or depreciation- of the vehicle. It is anticipated that the annual cost of oper- ating and depreciating the vehicle would be approximately $25,000 beginning in 1980. Because of the long time delay before the vehicle would be delivered, any program commitment and funding commitment would actually be for the years between 1980 and 1984. Attached is a summary of other transportation services avail- able for senior. and handicapped persons in Richfield. Several of these programs are functioning at the present time.. A review of these programs indicates that several alternatives. exist for meeting the transportation expectations of Richfield's senior and handicapped population. The MTC's Project Mobility .program will begin operating in the south suburban area shortly after the first of the year. This program can provide transportation for both seniors and handicapped, and the hours of operation are consid- erably expanded over any service the city could offer. Further- more, we can also retain the current services provided through lease of a van from the Salvation Army or some other source, which is what the city would have to do if the council wishes to operate our own transportation program in 1979. In summary it is recommended that the city council act to withdraw from this federal grant application. This. recommendation is made for the following reasons: 1. The city is in a position to continue through 1979 the same kind of transportation service which currently exists. 2. The attachment to this letter indicates that several viable alternatives do exist without requiring long term financial commitments for the city.. ,~ - Council Letter No. 305 - 2 - 3. The vehicle to be provided by the grant program would not be available for use until 1980. By that time the alternative programs, expecially project mobility will be .providing very significant transportation opportunities. e 4. Participation in the federal grant application would mean that the City of Richfield would have to make a five year commitment (1980 - 1984) to fund the op- eration of this vehicle. Assuming an eight percent annual inflation rate and no increase in service level, a $25,000 annual cost in 1980 quickly increases'. to $34-,000 by 1984. The uncertainty of the city's ability to fund its current level of service in all areas beyond 1980 makes it fiscally unsound to make a five year spending commitment begining in 1980 and ending in 1984. Re ~ectfully submitted, ~,,p ~. t ~~~r~ Wayne S. Burggraaf City Manager WSB/ea cc: Administrative Assistant Parks & Recreation Director .,.- ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS TO PROVIDE SENIORfHANDICAPPED TRANSPORTATION HANDICAPPED & SENIOR CITIZNES TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INC. This service is a privately funded and operated program located in Burnsville. The service has been available to Richfield residents since May, 1978. This program provides transportation between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays. They have two adaptive vehicles, and although some senior transportation is provided, the major service emphasis is handicapped transportation. Transportation is provided on-call with 48-hour notice. This is a demand-responsive service which does not operate on a fixed-route. There is no cost to the rider. RED CROSS TRANSPORTATION The South Suburban Red Cross has begun providing limited transportation services over the past year. The REd Cross offices are located in Bloomington, and transportation is available for any .South Hennepin resident at no cost. The major emphasis of the Red Cross transportation program is ambulatory disabled persons, since they have no facili- ties for handling wheelchairs. Because of difficulties iii finding volunteer drivers, the Red Cross has had problems responding on a consistent basis to calls for rides. V.E.A.P. The Volunteer Emergency Assistance Program, housed in the Richfield Community Center, provides some limited trans- portation services to elderly or ambulatory disabled per- sons in the South Hennepin area. The program has also had problems gaining sufficient volunteers to serve as drivers, and is unable to provide a routine and consistent trans- portation service. There is no cost for rides provided through V.E.A.P. PROJECT MOBILITY ' The M.T.C.'s project mobility transportation program will begin expanding into the South Suburban area in February, 1978. NI.T.C. authorization for this expansion has already been achieved,-and the first vehicles are scheduled to arrive in January. Project Mobility is an elderly/handicapped program which has been operating in Minneapolis and St:. Paul for about two years. The major emphasis of this program is on pro- viding handicapped transportation,. Persons wishing trans- portation services through Project Mobility must have a doctor's certification that they are handicapped in such a way as to make their use of regular transportation facili- ties difficult or impossible. When Project Mobility expands into Richfield, senior citizens residing more than three blocks from an M.T.C. bus stop will also be eligible for rides.. The cost for one-way transportation through this program is 35~. Riders need .provide only two hours notice before their trip. Project Mobility provides rides between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. weekdays, with only. slightly different hours on weekends and holidays. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/METRO COUNCIL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT The Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metro- politan Council are currently organizing a project designed to provide coordination and central dispatching for all senior/handicapped transportation services in the metro- politan area. To date, this project is only in the con- ceptual stages of trying to identify the variety of services which are available in the various jurisdictions Ultimately, the project proposes to provide a single dispatching center, where an elderly or handicapped person can call and describe their transportation needs and destination and the most appropriate vehicle can be dispatched to provide their rides. This project will probably not begin providing dispatching services and rides until late 1979 or 1980, and them only in a limited area of the metropolitan area. The MNDOT Public Transportation Director has indicated that the South Suburban area is, however, likely to be one of the first areas where this project is implemented. YELLOW CAB SHARED -RIDE PROJECT In late 1977, Yellow Cab submitted a proposal to the cities of Bloomington, Edina, and Richfield to initiate a "share a ride" transportation service in those three communities. Under this program, individuals going to the same destin- ation could ride together in the cab, for a maximum per per- son per trip cost of $1.00-$1.25 anywhere in the three com- minity area. Yellow Cab is no longer pursuing this program, and the MNDoT has indicated this transportation service is not a realistic alternative. CITY OF RICHFIELD - CONGREGATE DINING VAN PROGRAM During most of 1978, with the assistance of C.E.T.A .funding to support the costs of a driver, the City of Richfield has leased a van from the. Salvation Army-to provide transporta- tion services to and from Community Center programs for elderly and the ambulatory handicapped:. This services has provided rides on this basis between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays. The vehicle being used for this program is not capable of handling wheelchairs. I ~! '}.. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office. of City Manager Council Letter No. 304 Agenda October 23, 1978. The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen:- Subject: Release of Bond for -0ff-Streit Parking Contrast, 6600 Grand Avenue On the October 23, 1978 city council agenda there is a re- quest~for the release of an off-street parking bond for property at 6600 Grand Avenue. This. off-street parking contract was entered into with the Richfield State Agency, Inc, 6625 Lyndale Avenue, on September 22, 1975, to provide parking for a retail store located at 6600 Grand-Avenue. The area provided for parking under the original off-street parking contract is now being reconstructed, and an office building is located on the original site. Anew off-street parking agreement for the new office building at 6600 Grand Avenue will be executed shortly.. However, since the requirements of the. original off-street parking contract have been met, and. since the subject property is no .longer being used for parking purposes, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution authorizing release of this off-street parking bond. Respectfully submitted,. t c L. Wilde Acting City Nianager JLW/eja cc: Public Works Director. ", ;. RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND ON OFF-STREET PARKING Richfield State Agency, Inc. 6625 Lyndale Avenue South - Location: 6600 Grand Avenue South Use: Retail Store - Sale of Jewelry WHEREAS, Richfield State Agency, Inc., 6625 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, had an off-street parking agreement with the City of Richfield, relating to 6600 Grand Avenue South, which contract bears the designation of Contract No. 2200, and which contract was guaranteed by a bond of the AID Insurance Company (Mutual), Des Moines, Iowa, in the amount of .2,000, and WHEREAS, Richfield State Agency, Inc. has complied with the provisions of said agreement and the AID Insurance Company (Mutual) now seeks to be relieved -'of any further obligation under said bond, and WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring Richfield State Agency 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 the AID Insurance Company (Mutual), Des Moines, Iowa,-for any and all acts of Richfield State Agency, Inc., committed or incurred in violation of Contract No. 2200 on and after the 23rd day of October, 1978. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 23rd day of October, 1978. oren L. Law ATTEST: Mayor Thomas J. Moran City Clerk ,l t i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 303 Agenda. October 23, 1978- The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of .Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Consideration of Appointments to Wine Licensing Ordinance Study Committee. On October 10,_1978,-the city council adopted .guidelines providing for creation of a citizens committee to study a proposed wine licensing ordinance.. A copy of the guidelines adopted by the city council for this committee is attached. At that time, the council indicated an interest in considering appointments to this committee at the October 23, 1978 city council meeting. Attached to .this council letter are applications received from persons interested in being considered for appointment to this committee. Respectfully submitted, J y L. Wilde cting City Manager JLW/eja cc: Public Safety Director City Clerk /~, SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR ;NINE LICENSING ORDINAI~ICE STUDY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP The committee shall be comprised of seven to nine voting members, representing a cross-section of the community, male and female, as well as at least one representative from the following organi- zations: Richfield Ministerial Association Richfield PTA Richfield Planning Commission .Richfield Business Community NON-VOTING, EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS Non-voting, ex-off-icio members representing the city council and city staff shall also participate with and on this committee in accomplishing the assigned tasks. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of this committee shall be tions to the Richfield City Council on ology of providing for issuance of wine ants. This task may include, but not b activities: {1) receive testimony from men, and others regarding proposed wine other area municipalities to determine to review and make recommenda- the desirability and/or method- Iicenses to Richfield restaur- e limited to, the following interested residents, business- licensing process; (2) survey what they are doing, and what their experience has been, with a wine licensing process; (3) identify requirements which should be included in any wine licensing process or ordinance; (4) make recommendation to city council regarding wine licensing. If such recommendation is to proceed with adoption of a wine licensing ordinance, the committee should recommend such an ordinance for city council review-and adoption. Late U c• ~ y'; ~ % 7.~ APPLICr,TICN ?'OR. CIT`~ OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR_COP.",MISSION APPOI~ NAME ~~/`Q ~~~-v ^ `~ z~•~~~ Last r ir:_ t ~ J HOME ADDRESS ~~ -~~ ~~ ~ zc~C1 k.~ ~/~ f So ~~..:~~ « Street No. ~ ~'~ Cit, MAILING ADDRESS {if different from home address; Street No. PHONE: Home CST ~~ 1978 l 1 Ili i.JV.i..~ ~'"~ Zip Cede C1ty alp C;,e ~~ ~ - s~y~/ Business ~ ~ / _ ~~'// APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Commission. Human Rights Commission Civil Service Cor~missior: Adviso Board o` Health~/ Briefly discuss aspects of your experience ~~'hich you believe iualify you for this municipal commission,%~commit*_ee and why }you are interested in ser~:•ing: //, //t ///~ ~ ~ i ~G Z-G J~ ~-G ~C ~" ~ ltl •\ `-'O 9 e ' M~ . .. c~ ~, -C -1 t. i l f 1 ~ .l_ ,~~ ,~ ~/~a2 _ ~-~_ QA T-_ ~ ~ _~ ~ , i CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY' ACTIVITIES: OCCUPATION: / C Employing .firm, agency ~.r>>-zc~.~ ~/-y,~ ~"~~e~~.~ ~~~ ,. Address f~-~`~~'~i ~ ~~ ~ ~J~.~-~ Position ~~`~~~,~ ~ years w/firmY%agenr.y ~ ~ ~~~ ~/~~.~ Other work experience (optional) REFERENCES (Optional) A. Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number B. Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number C. Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number Return to; City Manager's Office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 Att; E:Ieen Anderson Date~~~~ r ~ ~ IGl ~ ~J - '/ , NAME ~G21 Last HOME ADDRESS APPLICA1'IOTv' FOR CIT`i' OF RICHF'IEL DVISOR~' COMMITTEE OR COI~~iMiSSION APP 2 lt~~~S Street INTO. ~G{~n1Ce ~^ L L ~- t r~ ~ a ~n ~- v~ S 6 City ~ ~ S' ' ~ - ~~~~ `~ ~T t,~i ~t~ 1978 ICi11i~{w ~!`~~ ~Ytll~rryy~.5~f~3 L., 1 p ~' J •1 e MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address; Street No. City PHONE: Home ~ (O ~ - ~ ~ (~ 3 Business APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. ..Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Commission x Uvi,ne 1 cC-,t;,e. ~~~1~,,,~~~ Zip CJUr~ Human Rights Com;;:ission Civil Service Commission Advisory Board ai Health Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience ~:rhich you believe qualify you for tt-iis municipal commission, committee and 4vhy ,; ou are interested in serving : ##-s C~ ~Q. ~'~ n~ C~ ~~ c~, ~ v ~ c e v~ ~ e C~ C i ~ ~ 2.~ n O (~ i cfn -~ ~ e, lu . ~ ~. G~ - l i ~-~- ~ ~ t m ~ n ~r-~-a ~1-~- i s s ;:~ ~. fif : YJ ~ ~ ~ ll O ~ V -2 C~ t !'l ~.. ~ P C t ~ 1 O f"1 ~ ~ ~ ~- ~~ ~- ,~ ~ C O ~ C~ I i G ~ ~ y Eir Q G, PS b ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~_~ i r1 ~a ,~-, ~ t ~ it e s ~Q ~~;r a ~ ~ S a. v~ C~. (J t 2z~, {~ a. r lo,-s , C-I~VI-C-, PROFESSIONAi, AIv'D COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: l._- CJ~ ~U C.X. © V~~ Q. Y1 Ci ~ 1~ 'w~ t1 1 C~. c~ CQ ~l ~ ' C Q C~ E' V' . ~v, r~c~a~t ~~t,~cr~_1~~ac `~~c ~ - `~ ~c L-~-~'t~_ i d ~..._u~~ ~rc~~ . t 1~ t~ _I _ ~~' ~OrmPr ~Y.~rJ_irl_-C~cZ{E',-l=~e~m~~~~a1^V t-PGIC.~Fi~'. OCCUPATION: f ' ` f 1 _~ Employing ,firm, agency (~tbY~'~P (Y1C~~P 1r C`t v~C~ ~~b5-~t~-t,t-~ 1 ecL= .^ Address ~ ~c~r~~t~t C~ ~~- ;h ~j l ~c SCI~-ti00 ~S Position years r~/fir:;l~age:;~ Other work experience (optional) REFERENCES (Optional) A. Full name Mailing address B. Relationship Phone number Full name Relationship Mailing address C. Phone number Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number Return to: City Manager's Office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 Att: Eileen Anderson Date ;~ C~OG*-~ ~v. / ~ 7~ T T j t F,~ r, r APPL~C:~T_CI~, ~~R. `,IT`S OF RICH IEI.i~ ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COP~iMISSION APP .; ~' r;: T Q }978 NAME ~~ ~s~~ ~~~~ p;fi~r ,i~~~er Last _~irGt i'v..~~1 '`HOME ADDRESS ~S ~ ~- / z ~ t~_ ~ _ ,~< </ r ~ p~ ~1~J, s'~s-~ Z 3 Street No. City Zip C~de MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home addressi Street No. City Zip ode PHONE: Home ~GC~i~YZ Business s~2/ZOO APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Human Rights Corr:mis~ion Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Ci`/il Service C'or:missior. Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Board of Health Advisory Commission Other w; ~~ o~nf,.,},.~G ~zrw,-...,-~f-r~, Briefly discuss aspects of your experier:ce «.~hich you believe qualify you for this municipal commissionicommittee and ,.vhy ;you are interested in ser~.~ir:g: ~s ,~ ('/'~"(zG.y UF- RtCf,/Fi~cD s,,5,cir SBRf• ! 9~ y ~ Ct-r~ r~,rrvrr-c~ t ~ L" ~ ~, ~ t-~/tee~[. ~7 a / ~e~:; iro t''~-mot Ly z l tip y~ . TGr A yc b ~e.~.. r ~ D oY s o• e r'r ~[yr Cr/~c~r r~ aw YUJf 5 1 i, ~~~ o-F' ~'~c~ (~vt CLte t ` cyfws.:u,~ 'Pay cr - ~~t.y-~ ~~.?~ r~iJ~~/e~ IN ~Oi~-Sr~twr/i~~ Pd/twY.%.: `~QY ~ ~IsS~ ZS'y,~>-~j•~rS~ ~e~,~' O j~ ~c~~ U FI. 1 •/^l ji N VTw..G,.. ~~( (l~L~ _ f~* S ~KT/t .~ ~ S G U.S tip' y ~ ~a`~ /'t' k"' ~iV li2 _ C~s,.A !' S ~ ~1 ri v r 5 ~ ~ ~ S h v {-zJ Y' CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL, AND COMMU~<IT`r ACTIVITIES: U(L(cr .~ /,l/J w ~G L ( G S'' ^~ CGc..~ , (\~ Y-P ~4 I~u/ w ~l, ~ c [, Gt ~r ~~. V(? u y` S ! ~r ~i ~~ S P G.~____ ~-t' ~ CAS t O'~ &~ l ~ c--G-cam(,. _ OCCUPATION: ? / (~ ` /' Employing ,firm, agency ~ l °`L~. 1/d~(Y ~°ew ~ °C Address ~~ ~ ~ U~ S d'Z L `r-~ ~Dt . ~1.~5, ~r.~` Y3 ~ Z ~-- Position ~~'r~S/~~~ years w/firmiagencr Z .~ ~s a~ ~~ ~~~~ Other work experience (optional) i G%~~ ~~` S s `~' - REFERENCES (Optional) Full name / ~ Relationship Mailing address Phone number B, _ Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number C. Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number Return to: City Manager's .Office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 Att: Eileen Anderson CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 302 Agenda October 23, 1978 The Honorable Mayor. and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Tabulation of-Bids, Approval of .Minutes and Award of Contract for Brush Picker On October 5, 1978 the city manager opened bids for purchase of a cab-mounted brush picker, in accordance with previous city council authorization. The public works director, environmental health director, and the city clerk were also present at this bid opening. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for city council review. The brush picker is an attachment which can be mounted on an existing city truck. .This attachment would be used primarily in our tree trimming and tree .disease control program, although ..other uses would include loading heavy-objects which cannot be loaded easily with a frontend loader, such as water lines, cut- verts, etc. and use during the annual spring clean-up program. Two bids were received for the brush picker. .The low bid was submitted by Stuarts, Iric. of Bemidji, Minnesota in the amount of $9,196.00. It is the recommendation of the public works director, in which I concur, that the city council approve the bid minutes and tabulation of bids ,.and-authorize the award of bid for the brush picker to the low bidder of Stuart's,Inc. in the amount of $9,196. Respectfully submitted, yc L. Wilde Acting City Manager JLW/eja cc: City Clerk Public Works Director CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening October 5, 1978 Back of Cab Mount Brush Picker Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Wayne Burggraaff, City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for a Back of Cab Mount Brush Picker, as advertised in the official newspaper on September 20, and 27, 1978. Present: Wayne Burggraaff, City Manager Carl Marinics, Public Works Director I. F. Roessler, Environmental Health Director Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY TOTAL BID Stuarts, Inc. Certified Check $460 $ 9,196.00 Landco Equipment B. B. 5% $10,050.00 The City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting of October 23, 1978. Thomas J. Moran City Clerk s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City T~tanager Council Letter No. 301 Agenda October 23, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of -the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Commercial Planned .Unit Development United National Superblock, Second Reading . United National Corporation, the principal applicant for the commercial planned unit development rezoning in the block of the Hub Shopping Center, has advised that the PUD will not be finalized by the October 23, 1978 meeting. They have re- quested that the hearing on this item be continued to the November 27, 1978 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, o e L. Wilde Acting City Manager JLW/eja cc: City Clerk Planning & Redevelopment Director