10-10-78 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
ff ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 300
Agenda, October 10, 1978
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Gentlemen:
Subject: Commercial Planned Unit Development-
United National Superblock. Second
Reading
United National Corporation, the principal applicant for
the commercial planned unit development .rezoning in the block
of the Hub Shopping Center, has advised that the PUD will not
be finalized by the October 10, 1978 meeting. They have
requested that the hearing on this item be continued to the
October 23, 1978 city council meeting.
Respectfully bmitted,
~~~~~~ ~~
Wayne S. Burggraaf
City Manager
WSB/jkl
cc: City Clerk
Planning & Redevelopment Director
.~
.~.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of-the City Council
City of Richf field
Gentlemen:
~9
Council Letter No. 299
Agenda October 10, 1978
Subject: Request for Vacation of 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. A copy of
Mr. Pieper's letter petitioning for this street vacation is attached.
The city ordinance provides that the city council may vacate
a public street upon petition of the owners of half of the land
abutting the part of the street to be vacated. This ordinance
further provides that the council shall, by resolution, acknow-
ledge receipt of the petition and set the date for a public hear-
ing on the requested vacation.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution, receiving Mr. Pieper's petition and scheduling a
public hearing on the proposed street vacation for , UoV• t3J
1978.. Information concerning this request, including the plan-
ning commission recommendation to deny the petition will be
submitted for that meeting.
Respectfully ubmitted,
~•
Wayne S. Burggraa
City Manager
WSB/jkl
cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director
Public Works Director
~,
BRADLEY EXTERMINATING COMPANY
6237 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423
TELEPHONES: (612) 866-4079. • 866-8739 • 535-5810 • 298-09
Honorable Members of Richfield City Council
Richfield, Minnesota
Gentlemen:
We hereby formally request that the attached property
described be vacated to Bradley and Dianna Pieper.
Thank you.
Si lya
Br ley Piepe
D n~~ ~~ C~
f
9-12-78
Att.
LEGAL DESCRIP'1'ION
That part of Lyndale Avenue in KENDALE ADDITION, according
to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, P~iinnesota,
described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the west line of Lot 6,
Block ~ 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 b; 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 s~.d 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.
t: ~
~~
PETITION FOR STREET VACATION
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
PETITION N0._
DATE RECEIVED
T0: The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
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
..~} < r7 -, .r`t Description of Property
~. O _ r /1 ~ _ _ .
1 ~~ ~-.
.may
~.
2.tr !~ ~ .~
_ j South 56 feet of Lot 6,
Block 4, Kendale Addition
Examined, checked and found to be in prover 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
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING STREET
VACATION PETITION AIV'D CALLING
FOR PUBLIC HEARING
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 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.
WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with
the requirements of Richfield Ordinance Code, Section 12.04,
Subdivision 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Richfield as follows:
1. The petition for vacation of that portion of Lyndale
Avenue is received;
2. A public hearing on the street vacation in said petition
shall be held on November 13, 1978, in the Council Chambers
of the City Hall beginning at 7:00 PI44;
3. The Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing
in the official newspaper of the City of said hearing in
the manner provided by Richfield Ordinance Code, Section
12.04, Subdivision 3.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, lliinnesota
this day of 1978.
ATTEST:
oren L. Law, :Mayor
Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk
~ //
a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of C ity Manager
Council Letter No. 298
Agenda October 10,.1978.
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Proposed Guidelines for Wine Licensing.
Ordinance .Study Committee
At .the September 25, 1978 city council meeting, the city council
directed the staff to develop guidelines for creation of a citizen's
committee to study a proposed wine licensing ordinance. Such guide-
lines were to not only describe the composition of this committee,
but also were to summarize the major tasks the committee would under-
take.
Attached to this council letter are proposed guidelines for
this committee. These guidelines incorporate the committee member-
ship suggested by the council and also summarize the purpose and in-
tent of the committee.
Council members may wish to adopt the committee guidelines at
the October 10, 1978 city council meeting and consider apoointments
to the committee at either that meeting or the October 23, 1978 city
council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
( ~'
C~ /"r`
Wayne S. Burggraa
City Manager
WSB/eja
cc: Public Safety Director
City Clerk
SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR
,+TINE LICENSING ORDINANCE STUDY COMMIT^1 EE
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-officio 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 to review and make recommenda-
tions to the Richfield City Council on the desirability and/or method-
ology of providing for issuance of wine licenses to Richfield restaur-
ants. This task may include, but not be limited to, the following
activities: {1) receive testimony from interested residents, business-
men, and others regarding proposed wine licensing process; (2) survey
other area municipalities to determine 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.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 297
Agenda October 10, 1978
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the-City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Tabulation of Tree Bids, Approval of
Minutes, and Award of Contract:
On September 28, 1978 the acting city manager opened. bids
for replacement of boulevard trees to be planted at various sites
throughout the city, in accordance with previous city council
authorization. The public works director, public safety director,
and city .clerk were also present at this bid opening. The bid.
minutes and bid tabulations are attached to this council letter
for council review.
The base bid requested was to supply two to two and one-half
inch trees, with a one-year guarantee. The low base bid was sub-
mitted by Minnesota Valley Wholesale, Inc., Shakopee, Minnesota
in the amount of $39,900.
Three alternate bids were also .requested. .Alternate No. 1
requires the supplier to furnish.350 trees, as required in the
base bid, plant them, and provide a one-year guarantee. Alter-
nate No. 2 provides that the bidder provide a one-year guarantee,
but that the trees be planted by city crews.- Alternate No. 3
provides that the trees be planted by city crews, but does not
include any guarantee.
The public works director has reviewed these bids, and has
determined that it is to the overall advantage of the city to
accept the plantings with a one-year guarantee, but to complete
the planting work with force account labor. Therefore, it is
his recommendation in which I concur, that the city. council accept
the low bid for Alternate No. 2. Minnesota Valley Wholesale, Inc.
was the low bidder for Alternate No. 2, to provide 350 trees with
a one-year guarantee, in the amount of $25,900.
It is also recommended that the city council review and ,
adopt a policy for regulating planting of these trees through-
out the city. .The policy being recommended for city council
adoption is that the new plantings be used to replace trees lost
to Dutch elm disease and oak wilt disease, and storm damage, on
a one-for-one basis with planting of trees. in sites which have
Council Letter No. 297 -2- October 10, 1978
never had a boulevard tree. .There are currently 270-trees on
the list maintained by the public works department which. have
been lot to Dutch :elm or oak wilt disease. Under the proposed
policy, 175 of .these trees would be placed this year. In addi-
tion, there are 218 sites within the city for which a boulevard
tree has been requested, which has never had a boulevard tree.
It is proposed_that the. remaining 175 of the trees to be acquired
at this time be planted at these sites.
The public works department has assembled two lists for
tree requests.. These lists are maintained on a street by street
basis, with one list including all trees lost to natural causes,
and the other List including requests for new trees.- Because of
the difficulty in establishing a chronological method to replant
trees in the order in which they were either lost or requested,
it is recommended that the plantings of replacement trees begin.
on one side of the city this fall, with the plantings of trees
in new sites to begin on the other side of the city. Since the
capital improvement program approved by the city council last
year provides funding in 1979 as well for a tree replacemtnt
program, it is anticipated that additional trees can be acquired
in the spring to complete progressing throughout the entire city
with both the replacement tree plantings and the new tree plant-
ings.
In summary, it is requested that the city council take the
following actions:
1. Approve the bid minutes and bid tabulations for the
tree bids, as attached.
2. Approve the low bid submitted by Minnesota Valley
Wholesale, Inc. to provide 350 trees with a one-
year guarantee, in the amount of $25,900.
3. Authorize the public works director to deploy city
crews to plant these trees.
4. .Authorize the tree planting schedule to be implem-
ented in accordance with a policy which provides
that replacement tree plantings begin on one side
of the city and work to the other and that plantings
of trees in new sites begin on the opposite of the
city to insure that all areas of the city will re-
ceive some tree plantings through this fall's program.
Respectfully sub 'tted,
S'
~~~
Wayne S. Burggraaf
City Manager
GVSB/eja
cc: Finance Director
Public Works Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
September 28, 1978
1978 Boulevard Tree Planting Program
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Joyce Wilde, Acting City Manager, who announced that the purpose
of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for the 1978
Boulevard Tree Planting Program as advertised in the official newspaper on
September 13 and 20, 1978.
Present: Joyce Wilde, Acting City Manager
Carl Marinics, Public Works Director
Tom Morgan, Public Safety Director
Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
ALT. 1 ALT. 2 ALT. 3
BIDDER AND PLANTING TREES
BID ~ PLUS PLUS TREES
SECURITY BASE BID GUARANTEE GUARANTEE ONLY
Natural Green, Inc.
B.B. 5%
$40,000 $4z,ooo $28,000 $26,000
Minnesota Valley Wholesale, Inc.
B.B. 5% $39,900 $43,400 $25,900 $21,700
The acting city manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered
at the regular council meeting of October 10, 1978.
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
.,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 296
Agenda, October 10, 1978
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Gentlemen:
Subject: Ordinance. Amendment Pertaining to Retirement,
First ' Reading
The purpose of this letter is to propose an ordinance amend-
ment to Chapter II, Part III, Section 2.37 pertaining to retirement.
Recent changes in the federal Age and Discrimination Act which
apply to the political subdivision prohibit mandatory retirement
before age 70 for most employees effective January 1, 1979. This
ordinance revision has the effect of making our ordinance.
conform with this change in the federal law.
A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached.. It is recom-
mended that the city council give first reading. consideration
to this proposed ordinance amendment at the October 10, 1978
city council meeting.
Respectfully s mitted,
~ ~•
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB/jl
cc: Personnel Director
City Attorney
!~
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 caishing 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 2.28, 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 b5 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)] V7here 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
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 1973.
Loren Law - Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Moran - City Clerk
s
~L~
ti
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 295.
Agenda October 10, 1978
The .Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
..Gentlemen:
Subject: Tabulation of Ballfield Relocation Bids,
Approval of Minutes and Award of Contract
On Wednesday, October 4, 1978, the. .acting city manager opened
bids for ballfield relocation in accordance with previous city
council authorization. This ballfield relocation is included in the
preliminary site plan for the municipal golf course, which was
approved on August 28, 1978. The park and recreation director, plann-
ing and redevelopment director, the city clerk, .members of the park
and recreation department staff and representatives of the bidding
firms were .also present at the bid opening. .The bid minutes and tab-
ulations are attached for .city council review.
Five bid proposals were received. Following the bid opening,
the proposals were checked for accuracy. It was noted that the bid
of Sebesta Construction was in error by $62.70. Correction of this
error does not change the status of Sebesta Construction as the low
bidder, in the amount of $57,864.70.
The portion of the ballfield relocation project bid at this time
calls for grading, seed and sod, water connections and other earth
work to be completed on the relocation site east of 24th Avenue by
December 1, 1978. It is anticipated that the bids for the remainder
of the work related to ballfield relocation such as fencing, back-
stops and dugouts, will be received and the work completed in 1979.
It is the recommendation of the park and recreation director,
the golf course citizen committee and the park and recreation ad-
visory commission, in which I concur, that the city council approve
the bid minutes, the tabulations of bids, and the attached resolution
approving the low bid of Sebesta Construction, in~the amount of
$57,864.70.
Respectfully s bmitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaf
City Manager
WSB/eja
cc: Park and Recreation Director
Finance Director
~l
r
~}' ~
O ~
N Z Ol
S- ~ r
~ .~
O O
U -I, O
U r
~ O
r ~-
O N
C.'3 ~ ~
\Q O
O ~ ~
00 O O U
N l0 •r00
O ~+-~
Y--1 • ft{ r
CD O U r ••
z o ~
L.L.. r O
U ~ 'O -N
z O O U
O '~'7 "C7 C Q
r--i O r QJ
I- S. QJ Q r
Q CL •r0•r
J 4- U
O ~r fn C
Q •r f6 •r O
~ U m m U
D
CO O N O O O
I~ M l4 N O
W
N Cfi ~ O d' M
m
CO al N Ol Ol
lf) l~ LS) 1~ CO
O
I-
J
d
O
U
O
--
I X X X
F-
Z
W
I-
Z
ti
O
l.t_
O
~ X X X
W
O
W
W
Z
O
m \ o\° o° o\° o°
O O O O O
~ r r r r r
F--I
m
Q1
O
•r ~
-K C •1-~ •r
~ O U i-~ U
O r rt3 U ~
•r d-~ Z R3 ~--'
U O C +-~
O Z O ~ C
L ~+-~ v o 0
i-~ N U N
N C Y a--~
O O U N O
~ O U O Y C
O U r of y/
F-- L r J
U r~ U ~ •O
Q i~ •r 00 i-> L
d' N Z N rt5
i--' UJ ~ +~ 41 t
O 4J O tO O •r-
U Ln 3 ~ ~ ~
O
•r
•1->
r~
"II
C
4J
E
0
U
a
N
$..
O
O
C
.~
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO SEBESTA CONSTRUCTION FOR
'~ BALL FIELD RELOCATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED GOLF COURSE
CITY PROJECT N0. 688
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That it is hereby determined that the bid of Sebesta Construction
is the lowest bid by a responsible bidder for the ballfield relocation
in conjunction with City Project No. 688.
2. That the bid of Sebesta Construction for the above referenced project,
at the price contained in their proposal of October 4, 1978, with
a construction cost of $57,864.70 is hereby accepted.
3. That the proposed contract between Sebesta Construction and the City
of Richfield be given clerk's file no. and be placed on file.
4. That said proposed contract for the above referenced project is hereby
approved and adopted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby directed
and authorized to execute said contract for or on behalf of the City of
Richfield and the Clerk is authorized and directed to affix the city
seal thereto.
5. That the payments to be made under the terms of the contract shall be
charged to the Project Fund.
6. That the corporate surety bond in the sum of the contract price which
accompanies said contract is hereby accepted and approved.
7. That the City Clerk is authorized and directed to return the security
documents to the unsuccessful bidders upon the execution of said
proposed contract.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of October, 1978.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
.•;
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
October 4, 1978
Richfield East Little League
Baseball Area Site Improvements
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Joyce Wilde, Acting City Manager, who announced that the
purpose of the meeting was to receive, open snd read aloud, sealed bids for the
Richfield East Little League Baseball Area Site Improvements as advertised in the
official newspaper on September 20, and 27, 1978.
Present: Joyce Wilde, Acting City Manager
Donald Fondrick, Park & Recreation Director
Richard Krier, Planning Director
Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
BIDDER AND
BID SECURITY
TOTAL BASE BID
Sebesta Construction
B.B. 10% $57 ,864.70
Woodrich Construction
B.B. 10% $74 ,905.32
Matt Bullock Contracting
B.B. 10% $59 ,290.60
Forest Lake Contracting, Inc.
B.B. 10% $76, 994.20
Richard Knutson, Inc.
B.B. 10% $81, 923.00
The acting city manager announced-that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the regular council meeting of October 10, 1978.
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
,~ i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice 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 plan
Elevations of proposed development
Land use map
Zoning map
Comprehensive plan
Conditions for issuing a special
use permit
Petition and map indicating property
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. Anew 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:
22,22.0 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, overhands 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 perking
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 moxe 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 traff is 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
Council Letter No. 294 -4- October 10, 1978
feet is necessary for proper two-way traffic flow.
4. The proposed addition on the front of the building
would reduce the visibility of cars exiting the.
site, thereby increasing the accident potential in
the area.
The change to a one-way traffic flow would have a posi-
tive effect in that left-turn movements into and out of
the site would be less confusing and safer, since one-half
of the left turn movements at each driveway would be elimin-
ated.
Pedestrian Movement -Since the proposed addition on the
front of the existing building will decrease visibility of
cars exiting the site, the. hazard for pedestrians using the
public sidewalk will increase.
The five-foot additions on the sides and rear of the
building would eliminate .the existing sidewalk along the
building,. and thus force pedestrians to use the driving
aisles to get to the entrances. This would create another
potentially unsafe condition..
Congestion on Surrounding Streets - Existing traffic volume
on Penn Avenue is 15,800 ADT (slightly under capacity). The:
volume on 66th Street is 20,675 ADT (over capacity). Public
safety department records indicate the following number of
traffic accidents for the years 1972-77 on Penn. Avenue be-
tween 65th and 66th Streets:
1972 - 10
1973 - 12
1974 - 14
1975 - 15
1976 - 17
1977 - 26
Because the proposal involves expansion of seating at the
existing restaurant, it can be assumed that the restaurant
will generate some additional traffic. While the increase
in traffic may not be large because the use is already es-
tablished, any increase would be detrimental because exist-
ing volumes on surrounding streets-are over or near their
design capacities, existing congestion is high and the acci-
dent rate is high, compared to other areas in Richfield.
Health Considerations - The proposed expanded restaurant
would not provide an adequate front setback. The restaur-
ant would have a front setback of only six feet ( one and
one-half feet at the overhangs), or 34 teet less than the
40 foot setback required by ordinance. The seating area
of the restaurant would then be within 1~ feet of the
travelled roadway of Penn Avenue. This would be an inad-
equate distance to protect restaurant patrons from the noise,
fumes, and other nuisances presented by the high traffic
volume on Penn Avenue.
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 decreases site
distances and separation of adjacent uses.
Increased Public Expense - As previously mentioned, Penn
Avenue and 66th Street are nign volume streets near or over
their capacities... The intersection of the two streets ana the
large number of driveway entrances in .the area pose many
traf~ic pronlems. Public improvements such~as left turn
lanes, median strips, nus turn lanes and pedestrian amenities
would be desirable to alleviate some of these existing prob-
. lems.
The 494/100 Southdale Corridor Transportation Study unaer-
taken by the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Highway
Department indicates that Penn tivenue 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
identif ied 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. tiVhen
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 s ecial 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 similar way within
the city. The following survey of similar restaurants uses within
the city indicates that the existing lot at G529 Penn Avenue is
larger than average, and the building is smaller than the average
building size. These other similar uses co~aply r~ith t°ne front-
yard setback requirements , although so ie .are o~: srzallar lots . The
pro,~osed 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 1.9,950 32 x 66 1,984 64
Burger King 2800 W. 66 165x170 27,220 100
Burger King 140 E. 78th 1.50x268 40,305 50 x 55 2,750 100
Dairy Q. 7533 Lyn. 124x125 15,500 30 x 39 1,170 36
K. Fr. Chick .645 Lyd. 100x142 14,200 24 x 66 1,584 6
Taco Bell 2208 W. 66th 107x142 15,195 29 x 46 1,334 48
Wendy's 6500 Lyn. 26,000 40 x 56 2,240 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 133x170 22,250 23 x 64 1,472 36
Proposed .
Arbys 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 property
ri hts.
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-
. ~ sidin~c- 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 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, 1978 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
Recommended Actions
It is the recommendation of the plann.ing 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,
~.
~~~~
Wayne S. Burggraa
City Manager.
ti4SB/e j a
cc: Planning-and Redevelopment Director
~ r
2
I
:~
a
3~
i
i
~ ~ .. a ~
4 .~. ~ _ i _. I.._
U~ J
.~.f .~- .-~ [="t C~ C--~ LJ C=a 2=.=1 ~~_~ t_~1 -tom !
/, ~ ' '
~~ ~ ~ i .
~~~~ ~ A
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
~W ~ ~ ~'Z ~ ~ ~ ! i
7 J ~
7 ~ d,~ (~ ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~
,(~ Q ~ __ Z r ~ i ~
~~ Z `d ~
Y 4a
~~
~' 17 ~ Dl ~ ~ 4
~ '
..
... .. ~~ // 1 `
F
r _
L.
~ 1'
_~i
w ~ L S _ t / i.: 1.
~
. ! ? pt -.~ ~ #
i ~
~
- ' :J e~ 4
i H iJ '~' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~'~ ~
7 j .~ j F
gg
~
{
:C 1. ° ` ~
i , .~ ~ _
"~ s - -! r _ ~ _~< ~f~ ~ ,~s .o ~-- iii io 6-'- k A s ~.
>
~. ~
r j j
{
~.
4
86
~ ,~
..
j('
~
•
/ _ ~ - _ "~J
- ~ i
j - . - i- - ~
5 ~,
-
~ - ~_
-- ~% ~ w
~, , ,
n eJ ~+~
K
,~ R r
~ ~
j
,,
4 1 ~ ~
S .
'
an~c: ~. ins
y~r ~
v-aa :n x,~
c. ~i ~ ~
~
.. (~
777y
v -
_„~.
v
~ I1. '' ~ 4, 1 `'
~' ~` ~~ ~~~o- ti Land Use dap ~: ,°° ,..a'
..:~:. ~ •
4
e Y~~ V V~y~ f 1 1 Q t
~- i : - ~ "`
t ~. ~ _
- It. ~, ,,,5 ~ , - IL.ry'~°
~~ ~~ I C7Gio)o .
.... 3a ~ ie Jc5 { 14 d. ba ° i 1, A~,S° ,~ 10. v i i •y.~'~ v
3 ~ We
L
• a~s-
f Z Q 0 G i jo (7326. bo
~;
6l
I
y
;
~.~
~
~Z
~
,c~t..~ o
b +lA~ M
.i `~ ~,. > ~ . f J
~ ~ -
~ ~ ~ ~ `
t '
;
`
;~~
~ ~ s 65 S
-.
sST.
~
~~,
~
t~ ~S~
K~ ' ~~
~~
~ ~_
:1 :''
?
~~ Z i~..'~4 ~~
4
~ ~y
~
~ `~~ ~
~ -
~ O~
~ •
~
+3n
,
r ~
1
3~~5
o ~a
'
i rg
.~
_ S
17. a°' - }. !~
t,
r~.
.~~ ~ 34 ~~
~ 3.
- ~ t~a.~
14q,4f~' 1'~4 J7
1
1. 'q~
~ ,~~b 7:
~
GZ4!
,~`O a
a
i .C
,, .
~°
e M
~ ro
~a k4
1
i 7. ~,.,5
S
t6.~h".
~
~
.. t 34.9r
14.
~ ~
~5
~
~
~
Z It.4'r~°.
v
~° ~ 4,~~
n
c. -
~ ~ t
~~ -- ~ j 3
~ m d
j
~j5 ~ X35. G. i2 ,, c .
• V .
N ~ °
n (
N geit
.~ - - ..
C +~ : - ,~
7 ~ti
, ' ~
'
b 21- '~ '
- - '~~~~~:° PUBLIC
a~
•
2. , ~ - ~
~ .
.
~ -
, ~o ;
a ~ ~~ ' a -- - W -
~~~ ~~.. :~ ~_,a- ~ s ~ ~
~ -
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
;4 ~: - Z. ~
11 M
~
`S l4. __ .
-3.A ~
-- 1~. ~ ;
+
-3.l-
41 h
~
' ~- ~~ ~ -~ ' MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
_ ST:
~, t. ~ ~Y4 ~ ~'24..~
~ ~~ ~ a.:;~. h - .----
-- - COMMERCIAL y
t ~ _
4. Z!. ~ ~ 4 21. ~;•
INDUSTRIAL
,, ~
- - -
-
7
-
-. ° a _i__y ------=-
ice. ~ ~.-. 1
x _,
\ t~"
-.t t~}~ ~ 3 ~~'
~f~ (. ~- y~~. 7
~ `
~
`` ~s 6
Zoning Map - - ~~ °~
~~
t 3A _ F
~ ~ 9
_ ~ ~ 1~~' ~~ C~ G' ..
.
.~, ~ ° ~,~-- t
Q
~~
~~ ~f~
_M dlQ~ ,
~,
Ii. '~ ' f •
'
S~
1 i
~
T~ t 6 .
~
,~ I
~ .
#. ,~~°'~ ~,. , 10.
i7 a °
~t,
~,~ 3~~
,,.; ~
.? ~~ ~G
~~ '
Q +o
-,f4, e~
h
t~. ry~1'
-y..`i3~~f`
~t'ti~
/ k~~~ ;
n A, 8. ;y.:~ ..~ :., ~: `a s4 ~. 14 b: 6a~ ; ~ a .S ~ v
~, ~ _ ~
.',
,~ 30 ,s ~ - ~% ; g S - f 3
~ _ _
~!'~ Via: F . ~ ~ V ~_i~V ~ t .y2' ~- !(' t~~~° S "+~~ T ~ { ~~
~` ~ ~ ~ u y'`~ ~V1~h i ~'~ ~yoi
fE Y~ ~ ~{ .. t ~ f ~~'~ ~ ' j. "'. ~e - P r
'~ "333
~ ,',, 40 - - ;, ,. {.n + _ _ saw
~ ~~ rr,
¢~- ~ :: ti ~ its - ti~ rc. 3 ,. fr~'. .~ •~- ~`t :~2{O ' a N ~, -
,~
~! _ . _ -
~~' ~
~~ ~. •s ..
• .,. - '
~,?$ ~~ ~ `"_ ~~ a L~ A t, 4'~5 y t35. G. ~ _t~ ; Q
3 ~ ``;
I, ,.' ~' L ~ i ~y
i M.
= tt
-..
t
,~r~rti :f tw. : ~ 1~ ~ '%r c . '7 Q ~q a '~M_ Q _[t . -
~ ~ ~ .
~ ?`~``K~r ems, 2~ ~~ i • s= _~ 1p `- n +~'
lap {Q :~ ~ ~~ ,..`~ ~ ~~„r~n~~~ ~ ~ ~' ~ V _ ~ ,.~ h - ~ L_~_+~ j
n' _ ~ i n _
A~sr -~-- ='~ ~ ~ r
,~
~ ~'. ~~
~i~ ~ w, r~:r .:, .
GENERAL COMMERCIAL ~ ~ ~ y- ~ ti, ,i.: ~*° ~'
t, ::~' ~.
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE _ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
.. f ,
~~ -
~~
~
w .? G
~ ~
h
c®rr~prehensi /e development plan
for the city of r~chf ~elc
I.ANC vsE:
description
Mixed Land Use
® Mixed Land Use
~,
® Central Business
District
Mixed Land Use
Mixed Land Use
Industrial
Multiple
Convenience
Shopping Area
Single Family
0 Residential
COMMUNITY FACILITIES:
~ ~' 1
~~•
0
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
dwe~ l i ngs
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
compatible 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
adopted by th• eity of riehfield this 15th day of January ,~q?3
,Ea.ES .~ --~-
E.~~ ..E
~~~E, ..
~„ .~E
P,...E ,.
,., <~ `~~
.~~ oo.~E
P.a. ~,E j
~a~~~ .~E
E~,~, <,E
~„ ..E
=„a .~E
z.,, .,,E. ~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) ~Fublic 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. Pubhic 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
_-a 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 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
~ .:~
ORDINANCE CODE
2/13/78
81 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
_ : <<. _ _
:a~;'
'~;:
~i.~ 7 j`
ft~!A+
~~;fi:
A'"
i'fiYi
"`; ~:~-
,:~_:,,-
:
`r: ~;
~-
:,~'~., -
~.
~,' .
'~~~:
ro~ ~4
'~' . i
5-_
(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 barage 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 county 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, 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 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 treatment or placement of
the wilding 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 parkin;
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 thoroughfares of the city. "Main thoroughfares of the city",
as used in this paragraph, means a street designated as a state trim k highway
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. (F3i11 1976-1U) 4/2G/7~ '
(f) The proposed facility will provide an aesthetic appearance which
will not detracC from or conflict with the existing or proposed architectural
form of buildings in ehe same area.
(g) The use will not create an excessive burden on public parks,
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.
-sus"
C
~_
,.
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF ~.(~ 6~ is
FOR PURPOSE OF_ ~~`at-c4V (z(}~~' `
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 Use as requested.
0
C
Signature of Owners Address Leal Description
~ r
Ct S~ c .c/ ~'.r
~ ~
~ ~ r.s~ ~'.e-~ s'v
~~
i f
(~~•~~~%~0 ~~
•
,V
l~F~ a1~ O /~iP js-
..v si'~ Imo. (l~- `~!"y J..~Cv. ~i r'
r ~ ~ G~ ~
LCE
..~~`
_
Ls~S s:J _
/~/~~t~ ~^' i~ Lit!-~7J
~',~~~1P~°~,~ tE.l .if r 2_C:
` i
~' z~-J=~ 6 S2 ~ -J~2 ~7 L I t/S r~
-.-_ ~"
~_
~ f ~ ~~? I ~I~ rL'~' s ~ _
- - -
-
^ ---- I - -
-
~
-
- - -
---- -
t.
f~ ~ • ~
~RG ~• ~ yi4R~
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF U ~,
FOR PURPOSE OF ~ ~ ~ -t- ~ ~"•~~v~v
Legal Description: That part of the West 166 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter. of .the Southwest Ouarter::,ez;f the iorthwest 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.
Q
L
r
Signature of Owners _ Address Leal Description
~~` SLf.
~~• ~~~~ het
7 ~ i``P s -
i ' ~ ~ c €~ ~.i %~/,v t ~
~ Q
9 1
/
7 ~ /
~
~.
~~/
~S . !{/~4 S~f ~ _
.. ~ ~
P (f
~~ ~ ~
I H
~ 1 ~:
~
~
_
2`~ ~ ~tf 1 _~,~i/r/ -j ~ -- -----
I
--
- --
-
-
_ -
-- - - - --
~
____ F -
---- -
~~
v a
Dean 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.
Richfield, i/iJ 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,
'~~ h (~ ~
~ ~~
Dean M. Akins
:c1
7- ~ 04;
v~t$~~~ ~ ~'~
SEP 2 ~ i~-'i8
~otv ~f ~~~~~:~,~~
1 ~v ~ o ~ tp ~
~.~Te't0Y.S- ~ Z i ~ ~ L1 a
v
- gab I ~
~ ~ \e~ ~
\` ~ ,' ~~.
k>~.
* `.
•
~ 2
i3~. •
3 '
4
:•
r
,,
5 '
M
~ ~- _
J
yy : v
9 ~ ^ w
Esc
~ i/f•~ a
n 2 jj. ~
-2T.
~.. .. ~ :
7. ~ j~
_`~ e~
Pe}i~~on 5~9ners
~ch~ton S~9ner Red
0 1.5'f !! T I
b ~,,p
`~_ ~
n : 1.
I? r.
"'
v
' ,~
N
d
1!
> _
13 ~7~~ o
~
~
. ~s
: ego .
~ ~
~o
I
~~• ~ J
•S o
`.
-
I r
14, ~.;: t
~,,5 .I
,
• l 4,
l ~ 1 i
__1'44.si_
I i, ~~'" ~ ~, 10.
Q
9i r3 .
.,
~,5. 1 4~s
IT• ~ ~ ~.
~. ,~ i74f~
~ 3.
~ I~a.f
1 9T
14. ~° I'~~. 1
s I,
! l 4. f3
11. 'q~
v ,~~i 7.
~,
G7.4f
' ~ J 49
~°\° ~ 7
tl. I(! , m
e`° a
m
.4 J ~ r
~f ~ o 'a ~~3~ ii 3 ~ ~o ~o
u , / t
o
C
3
~.r
Z
- • - - ~ - 1 - - M - -~ - -
10 .a 3 3 ybr
(. 6 ~ ! 1. i Ir. -1.~ 2 ; 14 .. I tY 0 dIN 'c+ A fy'.
c
~ ~ I" , o ~ °
I n S ~ y. i ~ .. ~ .o I~ ~ ~ ,r
,- J
l~ v~jY ~ '~ J~
~s A, t .
T _~ .~ o,
,~~ ~ . N'
~ -rt- ~ --~
1 M1 ~``
-- --
-n Mme W ~-~I~dro,wa I ~ ~. ~~ ~'~, h i~ iy~
~ vy
~-- -
50
65TH ST
6500 Ss
W
Q
,~~
z
z
w
_~ ~ ;
FRONT .SETBACKS ON 66TH S T -: ..
r .,.;.:PENN AVF _ , _ _ ._ ..: ~~.~:
1
f
1
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 293.
Agenda October 10, 1978
The ~Ionorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Request for Approval of Agreement
for Auditing Services
~;,
Attached to this council letter is a proposed agreement with the
CPA firm of Olson and Clough, 7514 Oliver Avenue to provide auditing
services for the City of Richf field for the year ending December 31,
1978. It is presented now to allow the auditors to begin prelimin-
ary auditing before the end of the year.
As noted in the accompanying letter of transmittal, a 1977 change
in the law requires that all municipalities be audited, and that the
audit report be filed with the state auditor by June 30 of each year.
Olson and Clough propose to accomplish the audit objectives in com-
pliance with-this law.
The daily rates, calculated on the basis of a seven-hour days, are
as follows:
ai I iw Partner
L~~'6-j~`^' Audit Supervisor
I Staff Accountants
-~~~ Typing
$14 5 1 ~ . _ ~ 1 (Z~3 ,~o~
104-115 ~~ ~2Z'~^`~~
z„ 8 per h~ur ~ ~° ~~°
The average per diem the last two years has been $106 per day.
Although these xates have increased over. the prior year, it is estim-
ated that the total cost of the audit will be approximately the same,
as a result of improved methods and techniques the auditors hope to
achieve in performing their work. It is estimated that the time re-
quired for the 1978 audit will be less than that required in 1977.
The city audit in 1977 cost $10,128 and covered 95.6 days for all
personnel-involved in the audit.
It is recommended that the city council approve the proposed agree-
ment with Olson and Clough for 1978 auditing services.
Respectfully bmitted,
~.
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB/eja
cc: Finance Director.
f
LSON &
LOUGH
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
TELEPI-IDNE: 866-2546
September 27, 1978
Mr. Wayne S. 8urggraaff, City-Manager
City of R i chf i el d
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Mr. Burggraaff:
Enclosed is our proposed agreement for auditing services for the
City of Richfield for the year ending December 31, 1978. If this
agreement is acceptable to the council, please execute the same
and return one copy to us as soon as possible.
As you perhaps know, the law concerning municipal audits was changed
during 1977, and effective in 1978, municipal audit reports and
financial statements must be filed with the State Auditor by June 30.
Accordingly, we wi11 probably want to engage in some interim work
prior to your year end and should have the executed contract in our
files before proceeding with our work.
Reluctantly, we are compelled to request an increase in rates to
cover our increasing salary costs, payroll taxes and other operating
expenses. Partner and audit supervisor rates are increased to
levels more in line with what other CPA firms of our size charge.
The rates for staff accountants are, however, increased to a lesser
extent and since most of the time expended on your engagement is by
staff accountants, we do not anticipate a large increase in your
tota 1 fee.
We are constantly striving for greater efficiency in performing our
work and are always looking for new methods and techniques to
accomplish audit objectives in less time while maintaining high firm
standards for performance. We are hopeful that the time required
to complete your audit for 1978 will decrease from 1977•
f sincerely hope that our proposal will be acceptable to the council,
however, if any questions arise please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
OLSON & CLOUGH
~~~~~~
R i cha rd G. C 1 oug h, C PA
Partner
7514 ^LIVER AVENUE SDUTH • MINNEAPCILI5, MINNESDTA 55423
RGC/ j f
Encs.
~,
f
-Y
J
AGREEMENT FOR AUDITING SERVICES
TH I S AGREEI°tENT, da Curl th i s day of 1y78,
by and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred
to as the "City" and the accounting firm of OLSON & CLOUGH, Certified
Public Accountants, a co-partnership consisting of ROGER L. OLSON
and RICHARD G. CLOUGH, hereinafter referred to as the "Auditors"
NlITNESSETH:
In consideration of their mutual covenants and agreements
as hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto contract and agree as
follows:
I.
The Auditors agree to make a limited general audit of the
financial statements of the City for the year ending December 31,
1978. Such examination shall be conducted in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards and procedures, and is directed
to the expression of an opinion on financial statements, and is not
primarily or specifically designed, and cannot be relied upon to
disclose defalcations and other similar irregularities, although
their discovery may result. The examination shall encompass the
following on a test basis:
1. System of internal control
2. Details of all the books of account,
subsidiary records and supporting
documents as to:
(a) Legality
(b) Mathematical accuracy
(c) Completeness of all transactions
(d) Application of generally accepted
municipal accounting principles
It is understood and agreed that the responsibility (or the establish-
ment and enforcement of an adequate system of internal control rests
with the City. The Auditors t~~ill, however, call attention to any
internal control deficiencies discovered which they believe to be
significant.
~r
~1
vll.
Final field work on the audit will be started by the
Auditors after receipt of notice from the City that the statements are
completed for the year and ready for the Auditors' examination. If
mutually convenient, the Auditors may start field work prior to the
close of the calendar year 1978.
VIII.
The City herewith engages the Auditors for the work herein-
before specified and agrees to pay to the Auditors for such work on the
basis of the following per diem rates (calculated on the basis of
a seven hour day):
Partner $161,00
Audit supervisor 145,00
Staff accountants $104.00-115,00
Typing ~J $8.00 per hour
Postage for mailing requests for and returns of direct confirmations
of consumers' accounts, bank balances and other confirmations to be
a City expense, either directly or by reimbursement to the Auditors
for such expenditures,
1X.
The Auditors shall provide the City with a detailed statement
as to the names of accountants, classifications and hours worked.
Payment of the Auditors' fees shall be made as work progresses and
itemized claims the re for are submitted by the Auditors. Monthly progress
payments to be at the rate of seventy percent (707) of the total fee
billed for the time expended to the date of billing; with final payment
to be made within thirty days after receipt of the Auditors' report
and an itemized municipal claim form showing the balance due the Auditors.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set
their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
BY
-- ---- ---MAY 0 R
(Seal)
BY___ _ ___ __
MANAGER
OLSON & CLOUGti
Certified Public A~cc/o~untants
Richard G. C oug Ph Ph artner
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 292
Agenda October 10, 1978
The Honorable Mayor ,
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Transfer of Certain Fire Equipment to
Central Garage and Transitory Ordinance
Appropriating. Special Revenue Funds
The adopted 1978 budget provides for the fire division of
the public safety department to pay central garage rental
charges for all of the city's fire vehicles. Engines Nos. 7
and 8, acquired in 1963 and 1973 respectively, have never been
assigned to the Central Garage and Equipment Fund. The ordin-
ance establishing the Central Garage and Equipment Fund requires
that such assignment of .vehicles to the fund be done by council
resolution.
Attached to this council letter is a resolution assigning
these two fire pumpers to the Central Garage as of October 1,
1978. Since the vehicles are 15 and 5 years old, the resolution
also provides for. funding-the accumulated depreciation that has
accrued up to the date of transfer, based upon an estimated useful
life of 25 years with 10% salvage value. The fire truck reserve
fund contains sufficient funding to fund the required reserve.
Indirectly related to the fire equipment transfer is an
item in the 1978 capital budget providing for an annual appro-
priation to the fire truck reserve fund. This fund 'was estab-
lished in 1977 to receive appropriations from the Special
Revenue Fund, and proceeds from the sale of fire equipment, and
is used to fund purchases of new equipment and replacement equip-
ment, over the accumulated depreciation. The 1978 appropriation
to this fund is $10,000 in Special Revenue monies. The attached
transitory ordinance provides for this appropriation to the fire
truck reserve fund..
The transitory ordinance also includes an item to appropriate
Special Revenue funds for general public buildings. The adopted
1977-83 capital improvement program provided for a $250,000
appropriation in 1977, and a $40,000 appropriation in 1978, which
has never been implemented. The 1979/84 capital improvement
Council Letter No. 292 -2- October 10, 1978
program now being prepared provides that the setting aside of
special revenue funds for the building fund be reallocated to
1979/81, with an initial allocation of $50,000 to be made in
1978.
In summary, it is recommended that the city council approve
the resolution transferring certain fire equipment to the Central
Garage and Equipment Fund, and give first reading approval to
the transitory ordinance appropriating monies from the special
revenue fund to the fire truck reserve and general government
building funds.
Respectfully submitted,
~•~
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB/eja
cc: Finance Director
Public Safety Director
Public Works Director
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF CERTAIN FIRE EQUIPMENT
TO THE CENTRAL GARAGE AND EQUIPMENT FUND
WHEREAS, Transitory Ordinance No. 16.08 created a Central Garage and Equipment
Fund for the maintenance and operation of equipment used by various departments of
the City; and
WHEREAS, such use by the various departments will be paid for by means of a
rental charge to the using department, and such charge has been provided for in
the annual budget document; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 16.08 stipulates equipment assigned to the Central
Garage and Equipment Fund shall be designated by resolution of the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to designate certain fire equipment not presently
assigned to the Central Garage and Equipment Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. That the following list of equipment is hereby transferred
from the General Fixed Asset Group of Accounts to the Central Garage
and Equipment Fund as of October 1, 197$:
Unit No. Description
3787 1963 General Safety 1,000 GPM Fire
Pumping Engine
3788 1973 General Seagrave 1,250 GPM Fire
Pumping Engine
Section 2. That the sum of $20,177, representing depreciation of the
quipment from date of acquisition to date of transfer, is hereby
authorized to be funded by transfer from the Fire Truck Reserve Fund
to the Central Garage and Equipment Fund.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of
October, 1978.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
BILL 1978-
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE 16.53
t
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 this day of
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas 3. Moran City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 291
Agenda October 10, 1978
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
- Gentlemen:
Subject: Final Plat Approval, Wilmar Henrickson
Addition, 7409 Sheridan Avenue
On September 11, 1978 the city council approved. the pre-
liminary plat for the Wilmar Henrickson Addition. The proposed
plat would subdivide the property located at 7409 Sheridan Ave
nue into Block 1, Lots 1-6, Wilmar Henrickson Addition. Mr.
Henrickson has now filed a final plat for the proposed subdivi-
sion, and is requesting city council approval of this final plat.
The staff has reviewed the proposed final plat and found it
to be in proper form, in compliance with the city's subdivision
regulations, and consistent with the preliminary plat previously
approved by the council.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution approving the final plat, with the stipulation that
the required performance bond be filed with and approved by the
Planning and Redevelopment Director before building permits are
issued.
Respectfully su fitted,
~-
Wayne S. Burggraa
City Manager
WSB/eja
cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director
Public Works Director
-u
x
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLAT OF
WILNIAR HENRICKSON ADDTTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota that the application for a subdivi-
sion plat entitled "Wilmar Henrickson Addition" is
approved and the appropriate city officers are directed
to take the necessary steps to evidence this approval
provided, however, that the performance bond for the
plat be filed with the Planning and Redevelopment Director
before any building permits are issued.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of 1978.
Loren L. Law, .Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk
/~
~.,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 290
Agenda October 10, 1978
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Resolution Establishing Polling Places
and Naming Election Judges
Attached to this council letter is a resolution estab-
lishing polling places and naming election judges for the
November 7, 1978 general election.
.This resolution provides full staffing of judges in
all ten precincts, and use of all sixty of the city`s
voting machines. There will be a total of 170 election
judges working in two shifts, with equal party representa-
tion of 84 Democrats, 84 Republicans and 2 American Party
judges.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the
attached resolution establishing polling places and naming
election judges for the November 7, 1978 general election.
Respectfully submitted,
~. ( 6(/ ~
~~~~
Wayne S. Burggraaf
City Manager
WSB/eja
cc: City Clerk
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR POLLING PLACES AND DESIGNATING
JUDGES FOR GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 7, 1978
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows:
1. That there will be a general election on Tuesday, November 7, 1978.
2. That said election shall be held at the polling places as herein appear
specified, and that the following are hereby appointed as judges for
said election:
PRECINCT i
SLUMBER tPOL•T.TNG PTACE FTRST 4H FT FCOND SNTFT
1.
2.
3.
4.
Mt. Calvary Educational Bldg.
6541 16th Avenue
City Hall
6700 Portland
Sheridan School
64th Street at Sheridan
Lincoln Hills School
75th & Penn
S. Gisselquist, Chrm.
J. Bray
S. Spain
H. Connelly
B. Utter
K. Nelson
M. Siddy •
E. Hommes
L. Carlson
V. Bennis, Chrm.
J. Gera
A. Burkhardt
W. Johnson
S. Bjerken
G. Sanders
J. Sveum
L. Nimerfro
M. Lund
J. Emerson, Chrm.
D. Peterson
M. Okerman
M. Norling
M. A. Schindler
P. Brestrup
J. Rice
B. L. Workman
R. Hoppenrath
B. Obenchain, Chrm.
S. Moen
C. Alfano
N. Gibbons
M. J. Furstnow
M. Prottengeier
M. Gera
M. A. Hellickson
E. Erickson
S. Gisselquist, Chrm.
B. Goodin
J. Nunn
D. Eldred
M. Kvaale
E. Panglio
J. Morrell
A. Hickinson
M. E. Olin
V. Bennis, Chrm.
E. Bartlett
G. Becker
J. Chesney
C. Condon
V. Herberg
E. Brandon
H. Iverson
E. Anderson
J. Emerson, Chrm.
L. Awes
B. Belk
H. Peterson
D. Fischer
E. Gilhousen
B. Hjerpe
A. Stensby
L. Brandell
B. Obenchain, Chrm.
A. Thomas
L. Kendall
J. Stromberg
B. Clark
F. Gray
E. Aulwes
L. Lerom
H. O'Neill
' Resolution No.
-3-
PRECINCT
NUMBER POT,T,IN= PLACE FIRST SHIFT SECOND SHIFT
L0. Centennial School
73rd & Bloomington
C. Cosgrove, Ch rm.
D. Chellsen
R. Holm
A. Neuberger
C. Hoverson
J. Schaefer
M. A. Colvin
A. Bjerva
I. Ho1en
C. Cosgrove, Chrm.
B. Cook
M. Boler
S.-Cully
J. Helmberger
S. Comstock
S. Lewis
M. Lindgren
W. Davis
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this 10th day of October, 1978.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 289
Agenda October 10, 1978
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Moratorium on the Filling of Position Vacancy
During the 1977 budget hearings, the city council established
a moratorium on the filling of full time vacancies. The purpose
of this letter is to request that the moratorium be lifted to
permit the filling of the following full time position:
Clerk Twist II--This position vacancy is created by the
promotion of the current incumbent, Lois Evers, to the
Secretary Z position which reports to the public safety
director. This position is responsible for performing a
variety of clerical work for the parks and recreation
department such as handling telephone calls, taking
registrations and assisting. with program administration..
Since this position is fully funded in the 1978 budget and is
a crucial position in terms of workload, it is recommended that the
moratorium be lifted to permit the filling of this position.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB/jkl
cc: Personnel Director
Parks & Recreation Director
t
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 288
Agenda October 10, 1978
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Gentlemen:
Subject: Request for Special Use Permit and
Variance, 2800 6dest 66th Street
At their September 26, 1978 meeting, the planning commission.
reviewed a request for special use permit and variance for 2800
West 66th. Street,. to permit the construction of a drive-thru ser-
vice window at an existing Burger King Restaurant at that loca-
tion.
Although. the legal notice has been published, scheduling
the city council public hearing on this request for special use
permit and variance for October 10, 1978, the applicant has re-
quested that the city council defer consideration of this. matter
to the October 23, 1978 city council meeting.
It is recommended that the city council continue the hearing
on this item to the October 23, 1978 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
~. !~
t4ayne S . Burggraaf
City Manager
WSB/ej a
cc: City Clerk
Planning & Redevelopment Director
~•
r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 287
Agenda October 10, 1978
The Honorable_Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Bonding
Of Automobile Dealers, Second Reading
On September 11, 1978, the city council gave first reading
approval to an amendment to the Richfield City Ordinance re-
quirements requiring motor vehicle dealers to obtain bonds.
The proposed ordinance amendment was developed subsequent
to a change in state law which required the bonding of auto-
mobile dealers to the exclusion of any local bond requirements.
Although the state legislation requires automobile dealers to
be bonded by the state, this legislation does not provide for
bonding of the sales of motor bike dealers. The proposed ordin-
ance would. retain the local requirement for bonding of motor
bike dealers and other motor vehicle dealers, except for those
motor vehicle dealers required under the new state law to obtain
bonds.
A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment is attached. It
is recommended that the city council give second reading con-
sideration to this proposed ordinance amendment at the October
10, 1978 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~~~ /~ .
(d~'/~'~- ~ L
Wayne S. Burggraaf
City Manager
WSB/eja
ccs City Clerk
City Attorney
Deputy City Clerk
r
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VI,
SECTION 6.07 OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter VI, Section 6.07 of the Ordinance Code of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota dealing with the licensing and
regulating.of motor vehicle dealers is amended by amending
Subdivision b thereof to read as follows:
"Subd. 6. Bond Requirements. Except in the case of
motor vehicle dealers required to obtain bonds
pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 168.27 Subdivision
24, [Tl the following bond requirements shall be
imposed:
(1) Each application shall be accompanied by a
bond in the amount of $5,000 running to the city for
the benefit of any person who sustains any injury
covered by the bond.
(2) The bond shall be executed by the applicant,
as principal, and by a corporation which is licensed
in this state to transact the business of fidelity
and surety insurance, as surety.
(3) The bond shall be so conditioned that the
principal will indemnify any person for:
(a) Any direct loss suffered by dishonesty on
the part of the principal in the substitution of a motor
vehicle or parts thereof other than the one selected
by the purchaser;
(b) Failure, through dishonesty, to deliver a
clear title to those legally entitled thereto.
(c) Any misappropriation of monies or property
belonging to a purchaser, received by the principal in
payment for a motor vehicle;
(d) Any loss due to an alteration of a motor vehicle
made by the principal in order to deceive the purchaser
as to the year model of any motor vehicle sold;
(e) The violation of any of the provisions of this
section.
(4) Regardless of the number of licenses issued to one
licensee, such licensee need file only one bond; provided,
however, that the city reserves the right to increase the
bond amount if more than one licensed establishment is to
be concerned.
___'~
h
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this day of 1978.
or en L . Law, bTayor
ATTEST:
Thomas rloran; City Clerk_