The URL can be used to link to this page

08-14-78 agendala CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 242 Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Approval. of Agreement for Signalization, Intersection of Crosstown Highway and Portland Avenue At the July 24, 1978 city council meeting, the council deferred action on a proposed agreement with Hennepin County for signaliza- tion of the intersection of the Crosstown .Highway (CSAH 62) and Portland Avenue (CSAH 35 ) . The current Hennepin County Capital Improvement Program includes a project for construction of fully actuated traffic control signals at this intersection. -This would be a joint project involving the City of .Minneapolis, the City of Richfield and Hennepin County. The total cost of this project is estimated to be $97,000, including the cost of installing street lights on top of the signal poles. It is anticipated that $69,840 (72%) will be paid by the Federal Highway Administration. Of the remaining $27,160, 75% wil l be paid by the county, 12.5% will be paid by Minneapolis, and 12.5% will be paid by Richfield. Richfield's estimated cost of $4,400, in- cluding engineering and inspection costs would come from highway aid construction funds. In addition, the city would be responsible for maintaining and operating the signals on the southerly side of the bridge. These costs. are not expected to exceed $500 per year. The county has determined that the intersection meets all warrants for traffic signal installations. The proposed signal system will permit controlled left-turn movements from Portland Avenue to the Crosstown Highway.. Traffic counts taken by the en- gineering division at this intersection indicate that during peak hours, approximately 100 cars approach from the Richfield side of the intersection to make the westerly movement from Portland Avenue to the Crosstown. Considerable stacking of cars trying to turn left occurs, and there is little-storage capacity on the bridge. Signalization of the intersection would expedite these traffic movements and improve the safety of all motorists. Public Safety Department records indicate that 48 accidents occurred at this intersection since the beginning of 1972. Nine of these recorded accidents happened between January 1 and July 31 of this year. Signalization of the intersection could be expected to reduce this number of accidents. Council Letter No. 242 -2- August 1~, 1978 The public works director has reviewed the plans and agree- ment for this project. The arrangement is similar to other signal installation on streets of joint jurisdiction. In addition to the cost sharing provisions described, the agreement also provides that the county-will take bids for the project, but not make a bid award until the city has approved the proposed bid award. The agreement also provides that the county shall have responsibility for manage- ment of the construction project. While the installation could be initiated later this year, it is anticipated that it would not be completed until the 1979 construction season. The project has been approved by Hennepin County and the Gity of Minneapolis. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the public works dir- ector, in which I concur, that the city council adopt the attached resolution approving this project and authorizing the City Manager and Mayor to execute. the agreement providing for Richfield's par- ticipation in the construction and operation of traffic control signals and street lights at the intersection of Portland Avenue and the Crosstown Highway. Respectfully submitted, G~~/~ Wayne S. Burggraaf City Manager WSB/res cc: Public Works Director RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AfJD PARTICIPATIOf! AGREEt•1EfJT COUNTY PROJECT 7519 FOR CSAH 35 AfdD CSAH 62 City of Richfield, Minnesota tJHEREAS, Plans and Special Provisions for Hennepin County Project No. 7519 shoti•~ing the proposed interconnect and traffic signals at the intersections of County State Aid Highway fJo. 35 (Portland Avenue) and interchange ramps of County State Aid High~•~ay No. 62 (Crossto~•m High~•iay) for the construction thereof as a County State Aid Project have been prepared and presented to the City; and, t•JHEREAS, The Agreement for Participation in the Construction 'and Operation of Traffic Control Signals and Street Lights, Hennepin County Project No. 7519 Agreement No. Pt•1-39-20'77 has~been prepared and presented to the City. NOt-J THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that said Plans and Special Provisions be in all things approved. • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Agreement No. Pt•J-39-20-77, Project No. 7519 is hereby approved and that the flayor and Manager are authorized to sign said Agreement. Dated this day of 1g CERTIFICATIOfJ STATE OF MINfJESOTA COUiJTY OF HEiJNEPIfJ CITY OF RICHFIELD I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield at a meeting thereof held in the City of Richfield, Pinnesota on the day of 19 as disclosed by the records of said City in my possession. (SEAL) City Cler :, Jy CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA .Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 241 Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Resolution Setting Date of Election on Proposed Change to City Charter, and Approving Form of Ballot At the July 24, 1978 city council meeting, the city council received a request from the Charter Commission to hold an election on a proposed change to the city charter. The proposed charter amendment would change the method by which the mayor and council members .are elected, to provide that the mayor and one council member be elected at large and that three council members be elected by wards. The request for an election on the proposed charter amendment was made in accordance with city charter and state statute provisions that require an election to be held on any proposed charter amendment which is presented to the city council by the charter commission and not approved by the city council.. The city attorney has determined that the city council can choose to hold the election on the proposed charter amendment at any time, within the city charter requirements for calling of spe- cial elections. The council could choose to hold the election on the proposed charter amendment in conjunction with the state pri- mary election on September 12, 1978; in conjunction with the state general election on November 7, 1978; or at a special election apart from these two statewide elections. However, whatever date is selected for the election, it will be necessary to publish in the legal newspaper a resolution calling for the election. This resolution must be published at least twice, and on consecutive weeks. Attached to this council letter is a resolution, prepared by the city attorney, which would call for the election on the pro- posed charter amendment. This resolution includes the wording which y Cour~cil Letter No. 241 -2- August 14, 1978 would appear on the ballot for the special election. Respectfully ubmitted, ~~ S. Wayne S. Burggraaf City Manager WSB/ j of cc: City Attorney City Clerk R ., ~~ Resolution 78- A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION OF THE QUESTION OF A,'~IENDING CHAPTER IV, SECTION 2.03, OF THE CITY CHARTER RELATII4G TO ELECTIVE OFFICERS OF THE CITY; AiQD CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION THEREON. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOtOS 1. The Charter Commission of the City of Ric:nfield has, by Resolution duly adopted on duly 20, 1978, requested this Council to submit a proposed charter amendment to the voters of the City, and it is hereby determined that this Council is required by law to submit the proposed charter amendment to the voters. 2. The question of the approval shall be placed on the hallo to be held on Tuesday, polls for the election shall and closed at 3. The question of the approval amendment shall be stated on the following form: of the charter amendment t at a special city election 1978. The be opened at a.m. p.m. of the proposed charter the ballot in substantially "SHALL SECTION 2.03 OF THr. CHARTER OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BE AI~iEiJDED TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION OF THREE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM DISTRICTS AIJD THE ELECTION OF THE TfIAYOR ATJD ONE i~~IEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL AT LARGE, COI.IMENCING VdITH THE CITY ELECTION ITJ 1982?" INSTRUCTIONS vote in f avo shall make a opposite the vote against make a cross opposite the TO VOTERS: Voters desiring to r of the foregoing proposition cross mark (X) in the square word YES. Voters desiring to the foregoing proposition shall mark (X) in the square word NO. 4. The City Clerk shall cause notice of said election, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A", to be given by publication in the official newspaper of the City once each week for two successive weeks prior to the date of said election, and by posting said notice in at least one public place in each of the voting precincts. r r ` 5. The election shall be held at the usual polling places for said election and the judges of the election shall be those judges appointed to serve at the last regular municipal election. 6. The election shall be held and conducted in accordance with the charter of the City and the statutes of the State of Minnesota applicable to special City elections. The Council shall meet at the City Hall on the day of 1978, at o'clock p.m. for the purpose of canvassing said election and declaring the results thereof. Mayor Attest: City Clerk ,... . EXHIBIT "A" NOTICE OF SPECIAL ELECTION CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPTN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBX GIVEN that a special election to be held in and for the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, I~iinnesota, on Tuesday, 197$, at-which the following question will be submitted to the voters of the City for their approval or rejection: '"SHALL SECTION 2.03 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BE AP~IENDED TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION OF THREE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM DISTRICTS AND THE ELECTION OF THE MAYOR AND ONE T4ET41BER OF THE CITY COUNCIL AT LARGE, COMMENCING WITH THE CITY ELECTION IN 1982?° The full text of Section. 2.03 of the charter ;if the proposed amendment is approved by the voters at the election ,will read as follows; "Section 2.03. Elective Officers. The council shall be composed of a mayor and four council members all of whom shall be registered voters. Commencing with the 1981 election the off ices of mayor and at large council member shall be filled by election at large. Commencing with the 1982 election the off ices of the three district council members shall be elected from apportioned council districts in which they reside. The mayor shall serve for a term of two years and the at large and district council members shall serve for a term of three years. The regular term of an off ice commences on January 1 next following the general election at which balloting for the full term of the office occurs. A candidate for the office of district council member must reside while seeking election and while serving in office within the district from which he or she is elected. A council member who was elected under the at-large system prior to the 1981 election and whose term has not expired may continue in office until his term expires. Prior to March 15, 1982, and everytime there is a United States Census thereafter, the city council shall by ordinance establish compact and contiguous council districts to be apportioned by population as nearly equal as practicable." The polls for said election will be opened at a.m. and remain open until closed at p.m. The polling places for the special election shall be as follows: Any qualif ied voter of the City is entitled to vote at said election. BY ORDER OF 11^HE CTTY COUNCIL /sJ Thomas Moran City Clerk Dated.: August 14, 1978 City of Richfield, i7innesota f LAW OFFICES LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O'BRIEN &DRAWZ ~ I100 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING CLAYTON L. LeFEVERE HERBERT P. LEFLER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 CU RTIS A. PEARSON J. DEN NIS O~BRIEN JOHN E. DRAWZ DAVID J. KENNEDY JOHN 8. DEAN GLENN E. PURDUE JAMES D. CARSON CHARLES L. LEFEVERE HERBERT P, LEFLER lII Aug11St lO, 1970 JEFFREY J. STRAND JAMES P. O'M EARA Pair. Thomas Moran City Clerk City of Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, i~4innesota 55423 Re: Charter Amendment Dear Tom: TELEPHONE (612) 333-0543 This letter covers ten copies of a draft resolution calling a special election on the proposed charter amendment. The resolution is prepared on the basis of a special election to be held at some date other than the regular municipal eleciion. If the council decides to hold the election at the general election, the text of the resolution will have to be modified slightly to simply provide for tn.e placing of this question on the ballot at the general election, and including it, together with the-text of the amendment, in the notice of the general election. You will notice, too, that I have shortened the question considerably in order to accommodate its placing on the voting machines. I think the form of the question complies with the statutory direction in this matter. Yours,:-,very truly, /~l ~ ~ --_ D~v~d J. Kenned Y DJK:dar Enclosures ~~ ~ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 240 Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Approval of Contract With Hennepin County for Terminal. Access to Property Tax Files .For the .past six years, the City of Richfield has enjoyed the use of a date processing terminal connected .directly to the Hennepin County tax files. In June, 1978, Hennepin County installed newer terminals to provide improved access and service capability. In conjunction with the installation of the new terminal, the county has requested the City to sign a contract for use of the terminal. The contract provides the city the right of access to the information, at a monthly fee of $315. In the previous arrangement, Richfield rented the data process- . ing terminal directly from IBM at a fee of $150 a month, and paid Hennepin~CourAty an additional monthly access fee of $100. The city also paid a telephone transmission charge of $55 a month, mak- ing our monthly cost for this service equal to $305.. The city uses the terminal primarily for control of the special assessment information. The special assessments are a substantial accounts receivable, and an important asset in meeting our debt. service requirements. The major advantage to the city in using the terminal is in the rendering of searches. The city charges a $5 search fee, and we average $350 a month in revenues from search fees These revenues essentially pay for the cost of using this data processing terminal. It is recommended that the city council approve the contract with Hennepin County for terminal access to property tax files, and authorize its execution. R spectfully submitted, ~- -Wayne S. Burggraaf City Manager WSB/jef cc: Finance Director. ., CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 239 Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit,. Variance, and Off-street Parking Contract, 3020 West 66th Street There is a public hearing scheduled for the August 14, 1978 city council meeting on a request for a special use permit and a variance to permit construction of a restaurant-serving liquor at 3020 West 66th Street, in the Southdale Square Shopping Center. Since this public hearing was scheduled, the applicant for the special use permit and variance has withdrawn its application. A copy of the letter withdrawing the application is attached. It is suggested that the city :council take action to accept the withdrawal of this request for special use permit and variance at the August 14, 1978 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/jef cc: Planning-.and Redevelopment Director CarlsonProperfleslnc, 12B05SfafeHrghcYay55,Mrrnoeapols,MooesoJa 55441 August 7, 1978 Mr. Richard Krier Planning Director City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Dick: We would like to formally retract our application for a special use permit and parking variance regarding a proposed T.G.I. Friday's restaurant on the corner of 66th and Xerxes Avenue South, where the Sinclair station is presently located. We regret that the project was not well received, but we do wish to thank you for your cooperation in working with us. Since~e1y, P. STELLICK rector of Finance cc: Planning Commission Dick Wolsfeld - BRW JPS/srs ~: `;~~.e r ~ ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 238 Agenda-August 14, 1978. The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Resolution Proving for Polling Places and .Designating Judges for State Primary There is a resolution on the council agenda for- August 14, 1978 designating polling places for the state primary, to be held on September 12, 1978. The resolution also provides .for election judges at this primary. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, i- ~~~1/ ~ ~~~~~ W ne ~5. Bur raaff Y gg City Manager WSB/res cc: City Clerk .. ~t 1 RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR POLLING PLACES AND DESIGNATING JUDGES FOR STATE PRIMARY - SEPTEMBER 12, 1978 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That there will be a state primary election on Tues. Sept. 12, 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 N0. POLLING PLACE JUDGES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Mt. Calvary Educ. Bldg. 6541 16th Av. S. 2 City Hall 6700 Portland Av. S. 3 Sheridan School 64th at Sheridan Av. S. 4 Lincoln I-Iills School 75th and Penn Av. S. S West Jr. High School 74th and Oliver Av. S. Shirley Gisselc{uist, Chrm. Ethel Hommes Eunice Aulwes Margaret LaValle Mary Ellen Olin Vivian Bennis, Chrm. Gladys Stinar John Gera Gertrude Sanders Ellen Brandon Joyce Emerson, Chrm. Lois Awes Donna Peterson Barbara Belk Pat Brestrup Martha Prottengeier, Chrm. Dorothy Lace Nancy Gibbons Arline Thomas Mary Ann Helleckson Patricia Bunting, Chrm. Pat Sazdoff Chrystal Linn George Hegdahl Grace Dahlien ~r 6 7 8 9 10 Berea Luthern Church 76th and Emerson Av. S Central School 72nd and Harriet Av. S. Portland School 72nd and 4th Av. S. Assumption Activities Bldg. 305 E. 77th St. Centennial School 73rd and Bloomington Av Alvin Joubert, Chrm. Bernice Johnson Kathleen Leckner Arla Groth Eloise Friend Donna Vidas, Chrm. Jean Kallstrom Jane Toler Adeline Bramwell Pat. Farnham Jean Lofstrom, Chrm. Lorraine Kendall Mary Jane Suess Ruth Marks Dolly Smith Gertrude Herll, Chrm. Mary Dumas Patricia Haupt Joyce Rodeberg Audrey Winslow Corrine Cosgrove, Chrm. Dorothy Chellsen Joan Schaefer Marien Carpenter Marcia Boler Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of August, 1978. oxen L. Law, Mayor Attest: Thomas J. Moran, City Cler ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. Z~'/ Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Authorization to Advertise for Bids, Replacement Boulevard Trees The purpose of this council letter is to request city council authorization to advertise for bids to replace boulevard trees that have been lost to dutch elm disease. Three hundred eighteen boule- vard trees were removed last year, city-wide, and an additional 68 boulevard trees have been removed so far this year. The public works department proposes to plant these trees with street crews, and to waive the one-year warrantly commonly required in landscaping contracts. Although waiver of the warranty could result in some tree loss from winter kill, it is expected to reduce the initial purchase price of each tree by approximately fifty per- cent, and thus significantly increase the total number of trees which the city can purchase. These trees would be acquired and planted this fall. The capital improvement program now being developed for 1979- 1984-will provide revenue sharing monies for this purpose. Approxi- mately $50,000 in revenue sharing monies will be necessary to cover the acquisition costs of 350 to 400 trees, and the city's cost of labor to plant the trees. It is anticipated that state reimburse- ment may be available for 28% of this cost, or $14,000, through the dutch elm disease control grant program. This program provides such reimbursement to the city for current costs being incurred in tree removal and related other disease control efforts. It is recommended that the city council authorize this adver- tisement for bids for the acquisition of 350 to 400 replacement boulevard trees. Respectfully submitted, ,~ ~~ ayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/jef cc: Public Works Director I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 236 Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Authorization to Advertise for Bids, .Brush Picker The purpose of this council letter is to request city council authorization to advertise for bids for a brush picker. The brush picker is an attachment which could be mounted on a city truck, and would be used primarily in our tree trimming and tree disease control programs. Other related uses would include loading heavy objects which cannot be loaded easily with a front end loader, such as water lines, sewer pipes, culverts, inlets, manholes, etc. It is also our intention to use this loading unit in connection with our annual spring .clean-up program. Funds for purchase of the brush picker are contained in the 1978 Street Division budget. It is the recommendation of the public works director, in which I concur, that the city council authorize the advertisement for bids for this piece of equipment. Respectfully submitted, ;~ ,! Wayne S: Burggraaff City Manager WSB/jef cc: Public Works Director r Located above the load, the opera- tor can better place brush and refuse in the truck and compact it to get a full load every time. Accord- ing to operator, by compacting with loader, three times the amount of brush can be loaded. Consequently, less trips to landfill are made. Hydraulic stabilizers are individually con- trolled for easy adjustment to ground level variations. Stabilizer controls are easily operated by foot from operator's platform. The Prentice "brush Picker" doesn't - - Get back injuries - Get tired - Loaf on the job - Quit work early - Get hernias An old 55 gallon drum and some fence posts are no problem for the Prentice with ifs 310 pulpwood grapple. The loader has more than enough capacity to handle the larg- est junk and brush. y ~: i ;;*!~r r i~ ~-r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 235 Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Related to Temporary Signs, First Reading Attached to this council letter is proposed amendment to Chapter III, Part V, Section 3.47 of the Richfield Ordinance Code. The proposed amendment would revise procedures relating to the issuance of permits for temporary signs. Currently, city ordinance classifies search .lights, banners, and other promotional. display devices as temporary signs, which require approval from the city council before they may be erected. On occasion, a businessman may desire to hold a special sale at the last moment, or at a date too late to be placed on the council agenda. In some .instances, such promotional display devices may have been erected without the city council's approval, or a promotional event may have been postponed or cancelled because the applicant was unaware of the requirement that city council approval was necessary before the promotional device could be erected.. The requirement for city council approval of such promotional .devices means that an ap- plicant oftentimes needs to complete the permit application nearly three weeks in advance of the time when he may wish to use the temp- orary signs. Since this requirement appears to present hardships to some local businessmen, the public works director and city attorney's office have developed the attached ordinance amendment for city council consideration. The attached amendment details the considerations which shall be weighed in evaluating. an application for a temporary. sign permit. This amendment would still require that a businessman obtain a per- mit to erect temporary signs, banners, balloons or beacons.: However, this ordinance amendment would provide that the city manager re- view the, requests for such permits and approve them if they appear to be in compliance with the regulations and policies of the city council and city sign ordinance. Under this amendment, an applica- tion for a temporary sign permit would be placed before the city council only if the city manager denied the permit. In these in- stances, and these instances only, it would be necessary for the promotional event to be delayed until after the next meeting of the city council. Council Letter No. 235 -2- August 14, 1978 It is recommended that the city council give first reading approval to this ordinance amendment at the August 14, 1978 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~.l ~~- Wayne S. Burggraaff .City Manager WSB/jef cc: Public Works Director City Attorney AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER ZII, PART V, SECTION 3.47 OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part V, Section 3.47 of the Richfield Ordinance Code dealing witYi the regulati.or~ of signs and billboards is hereby amended in the following respects: A. By adding to Subdivision 1, thereof the following new paragraph: "(16) 'Promotional Display Device' means and is limited to any beacon, banner or aerial balloon being used in connection with the promotion of any event or activity and situated entirely on premises where such activity or event is or will be conducted." B. By adding to Subdivision 3, thereof the following new paragraph: "(8) A promotional display device provided that the following conditions have been met. a. The person, firm, or corporation proposing to use such device makes application to the City Manager an forms provided for that purpose, and b. The City Manager, after review of the application together with any other information he deems necessary, approves the use of such device. c . The C ity Manager sha 11 nrt appr_ ove the use of any promotional display device unless he finds that the use will not create or be likely to create public safety or healty dangers and will not annoy or be likely to annoy the owners or occupants of adjacent property. The manager may condition his approval upon such terms as he shall deem advisable and may limit the duration and the times of day during which the display may occur." ~. Passed byI 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 #234 Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Purchases in Excess of $1,000 Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve purchases of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are four such items for the city council agenda of August 14, 1978. Radar Monitoring Unit The State of Minnesota has recently established a program to assist local units of government to upgrade radar speed monitoring equipment. The main purpose of this. program is to help local units of government obtain radar units which will overcome the many commercial radar detection devices that are currently being sold on the open market. To accomplish this objective, the state will provide a fifty percent funding reimbursement toward the purchase of new, advanced radar monitoring equipment. The 1978 budget revision for the police division provides for the acquisition of one new radar speed monitoring unit. -The police division currently has three radar units which are in regular use. Because of the requirement that officers be certified in the use of individual monitoring devices, it is imperative that any new radar unit acquired by the city be compatible with the existing units. The city's present equipment was manufactured by the Kustom Signals, Inc. This equipment is sold directly~by the manufacturer and, therefore, the normal competitive bidding process is unnecessary. The city has received a quotation from Kustom Signals, Inc. in the amount of $2,385.00 for the prescribed radar speed monitoring unit. Since .the state reimbursement program for this project will terminate on September 30, 1978, it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that the city council approve this purchase from Kustom Signals, Inc., in the amount of $2,385. Of this purchase price, $1,192.50 will be reimbursed to the city by the State of Minnesota. Insulation of Heating Pi es, Community Center The city staff has again solicited quotations for adding insulation to the hot water pipes in the Community Center building. Twenty-three invitations to submit quotations were. mailed. Three Council Letter #234 - 2 August 14, 1978 quotations were received. The low quotation was received from Meyers Insulation, Inc., in the amount of $3,895. It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase of pipe insulation at the Community Center, in the amount of $3 , 895 . Newsletter/Brochure Postage The 1978 Fall Newsletter and Park and Recreation Brochure is scheduled for distribution to Richfield residences the first week of September. Earlier this year the price of postage was increased, and now costs the city 8.4~ for distribution of each Newsletter/ Brochure.- It is recommended that the city council. approve the purchase of Newsletter/Brochure postage, in the amount of $1,357.02 Lumber In the fall of 1977 the city council authorized the city staff to prepare applications for Federal .Land and Water Conservation Act (LAWCON) and state grants related to trail improvements at the Wood Lake Nature Center. The city has received confirmation of $6,000. in LAWCON funding and anticipates an additional $4,800. in funding from the State of Minnesota this fall. The city's share of the project cost will be $1,200., which represents the cost of city labor to complete the trail improvements. The city staff has located two firms to provide used lumber which can be used on the project. New lumber costs would be approximately three to four times more expensive than for used lumber. The federal funds which have. been appropriated for the project can be used for the purchase of this used lumber. It is recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1. Authorize the purchase of 1.,600 feet of 6 x 12 treated timber (used) from Bauer Brothers Salvage, in the amount of $2, 160. 2. Order city project number 731 for trail improvements at the- Wood Lake Nature Center. Respectfully su fitted, ~~Q ~• ~~~/ ~.~ Wayne ,S . Burggraaf f City Manager cc: Public Safety Director Parks and Recreation Director Finance Director WSB/res 8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No.~ 233 Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Vacation of Grand Avenue Between 65th Street and 66th Street At the July 24, 1978 city council meeting, the council held the public hearing on the proposed vacation of Grand Avenue between 65th Street and 66th Street. At the close of the hearing, the council deferred second reading consideration of the transitory ordinance providing for this street vacation until an agreement could be reached with NSP regarding an underground cable in the Grand Avenue right-of-way. Since the cable is not. located in a formal easement area, NSP would like to keep the cable in place. Financial properties, Inc., wants to insure that NSP or the city will pay all costs of constructing the building over and around the electrical cable. A verbal agreement has now been reached between Financial Properties, Inc. and NSP, whereby NSP has agreed to assume the additional costs of design and construction to keep the cable in place. The parties are now in the process of drafting and execut- ing the formal written documents necessary to carry out the terms of the agreement. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached transitory ordinance, providing for vacation of Grand Avenue between 65th Street and 66th Stree t Re pectfully submitted, ~,~ i ~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/jef cc: Planning and Redevelopment Director Public Works Director City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF GRAND AVENUE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: _____.. _. The following portion of Grand Avenue South within 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 on 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 off ice of the Register of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota." Section 2._ Mayor and City M r are authoriz d to take such ion as is requir o give effect t e vacation the public right -way as provided 'n the fore- going S ction 1. 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. 232 Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject.: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Licensing and Operation of Bicycles, First Reading During the last session of the Minnesota State Legislature, a provision was adopted to establish a uniform bicycle licensing procedure for the State of Minnesota. Because of this statutory change,. it is necessary to amend our existing city Ordinance Code. Attached to this council letter is a copy of the proposed ordinance amendment which has been prepared by our city attorney's office. This amendment reflects the changes required by the new State statute. It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that the city council give first reading consid- eration to this ordinance amendment at the August 14, 1978 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/jef cc: Public Safety Director City Attorney City Clerk K ,~ AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V, PART IV, SECTION 5.34 OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDIAN: Chapter V, Part IV, Section 5.34 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, relating to the licensing and operation of bicycles is hereby amended to read as follows: "5.34 BICYCLES Subdivision 1. License Required. No person shall operate or use any bicycle as defined in Minnesota Statutes 1976, Section 168C.02 on any street, alley or highway which is not currently registered by the State of Minnesota or which does not display a currently valid license sticker issued by the State of Minnesota Caiithout first obtaining a license7. CSubd. 2. A lication and Issuance. The clerk shall issue a license upon receipt of a complete orm therefor and the proper license fee.J C Subd. 3. License Fee. The license fee is as provided in Appendix D of this Code. Bill 1977-16) 8/8/77 J C Subd. 4. Duration of License. Licenses shall be valid as long as the licensee owns the licensed bicycle.] (Bill 1975-6) 2/10/75 C Subd. 5. License °late and Registration Card. The City shall issue a tag plate, sea or o er evice Baring e icense number assigned to the bicyle and the name of the City of Richfield suitable for atta- chment to the bicycle frame. A registration card shall be issued to the licensee which shall show the name and address of the licensee, the name of the manufacturer of the bicycle, itsframe number, the type of bicycle and the license number and date of issue. No license shall issue until all such information has been supplied by the person seeking licensure. The~cityshall keep and maintain a duplicate registration card. The license plate tag, seal or other device shall be attached to the licensed bicycle during the effective period of the license. (Bill 1975-6) 2/10/75 J Subd. C6] 2. Destruction of License Plate. C AnyJ No person Cwho] shal 1 remove C s J destroyt s7 muti 1 ateCs J or alter Cs 7 any bi cycl e license plate during the effective period of the license Cis guilty of a misdemeanor 7. CSubd. 7. Sales of Licensed Bicycles. Any person who sells, gives, or otherwise transfers ownership of any licensed bicycle shall report such sale or-transfer to the city by delivering to the License Division the detachable portion of his registration card, together with the name-and address of the person to whom said bicycle was sold or trans- ferred. The report shall be made within five days of the date of the sale or transfer. The purchaser or transferee shall, if a resident of the city, make application for a transfer of the registration with- in ten days of the sale or transfer and shall obtain a new registration card from the License Division upon payment of the license fee, provided however, that no new license shall be issued until after the seller or transferrer has reported the transfer or sale to the city. (Bill 1975-6) 2/10/75 Subd. L87 3. Restrictions on Bicycle Riding- State Law Adopted b Reference. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 169 which are expressly applicable to bicycles and bicycle riding ai-e hereby adopted by reference as is fully set forth herein. These statutory provisions and the provisions relating to bicycles in Chapter IX of this code govern the riding of bicycles within the city. Wherever the city has provided sidewalks and bituminous ramps adjacent to streets for the accommodation of bicycle riders, such sidewalks and ramps shall be regarded as usable paths within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes 169.221, Subd. 4 paragraph (c) and Minnesota Statutes 160.263. Subd. 4. Impoundment of Bicycles.- The department of Public Safety may impound bicycles which are being operated of used in violation or Subd. 1. of this section. The Department of Public Safety may also impound unregistered bicycles found on or adjacent to any street, alley or highway. Any bicycle impounded pursuant to this section shall be re- turned to its owner upon display of a currently valid state registration covering this bicycle. CSubd. 9. Revocation. Violation of any of the provisions of this section or of any of the provisions adopted by reference in Sub- division 8 shall be grounds for revocation of any license issued pursuant to this section. ~ " CSubd. 10. Replacement of Lost License or Registration. Upon appli- cation and satisfactory evidence of loss of a license or registration card and the payment of a $.75 fee, the License Division shall issue a duplicate replacement plate or card. (1975-6) 2/10/75] Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1978. Loren L. Law, Mayor ATTEST: mas Moran, City Cler i ~~ r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council .Letter No. 231 Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Gentlemen: Subject: Resolution Providing .for Continuation of Municipal Court in Richfield The purpose of this council letter is to present a resolution for city council consideration that would provide for the continua- tion of municipal court in .Richffield. The last session of the Minnesota Legislature passed an amend- ment to the statute dealing with the locations for holding municipal court in Hennepin County. This amendment is designed to consolidate the suburban court functions at Bloomington, Ridgedale, and Brookdale. Part of the consolidation would also be the elimination of municipal court in Richfield. However, the legislation does provide that the city council may adopt a resolution requesting that the court con- tinue to function in Richfield. If the city council. adopts such a resolution and forwards it to the county board by August 30, 1978, the county is required to continue holding court in Richfield. The city staff and city attorney`s office have reviewed the advan- tages and disadvantages of continuing to hold municipal court in Richfield. The following are factors which should be considered in making a decision regarding the future location of the municipal court function: Advanta eg s of Holding Court in Richfield 1. It is very convenient for Richfield residents who have to appear in court; 2. It is very convenient to police officers and other city officials who have to appear in court; 3. Prisoners can be easil y brought to court; 4. City files and records relating to court incidents are easily accessible; 5. Police officers only need to disrupt their normal duties for the time they are needed in court, and since they are still in the city, can be called out in an emergency if necessary; a Council Letter No. 231 -2- August 14, 1978 6. The city attorney can conduct other city business while at city hall on court days; 7. The city receives an additional $3100 in annual revenues from the county for lease of the court space. Disadvantages of Holding Court in Richfield 1. Severe congestion of people and vehicles occurs in the city hall building and parking lot; 2. Congestion creates a serious distraction to city employees -and other persons needing to conduct business at city hall; 3. Court use means that the two offices located adjacent to the court chambers are unusable for any on-going city pur- poses. Crowded conditions existing elsewhere in city hall could be partially relieved were one or both of these offices available for the city to use on a permanent basis. This review indicates .that the advantages to continuing court in Richfield appear to outweigh the disadvantages. Furthermore, the city may request inclusion in the Bloomington court at any time, whereas we must request that court be maintained in Richfield prior to August 30, 1978. It is, therefore, recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution requesting that municipal court continue to be held in Richfield, with the understanding that the continuation of court in Richfield may be reviewed again at some future date. Respectfully submitted, /~~- J V / Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/jef cc: Public Safety Director City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUIRING, CONTINUANCE OF COURT IN RICHFIELD WHEREAS, the Hennepin County '~4unicipal Court has for many years conducted court without jury trials in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the holding of 'Court in Richfield has provided a valuable and necessary service to the City of :Richfield and its citizens; and WHEREAS, the state legislature has. provided for the dis- continuance of court without jury in Richfield unless a continuance is required by the City. NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, 1~linnesota, as follows: 1. The holding of Court without jury is required to continue on and after the effective date of the amendment to Minnesota Statutes ~488A.01, Subdivision 9. 2. The City Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Hennepin County 3oard for receipt not later than August 30, 1978. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ,. Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 230 Agenda August 14, 1978 The .Honorable Mayor and rlembers of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Membership in Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Earlier this year the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities made a decision to increase the dues of that organization.' This action represented the first dues increase in three years. The in- crease for the City of Richfield amounts to $790 as indicated in the attached communication. The city council asked. that the AMM make a presentation con- cerning the activities of that organization to help council members decide whether the city should continue it's membership. This presentation has been scheduled for 9:00 p.m. at the August 14 city council meeting. A fourteen minute slide presen- tation on the activities of the organization will be shown. Mayor June Demos, AMM president, has a Roseville council meeting scheduled for the same evening and will be unable to attend. However, A!'~'INI board members Wayne Courtney, council member Edina, Richard Hullander, council member Shakopee, and Richard Larsen, council member Minnetonka, will be present. Vern Peterson, Executive Director of the organization, will also be available to answer any questions that council members may .have. It is recommended that the city council affirm its membership in the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and authorize the payment of the annual dues for this. organization. Respectfully submitted, ~1/ /. ~~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/res x CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 229 Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit, 6336 James Avenue South Mr. Harold Lee, 6336 James Avenue South, has requested a special use permit to allow his daughter, who does not live at the residence, to teach swimming lessons in the existing pool located at 6336 James Avenue South. The following exhibits are attached to this council letter: 1. Letter from applicant 2. Site Plan 3. Land Use Map 4. Zoning Map 5. Comprehensive Plan 6. Petitions from adjoining neighbors BACKGROUND Parcel Size: 60' x 128' (7680 square feet) Existing Structures: One 24 x 38 foot dwelling (12 stories); 16' x 20' detached garage and a 16' x 40' swimming pool. Proposed Structures: The existing structures will remain. Distance from Pool to Adjacent Dwellings: North: 45 feet East: 126 feet West: 83 feet South: 13 feet Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Single Family Residential Council Letter No. 229 -2- August 14, 1978 Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan indicated that the area should be developed with single or two family dwelling units and accessory uses compatible with single or two family dwelling units. STAFF REVIEW The proposed use, because it involves teaching children, would constitute a school. A school is permitted in a residence (R) zone only if a special use permit is obtained and, therefore, a special use permit is necessary to allow the proposed use. The request for a special use permit should be reviewed against the following criteria: 1. Comprehensive Plan 2. Conditions for issuance of a special use .permit COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the .site should be Bevel- oped for single or two family residential use and for uses accessory to those residential uses. The teaching of swimming lessons by a person not residing at the premises could constitute a commercial use of the property. However, the primary use of the site is single family residential, the pool is a permitted accessory use, and the applicant's proposal provides that swimming would be taught only on a limited basis. CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT Section 3.41, Subdivision 5 that a special use permit shall would be detrimental: of the zoning ordinance states not be issued if the proposed use 1. to the health, safety, welfare of the persons borhood of such use, or morals, comfort, convenience or residing or working in the neigh- 2. to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood. There would appear to be three potential detrimental effects to the public welfare in the applicant's proposal. The first would be increased parking and traffic problems. Because of the narrow, 30-foot width of the street in front of the applicants property, two-way traffic could become difficult if cars are parked on both sides of the street and emergency vehicle access would be limited. The proposed use should, however, not generate sufficient traffic for this to be a major problem. The maximum number of students in a class would be 6, many of whom would be neighborhood children. This would mean that a number of the children could walk to the pool, and the additional traffic generated would be minimal. Council Letter No. 229 -3- August 14, 1978 The second potential detrimental effect would be the incon- venience to neighboring property owners caused by noisy children. This potential problem should also be minimal, since the pool area is surrounded by a six-foot high privacy fence and the students would be involved in lessons and not in open swimming. All adjacent property owners except the property owner to the south have signed a petition indicating support for the proposed use. The third potential detrimental effect could be that the safety of the children would be threatened. Again, this problem should be minimized. The pool was constructed in compliance with city or- dinances, and the classes will be taught by a certified Water Safety Instructor. However, there is no requirement that the classes be taught by certified instructors and once the special use permit is issued, it remains with .the property indefinitely, and the city, loses control of the use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In summary, the-staff has found that the proposed use would have minimal effect on the neighborhood or on the public welfare. It is therefore recommended that the city council approve issuance of the special use permit with. the following stipulations: 1. That the classes be limited to a maximum of six students at any one time, to minimize potential noise and traffic problems;. 2. That classes be taught only between the hours of 12:00 PM to 3:30 PM, to limit the effects of noise and traffic on the surrounding neighborhood; 3. That classes be taught only by American Red Cross certified Water Safety Instructors. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission considered this request for a special. use permit at their July 25, 1978 meeting. Six area residents ap- peared in favor of the proposal and four in opposition to the proposal. The Planning Commission recommended that~the city council approve issuance of the special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. That classes be limited to a maximum of six students at any one time; 2. That classes be taught only between the hours of 12:00 PM to 3:30 PM; Council Letter No. 229 -4- August 14, 1978 3. That classes be taught only by American Red Cross cer- tified Water Safety Instructors. Respectfully submitted, y U~~.. ~• Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/jef cc: Planning and Redevelopment Director SITE PLAN f I I 6' FENCE J J 2 Q i i L_ 128 GARAGE I6' ~~ DECK 16` POOL CONCRETE BECK FENCE ~~- 24~ NOUSE O r~ W c~ Q W Q J 4 z d 1 inch = 30 feet July 7 ~, 1978 Dear P~embers of the Council:- F`or the past 8 years my daughter, Paula has been teachir_g swimming lessons in our pool. Her lessons run for three months Junes-.July ~ August. This year the lessors are between the hours of 12:::00 P.P~., to 3::30: P.I~~. Class sizes are very smalls there are. never more than 6 students per class.: Age~_ of the students range from ~-: to 17 years students are placed in classes according to age-and ability. Paula'`s brother Je-ff is lifeguarding an d. being sure that spectators remain away froL~ the pool Our pool teas built according to by Baker Pool Company. Our backyard privacy fence wi-th one entrance. We sincerely hope. you will find can continue to teach youngsters to and pool deck... Richfield City Ordinances is enclosed with a 6 foot in our favor so that we swim and learn to enjoy and appreciate the water. 0 Thank You-for your.consideration~ ~~CEno'~~ ~ ~~ ~. i~_ ~ ~~ - -. ~ ~;~• :DTs -. ~°a ~ ~ ~~ w' Zoning Flap N ~ , ~~ ~ ~ !~~. -. ~~ ~~~ ,~~. ____ ~~~~J '~'-~ Z. `'sic t 5. ~r 7. is, .t. i S. i ~.~,o; oo` ' ~ ~~ .. nog' ~. 14 ~~or R~" ij t ~ i~.~y'':I-~, ~ i'~, _. ~- e • ~ • y11.S~_ • - - J~'3 - ,h.° S .:x351 V~~ ~ ~ 1~ ?,, ~ ~ i}~, ~, ~ 1~ ^. - , ~~~ - _ r~_._- y M1y.. ~ t' -~ i ~ • • • _ 4. 1 ~ 1 t. ~Vr 1!. .~ i ! !. r ___~...._ .~..__-~_.~ t - -{ ..LL d ____ y i _.. ia1a~ ~ r~.' ! 11Y f dG. ~( ;_~ r Z i t ~ T. ~ i'TT7. 1( rt'1~~(t~ 7 t'L t T3 T. ,~ ?~:'. I , T t.-7. t • •7 !1 ,"~+i1 {- ~ ~_ _~"~'- '73° Ll• ? 3'1bo _ `~ _b7 Z._ ,eo 9~_ ~~. Z~ ~~ -_._ ~?~' t ---mot J,Y. ., _3_._ _. ~ J ~ ..~Y y ~~+` ~ J _''~~3_ Y _ tt.a~ ' ~.a~3`--- _ ft_~~ ~ • - 3~~_ ~• 21_ ~~--- t ~: iZ.~'~ i '~ °'' ' ~, z~ -. - -- -=-- ~-- ----r-- - -~-- - - _~ ~ '~ ZO. i'~'` 1 ,,3~'~. 1a. '~~, v - ® ~~ o00 - , ~-._~t J.. .. -~rnl ~ = ..~. r~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ T _ s. - S ~ V ~ w S _ _ P , r S J 1 ~ ~ 1 'ti9 a ~ ~- 1 '.$ hs 1_~s~C"! i~~7.l~ ~ ' 1~_ ~, f~~ ~ __ _. 1.1..~.',,~~f~ JJt. ?+n`^~ ~.5~{ 3~'b.due i t-.,u~,'_~ 1 oY.s "' `~ 17 ?` ~ ~ ' i ~~ d.. 3~ !h, "! ~. _ ;> ~ ~trt_^~~7~}~_._~ ~ ~e: ~ 1 '!~'~. 1~~°.j - -- t 4.6 ' !. y. t j 4 3 ? 3 e 8 ? t- i 4`-~*-.-~~ a s ' ~ 1~ ~~-~ ~--' 1. t . ..~_~ . - ws ! 7 ~ j 4. * r. 1 ,r"' ( r. • ; 'a - t•a ~' gyp, ~ !r i ~ ~~ I . ~ ~ ~^ ---3 "; N d o aq~ i i } I ~iR 7 ~[v . r ,.~ ~. p -~ `1.2_.~ , '~ !~.~:_i__.....i i-~_-_~..1'ts~-i._._.~_...,c.L ~'r.-~ t~~ _ ° e i _.~ "...._.:..~ta_..__..._v.~,.i.:_._~ "°c #_~.ix~ta. _~,;~' ~!. ( M ~ ~ L.ti~S t- f .~ :r- ,I . , ~ jt. si..;r~-~~_~ ~'• D,: ~.~' j yy - 5~ ~ ~ - ! ~- ~ !SAP;" i~ ~~~ a ! + ~{ ~.7.` •~~ ~ 1~rdT" ~a'`' ~+ r?~ _.v ~ ~a is ~ ~q.T~. .~ <. ' S~" Z. ~3 ~'~J ~ '~I.:ra a eE '~. ~~- x .i; ~ j ~~: ,'S ~.. a ~,g ~i ,~_, -~~ ~ ~- -. ~~ ---i tai {i }~.}s ~ ~ ; ~ f'~_ i ~ 3a_.__..1'' r s ~ ~ - t ~° ~ ~i{{ > 9 ; ~ d ~i "9 0 ..- o , i533."- ~ ~----~~~• ~ >~;.?. ~ ` ~-~. f •}; ~. a~ `-,tea ~ -.~ a~ - ,~ , ~f ~, t a----1 ~ :. +• ~ ~ ,• ..._ ~ t ~ i~ 1 ~~?_ -tai's: ~ .,4Tt, -' - ;a~-~----~! i.. ~ ~' ~«-.,~. ~ -~~ -a ;~-s, i-- j + ..:.ice Cs. ' r I . ! ",, 1ti., Goo rd i _ j + '4, . O , 1 ~ . ~, i .c 'n' = - L _ i I_ . J _.. .1 , ~ J tsar! ? ~ '~.9i ~~ ~.-~ ~ 4 8``,s~ .te.~j.'- --1 T ij1~ .~~-_.-__. ---- i 7 M :A~.3• ! :{.u: ..err"' ~ .9~ _~ ~ c- i .L.f 6i ?` *b a9' r *~'~ ~t~ - `_ 4 1Q ' -- ~ 1 ~~ ~~i ~ ~ 43 Y.~~. __ 1 ..~. ~ ~.~~ 'i 1 Y•[x° t -~'iTTi b, ._...~ }- ;~ ~ t „5.;"y i-- "-1 H ..4 `S'. i r. _ _ - _ ~ i !~i- -tom is ~~ ; S~3w - e ~ .;. ,. 1 „ `@ p is Zc,: ~-' , ,+~ ~, : ~ _ `. SINGLE RESLDENCE ~ ~ ~r ~ ~-y ~~ - ~ ~ _ - t ' 1'7 ; , v. ZP ~ 1 i "t r ~ ~, N ~. .~ ~ `voe J 15 ,~ ~yo +~, ~4 . AI )S; - H >~ '$ b~ ..4~M GO 1\~_J~l~a~. ~ m.~: _ Ll•, y G. ~t~ _ ,~ b, .. '1.1.s ~p Z. ~~ ti~S~ ~h~ I ,ti -' - 4; 73 rti5o I s. • 0 W Q O w 14 ~ ti t , tiS 1. w~~: X15 lT• ~,ti~. ~c° 4. { ,y4 3~ ,~ ,o ~. ,~ ~ 1. _~0~ ~1S 0 W a ~ - ~. Land U se Niap . Z•__~ ~ ~° ~ . o 14 . rx°°~ ~ ~" ~ , o u° ~° 4 ~ t ~ 13• ~'' 4• ~~ ~ .o °! : ~ s Sti ~5~5. , ri v. ~ 1 t. o : ~,o ~~G. ! ~ 1. h t o. ~ 7 1~ ~ T v q ~y)a~'~ a 9.,~~ ~ s. ~ 4 ~' ^~~ t r, r, iL {. ~ .t. 14, a~: 0~ ti , O~ ~~.~,~ 4. ry~oo L 00 qeo ~ 5. V 5,0; I1, ~ G. o~ ~ ~ ~ l0, a8 00 1. ~ ~~ e ')~ ... ~ ~ 1 G ~ s. • i4'"~ O a ~ t3.~ ~' h t i 1. ~, A q i0.ae~, r ~. ,~o~ . v Ici.! ~ al.l J lLi./ `) ~ -• 111.1 ~ lL1. ~ 1' ^ I L Z. ~~ 3 ~iio 2 ' Z. t. ~ 13. ts,~ n.- ~ Z. ,,, a ~.. ; ~I, L « . 3. s °~~tt. ~ by x _ 2Z z+'` ~,w° a ~ ~~. y ~~,0 1 ,~`` ~ . -+ - h Zb.~a ~.tA .~ o)~ be0 h ° ~ 0)h w o a ~ _ ZT. n K rv h ~yt1 }• a T4 ?' -~ zt.! . Zs.,n IS4 I ~ , I ~ t9. ,: t {~ ~ v ~ a \ c o~ 1. v I ah°. ,.~T ~, A I b (1• o~ o 4. I ~ ~ 1)0~. t~~91 ~~ I ~C i -- ~ I , _ _ 4y " :_ n '~ /.11 t a ~-: ~~ n~ h rr J U 1~. ^17 h~0 {Q~ 1 __ 6 5th. ~ 134.3 ~ ; _.1-^''I ~~~PUBLIC ~ ~ te.,,~° as -. _~,; s ~, i q.9S ~, ~ ~~~ 3 { ~ S I 9G c q ~ - • • et .. W Q_ 1 7 1~ 1 5 t v ~ q~`' DSO 2. v I ~- { ~5o sus 3. ~. 1T, p,.. ~ 4. .. i t~. BIS ' I bSo 1~•~i _ t~ t~. ~~o~ VAS 7 -~~. ~ a t ~ I t1S , • U. t~5 ZSu t0. v • ,° x ~, 1~.,,~+` a~ t. v Ij4 9 17• ,,,~s~ ;q5o 1. 13 S lG. „~'~ ~q15 3. ta.~ Q ~° • r` ~.b°~ • sP° Z rte. J Ge "' 7 1 I ~. i en°. I ~s 3• ~ { T. •415: 1 { 7 ,.o { 4. t , I 14 1 y,o : i; ,.s T. I ~;. ,~5, ,~~ ~. 1 ~ '. . !I. ti~5 v 1.;, t0. ~,, ~, I 15 t ~ o G fir the city of richf field La~f~ usE: description density principal uses Combination of multiple dwellings, office, research Mixed Land Use High industrial, hotel, motel, institutional, and retail commercial Combination of office, institutional, light and ~.\ \ Mixed Land Use High/Medium research oriented industrial, retail commercial, and multiple dwellings Combination of office, retail commercial, entertainment and Central Business eating establishments, small District Hiyh/Medium comparison shopping and service Mixed Land Use businesses, institutional, limited cultural, recreational facilities, and multiple dwellings Combination of single family dwellings, multiple dwellings, Mixed Land Use Medium townhouses, and neighborhood convenience commercial Industrial Medium Light and research oriented industrial uses . Multiple High Multiple units with related accessor uses y . Convenience Sh i A Low Grocery, drug, hardware stores. opp ng rea Single family Or two family 0 Single Family LOW u nets and accessory uses Residential cou~pazible with single Or two family urnts COMMUNITY FACILITIES: ~ ~.`;:,'~ ----- Publ i c parks and open space s ----- Public schools _____ Churches or church-related facilities ----- Other public, quasi-public, or rivate institutional fa iliti t..eJ p c e TRANSPORTATION: ----- Major arterial thoroughfare odoptsd 6y the city of richfisld this 15th day of Jonu or y ~tq 73 . ~ ~ y gr .. .e.,e, ..~ ~- - -- -- Fem. Y. u~.w .r, --_ ~ _ _ . - -. ~. _ - •_ ~ ~ `, _ ; trre+ are -- ~ ~= _ 1 3 ~ ~ Y A..e...r f - - i a rt...e = t _- ~..a., ..e \_ ~-_-- ~" ~ 'L ~~ ~ ea,., ..e ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~,, ~t i ti ~ ~` ~ ' ~ ~ ea.., ..e n.wcrD..e 'y'~~~ -_ _! ~ _` C° `f ~~~ L. \ \-i 1 ...p. c,o..e - -- ~- - ~; ,,. ... ..e ~ _-~ _----- - -- ~ _ ~~ _,~ .,~K~ ... _ ~"^'~,. --~ , ~_ - z~ ~~~ ~F:~N ..Ee cif U- J~ -_ _ _ --_ _'_ y ~ ~- ~A~ .,~ ~s Y.J LJy fJ ~ ) .. ....c ~.,~ -, ,-__ ~ - ~.- - -A~'?~ 'e!`~.,~ r'~~ inn .ve I =1- _. ....e ~ - ~ _ - - .~. ~ __-~ - -1-; ~_ - .. ~. - ~~ ,, ,~ z - Ff c r ~~ f .....E (~ ~ r :~~ ~ eetl.~ r h._a~r .~ ~ k 1 .: a f F R s -fir z r= ~r= >,wM„ .~. r S` {° rs `r~ ~ ~ r s {~c 't1. dm rs+ ~ ~~ :...a....e no ..c Ie ° . _._ t ~r4(Rr c ~ . ,. ,_k ,..., r.- F.;-._ sX.':r, ~.r__..4r _ ~.~~e~ ,~.. i-c -_ ~ JU ~~\ ! es.. •.e ~~-~~ 1 ~~ a a "a ~ i~,u. ` ~ ~`~,; ~aT, 19'~fi3 P^TI~"I~'i1 ;1e, the ~.zndersi,ned resilents af' RicY`Afiald., strszngl~ anT3ose ~rantin~ a s~ecisl. zonis'Ii~, varianeb to alia~a t::e priv;lce swiru~ir_g pool located at 5330 ~Tat12A5 {~VPnt:i@ to 'O@ usad far pUbiiC ,~`ivili`tf'itin_~ It~S`3c3T1S• ~i'~^P, °L'?~3C7i1 ~Gx` Q~:t2` Q~L:~3S].tiQ_'1 :~r2: l• I~Pt do not feel that a SIiTI~"li:1G_' O'JP_1'-`.iC~Yl NS '~®~Cr1~J~d in t~'ii? 'varianC2 belans i21 aYl $r ea ti:3'{-, CQ215iSa3 C-i~tiCi?zi1.?tp~.yT Q~ Sinop? ~`1'3:Ai~~ ;?E?51d2t1t2:'Z dW 91i1. ng 5 • ~• 7~~8 are CCncerned a~CJatlt ti1Ej irereasp l.n traffic in t;i@ €3.rE,a that r~?SUlL? from students being driven to and frcrr~ the ;oaol for Zessans. 3• ~'e are concerned about the noise V`.lat t~~is type of aperation aenerates~ This inie:Ludes both noise Pram increased auto traffic, door closings etc.f as wall as noise generated frc~n thQSe using thy, paal its'If. `*. +'je are Cane^%`ri:~id about t1.2 nuanb°r 9~' C4:1:`S i.Aia~ Wili ~5 parked aYl an 31r"rady narro~t James ,~`aV'®nue• 5. yde are enncr~lned abou± tha s:::fety of t;.e students T,~na v~alk ar bi?'Ce to ttl~ peel far their IP.SSaxiS in lig,zt of t'rin -..xcessive speed and carel:ass drivi-rg sA.oWn 'a;~ t~cyaple driving in the area. 6. `pie are conc¢rn9d about the s=~~ita.`I cond~.tic~ns in tt.e goal slxlce tti~ro ?ar~;e logs arA also confined in the narraW backyuxd at 6335 J<,~nes. 7. WR da not feel. that an oneratian of this ty~P is necessary since we ulreddy subsidize the :Richfisla ~unici~al ,oal t~'i?'6]u~i1 tax manay• ~Ni:.,~:rirrc lessens are alr`ad.y UrOVide~:i a.=?rF_,e i ., , J~• Ti1? 'IuriC?tzC`-? 15 ?~6:Ai?ii@21t~ ~:L3F7`it1i~ it iil~.l ~,:~1Sv :ice -.~3C~ ~~it^<?5 :~3Y` ~.'.V~1'• yap i ~s t ( ~~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ - -- -'- / _~ tf' i~ f ...._ . , ~ C ~ ~ ~ 1 _<-- .~ r ~~~i l ~~_ v ~~ ~- ~ ~'i L !~ 4 1 ZG / 1~~~ i , / REQUEST FOR VARTAN~F~;AF:~nP .~.~_~~, Use pernzi~ FOR PURPOSE OF ~w-i mm-i tfig LP~~on~ Legal Description: We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. Signature of Owners Address Leal Description r ~ ,~ f e,~ ~ r ~ . r? , 3 °~? ~. _/ ~ ~- ~ ,~. ~ ~33-~ ,~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ J~ N J V LG..~. ~/ l , / v ~~-_, K T .: J'u.sj. ~ ~ o ~, 4 :L ~ _' a~ - _`~j i4~ 1 s^~~ ,..~ ~ 1 ~{ a~ ~a 1o ti~ a V .R ~! St ~ ~_J ~i • •; 1, ,, ~h '' 4 y, ~. . ~_ ~ '-E ~ ~_ .~ ~~ -'j~-.t ~ '.,..~ ,: . ~ I, `~~~ O N Z. ~ i, Q 4, ,, °'3• ` f,~ G. ~ O °a ~. ,: ia. _ w ~ 4- p ~~ . ~tiS 1 ~~~..- .1_~4..j'-- V ~ ^~o ' `, ~o T, ` ~ t ~ Q S -- n ~^ t T. ~,,ti`' :-~. 4. .fl 1 G. ~,~ tie ~ ' `~ G t ~ ~ ,,,L,O . -t 3; ~o `y,S j. T "iS _ 134~i ~ Z -~ ~~ 5 r . ~ , ~~ t i ~~^`' , ` w. ,O VJ a ~ I. ~ .. 1~ 1` vy 1 Petition Map ~ ~____ J ;7 ~ ~. l4. moo, ~'.i` 1~. , S ~ V, Tt4 n ~ ~ I;~:n_ ~ ~ c~' ~ ' 1 i 11 _ 1 77 ~~ ~ I e t S `. ~.~. ~~ ~ ~ . , ---,~-,~- - ; 5-~-~--- 1~ x 4 -~--4 ~ o ~-T-- '1 ~ ^ i 12 '}~ ,,~ / I~ .j ' ho s. - - ,~~~ . T~a.~f- ~34.4~_ . ~~ ~ :'`_;14_13_ `-' +, ~ 6th. `~~~ i 34 93 i ~G ~ 3 .. , -.y ..' ~ 1 . -, ' RETITIONERS' LOTS r: ~ 1„~-; _,9 .~ 4 -~ n ~ ~ CA ~ 13• ~'' ~~ . U? s 5} ao kS ~ , y' ~ (. , : // •~K ^~r h I0. ~ ~ T. 0 9. ,~~° ~°° 8. ---~4 S ~ ~ )~ b~ IL r t. ~s •t. 14. a°: o~ ti , ti~oo { o° you ~ S. V 1t. ~~~; • ~. o~ ~ ~ A '~~ ~~ i s. ~' IL ,h 0 ~ t 3.n I ~° (~. 00 i P h 1 f7 ~d' r ! r 0 9.. - ~~ t' ~ 1 - t- 1 2 -. ~~~ Z ~ t ,. t ~ 3 ~ r ~ « *! ~ i ~. °a x;11 . ~~ ~ t`' ~ , , - ~ ZZ ,,'. . , ~ - -~~ ~ ~a° „ . ~ ~~. _.. b ~I -_ ~ !.. _. _ A ! _ .- ~ - ~ I~ G ~o,?~ : ~ - ~ -, -} ~~ - - J ~ i 2b N .. , . ..... __- - ~~{, ~ y t~• 1k 0.1'4 _.. a ...- __...r _ . ~~~ ,: 4. ,~,P : i2 ~,~, : ~' it ~' ~ ~~, 1 11. ,;e~. ... is .: IL + .11 .,,, '' ~ - 1, ' . ~, .,. 't s, . i ' _. _. ~~• a ' ~~n~ ~ '~ (S: 11) ~i ~~ ~i Y " _ ~n se) ' ,. t W ,y . ~ d~ I; 1s ;~ ~~ ~ f L I.r.) ~ 1 ~+ .l a ~,~,. ~ ,,~,. a ~ ti~.~.~ . .y -T ~~ a ~ c. A. . y __t)4 1. i~~J. `- t~. ...Y ,~ .ti, l ~ ~Y ' +li ~~.. Y 1. , ~ ' _ 1 Soli y~ _ , j ~ T C54ii ;j4h-- .t41~ w r; ,.~. .~~ ~. -- ---- • ~3~t.~ ,,, i - - - ir tip ,. ~o = .tt.t. ... \~ i , _. S.~Si._ _ -_ - ~ ~ ~~ ~QO t ~ ~ ~ ' 1 7 ~ ~ ~C ~ ~.s l Ze ~ ~~~• ~• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter #228 Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Special Usk Permit, Variance, and off street Parking Permit, 1200 E. 78th Street. Mr. David Webb, of Wepo Construction, has requested a special use permit and a variance to allow him to convert the vacant structure located at 1200 East 78th Street (formerly the Robert Hall clothing store) into a 200-seat restaurant serving liquor. The following exhibits are attached to this council letter: 1. Exhibit A - Site Plan 2. Exhibit B - Zoning Map 3. Exhibit C -Land Use Map 4. Exhibit D - Comprehensive Plan •. 5. Exhibit E - Special Use Permit Process for Restaurants Serving Liquor 6. Exhibit F - Traffic and Parking Study Conducted for Applicant 7. Exhibit G - Letter from neighborhood resident BACKGROUND Site Area: 42700 square feet Proposed. Restaurant Atea: 70' x 120' (8400 square feet) Seating Capacity: 200 Number of Employees: 16 per shift Parking Spaces Required: 88 Parking Spaces Provided: 88 Site Zoning: General Commercial S Council Letter #228 - 2 - August 14, 1978 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: North: Single Family Residential East: Multi-Family Residential West: Multi-Family Residential South: I-94 Highway. Right-of-Way Comprehensive Plan: High Density Mixed Land Use Richfield .zoning ordinance (Section 3.33, Subdivision 2) requires that restaurants can only be located in C-2 General Commercial Districts if a special use permit is obtained. Section 3.33, Subdivision 4 of the zoning ordinance requires that adequate buffer areas be provided between restaurants and adjacent properties, to protect the adjacent propc~tes from noise, glare, fumes, dust and other nuisance sources. The ordinance also requires that 15-foot wide buffer areas be maintained between parking areas accessory to commercial-uses, and single or multiple family residential property. Since the proposed restaurant would only provide a six-foot buffer area, a variance is necessary. STAF.~ REVIEW Special Use Permit The staff has reviewed the proposed restaurant site plan against the following: 1. .Comprehensive Plan; 2. Conditions for issuing a special use permit (Section 3.33, Subdivision 4, and Section 3.4.1, Subdivision 5 of the city code) Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site should be developed with high density mixed land use, including such uses as multiple dwellings, office, research-oriented industrial, hotel, motel, institutional and retail commercial. The proposed restaurant is a retail commercial type use and is therefore in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. There are other restaurants in the area, such as Los Bravos and Mr. Steak, none of which presently have a liquor license. Conditions for Issuin~a ~ecial Use Permit.: The conditions for issuing a special use permit require that the proposed use not be detrimental to the public welfare. v Council Letter #228 - 3 - August 14, 1978 Traffic: The site is located adjacent to I-494 on 12th Avenue. However, access to the site from 494 is limited. There is no direct access to 12th Avenue from I-494 for traffic coming from the west. The only access is an exit off of 494 at Portland Avenue, from which a vehicle must proceed down the frontage road on either side of 494 to get to the site. Traffic arriving at the site from the west would most probably use the frontage road on the Bloomington side, then use the frontage road on the Richfield side when leaving. Property bordering the frontage road on the Bloomington side is residential and commercial, while property adjacent to the frontage road on the Richfield side is mostly multi-family. The applicants, in their traffic study, indicate that an estimated 45% of the traffic generated by the proposed res- taurant would_be arriving from the west. The proposed restaurant will generate approximately 473 vehicle trips (A.D.T.), which would mean 212 additional trips on the frontage roads or, perhaps, 106 additional trips on each frontage road. This would increase the negative impacts of vehicular traffic on the residential property bordering the frontage road. The applicants traffic study also indicates that traffic on 12th Avenue in the residential neighborhood to the north of the site will increase by 38 ADT (1%). Normally a 1% increase in traffic would not pose a problem; however, 12th Avenue presently has a volume of between 2600-3200 on the blocks north of the site. This traffic volume is considerably higher than that of the average residential street. The 1% increase would, therefore, add to the negative impacts which the property owners along 12th Avenue are already experiencing. The negative effects of the increase, both actual and perceived will be amplified by the fact that the proposed restaurant proposes to offer liquor. Section 3.33, Subdivision 4 of the zoning ordinance establishes regulations for restaurants, cafes, and motels. Reviewing the proposal against these requirements, the staff has found the following: 1. The proposed use will create undue traffic hazards on streets adjacent to the site; 2. The parking area will have inadequate buffering from the multi-family dwelling to the east. Section 4.05 of the ordinance requires that a 15-foot setback (buffer area) be maintained between commercial use parking lots and residential property. The proposed restaurant parking lot will be located six feet from the east property line. The applicants have requested a variance to this requirement; Council Letter #228 - 4 - August 14, 1978 3. Patrons of the proposed restaurant will be adequately protected from noise, glare, fumes, dust and other nuisances; 4. Adequate off-street parking is proposed for patrons and employees; 5. Liquor is proposed to be sold on the property, the property does abut a major street, access to parking is from internal driveway systems and there is sufficient vehicular stacking space to provide orderly flow of traffic. 6. The aesthetic appearance of the building will enhance the area. 7. The proposed restaurant will not create an excessive burden on public services. 8. The proposed development will not conflict with the Com- " pr.ehensive Plan. However, it is the recommendation of the staff that the request for Special Use Permit be denied because the proposed restaurant would result in an undue traffic increase in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Variance to Section 3.33 Subdivision 4.6. The zoning ordinance, in Section. 3.40, Subdivision 6, sets forth three conditions which must be present on a site if a variance is to be granted. All three conditions must exist on the site in order for the city council to .approve the variance. The staff has reviewed the request for variance against these conditions and found the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the particular land, building or use referred to in the a lication, not common to other properties in this dis- trict or similar districts. It is the opinion of the staff that special conditions are present on the site. The proposal involves the conversion of an existing structure and parking area. The existing parking lot has parking within the required 15-foot setback already. The applicants are proposing to continue the existing parking, but would expand the number of spaces. Another special condition is the fact that the parking area abuts on the parking area of the adjacent multi- family residence. The applicants will provide a wood fence to screen the parking area from residential property. 2. That the granting of the a~p,lication is necessary for the Preservation and enjoyment of substantial property ri hts. Council Letter #228 - 5 = August 14, 1978 The variance is not necessary to preserve property rights. The denial of-the variance does not prevent the use of .the site for a restaurant with a smaller seating capacity, or other commercial uses. 3. That the.granting of the application adversely affect the health and safe or working in the neighborhood of th applicant and will not be materially public welfare or injurious to grope in the neighborhood. will .not materially or y of persons residing property of the detrimental to t tv Or improvemen The proposal would involve the renovation and use of a vacant structure. This would improve tree aesthetic appe~rance of the site and would increase the tax base of the city. The proposal could, however, be detrimental to the public welfare because it would result in increased traffic through surrounding residential neighborhoods. It is the opinion of the staff--that the three conditions which must be present for issuing a variance are not present on .this site. Therefore, the staff recommends that the city council deny the request for variance. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission considered this reques for special use permit and variance at their July 25, 1978 meeting. One area resident appeared before the Planning Commission to .question the effect which the proposed restaurant would have on her property value. A St. Louis Park resident spoke in favor of the proposal. The Planning Commission recommended that the city council approve issuance of the special use permit and variance for the proposed restaurant, if it is developed in accordance with the presentation. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS It is recommended that the city council deny the special use permit because the proposed use would be detrimental to the public welfare, in that it would result in increased traffic through adjacent residential neighborhoods.. It is further recommended that city council deny the requested variance because the three conditions which must exist on the site in order for a variance to be granted are not present. If the council wishes to approve issuance of the special use - permit and variance, it is recommended that the special use permit and variance be approved subject to final approval of site and building plans. The approval should include approval to execute an off-street parking contract. Council. Letter #228 - 6 August 14, 1978 If the special use permit and variance are granted, the city council should schedule a public hearing date on the request for a liquor license.. The application for a liquor license has been filed and the background investigation is underway. If such a hearing is necessary, it is recommended that the hearing date be set for September 11, 1978. Respectfully submitted, C~ ~-tit,~ •~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager cc: Planning and Redevelopment Director Public Works Director Public Safety .Director WSB/res E.77TH ST. ~tct I qIN txl5 i Irw ASH `-RETAIN EXISTING ASH RETAIN EXISTING ASH ~~ \ ,~ ' BATCH TO \~•~~ ~ EXISTIrG '."JACK ST.I UGH}f * (EXISTING EVERGREErJS TO BE RETAL JED IF POSSIBLE. LILAC TO BE PLArJTED ONLY IF EVERGREE~JS REr~tOVEO ) EXISTING -CONC. DRAIrIAGE CHAN"JEL xlsr. uGHr* 5' WOOD FENCE _XIST. PYLON SIGN ~O BE UPGRADED TO ;ITY OF RICHFIELD > TArJDARDS `~ I i I I I 4 5' :NOO~ FE;Je~E I I I I I ~ I ~~~JLh - -- r_) 2 1/2" CAL GREEN ASH (DESIGN TO BE CO'~'~aTIBLE I ~~ ~~ ~ WITH FENCE TO THE EAST) . 3 CObI'.40N LILAC 5'-6'• _~a ~ _..i. ~~. _...y..._.._ Q la _ 60 _._.v - ;~~:; __~__. ;~ ~ ~ 1J r_ 9' ~ C' ~ 3.4 4 q o `~°° 8 r 3. r 33 `~ ~ ..i ._ ______ _ ,~._ _ ___..r _ ~ ~~ ,;o ~~ Zoning Nla_p_~~,3?„ r ~ ? y>~ 30 ?o ~ ~ q'dM.~ ~jZEL {' .a " ;'9GZ " b g'Z C` ~..,. v r~°ni v 0o Lo ~o / „~, 31 ri. ~ r_ ~_ ~ .' f ~ Z ~ d ~_ ~ ~h 15 x~o° a a-0° Z 15 ~. ~~ 2 , ~ %3Z. !t , a '4.0' l 0 ~' C•'' '~ZSG '~i 51 : ! ~ ;Z[ 9 ~I YI~ 1?d 01' 51 ~ 3 '!3l ~Z ~ ` y , „ ~. » ; 1. . ~K- ! .~ MULTIPLE RESIDENCE ~~ . L I ~ N -r- ! ~~ _ GENERAL COMMERCIAL ' ~ . '' V .. rv ~ a0 k• ~ ~r !? ~ , ., r_ a, ~ 6 J ~a ~. .. -~ by .~. :;~ S n ~_r~_~ Ej 1 ~' ~l~ ;j .A n ~; 5.0s~' '~ ; N Q, [ . t 8 ~ ~ " ~ 33.id r:: > Pip ~ Is. ~-~-- - ,~ . Z r i: 1A.1m~~ • ;~,, ~ ~. ~ ~ - je ~7 1~ ~ ~ i ~ `~' f ~~~~-_~ + 'o r 9.~~' ~, ~;~ ~-, •x .e r. ~ ^ ~, Y.1" V r z~ i 1.' _,~~3 4. 1 •- 's ~ ~'~ ~. 1 ,~ r f i ,tea. .14.23 G. ~ !3~ 785 ~~ ~. I a f i3 ~33 D l.b k. ib~~ti ~ ..J~! ,3i.' r.. : l3i ~Z ~p (5'"~ LCJJ Z ~~ 14 n,J~ 3- . i ~ I: i3,:,~ .,tide 4 3; .: 1 i ;Z n°°~ 5 1 ••°~~ 1 ~ ~~ u~~J ° b ba° ' !~ :f, b~ec lG ~? ~~~ ~ n ~ 3!6 ;r. ~~ !;i ~~ ,3,;G1 r _ o :,r z m 1. r ~S b 5 ~~°0 1 n ;7 ~ M 44J0 (, '?;:„ i $ `°~ ~ ' ~s~ x ~r`l~ 3~ ?o i3 ~s°' ~'° d . !; .1Z !3/.7~ ~ _ b ! ~3 ~ ! , ~ i1 ti,_:= i0 qa°= r~ 13!.74 ~~ [,°° ti g jp=~ 8 c / ' 1~, ~ r W t to !~ 3 Y ------...._._. °~ y.._ _._.._. ~ " ~' 3 , _ `~ ;33'1! .1! 33 N 5 .~ v -~_ t k>4 7 n l?31' ~~ ,,, / ~ n I jj h~ r ~~ ~-' ! . 1 ! 3 =. ~z ~~ `J 3 {°° h .5 ~ ! ,o ,~ ? 14 y"'° "" 3 !33 , x r4 - ~•_° ,b~ 6 ` +33-. 1 ! ~' ~~~ 3.! ln.~ 9 ~ , ~~°°' 8 13. a ` _ ` i3 . ' ° ~' ;b ,~ ~ . ~ ~; l 1 ~ q 1 3.! 133.18 .~ !5 °`'~ ry~ 2 3 r 3' 14 °`°°~ : ''°° 3 ! :Zo _ t33 i~ .Zo . 22 r I7 ~^ ~~C ;z; fi3.2 y 3~~ 3~Q° 5 3.2 !3 ZZ 3.1 ~ 3Z3 w ~ ~,2r' 133.24 ~ 9 ;' ~, j4~ $ '~~. , ~. r` ~ z h ` ~13~.1 ~ ~ ~ (4b . g r Ij?~.22 ~?_. ~ ' ~. ~ r~ r-I1 9. ~'' N M1 33 1 I I13~ t ~--- --------------- -------Ei--•--- ----\~~ _- - -- _~~~= y_ __~-__ ._ ' `°o ~ s ~ 't~ . ~ w ~ r, -r --'--- ~ ~ : 7 r~ - -1-- °~ 31` ij '~~ r f , _ p,y 2 f y.,,.~ ° ~ ~ y`9 ~: A . ~~ t ' ~'°~ i Z ~. ; a 1 ~ ~ i ~ ~ ! i . ~ ~ ^°0~ ~, ~o. ~ r r ~~ov 7 ~ a ~ , ~ a ~~al- -- ----s - , - - ---------- -- - . -- ----- - . ---- -- -- _ - -- - ---- _1 ~. ~ ~ Q ~, -~ _,°° I ~ > ~ -~ ~ ~ ~°° ~ ~ ~ -~ Land Use IV ap a,~ 1 ~ ~ ~ °~ ~' 3 ~ ~ ~ c. ~ Q ~ / 133.11 3.11 ~°° - ti>a° $ r7 ~, ' A ~ 0°° E ao ' ~ ~~ E ~ A 0 ~ ~~,J° 0 h ~ L,~ ~ ~ p~0a 4 r ^ 5.0~ 9 6 3. 33 30 3o e4 .~ ijt.4 ~ 7 ! 10 133.1 I ~~~ 983. c1s _ .~ ----.' : s ~°~ ~ S T. ~ ~.. t Go ~ to i ~3 ' ~ ~a°~ I ~ '^ I~ Dc~ ~,~°a I ~ ti -~ a° tv ~~j0 ems: ° °' Z ^ IS ~~°° jq°° Z 15 's'' ~° t ~ 9 <~::~°. PUBLIC 5, ` ti ~~ ~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ~¢ `v MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL , r -' s 3 ^~ib~^ /. ;~°°I 15 ~'°~ 0 b°a t ti°o I/ 1 t b. °u 3 i'S IZ ~°°° 5 - b~~ ° IQ b0~ bSeo 1 h i 3 L6 Q b~j0 n 9 N 0 bbe a u ~ /. W Q vv~vur~~.iiv~r+~ h i r~ ~ ~ ° .~oeFP 1. iS.~~K 'y-'~' Z. ~ i5.'S°~ ~'° t H s M I~R~RAY3 ~ , ~4. L~X~ E, ~ii ~33 33~3~ T .G (r !7 I`^~o a° a `~' ! 33. i1 ~ 3 ~ a 15 ~s ~ ~'°° Z . 14 ~4:°~ ~'°' 3 133. . 4 - I~~~°: ,~°• a ` i33,i I .I 133. i 1 v~ r` 44 a v, `~ ~~°~ ~ ~ ~ t 1 3. t N N 9 ~~~ `~ $ N 13. i ~ ^ I% ~~ ~ ~°p'~ rte. "' ' 13.1 133. !a 3 I ~~ la qau 3 i33.zo 20 3 I 133.11 r Z ~~ jiu° 5 13 Z -) j,~~ 3~ .1 373 ~n 10 ~y~ r ~~°° 1 ~ ~ ' ?4 133.24 ti ~ 1~ ~ ~ jkp0 8 ~~ / i 1 .~8, ~~ a I a; I S. ^: 14. -- ' 11 ~ i ~ 10,~~ 9,,, ~~ ~ .^. i 33" 1 b°r I 1 G, tv i~ _. ~' ~ 15 . I r~. ~3 12.E i i 11 ~~ 4 _ 'h 10. ~'? t~ 9. s' V~!~ ~ -----~1-th 65198 -- - ~ ---~ f'-_M ___. -- :, , ,,, Slte `\' - \~ ~~ ~ ~_- / h / !. 4~° fV 0 3GL ~.~ 14 sb-°~ '~°° 3 i7o 3. ?v 13 >S"° 4~° 4 . i3l.1 12 '°~' °~'°° 5 / .~ l3/.~ 0 !. '\ 131.74 . 9 ''°° '°°° S :14 __ _ _ 3 .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ x[art~ nv -~ ~ ~___ _ ____ 'ice R~ _X'_ _ --_. _ y.~9~..~ `-~ x[rx[s xv[. ri ~_ _ 444 ---"."` .,.xx,.,... ~ ~l -- 13a !.r'~ ~i ; . - .~ ~ ~j - _ ..ten, ..E - ~ 3 ~ ~ --~ .arox nvE ~xwnSnavE. _- -... _ -..__ 't'J `~~- _ ~_"~~ _.- _ rvuns AvE .E.~~n.E~ ~ ~ ~~. ,~ °~:- -, - ~ ~ ~.~~-~.d. ~ .E.x ..~~ aivEa • ~ .. .iD ~. .. Y _ ..: ~. S. xEYw6nx nvE O'- _--_ '~ _ -_-~ FE~w.nx nvf. xwxx avtE ~ _rrLE. ~ ~ ~ -_ 4.v ~ xro nvtE. xiweoior __ -. ~`~,~ _ - _ _ xuupuor avE. c.E«sa ..E --~ .rte a c~Eas~ .,E. _ ~' X~ .. ~-~~_ -~ t` ~.~ r~~ mx«. n.e io~r.x ..E. ~- -~, - ~ - ~ in ~ ~ ` ~ .rl - ex.... ,.c _ ~~ ~~ ~ -~ f ~ ~; .~~.:E 1~~ ~ _ __ _ ~ ~ - -~ _ ~ _ .~~~~.~E ~_ Ems- ~ ~~ i , a -- _ _ ~ - .E,..~,..~ Bin w[~< <v[ _ _- ~ ~K~ _ ~i ~ ~'- lu sttn~ wf. .___ _.-3. -.. J~~. _ , _ ~ SrE VExS nvE ~ ~- ~, - ~ -_ __r --4~ 5if EE6 n E Ew nvE i ~~- $,~~~ - ~ iw avE sir- --- __ -_. --_.~" t~Y.. _.~-_ _- - _ }Lwiox avE `,' ~ -- -- __ _ ~L-sJ+-Sw ~ ~-. ;'~ _.-~ Spa nvE •rn nvE ~ _ - J ~ ~ -~ I t_rrp~ nvE. _ _ , .~ ~;_ r- , _ o ; : ~-~ .a~..~= .E _ __ ~; ~I r ~ ix nvc ~ r ~~ __ , __._ - , 1 ~ o~n nvF nW x....e ~ ~ ~ -_ - ~ ~ _ e ~x ave _ ._' <= a. n ~ x* ~ xs~.~~ k~ "~' CEO., ..E ~ • ~ Q ~~;-- ,--. r ~ ~ s~uosv n.e ~~~~ `! -R ~ , -- `,\ s.uwsxF .re ~ ~ 3 a ` ~ ~~ ~ i c~mp~~h~nsi~v~ ~~v~lapment plan for the cs":~y~of richf~eld LAND USE: description density principol uses Combination of multiple dwellings, office, research Mixed Land Use High industrial, hotel, motel, institutional, and ret011 CommerCio I Combination of office, ~ institutional, light and ~, ~~ Mixed Land Use High/Medium research oriented industrial, retail commerc(al, and multiple dwellings Combination of office, retail commercial, entertainment and Central Business eating establishments, small ® District Hiyh/Medium comparison shopping and service Mixed Land Use businesses, institutional, limited cultural, recreational facilities, and multiple dwellings Combination of single family dwellings, multiple dwellings, Mixed Land Use Medium townhouses, and nelg hborhood convenience commercial Industrial Medium Light and research oriented industrial uses . Multiple High Multiple units with related accessor uses . y 0 Convenience Sh i A Low Grocery, drug, hardware stores. ng opp rea Single family Or two family Single Family Low u n(ts and accessory uses Residential cou~pat~ble with single Or two family units COMMUNITY FACILITIES: !!~~:,~ ----- Publ i c parks and open space ® ----- Public schools _____ Churches or church-related facilities II, ~ _____ Other public, quasi-public, or private institutional facilitie •TRANSFORTATION: --- ----- Major arterial thoroughfare adopted by th• city of richfi~ld this 15th day of JonUOrY ,~q73 RESOLUTION No. 4340 RESOLUTION RELATING TO FROCEDUR.ES FOR THE PROCESSING OF AFFLICAT%ONS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS I'OR CAFES AND RESTAURANTS INTENDING TO SER`JE LT~UOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as ~.~„~,.~.,...._.. follows ; The following procedures and substantive guide?ines shall be used inu the processing of applications for special use pey~~nits for cafes and restaurar_ts in which it is intended to sell liquor: 1. The applicant shall retain the se~~rices of an architect registered in thE: state of Minnesota for purposes of developing site and building plans which meet the highest level of design excellence and pE~formance standards consistent witrs the ~rurposes and objectives of City Codes . The architect shall certify azl site and building plans submitted as exhibits to accompany any special use or rezoning re- view process. This certification statement shall include the declaration t!-~at the architect has personally viewed and analyzed the site and has individually designed the structure anticipated to house the restaurant activity to fi.t the site. Also, .the architect shall be responsible for managing all of the development aspects of the plan from the time of its initiation until its completion . 2. The applicant, once he has retained the services of ara architect, srSall. obtain an appointment with the Planning Director of the City for purposes o±' discuss- ing the essential development characteristics of the proposed restaurant. The appli- cant and his architect shall submit a sketch plan of the proposed development and which shall show such site organization informati.or. as: location cf parking areas, driveways, public st:_*eets, proposed iocati~n of. structu-•es on th_e site, landscaping plan, existing and final grade estimates, location Of uti.litiE,s and such other infor- mation as may be helpful in providing as co.rnplete a p.ctu~-E of the proposed de~relop- ment as possible. The Planning Director shall wi.r~`~.in a ii.me period not to exceed ~C days review th.e inforVnation and advise the applicant on Yiow best to proceed tivitn the project. If the applicant is ad~~ised to pyocPed with application fora spe=cial use permit more: detai.t.ed site and buil.cing plans shall be _required for the re~,~iew and recommendation of the Planning CcmTnission and City Courci.i. ThesF sire and bald- ing plans should be based upon. and b.ave evolved from thE: informal sl.:F~±ch plans discussed with the Planning llirecic~r. 3. After making app?.icar.ion for the: spE.ciai use permit ±he application shall be considered at a public hearing before the city planning corr~.rnission. Published notice of such hearing giving tr~.e ti:~r~e . place and parposF: tl?E:reof snail be published in the official newspaper of the ciTy at t.east 10 days be~:ore the date of the reari.rig. At the hearing t'rre a;~chitect and the: applcant shall present the prcposed de~reiopment project. The Planning Commission sJ:ail review the p~oprsal and witrn 6~ days aster the public hearing shall make recommended findings relating to the granting or denial of the application . - 2 - 4. The recommended findings of the Planning Commission shall thereafter be considered by the City Council which shall accept, reject or modify the findings of the Planning Commission. 5. If the Council adopts the findings providing for the granti.rig of the special use permit, however, the permit shall nevertheless automatically be conditioned upon final approval of site and building plans by the Council when such plans ha~ie been completed . ...~.,,...,...~,.,,:`~..""`'•" 6. If the Cit Council a roves the s ecial use ermit sub'ect to final a Y Pp p p J pprova. of site and building plans the applicant shall thereafter submit to the Planning Dir- ector eight (8) copies of preliminary site and building plans . Such prelizni.nar<y site and building plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for rcvie~v and recommendation to the City Council. Copies of such plans shall be distributed t:o the Director of Public Works , Chief Building Inspector, the Fire Prevention Bureau and other appropriate city departments for review and comment prior to consideration of such plans by the Planning Commission. The Planning Director shall also submit his recommendations with reference to said plans and with reference to the comments of other city departments . 7. The Planning Commission shall review the preliminary site and building plans and recommend approval or denial thereof to the City Council. 8. The City Council shall review the recommendations of tl-~e Planning Cczn- mission relating to the preliminary site and building plans and shall adopt, reject or modify the recommendations of the Planning Commission. If the Council approves preliminary site and building plans the granting of the special use permit shall automatically remain conditioned upon approval by the Council of. the final site and building plans . 9. The applicant shall thereupon prepare final site and building plans fir sub- rni.ssion to the City Council. Such plans shal_1 be in accordance with the approved prel.i!ni.nary site and building plans and shal_1 incorporate any conditions or mocifi- cations thereof required by the City Council. 10 . The Council shal_1 review the final site and building plans and , if accE~pt- able, shall gz•ant a special use permit to the applicant based upon such plans . 11. The applicant may be required to plat or replat the property upon: which the proposed project is to be constructed. 1'L. The City Council shall not schedule a hearing on an app?ication for a liquor licerae or any project prior to approval. by it of final site and b~aildi.~-;g p?.ans; and no liquor license shall be issued until all of the conditions a*.tached to tre granting of. the special use permit have been complied with. - 3 - 13. The following standard shall be applicable to off-street parking space: Provision shall be made for at least one parking space for each 2.5 restaurant seats plus .5 spaces for each employee plus one space for each 25 suuare feet of banquet or. meeting area. This standard may be modified where the restaurant will be located in a hotel or motel which provides adequate off-street parking spaces for the entire project. 14. If the City Council denies an application fora special use pe*-mit for a tract of land no further application fora special use permit for the same tract °~~"'°` "'of land, or any part thereof, shall be filed for a period of 12 months following such denial o Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9t_rl day of March, 1970. Stanley W. Olson Mayor Attest: Thomas j. Moran Clerk d `~'. TRAFFI C AND PARKING PLAN T00 GOOD'S RESTAURANT Prepared For: Wepo Construction, Inc. e Prepared By: BRW, Inc. May, 1978 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 TRAFFIC AND PARKING CHARACTERISTICS 2 Trip Generation 2 Trip Distribution 3 Existing and Post-Development Volumes 3 Parking Space Requirements 7 DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC AND PARKING PLAN 9 Traffic and Parking Objectives g Traffic Access and Parking Plan 9 Evaluation of Plan Relative to Objectives 12 . Conclusions 12 INTRODUCTION The Wepo Construction Company is proposing to develop a new restaurant, called Too Good's Restaurant, in the City of Richfield. The proposed restaurant site is in the northeast corner of the 12th Avenue South and East 78th Street intersection. The project involves converting the existing building on the site, formerly occupied by the Robert Hall Clothing Store, into a restaurant. BRW has been retained to assess the traffic impacts of the proposed restaurant and to develop a recommended traffic and parking plan. Key issues which this traffic and parking study address include: • Impacts of traffic generated by the development on the adjacent street system, particularly on local residential streets north of the site. • Capability of the site to provide the required number of parking spaces. Traffic and parking characteristics of the restaurant are presented next and are followed by development of a recommended traffic and parking plan. TRAFFIC AND PARKING CHARACTERISTICS Traffic and parking characteristics of the proposed restaurant are determined through the following four-step process: 1) Determine the number of trips expected to be generated by the proposed restaurant. 2) Determine the restaurant traffic volumes by approach route and direction. 3) Document the existing and expected post-development traffic volumes. 4) Determine the parking space requirements far the proposed restaurant. TRIP GENERATION Previous traffic studies have shown that other restaurants similar to the proposed Too Good's Restaurant generate an average of 56.3 vehicle trips endsl/ per day per 1,000 square feet GFA.?/ Applying this rate to the proposed restaurant size, 8,400 square feet GFA, results in a projected trip generation of 473 vehicle trip ends per day. In addition to the above daily statistics, trip generation information also is needed for the p.m. peak hour, which is the critical period regarding traffic operation on the adjacent street system and also is a period when the restaurant would have significant activity. Applying trip generation rates determined through previous studies of similar restaurants to the proposed restaurant indicates, as shown below, that during the p.m. peak hour 23 vehicle trips would enter the site and 14 trips would exit from the site. 1/ A trip end is either on origin or destination. Two trips ends are generated by each customer who drives to the restaurant, one when the person arrives and the second when he/she leaves. ?/ Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1976. - 2 - Trip Generation Rate 1/ (Trips/1000 Ft. GFA) Inbound Trips Outbound Trips TRIP DISTRIBUTION Number Of Vehicle Trips 2.77 1.69 23 14 The next step is to determine the direction of approach for trips generated by the restaurant. Considering the market area of the restaurant and the street system serving the site, trips are expected to be distributed as shown in Figure 1. Two important points shown in this figure are: s 75 percent of the trips are expected to approach the site from the east and west on I-494. • Since 12th Avenue north of the site and the intersecting streets are local routes, all eight percent of the traffic approaching from the north on 12th Avenue is expected to consist of motorists coming from locations in Richfield. Traffic coming from ]ocations north of Richfield would be expected to use I-35W or Cedar Avenue and I-494 to approach the site. EXISTING AND POST-DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES Two volume issues that need to be addressed are the impacts of restaurant traffic on: • Daily volumes on affected roadways. • Peak hour volumes at major intersections affected by restaurant traffic. Based on the preceding trip generation and distribution analyses, the daily volumes of restaurant traffic are expected to be as shown in Figure 2. Adding this traffic to the existing volumes, as obtained from City counts, r~_sults in the total post-development volumes shown in Figure 3. As shown in these figures, volumes on 12th Avenue would increase by just 38 vehicles per day 1/ Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1976. - 3 - FIGURE 1 .. DISTRIBUTION OF TRIPS BY APPROACH DIRECTION t 30% APPROACH DIREC IONS BY NORTH ••••-~-AREA SERVED BY APPROACH ROUTE FIGURE 2 DAILY VOLUMES OF RESTAURANT .TRAFFIC E 75TH ST. 173 SITE S~ ~S~ 106 423 E 78TH ST. 106 247, ; Q N r NORTH ~ l E 78TH ST. I-494 38 VOLUME IN VEHICLES PER DAY E T6TH ST. E 77TH ST. FIGURE 3. EXISTING AND ~ POST-.DEVELOPMENT DAILY VOLUMES 2,685 , 12,694) 4,346 14,375) 3,235 . 13,273) 1,528 11,528) E 78TH ST. a ~- N •-- NORTH E 75TH ST. ui 2 I- M 3,221 13,221) 1,363 11,363) uw d Z I- d .- E 76TH ST. E 77TH ST. ~~~~>>~ ~~ S I TE E 78TH ST. 1-494 2, 685 ' EXISTING DAILY VOLUME ' _ (FROM CITY OF RICHFIELD COUNTS) 12,694) PROJECTED POST-DEVELOPMENT - DAILY VOLUME (one percent) between the site and 76th Street and by just nine vehicles per day north of 76th Street (less than one percent). Volumes on 76th Street west of 12th Avenue would increase by just 29 vehicles per day (less than one percent). The three intersections that would be most affected by restaurant traffic volumes are 12th Avenue/East 78th Street, 12th Avenue/westbound exit ramp for I-494 and 12th Avenue/eastbound frontage road for I-494. The two intersections at I-494 are signalized and provide adequate capacity to accommodate the restaurant traffic. The intersection of 12th Avenue South and East 78th Street is controlled by a stop sign on East 78th Street. To assess traffic conditions at this intersection, BRW conducted a p.m. peak period turning movement count. on May 17, 1978. Figure 4 shows the resulting existing peak hour volumes, together with the projected post-development peak hour volumes that were determined by adding restaurant traffic to the existing traffic. As shown, the restaurant would be expected to increase the right turns from the south to the east by 21 vehicles per hour (13 percent) and to increase the left turns from the east to the south by 13 vehicles per hour (13 percent). These volume increases are not. expected to have any significant effects on traffic operation at the intersection. The stop sign on East 78th Street should continue to provide safe and efficient traffic flow. PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS The proposed restaurant would have 192 seats and a maximum of 16 employees on duty at one time. For the type of restaurant proposed, City Code requires one parking space per 2.5 seats plus 0.5 space per employee. Based on these requirements, a total of 85 parking spaces are needed. - 7 - . FIGURE 4 - EXlSTlNG AND POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AT 12TH AVENUE S. AND ~ E. 78TH STREET EXISTING VOLUMES (-- T p, m, peals hour volume 4:15-5:15 P.M SOURCE: BRW COUNT ON 5/ 17/78 POST-DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES r NORTH p, m, peals hour volume DEVELOPMENT OF T RAFF I C AND PARKING PLAN The process used to develop the recommended traffic and parking plan consists of the following four steps: 1. Identify pertinent traffic and parking objectives; 2. Develop a traffic access and parking plan; 3. Assess the plan relative to the objectives; 4. Document conclusions/recommendations regarding the plan. TRAFFIC AND PARKIPJG OBJECTIVES Traffic access and parking arrangements for the proposed restaurant are im- portant to residents in nearby neighborhoods and to motorists using the affected roadways. Taking concerns of these interest groups into account, together with needs of the City and of the developer, it has been determined that the traffic and parking plan for the proposed restaurant should meet the following objectives: • Provide effective access between the site and the adjacent . roadways. • Provide sufficient parking spaces on the site to meet the restaurant parking demand. • Create no negative impacts on adjacent residential neighbor- hoods in terms of increased traffic volumes. • Meet City Code requirements. r Provide safe and efficient traffic circulation on the site. • Provide safe and efficient traffic operation on 12th Avenue South and East 78th Street. TRAFFIC ACCESS AND PARKING PLAN The first step in developing a traffic and parking plan was to determine the entrance/exit location(s). Based on a review of several alternative confi- gurations, it was concluded that the two existing driveways - one on East 78th Street and one on 12th Avenue South - should be used with the drive- way on East 78th Street being designed as the main entrance/exit location. One alternative solution that was considered involved closing the driveway on 12th Avenue South; this alternative is not recommended for several reasons, including: - 9 - • It would not noticeably decrease the restaurant traffic volume on 12th Avenue South north of 77th Street. As the trip distri- bution analysis showed, the volume of restaurant traffic oriented to the north on 12th Avenue South is expected to be quite low and is expected to consist just of local traffic. These motorists would be expected to utilize l2th Avenue regardless of whether the site has an entrance/exit on that street. • It would be more confusing for traffic approaching from I-494 and the south on 12th Avenue. If these motorists missed the right turn at East 78th Street, they would have to make an awkward U-turn maneuver. r It would increase the traffic burden on East 78th Street at 12th Avenue South. Based on an analysis of several alternative parking layouts, the plan that best meets the objectives from an overall perspective is shown in Figure 5. The plan provides a total of 91 parking spaces, six more than the 85 spaces required. Bumper curb wheel stops will be installed for the eight spaces on the western side of the building to prevent the front overhang of cars from obstructing the sidewalk adjacent to the building. The three dead end parking aisles included in the plan are expected to function adequately due to the relatively short length of each such aisle and the small number of spaces served. The two such aisles on the south side of the building serve just 10 and 16 such spaces, respectively, and the aisle on the north side serves 20 spaces, eight of which would be for employees. The plan provides a six-foot setback between the parking lot and the east property line. This situation will require a variance because City Code requires a 25 foot setback where a commercial property adjoins residential property. Two major rea-sons for the variance are: • conformance to the 25 foot setback requirement would eliminate 19 parking spaces, posing a severe hardship on opportunities to develop the site. • The abutting portion of the adjacent residential property con- sists of a parking lot, two rows of parking and a two-way circulation aisle. - 10 - FIGURE 5 RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC AND PARKING PLAN ' NOTE: PLAN PROVIDES- 9'X 20' PARKING STALLS WITH 2t' CIRCULATION AISLES EXCEPT IN FRONT OF BUILDING WHERE CIRCULATION AISLE IS 30' WIDE ' TOTAL OF 91 PARKING SPACES TOO GOOD'S RESTAURANT ItIC~~~,K,_ N~ SCALE ~~ ~~ FEET EVALUATION OF PLAN RELATIVE TO OBJECTIVES The capabilities of the plan to meet the objectives previously defined are discussed below. ~ Provide effective access between the site and the adjacent roadways. The two proposed driveways, one on 12th Avenue South and one on East 78th will provide effective access to/from the site. • Provide sufficient parking spaces on the site to meet the res- taurant parking demand. The plan provides 91 spaces, which is six more than required under City Code. • Create no negative iml in terms of increased The traffic volume on Streets would increase this traffic would be Richfield. pacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods traffic volumes. 12th Avenue Soutb between 77th and 76th by just 38 vehicles per day, and all of expected to be oriented to locations in • Meet City Code requirements. The plan meets all code requirements, except that a variance will be needed for a six foot setback on the east side. This variance from the 25 foot standard is justified to overcame hardships on development of the site and because the adjoining apartment complex has two rows of parking immediately abutting the site. • Provide safe and efficient traffic circulation on the site. The plan provides two-way circulation aisles that will effec- tive1y accommodate traffic movements on the site. The three dead end aisles are not expected to cause difficulties be- cause one such aisle largely will be used by employee parking and the remaining two aisles serve just 10 and 16 spaces, respectively. • Provide safe and efficient traffic o eration on 12th Avenue South an East 78th Street. The street system, with effectively accommodate impacts are expected at and East 78th Street. CONCLUSIONS existing traffic control devices, will the restaurant traffic. No adverse the intersection of 12th Avenue South Based on the preceding evaluation, it is concluded that the traffic and parking plan shown in Figure 5 will effectively meet the restaurant`s needs and will cause no adverse impacts on the street system or on nearby residential neighborhoods. - 12 - '1r s ~iChard ~ • ^-rin C' planning & Develo~J~ent Director City o~ Ricn.field, PE'I'. '~ 'Dear ~%!r. drier: Than. you :for advising us of the proposed rest~:urant on 12t~~ Ai~enue and 73th Street (Ro'oert Hall ~;uilding,l. If I Vrere to :: _ be `in toiRrn on tiie" 2?tY., I .;could ba most vocal in ~^y ,i ` ; :orposition to that proposal. ~~- Y ~.. T~rfelftr "Avenue is already a maia` route"_"to'all T~rrir~s, d'iki~:~;s r'_ _ SOCCBrq etC s , ~:'._ . _ .°..t .__ , a„w1^_ ~' ~ ~c ~i~_.L:ip C_On t t ? , -. ~, _O.i' dQ s;rp .i v.n L n'~tS~- l' L ~ ~, ~ ?1 Pi L': .1 :,~ ll~ ~j. ~; ~~ ! r, __ ._ , t ~:o o'- ~~ ,"i ~'nt~~ . _t ,___ '.,,~!o bl:~c.s of that 1 t..ere as c, ,: ~,..~r _. r;'_ •-; ai ~e. The attraction there -:'oul~.~ curt--~.inl~~ ho ti_e f~-_ct ti~at licuor ti~rould T L i -.~.. z of ~ ' o-"~ ,~ ~ be ser?er%. ~ a.n ?Jar~,iGU r1.~ ~ .insr, that ~;r iis_, as i.~ ~1.I 't husband ;rho rill co-sign thin letter. ~ 3 ~ -. ~Ot attendlil~ trlat '11e6t7_.1` do°S In n0 P,'a~i i'^d1CktF: o:ar laC~~ of 1Tlt^reEt in t0 fti.tlA:CC 'tti -' Of li :.~ rUl~. '1'~'_c s ~~':rti'VG~^, ::e ':!3'1t t0 ~O Oil r :O :~i 8.3 JC?1:Z~ ~~,....~ '.tip O iJo`;(.1 tJ 1 .~_' C', rr~i=~- %rOpO:~ac,l s ,ri1nGE' 1S1p ~1~~'e li.V~;d ':?C-"e fir l:::o~t ~'`~ ;;ears ;aL1d .15utCheC the eVOlUt10n of t1].~ t :,'°t rr')'.. ;: <'lL:i°t tlOrO'!J~ ::r~:'- 1?i-F-O ~~ t!f'r'°BWaJit~ ~• ,; ~i {'- o, r f~ 1 L ~i 1_r,~~ it 1'ie S1ILBr°1`• ._O'i~' ~ OU ;,~ 11 +- ~L ^,n r~~^~~•;, : ''~ " t0 S'?r1V.z.^_ COri~.> _ .:;r;it _;!: ~ f :)r!', _ ~ . ,~ -,'., _ ..11...E ..,~;j t;~~ !t dUI _;CrOUS _~:~~.__.~~ CO i~ ^Z-•~ t s t•; ~ ;r ,~- L.; ;)L:T ._. _:?cz~- :?ri?7E3Iits l~ Y, 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. .227 Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Resolution Calling Hearing on Proposed Assessment for 1977 Permanent Streets At the July 10, 1978 city council meeting, the city council. ordered preparation of the assessment roll for the 1977 permanent street improvements.. Preparation of the assessment roll has now been completed, and the purpose of this council letter is to receive and set a date of hearing on this assessment roll. Each parcel involved in this assessment will receive a copy of the legal notice of hearing, as well as a detailed calculation of their individual special assessment.. The total amount of the proposed assessment roll is $424,291.74, which represents 40.4% of the borrowed cost of this improvement. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, setting the hearing on the assessment roll for September 11, 1978. Respectfull submitted, ~. Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/jef cc: Finance Director Public Works Director RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION CALLING HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT . FOR 1976 PERMANENT STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CITY PROJECT NO. 686 WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 5932 passed by the City Council on the 10th day of July, 1978, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment roll of the cost of permanent street construction, City Project No. 686, and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the Council that such proposed assess- ment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A public hearing shall be held on the following date in the Council Chambers of the Richfield City Hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement shall be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such improvement. Hearing - September 11, 1978 Street Improvement District No. 12. Bounded on the north by the 62nd Crosstown, east by west Pleasant Avenue north of 66th Street and south of 66th Street by Lyndale Avenue South, on the south by 66th Street from west Pleasant Avenue to Lyndale Avenue South and Woodlake west of Lake Shore Drive and Lyndale Avenue South, and on the west by I-35W. The streets in this area not included in this project are 66th Street from I-35W to west Pleasant Avenue, 65th Street from Rae Drive to west Pleasant Avenue, Rae Drive from 65th Street to 66th Street, Graham Avenue from 65th Street to Lyndale Avenue South, Circle Place from Graham Avenue to Lyndale Avenue South, Lyndale Avenue South from 62nd Street Crosstown to Lake Shore Drive and Grand Avenue South from 65th Street to 66th Street. Street Improvement District No. 14A Bounded on the north by East 68th Street, on the east by 21st Avenue South, on the south by East 69th Street and on the west by State Highway No. 36. This area also included the East Service Road, State Highway No. 36 from East 68th Street to East 66th Street. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total assessable cost of the improvement in the amount of $424,291.74. Resolution No. -2- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of August, 1978. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk e CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 226 Agenda August 14, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of t4ie City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit for a Restaurant Serving Non-intoxicating Liquor, 2312 W. 66th St. Mr. G.M. Stenson, 6908 Logan Avenue, Richf field, and Mr. Blair Wolfson have requested a special use permit for a restaurant serving non-intoxicating liquor, to allow conversion of a vacant store in the Penn-66 Shoping Center into "Pontillo's Pizzeria" restaurant. Mr. Wolfson is the owner of the property and Mr. Stenson proposes to lease the property and operate the restaurant. The following exhibits are attached to this council letter: 1. Exhibit A - Letter from applicant 2. Exhibit B - Pontillo's site plan 3. Exhibit C - Penn-66 Shopping Center site plan 4. Exhibit D - Comprehensive Plan 5. Exhibit E - Zoning Ordinance conditions 6. Exhibit F - Zoning map 7. Exhibit G - Land Use map BACKGROUND Total Site: 175,230 square feet Total Building Area: 37,934 square feet Proposed Restaurant area: 2,074 square feet Seating Capacity: 64 seats ,,~ r I~ Number of employees: 6 per shift Parking spaces required for proposed restaurant: 29 Total number of spaces required on the site: 229 Total number of spaces provided on the site: 240 Council Letter No. 226 -2- _ Land Use: Site: Commercial August 14, 1978 Surrounding: South and East: Commercial West: Single Family Residential North: Multi-family Residential Zoning: Site: General Commercial Surrounding: North and East: Industrial South: General Commercial West: Multiple Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: Medium to high density mixed land use. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed the proposed restaurant site plan against the following: 1. Comprehensive Plan 2. Conditions for issuing a special use permit (Section 3.33, Subdivision:4, and Section 3.41, Subdivision 5 of the city code ) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site should be devel- oped with medium to high density mixed land uses, including such uses as office, light institutional and research-oriented industrial, retail commercial, and multiple dwellings. The proposed restaurant use would not fit into any of the above-mentioned categories and therefore would not be in compliance with 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. Traffic: The proposed use will generate approximately 230 vehicle trips (A.D.T.) Penn Avenue has a volume- to-capacity ratio of .62 while 66th Street has a ratio of 3.84. This means that Penn Avenue is presently used only at 62% of its capacity, while b6th Street is over capacity (382%). The proposed use will increase traffic volumes in the area by approximately 1%. Although Penn Avenue could handle an increase in traffic, 66th Street could not. Traffic accident records indicate the following accidents in the vicinity of 66th and Penn from 1972 through June, 1978: Council Letter No. 226 -3- August 14, 1978 1972 4 1973 8 1974 10 1975 12 1976 10 1977 20 1978 7 Traff is accidents in the vicinty have been increasing, as have traffic volumes. The proposed use would increase traffic volumes slightly, although it should not significantly increase traffic hazards or congestion in the area. Parking: The proposed restaurant would be part of a shopping center with shared parking, so the parking require- . ments of the shopping center as a whole have to be considered. The total number of parking spaces re- quired for the shopping center, including the Embers Restaurant, is 229. The total number of spaces pro- vided is 240 or 11 more than required. Aesthetics: The existing shopping center is in need of aesthetic improvements. The Environmental Health Department has experienced problems with trash accumulation -and weed control and general property maintenance behind the shopping center and along the west pro- perty line. The applicants proposal could improve the"condition of the site aesthetically. This is important both in terms of customer attraction and in terms of the overall impression which people have of the City of Richfield. The city should encourage development which will improve the aesthetic appear- ance of the community because it will help maintain and improve the desirability of the community for residents and businesses. The proposed restaurant would improve the aesthetics of the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In summary, the staff has found that the proposed restaurant would not be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, would not significantly increase traffic congestion, and would improve the aesthetic appearance of the site. Because the proposal does not. comply with the Comprehensive Plan, the staff must recommend that the request for a special use permit be denied. If the City Council wishes to approve issuance of the Special Use Permit, it is recommended that the following stipulations be attached: Council Letter No. 226 -4- August 14, 1978 1. special use permit be issued only for a restaurant offering on-sale of non-intoxicating malt liquors; 2. that. handicapped spaces and ramps be installed in the parking lot; 3. that the applicant provide an enclosed trash storage area .for the restaurant, and that the property owner clean up and maintain the area along the west property line and the rear of the shopping center. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission considered this request for a special use permit at their June 27, 1978 meeting. No area property owners appeared before .the Planning Commission concerning this matter. The Planning Commission recommended that the city council approve issuance of the special use permit, with the three stipu- lations outlined above. Respectfully submitted, t Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB~jef cc: Planning .and Redevelopment Director A ~. - since 1947 ~ "Western New Yorks Finest Pizzn" •' ~ ~ ~ , `~ ~ ~ f ~~~~~~~ ~~~,~. 41 S ~N ~~~ • 690.4648 57 PAtlL. June 14, 1978 T0: City of Richfield Rr.: Proposed Restaurant 4t 2312 4Jest 56th Street. Pontillo's Pizzeria is a locally owned corporation with its first location opened in October of 1975 at ~+1 South Cleveland Avenue, St, P2,~1. r?i.,n~~ota, nr b,rr, ~ ~ ~ - _~ j f a S~i'.CT1C _.7L~.i"v1 Ci2 as ~peneQ at ~:~~.. ~~'Jer.;~-~" =i ;i:,..... , .~L '....?G ~,Lji:i;, ..r..__.. ~:::,.,... Fcntillo's is sound fina„cially, and has the backi<:g of tre ~~'i„st ~di:~a National ~.:nk. We specialize in i~teopolitan Style Pizza with fresh dough made daily and hoagies which are similar to a subma::~'~ne sardaich, only heated in a broiler. -Along with the pizza and hoagies, we se~^ve soft drinks, milk and coffee and our i~iinneapolis location also serves 3.2 beer as a complimentary item. Upon receipt of a spacial use permit, Pontillo's will be obligated tb a 10 year lease with options thereafter. It is our intention to make substantial improvements to the exterior of the stated space in the shopping center, witri the hope that the appearance of the center as a whole will be upgraded, which we will at that time conform with. Our business comes from sit do.,rn trade, as well as carry-ou±~ The majority of carry-cut business comes from orders that are phoned ahead ~.rhich are rea.dv for carr~r out, u*~on their a.rriva.l. Pontillo's uses a self-servic° syst;,:n of order and pick up and anticipates a maYiMam of siV employees on any or.?shift. Our intentions are to offer 3.2 beer as a complimentary item, o:hich has proved to be less than 5~ of sales at our present location in i~Linneapolis. We plan a 44 seat capacity restaurant and believe present parkin; provided by the center to be plenty sufficient for our needs. In talking wish the landlord, he has assured me that he will cooperate in accomodations for the handicapped in the center. Car present business hours are 11:00 ~M - 1:00 ~~.M Monday through Thursday, 11:00 :u'~I - 2:00 AM rriday and Saturday, ~+:00 P.d - 12:00 FM Sunday. We feel this would '~nld true at our new location also. We at Pontillo's intend to provide the highest ~;uality pizzas and hoagies available in a casual environment with efficient and personable service. F1.irthermore, we demand immaculate cleanliness which can be ;,ubstantiated by our excellent record with the health departments of MinneaFolis or St. Paul. / j; Sincerely // ~i i ~/ . G. ;~~ Stepson B ~. ,.- ~.~- i i i i ii 1 I I is ~- _ . . _. -- . ~, -- i ----- ------ 6` .. - - e ~ - , ~ r--- ( --~ _ ;_ ~, . . _-r ' J Iii I -~P A` ~r 0 c -~ 1 m r 0 -t ~, ~ _ --- i _: #_ ~ _ - _ _ _ __~ ---.~ ~ -------s _ -- ~ - --- i II ----' - ---- 4 _ ~ f --~-- --~ # - ------ / .~ e - -1~ - - - - ~~ - - _ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~_'. - --- f IN ~ i- _. _ 1 - ---- - --. ~ ~ a i ~~ _ . _ _ b~~ _ _} _.1 ~ - _ -- l -i .. ~ ~ _ __ __ f 1 .. _.___.___ ._ ~~ 7` i # -_-__ -__-_- i . __ _ ~ f i I ~i 1 ~ ~ ~' ~ 1 i. ~~ # ~~ ~ i t,' ~ V/ i 1~ ~ ~ ~~ '• _ _ ", • . _ - - .. r_ .. - .. {^ ~ r ~.. _ , ,.. _ ~ - _ .. _ _ ~ ~ ~. ~ t -7T-- - , r--- -- -~ : -. - _.~-~I ,~, : ~ _ --! ~ _ 1 'I ~1 ~ - l r - ..J ~ ! I .. ' - - - t 1 ~ ~ j I ~ a~:Q^'1 ~ _ °1 ~~ ~~ ~~-, ~ t G=am ~ i ~ ~ u~W- i -'..~ :. • - ~ .-WEST GST*+ :.ST2_ET "' ° • --- ..\ - C\\\ '~ ~ :. ~ +! ctiwti+eo aatr.n ~ < -. ~.a .-Yv w:ew • _~ e~o ~.v. ~ '' s I f 1 e /,/~ / / /l / '••'~~ 1 _ r, it C \ _~ - i - - ~, 1 .- e 1 `I , p.eu s roe e 1 cwep • ~ i j 1~ j~ - 1 L 1 ti ( s,w.._. , ~~~I` I 1 I I ~ •- ref c{~cex~i e:T;: r I _ ~ i ~ ~ ~ Is ~ i --i~ I ~a ~ I ~ - ~ III ~-I ! !~~;-~I~ ~i - 1 . ~i I - P:-2~-~n Foe- _- =.>e ~ ~L _i tl • .-. 17 ~I it 1 I i I - I f ~! ~ i I I. f r t ~ ~~ ~ r- ji 1 ~--~` :.. . ~ ~ . ~_ I .- .~ . - ~ .` ~_ . - . •. ; . ~ ~ ~~.-.=OIN3 :.CEO. ".2 _ _ _ ~I ~j i "- II ... ~ I ~ ID -1I , ~~ i~ 1 II '~ . ~- -;I -_ - it .`- .' .ii ~~ ~---- --1i ~- ~~ 1 - -- ~., 1 ~--! ~ ~ r- ~ i) ~ ;- _ ;- ~ ~~-- j ~ I ---I- -~ -~ ; i -i -- 1 i - e ~ --- ii I: • - ,. I( i ~ I i n ~ I ~ I 1~ it Y1`_~T, G.ZTM _ <__T . l.~ Z Z W a 1 it C 1~- -_ ..rifv '~ -- $ _ j j~ "t.' .xenr to ~-__ _ _ 'i~.sf!f-__._. _ 7t __ -- .v~~. n: ,,,Y_._ _._ _ ._ ____._ _ -_ __ _.___._~.-~Ci__-_ _ _ ~_ _ __-_ - __ _ t X 1 o-ae...e _~ H.~ _ - .: _ _ _ _ - _ . ~ y ~ -r/,.'. ,~ ~ ate, ..e w«« .~e ~ 3y" a.~yGr~.s.". ~ ~ 7 .en.s. ~ *~ ~ . __ ~ ~z~'3 -z _ . ~ - .. .! r5' "_~ _ . 5 _~_ ~' +J J ~ ~..o..e ne _~ _ _ .~a .x 1(: .... xe ..e G•'. 5 -_-___ ~ ~ - .. is ~.t..e ~ _ ~ -- - --- -^ -_ - .~. _ L ~ - ~ .u.e, ..e --_ _s_.___ - ee.ro .,t- i-ah - __ - a.uo ..e nc.vtr e.c I ~ _~_ ~ . _ ~- ~ ~ _ _ ' C - -~ cese.r ..c :~ ,, 3 ,., ..e - ,~ ..e erri~sf rve I ~ 1e'~y+fJ ~~ •r .tw .r[ r ^fuwe.r[ {II __ __ ~ _ _ - . . .-.._ ~ ~ _. L ~ C n raw e.e <au.e~, ... iii _- _ _ 'f(f( ~- ~~ .,.,~e .tt ~~..~eo eat ~~) __ ._.l .__ __ -.. O ~ _ '.: ._._... -- S :,Y RS <~.C eve ,. -~ ..v_.~.+a ~ F e~.o+ ~-.[ ~ -_ . - __~ - - :._... -_ _. _ -. - _. __ _ _ ..~ ~} [.roe er[ {f _ : ~ ~ 1 J II _ _ ~ .,....e ~I __ _ . _ ~ 1 e,...e c.. ..e \I~Y ~,~ ~ Yom- ~ ~.~' ~~rf ~~ "' \ : .. ... I~Ifffl Jr .. _ ..L~_ --~ - .- ... ... ,..._. ~.I ~~ ~. ~ .... ...._, r__.. .._ ~~ - _ ._... f a ~ ~ r a ~ _ ; a i s - ~ ~.- - - _ _ > 4 _ _ _ _ ., t c~~r~e~5~ve ~e~~l~~r~~~ ~~an for the city of richfieid LAND USE: description Mixed Land Use ~~ Mixed Land Use ~~. ~ ~ ~ Central Business j / District Mixed Land Use Mixed Land Use Industrial ~: Multiple Convenience Shopping Area Single Family Residential COMMUNIT7 F ACILITIES: •TRANSPORTAT ION: density principal uses Combination of multiple dwellings, office, research High industrial, hotel, motel, institutional, and retoll Commercio Combination of office, institutional, light and High/Medium research oriented industrial, retoll commercial, and multiple dwellings Combination of office, retail commercial, entertainment and eating establishments. small niyiti;~edtwr comparison snapping ana szrvicz 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. Nigh Multiple units with related accessory uses. Low Grocery, drug, hardware stores. Single family Or two family I~', Low u nits and accessory uses I cou~pat~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 adopted by th• city of richfield this 15th day of Jonu ar y •tq 73 keeping with tlie'spirit and intent of this part. The council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this part for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The council may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. Subd. 3. Application for Adjustment-Fee, Application for any adjustment per- missible under provisions of this section shall be made to the chief inspector by written application. An application for adjustment shall be accompanied by payment of a fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code in addition to the regular building fee, if any. (Bill 1977-16) 8/8/77 Subd. 4'. Public Hearing on Adjustment. Upon receipt of any application, the council may set a time and place for a public hearing on such application. At least ten days before the-date of any such hearing, a notice of the hearing shall be published once in the official newspaper. Subd. 5. Requirements for Compliance. In all cases in which adjustments or variances are granted under the provisions of this section, the council shall require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary to insure com- pliance with the conditions designated in connection therewith. Subd. 6. Conditions Upon Grant of Adjustment or Variance. Before granting an application for an adjustment or variance, the council must find: (1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the particular land, building or use referred to in the application, not common to other properties in this or similar districts. (2) That the granting of the applications is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. (3) That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or 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 improvements. in the neighborhood. At the hearing the applicant shall present a statement and evidence in such form as the city may require to show these facts. Subd. 7. Orders. The council shall within a reasonable time make its order deciding the matter and shall cause a copy of its order to be served by mail upon the petitioner. Subd. 8. Record of Proceedings.- The council shall maintain a written record of its proceedings which shall include minutes of meetings, its findings in cases before it, and a record of action taken on each matter before it including the final order. Subd. 9. Review by Planning Agency. No decision shall be made by the board on any matter before it until the planning agency acting pursuant to its authority as set forth in part VII of this chapter shall first have had a reasonable op- portunity, not to exceed 60 days, to review and report to the council upon any matter referred to it by the council. ORDINANCE CODE 8/8/77 80 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO fA 3.41. SPECIAL USE PERMITS Subdivision 1. Issuance. Special use permits may be issued for any of the following: (1) Any of the uses or purposes for which such permits are required or permitted by the provisions of this chapter. (2) Public utility or public service uses or public building in any district when found to be necessary for the public health, safety, convenience or welfare. (3) Commercial excavating or natural materials used for building or con- struction purposes, in any district. (4) To classify as a conforming use any institutional use existing in any district at the time of the establishment of such district. (5) 'To permit the location of any of the following uses in a district from which they are excluded by the provisions of this code; airport, library, community center, church, hospital and institution of an educational, philan- thropic or charitable nature, cemetery, crematory, mausoleum or any other place for the disposal of human dead. (6) For any use covered by Section 3.35. - ' Subd. 2. Limitation on Issuance. A special permit may not be issued for the purpose of granting an adjustment or appeal pursuant to Section 3.40 nor for any use not authorized for the specific district for which the permit is sought, nor for any use prohibited in all districts by the provisions of this part. Subd. 3. Application. Application for the issuance of a special use permit shall be made to the chief inspector. Any proceedings to classify certain uses as conforming uses as provided in this section may be initiated either by such application or by the council. Subd. 4. Public Hearing. The council may hold such hearings on the proposal to issue a special use permit as it may consider necessary; but at least one public hearing shall be held by the council or by a committee or commission to be designated by the council in any application for a use permit for the establishment of any use listed in Subdivision 1, Subsections 5 and 7, of this section. Subd. 5. Conditions Governing Issuance. The council shall not grant a permit for any of the uses enumerated in Subdivision l 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. 6. Imposition of Conditions on Issuance. The council may impose con- ditions and require guarantees in the granting of use permits. Any use permitted under the terms .of any special use permit shall be established and conducted in conformity to the terms of such permit and of any conditions designated in con- nection therewith. Subd. 7. Special Use Permit Time Limitations. A special use permit expires one year after it has been issued unless the use for which the permit has been granted has commenced within such year or unless, upon written application of the owner of the affected land, the council shall extend the expiration date of such permit for an additional period, not to exceed one year. 4/6/68 ORDINANCE CODE 81. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO fA E ' (d) The station or garage will not display any banners, noisy ribbons or similar attention-distracting or visibility-obscuring devices in the area in front of building setback lines. .2 (e) The minimum frontage on any street will be 120 feet and the " minimum area of the site will be 12,000 square Zeet for a station with tour pumps or less; and stations with-more pumps will have sufficient additional frontage area to provide equivalent anal sufficient space for servicing vehicles, for off-street parking, for safe vehicular approaches into the station, and for good visibility for pedestrians and drivers. '~(f) No driveway will be flared outward on the boulevard in such a way as to encroach upon the boulevard of adjacent property. \ (g) The station or garage caill comply with the off-street parking, sign construction and other regulations of the city. (h) Any required buffer or screening area will be so constructed as to obstruct headlight beaus of automobiles on the station property from beaming onto adjacent residential property. • (i) Pump islands will not be so close to street or adjacent property lines as to create the likelihood of encroacl,~~ent by vehicles upon street right-of-way, si.decaalk areas or adjacent property. , ~,~\Ji v~iiy i::i:. ~ c~....~...,.:i:. ,...:~c;.:.L,~ -.. _.~ ...~ ~c:• ~_~:~. JiC:v.>:=c:i C-i~r mLZ~ ~e greeted on the ~e r ~e ^y ~QaY -~J ~:c^ ad ;ace:._ str_ t _rCr: a" at or _ e e,- lt~e ~~ ,::i Atli; S~rL'2t, ~:•:CePL ~ ~ i£ t:lt SrO:ltsge t1c''~ l'.~iC' ~vic_.C. i8 1n .::iie$S "G~ 150 feet, two such signs ~a; be allocaed by the council on such frontage, subject to any other applicable sign •re~ulation. ~ (~~ Ali exterior lighting caili be so designed, placed and operated as nat to be a nuisance `o adjacent properties. (1) If the station or garage is to be located in a shopping center or other integrated developc:,ent, it will be in architectural harmony c•~ith the rest of the center or development. (m) The station or garage will not provide for the outdoor operation o~ lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts or service pits, or the outdoor display of merchandise; but the outside iind~rground storage of gasoline and other petroleum products betc•~een pumps, or the temporary display of merchandise 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 }:igh,aay, it shall not he opera*_ed between tiie hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a,m. of the following day. • \ (o) If t}le site is at an intersection, provision will be made for an unobstructed area on the site, adjacent to and withir. 50 feet of the inter- section, free of vehicles, signs (ether than a pedestal sign), displays ' or ether materials which tend to obstruct intersection visibility. Subd. 4. ReQ±~lation°; Re'at::<<~ to Hotels, :Motels, Restuura_nts 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 stsrdards: (a) The use c•~ill rot create undue traffic hazards or traffic congestion either on the public streets adjacent to the site or on t}:e parking areas on or adjacent to the site or on streets adjacent to the 'site unto which traffic to or from tli~ site is channeled. (b) Adegaato provision c•ri1.1 be <<~ade, through the use of building set- baclcs, buffer areas, scrceninb, and exterior treatment or placement of the building on tho site to avoid noise, glare, fumes, dust, and any other sources of nuisance or annoyance ro adjacent propertyes. G3 3/23/70 i, ~'~''~=-' -: > (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 annoyanc avoid noise, glare., fumes, dust, and any other sources of nuisance or e to users, or patrons of the facility. ~ = ~ (d) Adequate off-street parking space--mss available for patrons and em- _ '*~ - ployees. • (e) If liquor is to be sold on the premises (1) the property abuts upon _ a major street, (2) access to all off-street parking spaces is frem 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 major streets. (f) The proposed facility will provide an aesthetic appearance. which - will not detract frem or conflict c,;ith the existing or proposed architectural forms of buildings in the same area. _ (g) The use will not create an excessive burden on public parks, public _ ~ open-space, streets, or utilities requiring public services ~ohich are proposed to serve the facility. -, (li) The proposed development will not conflict with the comprehensive a ,,.. ~ i ..T..... ,.., ,., _ _ .. L ~ ~, ,. _ , v be erected or structurally altered to exceed three stories or 40 feet in height, subject to the modi~ication~ ~..~ axcept?ens provided in Section 3.39 of this chapter. . -~ Subd. 6. Lot Areas and Yard Requirements. (The same minimum requiremen*_s ' shall be observed for the "C.-2" district as are provided for a "C-1" district ' in Section 3.32 of this chapter.) ' (l) Except as provided in paragraph {2) of this subdivision the same mini- mum requirements shall be observed for. "C-2" district as are provided for a "C-1" district in Section 3.32. (2) A gasoline service station may construct a canopy extending into the building setback area. of the lot on which it is located provided that such canopy complies with the following regulations: (a) It must be desigreri and constructed to serve as proL-ection for •customers and attendants frem inclement weather. - (b) It may extend into the front yard area distance of 10 feet, as measured from the centerline of the gasoline pump island closest to the street lot line buC in no instance c'_oser t!:ar, five feet from this lot line. (c) Only one canopy shall be permitted at each service station, unless it is located on a corner lot. - (d) It shall be designed ~ard constructed as an integral part of the main service station building and shall extend from such building. (e) The canopy shall not be constructed to a height exceeding sixteen feet. (f) The canopy shall not be designed for use nor shall it be used as a location for arty business cr advertisi.ng sign of a permanent or temporary construction. (g) Lighting located on the canopy shall be designed as an integral part of the canopy provi-ling that fixtures shall not extend below the boCtcm surface of the canopy structure and si:all be ueamed downtaard. `-~.. 08.1 3-13-72 _:.~'; 4,:j ~ ;a '" ~ ^! ~i~l~ ,Z ~ I a ~ - -- acct..) o v !$.*~"- '~ 1. t, ! ~ ~ i h-~! A• h ~ I ~ N''' ~'' ' . ~- ~' , I ~ 8 134 ~. ,; ~ I ^ 1. G, • ' ..J ~4 3~Z sa ,.~ -~ ~ p a ; 3~ x ego ------~- T !fit ~\J !,l-•• -.:1se., ---•_ , M ~ ~. I c ^ PUBLIC s~ . _~ ~~ ~. ~ ,, _w ~S~-. • ~ '^ ~ - -_ 0 1 N t _ r__ 1 ~ COMf~iERCIAL ~~ _ _ ~=~ ._ ~ ~J ~-' ~ - y --i ^ 7 I e .~ . ~ .1~ ~^~ ' ~ • F `_ - ~:~=`~~_ ~ I ~ Al ^ p ~ ~ Fri ~ ~ _ 2~ ~.~ r pl ~~ ~t--~ MULTI-FAMILY RESIDEiyT1AL ~ ~• ; ,; ----T ~_, _ -• _ ~ , -~ ... 5 `y..~ .~ j'r+~ ~ ..a ~r I i~~ti~g sue., ~ ~. ~~ l ~~ ~,:_~ t' ~ ~ •~ i L``_ -~ + Y _~::.a^ - ~f~~ V~ '_ ~_' 7 -tv` ~ t~k -P^ ~ r a_' ,t.~~1 ~ • : t,..~ :~ ems' N ~ , ~q: ~ i ~ f"^ ~ i ~~~ ~Jt c"'.i ''~ I , ~- ~ ~. .~ ifr3~rh~. ~ _,. --~- ,r_, ~;, ~ :... ~~t:._ -.: ~ 1r-`;-~~- s <,~ •- ~ ~» _~ 1 `~ 7~f+ ~« ? ~~ ... ~: x~~ ~~ ? i Zoning Map I \ ; -~. . /~ ' _-' l i _.~ x~ ;- ~X •: i .2 ~ e~ ~~ ; 1. . - --- .-. _ --- _ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~'~- is t1' _. . i . ~ ~. -_. ~~ 4-' A ' V ~ ~ ;s ~ ~: o~: E '. -. ---~ -Y- -- ~ t-[-d ~ ~. .I' V!~ mss ' t ~:.. , `~ .~ --- - ~-Y- ` - ~+ a '+ .'-7 ' ~' t 4~ '.i $ _ . ~~ _ ! ~ .i - __: ~ ::: a ~ .~ ~i t~. ,1 ; ~' ~ _ _ _ . ! ~ ~ t y i" ''x ~ ~a F S i ''d. _i ~ ~ 2'~i ~~ '1 .~ . ~ • ~ .,'.~ r ~__ ~ ~ \1. ; ~~ ~~~. _. 9 .. :. ~ .~.~ .~ ' ' Y i` h ~1' ~. 1{ ~. _ .. s _.~'.~ _ -. ~_.-. _~... ._.-__-.~. ~._ _ ....~ -.- _ ~.''i ,rye, +-q~ +~ F~ ~. -„ruw:w-i-ter _. -w ~.``_ - _ -,T3 ~ --~ -~ ., ,..'.."""^..'~ r ----r.. yew ~t~"^^^+--"• -- ._ . ~. __ •^ .. _,_ ~s ~x- _ j y ' 7' i ' 9'I ~=~5 ~~ ~, .. ~g -,. - ~' ~ • ~~•~ ~ ~ ~~ ... .. __--___-.. .I.I - _. ~- GENERAL COMMERCIAL ~ r - ..~-_.~_ _ MULTIPLE ~-`-_.. . _ _ --- - --A ~ . ~ -_._ - - _ . ~~