The URL can be used to link to this page

10-11-82 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 3u8 Agenaa Octbber 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Setting Date of Hearing for $1,400,000 Commercial Development Revenue Note for Minnesota Mini - Storage II Project Minnesota Mini- Storage II-is proposing to construct a storage facility in the vicinity of Pillsbury Avenue and 78th Street. At the September 13, 1982.city council meeting, the company was granted the necessary variances to proceed with this project. Minnesota Mini - Storage II is now requesting that the City undertake and finance this project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, through the issuance of $1,400,000 industrial revenue bonds. Attached to this council letter is a resolution setting the date of public hearing for this project for November 8, 1982. Respectfully submitted, ��'q 4L_LV k8l-- Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Development Director City Clerk City Attorney r • EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at the City Hall in said City on Monday, October 11, 1982, commencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: and the following were absent: The following resolution was presented by Councilmember who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED PROJECT UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT. WHEREAS, Minnesota Mini - Storage II, a Minnesota general partnership (the "Company ") has proposed that the City undertake and finance a project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474 (the "Act "); and WHEREAS, the Act, as amended, requires that a public hearing on the proposed project be conducted by the Council before any action may be taken by it relative to the proposed project: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield: 1. The Council shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 8, 1982 to conduct a public hearing on the proposed project requested by the Company and to take whatever action in relation thereto as it deems appropriate. 2. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish notice of the hearing in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A once in the official newspaper and once in the Minneapolis Star & Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City, no less than 15 days prior to November 1, 1982. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor of the motion: and the following voted against: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Exhibit A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota will meet in the Council chambers in the City Hall in the City of Richfield at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 8, 1982, to conduct a public hearing on a proposal that the City undertake and finance a project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474. The project is proposed by Minnesota Mini- Storage II (the "Company ") and consists of the acquisition and improvement of land in the City and the construction thereon of approximately 79,750 square feet self- storage facility. The principal amount of bonds or other obligations proposed to be issued by the City to finance the project is estimated to be not in excess of $1,400,000. A draft copy of a proposed application to the Minnesota Department of Energy,. Planning and Development, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, is available for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk in the City Hall, City of Richfield, Minnesota during regular City business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily, except Saturdays, Sundays and holidays). Any person wishing to express a view with respect to the proposal to undertake and finance the project will be heard at the public hearing. Dated: October 11, 1982. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Sylvia Bergh City Clerk i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday, October 11, 1982, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and correct copy thereof, insofar as the same related to the setting of a public hearing on a proposed Industrial Development Project of Minnesota Mini - Storage II. WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk and 'the corporate seal of the City this day of 1982 (SEAL) City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 309 Agenda October 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Fee Waived License to Sell Beer There is an extra item on the October 11, 1982 city council agenda relating to a request from the DFL for a fee waived license to sell beer. The DFL will be holding a fund raiser on Friday, October 22, 1982 at Assumption Church. In connection with this fund raiser they have requested a fee waived license to sell beer. This item has been placed on the October 11, 1982 city council agenda for council consideration. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: City Clerk r ' W. i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City ManaGer Council Letter No. 307 Agenda October 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf ield Council Members: Subject: Renewal of Gambling License Richfield American Legion Post 435 The city has received an application for a gambling license (raffles and tipboard) renewal from Richfield Amer- ican Legion Post 435. All license fees have been paid and the public safety department has conducted the necessary investigation with regard to this matter. We have verified that the required insurance coverage is in force and all current premiums have been paid. The applicant has had a city gambling license for the past four years and the public safety department reports no significant problems resulting from this particular license activity. The gambling manager for the American Legion Club is Mr. George Ashwood. Mr. Ashwood has been the gambling manager for the past two years. The public safety department has conducted the required background investigation of the gambling manager and finds no reason to preclude him from continuing in this position. It is the recommendation of the public safety director, in which I concur, that the requested gambling license for the Richfield American Legion Post 435 be renewed. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Public Safety Director City Clerk -:# (7 E, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 306 Agenda October 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Reconsideration of Off - Street Parking Permit Stipulation for Corporate Travel Office Building, 1400 West 76th Street On August 10, 1981, the city council approved a revised off - street parking permit and agreement -with Mr. Charles Erickson, to permit the construction of parking facilities related to a proposed five story office building at 1400 West 76th Street. The approval was subject to the following stip- ulations: 1. That the city engineer approve final catch basin location and the final design of the entrance to the site from 76th Street. 2. That the applicant contribute $50,000 towards the cost of installing a signal at the 76th Street en- trance to the site. 3. That a five foot sidewalk be provided along 76th Street adjacent to the site. 4. That the applicant provide the city with a five -year performance bond in an amount sufficient to construct 57 additional off - street parking spaces to city stand- ards if they are deemed necessary by the city. Subsequent to this approval, the city has revised its off - street parking guidelines and reduced the number of off - street parking stalls required for office type uses. The proposed office development was 57 spaces short of the previous guide- lines, but meets the current guidelines. Because of this, Mr. Erickson is now asking that the city reconsider stipula- tion number 4, and that he no longer be required to provide a five -year performance bond for 57 additional parking spaces. No changes are being proposed in design of the parking lot, and the applicant will meet the other three stipulations. Council Letter No. 306 -2- October 11, 1982- It is recommended that the city council drop the stip- ulation requiring the bond for additional parking in that the proposed parking will meet city standards. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenbergger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Engineer KN /eja RESOLUTION NO. 6478 RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR OFF- STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION NO. 81 -4, CONTRACT NO. 2334 Erickson and Sons, Inc. 46 E. 4th Street _ St. Paul, MN 55101 Location: 1400 West 76th Street Use: New Office Parking Area BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off - street parking as contained in Off- Street Parking Application No. 81 -4, Contract No. 2334 is hereby approved subject to and upon completion of performance of the contract for such off - street parking as hereinafter authorized. 2. That the proposed off - street parking contract for the improvement of said off - street parking, bearing Contract No. 2334 be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on behalf of this city. i 3.. That the off - street parking operator provide the City of Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving withdrawal authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by the community development director and city manager, to ensure the _ off- street parking lot is constructed within the terms and regula- tions of the Off- Street Agreement with the following stipulations: a. That the City Engineer approve final catch basin location and the final design of the entrance to the site from 76th Street. b. .That the applicant contribute $50,000 towards the cost of installing a signal at the 76th Street entrance to the site. C. That a five foot sidewalk be provided along 76th Street adjacent to the site. d. That the applicant provide the city with a five year performance bond in an amount sufficient to construct 57 additional off street parking spaces to city standards if they are deemed necessary by the city. 4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and ;maintenance of said Off - Street Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off - street r:ar }:inq 1 Ccde 4.05. ct operator in •.iccordance ;with Ordinance Adopptadi -,'C2 100 . day of Auoust, _ng; T . Es '�' . AT i Zic�LZ7 _:pis M E M O R A N D U M Date: October 11, 1982 To: Karl Nollenberger City Manager From: Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Director of Public Safety Subject: REQUEST FOR PAYMENT RUTLEDGE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY As we discussed this morning, the result of our meeting last Friday between Rutledge Construction and Architectural Alliance has seemed to move us toward a point where the contractor will satisfactorily complete the Public Safety remodeling project. As a result of this negotiated resolution of the problems we have encountered, we have agreed to release some of the money we have withheld from payments to Rutledge. Presently, we are holding a balance of approximately $60,000. Based upon the recommendation of Architectural Alliance we would like to release approximately one -third of the current money being withheld. Therefore, if the council could favorably authorize Estimate For Payment #11 to Rutledge Construction Company in an amount of $21,008.61, it will greatly facilitate our effort to complete this project. Thanks for your help in obtaining council authorization for the release of this payment. The restaurant as originally proposed would have 300 seats and would have offered the on -sale of wine. At the planning commission meeting, the applicant indicated that the on -sale of wine is not important to their operation; the applicants have subsequently indicated that they will not be offering wine at the proposed restaurant. The applicant continues to indicate a desire to offer the on -sale of beer at the restaurant. There are no special zoning ordinance--provisions or standards for a restaurant serving beer. Restaurants serving beer are consid- ered the same way as restaurants without beer. A license to serve beer must be obtained, however, The proposal involves only interior remodeling work, and no additions to the existing building will be constructed. In- formation concerning the concept of the restaurant is attached to this council letter. In a separate action, Carlson Properties is also contem- plating making exterior improvements to the shopping center. These potential improvements could include construction of a new continuous canopy around the south and west facing portions of the main shopping center structure and related exterior building renovation. They are also contemplating parking lot improvements, including the construction of islands, and re- striping to provide better traffic flow on the site. Q/ J 5 �J Q '(,CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager > Council Letter No. 305 Agenda October 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: vv Subject: Request for a Special Use Permit for a lJ / Restaurant in the Southdale Square Shopping Center Proposal Minnesota Animated Restaurants and Carlson Properties have requested that the city approve a special use permit to allow the conversion of 10,000 square feet of space within the existing Southdale Square Shopping Center to a "Chuck E. Cheese Pizza Time Theatre" family restaurant. The proposed restaurant will be located in the space currently occupied by Slumberland. Slumberland will move to the space previously occupied by Super Valu. The restaurant as originally proposed would have 300 seats and would have offered the on -sale of wine. At the planning commission meeting, the applicant indicated that the on -sale of wine is not important to their operation; the applicants have subsequently indicated that they will not be offering wine at the proposed restaurant. The applicant continues to indicate a desire to offer the on -sale of beer at the restaurant. There are no special zoning ordinance--provisions or standards for a restaurant serving beer. Restaurants serving beer are consid- ered the same way as restaurants without beer. A license to serve beer must be obtained, however, The proposal involves only interior remodeling work, and no additions to the existing building will be constructed. In- formation concerning the concept of the restaurant is attached to this council letter. In a separate action, Carlson Properties is also contem- plating making exterior improvements to the shopping center. These potential improvements could include construction of a new continuous canopy around the south and west facing portions of the main shopping center structure and related exterior building renovation. They are also contemplating parking lot improvements, including the construction of islands, and re- striping to provide better traffic flow on the site. • F- -I L -.A • Council Letter No. 305 -2- October 11, 1982 Staff Findings 1. The proposed restaurant would be in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan in- dicates that the site should be developed as medium to high density mixed land use, including eating establish- ments. 2. The proposed restaurant would not create undue traffic hazards on adjacent streets. The proposed restaurant would have a low turnover rate. The applicant has in- dicated that the average stay in the restaurant is one and one -half hours. Based on the Institute of Transpor- tation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates for a low turnover restaurant, the proposed restaurant would generate approximately 563 Average Daily Trips (ADT). According to ITE, a typical retail commercial use in this size shopping center, occupying the same amount of space as the proposed restaurant, would generate 791 ADT. Also, a supermarket such as the Super Valu which recently left the shopping center, generated 1,255 ADT (accord - ing to ITE). Based on the above information, the staff is of the opinion that the proposed restaurant would not result in an increase of traffic in the area. The total volumes generated would be typical of medium to high dens- ity mixed land uses called for by the comprehensive plan. The site is located in a commercial area and is served by two arterial roadways (66th Street and Xerxes /York Avenue). The major entrance to the proposed restaurant would be from the main parking area, which would discourage traffic from using the residential streets to the north. There are high existing traffic volumes on 66th Street (17,800 ADT) and York /Xerxes Avenues (21,700 ADT). There is congestion in the area during peak hours and peak seasons. 3. The shopping center, including the proposed restaurant, would not meet the city's guidelines for number of off - street parking spaces to be provided. City parking guide- lines indicate that 526 spaces should be provided on the site. (100 for the proposed restaurant). The applicant has indicated that the family nature of their business results in a higher average group size than other types of restaurants and commercial uses, which reduces their parking demand. There are currently 465 off - street park- ing spaces provided on the site. The city has previously approved special use permits and off - street parking per- mits for the existing development on the site, allowing a minimum of 465 off - street parking spaces. If the space is occupied by a retail commercial -type use instead of a restaurant, 476 spaces would be required on the site. • C • Council Letter No. 305 -3- October 11, 1982 Past studies and current observations have indicated that the existing parking lot is underutilized and that there would be sufficient capacity to handle the additional parking demand. This could change if uses change, however. The applicant is currently conducting a parking study of the site during their peak hour times to provide addition- al evidence that sufficient parking capacity exists on the site. Results of this study will be presented at the council meeting. 4. A concern has been expressed by the Public Safety Depart- ment concerning the provision of a considerable number of video and other games at the restaurant. Amusement arcades can become a problem. The applicant has indicated that there area number of factors present in their con- cept which would prevent the types of problems which can occur in arcades. First of all, the primary business is the provision of food and beverage, not that of an arcade. The applicant has indicated that 77% of the dollar sales in their other restaurants in the Twin Cities are from food and beverage purchasers only. Their primary market group is children in the six to twelve year -old age group and their parents, and no person under the age of 18 is admitted to the restaurant unless accompanied by parent or guardian. A person is stationed at the door during peak hours to enforce this policy. 5. The proposal would meet all zoning ordinance standards for restaurants. 6. The staff has received letters and phone calls from area residents indicating opposition to and approval of this proposal. Copies of the letters are attached for your information. Mrs. Stanley Olson, 6420 Vincent Avenue, indicated her opposition to the proposal, and Dr. Dunn, owner of the property of 6444 Xerxes Avenue, indicated his support for the project. The staff has contacted the four communities in which there are existing Chuck E. Cheese Restaurants. The city staff in each community indicated that they have no prob- lems with the restaurant. They said they are well managed and very cooperative. Staff Recommendation It is the opinion of the staff that the addition of the proposed family- oriented restaurant to the Southdale Square Shopping Center would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposal would provide a family- oriented entertainment oppor- tunity, would not create traffic hazards, and would not adver- sely affect adjacent residential areas. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council approve a special use permit for the proposed restaurant. c: 0 Council Letter No. 305 -4- October 11, 1982 Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission, on a vote of 5 to 3, recommended that the special use permit for a restaurant serving wine be denied because of potential nuisances to the surrounding neigh- borhood and because the intensity of use of the site would be too great. The commission took no vote on a special use permit for a restaurant without a wine license. Respectfully submitted, O Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner KN /eja 1� • • Minnesota Animated Restaurants 10800 Normandale Blvd #117 Bloomington, MN 55437 August 6, 1982 City of Richfield Community Development Department - Planning Division 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, AJN 55423 Re: Application for a Family Restaurant at Southdale Square. Gentlemen: We at Minnesota Animated Restaurants are pleased to present "Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre" for your approval. Chuck E. Cheese's is a family oriented entertainment restaurant, and it is our desire to open in the City of Richfield. We have made arrangements with the owners of Southdale Square to lease 10,000 square feet at Southdale Square for this purpose. Please accept the following information in support of our request. The Concept Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre is the first concept in family entertainment to combine the rapidly growing appeal of dining out with three dimensional animated entertain- ment. A combination made possible only by the enormous strides in electronics technology in recent years. The large main dining room contains an ensemble of three dimensional computer controlled Disney type characters. Situated on a raised stage eight feet above floor level, the characters are distributed to allow easy and unrestricted viewing 10800 .Vormandale Blvd. • Suite 117 PizzaTimeTheatrv_— Bloomington, Minnesota 55437 Operating Under Franchise Agreement in Minnesota City of Richfield - 2 - August 6, 1982 by all guests. On eight minute intervals, these characters come to life with original voices and music scores syncronized to animated movements. A smaller second dining area with animated characters offers guests more intimate dining and a private dining room is also avail- able for group functions. The menu at Chuck E. Cheese's has been tailored to provide a high quality product at a reasonable cost to the consumer. Everything from pizza and sandwiches, to salad bar and make-your -own ice cream sundaes are included. In the "Fantasy Forest Game Preserve " are a number of children's participative play elements, along with coin operated games and amusements. This area is designed for family entertainment, with games selected to appeal to this cross section of the public, therefore, there are no pinball machines at Chuck E. Cheese's. Hosts and Hostesses are available in this area to assist first time visitors in game selection and operation. These games will accept both quarters and Chuck E. Cheese's tokens. 'Tokens are given to all guests free with individual food orders. Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatres have been extremely well received by families throughout the United States. This success is due in a large part to heavy emphasis on birthday parties, special events and tours for the age group we consider our primary market; this being children 6 -12 years of age and their parents. We further support this family environment by seeing that all guests under the age of 18 are accompanied by an adult, usually their parents. The combination of these elements; a popular food product, three dimensional Disney style animated characters, and participative games and amusements blend to create the unique and exciting family atmosphere of Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre. City of Richfield o 3 - August 6, 1982 This will be the 5th Twin Cities location for Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre. We are looking forward to its opening in Richfield, I or my representative will be at all scheduled meetings to answer any questions which may arise. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,. MINNESOTA ANIMATED RESTAURANTS Marc I. Teren MIT;smh Attachments f t r L ?--x4 a � an Mao Mauna 'S 3nN3AV 1N30NIA 11 t7 P1 ♦ = i M \ 1 /7-7 it ~ y so y ~ W H I � s t V , fAI� _2 i W 3 I = {I f— — — — - -- -- -1wr 4 1) it �- � ci � 11 1• G\G G\ GGGG t to � •� 'S snN3AV SMW �3 Q +, W 9 Z v5 o ZSo v 00 z W y Y W ad iji! I W t O H O W • J V F. I �rf { #�{jStot v Z Cr. rs 2 /v� Y W Z IWI � j O u E _ C!1 ; 1I{ So Typical 10,080 Square Foot Chuck E. Cheese Pizza Time Theatre Floor Plan ROOD SCHEDULE 1. Theatre Dining 2. Cabaret Dining 3. Lounge Dining 4. Fantasy Forest 5. Kitchen Area 6. Restrooms AREA DISTRIBUTION AREA S . FT. % S® Theatre Dining 2760 28% 197 Cabaret Dining 1188 12% 85 Lounge Dining ®® Fantasy Forest 2553 25% Kitchen Area 1755 17% Restrooms 320 3% Hallways, Aisles, 1504 15% Miscellaneous TOTAL 10,080 100% 282 - = MIRADA 6121884 -8876 _ August 3, 1982 - Mr- - Richard Jopki - - City of Richfield Development - - - - -- - - - -- 67GO Portland Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 —Dear Mr. Jopki, - It has been a pleasure speaking with you over few, - -- - weeks._regarding our firms intent to develop a Chuck E. Cheese_ _ :.,Pizza Time Theatre in the Southdale Square Shopping Center. We are finalizing leasing arrangements now with Carlson Properties and will be submitting application to the City with n__the- next._ _ -- -- two. weeks. I have attached some information on the concept, along with a pizza pass to visit one of our restaurants in Blaine, Maplewood or Burnsville. These two things should give you an excellent feel for our operation. The following data is supplied to allow you to evaluate our park- ing requirements: Total Seating: 300 Employees: 65 Hours: Sun. - Thurs. 11:00 - 11:00 Fri. - Sat. 11:00 - Midnight Peak Volume: 1. Wed. & Thurs.Dinners (5:30 - 8:00) 2. Sat. & Sun. (12:00 - 2:00 & 5:30 - 8:00) Average Group Size: 4 - 8 Admission Policy: No youth under 18 admitted to the restaurant unless accompanied by parent or guardian. Continued FEE 10800 Normandale Blvd. • Suite 117 , Bloomington, Minnesota 55437 t Please note that our average group size far exceeds that of any restaurant due to our high family orientation. This significantly reduces our parking requirement in comparison to a Perkins, or TGI Friday, or other restaurant. In our evaluation the parking situation at Southdale Square poses no problem to our development. We look forward to opening in the City of Richfield and appreciate any input you may have. 'Thank you for all of your assistance to date. Best regards, Marc I. Teren Director of Corp. Development MIT ;smh Attachment CC: Norcenco Inc. Paul Justen Eric Siegel Bob Grootwassink Greg Kitchak m Carlson Properties JC REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF Minnesota Animated Restaurants Operating a Chuck E. Cheese Pizza Time FOR PURPOSE OF Theatre (A Family Restaurant) (Serving Beer or Beer & Wine Legal Description: ' (Southdale Square) (See Attached) We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the Special Use as requested. Signature of Owners* Address * Signatures may not be removed once the petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. I CHUCK E. CHEESE'S PIZZA TIME THEATRE uj z welsr l to+z4 Kr+Za 3 � 1643 8 1 6AIV le'r ua c.d Z Lu z UA * SURROUNDING ADDRESSES OWNED BY PETITION SIGNATURES, �-� r: � .• �. a j i t ji ij r Zoning Map i - _.. _ _ - t - •� �, 3` [ iii _ t V i ' � • � •M � ' a • ' ., - � � .._ ._ _ .. t ifs �� : -.. l.iT 9! 1}�_ � .� 1 - _ � 3 t • .- '` `� Lid- -- =-:4s; .. _� _ l , hu Ixt tt_ _..... � !•a � " N. � °• ' try i : -J we � "•r'ri= •0 , a .A •..• M .!{.i W 5T v •^ .'� _ _ - :.fr:%° Sifw .. ! ems! w� _ ..� .♦?�. s a Y -site { `i •,`" mss- _ i-' • � --• -- — - _ SL fP}� ))tt o T m •tea r + .r iw'i"'^l�.Tw..i• �.., • y ` 3'\ � � ec a �t �: .�. � > `7 s QQI.. � t � _. s. D � 9 .1 °. i w"♦ %� /i- r t�' i1 - �`r :�i -i !� a'`i• w ! 'a� •� e` 3` ^'TS� 1. ~�.'+ '� r + ,+ •- ♦' . �i - — r. ,� ,�� .._ i+ (!ems - :=•t - MULTIPLE RESIDENCE - ± - -� GENERAL COMMERCIAL -- - * � s• r,... Land Use Ma �� Si4 @�g %. lu Z .i O i ii Zl "!!Zt P iZ A 28 PO- verb a' I 6 •. 11 v a `� • , p� g I : a i3 .� ppyy P Q � M I Z �� i 11 0 c^ 1675 I q -- o s S. • � iid �.P� LU h D RN Iwo l � ' � • dt'•l tl�ddd••L•�•H ° ® � 4 r •eeyi ++Y,l• SSYr: • Ct+ z' VV _ - -- �--� -- 1 ��,t e ,� ..y '°°,psi �. � � �''f� �� .• e Asa„ z top Ji ✓ �' 1 , v .41 I,f � � +� •. i s p �� i• D, �. : S .� 0 N w h 4 4TRAC°T g ^• ; t •�t :ASIA A-144? )f w !� e s w V�� I •r `� �,2 'j �� ''j4 • .t w ° rS r IT >--e -1�- -qtr► _71 w i�2 yt � -4e ,• eoy Ih y i � .. _ ? PIJBLIG �i ;yt Z1. NN :e .SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 l i • MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ;' •„ tom* f�•j�e .N ..� }w+v •• � % ;�D , ,: COMMERCIAL I SPIL MINION -_ _Mr. Karl _Nollenberger City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Karl: 91 50 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E.. ELAINE. MINNESOTA 55434.(612) 764 -6700 September 29, 1982 It has been called -to my attention that Norcenco Partners, Ltd. have _. =_exp.,r-ess_ed_ desire to join your community in that they would like to - - -- construct_a_Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre. In the late fall -Mr. Eric -- Siegel, dice President of Norcenco Partners, Ltd., visited in my office and with the office of Community Development -- at which time they presented the concept of the Pizza Time Theatre Restaurant. Subsequently, a public hearing was held and the City of - Blaine unanimously approved the Wine and Beer License for the said restaurant. Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre opened approxi- mately June 1, 1982, in Blaine. We are.very pleased that they are a part of our community. They have .a -very strict policy as far as children under the age of 18 not being allowed:-on the premises unless accompanied by an adult. I have a teenage daughter and I can personally attest to the fact that this management policy is strictly enforced. Persons under the age of 18 are not allowed unless accompanied by a parent. Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre is located in a K -Mart shop- ping complex. We have not had one complaint since the opening_o_f_ this restaurant, either in my office or with the Blaine Police Department. This is a family oriented restaurant and provides not only -- amusement, but good food as well. It is my opinion that Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre would be a grand addition to the City of Richfield as it was to the City of Blaine. I might also say that they are a very community oriented organization in that they have provided their "fuzzy" characters to be a part of the celebrations that occur in the City_, i.e., 4th of July Celebra- tion Parade, etc. Karl, if you have any questions, I would be most happy to discuss this with you further. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Since ely yours, Joy_ Twistol, CMC City Clerk JAT:mp Py Umd>og t West66t tv 5S4Z3 SEP 231982 Cay ®f Richfield a 4C Q-, L� �,��•�(' 2S Lei i'�C� �� \' � ^ct;Z Z�— < ` e� G n cr,- �. d ICIAL, Ix I t 1 b�kb5 Xerxes Ave,,, So. Richfield, M 55423 September 22, 198a Rick Jopke RECEIVED City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave.. Soo S EP 2 41992 Richfield, MN 55 23 Dear Pir..Topkes city of Richfield I will not be able to attend the hearing on September 28;.1982, so wish to register mY strong objection to granting a permit to serve wine at Southdale Sere. I reside on the corner of Sixty -fifth and Xerxes. I feol : ro,9idents &long Slxty� fifth alrudY have more than. enough to contend with. This is a residential area ani I feel we deserve some consideration, There is a great deal of traffic on Xerxes, as you knots. Added to this, large trucks use Sixty- fifth to enter Southdale Square with deliveries. Trash trucks pick up behind the buildings any time of the night, making no effort to be reasonably quiet. Ado • young people going to and from the pane at Sixty-fifth and Vincent speed by with laud mufflers. When they stop for the stop sign they race their motors, making more noise. Many do not bother to stop. Ebi,dence of their driving may be seem in the tire marks on the - street. If any alcoholic beverage in served at the square there are bound to be those who over indulge and will surely add to the Noise and traffic problems. I feel I have shown considerable patience by not complairabout these problems. I realise they need to rent the buildings and young people need a place to gather, but I feel enough is enough.. There are two restaurants at the square and several others nearby. Surely the buildings can be rented for other types of businesses. There should be a limit to what we are expected to tolerate. Sincerely, A. Lucille Adams /Ord SEP 2 4 198Z oy IF te ' Zt =4# 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 304 Agenda October 11, 1982 '� The Honorable Mayor C9 and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment to Allow Family Memorial Funeral Chapels in C -1 Limited Business Zoning Districts by Special Use Permit The city staff has recently received an inquiry about the possibility of constructing a chapel to conduct family memorial funeral services in a C -1 limited business zoning district. The city attorney's office has issued an opinion that this type of use would have to be considered as a funeral home and, there- fore, could only be located in a C -2 general commercial or I general industrial zoning district. A draft ordinance amend- ment which would allow family memorial funeral chapels in C -1 limited business zoning districts by special use permit is attached for council consideration. Also attached is a copy of a document which discusses the concept of the family memorial funeral service. Briefly, the family memorial funeral service is an attempt to provide a simpler, less expensive funeral than the traditional one. The family memorial funeral service would eliminate the public re- viewal element of the service. The body would not be present at the funeral service, and burial, cremation or entombment is private for the family members only, and would eliminate the need for limousines, long funeral processions and pallbearers. Facilities which exclusively offer this kind of simpler funeral service can be much smaller and would have considerably less impact on surrounding uses than a traditional funeral home. The facility would essentially be the same as an office type use. There would typically only be office -type space where families would come to make funeral arrangements, an embalming room for the preparation of the deceased (required by state license provisions), a room for private reviewal of the deceased by family members, and the required public restroom facilities. Traffic generated by this type of use would be minimal because only immediate family members would be coming to the site and as was discussed earlier, there would be no public reviewal or funeral services conducted on the site. • • 0 Council Letter No. 304 -2- October 11, 1982 It would be desirable to insure that this type of facility is limited to providing family memorial funeral services, that sufficient parking is provided, that adjacent residential uses are adequately screened from the facility, and that the facility is properly licensed by the State of Minnesota. It is the opinion of the staff that, with these protections built in, a family memorial service chapel would be an appropriate use in a C -1 limited business district. The attached ordinance builds in these protections by requiring that a special use permit be obtained and by making the protections outlined above conditions for approval of a special use permit. It is recommended that the city council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance, and schedule a public hear- ing and second reading consideration of this ordinance for October 25, 1982. The planning commission reviewed this ordinance and unani- mously recommended that the city council approve it. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Attorney City Clerk KN /eja Bill No. Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.32 OF THE CITY'S ORDINANCE CODE TO PERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FAMILY MEMORIAL FUNERAL CHAPELS IN C -1 LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICTS BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.32 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by amending Subdivision 1 thereof to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Permitted Uses. In the neighborhood business dis- trict, unless otherwige specs ied in this chapter, the following uses are permitted: (1) Any use permitted in an "R" district or an "MR" district, upon compliance with the procedural requirements for each such district provided that no one family or two family dwelling shall be constructed in this district without the procurement of a special use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.41 of this chapter. (2) Uses intended for the supplying of a limited variety of commodities or services primarily for the benefit of residents of the immediate neighborhood. These shall include any local retail business or service establishment such as a grocery store, fruit or vegetable market, meat market, drug store, barber shop, beauty parlor, clothes cleaning and dry good pickup station, business or professional office and similar uses. (3) Restaurant, cafe and soda fountain, which uses do not permit dancing, on -sale beer, or the serving of alcoholic beverages. A restaurant, cafe and soda fountain, however, shall not be estab- lished in a neighborhood business district without first securing a special use permit therefor. A special use permit shall not be granted for any such use in a neighborhood business district unless it complies with the requirements of Section 3.41 of this code and unless the council finds that the proposed use will provide commodi- ties and services primarily for the residents of the immediate neighborhood and will be part of a neighborhood shopping center providing a variety of commodities and services. Drive -in and take -out restaurants, cafes and soda fountains shall hot be located in the C -1 districts. (Bill 1970 -2) 2/9%70 (4) Family Memorial Chapels upon securing a special use permit in accordance ;;EtH the requirements of section 3.41 of this code. P_ special use permit shall not be granted unless the council finds that the following conditions are met: -2- (a) The facility shall be licensed as a funeral establishment by the State of Minnesota. (b) Activities on the site shall be limited to the following: (c) d) 1. Office uses necessary for providing family memorial funeral arrangement services; - 2. The preparation and care of the deceased; 3. Visitation or reviewal by members of the___ -_ deceased's imme late family on - - - - - -- There shall be adequate screening and buffering- _- - - - - -^ -_- from alljacent resi entia- uses. There shall be a minimum of 4 off street spaces provided on the site for each 1,0 feet of gross floor area or part thereof space for each-vehicle used a.n con]unct� this case. s Rare -- __ -- -- -- us_ one -- w� t - - - -- (5)¢4} Other accessory uses and structures not otherwise prohibited anc = customarily accessory and incidental to permitted uses. (6)44+ No gasoline service station, garage car sales lot, or othem similar or related activity is permitted in this district. (7)444 The following retail businesses and service establishments and others of the same general character shall not be considered to be local service businesses and shall not be permitted in the "C -1" district: (a) Electrical appliance shop (b) Plumbing and heating shop (c) Printing shop (d) Furniture shop (e) Interior decorating and upholstering shop (f) Theatre (g) Hotel (h) Funeral establishments as defined in Minnesota Statutes 149.08 except Family Memorial Chape s (i ) Garage (j) used car lot (k) Filling station (8)�4* Any other use may be permitted which is determined by the council pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.40 of this chapter to be of the same general character as the uses listed as permitted in this section; provided that such use is not specifically pro - hibited in this section. -3- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota - this day of , 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk Family Memorial Funeral Service PRESENTING A NEW POINT OF VIEW ON AN AGE OLD CONTROVERSY Family Memorial Funeral Service INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION The business is that of providing memorial funeral services (a simplified funeral service) to fulfill growing trends and chang- ing patterns in today's society. Traditional funeral establish- ments are not responding to these needs in any significant way. More and more families are concerned with simplicity and dignity with regard to funerals and are selecting a memorial funeral service when a death occurs. A memorial funeral is a service where the casket (and body) are not present at the actual church or chapel services. Burial, cremation or entombment is private for family only. Reviewal of the deceased usually is private - for family only. The emphasis of the,funeral is on respect for the deceased. There is no confusion of "funeral parlor" visitations. There is no requirement for pallbearers, or limousines. There is no need for unnecessary and expensive ostentatiousness. ...more... Family Memorial - Funeral Service HISTORY AND EVALUATION OF FUNERAL SERVICES Visitation, reviewal and wake are really synonymous terms. The original intent of the mortuary was to care for the re- mains. The visitation was held in the home and the funeral service was held in church. Burial or cremation followed. The traditional funeral was not considered a metropolitan affair as transportation was limited and the cemetaries were on the church grounds. Since World War II, the custom was abbreviated to hold the visitation for one day, the funeral service in the church of the family's choice and then to bury or cremate. However, because of the building of large churches and the disappear- ance of small churchyard cemeteries, long tedious processions to large cemeteries became necessary. The above funeral service as briefly outlined is commonly re- ferred to as a "traditional" funeral service. This funeral service is still predominantly and numerically the majority of the people's choice and still serves a great need in our society. This need presently is being served by funeral es- tablishments of integrity. However, since the 1950's there is emerging a new emphasis for a more simplified and less expensive funeral service. The senior citizen, the aged and the institutionalized are demanding to be served in their own way. And their survivors are breaking away from tradition in favor of a simplified yet dicnified funeral service with a view toward economy. Thus there is an established and ever increasing need for "a Better way" -- via Family Memorial - Funeral Service. T_ansient society, nursing homes, extended care, a great in- crease in aced population has demanded a more streamlined f "neral service. :-.nlification is by necessity the great need. ...more... Family Memorial Funeral Service HISTORY AND EVALUATION OF FUNERAL SERVICES (Continued) The above cannot go through all that a traditional funeral demands. Family Memorial - Funeral Service has to exist to serve their needs. Presently there are memorial societies, clubs, hushed conver- sations to try to accomplish these needs. They are not estab- lished funeral and licensed establishments. Family Memorial - Funeral Service is established to accomplish what they all try to do. The funeral homes presently doing their service are mortuaries staffed to take care of traditional funerals. They are trying and doing a good job under the circumstances. By necessity it is expensive. Total concentration on "a better way" memorial is the only way this can be accomplished. Family Memorial - Funeral Service is dedicated to this service to the society that demands a voice, an audience. Family Memorial Funeral Service has heard and is ready to answer society's need! Family Memorial - Funeral Service PROCEDURES Family Memorial - Funeral Service. UPON NOTIFICATION OF DEATH THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES WILL HE TAKEN: 1. Removal of the deceased by licensed mortuary personnel to the facilities of Family Memorial - Funeral Service. 2. Preparation and care of the deceased. 3. Scheduling of meeting with the next of kin to arrange service details. Specific funeral arrangements will be made in the offices of Family Memorial - Funeral Service or other selected location. The priest, rabbi or minister may attend this arrangement meet- ing. The following will be arranged: 1. Scheduling of location for the actual memorial service at church or chapel. 2. obtaining necessary vocalist or special music, if needed. 3. Assisting in securing proper floral tributes. Select casket. 4. Securing and preparing information for obituaries and uneral notices. 5. notification of Lodges and Associations. 6. Administrative details in handling Social Security, Veterans Administration, legal and insurance forms. 7. Administration of details for proper burial or cremation Zorms. Family Memorial - Funeral Service PROCEDURES (Continued) S. Assisting and preparing for final committal space and attending to specific details. 9. No pallbearer selection is necessary for memorial type services, but in certain instances honorary pallbearers may be selected. During the period from time of death to actual services, the remains will be in private repose (casketed). The memorial service format will require transfer of the casket by hearse to the cemetery or crematory for private services at the specified time. These services which require that the casket be present at the church or chapel services, Family Memorial - Funeral Service will transfer the casket by hearse to the specified facility and then transfer to the cemetery or crematory for final committal. Family Memorial - Funeral Service will encourage no "visitation" or " reviewal" services. If a family does request this service, the Family Memorial - Funeral Service chapel may be used or the " reviewal" can be arranged prior to the church or chapel services. Family Memorial - Funeral Service will provide person(s) of their staff to assist at church or chapel services, reviewals and com- mittal services. Family Memorial - Funeral Service will provide registry book, memorial cards and post - service funeral counsel to the family. • LAW OFFICES LEFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ CLAYTON L. LCFEVERE HERBERT P. LEFLER J. DENNIS O'BRIEN JOHN E. DRAWZ DAVID J. KENNEDY JOHN B. DEAN GLENN E. PURDUE RICHARD - SCHIEFFER = "ARLES -LEFEVERE HERBERT P. LEFLER III JEFFREY J. STRAND JAMES P. 0•MEARA MARY J. BJORKLUNO JOHN G. KRESSEL DAYLE NOLAN CINDY L.LAVORATO MICHAEL A. NASH LUKE R.KOMAREK JOAN N. ERICKS£N ELIZABETH D. MORAN Mr. Rick Jopke City Planner 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN. 55423 A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 2000 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS402 TELEPHONE !612) 333 -OS43 July 8, 1982 Res Family Memorial Funeral Services Dear Rick: Ciy c I:;4.....� ... You recently asked this office to comment upon the zoning implications of a proposal by Gill Brothers' Funeral Chapels, Inc. to locate a funeral chapel in Richfield to provide simplified funeral services. The details of the proposal were set out in your letter of June 25, 1982, and the attachment thereto. Based upon our review of our zoning ordinance, we conclude that the proposed use is permitted only in the general commercial and industrial districts of the City and then only after the issuance of a special use permit. Funeral homes and mortuaries are prohibited in C -1 districts [Section 3.32, Subdivison 1(6)]. The proposed use, a family memorial funeral service, would appear to be a "funeral home" as that term is used in the above cited section. The fact that the activities do not involve those of a mortuary, or are substantially scaled down, does not, in our opinion, alter the essential use proposed - a funeral home. Section 3.33, Subdivision 2(1), permits "undertaking estab- lishments" in the general commercial districts of the City upon the issuance of a special use permit. Section 3.34, Subdivision 1(1) likewise permits undertaking establishments in industrial districts upon the obtaining of a special use permit. The term "undertaking establishment" is not defined, but we conclude that the proposed use is a "funeral establishment" as defined in LAW OFFICES LIEFEVERE9 LEFLER, KENNEDY, ® °®RIEN & DRAWZ Rick Jopke Page 2 7/7/82 Minnesota Statutes §149.08 and would therefore be entitled to be established in the general commercial, and industrial districts of the City upon the issuance of a special use permit. I hope that this answers your inquiry; if you have any further questions, please advise. JBD <kb 0 LOWr� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 303 Agenda October 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance to Reduce the Required Sideyard Setback for Accessory Buildings to Construct Garage, 7437 Emerson Avenue Proposal Mr. Douglas Rosek has submitted a request to allow the construction of a new 16' x 30' unattached garage to be located forward of the front building line on the front half of the lot abutting the street; and to reduce the required sideyard setback for accessory buildings from two feet to 0 feet. Presently, no garage exists on the site. The proposed structure will be set back from the front property line approx- imately 40 feet. Entry to the garage will be from the west, Emerson Avenue. Zoning Ordinance Requirements Section 3.30, subdivision 5, of the zoning ordinance re- quires a minimum side yard setback of two feet for accessory uses in single- family interior lots. Subdivision 5 (f -2) states that no accessory building shall encroach upon the half of the lot abutting the street, nor be situated forward of the front building line. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists three con- ditions which must be present before a variance can be granted. Staff Findings The staff reviewed the request against the three conditions for granting variances and found the following: 1. It is the opinion of the staff that special conditions do exist on the site. The two existing structures, resi- dential and accessory, are located on the rear half of the lot, and both buildings conform to the required set- backs. However, the location of these structures limits alternative sites to construct the proposed garage. As • • 0 Council Letter No. 303 -2- October 11, 1982 stated, the front yard setback for the proposed garage is approximately 40 feet, compared to the average set - back of 37 feet for this block. There are no special conditions present which would justify the zero side yard setback request. 2. It is the opinion of the staff that denial of the applica- tion would not prevent reasonable use of the property. The applicant could continue the residential use of the property. The applicant could consider an alternative design and location for the proposed garage. An alterna- tive design and /or location could be constructed at or behind the front building line and meet the required side yard setbacks for accessory buildings. 3. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposal would be detrimental to the public welfare. The public safety staff has determined that the zero foot sideyard setback would represent a fire hazard. The staff has also consid- ered that the abutting property owner has the right to building within five feet of the property line with an attached structure or within two feet of the property line with a detached structure. The-lack of the side yard set- back would create inadequate building separation and pre- sent a fire hazard. The applicant has submitted a signed petition of abutting and surrounding property owners supporting the variance requests. Staff Recommendation Because the proposal does not meet the three conditions necessary for granting variances, it is recommended that the variance be denied. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommended, by a 5 -3 vote, to deny the variance request. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner KN /eja • • 0 r4) -1/0 t ai -A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 28, 1982 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ahlquist; Commissioners Ketcham, A. Anderson, Kauth, Hoverson, Luettinger, McDermott, and T. Anderson. Council Liaison Ludeman. ME14BERS ABSENT: Commissioner Kritzman. STAFF PRESENT: Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director; Rick Jopke, City Planner; Judy Kunz, Admini- strative Aide; Kevin Rasmussen, Planning Intern. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M /Luettinger, S /Hoverson to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of August 24, 1982 and the special Planning Commission meeting of September 7, 1982. Motion carried. ITEM #1, CASE #82 -RZ -4, REZONING NORTHEAST CORNER OF 66TH STREET AND QUEEN AVENUE Mr. Jopke presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Ron Krank of Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson, Architects, represent- ing the applicant, appeared in support of the requested change. M /Ketcham, S /A. Anderson to close the hearing. Motion carried 8 -0. M /Luettinger, S /Ketcham to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning at the northeast corner of 66th and Queen from MR to C -2. Motion carried 8 -0. ITEM #2, CASE #82 -V -12, VARIANCE AT 7437 EMERSON AVENUE SOUTH Mr. Rasmussen presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Douglas Roske, applicant, appeared in support of the application. Lisa Bergeron, 7435 Emerson, appeared in favor of the request. M /Ketcham, S /McDermott to close the hearing. Motion carried 8 -0. M /Hoverson, S /Ketcham to recommend to the City Council denial of the requested zero sideyard variance at 7437 Emerson. CWZ Motion carried 8 -0. (Based on concern that it infringed on the neighbor and effectively rendered a part of the yard unusable by limiting the location of potential garage construction.) M /McDermott, SIT. Anderson to recommend that the City Council grant the variance to allow the garage to be located on the front half of the lot. Motion failed 3 -5 (Hoverson, Luettinger, Ahlquist, A. Anderson, Kauth against.) M /Hoverson, S /Luettinger to recommend to the City Council denial of the variance to allow the garage to be located on the front half of the lot. Motion carried 5 -3. (The three persons casting dissenting votes noted no special circumstances except that other alternatives are available.) ITEM #3, CASE #82 -V -13, VARIANCE, 6720 NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH Mr. Rasmussen presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Frank Riley, 6915 Portland, representing St. Peter's Church appeared in support and answered questions regarding details of the proposed sign. M /Ketcham, S /McDermott to close the hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Luettinger expressed concern about allowing larger signs, and recommended a delay to gather data on existing signs. Chairman Ahlquist suggested that illuminated institutional signs be added as an allowed use in R zones with appropriate limits on height and area. M /Ketcham, S /McDermott to recommend that the City Council grant a sign variance at 6720 Nicollet Avenue to allow St. Peters Church to construct a freestanding, illuminated sign, provided that the sign not be any larger than those of other Richfield churches. Motion carried 8 -0. ITEM #4, CASE #82- SP -13, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, CHUCK E. CHEESE AT SOUTHDALE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER Mr. Jopke presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Marc Teren, 7201 York Avenue South, one of the general franchise owners, appeared in support and also agreed to withdraw the wine license request if required for approval of the application. The following neighbors appeared in opposition to the request: s me Robert Hormadko, 6439 Vincent Avenue South Bob Solheim, 6425 Vincent Avenue South Bob Praus, 6408 Vincent Avenue South Walt Burris, 6445 Vincent Avenue South Hermine Spading, 6438 Vincent Avenue South M /Hoverson, S /Ketcham, to close the hearing. Motion carried. M /Hoverson, S /T. Anderson to recommend that the City Council approve a special use permit to allow Chuck E. Chesse to serve wine at a site in the Southdale Square Shopping Center. Motion failed 3 -5. (Ahlquist, McDermott, Ketcham, Luettinger, A. Anderson opposed.) M /Luettinger, S /Ketcham to recommend to the City Council denial of the special use permit for Chuck E. Cheese to serve wine at South - dale Square Shopping Center. Motion carried 5 -3. (Commissioners expressed concern with adequate parking and increasing intensity of uses in the center.) ITEM #5, CASE #82 -RZ -3, MR -2 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES HEARING Mr. Jopke presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. M /Ahlquist, S /McDermott to recommend that the City Council rezone property to MR -2 if there are 17 or more units on parcels which have an area of less than one acre, and which are presently zoned MR. Motion carried 8 -0. M /Ahlquist, S /Luettinger to recommend that the City Council rezone property to MR -2 if there are 3 -17 dwelling units on parcels which are currently zoned MR and which meet the MR -2 lot area and width requirements. It is recommended that the parcels which do not meet the lot area and width requirements be zoned MR -1 or R, with the exception of four parcels listed on page 4 of the list of properties which were distributed to Planning Commission members in August along with the staff report on this item. (This list contained all of the apartments in Richfield and outlined the number of units pre- sent along with lot areas and other relevant information.) Motion carried 8 -0. -4- ITEM #6, INFORMATION LETTER #24, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FAMILY MEMORIAL FUNERAL CHAPELS IN C -1 LIMITED BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICTS BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Mr. Jopke presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. Neil McGraw, owner of Gill Brothers Mortuary, appeared in support of the proposed ordinance. M /Ketcham, S /Hoverson to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance to allow family memorial funeral chapels in C -1 limited business zoning districts with a special use permit, with the following changes: 1) The word "immediate" should be added before the word "family" in Subdivision 1, Paragraph (4)(b)(3); and 2) That paragraphs 4c and 4d of Subdivision 1 regarding public visitations be deleted. Motion carried 8 -0. ITEM #7, INFORMATION LETTER #2, AIRPORT NOISE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING AND AIRPORT SAFETY ZONING Mr. Jopke presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. M /Luettinger, S /A. Anderson to set the October Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, October 19, 1982. Motion carried 8 -0. ADJOURNMENT: 10:50 PM Connie Hoverson, Secretary Richfield Planning Commission �* y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 302 Agenda October 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance to Allow Installation of Illuminated Sign, St. Peter's Church Proposal Mr. Frank Riley, representing St. Peter's Catholic Church, has submitted a variance application to allow the installation of a 5' x 8' double -face internally illuminated sign. The prop- osed sign is to be located on the northeast corner of the school church property. The sign would carry church name, address, and a motif. The property is zoned "R" single family resident- ial. Zoning Ordinance Requirements 1. Section 3.36, subdivision 1 of the zoning ordinance states that only non - illuminated signs not exceeding 10 square feet in area are allowed in "R" single family residential districts. 2. Section 3.49, subdivision 7, states conditions to be met regarding location of ground signs. 3. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists three conditions which must be present before a variance can be granted. Staff Review The staff reviewed the request against the three conditions for granting variances and found the following: 1. It is the opinion of the staff that no special conditions exist affecting this site or buildings which are not uncommon to similar uses in this area and surrounding districts. 2. It is the opinion of the staff that denial of this application will not prevent reasonable use of this 0 • • Council Letter No. 302 -2- October 11, 1982 property. A sign conforming to the ordinance can be installed which would require no variance. 3. It is the opinion of the staff that the size and location of the proposed sign does not adversely affect the wel- fare of persons working or residing in the neighborhood. The proposed sign meets all setback requirements for ground supported signs. Staff Recommendation Because the proposal does not meet the three conditions necessary for granting variances, the planning staff recommends that the variance be denied. The city manager, however, recom- mends approval. If the city council wishes to approve this variance request, the staff would recommend a stipulation that the internal illumination of the sign be mechanically controlled to automatically shut off at 11 p.m., and that the sign be re- duced to a 4" x 8' sign. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the request to construct an internally illuminated ground sign with the stipulation that the sign does not exceed the area and height of existing illuminated church signs within the City of Richfield. A survey of other church - related signs in Richfield has indicated that the largest ones have an area of 4' x 8', or 32 square feet. Therefore, the recommendation of the planning commission should be construed as approving a 4' x'81 double illuminated sign, rather than the 5' x 8' sign requested by the applicant. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner I -, u 0 t q � i ' J l� A i IL 7 y f �I C ! = J-4 .3p, ; - - -V! eo, 73 Y-Z QaLLI ccl -34 41 ui i — Ul a:'614 Lai ZI larva -trm* CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Subject: Staff report regarding existing dimensions, area, and height of internally illuminated church ground signs. Community Development staff surveyed six churches within the Richfield community that had installed internally illuminated ground signs. The survey results are provided for your information. Church Wooddale Baptist Richfield Evangelical Mt. Calvary Lutheran St. Nicholas Episcopal Berea Lutheran Woodlake Lutheran Greatest Area and Height: Average Area and Height: Dimensions Area Height 5 x 3 15 sq. ft. 7' 2" 4 x 4 16 sq. ft. 6' 4" 6 x 3 18 sq. ft. 5' 6 x 4'6" 27 sq. ft. 6' 7 x 4 28 sq. ft. 6' 8 x 4 32 sq. ft. 7' 32 sq. ft. 7' 2" 24 sq. ft. 6' 3" CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 301 Agenda October 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Resolution P —ravid ng —f-or Po- 1 -1-ing Places and Designating Judges for General Election There is a resolution on the council agenda for October 11, 1982 designating polling places for the general election to Tuesday, November 2, 1982. This resolution also provides for election judges at this election. It is recommended that the city council adopt the resol- ution attached to this council letter. Respectfully submitted, 4<L q"LA61, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: City Clerk KN /eja RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING-FOR POLLING PLACES AND DESIGNATING JUDGES FOR STATE WIDE GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 2, 1982 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. That there will be a General Election on Tuesday, November 2, 1982... 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 No. 1 Mt. Calvary Educational Bldg. 6541 - 16th Avenue South Election Judges: Chairperson: Shirley Gisselquist (D) AM PM Student it u Is Is Election Judges: Student If Martha Siddy (R) Ralph Roberts (R) Bernice T. Utter (D) Myrtle Lindgren (R) Helen Connolly (D) Shannon Kelley (D) Paula Cheli (R) Kevin Waldo (D) Jeff Roubinek (R) Lisa Songle '(D) U R. Jean Rand (0) Donald Franson (R) Ralph Roberts (R) Myrtle Lindgren (R) Helen Connolly (D) Michalene Kvaale (R) Millie Hines (0) Louise Carlson (R) Janice Nunn (D) Precinct No. 2 St. Peter's Church 67th & Nicollet Ave. So. Chairperson: Elayne Gilhousen (R) Ellen Brandon (R) Jan Bray (D) Doris Lattery (R) Ann Burkhardt (D) Mary Jane Suess (D) Gertrude Sanders (R) Karen Brandon (D) Elinor M. Kuhl (D) June Sveum (R) Lisa Stahlke (R) Joy Larson (D) Stan Mills (R) John Franson (D) Kris Knutson (D) Virginia Swanson (R) PM Ellen Brandon (R) Jan Bray (D) Doris Lattery (R) Ann Burkhardt (D) Mary Jan Suess (D) Gertrude Sanders (R) Karen Brandon (D) Marie Gera (R) Helen E. Peterson (D) Mildred Hau a (R) Susan Root (D) Virginia swanson (R) Elinor M. Kuhl (D) June Sveum (R) Precinct No. 3 Sheridan School 64th & Sheridan Avenue mouth Election Judges: Chairperson: Joyce Emerson (R) AM PM Lois Awes (D) Rose Hoppenrath (R) John Gera (0) Lucille Brandell (R) Linda Bloomgren (D) Student Linda Stahlke (R) to John Driscoll (D) is Karen Kindberg (R) Kaisone Wathanaphone (D) Rachelie Brekken (R) Alice Dickinson (R) Lois Awes (0) Rose Hoppenrath (R) John Gera (D) Lucille Brandell (R) Linda Bloomgren (D) Virginia Nitke(D) Jack Foeller (R) Donna Peterson (R) Precinct No. 4 St. Richards School 7540 Penn Avenue South Election Judges: Chairperson: Dave Arnold (R) FTT Carolyn Walker (D) Ethel Hommes (R) Catherine Alfana (D) Beverly Strombeck.(R) Mary Lou Janco (D) Student Jeff Duncan (R) of Cathy Johnson (D) to Stephen Laven (R) " Lisa Madsen (D) z Carolyn Walker (D) Ethel Hommes (R) Catherine Alfano (D) Beverly Strombeck (R) Mary Lou Janco (D) Maxine Evans (R) Lois Ball (D) Esther Anderson (R) Jaclyn Schwab(D) Precinct Flo. 5 Richfield Jr. High School(formerly West) 75 & Oliver Avenue South Election Judges: Chairperson: Phyllis Reinmuth (R) AM Beverly Stelman (D) Coral Corey (D) Kois Karnas (R) Esther Wiedenmeyer (D) Student Jackie Lucy (R) It Chris Anglesey (D) is Lisa Nibbe (R) " Chris Dickinson (D) It Kathy Newton (R) PM Beverly Stelman (D) Coral Corey (0) Lois Karnas (R) Esther Wiedenmeyer (D) Marie B. Nyman Donna Jordahl (�R) ) Maxine Evans (R) Dave Zoltners (D) Frances `aunlaugson (R) Precinct No. 6 Central Schooi Bld Election Judges: AM 7145 Harriet Ave. South Chairperson: Betty Obenchain (D) Betty Halloran (R) Pat Brenner (D) Rae Pritchard (R) Gladys Hayden (D) Alice Strom (R) Student Bruce Woida (D) " Christy Kingsley (R) of James Carlson (D) Is Lisa Strom (R) Precinct No. 7 Election Judges: 'Chairperson: Eunice Johnson (D) Pat Farnham (R) Rosemary Reynolds (D) Rosemary Peritz (R) Fabiola Sullivan (D) Ella Haight (R) James Gilhousen (D) Pauline Huber (R) Clara Darsow, (D) Bernadette Lais (R) Student Dick Christopher (D) Laurie Rossow (R) if Scott Leffler (D) Teresa Sherry (R) Chris Snowden (D) PM Betty Halloran (R) Pat Brenner (D) Rae Pritchard (R) Gladys Hayden (D) Alice Strom (R) Barb Vinge (D) Elaine McNamara (R) Kathleen Leckner (D) James Neuhart (D) Portland School 72nd and 4th Avenue South Donna Vidas (R) PMf Eunice Johnson (D) Pat Farnham (R) Rosemary Reynolds (D) Rosemary Peritz (R) Fabiola Sullivan (D) Ella Haight (R) James Gilhousen (D) Pauline Huber (R) Clara Darsow (D) Bernadette Lais (R) Lillian Pearson (R) Betty Alpaugh (D) Gertrude Skulborstad (R) Lorraine iNalki (D) Precinct No. 8 Richfield Intermediate School (formerly East) 7000.12th Avenue South Election Judges: Chairperson: Gertie Herll(D) AM Ilene G. Holen (R) Pat Bunting (D) Loraine Watson (R) Janet Halbur (D) Joyce Rodeberg (R) Student Elizabeth Eckstein (D) It Dana Erickson (R) Michele Koziol (D) Renae Fossum (R) Karen Sepolski PM Ilene G. Holen (R) Pat Bunting (D) Loraine Watson (R) Janet Halbur (D) Joyce Rodeberg jRa Marian Horning (DJ Linnae Erhardt (R) Stephanie f-luenzhuber (D) Carol Josephs (R) Precinct No. 9 Centennial School 73rd St. & Bloomington Avenue South Election Judges: Chairperson: Corky Cosgrove (D) AM P14 Dee Hiicox (R) Dee !•ajilcox (iR) Shirley Comstock (R) Shirley Comstock (R) Barb Cook (D) Barb Cook (D) David Ophoven (D) David Ophoven (D) Harry Waller (R) Harry Waller (R) Student Carolyn Collopy (D) Lois Kovach (D) Is Tracy Deeren (R) It Rosemary Koelln (R) Richard Gustafson (D) Steve Sable (D) Monica Regan (R) Darrell Koss (R) Alternates: Democrat Republican Ms. Ebba Bergin Janes Jungels Rudolph Hanson • Susann Ruzicka Rita Feddena Janice Andersen Florence Habegger Blanche Goodin Audrey Winslow Philip.Carney Sue Lewis Stephanie Tyson Lorayne Sutton Patricia O'Hare Jane Nelson Margaret LaVallee Alice Dickinson Lois Johnson Alta K. Harmon. Maggie Lefebvre Eloise Friend Joy Curran Margaret Wagner Franc Gray Nancy Groen Carolyn Walker Grace Dahlien Vern Kuhl Martha Prottengeier Lisa Peterson Mr. Meredith Anderson Helen Peterson Charles Fanning Ann Stensby Robert Mack Carroll Norling Mary Heileckson Muriel Findell Edythe Nye Evelyn Pangiio Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this 23rd day -of August. John Hamilton, Mayor Attest: Sylvia K Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 300 Agenda October 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Zoning District Change from MR Multiple Residential to C -2 General Commercial, E. W. Realty Company, 66th and Queen Avenue Proposal E. W. Realty Company has requested a zoning district change from MR Multiple Residential to C -2 General Commercial for the property located at the northeast corner of 66th and Queen Avenue. Such rezoning would permit the development of a parking lot to provide additional parking for a 9,147 square foot addition to the adjacent shopping center. The subject property is currently an undeveloped vacant lot owned by the applicant. Staff Findings 1. The rezoning of this property would not constitute spot zoning. The site abuts a C -2 general commercial zoning district to the east and there is also a C -2 general commercial zoning district immediately across 66th Street on the south. The site does abut an MR multiple residence on the south, and an MR multiple residence zoning district to the north. There is, however, a significant elevation difference between the two properties. The MR zoned property to the north of the site is considerably higher than the site and than the adjacent commercial uses. The site is at the same level as the adjacent commercial uses. This grade differential would provide a natural separation of commercial and residential uses. 2. Because of the existing commercial uses south and east of the site, and the high traffic volumes (approximate- ly 18,000 vehicles per day), development of residential uses as allowed by current MR zoning designation of the site may not be appropriate. The residential uses would be subjected to considerable noise, traffic, trash, air pollution and other negative impacts associ- ated with automobiles and commercial uses. Council Letter No. 300 -2- October 11, 1982 3. The proposed parking lot use would not in and of itself generate additional trdffic on adjacent streets. The applicant has also indicated that access to the parking lot would be provided from the existing curb cut and parking lot to the east, and that no access would be provided from Queen Avenue. This would dis- courage additional cars from shortcutting through the residential area to the north. 4. Major improvements are being scheduled for the Penn Avenue - 66th Street intersection in 1984. Prelimin- ary plans developed by Hennepin County indicate that additional right -of -way will have to be acquired along the north side of 66th Street between Queen Avenue and Penn Avenue. Such acquisition could severely limit the use of this lot. The current lot size is 70 feet by 125 feet and the area is 8,750 square feet. Prelimin- ary plans indicate that an additional 20 feet of right - of -way may have to be acquired from the subject proper ty, which would leave a 50 foot by 125 foot lot with an area of 6,250 square feet. Both the existing lot area of 8,750 square feet and the 6,250 square foot lot remaining after right -of -way acquisition are below the minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet which is re- quired by the Richfield zoning ordinance for duplex uses. The 6,250 square foot lot is also below the minimum lot area for a single family dwelling. Any development of the site after the acquisition would require setback variances also, because of the narrowness of the lot and the steep bank on the north side of the site. Based on the above information, it would appear that if the anticipated additional right -of -way is acquired, the property could not be developed without-the city granting numerous variances. If the variances were not granted, it could be construed that the city would be denying the property owner reasonable use of his prop- erty and this would probably constitute a "taking ". This could leave the city open to legal challenge. 5. If the site were rezoned to C -2 general commercial, as requested, and the additional right -of -way is acquired, the potential use of the site would also be limited. The C -2 zoning district setback requirement from a street is 40 feet. On a 50 -foot wide lot, this would leave an area six to ten feet wide available for building any kind of structure, depending on which side of the lot is considered the front, and thus, effectively preventing any structure from being built without variances. In all likelihood, the only reasonable use which could be developed without obtaining variances is a parking lot. 6. The rezoning of the property to C -2 general commercial is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Develop- ment Plan Map. The Comprehensive Development Plan Map • 0 Council Letter No. 300 -3- October 11, 1982 indicates that this site is designated as part of the medium density buffer zone. Principal uses in the medium density buffer zone include duplexes, single family dwellings and existing convenience commercial uses. The proposed C -2 zoning and general commercial use are not included as permitted uses medium density buffer areas. The comprehensive plan is meant to pro- vide the city with a general policy guide for rezonings and other matters. It is meant to guide and not govern. The city is free to amend the comprehensive plan or to make decisions based on other facts if the general welfare of the community is protected. In summary, the staff investigation indicates that if addi- tional right -of -way needs to be acquired as indicated by prelim- inary Hennepin County plans, for intersection improvements, the only reasonable use of the site without the city granting numerous variances would be for parking. Parking as a principal use would only be permitted in a commercial zoning district. Parking as an accessory use would be permitted in any district, but would have to be contiguous to the principal use. The grade and street separ- ations of this site dictate that usable.parking could only be de- veloped as an accessory use to the shopping center abutting the site to the east, which would require the site to be rezoned to C -2 general commercial. Staff Recommendation While the staff is generally reluctant to recommend against the comprehensive plan, the facts in this case indicate that re- zoning of the site to C -2 general commercial, as requested, is appropriate. It is, therefore, recommended that the city council give first reading approval to the attached zoning ordinance amend- ment, and schedule a public hearing and second reading consider- ation of this ordinance for October 25, 1982. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the re- quest for a zoning district change be granted. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Attorney City Clerk KN /ej a ii �i � � 1 IC/) AIII� M It l�r I> lz 0 C. a o a i o t N OI WEST 65TH STREET k- i IV O . 1 _ I a is WEST 665TH STREET � 9 • � Ni >� O ins � I � i o. n N� at l qJ 9 N OBI �' .S ~tea• a N ± i u•uOm • u a' a • bN to 00 GI �� • vOl 8..0 mOm Ty 999 zz 2 mm Mi Multiple-Residential General Comnercial 0.) _Q5 , LLJ CC -.1 Z ;— LQ CY cz LL Site 66th 7**S I L IL 1 74 S T. LU (L 17 A —.al. — LLI 14 z !7 297 1 13 .mod i ERR- 12 19 7 t6 5 ,r'T Li jJ L4 �115 IC LLi .9--z > cz LL 2v ERR- 12 19 7 t6 5 ,r'T Li jJ L4 �115 IC LLi .9--z > t6 5 ,r'T Li jJ L4 �115 IC LLi .9--z > LLi .9--z > _ At _ . I r .w e�T'.i�•� r .« m .« axe w `■m r.w m w m w m ww m A mQ • lw .• m w m rr m M 1 Im N /' m aw N m .i•1• :• �e)♦al m w�x� r =one m 6w m um� r n... r .... r ..w. M .wxr r ••.� r �Y w .•w r ..a••� .r t e x • x • t e : x • x m .w r .w m wax• m .w r .. • r. m .« 1 :a wpv O 3 ' w� • • IV mY 7w m« r .aere•N H m .r V PM— s r s« m or • 3w Sam m « e sw �r an a! M m « aw wm• . -m N w M M M 7w fie)• �m T!• :♦ .\dMwm f -� m mmomm t• mw m •r• z a• "k— a r +ww a m Mwr Im A ' W m xo =2 1rY�� r .a.• > r —W Mix Q m .max W r r.w r •■Yr S r ww mz r w Lu LUr • ++xw• T S. w w.x (/c� r wr• CL r.w..� r .�• p .. a• .r. U r rn - ti x '!_OO �' � 2 is .•® r °n T Yo e m o.e r .► � � � a z • � m oa r swnss »r t•'• t° - r reset: If r mBC a s .► °M ... .I r 11yftt r ° r a I�11. ttt�l.l sates. - -- -- -- io aces ease mom No -- - sera Mr. - sOT: son=� -moo L��1 i wa - - �• �� w..° 'l.,�L eo sawn- _ �. - --. - _ _ s sus ��. - ��' mss' •- - - _.. - o0 4ti - r 1 1 '• i _ m r,w, le��i liiilirt itita d :�� eo � ,. 1 i.r.•e P P amnlow 1. ar MON, - -- �.. gloom �j�• \ °�t°!M '° a., a� -. r .® ° \.7C..°+.� ao son ° 'a s r ..AM s� moat+ °— ..� s Fm ® O m i `� uo moos c JL� m s ! a r J woo r mr. 1 1 r w o �. r 'Mom" o tAo m mO gs r� _ — N 1A .sawn r oar _ low m sra a' = _® a r sra e , �litill ltt y m 4e C n• '7 tt r.mm• 1AAAIC : USm ..as. _ it shit t 1 p C� w iL ....ww - + °�°�sww�ay..rr�++a� �:s'Y� ° °Ctirrr�•r.rare�.rr •sm _ °° . �- 1 i+ .w.. t i • s t t : 4 Bill No. ORDINANCE NO. AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.29, Subdivision 2 of such code is hereby amended in the following respects; (1) Appendix C, Section 3 is amended by adding the following new paragraph 77: (77) Lot 3, Block 3 of Harry Tickner's subdivision of Lot 15, Richfield Gardens. (2) Appendix C, Section 4, Paragraph 6 is amended to read as follows: (b) That area lying between the center lines of Russell and Queen Avenues and the center lines of 65th and 66th Streets except Lot 3, Block 3 of Harry Tickner's Subdivision of Lot IT,—Richfield Garde—. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor �*9G CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 299 Agenda October 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Bid - Public Safety Vehicle On September 21, 1982, bids were opened for the purchase of a 3/4 ton truck chasis as a replacement vehicle for the fire rescue unit operated by the Department of Public Safety. The bid tabulation sheet is attached. It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that the bid be awarded to the low bidder, Freeway Ford, in an amount of $12,426. Funds for this purchase are available in the Central Garage Revolving Fund and the Fire Vehicle Reserve Fund. Respectfully submitted, _ Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Public Safety Director Finance Director KN /ej a 6 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening September 21, 1982 One Three- Quarter Ton Pick -Up Truck Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk; who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for One Three- Quarter Ton Pick -Up Truck, as advertised in the official newspaper on September 8, 1982. Present: Joyce Wilde, City Manager's Designee Tom Morgan, Public Safety Director Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY TOTAL BID COST Jerry Palmer's Southdale Ford B.B. 5% $12,700 Freeway Ford . B.B. 5% $12,426 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of September 27, 1982. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk -#'7 D CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 298 Agenda October 11, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Source of Funding for CP 765, Alley Maintenance On September 27, 1982, the city council approved a resolution adopting the assessment roll for city project 765, alley mainten- ance, for the period April 1, 1981 through March 31, 1982. The Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund has sufficient cash balance to provide interim financing for this project. The fund would be able to retail all of the special assessments levied, and the proceeds from the collections would then restore the monies necessary to close the project. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing temporary financing of this project from the Permanent Revolving Improvement Fund. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Finance Coordinator Administrative Services Director KN /ej a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND TO CP 765, ALLEY MAINTENANCE TO PROVIDE INTERIM FINANCING OF SAID PROJECT WHEREAS, the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that a Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund to be used for the purpose of financing local improvements; and WHEREAS, the ordinance states that the proceeds of said fund may be used to provide interim financing of capital ex- penditures for projects of the city by resolution of the city council; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to transfer funds to provide interim financing for CP 765, Alley-Maintenance; and WHEREAS, the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund would assume collections of the levied special assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by resolution of the City Council of the City of Richfield that $27,658.43 from the Perm- anent Improvement Revolving Fund of the City be transfered to CP 765, Alley Maintenance, for the purpose of providing interim financing. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 11th day of October, 1982. John Hamilton I Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk