The URL can be used to link to this page

02-26-08 Agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM 7001 HARRIET AVENUE 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of February 12, 2008; (2) Special City Council Worksession of February 12, 2008; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of February 12, 2008 COUNCIL DISCUSSION 1. Council discussion . Hats Off To Hometown Hits , Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 2. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, fhe individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of first reading of transitory ordinance authorizing construction of storm sewer lift station in Augsburg Park and scheduling public hearing and second reading for March 25,2008 S.R. No. 47 B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing donation of used computer equipment to Independent School District #280 S.R. No. 48 C. Consideration of approval of amended resolution authorizing use of funds for 2008 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program S'.R. No 49 D. Consideration of approval of resolution extending a commitment for a nine month period that the City will not sell, or encumber through easement or license or .otherwise, any land that it owns within area covered in Preliminary Agreement between Richfield HRA and TOLD Development Company and extending right-of- entry agreement for same area S.R. No. 50 E. Consideration of approval of work proposal from WSB& Associates to provide final design and construction inspection services for 73rd Street and First Avenue Storm Sewer Project Improvement S.R. No. 51 F. Consideration of approval of resolution accepting $50,000 Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program federal grant to perform Richfield Arterials Design Study and hiring engineering consulting firm, Howard R. Green Company, to conduct study S.R. No. 52 . G. Consideration of approval of 2008 renewal of EI Jalapeno's 'off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license (tabled from February 12,2008) S.R. No. 53 Notes: 4. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCES 5. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amending Subsections 1125.03, 1188.19 and 1195.09 of City Code related to parking and zoning regulations for car wash, therapeutic massage and auto detailing establishments Staff Report No. 54 Notes: 6. Consideration of second reading of new Section 550 of City Code related to floodplain management regulations Staff Report No. 55 Notes: RESOLUTION 7. Consideration of resolution approving provisions of2008-2009 labor agreement with 911 Dispatchers Law Enforcement Labor Services Local 225 Staff Report No. 56 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 8. Consideration of recommended streetscape design concepts for reconstruction of portions of 75th Street, 76th Street, 11th Avenue, 72nd Street and Diagonal Boulevard in conjunction with Metropolitan Council's Sanitary Sewer Project Staff Report No. 57 Notes: RESOLUTION 9. Consideration of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of partial right-of-way takings at 700-1150 West 78th Street, 7745 Lyndale Avenue and 400 West 78th Street needed to complete Lyndale Avenue bridge over 1-494 project Staff Report No. 58 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 10. City Manager's report Notes: 11. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) . Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 12. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 3A 47 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2008 REpORT PREPARED By: KRISTIN ASHER, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: rrr ri DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the construction of a storm sewer lift station in Augsburg Park and scheduling of a public hearing and second reading for March 25, 2008. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the first reading of the transitory ordinance authorizing the construction of a storm sewer lift station in Augsburg Park and schedule a public hearing and second reading for March 25, 2008. I II. BACKGROUND I Augsburg Park periodically experiences flooding due to high rain events because the park's pond does not currently have an outlet. Historically, when the water level gets high enough to flood and threaten the surrounding trees and park amenities a portable pump has been used to pump the water from the pond to a nearby storm drain moving the water over to Wood Lake. Rental of the pumps has been expensive and draining down the pond could take up to a week. In addition, additional water will be conveyed to Augsburg Pond with the construction of the 73rd Street and 1st Avenue Storm Sewer Project. 0226FirstReadAugsburg Staff is recommending that a lift station be installed in the park and a pipe be constructed to automatically pump excessive storm water from the pond into the drainage system which conveys the water to Wood Lake. - In 2007, the Community Services Commission and City Council included the construction of a lift station in Augsburg Park as a high priority in the development of the City's Comprehensive Surface Water Plan. Although the estimated cost of the Augsburg Park Lift Station Project is less than the $500,000 that triggers the need for a transitory ordinance, there is no guarantee that the bids received will not exceed that amount. In order to avoid the possibility of having to delay the project start date to go through the ordinance process and risk not having spent down the bond proceeds by October 2008, staff recommends moving forward with the transitory ordinance at this time. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . Pursuant to Section 8.04 of the City Charter, any capital improvement on City owned property which has an estimated cost exceeding $500,000 or expenditures for design and engineering exceeding $75,000 must be approved by ordinance after a public hearing. . With City Council approval, a public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the construction of a storm sewer lift station in Augsburg Park are scheduled on March 25, 2008. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The proposed funding of the lift station is the 2006 bond proceeds from the sale of a Storm Sewer Utility Bond. The bond proceeds must be spent down by October 2008 for the City to avoid arbitrage. . Although the estimated cost of the Project is less than the $500,000 that triggers the need for a transitory ordinance, there is no guarantee that the bids received will not exceed that amount. Staff is recommending that the council follow a conservative approach of voluntarily following the charter procedures. I C. FINANCIAL I . Cost estimates prepared by WSB & Associates indicate the project to cost $457,041.63. I D. LEGAL I. . The City Attorney has determined that Section 8.04 of the City Charter does not apply to the project, because the estimated cost is below $500,000 and because engineering and design fees will not exceed $75,000. . The City Attorney has indicated that nothing in the charter prevents the voluntary use of the hearing procedures for projects that are not covered by Section 8.04. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Council may choose totake no action at this time. Iv. ATTACHMENTS . Proposed Transitory Ordinance . Map of Project Area . Project Cost Estimate I I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None. 3A-1 BILL NO. J TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STORM SEWER LIFT STATION IN AUGSBURG PARK, PURSUANT TO RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER SECTION 8.04 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Backoround; findinos. 1.01. Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter requires that any capital improvement on City- owned property that has an estimated cost exceeding $500,000.00 or expenditures for design or engineering costs exceeding $75,000.00 must be approved by ordinance after a public hearing. 1.02. It is proposed that the City Council approve a capital improvement project for the improvement of property at 7201 Nicollet Avenue, Richfield MN. 1 .03. The capital improvement project consists of the construction and construction management of a storm sewer lift station at Augsburg Park (the "Augsburg Park Lift Station Project"). 1.04. The estimated construction cost of the capital improvement, excluding design and engineering costs, is $457,041.63. The estimated design and engineering costs are less than $75,000. 1.05. A public hearing was held on March 25, 2008 after due notice as required by Section 8.05 of the Richfield City Charter. . 1.06. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its inhabitants that the Augsburg Park Lift Station Project be approved. Sec. 2. Approval; effective date. 2.01. The Augsburg Park Lift Station Project is approved, and construction and construction management of the Augsburg Park Lift Station Project may proceed according to ^the procedures required by law. 2.02. The purpose of this Ordinance is to follow the procedures in Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter. This Ordinance shall not be construed to require that the City proceed with the Augsburg Park Lift Station Project; nor does it vest any rights in the Augsburg Park Lift Station Project to any individual or entity. This Ordinance shall not be construed to pre-approve any' contracts for the construction of the Augsburg Park Lift Station Project, and the City Council specifically reserves to itself the authority to approve any such contracts. The City Council reserves the right to abandon the Augsburg Park Lift Station Project or to modify elements of the Augsburg ParK Lift Station Project, if the Council deems abandonment or modification to be in the public interest. 2.03. This ordinance is effective 30 days following its publication. . Adopted by the City of Richfield this 25th day of March, 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 3A- ;;l .......: .i ., WSBI &Associales. Tile.] Drainage Improvement Project City of Richfield, MN Figure 4 - Proposed Improvements N W~E o s 125 250 . Feet : ~A-3 Augsburg Pond Lift Station Project Engineer's Estimate Richfield, Minnesota WSB Project: Augsburg Pond Lift Station Project Project Location: City of Richfield, MN WSB Project No: 01532-23 City Project No. XXXX-X Opinion of ProQable Cost Date 2/1/08 Proiect Total TAB SHEET Item Unit Estimated Estimated No. Number Descrintion Notes Unit Price ""anrilY Cost Base Bid i I 2021.501 ,MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM $25,000.00 I $25,000.00 I ; 2101.502 iCLEARING TREE $500.00 4 I $2,000.00 ! i 2101.507 'GRUBBING TREE $500.00 4 $2,000.00 I 2104.501 !REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) UN IT ! $10.00 126 , $1,260.00 i i ! 2104.501 !REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN IT , $8.00 360 , $2,880.00 ! I 2104.503 ,REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON SQFT i $10.00 24 $240.00 I ! 2104.503 I REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQYD $6.00 700 $4,200.00 i I 2104.511 !SA WCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT UN FT $7.50 i25 $937.50 i i 2104.523 iSALVAGECASTING EACH $300,00 5 $1,500.00 ! I 2105.505 iMUCKEXCA V ATION CUYD i $15.00 300 $4,500.00 2105.522 jSELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) CUYD I $14.00 100 ; i I $1,400.00 i i 2105.525 iTOPSOIL BORROW (CV) CUYD i 515.00 25 I $375.00 . I I ! 2105.535 !SALVAGE TOPSOIL.. CUYD I ~ $15.00 35 I $525.00 ! I 2112.501 ISUBGRADE PREPARATION ROADSTA ! 5100.00 2 5200.00 i ! , 2211.503 ,AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 CUYD I $15.00 140 $2,100.00 i I ! ! 2350.501 !TYPELV 3 NON WEARlNG COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON I $100.00 115 I $11,500.00 I 2350.501 jTYPELV3 WEARlNG COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON ! $120.00 80 $9,600.00 I. i . 2451.507 IGRANULAR BEDDING (CV) CUYD i $12.00 230 $2,760.00 2501.515 124" RCPIPEAPRON . EACH T $750.00 I $750.00 2503.541 liS" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 cun i UN IT [ 535.00 90 $3,150.00 2503.541 124" RCPIPESEWERDES 3006 CLV I UN IT ; $45.00 549 $24,705.00 2503.602 !CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER i EACH I $500.00 - I $500.00 i i 2506.501 [CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE-DES 484020 I UN FT I $350.00 -17.7 56,195.00 I i 2506.501 iCONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE-DESIGN SPECIAL-I (2'x3~ i UN FT ! 5350.00 3 $1,050.00 i 2506.516 ,CASTING ASSEMBLY I EACH I $350.00 2 $700.00 I I 2506.602 iCONNECT INTO EXISTING STRUCTURE i EACH I $750.00 I $750.00 I I 2511.501 lRANDOMRlPRAPCLill I CUYD I $75.00 10 $750.00 I I 1 ! 2511.515 IGEOTEXTlLEFlLTER, TYPElV SQYD I $3.00 20 560.00 I 2531.501 ! CONCR..."TE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B818 TTNFT I $12.00 180 52,160.00 i i I i 2563.601 jTRAFFICCONTROL i LUMP SUM I 55,500.00 I $5,500.00 i I 2571.502 [DECIDUOUS TREE 5' HT B&B i TREE I $350.00 3 $1,050.00 I 2571.505 jDECIDUOUS SHRUB 2' HT B&B 1 SHRUB $40.00 2 1 $80.00 , I I I I 2571.602 I TREE PROTECTION TYPE I ! EACH i $50.00 25 $1,250.00 I i ! 2572.502 !CLEAN ROOT CUTTING I UN IT $4.00 100 i . $400.00 ; I 2573.502 I SILT FENCE. TYPE REA VY DUTY I LlN FT $3.00 100 I $300.00 i I .. I 2573.505 [FLOATATION SILT CURTAIN, TYPESTILL WATER I LlN FT $15;00 100 $1,500.00 I 2573.530 ! STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION I ! EACH . $250.00 5 I $1,250.00 2573.602 ! TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE I i EACH $3,500.00 I $3,500.00 2575.505 I SODDING TYPE LAWN I SQYD $3.00 2000 . i $6,000.00 Spec I !SCREEN MANHOLE I I EACH : $10,000.00 I $10,000.00 I I ! Spec 2 I LIFT STATION (INCL. FORCEMAlN) I I EACH $250,000.00 I i $250,000.00 I Spec 3 I REINFORCED TURF FOR ACCESS DRIVE i I SQYD I $15.00 190 i ~I , I I SUBTOTAL I CONTINGENCY 1 .. I. .. EST-fMA:'fEIH' --- ... ."-$45T.64I.-;6g- I , II i C:IDocuments and SettingslKAsher\Local SettingslTemporary Internet FlleslOLK42\Augsburg LS Fees Opinion of Cost.xls 2/19/2008 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 3B 48 ...... STAFF REpORT RIGI-1FIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2008 REpORT PREPARED By: SALLY MORTON, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: [j' .~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing the donation of used City computer equipment to the Richfield school district. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing the donation of used computer equipment to Independent School District #280. .1 II. BACKGROUND I The City has 21 PCs with keyboards and mice and 5 laptops that have been replaced with new equipment. The retired equipment is still in good operating condition, but the technology no longer performs adequately in the City's environment. The Richfield School District accepts donations of used computers and is interested in receiving this retired equipment. The City has made several similar donations to the School District in the past. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I _ . The retired equipment was purchased with tax dollars from the same taxpayers that fund the school district. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES . N/A 0226pcdonation I C. FINANCIAL I . The City receives about $1.25 for each PC we recycle (per the terms of the State of Minnesota contract), but we must transport the equipment to the recycling center in the Midway area of St. Paul. . A quick survey by City staff revealed that similar used PC equipment is selling for $175 - $300 and laptops for $300 - $6050. Ours would be worth less because they are not refurbished, do not have a warranty, and the PCs do not include a monitor. . If the City were to sell this equipment there would be costs associated with that effort and staff time would be diverted from other projects. I D. LEGAL I . The donation to the school district is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.85 which provides: "Any county, city, town, or school district may transfer its personal property for a nominal or without consideration to another public corporation for public use when duly authorized by its governing body." I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Direct staff to take the equipment to a recycling center for disposal. . Direct staff to research options for selling the equipment. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Resolution authorizing the transfer of used computer equipment to Independent School District #280. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None. 38-1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF USED COMPUTER EQUIPMENT TO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #280 WHEREAS, the City owns some computer equipment for which it no longer has any use; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.85 permits the City to transfer this property to the School District for public use; and WHEREAS, representatives of Independent School District #280 have indicated that they will accept the donation and use it in a manner permitted by Minnesota Statutes Section 471.85. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that 21 personal computers and 5 laptop computers owned by the City be transferred to Independent School District #280. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of February, 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 3C 49 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2008 REpORT PREPARED By: JULIE URBAN, INTERIM HOUSING SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: INTERIM DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Amendment of allocation resolution for 2008 Community Development Block Grant Funds. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the amended resolution authorizing the use of funds for the 2008 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizing signature of subreceiptient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required third party agreements. I II. BACKGROUND I On February 12th the City Council held a public hearing and adopted a resolution for the distribution of 2008 Community Development Block Grant funds (CDBG). The resolution contained the following distribution for public service programs: H.O.M.E. JVS CASH Home Line $ 2,983 $ 7,700 $ 2,983 $ 15,537 022608 CDSG While submitting the COSG application to Hennepin County, it was discovered the dollar amount for Home Line and H.O.M.E. were inadvertently switched. The intention was as follows: H.O.M.E. JVS CASH Home Line $ 15,537 $ 7,700 $ 2,983 $ 2,983 I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The revised numbers for Home Line and H.O.M.E. are consistent with the funding levels of the previous years as well as with the Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) recommendation. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The revised allocation for Home Line and H.O.M.E. are consistent with the expectations of all organizations. I C. FINANCIAL I . The programs of the two organizations are based on the expectation of the corrected numbers. I D. LEGAL I . Hennepin County staff indicated that the adoption of an amended resolution would be appropriate. A public hearing is not necessary. . I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) . Do not adopt the corrected resolution I V. ATTACHMENTS . Corrected resolution. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I . N/A 3~-J RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF FUNDS FOR THE 2008 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY REQUIRED THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and WHEREAS, The City of Richfield developed a proposal for the use of CDSG funds made available to it, and held a public hearing on February 12, 2008 to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and priorities for the City's proposed use of $194,693 from the 2008 Urban Hennepin County CDSG Program. WHEREAS, the dollar amounts in the February 12, 2008 resolution were reversed for Home Line and H.O.M.E. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota approves the following projects for CDSG and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 2008 Urban Hennepin County CDSG Program with the amended dollar amounts for Home Line and H.O.M.E. Project Allocation Per Total Recommendation Proiect 1. Public Service: a. H.O.M.E. $ 15,537 b. JVS $ 7,700 c. CASH $ 2,983 d. Home Line $ 2,983 $ 29,203 2. Rehab of Owner-Occupied $ 165,490 $ 165,490 Property TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $ 194,693 $ 194,693 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize and direct the execution of the Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required Third Party Agreements on behalf of the City to implement the 2008 CDSG Program. ~dopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of February, 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 022608 CDSG AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 3D 50 ~ STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2008 REpORT PREPARED By: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: INTERIM DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~GN~ J REVIEWEDBvCITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: An extension of a commitment that the City will not sell, or encumber through easement or license or otherwise, any of the land that it owns within the area covered in the Preliminary Agreement extended between the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and TOLD Development Company. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution extending the commitment that the City will not sell, or encumber through easement or license or otherwise, any of the land that it owns within the area covered in the Preliminary Agreement between the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and TOLD Development Company and extending the Right-of-Entry Agreement for the same area. I II. BACKGROUND I On February 19, 2008 the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) considered the continuance of a Preliminary Agreement with TOLD Development Company (TOLD) for a nine month period. The purpose of the Preliminary Agreement extension is to permit the HRA to consider the results of the feasibility analysis at an upcoming meeting and have a final Development Agreement drafted 022608-TOLD Commitment Extension.doc at the end of nine months. TOLD is exploring the development feasibility for the 30- acre area between 66th and 69th Streets and between 17th Avenue and TH 77. See the attached aerial photo, which depicts the feasibility area. The City owns 23 parcels in this study area (see attached map). Under the extended Preliminary Agreement, the HRA agreed to use its best efforts to obtain an extension commitment from the City that the City will not sell or encumber any of the 23 parcels that it owns during the term of the Preliminary Agreement extension. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan has been used as a guide for the redevelopment of the Cedar Avenue Corridor. ' . The area under consideration is included in the Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan and indicates possible office, residential and retail uses. TOLD is experienced in each of these areas. . Development agreements typically have a clause restricting the HRA or the City from working with other developers or selling land that is included in the Development Agreement. . On April 24, 2007 the City Council committed to not encumber this property for a period of nine months. The City Council also granted a Right-of-Entry to these parcels for a time period coincidental with the HRA Agreement. . On November 27,2007, the City Council granted an extension of the commitment not to encumber the property along with an extension of the Right-of-Entry Agreement. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The term of the extension is nine months. . The Agreement states that the HRA shall use its best effort to receive a Commitment from the City Council that it will not sell or encumber any of the 23 parcels that it owns in the redevelopment study area. . The Agreement restricts the HRA from assisting any other developer with redevelopment of the project site. . The Agreement requires the HRA and TOLD to seek input from the neighborhood. . If development is feasible during the term of the Agreement, the HRA and TOLD will negotiate a Private Development Contract. . The Agreement excludes any parking matters with the dental clinic at 1717 East 66th Street. t C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL I . Legal counsel has reviewed the proposed resolution. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Approve the Commitment with added provisions or modifications. . Do not approve the Commitment. . Continue the consideration of the Commitment to a later meeting date. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Resolution . Map I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A B 0-1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) have established the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469; and have established within the Project Area a Redevelopment Tax Increment District (the "TIF District") and adopted a Tax Increment Financing Plan (hereinafter the "TIF Plan") for the TIF District to facilitate the financing of public improvements and redevelopment costs in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the TIF District includes land generally referred to as the Cedar Corridor; and WHEREAS, within the Cedar Corridor, the City currently owns certain parcels of land including those shown on the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the HRA has approved an extension of the Preliminary Agreement with TOLD Development Company (TOLD) which provides a process for determining whether TOLD will be able to develop portions of the Cedar Corridor; and WHEREAS, because the areas under consideration by TOLD includes parcels of land currently owned by the City, both the HRA and TOLD have requested that the City commit that, during the term of the Preliminary Agreement extended, it will not take certain actions with regard to the City-owned parcels; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously granted The United Bankers' Bank (UBB) Right-of-Entry to these parcels; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the extension is for the parties to evaluate the status of activities, and report to the HRA at its February meeting the appropriateness of any further extension; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the report and recommendation of staff, and has reviewed the request of the HRA and TOLD, and is fully informed as to the same; and . WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to facilitate and encourage redevelopment within the Cedar Corridor by making the requested commitment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that: 1. During the term of the Preliminary Agreement, extended the City will not sell or encumber through easement, license or otherwise any of the land owned by it and located within the area covered by the Preliminary Agreement. This 022608-TOLD Commitment Extension.doc 3 b-J- commitment shall not apply to any contractual obligations created prior to the date of this resolution. 2. The Right-of-Entry granted to TOLD is also extended, and will expire at the same time as the Preliminary Agreement. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit certified copies of this resolution to the HRA and TOLD. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, the 26th day of February, 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor Attest: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk (SEAL) Map of Proposed TOLD Development Area 0- 66th Street ~ ~ 67t ') \ V\/VY .^^ ~ t Street x,xx .6& CI) CI) , ~ ~ c c CI) CI) c ~ ~ ~ .c ... co - 'C co "l' ...- CI) 0 :t Street t ..... "- 68t 69 Legend ~ City-owned properties in possible redevelopment area N A 1:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Christine\Cedar Corridor\South of 66th Street\TOLD Commitment.mxd AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 3E 51 ....... STAFF REpORT R1CHFIELO CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2008 REpORT PREPARED By: KRISTIN ASHER, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 0' REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY ~ MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of awork proposal presented by WSB & Associates for the final design and construction inspection of the 73rd Street and 1st Avenue Storm Sewer Improvement Project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the hiring of WSB & Associates to provide final design and construction inspection services for the 73rd Street and 1 st Avenue Storm Sewer Improvement Project. I II. BACKGROUND .. I There has been a history of flooding at the 73rd Street and 1st Avenue intersection; .needed improvements were identified in 1988. The recommended solution is to design a system that exceeds 1 OO...year storm protection, prevents more than 6" of water from building up in the intersection during rain events, and removes the intersection from the Norby's Pond watershed and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The proposed alignment would redesign the storm sewer system at the intersection and provide infrastructure to convey the water up 1st Avenue, across 72nd Street to Augsburg Park and into Augsburg Pond (Project Map attached). , The feasibility report that recommends this alternative was discussed atthe February 12, 2008 Council Worksession. 0226WSB The project would be funded using the proceeds from the sale of the Storm Utility Bond in 2006. The bond proceeds must be spent down prior to October 2008 to avoid arbitrage. To stay on schedule the project must move forward to final design. WSB & Associates has submitted a proposal to complete the final design and perform construction inspection services for the project (proposal attached). I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY. I . The 73rd Street and 1 st Avenue Storm Sewer Project was identified as a high priority by the City Council in the City's Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The funding for the project will be provided by the 2006 Storm Utility Bond sale proceeds and must be spent down by October 2008 to avoid arbitrage. . I C. FINANCIAL I . All costs associated with the project would be provided by the 2006 Storm Utility Bond sale. . The estimated cost for final design services is $41,300. . The estimated cost for construction inspection services is $155,000. . The construction cost estimate is $1,191,485. I D. LEGAL -I . The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONtS) I . The Council may choose to approve the hiring of WSB & Associates for only the final design portion of the projeCt and request consideration of the construction inspection at a later date. . The Council may choose to take no action at this time. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Map of Project Area . WSB & Associates Final Design and Construction Services Cost Proposal . Project Cost Estimate I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None anticipated. 3~-) ......1 .. .. WSBI I & Associates. r,ze...! 73rd Street & 1st Avenue Drainage Improvement Project City of Richfield, MN Figure 4 - Proposed Improvements N W-\rE o s 125 250 -Feet ~ [;-d.- ... WSB .;i~~, Jnc, Infrastructure _ Engineering _ Planning _ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763541-4800 Fax: 763541-1700 February 19,2008 Ms. Kristin Asher City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: 73rd Street & 1 st Avenue Storm Sewer Improvement Project Final Design and Construction Services WSB Project No. 1532-22 Dear Ms. Asher: As a follow-up to our conversation last week, we are providing you this proposal to perform construction services associated with the 13rd Street and 1 st Avenue Storm Sewer Improvement Project. The tasks associated with the remaining phases of this project are outlined below: Design Phase Cost Estimate: $41,300 WSB's services during the Bidding and Contract A ward phase of the proj ect will include: The following tasks will be included in the Design phase: . Performing additional design survey and prepare topographic base map for Augsburg Park, west of tennis courts. . Coordinating Geotechnical Exploration (Performed by a subconsultant to WSB). . Preparing preliminary plans and specifications for storm sewer construction. . Preparing preliminary plans and specifications for street reconstruction. . Coordinating with private utility companies to minimize utility conflicts. . Submitting preliminary plans and specifications to the City for review and comment. . Attending preliminary design review meeting with the City. . Finalizing the plans and specifications, incorporating the City's review comments. . Assisting the City in conducting one neighborhood meeting. . Submitting finalized plans and specifications (up to 3 sets) to the City for City Council's authorization to bid. . Preparing updated cost estimate based on detailed design. . Attending City Council Meeting. . Securing necessary permits. Bidding and Contract Award Phase Cost Estimate: $3,500 WSB's services during the Bidding and Contract Award phase of the proj ect will include: . Coordinating project advertisement. . Issuing Bidding Documents. . Answering Bidder's questions. . Issuing Addenda if required. . Attending the public bid opening. . Preparing tabulation of bids. . Providing recommendation for award. K: I01532-22\Admin \DocsILTR-kasher-Ol1808.doc Ms. Kristin Asher February 19,2008 Page 2 .3 ~- 3 Construction Phase Cost Estimate: $140,000 WSB will provide full-service construction administration services for this project, acting as the primary contact for the contractor. Our services for the Construction phase will include: . Preparing Contract Documents. . Coordinating and attending the pre-con.struction meeting. . Providing monthly update letters for distribution to residents. . Construction staking. . Reviewing and processing of shop drawings and submittals. . Monitoring contractor's progress. . Addressing contractor's questions during construction. . Processing partial pay estimates. . Preparing record drawings and final closeout paperwork. . Performing Construction Observation (Full-time during storm sewer construction and street reconstruction and half-time during cleanup). Construction Phase Cost Estimate: $11,500 A sub-consultant will be needed to assist us with the geotechnical exploration activities for the design phase and the materials testing for the construction phase. Our costs for this work will be passed through at our actual cost, with no mark up. Total Estimated Cost We propose to complete the tasks outlined above on an hourly reimbursable basis totaling approximately $196,300, as itemized on the attached spreadsheet. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this proposal and look forward to working with you on this and other upcoming projects in Richfield. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-287- 7l64. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. ~6~ Steven G. Gurney, PE Proj ect Manager 0- cc: Steve Ische, WSB & Associates, Inc. Pete Willenbring, WSB & Associates, Inc. lh ACCEPTED BY: Kristin Asher City of Richfield Date 1(:\01532-22\AdminIDocsILTR-kasher-Ol1808.doc jE-4 ... WSB ESTIMATE OF HOURS AND COST RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO COMPLETE DESIGN, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS. 73RD STREET & 1ST AVENUE 2/19/2008 ..... . - 4~"'" Labor Category and Estimated Hours per Task Description Principal Sr. Project Project Engineer ~~'-~- Total Manager Manager Tech V Survey Crew Observer Technician Task Hours Total Labor Cost 1.1 Proiect Manaoement 5 5 10 20 $ 2.395.00 1.2 Desinn Survey 2 16 18 $ 2.896.00 1.3 Desion 5 15 20 $ 2.285.00 1.4 Preliminarv Plans (Estimate 24 sheets) 25 165 190 $ 15.565.00 1.5 Private Utilitv Coordination 5 15 20 $ 2.285.00 1.6 Preliminarv Snecilications 8 10 4 22 $ 2.336.00 1.7 Submit Preliminarv Plans and Specifications to the Citv for Review 3 3 6 $ 522.00 1.8 Preliminarv Cesinn Review Meetinn 2 I 2 4 $ 492.00 1.9 QAlQC Review. Preliminarv 4 4 8 $ 984.00 1.10 Obtain Permits 10 25 2 $ 3.020.00 1.11 Finalize Snecilications 5 2 7 $ 729.00 1.12 Finalize Plans 5 55 60 $ 4.785.00 1.13 Neiohborhood meetino 4 4 8 $ 984.00 1.14 Uodate Construction Cost Estimate 1 1 2 $ 183.00 1.15 QAlQC Review - Final 4 4 8 $ 1.020.00 1.16 Submit Final Plans and SDecifications to the Citv 2 1 3 $ 304.00 1.17 Attend Citv Council Meetino 2 2 4 $ 492.00 Total Estimated Hours and Fee for Design Phase Services 21 65 77 245 16 11 402 $ 41,277.00 :t;.,- Coordinate Pro'ect Advertisement 5 6 $ 431.00 2.2 Pre are Plans and Pro'ect Manual 3 4 $ 307.00 2.3 Issue Biddin Documents 2 15 17 $ 1.154.00 2.4 Answer Bidder's Questions 4 4 $ 448.00 2.5 Issue Addenda If Re uired 3 3 6 $ 549.00 2.6 Attend the Public Bid 0 enin 2 2 $ 268.00 2.7 Pre are Tabulation of Bids 2 3 $ 236.00 2.8 Provide Recommendation Letter for Award of Contract 1 1 $ 62.00 Total Estimated Hours and Fee.for Biddin and Contract Award 2 5 7 29 43 $ 3,455.00 3.1 PreDare Contract Documents 1 2 1 4 $ 420.00 3.2 Coordinate and Attend the Pre-construction Meetino 4 4 $ 448.00 3.3 Monthlv Construction Uodates to Residents 8 12 20 $ 1.640.00 3.4 Construction Stakinn 1 150 151 $ 25,171.00 3.5 Review and Process Shoo Drawinos and Submittals 2 2 $ 242.00 3.6 Monitor Contractor's Prooress lhrouoh Mtos/Site Visits 15 5 45 65 $ 7.655.00 3.7 Address Contractor's Questions 4 4 $ 484.00 3.8 Process Partial Pav Estimates 3 12 15 30 $ 2.445.00 3.9 Prenare Record Drawinns and Fmal Closeout Panerwork 1 40 15 56 $ 4.601.00 3:10 Construction Observation (Full-time for 3-1/2 months) 1010 1010 $ 96.960.00 Total Estimated Hours and Fee for Construction Phase Services 16 16 59 40 150 1037 28 1346 $ 140,066.00 Total Estimated Hours for Desion, Biddino and Construction 39 86 143 285 166 1037 68 1791 Hourlv Billino Rate $ 134.00 $ 121.00 $ 112.00 $ 76.00 $ 167.00 $ 96.00 $ 62.00 Total Cost bv Labor Classification for Design, Biddina, and Construction $ 5.226.00 $ 10.406.00 $ 16.016.00 $ 21.660.00 $ 27.722.00 $ 99,552.00 $ 4.216.00 $ 184,798.00 Geotechnical Reoor! $ 6,500.00 , Materials Samolinn and Testino $ 5,000.00 Grand Total $ 196,298.00 K:\01532-22\Admin\Oocs\Proj Budget Wksht - 021908.x1s 3k --5 73rd Street and 1st Avenue Drainage Improvement Project Engineer's Estimate Richfield, Minnesota WSB Project: Project Location: WSB Project No: City Project No. 73rd Street and 1 st A venue Drainage Improvement Project City of Richfield, MN 01532-22 XXXX-X Opinion of Probable Cost Date 2/1/08 Proiect Total TAB SHEET Item Unit Estimated I Esomated No. Number Descrinoo. Notes Unit Price auanotv Cost Base Bid 2021.501 ,MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM $35,000.00 1 $35,000.00 2051.501 MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION OF HAUL ROAD LUMP SUM $6,000.00 1 $6,000.00 2101.502 'CLEARING , TREE $500.00 18 , $9,000.00 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE $500.00 18 $9,000.00 2104.501 'REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) LlNFT $10.00 365 $3,650.00 2104.501 ,REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT $8.00 2760 $22,080.00 2104.503 ,REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON SQFT $10.00 240 $2,400.00 2104.503 ,REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQYD $6.00 7000 $42,000.00 2104.505 'REMOVE SIDEWALK , SQYD $8,00 510. $4,080.00 2104.509 ,REMOVE LANDSCAPING EACH $1,500,00 1 $1,500.00 2104.509 'REMOVE CATCHBASIN EACH $500.00 9 $4,500.00 , 2104.509 . REMOVE MANHOLE , EACH $500.00 5 $2,500,00 2104.509 'REMOVE WATER SERVICE & CURB BOX EACH $150.00 8 $1,200.00 . 2104.509 : REMOVE EX SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EACH $100.00 8 , $800.00 , 2104.511 : SA WCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LlN FT $7.50 485 $3,637.50 2104.521 ,SALVAGE FENCE LlN FT $15.00 300 $4,500.00 .2104.523 ,SALVAGE UGHT UNIT . , EACH $750.00 7 $5,250.00 2104.523 !SALVAGESIGN , EACH $200.00 14 $2,800,00 , 2104.523 : SALVAGE CASTING i EACH $300.00. 10 $3,000.00 ; 2105.522 ,SELECT GRANULAR BORROW, (CV) CUYD . $14.00 3250 $45,500.00 2105.525 'TOPSOIL BORROW (CV) CUYD $15.00 300 , $4,500.00 2105,535 : SALVAGE TOPSOIL CUYD $15.00 350 : $5.250.00 , 2112.501 : SUBGRADE PREPARATION , ROAD STA $100.00 16 , $1,600.00 , 2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 , CUYD $15.00 2500 , $37,500.00 2350.501 'TYPE LV 3 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON $50.00 1240 $62,000.00 . 2350.501 TYPE LV 3 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON $65.00 825 $53,625.00 2451.507 : GRANULAR BEDDING (CV) : CUYD $12.00 815 , $9,780.00 : 2501.515 : 60" RC PIPE APRON EACH . $1,700.00 I $1,700.00 2503.541 '18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CLIll : LlN FT $30.00 144 , $4,320.00 2503.541 :24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CLIll : LlN FT $38.00 107 $4,066.00 , 2503.541 : 30" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CLIll LlN FT $45.00 97 $4,365.00 2503.541 '42" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CLIll , LIN FT " $80.00 365 $29,200.00 2503.541 : 42" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 cuv . UN FT , $140.00 1470 $205,800.00 , 2503.541 .42" RC PIPE SEWER DES,3006 CLV-JACKED LlN FT , $900,00 100 $90,000.00 , , 2503.541 ! 60" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CUV LlN FT , $210.00 500 $105,000.00 2503.602 ; CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH $500.00 3 : $1,500.00 2503.602 :NEW WYE-CONNECT TO EXISTING SAN. SEWER , , EACH $500.00 8 $4,000.00 , 2503.602 : RECONNECT TO EXISTING SAN. SEWER EACH $250.00 8 $2,000.00 1 2503.603 16" PVC SD 26 SANITARY SERVICE LlNFT $25.00 320 $8,000.00 2504,602 ' 1" CORPORATION STOP EACH $200.00 6 $1,200.00 2504.602 ' 1" CURB STOP & BOX EACH , $180.00 6 $1,080.00 . 2504.603 ; 1" TYPE K COPPER PIPE LlNFT : $20.00 400 $8,000,00 2506.501 i CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE.DES 48-4020 LIN FT i $350.00 6 .. $2,100.00 2506,501 'CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE-DES 72-4020 LIN FT $425.00 91 $38,675.00 2506.501 'CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE-DESIGN SPECIAL-I (2'x3') LlN FT $350.00 12 $4,200.00 2506.502 'CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE-DESIGN SPEClAL-2 (3'x4') EACH , $5,500,00 4 $22,000.00 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH $350.00 8 $2,800.00 2506.516 'CASTING ASSEMBLY-SPl EACH $350.00 3 $1,050.00 2506.516 . CASTING ASSEMBL Y-SP2 EACH $1,300.00 2 $2.600.00 2506.602 'CONNECT INTO EXISTING STRUCTURE EACH $750.00 2 $1,500.00 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP CL ill CUYD $75.00 16 $1,222.50 2511.515 ,GEOTEXTILEFILTER, TYPE IV . . SQYD $3.00 33 $97.80 C:\Documents and Settings\KAsher\Local Sellings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK42\73rd-1st Fe4s Opinion of Cost.xls 2/19/2008 , :3 12 -- (p 73rd Street and 1 st Avenue Drainage Improvement Project Engineer's Estimate Richfield, Minnesota WSBProject: 73rd Street and 1st Avenue Drainage Improvement Project Project Location: City of Richfield, MN WSB Project No: 01532-22 City Project No. XXXX-X Opinion of Probable Cost Date 2/1/08 Project Total TAB SHEET Item Uoit Estimated I Estimated No. Number Descrintion Notes Unit Price o.'antitv Cost Bos. Bid 2521.501 .4" CONCRETE WAll{ SQFT S8.00 2300 SI8,400.00 2531.501 'CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B818 UNFT S12.00 2810 S33,720.00 2531.602 ,PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP EACH S400.00 3 SI,200.00 2545.602 INSTALL UGHT UNIT : EACH S500.00 7 S3,500.00 . 2557.603 'INSTALL SALVAGED FENCE UNFT S25.00 300 , S7,500.00 , 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL , LUMP SUM , S5,500.00 1 , S5,500.00 2564.602 INSTALL SIGN i EACH S250.00 4 SI,OOO.OO 2571.502 :DECIDUOUS TREE 5' HT B&B TREE , S350.00 43 SI5,050.00 2571.505 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 2' HT B&B , , SHRUB , S40.00 15 S600.00 2571.602 'TREE PROTECTION TYPE I EACH S50.00 20 , SI,OOO.OO 2572.502 'CLEAN ROOT CUTTING : UNFT S4.00 50 S200.00 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE REA VY DUTY , UNFT " $3.00 350 SI,050.00 , 2573.505 ,FLOATATION SILT CURTAIN, TYPE STILL WATER LIN FT $15.00 100 $1,500.00 , 2573.530 . STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION , EACH S250.00 ]0 $2,500.00 2573.602 TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE i EACH . S3,500.00 1 S3,500.00 2575.501 ,SEEDING i ACRE , S2,000.00 0.5 SI,OOO.OO , 2575.502 ! SEED MIXTURE250 : , POUND S25.00 40 SI,OOO.OO , 2575.505 : SODDING TYPE LAWN , i SQYO S3.00 2000 S6,000.00 , 2575.511 'MULCH MATERIAL, TYPE I ! TON S175.00 1 S175.00 2575.523 'EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 2 , SQYO S3.00 850 S2.550.00 : i i i , , : i SUBTOTAL $1 036.073.80 CONTINC $155411.07 : ESTIMATED P $1191,484.87 i C:IDocuments and SettingslKAsherlLocal SeltingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLK42173rd-1st Feas Opinion of Cost.xls 2/19/2008 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 3F 52 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2008 REpORT PREPARED By: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ u( REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration to accept a federal grant of $50,000 to perform the Richfield Arterials Design Study and approve the hiring of a consultant to perform the Study. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: . Approve attached resolution to accept a federal grant of $50,000. . Approve the hiring of Howard R. Green Company, an engineering consulting firm, to conduct the Richfield Arterials Design Study at a cost of $50,000. I II. BACKGROUND I The City of Richfield applied for and received a 100% federal grant under the Non- Motorized Transportation Pilot Program, sponsored by Congressman James Oberstar, in the amount of $50,000 to conduct a study of the design of Richfield's four north-south arterials: Lyndale Avenue, Penn Avenue, Portland Avenue and Nicollet Avenue. These roads were platted, designed and built in the 1940's, 1950'sand 1960's. Travel demand has changed significantly over the past 50 years on these arterials. 0226 Arterials Study A planning study is being requested that will evaluate alternative cross-sections, similar to what has been discussed for 75th Street and 76th Street as part of the proposed Metro Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Project. The results of the study will provide several alternative cross-sections that will accommodate cars, pedestrians, transit and bicyclists both within the existing right of way and possibly within additional right of way in certain,cases. The intent is to propose a set of design guidelines that the City can use as reconstruction of its busiest streets becomes necessary. . The City issued a request for proposals and received four proposals from consulting firms with strong engineering and design personnel. The four firms are: SRF Consulting Group, Bonestroo, Kimley-Horn and Associates, and Howard R. Green Company. A three-person staff committee recommended hiring Howard R. Green Company based on qualifications of staff, work program, references of clients, and experience with similar projects. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The updated Comprehensive Plan promotes the design of streets that accommodate all modes of transportation including motorized vehicles, pedestrians, transit and bicyclists. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The City's arterial streets are wearing out and will need to be reconstructed in the coming years. It is important to design the streets to meet current and future travel patterns of all users. I C. FINANCIAL I . The City has been awarded a 100% federal grant in the amount of $50,000 to conduct the arterials study. Acceptance of the federal grant requires a two-thirds majority vote by the City Council. I D. LEGAL I . The City is authorized to prepare a design guide for the reconstruction of its arterial streets. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S} I . Council may choose to notperform a design study of its arterials. . Council may choose to select a different consultant to perform the arterials study. All four firms are qualified to do the work. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Resolution . Map of Arterials to be studied. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None anticipated. 3F-1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PILOT PROGRAM GRANT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ADMINISTER THE FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GRANT AGREEMENTS AND TERMS PRESCRIBED BY THE DONORS WHEREAS, The City of Richfield has been awarded a $50,000 federal grant from the Federal HighwayAdministration administered through the Transit for Livable Communities, the donor organization, to conduct a design study of Richfield Arterials; and WHEREAS, The City of Richfield has received proposals from several engineering consulting firms to perform the design study of Richfield Arterials; WHEREAS, The City of Richfield staff has reviewed and evaluated the proposals from the various engineering consulting firms using a qualifications based selection process; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the City Council ofthe City of Richfield hereby accepts the federal Non- Motorized Transportation Pilot Program Grant from the Transit for Livable Communities organization in 2008 and authorizes the City to administer the funds in accordance with grant agreements and terms prescribed by the donors. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of February, 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 2fF-J (") ~ o ..... ::u -. n ~ -It -. CD is: ~ ~ CD ~ -. Q) - en C CD en -. (Q ~ en ..... r:: Q. '< ~ CiJ Q) s:: ;j ;j CD Q) "'C o en' I I I I ):0 ::a. CD ... :s: "'D "'D Z !:( !: r- s:: I>> 0 m (5 C/I CD Q) ;;0 z z ';jec a >Z "C -I Z 0 ~ m CD ::r =1:1:: ~ ~ r- N r- CD ::s CD m r- _0 z m -I m fA Q. N 0 ~ - en ~ c 0 ~ a. 0 m m iii' ....... m en a. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 3G 53 STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2008 REpORT PREPARED By: BARRY FRlTZ, ACTING PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: I:2r REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the 2008 renewal of EI Jalapeno's off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: . By Motion: Approve the 2008 renewal of EI Jalapeno's off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license (tabled from February 12, 2008). I II. BACKGROUND I Staff included the license renewal application of EI Jalapeno's 3.2 percent malt liquor license with other similar license applications on the consent calendar of the February 12 City Council meeting. EI Jalapeno's license application was postponed pending staff providing further information regarding their compliance with a number of City license, building code and zoning matters. Staff has reviewed these issues and finds that EI Jalapeno's does not currently have any outstanding matters that would preclude issuance of the license. 0226EIJalapeno I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . All businesses must annually request renewal of their licenses to the City Council. . Businesses must meet the set requirements for renewal of their licenses. . There is no requirement for a public hearing to be held for renewal of these types of licenses. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . All license fees must be paid and application forms submitted in order to be considered for license renewal. . Staff checked with Richfield Inspections, Richfield Zoning and Richfield Environmental Health. All indicated that they have no issues with EI Jalapeno that would warrant delaying or not approving their off- sale 3.2 malt liquor license. I C. FINANCIAL I . EI Jalapeno has met the requirements and paid the required fees. I D.. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sec.tion 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . None I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PROP. ORDINANCES 5 54 ...... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2008 REpORT PREPARED By: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: INTERIM DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a second reading of City Code amendments regarding regulations that are redundant or in conflict with newly adopted zoning regulations. The proposed amendments relate to parking requirements for car wash establishments, the location of therapeutic massaqe establishments, parkina and location requirements for auto detailing establishments. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a second reading of the attached ordinance amending subsections 1125.03,1188.19 and 1195.09 of the City Code related to parking and zoning regulations for car wash, therapeutic massage and auto detailing establishments. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 13, 2007 the City Council approved revised citywide zoning regulations. There are many instances of cross-referencing and the redundant statement of regulations in the Zoning Code and the City Code. The proposed amendments reconcile the two codes by removing inconsistent language and out- dated terminology. The only substantive change proposed is a change in parking requirements for stand-alone car washing establishments. The current city code requires queuing 022608 - 2nd Reading Code reconciliation space for 40 cars waiting to be washed. This requirement has been considered excessive for many years and as a part of the conditional use permit process the requirement has consistently been reduced. The proposed parking requirements would require one parking space per employee (based on the largest shift), plus queuing area for six vehicles per wash lane and two spaces per wash lane for drying. The proposed revisions are based on a comparison of the parking regulations of similarly-sized communities conducted by the American Planning Association and existing Richfield zoning regulations. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The current parking requirements for car wash establishments is excessive. It is appropriate to revise these standards. · All other amendments are intended to reconcile the zoning code and City Code and do not constitute changes in policy. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The City Code and Zoning Code should be in agreement. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL I . A first reading was approved on February 12, 2008. . A public hearing is not required. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Approve the attached Ordinance with revisions. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Ordinance I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A 5-1 BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PARKING AND ZONING REGULATIONS FOR CAR WASH, THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE AND AUTO DETAILING ESTABLISHMENTS; AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 1125.03, 1188.19 AND 1195.09 OF THE RICHFIE'LD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 1125.03, Subdivisions 1, 2 and 5 of the Richfield City Code are amended to read as follows: Subd.2. Zoning compliance. A therapeutic massage enterprise may not be licensed if the locatio" of sllch enterprise is not located in one of the gelleral commercial districts of the city must be located in an approved zoninq district and does not meet all zoning requirements. Sec. 3. Subsection 1195.09 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 5-d- 1195.09. Conditions governing issuance. The following conditions are imposed upon the granting of licenses under this Section: (a) The site of the licenses activity shall abut and have access to an arterial roadway. (b) No mechanical car washing equipment shall be used in connection with the licensed activity. (c) No overnight outside storage of vehicles shall be permitted. (d) The site shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential properties. I (e) The licensed activity shall not result in undue congestion on surrounding streets. (f) There shall be 8deq'late p8rking spaces pro\/ided on the site for cl19tomers and employees 8$ follows' three offc;treet parking spaces for each b<:lY where a1lto detailing t<:lkes place; olle offstreet parking sp<:lce for every employee The licensee Sh<:lll instp ICt C11stomers and employees not to P8rk nn ~'lrro'lndinO ~treets Parkina shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the ZoninQ Code. (g) The licensed activity must be conducted totally within the confines of the building. (h) There shall be no exterior storage or sales of equipment, materi;:i1s or products. (i) The licensed activity shall not generate noise, dust, or odors which disturb or annoy occupants of adjacent residential properties. U) There shall be no more than one curb cut per street which must be located at least 50 feet from any intersection. . (k) Exterior lighting shall be designed and directed so as not to cast light on adjacent residential property. (I) The establishment may be open only between the hours of. 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (m)The premises shall be maintained in a state of good repair at all times and shall be kept free of litter, trash, debris and weeds. (n) Underground storage tanks shall be removed as required by the City. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: PROP. ORDINANCES AGENDA ITEM # 6 REpORT # 55 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFI ELLJ CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2008 REpORT PREPARED By: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: INTERIM DEPARTMENT. DIRECTOR REVIEW: 121 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCILCONSIDERA TION: Consideration of a second reading of floodplain regulations. Floodplain regulations were inadvertently removed during the adoption of the City's new zoning ordinances. There are no proposed substantive changes to the floodplain regulations. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a second reading of new Section 550 of the City Code related to floodplain management regulations. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 13, 2007 the City Council approved new ordinances related to zoning. Floodplain regulations were intended to be adopted as part of this approval. No substantive changes were proposed to the floodplain regulations section of the code, as this Section was just recently revised (2005). This lack of revision led to the regulations being inadvertently left out of the new Zoning Code. 022608 - 2nd reading Section 550 I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I · Regulations for floodplain management are necessary to ensure Richfield's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I · Changes to this Section of the code are related to organization only. · The subsection proposed for removal is out of date and the updated information is covered elsewhere in the Section. I C. FINANCIAL · N/A I D. LEGAL · Other Actions: o The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. o A first reading was approved on February 12, 2008. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) . N/A I V. ATTACHMENTS · Ordinance · Section 550 I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING · N/A (0-( BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE ADOPTION OF NEW SECTION 550 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 The Richfield City Code is amended by adding new Section 550 as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. Sec. 2 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. 2008. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this _ day of Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Co --d-- SECTION 550 - ZONING: FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS 550.01 550.03 550.05 550.07 550.09 550.11 550.13 550.15 550.17 550.19 550.21 550.23 550.25 550.27 550.29 550.31 550.33 Purpose ........................................................................................................5 50-1 Administration ..................................................................... .......................550-1 Application and interpretation of provisions ...............................................550-1 Definitions ...................................................................................................5 5 0-2 Flood insurance study ........ .........................................................................550-4 Permitted uses in the floodplain overlay district .........................................550-4 Floodplain uses in the floodplain overlay district .......................................550-4 Applications for floodplain use permits ......................................................550-5 Application review ................................................................................... ...5 50-5 Variance .......................................................... .................... ..................... ...5 5 0-5 Review of subdivision proposals......... ........................... ..... .............. ..........5 50-5 Construction standards near or in floodplain overlay district ......................550-6 Utility standards...................... ........................................... ....................... ...5 50-6 Amendments..... ....... ........................ ................ ..................... ................ ..... ..5 50-6 Building elevation information.......... ............. ..... ....... ......;... ......... ....... .......550-7 Certificate of completion................................ .............................................550-7 Penalties.......................................................................................................5 50-7 5J950.01. Purpose. Subdivision 1. It is the purpose of this section to guide and regulate the orderly development of land within the floodplain by establishing a floodplain overlay district. The floodplain within the City of Richfield, Minnesota is subject to periodic inundation, which adversely affects the public health, safety, and general welfare. Subd.2. It is the intent of this section to promote a uniform floodplain management program consistent with the surface water management plan of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed District and to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) 5J950.03. Administration. The Director of Public Works, hereinafter referred to as the responsible person, is appointed as the "person" responsible for receiving applications and examining the plans and specifications for the proposed construction or development. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) 5J950.05. Application and interpretation of provisions. Subdivision 1. Provisions of this section shall apply to the floodplain of the City, which shall include those areas designated or otherwise defined by the City as being within the 100-year floodplain. The boundaries of the floodplain shall be that area that could be inundated by a flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. All decisions will be based on elevations of the 100-year floodplain and other available technical data. Persons contesting the location of the floodplain boundaries shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals in accordance with the provisions of subsection 546.03. 550-1 Richfield City Code Floodplain Management Regulations (0-3 Section 550.05 Subd. .2. It is not intended by this section to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this section imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this section shall prevail. Subd. 3. Warning and disclaimer of liability. This regulation does not imply that areas outside the floodplain or land uses or obstructions permitted within the floodplain will be free from flooding or flood damages. The City is not responsible for any flood damages that result from reliance on this section or any administrative action lawfully taken as a result of reliance on this section. Subd. 4. The provisions and sections of this Ordinance shall be deemed separable and the invalidity of any portion of this Ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remainder. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) 5J950.07. Definitions. Subdivision 1. Basement. F or floodplain management purposes, any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base sub- grade below 'ground level. Subd. 2. Development. Any man-made change to real estate, including but not limited to construction or reconstruction of buildings, installing manufactured homes or travel trailers, installing utilities, construction of roads or bridges, erection of levees, walls, or fences, drilling, mining, filling, dredging, and storage of materials. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 3. Flood. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from overflow of inland or tidal waves, or the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 4. Flood frequency. The frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equaled or exceeded. Subd. 5. Floodplain or Flood Prone Area. Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source (see Flood) as determined by the City in Section 538.05. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 6. Flood proofing. Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes or adjustments to structures that reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. Flood proofing requirements are contained in the State Building Code. Subd. 7. Flood stage. Peak flood elevation of an area for a given return frequency event. Subd. 8. Floodway. The channel of the watercourse, the bed of water basins, and those portions of the adjoining floodplain that are reasonably required to carry the discharge floodwater and provide storage during a flood. Subd. 9. Manufactured Home. A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designated for use with or Richfield City Code 550-2 Floodplain Management Regulations (o-~ Section 550.07 without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 10. New Construction. For the purposes of determining insurance rates, structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of an initial FIRM or after December 31,1974, whichever is later, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. For floodplain management purposes, new construction means structures for which the start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 11. Person. Includes any individuals, corporation, partnership, association, or any other entity, including State and local governments and agencies. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 12. Obstruction. Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, water course, or regulatory floodplain that may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 13. Reach. A hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a drainage system influenced by a natural or man-made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a drainage system between two consecutive bridge crossings or culverts would most typically constitute a reach. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 14. Regulatory flood protection elevation. The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an elevation no lower than two-feet above the elevation of the floodplain plus any increase in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 15. Structure. For floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including gas or liquid storage tanks, that is principally above ground. The term includes recreational vehicles and travel trailers on site for more than 180 days. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd.16. Substantial Improvement. Any repair, reconstruction or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either, (a) before the improvement or repair is started, or (b) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure regardless of the actual work performed. The term does not, however, include either (1) any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions or (2) any alteration of a "historic structure", provided that the alteration will not Richfield City Code 550-3 Floodplain Management Regulations Co-- 5 Section 550.07 preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) 5~50.082. Flood insurance study. A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) has been completed for areas within the City of Richfield. This FIS is titled "Flood Insurance Study, Hennepin County, Minnesota, All Jurisdictions, Volume 1 of2 and Volume 2 of2," dated September 2,2004. The foregoing FIS, and the respective Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels contained therein for the City of Richfield, show all areas of the City as an Unshaded Zone X. An Unshaded Zone X is an area where FEMA did not have sufficient supporting hydrologic and/or hydraulic data to designate 100-year or 500-year floodplains. Therefore, to administer this Ordinance consistent with the provisions of Section 549.05, the City will use, at a minimum, the reports titled Watershed Management Plan, Richfield-Bloomington Watershed, Nine Mile Creek Watershed, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed to determine floodplain boundaries. A copy of the foregoing reports are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Ordinance. Subd. 1. No person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, improve, move, or demolish any building or structure without first obtaining a separate permit for each building or structure from the designated responsible person. Subd.2. No man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, fences, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, shall be commenced until a separate permit has been obtained from the designated responsible person for each change. Subd.3. No manufactured home shall be placed on improved or unimproved real estate without first obtaining a separate permit for each manufactured home from the designated responsible person.(Added, Bill No. 2005-9) 539.09. Fleed iBsuraBee study. A FedeFal Emergency MaBagement l\geflcy (FEM..^..) Flood Insuranee Study (FrS) vias completee for areas within the City. The City is a participating memeer in FEMf... The City's FEM..^~ Study Record Number 474 is a special conversion study 'Nithout a map. This report identified the bOlfl'lda-ries of the flooe Y.'a)' and floodplain. .<^~ll areas ',vithin the City of Richfield are classified as ZOfle C coverage. 5~50.11. Permitted uses in the floodplain overlay district. Any use of land that does not involve a structure, a habitation, addition to the outside dimensions of an existing structure, an obstruction, or the storage of materials, supplies, so long as such use is permitted in the underlying zoning district is permitted within the floodplain. The use must not increase any stage of the 100-year flood, cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected, or reduce the existing storage capacity of the floodplain. 5~50.13. Floodplain uses in the floodplain overlay district. Any permitted, accessory, or conditional use or structure allowed in the underlying zoning district may be allowed as a floodplain use in the floodplain upon the issuance of a special permit in accordance with the provisions of this section. Subdivision 1. The use or structure will not cause a net decrease in storage capacity of the floodplain. Compensatory storage will be required if the use or structure decreases the floodplain capacity, and Richfield City Code 550-4 Floodplain Management Regulations (o-(p Section 550.13 Subd. 2. The use or structure will not cause high water or aggravate flooding on other properties, and Subd. 3. The use or structure will not restrict flood flows, or Subd. 4. The use is for railroads, essential government facilities, accessory structures for public and private recreational facilities, essential utilities, marinas, docks, other water oriented accessory structures, or reasonable plan to reduce flooding. 5J950.15. Applications for floodplain use permits. Applications for floodplain use permits shall be made to the administrator. A fee as specified in Appendix D shall be charged for floodplain use permits. The application shall be prepared by a registered engineer and shall include the following. Subdivision 1. A report detailing the results of the computer modeling of the impact of the proposed structure, obstruction, or use on the floodplain, and Subd. 2. A site plan showing property lines, work area, existing and proposed contours of the work area, and existing and proposed floodplain elevations, and Subd. 3. Computation of the change in water storage capacity resulting from the project. 5J950.17. Application review. The administrator shall reView applications for floodplain use permits and make a determination. Subd. 1. After reviewing the application, the responsible person may require any additional measures, which are necessary to meet the minimum requirements of this Ordinance. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9). Subd. 2. The responsible person shall review proposed development to assure that all necessary permits have been received from those governmental agencies from which approval is required by Federal or State law, including Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 V.S.C. 1334. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) 5J950.19. requested Variance. under A variance to the standards outlined in this section may be City zoning code section ~547.11. 5J950.20!. Review of Subdivision Proposals. The responsible person shall review subdivision proposals and other proposed new development to determine whether such proposals will be reasonably safe from flooding. If a subdivision proposal or other proposed new development is in a flood prone area, any such proposal shall be reviewed to assure that: Subd. 1. All such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within the flood prone area, Richfield City Code 550-5 Floodplain Management Regulations (,,-7 Section 550.13 Subd. 2. All public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems are located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage, and Subd.3. Adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure of flood hazard. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) 53950.21J,. Construction standards near or in floodplain overlav district. The building official administers this section. If a use or structure is either permitted or a special use, the following construction standards apply. Subdivision 1. All permanent structures, including accessory structures and additions to existing structures shall be constructed on fill so that the low building opening elevation shall be at least two-feet above the floodplain elevation. Subd.2. As an alternative to construction on fill, accessory structures that do not exceed 500-square.feet may be internally flood proofed in accordance with FP-l or FP-2 flood proofing classifications in the State Building Code. Subd. 3. Structures shall be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent floatation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 4. Constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 5. Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current, or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall not be allowed to encroach on a floodway, and are subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 105. Subd. 6. Parking lots must be at or above the floodplain unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant that the lot will be used infrequently and/or vehicles or other stored items could be moved in a short period of time. Subd. 7. Constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage, and methods and practices that minimize flood damage. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 8. Constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damages. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) 53950.2~~. Utility standards. Subdivision 1. The responsible person shall require within flood prone areas, new and replacement water supply systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Richfield City Code 550-6 Floodplain Management Regulations Ia-- <g Section 550.23 Subd. 2. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) 53950.2~Z. Amendments. The floodplain overlay designation shall not be removed from a floodplain area unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been lawfully filled to or above the elevation of the 100-year floodplain and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain. 550.2-12. Buildin2 elevation information. The applicant shall provide to the Building Official the elevation of the first floor and basement of all new structures or additions to existing structures in the floodplain. The Building Official shall maintain a record of these elevations. 550.l931. Certificate of comoliance. No structure in the floodplain that is hereafter erected, altered or moved shall be occupied until the applicant submits a certification by a registered Engineer, Surveyor, or Architect to the City Engineer that the finished fill elevations or other flood-proofing measures are in compliance with this Section. 550.U33. Penalties for violation. Subdivision 1. Violation of the provisions of this Section or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. Subd. 2. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City of Richfield from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. Such actions may include but are not limited to: a) In responding to a suspected violation, the Administrator and/or Building Official may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available. Richfield must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. b) When a violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the Administrator or Building Official, the situation shall immediately be investigated. Documentation of the nature and extent of the violation shall be provided. c) The Administrator shall notify the suspected party of the requirements of this section and all other official controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation. If the structure or use is under construction or development, the Administrator may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit is granted by the City. If the construction or development is already completed, then the Administrator may either a) issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use or structure into compliance with the official controls; or b) notify the responsible party to apply for an after-the-fact permit within a specified period of time not to exceed 30 days. Richfield City Code 550-7 Floodplain Management Regulations b:--Cj Section 550.29 d) If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Administrator or Building Official within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this Section and shall be prosecuted accordingly. The Administrator shall also, upon the lapse of the specified response period, notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition that existed prior to the violation of this regulation. Richfield City Code 550-8 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # RESOLUTION 7 56 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2008 REpORT PREPARED By: PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving the contract with the 911 Dispatchers LELS Local 225 for the contract period January 1,2008 throuqh December 31,2009. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution approving the provisions of the 2008-09 labor agreement with the 911 Dispatchers LELS Local 225 bargaining unit and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. I II. BACKGROUND I City staffhas completed labor negotiations with the 911 Dispatchers LELS Local 225 (Union). The provisions of the two year contract for calendar years 2008 and 2009, cover all of the employees in this Union, which consists of 9 positions: 6 full- time employees and 3 part-time employees. The tentatively approved settlement includes the following significant changes: Waqes A 3% across-the-board wage increase, effective January 1,2008, with anadditional .5% increase effective the first full pay period in July 2008. The contract calls for a re-opener of this provision for contract year 2009. 0226dispatcher Equity Adiustment A one-time equity adjustment of $166 (roughly equivalent to $ .OB/hour) for full-time employees at Step 6 only in the Dispatcher's pay plan (prorated on an hourly basis for applicable part-time employees at Step 6) to be paid as a lump sum the last pay period of December 200B. This adjustment would be added to the annual base wage on December 31 , 200B. An equity adjustment and modification to the entry steps of the 911 Dispatcher pay plan was provided to this bargaining unit because metro wage surveys indicated that Richfield's starting wage was far below average. In general, this female dominated work group falls considerably below the metro average wage for a dispatcher position. The adjustments bring the group closer to the average at the end of 2008 and provide a more competitive starting wage. c,' However, Richfield still remains lower than average for both starting and top Dispatcher salaries for 200B. Traininq Pay An increase in the training pay rate from $1.30/hour to $1.55/hour effective January 1,2008. Health Insurance A maximum $30 increase to the Employer health insurance contribution for contract year 200B which provides full coverage to single Employee, $730 per month for Employee plus spouse or Employee plus child(ren) coverage, and $7BO per month for Employee plus family. The contract calls for a re-opener of this provision in 200B. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The City has met and negotiated in good faith with the Union and its representatives and is bound under the Public Employer's Labor Relations Act to meet and bargain over the terms and conditions of employment. . The 200B-09 proposed settlement is the fourth union contract settled for 200B. It is identical in wage increase and health insurance provisions to non-union City employees and the other bargaining units. . This contract reflects the third settlement for 2009. . The 200B-09 contract provisions are within the range for ,other comparable bargaining groups in similar metro cities. The equity adjustment and pay plan modification brings the unit members closer to the pay of those cities. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll records in a timely manner for 2008 wages and benefits, it is recommended that the City Council act on February 26, 2008 to adopt the attached resolution providing for contract changes effective January 1, 2008. ' I C. FINANCIAL I . 3% wage increase effective January 1, 2008 and an additional .5% increase the first full pay period in July 2008. . An equity adjustment in the form of a one-time, lump sum payment of $166 for 5 full-time employees (for a total of $830), plus a pro-rated lump sum payment for 1 part-time employee (at approximately $125) totaling an approximate equity adjustment of $955. . An adjustment to the entry steps of the Dispatcher pay plan for a total cost of approximately $1,000. . A maximum $30 increase in the Employer contribution towards health insurance coverage. . A $ .25 increase in the training pay rate from $1.30/hour to $1.55/hour. I D. LEGAL I . If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation and/or mediation will be necessary. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Do not approve the terms of this agreement and prepare for further negotiation and/or mediation. . Defer discussion to another date. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Resolution I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None 1-(" RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS), LOCAL 225 BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEARS 2008-2009 WHEREAS, the City Manager and the 911 Dispatchers LELS Local 225 have reached an understanding concerning conditions of employment for years 2008-2009; and WHEREAS, it would be inappropriate to penalize LELS Local 225 members who have negotiated in good faith; and WHEREAS, the City Ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be completed by Council resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield and LELS Local 225 Bargaining Unit for years 2008-2009, under the provisions of the Labor Agreement, to be implemented, effective January 1, 2008 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of February 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # OTHER BUSINESS 8 57 ...... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2008 REpORT PREPARED By: KRISTIN ASHER, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: [g' REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the recommended streetscape design concepts for portions of Richfield streets that will be reconstructed as part of the Metropolitan Council's Sanitary Sewer Project, including portions of 75th Street, 76th Street, 11th Avenue, 72nd Street, and Diagonal Boulevard. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the recommended streetscape design concepts for the portions of 75th Street, 76th Street, 11th Avenue, 72nd Street, and Diagonal Boulevard that will be reconstructed in conjunction with the Metropolitan Council's Sanitary Sewer Project. I II. BACKGROUND I Metropolitan Council will be constructing a new sanitary sewer line across the City, this presents Richfield with the option of redesigning the roads under which the sewer will go. As part of the design process Met Council offered the services of Howard R. Green Company to lead the community through a process in order to facilitate the determination of what changes, if any, should be made to the streets along the sewer route (Project Map attached). 0226Streetscape City staff and the consultant worked in cooperation with the Metropolitan Council, Three Rivers Park District, Community Services and Transportation Commissions, and community stakeholders to develop the outcome of the study. The attached calendar highlights the number of public meetings that were held to work through the process of determining the goals and eventually reaching a consensus on the final recommendation that is presented to the Council for consideration. In addition, ten (10) private meetings were held with stakeholders along the route including schools and churches. The proposed streetscape designs as presented for consideration were recommended to the Council by both the Community Services and Transportation Commissions. The proposed streetscape design incorporates a regional multi-use trail along the portions of 75th Street and 76th Street that will be reconstructed as part of the project. The regional trail will be owned and maintained by the Three Rivers Park District. However, the City will be responsible for any winter maintenance (plowing). The values that were identified and balanced as part of the streetscape design development are: . Scale the streets to fit the current and future traffic needs . Add green space . Improve pedestrian and bicycle access along corridors . I mprove safety for all modes of transportation Aside from 11 th Avenue and 72nd Street, parking was not identified as a value and was not considered typical along the route. Where parking was included were areas where there was a compelling reason why it needed to be included (Le., near churches, Donaldson Park). Below are the major design elements of the individual sections along the route. The attached graphics also describe the proposed streetscape design for the areas indicted on the project map. 75th Street (Xerxes to Sheridan) Proposed Streetscape Design Elements . 10 foot blacktop multi-use Three Rivers Park Regional Trail (North side) . 5 foot on-street bicycle lanes to accommodate commuter and advanced cyclists . 18 foot (reduced) road section to maintain green space along the corridor. The reduced section is considered acceptable based on the low volume of vehicular traffic on this stretch . Boulevard trees . No parking 75th Street (Sheridan to Humboldt) Proposed Streetscape Design Elements . 10 foot blacktop multi-use Three Rivers Park Regional Trail (North side) . No on-street bicycle lanes . Parking accommodated along Donaldson Park and handicapped parking at Wood Lake Lutheran Church . Boulevard trees 76th Street Proposed Streetscape Desiqn Elements . 8 foot blacktop multi-use Three Rivers Park Regional Trail (North side) . 5 foot on-street bicycle lanes to accommodate commuter and advanced cyclists . 5 - 6 foot concrete sidewalk (South side) . Boulevard trees . Some parking accommodated at Berea Lutheran Church 11th Avenue & 72nd Street Proposed Streetscape Design Elements . Accommodate parking as before . Add bump-out feature at the intersections to add green space, increase sight visibility at the corners, and calm traffic. Diaqonal Boulevard Proposed Streetscape Design Elements . 10 foot blacktop multi-use trail (North side) . 6 foot on-street bicycle lanes . Boulevard trees . Parking accommodated at Bethany Covenant Church and along Diagonal at CedarAvenue I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The City Council has identified the development of a multi-modal transportation infrastructure that encourages alternate forms of transportation in and around Richfield as a goal in the Comprehensive Plan (Goals 4 & 7). I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . Metropolitan Council has requested that the City determine how they would like the street to be designed before March 2008 so that they may incorporate any changes to the existing road into their design. . . Metropolitan Council is prepared to move forward and replace the road as is if the City cannot determine if they would like to see changes. I C. FINANCIAL .1 . The Streetscape Conceptual Design process was completed prior to the start of final design and any additional costs that may be associated with moving to the proposed design elements have yet to be determined. However, the Metropolitan Council's Sanitary Sewer Project is not expected to trigger substantial reconstruction costs for Richfield. . . If the Council decides to underground the existing utilities adjacent to 75th Street and 76th Street there may be costs associated with that work. A Council Worksession will be scheduled to discuss those options. I D. LEGAL I . The City Attorney will be available to address any concerns. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . The Council may chose to take no action at this time. However, Metropolitan Council may decide to move ahead with their project and not incorporate any changes to the impacted streets. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Project Map . 75th Street (Xerxes to Sheridan) Proposed Streetscape Design . 75th Street (Sheridan to Humboldt) Proposed Streetscape Design . 76th Street Proposed Streetscape Design . 11th Avenue and 72nd Street Proposed Streetscape Design . Diagonal Boulevard Proposed Streetscape Design . Public Involvement Calendar I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Area residents. 0.. (I) ::l S (I) (J) "'0 a "'0 o (J) (I) 0.. "'0 Q) .., 2S: ::l co Q) Ci3 Q) (J) ~ II t~j. ~ ~ F. , ~ ! 9: ~ Ii I 1; " -u ..., .0. eD () ,...... s: Q) '"C 00. \ ---- .,-;> 'Z. il~ () ::.:+ -< o ....., AJ~ o'~ ~ --- ill -' 0. v~ -+ '''''!I (1) ft) ~"~., ~,;(...;;:~~~?{ "'" CJ1 .... ::r ........... ........ 0-. .... ::r (I) .... .-or (I) (I) .... en n Q "'0 CD IT! X in" r1' '5 '.0 0', q AJ o ~ IT! X U) ,... /5 t-..... w ..... ..J;. m x ~ ;j 10 Vol 1\.1 ,- W ~ ;;0 ,::) C1 0.. :iE CI -< IT! X VI' ,.,. 5' '.0 !.>o~. ...~ , I-' ~ I'<~ .... q -! ~ q ~ co X '" ~ ;0 :;> ~ .~ 0'} Q? "" .:7; .... q 01 :f ---en _ , ZOJ~Cd">'(J1..>.m 000>0.00_0- -os.::!ll::O'O-.. o>CDOoO~OX ~<OCD_O~~ 5' ~ :J 0. -::;- :J C- X co o._en CD I ;;;-CD _::rCDCi.~...en CD (ii' 0 l:: ' 0 _ CD ::t 0 CD A: 0 en~OCDCDOen Cd ::,.9; ;. -0 ::r 0- en , 0' 3 ~ ::r8g~~o: :J 0. - " 0> en CD l:: :J -. en - en o.CDO>CD"U CD o:J , Cd.z.CD-IO o en ::r 0.:J_'0 o>_oCDCDen 000> CD 030:;00. CD 0 -. en ~ ~. 0 C6 _ 0>~3'CD g:0>3enCD CD 5' 0 "U en C-co 0. 0> 0 ~CD~~o> CD CD CD :;0 CD 0.:J8Jgo o en 3 -. CD :J-O Oen _ 0> 3 :J -. 16 @ s. Q!. :J oQ1.~::;iIT! ::E Q 0> ~. CD ~:J-3 <COo.-CD Q._o>Z:J l::::ro.o- 3CD<;:j.en CDOo>::r o Q ~ fa. _ ::1. CD 0.. C6g.o.~ :!.=-'.Q 0-10 l::::r= D>CDen , en g~~ - - fI~ II] () =+ -< 0 -h AJ > 0 ::::r !';! ':::!':l ('0 Q ~ fT1 X tn. a. ..... ~ q to -j l-' ..., c.~ 9:. I .... I....... ~ , CJ1 , '. -+ ,', - :T V) -+ ..... CD ,.... CD -+ ~ V) :T CD ..... -. m 0.. :>< ~ C fT1 :::;- x :::::J tn' to ..... W s' I',! -+ to I cr, W 0 q ~ Al ;Al ::I: 0 0 OJ :z: 0.. C :'E OJ N 3 '< ~ ;l;l tT 0 OJ 0.. 0 ~ OJ - '< 0.. -+ --....- II '" tI'Il ..... ::r m .......... x ~: "-i 5' 0.. \0 ..... ~ lA:! .... :r' I '-: .... en ~ .... ""'I CD m ...... en n Q "'0 (I) ~/'3 -...J 01 5' · ... en - CD OJ<\JZ~m. 0<0>0 ~g~oO'en ~ a. S' l' g. 16 0> r (Q ~ C- ~. ...,0>0>...,;:;;-0. 0."'-0 CD (50) -CDOCD,.,-:J CDrO;'O_ CD c 3 -'"0 0 (fl~3.Q3I '" 0 0 c iiJg-ro~3 :J_-c!:c- O~~cQ. :To>CD~~ C _ (fl nO -1\J :T:J :T..., (Q CD 0 o CDo g 22 ~ 0> <a. 0: ~en (fl (fl_ o \J CD :J 0> CD \J ...,- 0> ,.,-~ ~ ;;0 0> 0> ~CD 5.. o' 0 :T :JCD 0> Q?. ~. 5.. ::;l :J -. 0> ~ =[!J "0 -CD "0 Z 3 CD 0 CD a. ;:l.:J "0 :T (jj 0> (fl ~ 0: S' ~ (Q 0> - II~ o =+ '< o -h 29. () ::r :::!> CD Q """ tn ...... :T ......... ~ <>- ..... ::r Con ..... ..... tD CD ~ fA n c "'C (D )> I'" --. m Ql ?oS. ~g I~ \0 '~ ~ , .... -~~ 0~ i'~ cg --I ~ '" (-~ ~ .~~ OO~ ~;t\' (!) !D rn <S. mm ~ ~'2S i':'oJ V> Ul ::> ~':! S:g <D .;. ~ (Q\O -"!. 0 G-. Ci\ "" q ~ ~ CL aJ 2i ;.'J~ OJ " 0 Cl. -<;: ~~ ~ -< 1 [~ -....- ::::;" 5' ,:610 ~~ ~ '. .... ~ lJJ G:!0 '-"VI 0.0.. ~~ Ul ':"": ~/lf ---J 0)_ ::r . . . . . ~ , CD enOJCJ1CJ1~~ 0010'0-0 3S-O)SSa CD~O'OS[O "Otll O=jltll 00 ~a.~~~CD ;A"~8,~0. 5' CD ::l m .g en (OCDo~ =t tllooCDcr3CD o ~ -, c CD o CDO_c;j o 00'< To 3 -. Q.. C III a. CD 00 5 ~iilCDCD a. tllffi;!o ~ ~oo'~ CD .- ~ CDCD _. a. eno III 0;:0 ::l ~ C III -, m OJ :fgC13(j) ~ !a. 3 Cil 3 CD 0.3-oCD III ~ tll ~ r 0'00 C 0.;A" :f ~;:o CD CD CD ii3 8 CQ. ::J 3 g (") 3tll ::J c:::; C ~-, (1 CD ii3 :;:r '= Ill.- ::l Z 0.0 tll ::+ o.:;:r ti5 !a. ::l a. o CD CD_ a. .Q Q.. w' ~ (f) II~ () :+ -< o -n aJ ;.u o. :J" ::;!; CD 0._ )> .s: '\.h, i:~' .~~' " ~ ~ .... ::T )> < (1) ::s c (1) f10 "'i ~ ::s a. (I') .... ~ (1) (1) .... ........ tn ....... :T' "- "i 0... ..... ::T ~ ... .., to to ..... en n c "'0 n> ~/c:; m x ~ 5 \0 ...... ...... 5' . . ~ CD <)>)>:::J 00. a. n c:: 0:0.8 CD =:0-3120 o.<c::3"", 0030"; """"1' a. c.. :yg!!t~ CD ..... CD CD n &"0 CD 00000..... 3.....~"U CD c:: _.., Cil Cil <5 0 iu'!!t 00 ~ :::J ..... en CD 0.::T0-0. (I) CD ~:rb'~ -r""'f-..,.., 3~CDm .....en ..... ., CD en ~n n -. tt 00 ~ g CD en 0 6" (I) 00 !!.!. a. a. lD ., CD CD :::J en "0 00 n CD :::J m CD 3 CD :::J ..... en :i" n ., CD -- 00 '-J ~~. en t-J CD m :::J 3- x zQ en m m' w , <C. x _. ClI . - vi' ::l ~ ..., \- e ;:r ..... <0 i3 0 0 5. :;0 <0 :....J 0 ~ 0 ?<' ": OJ (fl~ 3 0'1 Cl. .....5. (Q q :;0 :;: oK) Al 0 OJ N ITl Z OJ -< ~ 0 Cl. 0_~ :'E ;?: 2 1lI -< ~ (.J~ ' V'f. m x lJi ..... :5 <0 ...... v~ ,~ L;! :1. III o ,.< (~~ \--" --....., ~ ~ ;) -;- -' =r.: CD (1- J ;.1) o -.. C to o :J a D" o C - CD < C ~ a. ., ~ s. .' ~ '-I <.n .... ::r .......... ....... ~ .... :::T V. ..... . ""'( CD (I) .... tn n c "C (I) m ;< ~ to m x 1ii ,.,. ::; ',Q 0: q :;0 o ~ i"r ~. 5" '.c t :;0 o OJ a. :E OJ "< m x i!i. S" <0 - ot cq 3/0 ,... ~ ,.... q -I ~ ,~ q ,~ OJ ;<' It> ~ ;0 o OJ a. ~ !lJ '< ~ OJ ;<' ro 0-' "! o Di" · · · · 0 :J 00 a\JOJO>C;O; 8.~gO'O'o 002S:rog.o!:. "':J<or+~ )> ce 00 :J 2: 00 <CD ~ a. c1 00 a. ,.. ,..... ,..... 0 :J8mm~\J ~3~~.ga ~ ~3o 0. ~!:.~ 00 O~o. CD rocU) 0. -CIIr+ 00 ~ CD m r+ CD::;-CD OJ CII~. (jj ~ -0 ::r ZOO ~ 0 CD '< ;:1.0 a ::r CD o ~" CII < 0. -" CD ~:J ~ m :J ro r+ 3 a CD ::r :J C r+ o CII ::r 00 :J 0. 00 0- :J ce o Di" ce o :J ~ ~ ... ... ... ... ... .., '" <> ~ ~ '" '" III '" ... ... <> ;;; !:l :;;: ... '" 0: ... ... ~. ... In c>> :: ... ... ::0 N ::; c; 0; :: ;;; ;;; '" o w !:l :;;: '" '" u; '" '" ;: ... ... ... ",- iQ . ~ ~!8 > l-< ~ . N "'_0 '0 IClIt .., ... In i ! '" '" '" ... '" ~ I I f j J ." III < Sf ~ c ~ Q ~-< < N o ,0 ~ ClIt , f ... ... !:I ... .., '" <> ~ ... ... ... ... ... In ~ :: ~ ~ N (II ... ... ... o ... .., !:I. I::! ;;; '" <> ... '" ... ... 1. c..t N - <00 <> '" ... ~ ~ :::: Q ... In ~ ::c; N ~ ~ c;:; ... ... ~ A ~ ~ ~ :;;: a: - .., ~ w 0: ~ := ... ... .., ... o := N In ;;; "'J ... ... .z I ~ III f 3 1[ --~ 10 'I ... ... ... .., o '" I ~ ... '" ... ... ... - J 3~ '7 ~ ! f j lO ~ n - o 0' ~ N -8 J'l ~ ~ . j f j J I ! I f I j I i - C I ! ~ I i 3 ,0' ! ~ I - N I i 8 . 'I i I J i I I I I $ ~ ~ --0 /\J o L m () -.; 3': ITl m ::::! Z o C/1 () =i -< G) o < m /\J Z $: m z -< II. I I~ !m CD ...... -. $: m m ::::! Z G) (/) 1::J 1(0 Ie Ie .... (I) en I 1 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # RESOLUTION 9 58 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2008 REpORT PREPARED By: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TInE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of land needed to complete the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over 1-494 Project at 700-1150 W. 78th Street, 7745 Lvndale Avenue and 400 W. 78th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of partial right-of-way takings located at 700- 1150 W. 78th Street, 7745 Lvndale Avenue, and 400 W. 78th Street. I II. BACKGROUND I The Replacement of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over 1-494 Project requires additional right of way in Richfield. Partial acquisitions, easements and access changes are needed from three commercial properties, the Shops at Lyndale, Hampton Inn and Richfield Bloomington Honda. An appraisal report was prepared for Shops at Lyndale property. The review appraiser's recommended determination of just compensation is $580,000 for partial acquisition, relocation of a tower sign, and a permanent drainage and utility easement from the Shops at Lyndale property at 700-1150 W. 78th Street. This 0226Lyndale ROW Offers appraisal amount will form the basis for the offer made by the City to the property owner. An appraisal report was prepared for the Hampton Inn property at 7745 Lyndale Avenue. The review appraiser's recommended determination of just compensation is $244,000 for loss of right-out access to Lyndale Avenue This appraisal amount will form the basis for the offer made by the City to the property owner. An appraisal report was prepared for the Richfield Bloomington Honda property at 400 W. 78th Street. The review appraiser's recommended determination of just compensation is $130,000 for a permanent drainage and utility easement, removal of the 78th Street frontage road and loss of access to the 78th Street frontage road from Richfield Bloomington Honda property at 400 W. 78th Street. This appraisal amount will form the basis for the offer made by the City to the property owner. If the City Council has questions about the appraisals or proposed offers, the City Council must go into closed session to discuss those issues I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . Right of way acquisition procedures set forth by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration are being followed. I B. CRlTICAL ISSUES I . Offers made to the property owners at 700-1150 W. 78th Street, 7745 Lyndale Avenue and 400 W. 78th Street are contingent upon receipt of Council's approval of just compensation and authorization to purchase. . Offers to acquire needed right of way for the Lyndale Avenue Bridge Project need to be made now in order to keep the project on schedule for a summer 2008 bid opening. I C. FINANCIAL I . Federal Highway High Priority Project (HPP) funds will pay 100% of the cost to acquire the necessary right of way. I D. LEGAL I . The City attorneys have overseen the right of way acquisition process and will be available to answer any questions. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Council may choose to delay approval of the just compensation and authorization to acquire these properties. This would result in a one-year delay in construction of the Lyndale Avenue with a resultant increase in construction costs. I V. ATTACHMENTS I · Resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of real estate property, access changes and necessary easements from properties located at 700-1150 W. 78th Street, 7745 Lyndale Avenue and 400 W. 78th Street. · Exhibit A · Parcel sketches outlining the three properties impacted by the Lyndale Avenue Bridge Project. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING. · None. q-I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION/ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING . PURCHASE OF ACCESS CHANGES, REPLACEMENT OF A TOWER SIGN, PERMANENT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUGTION EASEMENTS LOCATED AT 400 W. 78TH STREET, 70-1150 W. 78TH STREET AND 7745 LYNDALE AVENUE (LYNDALE AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT) WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain necessary access changes, permanent drainage and utility easements, and temporary construction . easements pursuant to and in furtherance of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge Replacement . Project (Project) as shown on the three attached parcel sketches; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a layout for Project improvements; and WHEREAS, the Project improvements necessitate the purchase of real property and easements appurtenant thereto; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property and easements within its corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals for the properties to be made by qualified independent professional appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate and easements; and - WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the real estate appraisal reports as being in conformity with appraisal standards; and . WHEREAS, the Richfield Public Works Department and City Attorney have . reviewed all appraisal reports and review appraisal reports prepared for the properties and the City staff recqmmendations of just compensation for the real estate and easements, and concur that such amounts should be determined by the City Council as the just compensation for such properties, as indicated in the three attached parcel sketches; and WHEREAS, the Richfield Public Works Department has also recommended that the City proceed to make offers to the owners of the properties in the just compensation amounts of $130,000 for the 400 W. 78th Street property for the loss of the 78th Street frontage road, the loss of access to the 78th Street frontage road and for a permanent drainage and utility easement, $580,000 for the 700-1150 W. 78th Street property for relocation of a tower sign, partial acquisition of land, and a permanent drainage and utility easement, and $244,000 for the 7745 Lyndale Avenue for loss of right-out access to Lyndale Avenue; and , WHEREAS, the just compensation amounts indicated are consistent with said appraisal reports and review appraisal reports. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: qrd- 1. That the total just compensation for each of the individual parcels of real estate and easements are found to be the amounts indicated in this resolution. 2. That the City's staff and consultants are authorized and directed to submit to property owners the City's offer to pay such just compensation amount for all interests in each such property and commence negotiations for the purchase of said property interests. 3. That the City's staff and consultants are hereby directed to notify, in Writing, the owners of the properties that the City intends to acquire the property indicated in Exhibit A and the attached three parcel sketches. 4. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute purchase agreements in a form acceptable to them and take all other actions necessary to complete the purchase of the property and easements for the amount of just compensation set forth in this resolution. Adopted by Jhe City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of February, 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk <C !:: In J: >< W a a a ~ a a a ~ a a a a ~ a 0 co ~ ('l) 10 N ~ Y7 Y7 Y7 ~CI) _CJ .- ~ ()C'Cl a. "C ~ - o c o :;:::; :~ :::::l 0" () co co :e co a.. ~ C" CJ <C C) s:: CI) In J!! t/) ~ CI) - s:: ..... c 0) E-o 0) c en co co- wC5 5CD :;:::;0) .-- .~ 0) ~ eo () :::::l <(0" en .~ 10 tC'J COCO 0..10 . ..... o s:: o :;:; C. "i: CJ t/) CI) C t/) t/) ~ "C "C <C ~ CI) c. e a. .c..... coCO I'-en .a.Q;' S~ro" a (/)-0 10 .-- C ~.....~ ~O).....J I 0) al:; ~(/) ~ >- ~ :;:::; :::::l -0 C CO 0) Ol CO C ~ -0 ..... C 0) . C..... CO 0) E~ L. 0) 0) L. o..~ .....0" a5 en EC'J 0)10 en O>~ CON w_ .....0 c..... 0) C C 0) CO E E 0) L. en 0) CO 0..0) ". .1 -0 ..... 0) :::::l > 0 o ..!.. E .c Ol 0) 'C ..c ..... o C ..... 0) C - CO-o E ~ 0) 0 o..E .~ ~ 0) C :::::l CO C .cO) 0> en<( en 0) 0) CO ()-o () C <(>- ..... .....J C 0 0)..... C en CO en E 0) L. () O)u a.. co en -0 0) 0) C C .2> (/) C .Q CJ) L. 0) ~ o ..... - o C o :;:::; CO () o 0) 0::: 0) :::::l C 0)- > C <(E 0) C -0 CO..... -0 a. C E >-co .....J . 1O~ ~ I'- I'- C'J >- ~ :;:::; :::::l -0 C CO 0) Ol CO C ~ -0 ..... C 0) C . CO..... E ~ L. - 0) 0) a.. eo +ol:::::l cO" 0) en Ea 0) co enC'J co~ w_ .....0 c..... 0) C C 0) CO E E 0) L. en 0) CO 0..0) C .....0 0)..... 0)0l L. C ..... -- (/)E_ .cOCO .....0-0 coalc I'- 0 . -0 I SID at;:: an ~-- 0::: -- ~ ~ qr3 0) Ol CO ..... . C-c e CO _0 .....L. 0) 0) ~Ol .....CO (/)e :5 e CO_ 1'-..... - 0) o ~ CJ)..... CJ)(/) O..c: .....J- co 'I'- ~ 0 C..... CO CJ) .cCJ) (0) () CJ) () CJ) CO 0)- () 0 () CJ) <(CJ) .....0 C- 0)-0 C C CO CO E-o L. CO 0) 0 o..L. DATE: 11/26/21... 4:/6:38 PM PATH & FILENAME: K:\01532-I4\ROW\Rlchfleld\csm_shopsJnc-/XlrceLsketcMgn @] ( A-I i rr' . ~ 0 '" 51 '" 0 0 ~ 0 0J -I 0, ~ 1TI"'ll 0 , :O::ITI ~ 0' "'ll::o z n:O:: ITI !II olTl ~ -0 0 % z)> VlVl n 1> 0 -IITI ~ Vl "'ll :::0 '-'I ::0:0:: :0:: Z ~ ,0 N clTI n nz Vl [Tl "'ll :I: ~ )> ,j.., 0 .. r 1~ ::0 OVl"'ll "'ll ;>< z~::O "'0 ...... Z lTIoo (T'I !II C1 )>::0"'0 Vl Vl Vlz~ Z ~ -I1TIll"1TI -I o~co n )> r- -IZ-l::O \ r- )>-1-0 ~ Vl r-Vl~~ In ~\ II II II II I ::0 ITI I :0:: !II 0 ex> N01 I ~ < ~o~el I ITI 0 ex> '-'101 I" )(- , 0 , \ 0' ~ VlVlVlVl 0 "TI"T1"T1"T1 o \ ~II I~ !II I 0, ~ I !II~ \ "i 0 OOO~.;[QTI: . ~ ~ . 0 t 0 1 0 I , I t I 0 0 ., o 0 \ t I \ *1 ' I t 2 ~1~ \ X: ~ J ~~ ~O'GS + ~~tXJ \ z % '" \ '" z .... 0 '" =< 0 z 0 !ll ~ ~ % z " \: '" .r ;::~ h ~. ~ , ~ m .. i , "Om I' ~~ 2.0 I I . ;;;'~ I ~. ~~- ijif g"zm c~ c5 =. ~~ . ~ lD i!18 ~mg I II~ 2 t ~O~ ;:O~ "" zOo C\ 2 z:;:: ." ~ m- r "'z ~Gl ITl ITl "U ITl "U ITl fT1 ITl >-l X X ::0 X ::0 X X X 0 .... .... 0 1-1 0 .... t-i 1-1 Z VI VI "U VI "U VI Vl VI -f -f 0 -f 0 -f -f -f .... t-i VI .... VI .... 1-1 t-i Z Z ITl Z fT1 Z Z Z ?;,,~'Yd1q C) C) 0 C) 0 C) C) C) ~/ r OJ VI Vl () () "U ::0 Q ~ ~ '" 0 C .... t-i 0 0 fT1 0 ;l~::: -f .... 0 0 Z Z ::0 :e "" C> r ITl ITl () () :;::: 'f&, ~" r 0 :e :e ::0 ::0 )> "OH7ATI~" .... .... l> l> ITl fT1 Z Z Z r r -f -f fT1 ITl C) ^ ^ fT1 ITl Z ~ "'" -f 2 ~~ () () /" ~ ~ -D c C ITl r1'v{~~- ~~ ::0 ::0 l> Iii R I ~o OJ OJ Vl z~ I"TI ..c. 015 :0:: '" ITl ." Z '" e! -I ~ '" '" as ." '" '"' ~ ' , :0 o.l::l~ 0 '" -l_ ." :I:;::,;:c <> "'",n g ;;~ ~ -l-l- .. ~~ 8 ~ '..;. it "'''' ~ -l-l N g CI.l CI.l ffi-~-ffi ;;5 ~ DATE: 11/26/200; 1:20:24 PM PATH & FILENAME: K:\01532-14\R0W\Rlchfleld\rlchfleldjnteLassoc-fX1rceLsl<etch.dgn lit ! (3 ~ i ill or l!;~ h ;!I~ ~i ~1S' ~ii' ill i:~ I~ fizg' i <ll is' i ~ ~11l II~ r-o~ ;:o~ z:o ~ z;:"" m- UlZ ~Gl >-1 o Z iI-\iYd3q ~~/ () -s- ::~: '" () ~. .." "'OtTATla'l> ~~ ~; ~o ~;;; o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :0 ~ ~ :c '" 6l t ~ ..... 8 ~ ~~ ~n IE ~ l;f.l l;f.l ~-g-~ ~ >-,l ~ ----"""" t2 " (' 0 t ::r: :l> I s:: 0 :(n~ "lJ -; ""D 0 z l> I :::0 f-i I z n z [Tl r VJ o 10 /j I I ' , \ I \ ~~ I I 0 :::iE Z (Tl :::0 .. :::0 "lJ-..I 0-< 0-<-..1 (") Z ::r: I I TJ # 1-1 (Tl ""D I r VJ 0 .b l> I ::r: 0 :::0 I 0 N n I -l OJ [T1 I (Tl I ! r N r i :l> .b I (/) I VJ (/) VJ VJ II 0 I ~ (") 0 1-1 0 fT1 fT1 -0 fT1 -0 fT1 fT1 fT1 :l> x x ::0 x ::0 X X x -l OJ ..... ..... 0 ..... 0 H H H - VI VI -0 VI -0 VI VI VI 1-1 -l -l 0 -l 0 -l -l -l 0 ..... H VI ..... VI H H ..... Z Z fT1 Z fT1 Z Z Z Z C> C> 0 C> 0 C> C> C> r aI VI VI ("') ("') -0 ::0 r 0 c ..... H 0 0 fT1 0 -l -l H 0 0 z Z ::0 :IE 0 r fT1 fT1 (") (") ;: r 0 :IE :IE ::0 ::0 )> ..... H )> )> fT1 rn z z z r r -l -l fT1 fT1 Q "" "" fT1 fT1 Z -l ("') ("') c C fT1 ::0 ::0 )> 0 aI aI VI fT1 ;: fT1 Z -l I - o I ~ -0 \ 0t VI (") J> r ~ : ~ ':.;. z .., '" fT1 -l - o o DATE: 1I/26/2(j~ _ 4:21:19 PM PATH & FILENAME: K:\OI532-I4\ROW\Rlchfleld\woo<LporceLsketcMgn '-:-:J -,-~_, .p- "'-l-.,-- ~ _'.__._..' ---1--_:- / - -- ., ' --- I I CU iF c :;: I il~~ ~~txj z .... G> <::> ill - ~ ~ G> ;;; ~!" i ~ s;i -0 g> ;q,~ ;jj"";:- lirz'" ~ (J1~ ~~g L---~~', 2 0 s:: ;< ( , :l~ I I ;;0 ...... ("') :c " ...... fTI r :co 01 ZOJ or )>0 o s:: ...... Z C> -I o Z C(~J :~-', >~ -~'-../_/ ' _. ..- j.-, -7 - )--,.' (--- ---- ~) I (1 ~.'-- , ....--:1 U r-- U lJ J> :::0 () [Tl r (l ~\ ....... o 1 (." -i~ lJ J> :::0 () [Tl r v ....... ....... ~~ -~-- I I L_____._~. 11------ I (I -'. (' .~.--.__j'-.l_ i -----k h ~i ~. ~~ c~ ~i ~ \J [TI \J ....... s: [TI 0 Z ""'0 ::0 s: ::E "* (") Z 0 fT1 [TI -0 z )> ::0 LN (j) (j) ..c:.. ):> ~ [TI ~ I :::0 ::0 s: ~ I 0 () C fT1 0 N (") Z s: CO rr1 ~ ~ )> I I ....... (j) (j) N 0 ""'0 ..c:.. .......... Z ::0 ....... I 0 0 LN 0 [TI ::0 ::E Z ""'0 0 LN )> 0 I (j) ~(j) 0 0 [TI fT1 0 0 ~ s: 0 c 0 0 [TI ~ -J ~ Z ....... ::0 )> ~ r 0 r (j) ::E II II II II Q") Q") -J -J 00 t.O 1.O ~ (j) (j) (j) (j) I " " " " ~II 0 II~ ~ \J [TI \J ....... s: [TI 0 Z ~O~ ""'0 ::0 ;:o~ s: ::E "* (") Z zOo <:\ 0 [TI fT1 -0 z;::-n m- Z )> ::0 LN UlZ (j) (j) ..c:.. ):> ~G) ~ [TI --l I :::0 >-l ~ 0 ::0 s: I 0 () Z C [TI 0 N (") Z s: CO rr1 ~ ~ )> I I ~~'Vd~o ....... (j) (j) N ~/ 0 \J ..c:.. <:> -#- Z ::0 ....... I .......... -n '" 0 ;;\~;;; ::0 0 ::E LN .......... .., <:> [TI ""'0 LN ~.o -4,'Y )> Z 0 0 I oerAlIo~ (j) (j) 0 0 [TI ~ 0 ~ fT1 0 --l s: C 0 CO ,l<" ", ", -0 ", -0 ", ", ", 0 ~~ x x ::0 x ::0 X X X [TI ~ 0 .... .... 0 .... 0 .... .... .... --l Z 1-1 ::0 ~;;9 Vl Vl -0 Vl -0 Vl Vl Vl )> ~ r 0 -l -l 0 -l 0 -l -l -l ~o .... .... Vl .... Vl .... .... .... r (j) ::E a~ z z ", z ", z z z II II II II Cl Cl 0 Cl 0 Cl Cl Cl '" ..., r [Xl Vl Vl (') (') -0 ::0 ~ 0 c .... 0 0 ", 0 ....... ....... ~ ~ -l .... 0 0 z Z ::0 ~ r ", ", (') n !:: LN 0 LNO t> r 0 ~ ::e ::0 ::0 l> Q") '" ......~ .... .... l> l> ", IT1 Z Q") ..., z Z r r -l .... ", 0 0 '^ 88trj IT1 Cl '" '" IT1 IT1 Z -> -l w ~~~ n n fiJ ""'I...... C C IT1 :0 @@o ::0 ::0 l> '" [Xl [Xl Vl ~II ..., "''''R<> IT1 ::; ~~~ !:: ~ ", z gjgj;.:; -l ~ ~~n ~ "''''~ 0-30-3 " ...... ~ ...... ~ o Vl n l> r IT1 ~~ z ..., "" 1"'1 -l 00 00 ~......~......gJ ...,] tI:I 00 ...,] .... o