Loading...
03-22-05 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 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 Concurrent City Council/HRA/Planning Commission Worksession of March 8, 2005; (2) Regular City Council Meeting of March 8, 2005; (3) Special City Council Worksession of March 8, 2005; (4) Special City Council Meeting of March 9, 2005; (5) Special City Council Meeting of March 10, 2005; and (6) Special City Council Meeting of March 10, 2005 PRESENTATION 1. Swearing-in of Richfield Police Officers Bradley Drayna, Aric Gallatin and Sean Majewski COUNCIL DISCUSSION 2. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 3. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the 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 canceling public hearing regarding resolution authorizing property tax abatement for certain property (Cedar Point redevelopment area) in City of Richfield S.R. No. 52 S. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and .award contract to Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. for 2005 curb and gutter, sidewalk and miscellaneous concrete repair in amount of $52,045 S.R. No. 53 C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing purchase and installation of access control system from VTI (Videotronics) Security Integrators for Public Safety/Police and Fire Services Departments in amount of $36,929 S.R. No. 54 D. Consideration of approval of hiring Wentz Associaties, Inc. to prepare plans and specifications for HVAC improvements at water treatment plant for fee of $62,625 plus related reimbursement expenses S.R. No. 55 E. Consideration of approval of continuing contract with City of Bloomington for various types of building inspections and code enforcement for Richfield inspection services for 2005 and 2006 S.R. No. 56 F. Consideration of approval of continuing agreement with City of Bloomington for food inspection services for Richfield for 2005 and 2006 S.R. No. 57 G. Consideration of approval of new therapeutic massage enterprise license for Golden Tan, 6409 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 58 Notes: 5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARING 6. Public hearing regarding resolution denying appeal from Hearing Examiner decision and affirming Hearing Examiner decision to deny variance for garage at 7221 Sheridan Avenue Notes: Staff Report No. 59 RESOLUTIONS 7. Disciplinary hearings regarding resolutions imposing civil enforcement on establishments in Richfield that underwent tobacco compliance checks conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff and failed by selling tobacco to underage youth Staff Report No. 60 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 8. Consideration of temporary permit to construct 18th Avenue crossroad and other improvements as part of west half of new interchange at 66th Street and Highway 77 Staff Report No. 61 Notes: 9. Consideration of State of Minnesota Speed Limit Authorization allowing 35 mph speed zone along 76th Street between I-35W northbound ramp and Penn Avenue Staff Report No. 62 Notes: 10. Consideration of Transportation Committee recommendation regarding possible location for transit hub on I-35W near I-494 Staff Report No. 63 Notes: 11. Consideration of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contracts for Pavement Management Projects: • Pearson Bros. Inc. for 2005 sealcoating work in amount of $191,79,3.96 • Valley Paving for 2005 mill and overlay work in amount of $218,613.85 Notes: Staff Report No. 64 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 12. City Manager's report Notes: 13. 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: Adjournment SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Call to order Roll call 1. Discussion regarding strategy for homes within both 65DNL and 87d6 airport noise contours Notes: 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: Qther Business AGENDA ITEM # I 1 REPORT # E)~+ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: KRISTIN ASxER, PROJECT ENGINEER NAME, TI7ZE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~ REVIEW REVIEWED BY CITY ~/ MANAGER: L:J ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contracts for the 2005 Pavement Management Projects. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award of contracts for the following Pavement Management Projects: • Pearson Bros. Inc. in the sum of $191,793.96 for Sealcoating work to be completed in 2005. • Valley Paving in the sum of $218,613.85 for Mill and Overlay work to be completed in 2005. II. BACKGROUND The City's Pavement Management Program is a detailed, comprehensive approach to maintaining the integrity of the streets within our responsibility. Attached, for your review, is the City's Pavement Management Survey. This report is an in depth explanation of exactly how our program works and why Richfield's streets, which have surpassed their years in life expectancy, are in better than average condition. The Pavement Management Program was implemented in 1988 and with that implementation was a dedication by staff to improve the quality of the roads within 0322 PavementM anagementContracts the City and maintain an acceptable roadway system for our residents. As shown in the report, after following a strict maintenance plan for over eight years the roadway ratings were improved substantially. Committing to and continuing the preventative maintenance program is essential to avoid the high costs associated with the inevitable deterioration of the streets to the point of major repair. The franchise fee implemented in 2004 has generated the funding for the City's Pavement Management Program. All funding for the surface maintenance contracts will be taken from these funds. Without these funds the Pavement Management Program does not exist. Sealcoating has been the leading cost-effective technique for slowing the deterioration of our residential streets. The sealcoating process involves applying a thin coat of emulsifited oil, then covering it with buckshot sized rock. A map of the proposed 2005 sealcoat area is attached. In 2000, the City started a mill and overlay program for streets in the worst condition. These roadways have deteriorated past the point where sealcoating remains effective in maintaining the surface integrity of the road. And although significant patching is needed every year, the base of these roads is still in good condition. Milling and overlaying is a preventative maintenance strategy that delays a costly reconstruct of that road. This technique can add up to 20 years to the life of the roadway. In conjunction with regular sealcoating, the life of that roadway can be extended far beyond the intended life. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • In 1995, Council initiated an accelerated street maintenance program. The program includes asphalt crack repair, asphalt milling and overlaying and sealcoating for all City streets in five-year cycles. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Regular preventative maintenance techniques such as sealcoating and overlaying delays costly reconstruct projects. C. FINANCIAL The City Council identified 2005 franchise fee revenue for the following targets for expenditures: 2005 - B 2005 - R Street Maintenance $ 439,300 $ 469,000 Forestry 15,000 20,000 City Hall ADA/Buildin Code Compliance 200,000 200,000 Council Approved Annual Franchise Fee $ 654,300 $ 689,000 Work may be added or subtracted from the Sealcoating and Mill and Overlay contracts based on the condition of the streets after the spring thaw. The balance available from the Pavement Management funds after paying for both contracts will be used for asphalt crack repairs. D. LEGAL When the amount of purchase is estimated to exceed $50,000, sealed bids .shall be solicited by public notice in the manner and subject to the law governing contracts or purchases by the City of Richfield. • The advertisement for bid for all contracts was published in the Richfield Sun-Current on February 17, 2005 and in the Construction Bulletin on February 18, 2005. • A bid opening was he{d on March 10, 2005. A copy of the bid tabulations for each contract is attached. • The City has followed the competitive bid process and should award contracts to the lowest responsible bidders. • Pearson Bros. Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid within the sealcoating budget amounts. • Valley Paving submitted the lowest responsible bid within the mill and overlay budget amounts. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may chose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new bids; however, the prices received for both contracts were extremely good, and staff does not believe lower prices can be obtained from a reputable contractor. • Council may chose not to continue with the Pavement Management Program as planned. However; the program is essential to maintaining and extending the usable life of the City's streets. V. ATTACHMENTS • A copy of the March 10, 2005 sealcoating Bid Tabulation. • A copy of the March 10, 2005 Mill and Overlay Bid Tabulation A map depicting the 2005 sealcoating project/contract area and the 2005 Mill and Overlay projectlcontract areas. A Copy of Pavement Management Survey 2002 Report (separate attachment) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening March 10, 2005 11:30 am 2005 Bituminous Sealcoat Construction Bid No. 05-04 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 2005 bituminous sealcoat construction, bid no. 05-04, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 17, 2005 and the Construction Bulletin on February 18, 2005. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Derick Anderson, Public Works Representative Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name/City Bond Total Bid Amount Allied Blacktop Co. Maple Grove, MN Provided $197,567.44 Astech Corp. St. Joseph, MN Provided $284,912.44 Pearson Bros. Inc. Loretto, MN Provided $191,793.96 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the March 22, 2005 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City .Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening March 10, 2005 11:15 a.m. 2005 Mill and Overlay Bid No. 05-03 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud bids for 2005 Mill and Overlay, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 17, 2005 and the Construction Bulletin on February 18, 2005. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Derick Anderson, Public Works Director Representative Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name/City Bond 2 Addendums Total Base Bid Received ACE Blacktop Inc. Provided .Yes $223,998.95* Inver Grove Hei hts, MN Bituminous Roadways Inc. Provided Yes $223,584.80 Shako ee, MN C. S. McCrossan Constr. Inc. Provided Yes $307,015.00 Ma le Grove, MN Frattalone Paving Inc. Provided Yes $228,846.01 St. Paul, MN Hardrives Inc. Provided Yes $246,596.55 Ro ers, MN McNamara Contracting Inc. provided Yes $262,233.35 Rosemount, MN Midwest Asphalt Corp. Provided Yes $262,040.73 Ho kins, MN NW Asphalt Inc. Provided Yes $221,271.70 Shako ee, MN Valley Paving Inc. Provided Yes $218,613.85 Shako ee, MN *Denotes corrected figure The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the March 22, 2005 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk ~ ~lbOd ~S~a~ N -_ 3~tiaN1~7 Q O r V +~''~ J ~ ~ Z O ~ N a U NN~d S~Xb3X ~ D ~~ i-- JJJ444... :, \ Q a '~ O N ~~, '1 LL~ - w ~ c°i V 7 ~ ~ ~~M ? N 4 ~~ ~~ uj ~ ~ , flC ~ ~ uu ~ ~ 1 q„~_ o~ ^ c.~~ ,,. ~~' J' ~i~i ~l p4~ v~ 3~ ~ ~ n` ~a ,~ 1~~lO~IN A~ r 11 NN3d Pavement Mana ement Surve ~~~ g y ~~. ~,~ ~~:~ 2002 Re o rt ~u~t ~ r -=~~.~ ~.. p s --. •-~wa~.. „• w~, w,~, ,. , TP . n~` _.. ~'4 ~ - ~°~ ~ 141. 1 ~`• a ~' '~' 1 ~..~ ' ~ ~ ilk, ~,ll: ~ J is M ... J.. "~ ~~ s .,: .. ~~~ ~~~~~ ~N~1 s x n 'v a• ! v ~ ^ ' '~ {~ V ~.' 6 ~ ~. _ P # ,. ~ t , e ~ a ~ ~~ .- { ~`,~.~t - e~ a ~ _ ,,~ s'ew' ~ `~,~; ~-':,,~_ ,~,,. ~r a T . *• y ~7 _ yy~~,~ c i 'S` ... ..- ~' i . . . #. ~ r .: -~ . _ ?., ..y~ _ 3~~a, ~ fix. 4 `~~ i - ,k.y ~ :..:: ~ , s;~ ~` a. Richfield's Engineering Division first implemented a pavement management system in 1988. This involved creating a database of street information that included: length, width, surface type, year constructed and more, for every street. Streets were broken into smaller segments, a street segment is a continuous length of street that maintains a constant width, construction date, and construction type. The City was then divided into 31 maintenance districts and sub-districts which, w7th the exception of New Ford Town and Rich Acres, are still in use today. These maintenance districts can be seen in the 2002Average Section Condition map in the appendix. At that time, the first pavement condition survey was performed. This survey consisted of visually inspecting every street in Richfield and measuring each pavement distress. The results of that survey were entered into a pavement management software program to generate a quality rating of the streets and store the condition inventory for that year. Every two years since then, a new condition survey has been performed to keep track of the performance of each street over time. This report will discuss the results from the 2002 survey and compare the condition ratings for the past 14 years. Streets were surveyed in the fall of 2002. The Technician in charge of data collection for the 2002 report was different than the one in charge the past two reports. To calibriate the data gathering, Goodpointe Technology was hired to independantly rate a 3.85 mile sample section of streets that were also rated by the City of Richfield. The results were compared, and all the resulting PCI ratings were within +/- 5 PCI points, with the exception of one of the 14 sections surveyed which had a 6 point difference. PCI ratings of +/-5 points are generally acepted for surveys performed by indepentant survey crews. The average of Richfield's PCI difference overall was 1.1 points lower than Goodpoint's results. In 1996, a new pavement management system and software program, Goodpointe's (formally Braun Intertec) Icon software, was implemented. This was done to upgrade to a better, more standard system of pavement management. In implementing the new pavement management system, the data from the old Carter system, had to be converted to the new rating scale. This was done empirically, using a mathematical formula. The results of this are not exact, but it will still show us the trends of the changing conditions of Richfield's streets. For the 2002 report, Icon 4.0 software was used. With this new system, the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) methodology of data collection was used to survey the amount of pavement distress present on each section of pavement. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initially developed the PCI survey methodology. PCI Rating 100 Excellent Very Good ~o Good 55 Fair 40 Poor 25 Very Poor 10 0 Failed Pavement Condition Ind ex (PCI) Scale A revised PCI survey procedure was used for the Richfield project. This procedure was developed by Minnesota Local Road Research Board for the agencies within Minnesota and then refined by Goodpointe Technology for Richfield's special needs. The PCI is based on a numeric rating system ranging from 100 for a newly surfaced pavement, to 0 for a critically failed pavement. The condition survey measures and records the quantity and severity of 20 different types ofpavement distresses that are visible on the pavement surface. In the development of the PCI methodology, the following figure was created to correlate a qualitative description of pavement condition with PCI. Page 1 Comparing the results from Richfield's 2002 survey with the scale, all of the streets fall in the excellent or good rating. This is illustrated in theAsphaltPavementCondition chart shown below. Rating Miles Percent PCI Range Excellent 93.6 81.8 85-100 Good 20.9 20.9 55-84 Fair 0 0 35-54 Poor 0 0 0-34 Total 114.5 100.0 A change was made to the 2000 survey procedure to let the software increase the PCI rating 5 points from the previous rating, for streets that were sealcoated just months before the survey. This creates a maintenance PCI to reflect the improvement due to maintenance. This was done because visually rating a street that was recently sealcoated tends to under report distresses. This leads to an artificially (and temporally) high PCI rating. The fresh sealcoat hides just about every defect under it, cracks and patches are still there, and will show up after some wear. In the 2002 report, the PCI adjustment was made by the software using a formula that takes into account the previous PCI. T:he formula ranges from 0 to 100 points added, streets with a lower PCI :recieve a greater increase due to sealcoating than streets with a higher PCI. A street with a PCI of 93 before sealcoating would have a PCI increase of 1 due to sealcoating, a PCI of 84 would see a 5 point increase., a PCI of 50 would see a 32 point increase. The formula increases the PCI rapidly above 50 and assumes sealcoating would probabley not be done on streets with a very low PCL In Richfield, streets are also pactched and repaired before sealcoating, so a 32 point PCI increases could be justified in the case of a street with a 50 PCI. The new calculated PCI is considered a maintance PCI, not an actual PCI and the software will decay the PCI faster than an actual PCI over time. Page 2 A change is recommended for some streets in the D2, C2, C4, andA3 maintenance districts. As seen in the 1995-2002 SealcoatAreas map in the appendix, these districts are split in two and are sealcoated in different years. Some streets are considered one segment, but receive maintenance on half one year and maintenance on the other half the following year. These streets need to be split into two segments along the maintenance dividing line, or the maintenance needs to occur to the whole district at once. The latter would be preferred, as it would simplify record keeping. A goal should be to get all the sealcoat areas together, and eliminate the sub-districts. Currently sealcoating is somewhat scattered throughout the City. The areas done each year were originally chosen by which areas were in worst condition at the time, and to balance the total area done each year. Now that there is less difference between the best and worst areas, grouping them together geographically would make the maintenance procedures more efficient. In 2002, sections E 1 and E2 in the far west side of the City were sealcoated with the rest of the west side, rather than with the areas on the far east side of the City as in previous years. This was part of an expanded sealcoat program that added 2 more districts and added section B 1 in place of section D2 scheduled to be done that year. When tracking the condition of a pavement over time, it is best to look at its condition decay curve. This is a curve of the pavement's PCI plotted against time. This curve generally shows a decrease in PCI as time increases for a pavement that receives no maintenance treatment. If the pavement receives any maintenance treatment, the PCI will increase and then begin to follow another decay curve. The following figure illustrates an example the PCI decay curve and how the maintenance benefit can be derived. Pavement Management Pavement Benefit PCI vs. Time 100 Decay Curve PCI after Maintenance X before Maintenance ~ ~ p 80 Area of Maintenance Benefit C ~= 60 ----------------- ------ ~ PCI before Maintenance Decay Curve O V after Maintenance 40 ---------------------- ------- -- ~ a~ E > 20 -------------------------- ------ a 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3 5 Age Since Construction The shaded area is the benefit provided by the maintenance being done at some point in time. Factors that influence the benefit are: Type ofpavement (determines which decay curve to use) Age of pavement (affects the PCI increase) Type of maintenance proposed (affects the PCI increase) Cost of the proposed maintenance (affects the costlbenefit ratio) Page 3 h1 most cases, the maximum benefit is provided by some combination of maintenance procedures, as opposed to using one type of maintenance. The reason for this is that combining maintenance techniques provides larger increases in the PCI. Most residential streets in Richfield were paved starting in 1972 in the east side of the City, and moving to the west side, which was completed in 1976. The sealcoat program, originally started in 1980 in the east side of the City and working west, was completed in 1989. The program began to repeat, starting in 1990 and continued until 1992 when the program was discontinued. A limited crack sealing began in 1991, but did not become afull-scale program until 1994 when the current maintenance strategy began (See maps in the appendix). Richfield's recent maintenance strategy is afive-year program that began in 1994. In the first year, high severity crack repair is performed in approximately 1 /5 of the City's streets. This involves the City's Street Division milling, or grinding away, a 14 inch wide by 2 inch deep section of pavement where there is severe cracking or other pavement distress. The repair is cleaned, then a hot tar tack coat is applied to the surface to help the patch bond to the existing pavement. Hot-mixed asphalt is then added and rolled to create a smooth, permanent patch. In past years, a rout and seal contractor sealed smaller cracks not done by the City. Light and medium cracks were routed out to a uniform 3/4 inch deep by 1 inch wide channel that is then cleaned with a heated, high pressure compressed air device called a heat lance. The heat lance dries any moisture and heats the asphalt, which softens it and makes it tacky. The routed crack is then filled with a hot molten sealant. Rout and seal was discontinued after the 1999 contract, when the entire City completed the five-year program. A mill and overlay program was started in 2000 in place of rout and seal. More about mill and overlay appears later in this report. A change was made to the City street pactching program in 2001 to discontinue milling the crack first, and simply clean, tack, and patch the street directly. This method is considerably faster and less expensive, and appears to work just as well. It's also is more flexible for irregular areas, areas larger than the 14"milling machine can handle in one pass, and distresses other than cracks. A problem was encountered with rout and seal in the southeast corner of the City. The pavement is so friable in some areas, that when hit with the spinning router blade, the brittle asphalt disintegrated into a much larger area than the 1 inch wide by 3/4 inch deep channel desired for specification 3723, or the 3/4 inch wide by 3/4 inch deep channel desired for specification 3720 sealant. The City Sealant pulled out due to snow plowing Close up of sealant pulled out, and pavement raveling Page 4 switched to 3720 in 1999, because it is a softer, more elastic sealant, better suited for low volume roads. When the pavement offers little resistance to the router, it cuts very fast and deep and is hard to control. In pavement that is in better condition, it takes time for the router teeth grind away the asphalt, leaving a precise channel with the proper shape factor for the sealant. Larger routs led to quantity overruns that required two contracts over two years to complete the area that should have been done in one year. Also, there were problems with the sealant pulling out in large strips because the surrounding pavement breaks away, still attached to the sealant, as seen in the pictureson the previous page. The proper shape factor is critical to a long lasting rout and seal. The following paragraph about shape factor comes from a MnDot research report titled Sawing and Sealin~~ioints in Bituminous Pavements to Control Cracking: In order for the sealant to be able to stretch and not lose its bond with the joint reservoir sidewalls it must have the correct shape factor The shape factor is the ratio of the joint width to depth. For example, a joint with a shape factor of 2.0 means the width of the reservoir is twice the depth. Stiffer sealants need larger shape factors than soft sealants so that the stress that develops along the reservoir sidewall does not exceed the material's ability to adhere as the joint opens in cold weather During the last couple years, there has not been many problems with sealant pulling out, probably due to the fact that most of the susceptable ones have pulled out already and have been patched with hot mix. ~~ ~. Another problem with rout and seal is crack selection. Raveling is when the surface begins to disintegrate. Light raveling may resemble cracking, but it only affects the surface. It can be sealed by sealcoating; routing does more damage by making small surface cracks deeper and wider, and drives up the cost of the project. Despite explaining this to the contractor and the laborers running the routing machines, and watching them, the minute they're left unattended, they usually revert back to routing everything that looks like a crack. There have been as many as 12 routers `~ going at once on some contracts, in addition =~,~. "~ to the other phases of the operation which ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-.~ ,, may be going on at the same time. It is Light raveling can resemble cracking difficult for the City inspector to keep a close eye on every phase of the operation. Rout and Seal contractors have been some of the most troublesome contractors the City has had to deal with. In 1999 we caught the contractor on a street he was told was not included in the rout and seal program. The street was completely reconstructed one year earlier and did not have any cracking whatsoever. The contractor routed and sealed non-existing transverse cracks every 30 to 50 feet in a pattern that would mimic the expected cracks caused by expansion and contraction. The City did not pay for this work, and actually charged the contractor for the cost to later sealcoat the entire street. Experiments have shown that precutting expansion/contraction joints at regular intervals in new asphalt streets can reduce or prevent transverse cracking that will inevitably occur. We now have our own experimental section. As of January 2003, there were only a few transverse cracks in the street that have occurred since the rout and seal It will be curious to watch that area to see how it performs over time. Page 5 In the following year, a sealcoat operation is performed in the same area. Sealcoating involves spraying a thin layer of hot emulsified tar over the entire asphalt pavement surface. Immediately after, a thin layer of fine gravel is applied and rolled into the hot tar. The water evaporates from the emulsion, and the tar cools to hold the aggregate in place. The result is a completely sealed pavement with a uniform, fine grained, aggregate surface. In 1999, Richfield completed all ofthe streets in the five-year program, and has started the second pass of the maintenance program in the year 2000. The results of the program are illustrated on the graph labeled PCI by Class 1988-2002, below. PCI by Class 1988-2002 65 ~ i --- ~-~- 60 ~ .. I 1988 1990 ~ II 1992 ~ 1994 1996 1998 ~i 2000 2002 -~-Collector li 86 ', 90 ~I 87 83 '~ 82 88 ~84 ~ ~ 86 --t-Frontage Roads 84 74 ~ 71 62 82 86 82 84 Minor Arterial 87 72 93 I 79 72 88 ~ 87 ~ 83 -Residential 89 88 85 84 86 87 85 89 Year This graph shows the average PCI for residential streets, collector streets, minor arterial, and frontage roads plotted against time. If we examine the curve, we can see that there had been a gradual decrease in the PCI of collector and residential streets until 1994-1996, when the five-year maintenance cycle began. Minor arterial and frontage roads have seen the largest turnaround because many of them have recently been overlayed and then incorporated into the crack repair and sealcoat program. We have completed the five- yearmaintenance cycle and we can see that the benefits of our maintenance strategy by the average PCI graphs. The PCI for all streets increased in 1998 for several reasons. As mentioned before, 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue have had several mill and overlay prof ects, and all the frontage roads were overlayed by MnDot. The overlayed streets have a PCI of 100, until the cracks from the existing pavement below reflect the surface, a year or two after the overlay. For the 1998 survey, all streets had just completed the crack repair program. (Note: Some work was left unfinished until spring of 1999 due to the storm damage earlier that year that kept City crews busy. The rout and seal program was also carried over for an extra year due to quantity overruns. However, the streets were rated in the fall of 1998 as though all crack repairs went according to the original schedule. For example: A high severity crack was recorded as a light crack, which it would be if it were sealed.) Also, the procedure of adjusting the last PCI of a recently sealcoated street (started in the 2000 survey) up a uniform 5 points, rather than trying do a visual survey, led to a lower but more accurate rating. The graph also shows that starting in 1998, all the streets are more uniform in condition, and have maintained that close uniformity in the 2002 survey. The overlay projects occured in 2000 and 2001 which repaired the worst streets in Richfield, and between 2001 and 2002, almost half the City was sealcoated. Page 6 Comparing the PCI vs. Maintenance District graphs for the years 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002 located below and on the next page, we can see an improvement in the average street condition. These graphs give a qualitative condition rating for each maintenance district in the city. The overall trend in 1998 was fewer sections in the lowest rating (red) and more sections in the highest rating (green). In 2002, the graph's overall distribution shows the average PCI ratings are higher, especially at the low end ofthe graph where even the lowest districts are still near 85, and the districts are more uniform in condition. It should be noted that the streets are graded on a curve realative to each other for that particuliar year only, rather than a specific PCI range. Grouping is done by looking for distinct changes in the PCI values to create high, medium, and low average rating. This is also illustrated in theAverage Section Condition maps for the years 1994 to 20021ocated in the Appendix. 1996 PCI vs. Maintenance District nc 1998 PCI vs. Maintenance District 95 90 85 80 75 70 Page 7 A4 D4 C2 C3 A2 CS C1 C4 D1 DS D3 82 85 E4 D2 A5 E2 B1 83 A3 ES E1 Al E3 2000 PCI vs. Maintenance District 95.0 90.0 85.0 80.0 75.0 70.0 2002 PCI vs. Maintenance Distriict 95.0 90.0 85.0 80.0 75.0 70.0 D2 A4 B3 A5 C2 C4 A3 B5 A2 E4 C5 B1 D3 Al C1 B2 E3 C3 E2 D1 E1 E5 D5 D4 By looking at a condition curve for a single maintenance district we can see how the PCI responds more sharply over time. If we examine district C4, we can see a decrease in the PCI from 1988 to 1994 followed by a sharp increase in the condition rating from 1994 to 1996, then a gradual decline from 1996 to 2000. This is a result of the maintenance that occurred in this area. In 1994 -' 95 this area received crack repair treatment, followed by sealcoating in 1995-'96. Since then, it has not received any maintenance until sealcoating ing 2000 - `01. The black dashed line is where the PCI before and after the maintenance cycle is equal, in the year 2000. In other words, the benefit of the maintenance lasts approximately five to six Page 8 A4 E4 D3 B1 D4 63 C2 D2 A3 D1 E2 A2 A5 C4 E3 65 D5 E1 Al C3 E5 C5 C1 B2 years. The future deterioration curve without maintenance is shown as the dashed red and blue dashed lines. It can be seen that the slope of the blue line is greater than the red line indicating that deterioration of the maintanance is occuring more rapidly as time goes by, also the benefit of maintenance is not as great the previous cycle. PCI for Maintenance District C4 100 PCI vs. Time Time Interval of Benefit of Maintenance Benefit 9 0 ~ _ - - -- Maintenance __ -- __ Benefit of `~ ~ °° Maintenance U ~ ° a ~ --,~ - PCI Trend 80 - - '~~ -- --_ °° w/o Maintenance '~ ~ °i ° ~ q ° ° PCI Trend ~ ~' ~~ w/o Maintenance 70 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Year The results from the 2002 survey have shown that Richfield's maintenance strategy is maintaining the condition of the streets. One question about this maintenance strategy might be to ask if it is acost-effective strategy; to do this we have to look at an alternative. One alternative to consider would be to not perform any planned maintenance (crack repair and sealcoating) and let the pavement deteriorate to a poor condition were the entire pavement would require a Mill and Overlay. A mill and overlay is where the entire pavement surface is milled down approximately 2 inches, then overlayed, or paved, with new, hot- mixed asphalt in the same process as the final layer in new street construction. To determine whether this would be a better strategy, we have to compare the costs and benefits between the two strategies. To compare the two, we need to look at a plot of the pavement condition deterioration curve for both strategies. The graph on the next page shows how, after a number of years with no maintenance, a pavement will deteriorate to a poor condition. The surface of the pavement is then milled and overlayed, which brings the condition index to 100, as it was when it was new. We can see that there is a substantial increase in the life of the pavement, as well as a large increase in service. Increased service, which can be thought of as better ride quality, is seen as the shaded area. Now if we look at Richfield's maintenance strategy of crack repair and sealcoating, we can see an increase in pavement life as well as improved service thoughout the life of the pavement. If we overlay both graphs, we can get a better comparison of the two strategies. We can see that both strategies extended the pavement life, but Richfield's strategy shows a better service benefit over the life of the pavement, as shown by the PCI curve. The cost difference between both strategies is also shown, if maintenance is deferred further down the condition decay curve, the cost of repair increases substantially. This is because the slope of the decay curve is increasing with time, therefore small changes in time in the later years create large decreases in the PCI rating, and more money must be spent to improve the pavement condition. Page 9 100 ~ ~ 80 •cv 60 ~ = d LL 40 20 100 T J ~ 0 80 co 60 ~ .~ ~ LL 40 20 y 100 .~ a 80 .~ 60 ~ = a LL 40 0 20 `o Sealcoat & Patching Strategy Typical Residential Street \ \ ~-~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I V V V V I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Years Increa esd IL fe Sealcoat & Patching vs. Mill & Overlay Strategy Typical Residential Street Each $1 ~ ~ of maintenance cost here ~ ~ ^; ~ will cost $s to $6 ~ if postponed until here ~ 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Years Increased fe Page 10 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Years Incre esa d 'IL fe Can we conclude which strategy is best? Crack repair and Sealcoating together average around less than $1/SgYd versus approximately $5+/SgYd for a mill and overlay, and approximately $25-30/SgYd to reconstruct a street. Richfield's Engineering Division has drawn the conclusion that in most cases, a continuous preventative maintenance strategy is more cost effective than that of the overlay alternative presented here. We can see the better service the road provides to its customers -the public - and we feel it is usually the most cost-effective strategy. Other agencies are also using similar strategies to that of Richfield, and are drawing the same conclusions that a preventative maintenance strategy is more cost effective than allowing deterioration to the point of major repair. A change to this program was made in 2000 to mill and overlay the streets in such poor condition that they require substantially more crack repair and patching then the typical residential street. Most of these streets have been residential streets with higher than normal volume, streets around schools with bus traffic, and for some reason east-west streets rather than north-south streets. The only north-south street done so far has been BloomingtonAvenue, from Diagonal Boulevard to 76th Street; which has higher than normal traffic, MTC and school bus traffic. In these streets, excessive amounts of severe raveling require extensive patching. These streets need patching every few feet, sometimes with new patches on top of old patches. These streets continue to deteriorate faster than the five-year maintenance cycle can keep up with. For these streets, the cost of maintenance is much greater, and the time benefit period is shorter, making mill and overlay more cost effective. As shown in the graph below, Sealcoating and patching can no longer maintain the PCI, and a mill and overlay is required. Caal~nat R. Pat~hinry than ~l\/arla\/ Ctratarti\/ 0 0 ~° 100 T N ~ ~ 80 ~~ O O • ~ lJ ~ 60 ~ ~~ a LL 40 0 0 d 20 0 0 T d Years Increased Life Page 11 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Tests have shown that the asphalt wear course, or top layer, _ _ f~~ ~;~. ~° ~' is dry and brittle and has a high air content which is very ~° ~`~,~ ~ ~ '~ ~~ ~° ~'~ susceptible to raveling, especially after a winter with freeze/ - . ,- "f ~'°` thaw conditions. This can leave the City with a lot of .~ ~ ~'` unexpected work in the spring. The only effective -~" ~'" maintenance is to mill off the entire wear course down to the base course. The base course appears to be fine, in fact looking at the pictures, the base surface is smooth and tightly compacted and looks almost new. The milling machine is set to just scratch the surface of the base, this insures the wear course is completely removed, this has typically been 2-1/2 to 3 inches. In areas where the wear thickness exceeds the milling depth, the wear course usually separates • - -~ from easily from the base, leaving a smooth, like-new base Milling reveals the base is in excellent surface. It is repaved with a special low-volume design mix condition (Type 2350 Wearing Course - 2350 LUWE35030B) that compacts easily, even at a 3 inch thickness. The original wear course thickness of 3 inches is thicker than the typical 2 inch wear course normally used. This may have led to inadequate compaction during construction and contributed to some of the problems we have today. Today's materials and equipment make compacting thicker layers easier. Core samples are taken to test the compaction of the overlay. All paving has met or exceeded the required compaction density. It is anticipated that a mill and overlay will last ten years, j ust as new construction is estimated to last twenty years, without any maintenance. However, once a street is overlayed it is included in the regular maintenance cycle, and should exceed the anticipated life often years. The oldest residential street overlay is 65th Street between Penn and Xerxes, which was milled and overlayed in 1997. In December 2003 it is almost 6-1/2 years old, and has been sealcoated once already. It is still in good condition with medium severity transverse cracks, about 3/8- 1 /2 inch wide, appearing every 30 to 50 feet (see photos below). However, a couple of the cracks are starting to worsen into high sevarity cracks greater than 1 /2 inch wide or where multiple cracks are forming in place of a single crack. Even with another 3-1 /2 years of wear, it is doubtful it will be anywhere near as bad as before it was overlayed, however the cracks should receive attention before they become much worse. Before it was overlayed, 65th Street had extensive amounts of severe raveling. High severity reflective cracks appear on 65th Street Page 12 Close up of unsealed crack on 65th Street Conclusions Overall, Richfield's streets are in good condition, especially considering the average street is close to 30 years old. It has been shown that the recent maintenance cycle has improved and maintained the condition of the streets, without it, many of the streets would be in very poor shape. Richfield staffwill continue to monitor and survey the pavement condition of the City's streets in the years to come. Along with this, they will continue to develop the best pavement maintenance strategy to meet the public's demand for good service and cost effectiveness. Using the newest version of the pavement management software, the Engineering Division will be able to collect and maintain an increasing database of information on the street's condition, as well as the cost involved in the maintenance. In 2002, the sealcoat program was expanded to include two more maintenance districts, this helped bring the average PCI for the entire City in 2002 to 88.4 which is excellent. The expanded 2002 sealcoat also lessened the impact of suspending the program in 2003, however there is now one district that was last sealcoated in 1997 and three in 1998 along with 12th Avenue and the frontage roads from Cedar to Lyndale Avenue that are overdue for sealcoat in 2004. The sealcoat program should continued, as it is the best way to protect the investment of many years of maintenance. In 2000, the five-year maintenance cycle started in 1994 was completed. After the 2002 expanded sealcoat program, more than half the City has been sealcoated a second time since 1994. The condition of streets sealcoated in 1995 showed they definitely needed to be sealcoated again by the year 2000. The life expectancy of sealcoat has been shown to be about five years, although as a street ages, the life expectancy of sealcoating decreases. As sealcoat ages, the cracks open up to allow water back in to start the cracking process all over again. Small cracks that could be sealcoated will become larger cracks that must be routed and sealed, which if not maintained can become larger cracks that must be milled out and patched. The cost of repair increases with each level of crack repair. After the 1999 maintenance cycle, there were few, if any, high severity cracks left in Richfield. sealcoating the street before problems arise is the most cost-effective way to maintain the quality of the street. The sealcoat program cost about $0.50 per square yard. Mill and overlay is recommended on streets that have deteriorated beyond the point where preventative maintenance is not cost effective. With the start of the mill and overlay program, the rout and seal program has been eliminated, however mill and overlay streets tend to show reflective cracks that exist in the underlying pavement as soon as the first winter. These cracks need to be sealed because unlike a slowing forming crack in a new pavement, these cracks already extend down to the bottom of the asphalt; once they appear on the surface, they are already full depth cracks. Some program to seal these cracks is needed. One thought would be a small proj ect only on the mill and overlay and reconstructed streets. Another thought is that the City's Street Division could do rout and seal. Equipment costs are low, and this would give the City better control in deciding what maintenance is performed. Currently, the Street Division must go through an area before the Rout and Seal contractor, this is because a judgment must be made whether to mill and patch a crack or rout and seal a crack, this is based on the severity of the crack. Also, some cracks are so minor that sealcoating is all that is needed for maintenance. Rout and Seal contractors have a tendency of routing and sealing any crack they see. The only way around this would be to mark every crack we want the contractor to do. After the summer of 1999, all maintenance districts had gone through rout and seal crack repair; there were few, if any, high severity cracks left in Richfield. For the 2004 survey, an evaluation of the condition of previously sealed cracks and new cracks will have to be done to determine if a new rout and seal program is needed. Page 13 APPENDIX 2002 Average Section Condition 2000 Average Section Condition 1998 Average Section Condition 1996 Average Section Condition 1994 Average Section Condition 1995-2002 SealcoatAreas 1989-1992 SealcoatAreas 1980-1989 SealcoatAreas 1994-1999 Rout & Seal Areas 1991-1994 Rout & Seal Areas Functional Class o~ Roads Page 15 ~1 Z O H O Z O U Z O H U W W C~ w Q N O O N N L >~ m a ;M a ~ a m' ` :: ~t Q N m ~; U M U ~ U N N ~ m Q ~`_~ ` , ~ i ~ N ~ N N ~ ,',; W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N W ~ M ~' o 0 N o W r W M W ! i~ I W ~ L.LI m ~ z ~o~ ~WWz Q L L Z ~ _ w=C7~ U > Z ~ a~wo avo3o Z 0 0 Z ~Z1 0 v aNVUaod z o_ 131~001N ~ Z O W H ,~ ~IVaN~,~ w O lmoewnH Z O NN3d O U H W m s3xa3x a z m ~ z_ °w°~ ~wWz a~z~ ~ U Z ~ a~wo Z O H D Z O U Z O H U W W C'~ W Q O O O N ava3o Z O H ~a ~ O U O aNVUaod a Z O 131~001N 0 z 0 U w H ,~ ~vaNx~ W D O lmoewnH NN3d s3xa3x ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z O D z U H W m i i .w i ~I I m ~ z_ w°°°~ ~wWz a~z~ w=C7- ~ U Z > a~wo Z ~_ H Z U Z O U W W \W avaao z 0 0 z 0 U 0 N '~ ~i m a ~ `~ a a m m ~ a ~ (V ~ i M ' In m V V V N N ~: N U m %T ~ ~, ,,;; M ~ 'N N N ~ W 0 ; 'Q !~ cv Z- ~ Q N W ~ M d' '~ '~ ~ N ~ W ~- M ~ ~ W W j J W r___ W ~z aNVUaod 131~001N ~daN~-, lmoewnH NN3d s3xa3x ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ° n °° J Z O 0 z O w w 0 O Z O Z U H w m e• m _~ z w~~ ~wWZ a~zN a~wo , i Z O H D Z O U Z O H U w w C~ w Q co rn rn Z ~ ~ ~ N t0 O d co ~ n ~ C'7 ~ ~ ' : M ~.f') m a.. Q a c'7 ~ ~' m m Q im U U U E Ji N N ~ r m N -------- V ---- Q ~-- 'M ~: N N N ~ W ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ c~ ~\` Z- ~ a N W ~ M ;~: .. N ~ ,, , W ~ W ( M I W ~. ~ W W ava3o z 0 0 ~z~ o U O aNVUaod Z O 13110~IN 0 Z O W ,~H ~vaN~,~ W O O lmoewnH z O NN3d O U H W m s3xa3x n Z O ~_ Z O U Z O U W '~ W C~ W N Z-~D ,:N W ~ ~ M ~ '~ ~ Q Q N 0 W ~ ` W M W ~ ~ ~ ,W ! W ada3o m ~ z ~ wog ~wWz aLLZ~ w=C9- ~ U Z ~ a~wo [~~ 3~YQNJ., W lmoawnH NN3d s3xa3x 0 Z ~ ~ ~ N 10 O ~ ~ co ~ n n 0 0 Z ~_ H Z U H w m m ~ z ~o~ ~WWz a~z~ ~ U Z ~ ~~'W~ v / W 1 O U J rW ~/ / N O O N T~ V o ~ ~ ~ o aVd3~ ~°" @..~ ~ ® ', ^^~t SJ U x~ J ..J Q "~ LdJ i.t,! cn rte F{LZL ~ ~ ff O ) ~ ~ ~ ~_ aNVllaod Q Q ~ ~ Q Q W W 13llO~IN (n (n o N r 3lb'4N.ll Q laloewnH Q Q W W ti o NN3d N ~ S3Xa3X L T M~ TTW VI r N Z 0 U O Q U W D~ {~ a510N d1£ ;- 0~ 2~ Is ~~ 4 I (] 2 1 41 (il __. .MUI 73iON0-i _ 11 -N 1 - and Ndn3; JI gi 41(i 4.31 NO1 ^•N IW00'H 41 51 VIe v14i VI ~, J 1 i ~ V 1 OI iOl ll3 OUd OINK snewmo~ ' >+abd ;r~r .v cN`, ~.. ~, ~~~~~~~~~p~j~ z N ~ N N ~ M N N N '\ ~_ I I j 1 j I I 1 I 11 -~- r {y L~ 1~6p h ~~pp 05 ...~; Z a ^ A ~ CCDI p Cam! O+ ~ - ~ U ? 2 ' .. .. .`. ~-.+ Z r w ~ r ° ~_ ti ma a ' 11.!1: MO)lijONO-I a - ._~,. _..,.,...._-,..-_-...-.~,.•=....,--,.... _.- a. ._ ant' ab031 41/ ~V F. ~, :q.a• -aae+':.e~ .. ur:_'.rwwuy~}-+. ~~ HOl`_1NI W(1()1B t.- 11 yi k + VI b. ... ~ 41 2 1 ~ [ e S ' 1' ~'f+ OOV JIHU ~r+ sr:awmo~ .._,., ~ ~ w.y:-dam-a=-:_ ., '. ._.._:E... I .~Ndl>tdo 1 and GNduaod ~.. ~ 41 s -...:.. _ Vlb ~R. i N(il Nil~J s.ws~ - ~, c, t. +~ -._ -. . - DVZ ~` ~ SN3A315 rol Y - - -. __. -- -. 3M1b L311001N ll3GSld lB ~, '~ 13USldle M1tlUM1N dM - - ~ I~laVM 11YdM Ab'i1851. -`in ~ r. .. ltl:'185111d iNdSb3 .f t... ~ - .--.~.. ...,_m.,~-.. ~ - .~ iNd5d3-ld e 4 (7Nda0 --1 ~' _ ': wjas^... ~ •'4 { ter.. ><: ~~4 lIN7tlJ JalaadM I~ ,~~~' E~ _, ~ i 131aa DH U1313ad9 ~I ~ J ~ ` ~ i P- ~. ,.. -~ ~ G1313av'i anv 3laGNAI ~L. -- ~ ~~ ~~' ~ C~._=, ~ and 3141 ~''' ,~ r NG a ld ~. I ms `ea' `. .r $. .i. 1.91aUlr ~°~,,,, n 1NdAae I~11~~' ~ '9 _ 1Nbaae I, xdd ~OJ ..1rc~; '~ - xdilC~7 ~ ,~ iNOd n<i NOSd3W3 's ~qp -,.~ ~ ~ c lNOw Sad '._ - _. N+ +~ iNOw3ad oadM. ?6 La;oewn" ;~~~. _ _. '. _7S~ ~ ~ ~ ioloawnb 9NIny1 _.,.. 3Mdt r - --- - ~ ~ 1~ ONlnal S3WdP - ~ 53Wb~ xONN I - -~ NONM NdObOW .._- - R.;"~`~~-'-. Nd 9aUW NO1M3N ~ - I ~ NOl M3N and NN3d .- --- _- ~. -_ ._ - i;.d NN3a N 33n0 N33no ta3SS::a ~ ~ - - ~ ~ il3SSna N c::la 31+~ NdGIa3N5 1 sdwUNl •~ '~~ Sd WON1 \~:~:, ,f NOldfl . ' ~.!~~ 1N35NIM1 NtlAB NS dN I;jJ Na1~8N5dM ~.. and S3xtl3% - ~ - ~ ~ '+ 3nv S3xa3x ul .n v. vl ~ ~ ~ <~ vl In w vl ~. in u, N In v, u+ d°, 0 0 t0 W tC u: ;O u? ~ N 4FJ ~ n n n r ~ n ti ~ 6 O U C Y :~ a aj ~ W ~~ -.. '{ cp w n '~ N N ~ N Z r i o, ~, '^ N ~ 1 0 ~ N ~ ~ ~ `I r Z ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` G MD D ~ K ~1 - l }lyjnNO _ _•.-- .. Mp 3nV yV 03a ~ l- ~ _ .Z ~~`~ ~ V LLI L~ OZ '~.'- - 161 ~ 11 µl .. ~ .+~ 4'9~ NUL'JNIWUO'M19 INO' ~/ 41 S ~ c J ~w^` ~'~, 4t 9i y14~ r ,. u~~-` f i _" VIZ ^ 414` r~ wl+ ~ 41 11 IIWUO}N - 'i 4101 ai 6.~ r -~ ~O~~i3 4v 41 ~ UOV JiHJ 41 E~ '' '+'""M` ', 5r19W0'lOJ ~ 41 z ~ „~""' . „ard 41 ~. _~ ~Nq 111VC 410 >r'r' 3ntl ONd 11a0d z w LOIl13 °- a v ~ ` 41S p9y ~iH0 ~ .I •i 4l4 SnQyy (tlQJ '~ NOl NII'J MaVd ~) p14 _, ' i ~ _ ;_+.. __ .._ 3nV UNy'lLaOa '~- - SN3n3 i5 1 _- ` - _.. ~. , __ .. ...._ _. V14 itjti- ~~1.• _ _ - - 1 ~ si .3 ntl 13"IlOJ1N _ _ .. ... NOLNI~J tiy.~~~ --r ~ _ - _ ~ '1"13451V 19 p -- -_ OM1N4M 1 _ ~T~ -.wl-.-,~ 15 1 iNdS . ~ ~ l l~ - -. _ ~ ~ H i l ,~ __ IJiN ~~.. l ',1d 10' 1 ~ ~ ' _ - _ i3~aad _ . N3M ~ _ ~ - ~ 3nv 31VON>, _ -td J ~r I ' - _ I+~itlO - - ~ iNV,,ae N z - „' - _ ,:;tlJ ~ ~ f~~' ~ ~ -~ .S - - - NOSa3W3 Z iN>•l . - _ i LNOW3ai -- _ o 's ~; . r3'10J ', ., ~} _~ - /~ l N~~a~ ~ 9 ~ ` ' =-` ~, . '- - _ .. LNOW3a' i ' 1 -- Nd 70~' - -- OIiVNiO i 4 4""~ ~ ~ W Nv'~a0 J ~'~ 109W(11+ .--~1~ ~ - - NQL M3N _- 10 1 ~tJfAal ~,i~~~ ~ w.3a ~- ~~ _ ~ HY""~ ~1 f -~ _ _. a3nll0 nv NN3d - ~ . 53 WE NH 1 ~L .: 1. .~ ~ ~ - 3 .. 330D %O N 1 NOl M3N 'i`. ,~`J~;'_ .~ -. -. SV,/1pN1 b3n510 ~Ir~- - _ 1 - NCIO.. ~- '" ~ NN3d ~c`, ___ and - ~ ~N3JN•^. ~ y ~~~-'_. 3xa3 ~- ~ .~ na Y and $ ~ _ Ny01T13H5 i "__ - -_ ._ _ .. _ _ - ~+ - _. Nold~ ._ ~ N m N L ~ `- N ~ yN3~N1~ \" _ 1- r N~ N N o ~ h NLI(18NStlM _ U+ N F '~` ~ { ~ r 3nV S3Xa3X ^ N ~ ~ O O r 1' v ~ r m ~ z _ w~~ wz w w Q~z~ w=c~`~ U ~ ~ Z d ~ W ~ J Q i ~j j / ~ ~ ~ aVa30 W N ' /~;" ~ M r M ' ~ / / ;; otS 2 V J ~ ~~ ~ O /~ .;: i H1Zl ~' CO \` ~ /T'7 ~T/7j /~T/ r ~j7/r/ / ~j / / ~ / / ~j / ~ / / / ~ ~ ' ; k ~ ~ ;~ / / ;~ / ~~ , ~ , ., , ~ , ~; , ~, ,, , , , ~, ,; j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_~~.__~.:~ ~ ~:.~L1 ~.__~ aNViiaod Q Q W a W ~ ~ ~~ V J m ~ U M U U ~ °~ _ DO 13llO~IN ~ Q~ N _ ~ ~ ~ _ '_~ 3lVONAI VJ ` MLLW 1 ~ Q J W N~ ~ W / ° Q dx N. ~ i ~ fn ~ S ~ 0 ! ~ ~ ~ ~ N z ~ Q laloewnH H ~ Q ~ ~} V N ~ W ~ ~ r~ ~ it ' M i ~ ~ -~ ~ I ~. I- N ~ Q ~J '/ ~ / ; W . ,. . ... NN3d W W ~ J J W W ~ ~ J ~ o saxaax ~ ~ ~ a ° ^° ~ _~ 4____! L__ ~ ~. .- _ :. ~Wz r. ~~ "~ c x ~ ;p ~ ~ m ~ F x ,Z ~' a a iO ~ J a ,~ '° w ~, z z ,y,iz ~, ~ w N ~, ~ ~ x H51GNy1$ N N ~ ma P ~- C p u Z'L ~ ~ o ~ `w°- e- m ro IS 2 O 1, r MO'1 "1339NO1 ~ Sf3 ~ ~~ 3Atl tl4039 s. V161 x039 4 .'. _, 3Ay tl .. _ _ N019NIW00"19 41 81 ., 41 SI 4t 11 - p ~ vl wl -.1- fr .~ ~~ 1 41 E 1 NO IONIWOOIa ~ ~ \.. .. f 41 21 .. 41 11 4 1 0 1 {{ ~ .1 Jir ~Vl- :I ~.... -~ _ _.., ~ 4101 VI CI t -I -IL_-._ .. ~'~li 1011'13 X121 -. 1ll'- - ._ 1 .. _ .. - 09y 31N9 u .. ~, Sfi8W n~00 ~f '.t 01 Y ,laud "ll3 p "' a 0µ71N00 ~ i'~HO W "' - _ any QNtl~ltlOd U Ntltld ~ _I v16 O I ~ ,~I V14 l 1 NOl NIl~ P~£ Du 2 ~~1 Vv V ','I - 1 5N3A315 N1 `~ 1 W v1c .{ " r"r any 131~091N u~n31S - ~ ~- ~~ ~, __ ninuMinam 1 d Itl .:- _(~_,~~ - aanas~~l -y ~r Ur ,;1io91N,.s :" .. •, .^~y ~'~~_ 1 sy3 ` ` Ntl ld „_ ~ ~ _ { ..30c.1y16 -- _~L _ - ~a r - 1~~' a ~ ~.~ ,~ -l1 ll 11 Ntlaa H }51aUM1N3M l _ _ 1 ~l ESl1id - ~ 'I~L ~1~K I~~--~ ~1~ 1 _' ~.' 1-- -~'{ _ 7r A.~ ~. I~ S i _ ~ O'13i1ay9 _ l 3Ay 3 ay tla9 ~ ° ~. 1 ~ I C -~~m. ~` _~'~~ LG HUlab ltl ~,/ l yyf - J ~ _ .I_ ~.msus - t~ ~__ ~ lr~l 1Ntl Aa'd `~ J J Y 7 r LNOo n1- V .~~ao~a ~ ~ - ,o 1~~~_ `- r~l~ ,., ~- w a ~ _ L -: NOSa iY~:: 1 LNV AaO a ~I ~~~~"` .: ~l LL e w s-4 Q u ° a ~ ~, d' Xa3~o9 I f a ~ °~ LNOdnO ~~a - "/ ~ Oatl a.. ~ / ,_ ~jr r_ ~ 1 Op;.r, SOS a3W3 ~i -- mSS,= _', ' "' ' F~ ` - _ _- - ~vaC ',eCHS~Ha`. N S3 Wyk Oatltl19 I . ..~!' I 1 _ .~, ~ XONM Ntl 90~ ~j lw`lAat ._ ~.. __ ~ ,,, Ny 9a0W w;.rM:~~~ ~ NOS K`3N __. ~. _. -. , 3Atl NN3d Na9aOW - .. _- -. '_ ... - .. .. _ N33n0 _. NO1M3N 1 ._-- ~ - ~~ __ ,1, 3Z3S5na S. Ny0 a any NN3d @ __=~~~~-_;_ ;- '~ 1 ~1; Stl WO Hl N33n0 __ _-~ ----I~~ ~ I - -__ 1~355~ta li ---- - _ I !~~~,- 1N30NIA Na01a3N5 ~~ ~~j --_ - - .- 1 _ 11-'== _ NanBHSVM Stl WONT --. ~ 3Atl S3Xa3% NOldn .- ~_~- ~. ~. - .. -, .rte-.''_"_ __` N3JN.n _--- _. u. Nm - ~.,, .. a r r ___ u+ N N V ~ G t r ~ any s3xa3x V N G -' r a N t c O n N m _ ~ p ~ ~` r zg ~ ° ~ `° o tD ~ d' C,w C .^~ Q• O~ H ~ ~~ ~ !i ' O o ® ~p ~~ ~~ z ~ a ~ O a ~ ' a ® ~~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ! ~,~~~o e ~ J W ~ Z -. ~ ~~~~N O ~ s ~ N ~~~~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z~zI SA64 ~ a Q. Q Q .a. ~ J F a a N~ ~X G7 W Z ~ ~ ~ < ~ & ~~ Z ~ < & a U ~ ~ a ~ ~ a ~ ~ s W " ~ ~ a r > u a a i° ° Z u ~ =, ,. -. _ ._.. ...__.-.~.~c -_~- _ - / . ..._~ Y _ a ""-- ~ ~ 0067 6~r 'S'd~i:.,. ~A ~ C ~L-- C i[~C] C~ ~ Q W9f ~ Q 19 Ial~JID07f9 ~...-.__ ._ ~ u0 ~ ~ .. ~ . n ~ __.._~ f,. 0091 W9I III OOCI G J cn wri ® ~R ~ -'~~C~ ~,~~~C~C~ 0 ~ E i oo a ~ ~~~ aai 966, war a~ ~~~ -- ~ .,, W ~ ~° ~ = moo ~~ o o '~~~ ~; O ~ ~ a o ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ moo D '... OOB u i ~ R1YJDn 61181017 ~ e c ~ ~ 7C]0 C7 aos '~I~ o-nriA a-c 0 ~, ,~~- , ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~~ ~A ~~ ~ l - ,I N ras ~ eaua~n - Q ~ ~~o 0 0 0 ~_ ': 60< :; „~ .~ .: 666 ,, ~»~d (~ I _, „gyn. o ~, ~o . ~ f Z .~ ~ g III ~~ ~~~ 6~ ~~C._. iJ ~O ooa ~ . ~ O O O ~ +~'II~~O ' o ~ ~C ~ f_ ~_ _ c " ` r• ooe ~~Q-~~ uexma O J ~ ~ ~ ao ;,;moo --~ - ooc ~~~ / ~, ~aarH ~.,~ m `J ~ - OOL SAttiu _~. v 3bN~11.1 ~/~ VJ .. LL ~ ,~ -~ ~~. ~ 8 0 ' ~ „~,~ U ~~u W ~3 Z --=~ ~I `~~ - k N ~ ~~~ oval ~ om1 raven noraw z I! 7 ~-7C ~ ~ '-~ am ~ - OC C /~ : ~ ~r 9rph7ll y~• ~ ~ r - 1 ,.,, ~C_~u ~~~~ OD r ~ r~ uC~1~00^ ~~~~ ` ~C]O~C] C ~ 009f ~ ~ 00[L 7 eWAiII S~IVI' ,~, ~ r _»o I ~~~C]f~ ~oo~ ~ a~OC]C~OC]C ~_ ~ r~r taro 4w~ , ~ ~,~ ®ooaz =~ mnrn ~~ _ '~ ° o ~ ° ° c ', ~ ,~ ''°Q o o 000 ~ ~~~ t_~ ,~ ^ ~~~ ~ Wf2 6Y10)I1 1~ s ~~ ~ o ~: ~ ~ ~ ~, 1~ wreruvn ® = -' ~~~~ ... ~ .. ~ ~ ~ o ~~ tl~~~_~ ~ r W - - S3YC3nYT --1- ;.,~ ~'f - ~1IWI' ®i, 1\tl MN1A 7nY WiIA v~ Z a p ~ 3 ~ S ~ E ~ B ~ ~ R ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ F H) dNla3 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Accept recommendation of Transportation Committee on possible location of transit hub on I- 35W near I-494. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept Transportation Committee recommendation concerning possible location for a transit hub on I-35W near I-494, "Due to severe design challenges (proximity to I-494 and narrow right of way) at 76th Street in Richfield that the discussion of a station location be deferred to Bloomington for further investigation of the 82nd Street Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station location option. II. BACKGROUND The Richfield Transportation Committee met jointly with the Bloomington Traffic and transportation Advisory Committee on January 27, 2005 to review two possible .locations for siting a transit hub on I-35W in the vicinity of 1-494. The two options were at 76th Street in Richfield and 82nd Street in Bloomington. At the meeting the Minnesota Department of Transportation and its consultant, URS Corporation, reviewed the pros and cons of each option being considered. AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # lO REPORT # 63 0322Transit Hub35W-494 The Richfield Transportation Committee at a subsequent Committee meeting discussed the advantages and disadvantages of both sites and made a recommendation favoring -the 82nd Street site over the one at 76th Street on I-35W. Advantages of the 82nd Street site include: available right of way; increased distance to I-494 that provides increased flexibility to connect the transit hub to I- 35W; room available for apark-n-ride lot at the transit hub; reduced congestion at 82nd Street and, the completion.of the new American Boulevard Bridge over I-35W for east-west traffic to avoid 82nd Street. These advantages are not available at 76th Street. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Comprehensive Plan encourages the use of high-speed bus service. A bus station on I-35W near 1-494 will promote bus rapid transit service on both I-494 and I-35W. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The limited right of way on 35W at 76th Street was a major concern when the City investigated alternatives for the new 76th Street ramps to 35W. C. FINANCIAL • There is no financial impact on the City based on this recommendation. D. LEGAL • There is no legal issue associated with commenting on potential sites for locating a transit hub on I-35W. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could choose to favor the proposed site for the transit hub at 76th Street on 35W. However, the Transportation Committee noted that additional homes along 35W would have to be acquired to provide the right of way for a transit hub. V. ATTACIiMENTS • Map showing possible locations for transit hub on I-35W. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. N C O V O J Z r .N t R L F" Z 1 I J ~~ i~ ~ J~ [i] n J Jr J ~~ cC W '~+ d d LL z ~' `~-' AGENDA SECTION: Qther Business AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # ()2 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH. 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: KRISTIN ASxER, PROJECT. ENGINEER NaxE Ti7zs COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Speed Limit Authorization allowing City staff to replace 30 mph speed limit signs with 35 mph speed limit signs on 76th Street between the I-35W northbound ramp and Penn Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the attached Speed Limit Authorization which authorizes a 35 miles per hour speed zone along 76th Street between the I-35W NB Ramp and Penn Avenue. II. BACKGROUND The Richfield Traffic Control Committee received a request to investigate increasing the speed Limit along 76th Street from the I-35W Northbound Ramp to Penn Avenue. This portion of 76th Street has been reconstructed and widened to include raised medians and left-turn lanes into the Best Buy Campus and surrounding areas. Presently, the speed limit is posted at 30 miles per hour (mph). The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) holds the authority to set speed limits on all roads in Minnesota. On November 23, 2004 the City Council passed a resolution 0322SPEEDIimit directing Mn/DOT to conduct a speed study needed to determine the appropriate speed limit. Mn/DOT has completed their investigation and has issued authorization to erect the appropriate signs designating the reasonable and safe speeds on West 76th Street. According to the attached authorization that speed was determined to be 35 miles per hour. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Mn/DOT is responsible for setting all speed limits on roads in Minnesota. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • When speed limits accurately reflect operating speeds, the difference in speeds among vehicles is reduced. This results in improved traffic safety. C. FINANCIAL • The estimated cost for instituting this change is $300 for 4 signs. D. LEGAL • The erection of the signs shall be in conformance with the current Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Although 76th Street has been widened from I-35W to Penn Avenue and can accommodate increased speeds, the Council still has the option of maintaining the 30 miles per hour speed limit due to MS 169.14 Subd. 2. V. ATTACHMENTS • Local Street or Highway Speed Limit Authorization form issued by the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation authorizing an approved speed limit of 35 miles per hour between the intersection with Penn Avenue and the intersection with the ramp to northbound I-35W VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. Mn/DOT 29213 (12-78) ~p~tlNESp~yo ~~~~~`~ pp Tpp~f _ STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF. TRANSPORTATION Page 1 of 1 Page(s) LOCAL STREET OR HIGHWAY SPEED LIMIT AUTHORIZATION Road Authority City of Richfield Date February 9, 2005 Road Name or No. West 76` Street Termini of Zone: From County State Aid Highway 32 (Penn Avenue South) To northbound ramp to Trunk Highway 35W Date of Request November 23, 2004 As authorized in Minnesota Statutes, Section.169:14, it is hereby ordered that the following speed limits are approved and shall be put into effect on the described roadway or sections thereof. 35 miles per hour between the interseciion with County State Aid Highway 32 (P.enn Avenue South) and the intersection with the ramp to northbound Trunk Highway 35W NOTE: The.speed limits, described in this authorization, are authorized contingent upon curves and hazards being signed with the appropriate advance curve or warning signs, including appropriate speed advisory plates. The roadway described shall be reviewed for traffic control devices impacted by the authorized speed limits before posting the signs. Warning signs and speed limit signs shall be in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (1) White -Road Authority (1) Pink -Central Office Traff c (1) Blue -District Traffic Engineer for Road Authority use only Date traffic control devices char enting this authorization Signature tonth-Day-Year TE4.doc Title AGENDA SECTION: O'ther Business AGENDA ITEM # R REPORT # rl STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY ~" MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Temporary Permit to Construct 18th Avenue crossroad and other im rovements as art of west half of new interchan eat 66th Street and Hi hwa 77. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to approve the attached Temporary Permit to Construct to allow the Minnesota Department of Transportation to construct 18th Avenue crossroad and other improvements in conjunction with. new interchange at 66th Street and Highway 77 on City right-of-way and other parcels owned by the Citv. II. BACKGROUND The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) is requesting a temporary construction permit to occupy certain City streets and City owned property to build the 18th Avenue crossroad and other related improvements as part of the west half of the 66th Street and Highway 77 interchange improvement project. With the exception of one parcel (the former American Family Insurance parcel), all of the parcels included in the permit were acquired for airport noise mitigation purposes with funds from the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) rather than for right-of- way improvements. Mn/DOT will take other land required for the project, north of 0322Permit66th-TH77 66th Street, by Commissioners Order, which is regulated by state statute, and specifically addresses land purchased for roadway improvements. A copy of the permit and a map showing the parcels covered in this permit are attached. The west half of the interchange will be rebuilt in 2005. It includes a second bridge over Highway 77, replacing the two west ramps, traffic signals on 66th St. at the east and west ramps, and widening of 66th Street. The City Council on April 27, 2004 recommended that the project include a berm to the west of 18th Avenue and a road connecting Cedar Avenue and 18th Avenue. The construction plans include these features. As the plan for Cedar Point is developed, the street construction plan between 17th and 18th Avenue will be adjusted accordingly. A map is attached that shows the proposed work as approved by Council. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The project will improve safety and traffic flow on Highway 77 and .66th Street consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • The proposed improvement will protect residences from increased traffic using 18th Avenue to gain access to 66th Street. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The proposal separates residential properties from the increased traffic that will be traveling on 18th Avenue south of 66th Street. • Cit~r staff is concerned that the project to rebuild the interchange at 66t St. not impede the city's ability to redevelop remnant land to the west for the Cedar Point Redevelopment Project. C. FINANCIAL • The cost of the improvement will be paid for by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The City will not contribute any funds to the project. D. LEGAL • City Staff, legal counsel, and MnDOT agreed to the language in the permit. The permit will expire on December 1, 2006. • A meeting was held with MnDOT staff to express the City's concern that MnDOT's project does not prevent the City from proceeding to redevelop the Cedar Point Project adjacent to the new interchange. Both will try to resolve any conflicts as both projects proceed. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None. The proposed plan is consistent with City comments. V. ATTACHMENTS Mn/DOT Temporary Permit To Construct including a map of affected parcels for Construction of the west half of the 66thStreet and Highway 77 interchange. Maps showing the design recommended by City Council. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. TEMPORARY PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT Dated: March 22, 2005 C.S. 2758 County of Hennepin The State of Minnesota has by .its Commissioner of Transportation established and designated the route of Trunk Highway No. 77 in Hennepin County, Minnesota. It is necessary that the State of Minnesota use for highway purposes real property situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: That part of the S 1 /2 of Section 26, Township 28 North, Range 24 West, shown colored in red on Exhibit A attached hereto. The undersigned., having an interest in the above described real property, understand that they are not required to surrender possession of real property without just compensation and are not required to surrender lawfully occupied real property without at least 90 days notice. For a valuable consideration, the undersigned hereby waive these rights and give the State of Minnesota an immediate right of entry and permit to construct a berm, construct a connection between 18th Avenue and Old Cedar Avenue, and reconstruct a driveway. This Permit is expressly conditioned upon construction of the berm, street connection and driveway according to the plans and specifications under Mn/DOT S.P. 2758-62. This Permit will expire on December 1, 2006. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By: Martin J. Kirsch Its: Mayor By: Steven L. Devich Its: City Manager 0322Permit66th-TH77 • 14 15 16 W XLE 'S 9 ~ 10 ~ 11 ~ 12 ~ 13 BLOC 3 ~ m ~ L fl BLOCK 2 DDITION ~ _ T. I REET ~O ON LOT LINE T.E. Y PERMIT ~d~ ~ - 2 ~+ - - - ~ ~` T. Eb BY PERMI~Tj p 3 2 p' 1~~ ~. 8 -~ - _~_.---~--- ~ - 0 1 ON LOT LINE ~ `~ --- ~O 1 ~. -- ~-- ----------~-- -- fl I ~J°ce ~/ T.E. IN STREET 18th Ave. `n °`P ~ ~ =J ~q T.E. BY P M T 6 7 8 9 10 ~' 15 6 BLOC 1 ''-"-'`- ~W __~_ ADDI ~I6~~ 1 ° ~ L T LI E °c I 1 I I ~ ~- ------~~ X720 3. ~ 1 ~ I I 5 4 ~ 3 2 11 I °Ce ~ ~ T.E. BY PERMIT .gip ~_ ~ io ~ ~~ ~~~-° -- - - Q.-moo ~I I ~~ ~ ~~- fl fl fl fl ~~ ~- _ °ce o T.E. I STREET ~ O I CI C2C~C11' AV2. o I I i ~~ 14 T. IN S' 1 o N o ~ + ,~ T ~--/ nOn l~l~ ~--~- MH -----t-9-~------------------- ------i'-----------------------------~-y-----------------------------{=---e- L i( '. ` ~- ~, ~ ~~ ~ ; i ~ .~N ~ ~ ; I I, ~~' '' _~ ~' ~ ~~ T `~--==7 ~ ; i ; X ~ '~ I L ~ - i i E. 64th St Iql ---~--- ; --- - , I I •j • . Y~ , '' I j II I SCALE 1:300 LEGEND: II I I a I I I 0 200 400 ~~ I r-- -_._.. ~- LI i I i ~ PROPERTY RECENTLY ACQUIRED ~ ~-~ ,p ' I -~ UI I !, ~~ ~~ PROPOSED ROADWAY r _~I~ ~ ~ -`~ I' ~ ' i i4 ~ ® PROPOSED CITY OF RICHFIELD ROAD ~~, ~,~_'~ I II I ~'i i ____ ~ ~ ' ® ROAD VACATED -i I ;I I ~, ;~_ I BERM -.- __~L- L _ • .J C--~ E. 65th St. . °; -. - r- I -- - i ,~ ~ ..,.` II ~~ Ii 1 m I , i-- - `~ I , _ '~ ' i ::: -- I> r__ .-~ E. 66th St. I >;~~+.-'~,.~•.'':`=~:r:~:•;~•.;•~;.'_.:t:;':;. •>'..' - - .. ~~ - ~- I ~ '.~ ~ • •? ' i i I -, ~ ; - ----- ' ~~ I I i , i I --- ~~ j I fir'-~~ ~ ;, m -~ ~ ~ , „ , ~I ; ; ~-~ ~mr a ~ ~ I I j I I r ', ~ o I I I ' END OF 67th I i I`~~ i ~ v ' ~~ . U ~ i i STREET 1 -, ~_- ~~ m i i ,t ; ; ~ G ~ o i I- .~.- .... ' ~ i i i E. 67th St. - I ~ - / -r~ ii I I ~~ ~ h i i i ~ i i i I ~~ -- ,: i i i I ~ <i ~ j - ~ ! I ~ ALTERNATIVE #2 I I --- - _ ' - ; ; ~; I I `K j I C--,~~~~~ ~ ~ E. 67TH STREET ENDS AT ' " THE EAST PROPERTY LINE, ,_ ~ ~ - ~ _ _ __ _ _ E. 68th St. I ~ ' I ~...-__ --I ~-~..:-~~~ i ~ ! i I 4/01 /2004 AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~n ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY r-~/ MANAGER: ~( ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolutions regarding civil enforcement for establishments in Richfield that underwent tobacco compliance checks that were conducted by Richfield Public Safet staff, and failed b sellin tobacco to undera a outh. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution imposing the following disciplinary actions for the establishment violating underage tobacco sales for the second time: • Suspending the license to sell tobacco for two (2) consecutive days; • Levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $400 for the second violation; and, • Proposing that the Public Safety Director select the two consecutive days that the license will be suspended. By Motion: Approve the attached resolution imposing the following disciplinary actions for the establishment violating underage tobacco sales for the third time: 0322 Tobacco Compliance Violators • Suspending the license to sell tobacco for seven (7) consecutive days; and, • Levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $600 for the third violation; and, • Proposing that the Public Safety Director select the seven consecutive days that the license will be suspended. II. BACKGROUND On October 31, and November 1, 2004, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted tobacco compliance checks at all of the establishments in Richfield that sell tobacco. They were assisted by four underage youth that were 16-17 years of age. These compliance checks were the second checks conducted in 2004. On October 31, 2004, the police division made arrangements for the minors to enter the establishments with undercover police officers. In four instances, tobacco was sold to underage youth. The businesses that sold tobacco to underage youth on October 31, 2004 are: • Lund's - 6228 Penn Avenue South • Richfield Amoco - 7544 Lyndale Avenue South • Sandy's - 6612 Penn Avenue South • SuperAmerica - 2013 W. 66th Street Due to the fact that this is a first offense for Lund's, Sandy's and SuperAmerica, a suspension is not required nor do they need to appear before the City Council. They will, however, be charged a fine. This is a third offense for Richfield Amoco. On November 1, 2004, the police division made arrangements for the minors to enter the establishments with undercover police officers. In two instances, tobacco was sold to underage youth. The businesses that sold tobacco to an underage youth on November 1, 2004 are: • Gas Plus - 7744 12th Avenue South • Richfield 66 -1217 East 66th Street Due to the fact that this is a first offense for Richfield 66, a suspension is not required nor do they need to appear before the City Council. They will, however, be charged a fine. This is a second offense for Gas Plus. At no time did any of the minors use the tobacco products. The youth presented their ID's, if requested, and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were of legal age. Establishments were visited at various times, busy or not busy, in an effort to determine if busy times produced more successful buys. It doesn't appear to have made a difference at either time. After each attempt, successful or unsuccessful, the officers identified themselves to the clerks and issued a citation if they failed. If the underage youth was unsuccessful in purchasing tobacco, the clerk was congratulated by officers. The employee that sold tobacco will be charged criminally in court. The action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the businesses that hold a license to sell tobacco within the City. The fines being recommended at this time are intended to recover 100% of the costs for conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the businesses punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur during 2005. It is also recommended that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future tobacco and alcohol education efforts within the community. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code Section 1146 specifies certain improper conduct of tobacco license holders and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of tobacco to minors. • Staff recommends that the City Council suspend the license to sell tobacco for two (2) consecutive days for the second time violating establishment; levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $400.00. Staff further recommends that the Public Safety Director select the two (2) consecutive days that the license will be suspended. • Staff recommends that the City Council suspend the license to sell tobacco for seven (7) consecutive days for the third time violating establishment; levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $600.00. Staff further recommends that the Public Safety Director select the seven (7) consecutive days that the license will be suspended. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell tobacco to underage youth. • Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community and to send a message that youth and their well-being are a high priority in this City. C. FINANCIAL • All costs of conducting compliance checks will be reimbursed through the fines that are levied against an .establishment for failing a tobacco compliance check. • Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are designated for future tobacco and alcohol educational efforts within the community. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide to take no action against the establishments for the sale of tobacco to a minor, which would result in no disciplinary actions against the establishments. This would, however, send a message to the community that children and their well being are not a priority in Richfield. • The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against the establishments that sold tobacco to underage youth; however; that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in City Code 1146. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution for Gas Plus. • Resolution for Richfield Amoco. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A representative from each establishment is expected to be in attendance at the meeting. They have been notified in writing of this requirement. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE TOBACCO LICENSE FOR GAS PLUS, 7744 12TH AVENUE SOUTH AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR SECOND TIME TOBACCO COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Gas Plus ("Licensee") holds a license to sell tobacco products within the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 2004, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment, and during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold tobacco to a minor; and WHEREAS,.this is their second failed tobacco compliance check as a result of the fact that it is within 24 months of their first offense; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on March 22, 2005 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's tobacco license is hereby suspended for a period of two (2) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $400.00 is hereby imposed. On or before April 22, 2005, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $400.00. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of March 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE TOBACCO LICENSE FOR RICHFIELD AMOCO, 7544 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR THIRD TIME TOBACCO COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Richfield Amoco ("Licensee") holds a license to sell tobacco products within the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on October 31, 2004 the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment and during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold tobacco to a minor; and WHEREAS, this is their third failed tobacco compliance check as a result of the fact that it is within 24 months of their second offense; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on March 22, 2005 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's tobacco license is hereby suspended for a period of seven (7) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $600.00 is hereby imposed. On or before April 22, 2005, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $600.00. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of March 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: public Hearing AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # 59 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of an appeal to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals re ardin Cit staff's determination that a rivate ara a is lar er than Cit re ulations allow. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Adopt a resolution denying the appeal from the decision of the Hearing Examiner and affirming the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny a variance for the aaraae at 7221 Sheridan Avenue. II. BACKGROUND Mr. Shawn Ross lives at 7221 Sheridan Avenue. In November 2004, Mr. Ross received a letter from the Inspections Division stating that the 24'x24' addition to his already existing 24'x24' garage was added without the proper permits and inspections. The letter also stated that Mr. Ross was in violation of the Zoning Code section 521.05, which does not allow a private garage over 1,000 square feet. The letter sent by the Inspections Division stated that Mr. Ross had to obtain the proper permits and inspections for the garage and that he also had the option of requesting a variance for the size of the garage. 032205_7221 Sheridan_varianceappeal Mr. Ross applied for a variance and the Hearing Examiner date was set for January 18, 2005. The Hearing Examiner heard the case and during the meeting clarification was made regarding the garage. The original garage built in 1973 was 24'x24', then a previous homeowner had added an addition to the garage of 12'x22'. Mr. Ross stated that he had removed the addition of 12'x22', before he added an addition of 24'x24'. Making the current total square footage of the garage 1,152. As part of the Hearing Examiner application packet the applicant could use a neighborhood petition to seek support from surrounding property owners for his variance. The applicant used the neighborhood petition and obtained nine out of a total of forty-four signatures from property owners who are within 350 feet of the subject property. During the Hearing Examiner meeting Mr. Ross explained he had hired a contractor to do the garage work. Mr. Ross also explained that the contractor he hired had stated that they obtained all appropriate City permits. The contractor than began the work but never finished. Mr. Ross stated the contractor could not be found. At the time of the Hearing Examiner meeting he could not locate a contract for the work. Mr. Ross explained he assumed that all the City permits had been pulled for the work and so he completed the garage. The Hearing Examiner had denied the request for the variance since it did not meet the State Statute for granting a variance. The applicant was notified that he could petition the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (City Council) to have the decision reheard by the Board if he did not agree with the decision. The applicant sent a letter requesting an appeal. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Section 546.03, Subdivision 4 of City Code states that "The Board (of Adjustments and Appeals) shall have the following powers: a) to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the Director in the interpretation or enforcement of this code..." • The current Zoning Code has a number of regulations regarding private garages but the two regulations that affect this case are: • A detached garge can not exceed 1,000 square feet • A detached garage can not exceed the size of the primary residence. • Applicant's house is 885 square feet and the garage is 1,152 square feet. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Community Development and Public Safety Departments are concerned that if the variance is approved it then sets a precedence that the City zoning regulations and State Statute for variances are not of importance. • The reason for regulations in the Zoning Code is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens in the community. • There are four requirements by State Statute 462.357 that an applicant must make in order for the variance to be approved they include: o Undue hardship, which denies the applicant reasonable use of their property. o A unique circumstance related to the property o No adverse impacts on the neighborhood. o The request is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship. • Economic considerations alone cannot constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the Zoning Code. • In the opinion of staff, none of the conditions exist. C. FINANCIAL, • N/A D. LEGAL • City Code Section 546.03 regulates how the Board of Adjustments and Appeals hears and considers appeals. Subdivision 7 states that "The Board shall make a decision regarding any matter before it by adopting findings within 60 days of submission of a written appeal, unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant". • The application for an appeal was received on February 11, 2005. A decision must be made no later than May 27, 2005. • Public Notice for this hearing was published in the Sun Current on March 10, 2005, in compliance with the requirements of Section 546.03, Subdivision 6. • The City Attorney will be available at the council meeting. • The attached resolution if adopted by the Board (City Council) would deny the appeal of the applicant and require the garge to be brought into conformance with City regulations by removing the excess. • The resolution requires the Board (City Council) to establish the amount of time to bring the garage into conformance. TERNATIVE • rce~ect the motion and trod that the detached garage meets City requirements and require the applicant to pay the appropriate fees and obtain the proper permits and inspections. V. ATTACHMENTS • Board of Adjustments and Appeals Resolution • Photos of structure • Copy of Inspection Division Violation Notice • Copy of Variance Report from Hearing Examiner • Letter of appeal from applicant • City Code Sections: • 521.05, Subd. 2-Private garages • 521.13-Additional rules for accessory building and structures • 546.03-Board of Adjustments and Appeals ~ V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. Shawn Ross, applicant RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER AND AFFIRMING THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE AT 7221 SHERIDAN AVENUE Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: I. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals hereby makes the following findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The City of Richfield (the "City") regulates, by ordinance, the location and size of detached garages on residential property. 2. The primary source of such regulations is contained in Appendix B of the Richfield City Code, which is also known as the Richfield Zoning Code. 3. On or about December 28, 2004 the City received an application from Shawn Ross (the "Applicant"), 7221 Sheridan Avenue, requesting a variance for an increase in the maximum square feet of gross floor area allowed for a private garage. 4. The property at 7221 Sheridan Avenue is located in the Single Family Residential (R) zoning district. 5. Subsection 521.05, subdivision 2 of the Richfield Zoning Code allows private garages as a permitted accessory use in the Single Family Residential District, provided the garage does not exceed 1,000 square feet gross floor area. 6. Subsection 521.13, .subdivision 8 of the Richfield Zoning Code provides that an accessory building may not be greater in lot coverage than the principal building on the property. 7. The Applicant requested a variance to allow fora 24 foot by 24 foot garage addition, to an existing 24 foot by 24 foot detached garage, for a total of 1,152 square feet. A 24 foot by 24 foot garage will accommodate two cars, and the 24 foot by 24 foot addition would accommodate an additional two vehicles. 8. The existing house is approximately 23 feet by 37 feet for a total building envelope of 885 square feet. The lot coverage of the garage exceeds the lot coverage of the house by 267 square feet. 9. The parcel at 7221 Sheridan Avenue is 75 feet by 134.53 feet with a lot area of 10,090 square feet. Other properties in the neighborhood are of a similar size. 10. The garage meets required zoning standards for setback and height requirements, and the only variances required are from the provisions of Subsections 521.05, subd. 2 and 521.13, subd. 8. 11. On January18, 2005 the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the variance request. 12. At the hearing, the Applicant stated that he would like to keep the garage addition because it is already built. 13. At the hearing, the Applicant stated that he had hired a contractor for the job and that the contractor told him that all City permits had been pulled. The Applicant testified that the contractor had left the job and the Applicant had continued the work on the garage addition. The Applicant testified that he could not locate a written contract for the work and that he could not locate the contractor. 14. On or about January 21, 2005, the Hearing Examiner published a written decision denying the variance request. 15. On or about February 11, 2005, the City received a written request (the "Appeal") to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (the "Board") to consider an appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. 16. The appeal came before the Board for review and action on March 22, 2005. The Board conducted a public hearing, at which the Applicant was provided the opportunity to testify. II. The Board hereby makes the following conclusions: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Applicant has not shown that compliance with the provisions of subsections 521.05, subd. 2 and 521.13, subd. 8 will result in an undue hardship that denies the Applicant the reasonable use of the property. The existing 24 foot by 24 foot garage will accommodate two cars. Two-car garages are customary in most areas of the City, and atwo-car garage allows a reasonable use of the property. The fact that the garage addition has been built already does not constitute an "undue hardship" within the meaning of state law or the Richfield Zoning Code. Although it may have an adverse economic impact on the Applicant, economic considerations alone do not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use of the property exists. 2. The Applicant has. not demonstrated that any unusual or unique circumstances apply to the property that does not apply to other properties generally. The property is similar in lot size, house size and lot coverage to other properties in the neighborhood. The existing 24 foot by 24 foot garage is similar in size to other garages in the neighborhood. The fact that the garage addition has been built already does not constitute a "unique circumstance." To the extent that the completed garage addition could be considered a unique circumstance, the Applicant created that circumstance by failing to obtain proper permits or to ensure that proper permits were obtained. If required permit applications had been submitted, the City's building inspections division would have notified the Applicant that a variance was required before any construction could be started. 3. The variance, if granted, would alter the character of the neighborhood and would have adverse impacts on the neighborhood. A four-car garage is out of character in a neighborhood that consists primarily of smaller, single-story houses with detached one- car ortwo-car garages. The properties in the neighborhood do not have accessory structures that exceed the size of the principal residential dwellings on the same lots. The petition signed by the neighbors is an indication that the petition signers do not object to the variance, but the petition is not a legally sufficient substitute for the requirements that the Applicant demonstrate undue hardship and unique circumstances, both of which are lacking here. 4. The variance is not the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship, since no undue hardship exists. III. Based upon the foregoing, the Board hereby makes the following decision: DECISION The appeal of the decision by the Hearing Examiner to increase in the maximum square feet of gross floor area allowed for a private garage variance for 7221 Sheridan Avenue is hereby in all respects DENIED. The decision of the Hearing Examiner is affirmed, and the variance is denied. The Applicant is ordered to bring the garage at 7221 Sheridan into compliance with the provisions of the Richfield Zoning Code within days and to pay all required permit fees and penalties. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of March, 2005. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~y~dap ui ~aa~ g~ pue ~uoa~ aye ssoaoe y~pinn ui ~aa} ~Z si a6eae6 ayl 3f1N3Ab~ Ndal2l3HS ~ZZL lb~ 3Jb21bJ 43H~d13a 30 SOlOHd .Public Safety Department Inspection Division November 24, 2004 Shawn Ross 7221 Sheridan Ave S Richfield, MN 55423 Subject: Detached garage at 7221 Sheridan Ave S, Richfield, MN, 55423. It has come to the attention of the City of Richfield Building Inspections Department that a 24' X 24' addition has been added to the existing 24' X 24' detached garage at the above stated address without proper permits and inspections. This is in violation of Richfield City Code 400.04 Subd. 3, which states, "It is unlawful for any person to perform any work regulated by this section without first having obtained a permit to do so, and paid all applicable fees contained in appendix D." You are also in violation of Richfield Zoning Code 521.05, which does not allow private garages over 1,000 square feet. You must obtain proper permits and inspections, and bring the above structure in to compliance with the Richfield Zoning Code within 30 days of the date of this letter, or remove the structure. You may have the option to request a variance for the above zoning violation as allowed by section 546.09. Please call Christine Costello, Zoning Administrator, at (612) 861-9766 if you have questions about the variance process. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in resolving the above violations in a timely manner. Tim Kirk Building Inspector Copy: Christine Costello, Zoning Administrator Martin Costello, City Prosecuting Attorney 12 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGENCY 612.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911 ~ Hearing Examiner Letter January 18, 2005 Richfield City Hall, Heredia Room 5:30 p.m. Agenda Section: Item #: Case #: Public Hearing 1 OS-VAR-O1 GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Request: Variance request for an increase in the maximum square feet of gross floor area allowed for a private garage Petitioner: Mr. Shawn Ross, applicant of 7221 Sheridan Avenue South. Location: 7221 Sheridan Avenue Zonin R -Sin le Famil Residential Current Land Use:- Sin le famil residential home . Com .Plan: Sin le family residential Surroundin See map attachments for surrounding zoning and land uses References: See attached Citations section for exce is Zoning Code: Sections 521.05, Subd. 2 (private garage} and 400.04, Subd. 3 a lication, administration, and enforcement State Statute: Cha ter 462,357 sub. 6 Public Notice: Notice of the Hearing Examiner's consideration and public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. ANALYSIS Proposal: The applicant is seeking a variance from the Zoning Code per Section 521.05, Subdivision 2. A garage can not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, and an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached ara es. The a licant built a ara a addition without obtainin the 0118054-7221 SheridanAve.doc proper permits which is a violation of City Code 400.04, Subdivision 3, which requires permits for any work performed. The applicant had an existing garage of 24' x 24', and added an addition of 24' x 24'. The garage is 152 square feet over the allowed square footage. Variances requested: 1) .Increase in the maximum allowed square footage for a garage to 1,152 square feet where 1,000 square feet is allowed. History: • There is no record of an zonin matters at this address. Issues: • .The request is for an interior lot (75x 134). The house is 870 square feet and the existing garage is 576 square feet. With the addition to the garage the structure is now 1,152 square feet. The work for the addition to the garage was done without a permit. • The applicant is interested in keeping the addition to the garage. The applicant does meet all required setback requirements and lot coverage requirements. ACTION TO BE TAKEN Recommendation: • Deny the .requested variance to -allow ari increase in the allowed square footage for a garage at 7221 Sheridan Avenue with a finding that the four requirements for granting a variance are not met. Basis: This request for a variance to allow an increase in the allowed garage square footage does not-meet City and State requirements for granting a variance. The following conditions are needed to grant a variance for the garage addition:. 1. There is an undue hardship which denies the applicant reasonable use of the property. If the applicant had contacted City Hall initially to verify that what he was proposing to build would meet City Code he would have learned that he could not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area for the garage. 2. There. are unique circumstances related to the property. The lot was conforming to City Codes before the addition to the garage was added. The applicant has created a nonconforming structure without obtaining a permit. 3. There would be no adverse impacts on the neighborhood. If a neighbor were to see the garage they would assume they could also build a garage of that size. This alters the character of the neighborhood because now there is a garage that is larger than allowed. 0118054-7221 SheridanAve.doc 4. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship. The request is not a minimum variance necessary to alleviate the hardship. Also the applicant stated no reason on the zonin a lication. Alternative: • Deny the requested variance with a finding of fact that the request does meet the State and City tests for a variance. • Approve the requested variance with stipulations requiring for the requested variance. Procedural Items • Richfield City Zoning Code Section 546.09, Subdivision 9 states "Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Hearing Examiner may appeal such decision if a written notice of appeal is submitted to the Director of Community Development within ten days of the date of the decision. The notice of appeal shall be addressed to the attention of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals." The fee for such an appeal is $100.00 • If a variance is granted, the applicant will need to obtain a building ermit from the Cit 's Public Safet D artment. Attached • State Statute citation • Zoning Code citations • Zoning and Land Use Maps • Application form from the applicant • Variance petition and map • Letter from Inspections Department • Site lan and Gara a Drawin s 0118054-7221 SheridanAve.doc MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE 462.357 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; ZONING Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments maybe taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decisions, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variance from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the. terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for each sheltered construction as defined in section 116J.06, subdivision 2, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case maybe, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case maybe may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. Subd. 6a. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions 6a through 9, "person" has the meaning given in section. 245.782, subdivision 2. 0118054-7221 SheridanAve.doc Richfield City Code (Zoning) Administration 546.09, Subd. 1 (a)(i) (Rev. 1999) 546.09: Variances. Subdivision 1. Limitations. The following limitations apply. to variances: a) a variance may be granted from the literal provisions of this code only in instances where such action would be consistent with the general purpose and intent of this code and all the following criteria are found to exist: (i) strict enforcement of this code would cause an undue hardship. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by this code. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms. of this code. Undue hardship includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems; (ii) unusual or unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other .properties in the same zone or vicinity, and such circumstances were not created by any persons presently having interest in the property; (iii) the variance, if granted, would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The completed project would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, or substantially increase the congestion of public streets, or increase the .danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values, or have a detrimental or injurious impact on surrounding properties; and (iv) the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the undue hardship. b) use variances shall not be granted. Subd. Z. Committee of Hearing Examiners.. The Committee of Hearing Examiners is a special committee of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and shall be administered by the Director. The specific duties of this Committee are to hear and decide requests for variances from the literal provisions of this code. This Committee of at least two Examiners is appointed by the City Manager for a term of two years subject to confirmation by the Council. During the term of appointment members serve at the pleasure of the City Manager. Subd. 3. Application. Application for a variance shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City. " Subd. 4. Public hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, .the Director shall assign the application to one Hearing Examiner and a date shall be set for a public hearing before .the Hearing Examiner. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in, the official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of property located wholly or partially within 350 feet. 2 0118054-7221 SheridanAve.doc Subd. 5. Decision. Not less than 60 days after receipt of a completed application, the Hearing Examiner shall render a written decision regarding the application unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Hearing Examiner fails to make a timely decision, the variance shall be deemed to have been approved. The decision shall be supported by findings specifically related to the applicable criteria contained in this code. The decision shall be mailed to all parties of record and filed with the City Clerk. The Hearing Examiner's decision shall be final, subject to appeal. The Hearing Examiner may impose conditions in granting variances to effect the intent of this code and to protect adjacent properties. (Amended, Bill No. 1995-19, Sec. 6) Subd. 6. Staff report. The Director shall provide a written report to the Hearing Examiner outlining the proposal and enumerating the various reasons for a recommendation to either approve or deny the variance request. The written report shall be filed with the Hearing Examiner at least 72 hours prior to the date of the hearing. Copies of the report shall be made available to the applicant, and shall be furnished to others upon request. Subd. 7. Powers of Hearing Examiner. A Hearing Examiner may call witnesses, subpoena relevant reports, and accept any evidence and testimony, which in the judgment of the Hearing Examiner is relevant to the issues being heard. Those in attendance at the public hearing shall have the right to present testimony and evidence. The Hearing Examiner may impose limitations on the number of witnesses and on the nature and length of testimony. Subd. 8. Record keeping. A tape recording shall be made of the hearing. The tape will be transcribed on request of the Board. The tape will also be transcribed at the request of any person upon the payment of all costs of transcription. Written minutes shall also be taken at the public hearing, and shall be kept on permanent file in the Office of Community Development or maybe transferred to State Archives. Subd. 9. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Hearing Examiner may appeal such decision if a written notice of appeal is submitted to the Director within ten days of the date of the decision. The notice of appeal shall be addressed to the attention of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Subd. 10. Rehearing. Any applicant may within seven days of the date of filing of the Hearing Examiner's decision, apply for a rehearing of a variance request denied by the Hearing Examiner if significant new factual evidence relevant to the. case not available to the applicant in the original hearing can be presented. The request for a rehearing shall state the nature of the new evidence and why it was not previously available. If an application for rehearing is timely made, the time to appeal will be extended until the decision on granting or denying a rehearing is made. If a rehearing is allowed, the Hearing Examiner's decision shall be withdrawn. 3 0118054-7221 SheridanAve.doc Subd. 11. (Repealed, Bill No. 1999-3) Subd. 12. Expiration of variance. Any variance granted shall expire one year after it has been granted unless: a) the project for which the variance was granted is completed within the one year period; or b) upon written request of the person or corporation holding the variance, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period. Subd. 13. Term of variance. If the project is completed as approved, the variance shall run with the land and remain in effect for so long as the conditions regulating it are observed. Subd. 14. Assumed risk. Any applicant who obtains a building permit, starts construction and/or begins a use prior to the expiration of the appeal period, assumes the risk that the decision maybe reversed upon appeal. When an appeal is received by the City, the applicant will be notified of the appeal and informed as to the date of the Board meeting where it will be heard. Subd. 15. Specific project. A variance shall be valid only for the- project for. which it was granted. Construction of any project shall be in substantial compliance with the building plans and specifications reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner or Board. Subd. 16. Violations. Any person who violates, fails to comply with, assists, directs, or permits a violation of the conditions of a variance shall be subject to the provisions outlined in Sections 115 and 320 of the City Code. Such violation may render the variance null and void. Subd. 17. Fee. The fee for a variance is set by Appendix D of the City Code. Subd. 18. Annual Report. The committee of Hearing Examiners shall annually prepare a report for the Council and Planning Commission outlining the activities of the Hearing Examiners and making recommendations as to possible amendments to this code to expedite the processing of variances to the literal provisions of this code. 4. 0118054-7221 SheridanAve.doc Richfield City Code (Zoning) R District (Rev. 1998) 521.05. Accessory uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are allowable accessory uses in the R District. Subd. 2. Private garages which do not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, and which do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot. 400.04. Application. Administration and Enforcement. ,Subdivision 1. The application, .administration. and enforcement of the code shall be in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. The code enforcement agency of the City of Richfield is called the inspections division. This code shall be enforced by the state certified building official designated by the city to administer the code, as provided in this subsection. Subd. 3. Permits and Fees. The issuance of permits and the collection of fees shall be as authorized in Minnesota Statutes, section 16B.62, subdivision 1. Permit fees will be assessed for work governed by this code in accordance with the schedule contained in appendix D of this code. In addition, a surcharge fee will be collected on all permits issued for work governed by this code in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 16B.70. It is unlawful for any person to perform any work regulated by this section without first having obtained a permit to do so, and paid all applicable fees contained in appendix D. 5 0118054-7221 SheridanAve.doc VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 7221 SHERIDAN AVENUE DATE: JANUARY 18, 2005 ZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET 71 1 /2 ST ST. R 72ND ST. Q Z O a R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R LL! Q Q ~_ W 2 N R R ~ R R~ R 72R 1 R R R R R R R R R R R R R : R R ; R R ~ R R ~W Q J R R .a W Q J ~ W R W Z Z N ~ R = C'J W G. C ZONING SYMBOLS R = SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL N -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Feet 1-5-05 W Q Q H 6 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 7221 SHERIDAN AVENUE DATE: JANUARY 18, 2005 LAND USES OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET 71 1/2 ST ST. LLI Q Z O a RES RES RES .RES RES RES RES RES. RES RES RES RES ES RES RES RES W Q Q O RES RES ~ ~ RES ~ RES RE RES RES RES RES RES RES 7R ~~ RES RES RES ' Q RES RES ~ RES RES uj d Q Q RES RES ..1 RES RES. RES RES J RE W W ~ W N RES RES ~ RES ~ 73RD 51. LAND USE SYMBOLS RES = SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Feet _ ~i LLI a Z Z W a N 1-5-05 CEMETERY 7 !".~ ~ s' Zonin A lica i PLANNING g pp ton ZONING OammunNy Devalopmsnt Department Street Address of Subject Property: ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ ~+/L-~~ ~ ~'^ ~~ y~ 3 G~ Legal Description of Subject Property: Applicant/Contact ~ ~A ~''» ~-d S 5 Date j ~'"~ a" ~ O~ ,(~p/rin/t~or type) Applicant Signature ',i~~" N'-~.t./'~ ~1-~.-/ Company Address (if different) City Zip Phone E-mail Address: Fax #: ~, ~ ,}- ~j(~~ - j 1 ~ ~ Application For: Conditional Activity Permit Nonconforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development Plan Subdivision Waiver Amended Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Off-Street Parking Permit Plat (Preliminary/Final) Transitional Activity Permit Amended Conditional Use Permit Final Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit (PUD) Ordinance Amendment Rezoning Variance Amended Off Street Parking Permit Brief Description of Request:. !Q (~,,~ dy' k ~' ~ ~d- ~ ~ ~ ~-~ S 4 ,~.~ f~_ 8 City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South • Page 2 • 861-9760 Zoning Application '' ~ ?fa _- J PLANNING ZONING --- _: ~ Community Development Department Provide the Following Information on the Requested Variance: 1. What is the variance being requested? Describe why the proposal requires a variance. lA l ~av/ S 2. Answer the following questions as they apply to your request: a) Is there an undue hardship present which denies reasonable use of the property? (explain) b) Are there any unusual or unique circumstances relating to the property-or building which are beyond your control? (explain) c) Will the variance, if granted, result in an adverse impact on surrounding properties or alter the character of the building or neighborhood? (explain) !~/+, ~, ~ ~~ v~ ~{"~ l t'~.ei~ ~o G L,~r~J"are ~~/ ~,~ fil"~' Ne ,~ ~' ]~ ~j c PP..S c,.°` C~ ~,l f~ ~~ ~ r~ raV-C,~ OT '~~OK.~ a 0~~. ~ ~ '~ d) Is the variance being requested the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship? (explain) City of Richfield .6700 Portland Avenue South • 861-9760 9 Variance Petition Applicant: ,~ ~4; ~ °~ ~~'.~ :~ Address: ~1 ~~~ ~~~ ~ i2•~ ~~L.~ ~~'~ ~ . 5 ~~ -eA PLANNING ZONING conm.,nnr o•••w wps~rm.m ~I am Requesting a Variance to Allow: ~~ 5 ! C ~~ ,~'"~ f ~~~°'ti--- I AM IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE: ~.~'1QT1~+11NP /»rn»vrly nwrrvrc ne~ly) HUUI~eSS ~tJICLiSE DY1111 CI2LIYIv~ r.. F ; _. `rye 1~ j _~` .. E _ f . ~, e ._ - a f ~ y~~ ~~~J ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ f 1. ~.,d t ,. I r .. .,_,: ~ ~. hr f. , ~ ,..~ 8 q :~ ^~, ~ y i ~ f'` ~ 1 ~ ti.r i, ~ s ~.,,. 0 ~. 7 3 ~ i ;°. ~~~0 +~ b As.~, r', ~ ~'~+C., fat 1~a".,/ ~ ((. ~~ .t:/ a, ~/ J j/~ J /p/~,f ~ ,,¢/ ~+ j/' ~~~' ~ ~ L~yy~~X~ J ~` ~~r ~ ~ ~. ;,rte ~e•'~ r~~r .f * Signatures may not be removed after the petition is submitted to the (:ity. 10 ~. ,. ~~ . City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South • 861-9760 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 7221 SHERIDAN AVENUE DATE:. JANUARY 18, 2005 RESIDENTS WHO SIGNED PETITIONS IN FAVOR OF PROPOSED VARIANCE I I ~ 71 1/2 ST ST. a z 0 o. 7201. l 7' 8 7215 72'14 7220 7221 7220 a a 7227 a a N a 7233 J a ~ o ~ 7239 w N w ~ ~ w y v> ~ c~ u.i a z z w ~i LOCATION OF RESIDENTS WHO SIGNED PETITIONS IN FAVOR OF PROPOSED VARIANCE - N 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Feet 1-5-05 11 Public Safety Department Inspection Division November 24, 2004 Shawn Ross 7221 Sheridan Ave S Richfield, MN 55423 Subject: Detached garage at 7221 Sheridan Ave S, Richfield, MN, 55423. It has come to the attention of the City of Richfield Building Inspections Departmen# that a 24' X 24' addition has. been added to the existing 24' X 24' detached garage at the above stated address without proper permits and inspections. This is in violation of Richfield City Code 400.04 Subd. 3, which states, "It is unlawful for any person to perform any work regulated by this section without first having obtained a permit to do so, and paid all applicable fees contained in appendix D." You are also in violation of Richfield Zoning Code 521.05, which does not allow private garages over 1,000 square feet. You must obtain proper permits and inspections, and bring the~above structure in to compliance with the Richfield Zoning Code within 30 days of the date of this letter, or remove the structure. You may have the option to request a variance for the above zoning violation as allowed by section 546.09. Please call Christine Costello, Zoning Administrator, at (612) 861-9766 if you have questions about the variance process. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in resolving the above violations in a timely manner. Tim Kirk Building Inspector Copy: Christine Costello, Zoning Administrator Martin Costello, City Prosecuting Attorney 12 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGENCY 612.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911 -~ =~ ~~„ __ j y l~ ~1 s ~ ~{ 1 ~ i ;` C ~ ~ ' y i t ~.: i ~ ~ ~~ ~ , i _ ~ S ~ ~e 0 Y ~ L; S - t ~~ ®` ^. t; .a.4.,..,.r...~ .:~~.~-- + ~ ! ~ ~ { ! t r f ~ - ~- ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ i 1 ~ ~ ' ' ,~„ ~ k~ ~ ! ~ . . ~ ! ,.,,~ I3 E' ~. E " •: __ , . s ,~ 'i !~ i~ C~ ~`"'~ { 8 Q 3 ~. a+s ` , l' ,f, . / J ~ j f r.. . , r .~a~ t • ~ ; "~' "~ ~ ~~; ~' ~_ a ,n ~~ ~ r '~s, ~ y ~ ~~ S ~ • ~ ~ '~ ;y ~ L ~8 S }} KF '~'' d ~ '^.f~?3 ~ ` ~ / / 3 ~ 'p'1, NR y 7' j§ -_ f ' £ .~ 1-'' : t /: ~ ~ _y~' / !L ;{ ".~R ~ j,~ j rt_ .._.. ,, ,~.,~.-.,.._.n~..~sw-~--... __~~.._~.~_m...~..-..~...,.J.,.. :_.-- ~~ ,... t f", ,.~-. c.c- ~_ r ,= ~ ~ /' fs~ r~ ~ i- ' ,y j _ ~, ,r ~ , ~ e f ~ ~ _ ~ ,. ~ f, fj~~ t !~ f ~€~~r ~a' fe :' ~ ~p ~ J! ~/Y F / f ~ -~~lf 'D~ .~ f f ` F r ~. ~~ ~' ~ r`' ', ~;~ Imo s~-~ J ~ ,E~ . r ~ - ~ ~} f' : f, ~~ ` F~~( 1 i i i }~ i i~ 1 d _ `a ` ~ a ~~ ~. ~` ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~• ;~ ~ f ~ ~ t r i F 6 f ~ f x ~ ~ ~- ~" F~ `' f 1 a~~ 15 3 f i •~6 tMt,~ {" 3 4 ~e-~{ P.,"~ ~i ti~ (~ 4 *~ ~; - ~ _._.._~._....._ . ~ _...~..~~._...._w__ ~~.... ..v.._..~_.~...a.~..~.~ L _~ i i a 1 i 3 i ~~~ ~ ' _~ • ~ •J~a 1 .:'. •• `.r. r r,~Q~iPr~ii( s. c~t~e~ots ••s ~~.1a„ • . ' •~ • t 8219 QOODRICFl,AYENUE' , ~ • ~ •. ~ "' - ~ WALNUT 8934 _ 740 MIDLAND,BANK BUILDING ' MINNEAPOLIS'18~ MJNN. M• ~. . t r ~•• •- ~~ • • •' . ~ ~ N1NN6APOLIS 2, MINN;' • • .. ~ r r • i s• _ ' •1 _ r •ti.y •ra '' J+n~`i.,,•' • ~ •'.1 • k,,i'r.f 1 • •rt 'r• ar• 1 ~ • ;t L,~1 ti ` • •' '!• • '~..'r., r• ,1~j'~r'd.'••~'\f• i * • 1,~ 'i ''•r ~'r' '1 J •1 .. `• .' .•r ~~- , • •• ~,~';•••+~ . ~ ~- :\ ~ 8~v~e-y~;ffor~-:Boy Ocaslsua4ion Oo. • • '• 3_• ++y•r ~ +•' • W 111 .,~ a:. q~^t'Jn`~••, 5. •• r• •. '•,.•~ ~. 'y.r7 ... ~•rf~ ~1 ' ' /R.~ ,x'17 - • ••' 4 . ,l'•1••~I~+~V1~~~, r ~, • •:'A••1' ~ r r'y~ ~. f . •. ~~N •. ~. .•f ~ .• ~ •• r.;~ •n~~.~r74i^,jyf. r r .1t+,.•f"`l'ttt~S1~1(th"' `~, S q \ ~ ~' i ,• .. •• .r ,~ '•.•t!• t. fir a t- a.•r , ` r ~ •~ ,'~ '} ryt! ws. l,V;r'{'4tyCp+rS~-tip'~~•u••.;f.,•.b.,'~rjl y~'.r~•:+r~7lZr: ~~~p0.r~r.11.,~`~~,w`••i'(: .~fr, ..•t.• .: ..: .~.r r. 'y •.;: a! .•... •i r•. ~f, `•;~C 'f: r r',e~,.r_pM~l•'/f • MV 1~~` QQiM~',~ +iI~YPY^i•• J•~n•~r2i~:~Cb~~C~ 10• C`•~rI'!i6 A~iB ' OQZ'~'3a'6 ~BB+ OP 9 - • r •.ti • • .. • '~:.;- •enrv~y ot:Lpt .25,:,8~aok'~3,'.,•.~,.Lio~is•Ad9it3.ou.•.91s.~u~ , d•,Dy'ne ,<-• '{' -• r-~~'-• ' . ~.;~:., ~• ;~~~a~gs~tr"air oP ;~iec~ci: .. ,.:., , • ' ' ~' ti':.~,.. ~• • ' • : " :•. t,.• ,u!..'s .1,. ,••, reo a " ••~ P1r~!y~i jt{{,,~~~;• 1.• f.•. 1.\• ~~~/ `y~Fr 'C~~~r•J x}111• 4~'+' .• 'f.~' •.' • M, ••r • 1.t ••~~ . r, Y• s'!,• i•J tNiYi• i7~fil ~~?j y Cpl ~~' r•t• i rrM v f ~•••' •F ` 11 • Jet` s rdC,' •, ,'~ _ .i•+ `~ .4a' ; i:; • . 1 ~ •J. y 'wlS.r•y.L.~r• ' ' ~~; •, 1 • ,Sy.^1 4 ~ , 'as ,• J r~;'w r. . • ' • ... , r .• r •• •e' ~1/ y ,rift' •-~•' .^ ~ ' !•f - •' • q a• .• .A t.~• }aks.4~ya ~.\~i7. r ~ • . •T i :~?y~es~t7ar~yF-r;;A~e:y •.. .. ' , 1 f+u•i I8 ,~ ~ i /t ~- 1 , ,, `'1 : ~,,.~ v A '4§ r ( ,~ rr ~ ' Oj j 1 '~ ~ i :5 r C (~,•,~,~~~ ~yl <; c;t d•~t S~~z.,M. '~1.~,... i°l,; .~ y/ ~ r^ r :.~' 'i-,a.-. ~ ~' ~ !~ .S + '~ ~ ~~ (~ ,~ / f`^.i ~ ~`g Zi~ ~ C <. ar! j.~ ~~'~ ~Gi~ ~~~/ ~ ~ ~ i- ;{" ~ ~.~ia r ~1 ...,,_,... / ~ 1 L'C. j f''~.. ~ n '~. ~ l~ ~ t~ r t t ~'? s~~ !' 4 ~ .~..... S .-~- °~ ~u) / ~ •~ .~' GPI ~ e.~. G 9 L i; t~ ~1 ~'.. ~"~ 19 w~ ~ ~ tr: ~, ~~' ~ ~~ ~' c r ~.,~.-.~ ~;~/ ~..~-... U~~..~~ -~ ~ ~,,r ~ ~ _ ~-i_ ~, ,~- ~- ~ ~_ l . ,~ L ,[ i / ~~~°~ ' ~C1 ~ ~-...r/~~. ,~ ~ ~. l/~;; 20 CITY CODE SECTIONS Section 521.05, Subdivision 2 -Private Garages Private garages which do not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, and which do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot. Section 521.13 -Additional Rules for accessory buildings and Uses Subd.1. The additional rules set out in this subsection apply to accessory buildings and uses in the R District. Subd. 2. Accessory buildings shall be located not less than five feet from any other building (dwelling included) on the lot. The Building Code requires fire protected walls for buildings located less than six feet apart. The eave overhang from adjacent structures on the same lot shall be no less than four feet apart. Subd. 3. The roof overhang (eave projection) for accessory buildings shall not be located closer than two feet from any lot line. Subd. 4. No accessory building on any lot, except through lots, shall be situated forward of the front line of the principal building. Subd. 5. In the case of a through lot, no accessory building shall be located within 30 feet of the lot lines abutting either street. Subd. 6. No accessory building shall be constructed on any residential parcel prior to the time of construction of the principal building on the lot, unless specifically approved by the City Council Subd. 7. No more than one detached garage, no more than one greenhouse, no more than one storage building, and no more than one gazebo shall be located on a residential parcel. Subd. 8. No accessory building shall be more than one story in height, greater in lot coverage than the principal building, or greater in height than the principal building. 21 Section 546.03 -Board of Adjustment and Appeals Subd. 1. Establishment. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals is established and continued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462,354. Subd. 2. Short name. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall be referred to as the "Board" in this Section 546. Subd. 3. Council as Board. The City Council shall serve as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Subd. 4. Powers. The Board shall have the following powers: a) to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the Director in the interpretation or enforcement of this code; b) to hear and decide variances to the literal provisions of this code upon the expiration of authority of the Committee of Hearing Examiners established by Section 546.09 of this code; c) to hear and decide appeals of any decision made final by the Planning Commission or by a Hearing Examiner. Subd. 5. Application. An application/request for an adjustment or appeal shall be made to the Director by written notice. Subd. 6. Public hearing. Upon receipt of a written notice requesting an adjustment or appeal, the Board may set a time and place for a public hearing on the request. At least ten days before the date of any such hearing, a notice of the hearing shall be published once in the official newspaper. Subd. 7. Procedures. The Director shall prepare reports and other .necessary information for the Board. The Board shall make a decision regarding any matter before it by adopting findings within 60 days of submission of a written appeal, unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Board fails to make a timely decision, the appeal shall be deemed to have been approved. A copy of the Board's decision shall be served by mail upon the person requesting the adjustment or appeal Subd. 8. Compliance. In all cases in which adjustments or appeals are granted under the provisions of this subsection, the Board may require such evidence and guarantees as it deems necessary to insure compliance with any conditions placed upon such granting. 22 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # /+G REPORT # SR ~~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: -BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Gc~ REVIEWED BY CITY ,~~ MANAGER: /.tLI\_ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a license request for a new, Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license for Golden Tan, 6409 L ndale Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a request for a new Therapeutic Massage Enter rise license for Golden Tan, 6409 L ndale Avenue. II. BACKGROUND On January 11, 2005, Golden Tan su Massage Enterprise License. an application for a new Therapeutic The following requirements for license issuance have all been satisfied: • The applicant has paid the required licensing fees. • The required proof of liability insurance has been submitted. • All real estate and personal property taxes that are due and payable for the premises have been paid. • This is an existing tanning establishment that is adding therapeutic massage as an additional service to its customers. • It should be noted that a Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license is the license needed for the business itself while the therapeutic massage therapist license is the license required for the actual individual that will be conducting the actual 0322 New Golden Tan Massage Therapy License massage. Council only need approve the Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license for the business while staff handles the therapeutic massage therapist license for the individual actually conducting the massages. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: • The application lists the business as a partnership between Jeffrey Lafavre, owner; Larry Kallevig, president; and Rachelle Kallevig, general manager.. The application lists Lafavre as having 98% interest in the partnership and Larry/Rachelle Kallevig (married couple) as having 2% interest. Larry Kallevig stated that Lafavre acts as a silent owner and that he and his wife cover the day to day aspect of the business. None of these three applicants has any known criminal history. • The following individual submitted a therapeutic massage therapist license application: Krystal Perkins-Willhite. This applicant does not have any known criminal history and has complied with the requirements for a therapeutic massage therapist license. • A Bloomington inspector recently conducted an inspection of the facility and found that it was in compliance with cleanliness requirements. • Nothing was found during this investigation that raised any concerns regarding the licensing of Golden Tan for a Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all provisions of the application process, has paid all the licensing fees and has provided proof of liability insurance. • Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license request. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • None C. FINANCIAL • All licensing fees have been paid. D. LEGAL • None ALTERNATIVE KECO • Deny the requ Tan; however, denial. ;st for the Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license for Golden the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a I V . ATTACHMENTS I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from Golden Tan AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 4F REPORT # 57 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCx 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of food ins ection services for Richfield for the ears 2005 and 2006. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve the continuation of the attached agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of food inspection services for Richfield for the years 2005 and 2006. • Approve the increase in costs for the new contract as shown in the attached agreement. II. BACKGROUND The City of Bloomington has provided inspection and enforcement services in the areas of food service and plan check for food services for Richfield for many years. The proposed contract for 2005 for food service inspections and plan check food services will be $76,800 compared to the 2004 contract amount of $75,070. The increase is a result of an approximately 2.3% adjustment for salaries and benefits. 0322 Bloomington Food Inspection Contract for 2005 and 2006 The proposed contract for 2006 for food service inspections and plan check food services will be $80,100 compared to the 2005 contract amount of $76,800. This is a 4.3% increase that again is primarily as a result of an increase for staff salaries. and benefits as well It is also being proposed that Richfield continue to enter into a two year contract with the City of Bloomington; therefore, eliminating the need to renew the agreement on an annual basis. The terms of the contract still provide for the contract to be terminated upon the expiration of 30 days after service of written notice upon the other party, if there should be a need to terminate. it before it expires December 31, 2006. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 1~. POLICY • The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of inspection services to Richfield residents. • Annual evaluations of their services have shown that Bloomington is providing efficient services in a very cost-effective manner. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • None C. FINANCIAL • The contract calls for a change in cost for 2005, raising cost for food service inspections and plan check food services to $76,800 compared to the 2004 contract amount of $75,070. • The contract calls for a change in cost for 2006, raising cost for food service inspections and plan check food services to $80,100 compared to the 2005 contract amount of $76,800. D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could decide to have Richfield provide it's own food services inspections and plan check food services. The cost of hiring the staff necessary to provide the same level of services and administrative support would be more than our current expenditures, and would require a budget increase. V. ATTACHMENTS • 2005 - 2006 City of Bloomington Food Inspection Contract VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 2 AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this 22nd-day of March, 2005, by and between the City of Richfield (hereinafter referred to as "Richfield") and the City of Bloomington (hereinafter referred to as "Bloomington"). WHEREAS, Richfield is authorized and empowered to provide for various types of environmental health inspections and code enforcement to ensure the public health, welfare and safety; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties and the purpose of this agreement that certain of such services be performed by Bloomington on behalf of Richfield; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below, the above parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The term of this agreement shall be from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006, subject to termination as provided in paragraph 7. 2. For the term of this agreement, Bloomington shall provide Richfield with the following services, in and on behalf of Richfield: a. Food service inspections and code enforcement as necessary (a minimum of two inspections will be done of all restaurants and at least one inspection will be done of all grocery stores). b. Plan Check for food services. c. Public swimming pool inspections, as necessary. d. Lodging inspections as necessary. 3. Bloomington shall have control over the manner in which the inspections, plan review and code enforcement activities are conducted and over the determination of what enforcement action is appropriate and consistent with Richfield City Code Section 615 and other policies as established by the City of Richfield. 4. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the inspections and code enforcement. 5. In 2005, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of SEVENTY-SIX THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($76,800.00) for services provided pursuant to this agreement. One-half of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2005, and the remainder shall be due on November 30,.2005. 6. In 2006, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum EIGHTY THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($80,100.00) for services provided pursuant to this agreement. One-half of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2006, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 2006. 7. This agreement shall terminate as follows: a. Upon the expiration of 30 days after service of written notice upon the other party; or b. At any time, upon agreement of the parties; or c. In any event on December 31, 2006. 8. In the event of a termination prior to December 31, 2006, a prorata .reduction of the compensation owed by Richfield to Bloomington shall occur which reflects the period remaining on the agreement at the time of termination. 9. Bloomington agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Richfield, and its officials, agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from Bloomington's performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, action, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to the injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Bloomington. This provision shall not be construed as a waiver by either party of any defenses, immunities or limitators on liability with respect to claims made by third parties. 10. Richfield agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Bloomington, and its officials, agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from Richfield's performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, action, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to the injury to or destruction of 2 property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Richfield. This provision shall not be construed as a waiver by either party of any defenses, immunities or limitators on liability with respect to claims made by third parties. 11. Bloomington shall carry liability insurance in the amount of at least $300,000 per individual and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Bloomington shall carry property damage liability insurance in the amount of $100,000. Richfield shall be named as an additional insured, and a certificate of said insurance shall be provided to Richfield. Bloomington shall carry Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 176.181, Subd. 2 and further agrees to provide a certificate of said insurance to the Richfield. 12.Any employee assigned by Bloomington to perform its obligations hereunder shall remain the exclusive employee of Bloomington for all purposes including, but not limited to, wages, salary and employee benefits. 13.1n addition to the services listed in Paragraph 2 above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide for and on behalf of Richfield: a. Lead inspections and lab services; b. Housing and grossly unsanitary dwellings inspections and code enforcement services; c. Mold inspection and code enforcement services; and d. Noise inspection and code enforcement services. Such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at the rate of $58.00 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shat{ remain applicable with respect to the lead, housing, mold and noise inspection services being provided. 14. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the persons employed by Bloomington as the agent, representative or employee of Richfield for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. 3 Bloomington is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this contracf. Bloomington represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this contract. Any and all personnel of Bloomington or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by Bloomington under this contract, and sha11 not be considered employees of Richfield ,and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers° Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against Bloomington, its officers, agents contracts or employees shall in noway be the responsibility of Richfield; and Bloomington shall defend, indemnify and hold Richfield, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from Richfield, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensations, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. 15.The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of Bloomington relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by Richfield and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, Subd. 5 16.This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Bloomington and Richfield and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, any amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 17. Bloomington and Richfield agree to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and not to discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs, and activities. Bloomington has designated coordinators to facilitate 4 compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. For information contact Human Services Division, City of Bloomington, 1800 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431; telephone: 952/563-8700; TDD: 563-8740. Richfield agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Bloomington from costs, including but. not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by Richfield. Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney°s fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by Bloomington. 18. The City of Bloomington and the City of Richfield agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1536 Hewitt Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55104. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. 19. Both parties agree to comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws, rules and regulations. 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set forth their hands on the day and year first written above. Upon proper execution, this CITY OF BLOOMINGTON Agreement shall be a legal By: and binding obligation upon Its Mayor the City of Bloomington City Attorney By: Its City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager 6. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, 2005 Consent REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: RICHARD REGNIER, CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the continuation of the building inspection and code enforcement contract with the City of Bloomington for provision of inspection services for Richfield for the years 2005 and 2006. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the continuation of the attached contractual agreement with the City of Bloomington to provide various types of building inspections and code enforcement for the City of Richfield for the years 2005 and 2006. II. BACKGROUND The City of Bloomington has provided inspection and enforcement services in the areas of plumbing, heating and air conditioning for many years. The proposed contract for 2005 for plumbing, heating and air conditioning inspection services will be $89,800, compared to the 2004 contract amount of $77,040. 0322 Bloomington Building Inspections Contract for 2005 and 2006 The proposed contract for 2006 for plumbing, heating and air conditioning inspection services will be $94,060 compared to the 2005 contract amount of $89,800. The terms of the contract provide for the contract to be terminated upon the expiration of 30 days after the service of written notice upon the other party, if there should be a need to terminate it before it expires December 31, 2006. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Bloomington has provided inspection and enforcement services in the areas of plumbing, heating and air conditioning for many years. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of inspection services to Richfield residents. Annual evaluations of their services have shown that they are providing efficient services in a very cost-effective manner. C. FINANCIAL • The cost of this contract will be recovered by permit fee revenue. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could decide to have Richfield provide its own plumbing, heating and air conditioning services. The cost of hiring the staff necessary to provide the same level of services and administrative support would be more than current expenditures and would require a budget increase. • The Council could decide to compensate the City of Bloomington at a Power rate that would require designated reductions in services or programs. V. ATTACHMENTS • 2005-2006 City of Bloomington Inspections contract. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None c ':ITY OF ..LOOMINGTON MINNESOTA February 23, 2005 Rick Regnier City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Subj: 2005-2006 Richfield Inspections Contract Dear Rick, Enclosed is the contract for 2005-2006 Building and Inspection services to the City of Richfield. The cost elements of the contract are as follows: Bloomington 2004 Proposed Percent Proposed Percent Activity Contract 2005 Change 2006 Change 5302 Plumbing inspection and 38,640 41,800 +8.2% 43,660 +4.4% code enforcement 5303 HVAC inspection and 27,780 37,900 +36.4% 39,900 +5.3% code enforcement 5321 & 5719 Administration and 10,620 10,100 -5.1% 10,500 +4.0% clerical support TOTAL $77,040 89,800 +16.6% 94,060 +4.7% The proposed charges are based on Bloomington's 2005-2006 budget and actual use of services during 2004 by Richfield. At your request we increased the HVAC fees to cover the increased services, including inspecting HVAC installation in existing residential structures. We strive to provide Richfield excellent service under this contract and respond to feedback you receive through surveys or complaints. Duke Johnson and I are available to help with any questions or service issues related to this contract. Please execute both copies of the contract and return them for our execution. Sincerely, re :~ r r c,~'~~ /vC ~~ ~e Larry Lee Director of Community Development cc: Duke Johnson COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1800 W.OLO SHAKOPEE ROAD, BLOOMINGTON MN 55431-3027 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT10N/EQUAL PH 952-563-8709 FAx 952-563-8949 TTY 952-563-8740 OPPORTUNITIES EMPLOYER AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this 22nd day of March, 2005, by and between the City of Richfield (hereinafter referred to as "Richfield") and the City of Bloomington (hereinafter referred to as "Bloomington") WHEREAS, Richfield is authorized and empowered to provide for various types of building inspections and code enforcement to ensure the public health, welfare and safety; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties and the purpose of this agreement that certain of such services be performed by Bloomington on behalf of Richfield; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below, the above parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The term of this agreement shall be from January 1,2005 through December 31, 2006, subject to termination as provided in paragraph 7. 2. For the term of this agreement, Bloomington shall provide Richfield with the following services, in and on behalf of Richfield: a. Plumbing inspections, plan review and code enforcement as necessary. b. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning inspections, plan review and code enforcement for new and existing residential structures and commercial/industrial applications. 3. Bloomington shall have control over the manner in which the inspections, plan review and code enforcement activities are conducted and over the determination of what enforcement action is appropriate and consistent with Richfield City Code Section 400 and other policies as established by the City of Richfield. 4. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the inspections and code enforcement. 5. In 2005, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of EIGHTY-NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($89,800) for services provided pursuant to this agreement. One-half of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2005, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 2005. 1 6. In 2006, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of NINETY-FOUR THOUSAND SIXTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($94,060) for services provided pursuant to this agreement. One-half of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2006, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 2006. 7. This agreement shall terminate as follows: a. Upon the expiration of 30 days after service of written notice upon the other party; or b. At any time, upon agreement of the parties; or c. In any event on December 31, 2006. 8. In the event of a termination prior to December 31, 2006, a prorata reduction of the compensation owed by Richfield to Bloomington shall occur which reflects the period remaining on the agreement at the time of termination. 9. Bloomington agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Richfield, and its officials, agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from Bloomington's performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, action, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to the injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Bloomington. This provision shall not be construed as a waiver by either party of any defenses, immunities or limitators on liability with respect to claims made by third parties. 10. Richfield agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Bloomington, and its officials, agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from Richfield's performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, action, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to the injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Richfield. This provision shall not be construed as a waiver by either party of any defenses, immunities or limitators on liability with respect to claims made by third parties. 2 11. Bloomington shall carry liability insurance in the amount of at least $300,000 per individual and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Bloomington shall carry property damage liability insurance in the amount of $100,000. Richfield shall be named as an additional insured, and a certificate of said insurance sha{I be provided to Richfield. Bloomington shall carry 1Norker's Compensation Insurance as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 176.181, Subd. 2 and further agrees to provide a certificate of said insurance to the City of Richfield. 12. Any employee assigned by Bloomington to perform its obligations hereunder shall remain the exclusive employee of Bloomington for all purposes including, but not limited to, wages, salary and employee benefits. 13. In addition to the services listed in Paragraph 2 above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide for and on behalf of Richfield: 1) .Electrical inspection and code enforcement services; 2} Building inspection and code enforcement services. 14. Such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at the rate of $58.00 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the electrical and heating, ventilation and air conditioning inspection services being provided. 15. In addition to the services listed in Paragraph 2 above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide building plan checking services for and on behalf of Richfield. Such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at a rate of $61.00 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the building plan checking services being provided. 16. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the persons employed by Bloomington as the agent, representative or employee of Richfield for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Bloomington is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this contract. Bloomington represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this contract. Any and all personnel of Bloomington or 3 other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by Bloomington under this contract, and shall not be considered employees of Richfield, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such .person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against Bloomington, its officers, agents contracts or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of Richfield; and Bloomington shall defend, indemnify and hold Richfield, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and alt such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from Richfield, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensations, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. 17. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of Bloomington relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by Richfield and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, Subd. 5. 18. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Bloomington and Richfield and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, any amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 19. Bloomington and Richfield agree to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and not to discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs, and activities.. Bloomington has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. For information contact Human Services Division, City of Bloomington, 1800 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431; telephone: 4 952/563-8700; TDD: 563-8740. Richfield agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Bloomington from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by Richfield. Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorneys' fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by Bloomington. 20. The City of Bloomington and the City of Richfield agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1536 Hewitt Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55.104. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation is .unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. 21. Both parties agree to comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws, rules and regulations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set forth their hands on the day and year first written above. Upon proper execution, this Agreement shall be a legal and binding obligation upon CITY OF BLOOMINGTON By: Its Mayor the City of Bloomington City Attorney By: Its City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager 5 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, .2005 Consent 4D 55 REPORT PREPARED BY: ROBERT HINTGEN, ACTING UTILITY SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~/' REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval to hire Wentz Associates, Inc. 7300 France Avenue South, Edina, MN to re are tans ands ecs for HVAC im rovements at the Water Treatment Facilit . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve purchase of Engineering Services from Wentz Associates, Inc. for a fee $62,625.00 plus related reimbursement expenses. II. BACKGROUND The Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment at the Water Plant is original equipment from construction in 1963. The lack of dehumidification and ventilation are causing fixtures, equipment, doors, walls, and piping to corrode, rust, and become a hazard. Mold has formed within the existing venting and on the walls. The replacement of the equipment has been identified as part of the Capital .Improvement. Program review. A study by a qualified engineering firm now will allow the work to be coordinated with other work being done at the Plant. Wentz Associates has done work for the City in the past and was recommended by Bonestroo Engineering, the engineering firm working on the filter renovation project. Wentz will prepare a bid package for the HVAC work that can be coordinated with 0322HVAC the filter project. The estimated total cost of the HVAC renovation could approach $500,000 according to the preliminary analysis of Wentz. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Wentz Associates, Inc. came highly recommended. Wentz provided the same type of consulting services when City Hall replaced it chiller/boiler in January of 2003. The City was pleased with the results. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Water Plant was built in 1963 and operates on an old out-of-date HVAC system. Prior to investing millions of dollars in renovations, staff feels strongly that correcting the HVAC will save the new equipment, allow corrections to be made on existing equipment and help eliminate the damage that is now occurring. All of these will aid in providing a safer work environment. C. FINANCIAL • The expenditure for this entire project was originally planned in the 2006 CIB/CIP. The timing of the project will be coordinated with the filter renovation. The Water Division has the funds to cover the entire portion of the engineering work. D. LEGAL • Once the consultant is hired, staff will begin the competitive bid process as required under State Statutes for contracts in excess of $50,000. • The award of bids would be in the summer of 2005 when revised budgets are approved. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council could decide the Water Division should keep the old HVAC system but staff feels keeping the old system will only continue to damage the existing equipment and will prematurely damage any new equipment. V. ATTACHMENTS • Report from Wentz on HVAC systems evaluation and recommendations. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None HVAC SYSTEMS EVALUATION DEHUMIDIFIER The Bry-Air desiccant dehumidifier was designed to remove a total of 201.3 lb./HR. of moisture from the Filter Gallery and Accelator spaces and the Chain Room and Pipe Gallery. The unit has not functioned for two years or more presumably because of a failure in the rotating desiccant carrousel. Attempts to fix the problem have been unsuccessful. The unit supply air fan is operated to circulate air through the exposed roof mounted duct system, however, the air is neither heated nor dehumidified. The surface area of the ducts exposed above the roof is calculated to be 3,080 square feet. When the outside air temperature is minus 20°F. and the space air temperature is 60°F; the heat loss through the ducts is estimated to be 61,000 BTU/HR. which is equivalent to 17.8 KW of electrical heat. This in turn equates to a 9.4°F, temperature drop through the system. Two (2) branch supply air ducts from the dehumidifier still discharge air into the space now occupied by the open offices. These outlets were left over from when the space was undeveloped and a part of the Accelator space. Because the dehumidifier is no longer functional, mold develops on walls in damp, wet spaces; i.e. Accelator, Filter Gallery and the unventilated Chain room and Pipe Gallery. EXHAUST SYSTEMS The 7,400 CFM of air continuously exhausted by exhaust fans EF-1, EF-4 and EF-8 (excluding EF- 9) exceeds the 2,900 CFM of makeup air continuously supplied into the building by MAU-1 resulting in a negative air flow of 4,500 CFM. Toilet room exhaust fan EF-2 and storage room (formerly Recarb room) exhaust fan EF-3 are non- operational AIR CONDITIONING High heat load spaces like the west Pump room, which has three (3) 250 H.P. pump motors, and the air compressor room, which has two (2} 25 H.P. and two (2) 5 H.P. motors driving the compressors, are not air conditioned and consequently are too warm. VENTILATION RTU-l, which serves the Offices, RTU-2, which serves the Conference/Training room, and BC-1, which serves the Lab and fume hood, cool or heat circulated air only but do not have ventilation provisions. -7- The Grade Level north Chemical room is not ventilated independently from the Lime and Alum Storage room. The Operation Level east Chemical room is not positively ventilated. The electric unit heaters in the room aze badly corroded. The welding hood exhaust fan operates continuously. The paint storage room is unventilated. BUILDING HEAT Except for the gas fired makeup air unit MAU-1, which supplies the Lime and Alum Storage room, and the gas furnace in air conditioning unit RTU-2, which supplies the Conference/Training room, the building is now electrically heated. The installed electric heat is tabulated below: (,NO.) TYPE HTR. KW - MBH Gallery Level: Shop (2) U.I-i.'s , 5 ea. 34.2 Chain room (4) R.H.'s 10.95 ea. 149.5 E. Pump room (1) U.H. 10 34.2 Material Handling (1) U.H. 10 34.2 Air Compressor Room (1) U.H. 10 34.2 Pipe Gallery (1) U.H. 80 273.0 Conf./Training Room (8) RAD. 0.75 ea. 20.5 - W. door (1) CUH 6 20.5 - Entry (1) CUH 6 ~ 20.5 - Men (1) B.B. 1.5 5.1 - Women (1) B.B. 1.5 5.1 Storage Room (1) U.H. 5 17.1 Well Room (1) U.H. 3 .10.2 Operation Level: Break Room (4) RAD. 0.75 ea. 10.2 Men (2) R.H. 5 ea. 34.1 Women (1) B.B. 5 17.0 W. Conf. Room (4) RAD. 0.75 ea. 10.2 W. Office (2) RAD. 0.75 ea. 5.1 N. Office (1) RAD 0.75 2.6 Open Offices (12) RAD. 0.75 ea. 30.7 Accelator Corridor (5)~RAD. 0.75 ea. 12.8 Accelator (3) U.H. 20 ea. 204.8 Filter Gallery (4) U.H. 10 ea. 136.5 Electrical Room (1) U.H. 5 17.1 Chemical Room (3) U.H. 7.5 ea.. 76.8 -8- Legend: U.H. is unit heater R.H. is radiant heater RAD is radiant ceiling panel CUH is cabinet unit heater B.B.' is tiaseboazd heater MBH is.1000 BTU/HR. Rooftop unit RTU-1, which air conditions the office area has five (5) stages of electric heating;13.9 KW, 16.5 KW, 27.8 KW, 33.0 KW and 41.7 KW for a total heating capacity of 142.3 MBH at maximum KW. Blower-coil unit BC-l, which air conditions the lab has two (2) stages of electric heating; 3.6 and 4.8 KW for a total heating capacity of 16.4 MBH at maximum KW. The following spaces are unheated: Storage room adjacent to Break room. Storage room formerly Recazb room.. Storage room adjacent to west Offifce. Paint Storage. room. -9- RECOMMENDATIONS DEHUMIDIFICATION If the roof mounted Bry-Air dehumidifier cannot be repaired and restored to operational condition, we recommend the unit be removed including removing all of its duct distribution system. Drop duct openings through the roof should be capped with double wall insulated weather tight caps. ~, We recommend installing two (2) new Munters Model ICA-0750-020 desiccant dehumidifiers; one (1) dedicated to serve the Filter Gallery space and one (1) dedicated to serve the Accelator space. Each unit would be custom designed with a process fan, rotating desiccant wheel, natural gas reactivation heater and reactivation fan. These units are designed to remove 621b./HR. with 2,250 CFM process air entering at 60°F. DB and 50 GR./lb. and leaving at 101 °F. DB and 7.2 GR./lb. while utilizing 141.8 CFH gas and 779 SCFM reactivation air entering at 95°F. and I20 GR./Ib. and leaving at 131 °F. and 271.2 GR./lb. We recommend installing a Therma-Stor HI-E DRY Mode1195 portable paclcagedhigh-efficiency dehumidifier in each of the Pump room, Pipe Gallery, Chain room, upper level east Chemical Room, Material Handling and SE Pipe Corridor. A Model 195 circulates 540 CFM and has the capacity to remove 105 pints per day at 70°F. and 60% Rh space conditions. HI-E DRY dehumidifiers utilize refrigeration to cool the incoming air stream below its dewpoint resulting in moisture removal. The cooled and dried air is utilized to pre-cool the incoming air and the processed air is reheated by the condenser coil resulting in an overall temperature increase from the incoming air. Each unit contains an internal condensate pump capable of lifting condensate 12 feet. These units operate on 115/60/1 electrical power and draw 12.0 running amps. They are 37" wide by 19" deep by 42".high. AIR CONDITIONING We recommend air conditioning the west Pump room and the Blower/Air Compressor room utilizing a split system for each. Each split system would include a 10 ton Trane TWE 120 roof mounted air cooled condensing unit with low ambient control to operate down to zero °F. Refrigerant piping would interconnect the D/X coil and condensing unit for each system. We recommend extending a supply air duct from each unit as applicable to effectively distribute the cooling air. We recommend piping outside air to each blower. VENTILATION We recommend modifying both the office RTU-1 and conference/training room RTU-2 to add minimum outside air provisions for ventilation. -10- We recommend replacing the non-functional toilet. exhaust fan EF-2 with a new fan capable of exhausting 500 CFM. We recommend installing a roof mounted exhaust fan to exhaust 120 CFM from the Break room. We recommend capping the exhaust opening in the exhaust duct upstream of exhaust fan EF-8 in the north Chemical Feed room, installing a new 350 CFM exhaust fan and outside air inlet to independently ventilate the Chemical room. We recommend installing a roof or wall mounted exhaust fan and makeup air inlet to vent the paint storage room. To alleviate the negative air flow in the building, we recommend shutting off welding hood exhaust fan EF-1 when not required to operate and providing an outside air service in the vicinity of the welding exhaust hood. The simplest makeup air provisions would be to provide an outside air louver and duct with atwo-position damper. The outside air would be unheated, the damper would be normally closed and would be open when exhaust fan EF-1 is operating. A much more costly approach would be to install a makeup air unit with gas or electric heater. AIR CIRCULATION We recommend installing in-line 2000 CFM fan and duct systems over the walkway in both the Pipe Gallery and Chain room. HEATING Heating electrically is more costly than heating with gas despite the rising fuel costs. We do not agree with the 1993 decision to convert from a central heating plant to electric heat. We would have recommended converting from a-steam heating system to a hydronic heating system. ROOF ACCESS The current ladder access to the roof is unacceptable. We recommend replacing the vertical ladder with a ships ladder which would afford better and safe access to the roof for servicing roof mounted equipment and air filter replacement. -11- AGENDA SECTION: COIISCIIt AGENDA ITEM # 4C REPORT # 54 ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: POLICE LIEUTENANT JAY HENTHORNE NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council approval of the installation of the Richfield Public Safety Access Control System. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution to allow the purchase and installation of an Access Control System for the Police Division and Fire Department. II. BACKGR®UND Over the past several years, the Public Safety/Police and Fire have increased security within their respective departments. This has been done by continuously changing the codes to the simplex locks, requiring employees to wear issued identification badges, and visitor and vendor check-in at the front counter, along with issuance of visitor identification. Even with these extensive measures in place, there have been several occasions when employees of police and fire have identified unauthorized personnel in certain areas of the building. This is a cause for concern as confidential reports and expensive equipment are exposed to unauthorized personnel. Installing an access control system would give police and fire tighter security and restrict unauthorized personnel from the building. 0322 Public Safety Access Control System III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. I~OLICX • The project for the access control system as quoted by i/TI (Videotronics) Security Integrators is $36,929, which is under $50,000 and, therefore, does not need to be competitively bid. • Staff did, however, seek other vendors who provided system bids. The price and quality of the system was not adequate or comparable to the system bid VTI provided. • Public Safety has contracts with VTI Security Integrators for dispatch equipment in the Communications Center and video recording equipment. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The current system does not provide adequate safety. • Tighter security within Public Safety and Fire needed. • Prevent unauthorized personnel from entering secure areas. • The door locks and system can be moved to another location and used, if necessary. C. FINANCIAL • VTI submitted a quote of $36,929. The system would be paid for using monies set aside for Public Safety in the City Garage Fund and from grants. D. LEGAL • VTI Security Investors has several contracts with the City concerning dispatch equipment and has performed its obligations in an exemplary manner. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not proceed with new security system; however, to continue with the present system will continue to allow unauthorized people in areas that they shouldn't be in and that would cause security breeches within Public Safety. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution No. approving and allowing Public Safety to purchase and install the Access Control System. • VTI proposal on Public Safety Access Control System. VI. I~RINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC ,SAFETY DEPARTMENT TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL THE ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM FROM VTI (VIDEOTRONICS) SECURITY INTEGRATORS WHEREAS the City of Richfield Public Safety Department (Police) and the Fire Department have begun to more tightly secure the departments to prevent unauthorized individuals from gaining access to restricted areas; and WHEREAS the need for employee safety has become increasingly apparent as unauthorized individuals have gained entry into Police and Fire and their secured areas; and WHEREAS the Public Safety Department has other contracts with VTI (Videotronics) Security Integrators in the 911 Dispatch Communications Center and VTI has performed its obligations in an exemplary manner; and WHEREAS the card reading system (proximity cards) will allow only those with proper cards to enter secured areas; and WHEREAS the project for the access control system is under $50,000 and will be paid for by using monies set aside for Public Safety in the City Garage Fund and from grants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that approval is given to Public Safety through its Director to purchase and install the access control system from VTI (Videotronics) Security Integrators. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of March, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk securi~,~integrators Via Facsimile (612) 866-0297 February 28, 2005 Mr. Jay Henthorne Police Lieutenant Richfield Public Safety 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Re: Access Control System Dear Jay, ATTACHMENT TO 032205 Public Safety Access Control System Total .No. of Pages: 5 The following proposal is in regards to access control system for the facility. Included is a project scope, equipment and services provided, project cost and options to consider. Proiect Scope At the following locations a proximity card reader will be provided. Each door will have a new electric .strike installed. If a door has an existing electric strike it will be reused. See the attached Midwest Lock .and Safe quote for new electric strikes and door hardware changes. Each card reader door will have a door position switch and request to exit motion detector installed to monitor the status of the door. Card reader, door position switch, RTE Motion and lock power cable will be provided and installed. Amounting box (for card reader) and conduit stub will be provided for those locations where the. cable cannot be fished in the wall. Wherever possible, cable will be run in the accessible ceiling space. Card Reader Locations: * _ location is not scheduled for card reader, door hardware changes only 1 Dispatch 2 *Investigations 3 *Administration 4 Main Entrance Card Reader Location Card reader on outside of door No card reader -change simplex push button to lever set No card reader -change simplex push button to lever set Card reader on Public Side of door 1103 West Burnsville Parkway, Burnsville, MN 55337, P:952-894-5343 F: 952-894-0509, www.vtisecurity.com 15000 West 6`h Avenue, Suite # 102-A, Golden, CO 80401, P' 303-216-2700 F: 303-216-2595 207 Suttnn Lane. Colorado Snrines. Cn 80907 P: 7.19-955-0672 F:719-955-0688 -1- Mr. Jay Henthorne February 28, 2005 Page 2 5 Dorm Room In/Out Card reader on Corridor Side and card reader on Dorm Room Side with delayed egress magnetic lock for emergency exit situations 6 Fire Dining Card reader in Dining Area 7 Fire Operations Card reader on Operations Side of door 8 Fire Day Room Card reader on Fire Area Side of door 9 *Back Hallway Door No card reader -new passage set only Lower Level: 10 City Hall 11 Armory Main Entrance 12 *Armory Back Exit 13 Chief Garage Stall Interior Door 14 1015 Garage Stall Interior Door 15 West Lot Exterior Entrance 16 *Crime Prevention 17 Property Room Card Reader Location Card reader on City Hall Side of door Card reader on Exterior Side of door No card reader -hardware change only Card reader on Garage Side Card reader on Garage Side Card reader on Exterior Side of door No card reader -change simplex push button to lever set Card reader on Corridor Side Field controller panels to support the card reader will be located in the Lower Level Equipment Room and Upper Level Equipment Room. Lock power supply panels to power the electric strike will be located in the same equipment rooms. All field panels and lock power supplies will have batteries installed for back up purposes if power is lost. The field controller panels will communicate with the system PC. The PC is used to down load information to the field controller and generate system reports. System software operates on a Windows based platform using XP or 2000 Professional. The bid proposal is based on the Andover Cyberstation software and field controllers. The system architecture allows for expansion to an infinite number of card reader locations per site. As the system expands, additional hardware will be required. Direct print to proximity cards and key tabs has been included in the proposal. Please note proximity cards will be printed using your existing badging system. Our proposal does not include Andover badging software or a new badging printer. VTI will provide system set up, configuration, engineering documents, training, etc. for the system. Proposal included a complete one-year warranty including parts and labor. -2- Mr. Jay Henthorne February 28, 2005 Page 3 Equipment and Services provided by VTI and Subcontractors: 1 Andover system software 1 Netcontroller communication module (supports 32 I/O) 1 Power supply with battery back up for Netcontroller 13 AC-1 module (each module supports one (1) card reader) 13 HID ProxPoint Plus readers 100 HID Direct print to proximity cards 100 HID Key Fobs. 11 Heavy duty electric strikes 2 4 AMP lock power supplies 2 Lock power supply relay board module with circuit breakers 4 12VDC lamp hour batteries 8 Surface mount switches with armored cable 4 Recessed switches 11 RTE motion detectors Lot Door position switch cable Lot RTE motion cable Lot Door hardware, face plates, etc. (see Midwest Lock and Safe quote for specific information for each door) Lot Card reader cable Lot Lock power cable VTI System programming VTI System setup and configuration VTI Engineering documents (Submittals and As-Builts) VTI System Training VTI One year warranty Project Quote: $36,929.00 Notes: 1. Richfield Public Safety to provide: • 120 VAC power and connections where required • System workstation(s) with XP or 2000 operating system software • Data base entry of personnel records • Network connections including: cabling, routes, switches, etc. between the Main Andover workstation and the workstation running the Andover Web client software. • Fire Alarm system output relay(s) and cable to Andover field panel locations -3- Mr. Jay Henthorne February 28, 2005 Page 4 2. Installation includes: • Pulling all cable • Mounting of devices • Final connect and test • System training 3. Standard one year VTI warranty. 4. Our installation lead-time is currently 90 days from the time the order is placed. TERMS: Invoices are due Net 30. PLEASE NOTE: The project will be progress invoiced as equipment is received and labor is performed. INVOICING POLICY: You will be invoiced for the equipment portion of your project when the material is received at VTl. You can take delivery of the material or it can be kept at VTI until it is ready for installation. All material will be ordered in a timely fashion so as to be available at the scheduled installation date. Labor will be invoiced as job progresses. This proposal and all costs associated with it are good for 60 days from the date of the proposal. After 60 days prices may be subject to change. Jay, if you have any questions regarding this information, please don't hesitate to call me. We hope that Richfield Public Safety accepts our proposal and allows VTI to provide for these security needs. Sincerely, VTI Security Integrators. Ralph Michels Senior Account Manager Security Systems Division RM/sec X:\Customers\Minnesota\R\Richfield Public Safety - RM\2005\Henthorne 1-12-OS.doc -4- Mr. Jay Henthorne February 28, 2005 Page 5 Authorization As authorization to proceed on the project listed above, please sign below and return via fax (952) 894-0509 or mail the original proposal back to VTl. Richfield Public Safety By: Title: Date: -5- AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, 2005 Consent 4B 53 REPORT PREPARED BY: KRISTIN ASxER, PROJECT ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract for the 2005 Concrete Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repair. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract for 2005 Curb and Gutter, Sidewalk and Miscellaneous Concrete Re air to Ron Kasssa Construction, Inc. in the sum of $52,045.00. II. BACKGROUND Each year the city awards a contract to replace broken and dangerous sidewalks, curb and gutter, and other concrete as necessary. This year's concrete contract includes: removal, replacement and appurtenant work for concrete sidewalks, paths, curb and gutter and boulevards at various locations. Because the specifications were written early in the year, it is possible that not all 2005 concrete needs have been identified. Therefore, the contract provides for an increase in quantity should additional concrete work be needed. There were ten plan holders for the March 10, 2005 bid opening. Six bids were received. 0322SideCurbGutter III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Each year the City contracts to replace broken and dangerous sidewalk, curb and gutter and to construct other concrete work as necessary. • The advertisement for bid for this contract was published in the Richfield Sun-Current on February 17, 2005 and in the Construction Bulletin on February 18, 2005. • A bid opening was held on March 10, 2005. A copy of the bid tabulations for the Sidewalk, Concrete Curb and Gutter contract is attached. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City has followed the competitive bid process and should award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. • Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid within budget amounts. C. FINANCIAL • The annual general street maintenance budget includes funding for replacement of miscellaneous broken and dangerous boulevard sidewalk, curb and gutter. D. LEGAL • When the amount of purchase is_estimated to exceed $50,000, sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice in the manner and subject to the law governing contracts or purchases by the City of Richfield. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may choose to ,reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new bids; however, the prices received for this work are fair, and staff does not believe lower prices can be obtained from a reputable contractor. • Do not do the work. This contract is an important tool in protecting Richfield residents from injury caused by tripping on damaged sidewalk and slipping on ice built up in gutters. The contract also provides a tool for making minor improvements which benefit Richfield residents. V. ATTACHMENTS • Bid minutes/tabulation. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening March 10, 2005 11:00 a.m. 2005 Concrete Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter Bid No. 05-02 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud bids for 2005 concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter repair, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 17, 2005 and the Construction Bulletin on February 18, 2005. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Derick Anderson, Public Works Director Representative Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name/City Bond Total Base Bid Baily Construction Cashier's Check $ 66,205.00* Stillwater, MN Provided BCG Construction Provided $ 52,999.75 St. Louis Park, MN Midwest Concrete Specialties Inc. Provided $123,415.00 Rosemount, MN Quality Restoration Services, Inc. Provided $ 65,767.50 Little Canada, MN Ron Kassa Construction Inc. Provided $ 52,045.00 Elko, MN Standard Sidewalk Provided $ 60,465.00 Chisa o Cit , MN *Denotes corrected figure The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the March 22, 2005 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # LFA REPORT # 52 ~J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: JOHN STARK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Cancel the public hearing on March 22, 2005 regarding consideration of a resolution approving property tax abatement for certain property (the Cedar Point redevelopment area) in the City of Richfield. Continued from Februa 22, 2005 I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Cancel the public hearing on March 22, 2005 regarding consideration of a resolution approving property tax abatement for certain property (the Cedar Point redevelopment area) in the City of Richfield. II. BACKGROUND Both the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (RBA's) legal counsel and financial consultant are unable to attend the March 22, City Council meeting. Anew public hearing process will be started at the appropriate time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A public hearing is required to consider property tax abatement. 032205 Cancel Public Hearing Cedar Point Tax Abatement B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Delaying consideration of this item will not have a detrimental effect on the project. C. FINANCIAL • NA D. LEGAL • A legal notice for a public hearing will be published at the appropriate time. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • NIA V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A