Loading...
07-24-00 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JULY 24, 2000 RICHFIELD CITY HALL 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Study Session of July 10, 2000 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of July 10, 2000 PRESENTATION Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and address on the Speaker's Register for the record. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda AGENDA APPROVAL 2. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, 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 resolution authorizing donation of used computer equipment to Independent School District #280 S.R. No. 176 B. Consideration of approval of amendment to off-street parking permit for 7720- 7740 Fourth Avenue (formerly Crestwood Apartments) to allow site improvements S.R. No. 177 C. Consideration of approval of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of properties for 66th Street/TH 77 Interchange Project S.R. No. 178 D. Consideration of approval of on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor, itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses with fees waived for Church of the Assumption, 305 East 77th Street, for annual Fun Fest on August 13, 2000 S.R. No. 179 E. Consideration of approval of itinerant place of amusement license with fee waived for annual Fall Festival at Church of St. Peter, 6730 Nicollet Avenue, on October 1; 2000 S.R. No. 180 F. Consideration of approval of renewal of residential kennel license for 6800 Cedar Avenue; three dogs S.R. No. 181 Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Public hearing regarding conditional use permit to allow construction of 5,400 square foot clubhouse facility and other site improvements at 900-1000 East 78th Street and 901-1001 East 77th Street (formerly Heritage Square Apartments) Staff Report No. 182 Notes: is 5. Public hearing regarding conditional use permit to allow construction of three garage structures and other site improvements at 620-734 East 78th Street and 701-735 East 77th Street (formerly Hampton Place Apartments) Notes: Staff Report No. 183 6. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance authorizing sale of 6309- 18th Avenue to Time Warner for construction of cable TV switch station Staff Report No. 184 Notes: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 7. Consideration of initiating community-wide strategic visioning process Staff Report No. 185 _0 Notes: AIRPORT BUSINESS 8. Report on Metropolitan Airport Commission's tunnel construction project Staff Report No. 186 Notes: 9. Airport status report Notes: CORRESPONDENCE Notes: 0 HRA BUSINESS 10. Housing and Redevelopment Authority report Notes: COUNCIL CHOICE 11. Council discussion items Notes: 12. Claims and payrolls 13. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. AGENDA SECTION: Airport Business AGENDA ITEM # 8 REPORT # 186 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 24, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ?IGNATURE/ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ?/ \ I l ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Report on Airport Tunnel 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: No Action Required II. BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is proposing to build a tunnel under the new north-south runway to provide access to the airport infield to serve new air cargo facilities. To build the tunnel MAC proposed to pump 3,000 gallons per minute of groundwater for a period of 15 months. The tunnel project requires MAC to file for permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Initial results of consultants' studies differed on the effect of dewatering on groundwater levels. Since then, the consultants have agreed to a common method for estimating groundwater impacts. They now estimate a drop in the water elevation of between 1.2 feet and 2.8 feet for Lake Nokomis. 0724-MACTunnel Due to significant concerns of area residents and the Mayor of Minneapolis, MAC is proposing two methods to reduce the effect of pumping groundwater: (1) sheet piling around the tunnel area; or, (2) soil freezing around the tunnel area. As part of the permitting requirements, MAC is preparing a monitoring and mitigation plan. The plan includes installing monitoring wells to estimate the impact on groundwater levels and lake elevations. Wells are proposed for nearby lakes including Legion Lake (Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield) and Mothers Lake (Taft Park) in Richfield. MAC has met with Richfield staff to review the tunnel project and is still working on developing its mitigation plan. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is awaiting approval of a permit by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District before the DNR will issue its dewatering permit. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City's Comprehensive Plan calls for preserving the natural environment and promoting infrastructure that is environmentally responsible. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • • Assurance that lake levels and groundwater are not seriously affected by the MAC tunneling operation. C. FINANCIAL I • There is no impact on City financial resources. D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • None. This is not an action item. V. ATTACHMENTS • Airport map. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. 0 phasing-Plan.dwg 0: \MSP-2000\Phosing Pi-\ 1200 6/20/00 10:31 am 6 5 4 3 2 I Y4C _- \ II 1 ?I \ '?7\ ???/ ADIOM-PATION \ it -I 1, ? ?I ?o\? }f fF1CE JI..,tG?;,o 1`\ I I RJ \ _ __... ^. f \ _ - 40L?/ _ nI / --?? I `???'ti I\ ? ,y Sao/ G .?\ ?? ?.? i?\ `.\ ;/? __ ? -i. - i I ENIG4 PT.1\[YE?. ???!` ` - - \\ \?? J L. J H; n /,PROPER.'-! Y .. ?•'\???.. '?\?\//?/, N :° 11 1 1 /? R i ,?? r BAS I$ i t I'! .`? Ills G l? t_ j ti I+ 14 fI ?; _ I I11 FUTURE LEGEND , 4 0-e- PROPOSED AIRFIELD PAVEMENT i REMOVED FACILITIES H $ - ?1, I7V iC.KJIH I?t 4y4 ? - \ ? I I- "I , M I,,. Fp\\ ' ° BLOOMINGTON G I7? a; IloTa >a i4 /? v i;J-f i ; -- nz !? p r L, _ 17,7 1? PROPOSED FACILITIES PROPERTY ACQUIRED 0. 1,000' 2,000' ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ACQUISITION AGREEMENT Scale in Feet -n c 41 RUNWAY 17 / 35 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IT1 6 5 4 Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport Minneapolis, Minnesota ARCH171 S ENGINEERS PLANNERS file ON= COMPMA" 3 ; 2 DATE I REVISIONS I i DESIGN DRAWN CHECKED SCALE JOB NO. 1 ' AGENDA SECTION: ADMIN. REPORTS AGENDA ITEM # 7 REPORT # 185 -Alm STAFF REPORT mmgd? CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 24, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:. SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of initiating a community-wide strategic visioning process. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Direct the City Manager to initiate a community-wide strategic visioning process. III. BACKGROUND At the June 29, 2000 Special Council Meeting, the Council discussed initiating the process of a community-wide strategic visioning process. It was felt that commencement of the process would be best through the creation of an "Initiating Committee" that would be selected by the Council and charged with marketing and public relations activities involved in the process. The Committee would consist of 13-15 people, representing the City Council, City staff and a representative from community groups such as Richfield Visions, the Chamber, Richfield Foundation and others who are the "organizational stakeholders" of the community. In order for the process to commence, it is necessary for the Council to take the following actions: ? By motion, formally declare that the City Council does hereby authorize and direct the City Manager to commence the community-wide strategic visioning process as outlined in the attached staff report (dated June 29, 2000); and ? That the first action is to hereby authorize the establishment of an Initiating Committee to be facilitated by Council Member (Sue Sandahl has graciously volunteered to be a part of the Initiating Committee). III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The community-wide strategic visioning process is consistent with the Council's commitment to long-term planning and citizen participation. • The Council's policies of long-term strategic planning are consistent with the opportunities for sustained community through a yearlong process that will identify new community leaders and provide a forum for creativity and public policy. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Timing - The Initiating Committee will set the dates for the number and dates of the community-wide visioning forums based on availability of the forum facilitator, Carl Neu and meeting space at area schools. Once the dates and locations are finalized, the information will come back to the Council. C. FINANCIAL • Funding for the process will be included in the Revised 2000 Budget ($10,000) and in the 2001 Budget ($10,000). D. LEGAL • None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I • Decline to commence the process at this time. • Modify the process and timeline. I V. ATTACHMENTS • Staff Report, dated June 29, 2000. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A AGENDA ITEM # IV REPORT # 16 • STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL/][IRA STUDY SESSION REPORT PREPARED BY: JUNE 29, 2000 SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE 0 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER 11 is ITEM FOR COUNCIL/HRA DISCUSSION: Discussion regarding commencement of community-wide visioning process. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion only. II. BACKGROUND At the January Council/Staff Goalsetting Worksession, Council discussed the benefits of initiating a community-wide strategic visioning process. The yearlong activity would be Council initiated, but community driven and involve not just select representatives from community groups, but the entire community. In January, the Council determined that the process should be initiated later in the year, but no specific timeline was outlined. In May, Council Member Sandahl and I met with Carl Neu; a consultant used by the League of Minnesota Cities and several other Minnesota communities in their community visioning activities, to discuss a proposed process for Richfield. Council Member Sandahl provided very valuable insight into the previous activities of Richfield Visions who began a long-term strategic vision of the community over five years ago. She felt it was desirous that any process the City initiated should build on the foundation built by that earlier process. a The importance of the community visioning process is that it welcomes everyone in • the community to participate in framing the future destiny of their community. It is a process that educates, informs, clarifies and challenges people to think beyond the short-term issues of the day and think long term, strategically. It also serves to unify the community around commonly held goals that are generated from their participation, insight and informed decision-making. It is a wonderful process of community building and future leadership making. There is no magic about the timing of the process. However, in terms of the best time to maximize attendance at the community forums, winter months are not the best. Summer is also a difficult time because of busy sport schedules for kids and family vacations. Spring and fall times generally work the best. The conversation with Carl Neu suggests that the process begin this fall. However, Council Member Susag has suggested that the process wait until after the election, perhaps until the new Council Members are on Council. We can make it work no matter what timeframe is set. The process that is proposed is as follows: 1. Initiatina Committee Creation of an "Initiating Committee", named by the City Council and composed of 13- 15 people, representing the City Council and community groups such as Richfield Visions, the Chamber, Richfield Foundation, School District and others who are the organizational "stakeholders" in the community. • This group will be responsible for organizing and marketing the kick-off campaign for the process as well as the community forums. 2. School Contest The process works best by conducting a contest in the schools (generally 1st through 8th Grade) in which the children "name the process". Representatives from the Initiating Committee will go into the schools to explain what a community-wide visioning process is and why the process needs a name. Flyers with the contest rules and prizes are sent home with the kids. This is the first contact with the parents who we hope will become interested in this initial process to help their children and then become participants in the more long-term process. There would be a "top choice" for a name in each grade level with those children receiving a Savings Bond. All children who participate would receive a certificate and recognition (along with their school, parents and teacher) at a Council meeting where the process would be formally "named" and officially begun. The Initiating Committee would be charged with selecting the grade winners and then, of course, the overall winner whose entry would name the process. . 3. Communitv-wide Forums Once the "process" is named, the dates for the two or three community-wide forums would be set and the marketing campaign would begin. The newsletter, special flyers, yard signs, newspaper articles, cable announcements would all be used to get the word out that on such and such dates, the entire community is invited to join with their friends, family and neighbors to begin the process of defining the future of their • community. The name (some examples are Focus 2020, Future 2000, etc.) would be used in every piece of literature, along with a logo that will call attention to this very unique community opportunity. 4. Forum Format The forums would be held on a Tuesday and Thursday evening - same meeting format for each night. Carl Neu would facilitate the meeting of community members, sitting 8- 10 people at round tables throughout the room.(most likely held at one of the schools). A guest speaker will talk about future trends for cities - technology, transportation and such to prompt the audience to begin to think futuristically and strategically. Then, Carl will take the attendees. to the future of Richfield in the year 2020 (or whatever year is selected to be the focus year) by having the audience close their eyes and imagine Richfield in the year 2020. What is the population of Richfield in that future year? What is the primary mode of transportation? What are our boundaries? What is the cultural make-up of the community? What businesses are here? So on and so on. 5. Common Elements of the Vision, After the audience is taken to the future and begins to formulate their own vision of Richfield in the future, the real work begins for the participants of the forums. Each table will then have X amount of time to share with the others at their table their own visions. There will be a facilitator selected from each table and a scribe. A staff person will be assigned to each table to assist the group. The group will determine the common elements of their visions and this list, along with the one below, will be shared with all meeting participants at the end of the meeting. 6. Critical Issues The next step will be for the groups at the tables to determine the critical issues that must be addressed now and in the near future (generally in increments of 5 years, going out 10 years) so that the elements of the vision can be realized. For instance, if the vision of the group is that the small, hometown feel of Richfield be preserved, then the critical issues to be addressed in the future could be neighborhood preservation strategies, pedestrian safety strategies and so on - critical issues that translate into goals that translate into activities. The group will be asked to list the key critical issues they view as important to address now and into the future that will help get them to the future of the community they envision. 7. Groua Presentation of Critical Issues After the groups have all had time to determine the common elements of their vision and the critical issues they see as key to the realization of their vision, each group's facilitator, scribe or whoever will present their conclusions to everyone. Each table's vision elements and issues will be posted on posted paper around the room. 8. The Vote The last event of the night will be for every participant to vote for the top 10 vision • elements and top 10 critical issues. They will do this by the using the 10 blue and 10 red sticky dots placed in their meeting packets. 9. Results of the Votina These top 10 elements and critical issues will form the basis for the creation of the 5-7 Issue Project Teams that will be formed to study, in depth, their specific issue over a 6- 9 month period. 10. Participant Survev When participants attend the forums, each will be asked to complete a survey form asking them what community topics are of particular interest to them, if they would like to serve on a Project Issue Team and if so in what topic area. They will be asked to rank their level of interest from highest to lowest. Of course, the role of the Project Issue Teams will be explained in full through our marketing materials and at the beginning and end of each forum. 11. Issue Proiect Team Creation After the forums are completed, the Initiating Committee (or subcommittee) will develop the Issue Project Teams from the forum results and the participant surveys. Every effort will be made to place people in their first, second or third choice of topic areas of interest. 12.Team Trainina Once the Issue Project Teams are selected, Carl Neu will conduct a training session for the participants of all Teams, outlining their role, effective strategies for group dynamics, conflict resolution and other interpersonal and strategic mechanism helpful for success. All the Teams will conduct their first organizational meeting the same night as their training sessions, selecting a Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary. 13. Steerina Committee The Chairs and Co-Chairs of the Teams traditionally form the "Steering Committee" whose charge it is to oversee the progress of the Teams, discuss problem areas, resolve problems, if necessary, and keep the process on track. A member of the City Council is traditionally a member of the Steering Committee as is the City Manager and a member of the Initiating Committee. It will be the Steering Committee that will also oversee the composition of the draft and final version of the Vision Report. Carl Neu will conduct a training session with the Committee to help them function effectively. 14. Team Schedules The Issue Project Teams traditionally meet at least once a month (generally twice) for 6-9 months. Some Teams take longer due to their particular topic area. During this time, the Teams become immersed in their topic area. The process is one of learning as much as possible about their topic area - the law, finances, City policies/procedures/regulations/ordinances as well as what other cities do in the area. In order for the Team members to develop goals and action steps relating to the future strategies for the community, they need to know as much about their topic as possible. Many groups invite speakers from other cities, organizations, the Legislature and others to gain additional insight into their topic area. Each Team will have two staff is members assigned to them as resources. 15. Draft Vision Report The end result of the efforts of the Teams will be a report outlining the goals and action steps they envision to be important for the future of the community as it relates to their particular topic area. The Steering Committee will be responsible for assembling the various reports into one Draft Vision Document that will be printed and distributed to the entire community. 16. Second series of forums The draft Vision Report will then be presented to the community by the Teams at another series of community forums. This will be the second opportunity for the community to see the results of the yearlong process; the first opportunity will be the distribution to the community of the draft Report. The purpose of these forums is to receive public comment for inclusion (or not) into the Final Report. 17. Final Report After the final set of community forums, each Team will review their draft report, make any changes, if needed, and finalize their report to the Steering Committee who will arrange for the printing of the Final Report. Unless, there are significant changes, the Final Report is not re-circulated to the public, but printed only in small numbers for specific distribution. 0 18. The Final Report is then formally presented to the City Council. 19. At the next Council/Staff Goalsetting Worksession, the Council and staff then begin to incorporate the visioning goals into a Five-Year Plan. 20. The Steering Committee remains in tact throughout the process and beyond. This group will monitor the accomplishment of the community visioning goals and report to the public once a year. 21. The process is generally updated at the end of the first five years. Of course, the above-described process can be altered in any form to fit our specific needs. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. CRITICAL ISSUES • Timinq If the forums were held in October, the Teams wouldn't have their first meeting until after the first of the year. Marketing of the process would, of course, begin immediately with the formation of the Initiating Committee. The process, if started in October, would lend itself very well to completion approximately a year from that time, making it also fit within the Council/Staffs Goalsetting schedule for the first part of January. That timeframe would also make it possible to link the goals and action steps to the Budget preparation for 2002. • Participation Traditionally, Council Members do not participate in any of the Project Teams. They do, however, participate in the Forums. The October timeline would provide an opportunity for Council Members to participate in the community-wide forums and all other activities of the process would take place after the November elections. This would allow involvement of new Council Member(s) as well as the opportunity for currently sitting Council Members to participate in Teams. B. FINANCIAL • This process is not inexpensive. The cost generally ranges from $15- 20,000 with the bulk of the costs paid for publication of the report, the costs associated with conducting the community forums, marketing of the process/forums and the training of the Team chairs, co-chairs and the Steering Committee. • The 2000 Revised Budget will reflect an expenditure of $10,000 for commencement of the process with another $10,000 appropriated for 2001. • Staff is seeking direction from the Council regarding your desire to: ? proceed with the community-wide visioning process ? set the timeline for commencement of the process ? fund the process IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council could decide not proceed with the community-wide visioning process. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A 0 • AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # 6 REPORT # 184 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 24, 2000 0 PERRY THORVIG, REPORT PREPARED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: SIGNATURE } .tis J ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of 6309 18th Avenue to Time Warner for the construction of a cable TV switch station 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of 6309 18th Avenue to Time Warner for the construction of a cable TV switch station. .A II. BACKGROUND Time Warner's main cable TV and Road Runner internet access service enters the Richfield cable network at their current switching station at 65th Street and Cedar Avenue. This property is in the process of being acquired to facilitate the reconstruction of the TH 77 and 66th Street Interchange. Time Warner needs to find a location for a permanent switching station within about three blocks of its existing site. The City of Richfield owns a parcel of property at 6309 18th Avenue. It was conveyed to the City of Richfield in 1957 along with several other parcels that were to be used for park purposes. However, there was no deed restriction language that was made part of the conveyance. Most of the original conveyance to the City 0724 6309-18th second reading has been developed for park space at Taft Park. This piece is separated from the park by 63rd Street. • This property does store some stormwater runoff but has no outlet. The water must evaporate or soak into the ground. Time Warner would find this site suitable for their cable TV switching building. They plan to build a 35' by 45' one story brick or decorative block building to house their equipment and provide cable and Road Runner access to the entire City of Richfield. No one would be employed on the premises. There would be no noisy equipment operating inside the building. There may be off-street parking for one vehicle or on-street parking could be used depending on the location of the building on the lot. Time Warner has employed a private real estate agent to search for possible sites in the area. They have found none. They have also discussed the possibility of locating the building across the street in Taft Park or on the area of the park along Cedar Avenue where wood chips and other equipment is stored. Public Works and Recreation Services staff think that the site in question is good for use by Time Warner and does not interfere with their needs. Public Works does want to make sure, however, that the lot retains as much storm water storage capacity as already exists on the lot. This property is within the area designated by the legislature for property purchases with the first $5 million grant the City is designated to receive from the Legislature. Concepts being developed call for the eventual redevelopment of the entire area south and west of this parcel. But, it is on the edge of the proposed redevelopment area and will not interfere with future redevelopment plans. Sixty- third Street in this vicinity will likely not be vacated because access needs to be provided to U.S. West and to Taft Park's parking area. The property has been professionally appraised at $21,000. Time Warner has agreed to pay this amount for the site. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The proposed use is allowed as a conditional use in the R zoning district. A neighborhood information meeting was held July 6, 2000. Three households were represented. There were no objections. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Time Warner needs to find a site close to its existing fiber optic distribution line and within three or four blocks of the existing location. Relocation needs to be accomplished by the December 31, 2000. To keep on schedule, construction needs to begin in September 2000. If other cable companies desired to enter the Richfield market, they would have their own facilities. C. FINANCIAL • Time Warner has agreed to pay $21,000 for the lot (the appraised value). D. LEGAL • The property would be conveyed by quit claim deed. • A conditional use permit is required as this is a utility locating in a R zone. • A variance will also be required due to minimum lot size requirement of 40,000 square feet for a non-residential use in an R zone. Additional variances for setbacks may also be required. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Do not authorize the sale of this property to Time Warner. V. ATTACHMENTS • Transitory Ordinance • Map (Existing and proposed Time Warner site) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Bernard Doffing, Time Warner • Attorney for Time Warner 0 BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUTNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA 6309 18TH AVE. S. The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: The following described real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of, and conveyed by the city as herein provided: Lot 8, Block 3, Iverson Third Addition Section 2: The Mayor and City Manger are hereby authorized to take all actions as required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing Section 1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of July, 2000 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk *I I - ?? 62ND-ST: - I - 1 MP D =] d C3J 13[] r-I ? d ? I o 63RD ST. I fJ 1!3 a d L J Lo--- 1-9b I o W Z MC3 s o L-M U13C'O Q_I P ? - q o Ip CD C, I r? ao 0 0 I 0 a CM-P 0 Q ?a o W ? f ?us $ i -----j f West o Proposed Relocation + 6309 18th Av, W ?a ?-?; 7C51 ul 0' 0 _ .{D 13 1 0 .? Q I n o _ D d i , 13 10 4] .. a b ?,I?D ?o v O Q a a 0 ?o o ab 4r-3 4 -a .1 O f ? 64TH ST. ! ? h t? ? ? 00 -JM D o ? , L3 v 0 65TH ST. 0 rp 0 no, I Existing 0I , rime Warner i Location -_? no 4L? I?j f I-T -? n b, o _ f:,- T L , • 0 AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # 5 REPORT # 183 J REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 24, 2000 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR d NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on a conditional use permit to allow construction of garages and other site improvements at 620-734 East 78th Street and 701-735 East 77th Street (formerly the Hampton Place Apartments). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a conditional use permit to allow construction of three garage structures and other site improvements, as described in the staff report, at 620-734 East 78th Street and 701-735 East 77th Street (formerly the Hampton Place Apartments) with the stipulations listed in the Legal Basis of Recommendation. II. BACKGROUND Village Green Companies recently purchased three apartment complexes, Hampton Court, Heritage Square and the Crestwood. Village Green is planning a variety of site and building improvements at all three complexes. At Hampton Court, the following improvements are proposed: • Construction of three garages with 52 stalls • Additional landscaping 0724hampton • Additional lighting • Fagade improvements to the main entrance of some buildings • Creation of courtyard areas between the buildings with fencing and landscaping improvements • Ornamental fencing along 77th and 78th Street and Chicago Avenue • New signage • Replaced trash enclosures • Addition of a defined area for residents to wash their cars. The existing pool will be removed and replaced with garages and a parking area. The tot lot will remain. The parking -areas on either side of the existing pool area will be expanded to the south. There are currently 296 parking stalls. The proposed changes will result in converting 38 surface stalls to 52 garage stalls. An additional 27 surface stalls will also be added for a total number of 337 parking spaces. Landscaping will be added to screen the parking areas from 78th Street. Interior improvements (e.g. painting, new carpeting) are also planned. The 221 apartment units are located in 13 buildings. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The proposed improvements are consistent with the City and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) programs and policies to encourage physical improvements to apartment buildings and to improve the living environments for apartment residents. • Even though it is not appropriate to consider rent increases in evaluating this conditional use permit application, staff has met with Village green representatives to discuss the community need for continued affordability of apartment units. The potential loss of affordable units at Hampton is most significant because of the rent affordability and the number of units. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City has experienced problems with the Hampton Place apartment complex in past years. While many of the issues (e.g. poor maintenance, inadequate tenant screening) have been addressed, the new management presents an opportunity for further improvements. • At such time in the future that 1-494 is widened, 78th Street (the frontage road) will be removed. Village Green has been informed of this future event and the fact that their access to 78th Street will be eliminated. The City anticipates that, when the 78th Street access is eliminated, the property will need access off of 77th Street in addition to the access off of Chicago Avenue. • The parking requirement for a multi-family complex is two spaces for every unit. The Council can reduce the ratio to 1.25 parking spaces per unit considering factors such as transit availability, shared parking, pedestrian orientation, and occupancy characteristics. A reduced parking ratio has existed without problems since the complex was built in the 1960s. The parking availability at the complex was reviewed two years ago and determined to be more than adequate. With the proposed improvements, the parking ratio would be increased from 1.3 to 1.5 spaces per unit. • The southwest garage may need to be moved and/or redesigned slightly to maintain required fire lanes. C. FINANCIAL The complex is currently a source of affordable housing for many City residents. The owners plan to increase rents as leases are renewed and again after improvements are made. Village Green has stated that they will phase in the increases for current tenants. The Planning Commission determined that the affordability of the housing was not a criteria that could be used to approve or deny the conditional use permit. • The property currently participates in the 4d program, which provides property tax reductions to apartment housing owners to ensure that a portion of units remain affordable. The owners have stated that they plan to continue participation in the 4d program (166 units in the complex are 4d); however, the City has received information regarding rent increases that indicates the complex may no longer qualify for the 4d program after rents are increased. There are also 25 Section 8 units in the complex. While the existing Section 8 tenants can continue to reside in the complex, they will need to absorb the rent increases; the program subsidy will not increase. D. LEGAL • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. • On June 27, 2000, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the conditional use permit. • Stipulations of Approval: 1. That a stormwater management plan be approved by Public Works Director. 2. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 3. That a final landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny the conditional use permit amendment with a finding that the proposed changes would have a negative impact on the surrounding property and the City as a whole. V. ATTACHMENTS • Attachment A: Existing Site Plan • Attachment B: Proposed Site Plan • • Attachment C: Garage Elevations Attachment D: Area map VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Brad Froling, Village Green Companies 0 Q H z w U H Q HAMPTON PLACE APARTMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS r: 7.Q?q? ? - / -5+ a ?4R 14 n GSG.xE BITUMfNO(IS ? ROADWAY " " T•-j LAS ... .B c?s ; of ,i a{--' •i i ? •0 aJ '-- ±? t??- y sa z .e9 ds'i,•w i ?f i 3; h' 7 ° 5u1 f ?.?• ..?, R U _ __ - ?. __ ---'-- ---?-; .?' -?jr? ? ! C.al 1'E? r 3 Jd•?t --- "??i t tY?a. Y_ tti i pp ?P 1-1 1-M •un.ourc st renclr uNC _ _ N t 7 C _ J _ gN c RF?ct ? h so -: n ? i 1. 1 r 1 " ?M1NdV5 21Z 1 i i i i i r ?3 , ?c c c a. b Mill' i' i' i" Q rNi< I x 1 ? ? 1 . 1 1 ?I ? liaa t 59 VNT QSPC011 l li13t 1 d',J' -r+ . .,?S t•r-1 ?/ ;. fINO Du. ;NO,? •• - - -_ _?? 1 2, // P 1 ? g ' f mts!" l .jl ewuwe +L9e;? U.{.. ?..o?° V. ';T - 1, _ } „1 S'3°"?' { +R .1,1..1nc?c, us'•:- c? _?- lI! n,ld L 217 ",?i sM it _ I }• j.[. ??1 -11.?}y •01 d ?,F .a• r P3- t Ss? ? .. C..: = ?'t r ?° ......... ? ?n ?l , _ ? !: _. ? ?i . Yti .F -T •I',?T t? T it T 4 40 115 { I CilYi g i :Y ' I° NiZ = < 3 l: t ` Ji Yi 9? r m m o m 4 i a lr° ,vo°v iyz? ae k ; \\ _ ?6 /a1 ; 1fl?, ?u ?; ?r i`I P ?yt l o•o (?! ?? .?1?- ? l `?' 1• L¢ -oWr ??, ?. 3Y my ' •?__ ^)•C?1 y''_t? ti .1 ?T? .Ik1 •? t i'? ;6'? t rs? E I N < S ?': °' ,t ?J P?S ur p ? ?' ,: CS ` ' 1 A ,? ':°t .? . ?, :.t' o 1. •l ptrGLE GrM 4 ?' t N S 1 8a 1?t? ?. - __ ._ $l N i 1 G``f'? l? ?'y ? 7:,L-.. '+. f° 9L.. ?1.?•°.I.1 . ?/ I I ? -__ .1119.-. _ -. . _ _. ? • 1 > ti, .? ?(? 1MINI?M IUIIYrNG 5E7BA?CM F . . _ ._..._. i - MMIMyN // LOS- rUlLO/Ne Ski FI re oul- &71 NE .N • .. s?.?. tJ.aca s"_.j- _ - ir`. °iPaM i 1-494 0 s (j ° fY y m z w U N HAMPTON PLACE APARTMENTS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Proposed portico entrances see architect's drawings Q 77TH $T: rP r ? Existing pool area garage and Frame 1 ?Q/ . ... . building to be removed to install - t / _ . • : - ; t'''ai ? additional parking and garages' { i•' - .. _ .r liar wash see detail i y arpay7 }I t °' f } I PipFd ("tion mach .7 - ExlsI dun,psterts) to be enclosed with r ' ? , t • ! _ , 1 'j ( 's h 1 ew sh gaenflosures seedgtails ?lodatlons may change) 1, ? ? ? , S I t ? I ee.\ E>tislinp A I lano to r `` . • "? T •, 1 .r, I ?, E' t I r Via=' - OCeag2 (oilers 8eetl? F c. }' :7 0 - _ Proposep 3o lit. ave_fgl o I I I C '? ? x Pr d 2u .. .Ill >, s s \ 7J J 6' - t +i Z 1. - ?{ ' uar ?' 1 " Ji?K/ J o r V ? ,? ?, r I Il 1 _ ? I? s, 1 F, a iq. I r ? ? ? rr ? r ? '•t F.:J`1 r 1 ) j 11 ??' Wry ?a l- o` ?'.? Jan I p "!: , ' .. I- I •? 0 x `. i'?. •1 ',?.w ? ;.^ fs'i; ... fnlr -_1. - '!' Ln , I 1 tii?` • F + U a r 1-494 _ _ _ _ _ _c LY3 n n O?RR ? tt V U r ,.' U HAMPTON PLACE APARTMENTS U H Z W 2 U H Q O =*+-- # . l __ 15 14 13• !Z• II• 4 I S L. 7. g. q !o 10 5? 10? ld lD lo' (o? log log lD loi5s ?. 6r - -- ,? yer h` • ? .Q f 1T/pwv_ "YATION FILL 9 PARK OF RICHFIELD 0 E,6 Architects and Planners, Inc. WA Bloodgood Shar4ster oloo • s Land Uses Near Crestwood, Hampton Place and Heritage Square I I ? _ I I I I I I I I I I I FAJ K?A _4J - H H= _ ? I II IL-- I ImI I IF _ - I I 1? i I ?? ?fRII I I I ?' I I I :::::: :::::: I I I I I I I ??4???-I I I I I • I I - I I? I I I I I i I I I I I I I L_ _ I L_ - l -I_ -:: -- F__T-- - F-7- II I I I I I I I_j__.J F_ Fil i i- I I I l I? - I I I I I I I I-? u? 76th Street 71 Ulm?j 78th Street Crestwood Hampton Place .;, 7720 4th Ave....., 900 78th St. E rasa mmI 7-1 ? I I I I I I I I I I I I I - f + I I I 1 I + N. s 600 0 600 1200 Feet WmmunNOavNaa?t WENEMMMENEW ?vxtomuwr aKxo?+MUammneyx.wewormMn - I F_T _ - I IM--' ?=:Iq Heritage Square 900 78th St. E Commercial Multiple Family Duplex Residential Quasi-Public Church Park June 28, 20DO a n M z -I v AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # 4 REPORT # 182 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 24, 2000 • REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAAIE; TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Er 'URE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 5,400 square foot clubhouse facility and other site improvements at 900-1000 East 78th Street and 901-1001 East 77th Street (formerly Heritage Square Apartments). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 5,400 square foot clubhouse facility and other site improvements as described in the staff report at 900-1000 East 78th Street and 901-1001 East 77th Street (formerly Heritage Square Apartments) with the stipulations listed in the Legal Basis of Recommendation. • II. BACKGROUND Village Green Companies recently purchased three apartment complexes, Hampton Court, Heritage Square and the Crestwood. Village Green is planning a variety of site and building improvements at all three complexes. At Heritage Square, the following improvements are proposed: • Addition of a 5,400 square foot clubhouse facility 0724heritage • Additional entrance off of 77th Street to an expanded parking lot (approximately 20 stalls) adjacent to the clubhouse facility. • Expanded pool deck • Potential addition of a glass enclosure over the pool • Additional landscaping • Ornamental fencing along 77th and 78th Streets • Facade improvements at some of the building entrances • Additional lighting • New dumpster enclosures • New signage Landscaping will be added to screen the parking areas from 77th and 78th Street. Interior improvements (e.g. painting, new carpeting) are also proposed. Residents at the other two complexes will be able to use the facilities at the clubhouse. There are four buildings with a total of 150 apartments. 1111. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I A. POLICY 0 • The proposed improvements are consistent with the City and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) programs and policies to encourage physical improvements to apartment buildings and to improve the living environments for apartment residents. • Even though it is not appropriate to consider rent increases in evaluating this conditional use permit application, staff has met with Village Green representatives to discuss the community need for continued affordability of apartment units. B. CRITICAL ISSUES I • At such time in the future that 1-494 is widened, 78th Street (the frontage road) will be removed. Village Green has been informed of this future event and the fact that their access to 78th Street will be eliminated. An additional access off of 77th Street or some added internal circulation will be needed to provide access all parking lots at that time. • The parking requirement for a multi-family complex is two spaces for every unit. The Council can reduce the ratio to 1.25 parking spaces per unit considering factors such as transit availability, shared parking, pedestrian orientation, and occupancy characteristics. The reduced parking ratio of 1.47 spaces to units has existed without problems since the complex was built in the 1960s. The parking will be increased by approximately 20 stalls to provide parking near the clubhouse facility. • The proposed new parking lot shown on the plans has not been approved by the Public Works Director. Additional space needs to be. provided for stacking cars. The entrance should be redesigned and subject to the Public Works Director's approval. C. FINANCIAL • The complex is currently a source of affordable housing for many City residents. The owners plan to increase rents as leases are renewed and again after improvements are made. Village Green has stated that they will phase in the increases for current tenants. (Rent increases are becoming commonplace throughout the metropolitan area.) The Planning Commission determined that the affordability of the housing was not a criteria that could be used to approve or deny the conditional use permit. • The property does not currently participate in the 4d program. • There are 12 Section 8-units in the complex. While the existing Section 8 tenants can continue to reside in the complex, they will need to absorb the rent increases; the program subsidy will not increase. D. LEGAL • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. • On June 27, 2000, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the conditional use permit. • Stipulations of Approval: 1. That the clubhouse parking lot be redesigned to provide a longer entrance area and that the final design be approved by the Public • Works Director. 2. That a stormwater management plan be approved by Public Works Director. 3. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That a final landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny the conditional use permit amendment with a finding that the proposed changes would have a negative impact on the surrounding property and the City as a whole. V. ATTACHMENTS • Attachment A: Existing Site Plan • Attachment B: Proposed Site Plan • Attachment C: Clubhouse Elevations • Attachment D: Area map VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Brad Froling, Village Green Companies ATTACHMENT A M 1 _ W I it $i -OfKNER D1003 MISNI6ASf PAR7NEASNIO >!MI I ?'.€ o ? :'1•?urr<.rt.lrafry ,.rsc:.! - x111: ;`?a^ III/ ?• SF. Ya.•f tr' St 624.51 t + rl 1. ll? L? 383 0 _ R r •L:! -- TAY f L.: G y 9 ?t•n - • iii?????? ? s R e 1jj eo..plw aae rtlN. .c Is asi so, r ••,• L o d , _ ;E: i7i I \ t0 I ? .W r? •.? ?yry-<Aa? n.: Y.li' J ??) ? I? r fir, L' AA-G Baca- R c f: t + '41 ,, 1 .t? ?` -_e,co^.• '•..f..?c,^• 1.:i;;r..w.,r...l 1 „ N ' lL.1.-•?srr ?•- a -•.3•ftI .oe. ` :.e r. ?_...ss• -I YI rx.' ' itfa - I t'zJ 1^_ 1 iclutr. _I ?` .n 3 . = wr= s<ncf 2/t-ST0 RY BUILDING Af..,.A-•JA,- 1 I h f? o n71_ j tt ~' p t 0 PAIN AP,A If I]. iii . rr f •sr-' , 13 r a• < i 34 c m - '! - m Y_ r2 -' y ' ? •% 3 ? r4b? ••R `Nle•me*' ''-eeN•n.ea-: - ? >?T o • II ? u ? ; , ° it 3 a 1/i O y • aFRtrrit .iru „ J F a Yu p a F-• f--tKUW ??? .... _ a., L a •J i wu \ ?• altr.. . ,as >r ui Y 1 . ; {?'a{,? ?? ?k a w:+ I y :jL... ..? L f?f, •_" ° - ! iC4j rrlb 1 p OI1 F - II • 1 rc r••- '' e•?i1 l_{C J ;: 1.'1141{1 t? d c' a ? -dfLJ•--- w S&I z y .. i ?x'7-, A9f(I•YB ]PAC£a \?l • '?_ PIRK/ i fIACi? # Ne• 1 ir?l_ ~ It ?• 1e-PAPK/w0 SPAees $ : o Ig a -I ;? m ;? ,•EeaH iwe f ils 8 Pt ?,?, 1 ___ . I ___ - , ' H y ` I' j ? !.-u<_) in<.? Sf < .? Sti ? ? oa •`-• 111.00 R..? f x? vl? ? 1 I J > ?., ?_. __ <r S!E .QI,.•! S,Srf !.T •'? ,°, _ ._20 FG Mpla. Gaf C.. Las-- - S K-PRAN/,F1G per. S/MCEf i ./t , ?, Ya per Do<. Ne. ftf4T?9--. A 1 .? ?'2. w• wb- T .l 1w :1 x- ??.? Y7fd0 _.N _Ma s ly$ a o a} ;.k ?t gyn. r g ;? :. i a N I S ?•w a .I a •. / " .r; f See ? 7^ARYFNG SiACC ?\?\: .t - P.•t .KC a..eis ?? ti?1 p.^ 111 _ o y ?^ ? , ?.-ftf0t••? , ? , t `• w -Mken1 I ? ? w j y :p ? ? c fxae' e' '? I 1?r r?? s ?A iN 1 F ~100-I 1 is _!b_••+. M .,11. . V' 1, r. ?_y 1[F' ?t..do•o .a. • n?? 2 •y?j?n L sa.y Eu.R? J !? 1 ?C i D ??<In I= n `YI •e • -1.. 8 tD N ' ? I ` ? _ _•F i _ - Ir b e a ti *0 • I N 0 r? 1-:K eibl 1y. g - b fi n II <I 0 T I a u Z ? •.. ii iMl,ewiRe : Mkawiu. • - - , a .. J ° I ,r•1 I •? '?. ?`av_. MN • PR,?rrio. r?1?,?r-Ar !1-, EA • .,r 0 • It 2 P .w i! .. +rAS L,o X i P• '? P?? 21/2- lKA P007?Rmr AnAxs u,RSa ,>o. rr. aK ? .Y I T „y STORY BUILDING n,?• a5 ?`y 7~ n -WK • /? e.+ NO. 1001 m ??11 ?• !-Eiie..:i w:raa - -•-°f aft ?? -_.j?. -..g§_?.•I lt '•IiM1 ` a ''f•i,?SSW ••MISMM.• ?6 .f-E efr. MKea . D m '41i1y---- ?- . .. j •?, rau 8 t•L uric UI? ' lI 1.?.. • j Y•b /I.. A,tE ' G: ?y.'?,'.','a Ir ?Er'A4; fk EnJfne: ' : T-EI - I ?1i1 z. 7 M I 1 • 1 = MAKING _ /SPACES 1-T k rN 1.fRRKIN . ' , G e ?PLi ? ?'??--.? ''''TTTT n y I r - „ : ft?MK ,i Sal 7'AUrK)RG'fr.IcEq ?sr?C?s I s r r K' a IS CAR e7ALLSJ-' :? 7f y'-c..ri c sal It A 6 E ,Fsk AREA 7 e .,..-....1 "III/ Le'le,.•. a M ?il! IE X CO) Q O z v O N S m a m N C m rn W I - z W U H Q j? Apartment Building lu, I i Im a to ,una,u - _ ")uaye n1 rte I.placeJ ariU IucaltlJ pet code IyV L I•,•.,r:J rriwei nil tixua lip -.- - .. _.._ .__ -. .__. _.. J •.IiJ 11,ulgnle?lsl111-,h-d mm, row hash."d- es see dole-is U,x.auonx mai charp.l I .,,I?„y y.? ay.: u 4l ,Yr 77TH ST. " s w,e?e .ra vIF3WS •s _ es ?os T - S y 1.-+Yl (f•Y• Y„(;f fG ?-__. __.._- _- ..: __. . _ "LJ •''? C Proposed evergreen tresa,tYP Q 0 01, HERITAGE SQUARE APARTMENTS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Hain erlbance m.apnry grdlaw - Omamemal 12 ht put. tights sign to be upiglllad laee decd) at main entry Existing lerpe bees to rWnOM / either fide tlrivMay Stamped colored P-o win tountam Ise. J.taxl -- - // asphalt Pavement Proposed 3' N. max. ornamental white Isndrlg, typ. - New cub cut access ` I 'i Na 1 A 'A,c FIE 110F $crew vie w ht. ev rlding w s. Itip. to o F? r ?I F L. R!! `. B weer a to patkblp bb, ryp Proposed 3- rFloodlrght to highlpnY-?. / clubhouse (a,ade, t- Proposed shade trees, tip. V/ VP w Apartment 0wldmtl 1 r ,g , Proposed clubhouse , e . (see architect elevations) .. O J 114 Will , 7'?-:-- Existing garage - ylr }, Exam pool apt:., - i• to rerrlam drd Pr I osed - = - I T V ! a t. - m o t }??; EE abnp dulnpalarp) to be enclosed } ..FoGrllam (spa detail - I .. c m wn )vim new bean erlcbsuroe sse dells -Pool deck Proposed to c,o,?lo?r °with . '; i i.,. a (location may change) . _? additional trf"°•'la«e?` _ t ¢ t .i w. c (tic aY/?I--I ,to I Ra c on site obo o v? w •hnt. Proposed flowering trees. lyp ? ??4) (j) ? _ _14 f yl F 1t 1y Apanmenl Byiiding Apartment Build rig f ,? t? I I r ©,_ -Apartment buildings to receive face shutters (??l/?(?• f /./ ?? I ?Y l/'?''. and window boxes t to enhance locales Propused Ponc,o entrances ..- ..... v s ie `,•; •,?y :r , .. ,. ace archded's drawings J' 30' ht. shrubs to screen views to parking lob - ... ...i Stamped colored asphalt pavement Proposed uptight to wash ;1 HERITAGE SQUARE 'APARTMENTS V PROPOSED CLUB HOUSE H • Z W n n U u ??rw _..--- - - - .- .?l•r ?•R. MR.1N _ Iy??! ? C7 ``w`w`ww`ww???mnua tiro' al•[s mc._nnv._.- =°vr •[?/?r_ ?, r ,111{,.?T. -----.---_--- mw- 10 1 - ---------- ----- ---.--------- R aE R ELEVanoN n n r .......... .--------- .___ •? .?J•M?J•T_l??fNC_ --.- ?- _ ??? ^a v.r.ra 111 ?? Wort ur - _- ..` __ , _ -- FRONT ELEVATION L,„.,. HERITAGE SQUARE APARTMENTS PROPOSED CLUB HOUSE N 'O u t. , ? Vr X 8.4 '- ? NrL i ?r r.,IDa U -- ux -..___--_ -_-.-_-_------ 0P O Yn t> Q n?..?arur,- ti u?u? ararmm _ __, - _- ' , x r a}tr ?- ' f? ¢UC LIL a .t ;? ..gala ..? - -- ®o oe ------ la AMa f/4 rirol? naaM mriV f/Y Mi it lM? aYa? SIDS ELEVATION Cu ZA c.? lL O .o C. A F S O N I rn 1 I I 0 0 rv m 0 to 0 0 O t0 U. v "munt ----- ---- --- ----------- ------------- a(OH?i (AF _ .-_._ _\ I _]bi 4YlrAfGNO6? T? .-_ ____-_-._-_- -.-_- ?PO?yO ro?>«._? G7o r _ n v.r ru .r--`. - (? ------- Ll I _.-.._, SIDE ELEVanoN a?K • r! 0 . Land Uses Near Crestwood, Hampton Place and Heritage Square -_ ' ' I- I I I I t, I I I I t t Li RLJ I. ? I -- ? I I I ( I ?I 1 I I _- = I ? - rp I I I I , , I I I i I I I + I I - i t R=1 I I M FD- _ I ? ? I i I I 1 I I I _I I I I I t t t i t ? i I I I I I ? I I f I I I I i i I I 1 I i I L 1__l ?I -- II II II Ilq -- 1 46 I I ? I I I , I- ' I I?I - I I ? I I? I y i i t? , a I I I I i LF I I 1 I I I i t i ' I - - - eta-7-1 -1. F_T- ---f-l =l I I I I , ....................... I t I I ? i t 1 I I I i -- •------•-----? ---•----- .76th Street ?AM 78th Street Crestwood 7720 4th Ave. Hampton Place j 900 78th St. E 1-494 N ?E S Camuny Daabpnrtn ?a?uy aev?ion?r?rmn.nwraewn.?nMn 600 0 600 1200 Feeti Heritage Square 900 78th St. E Commercial Multiple Family Duplex Residential Quasi-Public Church Park June 26, 2000 a n 3 M z 0 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3F REPORT# 181 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 24, 2000 BETSY CMUSTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER N"E, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 1 n ?? SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: J ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of a residential kennel license for Ethel Zobel, 6800 Cedar Avenue. ?. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the renewal of a residential kennel license for Ethel Zobel, 6800 Cedar Avenue. II. BACKGROUND I On July 3, 2000, Ethel Zobel submitted an application for a residential kennel license. She owns three dogs. The application is complete and the $85.00 fee has been received. Ms. Zobel's application contains all contiguous property owners' signatures. On July 5, 2000, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Ms. Zobel has been able to do this. 0724Zobel • I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 1, A. POLICY I The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received no calls or complaints from any of the neighbors. Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. The completed application containing all contiguous neighbors' signatures and the $85.00 fee have been received. • Staff found no apparent problems upon inspection of the property. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council could decide to deny Ms. Zobel's residential kennel license. This would mean that she would have to reduce the number of animals on her property from three to two. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Ms. Zobel 0 • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3E REPORT # 180 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • JULY 24, 2000 BETSY CmsTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: tytz7l TAI?- ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for an itinerant place of amusement license, with a request for fee waiver, for the Church of St. Peter, 6730 Nicollet Avenue South, for their annual Fall Festival to be held October 1 2000. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an itinerant place of amusement license, with fee waived, for the annual Fall Festival at the Church of St. Peter, 6730 Nicollet Avenue South, to be held on October 1, 2000. 1 11. BACKGROUND On July 12, 2000, the Church of St. Peter submitted a request for an itinerant place of amusement license for October 1,2000. They are requesting that the fee be waived. They plan to serve a chili, spaghetti, and French bread dinner and have contacted food sanitarians from the city of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. 0724StPeterFestival • • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to this license. • The City has previously issued this license in conjunction with the St. Peter Fall Festival B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny the request for an itinerant place of amusement license and request of a fee waiver. However, The Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted this license in conjunction with the St. Peters Fall Festival. V. VI ATTACHMENTS • N/A PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I • Ann Garland or other church of St. Peter staff. • AGENDA SECTION: Consent . AGENDA ITEM # 3D REPORT # 179 STAFF REPORT =ado CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 24, 2000 BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: l? QaA %* SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request by the Church of the Assumption, 305 E. 77th Street, for an on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license, itinerant place of amusement license and an itinerant food license, with a request of a fee waiver, for their annual Fun Fest to be held August 13, 2000. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a request for an on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license, an itinerant place of amusement license and an itinerant food license, with fees waived, for the Church of the Assumption, 305 E. 77th Street, for their annual Fun Fest to be held August 13, 2000. 1 11. BACKGROUND On July 10, 2000, the Church of the Assumption, 305 E. 77th Street, submitted a request for a temporary license to serve 3.2 percent malt liquor, an itinerant place of amusement and an itinerant food license for August 13, 2000. They are requesting the fees be waived. • The applicants must, however, furnish proof of liquor liability insurance coverage to staff by July 24, 2000. 0724FUNFEST 0 1 111. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to these licenses with the exception of the proof of liquor liability insurance. • The City has previously issued these licenses in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fest. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The applicant will supply proof of liquor liability insurance coverage prior to July 24, 2000. However, if proof of liquor liability insurance coverage is not received by July 24, 2000, the applicant would not be in compliance with the City ordinance. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL N/A . IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny the request; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted these licenses in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fest. I V. ATTACHMENTS N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Church of the Assumption staff AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3C REPORT # 178 0 M091a STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 24, 2000 KATIA MEDVETSKI, REPORT PREPARED BY: REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of properties for the 66th Street /TH 77 Interchange Project. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of properties for the 66th Street /TH 77 Interchange Project. II. BACKGROUND I On February 28, 2000, the City Council approved a Right of Way Agreement with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (the "MAC") which provides for the acquisition of properties impacted by the expansion of 66th Street and Trunk Highway 77 (the "Project"). The appraisal work began February 29, 2000. Appraisal reports were prepared for the real estate and immovable fixtures and equipment and reviewed by a review appraiser. MAC is responsible for providing the final review for the real estate and recommending just compensation to the City Council for approval for this project. At this writing, MAC continues to process the final reviews. These final reviews consist of reviewing all (a.) real estate appraisal reports (two for a majority of the properties due to right of way acquisition regulations); (b.) immovable fixtures and equipment appraisal reports; (c.) review appraisal reports for all real estate appraisal reports; (d.) review appraisal reports 0724 jc 66st - final for all immovable fixture and equipment appraisal reports; and (e.) any work involving re-classifying immovable fixtures and equipment as realty and vice versa. Due to the high volume of reviews required at one time, MAC will not be able to provide their recommended just compensation figures to staff for inclusion in this staff report. However, the figures will be available by the time of the meeting on July 24, 2000. A resolution will be presented to the City Council for the aforementioned recommended action at the meeting. However, it is likely that not all the properties will be included. If that is the case, staff will recommend a special meeting of the Council to establish just compensation on those properties which remain. In addition to the justcompensation figures, the property owners may also be eligible for relocation benefits. The relocation benefits will be calculated separately by the City's acquisition/re location consultant, Conworth, Inc., once offers are made to property owners in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act. 1111. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The subject properties have been identified for purchase for the project. • The Memorandum of Understanding between the City, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (the "MNDOT"), and MAC outlines the responsibilities for each participating agency. • The Agreement between the City and MAC further outlines the responsibilities of each agency as to property acquisition and construction. • Right of Way acquisition procedures set forth by MNDOT are being followed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Offers will be made to the property owners upon Council's approval of just compensation and authorization to purchase. • Properties are being processed for Council's consideration for just compensation and purchase authorization as appraisals are received by staff. C. FINANCIAL I • MAC is obligated to fund this transaction. D. LEGAL • . N/A E. TIMING • Closing will be scheduled as negotiations are completed. • Based on other right of way acquisition projects, owners will be able to remain in the property to help make moving as smooth as possible. Vacation, however, must be completed by December 31, 2000. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Delay approval of the just compensation and authorization to acquire the project properties. • Do not approve just compensation and authorization to acquire the project properties. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A 0 0 x RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6333, 6409-17, 6421, 6425, 6509, 6529 Cedar Avenue; 1820 and 1800 East 66th Street; AND 1714 East 66th Street; (66th Street / TH 77 Interchange Project) WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 66th Street/TH 77 Interchange Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property being described on Exhibit A, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a layout for Project improvements; and WHEREAS, the Project improvements necessitate the purchase of real property; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is initially funding the Project; and • WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals for the subject property to be made by qualified independent professional appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate and immovable fixtures and equipment appurtenant thereto; and WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the appraisal reports as being in conformity with appraisal standards; and WHEREAS, a qualified fixture review appraiser has certified the fixture appraisal report as being in conformity with appraisal standards; and WHEREAS, MAC has reviewed all appraisal reports and review appraisal reports prepared for the subject property and has recommended that the just compensation for the real estate be determined by the City Council as indicated in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, MAC has also recommended that the City proceed to make offers to the owners of the subject properties in the just compensation amounts as indicated within Exhibit A. WHEREAS, the just compensation amounts indicated within Exhibit A are consistent with said appraisal reports and review appraisal reports. • r T NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of M Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the total just compensation for the individual parcels of real estate and the immovable fixtures and equipment relating thereto are indicated in Exhibit A. 2. That the City's agent, Conworth, Inc. is authorized and directed to submit to the property owner the City's offer to pay such just compensation amount for all interest in the subject property and commence negotiations for the purchase of said property. 3. That the City's agent, Conworth, Inc. is hereby directed to notify, in writing, the owners of the subject property that the City intends to acquire this property and establish eligibility for relocation benefits. 4. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute purchase agreements in form acceptable to them and take all other actions necessary to complete the purchase of the property for the amount of just compensation set forth in this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of July, 2000. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 0 • 0 Exhibit A EXHIBIT A Property Address Immovable City and Fixtures and Parcel PID Number Legal Description Real Estate Equipment Total 5 6333 Cedar Ave. Lots 9 and 10,BIock 15, New Ford Town, Hennepin $435,000 $23,830 $458,830 e 25-028-24-22-0060 County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 9 6409 Cedar Ave.. Lots 3 and 4, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin $660,000 $14,575 $674,575 25-028-24-23-0065 County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 10 6417 Cedar Ave. Lot 5, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, 25-028-24-23-0066 Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 11 6421 Cedar Ave. Lot 6, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, $315,000 $28,370 $343,370 25-028-24-23-0067 Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. A-1 Property Address Immovable City and Fixtures and Parcel PID Number Legal Description Real Estate Equipment Total 12 6425 Cedar Ave. Lots 7 and 8, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin ? $195,000 - $141045 $209,045 25-028-24-23-0142 County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 18 6509 Cedar Ave. Lot 3, Block 1, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, $60,000 $7,150 $67,150 25-028-24-23-0002 Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 22 6529 Cedar Ave. Lot 8, Block 1, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, $180,000 $13,525 $193;525 25-028-24-23-0006 Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. - 25 1820 E. 66th St. Lot 1, Lot 13, and the South 50 feet of Lot 2, Block $400,000 $119,330 $519,330 26-028-24-14-0054 1, Iverson's V Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 26 1800 E. 66th St. Lot 14, Block 1, Iverson's TO Addition, Hennepin $141,000 n/a $141,000 26-028-24-14-0064 County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. A-2 Pr ro Address Property - - - Immovable City and Fixtures and Parcel PID Number Legal Description Real Estate Equipment Total 28 a 1714 E. 66th St. Lot 2, Block 4, Iverson's 3' Addition, Hennepin $130,000 @ $17,140 $147,140 26-028-24-14-0119 County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys; vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3B REPORT # 177 mama STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 24, 2000 • REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 8? /;?- REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: L.1 "URE 04-'r? ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: An amendment to an Off-Street Parking Permit for 7720-7740 4th Avenue (formerly the Crestwood Apartments). I I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an amendment to the off-street parking permit for 7720-7740 4th Avenue (formerly the Crestwood Apartments) to allow site improvements as described in the staff report. - II. BACKGROUND Village Green Companies recently purchased three apartment complexes, Hampton Court, Heritage Square and the Crestwood. Village Green is planning a variety of site and building improvements at all three complexes. At the Crestwood apartments, the following improvements are proposed: 0724crestwood Expanded pool deck Additional landscaping Ornamental fencing along 78th Street and 4th Avenue Facade improvements at some of the building entrances Additional lighting New dumpster enclosure J New signage There are three buildings each containing 17 units for a total of 51 units. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The proposed improvements are consistent with the City and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) programs and policies to encourage physical improvements to apartment buildings and to improve the living environments for apartment residents. Although it is not appropriate to consider rent increases in evaluating an amendment to an off-street parking permit, staff has met with Village Green representatives to discuss the community's need for continued affordability of apartment units. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • An Off-Street Parking Permit was approved for the property in 1966. The proposed changes to the approved site plan will upgrade and improve the appearance of the complex. C. FINANCIAL I • The complex is currently a source of affordable housing for many City residents. The owners plan to increase rents as leases are renewed and again after improvements are made. Village Green has stated that they will phase in rent increases for current tenants. The affordability of the complex is not, however, a criteria for approving or not approving an off-street parking permit. • The complex currently participates in the 4d program, which provides property tax reductions to apartment housing owners to ensure that a portion of the units remain affordable. The owners have stated that they plan to continue participation in the 4d program (26 units at Crestwood are 4d); however, information that the City has received regarding rent increases shows that the complex may not continue to be able to qualify for the 4d program after rents are increased. There are also six Section 8 units in the complex. While the existing Section 8 tenants can continue to reside in the complex, they will need to absorb the rent increases; the program subsidy will not increase. D. LEGAL • The proposed changes comply with City ordinances. • No changes are being proposed to the current parking ratio of 1.24 spaces per unit. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) 0 Deny the request for an amendment to the Off-Street Parking Permit V. ATTACHMENTS • Attachment A: Existing Site Plan • Attachment B: Proposed Site Plan • Attachment C: Area map (Land Uses Near Crestwood, Hampton Place and Heritage Square) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Brad Froling, Village Green Companies • CRESTWOOD APATMENTS ATTACHMENT A EXISTING CONDITIONS • ? R/CNR764.D -01 aeM/NPIVN OIKOrr uNNWv• SO ]C N. 09.59.50-E:, ° 756.65 • 'f----_____ •E 2^.6.65 • 1 "e?'?v-'fTI' i. -a ?Me. J -r 1T-. ti' ? A ` -f UILDIA'G SETP4CIl P" 'NE d4 4v 1 S7ACE ! to IT UNIT AIART M[Nr ', w.T!•?,[If V --? J Q T r' • sc' iD?.vi nv? 7710 LY•--•-t'{ --_. t -y 111 _ L ,- PUIIDIN, FOOTPRINT AREA I.hf, Rnnnl.r/ --N_-- IS Sr ISL' 5Q. FT. aeRV/ I . . r° QQ n ° In ti .... r., 6w 7-1 Nx. )2 SPAC'E w? !t MC .C. /l UNIT APARTMENT y ?W '• 4. cW i -- SPAE. _ z?f ssewr ew.eK ZS ? V ep? W ?'; / ? ^y errsA»r. wv nsoCJ ? 3? ?--Y ? ", 4i ? ? IS BUILDING FOOTPRINT ?Ac J ., e O IR G 1 V -AREA 13 3./S2 SQ. FT- V v .'. 5, ..J I.It*: a j N 3 v t° 0 a rw rfrtnRtt? I' ui? 00-i---i e P p p .`o ^ 1.. co oN T N p ,? .. , _ iSO _ NIQ v - w fpm Lit -___ v ¢,. ?xP.P'. ?3/nr•arw?j ?? 1?i ??o --? -- J1 L DING FOOTPRINT I.Jt a_ .s O AREA IS S. I62 SQ. Fr .71 6 5-.- 11 UNIT APARTMENT ?.. Y--S `-` ?i //•?,,/,/, to _-• -> try _ rOwr ew.ew - ?... , . - • ... i i y w -R z) ILz., _i• ,' -- G//i[O/NG At? 7710 I.. Irgp7 1 ?- r O m j------? N:--?. m /GILDING SET9IACK UNE .rw•f..Rd .. ..s1""r- FOUND IRON?`y _- . Rom ACCESS ? «L s- Z ,,. r1ir.N < 1 W O '-\ \LpUgL1D •. r's•_rM? x,r...J•l WN th r..?. L ?/ C WAY) d w• . SeR TED RIGNT-OF- (PUBLICLY PEP' CA ; k. I SEVIENT FOR H P4R-P0565 417------_i_---1••?y 1 II - ? AS PER DOC. NO- 39.4tll* 91774 { I 011 '? /INTERSTATE Ae*V)- NO. ¢g.¢\ \ I , , Z56.63 '-5.90.8! 50'W A' ^' .• M.«..y' ••-6.N}h line of See. 54. y?•? gam' A ?.1: •,•F =__° NE DcscF, 6Y DOC.N0.3aen+4 ?i1 •J9t3II 7G04 -22. ?,1$-57 --- W H z cW C U Fa- Q CRESTWOOD APARTMENTS _ PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS Existing dumpster(s) to be enclosed with new trash enclosures see details r (locations may change) t ?t Stamped coloted asphalt pavement 4 j -g ,r Pool deck proposed to enlarge with additional plantings and deck area I- - r Prgposed portico entrances see architect's drawings Seotpndary Bntranr? I ; 1 grq}tnd sigrr,ayp I ( j I Proposed evergreen trees, typ. xistin ll •??, I Planting td tliama n iI IT ' J oo Ica r Proposed-4. light to wash ' butting faGgde Apa(tmeliZ Elf g dl 9 ; lit ?' . Apar ent8ur?ding ?p Apa4t?ehkBydding ; Proposed Oade trees, t . v rr ? 1 ; - Apartment buildings to receive shutters and window boxes to enhance facades r _ s Proposed flowering trees, typ 9 Proposed 3' t ''ht max v; I ornamental lvhite (eking, typ. <+ ?? • a3 a , , i -.4TH AVE ?: • • Land Uses Near Crestwood, Hampton Place and Heritage Square R::? I I I I I ? I 1 I I - I I I H - I I I- , I I I I i- - ? I "17-1 17-117-1 I I - I I ?1?1i i l l I d m Mi I I I I I I I I I i _ I I I I 1 I _ I I i I I I ; 1? -?-->I I i I I I I - I I I I I I i i - C _ I I r Tl m - ?--? d I FR 1 1 I I I I!! I o I I j C I I I I I I la t I I F=R rm? FP I I I I I III . .................. NO 'g f? » Vii. 'Et. Crestwood 7720 4th Ave; N $ s kbkYannu?ON?aw?wn?mmNn.AG+ .. -Mrt 76th Street r r 78th Street Hampton Place 900 78th St. E 1-494 s I R-- F I I I I I I I I I - I I I_ - I I I I I I I I I ?__ m m i I I I I I I I I { I I ?I 1 _ I I I ? L?J I i I -F- _ ?T- F- F-T-1 - I I? I I I I I 1 I -I_ I I I - All , A 600 0 600 1200 Feet Heritage Square 900 78th St. E ® Commercial ® Multiple Family ® Duplex Residential ® Quasi-Public ® church 0 Park June 26, 2000 H H 9 t? f- r L AGENDA SECTION: Consent. AGENDA ITEM # 3A REPORT # 176 J JULY 24, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SALLY MORTON, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES MANAGER NAME, TITLE STEVE DEVICH, ADMASTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE l -Sr6NATUJZq REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: J ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Request to donate used City computer equipment to the Richfield school district. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution authorizing the donation of used computer equipment to Independent School District #280. II. BACKGROUND The City has 24 personal computer processors with mice and keyboards, 4 network hubs, and 4 monitors that have been replaced with new equipment. The retired equipment is still in good operating condition, but the technology no longer performs adequately in the City's environment. The Richfield School District accepts donations of used computer equipment and is interested in receiving these items. The City has donated used equipment to the school district in the past. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The retired equipment was purchased with tax dollars from the same taxpayers that fund the school district. 0724PCDonation.doc B. CRITICAL ISSUES N/A C. FINANCIAL • Staff has the option of selling this equipment at the Project for Pride in Living (PPL) Store, which was the City's practice prior to 1999. The estimated earnings from the sale of this equipment are $1,400. • The City's retired equipment has more value to the School District then the nominal amount the City would receive for selling it. D. LEGAL I • The donation is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.85 which provides: "Any county, city, town, or school district may transfer its personal property for a nominal or without consideration to another public corporation for public use when duly authorized by its governing body." IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Sell the equipment at the PPL Store. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing the transfer of used computer equipment to Independent School District #280. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF USED COMPUTER EQUIPMENT TO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #280 WHEREAS, the City owns some computer equipment for which it no longer has any use; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.85 permits the City to transfer this property to the School District for public use; and WHEREAS, representatives of Independent School District #281 have indicated that they will accept the donation and use. it in a manner permitted by Minnesota Statutes Section 471.85. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the following used computer equipment owned by the City be transferred to Independent School District #280: 24 personal computer processors with keyboards and mice, 4 network hubs and 4 monitors. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of July, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0