Loading...
09-27-99 agendaU CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS RICHFIELD CITY HALL AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 PRESENTATION INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT THEIR-NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD. 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA AGENDA APPROVAL 2. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR 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 • A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES AND APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR NOVEMBER 2, 1999 SPECIAL CITY ELECTION C.L. 218 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL C.L. 219 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT SEWER AND WATER UTILITY ACCOUNTS TO COUNTY AUDITOR C.L. 220 D CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZATION TO USE ONE PAID . VACATION DAY AS PRIZE IN 1999 RICHFIELD CHARITABLE FUNDS DRIVE E. C.L. 221 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REMOVAL OF STOP SIGN AT 67TH F STREET AND GRAND AVENUE C.L. 222 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT FOR . 7708 FIFTH AVENUE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING ADDITION G C.L. 223 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDING EXISTING WORK ORDER . WITH BRW INC. FOR NICOLLET AVENUE AND 67TH STREET TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS IN AMOUNT OF $25,770 AND. EXTENDING COMPLETION DATE INTO 2000 C.L. 224 H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH CONWORTH, INC. TO ASSIST IN RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR 77TH STREET PHASE 111 UNDERPASS PROJECT IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $55,000 WITHOUT FURTHER AUTHORIZATION C.L. 225 I CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION EXTENDING TWO- . YEAR CONTRACT WITH MORROW AUTO SPECIALTY, INC. TO PROVIDE TOWING, IMPOUNDING AND STORAGE OF VEHICLES FOR RICHFIELD C.L. 232 (ADDED AT MEETING) PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEAL TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF VARIANCE DENIAL FOR 6600 JAMES AVENUE. • COUNCIL LETTER NO. 226 5. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEAL TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF VARIANCE DENIAL FOR 7532 GIRARD AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 227 6. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PLAN TO TRANSPLANT TREES FROM RICH ACRES GOLF COURSE TO VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK AND OTHER CITY SITES COUNCIL LETTER N0.228 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 7. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RECEIPT OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY PETITION AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING (62ND STREET) AND FIRST READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 6225 BLAISDELL AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER N0.229 • RESOLUTION 8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FORM OF TAX INCREMENT PLEDGE AGREEMENT WITH HRA RELATING TO $1,700,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1999A COUNCIL LETTER N0.230 AIRPORT BUSINESS 9. CONSIDERATION OF LAND LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION AND RICHFIELD FOR CITY'S USE OF MAC PROPERTY AS REPLACEMENT COMMUNITY GARDEN SITE COUNCIL LETTER N0.231 10. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT: CORRESPONDENCE 11. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 12. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 13. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 14. 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. M CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 231 (~ Agenda September 27, 1999 `~ Issue Statement: Consider the land lease agreement between the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and Richfield for the City's use of MAC property as a replacement Community Garden site. Background: Recreation Services Director Jim Topitzhofer and Nature Center Manager Karen Shragg have investigated possible locations for a replacement Community Garden site. A plot of land, located at 59th Street and 24th Avenue was determined to be the most feasible site in the immediate area because of its grading, soil, area and parking. Nature Center staff worked with the Engineering Division to draw up a plan to re-construct the Community Garden facilities, complete with running water (from the City of Minneapolis), .raised beds for gardeners who use wheelchairs and a compost bin. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer worked with the City Attorney and MAC to develop the enclosed land lease agreement, which would provide the land for City use at a rate of $1 per year. Recommended Motion: Approve the land lease agreement between the MAC and the City of Richfield to use as a replacement site for the Richfield Community Gardens. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The former Community Gardens were aheavily-used recreational facility that were sorely missed in the 1999 gardening season. The demand is great for a replacement facility. 2. Staff has been in communication with the Community Services Commission throughout the site selection process and the development of the lease. At their September 14 meeting, the Community Services Commission recommended approval of the attached lease. Alternative Recommendation: Do not approve the attached land lease agreement between the MAC and the City of Richfield. Discussion/Decision Mode: In order to proceed with the preparation of this site for use in the 2000 gardening season, staff requests that the Council take action on September 27. Resp ctfu y submitted, ~" • teven a ch Acting ity Manager SLD:ds • • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 30 ~ V> ~ C7 az ~ ~ N wW _~ ~z~ UZ~ ~wrn N N ~~ Z A W ,-Spas` M O U ~ ~ ~ ~; ~~~ b o m ~~ ma ~ $ o ~ m g v m ~ • ~ ~ n ~~ a~g ~-i ~-a COMMUNITY GARDENS LEASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this 27th day of September, 1999, by and between the Metropolitan Airports Commission, a public corporation of the State of Minnesota ("MAC") and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Tenant"). RECITALS: 1. The MAC owns the real property located at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, Hennepin County, MN and legally described at the attached Exhibit A, the ("Premises"). 2. The Tenant desires to lease the Premises, including non-exclusive use of a portion of the adjacent parking area for use as a community garden. 3. Use of the Premises by Tenant as community gardens for its residents at less than fair market value is consistent with federal revenue diversion and grant assurance requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions of this Lease, MAC and the Tenant hereby agree as follows: TERMS 1.0 LEASE OF THE PREMISES. The MAC hereby leases to the Tenant and the Tenant hereby leases from the MAC, the Premises located at 5844.28' Avenue South, City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2.0 TERM. The term of this lease shall be year-to-year, commencing as of October 1, 1999. MAC or the Tenant may terminate the Lease at any time and for any reason, or for no reason at all, by providing not less than 90 days notice to the non- terminating party. Upon termination of the Lease by either party, Tenant shall remove all personal property from the Premises within 60 days from the date the termination becomes effective. Termination by either party may not become effective during the months of May through November. 3.0 RENT. The tenant shall pay the MAC rent in the amount of $1.00 per year for the Premises under this Lease. Rent shall be due within 10 days after the signing of this Lease and within 10 days upon each renewal date hereafter. To the extent that the rent charged herein is less than fair market value it is acknowledged that conditions under the Revenue Diversion Policy have been met. 4.0 COMPLIANCE WITH CITY REGULATIONS. The Tenant agrees to use the Premises in strict conformance with all rules, regulations, and ordinances of the City of Richfield and MAC. DPD-166817 1 RC160-7 ~-3 5.0 USE OF THE PREMISES. During the term of this Lease the Tenant agrees as follows: (a) Tenant may use the Premises only for community gardens and related projects and will not occupy the Premises for other purposes without the permission of the MAC. (b) Tenant shall only occupy that portion of the Premises depicted on Exhibit A to this Lease. (c) Tenant, its employees, guests, or invitees utilizing the Premises in conjunction with the community gardens program may make use of a portion of the parking lot immediately adjacent to the Premises and located at 5844 28~' Avenue South, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, MN. (d) Tenant may not lease the Premises to other persons, assign this Lease or sell this Lease. Tenant may not encumber the Premises in any manner. (e) At its own expense, Tenant may make minor improvements to the Premises such as tilling soil and installing water spigots. Major improvements may only be made with the prior written approval of MAC. (f) Tenant promises: (1) not to act in an unruly, destructive or thoughtless manner, or to allow its guests to do so; (2) not to use the Premises in any way that is illegal or dangerous or that would cause a cancellation, restriction, or increase in premium in any insurance carried by the MAC on the Premises; (3) not to interfere in the management or operation of the property immediately surrounding the Premises. 6.0 LIABILITY OF TENANT AND OWNER. (a) The MAC is not responsible for any damage or injury that is done to Tenant, its property, its guests, or the property of guest that was not caused by MAC. (b) The MAC is not responsible for the actions, or any damages, injury or harm caused by third parties that are not under the MAC's control. (c) Tenant shall reimburse and indemnify the MAC for any action arising out of use by Tenant or Tenant's agents or guests; any loss, property damage, or cost of repair or service, including any problems caused by negligence or improper use by Tenant, or Tenant's agents or guests; (d) Any attachments and addenda to this lease are a part of this lease. If a term of any attachment or addendum conflicts with any term of this lease, the attachment or addendum term will be controlling. No oral agreements have been made. This lease, its attachments and addenda, and any other written DPD-166817 2 RC160-7 - / _ ~.~. agreements are the entire agreement between Tenant and the MAC and may be modified only by a writing signed by the MAC and the Tenant. (e) The MAC does not warrant that any services that it provides, whether utilities or otherwise, will be free from interruption.. (f) The covenants and agreements in this lease shall bind and be to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the parties to this lease. This contract shall be construed in accordance with the laws of Minnesota. (g) Tenant shall not cause or permit to be caused any act or practice, by negligence, omission or otherwise, that would affect the environment or do anything or permit anything to be done that would be in violation of any law, regulation, or guideline. This includes but is not limited to the improper or illegal use or disposal of any flammable, combustible, hazardous, or explosive fluid, material, chemical, or substance. A violation of this clause will be considered default of this lease. 7.0 CONDITION OF THE PREMISES. Tenant promises: (1) Not to damage the Premises or waste the utilities provided by the MAC or allow its guests to do so; (2) not to make any material change to the Premises without prior written consent of the MAC; (3) to notify the MAC immediately of any condition(s) on the Premises that are dangerous to human health or safety, or which may damage the Premises or waste utilities provided by the MAC; (4) that when Tenant terminates the lease, the Premises will be re-seeded and left in good condition; (5) not to remove any improvements supplied by the MAC, without the prior written consent of the MAC; (6) to keep the Premises in a neat and orderly condition, with special reference to fire or environmental hazard, and to permit no rubbish of any kind to accumulate on the Premises. (a) All improvements affixed to the Premises are the property of the MAC regardless of who installed, and paid for the improvements. (b) If the Premises are destroyed or damaged so they are unfit to use due to any cause, MAC may choose not to restore the Premises, and either Tenant or the MAC may cancel this lease immediately. 8.0 INSURANCE. Immediately upon acceptance of this lease, the Tenant shall maintain "all risk" insurance in the amount $750,000 per occurance to cover any damage to the Premises or surrounding property caused by the Tenant's use of the Premises with the clause that in the event of any cancellation, thirty (30) days prior written notice will be given the Certificate holder. The policies shall name the MAC as an additional insured. The policies involving liability from third parties shall provide coverage at the statutory limits for property damage and personal injury. The Tenant shall provide a certificate of insurance annually or upon the request of the MAC. DPD-166817 3 RC160-7 j //9.0 NOTICE. Any notice, demand, request or other communication which may or shall be given or served by the parties shall be deemed to have been given or served on the date the same is deposited in the United States Mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: (a) If to Owner: MetropolitanAirportsComrmssion Attn: Nigel Finney 6040 28~` Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 (b) If to City: City of Richfield 'Attn: Jim Topitzhofer 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their signatures to be duly executed on the Effective Date. TENANT -CITY OF RICHFIELD • C7 By Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor By Steven L. Devich, Acting City Manager METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION By_ Its By_ Its DPD-166817 ~} RC160-7 -(o r • EXHIBIT A The South 10 acres of the North 22 acres of the Northwest quarter of the Southeastern quarter except streets and highways (excluding the building located at 5844 28`" Avenue). Use of the parking lot is non-exclusive. DPD-166817 RC160-7 A-1 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 230 Agenda September 27, 1999 Issue Statement: Adoption of a resolution authorizing the form of a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield relating to $1,700,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1999A. Background: On August 23, 1999, the City Council approved the sale of taxable revenue bonds on behalf of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to fund the Richfield Rediscovered and Transformation Home programs. On September 20, the HRA approved a resolution authorizing the form of a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement with the City. In October, the City Council will consider awarding the bond sale to a qualifying buyer. In order to commit. tax increments toward the payment of principal and interest on the bonds, it is necessary for the City and the HRA to enter into a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement. Execution of the agreement will be requested after the bond sale. Approval of the form of that agreement is requested at this time. The City Council Letter of August 23, 1999 seeking authorization of a bond sale reported on the proposed use of the bond proceeds as follows: purchase of approximately 14 homes $910,000 administration and site clearance 84,000 other costs (legal resolution of title issues) 56,000 transformation loans 400,000 capitalized interest 221,595 cost of insurance 30,000 underwriter's discount 25,950 miscellaneous 2,455 $1,730,000 Recommended Motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the form of the Tax Increment Pledge Agreement with the HRA relating to $1,700,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1999A. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The HRA approved obligating future tax increment resources through the sale of taxable revenue bonds on August 16, 1999. 2. The City Council approved the sale of general obligation tax increment revenue bonds on behalf of the HRA on August 23, 1999. • ~~ 3. The HRA approved the form of the Tax Increment Pledge Agreement on September • 20, 1999. 4. The HRA approved modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Project Plan; modifications to the Gramercy and Urban Village TIF Plans; establishment of the Richfield Rediscovered TIF District; and creation of the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District Plan on September 20, 1999. 5. The City Council will hold a public hearing on October 11, 1999 to consider the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Project Plan; modifications to the Gramercy and Urban Village TIF Plans; establishment of the Richfield Rediscovered TIF District, and creation of the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District Plan modification. 6. The City Council will meet in October to award the bond sale to a qualifying buyer. 7. The City's legal counsel recommended approval of the form of the Tax Increment Pledge Agreement prior to the bond sale in October. 8. Pledge Agreements were commonly used in the LHN in the 1980s when bond sales to finance redevelopment were customary. Alternative Recommendation: • 1. Defer this proposal 2. Choose not to enter into a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement with the HRA. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item will be considered at the September 27, 1999 City Council meeting. iv~., SLD:ds Attachment L~ Acting City Manager ~~ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FORM OF A TAX INCREMENT PLEDGE AGREEMENT WITH HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RELATING TO $1,700,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1999A WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") has established the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"), and approved a Redevelopment Plan (the "Project Plan") for the Project Area, dated June 14, 1993; and WHEREAS, pursuant to authority conferred by Minnesota Statues, Section 469.178, and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, the City Council ("the City") has agreed to finance certain public redevelopment costs to be incurred by the HRA in the Project Area through the issuance of general obligation bonds of the City in the principal amount of $1,700,000, designated the General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1999A, and hereinafter referred to as the "Bonds"; and WHEREAS, sale of the Bonds is subject to City approval of modification of the Project Area and Project Plan, modification of the Gramercy and Urban Village Tax Increment Financing ("TIF") district plans, establishment of the Richfield Rediscovered TIF District and creation of the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District Plans; and WHEREAS, the HRA has agreed to pledge certain tax increment revenues to the City for the principal and interest on the Bonds; and WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement between the City and the HRA providing for the pledge of tax increments from the Gramercy and Urban Village TIF Districts and the new Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Districts to pay principal and interest on the Bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The Mayor and Acting City Manager are hereby authorized to execute and deliver a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for City of Richfield, Minnesota substantially in the form on file with the City, providing for the pledge of tax increment for the payment of the principal of, premium if any, and interest on, the Bonds. 2. This resolution shall be effective as of the date hereof. 1999. Adopted by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of September, Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~3 First Draft • Wednesday, September 15,1999 PLEDGE AGREEMENT This Pledge and Allocation Agreement, dated as of September _, 1999 (the "Agreement"), is entered into between the City of Richfield, a home rule city and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (the "City"), and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota established and organized under 1980 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 595, as amended, and Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Title 16, Chapter 422, as amended (the "Authority"). RECITALS WHEREAS, for the purpose of financing the. public redevelopment costs of the City and the Authority (the "Public Costs") in conjunction with the development of residential housing and (the "Development") located in the Gramercy and Urban Village areas of the City, the City has issued, or is proposing to issue, the following obligations: (i) its Taxable Variable Rate General Obligation Bonds (Richfield Rediscovered Project), Series 1999A (the. "Series 1999A Bonds"); in the original. aggregate principal amount of $1,700,000, proposed to be issued on , 1999; and WHEREAS, the Development is located within the Gramercy and Urban Village Development Districts, Development District Nos. _ (the "Development Districts"), development districts established under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes; Sections 469..124-469.134, as amended (the "Development District Act"), and tax increment financing district have been established within the Development District, designated Tax Increment Financing District No. _ ("TIF District _"), pursuant to the provisions. of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174-469.179, as amended (the "Tax Increment Act"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the City Council of the City adopted on October 11, 1999, subject to the prior lien of both prior pledge agreements and the. other contractual obligations relating to such tax increment revenues, the City has pledged the following revenues to the payment of the principal and premium of and interest on the Note, the Series 1999A Bonds: (i) certain tax increment revenues generated from. the Development District, TIF. District _, as described in the Redevelopment Contract; and (ii) certain other revenues described in the Redevelopment Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Authority hereby agree as follows: 1. Pledge to the Series 1999 Bonds. The following revenues are hereby pledged to the payment of the principal and premium of and interest on the Series 1999A Bonds: (a) Each semiannual installment of tax increment revenues generated from TIF District _ is hereby pledged. by the City and the Authority to the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series 1999 Bonds, to the extent such revenues are not applied to the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Note, and to the extent such revenues are not applied by the Authority or the City to an authorized cost of the. Development District or of TIF District (b) The full faith and credit and the taxing power of the City are irrevocably pledged to the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series 1999A Bonds. ~-~+ 4. Authorization and Consent to Pledge. The Authority hereby authorizes the City to make the pledge described in Section 1 above. The City and Authority consent to the application of the tax increment revenues to be derived from TIF District _ to the payment of the debt service obligations on the Bonds. 5. Filed Conv. An executed copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the Director of Property Taxation of Hennepin County (or other official of Hennepin County exercising the powers of a county auditor on behalf of Hennepin County) and shall constitute the authority of the City and Authority to apply the tax increment revenues herein referred to as provided in this Agreement. 6. Enforcement. This Agreement is executed and delivered by the Authority and the City for the benefit of the owner of the Note and for the benefit of U. S. Bank Trust National Association and its successors or assigns, as paying agent under the Resolution (the "Resolution"), and the owners of the Series 1999A Bonds. The terms of this Agreement may be enforced by the owner of the Note, the Paying Agent, or the owners of the Series 1999 Bonds. The Authority and the City may enforce the terms of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Authority have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on their behalf and their seals to be hereunto affixed. as of , 1999. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA BY~ Its: M Countersigned: Its: City Manager RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Its: Chairperson By: Its: Executive Director RC 145-363 168589v.1 -- • 2 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 229 Agenda September 27, 1999 Issue Statement: First reading of a transitory ordinance vacating right-of--way adjacent to 6225 Blaisdell Avenue. Background: The owner of 6225 Blaisdell Avenue is petitioning to vacate right-of--way located to the north of this property. The City typically retains a 12-foot boulevard area behind the curb of the street. On the north side of this property, there is a .boulevard area that ranges from 20 to 30 feet. The property owner is seeking to vacate a portion of this area. The City would retain a 12-foot area behind the street curb. Recommended Motion: Adopt a resolution accepting a petition to vacate right-of--way and approve first reading of a transitory ordinance vacating right-of--way adjacent to 6225 Blaisdell Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The right-of--way is not needed for street or sidewalk purposes. 2. The Minnesota Department of Transportation reviewed the request and determined that the right-of--way is not needed for freeway purposes. 3. There are no City utilities located in the area. 4. Notification of the petition to vacate has been sent to the private utility companies. 5. The property owner currently maintains the area. The vacation would enable him to expand his home to the north which he is considering. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Deny this vacation at first reading. 2. Refer the vacation to the Planning Commission. Discussion/Decision Mode: First reading is set for September 27, 1999. If approved, a public hearing and second reading will be scheduled on October 25, 1999. Re pe Ily submitted, e . De ch Acting City Manager SLD:ds Attachments -1 RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RECEIPT OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY PETITION AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING (62nd Street) WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City Clerk requesting the vacation of 62nd Street right-of--way adjacent to 6225 Blaisdell as depicted in Exhibit A. WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with the requirements of Richfield Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The petition for vacation of 62nd Street right-of--way adjacent to 6225 Blaisdell Avenue is received. 2. A second reading and public hearing on the vacation in said petition shall be held on October 25, 1999. 3. The. City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the City. and post notice of said hearing in the manner provided by Richfield Ordinance. • Adopted by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of September, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~ 350 • • • \l'4~ .v ti*\~~\ .x\~ v i~}.~,.C.~i,. r----~ PETITION FOR VACATION OF STREETS, ALLEYS, AND PUBLIC GROUNDS `~- ~ To: Richfield City Council We, the undersigned owners of land abutting ~ ~.."~,5~-~~, hereby petition that such be vacated by the City of Richfield. *Si ature Address (please print clearly) Gt, Signatures may not be removed after the petition is submitted to the Cily. BILL NO. ~r`~ • TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY (62nd Street) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The land as depicted in Exhibit A is subject to an easement for public right-of-way purposes. (refer to herein as the "Vacated Area") Sec. 2. The adjacent property owner has petitioned for vacation of the Vacated Area. Sec. 3. The Council finds that there will no longer be a public need for a right-of--way easement over the Vacated Area, as described in Section 1 of this Ordinance. Sec. 4. The easement over the Vacated Area, as described in Section 1 of this ordinance, is hereby vacated. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • W . ~S.t~V W 1~I L~1.1~I 1J a U K V .~ Y 11~I Li, 1.1~I L. 8030 Cedar Avenue South Suite 228 WOODROW A. BROWN, R.L.S. Bloomin on, MN 55425 President Phone (612) 854-4055 S11I"v@ FOT. Fax (612) 854-4268 ~ ~ ~ NORTH ~ John Hawkins EXHIBIT A 132.2 ~ x TO BE VACATED 131.0 Irc x 132.4 T.C. 31.2 T. C. • (~ ~x W c~ ~ ox Z N LL.I Q M r J J W D m o~ M - ' • •••,n csf-CK OF CURB ............ ~ ^T L_v i ~ ~cvry oncK ~s22s • 63-99 60/71 0 Denotes Iron Monument. T.C.= Top Curb ~ =Centerline 130.Ox Denotes Spot Elevation PROPERTY DESCRIPTION U .. Scaler 1 "=30' fA ~ /'~ T p L. v i a~ ~ ^T L_ V 1 31.5 NOTE: No Search Was Made For Any. Easements. Lot 10 and the northerly 20 feet of Lot 9, Block 1, BETCHERS ADDITION, Washington. County, Minnesota. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC. Dated• June 15, 1999 Woodrow A. Brown, R.L.S N0. 15230 -7 r< u 1of1 J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 22s Agenda September 27, 1999 Issue Statement: Conduct a public hearing to consider a plan to transplant trees from Rich Acres Golf Course to Veterans Memorial Park and other City sites. Background• At the January 25 City Council meeting, the Council approved the hiring of Sanders Wacker Bergly, Inc. (SWB) as park planning consultants for the redevelopment of Veterans Park. Staff decided to postpone these planning efforts (a course of action. suggested by the Community Services Commission) until after the bond referendum election for the proposed community and recreational center. However, with the vacation of Rich Acres Golf Course at the end of this. season, over 100 trees will become available for use at other City sites. The transplanting of these trees must take place this October to maximize the survival rate of the trees. SWB was asked to draw up different planting proposals for Vets Park (attached and labeled as "Original Planting Proposals"). SWB proposed a sparse planting plan (Plan A) and a dense planting plan (Plan B). On August 12, staff presented the plans at an open house at Vets Park. They asked visitors to vote on the different plans or to vote for a plan that was sparser or denser than the plans being presented. Out of 37 votes, 3 voted for the sparse plan (Plan A), 8 voted for the dense plan (Plan B), none voted for a plan sparser than Plan A and 26 voted for a plan denser than Plan B. Staff then presented these findings to the Community Services Commission at their September 14 meeting. The CSC voted to recommend the original Plan B (attached and labeled as "Recommended Plan"), the denser of the two originally proposed by SWB. Recommended Motion: Approve the plan to transplant trees from Rich Acres Golf Course to Veterans Memorial Park, according to the attached planting plan, as well as other City sites. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Staff has worked with SWB to develop the planting plan with respect to future uses of the park and the needs and suggestions of park users. 2. Staff held an open house at Vets Park on August 12 to gather feedback on the different planting plans to determine the plan recommended by neighbors and concerned residents. • ~-I 3. Staff presented the results of this open house to the Community Services Commission, who made suggestions and voted to recommend the attached plan to the City Council. The CSC amended the planting plan prepared by SWB, Inc. to include trees by the pump house on the corner of 66th Street and 11th Avenue, as well as on the east side of the second ice sheet. 4. Proposal allows a view into the park from Portland Avenue, encouraging use of the mini-golf facility and the Vets Park picnic shelter and deters potential vandalism. 5. This is not a final plan. Trees may be added to this area in the future. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the attached tree plan. 2. Approve a variation of the attached tree plan. Discussion/Decision Mode: In order to conduct the tree transplanting in a timely fashion, staff asks that the Council take action at the September 27 meeting. Res a ly submitted, ~'1 . Devic Acting City Manager SLD:ds • s~""~ ~~ .Members of the Community Services Commission, My name is Dave Buzicky and I reside at 6933 Stevens Av. S. Because I will be out of town for your meeting tonight, I would like to offer my input on the Veteran's Park Tree Plan Agenda Item. I was, also, out of town on August 12`x, for the open house on this issue, so I didn't have a chance to offer any input then. I will start by saying I am opposed to planting any trees in Vet's Park. Once we plant .any trees in this area, we have eliminated this land from any other future options for this park. I can pretty much guarantee that no city council member will ever vote to remove a tree from this area again. Many people said the city was. to quick to cut down the trees in the first place, (I don't agree with them). So in retrospect, let's learn from that experience and not be hasty in replanting this area until we are 100% slue that this is what we want to do. I believe we need to have along-range plan for Vet's Park. We are in the middle of a process to look at adding a Community Center to this site. A task force is going to be formed to look into the issue of the outdoor pool. I would_ not rule out some type of a short Par 3 Golf Course, which could serve the needs of our youth, with the loss of Rich Acres after this season. I know of a similar couuse near Cross Lake, Mn. The owner of this course. told me it is about afive-acre plot of land. Even if the City gets the Fort Snelling Golf Couuse, I .don't believe this is an option for many of otu youth. The bottom line is let's leave our options open, we don't have many open areas available to us. What if, in the future, a decision is made to build a new outdoor pool or some type of golf course or any other new venture, and it would better serve the community if located in this area? If these trees are planted, that is not an option. We need some options. I realize that there is a rush to get this done because of the availability of bigger and cheaper trees from Rich Acres. We must remember, these trees are not free. There is a price tag to move them and the price tag goes up significantly, if in the firture we have to go out and buy property because we don't have any other options for fiiture expansions. Many positives have been created by the removal of the trees from this area. I have heard many people comment on how nice the area looks now. I've ~~3 heard that the Farmer's Market has had much more traffic and sales. I know ~ that Mini-Golf has had their best two years of operation. Visibility has to be the reason. Visibility is, also, a major concern for public safety. I talked to our Police Department Crime Prevention Specialists and to .our Police Officers. They like the way the park is set up now. They have great site-lines into the park and trees are obstructions to these site-lines. They told me that since the trees have been removed, there have been less car break-ins in the parking lot and less bike thefts in the park. Al Payne said there's been less vandalism in this area, too. Visibility makes for a safer environment. In conclusion, I would like to offer the following; 1. Table this. Agenda Item 2. Get input from ot~r Crime Prevention Specialists and Police Officers on safety issues. Some of them have been trained on landscaping properties for safety. 3. Get input from Al Payne and his staff about this area. Topics would be safety, vandalism, and financial impact. 4. Wait for a decision on Community Center.. This site could be affected. 5. Work on a long-range plan For Vet's Park. What does this community, as a whole, want for this park? Let's talk about other needs besides trees. Thank you. ~~~ Dave Buzicky i i O r u F F 0 V C7 e6~~ ~ Z F~ ~ ~ b W B ~ ~ ~ §~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 0 4 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ -_,,, o m ~ ~ i m a a ~ a ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~a N~ ~~ ~ _ ~ ~ q ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ a ~ a. ~ a J ,~ ° ~C1 Lr-- ~~ mee a m I~t, -= ~~~ ~ ~ l 0 0 X00 gym. ~e~dP ~ e ~~ 8 a ~~ • ,`O .~ ~. ~~ .fi ~~ c ~- `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ j o^ ~ ~ ~ ~ s 6[~ i~~~a i~, i ~~+° ~ !]~~~~~ ~ r ~ i ~,~' ~ i t , i 4 V 5 S CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 227 Agenda September 27, 1999 Issue Statement: Public hearing regarding an appeal to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of a variance denial for 7532 Girard Avenue. Background: The owner of 7532 Girard Avenue applied for a variance to allow construction of a detached garage two feet from the interior side property line and six feet from the street side property line. A detached garage with its-doors facing the street is required to be three feet from the interior side property line and 15 feet from the streetside property line. The Hearing Examiner granted the interior side setback variance but denied the streetside variance. The Hearing Examiner determined that the request does not meet the third test for granting a variance. The third test is that there not be any adverse impacts on the neighborhood as a result of the variance. The Hearing Examiner determined that allowing a garage with its door that close to the street would be a safety hazard. The City's engineering staff reviewed the proposed six-foot streetside setback and determined that the 15 feet required by ordinance is the minimum distance necessary to allow a car to pull out of the garage and view the conditions before pulling into the street. The 15 feet is especially needed in this case because the street is curved, reducing visibility, and the boulevard area is small (five feet). At the variance hearing, the Hearing Examiner asked the applicant to meet with a design professional to explore whether or not there were any alternatives for the garage placement that could meet everyone's needs. Following the hearing, Paul Brugger, the Design Advisor, reviewed the case and met with the applicant. Mr. Brugger recommended an alternative placement of the garage which would allow for the greater backyard space desired by the applicant but would address safety concerns. The applicant decided she did not wish to pursue the alternative presented by Mr. Brugger. She believes the original proposal is the best placement for the garage in terms of appearance and use of the backyard. With this additional information, the Hearing Examiner denied the original variance request, determining that the alternative was a viable compromise that could meet the third variance test. Recommended Motion: Deny the variance appeal for the original layout on the basis that it has an adverse impact on the neighborhood and approve the variance for the alternative layout on the basis that it does not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. J J~ . Basis of .Recommendation: 1. The proposed garage location creates a safety hazard which would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The 15-foot setback of a garage door from a streetside property line is needed to allow safe egress from a garage onto the City street. It also provides sufficient room for vehicles to park when street parking is not allowed. 2. The alternative layout provides backyard space while still allowing for safe exit from the garage onto the street. 3. The lot was sold to the applicant through the Richfield Rediscovered program. The program requires that a garage be built. A garage can be built on the properly without the variance; however, the property owner is seeking to maximize the use of the backyard with the proposed garage placement. The Hearing Examiner did find it was appropriate to place the garage in the back portion of the lot in order to maximize the backyard if it was placed in such a way as to not cause a safety hazard. 4. 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. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Approve the original variance request with a finding that the proposed garage . placement would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Direct staff to prepare findings of fact. 2. Deny the variance appeal. Do not approve the alternative placement but require the applicant to reapply for a variance if she decides to pursue that alternative. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m. on Monday, September 27, 1999. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Re a tfully submitted, L. Devic ` Acting City Manager SLD:ds Attachments 7532 GIRARD AVENUE VARIANCE ~~~ N PROPERTY LINE 132.99' its ' 1 1 GARAGE a 9.3'± a ' HOUSE ~_ ~O o~ 18'-3" ~ 1$ 2a' ~ DECK f~ h' pA 38' 25' ' Opp V - cUge RTC L/ryF TREES ~~ \UMeo~ ~T qV~ ~, 0 O m LLI Z a 0 Q ~. ORIGINAL SITE PLAN I ' . PLANNING ap N~ NG NORTH _ ~Ofnn~nnY~lopnerRDapdrtnNnt SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: 8-12-99 ,~-3 7532 GIRARD AVENUE VARIANCE. 3 0 CV ~ PROPERTY LINE 132.99' tO e' ~ W N Np°j 4.5' h Q GARAGE p ' ~ ~ .HOUSE ~ ~_ Q ~~ oG ~ DECK ~ ~~ ty ~ ` M i'. ~ ~A~ I ..~~ 1 ti ~- - \vM`~O~O ~~~ ~r qV~N vE ~~ TREES PROPERTY LINE ~~ _~ ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: 9-20-99 7532 GIRARD AVENUE VARIANCE ~~~ ELEVATIONS SCALE: t/8"= 1' DATE: 8-12-99 5'-9" 18'-3" 24' GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATION 4~ 20' ~I GARAGE SIDE ELEVATION • • VALIANCE DECISION 5~s 'CASE NO:: 99-V-3 .APPLICANT`: Karla Dagnault i PROPERTY' LOCATION: 7532 Girard Avenue South '' !HEARING''EXAMINER: Paul Wasko .:APPEARANCES: Karla:Dagnault Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact, determinations, and decision: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the site as required by City Ordinance. The ten day notice requirement was also met. 2. The street address and legal description of the property in question are as follows: 7532 Girard Avenue South; Lot 9, Block 18, Irwin Shores Addition, Except Highway 3. The zoning of the site in question is R (single family residential). 4. The variance requested is to Section 521.11, subd. 4 of the 1995 Zoning Code.. The variance would reduce the interior side setback requirement for a detached garage fi ~~m three feet to two feet and reduce the streetside setback requirement for a det; shed .garage with the doors facing the street from 15 feet to 6 feet. 5. The reason for the request is to allow construction of a detached garage. 6. A decision is being made within 60 days of the submission of a complete application. The applicant submitted a complete application on July 29, 1999, requiring a decision by September 20, 1999. Variance Decision 7532 Girard Avenue ~~/~ Page 2 ~J • DETERMINATIONS Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6, provides for the granting of variances to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances where their enforcement would cause undue "hardship to the .owners of .the property under consideration. In determining whether to grant or deny the requested variance, I specifically make the following conclusions: 1. Would strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the ordinance cause undue hardship, because the property could not reasonably be used under the conditions of the official controls? I conclude: There is an undue hardship which denies the applicant reasonable use of the property. The proposed modest sized, two-car garage is a reasonable use of the property. 2. Are there unique circumstances or unusual conditions affecting the property or building which were not created by the land owner? I conclude: There are unique circumstances related to the property. A portion of the property was taken for roadway purposes leaving a curved property line and reducing the buildable area in the back yard. 3. Will the granting of the variance alter the essential character of the nei hb r g o hood or locality? I conclude: There would be adverse impacts on the neighborhood. Atwo-foot,. interior side aback would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood if the construction . Beets building and. fire codes: The close proximity of the garage doors to the streetside property line would, however, create a safety hazard. The fifteen- foot setback is required to allow a car to back out of the garage and be able to view traffic conditions before entering the street. In addition, an optional placement of the garage was presented to the applicant that would not have a negative safety impact. 4. Is the variance being requested the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the .undue hardship? I conclude: The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship. The applicant is proposing a modest sized two-car garage (20 by 24 feet). The proposed setback maximizes the usage of the back yard. • Variance Decision 7532 Girard Avenue Page 3 ~~ 5. Are there any stipulations which must be attached to the granting of the variance to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties? (If yes, specify stipulations under "DECISION" ). I conclude: (circle one.) Es No DECISION Based upon the determinations, the request is for atwo-foot interior side setback is s. a ~ r•.rv ~,~ and the request for asix-foot streetside setback is ~. ~...'. a.o~ STIPULATIONS FOR THE INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE: 1. That the structure meet building and fire codes for a structure closer than three feet from a property line. NOTE: THIS VARIANCE .WILL EXPIRE ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE ISSUED UNLESS THE CONSTRUCT/ON WORK REQUIRING THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN COMPLETED. APPEALS Any party not in agreement with the decision of the Hearing Examiner may appeal the decision by delivering a notice of appeal within ten days of the date the decision is filed. The: apI ~al shall be to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals c/o Community Development D ~ector, .6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423 HEARING EXAMII~ CITY OF RICHFIELD DATE: Copy: Tom Ferber, City Clerk Rick Regnier, Building Official CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 226 Agenda September 27, 1999 Issue Statement: Public hearing regarding an appeal to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of a variance denial for 6600 James Avenue. Background: In 1998, the owner of 6600 James Avenue requested a front yard setback variance to add a third garage stall onto the existing house. The addition would have a 17-foot front setback where 30 feet is required. The Hearing Examiner denied the variance; however, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals granted the variance on September 14, 1998. In May 1999, the property owner submitted plans for a garage addition that would have a storage area above the garage in order to better integrate the addition roof with that of the existing house. The Acting City Manager determined that this plan was consistent with the plans approved by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and a building permit was issued. The property owner then submitted revised plans that included a second and a third story on top of the attached garage stall. Staff determined, and the Board of Adjustment and Appeals confirmed, that these revised plans were no longer consistent with the variance that was originally approved. In July 1999, the property owner applied for a variance to allow construction of the revised plans with a second and a third story above the garage. The applicant believes that the revised plans represent the best design for the proposed garage addition. The Hearing Examiner denied the variance request because the case does not meet the first, second and fourth tests necessary to grant a variance. The Hearing Examiner found that there is not an undue hardship denying the applicant reasonable use of the property. Although the Board of Adjustment and Appeals found a hardship in the case of the request for a third garage stall, the Hearing Examiner determined that the lack of a second and a third story does not constitute a hardship. The Hearing Examiner also failed to find unique circumstances relating to the property that were not created by someone with interests in the property. In addition, the Hearing Examiner found that the request is not the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship. The hardship is that the applicant is without a third garage stall to meet the needs of his large house and an ill family member; the second and the third story addition are not needed to alleviate this hardship. Construction has begun on the addition. The addition can be completed as approved or according to the revised plans if the Board of Adjustment and Appeals grants the appeal request. • ~`~ Recommended Motion: Deny the variance appeal on the basis that the variance does not meet the city and State tests for granting a variance. Basis of Recommendation: 1. There is not an undue hardship that denies the applicant reasonable use of the property. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals found that the lack of a third garage stall in this case constituted an undue hardship; however, a second and a third story are not necessary to alleviate the hardship condition. 2. The unique circumstances affecting the property were created by someone with interests in the property. The original property owner chose to construct a large house and to lay out the site in such a way as to not allow for future additions. 3. The variance request is not the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship. The second and the third story addition are proposed for design purposes only and are not needed to alleviate the undue hardship. 4. 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. Alternative Recommendation: Approve the request for a variance with a finding that the variance meets the City and State tests for a variance. Direct staff to prepare findings of fact. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 27, 1999. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. City Manager SLD:ds Attachments • APPRQVED PLAN 4-a- W W ZZ -3~ a a Q -_ Z o Z N > _ __ ~ ~ .o. W w t 3 W ® z H o _~ ~ co .~. ~ co z O a W J W W O N F- LL W J 0 3 ~Q z W --- - --- J ~ W Z ~ N Q _ w W ~~ ~ ~ Z 0 a w W W O o~ a rn o~ o> ao ui Q 0 in N u ui J a U N W W ZZ ~a Q~ N W Q 7 O O tD t~ H W W H W J IY 3f1N3Ab~ S3Wb~t' . L b'09 ~_- ~ 3NI~ A1t13dOadT-- 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 .£'L£ ~bZ :c: z:~:~~:~: N :•:O o:•:::~ •::•:•: ~iF 0~•:: '. .:•:: 1 ::a a= 1 W W .£'OZ ~ .5£ .6'S ~ ~ ¢ Q z 1 0 ~ t z W M W o ~9'tiL N ~ o ` 0 1 0 ~ 4-~} _ '" i m~> Z 1 ~~ a ~- i N W X W 1 .5'L L 1 i W Y ' U y W ~ ~ W a la°c la ~ ~' ~ CV Z W N ~ Q W ~ Z J w rn o> W a 0 0 N 11 ~" r ¢ W O ~ Z a U N 4-s • VARIANCE DECISION Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact, determinations, and decision: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the site as required by City Ordinance. The ten day notice requirement was also met. 2. The street address and legal description of the property in question are. as follows: -6600 Avenue South; Lot 1, Block 1, Fairwood Park Addition 3. The zoning of the .site in question is R (single family residential) 4. The variance requested is to Section 521 of the 1995 Zoning Code. The variance would reduce the front setback requirement from 30 feet to 17 feet. 5. The reason for the request is to allow construction of a third attached garage stall and additional stories above the garage. 6. A decision is being made within 60 days of the submission of a complete application. The applicant submitted a complete application on July 15, 1999, requiring a decision by September 13, 1999. Variance Decision 6600 James Avenue Page 2 DETERMINATIONS Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6, provides for the granting of variances to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations. in instances where their enforcement would cause undue hardship to the owners of the .property under consideration. In determining whether to grant or deny the requested variance, I specifically make the following conclusions: l . Would strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the ordinance cause undue hardship, because the property could not reasonably be used under the conditions of the official controls? I conclude: There is not an undue hardship which denies the applicant reasonable use of the property. While the applicant's family member has health issues that cause a hardship, there is currently a double car garage on the property which provides reasonable use of the property. 2. Are there unique circumstances or unusual conditions affecting the property or building which were not created by the land owner? I conclude: There are unique circumstances related to the property; however, the circumstances were created by someone with interests. in the property. 3. Will the rantin of the variance alter the essential character of the nei hborho r g g g od o locality? I conclude: There would be no adverse impacts on the neighborhood. The design of the additi, :1 would be integrated with the existing dwelling. 4. Is the variance being requested the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship? I conclude: The variance requested is not the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship. The proposed addition is more than a garage addition; it includes a second story and partial third story. Also, there is no hardship that denies the applicant reasonable use of the property. 5. Are there any stipulations which must be attached to the granting of the variance to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties? (If yes, specify stipulations .under "DECISION" on the next page). I conclude: (circle one) YES o • • Variance Decision 6600 James Avenue Page 3 DECISION Based upon the determinations, the request is ~~ .~;,,,, ; .~ ~~ STIPULATIONS: L 2. • NOTE: THIS VARIANCE WILL EXPIRE ONE YEAR AFIER THE DATE ISSUED UNLESS THE CONSTRUCTION WORK REQUIRING THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN COMPLETED. APPEALS Any party not in agreement with the decision of the Hearing Examiner may appeal the decision by delivering a notice of appeal within ten days of the date the decision is filed. The appeal shall be to the Board of .Adjustment and Appeals c/o Community Development Director, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423 HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RICHFIrLD DATE: ~ r~"' G~ Copy: Tom Ferber, City Clerk Rick Regnier, Building Official C7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 232 Agenda September 27, 1999 Issue Statement: Council approval to extend atwo-year contract with Morrow Auto Specialty, Inc. to provide the towing, impounding, and storage of vehicles for the City of Richfield. Background: In September 1997, Morrow Auto Specialty, Inc. was awarded atwo-year contract to provide the towing, impounding and storage of vehicles for the City of Richfield. The Contract period is from October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1999. The contract provides for the extension of the contract on a bi-yearly basis upon mutual agreement of both parties. Morrow's has requested the extension, and City staff is satisfied with the service of Morrow's and would agree to the extension. Recommended Motion: Grant a bi-yearly extension of the contract for the period of October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2001 to Morrow Auto Specialty, Inc. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Morrow Auto Specialty has the necessary facilities and equipment to satisfactorily handle the towing, impounding and. storage of motor vehicles for the City. 2. Morrow Auto Specialty's facilities are located within the City of Richfield. • 3. Morrow's wishes to extend the contract, and City staff is agreeable to the extension. 4. Morrow's is a local business that performed well and satisfied all conditions of the contract during the prior two years. 5. Re-bidding the contract is a time consuming process for staff. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Deny the extension and re-bid the contract. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval of the extension of the two-year contract which expires on September 30, 1999 with Morrow Auto Specialty, Inc. to provide the towing, impounding,. and storage of vehicles for the City of Richfield through September 30, 2001 is presented for Council consideration at this time. su ~ L. D~evich City Manager SLD:cak • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT WITH MORROW AUTO SPECIALITY, INC. FOR TOWING, IMPOUNDING AND STORAGE OF VEHICLES WHEREAS, Morrow Auto Specialty, Inc., was awarded a contract to provide towing, impounding and storage of vehicles for the City for the period of October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1999; and WHEREAS, the contract provides that the contract may be extended on a bi- yearly basis-upon mutual-agreement between both parties; and WHEREAS, Morrow Auto Specialty, Inc., has made application for extension in writing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: That the .extension of the contract with Morrow Auto Specialty, Inc., for the towing, impounding and storage of vehicles is hereby approved for the period October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2001. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of September 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • • MEMORANDUM TO: John Dean FROM: Dan Greensweig DATE: September27, 1999 RE: Renewal of Towing Contract The City of Richfield has asked whether federal or state law prohibits the renewal of a contract between the City and Morrow Auto Specialty. Under the contract, Morrow agrees to provide vehicle towing services upon request by the City's Department of Public Safety and certain other City officials and their agents. The City's question was apparently prompted at least in part by its awareness of a letter sent to the city of Maple Grove. in January, 1999. In that letter, Michael McGovern, an attorney for a towing service, claimed that Maple Grove's policy of referring all calls for towing services to a single company violates both federal law, in the form of a statute preempting local regulation of motor carrier services, and state law, in the form of the Uniform Municipal Contracting Act. In support of his argument, Mr. McGovern cited a number of federal court cases, all but one of which came from federal district courts located in the Fifth Circuit. After Mr. McGovern wrote to Maple Grove, however, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that federal law does not preempt a city's ability to contract with a single towing firm when the contract is entered into for purposes of obtaining services for the city and not for the purpose of instituting de facto regulation. Cardinal Towing & Auto Repair, Inc. v. City of Bedord No. 98-10194 (5~' Cir. July 22, 1999). Important considerations in the court's decision were that the city's contract specifications had an obvious connection to the City's narrow proprietary interest in its own efficient procurement of services. Selecting a single company to perform the City's tows clarified responsibility, minimized administrative confusion, and allowed for the setting and easy supervision of a unitary quality standard for that particular work for the City. The specifications in the contract. were also obviously related to efficient towing - the key provisions dealt with the City's core speed and reliability concerns, and the other requirements dealt with the type of administrative and legal issues that would be of interest to a private entity -insurance and record keeping. **** Nor do the scope of the ordinance and contractual specification at issue .here call into question the proprietary character of the City's actions. Unlike the attempts of other municipalities to deal with tow truck issues, the City here limited itself only to true nonconsent tows where the owner of the vehicle was unwilling or unable to specify a towing company.. Id. at Here, the Morrow contract, and the speci~cationsrelating to that contract, concern matters such as response time, communication, location of storage facilities, safekeeping of vehicles, and the like. As such, the contract is based quite squarely on the types of matters that the Fifth Circuit found removed a towing DJG-169347 RC160-3 contract from any preemption by federal law that would otherwise exist. With regard to state law, there is little basis for a claim that the agreement violates the competitive bidding statute. Competitive bidding is required only for contracts "for the sale or purchase of supplies, materials, equipment or the rental thereof, or the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal property." Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.345, subd. 2. The law does not apply to contracts for services. See Op. Att'y Gen. 707-A (Feb. 8, 1990). Given the narrow construction given by courts to the statute, it is highly likely that the agreement with Morrow would be seen as an agreement for services and not for the incidental use of equipment and storage space referenced in the contract. As such, the contract need not be competitivelybid. Furthermore, competitive bidding is only required for contracts of more than $25,000. Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.345, subd. 3. Even if Morrow performs more than $25,000 worth of towing services during the term of any contract, most of those services are likely to be paid for by private parties, and not the city. If the contract does not require or anticipate the expenditure of $25,000 worth of public funds during its term, there is substantial doubt that it is subject to competitive bidding even if it would otherwise fall within the ambit of the statute. In short, the City is not prohibited by federal preemption or state competitive bidding requirements from renewing the. contract with Morrow Auto Specialty, Inc. In doing so, the City should note that the agreement contains a clause allowing the City to terminate it upon 180 days notice for any reason, and immediately if the contract is found in violation of state law. • DJG98069 MU125-11 2 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 225 Agenda September 27, 1999 Issue Statement: Authorization to hire a consultant to assist in Right-of--Way Acquisition for the 77th Street Phase III Underpass Project. Background: Construction of the 77th Street Phase III Underpass Project will have right of way impacts. The project will require the acquisition of five parcels. They are (1) one commercial building, (2) a motel, (3) a 23-unit apartment complex, (4) a 7-unit apartment complex, and (5) payment of damages to two commercial office buildings due to removal of access to a public street. The acquisition and relocation portion of the project should be completed in time for construction to begin in June 2000 for the 77th Street Underpass Project. Acquisition of commercial property and relocation of tenants from affected properties require firms with special technical expertise of federal acquisition and relocation laws. These services are considered professional services and so contracts are awarded. on level of expertise and experience rather than low bid. City staff solicited proposals for this work in August 1999. The City received three responses from qualified firms. The project has already received Federal funds totaling $12 million and the total cost of the project is approximately $16 million including $7.1 million in right-of--way costs. Members of the consultant selection committee included Scott Sannes, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT); Bruce Palmborg, Director of Community Development; and Thomas Foley, Transportation Engineer. Separate-tasks and costs were identified in the: proposals including an estimate of hours of labor required to perform each task. The following three firms submitted proposals: • Evergreen Land Services Company • Wilson Development Services • Conworth, Inc. While all three firms were considered qualified, the selection committee considered Conworth, Inc. to be best qualified to perform the work based on their written proposal, an excellent interview and outstanding references from other public agencies who have used them in the past. Each proposal contained an estimate of the amount of effort (in hours and cost) needed to complete the acquisition. The estimated costs varied from Conworth, Inc. at $40,430 to Evergreen Land Service Company's $66,200-$77,800. Wilson Development Service's estimate was $56,630. However, knowing that the contract would be based on hours worked, the range of hourly rates was much smaller with Wilson Development charging $70.60 per hour, Evergreen Land Services $69.00 and Conworth $65.00. Furthermore, Conworth, Inc. has a fairly large staff that has extensive experience in Richfield. Recently an audit of right of way costs for 77th Street Phases I and II revealed no errors on work performed by Conworth, Inc. for the City. The selection committee determined that the Conworth, Inc. proposal best represented the work needed for the task. ~/~ . The estimate provided by Conworth, Inc. was adjusted to $55,000 during negotiations. City staff is aware that the scope of work needs to be expanded to include one additional commercial property that has been identified as impacted by the project's proposed right of way plan. The actual costs will depend upon the actual time needed to acquire all the necessary property. Recommended Motion: Authorize execution of an agreement between the City of Richfield and Conworth, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $55,000 without further authorization to provide the City with technical assistance for the right-of way and relocation for the 77th Street Phase III Underpass Project. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Conworth, Inc. has expertise in right-of--way acquisition and has worked with other municipalities in major projects. Staff believes the firm follows proper procedures in administering acquisition and relocation activities. 2. Conworth, Inc. submitted a realistic estimate of time needed to complete the tasks and the lowest hourly rate for the proposed services. The agreement will be based on time needed to perform the work with a not to exceed limit on the contract amount. 3. The firm has demonstrated good knowledge of the demands of the project and what will be required of the consultant. Alternative Recommendation: Hire Wilson Development Services, one of the other two firms that submitted a proposal. Wilson Development Services has an excellent reputation with other local governments and is capable of performing this work. This is an acceptable alternative. Wilson Development Services has qualified staff with knowledge of the state and federal regulations governing the services to be provided. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval at the September 27, 1999 regular Council meeting in order to facilitate timely right-of--way acquisitions and so as not to set back the 77th Street construction schedule. One commercial property is claiming a hardship that is dependent on the City initiating acquisition as soon as possible. R s e ully submitted, L. Devich Acting City Manager • SLD:ds QCs CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 224 Agenda September 27, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration to increase the BRW Work Order No. Nine by $25,770 with the City of Richfield for the Nicollet Avenue and East 67th Street traffic signal improvements. Back round: On September 23, 1998 BRW Inc. signed Work Order No. Nine agreement with the City of Richfield for $34,940 to prepare a set of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) that could be used. by the City to let bids for the project at 67th Street and Nicollet Avenue. In order to produce State Aid approved PS&E for the project, BRW estimates that it will need to spend an additional $25,770 for a total cost of $60,710. This change is due to the following factors: • Hennepin County indicated that the proposed signal at Nicollet Avenue and 67th Street must be interconnected with the adjacent signals along Nicollet Avenue. The County is requiring that new wire be used; the City anticipated using existing wire. • In response to a recent request from St. Peter's Church, the City will include some revisions to the Church's parking lot that were not part of the original draft plan. • -BRW completed a draft signal justification report (SJR) for the Nicollet Avenue/67th Street intersection in 1997. Hennepin County and the State Aid Office indicated that the accident data needed to be updated fora 1999 submittal. Revising the accident data also required recalculating the County's signal priority factor for the intersection. • Temporary and/or permanent easements are required from four properties in order to construct the project. The City requested that BRW prepare the draft easement documents for these four parcels. • The level of coordination the City desires with St. Peter's Church and Holy Angels Academy is much higher than anticipated. Several meetings and telephone contacts have been required to coordinate the project with these two entities. • Processing the plans through State Aid was not included in the original scope of work. Recommended Motion: Authorize staff to amend the existing work order with BRW Inc. for the Nicollet Avenue and 67th Street traffic signal improvements which increases the amount of the work order by $25,770 and extends the completion date into the year 2000. ~~ -1 Basis of Recommendation: 1. The design phase of the project is nearly complete. The extra engineering has been, or will be, necessary to complete plans, specifications and estimates acceptable to Hennepin County and Municipal State Aid. 2. The project is .necessary to improve safety along Nicollet Avenue and at the entrances to St. Peter's School and the Academy of the Holy Angels. Alternative Recommendation: Council could direct staff to stop the project at this time; however, stopping the project would require maintaining the current unsafe access arrangement along Nicollet Avenue. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval for this work order amendment at the September 27, Council meeting. The decision can be postponed for several weeks if the Council wishes. 1999 • SLD:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 223 ~~ Agenda September 27, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration of a request for an off-street parking permit for 7708 Fifth Avenue to allow construction of a building addition. Background: Sylvestre Construction is proposing to construct a 24 by 24 foot building addition onto the front of their building at 7708 Fifth Avenue. The 576 sq. ft. addition would serve as a garage and storage area for vehicles and equipment related to their construction business. Twelve parking spaces would be provided. This meets the City's standard of four spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of building area (the existing building is approximately 2,300 sq. ft.). The property is currently landscaped; changes or additions to the landscaping are not required. Recommended Motion: Approve an off-street parking permit for 7708 Fifth Avenue to allow construction of a 576 sq. ft. building addition with the following stipulations: 1. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 2. That the building material and color.of the addition match the existing building. Basis of Recommendation: • 1. Adequate parking will be provided in the parking lot. In addition, the new garage space will provide indoor parking for two vehicles. 2. Storage is a permitted accessory use to the principal use of the structure as office space. 3. The addition will allow indoor storage of vehicles and equipment on-site. The business currently leases space off-site to store equipment. 4. There is currently adequate landscaping on the property. 5. No changes are being proposed to the parking lot. The parking lot is in adequate shape and has full perimeter curbing so additional improvements are not required. Alternative Recommendation: Deny the off-street parking permit. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled on the Consent Calendar for consideration on September 27, 1999. R pe ully submitt . Devi Acting City Manager SLD:ds Attachments ~wsrntvG - ~ro~r DLO~GK C~LlI~t~ING *k 7714 12EMOVE TIDE 7708 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH VARIANCE .~F-1 141:90' I,I,-,-{ 61.4x' ~ 12bT I . i ~ ~ --___-'1 I I I Ew5?ING o~~ic.~ #~~~ I 40b7• I ~ --------- I 471 I ,T, 1 ~ ~ ~ I • • i ~ oenno I EX15f. I 24 ~~~ -~W I 1 I I~CPrren I ~ - pN21JNG 5f'hGE I - ~ i ~W - 241 -, I I ~" ! LIRif i LIL}1f f'P~2KING LOf I I ~ Tf~E ~ ~ ~ I 1 I I I 0 ~ TIDE I ~E I --~--~-- --~-- ~ I -~--J i 24' ---I I 20' 751 ~ 57H AVENI.~ SOUTIi ~wsnNG ~.u~niNG NEXt n~~ ~~ 15 45' • ' • PLANNING ZO N'.NG NORTH Community Den~eloptnetn DaparbwM SCALE: 1" = 25' DATE: 9-20-99 SITE PLAN ~ ~ ~~~~ ~a ~~ wQ > > Z W Q H u. 00 0 _a1_.~ 1 1 ICY ~kMKy 2 Z 0 a w J W H Z O oc 0 N Of W Q O 00 F- ~ Q ti! O J z a U N CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~'~ Council Letter No. 222 Agenda September 27, 1999 Issue Statement• Consideration of removal of stop sign at 67th Street and Grand Avenue. Background: The Urban Village redevelopment area, now known as Woodlake Centre, includes the former intersection of 67th Street and Grand Avenue. Grand Avenue is discontinued north of 67th Street. A loop street system will be put into place on 67th Street. As part of the construction currently taking place in the Woodlake Centre area, the stop sign which had been located in the northwest quadrant of 67th Street and Grand Avenue, to stop traffic southbound on Grand Avenue, has already been removed. The only remaining stop sign at the intersection is in the southeast quadrant, to stop traffic northbound on Grand Avenue. Thus, the previous four-legged intersection no longer exists. In its place there will be a T-intersection with the loop street being the through street. The loop street will have fewer than 150 cars per day on it. Removal of the four-legged intersection and the significantly reduced traffic on the new loop street that a stop sign is not warranted based on the City's Stop Sign Policy to control traffic on Grand Avenue at the new loop street. The City staff is recommending the removal of the stop sign on Grand Avenue at 67th Street. According to the City's Stop Sign Policy, the City Council must approve the removal of stop signs on City streets. Recommended Motion: Authorize removal of the stop sign for northbound Grand Avenue at 67th Street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The north leg of the intersection has been terminated and the stop sign for southbound traffic has been removed. 2. The Urban Village redevelopment area will create loop streets on 67th Street for local residential traffic that will not require stop signs according to the City's Stop Sign Policy. 3. Removal of stop signs requires City Council authorization. Alternative Recommendation: Do not remove the stop sign. However, a single stop sign on a street that intersects a loop street carrying low traffic volumes would not be in keeping with the City's Stop Sign Policy. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council is requested to take action at the September 27, 1999 meeting. However, a decision may be delayed should the Council request additional information or time for co~leration. R s ec ully submitted, Iqh L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD:ds ~~_~ W Z W Q D Z a oc 0 z a W W H y ~ _ F so a z c~ a d 0 N O O W i~ ~. i R ~~ } ~~ ~ e~c ~ ~~ .. O N r ~~~y~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 221 Agenda, September 27, 1999 Issue Statement: Authorization for the use of one paid vacation day as a prize in the 1999 Richfield Charitable Funds Drive. Background: Historically the City of Richfield has supported the Charitable Funds Drive (formerly the United Way Fund Drive), encouraging employees to donate a small part of their earnings to charity. In 1998, 37 out of an estimated 260 employees gave to the Fund Drive (approximately 14%) for a total of $6,789. This year the goal is 25% participation (or 65 employees) and $10,000. The vacation day will be offered as an incentive for participation and a way to capturing attention and creating enthusiasm. The vacation day would be given away in a drawing. All City employees who fill out and return their pledge cards, without regard to whether or not they donate, would be eligible to win. The winning employee will be required to use the vacation day within the 2000 calendar year and would be subject to established policies regarding the use of vacation in their department. Recommended Motion: Authorization of the use of one paid vacation day as a prize in the 1999 Richfield Charitable Funds Drive.- Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Charitable Funds Drive is an annual event that the City supports. 2. A goal of this year's funds drive is to increase employee participation in the campaign. A vacation day will serve as an added incentive for participation. Alternative Recommendation: 1. None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the Consent Calendar for the September 27, 1999 City Council meeting so that this item may be considered in time for the 1999 fall funds drive. City Manager SLD:ds 3C CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 220 Agenda September 27, 1999 Issue Statement: Resolution certifying delinquent sewer and water utility accounts to the County Auditor. Background: Chapter VII of the Richfield Ordinance Code provides that unpaid water and sewer charges may be certified to the County Auditor to be included in a property owner's annual property tax bill. The Ordinance Code also authorizes $25 certification fee to be charged against each delinquent account. By certifying the delinquent charges to the property taxes for the delinquent properties, the City is assured of ultimately collecting the delinquent charges. In 1998 the City Council certified $96,948.98 of delinquent charges for 251 properties, an average cost of $386.25 per account. The 1999 certification currently under consideration totals-$134,231.15 for 458 properties, an average of $293.08 per account. Recommended Motion: Adopt the. resolution certifying unpaid sewer and water service charges to the County Auditor to be collected with other taxes on said properties. • -Basis of Recommendation: 1. State Statute and City Ordinance provide that delinquent utility charges may be collected in this manner. 2. The delinquent accounts must be certified to the County Auditor in order for the City to collect the charges through the property tax process. Alternative Recommendation: Do not approve the resolution. However, the certification process is the only process the City has to collect these delinquent accounts. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter has been placed on the September 27, 1999 City Council agenda to allow sufficient time for the charges to be certified to the County Auditor. ng Ciry Manager • SLD:ds f~ RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATIION OF UNPAID SEWER AND WATER SERVICE CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 715 establishes rules, rates and charges for water service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 444.075 provides that all delinquent water service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor and shall be collected with other taxes on such property; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705 established rules, rates and charges for sanitary sewer service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, 705.19 thereof provides that all sewer services charges not paid with 15 days after the quarterly due date may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such properly, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 720 established rules, rates and charges for storm water service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, 705.19 thereof provides that all storm water service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such properties, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property; and • WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amount, which shall be certified against each particular property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that: 1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected amount for water, sanitary sewer and storm service of $134,231.15. 2. That a $25 certification charge shall be levied against each delinquent account; such charges totaling $11,450.00. 3. That the above described assessment be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% per annum. 4. That such amount be hereby certified to the County Auditor for collection with other taxes on said properties. 5. That a copy of the resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of September 1999. . Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 3~3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 219 Agenda September 27, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution authorizing continued participation in the Livable Communities Act programs administered by the Metropolitan Council. Background: At its September 20 meeting, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved a motion recommending the City Council continue participation in the year 2000 in the Livable Communities Program. The Livable Communities Program (also known as "The Local Housing Incentive Account Program") is a 15 year housing goal strategy encouraging communities in the region to provide more diverse housing options.. As part of the program, Richfield has identified and is committed to accomplishing the attached housing goals (Exhibit A). The goals and the principles on which they are based were originally approved in 1996. The state legislature requires communities to annually renew their resolution to continue participation in the Livable Communities Program. The City has approved renewal'-each year since 1996, recognizing that participation has allowed Richfield to remain • competitive in securing state and regionally distributed funds. With the availability of secured funds, Richfield has made significant progress towards its housing goals: • Thirteen new homes were constructed this past year through the Richfield Rediscovered program (twelve with a market value of over $150,000). The Transformation Homes loan program allowed fifteen households to remodel in excess of $50,000. • More than 500 housing units will be available in 2000 as part of the Gramercy Park, Urban Village and Lyndale Gateway developments; offering a variety of owner/rental townhouse, life cycle and replacement housing choices. • Apartment choices have been preserved and enhanced. By the end of the year, the HRA through a Livable Communities grant award from the Metropolitan Council, will have distributed over $300,000 in deferred loans and grants to apartment owners to facilitate reinvestment in rental properties. The apartment building at 901 East 66th Street illustrates the success of this program in enhancing the livability and visual quality of Richfield's older rental housing. The grant money has also allowed two larger apartment communities to make significant property improvements, creating a positive neighborhood environment, improving security, reducing blight and encouraging good management. Hampton Place Apartments is a good example; with the new play ground and parking improvements already completed. ~~-1 • A variety of affordable housing opportunities are available through the HRA's first- time homebuyer program, Hennepin Technical College construction and Habitat for Humanity projects. A summary of Richfield's affordability performance is attached in the document entitled "Affordable Housing Opportunities in Richfield." Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolution to continue participation in the calendar year 2000 in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Program participation and established housing goals for Richfield remain consistent with community goals. The Metropolitan Council supports the goals. 2. Participation keeps Richfield competitive in securing state and regional community development resources. 3. Policies may change as a result of recommendations made by the Replacement:.: Affordable Housing Task Force. Those changes could be implemented for the 2001 Livable Communities Program. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Withdraw from participation; however, funding applications would no longer be competitive. 2. Modify the housing goals;.. however, decisions on housing policies are required now for Year 2000 and the outcomes of the Replacement Affordable Housing Task Force won't be known until early next year for the HRA to further consider. Discussion/Decision Mode: The Metropolitan Council must be informed of Richfield's plans to participate prior to November 15, 1999. This has been placed on the Consent Agenda for the September 27, 1999 Council agenda. R s e tfully submitted, v~ L. vich Acting City Manager SLD:ds Attachments • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVE ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2000 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254 establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the Metropolitan Area defined by Minnesota Statues Section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentive Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Minnesota Statues Section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, each municipality must :identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the Housing Action Plan; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and WHEREAS, for calendar year 2000, a metropolitan area municipality that did not participate in the Local Housing Incentive Account during the calendar year 1999 can participate under Minnesota Statues Section 473.254 only if: (a) the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15; 1999; and (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality have successfully negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield hereby elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during the calendar year 2000. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of September, 1999. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Exhibit A ~~ AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IN RICHFIELD Creating New Homes. The Richfield HRA is able to purchase substandard or blighted property from voluntary sellers, demolish the existing buildings, and build new homes on the sites. Acquisition and clearance are done with local funds under Richfield Rediscovered; federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fluids are used for. other programs. Habitat for Humanity builds decent, safe,. affordable homes for low income (50% of the median income) homebuyers. Since 1990, 6 Habitat homes have been built in the community. Habitat also. has programs that help the new owners learn about maintenance, upkeep, and on being a responsible neighbor. The HRA cooperates with Hennepin Technical College to build new homes, available for sale to a first-time buyer of moderate income: (does not exceed 80% of the area median). One or two homes are built annually under the New Home Program. Since 1990, 16 homes have. been built under the program. / Three other new homes have been built for moderate income buyers by a non profit developer. / The Richfield Rediscovered Program provides construction opportmiities for builder/buyer teams. Some of the affordable opportunities by non-profit developers have occurred under the program, and many market rate opportunities occur annually. Since 1990, approximately 85 new homes have been built under the program. Finding and Improving Existing Homes. The federal Section 8 Program provides rental assistance to 340 families in Richfield. Of those, 242 originated in Richfield and 98 have moved to Richfield from other communities. The Deferred Loan Program provides interest-free loans to low-income homeowners (income does not exceed 50% of the median), so that they may maintain their home. For some, it provides the means they need to stay in the home. Loan funds are available through CDBG funds. Since 14 ?0, approximately 130 loans have been completed. In 1997, the Fir4 i Time Advantage Loan was initiated through funding from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). Twelve loans have been completed and 3 are underway. Moderate income owners (income does not exceed 80% of the median) who have been in their .home for less than a year may be eligible for the loan. Since most first-time buyers have put most of their cash into closing costs and down payment, the loan provides a new home buyer the opportunity to do updating and general improvements. / The Transformation Program provides incentive for large scale remodeling in Richfield to encourage households to stay in the community. Since the program began in 1993, 581oaris have been provided. Participating households remodeled in excess of $30,000, often times adding square footage which allowed them to stay in the community rather than getting their housing needs met by moving to another community. 1 Remodeling Advisor services are free and available to all Richfield home owners. The Remodeling Advisor provides technical advice on a particular project, cost estimates, and information on financing options. • Livable Communities Act -- Housing Goals as Determined by the Metropolitan Council The City of Richfield supports these goals: 1. A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. 2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. 3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. 4. A community ofwell-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. 5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate their need for a variety of housing types and costs. 6. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. • The City of Richfield exceeds the requirements of the Met Council's Affordability Index: / 97% of Richfield single family homes are considered affordable (64 to 77 percent is recommended) - 64% of Richfield's rental housing is considered affordable (32 to 45 percent is recommended) Opportunities and Outcomes In Redevelopment - Fair market value and relocation compensation is provided to all owners and tenants who must relocate. - Each project is evaluated for opportunities to include affordable housing. Project Homes Removed Homes Added by the Project by the Project LHN Redevelopment 41 units • 178 units, Lake Shore Drive (affordable senior ownership') • 92 units, Woodlake Village (affordable ownership2) • ] 66 units, Village Shores (senior rental) • 157 units, Woodlake Point (ownership3) Gramercy Cooperative 0 units 160 units being added (market rate) Rae Drive Townhomes 4 units 10 units (affordable single family homes) Sheridan Court 2 units 30 units (affordable aparhnents for developmentally disabled adults) Urban Village 14 units 218 units being added, including 12 affordable rental and 78 senior assisted living Lyndale Gateway Approx. 14 single family 145 units of affordable senior rental with (project pending) homes in the project area services as part of the plan ' [n 1998, sales of units in Lake Shore Drive ranged from approximately $40,000 to $107,000; the average sale price was $77,000. '' In 1998, sales of units in Woodlake Village ranged from approximately $66,000 to $96,000; the average sale price was $80,800. ' In 1998, sales of units in Woodlake Point ranged from approximately $66,000 to $120,000; the average sale price was $81,960. as-s Improving the Quality of Life. / Income qualified Richfield families (generally with incomes less than $30,000) are provided CDBG funds from the City to supplement financial gaps in their ability to pay for quality day care. Approximately 5 to 7 households are assisted annually. - People interested in purchasing a new home in Richfield are referred to a home buyer education program, sponsored by MFHA, and facilitated by Community Action for Suburban Hennepin. The City/HRA's CDBG funds help provide that service. 1 Reduced interest rate mortgage money has been. annually. secured by the City/HRA for first- . time buyers from MHFA. Eligible buyers' income must be moderate (below 80% of the median). - Job training opportunities will be available in June 1999 for low-income apartment residents in Richfield. The Foyer Pilot Program is a collaboration between the City of Richfield, the Chamber Commerce, the Minnesota School of Business, and Hennepin County's Neighborhood Employment Network. The training will occur in specified apartment buildings, providing training without requiring transportation to a remote site. Certificates of completion will help participants to obtain entry level jobs. - Rent Assistance for Family Stabilization (RAFS) is a state program administered by staff. RAFS is a shallow rent subsidy that is given to families who receive no other rent subsidy and are currently participating in aself-sufficiency program with an employment and education plan. Currently Richfield has six participants in RAFS. / Staff provides monitoring to owners participating in the 4(d) Property Tax Classification Monitoring program. To benefit from the reduced tax classification rate, owners must rent units to households with incomes that do not exceed 60% of the median income. In Richfield, 1,092 units are benefiting from the 4(d) program. - Enterprise Facilitation -- Small business assistance provided, including start up advice, business locating and other support services. p:mayor-affordability Exhibit B Richfield Housing Goals and Housing Action Plan 1996 to 2010 in response to the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act • Presented by • THE RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and THE CITY OF RICHFIELD June 1996 IC FT ~LD ` Richfield Housing Action Plan Contents ^ Executive Summary of the Plan. ^ Housing Goals Agreement. ^ ^ ^ Housing Program and Marketplace Framework. Single .Family .Program Summary, 1996 to 2001. Multifamily Program Summary, 1996 to 2001. Process Statement for Achieving Richfield Housing Goals, 1996 to 2010. The .Draft Comprehensive Plan; scheduled completion in 1996. ~~,~' Richfield Housing Action Plan • Ezecuti ve Summary In 1995, The Minnesota State Legislature created the Livable Communities Act and directed the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area to oversee the development of Housing Action Plans.. The Plan for the City of Richfield reflects unique market challenges. To summarize: ^ Richfield is found to be a very. affordable place to live and is committed to maintaining a supply of affordable housing choices. ^ Richfield needs a more diverse housing stock. Richfield should encourage single family market rate new construction and remodeling which will increase home values. Richfield should also promote the construction of attached and detached townhomes which provide greater life-cycle housing choices. ^ Richfield needs a greater variety of apartment choices. The "Housing Goals Agreement" presents the goals (index) and a fifteen year proposed change in the index (the benchmark) which were developed by the Metropolitan Council. The City Council and Richfield Housing and Redevelopment. Authority responded with goals, in five .year: increments given best efforts, market conditions, and resource availability. Richfield's goals are further supported with materials in the plan, including the following: ^ Housing Program and Marketplace Framework and Program Summary; describing local program responses at various marketplace value segments. ^ The Process Statement for Achieving Richfield Housing Goals; explaining the strategy for creating life cycle housing and increasing housing choices and housing density. ^ The 1996 Draft Comprehensive Plan; outlining proposed changes in land use and density over the long term.. • Housing Goals Agreement Metropolitan Livable Communities Act PRINCIPLES The City ofRichfield supports: O A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. 4 The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. m A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle. ® Acommunity ofwell-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. OO Housing development that respects the natural environment ofthe community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. ® The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. GOALS To carry out the above housing principles, the City ofRichfield agrces to ^ ,Use benchmark indicators for communities of similar location and stage ofdevelopment as affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the specified periods. ^ Make its best efforts, given market conditions and resource availability, to remain within or make progress toward these benchmarks. ^ These goals will be reviewed by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HItA) in 2001 and 2006. CITY INDEX BENCHMARK RICHFIELD GOAL FOR RICHFIELD (1996 to 20011 ~ t Qo~ *,. inn t ~ • To achieve the above goals, the City ofRichfield elects to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program, and will prepare and submit a plan to the Metropolitan Council by June 30, 1996, indicating the actions it will take to carry out the above goals. CERTIFICATION January 15, 1996 Mayor Date ~ ~' 0 ' 4~ -~ U a a~ ~I , ~ ~, W D V/ ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ ^~, a ,~0. W ~ r~ , ~~ ~° .~ 0 Q a~ o b b c~ L .~ 1"~ x .~ -~ a H 0 0 o, o ~~ ~ T ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~o ~ ~o TT ~ ~ a~-~ ~° H ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T o° •~ a ~' ~ ~ ~ v 4~ .c Ts H fY H ~, ~ o c~ o ~ ~ .~ Q CJ 'J ~~ zq .~ c ~ ~~ ~ O F; ~ a~ ~ ~ W o° ~ Zb ~~ O ~~ A ~~ ~~ x -o ~ O O O 0 s4 0 0 0 0 v 69 z Aa ~~ ~, x z~ d oa as ~~o -~ a ~ .~ ..i"'. ~ v ~ ~ .N Q~~.c ~~ i '-~-// ~ ~ ~ ~~ T T O U O E-+ CW.7 H ~~~~ ~, y ~~ a a . . c o ~2 ~~ .~ T ~ o T o ~ ~ , • ~ ~ ~ U C ~ ~ U W .c .~ a .o ~ 0 ~ y . ~ - O v~ U a~ ~ H ~ ~ x :r °- on ~" ~ ° w v L °' ~ ... w ° c W h ~ w o . ~ ~ z zv a a va o a ~ C ~ _ 0 E - o as 0 a~ a U • H .~ z 2 a 0 ~ ~ Q ~~ ti U 38~ • O 0 N O N ~o v~ v~ •~ O 0.~ •-~ w .~ 0 ~. ~ ~ ~ a ~' • R ~,, ~ ~ ~ C y ~ O M -..a C z O .C ~ ftt i C O y~ ~ .~ C bA o r.+ Rf y ~ ~ ~ ~~ y to ~, -~ a~ • a~ ~'.' O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .C ~ R3 ~"' U ~ e~ ~ C L~ /J ~1 t ~ 0~ 0 y _ y ~ ~ ~ R1 .. 0 U O ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ y = ~ ~ t ~ y ~ ~ ~ '~ o ~v c~ " . w~ o c y~ E .~ -o ~ a~ >, ~ ar a, ~ ~ ~, o a ~2 -o .r a~ x o ~ ~ CL ~ .Nr .~ ~ O H ¢ ~ .~ ~ 4. ~ ~ d~ F° Q~ ~ w$ ~a~ ~ . .. . ~.. ° q c~ ~ ~ ~, ~ b ~+ U ~ ~~'~~s ~ U ~ RS U w o a e'"a ~ _ oo °o 0 0 ° a a ~ 'fl ~ = c o o 0o ° c o c d U fsr es ,~ ~ N ~ ~ _ .~ ~„ U ~ ~. C~ lOV ~ .a ~ ~ ~ .c UW' .~ b E z o ~ y °' ~ o ~ '° ~~-~~~ G7~~°~ 0~~:='~ zoo ~ ~ o~b~ O~oa ~co'd= E-~•~ .c cn a, ~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~ x ° ~ a .~ o°o W ~ 'D ~° ~ •~ ~ 5 ~ ~ o0 O ,3 C a.. ~ «+ ~ z y .~ ~ -~ p x "C w O N pip 0 ai ~ .~ (.y ~~ W ~~ A "C7 ~ O a ao .fl x ~ b -'~ ~ ~ a Q '~ ~ .c ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ E W .~ ~ ~- oq c W c ti ~ ~ ~ ~ -d ts. E ~ ~ a~ c ~ ~, a~ ~ ,~ ,., ~ E y c ~ ~ c 8 ca., 'b • • rl O O N 0 O~ ~.y r~ V a w z ~, -o -?' ~ w •o on ~ o ~ .o >,.~ c ~ ~ a ~ y Q ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ a~ -o ~ ~. ~ w. N -v a ~ .N ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O .~ > ~ ~ + + ~ ~ ~ ~ o • ~ ~ ~ Gq ~ ~ ~ O ~ .C ,..~ C "C U .~ a o ~ .~, U ~o ~~ ~ ~ ~ +~ ~ ;~~, ~ ~ 5 a~ ~ ,.., w ~, a~ o . ~ v1 bA > U c~ y .G U ~ O ~ O ~ .~ ... 4-r O N d0 ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~DC ~ O O~ O 'b ~ ~ O _O U '^ by fU., ~,~...~ b . U ~ , U O ~.. i . ..fl O U ^+ ,N ~ ,~b ~ c, w ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ -c " > ~ 0 ... 3 > ~ ~ o ~ L ~ b '~ .d "~ ~ ~ U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ y C O p O ~ C V W y~q ~ ~ b9 a 0 a v e L bA i~.i a 'O F A z ~~ ~ ~ ~, a a > O~ ~~ ~~ z .~ ,~ d a '~ •~ Z W ~ G7 A ~' ~p~o w~ ~~ dp A ,_,,, ,~ .. d U ~ C7Z,~s' zzUs a d ~ v W ~ ... '~ > ~ _~_ ~ -v v ~ .~ b4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~°~ o ~ o °' rn~ ~--'~ WyH~o ~. O -~ ~ ~° ~ x~~~~ ~ ~ a~ C~N,~~ d ~ ~ ~ ~v °o U .L" N ,,,,,, O y c O O W .~ p~' Cis b9 O ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ o a~ o > 'n ai o i ~ ~ a~ c~ €~~.~3 O 'N ~ O U y «s v~ :~ ~ H .~ ~ D V t~ C a ~ ~ ~ ~ >''> q-v-° ~ ° ('~ '~ ~ w ~ ~+ ~ a , a; ~ W a~v ~o C,~ `~~ v ~' y RS A b ° 'v 8 ~~~~~ ~ U ~ O W .o ~ a I..I ~+" ..yr 'rrr ~ bw ~ U ~ o ~ ~ ~ a .r on ~~~o~~ ~ V p C U ;~ ,~ ~ ,~ ~ U ~ U ~ ~.d" O ~~ C/1 ~ U Rf w+ 3~-i3 c ~° ~ ~ u ' dd ~U y "'-" 'CJ ~ • 3 a ~3E °:~ r+ ,~ ~; ~~ E o ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ / V ~ .C ~ ~' (~,~ o ~ 'L7 O, ~~ c ~ ~ ~•~ R3 f/1 y Fw c ~ ~w i . c c v i ~~ 0 N 0 a ~, x r~~ V1 a w a • ~= ou a~.~o 'b o~ ~ o c..~ ~ °' a ~ ~ a i ~, a~ a~ o . ~ y a~ ~ ~ _ a ~ H ~ .r ~ !~ ~ L o a k ° ~3 a. o b o a o o a o ~° W y V ~ - ~ 'C _ L' ~ v ry+ t~A .N ~ ~~ ~ ~ L'i ~ O .~ ~ „~ 0 •~ ~ „ ... ~ v ~ H a~ r + ~ -o Cam" o _o ~ y ~ ~ .G1 m .Q .C .y y (/~ ~L' Tr a. t~ V C ~' ~ o~ _ ~~ y ~ y w ~ °: °'a ~ o ~ e a- ~ - w ~ M a~ ~ O ~ ~ •- ~ i.+ V o c ~ o ~ s c ~~ o. ~ a~ a i 'C O .O O •~ .o+ v ... Q ~~ ~ ~~a ~ V H H L ~ b ~ ~. ~ G. ~ p .~ ~ H ~ tC{ `./ ~ vii V Q' ~ H o~+ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a w o ~ © ~~ ~ . ~~ ~_ V~ o o ~~ co ~ ~~ c . .~~~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~o ~ o _ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ' .yi ~+ O ~ ~ TJ ~ ~ .~.r o ~ O ~ H axi .~ ~ ~ ~ is ?, '~ ~ a~ ~ '~ 3 ~ o w a~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~~ ~ ~~~ w ~~' y W ~' vi ~ O ~~o ~ o•~ a~,~ A z~y z~a~ How ~ •°' Q~ o O z V a iii ~ ~ 'y Y~I ~ ~ ~M C ~ Fy V ... ~ , W H ~ ~ ~ "p ~,c y ~C ~ ~ a ° F, ~ ~ w ~~a~ z~= Qp ,,. c~ Fz2•~ a•~~ ~`~~~~ fA .J w+ y 00 y ;~ ~ FW~V 00 U ~ ~ ..~ zl o ,,,,,, „o ~ , o za~~~ oo ,..~ o .... a ` o O F ~ _ ~~.I `,~ 8 0 ~ ,. [~ H ~ , [•.~ V2 'p ~ . V bQ ~ ~ x w ~ ~ o °; ~ u a V ~ ~ ~ ~ H E .c° /5 Process .statement for achieving Richfield housing goals 1996-2010 In response to the City ofRichfield Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, the City ofRichfield and. Metropolitan Council have entered into a 15 year housing goal strategy based on "City Index" and "Benchmark" standards developed by the Metropolitan Council. The City ofRichfield is challenged to accomplish the following four objectives: O Increase the ownership ratio of market rate homes to affordable homes. To make progress toward a 15 year goal by 2001, 500 more homes over $115,000 should be provided by public and private initiatives. These goals, performance, and resources would be reviewed in 2001 and 2006. m Increase the ratio of higher rent units to aflbrdable rent units. To make progress toward a 15 year goal by 2001, 250 units should have higher market values. These goals, performance, and resources should be reviewed in 2001 and 2006. ® Increase the ratio and variety of ownership choices if possible. ® Increase housing density from the present "City Indez" if possible. 3A CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 21.8 Agenda September 27, 1999 Issue Statement: Resolution designating polling places and appointing election judges for the November 2, 1999 Special City Election. Background: Minnesota Statute 2048.21, Subd. 2 provides that election judges for precincts in a municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality and that the appointments be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve. The City Council has scheduled a Special City Election for November 2, 1999 on the ballot question of selling General Obligation Bonds for the construction of a new recreation and community center. The attached resolution contains the names of individuals from the election judge availability list who have indicated a willingness and ability to serve as an election judge for the Special Election. The same list has been provided to the Richfield School District who will also be conducting an election on the same day. The School Board must also approve the appointment of the election judges who will conduct both the School Board and Special City Election concurrently. Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution designating polling places and appointing election judges for the Special City Election to be held on Tuesday, November 2, 1999. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Compliance with Minnesota Statute 2046.21, Subd. 2 2. The proposed resolution contains names of those who have indicated a willingness and ability to serve as an election judge for the November 2, 1999 Special Election. The names come from a list of people who have indicated their interest in serving as an election judge to the County Auditor pursuant to the provisions of M.S. 2046.21 subd.1 and those who have previously served or indicated interest in serving. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could chose to appoint others who are not named in the resolution. 2. If the City Council does not appoint election judges, the conduct of the election would not be valid. ~~ ~~ Discussion/Decision Mode: The City Council is required by State Statute to make election judge appointments at least 25 days prior to the election. Therefore, it is recommended the City Council pass the attached resolution at this meeting. SLD:ds Acting City Manager 3N 2- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES AND APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE SPECIAL CITY ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 2, 1999 WHEREAS, a Special City Election will be held on Tuesday, November 2, 1999. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that said elections shall be held at the polling places as herein appear specified: Precinct No. 1 Ward 3 Precinct No. 2 Ward 2 Precinct No. 3 Ward 1 Precinct No. 4 Ward 1 Precinct No. 5 Ward 1 Precinct No. 6 Ward 2 Precinct No. 7 Ward 2 Precinct No. 8 Ward 3 Precinct No. 9 Ward 3 Mt. Calvary Education Building 6541 16th Avenue St. Peter's Catholic Church 6730 Nicollet Avenue Sheridan Hills School 6400 Sheridan Avenue St. Richard's Catholic Church 7540 Penn Avenue Richfield Middle School (Junior High) 7461 Oliver Avenue Central School Building 7145 Harriet Avenue Hope Presbyterian Education Facility 7132 Portland Avenue Richfield Intermediate School 7020 12th Avenue Centennial School 7315 Bloomington Avenue and, that the following are hereby appointed as judges for said election: 3A-3 Resolution No. -2- James Alagna (R) Lois Kovach (DFL) Janice Andersen (R) Michaeline Kvaale (R) Clyde Anderson (R) Claire Larson (R) Ben Arriola (R) Doris Liedtke (DFL) Angela Aylward (DFL) Nancy Lindberg (DFL) Linda Bloomgren (DFL) Jeanne Lindstrom (R) Gert Broker (R) Jeanette Lofstrom (DFL) Elaine Carlson (R) Lorraine Maki (DFL) Mr. Ted Chao (R) Connie McDonald (DFL) Barb Cook (DFL) Richard Morey (DFL) Geraldine R. Cooper (R) Carol Mortenson (R) Corrine Cosgrove (DFL) Philip Mortenson (R) Emily Day (DFL) Lee Ohnesorge (DFL) Liz Ekholm (DFL) Fern Oreck (DFL) Lynette Farnell (Reform) Ruth Pafko (DFL) Veronica Fashant (DFL) Allan Parker (R) Donna Fischer (DFL) Dorothy A. Peabody (R) Jette Floberg (R) Marilyn Peterson (DFL) • Nancy Garwick (DFL) Martha Prottengeier (R) Elayne Gilhousen (R) Eleanor Rasmussen (DFL) Betty Halloran (R) Carolyn Ring (R) Mary Lee Hanson (DFL) William Sharkey (R) Gladys Hayden (DFL) William Stixrud (DFL) Helen Hillstrom (DFL) Geraldine Stoffel (R) Ilene Holen (R) Mary Swanson (DFL) JoAnn Holt (R) Arline Thomas (R) Marion Horning (DFL) Marion Thompson (R) Ray Johnson (DFL) Claire Todd (DFL) Elaine Kaibel (DFL) Bernice Utter (DFL) Danette Kamrath (R) Kathryn Voigt-Johnson (DFL) Olga Kelash (DFL) Pearl Weitbrecht (DFL) June King (R) PASSED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of September, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk