The URL can be used to link to this page

01-11-99 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 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 OF (1) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 1999; (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 6, 1999; AND (3) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 1999 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 1. ANNUAL MEETING WITH LOCAL LEGISLATORS TO DISCUSS CITY OF RICHFIELD 1999 LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES AND POLICIES PRESENTATIONS 2. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING AWARDED BY GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 9 INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD. 3. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA AGENDA APPROVAL 4. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR 5. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE. REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RETAINER AGREEMENT WITH JMS COMMUNICATIONS FOR CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMUNICATION SERVICES DURING 1999 C.L. 10 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COUNTY ASSESSOR'S SELECTION OF MONDAY, MAY 3, 1999 FOR 1999 LOCAL BOARD OF EQUALIZATION C. MEETING C.L. 11 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RWARD OF CONTRACT TO E-Z-GO TEXTRON (UPPER MIDWEST) FOR LEASING GOLF CARTS FOR RENT PURPOSES AND UTILITY BEVERAGE CART AT RICH ACRES. GOLF COURSE FOR 1999 WITH OPTIONAL YEAR 2000 FOR ANNUAL COST OF $27,715 PLUS TAX C.L. 12 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION REQUESTING COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION TO REVOCATE MUNICIPAL STATE AID DESIGNATION FOR 66TH STREET EAST OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 77 AND ALL OF STANDISH~AVENUE VVITHIN"CITY OFRICHFIELD C.L: 13 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT TO HIRE BRW, INC. TO STUDY DESIGN OF I-494 AND I-35W INTERCHANGE AND USE OF RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL STATE AID FUNDS TO FINANCE STUDY C.L. 14 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DRAINAGE CORRECTION AGREEMENT FOR PENN AVENUE AND 67TH STREET C.L. 15 G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND CITY OF RICHFIELD, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, PERTAINING TO GRANT FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING OVERTIME PROGRAM FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 1999 C.L. 16 H CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING . SUBMITTAL OF MUNICIPAL GRANT APPLICATION FOR 1999 HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM C.L. 17 I. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF FRONT END LOADER WITH WING AND PLOW ATTACHMENTS FROM ST. JOSEPH EQUIPMENT IN AMOUNT OF $143,969.58 C.L. 18 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR URBAN VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REZONING LAND BETWEEN 66TH AND 67TH STREETS AND GRAND AND PLEASANT AVENUES FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND REZONING LAND AT 6701 LYNDALE FROM PLANNED GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL COUNCIL LETTER NO. 19 7. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REQUEST FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR URBAN VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 20 . 8. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE VACATING PORTIONS OF PLEASANT AND GRAND AVENUES AND 67TH STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR URBAN VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 21 9. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION GRANTING . PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RICHFIELD URBAN VILLAGE FOR AREA BOUNDED BY 66TH STREET ON NORTH, PLEASANT AVENUE ON EAST, 67TH STREET ON SOUTH, AND LYNDALE ON WEST COUNCIL LETTER NO. 22 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 10. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT TO ALLOW RELOCATION OF HOUSE TO 6701 LYNDALE AVENUE FOR USE AS CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC COUNCIL LETTER NO. 23 RESOLUTION 11. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING 1999 SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS AND AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICE COUNCIL LETTER N0.24 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 12. CONSIDERATION OF REVISED MASTER PARK PLAN COUNCIL LETTER NO. 25 AIRPORT BUSINESS 13. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE AIRPORT NOISE MITIGATION POLICY COMMITTEE 14. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 15. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 16. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 17. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 18. 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 861-9702. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~ Council Letter No. 25 Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Approval of the revised Master Park Plan. Background: In 1989, the original 1969 Richfield Master Park System Plan was revised to make reference to all of the changes that had occurred in the Richfield Parks system. By 1996, this revision no longer reflected the changes that were taking place and a Master Park Plan Subcommittee was formed from the Community Services Commission to revise the Plan. Beginning in July 1996, the subcommittee began meeting on a monthly basis until the summer of 1998. The subcommittee revised the plan to reflect the changes and developments in the City of Richfield's park infrastructure. The plan has been reviewed by the Community Services Commission and the Planning Commission and is being recommended to the Council for approval. Recommended Motion: Approve the Master Park Plan in its current edition. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Master Park Plan Subcommittee reviewed the existing Master Park Plan and make revisions according to proposed developments and changes. 2. The revised plan has been reviewed and approved as written by the'Community Services Commission and the Planning Commission, who will modify the City's Comprehensive Plan to accord with and make proper references to the revised Master Park Plan. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the Master Park Plan and postpone its approval. 2. Return the Plan to the Master Park Plan Subcommittee for revision. Discussion/Decision Mode: The Master Park Plan has been approved by the Planning Commission and incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan. In order to facilitate the revision and submission of the Comprehensive Plan, approval of the Master Park Plan would be desirable at the January 11 Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP:ds MASTER PARK PLAN - 1998 ~~-~ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Community Characteristics, 1990 & Projections to 2000 GENERAL INFORMATION Demographics (See Attachment 1) [Demographics booklet put together for MPP SC] I. POPULATION: Richfield's population declined from 37,851 in 1980 to 35,710 in 1990 and 34,672 in 1996. The number of households has decreased since 1990 due to the loss of New Ford Town and Rich Acres housing. In 1996, the total number of households was 15,324. By the year 2000, the largest household group will be baby boomers and senior citizens. As the children of the baby boomers grow up and move away, the percentage of young adults will decline. By 2010, baby boomers will begin reaching retirement, causing the senior population to grow rapidly. A. AGE DISTRIBUTION (See Figure 2) 1) In 1990, the population under age 18 was 20% (down from 45% in 1960). The baby boomlet (children of baby boomers) caused ashort-term increase in this age group during the late 1980's and early 1990's. However, in the early 2000's, children of all ages will decline in number and population share as the baby ~- boomlet reaches young adulthood. 2) The baby boom bulge will be in the 46-65 year-old age bracket during the 2000's. The senior population (as a percentage of the population) will continue to grow through the year 2010. Then, as baby boomers reach their retirement, it will grow rapidly. 3) Increase in the older population and decreases in the numbers of children can be mitigated somewhat by out-migration of families reaching middle-age and in- migration of young adults and young families. The number of households and total population will depend on the redevelopment and new housing construction indicated by the Comprehensive Plan. B. DIVERSITY: The minority population increased from 2.7% in 1980 to 7.1% in 1990. 39% of them were Asian/Pacific Islander, 36%-African American and 16% Hispanic/Latino. It is expected that these groups will continue to grow in number during the 1990's and into the 2000's. Since minority families moving into Richfield are younger with more children, minority children make up 12% of all children. The percentage children of color in the Richfield Public School System is about 26%. C. HOUSEHOLDS: In 1990, the most common household type (about 37%) was "non- family" (people living alone or with non-relatives). Married couples without children was 31 %; married w/children was 19%, single parent - 7% and family without children and no married couple was 6%. This number is expected to remain the same or decline somewhat during the 1990's and 2000's, depending on how many senior citizens chose to remain in Richfield as a single person in the household. The number 1 ~ a-a-- of people per household continues to decline from a high 3.89 in 1960 to 2.46 in 1980 and 2.29 in 1990. II. EMPLOYMENT: The share of Richfield's population in the work force will decline over the next 20 years as its senior citizen population grows. The percentage of women working outside the home with children under age 6 grew from 22% in 1960 to 75% in 1990. For children ages 6-17, 80% of children from two-parent homes had both parents working and 82% of children from single-parent homes had their parent working. The five largest employing occupations for Richfield residents in 1990 were: 1) administrative and clerical support (22%), 2) sales (13%), 3) professional (13%), 4) executive and managerial (13%) and 5) other (12%). Of all those employed, only 16% worked in Richfield. III. INCOME Richfield's median household income fell in the 1980's, relative to Hennepin County. The decline in median household income should be offset during the 1990's and 2000's as baby boomers move into their prime earning years. There is a large gap between married-couple families and single-headed families, caused by the economic impact of dual-income families. The dual-income family is the norm in Richfield (65% of families had two or more members working). Fiscal Information • The total market value in Richfield is currently at $1,385,452,400, assessed value is currently $1,378,925,100 real estate and $8,842,200 personal property. Investment in parks and special facilities will level off near $10 million. • The median value of housing in Richfield will increase from $98,000 to nearly $104,000 after the year 2000. • Total revenues from fees and charges for park and recreation facilities and services will continue to increase from about $2.4 million in 1997 to nearly $2.9 million by the year 2003. • The annual expenditure for parks facilities, maintenance, and recreation services will increase from $4.1 million in 1997 to nearly $4.9 million by the year 2003. General Community Trends • Richfield residents will continue to support increased investments in facility development and maintenance, and in staff and equipment for a wide variety of programs and services. • Seventy-two percent of residents feel they are informed about the Richfield Park System and facilities. Avery high number (90%) rated the park and recreation facilities as excellent or good. • Seventy-seven percent favored construction of amulti-purpose recreation center. Open Space Resources/LTrban Shaping Elements • The I-494/CEDAR AVENUE/I-35W/CROSSTOWN-62 corridors and related urban renewal areas may provide a multitude of opportunities to greatly improve the "front- 2 /~-~ door" images of the City, add useful open space, reserve the potential for recreation facilities, and provide grade separated bike/hike/ski trails as well. • Public school sites represent the largest tracts and most well distributed non-park open space resources within the community. Currently the school district site area is 96.5 acres. • Private schools, churches, and cemetery sites provide substantial visual relief, natural and cultivated landscape vistas, and contrast to the persistent urban landscape. • Richfield has no natural topographic or hydrologic corridors and has not developed space for urban parkways or park corridors. • Because of small block length and the perpendicular grid system of streets from border to border, the largest potential, public, open space resource within the City is the street space. • While some recent redevelopment projects have included substantial landscaping and a formal sculpture feature, most of the existing non-residential development in Richfield is largely lacking in landscape, sculptural, or other open space amenities. • Often, open space has not been used as transition between intense land uses such as freeways, industrial, multiple, or commercial, and low density residential areas. • Three major storm water holding ponding sites provide some opportunity for additional visual relief and amenities. Additional relief for people along Penn Avenue will be provided by the completion of ponding and redevelopment on the east side of Penn Avenue from 69`" to 70t'' Street. DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND PLAN PROPOSALS Special Recreation and Park Facilities • VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK OF RICHFIELD is a City community park, not a neighborhood park. The park provides a wide variety of recreational activities for Richfield citizens and can be expanded.. The ice arena and the outdoor swimming pool are the oldest components of the park. During the 1980's and 1990's a miniature golf course, a large picnic pavilion, concession/park building and a large area for playfeatures were added. The best use of the west and southwest areas are for facilities and activities such as the farmers' market, Fourth of July carnival and events (Cattail Days, etc.). The northeast and east should remain in a natural state providing a nice area for walking, walking dogs, and biking in a natural environment. Veterans Park should also be the site for a new large multi-use recreational center. Such a facility, ideally, should include the following components: 1) A large banquet facility which could be divided into two to four smaller rooms: These would provide much needed meeting banquet space for Richfield civic organizations. Moreover, these rooms could be rented out, providing revenue to offset operating costs of the facility. A full-scale kitchen would necessarily be a part of this section of the facility. 2) Gyms and exercise rooms, which include weight-lifting equipment. 3) Small meeting/craft rooms to be used for small groups and classes. 3 l ~- ~f 4) An indoor zero-depth swimming pool with two to three lanes for lap swimming and a slide and other water play features would allow Richfield citizens to enjoy water activities 12 months of the year. An ozone purification system would eliminate the negative aspects of chlorine systems. 5) A running track. 6) Locker rooms/changing rooms. Other potential features include space for daycare and concession stands. A wading pool, sand lot, and deck could be built outside the pool area to add additional activities during the summer. Memberships for use of the building should be sold to provide additional revenue. However, children and youth should be eligible for reduced/no cost access to the facility. Many of the senior citizen and adaptive recreational programs would move to the new facility. The old community center building could then be used by other organizations and activities. The best location of the multi-use facility would be on the southwest or south central area of Veterans Park. Ideally, it would be located very near the ice arena allowing for movement indoors between the two buildings. Other improvements to Veterans Park would include an expanded parking lot and a hard surface floor for the picnic shelter. • The ICE ARENA is an attractive, well-maintained, easily accessible, highly visible, community asset which creates a very positive image to many non-residents who visit, view, or use the facility. It is well-programmed as an indoor ice facility, and will remain a major focus of any Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield development plan. Increasing maintenance and rehabilitation costs as the facility and equipment ages will continue to be worthwhile investments. In the 1990's, the locker room area was completely remodeled. Two additional locker rooms were added as well as new dasher boards in 1996. Space for Hat Trick hockey was added in 1997. Due to the increasing numbers of participants in girls hockey, a second sheet of ice can be justified. If approved, it should be constructed and used as an integral part of the current Arena. • The COMMUNITY CENTER is an aging building; rapidly outgrowing the space needed for the programs operated by its staff. More space is needed for exercise, dance, and new craft axeas. Anew furnace will be added and state-of--the-art information technology introduced. Currently, facilities are well-programmed. The setting is one of the most attractive in the entire City; access is good and parking is convenient and adequate for most building programs. Adjacent park uses are compatible and complimentary. If a new multi-use recreational building is built, many activities can be moved to that site with vacated space in the community center used for other purposes. • RICH ACRES GOLF COURSE was the latest major addition to the park facilities in the City. Currently, the well-managed facility operates at full capacity each season and produces revenues to cover operations and improvements. Unfortunately, the Metropolitan Airport Commission is reclaiming the land and golf course operations will be phased out by the year 2000. Every effort should be made to acquire land for another golf course operated by the City. One such possibility is Fort Snelling. The current nine- hole course could be expanded to an 18-hole course. Acquisition of this site should proceed in cooperation with Minneapolis, which wants to acquire the former Fort 4 (~-~ Snelling polo grounds and ballparks. If the Fort Snelling site cannot be acquired, a search and negotiations to find alternatives sites should take place immediately. • WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER is the most widely known and most used of the urban outdoor education sites and facilities in the metropolitan area. The resource should not be compromised by proposed upgrading of I-35W. Any impacts must be mitigated. Sound barriers are being added on the east side of I-35W. Recently, the lake was dredged and a new floating bridge and boardwalks were added. As a part of the construction of the Richfield Lake inlet pipe, a new picnic area was created. The old picnic area was the primary depository of dredging material. As a result of this, the parking lot on Lyndale should be abandoned. The area can then be used as an intermediate cross-country ski trail and a diverse upland hardwood forest. An old picnic shelter in the area could be remodeled for storage and outdoor classroom uses. Facilities and resources are programmed at capacity, are well-managed and well-maintained. Expanded programs would be possible with upgraded facilities, staff and equipment. Management of deer is a serious problem as the Center is too small to support deer. Efforts should continue to discourage deer from moving in and to remove them as necessary to protect the ecology of the park As funding permits, other items such as a rental/classroom building, new fencing, more picnic areas and salaxied intern positions should be added. At the Nature Center, guided, interpreted, and planned programs have increased more than the casual drop-in visitors, and that trend will likely continue. Outside of classroom use, more non-Richfield residents use Wood Lake than residents. User load should match the resource base and interpretive potential of this important metropolitan environmental educational facility. The Nature Center has been well-served by the supportive fundraising group FOWL (Friends of Wood Lake). FOWL deserves the continued support of City staff and commission members. Currently, off-site garden management programs are directed on MAC property. These axe being reclaimed by MAC in 1999. Another site should be identified for acquisition/use by Richfield residents. • The SWIMMING POOL was the first major recreational facility dating back to 1962, with a likely life expectancy of about five more years. Structures are deteriorating and require substantial maintenance work each year. The pool is in need of major repair. A new bathhouse, meeting ADA standards, is also necessary. The decision on whether to invest in a new outdoor water facility should wait until a decision on a multi-use recreational facility (with an indoor pool) is made. The primary users of the current pool are children; the primary function is general recreation swimming, although swim instruction is an important community service. A water slide was added in the early 1990's to meet new patterns of water use. Two indoor pools, owned and operated by the Richfield Schools, also serve residents and special user groups on a year-round basis. However, during most of the year, when school is in session, other population groups do not have access to a pool. • BIKE/HIKE TRAILS, on safe and separated from auto traffic rights of way, are not available outside of specific parks. A growing number of residents are requesting that bike and pedestrian trails/lanes be developed as a part of the City's recreational services and transportation structure. Installation of bike lanes on 76"' Street has been postponed unti176t'' Street needs to be repaved. At that time, bike lanes on 76t'' should be 5 1~~~ a considered. The MINNEAPOLIS, NORTHFIELD AND SOUTHERN (MNS) railroad right of way provides a potential pedestrian and bike corridor through the City. If the tracks are abandoned, Richfield should cooperate with Hennepin County, Bloomington and Minneapolis to develop aninter-city bike/hike trail. A bike/hike mini park corridor linking the parks should also be considered. Redevelopment of areas along Cedar, I-494 & I-35W and the Crosstown should include discussion of additional bike trails/lanes. They should 1) be grade separated or utilize "scramble interval" signals at each urban collector or arterial street crossing; and 2) provide access to commercial and residential developments along the corridors as well as connecting to an internal City loop trail system. Parks and Playfields (See Attachment X.) [Maps of ballparks and parks, including contour maps, and items from the booklet "Richfield City Parks and Recreation Areas"] • Richfield uses 27 park and playfield sites with a total of 573.9 developed acres, or 16.55 acres per 1,000 population. • Athletic Fields and Facilities Comparisons are shown by population for each type facility. • ATHLETIC FIELD & FACILITY numbers meet or exceed "national standards" and compare favorably with other similar suburban cities in the metro area except for soccer (lower), and tennis courts (highest of all). Fields are well located in the community and are well constructed and maintained. Parking, shelter buildings, and other support facilities are good. Baseball/softball have the greatest participation rate in the City, followed by soccer. Interest in soccer is expanding and more adults are participating in the soccer leagues. This is likely to continue in the future, partially due to increasing diversity. After MAC announced it was reclaiming the land currently used as ballparks, a task force on replacement was established. A plan to replace the fields was selected involving City parks and public school and private school properly. One-half to the necessary funding was granted by the 1998 Legislature. With this money the following improvements are being made: 1) 4 new youth baseball fields at Roosevelt, eliminating a soccer/football field; 2) a new football/soccer field and site improvements to the upper ballfield facilities at Donaldson; 3) an upgrade of two existing softball fields and a soccer field at Richfield Intermediate School; 4) improvements, by the City, at the Academy of Holy Angels' field to provide an adequate football/soccer field and Babe Ruth baseball field; and 5) an upgrade of 3 existing youth slow pitch softball fields and a soccer field. Richfield must actively seek funding to complete and upgrade the reminder of the fields identified by the Task Force's plan. This includes adding a T-ball complex at Taft Park, an irrigation system for the soccer field at Washington Park and remodeling the ballfields at Lincoln Field. (See attachment X.) [the Ballpark Plan]). • OUTDOOR SKATING RINKS remain controversial. Many neighborhoods would like a rink in their park. Usage, the short season and cost of flooding and maintenance do not justify putting a rink in every park. The City Council, with input from City staff and the Community Service Commission, will decide each year which parks will have outdoor rinks. An attempt to balance geographic location. safety concerns and previous year's use will guide the decision-making process. Roosevelt, Donaldson, Jefferson, Christian, Taft and Augsburg have permanent boards for outdoor hockey. 6 is • OTHER ATHLETIC/RECREATIONAL amenities: Requests for roller -blading and a "dirt bike course" are often made in neighborhood meetings. One of the permanently boarded hockey rink at Donaldson is receiving a special type of asphalt coating that permits roller-blading during the summer on an experimental basis. If the experiment is successful and funding permits, another rink on the east side should be redone to permit roller-blading. Currently, the cost of liability insurance is prohibitive for a dirt bike course. The Community Service Commission and City Council should remain open to the possibility of putting such a course in one of the parks. • COMMUNITY PARKS provide for focus, identity and activity for all Richfield residents. • NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS are well distributed except in the southeastern area of the City. Half of the sites are too small to provide full services, but all are well developed, equipped, and maintained. Most parks share boundaries with private dwellings but activity spill-over. does not appear to be a problem. With the redevelopment of Sheridan, all the neighborhood parks have been redone. Maintenance of the parks and park building should be of primary concern. As changes are made, safety issues should be considered. The Public Safety Department has concerns with the use of solid fences/walls, berms, shrubbery, etc. These items block neighbors and officers from seeing what is happening in the park. Over the next few years, drinking fountains and portable restrooms should be installed in each park. All park buildings should be equipped with sufficient tables and chairs for programs/activities in the building. Some park buildings should be equipped with media equipment (overheads, projectors, etc.) to encourage rental for meetings. Storage areas should be added to a number of parks as funding permits. • MINI-PARKS & TOT LOTS serve as ornamental relief for three neighborhoods, but are not useful as neighborhood facilities. Upkeep and maintenance investments are high, particularly when measured against actual recreation use and activity. • PUBLIC SCHOOL SITES are regularly used for City recreation activity and several provide reserve capacity for field games areas which could be lost in the future. No further loss of any school site should be considered. • A documented INVENTORY OF PARK SITES AND FACILITIES should be completed. It would include complete site legal descriptions, correct City base map delineation, appropriate Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations, and as-built site plans for buildings and all special construction features. The inventory should be updated as necessary. • Richfield should adopt policies which will encourage preservation of private and quasi- public open spaces and make every effort to acquire significant open space resources which are about to be converted to urban development. Air rights should be reserved for possible future park development over the freeway right of way. • The City should file and process applications for the use of additional MAC, VA, DNR, or Federal open space reserve lands for recreational use. The City should begin negotiations to establish clearly the survival and assignment of all current and expanded lease rights to any successor entity which may result from revision to, or relocation of the airport. 7 / ~ ~~ • Landscape development including mounding, trees, shrubs, and screen fencing to buffer users from the freeway noise and provide a more interesting pedestrian corridor should always be considered. Freeway renewal areas should include fully developed pedestrian and bike trails over the full length of the City boundary and connect to the adjacent community. • Adopt-a-Park programs deserve continued support. They should be encouraged to clean the parks more often. Recreational Programs and Activities • Richfield provides a complete range of recreation programs in additional to the Special Facilities activities. These programs are well staffed, equipped, and organized, and enjoy the approval and general support of the community. • A gradual shift from youth to adult (middle-aged largest group) programs is underway, and will need to continue as the adult population increases in numbers and participation rates for many recreation activities. Adult (non-senior citizen) participants should pay for most of the cost of programming. • Fees for programs are related to costs except where City policy intends to subsidize special recreation activities. Summer Park Program fees should be kept to a minimum or eliminated so that all can participate. • Volunteers are utilized when and where available although there is no defined, identified, recreation volunteer corps with formal leadership or training programs. In the future, more use of volunteers should be considered. One possible use of volunteers would be in an "Adopt a Park Garden" program in appropriate parks. The Richfield Garden Club might be one organization that could provide leadership and guidance. • Public information is distributed primarily through a delivery service of awell-prepared seasonal program information brochures. Specific program information distribution to participants is conducted through the schools and by direct mail. Regular notification and activity reporting in the local newspaper and on cable television is also utilized. • Special interest associations organize and operate all youth athletic activities with the assistance of City program staff. Under the new ballpark plan, City staff will be responsible for maintenance of those sites. Efforts to work through the associations to provide volunteer staff and funds to support youth athletic activities should continue. • Cooperative and coordinated interaction with the School District results in workable arrangement, and mostly effective utilization of funding, facilities, staff, and sites for program activities. This cooperation must continue. Specific Parks and Playfields [Attachment of contour maps] • Except for the FORT SNELLING GOLF COURSE, Richfield will not need additional parks over the next 20 years. • ADAMS HILL PARK is approximately 7 acres including a storm water holding pond. Features include a sliding hill, partially underground park building, play feature, volleyball court, asphalt parking area, 1/4 mile hiking trail and a suitable area for ice skating. The site has been developed as a joint venture with the adjacent Edina park. Future planning should include the following: 1) a walking path around the pond with 8 ia- ~ . additional landscape definition to protect private property, 2) trail connections as the western origin of the "mini" parkway concept and 3) additional trees and plant material. These items should be added with consideration of safety issues described above. • APPLE BLOSSOM PARK consists of four city lots fronting on Girard Avenue at 67th Street and backing up to a high sound barrier wall on the I-35W freeway. The neighbors use the site as a tot lot and landscaped open space buffer. • AUGSBURG PARK is a 20.2 acre site which provides the following major amenities: a brick park building, six lighted tennis courts and bounce wall, one lighted hockey rink, a pleasure rink, play features, neighborhood ballfield, parking lot and %2 mile hiking path. Other than planned replacements and repair (bounce wall, fencing), future considerations may include expansion of the hiking path as a part of the proposed "mini" parkway bike/hike system, upgrading the building parking and landscape screens for the paved area. • CHRISTIAN PARK is a very well developed, 11-acre park with full recreation facilities. Its features include a sliding hill, park building, lighted and irrigated football/soccer and softball fields, 4 lighted tennis courts with bounce wall, basketball court, playfeatures, hockey rink, a pleasure rink, parking lot and %2 mile hiking trail. Possible improvements are expansion/remodeling of walking paths with a connection to the "mini' parkway system, adding landscape lighting features near the pond and play feature area and pond aeration. The basketball court should be replaced in the near future. • DONALDSON PARK houses the major athletic complex for west Richfield. The 24 acre park contains 2 park buildings, irrigated baseball and football/soccer fields, tennis courts and bounce wall, basketball courts, playfeatures, parking lots and %2 mile of pathways. The ballpark replacement plan calls for changes in placement and number of fields. (See above.) Other plans should include addition of a lighting/landscape feature near the center of the site, additional trees ,and improvement of the trails to provide linkage with the "mini" system. • FAIRWOOD/MONROE PARKS are two parks in close proximity, totaling 11 acres. Recently, as a part of planning to replace the water play feature at Fairwood, the neighborhood decided to redesign both parks. The water feature will be removed and replaced by a playfeature in 1998. In the future, a new picnic shelter/building at Fairwood will replace the condemned park building at Monroe. Monroe will retain its current features. Fairwood will contain space for a potential ice-skating rink. • FREMONT PARK is a small, triangular-shaped mini-park, 2.5 city lots in size. Ideally, it could be enlarged to neighborhood park size. It includes a playfeature, basketball hoop and open space. • GARFIELD PARK is a small (60 ft. W X 200 ft. L) play lot with limited access and spill over into back yards of single family dwellings on two sides, and a multiple dwelling parking lot on the other. It contains a play feature and a few trees. Planning should allow for possible reconfiguration and expansion. • HEREDIA PARK is a three-acre park with a remodeled park building. It includes tennis courts and bounce wall, a basketball court, play features with a water slide, ballfield and 9 I ~.- I D 1/4 mile hiking paths. No further plans are required except for play feature and tennis court replacement as scheduled. • JEFFERSON PARK is a recently redeveloped, 4-acre park. Amenities include a park building, tennis courts, basketball courts, play features, hockey rink, softball field, volleyball court, free skating rink and pathways. No further improvements. are required in the near future. • LINCOLN FIELD will be redeveloped as a part of the ball park replacement plan. The 7- acre site will contain 5 ballparks as well as a tot lot with play features. The City should consider acquiring additional land (1.9 acres) and access rights to Lyndale Avenue when the mobile home park use terminates. It should also provide for access to the proposed bike/hike trails on the railroad right-of--way. • LITTLE BOB' S PARK is a small tot lot site slightly larger than one city lot. It has a playfeature. No improvements are required in the next 5-10 years. • MADISON PARK is a 4-acre neighborhood park that was redeveloped in 1994. Amenities include a building, softball field, pathways, tennis and basketball courts, play features, free skating and "snow boaxd" hockey areas. No further improvements are necessary. • NICOLLET PARK, redeveloped in 1993, is a 8-acre park with a holding pond on the north side. It contains a park building, play features, tennis, volleyball, and basketball courts, softball field, pathways and a free skating area. No further improvements are needed. • "NO NAME" PARK, located at 68th Street and Oliver Avenue South, is a boulevard area which is too small to serve any purpose other than a small urban open space. It contains no amenities. No further development is recommended. • RICHFIELD LAKE PARK is a part of the Richfield Lake Area Master Plan being developed as a result of the reconstruction of the I-35W and Crosstown area. The new highway interchange requires the addition of 3 holding ponds to trap highway run-off before it enters Richfield Lake and then Wood Lake. The neighborhood decided that they want Richfield Lake to remain in a natural state with few design changes. In addition to the lake, ponds and 3/4 mile of paths, the park contains a play feature, tot lot and basketball court. After redevelopment under the Richfield Lake Area Master Plan, no further improvements are necessary. • ROOSEVELT PARK is well developed and beginning to mature. The 13.5-acre park will see changes in its athletic complex due to the ballpark replacement plan. (See above.) It also contains a building, tennis and basketball courts, a parking lot and tot lot. No further planning is necessary. • SHERIDAN PARK is 7-acre neighborhood park with a small storm water holding pond. Completely remodeled in 1997, it contains a picnic shelter/building, play feature, tennis , volleyball, and basketball courts, softball field and paths. No additional planning is required. • TAFT PARK is a large (42 acres), multi purpose park/playfield which is well developed. Besides ballparks and football/soccer fields, it includes hockey rinks, pleasure skating rink, park buildings and play features. It also has Mothers Lake which is used for fishing. The long range plans should include: 1) upgrade and improve existing facilities, 2) 10 /~-~l increase trees to define activity areas and replace the aging low quality trees, 3) accommodate the "mini" parkway bike/hike trail connections and 4) obtain along-term commitment from MAC and Minneapolis for the parts of the park they own. • WASHINGTON PARK was redeveloped in 1994/95. It includes softball/soccer space, tennis and basketball court, play features, sliding hill, parking lot, building and pathways. No further improvements are required. However, mitigation/redevelopmentpians may included changes in size and amenities. In that case, it is possible that land may be exchanged to expand WILSON POND to about 7 acres and make it a neighborhood park_ • MISCELLANEOUS SMALL SITES (0.4 acres) should be disposed of by re-platting to add to adjacent lots, create a new lot to be sold, or simply paved to become part of the streets. • 11 1~-~I~ Other Open Spaces • The BARTHOLOMEW HOUSE site provides a base for a larger collection of historic artifacts and replicas of other early historic structures. Any development would need to be a joint powers project, unless the site and project was contributed to and developed by anon-profit entity, such as the Richfield Foundation. • STORM WATER HOLDING POND SITES (Norby, Milner, Wilson, and 69t''-70`h & Penn) could be useful, and attractive open space assets. Plans should include: 1) alighted walking path, benches, small play sculptures, and exercise stations along the path. 2) additional trees to compliment the water and slopes, add interest, and provide screening for adjacent homes. Parks Maintenance and Operations • Construct a new or expanded CITY MAINTENANCE FACILITY at a site recommended by the garage site task force. Possible sites include the current site, sites along Cedar, American Legion site or Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. • Continue to research and document a program for standardization of all park construction components. • Continue to upgrade and automate MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT and site and building OPERATING SYSTEMS. • Update and maintain the INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY and follow the maintenance, replacement, and upgrade recommendations faithfully. • Continue the high quality maintenance services through the well organized efforts of trained, experienced CITY STAFF personnel. Park & Recreational Funding • Capital investments in park and recreation facilities and sites have varied from less than $25,000 to over a proposed $7,335,000 a year since 1970. • Capital funds have come from state and federal grants, general obligation and special revenue bonds, special revenue fund (liquor sales), private contributions, sale of property, tax increment financing, user fees, and federal revenue sharing. State and federal grant programs are very limited and not likely to expand in the future. Revenue sharing programs have been discontinued. All of the other sources are still viable. • Operating budgets have increased from $2,068,760 proposed in 1988 to $4,401,190 in 1998. • Sources of operating funds come from taxes, fees and charges for services, grants, revenue sharing, and other minor sources. Revenue sharing and grant funds are no longer available due to changes in state and federal funding policies. • Revenues from fees and charges for recreation and park services have increased from a total of $574,940 proposed in 1988 to $2,403,935 in 1997. • There seems to be some support for special assessments, or City-wide fee surcharges for generating park and recreation operational or capital improvement revenues. 12 • PRO«~. ~ai3 Staff Input The Master Park Plan Sub-Committee invited City Staff to talk about their areas of expertise. Each was asked to discuss the current status of their area, immediate needs and recommendations for the future. Those who appeared before the committee included: Frank White Parks, Design & Programs Randy Hughes Parks, Operations & Maintenance Steve Devich Enterprise Funds Bill Nikituk Safety Issues in the Parks Karen Shragg Wood Lake Nature Center Mike Eastling Storm Sewers, City Maintenance Facility Lil Hipp Community Center Public Input: • Community Service Commission members were asked for input, as were contacts from various civic organizations, athletic associations and schools. • The Master Park Plan Sub-Committee and the Community Services Commission toured the Maplewood, Shoreview and New Brighton Community Centers. • Several community open houses were held to gather citizen input on the outdoor pool and a potential community center with an indoor pool. Citizens were encouraged to call City Hall with comments. • After MAC's announcement regarding the land currently used for East Richfield Ball Parks and Golf Course, two task forces were set up. The Task Force for Ball Park Replacement was made up of representatives from the athletic associations, the City and schools. Representatives from Rich Acres Golf Course and interested members of the citizenry made up the Golf Course Replacement Task Force. The Master Park Plan Sub- committee received reports from these groups regularly and approved their decisions. • Visions 2000 conducted a visioning forum on October 25, 1997 involving the leadership of civic organizations, City and School staff ,elected officials, members of the business community and interested citizens. Among all the suggested improvements to the quality of life in Richfield, the concept of a multi-use recreational center (the Urban Hometown Center) received the most support. • The City of Richfield hired Decision Resources, Inc. to conduct a survey of Richfield residents in 1997. The survey included questions on citizen satisfaction with park and recreation opportunities, and facility use. Questions about a new community center were also included. (See attachment X.) Results of the survey were presented to the Master Park Plan and the Community Service Commission at one of its meetings. • The committee members updated the 1989 Master Park Plan and presented it to the Community Services Commission. • 13 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 24 Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution approving the 1999 social service agency funding recommendations and authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements for service with those agencies funded by the City. Background: A Joint Grant Review Committee has been formed comprised of the Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council ((RCHSPC) and members of the Richfield Community Council. This joint committee handled the review of applications and will serve as the review and recommending group for City social service funds and for funds available to the Richfield Community Council (Revenue Enhancement/LCTS Funds). The following process was used in making funding recommendations. 1. Applications were mailed to prospective agencies. 2. The Joint Grant Review Committee met on November 16, 1998 to hear presentations from the applicant agencies and made the following recommendations. The Joint Grant Review Committee recommends the $89,850 of City Social Service Funds be allocated to the following agencies in the amounts indicated for 1999. 1997 Actual 1998 Actual Lutheran Social Services 1,200 1,200 Senior Community Services 7,880 8,320 Storefront/Youth Action 61,000 61,000 VEAP 4, 000 4, 000 Cornerstone 12,500 12,500 YouthNet 1,000 1,000 Sub Total 87,580 88,020 SHeRPA 18,400 19,040 Total 105,980 107,060 1999 Recommended 1,000 8, 890 61,900 4,000 13,060 1,000 89,850 19,710 109,560 The grant to SHeRPA is a City Council/Administration allocation. It is included only to indicate the City's total social service funding. The total amount requested in 1999 from all agencies for Social Service funding was $130,260. • • Il-~ Service categories being funded with social service funds are: Lutheran Social Service Senior Community Services Storefront/Youth Action Cornerstone (Adv. & .Int.) VEAP YouthNet Vulnerable Elderl Youth Children Families X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Recommended Motion Approve the resolution providing funding of certain human service agencies in the above listed recommended amounts for 1999. Basis of Recommendation: 1. All funding recommendations meet the funding principles (priorities) established for 1999 as indicated in the above service categories. 2. Progressively all agencies are developing more sophisticated evaluation measurement tools. 3. All agencies are very attentive to collaboration and several are linked with South Hennepin FamiLink and the Richfield Community Council. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Reject the recommendations of the Joint Grant Review Committee. The City Council could then make their own decisions. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on January 11, 1999 City Council agenda. Members of the Joint Grant Review Committee will be present to respond to any questions from the Council. Respectfully submitted, _...~ Jam s~ .Prosser City Hager JDP:ds • //-3 • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A REVISION OF THE 1999 BUDGET FOR OTHER AGENCIES DIVISION WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 1999 budget document on December 14, 1998 appropriating funds for personal services and other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year 1999; and. WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested revision of the 1999 budget appropriation in accordance with Charter provisions for determining the specific allocation of $89,850 of unallocated funds for the Legislative Department-Other Agencies Division of the General Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the funds be allocated as follows: Lutheran Social Services $ 1,000 Senior Community Services $ 8,890 Storefront/Youth Action $61,900 VEAP $ 4,000 Cornerstone $13,060 YouthNet $ 1,000 TOTAL $89,850 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manger be authorized to execute contractual agreements with the above-named agencies summarizing services to be provided to Richfield residents. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of January, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk U /~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 23 Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration of a request for an off-street parking permit to allow relocation of a house to 6701 Lyndale Avenue for use as a chiropractic clinic. Background: Richfield State Agency (RSA) is requesting an off-street parking permit to allow the relocation of a house to 6701 Lyndale Avenue. The house to be moved is currently located adjacent to the Richfield Bank & Trust parking lot at 67th and Harriet Avenue. The house has been previously remodeled for use as a professional. office. The property at 6701 Lyndale Avenue is currently used as a parking lot for employees of Richfield Bank & Trust. The chiropractic clinic at 660.1 Grand Avenue would be relocated to 6701 Lyndale Avenue as part of the Urban Village redevelopment project. Upon completion of the project, RSA would sell the site to the Zilkas, the clinic owners. Landscaping and fencing would be provided along the south and east sides of the property to provide screening for the adjacent single family neighborhood. The residential appearance of the house would be maintained. The property would be rezoned to C-1, neighborhood commercial, which permits small office uses of up to 2,500 square feet. The proposed building is 2,132 square feet in size. Twenty parking stalls would be provided behind the building. Recommended Motion: Approve the request for an off-street parking permit at 6701 Lyndale Avenue with the following .stipulations for RSA to implement prior to conveyance and all future property owners to assume responsibility thereafter: 1. That the existing front of the house, when relocated, face on Lyndale Avenue, consistent with the property's residential character and as a gateway to the Richfield Lake Area. 2. That a final landscape plan, consistent with the Richfield Lake Area Master Plan and including fence design as reviewed with the neighbors of the property, be approved by the Community Development Director and a cash escrow submitted. 3. That a lighting plan be approved by the Community Development Director. 4. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 5. That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public Works Director. IC~~- j 6. That the facades, scale, colors, textures of the exterior structure and- finish has to compliment the Urban Village development to the north and the single family residential area to the south, as determined by the Community Development Director. 7. If any signs are to be installed at any location on the site, a signage plan must be approved by the Community Development Director. Any proposed subsequent changes to approved signage must also be approved by the Community Development Director. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The house to be relocated is residential in design. 2. It is a link between the Urban Village and the adjoining residential property to the south. 3. Landscaping and fencing would be provided to screen the proposed use from the adjacent single family neighborhood. 4. Adequate parking would be provided. 5. The proposed development would comply with City performance standards, which regulate lighting, trash, stormwater management, and parking. Alternative Recommendation: Deny the request with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of this item is scheduled on the regular agenda of the City Council meeting on January 11, 1.999. Respectfully submitted, ,~ z' James ~ .Prosser City Manager JDP:ds • •\ ~ i ~ ~ C ~~ i ~ i ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ i' ~~ ~ Q ~~ ~~ ~ AQ. .~ of g Parking \ \\`~\\ Nonosed new 11 l ~i7TH ST ~, ., } Proposed Relocatton of Exist. 2 Story BRICK HOUSE ~ ,. ~ ~,~: k ``\ `+.. ~ ` -..,~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~~ `~1 • N6 9 ~~ ~ ,~ S2 ~ 6 ,~~„ d'2~ ~4 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 22 Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Public hearing on a preliminary plat for Richfield Urban Village for the area bounded by 66th Street on the north, Pleasant Avenue on the east, 67th Street on the south and Lyndale Avenue on the west. Background: Richfield State Agency is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the area encompassed by the Urban Village redevelopment project. The area is bounded by 66th Street on the north, Pleasant Avenue on the west, 67th Street on the south, and Lyndale Avenue on the west. The plat proposes to divide the property into separate lots for the different buildings, including the existing Richfield Bank & Trust building, the proposed .office and retail building, the medical clinic, the parking ramp, McDonald's, the assisted living building, and the apartment building. Outlots will be established for the access drives to the parking ramp. Cross access agreements will be established to allow use of the parking and access areas by all uses and by emergency vehicles. Recommended Motion: Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Richfield Urban Village. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Approval of the plat will facilitate timely development of the parcels; allowing a proper separation of the LHN and Urban Village tax increment districts and the financing and conveyance of separate elements of the Urban Village development. 2. Any necessary utility easements will be established and/or maintained. 3. Cross access agreements will be established to provide access to the parking ramp and access drives for all uses and for emergency vehicles. 4. The City Attorney has -reviewed the preliminary plat. 5. 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. 6. The approval of the preliminary plat is conditioned on the favorable completion of the environmental assessment process. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Approve the preliminary plat for the Urban Village development with revisions. ~r I 2. Do not approve the preliminary plat. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, January 11, 1999 in the Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. The final plat will likely be presented early spring. Respectfully submitted, Ja s D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds • • RESOLUTION NO. ! ~~ i RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION FOR RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY WHEREAS, Richfield State Agency has requested preliminary approval to combine several tracts of land bounded by 66th Street on the north, Pleasant Avenue on the east, 67th Street on the south and Lyndale Avenue on the west in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as RICHFIELD URBAN VILAGE; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat of RICHFIELD URBAN VILLAGE was held on January 11, 1999 at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. The proposed plat of RICHFIELD URBAN VILLAGE satisfies the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances. 2. Preliminary approval is granted to Richfield State Agency for the plat of RICHFIELD URBAN VILLAGE, subject to the following conditions: a. That cross access agreements be established to allow access to the outlots and parking ramp and that the cross access agreements be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. b. That utility easements be established in the final plat as determined to be necessary by the Public Works Director. c. That the developer submit an abstract of title or registered abstract of title, updated to a current date, to the City Attorney for review pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 505.03, subd. 1. d. The favorable completion of the environmental assessment process. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of January 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • m 8 ~„ F q ~ Rem o ~,~3 ~ ~ q~ o ~ i~ ~~ ~~''~ ~ ~~~ _ ; - ~~ ~~.. 'SOU ~', ~ ~ S -+, D~ O s, ~~ _ m ~~ y ~ ~ ~ ; w~~ . a~ o @ ~ ~$ P ~$ ~ \ ~ ~~. ~ 1EtlER ~ ~ \ I ~ r`~ ~i 4 $ ~~ ~ ' a Iy .•FWR_R1~7 ~ V , -~ ~ ~_~ ~ ~~'' F =_ _ t'-i i \` / _ "~./ , -•`~ i s p s °'-' AVENUE s '~ ,k T,- _... _ _ .._ __ _ s , 5 ~ "~~ ~ ¢~ aLb r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~l v ~ ~ I 'yam ft .I'Et.. _ _.. :i_. __0 O \~ {~. ,~ _ s ~~ _ ,~ i p 8 °$ ; x I -e .~ri ~ Q ~ m ~ ~ s s ~ _ c8 a r ~ _ I -dl i3 - _ -___ ii os _ J. ~ _ N ~~, a _ ~ - _. _. ~ ...... _ .... `p --- i ~~ =fit 31\ .,Y N ~~ A ~ 1 ~ ~ ~_ x ~ v o W r~ _ _ ~~ ~E a.a >; ~~ .~ m s : . o :` s o ;. . ~ ':° m .~ " -- = - - - i Rap Fa e€ Qi ~~ ~ i ~~ ~ :. I ~ ` ~ .. aQo~ ~ ~ I _ k ~ '. , ~ rrti- O m I ~ L1 ! ~ ~~ W Q N I " I W I N ~ ~- _ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ° _ - -~ - ~ -- - PLEASAKT~~ -A E , ~ fTB~ 8E YACA7EB} _- s ~4' 3 ~ ~ (~ V F _ - .. .. r.. aAa x III s~~l~ 9 N ~~~_£ C ~~ R n~ c R$~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ d, - s2 ~ B ~ y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 21 Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Conduct a public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance vacating portions of Pleasant and Grand Avenues and 67th Street rights-of-way for the Urban Village redevelopment project. Background: ' Richfield State Agency (RSA) is proposing to develop a mixed land use project at the southeast corner of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. The Urban Village proposal includes a mixture. of new housing choices, retail, office and public spaces. The proposal provides 90,000 sq. ft. of additional office/retail space, 216 housing units, a 550 to 650 space parking ramp and a relocated McDonald's to the corner of 67th and Lyndale. The housing types would include assisted living housing and townhome style apartments for the Pleasant/Grand block. RSA is requesting that portions of three streets be vacated for the proposed development. Grand and Pleasant Avenues would be vacated between 66th and 67th Streets. The north 25 feet of 67th Street would be vacated between Harriet and Pleasant Avenues. The south 35 feet of 67th Street would not be vacated but would be converted to a loop street between Grand and Pleasant Avenue and an access between Grand Avenue to the alley. Recommended Motion: Conduct a public hearing and hold second reading of a transitory ordinance vacating Grand and Pleasant Avenues from 66th to 67th Streets and the north 25 feet of 67th Street from Harriet to Pleasant Avenues. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The right-of-way is not needed for street or sidewalk purposes. 2. The right-of-way is needed for the Urban Village development. 3. Adequate access for emergency vehicles will be maintained. 4. The south half of 67th Street will be used to provide a loop street between Pleasant and Grand Avenues for the neighborhood to the south of Urban Village. Closing 67th Street will prevent Urban Village traffic from spilling into the residential neighborhood. 5. The southern portion of 67th Street will be used to provide access from Grand Avenue to the alley on this right-of--way. 6. The proposed loop streets have been reviewed with the neighbors south of 67th Street. Reactions were positive. ~~~ 7. Public Works and Public Safety staff find the street vacations acceptable. 8. RSA is responsible for the cost of installingthe loop streets and removal of abandoned utilities. 9. The right-of-way vacations will not be effective until a final plat is recorded. Appropriate utility easements will be established through the platting process. 10. First reading of the vacation was held on December 14, 1998. 11. 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. Deny this vacation. 2. Refer the vacation to the Planning Commission. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, January 11, 1998 in the Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. Respectfully submitted, • Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds w 8-a BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following described land is subject to an easement for public right-of--way purposes: That part of Grand Avenue South and Pleasant Avenue South lying between the south right-of-way line of West 66th Street and the north right-of-way line of West 67th and its easterly extension, and the north 25 feet of West 67th Street lying between the northerly extension of the centerline of Harriet Avenue South and the westerly line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. (refer to herein as the "Vacated Area") Sec. 2. The City of Richfield has initiated the vacation of the Vacated Area. Sec. 3. The Council finds that there will no longer be a public need for aright-of- way easement over the Vacated Area, as described in Section 1 of this Ordinance, if the proposed plat of Richfield Urban Village is approved and recorded. Sec. 4. The easement over the Vacated Area, as described in Section 1 of this ordinance, is hereby vacated, effective 30 days following publication or upon the recording of the plat of Richfield Urban Village, whichever date is later. If no such plat is filed within one year from the date of this ordinance, this ordinance shall be null and of no effect. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of January, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~-3 Proposed Street Vacations Urban Village ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ a~ 66th St __i ---~ / i i .i i ~' 67th St ---, ~-, ~~~ / ~ i ~~ a~ > / ~ / L ~ - ~ ~ _ ~ ~ a. --~~~; ~~ -_! ~ I 80 0 80 160 Feet - Streets to be Vacated N December 4, .1998 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA /'~ Council Letter No.2o / • Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Public hearing regarding a request for a final development plan and conditional use permit for the Urban Village redevelopment project. Background: Richfield State Agency (RSA) is proposing a comprehensive redevelopment of the southeast quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue, from Lyndale to Pleasant Avenues and 66th to 67th Streets. The proposal maintains the existing-bank and clinic buildings and provides 90,000 sq. ft. of additional office/retail space, 216 housing units, a 550 to 650 space parking ramp, and relocates McDanald's to the corner of 67th and Lyndale. The housing types would include assisted living housing south of the bank and townhome style apartments for the Pleasant/Grand block. The 90,000 sq. ft. of additional office/retail space would be located where the current McDonald's parking lot is located. Underground parking would be provided in the lower level. Retail space would be located on the first level and likely include a coffee shop, a restaurant with approximately 250 seats, possibly a second restaurant and additional retail. The clinic would occupy the second level and the bank would occupy the third level. • The HRA and Planning Commission have each formally discussed the Urban Village proposal on three occasions. The plan was presented at two city-wide open houses during the summer of 1998. The Pleasant /Grand neighborhood met in May 1998 and has received continuous information through the Mediation Center, City staff and City publications. The Pleasant/Grand residents have also met as a group and -had individual contact with RSA. RSA also arranged at least four meetings with residents south of the development and 67th Street. They also developed the loop road concept and mitigation plans for those concerned with the relocated McDonald's. In each meeting, there has been responsiveness to concerns expressed as the following paragraphs describe in greater detail. One hundred and thirty-eight housing units would be provided in the Pleasant/Grand block. These townhome and apartment flat-style units would include both one and two- level dwellings. Twelve of the units would be affordable to households at 70 percent of the median income for the metropolitan area (an annual income of approximately $30,000). The remainder of the units would be affordable to households with an annual income of $35,000 to $60,000. This income level is similar to that served by the HRA's Richfield Rediscovered program. Underground and on grade parking would be provided for the multi-family housing. A three story building with 78 units of assisted living and underground parking would be located along 67th Street. A 640-space parking ramp would be located in the middle of the development and provide parking for all planned uses. Parking and skyway connections during evening hours would be available to support future development in the RLAP area. RSA is developing a security plan to ensure safe use of the ramp and common areas. ~~~ The McDonald's currently located in the lower1evel of the bank would be relocated to the corner of 67th and Lyndale. Fifty-nine parking spaces would be available directly to • the east of the McDonald's. An odor filtration system would be installed to minimize odors from the restaurant. A litter pick-up plan would be implemented to minimize this impact. Screening will be provided on the south side of 67th Street to screen headlights for the neighborhood. The bank drive-through teller services would be moved closer to the bank building to the north of McDonald's. Based on discussions with the south neighborhood, Public Works and Public Safety staff, RSA is proposing to .vacate the north 25 feet of 67th Street, east of Harriet Avenue. The south 35 feet of the right-of--way would be converted into a loop street between Pleasant and Grand Avenues and a connection from the alley to Grand Avenue. The loop streets will not allow drive through access between the. neighborhood and the Urban Village development. Grand and .Pleasant Avenues, between 66th and 67th Streets, would also be vacated. The developer voluntarily agreed to perform an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), although one is not required. The EAW was completed and has been published in the Environmental Quality Board Monitor for comments. The published EAW concludes that there are no significant impacts that warrant preparation of an Environmental .Impact Statement. The public comment period will not be completed until the second week of February. City Council approval of the final development plan and conditional use permit will be contingent upon a favorable finding to the EAW. (The EAW will be presented to the City Council at their February 22, 1999 meeting.) • Property owners in the Pleasant/Grand block were contacted several months ago about their interest in selling. To date, RSA has reached or is near agreement to purchase 9 of the 15 homes. Negotiations are underway for the six others and mediation services to assist with negotiations have been offered. One of the remaining homeowners has clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the decision by the HRA to redevelop the Pleasant/Grant block and the compensation package offered by RSA. Three have a wide range of difference with the compensation package. Two are unresponsive to RSA's contacts. Some initial discussion between RSA and attorneys for these two homeowners has helped. Recommended Motion: Conduct a public hearing and approve a final development plan and conditional use permit for the Urban Village redevelopment project with the following stipulations: 1. That a signage plan be approved by the Community Development Director. That detailed plans regarding pedestrian lighting, pedestrian circulation trash receptacles, benches, and bike racks be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. 2. That a detailed landscape plan, including existing trees to be saved and/or relocated where possible and streetscaping, be approved by the Community Development Director and a landscape escrow or letter of credit be submitted. 3. That screening be provided on the south side of 67th Street between the development and the residential neighborhood and the final design of fencing, berming and landscaping be coordinated with adjacent property owners and ~,~~ approved by the Community Development Director. • 4. That final plans for the loading area be approved by the Community Development Director. 5. That the property be replatted. 6. That a detailed right-of-way plan for 67th Street and the proposed loop streets be approved by the Public Works Director. 7. That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 8. That a sediment and erosion control plan, including tree protection measures as needed, be approved by the Public Works Director. 9. That a detailed design of the parking ramp be approved by the Public Works Director. 10. That the developer work with Metro Transit and the Public Works Department to incorporate transit in the development. 11. That the final internal traffic circulation plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 12. That a security plan for the parking ramp and common areas be approved by the Director of Public Safety. 13. That a plan for accommodating trash dumpsters, either inside structures or within enclosures, be approved by the Directors of Community Development and Public Safety. 14. That odor mitigation equipment be installed in the McDonald's building as approved by the Public Safety Director. 15. That McDonald's undertake measures to control McDonald's-related trash within the development and in the neighborhood to the south. 16. That the buildings be designed to accommodate future skyway connections as proposed in the RLAP Master Plan. 17. That the City Council review the environmental assessment process and information and make favorable findings. 18. That a conditional use permit resolution be recorded with Hennepin County. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed development uses, site design, landscaping and streetscape are • consistent with the design guidelines established in the RLAP Master Plan. 2. The s~e plan design is driven by the objective of providing the maximum amount of public and private green space and the minimum amount of surface parking. The architectural design creates a "village" character through the use of brick, rich detail and a diversity of texture and form. The use of brick and detail will be consistent between the residential and new commercial and parking to create a cohesive neighborhood appearance. 3. The development provides housing types that are currently lacking in Richfield including assisted living and market rate rental housing. 4. The appearance of parking is minimized through the use of under-building parking and a shared public-private parking ramp. 5. The mix of uses have different peak hours of use so shared parking can occur within the development and with other uses in the Richfield Lake area. 6. The development provides adequate parking for the proposed uses; there are 1,072 parking spaces proposed. The commercial/retail/office and multi-family components provide parking that meets City standards. Parking for the assisted living component is at 0.5 parking spaces per unit. This is less than the one space per unit normally required of standard senior housing; however, the nature of assisted living is such that less parking is needed. The proposed 59 stalls for McDonald's is slightly less than that required by the City's standard. This should provide adequate parking because of the large amount ofdrive-through traffic experienced by this McDonald's (70% of total traffic). The existing building, which is larger than the one proposed, has 44 parking stalls. This amount has proven to d ' s nee s. be adequate for the restaurant 7. The development strengthens the pedestrian experience along 66th Street through sidewalk/streetscape improvements, landscaping, lighting and new street level uses such as restaurants, coffee shop, and service commercial. The development also anticipates the future Soo Line trail connection. 8. An internal pedestrian circulation system is provided within the development along with private anti public outdoor green spaces. 9. Significant landscaping and streetscape will be provided in the development. Efforts will be made to save existing trees when possible. A preliminary survey indicates approximately 18 percent of the trees can be saved. An additional 21 percent may be saved, depending on specific building placement and tree location. An additional 34 percent may be relocated within the development depending on the actual size and condition of the trees. Twenty-seven percent of the trees will likely have to be removed but will be replaced with new landscaping. A definite indication of trees to be saved and relocated can be made once surveys can be taken of all the property and once construction plans are drawn. Trees designated to be saved will be protected during construction. 10. The traffic analysis indicates that key intersections will provide the same level of service as they currently do. The expected increase in left turning traffic, particularly on the south approach to the 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue intersection may require revisions to the left turn signal phasing to decrease the amount of left turn stacking. There is currently a median cut on Lyndale Avenue~°"7 that would provide complete access to bank teller area. If in the future conditions warrant, the median cut would be closed. This would allow right-in, right-out only • access to this area. 11. The developer hosted several neighborhood meetings to review the plans with adjacent residents. The plans have been revised in response to neighborhood concerns that included traffic, odor and trash from McDonald's, appearance, and screening. 12. The proposed final development plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the area of Regional Commercial-Office. 13. The proposed final development plan is consistent with the Richfield Lake Area Master Plan. 14. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been published and the City, HRA and developer continue to work on the traffic and stormwater issues. No issues of significance are left unaddressed in the proposal. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Approve the request for a final development plan and conditional use permit with modifications. 2. Deny the request for a final development plan and conditional use permit. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7:OO p.m., Monday, January 11, 1999 in the Council Chambers,. Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. An affirmative vote of four Council Members is required for approval of a final development plan and PUD conditional use permit. The EAW will be reviewed and findings requested by the City Council at their February 22 Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, James .Prosser City Ma ager JDP:cak • ~,s w RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (6625 Lyndale Avenue) WHEREAS, an application has .been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of a conditional use permit for a mixed use development on land generally bounded by 66th Street on the north, Pleasant Avenue on the east, 67th Street on the south, and Lyndale Avenue on the west, legally described as: Lots 1-3, Block 1, Richfield Bank Addition Lots 1-8, Block 1, J.N. Hauser's Addition Lots 1-10, Block 1, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake Addition WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional use permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A conditional use permit is issued for a mixed use development, as described in City Council Letter No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. The conditional use permit is subject to completing the following conditions: • That a signage plan be approved by the Community Development Director. • That detailed plans regarding pedestrian lighting, pedestrian circulation trash receptacles, benches, and bike racks be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. • That a detailed landscape plan, including existing trees to be saved where possible and streetscape, be approved by the Community Development Director and a landscape escrow or letter of credit be submitted. • That screening be provided on the south side of 67th Street between McDonald's and the residential neighborhood and the final design of fencing, berming and landscaping be approved by the Community Development Director. • That final plans for the loading area be approved by the Community Development .Director. • That the property be replatted. • That a detailed right-of--way plan for 67th Street and the proposed loop streets be approved by the Public Works Director. • That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public Works Director. ~' l!/ • That a sediment and erosion control plan, including tree protection measures as needed, be approved by the Public Works Director. • That a detailed design of the parking ramp be approved by the Public Works Director. • That the developer work with Metro Transit and the Public Works Department to incorporate transit in the development. • That the final internal traffic circulation plan be approved by the Public Works Director. • That a plan for accommodating trash dumpsters, either inside structures or within enclosures, be approved by the Directors of Community Development and Public Safety. • That a security plan for the parking ramp -and common areas be approved by the Director of Public Safety. • That odor mitigation equipment be installed in the McDonald's building as approved by the Public Safety Director. • That McDonald's control McDonald's related trash within the development and in the neighborhood to the south. • That the buildings be designed to accommodate future skyway connections as proposed in the RLAP Master Plan. • That the City Council review the environmental assessment process and information and make favorable findings. • That this resolution be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1. 3. The. conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of January, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • ~ {~ .~` ~ u` 3 ~~ ~a ,'t~ ~` ~~, ,~ ~~ ~ ~y ~i~ J 0 0 M ~ / b ~ I, j j i ~yli~i~y~ltt#j1~ dSFt lFlt(afjldf!! lEi3:i til~S~~~bf~}df~f~iii ifi tiT~ I r<o y~~OS~ \ ~i~N~~ ~ J W ~~ 1 c 1 F~ o i e j~o i{{ oS~; 0 ~11 Ldtd o is ~' ~ i ~-z-~ .~ w V Q ti Q Q ti w a o, F V s f Z I ~. y i~ 2 'Q Iw O N b O a U Q~ Z t9 E O 0~. V Nz a ~- ~~ ~2 ~-~ ~~~ ooo~oooo "''~~rr 0 ~~ ~~ ow ~4 .~ .~ .- , $ ~ ~,. :.. ---------------------s_~S__ -= ~ o _~ r ~~! ~ ~ ~ @ c ~, Z ~ ~. c~Q ~ O ~ s ~I y ~.~ b y 3 z 4 S 6 - . ., ., ~. ~, ~; ~: J ~-----~ ._._.~ ....... ;. y ~~ Oa ~. 3 ,r ~ `~ ~ ` - --- `------ - ------ t O~ ~ ~ I 1 9 O o° ' $~~' ~ ~; b'H !ii ~ <~' ~ ~ ~ '"fib i ~' d \\ ~ ~~ ® e ~~ S ~ ~~ 9 ~llf ~fj~OS ~ ,~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~i~ ry $b `~ UUUU Y I ~ I ~ ~ ~, i ~ ~~ E i. i ~, P ~~ ~',, ~, w ~_ ._.~'J ~. '~ ~ ' ' a ~ a i i ~ i \ ////, / ~ % y ~ __ > - . . . , .. , :._..... .. t ~ ~i .. ,. .. • U ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •d0.1HJIa3liN3AY1Nb'S13'ld Yl _ S ~ D ~ ^~ C ~~ b ~ ~ ---- t,-~-- [~ 0 b b b ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ---~--- - -~._.J_•~_ ( ~vMyo-lN~iaanNanvaNVao I _ _ ~_-_.T__~. ~ ~~I~ ~9~ ® O ~~^~ C ~ . , ~ anNanv laiaavrr _ __ ~ ~ W ~ ~ 6 ` ~ \ •,• ~ "" j ~~N ` • i'IY ~~~~~ W ti x h ~, ~ -~•; o; -- _ _- .- ~ _ f~~ ~,; J w wm g~C z w_r0 p LL r ~1~ 2 ~~y~~ 3 ~ z ~ y w ~ ~r, o W F ~ ~ ~~ ~c~~ ~~~ Nzc~ < ~a~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~y~ d ~ ~ y~r a ~ ~ ~ r2 ~ ~W H ~ ~~LL 1'W R y > t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ g~? {~ t ~C ~ ~~~~~~ Z LL =r m ~~~ O ® O O m . 9> ~ ~~~~ Fz~LL~~ ~<~~~g ~~-~~ ~°~~~ ~~ 1~ ~ 6 ~~ ~~ ~~ ° r ~ L ~ eeFF 2E ® ® xx L(L( `~ ~ ~~ i -~ yy $t i~ EE ~fG \ ' ~ t - ~ ~ 1 ® ®#'c` i. ve: :E° ® ®" ~;~> ® # m 5@ ~8 ~~ ;~ _ j _ v® O ~ ® ® ~ ®8 F g€ ~ ® ~~ LL' ~ ' ~@ ,j g E } 44 ~ ~ ® p § ~€ i 9E ~i .. ~; ; ~~ (~ ~;; LLS~I ~~~ ~ 0 4 ~@ 6 f ~ .] , .1 m S' r1 !~ m ~ ~ ,a ~E o m F€ ~ 3~. ~ ---- € 9E ~~E < ;~ ~ ~ v~ < ~ R~ e ~ ~ ~ ci b V Z O N V .~ Q' w O h W O, N b O a i! ~~. r. . q ~ 4: ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ii - u ~ r ~~ n i i ~ I~ ~® ~ i ~~1I y0 g~ '. . ~ .j . , e E ~~~ ® 9. 3 >. `: ::. ~e Yc ! ~.. ... ~ ~€ ~~ ® ~ Y ® ~~ ® 90 _ ~~ ~ I ® ~t u ~ y SEa ----- -- ` ~ ~ 3~,~ '1 a Elf t@ ~ ' -- ~ ~ F 9E m m ~ -- 7 ~i ~~''~~ Ft ~t iCD" ~~ ~ Y ~~E ~, ~~ y~ ~ ® ® Y [.e ~ ® ijVQ ~ s~ 4~E 1~ Y~~ ~ ~. E ® Y$~ F[9 ~ 9, Y p ~ ~E ~ ® ~E ~~E ® ~s ~E ® ~~ z o °- ~E o ®® o ~9 ~ < ~ ® ® a ~ ® ,~', ~~ . .1 . .7 ~ E" ": i I z ~~ m ~ ~~ 7 f ~ ® ® ® x ~ V ] ipb gg~gp 4 ~ ~..~ t g 9~_ r ® ® G ~ ~ ® ® ~' ~ F j 3 3 ~ a a U Z N Z H .1 Q N Q w 0 a w V A a m s z O ' J W' C Rl ' V O N b ~ 0 6 U a d 6 Z 0 z NO a `i A _~ _. ;.. / I d~-- • - PROJECT VISION Section 1 ~ ~ (~ The Vision -The Creation of a Residential Commercial Mixed-Use Urban Village at the Southeast Corner of 661h and Lyndale The compelling opportunity provided by the City'of Richfield within the Pleasant and Grand redevelopment initiative is the creation of an integrated urban village master plan at the Southeast quadrant of 66`h.and Lyndale. The design vision in this proposal combines the Pleasant and Grand block with the Richfield State Agency parcel to create the integrated mixed-use precinct. This precinct design will build on and support the City of Richfield vision for a more attractive, pedestrian friendly ,and economically viable Downtown Richfield at. Lyndale and 66'". • KEY RICHFIELD URBAN Fundamental to the site and architectural design of the Pleasant and VILLAGE DESIGN Grand/Richfield State Agency Urban Village Plan are the following principles: PRINCIPLES • Providing new, mid-density residential building types to serve a diversity of user groups potentially including seniors,and market rate and affordable rental. Development of a precinct wide parking strategy which provides under building parking at all mid density residential buildings and a shared public- private parking ramp to minimize surface parking and maximize public green space. Development of comprehensive landscape and streetscape design with the City of Richfield which creates an integrated urban village character for the SE quadrant and the 66" and Lyndale place. • Development of an architectural expression for the residential buildings which • establishes a quality and .spirit for the Downtown Richfield Urban Village Retontng/P[1D Amendment Application Elness Swenson Graham Architects Inc. fXly oJRidyleid Nouernber 12, 1998 ~-i3 • PROJECT VISION Page 2 while appropriately relating to the Holy Angels Campus and the single-family neighborhood to the south. • Development. of architectural building types which create a hierarchy of private and public outdoor spaces through the use of courtyards and gardens. • Develop Richfield urban village architectural design standards to create a sense of neighborhood and to tie the new residential buildings together with the proposed 66`" and Lyndale street front commercial. It is essential to create a unified architectural expression at the SE quadrant to provide a sense of neighborhood. • Creation of internal urban village pedestrian "green" walkway systems consistent with the City of Richfield Lake Area Concept Plan. ,Walkways to link-the new residential at Grand and Pleasant to the street and surrounding amenities. • Provide user-friendly precinct transit related amenities. • Strengthen the pedestrian experience along 66'" from Pleasant Avenue to Lyndale Avenue through sidewalk/streetscape improvements, landscaping, lighting and the introduction of new street level uses such as restaurants, coffee shop, service commercial, community health and residential support spaces. • Strengthen the pedestrian experience along Lyndale from 66'" to the Wood Lake area through design strategies as stated above. • Strengthening 67`" Street definition from Pleasant to Lyndale through architectural definition, landscaping, boulevard trees, and traffic calming. • Rewrttng/PUD M~endment Applfcatton F.fness Swenson Graham ArchUects Irtc ~ ollz~[d Na~ember 12, 7998 ~~"~ `~ PROJECT VISION ' Page 3 RICHFIELD URBAN VILLAGE A Mid Density Approach To Residential Architectural Type PROGRAM • • Through an analysis of the on-going Richfield Lake Area Redevelopment Study and Concept Plan our team feels that a mid-density approach to new residential development at the Pleasant and Grand block is most appropriate. Our definition of mid-density is two to three story residential buildings over .underground parking. Within this architectural building type a variety of rental units can be created including one level, two level and townhouse style residences. The mid-density residential building type will allow for an architecturally integrated urban village to be created from the new residential and proposed street front commercial buildings. .The mid-density residential buildings can provide the appropriate transition from the 66'" and Lyndale core to the Holy Angels Campus and the single-family neighborhood to the south. Retorttn9/PUD Mtiendment APPUoaUort Elness Swenson Gnaluun ArchUecfs Inc Cthj oJRtdVteld Nouerrtber 12, 1998 X1-1 S S PROGRAM NARRATIVE Section 2 RICHFIELD URBAN VILLAGE In addition to the residential redevelopment at the Pleasant and Grand site the PROGRAM proposed Richfield Urban Village program includes the following new uses on the Richfield State Agency site; • • • Approximately 23,000 sq. ft. of new street level restaurant and commercial service uses along 66th and Lyndale. • Approximately 25,000 sq. ft. of expanded medical office space on the second level above the new street level restauranUcommercial. • Approximately 25,250 sq. ft. of Richfield Bank office expansion on the third level. • Anew relocated McDonalds restaurant at the corner of Lyndale and 67'h • An approximately 78-unit assisted living and health services courtyard style residential building with underground parking. • A shared private-public parking garage for approximately 706 cars to serve the restaurant, commercial, residential -visitor, and general public parking needs. • An urban village network of pedestrian walkways and green spaces to link all uses together and to connect the SE quadrant to the surrounding context. • Transit related waiting are~.s and drop-off amenities. Reiadng/t'UD Amendment AppUcatlon Elness Swenson Graham ArcfUtects Inc. ~ ~RkFyield Nouernber 12, 1998 ~~ C7 PROGRAM NARRATIVE Page 2 Pleasant and Grand Block Residential Program The residential program as illustrated calls for 138 dwelling units within ahigh- quality courtyard style residential building at the Pleasant and Grand block. The site plan design is driven by the objective of providing the maximum amount of '~ public and private green space and the minimum amount of surface parking. The site plan is highly integrated into an overall urban village site design which provides desired internal pedestrian green connections, courtyards and garden opportunities. The architectural design is driven by the objective of creating a Richfield Urban Village Character through the use of brick, rich detail and a diversity of texture and form. The use of brick and rich detail will be consistent between the Pleasant and' Grand residential and the proposed new restauranUcommercial/ parking to create a cohesive neighborhood. Residential Occupancy Types The program for the Pleasant and Grand multi-family component calls for 138 rental apartment dwelling units. The program being proposed modifies the 132-unit rental apartment program submitted earlier to provide a combination of market rate and affordable units. Primary Residential User Groups The primary baseline market niche is a diverse rental market including singles, couples, empty nesters and seniors who want to live in a quality rental community. The location at 66'" and Lyndale is ideal for residents working downtown or in the south suburban area. Remnlny/PUD Amendment App1[catton Elness Swenson Grnlwrrt Architects Inc. GYty oJRkt~jield November 12, 1998 '1-1'I SCHEDULE/PHASING PLAN Section 3 SCHEDULE/PHASING PLAN Developer would propose to start construction in the spring of 1999. See site plan sheet C1 for phasing area limits. Phase 1: Removal of houses and construction of parking ramp and McDonald's (Feb. 1999-Oct. 1999). Phase 2: Construction of multi-family housing (Apr. 1999 -Mar. 2000). Phase 3: Construction of commercial office space, clinic, restaurant and retail (Oct. 1999 -Sept. 2000). Phase 4: Construction of senior assisted living facility (Oct. 1999-Sept. 2000). C7 R~ezor-Ing/PUD Amendment Appitoatfon Elness Swenson Gnat uun Arrititects lnc. ~ ollttcll/tekt November 12, 1998 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.i9 Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Public hearing on a planned unit development. plan for the Urban Village redevelopment project and public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning land between 66th and 67th Streets and Grand and Pleasant Avenues from R (single family residential) to PC-2 (planned- general commercial) and rezoning land at 6701 Lyndale from PC-2 to C-1 (neighborhood commercial}. Background: Richfield State Agency (RSA) is proposing to construct a mixed land use development. at the southeast corner of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. The Urban Village proposal includes a mixture of new housing choices, retail, office and public spaces. The proposal provides 90,000 sq. ft. of additional office/retail space, 216 housing units, a 550-650 space parking ramp and a relocated McDonald's at the corner of 67th and Lyndale. The housing types would include assisted living housing and townhome style apartments for the Pleasant/Grand block. The. property at 6701 Lyndale is currently a parking lot and is part of the existing RSA planned unit development plan. RSA is proposing to move the brick house that is located adjacent to the bank and clinic parking lot at 67th and Harriet to 6701. Lyndale Avenue. The property will then be sold to the owners of a chiropractic clinic who are being relocated from their office at 66th Street and Grand Avenue. Since the ownership of 6701 Lyndale will be separate from that of the Urban Village, a rezoning to C-1 (neighborhood commercial), while not required, would be appropriate. The City Council was asked at the first reading to initiate the rezonings because the developer does not yet have title to all parcels. The developer voluntarily agreed to perform an EAW, although one is not required. The EAW was completed and has been published in the Environmental Quality Board Monitor for comments. The conclusion of the EAW is that projected impacts do not warrant preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The public comment period will not be completed until early February. City Council approval of the planned unit development and rezoning would be contingent upon a subsequent finding by the City Council of no significant impact for the EAW. Recommended Motion: Conduct a public hearing and approve a planned unit development plan for the Urban Village redevelopment project and second reading of an ordinance rezoning land between 66th and 67th Streets and Grand and Pleasant Avenues from R to PC-2 and rezoning land at 6701 Lyndale from PC-2 to C-1 with the following stipulation: 1. This ordinance shall become effective on such date as all subject parcels are held in common ownership by Richfield State Agency or 30 days following publication or when the environmental assessment process has been favorably completed, whichever is later. • • Ba~~ f Recommendation: 1. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the: Pleasant/Grand site is Regional Commercial/OfFce. The Regional Commercial/Office designation supports commercial and multiple family development. 2. Mixed use development in the City is permitted through a planned unit development. The PC-2 district allows uses that are allowable in the C-2 district. Retail, offices, townhomes and multi-family housing are all allowable in the C-2 district. 3. The C-1 district permits small office structures up to 2,500 square feet and office uses such as a chiropractic clinic. 4. The Comprehensive Plan recommends attached single family housing for the 6701 Lyndale property. The proposed C-1 (neighborhood commercial) zoning is, however, more consistent with this designation and with the adjacent residential neighborhood than the existing PC-2 zoning. The proposed C-1 zoning is also consistent with the Richfield Lake Area Master Plan. 5. The rezoning will not be effective until RSA owns title to all properties and the environmental assessment process has been favorably completed. 6. This development is consistent with the Richfield Lake Area Master. Plan recently accepted by the City Council and HRA. 7. This development is consistent with a redevelopment plan recently approved by the HRA and City Council. 8. The HRA has approved a Contract for Private Development with Richfield State Agency for this site. 9. The City Council conducted first reading of the rezoning on December 14, 1998. 10. On December 22, 1998, The Planning Commission voted 4-1 in favor of the planned unit development plan and rezoning. Alternative Recommendation: Deny this planned unit development plan and rezoning. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, January 11, 1999 in the Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. An affirmative vote of four City Council .members is required to approve this item. Respec ully submitted, James .Prosser City Manager JDP:cak BILL NO. ~p''~ AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: 1.01 Appendix 1, which describes the boundaries of various zoning districts of the City, is hereby amended in the following respect: A. Section 2, Paragraph (15) is added to read as follows: (15) M-6 (SE Corner, 67th and Lyndale) Lots 24 and 25, Block 4 Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake. B. Section 7, Paragraph (4), is amended to read as follows: (4) M-6 LSE corner 66th and Lyndale) Lots 1-3, Block 1, Richfield Bank Addition; Block 1 JN Hauser's Addition; and Block 1, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake. 2.01 This amendment constitutes a rezoning of 6701 Lyndale Avenue from PC-2 to C- 1and of the following parcels from R to PC-2: 6601 Grand Avenue, 6607 Grand Avenue, 6615 Grand Avenue,. 6621 Grand Avenue, 6627 Grand Avenue, 6635 Grand Avenue, 6645 Grand Avenue, 301 West 66th Street, 307 West 66th Street, 6614 Pleasant Avenue, 6620 Pleasant Avenue, 6626 Pleasant Avenue, 6630 Pleasant Avenue, 6640 Pleasant Avenue, and 6644 Pleasant Avenue. 3.01 This ordinance shall become effective on such date as all subject parcels are held in common ownership by Richfield State Agency or 30 days following publication or when the environmental assessment process has been favorably completed, whichever is later. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of January, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • ^ ~ / Ex~st~ng Zoning Urban Village -~_ Y ~, =~~_~r ~' "r%iY ~ f =y=:. {:.}":iF{-'~.-"~-itq'+_.-_ ~ +vv '- y~ iii } __-sievwmii v_- vr __J.__iri.._v____~rx ___ _ . _ :.J-s-.:.rC.:iw:::: - _ {. i=i?iiii:}% Y'H+ii= _r{ti_ _ ri:Ji- -66th St {: ~~[ ~ .• {x:} { ~: }{tea-" :iiii:? _ ^W' / ~~ ~/ ~~ - ~ ~''^^ YI ._ ~ a Zoning 2 100 0 100 200 Feet PC-2 PMR December 4, 1998 O R N ~~~ Proposed Zoning Urban Village xk_~~ r - _r ~_z...:~:..: "i9iJ 4~ 4vv- "v}•v _ - i}eiA.Y :irai.hf ___- 4iYii:_^.,'.~v ii:^:~__ftiy I ~___r. _ tiri:t:r i+• :__}._::iiii::iitiii:"iii '.Z-=r_ .. :{..s:_y= :v_%{y-i :3~i~.t.:= = iii.::~ru..v::ii ii"riixv=.v}}.:.:. .-i:~: '.'-viiav:::~r vv ::v. •^••v-:t.:t::::::is::'f:•:.-::::.fi_.+_+~::.:__:.. !!-:-ii``:r`:::$rr:~:.i•:': _._:. :kk-i: - 66th St ___ > _ ~ Q Q ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ Zoning C-2 PC-2 100 0 100 200 Feet PMR 0 R - C-1 N December 4, 1998 :5~. ,~ • •i ~i ~~~ 0000000 ~-~ . ,,~~ i a o~ ao r s :, .: •--------------------s_~s__ ' o ~~~ i ~ bs 3~ j ` ~~O ~~ ~ UU 3 ~ `' 0 ~ S~ o~ O U ?j y`~ Y1.~ ' ry \\ I II ' L+ Q `~ 3 k! s Y , ® i ~~ EE U ~. ,~ d s k ~ a a ~° ~ ~ d ~ ® ~ ®~. ~ ~ d~ "° ® ~ 9 8 •~. ~'~v ~ .,ao~, `~ W U ~ P "~P~ v G P~ W4 u V ~a I ' ;: ., .. ,: ~. ~. .__.._: , ,. ,. . . r ....._. __._. 3 ~.._ .,_._--~ .. ,~ r ~ ' N i ~ ~-------i----°----~-------- 3l1 N3i1 b' s VFI ~mK r 7N '"~'- :-J m ~ Q '~'~b '~ U ,3 ` q~ ~..,,Jf ~I.1" ~ ~, ~` ~~ t,,, ~' ? ;. /i. ~.,~ ~~````````` / Q i~11 / /' Q ~ i .~ °tt ~ a C7 i / ~ O i .~ i i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~,~ Council Letter No. is Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Purchase of a front end loader with wing and plow attachments. Background: The City Council policy resolution. on purchasing provides that when the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or construction exceeds $25,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The Garage Motor Pool has three four-wheel drive (4WD) articulated loaders. Unit No. 192, a 1973 model 9506 Caterpillar loader, is due for replacement in 1999. The life expectancy for this model has been extended far beyond its original 15 years. This piece of equipment is used to plow snow, load materials and excavation work. Purchase of a new loader with wing and plow attachments has. been coordinated with the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program, of which Richfield is a participant. St. Joseph Equipment Company submitted the lowest responsible bid for this type of vehicle specified, at a cost of $143,969.58 (including tax). The approved 1999 Garage Motor Pool budget contains a total of $170,000 for the loader and attachments. Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to St. Joseph Equipment in the total sum of $143,969.58 for a Case 721 C loader with attachments. Basis of Recommendation: 1. St. Joseph Equipment submitted the lowest responsible bid per state specifications. 2. Staff. does not believe a better price can be obtained through a responsible vendor. Alternative Recommendation: Council may reject this purchase and instruct staff to obtain bids outside of the Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program. Discussion/Decision Mode: The "window" of opportunity to purchase this piece of equipment ends January 31, 1999. Council may wait until the next scheduled meeting; however, staff would like to order this equipment early for a timely delivery date. Respectfully submitted, James .Prosser City Manager JDP:ds JH CITY OF RICHFIELD, M{NNESOTA Council Letter No. 17 Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Approve the resolution to authorize the City of Richfield to apply for the 1999 municipal grant from Hennepin County. Background: The City of Richfield receives a municipal recycling grant from Hennepin County each year. This is given to Richfield residents quarterly on their utility bill. The purpose of the recycling credit is to promote recycling in the Richfield community. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution allowing the City of Richfield to continue to receive this grant as part of the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Program. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The resolution of application authorizing filing of application and execution of agreement is required to apply for this grant. 2. Richfield supports the residential recycling program a part of environmental management. 3. The. City would act as a community partner and would not incur any expense. Alternative Recommendation: Do not approve the recommendation. This means Richfield would not have an opportunity to receive funds for their efforts in the recycling program in Hennepin County. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council is asked to take action at the January 11, 1999 Council meeting because of the February. grant deadline. Respectfully submitted, Jam .Prosser City Manager JDP:cak ~~l RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF MUNICIPAL GRANT APPLICATION FOR 1999 HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM WHEREAS, Hennepin County provides annual grants related to residential recycling programs; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield desires to participate in the residential recycling grant program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Richfield City Council of the City of Richfield: 1. That a municipal grant application be processed for participation in the 1999 Hennepin County Residential Recycling Program. 2. That the City Manager of the City of Richfield is hereby authorized and directed to execute and file such application with Hennepin County Department of Environmental Management. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of January, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk A ~~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 16 Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution authorizing an agreement between the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, and the City of Richfield, Department of Public Safety pertaining to grant funds for the Community-Oriented Policing (COPS) Overtime Program. The period of this agreement would be September 1, 1998 through August 31, 1999. Background: The Richfield Public Safety Department, Police Division, submitted an application for FY 99 COPS overtime grant funds (copy attached) after being notified that funds would. be available, if approved. The amount of the request wasfior $34,000 and indicated that funds would be used for a proposed community police project that would implement a mobile police substation by utilizing the department's 35-foot motor home. The police mobile substation (PMS) would become an extension of the police division and would target high crime areas and neighborhoods experiencing crime problems. The department has been notified that the application has been approved; however, the approved grant amount is .$7,000. Attached is a copy of the approved agreement. • Recommended Motion: Council approval of the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of a $7,000 grant from the State Department of Public Safety COPS Overtime Program, which would be used for payment of overtime for one Police Sergeant and two Police Officers at the police mobile substation seven times during the extent of the grant period. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Approval of the resolution will allow uniformed officers to be highly visible in problem areas, creating a very strong police presence. 2. The PMS will place officers out in the neighborhoods on a regular basis in open, friendly, non-threatening environments such as apartment complexes, neighborhoods, City parks and retail shopping areas. This will provide an opportunity for the citizens and officers to get to know each other. 3. The City of Richfield has four neighborhood policing districts with specific officers and sergeants assigned to each district. When the PMS is in a district, it will be staffed by at least one of the officers from that district. When the PMS is in a retail business area, it will be staffed by at least one of the officers assigned to that business area. • ~~~/1 • 4. Richfield Public Safety has been the recipient of grant funds from the MN Public Safety Department in the past. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council could disapprove the resolution .which would void said agreement. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council approval of the resolution authorizing the acceptance of the $7,000 grant from the State Department of Public Safety by the City of Richfield,. Public Safety Department, Police Division, is requested at this time. Respectfully submitted, James D rosser City Man ger JDP:ds • ~~ • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT ACCEPTANCE OF FY 99 COPS OVERTIME GRANT FUNDS FROM STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 1999 WHEREAS, the Minnesota. Department of Public Safety (hereinafter referred to as STATE) is the agency responsible for administration of funds available to the State of Minnesota under provisions of Minnesota Statutes 299A.62 for the Community- Oriented Policing (COPS) Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the STATE is authorized under provisions of Minnesota Statutes 299A.62 to make grant contracts from state funds to qualified applicants; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department (hereinafter referred to as GRANTEE) is authorized to accept State funds to be used for overtime payment to police officers; and WHEREAS, THE GRANTEE is duly qualified and willing to .carry out the tasks as outlined in the grant proposal and the accompanying agreement with the STATE. i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for the purpose of overtime payments totaling $7,000 in connection with the Police Mobile Substation (PMS) during the period September 1, 1998 through August 31, 1999. James D. Prosser, City Manager, is hereby authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Richfield. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of January, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • oRi~iN~~ . STATE OF MINNESOTA ~~ _~ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FY 99 COPS OVERTIME GRANT AGREEMENT SFY 1999 Fund 100 Agency No. POT Org/Sub 6150 Appr. Unit 681 Entry Locn Object Code 5800 Req. No. 6000-175 Contract No. 6000-180 Order No. 6000-180 Vendor Number Commodity Code Total Obligation Report Category 016882006 7,000.00 THIS .COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, (hereinafter called the STATE) and City of Richfield, Minnesota 55423, Richfield Police Department, 6700 Portland Avenue South ,Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (hereinafter called GRANTEE), witnesseth that: WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety is the agency responsible for administration of funds available to the State of Minnesota under provisions of Minnesota Statutes 299A.62 for the Community-Oriented Policing (COPS) Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the STATE is authorized under provisions of Minnesota Statutes 299A.62 to make grant contracts from state funds to qualified applicants; and WHEREAS, GRANTEE is authorized to accept state funds for the purpose specified in Attachment 1; and WHEREAS, GRANTEE represents that it is duly qualified and willing to carry out the-tasks described in Attachment 1, NOW, THEREFORE, the STATE and GRANTEE agree as follows: I. SCOPE, PURPOSE, AND -TASKS OF AGREEMENT. GRANTEE will carry out the tasks described in its application far grant funds (Attachment 1) which is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement. II. CONSIDERATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. A. Consideration for all services performed and goods or materials supplied by the GRANTEE pursuant to this grant shall be paid by the STATE as follows. 1. Compensation shall be consistent with the Program Line Item Budget, included in Attachment 1 of this agreement. 2. Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred by GRANTEE in performance of this agreement in an amount not to exceed NONE dollars ($0.00); provided, that the GRANTEE shall be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses in the same manner and in no greater amount that provided in the current "Commissioner's Plan" promulgated by the Commissioner of Employee Relations. GRANTEE shall not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expense incurred outside of the State of Minnesota unless it has received prior written approval for such out of state travel from the STATE. 1 of 5 COPS/Overtime Grant/Richfield Police Department ~~J he total obl'gation of the STATE for all compensation and reimbursements to GRANTEE shall not exceed 3. T tember 1,1998 through August 31,1999 . $7,000.00, from Sep B. Terms of Payment 1. Pa ments to the GRANTEE will be made by the STATE quarterly on a quarterly cost reimbursement Y basis. ents shall be made by the STATE promptly after GRANTEE'S presentation of invoices for services 2. Paym performed. Final invoices must be received within 45 days of the expiration date of this agreemen . an advance payment may be made after the grant agreement is fully 3. Upon GRANTEE'S written request, ercent of the budget total as determined necessary for executed, in an amount not to exceed 25°k p execution of GRANTEE'S obligations. Invoices for reimbursement must be identified in approved budget categories and submitted on a 4 roved b the quarterly basis within 20 days of the end date of the reporting period in a form app Y Department of Public Safely. Invoices will no f~ ccessor en office, Dep eipt of quarterly reports. Invor 01 arrrnent of Public Safety, Office of must be sent to: Pamela J. Docken, or he the Commissioner, 445 Minnesota Street Suite 1000, North Central Life Tower, St. Paul, MN 55 2128. 5. Pa menu are to be made from State funds obtain nesota SStatutes 299A 62. If at ny time sucOh funds Y Policing (COPS) Grant Program authorized by in become unavailable, this agreement shall be termite fmdnation,dG tRANTEE shall be entitled to pafyment the STATE to GRANTEE. In the event of su erformed for which State funds are available. determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily p The GRANTEE agrees to return any unused funds to the STATE. ro ect budget 6. The GRANTEE will expend grant funds allocated for this project according to the attached p 1 deviation included in Attachment 1 of this agreement. The GRANTEE will submit a revised budget for any of 10°,6 or more between the allowable funding categories. The revised budget must be approved by the STATE before any expenditures can be made based on the revised budget. unused funds to the STATE unless prior approval for an extension 7. The GRANTEE agrees to return any date of the has been granted by the Grants Administrator and a eaSTATE with n t30 days of the ending s been du y executed. Unused funds must be returned to th agreement. ursuant to this grant shall be performed III. CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT. All services provided by GRANTEE p e satisfaction of the STATE as determined in the SOO~d'nances~rulesa d regu ations9 GtRp,NTEE to th accordance with all applicable federal, state, the STATE to~be unsatisfactory, or performed in a violation o shall not receive payment for work found by federal, state, or local law, ordinance, rule, or regulation. AILURE TO COMPLY. The GRANTEE agrees to return funds to the STATE for. any work the STATE in its h/. F or erformed in violation of federal, state or local law, sole discretion determined to be unsatisfactory p ordinance, rule or regulation. DUCTION, SUSPENSION, OR TERMINATION OF FUNDING. If the GRANTEE does not fulfill obligations V. RE 2 of 5 COPS/Overtime Grant/Richfield Police Department ~~~ underthe agreement in a timely and proper manner; or if GRANTEE violates condfions of the agreement, the STATE may reduce, suspend, or terminate funding with a 30-day notice of the effective date of the action. GRANTEE shall be entitled to payment for work or service satisfactorily performed for which state funds are available. This grant contract may be canceled by e'dher party at any time with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party.. In the event of such a cancellation, GRANTEE shall be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for work or services satisfactorily performed. VI. TERMS OF GRANT. This grant contract shall be effective upon the date that the final required signature is obtained by the STATE, pursuant to MS 16C.05, Subd. 2 and shall remain in effect until August 31,1999, or until all obligations set forth in this grant contract have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. The GRANTEE may claim reimbursement for expenditures incurred for services performed on or after September 1,1998. . VII. STATE'S AUTHORIZED AGENT. The STATE's authorized agent for the purposes of this agreement is Pamela J. Docken, or her successor in office, Department of Public Safety, Office of the Commissioner, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1000, North Central Life Tower St. Paul, MN 55101-2128. Such agent shall have final authority for acceptance of GRANTEE'S services. VIII. REPORTING. GRANTEE will advise the STATE concerning project progress through such reasonable means as the STATE may find convenient. These will include the following, and shall be submitted to: Pamela J. Docken, or her successor in office, Department of Public Safety, Office of the Commissioner, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1000, North Central Life Tower St. Paul, MN 55101-2128. A. The GRANTEE will advise the STATE concerning project progress through the submission of quarterly reports as required by the STATE's Authored Agent These reports will be due within 20 days of the end of the quarter. B. Submission of a final evaluation report within 30 days after the termination date of this agreement. C. Submission of a final expenditure report within 30 days after the termination of this agreement. D. GRANTEE shall make any and all project records, reports and other data available to the STATE upon request; this includes submission of copies of any reports, data, surveys (including survey instruments), or other materials for review and comment before they are prepared in final form, and six copies of all materials produced by the project following production of the materials. E. Permitting periodic site visrts by the STATE's Authorized Agent, other STATE staff or other employees of the State of Minnesota on behalf of the STATE. F. If inrbated, partidpation in statewide data collecfion and cooperation with a designated evaluator on behalf of the STATE, for the purpose of statewide evaluation efforts and assistance with individual project evaluation plans. G. Participation in training and evaluation workshops may be required.• IX. ACCOUNTING, AUDIT AND RETENTION OF RECORDS. 3of5 COPS/Overtime Grant/Richfield Police Department ~ Cs -lo A. GRANTEE will establish a separate account of this project and will maintain fiscal records in accordance with S generally acceptable accounting principles. GRANTEE's records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices for this project shall be subject to the examination of the STATE's authorized agent and by the Legislative Auditor. B. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the GRANTEE relevant to this Grant Contract shall be subject to examination by contracting department and the Legislative Auditor for a minimum of soc years. X. NONDISCRIMINATION. As a condition of receiving support for this project, GRANTEE assures that it will meet all applicable requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (nondiscrimination on the basis of handicapping conditions), and of any applicable state cnril rights statutes. XI. ASSIGNMENT. GRANTEE will neither assign nor transfer any rights of obligations under this agreement without the prior wrrtten consent of the STATE. A. GRANTEE may subcontract to provide services as described in the work plan (Attachment 1). It is understood, however, the GRANTEE remains solety responsible to the STATE for providing the products and services described. B. Identification of source of funding. All repots, materials, conference documents, and any other products made available through this project, shall carry an acknowledgment that is was funded under provisions of the State of Minnesota (Commun'ity Oriented Policing Grant Program) and give credit to other party's participation. XII. AMENDMENT. Any amendments to this agreement shall be in writing, and shall be executed by the same parties who executed the original agreement, or their successors in office. XIII. LIABILITY. To the extent permitted by law, GRANTEE agrees to save and hold the STATE, its agents, and employees harmless from any and all claims or causes of action rising from the performance of this agreement by GRANTEE or GRANTEE'S agents or employees. This clause shall not be construed to bar any legal remedies GRANTEE may have for the STATE's failure to fulfill its obligations pursuant to this agreement. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 466, GRANTEE'S liability is governed by the Municipal Tort Claims Act. XIV. WORKER'S COMPENSATION. The STATE affirms that GRANTEE provided acceptable evidence of compliance with the workers compensation insurance coverage requirements of Minnesota Statutes, 176.181, Subdivision 2. XV. DATA PRNACY ACT. tt is expressly agreed that GRANTEE is not a member of or included within the health, education, criminal justice, or welfare systems for purposes of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act as a result of this agreement. If GRANTEE is independently required to comply with any requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, GRANTEE acknowledges that STATE shall not be liable for any violation of any provision of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act indirectly or directly arising out of, resulting from, or in any manner attributable to actions of GRANTEE. GRANTEE agrees to indemnify and save and hold the STATE, its agents, and employees harmless from all claims arising out of, resulting from, or in any manner attributable to any violation of any provision of the Minnesota Statutes, Sections 13.01-13.87, including legal fees and disbursements paid or incurred to enforce the provisions of this agreement. 4 of 5 COPS/Overtime Grant/Richfield Police Department ~'~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the grant to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. APPROVED 1. GRANTEE 2. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY By: By: Title: Title: Date Date: By: Title: Date 3. ENCUMBERED BY By: Date: Person(s) signing the agreement and obligating GRANTEE to the conditions of the agreement, must be authorized. A certified copy of the resolution authorizing here o~NTEE to enter into this agreement and designating person(s) to execute this agreement must be attached NOTICE TO GRANTEE: If GRANTEE is other than a g nnesota tax dentification numbe bf 'it does business with Section 270.66, to provide the social securrty number or M the State of Minnesota. This information may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws. Supplying these numbers could result in action to require you taxlauthorities and state personnel involved in the payment of These numbers will be available to federal and state state obligations. 5 of 5 COPS/Overtime Grant/Richfield Police Department Attachment 1 Page 1 of 9 ~~'g IvIINNESOTA DEPART'MENT' OF PUBLIC SAFETY FY99 C01~9~TY-ORIENTED POLICING (COPS) OVERTIlViE GRANTS PROGRAM CONTRACTING AGENCY: Use your legal name and full address. This is the fiscal agent with whom the grant agreement will be executed. Richfield Police Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 CONTACT MAILING ADDRESS: (If different than above) 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 P r o j e c t I City of Richfield Area Project Director Name Telephone Number Fax Number Contact Name: Fax Number Telephone Number Grant agreements will not be MN Tax ID # processed without these numbers: 8024817 TOTAL GRANT FUNDS $34,000 REQUESTED Start Date 9/1 /98 Lieutenant Todd Sandell 612/861-9835 612/866-0297 Lieutenant Todd Sandell 612/866-0297 End Date 8/31 /99 Federal Employee ID # 41-6005490 TOTAL GRANT FUNDS I 7,000.00 GRANTED 50 words or less in the space below: Project Summary - utilizin the department's The proposed community police Project is to implemenv~nlt be olme aln extension of the police department. The 35-foot motor home. The police mobile substation (PMS) PMS will target high crime area . Attachment 1 `_ _ a Page 2 of 9 r 2.Authorized Official JAMES D. PROSSER ~ 6700 PORTLAND AV S RICHFIELD MN 55423 (612 )861-9700 3.Operating Agency (if different from # 1) ata~ame ... , - ,,, , _ LT. TODD SANDELL 670.0 PORTLAND AV S TTn Vt~TLT TI MT~T rl r147~ 861-98 S. 1 certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate~to the best of my knowledge and that Y submit this application on behalf of the applicant agency. Signature of Authorized Official: Title: CITY MANAGER- Date: ~ / 2 g / Page 2 t=Y99 COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING (COPS) OVERTIME GRANTS PROGRAM 1. Application Agency (with which contract is to be executed) 4.Contact Person for further information on application Attachment 1 Page 3 of 9 ~C5-10 (1) Describe the project you hope to implement (specifically state the problem you will address). (2) Descri the services you intend to provide and the population you will serve (identify the specific geographic location and why you chose the site). (3) Descxibe how the need for this project was identify Describe the Irannin will address that need (include facts on crime demographics for the target area). () P g process you propose to implement (Provide specific information about the individuals and organizations that actively helped in the planning process). (S) If other organizations will help provide services, describe their role. You may use up to ten (10) attachment pages to support this narrative. See~Attachment "A" • Page 3 FY99 COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING (COPS) OVERTIME GRANTS PROGRAM Attachment 1 Page 4 of 9 ~ CS-ll Page 4 FY99 COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING (COPS) OVERTIME GRANTS PROvRAM Attachment 1 Richfield Police Department Page 5 of 9 5 ~~~ a RICHFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT COPS GRANT OVERTIME PROGRAM Iverview The proposed community police project is to implement a mobile police sub-station by utilizing the department's 35-foot motor home. The PMS will target high crime areas anld become an extension of the police department. neighborhoods experiencing crime problems. The concept of this project is to bring the police department directly. into the community rather than the community coming to the police department. This will be accomplished by staffing a PMS at various locations throughout the City. Community Policing Issues ' ' The main purpose of the PMS is to place police officers out in the neighborhoods on a regular basis in open, friendly, non-threatening environments. It will provide an excellent opportunity for the citizens and officers to get to know one another. The goal is to move the PMS throughout the City on a weekly basis. The 35-foot PMS will setup in neighborhoods, apartment complexes, City pazks, and retail shopping areas. Historically, departments that have utilized police sub-stations have noticed a decrease in crime rates in the area the sub-station was deployed. The PMS will operate in 6 to 8 hour shifts, generally during evening and weekends when these areas are most active. The PMS will be staffed with one sergeant and two police officers. Police civilian personnel will also be assigned to the sub-station as needed. Once positioned in a target neighborhood, the 35-foot PMS becomes an extension of the Richfield Police Department. While on location, the sub-station will always be staffed with at least one officer. Other officers assigned to the sub-station detail will work the azea either on foot or bicycle. The PMS will be equipped with large signs indicating it is open and encouraging the public to stop in. The police sub-station will provide the following opportunities: • High Police Visibility: By placing the 35-foot PMS along with three uniformed officers in a targeted problem area, it creates a very strong police presence. Along with the officers assigned to the sub-station, sergeants and district officers will be encouraged to stop by the sub-station to write reports, get a fresh battery for their portable radios or just have a cup a coffee. All of which provides the desired police presence. This is a basic crime prevention technique; when the cops move in, the crooks move elsewhere. Richfield Police Department Attachment 1 ~~_/~ Page 6 of 9 • Crime Reporting: Officers will be available to handle any incidents that may occur in the area while the sub-station is on site. It will also provide an opportunity for citizens to report crime and observations. that may otherwise go unreported. • Neighborhood Meeting Place: Provide an opportunity for officers and citizens to meet in an informal setting. Officers will be able to talk with citizens about problems and issues concerning their neighborhood. • Information Resource Center: The sub-station will be equipped with public information concerning crime prevention, drug awareness, juvenile programs, neighborhood watch programs, traffic safety information, etc. • Yout/c Meeting Place: The sub-station will provide a "youth friendly" environment. It provides an opportunity for neighborhood youth to meet officers. When needed, officers will have bike rodeos and safety lectures. A department squad will be on site for the youth to examine. Officers will have youth handouts, i.e., football cards, pencils, and coloring books. • Neighborhood Watch Programs: Neighborhood block watch captains will be able to schedule small block watch meetings at the sub-station. It will also provide an opportunity to invite new neighborhoods into the block watch program... • Special Assignment: The majority of the time, the sub-station will be placed at scheduled locations. However, it will be available to respond to areas that are experiencing current/ongoing problems. Target positioning of the sub-station will provide a saturation patrol effect. • Special Events: The PMS will be deployed for special events such as National Night Out, neighborhood block parities, Fourth of July celebration, etc. An officer will always be on hand to meet the citizens, answer questions and provide helpful information. Other officers assigned to the sub-station will walk (or bike) the neighborhood, park or business. area. They will meet with citizens and invite them to tour the sub-station. They will also discuss crime problems that may be occurring in the area and work with them in solving these problems. The City of Richfield has four neighborhood policing districts with specific officers and sergeants assigned to each district. When the PMS is in a district it will be staffed by at least one of the officers from that district. When the sub-station is assigned to a retail business area it will be staffed by at least one of the business officers. • 2 Richfield Police Department ~ 5~-i~ Attachment 1 Page 7 of 9 The City of Richfield, is an inner ring suburb of the City of Minneapolis with a population of approximately 36,000 people. Geographically the City is approximately 8 square miles and is bordered by Minneapolis, Bloomington, Edina and the Metropolitan Airport. During the past year, the City has experienced a dramatic increase in serious crime. During a 12-month period from July of 1997 to July of 1998, three sepazate homicides occurred. Historically, the City has experienced one homicide every 18 to 24 months. Of the three homicides, two of them have been tied to gang and or drug activity. During this same 12-month period, the City has also experience several major shooting incidents. The last of these shooting incidents occurred in May of 1998 and resulted in two known gang members being charged with attempted homicide. This dramatic increase in serious crime has put a strain on the police department. One of the goals of this program is to put more officers on the street in a "proactive" policing mode. The City is divided into four community policing districts. Each district has a permanently assigned sergeant and four. permanently assigned officers. The district sergeants and officers work with department crime prevention personnel and community residents to attack crime problems in their districts. Working with the district sergeants and officers, and analyzing crime trends in the districts will be the major determining factor for deployment of the PMS. The City also has an active Richfield Apartment Managers Association (RAMA). RAMA works closely with the police department and would have input in the deployment of the PMS. Typical Assignment; of the. PMS The PMS will be assigned to a small neighborhood park on a Saturday from noon to 8:00 p.m. Flyers will be distributed in the area at least one week before the scheduled date to advise the citizens of PMS locations and times, and invite them to stop by. When the sub-station is on location, the awning will be deployed (weather permitting) and informational tables will be setup. At least one officer will stay with the sub-station at all times and be available to meet with citizens. Two other officers working the detail will walk (or ride) the neighborhood and park. They will utilize the sub-station as their base of operation for the detail. District officers working during this time will be encouraged to stop by the sub-station as • time permits to meet with citizens. • Richfield Police Department Attachment 1 /:P,~ !J-' Page 8 of 9 This same scenario would occur in apartment complexes with the PMS being centrally located in the complex. } =-~ The Richfield Department of Public Safety currently maintains a 35-foot motor home. The motor home is equipped as a mobile command center and is used for major incidents and special events. The motor home is fully self contained and is seperated into two sections. The front is equipped with a lazge seating azea and is separated from the communications section in the back. Equipment includes: • Police/fire radios • Cellular phone • MDT terminal • Fax machine • TV & VCR The motor home is also equipped with a galley complete with a microwave, refrigerator, coffeemaker, lavatory, generator and a 20-foot awning, which can be extended off the side. Record Numerous police departments around the country have utilized mobile police sub- stations. Sandord, North Carolina; Santa Bazbaza, California; Chicago Heights, Illinois; Berkeley, California; Jamestown, New York; these are just a few of the departments that have had great success with the deployment of PMS's. After reviewing information from these projects it was determined they have experienced a lower crime rate and has greatly improved community relations with the sub-station in targeted neighborhoods. Project Evaluation -Goals/Outcomes The primary goals of the project are the reduction of crime and improved community relations with the policing districts. A crime analysis will be done before the PMS is deployed to a target location. Follow-up crime analysis will be done of these target locations in an attempt to determine the impact of the PMS. Another measurement tool will be an increase in the number of Neighborhood Block Watch Programs. The City currently has XX Block Watches; we will attempt to determine any increase in the number of thes XB~ nkBlock Watch Captains as to the We will also conduct follow-up interviews with S impact the PMS had on their neighborhood. • Attachment 1 Page 9 of 9 ~C-s' ~~ BUDGET REQUEST OVERTIME APPLICANT AGENCY: RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY Average Salary Used to Compute Grant Request Number of Officers Amount of Overtime per Week Number of Weeks TOTAL BUDGET REQUEST $40.00/$45.00 SEE BELO[a SEE BELOTn? SEE BELOW $ 7,000. .00 - Deployment of police mobile substation seven (7) times during the next year. - One sergeant for seven, 8 HOUR shifts, 7 x 8 x 45 = $2520.00 - Two officers for seven, 8 HOUR shifts, 7 x 8 x 40 = $4480.00 TOTAL STAFFING COST $7,000.00 STATE AGENCY USE ONLY GCN DATE • Page S FY99 COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING (COPS) OVERTIME GRANTS PROGRAM A ~p_on! su6m ~T~.~ ~ 98 5G-l~ ' • n' ~~ This form is to be used as the cover sheet for your zrant application. CONTRACTING AGENCY: Use your legal name and Project Director Name full address. This is the fiscal agent with whom the LT . TODD SANDELL grant agreement will be executed. Telephone Number (612) 8 61- 9 8 3 5 CITY OF RICHFIELD 6 7 0 0 PORTLAND AV S Fax Number ( 612) 866-0297 RICHFIELD MN 55423 CONTACT MAILING ADDRESS: (If different than Contact Name: above) LT . TODD SANDELT; Telephone Number (612) 8 61- 9 8 3 5 Fax Number (612) 8 6 6- 0 2 9 7 PROJECT SERVICE AREA (Counties/Cities) Project Start Date: Project End Date: CITY OF RICHFIELD 9/1/98 8/31/99 Grant agreements will not be processed without these MN Tax ID # Federal Employee ID # numbers: 802 4817 41-6005490 7'OT~.L GR:~1VT FUNDS REQUESTED ~ 34, 0Q0 . .00 Project Summary - 50 words or less in t11e space below: The proposed community police project is to implement a mobile police sub-station by utilizing the department's 35-foot motor home. The police mobile substation (PMS) will become an extension of the police department. The PMS will target high crime areas and neighborhoods experiencing crime problems. Page i 1=Y~9 CCbiMUNITY-ORIE^JTED PGLICING (COPS) GVERTIME GRANTS PRCGRA.PA ~~ff ~ 2 PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET I. Application Agency (with which contract is to be executed) Legal Name Street -City -Zip ' Phone 6700 PORTLAND AV S CITY OF RICHFIELD RICHFIELD MN 55423 (612 )861-9700 2.Authorized Official Legal Narie Street -City -Zip ', 'Phone JAMES D. PROSSER - 6700 PORTLAND AV S RICHFIELD MN 55423 {612.)861-9700 3.Operating Agency (if different from # I ) .Legal Name Street -City -Zip ' ` Fhone .: PUBLIC SAFETY-DEPT. 6700 PORTLAND AV S RICHFIELD MN 55423 (612 )861-0900 4.Contact Person for further information on application Legal Name _ Street -City -Zip ' _ _ _ _ __ __ Phone LT. TODD SANDELL 670.0 PORTLAND AV S RICHFIELD MN 55x2 ( l )861-9835 5. I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and that I submit this application on behalf of the applicant agency. ( ~ Signature of Authorized Official: ~ ~~ `• ' -~,;'i~,~,~~~ Title: CITY MANAGER Date: ~~29~gg • Page 2 FY99 COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING {CCPS} OVERTIME GRANTS PROGRAM 5~-19 3 . ECT OVERVIEW (narrative) (1) Describe the project you hope to implement (specifically state the problem you will address). (2) Describe the services you intend to provide and the population you will serve (identify the specific geographic location and why you chose the site). (3) Describe how the need for this project was identified and how this program will address that need (include facts on crime demographics for the target area). (4) Describe the planning process you propose to implement (Provide specific information about the individuals and organizations that actively helped in the planning process). (5) If other organizations will help provide services, describe their role. You may use up to ten (10) attachment pages to support this narrative. See~Attachment "A" • Page 3 FY99GOMMUNITY-ORIENTED POUClNG (COPS) OVERT;ME GRANTS PROGRAM 4 • ~~-ate PROJECT EVALUATION ', (narrative) What are your desired goals/outcomes? Describe how you will measure the impact of your services on your target population as it relates to outcomes. (Use specific examples, including statistics from the geographic location, surveys from the community etc.) Be realistic about what you can measure. You may use up to ten (10) attachment pages to support this narrative. See'' Attachment "A" • Page 4 FY99 COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING (COPS) OVE?TIME GRANTS PRGGRAM 5 ~~ ~~-a.i BUDGET REQUEST OVERTIME APPLICANT AGENCY: RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY Average Salary Used to Compute Grant Request $40.00/$45.00 Number of Officers See below Amount of Overtime per Week • See below Number of Weeks See below TOTAL BUDGET REQUEST ~ $ 3 4 , 0 0 0.0 0 .00 - Deployment of the Police Mobile Substation, once a week for 28 weeks. - Deployment of the Police Mobile Substation, at six special events. - One Sgt. for 34 8 hour shifts 34 x 8 x 45 = $12,240.00 - Two officers for 34, 8 hour shifts, 34 x 8 x 2 x 40 = $21,760.00 Total Staffing cost $34,000.00 STATE AGENCY USE ONLY -. GCN DATE - • Page 5 FY99 COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING (COPS) OVERTIME GRANTS PROGRAM Richfield Police Department ~~-a~. RICHFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT COPS GRANT OVERTIME PROGRAM Project Overview The proposed community police project is to implement a mobile police sub-station by utilizing the department's 35-foot motor home. The police mobile substation (PMS) will become an extension of the police department. The PMS will target high crime azeas and neighborhoods experiencing crime problems. The concept of this project is to bring the police department directly into the community rather than the community coming to the police department. This will be accomplished by staffing a PMS at various locations throughout the City. Community Policing Issues The main purpose of the PMS is to place police officers out in the neighborhoods on a reguiaz basis in open, friendly, non-threatening environments. It will provide an excellent opportunity for the citizens and officers to get to know one another. The goal is to move the PMS throughout the City on a weekly basis. The 35-foot PMS will setup in neighborhoods, apartment complexes, City parks, and retail shopping areas. Historically, departments that have utilized police sub-stations have noticed a decrease in crime rates in the area the sub-station was deployed. The PMS will operate in 6 to 8 hour shifts, generally during evening and weekends when these areas aze most active. The PMS will be staffed with one sergeant and two police officers. Police civilian personnel will also be assigned to the sub-station as needed. Once positioned in a target neighborhood, the 3~-foot PMS becomes an extension of the Ric:ifield Police Department. While on location, the sub-station will always be staffed with at least one officer. Other officers assigned to the sub-station detail will work the area either on foot or bicycle. The PMS will be equipped with large signs indicating it is open and encouraging the public to stop in. The police sub-station will provide the following opportunities: Hilt Police Visibility: By placing the 35-foot PMS along with three uniformed officers in a tazgeted problem area, it creates a very strong police presence. Along with the officers assigned to the sub-station, sergeants and district officers will be encouraged to stop by the sub-station to write reports, get a fresh battery for their portable radios or just have a cup a coffee. All of which provides the desired police presence. This is a basic crime prevention technique; when the cops move in, the crooks move elsewhere. Richfield Potice Department ~~ a3 • Crime Reporting: Officers will be available to handle any incidents that may occur in the area while the sub-station is on site. It will also provide an opportunity for citizens to report crime and observations that may otherwise go unreported. • Neighborhood Meeting Place: Provide an opportunity for officers and citizens to meet in an informal setting. Officers will be able to talk with citizens about problems and issues concerning their neighborhood. • Information Resource Center: The sub-station will be equipped with public information concerning crime prevention, drug awareness, juvenile programs, neighborhood watch programs, traffic safety information, etc. • Youth Meeting Place: The sub-station will provide a "youth friendly" environment. It provides an opportunity for neighborhood youth to meet officers. When needed, officers will have bike rodeos and safety lectures. A department squad will be on site for the youth to examine. Officers will have youth handouts, i.e., football cards, pencils, and coloring books. • Neighborhood Watch Programs: Neighborhood block watch captains will be able to schedule small block watch meetings at the sub-station. It will also provide an opportunity to invite new neighborhoods into the block watch program. • Special Assignment: The majority of the time, the sub-station will be placed at scheduled locations. However, it will be available to respond to azeas that are experiencing current/ongoing problems. Target positioning of the sub-station will provide a saturation patrol effect. • Special Events: The PMS will be deployed for special events such as National Night Out, neighborhood block parities, Fourth of July celebration, etc. An officer will always be on hand to meet the citizens, answer questions and provide helpful information. Other officers assigned to the sub-station will walk (or bike) the neighborhood, park or business area. They will meet with citizens and invite them to tour the sub-station. They will also discuss crime problems that may be occumng in the area and work with them in solving these problems. The City of Richfield has four neighborhood policing districts with specific officers and sergeants assigned to each district. W1ien the PNiS is in a district it will be staffed by at least one of the officers from that district. When the sub-station is assigned to a retail business area it will be staffed by at least one of the business officers. Richfield Police Departrnent 5~-a~ Target Area Selection The City of Richfield, is an inner ring suburb of the City of Minneapolis with a population of approximately 36,000 people. Geographically the City is approximately 8 square miles and is bordered by Minneapolis, Bloomington, Edina and the Metropolitan Airport. During the past year, the City has experienced a dramatic increase in serious crime. During a 12-month period from July of 1997 to July of 1998, three separate homicides occurred. Historically, the City has experienced one homicide every 18 to 24 months. Of the three homicides, two of them have been tied to gang and or drug activity. During this same 12-month period, the City has also experience several major shooting incidents. The last of these shooting incidents occurred in May of 1998 and resulted in two known gang members being charged with attempted homicide. This dramatic increase in serious crime has put a strain on the police department. One of the goals of this program is to put more officers on the street in a "proactive" policing mode. The City is divided into four community policing districts. Each district has a • permanently assigned sergeant and four permanently assigned officers. The district sergeants and officers work with department crime prevention personnel and community residents to attack crime problems in their districts. Working with the district sergeants and officers, and analyzing crime trends in the districts will be the major determining factor for deployment of the PMS. The City also has an active Richfield Apartment Managers Association (RAMA). RAi~1A works closely with the police department and would have input in the deployment of the PMS. Typical Assignment of the PMS - The PMS will be assigned to a small neighborhood park on a Saturday from noon to 8:00 p.m. Flyers will be distributed in the area at least one week before the scheduled date to advise the citizens of PMS locations and times, and invite them to stop by. When the sub-station is on location, the awning will be deployed (weather permitting) and informational tables will be setup. At least one officer will stay with the sub-station at all times and be available to meet with citizens. Two other officers working the detail will walk (or ride) the neighborhood and park. They will utilize the sub-station as their base of operation for the detail. District officers working during this time will be encouraged to stop by the sub-station as time permits to meet with citizens. Richfield Police Department ~~ ~~~ This same scenario would occur in apartment complexes with the PMS being centrally located in the complex. Operational Issues The Richfield Department of Public Safety currently maintains a 35-foot motor home. The motor home is equipped as a mobile command center and is used for major incidents and special events. The motor home is fully self contained and is seperated into two sections. The front is equipped with a large seating area and is separated from the communications section in the back. Equipment includes: • Police/fire radios • Cellular phone • MDT terminal • Fax machine • TV & VCR The motor home is also equipped with a galley complete with a microwave, refrigerator, coffeemaker, lavatory, generator and a 20-foot awning, which can be extended off the side. Proven Track Record Numerous police departments around the country have utilized mobile police sub- stations. Sandord, North Carolina; Santa Barbara, California; Chicago Heights, Illinois; Berkeley, California; Jamestown, New York; these are just a few of the departments that have had great success with the deployment of PMS's. After reviewing information from these projects it was determined they have experienced a lower crime rate and has greatly improved community relations with the sub-station in targeted neighborhoods. Project Evaluation -Goals/Outcomes The primary goals of the project are the reduction of crime and improved community relations with the policing districts. A crime analysis will be done before the PMS is deployed to a target location. Follow-up crime analysis will be done of these target locations in an attempt to determine the impact of the PHIS. Another measurement tool will be an increase in the number of Neighborhood Block Watch Programs. The City currently has XY Block Watches; we will attempt to determine any increase in the number of these Block Watches as a result of the PMS. We will also conduct follow-up interviews with existing Block Watch Captains as to the impact the PINS .had on their neighborhood. Richfield Police Department ~~ ~~ Budget Deployment of the PMS will occur mostly during the warm weather months, April through October. The Richfield Police Department will cover all costs associated with operation and maintenance of the PMS. The grant is to cover the cost of the officer's overtime for staffing. • Deployment of the PMS once a week for 28 weeks. • Deployment of PMS at 6 special events • Staffing of 1 sergeant for 34, 8 hour shifts. • Staffing of 2 officers for 34, 8 hour shifts. • Officers overtime rate including benefits $40.00 per hour, sergeants, $45.00 per hour. • Sergeants: 34 x 8 x $45.00 = $12,240:00 • Officers: 34 x 8 x 2 x $40.00 = $21,760.00 • Total Staffing Costs: $34,000.00 s ~F CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.15 Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Resolution authorizing execution of Drainage Correction Agreement for Penn Avenue and 67th Street. Background: A May 22, 1998 Council Memorandum outlined the storm drainage problems and solutions for properties at 6701 Penn Avenue and 6715 Penn Avenue. The City of Richfield, Hennepin County and the property owners reached an agreement as to the work to be performed and as to the cost sharing.. Briefly, the owners of the properties will pay for the construction of on-site storm sewer, the County will pay for bringing a storm sewer pipe to the property line, and the City will pay to repair damage to 67th Street and sidewalk caused by installing the new pipe. The work has been performed to the satisfaction of all parties. The financial arrangements made with Hennepin County require execution of a Roadway Maintenance Agreement related to drainage correction at County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 32 (Penn Avenue) and 67th Street. The City has submitted an invoice. to Hennepin County for $4,300 as the County's share of the work. Execution of the agreement allows the County to release the funds for the County's cost share. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute Hennepin County Roadway Maintenance Agreement No. PW 53-19-98, Contract No. 5004M8 for drainage correction in the City of Richfield at 67th Street and Penn Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Work has been performed to correct a drainage problem at 67th Street and Penn Avenue. 2. A formal agreement is needed. for the County to reimburse the City for the County's portion of the costs incurred to correct the drainage problem. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not ask the County to reimburse the City for a share of the cost to correct a drainage problem at 67th Street and Penn Avenue. However, the County has agreed to pay a portion of the cost and the agreement is a formality for release of funds. 2. Ask the County to pay a higher share of the cost to correct the drainage problem. However, the cost share was agreed to be all parties involved including the County, the City and the property owners. 5~-1 Discussion/Decision Mode: Council may chose to delay action, but as this is record keeping action for work that has already been done, there is no apparent reason for delay of action. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds • • ~~=a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE HENNEPIN COUTY ROADWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT NO. PW 53-19-98 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Hennepin County and the property owners of 6701 Penn Avenue South and 6715 Penn Avenue South worked together to correct a drainage problem at Penn Avenue and 67th Street; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and Hennepin County desire to enter into an Agreement to reimburse the City for a portion of the costs incurred to correct a drainage problem at Penn Avenue and 67th Street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute Roadway Maintenance Agreement No. PW 53-19-98, Contract No. 5004M8 for drainage correction in the City of Richfield. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of January,. 1999. • ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • 5~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 14 Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Approval of an agreement to hire BRW, Inc. to study the design of the 1-494 and I-35W interchange. Background: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is working toward an approved Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision on reconstruction of 1- 494. However, the improvements shown in the Final EIS may not be developed due to lack of funding. MnDOT has agreed, at the City of Richfield's suggestion, to proceed with a study to look at the vicinity of the I-494/1-35W interchange for the possibility of interim improvements. MnDOT will organize a technical advisory committee comprised of representatives from Richfield, Bloomington, Met Council, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and MnDOT with MnDOT as the lead agency to guide the conceptual layout development. The study will produce the following benefits: • Agreement from MnDOT on the location and design of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over I-494 and the 79th/80th bridge over I-35W in Bloomington; • Ability to design and build the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over I-494; and, • Ability to apply for federal funds to replace the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494. City staff wants to be assured that the design of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge does not conflict with plans to widen I-494 and rebuild the interchange of I-494 and I-35W. A copy of the proposed work program is attached. The study will cost $120,208 and last eight months. Its completion is needed to guide the design and construction of the new Lyndale Avenue Bridge. The Lyndale Avenue Bridge is included in the 1999 Capital Budget. Staff proposes to use the City's Municipal State Aid (MSA) gas tax funds to finance the study. However, it is possible that some of the cost could be covered using federal highway demonstration funds. Waiting for federal funding to cover 80% of the study's cost would delay the start of the study and possibly postpone construction of the bridge by one year. Council .authorization is needed to hire the engineering design consultant. Recommended Motion: Authorize City staff to hire BRW, Inc. to study the interchange of I-494 and I-35W and approve the use of Richfield's Municipal State Aid funds to finance the study. • ~J • Basis of Recommendation:. 1. The replacement of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge is included in the City's 1999 Capital Improvement Budget. 2. The study will help speed a-decision on rebuilding I-494. 3. The study will enable the City of Richfield to initiate the design and construction of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over I-494. 4. BRW, Inc. has extensive experience in the design of the 77th Street Reconstruction Project and has prepared the I-494 Environmental Impact Statement. 5. Federal funding has been secured to build the proposed Lyndale Avenue Bridge over I-494. 6. The new City Charter provision on studies costing in excess of $75,000 does not apply in this case because it is for a project located on public right. of way. Therefore, a public hearing is not required before the Council acts on this proposal. 7. There are sufficient Municipal State Aid funds available for the study. Alternative Recommendations: 1. Do not approve the I-494/1-35W interchange study. By not performing the study, MnDOT will not be able to determine if the proposed design of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge will be consistent with plans to widen I-494. 2. Await approval to use federal funds to begin the study. While this is possible, it will delay the study and possibly postpone construction of the new Lyndale Avenue Bridge by one year. The cost of study represents only a small percentage of the $8.3 million required to build the new bridge. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council is encouraged to approve the hiring of the consultant on January 11, 1999 so that the study can begin promptly and avoid delays that may postpone construction of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge. Respe tfully submitted, Jame .Prosser City Manager JDP:ds 01lU4l99 b9:48 X612 37Q 1378 BRW iNG 5~ ~ [, BRW A DAMES 8 MUOfiS C+kOUP GOMPANy tQ1 UU1 'l'hm:her Sr~carr 71if1' 'herd tin•c~c Suutit Ni;»r~C~pnlia, Minnesor~ ~Sd•Ii F,12 :1?f? i)7UU 7:c1 612 ;!7f1 137K 1=:u wwv~.orwi:lC.Cnm January 4, 1999 V1r. Tom Foley City of ~chfield G7U0 Portland Avenue Richfic;ld, Minnesota 55423 RE: I-494/I-35'VU Interchangc Study Dear Mr. Foley_ [7 Enclosed is BRW's proposal lu conduct a study of the I-494 and X-35W Interchangc. Ti'te purpose of the study is to determine the improv4rric~nts that would be made to the Y-494 and I-35W Interchange in order to establish the location and lengths of k~alh the I~yndale Avenue bridge over I-494 as well as the 79`x'-80`x` Street bridge over I-35W. The work scope reflects the changes we d~scus4ed at our last meeting with MnD()T anti the City of Bloomington on December 15t~', 1998. if you have any questions or require any additional infcrmatidn, please give me a cal] at 373-6334. Sirlci;rcl~, I3lZ~. Inc. Anthony Vice Pre /ajh Attachments • P.E. 01/04/99 09:48 '$'612 370 1378 SRVi ING ~ uu~ 5~ 3 • I'B.OPOSAY, TO CI'I'Y OF RICHFIELD TO C~1~TDi UCT I-494(1-3SW INTERCHANGE STUDY i PREFAFtED 7~~Y' BRW, INS'.. 700 3~ STREET SOUTH MYN~NEAI'OLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 January 4",, 1 X99 01/04/99. 09:49 $612 370 1378 8Rw ir~c ~ UU4 /~ PRQPG~AL TC~ ~QNDIJCT I-494 AN'D I-35W INTL:RCHANGE STUD INTR41i]UCTiC)N The City of Richfield has received )~ederal Funding to complete the improvenaenrs on 77t~' Street.. This project includes the addition of a second northbound left-turn ],ant on Lyndale Avenue at 77t~ Street, which will involve widening of Tyndale Avenue through the interchange with I-494 including replacement of the Lyndale Avenue bridge <~ver I- 494_ The City of Bloamin~ton has also received IST1~A fiends for construction of a bridge over T-35W connecting 79t Street once 80"' Street. This connection is a critical link inn the I- 494 reliever roadway system. In addition lU th~;sc two projects, MnDOT expects to make additional improvern~.nts on I- 494 between TH 100 and TH 77 prior to the year 2010. This would include improvcrncnts to the interchange of 7i-494 and I-35W. ''i'he reconstructiozt of th4 I-4941]: 35W interchange cctay impact the location and length of bath the Lyndale Avenue Bridge aver C-494 as wcil as the 79`h -SOt~' Street Bridge over I-3~'VV'. Plan:, were: developed for the I-35WII-494 interchange as parr of the development of the I-35W and Y-494 EIS's. However MnDOT does ztot curraittly have funding available to make the level of improvements identified in the EIS layouts and therefore has proposed those interim irnprovements be made that are consistent with available funding. The purpose of this study is to identify a concept for l'he interim improvement of the I- 35W grid I-494 interchange that is consistent with current funding Ievels, so that the foot prints for the Lyndale Avenue and 79th-fy0`h Slz~:ct bridges can be established. Tl~~e concept plan needs to be at a level of detail sufficient to establish the location and lengtkxs of the Lyndale Avenue and 79`h-80`h Street bridges. It will. be MnDOT's responsibility to finaliLe the conceptual layout for 5tal'f approval. It is anticipated that the development of a preferred concept for the 'I-35W and I-494 ii~tercl~ange will involve a process of loolGing at several different concepts and evaluating these concepts relative to a variety of c:riCe;ria including traffic, level. o'r service, cast, right-of-way, environmental, etc. There have been a number of different conce;f~ts that have been studied as part aF the work that was done for the I-35W rind I-494 EIS's. This study would build on that pzevious warlc. bTowever, the evaluation for this studv would need to take into account the fiscal constr~unts on the improvements that would he trade at this interchange. • • O1f04f99 09:49 ~L-' ~ '$`612 370 1378 sRW 1NG SCOPF, t~~' t~VQR~ The study of the I-3SWlI-494 Interchange will involve the following work tasks. 1. Identify iniitial conceptual a)tlernatives. The previous concepts evaluattad far the I-494 and I-35t~V EIS's will be reviewed along with any analysis conduct-d of the different alternatives. Additional conceptual alternatives will be: developed witlx input from the Cities and MnDOT. The purpose of [his task will be to identify the alternatives that should be studied in tnare detail. Schematic drawings will he prepared far the various conceptual altcrnati.ves in order to illustrate the alternatives that should be cansid4red. The coneel~tnal alternatives will fc,cus on Cltree different aspects of the interchange: the type oI' interchange betwcer~ I-3~W and I-494 (i.e. four level fully directianaI, three level semi-directiurydl, or ewa level clavcrIcaf); the need far callectczr-distributor roads ar frontage roads along 1- 494 artd I-3~W; and the tyt~e of interchange at Penn Avenue, Lyndale Avc.nuc, 76~' Street and K2"'~ Street. It is anticipated that up to $ different initial conceptual alternatives would be identified- 2. Conduct preliminary evaluation of initial conceptual alternatives and narrow tlxc; number of concepts far further evaluation to 4 including the No-8ui1d. Tlr~ preliminary evaluation would he based ozz existing traffic volumes, previous work conducted far the I-494 and I-35W EIS's, an order of magnitude cost estizrlate and a subjective evaluation of tradeoffs anianb the alternatives. For example, claw the fourth level of a fully directional interchange improve safety ar capacity as c~r7tpared to a three level setni~directianal interehanl;e? 3. Develop traffic forecasts far each of the 4 conceptual ~dternati.ves and evaluate the ability of each cattcept to handle the forecast traffic. The forecasts would be 2~ year p.rn. peak. hour forecasts and would take into account future: development within th,e area of I-494 acid I-35W Interchange- Tfxis area would include the area between ilyndal~.~ Avenue and Penn Avenue and between 76°i Street and 8?~'d Street. The atxaIysis would look at traffic operations on both the arterial streets and the freeway systetn. 4. Develop conceptual layouts for each of the 4 conceptual alternatives. Tl,r/ conceptual layouts would include b~lh plan and profile. Tylsical sections would be prepared for the different roadways included in the plan. The layouts v~ould ,~ developed in metric using micrastation and geopak consistent with MnI7C}"f' CARD standards. 5. Prepare cost estimates far each of tFte conceptual layouts. The cost estimates would be developed using the cast model developed for the I-494 and I-35W 1/IS's using 1999 unit cost data and would include right-ol-way costs. • ~uua 2 41/04/99 49:50 $612 374 1378 xxw 1N~ L~J VVV ~E ~ r 1 ~J b. Identify impact on the I-494 and I-35W drainagcplans trf each of the conceptual layouts. Yt i5 expected that tltr. impact Uf each of the plans will he sit„filar but that they will be different than the drainage plan included in the I-494/I-35W EIS's. This task will include identifying potential pvrtding areas for runoff from the interchange area. The pttrpase of re~viewina the drainage is to make sure that an acceptable drainage plan can be developed. 7. Identify other environmental issttcs associated with each of the coitceptu<<I layouts. It is anticipated that the interchange concepts will all fall within the construction limits previously established fvr tine I-444 and I-35W EIS'S and shat none of the concepts will have environmental impacts not included in these documents. However, because the right-of--way needed for the project may be ditfcrcnt than the right-of-way in the I-494 or I-35W EIS's there inay bi: properties that are not taken witl~ tl,e intern„ desigtt that were taken in the ultimate design and therefore ttre impacted in a different manner. The purpose of this taask will be to identify arty differences in the environmental impacts ~,•P tltc alternatives. These differences willl~e identlfierl throttplz information in tl~e l~IS's and a qualitative evaluation of each alternative. 8. D~;velop do evaluation matrix summarizing the benefitfi, cc,sts and impacts of each alternative. Review evaluation mattic with'1'echnical Advisory Committee and modify a.5 appropriate. 9. Select preferred alternative. Refine features of the preferred alternative t~~ set location and length of bridges on Lyndalc Avcnuc and 79`"~8U"' street. 10. Ptuticipation/Commttnication -Attend and present information at `l'cchnic.al Advisory CotYUrtittee. It is assumed that SRW would attend 8 Technical Advisory Conuluttee meetings, BRW would ai5a attend and present information at 7 ether public rrtr~;etings. This may include 2 joint meetings with the 1-:iSW 5c~lutions Alliance and I-494 Corridor Commission, City Council meetings, City Commission meetings and a public information meeting or workshop. BI~W would 3lsc- prepare agendas <~nd minutes for the Technical Advisory c.amrnitte.e. 1 l . 1?roiect Management - BRW would prepare progress reports that would i;,e sent to both the City of Richfield and MnD(7T cash month describing the progress relative to Each task ttnd the status of the Uudget relativ; to project compl~;tion MnDUT and City og Richfield Responsibilities Richfield "1"he City oft kichfield will have overall project manabernent responsibility for thE: project. This vvould include monitoring the project completion relative to schedule and budget. The City of Richfield would provide ail direction to the Consultant. The City cif 01/04/99 09:51 ''8`812 370 1378 Bxw 1N~ ~~7 • Richfield will grovide design standards for local streets and review the can.celstual layouts. Torre Foley will be; the point of ca:tact fear the City of Kichfield_ )[iloornington ~'he City of B1oot2ungtc~n will provide desi~m criteria for city streets and review the conceptual layouts_ Jim Gates will be the point of contact far the City of Blo~i7ningtdn MnDO~ Responsibilities Mn~QT will pxavide the latest ~7Yagping available for flee study area in an electronic farrtYat. (:BRW has assumed that it will Pat be necessary to conduct additional sLSrveys ar mapping fc~r the study area) MnDt~T will make availat~Ic all of the previous ~na,lysis of this interchange conducted far the I-494 and 1,35W EIS's. Mrt17GT will grovide design pararn~aters far I-494 including number of lanes to ~ssumc outside the limits of the study area, the center Line alignment for the I-494 mainline de the limits of the study area, the lane widths, shoulder widths. berm widths and other cross- section eleitY~nlS far the I-494 mainlirx~. MnX70T will provide budget parameters for improvennents at the I-494n-35W intercllal2 ;~. Mztlr70T will provide technical review of conceptual layuut5 developed fc,r tt~c I-=X94/I- ~35W interchange Wayne Norris will be the Point of contact far MnI~OT. ~uur 4 01/04/99 09:51 $612 370 1378 Bxw tNC; ~~~~ _-. O PROJECT TEA.N.I The BRW Project Team would include the following individuals. Anthony Heppelmann, PE - Project Manager... Mr. Heppelmann's role as project. man~.ger will he to provide overall direction to 1~RW Staff and to ensure that the project is completed on time, within budget, and is of high quality. Mr. Ideppelmann will ~rlso participate in the development of the different conceptual alternatives for the interchange and direct the development of the benefiUcosl analysis and evaluation of alternatives. Walter Marusenko, PL - [duality Assurance. Mr. Marusenko will provide internal review and comment relative Cu design issur:s and layout ~.eveloparent. Tim Arvidsan, PE -Project Engineer. As Project Engineer, Mr. Asvidson will be responsible for the cleveIoprne:nt of ttze conceptual layouts and cost estimates. Leslie VanDraselc- T~roject Technician. Kevin Pape, AICP -Traffic rarecasts. Mr. Pape will be responsible for development of the traffic forecasts far each of the conceptual alternatives. Bab Green, PE -Traffic Engineering Analysis. Mr. Green will be respansib.le Ft,r the capacity analysis of the different alternatives. If requested 13R.W can provide resumes for the proposed personnel. SCHEDULE It is proposed that the project would be completed within six rrtnnths from the ds~.te 13R'4V is authorized to proceed with the study. The schedule will depend on Mnl~4T providing timely inft~rmation relative to other as5urnptiuns on the design of I-494 outside of the study area and the ability of ~VInDOT and the Cities to reach agreement ors the dE~.Sig-n of the I-494II-35W interchange. BUDGET RRW estimate: the total cost of the study at X120,200. The detailed breakdown of the hours by general Employee classification is shown in Table 1 a;~ well as the estimated overhead and fee. It is assumed that this would be a cost plus t'ixed fee contract since the. City would he seeking federal reimbursement for the costs of the study. • 5 ~ 01/04/99 09:52 '8`612 370 1378 ttx+~ l~v~ ~ ~~° ~ 5E-`I d Z W m d' ca•~aod-oaracaaocccca [7 ~ N ~ T ~ ~ eo ~ ~y a~co ~ ~ cvao om T SIJ T r T ~ G~ ~ GY ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~/~ M \'/ •/ +^~ ~ 1 W 4 r r r ~" ~ ~' Z ~~}~cOd~d-N~'d'Nd'N ~ NN r~ te~l~ C+N odttpp ISO ~ It! OD 4 T CD r ~ r L ~.~. V ~ ~ ~aooo~~oNOaooav~4oo ~ ~N .-CSR ~i~ .~ m 'e rM MR c?o ~ ~ O tD N S~7 ~ il! ~~ c Ilf tf! u> efr ~} d! O F, L 'd'cD+~+ae1'OVC~toooQ N wsocao~cvco,-~e~ ~! ~ ooW N d~N ao4 a ~ ~ N ~~ N~ ~ d = ay o ai ~ en L aact~ao4cocooooaoTo o ~AO Chch NU~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn ?- t%~ W ~ ~ rs~ ass ~ cfr /m//~ ` OOODODtDet~GV~aOn[QCO N oC GO 1q1~ d " ~ ~ C ( Q ~ {~ 1 ~ ~_ S Z ~ ~ e~ ~ A E9 fA ~ s ~s ~ ~ ~ (f} Vy m '~ m L ~~ N } ~/ Q' d ~ ~ ~ ~ W _U c N ~ ~ ~ V' ~ o +' ~' 'N '~' ~ E a~i ~ O U? E 'Nd.~E~~a~i ~W w ~~ ctt = ^ •+-~ N rC C7 ~ O Q ~ Q ~+ d ~ D ic9 O m + , " ~'a`f`~c ~owmw m ~m ~~ ~ ~dN a o0 ~ Q ~ ~I ~ 0 ~'~' [~ r+ N G7 ~' Ln LO h. W O'1 r r r ("' z ~ .. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 13 Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Resolution requesting the Commissioner of Transportation to revocate Municipal State Aid (MSA) designation for 66th Street east of Trunk Highway 77 (MSA route Number 157-355) and for all of Standish Avenue (MSA route Number 157-355) within the City of Richfield. Background: Under the MSA rules cities are allowed to have 20% of their streets on the MSA system. With the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) purchase of properties in the New Ford Town and Rich Acres, the City of Richfield must reduce its mileage of MSA streets accordingly. Therefore, 66th Street east of Trunk Highway 77 and Standish Avenue need to be removed from Richfield's MSA system in order to be in compliance with the rules. Based on tentative apportionment data from MSA, the removal will result in a reduction of approximately $9,780 in MSA funding to the City of Richfield.. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution requesting that the Commissioner of Transportation revoke Municipal State Aid (MSA) designation from 66th Street east of Trunk Highway 77 and all of Standish Avenue from Richfield's Municipal State Aid system. Basis. of Recommendation: 1. The Metropolitan Airports Commission has purchased property in the New Ford Town and Rich Acres areas. 2. Richfield's MSA miles are in excess of that allowed by MSA rules. 3. A City Council resolution is required for requesting revocation of streets from Richfield's Municipal State Aid system. Alternative Recommendation: None: Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for consideration at the January 11, 1999 Council meeting. Preliminary discussion between the City staff and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) staff is complete. It is now necessary for officials of the City and MnDOT to complete the process. Action may be taken by the City Council at any time to request the revocation of Municipal State Aid designation from Richfield's system. Respectful) submitted, Jam ° .Prosser City Hager JDP:cak ~/ ~s~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REVOKING CERTAIN .MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS WHEREAS, it is deemed advisable and necessary for certain streets hereinafter described as Municipal State Aid streets to be revoked and removed from Richfield's Municipal State Aid system under the provisions of Minnesota laws. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the streets described as follows: MSA Street # Street Name Limits 157-355 East 66th Street Trunk Highway 77 to Standish Avenue 157-355 Standish Avenue East 66th Street to north City limits be, and hereby are, revoked as Municipal State Aid streets of the City of Richfield, subject to approval of the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward two certified copies of this Resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation for his consideration. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of January, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 12 Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Award. of contract for leasing of golf cars (carts) for rent purposes and a utility beverage cart at Richfield's Rich Acres Golf Course for 1999 with optional year 2000. Background: Golf carts are leased by the City for rental to golfers. On November 11, 1999 bids were opened for a new lease period of 1999/2000 (option). The specifications included 20 current year model golf carts for the period of March 15 through November 15 for each of the contract years, and 20 used golf carts for the period of June 1 through October 1 in each year of the contract. The City is to provide the public liability and property damage insurance coverage, except for accidents resulting from mechanical failure or improper cart maintenance. The vendor is to provide all parts, labor and maintenance including necessary lubricants. The vendor will also provide for a mid season safety inspection of all golf carts. Bids were received as follows: Cushman Motors No Bid Versatile Vehicles No Bid E-Z-Go Textron (Upper Midwest) $27,715/annually E-Z Go was the vendor for the previous three-year period. Their bid at that time was $28,285 plus tax of $1,838.53. They are a reliable contractor with acceptable carts. Recommended Motion: Approve the contract to E-Z-Go Textron (Upper Midwest) out of St. Louis Park, MN for leasing of golf carts in 1999/2000 (optional year) as detailed in the bid proposal of December 16, 1999 for an annual cost of $27,715 plus tax $1,801.47. Basis of Recommendation: 1. E-Z Go Textron (Upper Midwest) has been a reliable vendor meeting specifications for golf carts at Rich Acres for the last three year period. 2. E-Z Go Textron (Upper Midwest) submitted the most economically sound bid for the operation of Richfield's Rich Acres Golf Course. Prices for the most part are the same as the previous three year period. 3. There is sufficient funding in the adopted 1999 operating budget of the golf course . for such a lease agreement. ~C-1 Alternative Recommendation: 1. Reject all bids at this time and readvertise for a lease agreement. It is the opinion of staff that lower bids will not be received. ~..J 2. Reject all bids at this time and readvertise for purchase of golf carts. While it may be advantageous sometime in the future to own golf carts, staff feels there are currently major advantages to leasing including: 1} new carts each year, 2) no storage is required, 3) current complement of golf course personnel available may not be sufficient to maintain owned fleet, 4) no cash outlay or loss of interest. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the January 11, 1999 regular City Council meeting. Staff is asking for approval at this time so that a timely purchase can be made. Respectfully submitted, James .Prosser City Manager JDP:ds • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening December 16, 1998 10:30 a.m. Golf Car Rental for Rich Acres Golf Course Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for golf car rental for Rich Acres Golf Course, as advertised in the official newspaper on November 11, 1998. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Francie Fletcher, Administrative Services Representative Doris Swanson, City Manager Representative Mike Lanigan, Community Services Manager • The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Vendor Bid Security Proposal 1999 Proposal 2000 E-Z-GO Textron 5% Bid $26,825.00 $26,825.00 St. Louis Park, MN Bond Utility Car $ 890.00 $ 890.00 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the January 11, 1999 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk :7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 11 Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Setting a date for the 1999 Local Board of Equalization. Background: Minnesota Statute 274.01 provides that the County Assessor shall establish a date for Local Boards of Review each year, for the purpose of reviewing the assessment of property within each respective city in Hennepin County. The meetings are to be held between March 1 and May 31 and must be preceded by at least 10 days published notice before the date of the first meeting. The Board of Equalization must complete its work within 20 days of the first local Board meeting each year, unless a longer period of time is approved by the Commissioner of Revenue. However, the Commissioner will not issue an extension past May 31. The County Assessor has recommended Monday, May 3, 1999 as the date of the 1999 Local Board of Equalization meeting for Richfield. The meeting will be scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. The City of Richfield has typically held. its Board of Equalization meeting the last Monday in April or the first Monday m May. Approximately a month prior to the Local Board of Equalization meeting, the Administrative Services Director and staff of the Hennepin County Assessor's office assigned to Richfield will brief Council Members on the Board of Equalization process and of typical cases that may come before the Board. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council confirm the County Assessor's selection of Monday, May. 3, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. for the 1999 Board of Equalization meeting. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The County Assessor coordinates the scheduling of all Local Boards of Review in Hennepin County. He has recommended Monday, May 3, 1999. 2. This meeting date allows ample time for the City to conclude its Board business. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could select another date for the Local Board of Equalization Hearing and submit the date to the County Assessor. Discussion/Decision Mode: Hennepin County must make a schedule of Local Board of Equalization hearings to facilitate the County Board hearings and to ensure that needed information has been compiled prior to the Local Board of Equalization meetings. Notification to Hennepin County should be made as soon as possible, especially if an alternative day is requested. Respec ully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City anager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 10 Agenda January 11, 1999 REVISED Issue Statement: Consideration to approve a retainer with JMS Communications for communication services for the City of Richfield during calendar year 1999. Background: The City of Richfield has utilized the services of JMS Communications (Jill Schultz) for the past several years. In order to budget for expected communication expenses, a retainer has been prepared for 1999. The retainer proposal includes services related to preparation of the Your City, Airport, Public Works transportation projects, Utilities, Street and Park Maintenance. The retainer covers expected communication services based upon .prior years' experience. The cost of the retainer is $27,795. City staff may retain JMS for items outside the retainer on an as needed basis. Recommended Motion: Approve a retainer agreement with JMS Communications for communication services during 1999. w Basis of Recommendation: 1. The retainer provides necessary communication services for a variety of City activities. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may decide to alter the scope of the services. 2. The Council may decide to not authorize a retainer. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for consideration at the January 11 Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak • ~I-/ CITY OF RICHFIELD JMS COMMUNICATIONS & RESEARCH 1999 RETAINER PROPOSAL Hourly Rate $85/hr Total Hours Total Cost Cost/Month City Administrative 114 $ 9,690.00 $ 807.50 Public Works 128 $ 10,880.00 $ 906.67 Recreation 85 $ 7,225.00 $ 602.08 CITY RETAINER TOTAL 327 $ 27,795.00 $2,316.25 • ~~ - City of Richfield JMS Communications & Research 1999 Retainer Proposal CITY ADMINISTRATIVE • 1. Your City -- 5.5 hrs/month x 12 = 66 hours 2. Airport -- 2.5 hours/month x 12 = 30 hours 3. Strategic Communications --1.5 hours/month x 12 = 18 hours Total 114 hours JMS City Administrative Retainer Total: 114 hours x $85 hour = $ 9,690.00 or $ 807.50 per month • J~J -3 • • • City of Richfield JMS Communications & Research 1999 Retainer Proposal PUBLIC WORKS 1. Engineering--Transportation o Edit/Rewrite four brochures - 4 x 4 hours = 16 hours o Open House 4 hours= 4 hours o Program Information 4 x 4 hours = 16 hours o Communications & 12 hours = 12 hours Public Participation Planning Subtotal 48 hours 2. Engineering --Construction Supervision o Communications assistance on large projects 20 hours -- communications plans, written materials & informational pieces, open house planning 3. Utilities o Consumer confidence brochure, write, rough layout/design, edit; communications planning, article. 30 hours 4. Operations & Maintenance o Flyers on Street and Park Maintenance Services 30 hours TOTAL 128 hours JMS Public Works Retainer Total: 128 hours x $ 85/hr = $10,880.00 or $906.67 per month J~~" City of Richfield JMS Communications & Research 1999 Retainer Proposal RECREATION Multi-Purpose Recreational Facility 1) Communications Plan with Task Force 25 hours 3) Ongoing Communications Strategy 20 hours Subtotal 45 hours Golf Course Project 1) Communications Plan 10 hours 2) Development of Materials 30 hours Including meeting materials, letters, newsletters, brochure, news releases, articles, etc. Subtotal 40 hours JMS Public Recreation Retainer Total: 85 hours x $85/hour = $ 7,225.00 or $ 602.08 per month • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 9 Agenda January 11, 1999 Issue Statement: Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting awarded by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). Background: The City was recently notified that its comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997 qualifies for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest from of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by the government and its management. The GFOA, which is responsible for presenting the certification, is a nonprofit, professional association serving 9,500 government finance professionals.. The Association provides a variety of technical publications in various fields of government finance and represents the public community of Washington, D.C. The specific comprehensive annual financial report was judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program established by GFOA, including demonstrating a constructive spirit of full disclosure effort to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential persons and users to read the financial report. When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is also given to the individual designated as primarily responsible for having earned the certificate. This Award of Financial Reporting Achievement will be presented to Chris Regis, Richfield's Finance Manager, on behalf of the entire Finance -Division. This is the 13th consecutive year that Richfield has earned the award. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council present the Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting to Finance Manager Chris Regis on behalf of the Government Finance Officers Association. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City has been notified by GFOA that the certificate has been attained and that the presentation to the Finance Manager would be appropriate. 2. The City Council wishes to take such opportunities to recognize achievement of City staff, especially at a public forum, such as City Council meeting. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could accept the award and make no mention of it at the City Council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action on this item is suggested for January 11, 1999 Respec fully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City anager JDP:cak