Loading...
05-11-98 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27,1998; AND (2) RICHFIELD BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF MAY 4, 1998 PRESENTATIONS 1. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 18-22,1998 SMALL BUSINESS WEEK IN RICHFIELD • INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD. 2. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA AGENDA APPROVAL 3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 4. CONSIDERATION OF SELECTION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE FOR NEW 1-35W BRIDGE AT 66TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 106 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 AWARD OF CONTRACT TO MCNAMARA CONTRACTING, INC. FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF 70TH STREET BETWEEN CHICAGO AVENUE AND BLOOMINGTON AVENUE IN AMOUNT OF $364,819.39 C.L. 107 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO LINDAHL & CARLSON, INC. FOR 1998 ANNUAL CURB AND GUTTER, SIDEWALK AND MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE REPAIR IN AMOUNT OF $43,584 CL. 108 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT TO ALLOW 1,400 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ADDITION AT 607 EAST 77TH STREET C.L. 109 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FOR SERVICES RELATED TO PARK DESIGN CONCEPT PLANS FOR MONROE AND FAIRWOOD PARKS IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,220 C.L. 110 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION MAKING APPLICATION TO MINNESOTA AMATEUR SPORTS COMMISSION FOR MIGHTY DUCK GRANT OF $250,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND ICE SHEET AT RICHFIELD ICE ARENA C.L. 111 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF NEW RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE; 7433 EAST PLEASANT AVENUE, THREE DOGS AND TWO CATS C.L. 112 G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ON-SALE 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR G&S OF RICHFIELD, DBA KING OSCAR'S, 1120 EAST 66TH STREET C. L. 113 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTION FOR STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR EXPANSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF CITY HALUHEREDIA PARK PARKING LOT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 114 7. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ISSUANCE OF 1998 SECONDHAND GOODS DEALER LICENSE FOR GROW BIZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., DBA COMPUTER RENAISSANCE, 720 WEST 78TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 115 8. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REQUEST FROM STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR ISSUANCE OF NEW CURRENCY EXCHANGE LICENSE FOR YOUNGE, POTTS, WIEZER, & COMPANY, INC., 7620 LYNDALE AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 116 9. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO COUNCIL SALARIES 0 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 117 0 PROPOSED ORDINANCES 10. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION 511 OF ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW LIMITED EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES COUNCIL LETTER NO. 118 11. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTIONS 506 AND 521 OF ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL FRONT PORCH ADDITIONS THAT ENCROACH ON FRONT SETBACK COUNCIL LETTER NO. 119 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS AIRPORT BUSINESS 12. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 13. LEGISLATIVE REPORT . COUNCIL CHOICE 14. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 15. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 16. 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. 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1998 SPECIAL METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING WITH CITY OF RICHFIELD RESIDENTS, CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION 7:00 P.M. RICHFIELD SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 7001 HARRIET AVENUE AUDITORIUM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER • 1. PRESENTATION ON LOW FREQUENCY NOISE AND ITS IMPACTS, AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION STRATEGY. THE MEETING WILL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TO PRESENT QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS TO MAC PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 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. 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 119 Agenda May 11, 1998 Issue Statement: First reading of an ordinance amendment to subsections 506 and 521 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow residential front porch additions that encroach on the front setback. Background: The Planning Commission is recommending an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow property owners to add porches onto the fronts of single and two- family homes. Currently, the residential front setback requirement is 30 feet and covered porches are not allowed to encroach into this 30 foot setback. Because most houses are built at the 30 foot setback, it is not possible to add a front porch. The proposed amendment makes changes to the R, R-1 and MR-1 (two family residence) zoning districts. The amendment would mean that residential property owners could add on a front porch, up to 10 feet in depth and as close as 20 feet to the front property line, and not be in violation of the setback requirement. The porch encroachments would require the approval of the Community Development Director and would have to meet certain design criteria. The Commission believed that design criteria were necessary because of the amount of the encroachment and the fact that they would be in the front of the house. The amendment includes the following provisions: • porch additions up to 10 feet are permitted as long as the addition is no closer than 20 feet to the front lot line; • plans must be approved by the Community Development Director; • the exterior materials must be consistent with the front of the dwelling; • the roof must be integrated with the dwelling and have no less than a 3/12 slope; • the base of the porch cannot be open (deck-like); • at least 65 percent of the facade has to be either open or occupied by screens/windows/doors of transparent material; • plans that are not prepared by an architect have to be reviewed by the Design Advisor. An additional provision would allow front porches on homes located on corner lots that face the street rather than the avenue. These additions would also have to be at least 20 feet from the streetside lot line. Due to the growth in residential remodeling activity over the past few years, the Planning Commission has periodically reviewed the Zoning Ordinance to make sure • that zoning regulations do not act as a barrier to housing improvements. In the past, changes have been made to the Ordinance to allow reuse of small lots and to make it easier to construct two-car garages. The Planning Commission views the proposed a /mend/ment as a response to this need to continually review ordinances and remove barriers to property improvements. Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of an ordinance amendment to subsections 506 and 521 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow residential front porch additions that encroach on the front setback; and set a public hearing and second reading for June 8, 1998. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Staff have received several requests from residents wanting to build front porches over the past few years who are unable to do so because of front setback requirements. 2. Front setback encroachments are currently limited to uncovered landings (up to six feet) and completely enclosed vestibules (up to six feet). 3. Porch additions can improve the curb appeal of homes, utilize front yard space to add on to a home, and provide an opportunity for socially-oriented activity in the front of a home. 4. Because the porch encroachments will occur in front yards and bring dwellings closer to the front property line, it is important to have criteria requiring well- 10 designed additions. 5. The variance process would be an inappropriate way to allow front porch additions. A variance requires a finding of undue hardship that denies a property owner reasonable use of property. It would be difficult to argue that not having a front porch constitutes a hardship. 6. On April 28, 1998 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment. Alternative Recommendation: Deny this amendment at first reading. Discussion/Decision Mode: First reading is set for May 11, 1998. If approved, a public hearing and second reading will be scheduled on June 8, 1998. Respectfully submitted, Ja r Prosser . City anager JDP:cak //-Oq BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX B OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 506.07 of Appendix B of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is amended by adding subdivision 63 as follows: Subd. 63. "Porches" - A sheltered entryway attached to a building and projecting from the principal building; may be open-sided or partially enclosed. Section 2. Subsection 506.07 of Appendix B of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is amended by renumbering subdivisions 63 through 87 as follows: Subd. 634. "Public utilities, major" - Public utility buildings with more than 500 square feet of gross floor area; electric sub-stations; or high voltage transmission lines. Subd. 645. "Public utilities, minor" - Public utility buildings with 500 square feet or less of gross floor area; transformer boxes or similar utility features; or low voltage transmission lines. Subd. 666. "Restaurant - Class I" - Full Service Restaurant: restaurants where food and intoxicating beverages are served and consumed by customers while seated at a counter or table, and which may provide entertainment, either live or prerecorded. Subd. 667. "Restaurant - Class H" - Traditional Restaurant: restaurants where food and non-intoxicating beverages are served and consumed while seated at a counter or table; Cafeteria Restaurant: restaurants where food and non-intoxicating beverages are selected by customers while passing through a service line and taken to a table for consumption. Subd. 678. "Restaurant - Class III" - Fast Food or Convenience Restaurant: restaurants where most customers order and are served their food at a counter or in a motor vehicle in packages prepared to leave the premises, or able to be taken to a table or counter to be consumed; Drive-in Restaurant: restaurants where most customers consume their food on-site in a motor vehicle regardless of how it is served. Subd. 689. "Restaurant - Class IV" - Take Out Only Restaurant: Establishments where food is usually ordered by telephone and prepared on the premises for consumption off the premises, with no seating or other area provided on the premises for consumption. The establishment may deliver food to the customer, or the customer may pick food up. 0-3 Subd. 6970. "Service station" - An establishment where gasoline and other petroleum products are sold as the principal use of the property. Light maintenance activities such as engine tune-ups, lubrication, and minor repairs may also be provided if incidental to such principal use. Service stations do not include premises where retail sales space exceeds 25 percent of the total building area or 500 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is less. Service stations do not include premises where heavy automobile maintenance activities such as engine overhauls, automobile painting, and body work are conducted. Subd. 701. "Service station/convenience store" - An establishment where gasoline and other petroleum products are sold, and where the retail sales space exceeds 25 percent of the total building area or 500 square feet of gross floor area. Service station/convenience stores do not include premises where heavy automobile maintenance activities such as engine overhauls, automobile painting, and body work are conducted. Subd. 7-12. "Set back" - The minimum horizontal distance required between a building and the related front, side, or rear lot lines. Subd. 723. "Shopping center" - A grouping of retail businesses, service establishments, and/or office uses on a single site with common parking facilities. Subd. 724. "Story" - That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the next floor above it, or if there is no floor above it, then the space between such floor and the ceiling above it. Subd. 745. "Story, half" - That portion of a building under a gable, hip or gambrel roof the wall plates of which, on at least two opposite exterior walls, are not more than two feet above the floor of such story. Subd. 766. "Structure" - Anything erected, the use of which requires more or less permanent location on the ground or attachment to something having permanent location on the ground. Subd. 767. "Structural alteration" - Any change, other than incidental repairs, in the supporting members of a building such as bearing walls, columns, beams, girders, or foundation. Subd. 778. "Use, accessory" - A use associated with, incidental to, and on the same lot as, a principal use. Subd. 759. "Use, conditional" - A use, either public or private, which because of its • unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified as a permitted use in a particular //- q district. After due consideration in each case, of the impact of such use upon neighboring land, and of public need for the particular use at the particular location, such use may or may not be approved by the Council. CJ Subd. -7980. "Use, permitted" - A principal use which may be lawfully established in a particular district, provided it conforms with all the requirements, regulations and performance standards of such district. Subd. 801. "Use, principal" - The primary purpose for which land or premises or a building thereon is designed, arranged or intended or for which it is or may be occupied or maintained. Subd. 8-12. "Use, prohibited" - A use which shall not be established or conducted within a particular district. Subd. 823. "Variance" - A modification or variation of the literal provisions of this code where it is determined that by reason of special or unusual circumstances related to the individual property under consideration, strict application of the code would cause undue hardship, and granting of a variance would not interfere with the general purpose and intent of this code, nor have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. Subd. 834. "Yard" - A required open space located on the same lot with a building, d d b d f th unoccupie an uno structe rom e ground up, except for landscaping or other uses as provided by this code. The minimum depth or width of a yard shall consist of the horizontal distance between the lot line and the nearest wall of the principal building. Subd. 845. "Yard, front" - An open space on the same lot with the building extending across the entire width of the lot and situated between the front lot line and the nearest line of the principal building, as projected to the side lot line(s). (Figure 8) Rear Lot Line i , Side Rear Yard i Lot Line Side Lot Line i ` .i ; ` i , Side ! BiOd'"gR00r i Side Yards k•- Yard ---------, Front Yard ------------- Front Lot Line Figure 8 Subd. 856. "Yard, rear" - A yard extending across the entire width of the lot and situated between the rear lot line and the nearest line of the principal building, as projected to the side lot line(s). (Figure 8, p. 506-10) ))-,5 Subd. 867. "Yard, side" - A yard lying between the side lot line and the nearest line of the building extending between the front yard and the rear yard, or in the absence of either such front or rear yard, to the front or rear lot lines. (Figure 8, p. 506-10) Subd. 878. "Zoning district" - An area or areas of the City for which the regulations under this code governing use, land, or structure are uniform. (Amended, Bill No. 1996-22) Section 3. Subsection 521.11, subdivisions 7 (g) and 7 (h) of Appendix B of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield are added as follows: in required front yards. covered porches attached to the principal building that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 20 feet from the front lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by the Communi Development Director. The Community Development Director must make the following findings to approve a porch encroachment up to 10 feet: i) the exterior materials of the proposed porch are consistent or complementary in color, texture and quality with those visible at the front of the dwelling; ii) the roof of the proposed porch is properly proportioned to and integrated with the roof of the dwelling and has no less than a 3/12 slope; iii) the base of the porch is not open and its appearance is consistent with the base of the dwelling, iv) at least 65 percent of the exposed porch facade is open or occupied by windows, screens, and/or doors of transparent material, the facade constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling; and V) plans are prepared by a registered architect or reviewed by the City's Design Advisor: The Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as needed to make the required findings: and h) in reauired residential street side yards, covered porches attached to the front of a principal building that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 20 feet from the streetside lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by the Community Development Director. The Director must make the findings required by Section 521.11, subdivision 7(g)(i) - M. The Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as needed to make the required findings Section 4. Subsection 521.27, subdivisions 5 (e) and 5 (f) of Appendix B of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield are added as follows: • e) in required residential front yards, covered porches attached to the principal building that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 20 feet from the front lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director must make the following findings to approve a porch encroachment up to 10 feet: i) the exterior materials of the proposed porch are consistent or complementary in color, texture and quality with those visible at the front of the dwelling; ii) the roof of the proposed porch is properly proportioned to and integrated with the roof of the dwelling and has no less than a 3/12 slope iii) the base of the porch is not open and its appearance is consistent with the base of the dwelling; iv) at least 65 percent of the exposed porch facade is open or occupied by windows, screens, and/or doors of transparent material; the facade constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling: and v) plans are prepared by a registered architect or reviewed by the City's Design Advisor; The Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as needed to make the required findings; and in reauired residential street side vards, covered porches attached to the front of a principal building that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 20 feet from the streetside lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by the Community Development Director. The Director must make the findings required by Section 521.27, subdivision 5(e)(i) - (v). The Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as needed to make the required findings. Section 5. Subsection 521.45, subdivisions 6 (f) and 6 (g) of Appendix B of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield are added as follows: e) in reauired residential front vards. covered porches attached to the principal buildin that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 20 feet from the front lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director must make the following findings to approve a porch encroachment up to 10 feet: i) the exterior materials of the proposed porch are consistent or complementary in color, texture and quality with those visible at the front of the dwelling; ii) the roof of the proposed porch is properly proportioned to and integrated with the roof of the dwelling and has no less than a 3/12 slope; iii) the base of the porch is not open and its appearance is consistent with the base of the dwelling; is iv) at least 65 percent of the exposed porch facade is open or occupied by • windows, screens, and/or doors of transparent material; the facade constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling; and v) plans are prepared by a registered architect or reviewed by the City's Design Advisor; The Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as needed to make the required findings; and in reauired residential street side vards. covered porches attached to the front of a principal building that extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 20 feet from the streetside lot line and that the design of the porch is approved by the Community Development Director. The Director must make the findings required by Section 521.47, subdivision 6 (e)(i) - (v). The Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as needed to make the required findings. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this- day of , 1998. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 10 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 118 Agenda May 11, 1998 Issue Statement: First reading of an ordinance amendment to subsection 511 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow limited expansion of nonconforming residential structures. Background: Staff has received several variance requests in the past two years from property owners who want to build an addition onto a house or garage that does not meet current setback requirements (see Attachment A). A structure that does not meet current setback requirements is considered nonconforming. Nonconforming structures can only be enlarged if the expansion meets current building and zoning requirements. This makes it difficult for some buildings to be expanded because the addition would be out of line with the existing structure. For example, the side setback requirement for detached garages used to be two feet. The current setback requirement is three feet. To expand a garage with a two foot setback (on the side with the two foot setback) the expansion has to be set back three feet from the property line. (See Attachment B) • The proposed amendment adds an exception to the nonconforming structures provision in Section 511.13, subd. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The nonconforming structures provision currently reads, "a nonconforming building occupied by a conforming use may be enlarged if the expansion meets all applicable City Code requirements." The amendment would add an exception to this provision to allow expansions that don't meet setback requirements. The provision places the following limits on these expansions: • it applies only to single and two family residential properties; • the structure can be expanded up to 100 percent of current size (provided all other requirements are met); • the expansion cannot extend any farther into the setback; and • it applies only to setback infringements of 50 percent or less (e.g. a garage with a five foot setback that is supposed to have a 15 foot setback would not qualify for this exception). There may be instances where the City would not want a nonconforming structure expanded because an expansion would worsen a bad situation. To avoid these situations, the amendment places limits on the amount of variance permitted without a public hearing. 0 /0-1 Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of an ordinance amendment to subsection 511 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow limited expansion of nonconforming residential structures; and set a public hearing and second reading for June 8, 1998. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Staff has encountered several instances in which a property owner has encountered difficulty expanding an existing nonconforming structure. 2. It is appropriate to review the Zoning Ordinance when multiple situations suggest a change may need to be made. 3. In cases where the setback infringement is minimal and/or the existing structure does not cause any problems, the variance process can be onerous. 4. On April 28, 1998, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment. Alternative Recommendation: Deny this amendment at first reading. Discussion/Decision Mode: First reading is set for May 11, 1998. If approved, a public hearing and second reading will be scheduled on June 8, 1998. Respectfully submitted, Jame . Prosser City Manager JDP:cak 0 /(D- a BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX B OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 511.13 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code is amended by adding the following new subdivision: Subd. 5. Enlargement of building with nonconforming setback. A legally nonconforming single or two family dwelling or garage which existed on or before June 1, 1995, which is occupied by a conforming use, and which does not meet current setback reauirements can be expanded up to 100 percent of the floor area of the existing structure, as long as the following conditions are met: a) the expansion does not extend any farther into the required setback than the existing structure: b) the existing structure does not infringe on the setback more than 50 percent of the required setback distance: and c) the expansion meets all other applicable City Code requirements. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1998. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 Q Z LIJ U Q H Q r 0 Z d x LU w H U D Z O LL. O Z O Z LL cn w w >..:: < ? co co Y co c0 `>C < Q O ti rn 0 LO LO 04 0 0 w::;€? ' w c?0 Y ? 00 < : <t N d 'r'te X# >3»-;> Y :..y..: X. : ?# >«>< M M M co O LO LO N M V a) a) co >'•` M M N j O M O N .? #>? N a) O N N cn >:> o V) ..? i o O O 70 O U i O O i C O (a O :»>s>< O O O j O O <> ?Std:::>>> ! N 0 L 0 U x a) x a) O O O E O O O O O 0 o O "O O rn N ) "O (U 'O "O a a 0) a a a m F- Iz W Z ?R W J V } CD 11 X a. X N 12 W T x I ?- Lq W a Cl) D x O S N I I 1 I i 3N1I A1H3dOHd - .5L sand anN3A`d Z W H Go o? T a 0 N n Z T O J Z Q U N oLU U- o_ 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA i Council Letter No. 117 Agenda May 11, 1998 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment relating to Council salaries. Background: Chapter II, Section 210 of the City ordinance establishes the salaries of the City Council and provides that the salaries of the Council Members be reviewed by December 1 of each year in which an election is held. The City Council adopted Policy Statement No. 1 on July 13, 1987. The policy statement provides that in years a municipal election is to be held, the Council shall establish a revised pay schedule for Council Members and the Mayor. The policy also provides that the amount of increase granted to employees in the year subsequent to the previous salary adjustment would be used as a guideline. The salary increase -for.- employees in the General Services and Management pay plans was 2.5% in 1995, 3% in 1996, 3% in 1997, and 3% in 1998 Council salaries were last adjusted 2.5% for fiscal year 1994 (effective in 1995). The current salary of the Mayor is $7,762 annually; and each Council Member salary is $6,025 annually. The City Council did not approve a salary increase in 1996 (effective 1997). As stipulated in the City Charter, salary increases do.. not take effect until after the next succeeding municipal election. This means any change in salaries would be effective January 1, 1999. At the April 6, 1998 Study Session, the City Council requested that a proposed ordinance amendment to increase Council salaries by 3% be prepared for consideration at the April 13, 1998 City Council meeting. The 3% increase would adjust the Mayor's salary to $7,995 per year and Council Member salaries to $6,206 per year. First reading of this ordinance amendment was held on April 13, 1998 and the public hearing and second reading were scheduled for May 11, 1998. Notice regarding the public hearing and second reading was published in the City's official newspaper on April 29, 1998. Recommended Motion: Conduct the public hearing and approve second reading of an ordinance amendment to Chapter II, Section 210.01 of the ordinance code to increase the salary of the Mayor from $7,762 to $7,995 per year and the salaries of Council Members from $6,025 to $6,206 per year. q -- I Basis of Recommendation: 1. Chapter II, Section 210 of the City ordinance establishes salaries of the City Council and provides that salaries of Council Members be reviewed by December 1 of year in which an election is held. 2. The City Charter stipulates that City Council salaries may be adjusted only by ordinance. 3. First reading was held on April 13, 1998 and the public hearing and second reading were scheduled for May 11, 1998. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Continue discussion of this item to another Council meeting. 2. Proposed alternative salary adjustments other than the proposed amount. 3. Do not approve second reading of the ordinance and take no further action. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing and second reading are scheduled for the May 11, 1998 City Council meeting. If the ordinance is approved on second reading at the May 11, 1998 City Council meeting, salary increases would become effective January 1, 1999. Respe ully submitted, Ja D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak 0 BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 210 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 210 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by amending Subdivisions 1 and 2, Subsection 210.01 to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Mayor. The salary of the mayor is $7,762 $7,995 per year. Subdivision 2. Council. The salary of a member of the council is $6,026 $6.206 per year. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of May, 1998. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 10 Council Letter No. 116 Agenda May 11, 1998 Issue Statement: Public hearing regarding a request from the State of Minnesota for the issuance of a new currency exchange license for Younge, Potts, Wiezer, & Company, Inc., 7620 Lyndale Avenue, Richfield. Background: On March 30, 1998, the City received notification from the State of Minnesota, Department of Commerce, of a new application for a currency exchange license in the name of Younge, Potts, Wiezer & Company, Inc., 7620 Lyndale Avenue. A license for this type of business is not required in the City. However, effective on April 24, 1992, Minnesota Statute 53A.04 requires that the Department of Commerce submit any application for licensure as a currency exchange to the governing body of the municipality in which the business proposes to conduct business. This law also requires the governing municipality to render a decision regarding issuance or denial of the license within 60 days of the receipt of the State's notification. The State requires that the applicant submit the following information when applying for this type of license: • License fees in the amount of $50. • A current fee schedule used for cashing checks, money orders or traveler's checks. • A surety bond in the amount of $10,000. • Any owner, partner, officer, director, stockholder (owning 10% or more of the corporate stock) or any employee with the authority to exercise management or policy control over the company must submit to a background investigation by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. All of this information has been provided to the State of Minnesota, and a background investigation conducted by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension found no information on the applicant, Curt R. Potts. Curt Potts resides in St. Paul. Richfield Public Safety Department has conducted a background investigation on the applicant. Curt R. Potts has no known criminal record. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Council approve state issuance of a currency exchange license for Younge, Potts, Wiezer & Company, Inc., located at 7620 Lyndale Avenue. 0 811 Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with State Statute 53A.04 for a currency exchange license with the State of Minnesota. 2. A background investigation of the applicant finds no reason to recommend denial of the license. 3. This public hearing was scheduled at the Council meeting on April 27, 1998. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could deny the license request; however, staff has determined that there is no basis for this alternative. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval of the issuance of a currency exchange license by the State of Minnesota for Younge, Potts, Wiezer & Company Inc., 7620 Lyndale Avenue, is submitted for Council consideration at this time. Respectfu y submitted, • James . Prosser City Manager JDP:cak 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA S Council Letter No. 115 Agenda May 11,1998 Issue Statement: Public hearing regarding the issuance of a 1998 secondhand goods dealer license for Grow Biz International, Inc., d/b/a Computer Renaissance, 720 West 78th Street, Richfield, MN. Background: On February 20, 1998, the City received the application and other required documents for the secondhand goods dealer license for Grow Biz International, Inc., d/b/a Computer Renaissance. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: • Computer Renaissance is a franchise of Grow Biz International. Grow Biz International's Corporate office is located at 4200 Dahlberg Drive, Minneapolis, Minnesota. • Computer Renaissance has five other stores located in the cities of Roseville, Burnsville, Minnetonka, Minneapolis, and Eden Prairie. Computer Renaissance is a business that buys, sells, and trades new and used computer equipment. • Mr. Michael Flynn is the President of Computer Renaissance. • A financial background was conducted on all individuals having an interest in the license. These individuals include: Kenneth Dahlberg, Grow Biz International Chairman of the Board; Ronald Olson, Grow Biz International Chief Executive Officer; Ted Manley, Grow Biz International Executive Vice President; and Michael Flynn, Computer Renaissance President. A criminal background investigation was also conducted on these individuals. No criminal records were found. • Miriam Kniaz is the acting manager of the establishment. She also has no known criminal record. • A copy of the Articles of Incorporation and annual report have been provided and are on file with the City. • The $1,500 bond has been submitted showing Continental Casualty Company affording the coverage. The owner of the business agrees to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. Recommended Motion: Council approval of the issuance of a new secondhand goods dealer license for Grow Biz International Inc., d/b/a Computer Renaissance, 720 West 78th Street. 0 ?-l Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to secondhand goods dealer licensing. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. 3. This public hearing was scheduled at the Council meeting on April 27, 1998. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny the license which would mean that the applicant would not be able to conduct a secondhand goods dealer business in the City of Richfield. Discussion/Decision Mode: Issuance of a 1998 secondhand goods dealer license for Grow Biz International, Inc., d/b/a Computer Renaissance, 720 West 78th Street, is presented for Council consideration at this time. Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser City Manager JDP:cak . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 114 Agenda May 11, 1998 Issue Statement: Public hearing regarding acceptance of plans and specifications and direction for staff to advertise for bids for the expansion and reconstruction of the City Hall/Heredia Park parking lot. Background: For several years the availability of parking at Richfield City Hall and Heredia Park has been inadequate. At the meeting of August 25, 1997 Council directed staff to acquire the property south of and adjacent to the existing City Hall parking lot with the intention of expanding the parking lot. That property has now been acquired and staff is seeking Council direction to expand the parking lot. If approved, the expanded lot will provide 28 additional parking stalls and will improve traffic circulation, lighting and storm water management. The new parking lot will also provide safer access to and from Portland Avenue. Four trees currently on City property will be removed for this project: three 15 feet tall (+/-) scotch pine which are in the park and one large elm tree currently between the parking lot and Portland Avenue. Trees currently on the home site south of the parking lot will also be removed. Two of these trees are small enough to move and Richfield's Park Maintenance Division will be asked to move those to a City park where they can do the most good. Six replacement trees will be planted as part of the project. In total, 2,900 square feet or 0.067 acres of park land will be used for the new parking lot. The area to be used has been marked by staff. The estimated cost of construction is $110,500. Staff held a public information meeting on April 30, 1998 in the City Council Chambers. One hundred ninety five letters were sent to residents in the area bounded by 66th Street, Clinton Avenue, 69th Street, and Oakland Avenue inviting them to the information meeting as well as to the public hearing on May 11. A press release was issued for notice of the information meeting and public hearing to be placed on the web site and cable television bulletin board. The press release about the information meeting and public hearing was also sent to the Richfield Sun Current newspaper and was included in a larger article about the City's scheduled summer street projects. A legal notice pertaining to the May 11 public hearing was published in the Sun Current. Although eight to ten residents participated in the public information meeting, only six residents signed the sign-in sheet, two of whom also filled out comment cards (comments attached). Comments to staff were split between those supporting the project and those against it. However, the majority of those attending the April 30 information meeting were opposed to the parking lot expansion. Those residents not favoring expanded parking cited loss of park land, loss of trees, lack of need for the 0 project and cost as factors in their opinion. (0-1 Recommended Motion: Close the public hearing, accept plans and specifications, and authorize staff to advertise for bids to expand the City Hall/Heredia Park parking lot by adding 28 new parking stalls. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The existing City Hall/Heredia Park parking lot fills to overflowing at sometime nearly every working day forcing City Hall customers to park on nearby residential streets. 2. The existing parking lot is in need of major repair and will have to be repaved in a very few years if not replaced at this time. 3. Traffic circulation in the existing lot is confusing to City Hall customers and causes potential safety hazards for those entering and exiting Portland Avenue. 4. Sufficient funding is available for the work. 5. Both the Planning Commission and Community Services Commission reviewed this project and recommended it for Council inclusion in the Capital Improvement Program when the project was originally scheduled for construction in 1999. The project is included in the Council adopted 1999-2003 Capital Improvement Program. The commissions are currently going through the proposed 1999 Capital Budget and 2000-2004 Capital Improvement Program process. The process includes reviewing a revised 1998 Capital Budget which now contains the City Hall/Heredia Park parking lot expansion project. The Planning Commission took action April 27 to recommend a Capital Budget/Capital Improvement Program to the City Council and the Community Services Commission is scheduled to make a recommendation on May 12, 1998. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not do the work. However, the existing problems of inadequate parking, poor traffic circulation and poor lighting and drainage will continue. The existing parking lot will require major maintenance in the near future. 2. Direct staff to decrease the scope of the project by six stalls. This will decrease the encroachment into Heredia Park from 19 feet to 10 feet or from 2,900 sq. ft. to 1,500 sq. ft. This would reduce the number of new parking stalls from 28 to 22, and would save an estimated $4,000 of the $110,500 estimated construction cost. 3. Direct staff to decrease the scope of the project by 12 stalls. This will eliminate the encroachment into the park, but would reduce the number of new parking stalls from 28 to 16 and would save an estimated $8,000 of the $110,500 estimated construction cost. (v-j- 4. Direct staff to look for other places near City Hall and Heredia Park to increase . parking. 5. Delay this proposed project and direct staff to enter into mediation with concerned neighbors over design issues and use of park land. This project is currently scheduled to start after the Fourth of July holiday. A short delay would still allow construction to be completed this year. A delay of more than a month could force the project to be delayed until next year. Mediation would likely need representation from the Planning Commission and Community Services Commission to represent the users of the parking lot. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for Council action at the May 11, 1998 meeting. Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak 0 0 (a3 0 COMMENTS RECEIVED AT APRIL 30 OPEN HOUSE REGARDING PROPOSED EXPANDING PARKING LOT AT CITY HALL/HEREDIA PARK NAME COMMENT Jennifer Turrentine Do we need to take from the park? 6743 Fourth Avenue Marcia Schoeneman No park land for parking lots! 6731 Fourth Avenue 869-1093 (h) 296-3495 (w) List of Attendees: Name Chad Sharkey Henry Mattilla 40 Marcia and Ron Schoeneman P. Huguet Jennifer Turrentine Address 6637 Park Avenue 6800 Fourth Avenue 6731 Fourth Avenue 6819 Fifth Avenue 6743 Fourth Avenue E 565- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 113 Agenda May 11, 1998 Issue Statement: Issuance of on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for G&S of Richfield, d/b/a King Oscar's, 1120 East 66t Street, Richfield, MN. Background: The application for the issuance of the on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license has been submitted by G&S of Richfield d/b/a King Oscar's. The required license fee has been paid. The Public Safety investigation has been conducted and reveals the following: • Sarah Hampton and O'Neal Hampton are the owners of the establishment. Sarah Hampton is acting as General Manager. Sarah and O'Neal Hampton have no known criminal history. • The owners of the property are O'Neal and Sarah Hampton. The City is currently able to issue 15 on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. This would be a request for license number 13. Recommended Motion: Approve the issuance of the on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for G&S of Richfield, d/b/a King Oscar's, 1120 East 66th Street, Richfield, MN. Basis of Recommendation: • 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the City Code and State Statute pertaining to on-sale 3.2 percent liquor licensing. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny the on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for G&S of Richfield, d/b/a King Oscar's. This would mean that they would be unable to serve any on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor. Discussion/Decision Mode: The request to consider the issuance of an on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for G&S of Richfield, d/b/a King Oscar's, 1120 East 66th Street, is presented for Council consideration at this time. Respectf ly submitted, Jame . Prosser City M ager JDP:cak 0 5)'--- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 112 Agenda May 11, 1998 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for a new residential kennel license for Steve Hallberg, 7433 East Pleasant Avenue. Background: On April 6, 1998, Steve Hallberg submitted an application for a residential kennel license. He owns three dogs and two cats. Mr. Hallberg's application contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. On April 20, 1998, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The City has adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received no calls regarding this application. Although this application is for three dogs and two cats, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel license be approved. • Basis of Recommendation: 1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Hallberg has been able to do this. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny Mr. Hallberg's residential kennel license. This would mean that he would have to reduce the number of dogs he has from three to two. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to approve the application for a residential kennel license for Mr. Hallberg, 7433 East Pleasant Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time. Respectfully submitted, Jame . Prosser City nager JDP:cak 0 5E- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 111 Agenda May 11, 1998 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to apply for a "Mighty Duck Grant" of $250,000 for the construction of a second ice sheet. Background: At the January 26, 1998 regular City Council meeting a group of interested citizens (the ICE Group) asked that the City explore the idea of constructing a second indoor ice sheet at the ice arena at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. The City Council listened to the request and asked staff to prepare a feasibility study on the matter of the second ice sheet. At the March 23, 1998 regular City Council meeting there was a public hearing regarding the second ice sheet. Delano Erickson Architects has been hired to prepare plans and specification for advertisement of bids for construction of the second ice sheet. The project is estimated to cost $2.5 million. The financial consulting firm of Ehlers and Associates identified a number of potential financing sources for a second ice sheet if it were to be approved. The major source of • funding would undoubtedly end up being a bond issue. The City Council directed staff to reduce the gap between project costs and the amount of bond funding necessary to pay for the project. There is the potential of reducing the debt service by obtaining a $250,000 "Mighty Ducks" grant. The grant application must be submitted by May 29, 1998. The City of Richfield must agree to enter into necessary and required agreements with the Amateur Sports Commission for the specific purpose of construction of a second ice sheet and match the $250,000 from the State General Fund. The 1998 Grant Recipient must complete the project within 16 months of when contract officially begins. The first step in the process is for the City Council to pass a resolution approving support for the project and grant application. Recommended Motion: To approve the resolution authorizing the City of Richfield application for a $250,000 "Mighty Duck" Grant for the construction of a second ice sheet at the Richfield Ice Arena. 0 5-El/ Basis of Recommendation: i 1. If the City was awarded the grant, the debt service for second ice sheet would be reduced by approximately $22,000 per year. 2. If the City Council is to compete for an up to $250,000 grant for the construction of a second ice sheet, the Council action authorizing the recommended resolution must be passed at a Council meeting in May to ensure that the application is submitted in a timely manner. 3. The passage of this resolution and its submission along with the application does not require the City Council to do anything more than match $250,000 of local funds toward the construction of an ice sheet in a timely manner once, and if, the grant is made to the City of Richfield. 4. The City of Richfield has previously received a Mighty Ducks Grant for the locker room expansion at the current ice arena and submitted a similar resolution during that process. 5. The previous Mighty Ducks Grant award received by the City of Richfield was very helpful for locker room expansion and was a relatively easily administered program. Alternative Recommendation: • 1. The City Council could choose not to seek the $250,000 grant to assist in the second ice sheet. Discussion/Decision Mode: As stated previously, if the City Council desires to proceed with the application for these funds to assist in the construction of a second ice sheet, action should be taken on this item at the May 11 City Council meeting to allow appropriate time to put together an effective grant application for the funding. submitted, James City Ma JDP:cak 0 550-0. RESOLUTION OF LOCAL SUPPORT FOR MIGHT DUCK GRANT APPLICATION WHEREAS, the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission (MASC), via the State General Fund, provides for capital funds to assist political subdivisions of the state of Minnesota for the development of sport facilities; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield desires to construct and develop a second ice sheet for the sports of ice skating. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Estimates that the total cost of developing said facility shall be $2,500,000 and the City of Richfield is requesting $250,000 from the State General Fund and will assume responsibility for a match requirement of $250,000. 2. The City of Richfield agrees to own, assume 100 percent operation costs for said sport facility, and will operate said facility for its intended purpose for the functional life of the facility which is estimated to be 50 years. 3. The Richfield City Council agrees to enter into necessary and required agreements with the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission for the specific purpose of constructing a sport facility and long-term program direction. • 4. That an application be made to the State of Minnesota, Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission, to be included in the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission's (Governor's) Capital Budget request for an amount presently estimated to be $2,000,000. 5. That James Prosser and/or the City of Richfield is authorized and directed to execute said application and serve as the official liaison with the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of May, 1998. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk C: SE-3 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the Richfield City Council at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 11th day of May, 1998, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. James Prosser, City Manager 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 110 Agenda May 11, 1998 Issue Statement: Approve a consulting contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. not to exceed $8,220 for services relating to park design concept plans for Monroe and Fairwood Parks. Background: During discussions at a neighborhood meeting regarding design and placement issues for new play features at Monroe and Fairwood Parks, it became apparent that the neighbors had concerns about design issues far broader than play features. They felt it was important to revisit the parks' plans prior to installing new playground equipment, rather than installing it in the wrong place. Drainage in both parks is also an issue and the City's storm water consultant will work with SRF to assure drainage issues are addressed properly. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. is a widely recognized consulting firm with landscape designers that specialize in neighborhood and community parks. They worked with the Sheridan Park neighborhood in the redevelopment of that park. The scope of services includes two neighborhood meetings, meetings with City staff as needed and design work. Work is to be billed on an hourly basis not to exceed $8,220 without further authorization. Recommended Motion: Approve the expenditure of up to $8,220 for consulting services as delineated in the contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. relating to park design concept plans for Monroe and Fairwood Parks. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Park planning for design related changes is appropriate prior to installing expensive play features. 2. Storm water related drainage issues also need to be addressed prior to installation of equipment or other amenities. 3. Funds are available in the playground project to cover this expenditure. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the contract, although the park planning process would be more difficult. 2. Approve the contract with alterations. Discussion/Decision Mode: Decision is requested at the May 11 Council meeting to allow the process to be completed early enough to order and install playground equipment this summer. submitted, 0 Ja osser Rfan?ageer CiJDP:cak MICONSULTING GROUP, INC. Transportation - Civil ¦ Structural ¦ Environmental ¦ Planning - Traffic - Landscape Architecture - Parking April 30, 1998 Ms. Gretchen L. Blank Recreation Services Director CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Ms. Blank: SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL PARK PLANNING SERVICES MONROE AND FAIRWOOD PARKS As you requested, we are pleased to submit this proposal of our services for the City of Richfield Park planning. Basic Services We propose to conduct park planning tasks in assisting with design concepts for each park. A detailed Scope of Services is attached in Exhibit A. Basis of Payment We propose to be reimbursed for our services on an hourly basis at a rate of 2.5 times salary cost of the actual time expended, for out-of-pocket expenses (printing, reproduction, etc.) at cost and for mileage at a rate not to exceed the IRS allowance for business miles (currently $325 per mile). Invoices would be submitted on a monthly basis for work performed during the previous month with payment due within 30 days. Interest at a rate of 1.5 percent per month will be added to all balances over 30 days. Based on our understanding of the work required at this time and our Scope of Services, we estimate that the cost of our services will not to exceed $8,220. Supplemental work or work outside our Scope of Services, such as additional meetings or concept revisions, would be performed at the above referenced hourly rates plus expenses. r One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 Telephone (612) 475-0010 ¦ Fax (612) 475-2429 ¦ http://www.srfconsulting.com An Equal Opportunity Employer • Oki Ms. Gretchen Blank -2- Notice to Proceed April 30, 1998 A signed copy of this letter or a separate letter of authorization returned to this office will serve as notice to proceed. We will proceed immediately after notification. Work tasks will be completed within 30 days. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. BASLA, AICP Principal BJW/smf Attachment APPROVED Name Title Date 0 W a • Z LL O LL' O z J zZ O U m Z J N O U W f w K 0 O 0 z y Y to Q F Y d' O 0 it J w LL x U U. O U i o W V j o U W N V : LL N N M N N O ! H ! N N Cl) N Q i O? F ! t O 11 O O O N to U 1 LC 1 O J ! U? O Z JQ i co v v o v o U_ t Z t rn v LY w F t a. t co N t0 0 w ti Ox a a , 2 _ H LL v to co t0 Y w d t ti t L o O o o a ? i O N Qi JQ N O r a Z t t Rf H L t L z L Q w to ? O [ F L Q L R' L a S W IL LL L w Q ? m r c L i ? i ? 1 S [ C L L O [ [ 0 J LL a ? LLL)l 4 U L 1 O C i M LLI J H W F S o C i z W 2 w z LL w Lr IL 1 U 1 O r 1l1 N r O 11 N co N N II II N O O N N N 6& co N N vi t0° N to Cl) N ? Q 409. o C%l oN N O N O in w 0 t- x x w z (J O Z O LU J Z a m Q 0 } w it m 2 x o w W H OF Q W W U. 0 w y w Q co 11 510-3 2 y N H N N ? Vl h zZ Z_ 2 M w a ayi N N N W N z c ° W x i> W L o S a t m Q O m O a Z I- w w n U v z m D W Z g O W Z U w to w w z z J a 0 z a z w w z 0 Z W U z a 0 K 0 0 U) U) U LC to 5-C, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No. 109 Agenda May 11, 1998 Issue Statement: Consideration of a request for an off-street parking permit to allow a 1,400 square foot building addition at 607 East 77th Street. Background: The owner of Asian Direct Market, 607 East 77th Street, is requesting an off-street parking permit to allow an expansion of the existing building. The 1,400 square foot expansion on the east end of the existing building would provide additional storage space for the grocery store. The existing 5,285 square foot building requires 22 parking spaces. An additional five spaces are required for the addition. The site plan allows 27 stalls which meets City parking requirements of four spaces for every 1,000 square feet of space. The exterior material would be a rock-face block, painted to match the existing building. Recommended Motion: Approve the request for an off-street parking permit to allow a 1,400 square foot building addition at 607 East 77th Street with the following stipulations: That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 2. That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public Works Director. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed addition provides needed storage space for the grocery store. 2. The 27 parking stalls on site meet City parking regulations. 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 Consent Calendar of the City Council meeting. RespectfuRy submitted, Jame . Prosser City Manager JDP:cak 0 Port/and A ve. South co) am 'fl r n z J ?? E yy MO Li I? i c- l New storage Addition to: ^°~°~ o? ARCHITECTS INC. Asian Market ?.....waw •... ?s «wow Richfield, MN • 9 0 ?q C 0 m 0 G 0. § C i W dill > a? m ? M J .rte ,nr 1 t 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 108 Agenda May 11, 1998 Issue Statement: Award contract for annual curb and gutter, sidewalk and miscellaneous concrete repair project. Background: Each year the City awards a contract to replace broken and dangerous sidewalk, curb and gutter and other concrete as necessary. This year's contract includes replacement of the last portion of the concrete apron in front of Fire Station No. 1, new sidewalk at the Ice Arena, a concrete slab for a bus shelter at 77th Street and Portland Avenue and replacement of colored concrete crosswalk at the HUB. There were five plan holders for the April 29, 1998 bid opening. Four bids were received. A copy of the bid minutes/tabulation is attached. Recommended Motion: Accept bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract for 1998 annual curb and gutter, sidewalk and miscellaneous concrete repair to Lindahl & Carlson, Inc. in the amount of $43,584. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The lowest responsible bid submitted is lower than the Engineers Estimate of $46,088. 0 2. There is sufficient funding available for this work. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not do the work. However, this contract is an important tool in protecting Richfield residents from injury caused by tripping on damaged sidewalk and slipping on ice built up in gutters. The contract also provides a tool for making minor improvements which benefit Richfield residents. 2. Award contract to another bidder. However, staff is not aware of any reason to award a contract for other than the lowest responsible bid. 3. Direct staff to readvertise the project. However, the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer's estimate and staff does not believe lower bids will be received. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for Council action at the May 11, 1998 meeting. The bid received will be valid for 60 days from the April 29, 1998 bid opening. Council should take action prior to the expiration of bid validity. A delay in award would still provide sufficient time for the contractor to complete the work by July 31, 1998 as specified. Respec Ily submitted, Jam D. Prosser City anager JDP:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 58-1 • 0 Bid Opening April 29, 1998 11:00 a.m. 1998 Concrete Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repair City Bid No. 98-8 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 1998 concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter repair, city bid no. 98-8, as advertised in the official newspaper on April 15, 1998. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk George Atkinson, Public Works Director Representative Doris Swanson, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name/City Bid Security Total Bid Amount Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 49,869.00 Gunderson Bros. Cement Contractors, Co. 5% Bid Bond $ 67,937.75 Lindahl & Carlson, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 43,584.00 Jim Scandy Concrete 5% Bid Bond $ 65,092.50 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the May 11, 1998 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 1? .s? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 107 Agenda May 11, 1998 Issue Statement: Award contract for the reconstruction of 70th Street between Chicago Avenue and Bloomington Avenue. Background: For several years the outer portions of 70th Street between Chicago and Bloomington Avenues has been showing severe deterioration. City staff has tried repeatedly to maintain the street through the use of milling, overlaying and patching, but each year 70th Street gotten worse. Soil tests have indicated that the failure is due to unstable soils under the outer portions of the street surface. The 70th Street project is designed to remove the unstable soils, replace them with granular material and then to reconstruct the street. Four residents attended a public information open house in the City Council Chambers on March 19, 1998. No negative comments were received at that meeting. The City Council conducted a public hearing on April 13, 1998 to receive public input about this proposed project. No one wished to address the Council and the public hearing was closed without public comment. Council then accepted plans and specifications for this project and directed staff to receive bids for the work. There were 11 plan holders for the April 15, 1998 bid opening Seven bids were received. A copy of the bid minutes/tabulation is attached. Recommended Motion: Accept bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract to McNamara Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $364,819.39 for the reconstruction of 70th Street between Chicago Avenue and Bloomington Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The lowest responsible bid submitted is lower than the Engineer's estimate of $392,826.51. The project, including engineering costs and contingencies, can be completed for an estimated $405,000, well below the $600,000 approved in the 1998 Capital Improvement Budget. 2. There is sufficient funding available in Richfield's Municipal State Aid (gas tax) construction account for this work. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not do the work. The center of the existing street is still in serviceable condition and could carry cars for several more years. However, the outer portions of 70th Street are in very poor condition and are causing concern about safety. Seventieth ?R-I Street will continue to deteriorate if the unstable soils are not removed and replaced with higher quality granular material. 2. Reject all bids and direct staff to reduce the scope of the project to repairing only the outer portions of the street. This approach will remedy the worst of the deterioration but would create its own maintenance problems which will last until the street is finally reconstructed. This approach is estimated to save only $35,000 or 10% of the project cost. 3. Award the contract to another bidder. However, staff is not aware of any reason to award a contract for other than the lowest responsible bid. 4. Direct staff to readvertise the project. However, the lowest responsible bid is below the Engineer's estimate and staff does not believe lower bids will be received. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for Council action at it's May 11, 1998 meeting. The bid received will be valid for 60 days from the April 15, 1998 bid opening. Council should take action prior to the expiration of bid validity. A two week delay in award would not seriously affect the ability of the contractor to functionally complete the project by August 28, 1998 as specified. Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser City Manager JDP:cak 1? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening 5q-c)-- April 15, 1998 11:00 a.m. 1998 Grading, Paving and Appurtenant Work on 70th Street City Project No. 401-30-547 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 1998 grading, paving and appurtenant work on 70th Street, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 25, 1998. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk George Atkinson, Engineering Supervisor Doris Swanson, City Manager Representative • The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR Bid Security Total Base Bid C.S.McCrossan Construction Co. 5% Bid Bond $ 456,901.10 Midwest Asphalt Corporation 5% Bid Bond $ 399,753.83 McNamara Contracting, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 364,819.39 Palda & Sons 5% Bid Bond $ 382,103.25 Vi-Con, Inc. Asphalt Contractors 5% Bid Bond $ 519,148.00 Bituminous Roadway 5% Bid Bond $ 379,553.00 Hardrives, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 396,916.70 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the May 11, 1998 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 106 Agenda May 11, 1998 Issue Statement: , Select a design alternative for the new 1-35W bridge at 66th Street. Background: As part of its 1-35W/Crosstown Commons reconstruction project, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has brought together representatives of Richfield and Minneapolis along with MnDOT staff to form an Aesthetic Design Review Committee. The purpose of the committee is to influence the look of corridor elements such as bridges, noise walls and landscaping. Each city is represented by a staff member and three citizens. The citizen representatives are Planning Commissioners David Gepner and Roger Gordon and Richfield resident Joe Capetz. The complete reconstruction of this bridge and the widening of 66th Street provides a truly unique opportunity to create the kind of prominent, community "gateway" identified in the Richfield Lake Area plan (RLAP). The appropriate design response for this intersection is critical because: • It would allow for the creation of a memorable piece of public works infrastructure, unique to Richfield, which would provide a high degree of community identity. • It is the primary connection for motorists and pedestrians between the east and west sides of the city -- it is where the community comes together. • It is the primary gateway to the RLA and to the community. • Another bridge will not be built for approximately 40 years. The Crosstown bridges at Lyndale, Pleasant and Nicollet Avenues will also be fully rebuilt. However, because none of these roads is being significantly widened and because their importance as gateways is less critical, they will not be upgraded to the extent envisioned at 66th Street. It is anticipated that the aesthetic enhancement of those bridges would not require City participation. The Richfield members of the committee, along with landscape architect Michael Schroeder, developed two alternates based on the identified themes of gardens and parks. They are referred to as the arch bridge and the trellis bridge. They are basically the same bridge structure with different treatments at the sidewalk entrances and along the bridge deck. In both the committee designs, the pedestrian space is highly emphasized. The sidewalks under the bridge have been designed to be as open and inviting as possible while at the same time being safely separated from traffic by a row of columns. The openings between the columns are approximately 13 feet wide and 15 feet high. The sidewalks will also be very well lit for safety. The safety aspect of the design was identified as a high priority concern of residents who commented on this issue. Drawings of both alternates, as well as MnDOT's proposed bridge, are attached. A narrative summary of the committee's alternates is also attached as is a brief description of the features of all three. MnDOT has a budget for this bridge of $1.6 million. Their policy is to provide aesthetic 0 enhancements totaling up to 7% of the bridge cost. In this case, that amount would be 4 -I $112,000. The attached MnDOT alternate represents the basic bridge plus a 7% "upgrade". Aesthetic enhancements beyond that would be the responsibility of the City. The following are MnDOT's cost estimates for the three alternates: Mi,dg'b Iternate nd' ba a ost 7% enhan ment Ci are To I co Committee Alternate A, $1.6 million $112,000 $396,400 $2.1 million Committee Alternate B, $1.6 million $112,000 $375,400 $2.1 million MnDOT Alternate C, $1.6 million $112,000 $0 $1.71 million The committee approached this task by asking what would a landmark-quality bridge look like. Alternates A and C (and the associated costs) represent the answer. However, staff believes that it would be possible to make changes that would reduce the city share, particularly as it relates to alternate A, by anywhere from 25% to 40% and still retain the integrity of the design. Possible funding sources, should the City Council select one of the committee alternates, include: i e u" i Sore , i a nds AM MSA funds $35,000 (based on a per project % formula established b MnDOT HRA bond proceeds $840,000 Additional MnDOT funding. ? Corporate contributions/sponsorships ? Recommended Motion: Direct staff to take the necessary steps to implement a modified version of the 1-35W at 66th Street bridge alternate A at a cost to the city not to exceed $260,000, or 65% of MnDOT's preliminary cost estimate. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The complete reconstruction of the bridge presents a rare opportunity for the city to .create a unique and memorable public works project of landmark quality at this critical gateway location. 2. In March of this year, the Council approved the layout of the 66th Street/1-35W intersection with the understanding that bridge designs would be presented to the Council for approval. 3. Alternate A can be modified such that the City's cost would not exceed 65% ($260,000) of the preliminary cost estimate while maintaining the integrity of the design. 4. Alternate B would require significant ongoing maintenance of the painted steel surfaces. 5. Alternate C does not provide the level of design warranted by such an important community gateway. 6. MSA and HRA funds could be used to support the City's cost share. 0 Y-d Alternative Recommendation: . 1. Direct staff to take the necessary steps to implement alternate A, as proposed, at a cost to the City not to exceed $396,400. 2. Direct staff to work with MnDOT to achieve a mutually acceptable design which does not exceed MnDOT's 7% aesthetic enhancement budget. Discussion/Decision Mode: The committee process has taken longer than MnDOT had anticipated, and a decision on the bridge design needs to made. Bridge construction will start in 1999 so MnDOT needs to prepare the detailed plans so the project can be put out for bids. Public comments on the designs were solicited at the May 2 Public Works open house. Five of the six residents who provided written comments favored alternate A. (Costs estimates were not available until May 5.) Copies of each alternate, and notice that the Council would decide on a design, were also sent to residents who attended a February 26 open house on the widening of 66th Street. Residents at that meeting favored a safe, attractive, low maintenance solution. Given the considerable negative impact Richfield already suffers from being bisected by 1-35W and the fact that those impacts will only be exaggerated by its expansion, it may be appropriate to request that MnDOT, in recognition of these impacts, consider contributing a larger share to this project than their typical 7%. The HRA could be requested at their meeting of May 18 to provide funding to support the City's share. An attractive bridge would be a significant influence on the design of other elements of the RLAP program. 1101 If the selected option requires city funding, MnDOT has indicated that they would expect that funding by February, 1999. Respe tfully submitted, Ja s D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak ?J 4-3 Bridge Design Features Committee Alternate A - The Arch Bridge: • Concrete arch, with a keystone, linking each end and projecting away from the bridge face. • Separate and distinct pedestrian walkways. Covered "portals" at each entryway project away from the bridge face. • Planters above each of the portals. • Columns and arches in a repeating pattern at the pedestrian entryways and along the road next to the sidewalk. • Decorative column/arch pattern in the abutment wall along the sidewalk. • Columns have the appearance of large, cut stone rather than plain concrete piers. • Three tiered planters along the abutments • Decorative lighting • Bus shelters Committee Alternate B - The Trellis Bridge: • An arching, painted steel trellis linking each end and attached to the outside of the bridge face. • Separate and distinct pedestrian walkways. "Portals" at each entryway project away from the bridge face and covered with a painted steel lattice/trellis structure. • Columns and arches in a repeating pattern at the pedestrian entryways and along the road next to the sidewalk. • Decorative column/arch pattern in the abutment wall along the sidewalk. • Columns have the appearance of large, cut stone rather than plain concrete piers. • Three tiered planters along the abutments • Decorative lighting • Bus shelters MnDOT Alternate C - The MnDOT Bridge: • An arched pattern in a facia panel attached flush with the bridge face. • Pedestrian and vehicle traffic are not physically separated. • Decorative column/arch pattern in the abutment wall along the sidewalk. • No articulation along the front of the bridge. • Plain concrete columns. • Two tiered planters along the abutments • Standard lighting • Bus shelters 0 4-y 66th Street/35W Bridge Richfield, Minnesota Concept Design Summary 6 May 1998 There are few places in the Richfield landscape that hold as much importance as the 66th Street/35W Bridge. In this concept, the bridge is a landmark in the larger regional landscape -- an element that marks Richfield in a unique or memorable way. The bridge is a gateway -- a place where people enter the community, leaving a large piece of our region's infrastructure and immediately becoming surrounded by Richfield neighborhoods. And it is a portal -- one of only two places where the east and west parts of Richfield come together. The expression of the bridge at each level reflects important qualities of the Richfield community in its form and materials. The sense of gateway and portal extend beyond the landmark qualities of the bridge, shaping the design of soundwalls and landscape and linking neighborhoods at each side of the freeway. In the process of defining directions for the bridge and the 35W corridor, Richfield chose to pursue a theme that focused on "gardens." Minneapolis chose a theme of "parks." The implications of the different themes might be subtle, but the notion of gardens suggests order, structure, and meaning, and might include spaces that are more "room-like." Richfield's theme suggests an environment that is as much a public garden as a necessary part of the community's infrastructure. As a public garden, the bridge and the area around it becomes a- place rather than an object, using elements of "greenery" and sculpture for definition. The greenery comes from the plantings; the sculpture might be the bridge itself. Forms of the bridge suggest a civic quality; architectural details and treatments lend a human quality. The concept for this bridge is formed in three basic elements: arches, columns and landscape. Arches are employed as symbols of unity (linking from one end to the other) and passage (an object that one moves through into another place). Two sizes of arches are used; a large arch spans the roadway, while smaller arches create more human-scaled elements at the pedestrian zones. Under the bridge, arches are repeated at each side of the sidewalk and at the center median, breaking the expansive distance of the bridge and making the time it takes to walk under the bridge a more inviting experience. Columns supporting the bridge are massive at the base, suggesting stability and permanence, and taper in steps as they move toward the sky. Their forms repeat throughout the structure, creating a solid base for the arches to rest upon. The landscape is formal and garden-like near the street, and becomes more natural as one moves away from the streets (into neighborhoods and park environments). Plantings and planter walls are kept low at the street, keeping the landscape in prime view of pedestrians and drivers on 66th Street. q,5 66th Street/35W Bridge Concept Design Summary Page 2 Details are central to the notion of bridge in a garden, as the concept attempts to create architectural details that reduce the scale of the bridge and make it more inviting to pedestrians. Most important, the bridge itself is not flat. Portions project from the face of the bridge into the garden, creating relief and interest. Surfaces and elements vary to create contrast and richness; some may have the look of stone, while others might be more contemporary colors and materials. Lighting highlights the arching nature of the bridge while providing light sufficient for safety. Streetlights are pedestrian scale, and reinforce the extension of the garden into adjacent neighborhoods. Soundwalls, which terminate at the base of freeway ramps, are treated with forms and materials similar to bridge, creating a sense of enclosure for the garden. Bus shelters are small glass pavilions, allowing for visibility to the street environment but also providing views of the garden. Landmark and gateway qualities are important to this bridge, but those cannot be achieved without consideration of its role as a portal. All the elements of the design stem from the experience on • 66th Street and the way in which this garden space can link two neighborhoods and two sides of Richfield. While this is the most difficult of the design intentions, it is likely the most important to the community. 11 ?? l?g ' ?I' y I 39f`s \ f ? ? 4 r--- (9 m R L f? Q wW W O U • - m V ©® e 1, 1 ?Iw Ilif a 0 U a ? a U vi M d W ? ? ?G bA s., 4-8