Loading...
3-8-93 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 8, 1993 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION . 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER I. DISCUSSION OF 1993 HUMAN SERVICE PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 6 ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS • CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF (1) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1993 AND (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1993 PRESENTATIONS 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA 2. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 1993 CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME AWARENESS MONTH IN RICHFIELD AGENDA APPROVAL 3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT''CALENDAR NOTE: 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. 4A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS FOR NICOLLET PARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $26,300 FOR SITE CONSULTANT SERVICES. AND SCHWARZ-WEBER ARCHITECTS IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,800 FOR BUILDING AND ELECTRICAL CONSULTANT SERVICES C.L. 61 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ADJUSTMENT TO JUST COMPENSATION ESTABLISHED BY CITY COUNCIL FOR CITY GARAGE PARTIAL TAKING; 77TH STREET PROJECT C.L. 62 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF OFFERS FOR PARTIAL TAKINGS AT FORMER LAMBERT LUMBER SITE, CITY GARAGE AND ROOSEVELT PARK; 77TH STREET PROJECT C.L. 63 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF 7648 LYNDALE AVENUE; 77TH STREET PROJECT C.L. 64 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF 626 EAST 77TH STREET, 7644 AND 7645 PARK AVENUE, 7644 COLUMBUS AVENUE AND 7645 13TH AVENUE; 77TH STREET PROJECT C.L. 65 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF 7646 LYNDALE AVENUE; 77TH STREET PROJECT C.L. 66 G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT OF LEGAL DEFENSE FEES FOR FARRINGTON LAWSUIT TOTALING • $20,301.72 C.L. 67 H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR 118 1'k"-2" DIAMETER BOULEVARD TREES FROM BACHMAN'S NURSERY WHOLESALE CENTER IN AMOUNT OF $7,902.30 C.L. 68 I. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR HEATING AND VENTILATION WORK AT MUNICIPAL GARAGE FROM MIDLAND HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $14,850 C.L. 69 J. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR NEW 1993 AUTO DETAILING LICENSE FOR ULTIMATE DETAILERS, 7726 COLFAX AVENUE C.L. 70 PUBLIC HEARING 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE FOR RICHARD AND SYLVIA WOLFE, 7133 PORTLAND AVENUE; 8 DOGS AND 1 CAT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 71 RESOLUTIONS 6. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION COMMENTING ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR INTERIM THIRD LANE ON I-35W FROM 76TH STREET • IN RICHFIELD TO TRUNK HIGHWAY 13 IN BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA COUNCIL LETTER NO. 72 7. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION DENYING REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR BUSINESS AT 7200 CEDAR AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 73 PROPOSED ORDINANCES 8. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY CODE CHANGING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLING HAULERS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 74 9. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN AMENDMENT TO INTERIM ORDINANCE REGULATING AND RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT OF SECONDHAND GOODS STORES, PAWN SHOPS AND SIMILAR USES WITHIN THE CITY WHICH WOULD EXCLUDE ANTIQUE SHOPS FROM THE MORATORIUM COUNCIL LETTER NO. 75 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS • 10. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 76 11. CONSIDERATION OF WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION TO BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES FOR BOUNDARY CHANGE TO REMOVE WOOD LAKE BASIN FROM MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT AND ADD IT TO RICHFIELD BLOOMINGTON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 77 12. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT 1993 HUMAN SERVICE PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL COUNCIL LETTER NO. 78 13. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL COUNCIL LETTER NO. 79 AIRPORT BUSINESS 14. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 15. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 0 16. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 17. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 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 13 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 79 Agenda March 8, 1993 Issue Statement: Consideration of appointments to the Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council. Background: Currently,. there are four vacancies on the Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) as a result of resignations or replacements appointments to various Boards and Commissions. Those vacancies include representation from the: ? Human Services Commission, ? Community Services Commission, ? Advisory Board of Health, and ? Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The names of the Board/Commission Members who have expressed an interest in serving on the RCHSPC will be presented at the March 8 City Council meeting. The length of the RCHSPC member's term of service will be the same as the individual's term on the Board/Commission being represented. Recommended Motion: Appoint persons to fill the vacancies on the RCHSPC. Basis of Recommendation: • 1. The RCHSPC currently has four vacancies. 2. The appointments will continue representation from all of the City's Boards and Commission. 3. The persons to be appointed have expressed an interest in serving on the RCHSPC. 4. Filling these vacancies will ensure a quorum for future meetings. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer the appointments to a later Council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is placed on the March 8, 1993 Council agenda for Council consideration. The appointments will begin immediately. Respectfully submitted, Steven L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD:cak Copy: Camillo DeSantis 1A CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.78 Agenda March 8, 1993 Issue Statement: Consideration to adopt the 1993 human service priority recommendations from the Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council. Background: The Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) was formed in January 1992 as a new City of Richfield commission. The purpose of the RCHSPC is to plan for the use and development human service through public education, organizational cooperation and needs assessment in a manner that supports and respects families and individuals and builds a sense of community. The membership of the RCHSPC is comprised of representatives of several City commissions, community organizations, and public and private schools. The RCHSPC has completed their first annual prioritization report. The report will be delivered to the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency and coordinated with information from other member communities including Bloomington, Edina and Eden Prairie. The regional priorities establish and serve as a basis of regional human service planning for all the communities including Richfield. The report from the RCHSPC has been reviewed by the City Council at the Study Session prior to this meeting. Recommended Motion: • Adopt the 1993 human service priority recommendations. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The RCHSPC has completed a process to assess community human service needs within Richfield. That process included meetings with 12 organizations or groupings of organizations to develop the priorities. 2. It is appropriate for Richfield to establish human service priorities for planning purposes. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may elect to re-prioritize issues. 2. The Council may elect to add new priorities. 3. The Council may defer this matter to another time. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for discussion at the Council meeting of March 8. The South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency has requested this information be provided to them not later than mid-March. Res c fully bm' ted, • Stev vich Acting City Manager SLD:cak Copy: Camillo DeSantis, RCHSPC Chair CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No. 77 Agenda March 8, 1993 Issue Statement: Consideration of withdrawal of the petition to the Board of Water and Soil Resources for a boundary change to remove the Wood Lake basin from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and add it to Richfield Bloomington Watershed Management Organization. Background: At their December 7, 1992 meeting, the City Council directed staff to file a petition (attached exhibit A) to the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) for a boundary change to remove the Wood Lake basin from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and add it to Richfield Bloomington Watershed Management Organization (RBWMO). Activities since that Council action have led staff to recommend that the Council consider withdrawing this petition. The Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District would like to wait to address the boundary change issue at least until the pipe/pump outlet is operational. They are reluctant to approve the City permit for the 77th Street project with the pending boundary petition. Staff does see value in waiting with the boundary change. Once the outlet to Wood Lake is in place, a • short outlet pipe from Richfield Lake to Wood Lake can be installed to relieve the chronic flooding at Richfield Lake. A delay in the boundary change will allow Richfield and the MCWD to address the Richfield Lake basin in the boundary change. History Upon FHWA and MnDOT concept approval of the 77th Street drainage plan, staff directed the City's engineering consultant, OSM, to begin the agency approval process for the project. Pete Willenbring, OSM, sent letters to the affected agencies including a letter to Mike Panzer, Wenck Associates staff engineers for the MCWD (attached exhibit B). The letter asked for guidance on determining a review process. City staff and OSM believed that the project brought up two significant issues. First, the major stormwater piping and pumping work would stimulate a full review of the normal watershed permitting issues i.e. sediment control, stormwater storage, wetland and other issues. Second, an outlet to Wood Lake is provided in the project. Because the water would be directed outside the MCWD, the issues of watershed district boundaries and jurisdiction for permitting authority needed to be addressed. Specifically, on the jurisdiction issue, if the water from Wood Lake is being redirected to the RBWMO, the RBWMO should have authority for the permit instead of MCWD. The long term effects of the Wood Lake outlet will visit RBWMO, not MCWD. City staff and the engineering consultant were not sure whether to get • the permit from the MCWD first and then address the boundary change or to address the boundary change first and get permits through the RBWMO. The purpose of the November 5, 1992 letter was to invite the MCWD into the discussions. On November 12, 1992, OSM contacted the Chair of the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District by phone (attached exhibit C). A copy of the notes from that phone conversation is attached. The Chair said that the City project was "dead in the water" for four reasons. 1. He would lobby the Board to defer considering the project, because it may affect the I-35W EIS and decision. 2. The wetlands would be affected. It was unlikely the City could adequately address the technical review requirements the District would impose. 3. The District plan anticipates an outlet from Richfield Lake through Legion Lake to the Mississippi. He said no discharge would be allowed to Minnehaha Creek. He also incorrectly stated that Legion Lake drains through the airport property today. He said any outlet from Wood Lake to the south to I-494 would not be approved. 4. Any storm sewer outfall directed into Wood Lake could not be approved because the lake had no outlet and adequate stormwater treatment could not be provided. A phone conversation with the MCWD consultant verified that the • Chair had considerable objections to the plan. This response from the Chair was consistent with a letter from the MCWD Chair dated October 30, 1992 (attached exhibit D) that stated MCWD opposition to certain I-35W alternatives. Based on this initial response from MCWD, on December 7, 1992, City staff recommended that the Council initiate a petition with BWSR for the boundary change. On December 17, the City Engineer and OSM appeared at a MCWD Committee meeting to advise the Board of the boundary petition. The City Engineer declined the Board's request to submit a permit application because a) a permit application, is not needed from MCWD if the boundary change takes affect and b) Richfield's concern that the Chair's expressed intention to stop our project could be enacted through unreasonable conditions on the permit. The Chair was not at this meeting. It was later discovered that the other members of the Board were unaware of the early attempt by Richfield to solicit MCWD cooperation. They were also unaware of the Chair's threats to stop the project. The District Managers directed their staff not to review any of Richfield's plans unless accompanied by a permit application. On December 22, 1992, the City Engineer and consultant appeared at the regular MCWD Board meeting to request a) support for the boundary change, and b) MCWD review of the plan. The managers • asked the City to provide engineering details for review by District staff. On January 14, 1993, the District agreed to grant a permit upon • receipt of a permit application with appropriate supporting documentation. However, the District expected Richfield to withdraw its petition for a boundary change. On January 26, 1993, BWSR decided to continue the public hearing to March 23 on the boundary change at Richfield's request and over MCWD objection. MCWD wanted immediate denial of the request for the boundary change. Discussions with MCWD staff and managers continue. Meanwhile, the Chair of MCWD failed to be reappointed and is no longer on the Board. MCWD wants Richfield to withdraw the petition in order to receive permit. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council withdraw the petition for the boundary change. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Managers of the Minnehaha Creed Watershed District (MCWD) have linked Richfield's withdrawal of the petition to the issuance of the MCWD permit needed for the construction of the 77th Street project. 2. Although the approved 77th Street plan includes an outlet to • Wood Lake which will precipitate a need for the boundary change, the change can wait until the pipe is constructed. 3. A delay will allow an opportunity for Richfield and MCWD to complete a study of the Richfield Lake outlet identified in an upcoming Capital Improvement Program to determine the timing of any boundary change of the Richfield Lake area and its possible impact on the Wood Lake boundary change. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to proceed with the boundary change request from the Board of Water and Soil Resources. The Wood Lake basin has never drained to Minnehaha Creek. A watershed district's boundaries are defined by the area that drains to a common destination. Not only is it questionable that the Wood Lake basin should ever have been in the MCWD but now with the new outlet to the RBWMO rather than Minnehaha Creek there is little reason to leave this basin in the MCWD. So, immediate action on the boundary change can be justified. However, the MCWD managers have linked the petition to the permit application. Despite Richfield staff's objection that the boundary petition issue is independent at the permit qualifications, the managers are apparently insisting that the City withdraw the petition before approval of the permit will be granted. 11-3 . 2. The Council could direct staff to request that the petition for the boundary change be separated from the discussion of the merits of the permit application at MCWD's next meeting. If the Board again refuses to issue the permit without the withdrawal of the permit, the Council can authorize the Richfield to withdraw the petition. This alternative allows one more attempt to persuade the Board of Managers of the MCWD to reconsider their decision to link the boundary petition to the permit. Staff considers this linkage to be inappropriate and an abuse of their permitting authority. Several of the managers are reluctant to let go of the petition issue because they believe Richfield staff was reluctant to submit a permit application at their December committee meeting. The managers were not aware of the Chair's negative response to the City's initial letter. • Discussion/Decision Mode: The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has their meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 11, 1993. Respectfully submitted, 1? 17? .4 Steven L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD:cak Attachments 0 Exhibit A 0 PETITION FOR CHANGE IN WATERSHED DISTRICT BOUNDARY TO: Secretary of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Please consider this document as a formal petition to the Board of Water and Soil Resources to change a portion of the watershed boundary of the Minnehaha Creek District, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the Richfield-Bloomington Water Management Organization. - This request is made in accordance with MINNESOTA STATUES SECTION 103D.251. This request is made based on the following findings: 1. The Watershed Districts or Water Management Organization affected by the proposed boundary change includes the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and the Richfield-Bloomington Water Management Organization. 2. The property affected by the proposed boundary change includes areas tributary to Wood Lake and a limited area along 77th Street within the City of Richfield that would be directed to drain into Wood Lake instead of Nine Mile Creek as part of a 77th Street improvement project. As part of this improvement project, • the Wood Lake outlet would also be constructed. 3. The proposed boundary change will benefit the Richfield-Bloomington WMO by making its legal boundary consistent with both the actual existing watershed boundary and the actual watershed boundary which will exist with the construction of planned drainage improvements. The proposed boundary change will benefit the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for the same reasons. 4. The drainage area tributary to Wood Lake as described in Exhibit A lies within the boundaries of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, but does not have an outlet to Minnehaha Creek and has never contributed surface water runoff to Minnehaha Creek. 5. The area tributary to Wood Lake has not in the past, and will not in the future contribute runoff to Minnehaha Creek and has not received any benefits from the operation of the Watershed District that cannot be provided in the future by the Richfield-Bloomington WMO. Exhibit A //_J 6. All proposed future drainage improvement projects for the area involved by the proposed boundary change will affect only the Richfield-Bloomington Water Management Organization and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and will not affect or contribute drainage to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Therefore, all of the affected water management organizations and watershed districts will benefit by avoiding the administrative effort and expense which would be required in permitting and coordination of projects which will result-if boundaries are not changed. 7. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District can perform the functions for which it was established without the inclusion of this territory. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the CITY OF RICHFIELD that the Minnesota Water Board of Water and Soil Resources is requested to approve the change in boundary described in Exhibit A. Adopted by the Richfield City Council this-ah- day of necmi er , 1992• CITY OF RICHFIELD LaJ BY: ? -? It's Mayor • BY: It anager 2 f Cem Y o' T "tr ? ,. -' 11? 1? f I li ;i kr LLI r/ ? , ? III rr I?rOr? ?I ?? iI I I .?. v I--I(-?-? a ;ean i o LE W p = Q ?? L, Il Tif tJ ? N I [? Z try: LL W Q ` p V Q ?' L L • -r ? ?- eld tl '\/ r LI I7 ?lo ST, I_ 5 LAf?F. ??--: 1i?1: ???rice n I , . 9 0 OAMS%i Helen Asfaiaron & tes, Inc. November 5, 1992 Mr. Michael Panzer District Engineer Minnehaha Creek Watershed District c/o Wenck & Associates 1800 Pioneer Creek Drive Maple Plain, MN 55359 Exhibit B 300 Park Place Center 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416-1228 612-595-5775 1-800-753-5775 FAX 595-5773 Engineers Architects Planners Surveyors Re: Proposed storm drainage improvements associated with 77th street improvement project which includes construction of future outlet from Wood Lake to the Minnesota river Project No. 4934 Task 1254 Dear Mr. Panzer: The City of Richfield in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation is undertaking a project to upgrade 77th Street between Cedar Avenue and I35W. The upgrading of 77th Street between Cedar Avenue and I35W consists. of upgrading this roadway from two lanes to four lanes and upgrade the necessary utilities to reflect current design standards. This project has also be designed to anticipate the need for an 1494 detour and the loss of the frontage road when 1494 is upgraded in the future. Phase one of this project will consist of upgrading 77th Street between Portland Avenue and 135W. To accommodate stormwater run-off from this roadway for a ten year design event as required by Mn/DOT, a stormsewer system will be located along the 77th Street alignment which will collect water generally from areas west of Portland Avenue and carry it easterly along 77th Street to a point at which it approaches I35W. Stormwater run-off from this point will then be directly northerly to Wood Lake by a stormsewer that will be constructed along Humboldt Avenue. In addition to this construction, a future outfall taking water from Wood Lake southerly to the 1494 right of way will be constructed. This outfall will be connected to a future 1494 system that will drain water to the Minnesota River. . It is anticipated the north flowing stormsewer line from 77th Street to Wood Lake and its south flowing outlet along the same alignment back to the 1494 right of way will be constructed in 1993 and 1994. The construction of this Wood Lake outfall to the Minnesota River will divert drainage currently directly to Wood Lake into the Richfield/Bloomington WMO and would likely result in the Wood Lake drainage area being eliminated from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. It should be noted that Wood Lake does not currently have an outlet and has never overflowed from the confines of this basin. Future improvements will also be constructed to provide an outlet from Richfield Lake to Wood Lake. //_7 Equal Opportunity Employer Exhibit B The City must begin construction of this project in April of 1993 and have final plans prepared in December ' of 1992 in order for all the required plan reviews and approvals from the State of Minnesota to be obtained. It is requested you review the drainage plan proposed for this area and advise us of any required approvals and/or concerns you may have concerning this.project. I will be calling you in a week or so to follow-up on receipt of this letter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 595-5767. Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. pmbs- W • Peter R. Willenbring, P.E. Manager, Water Resource Department c: Mike Eastling - City of Richfield Tony Heppelmann - BRW Ron Bray - OSM salelen 300 Park Place Center r Orr % a0n3t 5775 Wayzata Boulevard bu. Minneapolis, MN 55416-12i • TO: File FROM R Vallenbring ?j DATE: Novem , Exhibit C SUBJECTt Notes regarding telephone conversation with Jim Spensley, Chairman, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District At approximately 11:00 A.M. on November 22, 1992, I had a conversation with Mr. Jim Spensley regarding securing a permit from the Minnebaba Creek Watershed District for the 77th Street Project. The project which I described to Mr. Spensley included the stormsewer improvements proposed from Portland Avenue westerly along the 77th Street right of way, the stormsewer outfall from the 77th Street area down to Wood bake, and the.proposed outlet from Wood Lake southerly to a future drainage r;stem along the 494 right of way. I indicated to Mr. Spensley that a significant amount of the drainage area directed to Wood Lake by this project originated from areas currently draining to Wood Lake, but a small amount of additional drainage would also be carried to this water body. Mr. Spensley then advised me that he felt this project was dead in the water for at least three or four reasons. Mr. Spensley's concerns included: 1. He did not want the Board of Managers to even consider this project at this time as it would change the findings made in the EIS for the 35W improvement project. Mr. Spensley very candidly advised me that it was the watershed district's position that any widening of 35W would not be in the best interest of the district because any such improvement project would increase the volume of runoff generated to Wood Lake and any proposed improvement for a future outlet to Wood. Lake could be viewed at mitigating these impacts and result in an , . improvement scenario that would allow for widening the right of way along this corridor. 2. Mr. Spensley indicated that any proposed project to discharge water into or provide an outlet for water in Wood Lake would require permit from the district for wetland alteration and it was 'his opinion that there was no way we could address putting in an outlet for Wood Lake without changing the public values of the wetland in this area. Mr. Spensley made it very clear that it was unlikely the technical data requirements they would impose for any wetland alteration could not be met. I advised I& Spensley that the DNR position was that the wildlife habitat would be improved through the construction of an outlet as.it would stabilize lake level fluctuations, improve nesting habitat, and could serve to benefit the values of the wetland. Mr. Spensley stood by his position that he felt the wetland values would be changed and that could not be allowed. 11-9 snsineen 9 Architects 0 fUnnea • Surveyors ???EpAHA c9??? Exhibit D ftINPJEHAHA C FMt LAKE MINNETONKA WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 3 WATERSHED lOUNDW J A` M milt,, t VEP MINNESOTA PI_I? BOARD OF MANAGERS: James R. Spensley, Pres. • John E. Thomas • Richard R. Miller /.? Robert D. Erickson • C. Woodrow Love • Clarkson Lindley • Thomas Maple, Jr i Highways Development, and the Natural Environment The articles in YOUR (October 1992) expressing Richfield's concerns about the proposed expansion of I35W and the Environmental Impact Statement were interesting, well-written and informative. The stormwater management and wetland conservation impacts were not discussed, however, and I would like to provide the perspective of the Watershed District governing most of the highway expansion areas, Minnehaha Creek (MC)ArD). Considering only a few alternatives in an EIS allows us to focus varying interests on a given plan and quantify the costs of compromises. On the other hand, limiting the alternatives allows reviewers to cite problems or discrepancies in various comments, supporting light rail transit or otherwise, in the I35W EIS. The Interstate Highway is ecologically ugly, paving over not only neighborhoods, but also lakes and marshes; spewing not only pollution into the atmoshere, but also dumping oil, lead, salt and other chemicals into the adjacent watersheds. The consistent position of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Managers: "no-build" is an environmentally attractive option because it protects natural resources and stimulates more fundamental transportation and urban growth planning. A "minimum impact" solution would only re-engineer the critical intersections and the drainage. The EIS includes a special volume dealing with the severe impacts of the alternatives on Wood Lake and numerous wetlands lying along the right-of-way. The current plan is to build water quality ponds in, rather than before, existing wetlands, such as Wood Lake; only the size of the ponds and ditches varies with the build alternatives. MnDOT would like us to believe no solution is available which protects wetlands without taking more houses and businesses. They even suggested deferring the EIS natural environment studies (wetlands, lakes and drainageways included) until a final construction plan was adopted. MnDOT would like to. claim exemption from the Watershed District Rules and the Wetlands Conservation Act (no net loss) upon choosing an EIS alternative design. MCWD Managers • expect any project to apply for construction permits under our rules. Exhibit D Page two. Since the freeway was constructed thirty years ago, concerns about the effects of development have resulted in laws requiring environmental impact statements, and ecologists (natural-system engineers) have shown the complex inter-relatedness of changes. Only the absolutely essential increase in encroachment should be allowed now. If the problem is defined as congestion along the freeway, then the solution is focused on automobiles -- either provide for more passengers per vehicle (HOV lanes), or more vehicles, or some combination of these. Data is easily marshalled to argue that the present freeway is congested and unsafe by MnDOT standards. MnDOT argues that severe impacts on the cities and neighborhoods along the I35W route are justified by "relieving congestion". I suggest that congestion has not reached an intolerable level: observe the limited use of express buses and continued urban sprawl Expansion actually provides a particular benefit to commuters who live nearer Owatonna than Minneapolis and insist on traveling one per car. Make the freeway a toll road with higher fees at rush hour, will reduce congestion. Mass transit advocates are right when thay say development follows convenient transportation. Light-rail systems are better for shorter trips with many riders. However, if you assume that congestion is a symptom of shortcomings and broader problems in our urban transportation system, the EIS hints at, and other studies would demonstrate, the much greater advantages of • the light rail and no-build alternatives. Many operational solutions have yet to be tried to reduce congestion. How about spreading the rush hours by re-scheduling business and government hours? What effect would greater law enforcement or traffic direction have on safety? Our awareness of highway safety as a public priority is one reason the common-roadway interchanges at State Highway 62 and 194 are no longer acceptable.. However, congestion and safety are disjoint; truly, congestion lowers speeds, making the dangers of curves and merges at highway speeds an off-peak problem. You have correctly observed that alternatives to expanding automobile lanes "divert the excess. traffic to other routes". Instead of diverting automobiles, Minneapolis Councilmember Steve Cramer favors, in essence, diverting commuters to other routes. Our awareness of community values and neighborhood stability have also been raised over the last twenty years, leaving the houses-for-freeways trade-off more trying than ever. And, to return to the original theme, broadening the I35W right-of-way unacceptably destroys the natural environment MCWD is trying to conserve as a benefit to all. Among the "build" options, using existing (railroad and roadway) rights-of-way to increase people-moving capacity is the minimal impact on the natural environment. That this alternative uses light-rail transit is serendipitous: • further ecological advantages follow, such as reduced exhaust emissions and less petroleum use. /o CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No.76 Agenda March 8, 1993 Issue Statement: Consideration for approval of workers' compensation stipulation for zettlement. Background: In 1988, a.Richfield Firefighter injured his back while pulling fire hose up a stairway at a fire scene. As a result of the effect of the injury, the employee was unable to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position, and was paid temporary total disability benefits until he returned to full duty four months later. For three years, the employee continued to have episodes of low back pain and scheduled back surgery toward the end of 1991. Three days before the surgery, the employee stated he sustained an additional back injury from using a fire hand line. The employee did not sufficiently recover from the surgery to return to work and was terminated by the City Manager on August 24, 1992. That action was ratified by the Civil Service Commission on January 7, 1993. The employee has maintained that he is entitled to permanent partial disability, temporary total disability, medical expenses, economic recovery compensation and retraining benefits. The Stipulation for Settlement reflects the desire of both parties to compromise and settle their differences and to waive their right to a hearing. The Stipulation for Settlement provides for a $187,500 lump sum payment and outlines the terms for a full and final settlement of any and all claims against the City, including but not limited to all workers' compensation claims and non-workers' compensation claims such as American's with Disability Act discrimination and any wrongful discharge claims. The Stipulation for Settlement provides for the Special Compensation Fund to reimburse the City for $87,500 of the settlement amount. The total payment covers amounts payable to the employee, intervenors, non-intervening interested parties, and to the employee's attorney's taxable costs. It includes medical expenses. It is the position of the legal staff representing the City that the settlement is a reasonable one which eliminates the potential for a lengthy litigation procedure. Recommended Motion: Approve the Stipulation for Settlement. Basis of Recommendation: 1. City staff and Attorney consider this settlement to be . reasonable and.recommend accepting it. /o-/ 2. The Special Compensation Fund has agreed to reimburse the City $81,500. 3. The City is relieved of any future disability, medical and retraining benefits. 4. The City will no longer need to monitor the Firefighter's job search efforts and employment status relative to establishing a higher capacity to earn. 5. Additional time and expense of pursuing litigation are avoided. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the settlement. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled for March 8, 1993 so legal staff may execute a signed settlement agreement with the Firefighter, make payment and receive reimbursement. Respectfully submitted, 0 SLD:cak e L. Devich Acting City Manager y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.75 Agenda March 8, 1993 Issue Statement: Consideration of first reading of an amendment to the interim ordinance regulating and restricting the development of secondhand goods stores, pawn shops and similar uses within the City which would exclude antique shops from the moratorium. Background: The City Council adopted a resolution on November 23, 1992 authorizing a study and imposing a temporary moratorium on the development of secondhand goods stores, pawn shops and similar uses within the City in order to provide an adequate opportunity for the study to be completed. A request has been made to exclude antique shops from this moratorium. The request has been reviewed with the City Attorney, Department of Public Safety and the Community Development Department and the conclusion is that the moratorium as currently adopted does cover antique shops. However, the moratorium was not intended to cover retail antique shops that are not required to be licensed because of the type of goods sold. The City Attorney has recommended a clarification as attached. 0 Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of an amendment to the interim ordinance restricting development of secondhand goods stores, pawn shops and similar uses within the City which excludes antique shops and schedule public hearing and second reading for April 12, 1993. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Staff is studying this issue for presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. 2. Answers to a questionnaire by an antique shop would indicate that this type of business should be treated as a retail store. 3. Issues relevant to the exclusion under the moratorium include: - No merchandise would be purchased at this business location for resale. - Merchandise for sale would include only antiques and collectibles more than 50 years old. Goods precluded from sale include those with identification • numbers, cameras, electronic equipment, precious jewelry and gems, precious metals, artist-signed works of art and guns. y-. • 4. The exclusion would allow the continued review of the regulation of the development of pawn broker, licensed secondhand goods and auction establishments. Alternative Recommendation: The Council may decide not to amend the moratorium but continue with the study of this issue. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for action at the City Council meeting of March 8, 1993. Re c fully submitted, ,4 dui teven L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD:cak 0 0 INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. • AMENDMENT TO TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 17.45 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF CITY RESIDENTS; AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SECONDHAND GOODS, PAWNBROKER, AND SIMILAR USES WITHIN THE CITY The City Council of the City of Richfield Ordains: Transitory Ordinance No. 17.45 is hereby amended by amending Section 2.03 thereof to read as follows: 2.03 A moratorium on the development of secondhand goods stores (except those secondhand goods stores which: (i) deal exclusively in antiques and collectibles more than fifty years old; (ii) do not purchase goods at the business location for resale; and (iii) are exempt as a secondhand aoods dealer under Section 1186 of the Richfield City Code), pawnshops, auction houses and other similar uses is adopted pending completion of the study and the adoption of any amendments to the City's zoning ordinance. No license or building permit may be issued for such uses of for the expansion of any existing use during the moratorium period nor may any rezonings, plattings and replattings, or land divisions or consolidations be granted by the City for such uses during the moratorium period. The moratorium period shall expire on November 26, 1993 or such earlier date as may be further adopted by ordinance. The moratorium period may be extended for a reasonable time by ordinance, as may be necessary to complete the study and adopt any necessary amendments to the City's zoning ordinance. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1993. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No. 74 Agenda March 8, 1993 Issue Statement: First reading of an ordinance amending Section 601 of the City Code changing reporting requirements for recycling haulers. Background: At the February 8, 1993 City Council meeting, the Council changed the funding mechanism to a residential recycling credit on the utility bill. As a result, haulers do not have to provide a list of name and addresses of customer accounts to the City as part of the licensing procedure. Haulers do need to provide participation rates regarding the total number of possible household recycling stops and the number of actual recycling stops made during May and October of each year. Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of the ordinance amendment to eliminate the requirement for hauler customer lists, but to add a requirement for participation rates for recyclables; and schedule a public hearing and second reading for April 12, 1993. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The entitlement program gives the City more freedom to choose . how recycling funding is handled. Therefore, a listing of names and addresses of residential accounts is no longer needed and-administrative costs are reduced. . 2. Participation rates are needed to achieve or exceed the goals set by the County and the State. Alternative Recommendation: Council could choose not to implement a participation rate ordinance. However, the City may have a more difficult time meeting future County and State recycling abatement goals. DiscussionZDecision Mode: First reading is scheduled for March 8, 1993 Council meeting. Resp ct ully submitted, IGLr eve h Acting City Manager ALD:cak Attachments N- September; and January 20 for October, November, and December). (Amended, Bill No. 1991-14) Residential haulers, and commercial haulers collecting at apartment buildings of eight-plex or less in the city, are required to provide participation rates regarding total number of possible household recycling stops and number of actual recycling stops. Such reports will be due to the city in May and October. Upon reasonable notice at any time during the license term, the city may request and the hauler must provide verifiable volume and/or tonnage summaries of separately collected yard wastes and designated recyclables. This is necessary in order to track recycling and yard waste collection performance and to comply with Hennepin County reporting requirements. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of , 1993. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas Ferber City Clerk I-/ BILL NO. • AMENDMENT TO SECTION 601 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 601 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by amending Subdivisions 2 of Subsection 601.15 to read as follows: Subd. 2. License application. A person desiring a license must make application to the Department of Public Safety. The application must accurately state: (1) the name of the owner or the licensee; (2) the proposed charges for hauling; (3) a description of the kind of services to be rendered including separate collection of yard waste; (4) a description of each motor vehicle to be used for hauling including the license number thereof; • (5) a listing, name and address, of residential aeeounts - a record of household recycling participation rates consistent with Hennepin County requirements; (6) verifiable volume or tonnage summaries of yard wastes collected in Richfield during the previous year; and (7) verifiable tonnage summaries of designated recyclables collected in the city during the previous year-. and Previously unlieensed haulers will have this requirement waived for their first year of operation= the-eity but-must -comply with ra---gh3 of this subdivision. (Amended ? ?3 l l ATo. 1991 1-4-+ 8) Previouslv unlicensed haulers will have recuirements in the above paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) waived for their first year of operation in the city but must comply with paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this subdivision. (amended, Bill No. 1991-14) Subd. 3. Request for progress reports regarding designated recyclables and yard waste collection. Residential haulers, and commercial haulers collecting at apartment buildings of eight- plex or less in the city, are required to provide verifiable volume and/or tonnage summaries of separately collected yard wastes and designated recyclables. Such reports will be due to the city on a quarterly basis (April 20 for January, February, March; July 20 for April, May, June; October 20 for July, August, I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No.73 Agenda March 8, 1993 Issue Statement: Consideration of resolution denying request for conditional use permit for automobile repair business at 7200 Cedar Avenue. Background: The City Council held a public hearing on February 22, 1993 on a request for a conditional use permit for an auto repair business at 7200 Cedar Avenue. The Council received the report of staff, the recommendation of the Planning Commission and testimony from the applicant and his representative. Council instructed staff to draft a findings of fact, conclusions and decision consistent with their instructions. Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolution denying request for conditional use permit for automobile repair business at 7200 Cedar Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Council held a public hearing on February 22, 1993. 2. The City Council heard testimony, received reports of staff and the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 3. The resolution is consistent with instructions from the Council and with the record that was made at the February 22, 1993 meeting that the proposed use is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and may result in traffic congestion and parking problems. Alternative Recommendation: Amend the resolution consistent with findings and conclusions of the City Council. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing has already been held and action on the Resolution is set for March 8, 1993. Respectfully submitted, n v' Acting Cit Manager SLD:cak 0 74 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR BUSINESS AT 7200 CEDAR AVENUE I. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council of the City of Richfield finds as follows: 1. Steve Jensen has made application for a conditional use permit ("CUP") to permit the operation of an automobile repair business at 7200 Cedar Avenue South in the City of Richfield. The site is zoned C-2. 2. The proposed operation involves the establishment of a "full service" automobile facility which would include, without limitation, brake, muffler and "light auto repair".. 3. The proposed auto repair activity would deal directly with the owners of the vehicles who would bring them to the premises for repair. 4. Following review of the application by the Richfield Planning Commission, the matter came on for consideration by the City Council at the regularly scheduled meeting of February 22, 1993. The applicant, Mr. Jensen, was present and was given an opportunity to be heard together with Bruce Schmidt, applicant's architect. • 5. The Council also received the report of the City's staff concerning this matter. The staff report included a discussion of the December 11, 1989 amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan which restricted uses in an area of the land along Cedar Avenue, including 7200 Cedar to "wholesale, industrial, office and some retail tied to the office component". II. CONCLUSIONS. The City Council of the City of Richfield hereby makes the following conclusions: 0 1. Applicant's proposed activity is inconsistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan applicable to the site. 2. Approval of the requested CUP would be likely to result in traffic congestion and related parking problems in the area of the use which would be contrary to the public health, safety and welfare. III. DECISION. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby DENIES the applicant's request for a CUP. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of March, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No.72 Agenda March 8, 1993 Issue Statement: Comments on the environmental assessment for the I-35W Interim Third (Diamond) Lane Project from 76th Street to Trunk Highway 13 in Burnsville. Background: The Minnesota Department of Transportation is proposing to build a 6-mile interim third (Diamond) lane between 76th Street and Trunk Highway 13 in Burnsville. Diamond lanes, or High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, are limited to buses and carpools during peak hours. Construction would begin in 1994 and cost only $15.5 million. The cost is very low because only three parcels of land in Burnsville are needed to add the additional lane in each direction. In most places, the third lane will occupy what is now the grass median in the middle of I-35W. The project will primarily benefit people who live south of the Minnesota River. The third lane will eliminate traffic congestion and delays for people trying to cross the Minnesota River during rush hours. It will also promote transit usage and carpooling by reserving the third lane for high occupancy vehicles; i.e., buses and carpoools, during peak periods. • Richfield's position on the interim third lane over the Minnesota River remains the same as it did in commenting on the I-35W draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), "The City of Richfield is not opposed to an interim third lane over the Minnesota River. An acceptable plan, however, must be developed for making the transition back to the existing two lanes without imposing unacceptable demands on local streets." Traffic studies have shown that 50% of the traffic coming across the Minnesota River turns east or west at I-494 and that only 7% is destined for downtown Minneapolis. However, congestion north of I-494 already is bad and this project will make things worse. City staff is concerned that the environmental assessment does not discuss the traffic impacts of the proposal, mitigative measures to reduce traffic congestion on Richfield's local streets, or the alternative of extending the interim HOV lane to 46th Street to reduce these adverse traffic impacts. The proposed interim third lane coupled with its extension to 46th Street in Minneapolis will offer the opportunity to demonstrate the performance of a high speed bus system and carpooling in the new diamond lane in the I-35W corridor consistent with Richfield's policy position. The additional lane will add greater urgency to correcting the problems at the I-35W/I-494 interchange. 4-I City staff believes that the interim third lane proposal should be supported by the City Council but only if it is extended to 46th Street in Minneapolis to address many of the traffic congestion,, safety and transit concerns that have been the focus of the I-35W debate. For this reason, the interim third lane should not be opposed by the City of Richfield. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution not opposing the I-35W interim third lane across the Minnesota River and providing comments. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposal does not require right of way acquisition beyond three parcels of commercial property in Burnsville. 2. The proposal is generally consistent with Richfield's position on the I-35W Reconstruction project. • 3. The proposal can be improved by extending the interim Diamond lane to 46th Street to address many of the traffic congestion, safety and transit concerns Richfield has concerning I-35W. 4. The proposal can be viewed as the first step towards implementing a high speed bus service in the corridor consistent with Richfield's policy position on I-35W. Alternative Recommendation: 1. A resolution in favor of the proposal without comment. This would not enable the City to express its concern that the project does not address diverting traffic to Richfield's local streets. 2. A resolution opposed to the proposal because the project may divert traffic to local streets in Richfield. While this is a major concern, no traffic analysis has been done to determine-the effect of the additional lane on traffic in Richfield. City staff believes this position is too negative, especially when an extension of this proposal to 46th Street can resolve many of Richfield's concerns. 3. No comment on the proposal. City staff believe it is important to comment on any and all proposals to improve I-35W to assure that Richfield's concerns are addressed. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council action is requested at the March 8 meeting. Comments on the environmental assessment are due on March 14, 1993. Res c fully s bmit ed, L. ' ch Acting City Manager SLD:cak Attachment ( -011L RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION COMMENTING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR AN INTERIM THIRD LANE ON I-35W FROM 16TH STREET IN RICHFIELD TO TRUNK HIGHWAY 13 IN BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, an environmental assessment has been .prpared for an interim third lane on I-35W, State Project Nos. 1981-88 and 2782- 250 and Federal Project Nos. 035W-3(267) and 035W-3(269), describing proposed improvements from 76th Street in Richfieldd to Trunk Highway 13 in Burnsville; and WHEREAS, comments of the environmental assessment have been requested by the Minnesota Department of Transportation by March 14, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the proposed improvement on I-35W is not opposed by the City of Richfield. It is the wish of the City Council of the City of Richfield to provide additional comments on the proposal as follows: 1. The environmental assessment must include a discussion of traffic impacts of the interim third lane on local streets in Richfield together with mitigative measures to resolve this problem. 2. The proposal of adding an interim third Diamond lane is . supported by the City of Richfield but only if it is extended to 46th Street in Minneapolis as a more effective solution to avoid traffic bottlenecks in Richfield, to resolve potential traffic diversion to local streets in Richfield and to complete a logical route for transit service from Burnsville to downtown Minneapolis.. 3. The expanded interim Diamond lane to 46th Street is supported by Richfield because it will not require additional right of way and is very economical to build. 4. The expanded interim Diamond lane to 46th Street will serve to demonstrate the performance of high speed bus service and carpooling in the I-35W corridor. 5. The additional third lane will add greate urgency to correcting the problems at the I-35W/I-494 interchange. Adopted this 8th day of March, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Attest: 0 Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk S CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No. 71 Agenda March 8, 1993 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for renewal of a residential kennel license for Richard and Sylvia Wolfe, 7133 Portland Avenue. Background: On January •7, 1993, Richard Wolfe submitted an application for a residential kennel license. He owns eight dogs and one cat. Mr. Wolfe's application had all contiguous property owners' signatures on it. On January 17, 1993, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. At the time of the inspection, it was noted that they own eight dogs and one cat. Other than the number of animals, there were no apparent problems found at that time. This application is for eight dogs and one cat which exceeds the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. Mr. Wolfe has been made aware of this policy and has stated that he does not wish to comply with it. Mr. Wolfe's previous kennel license was for five dogs. • Staff has notified 12 of Mr. Wolfe's surrounding neighbors concerning his request for a residential kennel license. This provides neighbors with an opportunity to present testimony (either oral or written) for or against the issuance of this license. City staff made calls to these neighbors, and seven of the twelve had a concern with the barking. One of the contiguous property owners signed Mr. Wolfe's kennel application this past summer. Since that time he feels that he has made a mistake. He is no longer in favor of the license being issued. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for renewal of a residential kennel license be denied as Mr. Wolfe does not wish to comply with Council's policy limiting the number of animals to six. Staff's recommendation to deny is also based on information received from surrounding neighbors concerning the barking. There was also a complaint about odors during the.summer months. Basis for 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. Wolfe has not been able to do this. • u/ Alternative Recommendation: • 1. The.Council could decide to approve Mr. Wolfe's residential kennel license. This would mean that he would be able to keep eight dogs and one cat on his property. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to deny the application for a residential kennel license for Richard and Sylvia Wolfe, 7133 Portland Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time. ZRespec fully submitted, 44 Steve L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD:cak • 0 Sz D L?J`G! Ci1'YC_ „lX Yl9 ---P C?IyC.ESt?.tf.. ? oQ ?t,K c c? c? Q ?. a? alp x Alh a-4,t Loc JLI ia & -? CLtva ? CkL, d 101 J _ ..?-???ctc.E. cad ? ?t Gt,?-e Cwt. i2 (J E Betsy Christensen Health Administrator Richfield Public Safety Department February 24, 1993 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I, Wayne Voelker and my wife Marilyn, live at 7127 Portland Ave So. We are next door neighbor's to Richard Wolfe, who I understand has made application to the city for a kennel license. If for some reason we can not attend the council meeting set for Monday, March 8, 1993, we are submitting this letter in protest against issuing the license due to the following issue's: 1. The noise they create at various times of the day and night. 2. The strange odor's that drift throughout the air during summer months. 3. The most disturbing is the magnitude of noise they create when someone is in our back yard. Viewing these issues, along with the concerns other neighbors may have, we feel very strongly that we do not want a kennel next door to us. Any further information that might be needed, feel free to call me at 866-8150 or in person. Thank you. Respectfully, Wayr Voelker 0 s-# 7133 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH 7111 PORTLAND EMIL BRENNY 2-6-95 Has no problem 866-9556 7117 PORTLAND HARRIS WALTERSON 869-1611 2-6-93 Against;barking;want to be notified of council hearing 7127 PORTLAND WAYNE VOELKER 866-8150 Signed application, but now believes that he made a mistake, now selling his house. He is not in favor of the Kennel License. Wants to be notified of hearing 7141 PORTLAND ELMER BERGLUND 866-2911 2-6-93 Lots of barking, but can live with it; app ok by him 7145 PORTLAND DALE BURLING 869-1627 Against license;would like to be notified of hearing 7100 OAKLAND T.C.SOLEM 869-5448 2-6-93 Unaware, uninterested 7112 OAKLAND CLAYTON BOSQUEZ 866-3197 2-6-93 Barking problem,against license;would like to be notified of hearing • 7120 OAKLAND E. KOEBRICK 866-16856 2-6-93 Against permit,barking problem;would like to be notified of hearing 7128 OAKLAND LAWRENCE ANDERSON 869-4995 2-6-93 Barking problem;against license;would like to be notified of hearing 7132 OAKLAND R. SZKLARZ 869-7728 2-6-93 Called 4 times;unable to reach;send letter about hearing 7138 OAKLAND KEITH ERSFELD 869-1212 2-9-93 Barking problem;against permit, would like to be notified of hearing 7144 OAKLAND J. SCHWEITZER 866-0892 2-9-93 Some problems;against permit;worried about possible noise, would like to be notified of hearing 0 y? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 70 Agenda March 8, 1993 • Issue Statement: Consideration of a request for a new 1993 auto detailing license for Ultimate Detailers, 7726 Colfax Avenue. Background: On February 10, 1993, the City received a new application and other required documents for an auto detailing license for Ultimate Detailers. The applicant has paid the required license fee. This has been previously licensed and had auto detailing work conducted under Richfield Mitsubishi's name. They will no longer be providing this type of business and the current applicant, Ultimate Detailers, will be leasing this space from them. Recommended Motion: Approve the issuance of a new 1993 auto detailing license for Ultimate Detailers. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of City codes and has paid the required licensing fee. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide not to approve the license application requested. This would mean that Ultimate Detailers would be unable to operate their business at this location. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to approve the application for a auto detailing license for Ultimate Detailers, 7726 Colfax Avenue, is being presented to Council at this time. Resp fully submitted, ven L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD:cak 0 7J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 69 Agenda March 8, 1993 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for heating and ventilation work at the Municipal Garage. Background: When the 77th Street improvement funding on the federal level became available late last year, the plans for construction included extending 77th Street through a portion of the Richfield Municipal Garage which lies in the proposed right-of-way of 77th Street. This will require demolition of approximately 150 feet of the garage building. The two ends of the building that remain will be capped off with new walls, and remodeling will be done to bring the building to minimum code for use by the garage staff. Engineers' estimates for this work were $250,000. In order to keep costs to a minimum, City staff decided to act as the general contractor, and are bidding out or obtaining quotations on various aspects of the project. The primary concern is to save money, salvage as much as possible and do as much of the work as possible "in house" so staff can temporarily get by with what is left of the facility until an alternate site for a new City garage can be located. The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. Relocation and installation of heating and ventilating systems in the north portion of the building, which will remain after demolition, is necessary to prepare the area for mechanics' bays. Two quotes were obtained for this work as follows: Midland Heating and Air Conditioning $14,850 6442 Penn Avenue South/Richfield C.O. Carlson Air Conditioning Company $15,895 1203 Bryant Avenue North/Minneapolis Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to Midland Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. in the amount of $14,850. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Midland Heating is a reliable company, with a good reputation in the area. • 2. Midland included gas piping in their quote of $14,850. The piping would be an additional cost with the C.O. Carlson quote. li-I • 3. It is important that this work begin as soon as possible in order to be completed by the April 15, 1993 deadline. Alternative Recommendation: Reject the quotes and instruct staff to obtain new quotes for this work; however, staff does not believe a lower bid can be obtained other than the Midland Heating quotation. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the March 8, 1993 Council meeting. Action is requested at this time in order to satisfy construction deadlines. Resp ully s bmitted, hUi? Steve L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD:cak Y// CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. Agenda March 8, 1993 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for 1993 boulevard tree planting. Background: For the past several years, the City has purchased 2"-2h" diameter trees to be used as replacements for boulevard and park trees lost to dutch elm disease, storm damage, and other causes. It was determined that this size was small enough to be easily transplanted, but large enough to withstand windrows of snow and breakage from vandalism. This year, quotes were received on slightly smaller trees, 1'h" to 2" diameter, in an effort to plant as many replacement trees as possible. Ten nurseries submitted quotes on this 1'h" to 2" diameter material. Low quotes for 1'h"-2" diameter trees in several categories came from TreeMendous, Inc. The City's tree inspector checked their trees first, and found that for the quoted price, TreeMendous would only furnish trees in the 1'h" diameter size, and no bigger. Staff then inspected the trees available from Bachman's, Inc., the next lowest bidder. Bachman's was willing to let the City's inspector mark trees right up to the 2" diameter size. It is the staff's recommendation that the difference in size and quality of . the trees available from Bachman's more than justified the additional cost of $4-$5 per tree. The City's tree inspector marked a total of 118 1h" to 2" diameter trees at Bachman's Nursery Wholesale Center for a total of $7,902.30. The trees marked included 12 Linden, 53 Sugar Maple and 53 Red Maple specimens. The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. A breakdown of purchases in previous years is shown below for comparison purposes: Year No. of Trees Total Cost Averag e Price/Tree 1990 134 Trees $11,917.50 $88.94 (no tax) 1991 160 Trees. $13,104.00 $81.19 (no tax) 1992 145 Trees $12,688.50 $87.50 (no tax) 1993 118 Trees $ 7,902.30 $66.96 (with tax) Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to Bachman's Nursery Wholesale Center in the amount of $7,902.30 for the purchase of 118 1'h"-2" diameter balled and burlapped trees. Y//- I Basis for Recommendation: 1. Of the ten nurseries who submitted quotations, these are the best quality trees for the price. A breakdown of the quotes received is attached. 2. Bachman's Nursery Wholesale Center is a reliable company, and has supplied the City with quality stock in previous years. 3. The approved 1993 Forestry capital outlay budget includes adequate funds for the purchase of these trees. r1 LJ Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council could reject this purchase and direct staff to seek other sources for boulevard trees. However, it is unlikely that sufficient numbers of quality trees would still be available. 2. Council could reject this purchase, and direct staff to purchase from the low bidder. However, the trees from the low bidder are not close to the quality of trees of those offered by Bachman's. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the March 8, 1993 Council meeting. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to facilitate timely delivery for spring planting. ztf lly submitted, vich Acting City Manager SLD:cak Attachment 11 A W V/ •? t r •rl Z s t VI ?ro w x N -NI- N -.I- N -NI- F-I W H r--I 3 • -? I- N -NI- 0 8 0 8 i ? ; ? LO ' 8 8 0 8 rq 0 ? L? 0 8 a 8 ' N C? LO LO H " -tiI- a? x p w? L/L> CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.67 Agenda March 8, 1993 • Issue Statement: Authorization of payment of legal defense fees totaling $20,301.72 for the Farrington lawsuit. Background: In 1991, the City of Richfield received a claim from Mr. Guy Farrington concerning the appointment process used by the City to fill unexpired positions on the City Council. Mr. Farrington ultimately brought a lawsuit against the City in this matter. This lawsuit was heard both in the trial court and in the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Both court appearances on behalf of the City necessitated extensive briefs due to the complexity and intricacy of the issues. In addition to the briefs prepared, the case also required extensive oral argument presentations. As Council Members are probably aware, the City and the other defendants have been dismissed from this litigation. However, the City is responsible for the cost of defending itself in this matter. The defense costs in this case equal $20,301.72, and are now due and payable to GAB Business Services. GAB is the claims administrator for the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) through which the City is insured. Recommended Motion: Approve the $20,301.72 payment to GAB for the defense costs in the Farrington lawsuit. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City was named as a defendant in a lawsuit and took action to provide legal defense in the matter. 2. Legal defense was provided through GAB, the claims administration arm of the LMCIT. The fees for those services total $20,301.72. 3. The amount is below the City's deductible level and, as such, must be paid directly by the City. 4. Adequate funds are available for this payment in the City's self- insurance fund. Alternative Recommendation: None. The service has been provided and the City now has an obligation to reimburse the LMCIT through GAB. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is included on the March 8, 1993 City Council agenda to ensure prompt payment to GAB and the LMCIT. Res ct ully s mitted, even L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD:cak GAB C? 0 GAB Business Services Inc 9531 West 78th Street Suite 220 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Telephone 612-942-9818 Branch Office February 18, 1993 Thomas Ferber City Clerk, City of Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Ave Richfield MN 55423-2599 GAB FILE: 56509-00840 TRUST MEMBER: City of Richfield PLAINTIFF: Guy Farrington D/A: 12-13-90 Dear Mr. Ferber: RECEIVED 2 2 J09 Enclosed is a copy of legal defense drafts totaling $20,301.72. This claim involved a lawsuit brought by Mr. Farrington against the City of Richfield over a council member position. As you are probably aware, the City of Richfield and the other defendants have been dismissed from this litigation. Pursuant to the City's $50,000.00 deductible, please issue your draft in the amount of $20,301.72 payable to GAB Business Services and forward to my attention. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me. 4eS y, lmes Adjuster DH/dc Encl. yG GAB ... "Where quality really matters." CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.66 Agenda March 8, 1993 • Issue Statement: Authorization to purchase 7646 Lyndale Avenue; 77th Street Project. Background: On November 23, 1992, the City Council authorized the purchase of 7646 Lyndale Avenue and set just compensation at $119,867. On February 23, 1993, MnDOT/FHWA approved the right of way plan which identified this property for purchase. The approval date placed a tight time constraint on the purchase process as this property must be acquired and vacant before April 30, 1993. The offer to purchase was subsequently presented. The owners rejected it and countered with $150,000. Negotiations continued and the owners are agreeable to selling for $145,000 and to vacate the property by midnight April 18. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes the purchase of 7646 Lyndale Avenue at $145,000. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed purchase price is less than the likely settlement cost through the condemnation process. 2. MnDOT and FHWA funds are available for the purchase. • 3. MnDOT and FHWA procedures were followed. 4. This property is occupied by an operating business and a resident. To maintain the Phase I project schedule, this property must be vacant prior to the end of April which is less than 55 days away. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay action. 2. Reject the proposal. 3. Propose an alternative. Discussion/Decision Mode: The approval of this acquisition on March 8, 1993 will help assure the on or before April 30 vacate date for the property and maintain the project time schedule. Respectfully submitted, /teveAnL. ?vi h Acting City Manager • SLD:cak V #rt RESOLUTION NO. • THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY 77th STREET PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 77th Street Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property located at 7646 Lyndale Avenue, being described as follows: That part of Lot 7, "Glenn's Addition", lying between the south line of the north 28.3 feet of said Lot 7 and the north line of the south 30.9 feet of said Lot 7. WHEREAS, on November 23, 1992, the City did set and approve just compensation for said real property in the amount of $119,867 which was rejected by owner; and WHEREAS, consideration was given to the consequences of setting price through the condemnation process; and WHEREAS, the purchase and vacation of this property prior to April 30, 1993 is critical to the success of construction in • 1993. WHEREAS, the owner has agreed to sign a purchase agreement and vacate the property for a purchase price of $145,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the. City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: That the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute a purchase agreement for $145,000. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of March, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 y? CITY OF RICHFIELD Council Letter No. 65 Agenda March 8, 1993 40 Issue Statement: Adoption of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of 626 East 77th Street, 7644 and 7645 Park Avenue, 7644 Columbus Avenue and 7645 13th Avenue; 77th Street Project. Background: These single family homes have recently been appraised. They are part of the Phase II area of 77th Street. In the past several months, the City has proceeded to acquire properties in the 77th Street area on a hardship basis. Those properties have now been completed. 0 The properties under consideration in this Council Letter are part of the Phase II area of 77th Street. These single family homes have recently been appraised to determine fair market value. Funding for the acquisition of these properties will be provided through the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution which does the following: 1. Sets just compensation at the values listed and authorizes staff to negotiate and purchase the properties at the indicated values: 626 East 77th Street $92,000 7644 Park Avenue $93,000 7645 Park Avenue $81,000 7644 Columbus Avenue $94,000 7645 13th Avenue $92,000 • 2. Authorizes the City Manager and Mayor to execute purchase agreements in the amounts of just compensation. Basis of Recommendation: 1. MnDOT and FHWA appraisal procedures were followed. 2. Project funds are available from MnDOT and FHWA. Alternative Recommendation: Do not set the purchase price and authorize purchase. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval will make it possible timely manner. for the process to proceed in a Res a tfully ubmitted, ve L. ich Acting City Manager SLD:cak 71- RESOLUTION NO. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 9 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION, AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 77th Street Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property being described as: Lot 10, Block 2, Mattson Heights 3rd Addition aka 626 East 77th Street Lot 9, Block 2, Mattson Heights 3rd Addition aka 7644 Park Avenue Lot 10, Block 2, Mattson Heights 4th Addition aka 7645 Park Avenue Lot 9, Block 2, Mattson Heights 4th Addition aka 7644 Columbus Avenue Lot 9, Block 3, South Murray Lane aka 7645 13th Avenue. WHEREAS, the City has adopted an official map for improvements to 77th Street; and • WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are funding this project; and WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals of the subject property to be made by qualified independent professional real estate appraisers to determine fair market value; and WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the appraisal report as to conformity with appraisal standards and has certified same. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That just compensation is determined to be: $92,000 for 626 East 77th Street $93,000 for 7644 Park Avenue $81,000 for 7645 Park Avenue $94,000 for 7644 Columbus Avenue • $92,000 for 7645 13th Avenue 2. That the City Manager is authorized and directed to commence negotiations for the purchase of said real property. v-69- 3. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute a purchase agreement for the amount of just compensation set forth in this resolution. • 4. That the City Manager is hereby directed to notify, in writing, the owners of subject property as soon as possible that the City intends to acquire his/her property and establish eligibility for relocation benefits. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of March, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 ? 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 64 Agenda March 8, 1993 Issue Statement: Authorization to purchase 7648 Lyndale Avenue; 77th Street Project. Background: On August 10, 1992, the City Council authorized purchase of 7648 Lyndale Avenue and set just compensation at $142,628. The owner rejected the offer. City staff then suggested that the owner retain an appraiser from a listing of State approved appraisers who would prepare an appraisal report. The owner selected an approved appraiser who submitted an appraisal report with a claimed value of $185,450. Once negotiations were initiated, it became apparent that additional data regarding this appraisal was not avaiable to the City's project appraisers at the time of their appraisal work. As a result, the City's review appraiser revised his certification to $146,450. Negotiations based upon the latest two appraisals have concluded with the owner agreeing to sign stipulations in the amount of $157,950. This is less than the amount which would be paid through the condemnation process. Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolution which authorizes the purchase of 7648 Lyndale Avenue at $157,950. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed purchase price is less than the cost which would be incurred if the price were determined as a result of a Commissioner's award through the condemnation process. 2. MnDOT and FHWA funds are available for the purchase. 3. MnDOT and FHWA procedures were followed. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay action. 2. Reject the proposal. 3. Propose an alternative. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval would permit a closing to be held in a timely manner. Acting City Manager SLD:cak Res ctfully submitted, eve L. Devich -'d- / RESOLUTION NO. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY 77TH STREET PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 77th Street Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City. of Richfield (City) said real property located at 7648 Lyndale Avenue, being described as follows: South 30 1/10 feet of Lot 7, Glenn's Addition WHEREAS, on August 10, 1992, the City did set and approve just compensation for said real property in the amount of $142,628 which was rejected by owner; and WHEREAS, the review appraiser has recommended a revised just compensation in the amount of $146,450; and and WHEREAS, the owner's appraisal claimed a value of $185,450; WHEREAS, the owner's appraisal report was reviewed and consideration was given to the consequences of setting a price through the condemnation process; and WHEREAS, the owner and former tenant have agreed to sign stipulations totaling $157,950. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That just compensation is revised and is set at $146,450. 2. That the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute stipulations totaling $157,950. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of March, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ,7 c-?' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.63 Agenda March 8, 1993 Issue Statement: Authorization to accept offers for the partial takings at the former Lampert Lumber site, City Garage and Roosevelt Park; 77th Street Project. Background: On December 14, 1992, the City Council set just compensation and authorized the purchase of land at the above identified locations. On February 23, 1993, MnDOT/FHWA approved the purchase of these partial takings along with several others. The official offering letters for each of the properties are attached. The offers are as follows: Temporary Damages Easement Lampert Lumber Property $ 46,500 $ 1,400 City Garage $719,253 $ 3,100 Roosevelt Park $ 44,300 $10,400 There are a few specific issues concerning these properties that Council Members may wish to be aware of. ? Lampert Lumber The project will require the demolition of the long narrow wooden shed at the north end of the property. ? City Garage There will be an additional amount allocated for relocation which has not yet been finally determined. The cost of moving the moveable fixtures will be paid as well as some of the retrofitting costs at the Lampert Lumber site as covered in Council Letter No. 62. ? Roosevelt Park The cost of retrofitting and facility relocation due to the loss of a portion of the park will be included in the road construction contract and will be in addition to the $44,300 in damages. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution which accepts the offers from the project for the city property to be impacted by the 77th Street project. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The just compensation being offered was previously established by the City Council. 0 2. MnDOT and FHWA procedures have been followed. 7G-1 3. MnDOT and FHWA funds are available for the purchase. • Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay acceptance 2. Reject the offers Discussion/Decision: A timely response will permit the project purchase process to proceed according to schedule. Resp ctf lly bmitted, ?r? n Devich Acting City Manager SLD:cak • • /V_ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF OFFERS; 77TH STREET PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 77th Street project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property being described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted an official map for improvements to 77th Street; and WHEREAS, the improvements to 77th Street necessitate the purchase of real property; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to determine the use of real property it owns within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are funding this project; and WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals of the subject property to be made by qualified independent professional real estate appraisers to determine fair market value; and . WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the appraisal report as to conformity with appraisal standards and has certified same; and WHEREAS, the City has made a just compensation offer to purchase the subject properties for use by the Project as indicated in Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That just compensation offered by the Project for the property as described in Exhibit A is hereby accepted. 2. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized and directed to execute the appropriate agreements to effectuate the transaction. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of March, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: 0 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 7(-- 3 EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION MARCH 8, 1993 JUST COMPENSATION Temporary Property Damages Easement Lampert Lumber $ 46,000 $ 1,400 300 W. 78th Street PID No. 34-028-24-33-0013 City Garage $719,253 $ 3,100 7700 Pillsbury Avenue • PID No. 34-028-24-34-0052 Roosevelt Park $ 44,300 $10,400 400 E. 77th Street PID No. 34-028-24-44-0005 0 J 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 City Manager James D. Prosser March 8, 1993 Mr. James Prosser City of Richfield Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Mayor Council Martin Kirsch Don Priebe Susan Rosenberg Michael Sandahl Russ Susag Subject: Initial Offering Letter, Establishment of Relocation Eligibility, Partial Taking Former Lampert Lumber Site, 77th Street Project Dear Mr. Prosser: The City Council has established just compensation and authorized the purchase of a portion of the former Lampert Lumber site. The purchase of this property will make it possible for the city to proceed with the construction of improvements to 77th Street this year, 1993. The project is prepared to pay a total of $47,900. This includes $46,500 for the purchase of 129,059 square feet of land to be permanently utilized for street improvements. An additional $1,400 is included for the temporary use of 3,705 square feet of property during construction. Attached are site sketches which depict the areas. Note the purchase takes a triangular area which contains approximately 1,433 square feet which is included above. The compensation was based on the following values: Market Value Before Taking $757,500 Market Value After Taking $711,000 Damages $ 46,500 The value of the temporary easement was based on rental of approximately 3,705 square feet of land. Upon receiving this initial offer, you become eligible and entitled to relocation benefits and other assistance in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and • Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The Urban Hometown Telephone (612) 861-9700 Fax 861-9749 An Equal Opportunity Employer 7c -,4 Mr. James Prosser, Manager . March 8, 1993 Page 2 Information regarding the specific assistance to which you are entitled will be provided by Mr. John Connors of Conworth Inc. He will contact you shortly. If you wish to call him, he is available at 929-0044. Conworth Inc. is located at 4725 Excelsior Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Please direct any questions you have regarding the purchase of your property to me. If I'm not available when you call leave a message. You may specify the most desirable time for me to return your call. It may be a time prior to 8:00 a.m. and after 4:30 p.m. if that would be more convenient for you. Accompanying this letter is a Guide for Property Owners which presents information related to the purchase of your property by the City. The regulations which we are following require me to request you to sign an exact copy of this letter which will then be placed in our files. You are simply acknowledging receipt of this letter on the stated date. A copy of this letter is also provided for you. Sing rely, Bruce C. Palmborg, Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator Housing and Redevelopment Division BCP : j s Enclosure I certify that, on the day of , 1993, a copy of this letter and a,copy of a Guide for Property Owners was delivered to me by the undersigned City staff person. Signature of Owner Signature of staff person 0 r t-n c-< 0OOm? ?n-0 -< <W w-7, (Q- = o CL) 0 C) (n (n 0 C: =3 - OLD c C W N =? C O O C`p< C) CD (03 ptn CD (aD =CCDD CD W ?7 0 oC o CD ,.w C.3 m Q(0(0 m ?3 C o ?3°°vc 3c?c 30 ,O-1 m(D"< w: `°-?ow0?-)-wow ° ?C=ho aocL ?(nn=? cv0WOp ?c(n<?< CD °C? •a< ?ca? •<Qa? oa?a<v°om CD 0 *5' p° (Da 2 CD CD FD* O c w c? -< _ u u -•i ?Oai ??(<DW ?(ppn'? CD CD ?.? W:3 CD °c ova °:m° a ?Dw(oo (n? a-c °. ?m ? w v°D o?o? o ?Cn'33 ?cDC3n-0 ° ° _ o- w En 0 .(a 0 CD c 07 3 o CD (n CD 3. . U) ZY CD CD 0 07 -a-- ) a C =3 (D > > " CD 3 CD ? , a ? -(o ? n 3 , O w a _Ow`? pp C?(D 0 p0 W (p CD OO'< < CDDnO N(D n c ° m w a CD CD _0 c w a w w W O (D ° O ? w p p CD i o W c -a CD iF ° Co m m M CD (n :3 W 6 a-0 O(n CCDDw -0CD. (o CD cn A M °C (D C. m n ? (nn = CD 3- CL CD CCDD 0 3 m O w w 3 c°_n CD -0 a:) CD CD ?co w 'D(n CD O CD D o'(p W (n _° m" w a(Do w(W `G CD - m .z O<.< CAD c? 0 cn c W (D ?? CD n O p ? a d -4 o -'? CD,< ,< o n p ap 03(D w -0,z -, 03 c -0=_ m7 1+ ra 3c?ocD wa? a3c?'Dr- CD a?afD (D o " (n D co c U, CD CD CD m ° = CD -one, o C? 0 o w o - CD CD c;, o :3 (? go-0 (-D , a CD. O (<D CNl<CCDD3 ?CDOw w e o cl) Z3 C) CD En < CD 3?4,?(D C?DMCMD CD=pa (-°• m -0 o a(0 v v wor0`<n Z?0CD Cn C C CD CD Z (D n cr0 C aW Cn0.a?. CD 3? wo Coco c m (D p Nom. cn PL) Ww:3 CD- a n + ZT _ O -0 0 CD 11) a(n (» ?w a O • v W ,:3 ??3oz)--nos o:TWCL W 0? CCDDD3=.XCADm 30,??.ou-cm3 -0 Ow WCD-0 O(0gCDZ<<CD D(DO-0 CD waw<-0 ?. .0.000D(7O0?n(D N-0 O O , -0 .?.?' 'DD CD ,-p-.w? C.? M.v O - O CD a-•(D ?O a ? CD < Cn CD 0 ? C (D * ? Z3 ? ? CD ? CD -0 (1) ? CD CD (D c CD CD m ? p O ? ., i 0- D `. ?-I?? a CL) ' cfDnsv'':?o°?°?a m?ocD??c--DOCDOa C) :7 CD °° ?. _°- 5'U w Q wm 3 (nao?3 N. m m CD ??om?m3 w??(D :T Oa O?'<vi((DDms_v <?' (DD?cmoC-. ° N.?.ao"?n '.BCD CD o (CD CD 3 =o m ?.< z CD 0 ° Z) o c 9 CD 3i 0 -0 wv * o W ? e K O (D N- c a CAD ? O, CD o a(o w p O n a 1(n p°O=.C3 (D 5(DwCT?O3 cO -,?(D(D ;° En 0Cn?? rn mo ?¢'O??'(DO-0 ?o mC 30 0 ?c??? v '° 0CD (n i(n ° , CD c C) CD ° r*v m m ° N -.< c ° r. CD 0 2:,,4 ° ?i ° ° CD D'O -'mac o w w ?_ +W cn O cD m O o `< 00 Z CD o(n CD Q.cD Ani CD w ((n O rn ° C O D.W ((DD v=i O c =(n O CCDD o m ? c m --N CD O w N aa= CD CD aC ?•7 0 * O ..fn c -0-0 w ,F 0- _ CL aO(0 o * CD?O wCD .? '<o--c??° (Dvn'o-.= CD (n o O 3?°?(nwwp?=o?C°? 3°m?wo? ?C??0 0m?o w Z w? O c? O'-0 E BCD N aw CCDD vOi 00 0 w m O o ?3 o a0 (D ? G (n (D c w z (D < w ao :3 o w CD 3cD a ?(CD ?COD a C' 3,< ac°i w(?'n a? c, ?? CmO:3CD0 z3CDp-'p 0WCD0CD °mQO3(D C : ?3CDN?Q-7. Cn 3 ?CD ch -0 (n o •w ?-0 (D ECD 3 °.??.a 0.CCDD 0a> >•.Zm °<(0 3 CD w CD :3 (D - N Q w ?•0 w CD =T CD :3 CD 0 CD (DD m = to m O ?O in --U -0 0 _? ?°(0 ? CD ?? to O 0 7 CD =r =r (D 00 (D .? (o a?°c-'0?aa 00 :3 0 CL Z3 (D ooN °? Cas(Do°oam CD CD CD 0 D) Z3 OCDN FD CrLo CCDD??? ,.D =3 OL (D (09w ?O A w p 3 3 c?D?n. ..?< +? O Cl. ,•O +O ° :F (D O (-D CD 0-0(0 ?((DDCD(Dw<d (?p0(Dc < (D0 ?0 www p?? ?. (n CAD ? ° ° aCD =3 CD .. o Iz CD ? C - Q) cz (1) Q)0 a)cz a) c: (Z cc`u ac3 o YW 0)a?N0)? cz u)E-2'O °-0oa) v°i-'~ a) roc ?octi?? oc °w )0NO ac>.? croc c`u ?. E O p Q1 Q O > p O> O p a) = a) i i c E a V- cv 0 a) E 0-~ 0 •- .-- a Q- a) "°aL-CL(D Ero oDN >,ro>3 ??? ELF a)=Eroos a)>°cn L- ooa) n a) ?0U) tea, o?? c o 0-15 ca 4-- 7?) CL 'F5 0-0 04- o c a) 70 0 E C: :3 L) CD ° L -0 C -C 00 a) d70 >, ro _ 3 0` Q o m U -_o.- O_ A cz .0 :3 (1) (1) L ?ro m U C ro CZ-p a? O p U? O ?? C? U) U5 >? U C ro ?Y 0 0.0 a) O- U) a) C C U 0)ro C ° a) aro oL? Eo E o cU O v C13 °a n.cz 3 roQ.=0c a) ro -ooUro rLro o Er- "-o? 3EY?oE-roroL E0°>a)a)?o ?a)3?a) Qo° o°ui °aa) ro U? > n? Q. Y? o " O? 0 ??" L ro _0 (0 n --- cu cFa) ?t°)co o °>.? oc°nLE CL - zcU a ° 'Q) >.°) cro a) Nr d0 U•C a) pL o? o o•- O EQ a) ?V yap,?--0 a) XaL 0 cn ro- ro >, Y cn Z. C ro w= O C L? o >>?.t E C W `p G ?+N a), o cz Ero?u)ro U0EcEro .,>,-ou) a,..,-o ? D,••- caoc ?vOU r Q) 3 a) C U Cro ro a) c-O ro? s a) r- 0) ?E C U) 0) (n cn o a) Op= ??a) C: CU C: m ca w ME Ca)'C L-0 (nEc c: cz zE YUZo °,° ca)io,N0? E°?LL° aiL aci°0 } o E o o? ?Ur 3-° E QpL a) o•EL a) c 0 Q)?)E a) o roUro Q??'•- n) f. +-v)0EoU? ?oZ.U ?rooc? a)rocu>•ro+.n) aXi ai E•= 3LO.t a) c c'?YL a) oY c rot ro: c U a)?Q? ro L 3 o a) ro -0 c E a) oLw- 3L c (15 o `?3 E c.. a) u) o 5 dC5 ? a)rou?°a)-00 M ?EE; °.c3 ? °aci cnEE?Qa? _ Q,cnro V) ca)v, >>°c`o FLU°D ?Eo Uaia)> roa)a)-0 a) a) .? 00a)Oa)a) om-°cro U`=3 L aoi aa)) o tr a) c` ??L aE E ro E ro cCZ i ` E? > L 0 o o Q c000 > ro 3-_ - 0Q._ oU aY C a) 0 a) ro D ` $ U 3 a) ro'0 a >? >» w a o? 47- ro o ccc?oo L-O °u) ''a) a) c a) CZ a) a a)0.-a°OOvi n-0 ?Uc.. =3Q .Ea) a).- ro ?o .ENO??ccna) PTO cn oro ?a)a OL C) c>aooccu c= - o?cna)roa)?>,•o cac ??o a)o ?nn? s >? a) ?- a) 0 0 pt cL a) u) ?? n Q) c: " Q c 3 Q= E a) ?E a)-- a)>' aro?a)E0 DoE oa)co C- a) rop Co roro t.D a) cy :3,0 v N.`-aroi V) (n o c)L c -0 o o Q? Q 3 cu a) >1 po)>,- czroa'` m?'aLC oro? tea) N.=NO Eu, ?roooc vc ? ?o3c Qnou)EroOCo Cmn (1) a) oai?o+- Ea)??L 3: MU) 0 o>?.a) o)rocn u) En co Sa) 0 Q) ca>o.N _ c - a) E ?+t E>0).2ro 00>'a) 300 CZ-0 0? MD0 Cu ap? C: c0 0.o >} co-Eco>•cnc cnLU0 .? L U N Q p > ,? p i c a) ,r ... Y u) a) O ?a)aic'3 s°.=3 Q) ??aio`??U° ??a) 3t?? a Lp cE6 n M.T c° ?La) cm N00a?a)? ?°E ro ?E(n ?+'? a) `6cj o ??? m o a) E c o o ai ac) C c cz c 3-0 0 ro c (1) U= 070 aro ro 3 Ca ?? p ?,cn a) as ro a) ° Co a ro a c ro4- a) ro= 0 a) U) c ro U a) a) o OLa) L az o E W a) >, o 0 c o c U i '3 a) oL E_ c a)Y a aci E C 0 I_- ?°' a-F Cl 0)o-v_) .-CO- ?,aXi 7 >.-t>. Cp ac-0o _r_ E E ro o? O C!= .. Ea) O N'D a).T) co p > o a) >, o 0 3 c " .-. -U - a) o cz a) a) a) U) DLO-o?? c?(n ?E70 Q))Eoc 2ua)i Co'aa)iQ):3 ta?c niQCo =Q)a) ro=0?->-a)-c `o E=c>?}- +>,`a) °roc ?.-a) 3aoo U. c: °?o :.oa roroL?o a)>,-C 3?ocn - -0CDa)'D) ?-o La) mLCnr ? •-c?a? cc aa) '-wro? UoE- U.cEc' u o`L U Q.g cn ro ) ED) E'§ E o °.? L c Eo 5 s CD a) N cEZ ro?? t C, 3 0 ca =? o o Eo c cz QoUa> F-m0a' HI_--o-oE°? F- o- ?a)oocz LL >->.Uroa) C?) ?c N v -DO cn o 3 D 0 w "I pm -0 i aw-0 w (5? 00 p D ? ?w m cn O O -w -.•< c 60333 wm o D 0 CD `?° ?N -N 0? -OC 0 =Tm w c m c m? D w 0 0) CD CD - CD -0 0 =r 0 =3 ?c?0'CCDDm00a0 O 0CD 0CCD?..CDCDD COD O cn r.?? aa' c 3 5'o n?'? ?? A?i 3 -5'* co l< 17=r 5 -- r. o =r0 CD ?::r C: CCD = CD ? D CD DO QO m CND ?. CD .?cncD?O (n.?Ct) vo 3°m wcD-.?3 m 'D3 ?i 07 w 0 7,z. CD W CL ?' , CD m aCD CD o w.?m d 3 ? 5'w0cOn c 3cwnW.0O D CDw =m5mC' nCmmm O an mmO 0-, as n =3 -, ccm? :3w CD 3o cm oCDvmaw ? < w CL CD CD (0 5D 0 :3 - a - co DQc wzr =3 - m ? Do. n 3 ?w c?D --gym m CD < 3 w a O ?c ?'a co ° vwi 7J? O ° -0 awn N? w ° c N aQ?w 3?nQ 3 CCD 3° m(n mmCD `? cDCn? o CD wN- p CD CD C CD 0 O w, cwn? w O W C W CD ?m W O n? _` aaW ? 0 3:N O ;D O C =3 0 ^? 3 w C L m rt O O inFnCD3?Cn .. C?m? CT0 0 CD CD CD x CD - :T :T :3 0 n. w :3 0-0 -D a ?C am c0 (n (0 m 0- N CD n0-=*O`< 'CD :,7 C O 0 3 w5 ::rm c? r 0 CD m -7 CD n () 00 _nO 0 ?OwC -0 m? ? n0wwm c<D W O c 3 C?DcD ?'??w w C CCDD? COD CD •<? m o CD 0 -cam ?aC N-=O CD C pN.O -.OmO : _ ::r cr CD CD CD 07 CD O O_ O - m w 0 m m D =7 CD (n (n CD - * O 0 O =" w w-0 Dn D no r. O =•-O -0 w a0 O 00-- -0-0 ?3 3,< c 3 ?' 00a»??.3.a X33 3 -" . in -o (n .. CD m0 CD w0- (Dcw OOO?0O CD3 c7CDm w 3 ? a D En q 0 ... m 3 ?: - 0 CD Q w w 0 UT ::E 0 °ccnnma< - 0 CD o c 0 4W 5'm m 0 =r a O `< m 0 CD CL CD c?wOwmwO (n0.? <wcn(n?C?? m=r< 0 w 0 C.w O O w m ?? w w ?CDD c O .. n a 0 30-0 a? ." cD 0 w --o O 0 3 m 05CD 3C1 (DCL .? 3 to .. ,w m c0 w Cn =r =r a- ° 3 -(n 0 w CD (D W OL C 07-« -? .. 41 X 0 3 0 (D 3 Ef w m a;1:7=r'ima: m_a ?DmccDDm.3 wm? w oaa-a m -. a 0-ZT 3?CbwCL CL O.OCD ?N o m ?O CD zr CD 3 (7wOw m 0 m 0 m `< C Cn v ?. D o D< CD C-0. o 5cn-0 o 3: !!r. g r« CD Z) :r c m wc?C?Qc3m o-? 0 0mC`?- ? -- (n 0-0 O av-- iw o m c_° D O O w c<DCNi3Cna :3w n Oj cD CCDn(D CD OCn_0 7 mO n cDO.0+ O=r . U) m ° (n j c n°?(ON<CD 0) 0 < CCDD0 3 (n (a- Dom n O n?cr. 0=•,? wc?D 3 CL N a m 0= CD - CD W CD w O -, -+ 0 ma0m0mcDw N 5m m `< -? 0 m O Ol cD c0 a N O?-mac w c0 cn - C v 0 0 w q3m oam -. m ?m m aA 0 w C. 0 CD mw 0N0 c n 0 On00 O_0 mG??a??0 Oc c0 Nw-0 w w a-, n .+ O w m -0 m0 ?0 0 a0 CD _0 3 w co m -? cr Z)- o O cn cfl..-0 m< w wm 0 c0 zr a -? O C ?ONCD a CD CD CD OO p? am CL :3 -0 CD ? mr O m0 , m 0-0 a-? O m o CD CD a CD 11 (n m n -4 O Z CCD O O m = :7-0 O < -,. ::37 CL 0 (0 CD ?Ommww -•'' w CD _0 CD °CD W=3 CDNNmOQ Z3 E; m C) - CD w w N - * 0-0,?w En Cn w S-O r.cn-0 CDO?3m3 cD 3.-.-0 Nm3?wc'cn w o n(n z---0-< aw fJccn-0 O c-o Q 0 D CD . N ° O O.0 CD 0(n w - (n CD C: 0 7 -m m, 0-+m.+ m-0 - cn0 m ? -i -0 a-0 O =moo m CD m - 77 :3 (1) 5 _0 =3 CD CD CD 11) -NmcnnO= w-0 0-00 p < S -? c (n O fV c. 0 .+A» O CD O CD Zr CD a W ::r CD (n CD :37 0 U) fn --CD c ¢? :3 CD Q c 3 N ¢70 5.ONCT03`n 3V,351) 0 a CD 0c iz m LO CD a) 0 " CD m?Fp.mCL *OCw. 0 0-0 ;z c O 0 m 0- O ?? 0 O?c o m 0L U_ O L UN c _ a) o U ' n CL ? Q O N co O O CL- T) a) 0 Cn 0 O Q O o`o O a) CL -O Q) ? ? -0o 'O c ?•N o C Q? U 0 L L !_ ?. o OE 0a -0 C: L "E •- c M L 0L 00 (z 0 U - a) E Ff ° a) c- o Y a) 3 O AOL .? 0)?0? a.? a) -0 O) a) Y- a) -D.- i U C: 0 O O CL L °? OaNCL U Cl) d 0)_ En O Z d.C Q) CL CL) 0 a O 0 H `) (L) U) Y ° n0 a 0) u Q D-o? U M U c: ro n ? Q) .L. LL E L a O _m ` QQ))cQE . _ ? o z'-°o a, E 0 Q a L) ai c c o°OW W ` ?.?a o Z 0 0 W E O -c- 0 W Q) U) U) cr O a) Q CAS ° U U L O O O 7E Q) cz cL Q) c t coo ca- cz m x .2 Z3 -a cc Q OOEo 0 ?Q) +- co c Ot?U) Q) E 0° E?E3L?_ c o` a)??-cam E? O C. ? m- ? O 4- M O E-0C(z m L" a)-°i M ? E? 0- CL ?U0coE0 Lc a) •-? U m aaL C E a) ° C ?L CZU O O E co (a c? E+- OU0 0 0 }, a) ? Q) y) Q E0 O? E 'r? 0 N ` - co O _ ? O Q) C Q C+- cna?o?0co Cho m CL0 CL CL E E? (z E0 c_u° a0o0, cnc cv.C a) >,C- c o ?.° 0 L) O U C U M w C O O O >L- O>.0 °«. co U) m N C? CFO V) w > v CL Q ?aM--8 70 co a ccE c?3>Z3 ??a 0V)a? con°0cnco-o ?OCo U?(o CO o L C. as O Q) C4 U a) .2:,- _ O ° Q) a) a) . ' C a) U) U0 }Or 0 EO`)-T occn Q) "C 0 O C N E E i LCOE5m 0o mo 0 0 H>---0mctS.EU 'oU QOa c 0 m a) c -0 v) c o a) o w? a) y= 0 O .no o a) a) ~CZ 0?a n O c6R1_O 0a) p0000 c? Nc° m -0. 0-0 a? a) 3 °-- c`oU :no Q) CZ Q) ? c O ` c2 0 Q ?' _ > L C _ r- a) 03 - O C C-0 O O E cu L "? C? U-0 U co C•C ?L Q) Q) O' O L O O a) C?- a co O Q) ?- >,Q) CZ (z U) 0 aL Q)CL°C C 0 coa)3a) 'NE U Ld ?? c`n cn c? E-0 >- o aa))Q coo= E 0 U cn a0 MU 0+- a) >,0 Ch a EC: -0 moc3 Q)L3 ?EcOmULO? °xa)'"?ofo a) (13 o 0 a6i0?LO-"`° OcE.r.-'- a)aa •--C Co oM n.-c) 0Ca ?La) naci NUCo 0o .E co0CnW.C C` 0a.UOa Q ?O>-ECti>O Q)Q)LQ)CD-L czc-0)zr Co? =?acico?a) ?.ELo °>, a=?cE -CD M.- CL ?VON°O j E °a-0o c CCs L m 3 L C«- 0Z- a) O O aU CL N 3 a - _ p O C cot O 0) 2 Q) Q) co U C +- a) RS O A T r- m .? a O U Q)-O _U O ,. C Q) L CL O to 0 d Q) O O Q) _ Co _ .? _ QE cn „ ° a) C-0 ° E E EL) Css N 0> a/?)» ?O 'cCSa)0p Lco?.???COcz 0 4)C.=O ..?.:M L oc?0a) +- E00 =3Q) ) >% L>, U0Q)O1 CU N QY L Cn c c .- 3 o a) ro L « a) E O CZ Q) - 0_1 CU US ?L O °)Q>, ccaa >,u Et cz o 0 0 ?L ?p aco m ) Q)Y a) a) 3 a? co m co 70 rZ Q) E L y, 0 3 L C L Co W - (o O d co -0 0 co M O .? Q) L `?•- 0 0 0 `? E co Y E CD U`? L_ NIJ ev 0 00- En -- con uoi E c= L 3 0 C '? 0 Q 0 C C 0 O CU Q) 0) V) C o' p C 7 cn O-0 Q-U)O«-c? ? 3a)c?•.c ?_•??' .0 CZ c Q CO Q) Q •C a) 73 t7 co .N Q a) - co N c6 co Co - co al -0-0c°)CZCu?_ w5, Q) Eaa) ? E N.E 3 a °?o E-cE Vo°`0 C: ?o`??o°ccau> ? U o??a `>?? Cna? "-a'a a) 0-9 Crim o D. vti? ?' E N o ?? ?U 3 aci a st C 42 f D ?a c LE- Czm 0=3aEwta)OEo ._fl0-pc cn- ° 3U 3 a ? u-o 0?2 co a '?- 3 CnU.? co ?'3 cz Q Qm u n co • C7?,aO a so- o-00) D 5•D cD On- a 0 a) ww'O <?c?ox G Ca (occnU)< Z, CD fic") w<<???? ??cn t7 a U) ain("n3(nC maw o o a? g, c`<D ?-Im :3 ?a O-QO ?w a-oco? m @ @ i,-Qc :3 CD 0 -0 S CD 'P CD :35 c cD ?? I:t J7? ?. ?? ?(n CD (D -o-0c?cD CDm?< (D 0 4, o 0o0 (CnD zr (n a ((Dnn?D? ????' n3i coD m?3 co CD D? ,( mw(D'D o ° owa?0CD (D ?'? n D? ?'Z 3w n(a = Tl 5[ O (n O CD D 0 U) CD c°n 71-0 c ?0 o ?,? ? a Q o , :' w w ?' U1 (n cD (A (D CD CD c? ??wo _0 m n =w w3 5'wc : 0 11) 0 CD CD 0 0- 0 = CL CD < CL O CDC v3 0 EL 0 3 O ?cva?? CI-CD _?_? _Z a? Ln.•<o Z nn05? OC) C ?w ?L Lo cD3 - CC =:3((DA aN OCD -D ? -:O p (D 0 Z3 (D (D n - cn z z)- l< (n Q (D O (D c (D < O (D CD a r. CD 3 c CD = (n (D O O -D 3 n CDC o'j w w, 0 O 0(Dw<-1 ?(DOL cD:3- (DD o < a <0CD?(n ?cr 0C w meow a _ v o CD CD < U. :3 Cr w SL0 R M ? o ca:) (v° '< w n. (n (D o c o ??D 07 CD a (D m ? I a 0 N i a w a O oG a a 0 w w A w V O a a w x U a a w a O a a 0 °c o -5? J D y J Z U) LL O CD C O C 3i a Q O /) . T ? ) OI c w (D T rn J O m 0? Z ?? Q d W V o, 0 m D O CL? C Z Q Lim Di ? c Q1 ' 0 Q) } V O O `h- Q 5 p Olro O O V U 2 0 ? 4) LL $ o m .N (J) c to U) 4) «L. -0 Lu O A ? 00 c Uc co?E :. o2 m t? 20 ?Wc aC 0 c ?ncc 0-0 ) ?CL ?E c ?? C L V >.O a) U - c c o= c W 0 CL (13 1 >? ° 3 0 ?Z N Z ?0 E°'JE ?0 - - O a)v -z ca CZ o ca E -r- a) 0 100 0) cu a 0 m oC o? Q ,j . Z W Q Q S ? . Z v' > < - ?- c cc W W J Z a 44 R. C. SOEW S ADC TERRACE- -SUNS[ TERRACE MJ ? ? 32A-TE D NEW R/W 5 ?30 : !30- -36 -36 4 D 4 Qa? 44 : 45 mm 1w., .r+ O134 34 r5T "NEW R/w 35A; A: '36 NEW R/V • ? a" MBERSHED klTE c I M b O I I D P&wa SKETOM in lEFNAAMYff TMNO UNPORARY EASEMW -- -- O O O tt Lrl O 4 _ ?A t W .. to H'i O M O N O r? O cv Q ?, ?- ' .• Q • LO Q . ti Q . .O Q • ?D Q • 117 ?I?Yr ? ?•.I.. M. Acquisition Map .J • 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 City Manager James D. Prosser March 8, 1993 Mr. James Prosser City of Richfield Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Mayor Martin Kirsch t-9 Council Don Priebe Michael Sandahl Susan Rosenberg Russ Susag Subject: Initial Offering Letter, Establishment of Relocation Eligibility, Partial Taking City Garage, 77th Street Project Dear Mr. Prosser: The City Council has established just compensation and authorized the purchase of a portion of the property at the City Garage to make it possible for the City to proceed with the construction of improvements to 77th Street this year, 1993. The project is prepared to pay $722,353. This includes $719,253 for land, immovable fixtures and the cost to correct the damage done to the facility by the project. Also included is $3,100 for the temporary use of land during construction. Attached are site sketches which depict the two areas. The compensation was based on the following values: Market Value Before Taking $1,200,000 Market Value After Taking $ 480,747 Damages $ 719,253 The value of the temporary construction easement was based on rental of approximately 17,248 square feet of land. Upon receiving this initial offer, the City becomes eligible and entitled to relocation benefits and other assistance in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. Information regarding the specific assistance to which you are entitled will be provided by Mr. John Connors of Conworth Inc. He will contact you shortly. If you wish to call him, he is available at 929-0044. Conworth Inc. is located at 4725 Excelsior Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. The Urban Hometown Telephone (612) 861-9700 Fax 861-9749 An Equal Opportunity Employer yC ? Mr. James Prosser, Manager March 8; 1993 Page 2 Please direct any questions you have regarding the purchase of your property to me. If I'm not available when you call leave a message. You may specify the most desirable time for me to return your call. It may be a time prior to 8:00 a.m. and after 4:30 p.m. if that would be more convenient for you. Accompanying. this letter is a Guide for Property Owners which presents information related to the purchase of your property by the City. The regulations which we are following require me to..request you to sign an exact copy of this letter which will then be placed in our files. You are simply acknowledging receipt of this letter on the stated date. A copy of this letter is also provided for you. 0 Sincerely, B ce C. Palmborg, H using and Redevelopment Coordinator Housing and Redevelopment Division BCP: js Enclosure I certify that, on the day of , 1993, a copy of this letter and a copy of a Guide for Property Owners was delivered to me by the undersigned City staff person. Signature of Owner Signature of staff person 0 W + 1 +1 +I r LL. LL. LL +1 +1 V) N N W L.L oD LD OO j O N to hil CC co 0 00 6 c0 f? O Q X ?o gw • w W tY II II ? ?? S W S S _? Q 0 H 1- - SZ Q 00 Q Z V^ d O W W W W F- ZS I- C- I C' LL I ?9 3 I I fh I t +I < 41 --- - - -a .! z = 1N Z ' 'ZN ZN t? I { I • Z , IWO I Cr O I 6 b LLJ cG 'r9 o I AP LJ tr'f l`8 ;; ?- ? _ ?T_ i Oh7s `E T _ _ II . •i . ;9 w •F 2 ?! H N 2 u wo'?] 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 0 City Manager James D. Prosser March 8, 1993 Mr. James Prosser City of Richfield Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Mayor Council Martin Kirsch Don Priebe Susan Rosenberg ye ii Michael Sandahl Russ Susag Subject: Initial Offering Letter, Establishment of Relocation Eligibility, Partial Taking Roosevelt Park, 77th Street Project Dear Mr. Prosser: The City Council has established just compensation and authorized the purchase of a portion of the property at Roosevelt Park. The purchase of the property will make it possible for the City to proceed with the construction of improvements to 77th Street this year, 1993. The project is prepared to pay a total of $54,700. This includes $44,300 for approximately 40,249 square feet of park land to be permanently utilized for street improvements. An additional $10,400 is to be paid for the use of land during the construction period. Attached are site sketches which depict the two areas. The compensation was based on the following values: Market Value of Land Before Taking $645,300 Market Value of Land After Taking $601,000 Damages $ 44,300 The value of the temporary easement was based on rental of approximately 143,811 square feet of land. The large area is needed to permit the site to be properly graded when the facilities are relocated. Upon receiving this initial offer, the City becomes eligible and entitled to relocation benefits and other assistance in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. • The Urban Hometown Telephone (612) 861-9700 Fax 861-9749 An Equal Opportunity Employer TZ(/7 1A -- Mr. James Prosser, Manager • March 8, 1993 Page 2 Information regarding the specific assistance to which you are entitled will be provided by Mr. John Connors of Conworth Inc. He will contact you shortly. If you wish to call him, he is available at 929-0044. Conworth Inc. is located at 4725 Excelsior Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Please direct any questions you have regarding the purchase of your property to me. If I'm not available when you call leave a message. You may specify the most desirable time for me to return your call. It may be a time prior to 8:00 a.m. and after 4:30 p.m. if that would be more convenient for you. Accompanying this letter is a Guide for Property Owners which presents information related to the purchase of your property by the City. The regulations which we are following require me to request you to sign an exact copy of this letter which will then be placed in our files. You are simply acknowledging receipt of this letter on the stated date. A copy of this letter is also provided for you. Sincerely, B ce C. Palmborg, Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator Housing and Redevelopment Division BCP:js Enclosure I certify that, on of this letter and delivered to me by the day of a copy of a Guide for the undersigned City Signature of Owner , 1993, Property Owners staff person. a copy was Signature of staff person 0 tu A U16 ulr VG u.l I Q 'S '3AV CNg11HO ? ? MCA 9 j4.ZO -00 ra 41 La ,tom 40 a J -I z N Y < ` W 0 J ~y N J h J r W = j r Z v O O ~ ~ a < N N Q iL W O O Q r O W Q (1 W O W .J O 4 Z u r N ! J Q. W W s z III I i I.. _. -.xnor _•.3nY. ?a 1 Hi 1WY01yM?IIt ?t'MOMt Itl? t L Hib t i i r I I t. I Acquisition. Map 413 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No-62 Agenda March 8, 1993 • Issue Statement: Adjustment to just compensation established by City Council for the City Garage partial taking; 77th Street project. Background: On December 14, 1992, the City Council set just compensation for the taking at the City Garage at $693,353. Subsequent'to the Council action, it was discovered that two immovable fixtures were not included in the fixture appraisal. Also two additional fixtures needed to be reclassified from moveable to immovable fixtures. These changes result in an increased value of $18,000 for immovable fixtures. In addition to the changes pertaining to the fixtures, an adjustment in the cost of engineering time is also necessary. The just compensation figure for the taking also includes an estimate of the engineer consultant's time to design and oversee this project. The compensation approved in December included $19,000 for this purpose. However, retrofitting the garage turned out to be a complex project and the amount of engineer consultant's time was underestimated. Thus, the engineer consultant's cost is being increased by $11,000 to $30,000. The new total just compensation for the partial taking of the City Garage is adjusted as follows: December 14 Just Compensation $693,353 Addition for Fixtures 18,000 Addition for Engineering Consultant 11,000 Total Just Compensation $722,353 Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution which sets just compensation for damages at $722,353 including $3,100 for a temporary construction easement. Basis of Recommendation: 1. MnDOT/FHWA procedures are being followed. 2. The proposed adjustments have been carefully reviewed and are required to accurately reflect just compensation for this taking. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay action on this matter. However, the City must meet a deadline for completion of these acquisitions. 2. Reject the proposed modifications. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval at this time would permit the process to proceed in a timely manner. Res tfully submitted, I Ck n L. evic Acting City Manager y13-1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION; 77TH STREET PROJECT • WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 77th Street Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property being described as follows: Richfield City Garage, 7700 Pillsbury Avenue South PID No. 34-028-24-34-0052 WHEREAS, the City has adopted an official map for improvements to 77th Street; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are funding this project; and WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals of the subject property to be made by qualified independent professional real estate appraisers to determine fair market value; and WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the appraisal report as to conformity with appraisal standards and has certified same; and • WHEREAS, the review appraiser has indicated that adjustments to the previously established just compensation are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The amount of just compensation for immovable fixtures is increased by $18,000. 2. The amount of the engineering consultant time is increased by $11,000. 3. Total just compensation including a temporary easement is adjusted from $693,353 to $722,353. 4. The City Manager and Mayor are authorized to implement this resolution in accordance with authorized procedures. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of March, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Yfi CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.61 Agenda March 8, 1993 Issue Statement: Agreements for redevelopment of Nicollet Park regarding landscape architect and building architect. Background: The City Council has determined that neighborhood park redevelopment will take place at Nicollet Park, vicinity of 63rd Street and First Avenue, in 1993. The funding for the project is $500,000 from the Special Revenue Fund. Staff has negotiated an agreement with Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. for site and park equipment improvements traditionally associated with landscape architecture and civil engineering. This firm was the site architect for Jefferson Park. Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. proposes to provide services, including design, construction document and construction phases, for Nicollet Park site improvements with the consultant fee not to exceed $26,300, approximately 9% of the estimated construction contract amount. Staff has negotiated an agreement with Schwarz-Weber Architects for building architect services. This firm was also the architect for the Adams Hill Park shelter building, the golf • course clubhouse and the multipurpose building at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. Schwarz-Weber Architects proposes to provide services, including design, construction document and construction phases, for Nicollet Park building and electrical improvements with the consultant fee not to exceed $10,800, approximately 8% of the estimated construction contract amount. Recommended Motion: Approve the agreements with consultants for the Nicollet Park redevelopment project; Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $26,300 for site consultant services and Schwarz-Weber Architects in an amount not to exceed $10,800 for building and electrical consultant services. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Nicollet Park is scheduled for redevelopment as part of the adopted 1993 Capital Budget. 2. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. and Schwarz-Weber Architects are firms qualified in the field of park redevelopment. 3. The proposed agreements and fees are typical for this type of work and are similar to recent park redevelopment agreements. 4. There are sufficient funds available for the two agreements. y? -I Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not proceed with the Nicollet Park redevelopment project. 2. Direct staff to seek other consultants. However, there is limited time available if neighborhood meetings are to be scheduled and construction is to take place in 1993. 3. Direct staff to renegotiate agreements with the recommended firms and consultants. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the March 8, 1993 Council meeting. Action is requested at this time so park design meetings can be held with the neighborhood in March in an effort to begin construction as quickly as possible so the project may be completed this year. Res 1?1 tfully s bmitted, eve L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD:cak n LJ 0