Loading...
09-23-91 agenda9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 252 Agenda September 23, 1991 Issue Statement: First reading of an ordinance. authorizing the sale of 7300 First Avenue and adoption of related resolutions. Background• At the June 24, 1991 Council. meeting, staff was authorized to initiate a process for the sale of this property which the City had previously owned and re-acquired after flood damage in 1987. An ordinance must be adopted for the sale to occur. It is desirable to schedule the ordinance readings, hold the public hearing and publish the ordinance before the sale process is completed. Without an effectual ordinance, a lender which a buyer may desire to use may be unwilling to provide mortgage financing. To meet this objective, the following schedule has been devised: September 23 First reading of sale ordinance and scheduling of public hearing. October 5 Open house for interested buyers, distribution of purchase process information packets. October 14 Public hearing and second reading of sale ordinance. October 23 Publication of sale ordinance. November 1 Offers to purchase due. November 15 Evaluation of offers complete. Nov. 18 - Jan. 31 Period during which closing would ,be scheduled; to be determined by lender. November 23 Effective date of sale ordinance. Recommended Motion: 1. Approve the attached resolution calling for a public hearing on the ordinance authorizing the sale of the property on October 14. 2. Approve the resolution exempting the sale from a finding of the Planning Commission. 3. Give first reading to the ordinance authorizing the sale of the property. a-i Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Council, on June 24th, authorized staff to proceed with the sale of this property identifying buyers by November. 2. The sale of property must be accomplished by ordinance which requires two readings and a public hearing. 3. A Planning Commission finding is not necessary as the City is selling its own asset and there is no proposed change in use. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not sell the house and continue city ownership. 2. Delay action. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval on September 23 would make it possible to comply with .the aforementioned schedule. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager- JDP:ds ~-a TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA (7300 FIRST AVENUE SOUTH) The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1. The following described real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of, and conveyed by the City as herein provided: The North 105 feet front. and rear of the East 150.48 feet of .the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the North 10 acres of the South 20 acres of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying West of the West line of First Avenue South as shown on the Plat of "Stevens Green 2nd Addition," Hennepin County, Minnesota, and having the street address of 7300 First Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. Section 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all action as is required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing Section 1, including,. by way of illustration and not limitation, the execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance. Passed this day of Richfield City Council. 1991 by the Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk q-3 CITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.356(b) WITH RESPECT TO THE CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7300 FIRST AVENUE SOUTH, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield finds that the proposed disposal of real property located at 7300 First Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota has no relationship to the comprehensive plan of the City of Richfield; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the. requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356(b) may be dispensed with in regard to the conveyance of real property located at 7300 First Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. Passed by a two-thirds vote and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1991. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk G ~f RESOLUTION NO. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SALE OF CERTAIN LAND WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") proposes, to sell the real property described as: Address: 7300 First Avenue South PID #: 34-02$-24-13-000.9 Legal Description: The North 105 feet front and rear of the East 150.48 feet of the West 1/2 of the .West 1/2 of the North 10 acres of the South 20 acres of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying West of the West line of First Avenue South as shown on the Plat of "Stevens Green 2nd Addition," Hennepin County, Minnesota, and having the street address of 7300 First Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota (the "Land"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to he City Charter, Section 13.04, the City is authorized to sell its Land following a public hearing for which notice was published not less than ten days before such hearing. NOW, THEREFORE`, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City shall hold a public hearing regarding the sale of the Land on Monday, October 14, 1991. 2. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the City and post notice of said hearing. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 1991. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 175 Agenda June 24, 1991 issue Statement: Consideration of a motion. approving a process providing for the sale of 7300 First Avenue. aackground• A single family three bedroom home and detached garage are located at 7300 First Avenue. In the fall of 1982, the City's Sewer Fund purchased the property for 569,500.. The then owner had been unable to sell because it was prone to flooding. Approximately 53,.000 was expended to renovate some portions of the house and to make minor improvements which would hopefully limit future flood damage. The property was subsequently sold for 568,600 in 1984. .The asking price was $73,500. ~~ J The flooding occurred because the elevation of the intersection adjacent to the property is approximately the same as Norby Pond to which the storm water from the intersection drains.: The pipe may also be undersized. The intersection usually drains from. one to 24 hours after a rainfall. Heavy. rains in the .spring of 1987 resulted in severe flooding at this home. Because of hydrostatic pressure, the basement floor imploded and water rose to a point twelve inches above the first floor. Notwithstanding the full disclosure statements placed in the documents related to the closing, the owners requested the City to repurchase the property following the 1987 flooding. The property was repurchased by the Sewer Fund in 1987 for $6.8,288. Staff has evaluated many options along with OSM, the City's engineering consulting firm, which would prevent future flooding. Options evaluated included increasing the holding capacity of Norby Pond, constructing a larger sewer, raising the intersection level, and constructing a relief line to Augsburg Pond. These options ranged in cost from 5140,000 to $600,000. An increase in the Norby Pond outlet capacity was also evaluated but would have. cost over one million dollars. The least costly option continued to be purchase. After the repurchase, additional options were evaluated; redevelopment, removing the house and using the vacant lot as a ponding area, deeding the vacant lot to adjoining property owners, keeping the house on site and making the basement area readily accessible to storm water overflow, and repairing the imploded floor and removing all utilities. to the first floor. The most desirable long term option is to sell .the house for continued use as a two-bedroom dwelling. Under this option, the basement floor would be repaired and all utilities would be removed to a third bedroom adjacent to the kitchen. The room would contain the .furnace, water heater, washer and dryer connections and possibly a closet/pantry. To make these modifications as well as to .generally "freshen up" the property and update the kitchen counter top and install a tub surround, would cost just under $20,000. ~~ 1n May, $n appraiser from Chsse-Brackett, appraised the property at 540,000. He took into consideration a deduct amount of 517,000 for repairs and 513,000 as an incentive. based on its flooding history. Any disposition of this property would require • full disclosure and a disclaimer on the part of the City, but there is no guarantee. that a purchaser, after experiencing flooding, will not again request the City to repurchase the . property. . Recommended. Motion: Adopt a motion directing staff to solicit bids by November 1, .1991 from potential buyers with a minimum price of $40,000 and contingent on making required repairs and flood damages minimizing renovations. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The property should be resold to convert this asset back to cash to reimburse the Sewer Furid. 2. It is the least expensiveapproach to providing a remedy to the flood problem. 3. The alternative of using Sewer Fund monies to upgrade the house and then. sell it is less advisable because it would a) increase the sale price; b) limit the potential "sweat • equity" for a purchaser; and c) would-put the City at .greater risk if the property fails to sell for an increased price. 4. Sale on an "as is" basis, this project would probably .qualify for the new "Purchase Plus"'program of the Minnesota • Housing Finance Agency. Richfield is a pilot community for this program where qualified purchasers would be able to finance both the purchase of the property and its renovation with one mortgage at one interest rate. The program may also make it easier to assure completion of the renovation work, as the renovation monies are escrowed. 5. The City would fully disclose the history of flooding of this property and would disclaim future liability. ~ilternative Recommendation: 1. Adopt motion directing staff to make the necessary repairs and renovations and then offer the property for Bale. 2. Reject the alternatives and continue to hold the property. 3. Identify other options for staff to evaluate. DiscussionJDecision Mode: Action at this time should permit a sale to be completed before winter. J Resp u ly submitted, ~~ James Prosser _ City:Manager JDP:cak O CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. Council Letter No. 251 Agenda September 23, 1991 Issue Statement: First reading of an amendment to the "Business & Trade Regulations" of the Municipal Code of Ordinances relating to tree ~r~ra ~~.~ Background: The purpose of the proposed amendment is to protect homeowners, businesses and other property owners from the hazards associated with tree removal,. stump grinding, chemical spraying and other types of tree maintenance work. The ordinance does not pertain to professional landscaping contractors who perform general landscaping work such as sodding,. tree and shrub planting, or ground cover installation. Over the past several years, the Community Services Department has received reports of poor tree care practices by private contractors. Residents will hire private companies to perform tree trimming or removal, and then have trouble getting the contractor to complete the work to .their satisfaction. This service is currently not covered by any license or permit through the City. Several metropolitan communities currently require a license or permit to perform this type of work; other communities surveyed indicated that they intend to require licensing in the near future. Forestry Division staff have always encouraged property owners to ask for some proof of insurance from private contractors. Under the new ordinance, tree contractors will be required to provide the City with proof of general liability insurance, security bonding, workers compensation insurance and a commercial pesticide applicators license. Staff will then be able to provide Richfield residents with a list of contractors who have obtained a permit to do business in the City. The cost of the permit, should the ordinance amendment be adopted by Council, would be considered during the annual budget hearings. The. proposed license fee for 1992 is $25. Recommended Motion: Approve the first reading of the ordinance amendment requiring private tree contractors to obtain a permit to work in the City of Richfield, and set a public hearing date and second reading for October 28, 1991. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed ordinance amendment will give the City more control over private tree contractors who work in the City. 2. It will provide protection for homeowners from unscrupulous contractors. g-I 3. Several of the most reputable private tree contractors have been voluntarily providing proof of insurance to the Community Services Department each spring. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide not to adopt this amendment. 2. The City Council could modify the amendment. Discussion/Decision Mode: The first reading of the ordinance amendment is scheduled for the September 23, 1991 Council meeting. A public hearing and second reading will be held October 28, 1991 if the Council approves the first reading of the ordinance amendment. Respec lly submitted, Jam s Prosser City anager JDP•ds Attachment ~-~ BILL NO. 1991- AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI "BUSINESS AND TRADE REGULATIONS" OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF .ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BY ADDING A NEW SECTION REQUIRING TREE CONTRACTORS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT IN ORDER TO PERFORM ANY WORK RELATING TO TREES WITHIN THE CITY City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter XI of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield regulating Business and Trade is hereby amended by adding thereto section 1197 to read as follows: Section 1197 - Work Relating to Trees 1197.01. Permit Required. It shall be unlawful for any person to conduct as a business the cutting, trimming, pruning, removal, spraying or otherwise treating of trees with trunks six inches (6") in diameter or greater in the city without first having secured a permit .from the city to conduct such business. 1197.03. Permit Application and Permit Fee. Any person desiring to obtain a permit required by Subsection 1197.01 shall make an application to the Community Services Director on forms provided for that purpose. The application shall be accompanied by the fee established in Appendix D of this Code. 1197.05. Permit Duration. All permits issued under the provisions of this section shall expire on the thirty-first day of December following the date of issue. 1197.07. Permit Conditions. No permit shall be granted, nor be effective, until the applicant files with the Community Services Director proof of a public liability policy covering all operations of such applicant hereunder for a sum to be determined by the Community .Services Director: Said policy shall provide that it may not be cancelled by the insurer except after ten (10) days written notice to the city, and if such insurance is so cancelled and-the permittee fails to replace the same with another policy conforming to the provisions of this section, said license shall be automatically suspended until. such insurance shall have been replaced. 1197.09. Chemical Treatment Requirements. Applicants who `propose to use chemica'1 substances in any activity related to treatment or disease control of trees, shrubs or vines shall file with the Community Services Director proof that the applicant or employee of the applicant of the employee administering such treatment has been certified by the Agronomy Division of the state department of agriculture as a "commercial pesticide applicator". Such certification shall include knowledge of tree disease chemical treatment. 83 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1991. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 250 Agenda September 23, 1991 Issue Statement: Request for a nonconforming use permit to allow a duplex zoned property to retain use as a fourplex at 6511-13 21st Avenue. Background• Petitioner•owns a structure which has been utilized as a fourplex since about 1965 even though zoned only as a duplex. The Council and Planning Commission have reviewed the property on several occasions and denied any change to a-more intensive use than as a duplex.. Most recently, in 1990,-the Council denied a rezoning from MR-1 to MR-2 and an order was given to vacate two units. FOUr units are still located in the structure and the City has instituted legal action against such violation. . In June, a Council-approved process became effective by which the Council may allow certain long existing non-permitted uses to continue if specific criteria are met. The petitioner has elected to request relief from enforcement of the City order under this new process. Recommended Motion: Deny the nonconforming use permit at 6511-13 21st Avenue with the following findings of fact: 1. The use has .existed in substantially its present form since shortly after the building was relocated in 1964. 2. In 1989, one complaint directly related to the use was reported to the City. Four complaints relating to property maintenance have also been reported since 1989. 3. The non-permitted unit was established by a prior owner. 4. The structure does not conform to the requirements of the Building Code. Basis of Recommendation: 1. On August 27, 1991, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the nonconforming use permit. 2. Staff investigation and review of this case indicates that it does not meet the criteria (see Exhibit 1) outlined for the issuance of a nonconforming use permit. Specifically, complaints are on record and voiced at the Planning Commission meeting with respect to adverse neighborhood impacts. 3. Building code requirements are not currently met nor have they been in the past. The structure could,. however, be brought up to code. / ' I 4. Off-street parking requirements are not met but parking spaces could be constructed to meet the requirements. _ 5. In 1964, the subject property was rezoned to allow the relocation of a double bungalow on the site. In February of 1965, two additional illegal basement units were discovered. Permission was requested., the Planning Commission recommended denial and the City Council deferred the matter to give the owner time to re-submit or vacate the units. Nothing was done. The property was reclassified in 1.982 to a new classification of MR-1 which restated the existing duplex zoning. Complaints were received in 1989 which resulted'in another request to rezone to multiple residency which was denied by the Council in 1990. An order to vacate the illegal units was given and, upon refusal, legal action was instituted,-which now has been continued pending this petition. 6. Issuance of this permit would allow the non-permitted units to remain which do or could have an adverse impact on neighboring single family properties. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may approve the nonconforming use permit with a finding of fact that supports approval and with the following stipulations: 1. All following building codes be met for a four unit apartment: A. Separation walls between units must be in compliance with the fire code. B. Ceiling in basement units must be fire protected. C. All smoke detectors must be operable. D. Electrical panel for all units must have fuses which are in compliance with the electrical code. E. Each unit must have its own electrical meter. F. Combustion air must be provided for furnace in the basement. G. The City must collect a $650 fee for each basement unit for Sewer Availability charge (SAC) per the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. H. Front steps must be equipped with handrail and guard rani 1. ~' 2. All required building permits be obtained within 30 days of approval, and all required work be completed within 180 days. 3. All off-street parking requirements be met, including the requirement .for two off-street parking spaces per unit, screening of the parking area, handicap parking, an approved drainage plan, a paved parking surface with MnDOT Type B-618 curbing, and a curb cut width of 26 feet to 32 feet. Alternate proposals have been submitted by petitioner and are included as exhibits. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 P.M. on Monday, September 23, 1991. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners. within 350 feet of the subject property. Respect lly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:ds 7i t : ~ :3 = ~' i i i Z ~ ~ ~•.-s.---s... .~.i ~ Mp ~ c ~ aaN7laf ,\ t = ~_ N17 ~1..._ l ~ ri ,~~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ his. Op • - Nat ./ M ~ ~~ f~ ~ f~~ al fl it/aq.0i0A -..~~ ~ ~_ ~ ~tlJlMrr/10e/r ./ fl I ~ .111 /lar O "~ N1/ .,/, ~g •cc ~~ X71 ,,,, ~ COOOOQf~ 7~M I arv. M OIIf1Ji0+ ~O~ !At OIIILIW u7 ? 1 ~ ~~ ~r~~ u/ ,CCi=~f=C~~I~C~ ~[~ uv a7rwala C~1~[=~L~' 'f =~~I~i=Q~ ~ N7n asnmr aav.a.aa7a ,,~ ~0 ,[=CCCCL_;..,~n. .IIINf„r. ;~~(~ I ~[=1~~-L>-•: ~CCCCC~r „a,«,., ervw 1 ~~. ~ Ollvw 1 C ~ ~[~;L~I~E .71ar.a M. 77rOMAt ~ D '~~~~_ ~~~.•~~ ~ 7A. 7tveaAt Irprao~v li' T~~~ G'~ !(~~ ~ f~~~L a>twiv .~.~~ ~~ . .\^~ COO ~`t ....~. ~•~ areal MIA711 i ~O~~L_J~U~ =_ - ~ ~ P Il...all (O^C C [~f~CO(~ ~ ~C[~~ ...,alp laa~sll ~~~ ~ ]f=:(=iCCI-J ~ i=J~J~ ~~CCCC '-- ~'~ """' a7iux, :~~ ACC=~Cn~~~ • a7Ano '7A. aa7a ~ 'y,~ ,,,,y Q7110 ~1C7~~~-,~~~=~ a ~I M77M 117{Ma r-~ L-•-^• i ~ I ~17K r~~ AY wala7aa ~ ~~'^~~t ~ ~ i~ r =~~_..-r~_ ~vn7aaw ~i(_,_(_`~P~'}_-. :I I) ~i~l,~ I~~~L ~i 'awww.. r y aAV saaaa • ti ~i ~i ~ `~ C `w 'r ri i i ri ri r 'j a C w = ~' ,.J Z ~~ ZZ Oll~ .~ O N Z ~_ ~ o '~ c 0 Q T N N M ~ T T T T O o ^O J U 0 T ~ E. t7PC~ L x ~~ I i ~ _ ~. 1 1 i i 1 1 1 ~ X YY 2 L• r- 1 ~i f c i 2 ~ t ' i 1 I r 1 ^- N > a ..t ~~ c o S __ ~ E.~•.' ~.~ ~ i . . i i ® C-2 GENEAAI COMMERCIAL ® I INDUSTRIAL D R RESIDENCE MR MULTIPLE DWELLING MR•1 2 FAMILY RESIDENCES a MR-2 3-16 UNIT RESIDENCES ~o~c~ ~o~~c~~ 6511 - 13 21 St Ave. S. ' SCALE ~ ~ - ~ NM I~I~~~ ~~~~IIgIi ''i~il~~ Iii'' zoning .../ ~~ ~~ PLANNING ZONING ....~ E. NTK tT. .-, . uwo r `~`U 1 I ~ ~ ~ ' , 1 I 'I 1 TM I I ~ I I I t I 1 • '~. 1 I `= T 1 ' r l~~~ T ~ 1 N YI 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ - -- ' Y ~ w ~~ 1II u _ I, N t wn/ sT. ~~ M ~~~ COMMERCIAL ® YACANT OUASI•RU8l1C ® ~-PARtMEN~'S 'w PARKS DUPLEX.. SINGLE fA>M1LY .RESIDENCE ~o~c~ c~o~~c~~ 6511 - 13 21 St Ave. S. I~I~~,N,~ ~I,,IIIIIIIIII SCALE 4~~IIII hIIIII ~ 100 Z00 300 400 900 land use J ~~~ PLANNING ZONING ~^~ o«Napl..~K wprl.wlt ~-~ r_ _ _ _._----_ __._- -- _1- .- ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ,OS .0~ ,OZ ~ -d ' ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ' ~, N Minos anNa~r is ~ z rn •- i ~. +~ C ~ L ~' U V CO Q 7 _ •o ~Z~ 1N1 1^~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 0 o ~ c~ • ~ ~ Q 0 T ~ ~N M ^o r ~~ 1 r ^o ~ (j) ~__ __~_ _--- .1 1 1 1 1 i ~ ~~ ~ .. 1 e 1 e i 1 ~.,, ~ ~-~..J t ~ 1 1 1 ~t 1 1 1 LtS9 1 tts9j 1 ~ w. ~~- ~ v O O O •O O i ~Hinos 3nH3n"r 1s ~ z ., •~ .~ N ~ •i h •O N9 .~ L L L ~~ ~ ~ ZZ Z~ N~ 1~ ~~ i -~ T O Q 0 L. a ~J v V O O r ^ V/ n~ ~J ~ ~n AA•• W ~.J(J C~ N ~ M O T O '- T ~. ~~ ~._ _.----_ _ ~ _ _ _ __ __1 1 1 W a 1 3 t os- 1 ~.. v ~, ~,. 1 1 0- O ~ o O_ O " ~~Hinos s N 1 ..... 1 I I ~ ~ ~ ~-T ~ i i ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ .oZ ,oE _ H ` 1 .~ ,~ o ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~tsa 1 s~s9; t .F, .1 I ~ ''i ~ ~~ 1 , 1 _i i ~ I 1 0 0 0 ~~ ~ OO t .. \ _ ... -- i--~ 3 ~ ~ '~ ~ 'O V. N OD S~Z ~~ZZ~ dN1 ~~~ Z ~- s. a 0 a ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ a ~ o~ O Cn • ~ 0n0n ~ Q I~JU .F.r C~ T N ~ vU M T T ~ r ~ 7-9 ~__ __ ___ -- -_1 1 W ~ ~ ; g ~ h .'' ~ ~ ' • ; --~~ ~ ~ 1/ ,! / ~ d ~ ~ r'. '!~ ~ t 1 /' Ill 1 ~r ~,~ ( I ; i f .~ ,; .- .~ ~; I ~ r ~ ~ ~ y i r'~ '~~ ' ~• ~ ~ ~ ~/~ 1 I o~ o~ o ~• o 0 o I ___._- - Hl 3f1N3Ar 1S ~ L 0 T Z~ Z z ~o N Z i ~ ~ a M Q O Q ~J O ~ ~ 00 I~JU Q ~+ C~ N ~ M O r ~ ' O r ~ r~^ ~. A Exhibit 1 ~~~~ (c) Criteria. No NUP may be recommended or approved unless the following criteria have been found to exist: , i) any structure meets all of the standards contained in .this code for the issuance of a variance; ii) the use or structure has existed in substantially its present form for at least 1S years; iii) during its existence no complaints of adverse neighborhaod impacts have been reported to the city; iv) the use or structure was established either by a prior owner, or ' by the current owner upon a good faith belief that the use or structure was lawful when established; and v) the structure either conforms to the current requirements of the building code, or the requirements of the building code as of the effective date of the NUP; or the building official and applicant . have- agreed upon a compliance schedule which will bring the structure into compliance with the applicable building code according to the terms of the schedule. lP 1~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 249 Agenda September 23, 1991 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for a new residential kennel license for Karen Patek, 6633 15th Avenue, Richfield. Background: On September 5, 1991 Karen Patek submitted an application for a residential kennel license.- She owns two dogs and four cats. Ms. Patek's application had all contiguous property owner's signatures on it. On September 6, 1991, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. Although this application is for two dogs and four cats,., it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel license be approved. Basis for Recommendation: 1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs- and two cats does. not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Ms. Patek has been able to do this. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny Ms. Patek's residential kennel license. This would mean that she would have to reduce the number of cats she has from four to two. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to approve the application for a residential kennel license for Karen Patek, 6633 15th Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time. ly submitted, Ja e',~ D . Prosser Ci y anager JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 248 Agenda September 23, 1991 Issue Statement: Application for a community celebration event license with a request-for a fee waiver for events scheduled throughout the'day on September 21, 1991. Background This year the Richfield community applied for a celebration event license and requested that the fee be waived for the activities scheduled in Veterans Memorial-Park on September 21, 1991. The committee contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices were followed. They worked with Bloomington sanitarians and followed their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. Recommended Motion: Staff recommended approval of a community celebration event license for the Richfield Cattail Days held throughout the day on September 21, 1991. Basis for Recommendation: _ 1. The applicant complied with all of the provisions of ,the City application process and did meet the requirements for the fee. to be waived. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Staff could have decided not to grant the license. This would have resulted in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation, on September 21, 1991. Discussion/Decision .Mode: Consideration of the request for the issuance and fee waiver of a community celebration event license for September 21, 1991 for the Richfield Cattail-Days is presented at this time. lly submitted, Jam ~ D. Prosser Cit anacter JDP:ds ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 247 Agenda September 23, 1991 Issue Statement: Crack Sealing Work in an experimental area in excess of $5,000. Background• 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. .The 1991 sealcoating project was reduced by $50,000 this summer because of budget cuts. Due to concerns about even more potential cuts, the full amount budgeted was ,not authorized.. At the present time, monies are available in the sealcoat budget:, which is part of the Street Maintenance budget. Investigation by staff-has indicated that improved cracksealing materials and technology may make cracksealing a cost-effective maintenance program for Richfield streets. Presently, a street is cracksealed just prior to sealcoating. Because there is a ten- year rotation on sealcoating, many cracks have dete.rio~ated to the point that the cracks now have to be milled out to be repaired. If the new materials available for cracksealing hold up fpr three to four years, or better, an area can be cracksealed .several years prior to sealcoating, hopefully preventing further deterioration, and reducing the amount of milling necessary to prepare streets for sealcoating. Staff would like to try`°'this process in an experiemental area. Staff received quotes from`two manufacturers as follows: Bergman Companies, Inc. $1.189/lb. X 12,000 lbs. =$1.4,268 Bargen, Inc. 1.029/lb. X 12,000 lbs. =$12,348 Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to Bargen, Inc. in the amount of 512,348.00 for this work. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Reduced funds for street maintenance work requires that we explore more cost-efficient methods for maintenance. 2. This process appears to be working in other communities. 3. There is monies available for this work. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council can deny approval of this work. (~~-J Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval at the September 23, 1991 Council meeting in order to complete the work before severe cold weather commences. Respectft}~}ly submitted, Jame Prosser City M nager JDP:ds ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 246 Agenda September 23, 1991. Issue Statement:- Concrete street repair work on 76th Street at 12th Avenue in excess of 55,000. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of 55,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the~City Council for consideration. Concrete joint repair on concrete streets is a routine maintenance procedure performed by a contractor for the City every year. Earlier this year, the City contracted for .551,562.35 worth of work. on Lyndale Avenue between 76th & 78th Streets. Due to concerns about potential budget cuts at that. time, the full amount budgeted for this work was not contracted. At the present time, there are some monies available in the street maintenance budget for more of this work. The eastbound lanes of 76th Street between 12th and 10th Avenues are spelling out very badly. This is resulting in some fairly large potholes which will only get worse over the course of another winter'`f they are not repaired. Staff obtained quotations from two contractors for this work based on estimated quantities and a per-unit price as follows: Progressive Contractors, Inc. 511,590 Thomas & Sons, Inc. $8,800 Several other contractors contacted were unable to offer quotes on this work because they are behind schedule. Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to Thomas &-Sons, Inc. in the amount of 58,800. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The area in question is spelling badly, and some large. potholes are already forming. 2. If the area is not repaired, the approaching .winter will cause more problems to develop, thus increasing the cost of repair next year. 3. There are funds available for this work. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council-can deny approval for this work. 1,E-~ Discussion/Decision Mode.:. Staff is asking for approval at the September 23, 1991 Council meeting in order to complete the work before severe weather commences. Respect ully submitted, Jame Prosser City Manager JDP:ds ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 245 Agenda September 23, 1991 Issue Statement• Award of Contract for a deep well pump for Well No. 7. Background: Well #7, located at the Water Plant, has filled in with sand from approximately 1,060 feet to 960 feet thereby. cutting off water from the lower level.. The well was pumping sand and needs to be repaired. Bids were opened for a deep well .pump for Well #7 in a formal bidding process on August 29, 1991 with the .following results: Base Bid .Alternate E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. $18,329 $17,538 Layne Minnesota 21,6.75 21,675 Bergerson-Caswell 23,165 23,165 Keys Well Drilling Co. 24,255 23,715 The base bid was for a pumping head with 350 T.D.H.; the alternate was for a pumping head with 300 T.D.H. (T.D.H. stands for "total dynamic head", which is the pressure at which the pump will pump against). Because the efficiency of the well has been improved by the work already done, staff feels that the lower T.D.H. pumping head will do a more than efficient job. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and approve a contract in the amount of $17,538 to E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. for a deep well pump for Well #7. Basis of Recommendation: 1. E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. submitted the low bid. 2. There is $23,000 in the 1991 Water Maintenance budget for the pump. The work needed for this pump was not known until the well was rehabilitated and tested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council could reject all bids and instruct staff to re-bid; however, staff does not believe we could obtain a better price from a reputable manufacturer. 2. Council could select another vendor-who submitted an alternate bid. However, E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. did submit the lowest alternate bid. 3. Council could select the base. bid option and award a contract in the amount of $18,329 to E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. However, staff does not feel it is necessary to have the larger T.D.H. pumping head. W~~~ Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is asking for approval at meeting in order to facilitate the September 23, 1991 Council completion of this project. Jam s Prosser Cite anager Respectf lly submitted, JDP:ds Attachment CITY OF RICHFIELD, .MINNESOTA .wDT~ __ Bid Opening August 29, 1991 11:30 A.M. Bid No. 91-16 Deep Well #7 Pump Pursuant to .requirements of Resolution No. 1015,, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for deep well #7 pump, bid no. 91-16, as advertised in the official newspaper on August 14, 1991. Present: '<Thomas Ferber, City 'Clerk Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were .submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID TOTAL SECURITY E.H. Renner & Sons Elk River 5$ Bid Bond $ 18,329.00 ALT 4,294.00 Layne MN Co. Mpls. 5~ Bid Bond $ 21,675.00 • ALT 4,650.00 Keys Well Drilling Co. St. Paul 5~ Bid Bond $ 24,255.00 ALT 3,750.00 Bergerson-Caswell, Inc.. 5~ Bid Bond $ 23,165..00 . Maple Plain ALT 4,100.00 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the September 23, 1991 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk l!~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 244 Agenda September 23, 1991 Issue Statement: Master purchase order for salt to be used in ice control during the 1991/92 winter season. Background: 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. Each year, the City purchases rock salt, which is usually mixed with sand, to control ice on road surfaces during the winter season. Richfield and other governmental units jointly bid the rock salt through a Hennepin County purchasing agreement. The successful vendor in the latest bidding process was Cargill Incorporated. A recent history of prices for this product, including the successful 1991/92 pre-discount bid price, is: Year Unit Price Delivery Total 83/84 16.69/ton 2.00/ton 18.69/ton 84/85 21.41/ton 3.15/ton 24..56/ton 85/86 23,47/ton Included 23.47/ton 86/87 20.05/ton 1.95/ton 22.00/ton 87/88 18.96/ton 1.80/ton 20.76/ton 88/89 24.96/ton 1.43/ton 26.39/ton 89/90 26.48/ton 1.85/ton 28.33/ton 90/91 26.27/ton 1.50/ton 27.77/ton 91/92 26.27/ton 1.50/ton 27.77/ton The vendor offers a discount of $2.00 per ton for orders placed by .October 15, 1991 and delivery accepted by December 1, 1991. The discount rate last year was $1.75 per ton. Funding for this purchase is included in the 1991 and 1992 operating budgets for street maintenance. Recommended Motion: Approve the purchase of an estimated 1,000 ton rock salt for the 1991/92 winter season from Cargill Incorporated-Salt Division,. Minneapolis, Minnesota at a unit price of $26.27/ton plus, 51.50/ton delivery for a total estimated purchase price of $27,770. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City participates in a joint purchasing agreement with Hennepin County. 2. Hennepin County solicited bids for all the participants in the joint purchase agreement. (v ~' -~ 1 3. Under this particular joint purchase agreement, the City of Richfield has an obligation to purchase from the low bidder. 4. Cargill Incorporated-Salt Division .was the lowest responsible bidder for rock salt. 5. :The price of the rock salt stayed the same as the 1990/91 season. However, the discount for early order and delivery is higher than it was for the 1990/91 season. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: In order to take advantage of a 52.00/ton discount offered if orders are placed by October 15, 1991 and delivery accepted by December 1, 1991, staff is asking approval at the September 23, 1991 Council meeting. With the amount of covered storage .available at the city garage site, approximately one-fourth of the estimated tonnage will be received at the discount rate. Respectf ly submitted, James Prosser City a alter JDP:ds ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council. Letter No. 243 Agenda September. 23, 1991 Issue Statement: Request for an off-street parking permit at Assumption Catholic Church, 305 East 77th Street. Backgrounds Assumption•Catholic Church has recently conducted a long range planning effort which identified and prioritized future property improvements. This planning effort recognized the west parking lot as a critical area in .need of improvement. The Church is proposing to make substantial improvements to the west parking lot. These improvements include installation of landscaping, curb and gutter, center islands, and lighting. Two curb cuts would. be closed and a new curb. cut installed along Second Avenue. The existing, bituminous would be replaced `or overlayed as necessary to accommodate drainage patterns. .The net result of the improved parking lot would be a loss of 11 parking spaces, however, the parking requirement for the peak parking demand would still be exceeded. Recommended Motion: Approve the off-street parking permit and site plan for Assumption Catholic Church with the following stipulation: 1. That the fire lanes be marked with appropriate signage. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed site plan meets the landscape requirements. 2. The proposed lighting plan has been reviewed and approved by the City Planner. 3. The parking requirement is exceeded by 13 spaces. 4. The proposal would improve the visual appearance of the property. 5. The proposal would improve traffic circulation and pedestrian safety in the area. 6. The proposed drainage plan has been reviewed and approved. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may deny the off-street parking. permit with a finding that the proposal. would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. (~~-1 Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of the item is scheduled on the consent calendar of the September 23, 1991 City Council meeting. Respectf ly submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP:ds M~; NiNllraf r^r 1- ti 1/G t/r '>A NrQ/! tl1 11a r1 • r0a0NIN0Qr p• \/ ~ ur Y11 11r 101'111 arraNi alwen~ rY71 ORr1rr1 N ONr1arG 111 WI NOLr1: NI Ni araa7lf N ur La~1O~11 ~1a0flr~l M1r0114ML aY11ri1111 aMrir771 arrw an~lln oYaurw lar TrOrai Inlrolr arraw i-/107 1N0/n0 Nofrawa uoaw rwNlt arioNwnx rrlArl farrf iONN Mrf01 rrfNplf roarer r7AIlO aAr Mrar raa00 117aMY Nr0lrarr frrOMl NO1M Lr71M1A NNMrrr~ All raiN3i ~ ' c' ~' °~~ ~=v V V t r W ~i = 7C W Z rr117YlIg1 ]0/ W6i7 H rl 111 al NI rl ~arrl~r N •1 W -/ M fl 111 a1 VI II Y/ 01 unn oerrwa inwmr~ iYM OrrlllrO aM OrrLlwir YL r N• r01Ni9 ~•~ na fNaAaal 111 'aAr 1711001r TaOf1Il/ N1t0r1NaA arllNiny LIIrf777N arms a31YYrM e~alarrf aar alrOra~ Ia1w1r anar0 ir~im LwF1110 rosrawa ,+Iflaw Orrrer 1o~ONrw rrlllrl farr- IOO Nr0O7 rrsNOw N01rir raeno aAr rrs~ Maa11~ 17arr/lr MfOIY' Ir lrrONL roues IMa~Mlll MNIINN{h ear sairai Z~R Z O N .j.-s _~ W C/~^J ~ / C/A/~ W N /'O ~-/ r O ^ D p I~~ W ~J Q O /A o V/ 66-g jd ~ m f~ 1~7 ttl C1J L.Jd t ~~~ ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~~~ f I INDUSTRIAL C -1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS C - 2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL MR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE .,.; ~•~ MR -1 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE R SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE s~o~C~ ~:~ r~i~~~~c4 zoning 305 EAST 77TH STREET SCALE ~IIII~~~~''~~~~ IIII'I~~~Iiu~ PLANNING o ,~ ~ ~~ ~ "~~~~I II~~~~'' -ZONING 75 W Z yy~i.~'~.v•~ r~ W.7Yi.~i~7~:i~1~ ~w r .••~. T PAF1C CIBEYEf '~ RO .fi ~, . rz ~' ~r •t y ~ti ~ i~ L` ~=:k ~ ... . { ~. ..: a ,~, ~ t~ . .• :.: . ~. . H ...... -494 COMMERCIAL Q S~IGLE t`AMILY RESIDENCE APARTMENT ~ QUASI-PUBLIC •:•: DUPLEX ~ PARK ~ ~~C~ CEO Cn~~C~~ I n a d use 305 EAST 77TH STREET ,~/ ~ ~~~ ~~'~ scALE ~~~~~i~~'1° '''~4q~, PLANNING '' ZONING ''~ ~~ I ~Illi! o ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ° e°o 00 000 ° oo° ° ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ °o° oa o e °a o o p°° ~. ~° 000 ° 0 0 oe 0 0 .0 000 a e e°o ~o 0 c°e e e ~1 eee S o0 °e°0 , ,o ~ 000 o o ° eoeoo eeeeo 4 °0°p° 0 0°0 ~ y 4 o e o t eeoee eo0eo C 8 p°O °p e O °e°Oe O Z 00 000 o°o° 4 •, a°e° oe0e ~• ~VIk~..+.~ < ~ 3 M ~ ~ ee i I eooo 000 ~ . . < t.i.•.. S { ,~~;,•' .• fg08EVELT P~1iNC ~ ~ '` ~ ~~ ~ 000° ~ ~ o d 00 ir : L •~y~ t • : {; r ~ ~~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' e° o ~ ~ ~ ooo° o ° o°o 00 ooa o° o00 a o 0 0 0 0 o a o ,L y ' ~ "~~~ .~~ `~ . ~I' ~r~'L{~ ~.~;F • ~ ~~'ti•~i~t+'~1-' y •s K'~i i~ ~ 00 oe Do e o e > 0000 00°0° o°o°o °o°o o°o °o°a° . ~ 1 1 ^ ^ ^ • ~ ~ ^~ ti ^i ^ ^•••! ^^••^^s•••••s • ^ • • ^ • • • • i • t ••• ^ •i•• ^^^ s ^ • i•!•:i •~ • • • ^• ^ ^~ • t~• s i^•i•^ ~ 1 t• ~~ s • ~ • 1 r t r • • i : • :•i i • i ^ ^ t ^ r ^ 4 ^ • ~ ~ ^ ^ ^ • f ••• ^ • ^ t•t •~! ^ ^ ^ti i ~ i ~ f w •;^ ~ ••• it ••^tf • • • • i • • • • ^ • • i :;•:^ : •^ ~ i ^ ^ • ^ s • i^••r• ••^ i^~ i 1-494 • ^ FREEWAY STRIP ~ ~~ 3 OPEN SPACE e° a 111E;DIlMII DENSITY BUFFER Q SNGIE FANMIY RES~ENCE NSTITUTION ~~~~;~ C~:4~~li~C~~S 305 EAST 77TH STREET comprehensive plan ~~1~11~~ i~~~~~i~'''''"~ ~~'''''~~qq PLANNING ~~-lo EARTH MOUND CHURGH CLOSE EIUSTNfi DRIVEWAY NEw H.c. slc3Ns CLOSE EXISTiNCi DRIVEWAY EARTH MouND W Z W Q O Z N ':: ~ sm~si stwsa ergq~r ~.~ .` scHOO~ pr~opo~c~c~ ~o~c~ p0~~ parking lot detail 305 EAST 77TH STREET no scale IIIIIII~~iu~~I~ ~~~~,,i~ggq PLANNING ''~~~~II III u'' ZONING ~~ EARTH ~,~,,~, ~ 77TH STREET ~~-~ ~ , ~~ , ~ ~+ ~ ~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~.- ~~ S ~~ . ~ fr i ~~ '3 (~~sc~ _ ~-~--~ W ~ Fes- ~ `±) ,~ . N - ~' 1 ~" f/I ` .• x ` y ~- - ~ ~ . !,. Tne-n-~r u-iFr I _ ~ -~` ~ 3n~nv aNa ~C7~ zai ~N~ 1~~ z W -~ W ~~ ~ U y (n C Q W M S~l°3 0 00 ~~t CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 242 Agenda September 23, 1991 Issue Statement• Agreement for conducting an environmental assessment and preparing a preliminary geometric layout for the reconstruction of 77th Street between I-35W and-Cedar Avenue. Background• Continuing•delays are occurring in the environmental process for the I-494 Reconstruction project. These delays will hurt the City of Richfield in its attempt to widen. 77th Street to become a five-lane divided roadway in anticipation of the improvements along I-494. The sooner the construction of 77th Street begins, the faster the City will be able to respond to property owners who. have been waiting to .have the City purchase their property. By building 77th Street well in advance of work starting on I- 494, the cost of land acquisition .will be reduced as the City will have sufficient time to deal with people who are willing sellers. Also, commercial property will be given several years to reorient their land to 77th Street well in advance of the closing of the frontage road along I-494. The City has received a proposal from. Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc. (BRW) to perform. two distinct but related tasks. The first is to assist City staff in completing an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the 77th Street Reconstruction Project. The second is the preparation of Preliminary Geometric Design Layouts of 77th Street. Both tasks need to be completed as soon as possible to hopefully gain Minnesota Department of Transportation approval of the 77th Street project. With this approval, the City ccould possibly .begin construction in the summer of 1992. Otherwise, construction would have~to wait until after completion of the I- 494 Environmental Impact Statement which means construction could not begin. until 1993 at the earliest. The work would be performed on a time and materials basis and the cost is not to exceed 510,000 for the environmental consulting needed to prepare an Environmental Assessment and 525,000 to prepare the .Preliminary Geometric Design Layout for the 77th Street from I-35W to-Cedar Avenue. The recovery of these costs will be negotiated as part of the total funding cost split. among Federal., State and Richfield's Municipal State-Aid funds (gas tax.) Recommended Motion: Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc. in the estimated amount not to exceed $35,000 to assist the City in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and to prepare the Preliminary Geometric Design Layout for the 77th Street Reconstruction Project from I-35w to Cedar Avenue. ~A- Basis of Recommendation: 1. As a result of continuing delays and staff shortages at Mn/DOT, the proposed work could enable construction of 77th Street to begin one year earlier. 2. It is important to have 77th Street in place to minimize the .disruption to businesses and residences located along I-494. 3. Prompt construction of 77th Street will provide businesses adequate time to reorient access to 77th Street in the event the I-494 frontage is closed as part of the expansion of the freeway. 4. The City should be ready to capture the economic benefits of the opening of the Mall of America in Bloomington by improving access to properties along 77th Street. 5. BRW has an established track record with its work on the 77th Street Study, the environmental impact statement being prepared on I-494 and the information needed by the City to complete the proposed work program. BRW also has qualified staff and can perform the work within the timeframe the City has requested. _ Alternative Recommendations: 1. Hire BRW to perform all the work needed to complete the Environmental Assessment for the City. However, City staff is capable of performing most of the work which will keep the City's costs to a minimum. 2. Wait for Mn/DOT to perform all of the proposed work. This would definitely delay the construction of 77th Street. Mn/DOT staff have admitted that their staff have other, more urgent projects than 77th Street to work on. 3. Hire a different consulting firm.- Much of the environmental information has already been collected by BRW as part of their work on I-494.. No other firm can provide Richfield with the information needed as quickly or as cheaply as BRW can. Discussion/Decision Mode: A decision is needed as .soon as possible so that the work can be completed in time for a July, 1992 construction start. Respectf ly submitted, James Prosser City anager JDP:ds (~~-2 `~ /A'~~ I-/ September 16, 1991 Mr. Don Fondrick City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55wr~ bear Dvn: The purpose of this letter is to outline a scope of work and cost estimate for the preparation of a Federal Environmental Assessment (EAj;and.Preliminary:Geometric Design..for 77th Street in the City of Richfield. 1~.s we discussed in our meeting today it is important. to begin this work as soon as possible`in order to be ready to start°construction on 77th Street next summer. A considerable amount of ,the work completed on 77th Street far the 2-494 DEIS and Preliminary Design can be used for the 77th street EA and Preliminary Design. However, the 77th Street project .may include some elements that have not been addressed in the T-494 EIS and Preliminary Design; such as an interim design for the Portland A~renue Interchange that provides full access to T-494. It may also be necessary to repac3cage some of the information from the T-499 DENS to fit this specific project. The Environmental Assessment is used to identify the potential en~riranmental impacts caf a project and gain the environmental clearance to construct the project.• The steps involved in processing the Environmental Assessment incl~sd'e the following. o Prepare Drat EA o Submit Daft EA far Mn/D4T and FHwA Review o Revise EA Based on Mn/DCT and FHWA Comments o MnlDOT Signs and Submits EA to FHWA o FHWA Signature o Distribute EA o Prepare Notifications far Public Hear~.ng o Hold Public Hearing a Prepare Findings of Fact and Negative Declaration a Request Finding of Na Significant Impact (FQNSI) from FHWA ~~-3 The ~'ONSx .represents FT~A e~ivronrnental clearance f©r the project. The Environmental Assessment would. contain the following information. I. Report Purpose II. Project Description III. Cost and Funding'Source IV. Schedule and Project Manager V . Need for Project ~ , VI. Alternatives VII, Social,-Economic and Environmental impacts vIII.Mitigation IX. Public and Agency Involvement X. Coordination Because the project wily likely require some right-of-way from a city park it may also be necessary to prepare a section 4(f) evalu~txan to include with the Environmental Assessment. As we discussed BRW would act as coordinator for the Environmental Assessment and provide the information needed to prepare the EA. Tom Foley from the City of Richfield staff would be the prirnar~r author-for the~EA.: It is anticipated that mast of the information needed to,compl~te the EA is already available but may require some repackaging to fit the project description. The purpose of;; the Preliminary Design element will be to gain Mn1DOT approval of the design for the project. The key product of .the Preliminary Design is a Mn/DOT staff approved layout which includes both a plan and profile for the roadway elements that mill be built as part. of this project. ~"he "staff approved layout would be the basis for final-design. Where may be elements of the 77th Street project that have not been considered in the I-494 EIS and Preliminary Design such as temporary .improvements to the Portland Avenue .interchange on I-494 that will have to be developed as part of this project. The preliminary geometric design work will also be used far input into the Environmental Assessment. Yncluded in this element is develop~.ng traffic forecasts to fit the defined project and conducting analysis of the forecasts to determine the geometric improvements required to serve the forecast volumes. The 77th Street project will require close coordination with MnDOT to assure timely review and approval of project reports and plans. BRW will have a major responsibility in the coordination with Mn.DQT . The 'estimated cost to assist the City of Richfield in the preparation and processing of the environmental Assessment is X10,000.00. The estimated cost to do the preliminary design work necessary for MnDOT staff approval. is a~25,000.00. The total estimated cast of the work is 535,000.00. There are a number of issues regarding the project' that sti11 need, to be resolved that could affect the scope of work and the estimated costs. However, 8RW would only bill the -city for the actual hours worked at the hourly rates shown in the attached table up to the maximum of 535,000.00. BRW recognizes that funding for the 77th Street construction.is not certain and the City.. may want to stop work if funding is not obtained. BR~nI looks'. forward to working wl,th .the City on this exciting project, ~f you have any r~uestions please give me a call at 373- 6334. ' Sincerely, BRW inc. Anthony J .. Heppelmaxiri, PE Senior Associate r SEP 18 '91 14:05 BRW INCo P.5 ~,~ff~.~.l~r~.~h,~ ~IOURLY RA'I'FS FOR BRW/TRANSPOItTA'TYON S'Y'UDIO BY EMPLO'Y'ED CLASSXFICATION APRIL i, 1 X91 Ci,ASSIFICA'Y'ION .HOURLY RA'l'la "; Principal ~ X4S.a0 , 'Vice President .. ~oa.aa Senior Associate ,~ ~O.aa Associate !! 80.00 ~ `, . Senior Consultant G7.Sd Consultant YI - 57.0 Consultant I ~ 47.50 St;-fP Levei V i 57.5a Staff Level 'IV ~ ~l 47.50 t. Staff Lwel XII 37.Sa Staff Level II 3S•00 Staff Levei I 25.00 ~~ t 1