The URL can be used to link to this page

3-27-89 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 80 Agenda March 27, 1989, Issue Statement: Report on Local Transportation Plan. Background: For the last two to three years, the City of Richfield has been involved in a number of transportation studies which could have impacts on local traffic. It was determined that a local transportation plan could establish guidelines to enable the City to review, evaluate and influence proposed actions that affect the City's local transportation system and environment. The firm of Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff served as consultant for this study. A copy of the proposed Transportation Guidelines for the City of Richfield is attached. The two main classifications are Single Family Residential and Commercial. The guidelines for Single Family Residential were based on the number of pedestrians, safety and the noise ordinance. The Commercial guidelines were based on the level of service rather than a strict vehicles -per- hour count. On February 22, 1989, the Richfield Ad Hoc 135W/I494 Traffic Committee took action to have the final draft of the Local Transportation Plan presented to the City Council and seek Council acceptance. The State and Metropolitan Council are aware of the study and request copies of the guidelines following Council acceptance. Members of the city staff will be available to answer any questions the Council may have about the proposed local transportation guidelines. Recommended Motion: Accept the Transportation Guidelines for the City of Richfield, dated March 1989, as prepared by Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Portions of the City are subject to external and internal forces that suggest change or modification of some existing land uses. These forces include: A. widening and /or access changes on 135W, 62 Crosstown, I494 and TH 77. B. increasing traffic levels /congestion on 66th Street, 76th Street, Penn Ave., Nicollet Ave., Portland Ave. C. major development proposals along I494. D. strip commercial land uses along some of the major streets that are representative of the market -place of the 1950's and 160's, and are targets of redevelopment for the market -place of the 1990's and 21st century. 2. The manifestation of these forces will adversely impact upon the transportation system and environment of the City if allowed to occur without appropriate City direction. 3. Specific guidelines will enable the City to review, evaluate and influence proposed actions that affect the City. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not accept the proposed guidelines. The City is in the early stages of the process to revise the 1982 Comprehensive Plan. However, the planning of several proposed transportation projects is proceeding with some intensity and the revised comprehensive plan is needed now in order to provide input and direction to these projects. 2. Amend the proposed guidelines to more accurately reflect the nature and desires of the Richfield community. However, these guidelines have been thoroughly discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee and city staff who feel the guidelines being proposed are reasonable and acceptable. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the March 27, 1989 City Council meeting. Although it is not necessary action be taken at this time, the availability of Council approved guidelines will facilitate response and direct actions related to factors affecting the local transportation system. Respect lly submitted, James Prosser City pager JDP /ej a i--- TRANSPORTATION GUIDELINES for CITY OF RICHFIELD March, 1989 HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF Architects Engineers Planners Twin Cities, Minnesota Richfield Transportation Guidelines Table of Contents Introduction Approach Goals Functional Classification System Guidelines APPENDIX: Basis for Guidelines Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 INTRODUCTION The City of Richfield is a fully developed suburb of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area with an established, well- defined land use pattern. However, portions of the City are subject to external and internal forces that suggest change or modification of some existing land uses. These forces include the following: - widening and /or access changes on I -35W, 62 Crosstown Highway, I -494 and T.H. 77, - increasing traffic levels and congestion on 66th St., 76th St., Penn Ave., Nicollet Ave. and Portland Ave. - major development proposals along I -494, - strip commercial land uses along some of the major streets that are representative of the market -place of the 1950's and '60's, and are targets of redevelopment for the market -place of the 1990's and 21st century. The manifestation of these forces will adversely impact upon the transportation system and environment of the City -- if allowed to occur without appropriate City direction. The 1982 Comprehensive Plan does not provide the needed direction, and the City is in the early stages of the process to revise the plan. However, the planning of several proposed transportation projects is proceeding with some intensity and the revised comprehensive plan is needed now in order to provide input and direction to these projects. The purpose of this report is to provide the City with a set of transpor- tation guidelines that will enable the City to review, evaluate and influence proposed actions that affect the movement of traffic in the City. 1 APPROACH The approach to determining a set of transportation guidelines is outlined as follows. 1. Determine the desired environment or "character" of residential and commercial areas of the City -- as portrayed by the adopted goals in the City Comprehensive Plan. 2. Review, evaluate and revise, where appropriate, the Functional Classification System of streets and highways in the existing Comprehensive Plan. 3. Based upon the City goals, determine maximum acceptable traffic volumes and /or levels of service for the local streets, collectors and minor arterials so designated in the revised Functional Classification System for the City. 4. Determine access requirements for existing and planned commercial districts in the City. 5. Prepare Transportation Guidelines that incorporate the standards determined in 3. and 4. 6. Compare the proposed Transportation Guidelines with the existing situation and revise guidelines where appropriate. 4 i v�- W GOALS The goals relating to land use in the 1982 Comprehensive Plan are summarized as follows: 1. Single Family Residential (SFR) - enhance the SFR environment - maintain neighborhood character - no commercial land use 2. Multiple Residential - locate along freeways, arterials and collectors near support services (banking, shopping, mass transit and recreation areas) with minimal disruption to SFR - provide shielding (buffer) to SFR 3. Commercial /Industrial - prevent strip commercial and prohibit spot zoning - locate in commercial districts compatible with surrounding land uses 3 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM The existing functional classification system of streets in the 1982 City Comprehensive Plan is shown in Figure 1. Criteria and characteristics of the system are included in the accompanying tables (from the Metropolitan Council Development Guide). Four changes in classification are proposed to the.system and are included in Figure 2. 1. 66th St. East of T.H. 77 to Standish Avenue to 62nd St. Change classification from "collector" to "minor arterial ". Two functions of 66th St. are to provide access from Richfield to neighbor- ing municipalities and from Richfield to the Metropolitan Highway System (I -35W, T.H. 77) -- which are functions of a minor arterial. East of T.H. 77, 66th St. and Standish Avenue provide access to south Minneapolis and the 62 Crosstown Highway (a Metropolitan Highway) -- which is consistent with the functional characteristics of a minor arterial. The streets are a continuation of 66th St. and provide east -west minor arterial continuity between the city limits, which is usually a desirable characteristic of a minor arterial. Also, the average traffic volumes in 1987 ranged from 4500 to 9250 vehicles per day on these streets, and collectors typically carry around 6000 vehicles per day. 2. 76th St. East of I -35W Change classification from "minor arterial" to "collector ". This change is the result of the proposed upgrading of 77th St. to a minor arterial east of I -35W, because of the proposed widening of I -494. 3. 77th St. East of I -35W- Change classification from "local street" to "minor arterial ". The current "77th Street Access Study" by the City recommends the upgrading of 77th St. to accommodate business /commercial properties in anticipa- tion of expansion of I -494 and closure of existing frontage road. 4. Cedar Avenue Between 66th St, and 77th St. Change classification from "local street" to "minor arterial ". This proposed change is based upon several anticipated future actions -- the upgrading of T.H. 77 and the resulting changes in local access -- the redevelopment along Cedar Avenue to commercial uses -- and the re- development along I -494 to more intense commercial use. As a result of these changes, Cedar Avenue will function as a major street, and will serve longer trips from 77th St. to 66th St /Standish Avenue to the 62 Crosstown Highway and south Minneapolis. 4 TRANSPORTATION T/9/84 /o< -d ` � Y d w NO •30� O 7 3 :ao 3 L ` V.•D � N � V y vi IQ •N 'G •a -00-U.0 E O y rO c x 47. r U O U d d O w m °' O w m 07 0 �-0 � o N H d _O N r H H o 0 'D v J C rn v eo Ucatm > v actor Fo-y Qc°�'�°• N N L C y fd r M t O O .L N o y .O N C d A C N d ` N V ` •« ro O E A H i V O N C C " io c L N C d O z N 0 Q 0 _O 0 C 'cm :O y "' >3o C �� Ede � ui d O. QV o o° c E��,; CL c U 3' c 0 c O M y Q y w R C C G N O ? CD r ... 3 y. y O N L L N 3 0• ui t.� eo m .O M� N N �+ V io O O. Q r C N 47 -0 O .O E 'O C7 .d.. m N W 'G O 'y V 7 y c L cc C d) Ol r C r �-• C C-0 'r w o r 0 C My a`3 to -EE °va 2E2 dr F O a U O E-o O N mO y L C X w d d-0 r r o +L U E E-;v_ c c i 'd $ 3!! a •• ai d` 5 ", V c N 1 E o, �`o N A 0 o C a a O C V o Q E 'c N c ` r r o N y �!^U V Or w .. c� wr j 'M �, f; O r � L CJ1 �- -0 .o w �• '` = m •C1 c uri t ... V N io 7 « ` rnL 2! t d -J Q ni ar •of y > C E r io m yy w r j O 7 ed W Z C UE O ` •C �o C y d O ' WNo'$t E.8 ° 9-0E »E 2.: nor H U LL i1 •L C y l0 d d r C ld O MNI N O 'w y _O -0 d, N O O py+ > y r� - r A O f./ y� N L L m y O r y iO r V .d M.- C L N r d C V O O N om— �. �, - 0 X C Q LU U. �3o�Ec� o� �o cEoo ~� t3^'' acwa «0CY8M U fO 3 N N di Y L mN.Uy i' d •` td Q r ` C d N V p y r 3 y'� y C N C C ,o O O j C D d �Ci O Uy�o0mvr 0 M � C c ._ Ec�- o d M y O` C v C Y r C O ._ d A o F-wm M, J3�o`• N V " V •L p W >_ O N d N O+ - E uj c-a E a c A E Y d E /o< -d TRAN5PORTATI T i N � N O N O. � t C, �. O O v, c, U 'D C w t7 C A o, to y p, - O: d Q O CL O O> ° Eo N W m O N a > c O O ` O c . - 'O Q a ►�. 'D ✓ 3' N N y y _ C N ca cc d C Of d C O O J C C \° G r m y o C A N U7 O n « A 02 O N O p �+ N m v m C 7 E L o, O C O •- . c ° N V O O N O Y. r y C N T �• �a d H LO r- y U E CL C y u H H C y C �, c m E n y v ° .0 @ v Y o_1 C C r y fp f > O t U r N C U ag „ c o E N e4 CZ .rD ' R ' o m a v, Q C v� cO yw y« y c o crco r ci y N O M N CD y, r 1p V w E m to E Q N% r E N �+ 'O O, Z> V r .M V�`.. d r 07 E 3 4 Q °• �� E��'E 'm m d `�� inc°`°'� N Y c �- V C U) C OR U io 7 •.- W N N by vi /O c m C v > wo 3 `U° 9 �a cn d o 0,o c c 3 ° d A- r - a� H O c a o_ c c fl c ° 3 y° c o tm E v C V p U wE U io O b y O C; LOS.- CL �`o V E w -0o'°� °„ `� °ate to �'^ w a�ci� o �c in OY „mow J .r C d a 4 'em' O E C W C V w oci aci A C t7 °- ° aC °' m° Z V a (yAYIO cn,°'w aM o „v y U. )c) Ecoo. - v —a a N r 'm d E N Q Z U A w 9 ✓ a V 3 O rn ,� c N rn o w7cr F- c C r O �„ �iocs R to v A._ Z n,Ov X �v c c `r a v O 0 ESA o mcw°d LL c. ~WC Q�c� a diQ�� @ {L m }moo C°'rn m y E,, dt ' E U CD ^_ y C •�, r L G i d d N ° ° A C, U r G 7 C 'y N �^ ED 15.2 �' C Q > G O O V. 'Z �' a (haENV1O•- G,dnv� Z Z N N U Y Q1 N c N C N U d C w V U d d E C O ,o m aUi � A d MC V Y p, C a "v .O C a0+ �a m to ro C O• J N 6 TRANSPORTATION GUIDELINES I. Single Family Residential Guideline 1 - Traffic volumes on roadways with abutting property designated for single family residential use should not exceed: (a) 600 vehicles per day on local streets (b) 6,000 vehicles per day on collectors Discussion - When applying the guideline for local residential streets, the City will use the principle that the traffic on local streets should consist of vehicles with an origin or destination within the immediate neighborhood. If a proposed action would generate or otherwise cause local traffic to exceed the 600 vpd guideline, but it can be documented that the traffic has origin /destination in the immediate residential neighborhood, then the guideline may be exceeded. The City will also consider the location and relationship of the affected local street to the immediate neighborhood and to nearby collector and minor arterials. II. Commercial Guideline 2 - Traffic volumes on collectors and minor arterials serving commercial properties should not exceed Level of Service "D" (maximum of 40 seconds stopped delay) at signalized intersections. Guideline 3 - Minor arterials serving designated commercial districts should have convenient access from the Metropolitan Highway System. Specifically, access for the following commercial districts should be provided. LHN - direct access for 66th Street at I -35W - direct access for Lyndale Avenue at 62 Crosstown Highway PASSS - direct access for Penn Avenue at 62 Crosstown Highway - direct access for 66th Street at I -35W ILN - direct access for 76th Street at I -35W - direct access for Lyndale Avenue at I -494 CABA - direct access for 66th Street at T.H. 77 I -494 Commercial Properties - direct access for Portland Avenue at I -494 access for 77th Street at T.H. 77 - direct access for Penn Avenue at I -494 - direct access for Lyndale Avenue at I -494 7 APPENDIX BASIS FOR TRANSPORTATION GUIDELINES The approach to the determination of the transportation guidelines is to provide a technical, quantifiable analysis consistent with the desired quality of life of the residential and commercial areas of the City. The guidelines should be "reasonable" and "in accordance with generally accepted practice I. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS The quality of life considerations are noise, pedestrian safety and overall amount of daily traffic (visual intrusion) along local streets and collectors. (a) Local Streets Current traffic counts on residential streets range from about 70 to around 1,000 vpd in Richfield. Given this wide range, it was decided to estimate the vehicle trips generated by the residents of the block and include the residential - oriented travel of adjacent blocks. This approach appropriately accommodates local neighbor- hood traffic and excludes through traffic. Using current metro- politan statistics on trips per person (3.5), persons per household (2.32), homebased trips (69 %) and vehicle trips (auto occupancy of 1.3) -- results in about 4.3 vehicle trips per household that would use that street. There are 24 dwelling units on a typical block in Richfield, so there would be about 103 vehicles per day generated by block residents. Assume visitors, services, deliveries, etc. is also 103 vpd for a total of 206 vpd per block. Assume equal traffic from the two adjacent blocks will also use the street. The total daily traffic would be 206 x 3 — 618. This is a conservative estimate. Therefore, it is recommended that a maximum of 600 vpd be used for single family residential (SFR) streets. It should be recognized that SF?, streets in close proximity to business /commercial streets will have more traffic than those further away. A daily volume of 600 vehicles would normally have about 60 vehicles (10 %) during the peak hours. This hourly volume would produce noise that is well within the noise control standards of Section 930 of the Richfield City Code -- and would also facilitate the safe crossing of local streets by pedestrians. (b) Collectors The function of a residential collector is to collect and distri- bute traffic that is associated with the residential area served by the collector. Property along the collector street _is almost exclusively single family residential -- and therefore the less traffic there is the better it is. People living on a collector street, however, must expect considerably more traffic than a local 8 street -- but not as much as the physical capacity of the roadway, which could be around 9000 vpd. Current volumes on City collectors range from 843 to 5723. A value of 6000 vpd is recommended. This value would result in peak hourly volumes of about 600 vehicles, which would produce noise that is consistent with the City code noise standards for residential land. use affected by motor vehicles. II. COMMERCIAL AREAS The approach to streets serving commercial areas is to provide acceptable and reasonable levels of service. For signalized intersections, level of service is based upon length of time delay waiting for the green signal. A level of service of "D" (L.O.S. "D ") is reasonable, which means that the time the vehicle is stopped (not moving) will not exceed 40 seconds at any intersection. File 12627:8 0 1 - -/- - s s N : g e eI f O >E -�>: r P, cz, iI I TO iL 0 7 NSIONYIS x= LL PU22,�. _ T �a o 1s Iz �(� =v" y N M t N N 01: BE vloz 4661 _J. Q n r Moll3iON0, _ M0113l0NOl it BAT tlrO3) i01111IM- -- - lAY Yr030 4191 . -jj' J .. .: IF-7 _rLr- �� .. :: _ ..._I .. Y191 4111 Ci,,. - _ll 1[. . JL_ 1... _ ._. ._ _ ( II No 91 4191 N0191,0IN0016 -YII-- �-�jl�- �1 �. ��- rt N01ON11MOOq 41 SI J_. _ .JjI 41611 41 ti 41 21 �! -. ]L. .. 71 - -- - --—----------- -�� - -- —� 4421 4111 IL_ ]l - --�.._ 4101 101113 OOYOINO snenn,o� Sn9►1 (110J Nowd ■ ,: ONYI %YO ONr IXYO BAT ONYILMOd 3'AY OMYllYOd is Ir 1 NO1Nfl0 - .. r +�� - _: _ �--I' - I 1,101 NIl7 O Pit _ , L_ L Pit PUZ POE f N3A3i5 6N3A312 Q BAY 131100IN '3Ar 1311001N U . 1130SIY18 11iOt1YlY Q N1tlOM1N3M - : '' - - Jt L- J _ _ ^� .JC 1 NIVOMIN31A Z AA AtlnBSllld AYM6llld O 1NYSr31d __ --- _,_._.t_ 1NYCY3ld U I� _ _' _ _ _ _1l allrtlo JL — 131tltlrN ! f -^ 1 - 131YYYN 1! ( •INS 01311tlYO O73ISYYO ? 3AY 31YONAI�- ..�.sJ� "3Ar 37YGNAl (n 1431001V �_ F L___ X N71YOlY W 1NYANS X11_,.( �w : ' ') '- , ^ -�• —� 1NYAW XYi 100 xYf103 1NOdna _J[ � ) I ,, _ a : :- ` —� -J _ 114oena NOStl3113 .. _ ; -� = NOSY3N3 1 L_- J*- -�C- __'� :., -_J _ _ � r--•. � �r 1"OYvY"Y'' IY' -_ 1010emnN r - -YwC =TES ioloomN ONIAMI ONIAVI 53Y'1rf C3MYf L 1L- .. P•. _ _ -- fJ -- II %ONX 'I XON% NYO01 - .Yi�w! :_.. =_1 �-'' _ _ NY901 NYOYON NY91110N if 1,1011113N j _l,. NO1 M3N 3AY NN3.4 • 'NAY NN3d N33n0 ; 11355ntl 173tS 11Y 1 NYOItl3NS - - - -J1_ Nr01113N Ir._..,._ 1 — - SYINOHI --- -• Q 1= SVIN0N1 1 Nolen NOl �_ 7�•- •��r —� - —� 'n 1 N33NIA 1100 NtlnaNSrM _. _L_ Nvng"svm 3AY 53 %tl3X .. -- .. .. ` . _ �.- ..� -+... _ . .r+s_ =r- - _ �-- AY t XY3X = C � ri, rn N n N w w w w w w M w •+ w au o m e r e r i R g � i v 10 N _. wswwvls l i422 10L L _ e i � i 4,61 •r .J. w i- r r~- w I � I 1111,0113l0141Ol 3AV tlV039 4491 IL NOIDNINOOIe i 4161 , _.Jl ._ _1I _. .�� .. r-�' -�I 44 V1 7.9 Y! {I --7C -,r 4111 .101113 snermictO 3AV ONtlitlod 41{ NOINIID VIE �� _J Y �_ � SN3A 3lS '3AV 131103IN 1130S1vle N1tlOM1N3M ir'�.:.I� iL_� .• _ :1 L -1 'r _ �- JL _ _ - - ltlnesllle 1NVSV3ld -!L= __'1 -" _,�- _ - _ .. r_ `_ -.____ _� -. _1 - 0NY80 F I - - ol3ldtlrD II �L__j -3AV 31VONAl 05507. { 1�L xvd�oo I c -- 1NOdn0 N051Np3tltlY3W! ___ it ONIAMI 74 fir= it r XONX Lr 1 3AV 14%3d N33n0 Q" L- _ Nolan 1N30NIA 3 3AV SXtl3X ,•i:��_T�7��_ s a_ N g 11 u 4ni ..7 r 04 OL6 0 ~ U 2 v a o IL r W s a= W z �w • M01131514O1 3AV tiv03�) 41 at 41 LI 4491 1#0I0NINO0le 41 {1 41 YI 41 {1 41 21 14111 4101 J101113 OOV3IHD it sneNn'm �l I Mtlrd i ONV-Ixv0 '3At ONVUVU 419 _ Yfy NOl W-13 P1{ - 042 O 0 SN3A31S Q &* I U '3AV 1311001111 LL 1l3Oelvle V NLUO61N34% J AYneSllld U = iNWSV31d J ONVIID Z O 0 13lumvN o131IYVD Z 3At 31WONAI LL 14171601V Q 1NVA" w xvdlo3 O 1NOdnO O NOS93113 d INDPCMU ONVYID IovemnN SN1AMI s3V1vr xONX Nwool NVOW" 1601M3N V 3A Il0 '3AV NN3d N3300 ; 113ssno NVOI413N5 ; svoomi MOldn _ T o 111430114IA to .0 U NtlnemsviA n d E -3AV 93XV3X = rn 1—° E ¢ U m t- a O` p N N d C O O U U CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 79 Agenda, March 27, 1989 Issue Statement: Approval of a resolution appointing Betsy Christensen, Health Administrator, as the Board of Health's agent with the Minnesota Department of Health. Background: The Minnesota Department of Health requires that each Board of Health (City Council) appoint an agent who may be reached between Board meetings by agents of the Commissioner of Health in case of, for example, a desease outbreak or a problem related to other public health responsibilities. The requirement to appoint an agent for these purposes is contained in Minnesota Statutes 145A.04, subdivision 2. If our resolution authorizing the agent to act on the Board's behalf is current (i.e. the person named as agent in our last resolution remains our current agent), the Board does not need to take further action unless the Board wants to name another or other agents. Fire Chief Patrick Coughlin is currently listed as the agent for the Richfield Board of Health. In January of 1988, Betsy Christensen became the City's Health Administrator and is the appropriate individual to be listed as the current Agent for the Board of Health. This is a housekeeping item that needs to be accomplished to meet the State Statute requirements. Recommended Motion: Approve a resolution appointing Betsy Christensen, Health Administrator, as the Board of Health's agent with the Minnesota Department of Health. Basis of Recommendation: As the City's Health Administrator who represents the City at State Department of Health meetings, submits the Community Health Services Plan and numerous other required reports, it is appropriate to designate the Health Administrator as the Board of Health's agent. Alternative Recommendation: The Council could decide to not appoint the Health Administrator as the Board's agent with the Minnesota Department of Health. The City of Richfield would not be in compliance with Minnesota Statute 145A.04, subdivision 2 until another agent had been named. Discussion /Decision Mode: A resolution appointing the Health Administrator to act as the Board of Health's agent with the Minnesota Department of Health is being presented at this time for Council consideration. Respectfully submitted James . Prosser City Danager JDP:sae r // vL- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO APPOINT AN AGENT TO ACT ON THE BOARD OF HEALTH'S BEHALF ON PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSIBILITIES The Community Health Board ( "Board ") by virtue of its authority under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 145A, in accordance with the Board's articles and bylaws, and by this Resolution of the Board adopted at a scheduled meeting held on March 27, 1989, hereby appoints and authorizes the following person to act on the Board's behalf and bind the board for the following purpose: A. To serve as the Board's agent according to Minnesota Statute 145A.04, Subd. 2, in communicating with the Commissioner of Health between Board meetings, including receiving information from the Commissioner and disseminating that information to the Board, as well as providing information to the Commissioner on the Board's behalf. Name: Betsy Christensen Address: 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN. 55423 Phone Number (B): 866 -5061 (H): 687 -0758 B. To sign and submit to the Commissioner the prepared Community Health Plan, revisions to the Plan and activity reports submitted according to Minnesota Statute 145A.10, Subdivisions 5, 6, and 8. Name: Betsy Christensen Address: 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN. 55423 Phone Number (B): 866 -5061 (H): 687 -0758 C. To sign and submit to the Commissioner the Board's annual budget, revisions to the budget, and expenditure reports submitted according to Minnesota Statute 145A.10, Subd . 6 & 8. Name: Betsy Christensen Address: 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN. 55423 Phone Number (B): 866 -5061 (H): 687 -0758 This resolution authorizes the above - referenced appointee to act on behalf of and bind the board to the extent and for the purposes indicated in this resolution. Resolution Adopted on March 27, 1989: Steve Quam, Mayor Thomas Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 78 Agenda March 27, 1989 Issue Statement: Public hearing to consider adoption of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from special Revenue Fund. Background: On September 28, 1988, the City Council approved the 1989 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) and also adopted the 1989 budget for all funds as outlined in the budget document. The various approved appropriations for 1989 for the capital projects are defined as outlined below: Master Park Plan Study $ 30,000 Veterans Memorial Park 270,000 $300,000 The City Charter requires approval of a transitory ordinance authorizing these appropriations. Charter Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 allows expenditures for capital improvements from the Special Revenue Fund only by ordinance. The City Council gave first reading to the Transitory Ordinance and scheduled second reading and the public hearing for March 27, 1989. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council hold the public hearing and approve the attached transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements. Basis of Recommendation: 1. On September 28, 1988, the City Council adopted the 1989 Capital Improvement Budget. 2. Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication of the second hearing notice. The hearing process must be completed in 1989 so the capital projects can be completed as approved and the funds expended. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could allocate the funds to a totally new project or projects, but a public hearing for a budget revision would be necessary. 2. The City Council could decide not to authorize the expenditure of Special Revenue Funds. However, that would be contrary to the previously adopted Capital Improvement Budget. / U - / Discussion /Decision Mode: Action on this item is requested at the March 27 meeting of the City Council to allow sufficient time for publication of the ordinance to become effective so that the capital improvements can be ordered as budgeted. Respectfully submitted, Jame . Prosser City Manager JDP: ej a ;27D Bill No. 1989 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Master Park Plan Study $ 30,000 Veteran's Memorial Park 270,000 $300,000 Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by Council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of March, 1989. teven J. Quam ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 77 Agenda March 27, 1989 Issue Statement: Public hearing on a request for a conditional use permit at 2816 West 66th Street. Background: Eddie'Z Car Wash located at 2816 West 66th Street has requested a conditional use permit to allow an addition to the existing car wash building to update the car wash facilities; to install canopies over the pump stations and erect a retail area where customers may make purchases such as beverages, snacks and car care products. The existing building is 1,400 Square feet and the proposed addition is 1,370 square feet for a total of 2,770 square feet. The property is zoned C -2 general commercial use. A service station /convenience store with an automatic car wash facility is a permitted use in the C -2 general commercial district with a conditional use permit. Recommended Motion: Approve the conditional use permit with the following stipulations: 1. That additional landscaping be added to the rear lot buffer area to meet staff approval. 2. The canopy height be reduced to be in compliance with the City Ordinance. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Staff recommends additional plantings be installed at the rear lot buffer area in order to further screen headlights from the adjacent multiple family residents. 2. The canopy height at the pumps does not presently meet the City Ordinance, Section 520.27, Subdivision 5, which specifies that the canopy may not exceed 16 feet in height. The proposed plan indicates a canopy of 18 feet. 3. The parking stalls and stacking area for cars have been adequately met. The requirements include 7 parking stalls for retail and employees and 40 stacking spaces. 4. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for a conditional use permit on February 28, 1989. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may deny the conditional use permit if a finding of fact determines that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 27, 1989. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the property. Notice was also published in the Sun Current Newspaper. Respectfully submitted, Jame Yrosser City Y4anager JDP:sae 7_ 9 Z �o f1 T J 00 C Z b t N b n Y P1 £2 NSIONVIS VU 22 LJ�I l2 F.71 L 41 OZ 4761 L JL� MOl13d9NOl 3Atl aV03J ----�O 41L 411I I O V191 1410191,1I101100,78 4191 O� 41,I OO YI to 4121 ;a�� YI 11 I 4101 201113 i II C W OOtl01N0 I X: snewnloJ J Xavd f aNtllxtlo 3Ar aNVllaOd t-- VIS Yt b I I NOINI10 It 042 I I SN3A31S ul�� al "3AV 1311O31: 1130slv,l N1a0M1N3M Aanesllld I lr��_ 1NVStl3ld t; ONtltl9 t i i I f- Ol31datl Ili �� '.3AV 31vONAI NJINGIV j 1NVAtlB �I ��I �� W Y XVd IOJ - ! =J 1NOdna II i NOSa31003 1"Mu \�-- 1 - oatlal9 I laloewnN ONIAaI s3wvr XONX NV 901 001 ' �LLL�JJI NV9a0w N01M3N 1113A110 '3AV NN3d N33n0!�I 113SSna OL E= Nvala3NS r �. 1C SVIVONl i 1 C NOldn - IN33NIA _— --1 NanoHsvm 3" S3Xa3X '- ... = N N N N c o e N O Y H f N e � �o �p N N y~j «Z z Z A� s t V V 4 W Z W A I': p A A= 3AV av033 4161 44 Ll N019N I w0ale Go �C7C�C--- ��C�UUbCIC�Ci 41 £I Y! 11 '44 0 t lalll3 1 L ~Ii 09VJIN0 1j — Ii snewnloJ 'S '3AV SVW0141 Xavd aNV1XVO '3AV ONVIlaOd m AV NO.ldfl n oo£NnJ 3 1 1 I Out 1 • 3 �{{ SN3A31S i /l ut _1 3Atl 131-1WIN NIA I'Masltlle II N18O111N3M J I Aanesllld _ I 1NVSV3ld _ 1 ONVa9 1 - -� �I 13Iaa VH .• •s 3n — al31dar9 • �l.—�✓ I '3AV 31OONAI N. L�oo�q xtldloJ ........................ ••:• INOdna NOSa31043 ti •'tS �� % "� ltaw3ai u a r j^•,^^ I �r V ��„ 9NIAal i �•.JL�� 53104vr • �^ I �� XONX '�L�L� ! iICC Ntl9ol NVM3N • ('-� �^ 'II NOl M3N • <�L___.�L�(�(�l� —� '3AV NN3d •• �� L'JUi� N33n0 r—� 11355 na NVOfa3N5 stlwoNl :1 NOldn 1N33NIA NaneNSVM `�. _ — _ _ter- —• - — '= •— `=r--� '3Ar S3Xa3x N N N N N H N N N N N N Np F e - �o ,-; ►•e 1 i ►�0 mm mm mm mm mm ri �s a� LUNING 0000< EIMR MULTIPLE DWELLING °o °o MR -1 2 FAMILY RESIDENCE MR -2 3 -16 UNIT RESIDENCE i a ►01Nw R ION A2,SO►OM a � .•�. M MIM.MIIIIMMAMM ---- M�VW� wo tE-» M........r... ♦ �.._e.� gill S� �r'rMIIV� MWMi'M191Ir •' • • VIII. MI _ _ _ pm y�� n _ s■ • MI MI VIIIII III , _ • I_ • Im = ion t� �_ I_ 011111 MIIIII MI MI MIM MI MI= MI MIM MIM SM - a�a aa�a vd ao �d ad ad Ml� Miiiiimi miiiimi INN• 01111� �� '1• �� MIIIIIIIII MIIM MI MIIIIMI I=Imiii MMI MI MI � � � � � M mi=l 4 !!• a !� w w !� a S �� _ _ ►e•'ee�1�� mm mm mm mm ON QQM ►e�leeele� ►i�i�iei�i mm 3-P =9.10 %eee♦ .e.�.�. i a ►01Nw R ION A2,SO►OM a � .•�. M MIM.MIIIIMMAMM ---- M�VW� wo tE-» M........r... ♦ �.._e.� gill S� �r'rMIIV� MWMi'M191Ir •' • • VIII. MI _ _ _ pm y�� n _ s■ • MI MI VIIIII III , _ • I_ • Im = ion t� �_ I_ 011111 MIIIII MI MI MIM MI MI= MI MIM MIM SM - a�a aa�a vd ao �d ad ad Ml� Miiiiimi miiiimi INN• 01111� �� '1• �� MIIIIIIIII MIIM MI MIIIIMI I=Imiii MMI MI MI � � � � � M mi=l 4 !!• a !� w w !� a S mm m i a ►01Nw R ION A2,SO►OM a � .•�. M MIM.MIIIIMMAMM ---- M�VW� wo tE-» M........r... ♦ �.._e.� gill S� �r'rMIIV� MWMi'M191Ir •' • • VIII. MI _ _ _ pm y�� n _ s■ • MI MI VIIIII III , _ • I_ • Im = ion t� �_ I_ 011111 MIIIII MI MI MIM MI MI= MI MIM MIM SM - a�a aa�a vd ao �d ad ad Ml� Miiiiimi miiiimi INN• 01111� �� '1• �� MIIIIIIIII MIIM MI MIIIIMI I=Imiii MMI MI MI � � � � � M mi=l 4 !!• a !� w w !� a S m vlm� mm mm mm mm om� 0 mm� mm MIM mm mm mm mm mm MIM mm mm mm mm mm MIM ==IM1= ==I MM mm I 0 IVV 111111111V W�\� - ------- - -- ----------------- -------------- pop-= ftww"Aftft ------- oo� ------ may arm dip Am wrw mmmmmmmmmmmmmmW"* v = ;= O =sueE 'mss Pop Mimi Min POW Rm OVAR mmmmmmmmmmmmmmW"* v = ;= O =sueE 'mss MINOR if V�rzm 0'. Pop Mimi Min MINOR if V�rzm 0'. Pop Mimi f r � ro- �-� .WMW r� rte` r sr!` r• ,.rr r� r� r - r .WMW r� rte` r sr!` r• ,.rr r� r� r = Z �a 4. J .a W C f w N O 1- � Z G G a a 5 Q m W O z IL �- 0 N IL w 0 4 a i US H199 'M -- 1 I � f a ' ,L1 i L 0 L TLI a z U z E / I L 0 L TLI a z U z E E1� /1 •� car wash February 1, 1989 City of Richfield Planning Commission Eddie'Z Car Wash, Inc. located at 2816 West 66th Street, Richfield, Minnesota is applying for a conditional use permit for the following three reasons: I. The safety of customers and employees. Due to the current location of the carwash building and pay booth, the customer pumps his (her) gas, walks to a pay booth and proceeds to the car wash entrance. There are several reasons why we need change in this current system. _ A.) Customers exiting the 4' x 8' pay booth, located directly at the pump island, are obscured from the vehicles entering the station. The customers virtually step out directly in front of the oncoming vehicles. We plan to correct this problem with a designated and realigned retail store and a clearly marked walk way. B.) As the customer enters the car wash, especially during the fall, winter and spring months, their view of the detailing attendant is obscured by the blinding sun which shines directly into their eyes. We can correct this problem with a building addition that would allow the customers to make the turning radius and enter the building before encountering the direct sun. II. To enhance and modernize a facility that has been virtually unchanged since 1974. The enhancements can be achieved by A.) Adding on to the existing building which will enable us to pressure wash the vehicles by hand thus providing a better service to our customers. B.) Erecting a canopy over the pump islands which will shelter the cust- omers during inclement weather and increase visibility and C.) Erecting a designated pay area where the customers can purchase some beverage and snack items as well as various car care products. III. Climatic reasons. Our present car wash was designed after a car wash in Arizona. With thirty feet of exposed conveyor, cold weather makes pre - washing, which i.s an integral part of winter and spring washing, virtually impossible as the pneumatics, which controls the conveyor chain, actually freezes and can disable our facility. 2816 West 66th Street Richfield, Minnesota SS423 1612)869-42#6 ca_r wa � City of Richfield Planning Commission February 1, 1989 Page 2 Customer discomfort. In the event of inclement weather, our facility, as it presently stands, is medieval at best. Customers are forced to stand in wind, rain and snow while waiting to pump their gas and pay for their purchase. Eddie'Z Car Wash simply wants to provide a safe and modern environment that meets the need of the consumer. If you have any questions, please do not hesi- tate to contact me. Respectfully submitted, i Ned Zarecky -- - Eddie'Z Car Wash, Inc. 2816 West 66th Street Richfield, Minnesota 55423 1 1612)869 -#246 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 76 Agenda March 27, 1989 Issue Statement: Public hearing on a request for the granting of a preliminary plat for the unification of several properties at 7132 Portland Avenue South. Background: Hope Presbyterian Church has requested the granting of a preliminary plat to combine property in order to allow the construction of a walkway between the recently purchased school building and the church at 7132 Portland Avenue South. The proposed walkway addition would be constructed at ground level, and would be approximately 100 feet long by 30 feet wide. The preliminary plat indicates that the new parcel would have adequate area for the combined structure, while meeting the setback requirements. Attachment A summarizes the setback requirements and setbacks proposed. The property is located in an "R ", single family residential zoning district. A church /school facility is a permitted use in a single family residential district. The Comprehensive Plan has guided the area for institutional use. Recommended Motion: It is staff's recommendation that the City Council approve the preliminary plat as shown for the property located at 7132 Portland Avenue South. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat against the requirements indicated in the subdivision and zoning ordinances and finds that the requirements for approval have been met. 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat on February 28, 1989 and recommended approval. 3. Hennepin County reviewed the replat proposal and raised no objections. 4. The replatting process is required in order to permit the addition connecting the two existing buildings. 5. Vehicular circulation is not an issue with the replat request, however, circulation will be reviewed when the applicant submits a request for the offstreet parking permit. Public notices will be sent when the offstreet parking permit process is brought before the Council. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may deny the granting of the preliminary plat request based on sufficient evidence that the request would have a negative impact on the adjacent properties. Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m., Monday, March 27, 1989. The hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the property. Legal notice was published in the Sun Current Newspaper. Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP :sae ATTACHMENT A Required Setbacks: Front: 30 foot minimum Rear: 25 foot minimum Sideyards: Streetside - 15 foot minimum or established setback of the existing structure, whichever is less. Interior - 25 foot minimum Proposed Setbacks: Front: 45 feet 2 inches Rear: 67 feet 2 inches Sideyards: South - 50 feet 7 3/4 inches North - 11 feet 8 inches ■ W z -o J Q °C o CL NM Y r N h ♦ N h` O T MLIONVlt J�� 22 is Y 12 1 I N Y161 IJI_�L .lI —, ED I '3AV atl033 YI11 � DOOCIC�C',.� NOSONIIY0019 � �j�� 111 LI 41til c�o� ®oo 4;z; , ro�00000(� VI a 1 10113 o i W �OOr �r oskv31N3 II v < ��r -- =r W J sn9Nnlo3 J xaVd -1 ONV 1xV0 •-�� -i r •�: ^ —� i '3AV ONtllltlOd E t„ .NO1N113 PIT PUZ SN3A315 '3AV 1311031N 1130SIVlB Mla0M1N3M 11 �-7' == r-• I. ^, Aan9Sl11d a 0131l1O ry '3AV 31VONAl N31a01tl. xvd100 1NOdno NOSa3N3 'I \�` •.rte --1 8 oavale r laloonnN ONIAN) Ii�J�00 S31tvr xoNx NVOOI NVO110N NOlM3N a3A110 '3AV NN3d N33no 'I*,, na - I� N.tl01tl3NS �� r Hl9 StlNONl _ -J NOldn r- - - - - -, ^- I 1N33NIA Nan9NSviA 1 1. '3M S3xa3X 1Y .. --^.•. .-*. - •�4, -- N N N N N N N i ♦ i - i Cb N. Vt V V b O �0 0 N' O V OZz 4 _ Q r� > �• U It _ "Va W _ 2 t � w e♦ S 40113lONol '3AV U1033 41 91 r111 4491 41st "OOIB rll 14121 i�1 4111 I 4101 — P,i; 101113 sn9emoo 'I L--7L--jI" xavd aNtlXtlO '3" ONV,Laod Pit ^I`-�I r - - -7 % SN3A31S • •' ��— = _,�-.� '3AV 131100IN 113051V18 NINOMLN3M • -r --------- Ini 1NVStl31d '• i {= Ij� ONtlaO '3AV 3190NA1 •�• �•: �:1: : ~.G: I N31a01v �� •• �I"��, s' k I LNYAtlB Laoena •- �`- -'--n� NOSa3N3 • i1� oavals S '3Ab' 0 ••� • - 41� _ talo9NnN 0� ONIAaI L ' s3wvr xONX L NVO01 S '3AV ONVl1HOd r— "vaaoN I. I NOl M3N a3AIl0 ' --d '3AV NN30 N33AD 113SSna , NVOIa3N5 SVNONl �.f NOldn 1N33NIA Nan9NSVA1 -= - - --_ =- —i3A• S3xa3X N N N N Ndfi f N • N •0 at n w n n h w w 0 r-I L-j ........... -7 iil ii ii ii ■ ei im-ul mg mm mm ii mm mm ii No ii mm m mm ii mm ii 00 ow m m i somw MM MM of all mm MM mm Y*m Iwo om m log mm iii MM MM mm mm mm MM MM mm MM m MM -_ MM �m � m mm mm mm mi ........... -7 iil ii ii ii ■ ei im-ul mg mm mm ii mm mm ii No ii mm m mm ii mm ii MM Mm MM MM MM mm aii ri Mm Mm mm mm mm mm ii 00 ow m m i somw MM MM of all mm MM mm Y*m Iwo om m log mm iii ii mm mm mm MM Mm MM MM MM mm aii ri Mm Mm mm mm mm mm ii mm mm ii mm mm ii mm mm MM MM MM MM ii MM MM MM ii mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ii mm mm mm mm mm mm NO mm mm m �iiiiimi MM MM MM MM MM MM MM mm iii ii mm mm mm mm mm ii mm mm ii mm mm MM MM MM MM ii MM MM MM ii mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ii mm mm mm mm mm mm NO mm mm m IBMW tol am- ilm- i 1 may. S%sg W-0 m w --- mawo it as ,r,■• �,� ■truer, total ■fir '� �!� �� ■•� ; ■. r.. ■•rte, fr V r Ir,,,,►ii � fto 8 ) �i =1 1 ism— OBW— ow- i '"■ra ■�i�r Sr f� f'r 0 N r. ..r Ml IM IMMI ii ii ii i ii ii ii o mm i MEN s �i IMM ii Ii �I siMi ii ii �i _i i� i ii ii i i ii MM i ii ii ii s= � ii ii ii i ii ii ii o mm i MEN s �i IMM ii Ii �I siMi ii ii �i _i i� i ii ii mm on ii ii MM i ii ii ii vm= i ii � ii •• i i i IM ii i mmi• ON m �m mm Em i mm a�i is me i ■ 70CWP- i amm OEM i i IM MIM IMMI IM MIM IMIM MIM mml�� ii ii v NOM ii i ii ii MIM ii ii is MM ii ii ii ii I ii ON m •� •• i ii ii ii � � .■. � � � � i ii ii ii ii ii i �� ii ii �m mm Em i mm a�i is me i ■ 70CWP- i amm OEM i i IM MIM IMMI IM MIM IMIM MIM mml�� ii ii v NOM ii i ii ii MIM ii ii is MM ii ii O = O U N U z a Z W W d � i 1 W 3i.ttliili3 {tit i, ; � s`i rp CC UA W !Z ; SS a Wc ij .; :a•. s/ I ' i3, �33I3• ■ 1 = 3 �. I . I�i37it:i3�i3i33�1 { F: W ., /1` , II. e • f I � i a _1 9 1 a a = i i W I .: i'` - • a�,!,. `I's +:.A{p•'.'- „,•,•Y.,,�S••,.,k ,�•'r�r—••. --• s I w �' - at;? t I _sue , _� • ! 1 rt cm W IL _ .� f..r.• r. ..}�. -0h .ir;•:rr.••.•r •r^•.•, {•r _"`wig.. -:ww_ ..:�: �' i_IS r:'.V. rr.... �? ♦{•rr rr Ate:• _I. li M ��: r{.,.rv1 { �'Ii •:• •rrrr, ,:.: "�• y;M1;,Y ,.rr• w i , � I ; s :. � � SI � I �•— f, rr- .- .•�r•..��•V�.�'�1�{•r } :•.�r�••r lr•• ��L,�{ {r �'1 � few w�/vu. • ` _ a i rte_ 1 I .i :r�'V• •rr•••r':'/p.�.{ :} •r.�.••h••r• '•• •,•r • �''M1 � ; j /1,it • i .v I •3 • yy. r• :r� •: M1 L•• {J• r I j I 1 • , fi i � i ii ii. is ; -�--i •..�,.• � •k;:, rr.r : �. r • M1 I 3 :i i +� a '' \';» • :�:r • :�:}•rr••,.4rr' M1 3 it 11� 1��t ©; d �� ( �'�:� (.» ;P �i'.• Q. i of ji :• j !.i ' - +i i Z i ';, f i it 1: 17i - I•� Suss:. ! .__`.._ ._I ,; i isil ? 3 i .i `!t �. 11;3 r. 3ii;” -i•�- -�%' -- .ems = =Q� Iii`3: •LS. -�_ .�-- !,�Y!«�r_, i ;i :i < s :ci i ii: a. ii! ixij :T. �. '� _ � i f �., 1 ! � � �i...a ii��. iq ii '3 .t 3 ..i� � •-� = s' iii 'i i=. .�± ' �a 73 : ::i'1 :w'f— .»..:iay� _ � 3 p = - _t� 3iiiif 3• 11 c' :: '!i ii : I. �7 - � t7'}* -.]� \ O- 11 ♦�' YO ii sl `n JJ((Si.33Q�i; -�-. 1 O. i',, � fi: �ssi •a�•� � �a .:ti��': i• y S O ; 1. ts '�' i•1 r �i - iii ; e!: i ion D' l ».i _ — 'F= '•; a ..:... .............:w....sii3 u Z 7 Q J W L cn V J _ O U _ s N U C� 0 Z Z N N R w u H a u a C a y c . u. W� u a 0 Z a I cc O L Z O I` 0 °a r, a s i H W a s Z RESOLUTION Nn. RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL .TO A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION (HOPE PRESBYTERIAN CTITTRC1i AUDITION) WHEREAS, Rope Presbyterian Church of Richfield has submitted a request, for subdivision approval for that certain real estate located in the City of Richfield, as described on the attached Exhibit A, to be known as "Hope Presbyterian Church Addition "; and WHERPAS, after due public notice a hearing was held on the proposed subdivision on March 27, 1989; and WHEREAS, except as noted below, in the opinion of the City Council, the application conform; to the requirements of the Richfield. City Code regarding the subdivision of land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: The application of hope Presbyterian Church of Richfield for subdivision approval for the land described on the attached Exhibit A is given preliminary approval, subject to the following conditions to be met prior to final plat approval: a. The applicant must submit an opinion of its legal counsel, certified to date, showing legal title to the real estate and any liens or encumbrances, and including matters-relating to judgment, bankruptcy, tax lien and special assessment searches, must comply with• any recommendations that the city may make as a result of matters disclosed in the opinion. b. Transitory Ordinance No. shall have been adopted and become effective. Dated: , 1989. Leven Quam, Mayor Attest: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk A:0055RF01.F14 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 75 Agenda March 27, 1989 Issue Statement: Second reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the conveyance of land from the City of Richfield to Hope Presbyterian Church of Richfield at 7132 Portland Avenue. Background: In approximately 1965, the City Council vacated part of 5th Avenue South of 71st and north of 72nd Street extended. The underlying fee, however, was owned by the City and did not revert to the adjoining property owners. A church building was constructed over the vacated street. In preparing to replat its property, Hope Presbyterian Church discovered the defect in title and has requested that the City convey its ownership interest in the vacated street to the Church. Staff has reviewed the matter and it appears that the intent of the city at the time the street was vacated was to relinquish its entire interest in the property. Accordingly, we have prepared the attached transitory ordinance which would accomplish that purpose. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council give second reading consideration and approval to the transitory ordinance authorizing the conveyance of real estate to Hope Presbyterian Church of Richfield. Basis of Recommendation: The conveyance of the land in the vacated street is necessary to effectuate the original intent of the city. Decision Mode: Second reading is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on March 27, 1989 in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Legal notice was published in the Sun Current Newspaper. Notice of the hearing was also mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the property. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP:sae TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF REAL ESTATE (PART OF HOPE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF RICHFIELD) Section 1. All right title and interest in the following described real property ( "Property ") is hereby authorized to be disposed of as hereinafter provided: That part of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, according to the United States Government survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: The West 30 feet of the West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 34, and The East 30 feet of the East 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 34. Section 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute and deliver to the Hope Presbyterian Church of Richfield the city's quit claim deed conveying the city's interest in the Property, and to take such other steps and do such other things as are reasonable to convey and transfer the city's interest. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1989. Steven Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk RfldOrd1:0055OD17.E14 .W N CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 74 Agenda March 27, 1989 Issue Statement: Public hearing on the Urban Hennepin County Year XV Community Development Block Grant Allocation. Background: The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on March 27, 1989 to determine Richfield's use of the Year XV Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Allocation of $171,909. Requests for $215,400 of Year XV funds have been submitted. Information concerning Hennepin County's CDBG program objectives, the project funding requests and the rationale for providing the funds is attached. There is a 4% increase in total funds allocated in Year XV from last year. The chart below summarizes Year XV allocation as compared to Year XIV funding. Activity 1. Housing Rehab (Section 312 and Rehab Deferred Loans) 2. Scattered Site Acquisition 3. Energy Improvement 4. Sliding Fee Day Care 5. H.O.M.E. Program 6. Economic Development Year XIV Year XV Year XV Funded Requested Recomm- Amount Funding ended $ 57,174 $ 90,000 $62,809 $ 65,000 $ 65,000 $65,000 $ 0 $ 15,000 -0- $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $20,000 $ 13,100 $ 15,400 $14,100 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $10,000 $165,274 $215,400 $171,909 Recommended Motion: Approve the allocation of Year XV CDBG funds as follows: 1. Housing Improvement: a. Housing Rehabilitation $ 62,809 b. Scattered Site $ 65,000 C. Energy Improvement $ -0- 2. Public Service: a. H.O.M.E. $ 14,100 b. Day Care $ 20,000 3. Economic Development: ILN Revolving Fund $ 10,000 TOTAL $171,909 Basis of Recommendation: 1. The County's statement of objectives indicates that communities should limit the number of projects funded to three and that the minimum project budget be $7,500. 2. Housing Improvement funding would be allocated for housing rehabilitation, and scattered site acquisitions under the New Home Program. The $65,000 allocated for scattered site is the minimum required to complete a site project through the Vo -Tech program. The $62,809 would be used for rehabilitation of single family homes; Deferred Loans $52,809 and Section 312 $10,000. 3. Public service funding would be allocated for the H.O.M.E. program to serve approximately 178 households. The day care subsidy would be used to serve 10 families, and a total number of 14 children, as was also the case in 1988. The two programs are combined into one project entitled public services. 4. Economic Development funding would be allocated for improvements in the Interstate - Lyndale - Nicollet (ILN) Redevelopment Project Area. The area north of 77th Street along Lyndale Avenue has been identified for renovation. This fund would provide an incentive. The purpose would be to initiate a Revolving Fund. The first effort would be a pilot interest write -down program. This program provides that the interest rate on a privately placed loan by a property owner for facade improvements would be written down to a lower rate using these funds. Guidelines for the program would be developed by the HRA as part of a renovation strategy for the area. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Change the amount of funds allocated to each project. 2. Fund other eligible projects which have not be identified by staff. Discussion /Decision Mode: A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for March 27, 1989. The deadline for submitting the Year XV application to Hennepin County is April 15, 1989. Respect lly submitted, J D. Prosser C Manager JDP:sae W ---- SCATTERED SITE FUNDING RATIONALE The New Home Scattered Site program provides the HRA the opportunity to expand affordable housing opportunities and maintain the existing housing stock for lower income persons. The project makes long term improvements when: - substandard housing is cleared - vacant land suitable for development is acquired - buildings are acquired and rehabilitated to create additional housing -new housing is developed that increases the affordable housing stock The New Home Program is the most active scattered site acquisition and clearance program occurring in Richfield. During the last 10 years, on many occasions, the Richfield HRA produced the only new affordable housing opportunities for young families in the city. Funding this project: 1. Allows further removal of approximately 90 substandard garage homes that currently exist. These properties are difficult to sell in the market place. The HRA continually receives offers throughout the year from owners interested in selling. Five such properties were considered in 1988. The most blighted of these properties was acquired. 2. Allows blighted housing conditions or abandoned housing problems to be resolved. Foreclosures are occurring more often. Housing conditions are such that HRA involvement through acquisition and rehabilitation is appropriate. The housing stock, particularly the garage homes and older cottages, 45 to 50 years old, are approaching replacement age. 3. Ensures reutilization of Richfield house structures within the City. The HRA has reused seven Richfield house structures by relocating and remodeling them on scattered sites throughout the city. Structures were acquired from properties purchased for park expansion and commercial and residential developments. 4. Provides affordable first time home buying opportunities. A household with the Richfield average income of $30,000 can't afford the average Richfield house of $78,000. With cost reductions by Vo -Tech, MHFA mortgages and HRA second mortgages, purchasing families have ranged in size from 3 to 6 members with incomes between $25,000 and $ 32,000. The New Home program has provided a stable tenancy. Since the Vo -Tech program started in 1978, the ten properties have continued with the original owner. 5. Continues a cost effective construction relationship with the Vo -Tech School. f-Yl- / -*I Working with the Vo -Tech School, new homes can be built at a cost of approximately $55,000 to $60,000 while existing homes sell for $78,000 on the average. Recent private new construction by contractors has cost in excess of $100,000. 6. Increase property tax revenue. The increase in tax revenues from properties redeveloped by the HRA approximates $1,000 per property annually. 7. Continues housing distribution on scattered sites. Blighted housing conditions and HRA solutions occur on scattered sites throughout the city as properties become available. This achieves uniform upgrading of neighborhoods throught the city without concentrating assistance in one location. 8. Leverages resources available from HUD and MHFA. In 1987, $100,000 CDBG funds leveraged $300,000 in private contributions and $1.2 million from HUD mortgage financing for Sheridan Court. Reduced interest rate mortgages provided by MHFA, save $50 to $150 on monthly housing payments for first time buyers. 9. Provides housing stability in neighborhoods where blight has continued for lengthy periods of time. The most recent acquisition, 7101 -1st Avenue South in 1988, was encouraged by surrounding neighbors who sought a solution to a substandard house, which experienced frequent changes in ownership and progressive deterioration. 10. Continues a process where one scattered site purchase each year ensures that Vo -Tech will exclusively provide new homes in a timely manner. CDBG funds expended in 1988, provide a completed home in 1990 at 7101 1st. CDBG funds in 1989 also provides the opportunity for a completed home in 1990 on a site to be determined. Approximately two homes are built each year if yearly CDBG allocations continue. 4' T REHABILITATION DEFERRED LOAN FUNDING RATIONALE Richfield's Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program provides a means for low income homeowners to make needed repairs to maintain their homes, and improves the general condition of Richfield's housing stock. Improvements include code compliance accessibility for the handicapped, and weatherization. Eligible applicants must have an income equal to or less than 50% of median income. In 1989: - $80,000 in CDBG Year XV assistance is requested. -16 households have already applied for assistance. -the high demand months, the spring /summer /fall construction season when requests for assistance most often occur, are approaching. -the deferred loan program is the only rehabilitation program which serves the low income homeowner clientele. -there are presently no funds to serve emergency needs. -there are insufficient funds in this request to meet waiting applicants and anticipated demand. -a "Discretionary CDBG" funding request will be needed to secure sufficient funds to meet demand. The 1989 HRA and Housing Division goals are to assist homeowners in making repairs and maintaining the existing housing stock. The City Council considers housing rehabilitation a 1989 priority. In 1988, 30 low income Richfield homeowners were assisted with approximately $163,500 in deferred loans. Nine of these were emergency loans which financed furnace replacement where failure occurred. Emergency funds also help low income homeowners to resolve other seemingly impossible situations: leaking roofs and unexpected plumbing and electrical problems. The continued demand for deferred loans reflects the increasing financial commitment required for households to maintain a home. Assistance to elderly homeowners allows them to continue to live independently in the community. Assistance to families, often single parent households, provides a measure of household stability. •-' to _d REHABILITATION SECTION 312 FUNDING RATIONALE The Section 312 Program provides affordable financing to lower income Richfield homeowners for major home improvements and improves the general condition of Richfield's housing stock by bringing structures up to full code compliance. It complements the Deferred Loan program for homeowners with incomes less than 50% of median. As identified in the 1989 HRA Budget and Housing Division Goals, this program assists households in initiating major renovation which may increase living space, improve livability, and improve neighborhood environments. The City Council considers housing rehabilitation a 1989 priority. Program value is summarized as follows: 1) The 312 program is the only program available in Richfield which allows lower income homeowners to undertake substantial home rehabilitation. 2) The program benefits homeowners who are unable to afford rehabilitation financing from a lender. 3) Loans of up to $33,000 are provided to eligible applicants at a below market interest rate of 3 %. 4) While all code related improvements must be completed, a portion of funds can be applied to general improvements such as room additions and kitchen and bathroom updates. 5) In 1989, outreach efforts will include direct program marketing and priority funding to purchasers of FHA and VA foreclosed properties. The Section 312 program in Richfield cannot be used unless CDBG funds are available. Every CDBG dollar invested provides approximately 4 to 8 dollars of loan funds. Staff provides technical assistance in determining and defining improvements to be made and guides the homeowner through loan processing. I, &_(0 REVOLVING LOAN FUND FUNDING RATIONALE The Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund ( EDRLF) program provides the HRA, Council and community a means of implementing innovative funding approaches to community revitalization. Outside of tax increment financing, bonding powers and legal parameters which restrict many combinations of funding sources, Richfield has no economic development revolving loan fund from which to entice private community revitalization. As such, the EDRLF program is based on the premise of providing economic incentive to the private sector as a means of initiating the process of community rehabilitation, renovation and revitalization. The EDRLF program calls to remedy conditions of any area of buildings or improvements containing economic obsolescence, physical blight, underutilized land, inadequate platting, off - street parking and access, pedestrian circulation, or any combination of these or other factors deemed to be detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community. The EDRLF program is utilized in conjunction with redevelopment studies and plans which are either established or are in the process of being established. While the redevelopment studies and plans identify the issues surrounding revitalization, the EDRLF program identifies the funding mechanisms for ultimate goal and objective achievement. Various forms of pilot projects such as interest reduction for commercial rehabilitation would exist within the overall program. By approaching revitalization through an interest reduction program backed by CDBG funds, the following goals could be realized: 1. The commercial area would be maintained and reinforced as a community- oriented pedestrian shopping area. 2. A rehabilitation program would encourage a coordinated approach for interior, exterior, front and rear building improvements based on a detailed comprehensive plan. 3. The comprehensive plan would help assure reasonable compatibility of existing development(s) with new development(s). 4. Pedestrian amenities such as walkways, trees, and street furniture, for example, could be constructed or installed to compliment public and private effort. The interest reduction pilot program would make private commercial loans attractive and affordable to interested property owners which desire and /or require funds for property upgrade rte./ and /or building code violation correction. Individual property owners would be able to approach designated lending institutions with design /property improvement plans, approved by the city, in order to more assuredly secure a private loan for commercial rehabilitation. Lump sums payments would be made by the City to participating lending institutions in order to write down the loan interest a number of points. In addition, the City could acquire a financial incentive from the lending institution due to underlying program marketing. March 14, 1989 Mayor Steve Quam & Council Members City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Council Members: This year again the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association is requesting $20,000 from your Year XV Community Development Block Grant funds. This amount would continue the sliding fee subsidy program for child care for Richfield residents at its' current level. This year the sliding fee department has collected some - additional information about the Richfield families who have been helped by your past CDBG monies. I thought you might be interested in seeing these letters and these statistics. I have also enclosed an explanation as to how the program works. Sue Heimerl, a Richfield resident and a community liaison person at this agency will be at your March 27th council meeting to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your past support of the child care subsidy program. Sincerely, Grace Norris Community Liaison GN /co Enc. G reater Minneapolis Day re Association Dale Anderson, Executive Director • Lehmann Center • 1006 West Lake • Minneapolis, Minnesota • 55408 • (612) 823 -7243 Cooperating Fund Drive Member organization i �`6 -X CHILD CARE SLIDING FEE Helps low to moderate income families stabilize their cost of child care so that they can continue working or complete training programs. Vhy are CDBG funds needed? Existing programs funded through Hennepin County and the State Sliding Fee Program have not been funded adequately. Families who qualify for the program must wait four to twelve months in order to receive help. The child care tax credit is not enough to meet the needs of low income single parent families. GMDCA presently has a waiting list of 175 families outside of the City of Minneapolis who are either not eligible for existing programs or cannot' be served because of lack of funds. This is' somewhat larger than the number of families which will end up being eligible when we contact them. However, we are adding new families each week. How do the CDBG programs help? CDBG funds are used as a funding of last resort for families who fall between the cracks of eligibility, or would be on a long waiting list for help from other programs. Although each city's program is relatively small, together they make up significant stopgap funding for many families. How does the program work? In order to be eligible a families income must be under HUD section 8 guidelines and all parents must be working or attending school 20 hours or more per week. The family selects their own child care arrangement. If they need help in finding a program they are referred to the Child Care Information Network. Families may change programs at any time they wish. Families pay a portion of the cost of child care based on the fee schedule developed for the state sliding fee program. The sliding fee program pays the remainder of the cost up to a limit established each year through a State Department of Jobs and Training study of average costs of care. In order to receive child care subsidy a single parent must attempt to collect any child support due them through Hennepin County Child Support and Collections. Eligibility is renewed every six months. Parents are required to provide a signed written statement of income and situation as well as backup documentation from employers, school, etc. to show their income and work /training status. Is there a duplication of effort? Child care funding is a patchwork of programs from various funding sources with different eligibility uidelines. GMDCA works to sort out funding options for parents. Paren ?s call GMDCA or are referred to us by the Child Care Information Network, family daycare homes, centers, or other agencies. County and State funding sources are used whenever possible. If a family is not able to get other funding, CDBG funds are used. Names are maintained on a waiting list in the order of their call. This list is updated three times per year. As money becomes available families are contacted in order to verify their current situation and eligibility. How much subsidy Aoes each family receive? The subsidy is tailored to each family's situation. Child care costs for a family vary widely according to the number of children, their age, and the number of hours in care. After school care for one child may cost as little as $3 per day while full time care for two children may be over $30 per day. Any flat subsidy amount would be overly generous for some families and not enough to make the difference for others. The amount of subsidy depends on the cost of care needed and the amount a family can pay as determined by the sliding fee scale . What incomes receive subsidy and how does the sliding fee work? The sliding fee scale is based on the State Median Income (SMI) which is adjusted for family size. SMI is the point at which half of the families in the state with the same family size earn more and half earn less. The amount is updated annually by the federal government. The amount a family must contribute is based on their gross income plus child support. In general, the sliding fee scale requires a minimum payment of about $30 per month from families who are below 60% of the state median income (SMI) for their size family. 60% SMI is needed to cover the basic living needs of a family. As family income increases, the amount the parents must pay for child care in this program rises about 25c for every $1 they are over the 60% SMI figure. The remaining 75c goes to pay higher taxes and provide an incentive for the family to continue to improve their situation. As a family's income approaches the Section 8 limit they are usually paying nearly all of the cost of their child care. Presently the 60% SMI and Section 8 gross annual income levels are as follows: i s W , Monthly Monthly Family size 60% SMI (Parent Fee) Section 8 (Parent Fee) Family of 2 $12,560 ( ;23) $22,000 ($327) Family of 3 $15,516 ($28) $24,750 ($279) Family of 4 $18,471 ($29) =27,500 ( ;290) i s W , H m rLI H a � r r rC mmm O J CN g�0 Y 0 b noncr A E E E y r' r' IV ,r. O 0 O 1 ro H 0 e N - �' C' r• a. m�ro x K m x x p N N N .A a o � is 3 o o 0 n 0 go a r• r r' o O 0 b It 0 Ialf l i ry a a 3 ;4 a r• r• ' ul w Ur rL n' N -1 rt, Y %' Y• m m m I'll I."I, a) n � orxx 0 1 ,0 p 10 CO x xw r• r r• 7 � 7 n A n y 10 r r r m m m ao rn ry H •t n n n IV f. III H :3 H aLla• I.• r r a 5 5 r0•t n H pi o a rt rl rt < < < ro ro ro rr r a a N •bi y a 1 f r r r rD .0 00 OD ao n) co J m pq1 N 01 r•, r• r.. a a a :a uy 0 H ni a a a n n n wwr• rt n H N In H � N �• I' r CL. l' ii. m I It 0 � y I� U) M M m R` a a a ro m m rrr fr ft N N N H w a w q •p ,U ,_, ,- I., OD co OD £ £ £ pr v x a � � 1Q I� OD CD m O 0 0 Pi % K w a.o•a H H H � H H a a b r 7 y 7 .D D 4 5 Ix r•1 ti 1 r r,r M OI W lU 00, J 01 rn _Im n ri d a in N O O O r..rr °o�o� co OD � -4 d. � 2 M M r r � m am � d N � N .•� r r 000 I 1 1 r C) O O 000 4 I 10 k r� A M a Or r r co ID �0 r' 00 m m M N N N 0 r r r r u• In u• C 000 1 1 1 N N N O O O 0 O 0 r ~ r r w w 03 CO (10 r M ro z r r r 4 H m m N dp J O• �Fg M H H f/1 N N N n � O O 0 0 0 r r H M !1f M $tl 9D z i 2 `i r A U m m r 9 10 O J 4 ai a, r• (O -// Serving B14_.nington, Eden Prairie, Richfield and Edina E� ,�ousehold & Outside Maintenance for Elderly February 28, 1989 Ms. Elizabeth Morrison City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue S. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Morrison: In preparation for allocation of Year XV CDBG funds, HOME is submitting a request for $15,400 to continue its service to Richfield in 1989. Services are planned to 184 households. Richfield has been very supportive of HOME through CDBG funding and we hope that committment will be renewed in 1989. (HOME is Richfield's designated chore service for low- income seniors and disabled individuals. These residents receive housekeeping, chore and repair services on a subsidized sliding fee scale basis. The goal is to help these people live independently and, at the same time, be a sound economical housing alternative for the elderly of the community.) The basis for HOME's CDBG funding request is outlined on Attachment A. You will see that HOME's request of $15,400 is a slight increase over the $15,100 used in 1988. You will also notice that Friends of HOME contributions will pay for most of the Increase of expenses projected in 1989. i February 28, 1989 Page 2 Year XV CDBG Request(cont) Richfield's elderly continue to express their need and dependence on HOME. One Richfield client wrote to us saying, "I don't know how we could get along on our low income without this help. HOME helps us not to give up. Thanks so much." On our yearly evaluation another resident stated that "HOME has come to my aid many times when I have been unable to physically do the work and money was short. The importance area residents place on HOME services is shown on the attached 1988 program evaluation. As program coordinator for HOME I have the opportunity to see the benefit that HOME brings to the South Hennepin communities. It's my view that Richfield residents have the greatest economic need in our service area. A $15,400 grant by Richfield to HOME means that the city will be paying for 26% (15,400/61,701) of these services. We hope you will consider this to be a good investment of your CDBG money. Sincerely, OC7,- Don Hauge, HOME Maintenance Coordinator 4� -/ 7 Attachment A * 1989 projected expenses include a 4Z inflation factor and a 3% increase in services factor. ** Other revenue includes funds from Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches and Hennepin County. HOME Program RICHFIELD Expenses and Revenue Total Expenses 1988 Actual $ 57,604 1989 Projected $ 61,701 Client Contributions 21,237 22,019 Other Revenue* 19,599 20,187 Richfield CDBG 15,052 15,400 Friends of HOME 1,575 4,095 * 1989 projected expenses include a 4Z inflation factor and a 3% increase in services factor. ** Other revenue includes funds from Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches and Hennepin County. 76% of households were low- income. 46% of clients were over the age of 75. 77% of the clients were female. 34% of the revenue is from client contributions. 1990 Population Projections: _ 33,203 residents over the age of 60 in the South Hennepin area (16% of population). HOME SUMMARY OF SERVICE - 1988 Maintenance Homemaker Total BLOOMINGTON # of Customers 211 114 325 # of Households 165 87 252 # of Jobs 731 1,514 2,245 # of Hours 2,629 3,607 6,236 EDINA # of Customers 117 68 185 # of Households 94 58 152 # of Jobs 550 857 1,407 # of Hours 1,724 1,916 3,640 RICHFIELD # of Customers 166 51 217 # of Households 136 42 178 # of Jobs 567 763 1,330 # of Hours 2,161 1,388 3,549 EDEN PRAIRIE # of Customers 25 11 36 # of Households 14 8 22 # of Jobs 37 111 148 # of Hours 204 314 518 TOTAL # of Customers 519 244 763 # of Households 409 195 604 # of Jobs 1,885 3,245 5,130 # of Hours 6,718 7,225 14,147 76% of households were low- income. 46% of clients were over the age of 75. 77% of the clients were female. 34% of the revenue is from client contributions. 1990 Population Projections: _ 33,203 residents over the age of 60 in the South Hennepin area (16% of population). '- 6 -/G Serving Bloomington, t t Eden Prairie, Richfield and Edina Household & Oulside Maintenance for Eiderl�, H.O.M.E. Evaluation Results December 198 8 Number of evaluations sent: 500+ Number of evaluations returned: 222 Responses: How satisfied are you with the work which was done? Very Satisfied 154 (691) Satisfied 59 (97% Not Satisfied Q (4 %) No Response n Total 22(1 0W ) Do you feel that the services you received help you to continue to live in your own home? Yes, they help very much 1g5(Rj_ Yes, they help somewhat No, they do not help No, Response Total South Hennepin Human Services Council Creekside Center 9801 Penn Ave. So. Room 100 Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 888 -5530 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 73 Agenda March 27, 1989 Issue Statement: Appointments to the 1989 Board of Equalization (Board of Review). Background: City Charter provides that the Local Board of Equalization shall consist of all of the City Council Members and two Richfield residents experienced in real estate matters. The purpose of the Board is to hear appeals from the property owners concerning their property taxes. Mr. Lawrence Emond and Mr. John Janski served on the Board of Equalization as residential representatives for the first time in 1983. They have both expressed a willingness to serve on the Board again in 1989. Mr. Emond, 6325 Russell Avenue, has been an independent property appraiser for over 14 years. His primary work involves conducting property appraisals for financial institutions. He is also experienced in building construction and has held a real estate license. Mr. Emond has been a Richfield resident in excess of 25 years. Mr. Janski, 6500 Second Avenue, has been a real estate appraiser for over 40 years, and is the past president of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. He has been a Richfield resident for over 30 years. Both Mr. Emond and Mr. Janski have six years experience on the Local Board of Equalization. They have both been active members of the Board and have contributed valuable input as the Board made determinations on appeals presented by Richfield citizens. It is recommended that the compensation for the resident members be set at $37.00 per session, or $15.00 per hour per session, whichever is greater. The rate proposed represents no increase over the previous rate, which was set in 1988. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution confirming the appointment of Mr. Emond and Mr. Janski to the 1989 Board of Equalization, at the proposed level of compensation stated herein. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Both Mr. Emond and Mr. Janski are very knowledgeable and experienced in the areas of real estate appraisals. 2. Both Mr. Emond and Mr. Janski have served on the Richfield Board of Equalization in the past, and have done a very good job in that capacity. 3. It is required by City Charter that there be two resident representatives on the Board of Equalization. -11� °C -/ Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could select other qualified individuals as expert resident representatives of the Board of Equalization, in place of either Mr. Emond or Mr. Janski or both. Discussion /Decision Mode: It is requested that the City Council set the appointment of Mr. Emond and Mr. Janski at the Council meeting of March 27, 1989. The Board of Equalization will meet at 7:00 P.M. Monday, May 1, 1989. The appointment at the Council meeting of March 27, 1989 ensures that the City staff has adequate time to establish appointments to the Board. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP:eja RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENT OF TWO RESIDENT MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota hereby approves the City Manager's appointment of Mr. Lawrence Emond and Mr. John Janski as 1989 resident members on the Board of Equalization as provided in Chapter 7 of the City Charter. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that compensation for the two resident members of the Board of Equalization be set at a minimum of $37.00 per session of the Board, or $15.00 per hour per session of the Board, whichever is greater. Passed by the City Council this 27th day of March, 1989. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk - . _�_),o -/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 72 Agenda, March 27, 1989 Issue Statement: Purchase of dump boxes 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 Central Garage budget contains $36,040 for two one -ton trucks with dump boxes and plows; and the Sewer Maintenance budget contains $16,000 for one truck plus a dump box. The trucks have been ordered per previous Council approval and staff has obtained quotations for dump box units - two with plow hydraulics and one without. Three vendors submitted quotations in an informal bidding process as follows: VENDORS LaHass Mfg. & Sales Inc. (Bid two brands) (LaHass Brand) (Rugby Brand) MacQueen Equipment Inc. Crysteel Truck Equipment DUMP BOX W /PLOW HYDRAULICS $6,043 $5,589 $5,124 $4,581 DUMP BOX WO /PLOW HYDRAULICS $5,453 $4,999 $4,924 $4,306 Recommended Motion: Authorize the purchase of two dump bodies with plow hydraulics and one dump body without plow hydraulics from Crysteel Truck Equipment for a total of $13,468. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Crysteel submitted the low quote for this equipment. 2. The sewer maintenance budget contains enough funding for the unit. The Central Garage budget will be revised to show the additional $4,866 needed for the purchase. Other equipment has been purchased at a lower -than- anticipated price and there are sufficient monies available. Alternative Recommendation: Council could choose to reject all the quotes and direct staff to obtain new quotations. However, staff does not believe we can obtain a better price from a reputable manufacturer. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the March 27, 1989 regular Council Meeting. Staff is requesting approval at this time. Respec fully submitted, James Prosser City anager JDP:sae i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 71 Agenda, March 27, 1989 Issue Statement: Award of.Contract for 1989 removal of diseased trees on private property. Background: In the early 19701s, the City of Richfield began a shade tree disease program to assist home owners in the removal of diseased elm and oak trees on private property. When the City's tree inspector marks a diseased tree on private property for removal, the home owner has three options: - Removal of the tree by the homeowner -Home owner hires a contractor to perform the work -Home owner authorizes the City's contractor to perform the work If the City contractor removes the tree, the home owner has the option to pay the removal costs immediately, or have the cost assessed to the property taxes over a three -year period. The City's bidding process for removal of diseased trees on private property was revised and streamlined in 1985. A single. contractor is hired to remove the trees rather than bidding out each tree individually. Specifications for this work were sent to six tree removal companies in the metropolitan area. The companies were asked to bid a per -inch cost based on an estimated number of trees ranging from 1" to 36 +" in diameter. Three bids were received and opened on Thursday, March 16, 1989 with the following results: Ceres Tree Company $37,222 Arps Tree Service $35,130 Tri -State Tree Service,Inc. $34,130 Tri -State received the award of contract for 1988 with an estimated total contrat price of $30,940 based on the unit prices for the same estimated number of trees as bid in 1989. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minutes /tabulation and award the 1989 contract for removal of diseased trees on private property to Tri -State Tree Service, Inc. in the total estimated amount of $34,130. Basis of Recommendation: 11 1. Tri -State Tree Service, Inc. was the lowest responsible bidder for this work. 2. This company has been the contractor for this type of work for the past two years and has proven to be an efficient, cooperative and reliable contractor. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise in an attempt to receive a lower bid. However, staff believes the per -tree prices are low enough to provide Richfield home owners with a reasonable removable cost should they decide to have the City coordinate removal of their diseased tree (s). Discussion /Decision Mode: To assure sufficient time to process the necessary paperwork before the first trees are marked for removal, this item is scheduled for the City Council agenda of March 27, 1989. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP :sae CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening March 16, 1989 11:00 A.M. Removal and Disposal of Diseased Trees on Private Property Bid No. C.B. 89 -5 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Stroth, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for removal and disposal of diseased trees on private property, Bid No. C.B. 89 -5, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 22, 1989. Present: Nancy Stroth, Acting City Clerk Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative Randy Hughes, Operations Coordinator The following bids were submitted and read aloud: { VENDOR I BID ( TOTAL I { SECURITY I I { { Arps Tree I Service Anoka I 5% Bond ( $35,130.00 I j Tri -State I Tree Service, Inc. i Cashiers I I I Farmington I Check { $34,130.00 I I Ceres Tree I I Company Mpls. I i 5% Bond I I I $37,222.00 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the March 27, 1989 City Council Meeting. Nancy Stroth Acting City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 70 Agenda March 27, 1989 Issue Statement: Presentation to Richfield Child Care Providers Proclaiming April 2 -8 the Week of the Young Child in Richfield. Background: The Suburban Hennepin Child Care Coalition, has requested Richfield Day Care providers to celebrate April 2 -8 as the "Week of the Young Child ". Ms. Gisela Hardie, a Richfield day care provider, has requested that the City Council issue such a proclamation. She will be present to receive the proclamation at the March 27, 1989 city council meeting. Recommended Motion: Present the "Week of the Young Child" proclamation to Mrs. Hardie. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The provision of adequate day care is of critical importance to parents and young children. 2. Those who provide day care are deserving of recognition. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Present the proclamation at some other time. Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the Presentation section of the March 27 city council agenda. Respec tfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP /e j a .te �, •, � _ ` - A K K `' -,4 .rl ,�ti� r � ,rT,r ti1 ti S.. t�M1 r' +Y`+y 1t�w:�,� i o yam- � tir�}i�+ y`.;�u y�r�SS�I��`. � � vv4 ra,�s�•f� ��n• r �uY '`(`��.rr"1r11��r /:n haY �ati55e�'�,' ��'- �Erirvil�r �`. r,... Y`�?�`�A'rat,''i r'IIi V:. I� L VV �;`,i��MaU I�.�Gr�� •bs..,•'�1j'��Siy 4��"i r .:.�i ''�'1%A ?js� ., a "G%.�3 °Ys'�ss�8� tip+. �ai► f�'%r«� y �DY •9 �� ti, r � riP' ii'ytr - �,rPPr•, s �fEt- �.:� V Mt. ►'7 f h N w (D p• (D (D (D 91mM wa H 0) ct W m ctMctH O E N•E :rE O am wO x ctx Fl- 14 x :4 x w (D m ct w tzj lC L%j O t2l tA! 0 ct 0 0 N• H a 0 � �D x ct ct ° '+1 > .`J DO C1 c DO i ,cea H- acx °x w�' Zr' CD of .y j �1 0 O �1 ft (D M CD ct Wct(Z a� 0(Dm WO WOH • a x c x ro H m 0(0 Oct( a a 0 w ct o E o 0 0 �y 000ctm HW b� rhtq : y NwN�(D a° o� �w ct a O (D M m O tv010 ti m w m H _ \ Ea• �� oaH om /��aA p' 3 `.TW(U O W ►i (D ct :j cq ct E_ ° aaw Ok I-h O :T 0 (D HOOrW �.7H Om F'•'H N to m �o0 0Hz 0w a ct t �n ct pi H 5 a a a m CD w o�rQ:r 00 �.� :off 0)°vct fwt°'n o w ct m / CD OO 0H DD -` n s ct0F r t cOt� ct h00 ` ct (D w� ot° o 0 0 ct :Dl F•b O IT I.< m F (no►ow as n� x - 3 H w (D Oct O C(HDNr n ((DZI H cAN H m (O w D N (D (�n ( (D n a` .•, (DD ct A• c w 0 (D :31 (D CD co - w (D ( CD n w ct 0)m 0 (D ct ma aco cq (D N - i - �sitrtr ��i,;:cf sisttliy'r, � l7 -' s o> t k 4 '4/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 69 Agenda, March 27, 1989 Issue Statement: Approval of a proclamation to the Richfield Advisory Board of Health observing April 7, 1989 as "World Health Day" in the City of Richfield. Background: World Health Day (WHD) is an international observance of global health issues that takes place in 166 countries and the United States each year on April 7. WHD brings national and international attention to the importance of disease prevention and healthy living practices. In the United States, the American Association for World Health (AAWHS) sponsors the event in conjunction with the Pan American Health Organization aand the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The 1989 theme, "Health For All: Pass It Along" reflects the importance of communications at all levels, in the promotion of health through both personal and collective responsibility. The ultimate goal is to have as many people as possible in the U.S. and the World communicating about health. World Health Day is a commitment to the future -- to a brighter tomorrow -- based on the goal of Health For All. The event provides each person with the opportunity to examine his or her lifestyle practices and to gain a better understanding of health conditions throughout the world. The Richfield Advisory Board of Health will be contacting the editor of the Richfield Sun Current to determine if a brief article can be run about "World Health Day" so that residents are aware of the proclamation as well as the efforts of the Advisory Board of Health. Randy Roehl, Chair of the Advisory Board of Health, will be present to accept the proclamation. Recommended Motion: Present to the Richfield Advisory Board of Health a Proclamation observing April 7, 1989 as "World Health Day" in the City of Richfield. Basis of Recommendation: Proclaming April 7, 1989 Richfield would meet the Ashton, Minnesota Commis; in each of the Community Minnesota. -17.1 -2. as "World Health Day" in the City of challenge issued by Sister Mary Madonna sioner of Health, in observing this day Health Services agencies in the State of Alternative Recommendation: The Council could decide not to proclaim April 7, 1989 as "World Health Day" in the City of Richfield. Discussion /Decision Mode: A proclamation designating April 7, 1989, as "World Health Day" in the City of Richfield is being presented at this time for Council consideration. Respectfu44y submitted James Prosser City anager JDP:sae -1-11-2 -RIP, , - - I - - 0 -�-- v"' 44 A 44 r-q 000 V� P-4 tW 0 4-) >4 0 �4 0 0 U 0 po 0 0 0 (13 4-) 4-) 4-) P ro r-I a ro 0 C: 4J (a 0 -P 45 a) 4 a) 04 0 H r 44 M -0 0 -) ) -rq 4 0 4 >i IQ r-I 0) (a 10 0) :3 J M FO r-4 0 ro 4-) O -H 4 04 p 4 r4 aj 4• co (1) 0 4 0 4• 0 (1) 0 44 0 -ri (1) 4-) M 41 Q) 0 0) $4 p 0 04 >1 cn 0 M (U 4-1 O A> r-q 0 CC) 4 4) 0 i 2 -P (0 4J ow, ° °• 4J 0 (a E 4J P cn C: a) P-4 (0 44 U 4-) 0 0 0) E•4 0 M 4-) m o •,I 10 (0 0 $4 jaa >i 4-4 (o ro f=- %b 010 a) 5 co 44 0) •-rq C% ?m ro 4 w CD 0 0 0 0 �4 v. 0 r-I 0) ra 0 0 0 44 04 >1 I -:t- -rq > r-q (a w (a 0 $4 to 4 4J>4 0 0 E 0 w p (0 a co a% in z c co z (D rn :j co .0 44 a ON 0 P4 (Drop Ic -P > (1) jy 4-) V-1 a) a) 0 4 r-i �2 V a) 0 a) 44 (n ( -H 4J P 0 0 x M r-I P W r-i i 4 0 $4 -H co 0 Ic *ia �4 04 0) 44 4-) -H Q) H 1 4-) r-I H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ -P 0 4 $4 (d r -4 A< Q) a) 4 N 0 v 00 p 0 r-i W C: 4J 0) (a cq (a 010 r-4 4 3i —'Vw� O k o 0 � 0 (0 U 0 3W 0 P $4 >4 44 (0 -( ro 0) a) 4• 0 0 a) �+ 4 0 0 a) P 4 4-) 4-) >i (a 0 4) (1) -H cl) A 0) 0 -ri 0 (0 :4 All" 'Sign NV