10-12-87 agenda~//
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 315
Agenda October 12, 1987
Issue Statement:
Appointment of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioner.
Background:
The term of HRA Commissioner Thomas Harms will expire on October
27, 1987. Commissioner Harms was appointed to the HRA in 1980 to
fill an unexpired term., and is serving his second term.
Under state law, the Mayor appoints HRA Commissioners subject to
confirmation by the City Council. Mayor Hamilton has indicated
that he will reappoint Commissioner Harms to a five year term at
the October 12, 1987 City Council meeting.
Recommended .Motion:
Confirm the appointment of Thomas Harms to the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority for a five-year term which will expire in
October, 1992.-
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Mayor Hamilton has indicated he wishes to reappoint Mr.
Harms, and Mr. Harms has indicated a desire to serve another
term.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Appoint another individual to the HRA.
2. Continue the appointment to a future council meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled for the October 12, 1987 council
meeting so that the appointment may be made prior to the October,
1987 HRA meeting. Making an appointment at this time will ensure
a full compliment of members on the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
:- ~ U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 314
Agenda October 12, 1987
Issue Statement:
Lease agreement for E. J. Plesko & Associates, Inc. with Lyndale
Liquor Store parking area.
Background:
E. J. Plesko & Associates, Inc. has requested that the city
assist them in alleviating parking deficiencies at the retail
shopping mall owned. by E. J. Plesko & Associates, Inc., known as
"Market Plaza". A lease agreement has .been prepared by the City
Attorney for-valet parking at the municipal liquor store at 6644
Lyndale Avenue. E. J. Plesko has negotiated a number of similar
agreements with other merchants in the area.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize manager to execute lease agreement between E. J. Plesko
and the City of Richfield.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Lease agreement includes satisfactory liability insurance
coverage, payment of $300 annually, complete daily litter
removal and payment of any taxes due as a result of use by
Market Plaza for this purpose.
2. Lease agreement can be terminated for any reason at end of
each month.
3. Use of lot would not interfere with liquor operation.
4. .Use of the lot will help alleviate a parking problem within
the area which is having a negative impact on not only
Market Plaza, but surrounding businesses and residents also.
5. E. J. Plesko has demonstrated efforts to examine permanent
solution to parking problems at Market Plaza.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve agreement. While E. J. Plesko has negotiated
similar policy arrangements with other businesses in the
area, they have not reached agreement with Lyndale Hardware.
Richfield might want to "hold out" until suitable
arrangements are made with other businesses.
2. Do not approve agreement on general principal that Plesko
should resolve problems on own.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is placed on the October 12, 1987 city council agenda
for council consideration.
Respectf ly submitted,
James Prosser
City anager
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 313
Agenda October 12, 1987
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading to consider a franchise
agreement between NSP and the City of Richfield.
Background:
The City of Richfield is authorized under Minnesota State Statute
to enter into agreements with utility companies for maintaining
their utility within our community. The purpose of that
agreement is to find responsibility relating to right-of-way,
including utility location, restoration, tree trimming and
vacation; to establish an authority for the collection of a
franchise fee upon election of the City of Richfield, and finally
to indemnify the City from damages arising out of the execution
of the responsibilities of NSP under the terms of the franchise
agreement. The city maintains franchise agreements with other
utilities.
A franchise agreement between NSP and the City of Richfield
lapsed several years ago and has been renegotiated through the
Suburban Rate Authority over the last 16 month period. The
result of the renegotiated franchise agreement is provided in the
attached draft. Notable changes included some strengthening of
responsibility regarding right-of-way use and changes in
provisions for collection of a franchise fee. While the City of
Richfield currently does not extend a franchise fee, it is
important to maintain flexibility if the need does arise in the
future. The City council approved first reading of this franchise
agreement at the September 14, 1987 city council meeting, and
scheduled the public hearing and second reading for the October
12, 1987 council meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the franchise agreement between Northern States Power and
the City of Richfield.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The City of Richfield should delineate its expectations
regarding use of right-of-way to properly indemnify itself
from damages relating to execution of the franchise and to
provide for franchise fee collection should the community
elect to do so.
2. The franchise agreement is authorized under Minnesota State
Statutes.
3. The franchise agreement has been negotiated between Northern
States Power and the Suburban Rate Authority. Richfield is
a member of the Suburban Rate Authority.
~~/-i
Alternative Recommendation:
1. NSP had initially presented a draft franchise agreement which
was inconsistent with that presented by the Suburban Rate
Authority. NSP indicates that it was their belief that their
draft was the final negotiated draft with SRA. This was not
the case.. SRA advised the City of Richfield to approve the
draft negotiated by SRA.. The differences between the SRA
draft and the NSP draft are not of great significance.
However, maintaining a uniform franchise agreement is highly
desirable.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing notice has been published in the official
newspaper, scheduling this item for the October 12, 1987 city
council meeting. There is no urgency is .approving the franchise
agreement. However, we are currently operating without a
franchise agreement which does provide a specific delineation of
responsibilities in these areas.
Respec lly submitted,
Jam Prosser
Cit anager
JDP/eja
~y~
LeFevere
Lefler
Kennedy
O'Brien &
Drawz
A Professional
Association
2000 First Bank Place West September 15 , 19 8 7
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333-0543
Telecopier (612) 333-0540
Clayton L. LeFevere Mr. Craig J. Blair
Herbert P. Lefler Vice President, Electric Utility
J. Dennis O'Brien Northern States Fuw'~~ C,3mpany
John E. Drawz
David J. Kennedy
414 Nicollet Mall
John B. Dean Minneapolis, MN 55401
Glenn E. Purdue
Richard J. Schieffer
Charles L. LeFevere
Re: SRA Uniform Electric Franchise
Herbert P. Lefler III
James J. Thomson, Jr. Dear Mr. Blair:
Thomas R. Galt
Dayle Nolan
Brian F. Rice
You recently replied to SRA Chairman John Anderson that
John G. Kressel y0U would point out to cities the changes from the
Lorcaine S. Clugg
J~~ ~` M. Strommen
SRA-approved franchise that NSP desires and that you
R~ ;H. Batty would not insist that a municipality include those
William P. Jordan changes.
Kurt J. Erickson
William R. Skallerud
Rodney D. Anderson
Recently, a Mr. Stu Frazier, representing NSP, approached
Corrine A. Heine the City Manager of the City of Richfield with an ordi-
David D. Beaudoin
Paul E. Rasmussen
nance in the form that the Company seeks, that is with
Steven M. Tallen the additional provision not approved by the SRA. He
assured the Manager that there were some "minor and
inconsequential" changes from the SRA-approved form, but
that the SRA had approved of them in concept and simply
had not yet issued a change.
I cannot understand how he could be so misinformed.
Please immediately correctly advise all of your people.
I will appreciate your confirmation.
You have previously characterized the changes NSP wants
as inconsequential and agreed to in principle with the
SRA. They are neither. You are requesting essentially
four additions to the form agreed upon with the SRA Board
of Directors:
1. A statement that disputes as to payment of a fran-
chise fee will be governed by the franchise ordi-
nance section 2.5.
~~~
Mr. Craig J. Blair
Page 2
September 15, 1987
2. A prohibition of a simultaneous franchise fee and a
statement that a prior fee ordinance is no longer
effective.
3. That a fee shall apply to all revenues (classes of
customers cannot be created).
4. That the franchise fee is payable at a certain date.
None of these provisions are desirable from our point of
view. Each of them relates to a franchise fee ordinance
itself. Such an ordinance may not be adopted, if at all,
for several years. It is unwise from a policy viewpoint
that city councils now restrict the action that future
councils might wish to take. None of these provisions is
essential for the adoption or interpretation of the model
franchise. The Board has never agreed "in principle"
that any of these provisions should be in the model
franchise.
r
Your immediate attention is requested.
Very truly yours,
LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY,
O'BRIEN & DRAWZ
Glenn E. Purdue
GEP/sbp
cc: SRA Executive Committee
SRA City Managers
Harold Bagley
Fran Hoffman
~ v_
ORDINANCE N0.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY
MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO NORTHERN STATES POWER,
A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND
ASSIGNS, PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR
AND MAINTAIN IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA,
AN ELECTRIC DISTRIB[JTION SYSTEM AND TRANSMISSION
LINES, INCLUDING NECESSARY POLES, LINES,. FIXTURES
AND APPURTENANCES, FOR THE FURNISHING OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY TO THE CITY, ITS INHABITANTS, AND OTHERS,
AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF
THE CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES.
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS
1.1 "City" In this Ordinance, "City" means the City of RICHFIELD,
County of HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota.
1.2 "City Utility System" means the facilities used for providing
sewer, water, or any other public utility service owned or operated by City
or agency thereof.
1.3 "Company" means NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, a Minnesota
corporation, its successors and assigns.
1.4 "Notice" means a writing served by any party or parties on any other
party or parties. Notice to Company shall be mailed to the Division General
Manager thereof at x309 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA. Notice to CITY
shall be mailed to the CITY CLERK.
1.5 "Public Way" means any street, alley, or other public right-of-way
within the City.
1.6 "Public Ground" means land owned by the City for park, open space
or similar purpose,. which is held for use in common by the public.
1.7 "Electric Facilities" means electric transmission and distribution
towers, poles, lines, guys, anchors, ducts, fixtures, and necessary
appurtenances owned or operated by the Company for the purpose of providing
electric energy for public use.
SECTION 2. FRANCHISE
2.1 G_r_an_t_of Fr_anchis_e. City hereby grants Company, for a period of
twenty years from April 1, 1987, the right to transmit and furnish electric
1
~'~~-
energy for light, heat, .power and other purposes for public and private use
within and through the limits of the City as its boundaries now exist or as
they may be extended in the future. For these purposes, Company may construct,
operate, repair and maintain Electric Facilities in, on,-over, under and
across the Public Ways and Public Grounds of City subject to the provisions
of this ordinance. Company may do all reasonable things necessary or customary
to accomplish these purposes, subject, however, to zoning ordinances, other
applicable ordinances, permit procedures, and to the further provisions of
this franchise.
2.2. Effectiv_e_Datei Written Acceptance. This franchise shall be in force
and effect from and after its passage and its acceptance by the Company, and
its publication as required by law (and the City Charter}. An acceptance by
the Company must be filed with the City Clerk within 90 days after
publication.
2.3 S_e_rv_ice_Rates__an_d Area. The. service to be provided and the rates to be
charged by Company for electric service in City currently are subject to the
jurisdiction of the Minnesota Fublic Utilities Commission. The area within
the City in which the Company. may provide electric service currently is
subject to the .provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 216B.40.
2.4 Publication_fixpense. The expense of publication of this ordinance
shall be paid by the Company.
2.5 D_e_f_ault. If either party asserts that the other party is in default
in the performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall
notify the other party of the default and the desired remedy. The notification
shall be written. If the dispute is not resolved within 30 days of the written
notice, either party may commence an action in District Court to interpret
and enforce this franchise or for such other relief as may be permitted by
law or equity for. breach of contract, or either party may take any other
action permitted by law.
SECTION 3. LOCATION: OTHER REGULATIONS
3.1 Location of_Facilities. Electric Facilities shall be located
and constructed so as not to interfere with the safety and convenience of
ordinary travel along and over Public Ways and they shall be located on
Public Grounds as determined by the City. The Company's construction,
reconstruction, operation, repair, maintenance and location of Electric
Facilities shall be subject to other reasonable regulations of the City.
3.2 _Fie_1_d _L_oc_ati_ons. The Company shall provide field locations for any of
its underground Electric Facilities within a reasonable period of time on
request by the City. The period of time will be considered reasonable if it
compares favorably with the average time required by the cities in the same
county to locate municipal underground facilities for the Company.
2
/`~l~
3.3 Street_Openings. The Company shall not open or disturb the
paved surface of any Public Way or Public Ground for any purpose without
first having obtained permission from the City, for which the City may
impose a reasonable fee. Permit conditions imposed on the Company shall not
be more burdensome than those imposed on other utilities for similar
facilities or work. The Company may, however, open and disturb the paved
surface of any Public Way or Public Ground without permission from the. City
where an emergency exists requiring the immediate repair of Electric
Facilities. In such event the Company shall notify the City by telephone to
the office designated by the City before opening or disturbing a paved
surface of a Public Way or Public Ground,. Not later than the second working
day thereafter, the Company shall obtain any required permits and pay any
required fees.
3.4 R__est_o_rat_ion_. After undertaking any work requiring the opening of
any Public Way or Public Ground, the Company shall restore the same,
including paving and its foundation, to as good condition as formerly
existed, and shall maintain the same in good condition for two years
thereafter. The work shall be completed as promptly as weather permits, and
if the Company shall not promptly perform and complete the work, .remove all
dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Way or Public
Ground in the said condition, the City shall have, after demand to the
Company to cure and the passage of a reasonable period of time following the
demand, but not to exceed five days, the right to make the restoration at
the expense of the Company. The Company shall pay to the City the-cost of
such work done for or performed by the City, including its administrative
expense and overhead, plus ten percent additional as liquidated damages.
This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the City.
3.5 Shared Use_of_Poles. The Company shall make space available on its
poles or towers for City fire, water utility, police or other City facilities
whenever such use will not interfere with the use of such poles or towers by the
Company, by another electric utility, by a telephone utility, or by any cable
television company or other form of communication company. In addition, the
City shall pay for any added cost incurred by the Company because of such use by
City.
SECTION 4. RELOCATIONS
4.1 Relocation_of_Electric_Facilities in_Public_W_sys. Except as
provided in Section 4.3, if the City determines to vacate for a City
improvement. project, or to grade, regrade, or change the line of any Public
Way, or construct or reconstruct any City Utility System in any Public Way,
it may order the Company to relocate its Electric Facilities located
therein. The Company shall relocate its Electric Facilities at its own
expense. The City shall give the Company reasonable notice of plants to
vacate for a City improvement project, or to grade, regrade, or change the
line of any Public Way or to construct or reconstruct any City Utility
System. If a relocation is ordered within five years of a prior relocation
of the same Electrical Facilities, which was made at Company expense, the
3
y7
City shall reimburse Company for non-betterment expenses on a time and
material basis, provided that if a subsequent relocation is required
because of the extension of a City Utility System to a previously unserved
area, Company may be required to make the subsequent relocation at its
expense. Nothing in this Ordinance requires Company to relocate, remove,
replace or reconnect at its own expense its facilities where such relocation,
removal, replacement or reconstruction is solely for the convenience of the
City and is not reasonably necessary for the construction or reconstruction
of a Public Way or City Utility System or other City improvement.
4.2 Relocation_of Electric Facilities in Public Ground_ Except as may
-----------------------------------
be provided in Section 4.3, City may require the Company to relocate or
remove its Electric Facilities from Public Ground upon a finding by City
that the Electric Facilities have become or will become a substantial
impairment of the public use to which the Public Ground is or will be put.
The relocation or removal shall be at the Company's expense. The
provisions of 4.2 apply only to Electric Facilities constructed in reliance
on a franchise and the Company does not waive its rights under an easement
or prescriptive right.
4.3 Pro,~ects_with State_or Federal Funding. Relocation, removal, or
rearrangement of any Company facilities made necessary because of the extension
into or through City of a federally-aided highway project shall be governed by
the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 161.46 as supplemented or
amended. It is understood that the right herein granted to Company is a
valuable right. City shall not order Company to remove, or relocate its
facilities when a Public Way is vacated, improved or realigned because of a
renewal or a redevelopment plan which is financially subsidized in whole or
in part by the Federal Government or any agency thereof, unless the
reasonable non-betterment costs of such relocation. and the Loss and expense
resulting therefrom are first paid to Company, but the City need not pay
those portions of such for which reimbursement to it is not available.
4.4 Liability. Nothing in the Ordinance relieves any person from
liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid
damaging Electric Facilities while performing any activity.
SECTION 5. TREF_TRIA'A!IING
The Company may trim all trees and shrubs in the Public Ways and Public
Grounds of City interfering with the proper construction, operation, repair
and maintenance of any Electric Facilities installed hereunder, provided
that the Company shall save the City harmless from any liability arising
therefrom, and subject to permit or other reasonable regulation by the City.
4
~~~-
SECTION 6. INDEMNIFICATION
6.1. The Company shall indemnify, keep and hold the .City free and harmless
from any and all liability on account of injury to persons or damage to
property occasioned by the construction, maintenance, repair, inspection,
the issuance of permits, or the operation of the Electric Facilities located
in the City. The City, shall not be indemnified for losses or claims
occasioned through its own negligence except for losses or claims arising
out of or alleging the City's negligence as to the issuance of permits for,
or inspection of, the Company's plans or work. The City shall not be
indemnified if the injury or damage results from the performance in a proper
manner of acts reasonably deemed hazardous by Company, and such performance
is nevertheless ordered or directed by City after notice of Company's
determination.
6.2 In the event a suit is brought against the City under circumstances
where this agreement to indemnify applies, the Company at its sole cost and
expense. shall defend the. City in such suit if written notice thereof is
promptly given to .the Company within a period wherein the Company is not
prejudiced by lack of such notice. If the Company is required to indemnify
and defend, it will thereafter have control of such litigation, but the
Company may not settle such litigation without the consent of the City,
which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. This section is not, as
to third parties, a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to
the City; and the Company, in defending any action on behalf of the City
shall be entitled to assert in any action every defense or immunity that the
City could assert in its own behalf.
SECTION 7. VACATION_OF PUBLIC WAYS
The City shall give the Company at least two weeks' prior written notice
of a proposed vacation of a Public Way. Except where required for a City
street or other improvement project, the vacation of any Public Way, after
the installation of Electric Facilities, shall not operate to deprive.
Company of its rights to operate and maintain such Electrical Facilities,
until the reasonable cost of relocating the same and the loss and expense
resulting from such relocation are first paid to Company. In no case,
however, shall City be liable to the Company for failure to specifically
preserve a right-of-way, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 160.29.
SECTION 8. CHANGE IN FORM_OF_GOVERNMENT
Any change in the form of government of the City shall not affect the
validity of this .Ordinance. Any governmental unit succeeding the City shall,
without the consent of the Company, succeed to all of the rights and obligations
of the City provided in this Ordinance.
5
~~/
SECTION 9. .FRANCHISE FEE
9.1 Separate Ordinanc_e_ During the term of the franchise hereby
granted, and in lieu of any permit or other fees being imposed on the
Company, the City may impose on the Company a franchise fee of not more than
five percent of the Company's gross revenues as hereinafter defined. The
franchise fee shall be imposed by a separate ordinance duly adopted by the
City Council, which ordinance shall not be adopted until at least 60 days
after written notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been .served upon
the Company by certified mail. the fee shall not become effective until at
least 60 days after written notice enclosing such adopted ordinance has been
served upon the Company by certified mail. Section 2.b shall constitute the
sole remedy for solving disputes between the Company .and the City in regard
to the interpretation of, or enforcemen~`of, the separate ordinance. No
action by the city to implement a separate ordinance will commence until
this ordinance is effective. No pre-exi~ng ordinance imposing a fee shall
be effective against the Company unless-~-is specifically amended after
the effective date of this ordinance following the procedures of this
Section 9 for the adoption of anew sepa~te ordinance. A separate
ordinance which does not impose a uniform franchise fee on all revenues
within the definition of gross revenues shall not be effective against the
company. ``
9.2 Terms_D_e_fined_ The term "gross revenues" means all sums, excluding
any surcharge or similar addition to .the Company's charges to customers for
the purpose of reimbursing the Company for the cost resulting from the
franchise fee, received by the Company from the sale of electricity to its
retail customers within the corporate limits of the City.
9.3. Collection of the Fee. The franchise fee shall be payable not
less often than quarterly, and shall be based on the gross revenues of the
Company during complete billing months during the period for which payment
is to be made. The payment shall be due the last business day of the month
following the 'o o e payment is made. The percent fee may
be c ange by ordinance from tim`e'd ime; owever, each change shall
meet the same notice requirements and the percentage may not be
changed more .often than annually. Such fee shall not exceed
any amount which the Company may legally charge to its customers
prior to payment to the City by imposing a surcharge equivalent to such fee
in its rates for electric service. The Company may pay the City the fee
based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account
for uncollectibles or customer refunds. The time and manner of collecting
the franchise .fee is subject to the approval of the Public Utilities
Commission, which the Company agrees to use best efforts to obtain. The
Company agrees to make its gross revenues records available for inspection
by the City at reasonable times.
6
y:~~
9.4 Conditions _on t_h_e _F_ee. The separate ordinance imposing the fee
shall not be effective against the Company unless it lawfully imposes and
the City quarterly or more often collects a fee or tax of the same or
greater percentage on the receipts from sales of energy within the City by
any other energy supplier, provided that, as to such a supplier, the-City
has the authority to require a franchise fee or to impose a tax. The
franchise fee or tax shall be applicable to energy sales for any energy use
related to heating, cooling, or lighting, as well as to the supply of energy
needed to run machinery and appliances on premises located within or
adjacent to the City, but shall not apply to energy sales for the purpose of
providing fuel for vehicles.
SECTION 10. SEVERABILITY
If any portion of this franchise is found to be invalid for any reason
whatsoever, the validity of the remainder shall not be affected.
SECTION 11. AMENDMENT
This ordinance may be amended at any time by the City passing a
subsequent ordinance declaring the provisions of the amendment, which
amendatory ordinance shall be come effective upon the filing of the
Company's written consent thereto with the City Clerk within 90 days after
the effective date of the amendatory ordinance.
SECTION 12. PREVIOUS_FRANCHISES_SUPERSEDfiD
This franchise supersedes any previous electric franchise granted to the
Company or its predecessor.
Passed and approved
Mayor of the City of RICHFIELD,
MINNESOTA
ATTEST:
Clerk of the City of
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
7
~~/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 312
Agenda October 12, 1987.
Issue Statement:
Second reading and public hearing of an ordinance amendment to
permit non-police employees to issue citations.
Background•
The Public•Safety Department is organized in such a manner that
non-peace officer personnel routinely issue citations for
building, fire and housing code violations, animal, zoning .and
land use ordinances. It is important that this practice continue
in order to pursue all public safety concerns efficiently and
effectively.
Effective August 1, 1987, Minnesota State Statutes, Chapter 334,
commonly referred to as the "Police Practices Bill", restricts
non-police officer employees from issuing citations for code
violations unless this practice is specifically authorized by
city ordinance. Therefore, the city attorney's office has
drafted an ordinance to enable certain non-police employees to
issue citations.
The City Council gave first reading approval to this ordinance
amendment at the September 28, 1987 city council meeting, and
scheduled the public hearing and second reading for the October
12, 1987 City Council meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the ordinance amendment adding Section 115.11 entitled
"Enforcement" to the city code.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This ordinance amendment would formally address the
authority of our licensed Police Officers to issue citations
in lieu of arrest for all petty misdemeanor, misdemeanor or
gross misdemeanor code violations.
2. It would also enable Community Service Officers and Police
Reserve Officers to issue citations at the direction of the
Public Safety Director. Inspection and Fire Division
employees are formally authorized to issue notices of
violation and citations for alleged violations of code
provisions which they are designated to administer and
enforce.
3. This proposed ordinance amendment would give limited
authority to Community Service Department supervisory
employees during declared snow emergencies in order to
insure efficient clearing and plowing of the Richfield
streets.
~~/
Alternate Recommendations:
1. The council could determine that only licensed Police
Officers be given the authority to enforce code provisions
by issuing citations in lieu of arrest.
2. The council could direct that some select employees, other
than licensed Police Officers, be given this authority.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 334 was effective August, 1, 1987.
Therefore, unless and until the ordinance is amended, only
licensed police officers are able to issue citations in the city..
If second reading is approved at the October 12 city council
meeting, the ordinance would become effective in approximately
five weeks.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
~f ,~ oL
AMENDMENT TO SECTION I15
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section .115 of the Code is amended by adding the following
new Subsection 115.11:
115.11 Enforcement
1) By Peace Officers. Peace Officers appointed by the
City shall have the authority to enforce the
provisions of this Code the violation of which
constitutes a misdemeanor, petty misdemeanor or gross
misdemeanor. In connection with such authority, Peace
Officers may make arrests and issue citations in lieu
of arrest in the manner provided by law.
2) By Community Service Officers and Police Reserve
Officers. Community Service Officers anal Police
Reserve Officers appointed by the City may, in the
performance of their duties, and under the direction
of the Director of Public Safety, issue notices of
violation and citations in lieu of arrest, but may
not take persons into custody for refusal to sign
such citations.
3) Employees of the Fire Division. Employees of the Fire
Division of the Department of Publie Safety may
issue notices of violations which the Fire Division and
its employees are, by Code, designated to administer
and enforce.
4) Employees of Inspections Division. Employees of the
Inspections Division of the Department of Public
Safety may issue notices of violations fo.r alleged
violations of code provisions which the Inspections
Division and its employees are, by Code, designated
to administer and enforce.
5) Employees of Community Services Department. Employees
of the Community Services Department designated as
having supervisory authority may issue notices of
violation for violations of Subsection 1305.13 of
this Code.
Dated:
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 311
Agenda October 12, 1987
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to appeal a denial by the Hearing Examiner on the
request for a variance at 7234-36 Lyndale Avenue.
Background:
Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Nelson, property owners at 7234-36 Lyndale
Avenue, requested that the city grant a variance on the
requirement for enclosed parking in an MR-1 two family zoning
district.
The subject property is an 11,400 square foot lot with a 1,694
square foot double bungalow. The existing dwelling would be
converted into a "board and lodging home" for a maximum of six
elderly women. The applicant's son and daughter-in-law would
occupy one of the apartments as caretakers. There would be
nursing staff available for supervising the medication and other
emergency needs of the residents. The nursing staff would not
reside at the dwelling, but would be on-call on a 24 hour basis.
The property is located in an MR-1 two family zoning district and
meets all the .setback requirements. There is an easement
agreement between the applicant and the property owner to the
north for driveway purposes only. The proposed use is permitted
in an MR-1 district. The city ordinance requires four parking
spaces for two family dwellings, two of which must be enclosed.
The site plan indicates all four parking spaces are unenclosed
thus requiring a variance.
The Hearing Examiner denied the variance request on August 31,
1987. The applicants have appealed the Hearing Examiner's
decision. This matter was continued from the September 28, 1987
council agenda to the October 12, 1987 agenda at the request of
the applicant.
Zonin Ordinance Re uirement:
1. Section 515.61 a indicates that there shall be provided on
the site at least two parking spaces, one of which shall be
enclosed, for each dwelling unit in MR-1 district.
2. Section 545.01-545.D7 outlines the process of granting
variances.
State Statutes Requirements:
1. Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.357, subdivision 6,
outlines the conditions which must be met for a variance to
be granted.
2. Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.357, subdivision 7,
makes a state licensed residential facility serving six or
fewer persons a permitted single family residential use of
property for zoning purposes.
f/~
Notice Provided:
Written notice of the hearing before the City Council was mailed
to property owners within 350 feet of the site. A copy of the
notice and a list of those receiving the notice is attached.
Legal notice of the council hearing was also published in the
Richfield Sun Newspaper.
Recommended Motion:
Deny the variance request to waive the requirement for two
enclosed parking stalls at 7234-36 Lyndale Avenue.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The request does not meet the city and state standards for
granting of the variance. The review of the proposal against
the city and state legal requirements is outlined in the
following:
A. The property is unique in that there is a 28 foot drop in
grade from the street to the rear of the property which
is substantially .different than other similarly zoned
lots making it difficult and expensive to comply with the
requirements.
B. To grant a variance, "undue hardship" requires that "the
property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if
used under conditions allowed by the official controls".
The property in question is a nonconforming site. Any
change in permitted use is allowable provided the site is
brought to conformance with the standards .and
requirements of such district.
The existing two family use, even though legally
nonconforming, could continue without a variance. It is,
therefore, staff's opinion that reasonable use of the
property could be continued without a variance. As a
result, this requirement for undue hardship has not been
met.
C. -The granting of the variance would not negatively impact
the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the
surrounding neighborhood. The State of Minnesota has
enunciated a policy, which the City of Richfield must
defer to, that group homes of the type proposed, should
not be excluded "from the benefits of normal residential
surroundings". An abutting property owner along with
other property owners within 350 feet of the site have
expressed their opposition to the proposed use. A
petition opposing the granting of the variance was
submitted on August 19, 1987.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council may approve the variance request if findings
of fact are established to substantiate that a reasonable use
of the property is not possible without causing undue
hardship on the property owner and that the proposal would
not adversely effect the surrounding area.
~%~
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled before the City Council at 7:00 PM
on Monday, October 12, 1987. The hearing will take place in the
Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue
South.
Respect ully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City anager
JDP/eja
~~
a .~ v v r - ~ m m ei m m
~ U > M - O p i0 0 V A to
:> > ! 7 ! o p ~ w 7 ~ 7 ~ T i
~ y H H H H H H ~ y y ,NI N H ti H ti
XERXES AVE. ~'_ _-.-_-_~_--_ -}--- ~-- z---- --- -_ -.
- ~ -~~--^w --r
WASNBURN ~~ .yy `_ __ ____-., ~ ~ _ __ -- _~.~~r--KU ...~
VINCENT -_ ___ _ _ ~ LJL-~--~
LIPTON i ~'_ ~~__-__ _ --' =- ~~. ~ :~'~
TNOMAS '~_^ `.mil-- ~`_.~;' -~ _ _ ~-.-- ~LC~L_'C~`t ~'~_~'
SNERIOAM ~J~~~.-- - ~.-~`~ ~C~ ~~ ~1~,
QUEEN Ili ^r^~. I__ ~~-ry ~',-JL_J
PENN AVE. ~ .~~~-~--~ -r ^~~J
OLIVER "~ ~ =~ JL_JL.-~~.-.--~e_Ii -JI ^(^~(~~~
NEWTON I/~ .~~L_~' i I ~ ~ul~-^~^`~'~ ,i~_1~w19 1LJ 1-.l_J
MORGAN ~~~-= :J :_JI ~`j i~-~L_JL~~:L~~I iD'" ^^^
LOGAN I ~~~ ~~
iFi r;': KNOX (`J~• I ~J `_J L_J
JAMES ~ I ~~~~~~/~~
.\
\\C ~_ __ --A`J EKE
IRVING I ^~~~~- ^^~~
NUwBOIDT - --"fig----`
GIRARD ~~''' t,~-JL_~L. ------_ =~`~ ^^^
-, ~ Y
EMERSON ~, ~~J~OO ~ o ... +~L-
T o
L/ DUPONT ~
fl'~^^^^ '" ° ~°'
O COIFAX ~i~ d ~
BRTANT ^^^^~ z ~
ALDRICN ~'*V (G~
IYNDALE AVE- ~ ~~~ ^^ ~ ~ G~I \
v -~ III\\j
GARFIEID ~
HARRIET I~
_ II O~ C ~~~
GRAND II ^ ~ ~~^ ~r. ~I .-.. ^
PLEASANT ~'~~~-L. __.1.__ L~==_ -!_:_--: ~:-UII _ ~~~^ - _ _
PILLSBURY II,--'_.III iI~~~~~J ~_ _ ~ `-'-'
WENTWORTN I~____JI~^^~ ~ r^L~~
BIAISDELL \ lO~ - ^~
NICOILET AVE. ,,,,,]'„LLL ;;; ^^~~~ ~~ ~~(-~'-J~
1sT ~/ ^LJ^~^j~` `i~~I_~^~^^
y STEVENS'~~0~~ -~~~ '-' I~~~
2nd ^^^^~ ^ ~r-~
N 3.a I 0~0~~~-~
W a1NTON 0 - ; ~~~~ I ~ I ALDR I CH
,T~ `^ Ci^B ; I
W PORTLAND 1VE.
OAKLAND (;'I ^~~~,..-,~ .
PARK ,iil ^^^^^^~ to
r col.uweus I ~ , '`y'''
I!
CNICAGO I~,' 1^^^^^^~
Z E toxin `;III ^^^^^i~l ~ .,.,}.
v t1 TK I;~li ^^^^^^I '..x
~ ItTe J' ^^^^^^~ ~•....
r 13Th ,'" ^O^^~~~I
~ ,,,~ I ~~'^~ 0a~^! LYNDALE AVE
IS TK ~~ ~ I~~_ _.
/ BLOOMINGTON (~'~
~\ 161A ~~ I till-~^I ~j^~`~`/~Jl~i
r 1 17Th 11 I JJJr~^--~~~~" ~~^
~,~` ' ---- iii ,~~I~G~.-.~-^^ I~L-Il
i ~~ ~,~~.
~/9 CEDAR AVE. ! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _-_- -_-_ _- 1 - p
~ LONGFEILOW ~________LSs, 12-___\ '__'_____-_-__- _ 'Y^~_ __ --7
-- - -i--~-- --------1 , ~^[
= em s s a , r p ~ ~~C-~~
n
a
0
N
y
0
O tail N =
> G O z
y N
y K
-~-'=~1;~ XERXES AVE.
~-~~~ WASNBURN
_ ='-~-~=,~ VINCENT
i '--~-.JI~ LIPTON
r-=- - ~I~II TNOMAS
` --~i SNERIDAN
i
~---~,~ RVSSELL
QUEEN
L- ~Ii PENN AVE.
~~~~''.I OLIVER
~~!; NEWTON
r-~~ MORG4N
~`-~i~ LOGAN
i KNOX
` JAMES
^^~~ IRVING
^II~ NUMBOLDT
~~
I
II GIRARD
FREMDNr
\\\\\ I~ EMERSON
II OUPONT
I I
I' ~' COLFAX
1 1 1110 BRVANT
c~ I ~I ALDRICN
~ III
LYNOALE AVE. .
I
^ ICI GARFIEID
I
, NARRIET
^ III GRAND
I
k~-PIEASANT
^ III PILLSBURY
I
I
ICI WENTWORTX
^~ III BLAISOEII
L_J I NICOLLET AVE.
1st
STEVENS
12n0
AVE
S
z R7 ~ N ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ « ~ (''C,~JI IrC ~I rC J
m ..
ti l.l_ J~~
~ _ ~ _:_
Z .N./ .~NI I H `~ y
_ `_~
1
IeTn
I ntn
Is Tn
CEDAR AVE.
LONGFELLOW
19 TA
20tH
zl .T
zz ~a
STANDISN
23 r0
a
O
~~Y
-1
O
KCZ
Ti
V
#~ sf
in
ti
Q
W
J
Q
Z
J
M
Y
U
w
D
O
a
M
T
a
r
~~
D!
O
T
LYNDALE AVE.
r~ W
N ~
r a
L k.
V~~~~: i~{~rS~I ~~'
~~~" -•~`~~:~ 7234-36 LYNDALE AVE.S.
o~
~m
~~
7 2nd ST.
n AK'
7 4th
I
N
W
Q
F--
Z
Q
ST.
ST.
.~ ~
W
a
w~
J
a
0
z
J
N
lLJ
Q
J
Q
71ST ST. W T/
LAND USE MAP
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE
COMMERCIAL
:~ PARK
N
® PROPOSED SITE
J
W
.-,
li
Q
lL
Q
i" ~
'71 1 ! 2 ; ST.
73rd'
Zoning Mai
7234-36 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH
u ~
Z
Y ~
J ~
Q
71 i / 2 ST. W.
.............. N
J
C
C
W
Q
F--
Z
Q
>--
•.~~:tiv. Q
.;y+ •a
y`•i.:
...!
73RD ST o
.
z
>-
J
74TH ST. W.
t/'1
W
Q
2
U
.--.
J
Q
{ .__, 7 ~ 5 T _ S
0
J
W
.--r
li.
d
MR-y
R-1
W
--~
Q
S
~%
DANIEL A. AND JEAN L. NELSON
8218 Colfax Avenue South
Bloomington, MN Sb420
881-1889
September 18, 1987
Rick Jopke, City Planner and
Members of the City Council
City oP Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Variance Request
Case No. 87-V-7
Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Nelson
Prop Loc: 7234-36 Lyndale Ave. S.
Hearing Examiner: Mr. Vern Luettinger
Hearing Date: August 19, 1987
Dear Mr. Jopke and Members of the City Council,
We would like to request a continuance of our appeal hearing
before the City Council to October 12, 1987.
We feel that this is very important to us and we would like
to make the very best presentation that we can. We feel that
the short time remaining between now and Monday, Sept. 28th
is just not enough time for us to accomplish the things we
have to do to present our appeal.
I hope this will not be an inconvenience for you.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
~:=1~1-•-~ ~ G~----
Dan & Jea Nelson
~/
September 22, 1987
Dear Property Owner:
This is to inform you that Mr. and Mrs. Daniel
Nelson property owners of 7234-36 Lyndale Avenue
South have appealed the Richfield Hearing Examiner's
denial of the variance request to allow all the
parking spaces on the site to be unenclosed.
The City Council was scheduled to hear the appeal on
Monday, September 28, 1987. At the request of Mr.
and Mrs. Nelson the City Council public hearing will
be continued until Monday, October 12, 1987.
You are encouraged to attend the public hearing on
Monday, October 12, 1987 at 7:00 PM and give your
testimony for or against the granting of this
appeal. The public hearing will be held in the
Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall at 6700
Portland Avenue.
If you have any questions do not hesitate to call me
at 869-7521, Ext. 511.
Sincerely,
o~ s~Gtn~GC
Towhid Kazi
Assistant Planner
TK/jls
~°-
Dan i e 1 A. and Jean L. Ne 1 son
8218 Colfax Avenue South
H 1 oom i ngt on, MN 55420
881-1889
September 8, 1987
Mr. Towh i d Ka z i ,
Assistant City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Variance Request
Case No. 87-V-7
Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Nelson
Prop Lac: 7234-36 Lyndale Ave. S.
Hearing Examiner: Mr. Vern Luettinger
Hearing Date: August 19, 1987
Dear Mr. Kaz i,
We would like to appeal the decision of Mr. Vern Luettinger,
Hearing Examiner, who denied our request for a parking
requirement variance.
Thank you.
Sincerely, '
~C~r
Dan i e l A. and Jean L. Ne 1 son
(OFFICIAL PUBLICATION)
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice of Public Hearing on The
Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's
Denial of a Zoning Ordinance Variation
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held
before the City Council of the City of Richfield at 7:00 PM on
Monday, September 28, 1987 in the Council Chambers of City Hall
at 6700 Portland Avenue to consider an appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's denial of a zoning ordinance variation at the
following location: Lot 15 and the south 1/2 of Lot 14, Block 2,
Wood Lake Snores.
Street Address: 7234-36 Lyndale Avenue South
Zoning Ordinance
Variation: To waive the requirement for one enclosed
parking space for each unit in an MR-1 two
family dwelling zoning district.
All persons interested in this matter are hereby notified to
be present and they will be Heard.
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
PUBLISH: SEPTEMBER 16, 1987
[' a
t
{S{
tt(
4.
M
N
~ d'
~
~
•~
~~
•
i
O ~
L
t'Z'
^~ O
O
~~
Variance Request
CASE N0. 87-V-7
APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Nelson
PROPERTY LOCATION: 7234-36 Lyndale Avenue South
HEARING EXAMINER: Mr. Vern Luettinger
HEARING DATE: August 19, 1987
APPEARANCES: Mr Daniel Nelson
8218 Colfax Avenue Soutn
Bloomington, MN 55420
Ms. Audrey Hanson
7230 Lyndale Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Mr. Paul R. Kretchman
3312 Sheperd Hills Or.
Bloomington, MN 55431
Ms. Mary Sulla
7237 Lyndale Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Mr. Harry Bergwall
7240 Lyndale Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Ms. Margaret Cornellius
7230 Lyndale Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing,
the undersigned makes the following findings of
fact, conclusions and decisions.
A. FINDINGS OF FACT:
~~~~
1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice
was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of
the site in question as required by city
ordinances. The ten day notice requirement was
also met.
2. The street address and legal descriptions of the
property in question are as follows:
Lot 15 and the South 1/2 of Lot 14, Block 2
Wood Lake Shores
Street Address: 7234-36 Lyndale Avenue South
3. The zoning of the site in question is MR-1 Two
Family Residence.
telephone: 869-7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
~~ ~/~i
4. The variance requested is to waive the two
enclosed parking requirements in a two family
residence district.
5. Tne applicant requested the variance because the
construction of enclosed parking in the rearyard
is limited due to the physical characteristics
of the lot such as a 28 foot drop in grade from
the street, insufficient space between the
dwelling and the property line, to provide
access to the rear.
B. CONCLUSIONS
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision 6
provides for the granting of variance to Lhe literal
provisions of the zoning regulations in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause undue
hardsnip to the owners of the property under
consideration. In determining whether to grant or
deny the requested variance, I specifically make the
following conclusions:
1. Is the granting of the variance necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
.property rights?
I conclude a variance.is not required for the preservation
and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
2. Are there special circumstances or conditions
affecting the particular land or building
referred to in the application, not caused by
the property owner, which are not common to
other properties in this or similar districts?
I conclude there ar• none.
i~
~~ ~
3. Will the granting of the variance alter the
essential character of the neighborhood o11r
locality? cfiae~c~orio~ ~fifshnQig~i~or~iood:~ilTholomnara°of
I Conclude the two double bfngalows to the (North and South
indicated their desire to provide more parking for
their property as Wall. Parking is at a premium
at thas° locations. To add parking much of the
front graen:~araa would have to bs removed.
Safety is also a major cone°rn.
4. Are there any conditions which must be attached
to the granting of the variance to ensure
compliance and to protect adjacent properties?
I conclude Thera era none.
C. DECISION
Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned
determines that the request be d°niad
DATED: August 311987.
,~~~ v
Vern L. Luattin ar
Hearing Examiner
City of Richfield
~~-
~ ~~~~
DANIEL A. AND JEAN L. NELSON
8218 Colfax Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55420
612-881-1889
July 13, 1987
Mr. Towhid Kazi
Assistant City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Request for variance
Dear Mr Kazi,
This is in reply to Mr. Jopke's letter of June 16, 1987. I will
try to follow the outline of Mr. Jopke's letter as closely as ,I
can. Paragraph numbers refer to Mr. Jopke's letter.
Request is made that the requirement of one enclosed parking
space for each residential unit MR - 1 be waived or modified and
that parking be allowed as proposed on the following grounds:
PARAGRAPH N0. 1
1. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES:
(a) The terrain at the subject premises, abruptly sloping
at approximately 45 degrees from front to back,
provides no other parking space than as proposed. No
road nor alley exists at the rear of the site nor with
practicality can it be created.
(b> The residents and proposed future residents, being
elderly, will have few requirements for cars to be
parked, and will have few and infrequent visitors
either in daytime hours or at night.
(c) The age of the residents will create a quiet atmospere
(d) The unique, sloping physical characteristic of the
terrain is not common to other properties in the
community.'
2. HARDSHIP:
(a) The limited physical space at the rear of the premises
and the practical impossibility of creating a way of
access to the rear was not created by the applicant.
Compliance with present zoning creates a distinct
hardship to put the property to its highest and best
use given the sloping terrain.
i
{~
~'r j ~~
3. DETRIMENT TO THE SURROUNDING AREA:
(a) There will be no expected detriment to the surrounding
area because the proposed variance would not
materially change the use of the area. The residents
and proposed residents are of the age group that are
not in need of cars, take infrequent trips, have few
visitors and therefor do not generate much traffic or
parking need. There is no evidence that granting of
this variance would have any economically detrimental
effect upon the area or upon its property value.
The reverse is true because of the infrequent need or
expected use of the already limited parking area.
PARAGRAPH N0. 2
I have revised the drawing to accomodate the required 22 feet
needed to back out of proposed stalls. (See drawing attached)
PARAGRAPH NO. 3
We have an easement to the other half of the driveway.
(Easement attached)
PARAGRAPH N0. 4
Curbing will be provided at the perimeter of the parking
area. (See revised plan attached)
PARAGRAPH N0. 5
Drainage requirements. .(See revised plan attached)
Also attached is an application for a variance along with the
required fee of X129.00.
I tried to be as specific as possible.. If there is anything else
I should include, please let me know.
Sincerely,
~~~ .~
Dan and Jean Nelson
2
T
1~P ova ^~ 7~
~ ~
c~
Q
71 1/2 ST. W.
N
W
Q
1t!
J
3RD ST. o
N
W
Q
X
Q
ti
J
O
V
W
a
Z
Q
r
N
W
Q
J
Q
~/ a
ST ST. W.
N
72ND ST.
~' %/6
I do not favor the giving of the special variance for parking space in
the front area (front yarn) of the double residence
7234-7236 Lyndale Ave. So. Richfield.
NAME ADDRESS
__...
_ ~~~ - --
/~ _
__ J _ _ ______
;~
D~
__ -
__
__ ___ _.
~ ~~ ,
~ / / ~'
~fJ ~. ^l%
1 ,
,Y.,J
_ -r
J
~w
~~ ~ ~ ~~
__ S~
~;
~ ., ~
~.
f
1
1
{ _' Wed Jul 29, 1987 9:13 AM CITY OF RICHFIELD
nAPT6A PAGE # 1
i~
:A
~~~;
' 7234-3blyn
~: NAME
ADDRESS q
CITY, STATE,
2IP
PIN
-PERMD-R-~tAR@UARDfi-- ~3OtT-t'f Hf-IEtD;-MN--S~#3~-33-o-283-I-1; 00^
_ BLANCHE I BERGHOLT 3CC-B 7312 LYNDALE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-0002
ROBERT E LONG
~-BRUEf-BOENB 5115 OLIVER AVE S MPLS MN 5541 9 33-02824-14-0014
~ ,19
,, :; BETTY WIKLUND 7305 ALDRICH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-OOlb
,,; BETTY GADBOIS
'-A-M-ANDE 7301 ALDRICH AV RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-0017
~ ;~~ I~Li,-rm -§542-3-3-~2~-4-}4=a",°
{ '
STEVEN & C MEYER
~~ 7120 LYNDALE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-0077
RICHARD & VICKI BENSON
15,-R08€(FT-II-$~'R"'~---- 7128 LYNDALE
--},'f-}6-~Yp19AEE- RICHFIELD, MN
°TCNFIE6D
MN 55423
~~423 33-02824-14-0018
3
~~~ PAUL R KRETCHMAN
3312 SHEPHERD HILLS ,
-
DR BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431 3 02~~4a-ld BAa9
33-02824-14-0080
AUDREY C HANSEN
~'~~ 1230 LYNDALE AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-0081
nnurci uci
„~-,.~50~1
8~-r8 68€F-RAE -AV€ SO-
--9~OOM-IN&~ON;--M
P~-S•54~A
3T~ O~I~~4 I-4 00$~
~ ,,,~ HARRY BERGWALL 7240 LYNDALE AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-0083
i ' DALE PETERSEN 7256 LYNDALE AV S RICHFIELD, MN .55423 33-02824-14-0084
~,, J~OHN•~i-RY4lN 820-W 73TH ST Rd~6H~IEL-0; -MN- --55423 33-0224-}4-0085
JUDITH H WILLIS
~ 7237 ALDRICH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-1d-0086
~
' RICKI D SCHROEDER
,:; 1233 RIDRICH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-0087
,,, ~-DOUfitAS-&-StH-ANNE-39NES---7-2-2~-At H~EL-~MN -5443
~ ~,~~ SHIRLEY C ERICK50N 7225 ALDRICH RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-0089
~ ; STEVEN O LINDGREN
~~
' 1141 OAK GROVE BLVD RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-0090
--~ERA
y
_ I enue
K-6nui~ ~ ~nnn~
R-IEHF-If-L~-MN---55433--3~-0-2~8~24~-r oo~
~, !,,, GARY & JEAN WHITE 7123 OAK GROVE BLVD RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-0092
W 0 SWEEN 7121 OAK GROPE
~
~ BEtfN~S--W-JAEfEfr---33-2 RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-0043
3 MN- 5542"3- T,,=o-284=1,:-~06~3
~ THOMRS M BURGESS
I 1228 ALDRICH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-009b
3~ HOMER ROETMAN
r-i1i-CHAf 7232 ALDRICH
W-3RD-S-i -- RICHFIELD, MN
-R-I-EHr•r'
-
--
m- 55423
?~
`
54 33-02824-14-0091
~
rr«
c
r -
.
r
- 3~0-28-c
4--1-4~v9n
T ~5~ GERALD MEN2HUBER 7247 BRYANi AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-0099
!,_~ DUANE R DAHNERT 7209 BRYANT RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-0100
EtD--MN-- ~54-
~~ I»i CHARLES & DONNA CARROLL 7304 ALDRICH AYE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-0141
FREDERICK & L GROSSMAN 1308 ALDRICH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 33-02824-14-0148
D J GRIFFIN 1216 GARFIELD RICHFIELD, MN 55423 34-02824-23-0090
~ az~ STANLEY D CARLSON 1220 GARFIELD RICHFIELD, MN 55423 34-02824-23-0091
~J;~--Mi-SS-PAT--OHA°~ „2-0-6RRFIEL" °I6~{F-IE~9; MN-5542-;-- --34=283.4-r3-9A°''
ROLF KIRKEGAARD 7228 GARFIELD RICHFIELD, MN 55423 34-02824-23-0093
h,~ EMMEii HASH
~. 1232 GARFIELD RICHFIELD, MN 55423 34-02824-23-0094
~ 0-BRANDT
~ 7236-GAR€I-€LD -RICH~T€L-D,-NN-_55423 34-0~8~4=23=95
~
~ LAURA OSTLUND
z '• 7240 GARFIELD RICHFIELD, MN~ 55423 34-02824-23-0096
~ REYNOLD N ANDER
G
,~
R
SORNSDN 1244 GARFIELD
~ RICHFIELD, MN 55423 34-02824-23-0097
_-.
_.
_
'" 245_LYNDALE &ICHEIELD.,~N..._55423.--__.i4=A2824.23=IID3fl
~ MARY J SULLA
~ 7231 LYNDALE AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 34-02824-23-0099
'
~ CLIFFORD FRISK 1233 LYNDALE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 34-02824-23-0100
-CEIFFORD-SW€NSON-
.. -I2-2~L-YNDAL€ RIGHF-IE~4~MN--554~~ ~4-02824--23=01.01
~ KEITH L HUGER 1225 LYNDALE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 34-02824-23-0102
t ~ ~ JOHN E SUTER 1221 LYNDALE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 34-02824-23-0103
-NHU-B~-PHONG-L; -12-11-LYNDALE - RICIi~I€~D,-MN- 5.,423 3;=02824--23•--8104
'•~ GREGORY L OLSON 1211 LYNDALE AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 34-02824-23-0105
ANTONETTE F GERLA
' b030 GNORLED OAKS COURT HUMBLE, iX 77346 34-02824-23-0106
•
~----L-INDA-J--PONTICAS
• 1300-GARFIELD-NVE_~ -RICHFI€LD,-MN--55423-- _3d-02824.-23=41n8
NORTON W LUND 1304 GARFIELD RICHFIELD, MN 55423 34-02824-23-0109
,~
~~~~
Wed Jul 29, 1987 9:13 AM CITY OF RICHFIELD PAGE ~ 2
eeceec oncrco -
~`
i ` I,
~F
r
j
i
7234-361yn
NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP PIN
ZEPH LAVOIE JR
MILDRED NARNER 7317 LYNDALE
T309 LYNDALE RICHFIELD, MN 55423
RICHFIELD= MN 55423 34-02824-23-0115
34_02824-23 0116
K HARTLEY 5 D PIPSKI 7301 LYNDALE AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 34-02824-23-0118
-
I
i
I
i
~)
j
Zt
a~
s
6
8
9
O)
2I
I
3I
it
IS S
N
t
II:I
l)I
~~i~
LeFevere
Lefler
Kennedy
U'$rien &
I)rawz
s Profasionsk
Associadoa
2000 First Bank Plata Went August 19 , 19 8 7
Mlnnsapolia
Mlnneeots 3l540~
Telephone (8121 333-0543
Talacopiar (812) 933-0640
Clayton L LsFevaro
Herbert P. Lefler
J. Dennis O'Brien
John E. Drewz
Devld J. Kennedy
Joseph E. Hemllton
John B. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue
Richard J. Schieffer
Ghariea L. LaFsvero
Harbert P. Lefler III
James J. Thomson, Jr.
Thomas R. Galt
Deyfe Nolan
Brian F. Rica
John G. Kressel
James M. Strommen
R i N. Betty
W. ;~ P. Jordan
Kurt J. Hrlckson
WiIIIOm R. Ska{Iarud
Rodney D. Anderson
Corrine A. Heine
David D. Beaudoin
Paul E. Raemuseen
Steven M. Yellen
Mary F. Skala
Chrfataphar J. Harrlsthal
Tlmathy J. Pewlenty
Rolf A. $ponheim
Mr. Towhid Kati
City Of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave., S.
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Property at 7234-36 Lyndale Avenue South
Dear Mr. Kazi:
You have requested that I provide you with a written
confirmation regarding the interpretation that the owners
of the above-referenced property must comply with the
provisions of the City's off-street parking requirements.
Approximately two months ago, Rick Jopke and I discussed
the proposed use of the property.
As 2 recall that conversation, there were several crucial.
(attars:
a) the property is located on land zoned MR-1;
b? no off-street parking permit has previously
been granted( and
c} the proposed development constitutes a change
in use from the former use.
Based upon that information, it appears that the develop-
ment of the site is affected by the provisions of Section
4.05, subd. 1 of the Ordinance Code. That subdivision
contains two important limitations:
a) land, other than in a single family district,
may not be made available for parking unless an
off-street parking permit is first obtained;
and
b) no bui7.ding permit may be issued in such case
until the permit is granted.
Mr. Towhid nazi
August 19, 1987
Page 2
c ;
Consequently, the issuance of an off-street parking
permit is a condition precedent to the development of
this site.
The second issue which Mr. Jopke and Z discussed was what
standards should be applied to determine whether to grant
an off-street parking permit. We concluded that the
provisions contained fn section 3.3iA, subd. 8 should
serve as guidelines. Those provisions require two spaces
per dwelling unit at least one of which ie to be covered.
As S recall, we concluded that it was appropriate to view
the development as being comparable to a two-unit
building. Therefore, two covered and two uncovered
spaces would be required.
We also concluded that since the requirement concerning
the number of spaces was located in the zoning regula-
tions, it was subject to a variance upon the necessary
findings. The variance could vary the number of spaces
and/or the requirement that some be covered.
Hopefully this response addresses your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Respectf lly yours,
J n A. Dean
b:rsr
~_
i
~/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Inter-Office Memorandum
DATE: August 13, 1987
TO: Towhid Kazi
FROM: Art Bailey
SUBJECT: Problems building a garage behind 7234 - 36 Lyndale
1. There would have to be a major excavation between the houses
to get a slope on the proposed drive that would be drivable.
This would create two problems: one would be that it would put
the side door very high, another would be that it would create
more rain run off 'into the back yard.
2. Building a garage in
The garage would have to
This would require frost
Frost footings would req
to get a usable drive in
wall would be needed.
the back
be built
footings
uire a wa
the back
yard would be very expensive.
close to the back of the house.
on the west side of the garage.
L1 of ten plus feet high. Also,
yard, an extensive retaining
={~ ~ _ s~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 309
Agenda October 12, 1987
Issue Statement:
Resolution authorizing the transfer of funds from the Permanent
Improvement Revolving Fund to C.P. 798 Purchase of Voting
Equipment to provide interim financing.
Background-
On December 22, 1986 the city council authorized the purchase of
the Optech III-P optical scan voting devices. In order to
qualify for a quantity discount through a group purchase of
Hennepin County, the voting equipment has been purchased in 1987.
Financing has been approved in the 1988 Capital Budget with
funds from the Special Revenue Fund. In order to provide interim
financing for the purchase, it is recommended the city council
authorize the temporary transfer of $50,000 from the Permanent
Improvement Revolving Fund. On or about January 1, 1988 the
funds will be repaid to the PIR Fund from the Special Revenue
Fund.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution authorizing the transfer of
$50.,.000 from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund to provide
interim financing for the purchase of voting equipment.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. City ordinance 315.03 Subdivision 3 provides that monies used
for interim financing should be directed by resolution of the
city council.
2. Financing for the purchase of voting equipment is provided
for in the 1988 Budget and interim financing through a
transfer from the Permanent Improvement Fund is appropriate.
3. Purchase in 1987 provided a substantial savings to the- city
on the total cost of the equipment ($7,150).
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The city council could direct that another source of interim
financing be determined.
Discussion/Decision Mode.:
Action is requested to provide
for the voting equipment which
the necessary interim financing
has been purchased.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam Prosser
City Hager
JDP/sae
~~ ~
RESOLUTION NO_.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM
PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND
TO C.P.798 PURCHASE OF VOTING EQUIPMENT
TO PROVIDE INTERIM FINANCING OF SAID PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
provides that a Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund to be used
for the purpose of financing local improvements; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance states that the proceeds of said fund
may be used to provide interim financing of capital expenditures
for projects of the city by resolution of the city council; and
WHEREAS, it appears desirable to transfer funds to provide
interim financing for C.P.798 Purchase of Voting Equipment; and
WHEREAS, the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund has
sufficient cash available to transfer necessary funds; and
WHEREAS, it was necessary to purchase the voting equipment
in 1987 and the funding to provide financing has been approved in
the 1988 Budget with a transfer of funds from The Special Revenue
Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by resolution of the city
council to authorize the transfer of $50,000 from the Permanent
Improvement Revolving Fund to provide interim financing for the
purchase of voting equipment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this 12th day of October, 1987.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
~- ~ _ ~"
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 308
October 12, 1987
Issue Statement:
Renewal of the inspection services contract with the City of
Bloomington.
Background:
In 1980, the city reduced the cost of operating the public health
program by contracting with the City of Bloomington for food
service inspections, plumbing inspections, heating and
ventilation inspections, tree inspections, and plan review for
food services.
Several of the inspection duties noted above do not require a
full-time position. Richfield has continued to provide a high
level of service for its citizens at reduced costs by contracting
with Bloomington for part of an inspectors time. In addition to
the cost savings, we have also had the advantage of using the
technical and supervisory support which exists in the Bloomington
Inspection and Health departments as part of our contract. This
has been an excellent resource for Richfield at a fraction of the
cost it would require if we were to provide our own staff.
The proposed 1988 contract cost is $62,750.00, an increase of
approximately 9 percent over 1987. Three percent of the increase
reflects Bloomington's estimated increase in labor costs. The
remaining six percent reflects the increase in use of services
which we anticipate in 1988.
The Richfield Health Division budget was adjusted to account for
the increase in this area while maintaining an overall increase
of 3.9 percent for 1988.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the 1988 inspection contract with the City of
Bloomington.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The demand for health, plumbing and heating code enforcement
in Richfield is not great enough to support a full-time staff
and the necessary supervisory and technical support. The City
of Bloomington is capable of provide these services for
Richfield at a reduced cost to Richfield residents.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The city could hire its own staff to perform the required
inspections and supervise the staff. The cost of doing so
would be significantly higher than maintaining the contract
with Bloomington.
~~~i
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The 1988 contract with the City of Bloomington has been presented
for approval by the City Council. The present contract will
expire October 31, 1987. Therefore, this item is .presented to
the council at the October 12, 1987 city council meeting.
Respe ully submitted
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
~~_ ~ -~
Cost Distribution
1988 Richfield Contract
Contract Cost
Allocation
308 Plumbing Inspector 1988 Wages Step 3 (@ 38 increase) $35,127
Benefits @ 278 9,484
Automobile - $166/month + $.20/mile (est. 6,000 miles) 3,192
$47,803
308 HVAC Inspector 1988 Wages Step 3 (@ 38 increase) $35,127
Benefits @ 278 9,484
Automobile - $166/month + $.20/mile (est. 6,000 miles) 3,192
$47,803
408 Sr. Environ. Hlth. Spec. 1988 Wages Step 3 (@ 38 increase) $35,127
Benefits @ 278 9,484
Automobile - $166/month + $.20/mile (est. 6,000 miles) 3,192
$47,803
208 City Forester 1988 Wages (@ 38 increase) $34,300
Benefits @ 278 9,261
Automobile - $166/month + $.20/mile (est. 6,000 miles) 3,192
$46,753
108 Plan Check Engineer 1988 Wages (@ 38 increase) $41,590
Benefits @ 278 11,220
Automobile - $166/month + $.20/mile (est. 6,000 miles) 3,192
$56,002
SUMMARY
Plumbing Inspectors @ 308 $14,340
HVAC Inspectors @ 308 14,340
Sanitation Services @ 408 19,120
Tree Inspectors @ 208 9,350
Plan Check (Food Service) @ 108 5,600
$62,750
~ _ ,~(/
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Council Letter No. 307
October 12, 1987 Agenda
Issue Statement:
Approval of an amendment to the offstreet parking permit at
Heritage Central Apartments 620-734 East 78th Street and 701-735
East 77th Street.
Background:
The Heritage Central Apartments have recently been cited for
having improper trash dumpsters by the public safety department.
To address these problems and to provide better conditions for
their tenants, they are proposing to relocate their dumpsters out
into the parking area and to provide proper trash enclosures.
The relocation would result in the loss of 14 .parking stalls in
the-total apartment complex. It has also been .discovered that 35
parking stalls have been lost because of fire lane requirements.
There would, .therefore, be a total of 49 fewer parking stalls
than was approved in 1963.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a resolution approving a revised offstreet parking permit
for the Heritage Central apartment complex at 620-734 East 78th
Street and 701-735 East 77th Street.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed relocation of the dumpsters and the construction
of the dumpster screens would provide better conditions for
the tenants.
2. The loss of 49 parking stalls would bring the total number of
parking stalls on the site to 352. This is 20 spaces more
than the 332 spaces required by city offstreet parking
guidelines.
3. The previous dumpster locations took up a similar number of
parking spaces so the complex has been operating adequately
with the reduced parking.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to not approve the
resolution and require the dumpsters to be relocated in areas not
approved for parking in 1963.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for council consideration on October 12,
1987. No public hearing is required.
Respect lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP/dkh
~~ -,~ i
1
v -~
1
J~
t
m m
~ ~
I i '~~: ~"`4 ±~1.~` 'SKY '~~~l;•~%a: `~:~ ~9~ 3 'fi''='~r %•AL` ...~ ,. .._r 'i:'
W~-r ~ APARTMENTS; _ ::::>::~:<:::_::: i
~
I
~ , __ ,___
^!
~
~' ~r6b
s
~ -
---
-i
~:y:~
:..::
^ Or
. e 1
... .... 'a' .'..
...~: .. ... .
-:
- -
-- -
- I
I
I - 4}
~ I
- -
~
~ 1 ~_- -_
-_-
~
~ APARTMENT° g _I--- ~
~'- 2~ _-.z, { z: = 2~
~
122
1 :: ~~ N APARTMENT --
-- --- ~~
f ~ _
---~---
4ua . - --
j ...~. --~-
-
1 04~ ~. 40 -
-- -- --
f ,~~."~ ~APARTMENT~ __ =T ~~_
. ~~ 1 1 1 1 I Ipl I E%•' 1
r::::r
1 1 I
~._ i. 1 1 1
jr 1.
N
A
~_- _
I
I ? o
I ~ y
~ a
I ~
l
1 a
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 IPti:`:a 1 1 1
w
APARTMENTso
~~
~a~
1 1 1 1 6:;7 i 101 i t
1 1 1 1 ~'??1 I III i 1
N
A
l -- -- a
--._ I _-_. ~ _. ~_ ~ I 'Z~ - - - - r 1 2 .. ._ ._
~° oAPARTMENT ~ -~_'=` 24 ~=~ APARTMENT ~~ ~°
- __
~ __ o
I - - ~--
I' _t-_ -_ 122
~, ~APARTMENT~~ -r= -= APARTMENT~~
~, -- --
=I -- -- ..
I 1 1 1 F 1 1 I`sj'}::'•;;;ii 1 1 1 -- -- i i l l l l l l ~'i 1 1 1 1
I I l f l l l )2 c•?:w.:•: 1 1~ t f I( 1 I 1 ~,..•:::;: 1 1 1 1
1 a a
N ~ N k
mr 1 1 1 I I I 171 I i l l l - -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1?I I I I I N
m 1 i I 1 I t 1 Cpl 1 I 1 r 1 L ~ I i t 1 1 1 1 Io1 I I t I °'
z_ _ ~ i1J
I 1 1 1 1 1 I INI 1 1 1 1 1 e -a rl I I I L I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 I lot I r l l 1 ;'- r l l'I`"1 1 1 ICI I I I I
.__ 1 1 t l r l l•1 1 1 1 1. -- I t l t l l l l#1 I I I I
TN N
A a
-- t 1 11 f 1 I?;I I I l i i I~ I I I I F l=1 I I I i
f I i l l` 1 I~I ( 1 1 1 1 LL- - ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I~1 1 1 1 1
1 I I 1~1 1 1 INI 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1( 1. 1' ; 1 1
I I I 'I I l t lol 1 1 1 1 1 -- ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~1 I I I I'
~- r-r-r t/ t Ifil 1 1 1 1 1 ~ I r l l l l l III I I I
~ a °
1 1 1 1 1 1 121;:::3::;:7 I I I - 1 1 1( 1 1 1_ 1 :~%}i~ I l l i
t 1 1 i i 1 la'>:;;.;.~ 1 1 1 -- - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i~fyj I I I
1 __ - - LI 1 . 1 e . ~ hf:nv:--. I ~1 1 j
I ~ .••• a
122 ~ ~_~ -- 122
APARTMENT $ -__ __ APARTMENT ~~
1_ _ I
I ~ -
122 -, -- -_ ~ 122
I APARTMENT$ __ _= (APARTMENT.~~I
-r-'
o
1 385
.- __ _
CHICAGO AVENUE
V
v
rn
m
~~_~'~
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION APPROVING OFFSTREET PARKING PERMIT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION 87-10 FOR
620-734 EAST 78TH STREET AND
701-735 EAST 77TH STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the proposed geometric layout of the offstreet parking
as contained in offstreet parking application No. 87-10 is hereby
approved.
2. That the responsibility for proper upkeep and maintenance of
said offstreet parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the
offstreet parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code
4.05.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
12th day of October, 1987.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
~~_
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 306
October 12, 1987
Issue Statement:
Approval of the 1988-89 Health Services Agreement between the
City of Richfield and Hennepin County.
Background
The City of Richfield annually receives .subsidy funds for
operation of its public health program from the State of
Minnesota. By law, the State transfers the funds to each county,
and the county distributes the funds to each city. In order to
receive the subsidy, the city of Richfield is required to enter
into a contract with the county for the distribution of the
funds. The 1988 subsidy amount is $78,795.00.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the contract with Hennepin County for distribution of the
State Community Health Services subsidy for 1988-89 in the amount
of $78,795.00.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The contract is required in order to have the funds
transferred from the county to the city.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The existing state law does not allow for any alternative
methods of receiving the Community Health Services subsidy.
If the .city does not enter into the proposed contract the
funds would not be received.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The contract for receipt of the 1988-89 biennium Community Health
Services subsidy from the State Health Department through
Hennepin County is presented for approval.
Respect ully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP/sae
~ to
CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 305
October 12, 1987 Agenda
Issue Statement:
Approval of an amendment to the joint cooperation agreement with
Hennepin County concerning the Community Development Block .Grant
Program.
Background:
The city council recently approved the execution of a Joint
Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County to continue
nr _Lrr __~ ~~ ~ ~.,4_~- ~-. ~- ~-l,n Il~nhnn LJ~.nnanin _G~~n~-~~ (`nmmiini_f~i
v
. - ~
i! ~~
^1
~ ~ -,~-~
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The alternative recommendation would be to not approve the
amendments which would result in the city not being able to
participate in the Urban County Community Development Block
Grant programs for the next three years.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter is scheduled for council consideration .October 12,
1987. The county has indicated that copies of the executed
amendment and a copy of the resolution must. be returned to the
county by October 16, 1987. If the city fails to do that,
Richfield cannot continue to participate in the program.
Therefore, action by the council on October 12, 1987 is required
on this matter.
Respect lly submitted,
Ja Prosser
' City Hager.
JDP/dkh
.~ /_U _~
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
AMENDMENT #1 TO THE JOINT COOPERATION
AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY TO CONTINUE
PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota and the County of
Hennepin have executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement, County
Contract No. 70489, for the purposes of qualifying as an Urban
County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development Community Development Block Grant program for Fiscal
Years 1988, 1989 and 1990.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, that Amendment No. 1 to the Joint
Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. 70489 be approved, and
that the Mayor and the City Manager be authorized to sign
Amendment No. 1 on behalf of the City.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day
of October, 1987.
ATTEST:
CITY OF
BY
Thomas P. Ferber Cit Clerk John Hamiltion Mayor
AND
James Prosser City Manager
~~ ~--~
DATE: September 29, 1987
TO: Urban Hennepin County Participating Units .
HENNEPIN FROM: Hennepin County Office of Planning and Developmen
1 1 SU B.JECT: AMENDMENT TO CDBG JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT
The accompanying Amendment No. 1 to the Joint Cooperation Agreement your
community executed with Hennepin County to qualify the Urban Hennepin County
CDBG program for Fiscal Years 1988, 1989 and 1990 is .presented for ratifi-
cation. A sample resolution authorizing the execution of the Amendment is
provided to help expedite the process.
The Amendment became necessary because of additional requirements issued by
HUD in Notice 87-10 (provided previously under separate cover} and just
recently communicated to Hennepin County.
The sections of the Agreement which are amended and the requirement that
each is intended to satisfy are as follows:
1. Section I., DEFINITIONS and Section IX., METROPOLITAN CITIES, to satisfy
the deferral of entitlement status of Metropolitan Cities so they may be
part of an urban county (Section II., B.) and/or request of a Metropolitan
City to be included in an urban county {Section IV., A.).
2. Section III. AGREEMENT, A. to satisfy assurance that the Agreement will
be effective for however long it takes to expend granted funds (Section
III.,D., 3.).
3. Section III. AGREEMENT, D. to satisfy that all participants are bound
by the required certification of compliance (Section III., D., 7.).
4. Section VII. FINANCIAL, E. to satisfy requirements relative to program
income (Section III., D., 1., and 8.).
5. Section VIII. REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION OR IMPROVEMENT, to satisfy the
requirement of setting forth standards applicable to such activities
(Section III., D., 9.).
Please have your community act on the amendment at the earliest possible date
and return all three copies properly executed, along. with a copy of the passed
resolution authorizing such action by October 16, 1987 to:
Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development
Development Planning Unit
822 South Third Street, Suite 310
Minneapolis, MN 55415
~l / ,J, // „ ~,1.
Urban Hennepin County Participating Units
September 29, 198
Page Two
This will permit execution of the amendment by the County and transmittal to
HUD by the November 9, 1987 deadline established for the first time in the
Notice.
Please be reminded that. the same stipulation attendant with the original
agreement pertains to the amendment, i.e., execution will continue partici-
pation in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program for Fiscal Years 1988, 1989
and 1990 and opting not to execute will exclude participation for the same
period. Under the Notice, HUD end the County must be informed of a decision
to be excluded by October 15, 1987.
Thank you for your cooperation in addressing this pressing situation. Your
planning representative is available for assistance and guidance.
tf
Enclosures
~~-/~~
AMENDMENT N0. I TO CONTRACT N0. D g
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN, tate of innesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and the
CITY OF j ~ ~ hereinafter referred to as "COOPERATING
UNIT." Say par ies o is greement each being governmental units of the
State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
471.59;
It is hereby agreed that that certain agreement, made and entered into
on September 15, 1987, and bearing Contract No. ~ between the
herein-named parties covering joint cooperation in a ran Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant program is hereby amended in accordance
with the provision set forth below:
Section I. DEFINITIONS, of the original contract shall be amended by
adding paragraph F. "Metropolitan City" which shall read:.
F. "Metropolitan City" means any City located in whole or in part in
Hennepin County which is certified by HUD to have a population of
50,000 or more people.
Section III. AGREEMENT, Paragraph A of the original contract shall be
amended to read:
A. The term of this .Agreement is for a period commencing on the
effective date of October 1, 1987, and terminating no sooner than
the end of program year sixteen (XVI) covered by the Statement of
Objectives and Projected Use of Funds for the basic grant amount
authorized by HUD subsequent to the effective date and for such
additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds
granted to the County for such period.
Section III. AGREEMENT, of the original contract shall be amended by
adding paragraph D. which shall read:
D. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all action necessary to
assure compliance with the urban county's certification required by
Section I04(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968,
Section 109 of T-itle I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, and other applicable laws.
Section VII. FINANCIAL MATTERS, paragraph E. of the original contract
shall be amended to read:
E. ,COOPERATING UNIT shall inform COUNTY of any income generated by the
expenditure of CDBG funds it has rQCeived and shall pay to COUNTY
all program income generation except as derived from activities
with an approved revolving account.
~~ ,
1. COUNTY will retain ten percent (20%j of all program income
paid to COUNTY to defray administration expenses.
2. The remaining ninety percent (90%) of the program income paid
to COUNTY shall be credited to the grant authority of 000PER-
ATING UNIT whose activity generated the program income and
sha11 be used for fundable and eligible CDBG activities con-
sistent with this Agreement.
3. COOPERATING UNIT is authorized to retain program income
derived from activities with an approved revolving account
provided such income is used only for eligible activities in
accordance with all CDBG requirements as they may apply.
4. COOPERATING UNIT shall maintain appropriate records and make
reports to COUNTY as may be needed to enable COUNTY to monitor
and report to HUD on the use of any program income.
5. Any program income that is on hand or received .subsequent to
the closeout ar change in status of COOPERATING UNIT shall be
paid to COUNTY.
Section VIII. REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION OR IMPROVEMENT, shall be added
to the original contract and shall read:
SECTION VIII. REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION OR IMPROVEMENT
The following provisions shall apply to real property acquired or
improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds.
A. COOPERATING UNIT shall promptly notify COUNTY of any modification
or change in the use of real property from that planned at the time
of aGquisi-t ion 'or improvement including disposition.
B. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY in an amount equal to the
current fair market .value (less any portion thereof attributable to
expenditures of~non-CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved
with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does
not qualify under the CDBG regulations.
C. Program income generated from the disposition or transfer of
property prior to or subsequent to the closeout, change of status
or termination of this Agreement shall be treated as stipulated in
Section VII, paragraph E of this Agreement.
Section IX. METROPOLITAN CITIES, shall be added to the original
contract and shall read:
~~_ ~~
SECTION IX. METROPOLITAN CITIES
A. Any metropolitan city executing this agreement shall defer their
entitlement status and become part of Urban Hennepin County only
under condition that a statutory provision authorizing deferral of
metropolitan city status becomes enacted prior to the official
allocation of the FY 1988 CDBG funds.
B. Should the statutory provision authorizing deferral of metropolitan
city status not be enacted it will be necessary for Hennepin County
and any metropolitan. city executing this agreement to request HUD
to approve the inclusion of the metropolitan city as a part of
Urban Hennepin County for purposes of planning and implementing a
joint community development and housing assistance program. In
such a case this agreement shall be fully effective.
This agreement shall be effective for the same period as the original
agreement.
Except as hereinabove amended, the terms, condition and provision of
said Contract No. _~ dated September 15, 1987, shall remain in full
force and effect.
COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this agreement, and the Hennepin
County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this agreement on
1987, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County
official having signed this agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound
by the provisions herein set forth.
Upon proper execution, this
agreement wi l l be l egal ly
va and bindi
ssis ~ n y y
Date • `1 ~'
COUNTY OF NENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA
By
Chairman of its County Board
And:
Depu y ssocia a oun y minis ra or
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION:
ssis an oun y orney
Date:
ATTEST:
Deputy oun y u i or
CITY OF
By : _
Its
And:_
Its
The City is Organized pursuant to:
Plan A Plan B Charter
~/-~ ~
Contract No. 70489
JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and the
CITY OF Richfield hereinafter referred to as "COOPERATING
UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the
State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
471.59;
WITNESSETH;
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the
interests of their citizens that COUNTY secure Community Development Block
Grant funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein
defined and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises
contained in this Agreement, the .parties mutually agree to the following
terms and conditions. _
I. DEFINITIONS
The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR Part
570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part
hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them:
A. "The Act" means the Housing and Community Development Act of 1973,
Title 1 of Public Law 93, 383, as amended by the Housing and Commu-
nity Development Reconciliation Amendments of 1985, 42USC5301ET.SEQ.
B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant
to the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570.
C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment.
D. "Cooperating Unit" means any city or town in Hennepin County which
has entered into a cooperation agreement which is identical to this
Agreement, as well as Hennepin County which is a party to each
Agreement.
E. "Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds" means the docu-
ment bearing that title or similarly required statements or docu-
ments submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the entitlement
amount and which is developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with
COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community Development Block Grant
Program.
'"~p ' ~'~
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING
UNIT to cooperate in undertaking, or assisting in undertaking, community
renewal and lower income housing activities, specifically .urban. renewal and
publicly assisted housing and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other
eligible activities which will be funded from annual Community Development
Block Grants from Fiscal Years 1988, 1989 and 1990.
III. AGREEMENT
A. The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on the
effective. date of October 1, 1987, and terminating no sooner than
the end of program year sixteen (XVI) covered by the Statement of
Objectives and the Projected Use of Funds for the basic grant amount
authorized by HUD subsequent to the effective date.
B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agree-
ment shall be terminated at the end. of the three-year program period
during which HUD withdraws its designation of COUNTY as an Urban
County under the Act.
C. This Agreement shall be executed by the .appropriate officers of
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by
their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing
resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the
COOPERATING UNIT in the office of the Hennepin County Administrator,
and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than August 28,
1987.
IV. ACTIVITIES
COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to under-
take and carry out within the terms of this Agreement certain projects
involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding under
the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking
of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this
Agreement. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable require-
ments of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and/or
Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing
in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY's responsi-
bility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the
development of the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds pursu-
ant to 24 CFR 570.300 et.se -
A. COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows:
1. COOPERATING .UNIT will in accord with a COUNTY established
schedule prepare and provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed form, an
annual request for the use of Community Development 31ock Grant
Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and
the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives.
~~_ ~~~
2. COOPERATING UNIT shall use all funds received pursuant to the
Agreement for each annual program within eighteen (18) months of
the authorization by HUD of the basic grant amount. Expenditure
period extensions may be requested in cases where the authorized
activity has been initiated and./or subject of a contract.
3. COOPERATING UNIT shall use funds provided pursuant to Section V.
of this Agreement. to undertake no more than three (3) grant
funded activities administered by the COOPERATING UNIT. Each
activity shall have a budget of at least seventy-five hundred
dollars (.$7,500), or the total amount of the planning allocation
of COOPERATING UNIT if less than seventy-five hundred dollars
($7,500). A COOPERATING UNIT may assign less than seventy-five
hundred dollars ($7,500) to an activity when the activity is one
that is programmed by at least one other COOPERATING UNIT and
administered by only one COOPERATING UNIT on behalf of the
others, provided that the total activity budget is at least
seventy-five hundred dollars ($7,500}.
4. COOPERATING UNIT wi1.1 take actions necessary to accomplish the
community development program and housing assistance goals as
contained in the Urban Hennepin County Housing Assistance Plan.
5. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that. all programs andlor activi-
ties funded in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant
to this Agreement shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard
to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for
minorities and women. It shall in implementing all programs
and/or activities funded by the basic grant amount comply with
all applicable federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and
regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and
equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by
the COUNTY.
6. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation
process as established in compliance with the requirements of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended.
7. COOPERATING UNITS shall comply with all of the administrative
guidelines of the COUNTY now in effect or as hereafter
promulgated.
8. COOPERATING UNITS shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed
all documents protecting the interests of the parties hereto or
any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY.
B. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows:
1. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing
agencies on an annual basis all plans, statements and program
documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under
the Act.
"~ ~ //
2. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical
assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the
preparation and submission of the request for funding.
3. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING
UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for
accomplishment of the community development program and housing
assistance goals.
4. COUNTY shall upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT agree to
administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs funded
pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive
ten percent (10%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the
activity as reimbursement for costs associated with ats opera-
tion.
5. COUNTY will, as necessary for clarification and coordination of
program administration, develop and implement Administrative
Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations and HUD administra-
tive directives.
V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS
Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under the Act shall be allo-
cated as follows:
A. COUNTY shall retain ten percent (10%) of the annual basic grant- °~
amount for the undertaking of eligible activities.
B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be apportioned by COUNTY
to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C
of this section for the purpose of allowing the COOPERATING UNITS to
make requests. for the use of funds so aportioned. The allocation is
for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding.
C. Each COOPERATING UNIT will use as a target for planning purposes an
amount which bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant
amount as the average of the ratios between:
1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all
COOPERATING UNITS.
2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of
poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS.
3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT
and the. extent of overcrowded housing by units in all 000PERAT-
ING UNITS.
4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio
involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice.
D. It is the intent of this section that said planning allocation
utilize the same basic elements for allocation of funds as are set
forth in 24 CFR 570.4. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based
upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to
gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any
errors in the data furnished by HUD.
VI. COUNTYWIDE DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNT
A. In the event that any COOPERATING UNIT cannot commit, expend or does
not request its planning allocation, or a portion thereof, pursuant
to Section V of this Agreement, COUNTY will assign the unexpended or
unallocated grant funds to the Countywide Discretionary Account.
The assignment shall also include funds pursuant to Section IV
paragraph A.2. of this Agreement.
B. COUNTY will retain ten percent (10%} of all funds placed in the
Countywide Discretionary Account to defray administrative expenses.
C. COUNTY will, on or before March l of each year, inform each 000PER-
ATING UNIT of the Countywide Discretionary Account balance and will
provide each COOPERATING UNIT the opportunity to make a request for
use of all or a portion of the funds.
VIi. FINANCIAL MATTERS
A. Reimbursement to the COOPERATING UNIT for expenditures for the
implementation of activities funded under the Act shall be made upon
receipt by the COUNTY of Summary of Project Disbursement form and
Hennepin County Warrant Request,. and supporting documentation.
B. A11 funds received by COUNTY under the Act as reimbursement for
payment to COOPERATING UNITS for expenditure of local funds for
activities funded under the Act shall be deposited in the County
Treasury.
C. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall maintain financial and other
records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the Act and
Regulations. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to
permit reports required of the County to be prepared therefrom and
to permit the tracing of grant funds and program income to final
expenditure.
D. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree to make available all recor-ds and
accounts with respect to matters covered by this Agreement at all
reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized
federal officials. Such records shall be retained as provided by
law, but in no event for a period of less than three years from the
last receipt of program income resulting from activity implementa-
tion. COUNTY shall perform all audits of the basic grant amount and
resulting program income as required under the Act and Regulations.
~,~_~-~J
E. COOPERATING UNIT shall return all program income derived from
activities funded in total or part from the basic grant amount to
COUNTY upon its generation, except as derived from activities
with approved reolving accounts.
1. COUNTY will retain ten percent (10~) of all program income to
defray administration expenses.
2. The remaining 90 percent (90~) of the program income-shall be
credited to the grant authority of the COOPERATING UNIT whose
activity generated the. income and be used for fundable and eli-
gible Community Development Block Grant activities consistent
with this Agreement.
F. Should an approved activity be determined to represent an ineligible
expenditure of grant funds, the COOPERATING UNIT responsible shall
reimburse the COUNTY for such ineligible expense.
I. All reimbursements for ineligible expenditures shall be placed
in the Countywide Discretionary Account, except as provided for
in Section VII.F.2. of this Agreement.
2. When it is determined by the COUNTY that grant funds have been
expended on an eligible activity and through. no fault of the
COOPERATING UNIT the project fails or is no longer eligible, the
program reimbursement shall be treated as program income in
Section VILE. of this Agreement.
-~ /~
VII. EXECUTION
COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the Hen epin County ~
Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on S , ~ ~„~
19~i ,and pursuant to such approval and the proper County offic~a av~ng
signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions
herein set forth.
Upon proper execution, this
Agreement will be legally
valid and binding.
ssis an oun y v orne~
~~
Date : ''~
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION:.
stan
DATE:'
CITY MUST CHECK ONE:
COUNTY 0 ENNE IN, S TE 0 MINNESOT
By
Chairm n ~ s oun y r
And : ~ iU.t..P_~ .
Deputy/Associate County.. Administrator
ATTEST:
Deputy. unty A
CITY 0,~: _ ~ICHF
By
Its
And
Its
r
M/~A-
The City is organized pursuant
to:
apT'n 1~ al~n'~' r er
~~ _~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter. No. 304
Agenda October 12, 1987
Issue Statement:
Purchase of regular gasoline 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
City of Richfield participates in joint purchasing with Hennepin
County. Rollins Oil Company supplies gasoline through this
purchasing agreement. On October 1, 1987, Rollins Oil Company
delivered 7,500 gallons of regular gasoline to the city garage.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the purchase of 7,500 gallons of regular gasoline from
Rollins Oil Company in the amount of $5,662.50.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City uses regular gasoline for operation of equipment.
2. The fuel has been delivered.
3. There is sufficient funding available for this purchase.
,Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is on the consent calendar of the October 12 city
council agenda. As the fuel has already been delivered, it is
recommended action be taken at this time to facilitate payment.
Respectfully submitted,
James D Prosser
City Ma ager
JDP/eja
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 303
Agenda October 12, 1987
Issue Statement:
Official oath of office-for Public Safety Director, John D.
Erskine.
Background:
John D. Erskine was appointed Public Safety Director of the City
of Richfield effective September 30, 1987. The Oath of Office
for Mr. Erskine has been scheduled for the October 12, 1987
council meeting.
Recommended Motion:
The City Clerk administer the Oath of Office to Public Safety
Director, John D. Erskine.
Basis for. Recommendation:
1. All law enforcement officals in the public safety department
are administered the Oath of Office.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Oath of Office could be administered by the City Clerk
at another time.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled for the October 12 ,1987 city
council meeting. A reception to welcome John D. Erskine, Public
Safety Director, and Byron Wallace, Community Development
Director, has also been scheduled for Monday evening in .the lobby
of the public safety department.
Respectfully submitted,
James D Prosser
City Ma ager
JDP/eja
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 302
Agenda October 12, 1987
Issue Statement:
Review and approval of the layout for Phase 1 improvements to the
1494/Trunk Highway 77 interchange and authorization for the Mayor
to approve final construction plans.
Background:
Minnesota State Statute 161 requires that the Minnesota
Department of Transportation seek approval from municipalities
for interstate construction within the municipality. MnDOT is now
seeking this approval from the Richfield City Council for the
proposed interchange improvements at 1494 and T.H.77. The plan
is the same .plan presented by Bloomington and their consultant,
BRW, on several occasions in the past. Because state and
interstate highways are involved, MnDOT is the contracting
agency.
The detailed layout will be available for review at the October
12 city council meeting. Of special note is the impact of the
project on the T.H.77 frontage road (Cedar Avenue) in front of
The Inn and Cedar South apartments. The frontage road and
sidewalk must be moved west several feet in this area to
accommodate the new ramps on T.H.77. This realignment will mean
MnDOT must purchase additional right-of-way from-The Inn and the
apartments. The owners of The Inn and Cedar South apartments
have been notified of the proposed council action.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution which approves the layout for the
I494/T.H.77 and authorizes the Mayor to approve final plans.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. City staff has reviewed the proposed plan and finds it
consistent with past plans shown to the council.
2. This improvement is needed to accommodate increased
traffic and prevent unacceptable congestion in and around
the interchange.
3. The right-of-way needed from The Inn and Cedar South
apartments will not inhibit the existing land uses.
Alternate Recommendation:
1. The council can ask MnDOT to change portions of the plan.
If MnDOT does not make the requested change, an appeal
process can be initiated in which the Met Council will
settle the differences. City staff sees no needed changes.
2. The council can approve the layout, but not give the Mayor
the authority to approve final plans when completed. MnDOT
then would need to return to the council for final plan
approval. City staff believes that the layout is of
sufficient detail so that construction plan approval should
be routine.
~'i~ _~
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The council can defer the decision. However, construction is
scheduled for the coming spring, so MnDOT and Bloomington are
anxious to complete the approval process so that a contract may
be let.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
~~ ~_
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION APPROVING IMPROVEMENT PLANS
FOR TH77 AND I-494 IN RICHFIELD AND BLOOMINGTON
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of
Minnesota has developed both a first stage and ultimate stage
plant of improvement for TH77 and I-494 in Richfield and
Bloomington, Minnesota and,
WHEREAS, the Commissioner has prepared a final geometric
layout for only the first stage improvement and seeks the
approval thereof;
WHEREAS, the first stage improvement specifically provides
for the improvement of TH 77 from approximately 190 feet south of
71st Street in Richfield to 2262 feet south of 86th Street in
Bloomington and along I-494 from 2066 feet west of 12th Avenue S.
in Richfield to approximately 93 feet west of 34th Avenue in
Bloomington and.
NOW, THEN, BE IT RESOLVED that said layout for first stage
improvements of said Trunk Highways within the corporate limits
of the City of Richfield, be and hereby is approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Richfield delegates to the Mayor authority and responsibility to
review and approve in accordance with Minn. Stat. S 161.174
(1986) the final construction plans, special provisions, and
specifications for the first stage improvement if there are no
major changes from the layouts already approved.
BY ORDER of the City Council for the City of Richfield this
12 day of October, 1987.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
--4 ~ [tea 77C~~I~ ~~o
,o
I~
.. _. i
,.
. ~.
~;
. ; . ..
I
~~ ~.
~~~- ~ ~,
~- ---- --=---_ ~ ~ i ~
~ \
li
~Q CEDAR
~, U~ SOUTH
~~,
o APARTMENTS I',..
~ ~~
~`
--- ------ =.1,~
THE /:
INN. ~,~
"~ MOTEL '.. _ ~~
,.~
,-
~~
of ,~ ;/
,_.
~ 62500 ~; `'
,~
... .._., I~ //
i
I ~
' .'.
,~
~~
. ~ ~
~~
f j-
r I
~'J I I
i
' I1
j i
` ~
i
~.
! I
~- ~ i
~ ~
r
7
i1 c
L
r
r
.~ _n
„ ~,~- _ `~
~,~t~ESOrq
y0
a
~~
~~
~'oF TaP`'~
Minnesota
Department of Transportation
District 5
2055 No. Lilac Drive
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
October 6, 1987
Donald A. Fondrick, Community Services
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 554.23
Re: S.P. 2758-40 Improvements to T.H.77/I-494
Dear Mr. Fondrick:
(612)593- $403
Please reference our August 4, 1987 letter to you requesting
Richfield City Council approval of the Mn/DOT staff approved
layout and related discussions at the September 29, 1987
meeting between you, Mr. Eastling and District 5 staff. sub-
sequent to this letter, it was discovered that the Stage 1
project as presented in the layout would reduce the width of
the west T.H. 77 frontage road between 76th & 77th Streets
from the present 36 feet to 28 feet.
we understand that you believe either a reduced 28 foot
width or the present 36 foot width to be satisfactory for
now but require a 39 foot width some time in the future in
the event that the T.H.77/I-494 ultimate plan is imple-
mented, or possible I-494 measures (frontage road recon-
struction and/or possible closure of 12th Avenue South and
Nicollet Avenue interchanges) are constructed, or a future
level of development along the frontage road requires a 39
foot width. we also understand that you will seek council
action on the staff approved layout being assured that we
will provide a 39 foot (36 feet plus two 18" gutters) wide
frontage road and sidewalk easement as currently exists. We
agree that Mn/DOT will provide a 39 foot wide frontage road
and necessary sidewalk easements as described above and
shown on flap 10 furnished to you separately, and will now
explore the options available to us for achieving the de-
sired width.
I trust this action will meet with your approval.
Sinc -ely
~' //,~/1/1/.~CY~
~. M. Cr~w~ord P
District Engineer
An Equal Opportunity Employer
~-~.,
CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 301
Agenda October 12, 1987
Issue Statement:
Presentation on behalf of the League of Women Voters
Background:
Betty Carr, a member of the Richfield League of Women Voters, has
requested an opportunity to appear before the City Council at the
October 12, 1987 City Council meeting to make a brief report on
the League.
Recommended Motion:
Hear the presentation by Mrs. Carr.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Mrs. Carr has requested an opportunity to appear before the
council at the October 12, 1987 city council meeting.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer this presentation to a future council meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Mrs. Carr has indicated she will be present at the October 12,
1987 city council meeting to make this presentation.
Respectfully submitted,
~__
Jame~~D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja