Loading...
05-27-86 agenda / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No, 216 .Agenda May 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield .Subject: Donation by the Richfield American Legion of $5,000 to the Fourth. of July Celebration - Council Members: - - The Minneapolis/Richfield American Legion Post 435 has advised the city that the Legion wishes to contribute $5,000 to the 1987 Richfield Fourth of July Celebration. Commander Don Swanson, Commander Elect Henry Vogelgesang, and Mr. Ray Earls, Gambling Chairman, will be present at the May 27, 1986 city council meeting to present this check to the City and to the Fourth of July Committee. Ms. Ethel Naslund, Fourth of July Committee Chair, will be present to accept the check on behalf of the Committee. - ~ _ Res ctfull ~ ubmitted - Y e en L. evi h Acting City Manager SD/eja . . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 215 Agenda May 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The_City Council City of Richfield Subject: West 78th St./Hampton Inn Interim Realignment City Council Members: As indicated to the City Council at the last meeting on May 12th, the City staff. and redevelopment consultant will be making.a presentation at the May 27th City Council meeting on the most viable interim alternative for traffic circulation on West 78th Street east of Lyndale Avenue. Initially, two alternatives were evaluated at some length and then a third alternative, which is actually a variant of the second alternative, was also evaluated in greater detail. The interim alternatives were _ evaluated in terms of: (1) their traffic circulation characteristics; (2) their consistency with the recommended ILN Redevelopment Plan; and (3) their cost. All of the alternatives evaluated are considered to be interim solutions because they do not meet all of the goals and ob.iectives which were established by the ILN Redevelopment Plan. The circulation plan which is recommended in the ILN Redevelopment Plan cannot be fully implemented until the final redevelopment-program is undertaken.. The~,.parameters which were sat up for this study were to identify the optimum interim traffic circulation solution for the Hampton Inn site area which could be implemented at a reasonable cost while, at the same time, providing protection for the residential neighborhood north of 77th Street and east of Lyndale Avenue. ' The ILN Redevelopment study identified two key problems in the Hampton Inn-West 77th Street area. These problems were traffic congestion and conflicts along Lyndale Avenue between I-494 and West 77th Street, and the infiltration of commercial traffic into the residential neighborhood north of West 77th Street. The final recommendations for this area, as presented in the ILN Redevelopment Plan, included the termination of West 78th Street in a cul-du-sac east of Lyndale Avenue, the widening of Lyndale Avenue, and the provision of a median on Lyndale Avenue with a "right in - right out" only access for the Hampton Inn motel site. The optimum plan also included the... . looping of the residential streets north of West 77th Street so that commercial traffic could not intrude into the residential area located between West 76th and West 77th Streets. It is Z apparent that all of these goals cannot be achieved at this time because of the lack of funding for the more costly long term solutions. It is highly desirable, however, to develop an interim solution which is as consistent with the final plan as possible. The other key element which will weigh heavily upon the potential solutions at this time is the amount of money which the city needs to spend in order to reduce the traffic problems which presently exist in the area. The interim plan when it is implemented will .help establish the permanent desired traffic patterns in the area. Additionally, an attempt will be made to minimize construction costs and disruption at the time the final plan is implemented. The first alternative (Alternative A) which was evaluated included the removal of a portion of West 78th Street and the construction of a -cul-du-sac east of Lyndale Avenue in the vicinity of the southeastern corner of the proposed Hampton Inn site. This alternative would envision the development of a separate entrance for the Hampton Inn site off of Lyndale .Avenue and the diversion of the-roadways at the Harriet Avenue and West 77th Street intersections. This diversion would prevent the commercial traffic south of 77th Street intruding into the residential area between~76th and 77th Streets. I Consideration was also given to designing the system in such a way as to prevent commercial traffic from intruding into the residential area on Garfield Avenue north of 77th • Street. One way of preventing this would be to provide for a one-way, .southbound, traffic flow on Garfield Avenue between 76th and 77th Streets. Another possible way to prevent infiltration of commercial traffic into this or i n f i p t o o Garfield Avenue would be to prevent traffic-from 77th Street from--going north onto Garfield Avenue without actually creating a. one-way street. If ~ this method were utilized, traffic from-77th Stxee-t could not go northward onto Garfield Avenue; however, traffic entering from 76th Street could go south to its-destination and could then i leave that destination going either northbound or southbound. j The cost to remove the existing West 78th Street in the vicinity of the Ham ton I p nn, and to construct a new cul-du-sac and a new driveway at the Hampton Inn entrance and to construct the street diversion at Harriet Avenue and West 77th Street is estimated to be approximately $90,000. A second alternative (Alternative B) considered would result in West 78th Street continuing to remain as it is, but it would be desi Hated for local traffic onl This alternative 9 Y would include the .reconstruction of the Lyndale Avenue/West 78th Street/Hampton Inn entrance intersection which would permit a right-only turning movement at Lyndale Avenue into the Hampton i, Inn site. Alternative B would also include a street diversion. to be constructed at Harriet Avenue and West 77th Streets as well as the potential one-way designation at Garfield Avenue South or the no-entrance designation from West 77th Street. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be approximately $60,000. ~ ~ 3 . A third alternative (Alternative C) considered, is quite similar to Alternative B which was discussed above, except that West 78th Street between Lyndale Avenue and Harriet Avenue would be desi Hated as an eastbound onl one-wa street. This 9 Y Y alt ernative would also allow for a separate exit from the Hampton Inn site onto Lyndale Avenue. The cost for this alternative would be approximately $60,000. In evaluating the above three alternatives, consideration was given to the traffic circulation patterns in the vicinity of the Hampton Inn site, consistency with the ~ recommended ILN Redevelopment Plan,. and the costs. In evaluating traffic circulation, the first alternative, most .decidedly provided the best option for .reducing traffic congestion and conflicts. This alternative would result in the West 78th Street traffic being diverted to West 77th Street. at. Harriet Avenue and would_dramatically_simplify the I, entrance and exit to the proposed Hampton Inn site. This alternative would also eliminate the undesirable, and potentially dangerous, turning movements onto and off of Lyndale Avenue. The second alternative discussed would result in a relatively complex intersection at Lyndale Avenue and would be gieatly dependent upon signing for directing people to I-494 because West 78th Street at Lyndale Avenue would not allow a west to south traffic movement. It is possible that this particular pattern would create some degree of frustration on the part of the motorists using this area because access to and egress from I-494 and West 78th Street would be by different routes. This alternative would also present a greater safety hazard at the West 78th Street/Hampton Inn entrance. The third alternative would minimize some of the conflicts at Lyndale Avenue, because of the one-way street pattern. However, it would contain some of the same problems as the second alternative in that it would have different access and egress routes between Lyndale Avenue and West 78th Street. The alternatives were next evaluated for consistency with the recommended ILN Plan. The first alternative would be most consistent with the more permanent solution which is contained in the ILN Redevelopment Plan. This alternative would immediately establish the final circulation pattern because it would not allow an traffic to traverse the area of West 78th Y Street between Lyndale Avenue and Harriet Avenue. When the final plan is implemented that there would be a very minimal change from what would be existing in the interim - _ plan. All three of the above mentioned alternatives would . minimize the infiltration of commercial traffic into the residential neighborhood-north of 77th Street, but none of them would provide the appropriate level of screening-and buffering i~- between the residential and commercial areas north and south of 77th Street. In evaluating the construction costs for the three alternatives, Alternative A would call for the greatest expenditure for construction. This amount, $90,000, would be approximately $30,000 more than the amounts required for Alternatives B or C. In addition, Alternative A would require the acquisition of land or at the very least an easement, for the construction of the cul-du-sac. It is possible, however, that the land for the cul-du-sac might possibly be negotiable since the removal of West 78th Street would present an excellent opportunity for additional landscaping and an improved "front door" image for the Hampton Inn. ~ I It_is possible -that. the construction costs in .this ICI initial phase could be reduced if West 78th Street were to be barricaded in Alternative A as opposed to bei-ng removed and a cul-du-sac being constructed. .Even though this ..would initially save costs it would be unsightly, would dramatically detract from the appearance of the area and would do very little to further the ILN Redevelopment Plan objectives. In summary, the evaluation presented above indicates that Alternative A would be the optimum interim solution in terms ~I of meeting the objectives of the ILN Redevelopment Plan. This alternative would have the clearest and simplest traffic circulation patterns, would reduce the major traffic conflicts on Lyndale Avenue, and would be most consistent with the ILN Redevelopment Plan. The biggest disadvantage of this alternative is that it would cost approximately 50% more than the other two alternatives. _ _ _ . - - - - From a technical"perspective, the first-alternative would most clearly provide a traffic pattern which is most consistent with the- permanent pattern desired in the implementation of the ILN Redevelopment Plan. However, this is also the most costly alternative. The third alternative would appear to meet many of the ILN Redevelopment Plan objectives and at the same time cost only two-thirds as much as Alternative A. This alternative would provide a relatively simple circulation pattern and would minimize some of the potential major conflicts at Lyndale Avenue and West 78th Street. Recommendation and Summary It is recommended that the City Council endorse the third alternative (Alternative C) recommended in this letter and that the council further appropriate the funds necessary for this recommendation. Alternative C would result in a one-way traffic flow from Lyndale Avenue and West 78th Street eastward to Harriet Avenue along with the construction of a median on West 78th Street immediately east of Lyndale Avenue which would allow for a channelized traffic circulation pattern into and-out of the I - f 6-s' • Hampton-Inn along with a traffic diverter at Harriet Avenue and West 77th Street. The latter mentioned diverter would prevent commercial traffic from intruding into the residential area north of 77th Street. It is also recommended that the City Council enact an interim ordinance which would allow no traffic to travel northbound onto Garfield Avenue from 77th Street. This would include "No Right Turn" signs for westbound traffic on West 77th Street and "No Left Turn" signs for eastbound traffic on West 77th Street. This would have the affect of minimizing the intrusion of commercial traffic into the residential area on Garfield. Avenue between 76th and 77th Streets. If it were later determined that this signage was inadequate to prevent excessive commercial intrusion into the residential area other alternatives, such- as .the construction of physical barriers, could then be considered. The construction of physical barriers would cost appreciable more than the installation of "No Right Turn",."No Left Turn" and "Do Not Enter-".signs.- Also, the construction of physical barriers would complicate the snow removal process. in this area. The developers of the proposed Hampton Inn property have had an opportunity to review the alternatives and will likely be present at the May 27 City Council meeting. Additionally, a letter was sent to the owners of nearby businesses and residents notifying them of this council agenda item. . _ _ _ _ . ReS ec fully ~ub.itted, 1 v n L. Devi h Acting City Manager SD/eja ~ ( ~ ~ ~ i I I ! ~ L I a ~ South-Bound I ~ One-Way Stree' ` Option ! Diversion ~ - - - - - - ~ . Alternative _ A West 77th Street - . ~ ~ + + X34%#:;;' - ~ I ! (""'`°'€1 Roadway _ _ ~ Reconstruction J r 11~' - ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~IIIIIIIIIIIII~ _t ~ ~ a _ L - - ' . - ~ Proposed _ J ~ Hampton inn ~ f - t - y_ ~ o _ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ West 77 t/2 Street ~ ` I I ` ~ ~ ~ I I I i I ll I I I ~1L Vacated Street-\~ Green Space ~ ~ f ~ Redevelo ment ~ P ::.:ern SG~r ~ Study col-de-sao Local 7ratfle City of Richfield. Minnesota ~O lrt~ ~ Primary R Circulation N® FigOure F-gg4 Ramp q IIIIIIIII I I I o m .o eo eo +oo rT. .,:.g;~ i • i ~ ~ i • • i ~ L~1 t /--South Bound I Street I One-Way Diversion ~ ~ ~ Alternative . west ntn street i ~ - - - - ~ I I ~ Reconstruction L ~ ~Illllf~llllllill~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ I I I I I I I I I I~ I , ~ proposed _ Hampton Inn I 5 ~ ' ~ i _ ~ ~ west 77 V2 street /r ~ _ I ; j F r ~ ~ II IIIIIiI~ 3~ _ I I~.IiIIIIIII~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ _ _ ~ i 1 LN ~ Redevelopment War ~ Local Tratttc I / ern S~~r only I ~ Siudy. No Access / {Primary Ci of Richlield. Minnesota ~To I-494 ,Circulation >Y / ~ ~ a ~ North Figure ' tigg4 ~ II`` I • amP QIIIIIf~I I i ~ rr. I. ~ ~It1~1~' W ~ I ~ ~ i South Bound _ One-Way Street ~ ~ _ _ - _ _ i~ Option I Diverelon ~ ~ ' ~ Alternative West 77th Street ' ~ r - - - - ~ I , - ©Reco struction t ~ ~ r i - a ~ - t Proposed - i , Ham ton Inn _ ~ P m.m....AY:~.::":. West 77 1/2 Street ::?::>iiG'.~;>~s<ss:-s:;;;:;:;::~:~~:~ ~ i ~ r: ~ _ ~ "i IIIII~ 3 ' IIIIIIIIIt~ ~ ~ ~ ii u ~ \ ~ ~ I ~ ILN war Bern So- ~ - ~ Redevelopment ~r Study ~1'1'ey~ ~ ~imary j Circulatbn City of Richfield. Minnewta ~ \'\l ~ ' hggq ~ North FigOure IIIIIIILa I ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~It1~1V ' \ • . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 213 Agenda May 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf-field ~,I Subject: Award of Contract for Data Processing Consulting Services Council- Members : - - . - - _ - - In order to assure that the City completes the conversion to - . - ids --new comp-uter system. by ,December 31, ~1.98b, staff is- requesting.. . that.the Council approve a contract with-Classic Systems, Inc., for assistance with several projects relating to data communications. It is necessary to complete the conversion effort by the end of this year so that the lease for the existing computer system does not need to be continued for an additional year at a cost of approximately $90,000.00. To attain this goal, the staff requires assistance beyond that contained in the contract with MTI Office Systems, the vendor for the new computer system. The total amount of the recommended consulting contract is $7,350.00. Five projects have been identified which are critical for a - -successful conversion and which would easily lend themselves to completion by an outside consultant. _ They are: 1. Implement the automatic transfer of sales data from the electronic casfi registers in the three liquor-stores.to the central computer at city hall. 2. Implement the automatic transfer of water meter readings from the electronic reader at the city garage to the central computer at city hall. 3. Implement the data communications network necessary to connect the computer systems located at five city buildings to the central computer at city hall. 4. Coordinate the procurement and installation of the communications equipment necessary to complete the projects described above. 5.-.Coordinate the conversion of word processing ..documents from the old computer system to the new computer • system. _ ~ _ In response to a staff request, nine proposals to provide these ser-vices were received. The hourly rates quoted for the services ranged from $40.00 to $90.00. Staff interviewed four respondents and is recommending Classic Systems, Inc., of Bloomington, Minnesota, at an hourly rate of $45.00. Mr. Richard Carlsten of Classic Systems would bring 20 years of data processing experience to the City. This experience includes both project management and data communications, the skills which will be required to complete the projects detailed above. Funds for professional services are included in the 1986 Data Processing division budget, although much of the $30,000.00 budgeted .h as been reallocated to cover other expenses relating to the new computer system. The shortfall. will be made up by user fees charged to the departments benefiting from the consultant's services. These--changes will be-reflected in the- revised 1986 budget presented to the Council this fall. _ .It is- recommended that thre Council authorize -the Acting City.. _ - Manager to enter into a contract with Classic Systems, Inc., fore data processing consulting services at an amount not to exceed $7,200.00 for 160 hours of service and expenses not to exceed. $150.00. Resp~ fully submitted, ~ I to L. 'ch Acting City Manager SD/eja CITY OF RICHFI ~ / ELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager _ • - Council Letter Nor. 212 Agenda May 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request By Richfield Optimists for One Time Raffle License Council Members: Mr. David Elasky,_Pr-esid.ent of the Richfield Optimist Club, has submitted an application for a license to conduct a raffle at the Fred Babcock VFW Post on June 20, 1986. Under the terms of the new Charitable Gambling Law, application is made directly to the Charitable Gambling Control Board. The city has a period of thirty days from receipt of such license application to allow the city council an opportunity, by resolution, to oppose such licensure. Unless the city council takes specific action to oppose such licensure, approval is handled through the State Charitable Gambling Control Board. This request for licensing is a renewal of the amblin 9 9 license issued in 1985 for the Richfield Optimists to conduct a fund raising raffle. The__Department-of Public- Safety has ex-a mined the application. and has no problem with the information submitted and finds no - season to~oppose, or deny the granting of this license by the Charitable Gambling Control Board. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council not oppose. the Charitable Gambling Control Board's issuance of a raffle license to the Richfield Optimist Club. If city council members do not oppose this one-time raffle, no further action is required. Respectfully submitted, n L. Devic Acting City M.anager_ . . SLD/eja /G/ ~ ~ Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board LAWFUL GAMBLING EXEMPTION - Room N475 Griggs-Midway Building FoR eoaRO use oN~Y ' : 1821 University Avenue - St. Paul, MN 55104-3383 ' • 16121642-0555 ~NSTRUCT{ONS: 1..Submit request for exemption at least 30 days prior to the occasion. 2. When completing form, do not complete shaded areas. 3. Give the gold copy to the City or County. Send the remaining copies to the Board. The copies will be returned with an exemption number added to the form. When your activity is concluded; complete the PLEASE TYPE financial information, sign and date the form, and return to the Board within 30 days. Organization Name ~'~B ~ °f~ ° ~ J ~ • i 1 i" ti C' , ~ ! _'a-T 1. i ~ it i I fV - ~ ~ r.S - {1 , Address City, County, State, Zip Code hief Executive Officer's Name (Phone Number t r;._ 1 Majtagei s Name - Phone Number ~C- t ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ i.~'jf f :2 i t--- ~„~.a ? f..~l-mil j<J Type of Organization If Other Nonprofit Organization (Check One) (Fraternal ? Veterans ? iRS Designation Religion ? Other Nonprofit Organization ? Incorporated with Secretary of State _ - ? Affiliate of Parent Nonprofit Organization Oatelsl of Activity • Name of Premises Where Activity Will Occur - { - Premises Address ~ _ ' 1 Games ~ Yes No Gross Receipts Value of Prizes Expenses Profit Bingo \ / Raffles ~ ~ paddlewheels Tipboards • -Pull-Tabs .Use of Profit - - - pisuibutor From Whom Gambling Equipment Acquired Disuibutor's license No. • I affirm all information submitted to the Board is true, accu- I affirm all financial information submitted to the Board is rate, and complete. true, accurate, and complete. _ ~ ~ > ' ~ Chief Executive Officer Signature ~ ~ ~ Date ,Chief Executive Officer Signature Date 1 • ACKNOV(/LEDGMENT OFNOTICE BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of this application. By acknowledging receipt, l admit having been served with notice that this application will be reviewed by the Charitable Gambling Control Board and will become effective 30 days from the date of receipt lnoted belowl by the City or County, unless a resolution of the local governing body is passed which specifi- cally disallows such activity and a copy of that resolution is received by the Charitable Gambling Control Board within -30 days of the below noted date. CITY OR COUNTY TOWNSHIP Name of cal Governing Body (City or Coygtyl Township Name (Must be notified when County is the aDProving body? rr k'I~rir~ci-i7 ignaturepf Pefson Receiving Application; 1 Signature of Person Receiving Application qe ,QateRaceived Title Date _ / ti CG u0020~01 (4/861 ~ _ White -Board Canary -Board returns to Organizatios+tokeep Pink -Organization Gold -City or County P. ,:'r: i... ~ / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager _ Council Letter No. 211 Agenda May 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for On-Premise Gambling License Richfield VFW Post 45555 - 710 Lakeshore Drive Council Members: On May 9, 1986 the city received a gambling license application from the Richfield. VFW club to permit bingo, .raffles, paddlewheels, tipboards and pull-tabs at their club at 710- . Lakeshore Drive. . _ Under the terms of the new Charitable Gambling Law, application is made directly to the Charitable Gambling Control Board. The city has a Period of thirty days from receipt of such license application to allow the city council an opportunity, by resolution, to oppose such licensure. .Unless the city council takes specific action to oppose such licensure, approval is handled through the State Charitable Gambling Control Board. i This re uest for licensin is essentiall a re uest for the q 9 Y q renewal of the privilege to conduct legal gambling at the VFW club, which in years past was granted to-them annually by city council approval. _ The Department of Public Safety has examined the application - and has no problem with the information submitted and finds no reason to oppose, or deny the granting of this license by the Charitable Gambling Control Board. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council not oppose the Charitable Gambling Control Board's issuance of a Class A On-Premises Gambling license to the Fred Babcock VFW Post 45555, 710 Lakeshore Drive, as requested. If city council members approve this activity, no further action is required. Res .e fully ubmitted, ,L~~ en uevi h Acting City Manager SLD/eja - . ~ FOR BOARD. USE ONLY ~ Charitable Gambling Control Board ' Griggs-Midway Bldg. Rm. N-475 ~ ~ - 1821 . University Ave. - St. Paul, MN 5510-33$3 GAMBLING. LICENSE APPLICATION (Class A, B, or C) INSTRUCTIONS: 1. PRINT OR TYPE. 2. Bring completed application to local governing-body, obtain signature and date un ell copies, and. leave ~ copy. Applicant keeps ~ copy and sends remaining copies to above - address. ' 3. Chances in application information must be suhmtttg~i within 10 days after the chanpP. Type of Application: Class A -Fee 5100.00 (bingo, Raffles, Paddlewheels, Tipboards, Pull-Tabs) ? Class B - Fee S 50.00-(Raffles, Paddlewheels, Tipboards, Pull-Tabs) ? "Class C - Fee S 50.00~(Bingo only) Make checks payable to: Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board. Applicant (Official, legal name of organization) Site Address FRED BABCOCK VFW POST 5555 _ 710 LAKESHOR~ DR _ Business Addrasa _ _ _ City, State, Zip - _ ~ - 710~LAKESHORE DR ~ RICHFIELD, MN 55423 City, State, Zip County RICHFIELD. MILAN .55423 HENNIPF.N County. Yes No i. Are all gambling activities conducted at HENNIPEN the above site? If no, complete a sepa- Business Telephone. Number Federal I.D. Number rate application form for each site as a ( ) Rfi9-~55~ 4~-077877?. X separate license is issued for each site. ~f Organization ternal ? Veterans R 2. Is site located within city limits? ? Religious ? Other Nonprofit Organization 3. Does organization own the site where Typo of Organization Charter gambling activity will be conducted? If ? International ® National ? State X no, attach copy of the lease for the Number of Years-in - Number of Articles of ~ site. Existence (in Mimesota) Incorporation (if incorporated) Lessor Name fit lease or rent) 08/31%53 - 32. yrs R/22l55 294'3622 Location Where Articles are Filed Address . Secreta.rv ~f State - Minnesota' ~ - - Yes No 1. Does organization have a dues structure? City, State, Zip. X number of active members ~ - ^ ~ ^ 2. Has organization been previously licensed Gambling Manager Name by the Board? If yea, give date fi,~^~ f R i Leo Leininger 3. Has license ever been denied, suspended Address X or revoked? I f 'yes check all that apply: 9110 LYNDALE AVE S ?Denied ? Suspended ? Revoked City, State, Zip 4. Is organization exempt from payment of BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420 U.S. income tax? If yes, attach copy of The 510,000 fidelity bond required by Minnesota X letter declaring exemption. Statutes 349.20 has been obtained. S. Is organization tax exempt from payment Company Name - Bond Number of Minnesota tax? If yes, attach copy of X letter declaring exemption. UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY. 51-38495 - Name of Organization's Officers and Titles 8~3r3_~fieTaert~- commander ~c.Gerald Courteau - Jr. Vice Cmdr.-~ James Robbins - Sr. Vice Cmdr. d. Richard Christie - Quartermaster x-00001-01 (12/84). Continued on Page 2 IG3 . - _ - -2- Minnesota Charitable Gambling Contro! Board GAMBLING LICENSE APPLICATION (Class A, B, or C) ~ GAMBLING SITE AUTHORIZATION 8y my signature below, local law enforcement officers or agents of the Board are hereby authorized to enter upon the site, at eny time gambling is being conducted, to observe the 'q ambling and to enforce the law for any unauthorized game or practice. ' BANK RECORDS AUTHORIZATION ey ~y signature below,- the Board is hereby authorized to inspect the bank records of the General Gambling Bank Account whenever necessary to fulfill requirements of currant gamblin4 rules end law. OATH I hereby declare that - :-=-1.- I have read. this epplieat$on ebd all inforn~etion submitted to the Board; - 2. All information submitted is true, accurate, and complete; 3. all other required information hss been fully disclosed; 4. I am the chief executive officer of the organization; 5. I assume full responsibility for the fair and lawful operation of all ectivitiea to bs conducted; 6. I will familiarize a~yself with the laws of the State of Minnesota respecting gambling .and rules of the 8oerd and agree, it licensed, to abide by those laws and rules, • including amendments thereto. Official, Legal Name of Organization Finn Rz,Rrnr•u ~~Fw pnem ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ . Signr+ re (Mupt~beLt :,:ritf-Executive Officer) r. II _ - _ Tit a COMMANDER _ Date - ~ o% S~~ ACKNOiiLEDGEMENT OF NOTICE 8Y LOCAL GOVERNING BOOM I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of this application. By acknowledging receipt, I admit having bean served with notice that ,this application will be reviewed by the Ch~riteble Gambling Control 8oerd and it approved by the Board, will become effective. 30 days from the date of receipt (noted below), unless a resolution of the local governing body is passed which specifically disallows such activity and a copy of that resolution is received by the Charitable Gambling Control 8oerd within 30 days of the below noted date. LOCAL GOVERNING BODY Nerve ~ ; ~ocal Gover~ir< B~ Signetur bf' r R vi4~g Application ORGANIZATION Date Rec ei ~e d (This ih.,da a from which the 30 day Name of Representative for Gambling License Applicant spprovel begins) ~ /Q O ~ ('serving notice) 'C-00001-01 (11/eA) . / ` CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 210 Agenda May 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Authorizing Renegotiation of Purchase Price for Property at 6339 Portland Avenue Council Members:-- - - - - - - ~ - _ .On Ap_ri1 28, 1986 .the city council -approved the purchase of . - 6339. Portland Avenue for park purposes at a purchase price of - $85,200. However, since the time this proposal was offered to and tentatively accepted by the seller, the seller obtained additional estimates. The owner then reconsidered the original offer by the city as less than satisfactory, and indicated an interest in reopening negotiations. • City staff determined it may be in the best interest of the city to have the property at 6339 Portland vacated in a timely manner to allow the city to place a number of properties for sale -and removal late this summer. To accomplish that, it is necessary for the current owners to vacate 6339 Portland Avenue as soon as possible. - - ---Therefore, the -ci-ty s-taff hasnegotiated an_ additional $1,000 in -purchase price in lieu of providing rental opportunities through the calendar_ year. The revised purchase... price would be $86,200 (rather than the $85,200~originally presented to the city council as the purchase price). The seller has agreed to this newly negotiated pur-chase price and has signed the purchase agreement subject to city council approval. It is recommended the city council approve the attached resolution, authorizing this renegotiated purchase price-and conditions of purchase. Res ctfull ub 'tted, ~ ' ~s~ _ ~S even L. Devich _ . - Acting City Manager SD/eja , _ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION N0. 7163 AND AUTHORIZING THE RENEGOTIATED PURCHASE PRICE FOR 6339 PORTLAND AVENUE FOR PARK PURPOSES WHEREAS, on April 28, 1986 the city council of the-City of Richfield passed Resolution No. 7163, authorizing the purchase of the property at 6339 Portland Avenue for the purchase price of $85,200, and WHEREAS, the city also agreed to rent the dwelling at 6339 Portland .Avenue to the seller-for the remainder of 1986 at a rental rate of $250/month, and .WHEREAS, since_Apri1 28, 1986 the seller has_ obtained I~ additional estimates and indicated an-interest in reopening - negotiations for the purchase of this dwelling, and WHEREAS,- the city staff has negotiated a selling price of ~ $86,200 in lieu of the rental opportunity through the calendar year 1986, and WHEREAS, funds for the purchase of these properties are I! available in the Parkland Acquisition Fund and the Legion Lake .Project Fund. i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield does hereby approve the purchase of 6339 ' Portland Avenue for a purchase price of $86,200 with real estate taxes and installments on special assessments to be prorated as _of the date of closing, that there be no rental opportunity, and with any relocation benefits for the seller to be waived. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, - Minnesota this 27th day of May, 19.86.. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: II Thomas Ferber City Clerk ' I • RESOLUTION N0. ? ~~p3 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTIES AT 6329 AND 6339 PORTLAND AVENUE FOR PARK PURPOSES. . WHEREAS, the city council has indicated its willingness to purchase property on the east side of Portland Avenue north of 66th Street for park purposes when such property is available for purchase, and WHEREAS, the properties at 6329 and 6339 Portland Avenue are available for purchase and the city staff has negotiated purchase agreements for these properties, and WHEREAS, the city as buyer,.-an d_ the owner of 6329 Portland Avenue-as seller,--have-agreed to a purchase price~of $78,000 with real estate taxes and installments on special assessments to be .prorated as of the date of closing, and with_ any relocatio-n_ . _ benefits .for the seller to be waived, and= - WHEREAS, the city as buyer, and the owner of 6339 Portland Avenue as seller, have agreed to a purchase price of $85,200 with real estate taxes and installments on special assessments to be prorated as of the date of closing, and with any relocation benefits for the seller to be waived. The city has also agreed to rent the dwelling at 6339 Portland Avenue to the seller for the remainder of 1986 at a rental rate of $250/month, and WHEREAS, funds for the purchase of these properties are I~ available in the Parkland Acquisition Fund and Legion Lake Project, Fund. - - -NOW, THEREFORE, .BE. IT RESOLVED ~y- th,e-City Council of thee. City of Richfield, Minnesota that the purchase of the properties at 6329 and 6339 Portland. Avenue, f_or the terms outlined..above,- is hereby approved. Passed this 28th day of April, 1986 John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk - / _ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 209 Agenda May 27, 1986. The .Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public-Input Process for I35W and 1494 .Traffic Corridor Studies Council Members: - - - - As council members may be aware, the I494 and I35W traffic Corridor Studies are getting underway and will have an impact upon the major highways and the communities which adjoin them. The purpose of this council letter is to briefly describe each of the studies now underway and to recommend a process by which the city may gather input from the public.., I494 Corridor Study The purpose of the I494 Corridor Study is to develop a design concept for the transportation facilities in the 1494 corridor-supportive of orderly and economic-development in the - _ _southern and southwestern portions of the metropolitan area. _ ~ This study is not intended to replace the environmental and final design. work that will be necessary prior to the potential implementation of highway improvements in the corridor. The major objectives of the I494 study are: -to produce an alternate design concept for the metropolitan roadways corridor -to identify development. levels and land use types compatible with the proposed transportation infrastructure -to recommend a strategy-, i.e. timetable and funding mechanisms for implementation of the proposed transporta- tion improvements The Metropolitan Council is the lead agency in this study and will provide the project manager and staff support equivalent to one to two full-time employees. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) is also a partner in that study and will provide additional full-time equivalent employees to support. the study. The affected municipalities, such as Richfield, which participate in the study, will also .have the responsibility of providing financial support for the project as well as staff /7 . support The municipalities with priority involvement in .the 1494 Corridor Study are Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, .and Richfield. Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Airports Commission will also participate in the study. The first phase of the I4.94 study which includes definition of the project organization, securing funding for the study, preparing study design and request for proposals (RFP), defining consultant selection processes, corridor definition and identification of major transportation facilities, was to be completed at the end of March, 1986.. The second phase of that. ' study which will be conducted according to the study design developed in phase one, is targeted for completion by June 1, 1987.. Currently, phase one of the study is still in progress, but is scheduled for completion in the near future. The project management team for .the I494 Corridor Study includes two. representatives from the City of Richfield,. Mayor Hamilton and Community Services Director Fondrick. - - - - _.-_I35W Preliminary Design Studies- The Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Council and the I35W Project Management Team have committed to assuring full public involvement in the scoping phase of the I35W .Preliminary Design Studies. The scoping process will objectively review all possible alternatives for improving people carrying capacity in the I35W Transportation Corridor and will determine feasible alternatives for further consideration in the Environmental Impact Statement. There will be no preconditions on the alternatives which will be initially evaluated. The._portion of-I35W which will be analyzed in this study extends through the communities of Minneapolis, Richfield, ~Baoomington and Burnsville. The involvement of-local communities along the. corridor and the people and businesses potentially affected by transportation improvements within the corridor, is extremely important: The goals~of local communities, the types of land uses in the corridor, the extent of the potential impacts and the level of citizen concern vary considerably. The project management team has proposed that each community develop a public involvement program designed to meet the specific needs of that I~ community. In addition, a Project Advisory Board, composed of Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington and Burnsville representatives, has also been formed to assist the previously named agencies in preparing the scoping phase of the I35W study. The City of Richfield has placed the Director of Community Services and Director of Community Development with the City Engineer named as an alternate member, as their representatives - _ on this board. The goals as developed by the Project Management Team for the I35W Design Study, have been determined as follows: /7 -Obtain public input and comments regarding the issues and impacts. to be addressed in the study and the alternatives to be considered -Provide a forum for the expression of all concerns related to the I35W project -Provide an opportunity for all interested parties to participate -Insure equal representation of all local communities -Provide maximum flexibility to accommodate local needs and desires -Provide for maximum local control over the public involvement program To accomplish these goals it has been determined that each local community should establish and manage its own public- involvement program for the I35W-project. The members of the Project Management Team will be available to provide support for each city's public involvement-pro-gram. .While the final form of each city's program will be customized to that city, there are a list of suggested forums that communities may utilize. Public Meetings One such. public involvement forum might be that of a series of public meetings. The meetings could be community wide meetings held at critical points during the scoping process or they could be neighborhood meetings oriented around a particular issue or segment of the highway improvement. Public meetings are primarily designed to be informational, although they do provide an opportunity for all interested parties to participate and expreSs_their_opinions and concerns. In such a process, everyone . is invited to participate rather than a committee situation or - where only certain appointed individuals have input. The - disadvantages of public meetings is that they provide little opportunity for continuity or round table discussion of complex issues. Additionally, there is no way to fairly represent all community interests in this approach since some interests will probably not be vocal enough to participate in public meetings. Attendance at public meeting typically overemphasizes opposition to particular .projects. Task Force A formal, I35W committee or task force could be established. The task force would be established to work in parallel with the .Project Advisory Board throughout the scoping phase addressing all Richfield's most important issues in the study. Alternatively it could be established with the purpose of studying one or more specific issues most relevant to a _ particular community. For example, a task force migh-t focus on one issue related primarily to a geographic area such as the Crosstown Commons section. Membership of a task force could be i drawn from a variety of sources. including neighborhood groups, businesses, organizations, special interest groups, city agencies, council members, commission members, or a variety of other bodies within the community. Ideally, membership of a task force would be selected to represent a broad range of concerns, ideas, and organizations. A task force, because of limited membership, restricts public participation in the planning process. However, the purpose of a task force can be clearly focused, membership can be balanced, .and the interest level is usually high. In addition, a . task force could provide continuous input throughout the scoping process for a consistent format and membership. Hybrid Approach ~I A community may wish .to-make use of more than one of the ~I above approaches. For example, a city may wish to establish a formal community task force, but may supplement this with neighborhood.meetings. Anothe_r.cammunity may also want to use public meetings as a primary vehicle, but have the one or two issues addressed by a task force. A standing advisory committee might also be utilized. Committee Structure The committee structures that will be utilized in the phase one scoping process for the I35W study, is represented in the attached Figure No. 1 which shows the committee structures and their relationships. As one can see from the diagram, the process is~based upon considerable public input. Richfield Public Involvement-Program Alternative__ - - Both~the I494 Corridor and I35W Corridor Studies are in their initial stages. The time, however, has come for the City . of Richfield to determine what type of public involvement process will be created to gather input from Richfield citizens concerning the two studies. Perhaps more than any other community in the metropolitan area, Richfield will be dramatically affected by any modifications to I494,-I35W and the .Crosstown. Richfield must focus on four specific areas in regard to these traffic studies: the Crosstown Commons area, 494/I35W interchange, the I35W area dissecting Richfield, and our southern boundary, I494. After some consideration regarding what might be the most effective way for .the City of Richfield to approach the public involvement process, city staff has determined that the following approach may be the best way to gather information most important to Richfield residents. Public meetings could be scheduled for the I494 Corridor Study and the I35W Study. Initially, it is suggested that the public meetings focus on each of the two studies at two separate meetings held at the City Council Ehambers at City Hall. The meetings could be facilitated by _ /7 representatives from the Planning Commission and Community Services Commission and feature members of the Project Management Team who would provide specific information concerning the areas of the study which may be explored and the possible issues, concerns, and technical information which will be necessary to provide a broad base of understanding for the traffic studies which will follow. From the initial public meeting on each of ~I the two traffic studies, a follow-up, or series of follow-up meetings, could be again facilitated by members of the Planning Commission and Community Services Commission to cover areas of concern which may be identified in the initial public meeting. From these public meetings information would be transmitted to the City. Council and from the City Council to the Project Advisory Board of the I35W study and the I494 Project Management Team respectively. During the entire process of scoping, information could be disseminated back to the public through a series of public meetings, again hosted by the same members of the Community Services and Planning Commissions, who would serve as fa ili c. tators through this entire process. The public. meeting concept presented here which-would feature permanent facilitators from the Community Services Commission and the Planning Commission, would accom lish two P mayor goals: 1. It would invite and solicit input from, the broadest range of Richfield citizenry regarding the concerns and options which may be further explored ' in the I494 and I35W Transportation Studies 2. It would provide a base of continuity throughout the ' scoping process for the I35W study-and subsequent I494 studies in that the Planning Commission and Community - - Services Commission members of -the facilitating team would remain intact and provide continuity through the _entire process. If, after the public informational meetings have taken place, there is a specific interest in certain issues identified in the public meeting process, subcommittees could be formed to pursue these issues further. ' i Through this method of public involvement, the City of Richfield can begin from the broadest base of public involvement, and funnel that participation into a more concentrated ' participation of individuals focusing on specific concerns which i have been identified as major issues for Richfield. ' Recommendation - The City of Richfield, along with the other participating cities in the I494 and I35W Corridor Studies, must identify the i public involvement process to those. study groups. For the I35W Study that information should be presented at. the June meeting of /7l~ the Policy Advisory Board. The I494 study has not required identification of a public involvement process at this time, but it seems reasonable to adopt a process which would incorporate the same methods of public involvement for both the I35W and (494 Corridor Studies. Both are equally important to Richfield and would require significant participation. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Acting .City Manager to notify the I35W Policy Advisory Board that the public meeting process recommended in this council letter will be utilized as Richfield's public involvement program in both the I35W and 1494 Corridor Studies. Resp~~ fully submitted, / s _ , n - vich Acting City Manager SD/eja Attachments: 1. Committee Structure Figure 2. I35W Corridor Study Map 3. I35W EIS Scoping Phase Schedule 4. I494 Corridor Study Outline 5. .April 28, 1986 Letter to William Crawford appointing members to the I35W Project Advisory Board ~ - Mrt/DOT METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PROJECT . MANAGEMENT TEAM MnDOT Metro Council FHWA ~ _ SRF ~ - ~5~ QO/ ~'Sc~ yJQ/ ~ \~.o ~ ~Q/ POLICY ADVISORY BOARD ' -MnDOT -Bloomington ~ ~ -Metro Council -Burnsville ~ ~ -FHWA -Minneapolis ~ -RTB - -Richfield- ~ - ~ -Dakota - -Hennepin I - - _ . - - County County BLOOMINGTO ~ RICHFIELD _ PUBLIC PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM PROGRAM ~ BURNSVILLE M{NNEAPOLIS PUBLIC PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM PROGRAM M : ~ ~ t-35W Phase a scnor,g ¦ w r~ COMMITTEE Figure C STRUCTURE ° 1 dinnesota Department of Transportation -Metropolitan Council i, i - .e ~ i _ / April 28, 1986 M N ~ Mr. William"Crawford ~ ~ District Engineer - ~ Minnesota Department of Transportation District 5 _O 2055 Na. Lilac Drive - Golden Valley, MN 55422 - ~ - _ O _ _ Dear- Mr: Crawford: - = Pursuant to your letter of March 27, 1986, the following individuals will represent Richfield on the I-35 Project Advisory Board: Donald Fondrick, Community Services ¦ Director - Member ~ ~ Dennis Kraft, Community Development ~ Director - Member Michael Eastling, City Engineer - Alternate ~ I understand the first meeting of the Project - ~ Advisory Board is scheduled for 9:30 a.m., _ ~ Thursday, May:.-1, 1986;_ -at Distriet~, 5 Offices. If you have any questions regarding this... ~ matte please let me know. _ ~ Sin r ly, O ~ ¦l~ Q. L. ~ ~ ~ n Acting City Manager O O :,LD:sb to ce: Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Dennis Kraft, Community Development. Director - ~ ~ Michael Eastling, City Engineer - I telephone: 889-7521 (612) an equal opportunity. employer w ~ I - ~~OTgy Minnesota , Q Department of Transportation District 5 ~F 2055 No. Lilac Drive ~'oF ~a~' Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (613 ~ .145.3761 March 27, 1986 Mr. Steve Devich City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Devich: - _ _ _ I-35W between I-94 in Minneapolis and I-35E in Burnsville carries a tremendous . _ - -volume of traffic during the peak periods. Demand is well over the -design ~ _ capacity of the roadway. Accordingly, the Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council have undertaken an alternatives analysis and Environmental Impact Statement scoping process. The study will evaluate transportation alternatives for increasing the capacity of I-35W and better serving the Z-35W transportation corridor. We will be establishing a technical Project Advisory Board and asking local communities to establish I-35W Community Task Forces to assist in the identification of issues and the evaluation of alternatives. The purpose of this letter is to request your participation in this important study. PROJECT ADVISORY BOARD - -A Project Advisory Board is being established to assist Mn/DOT, Metropolitan _ Council and the Project Management Team_in resolving procedural and technical issue"s that arise in the study. The Board will be made up of technical staff from the following organizations: Mn/DOT Central Office (1) Mn/DOT District Five (1) Metropolitan Council (1) Federal Highway Administration (1) Regional Transit Board (I) Hennepin County (1) Dakota County (1) Minneapolis (2) Richfield (2) Bloomington (2) Burnsville (2} Members of this board will be responsible for assuring that local technical issues are addressed in the study process. They will also assist us in the presentation~of study findings and recommendations to the-local Community Task C Forces and appropriate local agencies, boards and councils. We strongly reCOmmend that the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development be appointed to the Project Advisory Board.. An Equa! Opportunity Employer _ - _ - /7 /0 -Mr. Steve Devich _ March 27, 1986 C Page Two _ The first meeting of the Project Advisory Board is scheduled for 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May 1, at District 5. If your appointed representative cannot attend, please make sure a substitute is present. I-35W COMMIINITY TASK FORCE - We recognize that each of the four cities (Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, Burnsville) directly impacted by this study may have different concerns to be addressed and different geographic areas affected by the I-35W project. Thus, we will be encouraging members of the Project Advisory Board to establish one or more I-35W Community Task Forces in their cities. We will be suggesting to the Project Advisory Board that elected officials., representatives from local . citizen"and business groups;-and othe community leaders be represented on each Task Force as each city sees fit. We believe this approach will provide the flexibility necessary for local communities to.have..the representation they - - . - ~ - desire .in .the- project and- address the issues tha_-t are of -most concern to their _ .own community and neighborhoods. We appreciate your assistance in .this matter and look forward to working with you on this very significant transportation project. We assure you that your input into the decisions which must be made about the future of I-35W are of utmost importance to us. C If you have any questions about the above described committee structure or about the I-35W project in general, please feel free to call Craig Robinson, the I-35W Project Manager, at 593-8522. Sincerely, - ~ - ~ - illiam Crawf District Engineer - cc: Dennis Kraft, Community Dedelopment Director Donald Fondrick, Director of Community Services - - _ / Study Design Outline for Phase II - I-49~t Corridor Study - ' - Phase II would be carried out by the various participants and consultant under the overall direction of the Pro~eet Management Team and Project Manager. A first cut at dividing the primary responsibilities for the various tasks is described below. Task Primary Responsibility 1. Land Use Analysis Metropolitan Council and Municipalities o Existing land-use inventory - _ _ - o Comprehensive plan and zoning review - Vacant land _ _--Underdeveloped land. _ - - ~ - - -.Mayor current proposals (i.e. Homart, Mega=mall...) - o Modified future land use file (population, employment, household) 2. Travel Forecasts o Existing traffic volumes/transit ridership Mn DOTIRTB/M.C. o Year 2000/Year 2010 traffic volumes/transit ridership Mn DOT/M.C. o Modified 2010 traffic volumes/transit ridership based upon different development scenarios Consultant o Capacity restraint assignments Consultant o Feedback to land-use scenarioslDevelopment Constraints Consultant - 3. Physical ConstraintslOperational constraints o Right-of-way availability and cost Mn DOT/Consultant o Interchange spacing- _ - Mn DOT/Consultant o Levels of service options Mn DOT/Consultant o Transit service level and type options RTB/Consultant o Environmental considerations o Socioeconomic impacts - 4. Policy Considerations Limited involvement of consultant. o Development Framework Policies M.C. o Roadway system constraints - Metropolitan highway system needs M.C./MnDOT - Non-metropolitan highway system needs Municipalities - Highway/Transit Policy consideration and needs RTB/Mn DOT - Funding availability M.C./Mn DOT - System continuity and balance M.C./Mn DOT o Relationship to other regional systems M.C. - - ~aa. - v r - - Revised: 11/18/85 Revised: 11/25/85 Revised:• 12/5/85 Revised; 12/31/85 - Revised; 1/27/86 Revised: 2/4/86 - I-494 CORRIDOR STUDY OUTLINE I-49~+ was one of the first Interstate Highways constructed in the metropolitan area. The design of an interstate highway is typically based on 20 year traffic projections. The original I-494 Pour lane freeway was expanded to 6 lanes east of Highway 100 in the mid- 1960's so even the upgraded road is reaching the end of this 20 year period. . The Metropolitan Council has known for many years that I-494 will require - _ - - improvements because of the expected development in the south and southwest portions oP the metropolitan area. Our Long-Range Transportation Plan recognizes the need to increase the carrying capacity of I-494 to the equivalent of 6 lanes west of Highway 100 to Highway 169 in Eden Prairie. It also identifies the need to upgrade interchanges at Cedar Avenue and 24th Avenue. Further improvements were also identified in the Airport . South Study conducted by the city of Bloomington. Recent development proposals in the area, such as the Mall of America and the Homart Development, will only accelerate the need for improvements.. A. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY • ~ ~ To develop.a design concept for the transportation facilities in the I-494 - - corridor supportive of orderly and economic development in the southern and - _ _ southwestern portions of the Metropolitan Area. - The study is not intended to replace the environmental and final design - -work that would be necessary prior to the implementation of highway improvements in the corridor. B. OBJECTIVES Three major objectives are expected to be achieved with the proposed I-494 Corridor Study: - To produce an ultimate design concept for the metropolitan roadways in that corridor. - To identify development levels and land-use types compatible with the proposed transportation infrastructure. • - To recommend a strategy (i.e. timetable and funding mechanisms) for . implementation of. the proposed transportation improvements. Achieving those three objectives could establish a pattern for other future corridor studies. s~ . /J M C. PROJECT ORGAi3IZATION - The Metropolitan Council, the lead agency for the study, would provide the project manager and staff support equivalent to one to two full- time additional employees. Staff support would relate to transportation policy, land use and other issues. - Mn/DOT, a partner in the study, would provide two full-time equivalent employees to support areas of the study such as right-of-way issues, geometries and highway design, cost estimates, highway operations. - The Regional Transit Board (RTB.) also a partner in the study, would primarily provide input with respect to transit options associated with the alternative design concepts considered for the I-~94 ~ corridor. err' - The affected municipalities would also ~ _ _participate in_the.study. They would provide staff support particularly in the area of land use analysis (i.e. inventories, zoning, etc...) and would be.ineluded in the overall management of_the study. - A staff team made up of representatives from the Council, Mn/DOT and the RTB would constitute the core technical group in the study. - A Project Management Team-(PMT) made up.of representatives of all of the above parties would provide direction to the study. - Consultant services would be retained to perform some of the technical tasks. ' D. TASK DESCRIPTION Phase I Phase I will be initiated by the Council, Mn/DOT and the RTB staff. As soon as f local community participation is clearly defined, representatives from those communities will also be brought into the. process. _ _ !_During Phase I, the Council-will be represented by the project manager; Connie _ ~ ~ Kozlak and by Nacho Diaz. The project manager will be primarily responsible for preparing a study design and a request for proposals, and will also participate in all, other tasks. 4 ;During Phase I, Mn/DOT will be represented by Duane Brown, Fred Tanzer, Glen Carlson and Dick Elasky. Other resources will be available on request to ;address issues requiring specific expertise. The RTB will be represented in .Phase I by Judith Hollander and Katie Turnbull. Once local communities participation is ensured, representatives from those communities will be asked to provide input for the study design defining the project and for the corridor definition task. Tasks 1. Define project organization 4/~ L~ 2. Secure funding for study 3. .Prepare study design and request for proposals Define consultant selection process The. selection of consultant will be made following the standard Council's contracting process which takes about 4 months to develop. This process typically includes the following steps: - Contract initiation and request for proposals (RFP) preparation - Issuance of RFP's - Evaluation of proposals/Section of consultant - Council approval . -~Contraet drafting and execution The evaluation of proposals will be done with the involvement of the participating agencies. 5. Corridor definition o Geographical boundaries/participating communities • The following muncipalities-directly affected because of their geographical location should be contacted to participate in the study: - Bloomington - Eagan _ - Eden Prairie - . Edina - Mendota heights - Minnetonka - Richfield Other agencies directly affected, Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, should also be invited to . - participate- in-the study. - Other agencies which could be affected, Inver Grove Heights, - Apple Valley, Burnsville, Dakota County, Minneapolis and St. Paul will also be notified of the study. o Major transportation facilities (including intersecting roadways) A primary impact area can be defined from T.H. 169 on the west to • T.H. 5 on the east where major capital improvements might be expected. A secondary impact area beyond these termini, can be defined between T.H. 169 and I-39~ in the west and between T.H. 5 and I-35E in the east. These termini were selected on the basis of traffic volumes and previous recommendations of the Transportation Policy Plan. In the definition of the travel shed for the I-~9~ corridor, other major roadways such as CSAH 18, T.H. 77, I-35W, T.H. 100 will also have to be considered. .The width of the corridor needs to be determined; it should probably include CSAH 62 Crosstown. - l ~ l~J Phase II • Phase II will be conducted according to the study design developed in Phase I,- Which frill probably include the following: t. Land Use Analysis o Existing land-use inventory o Comprehensive plan and zoning review - Vacant land - Underdeveloped land - Major current proposals (i.e. Homart, Mega-mall...) o Modified future land use file (population, employment, household) 2. Travel Forecasts o Existing traffic-volumes/transit ridership o Year 2000/Year 2010 traffic volumes/transit ridership . o Modified 2010 traffic volumes/transit ridership based upon " - - - different development scenarios o Capacity restraint assignments - o Feedback to land-use scenarios/Development Constraints 3. Physical Constraints/Operational constraints o Right-of-way availability and cost o Interchange spacing ---,o Levels of service options o Transit service level and type. options o Environmental considerations o Socioeconomic impacts 'L - ~ - Policy Considerations - o "Development Framework Policies o Roadway system constraints - Metropolitan highway system needs - - Non-metropolitan highway system needs - Highway/Transit Policy consideration and needs - Funding availability - System continuity and balance o Relationship to other regional system 5. Alternative design concepts (definition and costs) o Existing and committed system 0 8 lanes/6 lanes freeway (metered) - with HOV - with other transit options (local circulation, metering, . ridesharing, LRT, etc.) - without HOV or other transit options _ o- Other design options (both highway and transit) -o Other Metropolitan Highways within Corridor o Non-Metropolitan Highways within Corridor ~ - ~~~CCCJJJ 6. Roadway Design Concept Development o Evaluation Criteria Development , o Evaluation of Alternatives o Design Concept Development o Implementation Strategy (J . ~,;;''1 ABC 7. Land-Use Recommendations ~ 1U' E. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE Phase I of the study will be completed March 1, 1986. Phase II of the study would be completed by June 1, 1 F. FUNDING The study would be funded by all the agencies and municipalities • participating in the project. The level of funding for consultant service - .would be $150,000 - 200,000. - _ _ _ . JM964A . ~ { ,i ~ tj~S, ;q t v t' ~ ~ ~ ~ }5 - 3_ - ~r~ , • _ ~ / - ~ ~ • L ~~I( ~1t _~t~U• Sufi ' fir. ~ ~ _ ~.s. _ ~ , r,; ti r_ N~, C % ( may..:.-. r - _ ; - ~ SSpiff Sf.Af(4 ~ i ~,r:.- f ~ ~ ST. PAUL-MiNNEAPOLiS ~r..~'y _t__.:'-- - _ SEVEN CpUNi'Y AAEA r ; ~ r •1 - S . vans?» *uc i. r' f ~ ' ~ w. r _ - is fmrun~[in a;*::r':^T:'""r i - - PROPOSED SCNEOULE sa9w Et5 SCOatstG PHASE. _ { WR ~ APIIIL ~ YAr' ~ JUNE I JUIr I AUG ~ SEPT. I ~T i NOV I OEC ~ JAM I Fp I I I ~ , t f tD PROJECT YANAGEY[NT 1.! Ptllt.fC RtrO~VEYEMT MOGRAY y f V 1 • o~... I I * ~ ( I * I u Oe.eew ae.e bOT ~ ~ f I If z 7 oe»qp mrrq qy y I ; I : a 5uoooa _ .r.r..n ( I I I I 1 I I` t a Dweea.nbrmrr c+a•-;row I y 7-0 PRONOE COYW'TIEF SVIPDPT aA t.OIIEGT DAL • t DPW tare. sass mro:'. Meaty • Z Esads+ars sta'ca'es s K IOenNT Can rwas aro carat i a 78 Cere e•~s:~; ors a E Orirn.rr •r. ea ~ ne:vReo - a 6A Le1se nP. ra^ c era a !5 Ce•ee we.. .rc era , a t~ Coeee Ae~. _ _ a cra I a.lJ Coeaa ne.. war• era I , aeE Cora rw . ,era a 9 vnoPe wJw~ -v-rarr SD ESTAlItSN PLANNING fRAYEWORK S.t WMMy mew o0•pea - 1 1 ~ - SS taerah. w+S, s•~~oaKS - ~ I - . S1 lOemnT rraahen.Oerml' .IG I Sa DeW pans. oa.aw..s. I a nvawK S.S Mane sArO• ssS;mglen ~ I SR - C sane+p orocspres ~ - - - - - . S 7 Pnaa~? Punmrv; Fyme.ora Reeert I _ to IOENTIFr ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES !t bemkT pre•e•rnry Ml0lrWNa - !2 Sowl nrsws trorn IKn bees ' 6 L Prepen atemau•e sseicn nrouts _ SSE PnDan rynrOrlls 6 X Oerbo eescn4P•e earn 6]O Prepare surrey a_.. ; Pnpere f•eten tllarlr•Iq lpreWit 6.3 Corora dne/ 6aY iN~yaK 66 Seven aaernerws 6.: Corona awFSes Si Preoara ova noon 61C ReVSe aro DUYSn On`n00r: ED PREPARE TRAVEL FORECASTS !.1 Danrrr•r fOedtC ipraCiitf req•rW !2 Der?ep AYrMO Wrt plan _ Evawau ensa^: meow e a ooovmen: omoosee , - - - I !3 genmv nen.ens a a De.eloo accewn; peppyrK I ~ _ 9 tr WmyMas as rbwea ~ I e.9 Perbrm OASe•ne loreusnrp e +c Penonn naKn arYlytK !t` OwebD lraMl brKat6 brawn ATerNlnie l.12 Condra NyrtmiT anlryses - - et7 Prepare lnVerbneaRnq reoen !A SKETCN•LEVEL IMPACT ANALYSES - 94A Eodogtal sTtu+n I 9_le Nisb~neilN. irerlaealXAllY, arCnapgpeal7 NANM areas ( 9.1C Para aro repna.en RnOS ~ - I l,tC Pnnyarlpurw.relvmlaro 9 tE ap1 aro 6p1 noon reounmenlt - , . ! 7F Sowl aro eCOrWmK enoaes ptG Frurrpal anemelwes , 7A DEVELOP SLOPING DOCUMENT I 7.1 Develop aro nrN. aYIYM - T2 Deum.M MwY~Mr emena ` r t.7 Dnermr stuoY melnoenle9ns 1a PnGneengplwlersarnps y 7.5 Pasoan ScitO'^9 Ootumem I f.6 MvrM epymem J.7 Prepare D'aSemiM mYenas 7.e Corquel seeWprrwsrps ~ _ 7.9 Pnpan Innsuro+s y 7.t0 Rowe aro pu0tsn smprtp oowrrnt. ~ ~ T i ~ 1 MEETING' PMT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R. R.w.}.~ Aovlsoar eoARO - - - - - I ~ I I 1 I r-- " I r. 1 r y I J 1 COMMUNITY TASK FORCES y ' I L ~ I~ y I ~ y y y * REPORT ~ MEETING - . ¦ _ - - ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 208 Agenda May 27, 1986 .The Honorable Mayor and - Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject:. Approval of an Offstreet Parking Permit For So~thvi_ew -Baptist -Church :at_ 6601-6605_ First Avenue South - - Council Members: - - _ - - - _ Southview Baptist Church, owner of the vacant lot at 6601 First Avenue, is acquiring the adjacent property at 6605 First Avenue. It is their intent to renovate the dwelling at 6605 First Avenue into a church facility for their use. They would construct a 33 car parking lot on the vacant lot and also to the rear of the dwelling. Access to the parking area would be via a two way entrance/exit from First Avenue. There would be a one- way exit only curb cut to 66th Street. The applicant has indicated that they will screen the parking area from adjacent residences on the east and south sides. The final design of this screening would be worked out with the neighbors. - The site is zoned "R" single family residential. A church - is a--permitted use in the "R'! district, -so no zoning approval-s are necessary for the project to proceed. .The City must approve - an .offstreet parking permit before_ a building permit can be issued for the renovation. Staff has reviewed the proposal and found that it meets all City offstreet parking guidelines with the following exceptions: 1. The proposal shows 7 compact car spaces whereas City guidelines would only permit 6 compact car spaces. It is staff's opinion that this should not cause a problem because of the increased number of compact cars on the road. 2. The required 15 foot buffer area between parking area and residential property would not be maintained, the proposed plans show .a 6-7 foot buffer area along the -east side of the parking lot and a 10 foot buffer area along the south side of the parking lot. This should - not be a problem if proper screening is provided and is acceptable to the neighbors. - _ - - ~ 3. The curb cuts do not meet .the minimum width requirements if commercial standards are applied. The ordinance does not specify a minimum width for churches, but does indicate that the minimum width for commercial uses shall be 26 feet. The proposed plans show the use of an - existing 12 foot wide curb cut for an exit only and the construction of a new 24 foot wide two-way curb cut. It is staff's opinion that the proposed curb cuts should function .properly because of the limited usage. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving the offstreet parking permit with the stipulation that proper screening of the parking lot be installed and the applicant work out an acceptable design with. the abutting residential property owners.. - _ _ _ - _ - - f~e~'ctfully ubmitted, e ~ ~ . evich Ac ing City Manager SLD/eja _ 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION N0. 86-4 SOUTHVIEW BAPTIST 6601-6605 FIRST AVENUE SOUTH BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, .Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street parking as contained in Off-Street Parking application No. 86-4 is hereby approved subject to proper screening being provided between the parking areas and adjacent residential proper. The _ applicant should work with adjacent property owners to come up with an acceptable design of the screening. 2. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of said off-street parking lot shall remain the _ _ r.espo.nsibili_ty of the o.ff-street .parking- lot- operator in - . accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. - - Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of May, 1986. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk 1 p~y IJ , ~ ' 1 .i C'y}' SI,Ci,~'! 1'S' 1 v ~~.D:~1 . ,1 yi ~ I ` ~?arN ,,r %~,t....~ 1111 \ l 6A/1. ' Ir J .•~'M;.1C.r*rk 4'°tJ~'-i ~ t `111`1+~~.1.1' - NI - ~N+1.1`~ \ '1f{~ ~ 1ttAµa. ~ 1, JJrS~~1$.r 1 Y - e ~ i{; 1' ^ ``\1 •••is••`~~1t+~1~ J j)iaa )ra~ X11 ^-*i^ t~tY~l.! ~ I - V N 1 i ~ r,, 1, 1'11;; •M~J \~rr -•T~ J 1 J-~~ Q 1 I / ' EO. 11 \ 1 \ 1 JF""'._- J , J r . I 1 r J~ ~ 1 1` 1 1A} / i ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 11 aA~ l 1 1 1 ~ . 1~ t' ) f cp µ 11 11 1 1 l 1 14 iI rr/ IV i !1 11\• ~ b i it r k i ~ ,0 1 11 11 ilil~.?~~~ ; .~+i 1,i.._.~,; N~ 1 i 1 N 1 1 1 1 11\; ^'y0^~ ' J I~ 1 1 ~ i i ~ /1 ; ; ; ~ ~ 1 ` %t.•, i i ~^X `fit 1` M 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~ 11 `iVi'^^•; \ / 1 1 r11 1\, .~1 ¦ 1 ' I ~ ! 1 ~1• ; f! i. ri~t. 1~.~ rl `I •,•1 ~1 1 I 1 1 1 7 1 ~ i ' ~ ~ ~ i 1 ~ ~ , jrw.l i +d ~ ~'i, w N~ J _.yy. •••11~~1 1 . ~e• ? R J j ` {4 J 1 r / J. / q UIGNI `f , it J 1 1 .1 ~ ' ~ - ' ~ ~ - W~ 1 J.G. r 1 1 , 1 l l 1 J ti 1 1 I ~ \ 1 1 ( 1 ~1 4J 5:111r'~`\ +1 -J ~ ? o p?K? ~ 1 1 li-e cQ ~ I ~ 1 :V ! ro ~ J ; i •~11 .•1 1 w; .,tt^ 74.i7'~....-- - ~ ! ( i NOusE / ` r 1 1 1 (n 1 '1 1, -`Z.~P~~ ~ I SWKNDID i ~ 1 ~ g~TE VI 1 1~,,, •1~.~--~- 1 +1 ytN~wer ~i ) 1 1~~1~~ it ~ ~ 1 11 JI 11 pX1V'wi ! ~ ^ ~•i3 10. F w i ~ 1 11 ` '-~.o' ~0. v il;a• r JI 1'!J'f19 7. 1 1 i J, ,_ar -r__ _~N`I''~~ ,1"•' J° n 1//y1.N Rte. 1 ,~J~t«~ ; 111 j c~+yN,~;;ii" 1 ;IVh~ H.'!5 ~ C4 1 , _ 1 1 _ _ . 1 ~ ~ 11 1•\11 ~y.'v 'I \1 J 1 y - _ -~a__ w + ° ^.'^xt• 1 ~ X11 ! 1 l + ' J~ 1 1 IrD~J~l J _ _ _ 1 1 ~ 1 111 ' t•1 1 1 N ~~y...^ I fD .1 11 1111 't y 1 ~ Q,. 1 1 / 1 1- r \ 11 111 i \ 1' 1 • W^ 4 1 f J 1 1 1 11 1111 ~ i I +1 V \ 1 1 1 r 5.11 ;I,~rtx;`'e'.`~~ n~ _ J 11 1~`.` ?G.• 1 +r,e`. ''J ryS •~~~~I i ._~r~' + ~ ..VO~.~- _ . _ I ST AVE. ~ _ aa-- 1 ~ - v ~ - - _ ~ / B.R. EJ1• p.4. _~tbV p/ t)CSYOJ4 _ - ~ ~ ~ f 1 1 hM.7f 1 \ I Nod7R r;1 l d ~ I ~ 1 ' + ~ I' F~ '14d~ 'fi`r ~(~~i{p~I~ rH1 y-, I I 1 rrhr,A llt 6s i ~~~I~~ia`111 ~ ~~~IA'~IIt" .y,l ~aR.i=. - I .:'kW _ ~ ) i. si[RJ[~14 [K. I ,A ~p,i' ~ s ~ ~ 1 14AR. I Q'p,d.. ~~u~At IKwf~ - ~ IRINfiO Y' NILN w~s~ Rtdoi ~ i tR. hWaR s. - i./ /ILI ~ i....r w, I _ Y\`~~ rtN fK. ?6AE /YLN[ 111 ~ J ~ 1 - „ • '~is••.e rrs~ ~ I dl I I;,,~4v.F~ + I y+.nK. e l 4•~ ONL Stf~',A::1: ~ I I ~ I d I wy wAY \~J Gor.wr.'0 (iA I p I A`. I a I r i ~ `Y~ PIS*~z.~w~ ~ ~ K I I N i d ,j~:3.',:~ ~ - - - - ~ 81TUMINOUS a' m' ' ' PARkINb• I `I f I ;;..-fRo/of[D M'N/sM 3 l ' , WIID /iNe[ J I : itl f ~ s~ Z11?,~ I I ~ I ~ 'I I ~ ' j W ' MINTED NVj I 1 ~ i I I rA. ~ ~ ' ' ~ m4 a STRIPES ~ 1 j I : I I o ~///~11~I ~ ~ i I c, i a.J ~rwwj- - I ~tl .'.~V'I" J l ii. 1 'I [.i' ~ . EXTRUDEp CURB w W LrsYr ,f" • ~ ~Y I ~ ~ '0`` 25 REGULAR SPACES O ~ ~ ~~I a i~ a/ai"'' , W£.. 7 GOMPAc7 SPACES CU ~ I ;~i : ~ a K c. r rYN., dl . I AAIDI AP S ~ 0 s ~ G PAGE ~ ~ ~ 'o Ln[nlrNwa 33 TOTAL PARKING SPAGEg O i :N ' WALL i ~3 If' L2' 1. H' ~ I ~ < l.i.l { ~ i uaAr ~ 1 ~ E%. . y,-- - ~ ` zMEADWGY iK. Y I HM1iL 6%17 FRIM LWIWDRO r ORrNM f7A vA4y ,AVOf/ e _ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ - Y EK. CNAIN LINK fENei j I ~ j c ? ~ ~ ~ ..P.4.....~. .-Rt ~rNr i~ M ~ c~ ~I~~'AWr4 f ~ i ~ ~ i y4 i . it arm ' • 1 ? rou *_.d - rx. ztO-aIh exu ium I 1 w j 4, l . _3i,.. - i - _ 1 ' i 5T AVE. \ ' I ~h` ~ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA- I' Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 206 Agenda May 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council .City of Richfield Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Council - Salari-e s.. Second Readi-n g= Council Members: Chapter XII, Section-12.02 of-the city ordinance - establishes the salaries of the city council and provides that the salaries of the council members be reviewed by December of each year. It has been the practice in past years to place this item on a city council agenda for discussion purposes prior to the time that work be ins on the ro osed bud ets for the next 9 P P 9 fiscal year. Council salaries were adjusted in 1985 for the year 1986, when the salary of the Mayor was increased from $6,000 per year to $6,700; and council member salaries were increased from $4,500 to $5,200 per year. The city charter stipulates that "The Mayor - -and members Qf the council shall receive payment as set by _ ordinance. No change in salary shall take effect until after the next~-succeedin election." T-hi m n - s ea s an h n c a e would not ake t. 9 y 9 effect until after the November, 1987 general election. At the April 28, 1986 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading to an ordinance that would increase the salary of the Mayor to $7,000 and Council Member salaries to $5,500 beginning in 1988, and scheduled the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance for the May 27, 1986 city. council meeting.- Thecity charter and city ordinance are somewhat confusing regarding council salaries. The charter stipulates that salary increases cannot be effective until the succeeding municipal election, and the city ordinance stipulates that salaries must be reviewed by December of each year. With the change in terms of council members, municipal elections will no longer occur on a yearly basis. For example, there will be no municipal election - in 1986. Thus, council actions taken in 1.986 will not__.be _ effecti.v_e until 1988. _ - ~ ~C This ordinance has been placed on the May 27,_1986 city ' council agenda for the public hearing and second reading. ~ i Resp c~fully bmitted, I' Steven i7evich Acting City Manager j SD/eja - - - _ ~ _ _ _ - I i • i i ' ~ _ _ - 9 `3 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XII SECTION 12.02.. OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE RELATING- TO COMPENSATION OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 12.02 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to compensation of the Mayor and Council Members is hereby amended to provide as follows: Subdivision 1. Annual Salarv. The annual salary of the Mayor is ($6,700) $7000.00 and the annual salary for each member of the Council is ($5,200) $5500..00) to be effective after the next succeeding municipal election. Salaries of such - officers shall be reviewed. by Deeember:of=each year. . Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, _ Minn.e.sota _ this- 27th da.y_ of May, .1.986. _ _ _ John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: i Thomas Ferber City Clerk i _ V CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 205 Agenda May 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and - Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Certain Capital Improvements. Second. Reading - Council Members: In October, 1985 the city council adopted the 1986 budget document. Included in that document was the 1986 Capital Improvement budget, which includes a number of projects to be funded from the Special Revenue Fund (liquor profits). The following projects in the 1986 Capital Budget include financing from this source: Special General Revenue Revenue Fund Sharing Pro.iects Alloc. Alloc. Totals Energy Improvements - $ $10,000_.. $ 10,000 City Hall Improvements. 20,000 20,000 _ - - - Legion Lake Park - - 225, 0-00 225, 000- _ - Forestry 25,000 25,000 Park Land Acquisition 15,000 15,000 Parking Lots/Drives* - 15,000 15,000 Nature Center Improvements 15,000 15,000 City Hall Cooling Tower 10,000 10,000 Fire Vehicle Reserve 30,000 30,000 Public Safety Communications Reserve 15,000 15,000 30,000 Total $315,000 $80,000 $395,000 *Donaldson Park The total 1986 S ecial Revenue ex enditures for ca ital P P P improvement purposes is $315,000. At the February 24, 1986 public hearing, the city council reduced the appropriation to _ $245,000 because of the uncertainty of the possible c-utbacks in state and federal aid at that time. The items which were deleted are as follows: ~ Nature Center Improvements $15,000 Forestry 25,000 Public Safety Communications 15,000 Parking Lots/Drives Donaldson Park 15,000 Total $70,000 Since that time it has been determined that the city will not suffer a cutback in federal or state aid for the fiscal year 1986. A transitory ordinance to appropriate funds. for the above capital improvements received first reading approval at the April 28, 1986 city council meeting. Second reading and the public hearing were scheduled for the May 27, 1986 city council meeting. I, While the attached ordinance gives authority to transfer funds from the-Special Revenue .Fund to the projects identified, no cash transfers are made until work on the project has commenced and charges for payment have been incurred. However, projects such-as the planting of boulevard trees. for the replacement of dutch elm diseased trees is .now being done and funds should be appropriated for this project and the other .capital improvement projects scheduled for 1986. It is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing and approve the attached transitory ordinance, appropriating monies from the Special Revenue Fund for these- projects at the May 27, 1986 city co/uncil meeting. Resp tfully sTbmit d, _ - - d~~1 S e n L~-9 e vrc h _ Acting City Manager SD/eja - . ~-.3 - TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: It is. found and determined to be necessary and expedient for t_he City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of Capital Improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from-the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Sub. 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: - Nature Center Improvements $15,000 Forestry 25,000 Public Safety Communications 15,000 Parking Lots/Drives 15,OA0 Total $70,000 Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day I! of May,..- 1.986. ' - John Hamilton Mayor ~ ATTEST: - Thomas Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA _ ' Office of City Manager - ~ Council Letter No. 204 I Agenda May 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor ' and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Sub 'ect • Am endments to The L nd ~ y ale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Plan and the City's Comprehensive.- Plan. City Council Members:. - - - - _In Ma-rch of this year .the Housing and Redevel-opmer~t - - Authority considered a modification to the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet commercial improvement program. The modification consisted of two amendments to the land use map portion of the LHN plan. The amendments involved the following areas: 1. The property lying between Circle Place and Auto Lane adjacent to the west side of Lyndale Avenue described as lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2, Fairwood Shores Addition and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 3, Fairwood Shores Addition (6630-6718 L ndale Avenue and the vacant 1 y ots located at 709 to 721 Graham Avenue). Also included is the Graham Avenue right-of-way, the adjoining Circle Place right- _ - of-way and the right-of-way adjoining lot 5 on the west. _ The-land use designation was proposed to be changed from - .commercial~to commercial and/or multifainil - Y 2. The ro ert 1 in p p y y - g.between 64th and 65th Streets adjacent to the east side of Lyndale .Avenue (6401-6453 Lyndale Avenue South). It is proposed to be changed from multifamily to commercial. The existing commercial uses on the site have been or are in the process of being renovated (i.e. Oreck Plaza and the Ahlquist property). A map showing the proposed land use amendment area is attached to this council letter. The Planning Commission in April reviewed these amendments and recommended their approval. Because the LHN Plan map appears as part of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission also recommended that the city's Comprehensive Plan be amended to reflect the changes to the LHN Plan. - On May 19, 1986, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority was. II to consider two development proposals for the area outlined in number 1 above. However, because the. developer proposing the • multifamily project withdrew their request the HRA approved only an amendment covering number 2 above. It is recommended that the City Council accept the LHN Development Plan amendment to the Comprehensive plan to change the land use for the property lying between 64th and 65th Streets adjacent to the east side of Lyndale Avenue (6401-6453 Lyndale Avenue) from multifamily to commercial (number 2 above), and refer it to the Metropolitan Council for their review prior to their official adoption. Once the comments from Metropolitan Council are received this item will again be brought back to the City Council for formal approval. Resp~tfully s itt d, _ _ - L. Devich - - - Acting City Manager SD/eja • I \ i • . _1 _ - _ _ _ - ' ~ CROSSTOWN HYW. CROSSTOWN =="HYW:- - ~ - - l ~ - ~ - _ ' \ - - - - - ~ ~ _ ~ - ~-1. _ . _ _ - ~ - w ~ - . . _ E.__ _ I I Z ~ ~ (I S ~ s a _ 1 1 _`I lI'te/~ Ir.11~1 l11 X11 1_I. 1 ~ a ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ 1. ' . r ~ IIrf11 ; : • .tYin.wwl = y~oM1.IwY I .1 f _.I _I_.. .._J ,I own~rSi~ i1. r:..... ~~.ti~,k...._ . . . . _ ~Q LAKE ~ ~ _ _ 1¦ •I ' .1':' 1 . 1.11 _tl X111 ~ 1_ ~ s I AHLQUIST////// _ _ _ 1 . ~ 1....1 . w ~ ' _ _ _r 1 _ ~ _ _ • I i • i ~ ~ ` ~ s ' ~ ¦ ¦ II F/ • 4. , - III IIL ~ _ _ _ - _..111_ - _ ~ ~ it I i I ~ ~ / i11,._L.. 11~11..1.~N._L.~11_ - I \ • _ . ~ i 1 - ~ g ~ , t qy~ ~ / ~ ~ I FEB..1~10 'I . 1 ~ \ ~ ~ ~ A!~i~, ~ / ~ ~ e .a+ woe ar>< ~t~-, 1 ~ WOOD _ . [xlw.ur-' ~ LAKE _ PROJECT BOUNDARY r.... ~ ~ I . ii a ii. i AREA PROPOSED FOB • PLAN MOD ATION - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 203 Agenda May 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield lication for Wine License and On-Sale Non- , Subject: App Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for Frogi's Family Restaurant, 6344 Penn Avenue Council Members: - In October, 1985 Mr. Morton D. Snyder submitted an application on behalf of Mamalu's Restaurant for a wine and on- -sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for the restaurant located at 6344-Penn Avenue, currently known as Frogi's Family Restaurant. In January, 1986 the applicant withdrew the application request after several hearing delays as a result of the failure of negotiations between the applicant and a potential buyer regarding the sale of the building and property. • Mr. Snyder has again applied for a beer and wine license for the Frogi's Restaurant. The only difference between the previous application and the new application is the name of the restaurant. Mr. Snyder is still the individual applicant, but is requesting licenses under the name of Frogi's Family Restaurant rather than Mamalu's Restaurant. The reason for this request is _ _that there-would have been a five. to eight week downtime required - for the installation of new equipment .for a Mamalu's Restaurant, at a cost of $155,000. This amount was considerably higher than .their initial budget allocation. Therefore, the applicant is not proposing'to do any remodeling to the restaurant which has enough seating to meet ordinance code requirements. Mr. Snyder is the owner of both Frogi's Family Restaurant and Mamalu's Restaurants. He is the sole owner of four Mamalu .Restaurants in the Burnsville, Bloomington, St. Paul and Minnetonka areas. All of these restaurants are licensed to sell wine and beer with the exception of the Bloomington restaurant. Mr. Snyder is originally from Des Moines, Iowa, .and has resided in the metropolitan area for the past ten years. During the background investigation that was conducted by the Department of Public Safety, various police agencies in areas where Mr. Snyder operates his restaurants were contacted, as well as the State Liquor Control Board. and the Bloomington Environmental Health Department. There were no concerns or complaints uncovered from these agencies regarding Mr. Snyder's .establishments. CO Financial statements were obtained and indicate ~th-at as of February, 1985 Mr. Snyder had total assets of $1,593,000, total liabilities of $245,000, for a combined net worth of $1,347,000. The financial profile indicates that Mr. Snyder has a good credit ratin in both Minnea olis and St. Paul. - 9 p The property located at 6344 Penn Avenue is owned by Pioneer Mutual Life Insurance Company. All real estate and state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The building and property are valued at $345,000. The applicant signed a lease with the owner on January 14, 1984 and the monthly lease payments-are $2,500 per month. These payments have been made on a regular basis and are current.. The required $5,000 surety bond has been submitted and indicates that the United Fire and Casualty Company of Des Moines, Iowa is carrying the bond. A certificate of insurance detailing public and liquor liability coverages was also submitted and lists John H. Crowther and Columbia Casualty as providing the required coverages through the Ram Insurance Agency of Minneapolis. - - - During the past 12 months there were six public safety contacts with Frogi's Family Restaurant. Three were public assists and one was a general licensing inspection. Even though the establishment does not currently have a wine or beer license, the investigation has determined that all establishments owned by . the applicant have very little contact, especially of a "bar-type nature", with the respective law enforcement agencies. The city has received the required on-sale wine license fee of $620, the on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license fee of .$376, and an investigative fee in the amount of $248. - - - Based upon the information supplied by the applicant anal the - - background investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety, there would appear to be no reason to deny the applicant the license requested. It is recommended that the city council give favorable consideration to the on-sale wine and on-sale non-intoxicating male liquor licenses requested by Mr. Snyder for Frogi's Restaurant. Re p tfully ubmitted, n L. uevic Acting City Manager - SD/e ja - . . C/ / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 202 Agenda Ma y. 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Variance Denial by Fred Babcock VFW -City l;auncil. Members:_ - - _ _ - I The Fred Babcock VFW Post. applied .for a variance to increase _ - _ the_-maximum ...allowable.- floor urea _ in a PC-2 -Planned Gen-eras . Commercial District from 21,330 square feet to 41,128 feet. This - variance was necessary to allow them to add two additional floors onto the existing VFW facility at 710 Lake Shore Drive.' The variance request was denied because it did not meet the state and local standards for granting variances. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's findings is attached for your information. It was anticipated that the VFW would appeal this decision to the council in accordance with city ordinances. Notice of a public hearing to consider this appeal was published in the Richfield Sun. The VFW post has, however, subsequently decided not to appeal this decision at this time. They feel it is _ - -important to work out a parking scheme to provide sufficient _ p_ark_ing on the site prior to further__pursuit of a variance. It is recommended that the City Council cancel the public - hearing on this item and take no further action. Resp c fully submitted, _ ~ ~t n evich Acting City Manager ~ SD/eja J Variance Request CASE N0. 86-V-2-CH-2 ~ APPLICANT: FRED BABCOCK VF'~1 PROPERTY LOCATION: 710 LAKE SHORE DRIVE Ch HEARING EXAMINER: CONNIE HOVERSON N HEARING DATE: APRIL 29, 1986 ~ ~ ~ APPEARANCES: RICK JOPKE, CITY Pt_ANNER RON KRANK, KKE ARCHITECTS „~.,i JERRY COURTEAU, JR. VICE COMMANDER FRED SABCOCK VFW POST ~ ~ _DAVID FRANK, KKE ARCHITECTS LORIN GASTERLAND, 6716 GARFIELD = AVENUE SOUTH ~ Based upon~the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact, conclusions and decisions. ~ 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 addresses and legal descriptions of - - ~ the property in question are as follows: o _ ~ All of Lots 19, 20, 21 and 22 and Lot 23 except that part thereof described as follows: Commencing at a point on a Southerly line of Lot L 23, Slock 3, Fairwood Shores at a point 75 feet ~ West measured along the South line of said Lot Q 23 from the Southeast corner thereof; thence East along the South line of said Lot 23 a ~ ~ ~ distance of 75 feet to the Southeast corner 0 thereof; thence tyortheasteriy-~~lor~g 6:,ie r3~; ~ line of said Lot 23 a distance of 44 f" ; V ~ thence i~ort~iLvPsterly a distance of 64.4 feet to a point distant 78.4 feet Northeasterly from the point of beginning; thence Southwesterly a distance of 78.4 feet to the point of beginning, Block 3 in Farwood Shores, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County of Hennepin, State of +~iin;lesota. (710 Lake Shore Drive) telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer - _ -2- 3. The zoning of the site in question is "C-2" General Commercial and "R" Single Family Residential. 4. The variance requested is to increase the maximum allowable floor area from 21,330 square feet to 41,128 square feet. 5. The reasons .f or the request are: 1) that the Fred Babcock VFW Post has been at their location for a long time. 2) That there is a psychological tie to the site because it was formed in the memory of Fred Babcock, a Richfield Police .Officer killed in the line of duty. 3) That the club is . outdated and needs the additional space to survive and mee t the existing and future needs of its membership. 4) That the .club provides valuable service to the community .which would be adversely affected if the expansion is not allowed to move forward because the club will decline. 5) That the expansion fits the .character of the surrounding area and the variance would be consistent with variances granted to other properties'. in the area. 6) That the expansion would not adversely affect adjacent properties because the expansion is vertical and open space would be maintained around the structure. 7) That the expansion allows for the building to be upgraded to meet building codes and to provide better handicap accessibility. CONCLUSIONS Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision 6 provides for the granting of variance to the literal provisions of the zoning regulat_i_ons in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship to the. owners of the property under .-considerat-ion. In determining whether to grant or deny the requested variance, I specifically make the following conclusions: 1. Is the Qrantinq of the variance necessary for the preservation and en.ioyment of substantial property rights? I conclude that the variance is not necessary. The VFW can continue to exercise current use. 2. Are there soecial circumstances or conditions affecting the particular land or building referred to in the aoolication,~ not caused by the property owners which are not common to other properties in this or similar districts? I conclude there are no special circumstances. The lot does not have unique properties which require increased floor space. - - ~j - _ rJ -3- 3. Will the a_ranting of the variance alter the essential .character. of the neighborhood or locality? I conclude the property will not necessarily alter neighborhood character, unless parking were to become a problem. 4. Are there any conditions which must be attached to the prantinq of the variance to ensure compliance and to protect ad.lacent properties? I conclude N/A DECISION - _ - _B.ased upon -the_foregoin-g; the .undersigned de-te-rmines that the - request be DENIED. DATED: May 8, 1986 Hearing Examiner City of Richfield _ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 201 Agenda May 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract for 1986 Seal Coating Project Council Members: On May. 16, 1986 bids were. opened-for the .1986 Seal Coating Project. This is the seventh year of a phased project to seal coat all of the city's bituminous paved streets. An appropriation for this project is included in the 1986 Street Division budget. Attached is a map depicting the area to be sealcoated in 1986. The bid minutes. and tabulations are also attached for council review. • Two bids were received for this work. Allied Blacktop Co. of Maple Grove, Minnesota, submitted the low bid in the amount of $68,724.38. It is recommended that the city council take the following action: - - _ - - 1 . -Accept the bid- minutes-; 2._ Pass the attached resolution to award the contract for the 1986 Seal Coating Project to Allied Blacktop Co. in the amount of $68,724.38. Res. e~ ully ubmitted, n evieh~ Acting City Manager SLD/eja . . _ ' G/~'oC RESOLUTION N0. ~ _ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR 1986 SEAL COATING PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of 11.3 miles of roadway in Richfield by seal coating, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; and WHEREAS, it appears that Allied Blacktop Co. of Maple Grove, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Allied Blacktop Co. in the name of the City of Richfield for .the improvement of 11.43 miles of roadway by seal coating aecording.to the plans and .specifications approved by the City .Council and on file in the ..office o.f the City Engineer. 2. The City is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of May, 1986. . _ _ John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~~~.3 CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING MAY 19, 1986 i 1986 Sealcoating Project Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 19.86 Sealcoating Project, as advertised in the official newspaper on April 30, 1986. Present: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk '~i - Eileen Anderson, City Manager - Representative Dave Skrien, Recreation Program Coordinator/Com.munity Services. I, Director Representative Vicki Paulson, Community Services Aide I The following bids were submitted and .read aloud: . VENDOR BID TOTAL STATEMENT AFFIDAVIT SECURITY BID OF INTENT OF NON- i TO COMPLY COLLUSION BBituminous 5~ bond $69,096.80 Yes .Yes ~ - - Buffalo, MN. - - - Allied Blacktop 5X bond $68,724.38 Yes Yes Maple Grove, MN. The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the May 27, 1986 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • . ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA . Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 200 Agenda May 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the~City Council City of Richfield Subject: Purchase in Excess of $5,000 Council Members: 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. There is one such item on the agenda for May 27, 1986. Snow Removal Equipment This purchase, which was previously included in the 1986 budget, conforms with special direction given by the city council toward an overall plan to improve the cities snowplowing capabilities over the next several years. Three written quotations were received for new equipment including a one.way plow, a wing assembly- and a hydraulic kit to be mounted by city staff on. an existing front end loader. The - ~ adopted 1986 budgets ihcludes $.16,000 'for said purchase. The - quotations were: Vendor ~ Quotation Road Machinery & Supplies Co. $13,751 Itasca Equipment Company $14,486 Ziegler Inc. $16,300 It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of one Craig Model 672-11 Plow, one right hand Craig hydraulic wing and one hydraulic installation kit Model 810-3-1F from Road Machinery & Supplies Co. for a total purchase price of $13,751. Res~~ tfully ~ bmi ted, - St en L. evict Acting City Manager - 5s8_ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council .Letter No. 199 Agenda May 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Study Session with Community Services Commission, Human Services Commission and Focus Group re CDBG - _ Funded Needs. Assessment - _ _ Council Members: At 5:30-PM representatives of St. Olaf College and Hennepin - County, contracted to work with city staff on preparation and analysis of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funded Needs Assessment Study, and members of the city staff will present the results of the study to the city council, Community Services Commission, Human Services Commission and the Focus .Group. The method of preparation, collection of data, assembly of data and analysis of data will be discussed. It is anticipated the final document will serve as a basis for future ' recommendations and decisions related to provision of recreation and social/human services to our community elderly and disabled populations. A copy of the study entitled.."Senior Citizen and Disabled - ~(eeds Assessment for the Cty_ of Richfield 1986": is included -in your council packet. Res,~e tfully ub fitted, ~ / Ste n L. Devich Acting City Manager SD/eja .