Loading...
03-14-83 agenda� /S 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 87 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Election Day Polling Place Procedures and Purchase of Additional Voting Machines The purpose of this letter is to inform the council of the city's current status with regard to procedures at the polling places on election day and to recommend the purchase of addition- al voting machines. Recently, the city council expressed an interest in a variety of concerns relating to election day polling place de- lays and related problems. There was a general concern regard- ing excessively long waiting times at certain polling places for citizens wanting to vote and citizen complaints relating to that problem. There have been waiting lines in certain polling places in past elections. However, while it is recognized that this is a legitimate problem for voters, it should also be noted that this problem is not unique to Richfield, especially during peak voter turnout times occuring at statewide and national elections. Virtually all of our neighboring communities have periodically experienced the same problem. Inasmuch as the problem of polling place delays is one which potentially impacts upon a large major- ity of Richfield residents at one time or another, it is important to address the issue in an effort to eliminate unnecessary delays to the extent such remedy is possible. The Administrative Services Department staff has spent a great deal of time analyzing the problem of polling place lines and the election process in general, and has developed plans which should have an impact on reducing the problem to a signi- ficant extent. While no one remedy or collection of remedies will guarantee that all future elections in Richfield will be free of lengthy voting lines, the following steps will undoubtedly make the process less prone to suffer such delays to the extent experienced in the past: Council Letter No. 87 -2- March 14, 1983 1. One solution centers around the training of election judges. While Richfield election judges have been trained as well as those in comparable communities in the past, the city clerk division has initiated an ex- tensive training program for city election judges for future elections. The training package utilizes group feedback, discussion and testing to identify subject matter areas which require a greater concentration and will ensure that judges are cross - trained in various functions performed on election day. 2. Secondly, another modification which will be utilized in future elections is a standardized polling place layout which will be utilized in each precinct. This polling place layout will facilitate the orderly flow of voters through the voting and registration processes. 3. It should be recognized that the city experiences diffi- culty in attracting and retaining competent election judges for large general elections. To compensate for this problem, the city clerk has initiated an aggressive search for qualified candidates to serve as election judges, which includes contact with local high schools, and local organizations which may include in- terested citizens. 4. A recommendation is being made to purchase an additional eleven voting machines. Currently, the city has 59 operable voting machines to serve the nine precincts and approximately 24,500 registered voters of the city. A survey of eight metropolitan communities utilizer lever activated mechanical voting machines revealed an average ratio of one voting machine to every 325 registered voters. That com- pared to one machine for every 419 registered voters in Richfield. Similarly, the same survey indicated an average ratio of one vot- ing machine for every 234 voters in the November 2, 1982 general election as compared to one machine for every 289 voters in Richfield. Thus, it can be seen that Richfield appears to have an insufficient number of voting machines when compared to other I ever activated voting machine cities. Such a shortage would become most apparent when an election featured a relatively long ballot or contained several questions to be voted upon. The purchase of additional voting machines would have an impact on lessening voter delay in large general elections such as the general election in 1984. One issue which must be considered in any discussion of voting machine purchases is the state of the art of voting de- vices. As you may be aware, lever activated voting machines have been around for many years and are considered by some to be somewhat antiquated. In contrast, there have been several new voting systems introduced in Minnesota within the past 5 years. Some such systems utilize electronic counting of punch cards, while others feature electronic "reading" of paper Council Letter No. 87 -3- March 14, 1983 ballots marked with special pencils. While all of the new systems have distinct advantages and disadvantages when com- pared to the system currently in use in Richfield, no one system has emerge as a "best" system or one which can satisfy all of the needs of election administrators and voters alike. However, it is our judgment that the next several years will reveal a significant change in the complexion and technology of state - of -the ar voting systems in Minnesota and nationally as well. Thus, I would suggest that any future purchase of lever voting machines be tempered with that thought in mind. If a new devel- opment in voting devices emerges so that one system is recognized as superior to the others, the city would be in a position to make an evaluation of voting systems with the potential of chang- ing systems if it were in the city's best interests, without sacrificing a large recent financial investment in our current system. The cost of additional machines is much less than originally anticipated, and is estimated to be approximately $1,250 per machine. However, the City of Minneapolis, which utilizes the same voting machine type as Richfield, is exploring the possibil- ity of purchasing a different voting system. Thus, that may be a source of some less expensive voting machines during the next year. In summary, the implementation of a more intensive election . judge training program and a model polling pace layout will have an impact upon diminishing polling place lines. To complement those improvements, the addition of 11 additional voting machines for 1984 will speed up the voting process during the 1984 general election and subsequent statewide and national elections. The city's ability to attract and retain sufficient numbers of quali- fied election judges also is a contributing factor to an efficient election day voting process. In that regard, we will continue to seek out individuals interested in serving in the capacity of election judge. It is my recommendation that the 1984 budget contain suffic- ient funding to purchase the additional voting machines needed. This funding will be in the $15,000 range for new machines or somewhat less if we are able to find used machines which meet our needs. KN /eja 0 Respectfully submitted, lV � Karl Nollenberge City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 86 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Commission Appointments Currently, there are four vacancies on the Advisory Board of Health, and one each on the Community Services Commission, the Energy Awareness Commission, and the Senior Citizens /Handi- capped Commission. These vacancies have been published in the Richfield Sun, on the city's bulletin board on cable television, and in the Community Section of the Minneapolis Star. Applica- tions have been received as follows: Advisory Board of Health There are two vacancies for two -year terms which will ex- pire January 31, 1984, and two vacancies for two -year terms which will expire Jan 31, 1 9 - .--- -Appl_i.cat..i_ons have been received from/-J-Can Pehfrey_._- n -Gilbert Nevius'.' Community Services Commission There is one vacancy for a three -year term which will ex- pre January 31, 1985. No new applications have been received, however, attached are applications from persons who have pre- viously applied to this commission, Barry Bloomgren and Barney Schlender. Senior Citizens /Handicapped Commission There is one vacancy for a three -year term which will ex- pire on January 31, 1986. Applications have been received from Bette Flanders and Mary Knudsen. There were no applications for the vacancy on the Energy Awareness Commission. Copies of applications are attached to this council letter. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager Da to 1 -4 -82 APPLICATION FOR CIT`L OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION APPOINTNIE:NTT NAME Blooraren Barry Walter Last Pirst ivi!d� ie HOME ADDRESS 6220 newton Avenue South, Richfield 55423 Street No. City Zip Code MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Street No. G!p C SCE' PHONE: Home 866 -7818 Business 348 -3939 APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission 2 Human Rights Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. -j Civil Service Commission_ Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Board of Health Advisory Commission Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience Which you believe qualify you for this municipal commission/committee and why .,you are interested in serving: See attached sheet CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND C'OMMUNIT`r ACTIVI""IES: Richfield Youth Commission 1970, Richfield Ice Arena Advisory Committee 1070 -71, Richfield Hockey Assn. coach - 8 years, Richfield ?-en's Softball, Oak Grove Lutheran Church, :`.inn. Family Support and Recovery Council Board of Directors, ' `rann. Family Surport and Recovery Council Legislative Committee OCCUPATION: Employing ,firm, agency Hennepin County :economic Assistance Der_,artment Address •. u ennepin County Government Center, i ✓;r_r_earolis, r'1'r Position Supervisor tears w;�firm; %age: _�,° 13 years Other work experience (optional) REFERENCES (Optional) A. Gene Olive friend Full name Relationship Richfield Public Schools, 7001 Harriet Ave. So. 861 -8220 Mailing address Phone number B. Clayton Egsgaard friend Full name Relationship 6808 Oueen Ave. So. 869 -8Q03 Mailing address Phone number C. Stan Ronneberg friend Full name Relationship 6401 Vincent 866 -835G Mailing address Phone number Return to: City Manager's Office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 Att. Eileen Anaerson a] • Date l - z -�z APPLICATION FOR CITY OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION APPOINTMENT NAME :,- L-- °A- Tv T 7 Last : irst iviic�ie HOME ADDRESS �4cc E' ERSQ'N AVE. E0._ _ FICH7IELD, e.N. '�hrz Street No. City Zip Cie MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Street No. Cicy Zip Code PHONE: Home F65 -4,�Fz Business 927 -11CC APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: 0 Planning Commission X (1) Human Rights Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. —X Civil Service Commission: Senior Citizen & Handicappe,d Advisory Board of Health Advisory Commission Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience w hich you believe qualify you for this municipal commission /committee and why you are interested in serving: Fa: +- ?- usiness and work experience has alloleed :: e to have a great deal of . ex,osure and hancs on expereence in dewing with rr.uniciral and planning corr-�ission atters. .-ese areas of ex er,,lse are:p-esen,, an u ure Funiciapal aeve opr..en;, issues, understanding and working : -:ith corprehensive plans, road. :ray and enironrental 771,17tvision an Inanct .,., t _.._ op- ent colicies. 1 reel ?ia ve tne ecnow eage ana un ers an n- ot t!lu dutte-r: ant xesponstbili ces to do a fair, just and ethical job of serving o-.,f the Planning Coc:._ision for t ^e good y 71 r. .: . . CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: C' -a-�er of Cottr..erce City or Hutchinson Centennial and Founders Pa.ent- Active and participating eber -City of Hutchinson Active citizen: co-,-.unity affairs -City of '- :ate'..inson OCCUPATION: Employing -firm, agency EnLTA FEALmv . Add r ess 4015 VEST 65th STREET. EEIN4 1-N Position REALTOR Years w, 6 :ether work experience (optional) INTERNATIONAL i•:ULTI- FOODS, HUTCHINSON COi- '•_UNITY HOSPITAL, FINANCIAL REASOURCES CORP. REFERENCES (Optional) A. N-R KENNETH KOEHLER Full name Relationship GOEBEL FIXTURE C0.•_PANY, HUTCHINSON, !,IT 5535O I--P 7 -2112 Mailing address Phone number B. - REV. JAY ES LAUER Full name Relationship PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH, HUTCHINSON, IN. 55350 1- 587-3031 Mailing address Phone number C. Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number Return to: City Manager's Office r 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 is • March 7, 1983 NOTE: ?LEASE CCbIPLETE 11N- BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITE APPLICATION FOR 01771 OF RICHFIELD Ap ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COPriMISSION APPOINTMENT NAME Flanders, Bette E. Last e HOME ADDRESS 6414 - 12th Ave. South Richfield Mn. 55423 Street No. City I Zip Code MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Street No. City Zip Code PHONE: Home 869 -- 8740 Business 341 -5661 - 341 5662 .APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Human Rights Commission Co- munity Services Commission Civil Service Commission: Senior Citizen & Handicap p- Advisory Board of Health '--Advisory Commission Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience %•.,hick you believe qualify you for this municipal commission /committee and why ;you are interested in serving: I have been in banking for 13 years- the last 10 as Personal Banking Officer involved in F&M Marquette National Bank's Senior Program advising this group on financial matters. T A1sn work on the TnIlir Taint Travol rl,j, 1 SQQ ;kgsyR__ engagements to Senior Groups on* general banking for seniors has brought me in close contact and I have worked closely with Senior Federal, Ebemezer soc'ety etc, T Feel T '.ave do awareness of the senior group, for the financial aspect, as Please refer to attached. CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: Founding c it e memb r",�rs. Jaycees -1955- 1958 Brewnie an� lrcout �eader - Ficn!iela Uancer Soc. - 7reas. - Hope Pres. Church - Sunday School Teacher - 1976 -77 ;"b. m r ZI L.LmULLe IN a Boa 19of Governor; erican Tnsti tio-P of RnnL -ingg _ l g7r, - lg7Q Gov Council on Aging- Committee on Senior Banking Safety worked with Beth ?folberg ! 9 7.9- /170 Presently involved with committee trom various organizations investigating need for Home bound financial help for incapacitated. NOTE: PLEASE CO IPLETE APPLICATION IN TITHER BLACK INK OR TYPEWRITER. CCCL; PATICN- F &M Marquette National Bank Errployirg firm, agency address 6th and Marquette Minneapolis Mn. 55480 Position Personal Banking Officer 'ears 10 ears ':C :Lr' y C)ther work experience (optional) Executive Secretary - Honeywell Thermo King and Food Broker, Cross & Murray REFERENCES (Cpticnal) Senior VicePres/ supervisor A. E. Thomas Welch Full name F& M Marquette National Bank �� 1`51 0 Mailing address u Phone number Minneapolis Mn. 55480 ' B. (Mrs. Ellsworth) friend Full name Relationship 5301 Ayreshire Blvd Edina ?in. 55435 926 2310 Mailing address Phone number C. Rev. Peter Wyckoff work associate Full name Relationship Dir. of Minn. Senior Federation Senior - 1951 University Ave. St. Paul Mn. 645 0261 Mailing address Phone number 0-� • Return to: City Manager's Office 6700 Portland avenue Richfield 55423 Bette Flanders Good Planning Makes The Difference in Retirement "Good planning now certainly makes a difference in how life can be in your seventies and eighties," says Bette Flanders. Bette, Personal Banking Officer with F &M Marquette's Senior Citizen Services, is in a position to know. She has been in banking for 13 years and has spent 10 of those years involved in F &M Marquette's Senior Program advising senior customers on financial matters especially pertinent to persons of their age group. That experience has made her strongly aware of the harsh realities of retirement years that have not been well planned for. There is an earnest tone in her voice when she advises that people plan early in their lives for their eventual retirement. "It's never too soon," she emphasizes. "But it's often too late." Bette's early life helped prepare her for her present career. In fact, she gives her childhood experience as part of a large family in LeSueur, Minnesota as one of the reasons she is happy and successful working with seniors. She grew up as part of an "extended family consisting of par- ents, grandparents, great grandpar- ents and an assortment of elderly aunts and uncles." Hence the elderly, their ways, needs and wants have always been familiar to her. After her graduation from high school Bette came to the Twin Cities where she attended the Globe Busi- ness School for two years. She began her Twin Cities work life as a secretary for Honeywell Inc. As she increased her skills, her career moved ahead. She became executive secretary for the Truck Refrigeration Co. of Minneapolis and served in the same capacity for a time with a food broker. She entered the world of banking when a friend alerted her to an open- ing at the Southwest Fidelity Bank in Edina. It was an entirely new and exciting field for her, she recalls, so new that "the only way I could tell one banking form from another was to say, `It's the pink one or the green one.' It took me quite a while to get to know what banking was all about." On- the -job experience, American Institute of Banking classes, seminars and several University Extension Classes took care of that. A few years later she made the jump to F &M Marquette and began what has obviously been a very satisfying stay. Her success has not been limited to her work. During her secretarial days she met and married Gerald E. Flanders, an administrator at a Min- neapolis printing firm. Together they raised three children, Scott, now 29, Jill, 27, and Kelley, 24. The Flanders are residents of Richfield. Though Bette's work is essential- ly financial, there are social and psy- chological aspects as well. In between her weekly customer calls, Bette and Willie Hale, Community Relations Representative of the bank, arrange speaking engagements where the Sen- ior Banking Services of F &M Mar- quette are presented in an informative and entertaining manner. -3 • APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE. Planning Commission Human Rights Commission Community Services Commission Civil Service Commission: Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Board of Health Advisory Commission_ Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this municipal commission /committee and why you are interested in serving: M"A"Id nY71(�CxiXM11 77\.o DPW birX y i 5 joCq�� rV1 d�tK i� �t �tG� /Uu rsi r►� lyoY�'�Q C� 6e ..,� N'Sti h� 'Sc-bi i- �ie5 �ir\5ti #�ti cLii 2- � "iInA �-v�t & i r, 4�iZ,O o,'h (i -Z q- i-L, -F Guy ids�7 1 V041 be cc v: r- yOceo r4�ac,rce PC r-5 t -fir c'csyv�w�rs5 c� M �n i�'s i �-� ,ss�c a< c_rrncu �, ► n� fly eFrinv� � � r�m��l�,�i�1 -, z���� � ( (.L) - rx �xrh5,fM {' w0 L." Id bx� G� 0-'Cs e -t t,4 5L- CY C' i i i U4 , filcvr��cc�_ppz�t ��(v s aL� CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMU;.VITYACTIVITIES: Cup ue (urrcc i c,,1- rt'-r1 kr-> k -L., cEt�r e(d /mac r� Cow , -H <t c\aF-Fe acc N+T T!5 nrt —t p i t raj P1j-,S-t Cu-ru� LtM2 iV --ttc� O c� K T�4�� c t. 1� ��CiS Yt� �-1 (� ( it ake C _ ,c • " ;-f - GL 7 CA5Y1' t C m .Lr, Wn h , ofz, Inv 4kj Mi0AA11kA -urr4 NOTE: PLEASE COIPLE E APPLICATION IN EITHER BLACK INK OR 'TYPEWRITER. _;ate Marc 1l 9 . NOTE : PLEASE CCbIPLETE IN. BLACY INK OR TYPEWRITE APPLIC A"71ION FOR CiT'_ OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION APPOINTMENT NAME 11 �i l(Q� "5C'i'� 114 Ci Last irst :vii Isle HOME ADDRESS Street No. City Zip Code MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Street No. City Zip Code PHONE • Home G LO�' Z �� 6 'r Business Q34)00 '( e )e4- • APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE. Planning Commission Human Rights Commission Community Services Commission Civil Service Commission: Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Board of Health Advisory Commission_ Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this municipal commission /committee and why you are interested in serving: M"A"Id nY71(�CxiXM11 77\.o DPW birX y i 5 joCq�� rV1 d�tK i� �t �tG� /Uu rsi r►� lyoY�'�Q C� 6e ..,� N'Sti h� 'Sc-bi i- �ie5 �ir\5ti #�ti cLii 2- � "iInA �-v�t & i r, 4�iZ,O o,'h (i -Z q- i-L, -F Guy ids�7 1 V041 be cc v: r- yOceo r4�ac,rce PC r-5 t -fir c'csyv�w�rs5 c� M �n i�'s i �-� ,ss�c a< c_rrncu �, ► n� fly eFrinv� � � r�m��l�,�i�1 -, z���� � ( (.L) - rx �xrh5,fM {' w0 L." Id bx� G� 0-'Cs e -t t,4 5L- CY C' i i i U4 , filcvr��cc�_ppz�t ��(v s aL� CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMU;.VITYACTIVITIES: Cup ue (urrcc i c,,1- rt'-r1 kr-> k -L., cEt�r e(d /mac r� Cow , -H <t c\aF-Fe acc N+T T!5 nrt —t p i t raj P1j-,S-t Cu-ru� LtM2 iV --ttc� O c� K T�4�� c t. 1� ��CiS Yt� �-1 (� ( it ake C _ ,c • " ;-f - GL 7 CA5Y1' t C m .Lr, Wn h , ofz, Inv 4kj Mi0AA11kA -urr4 NOTE: PLEASE COIPLE E APPLICATION IN EITHER BLACK INK OR 'TYPEWRITER. CCCL; PATiCN: E cicVing firm, ages Address rosttlon !►1}Ca( tZC.Y't,i �►1 C1��l.j, � �' °_ 3 r s �.�; � s . -her worm experience (optional) - REFERENCES ( Cptional) A. �LJ,5?L Full name Mailing address Full name Mailing address C. l /li.- - Full name ?wiling address e "S Relations io Phone number Relationship --S( - - - / /,S Phone number Relationship Ptio.,o .. i.utTii�r Return to: City Manager's Cff .,._ice 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 • 3�3 • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager 4fCouncil Letter No. 85 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Year IX Community Development Block Grant Program Public Hearing A public hearing has been scheduled for the March 14, 1983 city council meeting for the following purposes: 1. To provide citizens with information about the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; 2. To obtain views of citizens on local housing and community development needs; 3. To provide citizens with the opportunity to comment on the Urban Hennepin Cou7ffy (UHC) Statement of Ob- jectives for 1982; 4. To provide citizens an opportunity to comment on the City of Richfield's proposed use of approximately $288,000 of the Year IX Urban Hennepin County (UHC) Community Development Block Grant funds. The 1981 amendments to the Housing and Community Develop- ment Act of 1974 made significant changes to the CDBG program. The amended act eliminated the requirement for a formal applica- tion and considerably eased HUD's responsibilities for review and approval of the application replacement -- a statement of local objectives, a projected use of funds, and certification assuring proper administration and implementation. A Statement of Objectives has been developed to provide the guidance necess- ary for planning and implementing the Year IX Urban Hennepin County CDBG program in a manner which meets National Objectives. These changes place almost the entire responsibility on the Urban County for ensuring that each activity to be carried out with CDBG funds is clearly eligible, and meets the national objectives of the Housing and Community Development Act, as Council Letter No. 85 -2- March i4, 1983 amended. The National Objectives remain unchanged, i.e., de- veloping viable urban communities, providing decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportun- ities, principally for low and moderate income persons; aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or meeting other community development needs having a particular urgency. The State of Objectives has been divided into CDBG program sub- headings. Under each sub - heading are specific objectives and procedural statements supporting how the objectives can be achieved. The following is a summary of the Statement of Ob- jectives: Program Planning and Administration Develop and implement a Housing and Community Development Program which addresses Urban County community development objectives, and meets local needs and priorities in a timely and efficient manner. Neiqhborhood Revitalization Maintain and preserve viable neighborhoods through a program of concentrated community development activities. Housing: New Construction Facilitate the development of new housing, including, but not limited to, site acquisition, public improvements, assistance with front -end costs and multi - community projects. Housing: Existing Rental Continue maximum utilization of available rental assistance pro- grams. Housing Rehabilitation Provide housing rehabilitation assistance to income eligible households in all sub - grantee communities. Public Facilities and Improvements Maintain existing public improvements and facilities, and assist the development of new facilities and improvements which will principally benefit low and moderate income persons. Handicapped Improvements Help assure that programs, facilities and housing are accessible to handicapped persons. 10 Council Letter No. 85 -3- March 14, 1983 9 Economic Development Undertake activities appropriate to improving economic conditions in deteriorated areas, based on local plans. Energy The administration of the UHC CDBG program should be sensi- tive, whenever possible, to energy conservation issues through the development of energy -use strategies. Public Services CDBG funding for public services should directly benefit low and moderate income persons. At the public hearing, the staff will give an overveiw of the CDBG program requirements, project eligibility, projects which have been approved in the past, the Urban Hennepin County 1982 Statement of Objectives, and the proposed use of Year IX funds. A county staff person will also be present to answer any questions which may arise. After input is received from the city council and citizens at the public hearing on March 14, 1982, the city staff will de- velop a preliminary application budget for council action at the March 28, 1983 city council meeting. KN/ e j a Respectfully submitted, n ,� W Nollenberger City Manager TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE SHORTFALL 0 0 13�\`� $341,800 $288,000 $53,800 YEAR IX COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND REQUESTS Activity Amount Reauested Priority 1. Public Services 528,800 1 2. Site Acquisition and Rehabilitation $80,000 1 of a single or two family dwelling. (Vo -Tech program) 3. Deferred housing rehabilitation $100,000 1 loan program (replaces existing grant program) 4. Site acquisition and preparation $78,000 2 for new construction /substantial rehabilitation of a residential property 5. Interest write -down for energy $10,000 3 conservation loans 6. Handicapped improvements to public $25,000 1 facilities • 7. General administration $20,000 1 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE SHORTFALL 0 0 13�\`� $341,800 $288,000 $53,800 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 84 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Architectural Contract, Phase Two Public Safety Improvement Facility Project As council members may recall, the 1983 capital improvement budgets provides for a major renovation of the West Side Fire Station facility. This is the second part of our Public Safety facility improvement project.. Most of the remodeling work an- ticipated for the Public Safety facilities at the city hall have been completed during the first part of this project in 1981 and 1982. The city has received a proposal from Mr. Herbert A. Ketchum of the firm of Architectural Alliance for the preliminary design and the necessary architectural work for the improvements to the West Side Fire Station. Architectural Alliance is the firm that handled all of the design and related architectural work for the improvements to the public safety facility at city hall. During that process, a great deal of the initial research was conducted for the work anticipated at the West Side Fire Station. Therefore, it would be advantageous for the city to continue with this same architectural firm for the continuation of the public safety remodeling program. Architectural Alliance has submitted a proposal in the total amount of $18,500 for all design, engineering and architectural work for the renovation of the West Side Fire Station. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I con- cur, that the city council approve the proposal of Architectural Alliance in the amount of $18,500. Funds have been provided in the 1983 capital project budget. KN/ ej a Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenbergr�er City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 83 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Council Members: Subject: Purchases in Excess of $2,650 The city council has requested that the purchase of merchand- ise, materials, equipment or construction which exceeds the amount of $2,650, be approved by the city council. There are four such purchases on the March 14, 1983 city council agenda. Postage Machine Replacement of the central services postage machine is necess- ary for the continued efficient service provided to all divisions within the city. Age and reliability of the existing machine are . the major determining factors for its replacement. Three quotations were received for replacement of the existing postage machine as follows: Friden Alcatel - $3,371; Pitney Bowes - $3,146 and IMS - $2,820. Funds for this purchase are provided in the 1983 budget document. It is recommended that the council approve the purchase of this postage machine from IMS in the amount of $2,820. Truck with Box The 1983 budget for the central garage includes an appropri- ation of $30,000 for the replacement of a fully depreciated two ton truck and chassis with six yard dump box. Hennepin County solicited bids for this equipment under our joint purchasing agreement. Of the bids received, two were rejected because they did not meet specifications. It is recommended that the city council approve the bid meet- ing specifications and authorize the purchase of one LN800 Ford truck and one Garwood dump box from Brookdale Ford in the amount of $26,923. Trees . The city proposes to plant 100 trees on boulevards in the spring of 1983. Quotations for four types of trees were received Council Letter No. 83 -2- March 14, 1983 from six nurseries. The most favorable quotations were as follows: American Lindens at a unit price (50 trees) of $69 from Minnesota Tree, Inc. for a total purchase of #3,450; and 50 Skyline Honeylocusts at a unit price of $75 from Bachman's for a total purchase price of $3,750. Funding for the purchase and cost of installation using force labor is provided in the reforestation capital project budget. Truck with Boom The 1983 approved budget for the central garage includes an appropriation of $18,000 for the purchase of a new 3/4 ton truck with aerial boom for use in street light and signal maintenance. The need for this unit came with -the city's assumption of mainten- ance responsibility from NSP which reduced the utility charges to the city. Specifications for the truck were submitted to four vendors, and three submitted quotations. Freeway Dodge quotation does not meet specifications. Jerry Palmer's Southdale Ford quoted $9,374 and Superior Ford, Inc. quoted $9,274. It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase of a 1983 Ford E350 cargo van from Superior Ford in the amount of $9,274. Boom Three quotations were received for the aerial boom. For safety reasons, it is preferable to have an insulated boom as recommended by the city's consultant electrician. Quotes received as follows: Hass Mfg. & Sales, Inc. quoted $9,546; Truck Outfitters, Inc. quoted $8,603, but could not provide an insulated boom; Road Machinery and Supplies Company quoted $9,508 for an insulated boom. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of an insulated boom from Road Machinery and Supplies Company in the amount of $9,508. The total purchase price for the combined 3/4 ton truck with aerial boom would $18,782. Fire Station Doors On January 24, 1983, the city council accepted the bid prop- osal of Steel Structures, Inc. for the replacement of the large energy efficient overhead doors for both of the city's fire stations. The department of public safety has received a proposal from Steel Structures, Inc., to include replacement garage door openers with automatic reverse, to be installed on these re- placement doors in the amount of $1,517 per door, for a total cost of $3,034. • 0 • Council Letter No. 83 -3- March 14, 1983 It is the recommendation of the public safety director, in which I concur, that the city council accept the proposal sub- mitted by Steel Structures, Inc., for the replacement and install- ation of garage door openers for Fire Stations 1 and 2. Funds are provided in the 1983 remodeling project budget. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 82 Agenda March 1 4 , 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Consideration of Cancellation of Agreement between the City of Richfield and Hennepin County Providing for the Issuance and Admin- istration of a Food Stamp Program In July, 1977, the City of Richfield entered into an agree- ment with the Hennepin County Welfare Department providing that the City of Richfield would become a contract service station for the sale and issuance of food stamp coupons to eligible recipients. In exchange for providing this service, the city was to receive a compensation rate of 75� per transaction. The city has maintained the contractual Food Stamp Program since 1977, and the staff now feels that it may be in the city's best interest to terminate this contractual service as provided for in the original agreement. A close examination of the costs incurred by providing this contract service as compared to the offsetting revenues, reveals an ongoing deficit situation for the city. Since the program's inception, some six years ago, the contract rate paid by the county for each transaction has remained at 75C. However, in terms of costs, the city's payroll and miscellaneous supply expenses have increased significantly over the same period of time. In 1982, the city averaged 307 food stamp transactions per month, for a monthly reimbursement of $230. The clerical costs to wait on the customers (15 hours per month), and to compile the necessary monthly reports (54 hours), amounted to $433 per month, for an average loss of $203 per month, or $2436 annually. In 1983, due to increased clerical costs, it is anticipated that the monthly average loss will average $238, based upon the 75� reimbursement for each transaction. If the transaction rate is increased to $1.00, this monthly loss would be $161. Additionally, the duties associated with administering the program have dramatically increased. Certain of these additional duties have been initiated by the city in an effort to tighten security related to the food stamp program. However, a sub- stantial portion of the additional responsibilities have been Council Letter No. 82 -2- March 14, 1983 mandated by Federal, State and County program administration. The net result of those additional duties, is a significant increase in staff time necessary to properly administer the program. The increase in staff time allotted to the food stamp program, creates an additional burden for the licensing division as it attempts to maintain reporting deadlines associ- ated with the contractual Deputy Registrar function. In serving as a Deputy Registrar, the city clerk division is responsible for the issuance of motor vehicle, bicycle, and the Department of Natural Resources licensure and related duties. Unlike the food stamp program, the Deputy Registrar contract provides the city with revenues which equal or exceed, the cost of ad- ministration. Thus, it is essential that the city continue to meet all reporting requirements of the Deputy Registrar contract so that the contract may continue uninterrupted. We have exper- ienced significant problems in this area due to peak loads of licensing activity. The additional workload imposed upon the division related to the food stamp program makes compliance with the Deputy Registrar contract virtually impossible without additional staff. Another factor which should be considered is the percent- age of total food stamp customers served who are Richfield residents. A recent survey of food stamp customers conducted by the city clerk division, indicates that approximately 35 -40% Of all customers are Richfield residents. Thus, the overwhelming majority of those customers served are not Richfield residents. There are two other neighborhood food stamp coupon issuance sites at this time which are located at Metropolitan State Bank, 1551. East 78th Street and at Bloomington City Hall, 102nd and Penn Avenue. In addition, there are approximately 20 sites total in the Hennepin County district, including those downtown and in the ring suburbs. While there are numerous other Hennepin County issuance sites, it should be noted that representatives of Hennepin County are not anxious to lose Richfield as an issuance outlet. When Hennepin County officials were made aware that the city is considering discontinuance of the service, they registered concern that delivery of food stamp services to area residents would be significantly affected. Additionally, the county then notified the city that rates paid to contact sites would be in- creased from 75� to $1.00 per transaction, commencing on January 1, 1983, and that a proposal was in motion to raise fees to $1.50 per transaction on January 1, 1984. However, the latter is pure speculation at this point, and the January, 1983 reimbursement from Hennepin County was at the rate of 754� per transaction. An alternative available to the county is to issue food stamps at the Countv Service Center, at the Southdale County Library. However, the county has no plans to provide this service at Southdale at any time in the future. In summary, there are many factors to consider in deter- mining the feasibility of continuing to serve as a contract food stamp issuance outlet. While it is true that some inconvenience Council Letter No. 82 -3- March 14, 1983 would be experienced by area food stamp recipients if the Richfield location were discontinued, there are other distrib- ution sites within the south Hennepin area to serve those clients affected. Additionally, the county's attempt at in- creasing rates to allow issuance sites to recover costs is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, this increase is not sufficient to accomplish that objective for the City of Richfield. Further, the proposed additional 50� for January 1, 1984, if it were to materialize, would still not completely cover the costs of administration. With respect to the financial deficit position of contract issuance sites, Richfield is not likely to be unique. It is our understanding that the recent increase in contract rates was initiated due to numerous com- plaints from contract issuance sites unable to recover costs. In the final analysis, we are faced with providing a x16 service (food stamp issuance) which does not generate sufficient °J revenue to be self - supporting. Additionally, this non -self supporting service is benefitting a clientele whose majority is comprised of non - Richfield residents. Furthermore, the ever in- creasing requirements of food stamp program administration are impacting upon the city clerk division's ability to provide a variety of other essential services, such as record management, business license administration, and timely compliance with the Deputy Registrar reporting deadlines. Thus, in consideration of all of the facts impacting upon this matter, I am recommending that the City Council approve the execution of Notification to Terminate the Agreement for Food Stamp Program between the City of Richfield and the Hennepin County Welfare Department. Such notification must be _given 90 days prior to the actual termination of the agreement. We would be happy to work with the county to find an alternate site in the area prior to ceasing issuance of the food stamp program at our location. KN /ej a 0 4 Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 81 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield V Council Members: Subject: Request for a Permit to Construct an Outdoor Advertising Display (billboard) at 1600 East 78th Street Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company is requesting that the city council approve a permit to locate a 14' x 48' outdoor ad- vertising display on the Stadium Office Park property located at 1600 East 78th Street. The proposed sign would be 48' high, would be a flag type sign on a single pole and would overhand the existing building on the site. The sign would be set back 40' from 78th Street and approximately 10' from the parking area on the west side of the building. This sign location is a substitute location for the sign currently located on the Lund's property at 6200 Penn Avenue. Recent amendments to the Richfield sign ordinance require that prior to the issuance of a permit for the construction of an outdoor advertising display the city council must conduct a public hearing. The public hearing on this permit request has been scheduled for March 14, 1983. Notification has been mailed to property owners and residents within 660 feet of the property. The proposed 48' high outdoor advertising display meets all requirements for outdoor advertising displays except for the maximum height limit of 271. The public safety department staff has recommended that there be at least 7 feet vertical clearance between the bottom of the sign and the roof of the building to allow for proper maintenance of the roof. It appears as though there would be only 6 feet of clearance allowed. The ordinance allows the city council to permit a sign up to 48' in height to be constructed it it is found that there are unique circumstances present which reduce the visibility of the outdoor advertising display from adjacent streets and if it is found that the increased height would not cause any safety, • aesthetic or property devaluation problems. The planning staff has reviewed the proposal and found that there are unique circumstances present in this case. First of Council Letter No. 81 -2- March 14, 1983 • all, the proposed site is part of the agreement negotiated with Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. to remove the sign constructed on the Lund's grocery store property at 6200 Penn Avenue. Secondly, without the extra height, the sign would not be visible from 494. The sign would have to be constructed between build- ings in order to meet setback requirements. A 27' high sign could not clear the buildings, and therefore, the sign would be blocked from view by the buildings. Rooftop signs are no longer permitted so the extra height is necessary. The proposed 48' sign would not cause any safety, aesthetic or property devaluation problems. This sign location is within a commercial zoning district and there is considerable distance between the proposed sign location and any residentially zoned property. The city's ordinances governing signs also indicate that the construction of new outdoor advertising displays along free- ways is prohibited unless it is a replacement for existing out- door advertising display and only if the city council first approves the new location. As indicated earlier, the proposed new outdoor advertising display would be a replacement for the existing sign at 6200 Penn Avenue. It. is recommended that the city council conduct the public hearing on this matter, approve the proposed location at 1600 • East 78th Street as a replacement for the outdoor advertising display at 6200 Penn Avenue, and approve a permit to construct a 48' high outdoor advertising display at the proposed location with the stipulation that at least 7 feet of vertical clearance be maintained between the bottom of the sign structure and the roof. KN/ e j a • Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager y 5 Pz / - - , - W Y(esS: /600 past 79'1" J v -�o -- - - - -- -- �° t, - -- _ ?r o -- Nap�e \e 5��r Locu-4ion t. i 1 _ 0 IT i N • • tZ1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 80 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: 1983 Sidewalk Construction CP 782, Preliminary Report and Setting Date Of Hearing At the February 14, 1983 city council meeting the city council ordered the preparation of the preliminary report for the 1983 sidewalk construction. The segments of sidewalk identified are listed as follows: On Side From Lyndale Avenue West 74th Street 73rd Street North Portland Avenue Diagonal Blvd. North 12th Avenue 65th Street North Penn Avenue 65th Street South Upton Avenue Xerxes Avenue East 62nd Street Rae Drive West 65th Street Vincent Avenue East 65th Street 78th Street North 12th Avenue 78th Street North 14th Avenue 78th Street North 12th Avenue Bloomington Ave. East 75th Street 77th Street South Nicollet Avenue 18th Avenue West 70th Street 69th or 70th St. North Xerxes Avenue 76th Street South Xerxes Avenue To 76th Street 12th Avenue Cedar Avenue Russell Avenue Xerxes Avenue 65th Street 66th Street 1 350' South + 250' West Cedar Avenue 13th Avenue 76th Street + 130' West Diagonal Blvd. Humboldt Avenue Sheridan Avenue A copy of the preliminary report is attached. At the February 28, 1983 city council meeting, the council deferred the setting of the date for the public hearing on the 1983 sidewalk project to allow further analysis of locating a sidewalk on 69th or 70th Street, Xerxes Avenue to Humboldt Avenue. The staff has analyzed the alternatives and recommends that the sidewalk be constructed on 70th Street because: 1. The flat uninterrupted boulevard area on 70th Street allows the sidewalk to be constructed at a lesser Council Letter -o. 80 -2- March 14, 1983 cost and with less disruption to adjacent home- owners; • 2. Edina has a sidewalk on 70th Street, not 69th Street 3. The Hennepin County Library is located on 70th Street 4. A 70th Street sidewalk would result in less annual operating cost due to reduced snow removal costs. The sidewalk policy indicates that sidewalks on collector streets should be on the north side of east -west streets. Be- cause of the many negative aspects to the sidewalk on the north side of 69th Street from Penn Avenue to Xerxes Avenue, the south side was also considered in the analysis. Sidewalks on the north side take better advantage of the sun to aid in clearing ice and snow. Construction Costs The following is a cost summery for sidewalk construction. MAJOR ITEM SIDEWALK COST COMPARISON XERXES AVENUE TO PENN AVENUE • 69th St. 69th.St. 70th St. North Side South Side North Side Sidewalk /Appurtenant Work $39,804.00 $30,555.80 $36,787.53 Trees 9,000.00 5,400.00 1,800.00 New Retaining Walls 15,300.00 10,200.00 2,600.00 Relocate Retaining Walls 30,150.00 5,200.00 - Relocate Timber /I Beam Wall 129,750.00 - - $224,004.00 $51,355.80 $41,187.53 Preliminary costs for construction of a 5 foot sidewalk on 69th Street between Xerxes Avenue and Penn Avenue on the north side is over $220,000. The cost would be reduced to $94,000 if the wall at Vincent Avenue were left intact. Estimated project costs of a 50 foot sidewalk on 69th Street with the walk on the south side is $51,000. These costs are created by the necessity of several existing retaining walls being moved back to allow for a five -foot sidewalk. These existing walls are located four feet • Council Letter No. 80 -3- March 14, 1983 • behind the curb. Substantial costs would be saved if the exist- ing wall were left in place. However, if the walls were left in place it would be cost prohibitive to keep these areas clear of snow in the winter since there would be no snow storage space and the city's sidewalk plows have a five -foot wheel base. The preliminary cost of a five foot sidewalk on the north side 70th Street from Xerxes Avenue to Penn Avenue is $41,000. This segment of 70th Street has a relatively flat and uninterrupted boulevard area to accommodate a sidewalk. The preliminary cost of a sidewalk on 69th Street from Penn Avenue to Humboldt Ave- nue is $62,000. The cost on the Penn Avenue to Humboldt Avenue segment on 70th Street is $49,000. On 70th Street from Penn to Xerxes Avenue, only six trees need to be replaced. On the north side of 69th Street, 30 trees will be removed, and 18 trees will be removed from the south side of 69th Street.. Snow Maintenance Issue The long term cumulative maintenance cost of removing snow from sidewalks adjacent to large retaining walls on 69th Street would have a negative impact on the operating budget. A side- walk on 70th Street would be able to be cleared of snow in a normal manner. The retaining walls on 69th Street would require removal of snow. Snow hauling from sidewalks costs about $70 per short block where snowplowing is less than $3.00 per short block. Pedestrian Link A sidewalk on either 69th Street or 70th Street between Humboldt Avenue and Xerxes Avenue would provide an east -west pedestrian link through the center portion of the west end of the city. A significant pedestrian attraction exists in the Southdale area. A sidewalk on 70th Street would serve as a connection to the existing sidewalk system in Edina adjacent to the Hennepin County Library. There are no sidewalks on 69th Street in Edina. Future Traffic Signal Issue Ideally, sidewalk installation would be preferred at a possible future signalized intersection on Penn Avenue. Traffic counts at the intersections of 69th Street and 70th Street with Penn Avenue indicate that the warrants for a traffic signal are close to being met. A signal warrant is a guideline. When a traffic signal warrant is met, it is more likely that there would be fewer accidents with a signal than without a signal. A signal installed at one of these intersections would attract traffic from the other intersection. There is more traffic on • 69th Street and a signal warrant is closest to being met at 69th Street and Penn Avenue. There would appear to be a conflict be- tween installing a traffic signal at the intersection and resi- dential concerns of increased traffic. There have been requests for better traffic control at the intersection for fear of more :ii Letter ,o. 80 -4- March 14, 1983 accidents and at the same time, requests for a reduction of traffic on 69th Street. A traffic signal would relieve some of the traffic concerns, but exacerbate the concern over increased is traffic. The staff is not prepared to recommend that a signal be constructed at 69th Street or 70th Street. However, if one were to be constructed, 69th Street would be the most likely location. Minnesota State Aid (MSA) Fundinq A map of the State Aid System is attached to this council letter. The Xerxes Avenue to Penn Avenue segment of 69th Street is a State Aid Road. Therefore, the state would reim- burse all costs of the sidewalk on a State Aid road. On the other hand, the Penn Avenue to Humboldt Avenue segment of 70th Street is a State Aid road. For the sake of continuity, it is better to provide the sidewalk on one street and not to follow the State Aid designation and switch streets at Penn Avenue. About half of the sidewalk cost of either the 69th or 70th Street route from Xerxes Avenue to Humboldt Avenues will be paid by State Aid. Even if 70th Street between Penn and Xerxes were designa- ted as a State Aid Road, the State Aid regulations do not allow reimbursement for sidewalk construction until the road meets State Aid standards. 70th Street is too narrow and is structur- ally deficient for State Aid standards. Distance from Houses to Curb SThe houses on the south side of 69th Street are closer to the curb than the houses on the north side of 69th Street or 70th Street. The four closest houses on the south side of 69th Street are 16 feet from the curb. The four closest houses on the north side of 70th Street average over 22 feet from the curb. Staff Recommendation A sidewalk should be constructed on the north side of 70th Street to provide an east -west pedestrian link through the cen- ter portion of the west end of the city from Humboldt to Xerxes, connecting to the Edina sidewalk, then to the York Avenue side- walk. The terrain along 70th Street minimizes cost and adverse residential impact. As long as one continuous sidewalk link is to be provided, the non -State Aid portion of 70th Street from Penn Avenue to Xerxes Avenue is more than off -set by the non - State Aid portion of 69th Street from Humboldt to Penn Avenues. The 70th Street option also affords the least annual operating cost. • Council Letter No. 80 -5- March 14, 1983 The staff recommends that the council pass the attached resolution to receive the preliminary engineer's report and schedule the public hearing for the March 28, 1983 city council meeting on the recommended sidewalk construction which includes the 70th Street sidewalk rather than 69th Street from Humboldt Avenue to Xerxes Avenue. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager 0 0 f^'1 co m U x x 3 3 'I-I in � Q X • GJ� ^ H 0 � a 2 -102 M0113d9NO- 3nv dvC3 -. ��— __ ?G_____ ___. _ ___ M0113jON01 —` ___________________ _ — - — -- -- - — v- -t=-, 3nv aa030 4191 u.0 ♦i �— -- �M —_ -- 4141 4 19 --' ♦ �— - - � V1 $I _ N019NIw0OlE _ -_ - -_�, .` •• I I N019NIV400i6 M 41 SI ., 41 vi 411, - -� ■_ ■ V4 01 �- __ -__ — _■ ol 101113 Z — — _ — ■ 101'.13 OOVOIN. J , - -- —■ -- OOVOINO snewmec - -_ N Snannloc ONVIXVC —' - -- __■ aNV1Xac 3nv ONV11aod _ -3nv ONV11aOd US _ 41S VI4 NOlN11. NO1NMl �, 11 042 — - SN3n315 SN3n31S 3nv 1311001N 113OSIV16 1 3nv 1311OO1N �'• • _ —___ -t 113051v18 N1tlOM1N31A - _ —_ Adn8Sl11d - —_ `-' ---- - - -- 1dn QSllld LNVSV31d '.o -� = -_ - _ _ _ ______ 1NaSV31d ONad0 131tlavN 0131imv" -- -- 0131dav9 3nv 31VONA1 1 - -�- -nV 31VONAl NOlaoly /jam `� •� NOIa01v INV his ■ Xv3100 �\ LNVAaB C -7 z 1N0dnc _ _ c�T, Xad 10O p u _ NoSa3w3 I, - -- a a < 1NOdno NOSN3w3 LNOw3ad Oovwfc icloswnN - -- 9Nlnal —-a;= - -= 101oewnN - ■ ^�.y �,.I 9Nlnal S3 V#Vf XONX 'i XONY T ■ -- - - -- - Nv00' Nvoaov+ _ ■ • ■ - v NO1M3N a 3 110 - -�_ - _ • ■__ _ _ - ---� -_ __�- - --- - -- � —_ a3n110 3nv NN3d - ■ - -- — -- - 3nV NN3d r 11355 na ( _-- _ _- - ~!'�' -- -- N33n0 NaC1a3N5 1-_- ��' -'�.• -� - - -- 113ssna 77 NvcId3NS _■ T ■ -. - - — SawONl NO.Ldr NOldn N tlfIBNSaM _ ■ . _■ � ■ ■ 1� _ �.___� ___ -_ - s �.. '■••..... - - -}°�'+ --+ ■ �',. NanBNSVM 3nv S3xd3x .• �� 3nv S3Xa3X N Y N N N NP 0 2 f^'1 co m U x x 3 3 'I-I in � Q X • GJ� PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST X983 SIDEWALK AND APPURTENANT WORK CP 782 I. TYPE OF WORK Concrete sidewalk and handicap ramp installation on designated roadways in Richfield. II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT Integration and completion of pedestrian system as identified in Richfield's sidewalk policy. III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT February 28, 1983 IV. LOCATION Sidewalk construction with handicap ramps V. FEASIBILITY The sidewalk and handicap ramp project is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed and not in conjunction with any other project. VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED All that property abutting the streets and avenues as described under sidewalk construction in item number IV above. • ON SIDE FROM TO 1. Lyndale Avenue West 74th Street 76th Street 2. 73rd Street i North Portland Avenue 12th Avenue 3. 4. Diagonal Blvd.' North 12th Avenue rY- Cedar Avenue 65th Street North Penn Avenue (Russell Avenue 5. 65th Street South Upton Avenue �' Xerxes Ave un 6. Xerxes Avenue East 62nd Street 65th Street 7. Rae Drive West 65th Street 66th Street 8. Vincent Avenue' East 65th Street I 350' South 9. 78th Street North 12th Avenue t 250, West 10. 78th Street North 12th Avenue 13th Avenue 11. 78th Street North 14th Avenue Cedar Avenue 12. Bloomington Ave. East 75th Street 76th Street 13. 77th Street South Nicollet Avenue ± 130' West 14. 18th Avenue West 70th Street Diagonal Blvd. 15. 69th or 70th St. NORTH Xerxes Avenue Humboldt Avenue lo'. 76th Street South Xerxes Avenue Sheridan Avenue V. FEASIBILITY The sidewalk and handicap ramp project is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed and not in conjunction with any other project. VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED All that property abutting the streets and avenues as described under sidewalk construction in item number IV above. • -2- • - ESTIMATED PROJECT COST a) Construction of approximately 20,022 lineal feet of 5' concrete sidewalk improvements Estimated Construction Costs $211,432.00 20 percent indirect cost 42,286.00 253,718.00 b) 100 handicap ramps with new sidewalk Estimated Construction Cost $ 21,450.00 20 percent indirect cost 4,290.00 $ 25,740.00 c) Construction of retaining walls, tree removals, and tree relocations Estimated Construction Cost $ 49,500.00 20 percent indirect cost 9,900.00 $ 59,400.00 Total Estimated Project Cost a) Sidewalk Construction $253,718.00 b) Handicap Ramps with Sidewalk 25 740.00 c) Retaining walls, Tree Relocation/ Removal 59,400.00 $338,858.00 Viii ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT The cost of this project is proposed to be assessed partially to the abutting property owners and the remaining cost to be paid for by State Aid Funds. Estimated cost of sidewalk construction: 5253,7'_8.00 = 20,022 lineal feet = $12.68 /lineal foot of sidewalk Residential Assessment S12.68/L.F. x 201 _ $2.54 /assessable foot In the residential areas the assessment will be figured from the short side of the lots that abut the improvement. Typical Assessment for 75' lot 75' x.$2.54 = $190.50 0 -3- ?ult1ole and Commercial Assessment • S12.68;L.F. x 50% = S6.34 /assessable foot. In multiple and commercial areas the assessment will be figured on - ^e total length of lot abutting the amprovement Typical assessment for lot with 200' abutting improvement: 200' x S6.34 = $1,268.00 I herebv certifv this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Michael J. Eastling, P.E. Date: February 28, 1983 Registration No. 15066 0 — --' Z N 01 SZ } iJ O NSION ♦15 U P� zz a Z F O < G L L VIQZ I o - ti u ma s ut 61 __ -_____ ____ .�O'll3lONOl ' ________t____� ___ __ ________ _________- V011330NO1 �- l__________________u'?a_ 3AV "033 *141 4141 3AV av03O �...._ _ _, - - - _ _. — — Vt it - `J VI BI x191 4191 NOlON1n0O18 ;�-- „Tr -_— rte--' a I 40IONIF40018 46 91 41 41 ji 41 T1 41 z 1 __ -_ -_ I �I Vl zl 4/01 ' - - -- 0 L—; ^� � ��- � -- C ,'; 4101 101113 _1'- 101113 oov01w0 09VOIMO snenmm � �--� ,—, ! j snsnmoo ONV1xV0 a� ___ -- 'L-J JNVl71VO r—, (— 3nv ONVIlaOd - b - 3AV OMVUWW Q .V01N110 [\ —�J j�. 1 NO1 14110 Q SN3A31S -'L” -' -� i SM3A31S LLJ � 3nv 131101IN f' SOS `:69C .Z-:4 i ' 3 3AV 1311001N U7 1130SIV1f 1 _— ACC �-i ;� ,I 113GSn18 I M1aOM1N3M -- " �1tlOM143M nt Q lanes111d ! _— � o �r� —'p Aanas111d ---- - - -�- - _ LNVSV31d JNade 131 du vN 0l3tfavo !��i/ O E �; -I jII 0131d11V9 3nv 31VONA1 3 1 '-�- - 3AV 31VONAl MOIMOIV 1NVAaY 14odna _ I J J 0 4 C �� lnodno awVwIIW 101osonM 9NIAa1 53nvr r--� C� - 1 53NVP XONx XON>t _ ` O NV S01 •. _. _. ,L,�L 'L-. - _ "wool NV9aOw IrC C— ri`— � ^--� NV 9aOn NOlM3N a3A110 �r- - --'L __J� ^, �a� a3nn0 3AV NN34 _ -_. _ 3AV N1434 Og N33n0 N33no N 113ssna - _ .I ��� ;I 113SSnw �I NVOIw w jr, — -- � J 1 ^"—p� '� `te NVOI43M5 1 svn0141 I. SVnO Ml Oldn 1N3ONIA k_- 1101 \ /� 1N3ON IA NI{nYMSVM �__ _^ _ - — — � Nyn6MSVM 3AV S3xw3x 3AV 53XV3x N N N 0 ►i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AND CALLING OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1983 SIDEWALK • CONSTRUCTION - C.P. 782 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 6720 of the council, adopted February 14, 1983, a report has been prepared by the city engineer with reference to the improvement of the following streets by construction of sidewalk: ON SIDE FROM TO Lyndale Avenue West 74th Street 76th Street ✓73rd Street North Portland Avenue 12th Avenue \/Diagonal Blvd. North 12th Avenue Cedar Avenue ✓65th Street North Penn Avenue Russell Avenue ✓65th Street South Upton Avenue Xerxes Avenue -"Xerxes Avenue East 62nd Street 65th Street ✓Rae Drive West 65th Street 66th Street ✓Vincent Avenue East 65th Street I 350' South ✓78th Street North 12th Avenue t 250' West 1/78th Street North 12th Avenue 13th Avenue ✓78th Street ^' North 14th Avenue Cedar Avenue 7 ,Bloomington Ave. East 75th Street 76th Street 7th Street South Nicollet Avenue t 130' West ,/18th Avenue West 70th Street Diagonal Blvd. ✓76th Street South Xerxes Avenue Sheridan Avenue ✓70th Street North Xerxes Avenue Humbolt Avenue 6q'-= r OD--T 1k A� CJL k-Lvy- fU2jt I��� • And this report was received by the council on this.14th day of March, 1983. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the city council of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The council will consider the improvements of such streets in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $338,858.00. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement of such streets on the 28th day of March, 1983, in the council chambers of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Adopted by the council this 14th day of March, 1983. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: • Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 79 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Addition to 1983 Alley Improvement Project In November, 1980, the city council established a policy providing for the permanent paving of the city's alleys by petition. The alley improvement projects are to be initiated on a yearly basis, with petitions due on February 1 of each year. The engineering division has received an additional valid . petition requesting alley paving from property owners adjacent to the alley between Upton Avenue and Thomas Avenue, 69th Street to 70th Street. It is still feasible to include the alley with the 1983 alley paving project. The attached preliminary engineering report includes the estimated costs and assessments for this proposed alley improve- ment. The staff recommends that the city council adopt the attached resolutions, ordering and accepting the preliminary engineering report, and scheduling a public hearing on the im- provement project for this alley for March 28, 1983. KN /eja • Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AND CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING ADDITION TO CITY PROJECT 786 WHEREAS, the city engineer has prepared a preliminary report with reference to the improvement of the following alley by permanent paving: Alley Between From To Upton Avenue and Thomas Avenue 69th Street 70th Street THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The preliminary report on the proposed addition to City Project 786, dated the 14th day of March, 1983, prepared by the city engineer, is hereby received and ordered to be placed on file. 2. A public hearing on said proposed improvement is hereby called to be held on March 28, 1983, commencing at 7:00 P.M., in the council chambers of City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, at which time the council will consider the improvement of this alley in accordance with the report and assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, at an estimated cost of the improvement of $23,988.35. 3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give published and mailed notice of such hearing in the manner required by law. 4. Such proposed improvement shall hereafter be known and designated as City Project 786. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of March, 1983. ATTEST: • Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING PRELIMINARY REPORT ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING - ADDITION TO CP 786 WHEREAS, a petition requesting the permanent paving of the following alley has been received: Alley Between From To Upton Avenue and Thomas Avenue 69th Street 70th Street And the petition has been signed by the required percentage of owners of abutting property; 0 NOW, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Council finds it appears necessary and desirable that the city make the assessable public improvement of permanent surfacing of the above mentioned alley, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429; 2. A preliminary engineering report on such proposed assessable public improvement is required by law in the event that said improvement or any part thereof is specially assessed against the benefited property within the city. The city • engineer is, therefore, authorized and directed to prepare a preliminary report of such proposed improvement and to submit the same to the City Council at the earliest convenient time; 3. Such report shall indicate the estimated cost of such proposed improvement, shall indicate whether such proposed improvement is feasible and whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; 4. Such proposed improvement shall hereafter be known and designated as City Project 786. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of March, 1983. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • • PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST ALLEY PAVING & APPURTENANT WORK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 786 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA I. TYPE OF WORK Concrete alley paving improvements in the City of Richfield. II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT The alleys identified as Number 1 through 6 in Item No. IV were requested by petition representing greater than 50 percent of the abutting footage. No. 7 was requested by a petition representing 50 percent of the abutting footage. These alleys are proposed as a paving program for the City of Richfield to provide permanent alley surfacing to benefit abutting properties. III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT February 28, 1983 IV. LOCATION Alley Between Upton Avenue and Thomas Avenue From 69th Street To 70th Street V. FEASIBILITY The alley paving project is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed and not in conjunction with any other project. VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED All that property abutting the alleys previously described in Item No. IV. VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 11' Wide Concrete Alley Estimated Construction Cost $19,190.68 Administration, Legal, Engineering, and Insurance (25 %) 4,797.67 Estimated Project Cost $23,988.35 -2- VIII. ESTIMATED PROJECT ASSESSMENT . Property abutting alleys will be assessed for abutting alley construction according to the assessment policy established in the City Council Resolution No. 6345. Total Assessable Alley Frontage Total Project Cost Less City Cost Assessable Cost $23,433.37 = $1,186.50 = $19.75 /assessable foot Typical Assessment for 50' lot = $987.50 Typical Assessment for 75' lot = $1,481.25 $ 1,186.50 $23,988.35 544.98 $23,433.37 40 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 78 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Approval of a Registered Land Survey Adjacent to Richfield Lake As part of the Developer's Agreement with the Lyndale Garden Center, the city agreed to sell the owners of Lyndale Garden Center two small triangles of land that lie adjacent to Lyndale Garden Center property and adjacent to Richfield Lake. Legal descriptions for those two small triangles were not acceptable for filing with the Hennepin County Register of Titles. The city staff contracted with Demars Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc. to complete a registered land survey of the property to obtain the proper legal descriptions. Richfield's subdivision ordinance requires that the city council approve all sub - divisions and re- subdivisions of land within the community. Attached for city council consideration is the registered land survey completed by Demars Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc. It is recommended that the city council approve the attached registered land survey by passing the attached resolution. KN /ej a Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager • 0 REGISTERED LAND SURVEY N0. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I hereby certify that in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 508, Minnesota Statutes of 1949, as amended, I have surveyed the following described tract of land a.n the County of Uennepin and the State of Minnesota, to wit: That tart of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 28; thence on an assumed bearing of due South along the East line of said Section 28, for a distance of 1176.30 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point A; thence continuing due South along said East line of said Section 28, a distance of 419.98 feet, more or less to its intersection with the Northwesterly line of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 675; thence South 55 14' 'lest along said Northwesterly line of Tract A and its Southwesterly extension a distance of 178.99 feet to the actual point of beginni$g of the parcel to be described; ` thence the par continuing along said line South 55 L4' the mean center line of Richfield Lake, which center line is marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 4024 and A -2547; thence Northwesterly along said center line to its intersection with a line bearinng South 82 00' 00" West from the above described Point A; thence North 82 00' 00" East to a point on said line a distance gf 442.58 feet Southwesterly from the above described Point A; *hence South 12 16' 44" East a distance of 374.92 feet; thence North 77 43 'i6" East a distance of 164.29 feet; thence Southeasterly distance a of 138.77 feet, more or less to the actual point of beginning, all in Hennepin County, Minnesota. That this survey 1s a correct delineation Of said survey. Dated this day A.... 19Fz oPr Y. /may /` ' Gapy L. Ga ri,el .and Surveyor Minnesota License No. 9066 This Registered Land Survey has been approved and accepted by the City Council of Richfield at a regular meeting thereof held this day of A.D. 19_ CITY COUNCIL OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA BY: ?Kayo r BY: Manager i PROPERTY TAXATION DEPARTMENT, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that there are no delinquent taxes for all years prior to for the land- described on this Registered Land Survey. Dated � this day of' A.D. 19 Vernon T. Hoppe, Director BY: a Tax Clerk SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota ?ursuant to Chapter 810, Minnesota Laws of 1969, this Registered Land Survey has been aporoved this day oP ' A.D. 19_ . Robert L. 9akka, Hennepin County Surveyor BY: 9E;ISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, Minnesota - nereby certify that the within Registered Land Survey No.. was Piled for record 1n this office this day of 9 -_ A.D. 1. _, at o'clock R. Dan Carlson, Registrar of Titles BY- ,.Deputy DENARS • GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. Sheet I of 2 sheen C i s REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 'A 1.4 w 1 —74 06,64 A S < TRACT C c \k �Z 20 0 20 240 SCALE iN —ET m DENOTES IRON MONUMENT DENOTES JUDICIAL L-ANOMARK EARI N GS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED DIXAXS - GAJ2= LAND 6VRVCT0" ivC. Sheet 2 of 2 sneers • C] RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A REGISTERED LAND SURVEY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield has reviewed a registered land survey of the following described property: That part of the Northeast of Section 28, Townshia 28, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 28; thence on an assumed bearing of due South along the East line of said Section 28, for a distance of 1176.30 feet to a-point :hereinaf1sr refer-id to as Point A• thence continuing due South along said Last line of said Sec- tion 28, a distance of 419.98 -feet, more or less to its intersection with the Northwesterly Line of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 675; thence South 330 14 ' West to the :Wean center line Of Richfield Lake, which center line is marked by Judicial Landmar.cs set pursuant to Ter.-ens Case No. 4024 and A -2547; thence Northwesterly along said center Line to its intersection with a line bearing South 820 00' 00" West from the above described Point A; thence North 820 00' 00" East to a point on said line a distance of 442.58 Beet Southwesterly from the above described Point A; thence South 12° 16' 44" East a distance of 374.92 feet; thence North 770 43' 15" East a distance of L64.29 feet; thence Southeasterly a distance of 138.77 feet, more or Less to the actual point of beginning, all in Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, it has been found that the registered land survey meets all city requirements. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the registered land survey is hereby approved and that the mayor and city manager are authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Richfield. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of ATTEST: 1983. Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor �7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 77 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Final Development Plan, Special Use Permit, and Off - Street Parking Permit, Hauser /Snyder Hub Area In February, 1979, the city council approved a preliminary plat, PUD plan and rezoning for the Hub /Summit /Penny Planned Unit Development. In October, 1982, the council approved a final development plan, special use permit, and off - street parking permit for parking lot improvements on the site. The property owner as part of the PUD process is requesting city council approval of a final development plan, special use per- mit, and off - street parking permit to allow the construction of an addition to the existing building. Proposal The proposal involves the construction of a 100' x 130' 12,350 square foot addition to the north end of the existing structure currently occupied by the Hauser Foods Supermarket and the Snyder Drug Store. The addition would be offset to the east to maintain access to the Snyder Drug Store loading dock at the northwest corner of the structure. The addition would be occupied by retail commercial tenants. Specific tenants have not been identified at this time. The addition would be one story in height. Exterior materials would be brick with an epoxy - stucco fascia to match the existing building. Approxi- mately 50 parking spaces would be removed. The existing curb cut in the northwest corner of the site would be widened by approximately 20 feet to allow sufficient room for trucks to enter the site and back into the Snyder Drug loading area. The easterly curb cut to this site from 65th Street will be shifted approximately 20 feet to the east to line up with the driving aisle on the east side of the structure. New con- crete end islands would be constructed on the east side of this driving aisle across from the new addition. Some boule- vard trees along the south side of 65th Street would have to be relocated. • Council Letter No. 77 -2- March 14, 1983 Zoning and Ordinance Requirements Section 3.34A, subdivision 6 of the zoning ordinance re- quires that prior to commencement of any construction or de- velopment of the land, and after rezoning, an applicant shall submit a final development plan, consistent with the council approved PUD plan, and an application for a special use permit for said development. A special use permit in conformance with the final development plan must be obtained before the PUD district can be devoted to the uses provided in such a plan. In this case, each property owner must submit a final development plan and obtain a special use permit for the de- velopment of their property for each phase of the overall Hub/ Hauser development. Section 3.41 of the ordinance requires that it be demon- strated that the development would not be detrimental to the public welfare and Section 3.34A, subdivision 3 requires that the development be coordinated with subdivision regulations. Staff Review and Findings At the time the city council approved the preliminary PUD plan and plat, certain stipulations were placed on the Penny Supermarket development. These stipulations include the follow- ing: 1. Elevation drawings of proposed buildings should be submitted, including signing; 2. Schedule of light replacement, and an amortization schedule, should be provided for replacement of existing lights with new lights which conform to the city's L /H /N Design Standards; 3. Hauser's has been exploring the possibility of an arcade to connect their store with a rear entrance to the K -Mart area. If this is not desirable, some type of through -block connection will have to be arranged; 4. All end islands should be concrete or landscaped. The staff has reviewed the proposed development and found the foliowing: 1. The proposed plan differs from the PUD approved by the council in February, 1979 in the following ways: A. The property owner has indicated that they have no desire to construct the 5,400 square foot addition to the east side of the Hausers Food Store and the size of the proposed addition to the north side of the structur has been in- creased from 7,200 square feet to 12,350 square feet. The total square footage of the proposed Council Letter Yo. 77 -3- March 14, 1983 addition is 250 square feet smaller than the the total square footage of the two shown in the PUD plan. it is the opinion of the planning staff that the impact of this change is not s igr_if icant ; b. The north setback has been reduced from 70 feet to 32 feet. it is the planning staff's opinion that the impact of this change would not be significant. ;chile the proposed setback would be 8 feet less than normally required in a commercial zoning district, there would still be sufficient separation between the commercial building and the apartments across 65th Street. Parking has been eliminated which would subject the apartments to less distraction from automobile headlights. C. The off - street parking provided has been reduced from 207 spaces to 197 spaces. With this change the total PUD (Hub Shopping Center, Summit Bank and the Hausers /Snyder sites) would still have 43 parking spaces more than would be required by city guidelines. Sufficient parking would be available for people coming to this site. i2. The proposed widening of the curb cut in the northwest corner of the site would interfer with the existing bomanite crosswalk across 63th Street just east of East Pleasant Avenue. if the driveway is widened, the south end of the crosswalk would end up in the driveway and would not connect to the sidewalk on the south side of 65th Street. The applicant has indicated that the driveway has to be widened to allow sufficient room for semi- trucks to pull onto the site from 65th Street and then back into the loading dock at the Snyders Drug Store. Without the wide curb cut, the trucks would have to back out of the site onto 65th Street which would disrupt traffic and cause potential safety problems. it is the staff's feeling that the crosswalk should remain at its existing location. The drive - way can be widened to the west and designed in such a way to allow the desired semi -truck access. 3. When the city council approved the final development plan in October, 1982, the council stipulated that trees be provides as indicated in the approved PUD plan. The trees in question are not shown in the end island on the proposed site plan in the southeast Council Letter No. 77 -4- March 14, 1983 . portion of the parking area. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council approve the final development plan, special use permit, and off - street parking permit subject to the following stipulations: 1. That the trees be provided as indicated on the approved PUD plan; 2. That the crosswalk across 65th Street adjacent to East Pleasant Avenue should remain at its existing location. The driveway should be widened to the west and redesigned to accomodate semi - trucks. The final design of the curb cut should be submitted for city staff approval. 3. Approve the off - street parking permit by approving the attached resolution. `k) La C% c o4 c'UeNe Respectfully submitted, o N sDJTYt.LO_ K n nn ern o� 04z- R uv/hn rA-T t MPf-r w iTTt `-Q- -r'O Karl Nollenberger �. -TO NS cow AS S< City Manager KN /eja W Pos5%3u,. 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 40 Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 76 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amending the Line Extension Policy Of Minnesota Cablesystems - Southwest Prescrib- ing Uniform Monthly Rates and Other Charges And Installations. First Reading. The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission was formed by the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield to coordinate the administration and enforcement of the cable communication franchise is the five cities. The commission is comprised of one city official from each of the cities, and each of the city managers. Late last fall, the City of Eden Prairie raised certain questions regarding what areas were designated as Initial Service Areas, and which areas were to be considered Line Extensions. The franchise provided that areas with a population density of less than 40 homes per mile would be considered Line Extension and cable communications could be provided at an additional in- stallation charge of between $40 and $80 per installation, if served by a city water or sewer line, or the total cost of extend- ing the line if there was no utility service. Another section of the franchise documents provided that all areas that were zoned residential at the time the franchise was passed would be consid- ered to be the Initial Service Area. This provision was not known to the representatives of the cable company, city representatives or other parties during the franchise process due to an over- sight. The cable company's understanding was that most, but not all, of the areas would be considered under an Initial Service Area, and the remaining areas to be served under a Line Extension Policy. It was their belief that requiring all homes zoned residential to be cabled under the Initial Service Area policy would be prohibitively expensive. Minnesota Cablesystems then proposed a compromise whereby 40 percent of the densest areas remaining to be cabled would be served as part of the Initial Service Area, and the remaining 0 0 • Council Letter No. 76 -2- March 14, 1983 homes would receive service under a clearly articulated Line Ex- tension Policy. The proposed compromise is as follows: 1. The 76 homes listed as Area 1 in Exhibit A (copy attached) and the 162 homes listed as Area 13 would be served under the Initial Service Area Policy at a cost of $155,000 with no significant impact on the rates; 2. The remaining 372 homes in Areas 1 -12, and 14 -20 would be served under a Line Extension Policy based on a cost sharing formula. At their January 18, 1983 city council meeting, the Eden Prairie council acknowledged that they understood throughout the franchising process that not all areas of Eden Prairie would be cabled initially, and to do so would constitute an undue burden on Edina, Hopkins, and Richfield. The council voted to accept the compromise offered by Minnesota Cablesystems. Based on the foregoing, it is the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission's finding that the proposed compromise is not incon- sistent with the intent of the parties; the compromise is con- sistent with the goal of the Commission to provide cable commun- ication service to all Southwest residents in the timeliest and most economical manner possible; and the compromise is in accord- ance with the minimum requirements of the Minnesota Cablesystem's Request for Proposal. It is recommended that the city council accept the attached Findings of Fact, and give first reading approval to the ordinance amendment attached, clarifying the Line Extension Policy and amending certain provisions of the cable communications franchise ordinance, and schedule the public hearing for the March 28, 1983 city council meeting. KN /eja Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager • si;�.l�F M. s \ I f I r I Y I . I i i I I I I I i � I i I U cn Q CL cn CL h I I I i i I I I ! z Q. a Q uj O CL tt Q z J uU x CL I In 0 i IS. 4 199 1S3M CL of CL W uj 40 W a i I U I ' W Q I z � o 1 � I- 1 I I I f t I I I I I I l I I i l I I f I I l I t I� I I, ,a aa� If11111t�111ffY . la Qi O - O LO 1 N LLI Stt i ' r Z � a '�► 1 ��`�iil'I LU �� m 1'►ii N N < W < a CL C U) rK � I i fi IF!— J �aNn o�a�+ard �w.isrx3 301AH3S Z Q a a Q Z LL 0 W cn 0 CL 0 CL 07 O z x UA N z a W 2 J J a N N z 5 W H a 1Z W CS a Z a 0 0 z N z O a W J W i r_ r -, - z •..cam, - � Z. L � : � � `l I• f' t ' � 41'll 1 �� '7 (� _. 2Tv Z 4vE x ._�- ••labs. . •�_ - -'r _ - der- R, „ rj !.< Ab so MMR tom' Qt -ik 7f t - jF '`{ t �' � A - i tint +• t.-`° k � �}' �� F J � _ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT to FOR OFF- STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION NO. 83 -2 CONTRACT NO. 2351 C7 Penny Super Markets Inc. Location: 6500 -6530 Pillsbury Avenue Use: Commercial uses 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. 83 -2, Contract No. 2351, is hereby approved subject to and upon comple- tion of perforamnce of the contract for such off - street parking as hereinafter authorized. 2. That the proposed off - street parking contract for the improvement of said off - street parking, bearing Contract No. 2351 be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on behalf of this city. 3. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of the said off - street parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off - street parking lot operator in accordance with ordinance code 4.05. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this day of , 1983. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a special use permit as required by Section 334A, Subdivision 5 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances bearing case no. 83 -PUD -1 is hereby granted to Bob Levine on the following described property: Block 3 Richfield Plaza also that part of the SE 4 of the NE 4- of Section 27 Township 28 Range 24 lying north of the south 183 feet thereof and lying east of the Minnea- polis Northfield and Southern railroad and lying west of Pillsbury Avenue; also the north 33 feet of the south 183 feet of the east 112.5 feet of the west 160.4 feet of that part of the SE 4 of the NW 4 of Section 27 east of said railroad. 2. Such special use permit shall be granted for the following use: Retail Commercial Building Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk 1983. John Hamilton, Mayor I, Sylvia K. Bergh, being duly qualified and acting city clerk of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of Resolution No. , and that same is on file and of record in my office. Given my hand and seal this day of , 1983. Svlvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • • • • • Type of Service d. For data channel, full time (0.50 MHz) 1) From one point to one other point on network 2) From one point to one other point on network and return 3) From one point to all other points on network 4) From one point to all other points on network and return e. For data channel, full time (1.00 MHz) 1) From one point to one other point on network 2) From one point to one other point on network and return Rate $52.00 /month max. 100.00 /month max. 355.00 /month max. 596.00 /month max. $87.00 /month max. 168.00 /month max. 3) From one point to all other points on network 614.00 /month max. 4) From one point to all other points on netowrk 1,050.00 /month max. and return f. For data channel,. full time (2.00 MHz 1) From one point to one other point on network $157.00 /month max. 2) From one point to one other point on network 308.00 /month max. and return 3) From one point to all other points on network 1,132.00 /month max. 4) From one point to all other points on network 1,960.00 /month max. and return g. Packet Switching Data Network 1) Data transmission charge $1.00/1,000 packets 2) Connection to Packet Network 100.00 3) Cable Access Processor Lease 25.00 /month *To calculate the rate for FM video.channels, multiply the 6 MHz rate by 2.3. * *Data channels may be used for analog signal transmission such as audio. :WC • • 0 2. Rates will remain constant for two (2) years after com- mencement of construction of System or until completion of all construction required by Article V, Section 1 of this Franchise, whichever is longer as determined by City. 3. Subscribers will have the option of renting various types of converters as follows: Grantee Converter Rate Schedule Description 1. Block converter 2. OAK L -35 Initial Monthly Rate $1.00 $1.50 AMENDED EXHIBIT B GRANTEE SCHEDULE OF RATES I. SUBSCRIBER NETWORK. A. Basic Rates. 1. Tiers Standard 150 Ft. Aerial Seniors & Installation Monthly Homebound (First Outlet) Tier 1 Universal Service. $19.95 Free Free Converter not re- quired for this service. Tier 2 Family Service. Subscriber owns $19.95 $3.95 $3.36 converter. Subscriber rents $19.95 Various Various converter from Grantee. Tier 3 Full Service. Subscriber owns $19.95 $5.95 $5.06 converter. Subscriber rents $19.95 Various* Various* converter from Grantee. Tier 3 Expended Service. $19.95 $10.95 $9.31 (Expanded) (Included converter and unit). 2. Rates will remain constant for two (2) years after com- mencement of construction of System or until completion of all construction required by Article V, Section 1 of this Franchise, whichever is longer as determined by City. 3. Subscribers will have the option of renting various types of converters as follows: Grantee Converter Rate Schedule Description 1. Block converter 2. OAK L -35 Initial Monthly Rate $1.00 $1.50 Initial Monthly • Description Rate 3. Scientific Atlanta 6700 - set -up converter $2.50 - descrambler option $3.00 - remote control option $4.00 - addressable feature (not initially available) $5.00 The rental rate shall be added to the appropriate base rate shown in the table above if the subscriber rents the converter from Grantee. Subscribers may choose to rent or buy converters from sources other than the Grantee, however, a Grantee converter or descrambler will be necessary for premium services. 4. The standard installation rate will include the instal- lation of one hundred fifty (150) feet or less of aerial cable drop to each subscriber dwelling within the initial service area. Aerial installations within the initial service area in excess of one hundred fifty (150) feet will be charged at cost on a time and material basis. Underground installations will be charged at cost on a time and material basis. Free standard installations on Tiers 2 and 3 will be provided within the first thirty (30) days of energizing newly completed construction areas in the initial service area. 5. Senior citizen and homebound discounts of fifteen percent (15 %) will be offered on standard installation and monthly service of Tiers 2 and 3. The discount is available to all dwelling units where the head of the household is a senior, sixty -two (62) years of age or older, or homebound. B. Extra Outlets. Tier 1 Converter not required. Tier 2 Subscriber owns receiver. Subscriber rents converter from Grantee. *Installation (At) time of initial Installation $10.00 each $10.00 each $10.00 each Monthly Free $1.95 each Various ** Tier 3 Subscribers owns converter $10.00 each Various ** from Grantee. *Each outlet installaed after the initial installation will be $14.95 each. * *Same converter rental option as provided for under Section IA of this Exhibit B. -2- • C. Reconnection. • • Charges for reconnection of existing installations shall be $14.95 for each reconnection regardless of the number of outlets. a Commercial Rates for Subscriber Network Services. These rates will be subject to negotiation and will depend on the number of outlets required and the type of services se- lected. A typical commercial rate for department store requesting ten (10) outlets on Tier 3 with no converters and no premium pay would be: Installation (at cost on a time and material basis) Monthly Rate E. FM Rates. lst outlet $15.00 2nd outlet $10.00 3rd outlet $ 5.00 Additional outlets $ 4.00 FM service is included in the rate structures for Tier 2 and Tier 3. F. Multiple Dwellin Rates. 1. Rates will be negotiated depending on the type of service requested and the number of dwelling units served. Discounts are generally negotiated for Tiers 1, 2, and 3, and subscribers have the option to pay individually for premium services. 2. Typical Percentage Discounts for Tier 3 Service. Low rise (fewer than four stories with no elevator) Fewer than 25 units - 5% More than 25 units - 10% High rise 30 to 49 units - 10% 50 to 99 units - 15% 100 to 199 units - 20% 200 units upwards - 25% 3. If the multiple dwelling is occupied by only senior citizens or homebound persons or both, both the multiple dwelling discount and the seniors and homebound discount will apply to the monthly basic cable rate. -3- G. Miscellaneous Provisions Regarding Converters. 1. No deposit will be charged on the rental of Grantee converters. Grantee, however, reserves the right to institute a converter deposit if excessive loss or damage to the converter units is experienced. 2. The various monthly converter rental rates include the replacement and /or repair of defective units. 3. -_ Subscribersrenting:Grantee converters will have the option to buy them at a price based on the type of converter and } length of time the converter has been rented. H. Premium Services. �—=-, - i.. Premium- service rates shall be as follows: Monthly Home Theater Network $3.95 Home Box Office 7.50 CINEMA. 7.50 The Movie Channel 7.50 Showtime 7.50 Premiere 7.50 2. A $1.00 per month discount will be offered to subscribers -- -, - - -- taking two (2) or more premium services other than Home Theater Network at any one (1) time. 3. Lockout devices will be available free of charge. 4. Installation for premium services shall be free with - -. -- the initial installation of Tier 2 or 3 service. Thereafter, any number of premium services added at the same time shall be added at a maximum cost of $14.95. 5. Pay-per-view service shall be charged on the basis of the event chosen. The range of charges is expected to be in the order of $2.00 to $5.00 per event. II. SERVICES TO GOVERNMENT AND EDUCATION FACILITIES. (INCLUDING LIBRARIES) A. Installation Fees. 1. One cable outlet (per facility) 2. More than one outlet (per facility) -4- Free At cost of time and materials i • 0 • B. There shall be no monthly charge for Tier 1, 2 or 3. III. RATES FOR HOME SECURITY STATUS MONITORING. Installation A. Single: fire alarm, medic alert, or security alert button. $49.95 maximum Double: any two services. 99.95 maximum Triple: all three services. 119.95 maximum Intrusion sensor system of variable de- Grantee or other provider pending on options taken and provider of system • • Monthly $4.95 maximum 5.95 maximum 6.45 maximum 4.95 up de- pending on options taken and provider of system B. This rate schedule is exclusive of other third party charges that may be levied by emergency agencies or city licensing. C. Promotional Discounts. Rates in this Exhibit B are maximum special discounts during promotional or IV. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK. A. Installation. rates. Grantee may allow other marketing activities. Grantee's installation charge will be based upon the cost of material and labor. Grantee will provide an installation quote free of charge on request of any potential institutional network subscriber. Grantee may waive the installation charge. Institutional subscribers must supply any conduits, raceways, trenches or other passages necessary to permit installation of cable from the distribution line to the location(s) of the terminal equipment. Institutional Network Rates. 1. Institutional rates depend upon the use (video or date channel), the number of points involved in the communication, whether the communication is one -way or two -way, and whether the use is full time (24 hours a day, 365 days a year) or only part time (on an hourly basis). Packet data rates are calculated on use basis per one thousand (1,000) packets of data. One (1) p acket is eighty (80) characters or less. -5- 2. Rates for transmission capacity do not include the costs • of terminal equipment modulators, modems, and demodulators. 3. The institutional subscriber may be charged $20.00 per month. For this charge, Grantee shall provide communications security system equipment installed on the subscriber's premises by Grantee. Such equipment may include addressable taps, trans- mitter and filters or converter as required and allow access to the special channels from 300 to 402 MHz. 4. Rates are as follows: C. For data channel * *, full time (0.25 MHz) 1) From one point to one other point on network $36.00 /month max. 2) From one point to one other point on net- 56.00 /month max. work and return 3) From one point to all other points on network 232.00 /month max. 4) From one point to all other points on net- 366.00 /month max. work and return -6- Type of Service Rate a. For Video (6 MHz *) Channels, used full time twenty -four hours a day) 1) One point to one other point on network $435.00 /month max. 2) One point to one other point on network 865.00 /month max. and return 3) One point to all other points on network 3,000.00 /month max. 4) One point to all other points on network 6,000.00 /month max. and return • b. For Video (6 MHz) Channels, used part time 1) From one point to one other point on network $7.50 /hour max. 2) From one point to one other point on network 15.00 /hour max. and return 3) From one point to all other points on network 50.00 /hour max. 4) From one point to all others points on net- 110.00 /hour max. work and return 5) Special Teleconference Yearly Rate for one 1,800.00 /year max. hour per business day C. For data channel * *, full time (0.25 MHz) 1) From one point to one other point on network $36.00 /month max. 2) From one point to one other point on net- 56.00 /month max. work and return 3) From one point to all other points on network 232.00 /month max. 4) From one point to all other points on net- 366.00 /month max. work and return -6- RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS OF FACTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION (HEREINAFTER "COMMISSION ") WHEREAS, the Commission was formed by the City Councils of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Minnesota (hereinafter "Parties ") in May, 1982 to coordinate the admi- nistration and enforcement of the respective cable communications franchises of the parties; to report and recommend to the parties relative to the operation of their respective cable com- munications franchisees; and to perform such other duties as are required; and WHEREAS, based upon the authority granted to it, the Commission has undertaken its responsibilities and, pursuant to Article VII, Section 3 subd. (a)(i), of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement the Commission is empowered to make policy decisions and recommendations to the parties on the enforcement of laws, regulations and ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, at a regular meeting of the Commission, that the Commission does hereby make the following: I. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS • ILI A. In October, 1982, a question was presented to the Commission and its Operating Committee as to when cable com- munications service would be provided by the franchisee, Minnesota Cablesystems- Southwest (hereinafter "Minnesota ") to a certain area of Minnetonka defined as census tract 263.01. The area at issue is zoned residential and, for all relevant time, has been zoned residential. B. In response to that question, the Operating Committee of the Commission requested a legal opinion from the Commission's legal counsel (hereinafter Counsel) as to the duties and obliga- tions of Minnesota. In preparing the legal opinion, Counsel for the Commission spoke with representatives of Minnesota and met with attorneys representing Minnesota. Counsel reviewed Minnesota's proposal dated June 16, 1980, the Cable Television Information Center's (hereinafter "CTIC ") preliminary report dated September 4, 1980, Minnesota's response to that report dated September 24, 1980, CTIC's final report dated October 17, 1980 and the franchise ordinance. C. Counsel provided an opinion letter to the Operating Committee dated November 16, 1982. That opinion letter responded to two specific questions. -1- D. Counsel first addressed the question of whether census • tract 263.01 was within the initial service area as proposed by Minnesota. The opinion concluded that the initial service area consisted of all residentially zoned areas contained within the boundaries of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield. This conclusion was substantiated by Minnesota's pro- posal at Form H, page IA of 5 and the Minnesota response to the CTIC preliminary report at Section V, page 11. E. Counsel then addressed the question of what installation charge would be applicable to residences within census tract 263.01. The opinion concluded that to the extent the density in census tract 263.01 and the surrounding area is less than forty (40) homes per mile, cable communications service may be provided under the line extension policy that would result in an addi- tional Forty Dollars ($40.00) to Eighty Dollars ($80.00) per installation charge. F. . Counsel observed that the Minnesota proposal distin- guished between those areas with a density of forty (40) homes per mile or greater, those areas with a density of less than forty (40) homes per mile but still served by city sewer and water and those areas without city sewer and water. Counsel concluded that the latter category would not be applicable because census tract 263.01 is served by city sewer and water and • that Minnesota, in its response to CTIC's preliminary report, had limited the category to homes in areas not presently zoned residential. G. The applicable installation rate for census tract 263.01 has been a source of considerable debate and differences of opi- nion. Minnesota expressed a concern relative to the cost of construction in the above - mentioned area. A concern was expressed that to provide service at other than a cost repre- senting time and materials would result in a cross - subsidization by other locations. Further, the above - mentioned area has been described as an area not served by city water and sewer as con- templated by Minnesota since those services are provided by a municipality other than the City of Minnetonka itself. H. Shortly thereafter, a similar question was raised regarding certain portions of Eden Prairie. Counsel for the City of Eden Prairie provided that city his legal opinion that Minnesota has the responsibility to cable all areas of that city that were zoned residential at the time the franchise ordinance was passed and that Minnesota may charge additional costs where the density per mile is less than forty (40) homes. I. On January 6, 1983, the Operating Committee, the Franchise Administrator and Counsel met with representatives of Minnesota and Mr. Wayne Popham, counsel for Minnesota. MPM • J. Mr. Popham explained that Minnesota intended to provide service to most, but not all, parts of the parties under an Initial Service Area policy. The remaining areas would be served under a line extension policy. Requiring all homes zoned resi- dentially to be cabled would necessarily eliminate the need for a line extension policy. K. Mr. Popham stated that to serve all residentially zoned homes would require One Million One Hundred Four Thousand Six Hundred Ninety -One Dollars ($1,104,691.00) in construction investment. The cost of subscriber installations and converters were not included in that amount. The $1,104,691.00 would serve slightly less than one percent (1 %) of the homes in the Southwest area whereas approximately Thirteen Million Dollars ($13,000,000.00) was required to serve the homes already cabled. L. Minnesota then proposed a compromise whereby forty per- cent (40 %) of the densest areas remaining to be cabled would be served as part of the Initial Service Area and the remaining homes would receive service under a clearly articulated line extension policy. The proposed compromise is as follows: 1. The seventy -six (76) homes listed as Area 1 in Exhibit A and the one hundred sixty -two (162) homes listed as Area 13 would be served under the Initial • Service Area policy at a cost of One Hundred Fity -Five Thousand Dollars ($155,000.00) with no significant impact on the rates. 2. The remaining three hundred seventy -two (372) homes in Areas 2 through 12 and 14 through 20 would be served under a line extension policy based on a cost sharing formula. M. Mr. Jullie, Eden Prairie, requested time to seek direc- tion from his City Council since Eden Prairie would be signifi- cantly affected. N. Mr. Craig, Hopkins, stated that he believed a mistake had been made on the part of Minnesota and that a mistake of this kind should not be strictly enforced. To strictly enforce the ordinance would not be in the best interests of the parties. O. Mr. Miller, Minnetonka, stated that he preferred to deal with the line extension issue as it affects the entire Southwest area rather than dealing on a case -by -case basis with only a few of the areas. Mr. Miller objected to the process to the extent that it focused closely upon the cross - subsidization issue. P. Mr. Nollenberger, Richfield, reminded the Committee that • rates had been a weight of ten percent (10 %) in the decision- -3- making process during franchising. Mr. Nollenberger, too, • believed that Minnesota had made a mistake. Q. Mr. Rosland, Edina, expressed his support for the compromise. R. On Tuesday, January 18, 1983, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the Eden Prairie City Council discussed the issue and the compromise offer. Also in attendance were Ralph B. Campbell, III, Franchise Administrator, Adrian E. Herbst and Gary R. Matz, counsel for the Commission. Individual council members acknowledged that they understood throughout the franchising pro- cess that not all areas of Eden Prairie would be cabled initially and to do so would constitute an undue burden on Edina, Hopkkins and Richfield. The Council voted to accept the compromise offered by Minnesota. S. The Operating Committee met again on Friday, January 21, 1983, to receive the recommendation of the Eden Prairie City Council and to discuss with representatives of Minnesota a draft of the proposed line extension policy. Certain changes were made at that time. A copy of the final line extension ordinance is set forth in Exhibit B. T. Based on the foregoing, it is the Commission's finding that the proposed compromise is not inconsistent with the intent • of the parties; the compromise is consistent with the goal of the Commission of providing cable communications service to all Southwest residents in the timeliest and most economical manner possible; and the compromise is in accordance with the minimum requirements of the parties' Request for Proposal. II. RECOMMENDATIONS A. The Council should accept this report from the Commission. B. The Council should adopt the ordinance set forth in Exhibit B clarifying Minnesota's line extension policy and amending certain provisions of the cable communications franchise ordinance. _C EXHIBIT A 46 C 1 i� I Q rn z r� m L.n o I� Fa n rn m r 0 J l^ Z � o i z �I \1 z rn o z \ 1 1. Mao Sheet tal (Ho,es on Area ti�,i�er �s Sheet Affc —ted) 1 Area is presently not designed. City water -5 5 -1 and sewer is sup_ plied from Wayzata. 'rtuZk 5 -4 will have to be routed outside franchise 4 -2 area or through private cesnmercial ease-r-ents 4 -3 and undeveloped land. 4 -4 2 Presently not designed -will require 1583' of 3 2 ")-2(1) system to feed. 22 -4(2) 3 Area fed from Hopkins trunk. Fbuld have required 3 K56 -29 a mini_tm= of 500' U.G. through private easements to feed from Minnetonka trunk. 4 Presently not designed - will require 989' o= 20 -3 syste^i ^. to feed. 5 Presently not designed - will require 674' of _ 30 -4 system to feed. 6 Presently not designed - city water and sewer 31y -4(6) • are not i.n the area. T:'ould require 5639' of 32A -4 (3) system to feed. tibbile Fame park fed fr=n H.opki:.s trunk. Area is 5-: X55 -31 (27) isolated from '- 1_rnetonka trunk by extensive ce:m- L,56 -91 (27) mercial area. Over 6800' of system, primarily L'.G., �,,ould have been required through co:- amercial easements to reach area from Minnetonka trunk. Currently not built because area has been rezoned commercial and -mobile homes will be removed. 9 Area is pre:?o.^.inantly co- rr)ercial. It ::,ould re lire 8 34A-1(3) approximately 6426' of aerial system to 'feed the 34A-3(l) hots. 34h -4 (4) 1. D=pi °Ra.IRI� `lao Shcev Area 'Vsnber Total (Haines on lees Sheet i1F`ected 9 Area is presently not designed - city 23 6 -2(2) 5 -3(1) water and sewer are not in the area, 6 -1(3) 5 -1(1)' 5-2(3) 3-4(3) 4 -1 (1) 4-4(l) 3-3(l) 4A-1(2 10 Area is presently not designed - city 37 K57 -13(5) water and sewer are not in the area K37 -19(8) K57-29(4) K57-29(g) K57-30(3) K57-39(12) 1<37-40(4) K57-59(l) K57-60(2) K57-70(6) L57-51(1) L57-61(4) L57-71(3) L57-91(5) L56-11(4) • L36-21(3) L36-31(2) 3-1(2) 11 Area is presently not designed - city 210 7-4(2) water an sewer are not i-i the area 7A-2(2) 7A-4(l) 13-1(4) 18-2(2) 18-3(l) 18A -1 (2) 19A-2(3) 19A-3(3) 19A-4(2) 02, -1 (3 ) - -- -- a 2-DA-2(3) 231 -3 (27) 21.E -3(1) 21-4(3) 21.: -1 (1) 30-1('L) 33 -2 (-�.7) 3.9-3(4) 30 -4 (22) 3DA -1 (17) 30A -1 (5) • ip (• -aye 2 Total Area ti'tr^oer Hcimes 11 (cont) 12 Area contains homes that have been designed, 91 and will be built although city ;cater and sewer are not in the area. 13 Area contains homes that have be-`n desig ^ed 138 but will not be built, because city water and sewer are not in the area. 14 Tl, o isolated oockets of horms located i i 16 ca -mercial area. 15 Area is presently not designed - city water 48 and sewar are not in the area. `Sao Sheet ( IIomes orl Sheet Affected) 31 -2(1) 29-1(3) 29-2(21) 29A -1 (4) 29A -3 (7) 29A -4 (6 ) 23-3(3) 23A -2 (5 ) 23A -3 (1) 2SA -4 (2) K58 -6 (9) K39-7 (1) K58 -16 (5) Iva -35 (3) K38 -37 (6 ) 16A -2 (1) 16A -3 (1) 17-4(3) 17A -1 (6) 17A -4 (3) 20-1(8) 20-4(l) 21-2(33) 21-3(29) 2LA -2 (1) 20i -1 (3) 20A -4 (29) 21A -2 (24) 21A -3 (3) 21A -1 (24) 21A -4 (20) K37 -89 (3) ,57 -78 (3) K_)7 -79 (o) - xa2 -aa4-1)- K57 -33 (3) ::53 -49 (4) E59 -5•) (2) X53 -59(4) K5,N6 3 (1) K33 -60 (2) K--,R-80 (2) L'5.3 -51 (3) L.�31 -51 (5 ) L38-71(12) L53-81(7) SOUTHWEST UEMORANOUM December 16, 1982 b PCC i1� 1.x.83 AUDENnUM TO: Gary Mizga FRam: Mike Stark RE: Cost SUMT aty to Provide Service to Planes Remaining UndesiQned in Five Cities Please refer to areas as outlined in the undated report of Decanber 16, 1982. �. .. Plant Required Project Area 4 AE UG Banes Cost Cost /Unit 1 14,272 3,989 76 $70,883 $ 933 2 4 1,583 0 3 5,097 1,699 5 989 0 1 3,184 3,184 6 674 0 1 2,170 2,170 8 4,631 11008 7 21,210 3,030 9 6,426 0 8 20,690 2,586 10 91951 2,655 23 48,634 2,114 11 37,791 20,471 87 249,619 2,869 13 113,529 16,954 318 471,492 1,433 Included in Area 11 14 7,356 6,559 22 64,678 2,940 15 16 26,148 4,014 48 109,276 2,277 17 593 742 0 2,640 1 8 11909 18,889 11909 2,361 18 19 1,823 111 4 6,563 1.641 Included in Area 14 - 20 2,841 200 3 10,397 3,466 ICT -AL: 229,349 58,601 610 1,104,691 11811 43.44 miles 11.10 miles The above cost is based upon budget figures below: Cost/Mile AE UG L• $17,000 $33,000 �. .. 0 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE SETTING FORTH A DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES TO BE PROVIDED BY MINNESOTA CABLESYSTEMS - SOUTHWEST, A MINNESOTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AMENDING THE LINE EXTENSION POLICY OF MINNESOTA CABLESYSTEMS- SOUTHWEST; PRESCRIBING UNIFORM MONTHLY RATES AND OTHER CHARGES AND INSTALLATIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN; AND AMENDING THE EXHIBITS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORDAINS: 1. That Article III, Section 4 of Ordinance No. be amended to read as follows: SECTION 4. FACILITIES. The Grantee shall construct, maintain and continue to provide . all facilities and equipment set forth in the Offering or as otherwise provided in Article V, Section 2 and Exhibits A and B hereto, including, but not limited, to, the headend, hubs, distribution system, studios, equipment and other facilities. Grantee's plan, as set forth in the Offering, for implementing the construction, utilization and maintenance of these facili- ties, including its plans for accommodating future growth and changing needs and desires, shall be fully and timely performed 2. That Article V, Section 2, be amended to read as follows: SECTION 2. LINE EXTENSION POLICY. 6 - - 40 -1- fel lewing nts .- A. Res�denees !seate(4 eets��e cue —�nnt al—s ry-" -- area be pres.�eed service uPen aeeeptanee of a quE t� -f-rem Grantee. `^he —quete shall nec e)feeed the eest te A. Service will be provided to residents of the City • in areas with an average density less than forty (40) dwelling units per street mile or cable mile, whichever pro- vides the greater benefit to the subscribers, as determined by City, based upon the cost contribution formula defined below. Residents of the City in areas with an average densit of at least forty (40) dwelling units per street mile or cable mile, whichever provides the greater benefit to the subscribers, as determined by City, will not be required to make a cost contribution pursuant to the cost contribution formula below in order to receive service. The monthly charge for cable service in the extended area shall be the • -2- same as elsewhere in the system. B. The cost contribution to be allocated to each interested subscriber in the extended area will be deter- mined as follows: 1. Grantee shall estimate the total cost of constructing and maintaining for three (3) years from the date service is available, the line extension to be constructed in the extended areas. Total construction cost is defined as includinq all labor and material costs necessary to construct an activate that part of the system commencing at the nearest point of existing plant and running to and within the extended area. 2. The standard cost per dwelling unit in the • extended area shall be determined by dividing the total from (1) above by 40, being the standard minimum den - sit . 3. Grantee's contribution to the cost of the line extension shall be determined by dividing the total number of dwelling units in the extended area by the number of miles in the extended area, and multiplying the resulting number by the standard cost per dwelling unit. 4. The difference between the total costs (1) and the Grantee's contribution (3) is the total contri- bution of the subscribers in the extended area. • 5. The amount to be paid by each subscribing -3- resident shall be determined by dividing the total residents' contribution from (4) above by the number of persons subscribing to the service in tr e extended area. C. Service under the line extension policy shall be rovided in accordance with the following procedure. 1. Residents in an area with an average density of less than forty (40) dwelling units per street mile or cable mile as determined above, who desire cable service shall petition the Council for designation as an extended area. The petition shall include a map showing the dwelling units proposed to be included in the designated extended area. 2. The Council shall by resolution designate the dwelling units to be included in the extended area. • 3. Upon designation of an extended area, Grantee shall prepare a map indicating the trunk cable line that will be constructed to serve the extended area and shall estimate the combined total construction cost and three (3) year maintenance cost for service to the extended area (Section 2.3.1), the Grantee's contribu- tion (Section 2.B.3), and the total contribution of the subscribers (Section 2.3.4). 4. Residents within the extended area who wish to become subscribers will have thirty (30) days to commit to service, by executing and submitting a com- mitment form to Grantee. • • 5. Grantee will estimate the cost to each subscriber according to the formula in Section 2.B.5, above. Grantee will notify Council and subscribers of the subscriber cost estimate by U.S. mail. 6. Subscribers will have thirty (30) days from the date of mailing of the - subscriber cost estimate in which to deposit the amount of the subscriber cost estimate into an escrow account to be maintained by the City. 7. If the total contribution of the subscribers is deposited within the time period specified in B.6 above, Grantee shall construct the line extension. Construction shall be completed and service made • available to the extension area within twelve (12) months from the end of the subscriber contribution deposit period. 8. Upon completion of the line extension construction, the City will pay to Grantee all funds in the escrow account. 9. Any resident who did not participate by ini- tial subscriber contribution and who wishes to hook up to the line extension within the first three (3) years after service is commenced in the extended area must deposit into an escrow account to be maintained by the city clerk the amount of the subscriber cost estimate • deposited by original subscribers under paragra h 6 -5- above. All such new contributions shall be held in escrow until the end of the third year after service is commenced in the extended area, at which time all funds in escrow shall be divided equally and returned to the then current subscribers. At the end of the three (3) years following the commencement of service to the extended area,.all new subscribers in the extended area will be provided cable television service under the same terms as all other residents of the Citv. D. Grantee shall hold the City and their respective officers, agents, employees and representatives, harmless and is indemnified against any and all loss, costs, damage and . expense, including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, now or hereafter incurred by it, and arising out of or due to, or claimed to arise out of or be due to, this ordinance or the process following by City in adopting this ordinance. 3. That Article VI, Section 4 of Ordinance No. be amended to read as follows: (1) Rates and charges charged by Grantee for monthly service and installatien and other charges hereunder shall be uniform, fair and reasonable and designed to meet all necessary costs of service, including a fair rate of return on the original cost, less depreciation, of the properties devoted to such service (without regard to any subsequent sale or transfer price or cost of such properties). . '.M Installation charges shall be made pursuant to Article V, Section 2 and Exhibits A and B hereto. 4. That Article XIV, Section 2, paragraph H, be amended to read as follows: H. Each exhibit is a part of this Franchise and each is specifically incorporated herein by reference. The exhi- bits are as follows: Amended Exhibit A - Map of Contruction by Area, Including Time Schedule Amended Exhibit B - Rate Schedule 5. That Exhibit B be amended by deleting Article I, Section A, paragraph 5, as follows: S. Fer lwe— 1i g un4 :ts leeated the 4:nitia! ser • T ±ee area but in areas ; 1iere the dens1tT -4:$ =ewer than 4 U he; es y eiz sts-ee R44:1e Q£antee r'e}a4 3S the fight to aESes6 '"' 'max 'x ne-- -a l a .� e-n e har-g -P 6 c e—t he A444: t4:ena1 gest -Per 39 Lte 39L $49,te9 - 9-*: e —:2 9L GO t9 -99-L Q ne free =nstel� ac; en—Pe -T ri— Grantee w4:11 -Rakie epae4al rieaneial J + t9 a11ew s ; 4 bse-= 4: be-r-s ee pay the instaz- 1atiee eharge6 ever ti;Re as par-:t G9 the ment4iy at -7- 3-. The - rtes quete4 ape baste an earr-entl�r-ejeeted 0 is 'af ^sc =c ^ccx ^vi: 944e�41el t=h2 • CJ 0 /,7 D CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 75 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Application for Raffle License, Rollin' Tigers Citizens Band Radio Club An application for a raffle license has been received from the Rollin' Tigers Citizens Band Radio Club. The raffle is scheduled to take place at the Fred Babcock VFW Post 5555, on Saturday, March 26, 1983, from 7:00 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. This raffle is an annual event sponsored jointly by the Rollin' Tigers and the VFW Post in order to raise funds for the American Lung Association of Hennepin County. Since all proceeds are to i be donated to the American Lung Association, the applicant has �!! requested that the license be issued on a fee waived basis. The public safety department has conducted the necessary background investigation with regard to the participants in this raffle activity and has received the necessary certificate of insurance which appears to be in order. It is the recommendation of the public safety department, in which I concur, that the city council grant this license request. KN /eja • Respectfully submitted, , Karl Nollenberger City Manager • • /7 C.�/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 74 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Application for Bingo License Church of St. Peter On February 8, 1983, an application for a bingo license was received from the Church of St. Peter, 6720 Nicollet Avenue. This year, as in the past, the Church of St. Peter is requesting a license to conduct bingo activities on church property on Tuesday evenings between the hours of 7:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. The required bonding information and bingo reports were submitted with the application and this information appears to be in conformance with city ordinance code requirements. A background investigation was conducted on the designated bingo manager, Herbert N. DeRoma and church trustees, John J. Spillane and Thomas G. Lovett, all Richfield residents. There is no known criminal record on any of these individuals. Based upon the information submitted and the investigation conducted by the public safety department, it is their recommenda- tion, in which I concur, that this license application be approved. KN /eja Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 73 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Camp Fire "Birthday" Proclamation The national Camp Fire organization is celebrating their 73rd birthday during March, 1983. In conjunction with this celebration, a camp fire group will be present as the color guard at the March 14, 1983 city council meeting. At the con- clusion of the presentation of colors, the group will present a "birthday cake" to the members of the city council! Attached to this council letter is a proclamation declaring March 13 to March 19, 1983 Camp Fire Birthday Week in the City of Richfield. Mrs. Jean Fox will be present at the city council meeting to accept the proclamation along with the Camp Fire group. KN /ej a is Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager PROCLAMATION DECLARING CAMP FIRE BIRTHDAY WEEK WHEREAS, the national Camp Fire organization w-itt be cetebrating itz 73rd biAthday on Match 17, 1983, and WHEREAS, Camp FiAe councitz, such ass the Minneapoti.s Council o4 Camp Fire in the State o4 Minnezota and the City o� R.ich{y�:etd, oU4et out young people the opportunity o{ in- Uotmat educational programs comb.iniAg group activit-iez with the devetopment o6 indiv.iduat -taten-tz, in addition to {tex.ibte programming �ocuzed on encouraging ti4e zkittz edu.ca-tion Am young people to age .twenty -one; and WHEREAS, ass a community otgv.nization, Camp FiAe ti,6 concerned with prezerving the envitonmen-t, adapting to zociai change and the apptication o{ democratic �s-tandardz, ass wear ass a 4peciat concern 6or �st.imuta-ting and guiding young peopee, and WHEREAS, in Camp FiAe, recognition o6 accomptizhmentz iz combined with the encouragement to use developing zkittz to serve others in the community; and WHEREAS, Camp FiAe iz to be commended for the opportun- .i-tie,s its progtamz o{y er to young people in the City o4 Rich6.ietd and throughout the nation, and {got the many zer- vicez these young peopxe per6 orm 6 or theiA commun.i-tiez ass Camp FiAe members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that 1, John Hamilton, Mayor o{ the City o� Richi.ietd, Minnehota do hereby procia.im Match 13 to Match 19, 1983 to be CAMP FIRE BIRTHDAY WEEK IN RICHFIELD. Done at the City 0{ Rich6 ietd, M.innezota this 14th day o6 March, 19 83. John Hamitton Mayor_ 0 • /76 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 72 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Setting Date of Hearing for wine License Renewals The municipal code requires that the city council set the date for a hearing on applications for renewal of on- sale of wine licenses. Notice of any hearing dates must be published in the official newspaper at least ten days in advance of such a hearing. The city presently licenses four establishments for the serving of wine: The Inn, Pontillos, Shakeys, and Millers Fireside Pizza. It is recommended that the public hearing be scheduled for the March 28, 1983 city council meeting to con- sider the renewal of these wine licenses. KN /ej a cc: City Clerk Public Safety Director Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenlerger City Manager _�� 6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 71 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Variance Request from the Rooftop Mechanical Unit Screening Regulations, Lake Shore Drive Condominimums, 6615 Lake Shore Drive Mr. Tony Vavoulis, representing Knutson Independent Living Centers, has requested that a variance be granted to exempt them from the requirement to construct screening around the rooftop mechanical units at the Lake Shore Drive Condominium, 6615 Lake Shore Drive. Zoning Ordinance Requirements Section 3.29, subdivision 12, requires that any mechanical equipment and ductwork located on the roof of any non - single family residential structure be screened from public view and from the view of nearby premises; and Section 3.40, subdivision 6 lists conditions which must be met before a variance can be granted. Staff Review The city staff has reviewed the variance request against the three conditions for granting variances and found the follow- ing 1. No special conditions exist on the site. Other mul- tiple family residential structures including the Richfield Towers, have been required to screen rooftop mechanical equipment; 2. The denial of the variance will not preclude reason- able use of the property. The applicant has estab- lished the multiple family use on the site which can continue. The cost of screening is minor when com- pared to the total improvement cost. • 3. The approval of this variance request will be detrim- ental to the public welfare. Screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment is necessary to insure that Council Letter No. 71 -2- March 14, 1983 structures within the community present a good aesthetic appearance. This is especially im- portant within the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet redevelop- ment area where the city has invested a substantial amount of public funds to bring about good quality and aesthetic development. The height and scale of this structure make it highly visible. The roof- top mechanical equipment is clearly visible as you approach the structure from the east on 66th Street and from adjacent properties south of the structure. The rooftop mechanical equipment also detracts from the appearance of the structure. It is the opinion of the applicant that the screening would be of a larger scale and more objectionable than the equipment it is screening. The applicant has indicated that the mechanical equipment could be painted to blend in with the building to improve its appearance. There is nothing unique about this request, and approval of the variance request would set a precedent which might make it difficult to deny future variance requests in similar cases. The Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet redevelopment plan indicates that additional multiple family development should occur on the "God- father Block" across 66th Street from this site. The city has approved preliminary plans for a development on the site which would have three multiple family towers of similar height to this structure. Denial of this variance request is important because the rooftop mechanical equipment at the Lake Shore Drive Condo- minium would be visible to the residents of the proposed new multiple family residences. Staff Recommendation The three conditions for granting a variance are not present, therefore, it is recommended that the variance request be denied. If the council wishes to approve this variance, however, they should do so by approving the attached resolution. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that this variance request be denied. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager • KN /eja • EXISTING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT II 1M FL7"[Ell t tz� m �� =7-7 !,dH- I 9j MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENED Ft C) T 17, 77 rl'4- f_��a L17 i�d • C. 177 177! �i 17, \�Alq]j -.7 rl No RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE RICHFIELD CODE OF ORDINANCES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a variance to Section 3.29, Subdivision 12 of Rich- field Code of Ordinances bearing case no. 83 -V -2 is hereby granted to Knutson Independent Living Centers on the following described property: Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Block 1; lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, Block 3; All in "FAIRWOOD SHORES" according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Also, That part of Auto Lane as shown on said plat lying between the northeasterly extension of the southeasterly line of said Lot 15 and the southerly right -of -way line of West 66th Street, as shown on said plat. Also, That part of Graham Avenue as shown and dedicated on said plat lying northerly of a curved line concave to the south- east, having a radius of 65.00 feet, said curve being drawn through the most southerly corner of said Lot 10, Block 1, and the most easterly corner of said Lot 6, Block 3. Also, • That part of vacated West 66th Street as shown and dedi- cated on said plat, adjoining said Lot 11, Block 3, lying between the northerly extensions of the northeasterly and southwesterly lines of said Lot 11, Block 3. Also, That part of vacated West 66th Street as shown and dedi- cated on said plat, adjoining said Lot 12, Block 3, lying between the northerly extensions of the northeasterly and southwesterly lines of said Lot 12, Block 3. (The property is generally bound by West 66th Street on the north, Lake Shore Drive on the west and south and Graham Avenue on the east.) (6615 Lake Shore Drive) 2. Such variance shall allow the following: Unscreened rooftop mechanical equipment Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1983. • John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk -2- I, Sylvia K. Bergh, being the duly qualified and acting clerk of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of Resolution No. , and that same is on file and of record in my office. Given my hand and seal this day of , 1983. Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk 0 • /;7 C__ OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 70 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Approval of 1983 Labor Contract Agreement With Richfield Police Officers Federation There is an item on the March 14, 1983 City Council Agenda providing for council approval of a Memorandum of Understanding negotiated with the Richfield Police Officers Federation for the period commencing January 1, 1983 and ending December 31, 1983. The City is currently in the second year of a two -year collec- tive bargaining agreement with the Federation covering the years 1982 -1983. This agreement provides that the articles covering wages are open for negotiations in 1983. Thus, the attached resolution represents the results of the negotiations between the City and representatives of the Richfield Police Officers Feder- ation for 1983 wage rates. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that beginning January 1, 1983, wage rates for dispatchers, police officers and investigator /agents be adjusted by 6 %. No other contract pro- visions were affected. In negotiating the 1983 police officer rate, (top rate established at $2236 per month), the following factors were con- sidered: 1) Police wage settlements in other comparable communities which render top patrol rates ranging from $2224 to $2244 per month. 2) Wage adjustments of other City of Richfield employees; and 3) Duties of police officers in Richfield as compared to other comparable communities. I believe the 1983 settlement which has been negotiated with the Richfield Police Officers Federation recognizes these concerns and represents an equitable settlement for both the City and the bargaining unit employees. It is recommended that the City Council Council Letter No. 70 -2- March 14, 1983 adopt the attached resolution, authorizing implementation of this labor agreement. Respectfully submitted, �<L uL. ,, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN:bcc cc.: Personnel Manager / Acting Administrative Services Director 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE RICHFIELD POLICE OFFICERS FEDERATION BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEAR 1983. WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Richfield Police Officers Federation Bargaining Unit have reached a complete understanding for the year 1983, and WHEREAS, a labor agreement between the Richfield Police Officers Federation and the City of Richfield covering all other terms and conditions of employment for the years 1982 -1983 is currently in full force and effect, and WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by council resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does • hereby approve the Memorandum of Understanding modifying the current labor agreement between the City of Richfield and the Richfield Police Officers Federation bargaining unit for the years 1982 -1983 and orders the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding to be implemented effective January 1, 1983. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of March, 1983. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk John Hamilton Mayor 8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager C9 � Council Letter No. 69 cu N Agenda March 14; 1983 .9 .n w e� N �.s The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Council -bra- r� Subject: Public Hearing, Alley Paving CP 786 The city council established a policy for paving alleys in 1980. This policy stipulates that a petition signed by property owners representing more than 50 percent of the abutting footage is necessary for an alley to be paved. The projects are initiated on a yearly basis, with those alleys which are not paved or sched- uled to be paved, being subject to maintenance assessments. During 1981 and 1952, 34 of the city's 101 graded alleys were ipaved with concrete as a result of this petition policy. Pursuant to this policy, on February 28,1983, the city council accepted the preliminary engineering report and ordered a public hearing to be held on March 14, 1953 for the improvement of the following alleys: Alley Between From To Garfield Avenue and Lyndale Avenue 68th Street 69th Street Garfield Avenue and Lyndale Avenue 72nd Street 73rd Street Grand Avenue and Harriet Avenue 68th Street 69th Street Thomas Avenue and Upton Avenue 66th Street 67th Street Vincent Avenue and Upton Avenue 66th Street 67th Street Vincent Avenue and Jpton Avenue 69th Street 70th Street Nicollet Avenue and First Avenue 72nd Street 73rd Street The petition received for the alley between Nicollet Avenue and First Avenue from 72nd Street to 73rd Street represented ex- actly 50 percent of the abutting property. This alley was in- cluded in the preliminary report. Minnesota State Statute 429.013 provides that the council may order such a petitioned project by a majority vote if presented with a petition of more than 35 per- cent of the property owners. The estimated assessment rate for residential abutting prop- erty is $19.75 per foot. The assessment can be prepaid in full. Payment may be spread over a 20 -year period in equal installments Council Letter No. 69 -2- March 14, 1983 with interest. Partial prepayment can be made with the unpaid balance spread over a 20 -year period, or a deferment may be granted for persons over 65 years of age or persons permanently and totally disabled provided that certain conditions are met. The staff recommends that the city council hold the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution ordering this project. KN /ej a • Respectfully submitted, { l ro Karl Nollenberger City Manager • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PAVING OF ONE ADDITIONAL ALLEY AND PREPARATION OF PLANS CP 786 WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 28th day of February, 1983, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvement of the following alleys: Alley Between Garfield Avenue and Lyndale Avenue Garfield Avenue and Lyndale Avenue Grand Avenue and Harriet Avenue Thomas Avenue and Upton Avenue Vincent Avenue and Upton Avenue Vincent Avenue and Upton Avenue Nicollet Avenue and First Avenue From To 68th Street 69th Street 72nd Street 73rd Street 68th Street 69th Street 66th Street 67th Street 66th Street 67th Street 69th Street 70th Street 72nd Street 73rd Street AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice of the hearing and two weekly publications of the required notice was given as required by law, and the hearing was held thereon on the 14th day of March, 1983, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 28th day of February, 1983. 2. Michael J. Eastling, City Engineer, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improve- ment. Adopted by the council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of March, 1983. V ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 68 Agenda March 14, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and b C_bo a I S Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit to Construct A Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant at 220 West 66th Street History The site at 220 W. 66th Street is presently occupied by a vacant Clark Oil gasoline service station and is owned by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The Richfield HRA is working with the Richfield State Agency and Kentucky Fried Chicken so that Kentucky Fried Chicken can relocate their existing restaurant located at 67th and Lyndale Avenue to this site. This will free up the 67th and Lyndale Avenue site for the proposed Richfield State Agency project. Proposal Kentucky Fried Chicken Management Company and Fischer Engineer- ing have submitted a special use permit request to allow the con- struction of a new Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant with a drive - thru service window. The proposed restaurant would be approximately 24 feet by 71 feet and have an area of 1,800 square feet. Seating for 40 persons would be provided. Exterior wall materials will be dark and light beige stucco. There will be a terracotta colored metal panel mansard roof. Access to the site will be provided from two curb cuts, one from 66th Street and one from the vacated portion of Pillsbury Avenue. The drive -thru order station and the pick -up window will be adjacent to the north side of the building_. Off- street parking will be provided for 25 cars. The site is presently zoned C -2 general commercial and is within the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment area, but is not part of the Hub superblock planned unit development. Zoning Ordinance Requirements 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2 requires that restaurants • obtain a special use permit before locating in a C -2 general commercial zoning district; Council Letter No. 68 -2- March 14, 1983 • 2. Section 3.33, subdivision 4 lists standards which must be met by restaurants. 3. Section 3.41, subdivisions 5 and 5 a list conditions governing the issuance of special use permits. Staff Review ing . The city staff has reviewed the proposal and found the follow- 1. The proposed restaurant use would be consistent with the comprehensive development plan. The comprehensive de- velopment plan indicates that the proposed site should be developed with high density central business district uses including eating establishments. 2. The proposed restaurant use would not conflict with the goals of the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan anticipated no change in use on the site, however, the Clark Oil station on the site subsequently went out of business. The development of a commercial use on the site which compliments other uses in the area as a whole and which does not adversely affect adjacent properties would be consistent with the goals of the redevelopment plan. The proposed restaurant would meet these conditions. 3. The proposed restaurant design would meet all aspects of the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet redevelopment project urban de- sign elements except for the guidelines for primary build- ing materials. The proposed restaurant would have a metal panel mansard roof which is not consistent with the re- quirement that primary building materials be wood, brick, stone, stucco, or certain concrete treatments. The applicant is investigating alternative mansard materials. 4. A landscape plan has not been submitted. 5. Discussions have occurred in the past concerning pedestrian access to this site and adjacent properties. It is desirable to provide a pedestrian way from the crosswalk across 66th Street adjacent to the railroad tracks to the crosswalk across 65th Street adjacent Lo the railroad tracks across this site and the Hausers /Snyders site to the north of this site. The city staff has been working with the applicant to determine the proper location of an easement for a pedestrian walk across the site. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting and after exploring all the options, the staff has concluded that a pedestrian easement across the property would serve no useful purpose. The location of the loading dock and retaining wall on the Snyder /Hauser site and the proposed location and orientation of the proposed restaurant Council Letter No. 68 -3- March 14, 1983 building and parking on the KFC site prevents any continuous pedestrian access across the KFC site except along the eastern edge of the property. A pedestrian walk at this location would connect only to the parking lot of the Hauser /Snyder property and would not provide a desirable pedestrian system without substantial al- teration of the Hauser /Snyder parking lot. Because there is already a s��i__d_��walk on the Hub Shopping Center -property along the w'"est'side of the former Pillsbury Avenue right-of-way,--it is the opinion of the city staff that a sidewalk along the east side of the former Pillsbury Avenue is not necessary and would not justify the expense of altering the Hauser /Snyder parking lot. 6. Sufficient parking exists on the sire. City guidelines in- dicate that 14 off - street parking spaces should be pro- vided. The site plan indicates that 25 off - street park- ing spaces will be provided. 7. The proposed parking area meets all city minimum parking guidelines except for perimeter curbing. Perimeter curb- ing should be provided along the north edge of the prop- erty. 8. Hennepin County has reviewed the site plan (the site is on a county road). The county staff has indicated their general approval of the site plan and have suggested the following minor revisions: a) -to enhance traffic circulation both on 66th Street and Pillsbury Avenue, the access to 66th Street should be moved as far west as possible and widened to 24' - 26'. The access to Pillsbury should be as far north as possible; b) -to provide better on site circulation, the handicap spaces could be moved to the east side of the build- ing and the building moved further west to provide more drive -thru storage. Also, an 18' - 20 ' drive - thru lane would provide a bypass around drive -thru traffic. 9. Sufficient stacking space exists on the site to handle cars in the drive -up facility; 10. The curb on the west side of the former Pillsbury Avenue will remain at its present location. The entrance drive on the former Pillsbury Avenue right -of -way will contin- ue to be 39 feet wide which is sufficient to provide thrre traffic lanes, one in and two out. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the special use permit for a restaurant with a drive -thru service window be approved at 220 West 66th Council Letter No. 68 -4- March 14, 1983 with the following stipulations: 40 1. That the exterior building material of the mansard roof meet the urban design elements; 2. That a landscape plan be submitted for city staff approval; 3. That perimeter curbing be provided along the north edge of the property and the south edge of the parking area east of the building. �•> �i 1-01 aN� Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission unanimously recommended that the city council approve the special use permit with the three stipu- lations outlined in the staff recommendation, and an additional stipulation requiring that an easement for pedestrian access to the site be provided to the city. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager 0 KNJeja � II tSG.p M 1 I . \el Z \ — _ is d 5 m € :sir �Ap � Ftl i �c I I I �,s W � S'I 1' �"'��..�...,r•.xt tocsen..w t Sp•'('gT'w c N) M Z ej rn 0 W C .� r Z G) m 0 0 D = C) M � W 00 {/`jam) CA) f wr C C �r Ys rr < ' L o � .z • r Z • Ali a� 1 l Cy r � pZ c n� p�'QG11 ��\ I"- ) `I w1.t "LC --I Loz o <f� R� M MI C et ► L rr w � + Z rn I \ � � I � O a p L—'r ;ice iL 7 • C 0 r C Jr �1 jt P ZQ • C 0 a r M r v m r� rr 0 C) M ;1� ._.� z cc % 0 0:) CA) .4 ii m z C C� �rV �TJ 1 J z G Q rn ► crt � ^ r r. z A � L 6 0 -Z ii QB PIR F 7I4 <A C r � o FOc• iFin �r yy► � (c `O p 1� • CJ 'ivm i3moo p o a a p !!!}}} 000000c � 000000 � 0000000 000000 D cc0000 ,r� — i 78u3KaJ QaKhv'Id a` �£ t � cm a- z7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Opp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pO O O O O O O O O 0-- O p O 0 0 C D O O C O O O O p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p o p p p O O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 OO O ° o° o°°° o° o°°°°° o° o° o ° ° ° ° ° °o ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °o °p °o °o °- -0- 0c° o° o° o° o° o° o° o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °°o °o °o °o °o °o 00000000coac00000000000000000000000000000000000000 L. ? , �f L• 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 °00000000000 000000000000000000000000 °0000 °00000000000000000000c 000c000000c000000000000 °000°00000000000000000000000 00000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOC D O O O O O O O O O O O C ! OQ tI L O O O O O O O O O O O O D O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O p O 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO O O O O 0 0 0 0 D D O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 10� •� O O O O O O O O O D O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 00000000000000000c000000000 0000000000000000000000 �000000000000000000000000000�000000000000 000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 °000000000 ° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° e° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o° o °o °G °00 °G °GOpapo�opo�cpopo0opo poop °popoDOpoDO� 0000000000° 0000000000000000000000000000000000 ^� �► coc c 0000c ' °p °.�o� °0000 �00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 °0 °0°° °000° °°°000 °0 °ooe° > 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 aJ �..J`ct' occ `c °o °c Apo > �oDOpo�opo�opoDO�pppppOp�p�p�ppOpo�p00�OpopOpODO�OpO�ODOpOpOpOpO000000000000O000 °OOOOOOOOOOOO°00°000000°O°OOO p0000 �000000000000000 000000000000000000000 000000000000 > °o °o °o_ °o °o_ °o °o °o °o o° °0 °0 °0400000oeo0oco�o ' Z� e°° �" OC�C-C o° o° c° c° o°_ o° o° a° o°_ o° o° o° o° o° 0° 0° 0° 0 °o °0000 °0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i L o-, l--vu --I I r-- �j iz � � o cps ' rip 000aooccc _ I Sz L;J n U RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a special use permit as required by Section 3.33, Subdivision 2 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances bearing case no. 83 -SP -1 is hereby granted to Kentucky Fried Chicken Management Co. on the following described property: The Southerly 150 feet of the Easterly 255 feet of the following described premises: That part of the South 53 1/3 rods of the Southeast ; of the Northwest 4 of Section 27, Township 28 North, Range 24, West of the 4th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of the above described tract, which is 25 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof, thence North parallel with the West line of the above described tract, 660 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said tract 303.7 feet; thence South 660 feet to a point in the South line of said Tract, which is 302.9 feet East of the point of beginning; thence West 302.9 feet to the point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subject to easement for road purposes over'the Easterly 30 feet and the Southerly 43 Is feet thereof. (220 W. 66th Street) 2. Such special use permit shall be granted for the following use: Restaurant with a drive -thru service window Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1983. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk I, Sylvia K. Bergh, being duly qualified and acting city clerk of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of Resolution No. , and that same is on file and of record in my office. Given my hand and seal this day of , 1983. Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Council Letter No. 67 Agenda March 14, 1983 Council Ordinance Amendment Relating to Mobile/ Manufactured Homes Regulations. First Reading The 1982 Minnesota Legislature passed a law which prohibits cities from excluding mobile /manufactured homes in cities. Mobile /manufactured homes have to be considered the same as any other type of single family residential dwelling, and cannot be subject to more restrictive standards. The statute states that if a mobile home has a seal of approval from the State Building Code Division, that mobile home is not required to com- ply with any other building, plumbing, heating or electrical code or any construction standards other than the Mobile Home Code, provided that the mobile home complies with all other zoning or- dinances of the city. Richfield has very few lots where mobile homes might be located. However, if it were done, it would be likely to be very disruptive of the neighborhood in some circumstances. Therefore, our city attorney's office contacted the State Build- ing Code Division and discussed with them some proposed legisla- tion. This was done to determine whether a particular regulation was considered by the Building Code Division to fall under the purview of the Mobile Home Building Code, in which case munici- palities would be precluded from legislating in that area. The purpose was to review regulations which would make mobile homes more compatible with various kinds of single family stick -built housing. Based on this information, the attached ordinance has been drafted and placed on the March 14, 1983 city council agenda for first reading consideration. The ordinance provides the following: 1. Require that new dwellings be placed on a founda- tion or frost footing which is in compliance with the state building code; Council Letter No. 67 -2- March 14, 1983 • 2. All dwellings shall be a minimum of 22 feet in length and width, and shall contain a minimum of 500 square feet of habitable floor space; This would limit mobile homes to be "double- side" type. • • 3. Every stairway, porch, balcony, awning or other exterior addition or appurtenance shall be in compliance with the State Building Code, firmly attached to the dwelling, shall be attractive and functional in design, shall be sound and permanent in its construction and shall be per - mantly maintained in a safe and functional state of repair; This would eliminate the construction of lean -tos, rickety stairs, and other unsightly appurtenances which have typified some mobile home installations. 4. Prohibit the construction of manufactured (mobile) irry homes in the R -1 Single] Family Dwelling district. It is recommended that the city council give first reading to this ordinance amendment and schedule the public hearing for the March 28, 1983 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director KN /eja Bill No. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE SETTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR DWELLINGS CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota relating to the zoning regulations is amended as follows: 1. Section 3.30 is amended by adding the following new Subdivision 7. Subdivision 7. Performance Standards for Dwellings All dwellings constructed after the effective date of this ordinance shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the following standards: (a) Every dwelling shall be placed upon a foundation or frost footing which is in compliance with the state building code and shall be securely bolted in place. The foundations, exterior walls and roof shall be water tight, protected from rodents and maintained in a sound and attractive state of repair. (b) All dwellings shall be a minimum of 22 feet in length and width as measured from outside wall surfaces and shall contain a minimum of 500 square feet of habit- able floor space. Habitable floor space shall be measured from the interior wall surface of the exterior walls and interior partitions shall not be considered. (c) Every stairway, porch, balcony, awning or other exterior addition or appurtenance shall be in com- pliance with the state building code, firmly attached to the dwelling, shall be attractive and functional in design, shall be sound and permanent in its con- struction and shall be permanently maintained in a safe and functional state of repair. 2. Section 3.30A Subdivision 1 is amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Principal Use: Single Family Dwellings Except Manufactured (Mobile) Homes. 3. Section 3.30A is amended by adding the following new sub- division 7: Subdivision 7. Performance Standards for Dwellings. All dwellings constructed after the effective date of this ordinance shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the performance standards found in Section 3.30 Sub- division 7. 0 is -2- 4. Section 3.31A is amended by adding the following new Sub- division 10: Subdivision 10. Dwellinas_ Performance Standards for Residential All dwellings constructed after the effective date of this ordinance shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the performance standards found in Section 3.30 Sub- division 7. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk 1983. John Hamilton, Mayor