Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
07-25-83 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ~9 Council Letter No. 27fl ~'~.._ Agenda. July 25, 1983 TheHonorable Mayor and. Members of"the City Council City of Richfield. Council Members:: Subject. Resolution Relating to Maintenance Assessments, L/H/N. Redevelopment. .Area On January 26, 198't,. the city council adapted Resolution No_ 6372, which established a policy that the actual cost of performing current maintenance"services in the L/H/N area (area-approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue., 67th Street and. Emerson Avenue) would-be specially assessed. The special assessments to commercial property would be made on the basis of area:`~'~~i~r each square -foot of assessable commercial- - ' "~ ~ - ---property' within:-the- district being- assessed. an equal. amount.- - All single family, two family and.mutliple family residential property within this;. area were eliminated from the special assessment: levy.. F'or the third:assessment period, January l', 1982 through December 31, 1982, agreements were reached with owners in the L/1~/N related to maintenance of property. For the most part, each owner was to be responsible for property to the curb while:- the city is responsible for common areas such as street islands.. Although: the city does do some maintenance work for individual property owners, these-costs are directly assessed to the appro- priate owner and maintenance of common areas continues to be assessed to the entire district. Current maintenance services for the district would: include, but not necessarily be limited to, one or more of the following: 1 . Landscaping, including tree. trimming; 2.. S idewalk sweeping in summer; 3. Snow removal in winter; 4.. Sidewalk- deicing; 5. Painting and repair of wood furniture; - --- -- 6. Trash removal; 7. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. These items are extra services provided directly to the L/H/N Redevelopment Area-and do-not include services provided Council. Letter No.. 270 -2- July 25,: 1983' ~~ to the entire city.. For example, all. city streets are swept. twice a year, and fog this service there. would be no charge to e L/H/N maintenance- assessment.. However,.. any additional street sweeping in the L/H/N area=would be an assessable item. It is: recommended that. the city council. take action to adopt the=attached resolution- proposing to specially assess for the costs of current services provided: within the L/H/N. project. area. for -the. period of: July 1 ,.. 1983 through December. 31 , 1983 and set the public hearing for.'.August 22, 1983:.- Respectfully submitt , - Thomas A. Morgan; Jr_ Aeting Public Safety Director TAM/ej a #~ CITY`OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager - ~ Council Letter IVo. 269 ` ~ ~ Agenda July Z5, 1983 The-Honorable Mayor. and P~embers of the City Council. City of Richf field. Council. Members.:- Subjects Minutes, Tabulation of Bids and Award of - Contract, Water. Meter Purchase _ On' July 8~, t9s33 bids: were opened: for. water meters and.. re- l Iated accessories in accordance. with the city's bidding proced- ures.. A. copy of. the-. bid minutes. and tabulation is attached for_ council review. _ Twc~ bids were submitted, and.. in reviewing the bids, both - -- - ~. are= found to be in compliance with the city's specifications. --.~- ---- _~The:~city saa.ff has- analyzed the_bids on the basis of the- specifi.-_ ' ~ cations: and the existing system.. The bid submitted by Neptune Water Meter Company provides a unit price of $42.95-for new meters,- and a total. package. price of $12,000 for accessories, including two remote recorders,. one visual reader-and one data. converter.. The~city currently has approximately 1,80.0 Neptune meters in operation, which constitute about 16 percent of the system.. These meters: are: about-five years old on the average. Neptune does have a kit available to onvert the existing Neptune. meters to be consistent. with the type of new meters included in the bid. This kit sells for $32.50. A summary of a Neptune "package is as follows: 1,800. kits @ $32..50 $ 58,500.00 Sr950 new meters @ $42.95 384,402.50 -Accessories 12,000.00 _ Total Purchase $454,90.2.50 Less scrap or resale of old meters (8,700 meters) 30,450.00 Total Net Price $424,452.50 • The bid submitted by Water .Products Company provides for a Rockwell meter at a unit price of $42 for new meters and a Council Letter No. 269 -2- _ Su-1~ 2~, 1-9-8 total package. price of $10,175 for accessories, including two remote readers, one visual reader, and one data converter. A. summary of a Rockwell "package" is as follows 10~TSO new meters-@ $42 $451,500._00' Accessories 10,175.00. Total Purchase ~ 61,.675..00 Less. scrap from old meters 30,450.00 (.8,70.0: meters) Less salvage of Neptune meters. 27,000.00 (1,800 meters) Total Net Price $4091,.675.00 _. Although.the revenues to be received from old. meters- are estimates ^nly, the staff has.. calculated the total net-price for the Water Products Company bid to be lesC than the total. net grace for the: Neptune Water Meter Company bids. Under the proposed program the city staff would. be responsi- ble for. installation of new meters. The adopti=_d water fund budget includes monies for this water meter project. Ib isr therefore, recommended.. that the city council award a_contract_to_ .Water- Products- Company for the purchase of 10-,.750 _ _.. ___:_ water meters. and .accessory -parts., two (2~ remote recorders and _ tr. accessAry parts,: one visual reader and accessory parts and one - ` data converter compatible with. the. city's present computer, all items,. incldu.ing delivery,-.for a total purchase price of $461,675. TAM/eja Respectfully submitte 11I~w.eA. ~ . ~ - - I `f Thomas. A. Morgan., Jr./ Acting City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening July 8, 1983 Water Meters Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Sylvia. Bergh, City .Clerk, who announced that. the purpose of the. meeting was to receive, open and lead aloud, bids for Water Meters, as advertised in the official, newspaper on June 15, 1983. Present: Ron Rankin, Administrztive Services Director Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Sylvia K., Bergh, City Clerk The following bids were submitted. and read aloud: ~D~ BID SECURITY TOTAL BID _~ ____ . Neptune Louis~Ile, Kentucky 5% Bid Bond $432,910 Watez Products Co. Eden Prairie, MN 5% Bid. Bond $421,775 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at a future city council meeting, in approximately 45 days. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk CITY OF ~ r RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • ~ Office of City .Manager _ - Council Letter No ._ 268 Agenda: July 25, 1983" The•'Honorable Mayor and- _ Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council. Members-x Subjects Purchase in Excess. of $2.,650 By resolution,. the: city council authorizes the° purchase of merchandise,- materials:, equipment: or. construction when the amount. exceeds $'2650. There: is one~such item on the. council. agenda:. for July 25r 1'983.. _ Informal. specifications were provided to six. vendors- the: purposes of obtaining quotations for the Fall Brochure.. The Fall Brochure- is one of four publications each year providing -_ ----information,. primarily on recreation programs offered. by the _ - -^ -.- "~ -"' city and the- school district, to each Richfield residence. Quotations were. received from five vendors. Each quota- tion was to include typesetting, keyTining, printing. (including paper and ink) ,_ binding,- and. delivery to the post off-ice.. The quotations: received. ranged from a low of $6162 to a high of $8.,815 as follows: Lloyd Communication $8,815 Sand: Graphics- 7,049 Carolyn Casper 7-,.488 Western Design and Printing- 6,93.4 S'exton'.- Prin-tinq;~-(Nekaosa<°Paper? 6,.423: Se;xtor. ~ Pr~intng' (Scott ~ Paper) 6 ,162 It is' recommended±that the--city council authorize the purchase of paper and-services as outlined above from Sexton, _.._ Printing in the amount. of $6,162 for. the Fall Brochure.- The use. of the Scott Paper for-the printing is not expected to mater-- ially affect. the qualify of the. brochure.. Funds for this expend- iture are funded through the Community Services Department admire- istrative budget. Respectfully submitte , `~ ~ , i ~. ~,,~ Thomas A. Morgan, Jr~ Acting City Manager TAM/ea _ mil/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office.-of City Manager - Council Letter No. 267 July 25, 19.83 Agenda. The~Honorable Mayor anal Members of the- City Council CitZr o£ Richf ieTd.. CounciT.Members.:. • ~ Subject: Authorization to Participate in Grant Application For some years the City of.~Richf field has participated in the Land and: Water Conservation Act and Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources Park and Outdoor Recreation Grant pro- gram.. Projects- funded. through the LAWCON/LCMR' program ineaude Christian Park,. Adams- Hill Park,- Taft Park. fishing dock, Wood _Lake Nature Center trails Monroe/Eairwood Parks and, hopefully,._ ---. Richfeld.Lake.,- aproject currently-pending in review before.- . the federal: government for funding through the' "jobs bill." The•Fscal Year 1984 LAWCON/LCMR preliminary grant appli cations must. be. submitted by August 5, 1983. It is recommended that the city council. authorize. the clay to participate in the program with development of Memorial Park as a proposed project.. Respectfully submitted ~~ t` - ~_ Thomas. A.. Morgan , Jr 1 Acting City Manager TAM/ej a ~$.3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager. Council Letter No: 266 Agenda July 25, 1983 The. Honorable. Mayor and. Members of the-City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: $4,75Q,OOO Commercial Development Revenue. Bonds for Richfield Shoppes Development. Project At the July a public hearing ~cial Development area,. located on and. 66th Streets • southeast corner the. council. tablE ing-.. T1 ,. 1983 regular meeting, the city council held concerning the: issuance of $4,-750,000 in Commer- Revenue Bonds for- the above mentioned commercial the east side of Nicollet Avenue between 65th 'and also the former Red Owl Building at the of 66th and Nicollet. At the July 11 meeting, :d. this matter until the July 25 th_ _regula~- meet Subsequent. to. this time, several. meetings have been held be- tween the developers (Lincoln Development Services Corporation) and.. city staff,- as well as. meetings between the developer and Donald Johnstone-, owner of the Richfield Pharmacy Building;- and a representative of~David Dahl, owner of the Dairy Queen and Jackie Anne properties.- At this time, agreements have not been reached between Lincoln Properties and the owners of the afore-~ mentioned properties.: However, negotiations are continuing. Further, the city attorney's off ice is presently in the process of finalizing a Development Agreement with Lincoln Development Services Corporation. It is anticipated that this agreement will be completed by the. end of thin month. 'If approved by the city council, the proceeds of the bonds- would allow for the acquisition of the subject property and. would also provide for various physical improvements to the site. These. improvements will include the resurfacing of parking lots as well as facade improvements which will give the shopping center a uni- fled and aesthetically pleasing physical appearance in contrast to the present assemblage of buildings which has various materials, signage styles, and_a disjointed .architectural appearance. Lincoln Properties has indicated that they will spend approx- imately one million dollars for external renovation and other ~- physical improvements. Subsequent to gaining ownership of the Council Letter No. 266 -2- July 25 ~ T 983 center, it is anticipated that interior improvements will also be: made over a period. of time.. It is also proposed by the developer that an addition will- ~.:be built onto the south end. of the building presently. occupied ~by Warner Hardware, in order to give that facility additional space in which. to operate. If this improvement. is to occur, the buildings housing the-Richfield Automotive business and Jackie: Ann Hair Salon must be~ acquired and removed. It is also desirable: that the Dairy Queen store be removed, if possible. The developer has indicated that tenants in the Jackie Anne building as well as' the Dairy Queen operation would be afforded an opportunity to move.: into the renovated center if they so choose. At this point,.: it is not. known whether this will. occur or not, as this is subject to the negotiations between the devel.- oper and these businesses.. I . has also been Owl building is to be essential that work on Prospective credit wo: building, however,- it 'tenants- to be able to indicated by the developer that. if the. Red renovated.. and occupied this- year, it is this building begin in the. very near future. :thy tenants have. been identified for this has been stated to be important for these be in business by October. 1 , 1983.. - ~ -- 2t is~~ recommended: that the city co~xncl adopt the attached `-:- = ~ --- ~-resolutions: giwing• preliminary approval to- this project, subject - - to'the.execution of a: development agreement between the City of Richfield and Lincoln: Properti:es.- TAM/ e j a Respectfully submitte , • Thomas A. Morgan L Jr~. Acting City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. Office of City Manager Council. Letter No. 265 Agenda. July 25, 1983 The• Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council. City of Richfield Council Members: Subjects. Request for Rezoning at 910 West 66th. S.treet.: Second Reading.. Ong June 13.; 1983., the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance to rezone.tYe property at 910 West 66th. Street from R (residential) to C-1 (limiaed business) to allow the conve=sion of the. existing residence on the property into a dental office.. The public hearing and second reading of'this ordinance-have. been scheduled for the July 25, 1983 city count l meeting. Theo-planning staff has reviewed this rezoning-request and made- the following findings 1°.. The: subject property is- adjacent to residentially- ~ zoned: property to the northwest and across 66.th Street to the south. There is commercially zoned property across Rae .Drive to the east. The C-1 limited. business district is intended for supplying a limited. supply- of. services primarily for the benefit. of the-residences. in the neighborhood.. A C-1 district. would, therefore,. be a compati.J~le zoning district with surrounding'"-zones, and the planning staff does not. consider the proposal to constitute "spot zoning." This requested rezoning would .provide continuity of zoning patterns in the area. •2. The existing single family residential use of the prop- erty is not necessarily the. best use, primarily becaus e of adjacent high traffic volumes.. There is an average daily traffic count of. approximately 20,000 cars on 66th Street and. Rae Drive has an average daily traffic -.count of 3,410 vehicles. (Typical average daily traffic on residential streets in Richf field is 200 to 1,000 vehicles per day ). As noted above, the subject property is located directly across Rae Drive from a C-2 general-commercial district. ` The staff believes that the zoning of the site to Council Letter No. Z65. -2- July 25, 1983 . _ , limited business would provide better utilization of the: property while maintaining_a.transitaon zone for: the residential property west of the site. , Proper screening and setbacks will add to the- buffer effect.. . 3.: The: comprehensive plan indicates that the proposed site is in a medium density buffer area which would.. allow for two family duplexes, single family dwellings and existin convenience commercial establishments. ~IInder t ese stipulations, tYie proposed dental. office would not be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 4. Thee site is not. within the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet rede-~ •velopnent project area, as the boundaries of the L/H/N area jog around. this particular block. This. appears. to have-been a. conscious effort to not include this .area in the redevelopment. project and to maintain ex-- isting residential uses in the area.. ~f Einal plans have not been submitted showing the location and design of the proposed renovation of the- parking Tot.,, but there appears. to be sufficient lot area. to accomodate the propose3 development without. requiring variances. ~.. The- two residences adjacent to the. property along 66th --- "- Street are deteriorating.. The house immediately adjacent. _.. "` ~"'~`"""~" " "-~ to this site was ac fired b Henne - qu' y_ pin County ~as part of _ ~ • the° 66th:- Street improvement cronram :and is currently vacant.. The.Richf field Housing and Redevelopment Author.- ity~ has: directed the. staff to pursue the- acquisition of ~. these- two adjacent properties. Also, a plane will. be `~-prepared for~relocating'the existing dwellings on the '• sate,• moving another structure on the site, then renova-• • ting"and 'converting the;three structures into duplexes `toyprovide six units of housing for moderate- income- persons. rf this: proposal goes. forward: it would be desirable to provide access to these homes from Rae Drivel requiring an easement over the proposed dental office property for access . Dr. Elaslcy, owner of the subject property, has: indicated that he has asked his architect to determine if there is room on the site to provide the desired 15-foot easement. across his prop- _ _ , arty.. 7. The proposed HRA development described above would im- prove the adjacent properties and stabilize the resi- dential use of the other properties on this particular block. This improvement and stabilization would dis - courage further commercial encroachment into this par- ticular block. The proposed use of the site as a dental off ice appears to be a reasonable use of the site, and one which could exist without Council Letter No.. 265 -3-- Juiy 25, T983: detriment to the neighborhood.- However, the planning staff cannot ~~ recommend. rezoning because the proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan,. nor with past policies of the city regard- ing the development of this particular lot. Therefore, it is the- recommendation of. the punning staff that the rezoning request be denied. The planning commission, on a 7-T vote:, also.. recommended that the rezoning be denied.. The commission believed that whin the dental office use may be appro- priate to: the site, the city should. only consider- the rezoning of the whole area between 56th Street,> Rae Drive. and Coach Homes: de- velopment,. not just one lot. If the• city council is of the:oginion that the site should. ~ be rezoned to C-1 limited business: district, it is recommended. that the council give second-r a *+roval to the attached or- dina~ce._ However, prior to such action, it wou opr tt direct the staff to evaluate the zoning of all of the property on-the north side of 66th Street from Rae Drive westward to the Coach Homes development, in order for the staff-and planning commission to evaluate..theeneed for a comprehensive plan amendment for the:subjeat area:.. / - ~ Respectfully submitted,. .~- ~ ~ _ /~ _.. __ ---~---_- - -~---~--~ .::.~.~.~.:.,----. Thomas A~ Morgan Jt . . Acting City Manager - cc~ C~ommunity~ Development. Director City. Planner TAM/ ej a B~.L V0. 1983-16 OF 'L'as, ORDI~1~,~iC CODE OF _ 'IffE CITY OF R.:.C~r^r.0,. ?2~1PTESOT~ - C2T'r OF RIC'~FILD DOES: ORDA.IV':: . Apaerdix C or t:~e Ord%nanc~ Code of ~`~e C:i.ty of Ric:t~ield, :`~inn.esota de=i.i-~:g t~ze. bau.-~daries o.~ t.`:e various zoning y- • i G=is ~~:ZC ~s of t+~e ci.~~- enu~eratec in C~`~a er ._r p p` 1~ a=t -~T, Sectior. 3 .2 8, S~divi~io~ Z o~ suC + code is. +ere~y ~e~ndea is `~° o? ? 3w:.g respects:; _ L. Appendix C' Secti.or_ Z is amender by ac3di~:g tP:e _ollowinq new paragraph ZI.. f Zl) Lat T Rae: Addition . ?assed: by `.he City Council. o. t:~.e City o_ R; c:~ieZd, :`~iraesota ~'=-s day o=- T g g 3 , _- ---- ~ ---._ _ Sonn ~sami? tor. , :~Izvor 3T'~EST 3yLv:a {. 3e=gn, Cir:~ C er.~ _ - -----~---- '. O „, • ~ _ • lam/ / V ~L. r.' C4F V~ 1~q1 - '' - ~' ~9s, . -~ ~ y a ~. . f: r s•t•~~•A.0 `'~ ~ -. ~'~ ~+ •- i. ~+~ ',yam 'J ~~' Q• ,o - -. _ tiss . _ I i ~ w. t, ..: '; s ,mss`' '` .. ~ +>.~ • 'a%_.--~' ,, 'V `^'} ~' ~. . ~~ ar'iC'-- t -..-. ~-. ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ - .. , z' SI~.+NL1'TLi~SS a6TA/N 6a ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~`~ '" . . \~ _ REQIIEST FOR REZONING FRUM ~~ ~ TO ~. ~ . FOR THE FOLLOWING- PtTRPOSE L? ~ty i P~~_ Q ~F= 1C.~ • STREET ADDRESS : q tC:~ t~ ~ ~% S"t`-- LEGAL.DESCRIPTION: We, the undersigned, being owners of Land within 300 feet of the Land _desc=ibed above,. da hereby concur in this Rezoning request. _Signature of Owners* Address • Legal Description _. _ s ~/~/ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~".. / .•~ fr tt / . t // A , `' Jr ~/~ / J//~ * For purposes of determining if petition contains the proper number .~.~= ~i .~r~~F~~rcc ~n i ni i-~ a~A ~~1Ca r'ca fnn i nn nrnr~QC~ G~ f7Ta1'll1^?C TT1e3V T'1['ff ~/a~~8'3 i ~ LJ ~~ Cd77 - --~` ~~ ~, ~.~~~ ~%~ ~~ ~ G'~~~ GL . r ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ i ~ /! r' " • - _ April 9, 1c85 David. J". Fslaaky, D. D'. S . _ _ 7041 Nicollet Ave.. g. . --~ .. - Minneapolis, ~In.- ~5~23 Dear Dr. Elaakg: -._ Sarry~ toy be so Tata in an~~rerin~ your recent. Totters-,, but ~e haws besn out of t.o WA . ~ 'kith regards to sour plans Por 6oth.. anti Rae Drive,. w~see no reason Por __ - - _ ao.~ec~tin~ to your Proposal as submitted - ------ accordng to your sketch. Yours truZ~ , ~. ~,. . F. '~. Stsin~et2 F. v. Steinmetz Z11T fir. 3ro adwa~ Stillwater, ~In. 55082 jasgz'~S_xt~Y~,~~ u~,~,^~'~c~^~-~«~~ ~.~a.§i..'~~-^+c...~. ~. .. s .;F 'F 4 '.~'Y ~,y~~~~~, Ym~ ~i~ h sly _'4 'SG ~ '1. ~ - ~+ +~.t ^L:~y ~`~f erg. ~,,~`{~F~ s +", _}' ~.s~ _ .. -:.- ~_70a~ Nco.I~et. Avenue g., . ° - . =~ ~ ~., ~&ich~ield ~ ~ ~5~~ -~ _ aE'= Ra~oal.:n~ of property at. 910 W. 66th St. ~~ c~ `~. '" ~es'Y" ~".. EleskyR +.. a `. r i 5cy M 4i-t sy . -. ~-~~~~ -,~ ~ ~ ~ far~ar~ of`_ reaaasng tYs~ ~ row ert. ~ t .~-: r ~~~" ~ ~ Street; P J" 9I.0 West 66th ~~ ,,, ffic~£ieSc~,~: MN ~~~~~ to ~: C--I. for the ~= ~hk~=.""~ 1?~~~ia~. ~, c~eut~: ef..f'ice:- oa: thss: parcel... _ _ Pose -•~ z ~. ~ ;..~ _ ' k~ S~~ . Sacer~g ~~ ~i~ A~.~t ~ ~ _ .. `"ire' .ti ."e K ,~ -f;_y.~,. _ - _ .~ _ - _ .. :w ~'~ = mss. 3`q ,. - _~` - Cdr ~..t "Y" -7 .F.r sn. ~ x3.. .,t r .w r ,, 'rte ~ .'4. _ i -~ z -4..r-.' .4: i.+~' . rarer ~s.. _ ,,,et ~. . . _ ~ r s-__ 'n`" x.- ~z.s.., ,'.,roe; - - - - ... ~ /~ ~. .921 Rae Drive Ricizfield,Minnesota 5:5423 March 8-,1983 David J.Elaskp, D.D.S. .. . 7001 Nicollet Avenue Sout~T Richfield, Ma.. 55423: Dear Mr.EZasky, We~received pour letter of inquirg on March 2 regarding 9I0 West bbth Stress. ~Te are-aot is favor of gout proposed building ou this residential block. We Tilrn the p~~s" family and want ti~em to be successful in se3,.liag their P~perty, but we do~noC feel. that pour proposed development. would be is our. best. interest here- oa.. a residential, block.. We era aot~ia favor of a variance or re-zoning for pour project. and request. the Plaaain& Commission and the• Cite Council to honer our decisi:oa is this. matter.. copy: Citg of Richfield, R»Joepke Planning. Commission John Hamilton, Mayor Council Members ~ ~ ' ~ }: y = +y. ~*+iylt:. Si f . ~ . t -.,4 i ,,_ ;r L A `, 'rte r ! ~_. ~ r 1 r ~TTT111CVV~ ~~ ~~.'~ L` rU,~a~ L t..., ~r . K •1. ~y ~t ~ ~ y .~ i it ~, r L ~ ~!" `'r'"~'~ ~:. ::y, j .~tw ~ . ~ ~ ~~ ~ . ~ 1`~ j ~ ~- f t~ k~r' .y~ .~ -~ : _. •~ i ~. - .~ -vim :~, _?,., i tf`_ _. _.. _. .. ._--~- ~ _ .. 'k ~ ~ ~, ,~ ~ ~ `! .~,~~ :~.~. . ~~ l .-~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~:~ Office. of. City .Manager Council Letter No. 264 Agenda. July 25, 1983. The. Honorable Mayor and Members-of the City Council.' City of .Richfield Council Membersr _ Subject: Storm Water Control As council members are well aware,:. staff. and council have devoted substantial. time andeffort concerning the matter of. storm water control- in Richfield;. In its last ,two sessions the Minnesota Legislature has. adopted two acts which signif.i-~ candy affect. planning and financing of storm sewer improve- ments and maintenance- in cities... These"two acts have a direct bearing on Richfield's approach to the natter of storm water ~/ control. The.:t~zo acts-are the tRetropolitan Storm Water P~anagement` -~ '= Act (Management.Act)~ and: the-Storm Sewer Utility Act. (Utility Act}.. These new lawn. and their effects on.Richfield''sapproach to storm water control in the city are described below. Storm. Water Management Act The Management~Act mandates planning for storm water con- trol and also allows property tax levies outside the levy limits to pay for storm water planning and improvements. The Management Act was: enacted in response to a number of conflicts .which have arisen between neighboring communities, particularly in the metropolitan area. The existing law did not clearly de- f ine the legal responsibility for storm water leaving one. city and entering another. Further, an increase in public awareness . and concern regarding water quality in lakes and rivers has been experienced.. These two factors led the legislature to pass the ' new law. According to the provisions of the Management Act, the follow- , ing planning steps are required: 1 . All areas of the city must be organized. into water management organizations (WMO) by December 31, 1933; December 31 1985; a d b A WMO t b l 2 , y re p an mus e ..prep . Counc 1. Letter No. 2C4 -2- July 25 , 1983. 3. The WMO plan is to be reviewed by the affected cities and: counties, the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency,. and the Minnesota. Water. Resources Board; 4'.- The:WMO plan must be submitted for approval by the Water Resources Board;- .. 5.. The local plan for storm water control must be prepared based on the. WMO plan.; 6. The-local plan. must be submitted for approval by the WMO. The Water Management Organization (WMO) must encompass a watershed which includes all or part of at least--two cities. WMO's may be created either by forming watershed districts or through joint powers agreements. Most of Richfield is presently a part of the'Nine: Mile Creek Watershed District or the Mi.nnehaha Creek Watershed District,- two existing WMOs. However, the south- east. corner of Richfield which drains into Wilson and Christian ponds. is not presently part of any water management organization. This unorganized portion of Richfield drains into. a section. of Bloomington which. is also not presently part.of any water manage- meet organization The city staffs from Richfield and Bloomington _ have been investigating advantages of forming a joint powers _ agreemeat to organize these-areas. instead of creating~a new wat__er- -~ ""'shed district or joining adjacent watershed. districts:- - "' At present it is believed that a joint powers agreement will allow more direct control by the two cities and provide a more. logical relationship between the actual improvements that might be required for storm water control and the charges for the con- struction and. maintenance. This belief is held for several reasons. First, in the case- of watershed districts, board of managers appointed by the County Board make the policy decisions. A. joint powers agreement would allow the city council or a locally appointed board to make policy decisions. If the unorganized portion of Richfield were to be placed into a new or existing watershed district, the property within. this area would bear part of that watershed- district's tax levy. These tax dollars could be used-for improvements to waterways. into which storm water from this area does not flow as well as for improvements within the. area.. A preliminary engineering estimate indicates that it would cost approximately 510,000 to prepare the Storm water Management .Plan for this unorganized portion of Richfield. The staff has found that this amount is less than the amount of one year tax levy by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for this portion of the city . Once. a decision is made concerning how a port ion of Richfield becomes part of the WMO, the remaining steps of the planning process outlined above must follow. Part of this planning process will involve deciding which storm water con- trol projects to be part of the WMO Capital Improvement Program --and which-will--be part of the local capital improvement program for storm water improvements. Council Letter No. 2.64 -3- July 26, 19&3 Storm Sewer Utility Act The:Storm Sewer Utility Act provides cities with a funding mechanism for the. cost of construction and maintenance fo storm water improvements. Under its provisions, cities may charge a. fee for• thee- provision of storm water disposal. service. The- ad- vantages.of this: type of financing mechanism over the property.. tax levy provided. under the. Management Act is that it can. be implemented sooner and charges can be established relating to the-level of service provided,. rather than a tax on property value.. For example, an asphalt parking lot with a relatively low property value, may contribute a Targe amount of storm water runoff, should logically pay a proportionate greater share for control. of the storm water runoff generated by this hard surface. The•Utility Act would allow the city to establish fixed charges according to the amount of storm water runoff. contributed to the city's-"sys.tem. Further, the Utility Act provides thaton- going ma ntenance of the storm water control system could be charged through utility fees as well as the~cost of constructing the= improvements.. Also, improvements financed by° the property tax. levy: authorized in the•Management Act could probably not. begin until. the°Late 1980's, after the WM0 and: local storm water - ~ management plans are approved'.. In contrast,. provisions of the _ Storm. Sewer Utility Act can be implemented. as early as 1.934.. Immediate Improvememts 1 - -' - ~ ~ -_~--~--part: of its capital improvement. program, Richf field had --~ ----- -p-fanned to< use: certain amounts: from the Sewer Utility_ Fund to _ --- pay for the construction of improvements that have a high prior-~ ity.. This funding can. be used for these immediate improvements or. it is possible that the cos t: of these improvements can be set up as: an irritiaT I.iabi]:ity to be paid for by the- revenues- of a storm sewer utility fund established. by the-city... The attached. storm sewez problem area map identif ies those areas that experience some-amount of flooding problems during the heavy rains of the summers of 1977 and 1978. Ln most areas the problem was limited to street flooding, however, some flooding also resulted in property damage. Further, some. of the problem areas have since been mitigated by improvements in the L/H/N area, park development projects and other improvements. The staff has identif led certain improvements which can be made in three of the problem areas which will mitigate the likelihood of future flooding damage (see map for locations): Area No. 2 - is the 6900 block between Xerxes and Wash- urn Avenue. The sidewalk and boulevard on Xerxes Avenue can be raised to hold the water in the street on Xerxes Avenue -and prevent it from traveling between houses. Further, a "flapgate" can be constructed in the storm sewer to prevent storm water backup. • Area No. 4 - this is the 6600 block between Washburn and Vincent Avenues. The alley entrance off Washburn Avenue Council Letter No. 264 -4-° July 25 ,. 1'9$' can be raised to hold the water in the street to prevent water from travelling down the alley and into the garages. Area No. 13 -- This is the private alley extending south r~ om 68th Street between Oliver and Newton Avenues. Garages adjacent to the alley occasionally floods but. it. is: believed that driveway and apron. areas can be raised. to. mitigate future damage. - hr each. of: these cases , the :future prospect. of flooding has. not been entirely eliminated but has been significantly reduced. Slides of these areas will be available at the study session for. council review:. Certain other problem areas (No.. 2E, 27, 28, 29 and. influenced. by Norby's pond.. Other areas (No. 34, 35, an are influenced by Wilsom~s pond. In these- areas,. during o£ heavy ra-infall, the ponds fill up with. water and back storm sewer lines.. This slows the flow of water through systems retarding the ability of catch. basins. to take all runoff Ovate=.. The result is that. water: is retained in street and up into yards-~ 30) are d. 36) periods up in they of the the - In. these cases,. if~- the- ponds were maintained.: at a lower.. level there would be more capacity available for storm water drainage,- - and. thus the backup of. storm water would be less. likely. In order to: maintain such capacity, periodic dredging of the ponds would also be necessary.- It is staff's recommendation that ~- '-~---future dredging take- the ponds to a lower level. and a-pump: be- installed.ta ma~intain.a.permanently lower water level in: the ponds.. Furtherf shore fine improvements could be added to better accomodate the lower level of the ponds... For these. areas,. pre- liminary engineering estimates indicate that.-the pond improve- . merits would cost between X1.2: and $2..5 million dollars. The con- struction project could be funded. under the provisions of either the: Utility Act or the Management Act. However, the Utility Act would.-allow an earlier-donstruction of the project.. Recommendations Based on the foregoing information the staff submits the following recommendations for council. consideration: ~t~.- Negotiations should proceed between Richf field and Bloomington concerning the creation of a joint powers agreement to provide for storm water planning for~that part of the city presently not part of the Water Management Organization. Under such an arrange- ment, planning costs could be recovered by a special tax levy similar to the levy made by Watershed Dis- tricts for other portions of the. city. If such direction is provided staff will negotiate a proposed Joint powers agreement with Bloomington to be brought - back for council consideration prior to the end of the year. Council. Letter No_ 264 -5- Suly 25, 1983 2. The staff should be directed to take steps to create a Storm Water Utility.. Preliminary estimates of the • annual residential fees under such a system to cover the costs of anticipated construction as well as maintenance costs-, is estimated at $-10 - $15. The actual amount of the fee: will, of course, aepend upon the level of service provided and the rate scheduled. established for residential and commercial properties.. Fees generated through this- utility would generate substantial revenues for planning construction and.maintenance costs. =f. so directed,. the staff will prepare a rate schedule and level of service options available for consider- - atop. A_public hearing could be scheduled later this. year for creation of a storm water utility... 3: a: The: city council should. promptly order the improvements outlined'~in this letter for the areas Nos.. 2, 4 and. 13 tv mitigate future damage: to property-by storm. water flodding~ - . The staff will be prepared to provide more detailed informa- tion and answer questions of the city council at the-.July 25, • 1~983~ city council.. meeting.. .--- ~-- _ _: =~_ Respectfnully submi ed, -~- -..._ _ _~- ~~ try ~ °'~^, a`'~,~ ~ Thomas A.. Morgan.,. Jr. -Acting City Manager TAM/eja - ~, Mglftljt O ~ C ~. '` \ ~ ~ ~ 1N IZ •_ ~'~•~~ ~ ~W. NOZ I ~ ~ w ° `~n ~ a °. = w i `w LYi 2 r ~ s s- ~`• Nil. ~V~~ ~ - M w, ~ ~ ~. ~ w ws. w rQt•QMMOt ~~~ • ~ w w 7Ar- tfun? ~`;= - 6 ~1-'"(' ~ ~__=-- -=-----= ='~s'Ai:-=__: NOS tftf ~ ~~ -- ~ ~ N11 .. sf ' ~ OCiC~ ~~ , tf Lf NOt9rlwoOfN ~~~~ ~ `Q ~ tf sl . ~r ~Q MOii0N111E1f\ N>N L~ ~ N4f 1111. C 1 N N- . ~s p ~ - ~~~CC ~ - N,u I. tlor I~'T ~~ ~ 1;~~ 71Yw NOLIUb ' ~ ~ qr - ~ ~ ypl-NIV. . ~~ ~ Ni tNlAi{i ~ Q ~~ fQiAi{i Mt i ' C7C1 . QC~~CsOQ ', ~1 ~~~ Q N.yo~ulas , ; ~ ~ - - -..- --. -- , ~ ~ NaNO.-uls~s __- .1#M.I~,y.~ it ~~~ . ~~ II, ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ y~yy~f, '7A~• 370lUAi ~ ~~ ..- 4 I ~ a7afarss N71f10'!F '' I ~~ 3At 3Tfor1,7 . 1MrAN! 111. - ~ r. X7J'Itp ~I ` j ~ j~'~ 1M11,Nf~ I l l~1 1DOWq ~+ \L.. is °o,z ~ I I .1NOWro N!lfl7q ~ ~` o•< n~ ~ NOfWi11, ----~= , 1 a>r~lro P ~~. ~ ~~ Jfgltllr ' 10'10lIIIIM 7~ i~.~ ~ ` w~~~ _ / I ~~~ Oilrllro "~T ~'^ SiAK ~~ 1~T I ~ Q~~~r~ I ~`~\ 9f11AN1 7tOM71 ~`~ ~.~.~. ~ ~ , ~` tilltl' N1tQ7 .~`+ U~~~ ~I ~~ - XoMll. ~ ~ ~ ~DOC' ~ ~ i~~ Nq-A7f1 " ~- I~Q'~'~r"~~ r^ . N7Af10 '7A! NN7r ~''~ rnulw ' ~~ ~~~ ,; I~~~'~"' ~ Naalle Ntt11Nlllt . .~~a ..`~ ~,I I; al!L_i ~ ~ ~'~as'YUl nwolla : ~~.."`--yQ~j ~~`~' ~i rnl-iQG"jl-, ~ N~ay3ns Q^~©' `~~i ~~ stwona 1N7~MIA-:~~..,~'„~,` l t 1t ~: ~~~~~ . I' '~ ~~. I~ ~~.. 16.~~+~ N01r11 NlMNfttl~1._.~ l 1I ~~. i•~..~'~ l~: ~;--~~. L"~' 1lIi2NM '7Ar L]XNiX Y.aw.+wwwwr .w~woAS~. ~ _'! >!'C~.a:.d~u i ~~~ ~~ NNMM[-NL '..~r~~wl~ 7At• 23XN3X Kr - r: w. ~• w w w w w `u `w~ w-w r w a w ~ M • ii. w `wa ~ ! _ a ' u ~. .. ~ , STORM SEWER PROBLE:! AREAS ~~. 64th &. Xerxes 2. 69th & Xerxes Avenue, Washburn 3. 66th Street near Xerxes, Washburn and Vincent Avenues 4. 6700 Block of Washburn. _3. 62nd- & Russell. ,_ 6 . 66th-b 7th & Queen-Penn 7. 69th &- Sheridan Avenue,.. Russell • 8 . 70th- & Thomas, Sheridan , Russell , Upton 9. 70th & Penn Avenue- ? 0 . 72nd & Sheridan 11. 76th & Washburn 12: 66th & Newton Avenue 13 .. 68th Street & Oliver Avenue, ~tewton i4. 63rd Street & Girard Avenue iS. 64th & Irving Avenue 16 . 66th &: Irving, James.., Knox, Logan , Humboldt 1 T. 68th- & James 18. 7333.. Humboldt: Avenue ' 19. 77th. & Bryanr Avenue 20. 77 1/Z & Colfax Zl _ 65th-66th & t~illsbury-Pleasant Avenue. 22. 75th & Pleasant 2.3. 66th &. Stevens avenue 24. 31Z West. 65th Street . 25. 66th & Fourth 26. 'o8th & Stev-ens Avenue 27. ~orby~s Pond: . 28. 73rd &. First. Avenue _ 29. 76th & Third 30. Columbus Avenue near 69th Street-66th & Columbus 31. 66th & Chicago 32. 63rd & Bloomington 33. o'3rd & i6th 34. 7lst & Cedar 35. 73rd & Bloomington Avenue 36. 73rd & 16th, 17th., LBth Avenues 3 7. 77th & Blcorrtington Avenue 38. 68th & Wentworth -- ~ ~I L • CITE OF ::ICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 263 Agenda Luly 25, 1983 The Honorable-Mayor and. . - Members of the City Council ' City of Richfield Council Membersr Si~e~ect: Resolution Setting Date of Hearing for -~ 1'98Z: Alley- Maintenance Assessments On July 11',. 1983 the city council passed a resolut on order- inq the preparation of the proposed assessment roll for the alley maintenance and current services-for-the period April, 1982: through March 31, 1983. The proposed-assessment roll. has been prepared and filed for public inspection. -- lt is~, therefore:,. recommended. than the -city`~council adopt. - -- the< attached: resolution setting the date of the public Bearing - on.the proposed alley maintenance assessment for August 22, 1983:. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~. ~..'r Thomas A. Morgani J~. Acting City, Manager ' TAM/ e j a ~~ ~ // f} CITY OE' RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council. Letter. No. 262 Agenda. July 25, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members- of the: City Council. City of Richfield Council. Members.: Subject: Resolution to Set. the Date of~Hearing for 1982:.L/H/N Maintenance Assessments. On. July 't1~, 1983 the city council passed a re olution order- ing.the preparation of the proposed assessment. roll for the main- tenance-of the L/H/N Redevelopment Area. for the period of January ?,~ 1982 through December 31`, 1982... The proposed ass2ssment_r.oll has• been-prepared. and. filed. for public inspection_ It is,-: therefore,. recommended that. the city council adopt the attached resolution setting the date of the public hearing on the- proposed L/H/N Maintenance. Assessemnt for :August 22, 1983.- Respectfully subrnitte , Thomas- A.. Morgan Jr~' Acting City Manager TAM/ej a :~ ~i~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No.. 261 Agenda. July 25, 1'983 The Honorable Mayor and. Members of the City Council. City of Richf ield Council Members: Subjectr Request. for Approval of`an.Amended Final Development. Plan,. Hawsers/Snyder/Hub Area. On-.June T3-, fig$3 , the city council approved= an amended final. development plant special use permit and off-street-.parking-permit for the.Haus-ers/Snyder .redevelopment within the I~ub super-block planned unit development area. The: proposed development had a 9,950 square foot addition:to the north. end of the existing build- ing., _ _ Subsequent ta_that meeting,.. the applicant has discovered that --- the' proposed new building would be setback... 37.5 feet from. 6.Sth Street rather than.the~4~ feet indicated on the. site plan: approved. by the council. The city's:planned unit development ordinance re- quires that the development of a planned.unit development district shall be in substantial compliance with the group final development plan.: Zt further provides that the plan shall not be considered in _ substantial compiiance_ if there is any change-in the original approved. setback from~fhe property line. Now, because there is a: change in setback., an amendment to the PUD plan is necessary-and is being requested. by the-property owner. The--city staff- has reviewed the proposed change and determined: that it. would not be detrimental to the development on to the gen- eral public welfare. There is sufficient space on the north side of the building to allow for this change without narrowing the side- walk or driving aisle on the north end of the proposed addition. In the staff's opinion, the. proposed 2.5 foot. setback change would not present any aesthetic or public safety problems. It is recommended that the. city council approve the. attached amended final development plan allowing the 2.5 foot decrease in setback. The council may refer this matter to the planning commission if the council believes the request constitutes a major change in plans.- If is the staff's opinion that this request is not a major change, and therefore, referral to the planning commission is not '~_. necessary. Respectfully submit d, Thomas A. Morgan TEL ~~. .~ /'... L-- 11R~~~ ~~ .~_ a 'o 2 ~' s~ o~ v s z 0 m a 9 Z A t!! S~ ~. r a m s 2 s rn 7C 'z 0 !I I o'~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~l1.1 4.. . ~. ~, m o ~ ~ A e ~ o~ m tea N: ~ ~- C- V ~~ __. ~ ... !' i 1 ! .~ f 1 . ~ l I i I !.~ ! ! I ! ! _ ! t ~ i . ! ! i ! 1 1 i. 1 _ __.,. _ ! i t i i ! ~. Y.. t"` ~ m ! ~. r. t ~" a !~ ~ t~ Q ~ i~ ~~ min !~ S ~ (o (a ~ ~ i. ! ~ 9 ~ IX I, < ~ g_. x ~ I ~ i0 ! ~ ~ i o'. I ~/~ 2t IT ! a, ~_ f, -~ A ~ ` 1~ i t ~ I a3 . ~ . ,-, a ~ ~ -~ o o -~ a 0 p~ rn - 0~ 'T'1 D 2 ~r C _. V--- -_ ~~ m csr O il! ~! i rsw a' wmE co~+c s~~nr~sx SgRWCB ®c~TS~ ra~ara u+~s.- x I ar I IiII III _ ~~ ~ I I ill I I ° ~~ m ~. ~: ~>~Jlillll IIIII I IT ~ ~~~- I'ii~ ii i m ~ ~ cQ Z '~ ~ .~. ~, WEST svth ~ ST `~ // CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No.. 260 Agenda July 25, 1'983 - The~Honorable Mayor and- Members of the City Council. City of Richf field Council. P4embers Subject:. Amendment. to Transitory Ordinance.16..87 Relating to Vacation of a Portion of Lake- Shore" Drive. Lake Shore Drive was realigned to intersect with Rae Drive. as part of the 66th Street improvement project.. With~the realignment,. a portion of old Lake Shore Drive was no longer needed and it was appropriate to vacate it.. The vacated right-of-way was: to be con- veyed to the Lake: Shore Drive Condominium. On November 23, 1981", the first reading of a transitory ordinance providing for that . vacation was approved.. The second reading and. adoption of Trans i- tory Ordinance 16..87° was undertaken. December 14 , 1 981- . S ince that. _ time, a deed restriction. in the title. to this land was discovered. and" it was necessary to remove it. Removing the restriction has: required the. actions of both the County and the State. Recently, a review of they legal description discovered a "gap"', that is, at the south end: of this parcel the Tine described. didn't. deflect from the point of termination to close the parcel.. Thus, an amendment to the original. transitory ordinance 16..87 must. be adopt- ed-before title. can be~conveyed as intended. by the city council_ It. is, therefore, recommended that. the city council. modify Transitory Ordinance 16.87 by adopting the attached amendment and that. a second reading and. the public hearing be scheduled for August 8, 1983. Respectfully submitt d, 1 t,e+...~ ~. `~ an.. . Thomas A. Morgan, ~r Acting City Manager cc: Community Development Director TAM/era APPENDIX A. TRANSITORY ORDINANCES AMENDMENT TO TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0. 16.87. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE FOR THE. VACATION OF A PORTION OF LAKE SHORE DRIVE.. City of Richfield Does Ordain:" Section 1. Transitory Ordinance No. 16.87 vacating a portion of Lake Shore Drive in the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: The following portion of Lake Shore Drive within the City. of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State. of Minnesota, is hereby vacated: All that part of Lake Shore Drive as dedicated in the plat. of "Fairwood Shores" according to the duly recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota,. which. lies northeasterly of a line drawn parallel with. and distant 38 feet northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the center line of Emerson Avenue South (as shown in the plat Silverwood Second-Addition) and. the south line" of the North- 1/2. - of Section 28, Township 28~ Range 24; thence run easterly for a distance of 2S'3.00 feet to the point distant 8.0 feet north of the south line of North I/Z of said. Section 2.8; thence deflect right at any angle of 1°48'43" f.or.a_distanee of 54.06 feet; thence deflect right along a tangential curve having a radius of 572.96 feet (delta. angle 18°07'00") for a distance of 49.22 feet to the. actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflect right at an angle of 81°37'25" (measured from a tangent of said curve) for a distance of 77.03 feet;. thence- deflect left along a tangential curve. having a radius of 100 feet for a distance of 113.45 feet (delta angle 65°00`00"); thence run tangent to said curve for a distance of 77.20 feet; thence deflect right-along a tangential curve having a radius of 373.52 feet for a distance of 195.47 feet (delta °angle 29°59'02") and there terminating, and lying northwesterly. of the northeasterly extension of a line drawn from the radius point of the last described curve through the point of termination of the last described line; and lying southerly of a line drawn from the.. northeasterly corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Lynnwood., to the northwesterly corner of Lot 12, Block 3, Fairwood Shores, according to the duly recorded. plat thereof. Section 2. The City of Ric3'rfield, Minnesota, will retain a permanent easement. over, under and acrass the above described tract of Land for maintaining*existing utilities \- Section 3. The Mayor and Manager are authorized to take such action as is required to: give effect to the vacation of the public right-of-way as provided it the foregoing section. Section 4. This amendment is made to clarify the southeasterly boundary of the portion of Lake Shore Drive as vacated by Transitory Ordinance No. 15.8?.. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1983. John. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. . -.erg ,. City Clerk • #b CITY OF RICHFIELD, PdINNESOTA Office. of. City rlanager - Council Letter No. 259 Agenda July 25, 1983'- The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Ciay Council. City of Ri.chf field Council Members: Subject.::. Ordinance Amendment Concerning .Street Side Sideyard Setbacks in Residential. Zoning Districts P,t the July 1T,~ 1983 city council. meeting,. the city council gave first reading consideration to wn ordinance amendment to the street side sideyard:setback requirements, and scheduled the publics hearing for the July 25 ,- 1983: city council meeting. Over. the past few months,. the. city countiL has considered _ several variance-requests where property owners proposed to expand. __-dwe113:ngs where-the proposed. addition matched the.. existing build-- ng setback, but'did not meet the~city's,current°-zoning-setback requirements. The planning commission has indicated a desire. to amend the ordinance to allow expansion to occur without the need. fora variance in cases where the expansion would. be no closer to the'street than the: existinq~dwelling. The-ordinance would amend the street side setback~requixe~ menu in the R, R-1, and. MR-T dis r.i.cts. The amendment changes the streetsde sideyard.setback for. single family dwellings., two family. dwellings and certain other uses from 15 feet to "15 feet,. or the. established setback of the existing structure, whichever is less.."' This would allow additions to be constructed which match the existing setback.. or which have. greater setbacks.. Because the proposed ordinance amendment would allow expansion of buildings that do not. meet present street side sideyard setback requirements., it represents a policy change in .the treatment of non-conforming buildings. This policy change, and its potential effects through the expansion of non-conforming buildings in the city, should be noted. by the council. Since the. council has re- cently,approved several such variances, it may wish to implement such a change. However, the council may wish to maintain the re- ement fora variance before allowing such building expansions.. A copy of the. proposed. finance amendmen 's attached to this council letter, and has a-cgc't on h July 25, 1983 Council Letter No_ 25.9 -2- July 25, t983~ -_ ~ ~ city council. agenda for second reading consideration. .Respectfully submitte , Thomas A. Morgan, J~ Acting City Manager TAM/ ej a \~ " BILL. NO .. • _ ORDINANCE NO. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE. _ CITY"OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES. ORDAIN: Chapter IIS, Past IV,~ of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. is hereby amended in the following respects: (1) Section 3.30, Subdivision 5 paragraphs a, b, and d are amended to read as follows: Subd. 5. Minimum Buildin g Setbacks. " 5ideyard 0 se Front Ream Streetside Interior ~ fa) S~i:n Te• 30'` ~. 25' 15' or the established 5' setback of the existz structure whicheveris ess i -' (b)' Two 30' 25' 1'T-or the established 10' . ~~ly setback o~ the existing structure whichever is _ .:--. mss .~ (d)~:~ Other 30' 25' - I~-.ar=_the established 25' _____ ' _ ,.setback of. theexistin - structure wh i hexer zs ess _ (2) Section.3.30A, Subdivision 5., paragraph a is amended to read.. as follows: Subd. 5.. Minimum Building Setbacks. Sideyard Use Front Rear Streetside Interior ~_ (a) Single 30' 25' 1S'' or the established 10' setback of the existing structure whichever is less (3) Section 3.31A, Subdivision 5, paragraph a is amended to read as follows: Subd. 5. Minimum Building Setbacks, All Buildings: (a) MR-1 District: Sideyards Front .Rear Streetside Interior 30' 25' 15' or the established setback 10' or tie ex~~stin~~ structure w ch- eve it s e~ss -2- s Passed by the .City Council. of the Citq o~ Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1983. ~--- . ~ 7~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA .Office- of City- Manager • CounciS Letter No. 258` Agenda July 25, 198'3` ,.. TheeHOnorable Mayor and: . Members of the-City Council City of Richfield Council Members:. Sub?ect~ Ordinance Amendment Relating to Cable TV Franchise Ordinance. Second. .Reading. At: the Suly 11',. '983: city count..il. meeting, the city council gave first reading to an amendment to the cable. franchise ordanance~. This new amendment. changes procedural aspects: of the acceptance of franchise amendments by the • cable-company and. the-citiesr in a manner which we believe better protects thee. city'"s- interes.t.. Most of the° other. re- -cent.modifications are-minor changes- to sections pertaining ta_ the "line extension"` and'. "service to public. buildings"' sections:,. and: do not: directly affect Richfield's interests. A copy of the proposed. ordinance amendment is attached to this council. letter-, and the second: reading: and public hearing have beem scheduled for. the July 25, 1983 city council. meeting... Respectfully submitted, _ > ~~ ~ ~ ~-- Thomas A. Morgan, Acting City Manager TAM/ ej a ~s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 257 Agenda July 25, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and. Members of the City Council. City of Richfield. Council Members: Subject;. Transitory Ordinance Amending Section 2.03 of the-: City Charter Relating to Terms. of Council Members.. Second Reading... At. its. Apri1.2S, 1983.-city council meeting, the city council approved the first reading~of an ordinance, transmitted to the. council by the charter commission, that would have the effect of increasing the term of the office of Mayor from two years to three years... The public hearing _was scheduled for_June 13, 1983. tT.nan-imous approval of- the city council is necessary- to pass this amendment.. As one of` the council members was absent on June. 13, the city council. closed the hearing, and deferred action to the July 25, 1983 city council meeting when all members of 'the council will be present. A copy of the proposed. transitory ordinance. is attached to . this council letter, and. has been placed on the July 25, 1983 city council agenda for action by the city council. Res''p'`ectfully submitt , ~~ ~• 1'~e.. ~... Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager TAM/ e j a CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE N0. CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE. RELATING TO TERMS OF OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS _ AMENDING`SECTION 2.:03 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES: ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 2.03 of the City Charter of the City of Richfield. relating to elective officers of the city is hereby amended to provide as follows: "Sec. 2.-03. Elective Officers. The council shall be composed of a mayor and four council members- all of whom shall be registered voters'. Commencing with 1981 election the offices of mayor and at-large council member shall be filled by election at large:. Commencing with .the 1982. election the offices. of the three distric counc l members shall be elected from apportioned council districts in which. they reside. 'eke-mrcyer-ai~a~~-nerve-fer-a-terra- of -two-pears-and-tine-at-urge-and-d~atriet-eet~ne~~-rnemi~era-ska~~ aertie-fer-a-term-of-ti~ree-pears.- The terms of off ice of mayor and all other members of the council shall be three ears. The regular term of. an off ice commences on January 1 next of owing _ the general election at which balloting for the full term of the:- __ office occurs. A candidate for the office of district. council ~ -~ member must reside while seeking election-and while serving in office within the district from which he or she. is elected. A council. member who was elected under the at large "system prior to the 1981 election and whose term has not expired may continue in office until his. term expires. Prior to March 15, 1982, and every time there- is a United States Census thereafter, the city council shall be ordinance establish compact and contiguous council districts to be apportioned by population as nearly equal. as practicable." Section 2. Effective Date This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, Subdivision 7. Passed by the City Council of the. City of Richf field, Minnesota this day of 1983. _ John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: