Loading...
05-24-82 agendaICHFIELD MINNESOTA THE CITY OF R , Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 179 Agenda May 24, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Organized Softball at West Middle School The enclosed letter and petition was received in my office on May 2G. I have scheduled it on the May 24 city council agenda as requested by Mr. Fystrom. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Community Services Director May 14, 1982 Mr. Karl Nollenberger City Manager • City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave., So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Nollenberger, West Richfield Girls' Softball at its new location at West Middle School is an obscenity. The burden placed on the neighboring residents by this facility is obnoxious and unreasonable. I am angry because the softball field is twenty five yards from my living room windows. I object to the location of the field. I object to the amount of activity of the field. V I object to the excessive number of hours in use. I object, above all else, to the noise. The Noise: The Noise: In addition to the 30 to 40 hours of routine games and practice, the previous weeks' extraneous activities included a school bus parked on 75th Street half filled with yelling girl softballers, fighting by adolescents in the parking lot, hardballs hit over the fence by an unorganized group on Saturday evening and softball at • ten o'clock on Sunday morning. Our rights to the peaceful use of our property are violated daily by noise from the field. The shrieking of adolescent females during softball games regularly drives us indoors where, indeed, windows must be closed to reduce the noise to bearable levels. Subdivision 5 of the Noise Control and Regulation Ordinance Code (10.02) of the City of Richfield reads as follows: "Additional Restrictions. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section (10.02) it is unlawful for any person to make, continue or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise or any noise which disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others within the limits of the city." The noise emanating from softball games at West Middle School is LOUD. It disturbs our comfort, repose and peace. I am calling for the enforcement of this city ordinance. Softball at this location is not compatible with the residential character of the adjacent neighborhood. Its impact on our personal lives is repugnant and disgusting I am asking you, in your capacity as City Manager, to make a personal observation of this facility. I am also asking that the matter of relocating this facility be placed on the agenda of the school board and the city council. l.'; r Oral M. Fystrom~,1 7500 Morgan Ave:, South 869-0070 P.IC1?FIELD CITIZENS OPPOSED TO SOFTBALL AT WEST MIDDLE SCHOOL • Softball activity at West Middle School is incompatible with the residential character of the adjacent neighborhood. These softball activities have an adverse effect on the quality of our lives. Our rights to the peaceful use and occupation of our homes and premises are violated by the continuation of softball at West Middle School. As citizens of this community, we request that softball activities at West Middle School be discontinued. We ask that the Richfield City Council and the Board of Education of Independent School Dis[rict No. 280 act upon our request. ~~ ~~ ~~ ) ~ .,. '~ '~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ L -, .,- - ~~ ~,.:~ ~~C- _ ~.~-,mil/.n r' -~L_C - •l i i ~ ~ i ~ i iii G-~~,~~ ,. G~~/ , ~. . -~_ r. ---/ ~ -- _ . - • f='= f' ~' rte.. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager i Council Letter No. 173 Agenda May 24, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City,of Richfield Council Members: ~ Subject: Partial Closure of Augsburg Avenue at ~~ Lyndale Avenue At the May 10, 1982 city council meeting the council authorized closing access from Augsburg Avenue to Lyndale Avenue. The council requested that the staff maintain access of the Augsburg Avenue properties to Augsburg Avenue and also consider the problems that snowplows may have with maneuvering in this deadend street. An 80 foot diameter cul-de-sac is the optimum solution to allow full mobility room for maintenance and emergency vehicles • to turn around. A 60 foot diameter cul-de-sac is workable but not the ideal solution. We have only 60 feet of right-of-way on Augsburg Avenue, so rather than have a cul-de-sac, the staff proposes to allow a one-way entrance onto Lyndale Avenue from Augsburg Avenue with a right angle intersection established for safety considerations (see attached map). A "Do Not Enter" sign will be installed facing Lyndale Avenue. This type of entrance will keep through traffic off of Augsburg Avenue yet it will allow emergency and maintenance vehicles as well as local traffic to access Lyndale Avenue at a right angle. Vance and Lillian Snodgrass live at 7125 Augsburg Avenue. In order to get access from their existing driveway to Augsburg Avenue it would be necessary to construct about 90 reet of driveway along the old Augsburg Avenue roadbed. The staff met with the Snodgrasses to discuss the alternatives to this long driveway. The Snodgrasses agreed that it would be better to have a turnaround in the old Augsburg Avenue with access to Lyndale Avenue. The turnaround will provide at least one extra parking spot as well as the turnaround. This configeration will be easier to maintain and plow in the winter as well as provide a parking stall exclusively for the use of the Snodgrasses. The boulevard area behind the sidewalk on Lyndale Avenue will be the responsibility of the property owners to maintain. Co::ncii wetter ~c_ 17c -~- May 2~, 198 This solution addresses the two principal issues expressed at the council meeting and satisfies the concerns of the neighbors most directly affected by the street closure. It is • recommended that the city council approve this configuration for immediate implementation. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director • PEE. 9 ~ D~~~ ~y zD, 3' S ~oEWA~K ~oL p` Aa,GnrM Enir ~'f~tOPER~~ 1..INE ~ 3 _ u~ 2O ~ __._.._._ - - _,._ ._._ . _.. ?~ ~ _. 3 W 7 7° (Y (Y n o ~s25 7121 Av~~se~)~zU Avg -' N ~i~.7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 177 Agenda May 24, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Addition to 1982 Alley Improvement Project In November, 1980, the city council established a policy pro- viding for permanent improvement of the city's alleys•by resur- facing. This policy stipulates that an alley will be resurfaced only upon receipt of a petition, signed by property owners repre- senting more than 50 percent of the abutting footage, requesting such surfacing. The alley improvement projects are to be initiated on a yearly basis, with those alleys which are not paved or sched- uled to be paved being subject to special assessments for the cost of on-going maintenance. During 1981, 16 alleys were paved with concrete, upon request of the adjacent property owners. On March 8, 1982, the city council ordered City Project 775, which will result in the concete resurfacing of an additional 16 alleys in 1982. The engineering division has received an additional valid alley peition requesting alley improvements from property owners adjacent to the alley between Queen Avenue and Penn, 69th Street to 70th Street. Because of the timing of legal notices and the required public hearing, it is not possible to include this addi- tional alley with the original 16 for which plans and specifica- tions were presented on May 10, 1982. However, it is possible to fulfill these legal requirements before the contract is awarded on June 14, 1982. This alley could be included on a change order as an addition to the contract at the time of contract award at the close of the public hearing at the June 14, 1982 city council meeting. 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 resolution, ordering and accepting the preliminary engin- eering report, and scheduling a public hearing on the improvement project for this alley for June 14, 1982. Re pectfully submitted, • ~D arl Nollenberg r City Manager KN/eja PETITION FOR PERMANENT ALLEY IMPROVEMENT CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Date Received ~,~. r'~ ,~Z 1'0: The City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota - ~e ~e undersigned, owners of more than 50 percent in frontage of the real pro erty abutting Tn a al y between ~~ and ~'Q Streets and and Avenues her eby petition that such public alley be im roved by permanent paving o its surface. We are aware that the costs of such a project will be vholly or in part paid for through special assessments to the abutting property owners. SIGNATURE OF OWNERS ADDRESS `/ f l:• ~ i.. E' a, ~. ~ j l~9a~ -- ~. l% ~~ .. . n ~ /' ~ /~ ~ / ! f ~ _ ... ~~ ~.,~-~~ ~ 9 ~ 7 ~ c ~ ~ ''`~ .~ ,~ ~. ~_ c f amined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the re wired number of Hers of property affected by the making of the impro ent pe i n fo • Percent ~_ Ci v Cler te: Additional forms available from the Engineering Division, 869-7521, Ext. 520 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AND CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING CITY PROJECT 775 WHEREAS, with reference to permanent paving: Alley Between the city engineer has prepared a preliminary report the improvement of the following. alley by Queen Avenue and Penn Avenue From 69th Street To 70th Street THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The preliminary report on proposed City Project 775-B dated the 24th day of May, 1982, 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 June 1-4- 1982, 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 $22,625.00. 3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give published and mailed notice of such hearing in the manner required by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of May, 1982. ATTEST: John Hamilton, Mayor • • • Sylvia K. Bergh., City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION ORDERING PRELIMINARY REPORT ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING C.P. 775-B WHEREAS, petition requesting the permanent paving of the following alley has been received: Alley Between from To Queen Avenue and Penn Avenue 69th Street 70th Street And the petition has been signed by the required percentage of owners of abutting property; BE IT NOW 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 especially assessed against the benefited property within the city. The city engineer is, theref ore, 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; Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of May, 1982. John Hamilton,-Mayor ATTEST: • Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST ALLEY PAVING & APPURTENANT WORK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 775B CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA I. TYPE OF WORK Concrete alley paving improvements in the City of Riehf field II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT The alley described in Item No. IV was petitioned for and is proposed as a paving program for the City of Riehfield to provide permanent alley surf acing to benefit abutting properties where needed. III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT May 24, 1982 IV. LOCATION Al1e~ Between From To Queen Avenue and Penn Avenue 69th Street 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 alley previously described in Item No . IV . VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 11' Wide Concrete Alley Estimated construction cost $18,100 Administration, Legal, Engineering and Insurance (25y) 4,525 Estimated project cost $22,625 • • • • 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 footage Total project cost Less City Cost Assessable Cost 1,186.1 $22,625.00 682.15 $21,942.85 $21,942.85 e 1,186.1 = $18.50/assessable foot Typical residential assessment for 50° lot = $ 925.50 Typical residential assessment for 75' lot = $1,387.50 • I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the law of the State of Minnesota. Michael J. Eastling Date: May 24, 1982 Reg. No. 15066 - ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 176 Agenda May 24, 1982 The Honorable Mayor an d Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Eden Prarie Public Safety Dispatch Service • On February 8, 1982 the city council approved b~ resolution the development of a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Eden Prarie for a combined public safety communications and dispatch system. Basically, this program will provide for the Eden Prarie Public Safety Department to share our existing public safety communicating system. This agreement for the shared utilization of our system will allow Eden Prarie to have input into the management and operation of this system, as well as sharing the cost of this important public safety service. Staff members from both communities, as well as the two city attorneys involved, have developed the Joint Powers Agreement for con- sideration by the two city councils. A copy of the final Agree- ment which has been negotiated will be available for review by the city council at the regular council meeting on Monday, May 24, 1982. The merger will take place on or about December 15, 1982. The merger will coincide with the implementation of the 911 Emergency Telephone System. For 1983 we have negotiated a flat rate of $30,500 for Eden Prarie's share of this operation. In 1984, and for all years thereafter, a cost sharing formula has been agreed upon which will base the Eden Prarie contribution on a formula consisting of a combination of population and assessed evaluation. This formula will provide for Eden Prarie to assume a significant portion of the public safety communications costs as their pop- ulation and assessed evaluation grows in the future. We are looking forward to this merger. It will have a significant benefit to the City of Richfield in the cost sharing provisions and will better utilize our police and fire radio frequencies since they represent a very limited resource for the provision of public safety services in our metropolitan area. Council Letter No. 176 -2- May 24, 1982 It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that the city council approve the Joint Powers Agreement for the merger of our Public Safety Communications Services with the City of Eden Prarie. Respectfully submitted, I~,~ N~.C~. tit Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Public Safety Director • JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO DISPATCHING SERVICE PARTIES: The parties to this agreement are: CITY OF RICHFIELD ("Richfield"), a Minnesota municipal corporation, having its principal offices at 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, and CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ("Eden Prairie"), a Minnesota municipal corporation, having its principal offices at 8950 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Richfield operates a public safety emergency and administrative dispatching and communication system ("System"). The System is used in connection with police, fire, administrative and medical emergency calls. The System includes an FCC radio base and • mobile licenses under the call signs KAH422 in the police ser- vice, KDQ307 in the fire service, and KAJ764 and WBG4 in the local government service. Richfield also provides the personnel for the operation of the System as well as the facilities at its city hall necessary to accommodate the System. Eden Prairie does not now operate a communications and dispatch- ing system. It is the purpose of this agreement to provide the basis upon which the parties may jointly and cooperatively manage, operate and fund the System, and any later additions thereto, so as to provide public safety emergency and administra- tive dispatching communications services for both parties. By so providing, the parties believe that they can effect economies and provide a higher quality of service for the benefit of both parties. This agreement is made pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. CONTRACT PROVISIONS: In consideration of their mutual covenants and agreements as hereinafter set forth, the parties therefor contract and agree as follows: 1. Agreement for Services. Eden Prairie hereby engages Richfield to provide and Richfield agrees to provide Eden Prairie with public safety emergency and administrative dispatching communications services on the basis hereinafter set forth. Richfield shall own the present System and any additions to or betterments of the System, subject to the provisions of para- graph 8 of this agreement. Richfield shall also provide the employees to operate the System and the facility to house the System. The personnel so provided by Richfield shall remain employees of Richfield and shall be covered by Richfield's workers' compensation, unemployment compensation and other salary and fringe benefits. • Initially, the System equipment shall consist of equipment Richfield has in service. The facilities and personnel now being used by Richfield shall constitute the initial facilities and personnel to be provided by Richfield. The services to be pro- vided by Richfield to Eden Prairie under this agreement shall commence on January 1, 1983, and shall be provided for as long as this agreement is in effect. The services to be provided by Richfield to Eden Prairie under this agreement shall be the same level of services provided to Richfield, subject only to the qualification that Eden Prairie shall provide itself with the equipment necessary for the use of such service as provided in paragraph 8 of this agreement. 2. Management and Supervision. The operation of the System, during the time that this agreement is in effect, shall be under the supervision of a Management Committee consisting of equal representation from both parties. There shall be four members of such committee, consisting of the city managers and public safety directors of the parties. The powers, duties and responsibilities of the Management Commit- tee shall include but not be limited to the following: A. Development of policies relating to the services to be performed for the two communities and the manner in which they are to be performed. B. Oversight of System operations and performance. C. Administrative decisions relating to major equip- ment additions and modifications. D. Development of Estimated Total Costs, Estimated Costs To Be Shared, the Shared Percentage, Actual Total Costs and Actual Costs To Be Shared. • E. Development of both capital and operating budgets for submission to the city councils of the parties. F. The establishment of subcommittees, as the Manage- ment Committee deems necessary, provided that the Management Committee shall have final authority on any matter delegated to any such subcommittee. 2 The Management Committee shall meet at least annually not later than the third week in May of each year, commencing in 1983, to review System operations and prepare budgets for the ensuing calendar year. At such meetings the Management Committee shall also review this agreement for any recommended modifications. Additional meetings of the Management Committee may be held at any time upon call of the two city managers. 3. Eden Prairie's 1983 Costs and Payments. For services provided to Eden Prairie by Richfield during the year 1983, Eden Prairie shall pay Richfield the sum of $30,500, notwithstanding any cost-sharing formula provided for elsewhere in this agree- ment. Such sum shall be paid on the following schedule: $5,725 shall be paid on or before each of the dates January 1, 1983, April 1, 1983, July 1, 1983, and October 1, 1983, and the balance of $10,000 shall be paid on or before January 1, 1984. 4. Basis Of Cost-Sharing. For 1984 and subsequent years Eden Prairie will pay Richfield on the basis of cost-sharing as hereinafter provided. The amount of Costs To Be Shared by Eden Prairie and Richfield shall be determined in the following manner: • Each year commencing with the year 1983 the Management Committee shall make an estimate of the total costs Richfield will incur in the ensuing calendar year in providing services to both parties. (The total of such costs are hereafter referred to as "Estimated Total Costs".) The costs to be considered in determining the Estimated Total Costs shall include the follow- ing: A. Direct and indirect personnel costs for all Richfield public safety dispatchers. B. Per hour direct labor costs for all part-time community service officers and communications aides provided by Richfield, for all time spent primarily assigned to the System operations. C. 9-1-1 emergency telephone system recurring costs as billed to Richfield by Northwestern Bell Telephone Company. D. Recurring charges for any leased phone circuits used to control or receive intelligence from any remotely located base radios or transmitters as billed to Richfield by Northwestern Bell Telephone Company. E. Actual maintenance, repair or service agreement costs on all equipment related to the System. • 3 F. Recurring charges for seven digit back-up emergency • phone lines, not to exceed four lines, as billed to Richfield by Northwestern Bell Telephone Company. G. Recurring charges for business lines, not to exceed three, necessary to provide non-published outbound phone service from each dispatching position and as a termination point for rerouted misplaced 9-1-1 calls that will terminate on a recorded message advising the caller of the proper administrative number. H. A charge for depreciation of present and later-acquired System equipment provided by Richfield, calculated on a straight line basis and based upon the estimated useful lives of the various items of equipment comprising the System. I. Other charges as may be agreed upon in advance by the parties, acting through the Management Committee. After the Estimated Total Costs of the operating System have been determined for the ensuing year, the Management Committee shall determine the percentage of such estimated total costs which are to be shared by the parties. Such percentage is hereafter referred to as the "Shared Percentage", and such costs are here- inafter referred to as the "Estimated Costs To Be Shared". The Shared Percentage shall represent the best judgment of the Manage- ment Committee as to the percentage of Estimated Total Costs • which will be incurred in providing services to both parties and will be of benefit to both parties. The determination of (1) Estimated Total Costs, (2) the Shared Percentage, and (3) Estimated Costs To Be Shared for a given year shall be made not later than June 1 of the preceding year. Estimated Costs To Be Shared shall then be apportioned between the parties on the following basis: Fifty percent (50%) of such costs shall be allo- cated on the basis of assessed valuation and fifty percent (50%) shall be allocated on the basis of population. For the purpose of allocating Esti- mated Costs To Be Shared on the basis of popula- tion, the most recent population estimates avail- able from the Metropolitan Council shall be used. For the purposes of allocating such costs on the basis of assessed valuation, the most recent assessed valuation determined by the Hennepin County Director of Property Taxation shall be used. The Estimated Costs To Be Shared by each of the parties shall be incorporated into the proposed budgets of the two communities. If the amount budgeted for either community is not finally approved by the city council of that community, that party shall immediately notify the other party. Disapproval or failure to 4 approve shall be grounds for termination of this agreement as • hereinafter provided. The amount payable by Eden Prairie to Richfield during each year, commencing with the year 1984, shall be Eden Prairie's allocation of the Estimated Costs To Be Shared. Twenty-five percent (25%) of that amount shall be paid in each calendar quarter of the year for which the estimates have been made. 5. Recalculation and Adjustment. After the calendar year 1984 and at the end of each calendar year thereafter, the Actual Total Costs of operating the System for the preceding calendar year shall be computed. To this sum the Shared Percentage shall be applied to determine the- Actual Costs To Be Shared. The Actual Costs To Be Shared shall then be allocated between the two communities in the same manner as described above with reference to the allocation of Estimated Costs To Be Shared, provided that the most recent available Metropolitan Council population esti- mates and County Director of Property Taxation assessed valua- tions shall be used. Such recalculation based upon actual costs, shall be made not later than April 1 following the end of the calendar year involved. When such recalculation has been made, Eden Prairie shall pay Richfield any balance remaining unpaid for the preceding year based upon actual costs or, conversely, Richfield shall refund to Eden Prairie any excess payments made by Eden Prairie to Richfield for the preceding year. • 6. Access To Records. In the administration of the fore- going cost-sharing process, the parties will each provide the other with full access to all books and records relating to any cost or other data which is used in any estimates or calculations described above. 7. Termination of Agreement. This agreement shall be effective upon its duly authorized execution by the parties. It shall continue in force from year to year subject to termination by either party. Such termination shall be effected by serving written notice thereof upon the other party no later than July 1 of the year at the end of which such termination is to be effec- tive. If, however, either party fails to approve the proposed budget for the operation of the System by October 10th of any year, it shall give immediate written notice thereof to the other party. -The other party shall thereupon have thirty (30) days after the receipt of such notice to give notice of termination of this agreement, effective at the end of the then curent calendar year. Termination of the agreement by either party at the end of a calendar year shall not affect the obligation of either party to perform the agreement for and during the period that the agree- . ment is in effect. Neither shall such terminaton affect the recalculation of Eden Prairie's payments to Richfield, determined after the closing of the calendar year as hereinbefore provided. 5 8. Eden Prairie's Costs of Adaptation. Eden Prairie • shall bear all costs associated with technical modifications in its own equipment and in the Richfield system which may be neces- sary in order to permit Richfield to provide service to Eden Prairie. This shall include all costs associated with modifica- tions to base station consoles, receiver networks, pagers, mobile and portable radios owned or leased by Eden Prairie and pagers owned by Richfield. Such modifications shall be in compliance with engineering requirements established by Ward M. Montgomery, consulting engineer and all costs related to the establishment of such engineering requirements shall be borne by Eden Prairie. Richfield will provide staff, in behalf of the parties, to serve as project director for the ordering, receipt, installation and testing of all such equipment and labor. Eden Prairie shall also bear recurring charges and start-up costs as required to create, enter, compile, print and distribute computerized records of calls for service, patrol-generated incidents, business keyholder files, and other data-processing applications as billed by Richfield's data processing section for service provided to Eden Prairie. 9. Liability. Eden Prairie agrees to hold Richfield harmless against any claims, actions or costs or expenses of defending any such claims or actions arising out of or by reason of Richfield's providing services to Eden Prairie under the • provisions of this agreement. Eden Prairie shall not be liable under this paragraph 9 with respect to any claim for workers or unemployment compensation relating to Richfield's employees or for any services, materials, equipment or payments to be provided or made by Richfield pursuant to this agreement. Eden Prairie's liability to Richfield under this paragraph 9 shall be limited to the extent that it shall not result in any indebtedness or the incurrence of any pecuniary liability, for the payment of which it shall be necessary for Eden Prairie to levy in any year a rate of taxes higher than the maximum prescribed by law, or to do any other thing in violation of M.S. Section 275.27 or any other law, or which shall cause this agreement to be null and void. Nothing contained in this agreement shall preclude Eden Prairie from providing in any budget for, or .making any expenditure, or selling or issuing any bonds, or creating any indebtedness, the payment of principal or interest of which shall require the levy of taxes which levy may or may not be subject to any maximum levy limitation or limitations prescribed by law. Eden Prairie's obligation to levy taxes for payment of and to pay any amount to Richfield from any such tax levy shall be subordinate to, and may occur only after provision is made for, the levy of taxes for and the payment of any such expenditure or indebtedness, the sale of issuance of bonds and the payment of principal or interest thereon. • 6 10. Arbitration. If the parties are unable to agree upon any matter to be decided by the Management Committee, either party may submit such unresolved dispute for arbitration in accordance with the rules of commercial arbitration of the American Arbitration Association, with the parties sharing the costs of such arbitration equally (other than each party's own expenses incurred in presenting its position during the arbitra- tion proceedings). 11. Cooperative Effort. Each of the parties agrees that it will cooperate fully and in a timely manner to take the actions necessary to facilitate and accomplish the foregoing provisions of this agreement. Dated this day of 1982. CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its Mayor • By Its Manager (CITY SEAL) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By Its Mayor By --- Its Manager (CITY SEAL) • 7 ii B CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 175 Agenda May 24, 19$2 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Conveyance of Land at I-494 and Penn Avenue On November 9, 1981 the city council approved an off-street parking permit for Walser Buick to allow the conver$ion of an existing service station at 7745 Penn Avenue into an automobile sales facility. A portion of the parking area covered by that off-street parking permit was a piece of vacant land to the south of the service station adjacent to I-494 which Walser Buick, Inc. was in the process of acquiring from the State of Minnesota. Walser Buick, Inc. has subsequently come to an agreement with the state. • The city's subdivision ordinance requires that the city council approve by resolution all conveyances of land which are described by metes and bounds after May 11, 1940. It is recommended that the city council approve the proposed conveyance by passing the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, P~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh • RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND ADJACENT TO 494 AND PENN AVENUE WHEREAS, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota is required by Part VI, Section 3.54, Subdivision 4 of the Richfield Code of Ordinances to approve all conveyance of land in which the land is conveyed by metes and bounds by council resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota has reviewed the conveyance of the following described parcel from the State of Pinnesota to Walser Buick, Inc. All of Tract A described below: Tract A. That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 28 North, Range 24 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of Lane 1 described below with a line run parallel with and distant 60 feet east of the west line of said Section 33; thence run south on said 60 foot parallel line for 80 feet; thence run southeasterly to the point of intersection of a line run parallel with and dis- tant 180 feet northerly of Line 2 described below, with Line 3 described below; thence run northerly on said Line 3 to its intersection with said Line 1; • thence run northwesterly on said Line 1 to the point of beginning; Line 1. Beginning at a point on a line run parallel with and distant 656 feet east of the west line of said Sec- tion 33, distant 120 feet north of the south line of said Section 33; thence run northwesterly to a point on the west line of said Section 33, distant 355 feet north of the southwest corner thereof and there ter- minating; Line 2. From the southwest corner of said Section 33, run easterly at an angle of 89 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds from the west line of said Section 33 (meas- ured from north to east) for 1359.14 feet to the point of beginning of Line 2 to be described; thence run westerly on the last described course for 89.23 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 00 degree 30 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 04 degrees 39 minutes 00 seconds) for 930 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 77.19 feet; thence deflect to the left on a O1 degree 00 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 07 degrees 31 minutes 48 seconds) for 753 feet and there terminating; • Line 3. Beginning at a point on the west line of said Section 33, distant 501.24 feet north of the southwest corner thereof; thence run easterly at an angle of 91 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds from said west section line (measured from south to east) for 125.65 feet; thence deflect to the right on a curve having a radius of 53 feet (delta angle 91 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds) for 84.64 feet; thence on tangent to said curve to an intersection with Line 1 described above; thence run southerly to a point distant 165 feet northerly (meas- ured at right angles) of a point on Line 2 described above distant 656.32 feet easterly of its point of termination and there terminating; containing 0.20 acre, more or less. NOw THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the conveyance of the above described parcel is approved subject to permanent sewer and water easements granted to the City of Richfield and to the granting ~f access restrictions as required by the State of Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of May, 1982. • ATTEST: Sy via K. Bergh, City C er John Hamilton, Mayor • • e~ D 4 ~~~ ~ ~ ~. ~i k.~ t ~ A µ O Q . 1 tli ~ ~ ~ ~ .Z 1 r ~,+. ~ ~ .. •',~• 7;9r ~ a'•e ~~ .2 m z ~~~y~ ~~~z~ 6 ;!) E~^IO i ~ o • : . ~; _ _ ___ _ __ _ _: _~ . W, : 77th ST. Q. - a I~ -- ~ ~ . B , ~ __ ._. ...o: .r ~' Rll~' ; 4' '~ tQ ~ 'c. O 11' °i 1 ~ 1 B ' - ~ ~ V') ~'• ' B , 5 p f ~ ~ ~ r ' Q ~ O 1 ~ ,, ;~ ~ ~ 11.1 ;9~ ~ ~ ~ . f.Y 5 ~ ., J Y , Rryl~il~ ~ 8 f,~~, ~ U(.. 9 , ~ Q . l~ ~ ~ 9 __. `~1. i .y - ~ li 0. o .. _y ~,~~. .. a ~.., 1 , . , _ f _ ;.i V' y l e ~ y ' x ;i 1 • ~..-- U} ,.,,+ r~l i _>~ -- ~ ~-, - , I ~ . ~ ' ~ ~~ ~ I ' .. 1 t: l~ IA' ~ ~ ~ / . ~ °~o° ° o o ~ ~ II °'"ri: ~~~ SIG ~~ o . .. __ , ~,~ ~ ~. ,, ,: , ~~~: F~.~ ~ R I I O . ,~ .B ._ _ _ ' I ~ -~ar , ~~ _. I . . , , e~ ~ ~~ MCI ^ ~~ ~ feel ~`~.M~ / Mlil ~ ~~ ^' ~ii11' ~~ a6! ~ ~ 9R~f . ~ !III ^ ~W ^ i~1~iM•I Ai! ~ f~l ^'~1 ~ 671M Y ~:i'~A ~ tl ':pig 4 ~. _ 1 ' ~ r ' f V ~ . ~ ~ . I ~ , ~, 1° N ~B ~1 1, ~~ ~~~°~o°°°m°~°fc PARCEL TO BE C ON V EYE D ~~ ... ~y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 174 Agenda May 24, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Establishment of R-1 Residential Zoning District Boundaries On February 8, 1982 the city council passed an, ordinance creating a number of new residential zoning district designations and outlining revised requirements within each of the zoning districts. However, no zoning district boundaries were estab- lished for the new districts when the new districts were created. Zoning district boundaries are to be established, by district, in an orderly manner over the next few months. In accordance with the procedure, the Planning Commission • recently conducted a public hearing concerning property to be rezoned from R, single family residential to R-l, single family residential. Attached for your review is a map indicating the areas which the Planninq_ Commission recommends to be rezoned R-1. The purpose of the proposed rezoning is to protect the unique character of certain neighborhoods. The following is a summary of the differences between the requirements for an R district and an R-1 district: Permitted Uses The principal permitted uses in an R-1 district are limited to single family residential dwellings. Principal uses permitted in an R district would include single family residential dwellings, schools, park facilities and churches. Accessory Uses Permitted accessory uses are the same in both districts. Uses by Special Use Permit Uses permitted if a special use permit is obtained are the same in both districts, with two exceptions. Major public utility facilities are permitted by special use permit in the R district but are not permitted in the R-1 district. Two- family dwellings are permitted by special use permit along arterial or collector streets in the R district, but are not permitted in the R-1 district. ~:our.cil Le~~er `:o. 174 -2- May 24, 1982 Requirements for Lot Area, Width and Coverage The minimum lot area required in the R district is 6,750 square feet; in the R-1 district it is 10,000 square feet. The minimum lot width required in the R district is 50 feet while the minimum lot width required in the R-1 district is 75 feet. The maximum lot coverage required is the same in both districts. Properties in the R-1 district which do not meet these require- ments will become non-conforming uses under the rezoning. This means that if a property were to be more than 50 percent destroyed, by fire or other cause, a variance would be necessary before rebuilding would be permitted. The staff perceives this to be a problem; therefore, we recommend that the ordinance be amended to provide for the reconstruciton of destroyed single family residences which legally existed at the time of adoption of this rezoning ordinance, providing that the extent of non-conformity is not increased. An ordinance amendment which would accomplish this will be presented to the council on Monday night. Minimum Building Setback Requirements The minimum building setback requirements are the same for front yard setback, rear yard setback and the side yard setback on the streetside of corner lots. The minimum interior side yard setback required in an R district is five feet, and 10 feet in an R-1 district. • Maximum Height '1~he maximum permitted building height is 25 feet in the R district and 35 feet in the R-1 district. It is recommended that the city council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance, rezoning the property shown on the map from R to R-1. It is further recommended that the city council schedule the public hearing and second reading consideration of this matter for June 14, 1982. Respectfully submitted, r Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Attorney City Clerk ORDINA,~iC : N0. A~`4ENDM~NT TO APPENDIY C OF THE ORDNANCE CODE OF • THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts or the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28, Subdivision 2 of such code is hereby amended in the following resoects: Appendix C is amended by adding the following new Section 9: "Section 9. Residence District (R-1) (1) Blocks 7, 8, 9, 10 Fairwood Park Addition (2) Commencing at a point 390 feet south and 1d0 feet west of the northeast corner of Block 11 Fairwood Parr Addition thence northwesterly 79.3 feet to a point 125 feet west of the east line of said block thence west parallel with the northline of said Block 11 to the west line thereof thence southerly along said west line to a point due west of beginning thence east 94.4 feet to beginning. (3) Commencing at a point 315 feet south and 125 feet west of the northeast corner of Block 11 Fairwood Park Addition • thence northwesterly 75.8 feet to a point 135 feet west of the east line o said block thence west Dara11e1 with the north lire of said Block 11 a distance of 189.7 to the west line thereof thence southeasterly along said west line to a point due west of beginning thence east 124.5 feet to beginning. (4) That part of the south 72 feet of the north 240 feet of Block 11 Fairwood Park Addition lying west of the east 135 feet thereof and t:~e south 8 feet of t:~e north 1'08 feet of the west 113.7 feet of the east 248.7 feet of Block 11 Fai~aood Park Addition. (~) Commencing 210 feet west and 80 feet south of the north- east corner o= Block 11 Fair-rood ?ar't Addi tior. ther:ce southeasterly 110.3 feet to a point 135 feet west of the east line o^ said Block 11 thence west parallel with the north line of said Block 11 113.7 feet thence south parallel with the east line of said Block 11 8 feet thence parallel with the north line of said 31ock 11 to the westerly line o= sai d Bloc:{ 11 t::e^.ce northwesterly aler.g sa~.d west line to a ooint 80 feet scuth of the port: line of sa_d 31ock '_1 thence east 190.5 =eet to =Dint of :;egi::ning. "o) T_~at Dart of ~h e nort:_ 80 feet o= 3_o c'{ 1'_ ~a_=Nocc ?ark • ACd~tion __ng we.s. of the easy ?_0 =ee~ -herec=. • (i ) -aces A and 3 0. R°gister_c Land Survey Vt::~~er 174 . (8) Lots 1-24 Block 1 Lynwood Addition. (9 ) Bloc'.{ 2 Lynnwood addition. . (10) Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 Wood Lake Shores Addition. (11) Lots 1-10 Block 7 wood Lake Shores Addition. (12 ) Tracts A and B Registered Land Survey ~3u:r~ber 379 . (13) Lots 1-18 Ralph Milners Addition. (14) The west 74 feet of the north 130 feet of Lot 19 of Ralph Milners Addition and the east 4 feet of the north 130 feet of Block 3 Ralph Milners Second Additionb. (15) That part of the north 130 feet of Lot 19 Ralph Milners Addition lying east of the west 74 feet thereof. (16) That part of the east 4 feet of Block 3 Ralph Milners Second Addition and of Lots 19 and 20 of Ralph Milners Addition lying south of the north 130 feet thereof and north of a line commencing at a point in the southeasterly line of Lot 19 Ralph Milners Addition distant 15 feet southwesterly along said~lot line from its intersection with the north line of Lot 5 Block 3 of Ralph Milners Second Addition extended thence northwesterly 40 feet to a point in said extended line thence west along said line to the west line of said east 4 feet of said Block 3. (17) The east 4 feet of Lot 5 Block 3 Ralph Milners Second Addition and that part of Lots 19 and 20 of Ralph Milners Addition lying south of a line commencing at a point in the southeasterly line of said Lot 19 distant 15 feet southwesterly along said lot line from its intersection with the north line of said Lot 5 extended thence north- westerly 40 feet to a point in said extended line thence west to the northeast corner of said Lot 5. (18) Block 4 Ralph Milners Second Addition. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1982. john namiitcn, ~?aycr :ZTm_.~T . Sylvia R. 3ergh, City Clerk • • • • w ~ ~ ~ ~ ! le s . ~ S _~ ,_ .. ~! -' w a.f~. -T ~~ ~~ ~ ~. .~ _- - ,rya =' ,.F. = = =r-" - ___ ~» _~ ~ _ -- -_ -_ 1 [ ~ '4i _- - _ _ - w _ w s< - _[~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ - j w n~.+~ [® .... -. i ~_ ~- s.- i _' [.. _. ~. iii ,~ _- -- " -~~ [ro fYY[ ~~~~' ~~ [V I w . i s a ~- _- _ 1 I r a.~• ` ~I ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ = ~ C, .~w= ~./~~ - ls - JAS -= _ = • ~ -~ ~ _ w .alt ~ -~ Z ! ~ Q \ ~, ~ V . .a.... - -\ -- - - - - 1~ \ - 3 ~ ~~~- ~_~ [' on.- lro ••G[ ^\ ~ • •. e 1 Iro eq°~~uwl' Ye ea. Jro ..0 [.a ... o-. .a••n Yv ais.= s+ w..<: ~w .ew Y. :w..mo [.o -a w .. 9m ~ u< Ya DP Ye [+M 116 [ro d. Y. pans ,....m..o.. Y. ,~a,a. Y.D •m.~. Y 3.3Tef[ \ W Ta.' / Ir eT~C~ [ro .m./ [~. noA [ro .ua/~ [w mYM[ uo .mow 5 i,. [ ~ e.,.~. ...... ;. .,;, ;~ _' ~~-_--__= -_-~. _ - _ - - 1, ......... ~ - _ ___= i= =~_r. ___.-= ORDINANCE NO. BILL 1982 i AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III PART IV, SECTION 3.29 SUBDIVISION 2 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.29, Subdivision 2 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to nonconforming uses is amended by amending Paragraph 6 to read as follows: (6) If at anytime a non-conforming building or structure is damaged by fire, earthquake, wind, water, explosion, riot, :aar or an act of God to the extent of more than 500 of its then market value at the time of the damage, then without further action by the council, the said building and the land on which the building was located shall from and after the date of such damage conforan to all regulations of this chapter[.] except that any lawful nonconforming single family residential use which existed at the time of the adoption of this amendment may be reconstructed if it is damaged or destroyed by fire, explosion, or an act of God, provided that the degree of non-conformity is not increased. The • determination of the extent of the damage and the fair market value of the building or structure shall be made by the City Council. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk _ __ _ __ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 173 Agenda May 24, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Approval of Plans and Specifications for C.P. 773 - Summit Bank/Medical Building Parking Lot When 61d65th Street, adjacent to the Summit Bank, was vacated, the city agreed to remove curb, gutter, sidewalk and related street improvements in the vacated portion of the street, in order to provide a continuous integrated bituminous surface parking area, and internal access circulation between the drive- in bank and the main bank. In the fall of 1981, the city prepared plans and specifica- tions for reconstruction of the old 65th Street into a parking lot. Summit Bank solicited three bids on the project, with the low bid being substantially more than the estimated cost. Although the contract is small, a wide variety of duties are to be performed, including some underground utility work, concrete curb removal, concrete curb installation, asphalt and concrete paving and sidewalk. Because the project was so small and diverse, the unit price for each item was high. In addition, the project was bid late in the fall, and the high prices may have been caused by contractor concerns that there would not be sufficient time to complete the job. Because of the high bids, the bank chose to postpone completion of this project until this spring. Last year, when the job was originally bid, the bank was the contracting agent, and the city was to reimburse the bank for a portion of the work, as well as to provide engineering services, estimated at a maximum of 20 percent of the estimated project cost, or $6,300. At this time, since several jobs are being combined into a single bid, it is proposed that the city be the contracting agent, and the bank reimburse the city for its portion of the work. The city has an agreement with Summit Bank to remove the curb and overlay the street. The improvements which the bank plans to make along old 65th Street are closely related to the work which the city will complete in the former street • right-of-way. For this reason, it seems logical that both projects be done by the same contractor. Therefore, the staff has combined the city's share of the 65th Street work, the work that Summit Bank plans to do, and the improvements to the city hall parking lot. It is anticipated that better prices will be obtained by combining these smaller jobs. . Council Letter No. 173 -2- May 24, 1982 The city council approved inclusion of the city hall parking lot improvements in the 1982 Capital Improvement Budget • on April 12, 1982. The city's portion of the Summit Bank parking lot improvement project is estimated to be $13,500 for construction, to be financed through C.P. 705 funds. The bank`s share is estimated at $18,000. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, approving plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for C.P. 778, the Summit Bank and city hall parking lot improvements. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Community development Director City Engineer • • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS - C.P. 778 SUMMIT BANK/CITY HALL PARKING LOTS WHEREAS, pursuant to council action the city engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the expansion of the city hall parking lot and certain improvements to the vacated portion of 65th Street adjacent to the Summit Bank, 6500 Nicollet Avenue and has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the city council of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such plans and specifications are hereby approved. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the Richfield Sun an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published June 2 and 9, 1982, shall specify the work to be done, shall state the bids will be received by the city clerk until • 11:00 A.M., June 21, 1982, at which time they will be publically opened in the council chambers of the City Hall, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the council at 7:00 P.M. on June 28, 1982, in the council chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City • a. < r :t. ~..•a~} nl+"~'~y~ + ~ t q ,• ../ ~ f~y 8-; /4Yf r: l ~~ ~,4V, ST, r 4 t ' ~ 9 ~t ` ,.A J + ~ ~ ~ ., i "• f x ~` ~ ~t% ~ . I ~~ ~ t 1~ ~~ e~ r 4,, I ~"`. Y ~ t ~'Y 1 '' I }- lr. ~ a;:. 1 ~~. I~ I~wa~' 1 F ' - ' {r t ;it '~ 3 ~} yyy ~ ~;~, ~,. F ~ ~'~ rte Y~ ~,'~ ` ~ .4 ~ :., ~~~~ ~ ~ ~, ~~ ~~ ft ~.t r, ~ ~ ~ \ , `:., .... , ~ ~. y. Qs1t ,T _. 1 1.~..r... Vii! I y i'~ ~1 IiLk.J ~ ! 1101.Ji ~ "/ / ~ V1 ~ DS.b.9' 45,1 / IJ /./ 1 --^-- _.. - --- I • ~t , ~ ill 11~`~ , a ,. , Ilt a ~,.; ! 4sp~ 1 e' I ,.1 ~ i .~ , ~ , ,. 111 j ~ t~~ ; I ,a ~~1FL7tC~.t-. tt .; ~ r ~ CI..VNIC. : ~1.. Y p1 1~1 ,1 • l . ~ ' r r i~ "~ !~ ~ /' ~~~ .,; 1 f ~ ell II I 1 t$ r,cw t ~ pl . W • ; dl ~F7Fc. .U 9UNIF - ~ ~~ ~ , ,II l r ~;rF ~ ,.1 ter. Mn I t;; III! i e Iri f+.UJble-ltrvC7 ,, (~ ~ 7 rl ia_AI~YVNC7 ANEA 4' ~ nn 1J D t t- Lr 1 I sau ,~~ a " ~ 1Is - ~? 11 ~ ry .. i •u'Ir l l VI r I - - -~ i _ 'd1dl~ 1 \ F {~ ~ ~ 1 f I 1 ~\// ~ ~ ~ nt . ` \y~x.~ 1 N r~ f P 4 6 1 [r`~~ J~i41 i ' itl ~ I '~t1' III 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ p 1 I r ~ i 4 r _ fll r ~ I ~j Ir _. _ ~ i n ~- I ~ ,. U- _ z '~ F.xli; tlt+~~ 51k N {- Jl U (J ~' ~ ~ ^ X 1~ I (i r~k r~ 1_t~~~ c: r u:,r+ ~ ~ 3 of u~ FGi=( l_nF=+~~~ ~ I I ~(7 x I E1(l a rltvCs 1-tC7c..K ~-LI 1u ~ - I rE X4'.-'T, r~ANNI'1~1" ~ I 1 ~ ~Ql 41 ~ W - .. .._.~_.. ._ ___ -_._. _ (I W ._. ?- 1~~ ~ ; it m _.-_.... ;~ _ 1 Z u, t i 1. rn ~ _ ~IEr,-i~ir F~1_,i.,:.<xe~ 1 Iu B bbl 1~1 ~. `.4t 4t:~n.A~lc d _ur-iD ~ `~I ~r r ~I u . ~~ ,_- ~ C rN , rt E~ a.t~~h , ~, ~ .: ~ ____ _ LIB ,~ I_ > (~ UI ~~ ~~K ~~~~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ . R !l;T:)l?Ykc FC11t~'li,Ir't71~1C ~ ~ ~ - ~ :. . > t~1~yy~1.K~ CUa1r~. iN 4 >~.t-~t .E^ \ ~~ ~ ~ `~~`+ -I 4 ~. ~ .>v: ~ bra Fem. r ~1r~t[ ~,i'~1~'K4~ ~ .~3A~ , ~``~ ,:.~~ ebhQ. N. a: CUA>b .W'1' ~ : !F'><-<y'1'1tVC~,'1'W11F.NN~' 1 ~~.1W'~T1~)J.. ~; ~ " ,, ~,. C,/C'1~r4.. b' Ii~~WAw.K ` V ~1; MNI~'1' iwt+G`iW~!TT~w-~'le7u~ ~ ~j ' ~` ~ ~_ s Mr' r~r!!a ~X hR MCJ KI~'aY ~ WEdp',». ` ~ n I L1Si~ t - r~ } ,>5 _ ~r , 1 )b_. ~\" .. -ik'W GONC.~fi,lSatF ~Jh..K; _. .. - .. ._ _..~- ` .- - - - L ~ ~ ~ ul u - + -n - - _- ,n N ~ ' I -- REMOVH P~.ANTINCyS IN _ ~- ~ ~ IrtSTAt.L rr~w --mot ~ (1 (' ~~ I I TN1F ^t`iEA IF R1EQ` O. CnNC. 51F1t= ,~/AI..K r 1 ~t I ~-Tr~ ML-6T EXV`~T. 1 (W~ {lu-u" L 14R'-a" ~ pro ~ } I ~IL76 MAIN I lc oF~AC.Fi6 IN 9 °- O" EA. I r` x ~' t Vll F- ~X18'T: CONC. F--- ~r Z ~p -EXV`~-rlr+~3 .t4C.b'H~-iF~~7llr1(.7 1"P3/1NaF`QF~F~16R 6VL7EWA1rK I x<W i Q lu>` ,~ u,dl _ _ `i 1 SU~°1M1T STATE BANK ~ 1 --- - f~S•Ut-1E® 'E7lISTIPJC~ FIN. FLFt. Et-.. 13L,'1 I --E?(15T.'CONC _ I t . -~ ~ ill ~I x 2 _. I- --- -REMOVE Ex1S"T. CONC. gIpEWP.I_K---------- F~4.A~A o IC -- li Q d ~ut=t~ IN THI~S>^ AREA''a' I 1' I ~--:~ ~ (j ~ r f ~# 8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 172 Agenda May 24, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council rlembers Subject: Appointments to the Human Rights Commission An item has been scheduled on the 1~1ay 24, 1982 city council agenda for the appointment of three members to th'e Richfield Human Rights Commission. The vacancies are for the unexpired term of Diane McKeown who has resigned for health reasons; the unexpired term of Edwina Garcia who has resigned due to other commitments, and the expiration of a regular three-year term.. The incumbent, Linda Bloomgren, does not wish to be considered for reappointment. • Attached to this council letter are copies of applications from Roxanne Farrar, Tollie Flippin, Richard Gadbois, Theresa Kassa, William Michelson, George Soderberg and Joanne Wilmes. The following appointments should be made: Appointment to a term expiring May, 1983 Appointment to a term expiring May, 1984 Appointment to a term expiring May, 1985 Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager ,, ~ ~n ~y. N~ h ~~ r J~ .° `c ~" L ~~~ _~ '\J ~~ Date °..a-; '~. ~ =~82 APPLICATION FOR CIT'i OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION APPOINTMENT .NAME Farrar R xanne Cathesr Last :~ first ~ iviii:~ie HOME ADDRESS ~ bl~ Emerson Ave . S . Richf field 5 523 Street No. City Zip Ccde MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Street No. City Zip Ccde PHONE: Home 8c g-8g ~7 Business APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Human Rights Commission fL Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Civil Service Commission Senior Citizen & Handicapped .Advisory Board of Health Advisory Commission Other _. _ ~. __. Briefly discuss aspects of your experience ~~~hich you believe qualify you for this municipal commission/commit*_ee and why you are interested in serving: ':.!bile on the faculty at the. ?;niversity of Tennessee, I wormed t"li+h a Lea~'e~^shi~ "'rairiny ~rp~ratn affi iat.~? ti~~ith ~7P ~Pa!? Mart ~'^OieCt. TeC~'aSe T have WO~"'re~ c10_-s_~l,T Wife ^?ir;,~riter ?rnt~t=-),a i~ the vast, I reel I would. 'oe sensitive to some of the issues that ~~^i~ht arise. l'~1Y Particular area of interest is that of children's ri=hts as the~r pertain ta. rental Practices ~n~ ,TMar.in~ sure -arogra:~s for CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMU~VITYACTIVITI£S: cn''~uren ale safe~~uardea. ,since rnovin_~ to ?ichfield I have been active in the Sheridan ~, eTM:en ark uc .oo r~A serving on the board and iP the Cultural Arts ComTMittee. I have held leacership positions in our church including s>>-~eri.^yP~^~^ant of preschool st~~~~ies T '^av~ oleo ~rtic~ipatQ~ ;n • r~~Yi~* ~r s'nQ 7~ ^~^,*^l P~ r~ (''lr^„+~,lN^ ~--r `=r7•?('Sl~"l (1 "1 '.'1r!)7'^a?'n~. ~~J~.~. OCCUPATION: Employing firm, agency .Address • Position Housewife 'ears w.'.`ir-~ ~c~~; ~- :ether work experience (optional) ac~alty `,'eTM!ber- Continuin- Education ~etiartmert- niv. or Tern. Instructor- Irternersonal Co:~:~uricatior_s , Southerr. illirois Univ. REFERENCES (Optional) A. -:, athy Currie ~ Perk onal ~ier~t Full name ~ Relationship 1058 _~'arvland Circle 3loomin?ton 5538 9~•~-E97E Mailing address Phone number g, ;~`ar Lou Pi,ller i~~~eiahbo Full name Relationship ~~2~ Emerson eve. S. 551:23 862-3113 ------ Mailing address Phone number - C. Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number Return to: City Manager's Efice • 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 Date ~ ~ !~ ^ ~5 • Last APPLICATION FOR CIT'f OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION APPOINTMENT _ ,i^+ ~ ~---r- ~ C~~ HOME ADDRESS. -J o ~ NI~~~Ie ' First ~., ~ Street No. City MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Zip Ccde Street No. City Zip Code PHONE: Home 7~(~10~~ 3O _ Business APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Human Rights Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. 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: ~r~ • .~"..t.~-' v~ ~ „) ~rrt~F.~^' ~i ~ ~IN~-~-lv/t~~ :~~'V ~/ t ! !~ \'. E i .l !~-.. . ~•~---. =~._•_'_ _.G,?,+~_i1._. ~"~ Lam. t`..~ J ~•,..~..'.',t, CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMU~TITYACTIVITIES: ~~ ~1` i OCCUPATION: Employing firm, agency Addre s s Pos i tion~~~~~~ Other work experience (optional) ears w: firT~ag~:,:,•; .,3 3 REFERENCES (Optional) Full name ~, ~._:..1 %~~--ik"' /.y~ >~~r <<c~ Relations hip ]~'/I ~jp Mailing addles Phone number B. Full name p Relationship -~ Mailing address ~ Phone nurimber C . ~ /~ Full name Relatiorshi Mailing-address ~~ Phone number Return to; City Manager's Office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 •. • Date April. 2o, 182 APPLICATION FOR CITY OF RLCHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION APPOINTMENT .NAME Gadbois Richard Dale Last ~: first ~ ,vi~~uie HOME ADDRESS 523 TN. 74th St. Richfield 55423 Street No. City Zip Ccde 1~4AILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Same Street No. City Zie C~~e PHONE: Home 861_.3109 Business 861-3109 APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: ., Planning Commission Human Rights, Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. 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 ser<~ing: Although I have no human rights experience, I do have a lot of ex erience with the public. I have a strong desire to become ar~tive in the ommvnit~ and do have. an interest in human rights. CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: T follow Richfield golitics and attend city council meetings. Tr t~~ e as a I helped David l~~iller (Fireside Pizza) met the first wire license issued by the city. • OCCU PATIOIV: Employing firm, agency ~?lf-e~~~ oyed - green .tuff Address 523 ','t. .74th St. Riehfiel ,_ ?~ irn. 55423 • Position Omer ~'~ars :•r'~i-r:-.' ~yo-;-~ ~ 1 ^ther work. experience (optional) Former manager "fillers Fireside Pizza Richfield Approx. 8 years. REFERE~;CES (Optional) A. n~~v,~d ~lliller Former employer Full name Relationship 10420 Ku~boldt Ave. So. 884®8474 Mailing address Phone Number B. Arr_old Perron ~ Former employer 3c zvifes father Full name Relationship 1&04 .3rd St. 1lencota, r~inn. 454-7429 Mailing address Phone number ~ • C. Shirleq I~orbiick Aunt Fu11 name Relationship 13,_,_F5 ''l~stern eve. St. Papal 489-8441 Mailing address Phone number Return to: City Manager's Office • 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 t Date ~ ~,'1 ~~ J~ ~, i ~~ r~ i ;~ NAME ~~~-- Last APPLICATION FOR CIT'I OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COP~iMISSION APPOINTMENT ~~-~-~ ~ h r= rr ~~. (Y1~-~r ~ E :~ first • iti'iii;cie HOME ADDRESS t ~ ~~~ ~~~n C~ = ~~ ~ ~-~1 ~( Street No. City MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) `~ `7`~t' Zip Ccde ~:YiYl~. Street No. City Zip Code PIiON£: Home ~~`~~~ I ~ ~ Lii1J1fZCJJ APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Human Rights Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Civil Service Cammissior: Senior Citizen 6 Handicapped Advisory Board of Health Advisory Commission Other __._ - - Briefly discuss aspects of your experience :vhich you believe qualify you far this municipal commission/commit*_ee and why ;you are interested in ser<~ing: ~ r 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~'!:~ ~i ;I'1.1~ CHIC , PR®FESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: ; - _ f. , ~ • OCCU PATION: Emptoyinq firm, agency Address Position r1~;11~L~ t1"1r1~4L.C~ "ear .~':~r.,. ~~~:,- ~:~ - Other work experience (optional) ,-1 -. ` ~~ ` 1C~ 1 i 7 PEFEF.~:I~; rS (Opti:;::al; FuII narzie nelaticnshi _ Mailing address Full name Phone number ;~ i Ralationship -~ • Ma-fling address Phone number ~ 1 Full name ~, ~ Relatior:~r:ip ~/ Mailing address Phone number Return to: City Manager's ffice • 67Q0 Portland Avenue Richfield 5523 Date May 6, 1982 APPLICATION FOR CIT'I OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION APPOINTMENT .NAME NIICHELSON, WILLIAM CHARLES Last : first :•~~ii~~ie HOME ADDRESS 6911 Oliver Avenue South;. Richfield, MN__55423_ Street No. City Zip Ccde MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) MARSO & MICHELSON; 6.644 Penn Avenue South; Richfield, MN 55423 Street No. City Zip Ccde PHONE: Home (61'L) 1369-8`L12 Business (612) 866-2561 APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Human Rights Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Civil Service Commissior: Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Board of Health Advisory Commission Other .Briefly discuss aspects of your experience ~a~hich you believe qualify you for this municipal commission/commit*_ee and why you are Interested in serving: I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all the Courts in the state of Minnesota, and ~ have a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Minnesota, where I majored in Political Science. t beliave tnat as a lawyer living end practicing law in Rich- field, I have the duty to offer some of my time and energy to the community. CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMU~1iTYACTIVITIES: I am a member of the Minneso~a State Bar Association and the Hennepin County Bar Association ~ • OCCLTPATION: Employing firm, agency MARSO & MICHELSON, ATTORNEYS. AT. Lr1W Address 6644 Penn Avenue South. Position LawYer~Partner "=ars tiv 'firr.-,,a ;ter;- 1/4/82 :ether work experience (optional) REFERE:JCES (Optional) A, Robert Benedict (I was one of his Legislative Assistan~s) Full name Relationship 10215 S. Humbolt Circle, Bloomington, MN 55431 Mailing address Phob a number B. Full name Rzlationship Mailing address Phone number • C. Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number Return to: City Manager's ^iiice • 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 L../U lCr. tv V/.- APPLICATION FOR CIT'i OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION APPOINTNIEF~?T ~~tAME_ Soderberg George R , Last : first tvitv~ie HOME ADDRESS 7314 14th Avenue South Richfield 55423 Street No. City Zip Ccde MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Street No. ~ Gity Zip Code PHONE: Home 866-6028 Business 221-6880 APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Senior Citizen ~ Handicapperd Advisory Commission ~. , Human Rights Commission XX Civil Service Commission Advisory Board of Health Other ,. ... . Briefly discuss aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this municipal commission/committee and why you are interested in serving: I have responsibility_for the•EEO and Affirmative Action Program for the Distribution Segment in the five states served by Northwestern Be11.Telephone Company. In order to fulfill this responsibility I have been trained in the " decisional law concerning Affirmative Action~pro~rams I recognize the importance of providing anon-discriminatory environment in the city of Richfield. CNIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: • OCCUPATION: - Employing .firm, agency_ .Northwestern Be1i Telephone Company ° Address 70 West 4th Street, St. PauT_, Minnesota position Division Manager `fears ~.,;: f2rs:.°aq~:, ;° 36 Other work experience (opeional) REFERE;`ICES (Optional) A. WanAa11 Trrairhrsl • Full nara~e Relationship ' 7060 Oak Grove Bou1-evard Richfield 869-0395 hsiailing .address Phone number S. _Mrs . Gar.. erl tt K~ r finer _,,, , „~ __rr____ Full name Relationship 6830 Newton Avenue South Richfield 869-6830 ~ ~ . - -• Mailing address Phone- number C. Steve Lindgren - Full name Relationship 7141 Oak ,Grove Boulevard R~ci~feld 86I-1357 - Mailing address Phone number Return to; City Manager's office 67fl0 Portland Avenue Richfield 5523 _ - Date ~ G~. ~,J J , , ~ ~'~ NAM APPLICATION FOR CITY OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY. COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION APPOINTMENT (.tJ ra t rr2 e s Last First • Nl~d~le HOME ADDRESS loU of ~ ~ !'C~'~j"1 /~U~ °~`~1C,~ ~1?.Ic~ ~'~ y~~ Street No. City Zip Ccde MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Street No. ~ City Zip Code PHONE: Home Business APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: , Planning Commission Human Rights Commission x Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Civil Service Commission Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Board of Health • Advisory Commission Other ~~ Briefly discuss aspects of your experience :~~hich you believe. qualify you for this municipal commission/committee and why ;you are interested in serving: -~ ~ ~ a ~ ee r n c,1 mb© U ~- ~-h lug l ~ei-r~. a -~' ~~- h e. ~~ .l ~1C11 ~re~lc! IoM ~^'1 ~h~t~~ ~ CJe ~ t^e (;~ qtr ue hS~~ie~ ~~ o ~ 1 ~ ~~ i ~- ~ ~ ~ rye r~~ r ewe, t-- ~~ ht ~. ft a~ n -~ j~2~.~ ~~ .~, -~ h c~/~ S ~ r e, ~ ~1 CZ.c~clre .SS r d~f~ Q h +~L y ~Pec. r -~ c ~ ~~; f~ o ~ ~ h~ ~ ~'~ ~s ss~ -~- ~ , ~ ~ed~ CHIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMU~TITYACTIVITIES: ~ t c h ~1 e~ld ~.~~Te, cr ~ l,J o ni f/h e~o~-~-r~ ~ 9~7 ~ ~- l g'77 C~ u. h s ~ o ~ f ~e ~c~e r ~c~ ~ 19 -- ~ 9 ~0 ~ r~ h ~ ~r~~~ cLd ~ r i ~b ~-' ~ ~ o ~" rc,1 r ~ CEO ., ~ hQ t ~ itit Q ~ ~ ~ 2~ T- ~ r ~~-2 n "~'~ ~ (,,~,-f'h ~' ~ 6,2'-~ c3c,~ ^® ck.~'~" ~ IS'S' ~ r~LS S ~ /'nom' ~ ~ 2h x l~(d (1~ 191 . -- ~ r Q.S2 h.'~~ r 2hviiQJ ~ch~p1 Ca..e,-f-~c~~~I~-~ a ~~~h~Uc~~Ghaf~'~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'a~ ~ ~ lea. rrY--c u i1,. . ~ 9 ~©4 ~'L~ ~22..~. r 2~- tO ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ''~ ~~ t ~~ ~L.r' V r c~S ~ ~Qrn ~ f.f' ~ ton ~, OCCUPATION: C~~~ ~ `~~~~ Employing ,firm, agency L~1~~ i'j'(~~c°!'~ Address Position `fears w/firm,~ags:,c- Other work experience (optional) REFERENCES (Optional) Full name o Rel tionship Mailing address Phone number Full name Mailing address C.a ~~~ Full name' ~9 ~ ®-~~---- Mailing address Relationship 1 ~~°~' ~C! ~c'h. 1~{~' Relationship Chi-`L _'° ` Phone number • Return to: City Manager's Office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 t°~ts~s~-=,~,~ 7, one number CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 171 Agenda May 24, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Proclamation Relating to Bicycle Safety Week The Richfield Optimists have requested that the week of May 30 _ June 5, 1982 be designated as Bicycle Safety Week in the City of Richfield. Members of the Richfield Optimist Club will be present at the May 24, 1982 city council meeting to receive this proclamation, and also to present five bicycles to the public safety department for use in the summer bicycle safety program. KN/eja cc: Public Safety Director Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager ~/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 170 Agenda May 24, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Proclamation Declaring Storefront/Youth Action, Inc. Week In connection with a fund raising drive which the Storefront/Youth Action, Inc. agency will soon be holding, they have requested that the City of Richfield declare a 'Storefront/Youth Action, Inc. Week' in support of this drive. Mme:. Jan Cerny, of The Storefront/Youth Action, Inc. will be present aL the May 24, 1982 city council to receive this proclamation. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja // ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 169 Agenda May z4, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Contract - Lime Slaker for water Plant On May 3, 1982, bids were received in accordance with legal requirements for a line slaker and appurtenant work at the water treatment plant. The assistant city manager, the city clerk, the Community Services Director, the consultant, other staff members and representatives of the bidding firms were present at the bid opening. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached for council review. A lime slaker weighs and feeds lime, a softening agent, into the water at the treatment plant before the water is distributed • throughout the system. The specifications allowed for three types of bid to be submitted. Bid A was for the furnishing and installation of labor, equipment and materials specified to provide a new lime slaker and flouride feeder including controls, piping and wiring. Bid B was for the furnishing of a lime slaker only with installation by others and the flouride feeder by others. Bid C was for the furnishing of flouride feed system and all labor and various other items necessary to install the lime slaker, furnished by others, and including any building modifications. The lime slaker is the most expensive component of the package, with the flouride feeder system a much less expensive and minor component of the package. The two components can be done separately and need not be tied together nor done concurrently. A & K Construction, Inc. submitted proposals on all three types of bid. Pennwalt Corporation submitted a proposal for the Bid B, lime slaker equipment only, with installation of lime slaker and all aspects of flouride feed system to be done by others. Council Letter No. 169 It is recommended that the city council take the following actions: May 24, 1982 The budgeted amount in the water fund for this work is $35,000 for the lime slaker and $5,000 for the flouride feeder • system, for a total appropriation of $40,000. It is the recommendation of the consultant and the staff that the bid award be made to Pennwalt Corporation for the lime slaker equipment only, with city personnel to do the installation, arrange for the wiring and other equipment or materials needed to install the lime slaker. The flouride feeder system equip- ment would be obtained on a quotation basis, with installation by city staff. with this approach to the projects, it is estimated that our cost will total about $45,000. 1. Approve the bid minutes and tabulation. 2. Award a contract to Pennwalt Corporation in the amount of $29,290 for the furnishing of a lime slaker to be installed by others. With delivery of a slaker expected to be approximately 12 to 16 weeks, installa- tion is anticipated fcr the fall. cf 1982. • KN/skh -2- Res?:ectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director Lime Slaker and Appurtenant Work 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 read aloud, bids for Lime Slake and Appurtenant Work at the Water Treatment Plant, as advertised in the official newspaper on April 21, 1982. CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening May 3, 1982 Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Assistant City Manager Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR AND BID SECURITY BID A BID C • Pennwalt Corporation Cert. Check $1,464.50 No Bid No Bid A & K Construction B.B. 5% $54,240.00 BID B $29,290.00 $34,124.05 $20,115.95 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting of May 24, 1982. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk ~# S CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 168 Agenda May 24, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Public Hearing _ Additional Alley Paving C.P. 775 On May 10, 1932 the city council adopted a resolution receiving a preliminary engineering report and calling for a public hearing on the paving of one additional alley as part of C.P. 775: Between From To Queen Ave. and Russell Ave. 67th Street 68th Street It is feasible to add this alley to the 1982 alley paving project by execution of a change order addition to the C.P. 775 contract at the time it is awarded on June 14, 1982. The C.P. 775 project is currently advertised for bids. The estimated assessment would be $18.50 per abutting foot, of $925.00 for a 50-foot lot. At the close of the public hearing the staff recommends that the city council adopt the attached resolution ordering the project. Respectfully submitted, ~LL ~c~~~-:~.~ t~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Engineer RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PAVING OF ONE ADDITIONAL ALLEY AND PREPARATION OF PLANS CP 775-A WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 10th day of May, 1982, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvement of the following alley: Between From To Queen and Russell Avenue 67th Street 68th Street AND WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held thereon on the 24th day of May, 1982, 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 10th day of May, 1982. 2. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron Associates, Inc. is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. They shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improve- ment. Adopted by the council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of May, 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk PRELIMINARY REPORT AND _ ESTIMATE OF COST ALLEY PAVING & APPURTENANT WORK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 775 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA I. TYPE OF WORK Concrete alley paving improvements in the City of Richfield. II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT The alleys described. in Item No. IV were petitioned for and are proposed as a paving program for the City of Richfield to provide permanent alley surfacing to benefit abutting properties where needed. III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT February 22, 1982 IV. LOCATION Alley Between From To 62nd Street and 63rd Street 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue Clinton Avenue and 4th Avenue Blaisdell Ave. and Nicollet Ave. Grand Avenue and Pleasarit Ave. Harriet Avenue and Grand Ave. Garfield Ave. and Harriet Ave. Queen Avenue and Penn Avenue Russell Avenue and Queen Avenue Thomas Avenue and Sheridan Ave. Vincent Avenue and Upton Avenue Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave. Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave. Vincent Ave. and Upton Ave. 14th Avenue 66th Street 73rd Street 73rd Street 73rd Street 72nd Street 72nd Street 72nd Street 67th Street 69th Street 66th Street 68th Street 68th Street 69th Street 67th Street 15th Avenue 67th Street 74th Street 74th Street 74th Street 73rd Street 73rd Street 73rd Street 68th Street 70th Street 67th Street 69th Street 69th Street 70th Street 68th 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 $264,900.00 Administration, Legal, Engineering and Insurance (25/) 66,225.00 Estimated Project Cost 331,125.00 -z- 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 16,965.31 Ft. Total Project Cost $331,200.00 Less City Cost 17,146.96 Assessable Cost $314,053.04 314,053.04 = 16,975.84 = $18.50/assessable foot Typical Assessment for 50' lot = $ 925.00 Typical Assessment for 75' lot = $1,387.50 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was .prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: February 22, 1982 Reg. No. 15066 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 167 Agenda May 24, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Approval of Final Year VIII CDBG Application At the March 8, 1982 city council meeting, the council approved a preliminary application for Year VIII Community Development Block Grant funds (which we received through Hennepin County). The staff has subsequently presented the preliminary plan to the Hennepin County staff and the Hennepin County Planning Area Citizen's Advisory Committee (PACAC). A copy of the comments received from the PACAC are attached for your information. The list of projects has not changed from that which was approved as part of the preliminary application. The city has recently been informed that the amount of funds we will be receiving for Year VIII projects has been reduced from $302,000 to $299,323. A list of the projects and their proposed budgets is as follows Housing Rehabilitation Site Acquisition & Clearance for Assisted Housing Community Center Lower & Upper Level Kitchen Remodeling 15,000 Energy Improvements 4,000 Relocation/Remodel Office Space _4,000 ~~.r~' J G ~~ r%,~ • Daycare Services H.O.M.E. Program (repair, chore and homemaker services for senior citizens) Handicapped Accessibility Study of City Facilities Administrative Costs of CDBG Projects $ 94,000 149,000 23,000 4,000 3,323 6,000 20,000 $299,323 =~_~ ii Letter ~o. i6 i -~- ~`''.ay 1Y, lyo~ Count s r`~' ~-v~,,~` cS S~%;C` J~k~ ~P Gam(` l ~~~~ ~'~ services project. In addition, the H.O.M.E. Program has been reduced by $2,677 to make up the difference between the previous and revised total budget amount. to support the H. P g such services with CDBG funds, it is recommended that these funds go to support the Richfield Home Service Program administered by our own Youth Employment Service rather than the H.O.M.E. program. The Home Services Program has been self-supporting and provides services only to the limits of their restricted funding. At this time, the H.O.M.E. program has been taken out of the housing rehabilitation project and combined with the Richfield Fun Club project into a project entitled public services. The amount allocated for housing rehabilitation has been reduced by $6,000 to fund the public Hennepin County staff has indicated to us that assistance to the Richfield Fun Club and the South Hennepin Human Services Council H.O.M.E. program would be classified as public services. The council had indicated an interest in diverting monies from the housing rehabilitation project to these other projects. The staff still recommends that the city not use CDBG monies 0 M E ro ram- if the council wishes to support It is recommended that the city council approve the Year VIII CDBG application by passing the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, • ,- Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Planner Housing and Rehabilitation Coordinator i RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING YEAR VIII COMMUNITY • DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL TO HENNEPIN COUNTY WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has executed a Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County agreeing to participate in the Urban County Community Development Block Grant Program, and WHEREAS, a Year VIII Community Development Program has been prepared consistent with the Comprehensive Urban Hennepin County Community Development strategy and the Community Development Program Regulations, and WHEREAS, the Year VIII Community Development Program has been subject to citizen review pursuant to the Urban Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield approves the proposed Year VIII Community Devel- opment Plan and authorized the City Manager to submit the plan to Hennepin County for consideration as part of the Year VIII Urban • Hennepin County Community Development Block-Grant Application. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of May, 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • p~a~~ ~~~ a~~a ~~~ citizen advisory committee 2353 government center, minneapoiis,mn 55487 April 23, 1982 The Honorable John Hamilton, Mayor City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Hamilton: As specified in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Program "Citizen Participation Plan", the Planning Area One Citizen Advisory Committee is to comment on the proposed activities of cities in Planning Area One. The Committee has reviewed the proposals with regard to their conformance with Federal statutes and regulations and the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives, all of which must be substantially complied with to insure funding of the program. With respect to the Richfield proposals for the use of $302,000 in • Year VIII Community Development funds, the Committee approved the Community/Senior Center Improvement ($23,000), Housing Rehabilitation ($100,000), Scattered Site Acquisition/Clearance ($149,000), Daycare Assistance ($4,000) and Handicapped Plan ($6,000). The Committee can only give conditional approval to Administration ($20,000). The Committee cannot fully approve the Administration proposal, because the amount of funds appears to be high. To date the City has expended $1,479 (7.4%) of the Year VII funds budgeted for administration. The City is encouraged to re-evaluate the amount proposed for funding. In- stead of reducing rehabilitation by $6,000 for the H.O.M.E. project, the City should consider allocating $6,000 from Administration for the pro- gram. The Committee wishes to thank Rick Jopke for his presentation and answers to questions raised by the Committee members. Sincerely, ~--, ~ ~ ~, ~r-G` J t %~ `' ~" Donna Scudder, Chairman cc: Planning Area One Citizen Advisory Committee Members Karl Nollenberger, City Manager • Rick Jopke, City Planner YEAR YZII URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CD66 PROJECT PROPOSAL • =sassssssssasssassssssssosassasssssssassssssssssssssassss=sssasassasmasssazszszsssssas FOR USE BY HENNEPIN COUNTY/OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ONLY ER Status: status signature ~ date Project Number: _ number signature date Project Approved: representative date sssssssrsasssssssssssssmsssassssasssasasasassxsssasasasssssssssaasssssssssssassssasssss A. GENERAL INFORMATION- . 1. Proposed Project Name: Housing Rehabilitation 2. Subgrantee: Richfield 3. Contact Person: Rick Jopke B. PROJECT SUMMARY INFORMATION 1. Project Information: a. Locate the project: Census Tract City Wide 1970 or 1980 Check one.) Street Address (Attach map) b. Identify the Community need the project is meeting and explain now the project viii make substantial tong term improvements. . The aging housing stock in Richfield requires increasing levels of main- tsnance.~ A majority of the housing stock is 30 to 40 years old. Provision of Low cost household maintenance to low and moderate income Persons 60 years and older to enable seniors to maintain their property and continue to live independently in their communitg. Rehabilitation of hcxnes for sale to mxlerate inoome families provides affordable housing for families not normally capable of purchasing a home. c. State the accomplishments of the project in a quantifiable manner. (For example, the rehabilitation of IO houses. for low and moderate income families) - The rehabilitation of 13 houses for low and moderate income persons. - Rehabilitation of one single family home by South Hennepin Vo-Tech for purchase by a moderate income family . UHC - A82 • d. Identify start, milestone (if any) and completion dates of the project. Start: July 1, 1982 . Milestones: Completion: June 30, 1983 - e. Describe the project and all component activities. Be as detailed as possible. Add sheets if necessary. Multi-year: ~ yes no When was project started? CDBG Year I Project Number This project involves providing assistance to low and moderate inocxne persons and the handicapped to improve their homes. This assistance shall consist of grants or loans to bring dwellings up to minimtan Section 8 standards, to support energy programs and to repair and modify single family dwellings to make them less susceptible to flood damage i.n areas of the city subject to flood problems during .heavy rainfalls. A similar use would involve city or HRA owned property to be rehabilitated with CD funds in which work was performed by contractors, and then sold to a moderate income family. Use of CDBG money would also be considered in assisting participating banks in NII3F'A Home Improvement Loan Program. Examples could be the • payment of lender's c~mi.tmesit fee, writing down interest rates, and subsidizing of ac'trninistration costs. This would be utilized if found to be an eligible expense. 2 2. Project Eligibility a. Cite the federal regulation/Section of the Act under which the project is eligible. Citation: 570.202 c, 105 (a) (4) b. This project will: (check one and provide requested information) rincipally benefit low and moderate income pers-ohs ' State any special considerations you have given to benefit the moderate income persons, the .number of persons directly benefiting, and how they will benefit. Approximately 13 low income homeowners will benefit by receiving Home Rehabilitation grants. Moderate income persons do not receive rehabilitation grants. _ One moderate income family may receive the opportunity to purchase an affordable rehabilitated •single family home. Removal of slums and blight Describe the blight and indicate whether the municipal government has officially designated the area as blighted or when it plans to do 50. Urgent Need Describe the nature of the need and the time at which it originated. • c. Identify the element of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objective which the project addresses: Citation: Housing and Housing Rehabilitation Section of Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives • 3 3. Project Budget Lis t the amount budgeted for all component activities of the project. Lis ted below are the budget lines to be used. a. Acquisition of Real Property a. $ b. Senior Centers b• $ c. Parks and Playgrounds Development e. $ d. Street Improvements/Sidewalks d. $ e. Streets/Sidewalks Special Assessments e. S f. Water and Sewer f. $ g. Water/Sewer Special Assessments g. $ n. Clearance Activities n. $ i. Diseased Tree Removal i. $ ~. Relocation Assestance ~. $ k. Removal of Architectural Barriers k. $ 1. Rehabi 1 i tali on of Pri vale Property l . 8 4 0 ,..,tee Q 4~ m. Rehabilitation of Pvbi i c Residential Structures m. $ n. Planning n• $ o. Administration (general .program overview) o. S 10,00 0 $ .. p. Public Service p• q. Con=tingency 4• $ r. Other - please explain r. $ __ _ _. _ _ __.. TQTAL BtlDGET $ 9 4 , 0 0 0 - I-25-82 4 YEAR YItI URBAN ~iENNEPiN COUNTY CDBG PROJECT PROPOSAL ==aaas~a~aaas=aasasas3~sxs~sxa~:a~=a.sa~s~_~=ss=aaao3~aaaxasaaxe=~xses=as=~=m.aa~saeaa FOR USE BY HENNEPIN COUNTY/OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ONLY ER Status: -- status signature ate Project Number: number signature date Project Approved: P' representative date zs=zamaa~asssaasssa=ama~a~asaasaza~axaaa~aasamxssamo3aa~sa==~asaas=aasaaaaasaaaas=sa=sa A. GENfRAI. iNFORMATiON 1. Proposed Project Name: ~~attered Site Acquisition/Gle~arance 2. SUbgrantee: j,g•P~ 3. Contact Person: Rick Jopke B. PROJECT SUMMARY INFORMATION 1. Project Information: - • a. Locate the project: Census Tract City. wide 1970 or 1980 Check one) Street Address (Attach maP) - b. Identify the Community need the project is meeting and explain now the project will make substantial long term improvements. The greatest need identified is for decent housing affordable to low and moderate income persons. This project will expand affordable housing opportunities and/or maintain the existing housing stock for low and moderate income persons. The project makes long-term improvements when substandard housing is acquixed and cleared .and when housing is developed that - increases the affordable stock of housing in Richfield. -c. State the accompiisnments of the project- in a quantifiable manner. (For example, the renabilitation of 10 Houses for low and moderate income families) Through this multi-year program, the HRA can acquire sites and build, rehabilitate, or maintain two, single family homes per year with Community Development Block Grant funds. A portion of the acquisition may be for a larger multi-unit development. The multi-unit development may be as small as 8 units or-have as many as 30 units. - UHC - A82 d. Identify start, milestone (if any} and completion dates of the project. Start: July. ,~ . 1982 • Milestones: Completion: Jane. 3 0 . ,~,9 8 3 e. Describe the project and all component activities. Be as detailed as possible. Add sheets if necessary. M:u1ti-year: ~ yes ~ o When was project started? CDBG Year- IV Project Number 2 1 The scattered site. project provides Richfield and its Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) the opportunity to acquire vacant land, sites with substandard housing, and sites with housing in sound dondition. The vacant land would be developed with the construction of a mixture of housing units. Substan- Bard housing would be rehabilitated or, when rehabilitation is not practical, cleared to allow new construction. Housing in sound condition would be maintained for continued use. The housing units made available by this project would be utilized for rental or ownership to~qualifying low and moderate income persons. The program would consist of the purchase~of existing homes in • sound or substandard condition that are available for sale, vacant lots suitable for residential. development, and vacant buildings or residences. ,FUD regulations for acquisition and relocation would be followed. These sites will be acquired on a voluntary sale basis to reduce relocation costs which must be paid. After acquisition., the HRA would rent the standard housing or sell the housing to qualifying low/moderate income per-sons. If rehabilitation or new construction. is to occur, the HRA could retain ownership or sell the property to a private developer. The developer would become responsible for sub- Sequent sale or rental. The developer would cooperate with the. Richfield HRA in choosing low to moderate income persons under Section 8 eligibility guidelines. Another use of these funds are for the acquisition of single family dwellings for rehabilitation and sale to low and moderate income persons. This is done in conjunction with the South Hennepin Vocational Technical Institute. Vo Tech students provide labor for this project. • 2 2. Project Eligibility a. Cite the federal regulation/Section of the Act under which the project • is eligible. Citation: Sect. 105 (a) (1) b. This project will: (check one and provide requested information) x Principally benefit low and moderate income persons State any special considerations you nave given to benefit the moderate income persons, the number of persons directly benefiting, and now they will benefit. Acquisition and clearance activities to create affordable housing opportunities would primarily benefit moderate income persons because the type of benefit requires a .moderate income level. Two moderate income families - could benefit by single family homes. Between 8 and 30 low-to-moderate income families could benefit by a multi-family project. Removal of slums and blight Describe tfie blight and indicate whether the municipal government has officially designated the area as blighted or when it plans to . do so. Urgent Need Describe the nature of the need and the time at which it originated. c. Identify Lne element of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objective which the project addresses: Citation: Housing Section; New Construction, Existing Rental, Housing Rehabilitation Subheadings of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives • 3 3. Project Budget List the amount budgeted for ail component activities of the project. • Listed below .are the budget lines to be used. a. Acquisition of Real Property a. $.122,300 b. Senior Centers b. $ e. Parks and Playgrounds Development c $ d. Street Improvements/Sidewalks do $ e. Streets/Sidewalks Special Assessments e. $ f. Water and Sewer f. $ g. Water/Sewer Special Assessments g. $ h. Clearance Activities n. $ 11,800 i.. Diseased Tree Removal i. $ ~. Relocation Assestance ~. $ k. Removal of Architectural Barriers k. $ 1. Rehabilitation of Private Property 1. $ m. Rehabilitation of Public Residential Structures m. $ n. Planning n. $ o. Administration (general program overview) o. $_.....14 X900 p. Public Service P• $ q. Contingency ~ q• $ r. Other - please explain r. $ •- - TOTAL BUDGET $14 9 ; 0 0 0 1-25-82 ._ 4 YEAR YlII URBAN tiENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROJECT PROPOSAL • asasssssxsssssassassssasssssssssasssssssssssssas=sssssssssssxaasss=sssssassmsaxsaaxssa FOR USE BY HENNEPIN COUNTY/OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ONLY ER Status: status signature date Project Number: number signature date Project Approved: PA representative date sssamas~assssssasssssaasassssssasamaassasaaasssssssssaasa:aassssaasaasssssssxaaxss=saas A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Proposed Project Name: Community/Senior Center Improvement 2. Subgrantee: City of Richfield 3. Contact Person: Rick Jopke ~ I B. PROJECT~SUMMARY LNFORMATION 1. Project Information: a. Locate the project: Census. Tract 2 4 5 1970 or 1980 X . -- _ Check one) Street Address 70.00 Nicollet (Attach map) b. Identify the Community need the project is meeting and explain how the project will make substantial long term improvements.. This project will meet the. community's need for continued more efficient provision of services to senior citizens and the handicapped. c. State the accomplishments of the project in a quantifiable manner. (For example, the rehabilitation of 10 Houses-for low and moderate income families) UHC - A82 • d. Identify start, milestone (if any) and completion dates of the project. Start : - .-r" 1„~, 1 . i A 8 _ Milestones: Completion: e. Describe the project and all component activities. Be as detailed as possible. Add sheets~if necessary. Multii-year: X yes no When was project started? CDBG Year VT I Project Number 0 5 2 This project inwlves.the continuation of a project begun in. Year VII to improve the facilities at the Richfield qty Center. ~e comimmi.,ty center houses all local programs for the elderly and handicapped and the majority of the users of the building are elderly or handcapl~ecl. $23,000 w1.ll be allocated to this project which will fiord the.- following impn-~v~cents l.~ Iawer Ieve1 Kitchen - $6,000 ere supplement the funds allocated in Year VII and will cover such costs as project administration., venting and wiring. 2." Level~Ktchen - $9,000 . T~, wvul~provide better accessibil.i.ty for users of the kitchen/arts and crafts roan and would 1.11Clude new .equipment such aS a stave, microwave, counter tops, wager fountain and sink. It would also include project administration costs. 3 . Energy ~ Ih~c~nts - $4 , 000 e used to do minor enerc~ related improvenents to tFle b111~1d?T-g which wexe identified in a maxi-audit rea'r~tly carq~leted an city buildings. 4_ Relocation/Ra~odelin of Office S ce - $4,000 V.E.A.P. Volunteers ted to Asssst People) now offices at the Carmunity Center as does the transportation program for seniors and handicapped and congregate dining which has a sezvice-site at the - Canrnanity~ Center. R.Y.E.S. (Richfield Youth F~loyn~ent Service) now offices at Central School. 'llie proposal here is to move V.E.A.P. to the area where HI~A used to office so there is space available for confidential assistance on such items as fuel assistance and other Programs- for ].ow/moderate inoa~ that are coordinated through V.E.A.P. Y.E.S". would move to the space now occupied by V.E.A.P. Y.E.S. helps put teens looking for~work together with agencies looking for employees. Y.E.S. also has programs to assist seniors such as the teens that clean houses and so forth and there are a number of programs that include seniors and low/moderate inccere. The proposal is to provide office space for transportation and congregate dining on the lower level- of the Center as that is where their programs are located the majority of the time. These programs are also geared for seniors handicapped as well as low/moderate incane. The budget includes preparation of plans. and specifications and all costs related to the remodeling and relocation such as wiring, lighting, phones, walls, flooring, ceilings, and so forth. 2 YEAR vDi fiRSan F1EnnEPIN COUnTY • CD66 PROJECT PROPOSAL sssxsssssasaaxsssassssssxsssasassmassssss=a.aasssssssssassasssssssasasssssassssassxss FOR USE BY HENNEPIN COUNTYJOFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ONLY ER Status: status- signature date Project Number: number signature date- Project Approved: PA representative date ssssssssssasaasasasssssassassssasasassssasassassssssssssssaasaaasa:ssssssssssasssssaaas A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Proposed Project Name: p ,hi ; ~. Services 2. Subgrantee: City of Richfield 3. Contact. Person: Rick . Jooke 6. PROJECT SUMMARY INFORMATION 1. Project Information: . • a. Locate the project: Census Tract 245 and .city ..wide 1970 or 1980 X Check one) Street Address 7145 Harriet Avenue S . & City wide (Attach map) b. Identify the Community need the project is meeting and explain now the project will make substantial long term improvements. This project will help meet the city's need to provide daycare services to low and moderate income families. This project will allow an existing facility to expand to serve more children~to better meet needs. This project will also help meet the need to assist low and moderate income senior citizens to properly maintain their homes through assistance provided by the South Hennepin Human Services Council Household and Outside Maintenance ~c. State the accomplishments of the project in a quantifiable manner. (ForPrograr e.xamp 1 e, the rehabi 1 i tati on of- 10 Houses for 1 ow and moderate i nco~i OME) families) This project will pro+~ide daycare services to an additional 20 children. UHC - A82 • d. Identify start, mi T estone `(i f any )_ .and. camp 1 eti on dates of the project. Start:. July 1., 19 8 2 Mi 1 estones: ~ • Camp 1 eti on : July 1, ~ 19 8 3~ e. Oescri be tt~e project. and. at 1 component acts vities. Be as detai 1 ed~ as possimie.- Add s~eets" if- necessary.- Mitt ti -y. earn „~_ . res- ____no" When ryas project srartgd? CDBfi Year ~ Projet~ Number ,~„~„ Richfield-Fun Club provides a e~v.ty service that is specifically and solely related to residents of Richfield.- Also, that the cater i:s increasing its level. of social service can be documented by our steadily increasing enrolment. and. our interest in ex~x-uzsion. The services we provide the camimmity allows both parents to worm which shorts upar~i mobility and. helps to maiata.in a higherstaridard of Iiving in the neighborhood. Rici3feld Fun Club opened September, L980. 731e cuter has' been at capacity with 20 children since September, 1981. We expect 2 slots to beccrcra avai].ab1.e September, 1982 but already have received. 12 phone calls concerning sLattaer and. fall enro].Ia~ent. We axe the only Latch key center . in Richfield anti we wi7.1_ not be' able to provide.. for the child caxe needs of the can unity with ot~ preseat facilities.. Note Richfield Board of Education figures belc~r:. .Children Family Day Care~or. Group Day Care. 59 Approximately 320 Full Day Care Centers: (Preschool) I • 50 Infant Programs 0 - Toddler Programs ~ .. 0 -~ School Age Child Care- 1 20 Nurs~ery~ Schools 3 -~ 198081 1981.82 1982 83 Projected 0-4 years "].826 0-4-years 1860 0-4 years 1860 Grade K 277 Grade- ~K 278 Grade K 297 1 294 1 292- 1 287 2 33$ 2 288 2 285 3 327 ~ 3 ~ 330 3 279 4 406 4 316 4 321 5 434 5 394 " 5 307 6 423 6 427 6 390 4328 .4~1 5 402 $4,000 of CDBG funds will. be allocated to allow Richfield Fun Club to rent an additional room, hire additional qualified staff to maintain the program and provide the required equipment to provide day care services to additional families. $6x000 of CDBG funds will be allocated to the HOME Program offered through the South Hennepin Human Services. Council. The HOME Program is a repair chore and homemaker service available to-low and moderate income residents 60 years and older. Labor charges are charged on a flexible fee scale based on the reside ability to pay. The HOME program primarily fulfills the need of elderly resi- dents where the rehabilitation grants are unable to, i.e., the grants available may be too small or may not cover some of the types of repairs needed.. • • Describe the blight and indicate whetner the municipal government has officially designated the area as blighted or wnen it plans to d0 So. Urgent Need Describe the nature of the need and the time at which it originated. c. Identify the element of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objective wnicn the project addresses: Citation• Public Services • 2. Project Eligibility a. Cite the federal regulation/Section of the Act under wnicn the project is eligible. Citation: Sec 105 (a) (8) b. This project will: (check one and provide requested information) X Principally benefit low and moderate income persons State any special considerations you have given to benefit the moderate income persons, the number of persons directly benefiting, and now tney will benefit. A majority of the users of the daycare facility are and will continue to be low and moderate income families. .The HOME program is only available to-low . and moderate income persons. • Removal of slums and blight -~ 3 3. Project budget List the amount budgeted for all component activities of the project. • Listed below are the budget lines to be used. a. Acquisition of Real Property a. $ b. Senior Centers b. $ c. Parks and Playgrounds Development c. $ ' d. Street Improvements/Sidewalks d. $ e. Streets/Sidewalks Special Assessments e. $ f. Water and Sewer f. $ g. Water/Sewer Special Assessments g. $ n. Clearance Activities h. $ i. Diseased Tree Removal. i. $ ~. Relocation Assestance 3. $ k. Removal of Architectural Barriers k. $ 1. Rehabilitation of Private Property 1. $ m. Rehabilitation of Public Residential m Structures . n. Planning n• $ o. Administration (general program overview) o. $ p. Publ i c Service p. $ 7 ,. 3 23 q. Contingency Q• $ r. Other - please explain r. $ TOTAL SLlDGET $ 7 , 3 2 3 - • I-25-82 4 YEAR VIII URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDSG PROJECT PROPOSAL saasssssasssaasasaaaaaassasasaaassssass=sasssamsasssassassssssassasasssaxsssaassssasss FOR USE BY HENNEPIN COUNTY/OFFICE OF PLANNING ANO DEVELOPMENT ONLY ER Status: status signature date Project Number: number signature date Project Approved: PA representative date ssssssassaaasassassaaassassaasss~sasaassaxasa=sssaaasaasassaaaaasssasssssasa:aassssasxs A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Proposed Project Name: Hanr3 ri~~ ~ Accessibility Plan -- ~ 2. Subgrantee• City of Richfield 3. Contact Person : Rick Jopke B. PROJECT SUMMARY INFORMATION 1. Project- Information: • a.. locate the project:_ -Census Tract City Wide 1970 or 1980 Check one) Street Address (Attach map) b. Identify the Community need the project is meeting and explain how the project will make substantial long term improvements. This project will meet the city`s need to assure that all programs-and facilities are accessible to handicapped ' persons. c. State the accomplisnments of the project in a quantifiable manner~_(For example, the renabilitation of 10 Houses for low and moderate income families) This project will review all city owned buildings and city program. for accessibility by handicapped persons. UHC - A82 • d. Identify start, milestone (if any) and camptetion dates of tyre .project. Start: July 1, 1982 Milestones: Completion: Julv 1, 19 8 3 _ e. Describe the project and alt. component activities. Be as detailed as possible. Add sheets~if necessary. Mufti-year: yes no Wnen was. project started? CDBG Year Project Number This project involves the expenditure of $b,000 to develop a handicapped accessibility plan for improvements to public buildings which will identify architectural .barriers to be _ removed-, establishes needs and priorities, explains how mobility-and accessibility will be improved and lists the facilities and programs to benefit from such action. Non- construction options for removing barriers will-also be identified. • 2 2. Project Eligibility a. Cite the federal regulation/Section of the Act under which the project • is eligible. Citation: Sec. 105 (a) (5 b. This project will: (check one and provide requested information) X Principally benefit low and moderate income persons State any special considerations you have given to benefit the moderate income- persons,. the number of persons directly benefiting, and now. they will benefit. Removal of slums. and blight - ~. Describe the blight and indicate whether the municipal government has officially designated the area as blighted or when it plans to do so. • Urgent Need Describe the nature of the need and the time at which it originated. c. Identify the element of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objective which the project addresses: Citation : Handicapped Improvements • 3 3. Project Budget List the amount budgeted for all component activities of the project. listed below are the budget lines to be used. a. Acquisition of Real Property a. $ b. Senior Centers - b. $ c. Parks and Playgrounds Development c. $ ' d. Street Improvements/Sidewalks d. $ e. Streets/Sidewalks Special Assessments e. $ f. Water and Sewer f. $ g. Water/Sewer Speciai Assessments g. $ h. Clearance Activities h. $ i. Diseased Tree Removal i. $ j. Relocation Assestance j. $ k. Removal of Architectural Barriers k. $ 6,0 0 0 1: Rehabilitation of Private Property 1. $ m. Rehabilitation of Public Residential Structures m. ~ n. Planning n. $ o.. Administration (general program overview) o. $ p. Public Service p. $ q. Contingency q. $ . r. Other - please explain r. $ TOTAL BUDGET $ 6 , 0 0 0 • 1-25-82 • 4 YEAR YID URSAN~ f1EN11EPIN COEtNTY CaBG PROJECT PROPOSAL. • FOR USE BY HENNEPIN COUNTY/OFFICE OF PLANNING. AND DEVELOPMENT ONLY ER Status.: status. signature date: Project Number: number signature. date Project Approved: repce3entattve' date A. GENERAL INFORMATION: -- - I. Proposed Project: Name: Program Administration __~ 2. Subgrantec:- city of Richfi P7 A' 3. Contact: Person: Rick yToake 6. PROJECT SUINMARY INFORMATION - - 1.. Project .Informationr -. - a. Lacate. the project: Census. Tracts City Wide ' - 1970 or 1980- Gnecx: one:} Street address - (Attach: map} ,~ -- b.- Identify the Community need the project is meeting and. explaim no+w the project Ni11. make substantial long: term improvements.. This project meets the city's need to. insure that a-11 local, county and federal-.program requirements-are-met and that CDBG funds are expended.ef~ficiently within. a two year period. ~. State the accomplishments of the project in•a quantifiable manner. (For example, ttte rehabi 1 i tati on• of 10 houses for 1 ow and moderate income • farmlies.} NA UHC - A82 • _ d. Identify start, nrtlestone. (if any) and completion dates of the project. Start:. July, 1, 1982 • Milestones: Comp T eti art: July 1, 19 8 3 e. Describe- tne- project and at_T component activities. Be as: detailed as. possibie.• Add s~eets• ti` necessary. ~ . Mvl~ti-year: yes _ +no~ Knee was. prc~ect started? CD86 Year VI_I Project Number ______ This project.invol'ves payment of. administrative costs related - to the planning and execution of community development and housing related activities funded by the Community Development Block Grant Program.. $20000 will be~ all-ocated towards salaries, materials and other related costs of city staff to provide information about the~city°'s:CDBG program,. to develop the necessary applications., fog activities= to facilitate the. implementation of the citys housing assistance plan, the development of necessary environmental studies,. and the ~. coordination,. monitoring and evaluation of_the city's CDBG ~prog~am to nsure~.that.lQCal, county,. and federal. needs and requirements are met. r • 2 2. Project. Eligibility - a. Cite° the federal regulation/Section of the Act under. wnicn the project , is eligible.. - • Citation:- Sec TOS (a) (13) b.. Tnis- Project will:: (cnec~r one and- provide requested .information) - - ~ rincipally benefit low-and moderate-income persons State. any special considerations your nave given to. 6enefi t the moderate income: persons,. the number of persons direetay benefiting, and now- they wi 1 Y benefit.. Remoxel of si ums. and t~l i gnt. _.._ `-Describe the bligrtt. and. indicate wnettter the murti.cipai government Has offidat ly designated. the area as bl i gated or when i t plans to dt~ so.. , • _ i Urgent Need:. ~, Describe the nature of tne~ need and the time. at wnicn it obi gi Hated. - , c. Identify the element of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objective wnicn the project addresses: Citation: Program Administration____ • 3 3. Project budget List the amount budgeted for a,_11 component activities of the pro3ect.- ~tsted below -are ire budget tines to be used. a. Acquisition: of. Real:. Property- D. Senior Centers c.. Parks and Playgrounds Deveiopment d: Street Improvements/Sidewalks. e. Streets/Sidewalks Special Assessments _ ~. water and Sewer` g. Water/Sewer Special` Assessments tt. CTearance~ Acti viii es i .. 0t sassed Tree Remova~t ~. Rel:ocattort Assestance- k. Removal of Arcnitettura~I $a~rrters 1.. Ret~abt•tttatfion of Private Property m: Renafi~t 1 itatiaer of Pubi t c Residential Structures rt. Planning ." _. o. Admtntstrattort (general program overview} p. ~Publtc Service q.. .Contingency ~ . r~ Omer - please expiain~ TOTAL BU06ET 1-25-82 4 a. $ D.. c. $ d. ~ e. E f'. ~ g. ~ " n:. ~ i.. ~ ~- ~._~_~ k.- ~ 1.~ nrd rr. '~ o.. ~' 20.000 p. ~ q. s r. ~, 20,000- • r ~# 9 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 166 Agenda biay 24, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Joint and Cooperative Agreement Concerning Cable Television Administration Attached to this council letter is a Joint and Coopera- tive Agreement for cable television administration, and a resolution authorizing the city to enter into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement to be known as the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission. The City of Richfield, along with the communities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins and Minnetonka, have been operating as a joint commission for the franchising of cable television in our five city area since 1972. The • franchising is now complete, but it has been the desire of representatives on the Southwest Cable Commission in the past, to continue the cooperative efforts for cable television ad- ministration. In 1981, the city council directed its representative on the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission to work with the commission to put together a joint powers agreement for the on- going administration of cable television. This proposed agree- ment represents the first joint powers agreement in the metro- politan area, if not the country, designed solely for the on- going administration of the cable communications system. The proposed agreement is the culmination of a great deal of work by the city managers, city staff members, city attorneys, and cable commission representatives. The agreement comes as a recommendation from the ad hoc committee which was formerly the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission. A article by article explanation of the proposed joint powers agreement, which is attached, is as follows: I. PREAMBLE The Commission will be organized under Minnesota Statutes X471.59 as amended. This is the general joint powers statute in Minnesota. This reference is made to clearly delineate the legislative source of power. Council Letter No. 166 -2- May 24, 1982 II. GENERAL PURPOSE In general, this Agreement will establish an organiza- tion to analyze the operation of the cable communications system in this area. The organization will seek to coordinate administration and enforcement of the respective franchises in a manner that will avoid duplicating efforts by the cities. From time to time, the organization will report and recommend to cities relative to the operation of the cable communications system. The specific duties of the Commission are set forth in Article VII. III. NAME The Commission will be known as the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission. IV. DEFINITION OF TERMS This particular article is designed to clarify many of the terms frequently used in the Agreement. I believe the various definitions are self-explanatory. V. PARTIES The municipalities eligible to become the original parties • are Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield. Other municipalities may become members of the Commission if three conditions are met: 1. The municipality is served by the same cable communications company; 2. The then existing directors approve the new member by at least a two-thirds (2/3) vote; and 3. The municipality pays the initial contribution as set out in Article II, Section 2 and any contribu- tions for the year it becomes a party. I believe that this procedure readily permits municipalities to join the Commission and, at the same time, does allow the Commission to exercise some discretion and recover any expenses incurred. VI. EFFECTIVE DATE This article is procedural in nature and describes the method by which a municipality may become a member of the Commission. This article also provides that the Agreement shall become effective, and the Commission formally created, when all of the original eligible municipalities enter into the Agreement. Council Letter No. 166 -3- May 24, 1982 VII. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION AND PARTIES phis article explains that the Commission is established for the purposes of coordinating administration and enforce- ment of the individual franchises. The Commission is charged with providing uniformity in that administration and enforce- ment so as to ensure that the system is constructed, operated, maintained and upgraded in a manner that will, to the extent possible, be to the maximum benefit of each city. Under this Agreement, the cities will retain sole authority in the following areas: 1. To amend and renew the franchise ordinance; 2. To initiate and defend lawsuits; 3. To prosecute violations of the franchise ordin- ance; and 4. To issue all required permits and licenses for the construction and operation of the system. The Commission, on the other hand, is delegated the author- ity to make recommendations and policy decisions in areas in- cluding, but not limited to, the following: 1. 2. • 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Enforcement of laws; Insurance policies/letters of credit; Marketing practices; Customer complaints; Programming; Access and local origination programming; Performance evaluations; State of the art technology; Statutory/regulatory changes; Lobbying of Commission policy at other govern- mental levels; Mediation of certain disputes; Audits and examinations of franchisee's books; Collection of franchise fees and distribution tc cities; Coordination and defense of civil lawsuits, upon request; Maintain records of rates and evaluate rate changes requested by franchisee; and Contract with consultants and legal counsel. A complete listing of Commission powers is set forth on pages 4 through 8 of the proposed Agreement. It is important to note, however, that all powers and duties not granted to the Commission or necessarily implied are re- served to the cities. Council Letter No. 166 -4- May 24, 192 • • VIII. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Mach municipality is entitled to appoint two directors and two alternates. One director and his or her alternate must be a member of that municipality's city council. The second director and his or her alternate must be a city staff person who is likely to have administrative responsibility for the system in that municipality. The Commission will not compensate the directors. A municipality may, however, do so if appropriate. Each director will have one vote. The designated alter- nate may cast the vote when a director is absent. All votes must be cast at a Commission meeting. A director may not vote when his or her municipality is in default on any contribution or payment to the Commission. Directors shall serve a term of two years of the director's council. The Agreement does the term will end automatically if the council is ended or the administrative staff person's terminated. at~the pleasure provide that member's term employment is Any vacancy on the Commission will be filled by the appro- priate city council. Finally, the article describes the procedures for calling the first meeting, selecting officers, adopting by-laws, de- fining a quorum and for the holding of annual and special meetings. Since these provisions, in essence, govern the inter- nal working of the Commission, I have not provided a detailed explanation. IX. OFFICERS This article provides for the election of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and a Secretary/Treasurer. All officers are to be elected at the first meeting of the Commission and in April of each year thereafter. No more than one director of a party shall be elected an officer during the same term. This article also describes a procedure for the resigna- tion of an officer or the removal of an officer. Any vacancy will be filled by the Commission. X. OPERATING COMMITTEE This article creates an Operating Committee. This Comm- ittee will consist of the administrator or staff member director appointed by each city. Most importantly, the Operating CommO ittee is given the authority to manage the property, affairs anti business of the Commission between Commission meetings. Council Letter No. 166 X. FINANCIAL MATTERS The Commission will o article provides that each tion of $2,500 to fund the due a t the time it becomes -5- May 24, 1982 berate on the calendar year. The city will make an initial contribu- Commission. This amount will be a member: Contributions in subsequent years will be equivalent to that city's proportion of the franchise fees received that year to the total franchise fee paid by the Grantee to the cities combined. Or, on the other hand, the directors may, on a unani- mous vote, agree to a different formula by August 1 of the prior year. Contributions shall be due on January 15 or by such install- ment method as the Commission shall determine. The article requires that the Commission shall formulate a proposed budget and submit the budget to the cities on or be- fore August 1, of each year. No budget will become effective unless approved by resolution of the governing body of a majority of the cities. If the proposed budget is not so adopted on or before November, a revised budget shall be promptly formulated for review and approval. The cities shall use their best efforts to approve a budget for the succeeding year by December 31 of each year. Finally, the Agreement provides that the Commission's finan- cial books and records will be audited on or before July 1 or when so desired by the Commission. The result of the audit will be reported to the cities. XI. WITHDRAWAL The Agreement permits any city to withdraw from the Commission effective January 1 by giving notice prior to October 1 of the pre- ceding year. It is specifically provided that no financial benefit may inure to a city that withdraws nor shall any reimbursement be made for any contribution from that city. XII. AMENDMENTS Any amendment to this Agreement requires approval of all the cities that are a part of the Commission. The procedure for adopting an amendment is identical to that required for entering into this Agreement. XIII. DISSOLUTION The Commission may continue for a term up to and including the term of the franchise. The Commission, however, shall be dissolved if less than four cities remain, or by operation of state or federal law or by mutual agreement of the cities. • Council Letter No. 166 -6- May 24, 1982 Upon dissolution of the Commission, assets will be dis- • tributed to the then existing cities in proportion to their contributions and in accordance with procedures established by the Commission. The Commission may continue to exist up to six months as is necessary to wind up its affairs. XIV. PRIOR AGREEMENT SUPERSEDED This Agreement, when it becomes effective, will supersede all previous agreements between the cities establishing a joint cable communications commission. The ability for the five cities to maintain a joint powers agreement for purposes of administration of the Agreement is both cost effective and logical for policy determination. 64hile the city councils retain their rights as the final decision maker on the franchise, all of the leg work will be accomplished by the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission and/or the Operating Committee (five city managers). All of the costs of administra- tion of the cable television commission will be paid by the franchise fees. It is recommended that the city council adopt this Joint Powers Agreement in order to continue the excellent cooperation which has been achieved in the past with the other four cities, and to take advantage of this arrangement for the future. The city attorney and I will be available at the May 24, 1982 city council meeting for any discussions which you might like to have on this matter. Respectfully submitted, ~, ~,,.~, ~ y-`-'v.,,~-.c L~ ,. ~ ~ ~ mac, ~, _ Karl Nollenberger '~~ ~ (. ~ ~..,~-, City Manager KN/eja JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT • I. PREAMBLE The Parties to this Agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. This Agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §471.59. II. GENERAL PURPOSE The general .purpose of the Agreement is to establish an organization to analyze the operation and Systems of the Parties; to coordinate administration and enforcemer~t of the respective Franchises of the Parties; to report and recom- mend to the Parties relative to the operation of their respective Systems and the activities of their respective Grantees; and to perform such other duties as are required of the organization hereby created pursuant to this Agreement. III. NAME The name of the organization hereby created is Southwest Suburban Cable Commission. IV. DEFINITION OF TERMS Section 1, Definitions. For the purpose of this Agreement, the terms defined in this Article shall have the meanings given them by this Article. Section 2. "Board" or "Board of Directors" means the governing body of the Commission. Section 3. "Commission" means the organization created • -1- .pursuant to this A'greement1~ Section 4. Council means the governing body of a • Party. Section 5. "Directors" means the persons appointed pur- suant to this Agreement to serve as Directors, and includes alternate Directors when serving°as Directors. Section 6. "Franchise" means the cable communications ordinance of each Party to this Agreement. Section 7. "Grantee" means the person to whom each s Party has granted a Franchise. Section 8. "Operating Committee" means the committee consisting of the Administrative Director designates of each Party. Section 9. "Party" means a municipaltty__ which has entered into this Agreement. Section 10. "System" means t'tie cable communications system operated within each Party pursuant to that Party°s Franchise. V. PARTIES The municipalities eligible to become the original Parties to this Agreement are Eden Prairie, .Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield. Any other municipality served by a System through the same Grantee as the original Parties may become a Party upon approval by all of the then Parties. Eligible municipalities not a Party at the time of the first • -2- meeting described in Article VIII, Section 3, may become a • Party effective January 1 of any year thereafter, upon approval by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the total Directors and upon payment of the initial contribution set out in Article XI, Section 2 hereof, and contributions for the year it becomes a party. VI. EFFECTIVE DATE A municipality shall enter into this Agreement by duly executing a copy of this Agreement and by filing such copy, e together with a certified copy of the authorizing resolu- tion, with the City Manager of the City. of Edina, but after the Commission Chairman is elected, such documents shall be filed with said Chairman. This Agreement shall become effective when it has been entered into by all of the origi- nal eligible municipalities. VII. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION AND PARTIES Section 1. General Authority. The Commission is established for the purposes of coordinating administration and enforcement of the individual Franchises of the Parties and providing uniformity in that administration and enfor- cement to insure that the System of the Grantee is constructed, operated, maintained and upgraded in a manner that will, to the extent possible, be to the maximum benefit of each Party.. To accomplish .this purpose., the following divisions are made of authority and responsibilities among • -3- the Parties and the Commission. Section 2. Party Powers and Duties. The Commission • ~.+ _.r._.__ shall have only such powers and duties as are specifically granted in this Agreement or necessarily implied from those specifically granted. All powers and duties not so granted or necessarily implied are reserved to the Parties.. Specifically, the Commission shall have no powers and duties in the following areas and the Parties retain sole authority in the following areas: r A. General Powers. Each Party retains authority to amend. and renew its Franchise, initiate and defend lawsuits, and prosecute violations of its Franchise. B. Permits and Licenses. Each Party retains authority to issue all required permits and licenses for the construction and operation of the System. Section 3. Powers and Duties of the Commission. Subject to the provisions of Section 2, the following powers and duties are delegated by the Parties to the Commission. A. Policy Decisions and Recommendations. The Commission shall make policy decisions and recommen- dations to Parties on the following: 1) Enforcement of Laws. Enforcement of laws, regulations and ordinances, related to cable communications, against Grantee and others. 2) Insurance Policies and Letters of Credit. -4- • The content and adequacy of insurance policies and • letters of credit. 3) Marketing Practices. Review and report to the Parties on any marketing practices or subscription contracts which may be contrary to any of the Franchises, or which are not uniform in each. Party. B. Complaints. Relating., to Grantee Actions. Receive, collect, tabulate and attempt to resolve by i negotiation with Grantee all customer complaints and report to the affected Party. all unresolved complaints. C. Institutional Network. .Monitor development of the institutional networks in each Party and work with • Grantee to promote prompt completion of the nstitu- tional network in each Party. D. Cable Programming, Content, Scope, Alterations in Programming .Services. Deal. with all matters relating to programming on its own initiation or upon request of a Party. E. Access and Local Origination. Encourage and promote the use and development of access channels and programming, sand local origination programming; work with Grantee to coordinate such development and programming in each Party, including the development of rules, training of persons and the use and maintenance • _5~ of equipment. F. Performance Evaluation. Cause technical eva~ luations of the System whenever the Commission, in its sole. discretion, concludes that such evaluations are required or desirable, including the periodic review and evaluation specified in the Parties' Franchises. G. Grantee Rules. Help to develop Grantee°s rules regarding development and supervision of the System .including, but nat limited to, public access, local origination and line extensions. H. Technology and State of Art Review. Continuously review changes and developments in the cable communications industry and facilitate .the upgrading of the System.. I. Statutory and Regulatory Changes. Period$cally advise the Parties of any required. or recommended Franchise amendments. J. Interconnection with Other Systems. Monitor the planning and development of the regional intercon- nection of the System with other cable television systems and supervise the implementation of intercon- nection to the extent not requiring Franchise amendment. K. Lobbying of Camrtission Policy at Other Governmental Levels. Upon a unanimous vote. of all the Directors, the Commission may present its policies `to • • -6 -~ other governmental bodies involved in the regulation or • operation of cable communications. I„ Mediation of Parties/Grantee Disputes. Mediate disputes arising between a Party and the Grantee when and if submitted to the Commission for resolution upon the mutual agreement of that Party, the Grantee and the Commission. M. Franchise Fees; Grantee Audits. Coordinate payment of franchise fees to the Parties; examine books and records of Grantee and conduct any audits it deems appropriate and as may be required by the Franchises. N. Gifts. In appropriate circumstances, the Commission may accept gifts, apply for and use grants, • enter into agreements required- in. connection therewith, and hold, use and dispose of money or property received as a gift or grant in accordance with the terms thereof. O. Annual Report. At the beginning of each year, prepare a report to the Parties describing and sum- marizing its functions and activities for the preceding year. . P. Coordination and Defense of Civil_ Lawsuits. Commission may, at the request of a Party or Parties, provide assistance and coordination regarding the defense of any lawsuit pertaining to cable com- munications, or the enforcement of Franchises. Any such requested assistance or coordination shall be paid for • by the Party or Parties requesting it. Defense of lawsuits in which the Commission is named as a defendant shall be handled in a manner decided by the Commission. Q. Rates and Charges. Maintain records of rates and charges and evaluate changes requested by Grantee; advise and recommend to the Parties as to all requested rate or charge changes; obtain from Grantee and from any other source, such information relating to rates,. costs e and service levels as any-Party is entitled to obtain from Grantee or others; and conduct hearings as the Commission deems appropriate. R. Contracts. Make such contracts and enter into such agreements. as it, deems necessary to make effective i any power granted to it or perform any duties imposed upon it by this Agreement or delegated to it by a Party. The Commission may contract with any of the Parties or others to provide to it space, services or materials. S. Consultants and Legal Counsel. Contract with such persons as it deems necessary to accomplish its powers and duties. VIII. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Section 1. General Powers. The property, affairs and business of this Commission shall be managed by the Board of Directors. -8- Section 2. Qualifications; Appointment; Notices. Each • Party shall be entitled to two (2) Directors and two (2) alternate Directors. Each alternate shall serve as a Director when the Director for which he/she is an alternate cannot serve or is absent. One (1) Director and his/her alternate shall be a member of that Party's Council. The other Director and his/her alternate shall be an administra- for or staff member having, or likely to have, administra- tive responsibility for that Party's System. Directors and alternates shall be appointed by the Council of each Party at the time it becomes a Party. When a Council appoints a Director, it shall give written notice initially of such appointment to the City Manager of the City of Edina, but • _ after the Chairman is elected, such notice shall be given to the then Chairman. Such notice shall include the mailing address of the person so appointed. The names and addresses shown on such notices as the same may be changed by sub- Sequent notices given in writing, may be used as the offi- cial names and addresses for the purpose of giving notices to such persons for all purposes under this Agreement, including meetings of the Commission. Section 3. First Meeting. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this Agreement, the Manager of the City of Edina shall call the first meeting of the Commission, which shall be held no later than fifteen (15) • -9- days thereafter. Section 4. Officers Selection. At the first meeting of • the Commission and at each annual meeting thereafter while the Commission is in existence, the Commission shall elect the Commission officers from its Directors. Section 5. B -Laws. At the first meeting, or as soon thereafter as it reasonably may be done, the Commission shall adopt By-Laws governing its procedures including the time, place- and frequency of its regular meetings, and the, time and place of its annual meeting. The Commission. may amend the By-Laws from time to time. The By-Laws may be amended by either of-the following methods: A. A proposed By-Law amendment may be submitted by a Director at any regular meeting. It shall then be • referred to the Operating Committee for its recommen- dation. The recommendation shall be presented to the Board at a regular meeting and voted upon at that or a subsequent meeting of the Commission; or B. A proposed By-Law amendment may be submitted by a Director by giving written notice thereof to all other Directors at least fourteen (14) days prior to a regular meeting at which it is to be acted on. The pro- posed amendment shall then be referred to the Operating Committee for its recommendation. The recommendation shall be presented to the Board at the meeting stated in -10- • said notice and voted upon at that or a subsequent • meeting of the Commission. In no event shall a proposed By-Law amendment be acted upon without a review by the Operating Committee of not more than sixty (60) days. Section 6. Compensation. Directors shall serve without compensation from the Commission no matter in what capacity they serve, but this shall not prevent a Party from pro- viding compensation for its Directors if such compensation is authorized by the Party and by law. Section 7. Voting. There shall be no voting by proxy. Each Director shall have one (1) vote. Votes must be cast at a Commission meeting. Directors shall not be eligible to • vote during the time the Party that appointed such Directors is in default on any contribution or payment to the Commission. During the existence of such default, the votes allotted to such Party shall not be counted for any purposes under this Agreement. Section 8. Term; Resignation. Directors shall serve, at the pleasure of the Council appointing them, a term of two (2) years. In the case of Council member Directors, his/her term shall automatically cease when his/her term as a Council member is ended. Likewise, the term of a Director .that is an administrator or staff member of a Party shall cease upon termination of that person's employment with the • -11- appointing Party. Directors may be reappointed at the • pleasure of the Council appointing them. A Director may resign at any time by giving written notice to the Chairman of the Commission, effective upon the date stated in said notice, or if no date is stated, effective upon receipt by Chairman. Acceptance of a resignation is not necessary to make it effective. Section 9. Vacancies. A vacancy on the Commission, created by any cause, shall be filled, for the remaining term of the prior Director, by the Council of the Party whose Director position on the Commission is vacant. Section 10. Quorum and Manner of Action. Except as provided in Article VII, Section 3, Paragraph K, a majority of the. Directors shall constitute a quorum of the • Commission, and the act of a majority of the Directors pre- sent at any meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of the Board. In the absence of a quorum, a majority of the Directors present may adjourn any meeting from time to time until a quorum is present. Notice of any adjourned meeting need not be given other than by announ- cement at the meeting at which adjournment is taken. If a quorum is present when a duly called meeting is convened, the Directors present may adjourn the meeting, not- withstanding that the withdrawal of a number of Directors originally present leaves less than a quorum. No other • -12- business shall be transacted. Section 11. Annual and Regular Meetings. An annual meeting of the Commission shall be held in April of each year to elect officers of the Commission and for transaction of any other business to come before the meeting. Regular meetings shall be held at such times and places as shall be established in the By-Laws of the Commission. Section 12. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Commission may be called (i) by the Chairman, (ii) by the Operating Committee, or (iii) by the Chairman or Operating Committee upon the written request of a majority of the Directors. Five (5) days written notice of special meetings shall be given to the Directors. Such notice shall include • the agenda for the special meeting. Only matters set forth in the agenda shall be considered at the special meeting. Section 13. Notice. Notice of regular and annual meetings of the Commission shall be given to the Directors by the Secretary/Treasurer at least seven (7) days in advance and the agenda for such meetings shall accompany the ,. notice. Business at regular meetings of the Commission is,. not limited to matters set forth in the agenda. Section 14. Notices Excused. Any meeting of the Board_ shall be a legal meeting without any notice thereof having.; been given if all. of the Directors then in office are pre- sent at the meeting or waive notice in writing before, at or • -13- after the meeting. IX. OFFICERS Section 1. Number; Election; Qualifications. The offi- cers of the Commission shall consist of a Chairman, a Vice Chairman and a Secretary/Treasurer. Each officer shall be elected at the annual meeting by the Board and shall hold office until the next annual election of officers and until his/her successor shall have been elected and have qualified or until his/her earlier disqualification, death., resigns- tion or" removal. All officers shall be Directors. New officers"'shall take office at the adjournment of the annual .meeting of the Commission at which they were elected. Not more than one (1) Director of a Party shall be elected an officer" during the same term. Directors of a Party that • have given notice of withdrawal shall not be eligible to become officers or to vote on the selection of officers. Any officer who ceases to be a Director shall at the same time cease to be an officer. Section 2. Resignation.. Any officer of the Commission may resign at any time by giving written notice of his/her resignation to the Board, to the Chairman or to the Secretary/Treasurer of this Commission. The resignation shall take effect at the time, if any, specified therein or, if no time is specified' therein, upon receipt thereof by said Board, Chairrian or Secretary/Treasurer. The acceptance -14- of a resignation shall not be necessary to make it '~ effective. Section 3. Removal. Any officer may be removed, with or without cause, by a vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the total number of Directors, at any meeting of the Board, pro- vided that such purpose is stated in the notice or waiver of notice of the meeting unless all of the Directors of this Commission are present at the meeting. Section 4. Vacancies. A vacancy in any office because., of disqualification, death, resignation or removal shall be: filled for the unexpired portion of the term in the manner. prescribed herein for election to that office. :- Section 5. Chairman; Vice Chairman. The Chairman shall., r~ preside at all meetings of the Commission and shall per£orm< ~ . _ all duties incident to the office of Chairman and such other duties as may be delegated by the Commission. The Vice Chairman shall act as Chairman in the absence of the Chairman. Section 6. Secretary/Treasurer. The Secretary/Treasurer shall be a Director who is an administrator or staff member;. of a Party. He/she shall be responsible for keeping a.~.;:.: record of all of the proceedings of the Commission and-. Operating Committee and shall serve as .the Chairman of the: ~ ~ : _. Operating Committee. The Secretary/Treasurer shall send :~ written notice and material pertaining... to agenda items _ta.~:, ~ _ _ . ~~. . -15- it tQ -the City Manager ;of the City-, of Edina so that the Joint ,, P~©wers Commission :cont~mplated:b~ the Agreement can be organized aid :started.. 2. That. the ::City Council. of: the. City of aplarove:~: the proposed start-up costs-and the proposed method of Laud„c~:et~ng: €or the balance of 1982. 3,. That, the following Berson are designated to serve on behalf af_this City:as~Directors and Alternates to the Joint . Fa~aers commission: 0 "` ~ouneilmember"/Director Alterna-te Councilmember/Director ~.. .. Ai3mi~`i'istrative 1~ppointe3 Director - Administrative Appointed Alternative Director Passed .:and adopted this day of 1982. CTTY OF ATTEST : - _ By MAYOR ..._~_ CITY .CLERK EXTRA ITEM CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 165 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and b2embers of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Resolution Adopting Assessment on City Project 705 - Steinmetz Property r At the Niay 1 1 , 1 981 city council meeting, the city council adopted Resolution No. 6418 adopting the assessment on the above noted property. The amount of the assessment as indicated in the council letter was $10,000. This amount was also the assessment contained in the Findings of Fact. However, the amount listed on the Resolution which was sub- sequently certified to Hennepin County was $13,245.67. In order to correct this error, the city attorney has advised that a new resolution containing the arlount of $10,000-for the assessment, should be approved by the city council. Attached to this council letter is a resolution which would correct this assessment amount. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ e j a All assessments and interest thereon shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. _ Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10-- day of May 1982 ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergki, City ClerJ~ John Hamilton Mayor r PARCEL PARCEL AREA AMOUNT 28028-24-14-0011 F. N. Steinmetz 1117 North Broadway Stillwater, MN 55082 26,385.8 f $10,000.00 r ~#a y c CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 164 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Confirmation of Board of Review Citizen Member Appointments Section 7.04 of the City Charter states that the Board of Review shall consist of members of the city council and two resi- dents of the city appointed for one year terms by the city manager and approved by the city council. The Charter further states that the two residents must be experienced in real estate matters. The board of Review is comprised of the two citizen members, plus the Mayor and City Council. This board is an appeal body to which Richfield property owners may apply for an adjustment in the valuation assigned to their property. The city council has previously scheduled the 1982 Board of Review meeting for Wednesday, June 2, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. In accordance with the City Charter requirements, I have selected Mr. Harley Witte, 2911 West 70 1/2 Street and Mr. Harry Tickner, 6429 Russell Avenue, to serve as the resident members of the 1982 Board of Review. Both of these gentlemen-have served on the Board of Review for the past five years. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, appointing these residents to the Board of Review, and establishing compensation for their participation on this board. Respectfully submitted, ~a,)Q ~~~a~ka,~~ti<J Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Administrative Services Director • KN/eja RESOLUTION N0. • RESOLUTION CONFIRMING CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENT OF TWO RESIDENT MEMBERS TO BOARD OF REVIEW BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield has hereby approved the city manager's appointment of Mr. Harley Witte and Mr. Harry Tickner as 1982 resident members on the Board of Review. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that compensation for the two resident • members of the Board of Review be set at a minimum of $32.00 per session of the Board, or $13.00 per hour per session of the Board, whichever is greater. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of May, 1982. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 163 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Discussion of 76th Street Traffic Issues The city council at the April 12, 1982 council meeting discussed traffic issues related to that portion of 76th Street west of Lyndale Avenue. The council requested additional in- formation from the staff and scheduled further discussion on the matter for May 10, 1982. A copy of the April 12, 1982 letter is attached for your information. The council requested additional information regarding screening and buffering which could be provided along 76th Street by property owners to reduce the effect of traffic on their residences. Screening and. buffering can reduce the actual noise and air pollution suffered by adjacent property owners. The preceived reduction of noise and air pollution can be greater than the actual reduction, when people are visually separated from the source of the problem. Attached is a diagram showing what restrictions are placed on the construction of walls, fences and hedges by city ordin- ances. The ability of a property owner to construct an effective buffer is dependent on whether the house faces 76th Street or the side street, and the distance that the house is set back from 76th Street. In most cases, the houses face the side street, which allows for the construction of a two foot higher buffer than if the house faced 76th Street. Ideally, solid fencing and multi-level plantings should be installed to pro- vide the most effective and aesthetic buffer possible. The actual design can be limited by the cost and space available, however, Where there are driveways and at intersections care must be taken not to create visibility problems. To protect against this and to not create a freeway wall image along 76th Street, buffers and screening must be constructed within the city's existing regu3.ations. The city should encourage the construction of buffers along 76th Street as allowed by city ordinances. The city council may want to direct staff to mail out information to I Council Letter No. 163 -2- May 10, 1982 property owners along 76th Street encouraging them to con- struct buffers and also providing them with information about the restrictions outlined by city ordinances. A second issue concerned weight restrictions for trucks. 76th Street has been designed and constructed to be able to handle truck traffic. There currently is a weight restriction on 76th Street of 3 ton per axle. This restriction has not been aggressively enforced because of the considerable time and expense required for enforcement. The vehicle must be weighed, so public safety personnel must escort the vehicle to a scale to determine if a violation has, in fact, been committed. The nearest scale is located in Bloomington. If the city chooses to commit the necessary time and manpower, the existing weight restrictions could be more actively enforced. Further study could also be instituted to determine if the existing restrict- ions when enforced would be effective. This study could de- termine the exact nature of the problem, the types of trucks. to be restricted and permitted and the specific types of re- strictions necessary. It has also been suggested that exit and entrance ramps at Xerxes Avenue on I-494 would help to alleviate the traffic problems nn 76th Street. The city staff held a meeting with representatives from MNDot, Hennepin County and the City of Bloomington to discuss the installation of exit and entrance ramps at Xerxes Avenue on I-494. It was the concensus of those present at the meeting that the traffic problems on streets adjacent to the I-494 and 35 W freeways are eaused by the in- sufficient capacity of I-494 and 35W. The biggest cause of this lack of capacity is an inefficient use of the mainstream lanes on 35W and I-494. The outside lanes of the freeway should carry close to 2,000 cars per hour. However, because of the exits and entrances, this causes friction in this lane, and only 1,000 to 1,300 cars now are presently carried on these lanes. Present design standards dictate that entrances to a free° way should be spaced about a mile apart. At the time the I-494 and 35W freeways were built, entrances were allowed every half-mile, so there are entrances at Portland, Nicollet, Lyndale Avenue, Penn Avenue, at spacings every half-mile. This kind of spacing does not allow for adequate merging lanes. The solution to the traffic problems on streets adjacent to 35W and I-494 such as 76th Street, lies in the protection and the upgrading of the traffic carrying lanes on the freeway. Although new freeway entrances at Xerxes Avenue would appear to alleviate the immediate traffic problem on 76th Street, what would really happen is that I-494 would be able to carry less traffic due to the increased friction of. the traffic flow on I-494. The city should be doing everything it can to upgrade and maintain the intersections in-and around 35W and I-494. However, before a drastic measure, such as the installation Council Letter No. 163 -3- May 10, 1982 of new exits and entraces onto Xerxes Avenue should occur, a careful look must be taken to make sure that we are really improving the situation. About three years ago, a task force was formed to study traffic problems at the intersection of France Avenue and I-494. The task force consisted of engineering representatives from Richfield, Bloomington, Edina, Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The task force has been meeting on a regular basis to discuss the problems, various solutions, funding mechanisms and preliminary construction plans. The proposed improvement would increase the capacity of the interchange by widening the bridge and making it a partial cloverleaf. The primary funding source will be Federal Aid Urban Funds (FAU). Bloomington, Edina and Hennepin County will also contribute significantly to the project. MnDot does not have any funds available to contribute to the improvement project. However, they did provide technical staff support. The project should provide an attractive access to I-494 and thereby reduce traffic levels on 76th Street. Although Richfield is not providing any financial support to the project, the city can provide political support. A public hearing on this project will be held in the Community Room of the Southdale Library, May 19, 9182 at 7:30.p.m. The purpose of the public hearing will be to get citizen input into the project. The staff recommends that the council adopt the attached resolution endorsing the planned improvements. The resolution will be submitted at the public hearing. It has also been suggested that some type of flashers be used to highlight the stop signs on 76th Street. It has been the observation of city staff that at the present time between 5 and 10 percent of the cars don't even make a good rolling stopy at the 76th Street stop signs. It is the opinion of the staff that the most severe violations occur from people who know the particular stop sign they are running, and that it is unlikely that there would be a car entering from the cross street. If the council feels it is necessary to check on where the traffic is coming from and going to along 76th Street, than an origin destination study should be conducted. This type of study is conducted by stopping each and every motorist during certain time periods of the day. An alternate method of con- ducting this study is to keep track of license plates coming and going from various intersections along 76th Street and then use a computer program to find the origin and destination of each car entering and leaving 76th Street. This kind of study would identify how much of the traffic is neighborhood oriented and how much is attributable to other cities. Another issue that was brought up at the last discussion Council Letter No. 163 -4- May 10, 1982 about 76th Street relates to reduced speed limits. Minnesota Statute 169.14 subdivision 5, reads as follows: "When local authorities believe that the existing speed limit upon any street or highway, or part thereof, within their respective jurisdictions......is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under existing conditions, they may request the commissioner to authorize, upon the basis of engineering and traffic investi- gation, the erection of .appropriate signs and designating what speed is reasonable and safe. The commissioner may authorize appropriate signs designating a reasonable and safe speed limit thereat, which speed shall be effective when the signs are erected." According to the statute, the commissioner of transporation is the only person with authority to establish speed limits. Other minor arterial streets in Richfield have speed limits of 35 miles per hour. If we request the commissioner of transportation to look at 76th Street, we would run the risk of the engineering studies indicating that the speed limit should be increased rather than decreased. Another issue raised was the placement of additional stop signs. As background to a policy on comprehensive stop signs, it is necessary to list the laws and rules that pertain to the subject of stop signs. The reason for this is that a discussion on stop signs generally borrows from many disciplines. The legalities of statutes, engineering principles and plain common sense all figure in to the consideration of the issue. ~, In order to properly weigh the merits of each argument, the source of the information should be considered. Minnesota Statutes 1961, Section 169.06, subdivision 3, requires local authorities to install traffic control devices in conformance with the state manual and specifications. The statute reads as follows: "Local authorities in their respective jurisdiction shall place and maintain such traffic control devices upon highways under their jurisdiction as they may deem necessary to indicate and to carry out the provisions of this chapter or local traffic ordinances, or to reg- ulate, warn, or guide traffic. All such traffic control devices hereinafter erected shall conform to the state manual and specifications." Warrants for two-way and four-way stop signs from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices are listed in Exhibit A. The warrants for a two-way stop sign are subjective so, according to statute, the council "may deem necessary" the existing two-way stop signs. However, the warrants for a four-way stop sign are more objective. Placing a four-way stop sign at an intersection requires engineering analysis. A two-way stop sign "controls" an intersection, so four-way stops should not be placed unless absolutely necessary. In addition to the statutes, traffic engineering principles Council letter No. 163 -5- May 10, 1982 provide guidelines to a stop sign policy. The following is a list of these principles which have been verified through tests in many jurisdictions: -residential stop signs reduce speeds in the immediate area of a stop sign, i.e., approximately 200 feet before the stop sign and 100 feet after the stop sign. -traffic speeds about one-half block from a residential stop sign remain the same or increase slightly over speeds before the stop sign was installed. -a pair of stop signs installed to stop traffic on opposite legs of a four-way intersection will virtually eliminate right angle accidents. -a unwarranted stop sign, particularly a four-way stop, will be flagrantly disobeyed more often than a warranted stop sign. -each stop that a medium sized car makes from 30 mph uses .01 gallon of gas more than the same car travelling through at 30 mph. In addition, there is increased air pollution, noise, and time spent travelling through a contralled intersection. -installation of stop signs on a street will cause traffic volumes to remain the same or decrease slightly. As was stated before, the aforementioned principles have been tested and documented. However, traffic engineering is both a science and an art. For every rule there can be extenu- ating circumstances which make the rule inoperative. Intuition and experience come in to play. From this intuition, various stop sign principles have been developed. Some of these prin- ciples which either have not been tested or cannot be tested are as follows: -a stop sign placed on a street with relatively high traffic volumes will increase the incidence of rear end type collisions. -installation of stop signs that are unwarranted based upon the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices denigrates the integrity of stop signs that are warranted. The use of unwarranted stop signs encourages "stop" sign violations not only at that intersection, but subsequently generates a serioas disregard for a =stop sign control in general. -a neighborhood which has a fair number of controlled intersections, i.e~, intersections with at least two legs with stop signs, can experience an increased number of accidents at uncontrolled intersections due to a false sense of security. That is, a driver who Council Letter No. 163 -6- May 10, 1982 encounters a series of controlled intersections and then comes upon an uncontrolled intersection, will assume the cross street has stop signs. He will not be as wary as he should be for an uncontrolled inter- section. -installation of a stop sign on a busy street to make a school crossing will make the crossing more dangerous. A vehicle which has been a problem for three seconds while approaching and passing an intersection becomes a problem for a much longer period. A situation of indecision is created when to cross as a pedestrian or when to start as a motorist. Normal gaps in traffic through which crossings can be made safely no longer exist. An intersection which previously was not busy now looks like a major intersection. This information is from the Institute of Transporation Engineers, -Traffic Information grogram Services. -An--.unwarranted four-way stop adds congestion to the intersection as well as increasing the wear on the pavement surface. Finally, we come to the question of stop signs on collector and arterial streets. The staff strongly recommends following the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as directed by statute, that is that stop signs not be placed on collector and arterial streets at intersections with residential streets. A collector or arterial street is supposed to move traffic in an orderly and efficient manner. Safety is paramount to all types of streets; the efficient movement of traffic is the main purpose of a collector or=.arterial street. In addition, we are talking about a four-way stop sign, not a two-way stop. The manual dictates that minimum traffic volumes or other concrete criteria be met for a four-way stop. In the final analysis, stop signs should not be placed on arterials unless they are warranted by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices . Respectfully submitted, 1 ~ ~-!W'~i'~ 7~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc : City Engineer !' ~ _ ._ _ - - - ._ - -~ /~~o~ SPLtiv l.~n~i-f S~6~~S ~- / J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNEOSTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Council Letter No. 104 Agenda April 12, 1982 Subject: Discussion of Issues Related to 76th Street Traffic On December 14, 1981, the city council received a petition from property owners adjacent to 75th Street, requesting that a neighbor- hood meeting be held to discuss noise and speeding problems on 76th Street. The Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on March 2, 1982 to gather information from residents concerning their perceptions of traffic problems which exist along 76th Street between Xerxes Aver nue and Lyndale Avenue. Citizens appearing at the public meeting indicated a number of • problems and a number of suggested solutions to remedy the problems. The problems enumerated included the following: 1. Excessive traff is volumes 2 . Excessive noise 3. Excessive vibrations 4. Air pollution/dirt 5. Speeding/drag racing 6. Access to residences limited or difficult to achieve 7. Cars running stop signs 8. Inadequate enforcement of existing laws Potential solutions which citizens suggested included the following: 1. Reduce speed limits 2. Install more speed limit signs 3. Install more stop signs 4. Eliminate stop signs 5. Install stop sign warning flashers 6. Install noise prohibitive signs 7. More police enforcement of speed limits and stop .signs 8. More enforcement of noise ordinance 9. Allow on-street parking Council Letter No. 104 -2- April 12, 1982 10. Eliminate access to and from I-35W 11. Eliminate or reroute "deadheading" buses 12. Prohibit truck traff is 13. Improve I-494 frontage roads 14. Make 76th Street a one-way eastbound from 6<00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and westbound from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. 15. Limit left turns during rush hours 16. Install speed bumps 17. Divert adjacent community traffic to freeways 18. Overlay street with asphalt All of the above proposed solutions would address the .problems which were identif ied at the public meeting. However,. an important question which must be answered before any attempt is made to address the citizens' concerns is what function does the city want 76th Street to perform? The city has designated 76th Street as a major thoroughfare and, over the years, has reaffirmed that decision a number of times, and improved the street based on those decision. Most recently, in the draft comprehensive plan, the city council. indicated that 76th Street be designated a minor arterial. The primary purpose of a minor arterial is to move relatively high volumes of traffic smoothly and safely. For the most part, 76th Street is performing properly, based on its present functional classification as a minor arterial. Unfortunately, there are negative effects of high traffic volumes, which the people living adjacent to 76th Street experience, and. which they identif ied during the meeting. The city council should confirm what function 76th Street is to perform, and then seek to identify actions which • may be taken to ensure that the roadway performs properly, and that negative effects are minimized. On March 23, the Planning Commission further discussed this matter and made the following recommendations: 1. That 76th Street continue to be classified as a minor arterial west of Nicollet. 2. That additional speed limit signs be installed, to better inform drivers of the speed limit. 3. That police enforcement of speed limits and the noise ordinance be increased. 4. That the stop signs on 76th Street at Vincent Avenue, Sheridan Avenue, and Emerson Avenue be eliminated to provide smoother traffic flow, and to reduce noise, air pollution and vibration. 5. That the city work with other communities to divert traffic off of 76th Street. In conjunction with this, the city should closely monitor traffic volumes on 76th Street at Xerxes Avenue. If traffic volumes continue to increase as new development occurs in Edina, the city should strongly encourage Edina to take actions to divert traffic from 76th Street. Council Letter No. 104 -3- April 12, 1982 6. That the city impose lower speed limits on buses and trucks to reduce vibration problems.. 7. That the city impose truck weight restrictions to reduce vibrations and noise. 8. That the city work with various agencies to provide access to and from Xerxes Avenue at I-494 to divert ttaff is from 76th Street. 9. That the city work with the Metropolitan Transit Commission to reroute "deadheading" buses to reduce noise and vibration. 10. That the city construct an exclusive left turn lane and traffic signal improvements on 76th Street at its inter- section with Lyndale and Penn Avenues, to provide safer and smoother traffic flow. 11. That the city explore alternatives for providing buffering along 76th Street to reduce noise and air pollution problems suffered by adjacent property owners. It is recommended that the city council consider the actions recommended by the Planning Commission, as follows: 1. 76th Street continue to be classifed as a minor arterial. • The street is one of only two east-west streets which traverse the community uninterrupted by I-35W. The city has clearly taken numerous actions in the past to classify and improve 76th Street to serve as a major traffic carrier.. 2. Installation of additional speed limit signs can make people better aware of the 30 mile per hour speed limit. People may expect 76th Street to have a 35 mph speed limit, such as other arterials. There currently are speed limit signs in the area of each major cross street. Slower speeds can reduce noise and vibration problems. 3. Increased police enforcement of speed limits and the noise ordinance can lead to reduced speeds and noise; however it should be noted that 76th Street is the most heavily patrolled street in Richf field at this time. Any additional police enforcement will require a detrimental reduction of the public safety presence elsewhere in the community. 4. Elimination of stop signs on 76th Street will provide smoother traffic flow and reduced noise, air pollution and vibrations. The. staff strongly recommends this action. The state com- pleted initial site work last year for installing traffic signals on 76th Street at its intersection with the exit ramp off of southbound I-35W. These signals should be fully operational this summer. Council Letter No. 104 -4- 5. The staff strongly concurs with the effects of new development in Edina 76th Street. Rchf field should work divert traffic from 76th Street whe: April 12, 1982 need to monitor the on traffic volumes on • closely with Edina to rever possible. 6. Lower speed limits for heavier vehicles such as trucks and buses can reduce noise and vibrations. MTC has instructed drivers to reduce speeds on 76th Street as well as posted reduced speed signs along the street. Split speed limits can pose enforcement problems, and it is difficult to def fine which vehicles would be subject to the reduced limits which makes enforcement difficult. For this reason, this recommendation appears to be undesirable. 7. Truck weight restrictions can eliminate heavier vehicles from using 76th Street and could reduce noise and vibrations. There currently is a three-ton per axle weight restriction on 76th Street. This does not restrict local deliveries, but only through traffic. The staff will investigate further potentials for weight restrictions on 76th Street in light of the lack of scales to weigh trucks in Richfield. 8. The city is working to and from I-494. Xerxes Avenue poses the Penn Avenue and access and frontage Xerxes Avenue is a with other agencies with other agencies to improve access Full access to and from I-494 at problems because of its close proximity to France Avenue interchanges. A partial road system.~between Penn Avenue and • possibility, and the staff is working on this option. 9. Bus routes can be analyzed in an effort to reroute dead- heading buses where possible. In general, MTC is reluctant to make operational changes which result in increased costs, especially with their recent funding cutbacks. As indicated earlier, MTC has instructed its drivers to reduce speed. The city staff will discuss the problem with MTC to see if further improvements can be made. 10. Intersection improvements are necessary and planned on 76th Street at its intersections with Lyndale Avenue and Penn Avenue. Improvements are planned (.'as listed in the Capital Improvement Program) at the 76th S~r2et and Lyndale:..AQenue intersection in 1983. The 76th Street and Penn Avenue intersection is planned for improvement in 1986. 11. Alternatives for buffering are limited because of lack of space, although this option could be explored in further. detail. Fencing alternatives could be explained to property owners for their installation along with landscaping best suited for visual, noise and air pollution benefits. Respectfully submitted, • ~ ` v,, : , ` ,~,~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager ~ FENCE, HEDGE, AND~NALL RESTRICTIONS ~ LOT LINE SIDE STREET FRONT 1 HOUSE 1 1 --•-r---------- e 1 t HOUSE ~ ~ - - FRONT FRONT BUILDING LINE -------- ------ SI DEWAL K ----__....._ _.. 5O• _ ...... r~f~rrfa ho ~ci'Ke hedge ON wall can be cony~YvC'Yed or pl a need be~wee n ~tbe he~~ti~ o~ z~ ~to t o leek _ _ maximum heiqht of ~enceti m rear yards and -n stde yards back o{~ the fronC buibin9 line K b feed 76 th Sheet ...... vnaxi-mum l~eryl~~ o~ fences ~n ~roh~ yat'd5 and std yards in ~ron~ ~ the ~ron~ bu~ld~n9 line iy A~ ~ee~ ~ ~encey, Iced Qti .surd wally Ynuy~ be 5e~ ack ~~FQe~ ~rotm ~ro~~ roper~y Itne ~o provide ti ~tc~errC snow ~ora~Q yp~ace for yidewa~k5. ~thi~~roviytoh c~n be watvtd by ~c city tma ~ageY j the q~ eY wovid no creme grow forage Prob1e~5 or covt~~'~ with cc~Gy RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ENDORSING IMPROVEMENT OF THE I-494/FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Hennepin County, the City of Bloomington, and the City of Edina do intend to make improvements to the I-494 and France Avenue intersection; AND, WHEREAS, such improvements would increase the. capacity of this intersection, eliminate traffic congestion, and provide for a more even flow of traffic in the area; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota 1. That the City of Richfield endorses said improvements to the I-494/France Avenue intersection because of the positive impact it would have on reduction of commuter traffic utilization of 76th Street through the City of Richfield . 2. That the City of Richfield endorses said improvements as • a positive first step in the improvement of traffic improvement in the I-494 corridor and would be of benefit to the communities of Bloomington, Edina, and Richfield. Adopted by the City Council this 10th day of May, 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk i ..• ,: • • . - ~ .. ' 21Yt Stop Sign (It1-I) STOP aiC s aro intended for uee on roadrrnys where trn(fic is ' required to slno. • Tae STOP sign shall be nn oetngon•+vlth whito message and bon- ~ 1~ der on :- re9l baekfiround. The staadnrcl sizo stall bo 30 inches by :f0 inches. \Vhoro glenter emphasis or visibilit}• is required, a larger sizo is trcommended. On lo+v-vohlmo ja:nl st.l•eels and secondary roads with lo+c nlrproach speeds, n 21•inch Ly 2I•inch sizo may ba used. At n tnulti+ray stop in!etscctimt (sec, dP-ti), n supplemcutlry pinto (R1-J) .should bo mounted just below uncle STOP sign. If the nunahcr of npl~roncle Ics to t.lto htlcncotiou is tlu•co or more, rho numcrll ort rho supplenlcutnry pinto shall coa•sc~pond to the actual nnather of !eg,, or rho legend .iLL-\V~l,,' {RI-4) may be u;cd. "I 9o supp!c:nrutary Plato shall lencc ++•hito letters ota n red bnrk;;lYrund amt shall knee n stundnrd size of 1.2 inches by G incites (Itl-3) or 18 inches by G inches (RI-f ). ,~ S'1.O1' sign bracml or Lcucons may ho used in conjunction tvit.h n STOP si~^.t us dcscrihed iu section 41?-4. Secondan• messages shall not lw used on STOP sign faces. • 2II-5 ~Varrant9 for Stop Sign ' Ilccauso the STOP sic t causes n seebstnntinl incotte•enienco to motorists, it should bo used qtly +chero e•nrruntcd. !t. S'fOP nigh may bo +crtrr:ut!cd nt nn intcrsccl!on +vhero ono or more o[ the fol. lo+ring conditions c:cist: 1. Intersection of n less irnportnnt road with n main road where • np; lication of rho nonr,al right-of-++•ny t•uie is widuly Lnanrdous. 2. S!rect entering n through highteay or street. a. L~nsignatized intcrectimt in n signalired nern. 4. (7:!ICr intcracrtions +eherc n comhinatiotl of ltiglt speed, ro- stricte°I view, and serious occident record indicates n need for control by tau S'I'OP Eign. STOP s!gres should nce•cr bo used on rho through rondwa}'s of ocpressn•nys. I'rol~erly designed e~press+rny inlcrchnn~es provide .for rho coutimwus flo+9r of lrallic, aual:inr STOP signs unnecessary even on rho catering road+rnya. 1~'hcrc nt•gradc intersection? nro tcrnponu'ily justiticd for Incal trnll'ic ile sp:u•scly populated areas, . S'[•Oi' si; ns should be used on the cnfeeinn road+cnys to protect rho through tratuc. S•COP signs may also be required nt tau end of . di+crgin;; rmde•ays at the intersection ++•ith nthcr high+cays not drsit;tu•d ns cxlicss:°'ays. In roost of these cases, the spacds vcill not +carrant env great inrrcase in t!IC SIE'll 91'LQ4. .I:-•1 J 2 s ." STOP si;;res ehnll not bo ctccta:d at intersections where traCic control signals nro opct•nlen~. °I'he con(lictin~ coanm^nds oP t++'o types of cotetrol devices nre confusing. Yf tra iiP is required to stop erlacn the operation of the slop•ancl-f;o signals is not ++•arranicd, tiro signals should bo p~.lt on (lashing operation n•ith tho red tiashinn light fncut~, the lt•nllic t.hnt rn!tststop. 1Vhcro t++•o main hifih~cn3•s intersect, the STOP si,r;n or sihrts tiho:eld normally bo posted on the minor street to stop rho lesser (lo+v of tt:al'ic, 71n0ie cr~~inecring studies, ho++'c.+•cr, ann+• )ustif~° s d•_ci- nioae to install n S7•Ul' si;.:n or si;,•ns on the major street, a? nt n thtbo•++•ay intersectiule echero = fcty bmesidet:'Itinns nlny justif stop- ping rho greater Gon• of ta'nllic to permit a lc°t•?urning nto+'enrrnt. hog ot!aer than enlcrgency purposes poe•taeble or pnrt•tirno S1.O1' signs shall not bo used. S'COI' si;,hts should not bo used for speed control. 2B-G iliula+vay Stop Sins TLo d1~Iultitvay et.op' instnllntion is useful ns r. sn[ety mcase:r•o at sumo locntiony, It sholeld m~dinarily bo sited only° wlec:c tl:o 9rolugto of tra0ic on rho itetctsccting ro;uls is approxintatcl)• equal. t! trn0ic control signal Is eltoro sntisfuctory for nn intrrsection +~i!h n hen+•y volumo of trnllic. •~ nay of t!tc fol!o+eing conditions may ~carrnnt n multiway STOP sign installation (sec, "13~) 1, 1VIIrro t.raTic signals nre +vnrrnntcd and urgently ateeded, ".to multi++•ny slop is nu interina encasl9ro that can IV^ inst,nllcd quickly to control h°: I is +vLilo nrr:mgeuteatts me l~einh tnntle fot• the si~r.al installation. 2, /fin accident probl^m, ns in<licntcd by five or mono repented nccidaets of er. typo susccpt.iblo of crn•rcetirne by n multi+cav stop ins!nllntiat ut a l°-ntnnth pre•tod, bnclt accidents include ri;;!t:- urd lclt•tnrn cnllisiu:ts n, +elal ns ri;;ht-^ntilc. collisions. ~° i[inimuut tlr.liic t•ol:ures: (n) Tho told vehicular e•olumo entering rho interscctiort from all npproachcs newt nrernho nt hart f°00 rchich•s per hour fur nag 8 hours of nn nccrngo day°, and i (b) °I'ho cmnbinrd e•c!ticulnr Wren pedestrian t•ohrmo from tho miner street m• Li~h++•ap roust. n^crnrr. nt lra~t. 200 units pe:• aoir for rho sat:ro S hou:•s, with nn Itect•nFo de!:ey to minm• street re• hic9rL•u° lrathc of at least ;10 secnads per +•chiclo durin:~ the ma~i• 4 mtem hour, but ~ (c) It°hen lho FS-1•crccnti!!~ nppmnch speed of the major s!rcc. tsallia cacccds !0 tnihs lx:l° hoar, the u:inimntn rchil:ulrtr t•olu:no • ~ +rlu'E':rnt is .0 percent of rile abo+'e requirements. 3J ^n-c ,' •t. _ ,.1,~„'..,A.,s~..,Fanrs^s.,!..°;,yv.o..M,"^°`n„~rnt-+r.ee.,...--~--+..-...~•x-+e..;... ...«-~r.+-.^..~.•.~...e..r«••a-r•-~.-,•.~--•...-•....--.-+.-..•.''- ~rJ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNEOSTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 104 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Discussion of Issues Related to 76th Street Traffic On December 14, 1981, the city council received a petition from property owners adjacent to 76th Street, requesting that a neighbor- hood meeting be held to discuss noise and speeding problems on 76th Street. The Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on March 2, 1982 to gather information from residents concerning their perceptions of traffic problems which exist along 76th Street between Xerxes Ave- nue and Lyndale Avenue. Citizens appearing at the public meeting indicated a number of problems and a number of suggested solutions to remedy the problems. The problems enumerated included the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Excessive traffic volumes Excessive noise Excessive vibrations Air pollution/dirt Speeding/drag racing Access to residences limited or Cars running stop signs difficult to achieve Inadequate enforcement of existing laws Potential solutions which citizens suggested included the following: 1. Reduce speed limits 2. Install more speed limit signs 3. Install more stop signs 4. Eliminate stop signs 5. Install stop sign warning flashers 6. Install noise prohibitive signs 7. More police enforcement of speed limits 8. More enforcement of noise ordinance 9. Allow on-street parking • and stop signs -! Council Letter No. 104 -2- April 12, 1982 ~~ 10. Eliminate access to and from I-35W 11. Eliminate or reroute "deadheading" buses 12. Prohibit truck traffic 13. Improve I-494 frontage roads 14. Make 76th Street a one-way eastbound from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and westbound from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. 15. Limit left turns during rush hours 16. Install speed bumps 17. Divert adjacent community traffic to freeways 18. Overlay street with asphalt All of the above proposed solutions would address the problems which were identified at the public meeting. However,. an important question which must be answered before any attempt is made to address the citizens' concerns is what function does the city want 76th Street to perform? The city has designated 76th Street as a major thoroughfare and, over the years, has reaffirmed that decision a number of times, and improved the street based on those decision. Most recently, in the draft comprehensive plan, the city council indicated that 76th Street be designated a minor arterial. The primary purpose of a minor arterial is to move relatively high volumes of traffic smoothly and safely. For the most part, 76th Street is performing properly, based on its present functional classification as a minor arterial. Unfortunately, there are negative effects of high traffic volumes, which the people living adjacent to 76th Street experience, and which they identified during the meeting. The city council should confirm what function 76th Street is to perform, and then seek to identify actions which may be taken to ensure that the roadway performs properly, and that negative effects are minimized. On March 23, the Planning Commission further discussed this matter and made the following recommendations: ~" 1. That 76th Street continue to be classified as a minor c~~ arterial west of Nicollet. 2. That additional speed limit signs be installed, to better inform drivers of the speed limit. 3. That police enforcement of speed limits and the noise ordinance be increased. 4. That the stop signs on 76th Street at ~Jincent Avenue, Sheridan Avenue, and Emerson Avenue be eliminated to provide smoother traffic flow, and to reduce noise, air pollution and vibration. 5. That the city work with other communities to divert traffic off of 76th Street. In conjunction with this, the city should closely monitor traffic volumes on 76th Street at Xerxes Avenue. If traffic volumes continue to increase as new development occurs in Edina, the city should strongly encourage Edina to take actions to divert traffic from 76th Street. Council Letter No. 104 -3- April 12, 1982 6. That the city impose lower speed limits on buses and trucks to reduce vibration problems. 7. That the city impose truck weight restrictions to reduce vibrations and noise. 8. That the city work with various agencies to provide access to and from Xerxes Avenue at I-494 to divert traffic from 76th Street. 9. That the city work with the Metropolitan Transit Commission to reroute,"deadheading" buses to reduce noise and vibration. 10. That the city construct an exclusive left turn lane and traffic signal improvements on 76th Street at its inter- section with Lyndale and Penn Avenues, to provide safer and smoother traffic flow. 11. That the city explore alternatives for providing buffering along 76th Street to reduce noise and air pollution problems suffered by adjacent property owners. It is recommended that the city council consider the actions recommended by the Planning Commission, as follows: 1. 76th Street continue to be classifed as a minor arterial. The street is one of only two east-west streets which traverse the community uninterrupted by I-35W. The city has clearly taken numerous actions in the past to classify and improve 76th Street to serve as a major traffic carrier. ~. 2. Installation of additional speed limit signs can make people better aware of the 30 mile per hour speed limit. People may expect 76th Street to have a 35 mph speed limit, such as other arterials. There currently are speed limit signs in the area of each major cross street. Slower ~ `' _ speeds can reduce noise and vibration problems. 3. Increased police enforcement of speed limits and the noise `i' ordinance can lead to reduced speeds and noise; however it ~' ( should be noted that 76th Street is the most heavily A t t i Ri hfi t thi dditi ll d ld ti l t , , ; ny a ona e ree n e a s me. pa ro s c ~ L~~ police enforcement will require a detrimental reduction of the public safety presence elsewhere in the community. Cj` 4. Elimination of stop signs on 76th Sfreet will provide smoother ` traffic flow and reduced noise, air pollution and vibrations. The staff strongly recommends this action. The state com- e ~~ pleted initial site work last year for installing traffic ~ , signals on 76th Street at its intersection with the exit ~_'~ ramp off of southbound I-35W. These signals should be fully J (. operational this summer. e ~ c~ ~ -, Council Letter No. 104 -4- April 12, 1982 5. The staff strongly concurs with the need to monitor the effects of new development in Edina on traffic volumes on 76th Street. Richfield should work closely with Edina to divert traffic from 76th Street wherever possible. 6. Lower speed limits for heavier vehicles such as trucks and buses can reduce noise and vibrations. MTC has instructed drivers to reduce speeds on 76th Street as well as posted ~~ reduced speed signs along the street. Split speed limits c` can pose enforcement problems, and it is difficult to def ine which vehicles would be subject to the reduced limits which makes enforcement difficult. For this reason, this recommendation appears to be undesirable. 7. Truck weight restrictions can eliminate heavier vehicles from using 76th Street and could reduce noise and vibrations. There currently is a three-ton per axle weight restriction ,,. on 76th Street. This does not restrict local deliveries, ~~~` but only through traffic. The staff will investigate further potentials for weight restrictions on 76th Street in light of ~~' the lack of scales to weigh trucks in Richfield. ~ 8. The city is working with other agencies to improve access to and from I-494. Full access to and from I-494 at Xerxes Avenue poses problems because of its close proximity to the Penn Avenue and France Avenue interchanges. A partial it ~ access and frontage road system, between Penn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue is a possibility, and the staff is working with other agencies on this option. 9. Bus routes can be analyzed in an effort to reroute dead- heading buses where possible. In general, MTC is reluctant to make operational changes which result in increased costs, especially with their recent funding cutbacks. As indicated N`~ earlier, MTC has instructed its drivers to reduce speed. o~~U vF\` The city staff will discuss the problem with MTC to see if ~ ~ t further improvements can be made. 10. Intersection improvements are necessary and planned on 76th Street at its intersections with Lyndale Avenue and Im rovements are lanned (as listed in the Capital Tenn Avenue. p P ~;~'~ Improvement Program) at the 76th Street and Lyndale. A~zenue /,~ ~` intersection in 1983. The 76th Street and Penn Avenue ~`° intersection is planned for improvement in 1986. ~ ' ,~ r 11. Alternatives for buffering are limited because of lack of space, although this option could be explored in further N`~ detail. Fencing alternatives could be explained to property J~~, owners for their installation along with landscaping best ~ suited for visual, noise and air pollution benefits. ~~ ~ ~ G~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ , Qu ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager ~ __ -_ --- - -- ~y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 162 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Swimming Pool Ticket System • On February 16, 1982, the city council adopted several budget modifications affecting the 1982 operating budget for the general fund. One of these modifications was that in lieu of the former season pass system, in which a pass number was given when going through the admission gate, ticket books would be used so that admittance would be by ticket only. The pass system was difficult to administer and revenues were lost because persons not having purchased a pass were able to access the pool area simply by stating a number. It was felt a ticket system would provide greater control over admissions, and en- able more accurate revenue estimates and collections. It was estimated this change in system would afford a savings of $5,000 to the general fund. The ticket system was refined by the staff, endorsed by the Community Services Commission and is included in the summer recreation brochure which has been distributed to Richfield residents. Under the pass system, the following sale of admissions is provided for council review: Year Famil 1963 3,505 1968 2,343 1973 ~ 1,515 1978 715 1981 609 Single Other 686 42 708 23 623 15 169 33 149 29 Family season pass sales have declined about 80% in the 20 years since the pool opened. The following is an indication of prices charged for family and single season passes since the pool opened: 1962-69 12.00 6.00 1970-74 15.50 7.25 1975 19.50 12.50 1976-77 21.00 16.00 1978-81 29.50 19.50 Council Letter No. 162 -2- May 10, 1982 For the years 1962-1975, the season pass afforded ad- mission to the outdoor pool. In 1976, the city began to pro- • vide open swimming time at the indoor pool at West School. For the years 7976-81, the season pass afforded admission to two pools, one indoor and one outdoor. It should be noted that when the city first became involved with the indoor pool in 1976, for the first time the contingency fund was depleted to accomodate the season pool rates and to cover the deficit between expenditures and revenues. It has be- come quite common for the pool operation to be subsidized by approximately $40,000 to $50,000 annually. Attendance figures have also been declining, by a rate of about 85% since the municipal pool opened through 1981: 1963 276,496 1968 172,829 1973 105,041 1978 51,669 198.1. 32,428 Attendance declined even with the=.availability of the indoor pool in 1976. Attendance will vary based on weather and on the declining youth population. The outdoor pool facility is primarily used by youth, pre or early teens. In 1981, pool expenditures were $97,876, with revenues of • $48,740, for a $49,136 deficit. The revenue was generated from $20,469 in season pass sales and $13,987 from daily admissions. With a 1981 total swim attendance of 32,428, this would mean that for each time or day a swimmer used the pool, the average revenue was $1.06. A calculation of the average number of times a season pass is used shows an average of about three users per family season pass, or an average of 10 or 11 times per season. A family purchasing a season pass for about $30 would hope to use the pass a minimum of 20 times to be cost effective compared to the $1.50 daily admission fee. If there are three people using a pass, at a total cost of $30, with each of three swimming 10 times, the average revenue per swim is $1.00. The calculations made based on total revenues and use indicated an average revenue per swim at $1.06, a comparable figure. The 1981 pool program had a deficit of $49,135, and attend- ance of 32,428, making the subsidy per swim $1.51. A system was started in 1976 which provides confidential assistance to per- sons unable to afford the admission to the pool. This program has a member of the Community Services Advisory Commission avail- able to the public to provide confidential assistance. If this commission member determines a need on the part of the individ- ual or family, admission to the pool is provided free of charge. Council Letter No. 162 -3- May 10, 1982 Whatever system is used, ticket or pass system, there is no • distinction made between the paid admission or a no charge admission under the confidential assistance program. As noted earlier, the average revenue per swim is approx- imately $1.00. The ticket book system that has been adopted provides a book of 15 tickets for $15.00, available for pur- chase through the entire season. There a:s aso available for purchase through June 25, 1982, a book of 40 tickets for $30.00 which is only $.75 per swim. Daily admission rates continue at $1.50. With greater control on the admission to the pool facility, with a standard subsidy per swim, and an estimated 40,000 attendance in 1982, it is estimated that the ticket system will afford a savings of $5,000 to the gen- eral fund. The city council will hear from a number of citizens on Monday night about the swimming pool pass system versus the ticket system. This data is provided as background for that discussion. Respectfully submitted, 1~~ Kar Nollenberg r • City Manager KN/ e j a cc: Cojmunity Services Director • 771~;j~ ~ ~ ~~.z r Y LLI~ C.t'-Y ~-' ~: ~'~ ~7 rYi~L(`~ V J n ~ c1.. ,~ ~ --t~;~~.,~.~,~ CFA-.`-'_''~,t•;~. ~~...~ -I~%~: L.Z-~. ~-4.Lt~ .1 "" G"~ J L ~ ~.•~ Z - c~ ~ ` ~ z.•;Z.-~.. ~ :~ (.~...~ ;12,C L'~--ryz ~nC , ~•~ ~ ..,~, C`tZ-~ ..~ ~ L. r1.J `~-~'`ti'`~-' --~.,~~ (, y~,~ ti ~ 2 ~-~ ~ ~ ~~~- i. `tom--~'~-~. -~ r ~ L ,~ 7 ,mot- ~ i C. ~ Z L ~ -° f - .~ ~ ~,..-~.L:L~~C=--~~- ~ ~--~~ ~ '7 ~ ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ L- w ~~- ~- Z.L. ~-~ ~ ` ~~-~• ~' - ~.~ L~ C c_t C ct~ C L.. ~~ C:. ~~ ~~ 1 ~ `_ ' ,r.= ~: _~~~ ~ ~~ .~-C 7'~-try-L~t- f y L~.-~- ~-~.; ~`-~-~ ~ -;~~~~~. ~« ,~ ~- ~ .~ _ ~ ,~ ...~ ~ J~ ~~C ~T~ ,. /~`~- ~~. :~ ~ ~~ May 4, 1982 Mayor Hamilton & City Council 2Jiembers Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, Minn. 55423 Dear Sirs: i Today we received the "Summer" edition of the Richfield Community Services booklet. '+9e had expected fees to go up but we didn't expect NO Family Outdoor Swimming Rate: '.le are upset to say the least; We are a family of 2 adults and 3 daughters (ages 11, 8, and 6). We all love to swim and all go every day and night that weather permits. Since we live at 6715 Chicago Ave. So., you can see why we have loved and used the Richfield Outdoor•Pool. Have you ever figured out what a family of five will dish out under this awful plate? Say only 20 days good weather out of one month...For that one month, we would need 100 tickets. Your discount tickets sell for 40 tickets for ~30...that would be X75 for just one month...then for the total of 3 summer swimming months (figuring 60 days good) X225. Do you want people to leave Richfield for activities? Do you want to encourage families to move here? Swimming is the best exercise and we could all use more but how under this plan? `+'lith no family rates you are driving away many from our great city: Don't tear us down...make people to cer:e here, spend here and live here: Give us at feast a choice...let us buy either discount tickets or a family rate as usual: In 1981 ore paid X29.50, and enjoyed Richfield so: Isn't a jump up to X225 a bit much^ Why didn't you just increase the family rate...~50 would have been a big enough jump? When you have a low turnout at the outdoor pool...don't you dare blame it on id0 INTEREST; There is great interest but SHORT ON MONEY: Isn't the pool for the community? It never had an aim to make lots of money but to give the residents fun activity right here in wonderful Richfield: It's not too late...come on...give us residents a break; Remember... if you don't or vron't listen to the people's wants and needs, you too can be replaced: Please let me know by phone or letter by May 20...that's registr~.':ion day for lessons and now tickets...make it the day to buy the fami'_y card as usual: Thank you in advance for your help in this matter; Sincere y, ~~y~ I ~9i1 iam, Joan, Dawn, Dana, & Diana Anderson 6715 Chicago Ave. So. Richfield, iin. 55423 Prone: 866-•D780 ~'.. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager May 7, 1982 Council D4:emorandum No. 60 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Alternative Swim Pool Admission Systems Council Letter ~Io. 162 for the May 10, 1982 council agenda provides some background information on season pass sales, attendance, average revenue per swim, average subsidy per swim, the confidential assistance program and the basis of calculation for the adopted ticket book system of admission to the outdoor municipal swimming pool in the summer of 1982. The ticket book system was adopted by the city council on February 16, 1982 as a budget modification to realize a $5,000 savings for the general fund. There is now some concern and question on the part of the community and council members whether the ticket book system should, in fact, be implemented. To that end, the staff has looked at Qarious plans that would not be a ticket book system, that would resemble the former season pass system and would still attempt to provide the $5,000 savings to the city, realizing that even with a $5,000 savings the swimming pool program will still not be self-supporting. The pool budget adopted in October of 1981 indicated a deficit of $45,346 for 1982. With the budget modifications early this year, savings of $10,000 are to have been realized with the use of the ticket system and with the elimination of the indoor swimming pool program. This leaves a deficit of about $35,000 for 1982 in the swimming pool budget of the general fund. The following two alternate plans for summer season pool admission are outlined for council review: Plan I 1. A single or individual season pass would be $23.00 2. A family season pass would be $32 for the first two names on the pass. Each additional person listed on the pass would have a $5.00 charge. The maximum cost for a family season pass would be $52. Council Memorandum No. 60 -2- May 7, 1982 3. A patch system would be instituted whereby every name on a season pass would be issued a patch which must be sewen on the swimming suit or worn when ob- taining admission to the pool. 4. The season pass would be available to anyone without regard to residency. Summary With the $1.50 daily admission fee, to be cost effective a single season pass would need to be used about 15 times. A family season pass with two names would need to be used about 21 times, a pass with three names would need to be used about 25 times, and so on. With these minimum uses, the revenues to the city per swim would be $1.53 for the single season pass, $1.52 for the family pass with two names, $1.50 for the family pass with three names and so on. In 1981 the average revenue per swim was about $1.00 with an average subsidy per swim of $1.51. With this system, swimmers would continue to be subsid- ized about $1.00 or more per swim. The patch system is critical in that there--has been concern about the former pass system which allowed admission simply by declaring a pass number. It was a very difficult system to monitor and, quite frankly, there was cheating. The patch system would mean that the cheating would be reduced and hopefully elim- inated. This should mean that each swimmer is paying a fair share for the privilege of using the pool facility. Because the pool operation is subsidized through the gener- al fund, it is important to encourage as much use as possible to keep the subsidy as low as possible. To do this, season passes are made available to the general public to encourage increased, paid for, usage. It is felt by staff that this system could potentially realize the $5,000 savings to the general fund in that there is closer supervision or control of pool usage. Each swimmer is paying a fair share either through daily admissions or season passes with the additional charges for additional names. Plan- II 1. A single or individual season pans would be $27.00 2. A family season pass would be $39 regardless of the number of names listed on the pass. 3. A patch system would be instituted whereby every • name on a season pass would be issued a patch which must be sewn on the swimsuit used or worn when ob- taining admission to the pool. Council Memorandum No. 60 -2- blay 7, 1 9 8 2 4. The season pass would be available to anyone without regard to residency. Summary This system is very similar to the system used the past 20 years. There is a set rate for a family pass without regard to the number of names using the pass. A single season pass would need to be used 18 times to be cost effective. A family season pass would need to be used 26 times to be cost effective. For each time over the minimum a season pass is used, the aver- age revenue per swim will decrease and the=subsidy per swim will increase. Again, the patch system is critical in terms of control and fairness. The general availability of the season pass will hope- fully encourage additional use of the pool and pass sales. This system is a 38°s increase in the cost of the single pass and a 32~ increase in the cost of the family pass. This system does not provide the same equity outlined in Plan I, whereby each swimmer tends to pay a fair share. With Plan I additional charges are made for additional names which is not the case with Plan II. Recommendation: Should the council chose to change the system currently adopted, the staff would recommend Plan I of season passes. Respectfully submitted, l~ ~ .~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director KNfeja ~ /L CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 161 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Closing of Augsburg Avenue at Lyndale Avenue and 71st Street Between Lyndale Avenue and Augsburg Avenue Proposal The city council asked that the planning commission review the feasibility of vacating the portion of 71st Street which lies between Lyndale Avenue and Augsburg Avenue. Oak Grove Lutheran Church owns the property on both sides of this portion of the street. The church has been desirous of giving the • small triangle of land lying south of 71st Street to the city because it is of no use to them, requires maintenance, and also increases special assessments levied against the property. In conjunction with this request, the planning commission was asked to also consider closing of access to Augsburg Avenue from Lyndale Avenue and/or vacating Augsburg Avenue between Lyn- dale Avenue and 71st Street. The closing of these streets could be carried out in conjunction with the Lyndale Avenue improve- ment project which will occur this construction season. The planning commission has made a recommendation on the closing of Augsburg Avenue at Lyndale Avenue, but deferred action on the 71st Street question until their May 25, 1982 meeting. The commission requested traffic count and turning movement data on the 71st Street/Lyndale Avenue intersection. The Lyndale Avenue improvement project in this area has begun. If these street changes are to be done as part of the Lyndale Avenue project, the city council should act on this matter at the May 10 city council meeting. Staff Findings 1. The city has no interest in acquiring the triangular • parcel from the church because it is too small for recreation purposes, would serve no public purpose, other than open space, and would increase city main- tenance costs; _ _ _. __ Council Letter No. 161 -2- May 10, 1982 2. Closing 71st Street would provide a contiguous piece of property for the cnurch; 3. Closing access to Lyndale Avenue from 71st Street and Augsburg Avenue would result in safet conditions on Lyndale Avenue. The closure of these access points would reduce the opportunities for dangerous left turn movements. It would force traffic to enter at 70th Street or 73rd Street, both of which will have traffic signals; 4. The Augsburg Avenue intersection with Lyndale Avenue is dangerous because of the severe angle at which Augsburg Avenue intersects Lyndale Avenue; 5. There are driveways off of Augsburg Avenue so access will have to be maintained. The city could do this by just closing off the access to Lyndale Avenue, constructing a turn-a-around and maintaining the existing right-of-way under public ownership. The city could also vacate the street which would then become a private roadway maintained by the adjacent property owners; 6. The closure of access to Augsburg Avenue would reduce traffic shortcutting down Augsburg Avenue to 70th ,Street; • 7. The school board reviewed this matter at their May 3, 1982 meeting as any actions to vacate these streets could affect access to the high school, Central School, and the bus garages. The school board found no problem in the proposed Augsburg Avenue closure, but took no action on the 71st Street closure. Subsequent- to the planning commission meeting, the Oak Grove Lutheran Church has indicated they would not support the closure of 71st Street. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the city not close 71st Street be- tween Lyndale Avenue and Augsburg Avenue as part of the Lyndale Avenue project because of the lack of a planning commission recommendation and lack of support from Oak Grove Lutheran Church. The council could proceed with official vacation of the street at a future date after a recommendation is received by the planning commission. It is further recommended that access to Lyndale Avenue from Augsburg Avenue be closed, but that the right-of-way be maintained under public ownership. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends that the access to Lyndale Avenue from Augsburg Avenue be closed and that all drive- __ ___ _._ _ __ Council Letter No. 161 -3- May 10, 1982 way access to the houses on Augsburg Avenue be maintained from Augsburg Avenue and not be from Lyndale Avenue. The commission made no recommendation concerning 71st Street and will again consider this matter at their May 25, 1982 meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner KN/eja A request has been submitted to vacate the portion of 71st Street lying between Lyndale Avenue and Augsburg Avenue and/or tze pory~ion of Augsburg Avenue lying between • Lyndale Avenue and 7lst Street. _ C ~N. 71st ST May 5, 1982 Thomas Stertz, President Oak Grove Iutheran Church 7100 Tyndale Ave. t~ichfield, MN 5523 iJlichael J. Eastling, City Engineer City of :~.chfield 67Q0 Portl~d Ave. P,ichfield, MN 55123 Dear Mr. Eastling: My letter of March 9, 1982 concerning the disposition of a parcel of land bounded by Lyndale Avenue stated that our neQotiatins? Committee would support the idea of vacating 71st Street between Augsburg acid Tyndale. It may not have been clear that this was a committee suggestion and not necessarily the position ©f the congregation. On April 12, 1982, I presented our committees position to the City Council concerning the sale of this land ®r a reduction of the assessment against it for the Tyndale project, S explained to the Council that the congregation had n®t yet been advised of the negotiating committees • position. The. Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission. The Commission apparently was informed that Oak wove Lutheran was the appiic~t for vacation of 71st Street. I spoke to the Planning Commission on April 27, 1982 and again explained that the 71st Street vacation was not yet an official position of the church. The applicant was corrected to read as the City Council. On May 2, 1982 a congregational meeting was held and the asenda included the approval of the sale of a parcel of land needed by the City sb that a curve may be lessened near 70th Street. The issue of vacating 71st Street was discussed. The congregation voted unanimously t® oppose the closing of 71st Street between Augsburg acid I,~-ndale Avenue. Now I may represent the official position ®f Oak Greve Lutheran Church on this matter. Please inform the City Council and/vr the Plannin? Commissio n that Oak Grove opposes closing 71st Street. spe c tfully, ~,~. ._, Thomas Stertz., President Oak Greve Lutheran Church TFS/ljs ~' i D CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 160 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 6624 4th Avenue • • Proposal Mr. Timothy Luy has requested a variance to reduce the minimum required frontyard setback from 30 feet to 23.5-feet. Mr. Luy wishes to construct a second story addition to his existing home at 6624 4th Avenue. The existing frontyard set- back is 25 feet. The proposed second story addition will pro- ject 18 inches beyond the front of the existing first floor reducing the frontyard setback to 23.5 feet. Mr. Luy appeared at the April 13, 1982 planning commission meeting and requested this variance. Because of this, no notice was mailed to prop- erty owners within 350 feet of the property informing them of the planning commission hearing. Notice of the city council hearing has been mailed to the property owners. Zoning Ordinance Requirements Section 3.30, subdivision 5, of_the zoning ordinance::re- quires that dwellings be set back 30 feet from the front prop- erty line. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists three conditions which must be met before a variance can be granted. Staff Findings The staff has reviewed the proposal against the three con- ditions necessary for granting variances and found the follow- ing: 1. It is the opinion of the staff that special conditions do exist on the site. The existing frontyard setbacks on the block vary from approximately 21 feet to 30 feet. If this variance request is granted, the result- ing setback would be within this range, and there would be two properties on the block with setbacks less than this. Granting this variance would create a setback less than the average setback on the block, Council Letter No. 160 -2- May._10, 1982 which is 26 feet. The fact that the existing set- back will be maintained cn the first story and only the second story will project out 18 inches could also be considered a special circumstance. 2. It is the opinion of the staff that denial of the variance would not preclude reasonable use of the property. The applicant could continue the existing residential use of the property. 3. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed addition would be a substantial improvement to the property. It would be within the range of frontyard setbacks on the block and therefore would be consistent with the established character of the block. • Staff Recommendation Because the proposal does not meet the three conditions necessary for graating variances, the planning staff recommends denial of the variance, however, the city manager recommends approval of the variance. .Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends that the variance request be approved. Respectfully submitted, '~,~Q Flo-~~,.~~.~~` Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner KN/ej a I?~~.~ PK~~~OSED ~~I~I?IDN ~ 1~ 8.~ GGG4 ~Il:bi AVENUE • i1f3-~ 3~ -- ~~~~ ~~ - -, ,o --- i ~. ,a-~ ~ c~n'~ilever ~ • i 3`~~~ z5 - ------ - _ 5' r ~ to - ~ 50 IL8. ~ c.UI"~ 5~:r-e~~ ~d ~ r_ ~ __ ~ ,_~__ ~_~_1 ~~, ~-~ ~,KESENT ~ITF 'C:r~vuJ i ~JiC '-~i~.i iVl... ~ VL - ~.- '( `I '~~ f.:~. JL FOR PURPOSE OF t, ~rL,~,~:c~ ;~ t-~~,..v 7A,3>> SC:; ~3~3-c .r i~~ c.` ,,n ~,~..=~.'7~ Legal Description: i We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. • Signature of Owners* Address ~ ~/ / ~f./ ~ i ~ v~~ / / / .~/ ~/ ~G% ~ ~~ OZ- ~~ G. . * Signatures ray not be removed once the petition is signed and returned to the Planning Division. • Q EAST i ~~~a a' ~~ ~. ~_ ~7 ^ ,r r" . .___- .'-! ~ •:~, y? ,~ "~ r• ~ °s~ .~ ~~ .~ ~~ ~ ~~.. _ y_ ~ 1 ~ ~•h .~ ~ ~.r ~' :~ __ ,~ ~ '^ c _r 1 :'~ _ ~. ~ ;, - ~,. 6 7 t t~, ~ c 1 i _. C -. G _ _ .,;, ''~ 'J a i f i a ;, .. ~~ i./~ i !~ r .. _ r - G l 1 _ -; L T 1 Ri~Hi= iEl~D -- ~-2 Variance regvey~ ~e~~~ion s~gha~ure~ ~i .. 66th ST - ;, ~ _ J. f y. ~. l_ ~ - i J'J+~,- . - ~, - a ~~'~ ~../ b U .. • ~ ••ti -'~ 1J , i y ,~ Ln : ~ ~ r' ~. ~ ~ ,,. ~ ,~ ~: _;~ v' .:~ ~ _ .. ,:. ^ V v~ :o S N~ W ^~ C~ ,. .~ ~..~ ^r ~// CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Maaager Council Letter No. 159 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 6400 Bloomington Proposal Willis and Jeannine Peterson have requested a variance to reduce the required streetside setback requirements for a corner lot from 15 feet to 5 feet to allow them to remove an existing 14 foot by 24 foot garage on the site and construct a new 22 foot by 24 foot garage. The existing garage is located approximately 4 to 5 feet within the right-of-way of 64th Street. The exist- ing garage is located on the edge of a shor-t, steep incline which • causes the bumper of the car to drag when going in and out of the garage. The new garage would be set back five feet. Entrance to the new garage would be from the east side rather than the north side, and a curved driveway to 64th Street would in install- ed. The existing curb cut would remain and be utilized. The applicants have indicated that when the new garage is constructed, the hill would be cut down one=foot below the existing garage floor level, which results in .considerable excavation costs. The applicants have requested the variance to save the addition- al excavation and retaining wall costs necessary to set the garage back 15 feet to meet ordinance requirements. Zoning Ordinance Requirements Section 3.30, subdivision 5 of the zoning ordinance requires accessory buildings to be set back 15 feet from the side street on a corner lot. Section 3.40, subdivision 6 lists three con- ditions which must be met before a variance can be granted. Staff Findings The staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions necessary for granting variances and found the follow- ing: • 1. It is the opinion of the staff that special conditions do exist on the site. The existing garage is located Council Letter No. 159 -2- May 10, 1982 on city right-of-way and presents some traffic safety problems because cars must back out blindly into the street. The staff is not aware of any other such situation in the community. The hill does present some problems,-but they are probably not unique to this property. 2. It is the opinion of the staff that denial of the var- iance would not preclude reasonable use of the property. The applicant could continue the existing residential use of the property. The garage could be constructed on the site in a different location which would not require a variance. 3. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The existing house is set back 3 feet from 64th Street. The proposed garage would be set back 5 feet so the garage would be consistent with the established character of the site. As indicated earlier, the proposal would result in the removal of a structure from city right-of-way and bring about safer traffic flow on 64th Street. Staff Recommendation Because the proposal does not meet the three conditions nec- essary for granting variances, the planning staff recommends the variance be denied,- the city manager recommends approval of the varianc< Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends that the variance be denied because this is not a unique situation, and because alter- natives exist which would not require a variance. Respectfullrr11y submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: City Planner Community Development Director KN/eja • y /~-~l~a ~~ s~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ //A _ f~ r ~i ~ ~ ~ u ~~ ,, ~ _, i .. / / ~' r'S~' -. ~~ c--eft i._, z.. ~'~. • .ld F I C;t•J ~r c ;ei~ PF3~5ENT 51iE~ -- ------13.6 PROP05ED 517E .cur S~rx ~------_ -- --- ..._ _ -. _- ~ -~-- 5~de ~•~ ( - _-- b~s -- -- ~ -~3 keep Preyen~ apron jos--~ -_- ~~.~ - 3k~ I I - ~ y~5 a ~e~ ~s s~'-~_ /,~ /I, ~(1 ~ f n~ ~ /I ~. __ _ _ ~ ~ ~ . -- ~.o --- - ---- GVt'I ~~ ~r< sid~ ~$ Z Z The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Letter No. 158 Agenda May 10, 1982 Council Members: Subject: ming team were present during the council discussion. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Indoor Swimming Pool Cost Report At the April 12, 1982 city council meeting, the city council discussed the 1982 summer indoor swimming program. A resident near the West Middle School pool and representatives of the swim- or e that the city's subsidy for this program is an unnecessary expense,. since other swimming facilities are available in the general geo- graphic area of Richfield. The city began operating indoor swimming programs in 1976, shortly after the school district completed construction of the indoor swimming facilities at the East and West Middle schraols. The level of participation in the indoor swimming program quickly led city council and staff members to conclude that maintaining two indoor swimming pools and an outdoor pool during the summer months, was economically unfeasible; the East indoor open swim program for the summer was cancelled before the 1976 summer season actually began. Since that time, the city has provided indoor swimming opportunities at both the east and west pool=s during the winter months, and a limited summer swimming program only at the West pool, to complement the outdoor swimming pool program during the summa months. However, the program is still costly f th number of participants in the program, and it appears Accordingly, when the staff was formulating recommendations for city council consideration to reduce the 1982 budget, the staff proposed complete elimination of the indoor swimming pool program. On February 16, 1982, the city council approved that recomntendaton, eliminating the indoor swimming pool program during all twelve months. Estimated savings from this program are $5,000 annually. Following is a summary of the 1981 summer open swimming use of the indoor swimming pool facility at ;lest Middle School: Attendance 1981* Paid admissions 1,876 Season ticket admissions 3,139 Total attendance 5,015 __ Council Letter No. 1~8 -2_ May 10, 1982 Average afternoon attendance $$ Average evening attendance 30 Cost Breakdown Expenses Pool rental $1,615 School personnel 4,736 Cashier 680 $7,031 Revenues Paid admissions $1,899 Season Tickets N A $1 ,899 City Subsidy $5,132 ~~ *Pool open for 19 hours swimming per week: 5 days for 3 hours in the afternoon; 2 days for 2 hours in the evening. At the end of the presentation of information and discuss- ion, the city council asked for additional information concern- ing the schools plans for the pool for the summer months. The school district has indicated that they cannot 7.ustify retaining the pool in operation this summer without additional hours of rental time being sold other than the swim team's request. We i have attempted to interest other organizatiDns such as the YMCA in renting space in the pool, but to no avail. The swim team uses the indoor pool for a couple of hours each day to supplement their use of our outdoor pool in the morning hours. We have offered them the use of our outdoor pool of ter 8.:00 p.m. in addition to the morning hours.- The YMCA offers indoor swimming to the general public during the summer months for rates as follows: Membership Family - $41.25 Single - 29.70 Day Fees Guest - 1.00 Non-Guest - 2.00 The YMCA is located on the Richfield border less than one mile from the West Pool and their fees compare favorabl~r.with our rates of $1:-50 :for two hours and a family pass system to be determined Monday night of $32 to $52. The YMCA offers an acceptable alternative to the open swimmer on the west side of the city who cannot bike over the outdoor pool. The alternates to the swim team are much more limited, but available at the outdoor pool in the late evening hours. In any event, the $5,000 cost of opening the west pool last for the • Council Letter No. 158 -3- May 10, 1982 benefit of the swim team is an exorbitant subsidy per member of the team. The staff recommends that the city council re- tain its February decision to eliminate the summer indoor swimming program at West Middle School. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~~..~„ Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director KN/eja May 7, 1982 r Mayor John Hamilton Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mayor Hamilton: As a concerned citizen of the city of Richfield, I am writing this letter in regard to the closing of the pools at the middle schools. I understand that they will no longer be open to the public, and they will no longer offer public swimming lessons, and that the swim clubs will have to practice at the outdoor pool during the summer. In other words, the people of Richfield will have to go to Bloomington, Edina, or Minneapolis to take swimming lessons or to have open swimming instead of being able to take advantage of the beautiful facilities located right in their own back;.-yard. .~ I don't fully understand the reason for this. The public has to pay for the use of the pools, and for the swimming lessons, why can`t the price be increased to offset the city's financial debt? Would the • increase be that great? I think it is a shame that we have these pools right here and can't use them. The West middle school pool was only built seven years ago. It isn't even worn out. Unfortunately, that was after I was already in high school, and I did not have the opportunity to have swimming lessons as a part of my gym class. I was looking forward to the chance to take swimming lessons evenings next fall or winter. Now I'll have to drive further and use another city's facilities, or join the Y. Is there no other alternative? I feel strongly that these facilities should not sit idle, or at least couldn't we keep the pool at West open? It is newer and really is a nice pool in comparison with others in the area. Please consider all the alternatives carefully before the council makes a final decision. I for one wouldn't mind paying a_.little more for lessons or open swimming if it would keep the pool open to the public for everyone's use and enjoyment. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, (~ y7 ~~~ ~~ Carolyn J. Stanley 6833 Pillsbury Avenue ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City l~Sanager • Council Letter No. 157 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Eity Council Council Members: Subject: Reconstruction of Penn Avenue and 66th Street Intersection On May 10, 1982 at 5:30 p.m. a city council study session will be held to discuss the reconstruction of the 66th Street and Penn Avenue intersection. The purpose of the meeting will be to present tre issues involved with the project, discuss various alternatives and arrive at a procedural schedule for carrying out any improvements. On March 23, 1981 the city council passed a resolution en- couraging Hennepin County to reconstruct the intersection of 66th Street and Penn Avenue, and to submit an application for • this project for Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funding. The county has since submitted the application for FAU funding and the pro- ject rated very high on the priority list of FAU projects. How- ever, the FAU system of funding is presently over-programmed. That is, the cost of the projects approved for FAU financing exceeds the funds appropriated and no additional projects are being considered for approval at this time. The future cf the FAU program is questionable. This intersection is being considered for improvement for a number of reasons. First of all, it is the busiest intersection in the city. There are 69,000 cars a day coming and going from this intersection. (The next busiest intersection in the city is Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street with 56,278 cars using this intersection). An improvement to the traffic carrying capacity of the intersection will reduce delays for a great number of people. At the present time, the intersection is very congested a good portion of the day. There are also safety reasons for recor.- cdnstructing this intersection. Figures from the county indicate that the project is justified for safety reasons alor~~. Th e benefit-cost ratio, based upon accident reduction alone, is greater than one; that is, the savings due to reduced medical costs and car repair cost is greater than the actual construction costs. Attached to this council letter is the county data sheet which includes the benefit cost analysis. A third justification • for improvements to the intersection is that the intersection has already deteriorated to a point where it needs to be repaired. Council Letter No. 157 -2- May 10, 1982 Finally, there is insufficient parking at certain locations near the intersection. • On Monday evening, the Hennepin County traffic engineer will present a preliminary intersection improvement plan for council review. The plan includes a median which will extend about one long city block in each direction from the intersection. Median breaks will occur at Oliver and Queen Avenues. Protected left turn bays are proposed to be constructed on all four legs of the intersection. Attached is a chart of the estimated right- of-way impact. In conjunction with the improvements that the county is presenting, the city can do some things to its local rights-of-way to enhance the parking situation. At the present time, Oliver Avenue north of 66th Street serves as a bypass around the 66th and Penn intersection through a residential area. If the street were blocked off between 66th and 65th Streets, the southern half of the segment could serve as a much needed parking lot in this area once the curbs are moved back to the property line. The same kind of thing can be done to Queen Avenue south of 66th Street. There is a high demand for parking in this area, as evidenced by the constant on-street parking. 67th Street could also be closed between Oliver and Penn Avenue to provide a buffer to the residential area and to serve as a parking lot. Similarly, 67th Street between Penn Avenue and Queen Avenue can be closed off. In addition, there can be access agreements between various businesses to alleviate the strain on access caused by the medians if the proposed medians in Penn Avenue and 66th Streets are constructed. The capital improvement program indicates that Richfield's and Hennepin County's share of the project would be about $125,000 each. The remaining $750,000 of the one-million dollar project would be paid for by FAU funding. As was stated earlier, the FAU funding is doubtful. If the project were to move forward under the Hennepin County cost sharing formula, Richfield's share would be between $300,000 and $404,000. However, Hennepin County does not have the remaining $700,000 programmed to fund the project in the near future. The present condition of Richfield's municipal state aid account suggests that the city could be in a position to pay for one-half of the project cost. A copy of our M.S.A. budget is attached. Richfield gets approximately $300,000 a year to be used on the state aid streets. After Lyndale Avenue is completed this year, 66th Street from Penn to Xerxes Avenue is the only section of street in Richfield that is not finished with a permanent surface. After 66th Street is completed, the M.S.A, funds will be used for reconstruction of permanent surfaces. The $1,000,000 estimate includes right-of-way and construction costs for 66th Street and Penn Avenue only. The proposed closed street parking lots will cost about $30,000 each to construct. Special assessments can be used to fund a portion of the project, such as the parking lots and the street lighting and sidewalks • on Penn Avenue. The staff recommends that the council approve the Council Letter No. 157 -3- I~iay 10, 19II2 plan concept at this time. The staff will then work with the Chamber of Commerce to schedule a meeting with businessmen in • the area of 66th Street and Penn Avenue to describe the tenta- tive improvement plans. After the businessmen's meeting, the staff will return to the city council with the recommendation for a preliminary plan. Respectfully submitted, `J Karl Nollenberger City i~ianager ccs Community Development Director City Engineer KN/ej a • • • ~~~ STATE AID CONSTRUCTION FUND ESTIMATED 5 YEAR EXPENDITURES Projected 1982 Construction Fund Ending Balance S 1,485 1983 State Aid Allotment 287,747 Projected 1983 State Aid Construction Fund Beginning Balance 289,232 1983 Projected Disbursements 67th & Lyndale Signal 550,0.00 Sidewalk $160,000 76th ~ Lyndale $442,000 (Possible smaller scale project for 76th & Lyndale would be $100,000) Projected 1983 Construction Fund Ending-Balance -362,768 1984 Statz Aid Allotment 287,747 Projected 19134 State Aid Construction Fund Beginning Balance - 75,021 1984. Pz~~jected Disbursements Eibth & Penn Intersection $500,000 Projected 1y84 Construction Fund Ending Balance -575,021 1985 State Aid Allotment 287,747 Projected 1985 State Aid Construction Fund Beginning Balance -287,274 1985 Projected Disbursements 66th St. Penn to Xerxes $125,000 Projected 1985 Construction Fund Ending Balance -412,274 1986 State Aid Allotment 287,747 Projected 19fi6 State Aid Constru ction Fund Beginning Balance - 24,527 1986 Projected Disbursements Penn & 494 $500,000 Projected 1986 Construction Fund Ending Balance -624,527 1987 State Aid Allotment 287,747 Projected 1987 State Aid Construction Fund Beginning Balance -336,780 0 _2_ Projected 1987 Construction ~_Q_ Projected 1987 Construction Fund Ending Bala~ice -236,780 1988 State Aid Allotment 287,747 Projected 1988 State Aid Construction Fund Beginning Balance 50,967 DATA SHEET CSAH 53 (66th Street) @ CSAH 32 (Penn Avenue) Richfield • PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT Alternate No. 1 Rev. - Widen and channelize CSAH's 32 and 53 to provide two thru lanes plus left turn bays on all approaches. Maintain existing alignment. Provide sidewalk on east side and parking lane on west side of CSAH 32 south of intersection. Alternate No. 2 Rev. - Same as Alternates No. 1 Rev. except south curb line on CSAH 53 remains - all widening to north side. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES - Widen & Overlay Item Alt.l Rev. Al t.2 Rev. Mobilization $30,000 $30,000 Construction 280,000 280,000. Signal 80,000 80,000 R/W & Damages 430,000 450,000 TOTAL 820,000 $~ PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES - Complete. Reconstruction Item Mobilization Construction Signal R/W & Damages TOTAL Alt.l Rev. Alt.2 Rev. $50,000 495,000 80,000 450,000 > > TRAFFIC VOLUMES $45,000 470,000 80, 000 430,000 $1,02.5,000 CSAH- 32 - North of CSAH 53 - South of CSAH 53 CSAH 53 - West of CSAH 32 - East of CSAH 32 1980 2000 13,800 20,000 12,500 20,000 17,900 28,000 21,800 28,000 ACCIDENT DATA YEAR PD PI F TOTAL ENTERING AADT ACC/MV • 1974 29 10 0 39 33,600 3.18 1975 31 11 0 42 34,700 3.32 1976 29 5 0 34 36,100 2.58 1978 13 2 0 15 32,600 1.26 1979 16 6 0 22 34,800 1.73 118 34 0 152 34,360 2.42 3 Year (1974-]976) County Average (SG-A) = 1.81 ACC/MU 2 Year (1978-1979) County Average (SG-A) = 1.34 ACC/MV SPEED LIMIT • CSAH 32 - 30 MPH CSAH 53 - 35 MPH EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL - Signal - 2 phase with advance green arrow EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE - D Max PROPOSED LEVEL OF SERVICE - C (Existing Volumes - allows a 25% increase in traffic to L.O.S. Dmax) BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS --_ - - Wide & Overlay Alt.l R. Alt.2 R B/C Ratios (Includes R/W & Const.Cost) . 4 .72 B/C Ratios (Includes Construction Cost only) 1.55 1.55 B/C Ratios (Includes Hennepin County Cost only) 1.47 1.44 6/C Ratios (Includes Richfield Cost only) 1.47 1.44 BJL:de 9/18/80 Rev. 4/6/81 Rev. 5/7/81 Reconstruction Alt.l R Alt.2 F 0.59 0.56 1.01 0.96 1.18 1.12 1.18 1.12 CSAn 32 l: CSAn i3 - :grout No.2 Rer. PREL lMSNARr ESTIMATE RIGHT OF war COST UNIT LOCATION ITEM t1NIt COST C057 House x2516 66tH St. Raave b construct reutntnq roll S f None House •2500 66tH Sc. 9' to t5', 167' 2006 $.F. 4.00/$.F. 8,016 Remove i construct reta+ntnn wit •- •- lause •2412 66cn Sc. 15' to 20' . 166' 15' , 15' TR1. 2982 $.F. 4.OO;S.F. 13,918 toss of neege Repiacamenc 7.050 RPnoJe 1 tree i tree 1000!erer House •6539 Oueen Are. 21' x 125' 18' ,18' in angle 2787 S.F. M.00/S.F: 22,896 aemove b replace 2 trees 2 trees 300/tree ^. TACu BEET 21' a 105' 1205 S.F, ll.00!$.F. 19,640 ~,; loss o/ 2 paring steils 2 >Lai1s IWO/sull H = W AIGa'IEtO RENTAL a• a 40' • I3' . 13' to angle 244 S.f. tl.00/S.f. 1,952 !•' Q pPaRTMfNt Encroac+rvtv.t oantages rump sum Daynenc 30,000 ~ H •2116 66th St. •1• x 67' 19' x 79' inamlle t 0 Ren+ore 3 trees v = K! H ~ APARTMEni Encroac+rient 4amages lump sw wyment 30,000 ~ •2112 66tH St. 21' , 47. 71' to 20' x 20' _ = Re•torr 2 trees Mouse •6544 Nerwn Ave. 20' w 16' 136' li' 15' Tat. 2553 S.F. 8.00/S.f. 29,424 More 4araoe Reolaceernt 5000 V Remore i tree 1 tree 1000/tree Rtatpve b replace 10 trees 10 erles 300/tree OEF:tAt OFFICES x2010 66tH St. 14' to 4' a 136' 19' . 17' Tn anol 1726 S.F. 4.00/S.F. 6,904 House •2006 66tH $t. 9' to 7' + 67• 536 S.i. 4.OO.~S.F. 2.134 House 62000 66tH St• 7' to 4' • 67' 16' a 16' Triatlg le 4% S.F. 4.OOh.i. 1,984 House •1918 66th St• 2' to 0' x 65' • 14' x 15' Triangle 170 S.F. 4,00/S.F. 680 House +2501 66tH Sc. None ABCO iNC.,A000UnTING one •2409 fi6tn St• ^ F" APAA1MtI::S Npne •2405 66tH St• N = W COMMfRCtAE 6uil0ING None ~., p .2401 66tH St~ ~ ~ .COM1fRC 1At 9U1:OlNG ~ ~~ne = GtaM01;R BEAUTr ACAOEMr Ir7 ~ vJDEO GATING SERYICF ~ xENN000•vEnN Tv = H n •6fi00 Ottrer Are Nonr . oose V1 House •6601 Oliver ave. None V House •6600 Merton Are. None House •6601 Ne.~ton Are. None rrous! •6600 Morgan Ave. NOnt PENn•66en SMPNG CNTR 83,336 66th St.Frontage 21' , 257' 17' , t0' 14• > 24•TRI 10.417 S.f. y.3C:S.F. Penn Ave. Fronuge 10. 390' IO' to 9' , 16' _ C LIAR I.'S ~ANOtcICNES 31,232 66tH St. Frontage Zl' 122' 25' , 25' Tnangte 3906 S.f. 8.00/S.f. ~ ~ Penn Ave. Frontage 10' x 103' W AMOCL STATION loss of 2 ortverays Lump sum p+taent 40,000 H 66tH Sc. frontage 35' , 35' Tr tangle W Penn Ave Frontage <' , Ito' . Z MISTER DONUT 10,512 66cn St. frontage loss of 1 paring soil 1 stall 1000/:colt 70' x 30' Triangle 450 S.f. 8.00/S:F. Penn Are.Fronuge lots of 3 Darktnq Bulls 3 stalls 1000/std 19 12' x IY 864 S.F. B.OOh.F~ ^'• COte1CRC;at CuIt01!:G 2,472 W GIFT NOOx, ETC. 1' to tl' + 30' • 7' a 24' Triangle 309 S.F. 8.00/S.F. Q 17 600 CpWERCIAI 8l!ItDING . = W •6616 tnru tl' to i2' , I)0' 1700 S.F. 8.00/S.f. = C] x6636 66 to SP W H 4. CENtupr 21 REAL Tr i<" + 100' 7200 S.F. 8.00/S.f. 4,600 r M y SANOr'S BIER MAEEE 12' a 100' 1200 S.F. 8.00/S.F. 9,600 W _ ; OtrnviC El E[ialG 12' x 50' 600 S.F. 8.00/S.f. 6,900 Q E118ER5 9' to a' . 167' IS' , 15' Triangle 1198 S.f. 8.00/S.F. 9,584 07 tj RICnfIflO tIWOR STORE No"0 W SIR wu CR 0' to 7' + 90' 135 5 J . 8.00/S.f. 1,080 Q COFMERCIAI BWIDING to ,l4a 66623 tnn, 3' to 10' . 175' • 10' + 63' 1768 S.F. 8.00/S.F. Z W 66631 Penn Ave. Z ~ W N aaT ruR tRE ACMER•ti 10' , 110' • . 9' i13r ~.F. p.•00: ti.i. 59,0&8 a N r 3A8r'S 10' , 161' 1010 i.F-. tl.OO.'>.F. 12,880 N ~ Q hEtBRANiS a MARE: tv 10' + 130' 1300 S.F. 3.00.'S.F. ~ 10,400 2 W ' ' ' ' ' BIG A AUTO DARTS . 10 10 . 151 , 26 CO 5 Q la• 13' Triangle 7:83 i.F. 8.00: $.F. 11,864 tfN V AE'S au10 SERYICF 2' to u' . 85' 1J' . 17' Tnangie 2<'9 S.F. 8.00/S.i. 1,832 5/6/81 ?O:At R/r COST $447,642 .aYOUt No.2 Rer. -- i i i 1 CSAN 32 P CSAN 53 - Layout No.l Rev. PREL IN l7WRY ESt 1MAtE RIGHT OF var COST unlt LOCAtION ITEM UNiT COST COST Noose e2516 66th St. $ E None House 12500 66tH St. 0' t0 8' a 110' 220 S.F. 4.00/S.F. 880 Rawove a construct retaining w11 __ ._ NPUSe •2412 66th St. a' to 9' a 164' • 15' a 15' Triangle 1178 S.F. 4.00/S.F. 5,762 lass of neege Replacement 1050 0.tmova i construct ntaintng .all -- -. '"~ !~ House +6539 Queen Ave. 10' a 125' • IS' : iS' Triangle 1362 S.F. 8.00/S.F. 10,8% y TACO BELI 10' a 105' TOSO S.F. 8.00/S.f. 9,400 = W Loss of i Parting stall 1 stall 1000/stall O_ 4p y RICNf IELD RENTAL None v S APaRT1tENT M F' RI16 66N Sc. 10' a 67" 15' a 15' 4riangte )82 S.F 8.00/S.F. 6.856 ~ C Rerelve 6 replace 2 trees 2 trees 300/tree = Z APARTMENT 5°280 Q 62112 66tH St. 10' a 47• . 10' tD 9' a 40' 660 S.F. 8.00/S.F. V Noose •65ta Norton Ave. 9' ca 5' . 136' + ta• a 15• Triaigle 1057 S.F. 8.00/S.F. 8,156 OENTAt OFFtCES •2010 66tH St. 3' to 0' , 70• T7' a 16' Triangle 241 S.f. 4.00/S.i. 964 Noose •2006 66tH St. None House +2000 66th 5t. None rouse •1918 66tH St. None pause •2501 66th Sc. None aei:n lNC..A000Unranis 2.520 x2409 66tH St. )' to S' a 75' • 3' a TO' triangle 315 S.F. 8.00/S.F. APARTMENTS • ' ' ],312 y e2405 66tH St. a 69 5 to 7 alt S.F. 8.00/S.F. _ W COINERCIAL BUIl01NG 4,560 ~ O e2401 66tH St. f' to 9' a 60' + 20' a 9' TriaeNJle 570 S.f. 8.00/S.f. tD y v COMiERCIAI BuIIDING 21,800 = GLAMOUR BEAUTY ACADEMY l0' . 115' ° 15• a 10• Triangle 1225 S. F. 8.00/S.f. ~ H vtOtiO OatING SERVICE loss of 12 Parting stabs 12 subs 1000/stall ~ O KENV000-PENH tv = y r A •6600 Oli p P f H r h sale 6 u N t l 40 000 d ve ve. ause u ase o o se c re e ass , y Woos! •6601 Oliver Ave. PureMSe 6 resale of noose Net loss 30,000 V Noose +6600 Newton Are. 9' to S' a 135' + 15' a 15' Triangle 1059 S.f. 8.00/S.f. 8.456 Noose •6601 Nertpn Ave. 2' to 0` a 75' + 17' . 17' Tnangle 219 S.F. 4.00/S.f. 876 Noose x6600 Morgan Ave. None PENN-66tH iNPNG ENTR 59,176 66th St. frontage 10' a 257' + 6' a 60' • 29' a 29' TR 7397 S.F. 8.00/S.i. Penn Are. Frontage 10' ^ 392' ° 70' eo 9' , 26' Z CLARK'S SANOVlCNES 22,680 O 56tH St. frontage 10' a 112' 31' a 30' Triangle 2835 S.F. d.00/S.F. Penn Ave. Frontage 10' a 125' V W AMOCO STATION Loss of 2 4riverays lungs sow paywent 50,000 y 66tH St. Fronuge 10' , 117• a It' a 9' Triangle IY ° 35' a 35' Triangle W Penn ave. ironL9e 10' , 110' ~ MISTER DONUT 27,080 66th St. fronuge loss of 6 parting stalls 6 stalls 1000/stmt 10' a 94' 20' , 10' Triangle • 26' a 26' Triangle 13'8 S.F. 8.00/S.F. Penn ave. ironuge Loss of 3 parting stalls 3 stalls 1000/stall 12' a 62' • 12' a 23' Triangle 882 S.f. 8.00/S.F. r iaM llr RESTAURANT ~ Mon ~ CCSMERC1Al BUILDING 2.472 Q GIFT NOOK, Ett. 7' t0 8' , 70' 9• a 24' Tria~gie 309 S.f. 8.00/S.F. W Z p COMMERCIAL BU1LOtNG •6626 thru 8' Lo 12' , I70' 1700 S.f. 8.00/S.F. 13,600 W N 0. •6636 PENN .AYE N ~ y CENTURY Z1 REALTY 12' , 100' 1200 S.F. 8.00/S.F. 9,600 off W = 3 SANOr•S BIER NAME 12' ,. 100' 1100 S.G. 8.00/S. F. 9,600 Q OUMPIC ELECiRi[ 12' , 50' 600 S.i. 8/00/S.f. 1,800 y FJiBERS 9' to 4' . 167' IS a IS' Tnangle 1198 S.f. 8.00/S.f. 9,584 V RiCwFtELO U000R STORE Non W SIR wIKER 0' to 3' , 90' 135 S.F. 8.00/S.F. 1,080 Q CO!eoERC IAI BUILDING 14,144 66623 tnru 3' to 10' , 175' t0' . 63' 1768 S.F. 8.00/S.f. Z WC e6637 PENN AYE Z ' ' W N ARTHUR TREACNER'S , 9 )0' a 110' a 1136 S.F. 8.00/S.F. 9,088 ~ N ~ ARBr•5 10' a i61' 1610 S.f. 8.00/S.F. 12.880 Kf y ' ' 1300 S f Q NELBRANTS i NARKE7 iv a 130 l0 . . 8.00/S.f. 70,400 S W ' ' B1G a auiG PARTS . 16i 10' • 16' 10' to S 1659 S.i. 8.00/S.F. 11,672 Q 16' , 13' Tna~le N V AL'S aU7u^ SERVICE 2' to 0' a 15' • 17' . 17' 1n angle 219 S.f. 8.00/S.F. 1.752 5/br bl TDtAL R/v COS7 5629.626 layout N0.1 Rev. • • • ~i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 156 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Adoption of Comprehensive Plan A public hearing has been scheduled for P•4ay 10, 1982 to consider the formal adoption of the draft comprehensive plan. As directed by the city council prior to this hearing, the city staff has held three neighborhood meetings to present the comprehensive plan to Richfield citizens and to answer any questions which they may have. A total of 190 people attended these neighborhood meetings. There were 74 persons at the meeting held in East Richfield. Concerns and questions expressed at this meeting centered around the potential of housing development at Legion Lake, airport noise, reduced minimum lot size requirements, the medium density buffer designation along major roadways and adjacent to commer- cial areas, and property maintenance. The meeting in central Richfield was attended by 58 persons. Questions and comments were made by people in attendance concern- ing sidewalk policies, design, and snow storage space require- ments, high density high-rise housing, affordability of housing, aircraft noise, 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue intersection im- provement plans, undergrounding of utilities, bikeway plan, traffic on 76th Street, and the medium density buffer designation. At the meeting in West Richfield there were 58 persons also. Those attending expressed concerns and asked questions about projected growth or decline of the city's. population and the effect of the comprehensive plan, potential development on the "Godfather Block", fire safety of highrise buildings, the medium density buffer areas, traffic on 76th Street, the comprehensive plan approval process, the freeway strip areas, and the capital improvement program. The major concern which was expressed at all three meetings was that the comprehensive plan through the medium density buffer designation was promoting the removal of single family homes and the construction of high density highrise apartments. The staff Council Letter Iv'o. 156 -2- May 10, 1982 indicated that the medium density buffer would promote the con- struction of two-family dwellings compatible with adjacent areas only. The staff would recommend that one housekeeping change be made in .the comprehensive plan. Figure 72 (bikeway plan) found on page 216 should be changed to show a Class 111 bikeway along 68th Street between Lyndale Avenue and Pleasant Avenue. This portion of the bikeway was mistakenly omitted. It is recommended that the city council conduct the public hearing on this matter and formally adopt the comprehensive plan with the above amentioned change, bypassing the attached resolu- tion. Respectf ully submitted, ~~ ~~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager • ccs Community Development Director City Planner KN/eja RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires local governmental units prepare and adopt comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, this plan entitled "The Comprehensive Plan of Richfield, Minnesota" represents the response of Richfield to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act; and WHEREAS, this plan was adopted by the Richfield Planning Commission on June 9, 1981 following a public hearing with required legal notice; and WHEREAS, this plan was sent to Bloomington, Edina, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the Richfield School Board for review and comment on December 30, 1980; and WHEREAS, this plan was considered and accepted, but not adopted, by the Richfield City Council on June 22, 1981; and WHEREAS, this plan was approved by the Metropolitan Council in accordance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act on December 3, 1981. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that a comprehensive plan dated April 1982 is hereby adopted. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Agenda May 10, 1982 • To Council Letter Noa 155 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Approval of Plans and Specifications Sidewalk Construction - City Project On December 14, 198, the city council approved the installation of sidewalk a.t the following locations as second phase in implementing the city's sidewalk policy: On Xerxes Avenue 75th Street 76th Street 76th Street Lyndale Avenue Lake Shore Drive 65th Street Nicollet Avenue Portland Avenue 77th Street 12th Avenue 77th Street Side From East 62nd Street North Penn Avenue South Sheridan Avenue South Lyndale Avenue Both 62nd Street Both Lyndale Avenue South Lyndale Avenue Both 77th Street West 77th Street South Elliot Avenue West 76th Street South 12th Avenue Two deletions gave been made from the list: ~tay~ for 772 1982 the 65th Street Logan Avenue Xerxes Avenue James Avenue 64th Street 66th Street Pleasant Avenue I-494 I-494 Chicago Avenue I-494 13th Avenue 1. The 76th Street portion between Sheridan Avenue and Xerxes Avenue was deleted by council action; 2. As was indicated in a council letter which accompanied the preliminary engineering report of October 26, 1981, the construction of the Xerxes Avenue, 62nd Street to 65th Street sidewalk in 1982 was dependent on nego- tiations with Hennepin County. It was hoped that the city could obtain the use of a portion of the parking lane to allow a five-foot sidewalk to be placed on the street side of the existing trees. The city engineer has met with Hennepin County concerning this matter. The county objects to the proposed alignment of the sidewalk for the following reasons: Council Letter No. 155 -2- May 1Q, 1982 A. The width of the existing roadway is presently • - at State Aid standards. The county has State Aid funds available for Xerxes Avenue improve- ments similar to the Municipal State Aid avail- able to Richfield on its state aid streets. Re- ducing the width restricts funding of future im- provements; B. Snow storage area would be eliminated from this stretch of Xerxes; C. Catch basins along the blacktop curb would have to be rebuilt at the new curb line. Therefore, it is not feasible to include this sidewalk in- stallation in the 1982 sidewalk improvement project. There are two alternatives by which a sidewalk could still be installed. The trees could be removed to make room for the sidewalk, or additional right-of-way could be obtained to place the sidewalk behind the trees. The staff has advised the property owners of the county's de- cision and will be asking them for comment concerning the alterna- tives. This fall, an alternative plan will be presented for Xerxes Avenue sidewalk to be constructed as part of the 1983 sidewalk project. The city engineer has prepared plans and specifications in accordance with council action. The boulevard area between the concrete sidewalk and curb will be bid both in bituminous and con- crete. The city will select either alternative based on bid prices. The staff recommends that the city council adopt the attached resolution approving these plans and specifications and ordering the placement of an advertisement for bids. The bid opening is scheduled for June 7, 1982, with council award of the contract scheduled for June 14, 1982. The anticipated start of construction is mid-July. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City DZanager cc: Comrnunity Development Director Community Services Director City Engineer RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR CITY PROJECT No. 772 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 6541 passed by the council on December 14, 1981, the city engineer has prepared plans and specif ications for the improvement of: On Side From To 75th Street North 76th Street South Lyndale Avenue Both Lake Shore Drive Both 65th Street South Nicollet Avenue Both Portland Avenue West 77th Street South 12th Avenue West 77th Street South Penn Avenue Lyndale Avenue 62nd Street Lyndale Avenue Lyndale Avenue 77th Street 77th Street Elliot Avenue 76th Street 12th Avenue Logan Avenue James Avenue 64th Street 66th Street Pleasant Avenue I-494 I-494 Chicago Avenue I-494 13th Avenue NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such plans and specifications are hereby approved. • 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the Richfield Sun and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon making of such improvement under such approved plans and specif ications. The advertisement shall be published May 12, and May 19, 1982, shall specify the work to be done, shall. state that the bids will be received by the clerk until 11:00 A.M, on June 7, 1982, at which time they will be publicly opened in the council chambers of city hall by the city clerk and engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the council at 7:00 P.M. on June 14, 1982, in the council chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and .accompanied by a bid bond payable to the clerk for five percent of the amount of such bid . Passed this 10th day of May, 1982 by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. ATTEST: John Hamilton, Mayor Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk ,..LM.i ~~ r~ R .~~R. M ~~ ~S Mtn fT. M ~I. R. M M R. A~~ R x0~ R nr~x ,.~,. ,....~ nu R L W R. ... ~ , C ~)~~ R. R ;, o0DD~7DDQ0_ ~ (~"[~~~ ? ~ ; .~ ~~~[DDD,~__~ DDDDDDDD~DD!D~~'l~ __ ~ ~ R .~ ~ aDDDDDDDDDDD~<<~ ~~"' ^~D~D~,~DD~~~~i~D~-' DDDDDDDD~ ~L/~ ll_~ OFFICIOAF MAP ~I l~ . L M RCITY OF RICHFIELD D ~ DDDDDD~~DOo~~DD~DDD~~~DODDDDDDD . _ ~D __ L n...x F~~~d~drisan ~DDDD ~ ~ ~~ =~- ~~ ` DaDDDD - ~~ ~~,L1DD~D~DDDD~DDDDDDDD~ ~- ~~C ~~_~D - E ~. R ~.~ DDDD~D D~- ~~ ~, -~DD~DDDOO~~DDDDDDDaDD~~~~~ L~R _~~~ ,;~~-~DDD DDD -~ ,~ ; DD~~~ :- DDDDDD ~ ~~~-__~DD DDC~- ~D~_ x ~ R 4. ~w~~. a~, __ _ . wr ooum~ m ~~------- _..._._~ i ~ - - - 1~..-_-_- JL3 ~ a ' . ' ~ ~ . ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ $ s ~ ~ ~ ~ gg ; ~ : ~ a ~ 3 3 C ' : : : t 5 ~ ~ 3 p~ a 3, ; & z ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ Y d Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `s ~ ,. ~ r; E j ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ Y « : ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~.' b ~ s s ` - - - ~ '- - „ 9 _ a « G « S 1982 Sidewalk Construction • • I gay r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 154 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Approval of Plans and Specifications for Alley Paving Project, C.P. 775 Pursuant to the alley improvement policy, the city council has approved 16 alleys for permanent concrete paving during 1982. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron Associates, the city's engineering consultant, has prepared final plans and specifications for the alley resur- facing, consistent with the preliminary plans and the 1982 alley paving project. The standard 11 foot concrete alley cross section will be installed. • At the public hearing for the 1982 alley paving project, the question was raised as to the advisability of placing steel mesh reinforcing in :the concrete pavement. The engineering staff, with the assistance of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron Associates and the Portland Cement Association, investigated the use of steel mesh reinforcing in concrete paving design. The investigation concludes that steel mesh reinforcing is neither required nor advisable in our alley paving design. • During the 1960's steel reinforcing was used in concrete paving design. The whole roadway was considered to be one con- tinuous element. The reinforcement served to hold the pavement together and prevent cracks. However, it was found that any flaws in the reinforcing of these roadways would cause a crack in the pavement. This crack would allow water to invade the steel rein- forcing and accelerate the degneration of the roadway. The design thickness of reinforced concrete is less than nonreinforced concrete, and, because flaws in reinforcing steel placement are inevitable, the thickness of the pavement is inadequate when the steel rusts. According to studies Bane in the early 1970`s on reinforced and non-reinforced concrete pavements, non-reinforced concrete pave- ments, with proper jointing, provided as good a riding comfort and service life as reinforced concrete without the risk of having the steel rust away. As a practical matter, wire mesh is not usually properly placed when placed in alleys. In order to be effective, it is Council Letter No. 154 -2- May 10, 1982 necessary for the wire mesh to be near the middle of the con- crete. The wire mesh is usually rolled out onto the base prior to the pouring of the concrete. .During the placement of the con- crete, the workmen walk on the mesh and the concrete is poured on top of it. Usually, the iron mesh is not pulled up into place and there~_is no way to check to see if they did not until the con- crete is removed. Often it was then found that all the wire mesh was at the bottom of the concrete, or not in the concrete at all. It is more cost effective to increase the depth of an alley slightly rather than use wire mesh in the construction. TY~is is not to say that steel reinforcing and wire mesh is not used effectively in certain applications. Particularly in bridge decks, reinforcing is required. New coatings on reinforc- ing rods has made reinforcing steel less susceptible to corrosion. However, the state of the art in roadway design today dictates that the~most cost effective way to construct a concrete pavement is to do so with limited reinforcing steel-only in specific appli- cations. The plans and specifications for this year's project are very similar to last years', with two exceptions. In last year's project we proposed to put sod between garages and the concrete alley surface. If a property owner wanted asphalt in- stead we generally obliged. The staff has found, however, that if people are given their choice, they generally request asphalt over sod. For this reason, this plan proposes to put asphalt between the garage and the concrete alley where the garage is less than three feet from the concrete alley. If the garage is more than three feet away, sod will be installed. The other change from last year's plan is that there is a tighter construction schedule. This year only 35 working days will be allowed to accomplish all the work. This should allow the contractor time to do the work, but will require him to stay on the job and follow each phase of the construction immediately after the previous phase. The staff recommends triat the city council adopt the attached resolution, approving these plans and specifications and ordering the placement of an advertisement for bids. The bid opening is scheduled for June 7, 1982, with council award of the contract scheduled for June 14, 1982. Anticipated start of construction is the first week of July. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager • cc: Community Development Director Conununity Services Director City Engineer RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 775 WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution No. 65.85, passed by the council on March 8, 1982, Orr-Schelen-Maye ron As sociates has prepared plans and specifications for permanent s urfaci ng of the following alleys: Alley Between From To 62nd Street and 63rd Street 14th Avenue 15th. Avenue 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue 66th Street 67th Street 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue 73rd Street 74th Street Clinton Avenue and 4th Avenue 73rd Street 74th Street Blaisdell Ave. and Nicollet Ave. 73rd Street 74th Street Grand Avenue and Pleasant Ave. 72nd Street 73rd Street. Harriet :venue and Grand Ave. 72nd Street 73rd Street Garfield Ave. and Harriet Ave. 72nd Street 73rd Street Queen Avenue and Penn Avenue 67th Street 68th Street Russell Avenue and Queen Avenue 69th Street 70th Street Thomas Avenue and Sheridan Ave. 66th Street 67th Street Vincent Avenue and Upton Ave. 68th Street 69th Street Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave. 68th Street 69th Street Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave. 69th Street 70th Street Upton Ave. and Vincent Ave. 67th Street 68th Street Aldrich Avenue and Lyndale Ave. 76th Street 77th Street And has presented such plans and specifications to the city council for approval; NO~~T THEREFORE, be it resolved by the city council of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such plans and specificat ions are her eby approved. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the Richfield Sun and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon. the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published May 12 and May 19, 1982, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that the bids will be received by the clerk until 11:00 A.M. on June 7, 1982, at which time they will be publicly opened in the council chambers of City Hall by the city clerk and engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the council at 7:00 P.M. on June 14, 1982, in the council chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the clerk for five percent of the amount of such bid. Passed this 10th day of May, 1982, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk ~'~~r~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~rrrsgrr~~~~~r r r dr gtl~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ^^ p^tj r i g~ g d 6 r U i i ~! 6 ~ 1 t H t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~. { ~ ~ S ~ ~ r~ ~ i g ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ C f Q,-1 4 f e. S ~ ~ i ~ i 0 NrN N M w Ir N. a «rN w» N ;:::, ^f •r r. r .r nww ...... 1 N. 1r r.... -~-- -.~~ ly~~i - - ~. 91.J~IL.f . _ i~'L~~JI.1 ~ ~" I ~ r~caa ~ 1 ~, _I) ~'I' ~~~ ---- - -/- ,, ----- j ._~-- '('''~1ty'r.~~~~~r~{(-T1''1'''~~[~f _.. lf~ ~' _. ~~~ ~L~Ir_ ,,'~-{1't1e`'-e',, - .... r' ~1 ~~ r! . `~ r. - ` ( i^ '~ } Ir ~~ ...ll... ~~_II .ll_J~' . w N i '7rir-.:~r-•r==.r~..~:.i:=:-.: ~..-__._.__ [~~~~ ~~~~~_~t.._[~.~~~L_JtJf. ~ ....~._ ... 1... _!...:..__t .. +...... ~. ! _..~. ~~f _.~~_~1 ~...1'_. .~~..: __.. __.._.._...--..-.r Vw w ~`. Il__Jl. ll. JL. _JI .~I_ Ii ~1 ;, -+`,-» a .r. w I_I -~ • W w ~`-- ~-~~ e w w a ar w _ (~jT1 _..___. __._. j _ _ ~~~- ---- -- ~L_~I_ ~t _J! )~~LJ[_ li ,~~I11.t.1'~- ~~_~~..s~ r f ~ ~r~ , ~~ !i 1~ '~L_1LI~_~) ~'_~~ it ~ it •, . w N r - - - - ~ . ~~nl_)l l [ 1. l~~ 1 ~~ ~~.__ll_ [.. _ il. ~I 1! ~i ~~ . ~, ol: r ~ ~ '~ . wNCITY OF RICIIFIEI.1) H _ _ _ ~~~[_._1~_ [r._ 1[~~ ; ~"1 . ~ ~i...l~ . ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ 'i7E"' . _ !~. e w N F~1 PIES Gdl! ~aAW1PIE$OTA ~~ _. .._ -1 i r Yw it It ~1..J[ ~I 1~ _~~~1~~ 1 ~j~ r~ r ~ - _ -_. .: r fpuw, awwn r - - -..._. ~,..~.. .,._..•_ . It~`I; r 1 J . r.'J, e~ L !~ ~ I a n. w ~ ~. -- .. c .~~ ,, 1 I[ [[ 1[ I[_1[--- _~L_~. __ 1! 11. _~- ' ~ ~[?f_~~ l~_ ~ ,~__: _ r~l~l G, ~_ i~_~~ ~ ~r;~ -I , !'. ~~ ~~ 1_~'~ i! -~ '- r - _ _ _ -- ' -- -- ' ~ ~ 1 _ ~ .! i _... _. -._ w N . ..~~:~ 1 1 r _ .._ .,. ... ____ „_. a >.. w . _ _ ..r ru..nr w. L E s ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ i f i ~ i i i ~ ~.r i ~ S E ~ ~ t ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ j~ i~ i 7~~~~! E~! i~ i A~~ i t= i e~ i e i a~ e i.: i O ALLEYS PROPOSEQ 192. ~ ALLEYS C®MPL.ETED 1981 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ~ / (o Council Letter No. 153 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Council Subject: • Special Use Permit Request, Ren.ny's Family Restaurant, 6700 Penn Avenue The city council was scheduled to hear a request on May 10, 1982 submitted by Kenneth Youngberg, for a special use permit to allow the on-sale of wine at the existing Kenny's Family Restaurant located at 6700 Penn Avenue. This matter was deferred by the planning commission to their May 25, 1982 meeting because of the need for further information. A public hearing notice was published in the Richfield Sun adver- tising that the city council would be conducting a public hear- ing on May 10, 1982. Because the planning commission will not be making a recommendation on this matter until N1ay 25, 1982, it is recommended that the city council continue the public hearing on this matter until June 1 4 , 1 982 . Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director City Planner ~a~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 152 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: City Facilities Rental Policy Council Member Ludeman has requested information related to use of the Community Center by Southview Baptist Church. At the present time, the church is meeting in the Arts and Craf is Room, the General Meeting Room, and is using the lounge. These three areas on the upper level of the center are used twice a day on Sundays, once in the morning and once in the evening. The center has been issuing charges to the church based on the number • of people present. The following chart gives examples of what charges may be for a sample Sunday: 51 ersons present - Morning $7.50 room fee 12.33 maintenance ($4.11 hr) 19.83 Evening 7.50 room ree 12.33 maintenance fee 19.83 Sununary: $39.66 x 52 weeks = $2,062.32 49 persons present -The room fee would be reduced to $5.00 for a total daily rate of $34.66, x 52 weeks = $1,802.32 In other words, under the present billing system, the church will pay about $2,000 per year. However, some interpretation needs to be made regarding the room fee. The church has been billed on the number of people in attendance without regard to the number of rooms used. If we assume 51 persons in attendance for an annual charge of $2,062.32 and that this charge is only for the General Meeting room, there should also be a charge made for the Arts and Crafts Room. If we assume there are only about 20 people using this room, we would need to charge $2.50 for the room fee, $12.33 ($4.11/hr. x 3 hours) maintenance fee, for a total of $14.83 in the morning and $14.83 in the evening. This $29.66 per Sunday fee for the Arts and Crafts Room for 52 weeks would be an additional $1,542.32 charge to the church. This would mean an annual fee of Council Letter No. 152 -2- NTay 10, 1982 $3,604.64 for use of the General Meeting Room, the Arts and Craf is Room, and the lounge, which we will assume is used not so much as meeting space, but as passage space from one meeting room to another. The old policy would require the church to pay for two rooms, but they have only been paying for one due to an oversight. Under the newly adopted policy, the fees charged would be per room without regard to the number of people in attendance. Under this schedule, we would find the following example of charges for the Southview Baptist Church: One Room - $ 6.50/hour x 3 hours = $19.50 Two Rooms- $19.50 x 2 = $39.00 (mornings) x 2 (evenings)= $78.00 per Sunday x 52 = $4,056 per year The estimates for the number of people in attendance are made by part time employees working evenings and weekends at the Commun- ity Center. This is not always an accurate estimate, which may cause some inaccuracies in any billing system using the number of people in attendance as the basis for rental charges. From Pastor Riley's estimates of 65 people per Sunday average, this amounts to a little more than $1.00 per day per member. The new policy, which clearly indicates a fee to be charged on a per room basis without regard to the number of persons in attendance, would seem clearly, cleaner and more manageable for both the city and the renter. Southview Baptist Church began using the Community Center as a place of worship several years ago. The center manager recalls a conversation at the time the group began using the center that the church was looking to buy or build their own faciiity. We do not know the current status of this endeavor to obtain their own facilities. The community center has been receiving mail for the church at the center address. Another group, the Southside Fellowship, has been using the center for worship services since it was a library, prior to the time it became the Community Center. Southside Fellowship is still using the center as a place of worship. In addition, we have had inquiry from twQ other church groups to worship in the Center. For one group, there was not space available at the center for the times requested. A second group, did meet at the Center for a short period of tiem, but has apparently dissolved. Respectfully submitted, ~~ aaC.~.,.C;:~~ Karl Nollenberger • City Manager cc: Community Services Director nN/eja ~~y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 91 Agenda March 22, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: City Facility Use Policy For some years, the community center has operated under a council-adopted resolution which outlined the policy and fees for rental of the facility. Other facilities used by various groups and organizations have had separate policies and fee structures. To streamline the city facility use policy and make information easier for the public, the staff has drafted a proposed resolution which would provide a city facility use policy not only for the community center but also for city hall, the nature center and the golf course. This policy is very similar to the policy used in the past at the community center, although the fee structure has been updated to reflect current costs for provision of these facilities to groups and organiza- tions wishing a space to rent. The Community Services Commission has reviewed the resolution and recommended city council approval. It is the recommendation of the staff that the city council approve the attached resolution with an effective date of_ April 1, 1982. Copies of the previous policies are attached for your information. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Services Director • RESOLUTION N0. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, as follows: That effective ____ ~^~ ___~, the following shall constitute the official City policy relating to use of the Richfield Community Center, City Council Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse and Nature Center Building: I. General Statement AlI organizations, except the-City Council, official City commissions and the City staff, must complete an application and have it approved before using the Community Center, Council Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse or Nature Center Building. Applications must be'submitted as far in advance as possible of the date for which the reservation is requested. II. Hours of Availabilit The Community Center and Council Chambers are available seven (7) days a week from 8:30 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. with the exception of national holidays. Hours of availability of the Golf Course Clubhouse and Nature Center Building are more limited and should be confirmed with City staff responsible for those facilities. Special permission may be granted by the City Manager or his duly authorized representative, however, for requested variations from this designated schedule. Groups whose members are under 18 years of age may use the facilities until 9:45 p.m. and must leave the premises by 10:00 p.m. III. Who May Use the Cif Facilities The described city facilities are available to all Iocal community organizations: which have a membership consisting of at least one-fourth (1/4) of Richfield residents. Groups who have their own facilities shall be allowed to use the City facilities provided two (2) conditions are met: 1. The organization's own facilities cannot be used. 2. The time requested does not conflict with a request made by a group which does not have its own facilities. Organizations not having at least one-fourth (1/4) of its membership living inside the City of Richfield, private profit-making agencies, and fund. raising events may use the facilities but are not allowed to reserve rooms on a monthly basis. The City Council, official city commissions, the city staff or any governmental or quasi governmental organization whose meetings are sponsored by the City Council, an official city commission or the city staff shall have priority on the use of the Council Chambers. Although efforts will be made to avoid i potential conflicts, it may be necessary on occasion to advise groups that have reserved the Council Chambers for a certain time and date that it will be necessary for them to relocate their meeting because of the need to use the Council Chambers for purposes connected with municipal government. -2- IV. Rules and Regulations 1. The Community Center kitchen has been equipped with a stove, refrigerator, coffee maker, china, flatware and other items used in the preparation of food. Only these items may be used unless permission to use special equipment is obtained. No kitchen facilities are available at the Counci Chambers, Golf. Course Clubhouse or Nature Center. Groups using those facilities may provide their own coffee and light refreshments; however, no meals are allowed in the Council Chambers. 2. Beer or .intoxicating beverages are forbidden in any City building, in the parking lot and surrounding park areas. 3. The custodian shall have complete supervisory control over the operation of the facilities. No equipment. may be operated without his permission. 4. Users of the .Community Center shall be responsible for cleaning the kitchen. Soap and cleaning materials will be provided by the City. Users of any City facility shall be responsible for basic clean-up and pick-up. 5. No banners, streamers or signs may be attached to the walls of rooms or halls without permission of the City Manager or his duly authorized representative. .Any such attachments which are permitted must be removed. by the group using the facility. 6. Youth groups shall be chaperoned on a ratio of one adult for each fifteen (15) or fewer youth under the age of 18. The number of youth attending and the names of the chaperones shall be submitted with the applications. If the general public. is invited, the City Manager or his duly authorize representative and the signer of the application shall determine the number of chaperones needed. 7. The City assumes no liability for loss, damage, injury or illness incurred by the users of the facilities. 8. The signer of the application shall be held personally responsible for any breakage, damage or loss of equipment. The signer of the application shall also indicate that he has read and understands the rules.. 9. Smoking shall be restricted to designated areas. 10. All. damage must be reported to the City Manager or his duly authorized representative within twenty-four (24) hours. 11. Hours of use designated on the application must be adhered to. The facility shall be opened for the applicant at the time first indicated on the application. The facility shall be closed and locked at the time last indicated on the application. 12. Failure to meet these policies and rules will be cause for forfeiture of future privileges. 13. Groups cancelling out twice in a season will be given low priority in reserving future dates unless the City is notified seven (7) days prior to cancellation. -3- 14. None of the City facilities may be reserved on a continuing basis • for any or all of the_w_eekd~s_MondaY througzh Frida~with_the exception of local senior citizen or handicapped ~rou~s_ap_provedNy the City Manager or his duly authorized_representative. The general purpose room, conference room and kitchen Located on the upper level of the Community Center may be reserved by other groups between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. or any portion thereof with the approval of the City Manager or his duly authorized representative. These groups will be subject to the fee schedule as stated in the regulations. Food service not readily accommodated by the kitchen on the upper level is not permitted; however, such food service may be provided on a reservation basis on the lower level. 15. Organizations or groups wishing to cancel a reservation and failing to do so shall be fined a fee which shall be charged based on the hourly rate equal to time actually worked by the.City staff. 16. All areas of the City Hall except the Council Chambers, entry corridor. and restrooms are restricted from any use by the organization using the Council Chambers. IV. Procedure for Applying ~1. Applications. with a cover letter explaining the rules and regulations of the Community Center will be sent to all previous season users on or about July 1 of each year. Previous year users will be given until August 1 to reserve meeting times,. and .then reservations will be made . on a first come first served basis. Reservations for any other facility will be made on a first come first served basis. 2. Reservations will not be official until the application is signed by the City Manager or his duly authorized representative and the original form returned to the application. Room reservations will not be accepted over the telephone. Applications should be submitted as early as possible and at least one week prior to the meeting date. 3. Upon approval of an application for use of the Community Center, room. designation shall be made for the meeting.or activity. The approved application shall bear such designation and only the room(s) desig- nated may be used by the organization or group. However, circumstances may require reassignment of room designation. An information board shall be available to classify room designation at the time of the meeting activity. 4. Applicants not have at least one-fourth (1/~4) of their membership living inside of Richfield city limits will not be allowed to reserve the facility on a monthly basis. S. Group reservations for regularly scheduled meetings may be made after July 1 for a twelve (12) month period. V. Fee Schedule The fee schedule shall encompass two areas: room rental and food service. -4- 1. ROOM RENTAL The fee encompasses the following classifications of groups: • Nonprofit Groups a) Groups will be charged an hourly rate of $6.50/hour. b) Food service charges will be additional. Youth Groups a) Youth groups will be charged one-half (1/2) of the regular room rate. b) Food service charges will be additional. Profit Making Organizations/Private Parties (These uses are not permitted in the Council Chambers. These are the rates that apply to the golf course and nature center.) a) Groups will be charged $20.00 /hour. b) Food service charges will be additional. Fund Raisers a) Groups will be charged $6.50/hour. b) Food service charges will be additional ALL CHARGES ARE BASED ON A PER ROOM BASIS. GROUPS OVER 75 WILL BE CHARGED ONE ADDITIONAL HOUR FOR CLEAN-UP. 2. FOOD SERVICE In addition to room rental rates, the following rates shall be charged to food service which would be provided by the club or organization. Snack and/or beverage $ 2.50 For Community Center only; Lunch, dinner, potluck, etc., prepared outside the Community Center (may use Center coffee pot only). 5.00 Lunch, dinner, potluck, etc. prepared at or outside the Community . Center (using full kitchen 10.00 facilities). Breakfast, dinner, suppers, etc., sponsored by a community organization to which the " general public is invited. 25.00 -S- • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk • ~_ . ..' ~ 33 N-30LliTiO~~ ~~0. 5690 _. RESOLUTiOii aME'~~i'~~ RESCLUTiO~~ 4427 ESTAE3LISHIi~G POLICY . REGULATI'~G THE USE OF THE CO'^MUNITY CENTER FACILITIES - • r _ BE IT RESOLVED ?Y THE CITY COU~;CIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA as follows: That effective July i, 1977, the following shall constitute the official City policy relating to use cf the Lichfield Community Center: I. Hours of Availability The Center is available seven (7) days a week from 8:30 A.M. until 1.0:30 P.M. with the exception of nati~nai holidays. Special permission may be granted by the city manager or his duly authorized representative., however, to extend the vacating time to 11:00 F.M. Groups whose members are under 18 years of age may use the Center until 9:45 F.M. and must leave the premises by 10:00 P.M. II. Who May Use the Center _- _- The Community Center is available to all- local cor-~unity organizations which have a membership consisting of at least one-fourth (1/4) of Richfield residents. The Center, however, shall not be used for commercial enterprise. Groups who have their otivn_facilities shall be allowed to_use the Community Center provided two (2) conditions are met: 1. The organization's own facilities cannot be used. 2. The time requested .does not conflict with a request made by a group which does not have its own facilities. Organizations not having at least one-fourth (1/4) of its membership living inside the Richfield city limits will not be able to reserve a room until six (6) days prior to the meeting date. III. Rules-and Regulatons 1. The kitchen has been equipped with a stove, refrigerator, coffee maker, china, flatware and other items used in the preparation of food. Only these items may be used unless permission to use special equipment is obtained. 2. beer or intoxicating beverages are forbidden in the Community Cenl:er, in the parking lot and surrounding park area. 3. The custodi~~ shall have complete supervisory control over the opera ti^r. cf the Center. No equipment may be operated without his per:^i~~ ,-n. 4. Users shall :;~ ~e;:,~-:sible for cleaning the kitchen. Soap and cleanir.~ -.;". ;,; s will 5e provided by the City. • ' •'~ 34 Resolution "ao. 5690 - 2 - •_ 5. ..P~o banners, streamers or sicans may be attached to the walls of rooms or halls without permission of the city manager or his duly authorized representative. 6. Youth groups shall be chaperoned on a ratio of one adult for each fifteen (15) or fewer youth under the age of 18. The number of youth attending ,and the names of the chaperones shall be submitted with the application. If the. general public vis invited, the city manager or his duly 'authorized representative and the signer of the application shall determine the number of chaperones needed. 7. The City assumes no liability for loss, damage, injury or illness incurred. by the users of facilities. 8. The signer of the application shall be held. personally respons- sible for any breakage, damage or loss of equipment. The signer of the application shall also indicate that he has read and understands the rules. ~~• 9.Smoking shall be restricted to designated areas. ~~ 10. All damage must be reported to the city manager or his duly authorized representative within twenty-four (24) hours. • 11. Hours of use designated on the application must be adhered to. The Center shall be opened for the applicant at the time first indicated on the application. The Center shall be closed and locked at the time last indicated on the application. • - "• 12. Failure to meet these policies and rules will be cause for for- feiture of future privileges. 13. Groups cancelling out twice in a season will be given low pri- ority in reserving future dates unless the City is notified seven (7) days prior to cancellation. 14. The general purpose room, conference room and kitchen located on the upper level of the Community Center may be reserved during the day time hours of 9:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. ht. or any porticn thereof with the approval of th.e city manager or his duly authorized re- presentative. These facilities on the upper level of the Coranunity Center may not be reserved on a continuing basis for any or all of the weekdays Monday thrau~h Friday with ttie exception of loc.11 senior citizen or handicapped groups approved by the city manager or his duly authorized representative. Food service not readily accomodated by the kitchen on tt~e upper level is not permitted; hoti•rever, such `pod service may be provided on a reservation basis on the lower level. • • ,~_. s ~ ~i- y 35 Resolution No. 5690 - 3 - 15. Organizations or groups wishing to cancel a reservation and failing to do so shall be fined a fee which shall be charged based on the hourly rate equal to time actually worked by the Community Center staff. IV. Procedure for Aoplying 1. Applications with a cover letter explaining the rules a-nd regulations of the Community Center will be sent to all previous season users on or about Juiy 1 of each year. Previous year users will be given until August. l to reserve meeting times, and then reservations wi11 be made on a first come first serve basis. 2. Reservations will not be official until the application is signed by the city manager or his duly authorized representative and the original form returned to the applicant. Room reservations will not _ be accepted over the telephone. Applications should be submitted as early as possible and at least one week prior to the meeting date. 3. Upon approval of the application, room designation shall be made for the meeting or activity. The approved application shall bear such designation and only the room(s) designated may be used by the organ- ization or group. However, circumstances .may require reassignment of room designation. An information board shall be available to classify _ room designation a£ the time of the meeting activity. 4. Applicants not having at least one-fourth (1/4) of their membership living inside of Richfie]d city limits will not be granted permission to reserve the Community Center until six (6) days prior to the meet- ing date. 5. Group reservations for regularly scheduled meetings may be made after July 1 fora twelve (12) month period. V. Fee Schedule The fee schedule shall encompass three areas: room rental., food service and other. 1. Room Rental Organizations, recognized by the city manager or his duly authorized representative, using the Connnur;ity Center on a regular basis during regular Center hours,-9:00 A. M. - 4:00 P.hi., Monday through Friday, shall have no charcle for room rental. ".Regular Qasis" is defined as meeting in the Center at least once a month on a designated day. Youth groups, with the chaperone ratio outlined above, shall have no change for room rental. 0th:-r adult clubs and organizations shall be charged the following for . roor: rental: The first charge shall be for a four hour period or any fraction thereof. Alike charge shall be for each additional hour or ~- fraction thereof. K~ .} . ,. • 36 ,. Resolution "~o. 5690 -4- • 0 - 20 r~~e~:.bers attending 5 2.50 21 - 50 members attending 5 5. G0 5l -100 members attending 5 7.50 100 + members attending 510.00 2. Food Service In addition to roo;a rental rates, the following rates shall '6e charged to food service which would be provided by the club or organization: . Snack and/or beverage ~ 2.50 Lunch, dinner, potluck, etc., prepared outside the Co~.~unity Center (may . use Center ccffee pat only). ~ 5.00 Lunch, dinner, potluck, etc., prepared at or outside the Community Center (using ;•_,_.full kitchen facilities). X10.00 . Breakfast, dinner, suppers, • etc. , sponsored by a corr~nuni ty organization to 'which the general public is invited. $25.00 3. Other Services and Charges Any organization using the Community Center facilities after 4:30 P.~1. on Saturdays and Sundays shall be charged an hourly rate equal to the custodial salary for tt~e time actually worked by the custodian. .Private parties, family get-tooethers, wedding receptions, etc., may use the Community Center with a charge of ~40.C0 for four hours and X10.00 for each hour after the first four hours. They will also be charged the use of the kitchen and the custodian fee if it is after 4:30 P. h1. on Saturday or all day Sunday, as.stated above. Richfield based non-profit clubs or organizations wishing to sponsor a fund raiser for said club or organization may do so only with ttie express approval of the city manager or his duly authorized representative. Approval of said fund raiser shall necessitate a daily charge of S25.00. Passed by the City Council of tt~e City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 25th day of February, 1977. ~~ ~, ~, , , , - ~ ~ -- -- koren L. Law i ~ ' 'ayor ATTEST: r,~^ ,, RESOLUTION N0. 4721 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY TO REGULATC THE USE OF THE COUiJCIL CHA~~~BERS LOCATEC IN THE RICHFIELD CITY HALL BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, • as follows: The following shall constitute the official city .policy regulating the use of the Council Chambers: I. General Statement All organizations, except the City Council, official city commissions, and the city staff, must complete an application and have it approved before using-the Council Chambers. Applications must be submitted at least t~~ro weeks prior to the date .for which the reservation is requested. II. Availability The Council Chambers shall be available P•1onday through Saturday from 8 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. Special permission may be granted by the City i~ianager for requested variations from this designated schedule. The City Council, official city commissions, the city staff or any. governmental or quasi governmental organization whose meetings are sponsored by the City Council, an official city commission or the city staff shall have priority on the use of the Council Chambers. Although efforts grill be made to avoid potential conflicts, it may be necessary on occasion to advise groups that have reserved the Council Chambers for a certain timE and date that it ~~~ill be necessary for • them to relocate their meeting .because of the need to use the Council Chambers for purposes connected with municipal government. III. Mho flay Use the Council Chambers The Council Chambers shall be available to all local community organizations which have a membership consisting of at least one-fourth Richfield residents. The Counci'1 Chambers shall not be used. for the following: A. Commercial Enterprise B. Private Ceremonies Groups who have their own facilities shall be allowed to use the Council Chambers provided two conditions are met: A. The organization's own facilities cannot be used. B. That the time requested does not conflict with a request made by a group which does not have-its own facility. • -2- IV. Fee Schedule • A $5.00 fee shall be charged for any group using the Council Chambers after 4:30 p.m. on weekdays or at any other time when city offices are not open. V. Rules and Regulations A. The city will not provide kitchen facilities. Groups may provide their own coffee and light refreshments. However, no meals or snacks will be allowed. B: The city will make available afloor-microphone, vieari.ng screen and blackboard as may be desired. ,/ C. There shall be no major rearrangement of chairs or tables in the.-room, without special permission and the payment of appropriate charges. D. The use of intoxicating liquors and non-intoxicating malt beverages is prohibited. E. No banners, streamers, or signs may be attached to the galls of the Council Chamber or the lobby. F. Youth groups shall be chaperoned on a ratio of one adult for each 15 youth or fraction thereof. The number of youth attending and the names of the chaperones shall be submitted with the application. If the general • public is invited, the City Manager and the signer of the application shall determine the number of chaperones required. G. The~city assumes no liability for loss, damage, injury or ilness incurred by users of. the facility. H. The signer of the application shall be held personally responsible for any breakage, damage, loss of equipment and excessive litter or uncleanliness. All damage must be reported to the City Manager or his representative within 24 hours. The signer. of the application shall also indicate that he has read and understands all the applicable rules and regulations. I. Hours of use designated on the application must be adhered to. J. Failure to meet these policies and rules will be~-cause for the forfeiture of future use privileges. . K. Groups cancelling out twice in one year will be given loaf priority in reserving future dates, unless the City is notified seven (7) days prior to cancellation. • -3- L. All areas of the City Nall, except the Council Chambers, entry corridor, • and restrooms, are restricted from any use by the organization using the' Council Chambers. VI. Procedure for Applying A. Organizations requesting use of this facility shall be handled insofar as possible on a first come, first served basis. 6. Organizations wishing to use the Council Chamber facilities must obtain an application blank and a set of the rules and regulations for the use of the Council Chambers. Reservations will not be official until the application is signed by the City Manager or his representative and the original returned to the applicant. Reservations will not be accepted over the telephone. Applications should be submitted as-early as possible and at least tiro weeks prior to the meeting date. C. Applicants are required to indicate whether at least one-fourth of the members are Richfield residents. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of November, 1971. Stanley Olson, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Moran, City Clerk • 4751-12 ~8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 151 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit, Arby's Restaurant, 6529 Penn Avenue South Mr. Charles Nadler, representing Franchise Associates, is requesting that the city approve a special use permit to allow the construction of a drive-thru service window at the existing Arby's Restaurant, located at 6529 Penn Avenue South. The zoning ordinance requires that restaurants can only be located in "I", general industrial districts, if a special use permit is obtained. Further, if a restaurant wishes to expand or change the nature of its business beyond that which was approved in its original special use permit, it must obtain another special use permit. Because the applicant is adding a drive-thru service window which was not included in the original special use permit, a new special use permit is nec- essary. PROPOSAL The proposal involves construction of a six foot by six foot addition on the north side of the existing building just east of the existing entrance. A menu speaker sign would be con- structed on the east side of the building. Existing entrances to the site would remain, but a one-way traffic flow pattern would be instituted. Traffic would enter at the south curb cut and exit out the north curb cut. Parking along the north side of the building would be removed. A total of 11 parking stalls would be lost. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.33, Subdivision 2 and Section 3.34, Subdivision 1 of the zoning ordinances require that restaurants can only be located in industrial zoning districts if a special use permit is obtained. Section 3.33, Subdivision 4 lists regulations for restaurants. Section 3.41, Subdivision 5 lists conditions governing the issuance of special use permits. Council Letter No. 151 -2- May 10, 1982 STAFF FINDINGS 1. The existing restaurant and the proposed drive-up window facility are consistent with the types of uses suggested for the site by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed construction of the drive-up window would not create undue traffic hazards on adjacent streets. The drive-up window will not generate a significant amount of additional traffic. The restaurant use is established on the site. The facility is intended primarily to provide better service to existing carry-out customers. 3. Planned improvements to the 66th Street and Penn Avenue intersection could affect access to the site. Preliminary plans indicate that medians may be constructed on Penn Avenue to provide a protected left turn lane for southbound Penn Avenue traffic wishing to go east on 66th Street. The median would prevent left turns into or out of the site. This would mean that traffic entering the site from the north or leaving the site to go south would have to go around the block, which could result in increased traffic on residential streets in the area. This impact will be felt regardless of whether the drive-up window is constructed. Improvements to the Penn Avenue and 66th Street intersection are tentatively scheduled for 1984. The applicant has been made aware of the potential street improvements in the area. The city council • is scheduled to review improvement plans for the intersection and the surrounding area at a study session prior to the May 10 council meeting. 4. Sufficient parking will exist on the site. Thirty-nine parking stalls will be provided, which is 32 more than is required by city guidelines. The drive-up service window will reduce the demand for parking spaces because carry-out customers will be able to use the drive-up window instead of having to park their cars and go inside the building to obtain food. 5. The site plan does not indicate what direction signs will be installed. Clearly visible "enter only" and "exit only" signs should be installed at the appropriate curb cuts to carry out the one-way traffic flow system and to avoid con- gestion on the site. The applicants have indicated that such signs would be installed. The area adjacent to the north side of the building should be clearly marked to prevent cars from parking in that area, to ensure smooth traffic flow through the drive-up window facility. There is also a grade problem on this side of the site which during the winter causes some difficulties for cars attempting to leave the site. The applicants are award. of this problem and have indicated that it will be monitored very closely. Council Letter No. 151 -3- May 10, 1982 6. The proposal is consistent with the zoning ordinance standards for restaurants. • STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is the opinion of the staff that the proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare, would provide more efficient service to carry-out customers and would not result in a sub- stantial increase in traffic congestion on surrounding streets. It is recommended that the special use permit be approved subject to the following stipulations: 1. That clearly visible "enter only" and "exit only" signs be installed at the appropriate curb cuts. 2. That the area adjacent to the north side of the building be clearly marked to prevent cars from parking in the area. 3. That the seven angled parking stalls on the east edge of the site be marked for compact car use only. PLAI~'NING COMMISSION 1~ECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the special use permit be granted subject to the three stipulations outlined in the staff recommendation. • Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City P~7anager KN/skh cc: Community development Director City Planner i .~ .. ,.. ~- .~ ~ ~~ :~ i ~~-~~,-,.tLta . __ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ /bfv ~~~~~~ . ._ • ---_____.~._._~__ ~w~ • • D. 1C7 U ~ •~ D ~~ ~ --r ~~ ~ zl ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ .'. ~i ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ Q ~~ I a ,~ N. ` N ~W b .r u ~~ ~n ^ ~ ~~ i 1 • ,~ .• • .~ ~ -~ ~ 1 A ' ~ I ~' ~ 1 ~ j ~ 1 ~ ~ ~- ~ , ~~ , ~f i N :...~. . , ,~ J ~ V ~.• 1 ..., ,~ ~ ~ I, .,.. ~, . ~• I_ ~ '~ ~.' ~ ~~~ ~~ j ~ ~ 1 alb' J (1~ . ~ ~4 ~ ~ ' N I ~ . ~ i • :: :~ i ~3 ;G• ~ .S b• ~ • { :G. n ~ Zoning iVi ap - ~ ~ s=j •~ ~ ~ ~` ~ j ~ ~..:T,~i;_ ' - I ,_ t~ ~ , '..r a. '~ 4' t~.,,g`' .~ (.~'4~ ~ ~ i 3 Z s2 ~ i r ~~'~'=t .=•: °a ~~ ~. 26.i.. 1 ba' i :S~+S 'S° 'tom •~ ~ ~ 6 ~; 1 • .. ' ~ ~ S ', ~~° i ~ ~ 1 ~l ~ ~ t~` i ~L;~ f ~ x,11' ~ y • ~ ' • ~ ~1 `1t'~. _ •~- i ,y° ~ t=° ; ~ t ~. .,fit °~~• 4' C -~ ~ - -.•~~tj;. a!~ rv• .} ' • r .-y.. ' k. ~t ~ ~, ~ t . v33 T~ s g` ~ ; - f'' ~ ~~ ~ I '1 ~ ~ Y - { r +n ~ ` . ~ ~ . o « + ~ z v ~'~ ~ o i~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " `.~ .~ d .C p 1 ~O • •t a i i • ,•, v v ;~. \ s } Q tit ~ ~ 4i6' ~ - ~ - . ~ . ;~~- a. ~ . ---• ~:• t ~ •"i' l w rJ •" p GENERAL. COMMERCIA '~ ____. ~ ` y~ ~~ ~ j , ~~. L -_-~. .. ° GENERAL fNDUSI'R1AL _ -- ~__- MULTIPLE RESIDENCE - : :-~ -' . ~,,, . __ _ ,. _ • ~ of ,~` Y ~ _% fir'.. , ,v -.. 0 e;, . 4 rr.ti~l. - ~ r ~' - < . o ~~ • 1i ~ .: ~- ~ -_• _ z so.•~ -~ ~ rz _ :I Q ~ -_ ~11 M ~ ~ - ~ i0 4.1~ 9 ~ : f P~ ^f , I + ' ~ i T is ~' ~`~~ ~ y ~ s"Z~...,.s~x t . ' ~ ; a ;~ ,~7r-• ,~ i a~ r•}n S!~£ Q, ~ a ~- .~v~'~ •.~ ,,,t, Z ~ , ,,. ~2 .~ Q MM ASV ^ ~ „' , ~ ~ ~ ~ 33~ ~~ ` ~ '-- - - `~ - 1 ~ "r _ _ .. ~ 3 3 i ~ r ~+ - .~ - ~ ,~-; - , . ~ __ ~ ^ S '"' _ " --~: ~ = -, , ~• a ~I z, - ~ ~ c. ~ ~ I ~, .__._.~ ~] Q r _. ,. 1; M13,: 1 t. ~,•~ 14 i 11. ~~~' ~ i"• ~e I M ~ ~ ~~ ~4'_ ~ ~~ ~ ,~. ~ ' ~s t ~. ~- z i }~ X ~ l3 ~l•,; l4.,~+- - 3 ~ri~.: W l al " Z 11.~v'° . .,. .7H~ o 'F 4~' ~0 4::.r -~.~_.- a ~= "s o_ ~T ~ C. ~o ~ M .. n n ,~ .. ~ ~ . ~., +N ~ G -ter ~ 1 ~~ ~ i ~~ ~ , ; -~ t - ~ . . ~ '~= 0 ~ v ~ C ~ j ~ ,~ MI h1 P ,~ ~,. -} C 4__r. ~ ._~~: PUBLIC .SINGLE FAiY11LY RcSiDENT1AL MULTI-FAh11LY RESIDENTIAL coMr~:~ERCIAL INDUSTRIAL _ _ i i I dy/} CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 150 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Contract for L/H/N Irrigation System, C.P. 7054 On May 4, 1982 bids were opened for the C.P. 7054 L/H/N Irrigation System. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. Three alternative deductible bids were taken to run irrigation lines to: 1) The Arthur Treacher's Restaurant and to the Nicollet Avenue entrance feature in the 64th and Nicollet area; 2) the south side of 65th Street from Lyndale Avenue to Rae Drive; and 3) the island on 66th Street between Emerson Avenue and Lynwood Boulevard. The staff recommends that alternatives number one and number three be included in the project, and that alternative number two be deducted from the project. Irrigation of the 65th Street area would appear logical for the developer of the Godfather Block to incorporate into their development. 'T'herefore, the staff recommends the award of contract be made to Aqua Engineering, Inc. of Eden Prarie, with a base bid of $99,938.27 minus a deduction of alternative number two in the amount of $7,527.25 for a low bid of $92,411.02. It is recommended that the city council take the following action: 1. Accept the bid minutes. 2. Award the contract to Aqua Engineering, Inc. of Eden Prarie in the amount of $92,411.02. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager • KN/skh cc: Community Development Director City Engineer CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening May 4, 1982 • LHN Irrigation and Appurtenant Work for City Project 7054 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Joyce L. Wilde, City Manager's designee, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for LHN Irrigation and Appurtenant Work for City Project 7054, as advertised in the official newspaper on April 7, 1982. Present: Joyce L. Wilde, City Manager's Designee Dennis Kraft, Conmzunity Development Director Betsy Christenson, Acting City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR AND BASE BID DEDUCT ALTERNATES BID SECURITY SCHEDULE A & B N0. 1 N0. 2 N0. 3 Natural Green, Inc. B.B. 5% $107,692,41 $5,276.76 $6,816.00 $2,738,75 Aqua Engineering, Inc. B,B, 5% 99,938.27 4,311.07 7,527,25 4,230.25 C, S. McCrossan, Inc. B.B. 5% 132,988.30 2,974.20 8,150.90 4,602.55 The City Manager's Designee announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting of May 10, 1982. Betsy Christenson Acting City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR LHN IRRIGATION SYSTEM - C.P.7054 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Redevelopment area by the installation of an irrigation system for major landscape features, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law; AND, WHEREAS, it appears that Aqua Engineering, Inc. of Eden Prairie, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota 1. The mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Aqua Engineering, Inc. in the name of the City of Richfield for the improvement of the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet redevelopment area by the instal- lation of an irrigation system for major landscape features, according to the plans and specifications approved by the city council and on file in the office of the city engineer. 2. The city is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their • bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 3. That the city hereby exercise its right to deduct alternate number two. Adopted by the City Council this 10th day of May, 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTESTo Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ ,~ Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 149 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Dedication of 75th Street Between Penn Avenue and Sheridan Avenue • PROPOSAL At the March 23, 1982 Planning Commission meeting a request was submitted by St. Richard's Catholic Church to consider opening up 75th Street between Penn Avenue and Sheridan Avenue. St. Richard's Church has requested this action to improve traffic flow around their property and to improve the safety of their parking lot and playground. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the matter on April 27, 1982. STAFF FINDINGS 1. There currently exists a roadway in that area which extends from Penn Avenue to approximately 30 feet east of Sheridan Avenue. This roadway is completely on the Richfield School District property and was constructed by the school board. There is parking adjacent to the roadway and access provided to the St. Richard°s Church parking lot and to one single family dwelling on Sheridan Avenue. The St. Richard's Church property does not directly abut the roadway. The school district owns the property on both sides of the roadway. 2. In order for the roadway to be opened and maintained as a public street, the school board would have to dedicate the necessary right-of-way to the city. 3. Any improvements constructed would have to be assessed to the abutting property owners or borne by the city. 4. Lincoln Hills School will be closed after this school year and may be sold. The city is currently evaluating possible acquisition of the school for reuse as housing. 5. The Lincoln Hills School playground areas are used for softball and other recreational uses. Council Letter No. 149 -2- May 10, 1982 6. The opening up of 75th Street would result in additional traffic into adjacent residential areas to the west. Traffic currently must exit onto Penn Avenue. There is a traffic si nal at this intersection. It is the staff's opinion g that traffic should continue to exit onto Penn Avenue and not be allowed to exit into adjacent residential areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city not pursue the reopening of 75th Street between Penn Avenue and Sheridan Avenue because of the uncertain status of Lincoln Hills School and the increased traffic which would likely infiltrate the adjacent residential areas if the street were opened. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Due to the potential increase in traffic in the adjacent residential neighborhood and because of the uncertain nature of the Lincoln Hills School, the Planning Commission recommends that the street not be reopened at this time. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Engineer ST. RICHARD'S CATHOLIC COMMUNITY 7540 Penn Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (612) 869-2426 Apn,i,e 27, 19 8 2 P.eannc.ng Comm.u5:5.t,an C%t y o ~ R~.chs~,e.e.d R,%ch~~.e.~d, M.c.nneao~a. aeon, Gtty P~a.nne~c S~. R.icharcd'a Path S~a,s~ and my~se.~~ recommend xha~ 75~h S~c.ee~ be reopened between Penn and Shen,%dan Avenue. Ours nat.~.ona.~e ~orc ~h.c.6 rcequeaZ -c,~s .twa~o.e.d: Inen.ecvsed panFic.ng space wou.~d be ava.%2ab.~e on ~the~se a.tn.ee~a dwu.ng our. Sunday L..~,tuxg~.es and mo~.t o~ ate, .the rceduc,t.%on o~ .ttea~~~.c ~hrcough our. panh,ing arcea. ~1,cth the ~.nclteaa ed ~tcas ~~.c o n 7 d.th S~ee~, S.t. R,~charcd' ~s parcfu.ng area becamea a handy ~s.c;de ~s~r.ee~ and necen~2y ourc ga~ea have been ~5mctd hed and cl-rt,2dn.en' ~s ~,iv ea endang etced on the panfung cucea- pea ygtcound arcea GJe -t~cc~.t a j u~s~ and d a~ e ~ o.2uti.o n u~i,?.~ b e ~ o~hcom~.ng . S~.ncerce.~y, ~R.~ ~a~hen. Rog P eruc~ Pws~arc • .' 7 t'Ii J :. G' 1 / l ~~ s Lo' r T}/ ~~ i. /~ ly I V ~ 1 w • C~Ty C t= ~ ~C HFI~r_D ~~~~ ~~;;~~~~,~ ~vr:fvv~ ~~~v;~ ~N ~ r!-} P (~ ~G~f~crvCC: ; HL r;C~Ucsi ~~ ~ Si , h~,cl~~~r=~S ~~TNt~.~c cffL. C~ TG „~-O('~/V 7=~~~ ~,~~trLT F3~_TG:•~.e1U ~ r,; "v ~ v!: +ti :.:. ~N~7 S ,-i C:. ~ ~ C;~ ~; ,~ v ~rti ~ ~ ~ !~- G s. r t~ )T' +~~ ~~Y ti ~.i U.i: ,,jc'~ilvtTZ:,~tj t'r;c:tzLl~ 1`ic~ TC rL-crLn; 7~~®u ~5! ~GLTd J' ('l}Cft r~r~c,<, ~~ e s ~ ,7 r~~~r~c. r~~i~T /'~G re:D 6~/Clcrf Tz~ i2!} J j F~ r A r G S i lJL N e`!fJ L. ;~ (S 1 C ii f;~: %' I ~t' D /1/C ti; 7°H~ ~/~e~l;Mis ~~Z r~~FFrL iJ Gr;c~~ar~y ~~:~;~~~~~ ~ /~/L D C. J c.'i~ ~,w/ i •~ l? r~ ('~ ~ ~? ~ ~. t-. )='rjy , rv G' C iz iz T N if ~ "=~ ~. ` ~- ; i 'l-L ~ ; f i,;. C t;k(, > i~;+~,7 S i ~C (.TS u,~ cc=.n,'AIrU,. +~c~ ,~ 1. ~i l "H~ 5 ~~, - ~; r^-1 +_ r~ ~ 1~ ~~ ~z:,~ ~ ; ~ :~L: ~~Cw • r n. ~ ~ ~. _ f. . u .~ ~ 1s~~~ ~ ~..~V 1 /i :~. it ;~~~~~~C3 /~ v` r~L,- ~c;7-' -~ :~ ~;;_.~ • :, ,.' ., ,~. ~ ~ rte. .>r r f r: .., Y r, ~ ~ qh. .I .i +~ ~cu s. 1.~ • _ i+i ~ J~ ,~ ~, t .yt' ~' • ~~1. ~ , r ~ ~ y !~~ frr' ( ~} B, , ~ 1~~ ~ r . '~ # :~ ~~~ ~ ~'! I tom: ~`r ~~ ~'~' C !•r ~~ 7; ~ ~ ~:~ :~ ~ ~ , w .~ 7 0 1 , ~ V r.. ` • ` ~ ~ i, is !'. .~ . r Y' r •~ ~ ~. ~, h i ~ k ~- ,~: r' l1 request has been submitted to dedicate and construct f ~ ~~ ~'r ~ !~` 75th Street batwaen Fenn I~vanne and Sheridan. <'"rj~' ~ ~~ _ ~ _ lr+~ f .f• sv~ • j{ .r ~ 4.. i4 .~..ic, ,. C3-r'~a sr Y _ ., +r.. R+r .-.r:/Ir"'±~,-~. •'Y '~`..'^t._7-~~Y ~., ~''n' __.1!:. rrr;. , ! i'r ,~i f r'v~ ~ 1 r .: ;,,~- Y` A r i I ~'j ~ ~ ~~~ ~11 a } lly±!+y~. ~sr + 'e~.~~ f~f~ ~~~lll'~~i ~ r'~,. f r ~. i ! t ~r ~,~. ;~ I J jr ~ ~, 1 , ' Y.l /h .i•~. ~~. Ci^Y ~ •l,+lf ~~ f .~~ ~ 'p PB ~ •~~r i{ r y s • ~ ~ . ; r ~r `.~~ 1 ! ~ ~Y'( ~~ M ~~ ~a 7 ` f I ..y ~~ .a ~~ ~ ~; , 7 ,M ~ • X4,1 '~ r~^' t f }~, ~` u `I r j'. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager • Council Letter No. 148 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Proclamation on Better Hearing and Speech Month 1982 is the International Year of the Disabled Person. Hearing, speech and language disorders constitute our nation's number one handicapping disability. It would seem only fitting and proper for Richfield to join the national effort to encourage and stimulate early detection, proper treatment, prevention and greater understanding of hearing, speech and language impairments. A copy of a proclamation recognizing this effort is attached. rir. Frank Johnson, former member of the Senior/Handicapped Citizen Advisory Commission, and Mr. • John Takekawa, present Commission chairperson, will be present at the May 10, 1982 council meeting to receive the proclamation. It is recommended the attached proclamation be approved. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Community Services Director • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 147 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: BMX Policy At the request of the city council, an invitation has been extended to Mr. Jack Doherty, the race promotor who has been sponsori ng BMX races at the Richfield track, to appear at the , N ,',~ May 10, 1982 council meeting. Some of the questions and ' ~ al concerns ' { which the council may wish to address of Mr. DohertyC1 \ include , the following: ~. 1. What is the anticipated 1982 schedule of events for •~ ~~" the Richfield BMX track? ' %~~, 2. Has this schedule been reviewed and approved by the h city staff as~ required by the policy? 3. What is the anticipated attendance at the various events including riders and spectators? 4. What types of controls will be exercised during the events? 5. Has the concession license been applied for and approved? 6. Has the proper insurance documentation been obtained and filed? 7. Has the proper damage and clean-up deposit been made? 8. What is the financial status for operating a BMX event including expenditures for various categories and revenues from various sources? 9. What events do you sponsor in localities other:~than- the city of Richfield? 10. What payment if any is made for use of these other facilities? 11. What involvement does the local organization have on a volunteer or paid basis in the sponsorship of special events? 12. What efforts are ycu making to assist the local organ- ization in the sponsorship of events? Council Letter No. 147 -2- • May 10, 1982 13. What safety or medical provisions are made for or during an event? 14. What is the typical number of racers to participate in a special event? 15. How many of the racers are Richfield residents? 16. What is the typical registration fee for participating in a race? Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City ~anager • KN/skh cca Community Services Director C .~ O J d r ~~ ~ / ~ V n #9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter NO. 146 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 1920 West 76th Street In October, 1981, the city granted Mr. Joe Krzyzaniak a variance to construct a 2.5 foot high rail fence along his property line abutting 76th Street. At the same time, the city denied Mr. Krzyzaniak's request for a variance to permit construction of a fence seven feet into the Morgan Avenue right-of-way on the west side of his property. Mr. Krzyzaniak has again submitted a request for a variance to allow the construction of the fence seven feet into the Morgan Avenue right-of-way. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS ,. • Section 3.29, Subdivision 15 of the zoning ordinance lists yard requirements, including fence setbacks from public rights-of- way. Section 3.40, Subdivision 6, lists three conditions which muct be met before a variance may be granted. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed the request against the three conditions for granting variances and found the following: 1. There are no special conditions affecting this particular property.. This is a typically sized lot and is not significantly different than any other lots in the city. 2. Denial of the application will not preclude reasonable use of the property. A fence can be constructed, in accordance with the zoning ordinance, which requires no variance. 3. The staff feels that there is adequate space for snow storage and no other problems would be posed in terms of visibility. No sidewalk exists nor is one planned along Morgan Avenue. Because a portion of the fence • would be on the public right-of-way, the applicant should enter into a "hold harmless" agreement with the city, to ensure that the city cannot be held liable in case the fence is damaged or has to be moved due to maintenance or improvement on the public right-of-way. Council Letter No. 146 STAFF RECOi~T'~~ENDATION -2- May 10, 1982 Because the three conditions for granting a variance have not been met, the planning staff must recommend denial of this application. Should the council approve the variance, however, the staff recommends that the following stipulation be attached to the variance: 1. That the applicant enter into an agreement with the city to hold the city harmless from damage to the fence and for costs or removal or relocation if the right-of-way is needed at a future date. The city manager recommends approval of the variance. • PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the variance be denied, because this is not a unique situation and could establish an undesirable precedent. Respectfully submitted, ~~ `~~~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager :~N/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner i • • '~~ W 2 W a a~ OC j ~ ~ ~ ~,ti.t t.L~.S.LtI.t.L~.Ltl tlS~•tlif ti1•~i.aa • ' • • • • • i • • • i • • • i • a • • • • e i • • j • t • i I .. i • i • • • 5 ~ T, .~ TREES 3 SHRUBS i PROPOSED ; ~, FENCE : • ~~~~, ~ ., .. ~ ~ ~ ~ i i~i i~'i"i i71 ti'ii1"iiS iiTi iiT~ iii tri~'i 5.5' 4 Z.5' 76th Street tt Propart 1 1 1 Uns ~ 1 I driveway ' ~i t of curb 1 1920 WEST ?6th' STREET scab: 1' : 20' S :~.• „~ OPti! 99 1% I%c~ L~O~L :ES.R IFT+C':: ~~ J ''»E~ THE ~N~EA 32 GEED ~ :_ It:G C'~REK `'. ~- _:.D:J ~ t Tr { N 30a FE_T ~F TttE _.:~~iD ::30VE DE~CR (~ED~ '.~ :~£Rc.Y „Cr1CLR {fit Tti15 RE2Crif+vG REQc1E5T. Sl~r.,.r~'RL ^r G:°;r~r-5 -0^R~SS LF'_;L''ESG?IPT10~t ~ ~~ a rr ~.6 ~.~rt,.t°~ fi K • o •"U C. ~ ~S<G':ii~ ~ ~:. r „~ ~ l.r X22-Cris- ~ ~ ~ c...~C~ ~~1 ~"• a'• irv ~,,..r+- t J / ~ ,fit l ~U % 7 ~ } .. ~ ~r+.. ~ . i ~,-3 ~. '~ GfG'-~Yc~~tS2.G~ t 7J /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. 4 E l 1 i ~ i :i:z;,.; Y.. .. t ~ ' I !~ ' ' ~ ;' I / j ~ ~, i~ ~ Ij t i % ` ~ I ~ l:.~ I I-,,- ~ ~ i ~ ~r; ,!i ! ~• I I ~~ I 1~ ~) j / ~ I ./ ~ / - I f ~.' ~ ..`% t3~~ i ~~ .. ~~ ~ ~ i I -: ~. i .. i ' I ~ i t ! 1 ~nr ' , l ! 1~..1 ' .._ ..... _ ~ ._._ .. --~-~---._. ._.__.~._.._... __ ~_ L ~ ~ ' . -- Ol_IV~R EVE r» _ i , _ .__ ___ ___ _~_____.. . , , . --r-- 7 - .~.. o, ,, ~ w ~ rv .,r ~. u• ' u~ , ,~~~Ca/Tl~1N . ._~.~_... __ _ ---__~.__ ___ Av m _ NEWT_ ON ~ ~ 1 ~ w I / UNG ,l_ L. AND ~ ~'' ti: ~ ~~ i `" ~ ~ i I ~ ,. ,, l •.: :'Its ~ : ~.:: ~.` ~", ~~~it~RGA N `° ~ 1~V F ,, i ~ {' I .. ~~•~ (_ I C._^J t ~l I '`I !' „~~ I- f` ~~ I I f 1 I 1 II I, 1 I i , I' ~ + I 1 ;. ....::t.:::::•:.::::~:.:::.. ~ ~ .:.,; ~ • 11 ~ ~ ' .u1~lU --- - : :~{~:.: 1i~ ~i j i .. . 1. .~ .. ~. . _. • .. , . __ _ LOGAN ~ -- --._ . AV ~ . .~J; - (~ Vj t ~ / /~ N, 1 b'1 1. ~ :'~ I I l.. ......... .. .. ._. • ~ ~ ~ i I . ~ ~ ,,, ~~ n , + ~ ., , .. ~ ~ , .~ ,.:.~~ r ' CITY OF RlCHFtELD PLANNING COMN!!SSlON PLtCANT CATION FROP'ERTY 'RPi~SE OF HEAR 1NG .Aft OF HEARING ~iN TO PARTICIPATE stY` C1t1F~T IONS Property owners within 350 feet of subject property. Mr. Joe Krzyanak 1920 West 76th Street Legal Lot 4, Blcck 1, Mel Johnsons Addition To hear a request for a variance to allow the construction of a fence on public right-of--way, (along West 76th Street and Morgan Avenue South) . Tuesday, April 27, 3982 at 7x30 P.M. Council Chambers, City Rall, 6700 Portland Avenue South 1. Attend the hearing and give testimony for or against the proposed variance. 2. Summit a Setter to the Planning Commission expressing your views in writing. 869-7521, ext. 511 e~~Ie~e :. ! eCa',:Se 0 ~ e beaui.;.ul i3O~reS ,~P.._"'ue'?s ar : ;j aZ':l r. ?.r~;;a::_a._ ~r:a;;s =aintaj.~s ever;- sw..-.er, I ar. ert~ ~:_e _en~e :~~e :zees ~o cor_s~ruct :.ill o~1J MAIttNG DATE Ao'-"~i ~ 6 , 1982 ^~~s ~__~ e_~we .e_~::bo_~oo :, a: d I er all :ter ~ ~. nl.,.~. ~~? ~..z-.~.z.. v~ ~_ Contact: Rick Jopke City Planner 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, SST 55423 P ~; • CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA Office of City~Manager • Council Letter No. 145 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance. Second Reading • On April 26, 1982 the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amending the city's subdivision ordinance in such a way as_ to permit common element residential subdivision. At that time, the city council also gave first reading approval to a related ordinance concerning low zoning requirements for such things as setbacks, lot area, lot width and lot coverage and area, as applied to the common element residential subdivisions. The public hearing and second reading consideration of these ordinances is scheduled for May 10, 1982. It is recommended that the city council conduct the public hearing and give second reading approval to the attached ordinances. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Clerk • APQENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART VI OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part VI of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield regulating the platting and subdividing of land is hereby amended in the following respects: A. Section 3.54, Subdivision 2, is amended by adding thereto the following new paragraphs: "(5) 'Common Element Residential Subdivision' means a subdivision of land into two or more lots which consti- tute individual dwelling units which are designated for separate ownership and also contain designated common areas or facilities which are owned in common by the owners of the lots with each having an undivided interest in the whole of the common areas or facilities.. (6) 'Common Areas and Facilities' may include any of the following: (a) The land on which. the buildings are located;. (b) The foundations, columns, girders, beams, supports,. main walls,. roofs, halls, corridors, lobbies, stairs, stairways, fire escapes, entrances, and exits of the buildings; (c) The basements, yards, gardens, parking areas, and storage spaces; (d) The premises for the lodging of janitors or persons in charge of the property; (e) Installations of central services such as power, light, gas, hot and cold water, heat- ing and refrigeration, air. conditioning and incinerating; (f) The elevators, tanks, motors, fans, compressors, ducts, and in general, all apparatus and installations existing for common use; (g) All other parts of the property necessary or convenient to its maintenance and safety, or normally in common use. (7) 'Limited Common Areas and Facilities' means those • common areas and facilities reserved for use only by certain owners to the exclusion of other owners." B. Section 3.55A is added thereto to read as follows: 3.55A. COMMON ELEMENT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. Subdivision 1. Common element residential subdivi- sions are permitted in the R, MR, MR-1, MR-2, MR-3, PR or P-MR districts of the City. Subdivision 2. Additional Submissions. Any appli- cant requesting a common element residential subdivision shall submit a subdivision plan showing the followings (1) The number and location of each living unit assigning an identifying number to each; (2) The dimensions and locations of all existing structural improvements and roadways; (3) The intended location and dimensions of all common areas and facilities to be constructed labeled either MUST BE BUILT or NEED NOT BE BUILT; (4) The extent of any encroachment by or upon the buildings; (5) The location and dimensions of all recorded easements within the subdivision serving or burdening any portion of the subdivision; (6) The location and dimensions of any limited common areas or facilities; (7) The location and dimensions of the vertical boundaries of each unit and that unit's. identifying number; (8) The location and dimensions of the horizontal unit boundaries with reference to assumed datum and each unit`s identifying number. The subdivision plan shall become part of the plat and shall contain a certification by a registered profes- sional engineer, surveyor, or architect that the sub- division plan accurately depicts all information _ required by this subdivision. Subdivision 3. Common Element Subdivisions. Special Regulations. All common element subdivisions as permitted by this section shall comply with the following require- ments: • (1) A11 necessary special use permits and apartment • use permits have been or will be obtained prior to the filing of the plat. (2) The proposed development shall meet all requirements established as part of the zoning regulations found in Part IV of of city ordin- ances for the zoning district which the sub- division is to be located in. Subdivision 4. Conditions Governing Approval. In approving common element subdivisions the city council shall find that such approval would not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare and that the intent and spirit of these regulations would be preserved. In approving common element subdivisions, the council may require that conditions including the following be placed upon the plat, together with conditions which are con- tained elsewhere in this part: (1) No owner may .remove or alter any intervening common wall separating two units for the purpose of joining such units without amend- ing the plat to permit such joinder; (2) Except to adjust for settling or lateral move- ment of structures, the boundaries between adjoining units may not be relocated without amending the plat; (3) Units may not be subdivided without amending the plat; (4) Common areas or facilities may not be subdi- vided without amending the plat; (5) In the event that any unit is damaged or destroyed, it must be rebuilt to the bounda- ries of that unit as described in the sub- division plan; (b) Common areas may not be used for any purpose other than the purposes described in the sub- division plan and contained in the plat. Alti1ENDMENT TO CHAPTER I I I , PART IV OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield the location, size, use and height of buildings, the arrangement of buildings and lots and the density of population within the city is hereby amended in the following respects: A. Section 3.30, Subdivision 4, is amended by adding thereto the following new subparagraph (d): "(d) Whenever a lot in the R Residence District is subdivided in accordance with the provisions found in Chapter III, .Part VI, Section 3.55A, the requirements for lot area, width and coverage shall be applied as if the subdivision had not been made." B. Section 3.30, Subdivision 5, is amended by adding thereto the new subparagraph (h): "(h) Whenever a lot in the R Residence District is subdivided in accordance with the provisions found in Chapter IIi, Part VI, Section 3.SSA, the minimum building setback requirements shall be applied as if the sub- division had not been made." C. Section 3.31A, Subdivision 4, is amended by adding thereto the following new subparagraph (e): "(e) Whenever a lot in the MR-1 or MR-2 Multiple Resi- dence districts is subdivided in accordance with the provisions found in Chapter III, Part VI, Section 3.55A, the requirements for lot area, lot dimensions and lot coverage shall be applied as if the subdivision had not been made." D. Section 3.31A, Subdivision 5, is amended by adding thereto the following new subparagraph (g): "(g) Whenever a lot in the MR-1 or MR-2 Multiple Resi- dence districts is subdivided in accordance with the provisions found in Chapter III, Part VI, Section 3.SSA, the minimum building setback requirements shall be applied as if the subdivision had not been made." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this day of 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: S~.~lvia Bergh, City Clerk a y r~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 144 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Addition to 1982 Alley Improvement Project In November, 1980, the city council established a policy providing for permanent improvement of the city's alleys by resurfacing. This policy stipulates that an alley will be resurfaced only upon receipt of a petition, signed by property owners representing more than 50 percent of the abutting footage, requesting such surfacing. The alley improvement projects are to be initiated on a yearly basis, with those alleys which are not paved or scheduled to be paved being subject to special assessments for the cost of on-going maintenance. During 1981, . 16 alleys were paved with concrete, upon request of the adjacent property owners.. On March 8, 1982, the city council order City Project 775, which will result in the concrete resurfacing of an additional 16 alleys in 1982. The Engineering Division has received an additional valid petition requesting alley improvement from property owners adjacent to the alley between Queen Avenue and Russell Avenue, 67th Street to 68th Street. Because of the timing of legal notices and the required public hearing, it is not possible to include this additional alley with the original 16 for which the plans and specifications are being presented on May 10, 1982. However, it is possible to fulfill these legal requirements before the contract will be awarded on June 14, 1982. This alley could be included on a change order as an addition to the contract at the time of contract award. The attached preliminary engineering report includes the estimated costs and assessments for this proposed alley improvement. The staff recommends that the city council adopt the attached resolution, ordering and accepting the preliminary engineering report, and scheduling a public hearing on the improvement project for this alley for May 24, 1982. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Engineer • PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST ALLEY PAVING & APPURTENANT WORK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 775A CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA I. TYPE OF WORK Concrete alley paving improvements in the City of Richfield II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT The alley described in Item No. TV was petitioned for and is proposed as a paving program for the City of Richfield to provide permanent alley surf acing to benefit abutting properties where needed. III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT May 10, 1982 IV. LOCATION Alley Between From To • Queen Ave. and Russell Ave. 67th Street 68th 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 I1' Wide Concrete Alley Estimated construction cost $18,200 Administration, Legal, Engineering and Insurance (25%) 4,550 Estimated project cost $22,750 • 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 footage 1,192.2 Total project eost 522,750.00 Less City Cost 694.30 Assessable Cost 522,055.70 522,055.70 = 1,192.2 = 518.50/assessable foot Typical residential assessment for 50' lot = $ 925.00 Typical residential assessment for 75' lot = $1,387.50 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota :~.~' ichael J. Ea,~tling Date: May 10, 1982 Reg. No. 15066 • • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING PRELIMINARY REPORT ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING C.P. 775-A • WHEREAS, petition requesting the permanent paving of the following alley has been received: , Alley Between From To Queen Avenue and Russell Ave. 67th Street 68th Street And the petition has been signed by the required percentage of owners of abutting property; BE IT NOW 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 surf acing 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 especially 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 same other improvement; Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of May, 1982. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AND • CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING CITY PROJECT 775-A 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 Queen Avenue and Russell Ave. 67th Street 68th Street THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The preliminary report on proposed City Project 775-A dated the 10th day of May, 1982, prepared by the city engineer, is hereby received and ordered to be plaeed on file . 2. A public hearing on said. proposed improvement is hereby called to be held on May 24, 1982, 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 assessement 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 522,750.00. 3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give published and mailed notice of such hearing in the mariner required by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of May, 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: • Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 143 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Subject Council Discussion of FAA Desire to Prohibit Local Governments from Restricting Aircraft Noise An item has been scheduled on the May 10, 1982 city council agenda to discuss proposed federal legislation which would severely restrict local governments from having input into regulations concerning aircraft noise. Because of our proximity to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Airport (WOld-Chamberlain Field) Richfield city officials recognize that some noise abatement measures are necessary to preserve the quality of life for those persons having homes or businesses near the airport. In the metropolitan area, local airport noise abatement procedures • have been worked out over the years with the cooperation of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), the Metropolitan Sound Abatement Council (MASAC), local governments and the airlines. Therefore, I am particularly concerned about remarks made by J. Lynn Helms, FAA Administrator, in a speech at the Southern Methodist University Air Law Symposium on February 18, 1982 (copy attached). Mr. Helms spoke on the FAA's desire to reverse the trend of curfews and other limitations on airport use that have been adopted across the country in the name of noise reduction or environmental protection. It was Mr. Helm's contention that these measures could cripple the air transportation system and stifle this nation's continued economic development. According to Mr. Helms, noise improvements result in lost efficiency and increased operating costs for airports. He advised that the federal government is prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to preclude interference with the national air system. The curfew at Wold-Chamberlain field has been quite effective in producing a living environment in Richfield conducive to sleeping without hurting the airport operation substantially. Mr. Helms recommended federal legislation which would require that the FAA review and approve any local plan to reduce airport noise before its implementation. Such legisla- tion would be contrary to the spirit of cooperation that exists • in the metropolitan area and to the current administration's pledge to limit federal regulation in favor of local government controls. Council Letter No. 143 -2- May 10, 1982 It is recommended that the city council discuss this matter, and forward a letter to Mr. Helms and our legislators with the following suggestions: ~. ce Noise Reduction: \ '~' In the Area of Sour 1. Ensure no relaxation of compliance with the Fleet Rule as established in FAR 36. 2. Prohibit the purchase of any newly built generation II (noisier than new technology) aircraft by a U.S. air carrier or other commercial aviation interest, and the sale of any generation II aircraft to foreign carriers operating regularly into the United States. 3. Actively participate in all efforts to improve airframe or powerplant technology for the benefit of noise reduction; to include the sharing to expertise, the developing of rules that would favor such technology and the funding of such projects where feasible. In the Area of Operations: 1. Encourage cooperative efforts at local levels to analyze and solve noise problems within constraints of safety. 2. Ensure all levels of FAA hierarchy are prepared to join in this cooperative approach and that lines of communica- tion remain open. 3. Give full support to local efforts that show promise for the development of procedures that could alleviate noise and actively participate in the promulgation of such efforts . In the Area of Land Use: 1. Encourage cooperative effort locally toward planning for compatible land use and participate in the process by providing expertise where needed and funds as required. Respectfully submitted, . ~~~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Community Development Director • City Planner MASAC Representative Jeff Hammel, MAC .. • •. .• EM~~ NN .M bUTNERTHODISi0UN1VERSITY AIR lAN SYMPOSIUM a A~ ~`~u r . ~e82 FOR AN ENGINEER TO NALK IN AMONG AN ASSEMBLY OF LANYERS IS PERIUU'S EITHER PRESUMPTUOUS OR HERETICAL. BUT 1 MOPE t0 MAKE IT THOUGHT-PROVOKING. YOU EACH HAVE YOUR OYN STANDAR!IS FOIL LEARNING. BUT IN MY CASE. 1 RARELY LEARN FROM ONE THAT AGREES NI1H ME AtG- TELLS ME NON GREAT 1'N L~JINr. 10 ME. A FAR MORE INTERESTING GINNER GUESt OR CONVERSATIONALIST IS ONE THAI POSES ACTIVITIES OR QUESTIONS TO CAUSE ME TO TN1NK ABOUT Tl~M LATER. ONE OF THE THINGS 1 MAN1 TO TALK ABOUT THIS EVENING IS AIRCRAFT NOISE. AND TFN: CONSTRAINTS 11'S IMPOSING ON OUR AIR 1RANSPORTAt10N SYSTEM. MORE SPECIFICALLY. 1 MOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS NNAT NE CAN DO TO REVERSE THE TREND OF CURFEMS ANU OTIUrR LIMITATIONS ON AIRPORT USE TNAT NAVE BEEN A~P1ED ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN 11~ NAME OF NOISE REDUCTION OR ENVIRONMENTAL 2 PROTECTION. IF AILONED TO CONTINUE, THESE MEASURES COULD CRIPPLE OINt AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM-AND STIFLE THIS NATION'S CONTINUED ECDNOHIC DEVELOPMENt. NOISE IS BOTH A TECHNICAL ANO A POL1T1f.Al PR08LEM. AS AN ENGINEER ANO PI10T. t HAVE BEEN PRIMARILY CONCERNED OVER 1NE YEARS MITN THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS. SUCH AS REDUCING NOISE AT THE SOURCE AND iN:VEIOPING SAFE AND REASONABLE NOISE ABAtEMENT OPERATING PROCEDURES. AND NE HAVE MADE CONSIDERABLE PROGRESS IH THIS AREA KITH THE INTRODUCTION OF NIGH-BYPASS ENGINES AND OTHER fECHNOIOGY THAT HAYS CUT tNE NOISE LEVELS OF NEM AIRPORTS BY MORE • THAN HALF NHEN COMPARED TO THE FIRST GENERATION OF JETS. NONEVER. AFTER IS YEARS OF EFFORT. ME NAVE JUST ABOUT USED UP THE NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY BANK. PROBABLY NO MORE THAN 2 OR 3 x REMAINS, tERTA1NLY NO MORE TNA:i S OR max. ANJ NE MILL PAY DEARLY fOR EACH OF THOSE PERCENTAGE POINTS. NOISE IMPROVEMENTS ., TYPICIq.LY RESULT IN LOST EFFICIENCr AND INCREASED OPERATING ~ ' C05TS. Y!W Mlll PAY FOR THOSE COSTSli REMEMBER. THERE IS NO SUCH tHiNG AS A FREE LUNCHII 1 3 BUT DESPITE THESE ADVlUICES. THE POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE NOISE PROBLEM HAYE BECOME MORE INTENSE. LOCAL AIRPORT AUTHORITIES ARE UNDER INCREASING PRESSURE 10 MAKE THEIR FACILITIES A 'GOOD NEIGHBOR.` MHICN IS ANOTHER MAY OF SAYING MAKE TNEl1 AS UNOd1RU51VE AS POSSIBLE. AND. OF COURSE. 1NE MOST EXPEDIENT MEASURES FOR ACCOMPLISHING THIS OB.~CTIVE ARE tURFEMS AND OPERATIONAL RESTRIC110NS -- PARTICULARLY 1F IT NAS REAI ESTATE POTENTIAL FOR SHOPPING CENTERS. ETCI 1NE PROBLEM OF AIRPORT CONSTRAINTS MOULD NOT BE SO SERIOUS 1F ME MERE 1(Qj DEALING HERE MITN A NEAR FINITE RESOURCE. FOR EXAMPLE. IN MASHINGT011. ME NAVE ADOPTED A CURffM ON SCHEDULED AIRLINE OPERATIONS ANO REDUCED THE NUMBER OF HOURLY AIRLINE OPERATIONS At NATIONAL AIRPORT IN AN EFFORT 80TH TO CONTROL A I GROMTN-THERE AND LIMIT NIGHTTIME NOISE LEVELS IN THE SURROUNDING ~ COMMUNITIES. BUT THESE ACTIONS HAVE NOT ADVER5ELY AFFECTED AIR ., ~ SERVICE TO THE MASHINGION AREA BECAUSE NE NAVE 1110 OTHER AIR CARRIER AIRPORTS -- DULLES AND BALTIMORE-MASNINGION ~ lN1ERNATIONAL -- THAT OPERATE AROUND-THE-CLOCK AND ARE BEAU STIC AITERNAIIVES. NO1 MANY OTHER MAJOR NEIROPOLIIAN AREAS ARE AS FORTUNAtE AS . MASHINGION. AND 1NE FACT IS THAT ME ARE NOT LIKELY TO GET ANY MAJOR MEM AIR CARRIER AIRPORTS IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. THE LAST SUCH AIRPORT. ~ COURSE. NAS DAtIAS/FORT NORTH. MHICN ALREADY 1S EXPERIENCING Sad CAPACITY AND NOISE PROBLEMS. SO IT'S ESSENTIAL TNA1 ME SQUEEZE All THE CAPACITY OUT OF 1NE PRESENT AIRPORT SYSTEM THAT ME [AN. THAT°S A tRlNCIPAL OB,NCTIVE OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM PLAY THAT ME UNVEILED LAST MONTH. ESSENiIALIY. IT'S A 20-YEAR PLAN FOR UPGRADING AND ~ ~ ~ ~, S MODERNIZING THE FACILITIES A90 EQUIPMENT iN THE SYSTEM SUCH AS tOHPUTERS, RADARS. [OMMUN1CA110!IS AHO LANDII~i SYSTEMS. WE'RE ALSO DEVELOPING A PROGRAM t0 BUILD 3.500-FOOT RUNYAr5 Al AIR CARRIER AIRPORTS THAT NOULO SERVICE GENERAL AVIATION AIRPLI4RS ANO LEAVE THE MAJOR RUNWAYS FREE FOR tOMMERCIAI TRAFFIC. .BUT. DY THEMSELVES. THESE MEASURES Nill NOT PROVIDE THE NEEDED CAPACITY FOR tHE PROJECTED TRAFFIC LEVELS OF THE NEXT TMO DECADES IF NE PERMIT 1NE ATTACK ON OUR AIRPORT SYSTEM TO GO UNCHALLENGED. NE MUST AND NE Will FIGHT BACK. NOT SOLEIr BECAUSE OF SOME 'BIG BROTHER" OR `NASHINGION BUREAUCRATIC FOIBLE." RATHER. BECAUSE THE PRIMARY BENEFICIARY BY FAR IS THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. THE LARGEST EMPLOrER OF LONG ISLAND IS JFK AIRPORT. MAGES OF OVER s~00M PER YEAR ARE GENERATED. TRADE ~ OVER s3B PER TEAR PASSES THROUGH. JUS(LOOK At OFN -- AND NON TIN: OVERFLON TD LOVE FIELD IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE CONIRIBUTiON 10 ECONOMIC. EMPLOrMENT, SERVICE. AND CITIZENRr SUPPORT SUCH • ., • 6 IOCATI0N5 PROVIDE. 111E FEDERAL 60VERNMENt HAS NO CHOICE 8UT TO TALK ACTION WH1[N SUPPORTS THE MA,NIRITY OF tAXPAYERS NEEDS. NOT A lIINORITY OF THOSE PEOPLE. e AS AN ISOLATED EVENT. AN AIRPORT CURFEN SEEMS (NOCUOUS ENOUGH AND A MATTER OF PIHIELY IOCAI CONCERN: BUT A CURFEN HAS A RIPPLE EFFECT BECAUSE AIR TRANSPORTATION 1S NOT AN ISOIATEp EVENT BUT CART OF AN INTEGRATED COMPLEX SYSTEM. CROSSING TIME ZONES. STATE BORDERS ANO NATIONAL BOUNDARIES. FOR EXAMPLE. AN it P.M. tURFEN AT AN EAST [OAST AIRPORt TRANSLATES 10 8 P.M. IN PACIFIC [OAST _~ TIME. THAT MEANS OPERATORS NOIN.D NO1 BE ABLE TO SCHEDULE ~ TRANSCONTINENTAL FLIGHTS TO THAT AIRPORT AFTER 2 P.M. IF YOU ALLON S HOURS FL16N1 TIME ANO ANOTHER HOUR FOR DELAYS AND OTHER UNCONTROLLABLE FACTORS. VIENED FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE. IT'S APPARENT THAT LOCAL CURFENS NOT ONLY NARK THE LOCAL ECONOMY BUT ALSO IMPACT ADVERSELY AT THE NAt10NAl LEVEL. • ~ EARLIER I HINTED AT MY PREJUDICES IN FAVOR OF ENGINEERS AND AGAINST LAliYERS. LET ME DEMONSTRATE MY MILLINGNESS TO SEE BOTH SIDES OF AN ISSUE. SORE ENGINEERS HAVE CONTRiBUTEO 10 THE NOISE PROBLEM IN PROPOSIIKi UNREALISTIC AND IRRELEVANT NOISE S1AtUTES. IN PARTICULAR. I REFER TO 1NE CALIFORNIA NOISE LAMS. tHE ENGINEERS MHO CONTRIBUTED 10 THAI IEGISLAt10N DID 1NE PUBLIC A GREAT DISSERVICE. THE LAM INCORPORAtES AN ANALYT1CAl MODEL IN MHICH y01SE CONTOURS ARE DRAUN ON MAPS. THE LEGISLATORS IMPOSED A SCHEDULE OF REDUCING THE AREA OF THE NOISE CONTOURS. FAILURE 10 t'~EE1 TNIS CALIFORNIA SCHEDULE MAY LEAD TO TNE•tLOSING OF SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AIRPORTS IN THE COUNIRI(. THIS LAY NAS IMPOSED NoRREaOOUS PRESSURES ON THE AIRPORT OPERATORS. CAUSING THEM TO ATTEMPT TO CONSTRAIN AIRPORT OPERATIONS IN A VARIETY OF MAYS. THE SIMPLEST SOLUtION PROPOSED IS TO SHUT DONN THE AIRPORT FOR A NUMBER OF HOURS ~ THE OAY. OR 10 CONTROL 1NE NUMBER ~ FLIGHTS DURING AN HOUR. TNIS 6 EONiRAVENES THE FREE MARKET FORCES MNItN SHOULD ®E THE ALLOCATOR OF SUCH SERVICES FOR THE BENEFIt OF THE PUBLIC. A , ANOTHER SUGGESTION PROPOSED 811 ONE AIRPORT. MAS TO ALLOM THE • CARRIERS t0 REDUCE P®MER ON TAKEOFF. TNIS MOULD REQUIRE A CREN TO PERFORM A DIFF KULT MANEUVER DURING A tRI11CAl MOMENT IN FLIGHT. CLEARLY. THE tAlIFORNIA NOISE LAPIS ARE PUTTING SUCH PRESSURES ON THE AIRPORT OPERATORS THAT tNE OPERATORS ARE SEEKING SOLUTIONS MH1CH MAKE TRAOE•OFFS BETMEEN NOISE AND SAFETY. TILE UNREALISTIC CALIFORNIA NOISE STANDARDS Mtll EITHER SHUT DONN SIGNIFICANT SEGMENTS OF THE AIR TRANSPORTAT1011 INDUSTRY OR CREATE COMPROMISES IN SAFETY. TILE FAA Mill NOT TOLERATE SUCH INiBBESiAN CHOICES. ME MUST TAKf MNATEVER STEPS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO PRECLUDE SUCH INIERFEREfN:E KITH 1NE NATIONAL SYSTEM. THE SOlUTiON TO NOISE PROWLERS Mill NOT tE SUCH ARBITRARIl1 IMPOSED. UNREALISTIC STANDARDS. TRUE RELIEF 1S MORE LIKELY TO COME FROM TECHNICAL. SOLUTIONS -- NO1 SNORT"TERM OPERATtOilAL BAND-AIDS. 9 NOY BEFORE MOVING ON TO YHAT AtttONS FAA IS PlpNN1NG TO COUNTER THE ASSAULT ON OUR AIRPORT SYSTEM. LET ME PAUSE fOR A CLARIFY ONE ISSUE. I BELIEVE THAT SOME AIRPORTS SEt011D AND NcIGHBORS ARE 1E61TMATELY ENTITLED TO CLAIM pAMA#;,E FROM NOISE. PEOPLE YNO PURCHASED HOMES PRIOR TO AIRPORT [ONSTRUt1lON CAN 8E 0 8E HARMED BY THE AIRPLANE NOISE IF THAj INDEED IS tHE SAID T CASE. 1 ASSUME THEY CAN ESTAI.ISN THE PROPERTY DOES NOT NAVE GREATER COMt1ERCIAI YORTN. THEY HAVE AREMEDY -- A LAY SUIT FOR INVERSE tONDEMNATION• TNE1R LOSS OF OUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY (A11 AND SHOULD BE t01~ENSATEO THROUGH TNAT PROCEDURE• 1 pM NOt AS SYMPATHETIC TO PEOPLE YHO COME TO A HOUSE Y1TH FIR.I KNOYLEDGE TNAt AN AIRPORt IS NEARBY. AREAL ESTATE AGENT PILL TELL YOU TNAT THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY D1St0UNTE0 TO REFLECT .~ • ID THE AIRPORTS ExiS1ENCE AND OPERAt10N. IN FACT. SOME INDIV1DUAl~ pND. EVEN MORE LIKELY. SOME REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES ARI . SPEtUTAtING BY PIUttNASING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY NEAR A pUNMAY. FOR THIS CLASS OF PEOPLE. I HAVE EVEN LESS SYMPATHY. THIS ApM1NiSTRAtiON RECOGNIZES THAT AIRPORTS ARE VITAL AND IN SOME NAt10NAl ASSETS IN OUR AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSIEM• 1EPS CASES OUR NATi01~At. DEFENSE. AND INTENDS 10 TAKE YNATEYER S ARE NECESSARY 10 PROTECT AIRPORTS FROM UNREASONABLE ASSAULTS. OUR FIRSt PERIMETER OF pR01EC110N YILL INVOLVE AN ATTEMPT TO INTERVENE POSITIVELY YHEN SUCH PROPOSRLS APPEAR• 1NE FAA HAS TREMENDOUS EXPERt15E ON THE SUBJECT OF NOISE YHEN A LOCAL AUTHORITY BEGINS 10 CONSIDER A RESTRItT10N• YE 5EEK TO SNARE OUR KNONIEDGE AND TO DEVELOP MORE REASONABLE , REGULATIONS. THIS IS EltpttLY YNAt YE ARE DOING Al YH1TE PI _ NEY YORK. THIS IS A CASE YNICN HOLDS GREAT HOPE FOR FU1UR : SOLUTIONS. AND THUS MERITS A MORE DEtAIIED DEStRiP110N. ~: 11 MNITE PLAINS IS A SUBURB NORTH OF NEM YORK CITY. 1NE tOMF1UN11Y {NTEGRAtES RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT [ONSIStiNG PRIMARILY OF CORPORATE NEADOUARTERS. MHITE PLAINS HAS A VERY FINE FACILITY MHICH HAS ATTRACTED SOME OF THOSE CITIZENS AND CORPORAtIONS TO THAT COMMUNITY.. 'THAT FACILITY IS AN AIRPORT. FROM TNA1 FACILITY A NUMBER OF GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT FLY. A NUMBER OF CORPORATE .LETS OPERATE. AND FINALLY. A LIMITED NUMBER OF AIRLIN~ SCHEDULES ARRIVE OR DEPART. SOr~E IOCAI RESIDENTS OPPOSE THESE USES OF TILE AIRPORTt THEY COMPLAIN 1NAt THE OUlE1 USE OF THEIR HOUSES IS DENIED BY THESE l2 t i 0 i ~ TILE AIRPORT TO BUNCH UP THEIR FLIGHTS IN THE LAST FEM MINUTES BEFORE THE tURFEN AND THE FIRST FEN MINUTES AFTER THE AIRPORT OPENS AGAlN. FOR SOMEONE SLEEPING AT 7 A.M. THIS FLOCK ~ AIRPLANES DEPARTING At 7:UI A.M. PROBABLY DISRUPTED THEIR SLEEP. THE INTENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT DID NDT RESULT IN AN IMPROYEMENI IN TILE NOISE SITUATIONt IT DID. HONEVER. ADVERSELY AFFECT AIR TRANSPORTATION. THE RESPONSE TO THIS CURFEM MAS THAT TMO ASSOCIATIONS BROUGHT SUIt AGAINST THE COUNTY SEEKING TO NAVE THE CURFEM DELETED. IF ALL MENT MEII AT THE END OF SEVERAL YEARS .OF EXPENSIVE LITIGATION. 1NE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE CURFEM MOULD EITHER BE FLIGHTS. THE LOCAL GOVER41'~ENT AGREED AND CLOSED TILE AIRPORt~TO • BLI. AIRCRAFt DURING THE NIGHTTIME NOIAtS MIINOUT REGARD TO THE NOISE MNICN EACH FLIGHT GENERATED. TIC RESULT MAY NAVE BEEN SOME NOISE REDUCTION. 8UT THIS ARTIFICIAL CONSTRAINT CAUSED THE USERS PERMITTED BY THE ttNNtT. OR THE COURT MDULD NAVE FOUND THAT THE tURFEM NAS ILLEGAL. NEITHER 1NE USERS ~ THE AIR TRANSPOR1AtI0N SYSTEM Nit 1NE IOCAI RESIDENTS MOULD NAPE BENEFITTED FROM THIS • TIME-CONSUMING AND ASSET-DEPLETING SUIT. • • .. ~ , I3 I~ FORTUNATELY. THE LIKAL 60VERNMENT OF NNITE PLAINS IS AN EXPEC1At10NS ARE HIGH BECAUSE OF 1NE NILLINGNESS OF tHE LOCAL ENLIGHTENED ONE. All ~ THE INtERESTEO GROUPS HERE ABLE t0 AGREE AUTHORITIES t0 EXAMINE Tiff ISSUES Ii1TH REASON AND NITHOUT TO HOLD THE Li11GATI0N IN ABEYANCE AND TO 6E1 tHE CONFLICT OU1 OF EMOTION. THROUGH THIS LOOPERATIYE EFFORT NE MAY ESTABLISH A THE COURTROOM. THE FAA OFFERED A NUMBER OF IMMEDIATE. REAL PRECEDENT FOR OTHER AIRPORTS. THROUGH REASONED ANALYSIS OF THE 1MPROVEMENIS IN LOCAL NOISE LEVELS. NONE OF NH1CN HAD ANYTHING 10 PROBLEM THE COMHUNItY. THE USERS. AND THE FAA MAY REACH REALIStIC DO NITN THE OPERATION OF THE AIRPORT. OUR NEXT STEP NAS 10 BRING COMPROMISE NNICH MINIMIZES NOISE NHILE MAXIMII{NG USE. LET hE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EXPERTISE 10 THIS PROBLEM. NE PROVIDED EMPHASIZE tHAt tHIS ADMINiS1RATION REALLY LOOKS TO COMMUNITY THE L~AL AUtNORITIES NITH A NUMBER OF MEASURES OF NOISE AND THUS EFFORtS 10 SEEK SOLUTIONS. NE. At THE FAA. Hill ASSIST IN THESE A MORE PRECISE MAY TO ANALYZE THEIR PROBLEM. NNITE PLAINS IS NON ~ COOPERATIVE ACTIONS. AND ONLY IF 1NE COMMUNITY IS UNNILIING OR SEEKING A MECHANISM TO REALISTICALLY REGULATE NOISE. SOFIE UNAtiLE TO PROVIDE A RATIONAL SOLUIIOH. MILL THE FAA INTERVENE. AIRCRAFT TYPES LAN BE OPERAtED AT NIGHT N11H NO IMPACT ON THE LOCAL RESIDENTS. A RULE NNICN ALLOwS 1NE OUIE11St PLANES 10 A SECOND MECHANISM FOR PROTECTING THESE VItAI LOG5 IN THE AIR OPERATE AT NIGHT BALANCES 1NE LEGIIMATE NEEDS ~ 1NE NEIGHBORS OF 1RANSPOR1AtION SYSTEM !S LITIGATION. 1N THE PAST THE UNItED THE NNITE PLAINS AIRPORT AGAINSt THE RIGHTS ~ AIRPLANE ONNERS TO STALES GOVERNMENT USUALLY HATTED UNTIL A PRIVATE PARTY BROUGHT AN REASONABLY USE THAT AIRPORT. ACTION. THAT NO LONGER HILL BE THE FAA'S POSTURE. NE HILL ADVOCATE IMMEDIATE. DIRECT ACTION To PREVENT THE LOSS OF VALUABLE tNE PROCESS At MHITE PLAINS IS Hot CO~LEtE. NE STILL NAVE A LOT ~ H~'IENORK 10 COMPLEtE AND A LO1 ~ NE60TIATLNG t0 D0. THE e AIRPORTS. ME HAVE SEVERAL LEGAL BASES FROM NNICH TO ACTS tl) THE RESTRAINT MAY IMPOSE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON COI~RCE, (?) A NOISE STANDARD MAY INTERFERE NITN THE FEDERALLY 15 PREEHPTEO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE 1HE SAFE AND EFFICIENT USE Of AIRPORTS. v t3) AN AIRPORT RESTRICTION MAY UNREASONABLY DISCRIMINATE AMONG USERS. OR t4) THE LIMITATION MAY VIOLATE TFN: TERMS ~ FEDERAL AIRPORT GRANTS. 1HE REMEDIES UNDER THESE STATUTORY AND CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES PROYII~ UNAMBIGUOUS MECNANISNS 10 KEEP 1HE RUNNAYS OPERATING ON A REASONABLE BASIS. THE USE OF GRANTS IS ANOTHER MEANS ~ IG POSITIVELY ADtNtESSIf~ THIS PR08LEM.. MNEN THE FM PROVIDES AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT FUNDS. THA1 MONEY IS CONDITIONED UPON tERTA1N ASSURANCES FROM THE AIRPORT OPERATOR. THROUGH THESE CONTRACT TERMS THE F/~A aQYS FOR THE NATION AN AGREEMENT THAI THE #1RPOR1 REMAINS OPEN FOR A CERTAIN 11ME. jNE 1HIR0 AVENUE FOR PRESERVING T)N: AIRPORT SYSTEM 1S THE ONE .FOR MHICH 1 NAVE THE GREATEST EXPEtTAT10NS. RATHER 1HAN RESPONp ON AN BD 11DC DASIS TO IMMEDIAtE [RISES THIS REMEDY SEEKS TO CREATE A SYSTEMATIC SOLUTION. ,T.NE FM.CNIEF tOUNSEi. IS DRAFTING ~COMPREHENSIYE LEGISLATION 1NAT_MOULD CONTINUE TO ALION LOCALA AU11N)RITIES,1Q pRt>~pSE MNATEVER TERMS THEY DEEM ACCEPTABLE FOR. 4~. .~. .1.. ... TNE.OPERAtION; OF AN IIIRPORI. IT is REtOGNItED THAT THE IOCAI Tlx:' Off f CIAI.S ,M11.1._.NEESSSARIIY REFLECT THE PAROCNIAt, YIEMS OF 1NEIR, ~CONSI~TIIENTS,,;,.,HOMEVER. YRI~ TO IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY SUCH PLANT TNT ~~G~SLAt ON NOUID BEDll1BE FAA REYIEN ANO APPROVAL: THE AGENCY'S PERSPECTIVE MOULD BE NATIONAL IN SCOPE. RECOGNIZING THAT • 0 ~ q •~ • • ~ ,' • 17 111E CLOSING OF AN AIRPORT EVEN FOR ONE HOUR NAS EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM HELL BEMOND THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. THE FAA. UNDER THE BILL BEING DRAFTED. MOULD [ONSIDER 1110SE NATIONAL CONSEQUENCES AND DETERMINE IF THE BENEFITS 10 1NE NATIONAL USERS FROM KEEPING 1NE AIRPORT OPEN FOR THAT HOUR MERE GREATER THAN THE COSTS 10 THE LOCAL RESIDENTS. IF S0, THAT HOUR Mlll BE PRESEavED. 111E FAA MOULD PROPOSE TO ACCERT THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A JUDGMENT. THAT IS. THE FM MOULD BECOME LIABLE FOR T11E INCREMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETMEEN A flEA~Ol19@LE LOCAL VIEWPOINT AND A TRULY NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE. IB IN CLOSING. LET ME MAKE ONE POINT YERY CLEARa THE FAA REGARDS AIRPORTS 10 BE A VITAL NATIONAL ASSEt AND IT Mlll TAKE MHATEYER STEPS ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THEM. HOPEFULLY. THESE ACTIVITIES CAN INV~LYE POSITIVE INTERACTION BETMEEN LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND THE FAA. IF NECESSARY. THE AGENCY Mlll USE ALLF` AYAIIABIE LEGAL MECHANISMS 10 MAINTAIN THE AIR 1RANSPORIATION e,SYSTEM~ 1N THE LONG TERN. ME INTEND 10 IMPLEMENT A SYSTEM MHICH PLACES THE INITIATIVE MITN THE LOCALITIES. BU1 MHICH PROVIDES THE FAA MITN A MEANS TO REFLECT NATIONAL NEEDS. 1 REAIItE THAT I NAPE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL 1N YERY AMBIGUOUS TERMS, MHICH IS NOT 1NE NATURE OF AM ENGINEER. THE TERMS ARE NO1 PRECISE BECAUSE ME ARE STIII IN THE EARLY; DRAFTING STAGE, ~UT ME Nlll 8E READY TO INTRODUCE OUR 1E6151.At1ONX AS EARLY AS THIS SUMMER. j pis CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 142 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Bingo and Other Authorized Gambling Activities. First Reading. • • The 1982 Minnesota Legislature has amended the state statutes relating to bingo and other authorized gambling activities. The bingo and gambling ordinance enacted by the City of Richfield has been adopted as a local option in conformance with the state laws. In order to bring our ordinance up to date the city attorney has drafted an ordinance amendment which would bring the City of Richfield gambling ordinance into conformance with the new state statutes. This ordinance amendment has been placed on the May 10, 1982 city council agenda for the first reading consideration. The amendments are as follows: 1. Increase the maximum compensation for bingo operators from $20 per bingo occasion to $50; 2. Increase the total prizes awarded for paddle wheel, pull-tab and tipboard from a maximum of $35,000 to $50,000 per license year; 3. A new section (b) has been added providing that the county attorney shall be responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations of the ordinance; 4. A new section (c) has been added providing that "an organization which directly or under contract to the state or a political subdivision delivers health or social services and which is exempt from taxation pursuant to Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended through December 30, 1981, may award total prizes in a calendar year from the conduct of raffles, in excess of the limitation contained in Paragraph 7(b), provided the prizes consist of real or personal property donated to the organization by an individual, corporation or other organization, and except as provided in subparagraph (d) provided the organization complies with the other requirements and restrictions of this section." This provision would Council Letter No. 142 -2- May 10, 1982 apply to nursing homes to allow those agencies to raffle off donations, etc. they may receive during the course of a year. It would not apply to service or religious organizations. 5. Adds a new section (d) "for the purposes of this para- graph, an organization covered by subparagraph (c) is not subject to the membership limitations nor to the compensation limitations contained in this section." A copy of the present ordinance and the proposed ordinance amendment are attached to this council letter for city council review. It is recommended that the council give first reading approval to this ordinance amendment. Respectfully submitted, J~c~'~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh • cc: Public Safety Director Administrative Services Director City Clerk • AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V, PART II, SECTION 5.19 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter V, Part II, Section 5.19 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield regulating and licensing certain bingo and gambling activities is hereby amended in the following respects: s A. By amending Paragraph (2)(a) of Subdivision 9 thereof to read as follows: "(a) In the case of bingo, compensation may be paid to an active member of the organization or its auxiliary, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member, conducting the bingo occasion. In the case of bingo only, a person not an active member of the organization or its auxiliary, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member may participate in the conduct of a bingo occasion by resolution of a majority of the member- ship recorded in the approved minutes of the organization. Non-management assistants who are not active members of the organization, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member may be hired to assist members in conducting the bingo occasion. Beginning August 1, ~9~9 1982, compen- sation shall not exceed $~9-98 $50.00 per bingo occasion." B. By .amending Paragraph (7) of Subdivision 9 thereof to read as follows: " ('~) (a) Total prices from the operation of paddle wheels, pull-tabs and tipboards awarded in a single day in which they are operated shall not exceed $1,000.00. Total prizes resulting from any single spin of a paddle wheel or from a single seal of a tipboard, each tipboard limited to a single seal, or from a single pull-tab shall not exceed $150.00. The total prizes awarded for paddle wheel, pull-tab and tipboard by any organization shall not exceed X35;98$ $50,000 per organization for any license year. (b) The county attorne investictatinct and, if a shall be responsible for ropriate, prosecutinct or • izationsfor violations of this paragraph. (c) An organization which directly or under contract to the state or a political subdivision delivers • ealth or social services and which is exempt from tax- ation pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended throu h December 30, 981, may award total prizes in a calendar year from the conduct of raffles, in excess of the limitation contained in Paragraph 7(b), provided the prizes consist of real or personal property donated to the organization by an individual, corporation or other organization and, except as provided in subparagraph (d), provided the organization complies with the other reQ_uire- merits and restrictions of this section. (d) For the purposes of this paragraph, an organization covered by subparagraph (c) is not subject to the member- ns nor to the compensation limitations containea ~n tn~s section. Passed by the City Council of the. City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST; Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk • (5) Any organization which leases any premises to one or more other organ- izations for purposes including the conduct of bingo occasions shall use the proceeds to the.. rental, less reasonable sums for maintenance, furnishings and other necessary expenses, only for lawful purposes as defined in Minnesota Statutes, 1978, Section 349.12. At the end of each license year the organi- zation shall report to the City Clerk the disposition of all receipts which it has received during the license period from the rental on its facilities to other organizations for purposes including the conduct of bingo occasions. (6) Prizes for a single bingo game shall not exceed $100.00 except for prizes for a game of the type commonly knows as a "cover-all" game which shall in aggregate value not exceed $500.00. The aggregate of prizes for a bingo occasion shall not exceed $2,500.00, except that when the bingo occasion in- cludes a "cover-a11" game, the aggregate of prizes shall not exceed $3,000.00. Merchandise prices shall be valued at fair market retail value. (1979-16) 9/24/79 (7) Total prizes from the operation of paddle wheels, pull-tabs and tipboards awarded in a single day in which they are operated shall not. exceed $1,000.00. Total prizes resulting from any single spin of a paddle wheel or from a single seal of a tipboard, each tipboard limited to a single seal, or from a single pull- tab shall not exceed .$150.00. The total prizes awarded for paddle wheel, pull- tab and tipboard by any organization shall not exceed $35,000 per organization. (1981-15) 8/24/81 (8) No expense shall be incurred or amounts paid in connection with the conduct of bingo, except those reasonably expended for bingo supplies and equip- ment, prizes, rent or utilities used during the bingo occasion, bingo license fees, taxes related to bingo and compensation to active members who conduct the ~, game. . (9) No expense shall be incurred or amounts paid in connection with licensed gambling activities except those reasonably expended for prizes, local licensing fees, taxes and maintenance costs for the gambling devices. (10) Each bingo or gambling winner shall be determined and every prize shall be awarded and delivered the same day on which the bingo or gambling activity is conducted, except that raffle winners not present far the drawing may be delivered their prizes at a later date. {11) A11 bingo or gambling activities shall be under the direct supervision of the designated bingo or gambling manager who shall be responsible for gross receipts and profits from bingo or gambling and for the conduct of the bingo or gambling activity in compliance with all applicable statutes and ordinances. (12) Bingo or gambling shall not be conducted on dates or at places other than those dates and places enumerated in the application. (13) Bingo and gambling may only be conducted only in the hall where regular meetings of the organization are held unless otherwise permitted by the council; provided that tipboards are permitted in areas where the licensee regularly sells food and beverages. Tickets for raffles conducted in accordance with this section may be sold off the premises, but may not be sold in residential districts of the city without prior approval of the city council. (14) Bingo and gambling may not be played by any person under 18 years of age unless accompanied by his parent or legal guardian. • 8/24/81 OROtNANCE CODE 130.3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO fA (6) No organization may be licensed to conduct bingo on any leased premises without a written lease for a term at leasg equal to the term of the license sought and in no event for a term extending less than six months from the date the license is issued. Lease payments shall be at a fixed monthly rate or rate per bingo occasion, not subject to change during the term of the lease. No such lease shall provide that rental payments be based on a percentage of receipts or projects from bingo occasions. (1981-15) 8/24/81 (7) Gambling devices may only be operated and raffles only conducted on premises owned or operated by the licensee, provided, that the city may authorize raffles to be conducted by a licensed organization on premises not owned or leased by the organization. Absent such authorization, no organization maybe licensed to conduct gambling on any leased premises without a written lease for a term at Least equal to the term of the license sought or six months from the date the license is issued whichever is greater. Lease payments shall be on a fixed monthly rate or a rate based upon the period the premises are actually. used for gambling. No lease shall provide that rental payments be based on a percentage of receipts or profits from gambling. (1981-15) 8/24/81 Subd. 9. Conditions Governing, Conduct of Bingo and Gambling (1) The bingo manager shall not be the bingo manager for any other organ- ization. T'he gambling manager shall not be the gambling manager for any other organizational One person may simultaneously serve as the "aingo manager and the gambling manager for the same organization. (2) No compensation shall be paid to any person in connection with bingo or gambling activates except as follows: (a) In the case of bingo, compensation may be paid to an active member of the organization or its auxiliary,~or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member, conducting the bingo occasion. In the case of bingo only, a person not an active member of the organization or its auxiliary, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member may participate in the conduct of a bingo occasion by resolution of a majority of the membership recorded in the approved minutes of the organization. Non-management assistants who are not active members of the organization, or .the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member may be hired to assist members in conducting the bingo occasion. Begin- ning August 1, 1979, compensation shall not exceed $20.00 ger bingo occasion. . :{b) No compensation in excess of $25.00 a week shall be paid in con- nection with the operation of a gambling device or the conduct of a raffle by • a licensed organization except a licensed organization may elect to pay a percent of a raffle ticket sales to nonprofit organizations selling for the licensed organization. No person who is not an active member of an organization, or its auxiliaL~y or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member may participate in the organization's opera ion of a gambling device or conduct of a raffle ex- cept the licensed organization may utilize nonmember nonprofit organizations in raffle ticket sales. (1981-15) 8/24181 (3) Unless the city council shall so provide in the License, no more than 104 bingo or gambling occasions each year or two bingo or gambling occasions per WP.Pk may be conducted by the organization. No bingo or gambling occasion shall continue for more than four consecutive hours. (4) Any person or corporation, other than an .organization, which leases any premises that it owns to two or more organizations for purposes including the conduct of bingo occasions, shall not allow more than four bingo or gambling occasions to be conducted on the premises in any week. 8/24/81 ORDINANCE CODE 130.2 CITY OF RICHFIELD, iVlINNESO ~A ~~9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager • Council Letter No..141 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendments Relating to the Serving of Minors in Establishments Serving Intox- icating and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquors At the April 12, 1982 city council meeting, the city council approved a non-intoxicating malt liquor license for the Godfather Pizza which will be located in the Hub Shopping Center. At the same time, the city council approved wine license renewals for Pontillos Pizzeria and Shakey's Pizza Parlor. During the discuss- ion on these license renewals, the council expressed concern with the procedure used by these establishments to serve minors. A review of the city ordinances relating to regulations for beer, wine and liquor licenses, indicates that there is a different standard for 3.2 beer licenses than for wine and/or liquor licenses. Currently, the 3.2 beer license ordinance could be interpreted to read that no minors can be present unless accompanied by an adult or parent or guardian. However, minors not accompanied by an adult or guardian can be present in an establishment serving wine or liquor, as long as they are not seated in the same area where the wine or liquor is served. A clearly designated area has to be maintained in those establish- ments for minors not accompanied by parent or guardian. The differing criteria between the ordinances creates administrative burdens for the Public Safety Department and the business establishments, especially those businesses holding both a 3.2 beer license and a wine license. The city council gave approval to the 3.2 non-intoxicating liquor license for the Godfather Pizza on the condition that they maintain a separate area for minors in which no beer would be served. The ordinance attached to this council letter would bring the provisions relating to the presence of minors in establish- ments serving non-intoxicating malt liquor and establishments serving wine or liquor into conformance with each other. The non-intoxicating (beer) malt liquor code would be amended to read that "No minor shall be permitted to enter or remain on that part • of the licenses premises where non-intoxicating malt liquor is being sold or served unless accompanied by his parent or guardian." This is essentially the action the council stipulated in approving the Godfather Pizza beer license. council Letter No. 141 -2- May 10, 1982 The liquor license ordinance would be clarified by the addition of "nor shall such licensee or its agent or employee permit a minor to be present at any part of the licensed premises where intoxicating liquor is sold or served unless accompanied by his parents or legal guardian." I believe it is important for the city to have provisions in its beer, wine and liquor ordinances that prohibit minors not accompanied by parents or guardian from having potential access to these substances. It is even more important that there be continuity between these ordinances for administrative purposes and clarity to the business owners. It is recommended that the city council give first reading approval to these proposed ordinances. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Public Safety Director • • AMENDMENT TO CHP.PTER XI, SECTION 11.06 OF TIC ORDINANCE CODE OF THE • CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter XI, Section 11.06 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield regulating and licensing the on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor is hereby amended by amending paragraph {1) of subdivision 16 thereof to read as follows: "(1) No licensee, its agent or employee shall serve or dispense upon the licensed premises any intoxicating liquor to a minor, nor shall such licensee or his agent or employee permit a minor to be furnished or consume any such liquors on the licensed premises, nor shall such licensee or its agent or emplovee permit a e a is sold or served unless accompanied by his Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, • this day of 1982. John Familton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk • AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI, SECTION 11002 OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD • City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter XI, Section 11,.02 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield licensing and regulating the sale of nan-intoxicating malt liquor is amended by amending paragraph (1) of subdivision 8-._ thereof to read as follows: '" (1) And No }~e~se~i-e~tde~-tire-age-ef-~S minor shall met be permitted to enter or remain on that part of the licensed premises where non- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1982. ATTEST: Sylvia Bexgh, City Clerk John Hamlaon, Mayor ~. • ~i7 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Maanger Council Letter No. 140 Agenda May 10, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Notice of Public Hearing on Application for "On-Sale" Wine License, and Request for Special LTse Permit for the Sale of Wine, Kenny's Family Foods, Inc., 6700 Penn Avenue A public hearing has been scheduled for the May 10, 1982 city council meeting for the above. However, the Planning Commission, at its April 27, 1982 meeting, deferred consider- ation of the special use permit to their May 25, 1982 meeting. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council continue the hearings on these items to the June 14, 1982 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/skh cc: Public Safety Director