The URL can be used to link to this page

07-13-81 agenda0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 245 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Cc,uncil Members: Subject: Storm Sewer and Drainage Improvements The city council has scheduled a meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, July 13, 1981 for the purpose of discussing storm sewer and drainage improvements. The city staff and a representative from the city's consulting engineer, Orr - Schelen - Mayeron, will also be present at this meeting. Attached please find various reports and council letters from previous discussions which provide background information on this subject. Respectfully submitted, i Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Engineer CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 112 Kris. Agenda April 9, 1979 r Honorable Mayor t and Members of the City Council _City of Richfield z f Council Members: ., Subject: Preliminary Engineering Report, Drainage Improvements to Norby and Wilson Ponds, " And Street Right -of -Way There is an it on the April 9, 1979 city council agenda i t, fn providing for council review and acceptance of the preliminary engineering report on various improvements to Norby Pond and Wilson Pond, and certain other drainage improvements to public boulevard and street right -of -way areas . Background Information 'Y. On January 15, 1979, the city council held a special meeting to review the condition of the city's drainage system and to dis- ;,_�� < -� °::: cuss several 'alternatives for improvements to the system which At that - had been identified by the city's consulting engineer. time, the public works director reviewed the findings and recomm- 46.:,` endations contained-in the consulting engineers report, and - ;:.;presented the staff recommendations. .'. � y The recommendations accepted by the city council at that time ;'' included the following items: Fr. 1. That the city include information regarding the availability of flood insurance in its public information brochures in an effort to let all Richfield residents know that they qualify to purchase such insurance; 2. That residents be encouraged to undertake private flood- proofing of their properties, with the under - standing that the city would provide technical and code compliance assistance to homeowners wishing to engage in such flood- proofing activities; 3. That the city explore possible drainage improve - ments (identified as Alternative C) which include miscellaneous revisions to public boulevards and street right -of -way areas, such as regrading, catch basins, etc., and enlarging the capacity of Norby .fi and Wilson Ponds. The city council has also initiated a mutual project with the City of Edina to explore alternatives for improving areas common to the Edina /Richfield border which have experienced flood- ing in the past. Any improvements which might address drainage problems along the Edina /Richfield border are not included in the proposals outlined here.. The joint committee studying drainage along the Edina /Richfield border is preparing a separate report which will be available for council consideration in the near future. Proposed Improvements Alternative C was recommended to the city council by the staff as the most feasible approach to solving the drainage problems which have been identified in the city. A total of 33 locations have been identified as experiencing some drainage problem. The 'city council has asked that the 38 locations be considered on a drainage basin basis. Although all of the locations cannot be neatly grouped into a few such districts, those most deserving of some corrective consideration fall into the following areas: - Area I: That part of Richfield which is included in J the joint Edina /Richfield storm water study Area II: The storm drainage district generally bounded n4 by 70th Street, Sheridan Avenue, 63rd Street and Humboldt ;J Avenue, Area III: The drainage basin served by Norby Pond Area IV•: The drainage basin served by Wilson Pond Improved drainage would result to all of these areas if the solutions proposed under Alternative C are implemented. At Norby Pond, the area would be enlarged to better serve the adjacent residences, and the bottom would be lowered to improve drainage in nine of the 38 areas. Specifically, enlarging Norby Pond would reduce the threat of flooding at First Avenue and 73rd Street, Columbus Avenue and East 70th Street, 3rd Avenue and the residences bordering the pond along 3rd Avenue, and the East 68th Street area near Stevens Avenue. Increasing the size of Wilson Pond would improve drainage in four of the 38 areas which were studied by the engineering consult - ant. This pond would be lowered and provided with pumps as part of the improvement. At the time the city council authorized the preparation of preliminary engineering reports for these improvements, the suggestion was made that the city might wish to look at other aesthetic im- provements to the Wilson and Norby Pond areas which might be uncder- taken in conjunction with the drainage improvements. The city has retained mr. James Robin to prepare preliminary plans for land - scaping and establishment of pedestrian and bi':ewav systems around the two ponds. The cost for providing the walks, landscaping and 3 Council Letter No. 112 -3- April 9, 1979 aquatic improvements at Norbv Pond is estimated to be $55,000. q p The landscaped elements at Wilson Pond are expected to cost $91,000. The revisions to the public drainage system in the street right-of-way and boulevard areas are to include such things as larger inlets in the lower street areas, raising driveway berms, and increasing the ability of certain street segments to safely hold excess storm water. The cost to implement this improvement is estimated at $70,000. k Of the 38 areas studied in the engineering report, 16 have been selected for possible public revisions. Certain measures can be taken immediately to diminish the chance of ponding problems occurring. These include temporary berming at the private drive- way at 68th and Oliver Avenue and the east -west alley connecting Washburn and Vincent Avenues west of 66th Street. Field surveys will be made in the remaining areas to specify exact measurements, _; although further study is necessary before specific improvements to these areas can be suggested. The preliminary engineering report estimates the cost of im- plementing these improvements to be $967,000. These costs break .'..',._' down as follows: sxys'_ a L �� Wilson Pond $442,000* tA: x Norby Pond 455,000* ss M "t Public right -of -way improvements 70,000 $967,000 al x751 ( *Includes landscaping improvements) =' Representatives of Orr- Schelen- Mayeron Associates, Inc..will be present at the April 9, 1979 city council meeting to discuss the preliminary engineering report and answer questions. it is not in- a;a {:«" tended that the material contained in the preliminary engineering report be the subject of a public hearing on April 9, 1979. However, if the city council wishes to proceed with any ma j or storm sewer work, it will be necessary for the city council to adopt a resolution re- ceiving the preliminary report and ordering the public hearing. Financing Storm Sewer Improvements Prior to ordering of the public hearing, it will be necessary for the city council to adopt an assessment policy to be used for the drainage improvements. The alternative solutions described in this council letter have significant estimated costs, and the only feasi- ble way of financing such improvements is through the special assess - ment process. Prior to February, 1972, it had been city policy to finance :. storm sewer improvements through special assessment bond issues and special assessments levied against private property. That policy provided for a maximum storm sewer assessment of 3 � per square foot. Virtually all property within the City of Richfield has paid or is in the process of paying this maximum of ;t :. per square foot Vs4storm sewer assessment for storm sewers and related appurtances. In February, 1972, the city council adopted a new storm water "assessment policy (Resolution No. 4735, copy attached). This r Council Letter No. 112 -4- April 9, 1979 ,.tti.• policy provides that all storm sewers and appurtances constructed in 1974 and future years be fully assessed. This assessment policy is the city's most recent storm sewer assessment policy. whether the council wishes to retain this policy or to establish some other S pecial assessment policy to undertake any of the storm water improve- =' ments discussed in this letter, it will be necessary for the council to adopt a resolution establishing the specific assessment policy to be used for this storm sewer improvement project. Attached is a resolution prescribing the assessment policy which is recommended by the city staff. This policy provides that the cost of the Norby Pond and the Wilson Pond improvements be fully ,.-assessed to the benefiting property owners, and that the city pro - vide the landscaping and aesthetic improvements to these two pond ing areas and the general boulevard and right -of -way improvements �. described herein. The effect of this assessment policy is that 70 percent of the total project cost will be assessed to the �,, benefitting property owners, with the remaining project cost to be borne by the city for these items that provide general public benefit. A preliminary assessment roll has been estimated on this basis. Using this assessment policy and spreading the total estimated cost ''t' over all properties located in the drainage area for Norby and Milner :?NOF':Pond, preliminary estimates indicate that the average property owner would be assessed for this project at a rate of 2.3� per square foot. .Using a typical lot size of 75 feet by 132 feet, the average home - owner's assessment for this storm sewer improvement project would be $277, excludinq interest. If the assessment were set up over a twenty year period, the maximum annual assessment payment would be ,between $40 and $50. — It must be emphasized that these figures are preliminary in nature, and that the actual assessment for any benefitted property within the project area would be dependent on the total square footage draining into the site and the actual project cost. None - theless, existing engineering estimates indicate that the assessable cost of the project to an individual property owner would be approx- imately as described. Additional detail regarding the way in which assessments for this project could be calculated is contained in the preliminary engineering report prepared by OSol. Although the assessment rate calculated in this report assumes that the total cost of all improvements at Norby and Wilson Ponds, including the landscaping and park improvements, would be assessed, the descript- ion of properties included in the special assessment area and the nature of calculating the assessments for those properties is accurate. Recommendation If the city council wishes to proceed with any of the drainage improvements described in this letter, it is iecommended that the following procedure be follo.,ied: 1979 i 1. Adopt the resolution receiving the preliminary engineering report and ordering the public hearing; 2. Adopt the resolution establishing the storm sewer special assessment olic P Y for this project; 3. Authorize the staff to initiate the necessary survey and field work to identify measures which might be taken in implementing the public ' improvement and right -of -way modifications, and authorize the consultant to proceed with prepar- ation of final plans and specifications to complete these improvements. nded that the date for public hearing be scheduled for June 25, 1979. Scheduling the public hearing on this project ` j for that a e wi 1 enable the staff to conduct a series of inform - at nal meetings with small groups of residents in the benefitted ar as rior to the P public hearing. These informational pre- hearing me tings were very useful when the city undertook the s eet improvement Permanent P project, providing an opportunity for many of 1 t e resident's concerns and questions to be addressed prior to the p blic hearing. It is my recommendation that the same approach be -u ed in explaining the storm sewer and drainage improvement project t residents in the project area. x r Respectfully submitted, yc L. Wilde Acting City Manager JLW j e j aS :,cc: Finance Director Public Works Direct or o\6 q /\ rl PP Ao V \ �0 .� crf- RESOLUTION NO. 4735 RESOLUTION ON POLICY FOR STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS s WHEREAS, the city has been constructing storm sewers throughout the city according to a master plan prepared in 1953, and WHEREAS, the city council has had a policy of assessing this storm sewer construction at a maximum assessment of $.0355 per square foot, and WHEREAS, the construction of these storm sewers throughout the city has been sub- stantially completed, and WHEREAS, the cost of constructing these storm sewers has increased considerably over the years, and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to charge the existing storm sewer assessments policies to more accurately charge the benefited properties with the cost of providing the improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield that the City adopt the following general policies for storm sewer assessments: 1. That all remaining storm sewers constructed in 1974 and future years, should there be any, be assessed at its full cost of construction. 2. That the assessment be spread over a 20 year period at 8% interest with the privilege of prepaying the storm sewer assessment at any time without additional interest. 3. That the above policies begin with the storm sever hearings held in 1973. 4. That the policies contained in this resolution shall be subject to modification if necessary in individual cases if the council determines that the assessment or assessments resulting from the application of the policies will exceed the benefits received. Passed by the City Council of the City of Ric:,f.aiu this 14th day of February, 1972. Attest: -- City Clerk, r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS -FOR DRAINAGE AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS TO PONDING AREA NO. 5 (NORBY'S POND), PONDING AREA NO. 10 (WILSON'S POND), AND TO VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY CITY PROJECT NO. 738 WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council, adopted on the 9th day of April, 1979, fixed a date for a hearing on the proposed improvement of ponding area No. 5 (Norby's Pond), ponding area No. 10 (Wilson's Pond) and to various locations in the public right -of -way where improvements are of benefit to storm drainage, and WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for the making of these improvements were given proper legal notice through weekly publication in the designated legal newspaper for the city, and mailed notice required by law, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held thereon on the 25th day of September, 1976. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in Council Resolution No. adopted on the 9th day of April, 1979. 2. That Orr- Schelen- Maveron & Associates, Inc. are hereby designated as the Engineers for this improvement. They shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. 3. That the following described lands shall be considered for assessment for seventy percent of the actual cost of said improvements: Project No. 738 - The following described platted rroperties in the City of Richfield according to the plats thereof on file and of record in the offices of the County Recorder and Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota: rots 5 through 8, Mock 2, and all of Block 3 and 4, Acadcrnv '^errace . Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, :,unland Vista, 2nd Addition. �01�s 1 through 14, Lo' _s 17 through 42, and Lots 59 '_::rcuua 84, :-:estern Surety & Adjustment Company Addition „The 1l_r.es" . + Lots 1 throucrh "' and the east half of Lot 4, Block 3, and all of Ploc-.s 1 and 2, Richland Terrace. Lots 1 through 5, Meridith's Additicn Lots 2 through 10, Block 1, and Lots 1 through 8, Block 2, and that part of vacated East 69th Street adjoining in Richfield Center. Lots 5 through 7, Block 2, and Lot_; 2 through 7, Block 3, Clinton Terrace. Lots 5 through 8, Block- 1, and all of Bloc:, 2, Adolfson's lst Addition. Blocks 1 through 4, D.L. Totes Addition. Tracts B and E, Registered Land Survey No. 511. Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 425. Lots 7 through 12, Block 2, and Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, Smieja's 3rd Addition. That part of Lot 3 lying north of the south 78.33 feet thereof and Lot 2 of Block 4, Portland Avenue Acres. Lots 2 through 7, Block 1, Lots 2 through 4, Block 2, and Lots 5 and 6, Block 4, Coffman's 2nd Addition. Lots 1 through 6, Chicago Avenue Acres. The Southwest One- Quarter of Lot 26 and the West One- half of Lots 27 through 3*0, Lots 31 thrcugh 34, and the south half of Lot 35, BaiLmaartner's First Addition. Lots 1 through 8, Ross Addition. Blocks I and 2, First Stevens Scuara. Blocks 1 and 2, Larson Terrace. Lots 1 through 8, Lawrence J. Moe's Addition. Lots 1 through 11, Block 2, and all of Block 1, Sheldon B1air's Wooddale Fourth Addition.. All of Blocks 1 through 5, Wooddale 2nd Addition. All of Zubert's Addition. All of Blocks 1 and 2, Ireland Addition. All of Blocks 1 and 2, Savage's ist Addition. All of Blocks 1 and 2, Stoyke's Addition. All of Hammer's Addition. All of Nicollet Garen Lots Third Addition. All of Sunnyside Acres. All of Mattson Heights. All of Blocks 1, 2 and 3, and Lots 2 through 7 of Block 4, A.G. Bogen Company's Nicollet Avenue Addition. Lots 1 through 7, A.G. Bogen Company's Third Avenue Addi- tion. Lots 2 through 8, Terrace Gardens Second Addition. The south 543 feet of Block 3, the south 510 feet of Block 4, the east Half of Block 5, and all of Blocks 6 and 7 of the plat of Rich Fields. All of Block 1, the east Half of Block 2, and all of Block 3 of the plat of Richlands. Lots 9 through 15, Block 2, Lots 2 through 15, Block 3, and Lots 2 through 14, Block 6 of the plat of Cedar Sunrise Addition. All of Cedar Sunrise Second Addition. Lots 9 through 16, Block 1 and all of Blocks 2, 3 and 4, tcgether� with that part of vacated 70th Street lying southerly of lot 9, Block 1, all in Cedar Sunrise Third Addition. Lots 2 through 15, Block 1 and all of Block 2 of Petit First Addition. Lots 1 through 15, Block 1 and all of Block 2 of Petit Second Addition. All of Petit Third Addition, Petit Fourth Addition, and Petit Fifth Addition. Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Lots 12 through 23, Block 3, and all of Blocks 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8,ngb e rg- Walden Second Addition. All of John Engberg's Second Addition. All of Luschen Heiahts. All of Blocks 1 and 2, William R. Jessup's Addition. All of Blocks 1 and 2, Scheuble's First Addition. Lots 1 through 8, Zubert's Chicago Avenue Addition. All of Wallace's Sunnyside Acres 3rd Addition. All of Zubert's Elliot Avenue Addition. All of Fallden's Third Addition. All of Fallden's Fourth Addition. All of Wallace's Sunnyside Acres 6th Addition. All of Wallace's Sunnyside Acres Fifth Addition. All of Henry Thernell Addition. Lots 2 through 7, Block 1, and Lots 2 through 7, Block 10, Nicoilet Terrace. Lots 1 through 6, Stevens Green 2nd Addition. All of Blocks 1 and 2, Stevens Green. All of Blocks 1 through 4, Nicollet Garden Lots 2nd Addition. All of Blocks 1 through 4, Blair's Wooddale Third Addition. All of Blair's Wooddale Portland Fifth Addition. All of Wallace's Sunnyside Acres 7th Addition. All of Blair's Wooddale Park 6th Addition. All of Blair's Wooddale Columbus 7th Addition. All of Blocks 1, 2 and 3, Lots 1 through 7, 15, and 16 of Block 4, Lots 2 through 7 of Bloc}: 5, and all of Blocks 6, 7 and 8, Nicollet Garden Lots. e Tracts F, G, H, I and J of Registered Land Survey No. 495. All of Elder Grove Addition, Elder Grove 2nd addition, Elder Grove 3rd Addition and Lots 1 through 7, Block 1 and all of Block 2 of Elder Grove 4th Addition. All of Evergreen Gardens and Evergreen Gardens 2nd Addition. All of Mattson Heights Plat 2. Lots 1, 2, 15 and 1-6 of Block 3, Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4, and all of Blocks 1, 2, 5, and 6 of South Murray Lane. Lots 1, 2, 3 and 13 through 16, Block 1, Lots 15 and 16, Block 4, Lots 9 through 16 of Block 5, and Lots 1, 2 and 5 through 7 of Block 6, Southview Addition. Lots 1 through 5 and 7 through 10 of Block 3 and all of Blocks 1 and 2, Bassett's First Addition. All of Bassett's Second Addition. Lot 1, Block 2, Zubert's Southview Gardens. Lot 1, Block 1, Zubert's South 2nd Addition. Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block 1, Lots 1 through 4 and 10 of Block 2, and Lot 1 of Bloc]: 3, Zubert's Southview Gardens Third Addition. The unplatted portions of the City of Richfield lying in Sectons 26, 27, 34 and 35 of Township 28, Range 24 de- scribed as follows: The south 330 feet o the west 163 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 26. The south 330 feet of the east 133 feat of the west 944 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 26. The south 465 feet of the east 412.5 feet of that part of the Northwest Quarter of the SOUtheast Quarter of said section 26 lying westerly of Cedar Sunrise Addi- tion. The east 25 rods.of the Southwest Quarter of the South- east Quarter of said section 26. The south 700 feet of the east 209 feet of the west 55 rods of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said section 26. That part of the Northwest Quarter cf the Southeast Quarter of said Section 27 lying southerly of a line drawn 200 feet northerly of the north line of Blocks 3 and 4 of Academy Terrace according to the record plat thereof. The east 500 feet of the south 660 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 27 except therefrom the east 168 feet of the south 80 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter. That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 27 lying easterly of First Avenue, southerly and easterly of the record plat of Richland Terrace, southerly of East 69th Street and westerly of the record plat of Richfield Center. That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 27 lying northerly of 69th Street, westerly of Clinton Avenue, southerly.- of the record plat of Clinton Terrace, easterly of Third Avenue, except therfrom that part platted as Block 2 of Adolfson's 1st Addition. The east 200 feet of the south 1240 feet cf the South- east Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 27 except therefrom of the record plat of D.L. Tates Addition. The west 300 feet of the east 500 feet of the south 830 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 27 except therefrom the record plat of D.L. Tates Addition. The west 500 feet of the north 660 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 34 except therefrom the west 133 feet of the north 93 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the northeast Quarter. e The west 170 feet of the north 258 feet of they Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 34. The west 300 feet of the south 259 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 34. The east 660 feet of the south 510 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 34. The east 660 feet of the north 660 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 34. The west 660 feet of the north 132 feet of the south 660 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 34. The west 330 feet of the north 198 feet of the south 498 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 34. The east 300 feet of the north 100 feet of the south 428.75 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said - Section 34. The north half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 34 except therefrom the record plat of A.G. Bogen Company's Nicollet Avenue Addition. The north half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 34. The east 330 feet of the south half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 34. The east 270 feet of the west 630 feet of the north 150 feet of the south half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 34. The west 165 feet of the south 150 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 34. The north half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 34, lying easterly of the record plat of A.G. Bogen Company's Third Addition and southerly of the record plat of the Nicollet Garden Lots Third Addition. The north 330 feet of the west 330 feet of th Nortll,west Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 35. The north 660 feet of the east 660 feet of the west 990 feet of the north half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 35. The south 330 feet of the east 165 feet of the west 1,155 feet of the north half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 35. The west 830 feet of the south half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said,Section 35. The east 165 feet of the south half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 35. The north 820 feet of the east 1000 feet of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 35. The north 160 feet of the west 300 feet of the south half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 35. The north 186 feet of the east 131 feet of the west 295 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 35. The west 165 feet of the north 330 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 35. The south 150 feet of the west 300 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 35. The west 175 feet of the north 800 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35. The east 123 feet of the *nest 300 feet of the south 100 feet of the north half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35. The north 150 feet of the east 123 feet of the west 300 feet of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 35. The north 82 feet of tha west 123 feet of the east 295 feet of the Northeast: Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 35. The south Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 35 except therefrom that part platted as Evergreen Gardens and Evergreen Gardens 2nd Addition. r The Northeast Quartet Southeast Quarter of that part platted in Second Addition, and Addition. r of the Northeast Quarter of the said Section 35 except therefrom Bassett's First Addition, Bassett's Zubert's Southview Gardens Third Done at the City of Richfield, this 25th day of June, 1979. Loren L. Law, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD,;MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 218 Agenda June 9, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Discussion of Storm Drainage Problems in the City of Richfield As a result of a number of phone calls and other requests an item has been listed on the June 9, 1980 city council agenda, con- cerning storm drainage improvements in the city. I thought it would be appropriate to begin a discussion of storm drainage prob- lems in the city with a recitation of the history of council action on this matter. I will attempt to detail the problem areas for storm drainage in the City of Richfield and what possible solutions exist for them. In 1977 and 1978,there were rain storms in the City of Richfield which caused severe water inundation on private property and resulted in damages to residential property. The severity of these problems caused the city council to commission an engineering analysis of the problems with the City of Richfield's storm drainage system. That analysis was completed on September 22, 1978, and entitled Storm Water Study and Analysis of Flooding for the City of Richfield, Minnesota. The firm of Orr - Shelen- Mayeron and Associates (OSM) were responsible for that engineering analysis of our storm drainage sys- tem..Y This study and other investigations have confirmed that the existing storm sewer system within Richfield functions very well within designed limits. In fact, the system performs well for con- ditions in excess of designed rainfall. The problems that occur are generally confined to locally low areas. The City of Richfield's storm drainage system was designed for what is referred to as the five -year storm. On a statistical basis,the probability of that storm occurring once every five years is calculated both in terms of amount of rainfall and a period of time in which the rainfall is received. By comparison, the 1977 and 1978 rainfall succeeded the 100 -year storm,or storms with a statistical probability of occurring once every one hundred years. Our storm sewer system, which is based on a five -year design, incorporates the possibilities of water storage capacity in the public rights -of -way, when there is a rain- fall in excess of the five -year potential. Design standards meeting the five -year storm are the norm for municipalities and have been adopted in almost every community in which I am familiar. To make a capital investment in excess of the five -year storm drainage design is a substantial investment of municipal funds and the cost benefit analysis of the improvements are rarely justified. Council Letter No. 218 -2- June 9, 1980 This does not, however, eliminate the need for review of numerous storm drainage problems within the City of Richfield. As a result of the OSM report, the city council initiated a public hearing which was held on June 25, 1979. The public hearing was to consider storm drainage improvements to Norby and Wilson Ponds, the drainage area served by those ponds as well as a number of other spot areas within the city which warranted improvements in the right -of -way. Large special assessment districts were put together for consideration of improvements to the ponding areas. Presentations were made by the engineering consultants as well as city staff members. Numerous residents attended and expressed their opinions. While I was not in attendance, it is my understanding that there was an overwhelming prevalent opinion in opposition to the projects. The record shows that at least twenty persons spoke in strong opposition to the storm sewer and drainage improvement project.. On the other side, six in- dividuals spoke in favor of the strom drainage project. The six individuals who spoke for the most part were individuals directly affected by the upstream storm water run off from those people who spoke against the project. At the close of the project hearing there was a motion to request the staff to review and develop alternate solutions for resolving drainage problehIS in the subject area and to develop a report for the city `council to review at the regularly scheduled October 9, 1979 city council meeting. During the period subsequent to June 25, there was a turnover of three city staff members which effected positions involved in-the analysis of the storm drainage situation. The city manager, director of public works (city engineer) and director of community development positions all were vacated and filled during that period of time. As a result, the city council did not discuss storm drainage improve- ments again until the November 19, 1979 city council meeting, on capital improvements. It -was reported to the city council that ba- sically there were no solutions to the major storm drainage problems in the city which could be accomplished at a lesser cost than was discussed at the June 25 city council meeting. Any permanent solu- tions to those areas served by the Norby and Wilson Ponds could not expect relief without the major storm drainage improvements invisioned previously. However, there were a number of spot areas which could justify some partial solutions. Those areas which were identified for partial solutions were: 1. 69th Street and Xerxes Avenue 2. Alley south of 66th Street between 3. 76th Street and Washburn Avenue 4. 69th /70th Street and Penn Avenue 5. 68th Street and Oliver Avenue 6. 68th Street and James Avenue 7. 66th Street and 68th Street and Stevens Avenue 73rd Street and First Avenue Vincent and Washburn Avenues James /Irving Avenu 8. es 9. Council Letter N -o. 218 June 9, 1980 A motion was made at that time to direct the staff to develop specific cost information and recommendations for improvements at these loca- tions and to consider methods of financing them for a inclusion in the capital improvement program. The capital improvement program will be submitted to the city council in October of 1980 for the 1981 through 1986 CIP. The attached table indicates a summary of potential alternates and recommendations updated from the September 22, 1973 OSM report. Summary sheets indicate 38 locations which are potential problems for storm drainage in the city and indicate the alternates looked at as well as the recommendation from the firm of OSM. Based upon our staff analysis of the OSM report as well as field inspections and conversa- tions with citizens we would recommend that the council consider further improvements to the following areas. Location #2, 69th and Xerxes It is recommended that the city authorize installation of storm drainage catch basins in the alley and berming on Xerxes Avenue to prevent water flow to the houses in mid -block on Xerxes. Location #9, 70th and Penn The parcel of property on the corner of 70th and Penn on the northeast side is anticipated to develop in the near future. 'Much of the water which inundates the property located at 6921 Penn and the adjacent house comes from overflow from the 70th and Penn inter- section. During heavy rainstorms this can produce massive flooding at the rear of the residential properties. In the development of the condominum project at 70th and Penn, the developer should be required to increase the elevation of his development so that it serves as a berm to prevent water flow through the rear lots and down to 6921 Penn. If additional water backup is received on the properties off of Penn and 70th Street the berm may need to be ex- tended to the north. The property at 6921-Penn will continue to receive water problems due to the amount of rainfall which falls within the block itself and flows downward to the lowest point behind 6921 Penn. The property owner has installed a sump pump in attempts to protect their property through that mechanism. Location #13, 68th and Oliver /Newton It is recommended that the south side of 68th Street be bermed in order to prevent the water from overflowing the curb and going into the low lying areas and inundating the basements and garages of the residential properties. After this is accomplished if the problem continues to exist the city may need to consider developing an inundation area north of 68th Street on the parcel property we refer to as 'no name" park. I Council Letter No. 213 Location # 17, 68th and James -4- June 9, 1980 The area immediately to the north of this is the Monroe Park area. In the development of Monroe /Fairwood Park consideration of a storm drainage holding area should be taken into account. This would eliminate the flooding of the homes on Lakeside Drive which occurs during heavy water. It is recommended that this matter be deferred to the development process for Monroe /Fairwood Park. Location #20, 772 and Colfax It is recommended that the low spot on the west Avenue just north of the 772 intersection be filled ward in order to provide additional flood protection the Win Stephens building. Location #25, 66th. Street and Fourth Avenue side of Colfax and graded up- to the rear of It is recommended that a curb modification be made on the north side of 66th Street in order to encourage the flow of water to Milnor Pond when 66th Street becomes inundated. Location #31, 66th Street and Chicago It is recommended that the curb be adjusted on 66th Street on the north side so that water can run toward Legion Lake when this intersection becomes inundated. Two other locations in the city experience storm water problems during rainfalls of even a semi - serious nature. Those two locations are 76th and Washburn Avenue and 73rd Street and First Avenue. The solution to both problems involve the conveyance of the water through alternate storm drainage relief lines to other locations. Seventy - sixty Street and Washburn Avenue could justify for storm drainage purposes, the construction of a relief line to Adams Hill Park. The storm sewer line currently at that location does not quite meet the five -year storm design criteria. The improvements to the Adams Hill Park development should help this location, however, since the ele- vation of 76th Street and Washburn Avenue at the present time is very close to the elevation of Adams Hill Park Pond when it becomes saturated with water. Under the development of Adams Hill Park the pond level will be decreased in elevation so that there should be adequate gravity flow 76th Street and Washburn to the new Adams Hill Park. However, when the Adams hill Park Pond is flooded the elevation change will disappear. 'It is only with the addition of the pumping station at Adams Hill Park that this problem can be alleviated. The pumping station costs are in the neighborhood of $150,000 and will need to have the approval of the City of Edina in order to discharge into their storm drainage system. They are not currently in a position of being able to handle the additional water discharge until a new storm drainage facility is built behind the 7500 York development Council Letter No. 213 -5- June 9, 1980 on Hedburg Property. A question of financing a pump station is also a matter of discussion with Edina since derivation of the Adams Hill Pond water is to a large part from Edina development. In addition, a berm on the northeast corner of the 76th and Washburn intersection is conceivable to protect the property owner at that location but it also opens the possibility of water collecting behind the berm and providing flooding potential. The 73rd Street and First Avenue intersection is another inter- section which has a flooding problem in the city. The solution to the problem was the Norby's Pond improvement and dredging which was defeated subsequent to the public hearing last year. The elevation of 73rd Street and First Avenue is the same as the elevation of Norby's Pond when the outfall pipe at Norby's Pond becomes just under half filled. For that reason the intersection will drain only as Norby's Pond is draining in allowing for additional water input into Norby Pond. The solution suggested at the time was the dredging of Norby Pond and a pump station at the outfall in order to keep the water level below the current levels.. That would have provided ade- quate gravity flow from 73rd Street and First Avenue. Another solu- tion to the flooding problem at that location is the construction of a storm drainage line to Augsburg Pond. This storm drainage line would go vest on 73rd Street away from the intersection. The cost of that storm sewer line is $140,000. The cost benefits of the line do not seem appropriate for this situation. The possibility of berming of the southwest corner also was under consideration. Two concerns which immediately arise are the access to garages for the property immediately on the corner, and the potential problem of water backup behind the berm as the water runs downhill in the south- west quadrant block. There appears to be no good solution to the problem and the only recommendation which can be made is the flood proofing of the homes. The council feels it's desirous to spend large sums of money on this storm drainage problem we should look into the potential of purchasing the house on the southwest corner as a more cost effective way to solve the problem. The city staff will be in attendance at the meeting on June 9, in order to discuss the problems outlined above. Discussion by the council of the specific problem areas would be helpful in deter- mining how high a priority level should be placed on these measures for consideration in the capital improvement program. Respectfully submitted, r Earl wollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Director of Community Development Director of Community Services City Engineer r Su:,m}ary of Potential Alternates and Rocommendations Richfield Storm Water Study & Analysis of Flooding Report Dated September 22, 1978 C, Location 1 Potential Alternates Recommendations 64th & Xerxes Area studied by Edina Solution provided by Edina through asphalt placement Cost of Recommendation Not Applicable Location 2 Potential Alternates Recommendations 69th & Xerxes, under analysis by joint to be made by study results Washburn Richfield - Einda study Cost of Recommendation unknown at this time Location 3 Potential Alternates Recommendations 66th Street near under analysis by joint to be made by study Xerxes to Vincent Richfield -Edina study Cost of Recommendation unknown at this time Location 4 Potential Alternates Recommendations 6700 block of under analysis by to be made by joint study Washburn Richfield -Edina study Cost of Recommendation unknown at this time Location 5 Potential Alternates Recommendations 62nd & Russell A. Conveyance to Highway 62 flood proofing affected 800 l.f. garage and residences, 27" diameter RCP eventual flood assistance $40,000 to be provided by develop - B. Development of Pond ment of inundation area in $60,000 conjunction with future C. Flood proofing commercial development in 510,000 the block Cost of Recommendation Flood proofing: less than $10,000 Future inundation area: by developer, no cost Location 6 Potential Alternates Recommendations 66th & 67th, Queen to Penn A. Conveyance (part of 68th St. flood proofing of affected system) to 68th & structures Oliver, 1200 l.f. 36" Cost of Recommendation diameter $120,000 from less than $15,000 68th & Oliver to Wood Lake $500,000 (see 68th & Oliver) B. Fill alley, eliminate basement access $65,000 C. Flood proofing $15,000 Location 7 Potential Alternates Recommendations 69th St. Sheridan A. Conveyance (part of 68th St. flood proofing of window & Russell system) 700 l.f. 24" diameter wells and affected $35,000 from Penn to 68th & structures Oliver $260,000 (see 70th & Cost of Recommendation Penn) from 68th & Oliver to less than $8,000 Wood Lake $500,000 (see 68th & Oliver) B. Change of grades, slopes or elevations of streets and /or boulevards: not applicable C. Flood proofing: less than $8,000 Location 8 Potential Alternates Recommendations 70th St. Thomas A. Conveyance (to 63th St. flood proofinq affected system) 1200 l.f. 3G" did- residences and garages meter $100,000 as applicable B. Modifications to street Cost of Recommenddation grades, Slopes and /or less than $9,000 elevations: not applicable C. F'lw _)d proofingz: less than $8,000 r C Location 9 Potential Alternates Recommendations 70th & Penn A. Conveyance (part of 68th St. flood proofing with increased system) 1800 l.f. 60" diameter $260,000 from 68th & Oliver to sump pump size, encourage fill Wood Lake $500,000 (see 68th & along Penn near 70th St. Cost of Recommendation Oliver) $30,000 B. Fill and berm along Penn from 69th to 70th $40,000 C. 'Fill low backyards, eliminate basement entrances $70,000 D. Flood proof with sump pump $30,000 Location 10 Potential Alternates Recommendations 72nd & Sheridan A. Conveyance to Adams Hill Pond flood proofing of affected 1600 l.f. 24" diameter $75,000 structures as necessary B. Storage or inundation: not Cost of Reco.^imendation applicable less than $5,000 C. Flood proofing Location 11 Potential Alternates Recommendations 76th & Washburn A. Conveyance to Adams Hill Pond flood proofing affected 1500 l.f. 42" diameter $170,000 residences, possible filling B. Ponding and inundation: not or berming at NE corner. effective Significant flood depth in C. Flood proofing the intersection may inter - less than $10,000 section may interfere with traffic movements Cost of Recommendation $10,000 Location 12 Potential Alternates Recommendations 66th & Newton A. Conveyance (to 68th St, system) flood proofing affected 1100 l.f. 24" diameter $60,000 structures with possible from 68th & Oliver to Wood Lake retaining wall $500,000 (see 68th & Oliver) Cost of Recommendation B. Change of street grades or elev- less than $12,000 ations: not applicable 'C. Filling backyard areas, eliminate walkout $60,000 D. Flood proofing affected proper- ties with retaining wall less than $12,000 Location 13 Potential Alternates Recommendations 68th & Oliver A. Conveyance (part of 68th St. initiate preliminary design to Newton 72" diameter to Wood Lake aimed at a composite solution $500,000 involving development of an B. Ponding in Park Area North of inundation area North of 68th C. 68th $40,00-0 Fill and berm South of 68th St., to raise overflow elev- ation and flood $20,000 proofing D. Relief line to Monroe Field properties as necessary Cost of Recommendation inundation area, 1500 l.f. 36" $60,000 diameter $60,000 E. Flood proofing affected resid- ences: less than $15,000 Location 14 Potential Alternates Recommendations 63rd & Girard A. Conveyance (under I 3514) flood proofing as necessary $150,000 Cost of Recommendation B. Change of street and alley grade less than $8,000 or elevation: not effective C. Flood proofing: less than $8,000 Location 15 Potential Alternates Recommendations 64th & Irving A. Conveyance (under 135W) flood proofing affected $180,000 structures as necessary B. Change of street grade or ,!Iov- Cost of Recommen:ation ation: riot applicable lass than $S,QOi) C. Flood proofinq: loss than ')1,000 Location 16 Potential Alternates R,2coi-,noniations 66th & Irving A. Conveyance k'part of 68tt1 st. fL>O.: ::rOOtir, affected system) 12" diameter x200,000 res:,!ences B. Filling and bermi:iq it 66th . Cost >t Rccoriviendation James airtial solution $20,000 less than $10,1100 C. Flood prootir.q atfected resi,t- unces: less than $10,000 ,68th 6 Ji.mes could be inclu:ed in bath y area for uacess :i Recommendation B. Oliver Encourage overflow inundation Cost of $2,000 of Monroe Field $2,000 C. Flood proofing as necessary: less than $'5,000 Recommendations Location 18 Potential Alternates 30" diameter to Wood p action due minimal .73rd & Humboldt A. Conveyance I 35W $200,000 P otential damage Lake under Ponding and inundation continued Cost of Recommendation B. as currently occurs: no cost no cost Location 19 Potential Alternates I 35W system) Recommendations flood proofing garage and 77th & Bryant A. Conveyance (to S120,000 commercial structure B. 30" diameter Elimination of basement garage entrances Cost entrances Recomme.lati n with flood proofing south of than less than $8,000 77th (new garag less $15,000 C. Flood proofing affected struc- tures: less than $8,000 Location 20 77 -1/2 & Colfax Location 21 65th -66th & Pillsbury - Pleasant Location 22 75th & Pleasant Location 23 66th & Stevens Potential Alternates A. Conveyance 24" diameter $20,000 B, Fill areas subject to inunda- tion: less than $20,000 struc- tures Flood proofing affected and areas: less than $8,000 Potential Alternates A. Relief line now under construc- tion Potential Alternate A. 76the &a h Pleasant to 3rdaAvenuend system $80,000 B. Ponding area for inundation along Lincoln Field $45,000 C. Flood proofing $15,000 Potential Alternates A. Conveyance to Milner's Pond $100,000 B. Raise overflow elevation on by filling and berming C. Flood proofing affected struc- tures: less than $6,000 Location 24 Potential Alternates Area will be partially received by West 3rd St. & storm line sewer now under construc- tion near 65th & Pillsbury Location 25 66th & 4th Location 26 68th & Stevens Potential Alternates A. Conveyance leads additional M ilnerr's basin type Pond $8,000 B. Flood proofing as necessary $5,000 Potential Alternatives A. Construction of boulevard berms & driveway grading to reduce flood overflow $20,000 B. Improvement via ";orby's Pond L3eve1opment (see Loca- tion :7) C. Provision of a backyard sump pump to reduce time of area inundation $15,000 D. Flood proofing as necessary $5,000 Recommendations flood proof affected struc- tures investigate potential for fill West of Colfax & South of 77 -1/2 Cost of Recommendation $10,000 Recommendations no action Cost of Recommendation no additional cost Recommendations flood proofing affected structures Cost of Recommendation less than $15,000 Recommendations flood proofing garages Cost of Recommendation less than $6,000 Recommendations no further action Cost of Recomme: daticn no further cost Recommendations no major action, excess flood water flow over curb to Mil - ner's Pond. Encourage flow by modifying North curb to provide overland area Cost of Recommendation $500.00 Recommendations Norby's Pond improvement with flood proofing as necessary. Investigate options involving berming of boulevard and pro- vision of backyard sump to offer cost alternates. Cost of Recommendation $5,000.00 Location 27 Potential Alternates Norby's Pond A. Conveyance to Milner's Pond, 84" diameter $1,300,000 B. Deepen pond and provide pumped outlet $500,000 Recommendations Norby's Pond improvements are identified as providing bene- ficial impacts on a number of problems in drainage district 04. These include 73rd & 1st, 76th & 3rd, 67th & Columbus and 68th & Stevens as well as the pond vicinity. Improve- ment by deepening and pumped outlet is recommended. Cost of Recommendation $500,000 Location 28 Potential Alternates Recommendations 73rd & 1st Ave. A. Conveyance (to Augsberg Pond) Norby's Pond improvements B. $140,000 Improvement via Norby's Pond with local flood proofing as necessary development (see Location 27) Cost of Recommendation C. Flood proofing affected resid- less than $10,000 ences: less than $10,000 Location 29 Potential Alternates Recommendations 76th & 3rd Ave. A. Conveyance- not practical, no flood proofing ready outlet Cost of Recommendation B. Improvement via Norby's Pond less than $8,000 development C. Flood proofing as necessary: less than $8,000 Location 30 Potential Alternates Recommendations 67th & Columbus, A. Conveyance to Legion Lake, 36" Norby's Pond improvement will 66th & Columbus diameter $160,000 affect the area. Place flap B. Improvement via Norby's Pond gate at 70th and Columbus to development prevent reverse flow. Flood C. Flood proofing: $10,000 proof as appropriate. Cost of Recommendation $10,000 Location 31 Potential Alternates Recommendations 66th & Chicago A. Conveyance- catch basin type Aid intersection drainage by conduits in intersection towards modifying North curb of 66th Legion Lake $10,000 Street to provide overland B. Develop overland flow route to flow path to Legion Lake Legion Lake via curb modifica- Cost of Recommendation tions $2,000 $2,000 C. Flood proofing as necessary Location 32 Potential Alternates Recommendations 63rd & Bloomington A. Conveyance- 36" diameter: flood proof affected struc- $200,000 tures, encourage flow to Taft B. Filling and berming boulevard Park partial solution $30,000 Cost of Recommendation C. Improvement of overland flow to- $10,000 wards Taft Park and use of park as inundation area: $10,000 D. Flood proofing: less than $8,000 Location 33 Potential Alternates Recommendations 63rd & 16th A. Conveyance- no practical flood proofing of affected additional outlet structures and develooment B. Improvement of overflow route flow towards Taft Park to Taft Park and utilization of Cost of Recommendation park as inundation area $5,000 $8,000 C. Flood proofing as necessary $5,000 Location 34 Potential Recommendations 71st & Cedar A. Conveyance pipe system to Wilson Improve Wilson Pond by excav- Location 35 Pond: $280,000 ation and provision of pumip- 73rd & Bloomington B. Change of street grades or elev- ing station. Pond improve - Location 36 ations: not effective ments will have beneficial 73rd & 16th, 17th, C. Wilson Pond improvements: impact on this area and others 18th Avenues $270,000 nearby. Conveyance without - WILSON POND AREA D. Flood proofing: $20,000 pond lowering_ will have re- duced effect Cost of Recommendation $270,000 thy,_ ry A 68th & a ^es U1 ` could be e a incluei in bath area for �- x<cuss iow :, _.,_S Recommendation Oliver B. Encourage overflow inundation Cost of $2,000 of Monroe Field $2,000 C. Flood proofing as necessary: less than $5,000 Recommendations -Location 18 Potential Alternates 30" diameter to Wood action due minimal -'73rd & Humboldt A. Conveyance under I 35W $200,000 damage potential damage potential Lake Ponding and inundation continued Cost of Recommendation B. as currently occurs: no cost no cost Location 19 Potential Alternates I 3 system) Recommendations flood proofing garage and 77th & Bryant A. Conveyance (to S120,00 0 commercial structure 30" diameter B. Elimination of basement garage entrances Cost of Recomme . aati n with flood proofing south of e: less than less than $8,000 77th (new garag $15,000 C. Flood proofing affected struc- tures: less than $8,000 Recommendations Location 20 Potential Alternates Conve ante investigatetpotential 77_1/2 & Colfax S. subjectmtoe. unda00O turres Colfax & tion: less than $20,000 for fill West of south of C. Flood proofing affected struc- Cost ofRecommendation tures and areas: less than $10,000 $8,000 Recommendations Location 21 Potential Alternates A. Relief line now under construe- action Recommendation 65th -66th & Cost of Pillsbury- tion no additional cost Pleasant Recommendations Location 22 Potential Alternate 75th & Pleasant and flood proofing affected 75th & Pleasant A. Conveyance, 76th & Pleasant to 3rd Avenue structures endation Recomm system $80,000 for inundation cost of less than $15,000 B. Ponding area along Lincoln Field $45,000 C. Flood proofing $15,000 Recommendations Potential Alternates Location 23 s Pond Milner 's flood proofing garages 66th & Stevens A. Conveyance to Cost of Recommendation 0 elevation on by less than $6,000 B. Raaise ise overflow filling and berming $10,000 C. Flood proofing affected struc- tures: less than $6,000 Recommendations Location 24 Potential Alternates will be partially received by no further action West 3rd St. & Area storm line sewer now under construe- nosfuitherceost 3aticn tion near 65th & Pillsbury 06 `" Location 25 Potential Alternates 66th & 4th A. basinytype additional Pond $8,000 B. Flood proofing as necessary $5,000 Location 26 Potential Alternatives 68th & Stevens A. Construction of boulevard berms & driveway grading to reduce flood overflow $20,000 B. Improvement via Norby's Pond ,:evelopment (see L0ca- t1c)n _,7) C. Provision of a backyard sump pump to reduce time of area inundation $15,000 D. Flood proofing as necessary $5,000 Recommendations excess flood no major action, water flow over curb to Mil - ner's Pond. Encourage flow by modifying North curb to provide overland area Cost of Recommendation $500.00 Recommendations Norby's Pond improvement with flood proofing as necessary. Investigate options involving berming of boulevard and pro- vision of backyard sump to offer cost alternates. Cost of Recommendation $5,000.00 C Location 27 Potential Alternates Norby's Pond A. Conveyance to Milner's Pond, 84" diameter $1,300,000 B. Deepen pond and provide pumped outlet $500,000 Recommendations Norby's Pond improvements are identified as providing bene- ficial impacts on a number of problems in drainage district 44. These include 73rd & 1st, 76th & 3rd, 67th & Columbus and 68th & Stevens as well as the pond vicinity. Improve- ment by deepening and pumped outlet is reco:r_mended. Cost of Recommendation $500,000 Location 28 Potential Alternates Recommendations 73rd & 1st Ave. A. Conveyance (to Augsberg Pond) Norby's Pond improvements $140,000 with local flood proofing as B. Improvement via Norby's Pond necessary development (see Location 27) Cost of Recommendation C. Flood proofing affected resid- less than $10,000 ences: less than $10,000 Location 29 Potential Alternates Recommendations 76th & 3rd Ave. A. Conveyance- not practical, no flood proofing ready outlet Cost of Recommendation B. Improvement via Norby's Pond less than $8,000 development C. Flood proofing as necessary: less than $8,000 Location 30 Potential Alternates Recommendations 67th & Columbus, A. Conveyance to Legion Lake, 36" Norby's Pond improvement will 66th & Columbus diameter $160,000 affect the area. Place flap B. Improvement via Norby's Pond gate at 70th and Columbus to development prevent reverse flow. Flood C. Flood proofing: $10,000 proof as appropriate. Cost of Recommendation $10,000 Location 31 Potential Alternates Recommendations 66th & Chicago A. Conveyance- catch basin type Aid intersection drainage by conduits in intersection towards modifying North curb of 66th Legion Lake $10,000 Street to provide overland' B. Develop overland flow route to flow path to Legion Lake Legion Lake via curb modifica- Cost of Recommendation tions $2,000 $2,000 C. Flood proofing as necessary Location 32 Potential Alternates Recommendations 63rd & Bloomington A. Conveyance- 36" diameter: flood proof affected struc- $200,000 tures, encourage flow to Taft B. Filling and berming boulevard Park partial solution $30,000 Cost of Recommendation C. Improvement of overland flow to- $10,000 wards Taft Park and use of park as inundation area: $10,000 D. Flood proofing: less than $8,000 Location 33 Potential Alternates Recommendations 63rd & 16th A. Conveyance- no practical flood proofing of affected additional outlet structures and development B. Improvement of overflow route flow towards Taft Park to Taft Park and utilization of Cost of Recommendation park as inundation area $5,000 $8,000 C. Flood proofing as necessary $5,600 Location 34 Potential Recommendations 71st & Cedar A. Conveyance pipe system to Wilson Improve Wilson Pond by excav- Location 35 Pond: $280,000 ation and provision of pump - 73rd & Bloomington B. Change of street grades or elev- ing station. Pond Jmprove- Location 36 ations: not effective ments will have beneficial 73rd & 16th, 17th, C. Wilson Pond improvements: impact on this area and others 18th Avenues $270,000 nearby. Conveyance without �- WILSON POND AREA D. Flood proofing: $20,)00 pond lowering will have re- duced effect Cost of Recommendation $270,000 `r_ n r r Location 17 Potential Alternat a k,- commenda.ttons Study area and make recommenda- 77th a BI-K,m,ngton A. Conveyanre- no {,rart:f ,l nutlf:t flood proof affected strut- tion for future improvement H. Pon,, d•rvolopmvnt in park land tune:. LnitlatC investi- Report to council Last of Uloomhnatnn and North gatlon into park development of 77th as inundation area: and improvement as inundation unknown cost area C. modify street houl -vard to Cost of Recommendation raise overflow elevation $8,000 510,000 D. Flood proofing 55,000 Location 38 Potential Alternates Recommendations Examine pipe in area 68th t Wentworth A. Conveyance- to wood Lake flood proofing, investi- Determine if parallel pipe $180,000 gation possibility of water system is benefiting drainage S. modify street or boulevard detention on church parking Report to council grade or elevations: not lot effective Cost of Recommendation C. Flood proofing: less than $10,000 $10,000 Preliminary minimum construction costs do M,4.ocations 11, 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 26, 31 + 25,000 Additional Probable Recommendations Locations 5, 6, 9, 13, 22, 26, 37, 38 - 10,000 Study coats, plans L specifications 51000 Total authorized right of way - improvement expendi- tuxss -$70.000 v Location 17 Potential Alternar—I R,rcommenda.ttons Study area and make recommends - 77th & 81•K,minyton A. Conveyarce- no nractu it nutlet flood proof affected strut- Lion for future improvement B. Pond development in park land Carl`±. lllitlate invests- Report to Council Last of Bloomingtnn and north gation into park development of 77th as inundation area: and improvement as inundation unknown cost area C. Modify street boulevard to Cost of Recommendation raise overflow elevation Sa,000 $10,000 D. Flood proofing $5,000 Location 38 Potential Alternates Recommendations Examine pipe in area 68th t Wentworth A. Conveyance- to wood Lake flood proofing, investi- Determine if parallel pipe 5180,000 gation possibility of water system is benefiting drainage B, modify street or boulevard detention on church parking Report to council grade or elevationsi not lot effective Cost of Recommendation C. Flood proofing, less than $10,000 $10,000 �% Preliminary minimum construction costs ,,o M. ocations 11, 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 26, 31 + 25,000 Additional Probable Recommendations Locations 5, 6, 9, 13, 22, 26, 37, 38 - 40,000 Study costs, plans L specifications 5,000 Total authorized right of way ' improvement expendi- tures 570,000 Study area and make recommenda- tion for future improvement Report to council Examine pipe in area Determine if parallel pipe System is benefiting drainage Report to council Preliminary minimum construction costs we ,,,:,Locations 11, 13, 16, 17, 20, 13, 25, 26, 31 ? 25,000 Additional Probable Recommendations Locations S, 6, 9, 13, 22, 26, 37, 38 - 40,000 Study costs, plans i specifications 5,000 Total authorized right of way Improvement expendi- turss -$70,000 ` Location 37 Potential Alternat,s Nccommrndaations 77th i Bloomington A. Conveyanr.o- no Israrti —il outlet flood proof affected struc- 11. Poml development in pork land ture;. Lutiate investi- East of Bloominqtnn and North gatlun into park development of 77th as inundation area: and improvement as inundation unknown cost area C. Modify street boulevard to Cost of Recommendation raise overflow elevation $8,000 $10,000 D. Flood proofing S5,000 Location 38 Potential Alternates Recommendations 68th 4 Wentworth A. Conveyance- to Wood Lake flood proofing, investi- $180,000 gation possibility of water B. Modify street or boulevard detention on church parking grade or elevations: not lot effective Cost of Recommendation C. Flood proofing: less than $10,000 $10,000 Study area and make recommenda- tion for future improvement Report to council Examine pipe in area Determine if parallel pipe System is benefiting drainage Report to council Preliminary minimum construction costs we ,,,:,Locations 11, 13, 16, 17, 20, 13, 25, 26, 31 ? 25,000 Additional Probable Recommendations Locations S, 6, 9, 13, 22, 26, 37, 38 - 40,000 Study costs, plans i specifications 5,000 Total authorized right of way Improvement expendi- turss -$70,000 a A3 • .FF a ' T 4 ♦ �: �-a - tr r }i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 131 Agenda April 27, 1981 Deferred May 11, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: `Discussion of Alternative Means for Financing Storm Sewer and Drainage Improvements' On several occasions over the past several years, various portions of the city have become flooded. Particularly, severe rain storms in 1977 and 1978 demonstrated some spot inadequacies ;of..,the city's drainage system:- On September 22, 1978, the ,city's consulting engineers, Orr - Schelen - Mayeron (OSM), com- pleted a study of the damage done by the August 30, 1978 rain storm. This study and previous studies concluded that the xexisting"`Richfield storm sewer system performs well for the conditions for which it was designed. Although the system is basically sound, there are specific areas of the city which- &f,lood frequently. Some of these problem areas can be relieved by minor alterations, while others require enlargement of ponding gareas, °-and,some larger scale construction of improvements. Several times since the issue of whether any should be undertaken. A attempts to analyze what (made to the system has ri pg improvements : "7 early 1977, the city council has addressed and what type of storm sewer improvements major problem in each of the council's type of improvements if any should be evolved around the difficulty of financ- The storm sewer system in various parts of the city are interrelated. The systems are connected by pipes and storage ponds, and any modifications to the system in one area may cause problems in another. This interrelationship causes particular problems in trying to finance storm sewer improvements. The most traditional process for assessing such improvements is the special assessment process, which is defined by state statute. This process permits the assessment on any particular property to be no more than the benefit received. The relationship between the assessment and benefit received from a storm sewer improvement project is frequently difficult to demonstrate. Property on high ground will not flood, whereas low land property will. Even though water from the roofs and driveways on the highland property contributes to the flooding problem in lower areas, the owners of the higher properties often see no need to spend money to maintain the storm sewer system, since they are not directly affected by drainage problems. Council Letter No. 131 -2- April 27, 1981 The city staff has been researching various alternaitves for ;financing of storm sewer improvements. The following section of this letter will describe each of the alternatives which we looked into and summarize some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with using this option for financing of the improve - ments: 1. ;Formaton''of a'"Storm Sewer District: Minnesota Statute 444.16 provides that a city may form a storm sewer improvement district. Formation of such a district would allow improvement costs to be distributed according'to "contribution to the problem," rather than "benefit received." The precise formual for determing the distri- bution of costs is to be detailed in a policy statement' adopted at the time the first project in a sotrm sewer improvement district is implemented. The`storm'sewer improvement district is established by an ordinance, and •a public hearing mLst be held before "a storm sewer' ,district can be established. In order for such a district to be established, the city council must adopt the ordinance by a two - thirds vote (four affirmative votes) . The major advantage to this approach is that it removes the burden of having to demonstrate specific benefit to an individual property in financing the project. The project would be supported by general revenues of the city, whether raised by issuance of a bond and retired through property :ax levies for debt service, or just generally supported :hrough the city's operating monies. 'he disadvantages of the storm sewer district approach Lnclude the requirement that the ordinance be established )y a two - thirds vote of council, as well as the difficulty Ln justifying, to the general populace, the use of general :ity revenues to make improvements to a storm sewer system :hat will benefit only a small portion of the city's -esidents. Additionally, a public hearing would be held :oncerning the improvements where notices would have to )e mailed to every property owner in'the city.,p ?inancing of Improvements with Revenue Bonds to be tetired with Liquor Profits: Under state law, the city Ls barred from issuing revenue bonds secured by liquor )rofits for any purpose other than liquor stores, with - >ut holding an election: Furthermore, the special Legislation that enabled the city to sell the golf -ourse bonds have used up the liquor profits as a backup )ledge for retirement of those bonds. Special state :nabling legislation would be necessary to authorize - :he sale of such bonds. j,. K- Council Letter No. 131 -3- April 27, 1981 3. •Transfer a Specified Amount of Liquor Profits to Retire ,.a GO Bond Issue: Under this alternative, the city would asell a general obligation bond-issue to finance storm sewer improvements, and transfer s specific amount of liquor profits each year to the general fund to cancel the tax levy. However, the city cannot sell general gbliga -: ;tion bonds for storm sewer improvement purposes without approval of the voters through a referendum. Furthermore, the previous pledge of liquor profits as a backup source of meeting bonded indebtedness for the golf course could call into question the feasibility of having those profits available for additional obligation associated with the storm sewer improvements. 4. �Create`a Combined Sanitary -Storm Sewer Fund and Charge :Sewer Customers a Storm Sewer Fee: Some states permit cities to levy a "yser fee to properties within the city for storm sewer purposes. The fees from such storm sewer users generate revenues which could then be used Ito retire a general obligation bond issue; by transfer- ring those revenues to cancel the tax levy necessary to pay off the bonds. However, Minnesota state law prohibits issuanceof general obligation bonds for this purpose without an election. 5. Pay -As- You -Go: Another alternaitve would divide the major storm sewer improvements into small subprojects, .which would be done on an annual'basis, and would use 1. ,the special property tax levy which was permitted for ;:the first time in 1981 for real dollar decreases in %,profits of various city enterprise funds_: The approxi- mate revenue which could be generated by levying this full amount under the special levy is estimated to be $400,000; at this rate of expenditure, it would take approximately five to six years for the storm sewer improvements which have,already been identified to be completed. This would have the advantage of spreading the cost over several years and not incurring long term financial debt. This approach would have the disadvantage of delaying completion of the improvements, as well as the disadvantage of using general revenues derived from a property tax levy for improvements which do not clearly and directly benefit a large portion of the city's tax payers. The effect of raising the mill levy up to two mills is also of some concern in the current financial/ political picture. r� .p qi.s Council Letter No. 131 -4- April 27, 1981 6. ExPay -As- You -Go Through Capital Improvement Program:' Another alternaitve considered was to construct the storm sewer improvements on an incremental basis, but use a - }:specific amount of - liquor profits each year to finance - ,those improvementsf -as is done from many of the other cities' other capital improvement programs. This would have the advantage of reducing indebtedness, and minimizing cost to city reisdents, although it would have the disadvantage of deferring completion of the project for several years, and displacing other capital improvements which are already scheduled for construction and financing with liquor store profits. 7. };Special Assessment This is the alternative that the city council has previously considered in seeking various solutions for completing storm sewer improvements. A major disadvantage of this alternative is that the city' must prove benefit to a property owner before it can sustain a special assessment. There are major adminis- trative burdens associated with this approach in terms of legal requirements for notifying property owners, establishing an assessment fund, etc. However, the city can sell a special assessment bond without requiring a referendum or an extra - ordinary majority of council approval, which would be an advantage of this approach. 8. - General Obligation Bonds: The final alternative would be to issue general obligation bonds and retire them with a city -wide advalorem tax; as previously mentioned, the city can sell no general obligation bond without the approval of the voters through a referendum. =W� While the city council has been interested in storm drainage improvements in the past, the problems involved with financing Karl Nollenberger of those improvements have continued to plague the resolution of 1' the problem. Alternatives number 1, 3, 5 and 6 seem the most feasible at this time if the council desires to pursue the matter. Further discussion can take place at the council meeting. _ Respectfully submitted, w, .: Karl Nollenberger City Manager s cc: Community Development Director r: Community Services Director Administrative Services Director G. MI6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 244 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amendment of Chapter 5 of the City Charter, City of Richfield There is an item scheduled for the July 13, 1981 city council meeti_n- nr_oviding for council review of a proposed change to Chapter 5 of the City Charter of the City of Richfield, which presently deals with processes for initiative and referendum. The amendment to Chapter 5 would also establish a process for recall of elected public officials. The recall provision essentially describes a petition process whereby five registered voters may initiate removal of any elected official of the city. Upon proper completion of the removal petition, and its submittal to the city clerk, the city council shall schedule a special recall election. The provision also outlines the procedures to be followed in holding such an election. In order for the city charter to be amended by ordinance, the city council must approve such amendments by unanimous vote. Ms. Donna Peterson, Chairperson of the Charter Commission, will be present at the July 13, 1981 city council meeting to further describe the charter amendments and the commission's recommendations. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh r ,� y `n PANS`'ITTAL ORDER= To the Honorable Vayor and 114e::,be-rs of the Council of the City of Rich ield, � -.i nnesota: .9e, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting wembers ol' the Charter Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby respectfully sub!r.it and deliver to you the attached proposed ordinance a- ending Chapter of the City Charter of the City of Richfield. We hereby respect gully p_ -opose , recommend and submit for adoption, by unani::ous vote oi' the City Council and approval by the Mayor of the City, the attached proposed ordinance this of , 1981. 1z. day etc PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT RELATING TO RECALL OF ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICERS OF THE CITY, AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER The Charter Commission of the City of Richfield hereby proposes that the City Charter of the City.of Richfield be amended as follows: (1) The title of Chapter 5 is amended to read: "Initiative, and Referendum and Recall" (2) Sec. 5.01 is amended to read: "Powers reserved by the people. The people of Richfield reserve to themselves the powers, in accordance with the provisions of this charter, to initiate and adopt any ordinance, except an ordinance appropriating the money or authorizing the levy of taxes, and to request such an ordinance when passed by the council to be referred to the registered voters for approval or disapproval.- and to recall elected public officials. These powers shall—be—called the initiative, and referendum and recall respectively. (3) Sec. 5.02 is amended to read: "Expenditures by petitioners. No member of any initiative, e-- referendum or recall committee, no circulator of a signature paper, and no signer of any such paper, or any other person, shall accept or offer any reward, pecuniary or otherwise, for service rendered in connection with the circulation thereof, but this shall not prevent the committee from paying for legal advice and from incurring an expense not to exceed $200.00 for stationery, copying, printing, and notarial fees. Any violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor. (4) Sec. 5.03 is amended to read: "Further_ regulations. The council may provide by ordinance such further_ rog ulations for the initiative, ©tf referendum or recall, 110L consistent with this charter, as it deems necessary. (5) The following new paragraphs shall be ac ?ded after Section 5.13: "Sec. 5.14. The Recall. Any five registered voters may form themselves into a committee for the purpose of bringing about the recall of any elected officer of the city. The committee shall certify to the city clerk the name of the officer whose removal is sought, a statement of the grounds for removal in not more than 250 words, and their intention to bring about his recall. A copy of this certificate shall be attached to each signature paper and no signature shall be put into circulation previous to such certification. "Sec. 5.15. Recall Petitions. The petition for the recall of any official shall consist of-a certificate identical with that filed with the city clerk together with all the signature papers and affidavits thereto attached. All the signatures need.not be on one signature paper, but the circulator or every paper shall make an affidavit that each signature appended to the paper is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. Each-signature paper shall e in substantially the following form: RECALL PETITION proposing the recall of from office as which recall is sought for the reasons set forth in the attac ed certificate. This movement is sponsored by the following committee of registered voters. Name Address 1. 2. 3. The undersigned registered voters, understanding the nature of the charges against the officer herein sought to be recalled, desire the holding of a recall election or that puri:)os e . Name Address 1. 2. 3. At the end of the list of signatures shall be appended tho a iidavit of t�� circu ator. "Sec. 5.16. Filing of Petition. Within 30 days after the filing of the original certificate the committee shall file the completed petition in the office of the city clerk. The city clerk shall examine the petition within the next eve days, and it the clerk in s it irregular in any way, or finds that-the number of signers if less than 25 percent of the total number of registered voters who cast their votes at the last prece regular municipal election, the city clerk shall so notify one or more members of the committee. The committee shall then be given ten days in which to file additional signature papers and to correct the petition in all other respects, but.they may not change the statement of the grounds upon which the recall is sought: If at the end of that time the city clerk finds the petition still insufficient or irregular, the clerk shall notify all the members of the committee to that effect and shall file the petition in the city clerk's office. No further action shall be taken thereon. "Sec. 5.17. Recall Election. If the petition or amended petition is found su= icient, the city clerk shall transmit it to the council without delay, and shall also officially notify the person sought be recaiied of e suf iciency of the petition and of the pending action. The council shall at its next meeting, by resolution, provide or the hoiding of a special recall election no ess han 30 nor more than 45 days after such meeting, buff---liEfany other election is to occur within 60 days after such meeting., the council may in its discretion provide for the o ding of the recall-election at that time. "Sec. 5.18. Procedure at Recall Election. The city clerk shall include with the published notice of the election t e statement of the grounds for recall'and also, in not more than 519-words, the answer of the officer concerned in justification of his or her course in office. ands ales to succeed the officer to be recalled shall e nominated in tW usual way, and the-election shall be conducted as tar as posse e, in accordance with the usual procedure in municipal elections. It more than two can icates are nominated, tHe election held at the time or voting on the recall pe i ion shall serve as a primary election in the event that he officer su sect to the recall petition is recalled. n such event a species run-off election between the Lwo candidates receiving the highest num er o votes s ha icreat er oe Held in accor. hnce wit h acv. I no more t ian two candidates are nominated, the election held at the time "M - voting on the recall petition shall serve as a special election o fill the une::r) ire term o t he of iced w ho may to removed Tro:;h oLLice v reca "Sec. 5.19. Form of Recall Ballot. Unless the officer whose removal is sought resigns within ten days after the receipt by the council of the completed recall petition, the form of the ballot at such election shall be as near as may be: "Shall be recalled ?" the name of the of icer whose recall is sought being inserted in the blank, and the electors shall be permitted to vote separately "Yes" or "No" upon this question. The ballot shall also contain the names of the-candidates to be voted upon to fill the vacancy, in case the recall is successful, under the caption: "Candidates to fill the place of if recalled ";.but the officer whose recall is sought shall not be a candidate upon such ballot. If a majority of those voting on the question of recall vote in favor of recall, the official shall be therebv removed from office, and the candidate who receives the highest number of votes shall be elected thereto for the remainder of the unexpired term; provided that if there are more than two candidates, the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes shall be the two nominees who shall be voted upon at the subsequent special run -off election as provided in the foregoing Sec. 5.18. The vacant office shall not be filled between any such primary and run -off elections. If the o ricer sought to be recalled resigns wit in ten days after the receipt by the council of the completed recall petition, the form of ballot at the election shall be the same, as nearly as possible, as the form in use at the reqular municipal election." CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 243 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Contract for Street Lighting C.P. 761 On Thursday, July 9, 1981, bids were opened for the installation of street lighting on Penn, Portland and Nicollet Avenues. The Community Development Director, Assistant City Manager, Representative of the City Engineer, and the City Clerk were present at the bid opening. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations is attached for council review. Eight bids were received. These bids have been reviewed by the city staff and it is recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations. 2. Award a contract to Electric Service Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota for the street lighting construction and appurtenant work in the amount of $240,896. 1 The engineer's estimate for the project cost was $228,000. The actual cost per assessable lineal foot will be around $3.17, while the estimated cost was $3.00. The assessment to the property owners will remain at $2.00 per lineal foot as the council determined previously while the City will bear the additional cost by issuing a larger bond issue to be financed by a general property tax levy. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberg -r City Manager KN/ sh cc: Community Development Director City Engineer RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID C.P. 761 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of Penn Avenue, Portland Avenue and Nicollet Avenue - by installation of street lighting, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law; and WHEREAS, it appears that Electric Service Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Electric Service Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota in the name of the City of Richfield for such improvement according to plans and specifications therefore approved by the city council. 2. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted by the city council this 13th day of July, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening July 9, 1981 Street Lighting City Project No. 761 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open, and read aloud, bids for Street Lighting as advertised in the official newspaper on June 17 and June 24, 1981. Present: Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director Joyce Wilde, Assistant City Manager Art Bailey, Representative of the City Engineer Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY TOTAL BID Electric Service Company, B.B. 50 $240,896 Collins Electric, B.B. 5% $245,710 Bloomington Electric, B.B. 5% $287,950 Donovan Construction, B.B. 50 $303,370 Batzli Electric, B.B. 50 $318,229 Eagan - McKay, B.B. 5% $318,882 Hoffman Electric, B.B. 5% $332,118 Gombold, B.B. 5% $406,705 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of July 13, 1981. Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk :It i3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 242 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 7427 13th Avenue South DDOD(1C ZIT. Mr. John Bostrom has submitted an application for a variation to reduce the required five feet side yard setback to three feet. This variance will allow construction of an attached garage and breezeway to the north side of the house. The property, located at 7427 13th Avenue South, is zoned "R," single family residential, as is all the surrounding property. The surrounding land use is also single family, residential. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.30, subdivision 4, and Section 3.39, subdivision 2 of the zoning ordinance lists the yard and lot area requirements for "R," single family residential property. According to these sections the required side yard setbacks for a story- and -a -half house is five feet. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists the three conditions which must be met in order to grant variances. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed the request against the three conditions which must be present before a variance may be granted and found the following: 1. There are no special conditions affecting this property. The lot is of sufficient size and is not significantly different than any similarly zoned lot in the City of Richfield. 2. Denial of this application will not preclude reasonable use of this property. There are alternatives to the proposal which would not require variances. 3. The proposal will be an improvement to the applicant's property and should not be detrimental to the public welfare. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the three conditions for granting a variance have not been met, the staff must recommend denial of this applica- tion. The Public Safety Department has also expressed concerns with the fire safety, because of the proximity of this proposed garage to that on the adjacent property. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends denial of this application. The Commission feels that there are reasonable alternatives to add to the house which would not require a variance. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner -777W Jv— 77L., 77 Ito? AW -1/ VV 1�77 7777 04 -- r�nrJf. - ?�1� f'r. n�- �JLh�a,i� ��7;v�.l1. �i -��— �' /�L'� �_� % in��f... C', vr6x "1 47 U-Io;IA 0— Ire, le (All 17 47 op . r Wy '--z '7 7. ey I W, 71 lo, r-7 /--, I -119 114 s,'V V,,' F-4// 704/ Illy -17 -"Cl. -17 . r Wy '--z '7 7. ey I W, 71 lo, r-7 /--, I 4v 77 7`� of 'A lee / -, 1� A X;14 I A 1 N J V Fr � I C m Q I — x n Ix z N n d cD J N V G 0 6� V Ju Z -300— 13TH. AVENUE SOUTH ' I(D PO i I 1' I D ' n I -G n I x v -e /C/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 241 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and - Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Forestry Policies In early July, 1981, the city received a notice from the State of Minnesota Department of Agriculture regarding municipal shade tree programs. The purpose of that notice was to describe actions taken by the 1981 Minnesota Legislature on shade tree matters that will affect the City of Richfield in this manner: 1. The Shade Tree Program was appropriated $7.0 million for the biennium. This is less than one -half of prev- ious biennial appropriations. Of the $7.0 million appro- priated for 1981 and 1982, $4.0 million is available for sanitation /reforestation...grants to communities in Caled- dar Year 1981. This appropriation allows a 1981 reim- bursement rate of 25 percent of actual eligible costs. Previous reimbursement rates were at 50 percent of actual eligible costs. It is anticipated that in 1982 the max- imum allowable reimbursement rate will be 15 percent. 2. The authority for municipalities to special levy (beyond the normal levy limits) for costs associated with shade tree disease control was extended for another two years during the regular session of the Legislature. However, the special session may have revoked this authority. There is some confusion on this matter, but the Department of Agriculture will advise us as soon as they have clarifi- cation. 3. As of January 1, 1982, municipalities in the seven county metropolitan area will no longer be required to operate a shade tree disease control program. They may continue to do so if they so choose, but they are no longer under a statutory obligation to do so. The notice from the state asked that the city do two things; review our control program and determine any changes we may wish to make to better utilize the available dollars and to qualify under the up -dated definitions; secondly, we are to take any proposed changes in the program to our city council for approval. With that Council Letter No. 241 -2- July 13, 1981 in mind, the staff prepared various recommendations which were reviewed and discussed at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting of July 7, 1981. The Park and Recreation Commission also serves in the capacity of the Reforestation Advisory Committee, which is re- quired in order for the city to be eligible for the State Shade Tree grant -in -aid assistance. This meeting resulted in the following policies recommended by the staff and the Park and Recreation Commission for city council approval: 1. The definition of a boulevard tree, i.e., a tree that would have the city assuming responsibility for mainten- ance and removal if necessary, shall be that it is a city. boulevard tree when it can be touched at Dbh (diameter breast height or approximately 48" above ground level) when measured from back of curb to city easement line. (Note: this is the same definition used by the county.) 2. A private resident may plant on boulevards at the resi- dent's expense, if the planting is approved by the city staff as to species and location. The city would take re- sponsibility for such trees planted on the boulevard by a resident in terms of maintenance and, if necessary, removal. 3. The keeping of any kind of bark - intact diseased wood shall not be allowed. Should illegally stored wood, such as may be in a firewood pile, be identified by city officials, the removal and disposal of same shall be at the resident's expense. 4. Subsidy reimbursements to private owner residents shall be reduced from the current 50 %, not to exceed $100 per tree, to 250, not to exceed $50 per tree, for 1981; for 1SU"2, subsidy reimbursements shall not exceed the percen- tage of reimbursement provided to the city by the state. 5. The private owner resident shall no longer have the option in lieu of the subsidy, to have city staff and equipment pickup and dispose of diseased trees. (The basis for recommending that this option be eliminated is that state funding is being reduced for work that, through this option, continues to become more expensive)' When this option was originally offered, the city used a disposal site in Bloomington. When that site was closed to us, the city began using a site in Prior Lake. It now appears that this site is also closed to us. The next closest disposal site would be in Maple Grove or Minnetrista. Dumping costs continue to escalate and the distance to haul debris is becoming greater. These factors contribute to further increasing costs for manpower and equipment. It is typical that, when a resident selects this option, there is a large quantity of wood to be picked up, requir- ing several trips per tree to the disposal site, and making Council Letter No. 241 -3- July 13, 1981 the city's cost more than $100. In addition to the increased costs associated with this option and the de- creased state reimbursement, the devoting of manpower and equipment to this pick -up program forces delay of other maintenance activities in the city. 6. The present policy which provides_ :that all city boulevard trees shall be trimmed once every seven years shall be amended to a ten -year program. The systematic approach to tree trimming shall continue, with the only exception to the systematic approach to be on an emergency basis. 7. The reforestation program, funded through the special revenue fund as part of the annual capital improvement budget, shall continue with an annual appropriation of $45,000. 8. The priority schedule of planting for this reforestation program shall be as follows: A. 10 -25% of the trees to be planted during a given year shall be for replacement and new plantings in public spaces such as parks. The variable shall de- pend on the circumstance of a given year, based on such factors as trees lost to storm damage. B. The remaining 75 -90% of the trees to be planted during a given year shall be planted according to the follow- ing priority schedule: 1) replace and provide new boulevard trees on the avenues, north /south, as per the current policy, which is one tree per lot unless there is an ex- ceptionally wide lot; i.e. duplex lot, corner lot, etc, that at the discretion of the city forestor can support more than one tree while maintaining the policy of a 40' minimum spacing between boule- vard trees insomuch as possible and a minimum 20' distance from a corner or intersection insomuch as as possible. Such planting shall be dependent upon prior notification to the resident of the in- tent to plant on the boulevard, and with acceptance by the resident of such proposed planting. 2) Should the needs and desires of priority schedule 1) listed above to be met and trees are still available, boulevard trees would be placed on streets, east /west, on a request basis as per the policy in priority schedule 1) with preference to homes fronting on a street, secondly to homes with a side facing to the street. 3) Should the needs and desires of priority schedules 1) and 2) listed above be met, and trees are still available, requests for trees to be planted on the boulevards of county roads would be honored if Council Letter No. 241 -4- July 13, 1981 easements and other factors such as utility placements, make such planting possible. 4) Should the needs and desires of priority schedules 1), 2) and 3) listed above be met, and trees are still available, a systematic system of planting boulevard trees on the streets, east /west shall be initiated and executed as outlined for the avenues, north /south in priority schedule 1). 9. The city shall maintain a shade tree program policy in 1982 as relates to disease control whether or not the state man- dates a statutory obligation for disease control. 10. The above described policies 1 -9 shall become effective July 1, 1981. It is recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1. Approve the forestry policies as outlined above. 2. Approve the attached resolution, endorsing application and participation in the 1981 Shade Tree Program. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ENDORSING CITY OF RICHFIELD APPLICATION AND PARTICIPATION IN THE 1981 SHADE TREE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota provides for the making of grants through state legislation, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield appears to be eligible for participation in such grant programs through the 1981 Sanitation/ Reforestation Grant -In -Aid program, and WHEREAS, every effort is being made to have the City of Richfield disease control program at least as stringent as the minimum requirements as spelled out in Minnesota Code of Agency Rules 1.0109 through 1.0113, and WHEREAS, the city of Richfield adopted various shade tree program policies determined to be in the best interests of the community and pursuant to the State of Minnesota Shade Tree Program, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield that endorsement is hereby made for application and participation in the 1981 Shade Tree Program. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of July, 1981. Donald Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 240 Agenda July 13, 1981 The- Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: CP 705 Special Assessments There is an item scheduled on the July 13, 1981 city council agenda providing for council review and adoption of Findings of Fact related to CP special assessments for those properties owned by Gordon Strom. A copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Order for Assessment for these special assessments is attached to this council letter. It is recommended that the city council adopt the Find- ings of Fact, Conclusions, and Order for Special Assessments for these properties. The council should also adopt the resol- ution establishing the assessments, and the assessment roll, which are also attached. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Development Director Administrative Services Director City Engineer Finance Coordinator BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA In the Matter of Special Assessments ) by the City of Richfield for Project ) CP -705; Parcels No. 27 -23 -004, 0069, ) and 0070 ) NOTICE TO: Mr. Bryce Huemoeller, Attorney for Gordon E. and Elaine Strom PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield on July 13, 1981, the Richfield City Council will consider the adoption of Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Order for Assessment for the above - referenced parcels. LEFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ, A Professional Association 1 0 Charles L. LeFevere Attorneys for the City of Richfield 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 333 -0543 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In the Matter of Special ) Assessments by the City of ) FINDINGS OF FACT, Richfield for Project CP -705; ) CONCLUSIONS, AND Parcel 27 -23 -0004, 0069, 0070 ) ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - — — The above - entitled matter came on for hearing pursuant to due and regular notice before the City Council on September 22, 1981. The hearing of September 22, 1980, was adjourned, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §429.061, Subd. 2 (1980) until October 6, 1980, February 2, 1981, February 3, 1981, February 17, and was com- pleted as to the subject parcel on February 23, 1981. Upon petition by the landowner, the hearing was reopened for the receipt of additional testimony and evidence. The reopened hearing was held and completed on June 8, 1981. The landowner was present at the hearings and was represented by counsel; the landowner had the right and opportunity to cross - examine city witnesses, to present oral or written evidence, and to raise all relevant issues or defenses. The city staff testified as did consultant expert witnesses on the ways in which the property being assessed is benefited by the improvements for which assess- ments are proposed and on the value of said property, both before and after said improvement. All testimony on behalf of the City was under oath or affirmation and subject to cross - examination. The proceedings were transcribed by a court reporter and heard by the City Council. The landowners were informed that the record of the proceeding was to remain open for 30 days from the close of the hearing as to each parcel for the receipt of additional written evidence; that the Council would receive for considera- tion petitions to reopen proceedings or to extend time limita- tions filed within 45 days of the close of said hearing; and that the Council would receive and consider briefs and proposed Findings, Conclusions and Orders filed within 60 days of the close of said hearing. The city staff was represented by John E. Drawz, Esq., and Charles L. LeFevere, Esq., Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Council was advised by Clayton L. LeFevere, Esq., the City Attorney and John B. Dean, the Assistant City Attorney. The owners of the subject parcel, Gordon E. and Elaine Strom, were represented by Paul H. Thomsen, Esq., and Bryce D. Huemoeller, both of Prior Lake, Minnesota. Having heard the evi- dence and the arguments of counsel for both parties, and reviewed all proceedings, pleadings, and documents of record herein, and being fully advised in the premises, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota, makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Order for Assessment, all on the basis of the record herein: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The assessment which is the subject of these proceed- ings is for the financing of a portion of the costs of City Project (CP) 705. This Project includes a number of public improvements, undertaken, or to be undertaken, by the City in conjunction with the Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Project in the City. The assessment area boundary is the same as the project boundary the LHN Redevelopment Project. The primary purpose of CP -705 is to improve the retail climate in the LHN Project Area. This is to be accomplished by increasing the capacity of area streets and intersections; widening and .... .... ... ___ realigning streets; improving pedestrian access to the commercial area; and other improvements designed to provide a retail image, a "theme shopping center" concept, to the area, such as land- scaping, improved sidewalk areas, crossings, bus shelters, and pedestrian plazas. 2. The estimated cost of the improvements being financed is $9,280,818.00 of which $1,900,142.32 is proposed to be assessed against benefited properties. 3. The formula for determining special assessments for this project is a square footage formula in which each property in the assessment area was assessed at the rate of $0.52 per square foot. 2 4. The parcels subject to special assessment included Parcels 27 -23 -0004, 0069 and 0070, the addresses of which are 6532, 6534, 6538, 6500 and 6520 Lyndale Avenue South. .5. Applying the above - described formula to the subject parcel, the resulting proposed special assessment was determined by the City Engineer to be $45,892.15. 6. The assessment hearing was commenced pursuant to due and regular notice on September 22, 1980. All proposed assess- ments to which no objection was made were adopted by the Council on September 22, 1980, by Resolution Number 6315. The hearings - - were continued, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §429.061, Subd. 2, from ". time to time, as necessary, to complete hearings on all parcels as to which objections were raised at the hearing of September 22, 1980. 7. Mr. and Mrs. Strom appeared and, through counsel, cross - examined the City's witnesses. Testimony was offered by tenants of the Stroms that business had not increased as a result of the improvements. The Stroms offered testimony of an appraiser, Mr. Maynard C. Rasmussen, whose testimony was to the effect that the property had not benefited by the improvements. However, the appraiser had not prepared a formal appraisal report; he had evaluated no comparable sales, and he had no opinion on the value of the property either before or after the improvements. Furthermore, he had no knowledge of the nature of the improvements for which assessments were being levied and based his opinion on the assumption that the improvements along Lyndale Avenue had been completed when, in fact, most of them have not. Mr. Strom, who claimed no expertise in the valuation of property, testified that he could see no benefit from the improvements. 8. The subject parcel is located at 6500 to 6538 Lyndale Avenue South at the southwest corner of Lyndale Avenue and West 65th Street. The property is improved with four freestanding commercial buildings, including a Wendy's Restaurant, Kenny's Motorcycle and Coit Drapery, together with other such improve- ments as a bituminous parking lot, building foundations and a 3 well. Planned improvements which specifically benefit these properties include the following: a) Improvements specially benefiting Parcel No. 27 -23 -0004 include the following: Adjacent to the property will be a pedestrian crossing --from the east side of Lyndale to the west side immediately adjacent to this property. This mid block crossing connects this prop- erty to the K -Mart area and the mid block walk to the Hub Shopping Center. The inter- " "` - connecting walk tying land uses together was a recommendation of the economic consultant to increase the market potential of the scattered land uses. The crossing is a part of the mid block sidewalk system running from east of Nicollet Avenue to west of Lyndale Avenue. Also adjacent to the property will be a pedestrian plaza, new concrete curb cuts, curb returns, and driveways open to the property, a new 8 foot wide concrete side - walk, landscaping and sodding. Across Lyndale Avenue from the property (accessable by the intersection crosswalk and mid block crosswalk) will be a bus turn -out lane, bus shelter, large pedestrian plaza with seating, civic marker, landscaping, and lighting. The plaza is designed to improve the shopping environment and shopping image of the Lyndale Avenue area and was built on property acquired for park purposes. Improvements on Lyndale Avenue in the 6500 block include new decorative street lighting, landscape sprinkling system, landscaping, sodding, trees, and street widening. At the 66th Street intersection improvements include new crosswalks, a protected raised lefthand turn lane, new traffic control signals, a widening of 66th Street, new concrete curb, and new pedestrian areas on each corner of 66th Street. Improvements at the 65th Street intersection include protected left turn lanes, new traffic control signals, pedes- trian crosswalks, small plaza areas, and landscaping areas. b) Improvements specially benefiting Parcel No. 27 -23 -0069 include adjacent improvements on 65th Street and Lyndale Avenue which include three curb cuts, curb returns and concrete aprons, an 8 foot concrete sidewalk on Lyndale Avenue, concrete snow storage curb on 65th Street, and landscaping. Improvements adjacent to the property at the intersection of Lyndale and 65th Avenue include protected turning lanes on Lyndale Avenue, new pedes- trian crossing on Lyndale and on 65th Street, new traffic control signals, a catch basin and storm sewer connector at the south side of 65th Street and the middle of Lyndale Avenue. Improvements along Lyndale Avenue include widening the street, a raised median, decorative street lights, landscape. irriga- tion, 8 foot sidewalks, landscaping, and traffic control signals. Improvements along 65th Street include landscaping, decorative street lighting, a new 42 inch storm sewer, --- - - - - -- -- -- extra wide snow storage curb, and traffic control signs. C) Improvements specially benefiting Parcel No. 27 -23 -0070 include the following: Improve- 4 4* tc- :Fsauvee >- �'Yri':.:if 3.�<i_•i. :� >+'�-� ments adjacent and along 65th Street include landscaping, extra width snow storage curb apron, new concrete curb cut, curb return, and apron, and landscape irrigation system. Improvements adjacent to the property along Lyndale Avenue include an 8 foot wide con- crete sidewalk, a new concrete curb cut, curb — return, and driveway apron, and landscaping. Improvements along 65th Street and the 65th and Lyndale intersection and improvements along Lyndale Avenue and the Lyndale and 66th Street intersection are the same as those - listed above. 9. ments is 10. ments is 11. The value of the subject property before the improve - $539,000. The value of the subject property after the improve - $603,000. The special benefit to the subject property is $64,000. CONCLUSIONS - 1. The proceedings involved in this special assessment have been, in all respects, lawful and proper. 2. The improvements financed by special assessment are proper improvements to be so financed as provided by Minn. Stat. Ch. 429. 3. The formula proposed for determining assessments is fair, reasonable, and lawful. 4. The proposed assessment on the subject parcel for.the construction of the above - described improvements is exceeded by the special benefit therefor in the amount of $18,107.85. 5. The special assessment hereinafter ordered is not arbi- trary, capricious, or unreasonable and does not constitute a taking of property without due process of law. 6. The objections raised by Mr. and Mrs. Strom, by their counsel, and by tenants of the subject parcels were duly noted by the Council. ORDER A special assessment for Richfield Project CP -705 is hereby levied against Parcel 27 -23 -0004 in the amount of $14,015.14, 5 against Parcel 27 -23 -0069 in the amount of $12,508.85, and against Parcel 27 -23 -0070 in the amount of $19,368.16, all in accordance with the attached Resolution which is hereby adopted and made a part of this Order. Adopted by the Richfield City Council this day of 1981, the following members voting in favor thereof: and the following against: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 6 :��,..•,�.; --:iK„ :rte;. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT 705 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the city clerk has, with the assistance of the city engineer, calculated the proper amounts to be assessed for the L /H /N Public Improvement Project, City Project 705, against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land specially benefited thereby in accordance with the provisions of law, and the proposed assessment so made up was filed with the city clerk for more than 15 days prior to the assessment hearing and was open to public inspection during said period. 2. That notice has been duly published and a public hearing heretofore duly held as required by law so that this council could meet and pass upon the proposed assessment. 3. That an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessment or to any item thereof at said public hearing. 4. That the city council has heretofore duly established Cit, Project No. 705 and after carefully considering all the facts, the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and fully advising itself in the premises, has found and determined and hereby declares that each and every lot, piece, or parcel of land included in said proposed assessment roll was improved by reason of the construction of said City Project No. 705 and has been and is specially benefited in the amount set out in the attached, amended assessment roll opposite each such lot, piece or parcel of land. 5. The sums fixed and named in said attached assessment roll are affirmed, adopted and confirmed as the proper special assess- ment for each of said lots, pieces, or parcels of land therein described. 6. Said assessment is hereby affirmed, adopted, confirmed, and shall be certified by the city clerk and filed in the office of the city clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute a special assessment for said City Project No. 705, L /H /N Public Improvement Project. 7. The assessment with accruing interest, shall be a lien upon the property included therein, concurrent with general taxes and shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable on the first Monday in January of 1982. All assessments shall bear interest at the rate of nine (9) percent per annum. I 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 day of , 1981. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Deputy City Clerk Donald J. Priebe, Mayor C.P. 705 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL PROPERTY Parcels 27- 028 -24 -23 -004 27- 028 -24 -23 -0069 ._ -OWNER Gordon Strom Elaine Strom Gordon Strom AMOUNT $14,015.14 $12,508.85 $19,368.16 ¢' I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 239 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and 1� Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Donation to the City by the Richfield Lions Club At the July 13, 1981 city council meeting, Mr. Gil Gerald, President of the Richfield Lions Club, will be present to make a donation to the City of Richfield from the annual Lion's Club pancake breakfast which was held in April of this year at the Richfield Community Center. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 238 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Contract for Alley Paving C.P. 734 On Friday, June 26, 1981, bids were opened for Alley Paving, C P. 734. The Acting City Clerk, a representative from the City Manager's office, the Community Development Director, and the City Engineer were present at the bid opening. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. Bids were solicited for both resurfacing of the alleys with either concrete or bituminous. The engineer's cost estimate for concrete resurfacing was $240,000; for bituminous, $190,000. The low bid for the concrete alternative was $167,499.00, submitted by Arrcon Construction Company. The low bid for the bituminous alternative was $149,279.30, submitted by Barber Construction Company. In reviewing the alternates between concrete and bituminous (asphalt) the concrete is only 12.2 o more than the bituminous. The cost for bituminous which was used is an estimate for calculating the special assessment rates at the preliminary public hearings. A concrete surface would last, with virtually no repairs needed, for at least 30 years. Concrete can be formed to provide a slight "V" shape in the center, which greatly aids drainage. Furthermore, concrete is almost indestructable, regardless of heavy traffic, oil and gas spills, etc., which threaten bituminous alley surfaces. In addition, bituminous surfacing needs sealcoating every seven to eight years, which creates an on -going maintenance requirement. Lastly, the drainage characteristics of asphalt are inferior to those of concrete. A detailed presentation describing the cost impact of the project on property owners who be assessed for this project will be made to the council at the July 13, 1981 city council meeting. With the concrete alternative being the most cost effective over the life of the alley, ORR- Schelen- Mayeron and Associates, Inc., consulting engineers for the project, recommends the project be awarded to Arcon Construction Company, Inc. on the concrete alternate in the amount of $167,499.00. Council Letter No. 238 -2- July 13, 1981 The staff concurs with this judgement that concrete will provide a longer lasting and more maintenance -free surface than bituminous pavement. Therefore, the city staff recommends that the city council take the following actions: 1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations. 2. Award a contract to Arcon Construction Company, Inc. of Mora, Minnesota for the concrete alley paving and appurtenant work. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Community Development Director City Engineer ALLEY IMPROVEMENT COST COMPARISON (Based on Actual Bids) TOTAL PRE - PAYMENT 1916.53 815.40 Assumptions: 60 30 20 8° 0 7° 0 1682.57 915.00 Ft. lot year alley life year assessment roll interest annual cost increase ASPHALT CONCRETE •1981 106.00 118.95 $ $ T982 102.74 114.29 1983 99.48 111.63 1984 96.22 107.97 1985 92.96 104.31 1986 89.69 100.65 1987 86.43 96.99 1988 93.90 93.33 1989 90.09 89.70 1990 86.28 86.01 1991 82.47 82.35 1992 78.65 78.69 1993 74.84 75.03 1994 71.03 71.37 1995 77.59 67.71 1996 73.45 63.99 1997 69.30 60.39 t"ar1998 65.15 56.73 1999 61.00 53.07 2000 .56.86 49.41 2001 11.92 NO COST 2002 27.68 2003 26.26 2004 24.84 2005 23.42 2006 22.00 2007 20.58 2008 19.18 2009 44.40 2010 42.12 TOTAL PRE - PAYMENT 1916.53 815.40 Assumptions: 60 30 20 8° 0 7° 0 1682.57 915.00 Ft. lot year alley life year assessment roll interest annual cost increase RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID C.P. 734 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of the following alleys: Between 3rd and Clinton Avenue Lyndale and Aldrich Avenues First and Stevens Avenues Garfield and Harriet Avenues 2nd and 3rd Avenues Oliver and Newton Avenue 65th and 66th Streets 65th and 66th Streets Washburn and Xerxes Avenues Clinton and 3rd Avenue Stevens and 2nd Avenue Nicollet and First Avenue From To 73rd Street 74th Street 75th Street 76th Street 71st Street 72nd Street 73rd Street 305 ft. south 71st Street 73rd Street 63rd Street 470 ft. south 22nd Avenue Standish Avenue 13th Avenue 14th Avenue 66th Street 67th Street 66th Street 67th Street 71st Street 72nd Street 71st Street 72nd Street Bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law; and WHEREAS, it appears that Arcon Construction of Mora, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Arcon Construction of Mora, Minnesota in the name of the City of Richfield for such improvement accord- ing to plans and specifications therefore approved by the city council. 2. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted by the city council this 13th day of July, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening June 26, 1981 Alley Paving City Project No. 734 Pursuant to the requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Joyce Wilde, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open, and read aloud, sealed bids for C.P. 734, Alley Construction, as advertised in the official newspaper on June 3, and June 10, 1981. Present: Joyce Wilde, Acting City Clerk Steve Devich, City Managers Office Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director Michael Eastling, City Engineer The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY CONCRETE TOTAL BID Arcon, Inc., B.B. 5% $167,499.00 Minn. State Curb & Gutter & Fisher, B.B. 5% 180,600.00 Progressive Contractors, Inc., B.B. 5% 186,610.60 Concrete Curb Co., B.B. 5% 187,010.80 Victor Carlson & Sons Inc., B.B. 5% 199,828.00 BIDDER AND BID SECURITY BITUMINOUS TOTAL BID Barber Construction, B.B. 5% $149,279.30 Bituminous Roadways, B.B. 5% 152,539.10 Hardrives, Inc., B.B. 5% 160,914.00 Arcon, Inc., B.B. 5% 181,591.00 C. S. McCrossan, B.B. 5% 195,731.00 The Assistant City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of July 13, 1981. Joyce Wilde, Acting City Clerk July 10, 1981 Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 RE: Alley Paving Gentlemen: My home is located at 7321 Garfield Avenue South and my alley is one of those to be paved. I want to take this opportunity to indicate that my preference would be concrete paving rather than asphalt. My neighbor, Mrs. William Martineau at 7320 Harriet Avenue South wanted me to tell you that she also favors concrete. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Howard D. Brenner ALLEY IMPROVEMENT COST COMPARISON (Based on Actual Bids) TOTAL PRE - PAYMENT 1916.53 815.40 1682.57 915.00 Assumptions: 60 Ft. lot 30 year alley life 20 year assessment roll 8% interest 7% annual cost increase ASPHALT CONCRETE f41981 $ 106.00 $ 118.95 1982 102.74 114.29 1983 99.48 111.63 1984 96.22 107.97 1985 92.96 104.31 1986 89.69 100.65 1987 86.43 96.99 1988 93.90 93.33 1989 90.09 89.70 1990 86.28 86.01 1991 82.47 82.35 1992 78.65 78.69 1993 74.84 75.03 1994 71.03 71.37 1995 77.59 67.71 1996 73.45 63.99 1997 69.30 60.39 - -1998 65.15 56.73 1999 61.00 53.07 2000 56.86 49.41 2001 11.92 NO COST 2002 27.68 2003 26.26 2004 24.84 2005 23.42 2006 22.00 2007 20.58 2008 19.13 2009 44.40 2010 42.12 TOTAL PRE - PAYMENT 1916.53 815.40 1682.57 915.00 Assumptions: 60 Ft. lot 30 year alley life 20 year assessment roll 8% interest 7% annual cost increase CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 237 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Contract for Sidewalk Construction C.P. 727 On Friday, June 26, 1981, bids were opened for the 1981 Sidewalk Construction project, C.P. 727. The Acting City Clerk, a representative from the City Manager's office, the Community Development Director, and the City Engineer were present at the bid opening. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. Nine bids were received. These bids have been reviewed by the city staff and it is recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations. 2. Award a contract to Arcon Construction of Mora, Minneosta for 1981 Sidewalk Construction and Appurtenant Work, in the amount of $138,531.30. The engineer's estimate for sidewalk construction work was $175,521, which resulted in an estimated cost per lineal foot of $15.51. The actual bid reduced the cost per lineal foot to $12.24. Respectfully submitted, 1 Karl Nollenberger City Manager. KN /sh cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Engineer City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening June 26, 1981 Sidewalk Construction City Project No. 727 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Joyce L. Wilde, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Sidewalk Construction as advertised in the official newspaper on June 3 and 10, 1981. Present: Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director Steven Devich, City Manager's Designee Michael Eastling, City Engineer Joyce L. Wilde, Acting City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY TOTAL BID Arcon Construction B.B. 5% $138,531.30 _ Adcon, Inc. B.B. 5% 148,698.00 Minnesota State Curb & gutter B.B. 5% 148,765.50 E. F. Lencowski B.B. 5% 149,835.90 Progressive Contractors Inc. B.B. 5% 1512599.05 Concrete Curb Co. B.B. 5% 152,374.30 Halvorson Construction B.B. 5% 158,939.74 Victor Carlson & Sons B.B. 5% 165,416.00 Gunderson Brothers B.B. 5% 168,537.90 The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of July 13, 1981. Joyce L. Wilde Acting City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID C.P. 727 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of the north side of 76th Street from Portland Avenue to Cedar Avenue, Penn Avenue from Crosstown 62 to I -494 (except 65th to 67th), the east side of Nicollet Avenue from Crosstown 62, south 700 feet, Nicollet Park, Stevens Avenue to Nicollet Avenue on north side adjacent to Crosstown 62, Little Bob's Park, 67th Street and Harriet /Garfield Avenues, 66th Street - north side - Nicollet Avenue to Pillsbury Avenue, by sidewalk construction, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law; and - WHEREAS, it appears that Arcon Construction of Mora, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Arcon Construction of Mora, Minnesota in the name of the City of Richfield for such improvement accord- ing to plans and specifications therefore approved by the city council. 2. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted by the city council this 13th day of July, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 236 Agenda July 13, 1981: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Authorization to Purchase Easement Area, C.P. 705 -3 Recently, Hennepin County and the contractor for C.P. 705 -3, Progressive Contractors, Inc.,undertook survey work preparatory to construction of the 66th Street improvements. During the survey work, it was discovered that the original plat for 66th Street was incorrect, in that the distance from the center line to the right -of -way line was 28.9 feet rather than the 33 feet shown on the plat map near Lyndale Avenue. The loss of four feet means that sufficient space is not available to install a bus shelter, traffic signal control box, and an NSP transformer within the public right -of -way, as provided for in the project. To install the improvements as planned, it is necessary to obtain an additional permanent easement area from the S & M Company which owns Lyndale Hardware. The additional area measures 65 feet by four feet, or 260 square feet. Our appraiser has indicated that the minimum value for the easement would be $7.05 per square foot or $1,950. Mr. Sieff, President of S & M Company, has agreed to sell the additional area for $1,500. We requested that the property owner donate this land to the city but were unsuccessful in that request. The actual purchase price of $1,500 results in a cost per square foot of $5.77. In addion, the staff was successful in convincing the property owner to donate $500 of that settlement to the civic sculpture project which will decrease the city's final obligation to that project. The net cost to the city is thus reduced to $3.85 per square foot. This compares to the $4.60 per square foot that we sold the property to S & M Company for in August of 1980. Council Letter No. 236 -2- July 13, 1981 It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing purchase of the easement area for $1,500. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City _' anaaer KN /sh cc: Community Development Director.- City Engineer RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF PERPETUAL EASEMENTS, WEST 66TH STREET WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council (City) desires to make certain improvements to West 66th Street in the area of the LHN Redevelopment Project; and, WHEREAS, these improvements will provide for increased pedestrian and motor vehicular safety as well as enhancement of the visual image of the area; and, WHEREAS, the improvements will provide expanded roadway areas to accomodate medians and turning lanes and for the installation of landscape elements such as sidewalks, plant materials and street furniture; and, WHEREAS, to install these improvements it is necessary to acquire additional land from private property owners; and, WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals of the affected property to be made,-has carefully considered such appraisals, and believes the work of such appraisers was performed in a competent manner and in accordance with applicable law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD: 1. That it is necessary to acquire permanent easements over, under and across the following described areas with Just Compensation set as indicated. Easement Area $1,500 Lot 19, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof. The easement is described as follows: That part of said Lot 19, lying between the following described line and a line parallel therewith and 4 feet Southerly there- from: commencing at a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 19 distant 35.0 feet Southerly from the Westerly extension of the Northerly line of said Lot 19, as measured at right angles to said Westerly extension; thence Easterly to a point on the Easterly line of said Lot 19 lying 40.0 feet Southerly from the Northerly line of said Lot 19, as measured at right angles to said Northerly line and there terminating, and also lying Easterly of the following described line, a line parallel there- with and 65.0 feet Westerly from the Easterly line of said Lot 19. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are directed to enter into a purchase agreement for $1,500 for the easement area. 3. The City Manager and City Attorney are directed to complete the purchase process. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of July, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk #;7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 235 July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Chicago Avenue Sidewalk Construction At the June 22, 1981 council meeting the council scheduled a public hearing for July 13, 1981 on the proposed sidewalk construction on the east side of Chicago Avenue for the first 317 feet north of 77th Street. If the council should order this project, it is feasible to include it as an addition - change order to C.P. 727, the 1981 sidewalk construction project. As part of the general conditions in the specifications for C.P. 727 it states: "The City reserves the right to increase or decrease the quantity of the work originally contemplated in the contract. Regardless of the final scope of the contract, payment to the contractor will be made on the basis of unit prices in the contract., At the close of public hearing, it is recommended that the council pass the attached resolution, ordering the project and its inclusion as part of the C.P. 727 contract. Respectfully submitted, l AI �L:.-I -C k Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Engineer TO: Richfield City Council DATE: July 13, 1981 SUBJECT: Notice of Public Hearing July 13, 1981 at 7:00 P.M. in City Hall REFERENCE: Construction of 317 feet of five foot wide Sidewalk on the east side of Chicago Avenue, north of 77th Street House of Prayer Lutheran Church, 7625 Chicago Avenue South, responds in this written document to the July 1, 1981, Notice of Public Hearing concerning the above mentioned sidewalk. We bring to your consideration the following: 1. The sidewalk would be constructed almost entirely for the benefit of the residents at Richfield Towers. They have requested to our church officials the construction of this sidewalk so as to connect the existing portions that presently run on the east side of Chicago Avenue at the Richfield Towers and adjacent to the church parking lot (see diagram). 2. The Richfield Towers was a cooperative project of four groups: (1) Knutson Corporation; (2) City of Richfield; (3) HUD; (4) House of Prayer Church. The request for this sidewalk is made only because of the construction of Richfield Towers, which is not owned by House of Prayer Church. 3. The church already has a sidewalk serving this area near and parallel to the church building, and would not other- wise request this additional sidewalk along Chicago Avenue, except at the request from Richfield Towers residents. 4. The church believes the City should construct this sidewalk for the safety of Richfield Towers residents, especially in the winter when walking conditions on the street are hazardous. THEREFORE, we propose a slight change in the assessment notice sent to us by Sylvia Bergh, city clerk, July 1, 1981, and believe the following proposal would be a fair cooperative venture in keeping with the original cooperation needed for the construction of Richfield Towers. (continued) n 0 c n 0 c n Richfield City Council Page 2 Notice of Public Hearing July 13, 1981 Construction of 317' of 5' wide Sidewalk, E. side of Chicago, N. of 77th St. CHURCH PROPOSAL: The estimated cost of this improvement at $4,755.00 be paid cooperatively in special assessments by the church, Richfield Towers and the City, divided as follows: City of Richfield 50% _ $2,377.50 House of Prayer 25% _ $1,188.75 Richfield Towers 25% _ $1,188.75 4 - OR - ALTERNATE PROPOSAL: If it is decided that Richfield Towers cannot be included in a cooperative assessment, we then propose that the City of Richfield pay 75% and House of Prayer 25% of the cost for this project, for the same reasons as mentioned above. Please give these revised cooperative proposals your careful and total consideration. We appreciate your interest in this project. DiAnn Dougherty, Church ffoard Pre dent J n M. Chell, Senior Pastor N 76th Street parking lot House of Prayer Church 77th Street t� w 0 rt C G E m ate► Proposed Sidewalk - - -�• Present Sidewalk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, a certain petition requesting the improvement of the east side of Chicago Avenue, the first 317 feet north of 77th Street by sidewalk construction, was duly presented to the council on the 22nd of June, 1981; and WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 22nd day of June, 1981, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvement; 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 13th day of July, 1981, 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 22nd day of June, 1981. 2. That is feasible to include this construction as part of C.P. 727, payment to the contractor will be made on the basis of unit prices stated in the contract. 3. That the City Engineer prepare and submit the plans and specification for this project as an Addition - Change Order for C.P. 727. Adopted by the council this 13th day of July, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk it 2 2-clo CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNEOSTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 234 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Contract for Aldrich Avenue Cul -de -sac Construction C.P. 768 On Monday, June 29, 3.981, bids were opened for the construction of the Aldrich Avenue Cut -de -sac, C.P. 768. The Assistant City Manager, the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the City Clerk were present at the bid opening. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. Five bids were received. These bids have been reviewed by the city staff and it is recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations. 2. Award a contract to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. of Shakopee, Minnesota for the Aldrich Cul -de -sac construction and appurtenant work, in the amount of $11,181.95. Respectfully submitted, XQ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Community Development Director City Engineer Community Services Director City Clerk -,ljoTO XITD tISJOI • ?I eTAIXS '1861 `8T Xlnr 3o 2Vpaatu TTounoo AlTo zeTn2a.a aqa le paaapzsuoo pue poluTngei aq p1noM spiq atl:l :Ietla paounouue �Iaojo AiTo aqs 81'895'8T %S 'q,q •00 )9 uosutlOr 'Z 'H oo'ZSZ 9T %9 .g.g 'ouI `sanizpIVH 0o'Z85 ST M .q *q uoTionalsuo0 jagzeg OZ'T9L i7T %9 .g.g -ouI `SjVIJajeyl 2uzned llegdsy 96'T81 TI M .g.g •ouI `lTetldsy lsamglJON QIg gViol 2ZIUnDHS QIg QNV UaGGIg :pnOTe peat pue pallTwgns aaaM spzq 2UTMOTTo3 aqy -iIzaTO XITO `112aag •x einTXS aaaui2ug AIz0 `2uilseg TaegOTN zoloazzQ juatudOTanaQ CgTunwwoo `Beam sZuuaQ JaSPUUXI Xgi0 que4slssy 'apTTM •I aofor :quasaad 'T86T "7Z Pue LT aunt uo zadedsm@u Tez01330 0111 uz paSTIJOnpe se uozjonalsuo0 oes- @P-Tn0 zo3 spzq paTeas I;pnOTe peal pue uado 'aniaoa.a 01 sum 2uzgaaw aqj 3o asodand aqj legi paounouue ol4m 'g2aag eznTlS �'PaTO [,ITO Aq PaTTeo seM 33VIS anzjezjszuzmpy aql 30 2uzlaaW e `STOT 'ON UOTInTosag 3o squawaiinbaa of quensand 89L 'ON 13aCOld AITO uozjonaisuo0 oes- ap -Tn0 1861 `6Z aunr 2uivado pTq Q'I3IJIi0IU 30 2�ZIO aoApW 'agaTad 'r PTpuoQ xaaTO AgTO 'gbaag •x PTATAS :ZSSSSv 'T86T 'ATnr go App ggBT STgq Tzounoo AgTo aqq Aq Pagdopv •paubzs uaaq ssq gopaguoo p TTqun pauzpgaa aq TTpgs aapptq gsaMOT gxau aqq pup aappzq Tn ;ssaoons aqq 90 sgzsodap aqq gpgq gdaoxa 'spzq azagq ggTm appuI sgzsodap aqq saaPPTq TTp Oq g4TMg4a0; uangaa oq pagoaazp pup pazzaoggnp Agaaag sz N19TO Agzo aqs -Z •Tzounoo Agzo aqq Aq panoaddp aaojaaagq suOT4POTgToads pup supTd Og butpao0op qu91Uanoaduit Bons jog pTazggDTU 90 AgzO aqq go auIpu aqq uT pgosauuTW 'aadoxpgS go •ouI 'gTpgdsV gsGmggaON ggTM gopaquoo p oquT aaqua oq pagoaazp pup pazzaoggnp Agaaaq aap NaOTO pup aOApw aqs 'T :pgosauUTW 'pTGTJgDTg 90 AgTO agq Jo Tzounoo Agzo aqq Aq QSAZOSSH ZI Sg '9H03SHSHZ 'MON •aappiq aTgzsuodsaa gsaMoT aqq sT pgosauuzW 'aadoxpgS go 'ouI 'gTpgdsV gsaMggaoN gpgq sapaddp qt 'SVSHHHM PUP !mPT og buzpa000p pagpTngpq pup 'uado 'paAZaoaa aaaM spzq lops- ap -Tno anuaAV gazapTV aqq Jo quaIUanoaduiT aqq jog spzq jog quaUIaszgaanpp up oq qupnsand 'SVSHSHM 89L 'd'O CIE ONIZdS00V NOIZIIZOSSH 'ON Noilagosau i r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 233 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Right -of -Way Vacation, Disposition of Public Property and Resubdivision at West 74th Street and Upton Avenue South Mr. Eric Lindholm is requesting that his application for a right -of -way vacation, disposition of public property and a resubdivision scheduled for council consideration on July 13, 1981 be deferred. Mr. Lindholm has indicated a need for more time for preparation of the transactions involving his application. A legal notice of this hearing was published in the Richfield Sun. Therefore, it is recommended that the council hear testimony of interested persons who may wish to appear at the July 13, 1981 meeting on this matter, and then continue the hearing to August 24, 1981. Respectfully submitted, �.� ,f Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Planner KN /sh ERIC N. LINDHOLM 7332 Upton Avenue So. Richfield, iin. 55+23 July 2, 1981 City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Mn. Attn: Thomas Mac Gibbon, Planning Office Dear Sir: On Monday July 13th, the City Council is scheduled to hear our petition to acquire property at 74th and Upton. The necessary legal and survey work cannot be completed by that time so we hereby request a postponement of that hearing until some future date as soon as this preliminary work can be completed. Very truly yo , k't=-� - Eric N. Lindholm NZ tF: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 232 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 6328 Aldrich Avenue South PRnPnSAT. Belle and Burt Rutman have entered into a provision agreement with Mr. Charles Adams to purchase a small vacant residential lot adjacent to the Lyndale Garden Center. They would like to relocate the two story single family residence currently on the garden center site to this lot. The PUD plan previously approved by the city council indicates that the dwelling will remain on the garden center site. The lot is outside of the L /H /N redevelopment project boundaries. The lot does not meet the city's minimum lot width. and lot area requirements. The Rutmans have applied for a variance to reduce the minimum lot width requirement from 75 feet to 45 feet, and to reduce the minimum lot area requirement from 8,000 square feet to 5,760 square feet. The site is zoned "R," single family residential. The zoning and use of the property to the north of the site is single family residential, and to the south is planned general commercial. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.30, subdivision 4 of the zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet and a lot width of 75 feet for lots in "R," single family residential districts. Section 3.39, subdivision 2, lists exceptions and modifications to the zoning ordinance requirements. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed the request against the three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted and found the following: 1. The parcel is outside of the redevelopment area and is not an officially platted lot. This parcel was not involved in either the city's or HRH's purchase of land from Adams. There are therefore no special circumstances affecting this property. Council Letter No. 232 -2- July 13, 1981 2. Denial of this application will preclude reasonable use of this property. There are no alternatives to developing this property for residential use except by granting the variances for lot width and lot area. 3. The use of this property for residential uses would not be injurious to persons in the neighborhood. From a land use standpoint, the location of the house on this lot is more preferrable than the previously approved location of the single family residence within the commercially zoned and used Lyndale Garden Center site. However, the lot is smaller than surrounding lots and could be considered to be a use contrary to community standards, which could adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Decause the three conditions for granting of a variance have not been met, the staff must recommend denial of this application. The city manager strongly recommends that the variance be granted. If the council approves this variance, it is recommended that the council also approve an amendment to the Lyndale Garden Center Final Development Plan, indicating that the house will no longer be located on the Garden Center site. Furthermore, the council should stipulate that Mr. Rutman furnish the city with a bond in the amount of $16,630, the estimated value of the maintenance and site work necessary to bring this dwelling into code compliance (list of work. to be done attached). The bond will be held by the city until such time as a final certificate of occupancy is issued from the city to parties of ownership. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that this request be denied. It is their feeling that this lot is too small for a single family dwelling and would not be in character with the surrounding neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, ucL� "N' Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Planner Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator I 04- - 7 244 11 Al ILI .0, cc cc� 10T Ae Ifg�i Iz, I h CIS zi c c c CC w 2 5-- ", 1 7- :B A U coo <2 I 04- - 7 244 11 Al ILI .0, cc cc� 10T Ae Ifg�i Iz, I h CIS TA zi TA f I t dl cc C4 0 (LLLLI ,�DL I F=-=W- -- 77 %L IT I to 0 I I %, t-L iis, Fg o ��cAt I cc - I 133V15 HLb7 fa VF� C-4 04 ri-1 Cc ac , Ul § e W1 ez -2 im oa 4 m g, f I t dl cc C4 0 (LLLLI ,�DL I F=-=W- -- 77 %L IT I to 0 I I %, t-L iis, Fg o ��cAt I cc - I 133V15 HLb7 fa VF� C-4 04 ri-1 I I C le7r; Q 'I, ._PVAA CH -zi'd'llWGb In - 19 umeja L77 igt 190 (7776,4 •ON •WWO3 .41004S 717.7,044 ;4.i.791111 1G04S 100101d 0oLZ•qt79(ZL9)•191 SOLSS ialosGmiW `fined IS -GAV GullugiuA Utrz NVANnt.4 ciaoi aima V, - ;4f .L` ! 1' •�. r l �O' ' : jai b. F..), yam. ._a °' t:� -- y •a - ' J c + r = IRL" .at ti. .,tt, x..41 � i {.4 ♦��SJ��LL a ��f'JV"_�f`Y _ _� . `A.4 lI.Y .a..s _ P � rL• f ''.� -,,.: Z y•�_ '-s• 4.: C. 411% is LL on- �t•a•� it a) a •- � e kkjig 4• f , -• •` IM _ '1- 4 UR'` WWI CL rD 11� 7 Ni� ` 1 tea, -,• °I M � a.f o s 40 . v S I " -f- 0 f 1 " u 0 c, c? 1 9 :�' l,, / t V aoloausul 40111D i ganx .,11_ •sauti x4aadoad 044 IE aaE aotnaas aQJUM puE aaMaS •pa ;Ewijsa aaE sIsoo ITV • sauax AUUM aoj awoq E axEw IIzM ;T palaidwoo 4auM at{; g4jhl •Eaau iuuiliTao ski oq algissod sE auau sr pa4Eool puE pauTu wTuui aq pinogs puE onTEn OTaoIszg Sul( ;T awog aapio uE sT ;T 4Vnoq ;IV •uoT4Tpuo3 aoiaa ;ui auTj ut 2utiiaMp Apan;s E si aanl3nals sTtU •digsaauMo jo sai4aud of X4p aq4 Xq ponssi si XouEdn000 and OzUu4da3oE IEUT.4 puu pa ;ajdwoo sz 04TS 4u xaoM anoqu iiu Ti ,4un awEs Xq plaq puE piaTjgziu 30 Xirj oq4 o4 pagsivan.4 aq IIEgs anion anogE aq4 ao.4 puoq V UU'U£9`9T / uoi;oadsul jo wawiaudaU woad s;Lwaad aanoas (GT) UU'OU£ uoi ;Epunoj jo uaaE ui aduospaul (8I) UU'ODU`I 401 pos puE apEaU (LI) WOOL apoo 04 04ETnsul (9T) UU'UU£ EuipuET puE da ;s ;uawasuq Mah (ST) 00'U09 wals,(s �uigwnid opuaf do puE ;oauuooau (VI) OU'UUS aoinaas aaluM mON (£i) UU'UUO`i sa;JaEgo DVS puE aaMas Mai (ZI) WWI (aoutw) as '4sETd aOTaa -4ut aiEdau (II) UU'OUI papaau sE EZOEJ puE anEa aTudau (UI) UO'OU9 duE UUT 'uiw - aoinaas ota40aia Mau IIEZsuI (G) UO'UO£ aa4Eaq as ;uM Mau IlEasul (8) UU'OUZ`i aouuanj Mau IIE4suI (L) UU'009 da4s puE doo4s IIE4suiab (9) UU'UUU`Z goaod 4uoaj TTE4suTos (S) UU'UU8`1 Euiiiamp Jooaaa puE jjo -auay (b) OU'UUS`i 4uiEdaa 13 pooh aaEq o; sTlEM aOTaO4Xa iTu aduaoS (£) OO'00£ aauii Mau puE auii .400a anogE Aauwigo .(uiau (Z) UU'UUU`V $ aooij puE ;uawasEq Mau IIE4sul (1) :pa -4aidwoo aq o4 swa ;l •sasodand algv ;lgEq aoj 2uziiamp age Xdn000 -oa o; Aouudn000 jo aa44ai E aniaoaa o4 pa4oldwoo aq o; paau TIiM pa:�sii su xaoM 04TS puE a3uEUa4U1E1U a01140 osTV 'aouEildwoo aoj paMatnaa aaOM saiouatoiJap apoo 2UIMOIIOJ agZ •S •anV goIaPIV 8Z£9 04 2u1110Mp stg4 2ULAOw 04 439dsaa q;Tm awoq uuw4nu aq4 jo apEw sum U0140odsul 'S •anV aTupuAJ ZiV9 - �utllama :au : uaaouo0 Al: 41 w01.01 OZ 1861 IS aunt r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 231 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Donation to the Wood Lake Nature,Center from Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 Over the past ten years, the Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 has donated many items to the Richfield Wood Lake Nature Center. Among these items are such things as: A boat and trailer, Wood Duck houses, workshop siding, books, two Canada goslings, brooder house, flag and flagpole, binoculars, and many cash donations that have been used for various needs of the Nature Center. In commemoration of the - Tenth Anniversary of the Nature Center, the VFW would like to present another donation to the center. Mem- bers representing the Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 will be present at the July 13, 1981 city council meeting to make this presentation. Respectfully submitted, U Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ ej a WOOD LAKE NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER 735 Lake Shore Drive • Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (612) 861 -4507 Ac o DONATIONS FROM THE VFW POST #5555 TO WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER co N _ Boat '73 ($110) � Trailer '74 ($250) ® l0 - Gas Welder '75 ($304) LA - Wood Duck houses (a - Siding -on Workshop '77 EW - Books on Wild flowers '80 ($75) (# Vol. Britton &Brown Illus. Flora) - Paper - from Cal Welch ■ N - Air Compressor '79 ($208) � - 12 Band Saw 77 - 2" Drill '77 ($40) - $200 to Handicap program '71 - 2 Canada goslings '71 - Grubs • o - Brooder house ' Z7 e' 71 r' �o evtir o - $300"76 76 • - 50 '76 (Materials for telescope mount) o - Flag and flagpole for auditorium '71 ($25) - Money for cross - country skis '74 L - $150 178 - Rattlesnake (eventually mounted with donation money) - Cedar Lumber '81 > - Sponsored children to Long Lake Conservation summer program - Binoculars - Petrified wood on stand 0 - Green Machine Weed whip i i O Q ■ it. O O c� telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Council Letter No. 230 Agenda July 13, 1981 Council Resolution of Appreciation for 4th of July Committee Members At the initiation of Council Member Howard Bunce, a citywide 4th of July celebration was held in 1980. After the first success- ful celebration, a committee comprised of Council Member Bunce, several city staff members and interested citizens and civic groups immediately began planning the activities for the 1981 4th of July Celebration. These hours of hard work culminated in another very successful celebration on July 4, 1981. An item has been placed on the-July -13,-1981 ca,ty council agenda to publicly thank the 4th of-July Committee for their efforts in this citywide celebration. The 4th of July Committee is comprised of the following members: Council Member Howard Bunce Paul Kaiser Carole Memmel Stu Swanson Don Cavitt Ethel Naslund Terrill Anderson Richfield Optimists Richfield American Legion Richfield Jaycee Men Frank White Robert Doeden JoAnn Wilmes Ronald Jelmo George Evans Michael Freeman Jerry Kamprud Richfield Band Boosters Richfield VFW Richfield Jaycee Women A resolution of appreciation is attached to this council letter for council action. Also attached to this council letter is a Resolution of Appreciation for those groups who under the coordination of Mr. Thomas Fairbairn, Cubmaster, Pack 392, voluntarily cleaned up Council Letter No. 230 -2- July 13, 1981 both Augsburg Park and the Richfield Ice Arena /Legion Lake area on Sunday, July 5, 1981. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /ej a RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION CLEAN UP CREWS WHEREAS, on July 4, 1981, the City of Richfield held a citywide 4th of July Celebration, with many activities at Augsburg Park and the Richfield Ice Arena, and co-�, WHEREAS, on Sunday, July 5, 1981,.$er -Scout Pack 384/337 Coe sponsored by Sheridan School;'Iy Scout Pack 392, sponsored by St. Richard's Catholic Church, Bey Scout 344, sponsored by House of Prayer Lutheran Church, Boy Scout Troop 443, sponsored by House of Prayer Lutheran Church, Brownie Troop 768, sponsored by Elliot School, and the Minnesota Valley Hammers Amateur Radio Club, did thoroughly clean up both these park areas of all trash and debris. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the City Council is most appreciative of this volunteer effort and does hereby extend its thanks and deep gratitude to these organizations for these efforts and does publicly commend them for their civic pride. Done at the City of Richfield this 13th day of July, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO 4TH OF JULY COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHEREAS, the second annual City of Richfield 4th of July Celebration was held on Saturday, July 4, 1981; and WHEREAS, this successful daylong celebration was the result of months of hard work by many persons who gave unstintingly of their time and talents; and WHEREAS, because of their efforts thousands of persons were able to enjoy a funfilled day of family activities in the City of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the'City Council of the City of Richfield that on behalf of the residents of the city and all of those who enjoyed the festivities on July 4, 1981, that the city council does hereby commend the 4th of July Committee Members and does offer them their sincere thanks and appreciation for this very successful citywide 4th of July Celebration. Passed by the City Council of the City'of Richfield this 13th day of July, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk :R 2. 4:: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Council Letter No. 229 Agenda July 13, 1981 Council Purchase in Excess $1,000 Chapter 6, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve purchases of merchandise, materials, equipment, or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are three such items on the council agenda of July 13, 1981. Undergrounding of Electric Cable As part of C.P. 7053, the city agreed to pay for the undergrouding of the electrical service and removal of poles in the 66th Street - Bridgeman's Superamerica and Post Office area. Linden Electric Company, Inc. of 7109 Garfield Avenue South has performed this construction for $2,289.10. It is recommended that the city council approve the payment of $2,289.10 to Linden Electric Company, Inc. Remove Curb and Gutter and Replace with Two Drive Aprons As part of the developer's agreementwith Duraps for the Coach Homes site, the city agreed'to install two driveway aprons onto Emerson Avenue. Progressive Constractors, Inc. of Osseo, Minnesota, provided a quote of $1,800, while Southside Concrete Contractors provided a quote of $2,590. It is recommended that the city council approve the payment of $1,800 to Progressive Contractors, Inc. to perform this work. City Hall Security System For some time, public safety officials have been concerned with security and the monitoring of security in the city hall/ public safety complex. Several years ago, the public safety department acquired a television surveillance camera that enables the dispatchers to monitor a portion of the back parking lot, behind city hall, where many of the public safety vehicles are parked. However, that surveillance system provides little security to city hall. Council Letter No. 229 -2- July 13, 1981 The concerns which various staff personnel have had with city hall security were validated earlier this spring when several thousand dollars worth of food stamps were stolen from the licensing area. It appears that the theft occured during a time when city hall was closed to the public. The fact that there is no means to continually monitor internal security, nor to monitor who is entering and exiting the building has raised concerns not only for the protection of various commodities in the building, but also generates concerns for persons who may work in the office areas during an evening or weekend, when access to the building is not being monitored.. Because of these concerns for both personal security and the protection of commodities worth thousands of dollars, we have developed a proposal to install surveillance cameras in the licensing area and in the back door entrance to the city hall portion of the minicipal complex. The proposed system would continually monitor both of these areas, and have the ability to record movement and sound an alarm if the security were violated. The outside locks to the city hall building have recently been rekeyed, so that access to the building may be gained only through the back door. This means that all persons having keys to the building would have to enter through the same door. The viewers to the camera system would be placed in the public safety communications center, which is staffed 24 hours per day. This would enable the public safety department to monitor who enters and leaves the building at any time. Two quotations have been received for the camera, alarm, motion detector and associated cable and transformer equipment and installation necessary to implement this system. Video Images has quoted a total cost of $5,965. 3 -M quoted a package cost of $9,303. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase and installation of the surveillance system described herein from Video Images, in the amount of $5,965. It is proposed that funds for this project be appropriated from the Special Revenue Fund. A transitory ordinance appropriating these monies is placed on the July 13, 1981 city council agenda for council consideration. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Public Safety Director Administrative Services Director City Clerk Finance Coordinator xt�y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 228 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Vacation of Alley on Block 5, New Ford Town Attached is a petition recently received by the staff, requesting the vacation of the alley on Block 5, New Ford Town. The alley is bound by 21st and 22nd Avenues South, and East 65th and 66th Streets. The petition is of proper form and has the required number of signatures to initiate the street vacation process. PROPOSAL Julian and Darlene Halvorsen have circulated a petition to vacate the alley on Block 5, New Ford Town Addition. The petitioners are requesting the alley be vacated so that it can be used as private property. In most instances, when an alley has been vacated by the city, one half of the alley right -of -way is returned to each abutting property owner. STAFF FINDINGS The staff reviewed the request and found that: 1. A storm sewer lies within the alley right -of -way. 2. An overhead power line owned by Northern States Power Company is located in the alley. 3. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company owns lines located in the alley right -of -way. 4. The west one -half of the alley is unimproved and not used for property access. 5. The east one -half of the alley is used as a driveway, providing access to property located at 6536 22nd Avenue South. 6. The center of the alley right -of -way is a low spot in the area, and rubbish has collected in this low -lyinq area. Council Letter No. 228 -2- July 13, 1981 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS It is the opinion of the staff that the proposal to vacate serves the public interest in that the city maintenance costs will be reduced because the city will no longer have to maintain the alley. The vacation should not result in adverse traffic conditions on surrounding streets. Therefore the staff recommends that the city council approve the vacation of the alley on Block 5 in New Ford Town, with the following stipulation: 1. That utility easements be granted to the utility companies and the city in order to maintain the utilities located on the alley. The action necessary at the July 13, 1981 city council meeting will be to adopt the attached resolution acknowledging receipt of the petition and setting a public hearing on this alley vacation for August 10, 1981. It is also recommended that the council give first reading approval to the attached transitory ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the city council approve the vacation with stipulation recommended by staff. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Engineer City Clerk -_ .-63rd - 3 22 —N W c9 3 '22 4`21 J 13 4`21 ❑ 11 5'20 ❑ 5 20 ❑ 3!22 7- — 4;21 — ❑iz ST--- ❑ " 5 2� U .. W 1 124 2123 3122 4121 5120 stI q W 0 p -• > ❑3 PETITION MAP S - -a2' 18�7 Q 8,1? E],:, Q 3 0 29 8 1 6 17 Q -,0 E],:, z9 — — - �J33 916 916 10.15 ❑32 a3' 10 15 II '14 ❑4J 04 11 14 0 48 12 '1 13 EE El 45 12 13 64th J� p64„ 1124 px ❑ as 2123 . '❑ 09 3-.22 ❑ .. ❑ u 4121 ❑a ❑ i1 1 ❑16 0- ai 6yg �, ❑ ;5 �I 29 7 18 7 ❑ -3p I 8 , 6 16 Ella 9 16r -- 9 � 15 ❑ 17 ❑ n 11, 14 C +0 ❑:goo I❑44 • ❑ of 123 p� - ❑ .a 2'22 . 0 0 321 _❑, -- ❑ 13 420 7 r 1 J ' 5 19 ni s El - 6 la ❑�< 2s 7 17 t° :4 6 16 ,28 ❑ 3' 9 � 15 -3 1912 • 3 ❑ 9116 J 9 16 r�s 9116 Cl p ,, ❑« �Ell ' -10 15 -� "A "❑ IOi15 —.. D I0 ►r5 ❑'O ❑ "' 11 14 ❑ ° 41 ❑ 11 114 ❑40 4 ❑ It 114 12 113 [1661 41 0 12 13 El p'4` 1 24 i ❑ 05223 ❑`4 ❑G9 3 22 ❑°s 4121 El D 5 5 20 G EI ZI zs 7 18 2 11 20 8 17 ❑,e ❑:3 9 16 ❑�< ❑'' 10 15 �e ❑43 11 14 ❑ ❑ •� 12 .13 Siqnatures on Petition ST. M—' ' S 2123 -- i o9! -.J 3; 22 1104 13p 4 21 ❑ 'z 1711 5 20 - -- 21 ❑ i 7118 _ �t 8':17 9 06 10 15 11 ; 14 ❑45 121 13 ❑44 1 24 .,5 2 23 004 °° ❑ 3 l22 �]ce 421 ❑' 1 —❑ 520 ❑ 1 a - _❑ _7 18 ❑28 . 9 ❑6Y17 ---- -t }�❑ 9;16__ ❑' 5- ❑ 015 ❑ 3e II 14 I �� ST. ❑ _ I 24 05 L 2 27 _ 09 El 21.) — _D 4'21 i 0 11 5 20 8117 9'16 rl ❑— i 3 - .0115 II 14 L, •� ❑45 12113 ❑ " TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY ON BLOCK 5, NEW FORD TOWN Section 1. The following alley on Block 5, New Ford Town within the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated: "The Alley on Block 5, New Ford Town" Section 2. This vacation shall be subject to perpetual easements running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successor and assigns, and Northern States Power Company and Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, to permit improvements or maintenance of said utilities. Section 3. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right -of -way as provided in the foregoing section 1. Proposed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of July, 1981. All persons interested in this proposed ordinance are notified to be present Aug. 10, 1981 and they will be heard. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING ALLEY VACATION PETITION AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City Clerk request- ing the vacation of an alley easement described as follows: "The alley on block 5, New Ford Town" WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with the requirements of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.04, subdivision 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The petition for vacation of the alley described above is received. 2. A public hearing on the alley vacation in said petition vacation shall be held on August 10, 1981. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of said hearing in the manner provided by Richfield Ordinance Code Section 12.04, Subdivision 3. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of July, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk k CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 227 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 7233 Vincent Avenue South PROPOSAL Gene T. Lucy has submitted an application for a variance to reduce the required 30 foot front yard setback to approxi- mately 25 feet. The variance will allow the construction of an addition to an existing attached garage. The property, located at 7233 Vincent Avenue South, is zoned "R" single family residential. CONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.30, subdivision 4, of the zoning ordinance states that each building shall have a front yard set of 30 feet in "R" single family residential zones. Section 3.40, sub- division 6, lists three conditions which must be met before granting variances. STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed the request against the three conditions which must be present before a variance may be granted and found the following: 1. That the Vincent Avenue right -of -way line curves adjacent to the applicant's property. This results in a variable front yard setback requirement. This variable setback requirement prevents the applicant from constructing a garage or house addition matching the front of the existing house in accordance with front yard setback requirements, even though proper side yard setbacks could be maintained. This is a special condition unique to this particular property. 2. That denial of this application will not preclude existing or reasonable use of the property. A 12'x14' addition to the garage can be constructed in a manner requiring no variance. 3. That the proposal will be an improvement to the applicant's property and should not pose any hazard to the public. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because all three conditions for granting variances have not been met, the staff must recommend denial of this application. The city manager recommends approval of the variance. PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance request. The commission feels that the curved street was a very unique circumstance which would justify the approval of a variance. Respectfully submitted, 4 'C� U Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner TO /v A CEI VE TEH Y IL Ej p PETITION M A P �j A 7 s- A DP 3. 5 4 3 2 1 9 10 U 12 13 57 5,6 6 7 8 9 fi ;0 Al cc co OD 71 1/2 -=111T, /' 1.• 3 `W_ . 1 11 J Cr L4j QL� U TO 11 h —=-T LC Ll li F1 11' zok -- 1% 72nd UNITE) HEi HEBREW 3'; 41 uI rA Fj .0 ro ILI 0 on 4 3 14 1!5 12 14 .11 4 6 1 J U g ILJ 10 7 F" 9 to 1 -7 r i Ic zok -- 1% 72nd UNITE) HEi HEBREW 3'; 41 uI rA Fj Signatures on Petit PE N 17 TERRA CE� El X 0 0 ADD N74th 73rd .0 ro ILI 0 on 4 3 14 1!5 12 14 .11 4 6 1 J U 9 & • 10 7 F" 9 to 1 -7 r i Signatures on Petit PE N 17 TERRA CE� El X 0 0 ADD N74th 73rd BNAI .0 ro ILI 0 on 4 3 14 12 15 4 6 1 J U 9 & • BNAI M 0 M F, 15 3 L A 1 3 4 4 12 5 10 7 14 4 U 10 7 F" 9 M 0 M F, 15 3 L A 1 3 4 4 12 5 10 7 K In V ti . �,4{i'�7�:Nrei�a �c`;ki �•;: - L %::.a,;�a .- ..,,4..:� ::M "� I k"rr_:: _:� -_5 :-i- '�q- •ex,:�a - r,�i::r:r. ,:.� a�i. r't- xwa"�=3+,n?+rs.�s"'�'yt' q. �. -.•4: ASS.'; wt. �:�::r�x.:�+ta�.��:�i.�.;�.c... _ .,. O cl rn to t0 'OS '3AV 1N30NIA em � O N La az H zo W J 0 L zUL >x M U .M CC N r- W U) O 0 N V H CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 226 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Temporary License Request, Church of the Assumption "Fun Fest" The Church of the Assumption, 305 East 77th Street, has scheduled their annual "Fun Fest" for Saturday, August 15, and Sunday, August 16, 1981.. To conduct this activity the church has requested the following licenses: 1. Gambling license (bingo, raffle, and tip- board) 2. Itinerant food establishment 3. Soft drink sales 4. Cigarette sales 5. On -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor sales 6. Daily tent permit The church has requested that, since proceeds from this activity are used for community outreach services, all related license fees be waived. With regard to the gambling license, the church has requested the council to authorize gambling activities to take place from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on August 15, and from 11:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on August 16. The city ordinance code limits gambling activities to four hours during any 24 -hour period. However, the code does provide for a waiver of this restriction by specific action of the city council. In the opinion of the Public Safety Department, there does not appear to be any outstanding questions which would prevent the issuance of the gambling license, the itinerant food license, the soft drink sale license, the cigarette sale license, and the on -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor sales license. The council should specifically consider the request of the applicant to waive the related license fees and to extend the permitted hours of gambling activity. Council Letter No. 226 -2- July 13, 1981 The Public Safety Department does have a concern with the request for the daily tent permit. As the council may recall,. the Uniform Fire Code has established very specific fire safety requirements for the utilization of tent structures by the general public. During last year's "Fun Fest" activity, the applicant violated the conditions of the daily tent permit issued by the city by not conforming to several fundamental fire safety practices mandated by the Uniform Fire Code. Because of the particular hazard involved, and because of our disappointing experience with the applicant's use of the daily tent permit which was issued last year, it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that the daily tent permit be given only conditional approval, with a requirement that the applicant satisfactorily conform to all fire safety code requirements as may be stipulated by the Public Safety Department. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Public Safety Director City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 225 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Continuation of Hearing on Special Use Permit and On -sale Wine License, Pontillo's Pizzaria, Inc. The city has received an application for an on -sale wine license for the Pontillo's Pizzaria, located at 2312 West 66th Street. A public hearing has been scheduled, with the required notices published, for the regular council meeting of July 13, 1981. Prior to, or concurrent with, the council's consideration of the on -sale wine license, council action is also required to provide a special use permit for this form of business establishment. The Planning Commission had scheduled a hearing on the request for special use permit for their regularly scheduled meeting of June 23, 1981. However, the applicant did not attend the Planning Commission hearing on behalf of his request for a special use permit and the Planning Commission has deferred action on this matter until their July 28 meeting. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that the hearing on the application for an on -sale wine license for Pontillo's Pizzaria be continued to the regular council meeting of August 10, 1981. At that time, the council can consider both the wine license applica- tion and the recommendation of the Planning Commission with regard to the special use permit. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Public Safety Director Community Development Director City Clerk KN /sh 3 _J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO� A Office of City Manager e V- Council Letter_ No. 224 G J� A d J 1 13 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: G N q Z7 gen a u y , Deferred July 27, 1981 Subject: Implementation of Charter Amendment Regarding Neighborhood Election Districts (Wards) The city charter provides that, beginning in 1982, three council members are to be elected by district, one from each of three districts which are to be established in the city. The re- maining council person and the mayor are to be elected at large. Before this election can take place, it is necessary that the city establish these election districts. The boundaries of the three districts should be established using data - -from the 1980 federal census. The purpose of this memorandum is to identify several issues which the city must confront during this redistrict- ing process, so that council members may begin thinking about the process which you may want to use in undertaking the task of estab- lishing the election districts. Richfield precinct boundaries were last altered after the 1970 census. It is my understanding that, at that time, the city council appointed a citizen's committee to work with the city staff, pri- marily the city clerk, to establish the precinct boundaries. In seeking to do that, the committee undertook to consider very broad issues such as the number and size of precincts desired in the city, as well as more specific issues, such as the basis on which precinct boundaries should be drawn, whether precincts should extend on a north -south or an east -west basis, etc. In the redistricting task confronting the city now, it will be necessary not only to draw up precinct boundaries, but to establish ward boundaries as well. Furthermore, the state legislature is presently seeking to re- district the boundaries for Senate and House of Representative dis- tricts. The lines which may be established for those districts within Richfield may have an impact on where precinct or ward bound- aries are established. As you know, the state redistricting effort always becomes highly politicized, and although it appears that the legislature wants to resolve its redistricting issues quickly, so far there has been little progress made in establishing new state legislative boundaries. The legislature is now saying that they will deal with this matter in a special session later this year. N Council Letter No. 224 -2- July 13, 1981 11 I hope that the redistricting process in Richfield is far less politicized, although I know that the major political parties have some interest and concerns related to the establishment of precinct and ward boundaries. While I think it is almost essential that the state districting questions be resolved before we do much in our local redistricting, I believe it is important that the council begins to identify the process to be used in our redistricting. A basic question which the council must resolve is whether they wish to have a citizen's comm- ittee involved in this task. If the council chooses to appoint a comm- ittee to work on this issue, I think it is important that the council identify the size of the committee (I recommend no more than five persons) in advance and the basis upon which committee members are to be appointed, whether one from each major political party, and one from the League of Women Voters, or other designated local organiza- tions, or whatever. A crucial part of making such a process work effectively is to determine what information is to be given to a committee, and what the desired end product of the committee's work is to be. That is, will the council automatically accept the recommendation of such a committee, will the council reserve the right to change the committee's recommendation, etc. I believe it is important to the integrity of the committee process for-them to have some understanding at the outset of their task as to what the council's expectations and ultimate goal in the process will be. Perhaps even more significantly, it is important to identify who on the city staff is to work with this committee, and what the staff role should be. I firmly believe that the city staff should not be in a position of making the redistrict- ing decisions. However, oftentimes with citizen committees, the staff is placed in the position of making recommendations. I have no philosophical problem with the staff making recommendations, if it is understood by the city council and the committee at the beginning of the process, that staff recommendations are just that - recommenda- tions -- and that such recommendations are developed only out of the staff understanding of what the committee indicates it is seeking to do. I believe it is necessary for the council to establish the process for addressing these issues well in advance of the time that we must begin the process. A discussion of this matter has been scheduled for the July 13, 1981 city council meeting. At that time, if council members can develop some general consensus regarding the issues I have described, I think it would be most appropriate for the council to adopt a resolution establishing the committee and process, so that we may begin our redistricting process as soon as the state has completed its redistricting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Administrative Services Director City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 224 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf ield Council Members: Subject: Implementation of Charter Amendment Regarding Neighborhood Election Districts (Wards) The city charter provides that, beginning in 1982, three council members are to be elected by district, one from each of three districts which are to be established in the city. The re- maining council person and the mayor are to be elected at large. Before this election can take place, it is necessary that the city establish these election districts. The boundaries of the three districts should be established using data-.from the 1980 federal census. The purpose of this memorandum is to identify several issues which the city must confront during this redistrict- ing process, so that council members may begin thinking about the process which you may want to use in undertaking the task of estab- lishing the election districts. Richfield precinct boundaries were last altered after the 1970 census. It is my understanding that, at that time, the city council appointed a citizen's committee to work with the city staff, pri- marily the city clerk, to establish the precinct boundaries. In seeking to do that, the committee undertook to consider very broad issues such as the number and size of precincts desired in the city, as well as more specific issues, such as the basis on which precinct boundaries should be drawn, whether precincts should extend on a north -south or an east -west basis, etc. In the redistricting task confronting the city now, it will be necessary not only to draw up precinct boundaries, but to establish ward boundaries as well. Furthermore, the state legislature is presently seeking to re- district the boundaries for Senate and House of Representative dis- tricts. The lines which may be established for those districts within Richfield may have an impact on where precinct or ward bound- aries are established. As you know, the state redistricting effort always becomes highly politicized, and although it appears that the legislature wants to resolve its redistricting issues quickly, so far there has been little progress made in establishing new state legislative boundaries. The legislature is now saying that they will deal with this matter in a special session later this year. Council Letter No. 224 -2- July 13, 1981 I hope that the redistricting process in Richfield is far less politicized, although I know that the major political parties have some interest and concerns related to the establishment of precinct and ward boundaries. While I think it is almost essential that the state districting questions be resolved before we do much in our local redistricting, I believe it is important that the council begins to identify the process to be used in our redistricting. A basic question which the council must resolve is whether they wish to have a citizen's comm- ittee involved in this task. If the council chooses to appoint a comm- ittee to work on this issue, I think it is important that the council identify the size of the committee (I recommend no more than five persons) in advance and the basis upon which committee members are to be appointed, whether one from each major political party, and one from the League of Women Voters, or other designated local organiza- tions, or whatever. A crucial part of making such a process work effectively is to determine what information is to be given to a committee, and what the desired end product of the committee's work is to be. That is, will the council automatically accept the recommendation of such a committee, will the council reserve the right to change the committee's recommendation, etc. I believe it is important to the integrity of the committee process for-them to have some understanding at the outset of their task as to what the council's expectations and ultimate goal in the process will be. Perhaps even more significantly, it is important to identify who on the city staff is to work with this committee, and what the staff role should be. I firmly believe that the city staff should not be in a position of making the redistrict- ing decisions. however, oftentimes with citizen committees, the staff is placed in the position of making recommendations. I have no philosophical problem with the staff making recommendations, if it is understood by the city council and the committee at the beginning of the process, that staff recommendations are just that - recommenda- tions -- and that such recommendations are developed only out of the staff understanding of what the committee indicates it is seeking to do. I believe it is necessary for the council to establish the process for addressing these issues well in advance of the time that we must begin the process. A discussion of this matter has been scheduled for the July 13, 1981 city council meeting. At that time, if council members can develop some general consensus regarding the issues I have described, I think it would be most appropriate for the council to adopt a resolution establishing the committee and process, so that we may begin our redistricting process as soon as the state has completed its redistricting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Administrative Services Director City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager -9ZZ 6 Council Letter No. 223 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Change Order, C.P. 756, Lift Stations #1 and #3 The city council previously awarded a contract to Hayes Contractors; Inc. in the amount of $74,971.00 for renovation of lift station #1 and lift station #3. Change order No. 1 provides for the following: 1. Temporary service during a change over to 200 amp service and both.stations. With the pumps that existed, 60 amp power was sufficient. Voltage facilities on the new pumps required a larger power supply, but in the long range will be more efficient. With the decision to provide larger 200 amp service, temporary service was required until the change over could be made. 2. An additional mercury float switch at each lift station. Monitoring of the lift station has been typical. However, it was felt that providing an extra alarm system (mercury float switch) to tie into the water plant for monitoring, the city would have greater efficiency and control in the operation of the lift stations. 3. Changing the eight -inch flange elbow to a flanged tee at lift station #1 and changing the 12 -inch flanged elbow to a flanged tee at lift station #3. By changing from an elbow to a tee, staff will have greater capability and ease in cleaning lines as they connect to manholes. The change order would adjust the contract amount by $1,169.32 for lift station #1 and by $1,405.10 for lift station #3. It is recommended that the city council authorize change order No. 1 in the total amount of $2,574.42 to Hayes Contractors, Inc. which adjusts the total contract amount for renovation of lift stations #1 and #3 to $77,545.42. Respectfully submitted, i Karl Nollenberger City Manager l: .L` Y Uk' i111 t1L''1liLii, l �Lvi J'� _ -� Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 222 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variances, 6216 Pillsbury Avenue South PROPOSAL The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority has submitted a request for variances which would allow the con- struction of a 12 story single family residenice at 6216 Pillsbury Avenue South. The requested variances would: 1. Reduce the minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet to 6,075 square feet, and k 2. Reduce the minimum 75 foot lot width to 45 feet. �O The HRA is currently negotiating with the state to acquire an extra five feet of right -of -way, which would increase the lot width to 50 feet. The state has told us that there should be no problem acquiring this five feet of land. The site is located on the northwest corner of Pillsbury Avenue South and the Crosstown frontage road. This is an "L" intersection. The property immediately to the north of the site is highway right -of -way, on which a noise barrier wall has been constructed. Since the lot serves as the most northerly one on Pillsbury Avenue in Richfield, the spatial effect is greater than a 45 foot wide lot. There is a distance of seven to eight feet north of the property line and south of the chain link fence owned by the state. The site is zoned "R" single family residential. The surrounding land use and zoning is single family and multi- family residential. The property was originally platted at 60' x 138.48', an area of 8,308.8 square feet. The subsequent construction of the Crosstown Highway required taking a portion of the lot, resulting in the reduced lot width and area. ZONING ORDINANCE REQTIIREMENTS Section 3.30, subdivision 4, of the zoning ordinance sets the minimum lot area requirement in an "R" single family r` district at 8,000 square feet. Section 3.57, subdivision 1, sets the standard width of lots at 75 feet. Council Letter No. 222 -2- July 13, 1981 STAFF REVIEW The staff has reviewed the posposal against the three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted. and found the following: 1. That this lot was originally platted so as to conform to applicable ordinances. The construction of the Crosstown Highway required taking a portion of the lot, thereby resulting in the insufficient lot width and area. In the opinion of the staff this action would constitute a special circumstance. 2. Denial of this application will preclude reasonable use of this property. There are no alternatives to develop this property for residential use except by the granting of lot area and width variances. 3. The construction of a single family home on this lot will be an improvement to the property and should not be detrimental to the people in the neighborhood. However, since the surrounding lots do meet or exceed minimum lot area and width requirements, the granting of this application, creating a single family lot significantly smaller than those lots in the area, can be construed as contrary to the community standards set forth in the zoning ordinance. Nevertheless, there are 12 lots in the neighborhood that are 50 feet wide lots as indicated by the enclosed map. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Because the three conditions for granting a variance have not been met, the planning division staff must recommend denial of this variance request. The city manager recommends approval of the variance. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends denial of this application. They feel that this lot is too small for residential development and it would not be in character with the rest of the community. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City '•'anager KN /sh cc: Community Services Director City Planner M N [t LO LO M 4-+ O Cn i� ■ a) CO ICU L O C. O O t0 June 8 , 1981 The Planning Commission 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Subject: 6216 Pillsbury Avenue South Dear Commissioners, The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is requesting a variance to reduce the required lot width and lot area at the above address. The HRA proposes to construct a single family residential structure. In addition, the HRA would like the Planning Commission to consider the resale of this property to be in conformance with the comprehensive plan after construction. The variance is needed because the lot has 45 feet of frontage and an area of 6,075 square feet. This is contrary to city ordinance 3.57, subdivision 1, which requires a minimum area of 8,000 square feet and 75 feet of frontage. This lot has been offered for sale to the HRA by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) as vacant excess right - of -way. The property, before highway development, had a single family home located on 60 feet of frontage. The costs of the proposed acquisition are still being negotiated. The HRA authorized the acquisition of the property and approved construction plans on April 20, 1981. The HRA action was subsequent to a Planning Commission review on February 24, 1981 when the need for variances was first indicated to the commission. The Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 27, found the acquisition of this lot to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map and the development goals and policies of the city. A copy of this resolution is attached. When construction is completed, it will provide an affordable housing opportunity for a moderate income family. Depending on family size, this family would have an annual income between $15,000 and $23,000. A young five member Richfield Now telephone: 869 -7521 (612) � an equal opportunity employer EQUAL HWOK OP Page 2 The Planning Commission June 8, 1981 family has been selected by drawing to receive first consideration in the buyer qualification process for this proposed home. This new housing unit will make it possible to increase the population in Richfield. It is also advantageous for the city to have a young family as home owners, as they would provide additional students for Richfield area schools. This affordable housing opportunity helps achieve housing goals used to evaluate performance in spending Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)_monies. The addition of this housing unit would be consistant with housing policies and projected growth goals discussed in the housing element section of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. This additional housing unit would create property tax revenue of approximately $700 to $800 annually from land which is now tax exempt. The development cost will total approximately $50,000. This does not include the land acquisition costs still being negotiated with the State Department of.Transport.ation. The finished home has been valued by FHA at approximately $67,000. This value is close to the average sale price of Richfield homes during the first quarter of 1981. The attached site plan indicates the proposed location of improvements. The building plan for this lot, a proposed*12 story split level home, has been evaluated by the HRA for com- patibility with homes in the neighborhood. The site and building plan have been found acceptable by the chief inspector of the city building division. No variance for building setbacks is required. The lack of available land for development limits alternatives for providing affordable housing opportunities in Richfield. The lot at 6216 Pillsbury Avenue South is one of two sites that offer a unique cost efficient opportunity to the HRA and city for providing housing. The other site is located at 6225 Harriet Avenue South. These lots, if acquired through the public bidding process, would likely cost more, due to the competition for developable land. However, the HRA is a public body and is permitted to purchase property directly from MnDOT. In addition, below market rate financing commitments that are no longer available to the private market were recently received from FHA for this house site. CDBG bonus funds are being used for this acquisition. Page 3 The Planning Commission June 8, 1981 Since the intended use of this property is acceptable in this zoning district and there are benefits to be gained for the city and HRA as discussed above, then no adverse or materially detrimental conditions will result from granting the variance. There has also been an indication of perceived benefit to the neighborhood from the adjacent neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. Eckes-of 6220 Pillsbury Ave. South. Mr. Eckes indicated to the planning commission on February 24, 1981, and Mrs. Eckes has indicated to the HRA staff their hopes that a house could be located on this- vacant lot. A house, to them, means an aesthetic and practical improvement over the existing poorly maintained right -of -way lot. A favorable consideration of this variance that the resale is in conformance with the would be appreciated. It is requested that be waived. Si erely, ce Palmborg H using and Redevelopment Coordinator Attachments request and confirmation comprehensive plan the application fee RESOLUTION NO. 27 RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the purchase of property described as follows: "The southerly 45 feet" of the easterly 135 feet of Lot 5 in Block 4 of Betcher's Addition," and "That part of Lot,9, Block 2, Kendale Addition, which lies southerly of the line beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 9, distant 30 feet south of the northwest corner thereof; thence run northeasterly to the northeast corner of Lot 4, said Block 2, and there terminating." WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the purchase of the property would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Map and Comprehensive Development Plan Goals and Policies; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds the purchase of the property described above to be in conforman4 with the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Passed by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield this 24th day of February, 1981. ATTEST: Erich J.; 1tussck., 1, `Secretary 1 Tose a Ertman, Chairman Ri field Planning Commission 0 cn (n 0 cc: 0 cn az i 0 z 0 cr ILL (D -.E— -Lill cli Sin 11 z 8z CZ e2 I oz r—, "Z cli ZZ BZ 1 91 L IT to co 0) co ti 2f49 to 0 F-1 rolLg: co- C=1 11 CZ e2 I oz r—, "Z cli ZZ BZ 1 91 L IT to co 0) co ti 2f49 to 0 F-1 rolLg: co- C=1 11 0 cr- w z .0 cc ILL 94 CC,iq VO i 60 I z I N gi 2f49 to 0 F-1 rolLg: co- C=1 11 cli C%i ci I rn o f �, i m r i (D El! I -049 i SO I 60 I 61 I SL -1-13GS1t, 00 t,9 I so bt OE a) CD O►9 60 I S. a and H180MIN3M ooCq I t10 I so i ef i r Z Z. 94 ► LA EiN (Ij in It co Q-1 r— 177 f- los fil I se I 1£ 1099 i 60 St IE -_j end Aunesilld 001.9 so I Z I V t, Z i z£ 94 2949 N ?"n 't, to to 0 F-1 rolLg: co- C=1 11 C%i rn 41 CZ cz GrLfg F� I El! lorLg 1 i Iz -6z i rL SIP 00991 — , I ! pZ 10fr9 411 ro w 00r,9; Vo I oi 9f ?z I se ssq �l D - .0 N ?"n 't, to to 0 F-1 rolLg: co- C=1 11 L C£SI SO 41 CZ cz GrLfg 77 'o Lo N 0, l0►9� '1 1 LI i £2 and aNVUE) 41C 01 rn 91 X'z 82 C Z9, 01, OC (D CD rn 'ic. 'o W, totg F-1 rolLg: co- C=1 11 O,A9: t-0 01 1 91 zz fo mn 0009 so i *I I w►g 'o W, totg so S1 I I f4 13l2J�VH 0•)019 go V, o z t, .3 r OD n\v, 7 ` o� l_ co CD i I iI 6420 I i4 08 64C HARRIET �)I- 0,0-621 1 �)I V I 04 1 09 17 2 9 — r-� 16401 C. N i U rD G D D D 6244; 4., ,6 6420 ! 14 I 08 6400 GRAND I o s FEE � U 4F j rF m 6 26 ' .5i 41 37 17 2 9 l_ d�f C. N i U rD G D D D 6244; 4., ,6 ' .5i 41 37 29 l_ 03 I c0 3s 28 Y► 1 i . - 121 113 6401 4S 37 29 21 1 3 830! 6237 I a 1 11 ! 1 Qi f $�`}u ed !s ua�u} iM ❑ I l� G a � i L (n 4b I W I N I W N ! U AA I W �-/ N I — v rn l i� i %tllllle j a12u� (� I El I 16400 6742 38 ; 32 24 18 12 ' 06 FSOU 1234 I 1 28 ( 2a 7J _ PILLSBURY AVE. 21 IS I 09 ! 6401 6345 37_ i 31 I 25, I 19 i 13J I qS I .301 ! • 3. 2+ 4 ,9 F4J•. b' 3F I 24 Q I I 09 i 04 1 600 WENTWORTH AVE. 21 ,S I 09 j640 6345 37 31 25 19 pyf v5 ti3L' _ i 1 co t0 O O A U Oi O1 i r m 10 i ..a , Li N _. \ W r\) _ nli - J to I l4 i oe 6400 I s342 36 s3 z. z 08 AISDELL O AVE. 6235 1 � 1 1 25 I 2= aQ Ol F ?44 28 24 I' _ t 2sw I 2e „ 24 m O Z D 0 m m O D v 0 l� Z I� \ 1 I o � IS r I� jwt N� fn tD 0 p , 0 ry c t m r R d r tj 0 G Cn a C •- � m 11 1. • C7 G .- "� In N z O , C W C T C O G ti rO r G F G µ r r a O `%• n w r , n o � r •' G ` r N O ti �+ r 0 0 l� Z I� \ 1 I o � IS A r I� jwt N� fn i 0 p 0 R A r I� jwt N� fn i P/L58L/2)6,' AVE g ' O Nff �l O 7` L � ^1 -T1 5y i n fT1 iN w `�!'y D ' ❑ I h '�I r 9 3 DOS pn OD c v m �) D - m �rn D m ° o � z sp < m Z D IY z K N /n n N m U. N N z Nc ❑ D � Z s m/� m En N C ID (z� m c `/ Resolution No. 35 Resolution Finding That the Disposition Of Property is in Conformance With The Comprehensive Plan WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the disposi- tion of the property described as follows: "The Southerly 45 feet of the Easterly 135 feet of Lot 5 in Block 4 of Betcher's Addition." • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the purchase. of the property would be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan Map and Comprehensive Development Plan Goals and Policies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds the disposition of the property described above for single family residential use to be in conformance with the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Passed by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield this 23rd day of June, 1981. C ATTEST: Erich J. Russell, Secretary Joseph Ertman, Chairman Richfield Planning Commission A O ,n L FD z --w O 0 cc 'wrt z 0 cc LL In 8z yC 0> '12 0 C:L ►l so Z 9C vcj 00 W9 to 111 09 62 LC L.LJ GO tO CD n< C) i j W f j I Ld cr_ 1A W I MnAA I M'� A 0 cc 'wrt z 0 cc LL In 8z yC 0> '12 0 C:L c c"I In 62 LC 0 < 01 z 0 r- LL m 9 j 1.0 LL LLI —i 0 < Ld OL E:j cz N _j- Ld (D M 0) CD r Ltj z (D U) E N, L Gil i IZ Aunes -11d 00'. 21 Z 21 9C Z v C 9 001-9 Q:4 N M') v U*) Q1 r CFO- J-M �Ul F 2— -2 t— Ell -L N Y _0 ro w '7TAtf costs -� 1kc of s, '12 c"I In (D L c\j GO 3,iW --4 O V.) 02 N —C !n � st, f ill�I�VH ►9 60 ►i 10Z I 'co 11 Ilk v ` -1 C mh Vehensive development plan far the ci ?y of richfield LAND USE: description density principal uses Combination of multiple Mixed Land Use High dwellings, office, research industrial, hotel, motel, institutional, and retail commercial \\ Mixed Land Use High /Medium Combination of office, institutional, light and research oriented industrial, retail commercial, and multiple dwellings Combination of office, retail Central Business commercial, entertainment and eating establishments, small District Mixed Land Use High /Medium comparison shopping and service businesses, institutional, limited cultural, recreational facilities, and multiple dwellings Combination of single family Mixed Land Use Medium dwellings, multiple dwellings, townhouses, and neighborhood convenience commercial Industrial Medium Light and research oriented industrial uses. Multiple High Multiple units with related accessory uses. Convenience Shopping Area Low Grocery, drug, hardware stores. Single Family Binds family Or two family units Residential Low and accessory uses C011paLible with single or COMMUNITY FACILITIES: two family units - - - -- Public parks and open space '* -- - -- Public schools -- - -- Churches or church - related facilities - - - -- Other public, quasi- public, or institutional private facilitia TRANSPORTATION: - - - -- Major arterial thoroughfare adopted by the city of richfield thi,15th day of January 1973 r r -i3 /O CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 221 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 6225 Harriet Avenue PROPOSAL The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority has submitted a request for a variance which would allow the construction of a 1, story single family home at 6225 Harriet Avenue South. The requested variance would reduce the required 75 foot lot width to 52.5 feet. The site is located on the northeast corner of Harriet Avenue South and the Crosstown frontage road. The property directly to the north of the site is highway right-of-way - on which a noise barrier wall has been constructed. The site is zoned single family residential. The surrounding zoning and land use is single family and multi- family residential. The property was originally platted at 82.5' x 135.79', an area of 11,202.7 square feet. There was a single family home on the lot. The subsequent construction of the Cross- town Highway reduced the width of the property to 52.5 feet and the area to 8,061 square feet. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.57,subdivision 1 of the zoning ordinance states that the standard width of lots shall be at least 75 feet. Section 3.40, sundivision 6, lists the three criteria necessary for granting of a variance. Council Letter No. 221 -2- July 13, 1981 STAFF REVIEW The staff reviewed the proposal against the three conditions which must be met before a variance may be granted, and found the following: 1. That this lot was originally platted to conform to applicable ordinances. The construction of the Crosstown Highway required taking a portion of the lot, thereby resulting in the insufficient lot width. In the opinion of the staff, this action would constitute a special circumstance. 2. Denial of this application will preclude reasonable use of this property. There are no alternatives to develop this property for residential use except by the granting of the variance for lot width. 3. The construction of a single fmaily home on this lot will be an improvement to the property and should not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Although the minimum lot width required by ordinance is 75 feet, there are several other 50 foot lots in the neighborhood with single family residences on them. Therefore, the granting of this variance would not be contrary to the community standards of this neighborhood as defined by the zoning ordinance. STAFF RECOMlYIENDATION Because the three conditions for granting a variance have been met, the staff recommends approval of this variance request. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of this application. Respectfully submitted, lard '-N Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner M N ,1 LO LO CU 14-0' O U) v CU CO L O a O O (.O June 8, 1981 The Planning Commission 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Subject: 6225 Harriet Avenue South Dear Commissioners, The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is requesting a variance to reduce the required lot width at the above address. The HRA proposes to construct a single family residential structure. In addition, the HRA would like the Planning Commission to consider the resale of this property to be in conformance with the comprehensive plan after construction. The variance is needed because the lot has 52.5 feet of frontage. This is contrary to city ordinance 3.57, subdivision 1, which requires a minimum of 75 feet of frontage. The lot does not require a variance for lot area because it has 8,061 square feet. This lot has been offered for sale to the HRA by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) as vacant excess right -of -way. The property, before highway development, had a single family home located on 82.5 feet of frontage. The costs of the proposed acquisition are still being negotiated. The HRA authorized the acquisition of the property and approved construction plans on April 20, 1981. The HRA action was subsequent to a Planning Commission review on February 24, 1981 when the need for variances was first indicated to the commission. The Planning Commission., by Resolution No. 27, found the acquisition of this lot to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map and the development goals and policies of the city. A copy of this resolution is attached. When construction is completed, it will provide an affordable housing opportunity for a moderate income family. Depending on family size, this family would have an annual income telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer EQUAL WIOJSIPK OPPORTUWTY Page 2 The Planning Commission June 8, 1981 between $15,000 and $23,000. A young five member family has been selected by drawing to receive first consideration in the buyer qualification process for this proposed home. This new housing unit will make it possible to increase the population in Richfield. It is also advantageous for the city to have a young family as home owners, as they would provide additional students for Richfield area schools. This affordable housing opportunity helps achieve housing goals used to evaluate performance in spending Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies. The addition of this housing unit would be consistant with housing policies and projected growth goals discussed in the housing element section of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. This additional housing unit would create property tax revenue of approximately $700 to $800 annually from land which is now tax exempt. The development cost will total approximately $50,000. This does not include the land acquisition costs still being negotiated with the State Department of Transportation. The finished home has been valued by FHA at approximately $67,000. This value is close to the average sale price of Richfield homes during the first quarter of 1981. The attached site plan indicates the proposed location of improvements. The building plan for this lot, a proposed 1z story split entry home, has been evaluated by the HRA for compati- bility with homes in the neighborhood. The site and building plan have been found acceptable by the chief inspector of the city building division. No variance for building setbacks is required. The lack of available land for development limits alternatives for providing affordable housing opportunities in Richfield. The lot at 6225 Harriet Avenue South is one of two sites that offer a unique cost efficient opportunity to the HRA and city for providing housing. The other site is located at 6216 Pillsbury Avenue South. These lots, if acquired through the public bidding process, would likely cost more, due to the competition for developable land. However, the HRA is a public body and is permitted to purchase property directly from MnDOT. In addition, below market rate financing commitments that are no longer available to the private market were recently received from FHA for this house site. CDBG bonus funds are being used for this acquisition. Page 3 The Planning Commission June 8, 1981 Since the intended use of this property is acceptable in this y zoning district and there are benefits to be gained for the city and HRA as discussed above, then no adverse or materially detrimental conditions will result from granting the variance. A favorable consideration of this variance request and confirm- ation that the resale is in conformance with the comprehensive plan would be appreciated. It is requested that the application fee be waived. Sincerely, Bruce Palmborg Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator Attachments r. RESOLUTION NO. 27 RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the purchase of property described as follows: "The southerly 45 feet" of the easterly 135 feet of Lot 5 in Block 4 of Betcher's Addition," and "That part of Lot 9, Block 2, Kendale Addition, which lies southerly of the line beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 9, distant 30 feet south of the northwest corner thereof; thence run northeasterly to the northeast corner of Lot 4, said Block 2, and there terminating." WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the purchase of the property would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Map and Comprehensive Development Plan Goals and Policies; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission � finds the purchase of the property described above to be in conforman'- with the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Passed by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield this 24th day of February, 1981. ATTEST: L'rich J.; Russ��l, `S3cretary 7-osej: 6 Ertman, Chairman Ric ield Planning Commission `v� Y n 1, C420 1 !• 08 64.00 HARRIET ?4 1 ,5 05 6401 .35 6301 �l N' m l cD C -4 O1 ! O 20 14 Da U I 0) V I I M Li to ri 6244'. 4-, i6 N •14 22 , 16 6420 I 1 08 6400 GRAND r AVE. 6335I� 23� lol 0 .5 I630- 0 I � N i I y 1 Qt l U A W N 41 I ^ 1 v0 1 • 6234 !. 28 f 5 I 10 04 .-SSOG AVE. u 1 8335 20 23 17 1 II .35 6301 �l N' m l cD C -4 O1 ! O 20 14 Da 3C1 r AVE. 6335I� 23� lol 0 .5 I630- 0 I � N i I y 1 Qt l U A W N 41 I ^ 1 v0 1 • 6234 !. 28 f 5 I 10 04 .-SSOG AVE. u 1 8335 20 23 17 1 II .35 6301 �l N' m l cD C -4 O1 ! O - I N i I m U 07 i U C ;D Li to ri 6244'. 4-, i6 N 16331 1 28 1 22 , 16 10 I 04 .6300 �2a4, q,•, 36 I ZC I I- it .0 37 I 2 9 �l W I A -4 i I m N CIO 07 i U C ;D C ri 6244'. 4-, i6 N C fit _21 i 113 1 I6401 3 I � I i NIF - O to A I W N\ _ 2 16400 63x2 38 32 1 24 18 12 i Oo "' --l00 P1 LLSBURY �> VE _ _ 111 21 15 I 09 's40: 6345 37 9 .3 �!'> 10301 L1 n� J : u 1, F (n G _ JA �� N y��—o �e1_J • I F4�•, e'1l 35 m D r 2 Z o4 zoo WENTWORTH VI 21 '5 j 09 �G-1 6343 3T � .�� { O -9 vS e3� 1 ,1 1 1 m A U_ t T7c„ El C to 14 1 08 6400 I �,3a2 36 Z 12 1 0 t r4 'c4 ^_ aISDELL ,v E . O• z D O m m O D c 9.1 E;344, 40 1 116 1 28 22 .5141 6249 41 37 2 9 — W I A I v m W N V m i N 1 -- U C fit _21 i 113 1 I6401 3 I � I i NIF - O to A I W N\ _ 2 16400 63x2 38 32 1 24 18 12 i Oo "' --l00 P1 LLSBURY �> VE _ _ 111 21 15 I 09 's40: 6345 37 9 .3 �!'> 10301 L1 n� J : u 1, F (n G _ JA �� N y��—o �e1_J • I F4�•, e'1l 35 m D r 2 Z o4 zoo WENTWORTH VI 21 '5 j 09 �G-1 6343 3T � .�� { O -9 vS e3� 1 ,1 1 1 m A U_ t T7c„ El C to 14 1 08 6400 I �,3a2 36 Z 12 1 0 t r4 'c4 ^_ aISDELL ,v E . O• z D O m m O D c 9.1 E;344, 40 1 116 1 28 22 .5141 37 29 W I A I v m N D �• 1 J � 1-0 I 3t 28 I I m j --I Q) cn' (234 I 28 24 7J 6235 3.31 25 i 2, 1 � CD 1 J- Ol F, X44 26 24 .. C - 1 11 m m O z D 17 m m O D 1 n z 0 0 .z z O In m D r T i Q 3 w U) 0 z a z ` O �A v O Cc U Q 0 cc �w V Q z 0 cc LL Ab 0 kV pp f.• r,; I I Qc I M�., 1 I SZ LZI �. � I SS77 „� ►2 82 vOL ❑, 7 ►[S i N m 1 � N D I —h . i co '^ =Jig i - � N I M m : V) L6 62 =N O'er M i� i rn I LI CZ I LZ SCCO I r' SC O p IDW) ! .� I re , >Z 1 9Z I ; v£2) �, I Single Family _I' AIL. I I L1 .vi to r• m II e�l'i N eZ I I yt r 1 Gv ! Q I ❑, 7 ►[S i N m 1 � N D I —h . i co '^ =Jig i - � N I M m : V) L6 62 I LZ ' NCIO V VVE v2 '. eZ I 9v Ov 'rvt`I N m -- =:.— .j - -U. I K1 G Z i :C Ir tssL3 Q 0 M w 0 Q z 0 LL Oz �vS9j ►c 90 ZI -� ❑, 7 ►[S i N m 1 � N D I —h . i co '^ =Jig i IWO n 2 LL CY,? Oz �vS9j ►c 90 ZI ! rZ CG 9C 7 ►[S I N ( M N D I —h . i co '^ =Jig i — N I I ' NCIO M D rn I LI CZ I LZ SCCO I r' SC O p IDW) ! .� I I `S9 S•^ 1 60 6i I 42 tG LC F►C9 1 o�e iii i /" Ifs C ON M I�aC j I ']AV HIHOMIN3M OCt9 j b0 ! 6G Zl rZ ylQ '.Cry E. Qrz- N jw; ID IOF° I �'• — £' 61 I SL ! It I L£ S►S9 Or3 ; 60 I SI IZ JAV Aunasi-ild --j OO:J h 90 ZI 81 I t Z ZC 9C ZtC9 00091 I I ' i I - I�; ir� Imo--• I U :.J _1 I`_'_\ (9-ingte Family I - N /•� V— to � � � m P� A 'artmer ! �partm006 J U p' "I --- CD IGSB £ 1 I I Z I 6Z Lt ' L1 0b91 1 C11 c F 00£91 90 Of 91 r ' zz ez I b£c9I Flo o n — I N ( M N D I —h . i co '^ =Jig i — N - N M ICtS: rn I LI CZ I LZ SCCO I r' SC 'I V> - nnv 00£9 v0 01 I 91 I Z2 I 2 ! v£C9 ! � o0 D d r N V IGC I e^ ►I 02 N C, T- iCbol 'I' LI I t2 I OOV9 70 �C 01 91 I�CZ E2 'I v£Z9� I Ix J— - N M 7 I w r o ! I I oOC9,' co L SZ C2 SSi91 Qj 11 00£9 v0 01 I 91 I Z2 I 2 ! v£C9 ! � o0 D d r N V IGC I e^ ►I 02 N C, T- iCbol 'I' LI I t2 I OOV9 BC vi ( OZ v9 Ix J— V iD J� IVH 0J119 60 rl 102►! I c_ i n O cli _ , G 5C '1 .9 7r r P Toa >� ��Zmm o D Z.A i r O N r F, v- D r • O n ry O v. m ~ fi Q a n c ro r m R ro m m ^ F Z o :3 r <� - � •[ ^, U is r m , Z r^ En rTOtio r T z N _ co • < `: a _T 1 t oNm R L1 lJ m • o . F+ W /'• N 7 O ;O y 4 a r• h N t- O O m O IT N vo u u a a- a �<•�a a o i o. R r <- 1 wcl t) v+a N m m R n S O m 7 O a 4 m m O 1 N h m C /-• •/ w m r• r m 7 G 5C '1 .9 7r r P Toa >� ��Zmm o D Z.A i r O N r F, v- D OD Cm33 oe C �J \ O v. m ~ fi Q m m n 1 m m ^ F Z ;< pZD X01 •1 m , Z r^ En A z N _ co • < `: a _T 1 :z oNm o co m N • o . j N 7 O ;O 0 C % Resolution No. 34 Resolution Finding That the Disposition Of Property is in Compliance With The Comprehensive Paln WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the disposi- tion of the property described as follows: "That part of Lot 9, Block 2, Kendale lies southerly of the line beginning the west line of said Lot 9, distant the northwest corner thereof; thence to the northeast corner of Lot 4, sa there terminating." Addition, which at a point on 30 feet south of run northeasterly id Block 2, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the purchase of the property would be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan Map and Comprehensive Development Plan Goals and Policies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds the disposition of the property for single family residential use described above to be in conformance with the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Passed by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield this 23rd day of June, 1981. ATTEST: Erich J. Russell, Secretary r L Joseph Ertman, Chairman Richfield Planning Commission '77 n[—.1 MIX.- , 3 , compri- ehensive development plan for the diy of richfield LAND USE: description density principal uses Combination of multiple dwellings, office, research ® Mixed Land Use High industrial, hotel, motel, institutional, and retail commercial Combination of office, institutional, light \ \\_\ Mixed Land use High /Medium „and research oriented industrial, retail commercial, and multiple dwellings Combination of office, retail commercial, entertainment and Central Business eating establishments, small j� District High /Medium comparison shopping and service Mixed Land Use businesses, institutional, limited cultural, recreational facilities, and multiple dwellings Combination of single family dwellings, multiple dwellings, Mixed Land Use Medium townhouses, and neighborhood convenience commercial Industrial Medium Light and research oriented industrial uses. Multiple High Multiple units with related accessory uses. F07 Convenience Shopping Area Low Grocery, drug, hardware stores. Single Family Single family or two family units and Residential Low accessory uses cuuparible with single or two family units COMMUNITY FACILITIES: - ---- Public parks and open space - - - -- Public schools -- - -- Churches or church- related facilities --- -- Other public, quasi - public, or private institutional facilitie 'TRANSPORTATION: - - - -- Major arterial thoroughfare adopted by the city of richfield this 151h day of January _19 73 r jtc=;,� I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 220 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor an_d Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Review of "No Right Turn on Red" Signs at 70th Street and 12th Avenue There is an item on the July 13, 1981 city council agenda providing for council review and discussion of a request for removal of the "No Right Turn on Red" signs at the intersection of 70th Street and 12th Avenues. The Traffic Control Committee has reviewed this request and recommends that the signs be retained. The committee is of the opinion that the signage was installed primarily for enhancement of pedestrian safety, and that the signs were necessary as lone as the intersection remained controlled by the semaphore. Councilman Ludeman requested an opportunity for the council to further review this matter. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: City Engineer hr IfIS" CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 219 Agenda July 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf ield Council Members: Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Expenditure Of Money from the Special Revenue Fund In 1980, the city council took action to appropriate $25,000 in General Revenue'Sharing monies to the park land acquisition fund. During that year, however, federal regulations for General Revenue Sharing were changed to require that these monies must be expended within two years of appropriation. Because Richfield is a,fully de- veloped community, with limited opportunities for purchase of prop- erty for park purposes, it was difficult to determine whether the $25,000 would be expended within the allotted time. Therefore, the staff determined that General Revenue Sharing monies should be re- assigned to some other purpose, and Special Revenue monies (liquor store profits) be appropriated for park land acquisition. In 1981 the capital budget appropriation of $30,000 for park land acquisition was provided to the appropriate fund through a transitory ordinance. However, the transitory ordinance inadvertently failed to include the $25,000 appropriation to replace the 1980 General Revenue Sharing monies. This transitory ordinance would further appropriate monies for the civic plaza sculpture and for a city hall security system. The civic plaza sculpture is an integral part of the civic plaza which has been developed in conjunction with the L /H /N redevelopment project, located on the northeast corner of the 66th Street /Lyndale Avenue intersection. For several months, a citizen's committee, chaired by Ralph Bruins, has been seeking to raise funds to pay for a sculpture which has been commissioned for that site, from Richfield artist, Norman Holman. However, it appears that the committee's fund raising activities are virtually losing ground to inflation, as the cost of materials for the sculpture continue to increase. For this reason and because of the importance of the sculpture to the overall plaza identity, it is my recommendation that the city council appro- priate $20,000 in monies from the Special Revenue Fund to enable the sculptor to begin work on the piece of art to be placed at the plaza. The city hall security system is part of a package for overall city security, that has been discussed on several previous occasions. Council Letter No. 219 -2- July 13, 1981 Additional details regarding this project are described as part of another council letter requesting council approval of this specific purchase of the security equipment. It is recommended that the city council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance, appropriating $25,000 from the Special Revenue Fund for park land acquisition, $20,000 for the civic plaza sculpture, and $6,000 for a city hall security system. Respectfully submitted, nn Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Services Director Community Development Director Finance Coordinator TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN } CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PARK LAND ACQUISITION AND BETTERMENT The City of Richfield does ordain: Section 1. It is found and determined necessary and ex- pedient for the City of Richfield to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of the Capital Improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, and for the acquisition and betterment of public parks and playgrounds, projects for which the city would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2. The capital improvements and the amounts of ex- penditure for such improvements which are hereby authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Chapter 7, Section 7.12, subdivision 2, of the City Charter, are as follows: Civic Plaza Sculpture $20,000 Park Land Acquisition 25,000 Gen. Government Buildings 6,000 $51,000, Section 3. The expenditure herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council resolution. 13th�Pro,,os-ed,by the City ouncil of the City of Richfield this daof Julys 1981 Donald Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk