Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
07-14-75 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA Of:£ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 232 ~. . Agenela auly 1~+, 1975. ..The Honorable Mayor. ~:. and . Members of the City Counci~ City of Richfield - Gentlemen: Subject: Concrete and. Asphalt Repair -Cedar Avenue. ~,iquor Store The ]_975 - 1980 Capital Improvement Program has made provisions to - redo the concrete sidewalks, curbs and asphalt parking areas at the Cedar A"~enue ,Liquor Store . The city staff has discussed the matter with one of the city's street contractors and the contractor has agreed to do the.~work by change order on his existing contract. Minnesota Valley Surfacing-Company-has agreed to do this Mork by change order in the amount of $15,227.7. Funds are available, for this work in current liquor store profits, It is the recommendation of the city's staff that the city council aauthorize. the execution of a change order-with Minnesota.Valley'Surfacing Company in t'ne • amount of $15,227.75. - Respectfully submitted, ~~ . Peter G. Eberz Acting City Manager PGE:cr CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA r Office`of City Manager .Council-Letter No. 231 Agenda July 14, 1975 The Honorable Mayor and Members of .the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Purchase of Service Agreement with The Storefront, Inc. For the city council meeting of July 14, .1.975, an agreement. for' counse-ling services between the City of Richfield and The Storefront, Inc. has. been pre- pared for :city council review and adoption. The agreement outlines the services which. the Storefront agrees to provide to the Richfield. community, and in turn specifies that the city will provide city funds. in the amount. of $2, 810.00. During the budget hearings held in the fall of 1974, mention was made that during the year 1975. a request would be made. to the. City of Richfield for monies t~ finance the rent and utilities for The Storefront,, Inc. and-the final 1975 adopted budget included $3 , 900 for this purpose . These monies were placed in the .General. Government Buildings Division of the Department of Public Works.. At the time the 1975 city budget was .adopted it was originally thought that the city would be asked to provide .monies for the Storefront's. rent and utilities for the entire year of 1975. However, it was- later learned that. the 19.74 fiscal year. grant for the Hennepin Area Youth Diversion Project (August 1, .1974 to July 31 , Y975) included sufficient monies to finance the rent and utilities for the Storefront from the period January 1, 1975 to July 31 , 1975. Consequently, the purchase of service agreement which has been submitted to the city council inclines monies only for the five month period from August 1, 1975. to December 31 , .1.975 , The requested amount of $2, 810 includes rent, phone electricity, equipment, janitorial help and printing services for a period of five months. The agreement for counseling services was prepared with the assistance of the city attorney. The agreement outlines in considerable detail the various services that are provided by the Storefront to the Richfield community. The -agreement merely summarizes the services which. the Storefront has always provided to the Richfield community and includes no modifications. By way of information, Council Letter No. 231 - 2 - July l4, 1975 the 1975 fiscal-year grant from the Hennepin Area .Youth Diversion Project, of which the Storefront is a .part, has been approved by the-State .Crime Commission in the amount' of $310 , 013.00. Of h`is amount an estimated $78 , 358,..00-is used o operate the Storefront. Future Funding The proposed purchase of service agreement covers only the first five months' of the Storefront's 1975 fiscal year,. i. e. Augusta 1 , 1975 to December 31 , 1975 The financial upport which will be requested 'of the City. for the.year 1976 is at this time unknown...: It is anticipated that a request will be made by the Storefront forthe City .to continue to provide funds for .rent and utilities throughout 1976. In additien, monies, may be requested in order to meet the change in .the :funding ratio between federal and local monies . The funding ratio for fiscal year 1975 is 90°fo - 10%. However, this. ratio changes to 60% federal - 40% local for .fiscal year 1976: Although the major portion of the increased local match may be financed by Hennepin County, it is expected that local communities served by the Storefront will have ao previde increased. local funds . This may mean that for 1976 Richfield will be`asked to provide additional .funds over and above rent and utilities to the Storefront. The. staff of the Hennepin Area Youth Diversion Project and the Storefront are currently discussing the anticipated contributions which will be requested of the City of Richfield ..during the year 1976. Monies for such purpose will be included in the 1.975 proposed budgef and representatives .from the Storefront will be prepared to offer. further justification for this request during. the. course ef. the city council budget hearings . In summary, the city council is asked to approve the proposed Agreement for Counseling: Services between the City of Richfield and The Storefront, Inc. and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute said agreement. Respectfully submitte ~~ •' Wayne Burggraaff City Manager WSB/bab Attachment . AGREEMENT FOR COUNSELING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into as of the day of ~ 1975, by and between CITY OF RICHFIELD,. a Minnesota municipal corporation, ("city") , and THE STOREFRONT, INC. , a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, ("contractor") . This agreement shall be for the period August 1, 197.5 through December 31, 1975. WITNESSETH: 'WHEREAS, the city, in fulfilling its governmental. role, has an interest in avoiding antisocial conduct, avoiding or ameliorating social problems , avoiding infractions of the law, diverting youth from the criminal justice system, assisting young people in finding solutions to their individual problems, assisting the police department, school • officials and others within the community in the handling of the problems of youthful. residents of the city; and WHEREAS, such interests of .the city canbe served by having available to the youthful residents of the city a youth counseling and referral service , and WHEREAS, contractor is in existence for the purpose of providing such youth counseling and referral services and is willing to provide - such services for the city. . NOW , THEREFORE it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. City herewith engages contractor to perform services, and contractor agrees to provide services to the city, consisting of the following: • A. Counseling and re erral services to juvenile residents of the city who are` referred to con ractor by members of the city police department, its recreational de ~ artment staff, representatives of the school • district, the Hennepin County IVlunicipal Court, the Hennepin County District Court, social welfare. agencies of Hennepin County and parents , custodians, guardians or other ' ersons having responsibility for such youthful residents of the city. B. In cases where pe sons referred to contractor have problems which cannot be fully or adequately dealt with through counseling by contractor, appropriate referrals will be made by contractor to other persons or organizations . C. Primary emphasis ''in counseling will be on an individual diagnosis of the person referre to determine his or her basic needs, but such diagnosis shall not inclu e psychological or vocational testing.. •. D. In appropriate cases such counseling shall include, as an adjunct to the counseling of a juvenile, diagnostic counseling of other family members or other persons in the household where he or she resides E. Counseling will include crisis intervention in situations where a youth appears to be having difficulties that require immediate.. resolutions and can be handled by the counseling which contractor can ..provide . F. A follow-up on referrals will be made. by contractor, where contractor deems this to be necessary, in order to determine the extent to which an individual client's (problem or problems have been resolved through the efforts of contractor or through the efforts of others to whom the contractor has referred the client. -. G. Contractor will consult with law enforcement officers of the city, officials of the school district and other appropriate persons to keep them advised of the nature of the services being provided under this agreement and to work out procedures which will facilitate the' providing of contractor's services . H. In providing its services, contractor will send its representa- fives to locations within the city where such services can be rendered in4 the most effective manner such as at schools , playgrounds , public .buildings - and other places within the city where juvenile residents of the city may congregate. I. The counseling services shall, in appropriate cases, include • the rendering of assistance by contractor to individual. youth in working .out suitable programs for dealing with their problems with schools , juvenile authorities , employers and others . - - J. Contractor shall use its best efforts to coordinate the programs of various youth service organizations and agencies within and outside of the city which provide services to youthful residents of the city, with the object of improving upon the coordination and performance of such organ- izations and agencies in meeting the total needs of the client youth involved. K. Contractor will hold itself- available for consultation with juvenile authorities of the city so that such authorities are kept advised of the status of'those situations which fall within their areas of responsibility. '~ L. Contractor will undertake to identify any new or different ` kinds of services which should be made available to youthful residents of the city in order to meet then unmet needs in personal development and social adjustment. ' M . Contractor will pr ovide the equivalent of at least one full time youth worker to serve resid ents of the city referred for services . - The entire staff of contractor w' ll be available to work with said residents - as needed. Said youth workers will have access to services of secretary - provided by contractor. N. City will receive 11 services provided by the Hennepin Area .Youth Diversion Program to con actor. -These include the monitoring of • .agency budget, the maintenanc of fiscal records , and the coordination of local units by providing assist a nce and direction in data collection, fisc 1 management, staff developmen and training, program monitoring and • evaluation. City will also rec ive support of the board of directors of the HAYDP. O. Youth workers pro viding services to residents of city will receive supervision and in se ice. staff training from contractor and - professional support and. growt ~ <through .contact with other staff members of contractor . P. Residents of city will be eligible. to participate in all programs offered by contractor. These c rrently include a chemical dependency: orientation program for families , a growth. group for adolescents , and a concerned persons group for pa rents concerned about the drug use of a child. i Y: 2 . To assure proper coordination between the city: and contractor, under this agreement, the contractor agrees to take the following measures: A . It will provide a position on its board of directors for an employee of the city to be designated by the city manager. B. It will permit a member of the city's governing body, to be designated by the city council, to attend, as an observer, all meetings of the board of directors of contractor, and to participate in the discussions and deliberations of such board, without the right to vote. C. It will send copies of all meetings of its board of directors to those persons designated by the city promptly after each board of directors meeting. . D. It will send to all members of the city council a quarterly statistical report summarizing the nature of the activities of contractor in providing the services described in this .agreement. 3. For the performance of the services described in section #1 above, the .city agrees. to .pay and contractor agrees to accept payments on the following basis: A. The amount of direct city funds which the city shall be . obligated to pay for such services shall be the sum of $2 , 810.00 This sum includes the following: Rent $265.00/month for 5 months 1, 325.00 Phone ~ 140.00/month for 5 months 700.00 Electricity 50.00/month for 5 months 250.00 Janitorial Help 4.00/week for 22 weeks 88.00 2 Air Conditioners 184.00. 203.00 387.00 /-~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA.. Office of City :Manager. . Council .Letter No. 230 Agenda July 14, 1975 The .Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council >City' of Richfield , Gentlemen: Subject: Traffic Control at the Intersection of 18th Avenue and 64th Streets The city staff has received a petition from 36 of the residents. in the vicinity of 18th Avenue. and 64th Street requesting that afour-way stop sign be installed at the intersection of 64th and 18th Avenue. The .city staff- has reviewed the traffic problem generated from'Taft Park inthis area and recog- nzes that some .additional traffic control may be warranted. It is .the recommendation of the city. staff that afour-way stop sign not • be installed on 18th Avenue and 64th Street, but the following stop signs ` should be installed in this area: 1`. A two-way stop sign at 64th Street and 18th Avenue stopping north and southbound 18th Avenue traffic. 2. A two-way stop sign installed at the intersection of 17th Avenue and 64th Street stopping east and westbound-64th Street traffic. 3. A two-way stop sign installed at the intersection of 16th Avenue and 64th Street stopping north and southbound 16th Avenue traffic. 4. Aright turn only sign should be installed at the 63rd Street exit to the Taft Park parking lot to encourage park users to exit onto Cedar Avenue . T.t is the staff's feeling that these additional signs, together with the existing signs at Bloomington and 64th and Cedar and 64th will be more productive than the installation of a four-way stop sign at 18th Avenue and 64th Street. Respectful],y submitte , ayn S:. Burggraaff City anager WSB/eja Council Letter No. 229 Agenda July 14 , 19 7 5 The Honorable -Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: 1975 Street Paving Program On the July 14, 1975 city council.-agenda there is an item discussing certain aspects of the -1975 permanent street paving program. Oliver Avenue between 66th Street and 67th Street The city has received a petition signed by 8 property owners on the west side-of Oliver Avenue between 66th Street and 67th Street. The petition requests • the city to install the 30-foot street that the council approved on June 23, 1975 but requests that the street not be off-centered to save the trees, but centered in the right-of-way, They do not feel it is equitable that they lose their boule- ward while the. properties across the street gain additional boulevard. The centering of a 30-foot street in .this rig ht-of-way will result in the removal of 6 additional trees fora .total of 9 trees. The construction of a 30 foot off-centered street would result in the removal of 3 trees . Knox Avenue between 66th and 67th Street The city staff has received a petition signed by 16 of the property owners on Knox Avenue between 66th and 67th Street requesting .that the city install a 30-foot street rather than a 36 foot street. The staff has reviewed this street and feels that if a 34-foot street was constructed it would necessitate the re- moval of one tree, .However, the residents are concerned about traffic resolutions and the aesthetics of their street and not with tree removal alone. Newton Avenue between 66th and 67th Street The city staff has received a petition signed by 26 of the residents on Newton-..Avenue between 66th Street and 67th Street requesting that the city council install a 30 foot street rather than a 36 foot street. The residents are . requesting the construction of a 30 foot street> for many reasons, not for the Council Letter No. 229 -2- July. 14,:1975 the saving of trees.. The construction of a 36 foot street would .require the removal of 3 trees . . In addition, the residents. of Newton`'Avenue have also requested the ...placement of .signs relating to speed limit; children playing, etc. 68th Street between Penn Avenue and Humboldt Avenue The city staff has received a petition signed by 29 of the residents along 68th Street between Penn Avenue and Humboldt Avenue requesting that the city install a 32 foot street rather than a 36 foot- treet. As with the other streets, the reasons _for-this request are not limited to preservation of `trees. In addition, the residents request that the corners at the intersections of Newton, Morgan .and Logan be standard radious corners and`that a four-.way stop sign be installed at the intersection of Logan and Irving Avenue Morgan Avenue between 66th Street and Humboldt Avenue While the .city staff has not received a petition from .the residents on Morgan Avenue between 66th and 67th Street, the staff has been contacted by several residents. on this. block of Morgan Avenue requesting that the city con- struct a 30 foot street versus the standard 36 foot street. The reasons for their • request are the same reasons that appear on the petitions received for other streets under discussion this evening . Attached -are copies of the petitions received. Respectfully submitted, l ayne S Burggraaff ` City Man ger WSB/eja cc: Public Works Director Public Safety Director J l .. .. _.. PETITION ?de, the undersigned, all state that we are residents, Owners and Tax-p<~yers .residing on the 1~lest side of the bC~00 Block of Oliver South, Kichfield, i That as such we are vitally interested in the Proposed Street Changes and construction. affecting our Block and our Homeso That we are .all agreeable to the construction of a street & Gutters of 30 feet width instead of the Original proposal of 36 FeEto However: we understand that under the present plans and proposals, it is the intention of the City &~Or Planning Commission to take the proposed expansion space solely or principally from the Properties on the west side of the streets We do not feel. that this is equitable and that it particularily adversely affect the property grade .and approaches of several of the lots on the west side of the streeto We, the undersigned, therefore petition that the Proposed street Grade from the Center of the Surveyed Flight of Wayo~ l O 1' • O O O •. O •~0 • • • • • • e • O • a p o e • o O • O • • O • ~O • O o ~• • e O !~ • ~• o o • • O • • O O • • O • • ..~~`. J ~ >~y ~l ~~~~ . e.ro•..••......... •.. •.o••~...0•~~1~••.~1....e••..~......~ ~~~-~ , O • • •' ~ • e • O • o • • ~• O • O • o O O • • • O • • O O • O • • O • • o O • O O O • O • • • • `•~7y'~/• .• • O -O•O• • O•••• • ••00•• 00••00•••• •~••~•••O •••••• •~••~~T'Z I 1 • ~ • • o e • • • •~ C Ka YO e o • • • • •~• `G e • • e o ~ pC ~~~~. ..........................:~1.US J.S~?•J • • • O • • 0 • O • • • • • • • O • • • • • • • a • O • • o • • • • • O e O • O o O O O • • • • • • • • • e • • • • • n•~ • • • • • • • • • • • • O O FJ ~ Ci ~~7~a8 .~, I ! _~~b~~ __.._ ~___..,.:__ _----- - ~_ _--- ~ _ _ ~----._---fit c~t_~-t e fed-.-C ~- - __ ~a +~ ~c c ~ --- '.-- ~ ~'~----~~'i~<dst~~_--- ~~ /Ashy-- --!`~S~Glc.~t'~s -~~`° ----------- '--___-_.___-- -~---- -- L _ f S ~ - _ _ -- ---- ----- --- ---------- ! ~-~ ---- _Nt ~ a'~S~t_~i - ---- ___-_- ~; ~U P 1 ~~~ 3 b~2 cS At Gt _~ ~8 G[~ /A.S . --~l~ ---- (~ p--- ----- ---- ~~-- ~------------ ___. c~~~~~ ~~--------./~- - ~ ------ - K --- --- - --- -~-- -- ------ --------- _. ~ /~ .rte ~~.~ - ------ ---- --- ---- - ---- -- ~- ---e i '' ~ i __ __. -.._. _.__.__-_._ t ~/~~'~.t-G~iea4 __.--1---_ _ ----.. ---- ------ - -- - - ---- ---------- ----------- -----...------- __- __._- i ,_ ~.~i~~_~- ~~s?~j_ - --. _ ~ ~~ _~fi~!~o--ic•-sou-@-_,_:. ., .~;~ - -- . ~ ~ -- ~_ __ ---- -- ~~ 3 9- - .- - ~_~_~____ _ _ _.- _- --ill ~~.~~~ _ --- ~ ~ ~ _ ~- 5 ~~3~ .~ ~" ~e~---_~~reC. _~a-~~1~~-s_ .c~~~~e___Si ha~,ttire~_ -c;Ro--~o~.---~P~@car_._w~r~ v~o r - ---- ab f~ ~ b~. crw~~ac~d, . g t ,'! ~ ~ .. ~~ ~~~~ July 2, 1975 - City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Attention: Office of .City Manager Re: Permission to Appear Before. .Richfield City Council July 14, 1975 Meeting - Gentlemen: We, the undersigned, being residents of the 6600 Block, Newton Avenue, - Richfield, Minnesota, hereby respectfully request the opportunity to appear before the Richfield City Council at,the'-July 14, 1975 meeting. -The purpose of -said appearance is to discuss the"following matters: 1) Proposed width (as improved) of Newton Avenue. 2)~ Placement of certain signs relating to the speed limit, children playing, and that such .street is not a thru street. Thank you very much for your cooperation and courtesy in this .matter. Very truly yours, . - ` awes A. Miller - 621 Newton Avenue South P,S. -Attached hereto please find a list of signatures from those residents interested in the above matter. JAM/ sr,.~ Enclosure - ;~ ~~, ' ~~u~- ~~~~~ n1 ~~ _~~ I li0 ~~/ / /G it. ~e ~U~ ..., ~'1 . ,i _ ~.~~ ~~ . p E T I T I 0 N ~~.~ t;t bti .:~:~~Lt~s •' W~, the undersigned Richfield property owners residing along and ad3acent to West 68th Street, between. Penn Avenue and-the termination of West 68th Street near 35W, respectfully request and do hereby Petition that the Rich- field City Council authorize Street Improvment Program specifications for said street in accordance with the following specifications: 1. That the corners at the intersections of Newton, Morgan, and Logan be standard radius corners. `~ 2. That the width of the street be thirty-two (32) feet. . - 3. That four-way stop signs be installed at the intersections ~'wi rg a.t~Logan and , that a stop sign be installed to_ . control westbound traffic at Newton, .and that a stop sign .. be installed to control eastbound traffic at Oliver. NAME ADDRESS RATE '~ -.: ~ ~S ~~c~~ ~~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ 7~ ~ ~ .- ~ `~ ,,~,~ ~ ~°'"~' . ~C ~00.~~ N~~an~ ~ (oBbd ~ ~ 5° ,tae ~5' _ ' P E T I T I O N .~ • ~ ~ _ --~ - • K ~ ` ~ ~ ~ •~ \ \ ~~ ~ O'er. V ~-' }~' ~~ /. (~~ c ~. .... ~ 1~ O/ I ~ ~fp~ ~ .~~/''' ~ r l,l .,~1 t _ .. y '~ ~ ~- (~ -. l - ~ ~ _ ~~/ ~J~iLdi~~ _ J ~ '~ ~~ - \ ~ - 1 . ; W~, the undersigned Richfield property owners residing along and adjacent to West 68•th-Street, between Penn Avenue and the termination of West 68th Street near 35W, respectfully request and do hereby petition that the Rich- field City Council authorize .Street Improvment Program specifications for said street. in accordance with the following specifications: 1. That the corners at the. intersections of Newton, Morgan, and. Logan be standard radius corners. `~ 2. That the width of the street be thirty-two (32) feet. 3. That four-way stop signs be installed at the intersections =vwi n a.t•Logan and , that a stop sign be installed to control westbound traffic at Newton, .and that a stop sign • be installed to control eastbound traffic at Oliver. .NAME ~ ADDRESS DATE P E T I T I O N • ~W~, the undersigned Richfield property owners residing along and ad3acent to West 68~th~Street, between Penn Avenue and~the termination of West 68th Street near 35W, respectfully request and do hereby petition that the Rich- field City Council authorize Street Improvment Program specifications for said street in accordance with the following specifications: 1. That the corners at the intersections of Newton, Morgan, and Logan be standard radius corners. `' 2. That the width of the street be thirty-two~(32) feet. . 3. That four-way stop signs be installed at the intersections ~ r~r~ ~ a.t Logan and that a stop sign be installed to. control westbound traffic at Newton, .and that a stop sign .. be installed to control-eastbound--traffic-at Oliverc- NAME ~ ADDRESS DATE .~ _ - - ~ bo o - - ~ • ,. s -T - • e ~~ ~+ / ' \ r - '- ~ - -~- --1 - -- ~- ~y CITY OF :RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA:- Office of City Manager - Council Letter No . 22S Agenda July 14, 1975,.: The Honorable ..Mayor and Members of the City Council -City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Report on Traffic Signals, Roosevelt Park Area At the. April 28, 1975 city council meeting the city council authorized the installation of a four-way-stop sign at the intersection of 76th Street and 3rd - Avenue: In addition, the-.city council requested the staff to investigate the need for a traffic signal at ..thin location. The staff has completed this study and the results are as follows: 1. Pedestrians crossing 76th Street July 1,.:1975, 7:00 a.rn. 9:00 p.m. - 4. 2. Bicycles crossing 7.6th Street July 1, 197:5,- 7:00 a.m. • 9:OO p:m. - 18. 3. School children crossing 76th Street: during the school year with ideal weather conditions - 125. 4. School children crossing 76th Street during the. school year with inclement weather - 7-10. TRAFFIC VOLUP•ZES JULY l: 1975; 7:00 A.M. TO 9:00 P.M. f~ 0 ~, n~ ~% f~ ~~ 7 _ 2 y' ~. 32 i~ i ~~ ~. 7~~i The total' Yolume'enterin~ intersection for 14 hour period- - 1+,660. Peak hour.- 150. Council Letter No. 228 -2- July 14, 1975 :;, • These traffic and pedestrian volumes are such that they do not approach the volumes required by the Minnesota Manual on' Uniform Traffic Control Devices . ' (A copy of these warrants: are attached) . It~ is he-opinion of the Public Safety Department and the Public Works Department that there. is not justification to install a traffic signal at .this .intersection. Respectfully submttec ~'~ ~ ' Wayne Burggraaff City' Manager V1TSB/e j a cc: Public Works Director Public Safety Director • 'E Th0 (0110\~'lllg data al'C x150 C1CS1rabIC f01' a 1nOTC 111'CCISC U11dC1'- .;: !~ sttcndinr; of the ol~crat.ion of the intersection .and nrly be obtained ~ dttrinl; t.11e periods speciticcl ill (2) above: • ~ t K •. 1. Vehicle-seconds <lc)ay deterlninecl separai;ely for cacll approach. ~ 2. '.C11e Number and clista•ibutioll of ~r•L >s in vehicular traffic o11 the •` t~ 1. . ~~ major street. \vllell milior-street traffic finds it possible to use the i11- . t ti f l . ersec oll sa e y. . ~ 3.''hhe 85-percentile speed of vehicles on controlled approaches at j a point,near to the intersection bLLt unaflecte(1 by the control. '; • ~ • ~ 4. Pedestrian Bela;y time for at leas(. t\vo 30-minute peal: pedes- trian delay periods of illl average \veel~da.y or life periods of a . Saturday or a Sunday. . .A.dequa.tc road\\•a3r capacity at a signalized intersection is desir- ~ ' - able. 11'iclening of both the main bigll\\-ay and the intersecting road- \vay lnay be. \varranted i:o reduce the dcla3•s caused by asst gnment of ; - .. • .right-of-\va.y: at intersections controlled by traffic signals.. 1ti'idening ' ' of the intersecting road\vay is often beneficial to operation on the "~ ~~ ~ main lligllvay .because it reduces the signal time that. must be as- ~..~' . . ` signed to side-street traffic. In urban areas, the effect of \videning ~ . CfLll be aclliet-eel by elimination .of l~;irli171b at ini:ersection~Ll ap- ` : . proaches. It is al\\•ays desu•able to have at least t\vo lades for moving traffic on each approach to a signalized intersection. ~lclditional ~ " \vidth may be necessary on the leaving side of the intersection, as ~ I ~~ Y \vell as ih(: approach side, in order to clear traffic throubll the inter- j section effecti~•ely: Tiefore an intersection is \videned, the additional ~ ~~ ~ .. green time needed by pedestrians to cross the R~idened streets should ` ~ • be checked to ensure that it will not exceed the green time saved through improved vehicular fIo\v. - - ttFi- i ~ i . ~iC-2 '4'~' grants for I'raflic Signal InsfaIIation E ' , • ~ ~. Traffic control sib fats should not be installed. unless one or more t ` ' of the signal \varrants in this Manual are met. Information should ( ' be obtained by means of engineering studies and compared \vith the • . ~~ . ~ requirements set forth in the \varrants: If these requirements are : ~: •• not met, .a traffic siglial should neither be put into operation nor •~ continued in operation (if already installed). ' ~' 1Srllell a: traffic control siglial •is indicated as being warranted, it is - . , . presumed that the signal and all related traffic control devices and ' • ` ~ - ., markings nre inslallecl according to the standards set forth in this ~ ~~ • . ~ . -. Dfalnlal. It is further prestlmecl that sib\al indications are properly :~: phased, that road\vays are properly desiblled, that adjacent traffic + ' signals are properly coordinated, that there is adequate supervision i~ -.~ of the operation and maintenance of the signal and all of its related i`. - • ~>„ de\rlces, alit that the traffic signal controller will be selected on the ~f • F . basis of engineering study and judgment. •1~ ., ., ~ l . _ .. • 23S ~ qC-2 ~ : f` ~ ~ _ is • - ~ .. _. 1 . +' iE . .. • ~' ~ _ ~' . - . ~ r( r ' t i t _ N . .. ' ~ • • y . • . - - An i1l~vestigatiolz of the need for tra.(lic sigllai control sllouIcl i - - . n clilde rt-sere applicable, at least aIZ analysis of the factors contained in the fo'lIo\ti~ing warrants: - {: ZVa~•rant 1-nlllImuux vehicular volume, I ~ ~ ~ ~ ` _ ~ ' - ~'~'aprant 2-Intez•ruptioii of continuous traffic ~ : :' • - - . .. ~ ~Var'raiit 3---~:Iinimum pedestrian volume • ~ ; - . •tVarrant 4-School crossings. . ~ ~ ~ ~ -r «~ar ~ "IV rant 5-Progressive movement, ~ - t 6 l * ~ ~• ~ ar ~ ' ran --l ccident experience. f t~Tar ~ant 7-Systems ~. t • :. x• , 'tjrar~ . ant 8-Combination of warrants. - _ ` ; ~C-3 ~~rarrant l., 1~linirnum Vehicular Volume .. i - ! ~ The Ati tion whe ninitlm '~'ellictllar Volume warralzt is intended for applica- re the volume of intersectin t ffi i h I for• consi g ra c s t e principal reason Fleratiou of sigl~zl installation Th when, foz} . e ~rarrant is sai;isfed each of an ~ 8 ho nrs of aII average clay, the traffic volumes . , ~' given in ~ l he table below exist on the major street and on the higher- vo ume minor-street approach to the ilifersection. - .. ~~I\TIDIU.II VL••IIICIIL:II1 VOL1jlIF.S FOR ~Ve1ItR<1NT 1 I j ' ., - ' ~ .. ~ A'umber of - Vehicles per hour lanes for movin? trafnc Vehicles per hour on higher-volume b - ' ' ~ 4 : on Major St on .major street. minor -street ap- each approach - (total of both a P- proach (one di- reet llii St ~ ~~ ' ~ ~ • . • nor reet proaches) rection only) ~ x'-------------,.._ i ________----- 500 +. 150 2 or more - 1 G00 150 2 o more ----- 2 or mor t ' ': _ e ---- S00 200 1 ---- ---- ----- or more _..__ 500 200 } ~ ~. .; . . ~ ~ These. major-street and minor-street v olumes are for the same 8 hours. ~lu•iilg those 8 hours, the direction of hi her l t ~ ~ "' g vo ume on the minor'street may be on one a roa h d in . pp c ur g some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours - ~ F i" . . ~tj'hen the 55-percentile. speed of major-street traffic exceeds 40 - miles er 1'iou , l ~ ~;~: p r or w ielz the intersection lies within the built-tt area L p ` & of an isola eci coznmullity Ilavinn a o nllati p 1 on of less than 10 000 the ~ ; ` M , , minimum ~-ellicular vollune warrant is i0 percent of the require- meats above (in z•ecob zition of differences in the t i ~ ~ ~ 1 '.. ~ - ~ na ure and Opera- tional c11ai•~rctcristics ofd traffic in urban anti rural ellviroll111ellts • . • anal smaller municipalities). • t l ~' - ~: 4C-4 ~'Varrant 2, Interruption of Continuous Traffic ( • ,'~llo Iiitc •ruption of Contimlolls Traffic «arz•allt ~ li o t a fl cs t opcrat- IIlg C011(lI{1O11S 1ChC['C t.11C'tl'RfilC b"O~I1IllC OIl a InajOr S{1'CCt IS SO 11C.LVy ~~ 4G-2 236 ~ ; ' t t ~ ; t ' ~_ ~. • .. ' 4 ~ N. y Y r...i -1.vrry~ •~ ...M~r r..n.. ~ esr ~. . ...a,e, .- « ...... ...-........- . `._.._._~. _. •.. . _ ~ - • w i that ta•aflic oii a minor iut.ersecting street sttftcrs excessive delay or t. ; ~ liazarci in entering or crossing. tlic nut.jor street. 1'he warrant: is ~j satisfied ~vl~cn, for cacli of any 8 l~oui:s of tin avei<ige clay, t,lic tr<i.flic t K ~ t f; ~voliiuics given 3n the i.a.ble belo~~~ exist on the major street: and on tiic . ~' ;~ hitihcr-volurno minor-street approach to the intersection, and the ~ signal installation' ~~>ill not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow: c 1lfrxruuat VLrrzcuLnii VozvM>;s roar ~~~nrztnHT 2 ~ Tr .~ . t T~ Vehicles per hour • Number of lanes for moving trafTic Vehicles per hour on higher-vo}ume • ~ • on each approach UA major street minor-street ap- (tot:al of both ap- preach (one c}i- ;d • Major Street Riinor Street riroaches? section only) ` I - _-__------ 1 ------------- ' 750 75 ~ ~ 2 or more ------ x ------------- 400 75 ', . ' ~ 2 or more -__.-.- 2 or more __-- 900 - X00 ~ _ •.= '.. ; I _________ _____ 2 or more __-- 750 ' .~ ' ~..c~, ~ These major-street and minor-street volumes are for the same 8 ~ . hours. During those 8 hours, the direction of hi •her volume out - g he ~ • • minor street ma,y be on one approach during some hours and on the ~ ~ r. • ~ _ opposite approach dw~ing other hours, i '4Phen the 85-percentile speed of major-street traffic exceeds 40 ~ ~ i ~: :~ miles per hour, or n>hen the intersection lies ~>ithin the built-up area . ;- of an isolated community having a population of less thYzn 10,000 the . :.; • : , Y'~ ..interruption of continuous traffic warrant is i 0 percent of the re- : quirements above (in recognition of dif)'erences in the nature and +; . ;; ~• operational cha.•acteri.stics of tra.ffie in urban end rural environments and smaller municipalities). - . • • ~ 4G-5 '~'Yarrant 3, ltZinimum Pedestrian Volume ! ~ • , - i The nZinimum Pedestrian Volume warrant is satisfied when for 'I , each of any.8 hours of an average day, the following traffic volumes exist: ' :. ~ X. 4n the major street, 600 or more vehicles per hour enter the - • ~ intersection (total of both approaches) ;~ or where there is a raised • ' ~, ~ ~~ median island 4 feet or snore iu width, 1,000 or more vehicles per .` ~. " hour (total of both approaches) enter the intersection on th . ' e major street; and : # -. _ 2. During rho sama~ 8 hours as in paragraph (1) there are 150 or " ~" • . '` more pedestrians per hour on the highest volume crosswalk crossuig ~~ t; • the major street. . • 'When the 85-percentile speed, of major-street traffic exceeds 40 t: • ~ .~ ~. miles per hour, or .c>lieii the intersection lies within the built-up area • of an isolated community having a population of less than 10;000 ~ ' _ , ;~~ the minimum pedestrian volume warrant is 70 percent of the re- ' ;~ . - 237 4C-5 ~. .• ;C: ' . - .. - ~t • •. _. '~ ~ ` . . • ..: - • . ;~ i ~' i .. 1 .. l~ . ~ " Ty.iwdD.l~y;~.~.~ ~ ....,.a..»-..,way • i- .~. c -......r. ...... . _ quirements above (in recognition of differences in rho nature and =_ operational characteristics of_ traffic itt urban attrl rural environments ~ - and smaller municipalities). 4, ,, . .tL signal installed under this warrant at an isolated intersection ,should ~e of the trafl"ic-actttatecl type ~~•it:lt push buttons for. pedes- ~ " '~ ~ ~ ' trians crossing the main street. If .such a signal is installed at aai i _ intersection within a signal system; it should be equipped and op- • ~ era ed with control devices which provide proper coordination.. ` ,{ ~~ • Sigua~s installed according to ~ this warrant shall be ecluippecl with . " pedestrian tndicat.ions conformi~tg .to requirements set forth in other ~ • ~ sections of this lla.nual.. ~ ; Signals may be installed. at nonintersection locations (mid-blocl~ • provide i the re tiii•~ments of this warrant are met .and } q ~ , provided •` that 't.he rehted crosswalk is not closer than l-v0' to a.tiother estab- ' f: . lishecl cr sswalk. Curbside parking shoitld be prohibited for 100' in " adianca of and 20' beyond the crosswalk. Pleasing, coordination, and instillation must conform to standards set forth in this DZanual. ~ • Special alttention s}toulcl be: given to the sim1al Bead b placement and • the .signs and markings used at nonintersection locations to be sera ~ t . drivers are aware of this special application. • ._~ ~ ~C-G SVarrant 4, School Crossing ~ : - .. : ~ ~ A traf}ilc control signal may be warranted at ate established s _ crossing Felten a traffic engineering sandy of the frequency and adl . • : ; e uac of q y gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as rclatecl to the arum- ~J~ :` .~ ~ ~ ber and size of rou ~~ ~ ~ ~ g 1.. of school children at the school ct•~ssing shows t ` ~.: ~. • that the umber of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the ` i _- period w ~ en the children are using the crossing is less than tho number of minutes in the same period (sec. fiA-3). . ~'Vlten traffic control' signals. aro installed enti • ~ ~ t ely under this . warrant ~ < ~ ' 1. Pedestrian indications shall be provided at least for each cross- } r " walk established as a school crossing. 2. At an intersection, the signal normally should be traffic-actuated. ~ " .As a tnitiinum, it should be semi-traffic-acttiatecl, .but full actuation ~ ~' ;.. with detec>rors on a.ll approaches may be desirable. Intersection in- ` - staliations allot can befitted into progressive signal s3~stems may Nava I = " • t (; pretimed control. ~ ' • 3. 1lt non-intersection crossings, the signal should bo pedestrian- ~ r = actuated, l~atkiig and other obstructions to view should bo pro- s ,. hibited foi~ at least 100 feet in advance of and 20 feet beyond tho • ~ ~ eross~ralk, and .tlte installation sltoulci include suitable standard sirens ' `- ' . and 3avcment markings. n 1 r, Special police snpet•vision :iucl/or enforce- ` • t ~ merit slt~tilcl b© 1>roi~iciccl for a ne~v non-ittterseetiott installation. ., t 4C-5 wJ 23a ~ ; . [ ~ ~; • ' - ~ ~~ • ~ ~. ~ Wit,-~ rr~rran~ v, rrob2•esslve zrtovelttent ~ ; 'f )?rogressivc zno~•cmeni: coilt'~f" soulet•imes necessitates traffic signal installations at iniersect.ious wlierc they ~~•ould not. othcr~~•ise be •~ ~.` wat•ranted, in order to maintain proper grouping of vehicles and ,_ f N • : e0'ectivcly regulate group speed. 'I'he Progressive 11loveznent war- . • R rani; is sat.isficd when : - 1. On a one-~1•ay street or a street which has predominantly uni- ~ ~ ~. .directional:, traffic, the adjacent signals are so far apart that they do t • i { not provide the necessary degree of vehicle platooning and speed ~ I coni.ro), or _ ~. '- . 2. On a two-`~-ayr street, adjacent signals dD not provide the neces- • . sa.ry degree of platooning and speed control and the proposed and . , ~~ adjacen{; signals could constitute a progressive signal system. ~ • ~ . The insta.)lai,ion of a sigzial according to this ~~•arrnnt should be ~ based on the 8~-percentile speed unless an engineering study indi- . ca~es that; another speed ~is more desirable. ' - • The installation of a signal according to this warz:•ant should not " ` be considered where the resultant; signa) spacing would be less than ` ' ~~ • 1,000 feeL-. . .. - a ~: , • . .. ~G-8 't'Varraztt G, Accident )!J~perience . . ~ _ • The Accident Experience warrazlt Is satisfied ~j hen •.. ? 1. Adequate trial of less .restrictive remedies with satisfactory ~ observan.ce .and. enforcement has failed to reduce the accident fre- rr ~ ; • quency;and : ~ _ •. # 2. Five or more reported accidents, of types susceptible; of correc- • ~ tion by traffic signal contro), have occurred within a 12-month period, • each accicleitt; in~-olving personal injury or property damage to an ; s • apparen.i; extent of ~IOO or more; and f 3. There exists a >>olume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic .not I s less than 80 percent of the requirements specified either in the mimi- - ~ ` muzn velticula,r volume warrant, the interruption of continuous traffic ; warranty or the minimuin pedestrian volume warrant; and - "- 4. The signal inst<~,llation will not SCTIOUSly dlsrttpt progreSSlVe ~ ~. . t2•affic flow. •. - ~ Any traffic signal installed solely ozt the Accident Experience war- • ~ ~ f • " rant sltotilci be semi-traffic-actuated (with control devices which pro- ~ vido proper coordination if installed at itu intersection within a ~ ~ ~ ' coordinated system) and normally should be fully trailic-actuated if installed at an isolated intersection. 4G9 .Warrant 7, Sysfiems Z'Varrant - E A traffic signal izistallation at some intersections may be yvarranted ~ r : ~Ft, to.encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow networks. y~ ! . 239 ~!C-9 .. , _ ... • --~-•..-...::ter--w-•+-~+... - .-.. ... ...-.. .,r.r : ~~, •,+-.:r + .-~..-.. ;...z~ c ;- .. - ( [$ r '• . t ~ i - ~ ; ~ ~ .r - ~ '• '. ... ~ i i i ,~ t .. ;: '' ~' The Syste2ns warrant is applicable molten the co2nmon intersection of t~vo or mo •e major rout;es has a total existing, or i~nmeeliatcly pro- ~ • - jetted, c2tt~ring voltutre of at least 800 ~•ehiclc •' ~• s dut2nb the peak hour ,~ • of a typical weekday, or each of any five hours of a Saturday and/or ~ i Su2tday f ' ~ • ' . f 1i major route as used in the above warrant has one or more of the folloll itig characteristics t 1. It •is part of the street _or highway system that serves a s the - - principal n~ttvork for tltrouglt tra.flic flow; _ ~$ - 2. It connects areas of prirtcipnl trailic generation 3. It iaclucles rural or. subtu•ba2t highi~~a3•s outside of, entering or ,- traversing a city; 4. It has surface sixeet freeway or es resswa ram ~ t • P y 1 e2m2nals; ` ':. - 5. It appears as a 2najor -route on an official plan such as a major } street plan in an urban area tra.flic and transportation study. ' f 4G-10 ~Vai'rrant 8, Combination of Warrants • - = ,. In e~ceptiional cases, signals occasionally may be justified where '' ~ no single ~~~arra2tt is satisfied but where two or more of Z'~'at•rants ' ..f " 1, 2, and 3 Fare satisfied to the extent of 80 percent or more of the silted values. ~ • ~~ ~ A.de uate trial o q f other remed2al measutes ~vliiclt cause less delay ~~. ' and inconvenience to traffic should.. precede installation of signals i -under this ~s{arrant.. • ' •~ ~. .: ~C-11 It'ac;ors Governing Selection of Tyke of Control ! 1 = 1 The princ~pa.l factors that may lead to the favorable consideration t - ; ~ ~of traffic-actuated control in the selectio t ~: ., , i 2i of the type of signal con-. r . trol include : 1. Low, fltctttating or unbala2tced traffic volumes. ~ _ 2. high s}de street trail2c volumes and, delays only during the peak hours. I ~' ~ `° 3. The pedestrian or accident warrant is the only warrant which is . met. € i 4. The installation is to•provide for one-SVay move2nent of tw - . _ .. way traffic. _ 5. The i2tsi:allation is at anon-intersection location. ~: •, 4G-12 Pedestrian-~1etu<ited Control • Operatio2x of traffic-actuated signals must tike into consideration ~ ~ ~•' • the needs oI ~teclestriatts as well as v • . elt2cular traflic.~ TIt2s can bo ac- ' complished in the following ways; • ~ 1. ~tVlten pedestrian signals are not ~vart•anted in conjunction with ~ ~: n traffic-actua;tecl signal installation. (sec. ~D-3) but where occasional ^' t 1 ~,~, • 4C-~ • 240. ~: ' ,' ~ ~~. ~,. .mow r. w-. ,. .-. ...~ ~ - y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office. of -City ,Manager Council Letter No. 227 Agenda July 14, 1975 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the `City Council City of Richfield: . Gentlemen: Subject: Tabulation;of Bids, Approval of Minutes and Award of Contract for Donaldson Park Building Expansion and Wood Lake Nature Center. Storage Facility.. On July 9, 1975 bids were opened by the acting city manager in accordance with previous city council ;authorization for construction work.-relating to the expansion of the Donaldson Park shelter and for- construction work. relating to a V1Tood Lake Nature Center storage facility. The acting park and recreation _~ director, city clerk, construction inspector, and representatives of the archi- tectural firm designing both projec s were also `present'at the.~bid opening. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for city council review. Donaldson Park You will recall that the Donaldson Park project .began with appropriations being set aside in 1973 and 1974 fora total project cost of $425, 000. At the time of the original appropriation, it was felt the present. shelter structure could be enlarged and, improved at a cost of approximately $25., 000. :Our most recent information to the city council has indicated additional monies. may be needed to provide for the remodeling. of the restroom facilities. to meet the .needs of the handicapped. The low base bid, including the improvement bf the restroom facilities, by a responsible bidder, is $28,776. Sufficient funds are remaining within the original appropriation for staff to recommend the acceptance of this, low bid,., Wood Lake Nature Center The project budget for the Wood Lake Nature Center storage facility is an appropriated amount of $34,:000. The lowest bid by a responsible bidder i $27, 538. As with the.. Donaldson Park building expansion,. sufficient funds have Council Letter No. 227 -2- July 14, 1975 been appropriated for thisconstruction-item. ?t-is the staff's recommendation that the low bid be accepted. Summary In summary, it is recommended that the city council take the following actions:. 1. Approve bid minutes 2 .. Approve the award of bid as' per the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, 1 ~ _ /~.~; ~ rJ, CITY OF RICHFIELD • Bid Opening July 9, 1975 REMODELING OF ACTIVITY BUILDING - DONALDSON PARK ADDITION - WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the administrative staff was called to order by Peter Eberz, Acting City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was. to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids on remodeling of Activity Building at Donaldson Park and an Addition to Wood Lake Nature Center as advertised in the official newspaper on June 26 and July 3, 1975. Presents -Peter Eberz, Acting City Manager Don Fondrick, Acting Park and Recreation Director Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk Robert Quanbeck, Architect The following bids were submitted and read aloud: • COMBINED BID FOR WOOD LAKE BIDDER AND DONALDSON PARK & DONALDSON PARK SEPARATE BID SECURITY WOODLAKE SEPARATE BID ALT. ~~1 BID Berglund-Johnson, Inc. B.B 5% $66,492 $32,192 $3,423 $34,792 Elder-Jones, Inc. B.B 5% $27,538 Geo, F. Cook Constr. Co. B.B. 5% $66,800 $36,300 $3,800 $31,300 Robert Westlund Constr. Co. B.B. 5% $57,652 $28,776 $2,300 $28,876 Bud Johnson Constr. Co. B.B. 5% $61,000 $31,900 $3,700 $30,500 Langer Constr, Co. B.B. 5% $83,574 $37,994 $4,894 $49,653 The acting city manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting on Monday, July 14, 1975. • Thomas J. Moran City Clerk BID TABULATION DONALDSON PARK SHELTER; City Project No. 654 WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER STORAGE FACILITY; City Project No. 677. i Bid Opening:. 2:00 PM, July 9, 1975 Council Action: July 14, 1975 __w-_e_._ __ COMBINED T ' ~ _ r__ DONALDSON PARKS ~..___.m_____ DEDUCT -_ WOOD LAKE CONTRACTOR BID BO,JD BID :SEPARATE BID ) ______ ALT. 1 __.-.._- HEPARA7E-.BID.-w.- -----_- -_ - Berglund-Johnson, Inca. ..__..~ ,~ - __ 5% ~ $66,492 ._ $32,192 . ~- '^ $3,42.3 Y $34.,792 ~ ~ Elder-Janes, Inc. .5% ~ f No Bid No Bid ~ Bid No $27,538* Geo. F. Cook Construction Co. 5% $66,800 $36,300 $3,800 ~ $31,300 Robert Westlund Constructio~n~~~_Co. ~ 5°6 $57,b52~ H $28,776* ~ $2,300 ~ ` ~ $28,876 Bud Johnson Construction Ca. i 5% $61,000 $31,900 ~ Y $3,700 $30,500 Langer Construction Company ~~ 5% _ $83,574 ~37,994 $4,894 V $49,653 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO ROBERT WESTLUND CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR REMODELING OF ACTIVITY BUILDING AT DONALDSON PARK AND ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO ELDER-JONES, INC. FOR ADDITION OF STORAGE .BUILDING AT WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER DONALDSON PARK: CITY PROJECT NO. 654 WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER: CITY PROJECT NO. 677 Clerks File No. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1 . That it is hereby determined that the bid of Robert Westlund Construction Co, is the lowest bid by a responsible bidder for the remodeling of the activity building at Donaldson Park, City Project No. 654. 2. That the -bid of Robert Westlund Construction Co. for the remodeling of the activity building of the above referenced project, at the price contained in their proposal of July 9, 1975, with an estimated construction cost of $28, 776 is hereby accepted. • 3. That it is hereby determined that the bid of Elder-Jones, Inc. is the lowest bid, by a responsible bidder, for the addition of a storage facility at the Wood Lake Nature Center, .Project No. 677. 4. That the bid of Elder-Jones, Inc. for the addition of a storage facility at the above referenced project, at the price contained in their proposal of July 9, 1975 with an estimated construction cost of $27,538 is hereby accepted. 5. That the proposed contracts between Robert Westlund Construction Co. and Elder-Jones, Tnc. and the City of Richfield be given Clerk's File No. and be placed on file. That said proposed contracts for the construction of said city projects are hereby approved and adopted, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute said contracts for or on behalf of the City of Richfield and the Clerk is authorized and directed to affix the city seal thereto. 6. That payments to be made under the terms of said contracts shall be charged against the appropriate Construction Funds . 7. That the Corporate Surety Bonds in the sum of the estimated contract prices which accompany said proposed contracts are hereby accepted and approved. 8. That the city clerk is authorized and directed to return the security documents to the unsuccessful bidders upon the execution of said proposed contracts . Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of July, 1975. Mayor Loren L. Law ATTEST: Thomas J . Moran City Clerk "~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of 'City ~ Manager Council Letter No. 226 Agenda :July 14 , 1975 The Honorable Mayor. and " 1Vlembers of the City Council: City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subiect.; New Home Program At the June 23, 1975 Housing and Radeve oprnent Authority meeting the HRA approved an agreement with the city to establish a fund for the purpose. of :carrying out the New•Horne Progra.m.. This-agreement is on. the city council agenda- for consideration and actin by the-city ..council... • Members. of the city council received a detailed report on the New Home Program-in preparation. for he June 23 HRA meeting. In summary,:.the attached . agreement provides for establishment of a fund of up to $100, 000 to support the New .Home Program. The anticipated sources of funds for. establishing the revolving fund would be the.-sale of certain city owned new Fordtown lots less city costs and a community development block grant of $50, 000. `It is recommended that the city council approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the city. ' Respectfully submitted, " --~ ,: ~; ~.1 • 1 Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc Planning Director Finance Director EXHIBIT A A. Selection of Criteria for Buildings and Vacant Lots ~` ~ 1. That the building selected is substandard as to condition, size. and usage on the real property on which it is located; 2. That the building selected is obsolete and of faulty design .for , the block and .area in which it is located; 3. That the building selected is a deteriorating factor which has caused blight to the lot on which it is located and could lead to the spread of blight. or tipping conditions of other properties abutting this property; 4. That the building selected is detrimental to safety or health of the abutting properties in the block; ,. 5. That the parcel selected, when acquired, vaould become a marketable lot on which to build a new structure compatible to the neighborhood; 6. That all acquisitions be made on a voluntary basis; 7. That the .absolute write-down on acquisition and relocation costs shall not exceed 50% of properties real value unless approved by the city . All properties considered .for negotiations shall meet at least four of the criteria ore through seven, and for all vacant lots at least three of the criteria one through seven. B. Operating Guidelines The authority will seek properties through field survey, public contacts and publicity as needed, to add to its resource of possible acquisitions. The authority shall follow as a guide in selecting properties the principle that a feasible sale price of the developed property shall be consistent with the marketability of properties within the surrounding area. The authority shall prepare a general operating plan which may include: 1. An inventory of vacant residential substandard buildings. 2. An inventory of occupied substandard residential buildings. 3. An inventory of vacant lots. 4. Goals and evaluation procedure. '~ 5. A set of policies and administrative procedures In no case shall the authority proceed with the purchase of land or buildings until such a plan is approved: by the city. ~: ~ AGREEMENT _ da of , 19_, - :THE AGREEMENT, ..made this _ Y by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for. the City of•Richfield, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota,-party of the first part, hereinafter called "The Authority", anc~ the City of Richfield, a municipal corporation, under the laws of the State of Minnesota, party of the w; second part, hereinafter called "The .City". WITNESSETH: . WHEREAS, the Authority.-has the power, under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.445, Subdivision 1 (7), within its area of operation, and without the adoption of an urban renewal. plant, to acquire, other than by the exercise of the power of eminent domain. and without the adoption of a resolution provided for .in Subdivision l (6) of said section, real property, and to demolish, ' remove, rehabilitate or reconstruct the buildings and improvements •or to construct new buildings or improvements thereon, or to grade,~~ fill and construct foundations or otherwise prepare the site for improvements, and to dispose of said property pursuant to Minnesota • Statutes, Section 462.425, provided that the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.525 requiring conformance to an urban renewal plant shall not apply, and to, finance such activities by means of the redevelopment project fund or by means of tax increments or tax . increment bonds or by the methods of .financing provided for. in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.545, or by means of ccsntributions from a municipality, provided for iii Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.581 (9), or by any combination of such means; provided that,. real property with bui.~dings or improvements .thereon shall only be acquired when the buildings or improvements are-substandard. For the purpose. of this subparagra~li, substandard buildings or improve- ments mean buildings or improvements that are dilapidated or obsolescent, faultily designed; lacking-adequate ventilation, light or .sanitary facilities, or any combination of these or other factors that are detrimental to the safety or health of the community;. WHEREAS,-the Authority. has the power under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462'.445., Subdivision 4 (2) within its area of operation to determine where substandard, slum or blighted areas exist or where there is unsafe, unsanitary or overcrowded housing; and - WHEREAS, the City is authorized under the provisions of Minnesota .Statutes,. Section 46.581 (9) to furnish. funds available to it from any source, to ari authority to pay all or`any part of the cost of the Authority of the activities authorized by Minnesota-. Statutes,. Section 462.445 Subdivision 1 (7); and- WHEREAS, the City has certain funds available for the execution . of a•New Home Program; and WHEREAS, the City is desious of transferring to the Authority certain sums of money as hereinafter provided. for the purpose of .carrying out said New Home Program within the area of operation of the Authority; NOW, THEREFORE,. IT IS HEREBY AGREED, between the parties hereto as follows: 1. The City, upon execution of .this agreement, shall provide, as such funds become available to it, the sum of not to exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) to the Authority. The source of said funds shall be: (a) $50,000.from Community Development Block Grants, ._ or such sum a~ is received by the City in such grants ir_ the MY Community Development. program year of 1975.-1976.:. (b) The proceeds of .the sale. of .city-owned parcels of land known. as "Surplus Metropolitan Airports Commission • Property"; provided, however, that if said. parcels are ° .transferred to the Authority for sale, any sale proceeds in excess of the amount necessary to supply the .total sum of $100,000 specified in this paragraph shall be transferred .by .the Authority to the City. If, for any reason, the Community Development Grants specified above are not made available to the city in the program year 1975-1976 -this agreement - _ -shall be of no effect. Funds provided pursuant to this paragraph shall be used to defray all costs of the new home program. 2. (a) The Authority, upon the receipt of sand funds, shall • ' undertake performance hereunder; and shall continue to provide such staff, facilities and assistance as in its opinion are needed to carry out .the activities of the New Home Program, until such time . t . / as provided for herein. as the Agreement is terminated l e d by (b) The Authority shall return all monies receiv it in the course of this contract-to the account and fund originally e s~d as a revolvin fund in carr in supplied by the City, to b u g Y g out the terms of this contract . 3. The Authority shall keep accounting records of all funds received, and additional records in such detail as may be reasonably required by the City. ~. be '1 as ma sh llmake in such detai 4. The Authority a , Y reasonably required by the City, and forward to the City an annual report in writing as to the actual progress of the Authority with: respect to the New Home Program. 5. This Agreement may ~e terminated by either party upon. 60 days written .notice. Upon. termination of the contract, the Authority • shall pay to the City all money remaining in the fund established by Paragraph 1 and 2 (b) of this- contract. 6. 'The administrative costs of the Authority shall not exceed •an average of seven percent of~the purchase price of all property acquired under this Agreement. - 7. The Authority~agrces to hold the City of Richfield harmless • from any and all claims or lawsuits that might result from activities .:under this .Agreement. 8. The City of Richfieild agrees to hold the~Authority harm- _lessfrom any and all claims 'or lawsuits that might result from any activities of the.Cityof Richfield under, this .Agreement. .. • 9. This Agreement incorporates by reference the provision .of the. document entitled "Terms of Operation attached hereto as Exhibit .~ ."A" and made apart hereof." This Agreement shall also incorporate and be subject to all the provisions in Part II, hereto attached. IN WTTN~SS WHEREOF, the parties have on the day and year first . above written duly executed this Agreement by their duly authorized officers. THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN APdD FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD By ~~ Its Chairman By Its Secretary •~ CITY OF RICHFIELD . :: - By Mayor ~ Attest - -_ Czty Clern ~ . Countersigned City Manager Approved as to Legality City Attorney _ • _ { ~. ~` s:. .. ~. . i i': . ~. . _ ~ ;. ^4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA City Manager Office of . Council Letter No . 2 2 5 Agenda July 14, '1975 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the :City Council City of Richfield ,. Gentlemen: ' Subject: Information on Retaining a Consultant to Examine the City's Data Processing System The purpose cf this council letter is to ,provide information requested by the city council on retention of a consultant to examine the city's automated data processing system. Background Information On March 10, 1975 the city council authorized the city manager to request bids to purchase new equipment for the purpose of upgrading the city's exist-' ng computer system. The city has leased a computer system since 1969. In examing the city's need for data processing service. and improvements that have occurred within the industry, it was determined that the city could upgrade the present system 'to a randomaccess disc type system and at the same time reduce costs of the system's operation. The upgrading of the computer system would. provide the city with additional. information storage and an instant retrieval process. Information was presented to the city council which indicated that by purchasing-the equipment proposed there would be a total savings of more than: $6, 0:00 during the first five years when the equipment was .being amori- ' tined, and ari annual savings of more than $21, 000 after the first five years. At a time when budgets are very tight and the city is restricted in its ability to .levy, it appeared to the city staff that the purchase of equipment with resultant savings in this magnitude indicated a .very substantial increase. in productivity through improved technology. Qn March 24, 1975 three bids were received and on April 14, 1975 the. city - manager recommended that the city council approve the low bid from Data/3 Computer Corporation in he amount of $ 7 2 , 9 64 which was three percent under the t a L City Council Letter No. 225 -2- July 14, 1975 • estimated cost of this equipment. While three, bids were received, some companies. indicated to the city council that they were either unable. to bid equipment based on the city's specifications; had inadequate'-.time to bid, or . were not aware of the opportunity to bid . The city council considered. the city manager's recommendation and the complaints from bidders and made a decision to reject all bids. ~ In subsequent discussions of this ma ter the city manager recommended that `the city council authorize the taking of new bids for this equipment. However, Mayor .Law sugge ted that perhaps it might be desirable for-the city to retain a consultant to examine the city's automated dada processing system and the need for equipment o operate that system. In accordance with the; Mayor's 'suggestion, the city council asked the staff to obtain information as to what it might cost for a consultant to examine the city's data processing system and hardware needs Scope of Services It has-been difficult to obtain specific information in accordance with the , ;" city council's request since there is a ,great variety of work which;, consultant could do on a, data processing system. Inasmuch ~~s the city council did not indicate the-specific type of cansuiting service which they -would .like to consider, the staff made an arbitrary decision to include the following genera, items in the scope'of services which we used when .visiting with consultants: 1 . .Examine present data processing system and .applications and determine potential future use of data processing service-.. for the next five years in the city organization. 2. Develop equipment requirements and prepare bid specifications including a definition of how bids will be evaluated. 3 . Hold prebid meetings with interested bidders . 4. Evaluate bids received . 5. Submit an independent recommendation. to the city council for the award of a bid . The overall objective of utilizing a consultant would be to .follow the initiative of the city staff in enhancing the city's technical capacity in the data processing system and at the same time reducing operating costs. w ... . Council Letter No, 225 -3- - July 14, 1975 ~. Estimated Cost of Services Inasmuch as we were only<attempting to obtain general information and. not seeking specific proposals for service, our. conversations with potential consultants were of a general nature. However, ten consultants were contacted with four indicating that they worked mostly in the application of 'compu er software. The remaining six consultants did indicate a qualification for examining overall systems and designing hardware requirements and evaluating bids submitted. For the most part our discussions were conducted over the -phone so that consultants.. have not fully examined the city's system. However, they were advised as to the number of programs which-the city presently utilized, the size of our operation and' the kinds of products produced by the system. Those. consultants contacted by the city indicated that fees ranged from $200. to $SOO per day depending upon the consultant and the type of service required. 'Most consultants indicated that engagements of this-nature re- quired ten-twenty days of consulting service. Thus, fees could range from $2, 000 to $10,'000. Summary • Council members will recall that the city staff has previously indicated that.-consulting services are not required for this particular project and that the recommendation of the city staff as indicated previously would be to authorize taking of bids again for equipment similar to that previously specified. However, if it is the decision of thecity council to retain consulting ser- .vices, then it would be appropriate for the city council to authorize the city manager to obtain formal proposals for such services and to negotiate atent- ati,ve contract to be submitted to the city council for consideration and action.- Respectfully sub ted, ~• Wayne S . Burggraa ff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Finance Director ~~ #, ,~_ ~y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City.' Manager Council Letter No. 224 Agenda July 14, 1975 The I3gnorable Mayor - and 1VIcmbexs of the City Council Cl.ty of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Tabulation and Rejection of Bids for Mini-Pumper On Monday; June 2~, 1975-bids were opened by the city manager for a rn;ini-pumper for the fire division of .the public safety department. .Also present were the envl.ronmental .health director, public safety. director, he public works: director and the finance director. Attached is a copy of the bl.d tabulations and minutes from.the bid opening. Although a dotal. of six bids were received ranging in price from $19, 500 to $30, 690, it has-been determined. that none. of the bidders met all of the specificc~tons .requested. Bidders generally quoted standard pieces of equipment and included only nominal modifications relating to the .city specification: Inasmuch as the bids do not meet specifications, it is the recornmendatiAn of the public. safety director, in which I.concur, that the bids be rejected. ~ Tt is our intentipn .to review the Specifications and make whatever minor adjustments might be desirable.. to encourage more bidders to submit bids meeting specifications. We intend to do this as rapidly as possible so that we can take new bids on this equipment late this month or early in August. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council reject the-bids received and authorise the city manager to request new bids for a fire division mini- pFamper. - Respectfully submitted, ~- Wayne .S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Safety Director Finance Director CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening June 23, 1975 • ATTACK MINI-PUMPER Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the administrative staff was called to order by Wayne Burggraaff, City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids on the Attack Mini-Pumper as advertised in the official newspaper June 5, 1975. Present: Wayne Burggraaff, City Manager Peter Eberz, Public Works Director Tom Morgan, Public Safety Director Tom Moran, City Clerk BIDDER AND CONVENTIONAL ATTACK ALTEKNA'1'~: A'1''1'Al:1C BID SECURITY MINI-PUMPER MINI-PUMPER W/EXTENDED CAB Pierce Manufacturing Inc. B.B 5% $22, 240.00 $865 Howe Fire Apparatus Co. B.B. $1 750 30 690.68 Luverne Fire Appartus Co. B.B. $998 19 554.C0 F.M.C. Corporation B.B. 5% 19 500.00 Emergency One, Inc. • B.B. 5°~ 23 673.00 450 General Safety Equipment Corp. B.B. 5% 21 120.00 The city manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the council meeting on June 23, 1975. Thomas J. Moran City Clerk r~ ~~ 4 r CI OF RICHFIELD MI TY NNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No . 2 2 3 Agenda July 14, 1975 The Honorable '1Vlayor and Mennbers of the City Council ..City of Richfield .Gentlemen: Subject:.- Resolution Authorizing Removal or Repair of Hazardous Structure'at :6.528 16th Avenue The city has made .numerous efforts to obtain necessary .repairs or the removal of a hazardous structure at 652:8 16th Avenue through normal admin- istrative procedures . Orders issued thus far have not been complied; with so it is, therefore, recommended "that the city council adopt a resolution authorizing the city: manager to advise the owner that unless action is taken within aspecified - time period that a Motion for Summary Enforcement of the Order will be made to the Hennepin County District Court. A cppy of this resolution is attached: Respectfully submi Wayne Burggraa " City nager WSB/eja cc: City Attorney Exivironznental Health Director '• _ ~. ' °'~ ~~ 1. ~+ RESOLUTION NO. i ~' RESOLUTION, AUTHORIZING TFiE CITY MANAGER TO ORDER ~ THE REMOVAL OR REPAIR OF THE HAZARDOUS STRUCTURE I LOCATED AT 6528-16th AVENUE SOUTH j i Ij j BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of ; Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: I 1, 'Pursuant to Sections 463.15 to 463.261, inclusive, ':: Minnesota Statutes, the City Council of the City of Richfield, finds that the house located at the above address on land legally; ~; described as Lot 8, Block 12 Nokomis Gardens Rearrangements of Blocks •7, 11•and 12, Girard Parkview is hazardous within f the meaning of the aforesaid statute for the following reasons: ' a, The structure is unoccupied and has not been ' maintained for some time. b. There are no sanitary facilities provided in the structure. • c. There is no heat. ` d. The electrical wiring is unsafe and cannot be I used. e. Windows are broken. f. Soffits and eaves are in disrepair.. g, Floor joists within the house are unsafe. h. The interior of the house is in a shambles, } ':, is fire damaged and full of debris. i. The bearing walls are fire damaged in several ~ places. ~ j, The. shingles on the roof are deteriorated. i • I 2. Pursuant to the. foregoing and in accordance with the said, statute, the City Manager is hereby authori-zed and ~; directed to order the owner of said property to correct the above- ~i described deficiencies or to remove or_ raze such hazardous building., ~' and that said repair, razing or removal be completed within i 1i thirty (30) days of the date of service of .said Order. I 3. The City Manager shall advise the owner that unless such action is taken. or an answer served upon the City and ` filed in the office of the Clerk of District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota, within twenty (20) days of the date of service of the Order` upon him, a Motion for Summary Enforcement of the Order will be made to the Hennepin County District Court. 4. -The City Manager shall further advise the owner that ". f if the City of Richfield is compelled to take any corrective action herein all necessary costs will be assessed against the real estate and all necessary expenses will be certified to the f County Auditor .for collection and that such costs and expenses ~ will be collected as other taxes. 5. The City Manager is further authorized to give the above notice to any lien holders of record. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 1975. ~° Loren L. Law Mayor i i; i.: ~!~- - ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD,` MINNESOTA Office of City Manager '~ Council. Letter No. 222 .:Agenda July 14, 1975 Thee Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council _ City of Richfield Gentlemen• . Subject: Resolution Authorizing Removal or Repair of Hazardous Structure at 6330 Oliver Avenue 'the city has made numerous efforts to obtain necessary repairs or the rernoval of a hazardous structure at 6330 Oliver Avenue through normal ad- ministrative .procedures. Orders issued thus far have not been complied with so it is, therefore, recorr~mended that the city council adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to advise the owner that ..unless action is taken within a specified period of time that a Motion for Summary Enforcement of the Order will be made o the Hennepin County. District Court. A copy of .this resolution is attached . Respectfully submi c Wayn S. Burggraa City anager_ WSB/eja cc: 'City Attorney Environmental Health Director RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ORDER THE REMOVAL OR REPAIR OF THE HAZARDOUS STRUCTURE .LOCATED AT 6330 OLIVER AVENUE SOUTH { i BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: i 1. Pursuant to Sections 463.15 to 463.261, inclusive., { Minnesota Statutes, the City Council of the City of Richfield,' finds that the house located at the above address on land legally described as Lot l0, Block 12 Ray's Lynnhurst Addition is hazardous within the meaning of the aforesaid statute for the following reasons: I a. The structure is uninhabited and has not been ' maintained for some time.. i b. The roof .sags and is in .poor condition with { shingles missing and deteriorating. G c. The living room ceiling sags. ' i d. There is a hole in the kitchen ceiling. j .e. The foundation is cracking and separating. '1 f. There. is no plumbing vent for the toilet. ' g: The wall heater is unsafe. ~, !; ~~ 2. Pursuant to the foregoing and. in accordance with the said statute, the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed s to order the owner of said property to correct the above- '` described deficiencies or to remove or raze such hazardous ~` building and that said repair, razing or removal be completed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of said Order.. ' ~~ 3. The City Manager shall advise the owner that unless such action is taken or an answer served upon the City and 1 ~~ filed i.n the office of the Clerk of District Court of Hennepin } ~' County, Minnesota, within twenty (20) days of .the date of ~ service of the Order upon him, a Motion for Summary Enforcement !' of the Order will be made to the Hennepin County District Court. ~+ j~ 4. The City Manager shall further advise the owner j (; that if the City of Richfield. is compelled to take any corrective ~; action herein all necessary costs will be assessed against the ~; real estate and all necessary expenses will be certified to the , '!~ County Auditor for collection and that such costs and expenses- j !3 will be collected as other taxes. 5. The City Manager is further authorized to give the ,i i above notice to any lien: holders of record. i { Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this { day of 1975. {! ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk is '{ t Loren L.. Law Mayor ~~ ~ ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, ..MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 221 . Agenda July 14, 1975 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen.: Subject: Resolution Authorizing Removal or Repair of Hazardous Structure at 6901 Elliot Avenue The city has made numerous efforts to obtain necessary repairs, or the removal of a hazardous. structure at 6901 Elliot Avenue through normaY ad- ministrative procedures: S Orders. issued thus far 'have not been complied with so it is therefore, recommended that the -city council adopt. a resolution authorizing the city manager to advise the owner tha unles action is taken within a specified time period that a Motion for Summary`Enforcement of the Order will be made to the Hennepin County District Court..- A copyof this resolution is attached. Respectfully submit d, yne Burggraaff City M pager WSB/eja cc: City Attorney _ Environmental.Health Director .RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ORDER ~. ii THE REMOVAL OR REPAIR OF THE HAZARDOUS STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 6901 ELLIOT AVENUE SOUTH I '~ 1 ~~ ;, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of ' ;Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. .Pursuant to Sections 463.15 to 463.261, inclusive, ''Minnesota Statutes, the City Council of the City of Richfield, :finds that the house located at the above address on land legally described as N 59 ft. of W 133 54/100 ft Lot 26 Baumgartners .1st Addition ~,zs hazardous within the meaning of the aforesaid statute for the :following reasons: ! a. The front steps are deteriorated and unsafe. i ~~ b. Several windows are broken. . ~~ c. The sanitary facilities are not adequate. , d. Plumbing and electrical wiring need repair l and updating. 1~ e. The roof needs repair. I f. The exterior siding and windowsills need !i replacement. l~ ~ 2. Pursuant to the foregoing and in accordance with ;the said .statute, the City Manager is hereby authorized and. r !!directed to~order the owner of said .property to correct the J:above-described deficiencies or to remove or raze such hazardous ~~building and that said repair, razing or removal be completed j`within thirty (30) days of the date of service of said Order. ii 3. The City Manager shall advise the owner that unless ' such action is •taken or_ an answer served upon the City and filed in the office of the Clerk of District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota within twenty (20) days of the date of service of the Order upon him, a Motion for Summary Enforcement of the Order will be made to the Hennepin County District Court. ~4. The Cit Manager shall further advise the owner Y that if the City of Richfield is compelled to take any corrective action herein all necessary costs will be assessed against the ~ •;real estate and all necessary expenses will be certified. to the 'County Auditor for collection and that such costs and expenses ;will be collected as other taxes. ~ 5. The City Manager is further authorized to give the ~ above notice to any lien holders of recoxd. !~ Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this ~~ day of ~ 1975. ~I TTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk i; sf I }. Loren L. Law Mayor {' F:r. _ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESQTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 220 ~<~ Agenda July T4, 1975 The Honorable Mayor azd Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Hearing on Proposed L/H/N Land Use Program' The purpose of this council letter is to present to the city: council the proposed land use concept-program deve oped as part of the Lynda le/H~:b/ Nicollet commercial study. The city council is requested to review the proposed program, adapt the -program and authorize the consultant to proceed with Phase. III `of the study. • Qn June 30 1975 the Housing and'-Redevelopment Authority met in joint ses°sion with the planning commission to hear a presentation by the commer- - cial improvement committee. on the proposed ..land use concept .program . Following the presentation, the HRA accepted the proposed program with the provision that commercial areas be developed to Grand Avenue with appropriate screening provided at Grand Avenue and that consideration be given to appropriate screening along the`west property lines of the Super America Service.Station.and post office for he benefit of residential properties to the west. The final HRA action was to recommend the land use program to the city council. for consider- aton and action at the July 14, 1975 city council meeting. The planning commission also passed a resolution indicating the commission was in full support of the L/H/N plan as proposed by the committee and further recommended -that the city council authorize .initiation of Phase III. In addition o adopting the land use. concept plan 'the city council is also requested to authorize the consultant to proceed with Phase III. Phase III, which has~a maximum cost of $10, 000 and will be completed over a period of 120 days, will consist of the following items: 1.' -Refinement of the adopted land use program. 2. :Environmental assessment. 3. Financial feasibility study. Council Letter No.. 220 -2- July 1~, 1975 RESOLUTION NO, LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET LAND USE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the development of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Commercial Improvement Program and in particular Phase II, Alternative Land Use Program, and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted the goals and objectives to the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Commercial Improvement Program, and WHEREAS, the Commercial Improvement Committee, the Planning Commission and nearby residents have reviewed and endorsed the land use program, and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority has, accepted the • land use program and forwarded it to the City Council for action; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield does adopt the concept land use program and instructs the consultant to begin Phase III. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk :~` `;_ / CITY OF RICHI'TELD, MINNESOTA. Office of ;City Manager - Council Letter No. 219 Agenda 'July 14, 1975 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Gity Council City of Richfield`' Gentlemen: Subject: Request from Fireside Pizza for Adoption of City Ordinance Regulating Wine Licenses Attached i,s a copy of a letter from Mr: David Miller representing Fireside Pizza . Mr. Miller is requesting that the city council request the preparation of an ordinance which,. if adopted by the city council, would provide for the issuance o~ on-salewine licenses in accordance with new legislation enacted 't . by the State Legislature earlier this. year. A copy of the new legislation is_attached for your review. Provisions con cerning the on-sa~.e wine licenses begin with Subdivision 20 on pa-ge 3. If the city 'council .wishes to provide an .opportunity for local restaurants to mare application :for wine licenses, the city attorney should be requested to prepare an ordinance amendment to tfie municipal code which would provide for the issuance of on-sale wine licenses in accordance with the state legislation . Respectfully submitted, ~. Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: _: City Attorney June 30, 1975 . Municipal Building 6700 For'tl and Ave . So . Richfield, Minn. 5523 Mr. Burggraaff This correspondence is being made to the city of Richfield to show our interest in the new act recently past by the Ptinnesota hegislature, allowing wine, licenses to be issued to~restaurants which hold a 3.2 beer license. Our restaurant Fireside Pizza, falls into this category. I have talked to the. City Attorney and City Manager and have been directed to write the Pichfield Council •to express our • desire to obtain such a license. I am aware this is new leg- islation and steps must be taken by the City Council to include this new ac•t as part of the cities laws, pertaining to the issuance of wine and beer licenses. T would appreciate any advice in regards to steps I must take in order to qualify for a license, after it has been enacted into the city ordinance. I am enclosing a copy of the act to which I have been referring, for the convenience of the council. Sincer r~~~• David J. Mill r Fireside Pizza do/DJM ~ ~ U L~ ~ l'1 '4.2p_ ~, "S4 JU' ~ `975 Ricnr~e~a t;Ety Manager . ~R •' ~ _ H.F.iio. 175 CHAPTER i\o. ~, ' ~1~~i lpU ~'y~ ~ iS ....,.. ~ ~t _~ ;; :,, - Ilv~i 1 i LJ . ,t, S~. ~~ahi, L~~-~~~•~ • 1 • - 2 relating to intoxicatingliquarf issuance of 3 licenses by cities] amending Minnesota Statutes 4. 19?4~ Sections 340,11, Subdivisions 7a~ 18 and by • _ 5 adding subdivisionsT 340.13, Subdivision 4; and b 340:353, Subdivision 5; repealing i4innesota • ~ Statutes 1474, Section 340,11, Subdivisions 6 and t3 7. . 9 $E IT ENACTETS,alt THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE de MINilESOTA: 14 Section 1, bfinnesota statutes 1974, Section 340.11, is - il amended by addinga subdivision to readt • 12 5ubd~ 5a. INUMBER OF ON-SALE LICENSES,) Exceptwa's • 13 provided in subdivision 18~ or as otherwise provided by law^ • 14. no ort~sale licenses shalhbe issued in~ity Sn excess of ' is thr following limitations, which shall apply equally to all. • 15 cities regardless of whether a municipal 119uor store is 17 maintained: i~. -' _ 18 (a) In cities of the first class, one license nay be 1g issued for every 1,500 population, up to a naxi7um of ?00 20 licenses. 21 (b) In cities of the second class, not more than 18 22 licenses may be issued, plus one additional license for 23 every 2500 population in e;tcass of 45p000. 24 (c) In cities of the third classy not more_hsn_~2 1 H.F.21o. 176 1 licenses may be issued. 2 (d) In cities of .the fourth clans,. including those 3 cities whose acts of incorporation are__repealed by Laws A 1973, Chapter 123, Article Y, Section 5, not more than seven 5 licenses may ba issued. a a_-__.-----•--------~ 6 (e) In statutory cities of 5,000 to 10,000 population, 7 not more than six licenses may be Sssue4._ g (f) In statutory cities of 2,500 to 5,000 population, .---- --- 9 not more than five licenses may be issued. _ ` 10 C9) In statutory cities of 500 to 2,500 population, not _-__--„ ...~- 11 more than f our licenses maY be lssu_e_d~ 12 th) In statutory cities of under S00 population, not ----_--- 13 more than three licenses may be .issued ` 14 For purposes of thSs subdivision the term ~~statutor-y ` 15.' city" does not include those cities whose acts of lb incorporation are repealed by Laws 1973, Chapter 123r 17 Article V, Section 5, ~18 For purposes of this subdi~;ision population shall. be- - i9 determine.d by the most recent federal decennial census or by i _ 20 spy special census taken pursuant to iaw,^ 21~ This subdivision shall not be construed to increase or 22 decrease•the number of on-sale licenses which maY be issued 23 in any municipality.- - ; 24 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section .340.11, E 25 Subdivision Tae is amended to reads 26 Subd, 'a, IANNEXATI02J OR CONSOLIDATION.? Except for 27 the limitations on ownership of licenses imposedbY section 28 340,13, subdivision 3, a license validly issued within the 29 number prescribed by this section_~. kr3~~°~ ~ 30 , -$-o~--•~*i Shall not be subsequently rendered invalid or ~ --~- t f ~ 3l illegal by reason of any consolidation or annexatlan of 32 territory to a city, and. may-therecfter cont!nue to renaln 4 r - - ~ 2 - H.F.No. 176 ~ 1 in effect and be rene~+ted, Any such license which is Located i 5 2 in territory whicri is annexed to or consolidated xith a r - 3 munieipality~rwhich operates.a municipal liquor store may g thezeafter continue in effect and be renewed, and the t t 5 provisions, including restrictions and limitations, set _ 4 b forth in subdivision 5a and section 340.353, subdivision 5, 7 shall .not apply to the issuance or renewal of such licenses 8 p ,. ti~ac~ef~rs , 9 sec. 3~ Minnesota Statutes 1474, Section 340.11, 10 Subdivision 18, is amended to reads r 'i1 Subd, 18.' The governing body of any city, including ~ j ' . 12 statutory cities and cities issuing "on-sale" licenses ~ t ~ C; . 13 pursuant to section 340,353 may issue "on-sale." licenses in ~! (, 14 excess of the number authorized by-s~'~-_ .. _ 15 3~Yt;3~3 this section , upon authorization by the voters of . lb the municipality voting at a special election called for i 2i 'such purpose or at the general election in the municipality, 18 Such governing body may by majority vote direct that the - 19 following question be placed on the ballot at a special ZO election. called for such purposes or at a general election 21 Of the city= "5ha11 the city council be allowed to issue ZZ ion-sale' licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor at - : Z3 retail in excess of the number now permitted by law?" If a ~ '' i ~i Z4 'majority of voters voting on the question at such election i `. 25 Vote in the affirmative, the governing body~may issue ~ _ 76 ~ "on-sale" licenses in such number as it shall determine 27 without regard to the number authorized by this section, ~ ZS Sec, 4~ Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section 340.11, is 29 appended by adding a subdivision to ready ~ 30 Subd, 20, (O;I-SALE Y~INE LICENSES,] (a) "On-sale wine ~ . 31 licenses" shall mean licenses authorizing the sale of wine 32 not exceeding 14 p. ercent alcohol by volure, for consur;ption 3: ' C~ 4 mean an establishment, under the control of a single S proprietor or manager, having appropriate facilities for ..,...._._.r.."r.._~~ -- - _..r„ 6 serving meals, and where, in consideration of payment 7' therefor; meals. are regularly served at tables to the -------.-- _s 8 general public, and which employs an adequate staff to 9 provide the usual and suitable service to its guests; H.F.No. 176 1 or. the licensed premises only, in con9unction with the sale 2 of food 3 (b) For purposes of this subdivision ~~restaurantY~ shall •aY 10 (c) Any municipality which maintains a municipal liquor 11 store or any municipality or county authorized to issue I2 "onesale" licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor may ~13 -issue one-sale wine licenses to any restaurant having - I4 facilities for seating-not fewer than 25~guests atone time 25 The licenses shall be in addition to the number of on-sale 16 licenses for the sale of intoxicating.liquor authorized by 17 the intoxicating liquors act, The fee far on-sale wine 18 licenses shall be set'•by the issuing authority, but shall _. - w _r_._~....._._..~ 19 -not exceed one half of the license fee charged by the / 20 issuing authority for an on-sale 1lcense, or 52,000,•/ - 21 Whichever is less. Licenses issued pursuant to this 22 subdiVisSon shall not be effective until approved by the 23 commissioner. The licenses shall authorize the sale of xine 2a .as herein provided on all days of the week unless the 25 issuing authority restricts the licenses authorization to 26 the sale of wine on all days other than Sunday. 27 Sec. 5, Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section 340,13, 28 Subdlvision 4, is amended to zeadt 29 Subd, 4. [LICE;dSES PROHIBITED IN MUNICIPALITIES HAYING 30 MUNICIPAL STORES AND LIMITED TO RETAILERS.) Except in-the 31 case of bona fide clubs and veteranss organizations, as 32 authorized by the last paragraph of section 340,11, 4 s 9 t H.F.}to. 17G i •(C- i l subdivision llr no °on-sale" or "off-sale" license r~ other 2 .than a license issued pursuant to section 340.353, 3 subbdiyision 5, shall be directly or indirectly issued in any 4 city naintairing its. own exclusive liquor store, nor shell 5 such license be issued to a person who holds a 6 .manufacturer's or Wholesalers license issued pursuant to 7 any provision of chapter 340.. B• Sec. 6, 'Minnesota statutes 1974, Section 340.353, g Subdivision 5, is amended to reads 10 Subdo 5• [YSSUAtdCE OF LICENSES TO PRIVATE PERSONS.•7 11 Clause•1.- Notwithstanding anY provision of chapter 390, 12 v;hich may indicate the contrary- any city owning and 13 operating. a municipal liquor store on the effective date of 14 this act mayr at the discretion of the governing bodyr issue 15 "on^sale" liquor licenses to .private persons for the 16 operation of liquor stores in conjunction with any 17 establishment. defined in section 340.07 as a hotel or lg restaurantr•and the requl.re,«ents of those definitions 19 relating to seating capacity and the number of guest rooms 20 shall apply for Purposes of this section. The city issuing. 21 any "on^sale" licenses pursuant to this subdivision may. 22 thereafter in connection with the operation of the municipal 23 .liquor store continue to engage in the sale of intoxicating 24 liquor at either on-sale or off4sale, or bothr or may resume 25 operation of any municipal on~sale or off~sale store 26 pre.Yiousiy discontinued. 27 Clause 2. The number of "onesale" licenses issued 2g pursuant to this section by any municipality shall not 29 exceed the number authorized by section 340,11,-~e~"t'~ 30 ~~~~.~-.~ s~ivision 5a ~ provided, that 31 the provisions of section 340.11. subdivision 18, shall 32 apply to anY city issuing licenses pursuant to^th_ls section 5 i ,` H.F.PIo. 176 • ~ ~ ' 1 3 3 ; -~ a-!'--~~~sps--3f•---~~b~3~:: -..~.=wry-~~t~ ~ a-~-:er.-s-~-s--~- 3 ete~crrts~-ze~r:stta--ers--~or'--~3~re---aa~E-c-~°e-~ot~r-'~+~r-e:°~-~-3--~~r;~se-~ 4 ~-ss+s~d ~ . 5 Glause 3. No city shall issue licenses as provided in 6 this section until authorized by the voters of the city j 7 Yotinq on the question at a special election called for such 8 purpose, the election to be conducted iri accordance with the. 9 applicable provisions of the Minnesota election law. ~~~" . 10 See, 7o binnesota Statutes 1974, Section 340,11 ,r --.~:__.r_._---~----------__._ al Subdivisions~6_and 7, are repealed • ' b ~ r - CITY OF RICHEIELID, MINNESOTA Office of -City Manager Council Letter No . 2I 8 Agenda July 14 , 197 5 The Honorable. -Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Variance to the Zoning Requirements, 2100 W. 78th Street Mr. Daniel Schmelz of Schmelz Brothers Volkswagen, 2100 W. 78th Street, requests a variance to construct a commercial building with a zero setback' on 77th Street ..instead of 40 feet setback as .required by the zoning ordinance Section 3.32, Subd. 4, paragraph 2. A request for a variance must be judged in accordance with the conditions set forth in Section 3.40 , Subd . 6 of the city code . If the conditions for granting a variance are present on the property, the city council must grant the variance. If all the conditions are not present on the property, the city council should' deny the variance. Background Land Building Proposed Zoning Requirement Parcel 60, 242 sq.ft. 40'x140' 5600 sq.ft. 40' setback from all roadways Zoning/Land Use C2/Commercial Surrounding Zoning/Land Use N-R N-R E-C2 E-MR W-MR W-MR S-C2 S-Commercial -' Comprehensive Plan: The site andxesidential block immediately to the north is bent suited for high density mixed land uses of a commercial nature.. A six foot high cor~rete block fence exists along the property. The street right-of-way is SO feet and the roadway is 36 feet. Council Letter No. 218 -2- July 14, 19 75 Staff Review The application' has been reviewed in accordance with the following -conditions: 1. That there are specia `circumstances or conditions affecting the' particular }.and., building or use .referred to in he application, not common to other properties in this'or similar districts.. In 1969 the north frontage road_at I4°4 and Penn Avenue was rerouted. In the process, a strip of land 17 feet wide was dedicated for street purposes by the- applicant. The dedication was the request of the city. The addition of-the frontage road has created a parcel of land bounded on three sides by the fo lowing streets;: Penn Avenue, 77th Street and the north frontage road. City code requires any building in a commercial zone to have a 40 foot-front yard setback from all roadways . `The creation of the frontage -road has clearly restricted the amount of usable .eland for de- velopment purposes: The. remanngusable land after setbacks is an eleven .foot wide strip. The dedication of frontage road resulted in a special condition not common to this district and thus a positive finding., can be made for this ;requirement. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation. -and enjoyment of substantial. property rights, . Approximately 91 feet. exists between the right:.-of-way on 77th Street. and the `right- of-way on the north side of the frontage road:::. When the two 40 foot setbacks are subtracted from this figure, there is only an ll' x 244' strip of land which could be developed without. a setback variance. Eleven feet is not a sufficient development depth. The zoning..ardinance does not allow in this. case for a reasonable use of the land . It is the opinion of the staff that granting of the application is necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights. 3 . That. the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect-the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property. or improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed 'building, if constructed, at the property line, will adversely affect the immediate neighbors . Situating the building on the right-of-way will not -allow for sufficient area to create a landscape barrier (transition area) between the resi- dential uses and. the commercial use. Use of 77th Street for commercial traffic will present a safety hazard to the neighbors. The garage activities which are proposed will have a safety and health hazard in terms of traffic, noise and vision impact on the multiple .residential people immediately to .the east. The proposal if constructed, on the property line, will be detrimental to the • public. welfare . By constructing the building without a setback, future traffic and - pedestrian flow options are closed. The options of widening the street and providing -3- .safe pedestrian movement in the future; the options of using the street as a means to help solve the Penn;Avenue I494 intersection congestion problem are both closed without additional condemnation costs. Future options for the use of 77th Street would not be closed, especially when an alternative location 'for the building is availableon the parcel of land. The alternative is to move-the building 11 feet to the` south and expand it 10 feet to the west. The same size building can be constructed with this alternative. Staff Re commendation The staff feels that the criteria for granting the-variance are not all satisfied and recommends against granting the variance.. However, if the following stipu-> ' laitons were made part of .the variance, then in the staff's opinion, the criteria would be satisfied. 1 . The proposed building to be setback from the 77th Street right-of-way (property line) a minimum of 11 feet. 2: No additional curb cuts be allowed on 77th Street. 3. No commercial access or service access to the building be allowed • on the 77th Street side. 4 . Any new Exterior lighting be constructed to reflect away from the residential areas . 5. A screening: fence be constructed between the property and the residential uses to the east. 6. Landsca-ping be developed to buffer the property to the east and north. Planning:Commisson Recommendation On'June 24, 1975 the planning commission. took testimony-and reviewed. the application for a variance. The commission recommended granting the variance with the taff's recommended stipulations plus the stipulation that the two existing curb cl~` on 77th Street be closed. Respectfully. submitted, C r= ~ ~~ ~~~' ;~ti~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager • WSB/eja , °.. c`c: Planning'Drector ' Public Works. Director • the .same general character. sliall not be .considered to be local 'service businesses ' .` and sliall not- be pei-mi.tted i.n the "C-•1" district; (a) Electrical appliance shop; (b) Plumbing and hcati_ng shop; (c) Printing shop; (d) Iurniture shop; (e) Interior. decorating .and upholstering shop; . (f) Theatre; . (g) Hotel; • (li) funeral home- or mortuary; (i) Garage; .. (j) Used car .lot;- • . (Ic) Filling station. - (7) Any other. use may be permitted t~rhich is determined by the cocincil pursuant to the provi.si.ons of Section 3.40 of this chapter to be of the same general char- actor as the uses listed as permitted in this section; provided that such uye is not specifically prohibited in this section. Subd. 2. Specific Conditions - Of:f--Street. Parl:i_nh, etc. • (1) No overnight ox ~ieelcend parking of trucks or truck trailers, or .trailers in excess o£ one-half (1/?_) t-on in c~eight is permitted in the "C-I" district: (2) The businesses specified as permitted shall be conducted ~~hglly tri_thin . ' a completely .enclosed building, except for permissible off-street parking and loading; good) shall consist of primarily ne~~z roerchandi_se; goods sliall not be stored, processed or sold ~~hich are objectionable by~reason of odor, dust, fumes, • iioise, vibration, refuse matter or ~•~ater-carried Taste. +i• ,t ~.. ~~ • ~ - uildin shall be erect-- `• Subd. 3. Heil;ht P.eruireme~.~ts. Ina C i dr~trict, nob g ed or structurally altered to oyceed L-hree stories or. 40 feet in height subject • to'modii_ications and excepticns provided in Section 3.39 of this chapter.- Subd. 4. Lot Area and Yard le%zuirements, The following minimum reruirements apply to all buildings hereafter, erected or structurall}* altered in a "C-1" district, subject to modifications and.except:ions provided in Section 3.39 of this ..chapter. (1) All de?elli.n~s shall conform to the rerui_rements of an "1'." district as set. forth in Section 3.30 of this chapter. .•~; ('l_) front- Yard: Each ,building shall. have a front yard of not less than . l}O feet, and shall have a greater front yard there rewired under the provisions of Section 3.39, Subdivision 2, Paragraph (2). If the building lot abuts upon more than one street the area bet~Teen the buil.ding~and each of such streets shall be regarded as front }'ard. {71-1, d/2~/71) . (3) Side Yard: Pto side yards"shall be required except as follo~TS: (a) On a corner lot adjacent to a lcey ioL- in a residential distric"t there shall be a side yard adjacent to the street•of a ~~ridth er_ual to not less than one-half the depth rer^uired for front yards on the lots to the rear of such • corner lots. • (b) Along t11at side of every lot in a commercial district bordering. upon property in tlie•"R".district, there shall be a side yard of not less than 15 feet. • (la) Rear. Yard; There shall. be a real: yard in every lot in a "C-1" district enual to 20%, of the depth of the ~loL- to a maxirium rentii_red depth of ?_5 feet for such lot:, provided that such rear yard may be reduced one foot for each one foot of front yard provided in c::cess of the minimum re~iui_rements for front yard set foa-tli i.n this code for a. '?C-~l" di.st:ricL- and provided that said rear yard muse: be at least ten feet. No rear yard bordering upon an "R" district shall. be used SCI-~IELZ BROS . INC . 2100. WEST 78th ST. VARIANCE OLIVER AVE. ~ 77th ST. FACING NORTH ON FRONTAGE ROAD ~,. - ?~ .c[ ~ ~-_y ~~ ~F f y ~ ~ '-` PENN AVE. F, 77th ST. \` i ~~~.~ -- :, T _ ;y.;r:. t~ 4Wf4i - "" w•la R J a ' ~J. - ... .. .. __ .. _.y.lu. ~tliefebYol®® ~' FACING EAST--PENN .AVE. ~ FRONTAGE ROAD -..,a e I ~~ -~~, ,, ,:~ s ~ ,._. .- . rim'. '~'- -"j~ ~_ ~ ~ ~i;. f:"'TY~' { ~ 5t. t , . ° 1 ; : , .t 't ' ~ ' r 1 ~ t j + ~ i. i 1 ~ •"1 , t 1 '~ f ~ , ~ ~. 1 ,t !, I y ~; : ~ , ~ a J _ ~. ~ rvJ ' ~ W Vii} i { , ) , .. ~~ •rp T.~ . .~ ~ ~ ~ l tr r / /~~aty, r ~r..~ f ~ ! f f ; ; Fc• _ ~ r ~, •• ~ }`,_..) ~ ,~ ``~'.d *aa~~' ~-y~ 1 j t y 1 f ~ J„~, s t r t r yCf~~ ~. 7_' ii7 # ~ ~ / ~~ 1 t f }) , I`~T (j ~) ~ ~ ~ s~ ~v^ 1. ^'~ _ _ r, t z i.:, Vt„ ~J t j ~ !!~~~ f j 11 ~ S Y } ~ ± ~ ~ t ~ i~~ t ) ~ t t y ! at ~ ~ ~ 'ti ~•~et t,.-t"~ J ! ~ ~.r°~ ~ / r { ~ 5) { { (~ i i ~ ~ t i ~ t) t 11 `.i H+-yr9.~•'j-~ ~•_^~ f t~..r -r~'. 5 ~ . „"._~ I 1 r ! / ~) 1 ~ j ~ 2 t j ~ 4 r ~ ~ ' t i ~ + ' r ! !~r_, ~ - ni" u~ ~~`--="qqt'' ~-~y ~tttc J i 1 ~'+''/r f'. ). ) } ; ~Ll {• ~ ! ~ T 5 } ~ j fr3~..~ 3 ~:i:~ ~ _ I 1 } r~+y .r ~.,~3 °,'h ~i ~•-~ '`"''' ~ j hr't ~Jr I _Si / f f ~; ~ t 1-~ (, ~ S ~ f ~ ~ r 1 }) f ;1 y S ~ s) !} # "i {~ } '+ a r ~,{ r~ y ;~ ~ ~ ~ i~~1 V.~ ~ k ..i ~ 4 ~ 11~/ ~.~ ; ? ~ t ~ t.r1 ~ ~ ~ j.~ s ~ j (~ l '} }) {~ ~i^i~ ~~ ! ~, ~`• •s• ';. ! c.~%~~ _ `..`" ~ jj 1 ! , 1. t S ~~.j tr ) }()) ; j ~ r y , ' ,. ! ' )--; ;`, .'` ~_S .• _-i ,'~; ) cr ~. 4 ~ E t ~', / i /f } j ~ ; i S $ ~" 4 tt # " + {) ; r ? i `. y t ~ It r' `--~i. ~i..y ?:i f p .~ ' , ~r .sor -.. f t, ~ ( ! /~ ~ ( 1 ~ j j S } } 1} i (i i t ~ t ~ t) i r }! ~•~~ {. i , sk-.' '>_t ; .; T ' _- ' - ys' "~ i ~ j is !(rlr i i)S }~~f C t?!) yy I i.1 r!){{~~~{t _! ~. ,~~ ~~~IS-}-?-? ~~ Y 1' `~-~~a . ~...3 s~ I` Ir iI f f} t tf ~ t + (f ~ t S ~ { 3 f ~ ! i t t ~ S { ' r f t3 "? li- f--{ ` s.., i~ f _ P 1: i : ''t .Z t t {~`) ~ t i ` , } r ~ r l r , t / ! C{) t _ -r- L', -- z:,.,: *<~~ ~ ~~;_ 1 x r t t j ' ; * yt { 1 1 f - ' {) s i ii) f y { r .c ~; !~ 1 p~~ -7 ---t " i` ~..~T...,_."'~'"` f.. IMF j '1J'L. ({~r r.t Jt i)j{1t!}'.~tL{St ~~ 1 ~+ ,~j~ 1,-2 ~;.,,-~'~ ra {.u f.LT`J~.. { 1 L- 1 ~ i ~ { i + ~ t { S i' ; { ) t .• I t-'~ t j r j ., an ';.i 4~ '~F t.,+ 1 1 :c I ! :!_ f i ~ } ' t ) + ! } t 5 ( i ;.1:, i, ° r , r, !1~ ~ '~. ~» s t ' -? + r. __ '= 1 3 } {(((1 t( y .) j } t- ~ 1 s.>4.L 3 >, ~'~..'wl °b' • yl,• ! 1 rJ r r 11 ! y t ~ ( r ~}) t_'.[ r) f f r) t 1 y ~ } t~ .,~i i y I r_ "'Ya„ , ~s'r.>~ "s.. ` y~v F ~ t3~~ 1 ~?7l! `~tL1j!(~ f i)SS j t~{~~{ ~t)j;{ t •., i ~ !'' 'w "'"'_`i:; -----;^--.-... 1 S3 !{ 4} T '' + # 1 ~ f y } ti ~ !__F r 1'i :ter 9a,..~. '' ` - ~ ~ ~ t -~' ~ 1 } i { } ~ t. r' I ~ }' l f .{ .. { ,i ~ j 1 ' : f 5 3 t , 1:. ! `-t j ~ 3 - l GdN ~~ r ~ • t - y t a e r '1 i }~ 1 ' . .i. . ~ t :_.1_.<-.t.-} :...:a.L ~.:~y ).... ~ '; ~ ! 1 ? ~y i ? } ~ } ~~ t-4 t i~-s '..~ ~ rr ~ ~ j ~i *- ' ! ~ ~w..S . ~ ! ! ~ , f t . t ? t ~ 1-) { i t i sr) } )) ~ ~ ! a ~ ti ' (i._i „---._._~. _ ~ s , ... , t { - •~• ,F t #-; y j is ~ t 7 iF ,t ~•~.~7~,y ~ } ~) d ~ 1 (~;? ; j ~ y j t~..C i~ i j s ~~ - : ~ . !~ j ~~- .~-iitjif/_~~st -) S~(S~yI}y)'2` (JS;S))~~;5 f(1.:1~_.~ l~i;,~~ <y~ to r: _ , . { i / 1- ! j-'r ~ }~..rr fi-y- `~{ t a (.~ } ))3 {y{ I i I ~ ~ t I )) i ~' i ~~ f j + F 7.(} ~ 1 ~ 3 1 Tf^~ ~ ' s 1 :~ ` > )i 7i t.• _`.`. t.)S f ~ `1 (.-.,- 1 ~< f ri )- 1 ~ ~ j y; yt i 3>y 1r~ r i I~.~s 1 i' (a 1 ~ (I f } l ' { y { t ( j; ~ y f j . } ' ~ t y ' ~ r I r r 1 ~ ?,:r t ~ t +• r ^r+ ' 1 ~ t ! { ( i. `' ~ f ( j I f ) j f { } ~ ~ _) , ...~• I c ~. ~ ~ '' -r.ES:'ii''~.: ' t( i f i a: • Y~ i 1 r EEE ~ ' ' ~_' ' r . .~ ~ t.t 1 t' ~ f ~ ~ 1 t f !:~ y ~ ~ 1 ' ~ f j, r ; ?} ; ;:} ;(r ~ , 1 1 1 1 I ! , .,.: ~-+- ~--~ -i ~ :~ L _i.> I ~ i 1. ' 61 4 t } (< }) ( t (1 7} Tj tS { .' r y S ' j ! t J ~ ~ ! a ! S i (1 t} t ~ ~ 1 , . , I j ri~. .. ' hl: r 1 )} j ~ ) ~ t } J ~ J ( ) t ~ .r { 1 1 1 ~: t, t5 -.. ~.~ i "j r ~.7 _1 t l rj t ' s (..c ..i ~~ j-~ ! ;t r. t 1,j )j . 1 j`I '1.~" w"i.t _..).~...~~._:.y4 t" r f ) f {, i, ~ '- "-_ ..-.. _:. t ,~ ,.~~1. J i + ~ •t1 S 1 j t 1 ~ t < S 1 ! i f S i _ )~ t x't '~ )i , f 7-~` T~ ~ { - _~_. ..._ j~ ~ ~ i + r 1 ~ ~ S l` ? i f (~ r r t ~ t { ; # } ~ S) t ~ i f r i f tt ; r l"~ ~ ~) ) ! ~ y } ~'~ * ' ~ _ ; •;w ' 1 r r ' 1 ) ( ~ ~ ( J ` f ) ~ ~ t ) i ~ t t t ' ) r t j ) ` r t '{ f ) ) + ~ r I ~ r ~~- e i .(.t-} 1 S-; t } ,.- .-r '< 7 r i) r) y . ~~ t) ~ t '_ j 1 r r ~. t r f [. i..~ ! ...i_ t~) ;~. t t r i c' t .{_;_ ~ tr.--,T_i: ~! L ~~. ,t I 1~~! 1(' ~ .I fS4 ~ +~ O~i y~ t .~ ~ ~ i....w.._+{E fi.v-..=. 3° 5:3 ` 27 t ..; t CIS I t~9 7GJt J i S'°"_~~ 1 ~Ji~ ~ JC'~ r i '.` ./J J J r ,f :' f i1 ~ - ~ .. t t Jj ~~ _ _ ,y~~ =~--I- t~~ II 1 f ~ u 1 r~ ~ l rT t--~ • _- l_._1 I ~ 1 ~ ---.-- ..~~ _._.~___.-.. ~.~...~....Aw....~....~...~...~... ~.__~.l ~~ 1~ S,r f r,. :....., ~^.... 'L CJ ~ / 1 I I ~ C ~ I:'vi k v ..«...+.~a..n..,.... I ; v..., ., .r...~.~, ,,.~ 9f9 ilii ICJ ~ S ~ ~ I,, I~~t,.~ l~ ^! ~.J ~ L ~ 1 ~ .~ 1 1 u I ~ ~ `~ '~i ~'~ ~. Ji' d.~ :n ..._...._.._-; ' /,~a ~ /I (....J r ~~ 1 ~ ~ I'_ -yy 7••. i'._I llliii ~ ~ 1~ ..1 rl . G ~ t~ ~ ai v! Y (~ ~ }S ~ L _~-~_.._ f R ~ y.W I~ fy.. by t.;.. ~. ~2 ~x } ~..t J j:~F~ ~ f ~ y_ 41 i~, __ 1 cGl ~ {~~ ~ j ^ i_i p";~1~;_..!_ ~ ~/ rf_1 e..". .1 -- i.,,Pi tom' I ____-~ _~_. I I " CITY-OF RICHFIELD; MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 217 Agenda July+14, :1975 -The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Bicentennial: Committee `Progress Report Members of Richfield's Bicentennial Committee have .requested an opportunity to provide the city council with'a progress report on Richfield's Bicentennial efforts. At thi time, the committee would also like to introduce its members to the council and present council members and department heads with Bicentennial lapel-pins. We have, therefore, allowed 1S minutes at the beginning of the council meeting for this purpose. Rev. R. Bingea, Chairman of this committee, will initiate the presentation. Respectfully .submitted, " V Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager. Council Letter No: 216 Agenda July 14 ~ .. 19 7.5 The Honorable Mayor and' Members of the City Council City of Richfie d _ .Gentlemen: Subject: Purchase in Excess of $l , 000 Chapter 6, Section 6.05 of the City Charter stipulates that the city council must approve the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1, 000. The. staff has solicited informal bids for the purchase of two snowplow blades to replace blades which were worn. out last winter. The low bid submitted. was by Itasca Equipment Company in the total amount of $3, 130 for both blades . It is recommended that the council approve this purchase in excess of $1, 000. Respectfully submitted, V Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Works Director Finance .Director - _ / C~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ' - Council Letter No. 215 Agenda July"14, 1975 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield ~. Gentlemen•_ Subject: Commission Appointments The following appointments have yet to be made to the Advisory Youth • Commission: One unexpired. three year adult position, term ends June 1, 7.976. One -one year youth term, term expires June 1,.1976 No applications. have been received for the adult position. Attached is an application from Debi Lidbom who has expressed a desire to be appointed to the vacant one year youth term on the commission. Respectfully subm'tted, //, d U Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD APPLICATION FORD FOR. INDIVIDUALS DESIR.INC TO SERVE ON NtUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMISSIOT?S OR COI°TMiITTEES 1. Committee or commission-for which application. is being made 2. Name n f' h I ~ 1 C` C i _f Yl 3. Residence address 1~~~ ~ ~~ ~1C~ ~~e I\,~C,~`Z ~~'<1 ~`"(_~_ ~~,1 a7 c No. S reet City State Phone 4. Business address ~ Name of .employing agency. Address Position. held 5. tt bate of birth ~C~~ V ~~ ~ ~Q ~ ~ ~ ,'~ Month Date Year 6. Local organizational memberships and affiliations: a.~ ~~,?S,Z~"l t 11 C . _b.? -4~I7 C~~ l`~ ~~j )c '~ ~~_% \ ~l ~~ f ~ ~~~ ~\J )r 5 C. l l 1 ~ l c . L 1C y~ _ i i 7. Briefly discuss aspects of your expe rience which you believe a_ualify you for this I~TUnicipal Committee and why-you are interested in ser ving 8. List the names'of three persons who are thoroughly acquainted with your qualifications Name Occupation Address Phone ~.• mr U_?~~~?~~i~1~1~ Te~cl~er -~~I(~ (i'~~c~ ~~~-U7SC 1 Y~ ~c ~~ 2. L~ 1~ ~. <_ ~ ~ r' c .y 1 r . car ~ i .1 ~ ~-- 3. ~~`;-~r`,r' ~~~r i~--~~1--~ .1~~1 ~'~~~~c~.,t- ~ ~ ~:~(i s1-~ L~~-, c~ ~ 1 ~. ~ ~~~=t- ~t ~ t "1 9 .. Signature of applicant. ~Q ,~ ~--Q i ~ d (~~ I~ ~~~/1 Council Letter No. 214 Agenda July 14, 1975 The Honorable; Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Variance to.the Zoning Requirements, 6515 Knox Avenue Mr. John Marsicano, 6515 Knox Avenue, requests a variance to allow a six foot .high fence in his front yard. The city code (Section 3.39, Subd. 2, para- graph 1, Part C) limits front yard fence height to four feet. • The criteria described in 'Sec. 3.40, .Subd. 6 of the Richfield City Code must be satisfied .before the variance can be granted. If the criteria for granting a variance 'does exist the variance must be granted. If the criteria are not present, the variance must be denied. Background Mr. Marsicano recently fenced in his entire rear yard with a six foot high fence . A section of this fence on the north side of his home extends beyond the front of his house by: approximately 14 feet. He was advised on June 9, 1975 that the portion of `fonce which extends beyond the front of the house is in violation of the Richfield zoning ordinance. The applicant's property is located in a resi- dential zone.' The surrounding land uses are residential. Staff Review The city taff .reviewed the application relative to the criteria set forth in Section 3.40, Subd. 6. 1 . That there are no special circumstances or conditions affecting the particular property not common to other properties in this or similar districts It is the opinion of 'the staff-that there .are no special circumstances or conditions affecting this property not common o other surrounding properties. Council Letter No. 214 -2- July 14, 1975 '~ ' 2 . That. the granting of the application is necessary for the: preservation .and enjoyment of substantial property rights. The denial of .this- variance does not preclude the applicant from constructing a; fence within the code requirement., 3 . That the granting of .the application :will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proper and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements iri the neighborhood. It is the opinion of he staff that he fence :will not materially. or adversely affect the health or safety of persons resdng'in the neighborhood. Approximately 38 feet remain between the end of the fence and the street which allows sufficient room for driveway visibility.. Staff Recommendation Since all the conditions described in Sec. 3.40, Subd. 6 do not exist on the applicant's property,.. it is the opinion of the staff that the variance should be denied . Planning Commission Recommendation The commission recommended granting -the ,variance at its June 24, 1975 meeting.. , Respectfully submitted, +I } 1 C~~.- Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Planning Director Public Works Director • JOHN MARSICANO 6515 KNOX AVE. SOUTH VARIANCE t--~ ~ Vic,, ,. .! , . .~~ss~`' ,/ .. ~ . v /' ~ v ~ 1 ''F or '~'1i. ~SI.v°'%.-'y.ry~~~ vr.a.y~m~%~S.y~7?+r 3 '~,;?'f'y~A~ ~ .~.s.~..~.w - ~ ~ :y'i:~. '=mar v ~ ~ „~ -- ~ g ~;;' ~ , Q . - ~ ~ ,y ~ _ ~, ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~°~" :?' • l y~ !~~ Ri~ ~~~~~~ r ~<~ ' Y ~N~. ~~, . ~- CITY OF: RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA" Office of City Manager Council Letter'No. 213_ Agenda July 14, 1:975 '' The Honorable. Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: 1 Subject: 'Variance to the Zoning Requirements, 7021-Neollet Avenue Ms. Virginia Trusty,- 7021 Nicollet Avenue, requests a variance to the .rear. yard requirement of the zoning ordinance . The. variance ~ wily allow a three foot .expansion of a dwelling into the rear yard. To grant the variance the council must find that all three criteria of Section 3.40, Subd.° 6 are satisfied. • Background This home sets on the back half of .the lot and presently has a rear yard set= back of 2 5 feet . The etback in this case is determined by adding the depth of the rear yard (l S feet) and one-half the width of the alley (7' feet) for a total set- back of 25 feet. The variance requested would reduce the rear yard by three feet; this. would leave a 22 foot rear yard. The parcel is in a residential zoning district and is .surrounded on the north, east and south by single family homes. Augsburg Park is `located acros the street.. Land ' Building Zoning Requirement Parcel 59..5 x 133' 726 sq.ft. 25 foot rear yard `setback 7, 913 sq. ft. The applicant intends. to remove the existing deteriorated 4' .9" x 11' porch from the rear o£her home and replace it with a new kitchen structure 7' 9" x 11'. The ex- isting porch does not have footings, electricity or insulation. Staff Review This application has been reviewed relative to criteria set' forth in Sec. 3.40, Sub. 6, of the city code, Council Lette'r.No: 213 _2_ July;14, 1:975 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the: particular property not common to other properties in this or similar' districts . This is an older home built prior to the zoning ordinance and before the alley. The house is located on the back half of the :lot and abuts an alley which would. constitute a special condition not common to other properties in the district. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for. the preser- vation and enjoyment of substantia -property rights. It is the opinion of the staff that the denial of'this application does not constitute a taking of property and the granting of the variance is 'not necessary .for the pre- servation of property rights. The kitchen can be constructed without the three foot extension on the rear of the building, or at additional cost, the kitchen could be constructed to the side of the existing structure . 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect thehealth or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be materia ly detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. It is the opinion of the staff that the removal of the deteriorating porch and replacing. it with a new, structurally sound, kitchen addition will not materially or adversely affect the health and safety of neighborhood property or improvements. Staff Recommendation It is the opinion of the staff that all three conditions are not satisfied in this application. The staff recommends denial of the variance. Planning Commission Recommendation. On June 24, 1975 the planning commission took testimony from Ms. Trusty and neighbors and reviewed the application-for a variance. The commission recommends. granting the variance. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager •~ WSB/eja cc: Planning Director Public Works Director LOCATION OF ADDITION FACING SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA TRUSTY 7021 NICOLLET AVE. VARIANCE LOCATION OF ADDITION FACING NORTH • aG ,,~ .1 CITY OF RLCHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No . 212. Agenda -July 14 , 19 7 5 The Honorable Mayor- and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Street Barricades for Block Party Ms. Linda Bartush, 6817 Sheridan Avenue, has requested that Sheridan Avenue between.68th and 69th Streets. be barricaded for a block party on Sunday, August 2, 1975 between- the hours of 12`:00 noon and 10:00 p, m. The only stipulation attached to this request is that-the barricades and . warning deVices:be erected by the city in such a way so as to discourage through traffic, but to .permit ingress and egress of emergency vehicles in the event this-`would be required during the time of the block party. It is recommended that the request be approved. Respectfully submitted, d~• Wayne S . Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: Public Safety Director Public Works Director