08-22-94 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 1994
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
I. MEETING WITH RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 234
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
• CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST
8, 1994
PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
LISTED ON THE AGENDA
2. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION HONORING FORMER METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL MEMBER SONDRA SIMONSON
3. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO NEL JOHNSON,
COORDINATOR OF RICHFIELD CO-OP SUMMER SCHOOL
4. PRESENTATION BY RICHFIELD ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH CONCERNING
RECOGNITION OF RICHFIELD RESTAURANTS THAT ARE SMOKE-FREE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 235
AGENDA APPROVAL
5. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED
ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS
NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE
REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA
FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
6A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF
SOUND SYSTEM ON BOTH FLOORS AT RICHFIELD COMMUNITY CENTER FROM
ACOUSTICA IN AMOUNT OF $7,538.19 PLUS TAX C.L. 236
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF NEW ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING
MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR RICHFIELD HOTEL ASSOCIATES, LTD. d/b/a
HAMPTON INN, 7745 LYNDALE AVENUE C.L. 237
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND AWARD
OF CONTRACT TO BERGMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR ROUTING
AND SEALING CRACKS IN ASPHALT STREETS IN AMOUNT OF $15,803.92
WITH AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND CONTRACT TO FULL 25% OF
QUANTITIES BID WHICH MAKES TOTAL AUTHORIZATION OF UP TO
$19,754.90 C.L. 238
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND AWARD
OF CONTRACT TO ADVANCED CONCRETE, INC. FOR 1994 INSTALLATION
OF CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMPS IN AMOUNT OF $19,360.00 C.L. 239
t E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF
RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE; 7232 11TH AVENUE; FOUR DOGS C.L.
240
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF
RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE; 7425 PLEASANT AVENUE; THREE DOGS
AND TWO CATS C.L. 241
G. ESTIMATE #2 PAYMENT FOR SITE REDEVELOPMENT OF MADISON PARK;
BARBER CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; $19,945.43
H. FINAL PAYMENT OF SITE CONSTRUCTION OF NICOLLET PARK CP889;
HOFFMAN & MCNAMARA CO.; $3,722.24
I. ESTIMATE #1 PAYMENT FOR SITE CONSTRUCTION OF WASHINGTON PARK
CP897; SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION, INC.; $43,438.75
PUBLIC HEARING
7. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBDIVISION WAIVER AT
7015 AND 7021 PENN AVENUE TO DIVIDE TWO EXISTING LOTS INTO
THREE LOTS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 242
RESOLUTION
8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE
OF $10,000 FROM RICHFIELD'S MUNICIPAL STATE AID CONSTRUCTION
• ACCOUNT FOR INSTALLATION OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS AT EXISTING
CROSSWALKS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 243
0 PROPOSED ORDINANCE
9. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE EXTENDING
MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ADULT USES FOR ONE ADDITIONAL
YEAR
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 244
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS
10. CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO HOLD A CITY COUNCIL STUDY
SESSION ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1994
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 245
AIRPORT BUSINESS
11. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS
12. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
13. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
• COUNCIL CHOICE
14. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
15. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available
upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance
to the. Administrative Services Director at 861-9702.
•
/o
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 245
Agenda August 22, 1994
Issue Statement:
Council consideration as to whether to hold a City Council Study
Session on September 5, 1994.
Background:
The City Council regularly conducts a Study Session on the first
Monday of each month. However, the first Monday in September
1994 is a holiday (Labor Day) and City offices will be closed.
Any business can be carried over to the October 3 Study Session.
Recommended Motion:
Cancel the City Council Study Session regularly scheduled for
September 5, 1994.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. September 5 is a holiday and City offices will be closed.
2. The holiday may cause a problem with a quorum for the
Council.
3. Any business can be carried over to the October 3 regularly
scheduled City Council Study Session.
• Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not cancel the Study Session.
2. Reschedule the Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the August 22, 1994 City Council
agenda so proper notification can be made if the Study Session is
cancelled or rescheduled.
Resp ctfully submitted,
4Z.Cv?ich
St Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 244
Agenda August 22, 1994
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of an ordinance extending the
moratorium on development of adult uses for one additional year.
Background:
On October 25, 1993, the Council approved a one year moratorium
on the development of adult uses within the City. The purpose of
the moratorium was to allow the Planning Commission and Council
time to study relevant issues including: 1) the particular
zoning districts in which such uses should be allowed as either
permitted or conditional uses, 2) the concentration and density
of such uses in the City and its neighborhoods, and 3) the effect
of such uses on other uses in the surrounding area.
Over the past few months, the Planning Commission has reviewed
several studies and materials relating to the regulation of adult
uses. It is appropriate at this time to extend the moratorium
for a period of one additional year in order to provide adequate
time to complete the study and make any necessary modifications
to the zoning and licensing regulations.
Recommended Motion:
• Approve first reading of an ordinance extending for one year the
moratorium on development of adult uses and other similar uses as
established in Ordinance No. 1993-16, and set a second reading
and public hearing for September 12, 1994.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The interim ordinance was adopted for the purpose of
protecting the planning process and the health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of the City.
2. The extension would allow sufficient time to complete the
study and adopt any necessary amendments to the City's zoning
and licensing regulations.
3. Extension of this moratorium ordinance complies with State
law.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council may decide not to extend the moratorium.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented for action at the City Council
meeting of August 22, 1994.
Resp tf lly subm ted,
Devich
Acting City Manager
q - ?.
BILL NO. 1994-
AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING FOR ONE YEAR THE MORATORIUM
ON DEVELOPMENT OF ADULT USES AND OTHER
SIMILAR USES AS ESTABLISHED IN ORDINANCE NO.1993-16
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS:
Section 1. Extension of Moratorium Period.
The moratorium period established in Section 2.03 of
Ordinance No. 1993-16 (Transitory Ordinance No. 17.53) is hereby
extended for one year. The moratorium period, as hereby
extended, shall expire on September 27, 1995 or such earlier date
as may be further adopted by ordinance. The moratorium period
may be further extended for a reasonable time by ordinance, as
may be necessary to complete the study and adopt any necessary
amendments to the City's zoning ordinance.
Section 2. Effective Date.
This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09
of the Richfield City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
• this day of , 1994.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 243
• Agenda August 22, 1994
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a resolution approving an additional expenditure of
$10,000 from Richfield's Municipal State Aid (MSA) construction
account for installation of pedestrian ramps at existing
crosswalks.
Background:
On February 22, 1993, the City Council approved an off-system
expenditure of $15,000 in MSA monies for the installation of 22
pedestrian ramps. The 1993 contractual work was postponed until
1994 due to conflicts with the 77th Street Project. An
additional 10 crosswalks have since been identified as needing
installation of pedestrian ramps for a total of 32 ramps.
Because the proposed improvement is an "off-system" improvement
(not part of the City's MSA system), the State will not allow the
City to receive more funds from the account than the City Council
authorizes.. Therefore, staff is requesting the City Council to
approve $10,000 more than the original $15,000 authorized
February 22, 1993, to cover the cost of the additional 10 ramps.
Any funds that are approved, but not spent will remain in
Richfield's MSA construction account.
. Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution authorizing expenditure of an
additional $10,000 from Richfield's MSA construction account for
the proposed improvement.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Additional funding is necessary so that all of Richfield's
crosswalks will comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
2. Council approval is necessary to obtain the MSA funding
required for this project.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could choose to not participate in this project; however,
funding is available now and non-participation could delay or
halt a required improvement.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item appears on the August 22, 1994 Council agenda. Staff
is requesting approval at this time order to comply with federal
legislation.
Resp t ully s mitted,
go L. 'ch
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
RESOLUTION NO. '
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF AN
ADDITIONAL $10,000 OF RICHFIELD'S MUNICIPAL
STATE AID MONIES FOR INSTALLATION
OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS
WHEREAS, it has been mandated that Richfield construct
pedestrian ramps, by federal and state regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal State Aid (MSA) division of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has granted an
administrative waiver allowing the expenditure of MSA
construction account funds for the purpose of constructing the
ramps; and
WHEREAS, the cost of such improvement is estimated to be
approximately $25,000; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved $15,000 for the project
at the February 22, 1993 Council meeting; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield
does hereby appropriate from its Municipal State Aid Account the
additional sum of $10,000 ($25,000 total) to apply toward the
said improvement, and requests the Commissioner of Transportation
to approve this authorization. .
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd
day of August, 1994.
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
E
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 242
Agenda August 22, 1994
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a request for a subdivision waiver at 7015 and.
7021 Penn Avenue to divide two existing lots into three lots.
Background:
Larry Stein, applicant, is requesting approval of a subdivision
waiver to divide two 90 foot wide lots into three 60 foot wide
lots. The subject land is located in the R-residential district
where single family homes are permitted.
The Penn Avenue right-of-way jogs in this area, making the front
property lines of the proposed lots 17 feet closer to Penn Avenue
than other lots on this side of Penn Avenue. To prevent these
lots from being developed 17 feet closer to Penn Avenue than the
other homes on the block, a condition of approval would require
an additional front yard setback of 17 feet so the new homes line
up with the existing homes.
It should be noted that if this proposed division went through
the full platting procedure, Hennepin County would recommend that
the front 17 feet be dedicated for roadway purposes. However, in
. any event, the County could purchase the 17 feet at some future
date if it was required for roadway purposes.
Mr. Stein plans to build a house on one of the lots, and sell the
other two lots in the open market.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution, approving the subdivision waiver
of 7015 and 7021 Penn Avenue to establish three buildable lots,
subject to the conditions outlined in the resolution.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed lots exceed the minimum requirements for lot
area and lot width.
2. Single family development is proposed for the lots, and the
neighborhood is predominantly single family residences.
3. The additional front yard setback requirement for the
proposed lots is intended to preserve the aesthetics,
streetscape, and character of the neighborhood, as well as to
protect views from the adjacent properties.
4. Compliance with the regular platting requirements of Section
500.05, Subd. 1 of the City Code would result in unnecessary
hardship to the applicant, Larry Stein.
5. This subdivision process does not interfere with the purposes
of platting regulations of Section 500 of the City Code, if
the conditions for approval are met.
I/I
• Alternative Recommendation:
The Council may deny the.sUbdivision waiver, requiring the
applicant to seek approval of a preliminary and final plat for
division of the property.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 22,
1994. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of
Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of hearing was
mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject
property.
Res ec ully bmit d,
St L. Devich
Acting City.Manager
SLD:ds
40
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBDIVISION WAIVER
• (7015 and 7021 Penn Avenue)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of
Richfield which requests approval of a subdivision waiver for the
division of certain parcels of land generally located at 7015 and
7021 Penn Avenue South, legally described on Attachment One,
attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereafter the
subject property); and
WHEREAS, the proposed division of land for which the
subdivision wavier is sought is as legally described on
Attachment Two, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof;
and
WHEREAS, the three lots resulting from the subdivision
waiver will comply with Section 515.09 of the City Code relating
to lot area and width; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for
approval of the subdivision waiver; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that compliance with the City
Code Section 500.05, Subd 1 would result in unnecessary hardship
and that failure to comply therewith will not interfere with the
purposes of platting regulations of Section 500.01.
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. A waiver for the subdivision of property legally described
on Attachment One is hereby approved subject to the
following conditions:
a. That all future transfers of any of the property
described in Attachment One shall be by parcel or
parcels described in Attachment Two.
b. That the minimum required front yard setback for the
proposed lots be 47 feet.
2. Upon compliance with such conditions, City staff is
authorized and directed to take any action necessary to
effectuate this resolution and to authorize the recording of
conveyances complying with the requests of this resolution.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of August, 1994.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
40 ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
ATTACHMENT ONE
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The following described land in Section 33, Township 028, Range
24, Hennepin County:
The south 90 feet of the north 300 feet of the west 166.5 feet of
Northwest Quarter, except road;
AND
• The south 90 feet of the north 390 feet of the west 166.5 feet of
the Northwest Quarter, except road.
C:
-7,q
0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS ATTACHMENT TWO
Parcel A
The north 60.0 feet of the south 180.0 feet of the north 390.0
feet of the west 166.5 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 028, Range 24, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, except road.
Parcel B
The north 60.0 feet of the south 120.0 feet of the north 390.0
feet of the west 166.5 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 028, Range 24, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, except road.
Parcel C
The south 60.0 feet of the north 390.0 feet of the north 390.0
feet of the west 166.5 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 028, Range 24, Hennepin
-County, Minnesota, except road.
NOTE:
Parcel designations are for convenience only and do not
constitute an integral part of the parcels described.
0
30
50' ' ! i
i 16.5'
33' 17'1
r
47'
i
133.5'
W r•
Z W
L a.
i
i
W --?
Z T
W ti ?
H
Z
W
U
L
171-1, 30'± --
t
1
EXISTING LOT LAYOUT
• . PLANNING
N
ZONING
Community Dcwelopment Departrnont
- 50' 30'
I
33' 17' 116.5'
47'
133.5'
'co PARCEL A '
zz
z >
?- a PARCEL B
_Z
W
?
Z PARCEL C
W
U ,
17'-! 30'-+ - -
PROPOSED LOT LAYOUT
mama
• , PLMNING
N
ZONING
DepartrneM
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 241
Agenda August 22, 1994
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for renewal of a residential
kennel license for Claire Todd, 7425 Pleasant Avenue.
Background:
On July 15, 1994, Claire Todd submitted an application for a
residential kennel license. She owns three dogs and two cats.
Ms. Todd's application had all contiguous property owners'
signatures on it.
On July 24, 1994, an inspection of the property was conducted by
a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems
found at that time.
The City has adopted a policy that staff notify neighbors
surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff
received one letter from a neighbor that had general concerns
about owning more than one pet. Staff received no calls or
complaints from any of the other neighbors.
Although this application is for three dogs and two cats, it does
not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by
• the Council as policy on July 22, 1991.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel
license be approved.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping
of more than two dogs and two cats does not have an adverse
effect on the neighborhood. Ms. Todd has been able to do
this.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny Ms. Todd's residential
kennel license. This would mean that she would have to
reduce the number of dogs she has from three to two.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a residential
kennel license for Claire Todd, 7425 Pleasant Avenue, is
presented for Council consideration at this time.
Resp ct ully submitted,
• to -vi h
cting City Manager
SLD:cak
(oF-I
28 July 1994
Richfield Public Safety Dept.
Attn: Betsy Christensen, Admin. Servits Mgr.
Regarding the neighbor at 7425 Pleasant Ave. request for a kennel licenses
My experience in the past as a neighbor of dog and multi-dog owners has not
always been pleasant. I feel that residents requiring that many animals in a
residential area should be required to build a 6 foot Wood fence around their
yard. A former neighbor who lived across the my back fence from my back yard had
only one large dog. This neighbor was not diligent about picking up dog droppings
and as the prevailing winds in Minn. are from mainly the N.W. or S.W., I received
the full benefit of the unpleasant odor. Next door to this backyard neighbor was
another family who had as-many as 3 dogs at a time. My neighbor to the south of
me on Pillsbury Av. was forced to build a $800 fence across his back yard to
protect himself from the constant barking and other unpleasantries. Generally
speaking the dog owner is totally oblivious that his animals are a nuisance to
his neighbors. Usually 1 pet does not pose a problem but I do not approve of
several to a residence.
I have enough problem with mice in the Fall as a result of some people using
the back end or corners of their lots for a dump ground. I believe there is an
ordnance covering this which is not enforced.
• Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion.
Sincerely,
r 7?
Leo J Bollwee
7412 Pillsbury Av.
Richfield, Mn. 55 3
Ph. 866-0524
•
?1?7
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 240
Agenda August 22, 1994
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for renewal of a residential
kennel license for Carolyn Kretchmer, 7232 11th Avenue.
Background:
On July 15, 1994, Carolyn Kretchmer submitted an application for
a residential kennel license. She owns four dogs. Ms.
Kretchmer's application had all contiguous property owners'
signatures on it.
On July 24, 1994, an inspection of the property was conducted by
a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems
found at that time.
The City has adopted a policy that staff notify neighbors
surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff
received no calls or complaints from any of the neighbors.
Although this application is for four dogs, it does not exceed
the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the
. Council as policy on July 22, 1991.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel
license be approved.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping
of more than two dogs does not have an adverse effect
on the neighborhood. Ms. Kretchmer has been able to do
this.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny Ms. Kretchmer's residential
kennel license. This would mean that she would have to
reduce the number of dogs she has from four to two.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a residential
kennel license for Carolyn Kretchmer, 7232 11th Avenue, is
presented for Council consideration at this time.
Res ctfully submit d,
• L . ch ?
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
(0 D
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 239
Agenda August 22, 1994
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for the 1994 installation of concrete
pedestrian ramps.
Background:
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991 mandates that all
existing crosswalks will have curb cuts or ramps by January 26,
1995. There are 32 existing sidewalk/curb conflicts remaining in
Richfield that require modification for handicap accessibility.
Twenty-two are on 66th Street and the others are spread
throughout the City.
Bids from three contractors were opened August 5, 1994 with the
following results:
Vendor Cost
Advanced Concrete Inc. $19,360
Thomas and Sons 19,995
Gunderson Brothers 33,765
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract for the
• 1994 installation of concrete pedestrian ramps to Advanced
Concrete Inc. in the amount of $19,360.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Advanced Concrete Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid.
2. Funding is available through Municipal State Aid monies.
3. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that this work
be completed by January 26, 1995.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise;
however, staff does not believe a better price can be obtained
from a reputable contractor.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the August 22, 1994, City Council
meeting. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to
facilitate timely completion of this project.
bmitt d,
Resp c ZL.evich
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
?L)-)
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Bid Opening
August 5, 1994
11:30 A.M.
Installation of Concrete Pedestrian Ramps and Appurtenant Work
Bid No. 94-10
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for installation of concrete pedestrian
ramps and appurtenant work, as advertised in the official
newspaper on July 20, 1994.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR ; BID
SECURITY
• i i
Thomas & Sons Rogers, MN ; 5$ Bid Bond ;
TOTAL
i
i
$19,995.00
Gunderson Bros Cement Contractors; 5$ Bid Bond ; $33,765.00
Co. Minneaspolis, MN ;
Advanced Concrete Inc. ; 5% Bid Bond ; $19,360.00 ;
Burnsville, MN
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the August 22, 1994 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
l!l
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 238
Agenda August 22, 1994
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for the 1994 project to rout and seal asphalt
streets.
Background:
The 1994 Street Division budget includes $147,100 for contractual
services related to curb, gutter and street repair. Of this
amount, $35,000 was reserved for routing and sealing joints in
blacktop streets.
For the past several years there has been experimentation with
the use of contractors to provide the street repair technique of
routing and sealing cracks. The technique appears to be working
well and contracting has proven to be cost effective.
Specifications were prepared for a work area bounded by Nicollet
and Portland Avenues and Crosstown and 66th Street. Bids from
five contractors were opened August 5, 1994 with the following
results:
Bergmai
• Allied
Bargen
Tenson
Astech
Vendor Bid
a Construction Company, Inc. $15,803.92
Blacktop Company 17,628.76
Inc. 17,771.56
Construction 26,797.36
Corporation 32,224.80
The highest bid is in keeping with the engineer's estimate of
$30,000 which was based on unit prices charged for the
experimental areas. The lowest bids are typical for these
vendors in recent projects in the area. The vendors submitting
bids are considered to be capable contractors. Extra routing and
sealing work in an amount less than $15,000 will be done this
year south of 66th Street using the money saved by this favorable
bid.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract for the
routing and sealing cracks in asphalt streets project to Bergman
Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $15,803.92 with
authorization to extend the contract to the full 25% of the
quantities bid which makes a total authorization of up to
$19,754.90.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Bergman Construction Company, Inc. submitted the lowest
responsible bid.
is 2. There is $35,000 allocated in the 1994 Street Maintenance
budget for blacktop street repairs.
?C- I
3. The bid price is very favorable for the City and as much work
as is feasible should be performed.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise;
however, staff does not believe a better price can be obtained
from a reputable contractor.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council may choose to delay a decision on this item; however,
staff is requesting approval at this time in order to facilitate
timely completion of the project.
Respect ully submitted,
St ch
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
11
E
(0 ca
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
August 5, 1994
11:15 A.M.
Routing and Sealing Cracks in Asphalt Street
Bid No. 94-9
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for routing and sealing cracks in
asphalt street, as advertised in the official newspaper on July
20, 1994.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR ; BID ; TOTAL
SECURITY
i i i
Bargen, Inc. Mountain Lake, MN
• ; Certified ; $17,771.56 ;
Check ;
Bergman Co.,Inc. Eau Claire, WI ; 5% Bid Bond ; $15,803.92 ;
Allied Blacktop Co. ; 5% Bid Bond ; $17,628.76 ;
Maple Grove, MN ;
Tenson Construction, Inc. ; 5% Bid Bond ; $26,797.36 ;
Big Fork, MN
Astech Corporation St. Cloud, MN ; 5% Bid Bond ; $32,224.80 ;
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the August 22, 1994 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
(06
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 237
Agenda August 22, 1994
Issue Statement:
Setting date of public hearing for consideration of the issuance
of a new on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for
Richfield Hotel Associates, Ltd. d/b/a Hampton Inn, 7745 Lyndale
Avenue.
Background:
An application for a new on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor
license for Richfield Hotel Associates, LTD. d/b/a Hampton Inn
has been received by the City. City ordinance provides that the
City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all non-
intoxicating malt liquor license applications.
Recommended Motion:
1. A public hearing must be scheduled and held before a new
license may be considered.
2. The new process has been initiated.
3. Holding the public hearing on September 12, 1994 will provide
ample time to complete the licensing process.
delay the licensing process.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Schedule the hearing for another date.
However, this may
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action to schedule the public hearing on September 12, 1994 will
provide sufficient time for legal publication of the hearing.
Res ct ully su mitted,
n L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
L6_I
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 73$0
RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER
CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR
LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED
DISCIPLINE THEREFOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
as follows:
I. SArKGROTTND STATF.MF.NT
The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses
permitting the on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor within-the
City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the
provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although, the
• provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is
expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed
activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should
have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct,
generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses
to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding
of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed
for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described
in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the
applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct
contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive,
but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently
observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct
which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and
?8 a
welfare and which constitutes ,a violation of the provisions of
Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to
discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance
with this resolution are not intended to preclude such further
actions such as actions in law or in equity or criminal
prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in
this resolution.
II. SP .CTFTC PRnHTSTTF.D CnNDUrT AND RnPnSF.D SANCTTnNS _
A. Noise and nthPr Di Sturhi ng Condtiri- Within gr NPar the
Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while
within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the
immediate vicinity of the establishment who are either coming to •
or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit
the continued operation of a licensed liquor establishment in
circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is
having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and
morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The
following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating
liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct
occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to
patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or
leaving):
a) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a
31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of
such five incidents) - suspension of the license for
(O4-3
• up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each
incident.
b) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a
61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of
such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 30
days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident.
c) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91-
day period (beginning with the date of the first of such
incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 60 days
and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident.
The discipline outline above is intended to be cumulative in
• nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right
to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in
determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer
period.
The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a
report made to the director of public safety by the licensee or
a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a
crime under the City Code or the laws of the State of Minnesota,
which, in the opinion of the director, is directly attributable
to the licensed activity.
Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity
mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to
0 make requests for service in situations where the licensee is
v4
capable of resolving the incident without police assistance.
However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure
of the level of criminal misconduct. The department of public
safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of
such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the
required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such
standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may
be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor license:
a) For the first incident of failure to report criminal
misconduct within any license year - suspension of
license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000.
b) For the second such incident in any license year -
suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine 0
of $2,000.
c) For the third such incident in any license year -
suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine
of $2,000.
B.
PrPmi _gPt4 with Al nnhol i n B . v _raae Licensees must assure that
the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be
confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure
to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other
activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a
substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the 0
(06-5
Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon
• on-sale intoxicating beverage licenses:
a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10-
day suspension and $2,000 civil fine.
b) The second incident during the license year - up to a
30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine.
c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60-
day suspension and $2,000 civil fine.
d) The fourth incident during the license year - revocation
of license.
C. PPrmi i-i-i _ nrcwaI nny to Fxc?aorl the 7 i mi tG Parmi ++cA tTnAor +ho
• [Jai farm Fi rA Cndc-_ 2S _ 1 1 d ( nvorr•rn??rl; nn )
Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which
the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that
the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an
environmental wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by
the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state
the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The
following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating
liquor licenses for incident of overcrowding verified by the
City's public safety director:
a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10-
day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine.
• b) The second incident during the license year - up to a
bl-°
30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine.
c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60-
day suspension and $2,000 civil fine.
d) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license
year - revocation of the license.
D. Fani 7 i tat-; ncr GamY?l ; ncr_ Licensees must not permit or
allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises which would
facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any
device on the licensed premises which could be used for
gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of
chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling
device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, •
and Richfield City Code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01
For any incident of facilitation of gambling the on-sale
intoxicating liquor may be suspended for up to a period of days
equal in number to the period of days that such incident
continued.
E. EffPnt- of Siisr)eng; nn nr Re unnni-i nn of nnc3 i n ngc? On-
sale intoxicating liquor licenses which are issued to
establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to
be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's
food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of
actions taken by the city manager, enforcement officer, or both
pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. •
The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor during such period shall
constitute an unlicensed sale.
The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions
of this resolution from time and to impose penalties in excess of
those contained herein when, in the judgment of the council it is
appropriate to do so.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
14th day of December 1987.
John N. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
•
60 A
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 236
Agenda August 22, 1994
Issue Statement:
Approval of purchase and installation of a sound system on both
floors of the Richfield Community Center.
Background:
The Community Center sound system is outdated. Through fund
raising efforts of the Inter-Council and volunteers at the
Community Center, funds have been raised to purchase the sound
system. Three quotes were obtained.
Acoustica $ 7,538.19 plus tax
Inter-State Music, Inc $ 9,496.00 plus tax
MTS Northwest Sound $10,372.00 plus tax
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order in the amount of $7,538.19 plus tax to
Acoustica for the purchase and installation of a sound system at
the Richfield Community Center.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The sound system is needed for a variety of activities at the
• Community Center.
2. This is a fund raising goal for the Center volunteers and
they have raised the money for purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not replace the Community Center sound system. However,
users of the Center have made efforts to raise funds for this
item which they feel is needed.
2. Use General Fund monies to purchase the sound system and
allow the donations to be used to purchase other items.
However, the 1994 General Fund budget for the Community
Center does not include purchase of a sound system.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
If a decision to purchase is made at the August 22 Council
meeting, a dedication of the new sound system will be made on
September 28.
Resp fully s bmitted,
ven L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 235
Agenda August 22, 1994
Issue Statement:
Presentation by the Richfield Advisory Board of Health concerning
the recognition of Richfield restaurants that are smoke-free.
Background:
The Richfield Advisory Board of Health is interested in
recognizing restaurants in our City that have adopted a "Smoke
Free" policy in their establishments. This is a critical issue
and health publications continue to confirm that both first and
secondhand smoke has an adverse effect on smokers and nonsmokers.
The Richfield Advisory Board of Health will be sending letters to
all restaurants beginning September 1, 1994 which will encourage
them to voluntarily participate in this particular program.
The program would include recognition by the City Council at a
Council meeting in the form of a certificate presentation and a
brief article recognizing the efforts of restaurants in this area
in the Richfield Sun Current.
This will also provide residents who may have health problems and
cannot tolerate smoke or others who simply prefer a smoke-free
is atmosphere with an opportunity to become aware of which Richfield
restaurants are nonsmoking.
Recommended Motion:
Receive the Richfield Advisory Board of Health's presentation.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. To provide a totally smoke-free restaurant option to
residents and others dining at Richfield's eating
establishments.
2. To recognize and publicize the efforts of smoke-free
restaurants in the community.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer the Richfield Advisory Board of Health's presentation to a
later date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The Richfield Advisory Board of Health's program is presented to
Council at this time.
Res fully bmitted,
evich
Acting City Mana er
SLD:cak
.J
L`
6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
4-1
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Martin Kirsch Don Priebe Michael Sandahl
Susan Rosenberg Russ Susag
•
Dear Restaurant Owner/Manager:
We are writing as members of the Richfield Advisory Board of
Health, which is a citizen advisory group to the Richfield City
Council on issues of health and wellness in our community. We
feel strongly about the issue of tobacco/smoking and would like
to encourage you to participate in a voluntary program we are
beginning.
As a means of promoting good health, the Richfield Advisory.Board
of Health ids,interested in recognizing restaurants in our City
that have adopted a "Smoke Free" policy in their establishments.
As you know, many national restaurant chains (i.e.,.McDonald's,
Leeann Chin) have already adopted that policy and have prohibited
smoking. This is a critical issue and health publications
continue to confirm that both first and secondhand smoke has an
adverse effect on smokers and nonsmokers.
Our program would include recognition by Richfield's Mayor and
City Council at a Council meeting in the form of a certificate
presentation and a brief article recognizing the efforts of
restaurants in this area in the Richfield Sun Current.
If you are interested in participating, please fill out the
attached form and return it to the address below. An Advisory
Board of Health member will contact you promptly concerning the
process. If you should have additional questions, please feel
free to contact Mary Jane Markkula at 861-8093.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Cauuu UJJW
Carlene Ulmer, Chair
Richfield Advisory Board of Health
City of Richfield
CU:bac
Telephone Number General City Matters: (612) 861-9700
Public Safety Non-emergency (24 hr.) (612) 861-9800. POLICE/FIRE/EMERGENCY: DIAL 911
RETURN FORM TO: City.of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. S.
Richfield, MN.. 55423
Attn: Advisory Board of Health
FROM: Restaurant Name:
Address:
Manager/Contact Person:
Telephone Number:
Best Time to Call:
YES, my restaurant would like to voluntarily participate with the
Richfield Advisory Board of Health by providing a totally smoke-
free environment for our patrons. Please have a member of the
Advisory Board of Health contact us to provide further details.
Signature:
•
U
0
•
•
"rzt
?2 0 0
a)
O ? V
op,a bD y ? O O .504 ?'
0• F O O .?r'?4 N
C O I p' p
C-4 cli
avi ? '?y o
O
d p ? ? r N
O y0 ?A
N _ H M
01
• Via. • °?€?? • oo?
8?
02 4) ND 4) 00
d ?
z
o ? d d ?l
F W lei
. ?tf
o?
eM-i? O `??Q _ Sow, ts
o w
ng •?
N ?
N
•
•
0 CA u
.b o
o? ?w
9 to 0 o bo
y N }O ?+ to
t/) G; O RS 4 O R?i
t?
p :3 o v' o
.2 E
O c0
o
to
o
>. o ° 3
m Q)
o bQ? 16,
V o0 v° c?
71 °
via p F D. ° p C O
V N v «w.. 7, in
v
u, v (U
1-i t9 CA (U -0 W
v to v 0, v v o cd z O y
" . 4 p}"Nj v y a4 N
U) 0)
16, N O -,A E bop v N O O "?' c?/
v
l4a
bo R. '0 ' i o v 0 O 16.4. a ? V o 1.0
16, 0-, C6 tjrnbAao t 0 ddb b 00
?-? 0 ? wow toa o
0 0-
o?0°J 'sti, °w ' a,a,3voo 4
?. r, m O
too
L6
bA o
?
o 4
C
?
w O
t C1. ?, N
.? '? it O
eau u +?•' o
bow 2 7 w bD
a
..?
p
O
w V
Q1 ,? .
,
t+ w
O p y v bo o 'CS W V O
O ?v0 W ?TS?a?i?
• d0 0 0 0
45 .
a
v .•
v, a
U° Z Z u c ?
.
a, .
`° cn co
a
o o
42 vi ' v
0 0 > p" o
N
bb
O O
0 0 v
O N bo" v
0 0' w v, y G
zI!
C5
.-4 .-:
N
h
w
o,o
V
U
N
r-I
.b
O
O
U u
•ti
O 0
z
M
r-I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 234
Agenda August 22, 1994
Issue Statement:
Meeting with the Richfield Planning Commission.
Background:
The Special City Council meeting with the Planning Commission is
one of a series of meetings between the City's Boards and
Commissions and the City Council. The purpose of this special
meeting is to provide an informal opportunity for Commission
Members to inform the City Council of recent and current
projects. It also provides a forum for an open dialogue between
the City Council and the Commission. Projects to be discussed
include:
1. Comprehensive Plan
2. Draft Zoning Code
3. Adult Uses Zoning and Licensing Requirements
4. Site Plan Lesson
•
Recommended Motion:
There is no action recommended.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This special meeting has been scheduled for August 22, 1994 and
is one of a series of meetings.
Res ct'ully su mitted,
'ch
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
Copy: Planning Commission Chair
L'
• Steering Committee activity to date
MRS CLflPMUTIOtl finD ISSUf INHTMUTIOn
The Steering committee spent a large portion of 1993-1994 rediscovering what was important within the city. A
variety of values clarification exercises were done to help steering committee members focus on current
community values. The exercises were aimed at developing a solid base or consensus relative to common areas of
value perceived to be held by the majority of residents within the community. The result was a clear vision of
what the community saw as important to its survival and growth.
Issues were identified that responded to or grew out of the divergence from the consentual values and the existing
conditions. A variety of experiences were used to identify the quality of existing conditions.
The first exercise was a bus tour of the City. The tour enabled a fresh perspective through a travelers view of the
City. This was followed by picture taking. The Steering Committee was directed to take pictures of things and
places in Richfield that they liked and disliked. Many positive attributes were highlighted: the hometown
character, quality housing, wide range of recreational opportunities, quality city services, some strong economic
development, appropriate landscaping in core commercial areas-providing definition, quality education, location
and accessibility.
Some negative attributes were noted as well: un-maintained and vacant buildings, inconsistency in definition of
• commercial areas, especially along the edges of the City and along the freeways; commercial encroachment into
residential areas, no sense of place in corridors, districts, and concern about the stability of the tax base.
These observations and statements formed the groundwork for a discussion of values. A 'Discovery' exercise
helped to clarify what the values meant; what is important and worth preserving of needs to change. Lead in
statements such as-I never knew... I was surprised that... I learned that... were used to identify values.
Many issues and characteristics merited discussion. They are worth describing since the preliminary goals and
objectives were derived from them. One area of concern is what gives Richfield it's small town/hometown
character. People seem to be attracted to and stay in Richfield because of: quality and affordable housing, a
genuine community spirit, neighbors that know each other and an involved citizenry.
Another issue which warranted discussion is the stability of the tax base. Concern about un-maintained areas
and the appropriateness of existing types of development led to questions of whether existing development
adequately meets the needs of Richfield, and can meet the needs of a changing population, and contribute to the
tax base. There was mixed discussion as to whether big business or small businesses, retail or office complexes
are more appropriate. Related to this is whether development should be clustered in nodes and niches or should be
more centralized; should development be marketed in a particular way. Incentives for development were also
discussed, such as the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) in the City and whether this is the only viable
strategy for promoting re-development.
The housing stock was also addressed due its age, and concern whether an adequate housing stock existing for
all age and income groups. There was discussion on who is Richfield home
ST_ACT. DOC
. to and who should it be home to, as a community traditionally geared towards starter housing. Presently,
Richfield has been concentrating heavily on remodeling to accommodate changing family needs. However,
because the population is changing in household size and status, and age groups are changing simultaneously, with
a growing number of elderly, a question arises as to whether there is adequate senior or rental housing, for
example. This is an important policy area since 'housing' is one of Richfield's major attractions.
Physical appearance and environment (urban design and land use) were also considered.. Land use types,
appearance and context help to promote the character of a community, offering security, comfort and a sense of
place or home. The Steering Committee made several observations about the image that Richfield exudes
throughout the City. It was evident throughout the bus tour and from pictures taken that there are commercial
areas situated throughout the City, such as Cedar or Penn Avenue and Lyndale, that have poor visual quality, are
a mixture of incompatible land use, and offer no context or sense of scale. This appears to be the result of land
use policies that are not always clear, unsuitable parking or development density standards, and vague design
standards. Another outstanding issue is the siting of development, and how it affects accessibility, circulation,
and parking.
The natural environment, also plays a role in the character of a community. Many comments were generated
which supported the extensive recreational amenities found within Richfield. Nicely landscaped homes, streets,
avenues, and commercial areas were highlighted as a very effective means of beautification.
The parks were seen as not only places for relaxation, but also tools for educating, with Woodlake Nature Center
exemplified as a holding for many varieties and types of plants and wildlife. This is important for a suburban
• community with a lot of activity; it brings the country into the City. Residual benefits include reduction in
pollutants, buffering from noise, and also may assist in environmental soil and water protection and cleansing.
Because Richfield is surrounded by highways and interstates, and is primarily auto-oriented, the importance of an
effective transportation system cannot be stressed enough. Richfield, as a largely residential community needs
to protect this character while ensuring places and things are accessible and do not impact negatively upon
circulation. It was noted that the existing system needs to be evaluated to determine what alternative
transportation means would respond to those without the benefit of an automobile, and would provide
environmental rewards also.
The last issue area is infrastructure. The Steering Committee observed that aboveground utilities are a hindrance
to the City physically, and costly in terms of land use. The existing infrastructure also needs to be evaluated.
What will the needs of the 21st Century be? Although specific types of maintenance are completed routinely,
future changes in land use and demographics, for example, will most likely affect the existing infrastructural
system and needs.
GOKS MD ObIM VfS
These points were raised in Steering Committee meetings and discussed to clarify their role and meaning. This
clarification process helped in identifying the 'community values', what is worth
preserving and what needs changing. It also facilitated categorization of values and established a foundation for
visioning and goal making. The Planning division developed preliminary goals and objectives which were
derived from the values and issues identified earlier. The preliminary goals and objectives were designed to help
focus further key issue areas and potential strategies for responding to those issues The goals were developed on a
community-wide and categorical basis.
The community-wide goals pertain to: 1) the preservation of Richfield's small-town character; 2) the
maintenance of a distinct and livable community; 3) the promotion of a high quality economic climate which
continues to provide goods; and 4) the expansion of the transportation system to improve accessibility, within and
through Richfield.
These goals were reviewed by the Steering Committee in an exercise at the January meeting. Committee
members broke up into groups of two to identify and discuss strengths and weaknesses associated with each goal.
Ideas on how to address the weaknesses or benefit from the strengths associated with each goal were generated,
and are described below:
• Disadvantages:
The problems associated with the small town character are the lack of neighborhood definition in some areas,
and variety of housing. Absentee business owners who don't want to be a part of the community are also a
drawback. A decrease in the number of neighborhood schools, the possibility that the expansion of I-35 W
could split the City into two; the probability that the entire population is not served adequately; transients
(owners vs. renters); the belief that Richfield will be eaten up by the airport and freeways; a diversified metro
area which pulls people out of Richfield; and the size of Richfield suggests non-viability.
Suggestions
for improvements are: government entities should be centrally located to improve
accessibility; a hold harmless provision should be added as a tax incentive; increase the
diversity of the tax base to overcome problems of a shrinking community and overcome
perception of no resources to remodel; publicize convenient location; encourage
home ownership; welcome new residents and integrate them into community life; and
promote activities for neighborhoods which care about a neighborhood identity.
ST_ACT. DOC
0
•
•
Disadvantages:
associated with Richfield's economy are: the 'Not in My Backyard' syndrome(discouraging certain types of
development); there is little vacant and developable land left which makes it difficult to work with existing.);
perception of unfriendliness towards developers; budget problems; the number of starter homes which inhibit
long term residential stays; a heavy reliance on Tax Increment Financing (TIF); the proximity of freeways
causes us to lose customers to others; and regional shopping centers downplay Richfield's assets.
Suggestions
were that the community should be alert to development potential as land use changes;
educate citizens as to the desirability of new uses for underutilized land; promote location-
access transportation. Re-define commercial areas to make them unique and different; clear
land for industrial/commercial complex. Perhaps integrate open space with commercial
development; or establish an appropriate use for NFT/RA; focus on residential aspect and
develop diverse commercial sectors of various sizes.
Disadvantages:
were seen as the age and limits of housing style, as well as substandard housing; airport noise
impact on livability. Richfield is also seen as fully developed community with too much
reliance on TIF's. Additionally, there is a perception that employment opportunities are not adequate for
Richfield's needs.
Suggestions
include diversifying employment opportunities. Promote community involvement; affordable housing; the
location of Richfield; the New Home Program; and freeway views. Promote leisure amenities; reinvestment;
and encourage community participation.
Disadvantages:
ramp metering is biased towards outer-ring suburbs; physical constraints; lack of inter
• -Richfield transportation; no local control over transportation providers; small population
will not support an independent system; fiscal constraints; excessively regulated traffic
controls which encourage use of the freeway; lack of a variety of transportation means.
Suocaestions
include increasing pedestrian walkways and bikeways to decrease dependence on
automobiles; develop a high speed bus system due to the compactness of the community
with large number of major thoroughfares; encourage shuttle service; need additional
transportation routes; promote location and promote a boulevard structure that is strictly
for Richfield traffic; an inter-Richfield transportation system which provides mobility to
those without cars and minimizes the dependence on automobiles, and reduces parking
demand is also encouraged.
SUMMARY
•
Slb flRf fl IDf11IMUTIOH finD PUBIC PUT
The current phase of the steering committee has involved identifying those areas that have the most
issues and questions regarding their future and those areas having the least. The areas having the
most indicate a strong need for policy direction that responds directly to the areas concerns and
issues. Those areas having the least represent parts of the community that can be preserved and
protected in their current form and most easily meet the community wide values and goals.
Key sub areas have been identified together with the areas adjacent to them known as transitions
zones. The next step in the process will be for staff to prepare standards and goals for development
of these areas that respond each area's local context and the community wide values. The
• framework will address areas of land use, transportation, environment, infrastructure etc. for each
sub area.
ST_ACT. DOC
Public meetings are anticipated as a means of gaining feedback from persons within each sub-area.
It is anticipated that two meetings will be held. the first to acquaint people with the process and
present our findings and gain feed back. The second to present a synthesized version of their
feedback and the steering committees interpretation.
0
0 Draft work program for completion of comprehensive plan
IDffITIfY M-WfflS
This task consists of geographically identifying key sub-areas within the City of Richfield and
applying the values and issues developed by the steering committee to each sub area. After
application a comparison will be made to determine the consistency of those values with each area.
Those areas that have significant differences will be identified and separate criteria will be prepared
that appear to initially reflect the concerns of the sub area.
Sub tasks necessary for completion of this task include:
¦ Identifying geographic sub areas
¦ Applying values and issues to each area
¦ Preparing criteria for determining degree of issue/value similarity
¦ Identifying areas of dissimilarity
¦ Identifying preliminary issues/values appropriate to areas of dissimilarity
¦ Prepare preliminary goals and objectives for areas of dissimilarity
Product
This task will produce the following products:
¦ Cognitive map of key sub-areas within the city
¦ Methodology for applying values and identifying issues of sub areas and determining
areas of similarity and dissimilarity
¦ Identification of areas of significant similarity and areas of significant dissimilarity
• ¦ Preliminary identification of issues/values appropriate to each area of dissimilarity
¦ Preliminary goals and objectives for each area of dissimilarity
PRfPflPt PUBIC OUT MOMS
This task consists of identifying the appropriate method and process for gaining public input from
those who live and work within the sub areas identified above. Included will be the presentation
format, information dissemination process, conduct of meetings, sythesis of results. Meetings will
be conducted in selected sub areas in order to elicit input relative to the appropriateness of
issues/values identified by the staff and steering committee. Those persons in attendance will be
invited to add or change the issues/values during the meeting. Another meeting will be scheduled
with each group to provide follow-up relative to the proposed changes.
Sub tasks necessary for completion of this task are:
¦ Refinement of preliminary issue and values for each sub area
¦ Preparation of presentation and meeting format for each sub-area
13 preparation of graphics
° preparation of written material
¦ Development and implementation of communications program for communicating the
process to the city and sub areas
¦ Identify likely locations to hold meetings and schedule time
¦ Schedule meetings
¦ Send notifications to residents and others
¦ Hold meetings
¦ Schedule follow up meetings
• ¦ synthesize results of first meeting and present at follow up meeting
WORKPG.DOC
Product
This task will produce the following products:
¦ Refined list of preliminary issues and values appropriate to each area
¦ Detailed meeting format for conduct of each area meeting
¦ Identification of each area and an appropriate meeting place
¦ Maps and graphics illustrating the preliminary issues and values for each area
¦ Maps and graphics illustrating the process followed to derive the values and issues
presented
¦ Public information strategy for publicizing plan and input process
¦ Summary and analysis of meeting results
¦ Draft framework for each area
fRflMfWOPK finD WfifT PLfin PUPUTIOn
This task consists largely of synthesizing the results of all of the meetings held thus far. The
synthesis
will include refining the sub-area frameworks and the city wide framework. The city wide framework
will manifest itself in the form of a draft plan summary which will present the concepts that identify
the need and purpose of the sub-area frameworks, it will provide the unifying theme. The city wide
plan and framework will provide an identity for the sub-areas and their issues.
Sub tasks:
¦ Review each preliminary frame work and identify clearly the issues and values it is based
on
¦ Refine each sub-area framework
• ¦ Define the organization of each framework
¦ Prepare a frame work for each sub area that describes, values, issues, goals, objectives,
policies and guidelines for change.
¦ Prepare a city wide framework that reflects the sub-area concerns
¦ Prepare a draft plan summary which describes in summary form the city wide goals and
objectives and presents the concepts of the frameworks.
Product
This task will produce the following products:
¦ Development framework for each sub area
¦ City wide framework
¦ Draft Plan that contains the following:
° summary of plan purpose
° identification of issues and values
summary of process
° summary description of each framework
PLfln COMPLfTIOn
This task consist completely of preparing the final draft of the plan. Because of the time constraints
the final draft may consist only of volumes 1 and 3 with volume 2 remaining for further
development. volume one will be detailed as if it were in final form, it will provide a summary
description of the plan purpose, process. volume three will consist of the detailed descriptions of
sub-area frameworks and guidelines including a detailed description of the city wide framework.
Sub tasks:
¦ Prepare volume 1
° determine and complete nature of contents in detail
° determine and complete graphic format
° determine and complete maps and graphic content
¦ Prepare volume 3
refine frameworks and guidelines
° prepare detailed description of process for evaluating projects
° prepare evaluation criteria in final form
° develop format for Planning Commission use
¦ Refine volume 2
refine the contents of volume 2
° Prepare summary of volume 2 to be used to provide background of plan process
Products
This task will produce the following products:
¦ Completed volume 1 of plan containing:
° description of plan purpose
° summary of plan process
summary of issues and values
° summary of sub areas and maps of sub areas
° summary of frameworks
¦ Completed volume 3 containing
° detailed description of each sub-area and its respective framework
. ° evaluation criteria together with instructions on use and application
¦ Refined draft of volume 2
WORKPG.DOC
¦
cl
co E
01
N co
N
co 41 N N N
N
O 'O O
------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N O. G1 O Q-
' ----- -------------------- -- ------------ a? N 3
0. A- • i C N N N d O 0) E
tm C. N
V
C ---------------------------------------------------------------...-••------------------------•--------...-----
U ?
D• •
-, ,?
i
cis
0) co
CL E L r-
E 'o co
------ ------------------------------------- cd a)
333
> >
------
O N
-------------------------------------- ;r O o
a? a
0) d m
Q
=
-- ?_ ¢ ¢ ¢ oC oC oC ?o
-------------------------------------- -------------------- ----
-------------------------------------------
1]
o C U)
r
d
M
O O d eQ
L C! O?
C
C
c
m
.
O
?..
L
c0
d
CD CU
>
d 0
O
*-
cc
L
O
cc)
N
3
> c0 y
. 0 O O 75
C O Q N C C O
C C1 c0
O `?
O
W ad ?+ O
C?
C . L
O L
'?- L
'C O
r.+
V N y N E c V C O L L
90 .a O O O L
'C
.
? w C CL %-
r.+ N O C
C
L O •? L C
Q 0 Q