08-11-80 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 291
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Discussion of Proposed Building Project
for League of Minnesota Cities
For the past five years, the Board of Directors of the
League of Minnesota Cities has discussed the possibility of pro-
viding permanent office space for the League offices. At the
present time, the League of Minnesota Cities is housed in an
office building in St. Paul, and pays an annual rental of approx-
imately $60,000 (an increase of $8,000 over the 1979 rates). This
figure is expected to increase sharply in the future.
The League Building Committee, which is currently studying
this matter, has advised that the City of St. Paul will donate
land for a building, and the project could be financed by the
St. Paul Port Authority with'a 20 -year tax exempt bond. The total
cost of the building and financing costs is estimated to be
$1,162,000 over a 20 -year period.
Building of permanent office space for the League offices
would, of course, cost more in the short run that continuing the
present rental arrangement. After five years, however, the League
would be saving money every year. The construction of s building
for the League of Minnesota Cities would have to be financed by
its member cities. Attached to this council letter is a letter
from Donald Slater, Executive Director of the League of Minnesota
Cities, concerning this proposed project. In this letter, Mr.
Slater lists several financing options for cities to consider:
-Lump Sum Option - one lump sum payment in first year
(1981)
-Five Year Option - Five equal annual payments, of prin-
icipal and financing charges at 10%
-Ten Year Option- Ten equal annual payments, of principal
and financing charges at 10%
There is also an alternative option which would be to add
the amount of debt retirement needed for each year to the annual
dues of a city, over a 20 -year period. Cities would pay their
proportionate share in relation to the amount of dues they
presently pay.
Council Letter No. 291 -2- August 11, 1980
Using the same formula as the dues schedule, each city
would pay to the building fund $2 for each $1 it pays in dues.
Dues for membership in the League of Minnesota Cities are
based on census population figures. For cities the size of
Richfield, with a 1970 census figure of 47,231, the dues for 9 -1 -80
through 9 -1 -81 amounted to $8,118. This was calculated at base
dues of $4,850 plus 12� per capita over 20,000. The estimated
9- 1- 81- 9 -1 -82 dues will be $6,946, based upon our 1980 census
population figure of 37,463. Based upon 1980 dues, Richfield's
lump sum payment would be $16,236, based upon 1981 dues, it would
amount to $13,892. Cities could also elect to choose the five
or ten year option of annual payments and 10% interest. There
would also be a provision made for cities who drop out of the
LMC and return at a later time. Those cities will have a building
share assessed to them at the time of re- entry. If the LMC is
dissolved, each city would receive assets in proportion to their
annual dues fee, as stipulated in the LMC constitution.
The League Board of Directors has requested that each member
city discuss the proposed building project, consider the payment
options and advise the League of their option. The options for
council consideration are as follows:
Payment Options
One lump payment option (paid in first year)�13,9R'T2 t (aqf�o
Five -year option plan b,bi3
Ten -year option plan 5a�o
Alternate Payment Option
Cities assist in retiring debt through increased dues F 33
The League of Board of Directors has requested that each
city advise them by August 25, 1980. Therefore, this item has
been placed on the August 11, 1980 city council for city council
consideration.
KN /ej a
.z
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
4-IM
U league of minnesota cities
August 4, 1980
TO: Mayors, Managers and Clerks
FROM: Donald A. Slater, Executive Director
RE: rcE os Buili in , Proj�:ct for LNC
This is the most important letter which I have sent to you, that is, considering the
League of Minnesota Cities as an institution, its future, and your own city's financial
participation in the League. Let me encourage you as much as I can to review my letter,
the attached materials, and give the matter serious consideration. The subject is a
building for the League.
When I arrived in Minnesota over two years ago, one of my fellow staff members handed
me the real estate file and explained that the League almost bought a building two
years before I came to Minnesota, but finally decided not to do it. Your Board of
Directors, subsequently, reopened the question of permanent space for the League when
the League renegotiated its lease and found a considerable jump in the rental price.
A Board committee worked on this issue for two years. The committee reviewed a
complete set of options, including, other rental space, lease purchase, purchase of
an existing building, and new construction. After careful consideration of the
options, the committee concluded that, considering the St. Paul real estate market
and the future of the League, new construction is the best course of action.
Mayor Harvey Lange of Robbinsdale put it this way, "If you think that the League is
going to be around for twenty years, then it's foolish not to own the League's office
space." That was the controlling view on the Board of Directors. For the long -term,
there is no doubt of the wisdom of this view. If the League continues to rent space,
it will, ultimately, pay more per year than the cost of owning a building and have
nothing to show for the payments. Currently, the League spends roughly $60,000 a year
for its space. This figure is going up sharply. Our landlord not only wants to
increase rental for our space but also passes through excess real estate taxes,
increased utility costs (over a base year), increased maintenance costs (over a base
year), and wants to add a charge for parking space -- all of which would be subject
to further future increases.
Building a building -- which would give the League much more adequate space to serve
the members' convenience -- would cost $1.2 million, Financed for twenty years, an
annual debt amount is $130,000. The question is: Are the cities prepared to commit
themselves to this course of action? There is no doubt that a building will cost
more in the short run than continuing the present rental arrangement. After five
years, however, the League will be.:saving money every year.
(OVER)
300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 (61 23 222 -2861
-2-
Paying for a new building is, of course, the problem. The Building Committee developed
some alternatives which could lessen the burden all around. Some cities have indicated
that they would support the idea of a building and would like to pay their share off in
one lump sum at the front end. If enough cities wanted to do this, then it would lessen
the amount of money the League would have to borrow, make it possible to retire the debt
sooner, and gain the most savings -- by reducing the amount of interest which the League
would have to pay for funds borrowed to construct a building. Other cities have indi-
cated that they would like a longer period in which to meet financial commitments
necessary to construct a building. The attached survey asks that you select the method
of payment which you prefer. Please think about this carefully because the way cities
want to deal with this issue will determine the future of the project. If a very
substantial number of cities desires to pay over the longest possible period of time --
say twenty years -- it will be impossible to receive lump sum payments from some cities
and allow others to pay over a twenty -year period.
Let me point out a few hard considerations for you. If the League is to obtain a
building, it will probably never have a better opportunity._ The City of St. Paul is
donating the site. The St. Paul Port Authority will finance the project with a twenty -
year tax- exempt bond at about 8.75 %, considerably under private money. St. Paul will
also lend staff assistance from the Planning Department. So, from a financial point of
view, it will never be this economical again. I expect that if we can't make the final
arrangements after all the work by the Board, the Building Committee, and the City of
St. Paul, we may as well forget the project.
The future of the League is really up to you, the members. What you want, are prepared
to finance are the controlling considerations. Please review the matter carefully. We
need to know your response very soon. The staff will stand by your direction.
Sincerely,
Donald A..Slater
Executive Director
DAS:rmm
Attach.
OPINION SURVEY
It is imperative that the League Board of Directors know each and every city's opinion
as to the financing plan they favor. Please take a minute at your next council meeting
to give us your opinion.
PAYMENT OPTIONS
1) Our city favors a one lump payment option (paid in first year).
2) Our city favors a five -year option plan; 5 equal annual payments
of principal plus financing charges at 10 %.
3) Our city favors a te:i -year option plan; 10 equal annual payments
plus financing charges at 10 %.
ALTERNATE PAYMENT OPTION
4) Our city prefers to assist in retiring the debt, reflected in
increased dues (budget of LMC would be increased by the amount
necessary for debt retirement).
Name of City:
1970 Population:
Please return by August 25 to:
League of Minnesota Cities
300 Hanover Building
480 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
IF
QUESTIONS MOST .FREQUENTLY ASKED ABOUT THE BUILDING PROGRAM
During the Annual Conference, informational meetings were held for the delegates. The
Building Committee gained valuable feedback from these meetings, and from discussions
with individual city officials. Questions that were frequently askew are listed below
along with the answers.
1) How much is rent now? What percent of the total LMC budget?
The current rent for the League is going up sharply. In 1979 we paid a net of $52,000
for space. This includes a base cost of $7.15 per sq. ft., and a pass - through for
additional taxes. Our new lease also establishes the policy of passing through
additional maintenance and utility costs. (Rent costs for LMC have increased 35% in
the last five years.) Current St. Paul rental property is $10 -14 per sqo ft. on the
private market. This does not include parking. Parking spaces range from $25 -50 per
stall per month. Both of these figures are subject to constant upward pressure. The
architect estimates that current study indicates the cost of the League's new space
would be $11.31 per sq. ft. (1980 dollars). Initially the cost of LMC space will be
$1.31 over comparison rental rate of $10. This will be offset by the inflation of
value of real estate and rental rates within two to three years.
2) Is there a financial return in building versus renting?
With LMC owning its own facilities we will have stabilized our rental costs and
protected ourselves against inflation.
LMC ownership provides total control of space and the cost of space. Cost of surface
parking stalls not only provides convenient car access to members and staff but is 45%
less costly than LMC is presently paying for parking stalls. LMC ownership will
provide protection against inflating of open market rental rates while at the same
time building equity for member cities.
Savings realized by an earth - sheltered, energy- saving designed building will cut
energy costs by 50% or more. Though initially the cost of space in the new building
will be slightly higher than comparable rental space, the savings due to the building's
energy features will actually make the cost of space less than that of comparable
rental space within five years.
3) Has a space study been done for the future? Is the proposed building adequate for
future needs? Who will use excess space? Will they contribute?
A space study was conducted in 1976, 1978, and again this year. The study concluded
the following:
1. 10,000 sq. ft. of usable space would be sufficient for LMC operations.
(Presently we have 7,200 sq. ft.)
2. Meeting space is inadequate.
3. Location close to the Capitol with easy access for city officials is
a necessity.
(OVER)
f I
-2-
4. Parking space is a major consideration.
5. Rental space available did not meet the needs of LMC.
Affiliated organizations presently housed with the League would continue. They are:
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and Ramsey County League of Local Governments.
Another potential affiliate expressing an interest in space is Government Training Service.
The affiliate organizations pay the actual costs of space and service provided and would
continue to do so in the new building.
4) Who owns the site? How can we acquire it for only $1,00? What is the site?
The City of St. Paul presently owns the site; they are willing to sell the amount of
property LMC needs for a building for $1.00. The hillside site is on the corner of
Jackson and University and lends itself well to an innovative energy saving building.
5) What will be the annual debt service on $1.2 million? Why use Port Authority Bonds
versus a city's?
Annual debt service would average $130,000 per year for 20 years. Port Authority Bonds
were suggested to us because of their tax exempt status and lower interest rate (than
commercial). In addition, the St. Paul Port Authority will act as fiscal agent at cost.
6) Can'we just increase dues for the next ten to twenty years to cover debt? Will
cost of building hurt smaller cities more? Will they quit in large numbers?
An alternative option of increasing dues to cover debt retirement is included in the
Opinion Survey. It is possible to finance the building in this way and an acceptable
alternative for some cities.
Small cities (under 500) building share will be approximately $325.00 or less,'according
to population. Some small cities might drop LMC membership but we don't anticipate a
large drop -off; response has been favorable to a new building among small cities as well
as'large cities.
7) What will happen if cities drop out of LMC? Can a charter group be set up so that
if there is dissolution of LMC each city will get back investments?
Provision will be made for cities who drop out of LMC and return at a later time. Those
cities will have a building share assessed to them at the time of re- entry. If LMC is
dissolved, each city would receive assets in proportion to their annual dues fee, as
stipulated in the LMC Constitutions
8) What is the result of action at Annual Meeting?
A presentation by the Building Committee was given at the meeting and the following
resolution was unanimously adopted,
� F
-3-
RESOLUTION ON LEAGUE BUILDING
WHEREAS, the League began consideration of building ownership in 1957 and appointed
its first building committee in 1971; that committee as reconstituted in 1977 has
now recommended that the League move to acquire a building to house the League
operations; and
WHEREAS, continued rental of space during periods of sustained inflation results in
Uncontrollable escalation in costs of space to house League operations; and
WHEREAS, a preliminary financial plan has been presented to the members of the League
at the Annual 1980 Business Meeting indicating the proposed financial commitment of
League members to a League building, and showing the financial advantage of ownership;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1) The Board is supported by the members of the League in its efforts to obtain
a League office building; and
2) It is recognized that the Board may need to develop an assessment program
to finance this building which could include the three options recommended
by the building committee or other proposals and could contemplate a
constitutional amendment requiring payment as a condition of membership;
and
3) The Board is further urged to conclude the acquisition of a League building
as soon as practicable.
(OVER)
-4-
COST SHEET
Costs:
12,800 sq. ft. building
(10,000 sq. ft. usable space)
40 -car parking and site improvement
Development Costs
Furnishings
Total Building Costs
Estimated financing charges
First year capitalized interest
Underwriting and Expenses
Total Building and Financing Costs
Financing Plan:
LMC finances $1,162,000.00
Bonds: St. Paul Port Authority
Esimtated interest rate - 8 -3/4% Port Authority Bonds
$ 770,000.00
72,000.00
100,000.00
50,000.00
$ 992,000.00
110,000.00
60,000.00
$1,162,000.00
Financed no longer than 20 years with option to recall debt in 11th year
The financing plan assumes that excess funds collected in any given year would
be invested at an equal or greater interest rate than is required to cover the
bond interest rate.
Payment Options:
Much discussion has centered around the methods of payment LMC could offer to
cities to make the payment as painless as possible, and as straight- forward and
flexible to cities for convenience in cash flow and budgeting. The following
options, in the opinion of the committee, can be offered,
Each member city has choice of:
1) Lump Sum Option
-One lump sum payment in first year (1981)
2) Five Year Option
-Five equal annual payments, of principal and financing charges at 10%
3) Ten Year Option
-Ten equal annual payments, of principal and financing charges at 10%
' � 7
M11
An alternative option that should be considered is to add the amount of debt retirement
needed for each year to the annual dues of a city. This would be over the length of
the bond issue (20 years). Cities would pay their proportionate share in relation to
the amount of dues they presently pay. If the alternative option were selected by a
large majority of the cities it would not be feasible to offer additional options.
Member Cities Share:
Using the same formula as the dues schedule, each city would pay to the building fund,
$2 for each $1 it pays in dues.
Examples
$1 dues X $2.00 Share - $2.00 Building Fund Share
$100 dues X $2.00 Share = $200.00 Building Fund Share
$1,000 dues X $2.00 Share - $2,000.00:Building Fund Share
Examples with Options per $100 dues plus $200 Share
Under lump sum option
Pay full amount
Under five year option
Pay principal and 101
interest in five annual
payments of $52.76
Under ten year option
Pay principal and 101
interest in ten annual
payments of $32.55
$200.00
I S , li� q -2-
$264.00
3
$326.00
Alternative Option building debt retirement as part of regular dues payment -
An increase of_18 -201 in dues payment in 1981. This increase would then
become the base dues amount. In addition to the amount increased for building
costs, it would probably be necessary to increase the dues occasionally to
maintain services.
J ✓
(OVER)
r
t �
10
CONTACT SHEET
The Building Committee, the Board of Directors and the League staff
are concerned that
all questions concerning the proposed building and the financing of
the building
be
answered to every city's satisfaction. Therefore, if you have any
questions,
please
contact one of the following persons:
Building Committee Members:
Robert Anderson, Council Member, International Falls, Co- Chairman
#(218)
283 -9484
Ken Yager, Mayor, Minnetonka, Co- Chairman
(612)
933 -2511
Jo Nunn, Mayor, Champlin
(612)
421 -8064
Harvey Lange, Mayor, Robbinsdale
(612)
537 -4534
Bonnie Carlson, Finance Officer & Assistant City Manager, Morris
(612)
589 -3141
Richard Asleson, City Administrator, Apple Valley
(612)
432 -0750
Dave Hozza, Consultant
(612)
298 -4646
LMC Staff Members:
Donald A. Slater, Executive Director
Helen Schendel, Associate Director
Architect:
Robert Nelson, Architectural Alliance East
(612) 222 -2861
(612) 222 -2861
(612) 221 -1908
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 290
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Traffic Control Requests
15
The following stop sign requests were submitted to the Traffic
Control Committee:
1. 64th. Street and 12th Avenue, and 65th Street and 12th Ave.
A petition, signed by about half of the residents abutting
12th Avenue from 64th Street to 66th Street was submitted
which requested stop signs on 12th Avenue at 64th and 65th
Streets. Traffic counts were taken on the affected street.
The counts indicated that the 4 -way stop sign warrants were
not met. Any stop signs in this area would violate the
uncontrolled nature of the neighborhood. Therefore, the
traffic control committee recommends that no stop signs
be placed at these intersections.
2. 72nd Street and Elliot Avenue, and 72nd Street and Chicago Ave.
The neighborhood residents have petitioned for stop signs.
Again, 4 -way stop sign warrants are not met. These inter-
sections are in the center of an area in which most of the
a- intersections are�tontrolled by stop signs. Rather than
place stop signs, the visibility of these intersections can
be increased by proper trimming of trees and hedges at these
intersections. The traffic committee therefore recommends
against the placement of stop signs at these intersections.
3. 76th Street and Morgan Avenue.
The neighborhood petitioners requested stop signs on 76th
Street at Morgan Avenue. The warrants for a 4 -way stop are
not met. Stopping cars on 76th Street will use 40,000
gallons of gas per year.
A traffic count on Morgan Avenue indicates an average daily traf-
fic count of 933 on the southern leg and 292 on the northern leg. The
counts for both legs of 76th Street is approximately 14,000.
During the hour between 4:30 and 5:30 on Wednesday, August 6,
63 cars entered 76th Street from both sides of Morgan Avenue. The
average traffic for that hour on 76th Street is 1,400 cars. The
time spent waiting by each car entering 76th Street was calculated.
Council Letter No. 290 . -2-
August 11, 1980
Seventy -nine percent of all cars entering 76th Street from Morgan
Avenue waited less than 20 seconds to find an opening. Of the cars
turning left off of Morgan, that is, the cars that had to wait for
a gap in both directions of traffic, 12% had to wait more than 1
minute. Any anticipated safety improvements-must be balanced against
a probable increased incidence of rear end accidents caused by stop-
ping these 14,000 cars a day on 76th Street.
Therefore, because of the increased gas consumption, noise, air
pollution and wasted time, as well as off - setting safety considerations,
no stop signs are recommeneded to be placed on 76th Street at Morgan
Avenue.
4. 69th Street and Sheridan Avenue'4'
The petitioners request stop signs on 69th Street At Sheridan.
The letter accompanying the petition complained of accidents
and large traffic volumes. The police records do not bear
out the accident claim. 69th Street serves as a collector,
carrying over 3,000 vehicles per day. It is also on the State
Aid system. The intersection is already controlled by stop
signs on Sheridan; further control would inhibit traffic
flow, cause more noise and air pollution, and waste gas.
The petitioners indicated that speeds of eastbound traffic on
69th Street are excessive due to the steep downgrade. The
Public Safety Department made a speed check of traffic on
69th Street at Sheridan. The average speed was calculated
at 31.16 mph for the east bound and 30.21 mph for the west
bound. These speed are not excessive when compared to other
collector streets. For these reasons, the committee recommends
against stop signs at these intersections.
Respectfully submitted,
r � �
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Community Development Director
City Engineer
Public Safety Director
/ q
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 289
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Comprehensive Stop Sign Policy Report
As background to a policy on comprehensive stop signs it is
necessary to list the laws and rules that pertain to the subject of
stop signs. The reason for this is that a discussion on stop signs
generally borrows from many disciplines. The legalities of statutes,
engineering principles and plain common sense all figure in to the
consideration of this issue. In order to properly weigh the merits
of each argument, the source of the information should be considered.
Minnesota Statutes 1961, Section 169.06, Subdivision 3, requires
local authorities to install traffic control devices in conformance
with the state manual and specifications. The statute reads as follows:
"Local authorities in their respective jurisdiction shall
place and maintain such traffic control devices upon Highways
under their jurisdiction as they may deem necessary to indicate
and to carry out the provisions of this chapter or local
traffic ordinances, or to regulate, warn, or guide traffic.
All such traffic control devices hereinafter erected shall
conform to the State manual and specifications."
Warrants for 2 -way and 4 -way stop signs from the Manual on Uni-
form Traffic Control Devices are listed in Exhibit "A ". The warrants
for a 2 -way stop sign are subjective so, according to statute, the
council "may deem necessary" the existing 2 -way stop signs. However,
the warrants for a 4 -way stop sign are more objective. Placing a
4 -way stop at an intersection regi>i.res engineering analysis. The in-
tent of the law is to prevent unnecessary stops. A 2 -way stop sign
"controls" an intersection, so 4 -way stops should not be placed unless
absolutely necessary.
In addition to the statutes, traffic engineering principles pro-
vide guidelines to a stop sign policy. The following is a list of
these principles which have been verified through tests in many
jurisdictions:
- Residential stop signs reduce speeds in the immediate area
of a stop sign, i.e., approximately 200 feet before the stop
sign and 100 feet after the stop sign.
- Traffic speeds about one -half a block away from a residential
stop sign remain the same or increase slightly over speeds
before the stop sign was installed.
Council Letter No. 289 -2-
August 11, 1980
- A pair of stop signs installed to stop traffic on opposite
legs of a 4 -way intersection will virtually eliminate right
,angle accidents.
- W,n unwarranted stop sign, particularly a 4 -way stop, will be
flagrantly disobeyed more often than a warranted stop sign.
- Each stop that a medium sized car makes from 30 mph uses
.01 gallon of gas more than the same car traveling through
at 30 mph. In addition, there is increased air pollution,
noise, and time spent travelling through a controlled in-
tersection.
- Installation of stop signs on a street will cause traffic
volumes to remain the same or decrease slightly.
As was stated before, the aforementioned principles have been
tested and documented. However, traffic engineering is both a science
and an art. For every rule there can be extenuating circumstances
which make the rule inoperative. Intuition and experience come in to
play. From this intuition various stop sign principles have been
developed. Some of these principles which either have not been tested
or can not be tested are as follows:
- A stop sign placed on a street with relatively high traffic
volumes will increase the incidence of rear -end type colli-
sions.
- A neighborhood which has a fair number of controlled inter-
sections, i.e., intersections with at least 2 legs with stop
signs, can experience an increased number of accidents at
uncontrolled intersections due to a false sense of security.
That is, a driver, who encounters a series of controlled
intersections and then comes upon an uncontrolled intersec-
tion, will assume the cross street has stop signs. He will
not be as wary as he should be for an uncontrolled inter-
section.
- Installation of stop signs that are unwarranted based upon
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices denigrates the
integrity of stop signs that are warranted.
- Installation of a stop sign on a busy street to make a school
crossing will make crossing more dangerous. A vehicle which
had been a problem for 3 seconds while approaching and passing
an intersection becomes a problem for a much longer period.
A situation of indecision is created as to when to cross as
a pedestrian or when to start as a motorist. Normal gaps in
in traffic through which crossings could be made safely no
longer exist. An intersection which previously was not busy
now looks like a major intersection. This information is
from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traffic In-
formation Program Services.
It is obvious that some of these rules can be inconsistent with
one another.
Council Letter No. 289 -3- August 11, 1980
An interesting study was conducted in St. Paul in 1974 -75 in the
Summit - University residential area. The test area was a 100 city block
residential neighborhood. In 1974 the area had only a few stop signs
scattered throughout the area. That year they had 51 total accidents
of which 31 were the right angle variety. In 1975, after every un-
controlled intersection was controlled by a 2 -way stop sign, 27 ac-
cidents occurred, of which none were of the right angle variety. The
cost analysis of this increased traffic control, was as follows:
Property damage (from police records)
Personal injury
1975 - 16 1974 - 6
Using National Safety Council
Figure of $3,400 per accident
Increased energy cost due to stops
Cost of installation of signs
TOTALS
1974 1975
$34,620 $10,220
54,400 20,400
17,976
2,013
$89,020 $50,609
These figures do not reflect the decrease in human suffering due to
the decrease in accidents.
At the present time Minneapolis is encountering the same problem
that Richfield has with our stop sign policy. The Minneapolis Traf-
fic Engineering Division is proposing a saturated stop sign policy.
The 13th Ward in Minneapolis has independently devised a saturated
stop sign policy in its own ward. This policy was formed through the
cooperation of the traffic engineering division and the citizens and
is proving successful.
Now let's look at the situation in Richfield. Exhibit "B" shows
all of the stop signs in Richfield. Exhibit "C" shows all of the stop
signs that are not on or adjacent to collector or arterial streets.
A definite pattern is evident. First, over 50% of the residential
intersections in Area 1, between 63rd and 69th Streets are controlled.
Second, almost all of the residential intersections south of 67th
Street and east of 35W are uncontrolled, except near the high school.
Third, the other areas fall somewhere in between.
Let's look first at the northwest corner of the city, Area 1,
Exhibit C, with a preponderance of controlled intersections. This
area is very hilly which means that many of the stop signs were placed
due to visibility problems. In addition, this area is close to
Southdale. Some of the signs were placed as an attempt to deter through
traffic.
Council Letter NO. 289 -4- August 11, 1980
The right angle type accidents which occurred in 1979 and 1980
in Richfield have been identified in Exhibit D. This clearly indicates
a pattern in the northwest section of Richfield. Of the 16 accidents
which occurred there, 14 were at uncontrolled intersections and 13
occurred on 67th and 68th Streets. It is the conclusion of the traf-
fic control committee that 9 uncontrolled intersections on 67th and
68th Streets should be controlled (the area West of Penn plus 67th
end Oliver). The area north of 66th Street has not shown a high right -
angle accident rate and so no additional stop signs are warranted.
Based on the St. Paul studies, we could have eliminated these 13 ac-
cidents. The cost of installing stop signs is estimated at $100 per
intersection, or $900 for the 9 uncontrolled intersections. The staff
recommends that this area be controlled by stop signs to eliminate the
violation of driver expectancy which occurs when a minority of the
intersections in this neighborhood are uncontrolled. Installing these
nine stop signs should give us a test area to analyze to see if right -
angle accidents reduce materially in the future.
The second area foonsideration is that area south of 67th and
east of 35W, Area II, Exhibit C. This area is uniformly uncontrolled
and should be maintained as is. A special effort should be made to
maintain the site triangle on each corner lot to maintain visibility.
A campaign to remind corner property owners of the existing ordinance
preventing visibility obstructions should be started, followed by a
check of all intersections for visibility and violations of the or-
dinance. Stop signs would be installed only if accident data indicates.
The third area, Area III, Exhibit C, is also recommended for no
change. The same intersection visibility campaign should be conducted
in this area. The first area can be considered a test area for this
area. If a dramatic decrease in accidents occurs due to the control
of all intersections, parts of this third area should be considered.
Finally, we come to the question of stop signs on collector and
arterial streets. The staff strongly recommends following the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as directed by Statute, that is
that stop signs not be placed on collector streets at intersections
with residential streets. Such a recommendation could appear to be
inconsistent with the previous recommendation that the city install
stop signs at 9 intersections in the city in wholesale fashion with-
out reference to the manual. An important distinction must be made.
The function of the streets are totally different. A collector or
arterial street is supposed to move traffic in an orderly and ef-
ficient manner. Where safety is paramount to all types of streets,
the efficient movement of traffic is the main purpose of a collector
street. In addition, we are talking about a 4 -way stop not a 2 -way
stop. The manual dictates that minimum traffic volumes or other con-
crete criteria be met for a 4 --way stop.
In the final analysis, stop signs should not be placed on arteri-
als for safety reasons alone. When faced by someone who says "What
is more important, a child's life or a stop sign?", some consideration
should be given to the child in a car that is rear -ended by someone
Council Letter No. 289 -5- August 11, 1980
who didn't know that a stop sign was installed on this major street
at an intersection with a street that maybe doesn't even get 500 cars
a day. In the four years prior to the placement of stop signs on 76th
Street at Emerson Avenue in January of 1979, no accidents occurred at
this intersection. In February of 1979, a car went through the stop
sign on 76th Street and collided with a car leaving the Emerson Ave-
nue stop sign.
The staff has made the following recommendations:
- The intersections in Area 1, along 67th and 68th Streets
from Oliver to Washburn (excluding Penn) should have stop
signs installed stopping the avenues.
- Efforts should be made to make the existing uncontrolled
intersections as safe as possible through enforcement of the
visibility triangle ordinance.
- The Manual on Uniform Traffic on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices should be followed for the installation of all stop
signs on arterial streets.
- Finally, consideration should be given by the council to
delegating the installation of traffic regulatory signs to
the city manager whenever these signs meet the uniform traf-
fic manual. Appeals to the council could be made on sign
requests not meeting the uniform traffic manual.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Director of Community Development
City Engineer
Director of Public Safety
7
] w
x
• w
to C" q D, .' a O•,� Ct
tam r o
�' mot.. oN>, ^•`� �
o
in°v�y G' J
" �` d
'? a ^.'f
V O X v O u N
e..-e
v
•O .
T
.pi Y. G .O-. v3 O .G L e
y a
O cFi a'i O _� LD ..vi u^.:+ i w FD o
o. o ° a4) o' c w:?
aa o k d) o f o
00 a a=+ j. ..+ .O. a � y • n
a �" p l y O N
c�• E+x F� ED
a•�w o N'G .tG. r o a c p it
O u p y C r CD LR
CD •a m e m as" o 0$4
d N r0 O eJ V
•K O M C H In 0 'CS y O u .V.• �' 1. r• P.
K � .O Ta .ir R Lfi � .�D.: .^.. T,•O '^ d
cs
to
pa c C d •mt O N y G u O to
.a. 2 g? 'O ti �F'' r w O •O
to r R C, .� '� .O C cz o N •�
v O LD
L7 C +; GD LD a •C'' aFi .N "' V �a o H ,�
tD v y O
F Cr 7 CZ P
O •o c% � O � •� a• p ^
J .4 G d d .— � O
Z: m C � 'D �• � " o v C H 1 N y u C 67. V
N y FJ• • V M T'
G 0 g o a .a .N o: Ec tt `� n
.°+' i [. = r UHj ill v q a •v: F v C
C, 'i t r°i ,V u2 :•� O .°'+ O �^ c4'FD
o r + •J o
G
c]
M
I
CD
10
mar
WADI
0
p
V U Ri
ii
V C:
d �'
f^• w O V v U
"•'' N
%•
•C,
1j
N
0 r� •N
a
1
N
01
rG�•
1M�
•(•y
M
pr]
fA V
�
O J1 ~ V U
Ei i�
du
w
0
01
p
p
w
�. C"
cl
S 's ... i. N
v •.' .-. N
Qr
°
r.
.O
r v
tD N ^
a
cri .
O
fr G
L U
V
p C to y
�
� �, y
G• V y
�
N
o rel
"CS
10
a
p�j;r p N
aC Noa
0
•.yw
•Fa
U
r
N d '� H cG.
in aC'-. o
^J ..
U Q
F
cs
C '.'
.. Y c C
•, ryj X.
V
v
Ca O .~
O.
• L
v y
. v A+ T. i
Ot
cs
O
m
"�
r
G
tD'�
O
.° y to :f.
�7 iti u
-
to
C
_
O [ a s E d a
O
c>i'.°c a O
y fir�• O G
r-] O
.. �'
r d V
Cd
N .°-+ ^] C U y g G
•:� " v U
�y 0
'=•
7r,',
F V: J
� °
O ° V' C
.? r w U
a
�
O �
.� C'{ �
b
r.
O
vl
'
a v
t0 SE•„ t N iti amc. d '`"
.r_C
.�'F•
'O r U ^
GV
^i+ 7 .•'. 14
c a0
N
`
u
C d
N
N
CD •a m e m as" o 0$4
d N r0 O eJ V
•K O M C H In 0 'CS y O u .V.• �' 1. r• P.
K � .O Ta .ir R Lfi � .�D.: .^.. T,•O '^ d
cs
to
pa c C d •mt O N y G u O to
.a. 2 g? 'O ti �F'' r w O •O
to r R C, .� '� .O C cz o N •�
v O LD
L7 C +; GD LD a •C'' aFi .N "' V �a o H ,�
tD v y O
F Cr 7 CZ P
O •o c% � O � •� a• p ^
J .4 G d d .— � O
Z: m C � 'D �• � " o v C H 1 N y u C 67. V
N y FJ• • V M T'
G 0 g o a .a .N o: Ec tt `� n
.°+' i [. = r UHj ill v q a •v: F v C
C, 'i t r°i ,V u2 :•� O .°'+ O �^ c4'FD
o r + •J o
G
c]
M
I
IL
�-
mar
WADI
CD •a m e m as" o 0$4
d N r0 O eJ V
•K O M C H In 0 'CS y O u .V.• �' 1. r• P.
K � .O Ta .ir R Lfi � .�D.: .^.. T,•O '^ d
cs
to
pa c C d •mt O N y G u O to
.a. 2 g? 'O ti �F'' r w O •O
to r R C, .� '� .O C cz o N •�
v O LD
L7 C +; GD LD a •C'' aFi .N "' V �a o H ,�
tD v y O
F Cr 7 CZ P
O •o c% � O � •� a• p ^
J .4 G d d .— � O
Z: m C � 'D �• � " o v C H 1 N y u C 67. V
N y FJ• • V M T'
G 0 g o a .a .N o: Ec tt `� n
.°+' i [. = r UHj ill v q a •v: F v C
C, 'i t r°i ,V u2 :•� O .°'+ O �^ c4'FD
o r + •J o
G
c]
M
I
IL
�-
0
&
0
p
0 O�
1j
N
0 r� •N
a
1
J
1M�
•(•y
M
pr]
fA V
�
O J1 ~ V U
Ei i�
w
.S: U
ca
p
•..
S 's ... i. N
v •.' .-. N
Qr
...
a
G' C) �
E
J •
�
"CS
a
p�j;r p N
aC Noa
^�
•Fa
po
t H ^
d r �0 °: C. d
C
C
_Cy,
C4
•
�QEQ�c
tC
h: `o?arFV
"• Y v�
N
i"a
r.
-
to
C
_
O [ a s E d a
O
c>i'.°c a O
i
�a
� Cacti c
O
N c pa w cs Z
Grp
a
' tn`'
O
a — EEai'Q
O v
H,^..,
b
r.
.Fy(i'
vl
c• H F o cl
C) ID
t11
cs
CD •a m e m as" o 0$4
d N r0 O eJ V
•K O M C H In 0 'CS y O u .V.• �' 1. r• P.
K � .O Ta .ir R Lfi � .�D.: .^.. T,•O '^ d
cs
to
pa c C d •mt O N y G u O to
.a. 2 g? 'O ti �F'' r w O •O
to r R C, .� '� .O C cz o N •�
v O LD
L7 C +; GD LD a •C'' aFi .N "' V �a o H ,�
tD v y O
F Cr 7 CZ P
O •o c% � O � •� a• p ^
J .4 G d d .— � O
Z: m C � 'D �• � " o v C H 1 N y u C 67. V
N y FJ• • V M T'
G 0 g o a .a .N o: Ec tt `� n
.°+' i [. = r UHj ill v q a •v: F v C
C, 'i t r°i ,V u2 :•� O .°'+ O �^ c4'FD
o r + •J o
G
c]
M
I
EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNS 0— STOP SIGNS
EXHIBIT "BII X — DEAD END
Y — YIELD RIGHT OF WAY
—� — ONE WAY
• a w e >
a a > a w w a W W d > d
w w x N i > : x �° ' n b' i : g ° _ > ' - x < a . w a a ' m T < o a a = Q .. 'a Q i e agw i W n a n < i 3 F a oz i „ < z n a a ., ° u a n n• o a J Y u ^
•w
> 2
z ' w
I - a W O
° a a
1/80
=
> f 1z ' L a ° - N
x n2 p
_ _ _ __ T _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --------------- E 62_m 5L
0 0 0 u u= o- 0 0 0 o 16 a o x 0 x o O LEGION 0 o f PARK
C� C'� r� (� (� C l 1 _U p' p X LAKE n (ti 01 I O 0 Q 0 E 634 sT _
` �)�CH X
x .a T 0.0 0�0 L 001 00 ' ! T'
J _. 0 0 „6411 s<.
00 UO O 00 00 F IELD 0 Y 00 0 J O 0 I1 l
00 00 0
LAKE - X X
x .. ,. 0 0,)00 -0 C C p 0 �, «...,..b, M.�.
= 0 000 0 00 0 00 O�t-
0 �
FAH� O C 0 :) \ 00 0 00 7 00 �' lI t66. s.
X =w - I
yy X � /� /� ryry y -
W 66 1A 5T - -_ "_/ L._ _._ JJ ! GI G G Q ✓ G G G Q V 1�X j ....[
r� 0 '0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0. 0 O 0 0- o, 0, 0 0 _
1 � I O G 0 0 0 0 X 0 X0 0" 00 - -- -6E 66M ST.
I W _.- r.
w 67.1 sT 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 J 0; 0 67
pr
1 I ° x x o Q x _`� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 o p 0 o o O O 0 0 0 01 E M sr
W. 66 ,1, ST I __�U\ _ ._J J 0
0 p X X G a 0 0 00 - I E 661K sr. I
G X 1 0 0 0 0 0 J
ffn 0 0 0 001 10 G I � �
�lQd� o e o _
l _
0 00 I
0 Or 0 J 0 p 0 0 0 X 0 0 O X 0 0 0 g g o E 69M si
4!0 O � biO ww . 77OoM $ (1
i I- iI -III II I I WOOD LAKE
Q C � Goo c c; o o '”
o. 0 0 0 0 0 u o .o•a��_
� p 0 o 1J � 0000 0 0 pp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , C 0 o
- 8
0 ' r sT "QL ; 0
O kAU1,SSI1II1, 0
ST Q w 71 d Q ;
- H
E 7o,n >T i
W
Illfj .. VIIHHUT
� n
..
l p I
- . E 71,1 ST G X ��Q r AR Iw 71 = 57 Q O G
ri O O O PARK X 00 E ad sr O x
W 72 O O 1V O p L 0 0
.
OFnF+.MI.C. . ra
I . A< ,...L In
w
. o
MA
P 0] 1 1
4� OF
w 73 6 ST 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 QD O X 0 0
U 0 0 0 C QI L 0 . 0 � 9 CITY OF RICH
f
IE7 ID 0 X X w 0. 0 p 00 0 0 0 0 0 � X HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
W. » IK ST 0 L 0 C Public Works Department
E Txd s
0 X = _0 FIELD 0 . 0 Engineering Division
JI CITT A ENGINEER
w 73 to ST J l_ J I AN URY, 1960 _ E 751h ST
4ONLDSON
PARK 1
O p
76M ST Q pQ Q Q Q G G OQ G G V G G pO_0 O Q G O, 0 I 0 I 0 O E 761h sT Q i
0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oi 0 0 '00 r 0 C 0 0 0 0OX D 0 _ ( 0 0 0 � 0
ROSEVELT
W 7711, iT
oXO 0 0 E 77th ST
0 0
0 0 0 I L Y G (' 0
0 0 0� ,�25 0 0 o 0 �......a.a .�.n ....4r
W
16 in 51 0'- - - - - -- ,+.- .
- - -- - ._ G — NI -xap loo S6(761K Srl-
> W ° "' < d "' w > Q a a < Q W >
a > w a . a < a a a a ° c w F Y x J a' a ° a > W o 3 a
a' ° ° a' a $ _. w W W ° a> w w w > o w w
' N w ¢ ° a z ° w a i i m a ' a i a a. '
i a a S
o
I.
I
NJ
EXHIBIT "C" EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STOP SIGNS
8 -7 -80
° a ° a z ° e ° a • i '6 ' ' x w ' • ° < � ° � a a' � a a � a a i u a a a a' a a � a' a a ao � a c e c
I I I�I . TAFT - PAW
O O O O ' 00 O O O O O o LA IKOEN l l -- I I o 1 n O O O O 1 61,a ST
OI 01 O 0, O of O O O O
00 00 0 0 00 00 _ �/?R- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -t `}
00 00 O 00 00 I O O O O O \ 1
LAKE
I� OU' 00 U
0 —JJJJ
000 O O O O – .ao « «.. «,' Op OC: O
0 0 0; -Oo O 0 0
,HF7aunN 0
IT
AREACam,
ri 6'.n cr O I O O „� O O O O O O U O O O O O O p
p v 0 o o a. - 0 0 000 0 0 0 o 0 o
1
YO O "O O O O �6 00 O n
O 0 011) 000 O O O 00
z
O, O O O O O O O O eg U r= bsen sT
■f 0 O O O O p 00 O s
I
WOOD LAKE
U
Q.Ioi O �0 « ian 57
oII - 10 - -- � O O
w 70 } � 1
W. ro s7 1
I O • i O O
W 71 Is sT. OO 0 U
„
W. 71 = 5T. .... AREA 2
w 72 na
4 o 0 0 00 0,� � )' p o v o ... ;rA gFFICIAL MAP
6T. � .; � �
MLL i 1 ' OF
w 73 ra s7 h_Q O J U —
1 73rd S C'[.!..Y OF RICI-IFIELI)
0 0 1 � o � I HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Public Works Department
E "'" Engineering Division
— `
W. 74,11 ST. -
I. " -• �Y V t
II 1 CITY ENGINEER
JANUARY, 196 0
O ism si
w 75 m ST
FIFLD O
O 0
1'
1. O
L /6,11 S7
U 0 0 O 00 O U r /lln ST
W 77111 _ . <•.n.r a.r•.,>n., .wr
000
O O O O 0 „wr
— _ HI WAY 10095 (76th ST.)
a
OJ W S W W
` EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STOP SIGNS o- STOP SIGNS
EXHIBIT D RIGHT ANGLE RESIDENTIAL ACCIDENTS ACCIDENTS (1 -1 -79 to 84-80)
8-4-80
., a Z n 1 a ° w •z a � ° a �. w z m , F � .r ., a ° ° ° � < m ; a ° ° ; a ° .x a °, a a �J
ZO Q �
Z
_ 3 � ✓• ¢ � rt O 2 I Y G _ Z u w � .� � u i n n � _ N .., ., � a � n . n w - - - - m
m a u R
_. - _ _ _ _ _ I 62n0 Si. _
r O , �N - L —I' o a 3q oo, O 0 o 0 o 0 LA I L 0 TAEl
6J,
h r: t I a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oe o o a
00 00 0 00 no RICHFIELD 0 0 0 0,
LAKE
000.MO O 0000 • O 0
O ..�, • aA 040�"
n F. fl,In 5:
�� 1 0 O - ' O O .:, 0 O O q,00. O 0 0 a0 A
n,.r.
a o o o ; `a, �',, • o 0 0 0o o c o n
w 0 .0 O OIY h0 O, 0 r) _ a ♦ has A • OO • m sl
��'I1O OdO O O O
O, O O O.O O O 0 • 0 a • p 'a,4 • • U E 69. sl
O O 0 0 0 0 00 0
WOOD LAKE
„n
'600 ST
o ao 00 ,
0. 0 00 a ......,. _, ,. I
w F
w O , • , • G `� • oe
0 0 O 6
00 00 RAR «� a 0 .• • a i •• Y Aa sT
DO 00 ° , o OFFICIAL MAP
O F
a w -� "I "
o o 0 a 0 o OF RI. 1
0 0
00 c pL�i► HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
i
Public Works Department
!. „ •,. ♦ « M • • • • �• a a4r,' ^ i E 71h ST Engineering Division
E, CITY ENGINEER
JANU ARY, 1960
C� oa ♦ L NwE N L' • a • • a • Y Y a _ E ism sr
0
I O O q s w
SC,4£ iM EE
f. 76tn ';I
R, V SE'1F' T
0` 00 • . o C, o 6,
-HI NAY 1006 S 118.1
4
,� .I ., a rt ., .� ., " w .� ' ., .i ° •, � ' , .,, „ j a a � w o a <• a 'a = a a
C
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 288
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Minutes, Tabulation of Bids and Award
of Contracts, Adams Hill Park Redevel-
opment
The adopted 1980 -85 Capital Improvement Program includes a
project for Adams Hill Park Redevelopment, with $100,000 prior
year funding from Year IV of the Community Development Block
Grant Program, and 1980 funding of $250,000 from Year V of the
Community Development Block Grant Program. An estimated $166,000
in state grant (Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources)
and federal grant (Land and Water Conservation Fund) funding is
also projected as revenue. The council has taken action to re-
arrange the years of funding for the project through the Com-
munity Development Block Grant program, although the full
$350,000 is available for the project. With the President's
freeze on federal programs, the other sources of funding for
the project were delayed, although the state funding has been
confirmed and the federal funding is currently under study in
Ann Arbor.
It is anticipated that official notification for funding will
be received in August, 1980. The combination of LCMR and LAWCON
funding is estimated at approximately $166,000. Other sources
of funding for the project include $10,000 from the City of Edina
dating back to the early 1970's when the Yorktown Development
first started. This money was placed in an escrow account until
such time as Adams Hill Park was redeveloped. When the Windsor
Development constructed the Durham apartments adjacent to Adams
Hill Park, another $6,000 was placed in escrow for a bike path
through the Adams Hill Park site. The council will also recall.
that the city owned property at 7301 Xerxes Avenue was recently
sold, and monies available for the park development project from
the rental and sale of that property are approximately $10,000.
To summarize, the funding sources for the Adams Hill Park project
are as follows:
Council Letter No. 288 -2-
Community Development Block Grant
Legislative Commission on Minnesota
Resources
Land and Water Conservation Fund
City of Edina Escrow Account
Windsor Development Escrow Fund
7301 Xerxes Avenue Account
Total Estimated Funds Available
August 1 1 , 1980
$350,000
118,000
48,000
10,000
6,000
10,000
$542,000
Bids for this project were opened on July 31, 1980. A repre-
sentative of the city manager, the deputy city clerk, the community
services director, the architects, and representatives of various
contractors were also present. A copy of the bid minutes and tab-
ulations are attached for council review.
The project was divided into three major categories, each
with several alternates. The first category was site construction.
This category provides primarily for earthwork, including the pond -
ing area, bituminous paving, and miscellaneous items which are
primarily noted as the alternates. Alternate A -1 is a square yard
unit price for topsoil, should additional amounts be required.
The exact figure or total need associated with this item cannot
be determined until actual field conditions can be observed dur-
ing construction. .
Alternate A -2 is a unit price for bituminous paving. This
alternate will allow the city the flexibility to adjust the project
by adding or subtracting bituminous paving in an amount up to 20%
of the design. Alternate A -3 is for volleyball posts, and Alter-
nate A -4 is for two basketball posts. Alternate A -5 is a unit
price for picnic table and concrete base. The bids received in
this category are slightly higher than anticipated. In consulting
with various bidders, the reason for the slightly higher bids seems
to be related to work with the ponding area. Soil borings to date
indicate a fluctuation, as much as a 9 foot increase, in the water
table in this area.
The second bid category is for building construction. Some
of the earthwork and miscellaneous items immediately adjacent to
the building were included in this category. The building is to
be an earth - sheltered structure. Alternate B -1 calls for security
screens on the building. Alternate B -2 is for skate tile on the
floor of the building. Alternate B -3 is an alternate method of
waterproofing the building. (The preferred method was included
in the base bid). Alternate B -4 provides the wooden walk and
stairs around the building and to the skating surface. Alternate
B -5 is for an open shelter to be located closer to the holding
pond, a structure similar to the open shelter at Christian Park,
to be used in this situation for shade, shelter and as an obser-
vation area of the pond. Alternate B -6 is the play lot. Alter-
nate B -7 is a permanently installed bike rack. Alternate B -8 is
for irrigation, which is scheduled for the area around the build-
ing. Alternate B -9 is for security lighting in the park. A
unit price was also requested for fill material, should it be
Council Letter No. 288 -:3- August 11, 1980
necessary to bring additional material to the site or should
the existing material not be necessary to bring additional
material to the site or should the existing material not be suit-
able. Generally speaking, these bids were in the estimated range
anticipated.
The third category related to plantings. The base bid in-
cludes all seeding and trees outlined in the specifications. Al-
ternate C -1 calls for the addition of eastern red cedar and Al-
ternate C -2 calls for a change from the specified 6 foot spruce
to 4 foot spruce. The bids received in this category were gen-
erally at or below the estimated range.
After reviewing the bids received, the staff and architects
recommend the following for each category.
Contract A: Site Construction
5ebesta Construction is the apparent low bidder with a base
bid of $232,372.05. Because it is unknown at this time how much,
if any, additional topsoil may be required, it is recommended that
Alternate A -1 be accepted at a unit price of $.77 per square yard.
It is anticipated that the maximum amount required, under the most
unusual and unexpected circumstances, would be 30,000 square yards
and, therefore, an estimated amount of $25,000 for Alternate A -1
is used for budget purposes. Although it is not anticipated that
any change will be made in the bituminous paving, it is recommended
that the $5.00 unit price in Alternate A -2 be accepted. Alternate
A -3 and A -4 provide a unit price for comparison purposes. It is
not believed that the city could provide such items at a lesser
cost. Therefore, it is recommended that Alternate A -3 for the volley-
ball posts be accepted, in the amount of $130, and Alternate A -4
for the basketball posts be accepted, in the amount of $1,420.
Picnic tables provide a finishing touch to the project. The city
staff would find it difficult to construct and install the picnic
tables with the limited manpower and time currently available to
complete such projects, nor it is it believed that a substantial
savings could be realized if the city staff were to provide the
picnic tables.
Therefore, it is recommended that two picnic tables and con-
crete bases be provided through Alternate A -5, for a total cost
of $1,100. The total recommended package for site construction,
as bid by Sebesta Construction, is in the amount of $310,022.05.
Contract B: Building Construction
Barr /Nelson, Inc. with a base bid of $135,181.00 is the
apparent low bidder. The low design for this building has been
altered somewhat from previous design and calls for a thicker
plexiglass. It is the opinion of the staff and the architects
that Alternate B -1 is not necessary at this time. Should security
screens become desirable after some experience with the new build-
ing, such can be added at a later date. It was also felt that
Council Letter No. 288 -4- August 11, 1980
skate tile could be added at a later date. The preferred water-
proofing system has been included in the base bid and, therefore,
Alternate B -3 does not appear to be in the best interest as all
but one contractor indicated this would be an add item. The
walks and stairs are an integral part of the design and, therefore,
Alternate B -4 is recommended in the amount of $3,765.00. The open
shelter, play lot, bike rack, irrigation and security lighting
were felt to also be integral and important to the design of Adams
Hill Park and are, therefore, recommended in the following amounts:
B -5 - $3,900; B -6 - $12,953; B -7 $800; B- 8 - $5,080; B -9 - $6,200.
It is also recommended that the unit price of $6.85 be accepted
for granular fill although it is not known at this time how much,
if any, may be required. The City of Richfield has a soil base
known as sugar sand and Adams Hill Park in particular appears to
have abundant grandular fill available: The total recommended
package for building construction as bid by Barr /Nelson, Inc., is
in the amount of $167,879.00.
Contract C: Plantings
The apparent low bidder is Timm Nursery and Landscape, Inc.
of Norwood, Minnesota, with a base bid of $28,822. If Alternate
C -1 were accepted for 56 Eastern Red Cedar at a unit price of $42,
this would add $2,352 to the package. It is preferable to have
the 6 foot spruce trees, and therefore, Alternate C -2 is not
recommended. The total recommended package for plantings, as bid
by Timm Nursery and Landscape, Inc. is in the amount of $31,174.
The City of Richfield and the City of Edina have worked to-
gether with cooperative park planning in this area. This is
witnessed by the Edina park immediately adjacent to Adams Hill,
which includes primarily summer game activities such as tennis,
softball, and football /soccer, while Adams Hill Park will provide
some summer activities, but have a primary focus on winter activ-
ities such as sledding and skating.
The two communities have worked together not only on park
systems, bikepaths and other recreational activities, but are
also working together on other common problems such as storm
drainage. The Adams Hill Pond is essential to the storm sewer
system in this area. Because the park redevelopment project will,
in turn, provide some improvements to the storm sewer system in
the area, the two communities have been working together on fin-
ancial arrangements. A recent suggestion to the City of Edina
was that the planting program be assumed by Edina, in lieu of
shared costs related to storm sewer improvements connected with
the ponding area. At the present time, we have not yet received
a response to this.suggestion from the City of Edina. It is
recommended that award of contract for plantings be deferred
until August 25, 1980, by which time a response to the suggestion
should be received from the City of Edina.
Council Letter No. 288 -5- August 11, 1980
Other Budget Commitments
As with any park redevelopment project, various expenses are
incurred and an effort is made to provide a contingency for the
unexpected that may occur during construction. This contingency
is usually approximately 5 percent of the contract amounts; in
this instance, approximately $25,000. Other budget commitments
on this project include architectural fees, engineering fees, sur-
vey work, soil borings, legal fees, reproduction costs, postage
and other miscellaneous items, totalling approximately $61,000
including the contingency.
Summary
The City of Richfield, staff and residents, are most anxious
to begin.construction of Adams Hill Park. The redevelopment pro-
ject has approximately $542,000 available for funding the work.
The following is recommended:
Contract A -Site Construction - include the base bid, Alternate
1, Alternate 2, Alternate 3, Alternate 4 and two units of Alter-
nate 5 for a total package of $310,022.05, as submitted in the
proposal of Sebesta Construction, Inc.
Contract B - Building Construction - Include the base bid,
Alternate 4, Alternate 5, Alternate 6, Alternate 7, Alternate 8,
Alternate 9, and the unit price for additional granular fill, if
required, for a total package of $167,879.00 as submitted in the
proposal of Barr /Nelson, Inc.-
Contract C - Plantings - .include the base bid and Alternate 1 as
submitted in the proposal of Timm Nursery and Landscape, Inc., but
that action on this contract award be deferred until August 25,
1980, when additional discussion can be concluded with the City
of Edina.
The financial effects of these recommendations are as follows:
Miscellaneous costs
$ 36,000
Contingency
25,000
Site Construction
310,022
Building Construction
167,879
Sub -Total
$538,901
Plantings
31,174
Total
$570,075
Revenue Available
542,000
Deficiency
$(28,075)
If negotiations with Edina are successful the bid awards will be
reduced to $538,901 and the revenues available will be adequate to
cover the project (assuming a $25,000 contingency and the $25,000
included in site construction for additional topsoil). If the
il
Council Letter No. 288 -6- August 11, 1980
City of Edina refuses to pay for any costs of the park development
and storm drainage improvements, the city may need to fund up to
$28,075 from the special revenue fund. Adequate funds are avail-
able from 1979 liquor profits to handle this situation. Since
there is $50,000 in the project in forms of contingency, it is not
recommended that an actual transfer of funds take place until
we are further along in the project.
It is recommended that the city council take the following
actions:
1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations on the Adams
hill Park Improvement Project;
2. Adopt the attached resolution approving the low
bid of Sebesta Construction, Inc. in the amount of
$310,022.05, and alternates as indicated in this
council letter, for site construction and authorize
the Maiyor and City Manager to execute the contract
documents. .
3. Adopt the attached resolution approving the loin bid
of Barr Nelson, Inc. in the amount of $167,879 for
building construction and alternates as indicated in
this council letter and authorize the Mayor and City
Manager to execute the contract documents;
4. Defer action on award of contract for plantings until
August 25, 1980.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /ej a
cc: Community Services Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
July 31, 1980
Adam's Hill Park Development
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting was called by the Administrative
Staff to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for the Adam's Hill Park Development
as advertised in the official newspaper on July 9, 16, and 23, 1980.
Present: Don Fondrick, Administrative Services Director
Sandra Rosenow, Administrative Aide
Eileen Anderson, Administrative Aide
Sylvia K. Berg, Acting City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
BID PROPOSAL A - SITE
BIDDER AND
BID SECURITY
Base
Bid
A -1
A -2
A -3
A -4
A -5
Fischer Construction
B.B. 5%
$331,050
$ .60
$5.75
$ 200
$1,200
$500
Park Construction
B.B. 5%
289,528
.80
5.44
524
.1,420
'800
Sebasta Construction
B.B. 5%
282,377.05
.77
;5.00
130
,1,420
550
Carl Bolander & Sons
B.B. 5%
460,900
1.00
;5.75
300
;1,500
550
M. G. Astleford Co.
B.B. 5%
'369,000
1.00
5.50
400
1,500
500
Wangerin, Inc.
B.B. 5%
371,764
.1.20
7.25
360
x.,555
324
Enebak Construction Co.
B.B. 5%
404,377
8.00
4.92
;1,000
750
700
Julian M. Johnson Construction
B.B. 5%
398,630
.75
6.10
300
1,450
225
Henry 0. Mikkelson Co.
B.B. 5%
407,000
1.20
5.60
225,
1,000
400
h
W
1
00
I
pq
n
I
pa
1
P�
Lr)
11 I
N Z
H
O a
r-I H
Q) W
Q I
N
z a
P4 c1
� I
�-+ =01
rI 0
x P:
P-4
m
(� N
H I
ctS pa P�
r-i
1
P=1
'TJ
•rl
pq
Q)
In
c0
pq
H
Q H
z
U
W
W �
Q
I Q Q
N H H
I a �
Lr)
C
O
O
O
O
C
00
O
O
Lr)
O
Ln
00
cl
O
O
C
O
O
O
C
I�
O
N
O
M
O
O
In
M
N
�O
O
N
tr1
O
0
�o
lO
u1
O
N
M
N
r-1
r-1
r-i
rl
rl
O
O
O
00
O
O
I�
00
ul
O
In
O
O
Cl)
O
O
N
M
O
M
N
in
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ul
O
O
O
O
0
t`
00
1\
N
n
O
Lr)
�O
M
u1
C
Lr)
O
O
O
00
Lr)
00
O
N
O
O
O
It
rn
n
O
Ln
O
O
OO
N
u1
N
O
O
O
O
00
O
I'D
Lr)
O
O
O
O
O
O'�
r-1
M
t--i
O
cr)
O
Lr)
M
In
OO
O1
C�
rl
r--1
Lr)
O
O
r1
O
O
O
In
�O
O
O
O
O
O
n
O
Cl)
r4
O
Ln
rn
n
M
�.o
M
Lr)
O
M
cr)
�t
r4
O
C
O
C
0
CD
�
Lr)
0
0
00
C
00
r-1
r--f
r-1
-4
N
i-1
r--I
a1
tr)
O
00
C
O
Lr)
M
M
In
O
O
ol�
�O
00
M
Ir'1
In
Lr)
00
Lr)
M
O
O
M
M
O
O
O
O
-It
r-i
r-1
M
N
1r)
00
vl
Cl)
M
M
M
Cl)
M
N
M
M
r1
00
O
M
O
O
O
C
00
00
O
M
O
O
O
C
6i
-4
O
O
�
vl
V1
U O
u'1
M
U
lr`
M
cn
r`
G I'0
I-
-t
G rn
r-1
r1
rl
H r-1
-1
-I
H r--I
r
O
U
G
O
G
0
U
O
G
O
-W
75
G
r
U
G
O
U
Ha)
4-1
11
a)
l.J
m
�4
1n
,-IN4
In
r�
.W
G
0)
G
O
GL
G
U
U
u
U)
�4
0
b
b
G
r1 Ln
a) Lr)
U Ln
'T7 tr)
O Lr)
• Lr)
r-1 Lr1
H tr
a)
41
G
O
G
9
G
+-
ro
�4
�4
(1)
bD
U)
S
O
�-1 al
h pq
a) pa
S4 Pa
4 pn
G W
a) pq
u pr
c0
P1
, a
U
0
a)
0
w
6
cn
pq
rz
x
o
DO
-3- Adam's Hill Park Development
BID PROPOSAL C -
PLANTINGS
BIDDER AND
Add
Deduct
BID SECURITY
Base
Bid
C -1
C -3
C -3
Fair's Garden Center
B.B. 5%
$33,850
$5,600
$3,750
None
Natural Green
52.60
B.B. 5%
31,450
2,950
3,000
Included
Instant Shade
B.B. 5%
43,045
8,120
2,850
None
Kahnke Brothers
B.B. 5%
39,415.98
3,990
3,645.25
Included
Lee's Landscape
B.B. 5%
41,667
5,768
10.3_
2,965
Included
Hoffman- McNamara Co.
B.B. 5%
37,935
5,040
2,625
Included
Margolis
B.B. 5%
34,700
75
2_,625
Included
Winsor
1,681
B.B. 5%
37,000
115
2,637
Included
Landshape, Inc.
B.B. 5/,
38,301
100
2,070
Included
Minnesota Valley
. B.B. 5%
37,000
90
4,125
Included
Timm Nursery & Landscape
B.B. 5%
28,822
G(O X
42
2_,_1.75_
Included
Noble Nursery, Inc.
B.B. 5%
35,900
140
1,500
Included
It was announced that the bids
would
be tabulated
and considered at the
regular
city council meeting of August
11,
1980.
Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT
TO BARR /NELSON, INC. FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
FOR THE ADAMS HILL PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 749
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 Barr /Nelson,
Inc. is the lowest bid, including base bid and selected
alternates to provide walk and stairs, open shelter,
playlot, bike rack, irrigation, security lighting and
additional fill, if required, at a unit price, by a
responsible bidder meeting specifications for building
construction at Adams Hill Park.
2. That the bid of Barr /Nelson, Inc., at the price contained
in their proposal of July 31, 1980, with an estimated
construction cost of $167,879.00, is hereby accepted.
3. That the proposed contract between Barr /Nelson, Inc.
and the City of Richfield is hereby approved and adopted
and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized
and directed to execute said contract for, or on behalf
of the City of Richfield and the City Clerk is hereby
authorized and directed to affix the city seal thereto.
4. That payments to be made under the terms of said contract
shall be charged against the project fund.
5. That the Corporate Surety Bond in the sum of the estimated
contract price which accompanies said proposed contract
is hereby accepted and approved.
6. That the city clerk is authorized and directed to return
the security documents to the unsuccessful bidders upon
execution of said proposed contract.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 11th day of August, 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh Deputy City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING
CONTRACT TO SEBESTA CONSTRUCTION, INC.
FOR SITE.CONSTRUCTION FOR THE ADAMS HILL
PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT C.P. NO. 749
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 Sebesta
Construction, Inc. is the lowest bid, including base
bid and selected alternates to provide a unit price
for topsoil, a unit price for bituminous paving,
volleyball posts, basketball posts and picnic tables
with concrete base by a responsible bidder meeting the
specifications for site construction at Adams Hill
Park.
2. That the bid of Sebesta Construction, Inc., at the
price contained in their proposal of July 31, 1980,
with an estimated construction cost of $310,022.05
is hereby accepted.
3. That the proposed contract between Sebesta Construction
Inc. and the City of Richfield is hereby approved and
adopted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby auth-
orized and directed to execute said contract for or on
behalf of the City of Richfield and the City Clerk is
hereby authorized and directed to affix the city seal
thereto.
4. That payments to be made under terms of said contract
shall be charged against the Project Fund.
5. That the Corporate Surety Bond in the sum of the estima-
ted contract price which accompanies said proposed con-
tract is hereby accepted and approved.
6. That the city clerk is authorized and directed to return
the security documents to the unsuccessful bidders upon
the execution of said proposed contract.
Passed by the City .Council of the City of Richfield, Minn-
esota, this 11th day of August, 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh Deputy City Clerk
/a-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject:
Council
Resolution Receiving
Roll and Calling for
CP 705
Council Letter No. 287
Agenda August 11, 1980
Special Assessment
Public Hearing,
At the July 28, 1980 city council meeting, the city council
approved Resolution No. 6269, which received the assessment roll
for CP 705, set the date of August 25, 1980 as the date of public
hearing for CP 705, and directed the city clerk to place a notice
of the hearing in the official newspaper according to law.
We were informed this morning that because of printing press
difficulties at the Richfield Sun Newspaper on August 5, 1980, the
official notice of public hearing was not published in the August
6, 1980 edition of the Richfield Sun. According to law, this
notice must be published fourteen days in advance of the public
hearing.
Therefore, this item is placed on the August 11, 1980 city
council meeting so that the city council may again receive the
assessment roll, set the date of hearing for September 8, 1980,
and direct the city clerk to place a notice of the public hearing
in the official newspaper. A copy of that resolution is attached
to this council letter.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Community Development Director
Deputy City Clerk
City Attorney
w
" -a
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
ROLL AND CALLING HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
FOR LHN STREET IMPROVEMENT
CITY PROJECT NO. 705
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 6260 passed by the City Council
on the 23rd day of June, 1980, the city clerk was directed to
prepare a proposed assessment roll of the cost of the LHN street
improvement, City - Project No. 705,
NOW, THEREFORE,
City of Richfield, Mi
1. The council
prepared by
to file the
inspection.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
anesota, as follows:
receives the proposed assessment roll as
the city clerk, and directs the city clerk
assessment roll in her office for public
2. A public hearing shall be held on September 8, 1980 in
the council chambers of the Richfield City Hall at 7:00
P.M. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such
time and place all persons owning property affected by
such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard
with reference to such assessment.
The following area is proposed to be assessed for permanent
street improvements:
That area bounded on the north by 64th Street, on the
east by First Avenue, on the west by Emerson Avenue and
on the south by 67th Street.
3. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of
the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published
in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to
the hearing and she shall state in the notice the
total assessed cost of the improvement in the amount
of $1,900,000. She shall also cause mailed notices to
be given to the owner of each parcel described on the
assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the
hearing.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this 11th day of August, 1980.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk_
Donald J. Priebe, Mayor
/3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter NO. 286
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Ordering Bond Sale for CP 705
There is an item scheduled on the August 11, 1930 city council
agenda providing for council consideration of a resolution ordering
the bond sale for City Project 705.
CP 705 is the project providing for miscellaneous public improve-
ments within the L /H /N redevelopment area. The project has three
components, with the first providing for resurfacing and traffic de-
sign changes in the area of Nicollet Avenue and 66th Street, the
second component providing for improvement of Lyndale Avenue between
64th Street and Lake Shore Drive, and the third component providing
for traffic channelization improvements, resurfacing, and related
improvements to West 66th Street from approximately Rae Drive to
Interstate 35W. The portion of the project at Nicollet Avenue and
66th Street has already been completed, with the Lyndale Avenue and
West 66th Street improvements Scheduled to take place during the
1981 construction season. The estimated project construction costs
are $7,379,818.
Approximately $3.3 million of this construction cost is sched-
uled to be funded by a combination of state and federal grants, and
cost - sharing on the part of Hennepin County (since Nicollet and West
66th Street are Hennepin County roadways). The remaining project
costs are to be met by a combination of special assessments and
tax increment revenues from current and anticipated development with-
in the project area.
It is recommended that the city council authorize a bond sale of
$6.1 million. This bond sale will provide for adequate revenues to
meet the city's share of the project cost, as well as obligations
incurred for interest on temporary borrowing and capitalized interest
to meet bond obligations in the interim between the bond sale and the
time that revenues are realized from the special assessment and tax
increment obligations. The project financing is arranged so that the
debt service obligations on the bond issue will be met from special
assessment proceeds and excess tax increment from the project area.
Council Letter NO. 286 -2- August 11, 1980
Attached to this council letter is a resolution providing for
council authorization of the bond sale, as well as the official
notice of bond sale. Prior to adopting this resolution, it is recom-
mended that the city council revise the short and long notice of bond
sale resolutions to provide that the bid opening be scheduled for
2:30 p.m. on Monday, September 8, 1980, and that consideration by the
city council will occur at the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. central
time on the same day. Subsequent to amending the resolution and bond
sale notice, it is recommended that the city council adopt the at-
tached resolution, authorizing sale of $6.1 million special assessment
bonds to be used in financing construction.of CP 705 improvements.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Administrative Services Director
City Attorney
Community Development Director
Finance Coordinator
City Engineer
r
Extract of Minutes of Meeting
of the City Council of the City
of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at
the City Hall in said City on Monday, August 11, 1980, commencing at 7:00
o'clock P.M.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
The following resolution was presented by Councilmember
who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE
AND SALE OF $6,100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION
IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin
County, Minnesota as follows:
1. It is hereby determined:
(a) That the following assessable public improvements (the
"Improvements ") have been made, duly ordered or contracts
let for the construction thereof, by the City pursuant to
the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429:
Project Designation .& Description Total Project Cost
CP 705 Street Improvement Projects
( Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet Redevelopment Area)
Project No. Location
7050 66th and Nicollet
7052 Lyndale Avenue
7053 W. 66th Street
Less Grants and reimbursements
Total Contracts
Contingency
Capitalized Interest
Legal, fiscal, etc.
Contract Costs
$2,497,000
2,070,763
2,812,055
$7,379,818
3,307,818
$4,072,000
400,000
1,500,000
20,000
TOTAL $5,992,000
(b) That it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial
management of the affairs of the City to issue $6,100,000
General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980, (the "Bonds ")
to provide financing for the Improvements.
2. In order to provide financing for the Improvements, the City
shall therefore issue and sell Bonds in the amount of $5,992,000. In order
to provide in part the additional interest required to market the Bonds at
this time, additional Bonds shall be issued in the amount of $108,000. Any
excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $5,992,000 shall
be credited to the debt service fund for the Bonds for the purpose of
paying interest first coming due on the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued
and sold in accordance with the terms of the following Official Notice of
Sale:
f
OFFICIAL
NOTICE OF SALE
$6,100,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980
City of Richfield
Hennepin County, Minnesota
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the purchase of
$6,100,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980 (the "Bonds ") will
be received until 11:30 A.M. C.T., Wednesday, September 3, 1980 at the
office of the City Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, 6700 Portland
Avenue South at which time the bids will be opened and tabulated for pre-
sentation to and consideration by the City Council at a special meeting at
12:00 noon C.T. on the same day. The Bonds are offered on the following
terms:
Purpose and Security
The purpose of the Bonds is to provide funds for the financing of
various assessable public improvements in the City. The bonds will be
general obligations of the issuer, for which its full faith, credit and
taxing powers are pledged.
Date and Maturities
The Bonds will be dated September 1, 1980, will be in denom-
ination of $5,000 each (unless other demoninations are specified by the
purchaser within 48 hours of the award) and will mature on February 1 in
the following years and amounts:
Year
Amount
Year
Amount
1983
20,000
1993
305,000
1984
20,000
1994
330,000
1985
175,000
1995
345,000
1986
180,000
1996
380,000
1987
200,000
1997
405,000
1988
215,000
1998
435,000
1989
230,000
1999
465,000
1990
250,000
2000
500,000
1991
260,000
2001
535,000
1992
285,000
2002
565,000
Redemption Feature
All Bonds of this issue maturing after February 1, 1993, will be
subject to prior redemption at the option of the City in inverse order of
serial numbers on said date and any interest payment date thereafter at a
price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption.
Interest
Interest on the Bonds will be payable on February 1, 1982, and
semiannually thereafter on each August 1 and February 1. All Bonds matur-
ing on the same date must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a
single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for Bonds of any
subsequent maturity. No more than 15 interest rates may be specified for
the issue. Each rate must be in an integral multiple of 5/100 of 1 %, and
no rate of interest nor the net effective average rate of the issue may
exceed 12% per annum.
Paying Agent
Principal and interest will be made payable at any suitable bank
recommended by the purchaser and approved by the Council, and the City will
pay the customary charges for this service provided that such recommenda-
tion is received within 48 hours after the sale and the Council will select
the paying agent if the recommendation is not approved.
CUSIP Numbers
The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or printing
of CUSIP numbers on the Bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed
thereon, but will permit such numbers to be assigned and printed at the
expense of the purchaser, if the purchaser waives any extension of the time
of delivery caused thereby.
Delivery
Within 40 days after sale, the City will furnish and deliver to
the office of the purchaser or, at his option, will deposit with a bank-in
the United States selected by him and approved by the City as its agent to
permit examination by and to deliver to the purchaser, the printed and
executed Bonds, the unqualified opinion thereon of bond counsel, and a
certificate stating that no litigation in any manner questioning "their
validity, is then threatened or pending. The charge of the delivery agent
must be paid by the purchaser, but all other costs will be paid by the
City. The purchase price must be paid upon delivery of the Bonds, or
within five days after deposit with the delivery agent, in funds available
for expenditure by the City on the day of payment.
Legal Opinion
An unqualified legal opinion on the Bonds will be furnished by
Messrs. LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz of Minneapolis, Minne-
sota. The legal opinion will be printed on the Bonds at the request of the
purchaser. The legal opinion will state that the Bonds are valid and
binding general obligations of the City, payable from special assessments
against benefited property and ad valorem taxes for the City's share of the
cost thereof, and that the City is obligated and required to levy taxes for
the principal and interest thereon as the same become due without limit as
to rate or amount.
f
Type of Bid - Amount
Sealed bids must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned and
must be received prior to the time of said meeting. Each bid must be
unconditional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified check or
bank draft in the amount of $120,000, payable to the City Clerk, to be
retained by the City as liquidated damages if the bid is accepted and the
bidder fails to comply therewith. The bid authorizing the lowest net
interest cost (total interest from date of Bonds to stated maturities, less
any cash premium or plus any amount less than $6,100,000 bid for principal)
will be deemed the most favorable. No oral bid and no bid of less than
$5,992,000 for principal plus accrued interest on all of the Bonds will be
considered, and the City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and
to waive any informality in any bid.
Dated: August 11, 1980
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Sylvia Bergh
City Clerk
3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to advertise the Bonds
for sale in accordance with the foregoing notice of sale and to cause the
abbreviated notice of sale attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", to be published
in the manner required by law. The City Council shall meet on Wednesday,
September 3, 1980, at 12:00 o'clock noon for the purpose of considering
sealed bids on the Bonds and taking any other appropriate action.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor:'
and the following voted against:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
f
P
Exhibit "A"
NOTICE OF SALE
$6,100,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980
City of Richfield
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Sealed bids for the purchase of $6,100,000 General Obligation Improve-
ment Bonds of 1980 (the "Bonds ") will be received until 11:30 A.M. C.T.,
Wednesday, September 3, 1980 at the office of the City Clerk of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, 6700 Portland Avenue South at which time the bids
will be opened and tabulated for presentation to and consideration by the
City Council at a special meeting at 12:00 noon C.T. on the same day.
Dated September 1, 1980, the bonds will mature on February 1 in the years
and amounts as follows:
Year
Amount
Year
Amount
1983
20,000
1993
305,000
1984
20,000
1994
330,000
1985
175,000
1995
345,000
1986
180,000
1996
380,000
1987
200,000
1997
405,000
1988
215,000
1998
435,000
1989
230,000
1999
465,000
1990
250,000
2000
500,000
1991
260,000
2001
535,000
1992
285,000
2002
565,000
All Bonds maturing after February 1, 1993, are subject to prior redemption
on said date and any interest payment date thereafter at par plus accrued
interest. Interest will be payable on February 1, 1982, and semiannually
thereafter. Each rate must be in an integral multiple of 5/100 of 1% and
no rate may exceed 12% per annum. Minimum price, $5,992,000. An unquali-
fied legal opinion will be furnished by Messrs. LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy,
O'Brien & Drawz of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The purpose of the bonds is to
finance various assessable public improvements in the City.
Dated: August 11, 1980.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Sylvia Bergh
City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS.
CITY OF RICHFIELD )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City
Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota do hereby certify that I have
carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a
regular "meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday, August 11,
1980, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a
full, true and complete transcript thereof, insofar as the same relates to
the issuance and sale of $6,100,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of
1980, of the City.
WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the
City this day of , 1980.
(SEAL)
City Clerk
City of Richfield, Minnesota
nLr) Lin O
OC M M p
ca
.W cr O r-1 O
H N cn
00
M Cl)
N
v Lr)
14 Ln
+-1 O
N
L 00
ID
�.O N
3
G M
U1 �p
> f�
t11 N O
O I r-1 O
�4 C N
:a
U
�-r
H
H
U
a
r-4 O
O O
U O
-A
z
O�
41 :/)-
n
n
U
W
O n
G C7
• G W
� x U
� v v
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
M r- M Lr)
�7O1N\.D
r--I
W W
O O ..
.0 i. A
LtL cn U2 U
O 00 O Ln c!)
O ON O r ONC)-4
^ w
ON M N r- r1
r-4 Ln Ln r4 T
Ln r-1 r-1 00
tn-
U U W
• O
G G
G G
N U 41
xxul
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
Ln N 1O M
O M It
M N Ln
N
U
G
O
G7
dl
G
G
Q)
N
P4
Ln Ln
O
m
O
O O
N
N
N
N O
N
r-1 O
r--1
-4 r-4
r
�O
r-L
O
r-1
-4
r-I
b
b
�4 4
G
cu
O
N
L7
cl
X
0
W
n
n
U
W
O n
G C7
• G W
� x U
� v v
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
M r- M Lr)
�7O1N\.D
r--I
W W
O O ..
.0 i. A
LtL cn U2 U
O 00 O Ln c!)
O ON O r ONC)-4
^ w
ON M N r- r1
r-4 Ln Ln r4 T
Ln r-1 r-1 00
tn-
U U W
• O
G G
G G
N U 41
xxul
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
Ln N 1O M
O M It
M N Ln
N
U
G
O
G7
dl
G
G
Q)
N
P4
Ln Ln
O
Ln Ln
O
O O
O
N
N
N O
N
r-1 O
r--1
-4 r-4
N
O
O
O
rn
OIN
O
N
N
O
O
1
w
O�
N
�O
r-L
O
r-1
-4
r-I
U N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
1'
1
O
Ln
1�0
O
ON
00
'CS
-4
r-I
U N
W
0
N
N
U
G
>C
N
W
r-I
ctf
$4
Pal
O
'CS
U N
b
�4 4
G
cu
O
L7
0
r— a
G
u U
O
a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 285
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Referral of Proposed Sale of City -Owned
Property to Planning Commission
Minnesota Statutes 462.356 requires that the planning
commission review any proposed sale of public property. The
review is to result in findings as to compliance of the prop-
osed sale with the comprehensive municipal plan.
The staff is in the process of formulating a Develop-
er's Agreement with the S & M Company for renovation of the
Lyndale Hardware land and buildings. A part of the agreement
proposes to dispose of the residual Amoco and Betty Crocker
Pie Shop property to the developer. The residual is the land
remaining after the easements for street improvements are taken.
For the Pie Shop parcel, the residual is reduced by an addition-
al portion which will become part of the multi- family site.
It would be desirable to have the planning commission
make its finding and report back to the city council for the
August 25, 1980 city council meeting. This, however, would
necessitate a special meeting'on the part of the planning
commission as their regular meeting is scheduled for August 26.
In any event, the developer wishes to begin work soon after
September 1 and the city actions should be completed by then
due to the weather considerations.
It is recommended that the city council refer the prop-
osed sale-of the residual Amoco and Betty Crocker Pie Shop land
to the planning commission for their finding as to its conform-
ance with the comprehensive plan. It is also recommended that
the council request the planning commission to make their finding
on this matter prior to September 1, and if they desire to make
input before final council action, that they make their recommend-
ation before the August 25, 1980 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
Housing and Redevelopment Specialist
10
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 284
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Discussion of Board and Commission
Meeting Schedule
At a city council meeting this spring, the city council in-
dicated the desire to begin meeting with the seven boards and
commissions of the city on a once a month basis in order to better
familiarize themselves with the programs and activities of these
commissions. Due to the changeover in people on the boards and
commissions and the city council in recent years, it was also
anticipated that this would provide an opportunity for council
members and boards and commissioners to renew their acquaintances
with each other. In addition, if there are specific matters
which the city council feels the boards and commissions should
be directing their attention and priorities to, it would be
appropriate for the council to relate those matters to the boards
and commissions during those sessions.
The council has decided to set these meetings with the
boards and commissions on the third Monday of the month prior to
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting. At the present
time, the HRA meets at 7:00 p.m. on the third Monday. This would
mean that the city council would have to schedule the meetings
with the boards and commissions at 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. I would
anticipate that that would necessitate a dinner type of discuss-
ion meeting, in order to be finished by 7:00 p.m. Another al-
ternative would be to request the HRA to move their meetings
back to 7:30 p.m. to allow the city council to meet with the
boards and commissions at 6:00 p.m. for a dinner session, or
6:30 p.m. in a non - dinner session.
Assuming that the city council desires to continue with
this worthwhile endeavor, the staff needs some direction as to
what time to set the meetings and whether to request the HRA
to move their meetings to 7:30 p.m. on the third Monday. This
would require the HRA to amend their by-laws-which can occur
at the August 11, 1980 HRA meeting. Since the August 11 meeting
c
•
Council Letter No. 284 -2- August 11, 1980
will be a joint meeting between the HRA and the City Council for
three items, (inclusive of this matter), the entire situation
can be resolved at that time.
KN /eja
cc: HRA Commissioners
Respectfully submitted,
1'ZQ-
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject:
Council Letter No. 283
Agenda August 11, 1980
g '30
Council
Discussion of Airport Noise, Runway
Expansion and West Passenger Terminal
At the July 28, 1980 city council meeting, the city council
received a report concerning the proposed runway expansion and
passenger terminal construction on the west side of the airport,
which are included in the Metropolitan Airport Commission's
proposed capital improvement program. In addition, some dis-
cussion was held concerning the preferential runway system and
its effects on the City of Richfield and its residents.
As a result of this discussion, the city council requested
the staff to invite representatives of the Metropolitan Airport
Commission to appear at the August 11, 1980 city council meet-
ing. Mr. Jeff Hamiel, who serves as the technical advisor to the
Metropolitan Airports Sound Abatement Council, will be in attend-
ance at the meeting to discuss the environmental effects of the
airport upon Richfield. In addition, subsequent to the July 28,
1980 meeting, Mayor Priebe requested that we also invite Mr.
Darrel Korpela, of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, to
attend the meeting. Mr. Korpela is well versed in the effects
of noise upon residential areas and how the preferential runway
system affects the neighborhood surrounding the airport.
It is anticipated that the city council will be in a position
to ask questions and be involved in the discussion of the effects
of Minneapolis International Airport upon the community of Rich-
field and the future implications for airport development.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl NollenberJJJJger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Director Community Development
City Planner
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 282
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and C9
Members of the City Council @Qom T� 'Q°`�
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Energy Awareness Commission - Street Lighting
and Stop Sign Recommendations
At the July 29, 1980 meeting of the Energy Awareness Commission,
the commission continued their review of the advantages of low pres-
sure sodium lighting. Jim Lewis of Norelco gave a presentation con-
cerning low pressure sodium tests in other cities, advantages and
disadvantages of this lighting, and the energy and dollar savings
that can be realized. The installation of low pressure sodium light-
ing in Richfield would reduce the energy used for street lighting by
60 per cent. The dollar savings would be substantial and would in-
crease as energy rates increase. (Northern States Power has just
requested a 12.66 per cent increase in rates.) The main opposition
to low pressure sodium lighting has been the yellow hue of the light
and the distortion of colors that occurs in the absence of other light
sources..
The Energy Awareness Commission felt that there is enough evi-
dence of substantial advantages to low pressure sodium lighting to
warrant the creation of a test area in the City of Richfield. In
1965, the southern portion of Lyndale Avenue was fitted with lamps
that utilize four 160 -watt fluorescent bulbs for a total of 640 watts
per lamp. In place of this 640 -watt fluorescence unit, a 135 -watt low
pressure sodium lamp can be installed to give similar light coverage.
This would provide a 72 per cent savings per lamp in circuit wattage,
for that area.
The Lyndale Avenue, 74th Street -78th Street, test site is cur-
rently serviced by 26 fluorescent 640 -watt units. The Lyndale site was
selected for three reasons:
1) the high degree of energy savings per dollar invested;
2) the potential for a great deal of public contact in this
area; and
3) the light poles in this area have been determined by the
maintenance division to be in need of replacement (pole
replacement is not necessary for conversion to low pres-
sure sodium lighting). The conversion of these 26 units
to low pressure sodium lighting would yield an energy sav-
ings of $1,766 per year (at August 1, 1980 rate).
Council Letter NO. 282 -2- August 11, 1980
Lyndale Avenue is a major arterial through Richfield and the
test site is a commercial area that merges into a higher density,
multiple- residential area. Thus, due to the traffic generation of
the test site, a large amount of public contact can be realized,
both for public awareness of energy conservation, and public response
to the yellow color of low pressure sodium lighting.
The costs of this test conversion would be $230 per lamp unit
for each of the 26, 135 -watt low pressure sodium units, for a total
of $5,980. These prices are for materials only; the city would fur-
nish the labor for the installation and maintenance, and evaluation
processes. This price is quoted from Norelco for the materials on a
test agreement in which Norelco would supply lamp units to the city
for evaluation purposes, on a small scale, at a reduced cost. The
payback period on this $5,980 expenditure with a $1,766 yearly savings
would be 3.4 years (at, current energy rates).
This type of lighting has been used extensively throughout Europe
for many years, has recently keen retrofitted on a large scale in
California, and is considered by the Energy Awareness Commission as
a cost saving alternative for the city. The Energy Awareness Commis-
sion has referred the attached resolution the the city council with
the recommendation that the council authorize installation of the low
pressure sodium lighting in the described test area. Funds to support
this test program can be derived from the $100,000 capital improvement
program appropriation for building and energy improvements.
I would recommend that the city council authorize the staff to
implement the installation of low pressure sodium lighting in the test
area as recommended by the Energy Commission.
At that meeting the commission also discussed the issue of mini-
mizing vehicle stops at lights and signs to.promote conservation of
energy. In the definitive report on vehicle energy consumption (Paul
J. Claffee, "Running Costs of Motor Vehicles as Affected by Road
Design and Traffic ", National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report #111, Highway Research Board, 1971.) the author computed, from
direct measurements, that the excess gasoline needed by a typical
vehicle to decelerate from 30 mph is .0097 gallons. The gasoline
measurements were performed on mid- 1960's vehicles. While typical
gasoline mileage has probably changed with the decreased demands of
smaller engines and the increased demands of pollution control equip-
ment, more recent figures are not available. Using that estimate and
based on current traffic volumes, eliminateing three stop signs on
76th Street would result in a savings of about 350 gallons per day,
or about 125,000 gallons per year. Removing two stop signs at nine
other four -way stop intersections would result in a savings of 285
gallons a day, or more than 100,000 gallons a year.
u
Council Letter No. 282 -3- August 11, 1980
The staff recommended to the commission that excess energy con-
sumption generated by inappropriate signing should be considered as
a criteria for any decision concerning stop sign requests. The Energy
Awareness Commission has referred the attached resolution to the city
council as a recommendation directed toward energy conservation.
Respectfully ((submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Community Development Director
Community Services Director
City Engineer
Maintenance Superintendent
Technical Operations Superintendent
t
I
RESOLUTION NO. 1
ENERGY AWARENESS COMMISSION
STREET LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION
WHEREAS, the Energy Awareness Commission promotes a citywide
energy reduction; and
WHEREAS, low pressure sodium street lights provide a definite
energy and dollar savings;
BE IT RESOLVED, THEREFORE, by this Energy Awareness Commission
of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
That a low pressure sodium street lighting test area be
installed in the City of Richfield, and
That priority be given to areas which presently have
flourescent street lights, such as Lyndale Avenue, south of
74th Street.
Passed by the Energy Awareness Commission of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, this 29th day of July, 1980.
John Moon, Secretary
Dennis Louis, Chairperson
RESOLUTION NO. 2
ENERGY AWARENESS COMMISSION
STOP SIGN RECOMMENDATION
WHEREAS, the Energy Awareness Commission has as one of its
objectives to promote energy conservation and inform the public
on energy issues;
BE IT RESOLVED, THEREFORE, by this Energy Awareness
Commission of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
That the city council strongly consider the extra vehicular
energy cQngumption that is generated by the installation of
stop si . � �� W-. --
Passed by the Energy Awareness Commission of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 29th day of July, 1980.
John Moon, Secretary
Dennis Louis, Chairperson
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 281
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Rezoning and Off - Street Parking
Permit, Richfield State Agency
At the July 14, 1980 city council meeting, the city council
gave first reading approval to an ordinance which would rezone
Lot 2; Block 2, J. N. Hauser's Addition and Lots 6 -9; Block 2
Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake Addition from Residence (R) to General
Commercial (C -2). This request was made by Richfield State Agency
to allow them to expand their existing parking lot.
The staff has found that the proposed rezoning would be consist -
entwith the Comprehensive Plan and the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Re-
development Plan. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council
give second reading approval to the rezoning ordinance and order
its publication.
If the city council gives second reading approval to the re-
zoning ordinance, then the city council should consider the off -
street parking permit request as well.
The staff has reviewed the proposed parking lot improvements
against the standards found in Section 4.05 of the city ordinance
and found it to be in general compliance. It is recommended that
the city council approve the layout and authorize the city manager
to execute an off - street parking contract with the following stipu-
lations:
1. That a minimum 15 -foot setback be maintained between the
proposed parking lot and the south property line along
67th Street. Existing trees should remain in this set-
back area. A minimum setback equal to the front setback
of the house at 6616 Grand Avenue should be maintained.
between the proposed parking lot and the west property
line along Grand Avenue (approximately 35 feet). All
fences should be constructed outside these setback areas.
2 That a landscape plan be approved by the city staff.
3. That the parking lot improvements be allowed to be con-
structed in phases, but that the applicant post a per-
Council Letter No. 281 -2- August 11, 1980
formance bond in an amount sufficient to construct the
improvements for the development as a whole.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /ej a
cc: City Planner
Community Development Director
W
A
ry
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 238
Agenda July 14, 19£30
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Rezoning by Richfield State Agency
Since November, 1979, the planning commission has been considering
a request for approval of a Planned Unit Development Plan, Rezoning,
Preliminary Plat, Special Use Permit and Street Vacation by Richfield
State Agency. The planning commission has taken no action on this
request pending further study by the applicant to resolve neighborhood
issues and to reach an agreement on the property where Kentucky Fried
Chicken is located.
3�.
Richfield State Agency has now requested that their PUD Rezoning
„. ,.request be amended to rezone 5 lots from R single family residential
to C -2 general commercial. The original request was to rezone the prop -
erty bounded by Lyndale Avenue, Grand Avenue, 66th Street and 6.7th Street
from R single family residential and C -2 general commercial to PC -2
planned general commercial. If the 5 lots are rezoned then they will
be used to expand the existing parking lot to help alleviate_an_ existing
parking shortage during peak Richfield Bank and Trust business hours.
The parking lot would be developed in phases. The three lots which are
currently vacant would be developed immediately. The remaining two
dots. would be developed when the homes are removed. Richfield State
Agency has an option to buy the Garvey residence at 6633 Harriet Avenue
but is waiting until Mrs. Garvey can find a new place to live before
removing the structure. The house at 6645 Harriet Avenue will be re-
moved when a buyer and a suitable location can be found to move the
structure to. The wood fence around the existing parking lot would
be extended around the new parking areas to screen surrounding resi
dences. The new parking areas will provide an additional 92 parking
spaces.
Richfield State Agency is still working to resolve the issues which
have held up the proposed Planned Unit Development. The amendment of
the rezoning request will delay any further city consideration of the
Planned Unit Development because city ordinance (Section 3.42 subdivi-
Sion 9) prohibits property owners from filing more than one rezoning
petition on any particular lot in any 12 month period. The earliest
the PUD rezoning request could come before the planning commission
again would be in October, 1980, _ (one year from the filing of the
original petition).
0
Council Letter No. 238 -2-
July 14, 1980
The zoning ordinance in Section 3.33 lists general requirements
in C -2 general commercial zoning districts and in Section 3.42 lists
procedural requirements for rezoning requests. Section 4.05 lists
standards for off - street parking areas.
The proposed rezoning would be in compliance with what the Com-
prehensive Plan indicates should be happening in the area. The Com-
prehensive Plan indicates high /medium density Central Business District
Mixed.Land Use which would include a combination of office, retail
commercial entertainment, and eating establishments,.small comparison
shopping and.service businesses, institutional, limited cultural,
recreational facilities and multiple dwellings. The proposed parking
lot would be a necessary accessory use to adjacent office and service
business uses. Because the proposed use would be an accessory to primary
uses which comply with the Comprehensive Plan, the request for re-
zoning would, therefore, be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Because the site of the proposed rezoning is within the boundaries
of the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment Project, staff has reviewed
the request for consistency with the L /H /N- Redevelopment Plan. The
,._; staff has found that the proposed rezoning would not only be consis-
tent with the redevelopment plan, but would also be essential to
carrying it out.
The redevelopment plan indicates office /commercial and accessory
parking uses for the area of the site. In order to carry out the
redevelopment plan, it will be necessary to rezone not only parcels
-in question but also all that part of the block bounded by 66th Street,
67th Street, Harriet Avenue and Grand Avenue which is not now zoned
general commercial.
The area to the north and west of the properties is presently
zoned and used for commercial development. The proposed rezoning
would, therefore, seem to be consistent with the character of the area
and would not constitute "spot zoning ".
The conversion of single family residentially zoned property into
commercially zoned property would not be consistent with the general
overall city goal to maintain the residential character of Richfield.
The conversion would, however, be consistent with the goals of the L /H /N
_project to have more intensive commercial use of the lots in question.
Design details of the proposed parking lots have not been sub -
mitted. Therefore, the staff cannot determine at this time, whether
the proposed parking areas would meet all off - street parking area
standards.
vW" i%a_dsS35"°e .rac -.. _ ... ..- .. .: !- .a -..,_ .!� -. us+ v...Y.:- '_'g� '3 �� ♦ Y-'� .: '..- AVwh�ivl„
1.
Council Letter No. 238 -3- July 14, 1980
In summary, the staff has found that the proposed rezoning would
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the Lyndale /Hub/
Nicollet Redevelopment Plan and that the proposed rezoning would have
minimal effects on the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, it
is the staff's recommendation that the city council grant the rezoning
request, with the knowledge that an off - street parking_ contract will
be considered by the council in the future.
Planninq Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission at it's June 24, 1980 meeting recommended
that the city council approve the rezoning with the stipulation that a
30 foot buffer area be maintained between the proposed parking lot and
Grand Avenue and a buffer area wide enough to maintain the four trees
adjacent to the south property line be provided.
The proposal was presented to the Residential Impact Neighborhood
Group (RING) on June 30, 1980. RING voted to recommend that the city
council approve the proposed rezoning.
Respectfully submitted,
y Karl Nollenberger
City Manager ,
'V i3- .3
D KI 99
1/1/66
REQUEST FOR REZONING FRO;,fi R TO L' -2
FOR THE FOLLOOING PLRPOSE Parking Lot
LEGAL DESCR IPT ION:
Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 Block 2
Lyndale Shores on Woodlake Addition
17E, THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING OWNERS OF LA NO ','!]THIN 300 FEET OF THE LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED DO HEREBY CONCUR
IN THIS REZONING REQUEST.
SIGNr4TURE OF Ot9NERS mDORESS LEGAL DESCR IPT ION
U
3
• DKI 99
1/1/66
446.1
REQUEST FOR REZGN ING FRO'J R TO C-2
FOR THE FOLLO:iiNG PURPOSE Parking Lot
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 2 Block 2
J.N. Hausers Addition
UE, THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING COWNERS OF LAND WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED, DO HERESY CONCUR
IN THIS REZONING REQUEST,
SIGNATURE OF Ol7NERS ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
/
' r - %'.1
tot,_ I ,tom
C
e.
yl q0
f -.�i 4U e
_�
comprehensive development plan
for the city of richfield
LAND usE:
j
description
density
principal uses
I
Cumbination of multiple
dwellings, office, research
Mixed Land Use
High
industrial, hotel, motel,
I
institutional, and retail
commercial
Combination of office,
institutional, light and
`.
Mixed Land Use
High /Medium
researcn oriented industrial,
retail commercial,
and multiple dwellings
Combination of office, retail
commercial, entertainment and
I F77/1
Central Business
District
High
eating establishments, small
/Medium
comparison shopping and service
Mixed Land Use
businesses, institutional,
limited cultural, recreational
facilities, and multiple
dweilings
1
Combination of single family
dwellings, multiple dwellings,
Mixed Land Use
Medium
townhouses, and neighborhood
convenience commercial
Industrial
Medium
Light and research oriented
industrial
uses.
r
Multiple
High
Multiple units with related
accessory uses.
Convenience
Low
Grocery, drug, hardware stores.
Shopping Area
Single family or two family
Single Family
LOW
units and accessory uses
Residential
compatible with single or
two family units
COMMUNITY
FACILITIES:
- - - --
Public parks and open space
L-J
- - - --
Public schools
Churches or church- related
facilities
Other public, quasi - public, or
Q
- - - --
private institutional facilitie
i TRANSPORTATION:
- - - - --
Major arterial thoroughfare
adopted by the city of rich field this 15th day of Jan a y 1973
-Utril
Lo
�41
5.j
F-7
-!11- .... .......
li-HF
6 N ii
_NT
ON
11
gg
M� � --N,s
S,- J�
-Utril
Lo
�41
5.j
F-7
-!11- .... .......
li-HF
6 N ii
_NT
ON
11
q.% 909 461,
7 IQ
It
PETITION
MAP
Cl)
34Z
7a
tc j
:71
'4
4
ez
IA
C4
-Y,
.71
x
in
-X-
R,
52
JR
A t th
RT
Ar
4
-W
4
i7
5
ro
44
W&I ftl b=01 m AGO"
-LT7
62�
Signatures on Petition
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD,_ MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Rich-
field, Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning
districts of the city, enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV,
Section 3.28 Subdivision 2 of such code, is hereby amended in
the following respect:
1. Appendix C, Section 3 is amended by adding
after Paragraph (76) the following new paragraph:
"(77) Lot 2; Block 2 J. N. Hausers Addition and
Lots 6, 7, 8, 9; Block 2 Lyndale Shores on Wood
Lake Addition.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of 1980.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
Donald J. Priebe, Mayor
u .Ll f
uj
o�F-1
� 0= El C
El¢ LL O C
J cc - ❑
I owl
C7 U fA
'3Atl UNVVD
RL
y� � i �`, Q
m
®, q c�flC
n
a 3
JI
1 � _ate ❑ _� . -aQ
o
n�
C7i I111i111a111i111il11 Wj W C
W '3AV 131tltlYN
LLI It
; �
Eli c
LL ,
cl
a
a
_ ( F
EJ E[5
�� < � -egg
O LLJ Z � "�
w o j
z U
V W �" _ J Ci yagyyy
¢ O J — W
W
cc
LU
OC
W
� E pQi O � W
w i cn
nx
cc
kv
W � �
OW i
p� O
J
L //
Y Z'�Ail
f UI 'r
3 f '� St - E y t - sc. ..I D rn `�' - •' i _, -__..! � '
h tc r��'S'��'' � � i µmote �:• � .r--_ `t` � , .
. ��ft_ _._..°Mn�JBIMD ,ii r, - ZD. J. - -• \S \� F { -� - t -
`4�� eta -' -_ r.• ,/ I ±.. �� t'� '1 .. ZIti }7 I �, `
I! n /)l� + - t }
,t (
m
x '-v.�Z. 5�}�^n Viz° :_ } -' � C� � � � C D - ! ' �mr {•E. ��- 1'; _
rtrF�i�pDr ''o
'mX. Yu'''6 c34',
k?'
�r + rr s t�19 � 'mss -'ti.. � � T�'•�' � 1 s' s _ /� - C .9 J � j_f } I
' �s>e'y`ia'�' ,�� t y�3••, lv++'x. ��' � 34 1•--T I �• . AtDworAVE. `�
p ' I - .
{TI
—tea Z\
ut
s.t�0'tt n\ '.:;g •:.a w.--I
.�FL'
� `x .�' iS -_; �'ii:r1••.'� ,yt �'A �%� / <`.' -e n�{ ��rr- li I -.I.�! ��.i
mo
t '}r��n.x"`t i' Et. ` t.r }� r T. "•� �;� +'j.jY /.> - y .::::1- ,:,. ( I1 i
., ri s� � r - ���ac�,�'� ?I I � �� %s.._�1 \��� ••� Il - `t�.�;�"� 1 1 � � - i , i
Er A
yiaAJfvtC�'g—
+`Tr�-- -��i�,
�^ s.. ."°. `:,' � I � c'i-;r -t� 'rte i' 1`` " r .c, } •,�• g :� �nA � i - I�
C"
IN.
Nr` �� Tzx °� t r I j G +s _ ur t }• /.:�yrj 3i s 3 a:! 3 _
_J -'
. ..8 .f..._ > J •
_• f A •.
r } .';t,yHy"xy]'y K 3. ,,, r :..F K'I .1�•4TSSt g' a l -#
_ t, . C!- n {7 X 1(•$�� °- 'lrilf �4.C:�.a'S� x�' g �`�r'A53 acs,✓~. SiY t. ":..+J9r "�v 'j',g
f�y�jT P�4f a • (� �j o� 7n' } '�� IWt--''�� __ lr F t- {'T i � yam+ •'yR�S7,W` ��e .. 6� ��.'.1
? �{`°^� `yyR}. %"•� '` +• t1L F 7a- .�''d,' .s �t '_�•.II F'"� _�� f•� ., i. -�4 t�f i;. '14Irr..`' s ♦__-yl I I -.-2 �t
Y "•,a: �y �JT a.¢� I} ii;;�— }
;.
5a
c � � a i 7d 3 � i : � }_t . r +•c _ -nr+.c + io° i r { t
'}✓�Tjr�� ;us d � � kt � .�.sW �.. '•,,� `' . -:._� !7
Ti �
t —"- QD
�.s-l/y,9sv` -_ `d 7� %..• � -' -•I � (3�� i -. - ®• �- ----'l l(' E� .�soe t vE F'+.'}."�4"' #i.��i 'Yc�.(�..i ?� i -,�g
.cam !��
k i �Fa t' Y �x' cal
s b/ ...i�I•.
YSsr jdd� .1f .oa a ...? t F -
_ i F r -. f �tiY. 7._ •� f: - -�9 ffiz ' ��p 1c - i• f
i J� : � .._ L� �'H "1�'Sr�.tl 1 'Y p •�
-ew ii si a'K.. .- ,, .f.% � _.. t �i f:r �__.)a� I D �} •'.> r''. h fi e :.-'+s ic. ..t . �\
r > �. `' � rr j• � �te�s�r � � , _ �'rTtr3Cs F-��.�t�3�
y ■:" 2irf rx� 1T ^ems
.0kank
LG 9 X 4F11 i s T
-rd '" r} t •'�S„rf s57+, °r s �' , 1 .,y,_ ...: a ^d'? -t T - Sti _ . -�°' `}' �i �' �' ` -_ e
./c i'
1 , t`,t" •�".- $ ''�iZ* ` r.�t£l Jt�awVS•. a, .r' S ,• �. a �", z�zhal.`'�ee#�'. >.f �. - -Z�,c
'�
` �
"' �',,,`A���- 9 �ti i rti • j .. � y�, ,_�L f a 3• -� i'' : �i c;�•+u� l �..11.^� ,4 -._� � E}`��� 7 # ,71 *j`. _��' I
�.. C ;�� �"�°•:� ✓ "!' _...,,, � s. .� ho d . �'x; cr ,. e� .Y »w -ar 4K � a - ar�,•f �, '. .,Y2.yL a.r''j -2 if "�- 1�_ -_
'.��E�3
SC E 7--sC:lAL TIIPROVE -PAMNs T
1-z
M4
4
AQEN
-4
Q-T:
!/li'. a 'j
LAND AREA .359,0001."
o
-j (o IPA
JiL IL
-- - -- — — -- —
RlCifiiir�,.*T -TE
T
hl
>
n I �- C� o .n. ,r
cr i;,
co
LQ
0,
A
IP 1A
b
W. 0
00
;awl � = r�• �, -=_ �-.-.— ,
SPACES
WEST
T— ---------
87TW lZTDCC—r
_n1l, -ILE'llo
8-,h
Mart:
-5 T-
n—cr
1.P.
Ott.
....
z9 oc N 01 E
See V,11, of Richfiqld*
blt' pl-s far dela,l Of
.
ird—dlal se
4 -tef ser-ces to b,ild,r9s on this
0<natn -t1h U-
t Y.
H.
Denotes -.h,l,
—.4 --W—ro.j
7�1'7
ni m
If
0
1. >
C� z
o=
X. > m
ENO
C/)
M
0
NNE
m
ci
m
CA
OI
01
m
rn
m
-1
No 44 4
4
SOUTH
HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH
--I
1-4
I � ' 4 ~"T! s J
L
GRAND AVENUE SOUTH
F-,lCE,F!:-;lD STATE AGENCY INC.
RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
I
O
rA
m
m
-4
cIv!tins rlt:;c;Gc: iatcs
zirchitoct-
minnenp*lis M;nnesole El I
— ----
xi000 anwsxv owvun
LU
amlu
cc
ULLUJI
2 cc
cc
'
'
/ \
!-
||
+
m|
w
+
| �
! -
—� m
. -
`
-
c'
c-=
LU
ocz
ox
pu
uj
| '
| /
/
,
\
— `
`
it
co
— ----
xi000 anwsxv owvun
LU
amlu
cc
ULLUJI
2 cc
cc
'
'
/ \
!-
||
+
m|
w
+
| �
! -
—� m
. -
`
-
c'
c-=
LU
ocz
ox
pu
uj
| '
| /
/
,
\
— `
`
it
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR
OFF - STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH
APPLICATION NO. 80 -7,. CONTRACT NO. 2326
Name: Richfield State Agency
6625 Lyndale
Location: 6625 Lyndale
Use: Parking Lot
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off - street parking
as contained in Off - Street Parking Application No. 80 -7, Contract
No. 2326 is hereby approved subject to and upon completion of
performance of the contract for such off - street parking as
hereinafter authorized.
2. That the proposed off - street parking contract for the
improvement of said off- street parking, bearing contract No. 2326
be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said
contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on
behalf of this city.
3. That the off - street parking operator provide the City of
Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving withdrawal
authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by the
community development director and city manager, to ensure the off -
street parking lot is constructed within the terms and regulations
of the Off - Street Parking Agreement with the following stipulations:
1. That a minimum 15 foot setback be maintained between the
proposed parking lot and the south property line along 67th Street.
Existing trees should remain in this setback area. A minimum setback
equal to the front setback of the house at 6616 Grand Avenue be
maintained between the proposed parking lot and the west property
line along Grand Avenue (approximately 35 feet). All fences should
be constructed outside these setback areas.
2. That a landscape plan be approved by city staff.
3. That the parking lot improvements be allowed to be constructed
in phases but that the applicant post a performance bond in an amount
sufficient to construct the improvements for the development as a
whole.
4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of
said Off - Street Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the
off - street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05.
-2-
Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this 11th
day of August, 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager `'
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council Letter No. 280
Agenda August 11, 1980
�) 3( 1<'Gioo j -, o�-- L /H /r.IF�ML tDM(_*a -t t�
)'i 19 - Si�o"_J s) - ., - tA"%_- i I A ^11-Y
a•) 4- 0wsI.yG GUrtL.I. x,.1 e,4T- of OtS�uSSIU��S
uP 0 Pp, cc„tsos .
Lnc ,) no,A A-s A,.i � -wc"If sip .+ C, 7-,( Row
Subject: Discussion of Concept for Development of
the Multi- Family Site, L /H /N Redevelop- RssiM6 L
ment Project
The purpose of the joint City Council and HRA
for August 11, 1980 is to hear a presentation for
multi - family site in the vicinity of Graham Avenue
Street, in the L /H /N redevelopment project area.
a-- ryPPrzw�-is
uF PV
meeting scheduled
development of the
south of 66th
y.) Pau « -5, s
nlS)L��Tpn�`
The Knutson Companies is proposing to construct a multi -unit "-'C-'-
C IC wzN,ri
housing project on this site. The one and two bedroom units would,,'
be owned on a cooperative basis by people 60 years of age and old- �
er. The units would be constructed on the site identified for
purchase and redevelopment by the HRA. One additional property,
at 6615 Lake Shore Drive, would be included. This property is al-
ready owned by the HRA. Within the site on Graham Avenue, there
are three residential properties still in private ownership.
Two different types of financing are being contemplated for
the development. The HRA would utilize tax increment financing and
the sale of bonds to provide funds for the site assembly. The in-
creased taxes from the new development would amortize the bonds.
Financing for construction of the cooperative housing units would
be through the sale of multi - family housing revenue bonds. The
city would authorize the sale of these bonds, which would enjoy a
below market interest rate, thus helping to keep the housing costs
low.
Before the concept can be pursued further, its marketability
must be tested. The willingness of people to buy into the coop
must be measured. This will be accomplished through a public
survey, advertising campaign, and preliminary reservation sales.
Because of the public nature of this activity, and the location of
the site within the L /H /N, an informational presentation to the
HRA and city council is appropriate. It will be necessary for
this proposal to be subjected to the normal review process, which
involves the Commercial Improvement Committee (CIC), the Resident-
ial Impact Neighborhood Group (RING) and the planning commission,
as well as the HRA and the City Council.
Council Letter No. 280 -2-
The concept will be presented
issues such as identification of
height, and monthly cost, will be
test will determine the number of
could be marketed. When these nu
the development can be fixed. Ho
that there may be approximately 1
twelve stories high.
August 11, 1980
on Monday evening. Specific
the non - profit sponsor, building
dealt with later. The market
one and two bedroom units which
mbers are known, the details of
wever, at this time it seems
60 units in a building ten to
Representatives of several organizations have been invited to
the joint meeting on August 11. All the members of RING, CIC, and
the planning commission were invited by letter. Leaders of churches
and service and fraternal organizations also received letters of
invitation.
It is recommended that the HRA and City Council give their
endorsement to this housing concept, and authorize the developer
to proceed with a market test to fully establish the feasibility
of the proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
kL r�
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: City Attorney
Community Development Director
Housing and Redevelopment Specialist
lt4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 279
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Energy Awareness Commission Member Terms
At the April 28, 1980 city council meeting, the council passed
a motion changing the status of the Energy Awareness Committee to
that of an on -going commission. As a general rule, the city has
appointed committees on an ad hoc basis, to perform a specific task
and the committee has been disbanded when the task has been com-
pleted. A commission has been formed as an on -going advisory
group, with members serving designated terms. Council Resolution
No. 5881, which created the Energy Awareness Committee stated:
"Members from the above categories shall be appointed to
serve staggered terms of one,two, or three years or as de-
termined by city council."
With the conversion of the committee to a commission, it is now
necessary to appoint the members to specific terms.
The Energy Awareness Commission met on July 29, 1980 at which
time they accepted a set of by -laws and procedures to be governed
by, set the first Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. as their
regular meeting date, elected officers, and expressed their pre-
ferences for length of term.
The staff recommends that the council set the terms of the
appointees, using a July to July cycle, as follows:
Dennis Louis, Chairman
•3
year
term
Herbert Doty, Vice Chairman
3
year
term
John Moon, secretary
2
year
term
Vern Lace
2
year
term
Leon Lumas
2
year
term
Sharon Erding
1
year
term
A. John Olinger
1
year
term
Respectfully submitted,
/
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Director of Community Development
/d'13
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 278
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Release of Off- Street Parking Bonds
There are several requests for off - street parking bond re-
leases on"the August 11, 1980 city council agenda:
1. 7708 5th Avenue - Shakey`s Pizza Office. Inspection re-
veals all requirements have been meet and release of
bond is recommended.
2. 320 West 66th Street, Northwestern Bell. Underground
electrical service is now in place. All other requirements
have been met previously, and release of bond is recommend-
ed.
3. 6645 Penn Avenue. Sir Waxer. Inspection reveals all re-
quirements have been met except on the east'lot line
where a fence had been stipulated. The property to the
east has a 6 foot wood fence and lilac bushes on the
6645 Penn property adjacent to this fence are 10 feet
high. This fence requirement seems unnecessary in light
of the already existing screening.
In May, 1977, at the time of the original application, the
planning commission expressed reservations concerning the
fence stipulation.. They were concerned with maintenance
of the hedge and litter problems which could occur with tall
fences on both sides of the hedge. The planning commission
requested that the council consider an alternative to the
fence. The off - street parking contract was approved with-
out removing the fence stipulation. Sir Waxer is request-
ing the contract be amended to delete the fence stipula-
tion and that their bond be released. It is recommended
that the bond be released.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Dev. Dir.
City Engineer
City Planner
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 277
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Special Use Permit, 6600
Portland Avenue
Proposal
Mr. R. H. Johnson, representing Sinclair Marketing, Inc.., has
submitted an application for a special use permit to allow the
conversion of storage space at an existing gasoline service station
to three offices, and the removal of approximately 500 square feet
of asphalt pavement so that it can be landscaped with green space
and a fence. The existing gasoline service station on the site at
6600 Portland Avenue, is a non - conforming use. The service station
was constructed in 1952, prior to the city council passing a zoning
ordinance amendment (1970) that prohibits gasoline service stations
from being located on sites which abut a lot which is in an "R"
zoning district. Because this site abuts a property in an "R" dis-
trict, the use is non - conforming. However, because office space
is an allowable use in this district, the staff feels that this re-
quest does not constitute a proliferation of a non - conforming use.
The staff also feels a special use permit is necessary in this
case because, the gasoline service station has not obtained a
special use permit and is only allowable in this district by the
issuance of a special use permit. Therefore, any alteration of
the use will require a special use permit. The property is zoned
C -2 general commercial. The existing gasoline service station would
remain the principle use of the property and the proposed offices
would be an incidental use.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
1. Section 3.33 subdivision 1 paragraphs 2 and 4 list per-
mitted uses in C -2 general commercial zones.
2. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, lists conditions for granting
special use permits.
3. Section 3.33, subdivision 3, lists requirements for
gasoline service stations.
Council Letter No. 277 -2- August 11, 1980
Staff Findings
The staff reviewed this request for a special use permit and
found the following:
1. That the proposal would be an improvement to the appli-
cant's property.
2. That the proposed landscaping on the west portion of the
property would create better buffering for the surround-
ing uses.
3. That the proposal is in compliance with the Comprehen-
sive Development Plan which indicates the site as mixed
land use, high to medium density and the principle use
as offices and retail commercial.
4. That the proposal would not be detrimental to the public
welfare and is in compliance with the conditions govern-
ing the issuance of special use permits.
5. That the site abuts property in an "R" zoning district,
which is contrary to the city ordinance regulating gasoline
service stations.
6. That city policy, related to access on arterial streets,
is to minimize the number of curb cuts.
7. That the easterly curb cut on 66th Street and northerly
curb cut on Portland'Avenue are 30 feet from the Portland
Avenue and 66th Street intersection. The required distance
is 40 feet.
8. That the closing of the northerly curb cut on Portland
Avenue would relfect the city's goals and policies re-
lating to minimizing access on arterial streets and should
not adversely affect the existing use or proposed use of
the site. However, closing of the easterly curb cut on
66th Street would not allow sufficient space for orderly
and safe on -site movement for trucks to service the storage
tanks.
Staff Recommendation
The existing use of the site does not meet all of the require-
ments regulating gasoline service stations. However, the proposed
special use permit is in substantial compliance with the conditions
governing the issuance of special use permits. Therefore, the
staff recommends that the city council approve this special use
permit application with the following stipulations:
1. That the northerly curb cut on Portland Avenue be closed.
2. That the easterly curb cut on 66th Street be relocated
40 feet from the Portland Avenue and 66th Street inter-
section, so as to comply with the city ordinance regula-
ting gasoline service stations.
Council Letter No. 277 -3- August 11, 1980
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission recommends that the city council
approve this special use permit application. It should be noted
that the stipulations above have been recommended subsequent to
the planning commission public hearing, therefore, the planning
commission did not consider the listed stipulation.
The planning commission did recommend that the city staff
study the curb cut question, howevert
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
DAT- . 7 -3 -80
CITY OF RICHFIELD, Richfield, Minnesota
Department of Public Works - Building Division
6700 Portland Avenu-e South
(612} 869 -7521
APPLICATION IS HEREBY M-IADE FOR:
= A change in zoning
Q A request for variance
Special Use
Apartment Use
By' Sinclair `darizetinq, Inc. Owmer /.:cp'_ican
4109 West Broadway Address
Robbinsdale City 535 -2077 Bus. Phone
For the property or land located at:
h4dress : 6600 Portland Avenue South Plat Parcel
Subdivision: - McCu-tchan's Portland Avenue Park Block Lot it 2 & 3
General dimensions of property (attached all necessary drawings, maps):
Existing use of land: Service Station
Existing zoning:
Existing buildings? x;; Yes 0 No.
Proposed changes in use: Renovate ball area of existing service station
for use as an office area.
Proposed changes in zoning: n/a
Variance requested: n/a
r.ttach all necessary drawi.ncs,
s, and site develoument clans
ADD1icants Sienatufle./ Date:
Fee -t;-e ��
Received By roceipt r �43o3
Date 7 -a 9 fn'
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF
FOR PURPOSE OF
Legal Description:
We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described,
do hereby concur with the Special Use as requested.
Signature of Owners Address Legal Description
_ . e
lVIA N
i
I
1
orb
Jv,
5v. 2
-
C4
14 3
13/ 4
12
CI D
/Z LJ
LL- L 476
7k
8 QQ Signatures on Petition
Ej
1 10 F -'I a
I 2Q� F-1
9 7
6
5 4
..* .........
V
23
12
Li
21,
21 14
201 5 p_�
Uj
13 181'7 El >
<
—J 7, 8 F
45 0
141
E
0
2 r7—
0
LLi
> 4
i+
5:
COUNTY
vJ3
I
16
4
15
15
14 5
13 6
1217
11 8
_ 0 D�j
t019
1411
2
0
0 1015
1
0 96
.A r�-r
07 F G
0
6 if
foil
�D R D
, LDS
-1 -61c
L-j
21
c: rr
0
22
E: il)
--
LU
>
s
2F 5
0=
or
0
0
2.14
1--� c
E'I
A,
-1 2
0
26 V
-0.
7
27
vJ3
I
16
4
15
15
14 5
13 6
1217
11 8
_ 0 D�j
t019
1411
2
0
0 1015
1
0 96
.A r�-r
101 3
07 F G
0
6 if
foil
�D R D
, LDS
-1 -61c
L-j
c: rr
0
9 2
E: il)
--
LU
>
s
2F 5
0=
or
0
0
1--� c
E'I
A,
-1 2
0
61
15
101 3
Lli Z-Z
41"W
Ll
LL
—r-n
(ZONING MAP)
!7k y ilI j ITT
COUNTY
cl - 23, 12
Li
2
4 ;-7 21 1 4 21: 4
5 1 201 5 J 20 15
T9 3322
El 18' 7 F
3 17: �s
I I L :A
C]
0 1-j 15 flo
1
14 4
27
13; ;12
00 1;/ A R
0
El -0 GENERAL COMMERCIAL
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LLJ
ED 31
HEI FOURL' >
> / / I/ - I . ,
< El
-7d
1"S
C3
C3 �,; ;
/, // / T' N 1 1�1 3 r
Vj,3
J 16
4
5
0 14 5
136
12+7
0 oY�
r7 10 9
ROALI
l
n Wr
1,12
- n 1213
0
A
D8 7
67t
1011
9�2
F-
<
N
1.AZ4JV
2(Z�
t`
CL
.\ . ,5; Q
14 3
J
F—.
6
.0
5 '4 10
A�
po
10 12
r
ce
COUNTY
cl - 23, 12
Li
2
4 ;-7 21 1 4 21: 4
5 1 201 5 J 20 15
T9 3322
El 18' 7 F
3 17: �s
I I L :A
C]
0 1-j 15 flo
1
14 4
27
13; ;12
00 1;/ A R
0
El -0 GENERAL COMMERCIAL
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LLJ
ED 31
HEI FOURL' >
> / / I/ - I . ,
< El
-7d
1"S
C3
C3 �,; ;
/, // / T' N 1 1�1 3 r
Vj,3
J 16
4
5
0 14 5
136
12+7
0 oY�
r7 10 9
ROALI
l
n Wr
1,12
- n 1213
0
A
D8 7
67t
1011
9�2
F-
A 2
LL
5Q,
jb�
:7k
8 L�Q
o
L 9
LN
2 7
z: LQ r 1 6
4 3
_1 r 3 4 Q�
12
-476
/A
Public /L/and-Use
-ok-A-
_A.A�
COUNTY ROA
?4j
23 '22
Li
I Tj 2t
4 21, 14 r 21! 4
Lj 3 21
5 201 5 E3 ti _I 20 A-
T91 —, - _ 7 - -1-9 3 22
GN
Li
0 el El 23 (' 3 - = '� s _i t ! 17 '3
< Ej
17,
E]
- ._ _0 , 0
1519 ---
0
16
CD
GENERAL cnmMPPrIA
V13
I a]
161,4
15
5
13 6-
127
Ilia
to 9
0 10:5
�0 1
10
6 7t
G I
07 F Li
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
0
0
El
El 3j 0 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
F
Lj [4 2
4
El < 0
5. J
3 i
z
0
r
D
U)
z a
0
z
r
d
CL
m
a
cc
I I
I I
I �
C) 3
m a .
7 N
O
'O
I
I I
I •
0
Portland Avenue
m
0
U)
m
0
.. i
W
0
�---- 30' —}t
OFFICE OF CRIME ANALYSIS
To: Capt. Richardson
From: Jean Davis
Date: 7 -28 -80
Re: TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS - 66TH & PORTLAND AVENUE
66TH & PORTLAND
SEVERITY OF ACCIDENT
P.I. - 16
P.D. - 10
H &R -4
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
No Improper Driving - 25
Inattentive - 9
Failure to Yield Right of Way - 10
Speed - 1
Traffic Control Violation - 4
Following Too Close - 3
DWI -2
Vision Obscured - 9
Improper Lane Usage - 1
Improper Turn - 3
Improper Passing - 1
Improper Backing - 1
Bike Violation - 2
MONTH
January - 1
Febuary - 3
March - 3
April -• 0
May - 2
June - 4
July -4
August - 3
September - 2
October - 4
November - 1
December - 3
TIME
0700 - 1500 hours - 14
1500 - 2.300 hours - 13
2300 - 0700 hours - 3
WEATHER
Clear - 17
Cloudy - 6
Raining - 4
Snowing - 3
ROAD SURFACE
Dry - 19
Wet - 7
Snow, Slush - 3
Ice, Snow Packed - 1
NUMBER OF VEHICLES
One - 0
Two - 27
Three - 3
1978 - 14
1.979 - 13
1980 - 3
POLICE DETA.M.iENT
Richfield, minnesota
H&GRAM
/.S-' 90 --(Zb-
T
0 714.5 X,
Ind.ic. /te 11.1sirth Py Arro-r+
;YDABOLS ('()LLI(', IONS
Moving Vphj_(Av� kr,,ar End
Packing VQh.ir,1
Pedestrian md On •
Par]-,(-,f Vehi(�
Fixed (_)b'jf'c! :�ido swip'. OV-1 F"i A,i'l Ili-;,
D
Fat.al h,_�c'd(!nt'
p
h
Va n /"i
_hi
'No n! I d I r
4 In ury
I MTE'R:;1ECT I M/
.66TH STREET _1?0RJLAND_A1( ME\_
I r) 1 1980 JANUARY JUNE
I. JEAN DAVIS ATF 7 8 0
411 -1 "1 C - Clear D - I)ry W - Wet
Ix
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Richfield, Minnesota
Collision Diagram
p
n `
NAME INDICATE NORTH BY �"` elm ARROW
Ib - (or78 t !S
to -Za- 8 CD
LZ33
1_� ►2-3 78'
C�Ib7 gN+�
8 -3 -1$ DC-1
30
6zq-7$
o- 7.9 Dc_,�
0 rN
` A
Lam, M
60 E
U
Q
SYMBOLS TYPES OF COLLISIONS
-- Moving Vehicle <_ Rear End Right Angle
BackingVehicle
— — Pedestrian —— Head On
�] Parked Vehicle SHOW FOR EACH ACCIDENT
❑ Fixed Object '�'�' Side Swipe
Out of Contro 1. Date and Time
Fatal Accident ��'— 2.Weather and Road Sur -
0 �j !l Left Turn face if unusual Cond-
Injury Acciden tion Existed.
Intersection 66th and Portland
Period 1978 From January To December
By. Jean Davis Date July 28, 1980
C -Clear D -Dry CL- Cloudy W -Wet S -Snow
U
a
4
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Richfield, Minnesota
Collision Diagram
C -Clear D -Dry CL- Cloudy W -Wet S -Snow
0
V
M
gr
r
^)
–
INDICATE NORTH BY
NAME
ARROW
& -4 -11 Dc
7 -Zb �9
1 -8 -11 DC
WC.
i z5S
13440
7 -q13g Dc
7-31 -111 DC _,1,• -.
S
tto42
�
�
V
'r
o
N
�a
N
A
M
E
SYMBOLS
TYPES OF COLLISIONS
— Moving Vehicle
�_
Rear
End
Riqht Angle
BackingVehicle_
– – Pedestrian
Head
On
Parked Vehicle
❑
Side
Swipe
SHOW FOR EACH ACCIDENT
Fixed Object
1. Date and Time
Fatal Accident
.C�–
Out
of Contro
2.Weather. and Road Sur-
Left
Turn
face if unusual Cond-
Injury Acciden
tion Existed.
Intersection 66th
and
Portland
Period 1979
From January
To December
By Jean Davis
Date July
28, 1980
C -Clear D -Dry CL- Cloudy W -Wet S -Snow
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Richfield, Minnesota
Collision Diagram
Z�t9�8� CvV
tc.�t5'
1335
5'-Z2 -$O C JD _ t...
O7yS
INDICATE NORTH BY
ARROW
C -Clear D -Dry CL- Cloudy W -Wet S -Snow
SYMBOLS
TYPES
OF COLLISIONS
<
�_
Moving Vehicle
�_I�_ Rear
End
�-
BackingVehicle
Right Angle
Pedestrian
—-- Head
On
[�
Parked Vehicle
❑
Fixed Object
.� —���� Side
Swipe
e
SHOW FOR EACH ACCIDENT
e
Fatal Accident
Out
•�T Ou
of Contro
1. Date and Time
2-Weather and Road Sur-
Injury
Injury Acciden
`� Left
Turn
face if unusual Cond-
tion Existed.
Intersection. 66th
and
Portland
Period
1980
From January
To June
By__
Jean Davis
Date
July 28, 1980
C -Clear D -Dry CL- Cloudy W -Wet S -Snow
u
.a
s
h
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 276
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variance, 7601 Aldrich Avenue
Proposal
Dr. Jerome C. Ulrich has submitted an application for a variance
to reduce the required three foot fence setback from public right -
of -way to zero feet. The variance would allow the construction of
a fence on Dr. Ulrich's north and west property lines, located at
7601 Aldrich Avenue and 711 West 76th Street. The proposed wrought
iron fence would be 8 feet 8 inches from the back of the curb on
Wes-- 76th Street. The property located at 7601 Aldrich Avenue is
zoned "R ", single family residential, and the property located at
West 76th Street is zoned C -1, neighborhood business.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.30, subdivision 4 establishes lot area, frontage and
yard requirements. Section 3.39, subdivision 6, lists three con-
ditions that must be met for granting variances.
Staff Finding
The staff reviewed this application and found the following:
1. That the proposed fence is partially completed, and that
during the construction of the fence, the applicant dis-
covered that the location of the fence violated the zoning
ordinance relating to fence setbacks from public right -of-
way.
2. That the location of the completed portion of the fence
is within 76th Street public right -of -way and not on the
north property line.
3. That the applicant obtained a street cut permit allowing
the construction of a sidewalk on the public right -of-
way of 76th Street, and that this sidewalk is 9 inches
from the completed portion of the fence.
The staff reviewed the request against the three conditions for
Council Letter No. 276 -2- August 11, 1980
granting variances and found the following:
1. There are no special conditions affecting these par-
ticular properties. These are typically sized lots
and are not significantly different than any other
lots in the City of Richfield.
2. Denial of the application would not preclude the existing
property use. There are alternatives for constructing the
fence that would not require a variance.
3. The 3 foot setback requirement is intended to ensure that
sufficient snow storage space is present and the fence
would be only 9 inches away. Sufficient snow storage
space would not be available. However, the fence is not
solid, but is rather of a decorative open design, which
would allow snow to be pushed through the fence which would
increase snow storage potential.
4. The proposed fence would be an improvement to the applicant's
property and would not impair visibility on either 76th
Street or Aldrich Avenue.
Staff Recommendation
While the proposed fence would not be detrimental to the public
welfare, the staff must recommend that this application for a var-
iance be denied because the three conditions for granting variances
have not been met. However, should the city council decide to grant
this variance, the staff recommends the following stipulation:
1. That a formal agreement be executed between the applicant
and the city to allow the fence to be located on the public
right -of -way. The agreement should hold the city harmless for
damages to the fence, sidewalk or median improvements arising
from snow removal. It should also ensure that the fence and
sidewall be removed at no expense to the city should future F:ub-
lic improvements be planned along 76th Street which would re-
quire use of the full right -of -way.
Planninq Commission Recommendation
The planning commission recommends that this application for a
variance be granted, with the stipulation.
Respectfully submitted,
1
2a, tt♦ (��r
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
0
6700 _, _
= ? S, -7��_
:S _ _ �...
—i 1 c ^_ nae
in zoni r.r,
I
^--vial use
reauest
for variance
1 J - il, A �/.
Aaartment Use
E r, 3zr
E:.- St_::g
G::ner /:_pelican
Yes
Proposed
changes in use:
b 1 e- K
y -4 Y @
Cat'.
Phone
For '- proper tr
or
land loc `ed
a - .
- _ ess : 74.
A
1 J - il, A �/.
S, ?lot Parcel
sion:
Bloc;
Tot
eneral dl :e_'lsions of roper y (attached all necess -=V C-rawings, mans) .
E:•:?sting
use of !and:
y
Exis_ing
zoning � 1
- 266i A 14
J',-,
E:.- St_::g
buildi::cs?
Yes
Proposed
changes in use:
b 1 e- K
y -4 Y @
Prc_ used c�:anges in zoning:
Variance revues _e-d : 3 Sr- 60+-
Attach all neccssa' .1 site
i
Aoolicar.:s S-;,-nature G Dr:te:
ice FCCC1 \'C• ^cccint
Date
c;
C C
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF
FOR PURPOSE OF
Legal Description:
We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described,
do hereby concur with the variance as requested.
Signature of Owners Address Legal Description
I '
/ -
-7e I
I
i
i
�41
24.1
14
23:2
2 -0-
El ;t
1
5
❑ 2-1
4
ma 10 7 ❑
2 2
5
LL
<
1
A, 1
6
6
4
1181
7
178x'
f
1 69
9
J
15
10
'01 .
" 16 a
9 Q
1312
f
1
It
13
12.
ST
2
223
21
4
'1
UJ
>
iv 1877
7
1
9
10
4
13 12
ST
2
3 C:)
z
<
-777
5
CD
Q)
6
7%
T
:2
03
4
2C 5
7
178
169
151
1.3 I-
C)
-1 2
4w
1 4
5
4 7
T.
Z:
C)
—2� 1 0
—__y
o❑
2113
PETITION MAP
501 42
M
- — - --------
Signatures on Petition
---------------
10 Ll
(K
2
125 5 2
21 —3
2
-j!
t I 1 9
0
E3
17
12
p 16 13L Ln I r-
14
irs i
24.1
14
23:2
2 -0-
El ;t
1
5
3
lao
ma 10 7 ❑
I ), - 4 - E]
LL
<
4
178x'
1 69
9
J
15
10
'01 .
1411
1312
f
C)
-1 2
4w
1 4
5
4 7
T.
Z:
C)
—2� 1 0
—__y
o❑
2113
PETITION MAP
501 42
M
- — - --------
Signatures on Petition
---------------
10 Ll
(K
2
125 5 2
21 —3
2
-j!
t I 1 9
0
E3
17
12
p 16 13L Ln I r-
14
irs i
-4D 15 2
14
T3!
4 E3
2 -0-
El ;t
1
5
El
11 6
ma 10 7 ❑
I ), - 4 - E]
10 7 -_Q°
9 8
n� n� l 1 i I
1.5
2 -0-
Ltt 14
)7;1.
El
I ), - 4 - E]
LL
<
12 5
10 7 -_Q°
9 8
n� n� l 1 i I
LL �'
H
t
tG
ti
0
m
i
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
1980, by and between the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter "city"
and Jerome Ulrich and Gertrude Ulrich, hereinafter "Permittees ",
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Permittees are owners of those parcels or-tracts of
land legally described as:.
and
Lot 15 Glenn's Addition. Subject to easement for Aldrich
Avenue and West 76 Street.
WHEREAS, the Permittees are desirous of utilizing a part of the
unimproved portion of 76th Street for fence and yard purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to permit such use based upon the
conditions hereinafter contained,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is stipulated and agreed by and between the
parties as follows:
1. City hereby grants permission to Permittees the right to
use for fence, yard and related purposes the following portion of
West 76th (hereinafter referred to as subject property).
The southerly ten and one quarter (10k) inches of the right -of-
way of West 76th Street included in the foregoing legal description.
2. In the event that the City shall need to use the subject
area for roadway or other public purposes at any time, the permission
granted in paragraph one (1) above, shall terminate upon thirty (30)
days written notice by the City to the Permittees.
3. The Permittees shall not erect or permit the erection or
construction of any improvements on the subject area, except a yard
fence which is hereby permitted, without prior written approval
-2-
by the City.
4. All improvements constructed or placed in the subject area
by the Permittees shall be removed upon the termination of this
permission. The Permittees shall make no claim against the City
for the value of any improvement which is affected by the termina-
tion of the permission herein granted.
5. Permittees agree to indemnify the City and save it harmless
against any claims, actions, causes of action'or costs or expenses
of defending the same, arising out of or by reason of the granting
of this permit or by reason of the use or occupancy of the City's
right -of -way pursuant to the permission herein granted.
6. The City shall not be held liable by the Permittees or any
representative thereof, for damages to improvements on subject
property, caused by cleaning, snow removal or any other maintenance
activitiy by the City.
7. This agreement shall be binding upon and insure to the
benefit of the parties and their heirs, successors and assigns.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands
the day and year first above written.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
By
Donald J. Priebe
Its Mayor
Jerome Ulrich
Gertrude Ulrich
Y�
Pip
,Ir
� r
eQ 4, dxAot.., 7WJ'd"�' I
Awl 91111��
-7-537-
7637 aUV4�
A AJ., ;l5
,
� ,�► 7.5� .tea .
7sya
o�-
740? Atde ►�k 1� .
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 275
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor 0 0v �a
and
Members of the City Council I', Oco0
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Special Use Permit and Off - Street
Parking Permit, 7640 Cedar Avenue
Proposal
Mr. John M. Prest has submitted a request for a special use
permit to allow the construction of a 76 seat restaurant. and 12
additional guest rooms, to an existing 94 guest room hotel. The
proposal would increase the number of off - street parking spaces by
16, providing a total of 89 off - street parking spaces, and would
require the removal of an in- ground swimming pool. The proposed
three story addition would be approximately 30 feet in height.
The property is located at 7640 Cedar Avenue and is zoned C -2 gen-
eral commercial.
�'2 (OJMS
History
In 1963 two apartment buildings were constructed at this address.
On January 12, 1976 the city council approved a special use permit
allowing conversion of these two apartment buildings to a hotel,
with the following stipulations:
1. The advertising on the rooftop sign be of a general
type as represented in the sketch submitted to the
council, and brought back to the council.
2. That the special use permit specifically limit the use
of the building to motel units and prohibit any other
commercial activities.
3. That proper directional signs be constructed at 77th
Street.
4. That a new off - street parking contract be submitted and
approved.
5. That additional landscaping be accomplished.
6. That no restaurant or meeting facilities be allowed on
the premises.
Council Letter No. 275 -2-
August 11, 1980
7. That the applicant comply with all applicable construct-
ion and fire codes.
Stipulations (2) and (6) are particularly applicable to the
present proposal. The reasoning for these stipulations was that
the addition of uses such as restaurants, meeting rooms and offices
on the site would increase traffic in the surrounding area, would
require additional parking and would contribute to an existing
parking shortage.
Staff Findings
ing:
The staff has reviewed this application and found the follow-
1. That the proposed total of 106 hotel units and a 76 seat
restaurant requires 131 off - street parking spaces and only
89 off - street parking spaces are being proposed. The staff
reviewed alternative parking designs with the applicant
and found that the number of off - street parking spaces
could be slightly increased. However, the parking lot
would still not meet the required number of off - street
parking spaces and would not meet the parking space dimen-
sion requirements.
2. That the Metropolitan Airports Commission has indicated
that this property is subject to the rules and regulations
adopted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation rel-
ative to the Minnesota Airport Zoning Statute. The prop-
erty would be located in Zone B and the proposed use would
be prohibited in this zone. The property lies approxi-
mately 6,500 feet from the southwest end of Runway 4 -22
of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. The
site is exposed to extreme amounts of aircraft noise which
could be hazardout to people working or residing on the
site.
3. That the planning commission recently adopted recommenda-
tions to be incorporated into the Airport Issues Plan por-
tion of the Comprehensive Plan. One of those recommenda-
tions states that the city should actively participate in
the Joint Airport Zoning Board to ensure that land use
control measures do not adversely affect the community.
It should be noted that the city council has not yet
adopted the comprehensive plan, and that this is, there-
fore, not an official policy of the city.
4. That the proposal is potentially hazardous to the persons
working or residing at the site should an aircraft accident
occur near runway 4 -22 of the Minneapolis -St. Paul Interna-
tional Airport.
5. That the proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive
Development Plan which indicates the site as mixed land
use, high density, and principle uses as... hotel, motel,
and retail commercial.
Council Letter No. 275 -3- August 11, 1980
6. That the.proposal is in general compliance with the
off - street parking guidelines, except that the proposed
parking spaces are 8 1/2 feet in width and the required
width is 9 feet; and that 89 off - street parking spaces
are proposed, and the off - street parking guidelines indicate
that 131 off - street parking spaces are needed.
Staff Recommendation
Although the proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive
Development Plan, the proposal does not meet off - street parking
requirements; the proposal is potentially detrimental to persons
working or residing at the site in terms of exposure to aircraft
noise and for safety reasons; and the proposal can adversely affect
the surrounding residential and commercial uses in terms of traffic
volume and lack of sufficient parking spaces. Therefore, the staff
recommends that the city council deny this application for a special
use permit and an off- street parking application.
However, should the city council wish to grant these applica-
tions, it is recommended that the attached off - street parking reso-
lution also be adopted.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission recommends that this application for a
special use permit be granted.
Respectfully submitted-,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /ej a
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
DATE: June 25, 1980
CITY OF RICHFIELD, Richfield, Minnesota
Department of Public Works - Building Division
6700 Portland avenue South
(612) 869 --7521
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE =FOR:
Q A change in zoning
Q A request for variance
By; John M. Prest
2500 North Fernbrook Lane
Plymouth, MN 55441
City
For the property or land located at:
Address • 7640 Cedar Avenue
Subdivision: -
Special Use
Apartment' Use
612- 559 -3233
Plat -
Block -
_Owner /Applican-
Address
_Bus. Phone
Parcel 7430
Lot -
General dimensions of property (attached all necessary drawings, maps):
Existing use of land: Hotel
Existing zoning: General Commercial C -2
Existing buildings? ® Yes 0 No.
Proposed changes in use. Special use permit for restaurant addition and double
r.
use of parking.
Proposed changes in zoning: None
Variance requested: None
Attach all necessary drawings, raps, and site development plans _
Anolicants Sienature Date: (" � — L�
Fee $245. 0 0 Receives] E yl :X;�� Receipt �v / Date
Fl
LI
iL
ill
WP
iM of
Kin i
O
w
Z
Li
>1
4
Ld
oI
�y
Z
`0
1
e
D
4
JI
Y
r
I
F
Z
� 4
ki
j
w
4
W
Ic I
t t
P ry �i
' � 4
La
!jr '
i ! !
I
-1
I
I
u
w
A
2
w N
1„ W
` r
Ld U, i
arm o
dZ2 0
.w�
cL p
II
�r
I1� �
r
7N4 Y
(
�7 �Q
[� 70
N
W-2
S
� � L
Dl ,
on
(jnj7 J
ILI I_I IJI J W
LL
QT
v
s�
N �(
0
W
2
�
r
II
Ic I
t t
P ry �i
' � 4
La
!jr '
i ! !
I
-1
I
I
u
w
A
2
w N
1„ W
` r
Ld U, i
arm o
dZ2 0
.w�
cL p
II
�r
I1� �
r
7N4 Y
(
�7 �Q
[� 70
N
W-2
S
� � L
Dl ,
on
(jnj7 J
ILI I_I IJI J W
LL
QT
v
s�
N �(
0
W
2
iil£ -GS5 11is� •NW .y ino wn�e 3 ^!\i�/�'C ?J b'G 7 C^ i L � � (� 11 1)
$NY"'i y001d�Ny3� M�.tf Ole OOL? NNE � T'( E R .��
�3Hrc.o L
t
I T
II I
I�
I I o!
I t
i
i
II I
I I
� I
�i
I�
t, �C
`1 " I
4
�,J J
4 �
/
n
♦ j
/ t
/
/ I
`yJt
k i
M
I
i
I
L
Us
\,\II
11
11
Q , 0
J
J �
r
r
m �
LL
�i }/� - IV- IWY��4- -JY , M WWI 1
�.�.. mom MT`r .dean +wwl, M^31 a
t
I
n
r I >!
K3 R ^f n i
I /
i ��.
i
July 7, 1980
mul"o • ca4tt Poll
P. O. BOX 1700 • TWIN CITY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111
OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
City of Richfield
Planning Department
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Gentlemen:
• PHONE (612) 726 -5770
The MAC Staff have reviewed the request for a special use permit
for 7460 Cedar Avenue South. The property in question lies
approximately 6,500' from the southwest end of Runway 4 -22
at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, and is just to
the south of the extended runway centerline. As such, it is
subjected to frequent aircraft overflights from both arrivals
and departures on this runway. The property is also expected
to be located in an area affected by the Rules and Regulations
adopted by Mn /DOT relative to the Minnesota Airport Zoning
Statute. We expect this property to be located in Zone B; the
restrictions on uses in this Zone would be as follows:
3. Zone B. Zone B shall be restricted in use as
follows:
a. Each use shall be on a site whose area shall
not be less than three acres.
b. Each use shall not create, attract, or bring
together a site population that would exceed
15 times that of the site acreage.
C. Each site shall have no more than one building
plot upon which any number of structures may be
erected.
d. A building plot shall be a single, uniform and
noncontrived area, whose shape is uncomplicated
and whose area shall not exceed the following
minimum ratios with respect to the total site area:
Ratio of
Site Area But Less Site Area to Building Max. Site
at Least Than Bldg. Plot Plot Area Population
(Acres) (Acres) Area (sq.ft.) (15 persons /A)
3 12 :1 10,900 45
4 12:1
4 10:1 17,400 60
OFFICE LOCATION -6040 28th AVE. SO. -WEST TERMINAL AREA - MINNEAPOLIS•SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
City of Richfield
Pg. 2
7/7/80
6 10:1
6 8:1 32,600 90
10 8:1
10 6:1 72,500 150
20 6:1
20 and up 4:1 218,000 300
e. The following uses are specifically prohibited in
Zone B: churches, hospitals, schools, theaters, stadiums,
hotels and motels, trailer courts, camp grounds, and
other places of public or semipublic assembly.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this request.
Sincerely yours,
�• t� `
Nigel D. Finney
Director
Planning & Engineering
NDF /jr
CITY OF RICHFIELD
6700 Portland Avenue South
PERMIT FOR:
SPECIAL USE PERMIT N APARTMENT USE PERMIT 0 REZONING D
TO: Mr. John Prest
18028 Priory Lane
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS C
You are hereby notified that your application dated November 20, 1975 for
a special use permit to allow a motel to operate as per Chapter III, Part IV, Div. 3.33,
Subd. 2, Para. (4), by converting two apartment buildings to requested use
has been (Approved) (Berried).
The following is the legal description of land affected by the above action:
That part of the SE?-;4 of the SE, lying East of Southerly ext ension of East line of 18th Avenue
South as laid out in plat of Larson's South View Gardens 2nd Addition north of East 77th Stree-
and south of North 10 acres thereof except highway. Section 35, Township 28, Range 24. Plat
44835, Parcel 7430. 7636 and 7644 Cedar Avenue South
Special Conditions:
1. The advertising on the roof top sign be of a general type as represented in the sketch
submitted to the council and brought back to the council.
2. That the special use permit specifically limit the use of the building to motel -units
prohibit any other commercial activities.
3. Proper directional signs be constructed at 77th Street.
4. New off - street parking contract be submitted and approved. -
5. That additional landscaping be accomplished.
6. No restaurant or meeting facilities be allowed on the premises.
7. That the applicant comply with all applicable construction and fire codes.
(Approved) Cacn1 d)-b the City Council January 12, 1976
(Date)
B By�
Director of Public Works----
orks C#ky Manag r
Original to Applicant
I copy Chief Inspector
I copy Planning Director
1 copy Files
421 -31
cc Wilbur F. Stewart
N' JL
nu
r
c
r n 0
15 2 LAND USE
a�
7 2 QU
14 a a� .,o 14 3 C] r0 o
W 13 4 Ld w i$r 3 W
n
D N Q V D 0 V4t-5,4 N Q �a S q U p Q
D 10 v
N N ❑ v r
2 5 " ul
H --
D 8 3
to (�� M0 to f� Fl M 3 & S SEE4i!{3 --
c s , 4 D
9 8 rl Q 9 80_ 6 5. -_a
n
°o a 16 1
a
'512
�a
ZQ
n �
nU
14 13
13!4
12j6
11 '6
41
10 7
9 I
D� z
n O
�o
a c_Z
G
D°
N O
Fn
�m
N
nFn
Q
ST
- ___ZONING
- GENERAL COMMERCIAL I
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — +
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
i
I
-- ---------
- - - - - - - - - - -
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR
OFF - STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH
APPLICATION NO. 80 -6, CONTRACT NO. 2325
Name: John M. Prest
Address: 2500 Fernbrook Lane
Plymouth, MN 55441
Location: 7640 Cedar Avenue South
Use: Hotel and Restaurant
(The Inn)
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off - street parking
as contained in Off - Street Parking Application No. 80 -6, Contract
No. 2325 is hereby approved subject to and upon completion of
performance of the contract for such off - street parking as
hereinafter authorized.
2. That the proposed off - street parking contract for the
improvement of said off - street parking, bearing contract No. 2325 be
placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said
contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on
behalf of this city.
3. That the off - street parking operator provide the City of
Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving withdrawal
authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by the
community development director and city manager, to ensure the off -
street parking lot is constructed within the terms and regulations of
the Off - Street Parking Agreement.
4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of
said Off - Street Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the
off- street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05.
Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this 11th
day of August, 1980
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
IL
O
8 i`}L
LL
4W
Jl '� \fir, � r '��
-ILA
< Lo
ltp ° l
I
gg , � � z
O
w W
17-71 Z
QL
ll
OI
tj
4W
Jl '� \fir, � r '��
-ILA
< Lo
ltp ° l
I
gg , � � z
O
w W
17-71 Z
QL
ll
OI
POSITIVE POINTS FOR THE APPLICATION.
ALL OF US HERE TONIGHT ARE BUSINESS PEOPLE. WE CAN UNDERSTAND
THE MOTIVES AND REASONING BEHIND DECISIONS THAT EFFECT THE
SUCCESS OF ANY ENTERPRISE.
ONE CONCEPT OF GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE IS-TO SMOOTH OUT THE
PEAKS AND.VALLEYS OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY.
THIS IS AGAIN ILLUSTRATED IN THE PARKING CHART. YOU CAN SEE
THAT PRESENTLY THE FACILITIES ARE NOT USED TO PRIME EFFICIENCY
DURING THE TIME FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M."
THE RESTAURANT IS USED TO HELP FILL THAT GAP. YOU CAN SEE
THAT THE PARKING AREA IS STILL NOT GOING TO BE FILLED, YET
WITH THE VOLUME PREDICTED, THE RESTAURANT WILL BE ABLE TO
FINANCIALLY SUPPORT ITSELF.
i
i
-
-
-
i -
t
' UJ
d j
a
I
Za
to %Y;
a =
? 0
Z o
i
Q
f
L
o�0000
"2 Nl71*,�ibe
'IV1o_L
J
Z
0
a�
a�
d�
�o
z
L
Z] 4
�d I
i
� � I
Z
3�
W
Q
-
o��
coy
�N1x�ed -IY.LO- .
LAST FRIDAY MORNING, THE 18TH, OUR ARCHITECT, DAVID BERTELSON,
SHOWED TOM MACGIBBON, OF RICHFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT, OUR
OTHER HOTEL AND RESTAURANT IN ST. PAUL.
THE RESTAURANT IS INTEGRAL WITH THE HOTEL. THERE ARE SOME
SIMILARITIES CONCERNING SHARED OR COMMON PARKING.
THE BELOW FIGURES SHOW THAT THERE WILL BE A BETTER RATIO OF
PARKING SPACES TO RESTAURANT SEATS -PLUS HOTEL GUEST.ROOMS IN
RICHFIELD THAN AT THE INN IN ST. PAUL.
THE INN - ST. PAUL - ACROSS FROM C M C CENTER
PARKING 115
RESTAURANT 157 SEATS 115 to (157 & 148)
GUEST ROOMS 148 IS A 1 TO 2.7 RATIO
THE INN - RICHFIELD - AIRPORT
PARKING 89
RESTAURANT 76 SEATS 89 TO (76 & 106)
GUESTROOMS 106 IS A 1 TO 2.0 RATIO
I AM SURE TOM WOULD AGREE THAT THE INN ACROSS FROM THE CIVIC
CENTER IN ST. PAUL IS A VERY CLEAN, UNCONGESTED OPERATION.
THE RESTAURANT CREATES BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE DAY AND
WEEKENDS. THIS ACTIVITY IS ALWAYS DESIRABLE IN TERMS OF CITY
PLANNING.
THERE ARE 4 PEAK GROUPS OF CUSTOMER USE FOR THIS KIND OF
RESTAURANT. BREAKFAST, LUNCH, SUPPER AND DESSERT GROUP.
AT ANY POINT DURING THE BREAKFAST WE PROJECT SEATING:
69% HOTEL GUESTS
28% DRIVE -UP CUSTOMERS
3% EMPLOYEES
100% OCCUPIED
THAT BREAKS DOWN TO:
53 HOTEL GUESTS
21 DRIVE -UP CUSTOMERS
2 EMPLOYEES
76 TOTAL
AT THAT TIME THE PARKING LOT WILL HAVE:
25 & (28) PARKING SPACES USED BY HOTEL GUESTS
(NOT USING THE RESTAURANT)
7 PARKING SPACES USED BY DRIVE -UP CUSTOMERS
10 PARKING SPACES USED BY EMPLOYEES
70 SPACES FILLED
AT ANY POINT DURING THE NOON LUNCH WE PROJECT SEATING:
13% HOTEL GUESTS
84% DRIVE -UP CUSTOMERS
3% ' EMPLOYEES
100% OCCUPIED
THAT BREAKS DOWN TO:
10 HOTEL GUESTS
64 DRIVE -UP CUSTOMERS
2 EMPLOYEES
76 TOTAL SEATS
AT THAT TIME THE PARKING LOT WILL HAVE:
3 & (12) PARKING SPACES USED BY HOTEL GUESTS
(NOT USING THE RESTAURANT)
25 PARKING SPACES USED BY DRIVE -UP CUSTOMERS
10 PARKING SPACES USED BY EMAOYEES.
50 SPACES FILLED
A �
AT ANY POINT DURING THE SUPPER WE PROJECT 'SEATING'
18%, HOTEL GUESTS
79% DRIVE -UP CUSTOMERS
3% EMPLOYEES
100% OCCUPIED
THAT BREAKS DOWN TO:
14 HOTEL GUESTS
60 DRIVE -UP CUSTOMERS
2 EMPLOYEES
76 TOTAL
AT THAT TIME THE PARKING LOT WILL HAVE:
4 & (11) PARKING SPACES USED BY HOTEL GUESTS
(NOT USING THE RESTAURANT)
25 PARKING SPACES USED BY DRIVE -UP CUSTOMERS
10 PARKING SPACES USED BY EMPLOYEES
50 SPACES FILLED
f
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport St. Paul, Minnesota 55111
July 22, 1980
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I would be in support of adding restaurant facilities to
The Inn, 7640 Cedar Avenue South. This would allow the
airline to utilize The Inn for housing of crew members on
short layovers in the airport vicinity.
Presently when looking for accommodations on short notice we
are unable to use The Inn other than as a last resort because
of the requirement to house them where food is readily
available.
I feel the restaurant additions would be of benefit to the
airlines to allow for booking crew members at The Inn as
well as passengers and other employees.
Sincerely,
W. L. Siemeri§zg
''Manager, Flight Administration, E.R.
s,
,.!8A Coast-to Co 3s! • f Ic-L1,1 Ph -hpr _. • Hung r__.
AT ANY POINT DURING THE DESSERT GROUP WE PROJECT SEATING:
72% HOTEL GUESTS
25% DRIVE -UP CUSTOMERS
3% EMPLOYEES
100% OCCUPIED
THAT BREAKS DOWN TO:
55 HOTEL GUESTS
19 DRIVE -UP CUSTOMERS
2 EMPLOYEES
76: TOTAL
AT THAT TIME THE PARKING LOT WILL HAVE:
27 (30) PARKING SPACES USED BY HOTEL GUESTS
(NOT USING THE RESTAURANT)
h
7 PARKING SPACES USED BY DRIVE -UP CUSTOMERS
6 PARKING SPACES USED BY EMPLOYEES
70 SPACES FILLED
r\
REPUBLIC AIRLINES, INC.
July 22, 1980
Mr. John Prest
The Inn Hotels
175 West 7th Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Mr. Prest:
As per our conversation, Republic Airlines would be interested in
the use of your facility for housing of students while in training.
Our interest, however, is contingent upon availability of an on -site
restaurant inasmuch as our students are flown in from throughout
the country and do not have local transportation available to them.
DEB:ie
Sincerely_,
D. E. Breister
Director
Passenger Service Training
7 2 6. 74 1 1
7506 Aii- i V E DR I V E �
M I N N E A P 0 L 15 M I N N EF - i A 5 5 4 5 0
Ig D
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 274
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000
Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates
that the city council must approve pruchases of merchandise,
materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds
$1,000. There is one such item for the city council agenda of
August 1 1 , 1980.
The Lyndale Avenue liquor store has been undergoing an im-
provement program which began in 1979 and will continue through
1980. In 1979 the exterior of the liquor store was improved
with new facade, parking lot improvements, fencing, landscaping
in the rear, and storm drainage considerations. In 1980, after
Labor Day, a major improveme lit will be made to the inside of -the
liquor store in terms of the ceiling, floor,,�alls and other
aesthetic considerations. In 1981, in conjunction with the Lyn -
dale Avenue project, the area in front of the Lyndale Avenue
liquor store will be improved altering the landscaping design
in that area. In conjunction with that, we have considered im-
provements to the signing identifying the Richfield Liquor Store.
During a recent windstorm, the Lyndale Avenue liquor store
sign was damaged considerably. As a result, it would be advant-
ageous to make improvements to the sign at this time rather than
waiting until 1981. Bids were taken both for improving the ex-
isting and for construction of a new sign which would meet the
urban design elements of the L /H /N area. The existing sign is
oversized under the guidelines and does not have the appropriate
earthy tones as suggested in the guidelines adopted by the HRA.
Bids for improvement to the existing sign were received in the
amounts of $3,585; $3,966 and $2,950. Bids for construction of
a new sign, in conformance with the L /H /N guidelines, were re-
ceived in the amount of $3,125; $3,100 and $2,785. The city
has a particular moral obligation to conform with the L /H /N
guidelines for its municipal enterprise since it is requiring
private enterprise to come into adherence with those guidelines.
In addition, the cost of the new sign is actually less than the
cost of bringing the existing sign into conformance with the
urban design elements.
J
+ Council Letter No. 274 -2- August 11, 1980
There is currently remaining in the liquor store improve-
ment project, a budget of $15,538 due to the low bids on the
interior improvements. As a result of these matters, it is
recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of a
new sign for the Richfield Liquor Store in the amount of $2,785
to Lawrence Signs. The sign would be seven foot by seven foot
by four and three - quarter inches, and the top of the sign would
stand nineteen foot, four and three - quarters inches off of the
ground. The appearance of the sign would be very similar to the
Penn Avenue liquor store sign in terms of lettering, with addi-
tional wood element added to conform to the L /H /N guidelines.
It is recommended that the council approve the low bid in
the amount of $2,785 from Lawrence Signs for the new sign.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /ej a
cc: Liquor Stores Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 273
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Appeal of Denial of Taxicab Drivers License
Earlier this year, the city council amended the ordinance
procedures used for the issuance of various licenses and provided,
in some cases, for licenses to be issued or denied at the city
staff level. One of the ordinance amendments included at that
time was to allow the Director of Public Safety, under my author -
ization, to issue or deny taxicab drivers licenses. In the case
of a dispute, particularly with regard to a denial, the applicant
has the recourse to appeal directly to the city council.
Recently, two applicants have been denied taxicab drivers
licenses on the basis of their records of traffic violation con-
victions. These applicants have requested an opportunity to appeal
the license denial to the city council. We have scheduled these
appeals for the regular city council meeting on August 11, 1980.
At that time, the Director of Public Safety will introduce testimony
in support of the license denials. The applicants have been in-
formed of this hearing, and of their right to be present and to be
represented by legal counsel during this process.
Respectfully submitted,
I \C
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Public Safety Director
Deputy City Clerk
City Attorney
/FC
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 272
Agenda August 11, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of'the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement
Suburban Police Recruitment System
On December 10, 1979, the city council entered into a joint
powers agreement with 40 other suburban metropolitan area muni-
cipalities to establish a system for the joint selection of police
officers. The system has been in operation since the first of the
year and seems to be developing as we had originally anticipated.
As yet, Richfield has not had a police officer vacancy and we have,
therefore, not utilized the system outselves. However, as the
council may recall, this joint powers agreement was the result
of a four -year effort to develop uniform validated standards for
police selection in which both our Public Safety Director and City
Attorney were involved.
As the joint powers organization has entered into operations,
some areas in the original joint powers agreement have appeared
to need modification.. Basically, these amendments would:
1. Remove limitations upon whom may be appointed as
Director and Alternate Director;
2. Include language to assure that meetings of the Execu-
tive Committee are scheduled in conformance with Minn-
esota's "Open Meeting Law."
3. Establish guidelines for disbursing funds in accordance
with statutory requirements;
4. Clarify the distribution of assets (or liabilities) , of
the organization in accordance with state statute in the
event of its dissolution.
It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director in which
I concur, that these amendments be approved. Attached is a formal
copy of the amendment to the agreement, with a resolution for the
council's consideration in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Public Safety Director
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT IN THE
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OF THE SUBURBAN
POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is authorized by Minnesota
Statute 471.59, to enter into joint and cooperative agreements
with other governmental units; and
WHEREAS, this city council has entered into such an agree-
ment among other suburban municipalities in the seven - county
metropolitan area, for the establishment of the Suburban Police
Recruitment System; and
WHEREAS, this action of the city council was taken on December
10, 1979; and
WHEREAS, this city council has determined that it would be
advantageous to the operation of the system to make certain amend-
ments to the Joint Powers Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of Richfield,
Minnesota, that the first amendment to the joint and cooperative
agreement for the Suburban Police Recruitment System is hereby
approved.
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, this 11th
day of August, 1980.
Donald J. Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Deputy City Clerk
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the undersigned is a municipal governmental unit of the State of
Minnesota which has entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement with other such
governmental units establishing the Suburban Police Recruitment System (SPRS); and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of those governmental units which currently are
members of the SPRS to amend said Agreement in a uniform manner;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED that the Joint and Cooperative Agreement
establishing the Suburban Police Recruitment System shall be amended as follows:
1. Article IV of said Agreement shall be amended by deleting from section 2
thereof the second sentence in its entirety.
2. Article VIII of said Agreement shall be amended by deleting from Section 4
thereof the fourth sentence in its entirety.
3. Article VIII of said Agreement shall be amended by adding at the end of
Section 6 thereof the following new sentence:
"The disbursement of SPRS funds also shall be made in accordance with
Minnesota Statute §471.59, Subdivision 3, and with all applicable bylaws of the
SPRS."
4. Article XII of said Agreement shall be amended by deleting therefrom
Section 3 in its entirety and by inserting therefor the following new Section:
"Section 3. In the event of a dissolution, following the payment of all
outstanding obligations, all assets of the SPRS shall be distributed among the
then existing members in direct proportion to their initial SPRS membership
1
fees. Should such obligations exceed assets of the SPRS, the net deficit of the
SPRS shall be charged to and paid- by the then existing members in direct
proportion to their initial SPRS membership fees. For the purposes of this
Section, "initial SPRS membership fees" of municipalities -which did not parti-
cipate in the Suburban Police Personnel Selection Standards Project shall be
considered one -tenth (1 /10) of the membership fees actually paid by them to the
SPRS."
THIS AMENDMENT shall become effective when it has been duly executed by
the current members of the SPRS and copies thereof have been filed with Public
Management Consultants, 326 South Broadway Avenue, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned municipality has caused this Amend-
ment to be executed and delivered on its behalf.
IN THE PRESENCE OF: MUNICIPALITY:
By
(Title)
RECEIVED AND FILED
this day of And
, 19_ (Title)
2
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
SUBURBAN POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM
PREAMBLE. The parties hereto are municipal governmental units of the State
of Minnesota. This agreement is made and entered into pursuant to Minnesota Statute
§471.59.
I. General Purpose. The general purpose of this agreement is to establish and
provide the operating framework for a joint powers organization which will recruit
candidates for entry -level police positions in the cooperating municipalities and which
will assist the cooperating municipalities in evaluating candidates for these positions.
Establishment of the proposed organization represents the conclusion of the Suburban
Police Personnel Selection Standards Project, a four -year research effort by the
cooperating municipalities, the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Area
' Management Association to develop valid, non - discriminatory selection standards and
procedures for entry -level police positions.
II. Definitions.
Section 1. Board - the Board of Directors of the Suburban Police Recruitment
System.
Section 2. City Council - the governing body of a member municipality.
Section 3. Member - any suburban municipality which has entered into this
agreement and which is in compliance with the provisions hereof.
Section 4. Suburban Municipality any municipality within the seven - county
metropolitan area other than the cities; of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Section 5. Suburban Police Recruitment System (SPRS) - the joint powers
organization established pursuant to this agreement.
III. Membership.
Section 1. Any suburban municipality shall be eligible to become a member of
the SPRS.
1
Section 2. Charter members of the SPHS shall be those members which join
the system prior to February 1, 1980. Charter membership shall be restricted to those
municipalities which have participated in the Suburban Police Personnel Selection
Standards Project.
Section 3. Any suburban municipality eligible to join the SPRS prior to
February 1, 1980, may indicate its desire to do so by filing a duly executed copy of this
agreement with Public Management Consultants, 326 South Broadway, Wayzata, Minne-
sota 55391. Said agreement shall be accompanied by a certified copy of a resolution
adopted by the City Council of that municipality authorizing execution of the
agreement and designating the municipality's initial Director and Alternate Director.
This agreement shall become effective when it has been duly executed by ten eligible
suburban municipalities and when executed copies from these municipalities have been
filed as set forth herein.
Section 4. Suburban municipalities desiring to join the SPRS after February 1,
1980, shall be admitted only upon a favorable vote of fifty -one percent (51 %) of the
total membership of the Board at a regular or special meeting. The Board also may
impose such conditions upon the admission of members, other than charter members, as
it deems appropriate.
IV. Board of Directors.
Section 1. The governing body of the SPRS shall be its Board of Directors.
Each member municipality shall be entitled to appoint one Director to the Board, who
shall have one vote. Each member municipality also shall be entitled to appoint one
Alternate Director to the Board, who may attend meetings of the Board and who may
vote in the absence of that member's Director.
Section 2. Directors and Alternate Directors shall be appointed by a reso-
lution of each member's City Council. The Director and Alternate Director shall be
that member's chief administrative officer, assistant chief administrative officer, chief
Of Dolice (or equivalent) �r chief's f:;. °sz assistari%
- -re`.- ' y:
ar.
Section 3. The SPRS shall be notified of the appointment of a Director or an
Alternate Director by the appointing member filing with the Board a copy of the
resolution making said appointment. Accompanying this resolution shall be the mailing
address of the person so appointed, to be used by the Board as that person's official
address for the purpose of giving any notice required either by this agreement or by
bylaws of the Board.
Section 4. Directors and Alternate Directors shall be appointed to serve until
their successors are appointed and qualified.
Section 5. A Director or Alternate Director may be removed from the Board
at any time, with or without cause, by a resolution of the City Council originally
appointing that person to the Board. The SPRS shall be notified of the removal of a
Director or Alternate Director by the removing member filing with the Board a copy of
the resolution effecting said removal.
Section 6. Any vacancy on the Board shall be filled by the City Council of the
member municipality whose position on the-Board is vacant.
Section 7. There shall be no voting by proxy. All votes must be cast in person
at Board meetings by a member's Director or Alternate Director.
Section 8. If at any time a member municipality is in default on any
agreement with the SPRS or is in arrears on any dues or charges of the SPRS, during the
existence of such default or arrearage the voting rights of said member shall be
suspended.
V. Meetings.
Section 1. The first meeting of the Board shall be held during the month of
February, 1980. At this meeting the Board shall elect a President, a Vice President,
and a Secretary- Treasurer, as provided in Section VII -1 hereof, and four additional
members of the Executive Committee, as provided in Section VIII -1 Hereof.
3
G
Section 2. At the first meeting of the Board, or as soon thereafter as is
reasonably possible, the Board shall adopt bylaws governing its meetings and proce-
dures. Such bylaws may be amended from time to time as provided therein. However,
regular meetings of the Board shall be held at least semi - annually during the months of
February and August each year.
Section 3. The specific date, tfine and location of regular and special
meetings of the Board shall be determined by the Executive Committee. All meetings
of the Board, however, shall be held within the seven - county metropolitan area.
Section 4. Notice of regular meetings of the Board shall be given to the
Directors and Alternate Directors by the Secretary- Treasurer at least fifteen (15) days
in advance of the meeting, and the agenda for all such meetings shall accompany the
notice. However, business at the Board's regular meetings shall not be limited to
matters set forth on the agenda.
Section 5. Special meetings of the Board may be called by the President, by C
the Executive Committee, or by the Executive Committee upon the written request of
a majority of the Directors. Notice of special meetings of the Board shall be given to
the Directors and Alternate Directors by the Secretary- Treasurer at least five (5) days
in advance of the meeting, and the agenda for all such meetings shall accompany the
notice.
VI. Powers and Duties of the Board.
Section 1. The Board shall take such action as it deems necessary and
appropriate to accomplish the general purposes of the SPRS and to provide the services
contemplated herein. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the establishment
and operation of a cooperative recruitment and placement system for police officers
and the establishment and operation of uniform testing and evaluation procedures for
police positions. These activities and any other activities authorized by this agreement
or authorized at a regular or special meeting of the Board may be undertaken in any one
or more of the manner! o;;'_n.ed herein.
Section 2. The Board shall have full control over and management of its
affairs, which shall include the powers (a) to enter into contracts, leases or similar
agreements with others; (b) to provide for the prosecution, defense or other partici-
pation in actions or proceedings at law in which it may have an interest; (c) to employ
such persons as it deems necessary on a full -time, part -time or consulting basis; (d) to
conduct research into any police selection' matter; (e) to purchase, hold and dispose of
- property, both real and personal; (f) to purchase public liability insurance and other
bonds or insurance; and (g) to contract for space, commodities or personal services with
a member or a group of members.
Section 3. The Board may establish and collect membership dues, charges for
services to members and non - members, and charges for services to applicants or
potential applicants for employment.
Section 4. The Board may accept gifts, may apply for and use grants or loans
of money or other property from the state or federal governments or from any other
governmental unit, may enter into any agreements required in connection therewith,
and may hold, use and dispose of such moneys or property in accordance with the terms
of the gift, grant, loan or agreement relating thereto.
Section 5. The Board shall cause an annual independent audit to be made of
the books of the SPRS, and it shall make an annual financial report to its members in
writing prior to each year's February, meeting of the Board. The books and records of
the SPRS shall be available and open to examination by all members of the system at
any reasonable time. The Board also shall establish an annual budget for the SPRS, in
accordance with the applicable provisions of this agreement.
Section 6. The Board may delegate authority to the Executive Committee
between Board meetings, except that the Board may not delegate its authority to
establish membership dues and service charges. Any such delegation of authority shall
be made by a resolution of the Board, and it may be conditioned in any such manner as
the Board deems appropriate.
o�
incidental to the above powers and duties, but which may be required to effectively
Section 7. The Board may exercise such other powers and duties as are C
implement and carry out this agreement.
VII. Officers of the Board.
Section 1. The officers of the Board shall consist of a President, a Vice
President and a Secretary - Treasurer, all of whom shall be Directors. These officers
shall be elected annually at the regular meeting of the Board held during the month of
February. New officers shall take office at the adjournment of the Board meeting at
which they are elected.
Section 2. Upon the resignation or death of an officer, or upon an officer's
ceasing to be an employee of the appointing member municipality, a vacancy shall
occur in that office. Upon the occurrence of such a vacancy, the Executive Committee
shall fill the vacant position on an interim basis until the next meeting of the Board.
Section 3. The three officers of the Board all shall be members of the
Executive Committee.
Section 4. The President shall preside at all meetings of the Board and the
Executive Committee. The Vice President shall act as President in the absence of the
President.
Section 5. The Secretary- Treasurer shall be responsible for keeping a record
of all proceedings of the Board and the Executive Committee, for the custody of all
SPRS funds, for the keeping of all financial records of the SPRS, and for such other
matters as may be delegated to this position by the Board.
Section 6. The President and the Secretary - Treasurer shall sign all vouchers
disbursing funds of the SPRS.
VIII. Executive Committee.
Section 1. The Board of Directors shall have an Executive Committee
consisting of the Board's three officers and four other Directors, all of whom shall be
6
elected annually at the regular meeting of the Board held during the month of February.
Vacancies on the Executive Committee shall be filled by the Committee on an interim
basis until the next meeting of the Board.
Section 2. A quorum at any meeting of the Executive Committee shall be four
Committee members.
Section 3. The Executive Committee may adopt bylaws governing its own
meetings and procedures. Such bylaws, if adopted, shall be subject to this agreement,
to the bylaws of the Board, and to any applicable resolution or other directive of the
Board.
Section 4. The Executive Committee shall meet at the call of the President
or upon the call of any two other members of the Committee. The date, time and
location of a Committee meeting shall be established by the person or persons calling
the meeting. At least forty - eight (48) hours advance written notice of any meeting of
V
the Executive _ Committee shall be given to all members of the Committee by said
person or persons. However, such notice may be waived by any five members of the
:Executive Committee who actually attend a Committee meeting or who give their
written waiver of the required notice for that meeting.
Section 5. The Executive Committee may exercise those powers and perform
those duties delegated to it by the Board, subject to such conditions and limitations as
may be imposed by the Board. The Executive Committee shall report on its activities
at each regular meeting of the Board.
Section 6. The Executive Committee shall cause to be prepared a proposed
budget for the SPRS for each calendar year, which shall be submitted to.the Board at
least thirty (30) days in advance of the preceding year's August meeting of the Board.
The Executive Committee shall receive and disburse funds of the SPRS in accordance
with the budget for the system subsequently adopted by the Board.
7
Section 7. Subject to the provisions of the adopted budget, upon authorization
^� by the Board the Executive Committee may appoint, fix the conditions of employment,
and remove any employee of the SPRS, and upon authorization by the Board it may
negotiate and enter into contracts with consultants and contractors to the SPRS. The
Executive Committee shall direct and supervise the activities of all employees of the
SPRS and of all consultants and contractors,to the SPRS.
Section 8. The Executive Committee shall not take any action which is not
authorized by this agreement or which is not delegated to it by the Board.
IX. Financial Matters.
Section 1. The fiscal year for the SPRS shall be the calendar year.
Section 2. An annual budget for the SPRS shall be adopted by the Board at its
regular meeting held during the month of August each year. Copies of the adopted
budget shall be mailed promptly thereafter to the chief administrative officer of each
member municipality. This budget shall be deemed approved by each member
municipality unless, prior to November 15th of that year, a member gives written
notice to the Board that it is withdrawing from the SPRS for the following year.
Section 3. The Board shall have the authority to establish a method for
sharing operating costs of the SPRS in excess of any federal, state or other outside
assistance received. Billings from the SPRS to member municipalities shall be due
when rendered. Any member whose bill has not been paid within forty -five (45) days
after a billing shall be in default, and that member's voting privileges shall be suspended
as provided in Section IV -8 hereof. In the event of a dispute regarding an amount which
is due and payable, a member nevertheless shall make the payment in order to preserve
its membership status, but such payment may be made under protest and without
prejudice to dispute the bill and to exercise any remedies available to it.
X. Administrator.
Section 1. An administrator of the SPRS may be appointed by the Board or by
the Executive Committee, upon specific authorization by the Board. Such an adminis-
trator may be employed on a full -time, part -time or consulting basis.
Section 2. An administrator, if appointed, shall have only those powers and
duties which specifically are delegated to the administrator by the Board. An
administrator shall report to the Executive Committee, which shall be responsible for
directing and supervising all activities of the administrator.
XI. Withdrawal.
Section 1. Any member may withdraw from the SPRS upon thirty (30) days
written notice to the Board.
Section 2. The withdrawal of a member shall not affect that member's
obligation to pay any fees or charges for which it may be obligated under this
agreement.
XII. Dissolution.
( Section 1. The SPRS may be dissolved upon a two - thirds (2/3) vote of all SPRS
members.
Section 2. In the event of a dissolution the Board shall determine the
measures necessary to effect the dissolution and shall provide for the taking of such
measures as promptly as circumstances permit, subject to the provisions of this
agreement.
Section 3. In the event of a dissolution, following the payment of all out-
standing obligations, all assets of the SPRS shall be distributed among the members in
equal proportions. Should such obligations exceed assets of the SPRS, the net deficit of
the SPRS shall be charged to and paid by the members in equal proportions.
XIII. Duration. This agreement shall continue in effect indefinitely, unless
terminated in accordance with the terms hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned suburban municipality has caused this
agreement to be executed and delivered on its behalf.
1 9