Loading...
12-08-80 agendaO CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 422 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amendment to Animal Control Ordinance Second Reading. Since June, 1980, the city council has been considering vari- ous animal control regulations, in response to complaints from residents regarding "animals at large" and complaints regarding animal feces in resident's yards and city'playgrounds and parks. At the November 10, 1980 city council meeting, the council gave first reading consideration to an ordinance amendment that provides for progressively higher fees for impoundments of "at large" animals; an ordinance giving authority to dispose of ani- mals after a second attack on a person; and a pooper scooper . ordinance. A copy of that ordinance amendment is attached to this council letter. This ordinance amendment is placed on the December 8, 1980 city council agenda for second reading consid- eration. KN /jf .0 Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager J 11 Council Letter No. 436 -2- December 8, 1980 project, should be amended to recommend that the city council approve the ordinance relating to rezoning and the ordinance re- lating to the sale of property, and to continue the public hear- ing on the two ordinances concerning vacation of the street and alley to February 23, 1981. Respectfully submitted, J40� Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Development Director Housing and Redevelopment Specialist 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 435 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Waiver of LHN Urban Design Elements to Allow Improvements at Dairy Queen Restaurant at First Avenue and 66th Street At the November 24, 1980 city council meeting, Mr. David Doll appeared before the council to request a waiver to the LHN Urban Design Elements which would permit him to make improvement to his property. The council scheduled consideration of this request for the December 8 meeting. Mr. Doll wishes to improve and upgrade his existing restaurant by a new red aluminum shingle mansard -style roof and a new sign at • the existing Dairy Queen restaurant at First Avenue and 66th Street. Mr. Doll originally proposed to add gold or beige tone aluminum siding on the exterior walls also. However, it is now proposed that the paint on the exterior walls will be touched up and then earth tone face brick veneer will be added at a future date to bring the building in compliance with the Urban Design Elements. The staff could not issue a building permit for the proposed improve- ments because they do not meet the LHN Urban Design Elements. The Urban Design Elements indicate that primary building materials should consist of "warm" natural materials. These would include deep tone brick, stone, stucco, and wood in natural or "earthy" tones. The proposed use of red aluminum shingles and gold tone aluminum siding clearly does not meet this criteria. Mr. Doll has indicated that Dairy Queen would not approve alternate colors or materials for the proposed roof. One of the important objectives of the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet redevelopment project is to promote a positive image in the project area by identifying and enhancing the distinctive qualities in the area and by setting appropriate design standards for future devel- opment. The Urban Design Elements are the design standards which the city council and the HRA adopted at the beginning of the project. The Urban Design Elements include general standards for signs, lighting, landscaping, building materials, pedestrian amenities, and buffer areas. It is important to note that these are general guidelines rather than detailed requirements. The intent of the Urban Design Elements is to set the design tone and to establish aesthetic and functional standards while still allowing developers or property owners flexibility to deal with the unique problems which individual sites may present. 49 Council Letter No. 435 -2- December 8, 1980 It is important that the city council continue to use the Urban Design Elements in their review of projects in the L /H /N area. The design elements have set the tone for building and site design in the L /H /N area. It is important that future projects continue to be developed within the design framework established by the Urban Design Elements so that new development is compatible with the de- velopment which has occurred to date, and so that all developments present a positive unified image. This positive unified image will not only present a pleasant visual appearance e; but will also tie the area together as one shopping area. This positive image will also help create a comfortable environment for shoppers and en- courage them to shop throughout the commercial area. Developments which have met or will meet the Urban Design Ele- ments include the Lyndale Business Center, Nelson's Restaurant, Minnesota Savings & Loan Building, renovation of the Lyndale Hardware store, renovation of the Lyndale Liquor Store, and the renovation of the Ahlquist Commercial Building along the east side of Lyndale Avenue between 64th Street and 65th Street. While the change in proposed improvements to provide earth tone brick on the exterior walls instead of gold tone aluminum siding • would mean that the structure would be substantially in compliance with the Urban Design Elements, staff must recommend that the request for a waiver be denied because the red aluminum shingle mansard -roof would not meet the Urban Design Elements. Also, the city at this time, has no guarantee that the brick will be added at a future date as proposed. L-11 Respectfully submitted, FS. �C;LS Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MIWO�ESOTA Office of City Ma�a er Council Letter No. 434 Agenda December 8, 1980 F � The Honorable Mayor f /41 N /� and o�F / a �. N Members of the City Council,2 � �� w o City of Richfield _�1 o �y Council Members: d' ��✓ `r Q Subject: Public Hearing Regarding Sidewalk Improvements, 76th Street A public hearing on the 1981 sidewalk construction project has been scheduled for the December 8, 1980 council meeting. The pro- ject is in accordance with the sidewalk policy established at the October 27, 1980 council meeting (copies attached) and notices have been mailed to all affected property owners. The project will complete the sidewalk system on both sides of 76th Street from Cedar Avenue to Xerxes Avenue. Exhibit A shows the areas designated for proposed sidewalk construction. • The sidewalk will be constructed of concrete, five feet wide and four inches thick. It will generally be placed in the boulevard, one foot from the right -of -way line and will match the existing grade wherever possible. Handicap ramps will be constructed at every intersection by replacing the existing curbs. The sidewalk assessment policy establishes the following assess- ment procedure: - All costs of the project will be spread evenly over the total length of sidewalk to produce a cost per lineal foot. - Single family and 2 family residential property shall be assessed 20 percent of the cost of the abutting sidewalk, however, the maximum assessment for residential will be based upon the shortest of the two primary dimensions of the property. - All other properties will be assessed for 50 percent of the cost of the sidewalk abutting the property. The total project will include the sidewalk, sod, handicap ramps, administration and engineering costs. The engineers estimate for 76th Street is $290,625 or $15.50 a lineal foot. The increase over the original estimate is due to the installation of handicap ramps at each intersection, anticipated increased concrete prices, and costs related to retaining walls on the west end of the project. In addition, 15 trees would have to be removed to install the sidewalks. • IL Council Letter No. 434 -2- December 8, 1980 The first sidewalk cost computed did not include the costs of the handicapped ramps which will cost approximately $300 per ramp. This translates to $3.40 per lineal foot. The increased costs of concrete amount to $1.50 per lineal foot. Finally, the costs of the retaining walls on the west end of the project amount to $.60 per lineal foot. The council will have to decide if the handicapped ramps and the retaining walls should be part of the assessable base or borne totally by the city through the state aid funds. It is recommended that the council exclude those two elements for the pur- pose of computing the assessable amounts. A resolution ordering the project is attached should the council choose to proceed at the December 8 meeting. It is recommended that the council approve the resolution. Respectfully submitted, n1 it Karl Nollanberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director City Engineer xr� a r 0 ----------- CL "; iF Al Nr snanrt,m W J I _ .�� R Nr ♦unez»e - Al Nr aw„p � 1 ¢ � !� r� L\ ` J T \__ ��r V_ —�I —_— �_ - -� �' N• avxm J w c V7 0 )y rn O t�.. C RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING CITY PROJECT 727 - SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The improvement designated as City Project 727, described in the notice of hearing and as proposed by the Council in a resolution adopted on the 27th day of October, 1980, is hereby ordered. The engineer is hereby authorized and directed to proceed to prepare complete plans and specifications for said improvement. 2. Said improvement shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of December, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk I� 0 RESOLUTION'NO. 6331 WHEREAS, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota desires to construct a unified pedestrian system in Richfield, BE IT NOW RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota that a sidewalk policy be adopted, as follows: 1. The arterial street of 66th Street, 76th Street, Penn Avenue, Lyndale Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, and Portland Avenue shall have sidewalks on both sides of the street. 2. The collector streets of 65th Street from Xerxes Avenue to Penn Avenue and Rae Drive to Nicollet Avenue; 67th Street from Nic- ollet Avenue to Portland Avenue; 69th Street from Xerxes Avenue to I -35W; 70th Street from Lyndale Avenue to Diagonal Boulevard; 73rd Street from Lyndale Avenue to Diagonal Boulevard; Lake Shore Drive 0 . from 66th Street to Lyndale Avenue; 12th Avenue from 66th Strut to I -494; Bloomington Avenue from 62nd Street to 66th Street; Cedar Avenue from 63rd Street to 77th Street; Standish Avenue from 63rd Street to 66th Street and Diagonal Boulevard, shall have sidewalk installed on one side of the street. If no sidewalks exist on east - west arterial streets, new sidewalks will be installed on the north side of the street. If part of the street has existing sidewalks, continuity shall be maintained. �`• 3. Second Avenue from 77th Street to the I -494 pedestrian over- pass, shall have a sidewalk on one side. 0 4. All single family and two - family residential property shall be assessed 20% of the front foot cost for new sidewalk construction. All other properties shall be assessed 50% of the front foot cost. 5. If a single family or two family lot has new sidewalks con- structed on two sides of the lot, the total assessment shall be no more than 20% of the front foot cost times the shorter dimension. 6. All curbs that the sidewalk crosses shall be reconstructed for a handicap ramp. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of October, 1980. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting;City Clerk Donald J. Priebe Ma,,, cr CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager 0 Council Letter No. 433 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayors and F Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Public Hearing, Cooperative Living Center Project Rezoning, Street and Alley Vacation, and Disposi- tion of City -owned Land At the November 24, 1980 council meeting, the council gave first reading approval to transitory ordinances relating to the Lake Shore Drive Cooperative Living Center project. At that meeting, the coun- cil discussed alternative solutions to alley access problems and the possibility of providing access to the Cooperative Living Center parking area from Lyndale Avenue. At that time, adjacent property owners on Lake Shore Drive ex- pressed the desire to have the council stipulate that an "L- shaped" alley be provided for access to Lake Shore Drive, prior to giving final approval to the transitory ordinance which would authorize vacation of the alley. It is recommended that the council not specify an alley solution at this time, but leave the option open to either provide an L- shaped alley or a regraded dead end alley with a turn around at the northwestern end, to solve the access problem which would be created by the proposed vacation of a portion of the alley for construction of the cooperative. The option should be left open until the city has a better idea about development potential east of the Cooperative Living Center site. The redevelopment plan indicates that the three homes on the south side of Graham Avenue between the Cooperative Living Center site and the Star Auto building will be removed. It may be desirable to vacate a portion of Graham Avenue in the vicinity of the commercial area if redevelopment and /or renovation of the existing buildings is proposed in the future. The Graham Avenue right -of -way could be used for commercial in -fill development. Access to this area would potentially be from the alley on that block. An L- shaped alley could then become a short -cut route to Lake Shore Drive and then north to 66th Street. This would not be desirable because the alley is narrow and increased traffic would pass adjacent to the three homes on Lake Shore Drive and the cooperative site. By continuing to leave both options open, the city staff can assess the development potential of this commercial area and formulate a traf- fic circulation plan which would, hopefully, not adversely affect the adjacent property owners. Both alley alternatives would require the use of property to be owned by the cooperative; thus, the devel- oper's agreement will provide for both options. The staff has no particular opposition to the L- shaped alley except for this major consideration. Council Letter No. 433 -2- December 8, 1980 On November 24, at 5:30 p.m., prior to the council meeting, the staff met with the three Lake Shore Drive property owners again to discuss alley alternatives. This meeting was a follow -up to one held at 4:30 p.m. on November 3, to discuss the alley. An additional meet- ing was held in August on the topic in general. At the November 3 meeting, staff proposed to dead -end the alley, provide a turn around pad and reduce the alley slope by grading. The residents rejected this proposal and requested the L- shaped alley or a level alley. On November 24, staff reviewed these two alternatives with the residents. They were told that staff felt it unwise to commit to an "L" alley at this time because of the possible future renovation /redevelopment of the commercial area. They expressed surprise and disappointment that future activities in the commercial area could impact the design solution for their alley. I believe that the propery owners who have desired to retain their dwellings in a block which is essentially commercial, must be more realistic about the overall needs in that development area. The city staff also has serious concern about allowing access to the Cooperative Living Center site from Lyndale Avenue via Circle Place or Graham Avenue for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the council has encouraged the owners of the Lyn - dale Hardware store to petition for a vacation of a portion of Circle Place to provide additional offstreet parking for their development. • Thus, to allow access to the Cooperative Living Center site via Circle Place or Graham Avenue would severely limit the development alternatives for the commercial area east of the Cooperative Living Center site. It is recommended that access not be allowed to the site via Graham Avenue or Circle Place. The Cooperative has excel- lent access to both 66th Street and Lake Shore Drive. If they feel that a secondary access is important they could make design altera- tions to access into Lake Shore Drive as one of their original pro- posals indicated was their plan. The council scheduled a public hearing on the ordinances, and second reading for the December 8, 1980 council meeting. It is recommended that the council give second reading approval to the following ordinances: 1. Bill 1980 -27: Transitory Ordinance No. 16.70 This ordinance will vacate the portion of Graham Avenue South which bisects the site. The description of the portion of Graham Avenue to be vacated has been modified to more clearly delineate the limits of the vacation, and as a result, the ordinance will need to be amended before final reading. 2. Bill 1980 -28: Transitory Ordinance No. 16.71 This ordinance will vacate a portion of the alley in Fairwood Shores which bisects the site. This ordin- ance should be passed subject to the stipulation that a solution to the alley access and maintenance problem be resolved by the city engineer. Council Letter No. 433 -3- E KN /jf December 8, 1980 3. Bill 1980 -29: Transitory Ordinance No. 16.72 The adoption of this ordinance would facilitate the transfer of city owned property to the HRA for even- tual disposition to the developer. The terms and conditions of such sale shall be established as part of the developers agreement which will be presented to the city council in early 1981. 4. Bill 1980 -30. This ordinance rezones the site from General Com- mercial (C -2) and Residential (R) to Planned Multiple Residence (PMR). ctfully submitted, � a Kar l Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director 0 0 Bill 1980 -27 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.16.70 A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDI14G FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF GRAHAM AVENUE SOUTH CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following portion of Graham Avenue South, within the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated. "That part of Graham Avenue South, lying between the south right -of -way line of West 66th Street, and a line extending between the most easterly corner of Lot 6, Block 3 Fairwood Shores Addition and a point lying 127.05 feet southwesterly of the most easterly corner of Lot 10, Block 1, Fairwood Shores Addition." Section 2. This vacation shall be subject to perpetual easements running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk and landscaping purposes to permit improvements to West 66th Street. Section 3. The mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right -of -way as provided in the foregoing Section. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mavor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk Bill-1980-28 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 16.71 A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE ALLEY ON FAIRWOOD SHORES Section 1. The following portion of c ne alley on F a r:•:oed Shore :within the'City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated: "That part of the alley in Block 3 Fairwood Shores Addition lying between the south right -of -way line of 66th Street and the northerly extension of the easterly line of lot 15 Block 3 Fairwood Shores Addition." Section 2. This vacation shall be subject to perpetual easements running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk and landscaping purposes to permit improvements to West 66th Street. Section 3. The mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right -of -way as provided in the foregoing S_ecticn 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mavcr ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergin, acting City Clerri • • • Bill 1980 -29 APPENDIX A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE 16.72 ORDINANCE NO. 16. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OF THE CITY City of Rich 4:4 does Ordain: Section 1. The following property of the City is hereby authorized to be sold and disposed of: Lot 5, Block 1, Fairwood Shcres, according to the slat thereof. Subject to a perpetual easement running in favor of the City of Richfield, its s.ugcessors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk and landsca_e ourooses over, under, across and throua� that .part of said Lot 5 lying northerly and northwesterly of a line drawn fro—i a point on the easterly line of said Lot 5 dist = 3 -4..11 feet southerly from the northeast corner o= said Lot, 5 , to a point on t:�e westerly line of said Lot 5 uisc =nt 33.00 feet sout"erl from the northwest corner of said Loz 5; 4 Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 1, Fair%•:ood Shores, according to the plat thereof. • Subject to a perpetual easement runnina in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk, and landscape purtioses over, under, across and through that pars of said Lots 6, 7, and 8 lying northerly of a line par.ilel anal /or concentric with and 50.00 feet southerly of Line A, hereinafter described: Line A Commencing at the northwest corner of' the Southwest.Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on an asstL;ed bearing of East, 475.00 feet along the north line of said Southwest nuarter; thence South 20 degrees 48 minutes 35 seconds West 6.00 feet; thence South 88 degrees 51 minutes 44 seconds west 462.23 feet to the beginning of Lice thence westerly 226.37 feet on a tangential curve, concave to the south, central angle 22 degrees 38 minutes 1.1 seccncis and radius 57 2.96 feet; thence South 66 deRret.s 13 mir.t:tes 30 seconds West 100 feet, tangent to said cuurve ln<1 there terminatin(j. Section 2. ., torms, an:l o� _,uc.. sa o s Za be by the City Council. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Riche 1d, L-- s this day of 1980. 0 Donald J. Priebe, ATTEST: Sylvia K. 3erqn, Acting City I] • Bill 1980 -30 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 Richfield, ,Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various Zoning C11striC_s of the City, enumerated in Chao_ter III, Part IV, Section 3.28 subdivision 2 of such code, is hereby ammended: 1. Appen -ix C,- section 3, is ammenaea by ammending paragraph (26) to read as follows: (26) That area lying southerly of 66th Street, northwesterly of Lyndale Avenue and westerly of Graham Avenue) "Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13; 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 Bloc: 1; Lcts 1, 2, ana 3 Block 2; al_ in Fai r�• :ocd Shores. 2. Appendix C, section 3 is ammended by deleting the 13 and 14, Block 3, Fairwood Shores, together with that area lying adjacent to and northerly of said lots 11 and • 12 and south of the south line of 66th Street, being the area heretofore vacated as a public street.) 3. Appendix C, section 8 is ammended by adding a new paragraph which will read as follows: "(2) Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 1; Lots 6, i, 6, 9, 10, ii, 12, 13, i4 and , B ocn ; All in "FAIRP700D SHORES" according to the plat nereot on tile or of record in the orrice or the Registrar of Tit es, Hennepin County, Minnesota. A so, T1,at oart of Auto Lure as shown on said plat lvina bet• :.een the nort1heasteriv extension of the scut: - easterly line of said Lot 15 and the southerly right- of -wav lino- of West 66th Street, as shown on said ,lat. A1:s0, That hart of Graham :Venue as sho:jn and dedicated on said r)lat lyina northeri•! of a curved line concave to --t:-(-- southeast, haylnq a radius or 6-5.00 tCet, said curve being drawn through the most southerly corner of said Lot 10, Block 1, and the most easterly corner of said Lot 6, Bloc,L• 3. Also, That part of vacated West 66th Street as shown and dedicated on said plat, adjoining said Lot 11, Block 3,� lying between the northerly extensions of the north- easterly and southwesterly_ lines of said Lot 11, Block Also, That part of vacated ;9est 56th Street as shown and dedicated on said plat, adjoining said Lot 12, Block 3, lying between the northerly extensions of the north easterly and B lock Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mavor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA . Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Council :01y Council Letter No. 432 Agenda December 8, 1980 Subject: Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of a $275,000 Commercial Development Revenue Note for the Canteen Company of Minnesota (Six Fold Real Estate Company) At the September 22, 1980 city council meeting the council ap- proved the concept of issuing a Commercial Development Revenue Note for the expansion of the Canteen Company's facility located at 6300 Penn Avenue. The Canteen Company is contemplating expanding their building by approximately 20 percent. The final step in this process is for the city council to adopt a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of the Commercial • Development Revenue Note. The attached resolution is a general description of the transaction that is to occur and it also approves all of the necessary documentation, as well as orders the execution and delivery of the bonds and related underlying documents. A file copy of all the documents to be approved by this resolution is on file in the city clerk's office. Representatives of the Canteen Company of Minnesota will be present at the city council meeting to answer any questions. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution authorizing this financing. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director 11 LAW OFFICES - LEFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ .: 1100 FIRST NATIONAL. BANK BUILDING CLAYTON L.LEFEVERE BROOKLYN CENTER OFFICE HERBERT P. LEFLER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS402 103 BROOKLYN LAW CENTER J. DENNIS O'BRIEN JOHN E. DRAWZ TELEPHONE (612 ) 333 -0543 5637 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD DAVID J. KENNEDY BROOKLYN. CENTER, MINNESOTA SS429 - (612) 536 -8037 JOHN B. DEAN GLENN E. PURDUE CHARLES L. LEFEVERE ,,,,,� p RICHARD J. SCHIEFFER P. HERBERT LEFLER, III December 2 JEFFREY J. STRAND l 199 Q 00 JAMES P. O'MEARA MARY J. SJORKLUND THOMAS O. CREIGHTON JOHN G. KRESSEL DAYLE NOLAN CINDY L.LAVORATO Mr. Karl Nollenberger City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 Re: $275,000 Commercial Development Revenue Note (Canteen Company of Minnesota Project) City of Richfield, Minnesota Dear Karl: Enclosed you will find three copies of minutes showing the adoption of a resolution of the City Council awarding the sale of the above bonds for consideration by the City Council at its meeting on December 8th. File copies of all of the underlying documents for the transaction which are listed in Section 2 -3 of the resolution will be delivered to the City on Monday so that they can be on file at the time the resolution is considered. The transaction consists of the issuance by the City of a Commercial Development Revenue Note in the amount of $275,000 which is secured by a mortgage on the existing facilities of the Canteen Company as well as the improvements to be constructed by the proceeds of the Note. The entire project is to be leased by Sixfold Real Estate Company to Canteen Company and used by the Company as a food processing plant. The Note is further secured by the loan repayments of the Company under a Loan Agreement with the City whose interest in the Loan Agreement will then be assigned to the purchaser of the Note which is the Midway National Bank of Saint Paul. In addition, the general partners of Sixfold Real Estate Company will personally guarantee the payment of principal and interest on the note. The note matures in 1991 and bears interest at the rate of 10 -1/4% and is prepayable at any time. LAW OFFICES LEFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ The company has requested that the matter be placed on the agenda for December 8th, and I hope that your schedule and the schedule of the Council permits that. A representative of the Company will be present at the meeting to answer any questions. It is anticipated that the closing and delivery of the note will occur on December 23rd; I will be in contact with Dennis Kraft regarding the necessary documents and certificates that must be signed by the City in connection with this financing. If you have any questions about any of these matters, be sure to give me a call. Your very truly, �Jkv'kl David J. Kennedy DJK:caw cc: Timothy Pabst Clayton L. LeFevere I: Resolution: Six Fold Real Estate Company: DJK: 11/28/80 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY.OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice hereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield was duly held on Monday, the 8th day of December, 1980, at o'clock p.m. The following members of the Council were present: and the following were absent: • Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $275,000 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE (CANTEEN COMPANY OF MINNESOTA PROJECT) SERIES 1980, PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield (the "City ") is authorized by the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, as amended, (the "Act ") to issue its revenue notes and to make secured or un- secured loans to finance the acquisition of real property and the acquisition or construction of buildings and improvements on such real property and the installation of machinery and equipment of any and all kinds and any other personal properties deemed neces • sary in connection with a project, as defined in the Act; and F; z h, - y: ..`SE?A;E;q�Si WHEREAS, the City has made the necessary arrangements- with Six Fold Real Estate Company (the "Company "), a Minnesota general • partnership, for the construction of a project consisting of the improvement of land. in the City and the construction and equip- ping thereon of a multi - purpose commercial building to be leased by the Company to Canteen Company of Minnesota, a Minnesota corporation the principal shareholders of which are also general partners of the Company, to be used as a food processing plant (the "Project "), which will be of the character contemplated by and will accomplish the purposes provided by the,Act; and F WHEREAS, it has been determined that a note in the principal amount of $275,000 should be issued., sold and delivered to pro- vide proceeds for a loan to be made to the Company to pay a part or all of the cost of the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: ARTICLE ONE DEFINITIONS, EXHIBITS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1 -1. Definitions. In this Resolution the following terms have the following respective meanings unless the context • hereof clearly requires otherwise: Act: the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended; Note: the Commercial Development Revenue Note - (Canteen Company of Minnesota Project) Series 1980, in the aggregate principal amount of $275,000, to be issued by the City pursuant to this Resolution, sometimes referred to herein as "the Series 1980 Note "; Bond Register: the register maintained by the City pursuant to Section 2 -14 hereof; City: the City of Richfield, Minnesota, its successors and assigns; Code:: the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; 'Com an : Six Fold Real Estate Company, a Minnesota general partnership, and its successors and assigns, and any surviving, resulting or transferee entity which may assume its obligations in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement; Cost: the sum of the Project cost items enumerated in Section 4.04 of the Loan Agreement;- f 2 Holder: when used with respect to the Note, the Holder thereof; Loan Agreement: the Loan and Note Purchase Agreement dated December 23, 1980 between and among the City, the Bank and. the Company and any amendments or supplements thereto. Mortgage: that certain Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement by the Company to the Bank dated December 23, 1980; Payment Date: a date on which an installMent of interest or of principal and interest is due on the Series 1980 Note; Pledge Agreement: the Pledge Agreement, dated December 23, 1980, by which the City assigns to Purchaser its rights under the Loan Agreement as security for the Note; Purchaser: The Midway National Bank of St. Paul, Minnesota, (sometimes referred to as "the Bank "); Resolution: this Resolution, including any amendment there- to. Section 1 -2. Rules of Interpretation. • (1) This Resolution shall be interpreted in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota.' (2) The words "herein" and "hereof" and "hereunder" and words of similar import, without reference to any particular section or subdivision, refer to this Resolution as a whole rather than to any particular section or subdivision hereof. (3) References in this Resolution to any particular arti- cle, section or subdivision hereof are to the designated article, section or subdivision of this Resolution as originally adopted. (4) Any terms not defined herein but defined in the Loan Agreement or the Mortgage shall have the same meaning herein unless the context hereof requires otherwise. (5) The headings of articles and sections hereof are for convenience only and are not a part of this Resolution. (6) Unless the context hereof clearly requires otherwise, the singular shall include the plural and vice versa and the masculine shall include the feminine and vice versa. ARTICLE TWO APPROVAL OF DOCUMENTS: GENERAL PROVISIONS . RELATING TO THE NOTE Section 2 -1. Authorization. The City is authorized by the Act to issue revenue notes and loan the proceeds thereof. to business enterprises to finance the acquisition and construction of "projects" as defined in the Act, and to make all contracts, execute all instruments, and do all things necessary or con - venient in the exercise of such authority. Section 2 -2. Preliminary City Approval: Approval by -Com- missioner of Securities. By preliminary resolution duly adopted by this Council on October 13, 1980 the Council gave preliminary approval to the sale of revenue notes and the loan of proceeds to the Company for the construction of the Project, and authorized the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project and the issuance and sale of the Note. The Commissioner' of Securities of the State of Minnesota approved the Project on August 15, 1980. Section 2 -3. Approval of Documents. Pursuant to the above, there have been prepared and presented to this Council copies of the following documents, all of which are now, or shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk, and which are approved • substantially in the form presented, subject to such modifica- tions as are acceptable to the parties and the City Attorney: (a) the Loan Agreement; (b) the Pledge Agreement; (c) the Mortgage; (d) the Disbursing Agreement (not to be executed by the City); and (e) the Guaranty (not to be executed by the City). Section 2 -4. Form and Authorized Amount. The Note shall be issued substantially in the form set forth in Article Three hereof with such appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are permitted or required by this Resolution, and in accor- dance with the further provisions of this Article and Article Three. The total principal amount of the Note to be delivered hereunder is expressly limited to $275,000. Section 2 -5. Execution. The Note may be in typewritten form and shall be executed on behalf of the City by the manual signatures of the Mayor and City.Manager and shall have the of- ficial seal of the City affixed or imprinted thereon. In case any officer whose signature appears on the Note shall cease to be 4 V such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be valid-and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if he had remained in office until delivery. Section 2 -6. Mutilated, Lost and Destroyed Note._ In'. case the Note shall become mutilated or be destroyed or lost, the City shall, if not then prohibited by law, cause to be executed and delivered, a new Note of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu of and in substitution for such Note. destroyed or lost, upon the Holder's paying the reasonable expenses and charges of the City in connection.therewith, "and, in case of a Note destroyed or lost; his filing with the City evi- dence of such loss or destruction satisfactory to it together with the indemnity required by Section 475.70 of the Act. If the mutilated, destroyed-or lost Note has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment. Section 2 -7. Optional Redemption. The Note is subject to redemption and prepayment, in whole or in part, on any Payment Date, at a price of the principal amount to be prepaid plus accrued interest to date of redemption. Section 2 -8. Notice: Redemption. Notice of redemption shall be given by first class mail, postage prepaid, mailed by the Company not less than 30 days prior to the redemption date, to the Holder of the Note at the last address appearing on the Bond Register. Section 2 -9. Partial Redemption of a Note. The principal amount of the Notes to be called for redemption pursuant to Section 2 -7 hereof shall be applied in reduction of the principal amount of the Note redeemed in inverse order of Payment Dates. Upon such redemption the Note may, upon the written request of the Holder accompanied by a certificate of the.-Company Represen- tative that such redemption and prepayment has been made, be surrendered to the City which shall forthwith execute and deliver to the Holder thereof, without charge, a new Note in the aggre- gate principal amount equal to the unredeemed portion of the Note so surrendered. In case the entire principal amount of the Note is redeemed and prepaid, the Note shall be surrendered to the City for cancellation and shall not be reissued, and no new Note i shall be issued in lieu of the prepaid principal amount of the Note. t shall bear all expenses in connection with such exchange. The new note shall bear interest ' at the same rate as the Note to be exchanged and shall be in an aggregate principal amount equal to ;. the then unpaid principal amount of such Note, maturing serially" and annually in the same amount, and on the same dates as the unpaid installments of principal of the Note and shall be in such form, and with necessary modifications thereto as shall be ap- proved by the City attorney and Note counsel to the City. Section 2 -11. Cancellation. When the Note has been re- deemed and paid. in full, it shall be cancelled by the City and shall not be reissued., The Holder shall deliver to the City either the cancelled" Note or a certificate -of a responsible officer of the Holder certifying as to the destruction thereof. Section 2-12. Registration: Securities Act'. The Note has not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act ") or any state securities laws for initial distribution, and the Note has been sold initially only to the Bank pursuant to the investment representation of the Purchaser. Section 2 -13. Registration Of Transfer. The City will cause to be kept at the office of the City Clerk a Bond Register in which, subject to such reasonable regulations as it may pre- scribe, the City shall provide for the registration of transfers of ownership of the Note. The Note shall be transferable only upon the Bond Register by the then Holder thereof in person or by • its attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender of the Notes together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Clerk and the City Attorney, duly executed by the Holder or its duly authorized attorney. Upon such transfer the City shall note the date of registration and the name and address of the new registered owner in the Bond Register and on the Note. Alternatively, the City shall, at the request and. expense of the Holder issue a new Note, in aggregate outstanding principal amount equal to that of the note surrendered, -and of like tenor except as to principal amount, and registered in the name of the Holder or such transferee as may be designated by the Holder. The City may deem and treat the person in whose name the Note is last registered in the Bond Register and by notation on the Note as the absolute owner thereof, whether or not the principal balance or any part thereof is overdue, for the purpose of re- ceiving payment of or on account of the principal balance, re- demption price or interest and for all other purposes. The Note shall be initially registered in the name of the Bank. Section 2 -14. Cessation and Continuation of Interest. In- terest on the Note shall cease on its payment in full. If the Note is not presented for payment when due and funds sufficient to pay the Note shall have been paid to the Holder, (i) all liability of the City for payment of the Note shall forthwith cease and (ii) the Holder of the Note shall thereafter have no rights with respect thereof except to receive payment therefor. 6 issue and sell the Note in the principal amount of $275,000. The Note shall be in substantially the form set forth hereto in Exhibit I which terms and provisions are hereby approved and incorporated her Principal and interest shall be payable at The Midway National Bank of St. Paul, Minnesota. Section 3 -2. Sale of Series 1980 Note. The offer of the Bank to purchase the Series 1980 Note at a price of $275,000 in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement is hereby found to be reasonable and is accepted. Pursuant to the Loan Agreement the Bank has agreed to pay the purchase price of the Note in installments in the form of Advances to the City up to the auth- orized principal amount of the Note to be loaned to the Company to pay Project Costs all as provided in Article III of the Loan Agreement and in this Resolution. Section 3 -3. Delivery of the Note. The Note shall be delivered to the Bank upon payment of all or part of the purchase price on the Closing Date as defined in the Loan Agreement, and upon compliance with all conditions of Section 3.06 of the Loan . Agreement relating to closing and delivery. ARTICLE FOUR APPROVALS AND AUTHORIZATION: LIMITATIONS OF CITY OBLIGATION Section 4 -1. Authorization: Authentication of Transcript. Upon the execution of the documents approved in Article Two hereof, the Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute the Note on behalf of the City and to deliver it to the Bank, and to execute such other certifications, documents or instructions as may be required by the Loan Agreement, or as Note counsel or counsel for the Bank shall require, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, and all certifications, recitals and representations of the City. Upon delivery of the Note, the proceeds thereof shall be disbursed to the Company pursuant to the Loan Agreement. Execution of any instrument or document by one or more appropriate officers of the City shall constitute, and shall be deemed the conclusive evidence of, the approval and authorization by the City and the Council of the instrument or document so executed. In the event of the absence or disability of the Mayor or City Manager, such officers of the City as, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may act in their behalf, shall without further act or authorization of the Council do all things and execute all instruments and documents. required to be done or executed by such absent or disabled officials. Section 4 -2. Registration Records. The City Clerk, as bond registrar, shall keep a bond register in which the City shall provide for the registration of the Note and for transfers of the Note. The principal of and interest on the Note shall be paid to the Bank for the account of the Holder entitled thereto in Fed - eral or other immediately available funds. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to deliver a certified copy of this Note Resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, together with such other information as the County Auditor may require, . and obtain the certificate of the County Auditor as to entry of the Note on his bond register as required by the Act and Minne- sota Statutes, Section 475.63 Section 4 -3. Limitation of the City's Obligations. Not - withstanding anything contained in the Note or the Loan Agreement or any other documents relating thereto, the Note shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any consti- tutional, statutory .or charter limitation, and shall not be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof, and the City shall not be subject to any liability thereon, and no holder of the Note shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Note or the interest thereon, or to enforce . payment thereof against any property of the City, and the Note shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or • equitable, upon any property of the City. The agreement of the City to perform the covenants and other provisions contained in the Note and the Loan Agreement shall be subject at all times to the availability of revenues furnished by the Company sufficient . to pay all costs of such performance or the enforcement thereof, and neither the City nor any of its officials, officers, agents or employees shall,be subject to any personal liability thereon. Section 4 -4. Execution and Delivery. The Mayor, the City Manager, the City Cie— k and the City Attorney are authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the provi- sions of this Resolution relating to the execution and delivery of the documents described herein. Mayor Attest: ri tv rl ark Exhibit I (FORM OF NOTE) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE (Canteen Company of Minnesota Project) Series 1980 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS That the City of Richfield in the County of Hennepin and the State of Minnesota (the "City "), for value received, promises to pay to The Midway Na- tional Bank of St. Paul, Minnesota, or its registered assigns, solely from the source and in the manner hereinafter provided, the principal sum of Two Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars _ Y ($275,000) on May 1, 1991, upon presentation and surrender here- of, and to make prepayments of said principal sum in installments as hereinafter provided, and to pay the owner hereof interest on the outstanding and unpaid balance of advances on account of such principal sum from the date hereof until said balance (the "Prin- cipal Balance ") of the principal sum is paid. Interest only at the rate of ten and one - quarter percent (104 %) is payable on • June 1, 1981. Thereafter, principal and interest at the rate of ten and one - quarter percent (104%) per annum are payable in one hundred twenty (120) monthly installments of $3,672.35 commencing on June 1, 1981 (the "Amortization Date ") and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter to and including April 1, 1991, plus a final installment on May 1, 1991 (the "Final Matur- ity Date "), equal to the amount of the entire principal balance then remaining unpaid plus accrued interest to the date of final payment. Principal and interest shall be pa -id to the holder thereof in Federal or other immediately available funds at the offices of The Midway National Bank of St. Paul, Minnesota. This Note is issued pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the "Act "), and in conformity with the provisions, restrictions and limitations thereof. This Note does not con - stitute a charge against the general credit or taxing powers of the City and does not grant to the owner or holder of this Note any right to have the City levy any taxes or appropriate any funds for the payment of the principal hereof or interest hereon, nor is this Note a general obligation of the City or the indi- vidual officers or agents thereof. This Note and interest hereon are payable solely and only from the moneys received under the Loan Agreement, and the Mortgage hereinafter mentioned, including loan repayments to be made by Six Fold Real Estate Company, a Minnesota general partnership (the "Company "). -9 ."'.- hi�'CI�'; <, ,.r .._, 5 -• ,.. . " _ , ,;.. ',' '..: .. _- V ._r ._ ., .. .n .C.Ra.:.^. �,*aL'i�d�+.95.:: This Note has been authorized by law to be issued and has been issued by the City for the purpose of funding -a` loan from ' the City to the Company to finance the costs of theconstruction, equipping and installation by the Company of a Project, as de fined by Section 474.02, Subdivision la of.the Act, consisting of certain land and buildings and other. improvements, equipment and items of personal property suitable and to be used by the Company as a multi- purpose commercial building. The Note is issued pursuant to a Loan and Note Purchase Agreement (the ".Loan Agreement ") dated December 23, 1980, by and among the City, The Midway National Bank of St. Paul (the "Bank ") and the Company, and-a Resolution (the . "Resolution ") adopted by the City Council of the City on December 8, 1980. The Note is secured by the Loan Agreement, a Pledge Agreement of the City's interest in the Loan Agreement to the Bank (the "Pledge Agree- ment") dated December 23, 1980, and a Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement (the' "Mort- gage ") dated December 23, 1980 from Company to Bank to which Loan Agreement, Pledge Agreement, and Mortgage reference is hereby made for a full description of and limitation of the revenues and funds pledged and appropriated to the payment of this Note, the nature and 'extent �of the security thereby created, the rights of the Holder of this Note and the rights, duties and immunities and obligations of the Bank,. Company, and the City thereunder. Certified copies of the Resolution and executed counterparts of the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, and the Mortgage, are • on file at the office of the City Clerk. This Note may be prepaid at any time, either in whole or in part, but in case of prepayment of any amount or amounts in any calendar year the total of which exceeds 20% of the original Principal Balance as of the Amortization Date, then there shall also be paid, over and above the interest accrued under the terms of this Note, a premium in an amount equal to the interest for 180 days, at the rate of interest charged on the Note at the time of such prepayment on that portion of such total prepayment which is in excess of 200% of the original Principal Balance. If the interest on this Note should become subject to fede- ral income taxation pursuant to a "Determination of Taxability" as that term is defined in the Loan Agreement hereinafter re- ferred to, and the Lender delivers to the Borrower a copy of the notice of the "Determination of Taxability ", the interest rate shall be immediately increased to two and one -half percent (21,27.) per annum !over the yield on -13. 00% _United States Treasury Bonds of 11/15/95, which rate shall be adjusted each month according to the yield quoted on the first business day of each month by The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.W. (or if such Bank ceases to exist, or ceases to quote such yield, by such other Bank as the Lender shall choose) but in no event shall such rate exceed eighteen percent (18%) per annum. Each monthly installment thereafter payable shall be adjusted and shall be equal to the amount neces- sary to amortize the remaining Principal Balance with interest at z 10 ,' • said increased rate on the basis of a twenty year amortization schedule from the date o>f `the -first payment of principal and interest hereunder withV the final Principal Balance due and payable on the Final Maturity Date; and in addition the Lender shall be entitled to receive an amount equal .to the aggregate difference between (i) the monthly payments theretofore made to the Lender on this Note between the "Date of Taxability ", as that term is defined in the Loan Agreement, and the date of receipt by the Borrower of notice of such "Determination of Taxability ", and (ii) the monthly payments which would have been made during such period if the increased rate had been in effect throughout such period; all as provided in the Loan Agreement. This Note is issued pursuant to and in full compliance with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly the Act, and the Home Rule Charter of the City, and pursuant to the Resolution, which Resolution authorizes the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement and the Note, and is a special obligation of the City payable solely from revenues derived from the Loan Agreement, including payments required to be made thereunder by the Company in amounts suf- ficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on, and fees and expenses in connection with, the Note as the same become due and payable. This Note does not constitute an indebtedness of the City within the meaning of any constitu- tional, charter or statutory limitation and does not constitute a charge against the general credit or taxing powers of the City. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limi- tations set forth therein, this Note is transferable by the Holder hereof upon surrender of this Note for transfer at the office of the City Clerk duly endorsed or accompanied by a writ- ten instrument of transfer in the form satisfactory to the City and executed by the Holder hereof or his attorney duly authorized in writing. Thereupon the City shall execute and deliver, in ex- change for this Note, one or more new 'fully registered Notes in the name of the transferee, of an authorized denomination, in aggregate principal amount equal to the then outstanding princi- pal amount of this Note, of the same maturity, and bearing inter- est at the same rate. This Note shall be initially registered in the name of The Midway National Bank of St. Paul. In addition, and subject to certain limitations set forth in. the Resolution, the registered Holder of either of the Notes may request the City to issue at the sole expense of the Holder, new notes in exchange for the outstanding principal amount of either of the Notes in multiples of $1,000, bearing interest at the same rate as the Note to be exchanged maturing serially and annually in the same amounts and on the same dates as the then unpaid principal amount of such Note, and in such form as shall be approved by the City Attorney and bond counsel to the City. and the Resolution and the issuance of this Note-do exist, have happened and have been performed in due time, form and manner as required by law, and that the issuance of this. Note, together. with all other obligations of the City on the date hereof, does not exceed or violate any constitutional, charter or statutory limitation of indebtedness. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its governing body, has caused this Note to be executed in its name by the manual signatures'of its Mayor and City Manager, and sealed with its official seal, and has caused this Note to be dated as of 1980. Mayor Ci t -Kr Man Arrar (SEAL) PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION The ownership and unpaid principal of this Note and the interest accruing thereon is registered on the Bond Register of the City of Richfield in the name of the Holder last noted below. • Name of Date of Registered Signature of Registration .:Holder City Clerk The Midway National Bank of St. Paul held on Monday, December 8, 198.0, 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 $275,000 Commercial Development Revenue Note, (Can - teen Company of Minnesota Project) Series 1980, of the City. WITNESS My hand as such'City Clerk and the corporate seal of • the City this (SEAL) day of 1980. City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota • E F RICHFIELD MINNESOTA CITY O , Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 431 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor_ and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Preliminary Year VII Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application Attached for your review are the draft CDBG program application materials. The application allocates $374,000 for the following five projects in Year VII (August 1981 - July 1982): 1. Administration - $20,000 2. Community Center Improvements - $22,000 3. Housing Rehabilitation - $121,000 4. Site Acquisition and Clearance - $36,000 5. LHN Public Improvements - $175,000 Changes from the previously approved Year VII projects include: 1. The amount allocated to LHN public improvements project has been reduced from $245,000 to $175,000. This reduc- tion will not affect the project and is reflected in the 1981 Capital Budget. 2. The administration project was added to cover staff costs for the overall administration of the CDBG pro- gram. The 1981 operating budget shows this is a revenue source for the Planning and Zoning Division of the Community Development Department and reduced the amount of general fund monies needed. 3. The amount of funds allocated to housing rehabilita- tion project has been increased from $107,000 to $121,000 to fund an additional Vo -Tech rehabilita- tion project. 4. A site acquisition project was added to provide additional housing opportunities for large low and moderate income families. It is recommended that the council approve the preliminary application materials. City staff will submit the application to Council Letter No. 431 -2- December 8, 1980 .0 Hennepin County for review and comment by the Planning Area Citi- zens Advisory Committee ( PACAC). Once PACAC comments are received, city staff will develop the final application materials. The final application materials will be presented to the city council in January, 1981. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director • 11 • U YEAR VII - URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG - PROJECT NARRATIVE 1. Project Name: Housing Rehabilitation 2. Project Location: Census Tract City Wide Street Address (Attach Map) 3. Project Description: (Be as detailed as possible, add additional sheets if necessary.) This project involves providing assistance to low and moderate persons and the handicapped to rehabilitate single family dwellings. This assistance shall consist of grants to bring dwellings up to minimum Section 8 standards, to make energy improvements and to repair and modify single family dwellings to make them less susceptible to flood damage in areas of the city subject to flood problems during heavy rainfalls. Another use of these funds are for the acquisition and rehabilitation of single family dwellings for sale to low and moderate income persons. This is done in conjunction with the South Hennepin Vocational Technical Institute. VoTech students provide labor for this project. -2- 61 4. Compliance with the Urban Hennepin County Comprehensive Community Development Strategy: Strategy Citation: Housing Explanation: This project is in compliance with the Urban'Countywide Housing Strategy because it provides housing assistance to low and moderate income persons. Richfield is a fully developed community with little land for new construction. Therefore emphasis is placed on improving the existing condition of housing of low and moderate income persons through housing rehabilitation assis- tance. 5. Project implementation Schedule: Start: August 1, 1981 Completion: On -going project 6. Program Benefit of the Project: Federal Citation: 570.302 (d) (1) Documentation: • Recipients of housing rehabilitation assistance must meet the Richfield HRA rehab grant income eligibility requirements which presently have a maximum adjusted income limit of $6,000. At no time will the Section 8 gross income limits be exceeded. 7. Project Budget: Budget Line i a Other Sources of Funding MHFA Amount $81,000 $40,000 Amount YEAR VII - URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG - PROJECT NARRATIVE 1. Project Name: Lynda le /Hub / Nicollet Public Improvements 2. Project Location: Census Tract 244,245 Street Address NA (Attach Map) • 3. Project Description: (Be as detailed as possible, add additional sheets if necessary.) This project is the second year of a two year project to construct public improvements within the city's Lyndale Hub Nicollet Rede- velopment Project Area. $117,175 was allocated to this project in the Year VI program. An additional $175,000 is allocated to this project in Year VII. This project involves improvements along Lyndale Avenue between 64th Street and Lake Shore Drive and along 66th Street between Grand Avenue and I35W. Specific objectives to be accomplished through the use of CDBG funds include: 1) To reduce the curbes along 66th Street to provide for safer, less congested traffic conditions; 2) provide separation between opposing lanes of traffic for protected turn lanes to increase capacity- and driver safety; 3) provide medians and consolidate driveway openings to control random turning movements and increase driver safety; 4) provide a more efficient signal system through the inter- connection of traffic signals improving traffic safety, capacity, air quality and noise levels; 5) improve transit facilities by providing bus turnout lanes and shelters; 6) improve pedestrian safety by providing crosswalk and side- walks (there is no existing pedestrian sidewalk system within the project); and, 7) improve the appearance and visual impact of the traffic corridor through use of plant materials and street furniture. Eligibility Citation: 570.201 c 9 Multi -Year: x Yes No 4. Compliance with the Urban Hennepin County Comprehensive Community Development Strategy:, Strategy Citation: Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Explanation: This Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet project area is designated as a commer- cial Neighborhood Strategy Area in the Urban County Strategy. The public improvements project is necessary to stimulate private investment to revitalize this area.' 5. Project implementation Schedule: Start: Spring 1981 Completion: Summer 1982 6. Program Benefit of the Project: Federal Citation: 570'.201 (e) (1) Documentation: This street improvement project will aid in the prevention or eli nation of slums and blight within the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Rede- velopment Project (L /H /N). In November of 1975, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and City Council established the LHN. This was done in accordance with the Minnesota Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Act; Minnesota Statutes 462.411 et seq. In establishing this project resolutions nine and 5445 were adopted (see attached certified copies). Each of these resolutions contains a finding that the project area is blighted within the meaning of 462.421, subdivision 11. 7. Project Budget: Budget Line Amount d $175,000 Other Sources of Funding Amount Hennepin County $967,000 Municipal State Aid $473,000 r YEAR VII - URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG - PROJECT NARRATIVE I 1. Project Name: Administration 2. Project Location: Census Tract NA Street Address NA ^�— (Attach Map) 3. Project Description: (Be as detailed as possible, add additional sheets if necessary.) J P ro This project involves payment of administrative costs related I _ to the planning and execution of community development and housing the Community Development Block related activities funded by Y P Grant Program. These costs will include salaries, wages and related costs of city staff to provide information about the - - city's CDBG program, to develop the necessary applications, for _ ._.._ activities to facilitate the implementation of the city's housing -_ assistance plan, the development of necessary environmental studies, and the coordination, monitoring and evaluation of the _ city's CDBG to insure that local, county, and federal needs, and requirements are met. i f 4. Compliance with the Urban Hennepin County Comprehensive Community Development Strategy: Strategy Citation: Administrative Explanation: This project is necessary to insure a reasonable expenditure rate of CDBG funds and to insure that all local county and federal program requirements are met. 5. Project Implementation Schedule: Start: August 1981 Completion: July 1982 6. Program Benefit of the Project: Federal Citation: Exdmpt Documentation: 7. Project Budget: Budget Line Amount 1 $20,000 Other Sources of Funding Amount 9 ---1 ....: _. _. YEAR VII - URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG - PROJECT NARRATIVE 1. Project Name: community Center Improvements 2. Project Location: Census Tract 245 Street Address 7000 Nicollet Avenue South (Attach Map) 3. Project Description: (Be as detailed as possible, add additional sheets if necessary.) This project involves the renovation of the main kitchen on the lower level of the Richfield Community Center. Improvements will include replacement of appliances, cupboards, and counters. After the improvements the kitchen facilities will be more accessible to the handicapped. Eligibility Citation: 570.201 (c) (1) and (3 Multi -Year: Yes X No -2- 4. Compliance with the Urban Hennepin County Comprehensive Community Development Strategy:. Strategy Citation: Public Facilities and Improvement Strategy Explanation: The Richfield Community Center houses all local programs for the elderly and the handicapped. A majority of the users of this facility have low or moderate incomes also. The kitchen facilities are those used for the congregate dining program. 5. Project Implementation Schedule: Start: August 1981 Completion: July 1982 6. Program Benefit of the Project: Federal Citation: 570.302 (d) (2)' Documentation: A survey of the users will be completed to document that a majori of the users of this facility are low and moderate income persons. 7. Project Budget: Budget Line b Amount $22,000 Other Sources of Funding Amount YEAR VII - URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG - PROJECT NARRATIVE 1. Project Name: Scattered Site Acquisition and Clearance 2. Project Location: Census Tract City Wide Street Address (Attach Map) 3. Project Description: (Be as detailed as possible, add additional sheets if . necessary.) This project involves the acquisition and clearance of properties to.provide sites for low and moderate income large family housing. Sites to be acquired may be substandard in terms of the size of the lot or may have a substandard dwelling on it. Funds will be used to purchase sites, purchase additional property to meet minimum lot size standards, to clear sites and to sell sites to developers. These funds may also be used for purchase of standard dwellings which will then be rented to low and moderate income families utilizing the Section 8 existing program. These sites will be acquired on a voluntary sale basis to reduce relocation costs which must be paid. Eligibility Citation: 570.201 (a) (b) (d) Multi -Year: X Yes _ No (On- going) -2- 4. Compliance with the Urban Hennepin County Comprehensive Community Development Strategy:. Strategy Citation: Housing Explanation: This project is consistent with the Urban Countywide Housing Strategy goals to provide increased housing opportunities for low and moderate income families._ Site acquisition for assisted single family construction in Richfield is specifically mentioned in the strategy." 5. Project Implementation Schedule: Start: August 1981 Completion: _July 1982 6. Program Benefit of the Project: Federal Citation. 570.302 (d) (1) Documentation: • The units will be constructed utilizing rental and ownership .programs of HUD, MHFA and the Richfield HRA. These programs have income restrictions (such as the HUD Section 8 program) which will insure that they will be occupied by low and moderate income persons. 7. Project Budget: Budget Line Amount a $43,000 f 7,000 Other Sources of Funding Amount Rehab Revolving Fund $36,000 oca New Home Program (local) 2,200 0 -�t /� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Is Council Letter No. 430 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchase of Property for 66th Street Improvement Project On May 27, 1980, the city council approved an agreement amendment with Hennepin County related to right -of -way acquisition and sharing of project costs for improvements to 66th Street be- tween Lyndale Avenue and I -35W. Under the agreement, the county is now prepared to proceed with the purchase of the Mobil Oil Station and the Turek property at 920 West 66th Street. The purchase of these two properties in their entirety has been contemplated for several months and was discussed in the council letter of May 27. Funds for the purchase IS were provided in the project budget. Owners of both properties are agreeable to the sale. The residual portion of each property not needed for street improvements will be sold for other uses. The Mobil property will be incorporated into the Lake Shore Drive Cooperative and the Turek property could be resold with the existing structure remaining intact. It is recommended that the attached resolution authorizing the county to proceed with the purchase of these two properties be adopted. Respectfully submitted, 1<iv. i _ �� 1L.S.o Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING HENNEPIN COUNTY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY UNDER TERMS OF COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT - SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. PW 13 -19 -76 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 7625 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and the County of Hennepin have entered into an agreement; and WHEREAS, the agreement provides that the parties may purchase additional land; and- WHEREAS, the city has determined that certain additional lands are needed for roadway and other public purposes; and WHEREAS, the property to be purchased is known as Lots 6, 7, and 8 Fairwood Shores Addition (Mobil Oil 735 West 66th Street) and Lot 8, Rae Addition (920 West 66th Street). NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield: 1. The City Manager is authorized and the County that the city is formally reques include these properties in the acquisition the subject of the Agreement - Supplement No. Passed by the City Council of the City this 8th day of December, 1980. ATTEST: directed to notify Ling the County to of lands which is 1. of Richfield, Minnesota, Donald J. Priebe, Mayor Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk 't 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 429 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchases in Excess of $1,000 Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve purchases of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are three such items on the city council agenda of December 8, 1980. Weather Instruments There is $3,000 budgeted in the 1980 sewer maintenance budget to purchase three permanent recording snow /rain guages. This equip- ment will provide data which can be used in recording frequency and intensity of rainfalls, useful in assessing functioning of the storm . sewer system, and should also be helpful in collecting data related to snowfalls. The rainfall recording system produces an electrical signal for each one - hundredth (0.01) of an inch of rain. The heater will provide a similar signal to measure snowfall. Three units are recommended to provide for accumulation of data throughout the com- munity. The three units are proposed to be placed at the city garage, golf course and Wood Lake Nature Center. The basic unit costs $749 and the heater is $200 for a total package price of $949. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of three rainfall recording systems, Model R2- 1014P, plus heaters from Weather - ama Weather Instruments in the total amount of $2,847. The staff has been unable to identify any other companies that provide such equip- ment. Catch Basins The city has implemented a systematic maintenance program for improvement of catch basins. The 1980 budget provides funding for replacement of 25 catch basins. The replacement includes grates, unvented covers and self - sealing rings. The package cost for each catch basin is $107 from Neenah Foundry, the only company to provide the materials used in the Richfield system. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of 25 grates, unvented covers and self - sealing rings from Neenah Foundry, in the amount of $2,675. 0 Council Letter No. 427 -2- December 8, 1980 WRock Salt Each winter the city uses approximately 1,100 ton of rock salt for treating winter street conditions. Hennepin County has solicited bids for rock salt, with Cargil Salt the lower bidder, at $24.27 per ton plus $1.73_delivery charge. It is recommended that the city council authorize a master purchase order with Cargil Salt for the 1980/81 winter season for rock salt in the amount of $28,600. Respectfully submitted, �r Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Services Director I] CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 428 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Alley Paving Project A public hearing on the proposed alley paving project was held November 24, 1980. The poll, the results of which are attached as Exhibit A, and the testimony at the hearing attest to the community's interest in the condition of the alleys, and to the wide divergence of opinion on whether or how the alleys should be improved. After the hearing, the council requested that the staff draft resolutions to implement an alley improvement policy along the following lines: 1. Assess alley maintenance costs on a block by block basis; 2. Allow for the initiation of an alley paving proj- ect on an alley by a petition of 50 percent of the abutting property owners; 3. Provide for the city to pay construction costs on parts of an alley which do not abut assessable property; 4. Assess a property owner only for the alley in the back of the lot even though there may be an alley along the side of the lot; 5. Assess commercial properties for three - fourths of the cost of constructing an alley abutting the property, and assess residential property for one - half of the cost, unless it is opposite commercial property; 6. Assess properties whether or not the alley is used for access purposes; 7. Require a minimum of six alleys in one cluster, or ten alleys regardless of location, for a project to be initiated by the council; 8. Establish the standard surface material to be used in 1981, when the first contract is awarded, based on the most favorable cost; 9. Set the deadline for submittal of petitions as February of each year; 0 • Council Letter No. 428 -2- December 8, 1980 10. Initiate an alley project for the Jefferson Park and Augsburg Park clusters. The poll indicated that 64 percent of the respondents in the Jefferson Park cluster and 60 percent of the respondents in the Augsburg Park cluster wanted some type of permanent surfacing. Based upon these figures, a project should be initiated in these areas. However, there is strong opposition to the project in some of the blocks. To accommodate the wishes of those residents, there is a provision in the resolution ordering the project which would allow the residents of a particular block to petition to delete their block from the project. The resolution will meet the needs of the majority, while giving the minority an alternative. The cost per assessable foot which were previously described at the neighborhood meetings and the hearing should be reduced by about 10 -20 percent, due to the city's financial participation in the project. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached reso- lution, establishing the alley improvement policy as described. It is further recommended that the 1981 alley paving project in the Jefferson Park and Augsburg Park clusters be initiated by the coun- cil adopting the attached resolutions. Respectfully submitted, kZk r�-(c �, V, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director T. RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING CITY PROJECT 734 ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 13th day of October, 1980, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvements of the alleys in Richfield, AND WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held thereon on the 24th day of November, 1980, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution passed the 13th day of October, 1980, in the following areas only: Jefferson Park Cluster: All the alleys within the following described area: Bounded on the west by Xerxes Avenue South, bounded on the south by West 70th Street, bounded on the east by Penn Avenue South and bounded on the north by West 66th Street. Augsburg Park Cluster: All of the alleys in the following described area: Bounded on the west by Lyndale Avenue South from West 70th Street to West 75th Street then Aldrich Avenue South from West 75th Street to West 77th Street, bounded on the south by 77th Street from Aldrich Avenue South to Portland Avenue South, bounded on the -east by Portland Avenue South from East 77th Street to East 70th Street and bounded on the north by 70th Street from Portland Avenue South to Lyndale Avenue South then West 75th Street from Lyndale Avenue South to Aldrich Avenue South. 2. The City Council may, at its discretion, delete any block from the project based upon a petition requesting that the block be deleted from the project signed by 50 percent of the property owners abutting the alley within the said block and submitted by the 2nd day of February, 1981. } 3. The engineering firm of Orr - Schelen - Mayeron & Associates, ` Inc. is hereby designated as the engineer for the improvement. They shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. s ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ALLEY POLICY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of .Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. All costs involved in maintaining an alley will be assessed against the property abutting the alley. 2. An alley paving project may be initiated on an alley by a petition signed by the property owners ofvt50 percent of the abutting property. t9 3. All costs involved in the paving of an alley will be assessed against the abutting property except that should a lot have an alley on two primary sides, the property will be assessed only for the shorter of the two sides. 4. Residential properties will be assessed for one -half the cost of paving the full width of the abutting alley unless the property is opposite commercial property in which case it is assessed one - fourth the cost of paving the full width. 5. Commercial alleys will be assessed for three - fourths of the cost of paving the full width of the alley. 6. The City of Richfield will pay the costs of paving an alley not abutting assessable property. 7. The type of surface will be chosen at the time the contract is awarded on the first alley paving project. 8. A minimum of six alleys in one cluster (as defined by the city engineer) or ten alleys regardless of cluster is required for a project. 9. The deadline for the submittal of petitions is February lst of each year. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of December, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor { ALLEY SURVEY RESULTS DECEMBER 8, 1980 NOTE: Percent changes are in parentheses. • % of Total Protect 5.4% ( +.7) 15.2% ( +1:3) 11.4% ( +1.7) 25.0% ( +3.0) 57.0% ( +6.7) Thirty -two respondents specifically stated that their fixed income (Social Security or pension) was the deciding factor for this "No Improvement" choice. Fifty -three respondents stated that they don't use the alley and shouldn't bear the improvement costs, for their "No Improvement" C_� a 4� V\-� -U9 M I Frequency % of Responses OIL 97 9.5% ( +.2) ASPHALT 272.5�„,�,io 26.7 % ( -.9) CONCRETE 203 19.9% ( +.5) NOTHING 447.5 43.9% ( +.2) TOTAL 1,020 100% NOTE: Percent changes are in parentheses. • % of Total Protect 5.4% ( +.7) 15.2% ( +1:3) 11.4% ( +1.7) 25.0% ( +3.0) 57.0% ( +6.7) Thirty -two respondents specifically stated that their fixed income (Social Security or pension) was the deciding factor for this "No Improvement" choice. Fifty -three respondents stated that they don't use the alley and shouldn't bear the improvement costs, for their "No Improvement" C_� a 4� V\-� -U9 M I AUGSBURG PARK ALLEY SURVEY RESULTS Block Oil Asphalt Concrete No Improvement Block # Total Responses Responses Responses Responses 1 21 5 2 2 2 19 1 5 3 3 16 6 2 2 4 So 16 4 1 8 5 13 2 1 5 6 13 6 1 2 7 12 1 1 4 8 12 3 9 16 1 2 6 10 20 1 3 3 9 So 11 23 612-. 9 z 2 12 24 4 6 5 13 8 1 1 3 14 22 2 3 6 3 15 22 5 5 16 21 4 4 5 17 23 3 5 2 3 18 16 1 3 1 6 19 GO% 23 1 13 20 22 1 1 8 3 5�% " 21 24 1 22 82 5 22 24 1 8 5 2 23 19 1 4 4 7 II 24 20 1 7 7 25 17 1 1 2 12 Block # 26 27 28 29 30 Total % of Cluster Responses % Change Since 11/24/80 I • is Block. Oil Asphalt Concrete No Improvement Total Responses Responses Responses Responses 24 6 4 7 24 2 4 6 4 23 5 3 5 20 1 2 8 14 2 3 — — Total 570 23 98 93 148 362 63.5% 6.3% +7.5% +.7% 27.1% 25.7% 40.9% -2.4% +.9% +.8% ' RICHFIELD LAKE Block Oil Asphalt Concrete No Improvement Block # Total Responses Responses Responses Responses 51 19 4 3 6 52 24 6 6 9 53 Solo +o 20 5 2 11 54 So' ?,) 23 1 2 12 5 5 S 10 8 56 7 5 57 12 5 58 So5� 9 1 7 59 11 2 1 60 S�`►� �.� 6 2 2 3 61 15 3 1 1 505' 62 19 1 6 3 5 63 21 4 • 64 18 1 1 7 65 19 2 2 7 66 17 7 67 16 1 7 68 19 2 3 3 4 69 23 1 2 4 70 12 2 3 71 5 1 2 72 7 1 1 73 17 1 1 6 74 SD L 3 2 Total Total 352 5 382 282 125 197 % of Cluster Responses 56.0% 2.50 19.60 14.5% 63.4% % Change Since 11/24/80 +6.0% -.3% -.6% 0 +.9% Block.# 101 9 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 =07_S,109 110 �a5, X111 112 113 I 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 Total % of Cluster Responses % Change Since 11/24/80 42.70 5.7% 33.0% 13.6% LEGION LAKE Block Oil Asphalt Concrete No Improvement Total Responses Responses Responses Responses 7 3 2 3 (vacation) 12 1 5 20 l 4 7 23 1 6 2 5 23 2 3 5 22 2 4 3 17 6 2 1 1 4 6 3 1 7 2 8 1 4 1 1 1 4 4 1 7 1 9 1 1 1 8 6 8 1 2 1 7 1 2 206 5 29 12 Total 42 88 42.70 5.7% 33.0% 13.6% 47.7% 4.8% +.6% +1.0% a -.5° -10° . o v JEFFERSON PARK Block Oil Asphalt Concrete No Improvement Block # Total Responses Responses Responses 'Responses 151 • 24 1 3 1 5 152 21 3 .6 1 3 153 24 2 3 2 5 154 24 4 4 1 8 15.5 24 3 6 3 2 may,„ 156 24 2 5 7 5 t5o 157 23 32 6 2 32 158 19 32 31-2 2 4 159 24 1 5 15 160 24 1 32 12 5 161 24 2 2 5 3 162 24 1 3 2 7 163 24 1 4 3 • 164 23 4 8 165 24 1 3 3 166 8 1 3 5:) 167 24 2 7 4 3 168 22 7 1 4 169 23 1 6 3 2 56 I dv> 170 24 4 5 4 2 171 23- 3 5 1 8 172 23 3 7 3 173 17 6 4 509 174 19 2 4 6 1 175 18 6 3 1 3 176 20 2 2 4 177 21 2 4 1 4 Y j Block Oil Asphalt Concrete No Improvement Block # Total Responses Responses Responses Responses � °100 17 8 21 4 4 4 3 179 22 1 1 2 5 180 14 1 1 1 3 181 11 1 1 Total Total 660 64 107 692 1322 373 % of Total Responses % Change Since 11/24/80 • 0 56.5% 17.20 +6.9% -.3% 28.70 18.60 35.50 -.1% +.7% -.2% :P_1i7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 427 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Reassessment of Richfield Park System On October 27, 1980, the city council reviewed the history of Richfield's existing park system. This system is based on an anal- ysis of park needs for the community which was conducted by Brauer and Associates in 1968 and 1969, and discussed through city -wide citizen meetings in 1970. However, much has happened since the or- iginal assessment of Richfield's park needs. At that time there was no park and recreation department, nor was there a park and recrea- tion advisory commission. Recreation programs were provided through the school district. The joint facilities agreement, executed in 1969 created the city park and recreation department which was es- tablished in 1970. We now have ten years of statistics related to • park programs and design, as well as maintenance and operations. People in the community have also changed. When the original as- sessment was done, 1970 census data was not yet available. The 1980 census is now available, providing some indication of population changes in terms of ages, income, etc. Topics of general citizen concern and interest have also changed over the years. Energy and the environment have become major concerns, and activities and facil- ities for senior and handicapped citizens, teenagers and girls have become items most frequently requested of the city. Other recent park and recreation - related program and facility requests have in- cluded bicycle motocross, mini - bikes, ice skating, roller skating and skateboarding. The need for local, "cultural" activities has also received increasing attention in recent years. At the request of the city council, both the Park and Recrea- tion Advisory Commission and the Planning Commission have reviewed the staff's recommendation for a complete reassessment of the Rich- field park system. Both groups received the same informational and background materials that were provided to the council members. It is the recommendation of both commissions that there be a reassess- ment of the Richfield park system. To provide a complete reassessment it is important to consider the past, present and future. Data used in the reassessment should include, at a minimum, demographic data such as population, economics, • age brackets, and inventory data, such as historical information on • Council Letter No. 427 -2- December 8, 1980 park development, description of existing facilities, such as park furniture and assigned spaces, a comparision of the existing system to the original park system plan, and identification and considera- tion of issues related to administration, management and maintenance. It is most important to look to the future and consider such items as recreation programming, both active and passive, societal patterns and cycles, energy impacts, environmental considerations, personnel needs and qualifications, and the availability of finances both for redevelopment, and operation and maintenance. Preparation of the plan should address needs of recreation, culture, reserve, conserva- tion and ornamentation. A projected timeline for implementation of such a plan should be prepared. It is the recommendation of the staff that an agreement be made between the City of Richfield and Brauer and Associates Ltd., Inc. for the purpose of reassessing the Richfield park system. Brauer and Associates prepared the original park system analysis and plan and therefore, would have much historical data. As a multi - disciplinary firm, Brauer and Associates can provide professional planning, land- scape, architectural and engineering services required to reassess and update the Richfield park system. The fee for the professional services related to the reassessment would be approximately $20,000. Paul Fjare, President of Brauer and Associated Ltd., Inc., and Don Fondrick, Director of Community Services, will be present at the December 8, 1980 city council meeting, to answer any questions mem- bers of the council may have related to the park system reassess- ment and the recommended agreement for professional services. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Services Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ,1 Office of City Manager -f4t Council Letter No. 426 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amendment to Animal Control Ordinance First Reading At the November 1'0, 1980 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading to an ordinance amendment which pro- vides for "pooper scoopers ", a progressively higher impoundment fee for "at large" animals, and authority to dispose of animals which have attacked a person a second time. At that city council meeting, the city council requested that the ordinance be further amended to provide for leashing of cats as well as dogs. A copy of that proposed ordinance is attached to this council letter. This ordinance amendment would require that cats, as well as dogs, be: - "at large" if the animal is off the property of the owner and not under restraint. - "under restraint" if controlled by a leash not exceeding six feet in length, or at heel beside a competent person having custody of the animal and obedient to that person's commands, or within a vehicle being driven or parked on a public street or within the property limits of the owner's premises. An unattended animal on the property of another, without the consent of such property owner, is "at large" and not under restraint even though it may be leashed. This ordinance amendment also provides that cats are included under the "pooper scopper" ordinance. Also attached are copies of letters received from three resi- dents opposing the proposed ordinance as well as copies of letters from residents which have recently appeared in the Richfield Sun. The city staff has received several phone calls and feedbacks in regard to the proposed ordinance, and a copy of those comments is attached for the information of the council. This ordinance amendment has been placed on the December 8, 1980 city council agenda for first reading consideration. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /if vai+r: CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: I. Chapter V, Part III; Section 5.27, dealing with. the: licensing of domestic animals is hereby amended by amending subdivisions 9 and 16 thereof to read as follows: "Subd. 9. "(Dogs] Animals Not to be at Large.; Immediate Disposal of Dog or Cat Feces. No owner shall permit his dog or cat to be at large in this city, but shall keep such dog or cat under restraint at all times. The defi- nitions of "at large" contained in subdivision I(A) of this section and of "under restraint" contained in sub- division 1(5) of this section shall also apply to cats as those terms are used in this section. Every dog or cat owner and every person having custody or control _ of any dog or cat shall immediately clean up and sanitar- ily dispose of any feces of the animal, except that this provision shall not apply to blind persons with.respect to their ownership of seeing eye dogs. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 198 'Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V, PART 111, SECTION 5.27 AND APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: I. Chapter V, Part III; Section 5.27, dealing with. the: licensing of domestic animals is hereby amended by amending subdivisions 9 and 16 thereof to read as follows: "Subd. 9. "(Dogs] Animals Not to be at Large.; Immediate Disposal of Dog or Cat Feces. No owner shall permit his dog or cat to be at large in this city, but shall keep such dog or cat under restraint at all times. The defi- nitions of "at large" contained in subdivision I(A) of this section and of "under restraint" contained in sub- division 1(5) of this section shall also apply to cats as those terms are used in this section. Every dog or cat owner and every person having custody or control _ of any dog or cat shall immediately clean up and sanitar- ily dispose of any feces of the animal, except that this provision shall not apply to blind persons with.respect to their ownership of seeing eye dogs. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 198 'Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk A decision on cats Yh: Adlal E. Stevenson, when governor of Illinois I cannot a r that it should be the declared pubs c policy of Illinois that a cat visiting a neighbor's yard or crossing the highway is a public nuisance. It Is in the nature of cats to do a certain amount of unescorted roaming ... to escort a cat abroad on a leash is against the nature of the owner. More - over, cats perform useful service, partieu- Marly in the rural areas. ` The problem of the cat vs. the bird is as old as time. It we attempt to resolve it by leggislation, who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age -old problems of dog vs. cat, bird vs. bird or even bird vs. worm. In my opinion, the state of Ilinois and its local governing bodies already have enough to do without trying to control feline delinquency. Richfield City Offices ; ATTENTION: "RL NOLLENBERGER November 26, 1980 Gentlemen: We who cannot resolve our own differencesrwith legislative g measures above pri ought, to take a tip from Stevenson i ! A,am opposed to the proposed cat leashing ordinance. I am the owner of Richfield and of two cats and comply with the,licensing ordinance this should be more rigidly anion, have no quarrel with it. In my op' i ca in censed ouseho I dgwb thooutd a kennel license enforced . I know of un I cats p er that the "no more than two rule is also broken. ept I.may be wrong, but I see no effort to enforce renewaletimeghaswarrived. th to remind owners of already licensed cats another a oSe resist sP 1 take.exception to people who-c l uns a Y edkortunneuteredland unfed. turn it loo beautiful animal only to due respect, I think your thrust toward leashing is misguided and With should be redirected to enforcing the present ordinance. Anne Johnston 7011 Penn Ave S Richfield, 55423 869 -9245 x ";, �' ., 6700 Portland Ave Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Sirs: As a resident of Richfield, I wish to state my disapproval of the proposed cast leashing or belling ordinance. You are considering this at your Dec. 8th meeting. As i will not be able to attend the meeting, I wish to state my reasons for opposing the ordinance. S 1st. To leash or bell a cat would endanger their lives by hanging or attact by dogs. Cats are independent creatures and should be tr9ted as such. To treat them otherwise would be cruel and in humane. 2nd. I live close to the Woodlake Nature Center and although I love all wild life, I have been very much disturbed by having rabbits, birds racoons, pheasant invading my garden and destoying my vegetables, which I need. We can not pass an ordinance against these invaders. But we can allow the neighborhood cats to patrol the yards and scare these intruders away. Should I see any cat actually harming another creature I would certainly intervene. However, as I need my garden produce, I would always welcome the, cat or cats in my yard. 3rd. Cats are a great protection against rats, mice and other rodents. Surely we do not want an influx of rodents in Richfield. 4th. Cats help keep our City Clean. In the past Starling and Grackles hate made it impossible to leave cars parked in driveways or use patios without the fear of their droppings. 5th. Why is it necessary for another ordinance, when we already have the nuisance ordiance on the books, that will cover any animal causing a disturbance. In reference. to the above objection, please reconsider your proposed ordinance and put more effort into enforcing the exisiting ordinance. Yours truly (? 1-n-+� Olga Mortensen 6609 Girard Ave S. Richfield, Minn 55423 . t Dear Vern: I am writing to you in response to your proposed cat control ordinance. I was very suprised that you have not heard from concerned cat owners. I have talked to several people in our immediate neighoorthood about this proposal. Their first response was tnat they weren;t aware of the proposal. Their second reaction was total opposition to the concept of leasning cats. I am especially concerned about the lack of publicity and failure to _ inform ,he general public. Idy only awareness of your proposal was tnrouga the articles in 'tae Richfield Sun. The impact of an action of tnis nature is too great not to receive the same attention accorded to other council activ- i ti es. My family, as well as myself, are real animal lovers. We nave run the gamut in the pets that we have had. We are also financial as well as moral supporters of two prominent wildlife preservation organizations. I am ,.� saying this only as a preface to my remaining remarks. On May 19th, 1980, I also faced a sad decision. I had to put an old and true friend to her final rest. "Our dog was about 15 and was suffering from a malignant tumor. She grew up with my children and was every bit a member of our family. She was well cared for and was also fenced or leashed to tae end. However, cats are a different matter. They are quiet, unobtrusive, and physically compatible with the environment. Tney do go after birds but tnei r "kill" ratio is insignificant. They provide real campanionship and are a pleasure to have around. We have two cats we inherited from our daughters. They have been neutered, spayed, wormed,.and innoculated. They spend the majority of tneir time in tae house and 'their immediate yard. They also have their own private bathroom in the form or a well - maintained litteroox. Cats are "free" solrits. If you nave ever observed the joy they get just from exercising their freedom In ruaping, js.srping, and cliu : i._g I'm fua ivo-,-,ld condone, much less advocate such a restrictive action as leasning. Also, you are overlooking the real value of cats relative to the control of rodents. This is not intended as a facetious comment. They do serve a valuable purpose. Cities. including Richfield, do suffer from a growing problem with rodents. Cats hello greatly in a natural way to help control this problem. The only other alternatives are poisonous substances and /or traps. Cats are an infinitely better choice. wildlife preservation organizations. I and withdraw your puLi. am saying this only as a preface to Sincerely yours, my remaining remarks. John Daffer On May 19,1980, I also faced a sad Richfield decision. I had to put an old and true lover responds Cot d S . Editor's note: A Richfield cat owner problems of dog vs. cat, bird vs. bird sent the following letter to the editor or even bird vs, worm. accompanied with a quote from In my opinion, the state of Illinois Adlai E. Stevenson, when he was and its local governing bodies governor of Illinois. already have enough to do without trying to control feline delinquency. A decision on cats By Adlai E. Stevenson To the Editor: I cannot agree that it should be the No cat owner could have said it declared public policy of Illinois that better than Adlai E. Stevenson; so I a cat visiting a neighbor's yard or share the above reprint with you. crossing the highway is a public I am a cat owner and feel that the nuisance. present ordinance as it applies to It is in the nature of cats to do a -cats is adequate - if enforced. I see certain amount of unescorted the licensing law broken. I know of roaming-to escort a cat abroad on a households "who cannot resist" one leash is against the nature of the ow- more kitten who accept more than ner. Moreover, cats perform useful two and do not comply with the re- service, particularly in the rural quirement for a kennel license and areas. who have their semi - vagrant cats The problem of the cat vs. the bird roam unspayed, unneutered and un- is as old as time. If we attempt to fed. Leashing would be ineffective. resolve it by legislation, who knows Anne S. Johnston , but what we may be called upon to Richfield take sides as well in the age -old E n � l pet control lave To the Editor: I'm sending you a copy of my let- ter to Councilman Luettinger with the hopeful request that you publish it as a front page reply to Mr. Luet- tinger's proposed ordinance. I am hoping that you will support my efforts to be heard in a very visi- ble fashion. Vern Luettinger has cer- tainly been given a great deal of publicity in the last two issues of the Richfield Sun. I am truly incensed over three issues that I feel are major: 1. The power that permits one in- dividual to attempt to turn a per- sonal bias into a city ordinance. 2. The obvious use of council time to deal with an, until now, obscure matter. 3. The absolute attempt to control people and the activities of a very domesticated animal. Editor's note: The Richfield Sun could not run Mr. Daffer's letter to Councilman Luettinger on the front page, but it is printed in full below. Dear Vern: . I am writing to you in response to your proposed cat control ordinance. I was very surprised that you have not heard from concerned cat ow- ners. I have talked to several people in our immediate neighborhood about this proposal. Their first response was that they weren't aware of the proposal. Their second reaction was total opposition to the concept of leashing cats. I am especially cone -1-med about the lack of publicity and failure to in- form the general public. My only awareness of your proposal was through the articles in the Richfield Sun. The impact of an action of this nature is too great not to receive the same attention accorded to other council activities. My family, as well as myself, are real animal lovers. We have run the gamut in the pets that we have had. We are also financial as well as moral supporters of two prominent wildlife preservation organizations. I am saying this only as a preface to my remaining remarks. On May 19, 1960, I also faced a sad decision. I had to put an old and true friend to her final .rest. -Our dog was about 15 and was suffering from a malignant tumor. She grew up with my children and was every bit a member of our family. She was well cared for and was also fenced or leashed to the end. However, cats are a different matter. They are quiet, unobtrusive, and physically compatible' with the environment. They do go after birds but their "kill" ratio is insignificant. They provide real companionship and are a pleasure to have around. We have two cats we inherited from our daughters. They have been neutered, spayed, wormed and in- noculated. They spend the majority of their time in the house and their immediate yard. they also have their own private bathroom in the form of a well - maintained litterbox. Cat are "free" spirits. If you have ever observed the joy they get just from exercising their freedom in running, jumping, and climbing I'm amazed that you would condone, much less advocate such a restric- tive action as leashing. , Also, you are overlooking the real value of cats relative to the control of rodents. This is not intended as a facetious comment. They do serve a valuable purpose. Cities, including Richfield, do suffer from a growing problem with rodents. Cats help greatly in a natural way to help con- trol this problem. The only other alternatives are poisonous sub- stances and /or traps. Cats are an in- finitely better choice. In summation, I want to again ex- press to you my total opposition to your desire to leash cats. I have been a supporter of you in your position as a councilman but I feel that on this issue you are misusing your position in response to your own personal bias. I feel the overall effect of such an action would be very unfair to domestic pets that can't possibly deter your action and also their ow- ners. I sincerely request of you to give this matter thoughtful consideration and withdraw your plan. - Sincerely yours, John Daffer Richfield Cat lover responds Editor's note: A Richfield cat owner problems of dog vs. cat, bird vs. bird l sent the following letter to the editor or even bird vs. worm. accompanied with a quote from In my opinion, the state of Illinois Adlal E. Stevenson, when he was and its local governing bodies .governor of Illinois...- ,aalready have enough to do -thout CMED M FAN Seamless aluminum pan is extra dee fluffy frostings. Raised snap on cc doubles as a cookie sheet 13 x 9" x ROAST N BAKE PAI a� TEFLON COOKIE SHE STEAM/DRY IRON Water window, fray- resistant cordse zs vents..::18.44 m A • .. b 300 MA)(/M P THERMONI Indicates present, highest af lowest temps. Mounts easily. -4 Resident } i catcall s cat control ro p osa � To the Editor: One can only mirmicc than the f'"ity of Richfield has j«achieved nearly all of its civic aspirations in view of the projects to which some city, council members currently devote their time and efforts. Forsaking the issues of planning and funding which constantly face our fair city, some council members have opted instead to discuss a proposed ordinance requiring the leashing of cats. How enforceable is such an or- "dinance? Picture this: Tom Cat is lurking with intent to commit mis- chief by a residential birdfeeder. The "Kitt Ko s " a new d y p , comman o squ8d financed by our tax dollars, .apprehend Tom and try to ascertain his identity. But since Tom is not leashed and not wearing a collar, of- forts at identification fail and he is transported to the local feline deten- tion center. He will there freeload while awaiting bail or a city - financed execution. But perhaps such an ordinance would serve Richfield well. It would at least give the city notoriety. Chicago, for example, might have remained just another cow town on the shores of Lake Michigan if its city fathers had not enacted an or- dinance prohibiting ugly people from appearing on city streets. Despite the fact that the city has laws covering public nuisances which could be used in the cases of offensive cats, some council mem- bers see fit to duplicate those ex- isting laws with yet another or- dinance. For laws to have meaning, they must be enforceable —not laughable. As a resident, I suggest that the council drop this farcical line of codification and return to the real business of running the city. Maggi McDermott Richfield Richfield Sun` letter policy The Richfield Sun welcomes comments of its readers and en- courages them to send letters to the editor. Short letters generally make for the best reading. Please limit your letters to two typed pages and send them to: Richfield Sun, 9615 Lyndale Ave. S., Bloomington, Minn., 55420. Letters must be received by Friday for consideration for the following week's paper. All letters must contain the original signature of the writer' and the name of the town of the writer and no politically oriented letters -to- the - editor will be ac- cepted one week prior to an elec- tion. The Richfield Sun reserves the right to request verification of facts from the letter writer. More letters on page 16A GIFTS ACCESSORIES . we specialize in animal accents for the home, The P_4 NEW ffm mill 5027 Vernon Avenue-South Edina, MN 55436, (612) 929 -7505 Just up from Jerry's Foods.: The Homeowner's Advisor by John T. McGraw, Rlr—rUTOR.. TAX CREDITS FOR ENERGY SAVERS - QUESTION: I understand that related energy-saving jtems such as provisions in the tax laws allow a replacement bu-ners. tax credit for homeowners on It's a good idea to keep careful certain energy - related items. Would records of all expenditures for you comment on this? energy- saving devices bdded to ANSWER: Energy tax credits are your home. Not only will these indeed available under current tax records help in establishing your laws. qualification for the tax credit, they . You are allowed a 15% tax credit also may help to hold down your on the first $2,000 you spend on potential capital gain tax on the energy- saving home improvements, future sale of your home. which means a maximum credit of NOW'S A GOOD TIME TO ACT $300 on, your income tax return. ON THESE MONEY SAVERS. Tax credits may be taken for the PUTTING THEM IN NOW following types of energy- related BEFORE YEAR'S END WILL HELP items: storm or thermal windows or SAVE ENERGY DURING THE doors for the exterior of your home; COLDEST PART OF THE YEAR, caulking weather stripping of AND GIVE YOU HELP ON YOUR exterior doors or windows; 1980 TAX RETURN. insulation designed to reduce heat loss or heat gain of residence; clock ?; `.•= thermostats or other similar energy - saving devices; furnace John T. McGraw, REALTOR modification designed to increase EDINA REALTY fuel efficiency and other heating- 888 -4176 i COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS James Fleming, 6613 - "Anti Leashing" Robert Hobert, 7105 17th Avenue, opposed to leashing Luella Johnson, 6417 Girard Avenue, opposed to leashing Mrs. Frank Baker, 6408 18th Avenue, objects to the proposed ordinance Frank Walerak, 6620 Chicago, agrees that a cat leashing ordinance of some sort should be enforced Mrs. Robson, very upset about loose dogs and cats- agrees that they should be leashed or confined Maggie McDermott - ordinance would be "silly" Kathy Greg, has siamese — leash would injure such cats �50, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 425 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Resolution Regarding Booking Fee, Hennepin County Adult Detention Center During our 1981 budget review process in September, we discussed an action by the Hennepin County Board which proposed to charge local municipalities a booking fee of $68 with a daily housing fee of $30, for individual's arrested and placed in the county jail. This pro- posal was developed by the County Administrator's office and presented so late in the budget development process that it was very difficult for any local unit of government to include this potential charge in their 1981 budget programs. The implications of the proposal ap- peared to be in the range of $30,000 to the City of Richfield. After discussions with the County Administrator about this matter, it appeared that action to implement this charge would be deferred un- til such time as a committee involving judges, police administrators, city managers, and local elected officials could examine this matter in more detail. During the final stages of the county budget process, the County Board took action to implement a booking fee of $58 per individual effective January 1, 1980. The county board did suggest the forma- tion of the committee to further study this matter, particularly with regard to the daily housing fee which had originally been proposed. This action has seemed premature and has met with a great deal of objection from most local units of government within our county. We are troubled by the justifications given for the action and the lack of clarity in how the user charge system would work in many instances. The Hennepin County Chief's of Police Association has taken a particularly active interest in this matter and the Golden Valley City Council has authorized their city attorney to provide legal assistance to the association in their study of this matter. The initial legal research has been completed and it is the opinion of the Golden Valley City Attorney that this action by the county board may not be within their legal rights. In any event, the cost implications of this action to local units of government, many of which are already at their tax levy limitations, are of concern and need to be considered in the resolution to the matter. . ; ;.. F Council Letter No. 425 -2- 0 December 4, 1980 The Golden Valley City Attorney is in the process of develop- ing a class action litigation to challenge this charge. Since that may take some period of time, the Golden Valley attorney believes local units of government should express their concern to the county board through the adoption of a formal resolution. The pro- posed resolution which is attached for council consideration would ask the county board to give further analysis to the issue and justification to the municipalities. It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that our city council join with other city council's throughout Hennepin County and adopt this resolution. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager • • RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board has adopted Resolution No. 80 -9 -719, providing for the payment of a booking charge of $58.00 for each individual booked in Hennepin County Adult Detention Center with such charge against the committing juris- diction, to become effective January 1, 1981, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 80 -9 -719, further provides for a residential custody charge per quarter day to be established and assessed against committing jurisdictions effective January 1, 1982, and WHEREAS, such charges would be unduly burdensome to this municipality, and WHEREAS, these charges would unfairly distribute costs to this municipality based on the performance of its Police Depart- ment in executing warrants for arrest that do not originate from this municipality's jurisdiction, and WHEREAS, there has not been sufficient study completed of the • statistical breakdown of reasons for arrest (i.e., pursuant to warrant, violation of a felony statute, violation of state mis- demeanor statute, violation of local ordinance), there is no accurate basis for determining the "committing jurisdiction" to be charged purcuant to Resolution No. 80 -9 -719, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this municipality opposes the imposition of any booking charge on January 1, 1981, pursuant to Resolution No. 80 -9 -719, and recommends that the Hennepin County Board take no further action prior to the completion of sufficient studies to determine where costs of the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center should properly be distributed, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that no action be taken by the Hennepin County Board in charging costs to this municipality prior to the completion of a study of the state law applicable to cost - sharing in this context. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of November, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor • ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk -it /a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 424 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Cable Television Franchising Ordinance First Reading Over the past year and one -half the city council of the City of Richfield, the Richfield Cable Television Advisory Committee, and the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSCC) have been involved in the franchising process for cable tele- vision. The process has been a lengthy one with ample oppor- tunity for input by the citizens of the City of Richfield as well as the potential cable franchisees and other interested parties. Written documentation has been received by the city council from the potential franchisees in the form of applica- tions, from the Cable Television Information Center as the con - sultant for the SWSCC, from the Richfield Cable Television Advisory Committee, and from the SWSCC. The SWSCC has passed a Resolution of Findings of Facts, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Southwest Suburban CATV Study Commission which is attached to this council letter. The recommendation from the SWSCC is that each of the five cities involved in the franchising process should award a cable com- munication systems franchise to Minnesota Cable by adopting the franchise ordinance submitted to it by the SWSCC. A full ordi- nance, including addendum with exhibits granting a franchise to Minnesota Cable Systems- Southwest, a Minnesota limited partner- ship, to operate and maintain a cable communications system in the city, setting forth conditions accompanying the grant of the franchise, providing for regulation and use of the system and prescribing penalties for the violation of its provisions, is also included with this council letter. The city council has received so much communication and attended so many meetings concerning the cable television fran- chise that I am not sure it is necessary to further elaborate on this matter. It is important that the council carefully consider all of the input they have received over the past 18 months in their deliberation of a franchise award. The city 0 E • u Council Letter No. 424 -2- December 8, 1980 council should be reminded that it is necessary for four of the five communities in the SWSCC area to award to the same franchise applicant in order for any of the communities to proceed forward. The City of Richfield entered into the franchise process with the other four communities on the basis that better bids would be re- ceived by acting jointly rather than independently. I think that that promise has been realized in the excellent franchise applica- tions which were received. It is the opinion of the SWSCC and the city manager that one-application, that of Minnesota Cable- Southwest, is better than the other proposals. \ It is recommended that the city council give first reading \\ approval of this ordinance, and direct it to be published in the Richfield Sun. Second Reading of the ordinance is scheduled for December 22, 1980. i Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: City Attorney S KN r C.i�ltZ T-,L /` (-Sr UFt �3�` -lvY Ml TiUD Mln��llvn(l�A Uf`���MJJSI`F %�17J�1Slb Cx1 1l61? U 71t_c SllL_ T Un( /Zl'Z JMMe"nrJ�f�h� c) �-- FWr'4 �� n5tti�> nuNLi Flit gTAK� Ya2l= MnC W� YJst��i' T- `t -L�,z cA5� =5 Acc�,2n�^(C LY -�n,n Cfl vSl Ca+✓L C.�nI (-u cr �1= ini IM�SF J J �' k. tom' (L' C/ J�,� J 1 R CO °� , o� 0� 3 The attachments to the council letter on Cable Television ( #10 on your agenda) were, unfortunately, incorrect. The resolution adopted by the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission had three attachments listed as A, B, and C. Please discard the three in the agenda packet and replace them with the enclosed material. r- -I L-j 9 li SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT ATTACHMENT A Ll • from INPITATION FOR APPLICANTS-- iiarch 17, '1980 Evaluation Criteria. l� In general, applicants will be rated accarding to the following criteria: • initial service area; • line extension policy; • • construction timetable; • plans for access programming support; • local 'origination programming and resources -plans; • two -way services; •: technical standards; and • rates. - - • Applicants will not be judged on the order in which communities will be constructed and provided service. Priority will be given to the applicant: • providing the mnnt reasonable line extension policy;. • proposing the shortest realistic timetable for serving the greatest number of people in the initial service area; • proposing the most comprehensive offer of services,provided that such.offering does not exceed the financial capability of the applicant to construct and operate its proposed cable com- munications-system for the cities; • proposing to provide superior programming (broadcast and non - broadcast), the most reasonable subscriber rates, an excellent maintenance plan and the widest range of services to the sub- scribers; • showing evidence of providing sufficient, satisfactory, and dependable services to other communities and a management back - ground that gives evidence of excellent construction practices, ability to meet schedules, good planning and marketing prat- tices, a history of satisfied customers and good community re- lations; and • proposing discounted rates for senior citizens and homebound individuals. SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT ATTACHMENT B � fo 0 41 a LnNrnN +V 1;f N �'tfl01 Ss� 5 � 5 555 =1 awcL a a w . 1r.A.;L N 7 • > I r a Nt'1t:3t�d r ry c �••- r e-� r e•+ aT > >1 I > a curoww�.w a. 0 0 ca rr 4 u . •Z 0 > . •.., �aOi U o tU) n z a, oN u 3 43 m U) w . �2 .a • ss r3 O C) .Q � V N .ts � � � •U Vf � U U C14 C- p •••+ � N o 114 M .+ O• m> O O O 00 v w� N O 1I E �OU.+EnO 4 C r a�i� }� t'S �8;'U O �N L) .i.+EO=E N. � Q3 o � a co H H a� Q1 N N CM a U CC) U w U O 0 . 41 co \ H +U 41 � � v Z � U Z 2 H z � \ 'ra \ \ E p C C s Z g' u s .OG 4 .:.j lia s 49 C 5 0s4 u OOOU 0 000000 sa .-1 F, (n a) i 1 -W A N N N N N N w 0 m N N .n+ i► r3 ) C) C(a O C C G C U UC4 Ez z H HEE E EEr.EsE E E tn 4 +1 O Ln fA 4' CV G4 •� � d Sa N sa C C3 O w w 'U u ss 0 U 41 )fit 41 !g cl K+ P-4 41 U Cr N O c .1 4 C w R. 2 '� c to Ui 1 US U ►-i •� 84 +V ~ U -Cl 0 cgs C C t� rl AJ 0 v: U C3 u C •.1 4J y0� p •.� t!� > rt UI -V C7 C7 t!i lr r3 to -•i U CL r� U >4 (3 >4 V U ?c sJ O C1 a i r?cJ ai U C ?c >1 u N to .:. to C Gc tt33.. a co cn w 6+ H cn sn cn +-4 cn U CO 7 7 W W a� N > 7 � W�+W U U pO t3+�N t�tl O D U A t�+ - �H r 0 .-� r4 u� 4 zo aOAi a U N N 4 �o0, tn r4 '41 li y 0 N 1 U � r1 0 R N u � w2 w N O d U ttl 9 w N a� j U � u N to w SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT ATTACHMENT C • A B S T R A C T OF M I N U T E S SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION 16 JUNE 1980 1. DISCUSSION: RELATIVE 1:71 OF EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PRIORITIES CR J1LJT0G1'NG APPLICA TS I P= .OPOSALS (ADDE:IT DUMB) Anita Benda introduced ADDENDUM B as- a replacement for ADDEN- DUM D (14 May 1980 MINUTES) . Ms. Benda exalained that the Evaluation Categories & Elements found in ADDENDUMM B should be used by all evaluators of the proposals. This includes the Cable Television Information Center, Anita Benda, her- - self, the Southwest Schools Cable Commission, the companies, public and special interest groups, local cable advisory committees, and the Commission and city councils. � 0 Ms. Benda went on to encourage the Commission to discuss and to understand these categories and elements -- to be sure these categories and elements make sense. Dr. Slaton men- tioned that the , Fission will ��•�� "^ "' - -avily upon outside evaluators in the technical areas of the proposals. Ms. Benda replied that CTIC will provide thorough technical evaluations. Dr Slaton then suggested that the Commission devise a report which shows the Evaluation Categories & Elements and their relative importances. Mr. Courtney agreed, stating that this would show the city councils where the Commission stands on these evaluation issues. This way the city councils and local advisory committees could more clearly react to the Commission's thoughts. Karl Nollenberger then offered the following ranking guide which was worked out by the Richfield city council and local advisory committee: (PLEASE REFER TO ADDENDUM B.) Highest priority 1 6 2 8 3 9 Medium priority 4 7 5 10 (most desirable) Medium to Low priority 11 16 12 17 13 18 14 19 15 Low priority 20 Mr. Nollenberger explained the rationale for the above list. The most important aspect of cable to the subscribers must certainly be the services provided by the networks. When one looks at th.e services categories & elements, one sees ser- vices that seem to be aimed at broad markets and at smaller markets. The services aimed at broad markets, thus serving more people more of the time, are items 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9. Items 4, 5, 7, and 10 are aimed at smaller audiences, and, should therefore carry less weight in the decision to choose a company. The remaining Evaluation Categories & Elements, 11 -20, receive less weight than those in the Services area because the Technical and Financial items simply enable the systems to perform the services promised in the proposals. The Commission should seriously consider the Technical and Financial items when these item- A- not support- :-he services Dromised. Mr. Nollenberger further e xplained that the Richfield city council and local advisory committee assigned rough per- centages of weight to the Evaluation Categories & Elements: Highest priority 40 per cent ) 2/3 weight Medium priority 25 ) Medium to Low priority 32 X1 /3 weight Low priority 3 ) 100 per cent 3/3 weight Paul Redpath agreed with Mr. Nollenberger's weights and re- minded the Commission that Eden Prairie, mindful of its lower density, expects to be cabled after the other four communities. Jim Miller agreed with Mr. Nollenberger's report adding that once the Co.n.ission, councils, and other interested parties read over the proposals, a high degree of unity may prevail. Juanita Collins reminded the Commission that the track records . of the companies in other markets is extremely important especially in the .areas of system maintenance, reliability, and repair. Chairman Courtney recalled that the staff is doing such record checks and will present an interim report at the.July Commission meeting. J Ken Roslcr.d ao_c^4 -_'.`_: Mr. Nollenberger's '--port leading Chairman Courtney to announce a consensus of the C=ission. In response to Karl Nollenberger's question, Adrian Herbst• explained that if consensus among Commission members is not reached regarding their recor^.mendation for one company, the process is not stopped. Only a plurality is required. However, if more than one city council does not adopt the franchise_ ordinance naming the recommended company, we must begin again with applications for new cable service ter- ritories. The present southwest Hennepin county CST was applied for in November 1978. Anita Benda advised the Commission to view the proposals 'in terms of these Evaluation Categories & Elements and not of companies. 0 TO: .0 FROM: SUBJECT: -DATE: ' S41SCC fIENUTES 6,16.80 ADDENDUi ; B Southwest Suburban CATV Study Commission Members Anita Pcnda /The Cable Television Information Center Judging Cable Applicants'. Proposals June 10, 1980 At the May 14, 1980 meeting, vie discussed how applicants' proposals will be judged by The Commission. Members discussed and dismissed, the idea of applying a numerical ratings system to the criteria and priorities listed in The Invitation for Application. A memo distributed at this meeting ( "Elements of Evaluation Criteria" ) listed various elements of each criterion and priority. This list was not adequate to serve as a basis of a Commission discussion of the relative importance of the criteria and priorities. Following is a list of evaluation categories and elements thant will likely be used by CTIC in its written report to The Commission. It is important to note that all of The Commission's criteria and priorities listed in The Invitation are included in these categories. This is presented in hopes that the listing will serve as a better tool for the discussion at your June 16 meeting of issues prior to the discussion of applicants' proposals. As we discussed at the May meeting, devising a rigid numerical rating for each category is not reccm: ended. The result of your June 16 discussion, then, may be only that each Co.-,mission .member knows how other members feel regarding the relative importance of the categories. After The Co;nmission's discussion of issues, each city member should report on how their individual city council will be involved in the evaluation process (reactivation of citizen advisory committees, discussion at regular or special council meetings, etc.). To quote from an April 8, i9 '00 memo, "Having The five councils accept The Commission's recommendation will depend upon the cities' confidence in that recommendation. Therefore, it is important that the basis of The Commission's recommendation is understood by the city councils." Evaluation Categories & Elements Services Broadcast Signal Carriage (independent stations, specialty 1. stations, late- night.carriagre) Special Interest .Programming (number of hours, types of 26' programming) Automated Programmin;; (national services, locally- programmed 3. services, equipment & commitments to program) Local Ori;inaticn (equipment, staff, budget, programming y, plans, self- support) .r t 5 o-1 -2- Access Support (channels, equipment, maintenance, staff, bud;et, allowance for growth, operating policies, '�- on- ship to nonprofit corporation, universal service, community channels) Pay Services (number, type, lockout device, choice related 6. to tiers) Interactive Services (home alarm, device for reducing false 71 alarms, opinion polling, data retrieval) $. Tiered Structures (creation of choice, appropriateness) 9. KT, Audio & Shortwave Services (types) Service to Institutions (rates for installation & service, 10. video origination points) Technical System Concept (hub number, use and interconnection, distribution �1. system, design) System Engineering Channel capacity (initially activated channels, upstream/ downstream banu::idth, rarro:•:casti System Perfor:a:r_ce (technical standards) Service Security (pay security, tierir_g security) Headend and Importation Signals (plans for importing signals) System Interconnect (among.5 cities, Twin Cities area) Institutional Service (design for accom_-nodating video, audio, 13 and data transmissions among institutions) Subscriber Equipment (addressability -- remote control of 14. connections & pay services, data retrieval, interactive services, real time interactive services) Ancillary Services (F:4 service quality, emergency override 150 and channel, home alarm) Construction Plans (initial coverage area, extension policy, 16. •timetable) Reliability, Maintenance & Repair (response to service calls, 17. system testing & maintenance, standby power) Financial ISIS. Financial Goal (reasonableness, ability to meet goal) 19� System Financing Guarantees for financing, guarantee of parent company) 20. Rates stability and accountability over time (ADDED BY KARL NOLLENBERGER) CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 423 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Contract for Renovation of Lift Stations #1 and #3 On Friday, November 14, 1980, bids were opened for the renova- tion of Lift Stations #1 and #3. A copy of the bid tabulation is attached for council review. Lift Station #3, located at 77th Street and Knox Avenue South, was budgeted for renovation in 1980. Lift Station #1, located at 63rd Street and Colfax Avenue South, was budgeted for renovation in 1981. By combining the bidding to include both sites, we believe that a reduced total price package has been achieved. The combina- tion of these two projects also allows for standardization of parts and service. The 1980 budget amount for the contract work on Lift Station #3 is $55,000 and the 1981 budget amount for contract work on Lift Station #1 is approximately $60,000. The lowest responsible bid, submitted for a lump sum to furnish all labor and materials for modifications for Lift Stations #1 and #3 and appurtenant work, was from Hayes Contractors, Inc., in the amount of $74,971. The alternate bid allowed for equipment other than specified. After examining the merit of the alternate, it is the recommendation of staff and consultant to reject the alternate in order to maintain a standardization of equipment and make use of the more energy- efficient equipment included in the base bid. It is recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations. 2. Award a contract to Hayes Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $74,971 for the renovation of Lift Station #1 and Lift Station #3. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Services Director k Irl 0 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5.27, SUBDIVISIONS 9 AND 16 AND TO APPENDIX D, SECTION (12)i. OF THE ORDI-,NCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 5.27, Subdivisions 9 and 16, dealing with the restraint of dogs and the disposal of dangerous animals, respectively, and Appendix D, Section (12)i, setting forth the fees for impoundment of animals, all of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, are hereby amended to provide as follows: "Subd. 9. Dogs Not to be At Large_[.], Immediate Disposal of Dog Feces. No owner shall permit his dog to be at large in this city, but shall keep such dog under restraint at all times. Ever dog owner and ever person having custody or control of any dog dia shall immetely clean a and sanitarily dispose of any feces of the animal, except that this provision shall not apply to blind persons with respect to their ownership and use of seeing eye dogs. "Subd. 16. Dangerous Animals. If a dog or cat is diseased, vicious, dangerous, rabid or exposed to rabies and such dog or cat cannot be impounded after a reasonable effort or cannot be impounded without serious risk to the persons attempting to impound it, or if a dog or cat has made more than one attack on a person or persons, such dog or cat may be immediately killed by or under the direction of an officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this section. "(12) Animals i. Impounding fee 5.27 1st time $ 5 2nd time $ 25 3rd time $ 45 4rh time $ 65 5th time $ 85 6th time $105 [i.l Each animal $ 5 1.2 Impounding penalty 2nd time $ 5 3rd time $ 10 4th time $ 151" Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 198_ ATTEST: City Cleric Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager \J Council Letter No. 421 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Review of the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan At the November 24, 1980 city council meeting, the city council deferred the review of the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan to the December 8, 1980 city council meeting. As copies of this element were forwarded to council members at that time, we have not included copies again with this council letter. The utilities element analyses the city's existing utility systems and its needs, and also outlines policies to address those needs. It is recommended that the city council review the draft and make any changes which may be necessary. The city staff will in- corporate any council directions into the final document prior to sending the document to other communities for their review. The council should not formally adopt this element at this time. Respectfully submitted, 1<.',Q rAJ Karl Nollenberger City Manager RN /eja cc: Community Development Director City Planner Cl 0 • L] CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The honorable Mayor. and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Review of Airport Comprehensive Plan 2Z Council Letter No. 420 Agenda December 8, 1980 Issues Element of the At the November 24, 1980 city council meeting, the city council deferred the review of the Airport Issues Element of the comprehensive plan to the December 8, 1980 city council meeting. Copies of this element were provided to council members at that time, and, therefore, are not attached again with this council letter. This section of the comprehensive plan discusses the im- pacts which the airport has on the City of Richfield and outlines the city's goals and policies proposed to deal with those impacts. It is recommended that the city council review the draft airport issues element and make any changes which may be necessary. The staff will incorporate any council directions into the final document prior to sending the document to other communities for their review. The element should not be formally adopted at this time. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Development Director City Planner :g 2-/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 419 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Review of Community Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan Attached for your review and discussion is a draft of the community facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan. The com- munity facilities element is the section of the Comprehensive Plan which discusses Richfield's community facilities and outlines the city's goals and policy proposed for meeting the city's community facility needs. The Planning Commission has reviewed the draft of the commu- nity facilities element earlier this year and has recommended favorable consideration of the documents by the city council. On 10 Land December 22, 1980 council agenda the council will have the Land Use element and the Implementation Plan of the Comprehensive Plan as the final two elements to be reviewed. This will complete the council review prior to the December 31, 1980 deadline. It is recommended that the council review the draft commu- nity facilities element and make any changes which may be neces- sary. The council should not formally adopt the element at this time, however. KN /jf cc 'Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager Community Development Director COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT 0 I. INTRODUCTION Community facilities in Richfield take many different forms. Public parks, playgrounds, and school playgrounds constitute a major portion of open land in Richfield. Just over nine percent of Richfield's land is in parks. School playgrounds add another two percent. These public facilities are distributed so that most people live less than six blocks from a recreational area. Because open areas constitute a necessary amenity, their even distribution in Richfield is important to community stability and the preservation of the preceived quality of the neighbor- hoods in the city. Whereas recreational facilities constitute the most visible community facility, service - oriented community facilities are also important in the city. Service - oriented facilities are either public or semi - public. Public facilities include the . library, and city hall and those housing the police, fire, and emergency services. The purpose of this section of the Comprehensive Plan is to identify the various community facilities in and near Richfield, discuss their adequacy and needs, and to identify the policies which the city will pursue to meet those needs. II. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE A. Regional Facilities There are no existing or proposed metropolitan park facilities located within Richfield. The 1978 Metropolitan Council Regional Recreation Open Space Development Guide designated a regional trail corridor along the eastern boundary of Richfield. Regional trail corridors are intended to provide pedestrian, bicycle and cross country skiing links between major open spaces without leaving park -like environments. The proposed trail would iprovide a link between the Lake Nokomis /Minnehaha Creek open space and the open space along the T=iinnesota River. Exact alignment or a construction timetable for this trail corridor -1- has not been determined. Regional and state facilities are located near Richfield and constitute a major resource of the area. Residents of Richfield have good accessibility to area facilities via Interstate 35W and 494, and the Crosstown Highway, as shown in Figure 1. The new Minnesota Zoo in Apple Valley and Fort Snelling State Park are two large recreational facilities serving the area. Both are less than ten miles from - Richfield. Many regional parks throughout the area such as Bush Lake, Fort Snelling, — Lake Harriet, Lake Nokomis, and Minnehaha provide a variety of_ recreational opportunities. Adjacent communities have their park and recreation areas open to all.. Lake Nokomis, lying just northeast of Richfield is a large and popular Minneapolis park. Wood Lake Interpretive Center has been developed and attracts many thousands of visitors annually throughout the Metropolitan area. Last year over 33,000 registered people and many more unregisteredo people visited this special park of 150 acres which provides an out- standing opportunity to increase one's appreciation and understanding of the balance of nature in a unique setting in a urban area. Wood Lake is a regional attraction operated by Richfield which benefits the Richfield community and the metropolitan area. B. Richfield Facilities Richfield adopted a "systems approach" to park planning with the acceptance of the Richfield Parks Analysis Master Plan in 1969. The Master Plan analyzed the entire system of existing and proposed parks, of school properties, and of vacant Metro- politan Airports (MAC) land. This analysis was used to make recommendations to the city for the planning and development of park and open space areas. At that time the city established. a policy of park development which placed emphasis on the complete development of one park at a time. Each park is developed to -2- • FIGURE 1 >. Mapl Grove , Im Osseo Brooklyn Park u "S II Mounds iew to 1. - t B oklyn Center Fridl Ard -�.:.. ..— HE. NEPIN =.. .. —.. IY t t ..,_. Nev. ' I` Iltop rig to 4 Cry al • { New it olu - He hts 1 _ Hope r,� Ai hon t fPlym th t+ a al r "U a'1-4 t e i Ile Dq N h Oaks t .w f adnais �( :Min tonka Lake In en r �Nokomis HoPcins � + r Nltnne + a hafia A ; , Falls t 6t t t .1 It West t ��Cii` al 1 St. PRul i Edina _ t South .........:.... -- M ndot + j St. Pa y Airport d A1511 idotal % ghts� fis uo + ort ng ilLakr/ ` State Park' Eden Praor � _ .� :•: - # ' yland I ' RAJ e' u / i Inver Grove 1~� Heights Bloom ngto x , Ezgan lames , Shakope Wilkie P rk I - :. :•:: -- t —_� a , �. : r y:* —� �------- - - - - -- 1] �a•�,i LrJ i n 5} Savage I Bur ville t / � Apple Rosemount L.. a Valley t I Prior Lake � 1 — — o ,, cti. �...� •.. X. ` It DAKOTA C EDI RIVER ' yak ille SPRING LAKE T H I I I l EA RECREATION FACILITIES 4 Miles 1 WASF be integrated into the city's plan for the total park system. Prior to this report the city's main concern had been the acquisi- tion of park land as well as some minor scattered improveme -nts 0 of park lands. The city has developed a system for providing a variety of parks and open space to meet the varying recreational needs of the com- munity . Table 1 outlines the system which has been used to classify parks. This system closely follows that adopted.by the Metropoli- tan Council in-its Recreation Open Space Development Guide. The Master Plan recommended that park and recreation open space lands should be acquired to provide a total park area of 600 acres. This acreage should provide about 12 acres of park land per 1,000 population. Based on a current population estimate of 38,000 Richfield currently provides 17.6 acres of park land per 1,000 population. The current national standard is 20 acres per 1,000 population, however. The City Council is exploring the possibility of reassessing the • park system to insure that it continues to meet the city's needs. This reassessment is necessary because the master plan is ten years old, the city's population is getting older, the city's population is declining and types of recreational needs are changing. The reassessment will look at recreational programming (active and passive), demographic impacts including population density and mix patterns, economics and age characteristics, societal patterns and cycles within Richfield, energy impacts on Richfield, environmental considerations, and personnel needs, qualifications and finances. As shown in Figure 2, Richfield has twenty -six parks and play- grounds evenly distributed throughout the city, a year -round ice arena, an outdoor swimming pool, a nature center, and a Community Center which provides services for senior citizens and physically handicapped people. In addition the city utilizes Richfield School District facilities through a joint facilities program initiated in;1969. -4- TABLE 1 PARK;:NOMENCLATURE COMMUNITY PARK Location: In one or more areas of the city, depending upon natural features. Age Group: All Ages. Service Areas: Within walking or driving distance for all residents. Acreage: One hundred acres or more. One park for every 50,000 persons. Features: Open lawn and wooded areas, scenic drives, lakes, ponds, and areas for sports and games and path system. May include swimming pool, ice arena, and community center. PLAYFIELD Location: Centrally located in an area comprising a group of neighborhoods. Age Group: Elementary school age and up. • Service Area: Within 3/4 to 2 miles of every home. Acreage: 15 to 30 acres or more. One playfield per 20,000 population. Features: Open areas for sports, including fields and courts for softball, football, baseball, soccer, tennis and basketball (lighted if possible), lighted hockey and general skating rink, shade areas, children's play area, and park building. May also include a neighborhood park playground. NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PLAYGROUND Location: In neighborhood area - may be located on elementary school site, on separate site adjacent to elementary school or on separate site. Age Group: All ages from preschool to senior citizens. Service Area: Within 1/4 to 3/4 mile of every home. Acreage: 3 1/2 to 15 acres. Features: Lawn, shrubbery, picnic and shade areas, path system, park shelter, baseball- softball field, hockey rink, general skating rink, paved court -games area, field games area, and children's play area. -5- TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) MTMT PARK Location: In neighborhood area. Age Group: All ages but may serve a specialized group such as tots or senior citizens. Service Areas: Within a h mile of every home. Acreage: Less than 1 acre. Features: Lawn, shrubbery, seating, path system, paved court games area, childrens play area. SPECIAL USE FACILITY Location: In one or more areas of the city where needed and appropriate. Age Group: All ages. Service Areas: Within walking or driving distance of all residents. Acreage: As appropriate for specific purpose. Features: As appropriate to provide single purpose recreational activities such as golf courses, nature centers or arenas. • Parks in Richfield are diverse in character. Some parks such as Taft and Donaldson are sport oriented to accommodate the special leagues that utilize Richfield's facilities. The leagues include softball /baseball, as well as hockey, basketball, soccer, football, tennis, and other sport groups. Other parks including Christian and Augsburg have been developed with landscaped ponds, trees and paths for more leisurely, non - organized recrea- tion. Small neighborhood parks and playgrounds provide recrea- tional opportunities for the very young. Several parks including Legion Lake and Richfield Lake have not yet been developed. Adams Hill Park is currently under development. In addition to these parks, Richfield has built on Metropolitan Airport Com- mission land an 18 hole regulation and 9.hole par three golf course and a driving range. Wood Lake Nature Center offers a unique natural experience in an urban setting. The classifica- tion and size of city parks are given in Table 2. The Community Services Department operates the municipal swimming pool, an olympic swimming pool with a 3 meter diving platform. The pool which was built in the early 1960's, is open from Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day. Swimming is also available through the recreation program at swimming pools at the two middle schools. Adjacent to the pool at Legion Lake is the ice arena which was built in the early 1970's. The ice arena is open year round. Richfield's parks and playgrounds provide a wide spectrum of recreational opportunities as shown in Table 3. As would be expected with Minnesota's winters, most parks have ice skating areas and /or hockey rinks. About half of the parks have at least one ball field. Thirteen parks have basketball courts, and nine have tennis courts. For the youngsters, 19 parks have play structures. Additional facilities are located at the schools, on Metropol- itan Airport Commission land, in neighboring communities, and -7- �o o O 311 -l- 311 --M 116 L l�:�r: da j IA = wv J_ __� ---- --------- o O 311 -l- 311 --M 116 L l�:�r: da j IA = Apple Blossom Adams Hill Augsburg Christian Donaldson Fairwood Fremont Garfield Golf Course/ Little League Jefferson Legion Lake Little Bob's Lincoln Field Lyndale Field Madison Memorial Monroe New Ford Town Nicollet Rich Acres Richfield Lake Roosevelt Sheridan Taft Washington Wood Lake Miscellaneous TOTAL TABLE 2 CITY PARKS Acres Classification 0.6 13.0 21.0 11.. 0 23.0 2.5 0.6 0.8 199.0 4.0 102.5 0.3 7.0 19.1 4.2 3.7 9.5 2.3 6.5 2.0 15.7 13.5 6.8 Mini Park Neighborhood Park Community Park Neighborhood Park: Community Playfield Neighborhood Park Mini Park Mini Park Special Use Facility Neighborhood Park Community Park Mini Park Comment Redevelopment underway Scheduled for redevel- opment Golf course under construc- tion outside city limits Mostly undeveloped Community Playfield Community Playfieldt School property Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Scheduled for redevel- opment Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Community Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Expansion planned Undeveloped 42.0 Community Playfield Partial outside city 7.0 Neighborhood Park 150.0 Special Use Facility .4 Mini Park on private property. Eleven ball field are located on airport property. Several apartment complexes maintain swimming pools and other recreational facilities. Commercial recreational establishments alleys, an archery range, a racket and health spas. In addition the YMCA has branch in Edina just outside the city. not part of the public school or Commu systems, are shown in Figure 3. -10- include two bowling tennis club, and several its major Southdale Recreational facilities, pity Services Department (!I 0 0 = O= • u TABLE 3 Public Recreational Facilities non programed only some programs -14 rl x r I (d �4 W U �4 ' r•i v >1 U U) -H r, Q) H U) 'o r I w r-4 ri !d - -P L" o to U) rd r-I w —4 r—I rd o o (n M m —A cd +' o w �4 a) U U o M (d v U IQ (d U H -ri r. � r. U -I") r+ •1 w�3: >1 rd w � � o �j �4 4J ro U r-I 75 -H �4 4 -P U W r �q -P a) x�x U) ro m a >4 Q) U o x .x U W �i r Q) a) a �4 o K4 tr r� U) r� w Apple Blossom • Adams Hill • • • • • • • Augsburg • ® © • • • Q1 • Christian • • ® • • • • • • Donaldson • • ® Q • • • (2) • Farwood • • • • • Fremont • • • • Garfield • Golf Course/ Little League ® Q Q Jefferson • ® • • • 1Q • Legion Lake • • Little Bob's • Lincoln Field • Q • Lyndale Field* • • • Madison • • • • 1 • Memorial • ® • • • • Monroe • Q New Ford Town • • ! 1 • Nicollet • • • • Rich Acres • • Richfield Lake Roosevelt • • • • • • • © • Sheridan • ® • • • Taft • • • • Washington • ® • • • - Wood Lake • • • • * School Property -11 Cl) E CL a) E E 0 uj C5 3.1 31V 1111 LU 311 3-1 -.11" 311 311 1—— "V „3oi. o ........ . LU uj 311 ,x.nbb 311 "1" LU 14 : x3 n Q 41, Ul u LL. EO w g, - — -------- tip�� - -- ------ 2 III. SCHOOLS Richfield is located i.n °school district #280 (Figure 4). Currently, Richfield is served by four elementary schools, two middle Schools (junior highs), and one high school. In addition to the public schools Richfield has five private parochial schools. These include three elementary, one K -8, and a high school. Fraser School, located at 2400 W. 64th, is a private special education facility. The City of Richfield does not plan for the school system. This responsibility belongs to the school district and board of education. The city is concerned, however, in what is planned for district schools because of school's significance in the community. The school system and the city have a long history of cooperation. The city and the schools have joint facilities use programs. The city utilizes school pools, playgrounds, and meeting rooms for its park and recreation programs. The schools make use of the.ice arena for hockey, the ball diamonds at Donaldson Park for baseball, and the tennis courts at Washington Park. Some private schools also participate in a joint use arrangement with the city. Changing School Populations The effect of the post -war baby boom pushed the enrollment of School District 280 to above 10,000 students in the late 1960's peaking at 11,333 in 1968 -69. Since then, public school enroll- ment has declined at an average rate of five to ten percent per year (Figure 5). During the current school year (1980 -81), the enrollment is 5,587. Projections suggest that in five years, there will be 4,088 students in Richfield's public school. Beyond 1985, school planners cannot say what the enrollment will be. The decline of enrollment is widespread, both in public and private schools. -13- 3AV -IVZ 3AV OdU 3AV HSIONVIS 3AV GNZZ 3AV BIZ 3AV HIOZ 3AV -161 '3AV MO113JON01 3AV 6V039 3AV Hi81 3AV HIZt 3AV -191 3AV N019N!WOO19 3AV Hilt 3AV H \VI 3AV -IEt 3AV -iZl 3AV Hill 3AV HI01 3AV 101113 3AV OOYJIHJ '3AV SnetNn109 3AV Ndvd -3AV ONVINVO '3AV ONVIiHOd S 3AV HIS O S 3AV HIV Jco 3AV N01NI19 O N 3AY CeZ 3AV G -Z SN3A31S� O z 3AV 151 3AV 1311OJIN U U 3AV 1130SIV18 '3AV H1dOM1N3M V 3AY A8n8Sllld -3AV 1NVSV3Id (, Q 3AV 0 V8 3AV.13166YH .J J 3AV G131_b V9 CO/Y7 O 3AV 31VONAI O 3AV HD16GIV .3AV 1NVA68 /'► U 3AV %V3109 N' 3AV 114Odn0 3AV NOS63W3 Q3AV 1NOW363 J z 3AV (18V619 W W 3AV 10108WOH Q 3AV 9NIA61 1 • Z 3AV S3WVf LTL W 3AV xONN a- 3AV N1501 UW 3AV NVO60ll 3AV NO1M3N 3AV d3AI10 3AV NN3d 3AV N3.n0 J 3AV 113SSn8 3AV NVOld3HS W _ inn SawOH1 V 3AV NOldn 3AV 1N39NIA N6n8HSVM -_ .3AV S3x63x 3AV N60A 3AV HIIN3Z 4 Z p Id c8Y38 W 3AV N3MOHJ 3nv 9NIM3 3AV 3iNVd3 ^.d M31n A311VA a W C W 3 3 3 3AV HIVZ 3AV HSIONVIS 3AV a-EZ 3AV O.NZZ 3AV LSIZ 3AV -IOZ 3AV H161 3AV M0113ADN0I 3AV 8V039 3AV H181 3AV HILL 3AV -191 3AV NOI0N.WOOla 3AV HIS1 3AV -IV[ 3AV -IEI 3AV Hi ZI 3AV Hilt -AV -l0l 3AV 101113 3AV O9V91H" 3AV Sn8Wnl07 3AV Ndvd 3AV ONVINVO 3AV GNVI180d 3AV HIS 3AV -lY -IV NO1NIl9 3AV C-C -3AV SN3A31S 3AV 1St 3AV 13110DIN 3AV 1130SIV18 3AV H16OMI.N3M -3AV A608STIla 3AV 1NVSV31d 3AV ONVd9 3AV 131ddVH 3AV G1313dV9 '3AV 31VONAI '3AV H91bOIV -3AV INVAdB 3AV %V3109 -AV 1NOdnc 3AV NOS63w3 3AV 1NOW38d 3AV G6V619 '3AV 1lOBWnw '3AV ONIA81 3AV S3WVf 3AV X NA 3AV NV901 3AV NV98OW 3AV NOIM3N 3AV 83A110 3AV NN3d 3AY N33n0 3AV 113SSnd 3A' NVOI83HS -3AV SVI'4' H1 3AV NOldn 3AV IN39Nln 3AV N6n8HSVM 3AV S3 xd3% 3AV N60A 3AV H1IN3Z 3AV 3=NV63 Ll • is �� .in.m.. ..... uu•uiu•....uuu.•.u.uu ..... •..a _---_ • -__-� mm mmmmmm __ • �M_ MM _-�-__-'_- _MMIM=MMM ___M__-_M_MIM ME MMO • ' ®-- • 3 3 3 3AV HIVZ 3AV HSIONVIS 3AV a-EZ 3AV O.NZZ 3AV LSIZ 3AV -IOZ 3AV H161 3AV M0113ADN0I 3AV 8V039 3AV H181 3AV HILL 3AV -191 3AV NOI0N.WOOla 3AV HIS1 3AV -IV[ 3AV -IEI 3AV Hi ZI 3AV Hilt -AV -l0l 3AV 101113 3AV O9V91H" 3AV Sn8Wnl07 3AV Ndvd 3AV ONVINVO 3AV GNVI180d 3AV HIS 3AV -lY -IV NO1NIl9 3AV C-C -3AV SN3A31S 3AV 1St 3AV 13110DIN 3AV 1130SIV18 3AV H16OMI.N3M -3AV A608STIla 3AV 1NVSV31d 3AV ONVd9 3AV 131ddVH 3AV G1313dV9 '3AV 31VONAI '3AV H91bOIV -3AV INVAdB 3AV %V3109 -AV 1NOdnc 3AV NOS63w3 3AV 1NOW38d 3AV G6V619 '3AV 1lOBWnw '3AV ONIA81 3AV S3WVf 3AV X NA 3AV NV901 3AV NV98OW 3AV NOIM3N 3AV 83A110 3AV NN3d 3AY N33n0 3AV 113SSnd 3A' NVOI83HS -3AV SVI'4' H1 3AV NOldn 3AV IN39Nln 3AV N6n8HSVM 3AV S3 xd3% 3AV N60A 3AV H1IN3Z 3AV 3=NV63 Ll • is - - - . . - . -_.. - -- . . . Am bit — ..�. O Ln 1M�w170�M� rt 0 O Q � 0 � � � 0 Tt a0 01 .r I M 00 N Qs ti sA 00 .r I M r In W I 00 ca 0) W4 0 � rl 0 NO v �i O O Z v N Y V 3 0 N Four schools have closed in District 280 since 1973. East Elementary School at 66th Street and 20th Avenue closed in 1973. Woodlake School closed in 1976, Central Elementary, next to the high school, was closed in 1977, and Portland Elementary was closed in the spring of 1978. The Metropolitan Airports Commission purchased and tore down East School in order to keep the area open. The Woodlake School was torn down in 1978. A multiple residential development is currently under development on the site. The Central Elementary site, because of its loca- tion next to the high school, is used for auto and bus parking, storage, and for large meetings. Part of the school is leased to youth counseling services. The school district intends to continue using the Central Elementary facility in this manner. Portland Elementary is leased to the Hennepin County Vocational - Technical System #287. The facilities of the schools in Richfield are adequate. As with surrounding communities, school enrollment has dropped and is expected to decline. This calls for alternate uses of school facilities such as District 280 schools is doing. Because the current census data is old, plans based on demography are often speculative. The school district is conducting a facili- ties study on which future decisions will be based. The facili- ties report may suggest future school closings. L-1 asM IV. MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS The city owns twelve major structures shown in Figure 6 and listed in Table 4. These buildings include the City Hall complex, five recreational structures, two public works buildings, three liquor stores, and the west fire station. These structures are relatively new. Only one, the liquor store on Cedar Avenue, is more than twenty years old. For the most part these buildings do not require substantial maintenance although the water treatment plant, West Side Fire Station, and the city hall complex are in need of repair and renovation. The city is also conducting energy audits of municipal buildings to guide future energy conservation improvements. The city budgets money for regular maintenance through the operating budget and major renovations through the capital improvements program. Richfield has found this system adequate for handling maintenance costs and has not needed to set aside money each year for future maintenance. A. ,City Hall Complex Municipal government services are provided at the City Hall complex at 6700 Portland Avenue. All departments of the city except the Liquor Stores Department are headquartered here and most city staff is officed here: including the Executive, Administrative Services, Public Safety, Community Development, and Community Services. The complex is divided into two major areas: the general city administrative offices and the Public Safety complex including the police services division and the fire services division. The public safety facilities are'no longer adequate to meet existing space needs. Additional space is needed in the police services division for offices, a classroom for training, physi- cal fitness, lockers and shower facilities, an interview room, a conference room, a juvenile detention room, and storage for -17- TABLE 4 Municipal Buildings LA Date Original Cost Built in Thousands 1963 555 1963 Location 1. City Hall Complex 6700 Portland Avenue 2. Central Garage 7700 Pillsbury 3. Water Treatment Plant 6221 Portland Avenue 4. West Fire Station 6401 Penn Avenue 5. Liquor Store 6636 Cedar Avenue " 6. Liquor Store 6444 Penn Avenue 7. Liquor Store 6444 Lyndale Avenue LA Date Original Cost Built in Thousands 1963 555 1963 208 1963 1,748 1963 82 1958 125 1975 172 1965 108 8. Ice Arena 636 W. 66th Street 1971 9. Swimming Pool 10. Community Center 11. Wood Lake Center 12. Golf Course Clubhouse 630 W. 66th Street 1962 7000 Nicollet 1961 Remodeled 1976 735 Lake Shore Drive 1971 On Airport Land 1979 -80 Source: Community Development 1,320 246 144 93 150 228 is \J 0 - tttt 3.• 101,3. Q � -. _ ', -- r ln. i l.• snswnul J j (A d Jl.. N••. w 311 (D ES- :� — -- -- - =0m -- — Y -_ i 3n. „305 r,B o �m 0 mho ....<_ U lv .cs•lwl \ _ ._- __ ___ _... — O ° '�lj �. - _ — —_ 3.r Nowln3 8 1 - l•. NNb � __, c.v cn.. �L _ _� __ �� - -- - 1. N,l. — n,. v.. 1 r M i 3 3 T T 3 T T T • t 3 ■ • T 3 3 f d E m a 0 c E CL 0 d v O T C 7 E E 0 U v d L U w U O' a) records, evidence, and impounded vehicles. Space has become even more cramped with the installation of a new communication system which required expansion of the communication center. The fire services division has inadequate facilities for living quarters and for repair work on vehicles and pumping equipment. The existing heating and cooling system is also inadequate for the around - the - clock needs of the Public Safety Department. A space utilization study was recently completed which explores the feasibility of various public safety facility expansion alternatives to meet current and future space needs. The study concluded that expansion of the public safety facilities is possible. Expansion is programmed in the city's 1981 Capital Improvement Budget. Other city hall complex needs include better handicapped accessi- bility, expanded parking facilities, better energy efficiency, and better heating and cooling systems. 0 B. Other Municiapl Facilities The Richfield Community Center, which was formerly the public library, is now run by the Community Services Department. The Community Center's program of recreational, nutritional, and educational activities is geared primarily for senior citizens. Also health programs, information and referral services, and an evening counseling program are available. For a small rental fee, other community groups such as the Boy Scouts can use the building. Community Service Department personnel operate other community facilities. These include the Central Garage at 77th Pillsbury Avenue which houses the city's street maintenance and city vehicle repair functions, the Water Treatment Plant at 62nd Street and Portland Avenue, the Woodlake Nature Center, and the swimming pool and ice arena at 66th Street and Columbus Avenue. -20- In addition to the ma.Jo,r" structures, the city owns and maintains approximately 30 buildings located mostly in city parks. Seven substantial buildings in six parks are utilized by the recrea- tion programs in those parks. These buildings are heated and insulated and have indoor meeting space. These buildings are all less than ten years old and require only routine maintenance. Three older, smaller block buildings serve essentially the same function in three other parks.. V. LIBRARIES The Augsburg Park Library of the Hennepin County library system is located in the southeast corner of the park near 71st and Nicollet. The metro area's library system has been rated as one of the top five in the country. The Augsburg Park Community Library is a major resource for Richfield. The present facility, built in 1974 -75 is the fourth building to house the library. The Augsburg Park Library has about 60,000 volumes and access to over one million volumes held by the 24 libraries in the Hennepin system. In addition, the Hennepin system is hooked into the Metropolitan Library Service Agency (MELSA) which allows a patron to borrow and return books from any county library in the metro area. Aside from books the library provides magazines, newspapers, recordings, movies, and art reproductions to the user, and an 80 -seat meeting room for special programs and non - profit use. The library in Rich- field has served the Richfield area as part of the Hennepin County library system since 1949. The Augsburg Park Library in Richfield is one of ten Community III libraries in Hennepin County. Community III libraries are facilities designed to serve around 40,000 population with a two to three mile radius service area. Most Community III libraries are located in the "mature suburbs" such as Richfield, Edina, and Bloomington. The Hennepin County Area Library Southdale facility,located at 7001 York Avenue, -21- has the largest circulation of any library in the county including the central Minneapolis library. Two more area libraries are planned for Hennepin County to be located at Ridgedale and Brookdale. An area library serves as an umbrella library for its service area which includes 200,000 people. The location of the Augsburg Park and the Southdale libraries are.shown in Figure 2. The circulation at the Augsburg facility in 1978 was 211,738, down 8,000 from the previous year. This decrease in circulation can be attributed to the nearness to the Southdale facility and the closing of Portland and Central elementary schools. Despite the proximity of Southdale Library, the Augsburg Park Library is the third most active library in Hennepin County library system preceded only by the Southdale facility and the Oxboro Library in Bloomington. By the end of 1981 the Hennepin County library system plans to become computerized. Surveys done by the library show only ten percent of Richfield's population uses it, which is near the national average. The area served by the Augsburg Park Library includes Richfield, Edina, Bloomington, and South Minneapolis. The majority of Augsburg Park library users live in South Minneapolis, not Richfield. The present and planned library facilities appear to be adequate for Richfield's future needs. The population is relatively stable and no major changes are seen that would affect library use. VI. FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS Richfield has essentially finished with the acquisition stage of development and with its population declining should make maximum utilization of its existing park resources. The character of this resource development, the structures and services provided will be designed to meet the changing needs and demands of an evolving population. Priority will be given -22- lu LL T, LAI 0 .V it Vm. 311 1. 311 111111 � ir X Xc w w w ui w 3 LL 0 U. w LU m w uj Li JR Q z 1AX'_.T UJ W, Ow w CL -j 0 0 z Uj >Z Z 25 W. LU 0 0 0 ui w > > w w Z7 31, 'N31- co LLJ LL 7 ix 'u xa Aviv- X4 CL cn if W 31 IW cn • 0 to those facilities wh ch'would'provide the most needed service or demand of the greatest number of people in Richfield within the limitations of available funding. Figure 7 shows those parks that have been scheduled since the adoption of the Parks Master Plan in 1969, parks currently for future development and potential unscheduled park development. Figure 8 shows the.anticipated.1990 park and open space system. The city has no plans to construct any new public buildings other than park and recreational facilities, although existing building space may need to be modified to provide for changing demands in service. Expansion of the City Hall complex is planned to provide for the space needs of Public Safety. The city is currently conducting an energy audit of public buildings to determine what improvements are cost effective to reduce energy use and related operating costs. VII. COMMUNITY FACILITIES POLICIES The parks, open space, and other community facilities in Richfield are established. The policy decisions which the city must make will be aimed at maintaining and developing the existing system rather than at the development of totally new facilities. A. General Community Facilities Policies will be: 1. To locate all public facilities based on the Compre- hensive Plan or amendments thereto. 2. To base the quality of services and facilities upon the needs of the areas served, the size and type of population serviced, and scaled within the City's capacity to pay for the facilities. The city will continually reassess its community facility system to insure that the system meets the needs of the community. -23- 3. To utilize structures and facilities already provided in the City including School District and church facilities to implement the recreation and community facilities plan. 4. To provide public facilities and services such as police and fire protection, parks, playgrounds, and the like where there is an actual need for'such services, in accordance with the uniform set of standards, and tempered by the sound judgment of the governing body. 5. To develop all public facilities according to accepted standards resulting from thorough study by qualified professionals. Requests for installation of facilities by special interest groups will not be a controlling factor if such a request is in conflict with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 6. To give priority to those facilities in demand by the largest number of people and with funding available. 7. To implement high quality urban design standards for both public improvements and private development to insure compatability with the natural surroundings. B. Park and Open Space Policies will be: 1. To provide adequate public open space which is readily accessible and available for the use of all the people of the community. 2. To provide a diversified year -round program of recreational opportunities to meet the interest and needs of all segments of the community. -25- J 3. To provide recreational opportunities which go beyond fun and enjoyment; opportunities which provide for the intellectual, physical, and social involvement of the individual for his growth, development, and self - fulfillment. 4. To encourage opportunities for constructive citizen participation in the planning process of community recreation programming. 5. To provide a continuing process of evaluation of facilities and recreation services based on their contribution toward enriching individual and community life. 6. To provide opportunities for the people to better enjoy, understand, and appreciate our natural environment. 7. To implement land use control measures to protect park and open space from commercial encroachment. 8. To maintain a conservation area for wildlife management, .educational and scientific purposes at Wood Lake. C. School Policies will be: 1. To utilize existing school property as a resource for joint school /community recreational programs developed in relation to the overall parks and open space needs of the community. 2. To encourage to formulate criteria for tional areas or to serve public educational institutions and the City uniform set of development standards and the improvement of existing outdoor recrea- which are designed to be developed jointly joint uses within the community. -26- 3. To support the Richfield School District in its effort to maintain a quality educational system. is 4. To review proposed school closings to insure that reuse of school facilities is compatible with surrounding land uses. D. Public Building Policies will be: 1. To provide space for municipal and administrative functions in the most economical and efficient manner possible. 2. To provide for police and fire service to protect the life safety, and property of Richfield residents in the most economical and efficient manner possible. E. Library Policy will be: 1. To promote and encourage the provision of library service to all Richfield residents in an efficient manner. W -27- a 0 ME O CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 418 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor N and � Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Review of Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Attached for your review and discussion is a draft of the trans- portation element of the comprehensive plan. This section of the comprehensive plan analyzes the city's transportation system and its needs and outlines the city's goals and policies for meeting those needs. The Planning Commission has reviewed the draft of the transpor- tation element of the Comprehensive Plan and has recommended its favorable consideration to the council. One item the city council should discuss is the functional classification of roadways in Rich- field. Functional classification is a system of classifying roads according to the function which the roadway should perform. A road- way's functional classification should be consistent with roadway design, and the traffic volume and control on the roadway. Func- tional classification should also be compatible with the land uses served by the roadway. The functional classification system in the transportation ele- ment reflects existing traffic volumes and the functions which road- ways in Richfield are performing with the exception of 76th Street, which currently functions as a minor arterial despite the fact that surrounding land use is residential. Only two east -west streets run the entire width of the city and 76th Street is one of them. It. also provides access to such major commercial and office centers as Southdale and Pentagon Office Park in Edina. For these reasons, traf- fic volumes on 76th Street have increased beyond those expected on collector roadways. The Planning Commission felt that 76th Street should be classified as a collector because of the surrounding resi- dential land uses, but the original recommendation to the commission would have made 76th Street a minor arterial from Nicollet Avenue west to Xerxes Avenue. It is recommended that the council review the draft transporta- tion element and suggest any changes which may be desired. The staff will incorporate any council directions into the final document. Respectfully submitted, Va"'tpu Karl Nollenberger City Manager TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT I$ I. INTRODUCTION Richfield is a fully developed residential suburb which has developed because of its accessibility to major employment,. commercial, and entertainment centers. As economic conditions and energy availability change in the future the accessibility which Richfield enjoys will become even more of an amenity. While the roadway system is complete in the community, Richfield recognizes the importance of transportation to the community and is committed to the maintenance and improvement of the transporta- tion system to insure that it continues to meet the needs of Rich- - field residents and businesses. The purpose of this section of the comprehensive plan is to analyze the existing transportation system, to outline transportation needs, and to identify the policies which the city will pursue to maintain and expand, the existing transportation system to meet the present and future needs of the community. While the main transportation system is the road and alley system, the citys railroad,.pedestrian, bikeway, and public transit systems are also discussed. Air trans- portation issues are discussed separately in the Airport Issues �1eTI- II. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The purpose of this section of the Transportation element is to describe and analyze the existing transportation system and needs of the community. A. ROAD SYSTEM 1. Metropolitan Setting As can be seen in figure 1, Richfield is directly served by two interstate highways (I -35W and I -494) and by two controlled access highways T.H. 77 (formerly T.H. 36) and C.S.A.H. 62 (the Crosstown). In addition Portland, I T^A f�.J1}��;i�t}tt[lit(ff�' ?` om - --------- _ I ; L o e n H D € s I - s U = s r F , , - I ---- - - - - -- - �i -- - - -ar ._ LIJ I o I z - --- --------------- CL v P_ _ — a E — W < —�_ —_ 1 �fff�l ' ci on-I��I _,. - LLI lL Nicollet, Lyndale., and Penn Avenues provide access north and south to Minneapolis and_ Bloomington, and 66th and 76th Streets provide access west to the Southdale area of Edina. Being at a crossroads has its disadvantages. While Rich- field is centrally located with its advantages of accessi- bility, it is also located across the path of high volumes of traffic with accompanying noise, air pollution, and congestion. The two interstate highways and the Crosstown highway are three of the heaviest travelled highways in the state. Congestion on these highways and inadequate highway access to the Southdale area encourages additional traffic on Richfield's arterials adding to traffic problems there. In addition the highways are barriers that physi- cally separate the community. 2. Roadway Classification Roads can be classified according to three systems. Juris- dictional classification classifies roadways by which governmental body (state, county, or municipality) has Jurisdiction over each roadway. Functional classification groups roadways according to what service the roadway pro- vides to motorists. The third type of classification is funding classification. Funding classification indicates the funding programs used for construction and repair of roadways. Figure 2 shows the relationships between func- tional classification, jurisdictional responsibility, fund- ing sources, and roadway design. Figure 3 indicates the governmental unit responsible for the maintenance of road facilities in and adjacent to Richfield. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has jurisdiction over the two interestate highways (I -36W and I -494), one controlled access highway (T.H. 77), and also the frontage roads and alleys along those highways. While the state has jurisdiction over its frontage roads and is thus obligated to provide major maintenance, the -3- FIGURE 2 ROAD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS FUNCTION s s� a�S 0a� ass ass doh � c State County II IR ICnirTMKI r FUNDING Source: Major River Crossings in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Metropolitan Council, 1978, p. 11 0 p = .�. J x � � CL v - cc Lu Q1 Q '. )nr snv.nwo � 31, 11-10 17T71 - ins ,noes „e F j— ba cL ii ))nv »'»nxe • -/ � � __ � oa Y - -,\ \ -_ —_�+3- _ _- - )nv xO vms r _ 9 r )nr xx)e 0 �L N 3 La Q y i city by agreement provides snow plowing, grass cutting, and other minor.maintenance. Hennepin County Department of Transportation has jurisdiction over Portland Avenue (C.S.A.H. 35), Nicollet Avenue (C.S.A.H. 52), Penn Avenue (C.S.A.H. 32), 66th Street (C.S.A.H. 53), and the Crosstown Highway (C.S.A.H.. 62). The city by agreement provides all maintenance on frontage roads along the Crosstown. The city has jurisdiction over all other roads in Richfield includ- ing Lyndale Avenue and 76th Street. Hennepin County has proposed that jurisdiction of the Cross- town (C.S.A.H. 62) be transferred from the county to the state because of the high volumes, regional importance, and intermediate arterial function of the road. Also, this change would provide a continuity of state jurisdiction with adjoining sections of the route. Minnesota Department of Transportation is considering trans - ferring jurisdiction of the frontage roads under state juris- diction to the city. Currently the state is considering transferring the jurisdiction of the frontage road along th� common section of I -35W and the Crosstown Highway to the city. These roadways generally have not been constructed to standards used elsewhere in the city. The transfer of jurisdiction of the frontage road along I -494 would also transfer much of the responsibility for correcting the traffic conflicts associ- ated with the roads. Functional classification of roadways involves determining the function which each roadway should perform. Functional classification should be consistent with roadway design, and the traffic volume and control on the roadway. Func- tional classification should also be compatible with the land uses served by that roadway. Criteria and characteristics for different functional classifications are shown in Table 1. The Metropolitan Council functional classification of roadways in and around Richfield shown in Figure 4 includes all five classifications in the system. The interstate high- ways are classified as principle arterials. The other r2 -6- 4 wr. `•' m - TABLE 1 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CHI T ERIA jANU CHARACTERISTICS FOR ROADWAYS • • Spacing Location Land Access Urban Intersection Characteristics 3 -6 miles depending on trip density, transit minor arterial spacing & location of existing facilities. In natural community separations defining development and not separating it. None. Grade separated (urban) 1-3 miles depending on spacing of princi- pal arterials and minor arterials, transit, trip density, and location of existing facilities. In natural community separations defining developments and not separating it. Major traffic generators. Grade separated or high- capacity con- trolled at -grade intersections. Parking Principal Arterial Intermediate Arterial Minor Arterial Accessibility Focus Connects all urban Connects two or more Connects adjacent Vehicles carried Urban subregions with one subregions: provides subregions and 45.55 another. connects secondary connections activity centers interchange spacing urban and rural service outstate: complements- within subregions. arterials and intermediate arterials combined areas with Metro primary arterials in Preferential treatment Accommodations Centers: connection high volume corridors. and transit in peak to outstate cities. periods. Level of Mobility Provides high level Provides high level Provides mobility of mobility within of mobility within and within and between Urban and Rural between subregions. two subregions. Service Areas and to major outstate cities. System Access To other Principal ar- To principal arterials. To principal arterials, terials. intermediate other intermediate intermediate arterials. arterials, and select- arterials, minor arterials, other minor arterials, ed minor arterials: no and high volume and collectors, direct land_ access. collectors: no direct restricted direct land access land access. except major traffic generators. Trip - Making Long trips at highest Medium - distance to Medium -to -short trips Service Performed speed within and long trips at higher at moderate -to -lower through the Metro speed within the speeds: local transit Area. Express transit urban area. Express trips. trips. transit trips. Spacing Location Land Access Urban Intersection Characteristics 3 -6 miles depending on trip density, transit minor arterial spacing & location of existing facilities. In natural community separations defining development and not separating it. None. Grade separated (urban) 1-3 miles depending on spacing of princi- pal arterials and minor arterials, transit, trip density, and location of existing facilities. In natural community separations defining developments and not separating it. Major traffic generators. Grade separated or high- capacity con- trolled at -grade intersections. Parking None. None. Large trucks No restriction. No restriction. Management tools Ramp metering. Ramp metering. traffic 40.65 per cent traffic signal timing, signal timing, staging Vehicles carried Urban no land access, of reconstruction, land 10.000-50.000 preferential treatment access spacing. 45.55 for transit, speed limit interchange spacing System Mileage Suggested federal upper limits for principal 300' arterials and intermediate arterials combined Transii Urban 10 percent Per cent of Travel Suggested federal limitations for principal (VMT) arterials and intermediate arterials combined. 40.65 per cent Vehicles carried Urban 20.000 - 100.000 10.000-50.000 Posted Urban 45.55 40 -50 speed limit Right-of-way 300' 100' -300' Transii Prouty to high Preferential treatment Accommodations occupancy vehicles where needed. and transit in peak bus stops separated periods. from through traffic lanes. 0.5 -2.0 miles. On edges of development and neighbor- hoods. Limited direct land access. Traffic sig- nals and cross street stops. Restricted as necessary. Restricted as necessary. Traffic signal timing, land access spacing, preferential treatment for transit. Suggested federal 'limitations for principal arterials. intermediate arterials. and minor arterials combined. Urban 15 -250o Suggested federal limitations for principal arterials. intermediate arterials. and minor arterials com_bme_o _u6` -800o 5,000.30.00.6A 35 -45 —' 66' -150' Preferential treatment where needed in activity centers: bus pullouts where required based on percentage and traffic volumes. Collector Connects neighbor- hoods within and be tween subregions. Mobility between neighborhoods and other land uses. To minor arterials. other collectors, local streets, land access. Primarily serves collector and distri- bution function for the arterials system at low speeds; local transit trips. 0.25 -1.0 miles. On edges or within neighborhoods. Some limitation on direct land access. 4 -way stops and some traffic sig- nals. Loop street stops. Restricted as necessary. Restricted as necessary Continuity. number of lanes. traffic signal timing. land access. Local Connects blocks within neighbor- hoods and specific activities within homogeneos land - use areas. Mobility within neighborhoods and other homogeneous land use areas. To collectors. other local streets, land access. Almost exclusively collection and distribution: short trips at low speeds. 1 block Within neigh- borhoods and other nomo- genous land use areas. Direct access. As required Unrestricted. Permitted as necessary. Stop signs. cui -de -sacs. diverters. Suggested federal Suggested federal limitations: Urban limitations Urban 5 -1000. 65 -80oo. Suggested limitations. Suggested faceral 5-10oo limitations 10-3010 66' -100' Pavement, in- tersections, and bus stops designed for use by regular transit buses. Source: Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Development Guide -7- 1.000 Maximum 30 50' -80' Normally used as regional bus routes only in non- residential areas. used as required or specialized transit service with smaller vehicles In residential areas. _t w �z = _ -- - W 311 1-1-0 1 'ice. f m ..., to . .. t —— P7 - - - - - 3o.r =iwl . z •- - - 1 � __ 3n315 � 11,11111131 p LLI U. ° V t J •= w -w wx on 3nv xrsuon V _ d v - - - - -- 3nv nJJ ^r. - — , __ —.. - -' •I _ -... _.- $:qE 3nv r33no Z � J�.v J 1 clod 31 . gran Z � 1 4 _ ]__ __ _.. 3,. ,3.x3. — l• I Q controlled access highways are intermediate arterials. Minor arterials inblude 66th Street, Portland, Lyndale, and Penn Avenues. Collectors include Xerxes /York Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, part of Bloomington Avenue, 76th Street, 70th Street between Lyndale and Cedar, and 66th Street/ Standish'Avenue east of Cedar Avenue. All other streets are classified as local streets. Richfield's functional classification system is shown in figure 5. Richfield's classification agrees with the Metropolitan Council's with the exception of seven road segments. The differences are outlined in Table 2. Because Richfield's roadway system is complete the proposed classification system is a reflection-of the existing system and not of future development. Most roads in Richfield are designed and have traffic control compatible with their proposed functional classifications. Deviations ifrom recommended characteristics are limited to minor arterials and include insufficient street widths, speed limits which are too low and with improper placement of traffic control devices. Specific examples of this include: a. Street widths of minor arterials can be either two or four lanes. Traffic volumes on Richfield's minor arterials are too great for two lane-roadways. All minor arterials have four lanes except a portion of Lyndale Avenue between Lake Shore Drive and 74th Street This section is scheduled for improvement in 1982. b. Speed limit arterials. a 30 m.p.h. hazards due Penn Avenue limits. s of 35 m.p.h. are recommended for minor Portions of Penn and Lyndale Avenues have speed limit. The traffic conflicts and to the commercial strip shopping areas along and Lyndale Avenue would support lower speed -9- ----------- CL ui QoN � y - -- 1 =- L .,,. z — — I — Cl) o - - - -i - -- - - i6 -- - -- -- ` - Lb — meoR3ry, - - i W t ,� - ° �► 8 - Z LL _ ► a v �_- v E --- - - - - -- - -- --------------77- ,... 1. � •� E o d v ,n 4i. ac 1 ! — - V a` U ¢ —1.1— r_ ` s~ O cn -r-I a �+ 44 O o M UO a) I U H r-I r-I T3 U Qi ccS �-)i Sd c0 c0 O .n Q) E � 41 N S4 Un r� s~ N • O I~ r-I •r•i ' oo �' 4J a) �, U) U)•�� 3 Q) •Q a) a 8 u Q) -H a) (d .ra r-i x 3 b 4J 3 .-. 44 r-i-I -P •r•I (U 44 r-I (d r-I -A c0 O aJ r0 U I� • e UO �, S I cn �N U (A 44 rd U) Ul Jl aJ - r-I Q A 0) m ; In I ri S2 S~ r3 is U) • l4 � 10 � r ri 8 QJ C=a U) r-I r-1 o ao � m +?-0 a3 a) o r i ro�,i � rd r3 0 I r I .2 .��a< r-I • rUrj � > � � P•r ai r3 -IJ O r-1 4J tr 4-) Ul U a) �4 .� m ­4 4.4 (0� 8,� U� 14 U > f o �_: > Q4 U) l4W� H v >~ o U *� M w8�( Z GQ •rA O 4-) � U) 8 ri U � a)� �.c rts a --� � 0+ CO O r- •) M S)4 U) Urn .0 U H 8 ,C � aJ o r� -E U 4-) w()4 � 8 r-i U) N N � 3 U +'n H c0 - { ro ri •J $ � 1) 0 aJ a � ro -)(o 41 �i co O r-i 4-J c0 f"4 UU) v U U U O H U a +� Un � o ra 4a ro cn v" `� � CO r i O > -i O r3 � Rr � N .0 ri (1) H W 84 O �(3 m C v m 4-) c0 U) r 4 r r3 O f+ S4 G, 41 q v U) u e `�� � ��� rO • 4 CO .-I r-I O O c0 � � cz U � H U B ^ CJ H • ti U a) (0 -I-) r1 r�4 ; �4 e� O U aJ � Un O u Un � o ++4 c cn a n U co 'nco � � (n ri •r� > > r-4 O O (r � � � � U' N —4 + i0 o O O O N 0 o 00 N O CO l0 rl O O 00 101� r-i d' O O 00 Ln CO r-i M O O M O O 410 N l(1 O O 00 l00 M [l- O RS c0 •ri (l1 U - 44 44 En r� r0 •ri o .H O it O ri B r1 O 41 -pi O 41 0 O 11 0 ra U En U4-) S4 �4 9 U O H 8 W yO� Un +� U U r-+ 8 r+ U r �j a -i p a r I U -i ,+ r I U 4 44 4 NI �o l0 X� 11 C) O 2 N U I 41 \ 8 (I »� O q��7 a) .UJ S N 5 I aJ � j O -W �x J r- > �4 u :4 8ci 4� M 41 r, 4 Ln O H q :3 w< rI q- y4 FC W .--I N LO —1.1— C. Traffic control devices on minor arterials should be traffic signals and cross street stops. Four way stops are not recommended, but have been utilized on 76th Street. 76th Street functions as minor arterial despite the fact • that surrounding land use is residential. 76th Street is, one of only two east -west streets in Richfield which run the entire width of the city uninterrupted by I -35W. 76th Street also provides access to such major commercial and office centers as Southdale and Pentagon office Park in Edina. Congestion on I -494 can also increase traffic volumes on 76th Street. For these reasons, the traffic volumes on 76th Street has increased beyond the volumes expected on local or collector streets. Development of vacant land adjacent to 76th Street in Edina will result in further increases in traffic levels on 76th Street. Because of the abutting residential land uses, 76th Street should be classified as .,a collector and steps taken to control traffic volumes. The development of an effective frontage road system along I -494 to provide an alternate easy -west route to 76th Street would help divert from 76th Street. This would provide sufficient east -west access through the city while diverting traffic through commercial areas rather than through residential areas. Funding classifications which directly effect Richfield are Federal Aid Urban (F.A.U.) system roadways, Municipa.L State Aid roadways, County roadways, and Local roadways. Figure 6 shows FAU, MSA, and local classified roadways. County roads are shown on figure 3. Federal.Highway Administration funds are restricted to roadways included in the FAU system which are generally restricted to arterials. Nicollet Avenue is included in the FAU system even though it is classified as a collector, however. County funds can only be spent on county roads and similarly Municiapl State Aid funds can generally only be spent on Municiapl State Aid designated streets. All other roadways are the responsibility of Richfield. -12- 0 i• � 0 J. .......... .. -------- 3-1 ID —3 11 11 tell aloof IIIIIi 11111111311 I_u pILIJI11181111-fl-cli-I T �i- .81 ............ I a a % 3-1 31 311 t %list as 111111111111to kill 6..—L-.6.- z z I CL 0 30 -- E 0 31Y —1 nv3nVmxbYJ 3A ch �kakkk 3-1 o z' (n 0 0 LL 0 LL 3. Road Structure The physical structure of a roadway affects the flow of traffic over it. Much as a fluid is slowed by the frictionip of a narrow or rough surfaced pipe, traffic will be slowed by a narrow or inadequately surfaced roadway. a. Right -of -way - The width of a roadway is determined by several factors. When land was subdivided in Rich - field, usually thirty feet of lot from the center of a proposed right -of -way was reserved for public use for roadways, sidewalks, utilities, and landscaping. The resulting right -of -way with land reserved from both lots fronting on the roadway is 60 feet. The vast majority of roads in Richfield as shown in Figure 7, have 60 foot rights -of -way, which is the legal minimum for new subdivisions. On roads that were perceived as main roads during the subdivision process, either 33 or 50 feet from the center line were reserved for public use, resulting in rights -of -way of 63, 66, 83, and 100 feet. Controlled access freeways have even greater rights -of -way ranging generally from 200 feet to 400 feet. The greatest right -of -way is where I -35W and the Crosstown converge. Limited sections of the Crosstown right -of -way are only 150 to 180 feet wide. A few streets have less than 60 feet of right -of -way. In most of these cases only 30 feet of right -of -way were dedicated by one of the two properties on the street. These few properties were sub - divided before the roadways were planned. In a majority of the cases where properties on a block were subdivided without right -of -way dedication, a roadway width was established by use and the land has passed to public ownership by adverse possession. On a few streets the constricted right -of -way has constricted the width of the roadway. The 7000 block of Fifth Avenue is an example where the • street occupies almost the complete right -of -way. OW915 - - CL 1 ® 0 w � ol i 31v —13 3'••sren wa - �J ! - - .._.: -._— - -- :- ��L -i� 3nv bs nn,oa r n b vbve -- FRfF —. — 3nb 1�s .31,1 • >s ],v a +z _- _._.'. _- .__. _.... -: -.- ■��� _ -- ..`: ~'� _ •t__ -�� 3nv wz .o r,rn ' — —_ -- �� �_ JI .3nv ,. -- - _._ � -. —�L— _ 3nv .,]o;�.,• ;,• � ^•�•],• ---= u�:.{IIIRIII •- ,,,1,.{1111IWIIItltttl a 1i1�{'St1ii11'If/1+,a1,la�µF�,_ 3nv .1.P.a,e O 3<1 .rc,.,., si— y ,nb 5 4 �dc a . 1x31 O LO M d c°o OJ LU O r a O O F- W O l0 r O Z o � N M W J M t0 n d • - T - .bxlrexs.. � i ]nv rbrg.sax _ P La iT The roadway of Pleasant Avenue is also narrower than desired because of right -of -way limitations resulting from sharing rights with a railroad holding 50 feet of the right -of -way. Not all street rights -of -way that are held by the city have been improved. Lake Shore Drive south and east of Wood Lake was included as part of Wood Lake Nature Center and closed when the fence surrounding the nature center was built. Queen Avenue north of 64th Street, 24th Avenue and 65th Street, and various dead end rights -of -way have never been developed as.streets. Undeveloped street rights -of -way are shown in Figure 7 b. Pavement - The City of Richfield permanently paved, curbed, and guttered essentially all municipal streets from 1972 to 1977 in a major street improvement program. These streets were paved with bituminous (asphalt) paving as shown in Figure 8. Major roads and highways were mostly paved with concrete, some of which has since • been overlaid with asphalt. Some sections of municipal roadway have not been permanently paved and curbed under this program including three blocks in the Lyndale/ Hub /Nicollet redevelopment area which are programmed to be vacated and Lyndale Avenue between Lake Shore Drive and 74th Street. Sixty -sixth Street (C.S.A.H. 53) west of Penn Avenue and the frontage roads under state jurisdiction have not been paved, curbed, and guttered to Richfield standards. A recent inspection of municipal roads revealed that all streets paved as part of the street improvement program are in very good condition needing only minor maintenance and correction of minor conditions. Most repairs are needed to replace inadequate utility patches or repair depressions around stormwater catch basins that have probably resulted from erosion of the sub -base during recent heavy rainfalls. -15- F F C ` x C J „ _Q r v cc 'a•• ±•v ,w,.aoa � � __ 3na C.v .boa � . — .W LU w w _ -- Ai e LL EMEMENEEMMIrdw cc ca - -- -_ m � 3 op _ N f0 t CL LU ¢ M U Q O L O \ LL _ - - - -` l� ~ o --——--------—---- - - -- -- -- -— -- .. - Q t � I 3-1 101113 )n. onn xa Z IFjl =_ tg I- f- ln...... .. .. .. .. .... _ �...L. ..... . 1 ..... .. ns ax.w � ••••- —_ • — � ..1{41 {I{i{H • \11 !1111. an axl,n s ) J l = i +r nwnr� :.-- -- 'Iffif -.:_-_ -:' _ —__ _L.. —.. —'� __ _..__ - .. ��: l•r nx nr )nr s,nrr - � - -r�if {ffk -.. )orxaw -� _ ��_; ...__ - �• oI )mr lnv .oxv ,�,� ftf - -2l llifff,f�ff fff , y�•�. ,�--�� �u' � - - -- �� _ )�. vouv r- r� ,nv xo. •« �' - -flli tlYll if /gllfll T n„ 1 .3. H W - -- Q is uj C E (0 E O N N A T C E s o U v I d L W t/f M o.. m N 00 N/ y NNn'1'N �o 4 'n .-1N N IN .1 Most local streets were paved to a width of thirty -four or thirty -six .,feet as shown in Figure 9. On a few streets, such as Pleasant and Fifth Avenues, right- of -way limitations constricted street widths. Some streets were not paved to full width because of neighbor - hood opposition. The area from 68th Street, north and from Penn Avenue to I -35W has variable, narrow street widths as a result. Most arterials and collectors were paved to widths of 45.33 feet or 51.33 feet. Some arterials in business districts, such as 66th Street, were paved wider, up to 64 feet including the median. Municipal State Aid roads shown in Figure 5 were paved with state funds to widths of 37.33 or 45.33 feet for local and collector streets, and to 45.33 and 51.33 feet or more for arterials. While state regulations require minimum street widths of 45.33 feet for Municipal State Aid • Roads, Richfield by agreement with the Minnesota De- partment of Transportation, was able to pave streets 37.33 feet wide on the condition that the street posted no parking on one side. These parking restric- tions have generated a few complaints. C. Load Limits - Municipal State Aid Roads were designed for nine ton loads per axle. All other municipal streets (excluding limited access highways) were designed with seven tons per axle limits. Richfield has no posted truck routes, but does have posted three and four ton load limits on some streets, as shown in Figure 10. These signs have been placed to discourage truck traffic on residential streets primarily between Penn Avenue and Southdale and through the area adjacent to the commercial area west of Lyndale Avenue and 77, Street. Truck traffic exceeding 4 tons gross weight per axle is prohibited on asphalt municipal roads between March 20 and May 15 each year. Ln z ------ ----- 3,1 LU �VT 3.1 3" 1-1111d IOS1313 3- —V ■ 2 _j E 4. Traffic Volume • Traffic volume levels are important indicators of the adequacy or inadequacy of a road system. Utilizing pro - jections of traffic volumes, future inadequacies in the system can be recognized in time to allow for expansion of the system or other corrective action. Traffic volume levels in the Richfield area as indicated by recent counts are shown in Figure 11. The pattern of usage shown reflects. the functional claS ifications of the Metropolitan Council (see Figure 4), with some exceptions where traffic volumes exceed the classification criteria for collectors.* These exceptions include Xerxes Avenue and part of 76th Street which have traffic over 15,000 vehicles per day. Several other streets,all of which are municipal state aid roads, carry traffic volumes character- istic of collectors rather than local roads as they are shown classified by Metropolitan Council. While road . improvements have increased the amount of traffic that can be smoothly handled by Richfield's roads, traffic congestion continues to be a significant irritant and hazard. As shown in Figure 12, traffic capacity deficiencies exist on I -35W, the Crosstown Expressway, Lyndale Avenue, 66th Street, The Penn Avenue bridge over the I -494, and on 76th Street at I -35W. The one bottleneck that may affect traffic in Richfield more than any other is the west junction of I -35W and the Cross- town Expressway. Traffic is commonly backed up a half mile and more on the east bound lanes of the Crosstown. Con- gestion at this junction diverts traffic to other routes through Richfield and unquestionably contributes to defi- ciencies on 66th Street. While upgrading the common section of I -35W and the Crosstown is a first priority item in the Metropolitan Council's transportation plans, the project • remains unscheduled. * Roadways classified as urban collectors are supposed to have 1,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day. -20- OF ..., ...... H. ...: o 0 �^..•.Z. ­116 ...............i.. -T-'s C C C 7 C6 7 O „ .... - .r... -•.• . O i U d L......... H -• I.H��•�' 3nr r,ii - - -._._ _. -_ —_� _ __. - -__.• 3nr r,m I. -- - -- ___ _____.■ 3nv 1. +,3 svJ xJ ,pW i C7 _.__- 'L. —.. •._ ■ I • 3n1 snex,ro. l yr•C J J I _ •__. r _ , � � 3nr ..• 3nv xo:r,C -- '•° y" .. • `+- — .�.— J . _ S • ]n.., 91 4 3nr nbnBS„e I — - - -- 1...• �`• r a ~ O- 3nr 3,r.t., 311 xJ.1 3n1 Lrr.re ••ev - (• -� •—�" �� I•g LU - a , • n. z CW.i .- x •. xl.'a — -- ----- - 3.r rrle - - • - —' -G ]nv 0,3 bra 3nv xJ xc,r 3nv ♦Nr>xB 3nv av3roa ^, Q Q {� 3. v•.3° saaaaHH••u_ OF C C C 7 C6 7 O „ .... C C V • d E d O i U d v`sP. E ti 3v rva]a n N lnv r. e. o+ , rl y n C ]n.., 91 4 ^ a ~ O- _C - , • n. z CW.i 3M VSnY�n,•J -. -.. � • • lnr xoix�,a -ins ° c 3 - 3nv x nr sx3n31s 3 r ,3csnC.B - - • - —' -G ]nv 0,3 bra 3nv xJ xc,r 3nv ♦Nr>xB 3nv av3roa ^, Q Q 3nv �w„ x co N N F nb N I O W a o 0 ° .. 3w ,oxx o i -- anv xvs0, • C • O` � ' ]n. x3,ro o a n xx / EO /\ O O O O 00 N y Of L' CO W 0 o a CL s r d C 3n, B•a3J ` Y U „• s,a.,m W a � —M ". _. -_ __ � �;�� �' 1 nnonvsnenn,00 w ds O ,n a,.•. \ -- Q CO IA N '- r cc LL s \ md3�N , J J J J J J Z t0 CI N N I= 1 Improvements at the junction of I -35W and the Crosstown would not only help relieve traffic congestion on Richfield streets, but would reduce congestion at that intersection which is one of the busiest in the state. When traffic volume levels exceed road design capacities, capacity deficiencies result in traffic congestion. A major objective in designing road systems is to provide with limited resources adequate,capacities to minimize congestion. Table 3 lists typical road design capacities. Actual capacities will vary from typical levels as other. - factors vary including: Speed limits, road width, visibility, percent truck traffic. Figure 12 shows design capacities of roadways in and around Richfield and indicates problem areas where capacity deficiencies result.in traffic congestion. On some of.the two lane roadways in Richfield actual capacities are estimated to be higher than typical design capacities because the traffic lanes are signifi- cantly wider than average and other factors are better than • average. Capacity deficiencies on Lyndale Avenue will be corrected when planned construction widens that roadway. Traffic signals which are scheduled to be installed in 1931 or later at 76th Street and the I -35W ramps will do much to improve congestion at that location. TABLE 3 Typical Design Capacities Total Lanes Capacity (Veh /Day) 2 lanes 7,500 4 lanes undivided 17,500 4 lanes with turn lanes 28,000 4 lane 55,000 6 lane freeway 80,000 8 land freeway 105,000 Source: Hennepin County Department of Public Works, Hennepin County Transportation System Study, October, 1976. -23- 5. Traffic Control Traffic is regulated by speed limits and by intersection control signals and signs. Generally county highways have 35 mile per hour (MPH) speed limits and city roads have 30 MPH speed limits, although Penn Avenue north of 70th is 30 MPH and Lyndale, south of Lake Shore Drive, is 35 MPH, as shown in Figure 13. Automated traffic signals are located at intersections of minor arterials (see Figure 13), with the entrance ramps of the principal arterials and intermediate arterials, and with collectors. A.few signals are located at inter- sections of minor arterials with unclassified local streets, some of which are busy enough to qualify as collectors. One or two existing traffic lights at the intersection of minor arterials and unclassified local streets may not be warranted by traffic volumes or safety considerations. A few signals are located adjacent to schools to aid pedestrian. • traffic. One signal on Nicollet Avenue was installed specifically as an aid for pedestrian traffic. The traffic light by East Middle School at 12th Avenue and 70th Street is the only traffic light at an intersection where neither cross street is a minor arterial. Signal lights are scheduled to be installed at 76th Street and the exit and entrance ramps of I -35W. Three intersections with traffic signals have antiquated systems without masts. At the intersection of Lyndale Avenue and 76th Street these antiquated traffic lights no longer meet federal standards. Lack of visibility of the lights is the reason this intersection is one of the most dangerous in Richfield and the one with the most accidents in 1977 and 1978. Richfield has approximately 700 stop signs and over 100 other traffic signs regulating traffic throughout the city as shown in Figure 14. Stop signs have been used to regulate -24- f "s z z ZLU , nnY+. 0Y- JJ E _ J ca a 3,•. M, +.ane � r `U a O uj W f "s z z E _ J ca a 3 ..va 3. `U a O .� J .. _ ... .. H io-_. w _ .... —... Ln A M i0 u1 3" 311, ,a3 3 7 N v � 9 L6 M V 3n a h 3. r .............. ....... t a 7— CL .e . az ••• ,•� � r F x � M � anv { ex s L _. • •• ♦ _ .•• _ _ • n • •♦ •• • - -•• `•• -- -rte- — — ••- -_— -- -- •- • -• • • • •.— • .. - • ln. r E - • V +r .. z• ♦ ...- 3nv v.z •� , .. � � �.___ � - - - __.r_ •._� �• =-J 3nv v�o� � ]•.r .:r].] �W � • - -!'i - -�� _— ___• �l__.i •• -. 3nr om]x] �, 3nr s•aw-v: C5.1 � � --- :'___ •'. _ -. � -., :- _ _... _ -,. 3nv SnB�n,ol Q l,r .are � • -_._ •_ - . - _ -" • - _ ! - _ • � ;. ]nv xxre J,v orv-,.o -... .... • • -• • •i •' 311 I'll 11 all _ —_ _ � • _ - -_ ._ . _ .r ! _ —_ -• __ _ —!�__i _J � . "..___I — 3nv axv,.aae - ;•• • �- ._._ -• ]� • __ •__ - - ♦• - -• _ • .(•�• •• r 3nv vc ��• • -.- . -_ •♦ •._— •- -i'. -. ... -J�, I •.. 3nv vas 3na o.c (_. _ • . _. _.. '� • � '_�I! �•' -�' 3.r �♦ ... _ • - • • - �� ..: - -_.. __•� ,. _•_.. •_. z.: 3nr v+x _. • • 1. -. _ �- _•. • —. l° Sx)n3_S " -. - -! - - -. � __ •__ ^ -_'�_ � 3nv Sx3n315 i � • - - - - - i 3nv w • • • ! • — 3, ,,.a., . � _ _ —•- rte- �� � •. 3n. x.ea..r]. inE r • - -.i -_fit. '� —�•'- ice.:: ] . , :.3 -. � s -- • ` — _ 3nr ,xrsr] < ., ,,,,� � 1 - -- _• - - -- � —•• - — • • —' � - -- 3na ,xxa.x 0 G 3n. ixaaW N •!- 3nv xO5x3n3 3 i ln. ie,oaw�x _•• • • ! J • • • • � ! - —__ •'_ ,_ - -_� r 3nv a3n,o ' ., � _ - -_ • - __ _ 3nv x]3ne C C C _. -- • --• — . 3.. 33,xa Q y y y _ NEW a� 3 oe ui 00 too LA. Oct..._ .t ` -' traffic crossing arterials and collectors. Placement of stop signs.away from these main roads does not follow national guidelines and lacks consistency, indicating the absence of guidelines. Stop signs have been installed to slow traffic at blind intersections without correcting the visibility problem. Stop signs have also been used for speed control on 76th Street, on Upton Avenue, and on other roads. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices* recommends that stop signs not be used for speed control. Traffic signals and stop signs reduce accident potential and facilitate safe and orderly traffic flow where traffic conflicts warrant their placement. However, most traffic control devices also substantially increase travel time, gasoline consumption, noise levels, and air emissions. Unwarranted or improper devices can cause excessive delays, encouraging increased driver disobedience, diversion of traffic to less desirable routes, and can actually result • in a substantial increase in accidents, especially rear end collisions. The impact of traffic control devices on accidents, gasoline consumption, noise, and traffic speed are discussed below. 1 *The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices gives the following warrants for the placement of stop signs: 1. Intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of normal right -of -way rule is unduly hazardous. 2. Street entering a through highway or street. 3. Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area. 4. Other intersections where a combination of high speed,restricted view, and serious accident record indicates a need. U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1971. -27- Trani Anni- c - The installation and upgrading of traffic control devices has demonstrated many times that such devices will reduce the frequency of traffic accidents where tra.f.f.^ conflicts warrant their installation. Traffic signals are especially affective in reducing right angle accidents. However, if a device, especially a stop sign, is installed where clearly unwarranted some drivers will disobey the.sign, increasing the accident potential. Gasoline Consumption Stopping from 30 miles per hour and accelerating back to that speed costs about .01 gallons per car. Another ten miles per hour increases excess gasoline consumption by over 30 percent *. Considerable conservation of fuel can be accomplished by adjusting traffic control in Richfield. • Fuel consumption at traffic signals is a function of the number of vehicles that stop at a signal and the time they stand and wait. Reducing either of these factors will result in reduced fuel consumption. Several of the strategies available for reducing gasoline consumption include: a. Interconnect Siqnals - Interconnecting the traffic signals so they work together can regulate traffic speeds and reduce the number of stopped vehicles. Within the next two years Portland and Penn Avenues are scheduled to have their signals interconnected. Esti- mates indicate that the fuel savings of interconnecting the siana- nn these three arterials could be as much as 900 gallons per day or 325,000 gallons annually. *From Paul J. Claffe "Running Costs of Motor Vehicles as Affected by Road Design and Traffic ", National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report #III, Highway Research Board, 1971. See Land Use Plan for further discussion on fuel consumption study. b. Adjusting Cycle Timing - Increasing the delay time for the minor street would maximize the traffic flow through the intersection and minimize the number of stopped vehicles. This option is especially useful if traffic on the main street is several times greater and more continuous than traffic on the minor street. No estimate of fuel savings is available. This improvement might work well on 66th Street. C. Flashing Signals— Modifying traffic signals to flash red on the minor street and yellow on the major street during the late night hours when traffic volumes are low have the following effects *: 1) Reduce Traffic delay 2) Reduce fuel consumption 3) Reduce vehicle emissions 4) Increase both crossing and rear -end conflicts 5) Increase accidents, especially right -angle accidents Both the advantages of flashing signals and the potentia.0 negative impacts in increased accidents can be significant. If all of Richfield's 32 traffic signals flashed from midnight to 6 A.M., potentially about 115 gallons of gasoline a day or 43,000 gallons annually could be conserved. Significant additional savings could be achieved by extending the flashing period of several inters--+-i-­: ° ._t ver_1> low cross traffic. Presently, 17 signals already flash yellow /red conserving about 52 gallons of gas a day or about 19,000 gallons annually. Figure 15 shows the current late night traffic signal operation. * As reported in Benioff, Barry and Rorabaugh, Thayer, A Study of Clearance Intervals, Flashing Operations, and Left Turn Phasing at Traffic Signals, Federal Highway Administration, January, 1918. -29- ca \_ I CL 0 J r sneni C. W Q 3M cc . J r J ve 17-9 F if yr .cn •• a„ __ _ _ -_ _. _ - -_ _. I — _ 3.< no., ,. OO W W E f0 f0 O IX a � —= — - Jn.. „nab, a a CC [ d O O O M a N N N LL LL z CC s f cn LL LL CM CC �J W 75 '� C ,e_ X d. Activated Signals - Traffic signals can be modified to be activated by vehicles entering the intersection. While this can result in substantial fuel savings, this option is not as significant for Richfield as the. other three strategies. Signals activated by cross traffic might work well on East 66th Street. Noise Traffic control devices increase traffic noise because they interrupt the flow of traffic and cause deceleration and acceleration. It is recommended that noise be a con - sideration in the placement of traffic signals and signs to minimize the impacts of noise on sensitive land uses. Speed The most effective way to control speed with traffic control devices is by interconnecting or timing signals so that traffic can effectively flow only at the desired speed. Stop signs have been shown to be ineffective in reducing speed levels. Speed reduction is effective only in the immediate vicinity of the stop sign, and frequentiy L `czs are higher between intersections.* When a set of stop signs is installed at an uncontrolled intersection, speed levels tend to increase on the uncontrolled street. Because stop signs have only a very localized impact on traffic speeds, the Department of Transportation indicates that stop signs "should not be used for speed control ". ** * U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1971. ** Many studies have been done to support this, including a study in St. Paul which showed an average speed increase of one -half mile per hour, one -half block away from installed stop signs. -31- 6. Safety Safety considerations are a major concern of the City of Richfield in decisions involving transportation planning and traffic control. A major indicator of the success or failure of these decisions is the number and location of accidents in the city. The number of accidents. at a given point or in a road system is a function of several factors including traffic volume and safety conditions. As shown in Figure 1.6, most accidents in Richfield as in other urban communities occur at intersections. The intersection of I -494 and I -35W with by far the highest volume of traffic (146,000 average vehicles per day (ADT) had the most reported accidents (92) in 1978. Eleven city intersections listed in Table 4 accounted for twenty percent of the reported accidents in Richfield, excluding accidents on the interstate highways. The intersection of Lyndale Avenue and 76th Street had the most total accidents from 1974 to 1978 and ranked first in 1977 and 1978 in number of accidents at city intersections. Improvement of traffic signals on 66th Street at Penn, Lyndale, Nicollet, and Portland Avenues has greatly reduced the number of accidents at those intersections, as has the addition of turning lanes at the 66th Street Nicollet Avenue intersection. Richfield had 909 reported accidents in 1978, an increase of four percent over the 873 accidents in 1977. This figure does not include minor unreported "fender- benders ", and many accidents on the interstate freeways which were handled by the Minnesota Highway Patrol, including some serious accidents. The 909 accidents included 18 vehicle /bicycle and 9 vehicle /pedestrian accidents. Most of these accidents occurred on major roads. The most important cause of Is vehicle /bicycle accidents was the failure of the vehicle to yield right -of -way on a right turn on red. -32- (D L" 77 i 31� 1311.- 311 O CL cr O Cl Cl) CM Cl) cW VI W C� n LO I • 0.- W r- 75 U U -P O W v E 3 N z O U N 1n N Y C >ti •r� U r rn <r r rn LO io �o 0 W �o ko io r r r \ \ +J +J 2t 4J +I ro ro � � "o r r-1 m m \ ri —1 ri -1 rl \ m +-) rO rO C O O ++ O O 1~ r-i >~ I' ) U U U U C ° a 0 aa a w z z az z w .. .. O r 10 r. r L( LI C M N M N N N 1-1 -4 ri r-1 r-i ri ko Lr) co to W io "o �o r r LO r N N S~ N "o N N C N rn q r rl r r I m r-I �D H -i m r-1 �p m r m \ r-i r-i r-1 \ ro -4 r 1 ro rn rd z O +1 O C r0 O +j ro q -p r-1 1~ z U Si U 1~ q U 1-I G z 7•i >1 N •r1 O -ri N >, •r1 O >v N O a w z w z a a z w a w w r l0 rn W r r l0 U1 L(1 O O O N N r-1 r-i ri .-i ri 11 r-i ri 1~ O D lIl l0 OD 4-1 r \ �o l0 \0 \ \ \ m N N �o Z N N io N z z W 0 —, r m r•i r-, 'D r-I ri 'o m m r S f m \ ri m m \ m ri to —4 r-i rn v o a .0 ro ro z ro O\ 4J � r-i � � � F-1 >~ r~ C A U N i-i 1.1 rl >+ N O >Y >1 N > •ri m O O H a Qi a a a (L a z 1:4 ('L a U r-i O C', [� 1� Lf) d' U I M N ri ri r-i ri ri -4 r-i r-i r-1 N M C Ln lD r W tT O r-i N m ri r-i ri ai to !n W to o m o o Lo LO r r \ \ r0 +I •U \ 'N +J W f,- UI � r- r ro ro I \ \ ri ri m r1 ro 75 +I 1~ a O o ro o O a s P° w w z z a z z M r N W to u'1. r4 O lD Ln M r-1 ri O O r to L 1 Ln r-i e-•i ri r4 r-i l0 l0 N N W �o io ko 110 Ln r r �o r \ \ \ "o \ \ >Y N N rl N co N a) ri N N m rl r- r-I —1 m ri 4-1 \ m m —4 r-I \ r-1 m ri r-1 m � O m Z 9 p °� UU c u N >'1 >Y O •11 Iv 'r1 O •r1 U a a a W 2 4L 2 a P+ z i ri �0 Ln N W N N N N r-1 -4 ri r1 r-1 r-1 (1� r-I IU �o co 1.0 O l0 •r1 r r c r r w r \ \ \ �o \ \ rO 4•1 \ 10 U N �o 1.0 N s4 1~ O N z I~ •rl ri r to r-i m m ri ri m m 0.5 m \ \ m r-i r- I r-4 m r-I r•-I U N >Y O O •r1 >1 O O N a w Al a w w a a w a U N N r N M Li) N N N O M N N N N N 11 r-i r-i r1 ri r-I (n LO io �o 0 W �o ko io r r r \ \ +J +J 2t 4J +I ro ro � � "o r r-1 m m \ ri —1 ri -1 rl \ m +-) rO rO C O O ++ O O 1~ r-i >~ I' ) U U U U C ° a 0 aa a w z z az z w .. .. O r 10 r. r L( LI C M N M N N N 1-1 -4 ri r-1 r-i ri ko Lr) co to W io "o �o r r LO r N N S~ N "o N N C N rn q r rl r r I m r-I �D H -i m r-1 �p m r m \ r-i r-i r-1 \ ro -4 r 1 ro rn rd z O +1 O C r0 O +j ro q -p r-1 1~ z U Si U 1~ q U 1-I G z 7•i >1 N •r1 O -ri N >, •r1 O >v N O a w z w z a a z w a w w r l0 rn W r r l0 U1 L(1 O O O N N r-1 r-i ri .-i ri 11 r-i ri 1~ O D lIl l0 OD 4-1 r \ �o l0 \0 \ \ \ m N N �o Z N N io N z z W 0 —, r m r•i r-, 'D r-I ri 'o m m r S f m \ ri m m \ m ri to —4 r-i rn v o a .0 ro ro z ro O\ 4J � r-i � � � F-1 >~ r~ C A U N i-i 1.1 rl >+ N O >Y >1 N > •ri m O O H a Qi a a a (L a z 1:4 ('L a U r-i O C', [� 1� Lf) d' U I M N ri ri r-i ri ri -4 r-i r-i r-1 N M C Ln lD r W tT O r-i N m ri r-i ri ai The number of accidents per million vehicles is an indicator of the probability that any vehicle will have an accident • at a particular location. The number of accidents per million vehcile miles is an indicator of the probability of an accident over a section of road or on a road system_ Both of these accident rates by traffic volume provide a measure of road safety and are valuable indicators of the need for improvements. The two rates are not comparable. In 1976 Richfield had 8.00 accidents per million vehicle miles on its county roads according to the Hennepin County Department of Transportation. This rate approximated the accident rate (7.94) on the.county roads in ten fully developed Hennepin County communities, excluding Minneapolis. The most dangerous intersection in Richfield in 1978, as shown in Table 5, was Lyndale Avenue and 67th Street. The reported accidents at that intersection represent 3.50 accidents per million vehicles. Many of the accidents at TABLE 5 Most dangerous Intersections: 1978 -35- Accidents ADT* Acc /MV ** 1. Lyndale /67 17 13,314 3.50 2. Lyndale /76 31 27,080 3.13 3. Longfellow /66 9 9,887 2.49 4. Nicollet /65 14 16,831 2.28 5. Portland /78 11 13,840 2.18 6. Portland /66 19 24,700 2.11 7. Penn /76 20 27,180 2.02 8. Nicollet /78 10 13,860 1.98 Source: Richfield Planning and Redevelopment Department, Richfield Public Safety Department * A.D.T. = Average Daily Traffic ** Acc /MV = Accidents per million vehicles 40 -35- this intersection were caused by southbound vehicles running a red light, which might be related to the timing of the light. The second most dangerous intersection was Lyndale Avenue and 76th Street where the 31 accidents represent 3.13 accidents per million vehicles. Several of these accidents were a result in part of the poor visibility of the antiquated signals at this intersection. The high accident rates at Portland Avenue and 78th Street and at Nicollet Avenue and 78th Street are a function of the inadequate interface of the I -494 frontage roads with the minor arterials. The alignment of the frontage road junctions conflict with the adjacent intersections result - ing in high accident levels. Nicollet Avenue from 76th Street to I -494 has the highest accident rate for any county road segment in Hennepin County because of the unusually high number of accidents at the Nicollet and 77th Street and Nicollet and 78th Street intersections. . Nicollet Avenue from 76th Street to I -494 from 1974 to 1976 had an average of 33.9 accidents per million vehicle miles which compares to 25.8 accidents per million vehicle miles for the next worst county road segment. Six of fifty -six similar signaled intersections in Hennepin County outside of Richfield and Minneapolis in 1976 had higher accident rates than the 3.50 accidents.per million vehicles of the Lyndale Avenue and 67th Street intersec- tion. The average accident rate for the fifty -six signalized county road intersections without turn lanes had accident rates higher than 1.81. Improvements at the main inter- sections on 66th Street have reduced accident rates considerably. At Portland Avenue and 66th Street the accident rate dropped from 2.41 to 1.73 accidents per million vehicles after improvements were completed in 1976. -36- In summary, accident patterns and accident rates indicate three categories of improvements needed to upgrade safety levels: a. Traffic control improvements at major intersections. Figure 17 shows major intersections needing improve- ments and the type of improvements needed. b. Improvements are needed at intersections of the I -494 frontage road with minor arterials. Realignment of the frontage road is necessary to reduce accidents and congestion at the intersections outlined in figure 17. C. Visibility should be improved at minor intersections where vision is hindered.by parked cars, fences, and vegetation. -37- C� O w Z i � w C. � Z N CL �. v W _ owo c7 Q LU Fj' i _ nw axv,.ro 89 Y V 8 - '^ ui -- _ v ♦n m m v C W m N m J U. j — — �J 'c c CL ^---- - - - - -- -- - - - - ❑� 7. Alleys Richfield has about eleven miles of service alleys under city jurisdiction located in areas of the city platted, before 1940. The largest concentration of alleys as shown in figure 18 is located between 66th and 70th Streets," west of Penn Avenue. In addition about three - quarters of a mile of alleys are highway frontage roads under state jurisdiction along two limited access highways: I -35W and T.H. 77 (T.H. 36). Not all of the originally platted alley rights -of -way have been utilized and over the years several of these have been officially vacated and ownership has been transferred to the adjacent land owners. Other unused dedicated alleys exist only on paper. In one case adjacent land owners recognize the existence of the alley and have placed trees - and fences so to leave the alleyway open, but the right -of- way is not used. Most residences backing on unused alleys have garages with driveway access to the street. 0 Some service alleys have never been dedicated as public rights -of -way. Three types of private alleys are found in the city. 1) Alleys providing access across institu- tional property; 2) Alleys providing rear access to commercial tenants in shopping centers under single manage- ment. These two types of alleys need not be dedicated as no property lines are crossed. 3) Short easements serving interior residential lots. Recently the city received a petition to accept the dedication of one such alley so that maintenance responsibilities can be shifted from the residents to the city. The city has policies for alley dedication and granting petitions for alley abandonment. The city is developing the mechanisms and guidelines for initiating abu.aonment petitions for unused or underutilized alleys and policies for adjusting service and maintenance levels for underutilized alleys. • -39- n Most utilized alleys have temporary base oiled surfaces. In most cases the surface is deteriorating. Public alleys servicing commercial establishments are generally in the worst condition. A survey of alley conditions completed in September of 1980 found that the city has 96.5 blocks of oiled alleys, 2 blocks of dirt alleys, and 9.5 bloc' -.s of unimproved alleys. The alleys were rated using on a scale of one to five as follows: 1. Fully deteriorated condition 2. Severe deterioration 3. Moderate deterioration 4. Slight deterioration 5. Good condition The survey found that 282 blocks of alleys were rated 1, �vd 2, 38 '-loc'.s were rated 3, 1 block was rated 4, and 2 block was rated 5. Figure 18 shows alley location and its rating. Since approximately 1971, alleys have been graded and patched on an as need basis. However, because of sub -soil conditions or drainage, and the fact that this garding and filling process is temporary, the surface condition of the alleys has continued to deteriorate and has become a con- stant maintenance problem. Permanent surfacing is neces- sary to reduce maintenance costs. -40- Wmb 119. > Z LU Ot I I » ln. snennX•, � J � �__ — '�- - -_— --- L � � - -�^ L— 3nr snalln'gJ 1 -.. _ ____ L anv oxn,tlo. •O _ uoravi ro� i - - � �■ __ _._ Pte_ - � � an• xoix,o m H y ,3.• ­1111 4*— _''�Y— N N— - -- nnv —1— 'O y ,...nxtl.. C -}- =iV - -- == __ --- anv x C •, ,.a� — - -.— cm tl fZ N c� •� ��3' � \ \� �� __ ���_ anv n,.ax., •� 4 4 ',•. 4.'x.a.e I• N -13€ \�� Y \ .�. — -- Ct- N oa d E 'E a _ _`v . ,xo•o d of d c m C C 311 1-313 ow,tl, O N M jt Cl) M Cl) CM L 2L �_ .- anv sxntl a )ev `.)•V _. J __ __. _ J __ •.. ins xo..,x O. W HM Cy PIN_ co — , Cl) .axr — �C4 al 000000000 S B. RAILROAD SYSTEM The Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railroad (MNS) pro -. vides freight service via its tracks crossing Richfield along Pleasant Avenue. The location of these tracks and their at -grade crossings are shown in figure 19. Primarily, MNS services industries just north of the Crosstown in Minneapolis. Only one establishment in Richfield, the lumber yard on 78th Street, uses the railroad. One train a day, six days a week, travels from the main line junction in Bloomington north across Rich- field into Minneapolis. The train 'crosses into Richfield at 3:00 PM and makes the return trip about two hours later. A potential conflict of any train system is its interface with other systems, especially how it crosses roads and pedestrian paths. Richfield has seven at -grade railroad crossings, only one of which is protected by warning devices. Even though automotive traffic at the crossings may increase, the risk of serious accidents is not high, because of the low frequency ' of rail traffic over the line, the low speed required by the condition of the track, and the fact that no rail traffic is at night when most auto /tail accidents occur. To reduce the risk of accidents, the number of crossings have been minimized. Five low volume, local residential streets do not cross the tracks. For the most part, the lack of railroad crossings do not significantly impede East -West traffic. 0 -42- 1 ­4 0 CIL — 11 ol 3.1 LLI cl co tk, J2 IS be t1l ­d E N 0, CL wi NE ia W-1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­01113. 311 1111131, 0 CIL — 11 ol 3.1 LLI cl co tk, J2 IS be t1l ­d E N 0, ia - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 CIL — 11 ol 3.1 LLI cl co tk, J2 IS be t1l ­d E N 0, 1 C. BIKEWAYS In 1975 the City Council adopted a'city wide bikeway system plan. In.1977 signs were posted along portions of Pleasant . Avenue, Bloomington Avenue, and 68th Street designating parts of those streets as bikeways: The route is a shared right -of- way with motor vehicles. Since `hat time no other por''ior.- of Richfield's bikeway plan have been implemented, although discussions have been initiated with state agencies on the possibility of obtaining permits for minor lakeshore altera- tions for a bikepath around Richfield Lake. One of the 'problems with implementing the bike plan has been the lack of approval for bikeway crossing signs on the county roads. While the bikeway plan was originally designed to coordinate with similar plans for surrounding communities, some of those plans have been revised. Richfield's bikeway plan is coordinated with Bloomington's and Edina's plans but no longer is coordinated with that of Minneapolis. • While Richfield's plan is supposed to be designed for both recreational and commuting bicycle traffic, it is particularly inadequate for commuting traffic, especially north -south traffic. Minneapolis plans to have a commuting bicycle route on Portland which does not connect with any routes in the Richfield plan. The concept of bicycle corridors for commuting is supported by the Metropolitan Bicycle System Plan. The bikeways plan is well designed to serve Richfield's recrea- tional facilities and to keep bicycle riders off of the more dangerous streets. Figure 20 shows the Richfield Bikeway Plan based on the 1975 Bikeway System Plan adopted by the City Council. Class I - A completely separate right -of -way for exclusive use of non - motorized vehicles. only the route along the railroad tracks on Pleasant Avenue is proposed for exclusive use by bicycles and other non - motorized vehicles. -44- Class II - A separate right -of -way for semi - exclusive use by bicycles. In city parks pathways are designated for multi -use. and not restricted to bicycle use. Along the extension of Standish Avenue in the airport, sufficient right- of -way is available for a pathway on or adjacent to the shoulder of the b, road. Class III - Bicycle routes designated on local, low,volume streets used also by automobiles. Most of the routes in Rich- field will be this type. Some parking restrictions will be necessary to meet state standards for bike routes. The only alterations from the 1975 plan have been where heavy traffic levels indicate that a class III would not meet state standards and /or insufficient right -of -way is available of Class I or Class II routes. The.proposed bike route east of Cedar Avenue corresponds to a proposed regional bicycle route serving Minneapolis, Richfield and Bloomington. Figure 21 indicates the priorities for installation of signs • and /or construction of the bike paths. Five multi - purpose bridges function as links in this system. Two are in place, but must be upgraded to accommodate bicycles. The other three are proposed, but are unlikely to be constructed by 1990 unless funding availability changes significantly. -45- 0 • i • ,o � � � ...c � "17-1 z i-11 QIA,7 RI CL Z' ta I s 11#111111m.t.tt ............. ....... cc I I "43-L"JAE i7777� .............. . . 11, —.3.3 W It 43) C11 Lu 41, --------- ca I I LI I tarn :. � .. e . ...r. 7—Id . ............ Sl� FIJI I I ;lalttl rEttleltilligiltatto I stilt- 110 Sm LL Milt" ---------------------- uj 3nv ..3v^OJ`x 3nlnvv e3 bbvx 3-1 1-- 31 --l- 311 co ui wr CL Z Z 110 Sm LL Milt" ---------------------- D. PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM Richfield has approximately 35`miles of sidewalks shown in Figure 22, mostly along main streets, and around schools. An additional 1.5 miles of sidewalk are committed for construc- tion including about one mile on 76th.Street east of Portland. The city has a policy of recommending sidewalks on both sides of arterial streets and on one side of collectors. When side- walks are installed by the city, adjoining residential property owners are assessed for 20 percent of the cost and commercial property owners are assessed for 50 percent of the cost. Sidewalks are not often required as a stipulation to development if the development is on a street where a sidewalk construction is considered needed. In that case the developer provides for the construction. While Richfield's pedestrian system ties together well internally, it is very poorly connected to the pedestrian system of neigh- boring communities. Sidewalks are incomplete along at least one side of Penn, Lyndale, and Nicollet Avenues at the Cross- town Expressway and along at least one side of Lyndale, 76th Street, Nicollet, and Portland at I -494. Xerxes Avenue north of 66th Street is the only major street in Richfield completely lacking sidewalks. The pedestrian bridge over I -494 at Second Avenue is not tied into the pedestrian system. Pedestrian access to Southdale and Southtown is also inadequate. Approximately two miles of streets in commercial areas have asphalt parking lots which abut the street providing a paved path that often must be negotiated around parked cars. All sidewalks in Richfield are plowed by the city taking about two days to clear a heavy snowfall. Significant expansion of the pedestrian system will probably necessitate the addition of another vehicle for sidewlk plowing or in slower snow clearing time unless sidewalk snow removal is assumed by the ajoining 40 property owner. -48- —A T MA IL it Jil =—i—A 7_7] ==I=_l " C_ L �J= 3�1 I 71 E cl 0 a) E E 0 V cm N 7711 - cc E cl 0 a) E E 0 V 311 11113 cc 0 311 C.' ch 311 11-- 311 —1— of 31, ­wll 311 —1. W 311 10- "I > C. W ba= e E cc . 91, • Sidewalks are not necessary or feasible for all streets.in Richfield but are needed on some streets to insure pedestrian safety where traffic voiumes are nIgn, and to provide conven- ient pedestrian access to community facilities, schools, and commercial areas in the city. Richfield needs to complete the sidewalk system along arterials and collectors. 96TIM E. PUBLIC TRANSIT 1. Fixed Route While the streets and highways are the largest and most important public investment in the transportation system, other public investments are also significant. Most residents of Richfield and the metropolitan area primarily utilize private vehicles for transportation, but a signi- ficant.minority commute in mass transit or group transport vehicles. Most of the people using mass transit in the metropolitan area ride buses owned and operated by the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC), a metropolitan government agency. The MTC operates the only scheduled public fixed route transportation through Richfield, with the exception of school bus systems, which are not discussed here. Bus service levels in Richfield are determined by certain guidelines relating to route and bus stop spacing, service frequency, vehicle loading, and most important consumer demand. Service in Richfield is primarily fixed route. 46 While subsidy limits have been established to manage system operations, recent legislation prohibits the reduc- tion of service in the suburban areas including Richfield. Ridership levels in Richfield are quite high, especially on buses on Lyndale and Nicollet Avenues. Ridership in Richfield and the metropolitan area is increasing at about 5.0 to 6.0 percent annually, because of the impact of gasoline shortages. Express bus transit as shown in figure 23 is regularly available in Richfield on several routes to downtown Minneapolis and to the University of Minnesota campus. In addition express service is also available twice daily to downtown St. Paul and during the summer four times daily to the zoo in Apple Valley. As with express service, local service bus routes shown in figure 24 are also primarily oriented north -south although there is east -west service on 66th S4-Yeet. Service alona the I- 494 /76th Street -51- • � • • ............................ LU n. exv,.wa -- - - - - - - -- 311 10-11 fin 77 ..... ....... m zz .................. ---- ------- --------------- C4 C4 I 3- —1 •N ins E 1. ol —13 3 3111111111 31.1 3111311031. to W 113.11119 311-1 3M 3�rvonitla 3-1 2LM 14 UJ .21-- 12 LILLI F F F L• � F, f. U z a Z ln. va e� L 3nv xOIUN w0010 � 3- —1 c M I,. raasx wb,0 -. - lnr SnOwn101 3.0 m.a • �_. 3. aN 1— �]n.�xldol.Ix3l, 3nv rx.zv3td \ 3n. I,— 3nv 0,3uY.s .I 311 3— 3n. —.11 3 ^.3xod� 3n. atla � • -1.1 —J 00 O 1. Noaw3N — I ins 03nno c T A I �� 3nv xllno M�M N a� N J � •� ; � ! A H 3nv s.nox. 9 W d g. N � wj2 � 3n.nvlN3oxn s �g c, _ N LO L� • s • . s 3 e s s ) s s s s s Y ^ s . U z ln. va e� L 3nv xOIUN w0010 � 3- —1 c M lnr SnOwn101 3.0 m.a • �_. 3. aN 1— �]n.�xldol.Ix3l, 3nv rx.zv3td \ 3n. I,— 3nv 0,3uY.s .I 311 3— 3n. —.11 3 ^.3xod� 3n. atla � • -1.1 3n.• x. ow O 1. Noaw3N I ins 03nno � T A r 3nv xllno M�M N a� N J � •� ; � ! 3nv s.nox. 9 W d g. N � wj2 � 3n.nvlN3oxn s corridor is lacking despite the high employment along the strip and higher'.than average popul Lion sibs of the . ' apartments there. The establishment of a bus route through this corridor is currently under study by MTC. Richfield has thirty- minute headway service along Nicollet Avenue, Lyndale Avenue, and 66th Street. The MTC has recommended .increazina service so the area with thirty- minute headway service includes the Portland and Penn Avenue corridors by 1983. The MTC has also built or plans to build other fa,y ?.i:ties to encourage greater ridership levels or improve operations. Currently five park and ride lots are available in or adjacent to Richfield as shown in figure 23. The MTC has built four passenger.waiting,shelters and is committed to build three more shelters and change the location of one. The construction of the South Garage at I -494 and 24th . Avenue was recently completed. This facility will not directly affect service in Richfield, but will help improve operational efficiency as well as providing limited local employment opportunities. A transit terminal including a community transit information center, sheltered waiting area, and a transfer terminal has been proposed for a Southdale location. This South Hennepin Transit Terminal could affect service characteristics.through Richfield, although no clear commitment has been made for its construction. 2. Paratransit The MTC is committed to providing transportation through its Metro Mobility program to those citizens with special transportation needs including the elderly and handicapped. Metro Mobility is a demand responsive service to handicapped individuals who cannot use or have great difficulty using regular main line buses. Metro Mobility has three basic components. Project Mobility provides transportation services to handicapped individuals in Minneapolis and -54- St. Paul and a portion of Edina through the. use of a small lift equipped bus. The Shared -Ride Taxi program serves persons in Minneapolis who cannot use the regular buses_ M but have no difficulty getting in and out of taxis. Private transportation providers make up the third component. The, Handicapped and Senior Citizen Transportation Service ( HSCTS) is the private provider serving Richfield.". HSCTS operates lift buses to transport elderly and handicapped individuals within Richfield.and Bloomington. Transfers are available from HSCTS to Project Mobility and Shared Ride Taxi in Minneapolis. Paratransit services are provided to Richfield residents by other public and semi - public agencies also. The City of Richfield operates a van owned by the Salvation Army to provide transportation for senior citizens and handi- capped citizens for Richfield Community Center sponsored programs. The city will own its own van in 1981. Red Cross volunteers provide transportation in Red Cross vehicles primarily to medical appointments. The Volunteers Enlisted . to Assist People (VEAP) is a church funded program operating out of the Richfield Community Center. VEAP volunteers provide rides to the elderly and handicapped for medical appointments, grocery shopping, and other needs. In addition to these transit services, Richfield Bank and Trust Company provides transportation for its patrons to and from the bank. The two vans are used primarily by senior citizens to go to the bank. Regularly scheduled service is provided twice weekly to the Richfield Towers. Additional transit service for commuters is provided through car and van pooling programs, which utilize private vehicles. These energy saving programs which have been organized by a variety of public and private organizations and have been encouraged by the Minnesota Department of -55- Transportation are beyond the scope of the city's planning except to the degree ;that the city can utilize similar programs for its own employees. The city should encourage citizens and businesses to use car and van pooling as a method to-reduce energy consumption and to reduce peak hour congestion on the existing road network. III. FUTURE DEMAND The Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County have estimated traffic volumes in and adjacent to Richfield by using computer models. These computer models make certain assumptions about land use changes, socioeconomic characteristics and travel behavior patterns to forecast demands on arterial networks. These forecasts must make a number of assumptions. The factors and assumptions which will influence Richfield's transportation needs in the future are: a. Richfield is a fully developed community. No major new devel- opment is anticipated which will have a major effect on the existing transportation system. Redevelopment will have a minor effect on surrounding streets. b. The number of automobile trips will increase because the driv- ing age population will increase. However, the proportion of auto - driver trips to total trips will decrease. C. People will consider the trip to work as their high priority trip; therefore, travel demand will remain strong in the peak hours. d. The average number of people per car during peak hours will increase from 1.4 in 1970 to 1.6 in 1990. e. By 1990 express transit service will carry 35 percent of peal: hour trips from transportation subregion three to the metro- politan centers. In 1979 express transit carried about 15 percent of these trips. -56- f. By 1990 real transit fares will 'decrease slightly; real automobile operating costs will.be twice the 1970 level and real parking costs will be 70 to 80 percent higher than in 1970. g. The number of trips per resident will increase. In 1970 each resident in the metropolitan area averaged 2.7 trips per day. By 1990 this daily average is expected to increase to 3.1 trips per person and by 2000 to 3.3 trips per person. Although regional traffic on the principal and intermediate arter- ials through and around Richfield is projected to continue to increase, traffic levels in Richfield as shown in figure 24 on most minor arterials, collectors, and local streets are not expected to change much through 1990. Commercial expansion in the Lyndale/ Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment Area is expected to result in increases in traffic around that area, which will exceed ten percent total growth by 1990 on some streets. Development south of Southdale will continue to encourage traffic increases on 76th Street with . traffic projected to increase by over thirty percent by 1990 west of I -35W. Streets that will have traffic levels above design capacities by 1990 and not programmed for improvements are also indicated on figure 25. Year 2000 traffic projections calculated by Hennepin County shown in figure 26 are based on an assumption of development in Richfield continuing at previous levels. Energy shortages, increase in real transportation costs beyond assumed levels, government regulation and new technology will have an effect on the travel forecasts in this element. The result could be that projected travel demand will occur earlier or later than predicted. IV. TRANSPORTATION POLICIES Because Richfield is a fully developed suburb with an established 10 land use pattern, the policy decisions which the community must -57- L m _ O N y d C J G � G O O o N > O U 01 L O 7 E ° O U U a w d 0 N L � U N CL '2`- U. W O U) T A a m � _ V d e I r I — � E E 009'8£ , n- n9'!b Ln — - 000`9 058 t o, t OOb'bl a00b °oI '. £L OL08 Zl ... w..lw o• =� — ]n.•x.�w.x]w 04 CD co 00£`91 —` o OOZ`b OO9l OOb9 L o ].... o o 0 00 — o - - oob`bL __ 0o£'bL OOS`SL a N o / o CD CD LO . LL,, ,•.,• ._�___ __ —_ . —_ -_ � it - - __- __- __._._ _._ ,.tl :lx,lx ■ 000'SZ { L m _ O N y d C J G � G O O o N > O U 01 L O 7 E ° O U U a w d 0 N L � U N CL '2`- U. W O U) T A a m � _ V d e I r I to N W !r 0 0 W e - �. 'At O l,..o,•l O cs 0001OZ 000`Sl o - -- ,n1 xo,x,a 00018 L ( - - l _ O 3 --i lnr :wnlx, ,. ° _ p 3na 5 ft __ l,s vrv9uon 0 nr nln„o M „ 000`oZ 00 0'oz if 000`9Z Cr) a °r „'> a. — — -- i 1. • 000`9Z make will be aimed at maintaining the existing community and cor- recting existing deficiencies, rather than at new development. a. General Transportation Policies will be: 1. To maintain a transportation network to serve the various land uses, to serve local transportation needs, and to.promote an external system linking the community with centers of activity, commerce, and employment outside its boundaries. 2. To maintain a local transportation system which will be consistent with the overall needs of the metropolitan area, and will contribute what it can of its resources and planning activity towards the resolution of area wide transportation problems. 3. To develop and maintain liaisons between the city and other governmental units, such as State and County High- way Departments, the Metropolitan Council, and other transportation planning agencies. 4. To avoid needless duplication of transportation facilities, and where possible, reduce the amount of land devoted to transportation systems. 5. To encourage the development of a variety of modes of travel to meet the needs of different people. 6. To promote energy conservation. 7. To review future development proposals to insure that proposed developments do not have significant adverse effects on the existing transportation system. b. Roadway System Policies will be: 1. To improve and maintain streets according to their functional classification as assigned in the compre- hensive plan. 2. To channel major traffic volumes onto arterial and collector streets, and to discourage large traffic volumes from passing through residential areas. 3. To reduce curb cuts, construct turning lanes, and create one -way traffic streets where appropriate to reduce circulation conflicts. 4. To encourage the improvement of the geometry and structure of frontage roadways and freeway interchanges in Richfield. 5. To regulate and require the maintenance of roadside land uses, structures, and vegetation so that traffic visibility is not obstructed. 0 6. To locate turning lanes and traffic control signals and signs where needed to improve safety and where traffic levels or accident history indicate a need as determined by National guidelines. 7. To only restrict parking where necessary to avoid traffic conflicts or to reduce congestion. 8. To restrict left -turn movements and restrict access to adjacent properties on major streets in order to reduce accident potential and avoid congestion caused by slow traffic and turning movements. However, access and turning movements of emergency vehicles shall not be restricted. 9. To apply special treatment to primary road entrances to the community, and to the extent feasible to all major -61- � 46 roads, to provide den i Ly aii" impression to residents and visitors. 10. To require each individual future land use to provide off- street parking sufficient for its needs. Public streets are intended to serve the function of moving traffic and not as parking space. 11. To reduce noise and air pollution by promoting buffer zones between streets and adjacent land uses, and by maintaining streets in optimum operating condition, and by enforcing regulations prohibiting excessive noise and emissions. 13. To improve and maintain an energy efficient street lighting system in the city. 14. To provide permanent surfaces on public alleys. 15. To encourage the vacation of underutilized alleyways. 16. To provide for the dedication as public right -of -way of roads and alleys only where their width, structure, and condition will equal or surpass the engineering standards of the majority of public roadways or alley- ways in Richfield. C. bikeway System Policies will be: 1. To provide safe and free movement for cyclists. 2. To provide bicycle storage facilities near locations which generate large bicycle concentrations. to 3. To implement the city's adopted bikeway plan. d. Pedestrian System Policies will be: -62- 1. To provide safe pedestrian access to major community facilities. 2. To provide sidewalks on both sides of all arterial streets and on one side of collector streets. 3. To provide sufficient space between sidewalks and curb to provide sufficient snow storage space and buffer space for pedestrians. e. Public Transit Policies will be: 1. To support the development of a mass transit system by MTC which will provide access to all areas of Richfield. 2. To encourage the Metropolitan Transit Commission to improve mass transit service in Richfield, especially service along the I -494 corridor and along other east/ west routes. 3. To support the implementation of the Metropolitan Council's subregion transit concept to encourage people to live, work, and shop within the subregion to reduce private automobile travel and fuel consumption. 4. To provide bus turnouts to reduce congestion around bus stops. 5. To provide bus shelters where ridership levels are appropriate. 6. To encourage special transit services to meet the needs of the elderly, handicapped, or other people unable to use private automobiles or the existing transit system. 7. To promote the use of car and van poois to reduce peak hour congestion and fuel consumption. -63- V.� • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 417 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for the Sale of Certain City Owned Lots Along the Crosstown Highway. Second Reading. There is an item on the December 8, 1980 council agenda pro- viding for a public hearing and ordinance on the sale of certain city owned lots along the Crosstown Highway. At the November 10, 1980 city council meeting, the city council approved first read- ing of a transitory ordinance providing for the sale of these lots located at 6209 12th Avenue, 6204 Morgan Avenue and 6204 Vincent Avenue. The lots would be sold to adjoining property owners in accordance with a resolution adopted at the same time. • A public hearing has been scheduled for the December 8 meeting. It is recommended that (following the hearing) the council adopt the ordinance on second reading and direct it to be published. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director Bill No. 1980 -25 Transitory Ordinance No. 16.70 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED LOTS ALONG THE CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following described lots along the Crosstown Highway are hereby authorized to be sold by the City as herein provided: Lot 2, Block 1, Donnay First Addition commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2 then East to the South- east corner thereof then North 71.22 feet then Westerly along a curve concave to the North and having a radius of 1370 feet to a point in West line of Lot 2 distance 34.03 feet North from Southwest ccrrer thereof then South to beginning. That part of Lot 2, Block 2, Melbar lying Southerly of a line running from a point in the East line of said lot distant 59.8 feet North of the Southeast corner of said lot to a point in the West line of said lot distant 40.67 feet North of the Southwest corner of said lot, according to the plat thereof. • That part of Lot Addition," lying in the East line of the Southeast West line of sai, Southwest corner thereof. E 2, Block 3, "Lein's Richfield First Southerly of a line drawn from a point of said Lot 2 distant 62.26 feet North corner of said Lot 2 to a point in the 3 Lot 2 distant 43 feet North of the of said Lot 2, according to the plat Section 2. Such lots may be sold by the City pursuant to and in accordance with resolution adopted by the City Council. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of December, 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk WHEREAS, the City of Richfield owns certain real property legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Donnay First Addition commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2 then East to the Southeast corner thereof then North 71.22 feet then Westerly along a curve concave to the North and having a radius of 1370 feet.to a point in West line of.Lot 2 distance 34.03 feet North'from Southwest corner thereof then. South to beginning. That part of Lot 2, Block 2, Melbar lying Southerly of a line running from a point in the East line of said lot distant 59.8 feet North of the Southeast corner of said lot to a point in the West line of said ` lot distant 40.67 feet North of the'Southwest corner I of said lot, according to the plat thereof. That part of Lot Addition," lying in the East line of the Southeast West line of sail Southwest corner thereof. 2, Block 3, "Lein's Richfield First Southerly of a line drawn from a point of said Lot 2 distant 62.26 feet North corner of said Lot 2 to a point in the 3 Lot 2 distant 43 feet 'north of the of said Lot 2, according to the plat to be referred to herein as parcel 1, 2, 3, respectively, and WHEREAS, on April 10, 1978, the City authorized staff to explore the negotiated sale of these parcels to adjacent property owners, and WHEREAS, informal proposals were accepted from the adjacent ' property owners for the amounts listed below, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed sale of these parcels is in conformance with the Compre hensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1) that the offers to purchase the above described proper- ties are hereby determined to be reasonable and are hereby accented; 2) that t e Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to enter into an agreement for the sale of such parcels to the purchasers for the amount below on the basis that the parcels not be used for the r 1 1 Resolution No. -2 construction of primary residential structures,-.-that utility easement rights be retained, and that this resolution is contingent upon the adoption and . effectiveness of a transitory ordinance authorizing, such sale: - Parcel 1 to Dennis Tharaldson, residing at 6215 12th Avenue South, Richfield, in the amount of $500.00; - Parcel 2 to Dean K. Wiley, residing at 6210 Morgan Avenue South, Richfield, in the amount of $1500.00; - Parcel 3 to Gertrude Holtby, residing at 6210 Vincent Avenue South, Richfield, in the amount of $1,000.00. 3) that the City Manager and staff are authorized to take such steps that may be necessary to effectuate this resolution and any sales agreement; i 4) that the sale proceeds will be paid into the general fund. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of November, 1980. nald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk • • �1 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 416 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amendments to Lyn dale Hardware Developer's Agreement: Public Hearing and Second Reading of a Transitory Ordinance Resolution Amending Agreement At the November 24, 1980 city council meeting, first reading was given to a transitory ordinance providing for the sale of portions of the former Amoco & Betty Crocker properties to the S & M Company. The sale of this property was previously approved as part of the developer's agreement. The transitory ordinance adopted at that time, September 8, contained a description of the easement to be retained by the city. However, it was necessary to correct the description to properly align it with the project plans of the S & M Company and to satisfy the Registrar of Titles at Hennepin County. Attached is a copy of the transitory ordinance on which a pub- lic hearing is scheduled for December 8. It has been amended slightly since the first reading on November 24, as to its form. All parties involved in the transaction have now agreed to the le- gal descriptions. There were a number of exhibits attached to the approved de- veloper's agreement. Several of them contained the legal descrip- tions or dates which have been revised. Thus, a formal amendment must be made to each of these documents: Exhibit C, temporary construction easements provided to the city by the S & M Company for improvements to Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street, dates changed to provide a beginning time of April 1, 1981, and terminating time of December 1, 1981; Exhibit A, Property Description; Exhibit B, Form of Deed; Exhibit K, Certificate of Completion; these three documents must be modified to reflect the revised legal description contained in the transitory ordinance. Attached is a resolution which would effectuate these modifications. J Council Letter No. 416 -2- It is recommended that the city council ing on the transitory ordinance, amend it on prove it, and adopt the resolution. December 8, 1980 hold a public hear - final reading, ap- Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director P RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION RELATING TO AN AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE S & M COMPANY: AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City of Richfield (the "City ") has entered into an Agreement for Private Development dated September 8, 1980 (the "Agreement ") - with the S & M Company (the "Company ") in connection with the development of certain land within the Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area. . 2. The Agreement contains certain Exhibits identified as Exhibit A, Property Description; Exhibit B, Form of Deed; Exhibit C, Easements; and Exhibit K, Certificate of Completion. 3. It is necessary to revise these Exhibits to more accur- ately reflect proper dates and legal descriptions of property. 4. The agreement is hereby amended. 5. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute the amended Agreement on behalf of the City. 41 The City of Richfield, Minnesota WA Its Mayor ATTEST: By Its City Manager City Clerk Bill 1980 -31 APPENDIX A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE toORDINANCE NO. 16.73 A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OF THE CITY City of Richfield does Ordain: Part I Transitory Ordinance No. 16.66 is hereby repealed. Part II Section 1. The following property of the City is hereby authorized to be sold and disposed of: Lot 18, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, according to the plat thereof. _ Subject to a perpetual easement running in favor . of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk and landscape purposes over, under, across and through the easterly 22 feet of said Lot 18. and Lot 19, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, according to the plat thereof, except that part of the north 5.0 feet thereof lying east of a line drawn south at right angles to the north line of said lot from a point thereon distant 32.0 feet west of the northeast corner of said lot; and except that part of the easterly 10.0 feet of said lot lying northeasterly of a line drawn northwesterly at right angles to the easterly line of said lot from a point thereon distant 52.0 feet south of the northeast corner thereof. Subject to a perpetual easement running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk and landscape purposes over, under, across and through that part of Lot 19 hereinabove described which lies within the easterly 22 feet of that part of said Lot 19. And also subject to a perpetual easement running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns for public street, sidewalk and landscape purposes over, under, across and through that part of said Lot 19 hereinabove described, lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the westerly line of said Lot 19 distant 35.0 feet southerly from the westerly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 19, as measured at right angles to said west- erly extension, to a point on the easterly line of said Lot 19, lying 40.0 feet southerly from the north line of said Lot 19, as measured at right angles to said northerly line. and Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, according to the plat thereof. Subject to'a perpetual easement running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk and landscape purposes over, under, across and through that part of said Lots 3 and 4 lying northerly of the following described line and its extensions: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of said Lot 3 distant 25.0 feet southerly from the northerly line of said Lot 3, as measured at right angles to said northerly line; thence westerly to a point on the westerly line of said Lot 4, distant 3.4.11 feet southerly from the northwesterly corner of said Lot 4, as measured along said westerly line and there terminating. Section 2. The terms and conditions of such sale shall be determined* by the City Council. assed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1980. %r- Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk • 11 4 It // CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 415 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to the Regulating and Prohibiting of Certain Vehicular Parking.- First Reading. Council Member Luettinger has requested that an ordinance amendment be drafted that would prohibit the parking of a motor vehicle in the front yard of any lot within the city, except in the following locations: 1. "Established driveway areas" 2. Parking areas permitted by the city code 3. Locations where the parking and storage of recreational vehicles and equipment is permitted by the city code. An ordinance amendment reflecting these concerns has been drafted by our city attorney's office and has been placed on the December 8, 1980 city council agenda for first reading con- sideration. A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached to this council letter. KN /eja cc: Public Safety Director City Clerk Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager P'Ty)V3��: #m w AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER IX, SECTION 9.03 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter IX, Section 9.03, Subdivision 2 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield., Minnesota, regulating and prohibiting certain vehicular parking is hereby amended by adding thereto the following new paragraph: "(5) No person shall park or place any motor vehicle in the front yard area of any lot within the city, except in the following locations: 1. "Established driveway areas" as defined in Section 3.27, Subdivision 36 of this Code. 2. Parking areas permitted by this Code. 3. Locations where the parking and storage of recreational vehicles and equipment is per- mitted by Section 3.38A of this Code." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1980. ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk Donald Priebe, Mayor "8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 414 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Selection of Auditor for 1980 Financial Records During the months of October and November, proposals to conduct an audit of the 1980 city financial records were solicited by the city. Ten accounting firms submitted prop- osals which were submitted to the city council for their re- view at the November 24, 1980 city council meeting. • At the November 24, 1980 city council meeting, the city council selected three firms for interviews. Those firms are George M. Hanson,Cummings and Keegan, and Peat Marwick and Mitchell. A committee comprised of Mayor Pro Tempore Juanita Collins, Council Member Ivan Ludeman and Council Member Howard Bunce was selected to conduct the interviews of these firms. These interviews were held on December 4, 1980. At the December 8, 1980 city council the committee will will make a report and recommendation on the selection of an auditing firm to the city council. A copy of the auditing proposal will be available at the council meeeting for review of the council members. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Administrative Services Director 0 i 7�9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 413 Agenda December 8, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield ' Council Members: Subject: Publication Costs The City of Richfield Home Rule Charter has a provision in it which requires the city to publish in the legal news- paper, ordinances of the city after both first reading and second reading. In my experience, it is unusual for a city to publish ordinances in full twice in legal newspapers. I asked the city attorney as to state requirements and practices of other communities on this matter and he indicated that the state law does not require two publications and that he is not aware of any other community which publishes their ordinances twice. The normal practice is to publish an ordinance after first reading with notification of final adoption of the ordin- ance after second reading, or to publish a notice of consider- ation of ordinance after first reading, with ordinance pub- lished in full after the second reading. In 1980 so far, the second publication requirement has cost the city approximately $715. In 1979 the second publica- tion provision cost the city $634. The reason this came to my attention is because the cable television ordinance which will be published on second reading early in 1981 will be a rather voluminous ordinance and will cost quite a bit of money, probably in excess of what we normally pay for other ordinances in a whole year for legal publications. The city council may desire to consider this matter and refer it to the charter commission for further study. �L K\� % ` U 5 � 0 KN /eja eJJk� 1(0 Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Director Administrative Services