09-24-77 agendaCI`1'Y OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 304
Agenda September 26, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen;
Subject. Initiation of Zoning Amendment Shopping Center Superblock
(HUB, Penny's, Summit Bank, Clark Oil, Mobil Oil, Medical
Offices, Real Estate Offices)
This matter is being submitted as an extra item to facilitate the schedule which
must be followed to permit the construction of relocated 65th Street in 1978.
Initiation by the city council on September 26 will permit consideration by the
planning commission on September 27 and thereby speed up the process by one month.
United National Corporation, New York, and Penny's Supermarkets, Minneapolis,
are requesting the city council to consider initiation of rezoning procedures to permit
consideration (:f a proposed commercial planned unit development project. The
rezoning requested is for a zone change from commercial to planned commercial.
The area for which rezoning is requested is shown on the attached sketch,
Section 3.42, subdivision 5 of the Richfield zoning ordinance provides the
city council with the authority to initiate a zoning amendment. Initiation of a
zoning amendment by the city council does not obligate the city to approve the
plan, final plan or any part thereof., nor does such action commit the city
,one the property to a planned unit development district. Initiation of the
{ ��5 rocedures simply directs the staff to consider and begin review of the
4� 0 1 against the requirements and conditions contained in the adopted
a�, o� -� The PUD ordinance requires a public hearing on the zoning
o fi °y� before the planning commission and the city council. If the
Goo the city council, a second public hearing for consideration
r the project will be held at a later date before the city
i
Council Letter No. 304 -2- September 26, 1977
While all property owners within this area have not yet submitted letters
requesting "rezoning, it is important that the process get started. Therefore,
it is recommended that the city council initiate the rezoning procedures by
referring this request from the applicants to the planning commission for
their consideration. A resolution initiating this procedure is attached.
WSBfres
cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director
espectfully sub itted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
N PLEASANT AVE,
FT
J�7
i T)
_j --- -- -
PILLSIBU-11Y AVE.
117—
P-1
�_ '.
it �1 111 IQ! X
NA
1 40,1
It IM I F,
s a- WENTWORTH AVE.
�
1,,! ii'ul
:iW
!m V
U)
t;, 3C
z1 I M
!U1
POT I �11 e,
1 17
J' . ......
BLAISDALE AVE.
F!
Rh
-7—
" QL\
NI COLLET AVE.
1J lj�
ri
D
C
9% 11 W shopping center addition site plan • prelim. GUOT,'ER
z I , I " _f
richfield, minnesota ILL I 1� [PD �d
ah
M
t
5.
61"
t t IS , z
I
Y
it iI!
t
T it
9% 11 W shopping center addition site plan • prelim. GUOT,'ER
z I , I " _f
richfield, minnesota ILL I 1� [PD �d
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE INITIATION OF ZONING
AMENDMENT PROCEDURES TO ALLOW FOR A REZONING
REQUEST OF THE LAND KNOWN AS THE
HUB PENNY SUPERBLOCK
WHEREAS, on September 15, 1977 the property owners known as United
National Coorporation and Penny's Super Market, Inc. , requested the city
council to initiate rezoning procedures on said property, and
WHEREAS, Section 3.42, Subd. 5, of the zoning Ordinance gives the
city council authority to initiate such a zoning amendment, and
WHEREAS, all interested persons will have the opportunity to comment
on the proposal through the public hearing process before the Planning
Commission and city council at a later date, and
WHEREAS, the developer has submitted a concept design and made
application for a commercial planned unit development project, and
WHEREAS, this property lies within the Lynda le /Hub /Nicollet project
boundaries, and
WHEREAS, this proposal conforms in use to both the adopted Comprehensive
Plan and Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota that the rezoning process be initiated and that the rezoning
request be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration.
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this �i day of September, 1977.
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk"_ ;:
Loren L. Law Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
1z
�a3
Council Letter No. 4"
Agenda, September 26, 1977
Subject: Certification of Delinquent Sewer and Water Utilities Accounts
- Attached to this council letter are two resolutions which designate the
annual accumulation of unpaid sewer and water utility accounts.
Although the Richfield utility ordinance places unpaid sewer and water
user charges as a lien against the property, a number of home owners have
traditionally chosen to have the sewer bill certified -annually. The attached
resolutions represent those delinquent accounts which have occurred since
August 30, 1976 through August 30, 1977.
It is recommended that the city council adopt these resolutions.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /jkl
cc: Finance Director W
Acting Public Works Director
kC,-1 1 I�c0s9 34,z
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING UNPAID SEWER SERVICE CHARGES TO THE COUNTY
AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 8.12 establishes rules, rates and charges for
sanitary sewer service in the City of Richfield, and
WHEREAS, Subdivision 12 thereof provides that all sewer service charges
not paid within fifteen (15) days after the quarterly due date may be certi-
fied to the County Auditor with taxes against such property, and shall be
collected with other taxes on such property, and
WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amounts
which shall be certified against each.particular property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, that
1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected amount
of $3,423.14.
2. That such amount is hereby certified to the County Auditor
for collection with other taxes on said properties.
3. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin
County Auditor.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this
26th day of September, 1977.
Loren L. Law Mayor
4'
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING UNPAID WATER SERVICE CHARGES TO THE
COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID
PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 8.23 establishes rules, rates and charges for
water service in the City of Richfield, and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 44.075, Subd. 3, provides that all
delinquent water service charges not paid may be certified to the County
Auditor with the taxes against such property, and shall be collected with
other taxes on such property, and
WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amounts
which shall be certified against each particular property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, that
1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected amount
of $13,659.00.
2. That such amount is hereby certified to the County Auditor
for collection with other taxes on said properties.
3. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the
Hennepin County Auditor.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day
of September, 1977.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
S
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 302
Agenda September 26, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Ricfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Resolution Rejecting,. Data Processing Equipment Kids
and Authorizing Ne_.,otization for Lease of Equipment
On the council agenda fcr September 26, 1977 is the consideration of
computer bids which were authorized in June to be opened on July 15, 1977.
Attached with this council letter is the bid opening minutes and tabulation
Of bids, our consultant's report on the evaluation of bids received, and a
resolution rejecting all bids and authorizing the negotiation of a lease
agreement for a computer : system.
Although the bids formally recei.T.Ted on July 15, 1977, you will
recall_ the request for proposals was extre -mely detailed and it took the
C:onsUltant and staff cons idc:ra.ble time to develop a matrix of the requested
iteIrls in order to make our evaluation. Paragraph I of the resolution highlights
facts that caused delays in reaching our recommendation. Please refer also
to page one, the i.ntroduct.ion of the consultant's report.
Mr. Dewey Albers of Intech, Inc. , be present to discuss the evalu-
ation of bids report: Although none of the eight bidders coral.)-lied with the
bid specifications, it wa:, found that Four- -Phase Systems, Inc. offered a
computer system tl? It best- met the regmixE-ments of the R.F.I', and the d t. -)
processing needs of the city. It is th3 staff and consultant's recomr_ICndation,
in which I concur, tilat all ;yids be r^jected and that the council authorize, the
staff to enter into negotiations to develop a proposed lease of a computer
system with Four. Phase Systems, Inc. , such lease to be submitted to the
council when negotiations have been completed. Also attached to this letter,
marked Exhibit I3, is a list of five firms presently using Four -Phase computers
similar to the system bid by this firm.
The city attorney has reviewed the city's efforts to publicly bid a proposed
computer system and has prepared the attached resolution containing the recital.
of facts fulfilling the city's public bidding responsibilities. We have mailed
Council Letter No. 302 - 2 - September 26, 1977
each of the bidders a copy of the resolution and the consultant's evaluation report.
It is recommended that the city council take the following actions:
1 . Approve the bid minutes.
2. Adopt the resolution rejecting the bids and authorizing
negotiation to develop a lease agreement.
WSB /jkl
Respectfully submitted,
a
W yne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
cc:. Finance Director.
City Attorney
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
July 15, 1977
COMPUTER SYSTEM
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the admin-
istrative staff was called to order by Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and
read aloud, sealed bids on a Computer System as defined in a Request For
Proposals which was issued on June 22, 1977, and which was also advertised
in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, Finance and Commerce and the Sun
Newspapers on June,22, 1977.
Present Were: Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager
Clayton Erickson, Data Processing Manager
Thomas Morgan, Director of Public Safety
Marshall Raaen, Acting Director Public Works
Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk
The bids on the following page were submitted and read aloud. The City
Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at a
later council meeting.
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
r
rn
.f.q
Ln
a
a
En h
A
H
�+ N
n
U)
z x U
O �
Ei
a o 0
a U M
E-L r-1
1
U
z
H
z
W
a
O
Q
H
OD
.. A
0�
Ln M
41
0� fC to U
z U H
H 0 (d >
4J W
a
c-I
H
t!i COi 4J M
U �W J H
1-1
04 41 U
W N ii
71
N co N M sr Ln N
41 O qw
• y yP . 4)
l0 4--) O w }! N VD M
1` co M O •0 co h O CD M co
M M Ol p U IU .-•1 e-i LD r. 01
M � tp .-. l� 1� CO .•. i� N C4 N CO .�. � �.
M V M ri r I ( l!1 N O r 7 1-4 r i N � I
%D
H M
1`
� r-1
yr
°zLn
• M
`n
ro O v
a a
w
P4 w 41
4
U AO
0 N
• •
a
�a
aM
N
�
Lin A
O
a M
i
z >C E cQ
O
O H En
e
i>a
O O
Qr� -tt�
H H
M 4)
U
M
HF:� U
Uo
� M
w
Mw x
azx
U
to O H
M
UzUu
H O W •
O
a cn M
�j
r-
O rC Pa
U
tO
H E-4
r
H
Ln
H
8 (n
1z1 U >
4J
0)
O
•
O
z° Ln
a
P4 w a
U
Uow
•'•1
•r1
C4
aM
A H
d
N
a
O
4)
C
0
a
W
A
A
H
N
m
OD
• M
N
ro O v
Ln
WV
4J O
'll►
H
M
0 N
• •
En to
M
Ln
N
Si , rd 4
V d'
O
O
N M
O
GO
e
i>a
e
OU
Qr� -tt�
•
00
M 4)
U
N
Uo
Ln
U-)
Mw x
U
954
M
$4
�
war
UN
wcno
Lo
mco
A`-'LO
co
H..V
8 (n
H— ko
4J
0)
N
q
U
•'•1
•r1
4)
C
3
N
•�
b CQ
b
V)
E~
to
.,
4)
ul
v
0
$4 H
•d Q
At z
z(d
a
o
ro A
OD
• M
N
ro O v
Ln
WV
4J O
� Q
H
M
0 N
• •
En to
M
Ln
N
Si , rd 4
i .1
Fa
O
i 43
O
• LS'
i 4J
N
Ln
N O
Ln O r-
0 Ln
Ln N N r1
fjj� .- to-�
`r Ln o
O t0 M
H O v
40.V fj)..�
v Ln
00 LLn
to rt LO
O O Ln
1� V r
N N ri N r1
O N
t- 1
\ 00
H $4
o I~ .q
N In
Otn0 Ad
r. — O U W
O
dP
M
Ln
OD —
dP
� Q
O
Ln
in
Ln
Ln
M
Ln
O•
\
V d'
O
O
N M
O
GO
e
i>a
e
OU
Qr� -tt�
•
00
M 4)
U
N
Uo
Ln
U-)
Mw x
U
954
M
$4
�
war
UN
wcno
Lo
mco
A`-'LO
co
H..V
8 (n
H— ko
`r Ln o
O t0 M
H O v
40.V fj)..�
v Ln
00 LLn
to rt LO
O O Ln
1� V r
N N ri N r1
O N
t- 1
\ 00
H $4
o I~ .q
N In
Otn0 Ad
r. — O U W
O
dP
dP a
dP
dP
dP
dP
O
Ln
in
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
O•
O
GO
e
i>a
e
OU
•
0�1
•
00
o
W
$4
�
v
. In
4J
0)
N
q
U
•'•1
•r1
4)
C
3
N
•�
b CQ
b
V)
E~
to
.,
4)
ul
v
0
$4 H
•d Q
At z
z(d
a
o
ro A
EVALUATION OF BIDS
CITY OF RICHFIELD
COMPUTER SYSTEM
Prepared by:
Dewey M. Albers
Intech, Inc.
September 1977
INTraCH, INC.
5050 Excelsior Blvd.
Suite 316
Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 21, 1977
Thomas J. Moran
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. So.
Richfield, Mn 55423
Dear Mr. Moran:
Enclosed is an evaluation of the bids received on July 15, 1977
on the City's Computer System along with recommendations
concerning the selection of a vendor.
Sincerely,
Dewey M. ers
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction Page 1
II. Review of Bids Pages 2 through 7
III. Conclusions Page 8
IV. Recommendations Page 8
I .
I. INTRODUCTION
This document contains a review of the bids received
on the City's Request For Proposal (R.F.P.) for a new
Computer System.
Eight bids were received in total. None of the bids
were completely responsive to the requirements of the
City's proposal. The degree of responsiveness varied
considerably between proposals.
Many of the proposals were submitted in a form different
than that requested thus requiring a significant amount
of extra time, for the evaluation, to assemble the
information in a consistent form so as to compare the
proposals on an equal basis.
Contained herein is a brief review of the bids received,
with major positive and negative items concerning each,
along with a summary of the conclusions which were
reached as a result of the evaluation, and recommendations
concerning future actions.
The Request For Proposal required proposals on two
computer system configurations: an "Initial" and an
"Expanded" configuration.
2.
II. REVIEW OF BIDS
A Total of Eight (8) bids were received from potential contractors
for the delivery of a new computer system. Firms which submitted
bids were as follows:
1. G.M.I. CORP.
2. Data Management, Inc. (D.M.I.)
3. Digital Equipment Corporation (D.E.C.)
4. Four Phase Systems, Inc. (IV- Phase)
5. International Business Machines Corp. (I.B.M.)
6. National Cash Register Corp. (N.C.R.)
7. Prime Computer, Inc. (PRIME)
8. Sperry Univac Division of Sperry Rand Corp. (UNIVAC)
An extensive review of each offering was conducted using an
"Evaluation Matrix" which identified each of the major require-
ments and other informational items specified in the City's
R.F.P. with space for various disposition categories for each
contractor, i.e. categories identifying whether the contractor
had proposed to meet the requirement or whether an exception was
taken, whether the requirement could be met with available equip-
ment not proposed, notes concerning the contractors response, an
evaluation of whether the contractor had met the specification,
and comments concerning the contractor's proposed offering. The
evaluation matrix was completed for each contractor before
assessing the relative merits of each.
While the Bid Evaluation Matrix contained numerous items (9 pages
and 341 items per contractor) this report contains only a general
summary of the results.
GENERAL RESULTS:
1. Of the eight bids received one was completely unresponsive
(C.M.I.), submitting only a telegraphed bid not supported
by requested information.
2. The remaining seven all took some exceptions to the R.F.P.
and none signed the enclosed contractual agreement. All
included their own lease agreement as a substitute for
the contract.
3. Since none of the contractors signed the agreement it can
not be assumed that all specified requirements are being
met, even where no exceptions were taken.
4. The "Initial Configuration" offerings were generally not
found to be in the range of prices which was hoped for,
although several were near the current City equipment
expenditures.
5. The cost of money interest and maintenance is becoming a
very substantial portion of the total cost of hardware.
In those cases where maintenance is quoted as a separate
item the monthly cost of maintenance ranged from 26% to 45%
of the base hardware cost or 21% to 31% of the combined
3.
hardware and maintenance costs. Assuming 10% as the
interest cost (this is not easily determined from available
information) the combined cost of money and maintenance is
36% to 55% of the base hardware cost or 26% to 36% of the
combined cost. This is additional evidence that the
basic cost of hardware is becoming less and less a major
factor in the total cost of data processing.
INDIVIDUAL BID REVIEWS:
The following reviews are presented in alphabetical order of firm
name. The summary of positive and negative items is offered as an
overview as to the differences which were found, not as a complete
evaluation of each. The recommendations are based on a much more
detailed evaluation.
C.M.I. Corp.
Only a telegraphed bid was received, without supporting requested
information, thus no further evaluation was done.
D.M.I. Corp
Major Positive Items:
1. A quite responsive proposal. The outline of the R.F.P.
was followed closely and most information was provided,
in the form requested.
2. The equipment configuration met many of the specified
requirements.
3. Proposed software met a number of the specified
requirements.
4. The Initial Configuration (hardware, software and
maintenance) lease cost ($2756 /month) was not far
above the current city monthly equipment and paper
tape processing service costs.
5. Good purchase option (1% of purchase price at end
of six years).
Major Negative Items:
1. The expanded configuration lease cost ($3833.11) is
significantly higher than the current city budget.
2. D.M.I. is proposing Control Data Corporation equipment,
maintenance, and lease thus is not the direct supplier
of the equipment or the major support.
3. The COBOL compiler is not yet available, although
expected to be by the proposed time of installation of
the Richfield equipment.
4. The model offered is not well established in the
business data processing field.
5. D.M.I. is a very small firm.
2Y
D.E.C.
Major Positive Items:
1. Many of the hardware and software requirements can be
met by the proposed offering.
2. Largest of minicomputer manufacturers.
3. Established local services.
4. Numerous systems in the field.
5. Large central memory capacity.
6. Fast processing speed.
7. Good multiprogramming capability.
8. Good Asyncronous and Syncronous communication capability.
9. Large Disk Capacity.
10. Fast, high density magnetic tape.
11. Reasonable lease extension at end of period (3% of selling
price /year).
12. A powerful set of user oriented software developed by the
Massachussets Institute of Technology (ADMINS Software) is
also available for DEC Computers, separately marketed by
another firm - - not a part of the D.E.C. proposal.
13. Numerous upgrade equipment options.
14. Both COBOL and RPG support teleprocessing.
Major Negative Items.
1. Price of initial offering ($3552 /Month) is significantly
higher than the current budget.
2. The expanded configuration is substantially higher than
the current budget ($4728 /Month).
3. A number of exceptions were taken to the general terms
and conditions.
4. The cost portion of the bid was not thorough.
5. The leasing program is not flexible, equipment upgrades
have a cost in addition to the difference in the equipment
costs.
6. City expected to insure the system during transportation
and throughout the lease.
IV -PHASE
Major Positive Items:
1. Meets many of the hardware and software requirements.
2. Good multi - processing capability. (Ability to use more
than one computer with a common data base.)
3. Maintenance and training costs included in lease.
4. One of the most flexible lease programs.
5. Desirable local (up to 2000 feet from computer) on -line
terminal arrangement and convenient terminals.
6. Good data entry software.
7. Fair multi - programming capability (Ability to operate
more than one computer program at the same time).
8. Good Syncronous communications capability.
9. Some Asyncronous communication capability.
10. Large Disk capacity.
11. Large memory capacity.
12. Lease price of both initial ($2792) and expanded ($2948)
configurations are not much above current Richfield
expenditures. Prices are on 3 1/2 year
5.
basis yet are competitive with other proposed six year
leases. A six year lease program is now available
which is expected to produce monthly lease costs of
approximately $2400 to $2540 for the two proposed
configurations
13. Established local service.
Major Negative Items:
1. Operation of batch and on -line programs at- the —same
time requires two processors.
2. Limited Asyncronous communication capability.
3. No paper tape reader available.
4. RPG compiler does not support teleprocessing. Other
RPG limitations also exist.
5. Six year lease not proposed (3 1/2 year lease offered
as alternative).
6. Data entry files must be transferred from data entry
disk locations to COBOL disk locations to be processed
by COBOL.
7. No user or job accounting.
I.B.M.
Major Positive Items:
I. Largest computer manufacturer.
2. Well established local service.
3. Price (2506 /Month) near current Richfield expenditures.
4. No charge for training.
5. Good syncronous communications capability.
6. Both batch and on -line can be performed concurrently.
7. Separate processors for work station (terminal) controller
and batch processing are included in the basic system.
Major Negative Items:
1. Only one configuration proposed for both Initial and
Expanded systems.
2. No current convenient upgrade system.
3. Numerous exceptions to R.F.P.
4. Lease price subject to change during period.
5. Smallest memory of all proposed systems, less than
specified in the R.F.P.
6. Smallest disk space of all proposed systems, less than
specified in the R.F.P. (for expanded system.)
7. No card reader proposed.
8. No magnetic tape drive proposed (a diskette drive was
proposed instead.)
9. No asyncronous communication capability.
10. Slowest printer of all proposed systems.
11. Magnetic disks are not removable.
0
N.C.R.
Major Positive Items:
1. Lowest proposed lease cost ($1797 per month).
2. Well established local service.
3. Stand alone paper tape to magnetic tape device
included which can also be used as a data preparation
device (keyboard to magnetic tape.)
4. Both asyncronous and syncronous communications
equipment available.
Major Negative Items:
1. Several additional costs must be added to proposed cost
to meet requirements and to compare with other bids. Based
on information provided in the proposal, it was estimated
that if additional requirements were met with available
options, the N.C.R. monthly lease cost would be
approximately $2000 per month or over. If additional
options were added to compare with other offerings
in the same general price range the monthly lease
cost would be approximately $2700 per month.
2. Magnetic tape does not meet requirements. Maximum
available speed of 2OKB, proposed only 10 KB.
Proposed paper tape to magnetic tape encoder not
compatible with faster device.
3. Card reader not included in total price (one year
rental advised).
4. Syncronous communications controllers not included
in total cost.
5. CRT terminal which was proposed as a substitute
for the operator's console was not included in costs.
6. COBOL is an interpretive program rather than a compiler
which generally causes slower processing operation.
7. RPG does not support teleprocessing.
8. Proposed disk capacity minimal (20 MB).
9. Batch communications cannot be run concurrently with
other programs. A separate operating system must be
loaded.
10. Can not add second magnetic tape unit.
11. No job or user accounting facilities.
12. No date calendar.
13. Training costs quoted at $2000.
PRIME
Major Positive Items:
1. Large memory capacity
2. Good equipment and software capability.
Major Negative Items:
1. Firm not well established locally, relatively small
in total size.
2. Price of initial configuration significantly higher
($3557) than current City expenditures.
7.
3. Expanded configuration substantially higher ($4727/
Month) than city budget.
4. Annual cost for updating software of $1300.
5. Analyst services from Oakbrook, Illinois.
6. Conversion equipment available only on dial -up basis
to Oakbrook, Illinois. City would pay costs of
telephone line unless access could be obtained to
a local system through another user, in which case
the City would have to pay the other user for any
charges assessed.
7. Purchase option poor (maximum 500 of purchase price -
rental credit of 20 %).
8. Fanfold paper tape reader not convenient for City's
needs
SPERRY UNIVAC
Major Positive Items:
1. Substantial equipment, software, maintenance and
support services.
2. Both asyncronous and syncronous communications.
3. Responsive proposal.
4. IBM 360/20 emulation program available to ease conversion.
S. System is owned at the end of lease if a seven year
lease is chosen.
Major Negative Items:
1. Price highest of all proposals ($5041 /Month).
2. Insignificant differences between initial and expanded
configuration proposals.
3. Additional charges to be added for File Management,
Interactive Text Editor, Data entry and IBM 360/20
emulation = $380 per month (five year lease).
8.
III CONCLUSIONS:
The following conclusions were reached during the evaluation of
the Computer System bids:
1. It will not be possible to directly award a bid on
the basis of the proposals as received. Negotiations
are necessary in order to achieve a satisfactory
agreement with any selected contractor.
2. Sufficient information was received to reach a conclusion
as to the contractor offering the most cost- effective
combination of equipment, software and services near
the current budget.
3. The prices of the initial configuration offerings are
not condusive to easily reaching a cost - effective
solution in the partial use of the LOGIS system.
4. There were a number of attractive offerings from
which the City can choose. Four of the offerings are
near the City's current equipment expenditures.
IV RECOMMENDATIONS
It is Intech's recommendation that all bids be rejected on the basis
of incomplete conformance with the requirements of the Request For
Proposals(R.F.P.) and that an approval to negotiate with Four Phase
Systems, Inc. be solicited from the City Council.
Four Phase Systems, Inc. was selected as the potential contractor
whose bid offerings best met the requirements contained within the
R.F.P. (and the data processing needs of the City as determined in
participation with the City's Users Committee), at a price most
compatible.with the City's budget.
Since there are several items which must be resolved before a
contract can be reached, it is recommended that negotiations be
undertaken with Four Phase Systems, Inc. to achieve a satisfactory
agreement.
Negotiations will also allow the City to optimize the configurations
available to best balance the City's needs and the selected
contractor's capabilities.
FOUR -PHASE SYSTEMS,INC.
EXHIBIT H
Metroplolitan Council
300 Metro Center
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Mr. Roy Larson or 291 -6480
Mr. Regis Voye 291-644.1
The Toro Company
81"Ll Lyndal.e Avenue Soul'
Bloomington, Minnesota 55420
Mr. Dave Carlson or 888 -8801
Mr. Steve Chelstrom
American Hardware Mutual
3033 Excelsior Blvd,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Mr. Tom Lee, Programming Manager. 920 -1400
University of Minnesota
MR1'IT pro j ect
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Victor Grambsch or 376 -4693
Dale Hu_1_tgren 376 -4805
Hoern.er Waldorf Corporation
2233 University Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota
Mr.-Mike Laux 641 -4639
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REJECTING PROPOSALS FOR LEASING
COMPUTER SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows
1. The council finds as follows:
A. On June 28, 1976 this council authorized the administrative staff to
commence the preparation of specifications which could be used for the
receipt of competitive bids for the lease of a new computer system to the
city.
B. On June 28, 1976 this council engaged the consulting firm of Intech,
Inc. to assist the city in the preparation of bid specifications and in
the evaluation of the bids.
C. During the period from June, 1976 until June, 1977, Intech, Inc., in
cooperation with the staff personnel of the city, undertook the preparation
of draft bid specifications and contract documents which could be used as a
basis for the receipt of competitive bids for the leasing of a computer
system. They then notified approximately 40 potential providers of computer
systems of a pre'bid conference. Seventeen potential bidders attended that
pre-bid conference, to which they were given the opportunity to provide, and
did provide extensive input and reaction to the draft specifications and
documentation. Prospective bidders were given desired information about the
particular needs of the city and the intent of the specifications and a final
draft of specifications and other documentation was thereafter prepared.
D. On June 13, 1977 the city council approved the final bid specifications
and documentation and authorized advertisement for bids, to be received on
July 15, 1977.
E. The advertisement for bids was published in the official newspaper of
the city, the St. Paul Disptach and Finance and Commerce.
F. On July 15, 1977, the city received 8 written lease proposals from
suppliers of computer systems.
G. The specifications required that the bidders provide information on
a substantial number of matters, relating to themselves and their respective
bids. The specifications also contained the form of lease to be signed at
the time of bidding and entered into by the successful bidder. It speci-
fied a lease term of 6 years.
H. Upon receipt of the bids, the city staff and Intech, Inc.undertook an
evaluation of the bids received. Such evaluation disclosed that each of
the bidders had imposed qualifications upon the bid specifications and
that none of the bidders had signed the form of lease provided in the
specifications, as required by the bidding documentation.
Resolution No. -27
I. None of the bids which were submitted completely followed or used
the format supplied by the city. In a number of i_1stances the information
required by the city was not provided initially. It was necessary to search
the proposals submitted to ascertain whether such proposals contained the
information required by the city and in those instances where it did not,
to contact the bidder to obtain the requested information.
J. At the conclusion of the evaluation process, Intech, Inc. provided
the city with an "Evaluation of Bids - City of Richfield - Computer System ",
dated September 1977, a copy of which is given Clerk Number. C -9795 and
ordered placed on file. Such evaluation contains an individual bid review
of each of the bidders, as well as conclusions and recommendations. These
include the recommendation that all bids be rejected and that the council
authorize negotiations with one of the bidders, i.e., Four Phase Systems, Inc.,
for the °lease of a computer system to the city.
2. The council further advises as follows:
A. None of the bids have complied with the bid specifications.
B. The lease of a new computer system for the city does not appear amenable
to exact bid specifications. This has been demonstrated by the above des-
cribed experience of the city and arises out of the fact that there are
substantial variations among suppliers of lease computer systems on such
matters as equipment design, equipment performance, capabilities, proven
equipment reliability, repair costs, the availability of repair services,
training programs, and other programming services.provided by the suppliers.
The city has undertaken in good faith to obtain such a lease through compet-
itive bidding. tinder these circumstances it appears that the interests of
the city can best be served by negotiating with that supplier of a computer
system whose equipment system, maintenance services and lease rates appear-
to hold out the best prospect for providing the city with a suitable computer
system lease.
3. The city council authorizes and documents that the following action.: be
taken:
A. All bids of July 15, 1977 for the leasing of a new computer system
to the city are rejected.
B.' The city staff, with -the advice and assistance of Intech; Inc., is
authorized and directed to enter into negotiations with Four Phase Systems,
Inc. to develop a proposed lease of a computer system to the city, with
such proposed lease to be submitted to the city council for consideration
as soon as this conveniently may be done.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this day of
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
July 15, 1977
COMPUTER SYSTEM
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the admin-
istrative staff was called to order by Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and
read aloud, sealed bids on a Computer System as defined in a Request For
Proposals which was issued on June 22, 1977, and which was also advertised
in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, Finance and Commerce and the Sun
Newspapers on June'22, 1977.
Present Were: Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager
Clayton Erickson, Data Processing Manager
Thomas Morgan, Director of Public Safety
Marshall Raaen, Acting Director Public Works
Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk
The bids on the following page were submitted and read aloud. The City
Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at a
later council meeting.
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
to !t
A
H
E
t y
v
z a c
H Ei
a O c
O U cr'
LA
Q r
Ei r
e
z
H
2
k
Q
c
H
t>a
O�
to M
a x N U
0
'j, U H
H fu
!Ea 4.1 U U
>, CJa)
a
kU
w O.0 M
U 41
ul
8QW 4.) H
in H
�C rtU�
w +) U
W H N
°z�
L) 1:1
0a
n
a M
z x E-I pq
O O H
O Qh r4 U
W t+ � w
u O H
U z U U
U ►-( W
H H N H
H[-1V >
°zn
U A ty)
0w
A h-1 '
W
O
a
W
A
A
H
1Q
RAF,
M .�
rf M
� v
q
r
N
cy� r-1
V1. v
0 ,4) 1 \
w +qq a
�4 U 0 P+
a C,4 a4 w w
a M N ul v
tD
rN•1 t�D O
N r-i N rl
O
N
co
4)
r~
v
U
� s~
O H
o COD i
M .. to r-
.
U) N N r-i
fj)• v V). v
m �q
0 -H � •J
H t) H
O O rI
rl O M
N M m
m in 03
N N H M ri
O
O i
O O
\ ri
H 14
W
a1 m U�4
oo° vii %D A %D
r, ON U O
N
v- n
N
%D
O
• M
v v
1�
r-1
tNr1
VO'
Va O
sP
Q
rd
io
�r
LO
� O
to
%D
0110
4
O
W
4
N tD
M
O
M r!
tl-
O
l�
M
O
co M
Go
M
M
Ol
U
Q3
ri
tD t-
0)
W M
to
Ol l0
•n 0
M.
�D M y
,
cSl M
O
c7 tD
•1
tD ..
N
N N
to
M
^
O U .O N
cn
O
O
..-4
M
� to U W
+n• .N..
0
v} trr
M eq
0
H r-1 rl
N
z U
tD
z
RAF,
M .�
rf M
� v
q
r
N
cy� r-1
V1. v
0 ,4) 1 \
w +qq a
�4 U 0 P+
a C,4 a4 w w
a M N ul v
tD
rN•1 t�D O
N r-i N rl
O
N
co
4)
r~
v
U
� s~
O H
o COD i
M .. to r-
.
U) N N r-i
fj)• v V). v
m �q
0 -H � •J
H t) H
O O rI
rl O M
N M m
m in 03
N N H M ri
O
O i
O O
\ ri
H 14
W
a1 m U�4
oo° vii %D A %D
r, ON U O
N
v- n
N
%D
O
• M
v v
1�
r-1
N
rtj ' O
rO
Q
io
�r
LO
� O
H
41
0110
fn
CO
tD
%D
O iJ OD
c0
O
M r!
tl-
O
l�
M
U N rl
r-
'.7
• •
•
• • •
LT' N tT V).
W M
to
Ol l0
•n 0
M.
�D M y
co
LO
to
N •
4J A of +J
tD ..
a3
H t` -
O
N L
N H
H rl
O U .O N
cn
O
ri H H
H V
v}
v�
� �
� to U W
+n• .N..
Z
v} trr
tir
u1
tD
OD
N
O O
n
r-
N
r
Lo
O O
N
l0 1
N
tD .-.
tp
N
0—
to M
kD
to M
to
0) %D
O
to
OD t`
kD O
Ln
to -
Ln ..
r -
to
M H
M H
r'1 r-4
N r-i
tOc) N
N H
N N H
N H
try. `''
i/} v
t/}
Vi
j* v
O
N
_
fn
Ln
N n
N
� N
\
co
V\
M
H
11v
O
Ol
NM
tU
a
1 rl
0 %D
" v 1✓.
*••1 M
O �.
A
FC r-1
Qf
cn a)
U
v v
OD N
it
m0, a4
UO
oq
0)
>
to��
1 ja�
J54
H O
to A
C4 to
>4
ri
En
�i >4
C14
O >4
U
C4 N
v
U N
tD to CO
f. O
In O d'
O to lD
A lzv
W M
z OD
H -10
'Jm
H-'\D
V, (n
UtD
o
dP
dP
dP
dP
dP
dP
00
to
Ln
In
u1
N
N
O
O
O
W
tYl
W
09
A
00
l0
H
�
v}
C.1
O�
P4
P4
a1
A4
$4
In
O
to
41
4)
�
�
U
-.-1
C
43
tn
m
F-1
ai
W
N
t~
m
-a
ul
to
tUO
to
E
--
U
O —
-�
N
O
41 rA
a
to
rt A
�
w
�
4
0
41...
Or.
i4.4
to
v
�a
k
43
4J 0
00)
H
�
�
a q
5.z
ro
a
:84
O
(a a
ra
Phase I
Logan
Pleasant
Cooks
Poplar Bridge
Smith
River Ridge
Ridgeview
Brookside
Heritage Hills
Southglen
Phase II
Hyland Hills
Brye
Maplewood
Hague
Tarnhill
Southwood
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
PARK ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Phase III
Bryant
Dupont
Effa
McAndrews
Soen'es
Columbus
Also:
Smith /Riverside Park
Moir Park
Beard Playground
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 301
Agenda September 26, 1977
The Honorable.Mayor
a nd
Members of the City Council
City of Pichfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Request for Preliminary Approval of Plan Unit Development
Rezoning of Woodlake School Site
Earlier this year, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a
preliminary PUD. for the Woodlake school site. However, the developer,
Architectural. Alliance, 400 Clifton Avenue, Minneapolis, has since then
substantially changed the plans from what was originally approved and is now
requesting approval of a new preliminary PUD plan; and a new preliminary plat.
The developer is also requesting the city council to reaffirm their recormmendation
for a zoning district change and special use permit based on the new preliminary
PUD plan; and to reaffirm property acquisition and sale.
Pro�o�a 1
It is the developer's intent to construct a higl-L quality, moderate to high
middle income multi-family housing development on the present Woodlake school
site. The 129 dvyelling units will be individually owned and the common areas
will be owned by a homeowners association (a condominium development) , The
developer proposes. to develop the project in the following manrier:
Dwelling Unit "T��p e Sg. I't /du_ Esti.naate Sale Prir.,e
One Bedroom 43 900 $38, 000
Two Bedroom 72 1,070 46 , 000
Three Bedroom 14 1,350 57,000
The buildings will be three stories high (lower than the existing school
structure), and will have underground parking and a site recreation area. The
open areas will be landscaped in accordance with city policy. Sidewalks v, 1-i.11
be provided on the site with pedestrian ramps wherever possible. The develop-
ment is proposed to be built in three phases and have a total estimated value of
approximately $5,150,000 to $5,650,000. The construction schedule and phasing
is as follows:
�'` i
.� Council Letter No. 301 - 2 - September 26, 1977
Phase I
Phase-.II
Phase III
Amenities
Richfield Lake
Emerson Avenue
66th Street
Phase Time
12/77 - 6/78
7/78 - 1/79
12/78 -- 6/79
Value
$2.50 - $2.75 million
1.25 - $1 .40 million
2.30 -- 2.50 million
The site offers the natural amenity of the adjacent Richfield Lake and nearby
Wood Lake. The location is within walking distance of convenience shopping.
Within the complex will be provided large areas-of landscaped green spaces and
recreational spaces. The site will be planned to provide maximum security in
outdoor spaces and within the buildings. Elevators.will be installed for service
to the basement garages and to the various floors.
Aesthetics
The project is designed to blend with the surrounding residential area. Materials
will be used which reinforce the residential nature of the project and conform to the
HRA's redevelopment plan. High quality green space and its continuous relationship
to Richfield Lake is considered a significant asset of the site.
Site Relationsh�
As proposed, a large common green will connect all units directly to Richfield
Lake. Automobile access to 42 per cent of the dwelling units will be from Rae Drive.
Six- -eight per cent'of the units will have access to the site from the southeast corner
adjacent to the intersection of Lynwood Boulevard and 66th Street. The dwelling
units will also have access from Emerson Avenue immediately west of the project.
The Rae drive access is a departure from the original proposal; In that proposal the
access was off Emerson and 66th Street.
Parking _
There will be just over one parking space provided for each unit, for a total
of 160 enclosed spaces. There will be 78 additional designated surface parking
spaces. Total parking spaces will be 238.
STAFF REVIEW
The following items are attached to this letter and will be referred to throughout :
1. Exhibit A - site plan detailing the proposed project;
2. Exhibit 13 - narrative describing some aspects of the site plan;
3. Exhibit C utility plan;
4. Exhibit D -- preliminary plat;
5. Exhibit E •- redevelopment plan;
Council Letter No. 301 - 3 - September 26, 1977
6. Exhibit F - PUD Project Review Criteria, subd . 4 and subdivision
review submittal criteria;
7. Exhibit G - zoning map.
This project has been reviewed for compliance with development objectives
contained in the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, Chapter III, Part IV,
Section 3.34, Subd. 4 of the city code and the Subdivision Regulations. In
addition, the plans have been reviewed for compliance with the L /H /N Redevelop-
ment Plan.
Relationshito Ordinances and Plans
The PUD ordinance requires that a PUD project be compared with the zoning
ordinance requirements otherwise applicable to this type of development, i.e., if
this development were not developed under the PUD ordinance, the provisions for
Group Housing Developments in Section 3.37 of the zoning ordinance would other-
wise be required. Shown below is a comparison of what would be required in the
Group Housing Development ordinance and .what is actually proposed in this PUD
proj Oct .
1. Parking
2. Density
3. Setbacks
1.5 sp /du
1 enclosed
22 du /ac
Pried under_ PUD
1.8 sp /du
21.49 du /ac
Front 30 feet Front 110 feet on 66th
Rear 25 feet Front 150 feet on Emerson
Side 25 feet Rear 29 feet on Lake
Side 20 feet Westside
Side 22 feet Eastside
4. Open Space 300' sq. ft /du
and
Recreation Space.
1,244.6 S .F /du Open Space
270.0 S.F. /du Recreation Space
The Comprehensive Plan as amended by the City Council in June, 1976 indicates
multi -- residential land use of a medium to high density on this site. This site is
within the boundaries of the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet redevelopment project. The
project redevelopment plan also indicates multi - residential land use on this site
of up to .200 dwelling units.
The project plans have been coordinated with the subdivision regulations of
the city, and found that there is no departure from the subdivision regulations . It
is the opinion of the staff and the proposed project is in general conformance with
. 1- 'Council Letter No. 301 -A -- September 26, 1977
the Cpmprehensive Plan and Redevelopment Plan, that the differences between the
proposal and the otherwise applicable provisions for Group Housing Development
are minimal, and that these differences would not be detrimental to the public
interest. * "Any potential problems associated with the proximity of the development
to the property line on the east side can be mitigated with fencing and landscaping,
although, some shadow effect will occur in the east property's rear yard in the
early summer evenings.
Project Provision for Adeguate Vehicular Circulation, Air Circulation
and View
The project was designed to provide ingress and egress from three - separate
locations. This design will eliminate the use of the project as a through street
between Emerson Avenue and 66th Street, The 66th Street access at Emerson will
serve 38 surface parking spaces, but no garage unit access off of Emerson Avenue,
it is difficult to estimate trip generation on Emerson Avenue.
The second and main entrance is in the southeast corner of the site nearly
opposite Lynwood Boulevard and intersecting 66th Street. This entrance /exit
will serve the 48-condominiums. This access point also services 27 units with
garages on Emerson. There may be a stop sign at this location. Using an average
of 2.5 persons per three bedroom unit, and 1 .5 persons per one and two bedroom
unit:, this group of dwellings could be expected to generate approximately 483 trips
per day at three trips per day per person. Thus 966 trip ends will be generated on
66th Street.
Using the above formula and assuming that all trips will be generated on
Rae Drive from the garages rather than some trips being generated on Emerson
from the surface parking, 242 total trips, with 483 trip ends, might be expected
through Rae Drive. This traffic will go to 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue.
Althoough access via Rae Drive directs traffic by three single family residential
homes, and multi - -family dwellings, access via Rae Drive and Emerson is more
desirable than providing access only from Emerson. The intersection of Emerson
Avenue and 66th Street and .Emerson and Lyndale Avenue are presently congested.
Planned improvements to 66th Street will relieve some of the congestion. However,
Emerson Avenue is lined with several single family homes, and splitting traffic
bet -preen Emerson and Rae Drive will diversify traffic and help reduce peal: hour
congestion which might otherwise occur.
The total trips per day generated by this project will be approximately 725 trips
and 1,449 trip ends. 66th Street at this time carries approximately 22,000 vehicles
per day in both directions. Once the L /H /N redevelopment project is completed,
traffic projections indicate 28,000 vehicles per day on this section of 66th Street
between 1-°35W and Lyndale Avenue. The traffic generated by this residential
project (approximately 725 trips per day) was figured into this 66th Street traffic
proj ection .
Council Letter No. 301 - 5 - September 26, 1977
Public safety department records show that there were 68 motor vehicle
accidents in 1974 at Lyndale and I -35W over this segment of 66th Street. If
an additional 725 vehicle trips are introduced onto 66th Street, and all other
factors remain constant, there could be one to three more accidents over this
segment per year. However, this potential traffic accident projection does
not take into account the street and intersection improvements planned for in
the L /H /N project. The signalization, channelization, and widening that will
take place can be expected to reduce the relative number of vehicle accidents
occurring on this segment of 66th Street.
Hennepin County is requesting, with city staff concurrence, a right --of -way
easement over the project property adjacent to 66th Street for future street
improvements on 66th Street between Graham Avenue and I -35W. Additionally,
the county is requiring that the project entrance /exit drive on 66th Street be
located across from Lynwood Boulevard. The location of the entrance is impor-
tant for traffic safety and for implementation of future street improvements.
It is the opinion of the staff that while'there will be an increase in traffic
generated at this site over what the school generated, the majority of this traffic
will enter and exit from 66th Street. Implementation of the planned L /H /N street
improvements and Hennepin County's program to improve the intersections of
Emerson Avenue and Lynwood Boulevard with 66th Street can reduce these problems.
However, trips introduced on Rae Drive will create problems at 66th on
Rae Drive until the planned improvements occur.
The internal vehicular circulation of the project is important for the project's
success and to reduce congestion on the public streets. The multi - family build-
ings will provide just less than one underground garage parking space per unit.
Access to and from the garage will be via a depressed driveway from a 66th Street
entrance drive and Rae Drive. Provision has been made for 73 surface parking
spaces, and passenger service drives are provided at the 66th Street and Emerson
Avenue entrance for passenger loading and unloading convenience. The only access
from Rae Drive is for underground garages.
All interior drives area minimum of 24 feet wide. With off - street parking, this
width is sufficient for the interior drive to function like a minor street serving a
limited. number of housing units. All parking stalls are 20 feet by 9 feet.
The setbacks provided between the multifamily buildings allow for adequate
amounts of light exposure and air circulation for all the housing units. The
easterly building will cast an early summer evening shadow on the back yard of
the property immediately east of the proposed development.
Council Letter No. 301 - 6 - September 26, 1977
It is the opinion of the staff that the design of the buildings, their orienta-
tion on the site to light, .air, open space and adjacent land uses will provide for
a quality living environment, althrough special -care should be taken to mitigate
the shadow effects on the adjoining east property.
N . ur-OL r d Extent of Open Space
The project will provide areas of landscaped green spaces.' A large area
is proposed to run generally down the middle of the project toward Richfield
Lake. Most of the units will have good access to this greenway and its
accompanying pedestrain walkways. Approximately .102 , 000 square feet of
land area will be available for recreation, with 35, 000 square feet designated
for recreation space. This space is in excess of the minimum amount of recreation
area required in a Planned Unit Development, althrough recreational facilities,
such as a swimming pool or tennis court are proposed. However, it is recommened
that provision be made for children's recreation needs, with a "tot lot" type
structure. This is important because there are no public parks or playgrounds
easily accessible for children.
Us"e of Gross Land Area on Site
1.
Gross land area
2.
Net land area
3.
Land area occupied
50
by buildings
4.
Gross floor area
5.
Open space
6.
Livable space
7.
Recreation. Space
8. Car spaces
ProPos ed
312,376 S.F.
261,490 S.F.
60,147 S.F.
155,358 S.F.
252,229 S.F.
160,557 S.F.
102,000 S.F.
35,000 S.F.
238 spaces
Imo�act of Project_o�z the Nei.c�hborhood
Percentage
Propos ed -Min. Allowed and
Percentage. _____ Rectzired
100
N/A
100
N/A
19
31% allowed
50
69.6% allowed
81
69% required
51
40% required
-33
7% required
108 space:, required
Three -story multi- family condominium buildings are usually not in scale with
the single family residential character of the neighborhood. However, this project's
orientation on the site, the adequate setback from adjacent homes, the lower pro-
file a three -story structure offers, compared with the existing school, the earthtone
construction materials, and unique architecture will help blend this building into
the established character of the neighborhood without a detrimental impact on the
existing residences. The character of this multi - residential project is such that it
should promote a positive image on this site and the surrounding area.
C ouncil Letter No. 301 - 7 - September 26, 1977
Availability of Public Services
This site is adequately served by utilities, including gas, water,. electricity
and sanitary sewer. A sixteen inch water line passes through the property.
Water and natural gas are available under 66th Street and Emerson, and sanitary
sewers of an adequate size are also available under 66th Street and Emerson.
Storm sewers are presently not available on the site but are available on
66th Street. When the new residential streets were constructed on Emerson and
65th Street this summer, storm sewers were installed and -are available to the
site. The public works department will require the developer to dispose of on-
site surface water through catch basins and storm drains. No surface water
drainage Will be allowed onto adjacent streets and property. All surface water
will flow to catch basins and not be allowed to sheet across the parking and
interior drive areas .
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Preliminary PUB Plan
Judging this proposal against applicable ordinances and plans, it is the
opinion of the staff that the concept of this proposal is generally-in conformance.
The proposed project takes maximum advantage of space avai.lahle and is oriented
to the adjacent open space. The creation of on -site open space sufficient for the
occupants is also an asset. The project fulfills the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan and Redevelopment Plan. The character of the proposed residential project,
although not of the same scale, is in sufficient design compatability with the
existing character of the neighborhood so as not to detrimentally impact the area.
Traffic generated at this location can be handled adequately for the. present with
proper alignment of entrances and signing, and future improvements of 66th Street
will further improve the traffic flow.
Therefore, it is recommended that the city council approve the preliminary
PUD plan.
Sale and Acquisition of City Owned Prortv
The existing north property line of this site is located such that a portion of
the high ground on the bluff in the northwest corner of the site is owned by the
city and a similar sized piece of property at the base of the bluff on the marsh
level at the northeast cornea- of the property is owned by the developer (see site
plan) . The developer wishes to exchange his triangular piece of property (between
property line and dashed line on the attached site plan) for the triangular piece of
property now owned by the city.
It is the recommendation of the planning and redevelopment director, in which
I concbr, that this proposed land trade be approved. The high ground is better
utilized by this project, and the marsh level land is better situated for public
purposes, such as park uses.
. w" Council Letter No. 301 - 8 - September 26, 1977
Preliminary Plat
It is recommended that the council approve the preliminary plat with the
following changes:
1 . Contours be aligned to prevent basement flooding and provide a
maximum slope of not to exceed 12 percent on open land or 7 per-
cent on driveways.
2. Drainage arrows specify water movement to various catch basins and
the size of storm sewers be specified.
3. All bearings and distances be shown.
4. All easements be delineated:
a. Public utility 5 feet on all sides.
b. 66th Street right -of -way easement of 20 feet plus bus turnout area.
c. Water main easement of 15 feet.
5. Overlay -of 'proposed 66th. Street plan be shown.
6. A cut and fill. plan and letter describing disposition of demolition and
specifications for demolition be provided .
J,21Ln Dg Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project at a special meeting
held on September 6, 1977. The developer presented the new project to the commis-
sion and answered questions. The Planning Commission asked the developer to
consider measures to mitigate the summer shading problem to the adjacent property
owner on the east. Six area residents appeared at the meeting raising questions
about increased traffic, parking problems and the possibility of headlights shining
into their homes. After discussing the questions raised by the residents the
Planning Corrmmission made the following recommendations:
1. To recommdYid to tl'ie city council approval of the land trade of
city -owned property for developer-owned property;
2. To recommend to the city council approval of the preliminary PUD
plan and the zoning district change from "R" to "PMR ";
3. To recommend to the city council approval of the special use permit
for the Wooklake school site proposed- PUD plan;
4. To recommend to the city council approval of the preliminary plat with
the following stipulations
V,
r
'Council Letter No, 301 -.9 - September 26, 1977
(1) That contours be aligned to prevent basement flooding and
provide a maximum slope of not to exceed 12 per cent on
open land or 7 per cent on driveways; "
(2) That drainage arrows specify water movement to various catch
basins and the size of storm sewers be specified;
(3) That all bearings and distances be shown;
(4) That all easements be delineated:
(a) Public utility five feet on all sides;
(b) 66th Street right-of-way easement of 20 feet plus bus
turn out area;
(c) dater main easement of 1.5 feet.
5. That the proposed 66th Street plan be shown in an overlay;
6. That a cut and fill plan and letter describing disposition of demolition
and specifications for demolition be provided.
7. That the developer be required to consider measures to mitigate summer
shading problems in the rear yard of the adjacent property' owner to the
east (1001 Rae Drive).
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
It is,therefore, recommended that the city council take the following actions:
1. Approve the preliminary PUD plan and zoning district change from
R to MR. „ (s� Md 1
2. Approve the special use permit.
3. Approve the preliminary plat with stipulations.
4. Approve the land trade.
Respectfully su' tted,
Wayne S. Burg graaff
City Manager
WSBAI -11
cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director
4
� •
• '. •�.. r '.1 .a,• °''i.• :r," �t,`..:.r .r.. �i'' •is ••' ? t'' �: tu' r ji r� r• -
r ✓•• I 'i, ,,•YA .i. .>, ° .1 .r. �••t rl'Y x,; t "lsr try -t •Y � `P i {;
i 3 r7.i: ' +:•.`•,� � •. �'; i.,• ;. ••'i•..- r,,.:L te',. fR, °� - :•t:ay;__ fy t t '
f !. y •- . - s �t ♦ ' � - r i ._r', ..fir 1 �• + 1r 1 ' S
'� ��' •/ «p v° • .. i• •r9j ,t,e)%..4 <1/ lar:':rr, ,x;•.'71 t • :.� '' rt t•• i '� _
a`• � i(y :r�� '��•�.f.t •t •4+:�1�"1:~° :�ay2. -,• �r,,�3�� ?� ti -, i'4P �Ci• ✓ I. . %,.IY• r•✓Y ;-� ��• i„y4 yF
•t, a 'A •r` t ••t<d r ''r • 9. J r � ! � :J•1 Jw +' �i• ^lvr -� •, < °-�it.., .:. h ,� ': � !'� �1�,• 1
t, ;j p�, °� -.• er - a., •.J, .A'f'�'t .t i�'�;� !1D yry j t�•;•,�.+: �.•'. "'},' ���''.'�... ' {��!ti t i. >: ,L'•, •.
,i ~• •�1., ". ! !.° �.° ••5 ,'bi i.. •. 1t.: •' °�': •'t yr��f' r'• �8• at f,T� .S
-'� < •, � . t:,' .. t .,1�_: a, - • ti 'S_ ..I! ' +. a -• JE• {!!•J :11.. !t: �{, +'-A••• °�
... •I },. �7t� •1 b.��Y..t:•,,fi :.r.J• :'ter : `.v.f..f °i`�. •L.'. •j ~'.:•••'
ititit •�4; � •
•• •!'° i. .. I4 si -i � 6�'. yr.a;, �,� f i •- .,r; -t.: .`� � '1 -� .. -�S•�
I• � .pVj;�j�''Lh -,tl `_i pV'± -rA '\ � <•r'..R. ;�s� ,r..t •/� :7::.'v- •••�. -f tr c'_ t 3n�� -�•` Tt
' �t u '- .. K2oo /, it -,!_v f, Ir' yv.`<'!`•'at� /ti !C�rr'\' "` L< ti` �L <.�•: ,,a
• S FZ::-
1 E...: "'i.0 . -0.'. •1.�,%,.` - •�'- .-.-;1 `...\ ,- _ f•n_w.,.sns .P, s._ , .., -•<I •, r P .: �<" �i• -t- ,
y.
!• Es_.•_ '� I' I i � 1 �•� � .1 't • �t_'• ,• ��i �..� t i {. •'L . ii •�~ !:,i /-' i
` k• - •1•• „rL.�.� 1. r'.:6 I .f 1. 5 ��, �! , t`�.r ��`\�•�. ..�ti 4,.� t 4 *s ^{' �i _
•R.I _ r �{ Y._._ I � .,I'' Ly ✓ a !x ;` 1; c..... r °f � a :� •� � � y.f -.• s • _ t'Y �: i
. ^r'J` ' �4{ � 'S '.i; IA.te• :' L._ � _ v� -..•. n,. '.l"
�k - :� r..� r� ' •jr L 1.. 1 � .� r 11 r.. t•,-` j 'F• � *� \ \�`. t''• rjf� � v ;
- I° } e- - - �y "' - ' I. �•.,.,•:'j ' 1 � ' - Y. F { r I { -i.t "£M_.,n -•� s_ v ";. •" C�1/; tl�Y3 .x: �
} }i I ,1 r 1 1.� °'- �' L \y(, 1 _ `•,
•�i( -.. iw .I, !- 1 Jrid rrNt' -ti l t - i l l L '�.1�i.1U''a` -
'
it.
• 1tt�•,{ {1T1fI if.J• J.'1- Ii IL},iFI}.I {t -L1 II li E.I
L-:-t �- �j }}. _ 1 1 1. �„ �' .1 5 h I 1 u q u n 1 t i F f I � V' (i t .9 ! i/e f!� 7 /� l� .• ',,~ - n J _`
- -_t- c -; --{ '- '� -fft ... n•< �I ..nu:•ur rL . ii�t.•L, � r sAL -' %
- 1; �. r. ",. ••_` -' _. .t,... u.y.., t .Jr.°1 � ` I v �� {// ' //> s�l.. '� _ -f - '4�S_3:.; 6.
a:tl !Il
1 y {I .�^>.•' - ,..1 tl.�,r.l.ri .'.,•. II _ -ll txf ' I 1 - 1 /% f 1 ) _
�` I. '+, �.e•,1, - -.:L ' , 1' I1' •!f ! 'i^ ra I �� 1 It.
'• •�!t -s('l t'r • I1v l_. .`. � L•IIJ I t`f l -'il It t �5t`Il Lrb ' t` � ii + ;'.. !1�/ •♦ r. - �
+,f,.. _5._ 1 I. ir. II- Y� 11 1111 IIIlily ll/ 1 1• - /- 1 -y
II r1 « LL1il J
EI s.ir i'rl �•..t t+F -� - ?�� °r - Y 2.
•1 I atl.
AP_
Ly
• vi ,- n r ! • .f •rr ' j, ,1_ _ J/! •, r I �:..li� �•�t .,.1 r r - 1 -r'�v4 ' a . �.•. . .
:�• �t f -. I )' 1 'i =. ,..L I t_" i� 1� -� .r.. l: _. ra r i � ea 'V- A -' 1 \``-< ..
r lilt, fuli J' I it
V - � ----� -� Fi � ' ✓, LT:.....µ ✓1 } d 5' <.
p
LLJ1FJ .I �'�i11' w rr 1 t ��. 1 I tt l.i.J -L4 r' I ,t• !J rf��
-
.',`' nl♦ w•' J J 9 L � �5 � r k, �_ -.. J .� 7 °I- ;.il � 1 1, ..E ,11 C it 1) ,b_ ..� f/ '-J�- _
r� _•-- " -rSi. ^.. �/ If .cl x„ ,` r 1 t a '_iu 1. ,;1.s Ldy� -„�`�4 _••,J .,."- '.a•:a1.Li � :III�.,r J111- ..rr-_'Y -- - .lf+i1...��•-(�! ,( .t
i {•
}`• .n L :i�6._tl: hlrls� ,i ♦', `r .!' „p' Iy �r�r•w,. �.. t.. :•L,�r:•� "�••• n � ..F+ :L �`,.:.'�::..
- -� •o' _.,.r '�` t_ r -� t•J...I -�a- -; Jn1 .���.l J. I i s F t_j I I •'f (/
t }; a � V., s �•+ t ! • }<•H •.;, f :f„ ---
• l , 1. r _.J �.. '.t l{ AO ,l.l I . } � �I t t 111 'r' Sj .. 'I t ii+I .I�i~'•< ' 'j•
_ •y -E '+ 1 - h k _i t �J• M( - t ti..ni.,u, T+SJI� y� .111 1 .lt �t � �-r •� ._
,ee jt' 1. �T�• :r,.. ..r., f. 1 ' / 1 .I i. d �I. Pl�..�llp�: ”- Ili_1'E..�•Fr�rj` •.•- •�' "• k �/�
i Y � • l -J�, � ice— l� -:u.L _ � __. _ - _ - b � jJ, L•P'�" f((I -
-- 9 •• ` i _ �l. �.,• .. .. '• • _C�`��`°�`•7, a .f • :� '�.. -.
k� .�•±� .re ,'y• ' � �,!~. 4±�CZitl���' Y., � °.hurt .1,.:,.^ .' :.n� .�/
ti '� ,iii`: •� •q °, - .'. ••�.J :.F �'•: �.i. ,`_�-
• i 's. ,t _f• ^�� t't• '� -_ •ham. s ,r, -. •'p•. r••, ,: r.. = -'
.. '4 .♦ b„'; .: a f ,i o <Y �l < } dt ' *•• r 1 a i' .. t. -`<-t "1`\
tee, - .`,{ _ °- l a;, •' � �� - r r ^ w \�� -<
,'r, - °ei � e • a° P •• • �,.T....°- ter.... -. • • e • •- .
pt. •1 " �JL.1 �2_-_ Ll+_`l J n: f' !'�1_j <'x _ ; y . _ • r- ". •t.• ,•• Yrv,�. ,�< �: :J
�• •Ii' i ✓e':: T• t •t.•a.f e,• ..••L••t t,, a i�,•'i.7�, : =4•r .b iir .e'il.. �+ /�•r'Lnf t'p tom. r• 1.�,.
..i ,°4,.- ai�, - ti °•tJ ... �'', _ t.._1'b'Ue�td C1;' .
cps J -• ,�,- n � ny ;liarv:xhl .�',➢(•f ;t t "L.1 `::•'Di.�:�.xri • �„ 1 - /�..t ': - z
_ .x tGf r • !� li:r J �: {�r, rU1 � '. t•, - r {;l,I:uu tl i • ' ... •.'� l �+$I j�S -t "?�i0 �'.. .9 -- -
° AMENDED' a
Application for E04
• PW"�IiTF.,33 UNIT DP.V=0Pj= (PIID) DISTRICT -REZONING
.T-- Richfield Planning Director to be filed with .the Chief Inspector.
Application is hereby made 'for PTJD District Rezoning
.:Applicant flame•:° The Alliance ° • • ° Tel j 871 -5703
Address: 400 Clifton Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403
• .
.Legal Description-of proposed PUD District: See-attached Exhibit "A"
.....
Attach copy of petition if this amend.-aent is to be initiated by petition
as provided in Sec. 3.42 Subd. 5. X.A. .
_A- Planned Unit Development Plan is_ attached in accordance with Chapter III,
Part Ill, Section 3.34A, Subd. 3 (2) of the ordinance Code of -the City -of
Richfield.
Brief description of the general character of the proposed PQD The project
r
wi11 be a 129 unit: town houselcondominium• development: -Units will -be priced -from $42,300
i., $65,000. The character and sca-1 e wi 1 I - relate -to the surrounding-single-family as much a-
-possible. Open space and the tie to Richfield Lake will - be emphasized.
Proposed zoning: - PMR - Planned Multi- Family Residential
Existing zoning: Residence Qistrict. .
-Ownership of PUD (including an.- explanation of the way- in which the require•
:cents of Section 3.34A Subd. 2(1) are net):' The -residences will be individually
owned by occupants.' The common areas, roadways, etc. will be owned by a home owners
association (see attached articles, Exhibit B).
Amou,-!t of land area and floor space devoted to each different use. FILL
ALL BLANKS -i IF I OT .APPLICA.314-44, PUT III/[`i•
Single Fa.*zily Residential Neighborhood Cc- =ercia
(number of units) °
Land area
Floor area Multi - Family Residential General Commercial
129 (nuanber of units)
312,376 Gross land area of PUD as defined° in Sec. 3.34A, Subd.10 (2) (a
1rc.538 Total floor area as defined in Sec. 3.34A, Subd. 10 (2) (b) .
252429 Amount of open space as defined in _ sec. _._.3- 34A,_Subd_Z0.(2 _�C1__
195,345 Amount of livability space as defined in Sec. 3:34A, Subd.10(
�
352000 Amount of recreation space as defined-in Sec.
•56,584
3 e 34A t Subd.l
'� . •- - .. °- .
Amount of lard area designated for parking .space.. streets,
drives and loading areas.
°
residential: Number of occupant car
SUbd.
.spaces as defined in Sec. 3.34A. °
- . . 10 (2) (f ) parki,rg
Nuraber of total
space. for residents
162 '
° car. spaces as defined in Sec. 3.34A,
Subd. 10 (2) (f) '
9 0 . •
237
Xf.CO=ercial or .industrial. Number, of 'parking
°
spaces N.A.
. ` N.A. _ 'Amount" of space for truck
loading facilities.
'
Nt=her of vehicular entrances
and : exits and their
general
- location.
-
• Ned'. 230daily average. Peak hours 7 -9 and 4 -6.. '
N•E: 126 daily
,
;- S_E•. Average daily t= ffic - from:
_average
entrances and exits
and their
l�.kl. -142 N.E. Peak hogs
e
S'6' 0 Distance 'to nearest public
street i.atersect.ion
from each
• entrance and exit.
Applicable band Use Inte • from S ec.
Rating
_ • , Su. b .
d.9r
f
_• APPIrZG.BT,ETS.�LIER
RATIO -
STANDARD
ACTII�.1�
e
-_
312,376 ° . . .. - -
Zr toor rhea
217,414. . - -
� - -
155,358
. Gross .Land Area
eM.Imurs Area)
(Proposed)
.69 a • 312,276
Open Space)
252,229
Gross Land Area
° ) .
(Miax�uum Area)
Proposed]
312,376 • e
.124 ,950. ° . ° a ° -.195,345
%svabillty Space? (Gross Land Ar
Area)
(Proposed)
.Oi °" g 312,376 °
21,860
38.,000
Recreation Space) (Gross. Land Area)
a •o
2 ninum Area
(Proposed). .
e
.84 • ---�
106
162 -
Occupant Czr) (Living Units)..*
nits) e
I- Lin itzum No.
(Proposed)
-'
of Spaces)
T 129 a
." 129 °
.237
T.
otal Cer�
,. (LZVing Units)
— til.nLmum No.
,
(Proposed)
°
-of Spaces)
o
lescribe any changes to the Concept. Proposal: -Th pr-OT! M—
,
condominiums.
Describe development schedule as required by Sec. 3.34A, Subd. 3(4):
See attached Exhibit "C ".
..Ikis understood that if PUD District 'Rezo: zing •is granted, the applicant
all submit a final developrent plan along with an application for a
special use permit in accordance with the ordinance affecting.same and
that applicant may be required to submit such further information as may
required by the Planning Director.
�AppYicant Signature Date
Fee in the amount of $ received. Receipt .
Concept statement to Planning Department - Date:
..Director approval of PUD concept statement - Date:
Referred PUD to Planning Departnent - Date: •
--Referred for comment - Date:
Referred PUD to Planning Commz,ssion ror public. earing reconLmen a—an
Date: x
Referred PUD to City.Council for public hearing & approval -..
Date:
Final plan referred to Planning Department - Date:
Referred final plan to City Council for approval -- Date: •
'?ECTIVE DATE: •
o
Legal Description of Woodlake School Site
All-that part of Section 28,.Township 28, Ra6ge 24 described as follows to -wit: Beginning
at a point marked "Judicial Landmark No. 10" on the east and west quarter line of said
ruction distant 410 feet west measured along said line from the east quarter corner of said
tion; thence south at right angles to said east and west quarter line 74.6 feet to a
point marked "Judicial Landmark No. 11 ", on the original Military Reservation line; thence
.s$uN 790 38' west 140.14 feet to a point marked "Judicial Landmark No. 12 ", thence south
7 -10' west 115.44'feet to a.point marked "Judicial Landmark No. 13 "; thence north 710 32'
west 585.9 feet to a point marked "Judicial Landmark No. 14 ", which is the actual point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence north 130 east 333.15 feet to a point marked
"Judicial Landmark No. 18 "; thence continuing on an extension of said line 665 feet, more
or less, to its point of intersection with a line between a point marked "Judicial Landmark
No. 21" on the westerly meander line of Grass Lake and a point marked "Judicial Landmark
.No. 8 ", marking an angle point in the mean center line of Grass -Lake; thence north 710 44'
east along said line a distance of 104 feet more or less to said point marked "Judicial
Landmark No. 8 "; thence northwesterly along the mean center line of said Grass Lake to its
intersection with the north line of Government Lot 5 extended, which said point is marked
"Judicial Landmark No. 7 "; thence west along said extension of the north line of Government
Lot 5 a distance of 206.3 feet; thence southerly to a point on the heretofore described line
between the point marked "Judicial Landmark No. 21" and said point marked "Judicial Landmark
No. 8 ", said point on said line being north 710 44' east of said point marked "Judicial Land-
mark No. 21 ", a distance of 49 feet; thence south 10 11' east 128 feet more or less to the
intersection of the extension eastward of the south line of Sixty -fifth Street as laid out
in the plat of Silverwood Second Addition; thence west along said extension of said south
line of said Sixty - fifth Street 42.3 feet to its intersection with the east line of said
Silverwood Second Addition; thence south 10 11' east a distance of 5.94.7 feet more or less tt
point marked "Judicial Landmark No. 17 "; thence continuing south on said line a distance of
33 feet to the point of intersection with said east -west quarter line,'which point of inter -
tion is 1100.43 feet east of the southwest corner of Government Lot 5, as shown by the
p.at on file in Torrens Case Number 1487; thence east along said quarter line 278.81 feet
to a point marked "Judicial Landmark No. 15 "; thence south 710 32' east 104.4.feet to point
of beginning; except that part of the property hereinbefore described lying north of the
following described line:. Commencing at a point heretofore described as "Judicial Landmark
No. 14 "; thence north 130 east 333.15 feet to a point marked "Judicial Landmark No.-18 ";
thence continuing on an extension of said line, a distance of 205,5 feet to the actual
point of beginning of line to be described; thence northwesterly to a point 42.3 feet east
of a point heretofore described as the intersection of the south line of Sixty -fifth Street
as laid out in the plat of Silverwood Second Addition and the east line of Silverwood Second
Addition-
North 180.00 feet of Lot A, Silverwood Second Addition.
Subject to an easement for street purposes only over and across the following described
property, to wit: Commencing at a point heretofore described as-"Judicial Landmark No.
14 ";.thence north 130 east 333.15 feet to a point marked "Judicial Landmark No. 18 "; thence
continuing on an extension of said line, a distance of 5.7 feet to the actual point of
beginning of land to be described; thence north 770 west, a distance of 30 feet; thence north
130 east a distance of 196.8 feet;.thence south 770 east, a distance of 30 feet; thence
south 13o west, a distance of I96.8 feet to the point of beginning, as shown in deed Doc. No.
501976, Files of Registrar of Titles.
EXHIBIT ' "C'°
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND PHASING
1. Construction and Sale of Phase I
A. Phase I' is to consist of:
18 - 1 bedroom units at 900 S.F..
30 - 2 bedroom units at 1,070 S.F.
6 - 2 bedroom and den units at 1,,350 S.F. °
24 units
B. The-estimated sale price of Phase I is $2,500,000 — $2,750,000
C. Construction will be from December 1977 to June 1978 .
2. Construction and Sale of Phase 1I
A. Phase II is to consist of:
9 - 1 bedroom units at 900 S.F.
15 - 2 bedroom units at 1,070 S.F.
3 - 2 bedroom and den units at 1,350 S.F.
27 units
B. °Tho estimated sale price of Phase II is $1,250,000 a $1,400,000
C. Construction will be from July 1, 1978 to January 15, 1979
3. Construction and Sale of Phase III
Ao Phase III is to consist of:
16 - 1 bedroom units at 900 S.F.
27 - 2 bedroom units at 1,070 S.F.
5 - 2 bedroom and den units at 1,350 S.F.
48 units -
B. The estimated sale price of Phase III is $2,300,000 - $2,500,000
•'C. Construction will be from December 1, 1978 to June 1, 1979
e
August 31, ,197?
Supplement to the Application for °
Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Rezoning
Ts: Richfield Planning Director
Re: Wood Lake School Site Development
Applicant: Lifestyle Development Corporation
From:- Sandy Ritter
The Architectural Alliance
The following information is intended to supplement information given on the
application form for PUD district zoning and the drawings showing the develop
-
went on the site in question. The information listed below specifically deals
with items listed in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.34A, Subdivision 3.2a of
the ordinance code of the City of Richfield.
is Item 3.34A, Subdivision 3.2a, i, 1:
"The outline, overall dimensions and the area of the tract described
in the applications;,"
The tract desdribed in the application contains 251,490 S.F. See
the drawings for the overall dimensions..
2. Item 3.34A,.Subdivision 3.2a, i, II:
"The use, existing zoning, and ownership of the subject tract and
adjacent properties within 35C feet of the proposed PUD district
boundaries including the location of all structures and the riaht-
of -way widths and travel widths of all adjacent public roadways;"
The subject tract is zoned residential and has, until recently, been
used for.an elementary school site by the Richfield Public Schools.
The zonina of all the adjacent property within 350 feet is Residential
(R) except the property adjacent to the tract at the northeast corner
which is zoned multifamily residential. See the drawings for the
Iodation of all structures and right -of -way widths and travel widths
of all adjacent public roadways.
3. Item 3.34A, Subdivision 3.2 a,_i, III
"The location, general exterior dimensions and gross floor area
of all proposed buildings;"
The gross floor area for all proposed buildings is 155,358 S.F. See
the drawings for the location and general exterior dimensions of all
the-proposed buildings.,
4. Item 3.34A, Subdivision 3.2a,.i, IV:
"The type of use proposed to occupy each parcel and each building, the
amount of building floor area devoted to each different use, and a
legal description of all areas to be designated for uses allowed by
subdivision 2 (5) (c) of this section;"
The total parcel will be used for residential purposes. There will
.be 29 condominium units with a floor area of 155,358. There will be
no areas designated for uses allowed by subdivision 2 (5) (c). All
uses will be allowed in Planned Multi - Family Residential (PMR).
5. Item 3.34A, Subdivision 3.2a, i, V:
"The location, arrangement and number of automobile parking stalls;"
As a minimum, there will be 1.2 enclosed parking spaces provided for
each unit. There will be at least 70.addi-Lional parking spaces pro -
vided for guests. See the drawings for the location and arrangement
of stalls.
6. Item 3.34A, Subdivision 3.2a, i, VI:
"The location, arrangement and general dimensions.of all truck
loading facilities and all passenger loading areas including bus
turn outs and shelters;"
There will be no truck loading facilities per se but there will be
passenger loading areas adjacent to each building_. See the drawings
for the exact location of these areas.
7. Item 3.34A, Subdivision 3.2a, i, VII:
"The location and dimension of all vehicular entrances and exits,
driveways and their relationship to all existing and proposed public
streets;
The site will have three vehicular entrances. Once entrance will be
in the southeast corner of the site as nearly opposite as possible
Lynwood Boulevard, intersecting 66th Street. This entrance will
.serve the 75 condominium units. The second entrance will be off of
65th Street at the northwest corner of the site. This entrance will
serve guest parking for'54 units. At this entrance, 65th Street leads
only onto Emerson Avenue. The third entrance will be from the culdesac
at the west end of Rae Drive. This will serve 54 units. All entrances
to the site and on site roads will be a minimum of 24 feet wide.
0
0
8. Item 3.34A, Subdivision 3.2a, i, VIII:
"The location, design and dimension of pedestrian entrances, exits,
walks, skyways, plaza courts or other related pedestrian areas."
Major-pedestrian entrances to the site will be off of 66th Street
immediately in front of the apartment type unit and at the western
edge of the site. These sites will accommodate mass transportation
stops and drop offs along 66th Street. There will also be pedestrian
access from Emerson Avenue along 65th Street and from the Richfield
Lake bikeway and path. Typical walks will be 5' wide and constructed
of concrete or asphalt. Sitting areas and small' plazas will be de-
veloped at the intersection of the walkways. Pedestrianways will
have lighting for night walking and security purposes.
9. Item 3.34A, Subdivision 3.2a, i, IX:
"The location and dimension of all walls,-fences and planting areas
both designed to.screen the proposed district from adjacent uses.and
to enhance the environment of the district;
Fencing will be provided along the west side,of the site where the
on -site roadway is adjacent to neighboring property and planted berms
or fencing will be developed along the east side of the site where on
site road is adjacent to neighboring property. These fences will
be a minimum of 4' -0" high and be of wood construction with a natural
or earthtone finish. Other plantings on site will be developed to
break up long expanses of garages or other undesirable vievrs. All
fences, plantings and berms will be developed to enhance privacy, re-
duce scale, break up repetition and-to increase the single family
character of the project.
10. Item 3.34A, Subdivision 3.2a, i, X:
"The location and dimension of all signs and lighting including the
illumination characteristics of all lighting;"
Project identification signs will be located adjacent to the site
entrances from 66th Street, Rae Drive, and 65th Street. These signs
will be wooden, approximately 8' -0" long and 5' -0" high. The signs
will identify the development, give directional input, indicate num-
bers of units on each drive, be illuminated at night and be set in a
backdrop of plantings and related materials. Parking and pedestrian-
way lighting will be from wooden posts i2 to -25' tall with downward
directional fixtures using metal halide fixtures. Lighting will be
planned to limit the effect off the PUD site. Lighting will be color
,-corrected to stay in the warm tone ranges. Guest and designated park-
ing will be clearly marked and have a sign that will be clearly legible
at night.
11. Item 3.34A, Subdivision 3.2a, i, XI:
"Existing buildings, roads, trees, utilities and utility easements,
all shown in half tone,,black and white;"
See drawings for this information.
12. Item 3.34A, Subdivision 3.2a,-i, XII:
"Preliminary building plans, elevations, sections and general
specifications of material and unusual structural systems.for the
proposed building or buildings, prepared by an architect registered
in the State of Minnesota;"
See the drawings for building plans, elevations, sections, etc.
The predominent materials wild be brick, wood and stucco -. The con-
struction will be wood frame with variations in the facade dimensions
and surfaces to eliminate any monolithic character. Roofs of the
units will be pitched and shingled.
13. Item 3.34A, Subdivision 3.2a, i, XIIIe
"The site grading plan including an analysis of the adequacy of
surface drainage, storm sewer and catch basin drainage, erosion
control, visual screening and landscaping and existing and proposed
topography of the tract with vertical topographic contour intervals
not greater than two feet;"
See the drawings for the grading plan and topographic information.
The existing site has 118,965 S.F. of'asphalt area or areas covered
by buildings. The development will have 117,031 S.F. of paved area
or areas covered by buildings. The quality of the "soft" areas will
be such that we anticipate more moisture absorption, less runoff and
better erosion control from the proposed development than the existing
site with its hard surfaces and minimal plantings. What runoff there is
from the site will be handled as it is now where the front 1/4 of the
site drains to 66th Street, the west 1/4 drains to Emerson Avenue and
the remaining 1/2 drains into Richfield Lake. We feel this project
will have less impact on the storm sewer system than the existing
school. Erosion control will be handled through plantings, directed
runoff, catch basins and on site ponding.
Landscape development will be used to humanize the scale of the project -,
control vistas, soften the impact of multiple units and screen the
project from adjacent properties. Where year around screening is de-
sired, evergreens of limited height and variety will be used. Where
view or sunscreening is seasonal, desiduous trees will be used. See
"the site plan for planting locations.
The basic topography of the site will be changed little by the develop-
ment. The site now rises 2 to 4 feet from 66th Street, is basically
flat to the crest of the bluff on the north and drops sharply 16 to 20
feet to Richfield Lake.- This basic land form will be continued with
the proposed development.
14e Item 3.34A, Subdivision 3.2a, ii:
"As part of the PUD plan, the applicant shall ' submit proposed declarations
of covenants, conditions and restrictions, articles of owners associations
and all other suc�.documents as the city may deem necessary in such
form-.and containing such provisions as will ensure that adequate property
control is provided to protect the individual owner's rights and property
values, to establish responsibility for maintenance and upkeep, and to
ensure continuing compliance with the plan. The City shall require
that such declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions or
other documents provide that in the event any association or corporation
fails to maintain properties in accordance with the applicable ordin --
ances and regulations of the city or fails to pay taxes or assessments
on properties as they become due and in the event the city incurs any
expenses in enforcing its ordinances,. rules and regulations, which
expenses are not immediately reimbursed by the association or corpora-
tion, the city shall have the right to assess each property its pro
rata share of such expenses. These assessments, together with in-
terest thereon and costs of collection, shall be a lien on each property
against which -each such assessment is made."
At the time of this preliminary submittal, the full covenants, conditions
and restrictions have not been finalized, but we will be developing
covenants which will be acceptable to the City of Richfield, Federal
-Housing Administration, Veterans Administration, Federal Home Loan Mort -
gage
,Corporation and Federal !`National Mortgage Association. At.this time,
we are including "Suggested Legal Documents for Planned Unit Developments"
as prepared by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Administration as representa-
tive of our proposed format and intent. The finalized documents will be
available prior to final city council action. (See attachment).
15.- Item 3.34A, Subdivision 3.3:...
"Coordination of Subdivision Regulations. Subdivision review under
the subdivision control ordinance shall be carried out simultaneously -
with the review of the planned unit development under this section.
In addition to the PUD plan, the applicant shall submit information
meeting the requirements of the subdivision regulations of the city."
.The Chapter III, Part VI,.Subdivision Regulations have the following
requirements:
A. 3,54, Subdivision 2:
"Definitions. The following have the meanings ascribed to them in
this section:
1) "Subdivision" means:
a. A division of land by platting conveyance registered land
surveyor or other means, into two or more lots, plats, sites
• or other divisions, any of which is less than five (5) acres
in area.
This development clearly falls under the subdivision
regulations.
B. 3.54, Subdivision 3:
'.'Council Approval: Platting Authority. All plats or subdivisions
of land.in the city must be approved by council resolution pursuant
to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 462.358. For this purpose
the council shall be considered as the "Platting Authority
The Richfield Council is recognized as the "Platting Authority" for
this development.
C. 3.54, Subdivision 4
"Regulations as to Conveyances. No conveyance of land in which
the land conveyed is described by metes and bounds or by reference
to a plat made.after March 11, 1940, which is not approved by
council resolution, shall be made or recorded if the parcel described
in the conveyance is less than .five (5) acres in area and 300 feet
in width unless such parcel was a separate parcel of record as
of March 11, 1940, or unless an.agreement to convey such smaller
parcel was entered into prior.to that time and the instrument showing
the agreement to convey is recorded in the office of the register
of deeds within one year thereafter or was a separate parcel of
not less than two and one -half acres in area and 150 feet in width
on January 1, 1966, or is a single parcel of land not less than five
acres and having a width of not less than 300 feet."
The property involved will be replatted to meet the requirements
of these regulations. The plat will be submitted with the final
approval packet of information.-
D. 3.54, Subdivision 5, 6, 7.& 8: Not applicable.
E. 3.55, Subdivision.i:
Streets.- Before the approval of any plat or- subdivision, it shall
be checked as to measurements of all lots, streets and public lands.
All proposed streets on such plut or subdivision shall confcrm to
the street.plan of the city as hereinafter specified. In consider-
" ing requirements for the location and width of streets, consideration
may be given to the prospective character of the development, and
reasonable conditions and requirements for the establishment of such
streets may be required by the council as a condition precedent to
approval of the plat or subdivision."
All streets within the subdivision are intended to be private streets
with no through public thoroughfares. The streets will meet the
requirements of the City of Richfield as they apply to the specific
usage.
F. 3.55, Subdivision 2e ,
"Grades, Utilities, etc. As a condition precedent to the approval
of the plat of lands located within the city limits, the council
may prescribe requirements of the extent to which and the manner
in which streets shall be granted and improved, utilities installed,
And any other matters reasonably related to the manner in which,
the area being subdivided or platted shall be developed,"
The development of specific utility requirements have not been completed
at this stage of the development. The development, layout and
extent of utilities will be according to aTl applicable codes
and ordinances and to the standard practice of this industry.
G. 3.55, Subdivision 5>
"Dedication of Park Land. In appropriate plats or subdivisions to
be developed for residential uses-, the council may also require that
a portion of such land of- sufficient size and character be set aside
and dedicated to the public for public use as parks and playgrounds.
The subdivider may, however, at his option contribute an equivalent
amount in cash and all'such payments received by the city shall be
-placed in a special fund and used only for the acquisition of land
for parks and playgrounds."
It is.the understanding of the deveeoper that there-will be no re-
quired "dedication of park land" or related fee'but that the de-
veloper will work with the City of Richfield to coordinate this
project with the future development of Richfield Lake as a recrea-
tional /nature area. .
H. 3.55, Subdivision 4:
"Contract and Bond. In lieu of the completion of work required as
a condition precedent to approval of a subdivision or plat, the
`. council may give approval upon the execution of a contract and bond
in for and amount satisfactory to the council, providing for an
securing to the city the actual construction and installation of
such improvements, utilities and other developments within the
period specified in said contract and bond, not exceeding ti -o
years."
This section is not applicable.
I. 3.55, Subdivision.5:
"Public Improvements -- Limitation. Except as otherwise provided in
this part, no electric or gas distribution lines and piping, road
ways, walks, curbs and other similar improvements shall be constructed
on any street until the street has been approved by being designated
upon a plat or subdivision duly approved and accepted by the council
or previously accepted as a public street by the council.
This section is not applicable.
J. 3.55, Subdivision 6:
"Issuance of Building Permits -- Condition. No permit for the
erection of any building shall be issued unless it shall be
located upon a street or highway giving access thereto which has
'-been duly approved and made a part of the street plan of this city
unless such building conforms to the building line established
upon the street or proposed street where it is to be located. No
permit for the erection of.any building shall be issued unless the
building is to be located upon a full width, improved street or
highway, and at such an elevation that such building-can be served
by the municipal sanitary sewer system by gravity flow, unless the
permission of the council is first obtained. This provision is
applicable to building permits to be issued for any parcel of land
whether heretofore or hereafter platted or subdivided.
This section will be complied with by the developers.
K. 3.55, Subdivision 7:
"Building Permits-- Viloation of this Part. No building permit shall
be issued for the construction of any. building on a parcel conveyed
in violation of the provisions of this part."
This section will be complied with by the developer.
Lo 3.56, Subdivision 1:
"Arrangement of Streets. The arrangement of streets in new sub-
divisions of plats shall be so laid out as to provide a continuation
of existing streets of adjoining areas, whether in the city or in
adjoining municipalities or the projection of east -west or north -
south streets of the city'if there are 'no adjoining streets. The
width of streets in new subdivisions shall be not less than the.
minimum street width established herein. Offset or irregular
streets are prohibited unless the topography of the area concerned
-. makes the construction of regular streets impossible or impractical.
This section is not applicable.
M. 3.56, Subdivision 2:
"Minor Streets -- Angles. Minor streets of irregular nature should
approach any major street except major diagonal streets hereinafter
named at an angle of between 80 degrees and 100 degrees.
All minor streets will be in compliance. See drawings.
N. °3.56; Subdivision 3:
"Major Streets:-Designation, Width. Major streets include: Penn
.Avenue, Lyndale Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, Portland Avenue, Cedar
'Avenue, Standish Avenue and 66th Street. All major streets designated
herein shall be 100 feet in width, except where existing conditions
-make a street of less width more suitable as determined by the council.,,
"Easements. Where alleys are not provided, easements of not less
than 5 feet in-width shall be provided on each side of all rear
lot lines.and along side lot lines where necessary for any anchors,
poles, wires, conduits, sewers, pipes or mains for any public
.utility. Easements of greater widths may be required under extra-
ordinary conditions of topography or utility line groupings."
This project impacts 66th Street in that the existing right -of-
way is 66 feet at the site. The city will require 20 feet (ap-
proximately) of the project land along 66th Street to accommodate
the required right -of -way.
0.
3.56, Subdivision 4:
"Other Streets -- Width. The following streets shall have a width-of
sixty -six feet: Xerxes Avenue, Chicago Avenue and 12th Avenue:"
This section is not.applicable.
P.
3.56, Subdivision 5: "
"Minor Streets -- Width. The minimum width for minor streets shall
be 60 feet except that where existing conditions make a street
of less width more suitable, the council may permit a street of
less width. When streets abut undivided property, a half street
may be dedicated. When topographic conditions are unfavorable to
the construction of a half street, the subdivider may be required
to provide additional land to construct'a street of adequate width."
The streets within the site will be private drives and therefore
should not be treated as minor streets requiring a 60 foot width.
Q.
3.56, Subdivision 6:
"Alleys -- Width. The minimum width of an alley-in a residential
block shall be 15 feet, but alleys shall not be required for any
block except when topographic conditions make them necessary.
Alleys may be required in the rear of all business lots and, if
required, shall be at least 20 feet wide. A five foot cutoff
shall be made to all acute alley intersections."
.
There will be no alleys within the project site.
R.
3.56, Subdivision 7:
"Off- Street Parking Requirements. Adequate provisions for off -
street parking shall be provided in connection with all subdivisions
for business development where the subdivider indicates'that such
is the purpose of the subdivision and has made application for a
building permit for business development."
This section is not applicable due to the Planned Multi- Family
Residential (PHR) designation.
S. '3.56,
Subdivision 8:
"Easements. Where alleys are not provided, easements of not less
than 5 feet in-width shall be provided on each side of all rear
lot lines.and along side lot lines where necessary for any anchors,
poles, wires, conduits, sewers, pipes or mains for any public
.utility. Easements of greater widths may be required under extra-
ordinary conditions of topography or utility line groupings."
All easements will be identified on the plat. Due to the Planned
Unit character, utility easements will-be grouped. All utilities
will be underground except in extenuating circumstances.
T. - .3.57, Subdivision I:.
"Minimum Lot Area. The minimum area of lots in plats or'subdivisions'
shall be 8,000 square feet.. The standard width of lots shall be
at least 75 feet. Where corner lots rear upon lots facing the side
street, the corner lots shall have extra width sufficient to permit
the establishment of front building lines bn both the front and
side of the lots adjoining the streets. Extra width shall be pro -
vided on all corner lots irrespective of whether they rear upon lots
facing the side streets.
This section is not applicable due to.the PMR designation.
U. 3.57, Subdivision 2:
"Performance Bonds.. Whenever any contract and bond for the develop--
ment of a plat or subdivision is provided in lieu of performance of
conditions precedent to council approval as provided in Section 3.55,
Subdivision 4 of this part, such contract and bond shall provide for
performance within two years of the date of approval of the plat.
Such bond shall be in an amount of one and one -half times the actual
established cost of the improvements required with form and sureties:--
satisfactory to the council. Whenever no lots have been sold, the
subdivider may vacate the plat prior to the time that the improve -
ments covered by the contract and bond are installed, and when the
plat is vacated, the bond shall be returned to the subdivider and
the contract cancelled."
This section is not applicable due to the PMR designation.-
V. 3.57, Subdivision 3:
"Street-Opening. The opening and constructfon of any street shall
not be started until agreement has been reached between the council
and the property owner or developer upon the conditions und.-�r which
the subdivision, plat, or street is to be developed."
This section will be complied with by the developer. The street
impacted by this regulation is the extension of 65th Street at the
northwest corner of the site. See drawings for the proposed con -
nection.
W. 3.57, Subdivision 4:
"Utilities. The subdivider shall make adequate provision for water
supply and for sewerage and storm water disposal. He shall provide
the city with such information as may be necessary to a determination
of the adequacy of the facilities proposed to be used for such pur-
poses. The council may require the construction of water lines,
sanitary sewer lines or storm sewer lines although connection
to other lines outside the area mayenot be possible immediately
where plans for the installation of such lines in the area have
been prepared-by the engineer or other competent person and con-
struction of such a system or utility has already commenced or
:completed in other areas of'the city. The "council may require that
-such lines be constructed outside the area being platted'or sub -
divided where necessary in order to properly serve the area being
subdivided or platted. Two or more owners, subdividers or platters
may enter into contracts with the city for the improvement of
several subdivisions, parcels or plats at.the same time when such
water, sewer or storm sewer lines would pass through and serve the
several areas concerned and could reasonably be constructed as a
single project."
The detailed site utility engineering has not been completed for-
the preliminary submittal but all necessary documents will be sub-
mitted to the appropriate authorities prior to submission for final
- approval. e
X.
3.58
"Variances from the Provisions`of this Part. Whenever the tract to
be subdivided or platted is of such unusual size or shape, or is
surrounded by such development of unusual conditions that the strict
Application of the requirements contained in this part would result
in a substantial hardship'or injustice, the council may vary or
modify such requirements so that the subdivider is allowed to de-
velop his•property in a reasonable manner, but in such a manner
that the public welfare and interests of the city and surrounding, area
are protected and the general.intent and spirit-of .these'regulations
are preserved."
It is anticipated that there will be no *such variances required.
Y. 3.59, Subdivision 1:
"Submission to Council. Any person wishing to subdivide land into
building lots, or to dedicate streets, alleys or land for public
use or to subdivide land into building lots together with the
dedication or reservation of public or private streets respectively,
shall submit ten {10) copies of the preliminary sketch plan, pre -
ferably black and white prints, to the council before submission
of the final plan. Plats containing three lots or less may be
exempted by the council from the provisions of this section."
This requirement is fulfilled by the requirements of the PUD or-
dinances.
Z. 3.59, Subdivision 2:
"Contents of Submission. The preliminary plan is to be,drawn to
a scale of not more than 100 feet to the inch and shall show:
-A) ..The location of present property and section lines, streets, b
buildings, i,,ater courses and other existing features-within
the area to be subdivided.
2) The proposed location and width of streets, lots, buildings,
and.set.back lines and easements.
3) Existing sanitary and storm sewers, water mains, culverts and.
other underground structures, within the tract or immediately
adjacent thereto. The location and size of the nearest water
main and sewer or outlet are to be indicated in a general way
upon .the plat.
4) The title under which the proposed subdivision is to be re-
corded and the name of the subdivider platting the tract.
5) The names of all adjoining subdivisions or a description of
unplatted areas and the layout of their streets.
6) The council may require a contour map to be made, having con-
tour intervals of not more than two feet.
7) North point, seal and date.
8) Plans or written and signed statements regarding the width of
all types of pavement, location, size and type of sanitary or
other sewerage disposal facilities, water mains and hydrants
or other utilities, storm water drainage facilities and other
proposed improvements such as sidewalks, planting and parks
and grading of individual lots. Preliminary plans-not containing
all of the above data will not be approved by the council."
All of the above information is contained on the drawings or
the accompanying material submitted for the rezoning to the
Planned Multi - Family Residential district.
a
o
'
We
August 31, 1977 °
MEMORANDUM
Re: Woodlake Housing Development
Commission No. 7711
From: Sandy Ritter
THE ARCHITECTURAL ALLIA14CE
The following calculations and data are based on the site surveyed by Egan,
Field and Nowak, and the Amendment to Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code
of the City of Richfield.
1. The parcel of land under consideration for the project contains 261,490
S-.F. or 6.002 acres.
20 The land use intensity for this parcel used for residential purposes
is 58. The zoning district will be Planned Multi- Familty Residential °
(PMR) .
3. The gross land area as defined by the ordinance is:
A. The land area within the proposed district boundaries 261,490 S.F.
B. 1/2 the adjoining right -of -ways 22,629 S.F.
1) 1/2 - 65th Street
right -of -way 142 ft. x'30 ft. = 4,260 S.F.
2) 1/2 - Emerson Avenue
right- of -2ay 180 ft. x 30 ft. = 5,400 S.F.
3) 1/2 66th Street
right -of -way 393 ft. x 33 ft. = 12,969 S.F.
22,629 S.F.
C. 1/2 of adjoining permanent open space
487.2 ft. x 58 (lui) = 28,257.6 S.F.
D. Total gross land area 312,376.6 S.F.
a
Commission No. 7711
0
'
August 31, 1977
Page 2 of 3
4.
Floor areas in project:
A.
Phase I (two buildings at 27 units)
- 54 units
65,034
S.F.
- 68 parking spaces
25,344
S.F.
B.
Phase II (one building at 27 units)
- 27 units
32,516
S,F.
- 34 parking spaces
12,303
S.F.
C.
Phase III (one building at 48 units)
- 48 units
57,808
S.F.
- 60 parking spaces
22,500
S.F.
D.
Floor areas
- 129 units'
155,358
S.F.
- 162 enclosed parking spaces
60,147
S.F.
.5.
Open space:
A.
Total land coverage by buildings
10,147
S.F.
B.
Total open space equals the gross land area
less the land coverage by buildings
312,376 S..F. - 60,147 S.F. =
252,229
S.F.
6.
Livability
space:
A.
Land area occupied by buildings
60,147
S.F.
B.
Land area used for roads and vehicle-parking
56,884
S.F.
C.
Subtotal
117,031
S.F.
D.
Livability.space equals gross land area minus
Item C 312,376 S.F.- 117,031 S.F. =
195,345
S.F.
7.
Recreational space:
A.
These will be a large interior site recreation
space. There will be a minimum of 35,000 S.F.
in this space. Passive and active recreational
functions will be zoned through design.
0
Commission No. 7711
August 31, 1977
Page 3 of 3
B. Parking: .
A. Where will be 162 enclosed parking spaces under the
condominium buildings These will be for owners of
units.
B. There will be 75 on site guest parking spaces.
C. Total parking spaces will be 237.
B
°A .� a�e.wr rle !A,'•'.`Ln: >_�f. ✓�•''. +d':3+:• '�.'w. " ^�/a��.�: >��. ^. i;t ale.' °•!•y'•.�• -•S:.' �'r•,- M'• ~.f ♦t �•,Je.:�.Fs`a_gf.�.t• I
LT 8 ° • Ia `••� I K i .:� ve Y'� I..: SJy�i.•. ••�, y•4i�� •� T�r t % .1 4t,°
?" y 11•..• _ I, n !1 ,Y,• 1 he • .9• - _ r :`` it i
- ',,� � -v °r' •.•y'.. "• 11 w.` .. . {� r•:`� p r }' .fie •�3: -�,7J �� � > •w ei'., ri:t -� i °. �•�. ,!� •!T, t 1' �.,!• °'.. .
�. ! ' �• f • °• >':.1 `�` - • '� o' "'''+' y, • ' { -_1 t Si -, �, }.��_f � t} 9 b • Y'� '° ' y 1 .,µ s,{ f •I
if
All
.. _ , _ • •p- _. �.. �. �;.z; Vii- � , •.fir � ;• .i.:: �t't, .r..:,,,�,:. , , i
}L .. r ' � `a `�' ,\�1. >a d•t � +Y.;�•. � 'Lj. -1,. • : • 4':i',: �'� Ii �a:, v % - i4 t _Ft :•7 (
:t - .�'fw^yl�.E=- $gv :•.r_5 _ i� v` � � - �/ eT f t'1.,., �t c '••' ,} °�Ly+ r
D., � tU 00� I� \ , .�U..:`� •... .� '3 , I. �) Y •131.. •j,': ::� v' !! , :a , .+• `'.'..'_ . Y•,..••<
- � .:.\,�� ;�.>`:° .�� -��. �- -...,;.•_� __ a• - �a. ::�:.:•- <•• is
F- i_ �� - •• iu n�a <�.`•��,�� -'�lJ ` � ft. r�f.y,: i, r _ 6 1I1. (1
1 .-. _' .a II � � '• ... �,.,._ __ - GP\� \ _ �c r r T _ :�L',h � ♦ � � �: � _ ^', i :' �. �.a� ° t -t
�.. +L-r:� L �, 1.1•x{• Fes\-: `� �\ `.,�'. `, ,/;l-
.,- - �a r '� j -- 1'^' 'i_ T' .• 1l \0� _ � - la 1. `s t PS...n��
- �' � �c i_� 'L:�_ •- .. _ .��. � FF— _x.iSs- � .1 ( T •R� �_ � �[� - \ ���� _1,,M Hsr- �' I
k 1- -J--•' - �''�h11 I A ' (I , G..�. j�• -.i �" \Cy / ' f F? n Z ° I 1
�� GC -j , i , "��� S• I 4 ��' ' ' o -_-� __, - -•'-- + "`_i-� f � I�� s mil'
L1..�� ; 1 I I '� 't� wl _ U —! —_C. 1.'.,,.((w14C,{ -— � i � � ( HtRt vYh-. •
o, K�� o• .� .�. j.. isli�°tsf f'. '.1.'+�.> tr. .I _{ `�}•� i',� i„� f- t' 1 I•,I i i IKi ��j( /r mss- ; - ��' f�� �,
fart
T ;* • , �- .�_.... -- � .._._� YJCJQ » \_ �' _t W. _ Yt0 Lip/Ja .C'Y ' �``;
� '�� - . 2 n..•: w = I t I - � ��'� r - s. ...:�c ew3':x �.xt,'>ve t( ?J
r• y. - __s.� -- .�. s' _ %2:i:..:o
. Z�i
i; r• � - -c,-- — •----- .---- ��------ •--- - --�-- ,� "� '�`F �'�. � ti ,tit_ ;! . .
s• v 3 1._ 1 P t� rf_y r f v--A: nr t 1 c K :•�. e'i'
S ✓ ° +~I ' 1 rM1 Rw 4w•t r r i%tl �M1; �S ..�. • / //` e �`(•�':
L °' �3" ._ �._�_�__._..� - --r- _' r.•'1.�'.'.i w..t�. M. �••.•w .�u ,.. � I °•x'•'' w� �'t' °.' 0 1�� p �• t` �•��9
�� , T.w .•t ^, a r r.1.•tt : . I ,,..,�,e e ♦ r' �°•. e �� ti'. + °t . .3. ,. � "
� .. ...::"11. _ J 4,`"..'r•...i•t�ii i•l .:n:,r♦.. y. r. l•J.. .,y••�ra�L , ^�,' � '••�•. • � , -1:_ -J l"V�,l.'�4�1.'.n ��`_
(';cpnyxt; -n(1.�� 1 _ Su:a'r.Ytci t,w?•'':..`,:'IJJ' i�•`.:'i_�y � ---- 1-•• -'•- CCS.'o ;`,'•�_ ^�
y r Pn'n nrr} f Q
:. tcrs �•i�Ut:JI_�1:Qi.ti�u•\�'r•( ''� _ :1asti:.'N °, • ►• +.r,.ts i' .. •T'.�ii-G• ' ,;• ,`
✓ '(?UI't�l.� ~.:� •. � � ► •y,: �, tib.CcX��'Sat:q ,.' ,.' -__ -�_ _ �� .
LL1Jmif m1acR V., 1, T L0f`.^J tS.Y.A
rmuu
✓ VEM �� �•� �J Y � r•/ ZL iiI' awl ti ! =� { ► �
V.t Lay.CO
NY ■ vi G9
xv
SAV l8°
sp� t e
�• • 1 e
e °2i
I
It 13,
�i{t9tlYy5np- c1Yn"t �.L�.li � � � Q �
fn
t�JYl�Wm �,,,�j� N `'a�•e__�.' n � s'• I @��,Ur' jam{
Q U /�/ c
pp 4r
w
µ5C•1 °
z�
a
I-
LU
w
1
1�
rr E
bi
c
6
e
0
. f q
�
e
_
3
V.t Lay.CO
NY ■ vi G9
xv
SAV l8°
sp� t e
�• • 1 e
e °2i
I
It 13,
�i{t9tlYy5np- c1Yn"t �.L�.li � � � Q �
fn
t�JYl�Wm �,,,�j� N `'a�•e__�.' n � s'• I @��,Ur' jam{
Q U /�/ c
pp 4r
w
µ5C•1 °
z�
a
I-
LU
w
1
1�
rr E
bi
c
e
e
e Ian. The City shall require that
° a
such declarations of covcnar -s,
conditions and restrictions or other
° Gil— luents provide that in the event
[,
• any association or corporation fails
° to maintain properties in accordance
wxuh the anpli.cable_ ordinances and
• ° e ° _ ° regulations of the city or fa ils t0
pay taxes or assessments on properties
as they beco� :�e
cue and in the event
° ie ci -zy incurs any expenses in en- :
.-forcing ordinances, rules and
rl
regulations; which expenses are not
° �Iilllie lately re�l.abursed by tole asso-
: or corporation, uh - city shall
• aye the right to assess each nrooerty.
• ° its pro rata snare o;_ such expenses.
i'hese assess,: eels , together within-
° •terest thereon and costs of collection,
_. ° s all be a lien on each property
against which each such assessment is
° made.'
° (3) Coordination of Subdivision Regulations. Sub-
z ision review undc:- the sub,i %-icion control �
ordinance shall. be carried out si lultaneotlsly
.�, -- --
w1th the review of the plan ned ulzit de�Tel_D gent
p ° under_ t}lis section. In addition to the PliD plan,
s:
applicant sall suoia_t information meeting
h
the rc' ,u- ire.<<er.ts of the subdivision regulations
o : the city.
Development Schedule° The applicant shall submit
° -- �� e innrn
a proposed scheuule -for con �.rt.ction b g g
° at the time the rcques led zoning may be granted by
The city and continuing ul�til all th° components
o the planned una -t devel.opment are fu11.�t comnletE�d.
° the construction cI tCIE' p��oCos�cl planned un z
development is to be in stages, then the components _
contained .in_each stage: shall be clearly celinrat.ccc`
'
4/ Subd. 4. Pl.anni�ng commission Revi.e�� - PUD Plan. Upon
/( ,� .
x. _&C�Clpt and r.'evT. w of the concept proposal. statement
° and rec(:_ipt or the lic
appation and 1'UU plan, the planning
d d�- "rector s}lall car thcY F�I� plan to o rle_r_ depcIrtment_
• and c�cJC I1c1� C.`_� for revic�e. Wii ilia t}Iirty (3U) days aLc�r
tie receipt the �'n.Ttten concc,�L proposal statc�mcnt,
'UD }Mall and rip :�l�.c�ation, tilc3 pl.�nni.nq dil:ccLor_ shall
Xecorllil(.Ild to the planning colll?Tll' SS10li (--.I r. (a} �lp})rc�va?
ol: nhe l�ro}�c�s�il viz the Toro sl�t�rli_i tecl, or 13) c,})p roval \t
--•— r r ---� o !
wzt7� tnada.l Lcat ions, ol.Zc. .t= ;ai�i.�roval.
The recommendation of the planning director. shad
include tinciinc,s of fact, and shah s et iortn
°
--�� —' for the r.ecommenclations soecJ_rytng
the reasons
_ the plan i•Ioul.d
3.th partilarity in what aspects
w cu
ineludi>ig
° .
or would not i;� in the public i.nteresu,
ut not lignite - to tine T-o.11o':ri -ng:
(a). The extent to whIch the plan departs from
°
`rr the zo in nq ordinance, subc regula-
. °
tlons, CO:7 0rcheinsive devejo,,jment 'flan End
-
- ,�,a -� -flan if any, otherwise
° •redevel.ol.ment � ,
applicable to the subject Property, in-
b
Cludi_ng out not limited n de_ ^.s' `��
°
and , ana the reasons : ':v_ s�lch deoartures
° .
are or are not dee: ^cd to be in ne public
a• ° ". °°
.3_nterest.
{}�} The e },tent to which the plan does or does
°
ot make ad equate pYovls'_o ^S . Or pl :?l1C Ser-
° V1CCS, VE'n? Cular trai%.1c cUntro , air and
light, r_ec_'eatnn and VISUal enjoy. =t.
The nature and extent 0� o:�en soave, the
and
°
adequacy of provision for 111aintenance
°
Conservcltion of the• co:^.roll omen Soace, arl..
the adequacy or inadequacy 0;:: t:ne a fount
'
-- terms of
°and' uncT- cn of. open space in
tsi -Li es proposedi in the Ql �'n.
of the
(d} he pac t , benef i.cial or adve-
the
fanned Mint devel_o�pment project upon
° nei_ghborhaou in which it is pJoposed to
e_e_stablishea. develop
a plan that proposes
(e) in the case of
n -r_iod of years, the sufficiency
°
mein over a
of the ter :s anti conditions l�r.000sed to °
protect an laaintain the inttc�grity of the
plan-
(f) The relationship of .the proposed structures
°
�--- --- existing to an red�veloz :'101
to existing strur.L� y
°
flan, any to anticlpatea future develo'Jmcnt
•
of the area . '
-five days after receiving the planning ^•. °
jlTithin forty
I the planning COMMIssion shall..
C31I C'ctOr s report,
a public ilearincJ on the appl.ieation, ili.thi_n
--
`
no1c1 �c�lrincT, the
�CoI'�`-t}� -f ive cic]_y: alter t11c: public }
• °
�1t1ri11t11( —(c OI f ;11_: `>loll : ;�lclll Sl1bmit I.ts 3 :0cO111Ic1Cnd<�1, 101d
rcc011llllCIld
°
tQ }1G C1 ty CCtlncll. The conlnll ssloll Illay
I"C:CO11lli1C'_11d
appJ UVCll �'1J.t}1 or 1:11- 110111 111UC11i J.C�1t J.011 UI"
da.sa}-)prov�ll.
°
` • t ,)
Y .; � �, � � ��.�•.� . �� , lr � . '' .� • .► ,'��„� ,a �° :► mot,,.,. •�
� t} '�'� (( •''��' "r'°'• 111
,.:, ° fit.:::: -:...r � �) �• n ` �` (f�
C+lr d al' ice' `\ _- �} a '1-i . , _ e '�• `4
l �__�..- .-. �. ..r21 ^ °� �• . {� :'1'�•,�•:•:'~�7~;°± °J -`.•.:- :•i�•••:i Y. •- x''.:11 � -�',,1 A (•.' �', �A•� -y -�� � % _
• '1 °Y, iii v -1•• 'tee
°v R< -try i /,!''f:..��� ,�'•` .o :•' • � i� �. :�� .�_ .y,�J •,''•: -� `" i'°� .w •.
Aj
JP
LIJ
• , � f: f• g - 3 °.g;J ` � �,:' Y'F1 ''" � � r• ; rsoa; ,may Lij
e ' (Jy J ° � �� �' �I'T • <V�...a' •�Pyr' FF � lr
W
F41-
LLI
�. a -e�' �i ° � T °. .t !r 1+.,� � � -• t, • L.L.
4 4 .�° �,t•�^.,__. .:.�'.? .. — _-_T„o �. �._�.Y: > 'e o,� ± 'JM t, ; c�v �O•�S d •I` CL
lip
Le co
0 44"1
s . //
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
/ Al-
Council Letter No. 300
Agenda September 26, 1977
Subject: Resolution Requesting County Support for Wood Lake
Nature Center
At the September 19, 1977 budget hearing, the city council expressed
an interest in requesting Hennepin County for assistance in supporting
operating costs of the Wood Lake Nature Center.
A resolution making such a request of the Hennepin County Board is
attached for council consideration.
Respectfully sub x ed,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /jkl
cc: Acting Parks & Recreation Director
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD TO
PROVIDE OPERATING SUPPORT TO THE WOOD LAKE NATURE
CENTER
WHEREAS,.the City of Richfield has established and operated
the Wood Lake Nature Center for the past seven years, and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County did help the City of Richfield est-
ablish the Wood Lake Nature'Center by providing grant assistance,
and in 1975, did provide the City of Richfield with an annual grant
to help support operation of the Wood Lake Nature Center, and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield charges no fees to persons using
the Wood Lake Nature Center, and
WHEREAS, a high percentage of persons using the Wood Lake Nature
Center are shown by records of the City of Richfield to be from juris-
dictions in Hennepin County and other counties which substantiates the
concept of the Wood Lake Nature Center as a regional county recreation
resource.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Richfield that the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners be re-
quested to reconfirm the counties previous commitment to the Wood
Lake Nature Center by re- enacting the annual operating subsidy
granted in 1975.
BE IT FURTHER REQUESTED that the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners authorize an annual county grant to the City of Rich-
field to help support operation of the Wood Lake Nature Center.
oren L. Law Mayor
4 °
ATTEST
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
-10� use
CITY OF RICHFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PROTECTIVE INSPECTION DIVISION
APPLICATION FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PERMIT
Date / 19V Present Zoning
Location /grep W. 7,p ?t -5 Is sign erected at this date
Sign Erector z,ee . Address
Owner of Sign Address
-�f
/o - 6 s�i1cY io -7
Fee Paid / LC c�
Yes No
Wall Hanging [] Ground El Roof El Pedestal Pylon
d -
Single Face t._.! Double Face ❑ Business ❑ Advertising ❑ Sq. Ft. ea. side
Estimated cost $ Constructed of
Completion Date
Total height from: (Ground) (Roof) ft. Space beneath sign to: (Ground) (Roof)
If illuminated: Name of Electrical Contractor Address
1.
9
3.
Clear Glass ❑ Frosted Glass ❑ Plastic Covered ❑ Shaded ❑ Other����
Flashing 11 Revolving ❑ Traveling ❑ Zip Q Other 0
.pplying for this Permit the Undersigned agrees:
Wattage
To accept and abide by all provisions of Ordinances #2.03 and #3.271 of the City of
Richfield and all other pertinent ordinances or regulations that may be adopted in
the future.
To notify Chief Inspector when sign is ready for inspection, but before erection crew
has left the job.
Electric wiring on illuminated signs must comply with City of Richfield electrical
ordinances. �
Signature of Applicant
Address
Approval Recommended El Denied ❑ �� c c�
Chief Ins ector
Approval Recommended Denied���
Direct
o ' of Public Works
Approved Denied ❑
A' a
Approved by Council:
Date
Council Stipulations
413.26
Telephone No.��. /� /�_
Date % & % �19
/ Date / 1927
Date �` Y 19 �7
DPW 101
4/20/76
Ground Sign Pedestal Sign
R Width Width - ---��
Legend legend
Wall Sign
Width —
Legend
a
Ground
Roof Sign
Width �
Legend
Roof
QN
Lorr
xx
ot-
w'i£S£S
Place location of sign on this sketch with distance
the sign is from property lines.
Locate any traffic lights within 600 feet.
413.26
Hanging Sign
--- _ Width —�
Legend
Indicate distance
from the building
Indicate legend on
the reverse side in
Indicate
�'o h
CITY OF ICHFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PROTECTIVE INSPECTION DIVISION
APPLICATION FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PERMIT
Date c1Cro'7` o2a 19 Present Zoning Fee ,
Location V/d y66� fellm— Lill Is sign erected at this date Yes No
Sign Erector 'VOL ktv W 1-14 L� Address //46 3 — 30-!�6 �j'f. I/o 1k Elwa /yN,
Owner of Sign sr2 04)c E71—' , 'J�c, Addressb/445- Aenh 4(jc- 6 -k *44e (d�
Type of Sign: Wall Hanging Q Ground 0 Roof Pedestal Pylon
Single Face t_.1 Double Face ��~hQw +s
Business � Advertising F�.�I Sq.�Ft, ea. side /t'x 6 "
Estimated cost $ %S �' - Constructed of _ /3.0 Completion Date a ate" 0-4
Total height from: (Ground) (Roof)_ ft. Space beneath -sign to: (Ground) (Roof) /6 - 020
If illuminated: Name of Electrical Contractor Address
Clear Glass [] Frosted
Glass � Plastic Covered
[� Shaded
Other-S 4r �
y(
Flashing 0 Revolving
Q Traveling 0 Zip 0
Other D
wa`_�
I -pplying for this Permit the Undersigned agrees:
/1. To accept and abide by all provisions of Ordinances #2.03 and #3.271 of the.City of
,Richfield and all other pertinent ordinances or regulations that may be adopted in
/ the future.
To notify Chief Inspector when sign is ready for inspection, but before erection crew
has left the job.
Signature of Applicant
Address Z % Y s
Approval Recommended Denied E]
Approval Recommended a Denied D
Approved
11 Denied 11
Approved by Council: ,
Date
CL cil Stipulations
413.26
�/Chie - Inspec r
rector of Public Works
Manager
Telephone No. R
Date J 19'
Date — �1977
Date
19
DPW 101
4/20/76
Ground Sign
Width
Legend
Wall Sign
Width
Legend
Ground
PeVIVI
Pedestal Sign
L9 Width - -�
Legend
Roof Sign
Width
Legend
Roof
Place location of sign on this sketch with distance
the sign is from property lines.
Locate any traffic lights within 600 feet.
413.26
Sheet 2 -of 2 Sheets
LL
Hanging Sign
}4 ----- Width - -�
Legend-
Indicate distance
from the building
Ground
Indicate legend on
the reverse side in
Legend
Indicate
h
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager,,,
oun
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Application to Move House Within City
cil Letter No. 299
Agenda September 26, 1977
Mr. Laurel C. Stein has applied to move a house and garage within the
city from 7015 Penn Avenue South to 6308 22nd Avenue South.
The house at 7015 Penn, for which a moving permit has been requested, was
built in 1941. The house has been inspected by the chief inspector and the acting
public works director and found to be structurally sound. At the 6-308 22nd Avenue
location, the rear of the dwelling would face two vacant lots owned by the M.A. C.
The following work items must be completed in order for the property to qualify
for a building permit:
1. New basement and floor and reinstall basement stair to code.
2. Exterior siding in need of repair and a complete paint job.
3. New roofing to entire dwelling.
4. Repair chimney after moving dwe_il-ing
5. Install new' "sash acid frames in four windows ( two on 2nd floor and two
in north bedroom walls) .
6. Knee walls in 2nd floor to have insulation installed on attic side, also
ceilings to be checked and insulated if additional insulation is needed.
7. Install new threshold in front door and cut door to clear rug in entry.
8. Install new sewer line from house to street.
14 9. New eave troughs (front and rear) .
OF
Council Letter No. 299 -2- September 26, 1977
10. Retile upstairs-floor or carpet same.
11. Replace counter tops and refinish kitchen cases, new linoleum to floor.
12. All interior wall defects to be repaired on lower story.
13. Second floor wall paneling to be sanded, filled and refinished or painted.
14. Install deadbolt lock in front and rear entry doors .
15. Install new door handles - old glass handles are loose in setting flanges,
this is throughout dwelling.
16. Several doors to be rehung in opening on door jambs to be refurbished in
hinge and lock set areas.
17. Redecorate (paint or paper & refinish interior wood trim & doors) throughout
dwelling.
18. Install water heater (existing two years old OK to reuse) .
19. New fixtures on bath tub, install new ceramic tile on wall of tub, three
coarses or more in height. Replace cove edge on tile back of toilet door.
20. Install new furnace and needed duct work.
21. Install new 100 amp or larger electric service and upgrade outlets to meet
new dwelling codes, to include G.F.I. on outside and baths.
22. New rear door jambs.
23. New stoops and steps at each entry.
24. Submit a groper bond to -cover value of work to be performed on .project.
25. Secure proffer permits for all work involved in project.
26. Grade and sod lot.
27. Landscape as approved by Chief Inspector.
The attached sketch shows the location of the dwelling to be moved in relation
to other homes in the area.
Council Letter No. 299 - 3 _ September 26, 1977
It is the recommendation of the city staff that this house - moving application
be approved subject to the foregoing stipulations.
WSB /jkl
cc: Actin*g Public Works Director
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
E. 63rd ST.
135'
MAC PROPOSED MOVE -1
MAC
DWELLING < 36L
_
13"'.6, Ld 135' _ �®
Ex t. Q 30.5 Exist. Move
MAC Dwell. o in Dwell.
6312 -36,---> 6311
1
135.6 1
Gar. C
,°n N �°n
APPLICATION TO MOVE DWELLING WITHIN CITE N
APPLICANT: Laurel C. Stein, 7921 West 79th Street
LOCATION: From 7015 Penn Avenue South to 6308 22nd Avenue So. Scale: 1 50'
COUNCIL ACTION: September 26, 1977
E. S.
9/22/77
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 298
Agenda September 26, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Release of Bond on Off - Street Parking Contract,
Oak Grove Lutheran Church
On the September 26, 1977 city council agenda is a resolution providing
for release of the bond for off - street parking for the parking lot owned by
Oak Grove Lutheran Church, 7045 Augsburg Avenue South.
The public works department has inspected the property and confirmed
that the requirements of the off - street parking contract have been met. It
is recommended that the council adopt the attached resolution authorizing
release of the bond.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /jkl - ,.
cc: Acting Public Works Director
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND ON OFF- STREET PARKING
Oak Grove Lutheran Church
7001 Lyndale Avenue South
Location: 7045 Augsburg Avenue South
Use: Church Parking Lot
WHEREAS, Oak Grove Lutheran Church, 7001 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield,
Minnesota, had an off - street parking agreement with the City of Richfield, relating
to 7045 Augsburg Avenue South, which contract bears the designation of Contract
No. 2184 and which contract was guaranteed by a bond of Transamerica Insurance
Company, LosAngeles, California, in the amount of $3,000.00, and
WHEREAS, Oak Grove Lutheran Church has complied with the provisions of
said agreement and the Transamerica Insurance Company now seeks to be relieved
of any further obligation under said bond, and
WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring Oak Grove Lutheran
Church to continue to provide a bond for security on the performance,of said
agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
That the city manager is hereby authorized and directed to release the Trans-
america Insurance Company, LosAngeles, California for any and all acts of Oak
Grove Lutheran Church, committed or incurred in violation of Contract No. 2184,
on and after the 26th day of September, 1977.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this ' 26th day of
September, 1977.
Loren L. Law
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
}
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Up
Council Letter No. 297
Agenda September 26, 1977
Subject: Final Plat Approval - 7245 Emerson Avenue South
At the September 12, 1977 City Council meeting the City Council approved
the preliminary plat for O'Hagen's Addition to the City of Richfield with the
stipulation that soil boring tests be completed before the final plat is approved.
The council also expressed concern with potential drainage problems on
'the site.
Mr. O'Iiagen and his contractor have completed the soil boring
tests as requested by the council. The staff has reviewed the. results of
these tests and is satisfied that the soils are suitable for building and the
drainage problems are resolved. The contractor will be present at the
September 26, 1977 city council meeting to discuss these findings with
the council.
It is the recommendation of the Planning and Redevelopment Director, in
which I concur, that the council approve the final plat for 7245 Emerson
Avenue South.
Respectfully s bmitted,
Alit
Wayne S. Burggraaf
City Manager
WSB /lje
cc: Planning and Redevelopment Director
Acting Public Works Director
C`.
43
•� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
0 * Council Letter No. 296
J
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Agenda September 26, 1977
Subject: Work Program for Amending the City -wide
Comprehensive Plan; Authorization to
Submit Grant Application
In 1976, the Minnesota State Legislature passed the Metropolitan
Land Planning Act, which provides that each community in the metropol-
itan region must complete or amend an existing comprehensive plan to
conform with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Richfield has until
July, 1980, to complete the amendments to the existing plan.
In July, 1977, the Metropolitan Council transmitted a final systems
statement to the City of Richfield. The purpose of the systems state-
ment is to describe for each governmental unit in the region the metro-
politan plans and facilities which affect them and which should be con -
sidered in their comprehensive plan and capital improvement programs.
The systems statement is divided into three parts. The first part
contains projections of population and employment trends, and housing
needs. The second part describes planned metropolitan facilities
affecting Richfield; transportation, sewer, airport, and park systems.
Part three lists any elements required by law that may be excluded
from the comprehensive plan; however, there are no exclusion in.Rich-
fields systems statement.
Transmittal of the systems statement started a 120 day period in
which the City of Richfield could prepare a work program for amending
our plea, to be 'eligible for a planning assistance grant. These grants
were also appropriated by the State Legislature in 1976. The purpose
of the grants is to assist local communities in the metropolitan area
develop the comprehensive plans required under the Metropolitan Land
Planning Act. The City of Richfield qualifies for $6,089.
The approved grant application work program must be transmitted to the
Metropolitan Council by October 21, 1977.
The attached, "Planning with People" document is a draft work
program for amending the Richfield comprehensive plan. In summary,
the work program proposes extensive citizen participation, to help
develop policies concerning the physical development of the community.
These policies will be referred to by the Planning Commission and
City Council when a decision has to be made on the physical develop-
ment of the community.
s
s
1
Li
t
8
Council Letter No. 296 - •2 - September 261, 1977
The comprehensive plan.content guidelines show what elements
should be included in the Comprehensive Plan Policy Guide. A
schedule and estimated cost and manpower needs are included along
with Organization and Planning Relations. It is the opinion of
the staff that "Planning with People" is a realistic means for
involving the people of Richfield in the planning process.
Over the three year period, the cost of revising the Compre-
hensive Plan is estimated to be $136,848, of which all but $19,200
is existing salary and overhead costs. The $19,200 represents the
cost of consulting services for the plan revision process, a cost
to the average Richfield resident of forty -eight cents over the
three -year period. It must be remembered that the city is required
by law to undertake this plan revision. The matter to be decided
at this time is the process which we will use to accomplish this
legislative mandate.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission at a special meeting on September 6, 1977
reviewed the preliminary draft of the work program. The Planning
Commission recommended holding neighborhood meetings to allow the
residents to address issues most directly concerning their area. The
Commission also discussed alternative ways to effectively organize
the neighborhood meetings. These concerns have been included in the
attached Work Program.
Although the Commission expressed concern of the amount of staff
time required and the cost of the project, compared to the small
amount of funding available to the City, the Commission overall, felt
the work program "Planning with People",was a highly acceptable means
for revising the Richfield Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the staff, in which I con-
cur, that the City Council approve the attached work program and
authorize submission of an application for the Planning Assistance
Grant.
Wayne S. ed, Respectfully ubmitt
Burg
City Manager
WSB /lje
cc: Planning and Redevelopment Director
..
Ll
1
LI
l
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 295
The_Honorable,Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Agenda September 26, 1977
Subject: Off Street Parking Contract -
6800 Penn Avenue South
Mr. Howard J. Olson, 7212 Oaklawn Avenue, Minneapolis, is pro-
posing to remodel an existing building (formerly a Texaco gasoline
service station), at 6800 Penn Avenue South to be used as a print
shop. He is requesting approval of an off - street parking contract
for this property.
The off - street parking standards indicate a need of 7 parking
spaces to accommodate employees and customers. Plans submitted by
the applicant, a sketch of which is attached hereto, indicate that
8 off - street parking spaces will be provided.
The underground gasoline storage tanks and pumps have already
been removed from the premises.
The staff has reviewed the off - street parking application and
recommends council approval, subject to -the following stipulations:
1. East driveway on 68th Street be closed and replaced with
barrier.curb, as per attached sketch.
2. Entire area be resurfaced.
3.
4.
'It WSB /lje
Final building plans for the remodeling of the existing
building'be approved by the Department of Public Works.
Landscape and lighting plans be approved by the Department
of Public Works.
cc: Acting Public Works Director
Respectfull v s mitted,
Wayne S. Burggr f
City Manager
i
s
i
1
i
ist.
It-ence
1
ALLLT
96.5'
43'2 it
N Exist. Bldg.
6800 Fenn
_ _- exist. uree�n, — 5a Ue e
-26 w .�- --Sid ®walk --'°-4
w
;d
;��r.
.a
•
M
PENN AVE. Scale= I ° =20
Barrier Curb --�-
#`OFF- STREET PARKING NO. 77 -7
OWNER AND ADDRESS: Howard J. Olson, 7212 Oaklawn Avenue, Minneapolis, Minn.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot ts 1 and 2, Block 1, Tingdale Bros. Lincoln Hills Third Addition
6800 Penn Avenue South
USE: Print Shop
DATE OF APPLICATION: September 16, 1977
COUNCIL ACTION: September 26, 1977
fit
NO. PARKING SPACES: 8
E. S.
9%22177
I
•
s
w
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Mand.ger
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Council Letter No. 294
Agenda September 26, 1977
Subject: Release of Off- Street Parking Bond.
Condon - Naegele Realty, 1700 West 78th Street
On January 12, 1976, Condon - Naegele Realty executed an off - street
parking contract with the City of Richfield for parking facilities
adjacent to the Butterfield Overland Express Restaurant, proposed to
be located at 1400 West 77th Street. As the council will recall, the
application for an on -sale liquor license for that restaurant with-
drawn at the council meeting of March 28, 1977. Condon - Naegele Realty
is now requesting that the city council cancel the existing off - street
parking contract and release the bond attached to that contract.
It is the recommendation of the city staff that the city council
adopt the attached resolution cancelling the off- street parking
contract and release the bond.
WSB /lje '
cc: Acting Public Works Director
Respectfully s fitted,.
�yneS . urggra
City Manager
'w
L
M
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT AND
RELEASE OF BOND ON OFF - STREET PARKING
Condon- Naegele Realty
1700 West 78th Street
Location: 1400 West 77th Street
Use: Restaurant with On -Sale Liquor
WHEREAS, Condon - Naegele Realty, 1700 West 78th Street, Richfield, Minnesota,
had an off- street parking agreement with the City of Richfield, Minnesota, relating
to 1400 West 77th Street, which contract bears the designation of Contract No.
2210 and which contract was guaranteed by a bond of the Great American Insurance
Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota in the amount of $41,500.00, and
WHEREAS, Condon - Naegele Realty, at the council meeting of March 2.8, 1977,
withdrew its application for an on -sale intoxicating liquor license for a restaurant
to be located at 1400 West 77th Street, and has now requested the off - street park-
ing contract be cancelled and the bond released, and
WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring Condon - Naegele
Realty to continue to provide a contract and bond as security for the completion of
this off - street parking area.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to cancel Contract No.
2210 and release the Great American Insurance Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota
for any and all acts of Condon - Naegele Realty committed or incurred in violation
of Contract No. 2210 on and after the 26th day of September, 1977.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of September,
1977.
ti
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
Loren L. Law Mayor
)6.
s
I
I
8
rA
It]
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 293
Agenda September 26, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subj ect: Purchase in Excess of $1, 000
Chapter 6, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council
must approve the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction
when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are three such items on the council
agenda of September 26, 1977.
FREMONT PARK
The one phase remaining of the Fremont Park redevelopment is the landscaping
work, which is scheduled to be completed this fall. Two quotations have been
received for this work, and it is recommended, that the city council approve a
purchase in the amount of $1,978.60 for plant materials at Fremont Park. Funds
for this purchase are included in the Fremont Park project budget.
TAFT PARK
One of the items remaining to be completed in the Taft Park project is install-
ation of an irrigation, system around the neighborhood building. The existing irri-
gation system in the park is Rain Bird, and it is advisable to complete the irrigation
system with the same brand name.
The quotation received from the only local supplier of Rain Bird is in the
amount of $3, 294.32. This quotation represents cost of the equipment; installation
of the irrigation system will be performed by the city staff. It is recommended that
the city council approve the purchase of irrigation materials for Taft Park in the
amount of $3,294.32. Funds for this purchase are included in the Taft Park II
proj ect.
t
lJ
s
Council Letter No. 293 - 2 - September 26, 1977
BASKETBALL COURTS
The basketball courts at Madison Park, 63rd and Knox, and at Jefferson
Park, 67th'and Upton, are in very poor, unsafe condition. Although improvements
to these two sites are not presently included in the long -range Capital Improve-
ment Program, small amounts of money remain in several other city projects which
could finance resurfacing of these basketball courts. The staff has solicited and,
found that weather permitting, the work could be completed this fall.
Therefore, it is recommended that the city council approve resurfacing of the
Madison Park and Jefferson Park basketball courts at a rate of $947.13 per site,
for a total purchase in the amount of $1,894.26.
Respectfully submitted,
w�
:!3 • �� qwe
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /jkl
cc: Acting Parks & Recreation Director
•
6
s
Ll
8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
/d
Council Letter No. 292
Agenda September 26, 1977
Subject: Approval of Architect for Christian Park Redevelopment Project
The adopted 1977/1983 Capital Improvement Program provides for the
Christian Park improvement project to take place in 1977 and 1978. The funding
for this project includes $80,000 in second year Community Development Block
Grant monies, $250,000 in third year Community Development Block Grant monies
and $140,000 in Special Revenue Funds for a total project cost of $470,000
Since we have just received notification from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development of clearance for using Community Development monies for the Christian
Park project, we are now in a position to begin initiating this project.
A great deal of time is required for neighborhood meetings and development of
plans and specifications for a major park redevelopment, prior to construction. A
proposed schedule which calls for completion of the project by the end of 1978. is
attached.
The first necessary action for the city council to take is to authorize negotiation
of a tentative agreement with an architect, for the park building,. and with a park
planner, for the design of the park facility.
The park and recreation staff have met with several architectural firms and
recommend that the city council authorize the city manager to negotiate a tenta-
tive agreement with James Robin, landscape architect, to design and prepare
working drawings and specifications for site work at Christian Park. Mr. Robin
is well recommended for park work he has done in Bloomington and Eden Prairie.
It is also recommended that the council authorize the city manager to negotiate
a tentative agreement with Richard Schwarz and Associates to design and prepare
working drawings and specifications for a new park shelter. Schwarz and Associates
has worked with the city effectively on several previous projects, and has also
worked closely with James Robin on projects in other cities. Therefore, it is
r
Z
I
J
i
f's
Council Letter No. 292
-2-
September 26, 1977
recommended that the council authorize tentative agreements with these architects
to prepare working drawings for site work and a shelter at Christian Park.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /jkl
cc: Acting Park & Recreation Director
1
L
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR
CHRISTIAN PARK
September 26, 1977
Monday, September 26, 1977: City council authorize negotiation of architectural
agreement(s)
Tuesday,
October 11, 1977:
City council order project, approve architectural
agreement(s)
Wednesday, October 12, 1977:
Invitation to neighborhood meeting delivered this week
Tuesday,
October 18, 1.977:
7:00 PM, Council Chamber, Neighborhood Meeting
Second Neighborhood Meeting
Tuesday,
December 13, 1977:
Park and Recreation Commission update and approval
of preliminary
Tuesday,
December 27, 1977:
City council approval of preliminary plans,
authorize final plans
Monday,
January 9, 1978:
First reading transitory ordinance $140,000 Special
Revenue
Tuesday,
January 10, 1978:
Commission approval of final plans and specifications
Monday,
January 23, 1978:
Council approval final plans, authorization to
advertise for bids
'19
Wednesday, February 8, 1978:
Tuesday, February 14, 1978:
Wednesday, February 15, 1978:
Wednesday, February 22, 1978:
Monday, March 6, 1978:
Monday, March 13, 1978:
Ad for bid in SUN (21 days)
Second reading transitory ordinance
Advertise
Advertise
Bid opening, CDBG clearance of contractors requested
City council award of contract(s)
Pre - construction meeting (notify HUD 10 days in advance)
Monday, April 17, 1978 Contract process complete, construction begins
December 1, 1978: Construction completed
1-?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Inter — Office Memorandum
DATE August 23, 1977
To Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager
FROM Donald A. Fondrick, Director of Parks
SUBJECT Christian Park Architect Recommendation
197
field City Manager
d Recreation
As I mentioned at the meeting we had the other day, I have
put down on paper some of my thought processes related to
projects. In reference to an architect(s) for Christian
Park, I have gone through an informational interview process
or had a working relationship with a number of architects
and architectural firms. Those people I have talked to
and /or worked with are the followinq:
Brauer and Associates, Inc. (Don Brauer)
Amenity One (Clarence Smith)
Richard Schwarz and Associates. Inca (Dick Schwarz)
Jim Robbin
John Wiley
Solvik, Mathre, Sathrum, Quanbeck (Bob Quanbeck)
It would be my recommendation that we hire Richard Schwarz
as building architect and a landscape architect that he
has worked viith often by the name of Jim Robbin. You and
the city council are both familiar with Dick Schwarz. It is
my opinion that he would be the most knowledgeable and
sensitive to our needs at this time. He and I, and I believe
the city as well, have had an outstanding working relation-
ship in the past, and he stands heads and shoulders above
any other building architects. Jim Robbin, I do not.know
well, but I have reviewed his track record in Bloomington and
Eden Prairie and have gotten good comments from their staff
as well as one of Bloomington's Park and Recreation CommisH
sioners. Although he is a smaller organization than we are
use to, I believe that might allow more personal attention
and certainly a fresh look at doing parks. If you need any
more information, do not hesitate to ask.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
° Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Council Letter No. 291
Agenda September 26, 1977
Subject: Approval of Specifications and Authorization to
Advertise for Bids for Tennis Court Lighting
On March 31, 1977 the city council adopted the proposed 1977/1983 Capital
Improvement Program. One of the projects included in the 1977 capital budget
provides for lighting of tennis courts at Donaldson Park and Washington Park.
On August 11, 1977, the city council ordered the improvements and authorized
preparation of plans and specifications for this tennis court lighting project. The
council approved the use of Brauer and Associates to provide architectural services
for the project.
At the meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission on September 13,
1977, Mr. Paul Fjare of Brauer and Associates and Mr. Rick Hosterman , electronic
consultant, presented the plans and specifications for tennis court lighting at the
two park sites. It was the unanimous decision of the commission members present
to recommend council approval of these plans and specifications for tennis court
lighting.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the park and recreation staff and the
park and recreation commission, in which I concur, that the city council approve
the specifications and adopt the attached resolution authorizing the call for bids
for lighting of tennis courts at Donaldson Park and Washington Park.
R
esp ctfully subm' d,
7 �� S1.
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /lje
cc: Acting Park and Recreation Director
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
CALL FOR BIDS FOR TENNIS COURT LIGHTING AT DONALDSON PARK AND
WASHINGTON PARK
CITY PROJECT NO. 703
CITY PROJECT NO. 704
WHEREAS, the city council approved the 1977/83 Capital Improvement
Program on March 31, 1977, and
WHEREAS, the city council has approved transitory ordinance no. 16.40
appropriating $20,000 from the Special Revenue Fund for City Project No. 703,
tennis court lighting at Donaldson Park, and for City Project No. 704, tennis
court lighting* at Washington Park, and
WHEREAS, the city council has approved Resolution No. 5707 and 5708
ordering the improvement and preparation of plans and specifications for
tennis court lighting at Donaldson Park and Washington Park, and
WHEREAS, the city council approved an agreement with Brauer and
Associates to provide architectural services in relation to the tennis court
lighting at Donaldson Park and Washington Park, and
WHEREAS, Brauer and Associates have prepared plans and specifications
for such tennis court lighting, and
WHEREAS, the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission has recommended
approval of said plans and specifications,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota , as follows:
k
I
y
1. That final plans and specifications are hereby approved, Clerk's
File No. 9753
2. That the city staff is hereby authorized and directed to call for bids
on said improvement as required by law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of September,
1977.
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
Loren L. Law Mayor