The URL can be used to link to this page

10-27-80 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager -~ ~ /;~ The Honorable Mayor ~ ~' and `c~ ~ Members of the City Council ~~~ ~ % City of Richfield /~ Council Members: Council Letter No. 381 Agenda October 27, 1980 Subject: Report Regarding Reassessment of Park Planning Process At the December 9, 1968 city council meeting, the city council requested the city manager to present a report at the first meeting in January, 1969, outlining a procedure which could be followed to ....1 -. ___._~ --- __ land in Richfield. In the fall of 1968, the counci approve a total of $14,000 in the 1969 budget for park planning purposes, about half of these funds earmarked for a professional analysis „~ ~; r•N,~; r~~ r7 ~ ~ narks and a comprehensive plan of priorities for The January 13, 1969 report by the city manager to the city council indicated that although the budget spoke in terms of two separate planning studies, it appeared more desirable to combine the two .into one and then divide the study or planning project, into four separate-parts or phases. The t lrst pnase was ~u c:viio.,_~ ~ ~1 u-• ~--~~.1 --~--- ----- - - - of Richfield park land and facilities with emphasis on evaluating each individual parcel of park land as a part of a total park system. Existing uses were examined to determine the amount of park area devoted to (1) ornamentation (2) conservation (3) cultural activ- ities (4) recreation and, (5) reserve. In short, the first phase was taking an inventory and then subjecting this inventory to anal- ysis to find out what kind of park system currently existed in Richfield in 1969. Council Letter No. 381 -2- October 27, 1980 the hearing would not relate to specific parks, but to the more general question:~f what are community values with rESpect to types of park uses. The results of these two phases were to be used by the city council, staff and the community as a guide for decisions in the following phases. The third phase would consist of developing a comprehensive plan for park development and redevelopment based on the decisions made in and after public hearings on the type of total park system desired in Richfield. This phase would also include priority recommendations for a park development schedule. Again, public hearings would be held to determine a priority list for parks to be developed or redeveloped. Unlike the first public hearings, this meeting would begin to deal with specifics. Y A contract was negotiated with Brauer and Associates for this assessment of the Richfield park system. Excerpts from the August, 1969 park system analysis are attached. .This material includes quo- tations related to park and open space philosophy, a summary of find- ings and summary recommendations, park system objectives, specific findings and specific recommendations. The analysis makes reference to several phrases such as constant evaluation, continuing process of planning, evaluation measured against resources available, re- interpretation, future change, character of future urban populations and their need is bound to change, participation at every level. Another factor to keep in mind is that in 1969 the latest population. figure for Richfield was 49,059. The 1970 census had not yet been conducted. The community was in the process of creating a point n In 1970, the newly created Park and Recreation Department under the city operation, began to organize city wide meetings for the purpose of discussing the direction of future park development and redevelopment. This was based on the city council action of March, 1970, which authorized the staff to conduct three public seminars in order to encourage citizen involvement in the planning process. The first meeting was held April 16, 1970, the second meeting was held April 23, 1970. The first meeting was essentially an introduct- ory meeting. The second meeting asked three primary questions: (What do you think are the most important needs of the Richfield Park and Recreation system? (2) What priority do you have for the above mentioned needs? and (3) How should park and recreation development be financed? A summary of the answers to those questions is attached. As a result of the discussion at the April 23, 1970 meeting, it was recommended that the city staff and the park planner, Brauer shared responsibility with the school district responsible for recre- ation, and the city responsible for parks. Council Letter No. 381 -3- October 27, 1980 _ and Associates, put together a preliminary park development prop- osal including several park sites and to incorporate the general feeling of the citizens and the staff. (1) that the entire park system needs to be developed, but the staff and citizens did not feel it economically feasible to sell a bond issue or receive funds of this magnitude (2) that the proposal ought. to contain a balanced approach to the community's park and recreation needs (3) that the citizens did not have a truly developed neighborhood park to compare with and, therefore, many of the citizens did not recognize what a well developed park can do for the quality of life in Richfield, and, (4) that the football, baseball and slowpitch organizations in the city were generally dissatisfied with the existing playfields because of poor drainage, poor turf conditions ,. inadequate lighting, and inadequate size. As a short range plan to answer these concerns, a contract was entered on May 25, 1970, for Brauer and Associates to prepare a master plan or preliminary concept plan for the follow- ing park sites: A. B. C. Develop Legion Lake as a community park (master plan had already been completed) A copy of the park nomenclature used during these discussions is attached. g These plans were prepared, presented in a public meeting in October, 1970, and presented to the city council on March 1, 1971 in a capital improvement hearing. Plans were generally well received by the city council, but action was deferred to April 5, 1971 so that the staff could prepare additional information and more on street paving. To hold down costs and provide a workable ment, it was recommended that five parks receive a priority f material improve- ing through a bond issue to complete construction in three years, or by liquor store profits for ten years ,to complete. .Those parks, not necessarily in any order, were: Christian Park, Donaldson Park, Monroe-Fairwood Park, Roosevelt Park and Taft Park. The element of change and other factors referred to in the 1969 park analysis was already in effect. The Taft Park project involved the Metropolitan Airports Commission which was in the process of preparing a master plan. Federal Open Space monies appeared to be available to assist in the expense of development. The City of Minneapolis would need to be involved as well as the Metropolitan Council, the State of Minnesota and other agencies. The city had other concerns and pri- orities, not necessarily related to park development or redevelopment, such as the permanent street program. Ultimately, the playfields at Taft Park and Donaldson Park were the first to be completed accord- ing to the plan. One of the major reasons for this was to move or- ganized play from neighborhood parks such as Roosevelt so that a systematic approach could be made to neighborhood park development. Again the element of change. In early 1972, storm sewer work was being done in the New Ford Town park area. Suddenly, this neigh- borhood could potentially be without any park area, so it became the first neighborhood to be developed. Other changes occurred Council Letter No. 381 -4- October 27, 1980 over the years. For example, the city owned a building on the corner of 70th Street and Nicollet Avenue that Hennepin County rented for library purposes. When the community outgrew this space, it became necessary to either expand the building or locate another site if the community was to continue to have quality library facil- ities. Approximately four acres on the corner of 72nd Street and Nicollet Avenue were sold to the county for the construction of a new library. This was the area of the majority of park amenities such as the shelter building, skating rink, ballfield and so forth, so Augsburg Park was shif ted into the capital improvement program as a priority item. The city owned building had great discussion and eventually became the community center. Inflation and other factors such as Minneapolis extending its liquor boundaries south of Lake Street had an effect on the park development schedule. More recent factors have included the 1980 census which indicates a substantial decrease in population. While a decrease was anticipated, the mag- nitude of the decrease was not. Interests in the community have been changing. In the 1960's broomball on outside rinks was a popular activity. In the 1970's this activity almost disappeared. There is _~ some interest, currently being met by the indoor arena; but lately there have been some requests for outdoor ice time. Skate boarding was popular a few years ago, but has generally not been a high pri- ority in recent years. Volleyball now seems to be popular as does the bicycle moto-cross. The advent of girls' athletic activities has had an impact on the community both for the schools and for the city. The energy situation has had a certain amount of impact that may increase in future years. In late 1972, a park and recreation advisory commission was established. This group as well as the city staff and the city council continue to work with citizens for specific park development and redevelopment projects. Despite all the changes that affect a park system, the five factors of a complete park program as outlined by Brauer and Associates in 1969, are still included in the park planning process: (1) purpose (2) personnel (3) participation (4) progression and, (5) physical facilities. This park planning process has been for specific projects in the last ten years. Concentration has been on the specific within the park system. But what has happened to the system as a whole? What about those phrases from the 1969 study - constant evaluation, evaluation measured against resources available, reinterpretation, character of future populations and their need is bound to change? While the staff has attempted to look at the whole, this interpre- tation or evaluation is frequently limited to a given subject with- in the system, i.e., outdoor skating rinks: how many and where, BMX track: feasible and if so, where? It would seem the time may be right to reassess the Richfield park system as a whole. The community now has an economic factor to consider much like the situation in 1970 when general citywide meetings were held. Is park development done on a pay-as-you-go basis or what should be the financial approach to the program? Do we, in fact, have a balanced approach to meet the community's park and recreation needs? We attempt to meet the needs of a neighborhood through the park planning process for a specific neighborhood park, but is this providing the balanced approach for meeting the needs of the Council Letter No. 381 -5- community years, we with other October 27, 1980 as a whole? Having been developing parks over the last ten now have a basis of comparison in the community as well as communities. Have the needs of the special interests in What on the site meet- ings and the 1971/76 a range plans. For one Monroe -Fairwood Park 1980/85 CIP indicates In anticipation of the fisting facility, found with the existing park to examine the system reason or another, the scheduling of the redevelopment project has been changed. The the project as a 1982 construction project. construction, the staff had examined the ex- organized play to be potentially in conflict systems philosophy and program, and began ., ~ ,.,~,,,~ ~ ~„ accommodate the needs of the community as a whole. The city council has now appropriated $10,000 to begin the park planning process for Monroe-Fairwood, but the actual construction is still scheduled for 1982. This major redevelopment project and other recent topics such as skating rinks, BMT,~ and cultural arts, have triggered the staff to discuss the reassessment of the total Richfield park system, rather than continue to concentrate on a specific as has been the case with park development and redevelopment in the last ten years. With the assistance of a professional consultant, many questions re- lated to the Monroe-Fairwood Park project as well as other past, present and future situations in the system could be examined in an unbiased manner. It is the opinion of the staff that the reassess- specific project from its present timetable of construction in 1982. Citizen's participation could be potentially delayed in the park planning process which is now scheduled for 1980/81 due to the appropriation to proceed. The council will need to decide whether the reassessment should be done at all, and if so, will the reassessment of the Richfield park system be done before, or after, the park planning process for Monroe-Fairwood Park. The update of the Richfield park system would include a re- search of the past, an inventory of the present and an assessment of the future. It could potentially include public interaction sessions, input from the city council and the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission, such as the process in 1970. It would include a comprehensive look at: last ten years, it may be necessary to reassess the park system as a whole and again determine a direction whether it be the same or altered from that established in 1970. affect would this reassessment of the whole park system Council Letter No. 381 -6- October 27, 1980 A. Recreation programming - both active and passive B. Demographic impacts including population density and mix patterns, economics, age characteristics, ete. C. Societal patterns and cycles within Richfield. D. Energy impacts on Richfield E. Environmental considerations F. Personnel needs, qualifications, finances, etc. The result would be an updated park system plan,. incorporating park system needs of recreation, culture, reserve, conservation and ornamentation. These five elements will incorporate park system program needs; distribution based on existing facilities and space availability; capital long-range improvement, maintenance and management needs; as well as a projected time line for implem- entation. A quality park and recreation syste the quality of life as a whole. It is an vital and viable and should not stagnate. a quality park and recreation system is a community. To provide that service in a needs of the conununity, it is recommended sider the reassessment of the Richfield pa review, consideration, and input from the visory Commission and the Planning Commiss council would tentatively be scheduled for on. Action by the c late November, 1980. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~i~ ~ -, ~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Services Director m contributes greatly to investment. It must be For the City of Richfield, n essential service to the quality manner and meet the The following are tentative timetable options: December, 1980 and Reviewal and re-evaluation of January & February, 1981 Preliminary Master Plan of City Parks March-April, 1981 Neighborhood Meetings for Monroe/Fairwood Park April-May, 1982 Construction Begins December, 1982 Construction Complete Option B November-December, 1980 Neighborhood Meetings for Monroe/Fairwood Park January-February-March, 1981 Reviewal and re-evaluation of Preliminary Master Plan of City Parks OR no re-evaluation whatsoever of Preliminary Master Plan April-May, 1982 Construction Begins December, 1982 Construction Complete A PARK AWD OPEM SPACE PHILOSOPHY "The move men became cnowded zoge~hen ~,n the .t.Lgh.t cub~.e~.ea os c~.~t.iee, the mane .th.ey need and eeeFz apen .apace -- .apace Son pn.ivacy on apace Son S~oeh~.ng ~age.then, space Son p.Lay and b.tnenuau.a exene~.~e an ~spaee San ne~2ax- a.t~.on and con.temp.ba~t.~on, apace Son a d~.~s.tan~ v~.ew, space ~ta aenbe man'a age-a.Ld Fz.in~sh.~p .to na~une, xa .aee gna~s~s and znee~s and clean blue 6Fzy, ~o See. .the coa.Cne~s~s as wa~ten and .the wanm~th o s s o~..~. " PARKS, RECREATION ANA OPEN SPACE. Caun~ty as Santa C.~ana P.Lann~.ng Camm~.~s~5~,an. San Jose, Ca.C~.sann~.a Febnuany 1962 "Reenea~~,on expen~.eneee ane an ~.mpon.tanz ~sae~.a.C and econom~.c pant os con.tempo.-cany Amen~.ean .2tise. Th~.~s Sac.t tib necogn~.zed by many ~.nd~v~.dua~.s and ongan~.za~t~.an~s who ha.Cd .tha.t pnov~.d~,ng adequate neenea~~.an appon~tun~.~t~.e~ San a.2.b ~.~ an ~,mpon~tan.t pub.L.ic neepons~.b.~.L~..ty. In ~suppon~ os .th~.a axZ~.~tude arse an .Lncneas~.ng numbers os .2oca~2, neg~,ona.~, and na.t~.ona~ agene.~eb wh~.ch pnov~,de some nec- nea.t~.an e env~.eea . " A USER-RESOURCE RECREATION PLANNING METHOD. Na~t~.ona~2 Adv.i..aony Counc~.~. an Regtiana~ Reenea.t~.on P.Lann~.ng. H~,dden Va~.Cey, Loam~.6, Ca.~~.sonn.ia 1954 "Open .apace, no.t mene~.y panh..a, tid needed Son bnea~th~.ng ~spaee, as space Son pnodue~.Lye ex.tnae.t~.on ~.ndu~s~ny, ass space Son neenea.t~.on, gn.eeneny, pno~ee~~.on and pne~senva.t~.an os ne~souneeb, Son na.tuna~ beauty and ecen~,c va.Cue. Open .apace~s can pno~tec.t ours waken eupp.~y, pnav~.de eapac~.~ty San h.cgh-wa.ten S~.owb, and pnav~.de open wayb Son h~.Fzen~s, cyc.2~.~s~~s, honaebaek n~.den.a, anowmab~..2en.a, eh.~.~n~s, and even wa~.h.en~s." PROPOSALS FOR PRESERVING A METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACE SYSTEM. Open Space Adv~..aony Cam- m.~.t.tee. M~.nneapo.~~.s, M~.nne.aa.ta Januany 1969 "GJhen one eon.ac~.oue.2y .taFzed ~.n.to aeeaun~ ass many os the b~.a.bog~.ca.L, phya~.ca.2 and eoe~.a.~ ~.n.tenne.~a~t~.on~sh~.pe ae poee~.b.be ~,n eone~.den~.ng van~.ous k~.nd~ os panFz.a and pank pnogname San a neg~.on, na~t~.on, on gnoup as na~t~.onb, he tib engag~.ng ~.n p.~ann~,ng a ya~ema os panF~.a, on panh. ay~s~tema p.~ann~.ng . t3KHUtR & ~lf•~ARY F I fJ;~ I ~dG 1. Total park area to population ratio is about two- thirds (2/3) of the Minneapolis figure and only a little more than one-third (1/3) of the present ratio in the two suburban communities compared. 2. Most suburban systems ignore the cultural objective, and Richfield is no exception. The recent preser- vation of an historic farmstead (Bartholomew House) on school property and the existence of a small wild flower garden (untended) are "cracks in the wall'' but not enough to register on our systems analysis. 3. The ornamental aspects of suburban parks are also overlooked, but in Richfield, ornamentation barely exists, being one-sixth (1/6) of that in the Minneapolis system and less than half of that found in the least of the two suburban systems compared. 4. Geographical distribution of facilities is good, ` ornamental and conservation elements are concen- trated in a few large parks mostly in the north and north central regions of the city. 5. Park sites are fragmented and scattered, a fact ~ which reduces the effect, and value of the total system impact upon the community. 6. frost parks, and all community-wide areas are easily ° accessible by means of the collector and arterial ~- street system within the city. _ } . ~ ° ti :. i, _ 1 f -, 5 ~~ 7 SUi~1~~1ARY RECOf`1('•'lEidUAT I UPdS 1. Additional parklands should be acquired by purchase or lease to bring the total area to at least 600 acres, or a projected ratio of about 12 acres per thousand future population. 2. The entire system must be given ornamental park character. Ground forms, water features, and plant material should be added in significant quantity and quality. The concern for care and maintenance of "the park beautiful" must precede and follow the investment. N 3. Recreation facilities must be effectively assimila- z _ ted into the ornamental park area rather than over- ° powering it. Large-scale, competitive field game ~' areas should be concentrated in large sites apart ~- from adjacent residential development. 4. Specific plans for acquisition, development and re- 0 ` development be authorized immediately for the fol- lowing sites: `~ a. Redevelopment of An Existing Park- a "showcase" " - example of the "new look o First Priority - Roosevelt Park `' Second Priority - Lincoln Park "' Third Priority - Augsbury Park ~=°~ " " F. ' new b. Ac uisition - Desi n - Develo ment of a } P a r k - ~~'' First Priority - Legion Lake 4< Second Priority - Taft Park Expansion ~ Third Priority - Richfield Lake 5. Commitment for u ti 1 i zati on of P•1etropol i tan Airports -' Commission properties should be pursued and estab- lished as soon as long-range airport plans are determined . `'~ :j~~: 6. Play Environments should be developed rather than ~. ;:~~, groups of play things. ;~. Open space park and recreation lands and facilities need to be planned so that the several pieces become a cohesive whole. Any one portion of park land within the system is important. The magnitude of that impor- tance is an arithmetic progression when any one piece of park and recreation open space land is an integral part of and complementary physically and programatic- ally to other park lands. A park system is only as good as the sum total of its components, not unlike a highway system. Consider the physical closing of a short segment of I-35W in the spring and its subsequent affect on transportation when one segment fails. The i ntegri ty of any system depends on several factors , but most important is a set of OBJECTIVES which become the ELEMENTS of the system. These ELEMENTS are: * Conservation the preservation of sig- - nificant natural amenities such as lakes, streams, rapids, bog, forest, meadow, signifi- cant land forms, watershed areas, bluffs, etc. Preservation from destruction by all forms of N urban enroachment. Natural amenities once de- ~, stroyed are lost forever. There is no tomorrow ~ in the reconstruction of natural amenities re- gardless of physical or economic committment. '~ Man, with all his technological advancements ~' cannot replace the visual effects of creation ~ and time within the natural environment. LL, It is imperative that conservation of natural resources be one of the primary thrusts of the m Park and Recreation Open Space system, and con- ° servation within urban areas requires manage- ment and interpretation. ~ * Ornamentation the decoration on the . w urban cake. Ornamentation is realized primari- ~ ly through developing and maintaining the park "' beautiful- hi 1 is , water, grass , trees , '- flowers, shrubs, etc. The objectives of a park v~ are predecated on an experience seeing, feeling, smelling. An experience that culmi- pp g, an inner feeling nates in a mood, a ha enin '~ heightened by a variety of potentials, the very ~ essence of a park. Q a * Culture facilities such as historical places or structures, museums, statues, foun- tains, gardens, theatres, etc. are often found in or are themselves parks. These parks can be ~= - BRAUER & ASSOCIATES, INC. $ ~` x t t -j- ~~_.. - g L ~ rr Y2~+~=''.'~aa+F/~~xa. 2 _'.`:lam ig, - ~ ,- { ss. - S_ t~ t ~ ~ ...~ ~ 5 t~ 'T1` ~,~"ra~_[. ~- ? _'_ N... ~t.c2 ~+ yk .~ ~~ j. ,T ,y[ ~ ~' ~- 4 ~~- _i dtn'7"im4Z~a~~yiL~.aw s~R'ST.~~` ~ -~8I'1~~..'~:1Li. 4 -~.'~T'-~@~.t~~a5i~s~.Y~%2`i~a}'a-.~v_b ~`.'4L.'_'T +'.:`$•~rCCL~~r ~tSl i.i`~L1v "<3i.~zti~a'' `.' very restricted enclosed or open spaces . The enclosed spaces can be either structural (man made) or physical (natural) consisting of earth forms and vegetative growth. The open spaces can be as expansive as each respective site is adaptable to use. These facilities, enclosed or open can convey either an active or passive mood that will be supplemental and complementa- ry to the total park system. * Recreation to recreate, to re-create, to experience, to participate - both active and passive. Areas and facilities for both active and passive recreation, including childrens play areas, picnicking, golf, bird watching, boating, hiking, field games, plus every other activity that involves participation by the in- dividual. Recreation experiences should be constantly evaluated in view of present pro- gramming and altered through deletion or expan- sion of program diversity to stimulate partici- pation by the individual. Planning for recrea- tion experiences should be a continuing process of planning in terms of program evaluation measured against the natural and man made re- sources available. * Reserve the capacity of any park system to be flexible and allow for change, respond to increased demand, new needs, new opportunities and simple breathing space. A park system is not unlike other- systems in that frequent or extended use to maximum limits will often cause a breakdown or a failure. It is imperative that sufficient land area be set aside to ac- comodate program extension or expansion as well as reinterpretation. * Operations and Maintenance. a park system needs continuous care for efficient utilization of space. Parks operation and maintenance may not be a park objective; but, each is essen- tial to the park system in affording a poten- tial experience to each park user. u, ~-- U w co 0 w ~- N a i i i SPECIFIC FI~~DIP~GS 1. PARK AREA Richfield's total park area falls below the recommended standard of 20 acres of park RICHFIELD land per 1000 people. This MINNEAPOLIS is an important factor be- COMMUNITY A cause there is little remain- COMMUNITY B ing open space for future park development. _ 2. CULTURE Most suburban park plans ig- MINNEAPOLIS nore the cultural elements of a complete park system. RICHFIELD Art and the arts, history and COMMUNITY A formal environment are impor- COMMUNITY 6 tant and must be included. 3. ORNAMENTATION Richfield devotes only 8.4% of their park land to ornamen- tation as compared to 30% of MINNEAPOLIS the Minneapolis system. In- RICHFIELD crease in the percent of or- COMMUNITY A namentation provides a more COMMUNITY B enhancing park character. ',AUER & ASSOCIATES, PARK ACRES PER 1000 PEOPLE 0 3 6 6 12 15 18 21 24 ~--~ ----F---F-i OF TOTAL AREA 1.1 2 2.1 0 1 'L 3 X1.3% 0.0% ' 0.0% 0.0% OF TOTAL AREA 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 30.0°0 5.0% 12.3% 16.2% 22 ~- - -- ~~3` - -- ..-. ,~ I _ -q 3 __-} y s .. ,: ~' _ 4. CONSERVATION '~ Fortunatel R' y ichfield has been able to preserve the natural- amenities of Wood Lake and some of Richfield Lake. 5. RESERVE MINNEAPOLIS RICHFIELD COMMUNITY A COMMUNITY B Reserve is a vital element in MINNEAPOLIS any system and must be pro- RICHFIELD vided for future changes, even COMMUNITY A in a community which has ap- parently reached full develop- COMMUNITY B ment. 6. RECREATION Recreation has long been "the" park element and is in some MINNEAPOLIS suburban communities as much RICHFIELD as 80% of the total system. In COMMUNITY A Richfield, a reasonable ratio has been maintained. COMMUNITY B OF TOTAL AREA OF TOTAL AREA OF TOTAL AREA 0 10 20 30 40 27.3% 22.5% 39.6% 13.3% -~4-: ; 3 BRAVER & ASSOCIATES, INC. - ~ ~, - f; { ~, 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20 7. MAINTENANCE Park maintenance and administration facilities are not located in park areas. This situation will change, par- ticularly if a golf course would be developed. 8. FACILITIES Geographical distribution of facilities is good, but ornamental and conservation elements are concentrated in a few large parks mostly in the north and north cen- tral regions of the city. ~~. , :~` i ~' 9. PARK SITES ' The total within to preventttheu.scatteringnof~elementselationship 10. ACCESS Even though Interstate 35W Bisects the city into two separate areas the city facilities are easily accessible. 11. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Neighborhood parks are not strategically located within residential neighborhoods, physically, and probably sociologically as well. ,::,. ~ ._ 25 BRAUER & ASSOCIATES, INC. - ~ ~ ~ _ E Y' r BFC0~1P~ NDATIONS 1. Park and recreation open space lands should be ac- quired by purchase or lease to bring the total park area to 600 acres. This park acreage would realize about 12 acres per' 1000 population (future) based on present projections. 2. Immediate consideration should be given to steps which will stimulate public or private interests in the cultural elements of a park system (fountains, gardens, historic sites, facilities for performing arts). 3. Ornamental park character is a necessity throughout -- the entire system. Topographic land forms, water features, and plant material must be added in sig- nificant quantity to supplement present plant mate- rials. A concern for a continuing maintenance pro- gram as an integral part of the parks budget must be programmed annually. 4. The Wood Lake Conservation - Interpretive Center must be developed, managed and interpreted for the benefit of the community. 5. Character of future urban populations and their need for recreation and open space is bound to change. Reserve capacity is as necessary today as it ever was. 6. Development of recreation facilities must be assimi- lated within the ORNAMENTAL park rather than be- coming the dominant feature. Active competitive field games should be concentrated in large park areas to allow for adequate visual and physical sep- aration from other park uses and adjacent residen- tial development. 7. Maintenance of facilities and space reauire more committment of the "Three M's" - manpower, machines, and material. All three add up to the fourth "M" - ~ money. L -~ ¢`w - BRAUER & ASSOCIATES INC. 27 _ _ - ~ -- - i ~ r? ~, L ~,~ ..y - ~ ;:.as 3. ~~ ~ k: ~ `- °` ~ ,a; ~fu6«2 y k ,z==~."*r~z v~:-+~~-[C ~f _ - .., .,Tstrt,~ -- --° ''-.k~a.3rie~~s3x¢:~'iw ~:; :.."~.~ -_.waE+~a -~ L~S~.~:'=. .~..:,sy-i~;~:..3~..` ~~ 8. A rearran ement of ever ark site will rovide a p p 9 ~ _ . better distribution of ornamental park elements but the fact that the open space opportunity has 'passed means that a well balanced system is not possible. 9. Specific plans for acquisition, development and re- development be authorized immediately for the fol- lowing sites: a. Redevelo ment of An Existin Park - a "showcase" examp e of the New Look - First Priority - Roosevelt Park Second Priority - Lincoln Park Third Priority - Augsburg Park b. Acquisition - Design - Development _of__a "new" Park - First Priority - Legion Lake Second Priority - Taft Park Expansion Third Priority - Richfield Lake 10. Early consideration should be given to the design and development of ornamental, non-park, urban spaces to augment the park system, such as spaces in and around commercial centers, and community buildings, possible pedestrian or bicycle paths, railroad and utility easement sp-aces, and vehicular parkways. 11. Commitment for utilization of Metropolitan Airports Commission properties should be pursued and estab- lished as soon as long-range .airport plans are de- termined. 12. A joint (Richfield - Edina) development plan for an expanded Adams Hill Park should be pursued in the near future. '~ 13. A complete park program must be the focus of action, and a comp lete program includes five factors, five ~i "P's", in order of importance: ...first, PURPOSE. Why have parks at all? Unless a~efinition, criteria, list of objec- ~j tives, statement of policy, can be put forth, considered, and adopted, no one will ever know if the system succeeded `: or not .... PURPOSE can't be established by a consultant - it is a community re- sponsibility: t1 s _ ~ BRAUER & ASSOC IATES, INC. 29 ~q ~' ~ ~ ~ t L ~ ~ ~ ~ - - t f> !L .C : ~ ~~ -. !' 2" ~ ! ~ ~ .'r , ~. ~ t ~k h i~ p ~ d ' ~ r S+ ~ ^~ t ft _. `~ } r~'r ~~~K&Y~.iSf .W.1 /' :.. P ~ f j'. i1tL .t ~5,~'i :~Y.{.~t/. L?i3V~ SaT' ~viKY S1ch~~,,~Y'a3A.V~.L'~'s.rf_1Kti}I~.9A~Ivrt~~1?~.l:i....: ~.... ... ... ~~s.'7iS}~ ~~Y`~.~- bt_57aL~n'+k'~aa{Y~.19" ~r~bSoiBr' aAYi~~ti Ra9i1 ...second, PERSONNEL. People make things go, and thats particularly true of anything that ~~ proposes to serve people. Planning, ad- ministration, maintenance, and activity direction all require skilled, motivated _ and dedicated people: ...third, PARTICIPATION. If the population to be served is not involved - if the program does not require participation at every level, it is doomed to an early failure, or is raw material for reaction: ...fourth, PROGRESSION of experiences, of par- ticipation, of facilities to meet new needs and requirements, as well as a progression of activities and opportuni- ties in recreation for the individual as well as the group. ...fifth, PHYSICAL FACILITIES from basic site improvements all the way through formal gardens and fountains the "things" people need in order to use and enjoy parks and open spaces. 14. Play Environment should be developed rather than groups of play things. ~;~ - ~~it~, '~ ~ BRAUER & ASSOCIATES, INC. - ~.` ~ 31 ~- ,.: ~, -y. ~ -.. ,tin--- '.AB ~z e-~~i]vr-~t..5~i.~r~r ~.-_.:a s~+fs. ....>.,-.~~Y ~.-~- ~.- .~?~M~..,4.rd~'.~<.L:.f:a,:.. ~`-.re .a:f~..~~'~+:-,..~~:-.i~i..§.,~>;~-e.it3.~~dti5 `-~'-:~e`"}w...~a e~s~~; y :,... PARK NOMENCLATURE COMMUNITY PARK Location: In one or more areas of the city, depending upon natural features. Age Group: All ages. Service Area: Within walking or driving distance for all residents. Average: One hundred acres or more. One park for every 50,000 persons. Features: Open lawn and wooded areas, scenic drives, lakes, ponds, and areas for sports and games and path system. May include swimming pool, ice arena, and community center. PLAYFIELD Location: Centrally located in an area comprising a group of neighborhoods. Age Group: Ages thirteen and over. Service Area: Within 3/4 to 2 miles of every home. Acreage: 15 to 30 acres or more. One playfield per 20,000 population. Features: Open areas for sports, including fields and courts for softball, football, baseball, soccer, tennis and basketball (lighted if possible), lighted hockey and general skating rink, shade area, children's play area, and park building. May also include a neighborhood park playground. NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PLAYGROUND Location: In neighborhood area - may be located on elementary school site, on separate site adjacent to elementary school or on separate site. Age Group: All ages from preschool to senior citizens. Service Area: Within 1/4 to 3/4 mile of every home. Acreage: 3 1/2 to 15 acres. Features: Lawn, shrubbery, picnic and shade areas, path system, park shelter, baseball-softball field, hockey rink, general skating rink, paved court-games area, field games area, and children's play area. Po~~~- P~~ QUESTION: HOW SHOULD PARK AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT BE FI~dANCED? ANSWER: 1. Float bond and repay with liquor store profits and user fees. 2, Bond Issue Committed to parks. 3. Bond issue, 4. Floating a bond issue, and retirement of debt by liquor profits. We do not run our own personal finances on a pay as you go basis, why should we do it with the recreation of the City. We propose that there should be a Board of interested ' poeple to, first of all, spearhead the organization to float a bond issue. If we try to leave this meeting and go our own way, we will have nothing but if we organize all special interest groups and try to finance many interests, we believe that we could have an excellent park system in the near future. 5. Bond issue - Liquor Store $5.00 on $22,000 home - two children b. Bonds paid- by Liquor Store profits or revenue. 7. A bond must be passed, It could be financed by higher taxes and partially from future liquor store profits. We now pay $5.00 per household towards Park and Recrea- tion, in the form of taxes. Overall guide - A Citizens Committee to advise and assist Park Dept. 8. Bond Issue - sell it: Let's go for improving things now at today's costs. Supported by liquor revenues and consideration of a 3rd liquor outlet 9. Preferab9e, finance both the short and long range plan through bond issue and Liquor and get the things that have to be done now. Assuming a bond issue will pass, if there is available funds from liquor that will not be needed until funds are available from the bond issue, borrow them to get started immediately, and repay after bond funds are available. Use the bond funds to do the immediate things for the present facilities and purchase of new sites. Develop the new sites from Liquor revenues. QUESTION: WHAT PRIORITY DO YOU HAVE FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED NEEDS? ANSWER: 1. Concentrate on a few sites and completely develop these areas. 2~ Implement the Brauer Report as soon as possible. 3, A. The setting up of a Board to recommend needs and priorities to be made up of various community interests. B. The acquisition of all lands possible for sale or lease, C, The improvement of maintainence by the allotment of more manpower and money. D. The upgrading of all parks now in existence on a planned basis. - 4. Maintenance and lighting, water, lavatories, trash cans; be sure to follow through on plans; part time summer help for High School students 15 and older. 5. Golf; Ice Arena (a big one - 3500 seats) 6. INCREASE OUR MANPOWER. The above (see # 6 under "most important needs") minor general imporvements should be our priority. We should start now to acquire vacant land for future park use. 7. To develop Underdeveloped or undeveloped park areas to relieve some of the pressure on the highly used parks so they, in turn, can be improved. 8. First develop a plan: safety for our present facilities and maintenance and general clean-up of there, Safe access and equipment. Beautification of our present facili- ties. Development of the present facilities such as culture centers, etc. QUESTION: WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT NEEDS OF THE RICHFIELD PARK AND RECREATION SYSTEM' ANSWER ~- Additional maintenance staff be acquired to service existing facilities. Comple- tion of started projects. Acquire more land, 2. Ornamentation trees, play areas for young children, facilities for senior citizens, competative Spirts, indoor swimming, golf. Definition of neighborhood in regard to parks and playgrounds. Need small area parks. Need more cooperation with schools. Location of park and its activities should be tied to traffic plans. Small children and old people shouldn't have to walk far< 3. The acquisition of all lands possible for sale or lease: The upgrading of a]1 parks now in existence on a planned basis. The setting up of a Board to recommend needs and priorities to be made up of various community interests. -The improvement of maintenance by allotment of more manpower and money. 4. Maintenance -lighting-develop parks so all may enjoy them - picnic tables or benches - create public interest - update summer program - year around swimming pool preferably on the west side - more tennis courts. 5. A comprehensive recreation system to include all activities where reasonable use can be shown at the least cost both to build and maintain and to be self sustaining if possible. 6. Organized sports such as softball should be segregated away from private residences. Roosevelt is extremely over worked in this sense. Softball could be moved to a less populated area such as the airport. Plant adequate size trees and some sod in every park. This will not cost much but will make the park more park-like. Cleaning up - organized teams should clean up when their game is over such as Little League does. 7. Obtain fill from whatever sources are available to make swampy parks usable, Do something to make what we call parks, parks in a real sense: Community house for youth and adult activities (square dances), youth dances - senior citizen activity. A place for our young people to congregate. Maintaining a park is fine but let's first improve them to a desirable level and then maintain them at that point, Ac- quisition by purchase or or lease of airport area for golf, area near Taft Park for enlarging it. 8. Short and Long Range plans needed. Short Range - General clean up and maintenance of our present faci~ities. Add ne~,~~ equipment where needed. Picnic tables, beautifi- cation.. Under all play equipment there should be sand or wood chips (no concrete, pavement or hard surface). Trash containers at all parks. Long Range - Planning for the Future - Purchase of new sites and the development of them. Porky Pig trash receptical to be designed with building. ~t 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 380 Agenda October 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Cable Television Advisory Committee Recommendation ~~~ /\~~ ~v~ Due to the time considerations meeting, and the deliberations by t Commission, I transmitted the advis between the advisory committee's LO Lne .7UULI1WeSL .7UlJU.CUci11 l.d1J1C l.Vllutl1751V11 vii vV ~vLCl. cc. , ~ ~vv . The SWSCC took note of the recommendations made by our advisory committee. As has been true in the past, I am sure that the SWSCC lent a great deal of credability to our advisory committee since the performance that they have displayed has been excellent. as well as receiv the publ the final report from After allowing for all ngst the five cities, with each city voting on and third choice. The respective first place, third place votes were added up with the low the winning applicant. The vote tallies were s second place, and vote getter being as follows: Council Letter No. 380 -2- 1st Place Eden Prairie Minnesota Edina Minnesota Hopkins Minnesota Minnetonka Northern Richfield Minnesota meet with tr which would Cablevision. October 27, 1980 2nd Place Northern Northern Northern Teleprompter Northern nts. The SWSCC has requested their legal counsel to e five city attorney's and put together an ordinance award the cable television franchise to Minnesota On a chart which I prepared and have attached to this letter, I analyzed the recommendations made by the consultant on the ions aspects of the cable television franchise. I organized e e e ser- ve tied hich selected markets an In my estimation area. The third a pects of the cable This includes engineering and financial upon the .consultants recommendation, it accounted for 3% of the rating, with t Corporation being the most favorable i proposal on a composite basis was the S6VSCC action is the same which I would been a voting member of the SWSCC. a the overall weignring Minnesota submitted the rea is the area covering television proposals. ramifications. Based appears clear to me that 3rd Place Teleprompter Teleprompter Teleprompter Minnesota Teleprompter The SWSCC will be meeting on November 12, 1980 to review and finalize an ordinance for recommendation to the five city councils. As we discussed before, the City Council of the City of Richfield will have a proposed ordinance on the November 24, 1980 city council meeting to award the franchise to the SWSCC's recommended franchisee. Second reading of the ordinance will occur at the December 8, 1980 regular city council meeting, with a public hearing held at that time. The lobbying prohibition which the city council imposed upon the cable companies in their relationships with our city council continues to stay in force through the termination of the franchising process. The fran- chise process to date has been aboveboard and handled exception- ally well. I hope that we will be able to continue this high level of consideration of the franchise application. var- ter have assigned if I had Council Letter No. 380 -3- panies which would best meet the needs of the Needs Assessment Report issued by the Advisory Committee. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberg`~r City Manager KN/eja cc: Cable Television Advisory Committee ~ . ~.. RICHFIELD CABLE TELEVISION ADVISORY COMMITTEE • Minutes of Meeting October 21, 1980 7:00 p.m. Richfield City Hall Conference Room a Present: Emil Shipka, Lee Sveum, Shirley Taylor, Olin Bray Al Oster, Liz Swanson Absent: Rosalie Cornell The cable television advisory committee met to continue their discussion of the three cable television proposals and their re- sponses to the Needs Assessment Report issued by the committee in 1979. The committee used the evaluation format suggested by the Cable Television Information Center (CTIC) and Chapter VI of the preliminary and final CTIC Evaluation. The ten service categories were as follows: 1-broadcast signal carriage 2-special interest programming 3-automated programming 4-local origination 5-access support 6-paid services 7-interactive services e-tier structure 9-FP~I,-audio and shortwave services 10-service to in;;t:itutior,s In acrd .tior,, the committee felt that the 1 1 th category of rate discounts for seniors and homebound persons should be consid- ered. The committee received letters from Juanita Collins, Council Member and representative to the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission, Wayne Courtney, Chairman of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission, and Ralph Bruins, President of Richfield Summit Bank. The letters were received into the file.. Mr. John Hamilton, member of the Rich- field School Board, spoke in favor of NIinnesota Cablevision's prop- osal as the best cable television proposal for the Richfield Commun- ity. After reviewing all of the eleven service proposals outlined above, the committee discussed how to make recommendation to the city council. The alternative approaches were to provide the city council with recommendations for each of the 11 areas without a overall concensus of the 11 areas combined. An alternative proposal was to provide a concensus recommendation on the 11 areas. Motion was made by Al Oster, seconded by Lee Sveum, to take an Australian ballot with three points for the top position of each voter, two points for the second position of each voter, and one point for the third position for each voter, for the entire 11 item package and transmit that to the city council. Four ayes, two nayes (Taylor and Shipka). Upon further discussion, the city manager indicated that -2- he did not feel that it was appropriate for a public committee to take a secret ballot, and did not understand that an Australian ballot automatically meant a secret ballot. The committee decided they did not want to use that form of a vote without making it secret. Motion made by Shirley Taylor, seconded by Liz Swanson, to reco}nmend to the city council the following firms as it relates to specific program areas: Broadcast signal carriage - Minnesota/Teleprompter Special Interest programming - Northern Automated programming - Unclear Pay Services - Northern Tiered Structures - Local Choice FM, Audio and Shortwave Services - Teleprompter Compilation of the above six services - consultant recommendation- Minnesota/Northern Local Origination - Teleprompter Access Support - Minnesota Interactive Services - Minnesota/Northern Service to Institutions - Local Choice Discount rate for seniors - Minnesota/Teleprompter Three ayes, two nayes (Lee Sveum and Olin Bray, and one absten- tion, Al Oster). Olin Bray indicated that he questionned the finan- cial position of one of the companies due to their negative income indicated in their proposal. The city manager indicated that that was outside the area which the committee had decided to discuss, but was certainly available for discussion if the committee so desired. Lee Sveum indicated that he was only opposed to the senior discounts. Al Oster indicated that he questioned this method of making a recommendation. He felt that the three companies were equal on a composite basis. Al Oster moved, Lee Sveum seconded a motion to adjourn. All ayes - Motion Carried. ~n~ ~- V ~)- Vim: ~,.;Q._~ ~ Karl Nollenberge a~ ~ w O lD ~ t--(`~MN r aNMIDI~O r ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ t' N I I I I N ~ r-- .- c- ~ c- ~ ~ I I I I I i 1 1 1 1 I I I i i l l I aaww a s w wwaw a wwwwww a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro pro ~ U -~ ~ +~ U z s~ ~ •~I 0 ~ ~ ~ O cn r ul •ul O L`~ +~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ cn a~ ~ '~ °~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~A~~, U ~~~~ ~~~ z ~,~ W U R'~O >w Qwq ~ ~ M y~y.~~ p n •~-i iU ~ rob+ z3 ro~~ro~J R,~_~ O +~ O •~ ul > O O O t11 O .~ p ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ wao ~ ~~~ M N z ~ ~ ~, ~~ ~ a j N N •7-~ R: H N ~ ~ Q,..S CJ O ~ U O O~ •ri v v ~ ;-~ O N O O N O H U O ~ ~ U N ~ ~ z U z z H z •~+ a +~ ~ ro \ •~ ~ O :~ \ •rl \ \ \ \ xCO ~ O ~+ ~. roroO ro ror,~ ro \ v,_., ~~ o~+;~ ~ v o ro oooU o 000000 ~ r•+ ~ cn U ro a~ ~ +~ ~, cn m ro ~ cn cn cn m ~ ~ U ~ p ~ .-~ n~ o n~ v a~ ,-, .~ 0 v~ m 0 m u 2 H N~ U~ °i ~ ro v cn U ro O ~~ w ~ ~ ~' ~ o a ~ ~ `~ U W U ~ ~C •'~ r-1 U bi o °rpi b ~ ~ ~ N w ~~ ~ ypa p ~ •~+~ U (n ~W v ~ ~ ~ •~ C1~NH ~ U•iU 41(!~ ~s ~ ~ ,-+ cs a ~ o .-r ~ ~,~.~ ~ ' J iU C7 U 4J C1 '~ ~ ~ ~(A~ a E"~ ~ H W ~ ~ CnCJ)UU~(Aw~H .~ .: i' rl ro .,~ (-~ ~3 .~ .-1 O a I N 1 U ~ ~ ~ }.~ ~-- r ~ ~''1 4-a ~~~~ U O .,.~ +~ ~ ~~ U ~ t r --<=~ ; _. e~ ~ ~ O U 4-1 O ~~ N ~~ U ~ +~ to c O Qa Q ~ N ~ (ll C7 O ~\ ~~-~~ O O W ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ O •~ `a~z~. N QJ Sa r-1 .~ ~ ~ ~' ~ 0 0~ U ~ ~ ~ ul ,~ u _rn_ ~N N 1 '! 'i H Gc.i CIa Cia QJ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ N ~ O ~ ~-1 Sa U U ~~+~ 'v7 ~ O ~ 4-a R~.~ •~ ~ O N r~ +~ E-~+ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i;S ~~ ~ ~ ~ O O U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~U ~ r ~ ~I h ,~, ~ td a-+ ~ M O Z N ~ O N J ~~ z° ,= •~ oa a N ~ •~ •~ ~ ~ ,t ~ ri •~ ~;~~ ~~~ w ~ U .,.~ ~ ~ +~ ab'w cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn 3 ~~ E o ~ QJ w~u'~i O ~ ~ S O U ~f~~, •~i ' J W i ~ r~i (~ '~ G'2 G7 O ~` 2 -~ ~ O O H .r., .,., ow N c~ ~ ~ 4-a U 'LJ •~ ~ 7 -~ ~; r~ r c'P M ~-I r-1 ~ ~ ~ •~II •~ W .C .~ U ~; ~~ S~t' ~ •~ ~~ ~ a `r ~ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City P~Ianager Council Letter No. 379 Agenda October 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Sidewalk Improvement Program Policy At the October 13, 1980 council meeting, the city council dis- cussed a program for improving the city's sidewalk network. At that time, the staff was requested to develop a resolution for future coun- c i]_ consideration which would outline the sidewalk policy discuss- ions tentatively established by the city council at that meeting,. The attached resolution would establish the following sidewalk policy: 1. Sidewalks shall be constructed on both sides of all arterial streets within the city, as indicated in Exhibit B. 2. 3. 4. ne side of all as indicated in Exhibit D. ~~va.~. ~vv~. ~.v~~. iiic JNCl,1Q1 ciJbCJ5lltClll, tU1 51C1e- walks constructed adjacent to commercial property shall be 50% of the front foot cost. tilmost ail or the sidewalks on arterial acid collector streets are eligible for funding through the Municipal State Aid (M.S.A.) Fund (gas tax revenues). Cost estimates for construction of side- walks on arterial and collector streets, as described in the policy, are included in Exhibits A and C. Exhibit E shows future city projects scheduled to be financed with M.S.A. Funds, according to the proposed Budget and program. In line with th e last meeting, I have increased the to complete the arterial system in 19 In addition, handicap ramps will be built on all existing sidewalk intersections if such have not previously been built. Council Letter No. 379 -2- October 27,-1980 per year has been set aside for sidewalk construction. The 1981 cost estimates should be fairly accurate, both as to cost and tim- ing and money. The project as proposed will be financed with an estimated $160,000 per year of M.S.A, monies and approximately $25,000 in special assessment funds. This $185,000 will construct 18,500 feet of sidewalk or approximately 28 long city blocks. This project size would provide the economy of scale to hold unit prices down. The staff recommends that the council instigate a sidewalk proj- ect beginning next year following the schedule depicted below. 1981 18,750 feet 76th Street 1982 12,250 feet All remaining arterial (except Lyndale between 67th and I-494) 1983 14,700 feet Collector Streets 1982 12,000 feet Lyndale Avenue (67th to I-494) In conjunction with the street project. Respectfully submitted, ti ~, Nv~+ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community Development Director Administrative Services Director City Engineer EXHIBIT C Collector Streets Approximate Length of Uncompleted Sidewalk 65th Street, Penn - Xerxes Avenue 69th Street, Humboldt - Xerxes Avenues 73rd Street, 12th, Lyndale, Portland Avenues Lake Shore Drive, 66th Street - Lyndale Ave. Diagonal Blvd., 12th Avenue - Cedar Avenues 12th Avenue, 76th - 78th Streets Cedar Avenue, 63rd - 77th Streets Total Length 14,700 Lin. Ft. @ $10.00/Lin. Ft. _ $147,000 1,500 5,100 2,400 1,100 2,900 1,20.0 500 14,700 vJ t~~-+ a _~ W Q H W U W a a 0 U 0 v H W H Exhibit D C o~ t e~ t e ,.. ... a i~-~~ ~ ,s >• n _r,~~, k t C I • .s.o`u :~ 2 f t a.. as ! r=te„-l ~: ,...d ~' ~i-JC=L ~_ - r . r0 ~-- - r-~~; ~ .-_ ~ ____ ..-. -. --=r.. r--~ n. .« 7 I I~J~~~~LT~1r__ L_J~ ~~r-~~ I~ v.. vino. ~J ~ 1 1f -_.. ~ ~_J~ ~~ - i_ --J~_ a.. ..c r ~~ r ^-~F~ ~- r ~~ «. ~~_ ? s, a~. b,.r» ~ I ~ ~ I I ~- -~ 'u 1 `I ~ ~• I T~-~' ~.. ~,,,~. ~ -, ,- - L~ .~~_ l.. x.ao.a~v ~---~~-' ~-~!-JC ~_J~ , ~l_i~ _. w ,..:.a,. ~ ~ --1 - --- - w ama ~ J, i-J' -~~~~ Ft Ir~j__v/ ~ _` ~ ~ c i ~a~' a~...n. ~--:~'~': LL !-~~ ~~ ~' u / W p --,~--- -_- -- - 8 -u...o.,., `~ 1 3 .. 1 ... - ~ w aw.. - ;-~ - -..-__-..._..__- ~ J w .wo ,~ iI- lr~,=,~"~ - t ~' i ----~ ~ J ~i~. ~~ 00 4I W C r. z ~~ a r ? 5 (~) ~ ~r~ fy$ - ~' -- ~ 4 '1 _ ~~~: ~_~ _ ~C~ -~~,_ -- -~ _- ,~~ ~ ~~. -~~ -- - ~~ ~: _ L_ s '- ~i i` d ; _r z' r~ «.a {~ !'- , i.~ II v .. ca Fi' :1 I~ a.. >,. .~a I; ~.. .., r...0,+3,9b, ~~ ,.. ~„ - I= a...,..s..mw i) I~ rs~~• a.. .~:~ i ,,.a II a,. u....... I!+ :i ,.. «. 3 is ~ . ~ ~ ,~I~I ,....~..., W ~~~ ~ ...,.a . a.. a~a.n --- -_ w +--1 3 N -~ G O 1 1 1 . ~~ i e c ~ F _ ' 1 Y Y y a Y 7 t t ` t t ! i s i i 1 t ~ ~'t i s i i s i i i ~ „.a, .rl ~..- -1~1---- ---~-------- -- '-_ i r. .r~,a .r. ~~--~! ! -~~; ~;~J ads-;~.- -~' _-- ..~...,. ~ ~ ,--, ,- ..,, .rl -----------------mss=- -~-~- - .. ..,..., I"i __ - I~_ _ t_ ~- 6`S _ ~.___~~~:.r.~. ..o. we ~ 6,'( ",.~.o,l. ~~ - ~ --, -~~ '~--lam- -~,- ~~~~ wrw..~ ,r ~~ ~,, - , _ _ l ~-- ~ 1 .,.. ~..rl fc I J ; ~ ~_J ~ ~Rw JI (~c_\ \N\ls\._ ~ _ .{ ~ E m v r ~ .u.w. rll 5C . ~l ~ - 1 -- - _ J_R_. ~~ _ - ~ , , D. ¢ ~a,c, ..: i>_ttttt~~ - - ~ -_ , r~ - ~ _ l~r~ttttt~r ¢ ,' ~ :~,.~, .r< ~JI I j~ cn ~ 1,.....rl • !`i ;mil ~~` = ~~~~~ _~-- ~~ --, - ~ ~,..a .rl ~ >~. ..c ~;,~ ~~ --.. '--, a~ ~~.-_~~ ~ _ __ ~ .,. era ~h~ L-11-~~ -~- .--~J~-J'am'` _ _ _ ~....K .,...l f~I, , __ ~~ - _ - w..K €.-~ ~~ ii 11 - - ,~_~~ _ ~i5 t rtl -- - -~;-~ a....rl ~' - -.-.--- - - -- lld..rl a m -j a a a ~'''' iry ~ ~ \ ~ O .a 4 D ~ /~ ! ICI _ __________ _ ~/ \\ s ~zaTuX~ ~3 1 H r H d t~J r x s° 000'0£x$ _ '~3 'uT7/00'OT$ ~ '~3 'u?Z 000'£ 000'£i~ u~buaz Tp~os 00£ OOZ`T OSZ`~T 009'L OSL`8T 006 xT~nsapzg pa~aTduiooun ~o u~buaZ a~~uizxozddy anuan~ pu~T~zod anuan~ ~aTToo-rN anuan~ aT~pu~2 anuan~ uuaa ~aaz~S ~i~9L ~aaz~S u~99 s~aaz~S T~zza~z~ `d S,IgIHXH RESOLUTION ~ NO. (~~~ j WHEREAS, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota desires to construct a unified pedestrian system in Richfield, BE IT NOW RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota that a sidewalk policy be adopted, as follows: 1 70th Street from from Lyndale Aven th Street to Lynd I-494; Bloomington Avenue from 62nd Street to 66th Street; Cedar Avenue from 63rd Street to 77th Street; Standish Avenue from 63rd Street to 66th Street and Diagonal Boulevard, shall have sidewalk installed on one side of the street. If no sidewalks exist on east- west arterial streets, new sidewalks will be installed on the north side of the street. If part of the street has existing sidewalks, continuity shall be maintained. 3. 4. A be assessed 20% of the front foot cost for new sidewalk construction. All other properties shall be assessed 50a of the front foot cost. 5. If a single family or two family lot has new sidewalks con- structed on two sides of the lot, the total assessment shall be no Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of October, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk 6. All curbs that the sidewalk crosses shall be reconstructed for a handicap ramp. ' r EXHIBIT E MSA FUNDED APPROXIMATE ARTERIAL IDEWALKS SIDEWALK PR 66th Street 900 Penn Avenue 7,600 Nicollet Avenue 1,200 ~,: Portland Avenue '~~ 300 76th Street, Sheridanj`~erx s (south side) .1.,500 TOTAL ESTIJyi'ATED LENGTH e 11, 500 11,500 Lin.J Ft. @ $10.00/Lin.Ft. _ X5115,000 OF :~a.~~ ~~ i ~ ~~ 1; e RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECL'IVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AND CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CITY PROJECT 727 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Dinnesota, as follows: 1. A preliminary report on proposed City Project 727 of the City dated the 27th day of October, 1980, prepared by the City Engineer, is hereby received and ordered to be placed on file. 2. A public hearing on s~ d proposed improvement is hereby called to be held on December ~'0, 1980, commencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M. in the council chambers in the city hall of the City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give published and mailed notice of such hearing in the manner required by law. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING PRELIMINARY REPORT ON PROPOSED CITY PROJECT 727 - SIDEWALK PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council finds that it appears necessary and desirable that the City make the assessable public improvement of sidewalk construction on 76th Street. 2. A preliminary engineering able public improvement is require improvement or any part thereof is benefited property with the City. authorized and directed to prepare proposed improvement and to submit at the earliest convenient time. report on such proposed assess- 3 by law in the event that said specially assessed against The city engineer is therefore a preliminary report on such the same to the City Council 3. Such report shall indicate the estimated cost of such proposed improvement, shall indicate whether such proposed improve- ment is feasible and whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement. 4. Such proposed improvement shall hereafter be known and designated as City Project 727. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk ~~aD CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 378 Agenda October 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: _ Subject: Resolution Providing for Polling Places Designating Judges for General Election There is an item on the October 27, 1980 city council agenda designating polling places and election judges for the general election to be held on November 4, 1980. The attached resolution provides that two judges be placed in each precinct to handle voter registration on the day of the election. State law also requires that polling places be designated before the election and the resolution provides for such designation. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, G-~. ^' t n Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ e j a cc: Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION IVO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR POLLING PLACES AND DESIGNATIPJG JUDGES FOR GEPJERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 4, 1980 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. That there will be a General Election on Tuesday, November 4, 1980. 2. TY~at said election shall be held at the polling places as herein appear specified, and that the following are hereby appointed as judges for said election: PRECINCT NUMBER POLLING PLACE FIRST SHIFT SECOND SHIFT 1. Mt. Calvary Educational Bldg.**Shirley Gisselquist Shirley Gisselquist (D) 6541 16th Avenue South Martha Siddy (R) Verla Herberg (R) f~arie Richardson (D) Millie Hines (D) Louise Carlson (R) Evelyn Pangilo (R) Joyce Morrell (R) Joyce Morrell (R) Bernice Utter (D) Blanche Goodin (D) John Gera (D) John Gera (D) Helen Soderstrom (D)*Kimberly Anderson (R) f~lyrtle Lindgren (R) Helen Soderstrom (D) Phyllis McKisson (R) Phyllis P~IcKisson (R) Jan Kispert (D) Lorraine Maki (D) 2. Richfield City Hall **Elayne GilYiousen (R) Elayne Gilhousen (R) 6700 Portland Avenue South Mary Suess (D) Mary Suess (D) *Russell King (D) Helen Peterson (D) Fern Oreck (D) Irene Janski (D) Doris l.attery (R) Doris Lattery (R) Gertrude.Sanders (R) Esther Anderson (R) Ann Burkhardt (D) Carleton Dewey (D) Carol Bissonette (R) Carol Bissonette (R) Ethel Hommes (R) Gertrude Broker (R) Marie Gera (R) Marie Gera (R) Jean Kallstrom (D) Janice Nunn (D) 3. Sheridan School **Joyce Emerson (R) Joyce Emerson (R) 64th Street at Sheridan Lois Awes (D) Lois Awes (D) Barb Belk (D) Barb Belk (D) Phoebe Nelson (R) Phoebe PJelson (R) Lucille Brandell (R) Donna Peterson (R) Donna Fischer (D) James Jungels (D) P. Lloyd McKisson (R)P. Lloyd P1cKisson (R) Ann Stensby (R) Ann Stensby (R) Linda Bloomgren (D) Linda Bloomgren (D) Jack Foeller (R) Jack Foeller (R) Lois Ball (D) Lois Ball (D) *Denotes Students **Denotes Chairpersons PRECINCT -2- NUMBER POLLING PLACE FIRST SHIFT SECOND SHIFT ~. Lincoln Hills School **David Arnold (R) David Arnold (R) 75th and Penn Avenue South Margaret Fleming(D)Dorothy Briant (D) Margaret Wagner (R)Margaret Wagner (R) Ruth Marks (R) Sue Raymond (R) Ellen Brandon (R) Ellen Brandon (R) Margaret Seeger(R)*Joyce Petersen (R) Judy Tooley (R) Judy Tooley (R) Beverly Stelman (D)Beverly Stelman (D) Linda Knotz (D) *Randy Jernberg (D) Kathleen Leckner(D)Ruth Lundquist (D) Mary Nelson (D) *Janet White (D) 5, blest Junior High School 74th and Oliver Avenue South 6. Berea Lutheran Church 76th and Emerson Avenue South 7. Central School 72nd and Harriet Avenue South **Pat Bunting (D) **Jean Lofstrom (D) Mary Janco (D) Muriel Findell (D) Franc Gray (R) Dolores Tester (R) George Hegdahl (D) Louis Couture (D) Grace Dahlien (R) *Lisa Kretzmann (R) Carolyn bJalker (D) Carolyn Walker (D) Kermit Randall (R) Kermit Randall (R) Ethel Naslund (R) *Deborah Robinson (R) Scott Myers (R) Dee Wilcox (R) Christine Stenzel(D)Christine Stenzel (D) Gerry Kleist (D) Gerry Kleist (D) **Betty Obenchain (D)Betty Obenchain (D) Alice Strom (R) *f~1ichelle Hansen (R) Mrs. Arbie Johnson(R)Frances Gunlaugson (R) Pat Brenner (D) Jan Cerny (D) Wilbur Johnson (D) Wilbur Johnson (D) Betty Halloran (R) Rachel Pritchard (R) Shirley Clough (R) Charles Fanning (R) Bernice Johnson (D)James Neuhart (D) *Carol Feist (D) *Monica Lindstrom (D) *Rebecca Harris (R)*Lon Sellentine (R) Helen Volz (R) Helen Volz (R) **Donna Vidas (R) Donna Vidas (R) Ione Lunas (D) Ione Lunas (D) Lorraine Utterberg(D)Gladys Juengling (D) Pat Farnham (R) Pat Farnham (R) Ella Haight (R) Ella Haigi~t (R) Helen Hillstrom (D)Helen Hillstrom (D) Jean Frenz (R) Jean Frenz (R) Alice Dickinson (R)Lillian Pearson (R) Fabiola Sullivan (D)*Pam Cummings (D) Shirley Dyke (D) Shirley Dyke (D) Rosemary Reynolds(R) Ralph Olson (R) *Denotes Chairpersons **Denotes Students -3- PRECINCT NUMBER POLLING PLACE FIRST SHIFT SECOND SHIFT **Eunice Aulwes (R) Eunice Aulwes (R) 8. Portland School Ruth Cotterman (R) Marion Alquist (D) 72nd and 4th Avenue Plildred Marks (R) Arthur C. Johnson (R) Margaret Cummings (R)Doris Long (R) Bernadette Lais (R) Bernadette Lais (R) h1abel Pederson (D) Ione Waller (R) Pauline Huber (R) Pauline fluber (R) P1rs. Sid Sanford (D) Mrs. Sid Sanford (D) Plonica Mullerleile ( D) Monica Mullerleile (D) Dorothy Brisbine (D) Joan Wong(D) lJilliam Sanville (D) William Sanville (D) 9. Assumption Education Bldg. **Darrell Koss (R) "*Gert Herll (D) 305 E. 77th St. Audrey Winslow (R) Leota Ostlund (R) Margaret LaVallee (D )Joann Bloomberg (D) *Michael 6•Jinkelman (R )Linnae Erhardt (R) _ Susan Lewis (R) Susan Lewis (R) *Mary Grafing (R) *Jerome Pompa (R) Lois Kovack (D) Lois Kovack (D) Jane Nelson (R) Jane Nelson (R) Catherine Alfano (D) *Steve Sable (D) Patricia O'Hare (D) Nancy Lindberg (D) Gloria Gordon (D) *Chris Telander (D) 0. Centennial School 73rd and Bloomington **Corrine Cosgrove (D) Nadine Solberg (D) Barb Cook (D) Eloise Friend (R) Rosemary Koelln (R) Janice Anderson (R) Ilene Holen (R) Marie Colvin (R) David Ophoven (D) Mary Endrizzi (D) Ethel Marlou (.D) Corrine Cosgrove (D} Alice Neuberger (D) Barb Cook (D) Catherine Meyer (R) Rosemary Koelln (R) Janice Anderson (R) Sandra Sumner (R) Michaeline Kvaale (R) *Gregory Wong (D) Mary Endrizzi (D) Elenor Mars (D) Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this 27th day of October, 1980. ATTEST: Donald J. Priebe Mayor Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk *Denotes Chairpersons **Denotes Students ~y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 377 Agenda October 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: ~~ ~~~ ~~ wnicn autnorizea the city manager to oraer the placement of traffic control devices where the placement is consistent with the manual and specifications of the Commission of Transporta- tion. This ordinance was drafted in conjunction with the compre- hensive stop sign policy which the city council adopted on August 25, 1980. The purpose of the ordinance is to eliminate items going to the city council which are of an administrative nature. At the same time, it will allow a consistency of implementation of traffic control devices over a period of years. The ordinance also provides that a citizen may appeal the d~r.i~ion of the city manager to the city council by filing a written notice of appeal to the city man- ager within 30 days of such decision. A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment is attached to this council letter and is placed on the October 27, 1980 city: Respectfully submitted, KN/eja L~~ ~ ~I ~~C., .1C~ ~ ~. Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Public Safety Director City Engineer Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Traffic Control Devices. Second Reading. } ,.,,; r AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IX, SECTION 9.01 OF THE ~' ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter IX, Section 9.01 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield regulating motor vehicle traffic is amended by adding thereto the following subdivision: "Subd. 4. Traffic Control Devices. The city manager is authorized to order the placement of official traffic control devices, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 169.01, subd. 41, upon the streets and highways of the city when such placement is consistent with Manual and Specifications of the Commissioner. Any person aggrieved by the order of the city manager may appeal the decision to the city council by filing a written notice of appeal with the city manager within 30 days of the date of such decision." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1980. Donald Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk ~' ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 376 Agenda October 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Mem;~ers of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Certificates of Appreciation It has been the practice of the city council to present Certificates of Appreciation to persons who have served on city commissions. There are two such certificates to be pre- sented at the October 27, 1980 city council. A. P. Anderson, former council member of the city, also served as a Civil Service Commissioner after his retirement from the city council. Mr. Anderson has now moved to Dassel, _ Minnesota, and resigned-from the Civil Service Commission. served on the for three terms, beginning in 1972, and served as the Chair- person of this commission for the past two years. Ms. Samples resigned from the commission in August of this year in order to devote more of her time to other activities. It is our understanding that both of these persons will be present at the October 27, 1980 city council meeting to re- ceive these Certificates of Appreciation. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja ~/U CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 375 Agenda October 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000 Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve purchases of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are six such items on the city council agenda of October 27, 1980. Well Pump Replacement The council will recall that on August 18, 1980, the city ex- perienced a breakdown of well pump no. 6. At that time, the council authorized a well repair company to investigate the problem(s), al- though without full knowledge of the problems, we had no more than an estimate for repair of the well pump no. 6, which was approximately $12,000. E.H. Renner and Sons were able to remove the complete shaft, casing and pump which had fallen into the well, on the first try. It has been determined that the pump must be replaced. Two quota- tions have been received for this work. Keys Well Drilling Company quoted $14,646. E.H. Renner and Sons quoted $9,925. It is recommended that the city council approve purchase and installation of a new well pump from E.H. Renner and Sons, in the amount of $9,925. Well Pump Repair At that same time, it was also determined that the pump motor had been damaged during this incident. Boustead Electric and Manu- facturing Company will rewind the stator and replace the guide bear- ings of the motor for approximately $1,950. It is recommended that the city council approve the repair of this motor and authorize Boustead Electric and Manufacturing Company to do this work at a cost of approximately $1,950. Carbon Dioxide Feeder Control Bids were received Tuesday, October 14, 1980 for a carbon diox- ide feeder control unit for the municipal water plant. Two bidders submitted proposals; Shank Mechanical, Inc. submitted a bid of $19,500, and Lee Richert Plumbing and Heating, INc. submitted a bid of $19,270. The carbon dioxide feeder control unit helps regulate Council Letter No. 375 -2- the flow of carbon dioxide into the water part of a systematic updating of the Ovate: that was initiated several years ago, and CO2 by mechanizing the mixing process. It is the recommendation of the city authorize approval of the bid proposal of Heating, Inc. in the amount of $19,270. October 27, 1980 softening process. It is r plant control systems will aid in conserving the staff that the council Lee Richert Plumbing and Hennepin County, through its joint purchasing process, recently received bids for fertilizer. The park maintenance division needs to purchase 10 tons of Nitrogen Source I.B.D.U. for use in the city parks. It is recommended that the city council award this bid to the apparent low bidder, Turf Supply of St. Paul, MN, for ten tons of fertilizer, in the amount of $5,360 (.293 per pound). Bids were recently solicited through the Hennepin County joint bidding process for police cars. The vehicles that met the require- ments for the Richfield Public Safety division are Chevrolet Nlalibus. Rosedale Chevrolet was the apparent low bidder for this vehicle, with a base bid, plus some added features such as spot lights, power win- dows and tilt steering wheels, totaling $8,183.57 per car. Our pub- lic safety department will be replacing 12 vehicles. The cars that are to be replaced will be traded in or auctioned off. We estimate that each car sold will bring in $1,600, or $19,200 total, making the total cost of the new cars $79,042.84 ($98,242.84 - $19,200). There is an $84,000 appropriation in the 1981 central garage operat- ing budget for acquisition of these cars. This purchase order must be placed with the low bidder, Rosedale Chevrolet, by November 1, 1980 to avoid a price increase that will take effect the first part of November. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council authorize purchase of twelve public safety cars The 1980 revised budget for the Public Safety Department pro- vides for the purchase of uniform body armor vests for all members of the Police Division. At the time the revised budget was approved a total of $5,700 was designated for this purpose. Since that time, the staff has completed research on the body armor currently available on the market, including field tests of the various products. On the basis of the research and tests con- ducted, we have determined that the body armor vests manufactured by Council Letter No. 375 -3- October 27, 1980 the Safariland Equipment Company best meet the needs of our police officers. There is only one area dealer authorized to market this product, the Law Enforcement Equipment Company. Therefore, we have negotiated directly with the manufacturer for the purchase of the twenty-four vests necessary to immediately furnish this protective clothing to all of our officers assigned to patrol duty. The ne- It is 1 concur, vests for later this the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which that the city council authorize this purchase. Protective the remaining police division employees will be purchased fall. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community Services Director Public Safety Director ~9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 374 Agenda October 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Parking at Polling Places Councilman Ludeman has requested that an item be placed on the October 27, agenda to discuss issues related to parking during the national election scheduled on November 4. Since this is a national election, the voter turnout can be expected to be somewhat heavier than that experienced at most local elections. Many of the polling places in our city are located in school buildings, and Councilman personal safety hazard ror children, and motorists in the area. The fact that this year's election will create heavy congestion around the schools compounds the personal safety problem with which the Public Safety Director is concerned. The Public Safety Director will be present at the council meet- ing on October 27, to participate in discussion of this issue. Shou: Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberg~r City Manager KN/jf cc: Public Safety Director This is an issue which the council has discussed on several OCCas ions . In the past , the crn~nc i 1 has r3E?tPrmi nP~l to not G7a l ATP .~ ~o c CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 373 Agenda October 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Application for Pedestal Sign Permit, Richfield Medical Group, Ltd. 6440 Nicollet Avenue The Richfield Medical Group has applied for a sign permit to erect a pedestal business sign facing Nicollet Avenue, adjacent to their remodeled office facility at 6440 Nicollet Avenue South. The proposed sign is in general conformance with the requirements of our sign ordinance, with two exceptions. City Ordinance 3.47, Subdivision 1 (12), requires that pedestal signs be raised from the surface of the ground at least 7 feet. The proposed sign will only be 2 feet from the surface of the ground. However, ordinance 3.49, Subdivision 19, provides for the city coun- cil to give a variance to this requirement if other conditions of the sign ordinance have been met. The only other issue related to this sign is that the current mation presented with the application does not indicate that i area. al nts RLe~pe`ctfully submitted, 1`c~JC ~1v~~,~,~tiz~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Public Safety Director Community Development Director /0 B THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 372 Agenda October 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Off-Street Parking Permit, 1717 East 66th Street 66th Street has requested an off-street parking permit to permit expansion of the existing dental office at that address. The proposal involves E. removal of the existing single family e South, and the construction of additional cilities on that site which is immediately a office. The width of the existing curb the existing single family residence of wide curb cut will be constructed the adjusted dental office curb cut. ted on the site to handle storm water na spaces available on the site will The staff has reviewed the proposal and found that it meets all city parking lot standards except the following: 1. Parking stall depths are 18 feet and 18.5 feet, instead of the required 20 feet. Due to the trend toward smaller cars and because sufficiently wide driving aisles are provided, the reduced depth should not be a problem; 2. Insufficient information has been submitted to determine whether the parking area lighting will be sufficient and what the effect of this lighting on adjacent properties will be; 3. g by the city. The applicant has indicated his intent to request that the county vacate a portion of the unused right-of-way adjacent to 66th Street to allow expansion of the parking lot. If this vacation occurs, concrete curbing could be installed as part of the expansion. be increased from 8 spaces to 17 spaces. Council Letter No. 372 -2- KN/jf cc: It is recommended that the October 21, 1980 1. That final lighting details ne approvea py city staff ; 2. That if par]cing lot expansion occurs, a revised off-street parking permit be obtained. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager Community Development Director City Engineer ing E. 66th ST. ~- 32~ Exist. curb Exist. 4-car parking to remain I I I Exist. curb I I I I I I Exist. walk I I i ~ ew concrete walk ~' 4~ Exist. Dents I Office I I I ~ ~ I Typical I I I I I Revise exist. I I.-g-~ ~-° approach }~ ~y„ . _ti.. 'A'i.: ~.. New Addn. I wood deck Rubbish Bldg. 6~ F I I I I I - ~ I.LI I I New) conc. ~ I I cprb Q I I I I NEW; New conc. gITUM1N0US I walk SURFACE Construct +L- sod catch bas'~i O ~ cr anew approach ~ N 17~~ curb maple ~, I I lOl I F-N nc, j I I I I c~iirb I I i "9 I I I I C I __ Remove exist. approach ,,lSod ~a In __ y I New 5~6~~ high fE ~4~`high fence beyo redwood fence front of adjacent house SCALE I~~=30~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR - OFF-STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION NO. 80-11, CONTRACT NO. 2330 Name: Dr. L. H. Arndt Address: 1717 E. 66th Street Location: Same Use: Expansion of existing office BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street parking as contained in Off-Street Parking Application No. 80-11, Contract No. 2330 is hereby approved subject to and upon completion of performance of the contract for such off-street parking as hereinafter authorized. 2. That the proposed off-street parking contract for the improvement of said off-street parking, bearing contract No. 2330 be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on behalf of this city. 3. That the off-street parking operator provide the City of Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving withdrawal authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by the community development director and city manager, to ensure the off- street parking lot is constructed within the terms and regulations of the Off-Street Parking Agreement with the following stipulations: a. That final lighting details be approved by city staff. b. That if parking lot expansion occurs, a revised off-street parking permit be obtained. 4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of said Off-Street Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of October, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk ~wz-_ ~',j_ THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 371 Agenda October 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Land Use Controls, "Godfather Block" Street-Lynaale tivenue A copy of the resolu- The city council and HRA have approved an LHN area redevelopment which calls for this area to be redeveloped. Redevelopment of this area is appropriate because the land is presently underutilized. The full potential of individual parcels of the area wou comprehensive development goal. er, the r~ragmentea aevelopment on preclude achievement of this Attached to this council letter is a transitory ordinance and resolution relating to this matter. The ordinance declares that nei- ther the Comprehensive Land Use Plan nor the zoning ordinance require unified development within the block; that a study is needed to de- termine whether it would be appropriate for these documents to re- no rezoning, special us sign permits will be gr It is recommende during the time suc al controls is being ariances, platting, b a public hearing and a recommendation. intersection, known as the "Godfather Block". tion adopted by the HRA is attached. Council Letter No. 371 -2- October 27, 1980 council adoption. It provides that no permits required by the zoning ordinance, nor any building permits, shall be issued for the "God- father Block", during the moratorium. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, l Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community Development Director Housing and Redevelopment Specialist City Attorney HRA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REnUESTING CITY COUNCIL ~~ CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN LA,'~TD USE CONTROLS WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota did on October 15, 1975, approve a Redevelopment Plan for the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet area of Richfield; and did apply to the city council of the City of Richfield for approval of the Plan; and W:iEREAS, the city council of the City of Richfield did approve the plan and did pledge its cooperation, and that of all officials, departments, boards and commissions of the City, in heln_ina to implement and carry out the Plan; and WHEREAS, the tract of land lying between 65th Street on the north, 66th Street on the south, Lyndale on the east and Graham on the west have been included within the project area since its beginning and lies at the center of the development area; and r ~.; WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan calls for the development of such tract as a unified commercial and multi-family residential development, all of which would be developed as a total integrated development; and WHEREAS, neither the Richfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan nor the City's official zoning controls presently calls for a unified or integrated development of said tract; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority believes that a unified and integrated development of the tract is not only feasible and capable of occurring in the near future, but is necessary to the success of the Project, and as such, as in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is concerned that, unless the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and official zoning controls of the City are modified, fragmented development may occur within parts of the tract which will preclude the unified develop- ment of the entire tract, resulting in the same inconsistent, conflicting, and underutilized development which was a factor in the creation of the Plan. NOW THEREFORE, EE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Pichfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The Authority declares the above-described track to be a high priority area within the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Commercial Redevelopment Project Area and expresses its resolve that such area be developed as a unified and integrated project in the manner called for in the Plan. -. . _~~ _. -,;.;,s. _°~~~~ e.._ . 2. The Executive Director is hereby directed to request that the City of Richfield consider an amendment to its Compre- - hensive Land Use Plan and official zoning controls which amendments '~._ would provide for a unified and integrated development of the ~~ subject tracts. 3. The Executive Director is further directed to request that the City of Richfield consider such interim controls as it might deem advisable pending study and consideration of such amend- ments. Passed this 20th day of October, 1980, by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota. Thomas E. Harms, Chairnan ATTEST: Vern Luettinger, Secretary (` ... -: ~~~ .- . ,~.:~x.,.-- - .. RESOLUTION NO. - RESOLUTION RELATING TO AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE GRANTING OF CERTAIN PER*dITS THEREUNDER WHEREAS, this Council has given first reading to an ordinance relating to zoning and entitled "An Ordinance Declaring a Moratorium on Certain Development Within an Area of the City." The text of such ordinance is attached herewith as Exhibit A and made a part hereof as if fully set out at this point; and T--dHEREAS, the object of such ordinance is to enable the City to prohib~_t development and redevelopment within a cextain area of the City during study and pending the possible enactment of official controls; and _ WHEREAS, the purpose of the ordinance is to protect the planning process and the public health, safety and welfare. during the period of the moratorium; NO%J THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. No permit required under the Richfield Zoning Ordinances for the development or redevelopment of the following block: Bounded by 65th Street on the north, 66th Street on the south, Lyndale on the east and Graham on the west. shall be issued from and after the date of this resolu- tion and until the expiration of such moratorium. 2. No building permit shall be issued covering building within such block during such period. 3. Any applications presently pending for the issuance of any such permits and any permit fees paid therewith shall be promptly returned to the applicant together with a copy of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of October, 1980. - Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia IG. Bergh, Acting City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 16.61 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AN AREA OF THE CITY CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Findings. a. The City has for many years been concerned with the proper use and ultimate development and redevelop- ment of that area of the City generally referred to as the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Area of Richfield (the Project Area). b. As a result of that concern, among others, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota {HRA) was duly constituted-and a Redevel- opment Plan for the Project Area was adopted by the Authority and approved by the City Council on October 15, 1975. c. One of the lard areas addressed in the Redevelopment Plan is the block bounded by 65th Street on the north, 66th Street on the south, Lyndale on the east and Graham on the west. d. The problems assessment portion of Phase I of the Redevelopment Plan indicated that the block suffered from fragmented and inefficient land use, conflicts in land use, underutilized land, inadequate parking and pedestrian facilities, and lack of visual unity. e. The conclusion of this review found in Phase III of the Plan indicates: "What has resulted is a commercial area whose recent development was negatively affected by fragmented land use, underutilized commercial land and general deterioration of the area....The original land planning, lot layout and development practices have resulted in a commercial area which is suffering from deterioration and obsolescence, which if not abated, will continue to work against the vitality of the L/H/N commercial area." f. The Redevelopment Plan calls for the development of the block as commercial and multi-family residential; such development should be unified and integrated. r` d •~ g. Neither the City's Comprehensive Plan nor its official zoning controls presently require uni~ie.d develop- ment within the block. Any lot within the. block may presently be developed independently of any other lot, and without regard to potential development to the block as a whole. h. The HRA has adopted and presented the City with a resolution requesting that certain controls be placed upon the block in order that the redevelopment of the block and the Project Area not be frustrated. i. The Council hereby finds that a study is .necessary to further determine whether it would be appropriate to adopt suitable controls to require unified and interdependent development of the block. j. The Council further finds that it is necessary and expedient for the purpose of protecting the planning process and preserving the health and safety, general welfare, convenience, and prosperity of the citizens of the City that during such study period and pend- ing the adoption of official controls, no development or redevelopment within the block occur, and no request for rezoning, special use permit, variance, platting, building permit or sign permit be con- sidered. Section 2. Determination. During the period hereinafter provided, no development ar redevelopment may occur within the block, and no request fox rezoning, special use permit, variance, platting, building permit or sign shall be considered. Section 3. Duration. This ordinance shall expire one year from its effective date unless renewed for an additional one year period. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1980. Donald Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk ~/ The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Letter No. 370 Agenda October 27, 1980 Council Members: Subject: Semi-Annual Commendation Award, Public Safety Department particularly our community. scheduled for meeting. The Suech. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The award presentation recipient of for the January- at the October this award is Late in the evening on April 24, 1980, the public safety com- munications center received notification of a holdup in progress at a small neighborhood grocery store at 77th Street and Portland Ave- nue South. Office Suech was one of several officers dispatched to the scene. Upon his arrival, Officer Suech was informed that two suspects, armed with a handgun, had just fled by foot east from the store, through a residential area. Officer Suech immediately pro- ceeded on foot into the area where the suspects were last seen. Moments later, Officer Suech was fired upon from ambush by one of the suspects and hit in his left thigh. Officer Suech returned the fire, wounding one of the suspects. This suspect fled from the scene, but was apprehended several days later. Although wounded himself, Officer Suech located the second suspect, took him into custody and held him until other officers arrived to assist him. Officer Suech's actions in this incident, particularly his ap- prehension of the second suspect after being wounded himself, are worthy of commendation and are in the finest traditions of the pub- lic safety service. For his outstanding action in this situation, Officer Suech has been nominated for the Public Safety Department Semi-Annual Commendation Award by unanimous vote of the command staff. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Public Safety Director 27, 1980, city council Police Officer William /~ rf` CITY OF RICHFIELD, NIINNESOTA Office .of C ity Manager Council Letter No. 369 ~ Agenda October 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amendment of Final Development Plan and Special Use Permit for Coach Homes of Richfield Lake Development In November, 1979, the city council approved a Final Develop- ment Plan for a condominium development on the site formerly occupied by the Woodlake Elementary School. The council subsequently approved an amendment to the Final Development Plan in February, 1980. The Final Development Plan was amended again in July of 1980, and the development is currently under construction. The developer has discovered that it will be necessary to adjust the location of two garages to protect some existing mature trees on the site. Section 3.34A, Subdivision 7, Paragraph 2, of the zoning ordinance requires that the Community Development Director certify that the construction drawings are in substantial compliance with the PUD Plan, Final Development Plan and any other conditions imposed by the council. Section 3.34A, Subdivision 7, Paragraph 1, states that a proposal would not be in substantial compliance if there are any changes in the original approved setbacks from property lines. Two garages (garages 29 and 30 on attached site plan) in the Northwest corner of the site would be five feet closer to the side property line than in the original proposal, meaning that a ten foot setback would be rlaintained, instead of fifteen feet. The separa- tion of garages 29 and 30 and 31 and 32 would be increased by five feet (a 16 percent change). The separation between garages 31 and 32 and building I would be increased by six feet (a 37.5 percent change). The building separation between garages 29 and 32 and between garages 30 and 31 would be reduced to six feet from 13 feet (a 53.8 percent change). The unenclosed parking stalls which were between garages 29 and 32 and between garages 30 and 31 will be shifted to the north of garages 29 and 30. The described changes are being requested to provide better traffic flow in that area. It is recommended that the city council amend the "Coach Homes of Richfield Lake" Final Development Plan and special use permit to allow the proposed changes in garage location. The proposed changes Council Letter NO. 369 -2- October 27, 1980 in setback will not adversely affect the general public welfare of residents living on the site or on adjacent properties. In a non- planned unit development residential zoning district, a detached garage could be built within two feet of the property line or eight feet closer than being proposed in this plan. The changes in build- ing separation should not cause any adverse effects on light, air circulation, or fire spread potential. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf cc: Community Development Director Associate Planner ~! ~ < Et~~i~~~~ ~~~~~~ n (f:52~~- ~~ ~U15~•D ~f2.~1 IVC~ I.,,t.YOt~'T" ,~T' 'E3~-t7~i • S ~ J 15 Q~~IIOUSI~Y AP'P~-OV~'J D1~TP.Nc~s lr-~~r) ,, .; .,