The URL can be used to link to this page

121311completeagenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2011 RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of(1) Special City Council Worksession of November 14, 2011; (2) Regular City Council Meeting of November 14, 2011; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of November 22, 2011 PRESENTATION 1. Richfield Foundation awarding of grants COUNCIL DISCUSSION 2. Council discussion • Schedule Special City Council Meeting for advisory commission interviews • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 3. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of canceling December 13, 2011 public hearing regarding final plat approval for 6700-6758 Portland Avenue (site of City Hall and Heredia Park) S.R. No. 239 B. Consideration of approval of resolutions accepting $700 grant from Target Corporation for Police Explorers and $150 grant from Lisalan Thai, Counselor Reality, Inc. for "Shop with a Cop" S.R. No. 240 C. Consideration of approval of change order to TMI Coatings, Inc. for Logan Avenue Tower Reconditioning Project in amount of$3,000 S.R. No. 241 D. Consideration of approval of continuing agreement with City of Bloomington for food inspection services, beverage inspection, lodging, public swimming pools and plan check for food services for Richfield in 2012 S.R. No. 242 E. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Subsection 514.05, Subdivisions 3 and 4 and Subsection 518.05, Subdivisions 3 and 4 related to accessory structures on residential lots of 15,000 square feet or more S.R. No. 243 F. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code Appendix D establishing fee schedule for "Sketch Plan Review" and scheduling second reading for January 10, 2012 S.R. No. 244 G. Consideration of approval of update of City's Financial Policies including separate Fund Balance, Debt Management and Investment Policies S.R. No. 245 H. Consideration of approval of resolution appointing Pat Brekken to Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for three-year term ending December 31, 2014 S.R. No. 246 I. Consideration of approval of renewal of business licenses for 3.2 percent malt liquor sales and license renewals to operate businesses in Richfield for 2012: S.R. No. 247 License to Sell 3.2 Percent Malt License to Operate in Richfield Liquor A New Star Limousine & Taxi Service — 8 Aldi Foods — Off-Sale vehicles El Jalapeno — Off-Sale Airport Taxi — 11 vehicles Portland Food Mart— Off-Sale Black &White Taxi — 5 vehicles RBF Corporation of Wisconsin Gold Star Taxi — 27 vehicles (Rainbow Foods) — Off-Sale Latino Americano — 8 vehicles Richfield U.S. (Mobile Mart) - Off- Latino Express — 10 vehicles Sale Suburban Taxi Corporation — 5 vehicles Sandy's Tavern — On-Sale Twin Cities Airport Taxi - 5 vehicles SuperAmerica #4186 — Off-Sale White Star Taxi — 3 vehicles SuperAmerica #4188 — Off-Sale SuperAmerica #4191 — Off-Sale Paul's Rentals & Sales — Trailers and Trucks SuperAmerica #4615 — Off-Sale Rental Target Corporation — Off-Sale Vina Restaurant— On-Sale Notes: 5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Public hearings regarding 2012 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license renewals: A. Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 248 B. University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn and Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue S.R. No. 249 Notes: 7. Public hearings regarding 2012 club on-sale and Sunday liquor license renewals: A. Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food & Drink; 6715 Lake Shore Drive S.R. No. 250 B. Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue S.R. No. 251 Notes: 8. Public hearings regarding 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license renewals: A. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 252 B. Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 253 C. Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street S.R. No. 254 D. Patrick's French Bakery, Inc. d/b/a Patrick's Bakery & Café, 2928 West 66th Street S.R. No. 255 E. The Noodle Shop-Colorado, Inc., d/b/a Noodles and Company, 7630 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 256 F. John E. Powers &Associates, Inc. d/b/a Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 257 G. Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LLC, 7545 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 258 Notes: 9. Public hearings regarding 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license renewals: A. The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street (includes optional 2 a.m. closing) S.R. No. 259 B. Richfield Hotel Associates d/b/a Four Points by Sheraton, 7745 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 260 C. Paisan Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street S.R. No. 261 D. Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC, d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue (includes outside service) S.R. No. 262 E. Don Pablo's Operating, LLC d/b/a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street S.R. No. 263 F. Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champp's Restaurant, 790 West 66th Street S.R. No. 264 G. El Tejaban Mexican Grill LLC d/b/a El Tejaban Mex. Grill, 2 West 66th Street (includes optional 2 a.m. closing) S.R. No. 265 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCES 10. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amending Appendix D of Richfield City Code, establishing fee schedule for certain permits and applications Staff Report No. 266 Notes: 11.Consideration of • Second reading of amending ordinances related to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Erosion Control Rule and Wetland Protection Rule; • Resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance amendment Section 428; and • Resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance relating to wetland protection Staff Report No. 267 Notes: 12.Consideration of: • Second reading of ordinance rezoning 609 74th Street West from Multi-Family Residential to Service Office and rezoning all but west 140 feet of 7421 Lyndale Avenue from Neighborhood Business to Multi-Family Residential; and • Resolution granting minor site plan amendment at 609 74th Street West to allow operation of commercial service business Staff Report No. 268 Notes: RESOLUTION 13.Consideration of resolution amending planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit for 33 West 65th Street (HUB Shopping Center ) to allow commercial daycare serving up to 65 children Staff Report No. 269 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 14.Consideration of second reading of ordinance amending Subsection 537.13, Subdivision 2 related to consideration of expansion of dimensional or bulk nonconformities in Mixed Use Districts Staff Report No. 270 Notes: RESOLUTION 15.Consideration of resolution regarding conditional use permit to allow expansion of nonconforming building at 7701 and 7717 Nicollet Avenue (Menards) Staff Report No. 271 Notes: PUBLIC HEARING 16.Public hearing regarding resolution granting final approval of plat for 7701 and 7717 Nicollet Avenue Staff Report No. 272 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 17.Consideration of resolution regarding appointments to Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Board of Commissioners, establishing composition of board and term limits on non-elected members Staff Report No. 273 Notes: 18.Consideration of resolutions approving 2011 Revised/2012 Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions Staff Report No. 274 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 19. City Manager's report Notes: 20. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 21. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. richfield: December 2011 Page 1 of 1 City of Richfield Calendar Calendars Net Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug e Oct Nov Dec 2012 Navigate: 2010 Ja r7 Y q p December 2011 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 28 I Nov 29 30 .l I Dee 2 5:30p Human Services 7:OOp-8:OOp Neighborhood 7:OOp Arts Commission Planning Council meeting by Ron Clark @ 7000 Nicollet Ave 7:OOp Planning Construction and Design SAT., DEC.3 Commission regarding proposed Mayor's Hour- Pillsbury Commons project 9:30-10:30 a.m.at -Emerson Congregational Wood Lake Nature United Church of Christ Center Friendship Hall,7601 Girard Avenue 5 6 7 8 9 11:30a Richfield Tourism 7:OOp Transportation Promotion Board @ 6601 Commission Lyndale Ave,Suite 106 6:30p Human Rights Commission • 7:OOp Special City Council Meeting(Truth-in-Taxation) 12 13 1 15 16 7:OOp Canceled- 5:30p Special City 7:OOp Friendship City Planning Commission Council/HRA/Community Commission Meeting Services CANCELED Commission/Planning Commission/Transportation Commission Meeting (possible quorum) regarding U of MN Capstone Project final presentation 7:OOp City Council Regular Meeting 19 20 21 7:OOp Housing and 7:OOp Community Services Redevelopment Commission @ 7000 Authority(HRA) Nicollet Ave 26 ?; 28 30 City Administrative 7:OOp City Council Regular SATURDAY, DEC.31 offices closed-- Meeting CANCELED 9:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Christmas holiday Mayor's Hour @ WLNC observed 2 3 4 5 6 CITY 11:30a Tourism Promotion 7:OOp Transportation 7:OOp Arts Commission ADMINISTRATIVE Board @ 6601 Lyndale Commission @ 7000 Nicollet Ave OFFICES CLOSED-- Ave,Suite 106 NEW YEARS DAY 7:OOp Human Rights HOLIDAY OBSERVED Commission Display: Year Month Week Day Block List Condensed Abs Slide Calendars: Search Add Events: Daily Duration Periodic Administer: This Calendar All meetings held at City Hall (6700 Portland Avenue) unless indicated otherwise Calendars Net free online interactive web calendars http://www.my.calendars.net/richfield 12/8/2011 =■Al CITY COUNCIL MINUTES RICHFIELD Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Worksession November 14, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:00 p.m. in the Bartholomew Conference Room. ROLL CALL Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Sue Sandahl; Fred Wroge; Present: and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator. Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING COMPOSITION OF RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY City Manager Devich reviewed the composition history of the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). City Attorney Heine explained the State Statute requirements and the establishing resolution consistent with State law related to the HRA. Council Member Elliott discussed the need for HRA membership accountability balanced with expertise and the best interests of the City. Council Member Wroge discussed his reasons why the City Council should be on the HRA so the voters decide who is qualified and represents residents and businesses. Council Member Fitzhenry said he'd rather see some citizens on the HRA for their input and that he'd like to review the selection of applicants. City Attorney Heine explained the City Council could specify the HRA term length. Council Member Sandahl discussed the benefits of having citizens on the HRA and the importance of balance. She agreed to have a recruitment process similar to the advisory commissioners. Special Worksession Minutes -2- November 14, 2011 Mayor Goettel discussed the rationale of how she arrives at her HRA recommendation. She added she likes the mix of citizen membership. The City Council consensus was to conduct a recruitment similar to the advisory commission process, the City Council review all resumes to determine the top applicants and make recommendations to the Mayor, including discussion at a Worksession, interview the top applicants, concluding with the Mayor making a recommendation to be confirmed by the City Council at a City Council meeting. The City Council requested a resolution be prepared to establish a two 5 year (10 years) consecutive term limit, continue citizen membership, have the length of HRA term match the elected length of term of the City Council Member appointed to the HRA, and members must be Richfield residents. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:45 p.m. Date Approved: December 13, 2011 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Executive Coordinator City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES RICHFIELD Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting November 14, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Sue Sandahl; Fred Wroge; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; John Stark, Community Development Director; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Melissa Poehlman, City Planner; Corrine Heine, City r holz Attorney; and Cheryl K um , Executive Coordinator. OPEN FORUM Russ Susag, 6500 Woodlake Drive, acknowledged the Richfield Symphonic Orchestra's participation in the Veterans Day event in Inver Grove Heights. Eric Rodel, 7601 Pillsbury Avenue, expressed concerns regarding the proposed development on the former City garage site. Barry LeBlanc, 7531 Pillsbury Avenue, expressed concerns regarding Richfield housing and the proposed development on the City's former garage site. Luke Bonawitz, 7615 Garfield Avenue, expressed concern regarding the quality of work by Ron Clark (developer of proposed project at former City garage site) and questioned the future vision of Richfield. Ann Somers, 7527 Grand Avenue, expressed concerns regarding the proposed Pillsbury Commons development. PRESENTATION OF COLORS AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Council Meeting Minutes -2- November 14,2011 APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Wroge, S/Sandahl to approve the minutes of(1) Special City Council Worksession of October 25, 2011 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of October 25, 2011. Motion carried 5-0. Item #1 ANNUAL MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION Rick Jabs, Planning Commission Chair, reported on the 2010-11 commission accomplishments. Item #2 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS Council Member Fitzhenry announced Best Buy has become a Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Corporation. Council Member Fitzhenry acknowledged the success of the November 12, 2011 Municipal Center open house. Mayor Goettel announced the appointment of an HRA Commissioner will now be a process similar to the advisory commission recruitment and encouraged residents to apply. Council Member Wroge stated he received a request from a resident to have the City consider putting up Christmas decorations at the 66th Street and Portland Avenue roundabout and other major intersections in Richfield. City Manager Devich stated there are economic concerns as well as seeking Hennepin County approval on their roads but if the City Council wished, the costs could be included in the budget. Council Member Elliott suggested a joint effort with the Chamber of Commerce to cover costs. Council Member Wroge discussed his concerns regarding the proposed Ron Clark project for the development of the former garage site. He stated he would not vote affirmatively for any zoning or any other changes unless the project returned to the original plan presented. He expressed concern that the Request for Proposal targeted certain populations. He also mentioned parking issues and 77th Street access. Council Member Wroge suggested the City clear the land to make green space and ask developers what project would work there. He said single family residential is not an option now. Council Member Elliott stated he generally agreed with Council Member Wroge that as the project stands now, he is opposed to it. Item #3 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes -3- November 14,2011 M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Item #4 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of approval of continuing public hearing to December 13, 2011 regarding final plat approval for 6700-6758 Portland Avenue (site of City Hall and Heredia Park) S.R. No. 214 B. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix D establishing change in fees and scheduling second reading for December 13, 2011 S.R. No. 215 C. Consideration of approval of first reading of amending ordinances related to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Erosion Control Rule and Wetland Protection Rule and scheduling second reading for December 13, 2011 S.R. No. 216 D. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Subsection 537.13; Subd. 2 related to expansion of dimensional or bulk nonconformities in Mixed Use Districts and scheduling second reading for December 13, 2011 S.R. No. 217 E. Consideration of approval of participating in National Joint Powers Agreement cooperative purchasing program S.R. No. 218 F. Consideration of approval of two-year use and indemnification agreement between City of Richfield and Tom Price for rental of 4,690 square-foot strip of land along edge of Lincoln Field S.R. No. 219 G. Consideration of approval of Richfield Municipal Center change order report for aggregate net effect of$71,788.83 in items included within project budget S.R. No. 220 H. Consideration of approval of request for renewal of 2012 currency exchange licenses for New Unbank Company, LLC; 6421 Penn Avenue; and Los Gallos 12, Inc., 6539-B 14th Avenue S.R. No. 221 I. Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing on December 13, 2011 for new secondhand goods dealer license for Los Gallos Richfield, Inc., 6539-14th Avenue S.R. No. 222 J. Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing on December 13, 2011 for renewal of 2012 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc. and University Cash Company, LLC, d/b/a Avi's Pawn and Jewelry S.R. No. 223 K. Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing on December 13, 2011 for renewal of 2012 on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC d/b/a Chipotle Mexican Grill; Patrick's Bakery & Café; Lariat Lanes; The Noodle Shop-Colorado, Inc. d/b/a Noodles and Company and Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant S.R. No. 224 L. Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing on December 13, 2011 for renewal of 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Khan's Mongolian Barbeque; Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champp's Restaurant; Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435; Fred Babcock VFW Post No. 5555 d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink; Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d/b/a Don Pablo's; Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar; The Frenchmans; El Tejaban Mes. Grill; and Richfield Hotel Associates S.R. No. 225 M/Goettel, S/Wroge to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR Council Meeting Minutes -4- November 14,2011 None. Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATING 609 74TH STREET WEST AS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL; 7401 LYNDALE AVENUE AS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL; AND WEST 140 FEET OF 7421 LYNDALE AVENUE AS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (STAFF REPORT NO. 226) Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 226. Tom Price, Woodlawn Terrace owner, requested changes to the proposed zoning amendment. City Planner Poehlman explained the building height difference allowed in an MR-2 and MR- 3 and that the neighbors to the north may have a concern. She added that unless a proposed development is presented, it may be premature to increase the density. Jim Erickson, development consultant for Mr. Price, explained the request for a deeper commercial zone and an MR-3 designation on the remainder to the east if there is any redevelopment to replace the existing trailer court use. He stated Mr. Price had no objections to the Comprehensive Plan changes and rezoning as they affect only 609 74th Street W. Mark Nichols, 609 74th Street W owner, stated he had no objections to Mr. Price's plan and requested the process for his property (609 74th Street) proceed only if it does not disadvantage Mr. Price's revision. M/Sandahl, S/Goettel that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10572 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF 609 WEST 74TH STREET TO "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL" AND 7401 LYNDALE AVENUE AND THE WEST 140 FEET OF 7421 LYNDALE AVENUE TO "COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL" Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10572. Item #7 CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE REZONING 609 74TH STREET WEST FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (M-2) TO SERVICE OFFICE AND REZONING ALL BUT WEST 140 FEET OF 7421 LYNDALE AVENUE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (C-1) TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (MR-2) AND SCHEDULING SECOND READING FOR DECEMBER 13, 2011 (STAFF REPORT NO. 227) Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 227. City Planner Poehlman stated the applicant has been notified of the extension of the deadline for issuing a decision due to the date of City Council meetings. She added the staff Council Meeting Minutes -5- November 14,2011 recommendation is to rezone the site to match the Comprehensive Plan and continue discussions with Mr. Price on his requested changes. City Planner Poehlman explained the public hearing process which provides neighbors the opportunity to voice any concerns. Jim Erickson, Development Consultant, stated no objection to proceeding tonight and readdressing their proposed changes on December 13. M/Fitzhenry, S/Goettel to consider first reading of ordinance rezoning 609 74th Street West from Multi-Family Residential (M-2) to Service Office (SO) and rezoning all but west 140 feet of 7421 Lyndale Avenue from Neighborhood Business (C-1) to Multi-Family Residential (MR-2) and scheduling second reading for December 13, 2011. Motion carried 5-0. Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF RENEWING EXISTING LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RICHFIELD AND HAT TRICK HOCKEY, INC. (STAFF REPORT NO. 228) Council Member Wroge presented Staff Report No. 228. Council Member Wroge suggested the City seek an alternative solution for this site in case the business does not succeed. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer stated that if the site became vacant, its use could be internal for recreation programs. Randy Reed, Hat Trick Hockey, Inc. owner, discussed his business operation. MNVroge, S/Fitzhenry to renew the existing lease agreement between City of Richfield and Hat Trick Hockey, Inc. Motion carried 5-0. Item #9 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. Item #10 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 11/8/2011 NP Checks: 207995-208353 $ 1,468,351.05 Payroll: 79235-79556 41864-41865 $ 523,967.48 TOTAL $ 1,992,318.53 Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -6- November 14,2011 OPEN FORUM None. ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:43 p.m. Date Approved: December 13, 2011 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Executive Coordinator City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES RICHFIELD Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting INNNNEIIINNNINN November 22, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; and Tom Fitzhenry. Members Present: Sue Sandahl; and Fred Wroge Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Melissa Poehiman, City Planner; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator. M/Fitzhenry, S/Goettel to excuse Council Member Wroge and Council Member Sandahl from the November 22, 2011 Regular City Council Meeting. Motion carried 3-0. OPEN FORUM Ron Clark, Pillsbury Commons developer, provided an update on the proposed project including tax credit financing approved by the Minnesota Housing and Finance Agency and a neighborhood meeting on November 29, 2011 to discuss issues and concerns. PRESENTATION OF COLORS AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Item #1 PRESENTATION OF 2011 MINNESOTA CHAPTER AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION PERSONNEL AWARD— MAINTENANCE CATEGORY TO RICHFIELD PUBLIC WORKS WORKER BILL LALONDE Council Meeting Minutes -2- November 22,2011 Public Works Director Eastling presented the 2011 Minnesota Chapter American Public Works Association Personnel Award —Maintenance Category to Bill LaLonde. Item #2 ANNUAL MEETING WITH COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION Gerry Charnitz, Community Services Commission Chair, reported on the 2010-11 commission accomplishments. Item #3 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • CANCELLATION OF TUESDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2011 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING • HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry to cancel the December 27, 2011 Regular City Council Meeting. Motion carried 3-0. Council Member Elliott discussed the development activity in the 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue area and acknowledged staff efforts in the process. Mayor Goettel stated she would have a neighborhood meeting on Saturday, November 26, 2011 to discuss the proposed Pillsbury Commons development with residents and encouraged their attendance. Item #4 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Elliott, S/Fitzhenry to approve the agenda. Motion carried 3-0. Item #5 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of approval of continuing public hearing to December 13, 2011 to consider plat for properties at 7701 and 7717 Nicollet Avenue S.R. No. 229 B. Consideration of approval of resolution granting subdivision waiver for 840 West 65th Street S.R. No. 230 C. Consideration of approval of resolution extending cable television franchise agreement with Comcast, Inc. to April 16, 2012 S.R. No. 231 D. Consideration of approval of agreement with Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department, Joint Community Police Partnership, accepting Congressional (federal) Award of$25,000 for costs related to Richfield Police Cadet position S.R. No. 232 E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing agency agreement between City of Richfield and Minnesota Department of Transportation authorizing Mn/DOT to pass through federal funds to City to construct two bicycle routes in Richfield S.R. No. 233 F. Consideration of approval of amendment to Public Health and Environmental Health Mutual Aid Agreement with Twin City Health Entities extending agreement through December 31, 2012 S.R. No. 234 Council Meeting Minutes -3- November 22,2011 G. Consideration of approval of contract with Graymont (WI), LLC Company for purchase of quick lime in amount of$174,230 ($124.45/ton) for 2012 S.R. No. 235 H. Consideration of approval of contract with Moelter Grain, Inc. for lime residual disposal for two-year period (2012-2013) in amount of$61,515 per year or$123,030 for two years S.R. No. 236 M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 3-0. Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None. Item #7 CONSIDERATION RENEWING CONTRACT WITH CHIEF'S TOWING, INC., 8610 HARRIET AVENUE, BLOOMINGTON, MN FOR PUBLIC SAFETY TOWING SERVICES FOR DECEMBER 1, 2011 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2012 (STAFF REPORT NO. 237) Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 237. M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry to renew the contract with Chief's Towing, Inc., 8610 Harriet Avenue, Bloomington, MN for Public Safety towing services for December 1, 2011 through November 30, 2012. Motion carried 3-0. Item #8 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. Item #9 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Fitzhenry, S/Elliott that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 11/22/2011 NP Checks: 208354-208739 $ 1,268,867.25 Payroll: 79557-79876 $ 495,414.52 TOTAL $ 1,764,281.77 Motion carried 3-0. OPEN FORUM Council Meeting Minutes -4- November 22,2011 None. ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:32 p.m. Date Approved: December 13, 2011 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Executive Coordinator City Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 4A REPORT# 239 MANI STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: • !� /y IF SIGNATURE , REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ,P// L; ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Cancel the public hearing on December 13, 2011 regarding the final plat approval for 6700- 6758 Portland Avenue (site of City Hall and Heredia Park). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Cancel the public hearing on December 13, 2011 regarding the final plat approval for 6700-6758 Portland Avenue (site of City Hall and Heredia Park). II. BACKGROUND Hennepin County requires an updated title before they will review, and comment on, the final plat for the City Hall property. Due to delays in receiving that updated title, however, Hennepin County has been unable to conduct that review. The Public Hearing to consider this plat will be rescheduled in January or February. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A public hearing is required for the consideration of the final plat for a project. 12132011-Cancel City Hall Final Plat.doc B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Delaying consideration of this item will not have a detrimental effect on the project. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • A legal notice for a public hearing will be published at the appropriate time. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • N/A V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 4B REPORT# 240 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: TODD SANDELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR/DEPUTY CHIEF NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY '� /MANAGER: �` � / ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council approval to accept Target grant for Police Explorers and a Richfield business for a specified Richfield Police program. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolutions: 1. Accepting a grant from the Target Corporation in the amount of $700 for the Police Explorers; and, 2. Accepting grant monies in the amount of $150 for the "Shop with a Cop" from Lisalan Thai, Counselor Realty, Inc. II. BACKGROUND The Target Corporation has awarded a grant in the amount of$700 to the Richfield Police Explorers program as part of their "Target and Blue" partnership. This is the second time that they have provided this grant for the Explorers. The money is used to offset some of the fees that are required for the Explorers to attend conferences that are beneficial as part of their partnering with mentors in law enforcement. Lisalan Thai is a local business person who is familiar with the Richfield Police Department's "Shop with a Cop" program and wished to sponsor a child to participate. The "Shop with a Cop" program allows underprivileged kids to shop for 121311 Resolutions Accepting Grants for Specific Police Programs Christmas presents for their families, accompanied by Richfield Police Officers and community members. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires that every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council. • The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to departments be received by resolution and passed by more than two- thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The monies received will be directed towards the Richfield Police Explorers ($700) and the "Shop with a Cop" dollars will be used to purchase Target gift cards ($150). C. FINANCIAL • The Target Corporation $700 grant check for the Police Explorers has been received. • Target gift cards will be purchased with the $150 check from Lisalan Thai of the Counselor Realty, Inc., for the Shop with a Cop event. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Council could disapprove of the donations and the checks would have to be returned. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution No. for the Target Corporation grant of$700. • Resolution No. for the grant of $150 from Counselor Realty, Inc. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. UB -1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING $700 GRANT FROM THE TARGET CORPORATION DESIGNATED FOR THE RICHFIELD POLICE EXPLORERS WHEREAS, the Target Corporation informed the Richfield Police that they would be presenting a grant of$700 to the Richfield Police Explorers as part of their "Target and Blue" partnership; and, WHEREAS, Exploring is a program that partners youth with an interest in law enforcement with mentors from the police department, and teaches the Explorers about law enforcement through hands-on coaching and by attending state and national conferences where they learn from local, state and federal law enforcement employees; and, WHEREAS, Explorers compete in scenarios at the conferences and are evaluated by these law enforcement professionals and winning teams earn money that is dedicated to a scholarship fund for the Explorers; and, WHEREAS, conference fees can be challenging for the Explorers as many are in school and working to support themselves, and the grant funds provided by the "Target and Blue" helps offset some of the fees for this conference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department will accept funds in the amount of$700, designated for the Richfield Police Explorers in accordance with the grant agreement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Lis -a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION T ACCEPT THE DONATION OF $150 FROM MS. LISALAN THAI TO BE USED FORT E ON POLICE "SHOP WITH A COP" PROGRAM WHEREAS, Richfield Public Safety Department has received a donation of$150 to be used towards the Police "Shop with a Cop" program; and, WHEREAS, Richfield Police has designated $150 to be used to fund the Department's "Shop with a Cop" event which will enable a disadvantaged child to participate in the event. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department, will accept funds in the amount of$150 from Lisalan Thai of Counselor Realty, designated for the specific event, "Shop with a Cop." Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 4C REPORT# 241 wril STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: ROBERT HINTGEN UTILITIES SUPERINTENDENT NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® f VP V/ SIGNATU'7 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: A /.,, / , ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of change order to TMI Coatings, Inc. for the Logan Avenue Tower Reconditioning Project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: • By Motion: Approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $3,000 to TMI Coatings, Inc. for the Logan Avenue Water Tower Reconditioning Project. II. BACKGROUND On May 10, 2011, City Council awarded a contract to TMI Coatings, Inc. for the Logan Avenue Water Tower Reconditioning Project for$796,000. The specification assumed that the tank logo paint and color that was used previously on the tank would be available for the project. It was not available and so staff approved an alternative for an additional charge of$3,000 for using a polyurethane (Acrolon) system for the logo application. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION The recommended change is reasonable because the specified logo painting system used previously is no longer available. A. POLICY 12132011COLoganTower • All change orders need Council approval unless previous authorization is given to staff to process routine changes as they arise. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The work has been completed and the contractor is expecting payment for these items. C. FINANCIAL • Council approved the sale of a $1,490,000 General Obligation Water bond on April 12, 2011 to fund this project. • The approved contract with TMI Coatings, Inc. is $796,000 of which $694,000 is the remaining contingency. • The change order amount of$3,000 will be credited and charged to the contingency. D. LEGAL • None E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Change Order No. 1 VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 385810v1 CAH RC160-4 Lc - 1 1 SEH CHANGE ORDER City of Richfield,Minnesota October 14,2011 OWNER DATE Work Order No.47 No. 1 OWNER'S PROJECT NO. CHANGE ORDER NO. Logan Tower Reconditioning RICHF 115731 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEH FILE NO. The following changes shall be made to the contract documents: Description: Color match for the tank logo could not be made from the coating system specified (FluoroKem-fluoropolymer). Purpose of Change Order: The contractor requests the amount identified below to cover the additional material and labor costs for the application a clear coat(Diamond Clad)over the revised polyurethane(Acrolon)system to be substituted for the logo application.In addition the City shall grant an additional day time extension the established date for substantial completion(October 7,2011). Basis of Cost:..: Actual [] Estimated Attachments (list supporting documents) Confirming emails Contract Status Time Cost Original Contract $796,000.00 Net Change Prior COs to Change this CO 2 Days $3,000.00 Revised Contract October 9, 2011 $799,000.00 Recommended for Approval: Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. by D,. Project Manage Agreed to by Contractor.' Approved for Owner:: Scott Salmon-T M I Coatings Inc. BY Robert Hintgen-City of Richfield,Minnesota Prig .ee 14 Nan 0��r 474,•%. f L,A,.. TITLE TITLE Distribution Contractor 2 Owner 1 Project Representative I SEH Office 1 s:\pt\r\richfl 115731\7-oa\7l-gent\cos\change order no.1101411.doox Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.13535 Vadnais Center Drivel Saint Paul,MN 55110-5196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 651.490.2000 I 800.325.2055 I 888.908.8166 fax AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 4D REPORT# 242 MIA! STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR „r 1, REVIEW: . '/�_f'"Lt��I r' SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY ,�/ MANAGER: yet ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of food inspection services for Richfield for the year 2012. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for: 1. Food inspection services; 2. Beverage inspection; 3. Lodging, and; 4. Public Swimming Pools; and, 5. Plan check for food services for Richfield for the year 2012. II. BACKGROUND The City of Bloomington has provided inspection and enforcement services in the areas of food, beverage, lodging and public swimming pools and plan check for food services for over 25 years to the City of Richfield. The proposed contract for 2012 for these services will be $124,000 compared to the 2011 contract amount of $90,060. Attached to this staff report is an analysis conducted by Bloomington staff in response to discussions that the Bloomington City Council has had regarding principles that a majority of the Council expects to 121311 Bloomington Food Inspection Contract for 2012 see incorporated in pricing the contract to provide food inspection services to Richfield. The analysis describes in detail the process they underwent with their City Council and the information that was supplied by staff to their Council per their request. It should be noted that due to budget issues within Richfield, staff was advised to maintain a 0% increase in this contract for the years of 2010 and 2011. Upon receiving Bloomington's analysis, staff was directed to conduct an internal audit as to what alternatives to the contract, if any, existed for Richfield. Staff findings were that it would be difficult at best to either contract with a single outside contractor or to hire one additional Richfield staff person and still be approved by the Minnesota Department of Health based on staffing, response and capacity issues and State Statute requirements. As a means of providing a better understanding for Council, following are some examples of the kinds of services Bloomington extends via the contract that aren't just managed by one person alone, but rather many Bloomington staff, and that can't be conducted by current Richfield staff. These examples are over and above the routine food inspections that are made at all food establishments by Bloomington staff: • Bloomington staff members are on-call 24/7 when fires or other emergencies occur in a food establishment/facility that may require multiple people to respond, depending on the severity of the issue and regardless of the time of day or night. • They provide epidemiologic duties for food and waterborne outbreak complaints. • Inspectors must be State certified as Sanitarian/Environmental Health Specialists and have a Bachelor of Science degree from an accredited college with a degree in Environmental Health, Sanitary Sciences, the physical or biological sciences, or a related environmental health or natural resources field; with at least three years of public health investigation experience related to food, beverage and lodging. • Plan review and construction inspections must be conducted for all new construction or remodeling of facilities that occur in licensed food establishments. • A Bloomington plan reviewer regularly attends internal ARC (Administrative Review Committee) meetings to comment and follow projects that have a food component. There is also a great deal of need for that person to interface regularly with the City's Building Official and to be familiar with State and City food code requirements. • Bloomington staff attends required meetings with state agencies, on our behalf, and prepares all annual and incidental reports required by them. • Bloomington coordinates the selection process for the Richfield Food Safety Awards. • Bloomington provides educational outreach to the food industry through the Food Collaborative meetings held three times per year. • They also provide food manager certification courses 1- 2 times per year for food establishments that are without a certified food manager. • Bloomington maintains all records/files per state data retention requirements and processes all data requests for inspections. • They answer all questions for state and federal agencies as well as perform recall checks of any food related products. • They perform mailings and email alerts to Richfield licensees (i.e. pool opening check lists, state and federal agency alerts, etc) • They also perform all outdoor pool opening inspections as outdoor pools cannot open without passing pre-opening inspections. • They also perform all environmental lead assessments for children with elevated blood lead levels per State requirements and carry out extra duties when requested by Richfield such as bed bugs in non-licensed businesses, mold issues and other nuisance issues that arise. Staff also made contact with other cities only to find out there either wasn't interest in a contractual arrangement or they did not have the capacity for both themselves and another agency. Seeking a contract provider through either Hennepin County or the State would remove local control of the food inspection activities and is not recommended. After a review of all the alternatives, it made sense that Richfield recommend to continue the long standing contractual agreement with Bloomington to continue to provide these services. This increase, however, will need to be addressed in the spring of 2012 via the revised budget process. At the time that the 2011 revised/2012 proposed budget was completed, staff had not received this information but had recommended a 4% increase in the contract amount. Clearly, after receiving the information from Bloomington that increase is not sufficient. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of inspection services to Richfield residents. Annual evaluations of their services have shown that they are providing efficient services in a cost-effective manner. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the contract and has approved of it and its contents. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council could decide to have Richfield provide its own food service inspections, beverage, and lodging and swimming pool inspections and plan check food services; however, the State would have to approve this change and would likely be concerned about staffing, response and capacity issues. The cost of hiring the staff necessary to provide the same level of services and administrative support would be more than the current expenditures and would require an even more significant budget increase. V. ATTACHMENTS • 2012 City of Bloomington Food, Beverage, Lodging and Public Swimming Pool Inspection Contract • August 3, 2011 Cover Letter From Mark Bernhardson, Bloomington City Mgr. • June 3, 2011 Council Memo from Larry Lee, Director of Community Development VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this day of , 2011, by and between the City of Richfield (hereinafter referred to as "Richfield") and the City of Bloomington (hereinafter referred to as "Bloomington"). WHEREAS, Richfield is authorized and empowered to provide for various types of environmental health inspections and code enforcement to ensure the public health, welfare and safety; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties and the purpose of this agreement that certain of such services be performed by Bloomington on behalf of Richfield; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below, the above parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The term of this agreement shall be from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, subject to termination as provided in paragraph 7. 2. For the term of this agreement, Bloomington shall provide Richfield with the following services, in and on behalf of Richfield: a. Food establishment inspections and code enforcement as necessary. A minimum of two inspections will be done of all "high risk" food service establishments and schools per year. At least one inspection will be done of all "high risk" retail food establishments. "Low risk" food establishments will be inspected once per 24 months and "medium risk" food establishments once per year. b. Plan check and preopening construction inspections for new and remodeled food and lodging establishments. c. Public swimming pools inspected at least once per year, with a goal of two inspections per year. This includes an opening inspection of all outdoor public pools at the beginning of the summer swimming season. d. Lodging establishments inspected at least once per year. e. Investigation and resolution of complaints associated with food and lodging establishments and public swimming pools. 140 -g 3. Bloomington shall have control over the manner in which the inspections, plan review and code enforcement activities are conducted and over the determination of what enforcement action is appropriate and consistent with Richfield City Code Section 615 and other policies as established by the City of Richfield. 4. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the inspections and code enforcement. 5. In 2012, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($124,000.00) for services provided pursuant to this agreement. One-half of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2012, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 2012. 6. This agreement shall terminate as follows: a. Upon the expiration of sixty (60) days after service of written notice upon the other party; or b. In any event on December 31, 2012. 7. In the event of a termination prior to December 31, 2012, a prorata reduction of the compensation owed by Richfield to Bloomington shall occur which reflects the period remaining on the agreement at the time of termination. 8. Bloomington agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Richfield, and its officials, agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from Bloomington's performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, action, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to the injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Bloomington. This provision shall not be construed as a waiver by either party of any defenses, immunities or !imitators on liability with respect to claims made by third parties. 9. Richfield agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Bloomington, and its officials, agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from Richfield's performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, action, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to the injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Richfield. This provision shall not be construed as a waiver by either party of any defenses, immunities or limitators on liability with respect to claims made by third parties. 10.Bloomington shall carry commercial general liability insurance in the amount of at least $500,000 per individual and $1,500,000 per occurrence. Bloomington shall carry property damage liability insurance in the amount of$100,000. Richfield shall be named as an additional insured on the commercial general liability policy, and a certificate of said insurance shall be provided to Richfield. Bloomington shall carry Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 176.181, Subd. 2 and further agrees to provide proof of such to Richfield upon request. 11.Any employee assigned by Bloomington to perform its obligations hereunder shall remain the exclusive employee of Bloomington for all purposes including, but not limited to, wages, salary and employee benefits. 12.In addition to the services listed in Paragraph 2 above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide for and on behalf of Richfield: a. Lead inspections and lab services; b. Housing and grossly unsanitary dwellings inspections and code enforcement services; and c. Mold inspection and code enforcement services. Such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at the rate of$62.00 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the lead, housing, mold and unsanitary dwelling inspection services being provided. 13.It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the persons employed by Bloomington as the agent, representative or employee of Richfield for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. 1-1D -14 Bloomington is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this contract. Bloomington represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this contract. Any and all personnel of Bloomington or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by Bloomington under this contract, and shall not be considered employees of Richfield , and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against Bloomington, its officers, agents contracts or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of Richfield; and Bloomington shall defend, indemnify and hold Richfield, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from Richfield, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensations, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. 14.The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of Bloomington relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by Richfield and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, Subd. 5. 15.This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Bloomington and Richfield and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, any amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 16.Bloomington and Richfield agree to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and not to discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs, and activities. Bloomington has designated coordinators to facilitate LID - S compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. For information contact Human Services Division, City of Bloomington, 1800 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431; telephone: 952/563-8700; TDD: 563-8740. Richfield agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Bloomington from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by Richfield. Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by Bloomington. 17.The City of Bloomington and the City of Richfield agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1536 Hewitt Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55104. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. 18.Both parties agree to comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws, rules and regulations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set forth their hands on the day and year first written above. Upon proper execution, this CITY OF BLOOMINGTON Agreement shall be a legal By: and bindin g obligation ation u on Its Mayor upon the City of Bloomington By: Its City Manager City Attorney CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager C f-r s^r LXr CITY OF ----" - BLOOMINGTON{ MINNESOTA August 3,2011 • Steven Devich,City Manager • City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield,MN 55423 Dear Steve, As you know,the Bloomington City Council has been discussing at length the principles a majority of the Council expects to see incorporated in pricing the contract to provide Building and Inspection and Environmental Health services to Richfield.Bloomington staff developed substantial analysis to assist the City Council with their decision. The most recent summary document is the June 3,2011 memo I have enclosed. The bottom line is that the City Council has indicated that the 2012 price for the Building and Inspection services contract should be approximately$138,000 and the 2012 price for the Environmental Health services contract should be approximately$124,000. The 2011 prices are $112,000(includes$6,100 in estimated large project charge)for B&I and$90,060 for Environmental Health.Bloomington is open to continuing both,one or none of these contract service agreements. After you have digested this material,I would be happy to discuss how you may want to proceed. Both the cities of Richfield and Bloomington have an understandable sense of urgency in resolving what we will do for our 2012 budgets. Sincerely, I I M.rk Be nhardson City Ma .ger cc:Mayor and City Council Community Development Director MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER 1800 W.OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD,BLOOMINGTON MN 55431-3027 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL PH 952-563-8780 FAX 952-563-8754 TTY 952-563-8740 OPPORTUNITIES EMPLOYER L[D -g Cr CITY OF • OMINGTOI1 MINNESOTA DATE: June 3,261 f TO: Mayor,Council,City Manager FROM: Larry Lee,Director of Community Development RE: Richfield Contracts for B&I and Environmental Health Attachments 1. Pricing benchmark alternatives Issues: 1. Determine whether city staff should go ahead and finalize a contract with Richfield for 2011Building and Environmental Health Inspection services and whether that should include an increase; 2. Provide additional direction in setting a price for contract services for 2012 along with an acceptable escalator. Introduction At its January 24,2010 and May 16 study meetings,the Council requested additional analysis regarding the Building and Inspection and Environmental Health contracts with the City of Richfield,including information to inform additional discussion on pricing these services to include a net financial benefit to the City of Bloomington. Discussion Issue#1—2011 Contracts Following the May 16 discussion of this item,some Council members expressed interest in approving contracts for 2011 and then working on the pricing approach for 2012 and beyond.If that is the case,the question is whether to go with the original staff proposal of no increase for 2011 or to increase the contract amounts by one of the benchmarks contained in Attachment 1 Issue#2—2012 and Beyond From a service provision standpoint,beyond the historical pricing through negotiations the parties used to gauge the appropriateness of pricing include the following; o Marginal Cost to provide service—this is the net dollar cost increase to the organization to provide a contract service. Revenue below this amount represents a subsidization of the organization to whom the service is being provided.Revenues above this amount represent an offset to the provider's service cost. o Average Cost of providing service—this is determining the proportional cost of providing the inspector and identified aspects of the inspector's supervision and support.For each inspector added INTEROFFICE MEMO q b-q. 2 or subtracted the average cost will vary as there are certain organization costs that do not change in the same discrete increments,for example supervision,cost of space in Civic Plaza,etc.) For the Richfield contract,a couple of approaches have been presented to the Council to determine the appropriate pricing of the Richfield contracts. These include: c_._Comparative pricing based on various benchmarks_ 8 Net benefit of contracting based on the Marginal Cost of providing The ultimate test for pricing in both the public and private markets is what is the customer is willing to pay for the provider's service and what options they have for obtaining the service.In the case of the Richfield contracts,Richfield's two most likely options would be to either seek another contract provider (in this case possibly Edina,Hennepin County or the State)or to employ their own inspection personnel. The following information is presented to help determine the appropriate pricing for these contracts: Building and Inspection ® Marginal Cost Approach—The net cost between providing the service and not providing the service For Building inspections—the 2011 cost for 1.00 FTE is: Salary $72,100 Benefits $21,700 Equipment $ 9,500 Total $103,300 • Average Cost Approach—this is determined by dividing the plumbing and HVAC activity budgets by the number of inspectors 0.55 FTE plumbing inspector $57,595 0.45 FTE HVAC inspector $50,056 Total $107,651 • Cost Plus Approach—This approach starts with the Average Cost and adds a pro rata share of supervision and clerical support as well a 10%premium for the City over its Average Cost plus related supervisor and administrative costs: 0.55 FTE plumbing inspector $57,595 0.45 FTE HVAC inspector $50,056 7.1%of Administration Activity 5321 $18,310 2%of Clerical Activity 5105 $12,154 10%Minimum net positive performance $13,811 Total $151,926 ° 3 o Estimated Cost of Alternatives — Different Service Provider—to the extent that another provider could undertake this work and had a cost structure similar to Bloomington's—their bid would likely be in the range of plus or minus 10%of the Bloomington's marginal cost—$93,000 to$115,000 - If Richfield performed the service by adding their own employees,their costs would be equal to approximately Bloomington's marginal cost because they already do the permit taking and scheduling.They would need to find a single employee qualified to do both plumbing and HVAC inspections,or find part-time employees with these qualifications—$95,000 to$110,000 o Bloomington budget Impact of providing and not providing the services(using 2011 budget to illustrate): 2011 Budget with the 2011 without the Net Impact to Bloomington of Not contract contract Contracting Contract Revenues $111,519 $0 Total Expenditures $1,800,560 $1,697,260 Net Expenditures $1,689,041 $1,697,260 $(8,219) To help analyze the pricing—the following chart maybe helpful Aiterative Pricing Approaches Buiic49ing and inspections 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 - 60000 40000 - — --- -- - -- 20000 0 Marginal Cost Another Provider Current Revenue Average Cost Cost Plus Approach I up - I ' 4 Environmental Health Inspections: o Marginal Cost Approach—The net cost between providing the service and not providing the service For Environmental Health—the 2011 cost for 1.00 FTE is: Salary $68,500 Benefits $20,550 Equipment $ -6,010 Total $95,060 O Average Cost Approach—this is determined by dividing the Environmental Health food service inspections activity budget by the number of inspectors 1.00 FTE Environmental Health Specialist $95,888 Total $95,888 s Cost Plus Approach—This approach starts with the Average Cost and adds a pro rata share of supervision and clerical support as well a 10%premium for the City over its Average Cost plus related supervisor and administrative costs: 1.00 FTE EH inspector $95,888 7.7%of Administration Activity 5720 $28,302 10%Minimum net positive performance $12,419 Total EH Contract $136,609 e Budget Impact of providing and not providing the services(using 2011 budget to illustrate) Net Impact to 2011 Budget with the 2011 without the Bloomington of Not contract contract Contracting Contract Revenues $90,060 $0 Total Expenditures $1,783,787 $1,688,727 Net Expenditures $1,693,727 $1,688,727 $(5,000) - 12- 5 To help analyze the pricing—the following chart may be helpful: Alternative Pricing Approaches Environmental Health 160000 140000 120000 100000 .- 80000 --- 60000 40000 20000 - 0 - - -Marginal Cost Another Provider Current Revenue Average Cost Cost Plus Approach Options Issue#1—2011 Contracts a. Approve Contact 1. At tonight's regular meeting 2. Postpone to the July 11 meeting b. Amount of increase if any 1. 0% 2. 1% 3. 2% 4. 3% 5. Other Issue#2—2012 and years beyond that a. 2012 1. Use the marginal cost plus a percentage as a guide 2. Use average cost 3. Use the estimate of competitive options 4. Other 5. Discontinue providing the service. b. 2013 and Beyond 1. Bloomington Compensation cost increase 2. Bloomington Property Tax increase 3. Bloomington Inspection fee increases 4. Other? L-fn - IS ll e t‘ ,i w i. ) _ 2 E I u. t a I 01 Lit w e ®C u (/1 f, r u F3 _ a) C Co :Fa E O E N 1E f f a t N 8 N L v W tom. C a) E N C ua `\ 1 i- n N N 1 0 5 c1 c2I (°4 v=I i°1 °' x aJ o i• O p o 7 V a• v o v z 0 N Q m , u i 0 N 1 Mai II O O N O MI M Il NJ O O N ti O !IA 11111 oo b o 0 N DC Us_ .... O N CI 0 o ® -� t I • WI \__ 4 N i O .., e....-: N N f� — — 0 0 _,,. ,. 0 �. m . 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O N O O co c-I i/1 i/1 i? i/1 in 1/1 i/1 iA VI i/1 top IS: > N x N ..' O D m NO U 1+ C 7, y) O_ U 0 2 N v a c Z O oN Q m a X a' x L 0 N Millanill _ ci O N Millillial th 7 ,' O N u co �� 111111 I i \' �,........ 0 -' k° a Ca O 3 o N n ®y ..... _ N O N O N N M 11111 : 1 IA ... Vii..•`," d N N ca N 111111 : ' O O O u N 021 m...... .-i f. - — N O O N ._ I i M " _ 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O' d O O O d O' O d O O O N Z.-4 0 O 00 N '.0 Vl V Sn N H LID - 1(0 I- T1 ..4, i.... i....ai U,.... ,... ?1= 17 .C1) 0 r- ,. _. .....o 'T.-...\ ''-ri ittu 0 .. II 1 . d li I i .FF-1 / Or_ . . / 0 I ,:•,1 - 0 tN ttl 4n i . . , • rev' -.0 „....„ ---....,r . _:.,_ ---r-.-.. -----..-„ 67-- 1 f ..,...---,..„. c.). .fq I t 173 0 .t.) ........, L.,o ti.4 r;:rli n n 0 r .. .r.1 . e) on ha ,ct. 1-4.1 0 f-7,1 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 4E REPORT# 243 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR /,,,��A REVIEW: %6I �� REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: , lit �/ vi4 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Conduct a first reading of an ordinance amending Zoning Code regulations to create separate standards for accessory buildings on exceptionally large residential lots. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a first reading of the attached ordinance amending Subsection 514.05, Subdivisions 3 and 4; and Subsection 518.05, Subdivisions 3 and 4 related to accessory structures on residential lots of 15,000 square feet or more. II. BACKGROUND City staff recently received an application requesting a variance to allow an additional accessory structure on an exceptionally large lot. After reviewing the proposal, staff came to the conclusion that while the request seemed reasonable, the fact that the large parcel had been assembled by the property owner (through acquisition of abutting lots over time) precluded application for a variance. One of the criteria necessary for issuing a variance is that unusual or unique circumstances that make a variance necessary (in this case —the unusual size of the lot) cannot have been created by the property owner. Staff suggested that an actual amendment to the Ordinance that would apply to all exceptionally large properties might be more appropriate. 121311 1st Reading Ord Amend large lot accessory bldgs Explanation of Proposed Ordinance Changes: Currently, the Single-Family Residential (R) District allows for a combination of accessory structures that does not exceed 1,200 square feet in total. The maximum size of a garage is generally 1,000 square feet and other accessory structures are limited to 175 square feet. The total allowable square footage of 1,200 equates to approximately 18 percent of a 6,700 square foot lot which can be used for accessory purposes. The Low Density Single-Family Residential (R-1) District allows for a combination of accessory structures not to exceed 1,300 square feet. The same individual maximums apply to garages and other accessory structures. This equates to 13 percent of a 10,000 square foot lot. There are relatively few lots in the City that exceed 15,000 square feet (approximately 160 throughout the City). It seems reasonable to allow these property owners some additional flexibility in terms of accessory buildings given the size of their lots. The proposed change bases the amount of allowable space that can be dedicated to accessory uses on a percentage of the total lot size as opposed to a fixed number (13% of the lot is proposed). The proposed change will also allow larger individual non-garage accessory buildings (up to a maximum of 300 square feet as opposed to 175 square feet). Setbacks, impervious surface, building coverage and limits on the actual number of structures will remain the same, as will height limitations. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The regulations of the Zoning Code are intended to promote harmonious relationships among land uses and to ensure that public and private lands ultimately are used for the purposes that are most appropriate and beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock `started' when a complete application was received on October 28, 2011. A decision is required by December 27, 2011 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision. Due to the holiday, the City Council meeting for December 27, 2011 has been cancelled. A second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for January 10, 2012. A notice of extension was sent to the applicant. C. FINANCIAL • The required application processing fee has been paid. D. LEGAL • A public hearing to consider the attached ordinance was held before the Planning Commission on November 28, 2011. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current in accordance with State and Local requirements. In addition to the applicant, one member of the public spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached ordinance (8-0). • A second reading is scheduled for January 10, 2012. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Impervious surface limitations will remain unchanged. No environmental impact is anticipated. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Approve a first reading of the proposed ordinance with additional changes. • Reject the proposed ordinance. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. Scott Sharpe, applicant and property owner representative BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE RELATED TO ZONING AMENDING SUBSECTION 514.05, SUBDIVISIONS 3 AND 4; AND SUBSECTION 518.05, SUBDIVISIONS 3 AND 4 RELATED TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 Subsection 514.05, Subdivisions 3 and 4 of the Richfield City Code are amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Private garages (includes attached and detached) or carports that do not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet (or 13% of lot area in the case of lots of 15,000 square feet or more) in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot, and are constructed in accordance with Subdivision 2 of this subsection. Subd. 4. Greenhouses, storage buildings, and gazebos that do not exceed 175 square feet (300 square feet in the case of lots of 15,000 square feet or larger) in gross floor area, do not exceed an aggregate of 1,200 square feet (or 13% of lot area in the case of lots of 15,000 square feet or more) in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot, and are constructed in accordance with Subdivision 2 of this subsection. Section 2 Subsection 514.05, Subdivisions 3 and 4 of the Richfield City Code are amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Private garages (includes attached and detached) or carports that do not exceed 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, do not exceed an aggregate of 1,300 square feet (or 13% of lot area in the case of lots of 15,000 square feet or more) in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot, and are constructed in accordance with Subdivision 2 of this subsection. Subd. 4. Greenhouses, storage buildings, and gazebos that do not exceed 175 square feet (300 square feet in the case of lots of 15,000 square feet or larger) in gross floor area, do not exceed an aggregate of 1,300 square feet (or 13% of lot area in the case of lots of 15,000 square feet or more) in gross floor area when combined with all other accessory buildings and attached garages on the lot, and are constructed in accordance with Subdivision 2 of this subsection. Section 3 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of January, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 4F REPORT# 244 MAIM STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR AL REVIEW: /!�� ' SIGNATU REVIEWED BY CITY r, MANAGER: , ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code Appendix D establishing a fee schedule for "Sketch Plan Review" and schedule a second reading for January 10, 2012. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1) Approve first reading of the attached ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code Appendix D establishing a fee schedule for "Sketch Plan Review." 2) Schedule a second reading for January 10, 2012. II. BACKGROUND In the interest of providing a means by which developers can request a more thorough initial review of proposed plans, staff proposes that potential applicants be offered the opportunity for a "Sketch Plan Review." This review will involve the entire Administrative Review Committee, rather than just the Community Development Department, and will serve to make applicants aware of potential issues from all departments that could impact their project. This type of review currently takes place once an application has been submitted and feedback from some developers has indicated that this is later in the process than desired. In order to provide this service, primarily the staff time necessary for this preliminary review, staff proposes a fee of$250. This review will not be required, but offered as an optional service, and will be as thorough as the plans provided by the developer 121311 - 1st Reading - App D sketch plan review fee will allow (e.g. a complete review of utilities cannot take place if only a basic site plan has been submitted). III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City staff works hard to provide excellent customer service to residents and potential developers. • A more formalized early review of plans by all departments will help to identify key issues for applicants. • Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.353 requires that certain fees be established by ordinance. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The City attempts to establish fees that appropriately reflect the City's costs of administering the permit or application for which the fee is charged. • A $250 fee equates to roughly 4-5 hours of combined total staff time amongst several departments. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Approve a first reading of the ordinance with changes. • Reject the approved ordinance. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None L!f BILL NO. 2012- TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 18.72 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX D TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR CERTAIN PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background 1.01 Appendix D to the Richfield City Code consists of the schedule of fees adopted by the City Council, including those adopted by resolution and those adopted by ordinance. 1.02 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.353 requires that certain fees be adopted by ordinance. The City Council has previously established certain fees by Transitory Ordinance No. 1871. The City Council has established other fees by resolution, which resolution is also part of Appendix D. 1.03 The City Council has determined the need to update the schedule of fees under Transitory Ordinance No. 1871. Section 2. Fee Schedule Adopted 2.01 The fees set forth in the attached Exhibit A are hereby adopted by ordinance. 2.02 The fees adopted at Section 2.01 of this Ordinance shall be amended only by ordinance. Any fees established by resolution, other than those adopted at Section 2.01 of this Ordinance, may be amended from time to time by resolution of the City Council. Section 3. Effective date; codification. 3.01 This ordinance is effective in accordance with section 3.09 of the City Charter. 3.02 A copy of this ordinance shall be included in Appendix D to the Richfield City Code, immediately prior to the resolution establishing fees. 3.03 This ordinance supersedes Transitory Ordinance No. 1871. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of January, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 4� -EXHIBIT A CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES A. Investigation Fees: Work without a Permit: Investigation. Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this code has been commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for such work. Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee required by this code. The minimum investigation fee shall be the same as the minimum fee set forth in Section 2. The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of this code nor from any penalty prescribed by law. B. Permit fee refunds: The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled before any plan reviewing is done. The building official shall not authorize refunding of any fee paid except on written application filed by the original permitted not later than 180 days after the date of fee payment. TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (a) Inspections outside of normal business hours $60.00 (minimum charge-two hours) per hour (b) Reinspection fees $60.00 (minimum charge $35.00) per hour (c) Inspections for which no fee is specifically $60.00 indicated (minimum charge-one-half hour) per hour (d) Additional plan review required by changes, $60.00 additions or revision to plans(minimum charge- per hour two hours) (e) Fee to reissue building inspection record card $35.00 *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction,whichever is the greatest.This cost shall include supervision, overhead,equipment,hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employee involved. (1) Building Permits 400.03-400.09 $1 to $500 $35.00 (includes one inspection) Each additional inspection $35.00 $501 to $2,000 $25.00 for the first $500 plus $3.25 each additional $100, or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000 with a minimum fee of $35.00. $2,001 to $25,000 $73.50 for the first$2,000 plus $14.75 for each additional$1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including$25,000. $25,001 to $50,000 $415.75 for the first$25,000 plus$10.75 for each additional$1,000, or fraction thereof,to and including$50,000. BOLD represents added/amended fees A-1 TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING $50,001 to $100,000 $682.50 for the first$50,000 plus$7.50 for each additional$1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including$100,000. $100,001 to$500,000 $1,053.50 for the first$100,000 plus$6.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof,to and including$500,000. $500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,427.75 for the first$500,000 plus$5.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof,to and including$1,000,000. 1,000,001 and up $5,945.25 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof. (2) Driveway, Parking 515.05 (no permit fee for sidewalks) $ 35.00 Area Permits (3) Swimming 420.00 Permanent or portable pools are based on building permit fees with a minimum of $ 35.00 (4) Plan Review Fee 400.03-400.09 35% of building permit fee for one and two family dwelling detached garages and basement remodels 65% of building permit fee for all other building permits,except no fee for the following: (a) Existing single family dwelling minor nonstructural alterations. (b) Single and two family dwelling repair and maintenance work. (c) Commercial and industrial repair and maintenance work not exceeding $1,000 or where plans are not required. Plan review fee for Maximum 25% of permit fee based on Minnesota State Building Code similar buildings 1300.0160 (5) Contractors License Charged once each time a contractor applies for $ 5.00 Verification Fee permit(s) (6) Moving- 845 Moving Permit Fee $ 50.00 Buildings (7) Structure Demolition 400.00-400.09 (a) Commercial Demolition cost as per Building Permit Schedule with a minimum of $ 50.00 (b) Dwelling One or two story $ 50.00 Residential-Garage and lesser structure $ 35.00 BOLD represents added/amended fees A-2 TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (8) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09 Residential Minimum Fee 2%of Total Job cost with a minimum of $ 35.00 (includes one inspection) Each additional inspection $ 35.00 (9) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09 Commercial/Industrial/Multi-family Based on Total Job cost 2%of Estimated Job cost with a minimum of $ 45.00 (includes one inspection) Each additional inspection $ 35.00 Plan Review 10%of permit fee when the job cost exceeds $50,000 (10)Electrical Permit 400.03-.400.09 Residential (a) Minimum Fee which includes one inspection $ 35.00 (b) Each additional Inspection $ 35.00 (c) Complete Wiring Fee: $ 150.00 Single Family Dwelling and each dwelling unit of a two family dwelling and includes not more than three inspections. (d) New Service-up to 200 amps $ 55.00 (e) Temporary Service-(for construction) $ 45.00 (f) Installation, addition alteration, or repair of each circuit or feeder $ 8.00 (g) Swimming pool or exterior hot tub $ 55.00 (11)Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09 Commercial, Industrial and multiple dwellings Commercial (more than two units)and Technology systems: Minimum Fee which includes one inspection $ 45.00 Each additional inspection $ 35.00 (a) Based on total job cost - 2%of estimated job cost with a minimum of $ 45.00 - Over$50,000 - Fee/$1,000.00 plus 1 1/2% of cost over $50,000.00 (b) Traffic Signals: Per Intersection $ 185.00 (c) Fire Alarm: Based on 3/4% of cost of electrical job to customer with a minimum of $ 45.00 (d) Carnivals,festivals and similar events plus$35.00 for each service on generator $ 110.00 (12) Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09 Based on 2% of cost of electrical job to customer with a Signs minimum of $ 45.00 se•arate electrical •ermit re•uired for sins) (13)Residential 400.03-400.09 Central Systems and Additions,Alterations and Repairs Heating, 1 1/2%estimated cost with a minimum of $ 35.00 Ventilating,Air (Includes one inspection) Conditioning and Each additional inspection $ 35.00 Refrigeration Commercial $ 45.00 Heating, Central Systems and Additions,Alterations and Repairs Ventilating,Air 1 1/2%estimated cost with a minimum of Conditioning and Refrigeration Plan Review of 10%of permit fee when the job cost exceeds $50,000. (14)Sign Installation 415.01-415.11 (a) Temporary sign permit $ 35.00 (b) Permanent sign (any size) $ 100.00 Building permit is required for sign support structures Fees based on building permit fee schedule BOLD represents added/amended fees A-3 I ZONING, LAND USE AND RELATED CHARGES 4 ? TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Planned Unit 542 (a) $500 plus$5/$1,000 of project value up to a Development maximum fee of $ 3,500.00 (b) PUD Plan Amendment fee-major $ 550.00 (c) PUD Plan Amendment fee-minor $ 350.00 (2) Site Plan Review 547 (a) $500 plus$.50/$1,000 of project value to a maximum fee of $ 3,500.00 (b) Major amendment $ 500.00 (c) Minor amendment $ 350.00 (3) Variance 547 Residential $ 250.00 Non Residential $ 450.00 Extension $ 75.00 Variance Appeal Residential and Non Residential $ 150.00 (4) Conditional Use 547 (a) $500 + $.50/$1,000 of project value to a maximum Permit fee of $ 3,500.00 (b) Major amendment $ 500.00 (c) Minor amendment $ 350.00 (5) Interim Use Permit 547 $ 500.00 (6) *Zoning District 547 $ 500.00 Change (7) *Subdivision Approval 500.01-500.05 $ 500.00 Subdivision Waiver 500.05-Subd.2 $ 350.00 (8) Street Vacation 820 $ 350.00 (9) Appeal to Board of 547 $ 350.00 Adj.&Appeals (10)Special Request to $ 350.00 City Council (11)Zoning Compliance $ 50.00 Letter (12)Comprehensive Plan $ 600.00 Amend. (13) Plat:preliminary& $ 500.00 final (14)Sketch Plan Review $ 250.00 *Any additional expense of notification necessitated by applicants request for continuance will be charged to the applicant. BOLD represents added/amended fees A-4 FIRE SERVICES FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (6) Fire Extinguishing Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a System Permit minimum of: $ 50.00 Plan review fee: 65% of building permit fee, except no fee for the following: (a)no charge for valuation of$1,000 or less (7) Fire Alarm Systems Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a minimum of: $ 50.00 Plan review fee: 65% of building permit fee, except no fee for the following: (a)no charge for valuation of$1,000 or less (8) Flammable or Tanks (installation or modification $ 150.00 Combustible Liquid or Gas Storage Installation or alteration of piping Tanks Each unit or dispenser $ 50.00 and Piping Underground Tank Removal $ 100.00/Tank MISCELLANEOUS FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (3) Antenna 426 (a)CWTS antenna permit application fee $ 100.00 Commercial Wireless (b)Antenna permit fee for additional antennas added to $ 35.00 Telecommunication an existing antenna location Service(CWTS) BOLD represents added/amended fees A-5 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 4G REPORT# 245 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS,FINANCE MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: RE /. • 4410 - REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: , ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an update to the City's Financial Policies, including separate Fund Balance, Debt Management, and Investment policies. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the update of the City's Financial Policies including separate Fund Balance, Debt Management and Investment Policies. II. BACKGROUND It is a sound management and financial practice to periodically update City financial policies so as to be current with changes in statutes and the issuance of new accounting standards. Accordingly, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has implemented, effective for governmental financial statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2010 GASB Statement 54. The objective of this statement is to enhance the usefulness of fund balance information by providing clearer fund balance classifications that can be more consistently applied and by clarifying the existing governmental fund type definitions. 1213Financial Policies An outcome of the new statement was the decision to update the City's fund balance policy for not only the General Fund, but for all governmental funds. In the past, the City only maintained a policy on the fund balance of the General Fund. In addition, staff has reviewed and updated the City's Financial Policies, Investment Policy and Debt Management Policy. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It has been the City's informal policy to conform to all new GASB pronouncements. • It is the practice of the City of Richfield to follow established financial policies governing the City's practices related to fiscal management. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • GASB Statement#54 is in effect for fiscal year 2011, therefore conformance in 2011 is required. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • N/A V. ATTACHMENTS • City of Richfield Financial Policies • City of Richfield Fund Balance Policy • City of Richfield Debt Management Policy • City of Richfield Investment Policy VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None Li(o - 1 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES City of Richfield Financial Policy Date: December 13, 2011 Subject: Financial Management Policies The City of Richfield has an important responsibility to its citizens to carefully account for public funds, to manage municipal finances wisely and to plan the adequate funding of services desired by the public, including the provision and maintenance of public facilities. The City must ensure that it is capable of adequately funding and providing local government services needed by the community. Further, the financial policies set forth herein,provide the basic framework for the overall fiscal management of the City. Operating independently of changing circumstances and conditions, these polices assist the decision making process of the City Council and Administration. Most of the policies represent long standing principles,traditions and practices which have guided the City in the past and have helped maintain financial stability over the past several years. These financial policies are reviewed annually,periodically requiring modifications. As part of that review process, separate policies on Fund Balance, Investments, and Debt Management have been prepared. The objectives of this Financial Plan are: • To provide both short term and long term future financial stability by ensuring adequate funding for providing services needed by the community; • To protect the City Council's policy-making ability by ensuring that important policy decisions are not dictated by financial problems or emergencies to prevent financial difficulties in the future; • To assist sound management of the City government by providing accurate and timely information on financial condition. • To provide sound principles to guide the important decisions of the City Council and of management which have significant fiscal impact; • To employ revenue policies which prevent undue or unbalanced reliance on certain revenues, distribute the cost of municipal services fairly, and provide adequate funding to operate desired programs; • To provide essential public facilities and prevent deterioration of the City's public facilities and infrastructure; • To protect and enhance the City's credit rating and prevent default on any municipal debt; • To create a document that staff and Council members can refer to during financial planning,budget preparation and other financial management issues. • To ensure the legal use and protection of all City funds through a good system of financial and internal controls. • To set forth operational principle which minimize the cost of local government, to the extent consistent with services desired by the public and which minimize financial risk. - IG - a I. REVENUE MANAGEMENT. It is essential to responsibly manage the City's revenue sources to provide maximum service value to the community. 1. The City will attempt to maintain a diversified and stable revenue system to shelter it from short run fluctuations in any one revenue source. 2. The City will estimate its annual revenues by an objective, analytical process. 3. The City will maintain sound appraisal procedures to keep property values correct. Property will be assessed at the legally mandated market value for each type of property. 4. Property Taxes • When possible,property tax increases should accommodate incremental adjustments. Further, when discussing property taxes,the City should simultaneously explore other revenue and expenditure alternatives that will maximize the City's future financial flexibility and ability to provide services. This may include considering options such as debt management, fees and charges, cost allocation,use of reserves, and expenditure cuts. Possible factors for considering an increase in property tax include: • Maintenance of City services. • Long-term protection of the City's infrastructure. • Meeting legal mandates imposed by outside agencies. • Maintaining adequate fund balance and reserve funds sufficient to maintain or improve the City's bond rating. • Funding City development and redevelopment projects that will clearly result in future tax base increases. The expenditures of development and redevelopment funds must be in accordance with a defined strategy as shown in the City's Comprehensive Plan, Capital Improvement Program, and other Council documents. Property tax increases to meet other purposes will be based on the following criteria: • A clear expression of community need. • The existence of community partnerships willing to share resources. 5. Service Fees and Charges The City may want to consider service fees and charges wherever appropriate for the twin purposes of keeping the property tax rate at a minimum and to fairly allocate the full cost of services to the users of those services. As an example of appropriate cost allocation, service fees and charges broaden the base to include tax exempt properties,which still have municipal costs associated with the property. Specifically, the City may: • Establish rates and fees for each Enterprises Fund, such as Water and Sewer, at a level sufficient to fund both the operating costs and the long-term depreciation and replacement of infrastructure assets of the activity. 2 • As part of the City's revenue management, evaluate City services and aggressively pursue actions to make the services financially self supporting or,when possible, profitable. • Annually review City services and identify those for which charging user fees are appropriate. Established fees will be at a level that will recover the cost of providing that service. • On an annual basis City staff will review existing user fees with the City Council to ensure that the fees are keeping consistent with the effects of inflation and the City's cost of providing the service. • The City will set fees and user charges for other activities, such as recreational services, at a level to support the full cost of promoting the services for all programs except those oriented to youth, adult disabled, and/or senior citizen population. In the process to establish, evaluate and set fees for a new or existing service staff will utilize the following rate criteria approaches below: 1. Market Comparison 2. Maximum set by External Source Fees set by legislation, International Building Code, etc. 3. Entrepreneurial Approach 4. Recover the Cost of Service Program will be self-supporting. 5. Utility Fees A rate study will be periodically updated or reviewed. 6. Non-recurring Revenues Several revenue sources, such as intergovernmental transfers, one-time grants, court fines and other non-recurring revenues are outside of direct City control and must be relied upon conservatively. The City Manager/Finance Manager shall insure that the budget preparation process includes an evaluation of all major non-recurring revenues, in order to minimize reliance on unpredictable revenues for on-going operating costs. II. INVESTMENTS - See Separate Investment Policy. III. RESERVES - See Separate Fund Balance Policy IV. OPERATING BUDGET. The Operating Budget is the annual financial plan for funding the costs of City services and programs. The General Fund is the primary operating budget of the City and as such provides all of the basic governmental services. Enterprise operations are budgeted in separate Enterprise Funds. 1. The City Manager shall submit a balanced General Fund budget in which appropriations shall not exceed the total of the estimated revenues and available fund balance. A balanced budget is defined where sources of funds (revenues) is equal to the uses of funds (expenditures). 3 G - u 2. The City will provide for all current expenditures with current revenues. The City will avoid budgetary procedures that balance current expenditures at the expense of meeting future years' revenues, or rolling over short-term debt, or that rely on accumulated fund balances to meet current obligations. 3. The City Manager will coordinate the development of the capital improvement budget with the development of the operating budget. Operating costs associated with new capital improvements will be projected and included in future operating budget forecasts. 4. The budget will provide for adequate maintenance of the capital plant and equipment, and for their orderly replacement. 5. The impact on the operating budget from any new programs or activities being proposed should be minimized by providing funding with newly created revenues whenever possible. 6. The City Manager will insure that a budgetary control system is in place to adhere to the adopted budget. 7. The Finance Division will provide regular monthly reports comparing actual revenues and expenditures to the budgeted amounts. 8. The operating budget will describe the major goals to be achieved and the services and programs to be delivered for the level of funding provided. 9. In addition to operating expenses, Enterprise funds shall be budgeted to provide for replacement costs of property,plant, and equipment, if appropriate,when establishing rates and charges for services. 10. The budget will provide for adequate funding of all retirement systems. 11. Where possible the City will integrate performance measurement and productivity indicators with the budget. V. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP). services and the cost of building and maintaining the City's infrastructure demand for se g The g continues to increase. No city can afford to accomplish every project or meet every service demand. Therefore, a methodology must be employed that provides a realistic projection of community needs, the meeting of those needs, and a framework to support City Council prioritization of those needs. That is the broad purpose of the CIP. The CIP includes the scheduling of public improvements for the community over a five-year period and takes into account the community's financial capabilities as well as its goals and priorities. A"capital improvement"is defined as any major nonrecurring expenditure for physical 4 facilities of government. Typical expenditures are the cost of land acquisition or interest in land, construction of roads, utilities and parks. Vehicles and equipment can be covered in a CIP or covered separately under an equipment schedule. The CIP is directly linked to goals and policies, land use, and community facility sections of the Comprehensive Plan since these sections indicate general policy of development,redevelopment, and the maintenance of the community. 1. The City will make all capital improvements in accordance with an adopted Capital Improvement Budget. 2. The City will develop a plan for capital improvements that encompasses four years following the fiscal year end of the budget and update it annually. 3. The City will enact an annual Capital Budget based on the multi year capital improvement plan. Future capital expenditures necessitated by changes in population, changes in real estate development, or changes in economic base will be calculated and included in Capital Budget projections. 4. The City will coordinate development of the Capital Improvement Budget with the development of the operating budget. Future operating costs associated with new capital improvements will be projected and included in operating budget forecasts. 5. The City will use intergovernmental funding to finance only those capital improvements that are consistent with the adopted capital improvement plan and City priorities and for which operating and maintenance costs have been included in operating budget forecasts. 6. The City will project its equipment replacement and maintenance needs for the same term as its capital plan and will update this projection each year. From this projection, a maintenance and replacement schedule will be developed and followed in the Central Garage Fund. 7. The City staff will identify the estimated costs and potential funding sources for each capital project proposal before it is submitted to the City Council for approval. 8. The City will determine the most cost effective financing method for all new projects. 9. The City will utilize profits from its municipal liquor operation solely for the support of capital improvements. Each year, an amount up to,but not to exceed$500,000 of available current year liquor store profits will be transferred to the Liquor Contribution Fund for capital improvements. Any remaining profits will be retained in the Liquor Fund as working capital for the maintenance and expansion of physical assets, including store facilities. The accumulation of funds in working capital will be reviewed annually by the City Council. 10. At the completion of capital projects funded by the Liquor Contribution Fund, any residual balance remaining in the project fund will be closed back to the Liquor Contribution Fund. 11. At the completion of a capital project, any residual balance remaining in the project fund will be closed to the Capital Improvement Reserve Fund. 5 VI. DEBT MANAGEMENT - See Separate Debt Management Policy VII.ACCOUNTING,AUDITING,AND FINANCIAL REPORTING. The key to effective financial management is to provide accurate, current, and meaningful information about the City's operations to guide decision making and enhance and protect the City's financial position. 1. The City's accounting system will maintain records on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting standards and principles for local government accounting as set forth by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and in conformance with the State Auditor's requirements per State Statutes. This allows for modified accrual basis for all governmental funds and accrual basis for proprietary funds. 2. The City will establish and maintain a high standard of accounting practices. 3. The City will follow a policy of full disclosure written in clear and understandable language in all reports on its financial condition. 4. The Finance Division will provide timely monthly and annual financial reports to users. 5. An independent public accounting firm will perform an annual audit and issue an opinion on the City's financial statements. 6. Annually the City Council and staff will meet with the Auditors to review the audit report. 7. Periodic financial reports on budget performance will be provided to the City Council monthly. VIII. RISK MANAGEMENT. A comprehensive risk management plan seeks to manage the risks of loss encountered in the everyday operations of an organization. Risk management involves such key components as risk avoidance, risk reduction,risk assumption, and risk transfers through the purchase of insurance. The purpose of establishing a risk management policy is to help maintain the integrity and financial stability of the City,protect its employees from injury, and reduce overall costs of operations. 1. The City will maintain a risk management program that will minimize the impact of legal liabilities, natural disasters or other emergencies through the following activities: a) Loss prevention-prevent losses where possible b) Loss control -reduce or mitigate losses c) Loss financing-provide a means to finance losses d) Loss information management- collect and analyze data to make prudent prevention, control and financing decisions 2. The City will review and analyze all areas of risk in order to,whenever possible, avoid and reduce risks or transfer risks to other entities. Of the risks that must be retained, it shall be the policy to fund the risks which the City can afford and transfer all other risks to insurers. 3. The City will maintain an active safety committee comprised of City employees. 4. The City will periodically conduct educational safety and risk avoidance programs within its various divisions. 6 4G - � 5. The City will, on an ongoing basis, analyze the feasibility of self funding and other cooperative funding options in lieu of purchasing outside insurance in order to provide the best coverage at the most economical cost. 6. Staff will report to the Council, annually on the results of the City's risk management program for the preceding year. 7. The City will maintain a separate Self Insurance Fund within its fund and account groups. 8. The City will periodically review the reserve balance within the Self Insurance and provide estimates of Incurred But Not Reported(IBNR) claims. 9. The City will maintain an unrestricted Self Insurance Fund balance on no less than$500,000. Approved: /s/Steven L. Devich City Manager 7 FUND BALANCE POLICY City of Richfield Financial Policy Date: December 13, 2011 Subject: Fund Balance Policy Introduction The City of Richfield has a fiduciary responsibility to its citizens and taxpayers to carefully account for public funds,to manage its finances prudently and to adequately plan the financing of City services including the provision and maintenance of public facilities. The City is also responsible for its short-term and long-term financial stability. The City must insure that it is, and will continue to be, capable of adequately funding and providing City services needed by the community. Governmental funds report the difference between their assets and liabilities as fund balance. Fund balance is one method used to measure the availability of financial resources in a governmental fund. It is essential that the City maintain adequate levels of fund balance to mitigate current and future risks, such as revenue shortfalls, unanticipated expenditures, and emergencies and to ensure stable tax rates, service levels, and adequate cash flows. Fund balance levels are a crucial consideration in long-term financial planning. This policy supersedes the previous policy adopted April 18, 2005. I. SCOPE This fiscal policy provides the framework for the overall fiscal management of the fund balances for the City's governmental funds. Governmental funds include the general fund, special revenue funds, debt service funds, and capital project funds. Enterprise funds and internal service funds are not within the scope of this policy since they are not governmental funds. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to (1) improve clarity and consistency of the fund balance information provided; (2) establish targeted fund balance for the General Fund; and(3) define and integrate the City's fund balance policy for its governmental funds in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and Governmental Accounting Standards Board(GASB) Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions. yG _q III. FUND BALANCE REPORTING Fund balance for governmental funds should be reported in classifications that comprise a hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which the City is bound to honor constraints on the specific purposes for which amounts in those funds can be spent. The classifications are as follows: Restricted: A. Nonspendable—includes amounts that can not be spent because they are either (a) not in spendable form or(b) legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. The "not in spendable form" criterion includes items that are not expected to be converted to cash, for example, inventories and prepaid amounts. It also includes long-term receivables and property held for resale which are not otherwise restricted, committed or assigned. B. Restricted—amounts that can be spent only for specific purposes stipulated by external resource providers or creditors, enabling legislation, or constitutional provisions. Effectively, restrictions may be changed or lifted only with the consent of the resource provider. Unrestricted: C. Committed—amounts that can be used only for specific purposes determined by a formal action of the City Council, the City's highest level of decision- making authority. Commitments may be changed or lifted only by the City Council taking the same formal action that imposed the constraint originally. The action to commit should occur prior to the end of the reporting period, but the amount, if any,may be determined in the subsequent period. D. Assigned—includes amounts constrained by the City's intent to be used for specific purposes but are neither restricted nor committed. The City's intent should be expressed by the City's Finance Manager. The City Council authorizes the Finance Manager to determine the Assigned fund balance reflecting the City Council's intent to include (a) all remaining amounts (except for negative balances) in governmental funds other than the general fund, which are not classified as nonspendable, restricted or committed and(b) amounts in the general fund that are intended to be used for a specific purpose. Assignments which result in a deficit to the unassigned fund balance are not allowed. E. Unassigned—residual amounts in the general fund which have not been classified as nonspendable, restricted, committed or assigned. It is also used for other governmental funds with a negative fund balance. yG - 10 IV. FUND BALANCE CLASSIFICATION HIERARCHY When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use in the same fund, it is the policy of the City to use the most restricted resources first, and then as needed use the unrestricted resources. When unrestricted resources are available for use, they will be used in the following order: (first to last) committed; assigned; and unassigned. V. GENERAL FUND TARGETED FUND BALANCE The unassigned fund balance of the General Fund will fluctuate from year to year depending upon the overall results of operations compared to the budget. Budgets may vary from one year to the next as well. As a result the unassigned amount of the fund balance may be more than adequate one year but deficient in the next. Reacting to each year's variance should be thoughtful and deliberate. A. In order to achieve its purpose, this policy has the following objectives for the level of unassigned fund balance in the General Fund: 1. Provide for adequate and effective cash-flows,reducing/eliminating the need for short-term internal borrowing. Both the revenue and expenditure streams should be considered while determining the appropriate amounts of fund balance. A number of the City's anticipated operating revenues are not evenly received throughout the year. The City will need sufficient beginning fund balance to pay expenditures until these revenues are received. For example,the City's General Fund relies very heavily upon property tax revenues. They are received about 6 months into the fiscal year and again at the end of the year. Sufficient financial resources must be maintained until the next property tax revenue collection cycle. 2. Provide for temporary revenue shortfalls, such as reductions in State Aid revenues and reimbursements. 3. Provide financial stability and a positive trend of fund balance levels which will be a positive factor in our bond rating analysis. 4. Generate investment earnings on the fund balances which will provide a revenue source to the General Fund and in turn reduce pressure on the general operating tax levy. B. Targeted balance 1. The fund balance of the City's General Fund will strive to maintain an unassigned fund balance of an amount not less than 40% of the current year end actual General Fund revenues. The dollar amount of the target may fluctuate with each year's actual results. 14 G -- 11 C. Replenishing and reducing the targeted stabilization fund balance 1. Deficits are to be avoided. Elimination of deficits in fund balance shall be addressed during the budget process. It is the intent of the City Council and this policy to address deficits and balances below the targeted amount within three budget years. The subsequent year's budget should address the method to eliminate the deficit. Methods may include but are not limited to using annual budget surpluses,transfers in from other funds and adjustment of other resources and budgets. Care will be exercised to maintain the integrity of the City's long-term financial plans when determining the method to be used to bring the fund balance back into conformance with the targeted balance. 2. Amounts in excess of the targeted balance maybe utilized in subsequent years' budgets and/or transferred to other funds. Subsequent years' budgets and/or transfers out of the General Fund must be approved by the City Council. 3. The City Council may assign portions of the fund balance for other items such as City projects and/or improvements, emergency or unanticipated expenditures, etc. VI.OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS A. Special Revenue Funds—funds used to account for and report the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditure for specified purposes other than debt service or capital projects. The term proceeds of specific revenue sources establishes that one or more specific restricted or committed revenues should be the foundation for a special revenue fund. Accordingly, the fund balances of City Special Revenue funds will be considered as committed or restricted. B. Debt Service Funds—funds used to set aside resources to meet current and future debt service requirements on long-term debt. GAAP permits the use of debt service funds to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of, long-term debt principal and interest. Sound financial management requires that the City account for each debt issue separately in its accounting system. Balances in individual debt service funds will be considered as restricted until such time as each fund's respective debt is paid in full. At that time any surplus or deficit remaining in the fund will be closed out to the Closed Bond Fund. 1. The fund balance of the Closed Bond Fund shall be considered as assigned for debt related expenditures. LAC, - 1a 2. Fund balances in the Bonds of 1973 Fund, which originally funded permanent streets in the City, shall be considered as committed to provide supplemental financing to the General Fund for street maintenance projects as needed on an annual basis. C. Capital Project Funds—funds used to account for and report financial resources that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditure for capital outlays, including the acquisition or construction of capital facilities and other capital assets. Capital Project Funds that are provided funding by external resource providers, the fund balance in those funds will be considered restricted. Balances in the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund shall be used only as directed by resolution of the City. As such balances in the fund will be considered as committed. Fund balances in other Capital Project Funds where amounts remain, but are neither restricted nor committed will be considered as assigned, consistent with the purpose of that specific fund. VII. AUTHORITY The Finance Manager is authorized to assign amounts within the fund balance of the City's governmental funds to be used for specific purposes in conformity with GAAP and GASB pronouncements and to be consistent with this policy and the intent of the City Council. Approved: /s/ Steven L. Devich City Manager DEBT MANANGEMENT POLICY City of Richfield FINANCIAL POLICY Date: December 13, 2011 Subject: Debt Management Policy Introduction The use of borrowing and debt is an important and flexible revenue source available to the City. Debt is a mechanism which allows capital improvements to proceed when needed, in advance of when it would otherwise be possible through accumulation of cash balances. It can reduce long-term costs due to inflation, capitalize on present opportunities, and equalize the costs of improvements to present and future constituencies. Debt management is an integral part of the financial management of the City. Adequate resources must be provided for the repayment of debt, and the level of debt incurred by the City must be effectively controlled to amounts that are manageable and within levels that will maintain or enhance the City's credit rating. A goal of debt management is to stabilize the overall debt burden and future tax levy requirements to ensure that issued debt can be repaid and prevent default on any municipal debt. A debt level which is too high places a financial burden on taxpayers and can create problems for the community's economy as a whole. Scope Wise and prudent use of debt provides fiscal and service advantages. Overuse of debt places a burden on the fiscal resources of the City and its taxpayers. The following guidelines provide a framework and limit on debt utilization: I. Debt Limits a. Legal Limits: i. Minnesota Statutes, Section 475 prescribes the statutory debt limit that outstanding principal of debt cannot exceed 3% of taxable market value. This limitation applies to "Net Debt" as defined in Section 475.51,Minnesota Statutes, as well as lease purchases or installment contracts (465.71) greater than or equal to $1,000,000. HRA public project revenue bonds or lease revenue bonds with financing lease agreement with a city or county also count against the statutory debt limit. ii. The City's ability to issue debt will conform to the City Charter. b. Policy Limits: i. The City will weigh the benefits and costs of long-term borrowing for planned capital improvements and short-term debt for capital outlay. In addition, when considering financing of capital expenditures, the City may consider paying cash for capital financing as well as debt financing. ii. Uses of Debt: Debt will be used only for capital improvements, projects, or acquisitions that cannot be financed from current revenue. The City will not utilize debt for cash flow borrowing or to support current operations. iii. In the in event of some unforeseen cause where taxes or other sources become insufficient or a natural disaster or public emergency should subject the City to making extraordinary expenditures,the City may by resolution issue debt emergency certificates on a short term basis. iv. CIP and Financial Planning: The City's capital improvement plan shall contain debt assumptions which match this policy and requires a commitment to long range financial planning which looks at multiple years of capital and debt needs. v. Tax Increment Bonds: The City shall use G.O. Tax Increment Bonds only when the project meets statutory requirements. vi. When capital improvements/projects are financed by issuing debt,the debt will be paid back within a period not to exceed the expected useful life of the project,with at least 50% of the principal retired within 2/3 of the term of the bond issue. vii.Where possible the City will use special assessment, revenue or other self supporting debt not counting against statutory imposed limitations. viii. The City will retire any tax anticipation debt annually and will retire bond anticipation debt within six months after completion of the project. c. Financial Limits: i. Direct debt is the amount of general obligation principal or lease obligations supported by taxes which are outstanding for which the City is obligor. Indirect debt is the amount of the City's share of tax supported debt of other overlying taxing jurisdictions. Direct debt as a percentage of the City's taxable market value shall not exceed 6.67%. ii. Bond issues may require a special debt levy. The City's goal has been to maintain the amount of the property tax levy dedicated to debt service (principal and interest plus 5% for G.O. bonds)will not exceed 25%of total annual locally generated operating expenditures. II. Use of Variable Rate Debt and Derivatives a. Variable Rate Debt. The City will shall use variable rate debt only if total principal and interest of the debt constitutes less than 20%of the City's total debt payments and only if circumstances dictate the need for a short term call date. b. Derivatives. The City will not use derivative based debt. III. Debt Structuring Practices L-( G - � 5 a. Term: State law limits general obligation debt to 30 years in most circumstances. The City will attempt to keep the stated maturity of debt at or below 20 years. b. Term of Equipment: State law allows cities to issue debt(known as equipment certificates or capital notes) up to a term of 10 years for the purpose of purchasing equipment. The City will utilize the issuance of capital notes when the option of funding equipment purchases with other resources is not available. The term of any debt issue for purposes of acquiring equipment shall not exceed the useful life of the assets financed. IV. Debt Issuance Practices a. Rating Agencies: The City will maintain good communications with bond rating agencies regarding its financial condition. The City will follow a policy of full disclosure in every financial report and bond prospectus. b. Bondholders: The City will maintain good communications with its bondholders regarding its financial condition. c. Method of Sale: The City shall use competitive bidding for all of its debt unless the debt is so specialized in its nature that is will not attract more than 2 bids. d. Refunding: i. The City with the assistance of a financial advisor will track and identify opportunities for restructuring or refinancing debt. Furthermore,when feasible, the City will use refunding mechanisms to reduce interest and evaluate the use of debt reserves or other accumulated balances to lower overall debt service where possible. ii. Advance refunding bonds shall not be utilized unless present value savings of 3% of refunded principal is achieved and unless the call date is within 4 years. This is in accordance with state law. iii. Current refunding bonds shall not be utilized unless present value savings of 3% of refunded principal is achieved or in concert with other bond issues to save costs of issuance. iv. Special assessment or revenue debt will not be refunded unless it is determined that special assessments or other sufficient revenues will not be collected soon enough to pay off the debt fully at the call date. e. Professional Services. The City shall use an outside bond attorney, an independent financial advisor to structure the sale of debt, and a paying agent for book entry transactions. V. Debt Management Practices a. Investment of bond proceeds. The City shall invest bond proceeds in a separate account in order to account for earnings on invested proceeds for the purposes of complying with arbitrage regulations. b. Disclosure: The City shall comply with SEC rule 15(c)2(12) on primary and continuing disclosure. Continuing disclosure reports shall be files no later than 180 days after the end of the fiscal year. c. Arbitrage Rebate: The City shall complete an arbitrage rebate report for each issue no less than every five years after its date of issuance. � G - i(a d. The City will transfer any residual balances in matured debt service funds to the Closed Bond Fund. VI. Updates of Policy a. The Finance Manager will be responsible for reviewing and amending this policy as dictated by changes in related statutes and bring these updates to the City Council for approval. Approved: /s/Steven L. Devich City Manager INVESTMENT POLICY CITY OF RICHFIELD FINANCIAL POLICY DATE: December 13, 2011 SUBJECT: Investment Policy Introduction The purpose of this policy is to establish outline the scope, objectives, responsibilities and reporting procedures pertaining to investments on behalf of the City of Richfield. A. Scope This investment policy applies to all financial assets of the City of Richfield (City) and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). These funds are accounted for in the City's annual financial report and include the following: 1. General Fund 2. Special Revenue Funds 3. Debt Service Funds 4. Capital Projects Funds 5. Internal Service Funds 6. Enterprise Funds 7. Agency Funds B. Objectives The primary objectives of the investment portfolio include safety, liquidity and yield. The investment portfolio shall be designed to ensure that capital losses are avoided, to provide sufficient funds to meet cash flows and to attain a market average rate of return consistent with state laws that restrict the placement of public funds. It is the policy of the City of Richfield that available funds be invested to first meet cash flow projections and the excess to the maximum extent possible at the highest possible rates obtainable at the time of investment in conformance with the legal and administrative guidelines outlined herein. C. Delegation of Authority Management responsibility for the investment portfolio is delegated from the Treasurer to the Finance Manager, who shall establish written procedures for the processing of investment transactions, consistent with this policy. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Finance Manager. The Treasurer shall monitor the performance of the portfolio on a monthly basis. Annually, the City Council shall designate depositories for investment purposes. D. Prudence The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "prudent person" rule and shall be applied in the context of managing the overall portfolio. Investment officers acting in accordance with written procedures and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk of market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely manner and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. E. Internal Controls The Finance Manager shall establish a system of internal controls, which shall be documented in writing. The internal controls shall be designed to prevent losses of public funds arising from fraud, INVESTMENT POLICY PAGE 2 employee error, and misrepresentation by third parties, unanticipated changes in financial markets, of imprudent actions by employees and officers of the City. F. Instruments Funds of the City and the HRA may be invested in securities authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 118a.01 — 118a.06. Authorized investments include the following instruments: • Federal Securities • Treasury bills, notes and bonds, as well as bonds and notes issued by U.S. Governments Agencies such as the Small Business Administration or GNMA, or U.S. Government instrumentalities such as FNMA, Federal Home Loan Bank, Federal Farm Credit Bank or FHLMC (Freddie Mac) • State and Local Securities • Bonds and other debt instruments issued by cities, counties, states or other governmental units subject to rating requirements. • Commercial Paper • Rated short-term debt issued by U.S. corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries • Guaranteed Investment Contracts • Certificates of Deposit • Issued by U.S. Banks fully insured by FDIC • Bankers' Acceptances • Issued by U.S. Banks • Money Market Mutual Funds • Subject to certain ratings • Government Investment Pools, including the 4M Fund, the Liquid Asset Fund, MAGIC Fund, and MN Trust Prior to completing an initial transaction with a broker, or broker-dealer, the City shall obtain the broker's signature on a "Broker Certification Form."This form will need to be updated and obtained annually. The City's ownership of investments must be evidenced by written acknowledgements identifying the securities by the names of the issuers, maturity dates, interest rates, CUSIP numbers and other distinguishing information. G. Maturities The investment portfolio of the City of Richfield shall be invested in instruments whose maturities vary to meet expected cash flows during the current and succeeding year(s). Funds in excess of these cash flow needs shall be invested in varying maturities based on available rates and anticipated economic conditions. The City shall invest 100% of idle cash at all times. H. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper execution and management of the investment program. Employees shall disclose any material interests in financial institutions with which they conduct business or that could be related to the performance of the investment portfolio. Employees shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business is conducted on behalf of the City. H. Risk Investment risks can result from issuer defaults, market price changes, or various technical complications leading to temporary illiquidity. To control default risk, investments purchased shall include those authorized by Minnesota Statutes, such as U.S. Government Securities and the highest quality commercial paper. Certificates of INVESTMENT POLICY PAGE 3 deposit shall be purchased only from FDIC insured banks in amounts less than the FDIC insured level of$250,000. To control the risk of market price changes and potential loss upon early redemption, investment maturities shall match the City's projected cash flows. Investment in securities with maturities in excess of two years shall be placed with the intention to hold the security until maturity. Price volatility shall be analyzed prudently to minimize risk of market price changes. To control risks of illiquidity, the investment portfolio shall include any marketable securities, with a minimum of approximately $1,000,000 invested in highly liquid funds which can be liquidated within one day. These funds shall be utilized for payroll and vendor disbursements as needed. I. Safekeeping and Custody To protect against potential fraud and embezzlement, the assets of the City and the HRA shall be secured through third party custody and safekeeping procedures. Accordingly, all securities purchased will be delivered and held at Wells Fargo Institutional Trust and Custody Services. There will be two separate accounts, one account for City investments and one account for HRA investments. J. Reporting A monthly report shall be provided to the Treasurer and to the City Council which includes a summary of investments held at month end. The report shall contain the following items: 1. Description 2. Yield 3. Maturity Date 4. Par Value 5. Carrying Value 6. Total Carrying Value by Investment Type Approved: /s/Steven L. Devich City Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 4H REPORT# 246 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEV- DEVICH, CITY MANAGER NAME, ;LE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Wit „„„k, ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution making appointment to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution appointing Pat Brekken to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for a three-year term ending December 31, 2014. II. BACKGROUND On June 25, 1990 the City Council approved an ordinance to levy a 3% tax on gross receipts of lodging from Richfield Hotels and Motels pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. The establishment of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc. (RTPB) and the appointment of directors were also a part of the resolution. Currently there are five director positions on the RTPB. The term of each appointment is for three years and terms are staggered to maintain RTPB continuity. The current appointments to the RTPB and the ending dates of their terms are as follows: 1. Patti Sterbuck, representing the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, term ending December 31, 2011. 2. Abisola Omiwade, General Manager of Candlewood Suites, term ending December 31, 2012. 3. Raj Bhakta, General Manager of Americlnn, term ending December 31, 2012. 4. Adam Selby, Hampton Inn, term ending December 31, 2012. 5. Vacant, General Manager of Motel 6. 1213RTPB Patti Sterbuck has been the representative of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce to the RTPB for the past few years. Ms. Sterbuck term will expire on December 31, 2011 and she has indicated that she does not wish to be considered for reappointment. Pat Brekken is the President of the Richfield Bloomington Credit Union and has served in that position for several years. In addition, Mr. Brekken has also been a long time member of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce has requested that Mr. Brekken be appointed to represent their organization on the RTPB. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council has the authority to make appointments to the RTPB. • The RTPB has typically included a representative from the Chamber of Commerce. • Mr. Brekken has been recommended by the Richfield chamber of Commerce for appointment to the RTPB. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The Richfield Chamber of Commerce has historically held a seat on the RTPB and as such, the appointment should be made as soon as possible. C. FINANCIAL • There is no cost to the City. D. LEGAL • The appointment conforms to City ordinance and bylaws of the RTPB. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • The City Council could decide not to appoint Mr. Brekken to the RTPB. • The City Council could choose to review this matter at a future date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. • Letter from Richfield Chamber of Commerce. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. 414 -I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RICHFIELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, INC. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has levied a 3% tax on the gross receipts of lodging from hotels and motels in the City pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 169.190; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Section 169.190 authorizes the proceeds of the tax to fund a Tourism Promotion Board for the purpose of marketing and promoting the City as a tourist or convention center; and WHEREAS, the articles and bylaws of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc. provide the City Council of the City of Richfield appoint five (5) directors to the Board representing the Richfield hotel-motel properties and the Richfield Chamber of Commerce; and WHEREAS, each director shall serve as a director until his or her successor has been appointed and has qualified, or until his or her earlier disqualification, death, resignation, or removal; and WHEREAS, the term of Patti Sterbuck, the representative from the Richfield Chamber of Commerce has expired and she does not seek reappointment, and WHEREAS, Pat Brekken has been recommended for appointed as the new Chamber of Commerce representative and seeks appointment to the RTPB. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board directors be modified as follows: Appoint Pat Brekken, Richfield Chamber of Commerce, to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for a three-year term ending December 31, 2014. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 0 Richfield Chamber of Commerce lECEiv tr:4.‘. November 22, 2011 . ., NOV 2 2011 BY: Mr. Steve Devich City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Devich: This letter is to inform you of the decision of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors made at the regular meeting in November to appoint Mr. Pat Brekken to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board(RTPB)to replace Ms. Patti Sterbuck at the end of 2011. As you know, Ms. Sterbuck's term is expiring in December. We respectfully request the Richfield City Council appoint Mr. Brekken to the RTPB as the chamber representative in order for him to be seated with the board for the January rung Ver ' your , _,.., , ,,, 7"--,,-e-,--- 41,111.e. Lindgren PRESIDENT 0 SL:cs Cc: Mr. Pat Brekken Mr. Jim Meissen "Serving Richfield Since 1955" 6601 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH,SUITE 106• RICHFIELD, MN 55423•TELEPHONE(612)866-5100 www.RichfieldChamberCVB.org AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 4I REPORT# 247 =NAM STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ,4„ ri ,i. REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the renewal of 2012 business licenses for 3.2 percent malt liquor sales and licenses to do business in Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve the 2012 renewal of named business licenses for 3.2 percent malt liquor sales; and • Approve licenses to operate named businesses in the City of Richfield. II. BACKGROUND The below listed businesses have not been required to have a staff report prepared in the past, nor is there a requirement for a public hearing to be held for renewal of these type of licenses. Staff has presented a report for each business at the time that they originally applied for and received Council approval to operate their businesses or to sell malt liquor at their businesses in the City of Richfield. For the sake of preserving time, the license renewal requests were placed on the consent calendar. However, a staff report is presented to the City Council for informational purposes. The businesses named below with the corresponding licenses are presented for Council approval on this date. 121311 Annual Renewal of Consent Licenses License to Operate in Richfield • Airport Taxi — 11 vehicles • A New Star Limousine & Taxi Service — 8 vehicles • Suburban Taxi Corporation — 5 vehicles • Gold Star Taxi — 27 vehicles • Black &White Taxi — 5 vehicles • Latino Express — 10 vehicles • Twin Cities Airport Taxi — 5 vehicles • Latino Americano — 8 vehicles • White Star Taxi — 3 vehicles • Paul's Rentals & Sales: Trailers and Trucks Rental License to Sell 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor • Aldi Foods — Off-Sale • El Jalapeno — Off-Sale • Portland Food Mart— Off Sale • RBF Corporation of Wisconsin (Rainbow Foods) — Off-Sale • Richfield U.S. (Mobile Mart) — Off-Sale • Sandy's Tavern — On-Sale • SuperAmerica #4186 — Off-Sale • SuperAmerica #4188 — Off-Sale • SuperAmerica #4191 — Off-Sale • SuperAmerica #4615 — Off-Sale • Target Corporation — Off-Sale • Vina Restaurant — On-Sale III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • All businesses must annually request renewal of their licenses to the City Council. • Businesses must meet the set requirements for renewal of their licenses. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • All license fees must be paid and application forms submitted in order to be considered for license renewal. C. FINANCIAL • All businesses listed have met the requirements and paid the required fees. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Deny the request for the renewal of 2012 business licenses for 3.2 percent malt liquor sales and licenses to do business in Richfield. This would result in the applicants not being able to conduct business within the City in 2012. However, there have been no issues with any of these establishments and the Public Safety Department has found no reason to deny any of the requested licenses. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None; however, businesses have been notified of the date of presentation to the City Council. AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 6A REPORT# 248 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR i REVIEW: / / I/Aid r� 4 , GNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY W 4 MANAGER: / _ ' I ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and Close the Public Hearing and By Motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2012 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On October 28, 2011 the City received the renewal application and other required documents for pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Mark and Elizabeth Nichols are the owners of this establishment. John Alan Kunst serves as the store manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. The applicants are the owners of the property located at 7529 Lyndale. 121311 PH Metro Pawn&Secondhand Goods Licenses Renewal for 2012 All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The $5,000 bond has been submitted. There were eight Public Safety/Police contacts with Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares with 70 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. in the previous year. The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on November 24, 2011. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • This agenda item is the first request out of two for the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealers' licenses. If no Council member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single/individual public hearing is called for, the Mayor should require each speaker to identify the particular license to which the person is speaking. Any Council member may request that the question be divided, if the Council member wishes to address any one or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion. • The Council could decide to continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider granting a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of officers. • Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mark Nicols, Owner of the Establishment. • John Kunst, Manager CA- l METRO PAWN & GUN, INC. Officers Mark Nichols Owner Elizabeth Nichols Owner John Alan Kunst Store Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 — September 2011 Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 70 8 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 6 3 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (6) (3) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 64 5 Assists (63) (3) Traffic (0) (1) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (1) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2010 through September 2011 were: one warrant, one suspicious person/activity, and one weapon violation. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 6B REPORT# 249 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: i dwi ' r Sn URE REVIEWED BY CITY ' / MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn & Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and Close Public Hearing and By Motion: • Approve the renewal of 2012 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn & Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On November 10, 2011, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn & Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Andy Jason Strauss is the sole owner of the establishment and also serves as the store manager. He has no known criminal record. 121311 PH Avi's Pawn and Secondhand Goods Licenses Renewal The lease between the applicant and the property owner is in effect with all payments current. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. A $5,000 bond has been submitted. There were four Public Safety contacts with Avi's Pawn from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares with 59 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Avi's Pawn in the past year. The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on November 24, 2011. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council could decide to continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of temporary licenses to allow the applicant to continue the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealers business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of officers. • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Andy Strauss, Owner CAPITAL CASH, LLC d/b/a/ AVI'S PAWN & JEWELRY Officers Andy Strauss Owner PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 — September 2011 Avi's Pawn & Jewelry 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 59 4 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 5 3 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (5) (3) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 54 1 Assists (53) (1) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (1) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2010 through September 2011 were: One domestic, one drunkenness, and one suspicious person/activity. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 7A REPORT# 250 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: - " ✓.�� • REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 Lake Shore Drive. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and Close the Public Hearing and By Motion: • Approve the renewal of 2012 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 Lake Shore Drive. II. BACKGROUND On November 2, 2011, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: John Ellis continues to serve as Chair of the House Committee. The on-premise General Manager has changed and is now Valerie Olson. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. 121311 PH Fred Babcock VFW Club On-sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses Renewal All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property is owned by Gramarcy Park Cooperative. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Integrity Mutual Insurance Company affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been submitted covering the period of October 2010 through September 2011 and indicates that food sales accounted for 46.8% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 48.7% of the total sales. Miscellaneous sales accounted for 4.5% of the total sales. The VFW is exempt from meeting the 50% or more food sales requirement due to the fact that they are a club/veterans organization and are exempt. There were 13 Public Safety/Police contacts with Fred Babcock VFW Post No. 5555 from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares with nine for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding the VFW in the past year. Club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy has been given to the establishment. There are no distance requirements for notifying neighbors of the issuance or renewal of a club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Fred Babcock VFW Post No. 5555 was April 3, 2008. This was considered a second violation. Technically, it is a fifth violation, but due to the time that has elapsed between this violation and the previous violations on July 15, 1999, August 8, 2000, November 9, 2004 and April 13, 2007, it was counted as a second violation. There have been no other violations since 2008. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • This agenda item is the first request out of two for the renewal of club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. If no Council member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single/individual public hearing is called, the Mayor should require each speaker to identify the particular license to which the person is speaking. Any Council member may request that the question be divided, if the Council member wishes to address any one or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion. • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012 the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Gin Ng, Manager 7 - ( V.F.W. POST NO. 5555, INC. Post Officers John Ellis Chair of the House Committee Valerie Olson On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 — September 2011 FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST NO. 5555 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 9 13 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 6 10 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (4) (9) Alarm (2) (1) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 3 3 Assists (1) (0) Traffic (0) (2) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (2) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2010 through September 2011 were: one disturbance, one property damage accident, one forgery, one assault, four thefts, one fight and one alarm. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 7B REPORT# 251 =NAM STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: r f REVIEWED BY CITY ;''� // d% MANAGER I / ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and Close the Public Hearing and By Motion: • Approve the renewal of 2012 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On November 2, 2011, the City received the application and other required documents for the renewal of club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The structure of the organization remains unchanged from the previous year. Craig Anthony Deneen serves as President; Mervyn Becker serves as Treasurer; and Roger Wysong continues to serve as the Club Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. 121311 PH American Legion Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property and building continue to be owned by the American Legion. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Integrity Mutual Insurance Company affording the coverage. Proof of worker's compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2010 through September 2011 and indicates that food sales accounted for 21.6% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 78.4% of the total sales. The Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion is exempt from meeting the 50% or more food sales requirement due to the fact that they are a club/veterans organization. There were 19 Public Safety/Police contacts with the American Legion from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares with 18 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding the Minneapolis- Richfield American Legion Post #435 in the past year. Club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines the discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with the Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion was March 19, 2010. This was considered a first violation. Technically, it was a third violation, but due to the time that had elapsed between this violation and the previous violations, in April 2002 and July 1999, it was considered a first violation. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • American Legion Club Officer �73- MINNEAPOLIS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION Craig Deneen President Mervyn Becker Treasurer Roger Wysong Club Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 — September 2011 Mpls-Richfield American Legion 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 18 19 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 11 11 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (11) (7) Alarm (0) (4) MISCELLANEOUS NON-CRIMINAL 7 8 Assists (3) (3) Traffic (2) (4) Inspections/Licensing (1) (0) Medical/Fire (1) (1) Animal (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2010 through September 2011 were: two suspicious persons, three drunkenness, one theft, one assault and four alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 8A REPORT# 252 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: � r , ...."Arefrisri REVIEWED BY CITY i MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On November 8, 2011, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Chipotle. Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from the previous year: Montgomery Frederick Moran serves as the LLC Manager out of Boulder, Colorado and Matthew Steven Ells serves as the LLC Manager out of Denver, 121311 PH Chipotle On-Sale Wine and Malt Liquor Licenses for 2012 Colorado. Brenda Rivera serves as the On-premises Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property is owned by Lyndale Gateway, LLC. The lease between the applicant and the landlord are in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Zurich American Insurance Company affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. The accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2010 through September 2011, and indicates that food sales accounted for 92.1% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for .29% of the total sales, and miscellaneous sales accounted for 7.61% of the total sales. There were 11 Public Safety/Police contacts with Chipotle Mexican Grill from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares with 14 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints for Chipotle Mexican Grill in the previous year. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • This agenda item is the first request out of seven for the renewal of the on- sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. If no Council member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single/individual public hearing is called, the Mayor should require each speaker to identify the particular license to which the person is speaking. Any Council member may request that the question be divided, if the Council member wishes to address any one or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion. • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Chipotle Representative(s) SA -- ! Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC Directors and Officers Matthew Steven Ells LLC Manager— Denver, Co. Montgomery Frederick Moran LLC Manager— Boulder, Co. Brenda Rivera On-premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010— September 2011 Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 14 11 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 9 9 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (5) (5) Alarm (4) (4) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 5 2 Assists (2) (1) Traffic (1) (0) Inspections/Licensing (1) (0) Medical/Fire (1) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2010 through September 2011 were: two property damage accidents, one disturbance, two property hit and run accident, and four alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures.) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 8B REPORT# 253 naldill STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: In .-- •rx, dor ,;,,, I / REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: �1' A ..„ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On November 15, 2011, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Richard Bruce Thompson is the sole owner of the establishment and continues to serve as the General Manager of the restaurant. He has no known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. 121311 PH Thompson's Fireside Pizza On-Sale Wine and Malt Liquor Licenses for 2012 The applicant is the sole owner of the premises located at 6736 Penn Avenue South. All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The required proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing West Bend Mutual affording the required coverage. Workers' Compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2010 through September 2011 and indicates that food sales accounted for 90.91% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 9.09% of the total sales. There were two Public Safety/Police contacts with Thompson's Fireside Pizza from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares with two contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received one complaint regarding Thompson's Fireside Pizza in the previous year. This complaint was in regard to a food related matter. The Bloomington Health Department was notified and the issue was corrected. No further complaints have been received. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511 which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. Thompson's Fireside Pizza has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012 the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Richard Bruce Thompson, Owner <83- 1 Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. Fireside Pizza Directors and Officers Richard Thompson President/Owner - Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 through September 2011 Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 2 2 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 1 2 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (1) (2) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 0 Assists (0) (0) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (1) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2010 through September 2011 were: One suspicious person/activity and one disturbance. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 8C REPORT# 254 EWAN STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER Ario, ....c.iiii. NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 0 y ,.. f�A7'URE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On November 18, 2011, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Ricky Kiang is serving as President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Sui Fun Kiang serves as the General Manager of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. 121311 PH Red Pepper On-Sale Wine and Malt Liquor Licenses for 2012 All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Principle Life Insurance Company, continues to be in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Truck Insurance Exchange affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2010 through September 2011 and indicates that food sales accounted for 98.26% of the total sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and on-sale wine sales accounted for 1.74% of the total sales. There were no Public Safety/Police contacts with Red Pepper from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares with two contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints for Red Pepper for the past year. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. Red Pepper has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Ricky Kiang, Owner of the establishment Kiang's Red Pepper Inc. d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant Directors and Officers Ricky Kiang President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer Sui Fun Kiang General Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 through September 2011 Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 2 0 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 1 0 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (1) (0) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 0 Assists (0). (0) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (1) (0) The criminal contact for 2011 was: None. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 8D REPORT# 255 =alai STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR j REVIEW: ..11.../S ` / ATUREVIEWED BY CITY /MANAGER: f�_y_ 1 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Patrick's French Bakery, Inc., d/b/a Patrick's Bakery & Café, 2928 W. 66th Street, Richfield, MN. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Patrick's French Bakery, Inc., d/b/a Patrick's Bakery & Café, 2928 W. 66th Street, Richfield, MN. II. BACKGROUND On November 2, 2011, the City received the application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Patrick's French Bakery, Inc., d/b/a Patrick's Bakery & Café. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Patrick Bernet serves as the President of the organization and Rafieh Bernet serves as the Vice-President. Rafieh Bernet also serves as manager of the establishment. 121311 Patrick's Bakery On-Sale Wine and Malt Liquor Licenses for 2011 Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A list of officers is attached. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing American Fire & Casualty Company affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. The property is owned by Principal Life Insurance Company do Madison Marquette. The lease between the applicant and the landlord is in effect with all payments current. An accountant's statement has not yet been submitted. However, it will be provided to staff prior to the evening of the Public Hearing. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. There were 17 Public Safety/Police contacts with Patrick's Bakery & Café from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares to eight contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Patrick's Bakery & Café during the past year. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Patrick's French Bakery was April 3, 2008. This was their first violation. There have been no other violations since that time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • That the requirements in Resolution 9511 are met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts LVI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Patrick Bernet, Owner • Rafieh Bernet, Owner/Manager gD - t Patrick's Bakery & Cafe Directors and Officers Patrick Bernet President Rafieh Bernet Vice-President and On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 — September 2011 Patrick's Bakery & Cafe 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 8 17 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 5 2 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (5) (2) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 3 15 Assists (1) (15) Traffic (2) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts for 2011 were: One property damage accident and one theft from vehicle. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 8E REPORT# 256 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: a fir; 4i/ rfm/FREAgitorip REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Af=...mmir ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The Noodle Shop — Colorado Inc., d/b/a Noodles and Company, 7630 Lyndale Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The Noodle Shop — Colorado Inc., d/b/a Noodles and Company, 7630 Lyndale Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On November 2, 2011, the City received the renewal applications and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The Noodle Shop, d/b/a Noodles and Company. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from the previous year. Keith Joseph Kinsey serves as the President/Director and the Secretary of the organization. Paul A. Strasen serves as the Vice President. Brenton Henderson continues to serve as the On-premises Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. 121311 PH Noodles On Sale Wine& Malt Liquor Licenses for 2012 The property is owned by Lyndale Gateway LLC. The lease between the applicant and the landlord is in effect with all payments current. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Federal Insurance Company affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted covering the period from October 2010 through September 2011, and indicates that food sales accounted for 93.1% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 6.9% of the total sales. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. There was one Public Safety contact with Noodles and Company from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares to 12 contacts from the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Noodles and Company for the past year. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Noodles and Company was April 13, 2007. This was their first violation. There have been no other violations since this time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. • B. CRITICAL ISSUES • That the requirements in Resolution 9511 are met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representative(s) of Noodles and Company -I The Noodle Shop-Colorado, Inc. d/b/a Noodles and Company Directors and Officers Keith Joseph Kinsey President/Director/Secretary Paul A. Strasen Vice President Brenton Henderson On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 — September 2011 The Noodle Shop —Colorado Inc., DBA Noodles and Company TOTAL CONTACTS 2010 2011 12 1 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 9 1 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (3) (0) Alarm (6) (1) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 3 0 Assists (3) (0) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contact for 2011 was: One alarm. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 8F REPORT# 257 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME,Tn/E DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: it 4-41.., tll1111 REVIEWED BY CITY , / MANAGER: ,rvfaiyir ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for John E. Powers &Associates, Inc. d/b/a Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, MN. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license for John E. Powers & Associates, Inc. d/b/a Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, MN. II. BACKGROUND On November 14, 2011, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. John Edwin Powers, Sr. serves as the President; John Edwin Powers, Jr. serves as the Vice President; David Matthew Powers serves as the Secretary; and Jeff Earl Powers serves as the Treasurer. Brandi Lea James continues to serve as the on-premise manager. A criminal history check was conducted on these individuals. John 121311 PH Lariat Lanes On-sale Wine & 3.2 Malt Liquor License Renewals Powers Sr., John Powers, Jr. and David Powers have no criminal records. Jeff Powers has a misdemeanor DWI from 1999. His criminal history indicated a DWI; however, it is listed on his driving record as careless driving. There are no other convictions listed. Brandi James has a misdemeanor DWI conviction from 2007. There are no other criminal records. A current list of officers is attached. All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Illinois Casualty affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. The accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2010 through September 2011, and indicates that food sales accounted for 19.16% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 14.53%. Miscellaneous sales such as bowling, shoe rental and merchandise accounted for 66.31% of the total sales. There were seven Public Safety/Police contacts with Lariat Lanes from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares with eight contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints for Lariat Lanes in the previous year. On-sale wine licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of an on- sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. Lariat Lanes has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statues pertaining to an on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • That the requirements in Resolution 9511 are met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Brandi James, Manager John E. Powers & Associates, Inc. d/b/a Lariat Lanes Directors and Officers John E. Powers, Sr. President John E. Powers, Jr. Vice President David M. Powers Secretary Jeff E. Powers Treasurer Brandi L. James On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 — September 2011 Lariat Lanes 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 8 7 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 5 4 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (5) (3) Alarm (0) (1) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 3 3 Assists (2) (0) Traffic (0) (1) Inspections/Licensing (0) (2) Medical/Fire (1) (0) The criminal contacts for 2010 were: One fraud, one property damage, one theft and one alarm. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures.) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 8G REPORT# 258 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD' CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: / Jay 4.--6iow„,, /7 SIGN .4RE REVIEWED BY CITY riy, wet MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LLC, 7545 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the Public Hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2012 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LLC, 7545 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN. II. BACKGROUND On November 1, 2011, the City received the application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LLC. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The structure of the organization remains unchanged from the previous year. Dale Lynn Mueller and Buathan Mueller are the joint owners of the establishment. Buathan continues to serve as the on-premise manager. Neither of these 121311 PH Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant On-Sale Wine and Malt liquor licenses for 2012. individuals has any known criminal record. A list of officers is attached to this report. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. The property is owned by Kenneth Donald Johnson. The lease between the applicant and the landlord are in effect with all payments current. An accountant's statement has been submitted covering the period of October 2010 through September 2011 and indicates that food sales accounted for 94.7% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 5.3% of the total sales. All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. There were four Public Safety contacts with Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares to no (0) contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received one complaint for Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant. This complaint involved a pile of brush in the rear of the building. The issue was corrected and there have been no further complaints. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statues pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • That the requirements in Resolution 9511 are met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Dale Mueller, Owner Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant Directors and Officers Dale Mueller Owner Buathan Mueller Owner and On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 — September 2011 Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 0 4 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 0 4 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (0) (4) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 0 0 Assists (0) (0) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts for 2011 were: Two suspicious persons/activity, one drunkenness and one theft. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 9A REPORT# 259 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: L!_! / *, REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ArfirTgiiiyir ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On October 24, 2011, the City received the application and other required documents for On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Frenchman's. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Mary Christine Blake is the sole owner of the establishment. She also serves as the General Manager of the restaurant. Ms. Blake has no known criminal record. Mary Blake is the owner of the property and Venture Bank in Bloomington is the Mortgage Company. All payments are current. 121311 PH Frenchman's On Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor Licenses for 2012 All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Illinois Casualty as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2010 through September 2011, and indicates that food sales accounted for 53.8% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 46.2% of the total sales. There were 38 Public Safety/Police contacts with The Frenchman's from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares with 56 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding The Frenchman's during the past year. On-sale Intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. • The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with The Frenchman's was June 8, 2004. This was considered a second violation. Technically, it is a third violation, but due to the time that has elapsed between this violation and the previous violations on December 4, 2003 and July 1999, it was counted as a second violation. There have been no other violations since June 2004. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • This agenda item is the first request out of seven for the renewal of the on- sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. Of the remaining six, if no Council member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single/individual public hearing is called, the Mayor should require each speaker to identify the particular license to which the person is speaking. Any Council member may request that the question be divided, if the Council member wishes to address any one or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion. • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mary Christine Blake, Owner of the establishment q A - I The Frenchmans Directors and Officers Mary Christine Blake Owner and General Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 through September 2011 The Frenchman's 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 56 38 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 30 21 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (26) (20) Alarm (4) (1) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 26 17 Assists (23) (12) Traffic (2) (3) Inspections/Licensing (0) (1) Medical/Fire (1) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2010 through September 2011 were: four drunkenness, three theft, two disturbances, two property damage hit & run accidents, three fights, one assault, one property damage, two theft from vehicle, one threat, one trespass, and one alarm. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 9B REPORT# 260 =MAIM STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISON MANAGER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: A:IN. I 7 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: r ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Richfield Hotel Associates d/b/a Four Points by Sheraton, 7745 Lyndale Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Richfield Hotel Associates d/b/a Four Points by Sheraton, 7745 Lyndale Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On November 4, 2011, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Richfield Hotel Associates d/b/a Four Points by Sheraton. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Richfield Hotel Associates is a Partnership compromised of five individual owners. They are as follows: Thomas W. LaSalle, Arthur Petrie, William L. Brusman, John Hankinson and Bruce Nimmer. There are also limited partnerships associated with the ownership of Richfield Hotel Associates that are companies owned by these five general partners. Criminal history checks were conducted on all five of the general 121311 PH Four Points by Sheraton On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor License renewal for 2012. partners. None of these individuals has any criminal record. In addition, no criminal records were found for Adam Reed Selby, who serves as the manager of the establishment. Richfield Hotel Associates is managed by LaSalle Group Limited, located in Bloomington, MN. The property is owned by the applicant with First International Bank & Trust holding the mortgage. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing United Fire and Casualty affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period of April 2011(when the original license was approved) through September 2011, and indicates that food sales accounted for 67.7% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 32.3% of the total sales. There were five Public Safety/Police contacts with Richfield Hotel Associates from April 2011 through September 2011. As this license was just issued in April 2011, there are no previous contacts to compare. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding the Richfield Hotel Associates in the previous year. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. On October 16, 2008, the Richfield Police Department conducted an alcohol compliance check at the Ramada. On that date, an employee of the Ramada sold alcohol to an underage individual. Due to this incident, the bar portion of the establishment decided to no longer serve alcohol to patrons and guests. This was their first violation. Since issuing their new license in April 2011, the establishment has changed their d/b/a to Four Points by Sheraton. There have been no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth for Four Points by Sheraton. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Richfield Hotel Associates officer/staff Richfield Hotel Associates d/b/a Four Points by Sheraton Partners/Officers/Directors Thomas LaSalle Managing General Partner Arthur Petrie Managing General Partner William Brusman Partner John Hankinson Partner Bruce Nimmer Partner PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS April 2011 — September 2011 Four Points by Sheraton 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 5 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 3 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (3) Alarm (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 2 Assists (2) Traffic (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) Medical/Fire (1) The criminal contacts from April 2011 through September 2011 were: One suspicious person/activity, one personal injury accident and one missing person. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 9C REPORT# 261 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: a / ‘41IP rOar /SIo+TUBE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 121daAr ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan, Inc. d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan, Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street. II. BACKGROUND On November 23, 2011, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan, Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Mitchell Law and Sherri (Paisan) Law are the owners of the establishment. Mitchell Law continues to serve as the General Manger of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. 121311 PH Khans On-Sale Intoxicating&Sunday Liquor Licenses Renewal The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Roy A. Bogen, is in effect with all payments current. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has not yet been submitted. This is typical for this establishment as their insurance company does not issue the renewal policy until Staff has spoken to the insurance carrier, — mid December of each year. St , early y p Unitran, to verify that the new policy will be forwarded as soon as issued. Staff will continue to monitor to ensure that the policy is received prior to December 13, 2011. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2010 through September 2011, and indicates that food sales accounted for 94% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 6% of the total sales. There were six Public Safety/Police contacts with Khan's from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares with nine contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received one complaint for Khan's Mongolian Barbeque in the past year. This complaint concerned cleanliness and possible illness concerns. The Bloomington Health inspector was notified and a correction notice was issued. The concerns were corrected with no further complaints being received. On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Khan's Mongolian Barbeque was September 3, 2005. This was their first violation. There have been no other violations since this time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mitchell Law qc, - t KHAN'S MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE Officer and Directors Mitchell Law President & On-Premises Manager Sherri (Paisan) Law Vice President/Treasurer PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 — September 2011 Khan's Mongolian Barbeque 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 9 6 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 7 4 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (6) (4) Alarm (1) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 2 2 Assists (2) (2) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (1) Medical/Fire (0) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2010 through September 2011 were: two suspicious persons/activity, one theft from auto, and one property damage report. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 9D REPORT# 262 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 1:21, REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: [ °, ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with outside service, for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with outside service, for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On November 2, 2011, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with outside service, for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Paul Smith Kirwin continues to serve as President and Robin Louise O'Neill serves as the on- 121311 Houlihan's On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor License Renewal premises manager. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. The property being leased by Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar is owned by Woodlake- VEF IV, LLC. The lease between the applicant and the landlord are in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Regent Insurance Company affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. A financial statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2010 through September 2011 and indicates that food sales accounted for 64.5% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 35.5% of the total sales. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar in the past year. There were 46 Public Safety/Police contacts with Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares with 24 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of an on- sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Houlihan's Restaurant was July 16, 2001. This was their first violation. There have been no other violations since that time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Houlihan's Staff qD - t • Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar Officers Paul Smith Kirwin CEO/President Robin Louise O'Neill On-Premises Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 through September 2011 Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 24 46 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 15 34 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (14) (32) Alarm (1) (2) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 9 12 Assists (6) (7) Traffic (1) (2) Inspections/Licensing (1) (0) Medical/Fire (1) (3) The criminal contacts from October 2010 through September 2011 were: eleven suspicious persons/activity, two property damage hit and run accidents, three thefts, three drunkenness, one juvenile, one property damage accidents, four theft from vehicle, two property damage, one threat, two disturbances, one prowler, one crisis and two alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 9E REPORT# 263 =AIM STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES REPORT PREPARED BY: DIVISION MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: /, "��► sit "WVIGN M REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: AM( If_ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of the 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating, LLC d/b/a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating, LLC d/b/a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street. II. BACKGROUND On November 2, 2011, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating, LLC d/b/a Don Pablos. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Paul Joseph Seidman continues to serve as COO/President and Don Sobiech serves as the On-premise manager. There are currently no acting Secretary or Treasurer. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. 121311 PH Don Pablo's On sale Intoxicating&Sunday Liquor License Renewal All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, CSM Investors, Inc. is in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Liberty Mutual Insurance Companies affording the coverage. Workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2010 through September 2011 and indicates that food sales accounted for 81.76% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 18.24% of the total sales. There were 25 Public Safety/Police contacts with Don Pablo's from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares with 28 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Don Pablos during the past year. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this Resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Don Pablo's was October 5, 2006. This was considered a first violation. Technically, it is a third violation, but due to the time that has elapsed between this violation and the previous violations on August 8, 2000 and July 16, 1999, it is counted as a first violation. There have been no other violations since October 2006. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Don Pablos staff ciE - 1 Don Pablo's Operating Corporation Don Pablos Officers and Directors Paul Joseph Seidman COO/President Don Sobiech On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 — September 2011 Don Pablo's 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 28 25 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 23 20 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (11) (6) Alarm (12) (14) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 5 5 Assists (3) (3) Traffic (2) (1) Inspections/Licensing (0) (1) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2010 through September 2011 were: two suspicious persons/activity, one theft, one drunkenness, one disturbance, one property damage hit & run, and fourteen alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 9F REPORT# 264 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: /11r,(12 AWAIIM‘liate tiff, REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: r/ jr/ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for 2012 for Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Restaurant, 790 West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Restaurant, 790 West 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On October 26, 2011, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year: James Keith Zielke serves as President and Kimberly Kay Fowles serves as Secretary. Jenny Gail Meyerink serves as the On Premise Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. 121311 PH Champps On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor Licenses All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Market Plaza Commercial, LTD., do G. & P. Properties, Inc. is in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Zurich American Insurance Company affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2010 through September 2011, and indicates that food sales accounted for 63.29% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 36.71% of the total sales. There were 32 Public Safety/Police contacts with Champps restaurant from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares with 35 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints for Champps in the previous year. On-sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Champps Restaurant was March 20, 2008. This was considered a first violation. Technically, it is a fourth violation, but due to the time that has elapsed between this violation and the previous violations on April 4, 2002, November 1999 and July 1999, it was counted as a first violation. There have been no other violations since that time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Champps staff II Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Restaurant Officers and Directors James Keith Zielke President Kimberly Kay Fowles Secretary Jenny Gail Meyerink Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010— September 2011 Champps Restaurant 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 35 32 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 21 29 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (20) (25) Alarm (1) (4) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 14 3 Assists (2) (0) Traffic (7) (1) Inspections/Licensing (4) (1) Medical/Fire (1) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2010 through September 2011 were: six thefts, five suspicious persons/activity, four disturbances, one DWI, two noise complaints, two drunkenness, one property damage, one driving complaint, two property damage accidents, one harassing comment and four alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 9G REPORT# 265 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: VI / i AFL riliMPfy REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: r4 ® / ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for El Tejaban Mexican Grill LLC d/b/a El Tejaban Mex. Grill, 2 West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of 2012 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for El Tejaban Mexican Grill LLC d/b/a El Tejaban Mex. Grill, 2 West 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On October 2, 2011, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for El Tejaban Mexican Grill LLC d/b/a El Tejaban Mex. Grill. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Rosa Isela Zambrano Medina and Miguel Angel Hernandez continue to be the co- owners of the establishment. Rosa serves as the Chief Operating Officer as well as the On-Premise Manager of the establishment. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. 121311 PH El Tejaban Mex. Grill On-Sale Intoxicating&Sunday Liquor License renewal for 2012 All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Centro Bradley SPE LLC is in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Truck Insurance Exchange affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted covering the period of October 2010 through September 2011 and indicates that food sales accounted for 83% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 17% of the total sales. There were three Public Safety/Police contacts with El Tejaban Mexican Grill from October 2010 through September 2011. This compares to eight contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints for El Tejaban in 2011. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 24, 2011. There have been no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth for El Tejaban Mexican Grill. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • The required licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2012, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Rosa Zambrano Medina, Owner of El Tejaban Mex. Grill • Luis Cairo, Interpreter GG - 1 Tejaban Mexican Grill LLC d/b/a El Tejaban Mex. Grill Owners Rosa Zambrano Medina Chief Operating Manager and on-site premise manager Miguel Hernandez Co-Owner PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2010 — September 2011 El Tejaban Mexican Grill 2010 2011 TOTAL CONTACTS 8 3 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 5 2 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (5) (2) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 3 1 Assists (3) (1) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2010 through September 2011 were: One threat and one order for protection. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM# 10 REPORT# 266 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: KATIE PORATH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK N iE,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: •&V� REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: r y 1 jj... ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code Appendix D establishing a change in fees. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a second reading of an ordinance amending Appendix D of the Richfield City Code, establishing a fee schedule for certain permits and applications. II. BACKGROUND Appendix D to the Richfield City Code consists of the schedule of fees adopted by the City Council, including those adopted by resolution and those adopted by ordinance. On an annual basis, as part of the budget process, departments are asked to review the schedule of fees that apply to their departments. The departments review their fees for services and compare the fees charged with the costs incurred in providing that service. If it is found that costs exceed the fee charged, the respective departments will adjust their fees accordingly. The proposed ordinance includes all fees that are required to be established by ordinance. Other fees, including rental licensing fees, are established via resolution (as opposed to ordinance). Revisions to these 121311 —Appendix D Fee Changes fees require only one hearing, which will be conducted at the December 13, 2011 Regular City Council Meeting. First reading of the proposed ordinance amendment was held on November 14, 2010 and second reading is scheduled for December 13, 2011. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.353 requires that certain fees be established by ordinance. • The City attempts to establish fees that appropriately reflect the City's costs of administering the permit or application for which the fee is charged. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • It is important to approve this amendment to the ordinance so that fees in Appendix D can become effective in a timely fashion. C. FINANCIAL • It is important for the City to annually review fees to ensure that the fees charged are in line with the costs of the service provided. • The ordinance will be effective January 20, 2011. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • N/A V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None I0 - k BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX D TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR CERTAIN PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background 1.01 Appendix D to the Richfield City Code consists of the schedule of fees adopted by the City Council, including those adopted by resolution and those adopted by ordinance. 1.02 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.353 requires that certain fees be adopted by ordinance. The City Council has previously established certain fees by Transitory Ordinance No. 1872. The City Council has established other fees by resolution, which resolution is also part of Appendix D. 1.03 The City Council has determined the need to update the schedule of fees under Transitory Ordinance No. 1872. Section 2. Fee Schedule Adopted 2.01 The fees set forth in the attached Exhibit A are hereby adopted by ordinance. 2.02 The fees adopted at Section 2.01 of this Ordinance shall be amended only by ordinance. Any fees established by resolution, other than those adopted at Section 2.01 of this Ordinance, may be amended from time to time by resolution of the City Council. Section 3. Effective date; codification. 3.01 This ordinance is effective in accordance with section 3.09 of the City Charter. 3.02 A copy of this ordinance shall be included in Appendix D to the Richfield City Code, immediately prior to the resolution establishing fees. 3.03 This ordinance supersedes Transitory Ordinance No. 1872. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk EXHIBIT A CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES A. Investigation Fees: Work without a Permit: Investigation. Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this code has been commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for such work. Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee required by this code. The minimum investigation fee shall be the same as the minimum fee set forth in Section 2. The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of this code nor from any penalty prescribed by law. B. Permit fee refunds: The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled before any plan reviewing is done. The building official shall not authorize refunding of any fee paid except on written application filed by the original permitted not later than 180 days after the date of fee payment. TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (a) Inspections outside of normal business hours $60.00 (minimum charge-two hours) per hour (b) Reinspection fees $60.00 (minimum charge $35.00) per hour (c) Inspections for which no fee is specifically $60.00 indicated (minimum charge-one-half hour) per hour (d) Additional plan review required by changes, $60.00 additions or revision to plans(minimum charge- per hour two hours) (e) Fee to reissue building inspection record card $35.00 *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction,whichever is the greatest.This cost shall include supervision, overhead,equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employee involved. (1) Building Permits 400.03-400.09 $1 to $500 $35.00 (includes one inspection) Each additional inspection $35.00 $501 to $2,000 $25.00 for the first$500 plus$3.25 each additional $100, or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000 with a minimum fee of$35.00. $2,001 to $25,000 $73.50 for the first $2,000 plus $14.75 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof,to and including$25,000. $25,001 to $50,000 $415.75 for the first$25,000 plus$10.75 for each additional$1,000,or fraction thereof,to and including$50,000. BOLD represents added/amended fees A-1 to -3 TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING $50,001 to $100,000 $682.50 for the first $50,000 plus $7.50 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof,to and including$100,000. $100,001 to$500,000 $1,053.50 for the first $100,000 plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000. $500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,427.75 for the first $500,000 plus $5.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000. 1,000,001 and up $5,945.25 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof. (2) Driveway, Parking 515.05 (no permit fee for sidewalks) $ 35.00 Area Permits _ (3) Swimming 420.00 Permanent or portable pools are based on building permit fees with a minimum of $ 35.00 (4) Plan Review Fee 400.03-400.09 35% of building permit fee for one and two family dwelling detached garages and basement remodels 65% of building permit fee for all other building permits, except no fee for the following: (a) Existing single family dwelling minor nonstructural alterations. (b)Single and two family dwelling repair and maintenance work. (c) Commercial and industrial repair and maintenance work not exceeding $1,000 or where plans are not required. Plan review fee for Maximum 25% of permit fee based on Minnesota State Building Code similar buildings 1300.0160 (5) Contractors License Charged once each time a contractor applies for $ 5.00 Verification Fee permit(s) (6) Moving- 845 Moving Permit Fee $ 50.00 Buildings (7) Structure Demolition 400.00-400.09 (a) Commercial Demolition cost as per Building Permit Schedule with a minimum of $ 50.00 (b) Dwelling One or two story $ 50.00 Residential-Garage and lesser structure $ 35.00 BOLD represents added/amended fees A-2 110 - q TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (8) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09 Residential Minimum Fee 2%of Total Job cost with a minimum of $ 35.00 (includes one inspection) Each additional inspection $ 35.00 (9) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09 Commercial/Industrial/Multi-family Based on Total Job cost 2% of Estimated Job cost with a minimum of $ 45.00 (includes one inspection) Each additional inspection $ 35.00 exceedc$50,000 (10)Electrical Permit 400.03-.400.09 Residential (a) Minimum Fee which includes one inspection $ 35.00 (b) Each additional Inspection $ 35.00 (c) Complete Wiring Fee: $ 150.00 Single Family Dwelling and each dwelling unit of a two family dwelling and includes not more than three inspections. (d) New Service-up to 200 amps $ 55.00 (e) Temporary Service-(for construction) $ 45.00 (f) Installation, addition alteration, or repair of each circuit or feeder $ 8.00 (g) Swimming pool or exterior hot tub $ 55.00 (11)Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09 Commercial, Industrial and multiple dwellings Commercial (more than two units) and Technology systems: Minimum Fee which includes one inspection $ 45.00 Each additional inspection $ 35.00 (a) Based on total job cost - 2%of estimated job cost with a minimum of $ 45.00 - Over$50,000 - Fee/$1,000.00 plus 1 % of cost over $50,000.00 (b) Traffic Signals: Per Intersection $ 185.00 (c) Fire Alarm: Based on 3/4% of cost of electrical job to customer with a minimum of $ 45.00 (d) Carnivals,festivals and similar events plus$35.00 for each service on generator $ 110.00 (12)Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09 Based on 2% of cost of electrical job to customer with a Signs minimum of $ 45.00 (separate electrical permit required for signs) (13) Residential 400.03-400.09 Central Systems and Additions,Alterations and Repairs Heating, 1 1/2%estimated cost with a minimum of $ 35.00 Ventilating,Air (Includes one inspection) Conditioning Each additional inspection $ 35.00 and Refrigeration $ 45.00 Central Systems and Additions,Alterations and Repairs 1 1/2%estimated cost with a minimum of Commercial Heating, Ventilating,Air Conditioning and - Refrigeration , (14)Sign Installation 415.01-415.11 (a) Temporary sign permit $ 35.00 (b) Permanent sign (any size) $ 100.00 Building permit is required for sign support structures Fees based on building permit fee schedule BOLD represents added/amended fees A-3 10 -S ZONING, LAND USE AND RELATED CHARGES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Planned Unit 542 (a) $500 plus$5/$1,000 of project value up to a Development maximum fee of $ 3,500.00 (b) PUD Plan Amendment fee-major $ 550.00 (c) PUD Plan Amendment fee-minor $ 350.00 (2) Site Plan Review 547 (a) $500 plus$.50/$1,000 of project value to a maximum fee of $ 3,500.00 (b) Major amendment $ 500.00 (c) Minor amendment $ 350.00 (3) Variance 547 Single/Two-Family Residential $ 250.00 Non Residential and Multi-Family $ 450.00 Extension $ 75.00 Variance Appeal Residential and Non Residential $ 150.00 (4) Conditional Use 547 (a) $500+$.50/$1,000 of project value to a maximum Permit fee of $ 3,500.00 (b) Major amendment $ 500.00 (c) Minor amendment $ 350.00 (5) Interim Use Permit 547 $ 500.00 (6) *Zoning District 547 $600 plus $0.50 / $1,000 of project value up to a $ 3,600.00 Change maximum fee of Zoning Code Text $ 600.00 500.09 Amendment (7) *Subdivision 500.01-500.05 $ 500.00 Approval Subdivision Waiver 500.05-Subd. 2 $ 350.00 (8) Street/Easement 820/State $ 350.00 Vacation Statute (9) Appeal to Board of 547 $ 350.00 Adj. &Appeals (10)Special Request to $ 350.00 City Council (11)Zoning Compliance $ 50.00 Letter (12)Comprehensive Plan $ 600.00 Amend. (13) Plat: preliminary& $ 500.00 final *Any additional expense of notification necessitated by applicants request for continuance will be charged to the applicant. BOLD represents added/amended fees PUBLIC WORKS FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (8) Utility Services Sanitary Sewer 700.05 All land uses $ 100.00 New Service $ 100.00 Repair $ 100.00 Disconnect $ 100.00 Replacement Water Service 715.01 All land uses $ 100.00 A-4 o - � TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING New Service $ 100.00 Repair $ 100.00 Disconnect $ 100.00 Replacement $ 50.00 Turn on/off $ 50.00 Meter Installation $ 50.00 Private Hydrant Storm Sewer 720 All land uses $ 100.00 New Service $ 100.00 Repair $ 100.00 Disconnect $ 100.00 Replacement FIRE SERVICES FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (6) Fire Extinguishing Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a System Permit minimum of: $ 50.00 Plan review fee: 65%of building permit fee,except no fee for the following: (a) no charge for valuation of$1,000 or less (7) Fire Alarm Systems Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a minimum of: $ 50.00 Plan review fee: 65%of building permit fee,except no fee for the following: (a) no charge for valuation of$1,000 or less (8) Flammable or Tanks(installation or modification $ 150.00 Combustible Liquid or Gas Installation or alteration of piping Storage Tanks Each unit or dispenser $ 50.00 and Piping Underground Tank Removal $ 100.00/Tank MISCELLANEOUS FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (3) Antenna 426 (a)CWTS antenna permit application fee $ 100.00 Commercial (b)Antenna permit fee for additional antennas added to $ 35.00 Wireless an existing antenna location Telecommunication Service(CWTS) BOLD represents added/amended fees A-5 w- 7 RESOLUTION NO. 10579 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF BILL NO. 2011-24 WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced ordinance; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the ordinance is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified; and WHEREAS, the following summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. 2011-24 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX D TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR CERTAIN PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS On December 13, 2011, the Richfield City Council adopted an ordinance designated as Bill No. 2011-24, the title of which is stated above. This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The ordinance adopts a fee schedule to increase the fees for zoning site plan review, certain variances, and zoning boundary and text amendments. It also eliminates the 10% permit fee when plumbing or commercial heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration permits exceed $50,000. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk during normal business hours or upon request by calling 612-861-9760 of the Community Development Division. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at City Hall for public inspection and to post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place in the City for a period of two weeks. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM# 11 REPORT# 267 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: KRISTIN ASHER, CITY ENGINEER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 1 J REVIEW: I •{ / SIGNATURE, a REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: • IP €4 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of second reading of ordinances relating to the enforcement of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rules. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Approve the second reading of amended ordinances related to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's Erosion Control Rule and Wetland Protection Rule. 2. Approve resolution for summary publication of an ordinance amendment to Section 428. 3. Approve resolution for summary publication of an ordinance relating to wetland protection. II. BACKGROUND Maintaining Regulatory Authority Much of the eastern section of Richfield falls within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The City has sole regulatory authority within city boundaries with respect to MCWD's Erosion Control Rule, Floodplain Alteration Rule, Wetland Protection Rule and Stormwater Management Rule. In order to maintain regulatory authority of the Erosion Control and Wetland Protection Rules the attached City Ordinance Amendments must be approved by the City Council. 12132011 StormOrdinances Memorandum of Understanding The MCWD rules apply to properties within the watershed district boundaries even without the City adopting the proposed amendments. On July 14, 2009 the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the MCWD and the City allowing the City to maintain exercising sole regulatory authority within City boundaries with respect to matters subject to regulation under the Districts Erosion Control, Floodplain Alteration, Wetland Protection, and Stormwater Management Rules. As part of the MOU agreement the City also agreed to update necessary City Ordinances and Zoning Codes within 180 days of District adoption to comply with the Districts rules. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's 2010 Rules The proposed code amendments are attached and support the following 2010 MCWD regulations: • Added Erosion Control requirements related to notifications prior to dewatering, access to inspection reports, and 6"of topsoil. • Projects which require permits under the Stormwater Management and Waterbody Crossing & Structures rules will be subject to increased buffer widths and requirements including construction of New Principle Residential Structures that increase the imperviousness of the parcel. The amended ordinances impact property within the jurisdiction of the MCWD where the rules are already in place. Therefore, the purpose of amending the ordinances is for the City to maintain regulatory authority allowing the City to interpret the rules on behalf of the District. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The proposed ordinance amendments are consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Richfield and MCWD. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • In accordance with the MOU approved in 2009, the City agreed to amend and/or adopt ordinances to be consistent with MCWD Rules within 180 days of adoption by the District. Richfield was granted an extension until the end of calendar year 2011. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • The proposed ordinance amendments were prepared by the City Attorney. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • The MCWD strives to protect, improve and manage surface waters and affiliated ground water resources within the District. The proposed rules support this mission. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • The Council may choose not to approve the second reading of the amended ordinances and direct staff on how to proceed. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed Amendments to Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance Subsections 428.11 and 428.13 • Proposed Amendments to Wetland Protection Ordinance Section 427 and Subsection 429.06 • Resolutions for Summary Publication • Watershed District Map VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. It OF RICHFIELD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL REGULATIONS; AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 428.11 and 428.13 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 428.11 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 428.11. Erosion control plans. Subdivision 1. Land disturbing activities not exempt from this Section shall be required to have an approved erosion control plan on file with the City prior to commencement of construction. Subd. 2. The erosion control plan shall contain all information necessary for the City Engineer to determine that adequate erosion control and sedimentation measures are proposed. The plan shall include a topographic map showing existing and proposed contours, location of any natural water courses, storm sewers, and drainage ways. The extent of the land disturbing activity and any erosion control measures shall be shown on the submitted erosion control plan. Unless otherwise authorized by the administrator the following information shall be submitted with the site map and grading plan: (a) Existing and proposed topography of the site showing contour intervals of no less than two (2) feet. (b) Contour lines extending beyond the property boundaries for a distance sufficient to show the relationship between on-site and off-site drainage. (c) Property lines shown in true location with respect to topographic information on the plan. (d) Location and graphic representation of all existing and proposed natural and man-made drainage facilities. (e) Detailed plans of any surface and sub-surface drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams, and other devices to be constructed with or as part of the proposed work and a map showing the drainage area and the estimated runoff of the areas served by any drain. (f) Location and graphic representation of proposed excavation, fill, on-site storage of soil and other earth material, and on-site disposal of earth material. 394213v1 CLLRC145-364 i , .a- (g) Location of proposed final surface runoff, erosion and sediment control measures. (h) Quantity, in cubic yards, of soil or earth material to be excavated, filled, stored or otherwise utilized on-site. (i) Outline of the methods to be used to clear vegetation and to store and dispose of cleared vegetative matter. (j) Proposed sequence and schedule of excavation, filling, and other land disturbing and filling activities, and soil or earth material storage or disposal. (k) Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on adjacent properties that are within fifteen (15) feet of the property line of the subject property or that may be affected by the proposed grading operations. (I) A narrative report summarizing the proposed erosion control measures shall be submitted. This report shall describe the timing of the installation, phasing, stabilization of all erosion control structures, and maintenance and eventual removal of all erosion control structures. (m) For land disturbing activities within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District jurisdiction, any other information required for an application by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Rule BErosion Control Rule. Section 2. Subsection 428.13 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 428.13. Maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures notification and inspection. Subdivision 1. It shall be responsibility of the owner/developer to maintain all erosion control structures in a condition that will ensure continuous functioning of those devices. As a minimum, maintenance shall meet all requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Erosion Control Rule. If, after the installation of the erosion control structure, the City Engineer determines that additional measures are needed, they shall be installed at the expense of the owner. Subd. 2. Any erosion or sediment that runs off or blows off the site onto adjoining properties, City streets, storm sewer, etc. shall be the responsibility of the owner or developer for clean-up and restoration. If the owner fails to properly clean up or restore all areas affected by erosion, the City will hire a contractor to complete the work and bill the owner for the expenses associated with the clean-up. Failure to maintain these measures shall be a violation of this Section. Subd. 3. The City may require an applicant to provide a bond or other financial guarantee in form satisfactory to the City and meeting the requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for financial assurances to guarantee the 394213v1 CLL RC145-364 2 installation and maintenance of erosion control measures and compliance with the requirements of this Section. (Amended 2010-16) Subd. 4. The owner/developer shall meet all requirements for inspection and notification specified in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Erosion Control Rule. Section 3. This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 394213v1 CLL RC145-364 3 CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WETLAND PROTECTION; AMENDING SECTION 427 AND SUBSECTION 429.06 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 427 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows: 427.01. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to achieve the policies described in the city's surface water management plan relating to wetland management. 427.03. Administration. The City will act as the Local Government Unit (LGU) for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103G.221 through 103G.2372 (WCA). 427.05. Buffer. NoWithin the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, no activity requiring a permit under the WCA or the Wetland Protection Rule of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be permitted without providing for a buffer meeting the requirements of City Code, Subsection 429.06. 427.07. Wetland filling, draining and dredging regulations. The Wetland Conservation Act, as amended, and the rules implementing the Wetland Conservation Act as set forth in Minnesota Rules, chapter 8420, as amended, are incorporated as part of these regulations and shall govern draining, filling, and dredging in wetlands with the following additional requirements: Subdivision 1. Persons draining, filling or dredging wetlands within the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are required to meet the additional requirements set forth in the Wetland Protection Rule of the Minnehaha Watershed District.Rcplacement for excavation in - - -- - -- - - f.''- - - - replaced wetland for each acre of excavated wetland, but only where such Watershed District. --- . .- • ■ - - - -- "e - " -- - -- 'e -e - - - - ,, I. 394452v1 CLL RC145-364 1 I Subd. 3. Wetland improvement. Excavation shall be decmed self value, as determined using the current version of the Minnesota routine permitted, shall occur in the same subwatershed as the associated Minnehaha Creck Watershed District. Section 2. Subsection 429.06 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows: 429.06. Buffers required; Special rule for Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Subdivision 1. Within the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), no activities requiring a permit under this subsectionthe Wetland Protection Rule of the MCWD will be permitted without providing for a buffer meeting the requirements of the Wetland Protection Rule of the MCWD. Buffers must be created. documented, marked by monuments. maintained and monitored in accordance with the Wetland Protection Rule of the MCWD. of-the following width adjacent to Size of Wetland Width of Buffer Zone 0 1 acrc 16.5 feet 1 2.5 acre: 20 feet 2.5 5 acres 25 feet 35 feet wetland that will be disturbed. City permit commenccs. A buffer on public land or right of way Minnchaha Creek Watershed District in place of a recorded instrument. The agreement shall statc that if the land containing 394452v1 CLL RC145-364 2 lI - C� pastured, mowed, fertilized, subject to the placement of mulch or other actions to maintain—of- improve buffer quality, each as approved by City staff or when implemented pursuant to a written placed within a buffer. No fill, debris or other material shall be 18) Section 3. This ordinance is effective in accordance with section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 394452v1 CLL RC145-364 3 1I - -I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 428 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment to the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. 2011 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL REGULATIONS; AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 428.11 AND 428.13 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE. This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend City Code to provide erosion control guidance related to land disturbing activities consistent with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District rules. The code amendments support notifications prior to dewatering, access to inspection reports, and topsoil requirements. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the Public Works Department during normal business hours or upon request by calling Kristin Asher at 612- 861-9795. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 1\ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 427 AND 429 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO WETLAND PROTECTION WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment to the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. 2011- AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WETLAND PROTECTION; AMENDING SECTION 427 AND SUBSECTION 429.06 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE. This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend City Code to provide guidance to activities which involve filling, draining, or dredging a wetland within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). In addition, projects which require MCWD permits under the Stormwater Management or Waterbody Crossing & Structures rules will be subject to increased buffer widths and requirements including construction of New Principle Residential Structures that increase the imperviousness of the parcel. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the Public Works Department during normal business hours or upon request by calling Kristin Asher at 612- 861-9795. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 5 S 4 5 S 4 a nl » A 5 3 9 4 g 4 a n iI — O XERXES XERXES a WASHBURN WASHBURN O VINCENT m VINCENT Is O =k O UPTON C `o UPTON N THOMAS S THOMAS 0 SHERIDAN 1.11 SHERIDAN 0 O 0 RUSSELL 5.E RUSSELL 8. —• QUEEN ? QUEEN igNMIIL PENN - PENN aE v\ OLIVER OLIVER NEWTON ill NEWTON MORGAN MORGAN O LOGAN f LOGAN KNOX a o is KNOX JAMES �i g Z JAMES IRVING Or,,, IRVING ,}7 O HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT ® .❑7 GIRARD O - GIRARD ® FREMONT >4 Ns...— FREMONT 0 Q EMERSON q EMERSON DUPONT !!0'0�� n DUPONT COLFAX 416. O e, ` COLFAX BRYANT (� 3c BRYANT �p LI O ALDRICH ALDRICH O LYNDALE +'^• r LYNDALE [^) CD O ,o'a4 iii GARFIELD n��' .? GARFIELD ijHARRIET R'„3 HARRIET : GRAND C GRAND D PLEASANT e^� PLEASANT PILLSBURY #: PILLSBURY WENTWORTH 33 WENTWORTH R'3 B CO LAISDELL 3+ +Fi g v BLAISDELL 31 NICOLLET NICOLLET isl �'' D 1st Y STEVENS STEVENS 2nd ring 2nd 3rd t Z t 8 3rd flin CLINTON g _ CLINTON a 4th :2+ a S 4th 5th Y 111 b• 8th CD PORTLAND —a2 ill PORTLAND OAKLAND IT T OAKLAND PARK €; A j(� A PARK COLUMBIS > C"mod (4. COLUMBUS CHICAGO {nr CHICAGO 0 ELLIOT l_.=� s' /\ ELLIOT `� o 10th 10th • al F 11th 111 115 cn 12th 12th rMaIM 13th 13th 14th 14th • 15th 15th BLOOMINGTON } BLOOMINGTON R3 16th 4 1- R33 t 18th t 17th it.o r A 17th Z 18th LLP CEDAR r J z m m m m 4 2 7' 73 m s E E m Ill v N 0 0 ZZ t-"ttsi — z F i AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM# 12 REPORT# 268 mad" STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ��►� REVIEWED BY CITY IrAfMANAGER: � 4 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Second reading of an ordinance rezoning 609 74th Street West and a portion of 7421 Lyndale Avenue and consider a minor site plan amendment for 609 74th Street West to allow a commercial service business. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1) Approve the attached ordinance rezoning 609 74th Street West from Multi-Family Residential (MR-2) to Service Office (SO); and rezoning all but the west 140 feet of 7421 Lyndale Avenue from Neighborhood Business (C-1) to Multi-Family Residential (MR-2); and 2) Approve the attached resolution granting a minor site plan amendment at 609 74th Street West to allow operation of a commercial service business. II. BACKGROUND The property at 609 74th Street West was constructed in 1998 and has been used as a church. A few years ago, the congregation operating at this site moved to a new, larger location. Since that time, they have been marketing the site. The property is surrounded by a variety of uses. There is a commercial property immediately to the west, a mobile home park to the south, a duplex to the east and across the street to the north are single-family homes. Given the variety of uses in 121311 - 2nd Reading Rezone 609 74th & 7421 Lyndale plus ASP for 609 74th the area, the owners and a prospective buyer approached the City to request an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow a low- intensity commercial business at the site. Zoning & Comprehensive Plan Changes At a study session held on October 10, 2011, the Planning Commission considered continued commercial use along Lyndale Avenue and the impact of changing the land use designation of this property. The Commission agreed that continued commercial use of the properties along Lyndale Avenue, as preferred by those property owners and considered previously by the City Council, was appropriate and therefore the requested change at 609 74th Street would be reasonable. Further, the previous use of this building as a church seems similar in intensity to that of the commercial uses permitted in the Service Office District. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance changes as well as the proposed site plan amendment on October 24, 2011. Mr. Tom Price, owner of 7421 Lyndale Avenue, and his representative Mr. Jim Erickson stated that the redevelopment of 7421 Lyndale Avenue could require permission for additional density and or additional depth for commercial development along Lyndale Avenue. Mr. Price and Mr. Erickson wanted to make the Commission aware of this potential. On November 14, 2011, the Council considered Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments related to the three properties at 74th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Mr. Erickson, representing Mr. Price, asked that the Council consider an alternative proposal for the property at 7421 Lyndale Avenue. Both the Council and staff indicated a willingness to work with Mr. Price on issues related to the redevelopment of his land; however, it would be inappropriate to make changes to the proposal without additional public hearings and a specific redevelopment proposal. The Council voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and a first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment. Staff members have continued to discuss the future land use of 7421 Lyndale Avenue with Mr. Price's representatives and the attached letter memorializes these discussions. It is the understanding of staff that this letter satisfies Mr. Price's immediate needs and that additional discussion of zoning changes, if necessary, will take place if/when a specific proposal has been prepared. 609 74th Street West— Site Plan Amendment The specific proposal for 609 74th Street does not include any changes to the lot or exterior changes to the building. The prospective buyer would like to use the building as a sales and service office for Nichols Electronics, which sells and services electronic music boxes for ice cream trucks. No retail sales could take place at this location and the particular repair work done on-site does not employ any equipment that would create noise issues (the business is currently located in a multi-tenant building, adjacent to an Edward Jones investment office). The business is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and employs four people. Additionally, the building would serve as the registered business office of the owner's real estate holding companies. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Comprehensive Plan changes related to 609 74th Street, 7401 Lyndale Avenue and 7421 Lyndale Avenue were approved by the Council on November 14, 2011. The proposed zoning changes are the logical follow-up to that approval. • Generally a minor site plan amendment that does not include variances, as is proposed at 609 74th Street, is processed administratively. A change in zoning; however, requires consideration of plans for the proposed use of the land. The Council is therefore asked to consider both the zoning change and the site plan amendment. • 609 74th Street remains in compliance with all previously approved site plans and no changes are proposed. The Council shall consider the compliance with the following when evaluating a site plan: o Consistency with the various elements and objectives of the City's long range plans, including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Plan; A low-intensity service business is consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial designation. o Consistency with the purposes of the Zoning Code; The proposal is in keeping with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the Service Office District. o Preservation of the site in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree and soil removal, and designing any grade changes so as to be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed or developing areas; N/A o Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with the terrain and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the proposed development; N/A No exterior or site changes are proposed. o Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features including: • Creation of an internal sense of order for the various functions and buildings on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; • Appropriateness of the amount and arrangement of open space and landscaping to the design and function of the development; • Appropriateness of the materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept of the project and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and functions; and • Adequacy of vehicular, cycling and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking, in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian, cycling and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking so as to be safe, convenient and, insofar as practicable, compatible with the design of proposed buildings, structures and neighboring properties. • N/A No redesign of the property is proposed. o Creation of an energy-conserving design through design location, orientation and elevation of structures, the use and location of glass in structures, and the use of landscape materials and site grading; N/A o Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for such matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and those aspects of design, not adequately covered by other regulations, which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock `started' when a complete application was received on October 4, 2011. A decision is required by December 3, 2011 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision. Due to Election Day, the City Council meeting schedule was revised. To comply with Code requirements, a second reading of this ordinance could not be held until tonight. A notice of extension was sent to the applicant. C. FINANCIAL • The required processing fees have been paid. D. LEGAL • A public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance changes was held before the Planning Commission on October 24, 2011. • Notice of the public hearing was sent to property owners within 350 feet in accordance with Sate and Local requirements. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance change and site plan amendment (7-0). E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Reject the proposed amendment. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance • Resolution • Zoning Map • 609 74th Street West site plan, landscape plan, photos • Letter to Mr. Tom Price, 7421 Lyndale Ave. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. Mark Nichols, buyer/business owner 609 74th Street West • Mr. Tom Price and/or representatives, owner 7421 Lyndale Avenue South ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; AMENDING APPENDIX 1 TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY REZONING 609 WEST 74TH STREET FROM MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (MR-2) TO SERVICE OFFICE (SO); AND REZONING ALL BUT THE WEST 140 FEET OF 7421 LYDALE AVENUE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (C-1) TO MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (MR-2) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 13 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding new paragraph (44) as follows: (44) M-16 (S of 74th between Lyndale and Pleasant) The south 5 acres of the north 10 acres of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, and the north 4 feet of that part of said Northwest Quarter lying immediately south of said 5 acre tract, except that part of said tracts which are designated as General Commercial Areas. Sec. 2. Section 15 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding new paragraph (2) as follows: (2) M-16 (SW of 74th and Garfield) The west quarter of the north 5 acres of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24 except the west 175 feet thereof. Sec. 3. Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by repealing Section 2, paragraph (5) and Section 13, paragraph (30). Sec. 4. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk to RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 609 74TH STREET WEST WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of site plan amendment for the parcel of land located at 609 74th Street West, legally described as: The west quarter of the north 5 acres of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24 except the west 175 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the requested site plan amendment has been reviewed by the City Council and meets City requirements; and WHEREAS, the proposed site plan will adequately serve the purpose for which it is proposed and will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the site plan amendment; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. All landscaping, including fences, must be continuously maintained and not be unsightly in appearance or in a state of disrepair; and 2. All trash must be stored inside the existing building. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Proposed Zoning Changes 609 - 74th St W & 7421 Lyndale Ave Current Zonin g p osed Zoning ■� • - �= 1 . ■ 74TH Si 74TH ST __________r____,,,! 609 z __ _____ II -f-14s-,_: ii1_,- _ __._,.„ • 609 r II ■ a III w Lincoln ■ w Lincoln Q Field ■ Q Field 0 z } 1 ■ J ■ — MI— ■ I . — I I ■ I ■ � �■ N - _ ■ A ___ ' MI Zoning Designations IComn}unity Commercial iF_ amity Res. 9-) l Commercial Multi-Family Res. l i l Commercial Planned eneraommerca rkroposed SO 0 200 400 800 1,200 1,600 -__ Feel .ingl= Family Residential = __Density Multi-Family Res. Id V C C 3 • -- - . _ 2:111 111".14'_.IC COK ...wool+b C..134 Lir a4.se1-D VD RATE.1.1343 az r aTY 3.s+� c E —. a. — . a . . . a 1 i4 S:� a �_ z_d 1,0012 114..1�Ce 0— 1 ' InkartAir 4.142 I 01(•-1V4TOP i • / . !E%iiFbi c(0\'' y P4YF4 �b p8' I i i c t T , , _. , e Ia��° I - 1 I 1 1 ° uxwnkc ELECTRIC METER c ` (�+ A/C GAS METER E ' 4104 a1 erns ! I EXISTING SILVER __ o MAPLE TREE m I ..- 1 I 1 ■ s 7 LIT POOP 0,241.4 e (( o PARKING, K 21 1.4G-451 COW. u (' _----- sr.0 Ter \ \.. 1 12 e MIS - - =CO r- i 1' I! 14 IS 10 : II 113 l•I 20 21 4 4 I Ti `'`��\ C R I t I �s f17 1 , It I j I 'il 4' SOLID DECOR SCREENING FENCEIVE 1 c.u<Li..tsll.Ceo3rr1 1.445° yam. 1.) scv t.Ce FROT•M r 3101E , 'Ew.srNGi °21 PAP.ttMS 51TRL e s2!^Jrw°.IP Ts d — I s-4�� ' 1 3 �s1�i �G p p N LAAPE LAYOUT = G 1 ` — ' 609 WEST 74TH STREET RICHFIELD, MN 55423 1 i9N C gG ,;•,-- r`r LI ) 1$;I _ - - 1 NEST' , �O E.EV ALU—A_ TION Y C i q 4H 1q14UBG #STATE OFMMN. i 6 GONG MRC7N PHe C�GGJ gF,NGY TYPE P3 { ` dry of rR1cr+Frfl D 5TD.PUTS*4rT..® _ C.,O'(- 1 RJJGTI TYPE. YIN ,y{441¢ , - - - \_ j W t - A LONA Y-jAt b,00 GF „ �1i E + - �F -- ' r LOW ,- s.1 NO- of EXITS€ Ali 2 fat : ' .-' \ 15'R ! 1 NO OF EXITS PROVIOEf,7 2 _ • }tH 5I'tft I�ED BLt?��. NO i P r 1..NE --- hfRE ALAARM SYSTEM RE V-NO PER V C.SOS.9 .i___=.____• I c 1 1 �s �: • j ry I" Fxr nNC - >3 ¢ via -> A&Pain :, d 1 ■ I _ ` 1; -. 12 O1 BEST OF - - - - L� c. - - - - -' pR „.,,�nE - - -- -- -- - s� ,$ I Mr1�?pt 1� t - Il m T•s 6ls..at•1c. , ,m I aAe13 T1 R btrr 6 1 ',361-5.1 _,� 30 ..• _ 22,0' 2—O b'C 30'-0' - � I 23,-a' -i ,�' 8I71JF.4-_� r 1 /: I i� - 1211.6640W TG FACE r------1— { i-- PAVkJt [_2 4 --- 6 i, _ trra_r a CONN. __ OF ONE ON P(_AJ15 r \{y' j. `- /. 1'j - 6A5;tWtTER,. ME TO TH'5 L,NE _ EL_ j L. i I ,o_ a ,, i I. a } , !' r ! iYi 11,2°_-.�T.SLOPE O.+ . j. f �, k j ! I we PE 0 - o I t l H::.. TJ1 • -- a-- _ I . R C.ON3„2t,GT vY Fi RE. SLOPE - j L 4 i m I aPc-s MP G4 in I Q — 4 — j G!I i 15613.CURB_SEGTtON•I'I t. — —to w i ,C? I. , I SoFF.t1- 1 _ LI6HT 561'ROOFS 1 _.11 GONG.- OVERHANG I -. Z PAg.KI!_& 51[SF3.4>Jc in • j axt4 1:;,_1:.r 2 STALL typ I 12 } E i 0 - ' S'1 NrifTE 1 _ TING ..- 6x6 6 1041.4 x7•0 a 17,..0 I ->r--� i I IRPCE DM6'y OMB TO 1 Pt-••\-___ -3 �1}_. Z I --- 13 14 • 15 16 11 18 19 -0 21 I Fl+r.£�FtlJRd'. j �l 171 Z /f\\\�J tSi1Rail'15�"!dE i4:1' _ 1 o- ' I , '- ` rocs i - I j tow 1 . I • j PACE TO FAGS CURB b k•b 6 ' s6ocC GH"M LINK FENGE 0.3 t--1 154.45 •21 PARKING 5PAGE8.525 OGG01.ANT5 SCUM OF FROPERTr L.JNE - - tD�TM6i s C °� TION/ am . — — -- NOTE LAND.CA?ING• r 517'E PLAN r 4 DRAfl A&E PLAN "" I ,1 BY OTHERS. _ j S C�' 609 WEST 74TH STREET 1— _ • . - .:. _- RICHFIELD, MN 55423 `7 * `,, yy ti 1 r lita Northeast Corner of Building Southwest Corner of Building '�. _ I s ee wr. li r i`2 ' L€ k East Side Drainage (Facing South) Front Shrubs on 74th St. Side r i a k6 *j � , ..* s i rte •...s :., '• _ :;:f ` -.. m-- ■ • East Side Shrubs Trees Along 74th Street a--) �.. k• , "` .,. .� ?I,f :add a r. �' r :; [ t •+1 ¢ (` r :. 0, --_E ... ,..,'",4-`-', 'Y, m••■,_ 1!h Maple on East Side of Lot Southwest Corner of Lot g3 jam} D T • 'l, i'' IIIIIIIliIIIIIIIllllll1H_ __,_ _ilk . • g ilk ,._ .,..:.,, _,........_ __— _ . . . ., ___ .....„,_ 1 _,_ , _s_ _- Light Pole South Side of Lot Southeast Corner of Parking Lot a -g RICHFIELD Community Development Department Planning & Zoning insimmimmom December 1, 2011 • Mr. Thomas Price 7421 Lyndale Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 MAYOR DEBBIE GOETTEL Re: Future land use at 7421 Lyndale Avenue South PID No. 34-028-24-32-0015 CITY COUNCIL PAT ELLIOTT Mr. Price: TOM FITZHENRY SUZANNE M.SANDAHL FRED L.WROGE,JR. This letter is provided to memorialize recent discussions between your representatives and City staff related to the potential future use of your property at CITY MANAGER 7421 Lyndale Avenue. STEVEN L.DEVICH A proposal before the Council now will amend the City's Comprehensive Plan to agree with the existing commercial zoning of the western 140 feet of your property. This same proposal will change the zoning of the remainder of your property to Multi- Family Housing (MR-2). This designation will agree with the City's Comprehensive Plan calling for Medium-High Density Multi-Family Residential development at this location. City staff is aware of the fact that the property at 7421 Lyndale Avenue is a unique property. The current dimensions of the lot will likely be challenging for any redevelopment. It is staff's opinion that designation as a planned unit development (PUD) makes the most sense for this property in that it will provide the dimensional flexibility that may be necessary on the site. Staff and City Officials are also aware of the fact that a commercial development at the west end of the property may require additional depth (beyond the existing 140-foot designation) and are open to considering this possibility. We understand that at some time in the future the property owner intends to submit an application for a mixed use development with a housing component that would comply with the existing Medium-High Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation, but that may include dimensional elements more in line with the MR-3 District, as opposed to the MR-2 District. However, given the requirements of the City Code and the nature of community reaction to an undefined project, staff would not be able to support a change in the zoning designation without considering a specific proposal for the land. Staff is happy to continue discussion over the appropriate uses and design of any future proposal for the property with the property owner and/or any interested neighbors. Please feel free to contact me at 612-861- 9766. The L."rban Hometown 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9764 FAX: 612.861.8974 www.cityofrichfield.org AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER is-51 December 1, 2011 Page 2 Sincerely, Melissa Poehlman, AICP City Planner AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM# 13 REPORT# 269 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: / � REVIEWED BY CITY rel%MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for 33 West 65th Street (HUB Shopping Center) to allow a commercial daycare. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an amendment to the Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for 33 West 65th Street (HUB Shopping Center) to allow a commercial daycare serving up to 65 children. II. BACKGROUND The addition of a new use, not included in the Final Development Plan, is considered to be a major amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). The owners of the HUB Shopping Center have applied for a major amendment to permit a commercial daycare to operate from within the retail center. The proposed full-service daycare (infant through after-school children served) will occupy approximately 4,000 square feet, serve approximately 60 children and includes a kitchen and cafeteria. The daycare will occupy space on the north side of the building, avoiding potential traffic conflicts with retail tenants. An outdoor play area is not proposed; the proposed user plans for the identified cafeteria area to be used as an indoor play space when not being used to serve meals. 121311 - APUD Hub - daycare III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The findings necessary for approval of a Planned Unit Development or an amendment thereof are as follows: a. The proposed development conforms to the goals, policies and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans. This requirement is met. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Use. b. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. This requirement is met. c. The proposed development is in substantial conformance with the purpose and intent of the guiding district, and departures from the guiding district regulations are justified by the design of the development. This requirement is/will be met. The purpose of the guiding C-2 (General Commercial) District is to allow a wide variety of retail and service businesses serving Richfield and beyond. This requirement is met. These uses are expected to be attractive in appearance from all sides and compatible with nearby residential properties through compliance with the Performance Standards specified in Section 544. The appearance of the north side of the property near the new proposed use should be enhanced through improvements to the parking lot/boulevard area. Section 509.25, Subdivision 7 addresses upgrading nonconforming site improvements that affect the appearance and impacts of a site. It is not intended to require extensive changes that would be extremely impractical such as moving or lowering buildings. • Nonconforming parking: Existing parking exceeds requirements. Additional parking is not necessary for the proposed use. • Nonconforming landscaping and screening: The existing site does not meet landscaping or screening requirements. Given the scope of the project, staff feels that it would be unreasonable to require compliance with landscaping and screening requirements throughout the entire site. Staff has proposed, and the applicant has agreed to provide, additional parking lot screening improvements in the area immediately adjacent to the proposed use. d. The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets or other public facilities and utilities that serve or are proposed to serve the development. This requirement is met. e. The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties. This requirement is met. f. The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan area sufficient to protect the public interest. This requirement is met. The findings necessary to issue a Conditional Use Permit or an amendment thereof are as follows: a. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is met. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Use. b. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. This requirement is met. c. The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. This requirement is met. d. The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 544 of this code. The site is legally nonconforming and regulations related to nonconforming site improvements apply. Compliance with items related to parking lot screening, as detailed in Subsection 544.03, Subdivision 7 of the Code shall be required in the parking lot area adjacent to the proposed new use. e. The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements. This requirement is met. f. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety or welfare. This requirement is met. g. There is a public need for such use as the proposed location. This requirement is met. h. The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. This requirement does not apply as commercial daycare facilities are a permitted use in the guiding C-2 (General Commercial) District. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock `started' when a complete application was received on November 9, 2011. A decision is required by January 8, 2012 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision. • Approvals remain valid for one year unless substantial work has been completed or an extension is granted by the Council. C. FINANCIAL • The required application processing fee has been paid. D. LEGAL • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 28, 2011. No members of the public spoke. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the affected parcel. • The Planning Commission recommended approval (8-0) of the proposed amendment. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Approve the amendment with additional and/or modified stipulations. • Deny the request with findings indicating that the proposal does not meet City requirements. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Existing site plan, including landscaping • Proposed additional screening plan • Shopping Center tenant plan • Planning & zoning map(s) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representative(s) of Brixmor Property Group, HUB Management Co. 13 - t RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL DAYCARE FACILITY SERVING UP TO 65 PERSONS WITHIN THE "HUB" SHOPPING CENTER AT 33 WEST 65TH STREET WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests an amendment to the Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow a commercial daycare facility occupying 4,060 square feet and serving roughly 60 children within the existing shopping center at property legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield recommended approval of the requested amendment at its November 28, 2011 meeting; and WHEREAS, the requested amendment meets those requirements necessary for approving a Planned Unit Development as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 542.09, Subd. 3 and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No. ; and WHEREAS, the requested amendment meets those requirements necessary for approving a Conditional Use Permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 547.09, Subd.6 and detailed in City Council Staff Report No. ; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the amended Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. An amended Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit are issued to allow a 4,060 square foot commercial daycare facility serving up to 65 persons, as described in City Council Staff Report No. , on the Subject Property legally described in Exhibit A. 2. This amended Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is subject to the following conditions: • That final parking lot landscaping and screening plans addressing nonconforming items in the area adjacent to the daycare location are submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. • That the conditions and stipulations of all previously approved plans not specifically changed through this amendment remain effective. • That proper permits for work that may occur on public right-of-way be obtained prior to work. • That the recipient of this amended Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit record this resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subdivision 1 and Richfield Zoning Code 547.09, Subdivision 8. 3. The Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk EXHIBIT A Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Richfield Hub Superblock, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with that part of vacated Pleasant Avenue described as follows: All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly northwest corner of Lot 3, Block 1, Richfield Hub Superblock, as platted and of record in the office of the County Recorder; thence South 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the westerly line of said Lot 3, a distance of 142.11 feet; thence South 89 degrees 56 minutes 52 seconds West, a distance of 30.00 feet, to the most westerly line of said Lot 3; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East along the northerly extension of said most westerly line, a distance of 142.11 feet to the westerly extension of the most northerly line of said Lot 3; thence along said westerly extension 30.00 feet to the point of beginning. Together with all that part of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southerly extension of the westerly line of said Lot 3 and the southerly line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East along said southerly extension a distance of 183.00 feet to the most westerly southwest corner of said Lot 3 and the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds East along the southerly line of said Lot 3 a distance of 48.13 feet to a westerly line of said Lot 3; thence South 00 degrees 25 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 33.00 feet to the most southerly southwest corner of said Lot 3; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds East along the southerly line of said Lot 3 a distance of 253.99 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 3; thence South 00 degrees 25 minutes 38 seconds West along the westerly line of Lot 2 said Block 1 and its southerly extension a distance of 107.00 feet to a line drawn parallel with and 43.00 feet northerly of said southerly line of Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds West parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 35.90 feet; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 27.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds East parallel with said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 15.00 feet to a line drawn parallel with and 282.00 feet easterly of said southerly extension of the westerly line of said Lot 3; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East along said parallel line a distance of 71.56 feet to the north line of the south 141.56 feet of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds West along said north line of the south 141.56 feet a distance of 282.00 feet to said southerly extension of the westerly line of said Lot 3; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East along said southerly extension a distance of 41.44 feet to the point of beginning. I LEGEND _ CONCRETE SURFACE • MONUMENT FOUND 0 SEMAPHORE MULCH BENCH J. ® CATCH BASIN I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ROCK sue' ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER LLL--- _.. Q HYDRANT I-. " GRASS * LIGHT POLE I,': " O MANACLE STREET -=':5iJ':•-;i.':;• PAVERS ro WATER VALVE I 0 DECIDUOUS TREE I ilW'$;0 __ N89'58'1614 321.19 _ __ 0 BUSH N I i A I I " ___BUSHES W/ I I BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT N I N44'S3'12"E "� \ I I. ` lI I 11 L I o��'V I , , 47.92\ �s°�,\ ydY_1l• ;; I ; I'L- I,� - I 1 I I_H i t - -/ Z I `.J� ` , //,,, I I / U ILTO E A S E M E N T PER PLAT--4. \ _.- L. DESCRIPTION / I / i \ > Lots 2 and 3.Block 1,Richfield Hub Superblock,according to the recorded plat thereof.Hennepin County,Minnesota. Q I � - - - - - - � � � I / / ® F-------_-7_� Z:_ 60.00 QD,,,,o��1 f ry- � -- - -- - -- J• \V / \ I - ' = I Together with mat part or vacated Pleasant Avenue described as follow,' •w WEST N0'38'16'1 k...:11 . m SAY \ O I A l that part of he Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27,Township 28,Range 24,Hennepin County a ® N89'S8'S2"E 329.40 8.06'`,�q,- praE�'� w / -. �k-- - - w ., I described as follows: V. *O ma_ a . A-;O# w - CJ I I Beginning at the most northerly northwest comer of lot 3,Block 1,Richfield Hub Supe block,as platted and of I-' Ors NITUMINJUS PAVEMENT TI I I 9\' ® �r, { I record m the office of the County Retarder,.hence South 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds eesl.assumed Q r, // bearing,along the westerly line Al sod Lot the o distance of 142.11 feet:thence South 89 degrees 56 minutes 52 a \ ,p•.. - ® ands West,a distance of 30.00 feet,to the most westerly line of said Lot 3,thence North 00 degrees 20 . I :: �/ / /S ✓� - I minutes 18 seconds East along the northerly extension of said most westerly hoe,a distance of 142.11 feat to the L-- 7 / Q ' I I westerly extension of the most northerly line of aid Lot 3:thence along said westerly extension 30.00 feet to the �f\/// / / , � , point of beginning. .-o - / // / /� / ` /. u.1 I I Together with all that Part of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter described as fellows. / / I/�� / / `- / / / 1• I Commencing at the intersection of the southerly extension of the westerly line of said Lot 3 and the southerly line of said / /I / _-EXISTING BUBAING - In - Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter,thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East along said southerly o / //,' G extension a distance of 183.00 feet to the most westerly southwest corner of said Lot e3 and the actual point of beginning / / of the land to be described;thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 oeeconds East along the southerly line of said Lot 3 ® >?589'56/52'W /,'/••• .$ // / / / I a distance of 48,13 feet to a westerly line of said Lot 3,thence South 00 degrees 25 minutes 38 seconds West a �-.r ..3'34)°, J TG / t'� I distance of 3300 feet to the most southerly southwest< of sold Lot 3:thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 / /�''„)� y //\\/// / ",L/X(�(}� ar„ /�- / seconds East along the soulheny lone of sod Lot 3 n diet rice of 253 99 feel to the aulneast comer of said Lot 3: I / OL '/ 'I/ X Bt I I thence South 00 degrees 25 m notes 38 secontls west along the westerly hoe of Lot 2 a d Block T and its southerly / / QP // / s extension o distance of 107.00 feet to a line drown parallel with and 43,f1U feel northerly of said southerly line of W. / J`' / j 'I'O Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter,thence South 89 degrees 59 mnules.0 seconds West parallel wth aid a °s N89'59'52'E 250.26 I outneHy iris of said sowneast Quarter of me Nartnwesl Qaarter a distance or 35so rest;tnence Norm oo degrees 20 F'�x z jI 0\J / // 'notes IB seconds East a distance of 27.00 feel:thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds East parallel with / /' " 9A said southerly line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 15.00 feet to a line drown parallel ,. . /:/%/. with and 282.00 feet easterly of said southerly extension of the westerly line of said Lot 3;thence North 00 degrees 20 "I"s minutes 18 seconds East along said porollel line a distance of 71.56 feet to the north line of the south 141.56 feet of I .} / \ .J. �3 I said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Craarler,thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds West along said north / line of the south 141,56 feet a distance of 282.00 feet to said southerly extenson of the westerly line of said Lot 3: I , t4 �/E3 - /%/ /•' - S ' ( 'uw� / 1 I thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East along said southerly extension a distance of 41,44 feel to the point `.,u\ j - / / Ir-0F1 of beginning. • / / - / \�\ 0`'t� ym / r �1 m� AAFA The subject property contains 728,720 c ' I = I props y square feet(16.72 o res). = EXISTING BUILDING ®� /j / \ 4 F•" \i \ oG`r ,rc I regular parking spaces p spaces a / t S 6 �\ o / - 'L•. ! j PARKING: 1,057 for rkin and 44 handicap shown. FI '9,2-4 // / ��l '��p \\ '\�V I (includes parking spaces lying Partialy/completly outside of subject property) O I I H % �� 4.4 �f// V) SURVEYOR'S NOTES OGy, bl w I\ \fiP` \ ;I'-;^" 1.Orientation of the bearing system is based upon the south Mme of the northwest Quarter or section 27,Township 28,Range I (`• ` / - 4� I i 24, Hennepin County County,Minnesota,which is assumed to bear North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds East. ZQ , 9'�� /,/ l n,` As. // 4 S��-,L'L//I �0�\\ \ ,� �''�2 =-�'I Z I .The on-site improvements are shown based ono survey by BN.lan&Menk,Inc in 1997.and observed charges from that OJ / •- • /;��,/�`�,-y( / S survey noted during a site inspection on November 852011 / J\ �9�"` / ,!��'@F1 �� ? \ \\ 9 ,, ./ �n� Il: i W I 3)This s rvey was performed,and the survey mop prepared,without benefit f either a title in anitm® __ y N a ,y Altli attorney'su title opinion.The record boundary and eas ment information(if any)shown hereon M sed ormp■I O 'rW' the client. Research of documents affecting title to easement properly s rveyed or adjoining properties has been Tinted to a cursory / N / //' / / / .. ' `T \\�1_�,Q a?x//�� _ I�� Q review of record information and it is recommended that all the matters affecting this property and survey be reviewed by an N895952 E- 4 M•: 1 \\ 4r-J /:t(,y'\" _ has I attorney or other tills professional, I g 3 00/ : // %S / / Y GRNaAENrAL j, 3 rc \�`� 4;V/! %x Z j t I CERTIFICATION:re�^' / / S \ ? in LJL.1 On behalr f Bolton&Menk,me, I N89'S9'52 E 25 9 // °> \`\�I I I f I -255.99(OESG� - ' EXFSf1 // - < t \\ 21 ,'� W E J I hereby certify that this survey,plan o report was prepared by me or under my direct m�A �_ \ / / supervision,and that I a a duly ® �BUIt iNG/, - P�F" //X./ M2 O Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. S89'59'52'W 282.00 r / / Lit 4 / ,/ i g° \i'��C\` \ JSq� / // :� -- i U• n..I-ll - .A! �"o° ;I n ;\� �c /�j/. d II Z 'i \ 1 I m I / / '4� 2 AL % ��I,!i 1 '6+ °' 0\J �� I I in, .�. w`_' November 7,2011 ILL' I 282-_ �../ _. _ _ I SOIL - g` ° .. .. # SIGN 8 m o I Richar.�ow '1 lams Jr. _-___-__ u i SIGN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT l I :Anne- License Numb 840 J `` in m e NB'59'52"E-e_- N 4p ORNAMENTAL GRASS � ) 4 S I yL-1-R, 14.60 MEAS 15.00 DESC b N . .. BUSHES I I I ry a )� ) _ Z ° .� I -.� ,� ., Rev. 11-9-11:Trees and Bushes:Gross Areas:Date:Porking Count;Legend z -- N0'20'18 E-. O in ' .wIIMA I r\ . . t� I ra -4n., it I 27.00 -- ® L - - \.errJ >k a." t,. rrbST9 �Y.Sa < .� 'xs /, y -- -- - � >`:' +rail a I 589'59 52"Y•' a '94725'38"E N89'59'52'1 933.98 BUSHES w/ • 35,90 7.00 ORNAMENTAL GRASS V 1 - 17LY UNE OF SE 1/4 OF NW:/4,SEC.27.1WP. 28,RGE.24 WEST 66TH STREET ( COUNTY ROAD NO. 53 ) SURVEY CERTIFICATE Lots 2 and 3,Block I, Richfield, Hennepin County, MN Richfield Hub Superblock BOLTON 84 MEN K, INC. Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 12224 NICOLLET AVENUE S.BURNSVILLE, MN `337 (952)890-0509 FOR:Brixmor Property Group MANKATO.MN FAIRIAONT.MN SLEEPY EYE,MN BURNSVILLE,MN ©Bolton&Menk,Inc.2011.All Rights Reserved WILLMAR,MN CHASKA.MN RAMSEY.1AN AMES,IA I:\PRIV\T12104165\C3D\SURVEY\EXIST COND\104165BDOI.OWG 11-09-2011 10:57a.m. JOB NUMBER:712.104185 FIELD 800K:351.PG.26 DRAWN BY: RJW S27-128-R24-24 1)nn!nn I of;iC1 ',ol hlt's PREPARE SOIL FOR NOTE: _ THE ENTIRE BED SEE SPECIFICATION SECTION t RELATED TO EXTERIOR PLANTING ' 'I'1/%�_ '►'1/ 3"MULCH.DO NOT PLACE MULCH - 1 1 r IN CONTACT WITH SHRUB STEM 12" �\�/.� \T#/.- �_--- _ -- MIN SEE PLAN _ EDGE CONDITION VARIES,SEE PLAN iii 1111 i --1 I -` ) - " -- -EDGING,SEE PLAN CONTAINER GROWN MATERIAL SHALL -ci HAVE ROOTS HAND LOOSENED Il;i•, I r �..c t.u I !1Ill1!'Cl, � r -+( � � PLANTING SOIL FOR SHRUBS , � t MINA°DEEPER THAN ROOT BALL -, ---".' _SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF Damon Farber Associates NOTE: ENTIRE BED WITH SPADE BY HAND 923 Nicollet Mall CARE TO BE TAKEN WHEN DIGGING PLANTING Minneapolis..Minnesota 35402 PITS FOR NEW PLANT MATERIALS. WHERE TO BIND WITH PLANTING SOIL UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE phone 612,332.7522 TREE ROOTS ARE EXPOSED OR AT SURFACE 1 SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL fax a,nonf rber.c Bn1w�.damonfarber.corn GRADE ADJUST PLANT LOCATION THAT EXISTING LAWN TO REMAIN,SAVE AND L1.0 SCALE:3+4'=1'.0' MAINTAINS DESIGN INTENT. KEEP ROOT PROTECT FROM DAMAGE,SEED AREAS DISTURBANCE TO AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM AND (AND MULCH)DISTURBED DUE TO CUT ROOTS CLEAN WHEN NECESSARY WITH PLANTING ACTIVITIES,TYP. PREPARE SOIL FOR NOTE: CHAIN OR CIRCULAR TYPE SAW. Q © THE ENTIRE BED SEE SPECIFICATION SECTION RELATED TO EXTERIOR PLANTING I 3"MULCH.DO NOT PLACE MULCH 6" REFER IN CONTACT WITH PLANT STEM MIN.�I/� TO PLAN �`I� _EDGE CONDITION VARIES,SEE PLAN °` `` ;` (p EDGING,SEE PLAN West 65th Street 46 41 24 48 u "Al CONTAINER GROWN MATERIAL SHALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS B A A B EXISTING TREE z - - - --- - --- EXISTING --- TO REMAIN,TYP. ;\j __ HAVE ROOTS HAND LOOSENED FOR x SIGN TO SAVE AND PROTECT _ \-_;- PLANTING SOIL FOR PERENNIALS REMAIN - _ __ - -_- SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF ` - - _ _ ENTIRE BED WITH SPADE BY HAND' ..-..7r �� ,�■ii i TO BIND WITH PLANTING SOIL e •e, •' •• I'i�Tw ti �46-. >,T�« AAA Il rsoww a a a��- UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE EP-I-O.- •6er+vaan• vnva+o ervvcrovs,or IMr,.. vv wirer .torvvv�" 2 PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL 33 West 65th r I I! L1.0 SCALE 314.1.... Street --- PROPERTY LINE 1 1-AP U D-02 SHREDDED LANDSCAPE DETAILS ' HARDWOOD EDGER,TYP. -' ' MULCH ® ®� GENERAL NOTES PLANTING NOTES 1 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH 1 PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE , l )— - �L - EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF WORK AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK,ANSI Z80.1. { , 2 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLAN LAYOUT AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION 2 PLANT SYMBOLS ON PLAN DRAWING TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT SCHEDULE IF Richfield,MN ( 111( OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DISCREPANCIES WHICH MAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN DISCREPANCIES IN QUANTITIES EXIST.SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS TAKE --- --- OR INTENT OF THE LAYOUT. PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES, 3 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND 3 PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE LOCATED AND STAKED AS SHOWN ON PLAN. „ REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WORK AND MATERIALS SUPPLIED. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE STAKING OF PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO y - 4 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING ROADS.CURBS/GUTTERS,TRAILS. DIGGING. I hereby certify That this plan was prepared by I TREES LAWNS AND SITE ELEMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS.DAMAGE 4 NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS me or under my direct supervision and that I am i TO SAME SHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. GRANTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR Re0 lstered Landscape of the State of M of Minnn esotaesotainer the laws 5 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATION OF TO THE SUBMISSION OF BID. Name: Tom WhIIIDCk UNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GRADE UTLITIES AND PRONDE THE NECESSARY 5 ADJUSTMENTS IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS MAY BE NEEDED IN FIELD. / \ PROTECTION FOR SAME BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS(MINIMUM ID CLEARANCE). LPNDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO ADJUSTMENT OF PLANTS. ReglStfatioE#: 26292 /l - - _ 8 EXISTING CONTOURS.TRAILS,VEGETATION.CURB/GUTTER AND OTHER ELEMENTS ARE A PLANT MATERIALS TO BE INSTALLED PER PLANTING DETAILS. BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY OTHERS. 7 PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE FERTILIZED UPON INSTALLATION WITH DRIED BONE MEAL. / J AND NOTIFY LAN SCAPERSHAILCT OF SAME PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OTHER APPROVED FERTILIZER MIXED INPONIN INSTALLATION SOIL PERT HE AND NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT of SAME. MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS OR MAY RE TREATED FOR SUMMER AND FAIL 7 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL RENEW THE SITE FOR DEFICIENCIES IN SITE Signature: Date: INSTALLATION WITH AN APPLICATION OF GRANULAR 10-0-5 OF 12 ERPER 2.S CALIPER CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT,SURVIVAL OR TREE AND 8 OL PER SHRUB WITH AND ADDITIONAL APPLICATION OF 10.0.10 THE - - WARRANTY.UNDESIRABLE SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION FOLLOWING SPRING N THE TREE SAUCER. (j OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK a POLY EDGER TOED USEDTO CONTAIN SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS __ - 1 8 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF NEWLY WHERE PLANTING BED MEETS LAWN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. -- INSTALLED MATERIALS UNTIL TIME OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION.REPAIR OF ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION 9 SHRUB BED MASSINGS TO RECEIVE 4'DEEP ORGANIC(SHREDDED HARDWOOD)MULCH I r,r,,,,- „r; t— - SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR WITH NO FIBER MAT WEED BARRIER PERENNIALS TO RECEIVE 3'DEEP MULCH. C'� 9 EXISTING TREES FOUND ON SITE SHALL BE PROTECTED AND SAVED UNLESS NOTED TO BE 10 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL WARRANTY NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONE DFA Project#: 11-197 �J REMOVED OR ARE LOCATED IN AN AREA TO BE GRADED.QUESTIONS REGARDING EXISTING CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION.NO PARTIAL Drawn/Checked: MJW/TW • PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED. - - PRIOR TO REMOVAL. f 1 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE,THE APPROPRIATE DATES FOR SPRING PLANT MATERIAL Scale: 1"=20'-0" 12/2/11 10 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND SUBMIT WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THE INSTALLATION IS FROM THE TIME GROUND HAS THAWED TO JUNE 15. Dale: SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION INSPECTION OF LANDSCAPE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS 12 CONIFEROUS PLANTING IS ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 TO OCTOBER I.FALL •PRIOR TO SUBMITTING FINAL PAY REQUEST.SUBMIT TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. DECIDUOUS PLANTING IS ACCEPTABLE FROM THE FIRST FROST UNTIL NOVEMBER 15. Revision: _ - — ADJUSTMENTS TO PLANTING DATES MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE -- LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 1-1 TURF NOTES / .- 1 SEED AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO PLANTING ACTIVITIES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, LANDSCAPE NOTES LANDSCAPE SCREENING _ --- I SYM I OTT. I COMMON NAME I SCIENTIFIC NAME I SIZE I CONT I COMMENTS I PLAN \`v\) DECIDUOUS SHRUBS A I 05 I ANTHONY WATERER SPIREA I Splreaea x bumalde'Anthony Waterer' I 24'HGT I POT I PLANT 3'O,C. 0 20' 40' A;,r- ,'u GRASSES/PERENNIALS B I 94 I KARL FOERSTER GRASS I CelamagroaHs x acutiflora'Karl Foerstee I 24'HGT I#1 POTI PLANT 1.5'O,C. ■ O Ll,III LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1"=20'-0" NORTH PLANT SCHEDULE ----- • 1S-(0 XRichfield Hub and West Shopping Center gR 36 West 66th Street, Richfield, MN GIA: 215,304 ■ Major Tenants: Walgreens,Dollar Tree,Marshalls,Michaels, Rainbow Foods,Bally Total Fitness �f v 0 t> 'C( l);�Y(finvf'- -J(i 11 L'v�. Unit Retailer Sq. Ft. ,� __. —— 01 Available 5,41 — --- 01A Great Clips 1,216 4 •- ;' �___._--__ —_. .___.... 02 Michaels 24,235 03103A Dollar Tree 11,801 T' I- r i T �; / 10 Hennepin Care South 7,545 T X71 Tilli N //�. i ; If IT 1 , �1 \ 12 Foot Locker 2,500 I f 18 Hallmark 4,320 /"< , \ {I I li r=- .---1 i ' 14 Marabous 26,785• �J -� I —I I _ I I 15 GameStop 1,698 West 65th Street / `` _ i I I __ I 16 Dots 6,000 'S -- ( 17 Sally Beauty 1,440 _ ." fi. • 7/.;' , (; ------ — I Golden Tobacco 1,440 �' /' �'_—._I =-- — 20 Little Caesars 1,440 ' \ 21A C tCtte 1,234 `\ - — i t 21B City Nails 1,891 — i E / ' " 2 ,. 1 ` 22 Hub Jewelers 3,432 I / x , _ i i 23 Walgreens 12,000 /� -i {;r' x -----r I — 1 25 Opportunity Partners 5,418 • i I i 26 China Garden 1,809 '�1 / �/' >,>,,)" / j I. 14 �� ___.... I 27 Taco Morelos 2,890 i ; _ /' /\. i • r i ( 28 Available 3,150 B 1 \ L � %- /\. / / / ', 'I - \ I 33 Available 362 IL_ J} ' — 33 GNC 1,221 h, / t I; { 33-2 Available 807 / �` �1�' / ( 34 Burger King 4,401 `�' h' j j ,, `; r.` ,.L` !12 �G1. ,\iC3 -- 34-2 liberty Tax Services 1.587 �___ // ', '�'y ,\ I 34-2A Centro Leasing 932 // �l'i ( "\ — .•. y_ i A Rainbow Foods 52,155 �/ �/, ' , / . / // \ `>''9. ' 1'1 A 8 Bally Total Fitness 26,185 • 7 r 01/ Q i r \? III Z"Q ,/\'.. ('" '/ e - \\ - • -- -, . , /, • ,,.. ,,.. /,,,,, - /;/ . ,,,,„,, ,,, ,, -,.N .,\, \\' ,\ \ ■ re.:,:‘,„ ...,„,,, „.„.•.\_.,s. \-u/ -,,/ ; ___.., , . , . x „. . : /.. . /4.,„,. , ........„ . .„ . / ,./ ..././....,. .4,- ..,. ,,,/, . ..,,,,„.„:„. : .. ... . .. ,,,,:„...s.,. ,...,,,,,, ,in T-� I ► •T, ( ,, / ;t '; ••/� /. p;34 l`h rni l I \ , � , _._, ;.__ �' :! �//. l � {3426 '/ft 11"r i li l i - — \}�� % /,, .. — (N.API , v —I 1- ' ff -� �-`-'- '/1 ! , 4 I 4 # ...�_,. �_. 1 I i t r , i i I i , f —I Q I Q •� .�1 ill L�s�1.� i l i ...'_�.!!i. 11-:_I t '� ,, ! ! , �, Il i 1I ° I ( t1_ .��.-_.�ll_L, i1IIL, ! I , IiI ri ; �1 (_ ; r. -- West 66th Street • t Matthew Johnson I(612)798-7964 I matthew.johnson @brixmor.com Central Regional Office 1(847)272-9800 1 WWW.BRIXMOR.COM Nate'The ado plan fnd:ates the goners'layout of the enopp,nd onto,and is not a warranty,,ecrest•nfahon oray:nement on the part of th,landlord that the shopping center WM De eeacfti CO dMNCfod hero: 4186-09/23/2011 V Kl 33 W 65th St - 11 /11 °1 PUD AMENDMENT R R R R R _ R R R R R C-2 MR-2 R R R R R C-2 MR-2 R R R R R R — R MR-2 MR-2 R o 65TH STRE T C-2 R-2 MR-2 MR-2 MR-2 c'" - i II r• n - r - PC-2 m F-C-2 < C-2 C-2 UB Shopping Cen m — 66.'.....'"-----:‘‘''..1 2 C 66TH STREET C- PC-2 R — --) — I I Zoning Designations 0 110 220 440 660 880 R -Single Family Res. = ■ ■ Feet MR-2 -Multi-Family Res. C-2 -General Commercial N PC-2- Planned General Commercial I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Melissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\HUB - PUD amendment-Z.mxd AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM# 14 REPORT# 270 MIAMI STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: `r> ! \ GNATURF ' REVIEWED BY CITY tv,4 d MANAGER: e ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Second reading of an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment will revise the standards and process for consideration of the expansion of dimensional or bulk nonconformities in the Mixed Use Districts. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached ordinance amending Subsection 537.13, Subdivision 2 related to the consideration of the expansion of dimensional or bulk nonconformities in the Mixed Use Districts. II. BACKGROUND In 2006 the City revised the Zoning Code to create the Mixed Use Districts. As part of this revision process, the City thought it prudent to include provisions to allow for some expansion of buildings and/or uses that would become legally nonconforming under the new zoning designations. As of this year, these regulations had not yet been tested on an actual application. In September the City received its first request for an expansion of a nonconforming building. In considering this application, it became clear that the proposed method for processing such requests (site plan approval) was inadequate for addressing the property in question and will likely be inadequate for addressing future applications in the Mixed Use Districts. The nature of an existing nonconforming structure will almost certainly require more flexibility than the site plan approval process is designed to accommodate. For that reason, the proposed ordinance will change 121311 - 2nd Reading - Ord Amend - bulk nonconformities MU the administrative process used in these instances from site plan review to consideration of a conditional use permit. The proposed ordinance also revises the criteria necessary to issue a conditional use permit for the expansion of a bulk or dimensional nonconformity. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Provisions related to the expansion of legally nonconforming buildings were specifically added to the Mixed Use District regulations to provide flexibility. The conditional use permit process is a more appropriate vehicle for addressing the specific circumstances of an expanding nonconforming building. • Specific conditions related to the issuance of a conditional use permit for the expansion of a nonconforming building have been drafted based on 1) existing regulations related to general conditional use permit, and 2) existing regulations related to expansion of nonconforming buildings under the site plan approval process. Conditions are proposed as follows: a) The proposed expansion will not increase the overall, site-wide degree of nonconformity; b) The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed expansion meets zoning and Comprehensive Plan requirements to the greatest degree practical. These requirements include, but are not limited to: parking, landscaping, architectural design and façade treatment, and site design; c) Departures from zoning and Comprehensive Plan requirements must be off-set through superior design and/or additional community/site amenities; d) The proposed expansion will not significantly impede implementation of goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; e) The proposed expansion will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring residential properties; f) The proposed expansion will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements; and g) The proposed expansion will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety or welfare. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • An application has been submitted for a conditional use permit as describe by this ordinance. The application cannot be considered unless the ordinance is adopted. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • A public hearing to consider the attached ordinance was held before the Planning Commission on October 24, 2011. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current in accordance with State and Local requirements. No members of the public spoke. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached ordinance (7-0). • On November 7, 2011 the City received a letter (attached) from Dorn Law Firm, Ltd. objecting to proposed ordinance on behalf of Richfield Fast Foods, Inc., operator of the Burger King restaurant at 140 78th Street East. The City does not agree with the assertions made in this letter and City Attorney Heine has provided the attached response. • A first reading of the attached ordinance was approved by the Council on November 14, 2011. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Approve the attached ordinance with additional changes. • Reject the attached ordinance. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance • November 4, 2011 letter from Dorn Law Firm, Ltd. • December 2, 2011 response letter from City Attorney Heine VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representative(s) of property owner and/or franchisee — Existing Burger King restaurant at 140 78th Street East • Theron Berg & Tyler Edwards - Menards, Inc. 114 BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE SUBSECTION 537.13, SUBDIVISION 2 RELATED TO EXPANSION OF DIMENSIONAL OR BULK NONCONFORMITIES IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICTS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 Subsection 537.13, Subdivision 2 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Expansion of Dimensional or Bulk Nonconformities. Legally nonconforming buildings existing prior to February 19, 2006 that do not meet dimensional or bulk standards of the Mixed Use Zoning District may be expanded through review and approval of a conditional use permit - Subsection 547.09. Expansion or modification of a legally nonconforming building shall: a) Not increase the overall, site-wide degree of nonconformity; b) - -_ . •• • - - - - - - - - - - - _- - -- - -with the goals and--pansies of the Comprehensive Plan; and Demonstrate that zoning and Comprehensive Plan requirements are met to the greatest degree practical. These requirements include, but are not limited to: parking, landscaping, architectural design and façade treatment, and site design; c) Off-set departures from zoning and Comprehensive Plan requirements through superior design and/or additional community/site amenities; sd) Not significantly impede implementation of goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plani e) Not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring residential properties; f) Not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements; and q) Not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety or welfare. Sec. 2 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Eck ' NOV 0 9 2011 DoRN LAW FIRM LTD. BY: Wilbur F.Dorn,Jr.,Attorney at Law 9380 Central Avenue NE Jody L. Erickson,Certified Paralegal Blaine,MN 55434 Telephone: 763-783-7000 Fax: 763-783-5715 November 4,2011 Mr. Richard Devich, City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield,MN 55423 RE: Consideration of Menard's Expansion Dear Mr. Devich: I represent Richfield Fast Foods, Inc., which operates the Burger King Restaurant facility near the Menard's store in Richfield. While my client is at present a tenant,my client's lease contains an option to purchase the property,and therefore a substantial property right is at issue. On October 24, 2011, the City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on an ordinance amendment designed to facilitate the process for non-conforming uses to expand in certain zoning districts, and then considered the application of Menard's to implement such an expansion. A representative of my client was present to voice the objections of my client to this expansion, citing the predatory nature of the expansion. The expansion as proposed will deprive my client's property of light, visibility and create a visual nuisance. It will result in eventual changes to traffic patterns that will significantly devalue the property, and deprive the property of all reasonable uses. For several months prior to this application, Menards attempted to acquire this property, but terminated negotiations with my client. After these unsuccessful negotiations, Menards made application to the City to accomplish by ordinance what it could not accomplish in the marketplace;the virtual acquisition of my client's property rights. Action by a City which has the effect of depriving a property owner of practical enjoyment of the property, involving a measurable diminution of market value, constitutes a taking of the property within the meaning of the State and Federal Constitutions. Alivizos vs. Metropolitan Airports Commission, 452 NW 2nd 452 (Mn App. 1990). Spot Zoning and zoning amendments to a comprehensive zoning ordinance which are intended to benefit a single property owner,resulting in substantial diminution of market value have also been held to be takings. Alexander vs. City of Minneapolis, 125 NW 2nd 583 (MN 1963). The taking need not be direct or physical in nature. Northern States Power Company vs. Minnesota Metropolitan Council, 667 NW 2nd 501 (Mn. App. 2003). • While the proposed actions are not directed at my client's property rights,the effect of the City's actions in approving this tailored zoning ordinance change and subsequent preferential treatment of Menard's will in fact substantially devalue my client's property interest and deprive my client of the reasonable usage of the property. This correspondence is intended to put the City on notice of this claim, and the potential for a Mandamus action under the theory of Inverse Condemnation to compel the City to acquire my client's property interest for its existing fair market value. We strongly urge the City to carefully and prudently consider this factor in its deliberations. S's erely, Wilbur . I orn,Jr. 470 U.S.Bank Plaza Kennedy Offices in 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis Minneapolis,MN 55402 (612)337-9300 telephone Graven Saint Paul • (612)337-9310 fax St. Cloud www.kennedy-graven.com CH AR T E R ED Affirmative Action,Equal Opportunity Employer CORRINE A.HEINE Attorney at Law Direct Dial(612)337-9217 Email: cheine®kennedy-graven.corn • MSBA Board Certified Real Property Specialist December 2, 2011 Mr. Wilbur F. Dorn,Jr. Attorney at Law Dorn Law Firm, Ltd. 9380 Central Avenue NE Blaine, MN 55434 Re: City of Richfield Proposed Ordinance to Allow for Expansion of Nonconformities Dear Mr. Dorn: I am the city attorney for the City of Richfield. I am responding to your letter dated November 4, 2011, to Mr. Devich, Richfield's City Manager' regarding your client's objections to the City's proposed ordinance to allow for expansion of nonconforming buildings in the Mixed Use Districts. At its meeting on October 24, 2011, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the ordinance. The City Council held first reading of the ordinance on November 14, 2011. Second reading and final consideration is scheduled for December 13, 2011. Your letter contends that the City is giving Menard's improper "preferential treatment" and that the proposed ordinance would amount to an unlawful taking of your client's property. I disagree. The proposed ordinance is not an example of spot zoning that benefits only Menard's. It is a proposed text amendment that applies not only to the Menard's property but to all properties within the City's Mixed Use Districts. The proposed ordinance will permit the expansion of nonconforming uses by conditional use permit, which is explicitly authorized by state law. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. Ie(b); see also Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721, 727 (Minn. 2010) (affirming that a city has the discretion to permit the expansion of a nonconformity by ordinance). Your letter refers to problems that the Menard's expansion allegedly will cause — loss of light and visibility, and eventual changes in traffic patterns. None of those alleged problems is 1 The City Manager is Mr.Steven Devich,not Richard. 394600v3 MDT RC160-5 Mr. Wilbur F. Dorn December 2, 2011 Page 2 causally related to the ordinance. Your client's property has a pre-existing visibility problem, due to its distance from Nicollet Avenue and the sight-distances from I-494. Nothing in the ordinance or in the expansion of Menard's will change the visibility from 1-494. The City cannot prevent Menard's from making a reasonable use of its property in order to protect the visibility of your client's property from a street a full block away—Nicollet Avenue. Menard's has always had the right — as does your client — to fence its boundary, and the adoption of the proposed ordinance will not change that. Similarly, your reference to future traffic changes has no relevance to the City's ordinance or the Menard's expansion. I presume you were referring to the closing of the 78th Street frontage road, which is anticipated to occur whenever I-494 expands in the future. MnDOT's plans for 1-494 are indefinite, long-range, and completely unrelated to the City's proposed ordinance. It is unfortunate that your client was unable to negotiate a land exchange with Menard's. Your client's property has locational characteristics that are not optimal. The City is not responsible for those characteristics, and your client cannot expect the City to purchase its property just because your client could not negotiate a satisfactory land exchange with Menard's. Sincerely, a. Corrine A. Heine CAH:jms cc: Steve Devich, City Manager John Stark, Community Development Director 394600v3 MDT RC160-5 AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM# 15 REPORT# 271 rid" STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: a ��. �, S14 ATU2E REVIEWED BY CITY - - - E� MANAGER: A ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of a nonconforming building at 7701 and 7717 Nicollet Avenue (Menards). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve or deny a Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of a nonconforming building at 7701 and 7717 Nicollet Avenue (Menards). II. BACKGROUND The building at 7701 Nicollet Avenue, the current home of Menards, was built in 1960 and no longer meets Menards' needs or current building standards. Menards has purchased the adjacent property at 7717 Nicollet Avenue (built in 1961) and proposes to demolish both buildings in order to construct a new, two-story facility with a lumber yard and a garden center. In 2005 the City adopted an 1-494 Corridor Master Plan which has since been incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan. The following year the City codified zoning regulations to aid in the implementation of this Corridor Plan. In acknowledgement of the many existing buildings that would be made nonconforming by the new regulations, the City included a provision allowing for the expansion of these buildings provided that certain conditions were met. Tonight, the City Council considered a second reading of minor revisions to the process under which these expansions are to be considered. 121311 - Menards CUP III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Legally nonconforming structures may be continued, including through replacement, in accordance with Section 509.25 of the Zoning Code and State Statute. Proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance will allow legally nonconforming structures in the Mixed Use Districts to expand through review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The findings necessary to issue this permit are as follows: a) The proposal will not increase the overall, site-wide degree of nonconformity. The existing building is nonconforming as a single-story building without architectural detail on three of its four sides. The existing building does not include a mix of uses. The proposal removes one existing nonconforming single-story building (Jun Bo restaurant), and brings the Menards building closer to conformance with current regulations by 1) adding a second story, 2) adding significant architectural interest through windows, lighting and building articulation on the 77th Street wall, 3) and by bringing it the building closer to the street (Nicollet Avenue). Additionally the proposal includes several strategic pedestrian upgrades both within and around the site, increasing the overall walkability of the area. b) The applicant must demonstrate that zoning and Comprehensive Plan requirements are met to the greatest degree possible. These requirements include, but are not limited to: parking, landscaping, architectural design and façade treatment, and site design. The applicant has worked to meet or improve compliance with many performance standards. Improvements and/or compliance are noted in the following areas: building coverage, parking stall and aisle dimensions, parking lot setbacks, parking lot screening, parking stalls (quantity), parking lot landscaping, refuse collection treatment, screening of mechanical equipment, pedestrian connections, bike racks and façade improvements (relief, window articulation, ground floor windows, material selection, building articulation). The applicant has demonstrated a willingness to continue to move toward the best site design possible by further improving the site since consideration by the Planning Commission. These improvements include adding elements of the draft 77th Street Corridor Design Guidelines (additional screening and lighting) and by reducing the overall impervious surface of the site (site plus boulevard improvements) to 91 percent (down from 93 percent). c) Any departures from zoning and Comprehensive Plan requirements must be off- set through superior design and/or additional community/site amenities. While there remain areas in which the proposal does not comply with Code requirements, the applicant feels that the quality of the proposed improvements outweighs these deficiencies. The nature of the Menards store makes it nearly impossible to meet requirements like pulling the building up to Nicollet Avenue or providing a "green spine" to lead pedestrian through the site. Staff believes that the proposed plan meets the intent of this requirement through inclusion of 1) a dedicated area for an enhanced transit facility at the corner of Nicollet Avenue and 77th Street, 2) inclusion of additional pedestrian elements including a fence, additional plantings and specialty lighting in keeping with draft 77th Street design guidelines, and 3) provision of new a new sidewalk along 78th Street and a sidewalk and green area that bisects the site to allow safe pedestrian passage from Nicollet Avenue to the store entrance. d) The proposal shall not significantly impede implementation of goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan stresses walkability, cohesive design and active uses in the 1-494 Corridor. The proposed plan includes improved sidewalks and boulevards on three sides and space for an enhanced transit facility at the corner of Nicollet Avenue and 77th Street. The proposed development will not impede active uses or pedestrians throughout the remainder of the corridor. e) The proposal shall not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring residential properties. There are no neighboring residential properties. f) The proposal shall not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements. This requirement is met. The developer has worked with Mn/DOT and Hennepin County to address all previously outstanding access issues. g) The proposal shall not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety or welfare. This requirement is met. See above. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock `started' when a complete application was received on October 3, 2011. A decision is required by December 2, 2011 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision. Due to Election Day, the City Council meeting schedule was revised. To comply with Code requirements, a second reading of the ordinance informing this application could not be held until tonight. A notice of extension was sent to the applicant. The 120-day timeline requires a decision by January 31, 2012. C. FINANCIAL • The required application processing fee has been paid. D. LEGAL • A public hearing to consider the proposed CUP was held before the Planning Commission on October 24, 2011. • Notice of the public hearing was sent to properties within 350 feet in accordance with Sate and Local requirements. • Mr. Kurt Keel, representing Dolphin Real Estate Management and Dolphin Fast Food, tenants and operators of the Burger King restaurant at 140 East 78th Street, spoke against the proposal. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed CUP (6-1, Root dissenting based on impervious surface proposal). Since the Planning Commission vote, the applicant has decreased the impervious surface to the amount targeted by staff and recommended by Commissioner Root. • On December 7, 2011, the City received the attached letter from Mr. Gregg Nelson of Nelson Law Office. Mr. Nelson, representing his father, property owner Mr. Raleigh Nelson, requests that the Council delay action and require changes to the proposed plans. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Environmental requirements (e.g. stormwater) are addressed by the proposal. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Approve a CUP with additional stipulations to ensure that required findings can be made. • Deny the CUP finding that requirements are not met. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Site plans • Planning & zoning maps • December 6, 2011 Letter from Nelson Law Office VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Theron Berg & Tyler Edwards, Menards RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING BUILDING AT 7701 AND 7717 NICOLLET AVENUE WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests a conditional use permit to allow the construction of an expanded Menards store at 7701 & 7717 Nicollet Avenue, properties legally described as: 7717 Nicollet Ave: That part of the West 315 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying South of East 77th Street and North of Highway F.A.I. No. 494, being a part of Government Lot 8, according to the United States Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. and 7701 Nicollet Ave: That part of Government Lots 1 and 8, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, described as beginning on the South line of said Government Lot 8 at its intersection with the extension South of the East line of Stevens Avenue dedicated in the plat of"A.G. Bogen Company's Nicollet Avenue Addition"; thence North along said extension South of the center line of 2nd Avenue S. dedicated in said plat; thence West along said South line to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with an d315 feet East from the North and South Quarter line of said Section 34; thence South along the last described parallel line to the South line of said Government Lot 8; thence East along said South line to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit for expansion of a nonconforming building in a Mixed Use District at its October 24, 2011 meeting; and WHEREAS, the requested conditional use permit meets the requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit for the expansion of a nonconforming building in a Mixed Use District as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 537.13, Subd. 2; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional use permit for the expansion of a nonconforming building in a Mixed Use District; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A conditional use permit is issued to allow the construction of an expanded Menards store, as described in City Council Letter No. , with plans dated December 2, 2011, on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. The conditional use permit at 7701 & 7717 Nicollet Avenue is subject to the following conditions in addition to those specified in Section 537.13, Subd. 2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance: • That the property be platted; • The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies; • That a final lighting plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director; • That a final landscaping plan be submitted to an approved by the Community Development Director; • That a final sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director; • That a final stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director; • That a maintenance agreement related to sidewalks and landscaping be executed; • That a final utility plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director; • Based on the submitted parking study dated August 8, 2011, the City finds that 265 parking stalls are required to serve this development. Snow storage may only take place in parking stalls that are in excess of this minimum requirement; • This approval does not include the signs shown on the drawings. Separate sign permits are required; • That the recipient of this conditional use permit record this Resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subd. 1 and the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 546.05, Subd. 7; and • Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the developer shall: a) Submit a copy of the recorded conditional use permit; b) Receive approval and record final plat; c) Submit a copy of Hennepin County's approval of the final plat; and d) Submit a surety equal to 125% of the value of any landscaping improvements not yet complete. 3. The conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk =v6 �-3 NEW LANDSCAPE LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL, COMMON NAME SIZE HEIGHT WIDTH OTY, STRUM I ET .(ATA JvNLFSE IEAC TREE 2'DM 20-70• I5_2S' B PARIS CNLCRYM •CIEVEIND SWI', Y w 4d 2D-2S' 2 •h SFIECT'aunn PEAw ILU11S X MIND'PRA1VB1E.7w1BnBIE'FIG 1xPAB row 2C 20' 19 - �^�'TRW/MHOS r'°•MOWS 2.011 70-70' a0-7C B (,, c ▪C9)E n10RNf5S COMM IO YWc4 T r_, _-------------- �7t17 St. L.---_°°-°-----°—°—_------®'-----------_ _____-----------_---------_—e® Aa1t WORM'PAWED SUNSET'.MIRED xMTET RED�wtE r DM 40-SO• W ,S --_—_--- --_—_---------_ ACA WORM'BOBIINL','eowwL',ED iA4P1E 2.011 40-50' 15' 22 _ 101•-B- - --- V V _ • - - - - -- PONS I®N0�TIED P9 S'M. SD-99 Y.N1E5 e - _- NUS Awoltnrrw•aR0-lp✓.'0140-WW iRA01MNr SUMAC a W. r S-6• S _�__—_ EXISLALGSIBEE_LIrHT FlaupES—_-------_—_ '° ` —�� e E APRON • A LIME PRINCESS sPw■A s cN z /2E' 2,/2+ as - -� 9ESTI4N-616NTS-RER-6FFKpARSS-° ®- ------ —°----®_®_ - _ e AND POLES TO BE REUSED rl< 9'a. PROVIDED BY MENARDS ,....u.3 i>:urw�sA'Aeeonsw000'.'A�ml�+o°°PoTwruA s cu a' a ea - - 4 C -- • -- - W OOS TIBBISEIVAI'ROSE tAD8 71ou txdr.L1vNasT;Bueuwt S W& 9-478e''' -6' _ s-6' a4 __— b n i --�— — -- j 1`=1P 4 q 4 4 j j 4 q q j j j —j ®®._ IMISOC RPUS CPwnlxls wars COWOr. a e, a,o' 1e _ -- q - wars COWEN'MOON NOCI Wx so' �� - - --- . ._- ° -, - 474° �■∎ trcBOelarA t1EgRSVA SBf,BW CYPRESS t OIL 18°o r 22 tD •1�f#E IN I I I4 60' RECESSED I I I MI LOADING DOCK ! cmN'"EUS ATOM,FEBRUARY COLD 12 BUS ,2• 1E' 40 V U II ::- u \° ' n RAMP . , tw_ 15-20' 16-20° SS SEE DETAIL 4 $■■n us raAlelcT,as,6 AWIFLE 1Wa rAlagrErr rM. 4-6' to-: w. I SEE DETAIL m = ^ .1 4cw MM'Dw BLUE,'9Y BLUE'snTrcx CRASS 1 w. 4-5 39 41-0 q 1 L 30.-0° a; "lr_ IEPErA WS58 •IUE Nd10EN,'BLUE WONDER'PERSLW IEPEYA 1 COL 5-16- 24' 34 20� �°� u BIKE RACK - -� r -.B I IU4 j Et%Bwcu,PtA1PURFA,PURPLE coN61cMER 1 aL 3-s' 24• 36 q I 1 : Q I i B oBECI N 1■rrA BACN-EYED SU51N ,GL 1-r 24° 10 N. ® 326 PAR<IN CORRALS S le / W700 t1Rdl(IUOStsvE xAN,E1s) ') • 318 TOTAL PARKING SPACES °' I I t q r/ I B Dlenards Site Area _ 413,010 SQ.FT. __ f Rienards Building Area 182.054 SQ.FT. I �I I ; ;•,�/ -1 i lI 4 , , ,/ EN A D S • I. , / MU-C Bulk v - .4 . /. Use Standards I' WAREHOUSE AREA Standard Required Provided 49,298 SQ. FT. BniNi g Stories 2 NIi 12 ]ax 2 _ . N , I I e 4I _ N 1ST. FLOOR HEATED AREA = 124,060 SQ. FT. ,..: n a Building Coverage 30"��Min A)';��Max 445(. tlgyp_ 2ND. FLOOR HEATED AREA = 112,580 SQ. F7. —_ t Maximum lnrpeninrs Surface HO of Gross Parcel 95% q Cocenge_ _ _--.5%-of Area _�__ 6laxinrun bry,erviws Swtaee 80°-°of Gross Parcel �}I°U I I SEE DETAIL SEE DETAIL ± • coverage With 6'g rt of Way Area - Usable Open Space Requirement A'rca Parcel (1 o i 111111111111 -1111:$. Q N , Street Level Active Use BnWdrrr_ 50%aliirrnun KO% .i ii ii i .i. ` 217,35' ._�-_�_.�r,�:"ffe r� r �� /4,D Frontage \` :,:� 11 1 1 1 7 1 11 TQI0 / i� ® MENARDS SITE AREA o 0 0 0 o e o o I Front Yard Setback it Feet 20'10"-\� `., V("1 I I i I III I I�4 / j SEE DETAIL ,t}13 D10± SQ. FT. P P a Side Yard Setback SFeet 7' d \, q 9.48± ACRES -—— — — — , • U �I) Rear]'and Setback SFeet 5' \ '-� [' n 26' 1-494 Setback 15 Feet 10' Landscaping Requirements 72 o F +. E�•�,� GARDEN CENTER OUTSIDE YARD AREA M15 q L i Standard Re aired Provided �/��V!! / 18,576 SQ. FT. q o b % 62,466± SQ. FT. 1 Tree 2.500 SQ.FT.of q t� N 1.43± ACRES I �0 \ Developable Landscaping Area 1C,5 70 • S+� N B-,I 55,Og• N. I Slrmb Per 1,0(10 SQ.FT.of 413 615 °•.` 0 • -I a, '� I 1 1°+L Developable Lardseayu><Area _�� d>,0 Q °° .. 330 / I �° C 211...of Buffer]'and Ground o - - 4 __ ��, 20;0 3.04Pi ` Py 1: 1.� YARD ENTRANCE I n1 covered by Shrubs C� • "''� I•, I L'' I 1 Tree 50 FT.Parking ht Frontage 20 18 25 si,of Perimeter Ground Covered \`\\ • _ 6b-0° 61 Shrubs 2$!�� fi 7Z'° .�, SEE DETAIL .�7 D • •■ y - I� 5•,of Interior Parking Lot Area ° - _ _ _ _ 5% 9.00% � _ _ - _ _ _ __ __ �' Devoted to Landscaping �6'55 _ / Percent oflrrpenvus/Property 17,906''413,010 � s./ SEE DETAIL® Area 011 vs / •0 Percent ofirmenvns'Property 35,220;429,539= •`. / i Pe c lnclfGre Relp e l ay 91 DI !! _ I Percent ofGreen Space-Bwld'vg 5% 19,063 182.054= • - '��` ❑ - 0I Area lU5'u Y - / '� - ❑ � Standard Old Landscaping Requirements ne wred -9Provided q t/ _ i,.. 1 Tree'?SIl(I SQ.Fi.of t `` SNOW STORAGE / 165 68 ,1 �... - `� AREA •■/I Devekpabk Landseaying 4rea /�\ - - Si,.J C _ �'-,.,�` /I Ls luub Per 1.(100 SQ.FT.of 5 I < - - \ - �1 velopabte L andscaping Area 413 62. — /III 211',ofBuBer't and Ground �� / 20% 3,11460 -�``'_ 7-7-1 Covered by Sluubs I Tree 50 FT Parking lot Frontage 20 I R ``� by Shrubs 2S% 6.77°'° ! ( J -6° 25"k of Perimeter Ground Covered - .5".of]nterior Pari;ig Lot Area qq„ 5.00% .�.- Devoted to Landscaping -- Percent of Impervious'Property 811° 4(10.694 413,010= Area 97°i6 Percent of Green Space Building 5,, 9.261 182.054= Area 5.10% MENARDS _ - : ' • Richfield, Minnesota Proposed Site Plan December 02, 2011 Scale: 1" – 40'-0" CT1 r6'-({ /7--- -(2)-'PRAIRIFlRE'CRAB APPLE TREES ), .® (14)-'BU/E WONDER° (90-'DEWEY EWE' 3°WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK WITH / \ _I' PERSIAN NEPETA PUNTS SW TCH GRASS PLANTS RA.IPS AT BO'H ENDS 1' 1 PARKING LOT LIGHTING \�.\ II / II 1 - (2)-'KARL FORESTER' \' II -- - MI .1-®l.i 1 FEATHER REED GRASS PLANTS - .� _ _ _ _ �- (2)-'FEBRUARY GOLD'DAFFODIL PLANTS \\. . i� ;, _UTILE / lta� , FE TIER BREED CRASS PLANTS SPIRE",BUSHES ESINCESS' 0 I■ II CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER \ /O�1) �I \( CGNG ETE CURB GUTTER / \\ I• I ` /.\-3°WOOD MULCH OVER LANDSCAPE FABRIC _/ (4)-JAPANESE LILAC TREES r WOOD MULCH ODSCAPE FABRIC PARKING LOT LIGHTING PARKING LOT ISLAND 1110 PARKING LOT ISLAND •iiii SCALE: 1/B°- 1'-0° • SCALE: 3/32°a 1'-O° (TYPICAL 1 ISLAND) PEDESTRIAN LIGHTS PER CITY 50'LONG x 3'HIGH DECORATIVE IRON FENCE I STANDARDS PROVIDE BY (TO BE SELECTED BY MENARDS FROM PRODUCTS I MENARDS AVAILABLE IN IT RETAIL STORES) I I 98' WIDE x 30°LONG BUS STOP SHELTER 50'LONG x 3'HIGH DECORATVE IRON FENCE - (9)--'ROSE GLOW (3)'BOWHALL' I I CONCRETE PAD AND CONCRETE KNEE WALLS (T( BE SELECTED BY MENARDS FROM PRODUCTS JAPANESE BARBERRY BUSHES RED MAPLE TREES JAPANESE BARBERRY BUSHES I TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY MENARDS AVAILABLE IN ITS RETAIL STORES) SHELTER PROVIDED BY CITY OF RICHFIELD (7) 'ABB07TSWOOD ,,,,,.„ _ -OTENTILU BUSHES .. - f b i ._ (5)-'HAPPY PLANTS -��..s •° -°_ � _____ ', �-_,� .. �� - ,�< , • .. R1:R RED MAPLE TREES ()-' Y BLU' c (9)-'KARL FORESTER' -(18)-JABBOTSW000' (6)-=H •PY R RN , ,WAIT GR PUN I FEATHER REED GRASS PLANTS POTE►ITILLA LUSHES D YLILLY ( ) 'P TED SUNSET' CON ETE RB (9)'PAINTED SUNSET° (4)-'IEWEY BLUE' (8)--' F. ESTER �� &� RED MAPLE TREE i I M TREE $WITCH GRASS PLANAR A REED •'ASS ' TS _ i FR)-'GRO-LOW ()-' LE COJEFLOWER'PLAATS 3` •.. ULCH VER (6)-'FEBRUARY GOLD' FRAGRANT SUMAC BUSHES (6)-'HAPPY RETURNS' (9)-'PURPLE CONEFLOWER'PLANTS LANDSCAPE FABRIC I DAFFODIL PUNTS DAYULLY PLANTS (8)-'KARL FORESTER' I I I FEATHER REED GRASS PLANTS * 14'* r. 3°WOOD MULCH OVER LANDSCAPE FABRIC !�• 3 PARKING LOT PERIMETER LANDSCAPING ! •* HOAIEYLOCUST TREES (7)-'DEWEY BLUE' "/ � SWITCH GRASS PLANTS CT1 SCALE: 1/16°•• 1'-0' ,,//��////------ (4)-'BOWHALL' I •••;•y'„ , LANDSCAPE FABRIC RED MAPLE TREES (12)-'LITTLE PRINCESS' 7 (7)-'DEN4Y BLUE' SPIRE",BUSHES ••!s - SWITCH GRASS PLANTS NEW LANDSCAPE LEGEND (11} 1143DTTSWODD' SYMBOL BOTANICAL, COMMON NAME SIZE HEIGHT WIDTH QTY. I I 5. POTENRU L BUSHES B1tw R:t 0A 10XA0 419I4e3E WC 170E Y OM. 20-30' 15-25' a ••.i!.• •y.X ERL FORESTER' �E\n YOM 4 2s' 2 !• t )N IB FEATHER REED GRADE PLANTS .f p. > •• POTELLLA BUSHES . I .4w1K X MOOD 7MRg7E',7741..E001E'Rn5E1111q aW Y dA 20' 90' 10 • 44 • aSHT 71a1UeI1R vr.OEns TtK710e'. •' 'SCItO'11b105135 GOY01 ltl1E71af116f YOM 30-70' 30-70' 9 :! (2)=SKYLINE' man maw T0am 7Awecr.wawa swear TED MAPLE Y 0M 40-00' \MwCS tS !4 A.;. �HONEYLOCUST TREES I •• ! 10'WADE CONCRETE SIDEWALK ACM wpm 70MNLL'.'a0M11Y1'TED YWE YOM 40-80' ta' T2 � •• ! :• I J// 0aae PFi wCaA TED►wE a'xf. 30-50' MViEa a • v:- 90'WOE CONCRETE SIDEWALK MIS/110141110.9'0197-LOW. w-I'rwawl0 SWAG 3 QM. Y rC B , III ... 7w+wMA avro75t•A'LITTLE 7fE1GE4c',LIME PROMS s75eA 3 CAL 2 1/2'+ 2 1/2+ 53 Y`�%D?'-. ((6)-'UTTLE PRINCESS' rDtntnlA 275mc0eA'ANOf10WOD•,;teprtSa00p'rDlnRlSU 3 aw_ a' a• e3 I •, - SPIREA BUSHES 1 90100M memo''11060 cwt.'6550 not JMx1euc meow 3 ww. 5-0' 5-0' 34 I 'nrn'SRftECCAIPUB OPULFOLIUB CONIDI moor, 3 w, 5-10• 1-10 II ) ll (,.)rTc 11421100107A B¢asA*A SWIM MRCS +04,- t• Y 23 CYWIMIEUS 1304T0014 FE1194m wan 14-,• 12. 12° 40 (6)-'KARL FORESTER' 0 15]IF710tl1L wry JI '.win•REIMS'wings I ww- 15-20° 15-20° 33 I I .. I FEATHER REED GRASS PLANTS 'CEAMwROSte AGRFIYN TAR Ail EEnor, I wAL 4-B' 15-20° a (1)-'PAINTED SUNSET" wAt.aMsttm'tow REm oR�s .._ -. - RED MAPLE TREE twnclw AtW5A1 tow rate',taw Out saw 011165 7 at.. 4-5• 3e° 41 .44 .. (90)-'HAPPY RETURNS' 14707*wear'awa VOW.'SLUE 1101W'PERSAN 140004 I CA. B-ts° 2a• 34 (10)-'HAPPY PLANTS ECIeYCEA 91,4pu4A,►1RllE C5E1.00E2 I ww. 3-B' 24° 36 r (9)-'FEBRUARY GOLD' R11o00004 MR M/Cx-EYED WWI 10N. 1-3' 24' II \ I t- ( DAFFODIL PLANTS (6)-'PURPLE CONEFLOWER'PLANTS I t.oee WWII(0440900E 901IDe) N 4 PARKING LOT PERIMETER LANDSCAPING I CT1 • SCALE: 1/B°•• 1'-0° i 1 �.: ,� MENARDS I .,,sts i t s;� 0 Richfield, Minnesota ' Proposed Site Details INN`j December 02, 2011 Scale: 1" = 40'-0" CT1A I -5 -(1)-'PAINTED SUNSET'RED MAPLE TREE I Per . – I Tel c' I L_[J - ----�- (1)-'PAINTED SUNSET'RED MAPLE TREE I I D - _ 7 (3)-'ABBOTTSWDCD, L_ ! 3°WOOD MULCH OVER 4 01111°"---1. ' POTENTILLA BUSHES I; ; e LANDSCAPE FABRIC ' .CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER - L\'- —. �I f I p.I I.y `I, (2)-'DEWEY BLUE'SWITCH GRASS PLANTS �•. I� i �.� (4)-'BLUE WONDER' I == PERSIAN NEPETA PLANTS I �34•=sw I -- \ 1 --I (10)-•BLUE WONDER' ` \ I I .. PERSIAN NEPETA PLANTS NEW LANDSCAPE LEGEND (6)-1LITTLE PRINCESS' 1 PARKING LOT ISLAND © BUILDING PLANTER L1 I SPIREA BUSHES SYMBOL BOTANICAL, COMMON NAME SIZE HEIGHT WIDTH OTY. C � �� 3111MOA IR1tp4ATA�MPMILSE CIAO 7REE 2°dA 20-30' 10-DS' a C.i`T1 i SCALE: 1/8° - 1'-0° (TYPICAL 1 ISLAND) : SCALE: 1/8°• 1'-0° (TYPICAL 1 ISLAND) � == -3°WOOD MULCH OVER LANDSCAPE FABRIC TcAUnRaMA.DLEVnAwmECr I __ 2'0M 40' 20-26' 2 •161116 x mum'PRAIrFRIE','PRYRIEFMC FLOWERING CMS 2°DM 20' 20' 19 4144111∎1 11 MM CONCRETE SIDEWALK • 1NORNLESS COMMON 2°DM 30-70' 30-7W 4 NONEACCUST .1 ACER RUMMY YAWED 6NtlEY,'MINED MIME TIED WALE 2'DM 40-40' VANES 16 -1 • ∎∎ AOER IILIMU t WOIRM{L',TIOINWL'RED Wp1E 2°DM 40-60' 16' 22 -ter. "i MUD RE71ROS/1 TIED PRE 4'HT. 50-40' MMES 4 .- 0 I I MIA~EA NOO-LOW.'0110-0DW FIT SUMAC 3 GL 2. 6-4' 6 I 6PMEA AvNN'A'UTIE PRNGSS',LITTLE NONCOM EPMIEA 3 CAL. 2 1/2'+ 2 1/2'+ 61 (21)-'KARL FORESTER' \ POENTRU FRUDCOSA'A630176w000' '06400166000'POEMT1IA 3 GA. 4' 4' 63 FEATHER REED GRASS PLANTS yam 7WRR1mG'ROLE MOE.7106E GLOW ANIWESE IMWERRY 3 GAL 6-6' 6-9I 34 P MTOCARPUS OPIANOIRo 'Dims OOIDFN' S GAL 6-10' F90' 16 WWII GOLDEN'COMM M4E81RK 14CRO6075 DECUSSOA,SEEM,CYPRESS t GAL, 15' Y 22 (12)-BLACK-EYED SUSAN PLANTS -.. CYCAIWELIS LWTTDR,PFMWm COLD ------ alt,A. 12 12' 40 (12)-'PURPLE CONEFLOWER'PLANTS BUILDING PLANTER D GA'°10tN11Nom 4 1 MUMS''anE1ES t GL t� 15-20° 35 1 M 5 1ML FORMER. • SCALE: 1/8°• 1'-0° (TYPICA 1 ISLAND) kML MIRESM R' 5IR ®CRAL I GL 4-5. 16-20' 66 (2)-'CLEVELAND SELECT' GALLERY PEAR TREE PAnclrr ~'DEW( '7EMCT 6116 was 1 65- 4-6' 3B 41 IEPETA 1U1SSON'6054 MOILER'.'RUE MOM'MOM NEPETA 1 GAL 6-13° 24' 34 -- .� EC141A1CFA PiRPIREAe PURPLE COMMONER 1 GAL. 3-6' 24° 36 / • °000. 6LsAM t CAL 1-3 21° 19 (21)-'LITTLE A BUSHES InOR04® j J Ru6o MULCH QW4cC'IO PLANTERS)/ -6)-'AAO T I, P A BUSHES ....�1' - 5'WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK WROUGHT IRON FENCE 0//// 3°WOOD MULCH OVER LANDSCAPE FABRIC 4,_ . l, - 11-'PAINTED SUNSET' MENARDS PYLON SIGN MAPLE TREE -� \ (6)-'HAPPY RETURNS' _` ...... �._, DAYLILLY PLANTS "•- (21)-'ROSE GLOW JAPANESE BARBERRY BUSHES '°"'"`�.- (12)-'FEBRUARY GOLD' DAFFODIL PLANTS ` (22)-SIBERIAN CYPRESS BUSHES ei`` w` I 4 GARDEN CENTER PLANTER \ i M EN A R D S:I I E CT1 i SCALE: 1/16 • 1'-0° (TYPICAL 1 ISLAND) �1 \ Richfield, Minnesota ` ' Proposed Site Details IIIIEININIIIIIIIII December 02, 2011 Scale: 1" — 40'-0" CT1B _. Ig5 FLAG POLES W/BANAVIS VENOMS'LETTERS VCR -..1 rib. CORERED DEMON POLES .-8"A 14.-0"PTAN D BROX S ACCENT AREAS AROUND ROUCT IGNS 18°WIDE TAN BRICK S BRTRIP E T.O.BUILDING ,,...„..—•2-Oø WOOD POLES &MOORE 12'PRECAST CONCRETE ISSUE/MED EMERALD GREEN 1443,-4- t WI.PANELS WIM Nouurmo REV ROOF TRN ir ME TAN BRICK STRIPE T.O.WALL ACCENT PANELS FAX Mc* (8)WINDOWS i i ELEY.144.-e•- PRODUCT SIONS MOUNTED MENARDS ELF,130-4 ll k(=OFT LUSIPINRES - xx- •129,0'A.F.F. ,.,...--,., :TWA AIWA AIWA :T•,. AIWA A:NM , 00 111/111.11/=1 Ilk NEM WM. MEM 4111MMI INNIN •44 a 4I MMIMIM 4,4 K .SEIM MS PAS ,f4,* , OCTERIOR STAIRS TO• SECOND FLOOR BE'ADND lirEV■111S-8' — 11•M IMEIMMENI BEN Al MB WA Z::%:1. WW1-117A •,•ise II III•11 NM inl - . _ . •••• •.• _ _ .. . . _ _ ........._ ..., IIIIII•IIIIIIIII ONO — 0111/ C• . 1111.1 IIIII IIIII 111111 ' 'SI. 0 "". A 11145/4ED FLOOR in 1.1.-7==illi•11 I Lin _ i u a a n r 'Asti ni rl•Ilr ill • 11EW,10D-0 INTERNALLY UGHTED V CONCRETE PEWS WITH 1.-Os WOOD POLES 2.-8"HIGH LANDSCAPE 3.-0°ME STRIPE PANTED CONCRETE PIM WMi VENArce Kowa-SIGN 'EMERALD GREW PLANTER WITH BENCHES "EMERALD GREW' 'TAW BELGIAN BMOC 'Tper BELCLeN BLOCK ACCENT PANI:LS BIKE RACKS 372.-0°BUILTNNC c•G*EIR•Erri42161121 1 P —L_ _ _ _r___ .--ldiTTIT4 L714cilmil 0 I ..., 1 -•`-'2,1111111•11111111111111 - _ 1 - - , R._• . • • • "Pt : f, (#)121-j"0 ■ .-• ...._ 6-.... 1111111111111' W-11'x 14.-0°TAN WOK ACCENT AREAS <9___......--PLAG POLES 12°WIDE TM BRICK STRIPE AROUND GLASS WINDOWS W/LIGHTING VIEIVID GREW ACCENT AVMS DECOANTNE LIGHT WITH REFLECTOR 'EMERALD ORM° ACCENT PANELS UMW GREW ROW TRIM 2.-00 WOOD POLLS i r-r WIDE STRIPE PAINTED VOW)NEW ROOF TRIM 0 T.O.MALMO ELF/x.138*-4' , ...1ii P. .111 PAL AIM:. :NW. ..1 Id tin ...1111:. :III!a 0 T.O.%%REHOUSE NOM MU NM. ••• EMU MM. MOM MM. UN U. MON SIMOR ——„ ELF/x.126.-0' ELEV.115'-D° lf it: korp iiim Dili . ..., CONCRETE PERS WITH ___, nwr BELGIAN BLOCK -qv 'MOP" GLASS DisPLAY MIMS le PRECAST CONCRETE INSULATED WAIL 24 WIDE x 12°Dap 24 ODE x ir DEEP -""MIIIIP.- C 12'-0 TM FMK cENT HAS PANELS WITH'MOUNTAIN RED FACE BRICK 'MOUNT/AN RED'EOM COLUMNS %WC MOM BLOCK COLUMNS 581V-0"BUILDING ET SIDE ELEVATION \/\ •il • r L 11- I . -.—, _______ u u u _ .... ..., _____________ ____.- ... .... .._, C....„:„... -.../ M 1 ecehf- 4 Richfield, Minnesota , Proposed Building Elevations t, fjj December 02, 2011 Scale: 1" = 20'-O" CT2 t .,7 FR0.NT CANOPY BEYOND EMERALD GREEN 411 EMERALD GREEN ROOF-ROM 1 ROB 9RN 'EMERALD GREW CUT OFF LUMIkVE 12 PRECAST CONCRETE INSULATED FAML PANELS ROOF RIO/ /STOP OF @RALQINi. ' MTTH BUFF A9.IECATE ND BIDCK IIPRIdT CUTOFF LUMNAIRE®l22 B RAF. �/ELEV 93a-4 - - _ - _--____-____- - --_ ..... - - - D S 1Y MICE TMN BMCI(STRIPE -- _ --- - _ -0000 - - - -- _ _-.- ' - 0000_ - _ ---=:� MENARDS 0000 - - - ' - NO RED, LIGHTED"IENIRDY WEBERS NO RED.ORNIOE!YELLOW SWiD05l1 MINION STAIRS TO - - SECOND FLOOR 1Y ODE TAN BRICK STRIPE = S'-O'MICE STRIPE PAINTED 'EMERALD GREEN" MO ONWE -16'ISON BRICK SCREENING mu 12"MEOW COICRE1E IISFMTED WILL — MMUS%BTH"MOUNTAIN RED°►ACE BRICK LOADING DOCK sam _L . __________V\ ri _• - — — o — r _ 1 I 1 Lin 1 /1_, i 1 �� 1 I 1 I I \ I _ — — — — crz , GREEN PRO-MB STFEI.PANELS NTEIMMLLY HONIED 9E1URD5'LETTERS T.O.NILDIIC CUTOF lLiLfWRE®922 B ROOF GREEN- T[�r- -0' _ _ _ AIO OED ! "EMERALD pIFDP 12° MTIN AOOREGTE NO BIDCK WRIT T.O.BUILDING Calk ElEV-136-B I- AM AND CENTERED OJWR DOOR ROOF TRM� ELEV■13Y-4' ^ -- - `. ----'15.'- '- ';''-- _ _ __ _ - - - :::"."--4: om— _ =-r �_� _ _�-'� _- _ - __ -_;° -__ � _ 000---__- -_-- -_�.�..r�--r=----: _�-� "" --�f -�- 0000 - -t;WIx,_=,_,n.,,`-__� - - _ - --000_- ----- -- ----____-_ 'EUEDMD GREEN" -= .-�_�_ -r=_��_"_-T--Y =.-72C 0 _- - --- -- 000 Y _. '_-� --- - - = = 0000- - °-- _____ _ ��-r� _= -.,�s-'_-�=_`-- _-_=�=_-�------ _ -- - 0000 --- -- - - - - -�°---"r_r+.'_= `- 000-r:= _`_:urs_ 0000 -` - - 0000 -- - - --- - -- - - --- - - -- - - -- - HOOF MO - - - °`--_'�0000- -- - --- - -- --- 0000- — �---- 0000- -- 0000- - -- --- - - -- - - - - ----- 0000---- - - -- - - -0000---0000-- _=--000_- _•__. -'- -- --==_`--0000=---_ - _ - 0000 -_=- =-___' ---0000-_0000--- - ---=-- _ --'---- --_---=T- -= L---- �- _ _z_"=.1 �r.-._�._ '--a - Y"--` _ -0003- ---000-- ---�- ---�-`---=-_��- - 0.i. : '_==:z.x000= r 000 0-0000 0000-- 0000 0000----0000- - '-- 0000_ 0000 �------�"- ,��'��_�`.�?L xs��--t_�__,.___��_--___.-- =r =__ _r. ___ -z ----- __-� a :_ w=•----�,. _ _ �. _---:__- _rs- - �: -_ �.G_ _=_ = sy:..__: 00 = -' _ -`-000`0 _" _..- 0007 ---z.=s_ . _ ;_ s' _ _ ;f s_ -n--__._s-`_ Y=-=-' -- s'"-- :F-_";z.}-_ _'--^ -�----- - is= a= r_=�u1-`,:- -T-- " __._�-.=�. __.Vi-:0000-�-0000-__�:0000.. __. �=�=r ■ _-°--'-� _ --- �__ 0.-- - - ---= - -- -- --�--� ==-`0000- _ �r�-__--_-=-�0000 -000-' �f??`-00 =L 0.x00 ' --- _�=�—u�:=^-____-=--�--'-��-_-----'u_�_-r>r==�'•= -=_ _:-=.r-_=' ___= --- 1r OWE TAN wcK aFRrE „�=-x_- -G-':". r �--27.x0-_=_�---- ---_0000- a= - ,- ' _-- 00.x0-= - -00=00 '=-00.x0 000 0-__=000 0_ 000_ 000 0=___- -_ __-. _.�_ _x-Y,.. _�-.�-__�.-�__--- : <=v=__- -, =_rr� =-�-`=1-0000__=- 0000 r- , -= - - -- --0000-0000 -0000-_ -=_0000 00_r=-= --=_ -=�xx_-= �- — - ---___-__ 4 --- - -- 0___ = -- �.y��r--- 000 s_rs=_-�-.�--=�r -=--�" _0000-- -`''_ ---0000 - - - -----"0000-- 0000 ° -x«v=-� - _'0000__ _- --- -_- = - - -0000-- -o•ME mew LwNTm _ _� mss_= -_- °�r=�= =_-_==_=__— = - - _ - - _- 0000_ -- - _-0000-' = - - -_ == -- - _- u�-___,.w�_- --'-'= =-a---.- --000--&------0 - - ---__=- - -= - -- ---0000---- - -----�;��- 0000_- :.--„'z�= mom a--:-00:.x:0,.z_ . �,--,`-- .===gym.®.=- ,�::-+.v__:.Y 0000_. _-__ _ 0.x00_- 0000 :- _�r?-T= ___- - r':-1-:- --- - = _=_--_--0000 T� 'DCVO CREW .__�_.... 0000 - ��.____ _ -- __- - ,;��c1_--r z-z,�--_ 000-=_- ---- ---= -'-----0000 -__ 0000- __� �.�.=. --t-: 0000 __m_-� _ _-=_,m„-,.-z __- r=_=- = _----0000- - `_-- = --- 00--- - -- - --- --- - -- -- ,.--. :x.-_=>_��.,,._--0`000 —.:___--„--____ __�"__:'. `.� - - - --=- -- ----- - - - - -- - __ _ - - '- -., -mss_=-- '0000- - - 0000' - ='' ,�. 00 00- "- - --- 0 000- 0 0.x0_.00 00- _-=_s-- -000.x__ �-:�r�=_T_,r_•�--=_� _r_ --r-��0000_-'' - -_ -_- 000- - - --0000-- '_ 000'0-- - T� -�- -- -u--0000 -_�-.�_-___ - - -' _----_--- - - - - - - - 0000 - - - -:,.,:_re”' ,.-__. �_f-- 0000_"`-_ .'--. -_. 000- - � _--0000 - - - - ---0000 - 0000 -- --- - --- -- -_ 0000--000 ---------v=■■■■= 0_ _ -n " -z' --- 0000. ,.._: _- -■■■■`___� - -- -=-= 0000 - - ' :x� - -- -- - - 0000 _-- - - -- --�..a--= ---■■ -- - - - - _ --0000-- ;4r _-- -_ _=-- - 0000 == -_-__- _ _ -- ------ - - - - -_- - :_--=•u2-:r-1�,=-=---0000 -_: -=_�:-- __ -__c ___ - - --=z �,-- ■■�._ - - - _- --- -- - - - =--=-- - - FTN6IED FTDOR � r= t=_-■If[■- �=s--__= -,�-�E�__ __��>._ _ -`-.. .�*.:"�y� -�■� --_�.__ _��-__-__=___L 0.x00-- ="_ -------'_ = � � � --r'--- - .__-_ _-,t,.--0000-- _ .x000 "`._��=r-r r-s'�- � �` ---- R L3EV- -- -- 000-`-0000- 0000- -._�--- .-s,.-Y�rr�� -_s---- tY PRECAST CONCRETE MUTED RAU MOMS EXTERIOR STAIRS TO YRIN BUFF AGGREGATE MO BLOCK IFRINP SECOND FLOOR 21'MICE x 20'HIGH tY PRECAST CONCRETE NSUTAIED MALL "EMERALD ACCENT I 3 O'-0°'COLONIC _. _ YAARELNO6E OPENING PANELS MTM 1AONTMN RED'FACE BRICK SIDE ELEVATION a c a MEiNA ® D Richfield, Minnesota Proposed Building Elevations December 02, 2011 Scale: 1" = 20'-0" CT3 is -s 7701 & 7717 Nicol let - CUP 10/11 1 R IR ; RtIRRi ' R R - R ' R • I ; _ ; R , RIRI : R . R RR 16:. Zoning , 1 R I rITAR-1 RIF- -; _ 4 R-Single Family Res. z 77TH STREET • MR-1 -Two Family Res. 5 MU-N -Mixed Use- Neighborhobd - I- MU-C - Mixed Use -Commun y MU-N 'MU-C I r- , m 1 1 , I mu-c: < . i 1 . r,717 Nicollet mu-c mu- . MU-C 7701 Nicol -- , -: . • , 1 , . . , MU-C . MU C : MU-, ---__ , N A _ A 0 120 240 480 720 960 INNI ... monon■ Feet -, — I , I LDR i LDR I I LDR : LDR ; I LDR - LDR : : b' ! LDR ' LDR DR I I 1 i 1 1 LDR LDR ■ LDR ; LDR ; i LDR I LDR 1 LDR 'L _, Comp Plan R I LDR I LDR I I LDR 1 LDR I LDR I , LDR i LDR ! ; LDR I LD" : I - LDR - — LDR - Low Density Res. 77TH STREET '350" HDR- High Density Res. Z I RCO- Regional Com./Offic,- PUB - Public/Quasi-Public HDR : RCO ; 0 I I 'H t m 111111 ; , 1 RCO PUB 717 Nicollet HD I m ; RCO 7701 Nicol 1 . i l i 1 RCO ; I 7 ; PU7 ---- ' --- -"--\............................................... 111141WillUi 15 -, r.Si "7: �i- Dec. 7. 2011 12:47PM NELSON LAW OFFICE No. 0626 P. 2 INF Nelson Law Officer Gregg B . Nelson December 6,2011 Melissa Poehlrman,AICP City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield,MN 55423 Re: Richfield Fast Foods Burger King 1545 Dear Ms.Poehlman: It was a pleasure to meet you recently. Thank you for providing me with a copy of the proposal submitted by Menards with regard to remodeling their building on Nicollet in Richfield. As I mentioned when we first spoke on the phone,my father,Raleigh Nelson, owns the real estate on which the Richfield Burger King operates.Raleigh built,owned and operated that store beginning in 1975. He operated the store until 1997 and has leased it to Dolphin Fast Foods("Dolphin Foods")since then. When Raleigh built the store,there were only 1500 Burger Kings in the nation. Menards moved in some years after the construction of that store,taking over the Michael's property, as I recall. Because of the concerns that I expressed to you about the significant negative financial implications of Menards' renovation plan on the value of my father's real estate, you suggested that I submit a letter to you which you would include in the City Council member packets,for consideration at the next Richfield City Council meeting. This letter is then directed to members of the City Council for their consideration. At present,Dolphin Foods-operates the Burger King that is on Raleigh Nelson's site,pursuant to a lease that expires in September 2012. The lease gives Dolphin Foods the right to purchase the property at the end of the lease. Raleigh has asked me to help him convey to the City Council his concerns that Menards' renovation plan will significantly adversely affect the value of his property. Please note that neither Raleigh nor I received notice of the hearing that was held in October,nor did we receive a copy of or description of the Menards plan. I only heard about the matter the day before the November City Council meeting,which I was able to and did attend;however,the subject of the Menards plan was placed on the consent agenda and was not discussed. Gregg B.Nelson,Attorney Susan Palmer,Paralegal 5758 Blackshire Path lover Grove Heights Minnesota 55076 (651)489-1520 (FAX)(651)789-4455 greggegbnlaw.c om www_gbntaw.00in ' b Dec. 7. 2011 12:47PM NELSON LAW OFFICE No. 0626 P. 3 I appreciated the opportunity to observe a Richfield City Council meeting,as I am on the city council for the City of North Oaks. I understand and appreciate the difficult demands and decisions that a city councilperson for Richfield must face,including the present situation. Raleigh and I appreciate your and the City Council work and considerations related to these properties. I met Theron Berg,the Menard's representative,at the November City Council meeting. I had spoken with his predecessor,Aaron Morrisey a number of times last year, in an attempt to work with Menards and Dolphin Fast Foods. Mr. Morrisey was interested initially,but he eventually refused to meet with me,noting that he would get back to me after Menards'redevelopment plan was crafted. I did not hear from him again. I understand that Mr. Morrisey has left Menards and that Theron Berg replaced him. I had hoped to work with Mr.Morrisey,and now Mr.Berg,and Dolphin Foods to reach an agreement on the future of the Burger King site. However,Mr.Berg has refused to meet,negotiate,or further discuss this matter; He has specifically refused to discuss this matter until his requested ordinance change is approved by Richfield. Raleigh's Burger King property has been an asset to Richfield for many years, contributing to the tax base and supporting the local community. As a small business and property owner,Raleigh appreciates Menards' interest in upgrading their store,but disputes any plan that would needlessly result in destruction or damage to,or reduce the value of,his property. We believe that it is clear that the present plan would do just that; and very possibly will result in an un-leased empty business,a vacant lot,the loss of jobs and the loss of tax revenues. Our concerns include the fact that Menards'plan includes construction of two wails that affect the Burger King property:the wrought iron wall that will separate the City's roadway property from the parking lot,and the eighteen feet high wall that will enclose the Burger King on two sides. The 18 foot high wall will clearly and significantly damage sight Iines to the Burger King from Nicollet and substantially alter the appearance of the business from all sides. This change alone will substantially reduce and damage the traffic to the store. Thus, we request and will appreciate the City Council's consideration of three things: • Delaying action on the plan fora reasonable period of time,which would allow us to work with Menards to reach a solution that does not come at the expense of a long time Richfield business. • A more detailed examination of the construction project and efforts to mitigate disruption to businesses such as the Burger King,caused by the construction process itself,but as well as by the redesign of the Menards property. -/ -n7 r, .c7 av, 'c 14 4i4 Dec. 7. 2011 12:47PM NELSON LAW OFFICE No. 0626 P. 4 15 -- • A change in the plans related to the wall around the store, specifically with regard to the wall to the west of the store. Rather than an 18 foot wall along the entire west side,we would appreciate consideration of use of the wrought iron fence planned for along the frontage road continued along the west wall,to intersect along the western boundary,or some other alternative that would permit a better sight line to the Burger King from Nicollet. We feel strongly that Menards' renovation project,as currently planned,will significantly financially harm the Burger King business and will result in a significant reduction in the value of Raleigh Nelson's real property. Obviously, a reduction in the value of the business or the property will make it much easier for Menards to later purchase the property. Menards has acknowledged that they are interested in buying the property,but has refused to negotiate until they have the property value-lowering advantage that would be a direct result of the City Council's action. We respectfully request that the City Council not take action with respect to Menards' renovation plan that: i)will significantly reduce the Burger King's business;ii) will infringe upon the air or light or sight lines available to the property; and,iii)most importantly to Raleigh Nelson,the real estate owner,will significantly diminish the value of the property and/or result in the loss of his lessee with the further consequential loss of income and property value, community jobs and tax base. Thank you for your considerati©n. .Please..contact me with any questions. Sincerely yours, NELSO W OFFICE .egg B.Nelson 651.483.1520 ext 426 gregg@gbnlaw.com GBN/gw AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM# 16 REPORT# 272 =MAI STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: /�.*„,,,„ � j4v SIG∎ATUI BY CITY ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing to consider approval of a preliminary and final plat for properties currently addressed at 7701 and 7717 Nicollet Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a resolution granting final approval of a plat for 7701 and 7717 Nicollet Avenue. II. BACKGROUND One of the conditions of the approval of a Conditional Use Permit allowing construction of a new, larger Menards store at 7701 and 7717 Nicollet Avenue is that that the property be platted. The attached plat combines the two lots that will comprise the project area. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The proposed plat has been reviewed by Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). Final changes related to dedicated right-of-way along Nicollet Avenue (additional 17 feet of right-of-way) are being made as this report is drafted. Once 121311 - 7701 & 7717 Plat (Menards) this change has been made, both Hennepin County and Mn/DOT will be satisfied with the proposal. • Preliminary and final plats are typically processed and acted upon by the Council simultaneously. • The applicant must submit two sets of mylar versions of the plat to the City for signature by the Mayor and City Manager. • Plats must be recorded within 30 days of Council approval. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • 120-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock `started' when a complete application was received on September 27, 2011. A decision is required by January 25, 2012 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision. C. FINANCIAL • The required application processing fee has been paid. D. LEGAL • Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Sun Current Newspaper in accordance with notification requirements. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Survey (existing conditions) • Plat VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Theron Berg & Tyler Edwards, Menards RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF A PLAT FOR 7701 AND 7717 NICOLLET AVENUE WHEREAS, Menard, Inc. ("Applicant"), has requested final approval to combine the property at 7701 and 7717 Nicollet Avenue in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as MENARDS RICHFIELD ADDITION; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the proposed final plat of MENARDS RICHFIELD ADDITION on Tuesday, December 13, 2011 at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the preliminary plat for MENARDS RICHFIELD ADDITION was approved by the City Council after a public hearing was held on December 13, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. The proposed plat of MENARDS RICHFIELD ADDITION satisfies the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances. 2. Final approval is granted to the Applicant for the plat MENARDS RICHFIELD ADDITION pursuant to revisions showing that indentify 50 feet of right-of-way along Nicollet Avenue. 3. The Applicant must file the final plat with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles, within 30 days of the approval of this resolution. 4. Staff is authorized to make changes as required by the Hennepin County Surveyor's Office. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk I I 1-4- 60 -...1 \ 1-d•- -80 -.41 i I I Pr oject N0400: I I 1 1 A „ 1441 it•4,- isi „ „ „„.., A I , N I ,„,„. "!:-- 7_,, ... \ - ' " I u3 I ,Q ,, .. . • ,'-',L.,'LI: l : .::`.: r- -01 1 Menard's .). , ..E. [-- --.50- -4- o---- '''''' I \ I - a I ; ..1;, ,,,,I,,s Ntigill•rd,:=Z01-, .,94 9..) -s. - ...n•-- I (Nolo:Add'?R/W apparently hoe oeen taken) I , N -='. ILii,7, Richfield Store I .1 1 ,,,,A Y•T' 7.... N.39 , S 61 1°2 4' 11'45 II 51 1-w A46.4, pA40 I CO .9‹ :4,44. 1 ,C , ,„.3, ....2.,■*' / . 6402 •,A' r , ta',; I 'r I CB 844.3941 . cis \„,. Tr I I RCP INV 841.10 E-W I I IC CB 8A.77 NV44331517, 1 1 eV.. i , 842.1 5 4 \ «1±1.5-.-.-P I <4 , A4 24.RCP , « ea--3,-« „„ 4_1._<<33 RCP 11 ii.1.,:74 « „3Cr RCP «--V ___1 « i., L..._ 0 , . 3 ___i a MN 848.62- al 847.3f3* ay,/ I 8, - --I -1 t L ' 42- . i-- C8 844.08 , \ At' 46 I , A A _ L.AA,lay_84 •E.,..X 3,4' a.,a s ,--.„ INv 842.88 RC. IA i CN1,,ii 1.'4 8.11.!.6,6-- - ___ 16.1 V. 4 Iti.,,.. ,.._ecir.•• 1 ''' I4'' •C INV 840.65 77th St E ,..0 .6.1 l'e:' tell Fg.., Jsianci lt,'''' .„...\ ,e.t.s .'* Yersisnal V,i.ill' Concrete Street ,1714._AAA_INB;r4.3.87 Arrre1437.266 _A ' H_LO ial. it.„, CB 844.32 ,c5 ,,,,,m.87 „Lep cp1 Concrete Street Yt.:42.' 'L'IPtrt7rroprng"r I . 1 : 'it' - ,• 640 t E4f1.4 - 4 Inv 8373k 1 El 46.89..P-A , •11111r---r,._ I • I 5," Ng..., Sob--8'CP - •- 4 I ,T ,Amik : :4z Rlin 845.68 - , ra 646 6.2, , • r - --.3, 1... , .• ., ,,•••‘AllgEr CR , 1 i .03,1----41,7'4••77,CB 846.70 ... .., 3. . 1 La7A---I 11.-‘/L'Il.-lo'• "; 114 11;,,3 I,. ,41021 a2•24 ,o'.' nv ' • (‘-‘1. '-if,-----' !NV 843.64v -98r5T(Yrir 9 99-•'I 1340. . A.,.., „ . v 1/ rll^' 1lNIK474ilir'' t •t'S'F... r4•1VE.I•W!IE".9r..'„A=,!..?,.74•91,1110.9'entill__Ilik:CZAWISPejAilaMil :slikniiiilgi.-_Mil•K.,._atitu _____ .,\ <,•<,t•i -,, /.44 .-•-• ,"-L.-""'1":24 ,616.3oRIT.3.--..3163v.iZi.,-,..-..,.- s.-.,----- -... •.-1-.• ---......,...,,%_'-.-- 1•1•91=0., ..7, SM. / _ Richfield,Minnesota -1 1 ' 7,•,-r; ',,irgir-7.3 „omir „ '7 /8/ J wooD? ? raiisswillisdwaziesasinammaimilsom::y x: /.1. / / /• ;922.99:7. , /. / / /• :,.., ,::.:.,-,......i..,...,,. 9.9-.... r. ... , pip•la ati•n < . '.4:417988 .1111Mbil / .. ,V /yar i l'e' \ s,,,, \ - ,-E.as,dedkat• !„..-.• ,. L..-opprox location and 3.5'W of E pron line•-:; 7;54 ' Vf---- Bldg COr Is on N I.e 4 I Owner/Developer I T. cl ,. '&5'Z. k, M Ce8.44.81,, AA,As CB 845.69 . .4.0,exam ' -1,:--..1.%•/ of utilities r- BR t Menard,Inc. ;,- iv ece.: ••• ,- •.'INV 842.m Ito,.84-3-' - ,...'",,7454 NV 884.V037 to,' ,a43! . Are44,,' i , „ ite4T.,.' , ite,?' „.,4i63 tm.'COMPAN'S , .,toe Stroe -''' / 4 / / . " • / , 4 / / / 0 NICOLLET • I". (.1, "; I...A.!.-.1.,-.,-2- . •--/ , -1/ / ' • i / i ' ' 1 • ' •.1 1 , 5101 Menard Drive - • 6- , , . ;• . I -4' - Finished Floor f q '‘..Aq , / li. , //224talli/ /// , „/ / 1, • .d Eau Claire,Wisconsin 54703-9625 Elevation.647.09-4 ' Tr .1 t4ot / j / , f /,1,2/ / I 4/., i / / y \3 -4 3,.4 r. .. Te' it, \%'-\ ,..le ''•• •1_1t1 .1 6Y,,, ,., f. ,11 1 Le •As jEs' f g E. .I. .. .MI i CI ••1.. . ,.,,,,, P ■'. , ,,k.„-0.• ' %,....45 lt,,,,. : '........a.1.,..i • ' 1 t, ' '--• ; 4 1 ,. ...tf . - li lir. ,, Jun Bo Restaurant .. . ,-,V, \ \:.\ \ \ .\',\,\. \\,'' \ \\ \\ \ v \ \ .T.''' '' \ s 2 Satils\ \ s \ \ \ I. • it.,, -_,\_, \ „,,,,,,\\ \\ \ \ ,\ " \ „...,„ ,., ,4 ' ' . \\ \ \ \'''i''\\\ 2\ \ \\\ \ . \'\ \T'-'''''. \\ . i::',:. -.., --...-,.., . , , ,.1.390umps., . et I 8 7.;;-'1'..1.'aadir'ng.,,11*. 11'13 79 ; • I Still A ,,,.. ,,,, a '.1 ';•- • 2 1 2 1 ,, • g , 3, <3 ; s.9' 7717 Nicallet Ave S. ; Yr \ ,, 'It" \* -:.•!,.. ' Oock•"b‘.. 4 a °-%. .,: ',.a Yr.?' • .e s . 1 ir ...„, 2 :' AMP.- . • 8 r.n . 1 le..1'I ig •111 cd 1 9.°1 t" It', , • r-7 , ,(-2.'f' , r,' , , , , , r-fit'-r.,-.' \It' : 1---,,- 3.. • ;I. / // , / / f • / / / . j / / / / , i / .,.., T ' - I so to ifi I .gps. - : 4 . - 3 I 1 1 . . . •-.-.1 „ , 4--. 6 °i, <3 Us: 1 1 Professional Services: I i g. . 9.it 1•2- / / / / ///7 / i /s, / / / /1/// /// 't ...2..4-ecc:tHo-;, ; 74z bt I .' ''''' '1 I //rvi / /,6•01 ,/ / 7 /7./ / / / , Ye• _1'-,-", - a a A t 1 I li f:.' ,,,'. 2=.27.6.81 7 ..".y. imucKs .., , ---- ..1 7 . , . --? - \ r° f 4.4 1 ; ,- !.--'"..•;- ,•-._'.._.,±)%s.1•.;•"•;,°>%.-,'"1'- '•••.7:r'-•IP -,.-...::,L11....t.d.-.:, ---2IneivthatIodn 'gr.47.76 5 t ASSOCIATES • ' ; 2 .,A Bs 7,,,„,1\\\z„: 1,:..,:-/- •. : ... Amac,a,,,, 7701 Nicollet Ave S ,, 6, A,,s all. M 2 .t ' -.,....,, ,. A...•:..Y:.,,-----.,4_-/;.,... , ,(6.-• „ \ \ \ \-\,.. s,,,,\ \ \.,e, 01‘ '. .... Planning•0.1 Engineering•Land 5o44e0o8 e / la.s II. - , 1 I. ••• ,.. Te." .. 1.f.' , e.'\ l' %..\,,o\ \\ \ \\ \V - \,, , .. 1,.. I Landscapenrchirecture•Envinonmental 1 ril ''' Nlit.1.00 ..,...3 ".. o- ,,,,sr ' ,A.,4 we, af.o.. 2 A --.-• r•: t:- , 1,:-, 4r 1: • 7200 Hemlock lane-Suite 300 Maple Greve,MN 55369 A 8 1 ;" .•'7 tri .,,. IA t 46. ,P. rir' ...'ig*:111H.1 1,.9 te'2111° ePefi c" • O'''' ..,,,,e5, PO.°‘'''...---,, r--; 0"%,,ss '2 ... ' 7C '' ,../// / 7.411,I/ i/ //,/,/1 41 '4./IC.i t eA"' '!Ll . c / , „ // // ,/i , /X /4.4 . .e 14,, \ '28 A TeleglIonm(7631424-5505 1,20.., vnvw•LotwirsAmaciaresecor I CA013 Qualification: I ' ii iol I-', eme...mmiderimcimmmiiiiiim .., ,,.--- -- ----____ ■inc , .,, es tabaransol•aCcrmil.••••••1 a.. Cli Te \'IR.. '''' .. :39• ' i ::. A 4:710'4.4,110114:14.62N7 : s... ......, '`..,..\--2=7,7.79 ,:. =s. 4_ -,../ 44,44.44...wroweawmene444.4444404. 0040•01...M 000.07000,.V. t..-.4 . ,.43 at 144 ee i Y, '1:.• \ .-.g .0,f 014*WO deb 01102 Of 010000E 01110.001 1.0:000:1■111.400=0001.0101. . -.. •• • V 4.444,7,... %r... . 0 1 1 ••••••••■•••••••••mo ally Al berotrodeen•rnlend •ati: i ce 844.4 , •4 1 1 ',a . •EC-i''. 4.."... .4*.\as...,..0.,. A rt.\,,,, Ye-°' 0-r --e■ .•, ,..\.: \ -,-,• : ..............M.,...011whelessa 9. 6.L, '1111 WA/Una 01.0........•••1018.1,116••• 161....ed 1.1pay 6+6,0111welm.■••■••••• tb.i k1 I A 11 ....'...,. '''4.-. . -, , '‘.- _ 64'. . '' Ic'''.:\ \ . \''\\ \\.\ \ % \\\\\\ 1 /e //••'" • •••••'-' .•-'-' . \•---.. \ , \ , s _ ''' a ! ' -,51 ,. cene...4.4,444.4*..44weawoboon. 5100654445TERMWCIALta 2 7.....''2 : ,Vverig, ....,,, ,,,z,,,: 4-*r. - „,,Ir'' \ ,,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ,,,4-.. ,t, -,,' ..... , ,10,1',.,,,,! 3 i at 1.4 , ,... ... . , \l,,,\ \\ ,, ,,, \ • s . \ \ A- vg I Revisions: I ..,2.I1 3 L po-,_.•:•4-z-4,,X. ,>-:..---,:vt, ct,-.. RI ili 31 \ \\A • , , 4 \ \34M•0\ \ \AM'"? \ , \ \ \ r •,%%.,-: . kl. , , , .:iz i 01.541 Originalhare t 2 11 o'./..,t2 one, N .1., ., f.1 ..1 ii; it t" ---8,__ ,-, -_,_, .... . .v .,....,s -, \ v,•t , . 2- _ a m ,,,,,36 tt.,„, ---,.. ,'.1 i • APP• , --• sk: •1 Ya- „ / • ' '/---/-- -/ i / /,'/ / / i / / ' \ s i: t \\Is 113,7 't.' i 14-9///7/(,,4yji ///.< / // il-71-,44,,CId•/ 1 /7/ 46' . N ' \,• - 35§ 3 a 1 • n'• \ ..: A e \,..,tS ' ,70'''' .t„.‘ 4.A4",,,42 Im‘./\\ ' -\:* •''''''',‘ ?al'''.'IP". ,5 „./\\.it'444,1t cb,44,:Ata, ,...t.,... Ve. 7 ,‘,„,/ „„../ ,7 ,4,..0 st 7,, > ,,,... I I.,.. . r 7 Bldg cor 0.8.W •fli 12 - ■.-N.line of Highway .,. a.J.le lc , ,t. t., \ 1 azft21.ana90., i of E prop line Easement per 0. X, , ,‘,.es ett. i :,:.,; I I , , It No.3587602 4', \'‘, . VtA444,3-,,,itt. Ne -"tmli,,,,,,,, . „.ot , \ \ \ \yr',,„ \-.<,:••6•3,? \ \ \ \ . \i\•,,...' , \ , , ,.., ,r,. , , , .,,,.,.,.,‘ ,,, , \ -1.,. . ..,,,- , ---,. ,..‘ ,, •,f,44:ii%...le ,. 7, N N..,,,,, '`.Z.Z.N.:.,P4 PA.' ' ........ .1. \5\„\0\\\ \\\\\\ \\ \\,,\K[N,r. \\\\\\ \ \.6,•s... e„.1 - '.'-'4 ,.. 1 ,,,-, ...„`„::, Ss..., ,N...,, V...„L„,02., ..s..,..., ,le . . ..." \\\\,.\\ \ \\ %...t.,. , 268.66 moos .,1,3r-r-R4 6('"..1'.....56"'ii'./4.5,2 .__',11111-Ye'' ,1 \\\\\2\7\se•N•1 \ \ \\\\ \\ lee .- --**•'. - -".22'"8!--z.:7-.--.,„47- ,,-,, vt'-*"'-'8 10.:N. .-."-. .,.:.4.y4:4 , \\ A \ \ \ \ \ \ \:,,.. .\ \ \ \ , 0, , "!'=26"."111r" :241u''.'"thr.--",,,,89!. ' T " .,n ' ' s 1,t,' ,-.5.1r „ N. ,,..... , 1 oc, --, CB 844.53 '-', - It. IF...,, :4-.,,e.•' .- . : ---- '4'7 I--do - --41 I Professional Sienatum: \ ', •-• ''',..-..L.„...-7 •., ._ L1.6.44'50', ,,,,m, ,m,.0 ■ t:'■ N ■.,44:4,..., -■ x.4‘8225 Uy(?1,4411/14:21 7" '''* IN 7 ,2 , 7/r)1.:541 i / i y 11.„,„...,Ar ,.....41411, \--,,„.• .4 h'•,,...... ....., ieweeyeentonetnem.P.oarnoariwee 41 • "••••340,,Mr7,,_ • --4.4 -".."-.214''''.03-* -• , / 4..,g. / / / 11‘1, aY'.5e<,' / . . 1 r •.7ne'rcrcde.' 4, ,877.8„1-73.e ' ...217, \ :t; .. 7 1::'It 0.11•11611.or tn.eny cre•cl SW..and•lt I en a du1/1.*01.114 6.V16OF tab... _... e4_.. 47.,_......4,,ofteMer• eaT''...4■••-•--.'1 ----- le \ Ve It r. _ AA„.. -7-=,........_, „ease 91 L.Melt-PIS -1 W" i 40 AIN • ■._„. 1 112. POND v T N . , _.. . 12-22.10 ' VI'. '''.-"-=•/..7.1z ' le ic'8 C''-' ,A........_•■, _ (Not located) -, . '•.: 4 ,1 ,A.14e 26724 Lian .. --..,_ ...... -'-`,p/.-----.7„,•,..„_3',,,,... inv I N il „flat....„0. 4e Lill. , "."''• Sm..._--- „ , -- •KP.,..z.„ (Buried in snow) 4 33-7, r 69Ce.-----Llo. .- ' ., m' J4s:•So - ''''''''''NV.'1, . .,..''': • e..,° . 7•%„ •. ' ' 3 .., ,,,,,,,,, „„ , ''':>I - ,\ -7"......›.....z.... . ...,....... .......: •,-,•• - TMB i \ I •<,..„,,,zzotaf,"--,,,A._'_____. / i.,, • o 1 :.......-.: ,,.:',ei,(/' \ .• 8..ge, RLL ,-, /..!--- - :i. IF, i \ '.'•." 7C.-- --....cr, '-':'89 -"--:_.,_•. ,,,1 9::" 3 54i12/ :i 6.. . : t\ I ..,/ ,./..., c-'07:17.7.EASPX2t-.0-et------------ 67i. '...--:-.- ''',. i--••, ,.. N7382.26 ''.. , ',i t.2271 „, ye'44iMMIN.16 :Jo, As.......6 . '''': I 2 i •', \ I Vicinity Map: I +.----- . -77411.„ --7. •,, .••., .. • ['sir,,v , v•I'vr.• •CIP 81.9_,. 1.4...AW 9'VSP Per ' --s------- 'It•''' ,„,a2 144„ • ' .. ''' raj.''''P.P4ay °'-''' ‘ `, 1 7 J -2t -------.. 36 , <Lily plan -- V436818t EN30,61 I •.;ro ------,. . i , •• --..-- ''' ---. .t.--- '- ----- -) .. sts--73. - / ,urn$.3•15 -----\__ N89'55301' 268.66 It ; \ „,,,,..5 es 8.42.„‘, ,..,,. Inv 835.021 m 0 ml CHOP Der 1 Interstate Hwy 494 k, „--,z5vsz787___, •----Lta 1 \ ..,,..„-: .1 1 il " 4-,4..;;--!...... --------i- '' '--- ‘1.' 4.' 100.00 ,-SIV Cor of Gov't (FA! Na 494) , , . ..„. ,,,-/------T-1 R..,,,,:il.o.z II ,,,., 7. , , ■ 7th St 1' • ; tot 8 S.34,724 i I g 2 R 2.4. I tvo,.Car/Cif of facaaad t,..10 1,. 1 ' , ?. . . ',,.. _ - z ,, - I 1 ._ s, City of ElloonPriaton • N89.55:70T 88Z.30 W77111St 677.St NE Cor of NW V4 , \ 1,.........---South line af Gov't Lot 8 Sec J4.r2tt R 24,and .1.91,1884.52i,1? ''---Right of Aec.s per North fine of NW 1/4 S.I T27.R 24. Doe.No.4504520 , ' I 111111111:1 •,.• I SURVEY LEGEND - EXISTING CONDITIONS , cc:::.,c,..,,.),._, 1 / -South line of Gov't Lot 1 - Sec J4.721j R 24 MEE 1 al -. CATCH BASIN 0 STORM MANHOLE -”-------STORM SEWER -'-SANITARY SEWER 0 POWER POLE Cl UCHT POLE -Do-UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC -3.3-UNDERGROUND GAS 1 ..._.. ._ ,-.semimelmemmr.. BENCHMARK: lErIfigEMIMINIIM■11111 ALTA/ACSM 0 SANITARY MANHOLE -I-WATERMAIN -.., SIGN -m.-UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE O. NORTH MNDOT Disk 2785A0 in SE Cor Mediae g II.,,,It, ID WATER MANHOLE -o--°-CHAIN UNK FENCE AS ASH -On-OVERHEAD unisry 0 40 so Ave Midge over Interstate 494 Land Title Survey § 1 Elevation 844.72 ft NOVO 29 0 HYDRANT CONCRETE CURB BO BOXELDER el POST INDICATOR VALVE 1.1 MI M GATE VALVE I. . ..I ICONCREE FR MISC FRUIT ..,., SPOT ELEVATION 0 DENOTES V2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON '41 ....... 1 LO LOCUST --.1 NM 1.1.11.1111 MONUMENT SET.MARKED"lit.S 28724' I Project No.: CO TELEPHONE PEDESTAL ‘_4a---,CONTOUR DECIDUOUS TREE SCALE IN FEET ,._---- •DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOAM MA MAPLE 10065 i , GUY WIRE tc TOP OF CURB 734.20 _ _ _ _ _ ---------------1-I 1 Sheet 630.: / -7 i'.., GUIYER .. X m TOP OF WALL 0 • Sheet 2 of 2 L......,.... ..„.1w---,:.„.,. ,.,-..„ __..., _ . 1() _3 MENARDS RICHFIELD ADDITION R.T. DOC. No. C.R. DOC. No. KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:That Menard,Inc,a Wisconsin corporation,fee owner of the RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA following described property situated in the County of Hennepin,State of Minnesota,to wit This plat of MENARDS RICHFIELD ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of Richfield, That part of the West 315 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34,Township 28,Range 24,lying South Minnesota,at a regular meeting thereof held this_day of ,201_. If applicable, of East 77th Street and North of Highway F.A.I.No.494,being a part of Government Lot 8,according to the the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway United States Government Survey thereof. Engineer have been received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations,as provided by Minn.Statutes,Section 505.03,Subd.2. (Abstract) CITY COUNCIL OF RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA Together with: That part of Government Lots 1 and 8,Section 34,Township 28,Range 24,described as beginning on the By ,Mayor By ,Manager South line of said Government Lot 8 at Its intersection with the extension South of the East line of Stevens Avenue dedicated In the plat of"A.G.Bogen Company's Nicollet Avenue Addition";thence North along said extended line a distance of 190 feet;thence East parallel with the South lines of said Lots 8 and 1 to the extension South of the center line of 2nd Avenue S.dedicated in said plat;thence North along said extended center line to the South line of E.77th Street dedicated in said plat;thence West along said South line to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 315 feet East from the North and South Quarter TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT,Hennepin County,Minnesota line of said Section 34;thence South along the last described parallel line to the South line of said Government Lot 8;thence East along said South line to the point of beginning. I hereby certify that taxes payable in 20_and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this day of ,201_ (Torten) ,Hennepin County Auditor Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as MENARDS RICHFIELD ADDITION,and does hereby donate and dedicate to the public for public use forever the public ways as shown on this plat By .Deputy In witness whereof said Menard,Inc.,has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this day of ,201_ MENARD,INC., SURVEY DIVISION,Hennepin County,Minnesota Pursuant to MINN. STAT. Sec. 3838.565 (1969) this plat has been approved this day of ,201_. Theron Berg,Real Estate Manager William P.Brown,Hennepin County Surveyor State of By County of The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,201 by Theron Berg,Real Estate Manager of Menard,Inc.,a Wisconsin corporation,on behalf of the corporation. REGISTRAR OF TITLES,Hennepin County,Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of MENARDS RICHFIELD ADDITION was filed In this office this_day of .201_,at o'clock_m. (Signature) Michael H.Cunniff,Registrar of Titles (Printed Name) Notary Public County, By Deputy My Commission Expires January 31,201_ COUNTY RECORDER,Hennepin County,Minnesota SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the within plat of MENARDS RICHFIELD ADDITION was recorded in this office this day of ,201 ,at o'clock M. I,Richard L Licht,do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision;that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota;that this plat is a correct representation of the Michael H.Cunniff,County Recorder boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on the plat; that all monuments depicted on the plat have been,or will be correctly set within one year;that all water boundaries and wet lands,as defined in Minnesota Statutes,Section 505.01,Subd.3,as of the date of this certificate are By Deputy shown and labeled on this plat;and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat Dated this day of ,201_ Richard L Licht,Licensed Land Surveyor Minnesota License No.26724 State of Minnesota County of HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20_by Richard L. Licht (Signature) (Printed Name) Notary Public County,Minnesota My Commission Expires January 31,201_ 1 ! LOUCKS ASSOCIATES SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ „Line Sea J4. T26,R7`= — — — — — MENARDS RICHFIELD ADDITION (� r \---- N89"41'33"E 8639-I, R.T. D O V° N�. IN,/4 Co r o1 Sec 34, T28,R 24. j/ `-(Hennepin County Cast Mn Monument) I I Military Reservation �% __North line of]7th St.E ae dedicated "A.G I C.R. DOC. N o. I I I 60 Caner(End Hennepin I BOCEN COMPANY'S NICOLLET AVENUE ADON" .1—'30 1 I County Cost Monument)---' ,I; 5D} -I I 1 /i; , ,1 60 I I I M \ n II M M NORTH ``-N Line of S1/2 of SW 1/4 of SEI/4 Sec 34, T213,R 24. _ —�_ 80 111111 MI _ -S89 55'07"W 985.99- \ • SCALE IN FEET S< 30.00` -33.00 R I +` -922.99- \i O DENOTES 2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON (/ t`� --Set _--S fine 77th St E.os dedicated in"A.G.BOGEN \ MONUMENT SET,MARKED RLS 26724" Mog COMPANY'S N/COLLET AVEN[.E AWN"; UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ' I ' Nail I also to South Line of the North 30 1t of the \ 51/2 of SW 1/4 of SE 1/4,Sec.34, T.28 R.24. ' •DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND 50 33 1 \ I 30 30 Q DENOTES CAST IRON MONUMENT FOUND CIM DENOTES CAST IRON MONUMENT I \ 1r, HCM DENOTES HENNEPIN COUNTY MONUMENT c THE WEST 1/4 N 34 IS I \ ASSUMED TO LINE HAVE OF SE A BEARING OF OF SECTIO N00°14'50"E ve ° N \ ¢W yy ,°" 3 e a: a° MENARDS RICHFIELD ADDITION u Ie o N h \ H A SECTION 34 BREAKDOWN DETAIL di ms 1 _� O 3 ' 9I1�� u v ° N"Y `w h =C N 1/4 Car °e ff1C1�� 0 1 vl \ m U (End ClM-NCM)`._-,O E l/4 Cor C'n R N Q) 8 W (Fnd ClM-HCM)-_ O 1 \ °R 3 Seih y.. 1 L 0 T / \ �z� 1(,/a Cor )ry°y�I 11 n1{ I 1 Vr Fnd CIM-HCM 1■ �O° . r�/ 0 I 2636.08 n�3 2 O BLOCK ! \ 0 3h ^_5306.£ - i a`2 I z � l 3 43 W° \ W C 13/4.70-_\�-(1":41: 2 a 33 n UI N89°54'44"£ 7;11' 4.70 - ' 3/5.00 1 $ a o ,° , 89°54'44"E ,. ; 654.21<\�. w Q a ... 'f/W``i N o 1g \\ $ O _ 65tr.21<' �t.e5tr.36 !Cln(FnHdcm5)/8":I; :_. N °I 100 ?y:u`s -Set 1 3 ui J (Fn/d4C/MO-HCM)-/r p. ,•78 '-SE I Z N h l°`i M \ ,,i Nou �8 3' �yh yh st (U i 30 RoB43 o v,2 0°' ?�a, _ / a Si 9 1 u m 2 i 3300 ' 'O2 2j' , N s \ ;I;•-1 N89°4/'44"W 1 '1 1 u% 3 62.66 - _ - Ce _ N - W2 5.. Oi t. 0 (3 1 ss`3B s Iw-- m £\k ue ∎ O\� _- ,�', _ N.line of FAT..No.494 ` _ per Doc No.3587602 , �\°� c.: y- ,\ I \ � `\/ \ 9 S o C)),.'6‘ p JB 30 30 `\ /9`' dy, Set \ Line parallel with South line i ms`s 2g es ge, Mai Gov't Lots I and 8 I .\ C'84 0 Nail-. \ //r 268.66 --\`:,_ 30.00 / I / `t'S2°'P� N89 55'30 E 298.66 Set I \ Ry. @? I I t Ma9 <9�2y` ' Nail--- �. I I� a"44,,`\ 4,..5.agsO2 a o r 1 I 44 \ 1 SO° m 15;j may\ ; \ S7q 034gE W \-N i 30650 h I 6 10 I �R��dth - \ p \ I I I � 3 e�'` ----,--396.,50 L=35.62 2 I I . 8 3820'21" \ ° .9) '-Highway Easement per '\ `�``, R=38216 \ - _ Don No.J58]602--- `\ _ I, I 78th Street East \_ Ma9 % \ I I • I interstate ' ', ,„_�'t -Hwy Esmtp t �_`z-� y T \ L SE Co,of Gov't Lott Doc.No./349782-- a/t4?9__-~o _ °v \ Sec 34, 728,R 24.(End `'� --Sl/4 Car _ `> a. dare°p0• o -�H-_�__ --_- 100.00_ I 5/8”steel pin-Hennepin ■ ,rr Sec 34, T28,R 24. �-. `.1 NO, _I _ ) R°409.26 0 1,p, n - - -=T i - County Monument)----, r . �\ / (End Hennepin County Monument) ' + ` / ` `�o. "„' " "- I � I , ,_ _ — - _ - - - - - - - _ - £ __ _ _ N89°55'30 372.30 NE Co,of NW 1/4 l I, - l ___South line of Gov't Lot 8 Sec 34, T28.R 24.and ---589°55'30"W 905.05--- 1 ----- I S89°55'30"W S.3, T27,R 24-.1 v`.,N00"18'l6'E `-- North line of NW 1/4 Sec 3. T27,R 24. It A 110.41 N-S l/4 line of r- 2 ` -' y :---South line T28.Gov't 4 Lot/ • Sec 34, T28,ft 24. -Mililor Reservation Comer Sec 3, T77,R 24.-/��---_T- __YS7�- 734.20 9 M � fd e County Cost Iron Monumnt,0.03feet —_1,o _ _ ___ - _—_—___— _ — — ___ _ _ armafseaunLine) Lou C KS - # ay ASSOCIATES SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM# 17 REPORT# 273 MEAN STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: PORATH,DEPUTY CITY CLERK Vil Na r, N . REVIEWED BY CITY I MANAGER: d X / aJi op- ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution regarding composition and setting term limits for members of the City Council or citizens appointed to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution regarding appointments to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority Board of Commissioners; establishing composition of the board and term limits on non-elected members. II. BACKGROUND The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) was established in 1974 and consisted of members of the elected City Council. The term limits were set as staggered five year terms with no term limit. In 1980, due to the retirement of three members, the HRA became a combination of acting Council Members and mayor-appointed citizens. At the November 14, 2011 Special City Council Worksession the City Council determined that the public interest is best served by having a composition of two appointed Council Members serve on the HRA and three mayor-appointed citizens. Furthermore, the Council determined that term limits should be set for all HRA members limiting them to two consecutive five-year terms equal to a total of ten years. The term of Council Members serving on the HRA shall coincide with the member's term as mayor or council member. 1213HRA III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Mayor and Council have expressed the desire to have a combination of elected representatives and citizen representatives on the HRA board. • Setting term limits on HRA appointments will allow more citizens the opportunity to serve on the HRA board and could result in new perspectives and ideas. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • None C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • State law allows council members to be appointed to the HRA for terms that coincide with their council terms. • State law requires that non-council HRA members be appointed for five years, with staggered terms. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • N/A V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 1213HRA i� — i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING APPOINTMENTS TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; ESTABLISHING COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD AND TERM LIMITS ON NON-ELECTED MEMBERS WHEREAS, Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) was established by the City of Richfield in 1974 to support the long-term vitality of Richfield's residential and commercial property; and WHEREAS, the HRA consists of five board members who are nominated by the Mayor and approved by the City Council, serving staggered terms; and WHEREAS, the HRA plays a significant role in the redevelopment of the City and in the achievement of the City's goals for housing and commercial development; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the public interest is served by requiring that two HRA representatives be elected Council members; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the use of term limits will provide an opportunity for a greater number of individuals to serve as HRA members. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. In making appointments to the HRA commission, the Mayor and City Council shall designate two positions as ex-officio with voting rights, to be filled by two members of the City Council, which may include the Mayor. The term of office of an ex-officio commission member shall be set to coincide with the member's term as mayor or council member. 2. The remaining three members of the HRA commission shall be residents of the City of Richfield and appointed in the manner required by law. The citizen members shall serve five-year terms, which shall be staggered. 3. No citizen member of the HRA commission shall be appointed to more than two consecutive terms on the commission. 4. No citizen member, once appointed, may serve on any city advisory commission, except the Charter Commission, during the term of the HRA appointment. 5. This resolution is effective upon adoption and shall be applied to each appointment made after the effective date. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: 1213HRA AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM# 18 REPORT# 274 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 13, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS,FINANCE MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: /= SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY rl MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolutions approving the 2011 Revised/2012 Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt the resolutions approving the 2011 Revised/2012 Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions. II. BACKGROUND On September 13, 2011, the City Council approved and certified a preliminary tax levy of$16,980,700 to Hennepin County. The final tax levy must now be considered and approved by the City Council. The final levy may be less but cannot be greater than the preliminary levy amount. Taxpayers have received individual parcel specific tax notices in anticipation of the truth-in-taxation hearing. The City of Richfield has conducted and closed its 2011 truth-in-taxation hearing on December 6, 2011. During the course of the public hearing, there was an opportunity for testimony from the general public. Information was also presented by staff regarding the proposed levy and budget. No official City Council action to act on the levy was permissible on the day of the public hearing. Since the initial publication of the 2012 City of Richfield proposed budget document, there have been no significant changes. The original 2012 General Fund budget 1213Budget has not changed from the proposed budget the City Council approved in September. Finally, in 2010, the City Council directed staff to implement the recommendations of the Property Excellence Task Force (PETF). With regards to rental licensing, one of the PETF recommendations was to substantially increase the fine for those that don't comply with (rental) licensing requirements. As a result, the Fee Schedule which was adopted by the City Council in January 2011 raised the late fee to $100 per month. Staff's recommendation is to modify the City's Fee Schedule to only charge a one-time late fee or $50.00 for properties that are less than 45 days late in submitting their Rental License application (beyond which time they would be required to obtain a Provisional License). III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A revised 2011 budget and final 2012 budget and tax levy must be adopted on or before December 28, 2011. • Cities then have five working days after December 20 or no later than December 28 to prepare all the documentation necessary to certify a final levy to the County Auditor and State Department of Revenue. • A proposed 2012 tax levy has been submitted to the City Council for consideration. • Several related resolutions included within the total budget document need to be considered. These related resolutions are itemized in the attachment section of this staff report. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The proposed gross tax levy for 2012 is now $16,980,700. • The gross tax levy for 2012 reflects a 3.98% increase from the previous year's gross levy. • The levy increase comprises three components as follows: • General Fund Levy 4.58% • Equipment Levy 4.28% • Debt Service Levy (0.34%) • Tax Abatement Levy .12% • LGA & MVHC Levy (4.66%) 3.98% D. LEGAL • A truth-in-taxation public hearing for the 2011 proposed budget and tax levy was conducted on December 6, 2011. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • The City Council could adopt a final 2012 budget and tax levy in any amount, which does not exceed the preliminary levy of$16,980,700. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution adopting a proposed budget and tax levy for the year 2012. • Resolution authorizing budget revisions. • Resolution authorizing revision of 2011 budget of various departments. • Resolution authorizing adjustment to City's mileage reimbursement rate to conform to Internal Revenue Service statutory mileage reimbursement rate. • Resolution adopting the 2012 Capital Improvement Budget. • Resolution adopting the 2013-2016 Capital Improvement Program. • Resolution relating to purchasing practices in the City of Richfield. • Resolution establishing wastewater service rates and charges, water rates and charges, special water service charges, storm sewer rates and charges, and 6.5% penalty on past due accounts. • Resolution establishing a Public Works On-Call compensation policy. • Resolution establishing 2012 license, permit and miscellaneous fees pursuant to the provisions of appendix D of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 2012 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy to be certified to the County Auditor by September 15, 2011 and then recertified before December 28, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The budget for the City of Richfield for the year 2012 is hereby approved and adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows: General Fund Legislative/Executive $ 760,480 Administrative Services 1,139,930 Public Safety 7,803,320 Fire Services 3,482,540 Community Development 1,121,720 Public Works 4,034,030 Recreation Services 1,596,830 Transfers 13,680 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $19,952,530 2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 2012 which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the 2012 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows: TOTAL GENERAL FUND $19,952,530 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2011, payable in 2012 for the following purposes and in the following amounts: PURPOSE AMOUNT General Fund' $14,849,2002 Debt Service 1,868,845 Cedar Point Tax Abatement 262,655 1 Provision has been made in the General Fund for the payment of the City's contributory share to Public Employees' Retirement Association. 2 General Fund Levy included all fiscal disparities distribution amounts. 4. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the year 2012 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2011, payable in 2012 for the following purposes: IS PURPOSE AMOUNT Housing and Redevelopment Authority $503,777 5. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET REVISIONS WHEREAS, the City Charter and Minnesota Statutes provide for a process for adopting an annual budget and tax levy; and WHEREAS, the City Charter provides certain authority for the City Manager and/or City Council to revise the annual budget; and WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to restate such authority with the adoption of the budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Manager may increase the budget by City Council action provided that unbudgeted receipts will be available to equal or exceed the increased expenditures. 2. The City Manager may authorize transfers between divisions within a department providing the transfers do not increase or decrease the department or total budget. 3. The City Manager may transfer budgeted amounts between departments only with the approval of the City Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk I$ ' y RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2011 BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 10455 appropriated funds for personal services, other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year of 2011; and WHEREAS, The City Charter, Chapter 7, Section 7.09, gives the Council authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one department to another within the same fund at the request of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, The City Manager has requested a revision of the 2011 budget appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the Proposed 2012 budget document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the 2011 appropriations for each department of the General Fund be amended to establish the following totals: General Fund Legislative/Executive $ 745,290 Administrative Services 1,104,930 Public Safety 7,596,430 Fire Services 3,372,730 Community Development 1,107,140 Public Works 3,982,080 Recreation Services 1,557,050 Transfers 15,960 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $19,481,610 DECREASE $ 231,200 2. Estimated 2011 gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, as the same are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the proposed 2012 budget, are hereby revised as follows: DECREASE $231,200 3. That the City Manager and the Finance Manager bring into effect the provisions of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADJUSTMENT TO CITY'S MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE TO CONFORM TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE STATUTORY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service periodically adjusts the business mileage reimbursement rate; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield's present mileage reimbursement is in conformance with the Internal Revenue Service business mileage reimbursement rate; and NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the City Manager of Richfield is hereby authorized and directed to adjust the City's mileage reimbursement rate to be in conformance with Internal Revenue Service guidelines. 2. That the City's mileage reimbursement rate is not to exceed the Internal Revenue Service guidelines. Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk IS- (o RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2012 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Budget for 2012 has been prepared and submitted for review by the City Council in accordance with charter requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself reviewed these proposals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2012 Capital Improvement Budget in the sum total of$8,346,000 is hereby approved as amended and adopted with full recognition of the fact that the cost estimates are approximate and are subject to final cost estimates and that all awards of contracts for these projects are subject to necessary hearings and must be approved by the City Council in accordance with established laws and practices governing such action, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2013-2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Program 2013-2016 has been prepared for review by the Planning Commission in accordance with charter requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself reviewed these proposals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2013-2016 Capital Improvement Program is hereby approved and adopted subject to annual review and revision; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk S. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURCHASING PRACTICES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 10461 WHEREAS, the City Manager of the City of Richfield has purchasing authority pursuant to the City Charter and Administrative Ordinance Code; and WHEREAS, the City Charter and Administrative Ordinance Code expressly state a purchasing authority limit for the City Manager, and WHEREAS, all non-budgeted purchases in excess of$50,000 will require approval by City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: That the City Manager of the City of Richfield is hereby granted the authority to enter into contracts or approve purchases on behalf of the City of Richfield up to, but not to exceed $50,000. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Ig - q RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES, WATER RATES AND CHARGES, SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES, STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES, AND 6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2012 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.05 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for use and service of the sanitary sewer system are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution which rescinds Resolution No. 10462: 2. Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat charges are established effective January 1, 2012 for each billing district as defined in paragraph 3 of this resolution. 2012 A) Residential per unit $ 68.60 B) Commercial - For the equivalent of 10 or less persons $ 68.60 More than 10, less than 16 125.00 More than 15, less than 21 175.00 More than 20, less than 26 233.60 C) Institutional - For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in session; and shall be as follows: 2012 For each 100 grade school students or fraction $ 71.90 in excess thereof For each 100 junior high school students or high 105.60 School students or fraction thereof D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer Charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this resolution and a certification charge as determined in Section 7.05 of the City Ordinance Code. 3. Where the rate for sanitary sewer service is based upon the metered use of water on the premises, such rates shall be as follows: A) For all residential premises the rate shall be based on The actual use, or less of water for the preceding winter quarter, per thousand gallons with a minimum of 7,000 gallons, effective January 1, 2012, for each 2012 customer billing district and shall be as follows: $ 3.42 For the purpose of this paragraph A), the winter quarter shall be the winter quarter as specified in Subdivision 3 of said section 7.05. B) For all commercial, institutional, industrial, and other premises, the rate per thousand gallons of water effective January 1, 2012, shall be as follows: $ 3.42 C) A customer charge shall be made for each invoice rendered effective January 1, 2012 as follows: $ 5.00 If the invoice is for water service, as well as sanitary sewer service, the customer charge, when collected, shall be allocated proportionally between the City's water fund, sewer fund, and its storm sewer fund based on the user fees billed for by each fund. D) Where the metered use of water on the premises for the preceding winter quarter was not normal, the rate may be adjusted as provided in Subdivision 3 of said Section 7.05. 4. The foregoing rates and charges are in addition to, and not in lieu of, other rates and charges established by ordinance or resolution. 5. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) will be charged a sanitary sewer rate based on the Met Council Environmental Services (MCES) rate plus 15% for Inflow/Infiltration and $1,000.00 per quarter for administration costs. WATER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2012 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for City water and water service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: The charges due and payable to the City by each water customer of the City, during any quarter shall be based upon the Conservation Rate Structure. Water-Tier 1: The first tier rate is ($2.84 per thousand) charged for consumption of the first 25,000 gallons. Water-Tier 2: The second tier rate is ($3.12 per thousand) charged for consumption of 26,000 gallons but less or equal to 50,000 gallons. Water-Tier 3: The third tier rate is ($3.40 per thousand) charged for consumption in excess of 51,000 gallons. Irrigation accounts: All consumption will be charged at the ($3.40 per thousand) water-tier 3 rate. The Conservation Rate Structure applies to multi-unit and residential premises. I Commercial, institutional or industrial will only be subject to the Water-tier 1 rates for domestic use, irrigation accounts will be subject to the Water-tier 3 rate. Water charges shall be payable quarterly, and all bills issued after January 1, 2012 shall be at this rate. SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES FOR 2012 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for special customer services are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The charge for establishing a new customer account shall be $13.50 per account. 3. The charge for installation of meters shall be $50.00 per installation. 4. The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on privately owned property within the City shall be $75.00 per hydrant per year plus any required parts. 5. The charge to thaw and service water pipes on customer property shall be actual cost to the City plus thirty percent. 6. The charge for any other services not covered by the above shall be based on actual hourly cost to the City plus thirty percent. 7. The MN lab fee will is $6.36. STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2012 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.20 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for City storm sewer service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The rates and charges for the use and availability of the system are determined through the use of a "Residential Equivalent Factor" (REF). One REF is defined as the ratio of • the average volume of surface runoff coming from one acre of land and subjected to a particular use, to the average volume of runoff coming from one acre of land subjected to typical single-family residential use within the City during a standard one year rainfall event. The REF's for the following land uses within the City and the billing classifications for such land uses are as follows: LAND USES REF CLASSIFICATION Cemeteries .25 1 Parks and railroads .75 2 Two-family residential 1.00 3 Single-family residential 1.00 4 Public and private schools and institutional uses 1.25 5 Multiple-family residential uses and churches 3.00 6 1 Commercial, industrial, and 1g- a Warehouse uses 5.00 7 3. The basic system quarterly rate for storm sewer service is $56.65 per acre of land. $11.33 is the quarterly rate for a single-family residence, which is considered to have an acreage of one-fifth acre. The charge made against each parcel of land is then determined by multiplying the REF for the parcel's land use classification times the parcel's acreage times the basic system rate. 6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS 1. Customers will have twenty eight (28) days to pay their water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer quarterly bills from the date of the mailing by the City. Any unpaid amount will be added to the next quarterly bill along with a 6.5% penalty on the delinquent amount. 2. The penalty charge when billed on past due accounts shall be allocated proportionally between the City's water fund, sewer fund, and storm sewer fund based on the user fees billed for each fund. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC WORKS ON-CALL COMPENSATION POLICY WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to provide Public Works Superintendent/Managers/City Engineer compensation for being on-call for possible Public Works emergencies; and WHEREAS, the good judgment of a Public Works Superintendent/Manager/City Engineer is needed to provide quality response to Public Works emergencies such as water main breaks, street light knock downs, and sewer main back ups; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to establish a policy to provide such employees with on-call compensation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby adopts the following On-call Compensation Policy: Public Works Superintendent/Managers/City Engineer who remain on-call by carrying the emergency cell phone (or similar device) for a period of one week will be compensated at a rate established annually as part of the budget preparation process, beginning with $150 a week in 2012. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2012 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 10525 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: SECTION 1. ESTABLISHING FEES A. License, permit and miscellaneous fees required under the ordinances of the City of Richfield shall be as stated in the sections of this Resolution. B. A period of no less than 30 days will be allowed for the remittance of City Business license renewal fees contained in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of this resolution. C. A 10%administrative surcharge will be assessed upon all renewals contained in Section 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the resolution if not received by the City on or before December 31st of each year. The 10% surcharge will be based upon the cost of the license. D. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the City to issue or renew any license for which the fee has not been paid in a timely manner. SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED LICENSE FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Heating and 400.07 1 Year $ 80.00 Ventilating Installer (2) Sign Installer 416.01-416.13 1 Year $ 80.00 (3) Electrical Installer 400.03-400.09 State License Required (4) Plumber 400.03-400.09 State License Required (5)Well Driller 620 State License Required SECTION 3. PUBLIC WORKS FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Benches 805.01-805.27 First Year $ 80.00 Renewal $ 30.00 (2) Boulevard feature 811.07 a) Application to place a privately owned feature in the $ 50.00 Permit boulevard b) If applied for after installation of feature has begun $ 100.00 (3) Excavation in Public 800.01-800.15 a) For each transverse excavation and each 100 feet or $ 125.00 Right of way portion thereof longitudinal excavation and for each 100 feet of curb and gutter or portion thereof installed or driveway apron installed, except when survey and grade stakes are set by City b)If applied for after excavation has begun $ 250.00 1 18 - �s SECTION 3. PUBLIC WORKS FEES (CONTINUED) TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (4) Forestry Permit 810 Applies only to trees on City property and public ROW $ 50.00 (5) Seasonal Load Limit a)Per load $ 25.00 Exemption b)If applied for after delivery $ 50.00 (6) Obstruction Permit 802.17 (a) Short term, temporary lane closure of less than four No fee hours (b) Lane closures longer than four hours duration (or if between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or between 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) Arterial/Collector/Distributor/Sidewalk Day(per block or portion thereof) $ 30.00 Week(per block or portion thereof) $ 125.00 Local/Residential Day(per block or portion thereof) $ 15.00 Week(per block or portion thereof) $ 50.00 Parking lane/sidewalk Day(per block or portion thereof) $ 7.50 Week(per block or portion thereof) $ 31.25 If applied for after obstruction closure has begun (c) Short term, temporary lane closure of less than four No fee hours (d) Lane closures longer than four hours duration (or if between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or between 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) Arterial/Collector/Distributor/Sidewalk $ 60.00 Day(per block or portion thereof) $ 250.00 Week(per block or portion thereof) Local/Residential $ 30.00 Day(per block or portion thereof) $ 100.00 Week(per block or portion thereof) Parking lanelsidewalk $ 15.00 Day(per block or portion thereof) $ 62.50 Week(per block or portion thereof) (7) Noise Ordinance 930.35 (a) With conditions added as required $ 50.00 Exemption (b) If applied for after violation $ 100.00 (8) Certification Charge 705.03-705.21 All delinquent accounts $ 50.00 (9) NSF Check Charge $ 50.00 (10) Utility Services Sanitary Sewer 700.05 All land uses New Service $ 125.00 Repair $ 125.00 Disconnect $ 125.00 Replacement $ 125.00 Water Service 715.01 All land uses New Service $ 125.00 Repair $ 125.00 Disconnect $ 125.00 Replacement $ 125.00 Turn on/off $ 75.00 Meter Installation $ 50.00 Private Hydrant $ 75.00 Storm Sewer 720 All land uses New Service Repair $ 125.00 Disconnect $ 125.00 Replacement $ 125.00 $ 125.00 2 15- !0 SECTION 4. FIRE SERVICES FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Fire Prevention 400.21-400.29 For initial fee required under code Per year $ 60.00 Code For each additional fee required under code Penalty If not renewed within 2 months of Per year $ 15.00 notification $ 30.00 (2) Daycare/Adult Foster Care Facility $ 50.00 Inspection (3) Reimbursement Fee for Fire/Rescue Unit Per Hour $ 275.00 (4) Sale of Consumer 1131 (a) License per location selling only consumer Per Year $ 350.00 Fireworks fireworks (b) License per location of each other retail Per Year $ 100.00 seller BOLD represents added/amended fees 15 SECTION 5. AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Arcade 1105 1 Year $ 469.00 (2) Amusement Device 1100.01 (a) Mechanical Amusement Device(Pinball) 1 Year $ 15.00 (b) Mechanical Music Box 1 Year $ 15.00 (c) Video Games 1 Year $ 15.00 (3) Lawful Gambling 1100.13 Bingo,Tipboard, Paddle Wheel, Raffle, Pull Tabs (a) Lawful Gambling Permit (those exempt from State Licensure) (State Statute 349.213) 1 Year $ 100.00 (b) Lawful Gambling Investigative Fee (State Statute 349.16) 1 Year $ 100.00 STATE LICENSE REQUIRED (4) Itinerant Place of 1100.05-1100.11 1 day $ 251.00 Amusement (5) Public Dance 1110.03 For each day dances are held-$3 1 month $ 42.00 No fee for locations holding tavern licenses. (6) General Amusement 1100.03 (a) Billiard, Pool or Pigeonhole table(each) 1 Year $ 15.00 1. Coin operated 1 Year $ 15.00 (b) Bowling Alley(per lane) 1 Year $ 42.00 (c) Circus 1 Year $ 202.00 (d) Dance Hall 1 Day $ 202.00 (e) Golf 1. Miniature 1 Year $ 47.00 2. Driving Tee 1 Year (f) Mountback 1 Day $ 47.00 (g) Rides,mechanical/animal of any kind(ea) 1 Year $ 193.00 (h) Shows, any kind 1 Day $ 15.00 (i) Shuffleboard(each lane) 1 Year $ 193.00 (j) Other games 1 Day $ 16.00 $ 15.00 (7) Musical Concert 1110.01 Per event $ 42.00 (8) Theatre Cinema 1120 1 Year $ 197.00 Plus a notice publication fee $ 6.50 (9) Roller Rink 1115 1 year or portion thereof $ 197.00 (10)Commercial Adult- 605 1 Year $ 2,339.00 Oriented Enterprises Investigation fee 1 Year $ 2,339.00 (1 1)Masseur/Masseuse 605 Certificate fee 1 Year $ 79.00 Investigation fee 1 Year $ 197.00 (12)Public Baths 610 1 Year $ 2,709.00 Investigation fee(actual cost minimum) $ 2,709.00 (13)Fortune Teller and 1130.05-1130.07 1 Day $ 157.00 related trade 1 Week $ 468.00 1 Month $ 933.00 1 Year $ 1,559.00 (14)Adult 1196 Annual license 1 Year $ 2,339.00 Establishments Investigation fee (new license) $ 2,339.00 BOLD represents added/amended fees 4 IS - IS SECTION 6. ANIMAL LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Animals 905.01-905.29 (a) Animals(Spayed or Neutered)with option to 1 Year $ 15.00 purchase a multi-year license (b) Animals(Not Spayed or Neutered 1 Year $ 25.00 (c) Duplicate Animal License $ 7.00 (d) Late Penalty $ 10.00 905.31-905.33 (e) Commercial Kennel 1 Year $ 217.00 (f) Residential Kennel 1 Year $ 164.00 (g) Veterinary 905.37-905.39 (h) Pigeons 1 Year $ 217.00 905.41 (i) Non-domestic Animals(Temporary Permit) $ 43.00 905.01-905.29 (j) Impounding (each animal) 1st time $ 30.00 2nd Time $ 64.00 3rd time (each impound after) $ 127.00 $ 191.00 (k) Dangerous dog registration fee (State Statute 347.51) $ 500.00 SECTION 7. VEHICLE AND TRANSPORTATION LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Aircraft 1340 1 Day $ 46.00 (2) Garbage and 601.01-601.33 Commercial and Residential Refuse Collection First vehicle 1 Year $ 234.00 Each additional vehicle 1 Year $ 49.00 (3) Motor Vehicle 1155 Per place of business 1 Year $ 350.00 Dealer Each additional place of business 1 Year $ 133.00 (4) Motor Bicycle 1160 Per place of business 1 Year $ 203.00 Business Per place of business to sell, rent or least 1 Year $ 93.00 (5) Sound Truck 1165 Per vehicle 1 Year $ 203.00 Per Vehicle 1 Day $ 31.00 (6) Taxicab 1170 First vehicle or autb livery 1 Year $ 505.00 Each additional vehicle or auto livery operated at any time within license period 1 Year $ 63.00 (7) Taxicab Driver 1175 1 Year $ 47.00 (8) Rental or Utility 1185 Each place of business 1 Year $ 93.00 Trailers and Trucks BOLD represents added/amended fees 5 )g - (9 SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Firearms Dealer 920.01-920.05 1 Year $ 1,559.00 (2) Food 617 (A)Type I Establishment, a large high-risk food 1 Year Establishments establishment serving on average 500 or more meals per day; having 175 or more seats; or having 500 or more customers per day (1) Food service or retail food $ 700.00 establishment $ 618.00 (2)School, kindergarten through grade 12 $ 515.00 (3) Daycare Center or Preschool (B)Type II Establishment, a small high-risk food establishment serving on average fewer than 500 meals per day; having fewer than 175 seats; or having fewer than 500 customers per day (1) Food service or retail food establishment $ 644.00 (2) School, kindergarten through grade 12 $ 644.00 (3) Daycare Center or Preschool $ 412.00 (C)Type III Establishment, a medium risk food establishment serving mainly non-potentially hazardous foods and potentially hazardous foods prepared elsewhere and only heated or held cold onsite;or serving or retailing foods such as pizza carryout or delivery, requiring handling followed by heat treatment. (1) Food service or retail food $ 515.00 establishment $ 258.00 (2)School, kindergarten through grade 12 $ 258.00 (3) Daycare Center or Preschool (D)Type IV Establishment, a food establishment with minimal food handling such as preparing coffee, hot dogs, blended or mixed drinks, packaged foods customers heat onsite, continental breakfasts, unpackaged baked goods made elsewhere (1) Food service or retail food $ 335.00 establishment $ 155.00 (2) School, kindergarten through grade 12 $ 155.00 (3) Daycare Center or Preschool (E)Type V Establishment, a food establishment with non-potentially hazardous food or food products sold in the original packaging (1) Food service or retail food $ 206.00 establishment $ 129.00 (2) School, kindergarten through grade 12 $ 129.00 (3) Daycare Center or Preschool (F)Supplemental Facility (1) High Supplemental Facility(like Type I $ 129.00 and II) (2) Medium Supplemental Facility(like Type III and IV) $ 103.00 (3) Catering Supplemental Facility(for Food Catering Vehicle(s)and equipment) $ 155.00 (4) Low Supplemental Facility(like Type V) $ 77.00 (G)Temporary Food Establishment (1)Complex Temporary 1 to 3 days (like $ 129.00 Type I and II) (2) Complex Temporary 4 to 21 days(like $ 232.00 Type I and II) (3)Simple Temporary 1 to 3 days(like Type $ 52.00 III, IV and V) 6 Ig - as (4)Simple Temporary 4 to 21 days (like Type III, IV and V) $ 124.00 (H) Farmer's Market Stand (stands not exempted from licensing in Minnesota Statue Chapter 28A) $ 155.00 (I)Vending Machines (1) Food and beverage (except items in 2) (2) Nuts, gum balls, hard candy and $ 20.00 unsorted confections $ 15.00 (3) Automobile Washing 1125 Per calendar year or fraction thereof $ 157.00 Establishment (4) Scavenger 600.25 Each vehicle 1 Year $ 46.00 Permit fee for opening cesspool or dumping contents of each cesspool into City sewer $ 22.00 (5) Incinerator 600.01-600.23 1 Year $ 46.00 (6) Tobacco 1146.01(MS Retail Sale and Distribution-License issued on $ 391.00 461.12) calendar year(cigarette vending machines prohibited) (Bill No. 1998-19) (7) Transient Merchant 1181.01-1181.09 1 Day $ 100.00 (8) Wagon Peddler 1181 1 Year $ 235.00 (9) State hawker or 1181 6 month/per person covered $ 58.00 Peddler license BOLD represents added/amended fees 15 I$ -Al SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (10)Canvasser or 1181 6 month/per person covered $ 58.00 Solicitor (11)Christmas Tree Sale 1130.03 1 Year $ 127.00 (12) Lodging 618 (A) Hotel/Motel $ 216.00 Establishments (1) Each Guestroom $ 15.00 (B) Lodging House, lodging accommodation for 5 or more regular roomers, no food provided (1) Five to 25 beds (2)26 or more beds, each bed $ 206.00 (C) Small Boarding House,food and lodging $ 9.00 accommodations for 5 to 10 regular boarders. Food license included. (1) Five to 10 beds (D) Large Boarding House,food and lodging $ 206.00 accommodations for 11 or more.A separate food license is required. (1) 11 to 25 beds (2)26 or more beds, each bed $ 206.00 (E) Bed and Breakfast,food license is included $ 9.00 $ 206.00 (13)Outdoor 1135 Permit $ 99.00 Merchandising (14)Storage Enclosure 1135 Per Enclosure $ 84.00 (15)Pawnbroker 1187 (a) Pawnbroker 1 Year $4,065.00 (b) Owner investigation fee(nonrefundable) 1 Year $2,337.00 (c) Manager investigation fee(nonrefundable) 1 Year $ 846.00 (d) Employee investigation fee(nonrefundable) (e) Transaction fee-per transaction 1 Year $ 81.00 $ 2.00 (16)Secondhand Goods 1186 (a) Secondhand Goods Dealer 1 Year $ 446.00 Dealer (b) Initial investigation fee(nonrefundable) actual costs in excess of above with total not exceeding $ 1,869.00 Applicant shall deposit$1200.00 with Licensing Clerk along with application. Amount in excess of actual application costs shall be refunded. (17)Auto Detailing 1195.01 1 Year $ 348.00 Establishment (18)Tattoo, Body 630 (a) Tattoo, body piercing, body painting or body Piercing, Body branding 1 Year $ 779.00 Painting or Body (b) Initial investigation fee(nonrefundable) 1 Year $ 2,337.00 Branding (19)Temporary Tattoo, 630 Per booth $ 46.00 Body Piercing, Body Branding and Body painting events 8 8 - x2- (20)Massage Therapy 1188 Annual license 1 Year $ 778.00 Enterprise License Investigation fee(new license) $ 778.00 (Business license) Massage Therapist Annual license 1 Year $ 79.00 License(Individual Investigation fee(new license) $ 79.00 license) Temporary Massage Per temporary location Therapist License $ 156.00 (21) Public Swimming 619 (A) Indoor Pools (1) First pool $ 206.00 (2) Each additional pool $ 103.00 (B) Outdoor (1) First pool $ 206.00 (2) Each additional pool $ 103.00 (C) School, K through grade 12, pools (1) First pool $ 134.00 (2) Each additional pool $ 77.00 BOLD represents added/amended fees 15 )8- 9.- SECTION 8 COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) PLAN REVIEW FEE FOR FOOD, THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE AND LODGING PERCENTAGE OF FACILITY INVOLVED WILL BE DETERMINED BY STAFF Descriptions:Type I Establishment, a large high-risk food establishment serving on average 500 or more meals per day; having 175 or more seats; or having 500 or more customers per day. Type II Establishment, a small high-risk food establishment serving on average fewer than 500 meals per day; having fewer than 175 seats; or having fewer than 500 customers per day. Type III Establishment, a medium risk food establishment serving mainly non- potentially hazardous foods and potentially hazardous foods prepared elsewhere and only heated or held cold onsite; or serving or retailing foods such as pizza carryout or delivery, requiring handling followed by heat treatment. Type IV Establishment, a food establishment with minimal food handling such as preparing coffee, hot dogs, blended mixed drinks, packaged foods customers heat onsite, continental breakfasts, unpackaged baked goods made elsewhere. Type V Establishment, a food establishment with non-potentially hazardous food or food products sold in the original packaging. Environmental plan review—includes the physical remodeling, updating, equipment replacement, equipment additions and the general overall review of all plans/work. This also includes all new development projects. New Construction Extensive Minor Remodel (0- Non-remodel and/or Major Remodel Remodel (25- 24%of facility) approval (over 50%of facility 50%of facility) consultation involved) ($5,000 or less in costs) Type I $2,485 $1,296 $699 $118 Type II $1,712 $936 $520 $118 Type III $936 $521 $311 $118 Type IV $459 $179 $90 No fee Type V New project or change Minor remodel— of owner-$115 permit but no plan check fee Therapeutic Massage $118 $118 $118 $118 Lodging $2,071 $1,115 $581 $118 SECTION 9. LIQUOR AND RELATED LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) 3.2 Malt Liquor 1202.05 (a) On-Sale 1 Year $ 859.00 (b) Tavern (dance) 1 Year $ 702.00 (c) Wholesale 1 Year $ 42.00 (d) Off-Sale 1 Year $ 249.00 (e) Club (Bottle Club) 1 Year (f) Temporary per event $ 568.00 $ 63.00 (2) Liquor 1202.05 (a) On-Sale 1 Year $14,173.00 (b) Sunday (Fee set by state law) 1 Year $ 200.00 (c) Wine 1 Year $ 1,249.00 1 Year $ 814.00 (d) Veterans'Organization (Ex-Sunday) per event $ 129.00 (e) Temporary (3) Employee License 1208.01 Effective 10/1/95 all licenses issued shall be $ 35.00 On-Sale Liquor valid for a period of two years from the date of Establishments initial application (4) Investigation Fee 1202.01-1202.21 (a) On-Sale liquor including Veterans' $ 777.00 and 10 18 _aul Organization each person shown on application actual costs in excess of above Each additional investigation for each person not listed on original or renewal application (b) Wine- Original Application initial Fee actual $ 233.00 1202.11 costs in excess of above $ 431.00 and with total fee not to exceed $ 3,286.00 Renewal Application Initial Fee actual costs in excess of above $ 97.00 and with total cost not to exceed Additional Investigation under 1200.09 Subd.3 $3,286.00 1202.11 not to exceed $ 191.00 and Investigation of substitute manager $ 3,286.00 $ 97.00 BOLD represents added/amended fees 15 '‘)`C SECTION SECTION 10. HOUSING INSPECTION AND RENTAL LICENSE FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) License for 405 (a) Apartment House 1 Year $ 140.00 Apartment Houses Each unit $ 14.00 and Rental Homes (b) Rental Home-single family dwelling 1 Year $ 140.00 (c) Duplexes/double bungalows/townhouses First unit 1 Year $ 140.00 Each additional rental unit 1 Year $ 85.00 (d) Late Fee $ 50.00 uR _ $ 40.00 (e) License Transfer Fee (f) Reinstatement of suspended license 50%of license fee(minimum$80) (g) Reinstatement of Revoked license 100%of license fee (h) Re-Inspection Fee $ 80.00 ea. 1. multi-family $ 50.00 ea. 2. single family&duplex (Inspection over standard 2 inspections) Reinspection fees shall be payable at the time of license renewal and no renewal license shall be issued unless all inspection fees are paid $ 280.00 (i) Provisional license for apartment house 1 Year Includes first unit $ 30.00 Each additional unit Provisional license for Rental Home-single $ 280.00 family dwelling Provisional license for duplex $ 280.00 First unit $ 170.00 Each additional unit $ 200.00 (j) Investigation fee for operating a rental property without a license (2) Certificate of 405.26 Single family home(includes one reinspection) $ 150.00 Housing 2-family home(includes one reinspection) $ 230.00 maintenance Compliance Reinspection Fee $ 50.00 Fee to process cash escrow agreement $ 50.00 (3) Permit Fee for 405.19 1 Year $ 170.00 Rooming House BOLD represents added/amended fees 12 SECTION 11. MISCELLANEOUS FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Permit to reside 1190 In motel for more than six months $ 17.00 (2) Permit to Carry a Permit Issued By County Gun (3) False Alarms (a) in excess of 2 for calendar year $ 100.00 (billable) (b) in excess of 10 for calendar year $ 200.00 (c) in excess of 20 for calendar year $ 300.00 (4) Nuisance Conduct 925 Third call to a property for nuisance conduct $ 250.00 Fee within a 365-day period (5) Copying Services Flat rate(per page) $ .25 Provided Special rate (a) Black&White Photocopy rate 8.5 x 11 (per side) $ .25 8.5 x 14(per side) $ .25 MN Statute 13.03C 11 x 17(each) $ .50 24 x 36 (each) $ 2.50 X-large $ 2.50 Color Photocopy rate 8.5 x 11 (per side) $ 1.00 8.5 x 14(per side) $ 2.00 11 x 17(each) $ 4.00 24 x 36(each) $ 18.00 X-large $ 3.00sq./ft. (b) Labor hourly wage& 33% (c) Postage prevailing rate (d) Fax per page $ .50 (e) Audio tape of meeting (per tape) $ 5.00 (f) Video tape of meeting (per tape) $ 15.00 (g) Electronic copies(cd or disk) $ 5.00 (h) As builts(per image) $ .50 (6) Notary Fee Fee Set By State (7) Candidate Filing Fee City Charter $ 25.00 4.04 (8) Photo Fee Includes 2 photos $ 16.00 including tax BOLD represents added/amended fees 13 ai SECTION 11. MISCELLANEOUS FEES (CONTINUED) TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (9) Assessing Fees Special Abatement for Filing Homestead $25.00 Special Assessment Searches One property identification number (PID)search free per day, if more than one $3.00 each Special Assessment Search Report $15.00 per Property Identification Number (PID) Creation of New or Special $25.00 minimum fee. Report Fees to be based on time and materials to create report Review of Comparable Property Records Residential Field Card Report $ .25 per copy for up to five comparable properties Commercial/Industrial/Apartment Field Card Report $2.00 per copy Certified Card Report $3.00 (10) Domestic Partnership 120 Registration $30.00 (11) Certified copy of various To certify documents i.e. resolutions, ordinances, $5.00 per copy documents minutes, registration forms, etc. on file (12)Vacant Building 925 Single Family Home or Duplex—Vacant less $100 Registration Fee than one year Single Family Home or Duplex—Vacant one $200 year or longer Any other type of property of less than 20,000 $500 square feet in building size AND less than 1 acres of lot size—Vacant less than one year Any other type of property of less than 20,000 $1,000 square feet in building size AND less than 1 acres of lot size—Vacant one year or longer Any other type of property larger than 20,000 $1,250 square feet in building size OR more than 1 acres of lot size—Vacant less than one year Any other type of property larger than 20,000 $2,500 square feet in building size OR more than 1 acres of lot size—Vacant one3 year or longer 14 SECTION 12. ROOM AND PARK SHELTER RENTAL FEES FEE LOCATION DESCRIPTION FEE CLASSIFICATION RiGl field-Municipal Cen« Richfield Community Center Augsburg Room Non-Profit $ 29.00/Hr Nicollet Ruth Johnson or Fireside Room Resident: Private $ 34.00/Hr Non-Resident: Private $ 39.00/Hr BOLD represents added/amended fees 15 g- a°► SECTION 12. ROOM AND PARK SHELTER RENTAL FEES (CONTINUED) FEE LOCATION DESCRIPTION FEE CLASSIFICATION Richfield Community Center Combined Non-Profit $ 52.00/Hr Nicollet/Augsburg or Richfield Room Resident: Private $ 65.00/Hr Non-Resident: Private $ 76.00/Hr Wood Lake Nature Center Auditorium Non-Profit $ 32.00/Hr Resident $ 42.00/Hr Private Non-Resident $ 47.00/Hr Private BOLD represents added/amended fees 16 18- 30 SECTION 12. ROOM AND PARK SHELTER RENTAL FEES (CONTINUED) FEE LOCATION DESCRIPTION FEE CLASSIFICATION Augsburg Park Park Buildings (depending on Resident $ 25.00/Hr Christian Park availability) $ 21.00/Hr(3+Hrs) Donaldson Park-East Jefferson Park Non-Resident $ 30.00/Hr Madison Park $ 26.00/Hr(3+ Hrs) Taft Park-North Washington Park Fairwood Park Open Picnic Shelters Resident $ 25.00/Day Monroe Park $ 17.00/Hr(3+ Hrs) Augsburg Park Non-Resident $ 30.00/Day $ 22.00/Hr(3+ Hrs) Sheridan Park Open Picnic Shelter Resident $ 25.00/Hr Non-Resident $ 30.00/Hr $ 24.00/Hr(3+ Hrs) Veterans Park Picnic Shelter Resident Day:4- 1 Section: $95.00 Hour Block 2 Sections: $170.00 3 Sections: $240.00 Resident Evening: 1 Section: $70.00 3-Hour Block 2 Sections: $125.00 3 Sections: $180.00 Non-Resident Day: 1 Section: $100.00 4-Hour Block 2 Sections: $180.00 3 Sections: $250.00 Non-Resident 1 Section: $75.00 Evening: 3-Hour 2 Sections: $135.00 Block 3 Sections: $190.00 Athletic Fields Baseball/Softball Fields Premier Fields Resident Donaldson, $20/hr, $100/day (first 8 Roosevelt, Lincoln & hrs),$30/hr(after 8 hrs) Taft Non-Resident $30/hr,$125/day(first 8 hrs),$40/hr(after 8 hrs) General Fields(all Resident other fields) $15/hr,$100/day (first 8 Donaldson, hrs),$25/hr(after 8 hrs) Roosevelt, Lincoln, Taft Non-Resident $30/hr, $125/day (first 8 hrs),$40/hr(after 8 hrs) Broomball/Hockey Rink All broomball/hockey rinks All renters $15/hr Tennis Courts Augsburg, Christian, Donaldson, All renters Fairwood,Jefferson, Heredia, $ 5.00/court/Hr Madison, Nicollet, Roosevelt, and Washington Parks. Athletic Facility Light Use Softball, Baseball, $25/Hr Football, Soccer, Lacrosse BOLD represents added/amended fees 17 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this th day of ,2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 18