The URL can be used to link to this page

021412completeagendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2012 RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL/HRA/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:45 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 1. Discussion regarding Pillsbury Commons proposal (Council Memo No. 23) Notes: Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Rotl 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 Meeting of January 22, 2012; (2) Special City Council/HRA/Planning Commission Worksession of January 24, 2012; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of January 24, 2012 PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation regarding Mn/DOT I-494 Noise Wall Process (Council Memo No. 21) 2. Presentation of Environmental Leadership Award to Richfield Public Works Department (Council Memo No. 22) COUNCIL DISCUSSION 3. Council discussion • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 4. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 5. 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 on these items 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 first reading of amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.33, subd. 8 describing vacation leave S.R. No. 28 B. Consideration of approval of first reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from Special Revenue Fund and scheduling public hearing and second reading for March 13, 2012 S.R. No. 29 C. Consideration of approval of purchase orders to Nelson Auto Center in amount of $50,691.22 plus tax and Ranger GM in sum of $52,738.70 plus tax for four new Police squad cars S.R. No. 30 D. Consideration of approval of work proposal from WSB & Associates, Inc. for development of 30% plans for Taft Lake Regional Water Quality Improvement Project S.R. No. 31 E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing subdivision waiver allowing division of 6812-14th Avenue into two single family lots S.R. No. 32 F. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing BCA Joint Powers Agreement with City of Richfield's Prosecuting Attorney for access to Criminal Justice Data Communications network S.R. No. 33 G. Consideration of approval of resolution allowing Richfield Public Safety Department/Emergency Management Division to receive grant funds from Hennepin County Emergency Management S.R. No. 34 H. Consideration of approval of work order #8 from HR Green to prepare drawings and construction documents for Honoring All Veterans Memorial and supervise construction of remaining work at cost not to exceed $16,710 S.R. No. 35 Notes: 6. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Public hearing regarding resolution granting site plan that includes variances to allow increased front setback, reduced interior side and rear setbacks, reduced sidewalk width, reduced parking stall width and reduced irrigation requirements at 1120 66th Street East Staff Report No. 36 Notes: 8. Public hearing regarding resolution granting conditional use permit for animal kennel at 6315 Penn Avenue Staff Report No. 37 Notes: 9. Public hearing regarding resolution granting conditional use permit for full-service restaurant at 800 66th Street West Staff Report No. 38 Notes: 10. Public hearing regarding resolution specifying use of funds from Community Development Block Grant allocation for 2012 Staff Report No. 39 Notes: RESOLUTION 11. Consideration of resolution approving revised 2012 General Services Compensation Plan to reflect adjustments of GS1 and GS2 pay grades Staff Report No. 40 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 12. Consideration of first reading of ordinance amending Section 210.01 related to City Council salaries and scheduling second reading for February 28, 2012 Staff Report No. 41 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 13. Consideration of Mayor's appointment of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioner for five-year term Staff Report No. 42 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 14. City Manager's report Notes: 15. 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 bean 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: 16.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. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager February 9, 2012 Council Memorandum No. 23 HRA Memorandum No. 10 Housing & Redevelopment The Honorable Mayor Authority Commissioners And City of Richfield Members of the City Council Subject: February 14 Worksession Regarding Pillsbury Commons Proposal (Worksession Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members and Commissioners: At the conclusion of the January 24 Special Joint Worksession of the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Planning Commission, members of the City Council indicated their desire to hold another such Worksession to continue the dialog regarding Ron Clark Construction's proposed Pillsbury Commons development. That Worksession has been scheduled for 5:45 p.m. on Tuesday, February 14, 2012. Ron Clark Construction has provided the attached documents which are intended to address some of the issues that were identified at the January 24, 2012 meeting. ectf ly submitt n . De ch Cit Manager SLD:cak Attachment Email: Department Directors Assistant City Manager Copy: Planning Commission 105 South Fifth avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 February 9, 2012 Steven L. Devich City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, fVIRI 55423 RE: Pillsbury Commons L7ear Mr. ~evich: ~:.:.. '~ t'°; f ~ f Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 www.lantlform.net We appreciate the opportunity to continue our discussion of our "Pillsbury Commons" proposal with the City Council, PBanning Commission and HRA ("the City„) at their Februaray~ 14t" worth session. The January 24t" work session was very productive, but did not allow adequate time for us to present a project update and answer all of the questions-~we look forward to continuing the discussion with the City. There were a few items raised at the January 24~h work session that we wanted to take the time to responc to in writing: What is affordable hoc~si~g? Affordable housing can mean many different things, but the generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income or housing. Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care. Our Pillsbury Commons project is funded in part by housing tax credits which establishes affordability thresholds based on the median income of the region, specifically, it requires that units be affordable to households that are earning 60% of the area median income. These income levels (and rents) are reevaluated annually. The current maximum income for a family of four to qualify to live in one of these units is $50,340. Our concept is to provide a quality housing option for moderate income (i.e. "workforce") families and individuals. These workers are in need of affordable housing opportunities. Affordable housing provides opportunities for younger workers and senior citizens to stay in the community. Our 2011 rVdarket Study prepared by Joe Urban indicates that there are 1.93 jobs paying less than X41,000/year for• every affordable housing unit in the project market area. That's almost two jobs for every affordable housing unit in the area. Wild Richfield residents get priority for these apartments? In previous projects, fViFiFA has not allowed us to give priority to local residents or any demographic group, because they have deemed this to be discriminatory. However, we have asked the question for this specific project and are awaiting a response from MHFA. Furthermore, we would expect that the public pr®cess and oud° marketing efforts will make Ri~ahfield residents very well aware of the project, so that they can choose to apply for one of the new apartments. Landform` ~. Sensibly ~' and Site to Finish'~~ are service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Anyone who meets the income guides will be considered for these units provided that they pass the bac~ground screening process. There is no preference given to any person or group. Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on: ® Race or color . ® iVational origin. ® Religion. ® Sex. ® Handicap (ctisabi!ity). ® FamiliaE status (including children under the age of 18 giving with parents or legal custodians; preananf v~°ornen and people securing custody of children under 18). ~/hat is fhe impact of this type of development on property values? Richfield staff has shared with fhe City Council two of the most relevant studies to fihis effect: 1. "A Study of the Relationship Setween Affordable Family Rental Housing and Home Values in the Twin Cities" by Maxfield Research Inc. (September 2000) ~'. "There Coes the l~leighborhood? The Impact of Subsidized fVlultiml=amity Housing on Urban Neighborhoods" a 19136 study from the University of Minnesota's Center for Urban and Regional Affairs There is a lot of good information out there regarding housing policy and research that is available from Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the Center for Housing Policy. There are also two other local resources that have been referenced by neighbors and others in the discussion of Pillsbury Commons: 1. "The Impact of Affordable Housing on Communities and Households" a discussion paper by Spencer Agnew a graduate student at the University of Minnesota, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. 2. "Workforce Housing: The Key to Ongoing Regional Prosperity. A Study of Housing's Economic Impact on the Twin Cities" by Maxfield Research Inc. and GVA Marquette Advisors (September 2001) What these studies and others have found is that affordable housing has no negative impact on property values. According to the Center for Housing Policy in a policy brief entitled "Don't Put it Here! Does Affordable Housing Cause Property Values to Decline?" the answer is "N®!" That study found that the "vast majority of studies have found that affordable housing has no impact or a positive impact on property values. A 199.9 literature survey for the California Redevelopment Association examined 31 separate studies of multiple housing markets aceoss the country inoluding Oakland; Chicago and Fai~1•ax County, Virginia. Seven studies documenfed positive effects of affordable housing on surrounding property values while 19 found no effects. Negative effects were founo° in one study. Steven L. Devich February 9, 2012 The North Carolina Coalition, a state civic group, compiled a catalog of 36 studies conducted between 1986 and 2003 in various housing markets including Phoenix, il~inneapolis, Cleveland and Philadelphia. The vast majority found no impact on surrounding property values. Several found positive effects and only one found possible negative effects." Moreover, in a series of studies conducted b,f Ingrid Ellen and her colleagues at the Furman Center of NYU on the impact of affordable housing on property values in New York City, developments financed through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (which serve a low to moderate-income population) were somewhat more likely than developments financed through other federal programs to increase surrounding home prices. This is the type of project that is proposed for Pillsbury Commons. Furthermore, this same analysis found that redevelopment of dilapidated buildings or underutilized properties, like the old Richfield maintenance garage, showed positive effects on property when redeveloped as affordable housing. Much o., the research suggests that the type of affordable housing ~°r~atters less than the quality of the pro~:~erties' design, management, and maintenance. ilVe have been very intentions! in our choice of Steven Scot9: Management as our management company based on their experience and track record of proven results. ®ur choice has also been vetted by MHFA, who is also cornmitted to quality management. ®ur on-site management team will be in place to ensure thaf the property is maintained to the high quality that you expect from Ron Clark Construction & Design and to manage any tenant issues that may arise. A 2001 report (Workforce !-lousing: The dCey to Ongoing /?egional Prosperity report by Maxfield Research Inc. arzd CVA Marquette Advisors) estimated that the Twin Cities foregoes an estimated $265 million in combined consumer spending and business income per year because there is a current shortfall of workforce housing. This development will have a positive effect on the community because the construction will create jobs and increase local tax revenue. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) estimates that the one-year impact of constructing a 100-unit housing tax credit project similar to Pillsbury commons generates $7.9 million in local income, $82,000 in taxes and other rever9ue for local governments and 122 local jobs! They also estimafie the annual recurring impact of 100 family units includes $2.4 million in local income, $441,000 in taxes and other revenue for local governments and 30 local jobs. That is good for Richfield! WiI/ this increase crime in our neighborhood? As the "Impact of Affordable Housing on Communities and' Households" paper notes, "the body of recent research examining the impact of affordable housing on neighborhood crime is not as extensive as the literature on property value impacts" and while the paper only reviewed 5 studies, "of the six studies reviewed, al[ found that affordable housing typically has no effect on neighborhood crime." This apartment will be professionally managed by Steven Scott Management to ensure that the p~°operty is property maintained. Steve Scott IVianagement works closely with the police departments in the communities where they have apartments and have an excellent track record for quality developments. The good property management policies, application process and background checks conducted by Steven Scott Management and relationship with the community police Steven L. Devich February S, 2012 department will provide significantly more control over residents than with for sale or market rate housing. Will all 70 units require the same screening process with a criminal, credit and housing. history background check? Ail of the units will require the same screening process. This project will be professionally managed by Steven Scott Management. Each potential tenant is required to pass a credit, criminal and housing history check. Only tenants that pass these screenings and meet the income requirements will be considered for a home. Steven Scott Management works closely with the Richfield Police Department and their crime prevention programs. However, the standards may be modified slightly for the four units set aside for families experiencinC~ Icria term homelessness, one ®f which is set aside for a veteran, in acknowledgemen~i of the unique cha6lei°rges facing these individuals, particularly related tc housing history. The veteran`s ~init will be serviced by \/eterans AfFairs staff and fibs other three units wiil be sei~red by Simpson Housing Services. As pair of our development plan, we will be preparing a Tenant Selection Plan, Property Management Plan and Marketing Plan, which are required by MHFA. These plans are unique to each project and must be approved by the developer and by MHFA. VVe will continue to develop the details of these plans for Pillsbury Commons and will be happy to provide copies to the City when available. blow many people are allowed to live in an apartment? The final numbers will be formalized as part of the Property Management plan, but we typically allow up to 3 people in a 1 bedroom, up to 5 people in a 2 bedroom and up to 6 people in a 3 bedroom. VI/hat happens if someone moves in but then their income increases and they exceed the maximum household income limits? The concept for this type of housing is to provide move-up housing opportunities. Therefore, after a tenant is income-qualified to move in and passes all of the background checks, they can remain at the property provided their income does not exceed 1~0% of the allowable income limits. How wily you ensure that the property is property maintained? The MHFA funding requires that that property is property maintained in compliance with the VVorkr'orce Housing program requirements for a minimum of 30 years and requires a significant financial reserve for on-going maintenance. The tax credit investor and the developer insist that the property be maintained to ensure a return on their investment. Additionally, the developer has contracted with Steven Scott Management to ensure that the project ~s property maintained and remains an attractive, quality development. One unique aspect of a housing tax credit project is that the MHFA has very specific requirements for the operating reserve (which is used for building maintenance} and requires that the reserve be established prior to occupancy. Our- appli~,atior~ Steven L. Devich February 9, 2012 s s anticipated an initial operating reserve of $247,000, but this number will be finalized with MHFA as we complete our contract. How does this meet the city's parking requirements? • As we have noted previously, as part of our development application, we will be requesting flexibility from the City standard requirements. The City typically requires 2.5 parking stalls per unit, but we are requesting a reduction in the number of stalls to be constructed with this project. We are proposing 129 stalls (1.84 stalls per unit) for this project. We are requesting this reduction based on a number of factors: ® Our experience with these types of apartment projects tells us that this level of parking is more than adequate. The project is conveniently located near transit, therefore, residents are more likely to use transit and/or walk to destinations. ® Recent analysis by the lJrban Land Institute (l1Ll) and the American Planning Association (APA) have found that typically between 1-2 parking stalls per unit are adequate for this type of housing. The "2 ~ Century Land Development Code" (2008) is an APA document by Freilich, White and Murray that recommends a maximum of 1.9 parking stalls per unit for an apartmenfi building. As park of our development application, we would like to work with the City of Richfield to reduce the number of constructed stalls based on current data and our experience with these types of projects. We would provide proof of parking for an additional 24 stalls, which is a plan for future construction of additional parking stalls, should additional parking demand from this project be documented. We believe that the green space provided in the proof of parking area will be an amenity to the development and will reduce impervious area on the site, which in turn reduces runoff. We would reserve this space for future parking stalls in the unlikely event that additional parking is needed. Where are similar projects that interested people can visit? Ron Clark Construction & Design has developed hundreds of quality homes in the Twin Cities over the last 30 years. We have recently received approval to construct a similar workforce housing building in Savage, but that project is not yet available to visit. While there are few truly comparable projects in the metropolitan area, we have provided a list of 5 somewhat similar projects by other developers. A copy of this fist is attached tc this memo. Please know that none of these projects are truly comparable to what are proposing in Richfield for Pillsbury Commons. Southview Estates in Bloomington is probably the best example of a building of similar size to Pillsbury Commons with a similar single family home neighborhood across the street (although the face of our building is only 2 stories to create a better transition with the neighborhood). Maple Village in Maple Grove is the newest of the developments and we have attached their brochure, which lists amenities that will be most similar to what is proposed for Pillsbury Commons. Where can interested people go to find more information about the project? We have set up a project website at www.piilsburycommons com where people can visit and learn more about our proposal. Steven L. Devich February 3, 2012 NEXT STEPS s It is our intention to get feedback from the City at the work session about the development concepts including access to the site, building design, parking and any other issues that should be addressed in our formal submittal. We will then prepare a submittal for a public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting as soon as possible to address the feedback we get from the City. We believe that Pillsbury Commons fills a need in Richfield. It will give young people just starting their careers, working adults and young families the opportunity to live in Richfield in a modern, high quality development. It will provide the chance to get started in Richfield and gives them the opportunity to save equity to buy a home in Richfield in the future. We believe that this project is a positive addition to the City of Richfield and we look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with the City and the residents of Richfield to develop a plan that the community can be proud of and the residents can be proud to calf "Home". Sincerely, ~andform I i f Kendra t_indahl, AICP Principal COPY: Ron Clark, Ron Clark Construction & Design ENCL: Comparable Properties list dated January 30, 2012 Sfeven L. Devich February 9, 2012 i'.,1u1,1. ,\li~, i~•I S~1 ,lantlary 30, ~a 1 Vir. ,Tohn Stalk Cullllnunity l~evelopnzeut llireetol° City of IZicizEeld Ci700 {'c)1•tialui Ave South P~iclltielci, ?v1n. 554?3 Re: P}1lsburv ColYZnzon: Sts"t;je.ct: L;aialllpies c)f silYtilar projects in tli+i ril°ea is ~ is °t'1 ~e ,r Mr. Staeit: As r•~(}ues;ecl aEt ot!r,6aritiary'~~1~1lz tvorksiiol7,vitll iilw 1~'i±,- ~'o11Elcii, I'i;?slizic?`= L'olzr,ztissk712 ~i,zci t-I1~~~.. ,t,~: FC)11f3~1't::L d`:IStll:~ 171'(7}}el'ile;:'i i4i'e e;i11YY21;6)S OfprP-i}781'tlf5 f:}:Yt ~i'CI'C ?i'7a11i:~Ct \Vi${i i~?e; i all ~.(~Cllf ?"•llt~!;';,',' siluilar to n~ilat ~e~e all°c pl•ol3osulg for Pllisbtll'y C:o;:nlYions azxi al'e t,ii I00~io at%:rd~,L,le iloll,cc!~; cieVelo}):IlentS, 1.) >c>utlivieav estates, 890! ~,idl°ici~e Avc Scut12, Blc)or.;ilcgion, li,3n. a, ~'IIIS I71'O{~Ct i71'trSel)tSal b~111'y 311YY15ar 50tlln~ t0 at'l;~t 6;'L 31°(; 131'J;)OSI1?~ i'€t I'IIiS::.?i't' ~'ot~i;il2~'.,'' z° ki`ll've'.~~z)' ;iC%1'G1SS tl`'°, stl'L'C9l frol)Y `tiY~ i113'c;~1nlPlit bi?;lei; :~; .a $1[ + C ~`~':::{- ri i' k - - s5 "~,` it. 1% ild1~.,.IJC2Y'~lt)iii;~ :^~i:,' iih+ elttae:{leci i711()(e)5, '.) 1Va}3ie Village, 9320C.carzibar Lanz Nc)rtEl., ivSai7le ~iroe~e. V11t. il. !OTetYel' 131'(){OC.t SIlYYllal' to Pilisl7uly C.OIlI1110tY4 ivitli tlpeiateci all2Eli1tldS at12C} Itlrtllslllll~~, i11i tlll:l(~ incltuie ~vasllcrs alai dryers, See artacl?ed brochursr~ 3.j Hara[soli Apar:nients, 1>~D20 Founders, Apple Valey, lain. See: attached 1311o,os. (Haralsol2 is tine 51Ylallel° i7tlilclilzb in the fin•egrouiict ofplioto ~!~ ~S; ~~';). =i.} C~atervay Puce, 721 Lr:ke SYlsan Drive (H~r,y 21'~ ~C, i-Itivy l Of ) C}zaulzassen. ~~fn. See aattaeilred phe7tos. 5.) Crossiligs At Valley Vieev, 8735 T3oY-tiand Ave. Sc)utlz, 131oonzillgton, li/Ili. Tiz><° above are x113 or 4 story buiidiYlgs tv1t1 undertroului I7arking, similar to oul• pl'opasa}. I fc;tvevet• t1YC1'C al'e IYC) 2.l"ixiT1i31~.5 Of a lower' 1zcYglzT 2 STOP'\' apal't1YIe:]t S!}~;C bill ifiliYb a5 W2 ar'c' prUl;O~illb il'.ri itt(1;~ I'iilSbilr;',^<~Yt)S'; (s.°Ctl-t Cllr Sili~Tirr fFiiiYliy iYt'>ll?eS. 1'ieasz let Itze l,IZO~{~ if you would like ~rciciitiolzal etialrples of Tai. C;rzeiii properties or tiu711er clz.,i,ii<. ~LSI~a~tC1.7:, ~,~.~ -'1.r . t \~lieilaeeE~ a° Roel~ltck Vice Prtdide~lrt i~ ,' ( i i~ Vt4 a y w \l'\i'\\.IC, ~Ilt .i li ~<,, (1111 ~:~ ~rj ;> r~ ,:~ .Q i iU i' ~ :~ t C7 ~ ~~ ~ ~{ i 1 e 1 f ,i F f. , 1 << ~.. .~._... ..__~~t ~` <~ ` A .•~ ~~ ,4 e .~ , ~ ~~ ~~, ' ~~ ;e ~x -. ~ ~, '.`4,~ r,. • ~° .r~ it;}i ~ r,..~ ,~: 4. `~~ +: 1 S _ :. 1 i }'~ rI- Gttt /(i <%~ ; 1 •~ .~ .._ f p ~. pt' .ll ~1 ~' I LE.+ :~ crt" ~' !t I Q.. Q 1 e.'^t ~.i iip. ~ 4 z„ k.. 4': `~! `~ `~ 1 ., ~ ~~. ~~ I~ I I "`. i* j i ,: ~t ~, `~~~ i i t {{1{1 1 t j. i r 1~1 ~ntiail 1 ~ f, ~ ~~ i , ~'i i `~ r ~~ ~:, 1 i i i ~,~ one , ~~ ~ ~ ~,; .n s y t i I Q i~ r AL J CL" u n`_! rr, r ~~.,11 ~rQhG`~1 .. f1~f,°~9~ ~~L].~t 7V1~1~ r~/1Q2~J ~ i~~~~~ !-Lia.b, ~l'~i\i i `aid£]Ilh~bt ;GZCi ~Jyl"II/l ~ icl\ll~: u~ at + - C > ~~? S. cC U '°~° ~ i ~~' .gip ~1 7 C~ { : ~- t. Q' {~ +C3 f_t. ~ i . i CJ. ,;~` 7~ is ~~. •`. ~ j {-' i• - !C' it .Vr ~'~ ~ ~. i ~ C i c " ~` L. Cry U ~' ~~ j 'ti,1 C' C` ~ T1 ^. f ~~ -r i_: ~ ~i.: `, ~' ~~ r ;i ~]) F~* (; 1 Cy t~ ~. C._ ,. ti' ci 'C) ~,, i7 c. Lry ~~ C irr r•! 7 ~ ~ (> ~. ~ ~„ y) N C t_: Ct C4 . Lt. l!? V 'S d "' ~ a~ C ~ ~? "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ' ... tL'. i. G ~' ~* ~ n+ ~ .. c yy ., , r- v :J) U C : ~ ~ ~ nr lJ ;,: ` .. L .jC.. n: t ro f4 r~ a. c' r}' - c i > i- v v e _ ~_ .~ r~ to ~ ~ e` O '' Li 4ZS ~•. Ci.. Q~ tti _C f_: 2! ~ .C :J L ^` :. tai ~ ~t [1 ~' , n t ,~ f) <a L C-..' .'~> ~ ..> ~ t0 'r. .~ ~ ti tt fib fO fil , tql~ - n n' v "~{, ~~ . in ~~ v G (p ~ rf} (_l U ,n ny pc ^ na (, i t- ti f - ~,' 7` , prJ~ ; ; , ; N r > l •~~ ni iJ ~` ~, 1- (; s (l ~J I ` I 1 ~\\ o} ~ a r ~~3 L L r, s ~_ ,,~ 9"_ Ln5 Q ~ Q- ri ~v ,- ~ „~ ;~~ N vi U ~~ v ~~ ~ fU to N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~' ~ C p ~ U ~ ~ U u' a L) ~. fJ ~ vi C) + n y~) iG ~ a 'n c -- r - ~ . F Cy ec I ! ? o L cu -~ E_ C ~% C> G O n ~ 'o • ro ~, J ~`? [ . ri'. ~ ~ C. r ~ nl n, iii ~ ~ t•y ! ~S l~} ~ !U ~fJ 4C f j \D ti ~ ~c,~ e~ ~ r fl C5 ~~ ~ ~ t1i fr ~) V A , . -- ~ 0 N ~ D7 ~) ~ U i [O ~ I~~ ~. S:1-, ~N~~ r , i I i ~~ `'i _ ~ ' ~[. ' i `~ I f~ ~.~ ,k_..-_- -- e i. I _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1~ ., .~'~i~' ~'~ I - ~- 1. I I ~ s ~ .~- ~ i ~ ''-.7 •~~ .t: ;) m; 4;. •~ C: ~ ~-, < .~ ' U t`) rr. ~ [~~ CL x,; ~ } '*` aw. Y r (i, ~. z?. .J d ~, ~ ,~. ti '? t R' ~ ~i 1 L .._., ~.__ - j 1 i. Y .« ~~ J CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Meeting Advisory Board/Commission and Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioner Applicant Interview January 22, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Room. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 1 p.m. in the Babcock Conference ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Goetterl, Mayor; Pat Elliott, Sue Sandahl; Fred Wroge; and Tom Fitzhenry. INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS The City Council conducted an interview of the following applicants for appointment to City Advisory Boards and Commissions and Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioner: Terry Ahlstrom Ghislaine Ball Tomaz Majewski David Eldridge Betty Gustafson Terry Heinze Yazdaan Juma Marty Kirsch Kevin Klos Teresa Kruse Reed Bornholdt Jacquelyn Mihalik Arlan Nelson Steven Hurvitz Dave Delzer Ken Severson Pat Sorenson Pat Suglia Marc Sullivan Michele Thompson Gordon Vizecky Francie Fletcher Chris Olson Josh Root Tom Rublein Mary Barnes David Gepner Rick Jabs Donna Drummod Special Meeting Minutes -2- ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 5:45 p.m Date Approved: February 14, 2012 Cheryl Krumholz Executive Coordinator January22, 2012 Debbie Goettel Mayor Steven L. Devich City Manager CITY COUNCIL MINUTES _ ^ Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council/HRA/Planning Commission Worksession January 24, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Sue Sandahl; Fred Wroge; and Tom Present: Fitzhenry HRA Members Sue Sandahl, Chair; Doris Rubenstein; and Debbie Goettel Present: HRA Member Steven J. Quam Absent: Planning Members Rick Jabs, Chair; Gordon Vizecky; Josh Root (arrived 6:19 p.m.); Robert Hall; .Present. Maureen Scaglia; Daniel Kitzberger; and Tom Rublein Planning Member Dennis Schuller Absent: Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager/HRA Executive Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Melissa Poehlman, City Planner; Christine Costello; Community Development Coordinator; Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk. Item #I DISCUSSION REGARDING PILLSBURY COMMONS PROPOSAL Ron Clark, CEO of Ron Clark Construction and Design, introduced his key team members. Kendra Lindahl of Landform presented the project history of Pillsbury Commons. She also addressed concerns the neighborhood had regarding this project and showed detailed maps of how they made changes to the project to accommodate the neighborhood concerns. Council Member Wroge asked questions regarding an applicant's assets and how #hat may affect the qualifying for the apartments and who determines who gets chosen. Special Worksession Minutes -Z- January 24, 2012 Barb Halverson, President Steven Scott Management, explained that the property is income based and assets alone would not disqualify anyone, however, if they received interest income from assets, it could put an applicant over the income level. IVIs. Halverson also explained how they are chosen. However, they must meet the criteria of income, credit check and criminal check. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:00 p.m. Date Approved: February 14, 2012 Suzanne M. Sandahl Chair Nancy Gibbs Steven L. Devich City Clerk City Manager J CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting January 24, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:06 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;Jeff Pearson, Acting Public Works Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager; Brandon Klement, Ice Arena Manager; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk. OPEN FORUAA Ann Somers, 7527 Grand Avenue, spoke in opposition of Pillsbury Commons. Carol Holznagel, 7525 Wentworth Avenue, spoke in opposition to Pillsbury Commons. Holly Ann Hanson, 7609 Harriet Avenue, spoke in opposition to Pillsbury Commons. Tom Rublein, 2016 West 64th Street, addressed communicating with neighbors and temperament of communication. Ghislaine Ball, 7627 Harriet Avenue, has concerns regarding property value and sale price of Pillsbury Commons property. Camillo DeSantis, 6508 Newton Avenue, spoke in support of Pillsbury Commons. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Council Meeting Minutes -2- January 24, 2012 APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Sandahl, S/Wroge to approve the minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of January 10, 2012 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of January 10, 2012. Motion carried 5-0. Item #1 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS Council Member Fitzhenry reminded residents of the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon dinner at St. Richard's Church on February 12. Council Member Wroge stated the earlier worksession regarding the Pillsbury Commons project has been taped and would be replayed. Council Member Elliott stated the City Council needs another meeting with Ron Clark regarding Pillsbury Commons. Council Member Elliott stated there will be a landlords and tenants meeting on January 31 at 6 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room at the Municipal Center. Mayor Goettel stated that the City received a large grant through the Fire Department. City Manager Devich explained the City received just under $1 million to be used to tie together independent dispatching. Item #2 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Wroge, S/Fitzhenry to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Item #3 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing purchase of real property located at 6315-16th Avenue S.R. No. 21 RESOLUTION N0.10616 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6315 16th AVENUE This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10616. M/Sandahl, S/Goettel to approve the Consent Calendar. Council Meeting Minutes -3- January 24, 2012 Motion carried 3-2. (Wroge and Elliott opposed). Item #4 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None. Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH POLICE OFFICERS AND DETECTIVES LELS LOCAL 123 FOR CONTRACT PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2012 S.R. N0.22 Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 22. M/Fitzhenry, S/Goettel that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10617 RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS), LOCAL 123 BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEAR 2012 and 2013 Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10617. Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO FILING OF PAY EQUITY REPORT WITH MINNESOTA MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DEPARTMENT S.R. NO. 23 Council Member Elliott presented Staff Report No. 23. M/Elliott, S/Wroge that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10618 RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO FILING OF THE PAY EQUITY REPORT WITH THE MINNESOTA MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DEPARTMENT Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10618. Item #7 CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES WITH WHEEL FUN RENTALS, LLC FOR ADVENTURE GARDENS MIN GOLF S.R. NO. 24 Council Member Wroge presented Staff Report No. 24. Council Meeting Minutes -4- January 24, 2012 Recreation Facility Manager Klement introduced Rodney Knight, President of Wheel Fun Rentals, LLC. Mr. Knight provided a power point presentation of Adventure Gardens Mini- Golf and the proposed updates and changes. Motion carried 5-0. Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF DESIGNATING CITY COUNCIL LIAISON APPOINTMENTS FOR 2012 TO VARIOUS METROPOLITAN AGENCIES AND CITY COMMISSION S.R. NO. 25 Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 25. M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to designate the Council liaison appointments to various metropolitan agencies and city advisory commissions for 2012. Motion carried 5-0. Item #9 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY COMMISSIONS S.R. NO. 26 Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 26. M/Sandahl, S/Goettel to make the following appointments: ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH Name Term Expires Patrick Suglia January 31, 2015 Yazdaan Juma January 31, 2015 Chris Olson January 31, 2015 Betty Gustafson January 31, 2015 ARTS COMMISSION Name Term Expires Kevin Klos January 31, 2015 Jacqueline Mihalik January 31, 2015 Tomasz Majewski January 31, 2015 CIVIL SERVICE Name Term Expires Francie Fletcher January 31, 2015 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION Name Term Expires Michele Thompson January 31, 2015 Reed Bornholdt January 31, 2015 Arlan Nelson January 31, 2015 Council Meeting Minutes -5- Terry Heinze January 31, 2015 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Name Term Expires David Edlridge January 31, 2015 Teresa Kruse January 31, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION Name Gordon Vizecky Tom Rublein Josh Root Term Expires January 31, 2015 January 31, 2015 January 31, 2015 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Name Ghislaine Ball Ken Severson Marty Kirsch Steve Hurvitz Pat Sorensen Terry Ahlstrom Term Expires January 31, 2015 January 31, 2015 January 31, 2015 January 31, 2014 January 31, 2014 January 31, 2013 FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION Name - Term Expires David Delzer January 31, 2015 Motion carried 5-0. January 24, 2012 Item #10 CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL ATTENDANCE AT 2012 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCES S.R. NO. 27 Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 27. M/Sandahl, S/V1/roge to designate Mayor Debbie Goettel to attend the March 2012 National League of Cities Congressional Conference. Motion carried 5-0. The City Council consensus was to make a designation to attend the November 2012 National League of Cities Congress of Cities Conference at a future City Council meeting. Item #11 CONSIDERATION OF DESIGNATING MAYOR PRO TEMPORE FOR 2012 S.R. N0.28 Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 28. Council Meeting Minutes -6- January 24, 2012 M/Goettel S/Fitzhenry to designate Council Member Tom Fitzhenrv as Mayor Pro Tempore for 2012. Motion carried 5-0. Item #12 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No report. Item #13 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Sandahl, S/Wroge that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 1/24/12 A/P Checks: 209975-210265 $ 1,603,313.20 Payroll: $1109-81422, 41875 $ 618,680.51 TOTAL $ 2,221,993.71 Motion carried 5-0. OPEN FORUM None. ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:08 p.m. Date Approved: February 14, 2012 Nancy Gibbs City Clerk Debbie Goettel Mayor Steven L. Devich City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager February 9, 2012 Council Memorandum No. 21 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Mn/DOT I-494 Noise Wall Process (Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members: A short presentation regarding the upcoming 1-494 improvement projects will occur at the February 14 Regular City Council meeting. Included with the projects, a noise wall is proposed on the north side of the Interstate along the frontage road between Xerxes Avenue and Thomas Avenue. Staff will explain the Mn/DOT noise wall policy and neighborhood voting process. On January 31, 2012, Mn/DOT staff held an open house for residents in the adjoining neighborhood. Representatives presented a brief overview of all of the projects but focused on the proposed noise wall, the Mn/DOT wall installation policy, and the voting proces,5.~ which the neighborhood can reject the wall installation. submitted, .-~ wic SLD:cak E-mail: Department Directors Assistant City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager February 9, 2012 Council Memorandum No. 22 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Award Presentation (Agenda Item No. 2) Council Members: On February 2, 2012, the Freshwater Society presented Richfield Public Works Department with an Environmental Leadership Award. The award was presented at the 11t Annual Road Salt Symposium. The Richfield Public Works Department received the award because of the reduction of salt applied to the roadways during the 2010- 2011 snow season. Staff was able to reduce the amount of salt applied by 50% during one of the snowiest seasons on record. A short presentation will occur at the February 14 Regular City Council meeting. ~ ull submitted, evich Manager SLD:cak E-mail: Department Directors Assistant City Manager AGENDA SECTION: S'.nNSF.NT AGENDA ITEM # ~..q REPORT # 2 S STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: JESSE SWENSON HR COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading consideration of amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.33, subd. 8 describin vacation leave. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.33, Subdivision 8, describing vacation leave sell-back and schedule the second reading for February 28, 2012. III. BACKGROUND I In 2012, two of the four unions (Police Officers and Local 49) who receive vacation leave sell-back hours negotiated for an additional eight hours of annual leave to sell back each year. The sell-back total increased from 40 to 48 hours per year, although the vacation leave accrual cap of 248 hours remains. Because of the City's historical practice to provide non-represented employees with substantially the same benefits as union employees, a recommendation is being made to amend the current City Administrative Code, Chapter III, Subsection 310.33, Vacation Leave, as follows: Subd. 8, Sell-back of vacation. Effective B January 1, 2012, employees may sell-back up to 4$ 48 hours of vacation time each year if they have an accumulated bank of vacation leave in excess of 64 hours. Employees eligible to sell-back vacation authorized under this subdivision, may do so only once per calendar year between February 15 and November 15. 0214 Vacation Leave This change would affect employees included in the General Services and Management Pay Plans who are not represented by a Union. The amendment is requested so that the City of Richfield's benefit package remains competitive with those of other Stanton V cities and to balance the benefits of the City's non-union employees with those represented by collective bargaining agreements. III. BASIS OF RECONIMENDATION A. POLICY The proposed modification to Subsection 310.33, Vacation Leave, aids in balancing some of the benefits offered to non-union City employees. In practice, those benefits offered to Union employees should not exceed the benefits offered to employees not represented by unions. Of additional consideration is the fact that the majority of employees represented by collective bargaining agreements are males while non-union employees are primarily female. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • In order to meet publishing requirements for the second reading of an ordinance amendment, it is recommended that the second reading be scheduled for February 28, 2012. C. FINANCIAL • By amending Section 310.33, Management and General Services employees would receive an additional eight hours of vacation leave sell back hours per year. D. LEGAL • In order to provide the requested vacation leave accrual rate increase, the City Council must approve an amendment to the City's personnel ordinance. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMIVIENDATION(S~ • Do not amend the ordinance. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACFIMENTS • City Administrative Code change. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. J~ ' BILL NO. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 310.33 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 310.33, Subdivision 8 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Vacation leave" is hereby amended: Subd. 8, Sell-back of vacation. Effective 6 January 1, 2012, employees may sell-back up to 40 48 hours of vacation time each year if they have an accumulated bank of vacation leave in excess of 64 hours. Employees eligible to sell-back vacation authorized under this subdivision, may do so only once per calendar year between February 15 and November 15. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of February, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 5 $ REPORT # 2 9 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the Special Revenue Fund. ~~ I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ~~ By Motion: Approve first reading of the transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements and schedule public hearing and second reading for March 13, 2012. III. BACKGROUND ~ • At the December 13, 2011 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized $450,000 of Special Revenue Funds for improvements to several City capital improvements in 2012. • Included in the $450,000 are: • $103,800 for Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repayment • $100,000 for Major Park Maintenance Projects • $92,600 Lincoln Field Internal Loan Repayment • $45,000 Community Center Lower Level A/C • $33,600 Taft Athletic Facility Improvements • $75,000 Roosevelt Park Play Equipment • In addition, the 2012 Capital Improvement Budget also provides for expenditures for all types of funds contained in the budget including municipal state aid, user fees, federal grants and state grants. • Authorization by ordinance is not required for expenditures other than Special Revenues. 0214TransitoryOrdinance CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 2 requires that Special Revenue Funds used for capital improvements must be authorized by ordinance. • This process provides for public input through a public hearing. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication of the second hearing notice. The ordinance requirements must be completed early enough in 2012 so that the capital projects can be initiated on a timely basis, completed and the funds expended. In order for the timely start of the projects under consideration in the Capital Improvement Budget, it is suggested that the first reading of the transitory ordinance take place on February 14, 2012 and a public hearing and second reading be completed at the March 13, 2012 City Council meeting. C. FINANCIAL • While the total 2012 Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) includes total budgeted expenditures of $8,346,000 the portion of CIB concerning proposed funding from the Special Revenue fund is $ 450,000. Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repayment 103,800 Major Park Maintenance Projects 100,000 Lincoln Field Internal Loan Repayment 92,600 Community Center Lower Level A/C 45,000 Taft Athletic Facility Improvements 33,600 Roosevelt Park Play Equipment 75,000 • A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize these appropriations pursuant to City Charter. • The source of Special Revenue funds is municipal liquor profits. D. LEGAL • The City Charter requires that a transitory ordinance be used to authorize the expenditure of Special Revenue funds. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS N/A. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could postpone the first reading of the transitory ordinance to a future City Council meeting. • The City Council could decide to authorize none or only a portion of the expenditures identified from special revenue in the CIB. V. ATTAC~IMENTS • Proposed ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. ~~-1 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repayment $ 103,800 Major Park Maintenance Projects $ 100,000 Lincoln Field Internal Loan Repayment $ 92,600 Community Center Lower Level A/C $ 45,000 Taft Athletic Facility Improvements $ 33,600 Roosevelt Park Play Equipment $ 75,000 Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by Council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of March, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 5 C REPORT # ~ n J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: MARK HALL, FLEET AND PARK MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the purchase of four squad cars. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve purchase orders to Nelson Auto Center in-the sum of $50,691.22 plus tax, and to Ranger GM in the sum of $52,738.70 plus tax for four new squad cars. II. BACKGROUND Four Public Safety Department squad cars are scheduled to be replaced in 2012. Certain criteria have been established when purchasing new vehicles for the Public Safety Department as described below: Replacement Schedule These squads are replaced on a three-year rotation, with a current average mileage of 58,000 miles. The projected average mileage for the August replacement will be 72,000 miles. The mileage, however, is not a true indication of the number of-hours on the engine, because of excessive idle time that occurs. The four new squads will be used for emergency response vehicles, with the old squad cars being rotated into administrative vehicles for the City's inspection, engineering, and forestry divisions.. The old administrative vehicles will then be sold at the Hennepin County auction. 02142012squads Purchasing Policy These units are fully depreciated and will be replaced with two Ford Taurus and two Chevrolet Caprice Interceptors. Purchase of the new vehicles has been coordinated through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield participates in the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Program. • Nelson Auto Center has the State contract on the Ford patrol cars. • Ranger GM has the State contract on Chevrolet patrol cars. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Approval at the February 14, 2012 Council Meeting will facilitate delivery of the new squad cars. C. FINANCIAL • $175,000 for the purchase of these vehicles is in the Central Garage 2011 Budget (61000-7500). • One squad car due for replacement will be in service for one more year due to low mileage, and the budget will be revised accordingly in 2012. Upon delivery of the vehicles, charges for transfer of police equipment such as radios and logo applications will be deducted from the remaining funds budgeted for this purchase. D. LEGAL • When the purchase. of materials, merchandise, equipment, or construction exceeds $50,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may delay approval to a later meeting. Delayed approval, however, will result in delayed delivery. • No action by Council on this purchase will eventually compromise safety for police officers driving old squad cars. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # S D REPORT # 31 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: KRISTIN ASxER, CITY ENGINEER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: SIGNATURE r ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a work proposal from WSB & Associates, Inc. for the development of 30% Plans for the Taft Lake Regional Water Quality Improvement Project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the hiring of WSB & Associates, Inc. to provide 30% plans for the Taft Lake Regional Water Quality Improvement Project in order to facilitate permit approvals from various state agencies and assist in the development of a cooperative agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District at a cost not to exceed $89,000. II. BACKGROUND Consistent with City Council direction and the City's Comprehensive Plan, staff is working towards the completion of Taft Lake Regional Water Quality Improvement Project which includes the construction of the Richfield Parkway North Connection. Since 2009, staff has been coordinating with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) towards the development of the Taft Lake Regional Stormwater Improvement Project. It is anticipated that in the spring of 2012 the MCWD and City will enter into a cooperation agreement supporting the completion of the project. Required Permits, Technical ,Memorandum & Work Proposal 02142012WSBtAft In order to complete the project, permits are required from multiple state agencies, including the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Corps of Engineers, and Metropolitan Council's Environmental Services. The City will need to provide a technical memorandum that demonstrates a sufficient level of confidence that the project can be constructed in order to obtain the permits. To keep the project on a 2013 construction schedule, staff would like authorization to hire WSB & Associates to facilitate the permit process and complete the following tasks: ^ Collect necessary site data; including surveys and geotechnical information ^ Conduct design meetings as needed • Complete required reports, technical memorandums and permit applications for agency review ^ Assist in the development of the cooperation agreement Once a cooperation agreement is executed, the City Council will. consider a work plan for the completion of Final Design and Construction Engineering. Current Schedule 2012 2013 City Council and MCWD execute Cooperative Agreement ROW acquisition and relocation of 3 properties at 63~d Street and Bloomington Ave. Final Design of Richfield Parkway North Connection & Taft/Legion Stormwater Improvements Construction of Richfield Parkway North Connection Removal of portions of the Taft Lake Frontage Road Completion of the stormwater improvement project III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. hOLICY • The Taft Lake Regional Stormwater Improvement Project is identified in the City's Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan. • The replacement of Cedar Avenue with Richfield Parkway is identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan (Transportation). B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • All permits, final plans, and agreements need to be approved by the end of 2012 to allow for 2013 construction. C. FINANCIAL • The total estimated cost for the proposed work is $88,553. • The project design costs are included in the project's capital cost estimate of $2,700,000-that will be funded by the MCWD via City General Obligation Bond. • In the event the project does not move forward, the .proposed work would be funded through the Storm Sewer Utility.. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERA'T'IONS • The Taft Lake Regional Stormwater Improvement Project includes various elements to improve the stormwater quality of Legion Lake and Taft Lake along with- habitat enhancement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council may choose not to approve the work proposal at this time. V. ATTACHMENTS • January 12, 2012 Scope of Work provided by WSB & Associates, Inc. • Project Graphic VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. ~~~ ~ Engineering ^ Planning ^ Environmental ^ Construction & Associates, Inc. Memorandum To: Mike Eastling City of Richfield From: Pete Willenbring, PE WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: June 16, 2011 Re: Legion Lake./Taft Lake Water Quality Improvements Scope of Work to Provide 30% Plans WSB Project No. 1532-47 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 y~,~ This memorandum outlines a work plan to provide 30% plans for review of the Legion Lake / Taft Lake Water Quality Improvement Project. The project will involve the elements shown on the Project Detail Map (Figure 2) from the Feasibility Report dated May 2010, prepared by WSB & Associates, Inc. The tasks listed below are necessary to complete this review as outlined in Section 2.1 of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) agreement. Task 1: Collect Survey Data Cost: $7,700 This task involves gathering vertical and horizontal survey information for Taft Lake and Legion Lake and the surrounding areas in order to prepare base maps needed to design the Water Quality Improvements. This includes, but may not be limited to the following: • Scheduling a design meet, in coordination with Gopher State One Call (GSOC,) for purposes of marking utilities within the project limits • ..Obtaining record drawings for all utilities within the project area, cataloging responses, and follow-up as necessary • Obtaining field survey to horizontally locate utilities within the project limits • Coordinating potholing of 20-inch gas main (done at 100-foot intervals with the City's Vactor truck) along the east edge of Old Cedar Avenue, for purposes of determining the top of the main • Coordinating potholing of fiber optic line (done at 100-foot intervals with the City's Vactor truck) along the east edge of Old Cedar Avenue, for purposes of determining the top of the cables • Gathering field survey information for elevation and location of: o Pothole locations o Other private utilities within the project area o Wetland boundaries Minneapolis ^ St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer K:\OI532-47U0 peaent Work Plan,doc Mike Eastling June 16, 2011 Page 2 o Existing centerline and edge of road for Old Cedar Avenue o Existing centerline, edge of road, top of curb and other features within the right- of-way for 63rd Street between Bloomington Avenue and 17th Avenue, extended o Existing centerline, edge of road, top of curb and other features within the right- of-way for 63rd Street between Bloomington Avenue and 17th Avenue, extended o Existing edge of pavement for trails and parking lots within City right-of--way (does not include flat trails within parks) o Mn/DOT right-of--way markers adjacent to TH 77 and TH 62 o Property boundaries adjacent to City streets o Edge of tree lines o Outfalls of existing storm sewers In addition to the field survey, additional topography information will be gathered from aerial photos, including locations of: o Parking lots. o Grassed sport fields and associated gravel surfaces o Paved sport courts o Fences o Trails o Light poles o Buildings o Play areas o Hockey boards o Individual trees o Flag poles o Permanent signs Deliverables: At the completion of this task, a utility library containing copies of all record drawings obtained in response to the Gopher State One Call request and an electronic version of the base map created of the project area will be provided to the City and MCWD. The utility drawings will be in either paper or electronic format, depending on how they are received from the respective owners. The electronic base map will be in a format compatible with AutoCAD 2010 Civil 3D. Task 2: Monitor Legion Lake and Taft Lake Water Quality Cost: $22,100 SD ~ This task involves continuing to monitor of Legion Lake and Taft Lake water quality during 2011. A copy of the detailed work plan for this monitoring, as submitted to the City in April, is attached. Note that this work plan covers monitoring for several basins throughout the City. The portions allocated to monitoring Legion Lake and Taft Lake are identified on the attached spreadsheet providing detailed breakdown of each subtask. WSB will collect water quality samples and water quality data monthly from Legion Lake and Taft Lake and share this monitoring data with the MCWD. This task will include collecting subsurface and hypolimnion samples and analyzing the data for the following: • Total Phosphorus • Ortho Phosphorus K:\01532-0T30 percent Work Plan.doc Mike Eastling June 16, 2011 Page 3 • Total Suspended Solids • Chlorides Additional work will be done at Taft Lake including installing a weir and continuous stage recorder at the outlet to measure discharge rates and increased monitoring, including the following tasks: • Samples will be collected from two separate locations at two separate depths • Monitoring data will be analyzed to develop Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Profiles, Water Clarity Depths, and pollutant concentrations. Samples will be taken at regular intervals and at varying depths to provide an understanding of the current, baseline water quality. The costs identified here represent monitoring costs for this year only. Additional monitoring costs are anticipated in subsequent years. ~ D ~~ Deliverables: At the completion of this task, a report will be delivered to the City and MCWD as outlined in Task 8 of the separate monitoring work plan. Task 3: Hold Design Meetings with Stakeholders Cost: $9,800 Throughout this process, WSB will schedule and conduct meetings with City and MCWD representatives to determine the requirements of the project, review available data, attend necessary conferences, and be available for general consultation.. We anticipate that this will involve up to eight meetings with the involved partners and regulatory agencies as outlined below. Each meeting will involve four hours of preparation, four hours of meeting time, one hour to record minutes, and two hour to prepare minutes and distribute minutes to attendees. Plan preparation and revisions are included separately in Task 4. • Project kickoff meeting - as part of this meeting, we will present the project approach, along with concept sketches, to Staff from both the City and the MCWD so that all stakeholders are familiar with the plan. This will identify additional concerns and possible conflicts that various departments may have. Items discussed include: o Overall scope of work o Overall concept of project, including anticipated operation after completion of project o Project goals o Proposed project limits o Proposed impacts to parks o Proposed mitigation for impacts to parks o Anticipated wetland /public waters impacts (if any) o Proposed project features, including approximate locations of structures o Presentation of photos of similar structures from previous projects o Proposed project removals o Project schedule o Identification of the key decision makers from each stakeholder Design coordination meetings - we anticipate holding two of these meetings with the key decision makers from the City and the MCWD. One meeting will be held before K:\01532-47U0 percent Work Plan.doc Mike Eastling ~ ~ ~ a June 16, 2011 Page 4 presenting the concept-level plans to each governing group in awork-session environment and the second meeting will be held prior to formally presenting the proposed 30% plans to the same audiences for approval. During these meetings, we will discuss: o Brief summary of items discussed at previous meetings o Project features identified to that point o Explain decisions made to that point o Provide background technical data: ^ In-lake alum treatment design considerations that will address: • Anticipated alum application rates. • Planned reductions in internal phosphorus load. • Planned reductions in In-lake phosphorus concentrations. • Management of PH fluctuations during treatment. • Estimated cost. • Anticipated frequency for reapplication. • Public use limitations during treatment. • Project schedule. • Other issues as needed. Hypolimnetic withdrawal and flocculation treatment system considerations that will address: • Flocculation reagent and/or polymers to be used. • Anticipated annual phosphorus removal capability. • Anticipated quality of treated water. • Management of PH fluctuations during treatment. • Construction cost considerations. • Seasonal operational considerations. • Project schedule. • Project costs. • Recommended pumping rates. • Anticipated dosage requirements. • Reagent storage tank sizing. • Facility layout. • Odor control. • Other issues as identified. ^ Earthwork calculations ^ Pavement design o Updated cost estimate o Answer questions o Present upcoming design activities, including anticipated issues with other permitting agencies • Presentation of concept-level plans to City Council and Board of Managers Work Sessions -these meetings will serve to familiarize each governing group with the work done to this point. We anticipate that separate meetings will be needed for each governing group, but some cost savings could be realized if this meeting was held jointly. The items presented will include: K:\01532-07U0 percent Work Plan.doc Mike Eastling June 16, 2011 Page 5 o Overall scope of work o Overall concept of proj ect, including anticipated operation after completion of project o Project goals o Proposed project limits o Anticipated wetland /public waters impacts (if any) o Proposed project features, including approximate locations of structures o Presentation of photos of similar structures from previous projects o Proposed project removals o Project schedule o Input received from Staff during the design coordination meetings o How that input was addressed or incorporated into the plans o Overview of background technical data o Updated cost estimate o Answer questions Sp~S o Present upcoming design activities, including anticipated issues with other permitting agencies Presentation of revised concept-level plans to other permitting authorities -after incorporating changes to address comments received during the City Council and Board of Managers Work Sessions, we will present the plans to the Corps of Engineers, DNR and Metropolitan Commission Environmental Services (MCES) to identify any additional concerns that need to be addressed. The items presented at this meeting will include all the items presented at the Work Sessions. Presentation of 30% plans to City Council and Board of Managers for approval -these meetings will serve to formalize the work done to this point. We anticipate that separate meetings will be needed for each governing group. The items presented will include: o Brief summary of items discussed at previous meetings o Brief summary of items discussed at meetings with other regulatory agencies o Changes made to the plans since they were previously presented to each governing group o Updated cost estimate o Answer questions o Draft resolution approving the 30% plans and ordering development of final plans, specifications, and estimate Deliverables: As part of this task, WSB will provide presentation graphics for all meetings and agendas for the kick-off meeting and design coordination meetings. In addition, minutes of the kick-off meeting and design coordination meetings will be distributed to each participant and other key decision makers. Task 4: Geotechnical Investigation Cost: $8,900 This task will involve coordinating with a Geotechnical Engineer to complete site work to provide recommendations related to underlying soils within the project area, including: K:\01532-0T30 percent Work PLui.doc Mike Eastling ~ ~'~ June 16, 2011 Page 6 • Obtaining double-ring infiltrometer tests to predict representative infiltration rates for drain the to be installed in the park. The application of these tests, including the factor of safety to be used for design purposes, will follow the procedure outlined in Chapter 12-8 of the Minnesota Storm Water Manual. The recommended locations for the tests are as follows: o Four tests in Taft Park ($2,000) o Four tests in the north portion of Legion Park ($2,000) o Two tests in the south portion of Legion Park ($1,000) • Obtaining 12-foot deep soil borings to verify that the underlying soils are strong enough to support the weight of the proposed facilities, such as pumping stations and water quality treatment facilities. This should also give us an indication of the depth of the ground water table. The recommended location for the borings are as follows: o Location ofirrigation /infiltration pumping station in Taft Park ($1,200) o Location of irrigation /infiltration pumping station in Legion Park ($1,200) o Location of storm water treatment facility at perimeter pond locations ($1,200) Deliverables: At the end of this task, the Geotechnical Engineer will provide a report outlining the boring and test results, anticipated infiltration rates for the various sites, and foundation recommendations for the pumping stations and water quality treatment system. Task 5: Develop 30% Plans and Site Layout Cost: $30,700 On the basis of the accepted concept designs, we will prepare 30% drawings to show and describe the scope, extent, and character of the work to be furnished and performed by Contractor. The 30% plans will. include: • Title sheet -this sheet provides the user with general information such as: o Project title o Location of the project o Governing specifications o Sheet index o City project number o MCWD project. number o Legend of symbols used throughout the plan set o GSOC statement describing the level of detail for underground utility information • General Layout sheet -this sheet shows the general layout of the project and serves as a key for users to locate various plan sheets for any specific location within the project limits • Typical sections -these sheets show the typical sections for: o Proposed roads o Proposed trails o Proposed ponds • Traffic control plans -these sheets show the location of traffic control signing • Removal plans -these plan sheets will show the overall removal limits and specific items to be removed or salvaged. These items include, but are not limited to: o Pavements K:\01532-4'NO percent Work Plan.doc ~~1~ Mike Eastling June 16, 2011 Page 7 o Sidewalks o Driveways o Curb & gutter o Retaining walls o Pipes o Signs o Mailboxes o Fences o Benches o Trees o Shrubs o Telephone poles • Construction plan sheets -these sheets show the work to be done overlaid on the base maps developed under Task 1. Items shown on these plans include: o Existing topography (see Task 1 for details) o Existing contours o Existing storm sewer outfalls to Taft Lake and Legion Lake o Existing public utility locations o Existing private utility locations o Location of diversion structures o Layout of pumping stations o Layout of piping systems o Layout of chemical feed system o Layout of irrigation system o Proposed contours for pond grading • Erosion control and turf establishment plan sheets -these sheets show the work to be done to minimize disturbance of wetlands and water bodies, overlaid on the construction plans. Items shown on these plans include: o ~ Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) o Construction limits o Location of proposed temporary erosion control measures: ^ Silt fence ^ Floating silt curtain ^ Inlet protection devices ^ Rock construction entrances ^ Concrete washout areas ^ Temporary seeding o Location of proposed permanent erosion control measures: ^ Reinforced turf ^ Enhanced sedimentation traps ^ Riprap ^ Buffer locations ^ Turf establishment plan • Storm sewer plan and profile sheets -these sheets show the proposed piping layouts with specific profiles and pipe sizes • Grading plan sheets -these sheets show the proposed grading for the pre-treatment cells and flocculation treatment area K:\01532-47\30 percent Work Pian.doc Mike Eastling ~ ~J ~~ June 16, 2011 Page 8 Deliverables: At the end of this task, WSB will provide a plan set representing 30% design, including the items listed above. Task 6: Wetland Delineation and Permit Applications Cost: $6,800 The project involves modification to several pipe outfalls that discharge to waters of the state. If work is proposed below the Ordinary High Water level, a permit from the DNR will be required. Additionally, a permit from the Corps of Engineers and the MCWD will be required. Wetland delineations will be done to identify types and limits of wetlands so that impacts from the proposed work can be avoided, where possible. Once the design is further developed, we will assist in filing applications for routine permits or obtaining approvals of such governmental authorities as have jurisdiction to approve the design of the project, and assist the City in consultations with appropriate authorities. WSB will prepare and submit all permit applications to the appropriate agencies and provide technical criteria, written descriptions and design data as background information. The MCES will require a separate permit application requesting permission to pump effluent water from the storm water treatment facility to dispose of floc created during the treatment process. Deliverables: At the end of this task, WSB will provide an approved wetland delineation report, mitigation plan (if necessary) and a joint permit application to the MCWD, DNR, and Corps of Engineers. A separate permit application will be submitted to MCES. Task 7: Assist with Cooperative Agreements Cost: $12,000 This work involves cooperating with MCWD and Richfield staff, engineering consultants and legal counsel to develop the terms of a proposed Project agreement. The agreement will: • Establish legally binding roles and responsibilities for the final design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Project • Specify each party's roles and responsibilities with respect to construction, funding and financing. • Contain specific terms regarding the following Project elements: o Operation of Project elements, including but not limited to pumping and flow diversion; irrigation; infiltration; flocculation (including chemical and floc management); and discharge from the Project. o Native vegetation establishment and maintenance. o Maintenance of Project elements, including but not limited to pumps, conveyances and channels; proprietary and non-proprietary infiltration, sediment capture, and other storm water management devices; and floc handling equipment. o Monitoring to document and assess system flows and performance. K:\01532-0T30 percent Work Plan.doc Mike Eastling 4, ~ June 16, 2011 ~~ Page 9 o Procedures and actions that will be taken if the Project is not performing or to improve Project performance. o Public communication and education regarding the Project. • Identify the amount of "credit" Richfield will receive to meet regulatory requirements of the MCWD and/or other regulatory agencies for future development and redevelopment within the drainage area to the Project. • Assess to what extent other units of government that might benefit from the Project, including the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the City of Minneapolis. • If deemed beneficial, define responsibilities for o assessing what cooperation from other entities is needed or desirable for the Project to proceed o approaching other entities as appropriate to explore their cooperation or participation in the Project • Develop and negotiate terms to measure water quality improvements and pollutant discharge reductions resulting from the Project and to allocate those benefits between themselves for the purpose of meeting the requirements for municipal permits and nondegradation requirements under. the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program; the Total Maximum Daily Load program; and the metropolitan water management program under Minnesota Statutes §§ 103B.231 and 103B.235. Deliverables: Deliverables for this task include correspondence with various stakeholders, as necessary to discuss the items outlined above. Task 8: Provide Tech Memo Outlining Design Approach Cost: $5,600 As part of this task, we will prepare a technical memo that provides a sufficient level of confidence that the Project can be constructed; that any land and right-of--way rights can be timely acquired; that road abandonments, land use adjustments, and regulatory and similar approvals can be timely accomplished; that estimates for construction schedule and cost are sufficiently reliable; and that the Project is able to meet agreed performance criteria. Deliverables: At the end of this task, WSB will provide a technical memorandum outlining the design features as shown on the plan set representing 30% design, as well as the major design decisions made to date, a revised cost estimate, and a description of tasks that need to be completed to bring the plans to final completion. The estimate total cost to provide 30% plans as outlined above is $103,700. K:\OI532-07130 percent Work Plan.doc ~! .c4 .- q _ ~ ~/,,~ } ~_. •¢°~ ~~ eAr-~,i~'' s ~ ~ i~`~S 7y'tiy-~j~yy}~. r'yyt 7a. f i i '^1X4 'Gl A 3 •~ '"~ ~ .: ,~y "~ ~' 1 t! *1~~ I ~ i,~'31'?w" `vCt~ ~~ ~ ~ M:3~ ifi~~...~ +.A~al.,.'_ ^~fA~ALd'~at ~'.+~~' ~~ T i~~'t-+r~,~1 ~1~y ')~, L ~' ? AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # E REPORT # ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME, T/TLE S/GNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving the request for a subdivision waiver which would allow division of 6812 14th Avenue into two sin le-famil lots. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution granting a subdivision waiver for 6812 14th Avenue. II. BACKGROUND The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is seeking approval of a subdivision waiver to split a 100-foot wide lot into two 50-foot wide lots. The existing structures (home and garage) would be removed and the two vacant lots made available for sale through the Richfield Rediscovered Program for the construction of two new homes. The proposed lots will meet minimum width and depth requirements; however, the total area of each parcel will be 43 square feet short of the minimum lot area requirement of 6,700 square feet. City Code allows the Council to vary or modify such requirements to allow development in a reasonable manner when the land in question "is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of the requirements" would result in hardship or injustice. There is no clear pattern of lot subdivision in this area (see attached map). Lots vary from 50 feet wide to roughly 85 feet wide. While depth is consistent on this side of the block, the adjacent park creates some extremely deep lots and some odd-shaped 021412 - 6812 14th Ave Subd. Waiver corner lots on the east side of the block. The proposed subdivision will not be out of character with the existing neighborhood and will allow for the removal of an unusually small house (840 sf) and replacement with two larger homes. Staff does not believe that the proposal would harm the "public welfare" or "interests of the surrounding area" and the "general intent and spirit of [City regulations] is preserved." III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Subsection 500.05, Subd. 2 - In cases in which compliance with the City's platting requirements result in unnecessary hardship and when failure to comply with said requirements does not interfere with the purpose and intent of the regulations, the Council may adopt a resolution authorizing a waiver from the subdivision requirements. Subsection 500.21 - Whenever a tract is to be subdivided or platted is of such unusual size or shape, or is surrounded by such development or unusual conditions that the strict application of the requirements contained in this section would result in a substantial hardship or injustice, the council may vary or modify such requirements so that the subdivider is allowed to develop his property in a reasonable manner, but in such a manner that the public welfare and interests of the City and surrounding area are protected and the general intent and spirit of this section is preserved. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • If approved, the HRA will complete acquisition of the property by the end of February. The new parcels will be appraised and offered for sale during 2012. C. FINANCIAL • The required processing fee has been paid. D. LEGAL • Although not legally required, notice of this request has been sent to properties within 350 feet of the property. City staff has not received any comments related to this request. • 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock `started' when a complete application was received on January 20, 2012. A decision must be given by March 20, 2092 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days in total) for issuing a decision. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ Deny the request if a finding of fact determines that the proposal does not meet requirements. V. ATTACHMENTS . Resolution . Survey (includes available buildable area of new lots) • Surrounding zoning and land use maps VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Community Development Staff RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER FOR 6812 14TH AVENUE WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of land located at 6812 14th Avenue, legally described as: Parcel One: The East 1/2 of Block 6, except the North 126 feet thereof and except the South 320.3 thereof, RICH FIELDS, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to divide the above-described Parcel A into two parcels, legally described as: Parcel A: The South 50 feet of the North 176 feet of the East 1/2 of Block 6, RICH FIELDS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel B: The East 1/2 of Block 6, except the North 176 feet thereof and except the South 320.3 feet thereof, RICH FIELDS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the subdivision waiver; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that compliance with the City Code Section 500.05, Subdivision 1 would result in substantial hardship and that failure to comply therewith will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section 500.01. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the parcel of land to be subdivided is surrounded by such development and unusual conditions as to make compliance with minimum lot area requirements a substantial hardship and that failure to comply with minimum lot area requirements will not injure the public welfare and that the interests of the city and surrounding area are protected and the general intent and spirit of minimum lot area requirements is preserved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A waiver for the subdivision of the Subject Property legally described above is hereby granted; 2. This waiver is subject to the following condition: • That following the approval of the necessary demolition permits, the existing home and garage located at 6812 14th Avenue are removed. 3. Once demolition is completed, City staff is authorized and directed to take any action necessary to effectuate this Resolution and to authorize the recording of conveyances complying with the terms of this Resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of February, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 021412 - 6812 14th Ave Subd. Waiver °rn° Z z ~ m m ~ ~~n m ~~ m O~ m ~v~C z°~r ~ m z c~ Oo ~~m iv rnN cn yc Tld m D oo < rn ° W ~ 0 ~ , -o ~ ~ O N ~~~~rrlI ~~ r~ ~~~D D Cn DDD N= rnD r D=Z D ap in ~~~ ~+ - rn ~ cn Z z m - ~ p =~ c ~ ~ ~ w Q N W O ~ r- Q ~ ~ z N ooDCn pCp ~rn ~ -P< C ~ ornp I ~ On (70 N fT1 crlC to N m ~ rn Q, ~' -i ~ m ~ m ~ ~~~ . -° or'' O~ N O iO~ ~~ m ~~ ~ ~ z -1 -~ m off --~ off off - ~ ~ _-. n O z n '{1 m N c D m i n o\ D ~ z = ~ v z =~ n r m r z m pNJ=D * rn'Tt=D m NN= ~7ZOrnr*i ~ornr in z-i n = m z• ' ~ ~~rn~~ TlOr ~r - Uo-Imc i~ rn~~~ Z 2D QDrn~--I g .• ~ D n . m= =\ z m=~N o~cn c O I TI \ ~ ~~N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~rnrn o rnO~ ~ Z\ ~N m rno r tom fTl Z ~ DO~~ ~ I~11 I O-I ITI C7~~ ~ ~ ..-r, ~N DO ~~ u' D ~ Dr ZO ~oc~ ~TI Z O aoTl 'n ~Zrp D mon ~ ~ -' zo D nm~ Z mo-~ r om~ "o o N ~ ~ e m~ X~ n- Ong ~ m (nX~ ~ C7- m ~~ v ~ ~~ X D ~Z nl = ~ rn~X ~ ~ Z ~~ ~ ( j ~_~ ~~ ~ miv ~ = 3 =rn-~ __ -vm~ ' ~ -~ Zom J ~ m z m~ m° ' r..,i no O o-I n ~=Z Y°m Z z=o Z I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ NO'1TO4"W 23 ¢ - °H ^H 100.00 off ^ ~- off - V- ~ ~ WEST LINE OF THE 1 I I I -'EAST 1/2 OF BLOCK 8 O ° ~~~w~~ y w I ~~-iN~O \ I O ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~~;Nm~ ~~~N~ ~ I ~ oy= s _ to ~ ~•~ Q' ~ ~ ~ ~ Z 25 FOOT SETBACK O O N fD ~ ~ 25 FOOT SETBACK (0 p~ O 0~ n I N ~ ~ C ~ ~ N 'D-'~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ cn p ~ ~ ar, a~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~ I~, = r? -Oi Q Q'~ Z I m= I° o O o 'ii ~ S 3 ? rnQi I~ ~ C ~ .~'J ~ CD ~ ~ ~ I ' ~ ~ ~ G ~ O ~ i ~ - r+ ~ ~ ~ S iTi Ul O O _S ~ ~ -- ~ O~ N _ ~ c -„ cn I o -„ `f~~? .~ fi ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ll I h = V ~I cn ~ ~ ~ I I :~ I I~ ~~ v a o 320.31 ~ ' ~ z ~~ ~s. A V 15.5 ~ n ~ a '"' o iAi g '~ ( 47.3 ~ O I ~ a a- I I :~~1 "' I ~ y ~ o m z ~, OO ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~D ~z ~ ~~c N I~~' ~ D~~ OZ ~ N Z cn ~ y (n m ~ ~ m o ~ C (~l ° ~ ~• N ~p Zll m r ' i ~ v z . ~ ~ - o~ m ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z ~, O ~ N ~ W ~. ~~ N O N 2 0 ~ '^ v, W W W (rl ~ 30 FOOT SETBACK ~ ~ ~ C ~N 8 ~~_ " ~ ~~y~ ,r ~cmin i o~°o Za~Z ''.. _ - ~ ~ 50.45 ~ ~ - SO'16'19"E WOOD DECK 30 FOOT SETB CK PAVER PATH __50.00___ 1 __~ NI ~~ _ 176.00 __~ __ 100.45 50.00 S _~ r~i I I .9 I I I ~ I .o I Z co / , o ~ 0 ~~I o ~~I ~ i m TI W I ~.iJ ~ I X126.00 ~ ~ _' -I~ ._ ~ J ~ /~~ J ~" 1~ ~, 1 4 T F~ t~ v ~: t~! l1 f. ` _.~; ~ ~ ~ .~ ~1 ; ,,, S Q ~ i ~"~ O N Q a, 0 n Trn N "1l n rn r~ V /. C C rn 3 w. 6812 14th Ave S~~ Subdivision Waiver 2/2012 Surrounding Zoning ~~ T -- - ----- r-------- R R R R R --B --- - - -~ ------ R ~ ~ -- _ . O 68th St ~~ - ---------_--- -------. R R ~ R > Q ~ Q --- w M ~ ~ R . `- _ Christian Park R R R R R R 69th St --- --~ ~egena 0 65 130 260 390 520 R -Single Family Residential District Feet I:\GIS\Community Development\StafflMelissa\Proiects\Zoninq Cases\6812 14th - Z.mxd R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 6812 14th Ave rF-~ Subdivision Waiver 2/2012 Surrounding Comprehensive Plan Designations N - -----, ---- ---- - - LDR - - -- LDR LDR LDR LDR ~ R I LDR LDR ~--------__~_ ----- ~-- --- _~_ - - -- DR__. ~_ _.._- - - ---_ _ _. 68th St ~~o~ L R LDR LDR N ~ Q ~ --- Q M ~ LDR r. d' -- -- LDR Christian Park LDR LDR LD PRK DR 69th St -= ~- -- _ - --- - - L -- Legend 0 65 130 260 390 520 LDR -Low Density Residential Feet PRK -Park I:\GIS\Community Development\StafflMelissa\Proiects\Zoninq Cases\6812 14th - CP.mxd LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR -- _._- - LDR LDR R LDR LOR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR ' N i 6812 14th Ave Subdivision Waiver 2/2012 Lot Widths G ~S/ S V~ 57 57 57 7p 70 75 75 75 57 57 - 75 75 75 75 75 57 75 75 65 68 ^_ 100 75 50 ---ZO__ _. _. 72 2 79 79 75 70 68th St 3~~~ --- -- - -- --- 100 86 86 a~ ~ Q > --- - ~ Q M ~ 58 ~' 58 58 ----- 0 57 57 48 85 --- ~--- 69th St 60 60 60 60 60 105 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 72 72 7 72 72 72 72 72 72 57 57 57 57 72 76 49 49 0 50 100 200 300 400 Feet I•\(_IC\(`nmmiinit~i fle~iolnnmen+\C}~{flpAolieco\Drnien}cl7nninn (`~eee\RR17 9/Ith _ I n+~eiirl}he mvrl 63 60 63 67 66 100 50 50 68 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 5 F REPORT # 33 ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: JAY. HENTHORNE, POLICE LIEUTENANT NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a BCA Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Richfield's Prosecuting Attorne for access to the Criminal Justice Data Communications network. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution allowing an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the City of Richfield on behalf of its Prosecuting Attorney to receive justice data communications network information in support of its criminal justice duties. II. BACKGROUND Under Minnesota Statute § 471.59, The BCA and the City of Richfield City Prosecutor are empowered to engage in such agreements as are necessary to exercise their powers. Under Minnesota Statute § 299C.46 the BCA must provide a criminal justice data communications network to benefit criminal justice agencies in Minnesota. The purpose of this agreement is to create a method by which the Department, and specifically the City Attorney has access to those systems and tools for which it has eligibility, and to memorialize the requirements to obtain access and the limitations on the access. 021412 Prosecuting Attorney Joint Powers Agreement with BCA for CJDN Access III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) must have an agreement with the Department and City Attorney in order to provide the services as directed by Minnesota Statute § 299C.46. • The agreement will provide the City Attorney access to the Minnesota Criminal Justice Data Communications Network (CJDN). B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • This agreement becomes effective on the date the BCA obtains all required signatures under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subdivision 2. The agreement expires five years from the date it is effective. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The criminal justice data is necessary for the performance of the prosecution duties of the City Attorney. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution approving the BCA Joint Powers Agreement with the City Attorney. • State of Minnesota Joint Powers Agreement Criminal Justice Agency. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. y~.i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ALLOWING A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RICHFIELD DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND THE MN BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION FOR ACCESS TO THE MINNESOTA CRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (CJDN) WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota through its Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) is empowered through state statutes to engage in such an agreement; and, WHEREAS, the BCA must provide access to a Criminal Justice Data Communications network to benefit criminal justice agencies in Minnesota; and, WHEREAS, the BCA makes this access available to Richfield and the City's prosecution attorney through direct access, indirect access and computer-to-computer system interface. WHEREAS, through this agreement access by the City Attorney is available for five years, beginning with the data that BCA obtains all required signatures under Minn. Stat. §16C.05, subdivision 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that permission is granted to Richfield Police, to approve the agreement by the signing of the document by the City Attorney, Martin Costello, or his designee to approve and sign this and any documents relating to this agreement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of February, 2012. Debbie Goettel Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk yFa COURT DATA SERVICES SUBSCRIBER AMENDMENT TO CJDN SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT This Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment ("Subscriber Amendment") is entered into by the State of Minnesota, acting through its Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, ("BCA") and City of Richfield on behalf of its Prosecuting Attorney ("Agency"), and by and for the benefit of the State of Minnesota acting through its State Court Administrator's Office ("Court") who shall be entitled to enforce any provisions hereof through any legal action against any party. Recitals This Subscriber Amendment modifies and supplements the Agreement between the BCA and Agency, Contract number DPS-M-1322, of even or prior date, for Agency use of BCA systems and tools (referred to herein as "the CJDN Subscriber Agreement"). Certain BCA systems and tools that include access to and/or submission of Court Records may only be utilized by the Agency if the Agency completes this Subscriber Amendment. The Agency desires to use one or more BCA systems and tools to access and/or submit Court Records to assist the Agency in the efficient performance of its duties as required or authorized by law or court rule. Court desires to permit such access and/or submission. This Subscriber Amendment is intended to add Court as a parry to the CJDN Subscriber Agreement and to create obligations by the Agency to the Court that can be enforced by the Court. It is also understood that, pursuant to the Master Joint Powers Agreement for Delivery of Court Data Services to CJDN Subscribers ("Master Authorization Agreement") between the Court and the BCA, the BCA is authorized to sign this Subscriber Amendment on behalf of Court. Upon execution the Subscriber Amendment will be incorporated into the CJDN Subscriber Agreement by reference. The BCA, the Agency and the Court desire to amend the CJDN Subscriber Agreement as stated below. The CJDN Subscriber Agreement is amended by the addition of the following provisions: 1. TERM; TERMINATION; ONGOING OBLIGATIONS. This Subscriber Amendment shall be effective on the date finally executed by all parties and shall remain in effect until expiration or termination of the CJDN Subscriber Agreement unless terminated earlier as provided in this Amendment. Any party may terminate this Amendment with or without cause by giving written notice to all other parties. The effective date of the termination shall be thirty days after the other party's receipt of the notice of termination, unless a later date is specified in the notice. The provisions of sections 5 through 9, 12.b., 12.c., and 15 through 24 shall survive any termination of this Amendment as shall any other provisions which by their nature are intended or expected to survive such termination. Upon termination, the Subscriber shall perform the responsibilities set forth in paragraph 7(f) hereof. 2. Definitions. Unless otherwise specifically defined, each term used herein shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the CJDN Subscriber Agreement. Sf 3 a. "Authorized Court Data Services" means Court Data Services that have been authorized for delivery to CJDN Subscribers via BCA systems and tools pursuant to an Authorization Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement for Delivery of Court Data Services to CJDN Subscribers ("Master Authorization Agreement") between the Court and the BCA. b. "Court Data Services" means one or more of the services set forth on the Justice Agency Resource webpage of the Minnesota Judicial Branch website (for which the current address is www.courts.state.mn.us) or other location designated by the Court, as the same may be amended from time to time by the Court. c. "Court Records" means all information in any form made available by the Court to Subscriber through the BCA for the purposes of carrying out this Subscriber Amendment, including: i. "Court Case Information" means any information in the Court Records that conveys information about a particular case or controversy, including without limitation Court Confidential Case Information, as defined herein. ii. "Court Confidential Case Information" means any information in the Court Records that is inaccessible to the public pursuant to the Rules of Public Access and that conveys information about a particular case or controversy. iii. "Court Confidential Security and Activation Information" means any information in the Court Records that is inaccessible to the public pursuant to the Rules of Public Access and that explains how to use or gain access to Court Data Services, including but not limited to login account names, passwords, TCP/IP addresses, Court Data Services user manuals, Court Data Services Programs, Court Data Services Databases, and other technical information. iv. "Court Confidential Information" means any information in the Court Records that is inaccessible to the public pursuant to the Rules of Public Access, including without limitation both i) Court Confidential Case Information; and ii) Court Confidential Security and Activation Information. d. "DCA" shall mean the district courts of the state of Minnesota and their respective staff. e. "Policies & Notices" means the policies and notices published by the Court in connection with each of its Court Data Services, on a website or other location designated by the Court, as the same may be amended from time to time by the Court. Policies & Notices for each Authorized Court Data Service identified in an approved request form under section 3, below, are hereby made part of this Subscriber Amendment by this reference and provide additional terms and conditions that govern Subscriber's use of Court Records accessed through such services, including but not limited to provisions on access and use limitations. s~ ~ f. "Rules of Public Access" means the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, as the same may be amended form time to time, including without limitation lists or tables published from time to time by the Court entitled Limits on Public Access to Case Records or Limits on Public Access to Administrative Records, all of which by this reference are made a part of this Subscriber Amendment. It is the obligation of Subscriber to check from time to time for updated rules, lists, and tables and be familiar with the contents thereof. It is contemplated that such rules, lists, and tables will be posted on the Minnesota Judicial Branch website, for which the current address is www.courts.state.mn.us. Office. g. "Court" shall mean the State of Minnesota, State Court Administrator's h. "Subscriber" shall mean the Agency. i. "Subscriber Records" means any information in any form made available by the Subscriber to the Court for the purposes of carrying out this Subscriber Amendment. 3. REQUESTS FOR AUTHORIZED COURT DATA SERVICES. Following execution of this Amendment by all parties, Subscriber may submit to the BCA one or more separate requests for Authorized Court Data Services. The BCA is authorized in the Master Authorization Agreement to process, credential and approve such requests on behalf of Court and all such requests approved by the BCA are adopted and incorporated herein by this reference the same as if set forth verbatim herein. a. Activation. Activation of the requested Authorized Court Data Service(s) shall occur promptly following approval. b. Rejection. Requests may be rejected for any reason, at the discretion of the BCA and/or the Court. c. Requests for Termination of One or More Authorized Court Data Services. The Subscriber may request the termination of an Authorized Court Data .Services previously requested by submitting a notice to Court with a copy to the BCA. Promptly upon receipt of a request for termination of a Authorized Court Data Service, the BCA will deactivate the service requested. The termination of one or more Authorized Court Data Services does not terminate this Subscriber Amendment. Provisions for termination of this Subscriber Amendment are set forth in section 1. Upon termination of Authorized Court Data Services, the Subscriber shall perform the responsibilities set forth in paragraph 7(f) hereof. 4. SCOPE OF ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS LIMITED. Subscriber's access to and/or submission of the Court Records shall be limited to Authorized Court Data Services identified in an approved request form under section 3, above, and other Court Records necessary for Subscriber to use Authorized Court Data Services. Authorized Court Data Services shall only be used according to the instructions provided in corresponding Policies & Notices or 3 SF ~~ other materials and only as necessary to assist Subscriber in the efficient performance of Subscriber's duties required or authorized by law or court rule in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State, or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body. Subscriber's access to the Court Records for personal or non- official use is prohibited. Subscriber will not use or attempt to use Authorized Court Data Services in any manner not set forth in this Subscriber Amendment, Policies & Notices, or other Authorized Court Data Services documentation, and upon any such unauthorized use or attempted use the Court may immediately terminate this Subscriber Amendment without prior notice to Subscriber. 5. GUARANTEES OF CONFIDENTIALITY. Subscriber agrees: a. To not disclose Court Confidential Information to any third party except where necessary to carry out the Subscriber's duties as required or authorized by law or court rule in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State, or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body. b. To take all appropriate action, whether by instruction, agreement, or otherwise, to insure the protection, confidentiality and security of Court Confidential Information and to satisfy Subscriber's obligations under this Subscriber Amendment. c. To limit the use of and access to Court Confidential Information to Subscriber's bona fide personnel whose use or access is necessary to effect the purposes of this Subscriber Amendment, and to advise each individual who is permitted use of and/or access to any Court Confidential Information of the restrictions upon disclosure and use contained in this Subscriber Amendment, requiring each individual who is permitted use of and/or access to Court Confidential Information to acknowledge in writing that the individual has read and understands such restrictions. Subscriber shall keep such acknowledgements on file for one year following termination of the Subscriber Amendment and/or CJDN Subscriber Agreement, whichever is longer, and shall provide the Court with access to, and copies of, such acknowledgements upon request. For purposes of this Subscriber Amendment, Subscriber's bona fide personnel shall mean individuals who are employees of Subscriber or provide services to Subscriber either on a voluntary basis or as independent contractors with Subscriber. d. That, without limiting section 1 of this Agreement, the obligations of Subscriber and its bona fide personnel with respect to the confidentiality and security of Court Confidential Information shall survive the termination of this Subscriber Amendment and the CJDN Subscriber Agreement and the termination of their relationship with Subscriber. e. That, notwithstanding any federal or state law applicable to the nondisclosure obligations of Subscriber and Subscriber's bona fide personnel under this Subscriber Amendment, such obligations of Subscriber and Subscriber's bona fide personnel are founded independently on the provisions of this Subscriber Amendment. 6. APPLICABILITY TO PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED COURT RECORDS. Subscriber acknowledges and agrees that all Authorized Court Data Services and related Court Records disclosed to Subscriber prior to the effective date of this Subscriber Amendment shall be subject to the provisions of this Subscriber Amendment. 4 i ri~ 7. LICENSE AND PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. During the term of this Subscriber Amendment, subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the Court hereby grants to Subscriber a nonexclusive, nontransferable, limited license to use Court Data Services Programs and Court Data Services Databases to access or receive the Authorized Court Data Services identified in an approved request form under section 3, above, and related Court Records. Court reserves the right to make modifications to the Authorized Court Data Services, Court Data Services Programs, and Court Data Services Databases, and related materials without notice to Subscriber. These modifications shall be treated in all respects as their previous counterparts. a. Court Data Services Programs. Court is the copyright owner and licensor of the Court Data Services Programs. The combination of ideas, procedures, processes, systems, logic, coherence and methods of operation embodied within the Court Data Services Programs, and all information contained in documentation pertaining to the Court Data Services Programs, including but not limited to manuals, user documentation, and passwords, are trade secret information of Court and its licensors. b. Court Data Services Databases. Court is the copyright owner and licensor of the Court Data Services Databases and of all copyrightable aspects and components thereof. All specifications and information pertaining to the Court Data Services Databases and their structure, sequence and organization, including without limitation data schemas such as the Court XML Schema, are trade secret information of Court and its licensors. c. Marks. Subscriber shall neither have nor claim any right, title, or interest in or use of any trademark used in connection with Authorized Court Data Services, including but not limited to the marks "MNCIS" and "Odyssey." d. Restrictions on Duplication, Disclosure, and Use. Trade secret information of Court and its licensors will be treated by Subscriber in the same manner as Court Confidential Information. In addition, Subscriber will not copy any part of the Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, or reverse engineer or otherwise attempt to discern the source code of the Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, or use any trademark of Court or its licensors, in any way or for any purpose not specifically and expressly authorized by this Subscriber Amendment. As used herein, "trade secret information of Court and its licensors" means any information possessed by Court which derives independent economic value from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. "Trade secret information of Court and its licensors" does not, however, include information which was known to Subscriber prior to Subscriber's receipt thereof, either directly or indirectly, from Court or its licensors, information which is independently developed by Subscriber without reference to or use of information received from Court or its licensors, or information which would not qualify as a trade secret under Minnesota law. It will not be a violation of this section 7, sub-section d, for Subscriber to make up to one copy of training materials and configuration documentation, if any, for each individual authorized to access, use, or configure Authorized Court Data Services, solely for its own use in connection with this Subscriber Amendment. Subscriber will take all steps reasonably necessary to protect the copyright, trade secret, and trademark rights of Court and its 5 ~'~ licensors and Subscriber will advise its bona fide personnel who are permitted access to any of the Court Data Services Programs and Court Data Services Databases, .and trade secret information of Court and its licensors,. of the restrictions upon duplication, disclosure and use contained in this Subscriber Amendment. e. Proprietary Notices. Subscriber will not remove any copyright or proprietary notices included in and/or on the Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, related documentation, or trade secret information of Court and its licensors, or any part thereof, made available by Court directly or through the BCA, if any, and Subscriber will include in and/or on any copy of the Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, or trade secret information of Court and its licensors and any documents pertaining thereto, the same copyright and other proprietary notices as appear on the copies made available to Subscriber by Court directly or through the BCA, except that copyright notices shall be updated and other proprietary notices added as may be appropriate. f. Title; Return. The Court Data Services Programs and Court Data Services Databases, and related documentation, including but not limited to training and configuration material, if any, and logon account information and passwords, if any, made available by the Court to Subscriber directly or through the BCA and all copies, including partial copies, thereof are and remain the property of the respective licensor. Except as expressly provided in section 12.b., within ten days of the effective date of termination of this Subscriber Amendment or the CJDN Subscriber Agreement or within ten days of a request for termination of Authorized Court Data Service as described in section 4, Subscriber shall either: (i) uninstall and return any and all copies of the applicable Court Data Services Programs and Court Data Services Databases, and related documentation, including but not limited to training and configuration materials, if any, and logon account information,. if any; or (2) destroy the same and certify in writing to the Court that the same have been destroyed. 8. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Subscriber acknowledges that the Court, Court's licensors, and DCA will be irreparably harmed if Subscriber's obligations under this Subscriber Amendment are not specifically enforced and that the Court, Court's licensors, and DCA would not have an adequate remedy at law in the event of an actual or threatened violation by Subscriber of its obligations. Therefore, Subscriber agrees that the Court, Court's licensors, and DCA shall be entitled to an injunction or any appropriate decree of specific performance for any actual or threatened violations or breaches by Subscriber or its bona fide personnel without the necessity of the Court, Court's licensors, or DCA showing actual damages or that monetary damages would not afford an adequate remedy. Unless Subscriber is an office, officer, agency, department, division, or bureau of the state of Minnesota, Subscriber shall be liable to the Court, Court's licensors, and DCA for reasonable attorneys fees incurred by the Court, Court's licensors, and DCA in obtaining any relief pursuant to this Subscriber Amendment. 9. LIABILITY. Subscriber and the Court agree that, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, each party will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of any others and the results thereof. Liability shall be governed by applicable law. Without limiting the foregoing, liability of the. Court and any Subscriber that is an office, officer, agency, department, division, or bureau of the state of Minnesota shall be governed by the provisions of the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 3.376, and other applicable law. Without limiting the foregoing, if 6 ~.,X Subscriber is a political subdivision of the state of Minnesota, liability of the Subscriber shall be governed. by the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 466 (Tort Liability, Political Subdivisions) or other applicable law. Subscriber and Court further acknowledge that the liability, if any, of the BCA is governed by a separate agreement between the Court and the BCA dated December 13, 2010 with DPS-M -0958. 10. AVAILABILITY. Specific terms of availability shall be established by the Court and communicated to Subscriber by the Court and/or the BCA. The Court reserves the right to terminate this Subscriber Amendment immediately and/or temporarily suspend Subscriber's Authorized Court Data Services in the event the capacity of any host computer system or legislative appropriation of funds is determined solely by the Court to be insufficient to meet the computer needs of the courts served by the host computer system. 11. [reserved] 12. ADDITIONAL USER OBLIGATIONS. The obligations of the Subscriber set forth in this section are in addition to the other obligations of the Subscriber set forth elsewhere in this Subscriber Amendment. a. Judicial Policy Statement. Subscriber agrees to comply with all policies identified in Policies & Notices applicable to Court Records accessed by Subscriber using Authorized Court Data Services. Upon failure of the Subscriber to comply with such policies, the Court shall have the option of immediately suspending the Subscriber's Authorized Court Data Services on a temporary basis and/or immediately terminating this Subscriber Amendment. b. Access and Use; Log. Subscriber shall be responsible for all access to and use of Authorized Court Data Services and Court Records by Subscriber's bona fide personnel or by means of Subscriber's equipment or passwords, whether or not Subscriber has knowledge of or authorizes such access and use. Subscriber shall also maintain a log identifying all persons to whom Subscriber has disclosed its Court Confidential Security and Activation Information, such as user ID(s) and password(s), including the date of such disclosure. Subscriber shall maintain such logs for a minimum period of six years from the date of disclosure, and shall provide the Court with access to, and copies of, such logs upon request. The Court may conduct audits of Subscriber's logs and use of Authorized Court Data Services and Court Records from time to time. Upon Subscriber's failure to maintain such logs, to maintain accurate logs, or to promptly provide access by the Court to such logs, the Court may terminate this Subscriber Amendment without prior notice to Subscriber. c. Personnel. Subscriber agrees to investigate, at the request of the Court and/or the BCA, allegations of misconduct pertaining to Subscriber's bona fide personnel having access to or use of Authorized Court Data Services, Court Confidential Information, or trade secret information of the Court and its licensors where such persons are alleged to have violated the provisions of this Subscriber Amendment, Policies & Notices, Judicial Branch policies, or other security requirements or laws regulating access to the Court Records. 7 5F'ti d. Minnesota Data Practices Act Applicability. If Subscriber is a Minnesota Government entity that is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, Subscriber acknowledges and agrees that: (1) the. Court is not subject to Minn. Stat. Ch. 13 (see section 13.90) but is subject to the Rules of Public Access and other rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court; (2) Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subdivision 4(e) requires that Subscriber comply with the Rules of Public Access and other rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court for access to Court Records provided via the BCA systems and tools under this Amendment; (3) the use of and access to Court Records may be restricted by rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, applicable state statute or federal law; and (4) these applicable restrictions must be followed in the appropriate circumstances. 13. FEES; INVOICES. Unless the Subscriber is an office, officer, department, division, agency, or bureau of the state of Minnesota, Subscriber shall pay the fees, if any, set forth in applicable Policies & Notices, together with applicable sales, use or other taxes. Applicable monthly fees commence ten (10) days after notice of approval of the request pursuant to section 3 of this Amendment or upon the initial Subscriber transaction as defined in the Policies & Notices, whichever occurs earlier. When fees apply, the Court shall invoice Subscriber on a monthly basis for charges incurred in the preceding month and applicable taxes, if any, and payment of all amounts shall be due upon receipt of invoice. If all amounts are not paid within 30 days of the date of the invoice, the Court may immediately cancel this Amendment without notice to Subscriber and pursue all available legal remedies. Subscriber certifies that funds have been appropriated for the payment of charges under this Amendment for the current fiscal year, if applicable. 14. MODIFICATION OF FEES. Court may modify the fees by amending the Policies & Notices as provided herein, and the modified fees shall be effective on the date specified in the Policies & Notices, which shall not be less than thirty days from the publication of the Policies & Notices. Subscriber shall have the option of accepting such changes or terminating this Amendment as provided in section 1 hereof. 15. WARRANTY DISCLAIMERS. a. WARRANTY EXCLUSIONS. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY PROVIDED HEREIN, COURT, COURT'S LICENSORS, AND DCA MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY, NOR ARE ANY WARRANTIES TO BE IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, SERVICES OR COMPUTER PROGRAMS MADE AVAILABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. b. ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF INFORMATION. WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, COURT, COURT'S LICENSORS, AND DCA MAKE NO WARRANTIES AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE COURT RECORDS. 8 SF~~D 16. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES. Subscriber is an independent contractor and shall not be deemed for any purpose to be an employee, partner, agent or franchisee of the Court, Court's licensors, or DCA. Neither Subscriber nor the Court, Court's licensors, or DCA shall have the right nor the authority to assume, create or incur any liability or obligation of any kind, express or implied, against or in the name of or on behalf of the other. 17. NOTICE. Except as provided in section 2 regarding notices of or modifications to Authorized Court Data Services and Policies & Notices, any notice to Court or Subscriber hereunder shall be deemed to have been received when .personally delivered in writing or seventy-two (72) hours after it has been deposited in the United States mail, first class, proper postage prepaid, addressed to the party to whom it is intended at the address set forth on page one of this Agreement or at .such other address of which notice has been given in accordance herewith. 18. NON-WAIVER. The failure by any party at any time to enforce any of the provisions of this Subscriber Amendment or any right or remedy available hereunder or at law or in equity, or to exercise any option herein provided, shall not constitute a waiver of such provision, remedy or option or in any way affect the validity of this Subscriber Amendment. The waiver of any default by either Party shall not be deemed a continuing waiver, but shall apply solely to the instance to which such waiver is directed. 19. FORCE MAJEURE. Neither Subscriber nor Court shall be responsible for failure or delay in the performance of their respective obligations hereunder caused by acts beyond their reasonable control. 20. SEVERABILITY. Every provision of this subscriber Amendment shall be construed, to the extent possible, so as to be valid and enforceable. If any provision of this Subscriber Amendment so construed is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed severed from this Subscriber Amendment, and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 21. ASSIGNMENT AND BINDING EFFECT. Except as otherwise expressly permitted herein, neither Subscriber nor Court may assign, delegate and/or otherwise transfer this Subscriber Amendment or any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other. This Subscriber Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, including any other legal entity into, by or with which Subscriber may be merged, acquired or consolidated. 22. GOVERNING LAW. This Subscriber Amendment shall in all respects be governed by and interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the United States and of the State of Minnesota. 23. VENUE AND JURISDICTION. Any action arising out of or relating to this Subscriber Amendment, its performance, enforcement or breach will be venued in a state or federal court situated within the State of Minnesota. Subscriber hereby irrevocably consents and submits itself to the personal jurisdiction of said courts for that purpose. 24. INTEGRATION. This Subscriber Amendment contains all negotiations and agreements between the parties. No other understanding regarding this Subscriber Amendment, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party, provided that all terms and conditions 9 5~,i~ of the CJDN Subscriber Agreement and all previous amendments remain in full force and effect except as supplemented or modified by this Subscriber Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have, by their duly authorized officers, executed this Subscriber Amendment in duplicate, intending to be bound thereby. 1. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Stat. ~§ 16A.15 and 16C.05. Name: (PRINTED) Signed: Date: SWIFT Contract No. 2. SUBSCRIBER (AGENCY) Subscriber must attach written verification of authority to sign on behalf of and bind the entity, such as an opinion of counsel or resolution. Name: (PRINTED) Signed: Title: (with delegated authority) Date: 3. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION Name: (PRINTED) Signed: Title: (with delegated authority) Date: 4. COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION delegated to Materials Management Division By: Date: 5. COURTS Authority granted to Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Name: (PRINTED) Signed: Title: (with authorized authority) Date: 10 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # S G REPORT # 3 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: JAY HENTHORNE, POLICE LIEUTENANT NAME, T/TI,E a DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of accepting funds from Hennepin County Emergency Management 2011 EMPG grant. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve attached resolution to accept a portion of the remaining funds from the Hennepin County 2011 Emergency Management grant to be applied to Richfield's Emergency Management Division for costs incurred and in compliance with Hennepin County's agreement . II. BACKGROUND In November 2011, Hennepin County Emergency Management requested approval to pass through any remaining funds from their 2011 EMPG grant to their local partners, including Richfield. The request was approved by the Hennepin County Board, and Richfield Public Safety received notice that the department would receive $8,807 to be deposited in the Emergency Management account. These funds are called "pass through funds." 021412 Resolution to Accept Grant Funds from Hennepin County Emergency Management Richfield will use the funds for emergency management costs for the City of Richfield. The department his signed the receipt indicating compliance with the requirements of the grant. 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 Public Sa ety Department has signed a receipt of a copy of the 2011 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) that Hennepin County has with the Department of Public Safety/Homeland Security and Emergency Management. • By signing Richfield Public Safety acknowledges receipt and will comply with the requirement of the contract. Also by signing, the department certifies that it has not been- suspended or debarred from doing business with the federal government. C. FINANCIAL • Hennepin County has submitted a direct pay request form allowing for $8,807 to be paid to the Richfield Public Safety Department/Emergency Management Division. The funds received will be used to offset the costs in the Emergency Management budget. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could disapprove of the resolution and the check would have to be returned to Hennepin County. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. RESOLUTION NO. 5G 1 RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT/EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION TO RECEIVE GRANT FUNDS FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT WHEREAS, Hennepin County Emergency Management submitted a request for and was approved by the Hennepin County Board to pass through any remaining funds from their 2011 Emergency Management Performance Grant to local partners; and, WHEREAS, Richfield is in partnership with Hennepin County for Emergency Management programs; and, WHEREAS, Richfield Public Safety Department/Emergency Management has signed as having received a copy of and compliance with Hennepin County's 2011 grant requirements; and, WHEREAS, Richfield Emergency Management Division will receive a check for $8,807 for emergency management costs as outlined in the grant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that permission is granted to Richfield Public Safety through Barry Fritz, Public Safety Director/Chief of Police, to accept the funds being made available by Hennepin County Emergency Management to be used in Richfield's Emergency Management Division. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th date of February, 2012. Debbie Goettel Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SH REPORT # ~ 5 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Work Order #8 from HR Green to prepare drawings and construction documents for the Honoring All Veterans Memorial and to supervise construction of remaining work. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the hiring of HR Green to prepare drawings and construction documents for the Honoring All Veterans Memorial and to supervise construction of remaining work at a cost not to exceed $16,710. II. BACKGROUND Members of the Honoring All Veterans Memorial (HAVM) Board presented design drawings and cost estimates for the remaining work of the Monument last month, requesting City Council to consider providing funds for the remaining work. On August 13, 2011, City Council finalized selection of the monument's landscaping design and authorized staff to solicit bids for the remaining work. The Honoring All Veterans Board is recommending Landscape Architect Joel Odens to be selected to finalize drawings and prepare construction documents to help successfully bid the project. Joel Odens has donated his personal time with the Honoring All Veterans Memorial since the very beginning of the project. He has prepared drawings and specifications for every completed phase and is well into the schematic drawings of 021412 HR Green Professional Services Agreement the final phase. He is recommended for the job because of his familiarity with the project and for his outstanding work thus far. Joel originally was employed through Olsson and Associates when the project started and was then hired on at HR Green a few years back. HR Green offers a full spectrum of design, engineering and full technical support of this type of project. Remaining work on the monument includes the following components: • Six concrete columns, each representing a branch of our Military Services • Granite finish on sculpture pedestal • North concrete trail with lighting • Irrigation and drinking fountain • Landscaping The Construction schedule for the remaining work: 2/14/12 Council considers agreement for Architect 3/23/12 Complete drawings, Specifications & Bid Documents, Advertise for Bids 4/26/12 Bid Opening 5/15/12 Council considers construction contract 5/29/12 Begin construction of items within the plaza and flagpole area including columns, pedestal granite, inscription panels, stained glass & mounts, black bench, flagpoles & lights, Civil War gravestone, install five remaining tablets 7/2/12 Complete above construction, complete punchlist 7/5/12 Begin remaining construction including grading, north trail, trail lighting, water fountain, landscaping, berm removal 8/15/12 Hydro-seed all disturbed areas and complete punchlist. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has a standing Professional Services Agreement with HR Green, approved in 2010. If the proposed work is approved a work order will be prepared as a notice to proceed. • The City is not required to seek competitive quotes for professional services. HR Green was selected to complete the design and prepare construction documents because of employee Joel Oden's familiarity with the project and for his outstanding work on the project thus far. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES The construction schedule is challenging due to frost limits, Memorial Day ceremonies, Richfield Fourth July Celebration and the optimal seeding times for turf. The services of a multidiscipline design company such as HR Green are needed to insure the best outcomes in completion time, • The HAVM Board feels that the completion of the Monument is needed at this time because of pressure from competing monuments in the area and that a completed monument will boost engraving sales. C. FINANCIAL • The total estimated cost for HR Green's proposed work is $16,710. • The preliminary cost estimate presented to City Council for the entire cost of remaining work including 10% contingency and professional services is $289,960. • Funds from the City's Recreation Fund will be used to pay for the remaining costs of the Monument and then be fully reimbursed over time through the proceeds of engravings sales. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the attached Professional Services Agreement and will be available to answer questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may choose to conduct a competitive selection process for remaining professional services, however it is anticipated that these costs and the chance for problems will be greater with an architect that is unfamiliar with the project. V. ATTAC~IMENTS • HR Green, Inc. Work Order #8 (Professional Services Agreement) VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Joel Odens, Project Architect _ s~~ This is Exhibit A., consisting of 1 pages, referred to ~ in the Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER for Professional Services. Initials: [ OWNER ' BNG]NEER Worlr Order Form WORK ORDER 1Y0. Authorization to proceed and site-specific scope of services Project:~f` ~~ uL7~- MF~yi~Location: 1~~T~~ts '~~~ i ~G>~1k.1.r~! Mn~ c6NSrwut~rtio~+J 9~octtMt~trS ~ ol3s~~rr7cnJ ,- Wetransmit the following information for your use: {-~~,~~~ of I~lonv ~o,K.ac:dNl~ ~,t~ Yt~_~tU'M~le.+~~.- Gv~~ ~/~ct'i+~P ;. We hereby authorize you to proceed with the following phases of services for the above-referenced Project and location in accordance with the agreement between O WhIER and ENGINEER dated ~,t~cy £3 ,?~ 12. A. C.ar-sT+t+cyrtat ~cuHcs*C•t^~ ~' S('~ G• Gs~.tstK.H.eTltttl~.P oV.rsx~sl~,~r ~3 $~~r~J. G,~~ G~vt~tS~uUftD-.t ~octia~Ttr~! --__._....__.._._._ __ Payment shall be on the basis of (select from the following): t. ^ Cost Plus Fee: Direct Salary Cost times audited overhead plus fee of _ percent and reAnbursables ^ Cost Plus Fixed Pee: As fox Cost Plus Fee, however total Fee shall not exceed ^ Lump SuTn: One sum payable by percent of completion of the Services (plus reimbursable expenses). ^ Cost Times a Factor: Direct Salary Cost times a factor of ,plus reimbursable expenses. j Standard klourly 13illing hates: Hourly rates plus reimbursable expenses. The Not to Bxceed Limit for this Work Order is:. ~ ~ tD t 71 U • DO ___. A Constriction Cost Limit'of ~;__ ~ is agreed upon between OWNER and ENGINEER for this Project. ENGINEER: . ~ OWNER: HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY RICHFIELD Signed: Signed: Its: Its: public Works Director o~- i~~'na~! 5~vis~s Signed: ~ Dated: I' Its: 5~a HONORING ALL VETERANS MEMORIAL CONSTRUCITON DOCUMENTS & CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SCOPE OF SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 3.0 DELIVERABLES AND SCHEDULES INCLUDED IN THIS AGREEMENT 4.0 ITEMS NOT INCLUDED IN AGREEMENT/SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES 5.0 SERVICES BY OTHERS 6.0 CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES 7.0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FEE Joel Odens, RLA, LEED AP HR Green, Inc. 2550 University Avenue W., Suite 400N St. Paul, MN 55114 Project No.: 832270) Client: City of Richfield Jim Topitzhofer Recreation Services Director Richfield Community Center 7000 Nicollet Ave Richfield, MN 55423 February 8, 2012 I. 5~~3 Scope of Work HAVM Construction Documents & Construction Observation February 8, 2012 832270) page 1 of 4 THIS Scope of Work shall be an extension of the existing Master Services Agreement dated February 22, 2011, between the City of Richfield, MN (hereafter "CLIENT") and HR GREEN, INC. (hereafter "COMPANY"). 1.0 Project Understanding 1.1 General Understanding The project consists of phase two of the Honoring All Veterans Memorial in Veterans Park. The project includes grading, concrete work, granite work, flagpoles, landscaping, water fountain, lighting and six vertical concrete columns. 1.2 Design Criteria/Assumptions The construction observation phase assumes part-time observation by one (1) Construction Engineer throughout the duration that the contractor is performing work on- site. The duration is estimated to last three months. Additional time is included to produce construction drawings, assist with the bidding stage, coordinate with contractors, assist with the preconstruction m eeting, develop a punchlist, coordinate final acceptance with the City of Richfield, project closeout, general administrative tasks and managerial supervision. 2.0 Scope of Services The CLIENT agrees to employ COMPANY to perform the following services: A. Construction Documents & Specifications $3,000.00 HR Green will finalize the approved concept and format the plans and specifications to construction documents for bidding purposes. The work includes packaging the drawings and details for the concrete columns, concrete walks, landscaping, utility improvements and granite work. 1.1. Pr ject Meetings (4 hours) 1.2. Drawing Develoj~ment d~' Kevisions (76 hours) 1.3. Assembly of bid j~ackage dam' addendum, if needed (8 hours Deliverables (Task 1): ^ One electronic copy of the bid documents delivered to the Owner ^ Delivery of electronic bid documents to interested contractors B. Bidding Process and Construction Coordination $3,700.00 HR Green will assist the City of Richfield with the bidding process and overall construction coordination of the Honoring All Veterans Memorial project. HR Green will produce the 5~ ~~ Scope of Work HAVM Construction Documents & Construction Observation February 8, 2012 832270) page 2 of 4 documents for the bidding process and assist with questions, issue addendum items and participate in Contractor selection. The CLIENT will publish the Notification to Bidders and let the contract in accordance with the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law. a. Contractor Selection (3 hours) b. Coordinate with Contractors (8 hours) c. Meeting Agendas d~' Meeting Minutes (8 hours) d. Pr ject Coordination with City (8 hours) Deliverables (Task 2): ^ Attendance at one Contractor selection meeting and notification of selected contractor ^ Meeting Agendas & Meeting Minutes (four meetings are anticipated) C. Construction Oversight $9,900.00 HR Green will be available on a part-time basis to be on-site while the contractor is performing work, to ascertain that the contractor's w ork is being performed in accordance with plans, special provisions and standard specifications. The COMPANY will observe and document the work performed and quantify pay items constructed in place. Pay estimates will be generated for the CLIENT'S approval and any proposed changes to the work will be presented to the CLIENT for consideration. The COMPANY will track the contractor's progress and weekly activities via weekly reports. The COMPANY will assure proper evidence of material inspection in accordance with the plans and specifications, as well as maintain adequate m aterials testing reports (from others) for material acceptance by the CLIENT. The structural inspection of the six vertical concrete columns will not be part of this contract. These structural elements were designed by another firm and HR Green will coordinate the phasing and installation but w ill not be responsible for their structural approval. HR Green will keep the client abreast of progress and facilitate final acceptance. a. Construction Observation (40 hours) b. Construction Staking (7 7 hours) c. Review of Material Sources, Access d~' Staging (S hours) d. Shod Drawing Review (4 hours) e. Review Submittals ofAlternative Manufacturers (2 hours) f. Maintain Shod Drawings and Sample Records (2 hours) g. IdWeekly Job Meetings During Construction (70 hours) h. Punch List (8 hours) i. Final Acceptance Recommendations (2 hours) Deliverables (Task 3): ^ Meeting Minutes and Agendas (four meetings anticipated) ^ Punch List s~-~ Scope of Work HAVM Construction Documents & Construction Observation February 8, 2012 832270) page 3 of 4 D. Other Expenses a. Mileage (,0.50 per mile, assume 10 total trips to the construction .rite at 22 miles per round trip= 220 miles x .50= ~' 110.00) Total Cost for Services Assumptions $110.00 $16,710.00 ^ Submission (if needed) of any and all permits will be the responsibility of the construction contractor. ^ Watering/site maintenance plan will be the responsibility of the construction contractor m association with the project partners. ^ If necessary, the construction contractor is responsible fox traffic control, any coordination with local agencies, and associated permit submittals. ^ Contractor to coordinate the relocation of any fill material with the City of Richfield prior to beginning construction. 3.0 Deliverables and Schedules Included in this Contract The schedule for part-time construction observation will be in accordance with the contractor's work schedule. This schedule was prepared to include reasonable allowances for review and approval times required by the CLIENT and public authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule shall be equitably adjusted as the project progresses, allowing for changes in the scope of the project requested by the CLIENT or for delays or other causes beyond the control of COMPANY. 4.0 Items not included in Agreement/Supplemental Services The following items are not included as part of this agreement: Materials testing Detailed surveys or record drawings Structural Inspection of the six vertical columns designed by MBJ Federal or State Aid documentation and submittals 5~~~0 Scope of Work HAVM Construction Documents & Construction Observation February 8, 2012 832270) page 4 of 4 Supplemental services not included in the agreement can be provided by COMPANY under a separate agreement, if desired. 5.0 Services by Others Materials testing services will be performed by others. 6.0 Client Responsibilities The CLIENT will provide final approval of pay estimates and change orders. 7.0 Professional Services Fee 7.1 Fees The fee for services will be based on COMPANY standard hourly rates current at the time the agreement is signed. These standard hourly rates are subject to change upon 30 days' written notice. Non salary expenses directly attributable to the project such as: (1) living and traveling expenses of employees when away from the home office on business connected with the project; (2) identifiable communication expenses; (3) identifiable reproduction costs applicable to the work; and (4) outside services will be charged in accordance with the rates current at the tim a the work is done. 7.2 Invoices Invoices for COMPANY's services shall be submitted, on a monthly basis. Invoices shall be due and payable upon receipt. If any invoice is not paid within 15 days, COMPANY may, without waiving any claim or right against the CLIENT, and without liability whatsoever to the CLIENT, suspend or terminate the performance of services. Accounts unpaid 30 days after the invoice date may be subject to a monthly service charge of 1.5% (or the maximum legal rate) on the unpaid balance. In the event any portion of an account remains unpaid 60 days after the billing, COMPANY may institute collection action and the CLIENT shall pay all costs of collection, including reasonable attorney's fees. 7.3 Extra Work Any work required but not included as part of this contract shall be considered extra work. Extra work will be billed on a Time and Material basis with prior approval of the CLIENT. 7.4 Exclusion This fee does not include attendance at any additional meetings or public hearings other than those specifically listed in the Scope of Services. These work items are considered extra and are b filled separately on an hourly basis. 7.5 Payment The CLIENT AGREES to pay COMPANY on the following basis: Time and Material not to exceed $16.710.00 The cost breakdown of services is described in section 2.0 Scope of Services. AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 7 REPORT # 36 ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider a request for approval of a site plan that includes variances to allow an increased front setback, reduced interior side and rear setbacks, reduced sidewalk width, reduced arkin stall width and reduced irri ation re uirements at 1120 66th Street East. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolution granting approval of a site plan with variances (as modified in the attached resolution and described in the "Summary Section") that allow an increased front setback, a reduced side setback. and reduced irrigation requirements at 1120 66th Street East. II. BACKGROUND O'Reilly Automotive Stores (O'Reilly) has applied for approval of the attached site plan to allow for the construction of a 6,872 square foot retail store and related improvements at 1120 66th Street East. The site is currently vacant; the previous structure having been demolished in December 2009. O'Reilly initially contacted City staff in early 2010 to discuss the possibility of a retail store at this site. Staff provided initial comments on their rough sketch, including the fact that many City requirements were not met, and discussions with O'Reilly representatives continued through the spring. In June 2010 the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in the City of Minnetonka v. Krummenacher case and made 021412 - SP & VAR 1120 66th St O'Reilly MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER variances essentially impossible for cities to grant. O'Reilly decided that this site was not workable for them without variances and no application was submitted. In the fall/winter of 2010/2011, the City conducted a series of public meetings with property owners, residents, and business owners along 66th Street between Cedar Avenue and Portland Avenue to discuss the future of this corridor. This effort culminated in the City Council's acceptance of the 66th Street Corridor Revitalization Plan and later in the adoption of zoning ordinance amendments that would help to implement this plan. Approved ordinance amendments reduced building setbacks in order to encourage developers to locate their buildings closer to the street, but also had the effect of increasing the overall buildable area of individual properties. In October of 2011 O'Reilly submitted an application requesting consideration of their 2010 site plan and a number of variances. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • In evaluating a site plan, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider its compliance with the following: a) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the City's development guides, including the Comprehensive Plan and any redevelopment plans established for the area. • The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Commercial, which accommodates a wide variety of retail goods and services that are intended to serve Richfield and the immediate vicinity. • The 66th Street Corridor Revitalization Plan (Plan) suggests buildings be constructed near 66th Street with parking to the rear or side of the building in order to provide for an enhanced pedestrian experience along 66th Street. A market study completed as part of the Plan also notes that the area is currently served by a number of auto-oriented businesses and suggests a greater mix of under-represented businesses such as restaurants and neighborhood retail be incorporated into the corridor. b) Consistency with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. • City Code requires 31 parking stalls (1/200 sf - 10% _ 30.9). Per Code, an applicant may request a modification of the minimum required number of parking spaces by submitting a study of anticipated demand that has been prepared by a professional engineer with expertise in traffic and parking analysis. o An independent parking study was conducted by Anderson Engineering, Inc. and supports a reduced requirement based on a peak demand plus employee count of 12. The applicant's proposal for 25 parking spaces is more than double this anticipated need. City Transportation Engineer Jeff Pearson concurs with the study results and a reduction is supported by staff. • The proposal meets impervious surface, landscaping/screening, and architectural requirements. The proposal requests variances from regulations related to the maximum front setback, minimum side and rear setbacks, minimum sidewalk width, minimum parking stall dimensions and minimum irrigation requirements. These requests are discussed in the section below. c) Creation of a design for structures and site features which promote: i. An internal sense of order among the buildings and uses. • The site has a single building and use. ii. The adequacy of vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. • A walkway is provided to facilitate pedestrian movement from the sidewalk along 66th Street to the door;- however, this sidewalk does not meet the minimum width requirement of 6 feet. • Parking stalls do not meet minimum width requirements and the parking aisle exceeds requirements. iii. Energy conservation through the design of structures and the use of landscape materials and site grading. • The proposal meets impervious surface and landscaping requirements. iv. The minimization of adverse environmental effects on persons using the development and adjacent properties. • A Stormwater Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department. Specifically, possible impacts to the commercial and residential properties to the west must be sufficiently addressed. • In addition to the general site plan criteria that must be considered, findings must be made related to each requested variance. Requested variances are as follows: 1. Permission to exceed maximum front setback of 60 feet. Proposal is for a front building setback of 79 feet. 2. Permission to reduce the interior side setback adjacent to a residential property from 15 feet to 5 feet. 3. Permission to reduce the parking lot setback adjacent to a residential property from 15 feet to 12.5 feet. 4. Permission to reduce pedestrian walkway width from 6 feet to 5 feet. 5. Permission to reduce minimum parking stall widths from 9 feet to 8.5 feet. 6. Permission to reduce irrigation requirements and leave area north of privacy fence un-irrigated. A variance from Code requirements may be granted only when all conditions (a-f below) are found to exist. Variances are addressed by referencing their corresponding number (1-6) above. a) There are "practical difficulties" in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties" means that the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by official controls (economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties). 1-6. The applicant states that compliance with official controls prohibits use of the site for a retail auto parts store because the site is not large enough to accommodate the size of their prototypical building and provide adequate parking and access. 1-6. Staff agrees that use of the site for a retail store is reasonable and that access and parking are reasonable concerns that must be addressed. b) There are unusual or unique circumstances that apply to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district or the vicinity. Such circumstances cannot have been created by any persons presently having an interest in the property. 1-6. The applicant states that the increased setbacks adjacent to residential properties along the north and west sides constitute unusual circumstances. 1-6. Staff agrees that the proximity of residential increases setbacks; however, that is the case with all properties along 66t" Street and is not unusual or unique to this parcel. Hennepin County's requirement to remove direct access along 66t" Street complicates site design, specifically related to delivery of products. Additionally, the existing fence and long- standing relationship with the adjacent neighbor to the north (fence is located approximately 10 feet south of the property line) is unusual and does not apply to any other sites that staff is aware of. c) The requested variance(s) must not alter the character of the neighborhood. 1-6. The applicant states that the requested variances will allow redevelopment of the site and will not negatively impact the neighborhood. 1,3, & 6. Staff does not believe that the irrigation or parking lot setback variances would be detrimental to the character neighborhood or injurious to adjacent properties. 2. Ms. Jann Owen, 6535 11th Avenue, believes that the reduced side setback adjacent to her residential property will negatively impact her property by further shading the rear corner of the lot where her garden is located and by diminishing aesthetics through a building design/roof profile that is less attractive than that of the former building. The former building was located 10 feet from this property line and Ms. Owen has also indicated concern over proper engineering to support what is an obvious grading and support issue at the northwest corner. 4 & 5. Staff believes that reduced parking stall widths and a reduced pedestrian walkway will unnecessarily increase the possibility of property and/or personal injury. d) The requested variance(s) must be the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. 1-6. The applicant states that the requested variances are the minimum necessary to construct their building. 1-3. Staff believes that the building can be brought into closer compliance with all setback requirements, even eliminating the need for a rear parking setback variance completely, through minor parking lot adjustments. Staff recommends that the 7 parking stalls immediately south of the entry be reduced to the standard 19-foot length dimension and that the drive aisle be reduced to the standard 24-foot width. The applicant has stated that they believe a wider drive aisle reduces parking lot conflicts. City staff has found 24-foot drive aisles to be adequate throughout the City, in both large and small lots for retailers ranging from restaurants to home improvement centers. These reductions will allow for the building to be moved an additional 3 feet to the south, eliminating the need for a parking lot setback variance at the northern lot line and increasing the degree of conformity with both the residential setback adjacent to Ms. Owen's property and the front building setback. 4 & 5. Staff believes that the applicant can comply with both walkway and parking stall requirements without detriment to the proposal. The parking study supplied by the applicant indicates that the peak parking demand for this business is 12 stalls. The proposed plan provides more than double this need. Parking stall and walkway widths can be adjusted with minimal parking loss and the application will remain in excess of peak demand requirements. 6. Staff believes that the long-standing relationship between this property and the property to the north establishes a reason for leaving this portion of the site (north of the privacy fence) without irrigation. The applicant acknowledges ultimate responsibility for the maintenance of this area. e) The requested variance(s) must not alter the essential character of the locality. 1-6. The applicant states that the proposal will enhance the existing character of the neighborhood. 1-6. Staff does not believe that the requested variances will alter the essential character of the locality. f) The requested variance(s) must be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 1-6. The applicant believes that the proposal is consistent with the general purpose and intent of all plans and regulations. 1-6. Staff believes that additional minor changes can be made to the proposal that will bring it closer to the intent of City Ordinances. Summary • Staff recommends approval of the following requested variance: #6 -Irrigation limit to end at location of existing privacy fence on north side. • Staff recommends modifications of the following requested variances: #1 - Approve a front setback not to exceed 76 feet (to be achieved through minor parking stall and aisle modifications). #2 - Approve a side setback reduction to 5 feet for no more than 24.5 feet at the northwest corner of the building (to be achieved through same minor parking stall and aisle modifications listed above). • Staff recommends denial of the following variances: #3 - Deny a parking lot setback variance as this can be eliminated through minor parking and aisle modifications. #4 - Deny a variance fora 5-foot pedestrian walkway as this can be addressed through minor parking and aisle modifications. #5 - Deny a variance for reduced parking stall widths as the applicant's parking study has indicated that parking exceeds peak demands and reduced widths unnecessarily increase opportunity for injury and property damage. • Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan with the above-listed modifications related to variance requests. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock `started' when a complete application was received on January 11, 2012. A decision is required by March 11, 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 • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 23, 2012. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper and mailed to properties within 350 feet of the proposal • Ms. Jann Owen, 6535 11th Avenue, spoke against the proposal and presented an alternative layout. Ms. Owen believes the requested variance that will allow the building to be closer to her property will be detrimental. • Ms. Jan Holman, 6524 12th Avenue, was not in favor of Ms. Owen's alternative which would allow parking closer to her property and remove a row of existing trees. • After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission voted 5-3 (Jabs, Root, Schuller dissenting) to recommend approval of the proposal with the modifications recommended by staff. • Dissenting Commissioners cited the possibility for further redesign to address neighbor concerns and the results of the 66th Street Corridor Plan as reasons for their dissenting vote. • In addition to the public hearing held on January 23rd, variance requests applied for in conjunction with site plan consideration require a public hearing before the Council. Tonight's public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper and notice mailed to properties within 350 feet of the proposal. E. ENVIIZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Stormwater Management, Grading and Drainage plans must be finalized and approved by the Public Works Department prior to construction. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECONIlVIENDATION(S~ • Approve the proposed or recommended site plan and variances with modifications. • Reject the proposed site plan and variances. V. ATTAC~IMENTS • Resolution • Proposed plans • Parking study memorandum • Information and alternative site plan submitted by Ms. Jann Owen, 6535 11th Avenue. • Area zoning and land use maps VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mark Wold, O'Reilly Automotive Stores 1-I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN AND VARIANCES AT 1120 66TH STREET EAST WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of site plan for a retail automotive store on the parcel of land located at 1120 66th Street East (the "Property"), legally described as: Lot 8, Block 2, Eliason Fourth Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the proposed site plan includes an irrigation system that ends approximately 10 feet south of the northern property line rather than covering the entire site, a front setback of 76 feet rather than the permitted maximum of 60 feet, and a side setback of 5 feet for 24.5 feet at the northwest corner of the proposed building rather than the required 15 feet; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357,. Subdivision 6, provides for the granting of variances to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances where their enforcement would cause "practical difficulty" to the owners of the property under consideration; and WHEREAS, based on the findings below, the Richfield City Council approves the requested variances from Richfield Zoning Code Subsections 534.11, Subdivisions 1 and 2; and 544.03, Subdivision 4, Clause h; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the site plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: The City Council makes the following general findings: a. The Property is zoned General Commercial. b. Hennepin County is requiring that direct access to the site from 66t" Street be removed. c. The proposed site plan shows a building located 79 feet from the front property line. Code states that the maximum front setback in this area shall not exceed 60 feet. A variance from Subsection 534.11, Subd. 2 is required. d. The proposed site plan shows a building located 5 feet from asingle-family residential property for approximately 27.5 feet. Code states that the minimum building setback adjacent to asingle-family residential property is 15 feet. A variance from Subsection 534.11, Subd. 1 is required. e. The proposed site plan shows a parking lot located 12.5 feet from asingle- family residential property. Code states that the minimum parking lot setback adjacent to asingle-family residential property is 15 feet. A variance from Subsection 534.11, Subd. 1 is required. ~~~ f. The proposed site plan shows a pedestrian walkway that is 5 feet wide. Code requires a minimum width of 6 feet. A variance from Subsection 544.15, Subd. 3 is required. g. The proposed site plan shows parking stalls that are 8.5 feet wide. Code requires a minimum width of 9 feet. A variance from Subsection 544.13, Subd. 3 is required. h. The existing privacy fence is located approximately 10 feet south of the northern property line. This privacy fence is proposed to be replaced and the existing row of mature trees maintained. Code states that all landscaped area within new developments shall be irrigated. A variance from Subsection 544.03, Subd. 4(h) is required. 2. With respect to the application for the above-listed variances from Code requirements, the City Council makes the following findings: a. Strict enforcement of Richfield Zoning Code Subsections 534.11, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 544.03, Subdivision 4(h); 544.13, Subdivision 3; and Subsection 544.15, Subdivision 3 would cause a practical difficulty. Use of this site for a retail auto parts store is a reasonable use for which access and parking needs must be addressed. b. Unique circumstances that were not created by the land owner affect the Property. The requirement by Hennepin County that direct access to 66tH Street from the site presents delivery circulation issues that would not otherwise be present. The existing privacy fence and long-standing relationship with the adjacent residential neighbor to north is a unique circumstance and site constraint that does not apply to other parcels. Neither the land owner, nor the applicant created these circumstances. c. Granting the requested variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Requested variances related to setbacks and irrigation will not alter the essential character or the neighborhood or endanger public safety. However, the requested variances related to parking stall widths and walkway width will unnecessarily increase the possibility of property and/or personal injury. This finding cannot be met for variances from Subsections 544.13, Subdivision 3 and 544.15, Subdivision 3. d. The variances requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. The proposed plan to limit irrigation to the area south of the proposed privacy fence will preserve the existing trees and long-standing relationship with the adjacent residential property. In regard to setbacks, the Council finds that modifications can be made to the site plan that will increase the degree of conformity with Code requirements and still alleviate the practical difficulty. The proposed building can be shifted south 3 feet without the loss of any parking. This reduces the area of noncompliance with Subsection 534.11, Subdivision 1 (side setback) from 27.5 feet to 24.5 feet and with Subsection 534.11, Subdivision 2 (front setback) from 19 feet to 16 feet. The same building shift will allow a shift of the northern parking lot boundary. This boundary will then meet the requirement of Subsection 534.11, Subdivision 1 and no variance will be necessary. e. The variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed plan allows for redevelopment of a vacant commercial property. Past use of this property was as a restaurant; a use with potentially more neighborhood impacts. f. The variances requested are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinances ~/~ and the Comprehensive Plan contemplate a wide variety of commercial uses in this area. Minor modifications (see "c" and "d" above) to the proposed plan can be made to bring the proposal closer to the general intent of a walkable, safe, cohesive neighborhood. 3. With respect to the proposed site plan, the City Council makes the following findings: a. The proposed site plan is consistent with the elements and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed use of the site for a retail automotive store is consistent with the purposes of the Code, which allows for a wide variety of retail and service businesses. 4. Based upon the above findings, a variance is hereby approved to allow a front setback of 76 feet. 5. Based upon the above findings, a variance is hereby approved to reduce the interior side setback adjacent to a residential parcel from 15 feet to 5 feet for a distance not to exceed 24.5 feet. 6. Based upon the above findings, a variance is hereby denied to reduce the parking lot setback adjacent to a residential parcel 7. Based upon the above findings, a variance is hereby denied to reduce the width of a pedestrian walkway from 6 feet to 5 feet. 8. Based upon the above findings, a variance is hereby denied to reduce the minimum parking stall width from 9 feet to 8.5 feet. 9. Based upon the above findings, a variance is hereby approved reduce irrigation requirements by 10 feet extending south from the northern property line. 10. A site plan including variances related to front and side setbacks, and irrigation requirements is hereby approved according to the terms of Richfield City Code Subsection 547.13, Subdivision 9, with the following additional stipulations: a) That revised site plans addressing required site changes be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any permits; b) That final sediment and erosion control plans are submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director; c) That a final stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director; d) That all parking stalls be maintained and free of snow year round; e) This resolution does not include approval of any signs. Sign permits must be applied for separately; f) Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall submit a surety equal to 125% of the value of any landscaping improvements not yet complete. This surety shall be calculated based on a minimum of two bids that include labor costs. g) The property owner is responsible for the maintenance and replacement of all landscaping in accordance with approved plans. r~ 11. Variances shall expire one year from the date of approval unless: a) the project for which the variance was granted is complete; or b) building permits have been issued and substantial work performed; or upon written request of the person or corporation holding the variance, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period. If the project is completed as approved, the variance shall run with the land and remain in effect for so long as the conditions regulating it are observed. 12. A building permit shall be obtained and construction of the project shall begin no later than one year following the date on which site plan approval is granted in accordance with Subsection 547.13, Subdivision 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of February 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk i p~ o ~ ~ : tlI i?J I ~ b 1~5 ~~ sT I ~ 9~ m ~ 2 2y'++ '~ M ~~ ~ti~ 1 9 ~drGf '~~~y~~ 3~~ ~- ~\ ~a w m to N ~O SZ ~~ Z ~m v, Y I..~V '~ `-'J y~ ~~ ~i y C~ ~ W O r 2 `2 z i ° i I s -'~ a A a 0 q~~~ ~~3~ r mm mi°-~r~z NC5? $~o~ 1~~~0 m .ANA1 `m'-ml>~RI ~y g~ ~-~ x ~ g . I ~ 2 ~ nQ $z~~ , I v; N a': ~'~~ ~ 1 . s~~z N ~ w ee~> R ~ R LP Aeti I z I - ~ N ti~ v 1 (nV ~' Crl.p L-- ~`" C ~ - i ~~: i .~s~~~ ~ ~_'y$g - iu~ I 1 SiNRS I •1 __-_.__--. ~-4. P nn° ~ P nl g ~ i, ®..wn N ~p ~ '~ r~'A v ~5i; YYYYYY'''"' ~, N --- 3' . ).7-.~ ~g o ~~'° I ~fP ~A ~uB Er ~~ m~ to ' ~~ N N ~~ ~N v ~p~~ ~ m~~ `;: 2 0.~ 0 w ' 12TFI A VF~'VOF ,5"Q UTH ~L (BIFUA:INOUS-G~TY OF RfCHFIF_I p-30 M.P.H.-RESlDENTlAL) n ~~ ~ a a~ ~~ _~ : ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ s z ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ °~ ~ ~. ~ ~ z ~ 5 ~ ~ $ ~ ~ " 00 U U ®CO COO 000 00 O 00 00 O 000 O ~~b m~ >OS ~00pL° ~~~ ~c x~~ mn pnm gc A° n a1N al x mx ms A mom mnnq A° a+naf° Aan ~° ~°t ~s n~~ S~I~in czz n~ ~°- z oZi -+~ ~"~ ~{Z n oo~~ ooz "'~ m`o tnn~ ~<;~i~ om~o no °mno mmr mo ~,...o.®.,~'~ yam oW ~Z~ oooNZmi ~~~L1O [p~~ -DC~~ Q"~ N~v ic~°r o~ ~~~~~~zrnr' ~~~F ,~zN~ ~~ ~~a o~ ~~1gn0~ 1~p~'o'~ ~1~~ oA o`~~` ~~n QA S DZ~m -N.. yb_m vaDV 9N~ 'Cl~ $ASS Am o0Y ~ NO e}~im. Om ~rn~z fll O [ f11 li{ ~ y , ~I~m tn~ Z[ ° mO al jx0 m 5 11~ C~ H ~Sm ~ N.OS ~n 1rq11~1b I°rIS (°rrrrrV ~Omq~n ~e 9f~Il mgmm 1mpo1~ P ~~ A~fll O.p i r~.'r~ ZN mm ~In -rN~~ Z 2 ~p ~af f,)r3~ 2~ ~ al C .-In [Z' =m ~ Y -f -1 1 O-1 al a~-lv -iN mn -~a 5~ <O j.. ND~ ~DO111 To~~ 2 zm °m ~mp n,> a nr~' $!9 wim 1 a D o --ic ° ~- AA 2~ {n0~ r ~ 1n ~y ~ O}`v 5 3'O ?~ Da ac z-~ AS ~11p O~m11 nF OD1{1-Dp al~ ~ n' b C < ~ ~$ r-I D m Z~AK Z Z Z~r•.. ~ 9 Fa rZ nGr r.Z F.. ~ A~ <FA my Dal m n pN [nfy ~- c5q f) <d~yA ~ y2.0 !"mn0 A` m 2Z -i Atn n) -(rr 41 OOm ~ ~lang2 gDZ n~ W9 ,,~i~ ~n~ N=~~ nC ~ V~ ym O ^n.zy PO v~ {I~?. ~(~ y -10 O Op D U9l ~AT> Cbm° 'O O ~ Z Ovp N~041 !r` ~~ r~.. ~~~~ ~ ~. o °~~ ~ (°n ~s ~ 0x z z °r KC s .r. >`"DS 9~N In-o f y °. ° m° P ON = ~m o o ~~ ~w~m bo o °m "IC ~ N~ ~ m nrA SSmC ~ •z~ Q ~~ .u z ~ rnzi oz z-DI ~+ o° D. v~ O ~ 5~ @ 1' p~ ~ ~ 1. ~ Tp O~v D2~l vy 8~ a Dal P°~ Zy W m o g ~z f-mmrnr ° ~ '~` ~ $ Yq "'~-Di 'z ~~ `oP ? ar A ~ m ~ P n lrII v In D $ N N ~Z ° N ~ N ~ 5 mOY ~ a)D C)~ °~ m a x mmr m D NN z° ~A9 n z PRELIMINARY -NOT I=OR CONSTRUCTION o b n. ~"] H ~ 9 ® New O'Reilly A~fa Part{ $fere• ~~~~1 ~~A~~ ~, ~~D~~IDER, AIA _ .. rl ~ r 66TH STREET EAST ®- ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ RICNFtELp MN AD~66ITECT N P 233SOUTW PATTERSON ~ o Dar ~ o ~ D c~ T~ Dc.m n v DS -1 0 ~ OTfi-fip a) m y®p z" I 41 U N p o v rn ° -~ ~ TC Nrii C'~y ~ .T9 1~1p1 yp{~ °'- Z~ ~ ~x 00 ~Pr pp~~ o~. ° ~~ ~. Z - C ~~z~ G m -i ~ If~ ° l L m C o O0 oo ~~~c ~ ~ r~ ~ my ~ fg~~Q~ e~a~ s ~ $o~~ a N1Y® 3 1n v ° m ~D`a° c ar m mu ~ O m < r! v v [CS v a Y' n CC o $ g~~~ j m °~ N Irl 1756 Easl Smrslllne, Yulle 417 917.862.6558 N ,. '~ SPRINGFIE40,PAISSOURI~65802 PaY:917.862.8266 A ~ ~ SprIn611e15, Mlssourt 65869 917-862-2674 PHONE ~ (RlCNFtELO y6t) a-mflll: nrcB11ec11?sesleYl7lellneidcr.C6N l~ V ~i~ moa'1aDIDatlBShcsalsai)19a119~Ae aUBDS•e (lay tl7311ND1N) ~IJONd bL9Z-Lf3D•LLb 99Z8'Z98'Ll6 sDd YDDS9IJU5%slld `DI011Rll1ADS Z06491i1(1OS61W'd1~IdJNINdS o; '-' N NQS~1311tld HAf10^a EEZ o N SSAD'Z98'L16 LIV alloS'aDlUSUUS isea 9SL1 NW 'a~3r3N~ra ~~~ w ~~9~~a V ~ Z ~ W ~Z a~ V~~F- ~ i1°I ~ h E w'~ ° $ zzmZ o ° ~~a~ ~ s ~~g~ ~ P ~ LL ? WQVa ~ ~°° IFO- ~o mo - ~y 1 Z~~Z ~ ~~ ~~~ a °~~~ ~Z~ g ~° O IC o ~ ~ ja~o ~ ~ a~~a go a¢ a of tf v ~ ~c ~~ Co ~ a ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ !!~~ g A ~ G ~ ^~ ° v m ~ F ° ~ ° ~ ~ ~ oc~ F~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~$ p n rII b U z 0 ~ a • _ ~ (7N11M301S321-'H'd'!N 0£-073ldNJl2! d0 .1J.19-SAONlFN17118) ~____.. ~_ .~ILnos ~n~r,~n. ~ I~LLI.f t .:. .. ,... _11 1I' . ~i~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~00'SZ X7.7 g __ I ~' ~: •~00'SZ : • cn~aN v N ~a ~~~ .I . ' ~ a. i~ ~ ~~ LLI b :::•~ , I~ -- °: : ~, :: I 4 ~ I ~~ •1 ~ ~ ~ _ E~~~tM hpp z~~ Ycil~ J O~ TA ~ ~ -- -cos - - .ee•e .c55 ~ ._- . J(- ~ 4~ ~~~ M ~~ $ ~g ~~o N~ ~~ s ,L~~1,j~~~~ iSH3133N1S N199 ~~~.:.1~~ 4/~~l:l ~~~ ~ ~ °F ~ ~.•. - -- - :~01,~~~.~~zaa~NOa •~zo;~ ~,oN - h~~~z~~:~a aq V' .-. N Q d w _ ~~~ .~ ¢ W y o~ t 'a a ~rc ~ ~o~ ~ ~` ~ z z~z ~ ~~ a ~{{4.. O, O 171°a Z O ~ U S ~ ZW ~ ~ W J70 LL~ ~ q~m a(7 a Z ~ ~ N.. rc NU Z N ~ 4 yy ~ 4 ~ J h 0° ~ K 6 ~ K.0 W Z O ,~ i~ ~ ~~ ~~ id~ O°go 'cTi~ ~ a ~a ~i-7 ~N ~ 5 ~a ¢ ~ i]~a J ~ Nh zo z=oJ¢ ~ ~ Sn ~i~ a-• u {a ~g Wao N¢ wi~Mry WFI W o you ~ ~~ ~ o u~ ~ o ~p< .,, IIt Km ~~~ (70 .rcJrm a~ 117-~~ Qz ° Xpw IV- ~-~I7I ~ ~Z z° Cp aU ~ °_J NZ >WV :.1 ~v'CC 47 JFFFO .~6h. J ~ Ulij ~ Y h ~41 `fig `~ O ~-N Oa ',g04 O g} O 7 U a ~> (9 IY F'=1 ~ ~ ale a7 zz~U7~P'N' a~a ~ ~ m° ga vo'Wa- ~QaQo qq ~ W~° ~ z7z- µW ~a o~w7•~ ~z a a~n$ "m'"'"'".~•, lUi~ (] i3 ~U ~ oW ¢LL vl (3 ~ jS ZZOO i3 mVt. (7W u'~ Fi p, m ~3 a"J Z~ K¢p$Y ~a WO 10+. ~p-OI Lu~ ~ `^ W Z F Z 7Y_ 4 m. a 11, it u7 ~ rr $~+7 17~ .l. 3' 3-- ~°. ~~ ~o`J Uvl U a.rc2z ? ¢C7K ~F Slt U ~ ~ °daK ay ~ ~ Vr IG ~"j CSC ZW Z Zh ~j Z Now Ka V.6 J WZ O u(7 ~fD~ G/ WZ 2 a~ W 0'a ~ C7 to l' NZ ZJ (~W ZJ '~J p'J Z l~ J N Sa z-a ->a ¢~' ~a oag5 003 uu11 wyzn F &sg~ ~''1177 7+~~ s u9. 2 m ~ ~y 1_ .( O a e V 4 IY~p.I ~~ ~~~ ~aGl (07 ~°'N+O~- 'w'W °Y~ ht Z K=U' ~~ ~K W pNl ~ Op ~ Z ?_ ~~z a ~aa a771r t~7w.i.~ N~ U~7~7i a o pa,o ° °a~° a~ r~qq~ _~i~i° mie o~ ou7 ~~ a ~ µI `al Qg F-S ap 1~uu Ja ~ii C'm aaa ~.^, ~O QF~ Wh Wh ~h ~F-UW 6lhW~ <h Wh h ~Z a (h~ ~ d YO ~~ O W ~ O>-' ~F. ¢~ ' ~° ~a ((yy ue ~[7w~~ orcxo go ~o ~o ~w ,a.4aw uio ~x~ zz oU W~A ~V a5~ Fm ~~1N= ~Zr~ "?~ Ww s'->5: Q urc ~¢~ o~ ~~ c°7~ ~rca°u ~'~'ao>>~ ~~. g'y'm. ~rc ~o~ ?7~0o NWT` omR ~~ ~~ m~OS ~)rz7 ~a~ ~~ vw-i~5 ~i°zIn °°s ~a ~os O OCOOO O 00 00 O OC) ®00 O~ Od O O 00 3N1 0•! L 5: A 7 8~: ' ~' :•~W IQtld35::: ••4 .•e • ~-a: i .• i:.~ w$\ .... ~ ~.~ [.. 1 tl _~~.____- sxms 1 I ~ I So~~ I - I ~ __ 7 ~ ~`W C ~ -~ ~ u~ 7 N ~ ~~ z ~:::~;.-:A.:::m: '~ ~ N : •..' •' N . ~I: o-~•g .~ s• :.:puoz.~•:; °d $: ,o55r.~:;q .: '::':,ostz L I ~ ro~NK b I m i3 c~a5 1' ~N1r~Q ~N Y1~ o ~ ~sa~ ~~ J ~~~~ N L. ~5°~ oz$ ~r5y m~~J o~~~ a 5~~~ J Q Q S_ I x 0 s ~. Iv 0 U 2 V.I z Z Q ro ~~ w~ r~ ^1~ ~~ a\ Tn~ w~ z U ~_. Z ga a 00 ~~ ~a a ~ N g ~H~ b ^ I ,xn_.•.atv~.,...,. ;~...~.,..m `h~.~......^.m.T^`h ~~r .. o ~; L.. "'~ ~~~~ b ~~~ -•-~ - /y5 ~~ 7 ~~ 9c, l `?y2 !~~ r ~ ~'N . ~~ y 5~ ~Gi 'ai'~°~''y ~~ ~ ~~ to QO ~~ v s~ ~~ _A ~~ ym ~~h~ rn m mom; a ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ my A v'-I O n ~ ~ ~ ~m~ .~ ~ O r T~I ~ p C ~ ~~ T ~ D ~ T A O Oo za ~+ ~ a o ppO~ i~ ~ rAp~l a ~ S~ > ~ me = C Q R ~ m m e o m~ ~ -. 2 ~ D r 'Ti I ~ m z~ rh -' N y ~ °1 ~~ Sm~ rb, ~ D {n > G Z ~ r~i ~ ~ m ~ ,~ A ~ < x z ~ ~ l~ ~ m ~j .I-i nri .ri _D Ir 'S °~~ ~ 6 Y ~ 2 ~ _°c ~,,~ ~ I °.'~ I CTa ~ C~ y a rn ~_._ _._ ~. i „ - ~ ~~? c~ I "~ r,~'~"'~! c I I y I vN o~~~ j m7~ ~ i II ~~ V ads ~'ri +~ I I n I - ,~ - i I ~ ~~a ~ir~o I ~~z ' ~~ v , L 1 SfillPS ' 1 = r f - - I- - _ _ - _ _ _ _ ~~l NOD i7; 0,200.00 d~ t~{~ ~ ' ~-- - ~ -- ---------- -- , [` l . L . ~ ~\ ~ ® - ~ ray ggg~ 4`n~ \~~\ g ~ >~ g. ..;~ I i ~' ~~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ V • M1 ~ :~ \ ~\~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ '~ fn sa `~ -.~I ~ i I ~ I. ~ _ .. . _. } I ao v sc I I _ .'~ v~ I ~ N P I Yh~C S T ELI. I INC ; i I~ a ,` A ~~ti :~~g ~ _~~~ ~~~ I ~ _ ~ ~ ~~ k s~ ~ N.P'+1'~~J'.~iT , 9 ®fJT l .t~~ m ~. ~ ,~_-. ® m (917UMlNQUS-ClT;' OF ,,4iCyFiEL/J--30 M.Y. N,-RESIDENRgL) ~ - --- ~ -s-------- .o n W A it gimpy ~®pgC AIC I 0 ci n ~, .~ :~''~~^^'''''~~ Q ~ u ~ .. - ~~~!"~ ° ° a A tz~ ~ ~~ W ~. 4~D~~jj m m~ ~~~g 4~ ZZm 1V40 ~ T ~4 m O ~ O ~ m C Sn 04511 °A2~ x AAS I~ty ]1 ~ (~ innt Z G] zzO( .~5 'e 1 nmw d mom c cyr5 ~ ~ a a U .~ 4 p~pi Qi ~ ~ mm ° F 4 ~ O ~ ° ~.i ° O Z Y~® ~ m ~ z z ~~ z I ~~ f C ~r~ Oy y Z° ® I N ~RELIMIN,~I2Y - N(~T I'®R C®NSTRLTC'1~®N O O O I I A# -°i~ TN ~~ f1AI IDn T? ~Un'~, 5. 41r A 1 I 1~ :1Z .~an~ mo -1O x0 o~ ~ On4~0 ~v%z al~ ° Dn m ~~ jCOai x z ~<n N ,1~ 1~ C4 lrFlm U ~~ ~,P ~ Ob0I1nr11 OO 4S^ ~ C ~ "'c nAFZ C yNo y n msnrF2 A m Z D ~y~n z~ o°~y n~oa a mO ~ p~mo ._ m- V Aw ~~~+ mm8 ~~ ~mf°D Porn ~~ s N °p~ m~ A y~o n _ >~°n C III oar ~^?S og ~° m s ~ - x G) m m o n m a Y6 4g m~ `ar~ ..yy°~I4 °°4~ ~poaz 4u, '4n A n G A mb0 C031C Db TC~I° (miA~S°~ ~ =N°y s4 "~ °~c~ oor~ z'°FZ o~ n,.=-I °Zppp zm4 V In iy N-DI G1 vCi °~S DA ~y~m ~~ Op(1m mND y3' ~ ~~~g O a ((~~Z~Z m i z a,- one' -,a 4r ~ ZmZ-VO_ ~OyO < Zy Dm0 y~r~~ °ZamO ~'_r PN4~ D NZ'4 G1 O 4pC A iA C°JNI- Amy y$NO~ NO zma~ _i vai>O~y 5 ZF~~ r? ~i~D fn D[- Oy'--iC O CON m x AT O>In 2D0 ZI Ay D ZAjm 2O°O 4 r O x -,i `. ~~~ A~D NmpD m ~S~Cy Nrti°mON ' oD ~~ O oAnY mz2yc rrn~~ ZZarn~rn ~ ~p 'D m~ yZ, ,~, N ~Sr° c x ~ GORI 'OOpToQy 09-1T V y~~ ~C~pOoFr T 5--~ D -~ ~4p mA0 4Zy°-'~ ama"~ ~n°z0 P y~d ~ ~ ~~~ $o~ ~~mo~ m a~p§ mzDZOa g o~c n m Ly~ COp r-Og ~~~~ FrnN ~'< O ®yG O ~pJ >> ° O A ~rD-W yl~Y Dy U ~ a~A~ zyz C~ A ~OO r ®® ^~ g gay y ~y~ m`o~ OO°ai* A z_+o ~i o ~ ~4am rrT~~~i tic v cmi ~~'~y czi~~~<O< A INK C Or SI~ _~ m ~~ ~.N-qT ~ m ~ ~ o ~ ~z rl a ~ ~' ~ n. ! .Drew 6'Rei!(y Aufg Parts Sfore: z+~.rvu,,,.,I,Kr,nll.le nwf.wu~ ~ N ~ ~ CRAIG A, SC1INEi®ER AIA ~ M o ri- ~ »` n n~g~ , ew ]~ ssr~a srRFer ~~s; ly C~~~~ ~t'L~11~ ~ _ _ "' , ~'~C~i~~~~ \ ~ _ ~° ~ P RICHFIEt f1, MA! 238 SOUTH PATP"ERSON &7t6 CASI S!®S~gIB, SUIte 417 y 'O SPRINGFIEC.D, MISSOURI 65fl02 ~®[4n~B1elA, Mlzsourl 66®p4 497.Si2.OS58 ~ 417-862-J_674 PHONE (RJCNFJEJ_D !F12 ,, .0O1e~r, ,,,~,A„_-, PBS: 417.@62.3265 _~ .....................9 Amw woa aaplauUffflaalfaio�lfailu�lu glow -a (to 4731mid) 3NOHd VG9Z-Z88-aV — w -�H HH HH I -H HH I ..9 -.v 4 ! H•J .8.4 ,s'.4 .8-.4 ..E•,EL I I HH HHI HH I -H I•s.Z--,--1__=_-,-_� 59ZE°Z99'L16 xel ►8599 11800IN'PlaIIApLIdf I {I-� ZOSs9RifIOSSIy'013HONINdS m H� of n o Fx pp y Zspw IHI HH S 1--H AHI HH I 8550'Z9B'Gl6 pf'9alYleBf Ife{ 9SL{ LR 9l 1SN '(1731S H199 n M n n� NOSH3.LiVd Hif10S ££Z V V y � m HH r HH I -IH HH III,�I � 111I�I I�II�I II IIII �I e l M I 7 �I =76 C-_7 C-] C=7 I F- 22� 98 5 �w5 .zn S -,Es �69 �'� o -woo Q Wo33 11100 OJy QOo3 FC II VYV `81alimus -V 91TV) 3=. W0LL' II, O C'y wa�F 2 wg mS acZ oLL 0 aLL�DO I. ms4 r r l j- I I 01. I -AL „8L'�9 ,At-�B-- .A-,8 v. .9-.Z .9-•Z -.8'.Z .9'.Z .9.Z ,�g-z___�`+_— U w ad .�o,s p� 3 H „ -I I -I I -I — LOL C{ .W 113tl11 i1tlrd R NOI.I.IaI1USNOa XOd ION -AERAM NOd XNVNII 1JE1Nc1 I_ J i_jI I 57 - -- I .9 — w -�H HH HH I -H HH I ..9 -.v 4 ! H•J .8.4 ,s'.4 .8-.4 ..E•,EL I I HH HHI HH I -H I•s.Z--,--1__=_-,-_� �I I {I-� II ' I II I Hill I II I i�11, HH HH HI -I m H� Ory =s y y Fx pp y Zspw IHI HH S 1--H AHI HH I F y � m HH r HH I -IH HH III,�I � 111I�I I�II�I II IIII �I e l y M I 7 �I =76 C-_7 C-] C=7 I F- 22� 98 5 �w5 .zn S -,Es �69 �'� o -woo Q Wo33 11100 OJy QOo3 FC II - r--ls,zr--y—Ts•z°=—--1s',z�7 T Zi -1 I 3=. W0LL' II, O C'y wa�F 2 wg mS acZ oLL 0 aLL�DO I. ms4 , r r l j- I I 01. I -AL „8L'�9 ,At-�B-- .A-,8 v. .9-.Z .9-•Z -.8'.Z .9'.Z .9.Z ,�g-z___�`+_— w ad p� 3 H „ -I I -I I -I — LOL C{ .W 113tl11 i1tlrd R �0 fm O Z�w ZOO WV� ,O dz yV F�f 4 'gwx �qq�9 Zhm .2Z .9 dFw9 w •�8-.9E aq� U ..9 y LLrc wC2 Wpo Q �a a m �0 fm O Z�w ZOO WV� ,O dz yV F�f 4 'gwx �qq�9 Zhm .2Z .9 dFw9 w aq� U W eau ZmcrFs y LLrc wC2 Wpo �a a wz� Ory =s y y Fx pp y Zspw a omo y � m wwy O No zo F- 22� 98 5 �w5 O �69 �'� o -woo Q Wo33 11100 OJy QOo3 FC p2Zpq�9 Y11LLW0 3=. W0LL' 8:zi :Ms WWa¢y jI�11� O C'y wa�F 2 wg mS acZ oLL OHO 6LLU aLL�DO I. ms4 aS Lv-a F �0 fm O Z�w ZOO WV� ,O dz yV F�f 4 'gwx �qq�9 Zhm .2Z .9 dFw9 u�goLL aq� U W eau ZmcrFs LLrc wC2 Wpo mD wz� Fx pp y Zspw a omo w No zo O 98 5 �w5 O �69 �'� o -woo Q � J Wy� wa�F 2 W �m41 F w ad p� 3 H „ �0 fm O Z�w ZOO WV� ,O dz yV F�f 4 'gwx �qq�9 Zhm .2Z a- 0 Q W J W N Z 5 Ic O J 16 qq y au��Q H1H �m� sol 3,1�1yk UjyFa- LL y ILII 5 V o oaiwaO l° rc v O � O LL of 01 01 _ w 0 O WU� a4W 9 _ woo Ow o MLL - zma ao o F y Imp �QQS ci I jy g z 5W NONI� 3 .9 dFw9 U a- 0 Q W J W N Z 5 Ic O J 16 qq y au��Q H1H �m� sol 3,1�1yk UjyFa- LL y ILII 5 V o oaiwaO l° rc v O � O LL of 01 01 _ w 0 O WU� a4W 9 _ woo Ow o MLL - zma ao o F y Imp �QQS ci I jy g z 5W NONI� 3 Yage 1 of 1 AIle6issa Poehlman ,- Front: Paul Engel, PE [pengel@aeincmo.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 3:15 PM To: Melissa Poehlman Cc: clgreen@oreillyauto.com; tfetters@oreillyauto.com; SPeterie@oreillyauto.com; Thom@esterlyschneider.com Subject: RE: O'Reilly Auto Parts; Engineering Parking Space Reduction Request Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: OReillyAuto-RichfieldMN-ParkingReductionJustification(10-30-11).pdf Melissa, Good afternoon. As discussed last week, attached is our Engineering Justification to allow 25 parking spaces instead of the 34 required by City Code. Please let me know if there is anything else we can help with. Thanks. Paul J, Engel, PE Vice-PresidentlProject Manager ~ ~cl P !. Q Y~ E 4 W 31 E Q A CtY1L E-'Y~l~~ipt4i3 ~ 'LN+1p R7R'd6C'~IFi~t ~~FAf4Y 2045 W Woodland, Springfield MO 65807 417-866-2741 Offlca 417-840-2517 Call d'~~n9+z~,sxr ~thaatlk ~rnre vsra prrazot ;P~IIf Anderson Engineering, Inc. does not assume any liabilities for unauthorized alterations to the information contained herein, and grants a temporary license to the recipient of this email for the use of material contained in any attached files for development of recipient's work. Anderson Engineering, Inc. does not warrant the accuracy of any information contained in these emailed files, but Anderson Engineering, Inc. retains all rights to the use of the emailed material. The information contained in this email, including any attachments, is privileged, confidential and intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It is the responsibility of the addressee to scan for any computer viruses or other defects. The sender does not accept liability for any loss or damage of any nature which may result from this email or any attached file. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution or copying of the message is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil penalties. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email then delete any printed or electronic copies. 1 /4/2012 1 1 ~~~° Ms. Melissa Poehlman, City Planner City of Richfield, MN 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423 P: 612-861-9766, E: mpoehlman@cityofrichfield.org RE: VARiARICE REQUEST FOR OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRE® PROPOSE®O'REILLY AUTO PARTS; '12T" A\OE & 66T" STREET EAST Ms. Poehlman, As per your request, this letter shall serve as the Engineering Justification for the Reduction of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces for the proposed O'Reilly Auto Parts at 12"' Ave & 66"' Street East. As a Civil Engineer with. experience in Traffic ~ Parking Analysis we offer the following justifications for providing 25 Off-Street Parking Spaces instead of the 34 spaces required by City Code. Per Richfield City Code, 544.13, Subd. 6, Number of Off-Street Spaces Required: Retail (other than shopping center) where Required= 5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor more than 25 percent of the gross floor area is area customer area O'Reill Auto Parts; 6,872 s uare feet Required= 5 * 6872/1000) = 34.36 = 34 spaces The proposed O'Reilly Auto Parts project is proposing to provide 25 spaces for the following reasons: 1. The total lot area is only 25,501.64 square feet in area. The lot cannot be developed to provide the required 34 spaces due to limited area and still meet the other required City Deveiopment Code requirements including the 8' Parking Setback Lines along 12`h Avenue & 66`h Street East. 2. Per the 8`h Edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (iTE) Trip Generation Code 843 (New Auto Parts Sales}, the O'Reilly Auto Parts site is only expected to generate a PM hourly peak of 8 trips entering and 9 trips leaving. The proposed 25 parking spaces will provide at least double the necessary hourly peak traffic including employees. 9 customers + 4 employees = 12 parking 3. Providing additional parking beyond 25 will interfere with safe and efficient internal traffic circulation by reducing the two way internal traffic paths to less than 24' feet wide. The Justifications listed above rove that the 25 s aces rovided is maxim f r thI o ect. We appreciate ur assistance and please contacp us witph questions. i rereb~ tr,ai this p~~pecificatien, Sinc r ly, ! 1 ~ ~ pony d thayt am a dudlyer my t.icensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Print Name• ~~tJt_ !r fiE.e._. Paul ngel,PE ~~ Vice President/Project Engineer signature; colad~jl uySzfS' 2045 w. YJGOD:AND SPRINGFIELD, t,10 6580? PH. a ii.ubD..~./41 FX: a t%.8oc.27?E `+.'•'s`r`: ,4E~tiCt~~ -„r-t-..'.~;+~t-1~,~13 ~=~~-C4-tn rn;;t ~, ENGINEERS ° SURVEYORS " L A S O R A T O R 1 E 5 ' D R I l L t N G I~ Our Home in Richfield @116 , .,, ~~, ~ '~` ~.., x .` .: c i' .t : ~': iY" . Next to the future home of O'Reilly's Automotive Stare Proposed by: lann Owen 6535 11th Ave S, Richfield MN Page ~ 1 1/23/2012 *i sw'• ~V~ Owen Residential property -:. ~ f }~i €S ~, { ;e ~~~ J ~ `y '~ ~ .> ? q E~ {,.~ ~i. f r--. ,,,! d C. it ~a t ~,^'( .,, i. 66t" Street F~olman Residential Property .~. , ;._~. ~s ~~ i! ,~ f ~ `" { '°. :, ~~,_ ~.r' ~#~.~..~._ Yn~ `~ ~v. ~w fi t. 1~: s.. { 3 V' } {,{ 7 T" l +~ ~ 31Yk i t~ . Y ~ ! .... ~~. __ 'J}'~l~ U ~-i.~ F z ~ ° N 2 D C 3 Page ~ 2 1j23/2012 ~~~3 Holman Residential Property t~"~ r~ f ~~ _ ~ n ~ ~~~ ~ •~ ~ Residential .~'_ ~~.. _ ,=~~ ~ .' - - u .~ ` ~ i ~; ~t ,,. ~ ~~~, ~ ;: s g . ~ ~ ~ Property ---~ ~----^~_~-~°~ ?f"°' ..;C ~ ~; e ~ ~- ~~; s~ , ~ ~~ °~.,~V ~ "t mss, `,~ _~,~ ~~ ~-s;~ , ~ 3, ~~ r. + • y n° p L1 ~ D f ~ ~" ~ 3 C 'D ~, { . ~,~, P ~ ~J c & ST'; i .=>1;: :_ fifit" Street ~~~~ } ~E Page~3 1/23/2012 I propose an orientation similar to that of the Bloomington store above. i"s tZt~Li Li C'SS::~ Vc'1t-~e9i1 ;4$ %3'+^ i,y "i;: .. ,•;1 .''' Pf1`:~,y;.•~•rt :a Fxc+~~^d maximum front Setback ~,° {:C: }eNt ~a.c:~i;~.,~ ,S foF ;~ `ran9 b.~ ,i~r~ ~•r:t:.•ar.-: e` `{~F ;~,r,t ?. f-'i-•r=r~ss~cn ~.~ r~ nil:"a, •i?,;- interior side setback :?[lt~F".cent ts7 a f~ 5 Citxnt ~l }'fCt.=r''y' `:.;'"' ' ~ if' ~°t tE,i ` `*>c'. ;; ~c•".rssscs: t:. r~:lar.:r pa~rkiny lpt 5ctback ;a ?};i:~:,•,' ~~: ~.a °i~s.clf~nt :rr ~:sc~:c'Fty f!:7".? %~ }t;et °. iiE :;r frtr~t. 4 Pe~•~r:ssron to re:lucc; pedestrian walkway ~nridth fr^rr ; tr:tt tc fee?. r f3~r~ttissi~•~ t~~ reJsr"y nrlnimuan~ alai! width 'roe., ~~ fet t tr• ? ~ f~rr~t P4tr~ti5gir-± tL eax.+,,.E;e irrigation requirements a~ir~ iµave a•ea r~~:.t^ :_f N.. ,:<.1~j `rr?:~ ~~n-.rri~t at~_r:l ~ ~. ~~=~ °• ~- ;~ ~~ ~ It appears that the building could be reoriented on the site with the long side of the building facing 66`" stand changing the front set back changed to 55 ft. This would eiiminate the need for • Variance 1 requested an increase in the front setback from the maximum of 60 ft to 79 ft • Variance request #2 a reduction in interior side setback to residential property from 15 to 5ft • May be able to eliminate variance request # 3 by adding parking at the rear of the building for employee parking These changes would dramatically reduce the effect on the residential properties and lessen the impact of residential property values. Page ~ 4 1/23/2012 Bloomington Store 1.~~ 1120 66th St E -Site Plan Approval 1 /2012 , 1~ Zoning Designations R VETERANS PARK R R R R R R R Q R Q R R = 2 r R R . eN- R C-2 C-2 350 ~ 66TH ST E c-z C_2 c-z MR-2 MR-2 MR-2 C-2 C-2 -2 R R R R LEGEND R -Single Family Residential MR-2 -Multi-Family Residential C-2 -General Commercial N W ~ E 0 55 110 220 330 440 S Feet R R R R R R R R R R C-2 1120 66th St E -Site Plan Approval 1 /2012 ~ ~~ Comprehensive Plan Designations , ~ L DR , ''LDR ~ VETERANS PARK . LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR PRK W Q LDR LDR W Q H I=- ~ LDR LDR r LDR CC CC 66TH ST E MDR I\ MDR I I I CC MHD CC LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR CC 3S0 ~ CC CC _DR cc LEGEND LDR -Low Density Residential MDR -Medium Density Residential MHD -Medium-High Density Residential CC - Community. Commercial PRK =;Park ,.,... . N W f E 0 55 110 220 330 440 S Feet AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # $ REPORT # 3 ~ ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAMG•, T/TLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit to allow an animal kennel at 6315 Penn Avenue. The applicant has withdrawn their current request for a conditional use permit and variances related to an outdoor relief area and will pursue this portion of the business seaarately. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a resolution granting a conditional use permit for an animal kennel at 6315 Penn Avenue. II. BACKGROUND In September, the Council approved an ordinance change to conditionally permit animal kennels and outdoor relief areas in the Mixed Use -Community (MU-C) District. Don and Lori Swetala have applied for a conditional use permit to operate a dog daycare business in the Penn Avenue Corridor, at 6315 Penn Avenue. The applicants have discussed possibilities for an outdoor relief area as part of this business with City staff, the property owner and neighboring business/property owners. This issue was discussed at length with the Planning Commission as well. The applicants have opted to withdraw this portion of their current application and plan to submit a revised proposal for consideration by the Planning Commission on February 27th and the Council on March 13th. 021412 6315 Penn Ave CUP III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Animal kennels are conditionally permitted in the MU-C District so long as soundproofing is installed on all shared walls when located within amulti-tenant building. This requirement does not apply, as the building in question is not amulti- tenant building. In order to grant a conditional use permit, the Council must find that all of the following conditions will be met: a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is/will be met. The Penn Avenue Corridor is intended to be a traditional, vibrant, pedestrian-oriented district. The proposed business requires a large amount of interior square- footage and a comparatively small amount of parking. New and unique businesses are a benefit to the Corridor. The applicant and City staff have also discussed requirements for additional landscaping and building facade improvements that will improve the appearance of the property. Staff recommends that approval be conditioned upon the submittal of final landscaping and building treatment plans. Unless the outdoor relief area proposal precludes it, landscaping and/or aesthetic improvements of some kind must address the driveway to the loading dock which will not be used. Final plans must be submitted within 90 days of approval of this permit. 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 use. This requirement is met. The MU-C District and Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District are intended to provide space for a wide variety of retail and service businesses. c) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. This requirement will be met. Final plans for landscaping and building facade improvements require the approval of the Assistant Community Development Director to ensure compliance with the Penn Avenue Design Guidelines. See also clause "a" above. d) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 544 of this Code. This requirement is met. The required parking (10 spaces) for this use is provided. Additionally, the applicants have an agreement with the owners of Lariat Lanes to provide additional employee parking if needed. As this additional parking is not required by Code, compliance with off-site parking requirements (544.13, Subd.12) has not been considered. Subsection 509.25 governs site improvements for nonconforming sites. In instances where the requirements of Section 544 cannot be met, alternative landscaping and screening plans can be approved. Final landscaping plans, as addressed in clause "a" above are required. e) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on government facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements. This requirement is met. The submitted plans have been reviewed by the Public Works Department and no adverse impacts are anticipated. t) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety or welfare. This requirement is met. The submitted plans have been reviewed by the Public Works and Environmental Health Departments and no adverse impacts are anticipated. g) There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. This requirement is met. The rehabilitation/re-use of vacant buildings is an integral part of enhancing the Penn Avenue Corridor. 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 is met. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock `started' when a complete application was received on January 13, 2012. A decision is required by March 13, 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 • A public hearing to consider the proposed request was held before the Planning Commission on January 23, 2012. • Notice of the public hearing was sent to properties within 350 feet in accordance with State and Local requirements. • City staff received one call from a resident who was concerned about the noise of barking dogs in the outdoor relief area. This portion of the application has been withdrawn while the applicants consider alternatives. • City staff received one call from resident Sarah Wolf Foss, 6241 Oliver Avenue, who asked that her concerns related to loose dogs and irresponsible dog and business owners be made known to the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms. Wolf Foss stated that airport property would be a more appropriate location for this type of use. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposal (7- 1, Rublein dissenting). • Tonight's meeting has also been posted as a public hearing because the original proposal included a request for variances in addition to a conditional use permit. In an effort to streamline the approval process, variances can be considered in conjunction with another request, but require an additional public hearing before the Council. This public hearing was published prior to the applicant's withdrawal of the variance portion of their application. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reject the proposal with findings that the proposed use would have an adverse impact or that requirements are not met. • Table this request until March 13, 2012 when it can be considered along with the proposal for an outdoor relief area. o Tabling this request would not violate the 60-Day Law, as March 13, 2012 is the deadline for issuance of a decision on this item. Any delay beyond this would require the Council to issue an extension. o The applicants and property owner have requested to move forward with this part of the application and come back with an amendment for the outdoor relief area so that a lease can be signed and the business can begin operations as soon as possible. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Proposed plans Planning & zoning maps VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Don & Lori Swetala, applicants ~,i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ANIMAL KENNEL AT 6315 PENN AVENUE WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of conditional use permit for an animal kennel. serving up to 50 dogs on the parcel of land located at 6315 Penn Avenue (the "Property"), legally described as: Lots 20 and 21, Block 12, Ray's Lynnhurst, Hennepin County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield recommended approval of this requested conditional use permit at its January 23, 2012 meeting; and WHEREAS, this requested conditional use permit meets the requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 547.09; and WHEREAS, this requested conditional use permit meets the requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit for an animal kennel as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 537.07, Subdivision 11; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional use permit;. 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 an animal kennel serving up to 50 dogs, as described in City Council Letter No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. This conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions in addition to those specified in Section 547.09 of the City's Zoning Ordinance: • Final landscaping and building fagade plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Assistant Community Development Director within 90 days of this approval; • A surety equal to 125% of the value (based on two bids and including labor costs) of any landscaping and/or building facade improvements not yet complete must be submitted prior to occupancy. • Sign permits must be applied for separately. This approval does not constitute approval of any signs. • If overnight boarding is contemplated, a license must be obtained through the City's Licensing Department. This approval does not constitute approval of said license. • 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 547.09, Subd. 8. A copy of the recorded conditional use permit must be supplied to the City prior to occupancy. ~'~ 3. This conditional use permit shall expire one year after it has been issued unless the use for which the permit was granted has commenced; or building permits have been issued and substantial work performed; or if an extension of no more than one additional year is granted by the Council upon written request of the applicant. 4. This 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. 10. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of February 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk N o~ x o~ °~ 0 .:.~:;. ..~.: ~. -..~J `~ ~~.: •. ~.:.: ~~.•.:~ --80.11-- -~ '' '~' ~.~.rIL. L.~h `I .y S 00~16~36n w'1 ~: ~'~ ~~ ~~ wN~ I~-+~ ~ ~ 7~ O C-C-C-CCCAAA!!! ~ ~ '~ d ~' ~I .. ~ ° o~ ~ =~ ~ ~ o ~ n ~ ~"~ o Nx ~:~~~.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ •~' •~ .~ pA fA ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ . ~g~.~ d ~ ~ g ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .~~b .. o ~~ ~ ~ ~~. `~~~ ~, ~~ o a ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~ N ~~ • ~~ p ~~ M~$~ ~~ esi ~ n .. o . s . ~. s ~' ~ i,~ t ~~_,~ icy ' 3'~ { i L_.- ~ V v .. ~ '•. y: .~? ~, ,. p_ 80'-0" ~~ ~ UF'~'~R FLDOR PLAN 20,0 N SGALE 1/S 0 , ~Q~_Qii ~, - . ., c. '. 1 UPPER ~LO~R ALAN SCALE 1/8" = i'-0" i"IAY 3, 2010 ~r N ;r 2 LOWER FLOOR ALAN N SGALE I/8 = 1 -0 MAY 3, 2010 -- i ~: i I' i --~ ~i -_~ i r~ ,.__ so'-o'. ~.~ ~.: r; ~`" ~, .;~ ti a~.:' i '% ,f,. i° ! `"" ~~ 3~i ~~ ~~~ p~~ ~ .~ f y '~.. ~ _- ~ .~ 2 - i ,- ~' s_~ i ~. Y~~ f .~+47~~i 1 f 4 I i~ ~. -__ ~ j i ~~ :;.. I - I I I I ~, jam. LOf~I~R FLOOR PLAN ~ 2 SCALE 1/S" = 1'-0" MAY 3, 2010 {~ C~~' ~~'?~ t }///~~~\ ~ y „~ i L./~ ~:. 4 ~,~;~ ~~ 6315 Penn Ave ~~~ Conditional Use Permit 2/2012 Comprehensive Plan Designations LDR I MIXED MIXED `~so __.. 63RD ST MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED W Q MIXED Q z MIXED ~ ~ MIXED MIXED - - ___ O MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED __ _. _ __ - MIXED MIXED _ _. _ .__ MIXED MIXED _ _ . _ MIXED LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR I N LEGEND MIXED -Mixed Use LDR -Low-Density Residential i 0 45 90 180 270 360 Feet I:\GIS\Community Development\StafflMelissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\6315 Penn - CP.mxd~f' 6315 Penn Ave Conditional Use Permit 2/2012 Surrounding Zoning D /~ M I MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC ~ S ~ _ _ _ 63RD ST M U-C/PAC M U-C/PAC R M U-C/PAC R MU-C/PAC Q R W Q z MU-C/PAC ~ __ z W _ _ MU-C/PAC R _ W ~ D_ ~ M U-C/PAC R MU-C/PAC R MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC R MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC M U-C/PAC M U-C/PAC __ R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R N LEGEND MU-C /PAC -Mixed Use Community & Penn Ave Overlay R -Single Family Residential 0 45 90 180 270 360 Feet I:1GIS\Community Development\StafflMelissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\6315 Penn - Zoning.mxd AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER N c TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~j'~ REVIEW: ~,J S/CNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider a request for a conditional use permit for afull-service restaurant (Pizza Luce) at 800 66th Street West. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution granting a conditional use permit for afull-service restaurant at 800 66th Street West. IL BACKGROUND The City has received an application requesting a conditional use permit for afull- service (food and intoxicating beverage service) Pizza Luce restaurant at 800 66th Street West, the former location of Bridgeman's Restaurant. The proposal will involve a complete remodel of the interior space, an 840 square foot addition, significant building exterior improvements, construction of an outdoor seating area and reconstruction and modification of the parking lot. The applicant has worked hard to meet all of the requirements of the Code. Additionally, the applicant has addressed staff suggestions that were not specifically required. .III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Full-service restaurants with alcohol service are conditionally permitted in the General Commercial (C-2) District so long as the lot abuts an arterial or collector street. This requirement is met (lot abut 66th Street). 021412 -CUP 800 66~h St. Pizza Luce In order to grant a conditional use permit, the Council must find that all of the following conditions will be met: a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is met. The 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue area is designated as "Mixed Use" in the Comprehensive Plan. The stated intent of this designation is "to focus on creating a city center in Richfield that would serve as a `downtown."' This is to be achieved through providing additional commercial opportunities in the area. Additionally the Comprehensive Plan calls for "expanded business opportunities" and "targeted redevelopment;" two goals that are met by this proposal. 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 use. This requirement is met. The General Commercial (C-2) District is intended to provide space for a wide variety of retail and service businesses. The "City expects [these businesses] to have an attractive appearance from all sides, to be compatible with nearby residential properties, to minimize adverse effects on surface waters, and to not significantly degrade the level of service or safety on nearby roads." c) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. This requirement is met. The mission of the Lakes at Lyndale Plan is to make this area "Richfield`s thriving urban center" through "upgrade[s to] commercial properties..." This property is specifically identified as a "redevelopment opportunity." d) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 544 of this Code. This requirement is met. In general all requirements are met. Staff recommends approval be conditioned upon final approval of 1) a landscape plan that addresses plantings in proposed parking lot islands; 2) a final lighting plan that includes fixture details; and 3) a final layout addressing pedestrian connections from existing sidewalks to the doors, as significant pedestrian traffic is anticipated. The applicant has .indicated that they do not take issue with these stipulations. e) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on government facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements. This requirement is met. The submitted plans have been reviewed by the Public Works Department and no undue adverse impacts are anticipated. ~ The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety or welfare. This requirement is met. The submitted plans have been reviewed by the Public Works Department and Hennepin County and no undue adverse impacts are anticipated. g) There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. This requirement is met. The rehabilitation/re-use of vacant buildings is an integral part of enhancing Richfield's downtown. 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 is met. In addition to the requirement for this use to be along an arterial or collector street, the proposal meets applicable impervious surface (max. permitted 85%; proposed 78%), parking setback, and building setback requirements. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock `started' when a complete application was received on January 10, 2012. A decision is required by March 10, 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 • A public hearing to consider the proposed request was held before the Planning Commission on January 23, 2012. • Notice of the public hearing was sent to properties within 350 feet in accordance with State and Local requirements. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposal (8- 0). E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reject the proposal with findings that the proposed use would have an adverse impact or that requirements are not met. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Proposed plans Planning & zoning maps VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • JJ Haywood, Pizza Luce CEO • Nathaniel Shea, Tanek Architects / I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AFULL-SERVICE RESTAURANT AT 800 66TH STREET WEST WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests a conditional use permit to afull-service restaurant with a gross floor area of 7,849 square feet at property commonly known as 800 66th Street West, property legally described as: Tracts A, B and D, Registered Land Survey No. 642, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield recommended approval of this requested conditional use permit at its January 23, 2012 meeting; and WHEREAS, this requested conditional use permit meets the requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 547.09; and WHEREAS, this requested conditional use permit meets the requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit for afull-service restaurant with intoxicating beverage service as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 534.07, Subdivision 6; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional use permit; 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 afull-service restaurant with a gross floor area of 7,849 square feet, as described in City Council Letter No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. This conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions in addition to those specified in Section 547.09 of the City's Zoning Ordinance: • Final landscaping plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director; • Final lighting plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director; • Final site plans addressing pedestrian connections be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director; • Sign permits must be applied for separately. This approval does not constitute. approval of any signs; • Final grading and drainage, erosion control/SWPPP, demolition, and utility plans must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director; • 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 547.09, Subd. 8. • Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the developer shall: a) Submit a copy of the recorded conditional use permit; and b) Submit a surety equal to 125% of the value of any landscaping improvements not yet complete. ~-a 3. This conditional use permit shall expire one year after it has been issued unless the use for which the permit was granted has commenced; or building permits have been issued and substantial work performed; or if an extension of no more than one additional year is granted by the Council upon written request of the applicant. 4. This 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. 10. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of February 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 0000 00©0 0000000 0 ° ~ N r ~ ~ ~Q ~Q o~ ~ ~ ~ oo"R ~~~ $R ~"oQ o~ Q bm Q 4 ~~ A A '~" ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ rPf ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ti ~ ~ Ill ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ m ~i ~ ~~ S ~ 5 N~S ~ iii ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~n ~ ~ ~o 4p~c mkk~u~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 4E~ 7$R~~. SC pp o~ ~ X ~ E7 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5~ ~~ ~ ~ 3F fT~ F O ~ g ev}~ k~j~ 8 iigi dAl~ cT~ ~ 6 ~ N ~ 5 ~i ~. 235 AI m~~ ~5~ ~ b0 u! ~ ZgS2 ~ ~i~~ ~~ ~'^~ ~p ;Op D1 ~~ ~ ~ O ~ 3`y' ~~ ~ ~A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [ ~r~--~s ~ ~~~ n pp V ~ y~ ~ r ~ ~~ r 3 ~ Am -< Z E S SR.j 44 77 ~ ~RII 51 ~I O ~ ~ p O (1 yz ryO O n T O ,Q ~ ILII a} T ~ r ~ f~ v fll ~f$j IO I ~ A N vfP' ~~~ 55*~p l E ~ ~ ~~ ^ a ~ ~ ~ g m O~ ~ ~ '(`iL i ~ O ~ ~ ~~ O O ~e p ~Z 3 p A iR A O o v I I 11 I 1 1 y. I TR~~T , I ~ 1' ~ ~ TRq~T ~ , O 3 - 57.63 r~-r r O ~ r-_ E \ -~ E I E~~ 7 ~ ` ' 0 O ' d , ~ ~ ~~ ~------ d \ ~\ \w O• I m ~ \ `` \ ` • rn ~ i ~~ ~ • d ~ l`\ ~ ..S .I 1 ~ I ~ •1 ' ' " d ~, ^.~ as ... 27 E h4.60 _ I ~N00 00 -, 1 ' d ~ S \'y Z~o` ~~ j~ ;~ O A~n I ,•.I Z~ `•. Ley A ~ , O Z ~a i ,,IR n~ I :1 ' \ as O a ,;\ r~ ~ g C ~~ \ ~~ \ i ~~ z ~o n ~ ° P- _ ~ ~~~~~- ~~ ~~ ~, t ~~rm\ d ~14y~ ~ `I (9 ~ ` 2~~ ~, sGPN \ Zo y~ \ ~9. \\ Ti ~~~~ ~s ~~ \ `II OT m s ~. d dSO~ \~~ ` ~ `Ili I :.~'ll / O C r ~1~' \' \ ~ \~ ~ mmmmm Z A ~~~ ,~_ Lm E ~~ I I I ~ p , \ i-JUDICIAL LAND MARK \ ~ ~ - /- (NOT FOUND) ;~ I EXISTING SINGLE STORY BUILDING ~ BRICK FACADE 800 66TH ST. W: h ~c /'®> o~ 394. m ~~X~~.k-~X~fK ~ X~-X~K X~~K _. ~~ YY ~- K 'CONCRETE BLOCK WgLy EASTERLY LINE OF TRACT E NcxErz ~ ---~~ R.LS. N0. 642 ~ aoE ov vR uME ~ CONCREA~OURB~ -_ mom' N~ 3' W000 FENCE- ~I yp my ~al O T~ r -~ ~ J - -- - •- -I -- - -- - - -- - -- - ---- /0 t /n N00 918" 27804 ~' ~ I I I a~ -- ---- ----- - --;~ ~~ TRA == CT O , i "~ 8 ~~ m - - - - - - I wm ~ w~ • ~ NF~ I .` m I w~ ~ I I z I o~~ ~ ° ~) / ~ / / ~n `_~~ / ~ ~` 'a I D; 0 / / ~ ~D>, ;~ ~ ~g 1 a , / / ~ ~iUtl30 SN3ry35d3 `--~ ~~ ~/ I / / /f` ~ t ~DN 31tl9nd y0i 1N ~ < I; I ~J `~ / il~ / U3 03Ltl~yN tli Ny133/ / 9vi8 / %p /'I n ~ b0 Aypl~s30tl-(lV~ 3W. i0~ 0// B ..-+ y ~ll 204 3 £ LStlIS n DoI yLU off stlvo13 iN0~/~//~up/£ 5~ ~ ~ I / 9l 59\ DN p33g NI tW, ¢/~ £$Z vl N 35V3 ~Il ip s3 541 SZ 5§ON jp0 E/'/ `"" ' \ ACT ~~'' ~ ~~ E d I y V11 iD3ay'ps~3ti n( / W • + • .50330 ^ LN3\ I 53 / .f 0 9 ~ • 6tl9rvtlHtla9 i N~ ` ~ ~ i/ \ \d .-. oe.~' .~. ~,/ a e ~ F ~\ ~ / i \ /~ ~i ~~~\ ~ ~ O O rn v ' ~ ~ ~ m m "_~ ~ 'du ~~e~ m ~HO~ T. = ~~ zr A ~ _ ~~~i o 3 O ~ ~p ~ d p 7 3 ~ ~ o¢ m 6- gg B i 5~ i .n ? r N ID ~ Q. N 3 d (~ A Ind z ~ Ly p •~ ut oe - Oo W A3~ ~ W Z O ~ , , w y ~ wa T ~ O O Cl m m N N r y I- . . > N p > j (O s 8 ~n~$ u a m R ~ NZ~ ~ N ' W ~• Q) O r doOS~ ~ O fR ~ (~ ~ °wx'~ N ~n Q "1 Nom. 7. '3 .V ~ d ~A~ 3 •~-1 n O ~ g ~ d 3 ~ N ~. to Q Z ..I e* <D w m N Z l ~ to O •'T N ~ ~ , ~ N R n rt s 1 •~ N w 3 -I ~ :: ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ 7 m = y N N ° o J ~'k ~a~ mnn' ~ m ~ '•S $ ~ r! '-I ~ ra r ;o a° a a ~ ~-m c ~~ ~ 5 3 't1 9 p W +io N m N N O G m mm w~' JC ~HZ°°~ 3 N N ~ ~ A [\~~ V _ O S m ~ y+ o a.$ ~ ~ - o Y r O ~ N .c- N R £ E- r d O -~, d o f d ap r y a s °~~Zeg~ 11 c N O ~ r N N OZNa~ U W Q' y y~ 1y ~ 'O $ ~O O r a ~ W N 2a-''m L ~ a O d 33 S Ld~nA m G 4152 diZ mN tl1 ~`~'~OZ 'ay~N C ` s~g~o j F O1 ® $ .,, ru N ~•O NN W (/J Err t.1 i~d 'C 'S O fm 4f N A L NN c o L TN N d Y N~ C fo ~ ~ A O L L Nro ~~ 41 0 l0 yr Y7 {A L {1f ~~ N 0g.. ppn m mo9 R~9m ® 01 C d 1 c C W d11i. ~ J NO ~ LL a ~ ZM ~ = d C 6~ ~ Q ' d V 3~ N oE~6 ` g C R C ~ ~ QS W LL ~= r +f ~i = y M C N r m• m~ W ~ O N M Y _. ~ ~ Z y N d~ O C M .6 G LL C a .~ y W ... y .6 0~ m $§ rv S E ~ d A 6 y. N m 6 O NaV a °a J~=~ a~s~ ~A¢m mw~sa i aN cry aw~~~ d ep Rv> aaMW~ ~aq x~ ~ ~ Ra - A E ~~ = d _ a (~ z W ~ ~ \\ ~ \ i\ ~ \\ \ \~ ,-'~ /, 1~/ ~ \\ 9g6B~f.Zbss \ \\ I I i I I. I I nm~z~ ~-- %~~V, y ~~/~~ 1SOd~s k(Sg ~3/dl~~~b `\ ~ X43 `I ~b1g 0 SZg gym' ~ 3[/Nn 11 11 N N y ~ ~~ ~ ~~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ A ~ ~ I I I \\Y~ I I I I ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ / ~ I i I - I I I - I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I ..0•.9 ~$ ~~~ U ~~D Y (6 N >, U „0-,£ ,Q ~~ ~~s~~ ~P ~~~g> 3ms ~~-_.~ L q (` J' „0-,5 N U C _N C N N N ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ rc 0 O N ~ ~- cn ~\ ~ ~ \~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ o OO ° DX ~ ~ Z Z rn ~ I m ~ m m~ A ® W ~ ~ Z N D~DA A O rN D r _ 2 m Z N r Z y2~ _ r m -r~ j yy .~2 i OZZ mx ~ N Z I r O I A 'DD DrV A N Oy A 00 A O - f*ly~0y0 N P O ~~ O r rn o y O ZA ~m-Op 'A mZ --i 0 AA AAO m m Z OmNm 0 0 A y O S N m a' Zp m O °c N 0 O N Z m m m2 m A . -I 3 N O -I z' 00 y O`LA V1 N ~'~ C 'L A r A D Z N O y D Z~ U) ~ fArl fNj °O W - fA.I Z I V ~ N m~mAO m ~ "o v = \ "m O ~my~ N ~ N '~ mz m m D I p A N V1 N V) -1 -0 VIA VIA m W O m - C O~ SC c0 ~ I ~ A -' W O I Oa? o ° yx m ~ z fA,fn ~~ c> O -rt qc yN m ~ Ny0 ~~ Z Z O D D r ~- N ZX O O O I Omr O m -Sr NON ~2 r-{p O m~ p fm-' r O ZA A N D m m0 ZD N C A O '0 m D Z D ~p A fr1 0o m z z A i 3 N ~rA n N N n ~_ y m w A ~ f~`*t n Z m o :a ~ " A m 0 O y 2 A ~Om C OfA+I ? A D CS Z myZ m <fmTl O rA A U1~A A AA < ~ O 2m ' OmZ m p n G ~ ~ l y O O i O ~~O ~ DZ ? o z z mro~ SON O I Aim ' z mZA O ~ VI ON mmm m I Ocn~ O OZ AO v mfnA~ m°m AW Z O NOpO o ° = fn A o r n O m ~m m~ 2 V l 0 2 Z O O O D O r D z Z y m A D o !*I A ~ fzrl 0 Om AO O Vl .ZyJO ~Z O~ 3A DO Z m ~ Z ° A N Z N r O O o 'f m y VI { O ~ m `' A ~ Z m00 V7 ~.. ~ A Z Z O a "' A ~ r" m rr 2 C O VI O -I V) A O ti rn 0 020 OZD O o=DO y~ pm0 ~ ~~ Z~W=2 00 DOZ UJ 2 fA'1 A ' ~~ n m ~ y Dy 2 n ~ 3 D n ~ D O ° Z Z Oy m N o N D~~ A O Z X n yu N n D A y TZ r 0 A Df* 1{ O A O-DlNO A A ~ ~ AD Z OZ AO I *t~ N AO O A ~ A O f+ i ZA I'1 /v O~ O N DDO OAA N OZ O-IN ~~ A~ y S.J A-I o Ay D =- i ADD Z U j 2 O -iD0 D 1n02 00 2 Or= A CmA N mm xrom0 pm rzp -zi r ~Zr ~yD r r A .ZCIti ~ c- A~ ODa ~nr S m ZUI yV1\Oy 0 D A A.D ~2 O A D m n Z Om DC)O ~ C n0 f *l - ! D D ~ 2 o W 0 D ZN r " Om ODA O I2^n OA m- A O < 00 AmVI { D mm OVI D m AA O O A m OD ON fzjlr OmZ ~~m ° m yOrW Nir y~ rA*rn z~ Om-00 A ZO 2 ZO m ~2~y r'A~ Ohm 00 m.C OD A3Z' \ Ul C)< / om VJ A m m2 , D OAO ~~ '{O ~ ~Z OzZ pA m0 O.'iml O mZ f l mmA 2' Z 1 ~ A Z ~ SZ U1 i y O yN AO " Z V) O--n A f*1 OOD . - mD Dr ~{ m f l p D mA,A yO -1 { S m 111 =~ OZ ~.N Z m O A 'L ~~ D W O Z D m~ C A Z N D O A O _ n -i S Z r ~ Z ° m < O { O r y ~ N _ v D r y ~ m- mpr A D O y p ~n~ Z S fA Dm m ~ O N Z S m Dy O Z D~ fy*I C C mD ozm m Zr" D ~m mCni C A N rmr= r Z O-< O Afy*t ~A Or^ '~Z ~ ODD m{Z O~ Om NO O~ D m m O O mA mD rnC o . zr. m0 C O r m A m O V1 fy*1 -D-I VI y ~ m ~ Z m Om A V) D ~ O D //\ V/ S O Z A 2D Z Z r y O Z AO n ° m0 A O ~D Z r ti r ~ m Z -i r -t il p C -~ D Z O Z 7 NOC Om m WOm OO Am C ={-1Z U'O N~•~•f 1 1 1 p= O D p ~ m y G~ ~ Z A N Z m ° m y O O N N A I Z m m0 y m Z m S D mZD A O Nm A OD y y m D OUIZD D r O A OA O mm r0 A AODr Zm7y A~ O y'1 Om ~ N~ AO ~ n 0 lmi7Nm .gym 00 fATI mZ Dm O AA Or Z(Dj f T1 03'~ mD Z yD ~ 1A mO Z A~ oZ Om D Np~ A r2n~ ~ f*1 ZD OZ O ~ O A ~ O y y~ Z m Z ~ V) ° y A Z 0 y y= A y AD O r_ocn ~ D z cm ~ o°rz Z 2 0 m ~m z Dr ~p m ° O NIn O ~ 2 O'A ym m A OmO VI V I ~ O ~Zm 2 m A O .{ m O y zO ° y 0 2 = ~ = m m o 3 ~= n m y 0 m o o D f " " ' m°m A i z m-n z 'A y= ~ D ° Om A ADm Ulm"OA A -i3-I <DNy -I Ooo-i,3 3mm Am O'D s Z~ O x~~ O O D A D y --I A A A m m O C D O m m D m r OAy -I VI ZOZ 00 ~NZZ o Zm ZpD~mfmn m0 mDWn Cm~ O~ ~Z Cm ~ O 000 mSZ m-'fn~ Z N-Crl Dr V) y0 2 ~'t- r <m 2~ DUIN O D Zy OOG) Z y - I D`L CrZ VI = CD)3D m~ 00 ~Zm m ~ OAN Wyo `2~ZA O ZAA ~mcmiloz zoo-=y°m A~Z~O W '"I m m A m 2 '~ `2 ~ O TI ~ y m N V I UI A O y O A m 0•• r 0 0 r0 Z O y0 mm2 ~C~-iZ m °O~ O Ap.. Om mOD AA O.. ,= Z fArI~Z fD*1 O OD ZNO V)~m ~ mO... r~{may yN O~r V)O~ ~C ~~ /y ~ 1''J^^~ ODD ~ W m ~mS ZNr Z pA~ ArOy V1 "Iy AA D N mrr N m Z D V/ ~~Oj mi Z ZVI ONr yAA mSU `CS~OD yA `GmN CAD ON 3D V y0 2 O 2 20 DmA A DV1'0 ZmD2~ Am Om-p NZ r~ m~ T ZI VI O V) O fATI D m fmri fF*i fOTt -OQ O r A Z ° m -Zj m m fmTl foil ~ A n O--I fAT1 y o r Z O '!' D N ° Z° AO °O ~ CO OZDO m < 3 O O~ m U) :• `r'1I Z -Op O N yO ~O.P AZfNTI O ~~~ ZOZ~y ~m ~D-1 f*1 lZ/1T-DI Gin N Zy m (~° f•~00 DOD pOyD2 COQ o om D 2~ /~_~ 00 -i O y2 ^ Z V1A Om O A V/m -_i '12r m- Z _O'L C A A D r r l J .{Z rA'1 m ~A l J p~G SOS D Z!TIA O=yN O ~p Sm OZ r Ar O O r D IAmTI~ m ~ _~ O zZ~ Z.zmJ~ ~ O~~ vzimmy~ ti~m= ~yN Nm m~ U1~ D m ~p Z { O mAV1 y ~~2 AANND U] Am ZNy ~A ~ D D 3 A D m~ A m r A O A~ O ZD S_. ;p C° ~ Ord 05V1 m rn f- ZD-10 SZ-D OAr O~ A Dm ~ O z3 rn D~rm mZD r^ Air DyzmO mo~z m m ~Z /Z~ A C T 03n 'Ayr N wrm SOOOA O~~ ° Ohm AA 0=~ V/ Ay A O = N ~uDi~ znm X I ~m OD=~N oW~D ~m-~ =z DGZ~ C m m O N 0 2 m O ~ 0 0 m A A y A A r A 2° m D~ mN A C ~ CA.107 ~Or V Cr fTlymD V1 D 3A m A Z~ Z O m~ v2 r ~ ~ (n - ADD C0 -I O- ~m~nOA ADAA ~ r ~! Ao Oo ~ Z m 'nzo fr•ID c~.. ~ m y0 oym NON 2 O _ti I~'1 Zyl Z N ~ DZm m-m A V) AZ.ZI_N Of~*1ZN ITt2~ DO r2 p m y ~ Z rn~rn D O° ~°° C A D A Z N W 0 0 ~ y C m N < ~ ZA ~ ~ 111 W Z n V)D m m-C OCrA''I ~ 3 m"O D f2T1A --I D ~ r Sy o o mz 1y72 m m DO yAfA*1 C V)~ m'AAAy rADN AZ AO Zm Om O N~ ~~C r Ay BOZO Sm~~ ~Z ~ ~ 00 = D 2 ITyIZ-rC N Z A ny W ~ ~ ..T7~ r -1D _O fr*1 O? ~ r 2 ° N N O p O ~ ZC-{{ m y D m 2 O~ ° O yA VI SA O y O {O"< rOD VI _I m y yn !"'~ ~m mZN m zm AyZ zmN~ 00 3 O m0 m~ ZOO ~ SO 2Cp~ Om'a rZ fn D A ~.W. pCDZ VI mfA*1 AmjO C~O~ A~ ~ 3 m A m A ~ z N "D ory*fz m rn zz°"z~ z~czi mA y~i ~ r O V/ y O A A _o m Z D fTl O p A A Z{ m ° W p y VI AV)-i OV1~ 'OTC < Oar A U)V1 ONVI m~ Ap0 D -D Dm0-~ DD yZ •~f••f m02 AO ADZ m ASr Z. ~ ~ OOm A00 r2 mm Z ~ ZO ~y0 Ar m0 V OCmm n0 2 ~o9 fr*t ~At ~z~O D O OC A° OZm] OZI m r DC mD Zpx S '0 r mCZ {fir A:ItN { •.'O CpDD /~^~ A r ~Ny f/I VI pf*t~ D ~~ OWOrmr nZ-.mZ Z ~m° ~'~O X p~A UJ r r Nr C O Z V)m Z2ZD yy -~ ZDn Am fmTl rD2 NI Z~m ~ r A fmTlr A\ A(~ m N ~~ Om N~ A3 O~ ~~faA*1 OO= f`Z'10~ ~ ~z0 ~_ ~ D fA*1W mfN*1 ~31AT1 O ~z ~.~AD ~m r^O /Z/~'~ m -I -i D V) A m ~ A S A A D V AD °D ~ Z-I fNi~ A f2*1 ~1D O fOTI ° =p mD ~O { W W O m.TCNI<m pD Dm mD DA O. WAO ~ N~~ Z O ~ ZADA ~W ZED D <~ OD~Z ZD lZ/1 O p~ Cz-Dp ~D° ~ rZ= O ~ m0 Wr= OA 'A~O r mZ O- ~D y-DI yA ~mm ~~r r D ~ A Or O< DZ V) O OQ fAT1A U)p Zp0 m 'm'^^ f2*1N ZOO Or ~ mAr m~ ~ A mm O N y ~A N o V/ _ O O D 2 O O O Z m /~ y Z m ~0 D m D A~ mmO A2~ ~ UDW V~ ~ y Z~ DC ~~Z A m0 OpOrA*t rC _ti ~Or ~N D mrf\n 2 AZA A O Am rZm7 ZZr m ~ ZO -IZZO Oy r tip Z O O m r m N GO o v ~ D Z O N O m D S A v O -Oi m~ m Z W A < G1mA An° N Om~ A ~ O~ min C ~ D ON G1 ~ V10 m N mrD y ON S Z my AA ~ f'Aj~ A=zD m Z T =i m 'A Z m rn c) O O '!I m~ D 'c Z 5 c~ -1n 0= OG) N ~mA ~ W tim Z ~ -N ~N ~ ti O AZ A{n{ ~ D N - ZO ~ryT10 ~=rD n mop O m ~D Wm =0 m Sy OS ~ o 0 C ~`z O° N Zm-ZI ~ ZA -OO 'n 0 ~p D m D mm Zr ~n z O W Om ?A- pAZ O ~D m ~ y OG7 m r OA V) Oft ZA A~ nC0 Z pNA D D mV) Y -QO VI -I~ Dm~Z O N VI A D D N -p 0 y Z D O rr ~ Om ~ m n A O D< O y Vl r m (D/l Z C N ~ Z IZ*1 N -AO C Z~ Ay fTl SAO N = Or O Op -ID yOG) A O p2 {O SAN m Z O 2 TI m { OyDZ O~ D _ AGE- 00 D N N- y< m Z=~ G O O Z Z A2Z ArnD y, m SfG~ VI D Am mm N~Gny ° Z ~ O C p -1 O D O O m 2 rAr~ rA f<r100 22N O A rN \ ~{ Z m{m m 2 ymA p m mrn-Di fyrym0 O D m~ fNri = A ~m ~ ~rUr "1 V) Z. y c~ m O (/~ A N m fTl O m O ?~ m D 'i m yZ oy ~{p y00 O Z Vlm ° Sm pm Om~ f2,1 m o O m ~\ -I O "0 A A y O -I A N m m~ pD ~mmZ pm~ O 0 m° D D~ Z nAr Z O AZ V)r m~~ A~Z -~ °~ r rr 'f (milDm O O r~ D Amz OHO f2•1 Oy ~Z m Z W r y-Z'I~ D r O D D O z y A ~ n S N 2 m ~ N O D Z m m ~O N m ~ fZrt C mOZ ~ m y o mA V7 O 2Z ° A fr1 A CyO Z m { ro rr ice/ . ~• •a ~ y •6 'm ~ 3 m g ~ m~ 3 ~ m m m " _' R e~y'"' D ~ v m ~ y fD v3, RI'0 ~~ o~ ~ ~3~ 177 W ~ m o~ ~ ~3~ ~ ~~ ~D r Ap ~ S° ~ 3 o ~ v m ~ ~ 3 o z m 6 ~ A ~ ~1 y s C ~ N ul y z ~. ~ o m ' Go ~. ~ 3' w y Z ~ m m 0 ~1 N ~ -. r ' • ~ /~ ~ a d ~ ~ m ~ _ a,°a ms~oo n n i3a m<?lD ~ d ~ ~a o~ ~p mN y ~ 'i x, 0 ~ ~ zo ~D A N ~ n4 0 07 °~ NN ~ r c-'r' A ~ ~ vm a °'~" O C m ( ) ) \/ / ~/+. ~ 9 IE 7 'm l$ ~io ~ _ •~ ' Al OtJf ~ ~ - rt ~ o <D 7 O ` ~ ~ °3a 3 ~ N N A Y .~ °N~ f/! V N m3~LQ ~ .•1 ~ zx 6D N ~ NN Oe ao ~ N .1 ~:" ~^» 7 < s~ gwd A s ~ N~.~Q ZirtID °m g Z~W N ~ ~ °m wS rS ~ w j ~ S ~ 4~ y A 0{ O p1 m n E A ~ ~ . m 3 N N N Ia NN y fN N ° ~ ~ d~? ~~~~ C ~ OO ~ ~ 1 ~ a 3 rt m ~ H M A b d d 6 E ~\ fi ON L ----------J L ----------i I 1 ❑ 0 ❑ 10001 I �F --1 T--1 ❑ ❑0LTJ 1:1[1:1:][]EI El El 0110 ❑ El [:][]EI a II IO❑❑ I r I0 J ❑❑o IV= ❑o❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ a�0 b q� r u Ila W y1 JJy� id ON4�pp>�µ�µ�7711yynn .., ..� m v Ali➢ r of 13 j 11 ®®® 1 N O H N ypZNa- W LLI O N $ d 5 �"' . 3o -'g �Q1 in E o 0�� s y 0 yYa ai w N — C T V yEZ GI OI ++~Z O O A N N A Oy p N �Y . at�n C d Y N O i OZ L= H W L lv W Z Y 9 C dA ei �C C C dO. IL C C= mll!LL IL ZvM G C N G m,�m �/ r 41 _=Z ON OLLCp _ffi��a 9E° GQi '3 O C Vi O '� m c A 6 oma o.2� �y i C M O. t0 mw��c �^y L LT N C O d N O) N q aw;c 2: aCQAw c E �' _ E c0❑ coo ❑o❑ coo fi ON L ----------J L ----------i I 1 ❑ 0 ❑ 10001 I �F --1 T--1 ❑ ❑0LTJ 1:1[1:1:][]EI El El 0110 ❑ El [:][]EI a II IO❑❑ I r I0 J ❑❑o IV= ❑o❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ a�0 b q� r u Ila W y1 JJy� id ON4�pp>�µ�µ�7711yynn .., ..� m v Ali➢ r of 13 j 11 ®®® 1 I a 1 ❑ I I �--------- J Z L ----- I ❑ o❑ u❑❑ u O i- T� —' I I I I o II a ❑ II Fly -------♦--�}i ------ � LIJ TJ I I o- I a�O I I I I co T Ci ❑ II �5 O I� —� n ❑ �1 T j ca L1J TJ c I I v I > 1 I 2 T 2 L1J I iTJ I I I ac I I I — I I 1111.1 L I I I i-�------- f- L!J L1J L!J «. A 0~°®®6 ® ~Da'~ °~~° ~ ~ D ~ ~ b ~ m n ~ m w a ~ W N ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ m m ~ 9 Y P ~ P ~ ~ ~ _ oo~~~~~~4z~r~ to cv_ ~~~ ~ ~q~ m n ~~ m o ~~ Zy~~K ~E g~ ~ A~ ~ ~ ~ N~¢~ y~ ~ ~ 6 t~iNl ~ ~ ~ n l7 Qi ~ ~ ~ ~ d j 4 m m m n su v v 0 m m m i N A O Z 8 ~. 9 , ~ ~ s ~ ~~~ ~v~y ~ ~~e~ A ~~o~ T -~zr ~~ ~ N ~ C ~ ~ ~ m a o,i^~m ' a?.°y S N my Z~ ~ ays- Oo ~. W ~ W w$,~~ A ~ a1 ~ mm O1 N 3 j ~ ~ g r e m ~,n.g Z m n A NyN~~ G .7 ~ ONS~~ Z p ~ ANFID O HtliS~ O .i r W~ ~ ~ 7 y 3 ' °Za ~ ~ °N~ y °i3~ ~ zx lD c f ~ ~ ^~ < N S ~ a 5R N m ~ N A y ~ ~~ g W w~ 1 ~ ~ .~. ~ ~ ` ~$sac ~ y § •NP m C1 S ~ C 2 ~ A ~D ~ IAfI ~ N ~ rn e~a; m e - o ~ n ~ ~ ~ $ 3 ~ m ~ ~ ~ V e m u ~ sg N ~- m + d ~ ~ gg 3 ~ I v °. d 6 ~ o ~ l 3 $ T 'O m W O C m 3 N N V ~V -n ~ w fD O Ip tp W S ~ N Z ~ w 3 NCN.IN w °o A ,\ ~ ~ _ _m d 5 {Q W N N N W L• C @ ~ 7 {dj N in$ZWm '~' F ~ ~ ~ > ~ y V mini Y m N°~'~~~ N ~ F Z alN f 0 V CN O ~ C =~0 B O N N V m~ lQ L~ 1~tf T V N' OOD 3 Gl O N L Cl A Wfq Amm ~ 7 m~ ~ .C •O ?~ ~ c ~ ~ L °° mo. u: Jy~ CCa aM cL C ~~v G.o a$ 1 ] C (Q >W W L W M m •~ m m •~ ~ Z y N r r- ~ 3= Z C N ~ O Yl In GI = O C M a °a a~~~ mw°~= aw~~~ a ~g~ ~~~~ rp ~~ € Sa ~n 0 ~~ r_sl I ~i - - - -rl II ---ri II II II II ~i II --JI II II II II ~~~ I I II ~~ II I i 11 II ~Y i I I II II II II I I I I ~ II ~-~I d ~ I I~ ~ II w~ I ~ 5 II ~~~ ~ ~j ~ I II I II III _ I I~ ~I II II ---- h II II II II II II _ __~ I II II - -u II II _1__~ I II II II II II II _ ___ I I II II II II II II -- II II II ~~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~= 2~ ~ ~ g3~ ~>y '~~ °" ~ ~~F ~~ ~ ~~ -°,-rl III II _~ii__~ ~~~p ~~~~ I I ~~ II -n II II II II II II II ~ II II II II -n II II I~ II II --t~ I I -- ---u II 1 II ti M T r .~ N m ~ to ' r f=0 .di ~ win {C ~ H1 O d•C1 m~N~' N sQ}LL G I.I. Q t•I ~ N W O +- a T-~ ~ ~ Y r r e nas o~ II C O• N N ~ a O s v~g~ m E o y s ~ c `~ 4 H ~ S E ~ ~ N S;~~b C ~ o ~g~Ws .m. DagSs ~ v e m d i~oa E ~ S m- ^ 1 O ` V s' ~I~ N C a ry ~~/ ~~ m u & ~-- ~, 4pEW~~ f] N ice------- I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I i ~~ QI Q _~ 1 I 1 1 1 I I T I 1 1 I 1 _~ i ~--------' I 111... ~~@I m p ® ~ @q~xx ~~3 /Sp uyTq~~ U2i~ ~~ ~~~ ~ i I ~~I 1 I ~~ ~~ 0 ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ - ~ ~ ~ i i ~ g II 1 ~ ~ $ II ~ I I ~~ I I I . _ S~ ~t ~ z O ~ I Q II II I ~ ~ II I I z Q ~ ul II ~ ~ Z II II Q ~ ~ N `~ - - I I 111 lll --IT--~ (n - ~ ppp I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ m ~~ •i 1 _ ~- _ ~ ,, - -- _ _ - ~ N ` .~ __-__i --_-_ 1 ` (~ N 1 ~l \~ l~, _-__-__- .-_~ _ _ _________- -_-__-_ _ia ~ ='~ ~' ~ 1 ~- '" - ~ ; \ i ,. \ s. ;, t \ ~ ` ~ ~ = C ~ ~ ,`~ b , ~~; Di m ~ V • ~ ~ \ .y- 4 D~ I-,~rilg~ ~"n "~~ rh ~ ~g"C\ o:,-yy m ( ~ \ I \ k~ - ~J \ \ • ~ •. ~. \\~~~ ~~ .~ ~~t\" ,,,11'1 -.,,'~,.-^~'%~~i~=i 1.~4:a ; ~~ ' ~ . N A O N `~ .\ ~, \ i .:;.~, ~ ~ ~~ . \ ~~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~' ~ ~ . c (,,~ ^m VJ Z ~-'Z ~- s 0oooooaao sa== c ~ , ' Q ~• _ . _.. ~I, ., _ •_ _ ~ ,• ,• ~.~~ / ~ „• - _ i ~ ~ \\ ,~ ,~ ,,~ ,\ U) A ~ ~ .~ A ~ N A 3 3 3 0~ 3 3 m ~ N E C w< n V O 0 0 0 o r: y -O~'aa° ~ 3 O .~~~g ~c z ~ E~ m~ i a m Z o Oy ° o ° < m - - ~ cn 3 a .c 3 - 3 x z 2 = m° i 1 ~. ~~ _~ c ~~ y EMOLITION PLAN T Issued I hereby certify that this plan wos prepared by me Of Nndef my direct eapelY1910n and that I Inc. Rehder & flssociates SI E D FOR PERMR 12-27-17 am o duly Licensed Professional Engineer under , /~~ PUNNING REV1S70N5 1-B-t2 the laws of the State of Minnesota. Civil En neere•, Planners and Land Surv ors PiT [ ) ~ Z I 1 PIZZA L V CE .9440 Federal Uriee, Sui[e 110 Eagan, Minnesota 5514E C ~ / 651-t5.2-5051 FaX: 651-454-N7A1 emad: mfo@rehder.com j m ~a ~ P. ~`"` D°t° '-9-12 i ' CITY OF RICHFIELD 43856 Nicholas P Adam Re No N : 111-2153.035 DRAWING Fl(E: 2153035.DWC PROJECT NO ~ . . g. ame . ""'~.J 9M0'Sf0£Sld 3llj JNIMtl214 S£0'£SlZ-44l ~'ON 1D3f0ild 9~S £b '0N '6aN w°py ~ sDlayDl awDN - -• a ° ` 4131~H~12~ ~0 J 1 1~ m ewa wo:rla a~(n)o u : LBLB-b53-[59 :xe 1505-54'6-219 i 4 ~ ~~ . . N g . pg ,; l 4l . b5i19 a;osaumyy'ua9eg. D[2a;mg'a.yJgle.lapa304^6fi a ' 3~fll VZZICJ _ C S10~a2.1k5`rI12D'(r11LD T.[al[I[tl1d's.2aauz8ug jzat,~ D;osauuryy;° a;D;g ay;;° BMO! y; ~apun ~aau!6u3 lDUO!ssa;ad pasuaal~ .ynp D wD Z{-8-1 2t-tz-zt BNDIBN3N DNINNYid L%N3d ND! 7 ~ `/ ~~11 ~Y1 'T x 'I •/uI `sa~IVZ~oss~/ • y ~apu/a~ I ;°~ p~D DGIalAladlla }°anp ~(w ~apun ~° aw Nb'ld 311S , Y V l 6q pa~Dda~d sDM DD!d sly; #°ya 61!>Jao Rga~ay ! panSSl y ~' ~~99 N u N a yq~ ~ h ~ ~ O ~O ~ ~ I >o tr ~~ ~' z ~`i W~" €~~ ~a ~~o ~_~ ~0 Wb~a E fVil Z E u t 'a W ~g ~ $•E ~ $E $m fY w ~Y U n~ W _ _- U O SE U ea ~ ~o m E (` o `- C \ o3~W I ~~ ° O ~ ~ a~~x m ~o~~ "~~ ~~>;~o~ a ~ axe °:~ ~ Z Sxf 6 55 aa $ ~` Zp~ @ ,~~ ~ g4C @5tlq y~¢e-~y@ ~~ eq~ ; E g • a$~ 16aE ~ w~ ~5 A a Y ~ e g~`~ x~ Y~gs~q~' @ ~g@ s~~~;a y 4' S 5 g 2 ~ ~ I b~ ~V i s~y 'pp88 €$ YBE^9 ~Y p uu . u s ~g Ya34~E: S ~~ inn r_^- ~5~°~R : U i .~ a ~ ~ @ -.~~ n~~ tl ~ I Z W } 3 .i a~ I ~ Y' a y > I/` ' ~"~ ~~ S ~ ~'§~ ~ ( j E~ ygg ~ u ~ ~ ~$~~~ ~~ Z ~ fA @ Y~~ @~gpg I _• :~e~~yxo~ ~ I I ~ i m~` 1 Pgg I1Y 3` ~~ °°n g 9 0 ~~ ~ I4 @q{ Q ~ @~ [~ p r4c~a i F `~ sfI 7 •. g e 4f@I+ F 2 r g5 4d @ ~ e?~ ~~ x~~ ~ 4 ~ 4~4F9~ ~ ~ 2 ' 6 ~ ~ €F 1)`E~ I p `~ I~ s'i~4i ~; '~ ~ e o s P f;.EP.I4I~>) Pf F4j 4 ~ 18 C[f l!~4E @PE~1/'f@~~OB~;k @i ~ ~fIIiI@~@~j3!lY.i{FlEBP I z ~p 4 14YI I ig9F ~::.;,~;3 ;~ ~~! ~ ? ~ PRI 4i Ee~~;;;;:;.BE ~ iE2 E a i~I4I ia~~i ~ ~ 3 @; 4~ 2 I EEsIJ I IE4E44i I4t~i ! f : e @# ,iyy~~i}96 FI .~. oeeeo eD ~8 ® ~ ~a r ~ + is ~ ~ ~+; _~ ~I '. r:: - b 1 P '~ iEIiIE pf ,Ex~~p HI ~~~x~ 3 A_'f a ~III~'1`~I ~'~t ~:Is~~6~liI~~I9l~ (~ •V `• N tV °~ 3S0 ~ O sh N II aMO ~ N II O W ~ Q ~ ~ ~ O rn o ,_ ~ ~ V W ~ Q !I ~ N O ~ ~ U Z W ¢ I"- ~- ~ W t~ V; to v~-iw°a `~ 5 ~ ~ e y ^ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ 11 Q J N ^ ~ ~ N ~ ~ o ~ m ttl ZOO II `r " O p U n ~ II m < ~ (w/1 O II N ~ ~ J D1 ~ ^ X X U FQF J I ~ N W H~ F F W rn J ~ ~~^. II ~ N W ~ ~ x w J o ^ n ~ II II O y ~ C7 W a w Q- j m z in o ~ 0 0_ ¢ `* ~ N ri ri~ ro C F Y o f (/i a ^ ~' N ~ N v ~ Z ^ o ~ ~ ~ j V 2 c~ ( /1 FX= U U yl z Y m o~~~o z~ ~~a ; ~ Y o ,~ ~ o o 2 ~ m o < it a y ~ \ ~ , \ '/\\ ~~'' ~ 1\ ~~ \\\\\\\~\~ -i ~ a=_ \\~ ~ ~ ~.~ i ~' ~•~~ __ ~ . .• ~.~ ~~ ~• ~. ~~ ~. ' ~' ~ -~ r °z_ w ~ 7 E' Y m J W m ~ 3 i ~ & ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ -~ ~ v~v~~ 0 0 °m 2~ a a U 4 I I ,~ ~~ '~ ~ . ~ , ~, ~~~ ~ v ~. ? m '` ~ ~~, ~~ ~ , ;~ . , ~ ~ 1 ~~x ~~~ ~ ~. ~` ' 1 : ga 1;. g r ~1 ~ 1 1! ~N ~ 1 ,~ 1 ^ 1 ~~ 1 L L c~ l"_', L L L S g v d $ o o m d ~ ~; a ~ c u a v° o° -` `o C U o ~ d ~ v n N O d ~ ~ « ~ I m C a .~. u ~ of ., ~~.c va-wu. n u m ~ ~ `o rn oY=-_ae ~ a a U ' y u 9 Y o N~? O O ~ O U v o " a .~ o ~ ~ ~ u n'3 c o- o a n c ~ a w ";.. w y y a„ O ° a~ Z c c ° ; c ~ I- .- " . c E W a 9~ m `o H 'o N¢ a a 3 a 3~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~~0~~~ ^~ 1 / \~ ~ \ ,. r 1 0, 1 g~LL'~E[~ •a ---- lj G ~ ~ ~ a~iDSq~tOS~~.e~~t7 \... s l ~~ ' z~N ~m Z&£ET~F~`FJ~F y ~f 1 ~ ~ ~ ~,o .. ~. h .. ~ " 171' ~'~ ~ / U \\~ . m~: I~-~ ~ " gym: _ w " \ ~~ _ ~ °oAZ .. .~~: ~ it ~ ~ a l z ~ :~ \ ~, I~ -zaoo~- TYP, ' ~a ppp~~~vvv y w ~KF. r 8 P.. q; M ~.ll`!LW a~~~t ^~ • ' • is • a ' N,,~` ~. ~ 8~ iN § ~. idWe~CSd J % / f,~'.~ l5 GGS9Z ~ ~~ ~ °V 9 ~y. ~~ \ ~Bc.Ca~ on FF ~g§1 7 ` b ' 4 .s t e~ g°g e ~„'s E °a H Iv,-1 ° 9N~ 3ai0 ¢+ v~ t,m C ~, C h4oy~ ~ ag mONld ~ w >"'~ z~3 a ~ ~n O ~~ ~ c~m~$ 9 $~o x N N ~Em m N2. ,~A rnn. "~ o,m 4~ ~ ~^ 8~9e~ '+] 9 d to ~ am ~o > ~o d:x b a oaN SS m41m y .- ti zwm zwN A ~6'~'~~j o°O °0p.m'7, ~ a$f~" ~ AwC)x E+ tom" r' ~~ H Z ~ ~ °,~~ ~z ~y w ~'~ m ~~ 4 ~ ~~moH .~ ..ozy~a d A 2 y Ey" m n mn ,m^ ~CC° $ r ~wH•, w °"i =" °g ~ "'~ ^~~' z O r ~ L1 ~ a ~ ~ ~ 9 O 3 ~ i~ F'^NZa _N 4^'tl ,yam I( b b ~ 8 ~ ~ z9-= °xr 4 I z 3 ~ Y~Bm~ P p "~) 800 66th St W -Conditional Use Permit 1 /2012 Surrounding Zoning ~~~ MR-3 R RICHFIELD LAKE MR-2 / MR-2 V ~~ C-1 r R L D R- ~ R- ~~ C-2 -3 800 66th St W C-2 66th St W MR-1 R-1 PMR PMR PMR PC-2 R R PMR PC-2 LEGEND C-1 -Community Commercial C-2 -General Commercial PC-2 -Planned General Commercial R -Single-Family Residential R-1 -Low Density Single-Family Residential MR-2 -Multi-Family Residential MR-3 -High Density Multi-Family Residential PMR -Planned Multi-Family Residential 0 62.5 125 250 375 500 Feet N W r E S O~ ~~ 65th St W 800 66th St W -Conditional Use Permit 1 /2012 ~~~~ Comprehensive Plan Designations MIXED PRK RICHFIELD LAKE HDR / HDR ,p~ MIXED HDR i 0 D ~ MIXED R 800 66th St W MIXED 66th St W LDR R MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED PRK O~ ~~ 65th St W MIXED MIXED LEGEND PRK -Park LDR -Low Density Residential HDR -High Density Residential MIXED -Mixed Use II 0 62.5 125 250 375 500 Feet N W ~ E S ~~~ STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 PUBLIC HEARING IO 39 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of a resolution specifying the use of funds from the Community Develo ment Block Grant allocation for 2012. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the use of funds for the 2012 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizing execution of a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any reauired third party agreements. II. BACKGROUND Under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, Hennepin County (County) is awarded funding on a formula basis from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Richfield is allocated a portion of these funds to address local needs relating to affordable housing, community development and public services. An application for Richfield's proposed use of its allocation is due to the County by February 23, 2012. Richfield's estimated 2012 allocation is $178,369; however, this amount may change when Hennepin County receives notice of its final allocation. The chart below summarizes the recommended use of Richfield's 2012 allocation: JULIE URBAN/MICHELLE LEWIS, HOUSING SPECIALIST 02142012 - CDBG.doc Pro'ect Total Recommendation 1. Public Service a. H.O.M.E. Senior Communit Services $ 16,053 b. HOME Line $ 5,351 c. CAPSH $ 5,351 TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICE $ 26,755 2. HRA Deferred Loan $151,614 TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $178,369 The City can use up to 15 percent ($26,755) of its CDBG allocation to fund eligible public services. The following service organizations have all been funding recipients in the past (including last year) and have requested funds totaling $26,755 for 2012. Household Outside Maintenance for Elderly (H.O.M.E.) H.O.M.E. provides household maintenance and chore services for residents who are 60 years old or older or are disabled, with the goal of helping people stay in their homes. Clients are asked to pay for services based on a sliding fee scale. In 2011, HOME provided services to 110 Richfield households. HOME Line HOME Line offers a Tenant Hotline that provides information and advice on tenant/landlord law and court procedures, maintenance/repair issues, management responsibilities, and tenant rights in the event of foreclosure. In 2011, HOME Line provided services to 143 Richfield households. Community Action Partnership for Suburban Hennepin (CAPSH) CAPSH provides foreclosure prevention counseling and loan assistance, first-time homebuyer education and counseling, financial literacy and budget counseling, reverse mortgage counseling, and home rehab and maintenance counseling and education. In 2011, CAPSH provided services to 87 Richfield households. The remaining funds are proposed to be allocated to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) for the Deferred Loan program, which provides no- interest, 30-year, deferred loans to low-income homeowners to address health, safety and property maintenance needs. This program is administered for the City by the County. The County currently has a waiting list of 19 households for this program. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The allocation of federal CDBG funds is an annual activity. • At least 70 percent of CDBG expenditures must be used for activities benefiting very low and low income persons. Applications for the public service portion of the funding were distributed to eligible public service agencies. Funds were divided amongst the agencies requesting funding. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The application for funds is due to Hennepin County by February 23, 2012. • A local public hearing must be held prior to submission of the application. • Third party agreements are prepared annually with each of the public service agencies. C. FINANCIAL • The total Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program allocation for Richfield in 2012 is estimated to be $178,369. This is a preliminary figure provided by Hennepin County based on last year's allocation and is subject to change. • In the event of a change in the final allocation, the amount of funds allocated to each activity will be increased or decreased proportionally. D. LEGAL • A notice of the public hearing was published on February 2, 2012 in the Sun Current. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Modify the amount of funds allocated to each project in a way that still meets funding guidelines. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from HOME Line, H.O.M.E. and CAPSH ~p-I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF FUNDS FOR THE 2012 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY REQUIRED THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is participating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and WHEREAS, The City of Richfield has developed a proposal for the use of 2012 CDBG funds made available to it; and WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing on February 14, 2012 to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and priorities for the City's proposed use of $178,369 from the 2012 Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. Approves the following projects for funding from the 2012 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County. Activit Bud et 1. Public Service a. H.O.M.E. (Senior Community Services) $ 16,053 b. HOME Line $ 5,351 c. CAPSH $ 5,351 TOTAL $ 26,755 2. HRA Deferred Loan Pro ram $ 151,614 TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $ 178,369 2. That the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize and direct the execution of the Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required Third Party Agreements on behalf of the City to implement the 2012 CDBG Program. 3. That should the final amount of FY 2012 CDBG available to the City be different from the preliminary amount provided to the City, the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to adjust project budget(s) to reflect an increase or decrease in funding. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of February, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM # 11 REPORT # 40 ~J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JESSE SWENSON HUMAN RESOURCES COORDINATOR RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution approving the revised 2012 General Services Compensation Plan to reflect the elimination of the first two stews in the GS1 and GS2 uav arades. III. BACKGROUND ~ On January 31, 2012 the City submitted to the State of Minnesota Management and Budget Department the City's 2011 pay equity report. The Pay Equity Report indicates equitable pay relationships between female and male employees. The City of Richfield filed its last Pay Equity Report in January 2009. The Minnesota Legislature requires the reporting of Pay Equity every three years. Of the three tests that the State requires a passing score, the City only marginally passed the salary range test. Because of this, staff informed the Council at the January 24, 2012 meeting that a revised 2012 General Services pay plan would be submitted to the City Council for approval. The revised pay plan will eliminate the first pay step for GS1 and GS2 employees, which are predominantly female positions. This change to the pay plan will ensure that in future pay equity testing the City will be in compliance with the salary range test. ~ III. BASIS OF RECOMI~~NDATION 02142012 Revised GS Pay Plan i Nance TITLE A. POLICY • In order to remain in compliance with the State of Minnesota Pay Equity reporting rules it is necessary to make these adjustments. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • In order to make these pay plan adjustments, Council action on February 14, 2012 is necessary. C. FINANCIAL • There are currently no General Services employees in the first step of GS1 or GS2 pay grades, so the adjustments will not have an immediate financial affect. It will affect any new hires to these pay grades. D. LEGAL • None. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • No alternative is recommended. Based on the City's 2012 Pay Equity report submitted January 31, 2012, it would be beneficial for the City to make these changes in order to remain in compliance with pay equity standards. V. ATTAC~IMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 02142012 Revised GS Pay Plan RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2012 GENERAL SERVICES ~~ ~~ SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services employees from time-to-time, and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2012 pay plan for position classifications for General Services employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2012 the following pay plan, which is to be effective February 14 2012 and July 1 2012, and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code: Effective February 14 2012 STEP 1 2 3 4 5 6 RANGE GS1 YR 33,529.60 35,380.80 37,294.40 39,520.00 40,684.80 MO 2,794.13 2,948.40 3,107.87 3,293.33 3,390.40 BW 1,289.60 1,360.80 1,434.40 1,520.00 1,564.80 HR 16.12 17.01 17.93 19.00 19.56 GS2 YR 36,608.00 38,396.80 40,352.00 42,432.00 44,532.80 MO 3,050.67 3,199.73 3,362.67 3,536.00 3,711.07 BW 1,408.00 1,476.80 1,552.00 1,632.00 1,712.80 H R 17.60 18.46 19.40 20.40 21.41 GS3 YR 38,396.80 40,352.00 42,494.40 44,532.80 46,758.40 49,316.80 MO 3,199.73 3,362.67 3,541.20 3,711.07 3,896.53 4,109.73 BW 1,476.80 1,552.00 1,634.40 1,712.80 .1,798.40 1,896.80 HR 18.46 19.40 20.43 21.41 22.48 23.71 GS3E YR 41,288.00 43,368.00 45,676.80 47,881.60 50,232.00 53,040.00 MO 3,440.67 3,614.00 3,806.40 3,990.13 4,186.00 4,420.00 BW 1,588.00 1,668.00 1,756.80 1,841.60 1,932.00 2,040.00 HR 19.85 20.85 21.96 23.02 24.15 25.50 GS4 YR 42,494.40 44,532.80 46,820.80 49,171.20 51,604.80 54,329.60 MO 3,541.20 3,711.07 3,901.73 4,097.60 4,300.40 4,527.47 BW 1,634.40 1,712.80 1,800.80 1,891.20 1,984.80 2,089.60 H R 20.43 21.41 22.51 23.64 24.81 26.12 GS4E YR 45,635.20 47,860.80 50,315.20 52,873.60 55,494.40 58,302.40 MO 3,802.93 3,988.40 4,192.93 4,406.13 4,624.53 4,858.53 BW 1,755.20 1,840.80 1,935.20 2,033.60 2,134.40 2,242.40 HR 21.94 23.01 24.19 25.42 26.68 28.03 GS5 YR 46,820.80 49,171.20 51,604.80 54,329.60 57,033.60 59,904.00 MO 3,901.73 4,097.60 4,300.40 4,527.47 4,752.80 4,992.00 BW 1,800.80 1,891.20 1,984.80 2,089.60 2,193.60 2,304.00 HR 22.51 23.64 24.81 26.12 27.42 28.80 GS5E YR 50,315.20 52,873.60 55,452.80 58,302.40 61,235.20 64,646.40 MO 4,192.93 4,406.13 4,621.07 4,858.53 5,102.93 5,387.20 BW 1,935.20 2,033.60 2,132.80 2,242.40 2,355.20 2,486.40 HR 24.19 25.42 26.66 28.03 29.44 31.08 GS6 YR 51,604.80 54,329.60 57,033.60 59,904.00 62,961.60 69,430.40 MO 4,300.40 4,527.47 4,752.80 4,992.00 5,246.80 5,785.87 BW 1,984.80 2,089.60 2,193.60 2,304.00 2,421.60 2,670.40 HR 24.81 26.12 27.42 28.80 30.27 33.38 GS6E YR 55,452.80 58,302.40 61,256.00 64,334.40 67,558.40 74,609.60 MO 4,621.07 4,858.53 5,104.67 5,361.20 5,629.87 6,217.47 BW 2,132.80 2,242.40 2,356.00 2,474.40 2,598.40 2,869.60 HR 26.66 28.03 29.45 30.93 32.48 35.87 02142012 Revised GS Pay Plan Effective the first full pay period of July 1st 2012 STEP 1 2 3 4 5 6 RANGE GS1 YR 33,862.40 35,734.40 37,668.80 39,915.20 41,100.80 MO 2,821.87 2,977.87 3,139.07 3,326.27 3,425.07 BW 1,302.40 1,374.40 1,448.80 1,535.20 1,580.80 HR 16.28 17.18 18.11 19.19 19.76 GS2 YR 36,982.40 38,771.20 40,747.20 42,848.00 44,969.60 MO 3,081.87 3,230.93 3,395.60 3,57Q.67 3,747.47 BW 1,422.40 1,491.20 1,567.20 1,648.00 1,729.60 HR 17.78 18.64 19.59 20.60 21.62 GS3 YR 38,771.20 40,747.20 42,910.40 44,969.60 47,216.00 49,816.00 MO 3,230.93 3,395.60 3,575.87 3,747.47 3,934.67 4,151.33 BW 1,491.20 1,567.20 1,650.40 1,729.60 1,816.00 1,916.00 HR 18.64 19.59 20.63 21.62 22.70 23.95 GS3E YR 41,704.00 43,804.80 46,134.40 48,360.00 50,731.20 53,580.80 MO 3,475.33 3,650.40 3,844.53 4,030.00 4,227.60 4,465.07 BW 1,604.00 1,684.80 1,774.40 1,860.00 1,951.20 2,060.80 HR 20.05 21.06 22.18 23.25 24.39 25.76 GS4 YR 42,910.40 44,969.60 47,299.20 49,670.40 52,124.80 54,870.40 MO 3,575.87 3,747.47 3,941.60 4,139.20 4,343.73 4,572.53 BW 1,650.40 1,729.60 1,819.20 1,910.40 2,004.80 2,110.40 HR 20.63 21.62 22.74 23.88 25.06 26.38 GS4E YR 46,092.80 48,339.20 50,814.40 53,393.60 56,056.00 58,884.80 MO 3,841.07 4,028.27 4,234.53 4,449.47 4,671.33 4,907.07 BW 1,772.80 1,859.20 1,954.40 2,053.60 2,156.00 2,264.80 HR 22.16 23.24 24.43 25.67 26.95 28.31 GS5 YR 47,299.20 49,670.40 52,124.80 54,870.40 57,595.20 60,507.20 MO 3,941.60 4,139.20 4,343.73 4,572.53 4,799.60 5,042.27 BW 1,819.20 1,910.40 2,004.80 2,110.40 2,215.20 2,327.20 HR 22.74 23.88 25.06 26.38 27.69 29.09 GSSE YR 50,814.40 53,393.60 56,014.40 58,884.80 61,838.40 65,291.20 MO 4,234.53 4,449.47 4,667.87 4,907.07 5,153.20 5,440.93 BW 1,954.40 2,053.60 2,154.40 2,264.80 2,378.40 2,511.20 HR 24.43 25.67 26.93 28.31 29.73 31.39 GS6 YR 52,124.80 54,870.40 57,595.20 60,507.20 63,585.60 70,116.80 MO 4,343.73 4,572.53 4,799.60 5,042.27 5,298.80 5,843.07 BW 2,004.80 2,110.40 2,215.20 2,327.20 2,445.60 2,696.80 HR 25.06 26.38 27.69 29.09 30.57 33.71 GS6E YR 56,014.40 58,884.80 61,859.20 64,979.20 68,224.00 75,358.40 MO 4,667.87 4,907.07 5,154.93 5,414.93 5,685.33 6,279.87 BW 2,154.40 2,264.80 2,379.20 2,499.20 2,624.00 2,898.40 HR 26.93 28.31 29.74 31.24 32.80 36.23 I~~~ 02142012 Revised GS Pay Plan GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE ~~~~ GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS 1 Office Aide Non-Exempt Data Entry Operator Non-Exempt Switchboard-Receptionist Non-Exempt Community Development Technician Non-Exempt Community Service Officer Non-Exempt Custodian Non-Exempt Investigative Clerk Non-Exempt Lead Liquor Clerk Non-Exempt Licensing Clerk Non-Exempt Police Cadet Non-Exempt Senior Office Aide Non-Exempt Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt Community Development Assistant Non-Exempt Facility Operations Assistant Non-Exempt Fores ry Inspector/Operations Assistant Non-Exempt Environmental Health Assistant Non-Exempt Lead Licensing Clerk Non-Exempt Leased Housing Assistant Non-Exempt Secretary Non-Exempt Utility Billing Clerk Non-Exempt 3E Assistant Liquor Store Manager Exempt 4 Assessment Clerk Non-Exempt Information Technologies Help Desk Non-Exempt Technician Operations Aide Non-Exempt 4SNE Administrative Aide Non-Exempt 5 Engineering Technician Non-Exempt Facility Maintenance Supervisor Non-Exempt Recreation Supervisor Part-time Non-Exempt Information Technologies Technician Non-Exempt 5E Code Compliance Specialist Exempt Crime Prevention Program Coordinator Exempt Community Development Accountant Exempt Community Development Coordinator Exempt Executive Coordinator Exempt Housing Specialist Exempt Human Services Planner/Coordinator Exempt Media Coordinator Exempt Naturalist Exempt Payroll Accountant Exempt Records Supervisor Exempt Recreation Supervisor Exempt Redevelopment Specialist Exempt 6 Civil Engineer Non-Exempt Network Administrator Non-Exempt Project Civil Engineer Trade/Building Inspector Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Trade/Electrical Inspector Non-Exempt 6E Accountant Exempt Planner Exempt Human Resources Coordinator Exempt 02142012 Revised GS Pay Plan a. Step 1 -Start ~ ~ ~~ b. Step 2 -One year from anniversary date. c. Step 3 -One year since last increase. If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 3 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. d. Step 4 -One year since last increase. If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 4 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. e. Step 5 -One year since last increase. An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to Step 5. f. Step 6 -One year since last increase. An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to Step 6. Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated Unsatisfactory may not advance to the next step until their performance improves. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14t" day of February 2012. Debbie Goettel Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk (Revised 2-2012) 02142012 Revised GS Pay Plan AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORD. AGENDA ITEM # 12 REPORT # 4 I ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVElYj~j,. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER N.u~, Tirz.E REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of an ordinance amending Section 210.01 of the Richfield City Code related to City Council salaries and schedule second reading for February 28, 2012. III. RECOMMENDED ACTION: II By motion: Approve first reading of the ordinance amending Section 210.01 related to City Council salaries and schedule second reading for Februarv 28, 2012. II. BACKGROUND Chapter II, Section 210 of the City ordinance establishes the salaries of the City Council. Section 210.01, Subd. 5 provides that the salaries of the Council Members shall be reviewed by the City Council set by this section by May 1 in each year in which an election is held pursuant to Section 200 of this code. An ordinance amending the salaries as established in this section must not take effect until after the next succeeding municipal election. The next City Council salary adjustment would be effective January 1, 2013, if the City Council approves the ordinance amendment. On March 9, 2010, the City Council approved a salary adjustment of 0% effective January 1, 2011 and 2% effective January 1, 2012. The current annual salary for the Mayor is $10,179. The current salary for the City Council is $7,901. According to previously established City Council policy, any increase should be based upon the amount of increase granted to employees in the year(s) subsequent to the previous salary adjustment. The salary adjustment increase for employees in the General Services and Management pay plans was 0% in January 2010, 2% In January 0214CouncilSalaries 2011 and 2% in 2012 (1 % in January and 1 % in June}. Therefore, a 2% salary adjustment for the City Council might be appropriate for 2013. However, the City Council may set salaries in relationship to other metropolitan cities. The City Council should address salaries for atwo-year period, 2013 and 2014. A proposed ordinance is attached to this Staff Report to cover this two-year period. Attached is a list of Council salaries of 10 selected cities in the metro area of a comparable size. Second reading of the proposed ordinance is scheduled for February 28, 2012. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Chapter II, Section 210 of the City Code establishes the salaries of the City Council and provides that the salaries of the Council Members be reviewed each year in which an election is held. • The City Charter stipulates that City Council salaries may be adjusted only by ordinance. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • A public hearing is not required per State Statute or City Charter. • Chapter I1, Section 210 of the Cityy ordinance establishes the salaries of the City Council. Section 210.01, Subd. 5 provides that the salaries of the Council Members shall be reviewed by the City Council set by this section by May 1 in each year in which an election is held pursuant to Section 200 of this code. a-salary adjustment in 2012. D. LEGAL E. ENVIRONMENTAL C~NS~ERATI~NS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council could defer action on this item to a future meeting. • Do not approve first reading of the ordinance and take no further action. V. ATTACHIVIENTS ~ • Proposed ordinance. • Salary survey. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I ~a~ ~ BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 210 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 210 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by amending Subsection 210.01 to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Mayor. The annual salary of the mayor as of January 1, 2012 is $10,179. Effective January 1, 20a-1.13, the salary of the mayor shall be increased by a percentage that is the lesser of 3.5 percent or the percentage increase in the annual pay structure granted on January 1, 20a-A12 to Management and General Services pay plans. Subdivision 2. Council. The annual salary of a member of the council as of January 1, 2012 is $7,901. Effective January 1, 20~-1-13, the salary of a member of the council-shall be increased by a percentage that is the lesser of 3.5 percent or the percentage increase in the annual pay structure granted on January 1, 20a-912 to Management and General Services pay plans. Subdivision 3. Effective January 1, 2014, the annual salary of the mayor and a member of the council as provided in Subdivision 1 and 2 above shall be increased by a percentage that is the lesser of 3.5 percent or the percentage increase in the annual pay structure granted on January 1, 20a-a-13 to Management and General Services pay plans Subdivision 4. Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective on January 1, 209913. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of February 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk is a METROPOLITAN AREA CITY COUNCIL 2012 SALARY SURVEY Ci Population 2011 Ann Ma or ual Salary Council 2012 Ann Ma or ual Salary Council Apple Valley 49,084 $11,220 $ 8,028 $11,220 $ 8,028 Blaine 57,186 13,637 10,003 13,637 10,003 Eden Prairie 61,325 9,900 7,500 9,900 7,500 Edina 46,896 10,348 7,758 10,348 7,758 Fridley' 26,603 10,531 7,647 10,531 7,647 Golden Valley 20,355 11,619 8,696 11,619 8,696 Maple Grove 58,491 14,000 12,000 14,000 12,000 Minnetonka 51,519 12,000 9,000 12,000 9,000 Richfield 35,228 9,688 7,746 10,179 7,901 Roseville 33,660 9,300 7,020 9,300 7,020 St. Louis Park 44,569 11,796 6,807 $11,796 6,807 Average Salary: $11,276 $ 8,382 $11,321 $ 8,396 NOTES: The Fridley Council Member at Large received $8,650 in 2011 (no increase in 2012). Updated: 2/2/12 STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 OTHER BUSINESS 13 42 REPORT PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the City Council's confirmation of the Mayor's appointment of an Housing and Redevelopment Authorit (HRA) Commissioner. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Confirm the Mayor's appointment of an HRA Commissioner for a five year term commencing February 14, 2012 and expiring on February 14, 2017 or until such later date as a successor is aaaointed and qualified. 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 staggered five- yearterms 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 City Council determined that term limits should be set for all HRA Commissioners limiting them to two five-year consecutive terms equal to a total of ten years. The City Council directed staff to conduct a recruitment for citizen HRA Commissioners using the same process as for City advisory commission appointments. The vacancy 0214HRA was advertised in the Richfield Sun-Current, on cable television channel 16 and the City's Website. A Special City Council Meeting was held on Sunday, January 22, 2012 to conduct interviews of those persons interested in serving on the HRA. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Under State law, the Mayor appoints HRA Commissioners subject to confirmation of the City Council. The Mayor has indicated an appointment will be made to the HRA for afive-year term at the February 14, 2012 City Council meeting. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • To ensure a quorum at future meetings, the City Council should take action on this item. C. LEGAL • None A. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • NA IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could decide not to confirm the Mayor's appointment. • If the City Council does not approve the Mayor's appointment, a quorum may not be present at future HRA meetings. V. ATTACI-IMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None.