The URL can be used to link to this page

031312completeagenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2012 RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION BARTHOLOMEW CONFERENCE ROOM 6:00 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 1. Discussion regarding Portland Avenue Land Reconfiguration Pilot Project (Council Memo No. 32) Notes: 2. Discussion regarding Arterial Transit Corridor Study (Council Memo No. 32) Notes: Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of(1) Special City Council/HRA/Planning Commission Worksession of February 28, 2012; (2) Special City Council Worksession of February 28, 2012; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of February 28, 2012 COUNCIL DISCUSSION 1. Council discussion • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 2. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 3. 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 resolution amending 2011 General Fund budget authorizing transfer of appropriations from Legislative/Executive Department and Administrative Services Department to Public Safety Department S.R. No. 54 B. Consideration of approval of first reading of transitory ordinance establishing new ward boundaries to conform to redistricting requirements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes and City Charter and scheduling public hearing and second reading for March 27, 2012 S.R. No. 55 C. Consideration of approval of construction and maintenance agreement with Grand St. Paul CVS, LLC and Bill Wolfson for new CVS Pharmacy site at 6528 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 56 D. Consideration of approval of continuing public hearing to April 10, 2012 regarding plat of land located at northeast corner of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 57 E. Consideration of approval of resolution for"No Parking" on both sides of 76th Street between 12th and Cedar Avenues S.R. No. 58 Notes: 4. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Public hearing regarding issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Financial Guidance, Inc., d/b/a Four Points by Sheraton, 7745 Lyndale Avenue Staff Report No. 59 Notes: 6. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from Special Revenue Fund Staff Report No. 60 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 7. Consideration of resolution granting amended conditional use permit for animal kennel with outdoor relief area at 6315 Penn Avenue Staff Report No. 61 Notes: 8. Consideration of resolution authorizing construction of proposed westbound auxiliary lane on Interstate 494 from Interstate 35W to Trunk Highway 100 Staff Report No. 62 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 9. City Manager's report Notes: 10.Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 11.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 March 8, 2012 Council Memorandum No. 32 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: March 13, 2012 Worksession Presentations (Agenda Items 1 and 2) • Portland Avenue Lane Reconfiguration Pilot Project • Arterial Transit Corridor Study Council Members: The March 13, 2012 City Council Worksession will contain the following two presentations on topics affecting Richfield Arterial Streets. • Portland Avenue Lane Reconfiguration Pilot Project - Staff will present a short summary of the completed Project Feedback Report (attached). • Arterial Transit Corridor ("rapid bus") Study - Charles Carlson, Transitway Projects Manager for Metro Transit, will present the findings and recommendations of Metro Transit's ongoing Arterial Transit Corridor Study. Both Nicollet Avenue and Portland Avenue through Richfield were included in this study to examine the feasibility of implementing a faster, more reliable transit service in the corridors. Contact Michael Eastling, Public Works Director, at 612-861-9792 with questions. Re' -ctfull submitt- :, Steve . ev iarn City anager SLD:cak Attachment E-mail: Department Directors Assistant City Manager Portland Avenue Lane Reconfiguration Pilot Project , r it 14. Project Feedback Report „proudly Serving Richfield" giW PUBLIC WORKS January 2012 Executive Summary The results of the Richfield Arterial Study which were approved by City Council in 2009, recommended conversion of several streets in the City from four-lanes to three-lanes at the time of reconstruction. A scheduled resurfacing of Portland Avenue by Hennepin County in 2010 gave the City the opportunity to implement the Portland Avenue Lane Reconfiguration Pilot Project. This project provided the City of Richfield an excellent opportunity to examine a 4-to-3 lane conversion on an arterial class street without having to put forth a large amount of money towards reconstruction. The public feedback received will allow for resident experience and concerns to be addressed in the design phase of a future full street reconstruction. Feedback surveys were made available to the public at approximately the 6-month and 1-year time periods from implementation. Comments from the two feedback surveys were generally split in support of the 3-lane configuration. The feedback was used to identify several issues that may possibly be mitigated through design features in full reconstruction. Summary of Frequent Feedback Comments Right-turning vehicles slowing down and Improved pedestrian experience on buses stopping along the street caused a Portland Avenue. partial blocking of the travel lane. Unclear striping and/or signage at the Improved bicyclist experience on Portland merge areas. Avenue. Difficulty crossing or entering Portland Improved feeling of safety for drivers in Avenue at non-signalized intersections left-turning vehicles. during peak traffic hours. Proposed Design Feature Considerations In Full Reconstruction Right turn (RT) lanes at high traffic Construct the 3-lane section from 77th intersections. Street to 66th Street or Highway 62. Bus pullout areas at high ridership stops. Construct 4-way traffic control at 73rd Street. Background In 2009 the Richfield City Council approved the Richfield Arterials Study Street Section Concepts for Penn, Lyndale, Nicollet, and Portland Avenues which recommended conversion from four-lane to three lanes on the roadways. Since the completion of the Study, none of those streets have been reconstructed. In 2010, Hennepin County notified the City of its intent to perform a mill and overlay on Portland Avenue from 77th Street to Highway 62 (Crosstown). County staff was aware of the Study that had been completed and explored the possibility of converting a portion of the road to a three-lane section when putting the road striping in place after the overlay. County staff insisted however that under a three-lane configuration, no parking would be allowed on Portland Avenue. This meant that Sunday parking would no longer be allowed. Due to the potential impact of the parking change to residents on Portland Avenue, City Staff brought the proposal in the form of a Pilot Project to the City Council. The Council requested an open house meeting be held so that residents along the street could get more information and provide feedback prior to Council decision. Ultimately the City Council approved the Pilot Project so that feedback could be gathered for use in future design considerations. Feedback Process Public feedback opportunities consisted of a pre-project open house and surveys at the 6-month and 1-year intervals. Copies of the questionnaire, surveys, and mailings described in each phase are available in the Appendix of this document. Due to the extensive size of the document, the full survey responses are not attached but are available in pdf format from Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer. Pre-Project Open House Twenty people attended the pre-project meeting held at Hope Presbyterian Church which is located on Portland Avenue in the middle of the project area. Staff persons from the City and Hennepin County were available to explain the project and answer questions. A questionnaire was distributed to those in attendance and also made available on the City website in order to gather comments. Input received at the open house was minimal and support for the project was split. A summary of the comments received prior to project implementation at the open house and via email can be found in the appendix. 6-Month Survey Approximately six months after the project was implemented, a letter was send to residents along Portland Avenue notifying them of a survey available on the City website. The letter also posed two questions directed only towards those living on the reconfigured street to address concerns raised at the pre-project open house: 1. As a resident living on the three-lane section of Portland Avenue, has your overall impression with the street: a. Improved b. Worsened c. Stayed the same 2. Please list specific positives or negatives associated with the lane conversion you have experienced over the last six months. The survey was also advertised to the general public via the City website, the City Facebook page, and Cable Channel 16. 1-Year Survey Approximately six months after the first survey was completed postcards were sent to properties between Park Avenue and 4th Avenue from 66th Street to 76th Street notifying residents of the survey available on the City website. The final survey was targeted to those living on and near the three-lane street and could be found with a link on the Transportation section of the City website. Survey Results Copies of the full comments and survey responses received are available in the Appendix of this document. 6-Month Survey The online survey received 260 responses. Several additional comments were taken by email or voicemail. / r-11% 25% Percentage of respondents Percentage of respondents who live on Portland Ave. who identified driving difficulties on Portland Ave. BEFORE the project. I 41% r I Percentage of respondents who identified driving 7- --. difficulties on Portland Ave. 54% 390/0 AFTER the project. Percentage of Portland Ave. Percentage of Portland Ave. \ responses with positive responses with negative comments on the 3-lane comments on the 3-lane section. / section. J r \ 32% Percentage of respondents / \ who ranked the biking 0 experience along Portland ° Ave.as Good or above \ Percentage of respondents AFTER the project. J 29% who ranked the pedestrian experience along Portland / \ Percentage of respondents Ave.as Good or above 14% who ranked the pedestrian 1\ AFTER the project. experience along Portland Percentage of respondents Ave.as Good or above who ranked the biking BEFORE the project. / experience along Portland Ave.as Good or above \, BEFORE the project. J 1-Year Survey This targeted online survey received 75 responses. Two additional comments were taken by voicemail. \ I 27% 73% Percentage of respondents Percentage of respondents who live on Portland Ave. who live on 1-2 blocks off of Portland Ave. I I I I I I I \ / \ I \ I \ 63% 37% 48% 52% Percentage of those Percentage of those Percentage of those Percentage of those respondents who prefer the respondents who prefer the respondents who prefer the respondents who prefer the current 3-lane section. previous 4-lane section. current 3-lane section. previous 4-lane section. J J \ / J Common Concerns There were several concerns that respondents brought up frequently in both surveys: • Right turning vehicles In general, the 6-foot shoulder provides enough space for right turning vehicles to pull over so that their impact to thru traffic can be minimized. However, some drivers do not utilize this area. Or shoulders contain plowed snow or are being used by bikers, buses, garbage trucks, or other barriers. In these cases right-turning vehicles must decelerate fully in the travel lane which causes traffic delay or illegal use of the center lane for passing. • Stopped Buses During peak periods of the day when both bus ridership and vehicle traffic are at their highest, it is likely that there will be conflicts due to stopped buses. The biggest concern occurs at high volume stops where the bus stopping time will be longest. These high volume locations tend to also be intersections with collector streets where there are also higher volumes of turning vehicles using both the shoulder and the center turn lane. • Unclear striping and signage The Portland Avenue Pilot Project is the first location in the City that a four- lane Arterial Street has been converted to three-lanes. As a result, the street section is new to many drivers. Comments noted that the transition between sections can sometimes be confusing as drivers realize lanes end or begin. In addition, weather conditions during the initial striping for the project caused the paint to fade prematurely. This left faint lines that made lane designation even more difficult for drivers to detect. Finally, there was a misconception among many respondents that the shoulders were designated bike lanes. Some were unclear if they could be used by motor vehicles and several complained in comments about cars using the "bike lanes." This uncertainty causes some right-turning drivers to remain fully in the travel lane while decelerating and turning which contributes to traffic delay or illegal use of the center lane for passing. • Difficulty crossing or entering Portland Avenue It was known from other three-lane conversion projects within Hennepin County that drivers crossing or entering the three-lane street at driveways and non-signalized or non-fully controlled intersections experience more delay in the peak hours. This is due to the reduction of traffic gaps during peak traffic periods. This difficulty is somewhat counteracted by the fact that there are fewer potential conflict points and blind spots for drivers. However, comments did support the prediction that crossing and entering Portland Avenue would become more difficult for some drivers. Traffic Study Traffic volumes were recorded before and after the lane conversion project. Comparison of the data shows that traffic increased from the before to the after condition. Although there are too many variables to attribute this to the lane changes, it does appear that drivers are not avoiding the street. The 85% speeds in the after condition remained above the posted speed limit at 38 mph. Previous studies on Portland Avenue found speeds at or around the same range. This supports findings from previous Hennepin County projects that although the three-lane configuration may reduce outlying high speed drivers, the average speeds are generally similar to the four-lane section. Future Design Considerations Overall the three-lane section produced many of the same results that City and County staff expected prior to implementation. These results include changes to driver behavior and traffic patterns that can benefit some and inconvenience others. Some of those inconveniences or difficulties could be mitigated in a future full reconstruction of Portland Avenue. Based on the feedback and observation of the Pilot Project, the following recommendations may be considered during a full street reconstruction project: • Right turn lanes at high traffic intersections.** Placing right turn lanes at intersections with Collector streets and other areas where there are high volumes of turning traffic would allow the slow turning vehicles to completely exit the travel lane. This would minimize the impacts of those vehicles to the higher speed thru traffic. • Bus pullout areas at high ridership stops.** Transit stops along Portland Avenue are `demand-only' stops. This means that unless there is a user waiting at a stop or a rider who wishes to exit the bus at a stop, the driver will not stop. This type of operation helps to minimize delays and impacts to other traffic. However, there are several bus stop locations along the corridor that average a higher number of riders. Constructing a bus pullout or partial pullout at these locations would further minimize the impacts to thru traffic in the travel lane. The bus pullouts could be shared with a RT lane. • Move high volume bus stops to the far side of the intersection. Many times the intersections that have higher numbers of right-turning vehicles also have higher numbers of bus riders. Relocating the bus stop at these locations to the far side of the intersection would help to minimize the number of potential conflicts between the streets users. • Construct the 3-lane section the full length of the street from 77th Street to 66th Street or Highway 62. The merge conditions that exist today lead to confusion and conflicts between drivers. It is recommended that the three-lane street section be extended the full length of the corridor under a reconstruction condition. This would not only eliminate the confusing merge areas but could be designed to tie-in more effectively to traffic conditions on both ends of the corridor. • Construct 4-way traffic control at 73rd Street. Due to the number of turning vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users at the intersection with 73rd Street, it may be beneficial for all users to install a traffic signal or roundabout at the location. This would allow local traffic an additional area to reliably enter or cross Portland Avenue during high traffic periods. It would also provide a controlled pedestrian crossing every 3-4 blocks on Portland Avenue. **- The construction of a right turn lane and/or bus pullout would widen the street section. Due to the variable right-of way width in the corridor, additional right-of-way may or may not be required for these features at some locations. Appendix Richfield Public Works For more information, call: h ICI FIELD ELL7 Jeff Pearson, Richfield Transportation Engineer 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Voice: 612-861-9791 — — FAX: 612-861-9796 OPEN HOUSE ON WEDNESDAY JUNE 30, 2010 REGARDING THE PROPOSED PORTLAND AVENUE LANE RECONFIGURATION PILOT PROJECT The City of Richfield will be holding a public open house meeting on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 from 6:00pm - 8:00pm. The Open House will be held at Hope Presbyterian Church, 7132 Portland Avenue South. Attendees should use "Door 3" to access the meeting area. Staff members from the City and Hennepin County will be on hand to discuss the proposed conversion of Portland Avenue from 4-to-3 lanes between 67th Street to 76th Street following a planned pavement overlay by Hennepin County in July 2010. This conversion would be a pilot project and would implement the approved 2009 Arterial Study that recommended the three-lane section. The change would be completed by modifying the striping of the roadway only; no curb will be reconstructed as part of this project. Hennepin County has required that parking be eliminated in the final condition. Under this requirement the Sunday parking, currently allowed on Portland Avenue between 67th Street and 76th Street, would be eliminated. Please contact Jeff Pearson (612-861-9791 or jpearson @cityofrichfield.org) with questions and comments. Public input will be evaluated by the City Council when considering whether to pursue this project at the July 13, 2010 Council Meeting. Z Z O 0 I- Q Q W / D D / 0 O / - / 'Z '/Z 0 ' 0 N / C. ' C) / / W ' ' W Z z 1 a N , , Q J / N J r / x W , W / n , t , / v / Z ' N Z // / W r W / // > ' , Q ' Q i N / Q r ' / i / / i i CI / Z / r r Z a / / Q / J N J / - // r // r // N O r'' r r A 0 // O. 000 fl . Z / W W CO 111 C' W 0 0 0 � a Portland Avenue Lane Reconfiguration Project RICI 1111.1.D Hennepin © nE - Ti© 1. Do you use Sunday on street parking on Portland Avenue regularly? If so,when and in what general area? 2. After attending the June 30, 2010 Open House are you in favor of the Portland Avenue Lane Conversion Pilot Project? ❑ Yes, I support the 3-lane section. ❑ No, I prefer the current 4-lane section. Please provide additional comment as to why or why not. A completed questionnaire may also be mailed,faxed, or emailed by Wednesday July 7th to: Jeff Pearson City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Fax: 612.861.9796 jpearson a(�.citvofrichfield.org The survey is also available to complete electronically at the following web site: http://www.chyofrichfield.org/PublicWorks/Projects.htm Please use the back of this sheet if ou need additional s lace for comments THANK YOU for completing this questionnaire Richfield Public Works For more information, call: R ICI I FIELD Jeff Pearson, Richfield Transportation Engineer 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Voice: 612-861-9791 FAX: 612-861-9796 - PROJECT UPDATE - PORTLAND AVENUE MILL & OVERLAY TO BEGIN TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21ST Hennepin County has notified the City that they expect to begin the Mill & Overlay of Portland Avenue on Tuesday, September 21st and complete the project by the beginning of October. As discussed and approved by the City Council, the street will be striped as a three-lane roadway between 68th Street and 76th Street once the paving is complete. Due to the new lane configuration No Parking will be allowed anytime on Portland Avenue between 68th Street and 76th Street. Public input as well as other measures will be used to assess the Pilot Project at both a 6-month and 12-month evaluation period. Please contact Jeff Pearson (612-861-9791 or jpearson @cityofrichfield.org) with questions and comments. More information about the Portland Avenue Lane Reconfiguration Pilot Project can be found at http://www.cityofrichfield.org/PublicWorks/Projects.htm RICHFIELD Constant Contact Survey Results Survey Name: 3-Lane Survey Response Status: Partial &Completed Filter: None 5/19/2011 4:10 PM CDT *Please enter the information indicated below. This information will be used only for survey tracking purposes. Answers Number of Response(s) First Name 261 Last Name 261 Address 1 261 How many times do you drive on Portland Avenue in an average week? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio Occasionally(1-4 times per 79 29.6 week) Once a day(5-10 times per __ 70 26.3 % week) Twice a day(10-14 times per_ 39 14.6% week) Multiple times daily(15+ __ 75 28.1 % times per week) No Response(s) 3 1.1 % Totals 266 100% Page 1 BEFORE the 4-to-3 lane conversion, what would you estimate your average maximum speed was while driving on Portland Avenue? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio <25mph I 4 1.5% 25-30 mph 39 14.6 % 30-35 mph 154 57.8 % >35 mph 52 19.5% I don't know I 10 3.7% No Response(s) I 7 2.6% Totals 266 100% AFTER the 4-to-3 lane conversion, what would you estimate your average maximum speed is while driving on Portland Avenue? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio <25 mph 1.1 15 5.6% 25-30 mph 84 31.5 % 30-35 mph 141 53.0 >35 mph . 14 5.2% I don't know I 7 2.6 No Response(s) I 5 1.8% Totals 266 100% Page 2 BEFORE the 4-to-3 lane conversion, did you regularly experience driving conditions that made it difficult to travel along the length of the roadway? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio Yes-please explain below 64 24.0 % No 197 74.0 % No Response(s) 1 5 1.8 Totals 266 100% AFTER the 4-to-3 lane conversion, do you regularly experience driving conditions that make it difficult to travel along the length of the roadway? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio Yes-please explain below 107 40.2 % No 149 56.0 % No Response(s) I 10 3.7% Totals 266 100% Page 3 Have you experienced difficulty turning on to the 3-lane section of Portland Avenue from a cross street or driveway due to a lack of traffic `gaps'? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio Yes-please explain below 69 25.9 % No 187 70.3% No Response(s) I 10 3.7 ok Totals 266 100% BEFORE the 4-to-3 lane conversion, how would you rate the snow removal process on Portland Avenue for the travel lanes? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio Excellent 49 18.4 % Very Good 94 35.3 % Good 66 24.8 % Satisfactory 37 13.9 % Poor I 6 2.2% No Response(s) III 14 5.2% Totals 266 100% Page 4 AFTER the 4-to-3 lane conversion, how would you rate the snow removal process on Portland Avenue for the travel lanes? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio Excellent 39 14.6 % Very Good 93 34.9 % Good 65 24.4 % Satisfactory 32 12.0 % Poor 25 9.3% No Response(s) U 12 4.5% Totals 266 100% How many times do you walk along Portland Avenue in an average week? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio I don't walk along Portland 200 75.1 % Avenue Occasionally(1-4 times per 47 17.6 % week) Once A Day(5-10 times a I 6 2.2% week) Twice a day(10-14 times a 2 <1 % week) Multiple times daily(15+ 1 <1 % times per week) No Response(s) I 10 3.7 Totals 266 100% Page 5 BEFORE the 410-3 lane conversion, how would you rate the pedestrian experience and your ability to walk along Portland Avenue? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio Excellent I 12 4.5% Very Good 25 9.3 yo Good 41 15.4 % Satisfactory 46 17.2% Poor MI 23 8.6% No Response(s) 119 44.7 % Totals 266 100% AFTER the 4-to-3 lane conversion, how would you rate the pedestrian experience and your ability to walk along Portland Avenue? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio Excellent I 14 5.2 Very Good 43 16.1 % Good 45 16.9% Satisfactory 34 12.7% Poor II 13 4.8% No Response(s) 117 43.9 % Totals 266 100% Page 6 BEFORE the 4-to-3 lane conversion, how would you rate the snow removal process for the sidewalks along Portland Avenue? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio Excellent I. 15 5.6% Very Good 34 12.7 Good 65 24.4 % Satisfactory 37 13.9 Poor IN 14 5.2% No Response(s) _- 101 37.9 % Totals 266 100% AFTER the 4-to-3 lane conversion, how would you rate the snow removal process for the sidewalks along Portland Avenue? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio Excellent 1. 15 5.6% Very Good 34 12.7% Good 69 25.9% Satisfactory 29 10.9% Poor IIII 21 7.8% No Response(s) 98 36.8% Totals 266 100% Page 7 How many times do you bike on Portland Avenue in an average week? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio I don't bike on Portland 208 78.1 Avenue Occasionally(1-4 times per 44 16.5 % week) Once a day(5-10 times per I 3 1.1 % week) Twice a day(10-14 times per 2 <1 % week) Multiple times daily(15+ 1 <1 times per week) No Response(s) II 8 3.0 % Totals 266 100% BEFORE the 4-to-3 lane conversion, how would you rate your comfort level and ability to bike on Portland Avenue? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio Excellent I 5 1.8 Very Good I 6 2.2 Good IIII. 25 9.3% Satisfactory MI 26 9.7 % Poor 72 27.0 % No Response(s) 132 49.6 % Totals 266 100% Page 8 AFTER the 4-to-3 lane conversion, how would you rate your comfort level and ability to bike on Portland Avenue? Number of Response Answer 0% 100% Response(s) Ratio Excellent U 9 3.3% Very Good 34 12.7% Good 40 15.0% Satisfactory MI 22 8.2% Poor 27 10.1 No Response(s) 134 50.3 Totals 266 100% Please provide any other comments you have regarding the Portland Avenue 3-Lane Pilot Project. 145 Response(s) Page 9 Portland Avenue Lane Reconfiguration Pilot Project -NAM nnRICI FIELD Hennepin I=VECr'NAME: ADDRESS: (required) (required) 1. After a full year of operation and observation are you in favor of the Portland Avenue 3-Lane Conversion Pilot Project? ❑ Yes, I support the current 3-lane section. ❑ No, I prefer the previous 4-lane section. Please provide additional comment to explain your answer or provide general feedback on the 3-lane section. 2. In a future full reconstruction street project,there may be opportunities in areas with adequate right-of-way to construct additional features as part of a 3-lane roadway. Please rank the following feature possibilities in order of your preference: Bus Pullouts (at high ridership volume stops) Right-turn Lanes (at high volume intersections) Landscaped Boulevards (area between street and sidewalk) Other—Please Explain: A completed questionnaire may be mailed,faxed, or emailed by Wednesday December 14th to: Jeff Pearson City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Fax: 612.861.9796 jpearson(a cityofrichfield.org The survey is also available to complete electronically at the following web site: www.cityofrichfield.org/PublicWorks/Portland_Ave_Feedback.htm Please use the back of this sheet if ou need additional s lace for comments THANK YOU for completing this questionnaire r o a r 2 y / y ¥ w & ¥ c m /R c Co 1) / p 2 ƒ CD i tn E Ix o u B C > o o• . \ \ \ / / o3 . o ca a. a) _ a) 4- z o 0 a / o 0 E / 2 z s . Z a) 4- § § S I D. k / f \ § f a c 2 § o 2 c cco .. 2 2 % \ % .0 % Gk $ = \ d > 4- § « § 7 Ce \ 2 k \ 0 >1 \ k \ § � C. o CD —I E '5 a f t e a) / ' 0 § \ \ \ = o _ > f 0 C _ a / n 4-t < e \ : o o n o C.) / a. 0... E / _ = co 7 o6 � 7 = C d k • 6 c f / � a 6 � o " 2 '3 _ Em22 @ � � § B C ■ g c o / o ° = t RI c k ~ § E E A a >, / / E o Cr; n 2 / \ § k k co 2 . $ ƒ ƒ _ E 0 / J - f ƒ / / / O - k / 0I—LO % mi 3 O & \ 2 ? 7 $ o £ r E = 3 = © ° £= k ƒ » o R a \ \ - E a = cn Cl) ] , = n E c 7 5' = • » m 2 ƒ a \ 8 f CO cn o = m R � r 7 « / - 0) E & $ \ E } / - \ CD S \ \ 7 / & / o = a 2 < — © c 2 o - e � _ = 710 m - m \ \ $ ƒ 7 \ \ 0. / ) \ \ / \ ¢ § / \ / 3 \_ co - O o = 0 ° ° CD- O. � O \ - 2 § _,CD o . 2 \ = = z J _ . 2 ° 5 & ƒ _ E $ CD 3 7 / W o 2 o ® ■ §. E k $ O 2 0 CD £ / $ \ ® R. 3 c yky � / / / $ � cm Ek £ 2 / o • § / * / ' \ / < -2 o . a 2 , / / - / yo / o / \ / \ ha "0 - \ CC § / P.• § E 0 Cl) k k« % \ % // E/ o y y 2 \ w _5 § o /$ & % o "y & / o y w y u CITY COUNCIL MINUTES RICHFIELD Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council/HRA/Planning Commission Worksession February 28, 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 and David Gepner Absent: Planning Members Rick Jabs, Chair; Josh Root; Robert Hall; Maureen Scaglia (arrived 5:50 p.m.); Daniel Kitzberger; Tom Rublein; and Dennis Schuller Planning Member Gordon Vizecky Absent: Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager/HRA Executive Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; Jim Topitzhofer(arrived 5:55 p.m.), Recreation Services Director; Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer; Kristin Asher-Osberg, City Engineer; Karen Barton, Community Development Manager; Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk; and Theresa Schyma, Deputy City Clerk. Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING LYNDALE GARDENS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 30) Colleen Carey, The Cornerstone Group, updated the group on progress with the concept plan for the redevelopment of the former Lyndale Garden Center site. Ms. Carey stated they are anticipating a construction start on the commercial component of the project in the fall of 2012. Ms. Carey also mentioned her team worked hard to build more public amenities in the site plan. Special Worksession Minutes -2- February 28, 2012 Bruce Jacobson, The Cornerstone Group, made a PowerPoint presentation of the preliminary site plan. David Stahl, Urban Works, continued the presentation speaking more specifically about the former Lyndale Garden Center building. Ms. Carey did announce that they decided on a final name of"Lyndale Gardens." Commissioner Rubenstein stated that she is concerned with water quality of the lake, noise level of night concerts and outdoor activity, and flight patterns that go directly over the Lyndale Gardens site. Council Member Wroge questioned what size restaurant they are looking to fill the space with. Ms. Carey responded that the restaurant will be approximately 2,500-3,000 square feet. Ms. Carey mentioned that they do still intend to build a mixed-use multi-story building on the Lyndale Avenue side of the site and to provide affordable units within the development but the Minnesota Life College is no longer going to be part of that building. Ms. Carey also mentioned the possibility of acquiring additional property for the Minnesota Life College. Council Member Wroge stated he was concerned about parking spaces. He also stated his concerns for having all affordable housing units. He would prefer to see 80/20 or 75/25 market rate to affordable housing. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:38 p.m. Date Approved: March 13, 2012 Debbie Goettel Mayor Theresa Schyma Steven L. Devich Deputy City Clerk City Manager CITY COUNCIL MINUTES RICHFIELD Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Worksession February 28, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:39 p.m. in the Bartholomew Conference Room. ROLL CALL Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Sue Sandahl; Fred Wroge; and Tom Present: Fitzhenry Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk; and Theresa Schyma, Deputy City Clerk. Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING REDISTRICTING City Clerk Gibbs presented the proposed 2012 wards & precincts for local elections. City Clerk Gibbs also discussed the redistricting process, designation of polling places, ward and precinct boundary shifts, and legislative changes that will affect future local elections. City Clerk Gibbs described that Richfield's specific task with respect to local redistricting is to equalize the population contained within the City's three wards. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:55 p.m. Date Approved: March 13, 2012 Debbie Goettel Mayor Theresa Schyma Steven L. Devich Deputy City Clerk City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES RICHFIELD Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting February 28, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott, Sue Sandahl; Fred Wroge; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; John Stark, Community Development Director; Karen Barton, Community Development Manager; Kristin Asher- Osberg, City Engineer; Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk. OPEN FORUM Brian Leo, 7532 Columbus Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed Pillsbury Commons development project. Dorothy Piram, 7224 Pleasant Avenue, stated concerns against the proposed Pillsbury Commons development site. Mayor Goettel announced for the record, the City Council have all received a copy of a letter/e-mail from the following persons regarding the proposed Pillsbury Commons, which will be included in the record: • Tom Pfister, 7544 Wentworth Avenue. Received February 19, 2012. • Joe Hoover, 7627 Harriet Avenue. Received February 23, 2012. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Council Meeting Minutes -2- February 28,2012 APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Wroge, S/Fitzhenry to approve the minutes of(1) Special City Council Worksession of February 9, 2012; (2) Special City Council/HRA/Planninq Commission Worksession of February 14, 2012; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of February 14, 2012. Motion carried 5-0. Item #1 PRESENTATION REGARDING BLUE CROSS/CLUE SHIELD DO.TOWN Flynn Rico-Johnson, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, presented information regarding do.town. Item #2 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS Transportation Engineer Pearson provided an update on the 1-494 noise wall. He explained that voting ended on February 16 and the outcome was 5-yes and 10-no votes. Therefore the noise wall will not be constructed at that location. Scott Pederson, MnDOT, was available for any questions. Mayor Goettel introduced Jillian Rittenhaus from Girl Scout Troop 11786. Troop 11786 has a Think Bank project, which is designed to encourage a girl scout to do something they have never done before. Jillian will earn a Think Bank badge tonight for speaking at a City Council Meeting. Council Member Elliott welcomed new Mediterranean restaurant, Aida, to Richfield. Aida is located at the former Taco Bell site. Council Member Elliott congratulated seven swimmers and two wrestlers from Richfield High School for making their way to the State Tournament. Council Member Wroge stated that CVS Pharmacy did a great job on their building and that it really looks good. Council Member Sandahl invited residents to St. Richard's Church on Sunday, March 11 to hear the Chamber Choir sing. Admission to the concert is free and Axel Theimer, conductor, was once the conductor for the Vienna Boys Choir. Council Member Fitzhenry shared that he had been at the Best Buy campus and learned that Best Buy now has a CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) team. Council Member Fitzhenry also reported on the Police and Fire Teen Academy March 10 for 6th-8th grade and March 17 for 9th-12th grade. Item #3 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes -3- February 28,2012 Mayor Goettel removed Items#4D and#4E to be considered separately as Item#5. M/Sandahl, S/Wroge to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Item #4 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Fire Department's acceptance of$5000 grant from University of Minnesota— MN Resuscitation Consortium S.R. No. 43 RESOLUTION NO.10627 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ACCEPT THE MINNESOTA RESUSCITATION CONSORTIUM GRANT OF $5000 FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TO BE USED FOR THE "HANDS-ONLY" CPR PROGRAM This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10627. B. Consideration of approval of purchase order to Road Machinery and Supplies for purchase of LeeBoy 8500B asphalt paver in amount of$124,679 S.R. No. 44 C. Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing on March 13, 2012 to consider issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Financial Guidance Inc. d/b/a Four Points by Sheraton, 7745 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 45 D. Item moved to be considered separately as Item#5A. E. Item moved to be considered separately as Item #5B. F. Consideration of approval of resolutions supporting submittal to Hennepin County for two Transit Oriented Development Program funds for transit and streetscape improvements associated with Lyndale Gardens and Lyndale Station redevelopment projects S.R. No. 47 M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR Item #5A - Former Item#4D—Consideration of approval of resolution supporting submittal of applications to Metropolitan Council for Transit Oriented Development Grant Funds for 6400 Lyndale Avenue (Lyndale Gardens) and purchasing up to seven single- family homes on 6400 block of Richfield Parkway S.R. No. 46 Council Member Wroge stated he had concerns regarding the different grants. He stated he would prefer to wait on this item to see if the City receives grants for Richfield Parkway. M/Sandahl, S/Goettel that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO.10628 RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT FUNDS Council Meeting Minutes -4- February 28,2012 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10628. Motion carried 4-1. (Wroge opposed) Item #5B - Former Item #4E —Consideration of approval of resolutions supporting submittal to Hennepin County for two Transit Oriented Development Program funds for transit and streetscape improvements associated with Lyndale Gardens and Lyndale Station redevelopment projects S.R. No. 47 M/Sandahl, S/Goettel that the following resolutions be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO.10629 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FUNDS FOR LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10629. RESOLUTION NO.10630 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT, INC.'S SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FUNDS FOR LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10630. Motion carried 4-1. (Wroge opposed) Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER III, SUBSECTION 310.33, SUBD. 8 DESCRIBING VACATION LEAVE S.R. NO. 48 Council Member Wroge presented Staff Report No. 48. MNVroge, S/Elliott that this constitutes the second reading of Bill No. 2012-3 amending City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.33, subd. 8 describing vacation leave, that it be published in the official newspaper and that it be made part of these minutes. Motion carried 5-0. Item #7 CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 210.01 RELATED TO CITY COUNCIL SALARIES S.R. NO. 49 Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 49. M/Sandahl, S/Goettel that this constitutes the second reading of Bill No. 2012-4 amending Section 210.01 related to City Council salaries, that it be published in the official newspaper and that it be made part of these minutes. Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -5- February 28,2012 Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING POLICE SUPERVISORS LELS LOCAL 162 CONTRACT FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2013 S.R. NO. 50 Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 50. M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandal that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10631 RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS), LOCAL 162 BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEAR 2012 and 2013 Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10631. Item #9 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING 911 DISPATCHERS LELS LOCAL 225 CONTRACT FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2013 S.R. NO. 51 Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 51. M/Sandahl, S/Elliott that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10632 RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS), LOCAL 225 BARGAINING UNIT FOR YEARS 2012 and 2013 Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10632. Item #10 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY AT 6535 NEWTON AVENUE S.R. NO. 52 Council Member Elliott presented Staff Report No. 52. Council Member Wroge thanked a neighbor for letting him know that this property was for sale. M/Elliott, S/Wroge that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10633 Council Meeting Minutes -6- February 28,2012 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6535 NEWTON AVENUE Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10633. Item #11 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No report. Item #12 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Wroge, S/Goettel that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 2/28/12 A/P Checks: 210786-211162 $ 1,410,623.28 Payroll: 81739-82058 $ 507,951.83 TOTAL $ 1,918,575.11 Motion carried 5-0. OPEN FORUM None. Item #13 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN BABCOCK CONFERENCE ROOM REGARDING CITY MANAGER ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Mayor Goettel stated the City Council would be conducting a closed executive session in the Babcock Conference Room to conduct the City Manager's annual performance evaluation. The City Council would return to the open meeting in the Chambers to provide a summary of the closed session. The City Council went into closed session at 7:55 p.m. Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Fred Wroge; Pat Elliott; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager The Closed Executive Session was convened pursuant to M.S. 13D.05. The Closed Executive Session was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Council Meeting Minutes -7- February 28,2012 Item #14 RECONVENE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS The City Council open meeting reconvened at 8:14 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Item #15 SUMMARY REPORT OF CITY MANAGER ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR 2011 AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RICHFIELD AND CITY MANAGER STEVEN L. DEVICH FOR 2012 S.R. NO. 53 The City Council thanked the City Manager for his positive management of the organization, including maintaining a balanced budget during these times. M/Goettel, S/Wroge that the followinct resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10634 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10634. ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:17 p.m. Date Approved: March 13, 2012 Debbie Goettel Mayor Nancy Gibbs Steven L. Devich City Clerk City Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3A REPORT# 54 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING mos MARCH 13, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS,FINANCE MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: , / ' REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: /A_ANg' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution amending the allocation of the 2011 General Fund Budget. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution amending the 2011 General Fund Budget by authorization of a transfer of appropriations from the Legislative/Executive Department and Administrative Services Department to the Public Safety Department. II. BACKGROUND The Public Safety Department's budget for 2011 exceeds the adopted appropriation by approximately$47,000 or only .62%. There is one primary cause for the department to exceed budget. Within the Police Operations division, the division realized an increase in benefit accrual costs in the amount of$74,420. Therefore, after the compilation of the 2011 Revised Budget, the expenditures of the Public Safety Department have exceeded the appropriation contained in the 2011 Revised Budget, resulting in the department's total 2011 expenditures to exceed appropriations by approximately $47,000. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY 0313 Budget Alloc Amend 2011 • The City Charter provides that the City Council must appropriate monies for operations of the City on a departmental level basis. • During the course of the year, the City Council amends the operating budget and it is referred to as the Revised Budget. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The amount exceeding budget for the Public Safety Department is approximately $47,000. • City staff is recommending that the 2011 Revised Budget be allocated between the following departments and divisions in order to balance all City departments: INCREASED BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Public Safety Police Operations Division $55,000 Total $55,000 DECREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Legislative/Executive Legal Division $40,000 Administrative Services Finance Division $15,000 Total $55,000 Net Change to General Fund Budget $ 0 D. LEGAL • City Charter provides that the City Council must appropriate funds at the department level of spending. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The transfer does not affect the annual General Fund Budget; instead it provides that no department end the fiscal year overspent. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing revision of 2011 budgets of various departments. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2011 BUDGETS OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 10455 appropriated funds for personal services, other services and charges, supplies and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year 2011; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 10589 authorized revision of the 2011 budget various departments; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested a revision of the 2011 budget appropriations in accordance with charter provisions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, MN as follows: SUMMARY INCREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Public Safety Police Operations Division $55,000 Total $55,000 DECREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Legislative/Executive Department: Legal Division $40,000 Administrative Services Department: Finance Division $15,000 Total $55,000 Net Change to General Fund Budget -0- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, MN. this 13th day of March, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3B REPORT# 55 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING issammilmw MARCH 13, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: y SIGNATURE IF REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: :/.. ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of a transitory ordinance to adjust the new ward district boundaries to meet the equal population criteria. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve first reading of the attached transitory ordinance establishing ward boundaries following the 2010 census data and conforming to redistricting requirements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes and City Charter and schedule a public hearing and second reading for March 27, 2012. II. BACKGROUND At the February 28, 2012 worksession, Council and staff met to discuss the redistricting process, designation of polling places, ward boundary shifts and legislative changes that could affect future local elections. The City Council must either confirm that the existing ward boundaries meet the equal population criteria or redraw the ward boundaries to conform to the equal population criteria (MN Statute 204B.135). Richfield's specific task with respect to local redistricting is to equalize the population contained within the City's three wards, this does not mean that the wards must be exactly the same population. A minor boundary adjustment could balance the wards well with the 5% deviation. Cities must adjust their wards either 60 days of the legislative redistricting or April 3, 2012 whichever comes first. 0313RedistrictingFirstRead III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City Charter Section 2.03 requires that within two years after each United States Census the City Council shall by ordinance establish compact contiguous districts to be apportioned by population as nearly equal as practicable. The three districts shall be eastern, central and western Richfield with dividing lines generally north and south. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • City Council consideration of first reading of the ordinance to adopt a redistricting plan is scheduled for the March 13, 2012 City Council Meeting. The public hearing and second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for March 27, 2012. • Staff must submit the City's plan to the Secretary of States office on or before April 3, 2012. C. LEGAL • Minnesota State Statute 204B14, subd. 3c requires the City to conform to these deadlines. • If the City council does not either confirm or redraw the Ward boundaries within the period specified in section 204B.135, no compensation may be paid to the mayor or members of the Council (MN Statute 205.84, subd 2). D. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The City Council may choose a ward district boundary modification which is different than the proposed modification. V. ATTACHMENTS • Transitory Ordinance establishing new ward boundaries. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 3g- I BILL NO. 2012- TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES OF COUNCIL DISTRICTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.03 OF THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.03 of the City Charter of the City of Richfield, the boundaries of the three Council Ward Districts of the City are hereby established as follows: Ward District 1 All of the City lying West of the following described "Line One": Line One is described as beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Interstate 35W and the northerly boundary of the City; thence South along the centerline of Interstate 35W to the centerline of 66th Street; thence East along the centerline of 66th Street to the centerline of Lyndale Avenue; thence South along the centerline of Lyndale Avenue to the centerline of 73rd Street; thence west along the centerline of 73rd Street to the centerline of Interstate 35W; thence South along the centerline of Interstate 35W to the south boundary line of the City and there terminating. Ward District 2 All of the City lying East of "Line One" described above and west of "Line Two" described below: Line Two is described as beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Portland Avenue and the northerly boundary of the City; thence South along the centerline of Portland Avenue to the centerline of 74th Street thence West along the centerline of 74th Street to the centerline of 2nd Avenue South; thence South along the centerline of 2nd Avenue South to the centerline of Interstate 494 and there terminating. Ward District 3 All of the City lying East of"Line Two" described above. Sec. 2. The ward boundaries described above shall be effective for the conduct of the August 14, 2012 election. Sec. 3. This ordinance supersedes Transitory Ordinance No. 18.15. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of March, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3C REPORT# 56 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 13, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: DERICK ANDERSON, CIVIL ENGINEER TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 12( Aler REVIEW: el REVIEWED BY CITY - -~ MANAGER: IFAj ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Construction and Maintenance Agreement with Grand St. Paul CVS, LLC. (CVS Pharmacy) and Blair Wolfson to define the ownership and maintenance responsibilities for certain features located at the new CVS Pharmacy at 6528 Penn Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the Construction and Maintenance Agreement with Grand St. Paul CVS, LLC. and Bill Wolfson for the CVS Pharmacy site at 6528 Penn Avenue. II. BACKGROUND The property at 6528 Penn Avenue was redeveloped to construct a new CVS Pharmacy. The construction included site improvements on both public and private property. The City has worked with the Developer to draft a Construction and Maintenance Agreement with the City to define ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the site and boulevard improvements constructed during the redevelopment project. These improvements include: • Boulevard trees and decorative tree grates (Developer owned/maintained) • Retaining wall maintenance and graffiti removal (Developer owned/maintained) • Environmental manholes (Developer owned/City maintained) 03132012CVSAgreement III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City recommends the installation of a sump manhole in order to provide water quality treatment before the storm water enters the City's storm water system. • The City requires a Construction and Maintenance Agreement for redevelopment projects containing boulevard improvements and/or sump manholes. • The Agreement provides for the annual inspection and maintenance of the sump manhole by the City, to ensure it is operating properly as required. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Staff recommends that this agreement be in effect prior to issuing the final Certificate of Occupancy for the building. C. FINANCIAL • The agreement requires the property owner to reimburse the City for costs of annual inspection and cleaning of the sump manhole. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney was consulted during the negotiations of terms and has reviewed the agreement. • The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • The installation and annual maintenance of the sump manhole is a Best Management Practice for treatment of storm water. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The City Council may choose not to approve the proposed agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • Construction and Maintenance Agreement. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. 3 - CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT This Agreement,made and entered into as of the day of March, 2012 by and between Grand St. Paul CVS, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company("Developer"), Blair Wolfson, as Trustee of the Blair Wolfson Family Trust U/A/D 10/31/1991 as amended; Blair Wolfson, as Trustee of the Blair Wolfson Revocable Trust U/A/D 10/10/2005 as amended; and Blair and Fremajane Wolfson, husband and wife, as joint tenants ("Owner") and the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") Recitals 1. Developer is the ground tenant under a Ground Lease with Owner dated October 15, 2010 ("Ground Lease") of a certain tract and parcel of land lying within the City on land legally described in the attached Exhibit A ("Property"). 2. Owner is the owner of the Property and landlord under the Ground Lease of the Property. 3. The Developer has undertaken the construction of buildings and related site improvements ("Site Improvements") on the Property. 4. The City has granted approval to Developer to construct a parking lot and related storm drainage improvements on the Property, which drainage improvements drain into the City's storm sewer system ("City System"). 5. The drainage improvements include a Richfield Environmental Manhole ("Sump Manhole")to be constructed by Developer that will treat storm water before it enters the City System. The Sump Manhole is designed to remove sand, gravel and other particles from the storm water passing through the Property prior to entry into the City System. The plans and specifications for the Sump Manhole, and a site plan showing its location on the Property are contained in the attached Exhibit B ("Sump Manhole Plans"). 6. In order for the Sump Manhole to function as designed, it must be inspected and cleaned from time to time. 7. In conjunction with the construction of the Site Improvements, certain improvements and betterments ("Boulevard Improvements") are to be constructed on portions of the City right-of- way and public easements abutting the Property (collectively,the "Public Areas"). The Boulevard Improvements are described and located on the site plan attached as Exhibit C ("Boulevard Site Plans") 8. The parties are desirous of entering into this Agreement for the purpose of providing the basis for the design, construction, repair, replacement and maintenance of the Sump Manhole 1 • and the Boulevard Improvements on or in the Public Areas and setting forth the remedies for failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement. Agreement For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which the parties acknowledge, the parties agree as follows: 1. Sump Manhole. Design and Construction. The Developer shall construct and pay for the cost of construction of the Sump Manhole in accordance with the previously approved construction plans. 2. Sump Manhole. Inspection and Cleaning. The City shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning the Sump Manhole at intervals of once every 12 months, and more often as reasonably requested by any party. The Developer shall reimburse the City for the cost of all such inspections and cleanings,based upon the City's normal charge for such services, within 15 business days following receipt of an invoice showing the cost of such work. 3. Sump Manhole_ Repair and Replacement. The City shall be responsible for performing the repair or replacement of the Sump Manhole, including any incidental restorations, in all instances in which the estimated cost of the work is $7,500 or less. The Developer shall reimburse the City for the cost of all such work within 15 business days following receipt of an invoice showing the cost of such work. If the estimated cost of such work exceeds $7,500, the Developer shall, within 30 days from the date the City notifies it of the nature of the needed work, including any incidental restorations, and the estimated cost to secure performance of the work by a third party,have the right to perform its own independent inspection confirming that said work is necessary. If said work is determined to be necessary, Developer shall commence said work and diligently prosecute the same to completion at its cost. If the work is determined not to be necessary by the Developer, the City may undertake any part of the work determined by the City as necessary. The Developer will reimburse the City for the cost of any such work within 15 business days of the receipt of an invoice for such activities. The City shall still have the authority to inspect and approve or reject the work, or to direct corrections to the work all in the City's reasonable discretion which costs, including the cost of incidental restorations, incurred by the City shall be reimbursed by the Developer within 15 business days following the receipt of an invoice for such activities. 4. Sump Manhole. Right of Access. The Developer herewith grants to the City, its agents and employees the right to enter onto the Property to conduct the inspections, cleanings repairs and replacements authorized by Paragraph 2 and 3. The City agrees that it will not unreasonably interfere with the Developer's use of the Property. At the request of the Developer, the area affected by this right of access shall be legally described and recorded as a supplemental agreement all at Developer's sole cost and expense. Any construction or maintenance by the City shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner and the City shall restore the surface of the Property to the condition that existed immediately prior to said construction or maintenance. City shall use commercially reasonable efforts to provide prior notice to Developer when performing any construction or maintenance, excepting emergencies. 2 Nothing herein shall restrict or otherwise preclude the Developer from using or developing the Property provided said use or development does not unreasonably interfere with the easement rights granted herein to the City. 5. Boulevard Improvements. Construction, Installation, Maintenance, Repair and Replacement. The Developer and City agree, at their respective cost and expense,to undertake the responsibilities for the construction, installation,maintenance, repair and replacement of Boulevard Improvements, and the intervals for the doing of such work are all as described in Exhibit C. The City will have a reasonable time to review and approve,reject or require modifications to the plans and specifications for all work done within the Public Areas by Developer which associated costs incurred by the City will be reimbursed by the Developer within 15 business days following the receipt of an invoice. In addition to the foregoing, the City will provide, at its cost,basic snow removal on the public sidewalks in the Boulevard Areas. If the Developer desires additional removal or treatment, it may provide these services at its own expense. Any such additional removal is subject to the requirements of Paragraphs 6 and 8b. Sidewalk damage, or damage to adjacent areas, due to the use of heavy equipment, excessive salt/chemical, and/or any other damage caused by the Developer will be repaired by Developer at the Developer's cost, and be such work is subject to the provisions of Paragraphs 6 and 8b., and the cure provisions contained in Paragraph 8c. 6. Boulevard Improvements. Right of Access. Subject to compliance with any preconditions contained in the Richfield City Code, the City grants to the Developer, its agents and employees the right to enter onto the Public Areas to perform the work required to be performed by the Developer pursuant to Paragraph 5. The Developer agrees that it will not unreasonably interfere with the public use of the Public Areas. The Developer will notify the City and any other agency having jurisdiction over, or an interest in, the Public Areas or abutting streets and highways at least 48 hours in advance of any scheduled work; and will comply with any requirements of the City or such other agency governing signage and other regulations governing work in the Public Areas including,without limitation obtaining any additional permits, licenses or approvals needed for the doing of such work. 7. Boulevard Improvements. Ownership. Exhibit C designates the Boulevard Improvements which are to be constructed by Developer and conveyed to the City following the City inspection of the work and notification to the Developer that it will accept conveyance. The conveyance shall be by bill of sale reasonably acceptable to the parties. Any warranties available as a result of construction of such Boulevard Improvements will be assigned to the City, and, to the extent available, will be utilized to offset Developer's maintenance obligations hereunder. 8. Miscellaneous Provisions. a. Maintenance, repair and replacement obligation. The party having the maintenance, repair or replacement obligation shall have the affirmative obligation of assuring the item to which the obligation attaches is always kept in good, safe, operable and presentable condition; and shall be responsible for determining the present condition of the item on an ongoing basis; provided, that if the City becomes aware of a condition in an item for which the Developer is obligated, it shall notify the Developer in writing whereupon the Developer shall 3 promptly inspect, and as needed,maintain, repair or replace the item within 30 days of the date of such notification by the City. If the foregoing maintenance, repair or replacement cannot be reasonably completed within 30 days, Developer shall have additional time provided the Developer is diligently prosecuting the same to completion. b. Insurance, Indemnity. The Developer will, during the term of this Agreement,maintain coverages from insurance companies reasonably acceptable to the City, at levels reasonably acceptable to the City insuring against claims for injury, death or property damage or death caused by any activities conducted by Developer, its officers agents or employees within the Public Areas; and the failure of Developer, as obligated hereunder, to properly maintain, repair, or replace Boulevard Improvements. The Developer also hereby indemnifies, holds harmless and agrees to defend the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claims or causes of action occasioned by or arising out of the Developer's activities or failure to perform activities under this Agreement. The Developer's undertaking in the last sentence shall not extend to claims which are the result of the negligence or the willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents or employees. The City also hereby indemnifies, holds harmless and agrees to defend the Developer, its officers, agents and employees from any claims or causes of action occasioned by or arising out of the City's activities or failure to perform activities under this Agreement. c. Default. If any party defaults in any of its obligations hereunder, after notice of such default and failure to cure within 30 days following such notification,unless extended upon mutual agreement of the parties, the non defaulting party may pursue whatever remedies are available to in at law or in equity. The non defaulting party may also terminate this Agreement following such notice and the failure to cure, except that the Developer's obligation to construct, repair, maintain and reconstruct the Sump Manhole shall survive such termination. In addition to such remedies,if the Developer is the defaulting party, and the default relates to activities within the Public Areas, the City may, after such notice and cure period perform the work and recover the entire cost of such work against the Developer through a lien against the Property to be collected as a special assessment, which lien will be effective upon certification of the City resolution to the County Assessor. In addition to placing an assessment lien against the Property, the City may also seek to impose and collect a lien pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 514.67. The City agrees to provide the Developer with 60 day prior written notice before commencement of any action under Minnesota Statutes, Section 514.67 to enforce the lien. Such notice will include an accounting of the charges and expenses sought to be recovered. d. Term. Unless terminated as provided in paragraph 8 c, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until terminated by the mutual written agreement of the parties. e. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. Developer will secure the joinder or consent of any holders of liens or encumbrances on the Property; and certifies and represents to the City that there are no liens or encumbrances affecting the Property for which consents or waivers have not been obtained. 4 f. Other Approvals. This Agreement shall not relieve Developer from the need to obtain all licenses, permits and approvals which are required by the City and other permitting and licensing authorities to allow for the development of the Property. Nor shall this Agreement be deemed a waiver of the City's legislative judgment in considering the granting of any such licenses, permits or approvals. Additionally, no structure or improvement which is the subject of this Agreement may be constructed until any necessary land use approvals and/or variances have first been obtained. g. No Interest in Land. Neither the provisions nor its recording among the land records shall be deemed to create any interest of the Developer in the Public Areas; but rather shall be construed as merely giving Developer the permission to occupy and utilize the Public Areas consistent with provisions and limitations of this Agreement. h. Recording This agreement will be recorded among the land records, within 60 days of the date hereof,by the Developer who shall pay for the cost of such recording. i. Notices. City: City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue S. Richfield, MN 55423 Attn: Developer: Grand St. Paul CVS, L.L.C. One CVS Drive Woonsocket, RI 02895 Attn: Property Administration Department, Store No. 2152 Owner: c/o Casey Menden Faust &Nelson 7900 West 78th Street, Suite 450 Edina, MN 55439 Attn: Doug Faust With copy to: Bill Wolfson 201 East Lake Street Wayzata MN 55391 j. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable, such provision, if feasible, shall be deemed to be modified to be within the limits of enforceability or validity; if, however, the offending provision cannot be so modified, it shall be stricken and all other provisions of this Agreement in all other respects shall remain valid and enforceable. 5 3 c.- l� k. Entire Agreement, Amendment. This Agreement, including the exhibits, contains the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof and fully supersedes all prior written or oral agreements and understandings between the parties pertaining to such subject matter. This Agreement shall not be modified, amended, supplemented or revised, except by a written document signed by the parties. 1. Exhibits. All exhibits revered to in and attached to this Agreement are incorporated and made a part of this Agreement. m. Counterpart Signatures. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two of more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed original, and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. n. Cessation of Developer Obligations. The parties hereto acknowledge that Developer, as ground tenant, is leasing the Property by and through a Ground Lease dated October 15, 2010 (the "CVS Lease"). Upon the expiration or earlier termination of the CVS Lease, Developer shall be relieved from any and all obligations under this Agreement and Owner shall assume and all obligations under this Agreement as if it were the original Developer. o. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. [Signature page and acknowledgements to follow] 6 CITY: CITY OF RICHFIELD, A municipal corporation By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2012, by and , the Mayor and City Manager respectively, of the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. Notary Public 7 3c — DEVELOPER: Grand St. Paul CVS,L.L.C. By: 1116 Name: Title: Kristine L. Donabedian _- - CVS Legal Approval: Andrew A. Dean,Esq. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND ) COUNTY OF PROVIDENCE ) I,the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for said county in said state,hereby certify that <A 3 r...,,, ,Assistant Secretary of Grand St. Paul CVS, L.L.C.,whose name is signed to the foregoing instrument,and who is known to me, acknowledged before me on this day that,being informed of the contents of said instrument, he/she executed the same as his/her free act and deed and as the free act and deed of said limited liability company, on the day the same bears date. n4 7 Given under my hand and official seal this the zr day of fl(OA a ,2012. Not ry Public AFFIX SEAL Susan M. Schado Notary public My commission expires: State of Rhode Island ne My Commissidr, prro 03/99/2016 8 . 03/02/2012 10:17 IFAX - EFAX a 009/013 Mar 021210:10a Wolfson 9413834653 p.9 OWNER: Blair Wolfson Family Trust U/A/D 10/31/1991 as amended By: Blair Wolfson,as Trustee By: 79-66-4.-r Name: G4,"- e 3 Title: '--✓C)( Blair Wolfson Revocable Trust U/A/D 10/10/2005 as amended By: Blair Wolfson, as Trustee By: __6_e..o. (.+Lf r Name: ..1. We (Z.t.1 Title: 7 '-s & Blair and Fremajane Wolfson,husband and wife,as joint tenants By: 4 . Nam : ; Wolfs • By: AL / l.12 .%^- . /f7.�'% Name- ,,1 1 - +e Wolfson STATE OF 1ROrt ) COUNTY OF 5A rAb cx�A ) 1, the undersigned authority,a Notary Public in and for said county in said state,hereby certify that( jjrj t on,whose name is signed to the foregoing instrument,and who is known to me,acknowledged before me on this day that,being informed of the contents of said instrument,he/she executed the same voluntarily on the day the same bears date. Given under my hand and official seal this the ° day of 1 J) ,2412. PAM FRYE `! -----P L9 eiSlYt—1--*.)11Af., ,r . Carom#0D07546110 Notary Public r AM c". Expires 412/2012 AFFIX SEAL W::a r_into Florida Notary Man..Inc My commission expires: 14—9v I a\ 9 03702/2012 10:18 IFAX -* EFAX 0]010/013 Mar021210:11a Wolfson 9413834653 p,10 STATE OFc� ri ) 3N' , 10 Ci COUNTY OF A rf-'`)b A I,the undersigned authority,a Notary Public in and for said county in said state,hereby certify that c if/hose name is signed to the foregoing instrument,and who is known to me,acknowledged before me on this day that,being informed of the contents of said instrument,he/she executed the same voluntarily on the day the same bears date. Given under my hand and official seal this the C day of._,. leth__,2012. PAM FRYE Comm#DD0754610 RP; l Rl YL.J , , Expires 4/2!2012 ° ;4r� Notary Public Fbdda HolaryAsan.,Inc ��amn acre ss,.•.•<een!tnro n�n.rnuruuuuroou AFFIX SEAL My commission expires: 4- 10 5C -- ) 1 EXHIBIT A REAL ESTATE DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 1, RICHFIELD GARDENS 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 11 3C— ia EXHIBIT B (See attached) 1 12 3C, -13 Pl..02,10.112 a n Am WV00710,120.41.0, / N / N F • I >,' 1 / ._. • .S. I ; • ■ \t• ' ' „ , — • .{- • 1-- '-'-',' '-----' -, , , , , ---.., __.:- , ; . , 0, 1 1111M''' _ ,iiir,\14#7,4-1 ' mud t-7 , . s , diti,: i_..., ... • _ 4* • ,_. , 1 ,,, • ..., : R !I i ... 4 , rr-i- IT,›:=P'8!rb n;.,`; r i I - >t< Is j___ • ES -,g, 1 IMMI•1111 5 II 5 • .._.—.11 12 -i , — _i Ca ',1 .:. 23 v, f• ,....„-, . ,,, of : 10 Co ' 1 ____I I 1 4 4 4 4 4 ; C 1"0 - _ ----"- - PENN AVENUE(CO RD 32) .:, g 6 1(11' 2 2 7., i ir7 a r1111111111111 i 11 t I! 11111111111111111111i /11ile-4.1 " Z f, E i rIi?R q l f i 0,F M CU11;I)I _ _ natle.o,a„pl210.41AMW DINV74,�,OM ■ 3a I4 F,,,,,,,:c , ...„_ . . ,...„. . c_._ . ,... 4o v Z o� <m E. ,o y O C rill ao <•.....,,,., til t:" =I .fl ..m .' 0 zr,, ile II, 4 › i 1 m ......_.. ,:, _ 1 y 1 I 1 GE v� III o0 o r� x ill 100 -Isr. '\--, : ,—> .401 il ....-- - Y .4— c) 4111 ,,Nii I iii 4 H D y :4,1 y g', — < AQ -.. m 1 9 m a m P D �?1 v 9 N 11 ,, >� Z - n v> 9a -1 m f 0 11111°I=I=I=1=1=1-1-1P i : . ,rliq}fge,,E,,);; Z I:11F tr P r r 1I' ' 3 g°t"'� N�� = z o I Li! ill C, - 6 EXHIBIT C Boulevard Ownership Maintenance, Responsible for Inspection & Feature Repair, the Maintenance Replacement Cost of Operation Cycle Responsibility & Maintenance Tree Grates Developer Developer Developer Annually Sidewalk City City City Annually Boulevard Trees Developer Developer Developer Annually Sidewalk Snow City See Paragraph 5 See Paragraph 5 As needed Removal Snow Removal on Developer Developer Developer As needed Stairs Street Lights City City City As needed Wall Maintenance Developer Developer Developer As needed &Graffiti Removal Landscaping Developer Developer Developer As needed Private Irrigation Developer Developer Developer As needed Public Utilities City City City As needed (Storm, Sewer, Water) Environmental Developer City Developer Annually Manhole(Sump Manhole) 13 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT , AGENDA ITEM# 3D , REPORT# 57 =MAI STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 13, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR A REVIEW: �� / SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY 40.:°.°1' MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Continue the public hearing to consider a plat of land located at the northeast corner of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Continue the public hearing to consider plat approval for land located at the northeast corner of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue to April 10, 2012. II. BACKGROUND Per Statutory requirements, plats that abut County roads are required to be reviewed by Hennepin County's plat review committee. In light of comments received from the County, the applicant has decided to modify the proposed plat and has requested that consideration of this item be postponed until April. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • All plats of land must be approved by the City Council. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The City has 120 days to issue a decision regarding a plat once a complete application has been received. A complete application was 031312-6501 Lyndale Ave Plat received on January 18, 2012. The `120-clock' has been temporarily stopped at the applicant's request so that revisions can be made. C. FINANCIAL • The required application processing fee has been paid. D. LEGAL • Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Sun Current Newspaper in accordance with notification requirements. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • N/A V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None , AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3E REPORT# 58 =Al STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 13, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: ELIZABETH FINNEGAN, CIVIL ENGINEER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR El REVIEW: e'l ACS?% o. REVIEWED BY CITY ir - - MANAGER: r, / ITEM restricting FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution parking on 76th Street east of 12th Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution for "No Parking" on both sides of 76th Street between 12th and Cedar Avenues. II. BACKGROUND The City Council directed staff to advance the reconstruction of 76th Street east of 12th Avenue on August 9, 2011. Consistent with 2007 -2008 planning efforts and subsequent Council approval for the corridor, the new streetscape requires the restriction of parking on both sides of the street. The attached Open House notice intentionally made residents aware of the pending parking restrictions. The use of Street Reconstruction Bonds is the identified funding source for the reconstruction project; however, staff is recommending that the City Council secure the use of Municipal State Aid funds as a back up funding source in case the cost of construction exceeds the engineer's estimate. In order to use Municipal State Aid funds for any portion of the reconstruction, the City must formally adopt a resolution. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY 03132012No Parking • The 76th Street East project was approved as part of the City's Five Year Street Reconstruction Plan, adopted by resolution on August 9, 2011. B. CRITICAL TIMING IssUES • The project is on schedule to be advertised for bids in April of 2012. • Construction is scheduled to begin in June of 2012. C. FINANCIAL • The estimated cost of construction is $2,150,000. • The estimated sources are: o $2,015,000 Street Reconstruction Bonds o $ 200,000 Three Rivers Park District o $2,215,000 Total Sources • Street Reconstruction Bonds are the approved funding source for the project; however, staff is recommending that the City Council secure the use of Municipal State Aid funds as an option in the event the cost of construction exceeds the engineer's estimate. D. LEGAL • The City has the authority to restrict parking on public streets. • The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • The Council may choose not to adopt the "No Parking" Resolution at this time and forego the use of Municipal State Aid for the project. V. ATTACHMENTS • "No Parking" Resolution • January 30, 2008 Open House notice VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS "NO PARKING" ON 76th STREET BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the City staff is hereby authorized and directed to erect the following signs at the following locations: "No Parking Any Time" on both sides of 76th Street commencing from the intersection of 12th Avenue east to Cedar Avenue. That when the aforementioned traffic control signs have been so erected on said street, they shall be official traffic control signs of the City of Richfield and failure to observe such signs shall constitute a violation of the traffic ordinance of this City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of March 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ,9E—e9 R .16th s'CR, arktng pests for be it iarl,cr Street your desire along i \t '�t is prong the let eopardY parking ,,s and j to have pox loin hat iS L°rrid°r, F G als k-n°"( ! Litt' o �°rtart to Y OPEN HOUSE Richfield City Hall Council Chambers January 30th 7:00-9:00 PM j • + Please join us in the final discussion regarding recent revisions of street components i $ I such as sidewalks, trails, and parking for 75th Street (Xerxes Avenue to Humboldt .". r' T Avenue)and 76th Street (Lyndale Avenue to Cedar Avenue). Several alternatives "M =-i-.74riiiill will be discussed and your input will directly affect the final recommendations! .. ■ 75th/76th Streetscape s , %„ - , i City of Richfield t.,!■ , AGENDA SECTION: PUB. HEARING AGENDA ITEM# 5 REPORT# 59 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 13, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: lir �_'1 `� ■ 1 � /�Il �r� REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: I /// L_,� , `� ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the issuance of new On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, for Financial Guidance, Inc., d/b/a Four Points by Sheraton, 7745 Lyndale Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the issuance of new On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Financial Guidance, Inc., d/b/a Four Points by Sheraton, 7745 Lyndale Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On January 9, 2012, the City received new applications and other required documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Financial Guidance, Inc., d/b/a Four Points by Sheraton. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Financial Guidance, Inc. is comprised of two individual officers. They are as follows: James Dean Flannery, President; and Taylor James Flannery, Vice President. Adam Reed Selby serves as the on-premise manager. Criminal history checks were conducted on each of the general partners as well as the on-premise manager. These checks indicated that Taylor Flannery has a prior Misdemeanor 031312 PH Four Points by Sheraton New Liquor Licenses DWI conviction in 2001. Other co-applicants and/or interested parties of this license request have had traffic related petty misdemeanors; however, neither of the co- applicants nor their spouses have had any convictions that would make them ineligible to hold a liquor license in the City of Richfield. In addition, no criminal records were found for Adam Reed Selby who serves as the manager of the establishment. James Flannery has been engaged as an employee or in operating a saloon, hotel, restaurant, café, tavern or other business of a similar nature as follows and has been in this business since July 1980 in varying self-employed capacities: Country Inn and Suites, Eagan, MN; Country Inn Suites, Bloomington, MN; Flannery Properties, LLC, Eden Prairie, MN; Super 8 Motel, Manitowoc, Wisconsin; Redwood Valley Lodge, Redwood Falls, MN; Super 8 Motel, Golden Valley, MN; Red Roof Inn, Fargo, North Dakota; Days Inn, Pierre, South Dakota; Financial Guidance, Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN; and Financial Planning, Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN. James's spouse has been engaged as an employee or in operating a business of similar nature as follows: West Bloomington Motels, Inc., Bloomington, MN. James Flannery is Taylor Flannery's father. Taylor James Flannery has been engaged as an employee or in operating a saloon, hotel, restaurant, café, tavern, or other business of a similar nature as follows: Country Inn and Suites, Bloomington, MN; Country Inn and Suites, Eagan, MN; and Southern Hospitality, Incorporated, Bloomington, MN. Taylor's spouse has not been engaged as an employee or in any other business of similar nature according to the application submitted. The property is owned by First International Bank located in Minot, North Dakota. In addition, James Flannery indicated the he has provided $125,000 towards this business venture and that he is the source of these funds. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Accor, Incorporated affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. As a result of this being a new request for On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses, there is no need for an accountant's statement to be submitted regarding the food/alcohol ratio. There has been one Public Safety/Police contact at Four Points by Sheraton since the ownership change in January 2012. This call involved a suspicious activity. As this is a request for a new license, there are no previous "calls for service" contact records to compare. Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Four Points by Sheraton. On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on March 1, 2012. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • The required background investigation and licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council could decide to deny the license request, which would mean that the current applicants would not be able to obtain On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. • Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the licensing process. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Four Points by Sheraton officers/staff 5- Financial Guidance, Inc. d/b/a Four Points by Sheraton Partners/Officers/Directors James Dean Flannery President Taylor James Flannery Vice-President Adam Selby On-Premise Manager AGENDA SECTION: PUB. HEARING AGENDA ITEM# 6 REPORT# 60 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD D CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 13, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: r Ivry" REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: J - 0 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the Special Revenue Fund. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of the transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements. II. 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. • At the February 14, 2012 City Council meeting the Council approved the first reading providing for the expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements. The planned expenditures are as follows: • $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 NC • $33,600 Taft Athletic Facility Improvements • $75,000 Roosevelt Park Play Equipment • Finally, 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. 0313TransitoryOrd • Authorization by ordinance is not required for expenditures other than Special Revenues. 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. • It is prudent to complete the ordinance requirements early in the year so any capital projects can be initiated on a timely basis, completed and the funds expended. 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 NC 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 • First reading of the ordinance was approved at the February 14, 2012 City Council meeting and a notice of the public hearing was published on March 1, 2012. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS . None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • The City Council could postpone the second 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. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 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 NC $ 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 13th day of March, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM# 7 REPORT# 61 =SAM STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 13, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR / REVIEW: _ �%� 1101/ SIGNATURE fir. REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: �..A:� le ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider a request for an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit that would allow an accessory outdoor dog relief area at 6315 Penn Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an amended Conditional Use Permit to allow an outdoor dog relief area as an accessory to an animal kennel at 6315 Penn Avenue. II. BACKGROUND In September of 2011, the Council approved an ordinance change that would conditionally permit animal kennels and outdoor relief areas in the Mixed Use — Community (MU-C) District. On February 14th, the Council granted approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a kennel at 6315 Penn Avenue. Applicants Don and Lori Swetala had intended to request approval of an outdoor relief area at the same time, but instead opted to continue to work to address neighbor and property owner concerns. Mr. & Mrs. Swetala are now applying for an amendment to their permit which would allow them to construct an outdoor relief area behind the building and move two employee parking stalls to the loading dock area. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY 031312 -ACUP 6315 Penn Ave Outdoor relief areas are conditionally permitted in the MU-C District so long as the following conditions are met: a) The outdoor relief area shall not be located in the front yard. This requirement is met. b) The outdoor relief area must meet setback requirements. This requirement is met. All aspects of the relief area are a minimum of five feet from lot lines. c) The outdoor relief area shall be screened from view of neighboring properties as approved by the City. This requirement is met. The relief area will be surrounded by a six-foot black chain link fence and screened with materials that have been approved by the Assistant Community Development Director. d) The outdoor relief area shall be for the use of dogs only. This requirement is met. The facility will be for dogs only. e) No dogs shall remain unattended in the outdoor relief area. The applicant is aware of this requirement. fJ The outdoor relief area shall not be used as an outdoor kennel, animal run, animal play area or any other use not specifically identified in the conditional use permit. The applicant is aware of this requirement. g) The outdoor relief area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. The applicants have proposed the following plan for meeting this requirement: • The asphalt in the main relief area will be excavated to enhance drainage and contain any relief byproducts. The newly poured cement in the existing garbage area will be preserved as well as the asphalt at the top of the entrance/exit where the dogs will enter the relief area. These areas will only be used to funnel traffic in and out of the building and not for relief purposes. In the excavated relief area, a layer of Class 5 Pack or sand can be layered over the open dirt to absorb liquid if necessary. On top will be a 6" to 10" layer of pea gravel or 3/8" river rock. This will allow dissipation and evaporation of any urine and will be easiest to keep clean with biodegradable products and spray water. All fecal material will be immediately removed and contained in a bag. There will be a regular schedule of maintenance of this relief area and it will be kept clean and sprayed. Because drainage will be adequate for the level of activity, combined with evaporation, immediate fecal removal and the addition of biodegradable products to keep the area clean, odor is not expected to be a problem. • APPLICANT NOTE: Research has shown most dog daycare facilities utilize natural grass only in their relief areas. Drainage & smell do not prove to be a problem. Additionally, most airports that offer outdoor pet relief areas use pea gravel because of the ease of keeping it clean which reduces odor. • The solid waste will be double bagged and left in a container in the existing garbage enclosure in the back of the building. The waste will be picked up once weekly. If odor becomes a problem, Woof Central will increase pick up service to two times per week or move the waste container inside the building. • APPLICANT NOTE: Lucky Dog in Bloomington has waste disposal service once every two weeks. h) Solid waste material shall be removed a minimum of once per day and disposed of in a sanitary manner. Solid dog waste will be removed immediately and disposed of in garbage as described above. i) if required by the Public Works Department, a filtration bed shall be constructed to ensure that liquid waste will not enter into the ground or the City's storm water system. The Public Works Department has not requested this treatment. 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 Penn Avenue Corridor is intended to be a traditional, vibrant, pedestrian-oriented district. Attractive design and additional landscaping could significantly enhance the street presence of this property. b) The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. This requirement is met. The Mixed Use - Community 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. Given the limited parking at this site, providing the parking treatment contemplated by the Penn Avenue Design Guidelines would be extremely difficult. The applicants have proposed attractive additions to the building façade and small landscape area in front of the building. Additionally staff recommends that decorative element (either planters or a decorative fence) be installed along the southern property line, adjacent to the proposed employee parking stalls, in attempt to provide something in the "amenity zone" (area between parking lot and sidewalk) discussed in the Design Guidelines. The 14-foot width of the loading dock area provides enough room to do so without impacting parking. 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. 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. Staff is confident that the applicants can come to an agreement with Assistant Director Barton regarding final plans to enhance the property. 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. t) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety or welfare. Staff believes that the proposal will mitigate any potentially negative impacts. As is the case with any business, City nuisance regulations are applicable. If the business is found to be in violation of these regulations or the regulations of this permit the City can take action through the court system or through revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. 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 February 3, 2012. A decision is required by April 3, 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. • If approved, the applicants must record the Conditional Use Permit with Hennepin County. Proof of recording is required prior to the opening of the business. • Conditional Use Permits expire one year from issuance if the use for which they were granted has not commenced. C. FINANCIAL • The required application processing fee has been paid. D. LEGAL • A public hearing to consider the proposed request was help before the Planning Commission on February 27, 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 (7- 1, Hall dissenting). E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • No environmental impacts are anticipated. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny the amended Conditional Use Permit with findings that the request does not meet requirements. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Proposed plans • Planning & Zoning maps VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Don & Lori Swetala, applicants RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ANIMAL KENNEL WITH AN OUTDOOR RELIEF AREA AT 6315 PENN AVENUE WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor animal relief area as an accessory to an animal kennel 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; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2012, the City Council has previously approved Resolution No. 10623 granting a conditional use permit for an animal kennel serving up to 50 dogs at the Property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield recommended approval of this requested amendment to the conditional use permit at their February 27, 2012 meeting; and WHEREAS,the requested amendment meets the requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 547.09; and WHEREAS, the requested amendment meets the requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit for an outdoor relief area as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 534.07, Subdivision 24; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2012, the City Council has previously found that requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit for an animal kennel as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 537.07, Subd. 11 are met; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. An amended conditional use permit is issued to allow an animal kennel with an accessory outdoor relief area, as described in City Council Letter No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. This amended conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions in addition to those specified in Subsections 547.09, 537.07, Subd. 11 and 534.07, Subd. 24 of the City's Zoning Ordinance: • This amended conditional use permit supersedes the previous conditional use permit issued under Resolution No. 10623. • Final landscaping plans including a decorative element along the southern property line shall be submitted to and approved by the Assistant Community Development Director prior to issuance of any permits; 031312 -ACUP 6315 Penn Ave • Final outdoor relief area screening plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Assistant Community Development Director prior to issuance of any permits; • That the property owner is responsible for replacing any landscaping/plant materials that die; • That all 10 parking stalls be maintained and free of snow year round; • That approval of this conditional use permit does not include approval of any signs. Sign permits must be applied for separately; • That the applicant is responsible for obtaining necessary license(s) related to the animal kennel from the City's Licensing Department. This approval does not constitute approval of said license(s). • That the recipient of this conditional use permit record this Resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subd. 1 and the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 546.05, Subd. 7; and • Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall: a) Submit a copy of the recorded conditional use permit; b) Submit a surety equal to 125% of the value of any landscaping and/or building façade improvements (based on two bids including labor cost) not yet complete. 3. 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. 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of March 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 8 I: ; Q A o I;; PEN A VE w E.x W 0 N D Z • r o r rn ( 1 9' 0" ( 1 ( -O-I N S € I rn` P-0 F D TA D J 7C W 0 7J � ,02 O 9 I O_ 03 .p C Qb CONCRETE WALK x R0X 20'0 i (r1►1 �z nnz 1-. 0C) II Z z z zxr" fl�( ! _ m fi •m 0�-0 1 3SZ rn m r CI d<z 0 3 r= cl m r l a D =m �0 c) X m Z N _ 0 ND X C Z w p A RE i T 3 _ N yw y9 ri m 0 ea rx Z c N OX a1si m§ iF O A �' P N Oa CA m � go � ' p g 3 I' O Z L< X r Npi $ h$ 0 IT 0 o D y>0 v N I O Z :w Q y $ 'n c 0 p r zipo I_I oG'm JI'll it O 2 2 m 7 • a mD + p }t ' 1 .0 D p Im u Y4�!• 1$py9y D g 12 Z 4.. 5ym i r 9 " _°& • 9 11=11 1=R- f "/ ,��m 11 , � ! 2 II 1 w 0 RI Dm m-Im 70 X a D r--(T) 0>N rn c N=i z z E 0 c 0 -I rn TIz AT- A c u u"'OW. u1-1-n--n m m Om D70rm DOm m o zf 3 n3 OOnX OZ(zl W N 1° -0 mm < m< Xd7 m 9rn -A-1 -1r- 07 m- L-1171-0 zA� n0 r 0770 3 rj_I A n� N r m n= z +»Oz Fx„= Gtr 1.1� m C 7CD CO -00 A DZ rm 1 a. -or N Nrn rn it DCl 11-1-1 �Z Z NXp > 7) mrp ` D� rn �o m T 70(1) • m N �� F n Ill ZO a D 3n m wN CP O L N A D m r ,--1 � � i ” • - ' , C E � $ HOC 5 :,g.7.1'r m F � WOOF CENTRAL TI "O I'�/o m m 4 Pe = i y x I•�u s 6315 PENN AVENUE SOUTH NK=& / n _ z a o 5 / s �50 ° iT a RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA w y� S SAN- N N I r r\ `y`1, V • 8 0 a P N N • O. .• tl-O 28,0. I,t) a m . , b. mO- v -U A u ' i o °m °11 - • r r 2 m O N may' iO z i •• . 6 f� rrn \ i a 8-0 G F y _ _. „g sak I � �— r x ix E y IV p m S. 1 - ra• Z �' r n 0 - 0 : - , F I AIM: s II I.'O O. O O 76-r it I I N — /-0' CC o m • o JJJ om \ , )\----- 0 11 z I _, � i 4 [ , `JI 1 , ( EivIr t C '.I E )z1 s;'M nZ -n , _n v - 1111 Rillari"q $ - ,, i ::41,_ wiD • 3i!o P N3 f 5 /124 0. `*01.041101� WOOF CENTRAL TI yox 1 g.z g " �'. . . 6315 PENN AVENUE SOUTH �� a I '0 ; II''� RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA •- y�� 6315 Penn Ave -1-5 Conditional Use Permit 2/2012 Comprehensive Plan Designations MIXE MIXED LDR MIXED MIXED LDR 60 63RD ST MIXED LDR LDR MIXED MIXED LDR LDR MIXED MIXED LDR LDR MIXED MIXED Q LDR LDR MIXED W LDR dz MIXED MIXED O LDR J LDR 1 MIXED MIXED LDR MIXED MIXED LD MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED LDR MIXED LDR MIXED MIXED �( LEGEND A MIXED-Mixed Use LDR - Low-Density Residential 0 45 90 180 270 360 Feet I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Melissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\6315 Penn - CP.mxd -7-(0 6315 Penn Ave Conditional Use Permit 2/2012 Surrounding Zoning 1 J M U-C/ MU-C/P' R I MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC R ki SS 63RD ST MU-C/PAC R R MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC R R R R R R MU-C/PAC W LU LLI R R Q R Q Z MU-C/PAC W R z > R Lil a MU-C/PAC R al R R O M U-C/PAC R MU-C/PAC R R MU C/PAC MU-C/PAC R MU-C/PAC R MU-C/PAC R MU-C/PAC 1_____ 1 1 I MU-C/PAC I N LEGEND A MU-C/ PAC - Mixed Use Community & Penn Ave Overlay j R-Single Family Residential � 1 0 45 90 180 270 360 I me .......... Feet I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Melissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\6315 Penn -Zoning.mxd 1 AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM# 8 REPORT# 62 =rail STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 13, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: JEFF PEARSON, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: � Lt SIGNATURE IF REVIEWED BY CITY E Alr° MANAGER: I / , / ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing the construction of westbound Interstate 494 Auxiliary Lane. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing construction of the proposed westbound auxiliary lane on Interstate 494 from Interstate 35W to Trunk Highway 100, as recommended by the Transportation Commission. II. BACKGROUND The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) is proposing several improvement projects for the 1-494 corridor to begin in the Fall of 2012 and be completed in the Fall of 2013. Those projects include: • Full reconstruction of the Xerxes Avenue Bridge over 1-494. • Curb and gutter replacement and pavement overlays where necessary to Mn/DOT owned frontage roads. • The construction of a westbound auxiliary lane between Portland Avenue and Nicollet Avenue and between 1-35W and Highway 100. • The construction of a noise wall along the north side of 1-494 between Xerxes Avenue and Thomas Avenue. • The reconstruction of the median barrier on 1-494. • Pavement mill and overlay resurfacing of 1-494 between 24th Avenue and Highway 100. 03132012auxlane494 Consistent with new Federal and State policy, the benefited neighbors to the proposed noise wall were given a vote to include the wall in the project. Results of the vote were split with 52% voting NO and 48% voting YES. Because the default was to include the wall, non-votes were considered YES. A copy of the project Layout 1B referenced in the resolution is available for review at the Richfield Public Works Building and will be available at the March 13 City Council Meeting. Municipal Consent Mn/DOT requires municipal approval for any trunk highway project that results in any of the following within a municipality: • Alters access • Increases or reduces capacity • Requires acquisition of permanent right-of-way The proposed auxiliary lane on westbound 1-494 between I-35W and Highway 100 increases the capacity and therefore meets the criterion. The segment between Portland Avenue and Nicollet Avenue is not a through lane and therefore is not a change in capacity. The construction of the two auxiliary lane segments should reduce the amount of weaving required at adjacent on and off ramps. Mn/DOT expects this will decrease congestion and increase safety in the corridor. The Transportation Commission reviewed and recommended the resolution for adoption at the February 1, 2012 meeting. As well as approving the addition of the westbound auxiliary lane, the recommended resolution includes the following requests: • That Mn/DOT perform a policy review of the 2001 1-494 EIS to be consistent with current regional goals, strategies, and policies. • That the scope for the upcoming I-494/1-35W Interchange Study include traffic study scenarios with and without the construction of the 77th Street Underpass of Highway 77. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A project requires municipal consent if it alters access, increases or reduces traffic capacity, or requires the acquisition of right-of-way. • The construction of this auxiliary lane would add capacity to westbound Interstate 494 and thus requires municipal consent. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Municipal approval must be completed so that construction plans and documents can be finalized prior to the scheduled June 8, 2012 project letting. C. FINANCIAL • The proposed project is being funded with Congestion Management/Safety Project funds and does not require any local participation. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • A noise pollution study was required with the proposal for additional capacity on 1-494. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Do not adopt the resolution and instruct staff as to the desired course of action. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None - 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED WESTBOUND AUXILIARY LANE ON INTERSTATE 494 FROM INTERSTATE 35W TO TRUNK HIGHWAY 100. WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared a final layout for the improvement of Westbound Interstate 494 within the City of Bloomington from Trunk Highway 100 to Interstate 35W and seeks the approval thereof; and WHEREAS, the final layouts are on file in the Minnesota Department of Transportation Office, Roseville, Minnesota being marked, labeled and identified as Layout No. 1B SP 2785-364 from Ref. Pt. 5+00.385 to Ref. Pt. 7+00.254; and WHEREAS, improvements to City Streets and appurtenances have been included in the said final layout; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council's "Transportation Policy Plan" the Minnesota Department of Transportation — Metropolitan District's "20 year Transportation Improvement Plan" identifies Interstate 494 as a future managed corridor; and WHEREAS, the City believes the implementation of a managed corridor on Interstate 494 should only be considered at such time when analysis confirms that the managed lane costs and benefits are positive and consistent with the MnPASS System Study-Phase 2; and WHEREAS,the City believes that the management strategy for the Interstate 494 corridor should consist of a segment of roadway that provides a logical starting point and a logical terminus supported by analysis; and WHEREAS, the City believes that a long-term solution for the 1-494 Corridor is important. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City formally requests that the Minnesota Department of Transportation perform a policy review of the Interstate 494 Environmental Impact Statement that was completed in 2001 for purposes of updating the document to be consistent with current regional goals, strategies and policies. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City formally requests that the limits of the traffic study identified in the Scope of Services for the Interstate 494 & Interstate 35W Interchange Study designated as SP 2785-350 be extended past Trunk Highway 77 and include scenarios with and without construction of a 77th Street Underpass of Trunk Highway 77. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City supports the construction of the proposed auxiliary lane on Interstate 494 between Interstate 35W and Trunk Highway 100 and the reservation of that capacity for the conversion to a managed lane as part of a corridor-wide managed lane initiative. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the final layouts designated as Layout Number 1B SP 2785-364 for the provisions of a lane of capacity on Westbound Interstate 494 between Trunk Highway 100 and Interstate 35W located within the corporate limits be and is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of March, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk