05-13-08 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
. TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2008
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Rofl call
5:30 - 6:00 p.m.
1. Discussion regarding Open Forum (Council Memo No. 75)
Notes:
• Adjournment
SPECIAL CONCURRENT CITY COUNCIL/HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:00 P.M.
AGENDA
•
Call to order
Roll call
6:00 - 6:50 p.m.
1. Discussion regarding Comprehensive Plan review
(Council Memo No. 76/HRA Memo No. 12)
Notes:
Adjournment
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
• COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
C]
Call to order
Roll call
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of April 22, 2008 and (2)
Regular City Council Meeting of April 22, 2008
PRESENTATIONS
1. Recognition of Richfield Centennial babies
2. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to Miss Richfield Ambassadors and Junior
Ambassadors (Council Memo No. 77)
3. Presentation of proclamation designating May 25-31, 2008 as Salute to Small Business
Week in Richfield
4. Annual meeting with Transportation Commission
5. Presentation regarding Public Works Week and new Maintenance Facility open house
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
6. Council discussion
• Participation in Fourth of July parade
• Hats Off To Hometown Hits
• Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
7. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
8. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City
Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual
items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is
necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from
the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and
action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval.
A. Consideration of approval of continuing public hearing and second reading of
transitory ordinance to vacate utility easement at 800 66th Street West to June 10,
2008 S.R. No. 113
B. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance incorporating 2004
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport zoning ordinance requirements;
amending Richfield City Code Subsections 512.01, Subd. 1 and 512.03; amending
Richfield City Code by adding new Subsection 512.13; and amending Appendix 1 of
• Richfield City Code by adding new Section 18 S.R. No. 114
C. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amendment establishing
regulations for storage of oversize vehicles in residential districts and scheduling
second reading for May 27, 2008 S.R. No. 115
D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City Council not to waive
monetary limits on statutory municipality tort liability as established by Minnesota
Statute 466.04 S.R. No. 116
E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Department of Public
Safety/Police to accept Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant of
$23,298.75 from Office of Justice Programs to be used for placing video cameras in
Police squad cars S.R. No. 117
F. Consideration of approval of resolution accepting donation of $430 from receipt of
13 memorials given in name of Richfield resident, Tom Curran, to Richfield Fire
Department S.R. No. 118
Notes:
9. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
• Notes:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. Public hearing regarding resolution approving issuance of Educational Facilities
Revenue Notes, Series 2008 by City of Minneapolis and authorizing execution and
delivery of cooperation agreement between City of Minneapolis and City of Richfield
related to project financing to be undertaken by Academy of Holy Angels
Staff Report No. 119
Notes:
11. Public hearing regarding resolution granting final approval of plat for 1901 66th Street
East; Richfield Maintenance Facility
Staff Report No. 120
Notes:
• PROPOSED ORDINANCES
12. Consideration of first reading of transitory ordinance authorizing planning, design and
construction of new Police/Fire/City Hall facility and scheduling public hearing and
second reading for June 10, 2008
Staff Report No. 121
Notes:
13. Consideration of first reading of amendments to Richfield City Code Subsections
514.14, Subd. 3; 518.15, Subd. 3; and 522.15, Subd. 4 to require construction of one
car garage for all new single-family homes and two car garage for all new single-family
homes over 1,200 square feet and scheduling second reading for May 27, 2008
Staff Report No. 122
•
Notes:
RESOLUTION
14. Consideration of resolution denying issuance of new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt
• liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for Aribel's 1120 East 66th Street
Staff Report No. 123
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
15. Consideration of accepting Corridor Housing Initiative development guidelines
Staff Report No. 124
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
16. City Manager's report
• Adam's Hill Pond storm water pilot program
• Notes:
17. 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 rninutes 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:
18. 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.
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # $A
REPORT # 113
~~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING &
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME. TITLE
•
•
INTERIM DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Continue the public hearing and second reading of a Transitory Ordinance to vacate a utility
easement at 800 66th Street West to June 10, 2008.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Continue the second reading and public hearing of a
Transitory Ordinance to vacate a utility easement at 800 66th Street
West to June 10, 2008.
II. BACKGROUND
On April 8, 2008 the City Council approved a first reading of a Transitory Ordinance
to vacate a portion of a utility easement across the previously vacated Graham
Avenue. As is standard procedure for easement vacations, the Hennepin County
Registrar of Deeds and Titles and public utility companies were notified of the
proposed vacation. Xcel Energy, Qwest and Centerpoint Energy have indicated
that they have buried facilities within the vacation area. The petitioner is working
with the utility companies to determine whether or not facilities can be relocated or if
easements can be reserved.
051308 - 2nd Reading easement vacation 800 66th St W -continue ph
• III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• An easement for public facilities must be reserved. The applicant is
working to clarify the area in which an easement continues to be
necessary.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• A public hearing and second reading of the Transitory Ordinance shall
be held once the extent of all utility easements is determined.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
• IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
• N/A
VI: PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
•
•
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # $$
REPORT # 114
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
•
•
MAY 13, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
INTERIM DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING &
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a first reading of an ordinance incorporating the provisions of the 2004
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Zoning Ordinance and creating an overlay zoning
district in which the rovisions will a I .
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Conduct a first reading of an ordinance incorporating
2004 Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Zoning Ordinance
requirements; amending Richfield City Code Subsections 512.01,
Subd. 1 and 512.03; amending Richfield City Code by adding new
Subsection 512.13; and amending Appendix 1 of the Richfield City
Code b addin new Section 18.
II. BACKGROUND
In 2004 the Wold -Chamberlain Field Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) adopted
an amended Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Zoning Ordinance. The
Ordinance takes precedent over municipal ordinances related to height restrictions
and land use within certain areas in the City that are in the vicinity of the
Minneapolis - St. Paul International (MSP) Airport.
The proposed overlay district shall apply to all land within the City falling within the
designated Safety Zone B and Safety Zone C (see attached maps). Safety Zone 6
generally prohibits the following land uses:
051308 - 1st Reading JAZB provisions
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
• Amphitheaters;
. Campgrounds;
• Churches;
• Fuel storage tank farms;
• Above-ground fuel tanks;
• Gas stations;
• Hospitals;
• Nursing homes;
• Residential uses (including low, medium and high density);
• Schools;
• Stadiums;
• Theaters;
• Trailer courts; and
• Ponds or other uses that might attract waterfowl.
Certain "established residential neighborhoods" are exempted from the provisions of
Safety Zone B. Richfield is included in this exemption, therefore, all existing low,
medium and high density housing in Safety Zone B may be improved and/or
expanded and new housing may be developed subject to the height and general
safety restrictions of the Ordinance (discussed below). Further, all nonconforming
structures and uses are allowed to remain and can be altered, changed or rebuilt in
accordance with these same height and general safety restrictions. Safety Zone C
does not prohibited any particular uses, but requires compliance with height and
• general safety requirements.
Construction height limitations vary from 60 feet to 150 feet with most areas falling
within the range of 130 feet to 140 feet. The general restrictions of the Ordinance
prohibit any land use that could endanger landing, taking off or maneuvering of
aircraft.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The regulations of the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance apply whether or
not they are incorporated directly into the City's Code.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City is responsible for administering the rules of the 2004 MSP
Zoning Ordinance.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on April
28, 2008. No members of the public spoke on this item.
• The Planning Commission voted unanimously (9-0) to recommend
approval of the attached Ordinance.
• If adopted by the Council following a second reading, the proposed
changes will take effect 30 days after publication in the Sun Current
Newspaper.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance
• Safety Zone Maps
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
•
U~~
BILL NO.
• AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; INCORPORATING 2004 MINNEAPOLIS -
ST. PAUL AIRPORT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING RICHFIELD
CITY CODE SUBSECTION 512.01, SUBDIVISION 1; AMENDING RICHFIELD CITY
CODE SUBSECTION 512.03; AMENDING RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY ADDING NEW
SUBSECTION 512.13; AND AMENDING APPENDIX 1 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
BY ADDING NEW SECTION 18
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Subsection 512.01, Subdivision 1 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
follows:
512.01. Zoning districts. Subdivision 1. Establishment of districts. In order to
carry out the purposes and provisions of this code, the City is hereby divided into
the following zoning districts:
,.....
Residential Districts
•
•
Residential
Ie Family
Sing R
_
_
Low Density Single Family Residential R-1
Family Residential
Two MR-1
,.
.
Multi-Family Residential MR-2
High Density Multi .Family Residential MR 3
Commercial Districts
Service Office S-O
Nei hborhood Business
...... g ................ C-1
, .........................................
General Commercial C-2
Mixed-Use Districts
i........._Mixed-Use _Reg_!_o.n.a.~...... ...._MU-R
..................................:
Mixed-Use Communit
y. MU-C
Mixed-Use Nei hborhood
...................................................................g . MU-N
,..........
Industrial Districts
Industrial
.... I
;.
Planned Unit Development Districts
Planned Residential PR
Planned Two Family Residential PMR-1
Planned Multi-Family Residential PMR
,...
Planned Nei hborhood Commercial
... g ............. PC-1
:.............................................
Planned General Commercial PC-2
Overlay Districts
Airport Runway Overlay District AR
051308 - 1st Reading JAZB provisions
86 ~
Section 2 Subsection 512.03 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows:
512.03. Permitted uses in all districts. Except when otherwise noted, Tthe
following uses shall be construed to be permitted in all zoning districts within the
City:
a) Public streets and highways;
b) Underground public utilities;
c) Parks and related recreational facilities owned by a governmental unit;
d) Solar equipment as an accessory use; and
e) Horticulture on land which cannot be put to other uses, provided. no sale of
products is conducted on the lot.
Section 3 The Richfield City Code is amended by adding new Subsection 512.13 to read as
follows:
512.13. Airport runway overlay district. Subdivision 1. Purpose and intent. The
Airport Runway Overlay District is established to implement the 2004 Minneapolis-
St. Paul International Airport (Wold-Chamberlain Field) Zoning Ordinance
• (hereinafter 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance). The 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance,
pursuant to the provisions and authority of Minnesota Statutes Section 360.063,
takes precedent within areas of the City of Richfield regulating and restricting the
height of structures and objects of natural growth and otherwise regulating the use
of property in the vicinity of the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport. The
2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance creates zones and establishes boundaries that extend
into the City of Richfield.
It is the purpose of the Airport Runway Overlay District to protect the public health,
safety order convenience, prosperity and general welfare and to promote the most
appropriate use of land by preventing the creation or establishment of Airport
Hazards subject to the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance and Minnesota Statutes.
Subd. 2. Creation of districts and applicability. The Airport Runway Overlay
District shall apply to all land within the City of Richfield designated as Safety Zone
B and Safety Zone C in the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance.
Subd. 3. Supplemental definitions. The following words and terms when used in
this subsection shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise:
a) "2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance" -The restated and amended Minneapolis - St. Paul
International Airport (Wold -Chamberlain Field) Zoning Ordinance adopted by the
Wold -Chamberlain Field Joint Airport Zoning Board on April 29, 2004 which
became effective on May 7, 2004.
8C~_~3
b) "Above-ground fuel tank" - A container, vessel or other enclosure designed to
contain or dispense fuel that is located above the ground surface, that is not
• contained within a building or structure and that is not part of or connected to a
boat, motor vehicle or rail car.
c) "Airport hazard" - Anv structure. tree or use of land that obstructs the airspace
required for, or is otherwise hazardous to, the flight of aircraft in landing or taking off
at the Airport: and any use of land that is hazardous to persons or property because
of its proximity to the Airport.
d) "Airspace surfaces" -The surfaces established in Section IV.A of the 2004 MSP
Zoning Ordinance.
e) "Airspace zones" -The land use zones established in Section IV.A of the 2004
MSP Zoning Ordinance.
~ "Board of adjustment" -The body established in Section XII.A of the 2004 MSP
Zoning Ordinance.
q) "Established residential neighborhood in a built-up urban area" -The areas
identified in the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance and listed in Exhibit B -Legal
Description of Established Residential Neighborhoods and shown on Exhibit C -
Map of Established Residential Neighborhoods in Built-up Urban Areas and
pursuant to the criteria noted in the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance.
• h) "Low density residential structure" - Asingle-family or two-family home.
i) "Low density residential lot" - A single lot located in an area which is zoned for
single-family or two-family residences and in which the predominant land use is
such type of residences.
1~ "Safety zones" -The land use zones established in Section V.A of the 2004 MSP
Zoning Ordinance.
Subd. 4. Uses. All permitted, accessory, conditional and interim uses allowed in
the underlying zoning district are allowed in the Airport Runway Overlay District with
the exception of the following prohibited uses.
al Within the portion of the Airport Runway Overlay District designated as Safety Zone
B as contained in Section V Land Use Safety Zoning of the 2004 MSP Zoning
Ordinance and shown on MSP Zoning Map Safety Zones -Plate SZ-20, the
following uses are prohibited unless a variance permitting the use is granted by the
Board of Adjustment established by the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance:
(i) Amphitheaters;
(ii) Campgrounds;
(iii) Churches;
(iv) Fuel storage tank farms;
(v) Above-ground fuel tanks;
(vi) Gasoline stations;
B~-`~
(vii) Hospitals;
(viii) Nursing homes;
(ix) Residential uses (including low, medium and high density residential uses);
(x) Schools;
(xi) Stadiums;
~xii) Theaters;
(xiii) Trailer courts;
(xiv) Ponds or other uses that might attract waterfowl or other birds such as
putrescible waste disposal operations, wastewater treatment facilities and
associated settling ponds, and dredge spoil containment areas; provided,
however the prohibition on ponds or other uses that might attract waterfowl
or other birds shall not apply to acres below an elevation of eight hundred
(800) feet above mean sea level along the Bluff of the Minnesota River.
b) Within the portion of the Airport Runway Overlay District designated as Safety Zone
C as contained in Section V Land Use Safety Zoning of the 2004 MSP Zoning
Ordinance and shown on MSP Zoning Map Safety Zones -Plates SZ-13, SZ-14,
SZ-15 and SZ-20 no land use shall violate the height restrictions imposed by the
2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance and described_in Subsection 512.13 Subd. 4 of this
code.
Subd. 5. Height restrictions. Except as necessary and incidental to Airport
operations no new structure shall be constructed or established; no existing
structure shall be altered changed rebuilt, repaired or replaced; and no tree shall
. be allowed to grow or be altered, repaired, replaced or replanted in any way so as
to project above any Airspace Surface as shown on MSP Zoning Map Airspace
Zones -Plates A-13, A-14, A-15, A-19 and A-20.
Subd. 6. Exemption for established residential neighborhoods. The following
regulations shall apply to an "established residential neighborhood in a built-up
area" as defined in 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance:
a) A low density residential structure or isolated low density residential lot as defined in
2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance which existed in an "established residential
neighborhood in a built-up area" on or before January 1, 1978, and all other land
uses with existed in an established residential neighborhood in a built-up area on or
before June 30 1979 shall be subject to the height restrictions of Subdivision 4, but
shall not be subject to the Safety Zone B restrictions of Subdivision 3. In addition,
such structure lot or use shall be deemed a conforming use that shall not be
prohibited under the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance.
b) In Safety Zone B in an established residential neighborhood in a_built-up urban area
or in an area immediately adjacent to such a neighborhood, existing low, medium
and high density residential uses may be improved and expanded, and new low,
medium and high density residential uses may be developed, all subject to the
height restrictions of Subdivision 4 and all other provisions of this code.
Subd. 7. 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance use variances. Within the Airport Runway
Overlay District variance to allow uses listed as prohibited in the Airport Runway
Overlay District that are granted by the Board of Adjustment as contained in the
u~'~
2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance may only be established in the City of Richfield to the
extent that they comply with all of provisions of this code. A use not allowed in the
underlying zoning district shall not be established under any circumstances.
Section 4 Appendix 1 to the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding a new Section 18 to
read as follows:
SECTION 18. AIRPORT RUNWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT (AR)
The Airport Runway Overlay District (AR) shall apply to all land within the City of
Richfield desianated as Safety Zone B and Safety Zone C in the 2004 MSP Zoni
r Zones -Plates
15 and Plate SZ-20.
•
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Airport Safety Zones ~~-~~
(Map 1 of 2)
®Safety Zone B
® Safety Zone C
0 425 850 1,700 2,550 3,400
Feet
Airport Safety Zones 8~-~
(Map 2 of 2)
A
0 430 860 1, 720 2, 580 3, 440
Feet
®Safety Zone B
® Safety Zone C
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # $C
REPORT # 115
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
CHARLIE O~BRIEN, CODE
COMPLIANCE OFFICER
NAMIs,
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading of an ordinance amendment establishing regulations for the storage of oversize
vehicles in residential districts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
• Approve the first reading of the attached ordinance amendment
establishing regulations for the storage of oversize vehicles in
residential districts
• Schedule the second reading for May 27, 2008.
•
II. BACKGROUND
At a Council work session in July 2007, staff presented information regarding similar
ordinances from other cities and research material on various types and sizes of
vehicles, illustrating that regulating storage of vehicles by vehicle weight could allow
for the storage of very large vehicles on residential property, while still meeting the
weight restrictions of our current ordinance.
Staff was instructed, after discussion with Council, to prepare a draft ordinance
addressing vehicle storage in residential districts by dimension and stating the
dimensions to be allowed.
0513 Ordinance Amendment on Storage of Oversize Vehicles
The draft ordinance was presented to Council and discussed at the April 22, 2008
work session. Minor changes requested by Council regarding the dimension
language in the oversize vehicle definition have been addressed and the ordinance
is now submitted for adoption.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
Richfield City Code section 1320 does not allow: vehicles that are in excess
of one ton; a bus designed to carry more than nine passengers; any tractor,
truck-tractor, ortruck-trailer to be stored on residential property. This method
is problematic for several reasons:
• There has been a trend toward larger and larger vehicles being owned
by citizens and being kept on residential property in general. The
proliferation of larger and larger SUVs and Pickups is obvious. Some
vehicles are kept for commercial purposes but many are not. They
are still in violation of the ordinance.
• There is a trend in business for individuals to be employed by a firm
but seldom going to a facility owned by the firm. Service industries
commonly ship the items needed by their employees to their homes
and provide a vehicle that the individual uses daily for business but
stores at his residence.
• Staff has difficulty determining the weight of vehicles in a manner that
allows for easy enforcement that can be understood easily by citizens
as well.
• Vehicles can be very large while not being in violation of the current
restrictions by weight. For example, a large cube van used for
delivery may not be in violation of the City's weight standard but may
have a high impact on surrounding properties.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Richfield City code section 1320 does not allow for vehicles that are in
excess of one ton, a bus designed to carry more than nine
passengers, or any tractor, truck-tractor, ortruck-trailer to be stored on
residential property.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONr;S~
• Council could decide to make no changes to the current ordinance. This
would, however, prohibit residents whose every day vehicle or truck is over
the one-ton limit from parking their vehicle on their property without risk of
receiving a violation notice and possible enforcement action while allowing
the storage of oversize vehicles on residential properties that did not cross
the current regulatory weight threshold to impact surrounding properties.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Draft Ordinance amending Richfield City Code, Section 1320.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
•
•
•
1..~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE: PERTAINING TO PARKING AND
STORAGE OF OVERSIZE VEHICLES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 1320.01 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
follows:
Section 1320: Parking: outside storage.
1320.01. Declaration of nuisance. The outside parking or outside storage, on or
near residential district properties, of vehicles, materials, supplies or equipment not
customarily used or needed for use in connection with the occupancy of residential
property for racirlAnra residential purposes, is found to create a nuisance and
detrimental influence upon the public health, safety, prosperity, good order and
general welfare in such district residential districts, including; obstruction of view on
streets and on private properties, bringing unhealthful and noisome odors and
materials into residential neighborhoods, creating a cluttered and otherwise
unsightly areas, preventing the full use of residential streets for residential parking,
introducing commercial advertising signs into areas where commercial advertising
signs are otherwise prohibited, and otherwise adversely affecting residential
property values and neighborhood patterns.
Sec. 2. Section 1320 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a subdivision
to read as follows:
nsions exceed
twenty-two feet (22') in length; or, seven and one half feet (7.5') in width; or, seven
and one half feet (7.5') in height, exclusive of anv additional racks or eauioment.
Measurements to conform to this standard shall be taken with tires inflated to
n
mend to
Sec. 3. Subsection 1320.03 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
follows:
1320.03. Unlawful parking. It is unlawful for any person owning, driving or in charge
of a vehicle of any of the types hereinafter specified as an Oversize Vehicle to
cause or permit such vehicle to be parked or to stand continuously for more than
faun four hours on any residential property or on any public street directly abutting
residential districts within the city. This prohibition applies to the following vehicles
and other similar vehicles.
(a) any bUS rlacinnarl to rarni mnrP than nines narcnnc other than a bus converted to
an RV as allowed by other sections of the city code.
•
~~
(c) any tractor, truck-tractor, truck-trailer or any type of trailer defined as an
• Oversize Vehicle in this section.
Sec. 4. Subsection 1320.05 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
follows:
1320.05. Exceptions. This section does not apply to the following vehicles:
(a) a motor truck, pickup truck or similar vehicle being used by a public utility,
moving company, or similar company, which is actually being used to service a
residence not belonging to or occupied by the operator of the vehicle;
(b) ar
other
(e) Recreational vehicles and equipment as defined by this code.
• (f) oversize or commercial vehicles in non residential areas as allowed elsewhere in
this code.
Sec. 5. This ordinance will become effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
City Charter.
Adopted this day of , 2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
a vehicle which is actually making a pickup or delivery at the location where it is
parked. Parking for any period of time beyond the period of time reasonably
necessary to make such pickup or delivery and in excess of the faun four hour limit
shall be unlawful; or
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # $D
REPORT # j j
r
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City not to waive the monetary limits on statutory
municipalit tort {iabilit .
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Council not to
waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by
Minnesota Statutes 466.04.
•
II. BACKGROUND
The City purchases its insurance from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust (LMCIT). A requirement of that insurance coverage is that each participating
municipality must annually either affirm or waive its statutory limits of liability. This
action must be taken before July 1 of each year.
The current statutory limits of liability for Minnesota cities are $300,000 for an
individual claimant and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Cities can waive those limits by
allowing an individual claimant to recover more than $300,000, up to the $1,000,000
occurrence limit or more if limits are waived and excess liability insurance is
purchased. They may also waive the per occurrence limit and purchase excess
liability insurance.
0513Tort
Historically, Richfield has not waived its limits of liability. This is historically true of
• slightly more than half of the cities in Minnesota. Richfield has also elected not to
purchase excess liability coverage for the past several years.
The cost of excess liability insurance has been, and continues to be very expensive.
An additional $1,000,000 of coverage would cost in excess of $65,000 annually.
Moreover, buying the coverage may expose the City to liability exposure in excess
of the statutory $1,000,000 cap.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The State Statute establishing liability limits for cities at the current
$1,000,000 level was established fairly recently and appears to be a
reasonable limit.
Historically, the majority of municipalities in Minnesota are not waiving the
monetary limits on municipality tort liability as was established by Statutes
466.04.
• The Council could waive its statuary limits in future years if a decision was
made to do so.
• The City Council may also wish to further consider purchasing excess liability
in the future. If this is the case it may be purchased at any point in the future.
• B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City's insurance policy with the League of Minnesota Cities
Insurance Trust will renew on July 1, 2008. This action must be
completed on, or before that time.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City has historically not purchased excess liability coverage
because of the cost of such coverage. The annual premium for $1
million of coverage would be between $65,000 and $75,000 if the City
does not waive its liability limits.
D. LEGAL
• The tort liability limits established by Minnesota Statutes have
protected cities historically and no Minnesota court has ever
established a monetary award in excess of the statutory limits against
a municipality.
• Each city must annually decide whether the City would voluntarily
waive the statute for both the single claims each occurrence limits.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
• IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• If the Council feels that any single claimant should receive more than the
$300,000 limit, the Council could elect to waive the statutory monetary limits.
• If the Council feels that the $1,000,000 per occurrence limit is not adequate,
the City could purchase excess liability coverage and subsequently waive the
limits of liability up to the amount of excess coverage purchased by the City.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
•
r ~
U
~pvi
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION AFFIRMING MUNICIPAL TORT LIABILITY LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY
MINNESOTA STATUTES 466.04
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 466.04 provides for Municipal tort liability limits for
Minnesota cities; and
n
LJ
WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has asked that each
city review the tort liability limits and determine if the respective city would choose to waive
it's limits; and
WHEREAS, such decision to affirm or waive the tort liability limits must be filed with
the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust at the insurance renewal date.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to report
to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust that the Richfield City Council does not
waive the monetary limits on the municipal tort liability established by Minnesota statutes
466.04.
2008.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # $$
REPORT # 117
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2008
~~
REPORT PREPARED BY: JAY HENTHORNE, POLICE
LIEUTENANT
NAME, Trri.r:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
~y~.
sic ~ ni:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: ~ ' ~ *~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Council approval of resolution authorizing Public Safety Department's acceptance of grant
monies from the U.S. Dept. of Justice for $23,298.75.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution allowing the Department
of Public Safety to accept 2007 JAG (Justice Assistance Grant) grant
monies from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, in the amount of $23,298.75.
II. BACKGROUND
The Public Safety Department applied for a grant entitled the Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG). The grant program allows states, tribes
and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control
crime based on their own local needs and conditions.
Notification has been received that the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department,
was approved to receive $24,525 from the JAG program, minus 5% administrative
costs, or $23,298.75.
•
0513 Resolution for Acceptance of JAB Grant Monies
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Public Safety does not accept financial support unless it is designated
for a specific program that will affect the department as a whole.
• Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or
devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor
be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City
Council.
The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on
November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to
departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds
majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute
465.03.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The grant money will be used by Public Safety to place video cameras
in the department's squad cars.
C. FINANCIAL
• Five percent (5%), or $1,226.25, of the total ($24,525) has been
removed as approved by the grant to cover administrative costs. The
amount that Public Safety will receive is $23,298.75.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• Council could disapprove the acceptance of grant monies and the funds
would have to be returned.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution No.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
~~
RESOLUTION NO.
i RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO
ACCEPT THE EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG)
OF $24,575, MINUS 5% ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, FROM THE OFFICE OFJUSTICE
PROGRAMS TO BE USED FOR PLACING VIDEO CAMERAS IN POLICE SQUAD
CARS
WHEREAS, Richfield Police has been approved by the U.S. Department of Justice
to participate in funds made available to several Hennepin County departments through
the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG); and,
WHEREAS, Richfield has agreed that Hennepin County will serve as the fiscal
agent on behalf of the cities of Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Minneapolis
and Richfield; and
WHEREAS, Richfield is scheduled to receive $24,575 to be used as designated by
the grant agreement which mandates that the funds be used for law enforcement
programs, prosecution and court programs, prevention and education programs,
corrections and community corrections programs, drug treatment programs, or planning
evaluation and technology improvement programs; and,
• WHEREAS, five percent (5%) has already been set aside for costs associated with
administering the JAG funds, in accordance with the agreement, leaving $23,298.75 from
the original grant amount of $24,575; and
WHEREAS, Richfield has designated $23,298.75 to be used to offset the costs
associated with placing video cameras in Richfield Police squad cars.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield, Public Safety
Department will accept funds designated for police programs in accordance to and as
listed above.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May
2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
• Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
r
CONSENT
8F
118
MAY 13, 2008
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
BRAD SVEUM -FIRE SERVICES
DIRECTOR
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution accepting a donation of $430 from the receipt of 13 memorials
iven in the name of Richfield resident, Tom Curran, to the Richfield Fire Department.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the resolution accepting the donations totaling
$430 from the receipt of 13 memorials donated in the name of
Richfield resident, Tom Curran, to the Richfield Fire Department.
II. BACKGROUND
The Richfield Fire Department responded several times in the past to render various
types of assistance due to a chronic medical condition. Mr. Curran passed away
March 28, 2008 and his wife wished to express her thanks to the City of Richfield
and the Fire Department for this help by directing memorials in his name to the Fire
Department.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota State Statute requires acceptance of a grant or donation of
more than two-thirds majority of the City Council.
• The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on
November 9, 2004 requiring all grants and donations to departments
0513Fire
be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds majority of the
City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• This donation will aid in the delivery of fire and health safety education
programs to the citizens of Richfield.
C. FINANCIAL
• This donation will allow safety education material to be purchased that
was not budgeted for in 2008.
• There are no matching fund requirements
D. LEGAL
• Minnesota Stature 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or
donation of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Decline to accept the donations
• V. ATTACHMENTS
• Council Resolution
• Copy of thank you card from the family of Tom Curran.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
l~ev~ sect
RESOLUTION NO. G~~-~
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION OF MEMORIALS IN THE
NAME OF RICHFIELD RESIDENT TOM CURRAN TO THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
FIRE DEPARTMENT IN ACCORDANCE TO THE WISHES OF THE
FAMILY OF TOM CURRAN
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 reads in part as follows:
Any city, county school district or town may accept a grant or devise of real or
personal property and maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance
with the terms prescribed by the donor. Nothing herein shall authorize such acceptance or
use for religious or sectarian purposes. Every acceptance shall be by resolution of the
council adopted by two-thirds majority of its members, expressing such terms in full, and
WHEREAS, The City of Richfield has been named to have memorials in the name
of Tom Curran directed to it, and
WHEREAS, 13 memorials totaling $430 have been received.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
. 1. That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby accept 13 memorials totaling
$430 donated to the City of Richfield Fire Department in the name of Tom Curran and
authorizes the city to administer those donations in accordance with the terms prescribed
by the donors.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May,
2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
S F a-
m
3 ~ti
o ~ ~
2 `~~ ~~~~
~~ ~~$~~r~ ~ ~
w~.~~~~ J ~ 2 ~ ~, 3
3 ~, ~
~Y x ~ ~
°~ ~ ~~ ~~~- y~t-~
i-~ a~ 4 v~ ~ v '~ 2 x~
~C ~~~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~
• ~~~~~~~
~r~~~
•
-~ ~~
a
~ ~ ~ ~ - °~'
.~ ~ U
~ ..., ~,.
~, ~. ~~ ~
`~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~.
°~ `~ \~
~ ~ ~ ~,
~,,
~ :~
~~ ~~
~,,
.~_.,
'~~ ~ ~ 1
~~
r~
L_J
•
AGENDA SECTION: PIIBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM # lO
REPORT # 11~
MAY 13, 2008
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
d
r~
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and consideration of the resolution and cooperation agreement with regards to
the pro~ect financin to be undertaken b the Academ of Hol An els.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the
resolution approving the issuance of Educational Facilities Revenue
Notes, Series 2008, (Notes) by the City of Minneapolis and authorizing
the execution and delivery of a Cooperation Agreement between the
City of Minneapolis and the City of Richfield with respect to the Notes
and the project to be undertaken by the Academy of Holv Angels.
•
IL BACKGROUND
The City of Minneapolis is issuing tax-exempt bonds on behalf of the Academy of
Holy Angels to provide financing for the costs associated with amulti-purpose
athletic facility. The Academy of Holy Angels is a Minnesota nonprofit corporation
that currently owns and operates a high school (ninth through twelfth grade) in
the City of Richfield.
In the event that capital facilities to be financed with an issue of tax-exempt,
qualified 501(c)(3) bonds are not to be located in the jurisdiction of the issuer
(City of Minneapolis), such bonds, under IRS regulations, require that the
governmental unit which contains the site of the financed facilities must approve
the issue.
Consequently, the City of Richfield is considered a "host city" and must
undertake certain procedures with regards to the tax-exempt financing, including
holding a public hearing and executing a Cooperation Agreement.
0513AHA
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City of Richfield has established guidelines that provide the
City with the authority to carry out the required procedures under
federal and state law.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The City is to receive a base fee of $500 for staff and administrative
time.
• The City is to be reimbursed and held harmless for and from any
out-of-pocket expenses related to the procedures required of the
City by federal and state law for the tax exempt financing by the
Academy of Holy Angels.
D. LEGAL
• Under federal law, a Cooperation Agreement is required between
the City of Richfield and the issuer, the City of Minneapolis.
• A public hearing regarding the tax exempt financing must be held,
notice of public hearing must be published and Council must adopt
a resolution approving the financing of the proposed project.
• Notice of public hearing was published in the April 24, 2008 Sun
Current Newspaper.
• All documents regarding this transaction have been reviewed by
the City Attorney.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Forgo approving the resolution and Cooperation Agreement with regards
to the project financing to be undertaken by the Academy of Holy Angels.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
• Cooperation Agreement
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• John Utley, Kennedy & Graven
• Representative from Academy of Holy Angels
•
0513AHA
i~~i
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF ONE OR MORE SERIES OF REVENUE
NOTES BY THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA UNDER
MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 469.152 THROUGH 469.1651, AS
AMENDED, TO FINANCE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING
FACILITY OF ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act,
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152-469.165, as amended (the "Act"), each
municipality and redevelopment agency of the State of Minnesota (as defined in the
Act), including the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota ("Minneapolis"), is authorized to issue
revenue obligations to finance improvements to land and buildings for the benefit of a
revenue producing enterprise to be owned by a contracting party (as defined in the
Act);
WHEREAS, at the request of Academy of Holy Angels, a Minnesota nonprofit
corporation (the "Borrower"), Minneapolis proposes to issue one or more series of
revenue obligations under the terms of the Act and loan the proceeds derived from the
sale of the obligations to the Borrower to finance the following costs associated with a
multi-purpose athletic facility of the Borrower: (i) acquisition and installation of (a) a
forced-air inflation blower/heatin system; (b) approximately 80,000 square feet of
monofilament artificial turf; and (c}galr-supported seasonal fabric dome (collectively, the
"Project"); and (ii) the costs of issuing the obligations; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.656, Subdivision 2(2),
a municipality may issue obligations to finance the acquisition or improvement of real
property located outside of its corporate boundaries for property constituting a single
project located in a city if the governing body of the city consents, by resolution, to
r issuance of such obligations; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 469.155, subdivision 9, of the Act, a municipality
may enter into an agreement to issue revenue bonds in behalf of one or more other
municipalities for a project (as defined in the Act); and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2008, the City conducted a public hearing on the Project,
at which a reasonable opportunity was provided for interested individuals to express
their views, both orally and in writing, on the Project and the proposed issuance of such
revenue obligations by Minneapolis; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 46X.04, subdivision 2, of the Act, and
Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, notice of such
hearing (the "Public Notice"), was published in the Sun Current, the official newspaper
of the City and a newspaper circulating generally in the City, on April 24, 2008, a date at
least fourteen (14) days before a meeting of the City Council of the City on May 13,
2008; and
WHEREAS, the Public Notice provided a general, functional description of the
Project, as well as the maximum aggregate face amount of the obligations to be issued
for the purposes referenced above, the identity of the owner of the Project, and the
location of the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA THAT:
Section 1. Approval of Issuance of Note by Minneapolis.
• 1.01. The City hereby approves and authorizes the issuance by Minneapolis of
one or more series of Educational Facilities Revenue Notes (Academy of Holy Angels
Project), Series 2008 (the "Notes"), in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$1,500,000, to finance the Project.
0513AHA
ID -~'-
1.02 The Notes are to be issued pursuant to .authority granted by the Act. The
Notes will constitute revenue obligations secured solely by the Project, revenues
derived from the operation of the Project, and other security provided by the Borrower.
The Notes will not constitute a general or moral obligation of Minneapolis or the City, or
be secured by any taxing power of Minneapolis or the City.
1.03. The City has determined that it is desirable, feasible, and consistent with
the objectives and purposes of the Act, and it is in the best interests of the City, to
approve the issuance of the Notes by Minneapolis to provide: (i) financing for the
acquisition and installation of the Project; and ii) financing for the payment of the costs
of issuance and other related costs with respect to the Notes.
Section 2. Cooperation Agreement. A Cooperation Agreement, to be dated on or
after May 1, 2008, between Minneapolis and the City (the "Cooperation Agreement") is
hereby approved, in substantially the form on file with the City. The Mayor and City
Manager of the City are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Cooperation
Agreement, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions
as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor and City Manager,
in their discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor and City
Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination.
Section 3. Documents Furnished to Bond Counsel. The Mayor, City Manager,
and other officers o the ity are authorized an irected to furnish to Kennedy &
Graven, Chartered, as bond counsel ("Bond Counsel"), certified copies of all
proceedings and records of the City relating to such affidavits, certificates, and other
documents as may be required by Bond Counsel to show the facts relating to the
le ality of the Cooperation A reement and related documents, as such facts appear
from the books and records i gthe custody and control of such officers or as otherwise
known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates, affidavits, and other
documents, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the
City as to the truth of all statements contained therein.
Section 4. Costs. The execution and delivery of the Cooperation Agreement by
the City is conditionec~on the reimbursement by the Borrower to the City of costs paid or
incurred by the City in connection with this resolution or an agreement by the Borrower
to pay the costs paid or incurred by the City in connection with this resolution.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from
and after its passage t is 13th ay of May, 2008.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
e ie oette , ayor
ATTEST:
ancy i s, ity er
0513AHA
~~ ~~~
First Draft
Monday, May O5, 2008
COOPERATION AGREEMENT
This Cooperation Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2008 (the "Cooperation Agreement"), is made
and entered into by and between the City of Richfield ("Richfield" or the "Host City"), and the City of
Minneapolis, Minnesota ("Minneapolis" or the "Issuer City").
RECITALS
The Host City and the Issuer City are authorized by the applicable provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.152-469-165, as amended (the "Act"), to issue revenue obligations to finance, in
whole or in part, the cost of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, betterment, or
extension of any properties, real or personal, used or useful in connection with a revenue producing
enterprise, and of any related public improvements. Academy of Holy Angels, a Minnesota nonprofit
corporation (the "Borrower"), has requested that the Issuer City issue revenue obligations, designated as
the Educational Facilities Revenue Notes (Academy of Holy Angels Project), Series 2008 (the "Notes"),
in one or more series, in the original aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1,500,000, under the Act
• to finance the following costs associated with amulti-purpose athletic facility to be owned and operated
by the Borrower: (i) acquisition and installation of (a) a forced-air inflation blower/heating system;
(b) approximately 80,000 square feet of monofilament artificial turf; and (c) air-supported seasonal fabric
dome (collectively, the "Project"); and (ii) the costs of issuing the Notes.
Pursuant to Section 469.155, subdivision 9, of the Act, two or more municipalities may enter into
an agreement whereby one municipality issues its revenue obligations under the Act in behalf of one or
more other municipalities pursuant to revenue agreements with the same or different contracting parties.
In addition, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.656, subdivision 2, as amended, a municipality
may issue obligations to finance the acquisition or improvement of property constituting a single project
located outside of the corporate boundaries of such municipality if, the governing body of the
municipality in which the project is located consents, by resolution, to issuance of the obligations.
The Host City and the Issuer City propose to enter into this Cooperation Agreement pursuant to
which the Host City will consent to the issuance of the Notes and the financing of the Project by the
Issuer City and the Issuer City will agree to issue the Notes to finance the Project.
The Notes shall not constitute a general or moral obligation of, or a pledge of the full faith and
credit or taxing powers of, the Host City or the Issuer City, but shall be payable solely from the revenues
pledged and assigned thereto by the Borrower pursuant to one or more agreements between the Issuer
City and the Borrower.
Execution and delivery of this Cooperation Agreement have been authorized by the governing
body of the Issuer City by resolution adopted on May 16, 2008, and by resolution of the governing body
• of the Host City, by resolution adopted on May 13, 2008.
Ic-~
NOW, THEREFORE, the Host City and the Issuer City hereby agree as follows:
1. The Issuer City shall issue the Notes in an original aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $1,500,000. The Notes are to be issued under the terms of Resolution No. of the
City Council of the Issuer City (the "Resolution") adopted on May 16, 2008. Proceeds of the Notes will
be used to finance the Project and the payment of a portion of the costs of issuance of the Notes.
2. The Host City and the Issuer City have each conducted a public hearing with respect to
the Project.
3. The Host City and the Issuer City have each adopted a resolution approving this
Cooperation Agreement and authorizing its execution and delivery.
4. The Host City hereby consents to and approves: (a) the issuance of the Notes by the
Issuer City; and (b) the financing of the Project by the Issuer City with the proceeds of the Notes.
5. The Issuer City agrees that it will not designate the Notes as "qualified tax-exempt
obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
6. Except to the extent specifically provided herein, the Host City and the Issuer City shall
not incur any obligations or liabilities to each other as a result of the issuance of the Notes. The Notes
shall be special, limited obligations of the. Issuer City payable solely from proceeds, revenues, and other
amounts specifically pledged to the payment of the Notes. The Notes and the interest thereon shall not
• constitute or give rise to a pecuniary liability, general or moral obligation, or a pledge of the full faith and
credit or taxing powers of the Host City or the Issuer City. The Notes and the interest thereon shall not
constitute indebtedness of any of the Host City or the Issuer City within the meaning of any
constitutional or statutory limitations.
7. All costs incurred by the Host City and the Issuer City in the authorization, execution,
delivery, and performance of this Cooperation Agreement and all related transactions shall be paid by the
Borrower.
This Cooperation Agreement may not be terminated by any party so long as the Notes
are outstanding.
9. This Agreement may be amended by the Host City and the Issuer City at any time. No
amendment may impair the rights of the Borrower or the holder(s) of the Notes.
10. This Cooperation Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which
shall be regarded as an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same agreement.
[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]
•
2
~~ 'J
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, duly authorized officers of the Host City have executed this
Cooperation Agreement as of May , 2008.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
By:
By:
L~
•
Mayor
City Manager
S-1
1~-(~
Execution page of the Issuer City to the Cooperation Agreement, dated as of May , 2008.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
By:
City Finance Officer
•
NR185-128 (JU)
332293v.1
S-2
•
~- STAFF REPORT
PIIBLIC HEARINGS
11
120
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2008
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
INTERIM DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING &
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing regarding preliminary and final plat approval for 1901 66th Street East (new City
Maintenance Facilit
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a
resolution rantin final a royal of a lat for 1901 66th Street East.
II. BACKGROUND
The attached plat consolidates a number of parcels of land into a single legal parcel
on which the new City Maintenance Facility is located. The plat has been reviewed
by staff, the City Attorney, and submitted to both Hennepin County and the
Minnesota Department of Transportation for review. No comments were received
and the review period has now expired. (Hennepin County has advised the City
that this land is not within their jurisdiction.)
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• All plats of land must be approved by the City Council.
• Preliminary and final plats are typically processed and acted upon by
the Council simultaneously.
051308 - 1901 66th St E Plat (City Garage)
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
• The applicant must submit two sets of mylar versions of the plat to the
• City for signature by the Mayor and City Manager.
• Plats must be recorded within 30 days of Council approval.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The plat will be reviewed by the Hennepin County Surveyor.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
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. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Plat
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF A PLAT FOR
1901 66TH STREET EAST (RICHFIELD MAINTENANCE FACILITY)
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, ("Applicant") has requested final approval to
combine several tracts of land located generally south of 66th Street and east of Trunk
Highway 77 (TH 77) and north and east of Longfellow Avenue in the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as RICHFIELD
MAINTENANCE FACILITY; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the proposed final plat of RICHFIELD
MAINTENANCE FACILITY on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at which all interested persons
were given the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary plat for the RICHFIELD MAINTENANCE FACILITY was
approved by the City Council after a public hearing was held on May 13, 2008.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
as follows:
1. The proposed plat of RICHFIELD MAINTENANCE FACILITY satisfies the
requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances.
2. Final approval is granted to the Applicants for the plat RICHFIELD
MAINTENANCE FACILITY.
3. The Applicant must file the final plat with the Hennepin County Recorder or
• Registrar of Titles, within 30 days of the approval of this resolution.
4. Staff is authorized to make changes as required by the Hennepin County
Surveyor's Office.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May,
2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
051308 - 1901 66th St E Plat (City Garage)
•
•
•
v
1
a
v
`c
a
U
U I~ ~e:R 1 _' - _
as ~ ~~ ~o~: ~~ 5 e
W a~ - ~ ~ ~=aB ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I
U ~: 5 'U~~ sae°~ I e j
' i I6 s~ ~ ° 6 _ F °~b
9E s`r a ~,°s ° 5S' ~ S
f¢- 1/~ € s, E ~o Ffr~•b$ Ez° 3i~ ~ Dry y.
fi; .; ~ ssa I I ~ fi"••'s I ~ ~o-~ i€ I ~ i e R s l ~~
5• ~ Ie § °~ rckV~ e£ ~ 2$ ~ I~ gg9 ~:: s _ I I ~ ~ ~ 5_ c
oy§ ~ ~ba IaE E'€•$e F~ ~g~~E a3 a _ ~ ~. i I a ° ~ a `~
;°°.; ;v LS ~ E aG 65.; J _EJ °~ b a-O=a~ a`' j s° Z c i z ..
x°6o sh ~~E ~ zs `_~BSd ~~i N~ b za ~ 5~ I `E 3 a ~ d I ~ du Y a
U - ~~ ~ ~~ _m a - e
_ ~ 5 ~ . ~' _"a , . `zap _ - .~ °" ° .:.. 5 _ e 'e _'e , . 6 v v n o ° .°.
.Y '=~'c•. _ ; g or°Si ~5,.,; s`;~-SO% _ '°:$ESb Sn €e.s'a:~Sa _•$a°a 8 °€n s '~' S
S~ Cp i$~fr a - - 5--a F'_E5 n.. .o: ;so°a'SE6 ~:". `.8a° a6Y b ep6k9
5`^ ~~-b=°F~OnaS°-= gJ~,~-°~o$ 55-~_876~'io o~P"$bss ~iE4 YS o_'°^;~. ~~<„~ "as. ~fr ~sO sa_€g=.a ~n
ad-`~geg;5:°:fr~'s .s°s- wb~°.~~ .. .: eESr~m_r S55 •$-:.4 •`; t° "a so .°.s=:
a° iN-oS-°z -. 34;5°~S5~a3 <s S'Eb~h S:~~: kv~a =~Y- ..6 •?£~-~e8~a °39~TO.~C_e~ia~E` sa°T~ °5'
§r ss$ _ ~S-fr98;9$E-°:e S. y me-~E~ -s.5- -n=_, --°y;:• - :'s'SSo ° °E; ^__ ' ~;s'§°-°n`E
85 S$~~a€S=g6 ___ 2Fo6~~en z$ s6°e.°~b~°s` -ao-~~.: pas'E °.-~6e 6S icE _ss€s "•;_ ~e e.,y ~.-,~5ry
° o5°E-Ze s6bo o i q,°° E5i °.c bEm _i B~L^ Yc .e._ocwe3 °E ° .'9,fr~- :F.
di jo w°iEeF 4 •S'5 Ef b•i ~'.w-~o ai~° u..v$:S~v° CFi ,e 5°'°' Ea-' -8 ei o:
~_ mb : b= 5$s58eso°$z ~53: C' • -EC 5 °°gy~~n's m=o °°E° °~-° F' •b3oi ~5 °s fr~'65.E-i
:ae ,~ ~ Wes ~ _s •.s n: :a sa3^a<<w6-'a:- Sab°as ab
y> W m='rfiL s-S 5s-"~a°2°a• &~~i5s b. bn wi ~: b"'ai .. saE: 35°' _„ w -fi __ -
5c_£>re $ fio ° °°~_- om_ b ,oY°oe -c -°a35s: F" m~°.s-o e~^,L&°ay °~--;
au '=5, °'°°$6=6`-"frS F-e" °~-<^=n_m6 ..~, .iae~. ~€o°"s`Fa Dory°5 .. -J :sb~ .°
° a-m .$sy =<z ~35: gbs -5 oNe'sE £SE°s .S ccfie =o?^-: y yfr: i nf~fi _ °iq oa
$ :';S~fr ?b.F e=: 5 ° ~ 5• Nb55°O• ii-'° : b: en ov-~~..v^S a°6- -.~ °-mb°°i-°_oo: - Fafr~`q 6m6b
v5 -=33 " ~'-v$E6NC19n~iv •b°e e~ ° T~caE3r " 4ao• . ~: ofr£ ~ ° -F - :Y„v•-YE
- £ s Fp .~F; _s%6a si` 3fi5 _~ ~§:5°> Ss~'85fi °^ °STe tr•6<6 '; °.
5e a:.t r°s °t56 °~%$°•' s°~- Sa `o L°s ESE £°_s :5- :i -Sove-e~S ~^°-''~° `eabb~C - `n"` '^LSOe
-- Fh°._Fs E~~&aP ew ;s SH i_Q as ofi~aR_`~a~ ib=aafi -°af.=2£b8ss iW_6 fi.frb5, 0=:6 ~'= a; Ei~~:••fi:
_• bd S'i' -'~S~~L'-r`n-"°- 9S~°" r~ .:,e_~5 :'c'> '-`~On 3=,°~°e 5c_s~e-m E. eE=F~Efi. cs~E i= ~P$"9=o
'i _ ^ - z -• d~-BSc- ~ ° - d4 a'E:
a" ° ~£8 _5~ : :Sa 6~2,e, am: e:s as8i ~a~E. fi~ 5° F~fr:'" _ ~F8 b °~'E£b
;S° -- s°- - _° ~ °$8opS8a -Sox ~~•-_ _ -awt: _n:°z>b_b Es:' _ofr<
`Y - __.N ~o aE=° .So.ioT~; -_aa~~~e°°m= ~-o ~ ° - -'s== sn::_-_ _ _ -- _
~°- ga ° a ?=3~ _a .- ~ `:5 FFe=fi'°•`°€o° _.~ °'"2°t ;.°sa _ _ :~
~9 ~.5_, $,<, efiN~s% adE :8 SbaF eN_.E!oE _~o _Sbyfibes~fi.:r~_ :SE~„~~ob_eng$= 5R fi~° °a. o.s
Eb 5. _e-O-S bv~- :cs '-' _- " °bm5'a sfi ~1S °E.°_ b•"= °SNO r m °m i ~: ` _
Ce' _ys<°~,•`.abeeQ°__°sa ?3v Faw"mN :.° °E __- _ -:a°fi°~°_ os`g°5• - mb'`To°n E:.°• 5.: -°F$~ of
~ 65 ¢¢fi °_ <° _ a _~fi.~~fi=' _ fi~."^Q6-so Si- -° =5° F` c. o~
-6 EsF ,w.Y° `°'N 6' - •-_ °i° b- - x- °e ~ °n „a'O- n,4. " -- 0 `
v~ ~ FsY°'~b6s'"__ mi_s°:• ,~-'- 's _ -'~`-~- ean,s nb E°$••fi F°°`w?°iei =;~r6 `• -ab-_=ofrES -~ afr<:sr-ar aS
~o an o.45'Yi'o Ec^}£o LOy°::'o-wE6 fiiafi E=_ :Y'a wa=_o6 n_ -°; ?bi<c~55 ~SP E_. br$a~c°- -- aS ise"°'iEiS
~_ efrs„ _ - mfi=Bv ~fiF; dsW=. _ " a~`~, 6E ,~o a - ~~a-°6's~° _ ~°=a <E'`
° - ~ = gfi°: _ is ~: - i3 °r :m ~ =T~2' s° °a'fi° - '°
~o ~~:~°EH-fi°__- esS.~edg~y °fiw3aa„^:5~ rbs^=_,s °-' _=-__mfi°~ _ - _ ,_ - - _.m,6o°;~; _
~° i-. °p= '_'.'$^SY--a E6°- s °'a~fr:^.E-° '_ wE<<<°2s°-s ~`"'s<__ °fi~Lm frs°°N_- `ss s5F°s aF 3_
- -o - sfi~ "a w - __ :6_o ac.on° fib;z~n=. `ems`°46r
_ __ Born -33`:x5 c°_- coo io = ay :u°h°v~e3 -__ :g:;w -= sm-:v- _ .°~b cc-°E -w _ oE__-n•
°b _
_ _- _ oy,
_ - "bm
°s` -
- "06 - .~: a" -
3:' '--_ c9= os F_ __~4ao:s~ 5 mEOE53 °~RsB: ~°~So~_`°S Bfi° - n6c- °F~="Sa°_-3 ~- - ns$~-.m~.o
xs.. u:E z°~-ev35aEv-a$2fio°°-°SZ nar 8 .°-u°on°ev.uim ~n°°° < u°`z°rinew-w~55$v~°n5~n o~x uu°SCS €sd~°Eosuvn ofr~fr en '2 Ei ~vmc5 o~i_fr
H3S
~~
l
/i
SEH
•
•
•
r-a. sw ~«. or sx. zs, r. xe N., a z1 w.
~ Ns W. Ilns of 1Na NW Y or U1 SW . of Ssr, 25-~
/ \\
~ u 5 00.Y221" 1]6212 \
I ~
T i / \\ ._-
__-
/ \ .--_ _.. _.. _.. -.. _. _50'QY1YE X9.81_--_ 1 u
I T _ ._ ._. _ _ _
I I u ~ .._ ~.~~ :: \~_ I I D
I - -.
I ~ ~~ r. \
i ~ ) \
I
T I I
I I m ~
I j ~ 4 J6 ]3
I N m i
I ~ =
I u ~ $
I
II 1 ~ U
II I Z
II I
zl --r-----zJJ.a6 ----~----- - '
i~I I z :.: ~ ,-~.:
I I
NCI ~ 1 I~
,wl - ~-+- y'I
'ul (( -~'
II ~
I G1 u .
I '-
I
I `n ~:' - ~
~ oos'Ir ~ .. i ~ ~ .-.
6sae.aa ~ \
1 -1 .. .. ° ~ 33~n
I I .'`' I J V o
11 / I ..
I % ~ v^
5 33e'gy
~ ;~; ~Bb -- 16161 -~ ~-x15.16 M 216' R ~ ~~ $ ~
\ . I M I 3e Se]a.se - ~
^>
o \^\ ~ ~ ~~ ` - ~ ` 1 -- -..e B13'O)•6. .100.60-__ _~ m~ (.7 I = n -..
~ s \ 4 111 "`
. C Q 0. I ~ ~ T!
`h N
\\~ 7j~ •~ Q}/.icy 1 ~ ~ 7 ~ i
\ .vl (AZ 16098517 ) I , I U ~ ~
n~ 1 v _ '--N 09VSrE 5]1.26_-_ -- u ~~ 2
' N y11 ~~--~~ ~. ~\~ t~Q 6A21 in
~`.~:.r ~6' 4 M 13'57 pNp' / I \ r
y 7 u ~ ~ ~ ~ '^ \ ~~'Af\y ~ - G6RG . N 4935~31'W ~ ~s i _D
~~$"s,a ~~: ~--__ -- -- (Ax 15936.6.' -
"S?a --N a9ra'w 5,1.66--- _ 1 `
Imo{ ~,~ '
yy
~' id .?oS 1 Lw W
~ 3 $ g~q ~ ~ f \\~~~, i t\ i ~ ,~.a I s
"£ ~-~ _ i I
4', ~
~ - _ ~~` , n
~ns _ ' 1oss1 _~'it~~__-va ~`l-_ _ zxioe _ `r w
fifi _T____
o • gyS 1 I --lr~'
WR A~ 4q» t ° 1 _
iH N M? ~~~~' ~ I
'~_ is I ~ ~)
m 6'. ~ I ]] I 13 y
c~ 3 i
~Q m
rha 8
7
w~ ~ I
`~ 3 ~ I - I 5. 7 --
w~ S ~ ~ I :. 1!_ .
I
~ ~ $ I i n.
~ ~ I
T i ~
~ ~ I
3 I
I
wv ~K IStx l!T m I
- - - I
1
K ~~ ~~-~~ may' I ~ ~ a
I I /
I~ I! I ~i I ~S ( 1 I ~ i
I I I I I
'-y.-__.i_-_}-__--__~ Q I 636.a
6 I I I ~ I I
I I I
SF/ i tiF i $ ~' ~ ~ i ~
I 'v I / I I
' I i v I ~
I I I
~-------`-------~ 1
I
tM E. INe of N. NW Y of IA. SW !: nl Sne. 25.7
_.._ .___ ._ _.._ ._. _ _. _____.._.._ ._.._ ._.._. _. 1
I _ .... _ .. _ .. _ .. _ .. ~ . ~L .. ~1 ~30 ~.~M1_
AGENDA SECTION: PROP. ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM # 12
REPORT # 121
J
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2008
•
PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO
REPORT PREPARED BY: THE CITY MANAGER
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR r}/
REVIEW: ~V
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: ~ /
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of first reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the planning, design and
construction of a new Police/Fire/City Hall Facility and scheduling of a public hearing and
second readin for June 10, 2008.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the first reading of the transitory ordinance
authorizing the planning, design and construction of a new
Police/Fire/City Hall Facility and schedule a public hearing and
second reading for June 10, 2008.
II. BACKGROUND
In 2004, the City Council appointed a citizen taskforce (CHAT I) to research the
feasibility of remodeling the existing facility versus building a new one. After a
through analysis and research, the CHAT I group determined that building a new
facility was the best option. Lack of space, technology challenges, significant
maintenance costs, and failure to meet ADA regulations were a few of the reasons
the group cited for recommending a new facility.
In August 2005, the City Council appointed a second citizen taskforce (CHAT II).
CHAT II was charged with determining site location, developing preliminary site
plans, and analyzing feasibility.
0513new city hall project
CHAT II explored numerous sites and determined that the site of the current
Police/Fire/City Hall facility at 6700 Portland Avenue was the optimum site upon
which to build the new facility.
Through a request for proposal process, Wold Architects was hired to work with
CHAT II to analyze space needs, develop preliminary site plans and building.
design, and assist with cost estimates.
During the fall of 2008, preliminary design and cost estimates were completed and
two open houses were held in December. The feedback received at the open
houses was shared with the Council during a workession on December 11, 2007.
During its annual goal-setting session in January 2008, the City Council discussed
the new Police/Fire/City Hall project and incorporated it as one of the City's 2008
capital projects.
Two additional public open houses were held on May 1 and 3, 2008 to provide
more opportunity for public feedback on the project.
Wold Architects has provided all of the services set forth under its contract with the
City and the City has fully expended its not to exceed limit of $75,000. In order for
the proposed project to proceed, and for any additional money to be spent towards
it, it is necessary for the City Council to take formal action.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
•
A. hOLICY
• Pursuant to Section 8.04 of the City Charter, the project will require
approval of a transitory ordinance because the estimated project cost
exceeds $500,000.
• With City Council approval, a public hearing and second reading of a
transitory ordinance authorizing the planning, design and construction
of a new Police/Fire/City Hall Facility would be scheduled for June 10,
2008.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The existing facility is old, outdated and inadequate to accommodate
City staff and services. Issues with the current facility include lack of
space (community meeting space, storage space and lobby waiting
area), inadequate security, rusted pipes with asbestos, mold
concerns, outdated electrical equipment, and failure to meet ADA
compliance regulations.
• According to an April 2003 report prepared by Tushie Montgomery
Architects, the cost to remodel the current facility versus building new
was determined to be greater. The risk of unanticipated costs is
higher for remodeling because the extent of deterioration can be
difficult to accurately assess prior to renovation.
• The current state of the construction business and interest rates
indicates that it is more favorable to build now than to delay. The
longer the construction of the new facility is delayed, the more it will
cost.
• The current state of City Hall indicates that there is not a no-cost
option. A decision to remain in the current facility will require the
expenditure of significant funds to correct current, ongoing problems
as well as to plan for other anticipated needs/problems.
C. FINANCIAL
• Estimated total project cost of the new facility, at 87,507 square feet,
is $21,650,000.
• Financing for the new facility is expected to come from the issuance of
General Obligation Capital Improvement bonds or Voted General
Obligation bonds. The term of both types of bonds would be 20 years.
• Estimated taxpayer impacts would vary depending on the taxable
market value of properties. For example, it is estimated taxes would
increase for a home valued at $250,000 by $136.04/year.
D. LEGAL
• Pursuant to Section 8.04 of the City Charter, the project will require
approval of a transitory ordinance because the estimated project cost
exceeds $500,000.
• Pursuant to Section 8.05 of the City Charter, notice of the public
hearing will be published twice in the Sun Current fourteen days prior
to the hearing. Publication dates will be May 29, 2008 and June 5,
• 2008.
• The City Attorney has reviewed the procedure for this capital
improvement and finds that it complies with the City Charter.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• Any new facility will incorporate sustainability features as determined
through acost/benefit analysis.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• Council may choose to take no action at this time or defer action to a later
date. Any deferment will impact the scheduling of future Council actions
required under the City Charter and, ultimately, the construction of the
project.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed transitory ordinance.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• City Hall Task Force Members (CHAT II)
• Wold Architect representatives
P~1
U
BILL NO. ~ c~ "~
Transitory Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A POLICE/FIRE/CITY
HALL PURSUANT TO RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER SECTION
8.04
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background; findings.
1.01. Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter requires that any capital improvement on
City-owned property that has an estimated cost exceeding $500,000.00 or expenditures for
design or engineering costs exceeding $75,000.00 must be approved by ordinance after a
public hearing.
1.02. It is proposed that the City Council approve a capital improvement project for the
improvement of property at the southwest corner of the intersection of 67th Street and
Portland Avenue, the current site of the existing Police/Fire/City Hall.
1.03. The capital improvement project consists of the design, engineering and construction
of a new Police/Fire/City Hall Facility and related improvements, including, but not limited to
parking and utilities connections (the "City Hall Project).
1.04. The estimated construction cost of the capital improvement, excluding preliminary
design costs, is in excess of $500,000. The preliminary estimates for total construction cost
is $21,650,000.00.
1.05. A public hearing was held on June 10, 2008 after due notice as required by Section
8.05 of the Richfield City Charter.
1.06. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its
inhabitants that the City Hall Project be approved.
Sec. 2. Approval; effective date.
2.01. The City Hall Project is approved, and planning, design and construction of the City
Hall Project may proceed according to the procedures required by law.
2.02. The purpose of this Ordinance is to comply with the requirements of Section 8.04 of the
Richfield City Charter. This Ordinance shall not be construed to require that the City proceed
with the City Hall Project; nor does it vest any rights in the City Hall Project to any individual
or entity. This Ordinance shall not be construed to pre-approve any contracts for the design
or construction of the City Hall Project, and the City Council specifically reserves to itself the
authority to approve any such contracts. The City Council reserves the right to abandon the
City Hall Project or to modify elements of the City Hall Project, if the Council deems
abandonment or modification to be in the public interest.
2.03. This ordinance is effective 30 days following its publication.
Adopted by the City of Richfield this 10th day of June, 2008.
•
ATTEST:
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
l~
~~' STAFF REPORT
PROP. ORDINANCES
13
122
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2008
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
INTERIM DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~}
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Conduct a first reading of an ordinance amendment that would require all new single-family
homes constructed in the City to include aone-car garage and all new homes exceeding 1,200
s uare feet to include atwo-car ara e.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Conduct a first reading of amendments to Richfield City
Code Subsections 514.14, Subd. 3; 518.15 Subd. 3; and 522.15 Subd.
4 to require construction of a one-car garage for all new single-family
homes and atwo-car garage for all new single-family homes over
1,200 square feet and schedule a second reading for May 27, 2008.
•
II. BACKGROUND
The City Code currently requires that new single-family dwellings either include
garage space for two vehicles or designate space on the lot for future construction
of such garage space without requirement of variances. The proposed ordinance
change will remove the option of designating space for future construction of the
garage. All new homes will be required to include at least aone-car garage and
designate space on the lot for future construction of an additional stall. New homes
that will exceed 1,200 square feet will be required to construct atwo-car garage. To
be excused from these requirements, an applicant would need to apply for a
variance and meet the specified variance criteria (undue hardship, unique
circumstances, will not alter the neighborhood character, minimum variance to
alleviate the hardship).
051308 - 1st Reading require garages
MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING &
• III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The current policy does not require that a garage be constructed, just
that space be available for its construction in the future if the property
owner decides to add a garage.
• The proposed policy will require the construction of a one-car garage
for all new homes. Space for the construction of an additional stall
must be reserved.
• The proposed policy will require the construction of a two-car garage
for all new single-family homes exceeding 1,200 square feet.
• Two-family and cluster home developments currently require the
provision of two spaces per dwelling, one of which is enclosed within a
garage. This requirement will not change.
• For the purposes of this ordinance only, each vehicle stall is required
to be not less than 10 feet in width by 20 feet in depth. This
requirement will not change.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• This issue is being addressed at the request of the Council.
• Homes without a garage are considered sub-standard by some.
• Square footages for the most recent new homes constructed in the
City are as follows:
0 1,224 sf
0 1,642 sf*
0 1,127 sf*
0 1, 592 sf*
0 1,663 sf*
*Indicates homes constructed under the City's New Home Program.
• The requirement of two-car garages for homes over 1,200 square feet
could impact the ability of developers to build affordable housing.
Developers may ask the City for additional subsidies to off-set
additional costs.
C. FINANCIAL
• Construction costs will increase for new home builders who were not
planning to provide the garage space that will now be required.
• In the case of construction of new affordable single-family housing, the
requirement to construct a garage may impact whether the
construction is feasible. Housing programs such as the New Home
Program may be adversely impacted by this additional requirement.
• Affordable home developers may ask the City to provide additional
funds to help off-set additional construction costs.
D. LEGAL
• A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on April
28, 2008. No members of the public spoke on this issue.
• The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of this item
(8-1, Schuller dissenting).
• If adopted by the Council after a second reading, the proposed
changes will take effect 30 days after the approved Council resolution
is posted in the Sun Current newspaper.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• The requirement of garages, specifically two-car garages, will cut
down on green space and increase impervious surface and surface
water run-off.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Approve a first reading of an ordinance requiring the construction of a one-
cargarage and the reservation of space for a second stall (without the need
for variances) for all new single-family homes.
• Deny a first reading of the attached ordinance.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
•
«~-(
BILL NO.
!~
L~
AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO ZONING; AMENDING SUBSECTION 514.15,
SUBDIVISION 3; SUBSECTION 518.15, SUBDIVISION 3;
AND SUBSECTION 522.15, SUBDIVISION 4 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE TO
REQUIRE CONSTUCTION OF A ONE-CAR GARAGE FOR ALL NEW SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES AND ATWO-CAR GARAGE FOR ALL NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES OVER
1,200 SQUARE FEET
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Subsection 514.15, Subdivision 3 and Subsection 518.15, Subdivision 3 of
the Richfield City Code are amended to read as follows:
Subd. 3. Garage planning. Building plans submitted after ,
[the effective date of this ordinance] for new single-family
dwellings 1,200 square feet or less shall include garage space for not less
than-twe one vehicles-er and shall designate area{} on the lot for future
construction of -garage space for a second vehicle that ~#ees will not
require any variances. Building plan submitted after fthe
effective date of this ordinancel for new single-family dwellings over 1,200
square feet shall include garage space not less than two vehicles. For the
purposes of this subdivision only, each vehicle shall require a garage space
of not less than 10 feet in width by 20 feet in depth.
•
Section 2 Subsection 522.15, Subdivision 4 of the Richfield City Code is amended to
read as follows:
Subd. 4. Garage planning. Building plans submitted after ,
[the effective date of this ordinance] for new single-family
dwellings 1,200 square feet or less shall include garage space for not less
than~we one vehicles; e~ and shall designate areafs} on the lot for future
construction of s~#garage space for a second vehicle that demos will not
require any variances. Building plan submitted after (the
effective date of this ordinancel for new single-family dwellings aver 1.200
square feet shall include garage space not less than two vehicles. For the
purposes of this subdivision only, each vehicle shall require a garage space
of not less than 10 feet in width by 20 feet in depth.
Section 3 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield
City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
l~
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 13, 2008
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
.J
RESOLDTION
14
123
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BARRY FRITZ, ACTING PUBLIC
SAFETY DIRECTOR
N~n~r, TirtE
•
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution denying a request for new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt
li uor licenses, with O tional 2 a.m. closin for Aribel's, 1120 East 66th Street, Richfield.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve the resolution denying the issuance of new on
sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m.
closing for Aribel's, 1120 East 66th Street, Richfield.
II. BACKGROUND
On April 22, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Council meeting, the City reviewed the
request for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Aribel's Restaurant,
1120 East 66th Street.
City staff performed background investigations and researched the property records
for Aribel's, and analyzed this information taking into account the requirements of
both City Code and Minnesota Statutes.
In light of all of the investigations, the disclosures made on the liquor license
applications, the applicant's history of dealings with the City, the applicant's
statutory violations and the history of complaints and police calls to the property, the
City Council determined that it is in the best interest of the City that the on-sale wine
and 3.2 percent malt liquor license applications received for Aribel's Restaurant be
denied.
0513 PH Denial of Aribel's Liquor Licenses Request
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Under Minnesota Statute § 340A.413, subd. 2(b), no license may be
issued if the results of the license investigation show, to the
satisfaction of the governing body, that issuance would not be in the
public interest. Applicant's past violations of state law, and the
increased City resources necessary to monitor the property
demonstrate that issuance of a liquor license to Aribel's is not in the
public interest.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The facts and circumstances show Aribel's is not financially stable:
• In response to past financial difficulty (nonpayment of liquor taxes),
the applicant has twice violated state liquor law requirements.
• The facts and circumstances show Aribel's does not have a viable
business as a dine-in restaurant open to the general public.
• The applicant has not demonstrated the ability, management skills,
financial stability and judgment necessary to effectively manage the
sale of alcohol to the public.
C. FINANCIAL
• The establishment is currently in foreclosure with the redemption
expiration date being July 17, 2008.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney has determined that the City Council has an
adequate basis to deny the license.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• None
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
•
/~{-~
. RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DENYING ON-SALE WINE LICENSE AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR
LICENSE FOR ARIBEL'S, 1120 EAST 66TH STREET
WHEREAS, a request has been made for an on-sale wine license and fora 3.2
percent malt liquor license for Aribel's restaurant, located at 1120 East 66th Street,
Richfield, Minnesota; and,
WHEREAS, City Code Chapter XII governs liquor licenses and applications, and
City Code Section 1202.03 adopts the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A by
reference; and,
WHEREAS, on-sale wine licenses and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses will not be
issued unless various criteria are satisfied as set forth in the Richfield City Code Chapter
XII and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Chapter XII, City staff has performed certain
background investigations and researched the property records for Aribel's, and analyzed
this information in light of the requirements of the City Code and Minnesota Statutes; and,
WHEREAS, in light of all of these investigations, the disclosures made on the liquor
. license applications, the applicant's history of dealings with the City, the applicant's
statutory violations and the history of complaints and police calls to the property, the City
Council determines that it is in the best interest of the City that the on-sale wine license
and 3.2 percent malt liquor license applications received for Aribel's restaurant be denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
on this 13th day of May, 2008 as follows:
The City Council makes the following findings of fact:
a. The property at 1120 East 66th Street (the "Property") is known as
Aribel's restaurant. The applicant, Ms. Chetranee J. Seepersaud (the
"Applicant") seeks an on-sale wine license and a 3.2 percent malt
liquor license for the Property.
Previous liquor license
b. The City previously issued an on-sale wine license and a 3.2 percent
malt liquor license to the Applicant in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Applicant
submitted a renewal application on October 10, 2007, seeking
licenses for the year 2008. The City Council considered that
application at its December 11, 2007 meeting. The City Council
authorized the licenses to be issued upon the condition that all taxes
in arrears be paid to the Department of Revenue in full on or before
December 31, 2007. The Applicant did not comply with that condition
for renewal, and the licenses expired by their own terms on
December 31, 2007.
0513 PH Denial of Aribel's Liquor Licenses Request
~ ~{ ~~
c. The applications now before the Council, submitted by Applicant and
signed on January 11, 2008, are for new on-sale wine and 3.2 malt
liquor licenses for Aribel's restaurant.
Financial Status - Mortgage Foreclosure
d. City Code § 1202.09, Subdivision 2(d) requires applicants disclose
the names and addresses of all persons who have a financial interest
in the business, buildings, premises, or fixtures, including mortgagors
and lien holders.
e. Applicant, in previous applications to the City, disclosed that the
Property is owned by Jaiprakash Munna. The Property is
encumbered by a mortgage in favor of Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC.
When examining County property records, City staff learned that the
mortgage was under foreclosure. The foreclosure sale occurred
January 17, 2008.
f. On the present application, Applicant did not disclose Mr. Munna's
ownership interest in the property nor the mortgage foreclosure
action. City staff learned of the ownership interest by reviewing prior
applications and reviewing County property records. When
questioned by City staff, Applicant supplied some information
regarding Jaiprakash Munna. Investigation found that Jaiprakash
Munna does not have a criminal history.
g. The mortgage redemption period for the Property is set to expire July
17, 2008. It is not known if Jaiprakash Munna will redeem the
Property.
h. At the public hearing, Applicant told the Council that she and her
husband "are in the process of buying the property and hope to close
before [the redemption period ends]." The Applicant did not provide
any further explanation as to how the Applicant would be able to
purchase the property. Taking into consideration the level of income
evidenced by the accountant's statement and the Applicant's past
difficulties in paying required taxes, the Council has serious doubts
about the Applicant's ability to purchase the property.
i. Aribel's does not appear to be financially stable. Applicant was
delinquent in paying food and beverage taxes in 2007.
L The accounting submitted by Applicant shows $57,822 in food sales
and $9,971 in liquor sales from October 2006 to September 2007,
totaling $67,793. After rent, applicable taxes, and all other overhead
are paid, Council has serious concerns that this is not a financially
stable business.
~--3
Restaurant Status
k. Applicant has applied for the requested liquor licenses as a
"restaurant." City Code § 1202.01, subd. 13 defines "restaurant" as
an establishment, other than a hotel, under the control of a single
proprietor or manager, where meals are regularly prepared on the
premises and served at tables to the general public, and having
appropriate facilities for serving no fewer than 40 guests at one time."
I. City Code § 1202.21, subd. 18, establishes a requirement that at least
50 percent of a licensed restaurant's total revenues from sale of liquor
and food must come from the sale of food.
m. The requirements that licensed restaurants seat at least 40 guests,
regularly serve meals to the general public, and have at least 50
percent of their sales from sale of food are all intended to ensure that
dining and not consumption of alcohol is the primary activity on the
premises.
n. All available evidence suggests that the Applicant's restaurant does
not generate sufficient dine-in customers to sustain the business as a
viable restaurant. At the public hearing, a neighboring property owner
stated she sees little activity at Aribel's during daytime hours, and "the
only time there seems to be activity is on the weekends and it is
always late at night." Council members and City staff have also
reported having observed few or no cars at the premises during
daytime hours. At the public hearing, Applicant admitted that "most of
our business is take-out during the day."
o. Although the Applicant stated that the restaurant serves meals in the
evenings and on weekends, the Applicant also has admitted that the
restaurant has been rented for private parties. Those parties appear
to be a source of the complaints regarding noise and late night
activity. When meals are regularly served to the general public, the
presence of the general public in the restaurant reinforces the public's
expectations about appropriate use and consumption of alcohol. That
element of control is lacking if the only diners are members of the
same group or party.
~ Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests that the Applicant's
business has consisted primarily of take-out food sales during the day
and private parties in the evening. The Applicant has not shown that
its business is primarily engaged in the regular preparation and
service of meals on the premises to the general public.
g The public interest is not served by issuing a license to a business
that only nominally operates as a dine-in restaurant open to the
general public.
i~-~
Statutory Violations
r. On October 15, 2007, City staff received notification from State
Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement that Aribel's bought liquor at retail
for the purpose of resale in violation of Minn. Stat. § 340A.415. State
Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement fined Aribel's $200 for this
violation.
s. On December 6, 2007, an agent of State Alcohol and Gambling
Enforcement visited Aribel's and noted that Aribel's was once again
selling alcohol purchased at retail. Aribel's was subsequently fined
$400 for this second violation.
t. The City was aware of the October 15, 2007 violation at the time that
the City Council considered the Applicant's renewal application on
December 11, 2007. However, the City Council was not aware of the
December 6, 2007 violation. Applicant did not disclose the
December 6, 2007 violation to the City Council on December 11, even
though the City Council questioned her about the October 15, 2007
violation and expressed concern about the Applicant's adherence to
state liquor law requirements.
u. Applicant never voluntarily disclosed the December 6, 2007 violation
to the City. City staff learned of the second violation by letter from
State Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement dated December 28, 2007.
v. Applicant did not disclose either the October 15, 2007 or December 6,
2007 violations in her license applications to the City dated January
10, 2008.
w. At the public hearing, Applicant stated she was told by state
investigators that she could allow customers to consume alcohol and
she could display alcohol, but she could not sell alcohol at Aribel's
during the period of tax delinquency. The Applicant indicated that she
had allowed a customer to bring in alcohol for consumption but did
not intend to sell it.
x. Under Minn. Stat. § 340A.512, the liquor licensee may prohibit a
person from bringing containers of alcoholic beverages into the
premises or from consuming from such a container on the premises,
without the licensee's permission. It appears that the Applicant is
claiming that the second cited violation was in error and that the
Applicant did not have alcohol for sale but had only granted
permission for display of a container brought from the outside. That
assertion raises two concerns. First, the Applicant's claim appears to
be an after-the-fact justification, because the Applicant did not contest
the second state citation, which was premised on the Applicant
having alcohol for sale in violation of state law. Second, even if the
Applicant's assertion was true, in the experience of the City Council,
viable liquor establishments that are licensed to sell alcohol do not
~ ~4 - S
allow on their premises the consumption and display of alcohol
purchased outside of their establishment. The City has in the past
suspended liquor licenses for restaurant licensees, and the City
Council is not aware that any of those licensees ever engaged in such
a practice during its period of suspension. The Applicant's resort to
such a practice, if that is what the Applicant was doing, suggests that
the business is not a viable restaurant with food sales alone.
y. The two violations of Minn. Stat. § 340A.415 are especially troubling
for the following reasons: (1) the violations were the result of
intentional and purposeful actions and not mere neglect or oversight;
and (2) the proximity in time between the two violations suggests not
only poor judgment and lack of adequate management, but a blatant
disregard for the law.
Criminal Complaints
z. Since the time Aribel's restaurant was issued an on-sale wine license
and a 3.2 percent malt liquor license in September, 2005, noise
complaints and calls for service have been steadily increasing. From
September 2005 through December 2005, there were five calls for
service. Three were noise-related and two were disturbances. In
2006, there were 12 calls for service. These calls included six noise
• complaints, one assault, one fight, two property damage claims, one
domestic assault and one intrusion alarm. From January 2007
through December 2007, there were 19 calls for service. These
included 10 noise complaints, two suspicious activity complaints, two
assaults, one intrusion alarm, one driving complaint, one harassing
communication complaint, one assist for another agency, and one
fight. The majority of calls for service appear to be noise complaints,
some of which resulted in citations being issued. So far in 2008,
there have been 11 calls for service.
aa. At the public hearing, two nearby property owners addressed the
Council with concerns of the high level of noise created by Aribel's. A
property owner stated that, "she is awakened by noise from Aribel's,
"incident reports are appalling," "does not seem like a good
atmosphere," and "it is a nuisance." Another neighbor stated there is
"noise, commotion, fighting in parking lot at 2:00-2:30 in the morning,"
"noise again after the police left," and this is "not a good thing for the
community."
bb. At the public hearing, Applicant stated she plans to end the noisy
private parties at Aribel's. Applicant has made similar promises to the
City regarding noise in the past. The Council has no reason to believe
that Applicant will take action necessary to mitigate or end the noise
created by her management of Aribel's.
cc. Since Aribel's 2007 liquor licenses expired at the end of 2007, the
only police calls to the property have been for owner/tenant-
~ ~- - ~
generated service calls. There have been no calls for noise violations.
The lack of calls during that period shows a direct causal link between
the sale of alcohol on the premises and the disturbances to the
neighborhood.
Administrative Burden /Public Interest
dd. If a liquor license is granted to this Applicant, the City will need to
expend additional resources monitoring any other Minn. Stat. §
340A.415 violations, the tax delinquency list and the foreclosure
action.
ee. Under Minnesota Statute § 340A.413, subd. 2(b), no license may be
issued if the results of the license investigation show, to the
satisfaction of the governing body, that issuance would not be in the
public interest. Applicant's past violations of state law, and the
increased City resources necessary to monitor the Property
demonstrate that issuance of a liquor license to Aribel's is not in the
public interest.
2. The facts and circumstances show Aribel's is not financially stable.
3. The facts and circumstances show Aribel's does not have a viable business
as a dine-in restaurant open to the general public.
• 4. The Applicant has not demonstrated the business management skills,
financial stability and judgment necessary for someone holding a liquor
license and selling alcohol to the public.
2008.
5. For all of these reasons, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of
the public to deny Applicant's on-sale wine and 3.2 malt liquor license
applications.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of May,
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy C. Gibbs, City Clerk
•
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM # 15
REPORT # 124
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
•
MAY 13, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
INTERIM DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
JOHN STARK, INTERIM COMMUNITY
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Accept the Richfield Corridor Housing Initiative Development Guidelines.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Accept the Richfield Corridor Housing Initiative
Development Guidelines.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield was selected to participate in the Corridor Housing Initiative
(CHI) process that was undertaken by Hennepin County. The purpose of CHI is to
work with residents and developers to create development strategies that meet
community desires while remaining financially feasible. In the case of Richfield's
involvement, three specific sites were studied as a part of the CHI process:
76th Street and Lyndale Avenue
77th Street and Pleasant Avenue
72nd Street and Penn Avenue
A total of eight community meetings were held in late 2007 and early 2008 with the
• goal of creating development strategies for these sites. A set of Development
Guidelines has been drafted for each of these sites based on the participation of
community members, design consultants and developers. These Development
Guidelines were presented to a joint Worksession of the Richfield City Council,
Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Planning Commission on February 19,
051308 -CHI
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
2008 (see attached minutes). At that meeting, there was discussion regarding the
guidelines and agreement that the guidelines accurately reflected the outcomes of
the community meetings.
In order to use the Development Guidelines as a tool for attracting and directing
development for the areas in question, staff is requesting that they be formally
accepted by the City Council.
The Richfield HRA adopted a motion to accept the Design Guidelines at their April
21 meeting. The Planning Commission adopted a similar motion at their April 28
meeting. Specifically, the Planning Commission recommendation that the City
Council accept the Design Guidelines with two modifications:
• Remove the phrase "and mixed use" from the Penn and 72nd Street goal to:
"Increase Housing and Mixed-Use Opportunities that Strengthens the Tax
Base."
• Remove guideline V, "Mixed retail, similar to 76th and Lyndale," from the
Penn and 72nd Street development guidelines.
The Planning Commission recommendation has been brought to the attention of
Gretchen Nicholls, the coordinator of the CHI process. Ms. Nicholls will be in
attendance to discuss the inclusion of these items in the draft Development
Guidelines.
• III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• In early 2007, Hennepin County contracted with a team of nonprofit
organizations to collaboratively undertake a public engagement
process termed Corridor Housing Initiatives.
• In August 2007, Richfield was chosen as one of the communities to
participate in the CHI process -specifically related to three potential
development sites.
• On September 11, 2007 a joint Worksession of the City Council, HRA
and Planning Commission was held to kick off the CHI process.
• Between October 2007 and January 2008, eight community meetings
were held to discuss the development possibilities and create
development guidelines for each of the potential redevelopment areas.
• On February 19, 2008 the draft Development Guidelines were
presented to a joint Worksession of the City Council, HRA and
Planning Commission
• On April 21 the HRA adopted a motion to accept the Development
Guidelines.
• On April 28 the Planning Commission adopted a motion
• recommending Acceptance of the Development Guidelines with two
modifications (as noted above).
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• In order use the Development Guidelines as a tool for attracting and
directing development for the areas in question, staff is requesting that
they be formally accepted by the HRA, City Council and Planning
Commission.
C. FINANCIAL
• The CHI process was funded by Hennepin County.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• The proposed Development Guidelines contain recommendations for
the inclusion of environmentally sound planning, design and building
principles in each of the three potential development areas.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Richfield Corridor Housing Initiative Development Guidelines.
• Minutes from the February 19, 2008 combined Worksession of the City
Council, HRA and Planning Commission.
• Letter from Gretchen Nicholls
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Gretchen Nicholls, Twin Cities LISC
•
f ~-!
Richfield Corridor Housing Initiative:
Development Guidelines
February 12, 2008
Sites:
76th Street and Lyndale Avenue South
77th Streetand PleasantAvenue South
72nd Street and Penn Avenue South
is-~-
• Richfield 76th & Lyndale Development Guidelines
The City of Richfield, Minnesota is located just south
of Minneapolis, north of the Mall of America, and
just east of the Minneapolis - St. Paul International
Airport. Our community is home to approximately
34,500 residents, 872 businesses, including the Best
Buy corporate headquarters, and the Wood Lake
Nature Center.
In 2007 the City of Richfield and Richfield Housing
Redevelopment Authority identified 76th Street and
Lyndale Avenue South as a development opportunity
site. The City of Richfield worked with the Corridor
Housing Initiative to create the 76th and Lyndale
Avenue Development Site Information Sheet to
inform its future development.
ASSETS
• The City of Richfield is
• actively supportive of new developments that respond to these guidelines;
• centrally located, with easy access to downtown Minneapolis, convenient freeway
access, and the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport;
• supported by an active, engaged business community, institutions, and residents;
• home to the Best Buy corporate headquarters, and many retail hubs, as well as the
Wood Lake Nature Center;
• a proven partner for working effectively with developers to achieve development
goals; and
• immediately adjacent to planned Three Rivers Park District bicycle and pedestrian
trails.
•
Richfield Development Guidelines
IS~~
G U I DELI N ES: 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue South
This site holds a stron mixed use otential, which mi ht include commercial or office and residen-
g p g
tial. The residential housing would offer ideal location for transit users. Young professional (first
time home owners) and affordable senior housing was identified as needed housing options.
Strengthen the Positive Identity of Richfield
A. Incorporate design elements that help to enhance the visual appeal of the area
through plantings, public art, ornamental lighting, and other interesting features
(e.g. water fountain).
B. Increase the scale and density to offer a more concentrated mix of uses and inten-
sified development strategy.
C. Buildings should be oriented to Lyndale Avenue and 76th Street.
D. Incorporate landscaping and design features to soften the exterior (i.e. trees, win-
dows)
E. Emphasize pedestrian safety, cross-walks, benches, and traffic calming features
Create Connections and Street Level Features
• F. Consider opportunities for strengthening access and connections between new
developments and other nearby amenities, such as trail systems, transit, retail
areas, parks, and job centers.
G. Create engaging pedestrian-friendly street level. Specifications might include:
H. Total sidewalk widths should be designed to incorporate an unobstructed effec-
tive walkway width with additional buffer widths to accommodate "shy distance"
from any obstructions. [Further guidance on designing sidewalks can be found in
the AASHTO's Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facili-
tiesand the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Highway Capacity Manual.]
I. On-street parking and parking behind the building, or underground for residential
(provide adequate parking and consider ways to share or blend parking).
J. Encourage alternative transportation by providing bike racks and an attractive bus
stop
K. Encourage features such as public art
•
Richfield Development Guidelines
IS~~
Encoura eg Development at 76th Street & Lyndale Avenue South
• L. Strong support for:
° Medium density (3 - 4 story) mixed use development, to include residential (for
a variety of income levels), commercial retail on the street level and / or office
space,
° Senior housing for low and moderate incomes;
° Housing that serves artisans, and includes art gallery /retail;
° Affordable housing for young professionals;
° Mix of housing sizes (efficiencies - 3 bedroom), and types (multi-generational
housing);
° Entertainment (e.g. art gallery, small community theater).
M. Explore option to expand the site to include east side of Garfield.
° A deeper site that includes the portion of Garfield and the parcels east of Gar-
field would provide stronger development options.
N. Recruit businesses that attract the surrounding community, and businesses that
are locally owned.
0. Green /sustainable development, incorporating green technologies
P. Attention to providing a diversity of housing options within the City (alternatives
• for residents)
CONTACT INFORMATION:
City of Richfield
Christine Costello, Community Development
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
ccostel to@cityofrichfield.org
www.ci.richfield.mn.us
Richfield Development Guidelines
is ~~
Richfield 77th & Pleasant Development Guidelines
•
The City of Richfield, Minnesota is located just south of
Minneapolis, north of the Mall of America, and just east
of the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport. Our
community is home to approximately 34,500 residents,
872 businesses, including the Best Buy corporate
headquarters, and the Wood Lake Nature Center.
In 2007 the City of Richfield and Richfield Housing
Redevelopment Authority identified 77th Street and
Pleasant Avenue South as a development opportunity
site. The City of Richfield worked with the Corridor
Housing Initiative to create the 77th and Pleasant
Development Site Information Sheet to inform its future
development.
ASSETS
• The City of Richfield is
• actively supportive of new developments that respond to these guidelines;
• centrally located, with easy access to downtown Minneapolis, convenient freeway
access, and the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport;
• supported by an active, engaged business community, institutions, and residents;
• home to the Best Buy corporate headquarters, and many retail hubs, as well as the
Wood Lake Nature Center;
• a proven partner for working effectively with developers to achieve development
goals; and
• immediately adjacent to planned Three Rivers Park District bicycle and pedestrian
trailc
•
Richfield Development Guidelines
~~~ ~O
GUIDELINES: 77th Street & Pleasant Avenue South
This site holds a strong residential focus, consisting of low to medium density (2 - 3 story) housing.
Affordable housing for low and middle income families and seniors should be considered for this
area. Consideration for the railroad traffic and tracks will be important.
Build Neighborhood Assets and Character
A. Maintain, enhance & accentuate neighborhood green space that is functional.
B. Create engaging pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, especially along 76th Street
(opportunity to add sidewalks with the road reconstruction). Specifications might
include:
Private sidewalks should have a minimum effective walkway width of four feet
and should have good visibility (for safety).
C. Design for public safety, including "eyes on the street"
D. Provide clearance for the railroad and maintain it as a clean corridor
E. Consider opportunities to strengthen access and connections with amenities in
the area (e.g. strengthen the connection to Lincoln Park).
F. Include porches and garages, but minimize garage dominance;
G. Preserve existing trees (understanding that they are likely to be damaged by envi-
• ronmental clean-up)
H. Provide set backs similar to rest of neighborhood
Encourage Sustainable Development
I. Promote sustainable building and site design.
J. Install lighting with less energy consumption and light pollution consistent with
public safety.
K. Reduce impervious paving, minimize surface parking, and mitigate storm water
runoff on site.
L. Build new construction to last 100 years.
•
Richfield Development Guidelines
/ 5 - `1
Increase Housing and Mixed-Use Opportunities that Strengthens the Tax Base
• M. Low -medium density residential mix (2 - 3 story height limit, gable roofs to fit
into the neighborhood), that includes larger units with 2 - 3 bedrooms for families;
N. Promote"life cycle" housing design to accommodate resident's changing spatial
and physical needs throughout life (e.g. barrier-free design).
0. Explore alternative housing types including cooperatives, co-housing, accessory
living units (e.g. carriage houses), and units designed for easy additions (e.g."grow
homes").
P. Provide an array of housing types to accommodate different household sizes and
incomes (low and moderate income families), and provides architectural diversity,
that incorporates a mix of materials and facades
Q. A mix of uses that might include residential, office, and services for local residents.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
City of Richfield
Christine Costello, Community Development
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
ccostel to@cityofrichfield.org
www.ci.richfield.mn.us
Richfield Development Guidelines
~5 -g
Richfield 72"d& Penn Avenue South Development Guidelines
•
The City of Richfield, Minnesota is located
just south of Minneapolis, north of the Mall of
America, and just east of the Minneapolis - St. Paul
International Airport. Our community is home to
approximately 34,500 residents, 872 businesses,
including the Best Buy corporate headquarters, and
the Wood Lake Nature Center.
In 2007 the City of Richfield and Richfield Housing
Redevelopment Authority identified 72nd and
Penn Avenue South as a development opportunity
site. The City of Richfield worked with the Corridor
Housing Initiative to create the 72nd and Penn
Avenue Development Site Information Sheet to
inform its future development.
ASSETS
• The City of Richfield is
• actively supportive of new developments that respond to these guidelines;
• centrally located, with easy access to downtown Minneapolis, convenient freeway
access, and the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport;
• supported by an active, engaged business community, institutions, and residents;
• home to the Best Buy corporate headquarters, and many retail hubs, as well as the
Wood Lake Nature Center; and
• a proven partner for working effectively with developers to achieve development
goals.
;,'
.•
.;n ~"
'h F-~ t~' i`~
.- ~n
•
Richfield Development Guidelines
l S- 1
GUIDELINES: 72nd Street & Penn Avenue South
This site holds a strong residential focus by community members, and there was interest in explor-
ing new housing products that are not currently available in the area. Institutional options were
also considered for compatibility with existing uses.
Build Neighborhood Assets and Character
A. Accentuate and enhance neighborhood green space.
B. Respectful treatment of proximity to adjacent cemetery sites.
C. Design for public safety, including "eyes on the street" (particularly on Penn
Avenue, with high volume of traffic);
D. Compliments single family residential context.
E. Landscaping and walk up to blend the new units into the existing residential area
(e.g. porches) - like a "gentle neighbor"to the surrounding neighborhood.
F. Create engaging pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, especially along 72nd Street
and Penn Avenue. Specifications might include:
Private sidewalks should have a minimum effective walkway width of four feet.
G. Consider traffic flow so that the site works well (i.e. channel traffic flow to 72nd
Street, limit driveways that spill into Penn Avenue);
H. Provide adequate parking so that it doesn't spill over onto the street.
• I. Lighting considerations -reduce or limit night lighting so as not to impact
surrounding residential area.
J. Diminish potential for noise in the area.
Encourage Sustainable Development
K. Promote sustainable building and site design that is LEED certified;
L. Encourage green /sustainable development -showcase the site using solar and
current technologies to offset the carbon footprint;
M. Install lighting with less energy consumption and light pollution consistent with
public safety;
N. Reduce impervious paving, minimize surface parking, and mitigate storm water
runoff on site;
O. Build new construction to last 100 years;
P. Site is near transit -support alternative transportation (bus shelter would be nice,
bike racks, etc.).
•
Richfield Development Guidelines
I5-Icy
,Increase Housing and Mixed-Use Opportunities that Strengthens the Tax Base
Q. Low to medium density housing (2 - 3 stories) that is well designed.
R. Offer a unique housing product to provide greater housing choice in Richfield (i.e.
luxury housing, affordable 2 - 3 bedroom units, Higher quality rental housing - 2
~/z story walk-ups, etc.).
° Richfield has many smaller housing units and apartments -should consider a
greater array of housing types to broaden options for residents.
S. Support for residential options that:
° Create a mix of low income and market rate housing,
° Provide housing that attracts and retains families,
° Accommodates different household sizes and incomes,
° Senior housing (55+) that is not tower or hi-rise,
° Supportive housing.
T. Preference for single family residential, and ownership over rental;
U. Rental properties must include strong property management;
V. Mixed retail, similar to 76th and Lyndale
* Alternative uses may include another cemetery (non-denominational).
• Community Feedback onMixed-Use: Residential and Institutional Use (School /Resource Center)
• Concern expressed over:
° Additional tax exempt properties -diminished tax base
° Repetition of services -already have service centers elsewhere
° Number of schools in the area
° Safety for students and residents
° Too many elements included in the site (preference for the school and residen-
tialfacility without the resource center - or integrating the resource center into
the school)
• Security cameras may help to promote safety
• Combine community center into school (so that both are not operating at same
time)
• Define school bus routes (e.g. 71 ~/z Street)
• Identify where playground, sports fields for the school would be located
CONTACT INFORMATION:
City of Richfield
Christine Costello, Community Development
• 6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
ccostel to@cityofrichfield.org
www.ci.richfield.mn.us
Richfield Development Guidelines
l 5 - l l!
u
r~
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL/HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY/PLANNING COMMISSION
WORKSESSION MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special Worksession of City
Council/HRA/Planning Commission
February 19, 2008 (extract)
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:30 p.m.
•
•
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Susan Rosenberg; Sue Sandahl; Fred Wroge; and
Bill Kilian.
HRA Members
Present: Sue Sandahl, Chair; Martin Kirsch; Joan Helmberger; David Gepner
(arrived 5:45 p.m.); and Doris Rubenstein.
Planning Commission
Members Present: Gordon Hanson, Chair; Catherine Peloquin; Maureen Scaglia; and Rick
Jabs.
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; John Stark, Interim Community
Development Director; Karen Barton, Community Development Manager;
and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary.
Item #1 DISCUSSION WITH CORRIDOR HOUSING INITIATIVE REGARDING DRAFT
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES NO. 33/HRA MEMO NO. 5)
Interim Community Development Director Stark stated the City of Richfield was selected to
participate in the Corridor Housing Initiative (CHI) process that was undertaken by Hennepin
~~
Special Worksession Minutes -2- February 19, 2008
• County. The purpose of CHI is to work with residents and developers to create development
strategies that meet community desires while remaining financially feasible. In the case of
Richfield's involvement, three specific sites were studied as part of the CHI process:
• 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue
• 77th Street and Pleasant Avenue
• 72nd Street and Penn Avenue
A total of eight community meetings have been held during the past several months with
the goal of creating development strategies for these sites. A set of Development Guidelines has
now been drafted for each of these sites based on the participation of community members, design
consultants and developers.
Interim Community Development Director Stark continued that the three sites were selected
because either development was City-controlled (77th Street/Pleasant Avenue is the current
garage site) or developer interest (76th Street/Lyndale Avenue and 72nd Street/Penn Avenue.)
Gretchen Nicholls, CHl representative, discussed the Development Guidelines for each
site, including development options providing opportunities and challenges.
Community testimony was invited and provided by:
• Tom Madsen, 7026 Morgan Avenue, spoke in support of the CHI process.
• Camillo DeSantis, 6508 Newton Avenue, spoke in support of the CHI process.
• Lisa LaDue, Partnership Academy representative, spoke in support of the CHI process
as a potential developer of one of the sites.
Barbara Raye, CHI representative, stated the majority of the participants would recommend
the process be used again. Elected officials guide the community but the process provided a
sharing of ideas and concerns from residents.
Council Member Wroge stated he was impressed with the process and it appears the
outcome is agreement of the potential development of two of the three sites. The neighborhood
appears concerned with the proposed development of the 72nd Street and Penn Avenue site,
including too much being on the site and the discussion of having tax incremented financing (TIF)
assistance when this is green space.
Council Member Wroge continued that a conscientious, good decision on development
needs to be made with the reality being that sometimes you can't have what you want.
HRA Commissioner Rubenstein stated she agreed with Council Member Wroge's
comments, including concerns regarding TIF use. She said the summaries of previous meetings
by CHI were accurate.
Planning Commission Member Hanson suggested the process be framed so some ideas
are more realistic.
HRA Commissioner Kirsch spoke in support of the process and that it was a good
demonstration of the difficult decisions made by the City Council and HRA.
Mayor Goettel spoke of being an affordable housing advocate, inclusionary zoning and the
need for "move-up" housing.
15-13
Special Worksession Minutes -3- February 19, 2008
• Council Member Wroge stated the City Council is elected to represent the people, not to do
their own thing. He added that it appears the process contradicted what the neighborhood wanted.
Ms. Nicholls stated that CHI does not control or promote the sites but rather facilitates
dialogue as a neutral party. She added that there was confusion with the 72nd Street and Penn
Avenue site because a development proposal was underway at the same time.
Council Member Kilian stated that Richfield is a planning community. What gets on a site is
what somebody is willing to build there with the potential of great disappointment for some.
Ms. Nicholls said what the neighborhood wants, as well as the broader constituency, needs
to be considered.
Interim Community Development Director Stark stated that City staff provided information
as requested but took a backseat because this was a community driven process.
•
1~-r~
Dear Mr. Stark,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to concerns expressed by some of the Richfield Planning Commissioners
regarding the final report of the Richfield Corridor Housing Initiative Development Guidelines. Specifically, the 72"d and
Penn Avenue site, which was previously part of the B'nai Abram Cemetery, now owned by Project for Pride in Living. The
Commissioners that were in attendance at the 72"d and Penn workshops felt that the final report might not accurately
reflect the views of the participants.
The final report that was submitted to the Richfield HRA, City Council and Planning Commission is our good faith and best
effort at providing an accurate summation of the community input that was gathered during the Corridor Housing
Initiative process, lasting from October 2007 -January 2008. The report is advisory, and informs any subsequent
decisions regarding future development of the sites. That being said, the findings are a reflection of the thinking and
feelings of the time and context of the process. Most assuredly markets change, values change, and community
development priorities and opportunities take different directions over time.
I submit the following points of information on behalf of the Corridor Housing Initiative process:
A. The final recommendations are arrived at through a consensus process. Items can be added, edited or
removed through consensus of the group during the fourth workshop.
At both the 72"d and Penn Avenue third workshop (panel discussion) and fourth workshop where the
recommendations were agreed upon, there was discussion about the option for mixed use on the site. Not
everyone felt it was the preferred development goal, but there was not consensus to strike it from the list of
options. The mixed use consideration, however, was of the small, neighborhood scale and something that
would complement the life of people living in surrounding area.
C. We do acknowledge that the discussion about 72nd and Penn Avenue was confusing given that the owner sold
the site to a developer in the middle of our process. The new owner (Project for Pride in Living), in
collaboration with Partnership Academy, was exploring a mixed use (albeit educational and not commercial
mixed uses) development concept. The CHI process provided a forum to gather community perspectives on
the initial proposal presented by PPL and Partnership Academy, while also offering more general input about
the site. By having an invested developer at the table, the CHI process worked to be transparent with
• information about the current status of the site, which clearly influenced the ideas of what was possible or what
seemed likely to happen on the site. The component of this proposal that appeared to raise the most concern
was the learning center-not because of its commercial/mixed-use nature, but around issues of duplication of
existing community resources, the impact on a commitment to integration rather than isolation of those who
might live on the site, and traffic flow if the learning center was open to the public.
The recommendations were reviewed at the fourth 72"d and Penn Avenue community workshop on January 16,
2008, and were presented at the joint study session of the Richfield HRA, City Council, and Planning
Commission on February 19, 2008. Participants in the process spoke directly to the fact that they believe the
process and the notes/reports did represent the content of the meetings they attended. Both of these forums
offered the opportunity to raise the issues that were raised by the Planning Commissioners at their April 28,
2008.
Our objective through the Corridor Housing Initiative was to assist the City and community of Richfield to assess the sites
through the lens of community values, design, the developers' expertise, and the broad brush strokes of a market
analysis. The surrounding context of each site was emphasized, and consideration was given to current land values and
construction costs. Issues of access and destination were relevant for commercial uses. Issues of design and density
were relevant for residential uses. And community needs and assets were relevant in consideration of community
services.
We value the perspective of all who participated in the Richfield Corridor Housing Initiative process, and hope that the
City finds value in the information gathered about the three sites. We hope that the City was able to witness a broad
range of community interests and perspectives that might otherwise be forgotten. These competing and complimentary
interests will continue to shape and reveal the future of Richfield. We also trust that City officials will take the report as it
was intended -advisory in nature, collaborative in tone, and open to use as appropriate in an ever-changing
environment.
Thank you again for the opportunity to work with you to explore these important questions.
All the best,
Gretchen Nicholls
Program Officer, Twin Cities LISC
Corridor Housing Initiative