03-10-09 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2009
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSON
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:OD P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Roll call
1. Discussion regarding utility undergrounding along 76th Street; Metropolitan Council
Sewer Project (Council Memo No. 33)
Notes:
2. Discussion regarding Richfield Ice Arena Comprehensive Technical Study
(Council Memo No. 31)
Notes: ____
3. Discussion regarding Fourth of July carnival contract (Council Memo No. 34)
Notes:
4. Discussion regarding 20-day diseas~d tree removal ordinance (Council Memo No. 32)
Notes:
Adjournment
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Roll call
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to a!/ow 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 V1/orksession of February 24, 2009; (2)
Regular City Council Meeting of February 24, 2009; and (3) Special City Council/HRA
Meeting of February 25, 2009
PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of proclamation designating March 20, 2009 as "We Care Day" in Richfield.
to Middle School fifth-grade teacher Omar McMillan and. class
2. Presentation of Richfield Restaurant Awards by Advisory Board of Health
(Council Memo No. 35)
3. Presentation of 494 Corridor Commission annual report
4. Annual meeting with Transportation Commission
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
5. Council discussion
• Designation of City. Council storm water liaison (Council Memo No. 36)
• Hats Off to Hometown Hits
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
6. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. 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 first reading of transitory ordinance providing
expenditure of funds from Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements
and scheduling public hearing and second reading for April 14, 2009 S.R. 57
B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing subdivision waiver allowing 7316
Clinton Avenue be split into two single-family lots S.R. No. 58
C. Consideration of approval resolution accepting $7,214.40 grant from Metropolitan
Emergency Services Board to be used by Public Works Department to purchase six
800 Megahertz radios and related accessories S.R. No. 59
D. Consideration of approval of agreement with WSB & Associates for construction
engineering services for Lyndale Avenue Bridge Project S.R. No. 60
E. Consideration of approval of setting public hearing for March 24, 2009 to consider
new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, including optional 2 a.m.
closing, for Tejaban Mexica Grill, LLC dba EI Tejaban Mex.Grill, 2 West 66th Street
S.R. No. 61
Notes:
8. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
9. Consideration of second reading of ordinance incorporating aircraft impact overlay
district imposing standards on construction of all new residential dwellings and
recommending construction standards on remodeling or expansion of existing
residential dwellings within 2007 60+ DNL noise contours and resolution authorizing .
summary publication of ordinance
Staff Report No. 62
Notes:
10. Consideration of first reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Subsections
537.07 and 537.09 related to bulk, dimensional and parking standards in mixed use
zoning districts
Staff Report No. 63
Notes:
11. Consideration of first reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Subsections
512.01, 541.17 and Appendix 1 to establish regulations for new Penn Avenue Corridor
Overlay District and rezoning certain properties along Penn Avenue between Highway
62 and 68th Street
Staff Report No. 64
Notes:
RESOLUTIONS
12. Consideration of resolution approving contract with International Association of
Firefighters Local 1215 for period January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009
Staff Report No. 65
Notes:
13. Consideration of resolution approving contract with Police Officers and Detective Law
Enforcement Labor Services Local 123 for period January 1, 2009 through December
31, 2009
Staff Report No. 66
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
14. Consideration of authorization to proceed with plans and specifications for renovation of
Lincoln Athletic Complex, 7500 Pleasant Avenue
Staff Report No. 67
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
15. City Manager's report
Notes:
16. Claims and payrolls
Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by
majority vote of the City Council)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
17. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
CITY OF RICHFIELD,- MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
March 5, 2009
Council Memorandum No. 33
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Utility Undergrounding -along 76th Street -Metropolitan Council Sewer
Project (Worksession Agenda Item No. 1 )
Council Members:
Staff is in the process of working with Xcel Energy regarding the design for
undergrounding the parallel private utilities required for Metropolitan Council's Sanitary
Sewer .Project. The design has identified issues along 76th Street between I-35W and
Lyndale Avenue. In this area there are concerns about the impacts of the
undergrounding on both the cost of the project and the streetscape design. Staff has
considered the City's options and offers the following alternatives for City Council
consideration (graphics attached).
Option 1. Do not underground utilities along this portion of the project.
Option 2. Underground the parallel utilities and shift the roadway south to
accommodate utility boxes.
Option 3. Underground the parallel utilities and place the utility boxes within the
right-of--way along the avenues.
The options will be discussed in more detail during the March 10, 2009 Council Work
Session.-
Re ctf ly submitted,
n .Devi
City Manager
SLD:cak
Attachment
E-mail: Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
i~ 7
--~-
'`
G
--+,
C7,
~,
j
~-
~_
t,.
~ is
®~
~s~
7F7
I
i
f
i
i
i
~;, ;
1-
~a
a
F':
x
ice.
i
t ~
_ ~?
~- ~ p
~
i
r:, .
_
~
r' a:
2 ~ J
s
~ _ ,Q•
~ ~ 4
y
7t
~}
.T
I
_..
I
~
I ,'1
T
.n
i
A
~
~^
H
F-~
I
g
0
`~
I..I.
F.J
rt
m~
m
~~ _ . ~ ~ _ .
T m
~~
n
f ~ y
I ~
~._9.
e
i
i
i
i 1
~ ~ I
M
~
_
X~
_-.
~
<. ~
~ ~
I ~ r
'c
~
'
I ~ < a
_
~
~
y
:D
~.
rY
D 'P
r
F
' ~
i
1
.. ;
rt rr
:x x
in _~
.~
,r.
I
- - ~ . ~. --
~~ --
~ _.
--'~ 1t'
1
Y
X
i
y
:';
0
H
N
f'S
~Sy
}~
ff'
n
m~
i
~.
~~ .. ~
as
-'~~~~,
~.
H
z°
w
i
b
c~
m
N
rt
m
C
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
March 5, 2009
Council. Memorandum No. 31
The Honorable .Mayor
and
Members of the City. Council
Subject: Ice Arena Technical Study (Worksession Agenda Item No. 2 )
Council Members:
The Recreation Services staff has been working on a new program that can lower
energy costs of the ice arena and outdoor pool and use the cost savings to pay for
future equipment replacement and .upgrades. Brandon Klement, Facility Manager, has
met with representatives of Harris Companies over the past year to evaluate the current
state of the Richfield Arena. They have concluded that much of the equipment is the
original 38 year-old equipment and well beyond its life expectancy.
Harris Companies is proposing an engineering study to evaluate the replacement of
aging equipment with energy efficient equipment. Harris completed a similar study last
year for the City of St. Cloud and recently completed equipment upgrades to their
Municipal Activity Center. Harris. has also provided similar engineering services for the
City of Eagan at their ice arena.
The intent of the study is to provide the City with a proactive equipment replacement
solution in a manner such that the energy and operational savings associated with
equipment replacement must be greater than or equal to the debt service payment
required to fund the project. Harris will work within the guidelines of Minnesota
legislation to provide written performance and energy savings guarantees. The project
will. not require any bonding dollars. If Harris cannot present a~cash neutral solution
upon completion of the. study, the City has no financial obligations to Harris. In order to
proceed with the study, Harris requires a signed letter of intent, stating required
parameters. A sample letter of intent is attached.
Brandon Klement and Harris Companies will provide an informational presentation for
City Council at the March 10, 2009 Council Worksession.
sub
h`~L- Devich
City Manager
SLD:cak
Attachment
Email: Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Richfield
March 10, 2009
Mr. Kurt Schoenecker
Harris Mechanical Service, LLC.
909 Montreal Circle
St. Paul, MN 55102
Subject: Letter of Intent
Dear Mr. Schoenecker,
The-City of Richfield is committed to improving its Ice Arena facility through a performance
contracting solution. We recognize that this project will result in increased energy efficiency,
comfort, and equipment reliability. We also understand that the projected energy and operational
savings will comply with MN Statute 471.345-Uniform Municipal Contracting Law, and will be
sufficient to cover the debt service of the project within a period not to exceed 20 years (after
incorporating all utility incentives).
The City of Richfield's objectives for this program are as follows:
1. Reduce operating costs.
2. Replace or upgrade equipment associated with the refrigeration system and HVAC system.
3. Replace or upgrade lighting equipment.
The program provided by Harris will include but is not limited to the following:
1. Identification, engineering, installation, and monitoring of energy and operating cost-
. reduction measures.
2. Training for the Ice Arena maintenance staff.
3. Ongoing maintenance services to supplement Ice Arena staff to ensure that said savings
are being met.
4. Ongoing measurement and verification of said savings as required by MN Statute.
The City of Richfield is interested in further investigating the savings to be realized by this project.
We understand that to quantify said savings. and confirm implementation costs; a Comprehensive
Technical Study by Harris is required. By signing this letter, we are indicating our intent to award
Harris a contract, if the cost and savings numbers presented on 3/10/2009 are validated during the
Comprehensive Technical Study. The following criteria must be met:
• Project meets criteria in enabling legislation (MN Statute 471.345)
• The energy and operational savings plus utility incentives must. meet or exceed debt
service payment annually during the finance period
Harris will be responsible for the' complete installation of the solution. The final estimates and
validation will be completed and the results presented within approximately sixty (60) days of the
approval of this letter.
We understand the investment required to conduct the Comprehensive Technical Study. If The
City of Richfield elects not to proceed with this project and the program meets all outlined
requirements, The City of Richfield will agree to pay for engineering time- invested during the
Comprehensive Technical Study in the amount of $20,000.
During this detailed study, Harris will work with Richfield Public Works and Xcel Energy to solidify all
available rebates on our behalf. Harris will investigate and bring to our attention other Energy
Conservation Opportunities (ECOs) if they meet our financial criteria. Harris will advise the City of
Richfield on any funding mechanisms that can be used for this project. The City of Richfield
understands that the implementation of any additional ECOs may result in increased costs and
savings.
Sincerely,
(City of Richfield Representative)
Signature
Date
L
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA .
Office of City Manager
March 5, 2009
Council Memorandum No. 34
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Fourth of July Carnival Contract
(V1/orksession Agenda Item No. 3
Council Members:
City Council briefly discussed the Richfield Fourth of July Celebration at their goal
setting session on January 23, 2009, specifically about evaluating the contract for the
carnival.
The Fourth of July,Committee has signed a four year contract with Minnesota Magic
Midway, Inc., to provide carnival services for the Richfield Fourth of July Celebration in
Veterans Memorial Park through the year 2010 (see attached). The carnival provides a
number of game activities and food concessions to the public and serves as~a revenue
source for the Celebration in the amount of about $10,000 each season. The Fourth of
July will typically consider a new contract for carnival services immediately after the last
season of the current contract. Their current contract expires July 5, 2010.
Frank White, staff liaison to the Fourth of July Committee, and Jim Topitzhofer,
Recreation Services Director will be present at the Special Council Worksession on
Tue$~y, March 10, 2009 to discuss this matter with the Council.
City
SLD:cak
Attachment
E-mail:. Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
Copy: City Attorney
n~sota's Magic Mic~wa~r, Ins.: ~,
"`\1xI +l%/fY /~'~ .0 1896D Jasper Street N.W. h
\~, ~l ~~,--' Suite A '1
Anoka, MN 55303
Phoneme 753-4679
~ ~ ~~3
'~""'°`• ~ CONTRACT AtJE} AGREEMENT
THIS QGREEti~tENT, made and entered into this>the /f S~ day -of' t--'~G ~jgp =~
by and between Minnesota's Magic Mldws , tnc.,F, hereinaher referred;to as 'Party ot'the First Part', and
~- ~ - D T \ ~. (t ~ `~ ~ v 1---"~''~'~.f1Zr~ of the
C(ty of e (c'~_ State. of j~d ~ eretnaftar relerred to as the "Party of the Second Part."
WIiP1ES$E'TH: That. for and' in consideration. of the. sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.OO) paid by each of ,the parties o the
other, and for other good and valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby ardcnowiedged,Yhe,parties hereto agree as
foibws
Tha Party of the. First Part is to furnish and have exciusiva on aH rides, shows and' concessions and agrees to present
a unit in the City of ~`s{~ ~ ',' j .Slate of _ ~") ;~
for a period
commencing on orab9ut ~,$~~ and ending on cr about. ,~~_{~,
ac ~ ~ S '~ ~ ~ '; fJ ~ i= Y7r~7 ~ ~ ~.
Party of the. First Part is to furnisfi without expense to the party of :Second'. Part; tickets, ticket boxes, and posters:.
Party of t)he: Second Part is to oj1~~!taln and furnish Party of the First Part a suitable location known: as ,~^
~! P ~ f2 rr=c v+.S d r-r o^ same to be
cleared of brush, zetuse and other objectionable matter, and to be in such: good condition that. the altractlons may; .be
conveniently set up so that they may :exhibit without diswmfort to themselves: and. tc the public.. Party of the Second Part
will tarnish and pay for all iicanses, permits aroi taxes Ehatmay be required by law to operate fides, shows and concessions;
electric current, newspaper and radio advertising; hil(posting, water, and police. protection,
That as a .consideration for the above mention; the Party. of the First. Fart. agrees to pay the Patty of the. Second' Part the
sum bf ..-
~,5 percent 'of the gross receipts a{ ail: riding devices and shows (the percentage above mentioned shall be.
based ort(he gross racaiplsafter deducting all Federal, State nr othartaxas that may be requited bY' law on admission), he
tlatsamof ~~G~~'"¢ pct cr y~,^ ~-- ~f4fl~ rx
~' ~e~s~,~ y ;
from the sale of each concessions nd or minor Privilege that. are operated nn the grounds during this engagement. Any
concession gtasad or opened iota to pay pro rata foractuai days in operation. Payment to bemade on shows and rides the
following day Drat the close of businessShe tinatdax, and concession not lafarthan of this. engagement:
Party of the Second Part-agreesra[ mbook or contrac[arry attraction similaz~to dte one:operated Dy the Parryo[-the Frst.Pan-so fiat any such altractiors
snail appear in said Gry preceding the period mentioned above.. Party of the Second Partalso agrees m arideavorm prevent arty shows, rides, or concessions
from:exhibiting or operating irtsaid:Ciry unless with the consent of the Party. of the First Partand.~should.such endeavorfait Ihen:Party of the Firsr'Pan shah
have ihe~ privilege o(. declaring ails contract wid:
Npase ot:thesicWress or death of any performer, the Parry of the First Part ism nave: a reasonable ume kt whist, m raplace.or-substltute.anoiher performer
in its place. Parry of the First Pan shatl rtot in anyway, be-liable for arty damages a-expensescaused byan faikaea delay in presenting its attracttonsas .
hereinaher provided' ifeaused bywar, riots, strikes, governmental regulations, labor ddrwlties, truck aeddents or delay, fire,.tlood adverse weadiereohditions;
eYclone, epidemics or anyuntoreseen ocaarence over which [he:Parryat theFirsT Part has no con[id. ~ .....
Pally ofine..First Part will furnish Parry of the Second Part a _CertiSCate.otinsurartce~1 ~.DOO~ +~~ l~ ~,_;. /'~y,:,r„
It is agreed and understood ey<Iwth parties m rifts omtracttltat-ttrere:arano verbal agreements-not mvered by [iris ~ontraa,. antl dfat should any other
agreements becane necessary,.same.shall. be ~aoed'in writing and signed by both-parries.. Ttds-coniraq made-sublect m theapprovai of AUnnasota.'s Magic
Midway, Jrre., elttrer by letter or wae,.ar:approvat may ba.indica[edon this. agreement by signature-or the owner. otthe~Firs[ Part
REMARKS: Bingo, pop, ice aaam; ttxtd stands taally owned and operated, may be had by Party of Second Pan. No game cutcessions.
Gy
Advertised data mbe:i i
/7f%'~Gc/':7S ~IQ~IdCi^~<~Si`d`?~ ~`.G'/.~lh,/r)~~'[e-
Parry ottrle FirotPSrt _ 'L Pany ot~ ~ Second.P~ -Title'. (~~l
!3y (Seal} .
~.~{~'+ Parry of the Second: Part Tide
Wimess~~/~'~~ ~i / gy ~ {Seal[
Party of..the Second.l'art Tttle.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
March 5, 2009
Council Memorandum No. 32
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: 20-Day Tree Removal Ordinance
(Worksession Agenda Item No. 4 )
Council Members:
At their February 10 Regular Meeting, the City Council directed staff to review the 20-
day diseased tree removal ordinance with the Community Services Commission (CSC).
The attached draft minutes from the February 17, 2009 CSC meeting outline the
discussion. The CSC members voted unanimously "to remove the 20-day diseased-
tree-removal limit" from the ordinance.
City staff will be seeking further guidance on the 20-day diseased tree removal limit
ordinance from the .City Council at the March 10 City Council Worksession.
Res y submitte
tev h
anager
SLD:cak
Attachment
Email: Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
DRAFT (not yet approved by the CSC)
Community Services Commission Regular Meeting (2-17-09)
Diseased Tree Removal Policy
Eastling introduced Forester Wroblewski, Streets Maintenance Supervisor Link, and
Parks Maintenance Supervisor Hall.
Eastling said that different Public Works workgroups assembled to talk about how to
handle a 10% budget cut; most workgroups agreed that a change in the Forestry
program would be m order. Eastling said that staff talked about doing tree removals in
the winter when there's more time and when tree contractors charge much less. He said
that staff may elect to revise the City ordinance requiring marked trees to be removed in
20 days, which is a City ordinance, but not a State law, due to the summer work crunch,
the cost savings of having the trees removed in the winter; lifting this time limit will be a
workable option because Dutch Elm Disease may not be as imminent a threat. He said
that an estimated 750 Dutch Elm boulevard trees still exist.
Hall said that parks maintenance often has to help with stump grinding, etc, taking them
away from other duties.
Eastling said that Richfield is unique in that the boulevard tree program is in the general
fund and the maintenance of that tree stock is straining the budget. Eastling said that
staff was able to only contract out the removal of 20 trees last year, but changing the
20-day removal limit and contracting out the removal next-year will enable the City to
keep up completely with the diseased trees.
Hall said that this would enable staff to maintain other tree stock that is currently being
neglected.
Ness asked if treatment would be worthwhile because the bug will not have a nearby
tree to travel to.
Wroblewski said that treatment is $500/three years.
Ness said that he pays $300/three years and the City mayget a better deal. Wroblewski
said that treating trees will mean that the 20-day limit will have to stay because of more
beetles growing.
Eastling said that there may be treatment options, but .this is in response to an order to .
make significant general fund cuts. He said that a boulevard tree program could be lifted
from the general fund through a boulevard tree fee, but option would have to be
considered by the Council. Eastling said that many of these boulevard elms are almost
60 years old; their life span is 70-80 years, so they maybe in their final years anyway.
.Mangold said that he understands the problems with meeting the 20-day tree-removal
time limit and approves of the Public Works Director presenting a revised ordinance to
the Council for their consideration.
Jabs said that it seems logical, to save money in the winter and keep up with removals.
Mangold moved, seconded by Thompson, to authorize staff to remove the 20-day
diseased-tree-removal limit.
Thompson said that a City ordinance should not exist that creates requirements that the
City itself cannot meet.
Eastling said .that staff can come up with some kind of alternative for setting removal
limits for owners of private trees.
Approved, ayes all.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
March 5, 2009
Council Memorandum No. 3s
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: 2008 Restaurant Awards from Richfield Advisory Board of Health
(Council Agenda Item No. 2 )
Council Members:
Attached is a summary of the steps and process that was used in determining the 2008
Richfield Restaurant Food Safety Award nominees and winners.
The Richfield Advisory Board of Health will be involved in this effort on an annual basis
and believes it is important to place a priority on recognizing Richfield restaurants that
are doing an excellent job of maintaining a food safe establishment. It is important for
these successful establishments to be recognized, but also it is a way to encourage
other establishments to strive for the same outcome.
The awards will be presented to the winners and nominees at the City Council meeting
on Mares 10, 2009 by Matt Tietje, Chair of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health.
SLD:cak
Attachment
Email: Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
Richfield Food Safety Awards - 2008
• Annual awards to acknowledge excellence in food safety and service -Focus on the good
work that restaurants do rather than the bad.
• Richfield Advisory Board of Health recommended starting a program in Richfield, similar to
the existing award program in Bloomington.
• The health inspector nominates three to four candidates in two risk categories based on:
• Food Collaborative Interviews
• Inspection results
Those categories are: full service restaurant and fast food/pizza/cafeteria service.
• A team of interviewers visited each site together to conduct the interviews. These folks are
members of the Richfield/Bloomington Food Collaborative and meet regularly with
inspection staff and one another to discuss common interest areas.
Nominees were judged on how they manage risk factors on a daily basis: how the
establishment encourages workers to be continually motivated about serving safe food;
whether they can list five critical factors that affect food safety; whether they have
procedures in place when they receive customer complaints about customers feeling ill after
having eaten there; what the establishment's policy is when an employee shows up for work
with obvious symptoms of illness; if they have a description of food safety training programs
and. policies; what management's overall commitment to food safety, and rating of the
physical appearance of the establishment at the time of the interview.
• The results are provided to the Richfield Advisory Board of Health, and they present the
awards to the winners and nominees at a City Council meeting. Photos of the presentation
and a short article will be given to the Richfield Sun Current for publicity and positive
exposure for the establishments.
• The 2008 Nominees and Winners are:
Full Service Restaurants
Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 (Winner)
6715 Lakeshore Drive
(Gin Ng, Manager)
Broadway Pizza (Nominee)
7514 Lyndale Ave. S.
(Patti Sherbuck, Owner)
Fast food/Pizza/Cafeteria
Burger King (Winner)
140 E. 78th St. location
(Bill Claflin, .Manager)
Davanni's Pizza (Nominee)
2312 W. 66th St.
(Angie Smith, Manager)
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager.
March 5, 2009
City Manager
Council Memorandum No. 36
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Designation of City Council Storm Water Liaison
(Council Agenda Item No. 5)
Council Members:
City staff works with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and the Nine
Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD) to address storm water management within
Richfield. Storm .water requirements from these organizations dictate how storm water
will be handled within the areas of Richfield that fall into their respective watersheds.
It has been Richfield's long-time policy and approach to handle storm water collection
and treatment on a regional basis to ensure cost-effective measures are used to meet
the regional needs (policy attached).- Staff feels the responsibility of clean water is a
regional issue and uses the storm water utility funds to manage Richfield's storm water.
Recent rule revisions from the MCWD and NMCWD are now directing the City to take a
more site by site approach, placing the storm water responsibilities on the land owner or
developer. This approach does not reflect the principles of the City and staff has not
had much influence on the decision making of these oversight organizations.
Staff is requesting that the City Council designate a storm water liaison to work with
staff when communicating with both the MCWD and NMCWD boards. The MCWD
Board has meetings in March that the designated liaison should attend, with staff, on
behalf of Richfield.
The City Council may want to discuss this liaison position at the March 10, 2009 City
Council Meeting during the Council Discussion.
R ec ly submitte ,
i
!~-.
Steven L. Devich
SLD:cak
Email: Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Richfield
Storm Water Program
Policy Synopsis
March 3, 2009
A number of agencies have set goals and policies that the City must follow related to
storm water management. These agencies include the Nine Mile Creek Watershed
District, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and Richfield-Bloomington Watershed
Management Organization.
To meet these agencies' goals and policies, the City believes it is more cost-effective,
environmentally beneficial, and operationally successful to manage storm water on a
regional, citywide basis rather than on a site-by-site basis. Storm water is better
managed at a regional level when compared to a site-by-site system as there is not
practical oversight for construction practices and/or maintenance on private property.
Storm water and its management regulations are complicated and receiving the most
benefit comes from managing water on a regional basis.
To try and solve stormwater issues by only attaching methods to developing properties
will not solve the problem. The problems exist in the built environment.
Regional Storm Water Management Benefits
• Utilize the City's storm water utility fund to manage runoff in a regional
manner.
• Allow developers to maximize the use of the developable land and require
minimal on-site construction and maintenance of BMPs of questionable
effectiveness in favor of proven, reliable regional city-owned facilities that
can be tested for effectiveness.
• Subsequently, relieve the City from having to monitor and control the
construction and maintenance of BMPs on private property.
• Maximize the benefit of BMPs by cost-effectively constructing and
maintaining on a larger scale.
• Target water quality improvements by focusing on the individual water
body.
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # l 7A
REPORT # 57
MARCx 10, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
E, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the first reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital
im rovements from the S ecial Revenue Fund.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
1. Approve first reading of the transitory ordinance providing for the
expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain
capital improvements
2. Schedule the ublic hearin and second readi~n for A ril 14, 2009.
II. BACKGROUND
• At the December 9, 2008 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized
$450,000 of Special Revenue Funds for improvements to several City capital
improvements in 2009.
• Included in the $450,000 are:
• $103,800 Outdoor Pool renovation loan repayment
• $100,000 for Major Park maintenance projects
• $25,000 for Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction
• $126,200 Lincoln Field and other ballfield improvements
• $70,000 Type 1 Skate Park
• $25,000 Veterans Park Monument Sign
• At a City Council Worksession on February 24, 2009, the City Council redirected the
original authorized $450,000 of Special Revenue Funds to the following allocation:
• `$103,800 Outdoor Pool renovation loan repayment
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
03102009TransitoryOrd
• $50,000 for Major Park maintenance projects
• $271,200 Lincoln Field and other ball field improvements
• $25,000 for Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction
• In addition, the 2009 Capital Improvement Budget provides for expenditures for all
types of funds contained in the budget including municipal state aid, user fees,
federal grants and state grants.
• Authorization by ordinance is not required for expenditures other than Special
Revenues.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 2 requires that Special Revenue Funds
used for capital improvements must be authorized by ordinance.
• This process provides for public input through a public hearing..
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes
effective 30 days after publication of the second hearing notice.
• The ordinance requirements must be completed early enough in 2008 so that
the capital projects can be initiated on a timely basis, completed and the
funds expended.
• In order for the timely start of the projects under consideration iri fhe Capital
Improvement Budget, it is suggested that the first reading of the transitory
ordinance take place on March 10,2009 and a public hearing and second
reading be completed at the April 14, 2009 City Council meeting.
C. FINANCIAL
• While the total 2009 Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) includes total
budgeted expenditures of $33,642,530 the portion of CIB concerning
proposed funding from the Special Revenue fund is $ 450,000 as
reallocated by the City Council at the February 24, 2009 Worksession.
Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repayment 103,800
Park Maintenance 50,000
Lincoln Field and other bellied improvements 271,200
Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction 25,000
• A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize these appropriations
pursuant to City Charter.
• The source of Special Revenue funds is municipal liquor profits.
D. LEGAL
• The City Charter requires that a transitory ordinance be used to authorize the
expenditure of Special Revenue funds.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• The City Council could postpone the first reading of the transitory ordinance to a
future City Council meeting.
• The City Council could decide to authorize. none or only a portion of the.
. expenditures identified from special revenue in the CIB.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance..
VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
~] ~-1
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE .NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM
THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend
money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in
Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds.
Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements
which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12,
Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows:
Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repayment $ 103,800
Park Maintenance $ 50,000
Lincoln Field and Ball Field Improvements $ 271,200
Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction $ 25,000
Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as
are authorized from time to time by Council action.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this ~ day of , 2009
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # ]g
REPORT # 58
~„' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 10, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
KIRSTEN PARTENHEIMER, HOUSING
SPECIALIST
TircE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution regarding the request for a subdivision waiver to allow the lot at
7316 Clinton Avenue be split into two single-family lots.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution granting a subdivision
waiver for 7316 Clinton Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is seeking to split an existing
100-foot wide single-family residential lot into two lots with widths of 50 feet each.
The current lot was originally platted as two separate lots. Those lots were
combined to create the current 100' x 127 lot. City approval is not required for the
combination of parcels; however, it is required for the subdivision of land.
The HRA acquired 7316 Clinton Avenue for redevelopment under the New Home
Program. It is partnering with the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation
(GMHC) to build two new single-family homes, similar to the project at 7201-7205
Nicollet Avenue. Before development can proceed, a subdivision waiver is required
to divide the existing parcel into two separate parcels.
The resulting lots would both meet all property dimension requirements to allow for
the construction of asingle-family home on each lot.
031009 - 7316 Clinton Subd Waiver
III. BASIS OF .RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Typically, any division of or re-division of land requires that a plat or
re-plat be filed.
• In cases in which compliance with City platting requirements result in
unnecessary hardship and when failure to comply with said
requirements does not interfere with the purpose and intent of the
regulations, the Council may adopt a resolution authorizing a waiver
from the subdivision requirements. `
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The proposed lots meet all City Code requirements.
• The ,property is zoned R -Single-Family residential. Minimum lot
requirements and dimensions of the proposed lots are as follows:
o ,Required area: 6,700 sq. ft.
^ Proposed: (1) 6,350 sq. ft. (2) 6,350 sq. ft.
- o Required width: 50 ft.
^ Proposed: (1) 50 ft. (2) 50 ft.
o Required depth: 100 ft.
^ Proposed: (1) 126.88 (2) 126.78
• Surrounding lots in the neighborhood are approximately 50 feet wide.
The newly created lots would not be out of character for the
neighborhood.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• No legal notice is required; however, the Community Development
Department sent notice of the request for a subdivision waiver to
residents and property owners within 350 feet of the property.
• 60-Day Rule: The 60-day `clock' started when a complete application
was received on February 24, 2009. A decision must be given to the
applicant by April 25, 2009 OR the Council must notify the applicant
that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional
days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny this subdivision waiver with a finding of fact determining that the
proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties.
I V . ATTACHMENTS I
• r<esoiuuon
• .Survey
• Examples of homes developed on 50-foot lots
• Surrounding zoning and land use maps
~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~
~~- i
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER
7316 CLINTON AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of land located at 7316
Clinton Avenue, legally described as:
Parcel A: Lots 4 and 5, Block 4, BLAIR'S WOODDALE THIRD ADDITION,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to divide the above-described Parcel A into two
parcels, legally described as:
Parcel One: Lot 4, Block 4, BLAIR'S WOODDALE THIRD ADDITION, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Parcel Two: Lot 5, Block 4, BLAIR'S WOODDALE THIRD ADDITION, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the
subdivision waiver; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that compliance with the City Code Section
500.05, Subdivision 1 would result in unnecessary hardship and that failure to comply
therewith will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section 500.01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. A waiver for the subdivision of the Subject Property legally described above is
hereby granted; and
2. City staff is authorized and directed to take any action necessary to effectuate
this resolution and to authorize the recording of conveyances complying with
the terms of this resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
March, 2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
i s i
~ ~ ~
~ rn n -o - - - -l -L- - - ~ _
~O~ ~ r A a ~ r •i
~ 'p' i . i.. ~~ ~~ i 'P
o ~ ~ m -~ ~ 2'03"W 100.00
z z~ ~ N~~ .00 '50.00 ~ N
vm ~ oo ~ t o a
~C~ ~ ~~ _, 19.4 zN~ ouoi~ O a
~~ (1-() ~-ten
WZ y ~ r'o~ ~o~ m
m D ~ OZD -pZD
r
W oNO ~ ~' ~' ~o
\ O ~ ~ Z w ~
z rn _~ ~rn
O ~Z~ W z~ ~
tTl ~ n'1 ~p
W
° ,~ O n
rn
r-_ r-~ r-_ 7. r--
m ,
LJ L.I ~ j /1
\J
~ti .H
.y _
~~~ ~ °
•C ~ G `/
~ 2 c~D °D ~ .e. 5.1 . ,, ,.
..a m -, = rn
~ c~ n o N, ~
o ~ cn ~ ~. to m
m~a~ N ~ ~ ~
w
top~p ^ N~ 4.8 `
.~. C
aio~~ ~pNj ~W N /~
o3c
D V
~° a~ -D °°
~, ~ 0 0D v N RI
~~~~ ~ -o ~
~~ ~ ~ v r
°-r-a~ `.
cu n _. ~
°. ~ ~ o _ - ~ 50.00 ~0 50.00 1
°" 100.00
~ ~ NO'05'16"W
~ o l
a a- Om-oo
~~mz
G tI ~_ i iii ~ t~ iii ~~ i~ i. i`i \! ~~ ~ Z Q ~\ 0
Of
h O ~ (~)Ir N
°z ~ ~ 8 nm=
~, ~ ° ~,
.. ' ~ oc -~ ~ Dv~p
c`o„ ~" N m ~ v t° Z N
o~ o o D o ~~: }~
~= m z ~ > >
C
< w0 ~ O z ~ ~, ~ ~~.. ~ v nv my Z 2 O ~
~- Z O
~~g -~ N ;.~ ~ m oo~D ~ZOD ~= y++ r
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c a ~ _~' ~ cn '_` w m N c \ ` o I'Tl
~~y Z.-IC7 ~$ '.~'~ °° cow ~mo --i< ~ 2 ~ ~ • ~ C7
o ~ a ~ y p ~
~~'~v~i~ ~~ ~-~ w mm°~~ ~Np-~i m~ \ ~ zn ~
O ~ ~ -{ ~ ~ _ .~ '-' N C m - D ~ ` n g o~ ° -o cn -,rn Z Z ~ -0
~ ~~ C _ (A fn -r~ ~ --i Z fA O O rn O ~ O m '_'~ l
oO1,cn m z ~~ ~ ~r~* N ~ c cm ~ ~ ° i c° ~ ~~ zv ~ Za' ~
~(n to ~ ~ to r %~ W \ O r z
j ~ c" m° 0 ~ -P D Opo ITI ~ ITl ~ m Z r*s --~ ~*i ~ m Z ~
~ -o ~
° ~ ~ ~~~ OD Z m ~ m ~~ ~ ~N
N ^ rn
~ m ~~ ~~ m m m Z~
O .wp.. ,-Z-iC Z ~m
~ N v = -1
o D w ~-+ 2 ~i D
j ~ r ~ m
~ ~~ 3 ~~ols z,~ ~ ~~
wm ear, .... ~~. ~ = '
449 •9186 76 471 "$ 9K DiL 07146' 7~MS 414 '6 9i
s~avoaa a.76oaw7.17.~,••~
xvnxs~a ~HNIrJ Ndld 311S ~ q
~z
p0
_ z ~U
O~ z~
O~
aavnrnoe Z ~ ~ O Q 1Q- ~ ~ - Q
vrm~a~s~nena ~ OL .aF 4 ~j tl..t ~ .] w
oseb a-Oz~pp~°"cl)V
~r~ f4 ~ pp og(~. z0~1y0_~```O_'~aZoo~~~`'(~'j
~~~ 1 •~ Orb ~ O Z W~ O~ W V V~~~ ~
§~€ 1f Z~~WQ~u..IwJOOO
v m d ~ ~ E ~ U~ 1!_ ct(~rn C? cn t(1 W ll_ 1L 2
~' I LIQQQQQQQQIl1ln(f)
~~ ..
tuS4~
~b
~, ~ .. •.
~
t i
Is ~.~
I
I I 1 ti3aais~o oa I aaalsaoaa ..
I
I I
~ ~ ~ ~ ( I
(
( z1~o9
( z~:oi
~ i ~
t
$
_ g
I I
I to
~ ~' 1
(
~ (
, ( K ( 27
S I ~~
I
(
( I pl J
I 1
~~
~
--'~ ( j g f ~
"~
_ 1 9
Y
N 7t 7. ~
I N ...~~ ____T~_-_
.S I I ~.
1 warns I warns ~ I
I I ~I ZJ^. s) •.
I I
~) e ~'~
s i s ~ i ~s
~~' ~~' ~
I~ ~ ~~ ~ Q
} ( ~ ( U'
1 ~ aooa { urns iooa
O I ZI~b I 214 rv
1 ~ ~
>~ A.2Z
> ~~d
m
m
a
N
r-
I
I
I N
) ~
(:
(~
(
I~
t
(4
i
1
I
I
7.~
~~
V
m~
$s
z ~ : .:
JI ~ pj
O
g~~~~x
~ 3
a~ ~~
~ ~ ~ Q .~
a.. ~~ s ~
D
N aNT
y27fi ~ Go
^+ ~~ a,~~,m K a~
as~~~ ~3~o~y ~~ ~ £~~
o,~ >o..a 8M a ~o°x
¢yay~~Z°Z~4y' ZZ~d~i7 .: m mzvi
ysWp` NGI ~II=V= <W°~W~ O~~ f8 ~O~
5~~25¢S ~~~v~i YN_l ~ ~Vi ~py>6~
~~Wy~jF 06ZV qCVC y~1aa~~ 2O 40iyu'J
°°'~~Z ~rLLaa 2~u~ <V a6F
~070~0 "oaG~~ i8i av o:°
~V~(Kn C7C°u1 00~0~ C~u~i ~Z o-
'P Z~O ~~ ~rt m~OJ iNZ y~y;; 22m2
~o'go~ 33o~,r,i~i ozi °o $Z~~
~~'v nia< #~x~3a ao~' a3 ~nap0d
m
Qx' mo m~ N~
~~~~~~ ~N &~ <a
S"~°c°cm"O~ ~o mrc. €?
imtZ~j6~WOF N~ i~ ~W .
~6 ¢Z p~il~ ~6p'Z v01Z J~
4ZZ ZYKI aP Z<Z
~F~~UNF ZF~ ~~> Om
d''~S u~iogy~' ~~z a0. uU
againTxii o~a"i rc~rcZy ¢~°1 ~~
yyap@p@WUOOyZy ¢V¢ ¢¢ W- W Z HNZ
V60L.0~° U~~ V~< V6
6
~ 'i
~b $
~J
. r----
1
(
I
I
1
1
1 jj~~~ d
I i7 W ~
F.. >
N ; ~ C
I
(
I I
I
L . - --
( d
O.Z~7 SI
?'y ~ B ~ ~~ y ~-I
t0/~b-"~1I '8'fi61I NL9dd08 71~i8 05 81II0
n~11 V
aa~ue~
...
~
.
~ snotaiwru.re g
a
~ ~
i
~~~~.~.
.?
~.
a
ff
~~
w~
.~.~s~'.,F .o
~~~ ~00~ d~W./ttom ~apoy~ as~2g a:~~nbs-~ •°~.,;.;~^+I.
c. ee.. Jti.a S.I C.. - ..~~ _S~. ,.
LUOZ ~7Z AYjijr~j `'. -- ~~ ' ' i.
. • ~ ~~~~ '
. ,. '~ ..
p ''e •'~• ~• `'.F
. ~ ;~[:
J . ~• • • r•
., i
~~~.~
~ +~ .,:
:. ~ ~'~•~
~; t' .'
.. ~
~~ ~~-~ ~~
.. ~~ ~ ~< -
~~ ~. ~ :.
~ ~'~ry '~
~~~
.~
3
-- ~~.
cB
0
L
Q
L
^Q
W
U
L
^~
i^..,1.
W
.~
O
0
^r
W
^~
W
^L
2W
J
0
W
.~
Q
_0
1/~
Y^J,
W
L
^~
W
^~
W ~~
Q A
W Q
O
U_ ~
Z ~
o
N
ti ~
~ ~
C ~
(B "_
~ ~
O ~
N ''-'
~ O
~~~~
~ ~ .
7316 Clinton Ave - Subd. Waiver 3/09
Surrounding Zoning
R R R
R R R R i
R
R R R
-~
73RD ST
W
Q
D
FY
M
I
LEGEND
R -Single-Family Residential
N
0 50 100 200 300 400
Feet
~^ • oA ^ uzA~~^pOUIZj L~ XC~'S„sT
R R
R R
R R
R R
R
R R
R
R
R R R R
R R R R
R R R R
R R R
R R
W
R
R
R R Z
O R R
R R Z
J R R
R
R V
R
R
R ~
R ~
R I
R
R R
R R R
R
1
7316 Clinton Ave - Subd. Waiver 3/09
Surrounding Land Uses
RES RES RES ,
I
,
RES RES RES RES RES
R RES RES RES S
73RD ST
i
W
Q
M
LEGEND
RES -Single-Family Residential
N
0 50 100 200 300 400
Feet
RES RES
RES RES
RES RES
,
RES
RES
RES
RES RES
RES
R
RES
RES RES RES RES
RES
RES ,
RES
RES ,
RES RES RES RES
RES RES RES '
RES RES
W
RES
RES
RES RES Z
O RES RES
RES
RES
Z
J
RES I
RES
RES RES U RES RES
RES RES RES RES
RES RES R
RES RES RES
RES ~
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 7G
REPORT # 59
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 10, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
BRAD SVEUM, FIRE SERVICES
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution accepting grant from Metropolitan Emergency Services Board.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
1. Approve the resolution accepting the grant in the amount of
$7214.40 from the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board (MESB)
to be used by the City of Richfield Public Works Department to
purchase six 800 MegaHertz radios and related- accessories,
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the
MESB to execute the grant. Acceptance of this grant is in
accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03
II. BACKGROUND
The Metropolitan Emergency Services Board manages and supports the regional
public safety 800MegaHertz radio system. In 2008 they received money from the
United States Department of Commerce for improvements to the Public Safety
Interoperable Communications System.. Due to budget issues for the past several
years the City of Richfield Public Works Department has not .been able to acquire
.radios which would enable them to talk directly with Fire, Police and the Dispatchers
during a large scale event such as severe storm. The City of Richfield became
0310FJre
DIRECTOR
:NAME, TITLE
aware of this grant opportunity, applied for and was awarded a grant by the MESB
to purchase such radios.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota Statue 465.03 requires all donations to be accepted by
resolution of the council and adopted by two-thirds majority of its
members.
City Council approval is needed to authorize the City Manager to enter
into such an agreement.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• This donationaids in reducing the expenditure for Public Works
supplies from the general fund.
• This equipment will allow Public Works personnel to communicate
directly with Fire and Police commanders during large scale events.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City of Richfield is required to a 20% match of the total amount up
to $1,803.60. The Public Works has funds for this in their 2009
operating budget.
D. LEGAL
• Minnesota State Statute 465.03 requires all donations to be accepted
by resolution of the council and adopted by atwo-thirds majority vote
of its members.
City Council approval is needed to authorize the City Manager to enter
into such an agreement.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• None
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
• Agreement.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
~"--~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF METROPOLITAN EMERGENCY
SERVICES BOARD GRANT FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD,
AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE
METROPOLITAN EMERGENCY SERVICES BOARD AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY
TO ADMINISTER THE FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE, WITH GRANT AGREEMENTS AND
TERMS PRESCRIBED BY THE DONORS
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 awarded the grant as described. below,
Metropolitan Emergency Services Board grant in the amount of $7,214.40 for the
purchase of six {6) 800 MegaHertz radios. _
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 accepts the Metropolitan
Emergency Services Board (MESB) Grant funds in the amount of $7,214.40 for the year
2009, authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the MESB and
authorizes the City to administer the funds in accordance with the grant agreements and
terms prescribed by the donors.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
March, 2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~C'~-
Sulu-~~T AGREE1v1~T
This Sub-Grant Agreement (the Agreement) is.entered into on this day of
, 2009, by and between the Metropolitan Emergency Services (Sub-Grantor), a
Minnesota Regional joint powers board under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 403.39
and 471,59, and the'City of Richfield, a Minnesota City, (Sub-Grantee).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, in Apri12008, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (MOPS) received a
grant of monies from the United States Department of Commerce for improvements to the Public
Safety Interoperable Communications System (PS1C); and
WHEREAS, the MOPS has entered into an agreement with Sub-Grantor (the MOPS
Agreement), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit ~, on or about December 10, 2008; and
WHEREAS, it is a requirement of the United States Department of Commerce grant that
the granted monies be used to supplement, not supplant or replace, funds appropriated from the
State of Minnesota or the Sub-Grantee; and
WHEREAS, the MOPS Agreement has imposed an the Sub-Grantor certain requirements
and obligations to insure that grant funds are expended by Sub-Grantors for authorized activities
and that appropriate records and certifications are prepared and maintained; and
WHEREAS, the Sub_Grantor and Sub-Grantee are desirous of entering into the Sub-Grant
Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein, Sub-
Grantor (Metropolitan Emergency Services Board) and Sub-Grantee (the City of Richfield,
Minnesota) do hereby agree as follows:
I. Term of Sub-Grant Contract.
1. Effective. date. This Agreement shall be effective on the date Sub-Grantee's grant
request, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B (Grant
Request), is approved by the Sub-Grantor and this. agreement executed by the parties.
2. Expiration Date.- This Agreement shall expire and be of no further force or effect
on the earlier of the following:
a) September 30, 2010,
b) The disbursement to Sub-Grantee the sum of $7214.40
~ ~--3
II_ Grant of Monies.
The Sub-Grantor agrees to make available to Sub-Grantee a grant of up to $7214.40 to
reimburse Sub-Grantee for the acquisition of the interoperable radio communications equipment
identified on the attached Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein and made a part hereof.. Sub-
Granteeshall use the proceeds of the Grant only far the purchase of the equipment identified in
Exhibit B. Sub-Grantee's reimbursement shall be limited to a maximum of 80% of the cost to
purchase the equipment, and Sub-Grantee must provide a 20% match for such cost. The 20% match
is calculated using the following formula: ((grant amount x 100) - 80) l grant amount.
III. Sub-Grantee Representations and Warranties.
With respect to this Grant,. Sub-Grantee represents and warrants to Sub-Grantor as follows:
1. It has the legal authority to enter in#o; .execute and deliver this agreement, and it has
taken or will take prior to disbursement of any Grant proceeds all actions necessary to the execution
and delivery of this agreement and has the legal authority to purchase the equipment identified in
Exhibit B.
2, This Agreement is a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Sub-Grantee and is
enforceable against the Sub-Grantee according to its terms.
3. It will comply with all of the terms, conditions, and warranties in this Agreement.
4. To the best of its knowledge, it has made no material false statement of fact in
connection with its receipt of this Grant, and all of the information previously submitted to Sub-
Grantar or which it will submit to the Sub-Grantor in the future relating to this Grant or the
disbursement of any of the Grant is and will. be true and correct,
5. It will use the Grant proceeds solely for expenditures to purchase the equipment
identified on Exhibit B. Provided, however, that Sub-Grantee may use Grant proceeds to purchase
other interoperable radio equipment for the PSIC Grant, so long as such equipment is listed on the
Statewide Radio Board's approved equipment Iist. In no case shall such substituted use of Grant
proceeds increase the Grant amount.
6. It has or will comply with the matching fund requirements of Section IV 2 of this
Agreement.
N. Consideration and Payment.
Sub-Grantor will reimburse Sub-Grantee for all eligible and approved expenditures under
this Sub-Crrant Agreement as follows:
1. Compensation. Sub-Grantee will be reimbursed in an amount not to exceed
$?214.40,
2
-r G ~
2. Matching Requirements. Sub-Grantee agrees that it will. expend at least $1803.60
from its. own funds or other non-grant sources as a match for grant reimbursement.
3. Total Obligation. The total obligations of the Sub-Grantor to Sub-Grantee shall not
exceed the sum of $9018.00.
4. Payment.
a) Invoices. The Sub-Grantor will promptly pay the Sub-grantee upon submission of
an invoice from the Sub-Grantee and the Sub-Grantor's Representative accepts the
invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted in a timely manner. All requests for
reimbursement must be submitted to the Sub-Grantor by June 30, 2010.
Sub-Crrantee must certify that the reimbursements and payments are accurate and
appropriate based on the approved plan; that Sub-Grantee has verified the
completion of the project or phase and that Sub-Grantee has obtained documentation
of actual expenditures for which reimbursement is sought including copies of its
itemized invoices and payment verification.
b) Sub-Grantee's reimbursement requests to the Sub-Grantor shall include a summary
report showing the fallowing information: total budget showing bath the contribution
and grant funds, if applicable; previous expenditure and reimbursements made, if
applicable; and the amount of current reimbursement request, if applicable. -
5. Conditions of Payment. All services provided by the Sub-Grantee under this grant
contract must be performed to the Sub-Grantor's and State's satisfaction, as determined at the sole
discretion of the State's Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. Sub-Grantee will not receive payment for
work found by the State or Sub-Grantor to be unsatisfactory ar performed in violation of federal,
state, or local law.
V. Miscellaneous
L Authorized Representative. The Sub-Grantor's Authorized Representative is Jill
Rohret, ar her successor, and has the responsibility to monitor Sub-Grantee's performance and the
authority to accept the services provided under this grant contract. If the services are satisfactory;
- - - - --the- Sub=Grantor's Authorized Representativewill-certify acceptance on each vivoce submitted for - - - _ _
payment.
Sub-Grantee's Authorized Representative is Steven L. Devich, Richfield City Manager; 612-861-
9702. If Sub-Grantee's Authorized Representative changes at any time during this grant contract,
Sub-Grantee must immediately notify the Sub-Grantor in writing.
2. Assignmen#, Amendments, Waiver, and Grant Contract Complete.
a) Assignment. Sub-Grantee may neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations
under this grant contract without the prior consent of the Sub-Grantor and a fully
executed Assignment Agreement, executed and approved by the same parties who
3
~~
executed and approved this grant contract,. or-their successors in office.
b) Amendments. Any amendment to this grant contract must be in writing and will
not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who
executed and approved the original grant contract, or their successors in office.
c) Waiver. If the Sub-Grantor fails to enforce any provision of this grant contract, that
failure does not waive the provision or its right to enfarce it.
d) Grant Contract Complete. This grant contract contains all negotiations and
agreements between the Sub-Grantor anal Sub-Grantee. No other understanding
regarding this grant contract, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either
P~3'•
3. Liability. Sub-Grantee must indemnify, save, and hold the Sub-Grantor, its agents,
and employees harmless from any claims or causes of action,. including attorney's fees incurred by
the Sub-Grantor arising from the performance of this grant contract by Sub-Grantee or Sub-
Grantee's agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies Sub-
Grantee may have for the Sub-Grantor's failure to fulfill. its obligations under this grant contract.
Nothing in this section shall constitute or be deemed a waiver by Sub-Grantee of its statutory or
common law immunities or limitations of liability, if any. Sub-Grantee shall maintain such books
and records as will satisfactorily demonstrate to Federal, State, and Sub-Grantor's Auditors that
Sub-Grantee has not used Grant monies to supplant or substitute for local funds. If upon such audit
the auditing agency determines that Grant funds have been used to supplant, rather than supplement,
local funds, and levies any penalties or fines, or requires refund of any Grant monies, Sub-Grantor
agrees that it shall be responsible for such penalties; fines, or refundment, and shall hold the sub-
Grantor harmless therefrom.
4. .State Audits. Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. S, Sub-Grantee's books, records,
documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to this grant contract are subject to
examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a
minimum of six years from the end of ties grant contract.
5. Government Data Practices. Sub-Grantee and Sub-Grantor must comply with the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn..Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by
Sub-Grantee under this grant contract, and as it applies to ail data created,. collected, received,
stored, used, maintained,. or disseminated by Sub-Grantee under this grant contract. The civil
remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either
Sub-Grantee or the Sub-Grantor. If Sub-Grantee receives a request to release the data referred to in
this Clause, Sub-Grantee must immediately notify the Sub-Grantor. The Sub-Grantor will give
Sub-Grantee instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is
released.
6. Workers' Compensation. Sub-Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn.
Stat. § 176.181, subd. 2, pertaining to workers' compensation insurance coverage. Sub-Grantee's
employees and agents will not be considered Sub-Grantor employees. Any claims that may arise
under the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims
4
`? C- ~
made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are
in no way the Sub-Grantor's obligation or responsibility.
7. Publicity and Endorsement.
a) Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this grant contract must
identify the State as the sponsoring agency, and must not be released without prior
. written approval from the State's Authorized Representative. For purposes of this
provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases,
research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Sub-
Grantee individually or jointly with others,. or any subcontractors, with respect to the
program publications, or services provided resulting from this grant contract.
b) Endorsement. Sub-Grantee must not claim that either the State or the Sub-Grantor
endorses its products or services.
8. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue. Minnesota. law, without regard to its
choice-of--law provisions, governs this grant contract. Venue for ail legal proceedings out of this
grant contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal-court with competent
jurisdiction iri Ramsey county, Minnesota.
9. Termination.
a} Termination by the Sub-Grantor. The Sub-Grantor may cancel this grant contract
at any time; with or without cause, upon 30 days' written notice to the Sub-Grantee..
Upon termination, the Sub-Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro
rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed.
r
b} Termination. for Insuff"iicient Funding. The Sub-Grantor may immediately
terminate this grant contract if it does mat obtain. funding from the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety, or other funding source; of if funding cannot be
continued at a level suffident to allow for the payment of the services covered here.
Termination must be by written or fax notice to Sub-Grantee. The Sub-Grantor is
not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date
. of termination. However, Sub-Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a
pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are
available. The Sub-Grantor will not be assessed any penalty if the grant contract is
terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, or
other funding source, not to appropriate fiands._ The Sub-Grantor must provide Sub-
Grantee notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the Sub-Grantor
receiving that notice.
10. Data Disclosure. Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.6~, and other applicable law, Sub-
Grantee consents to disclosure of its social security number, federal employer tax identification
number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and
state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These
identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could
5
~~'~
result in action requiring Sub-Grantee to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities,
if any, or pay other state liabilities.
1 ] . Dispute Resolution. In the events of a dispute between the Sub-Grantor and any
other party to this agreement as to the terms of this agreement, the parties to the dispute shall submit.
such dispute to mediation before commencing litigation. The costs of such mediation shall be
shared. equally by the parties to the mediation.
12. Grants Over $100,000.00, If the Grant exceeds $100,000.00, Sub-Grantee must
complete a Certification Regarding Lobbying in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C.
SUB-GRANTOR
By:
Its:
Dated:
By: _
Its:
Dated:
Approved as to Form:
By:
Assistant Ramsey County Attorney
Dated: Dated:
SUB-GRANTEE
By; Steven L. Devich
Its: City Manager
Dated:
By: Debbie Goettel
Its: IVlayor
Dated:
Approved as to Form:
By:
b
Jy
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # ]D
REPORT # fjQ
J
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 10, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR n(
REVIEW: ~J
REVIEWED BY CITY 1~
MANAGER: ~J
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of approving agreement for Construction Engineering Services for the Lyndale
Avenue Bridge Project with WSB & Associates.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the hiring of WSB & Associates to perform
construction engineering services on the Lyndale Avenue Bridge
Project.
II. BACKGROUND
On January 13, 2009 the City Council approved an amendment to an existing work
order to have WSB & Associates continue to provide construction engineering
services on the Lyndale Avenue Bridge. The work order was paid for using the
City's Municipal State Aid Funds (gas tax revenues.) It was understood that this
work order would terminate at the time the City could secure federal funds to pay for
the remaining inspection work on the Lyndale Avenue Bridge Project.
In order to qualify for federal funds, City staff had to issue a Request For Proposals
(RFP) and evaluate the proposals from qualified engineering firms. The process
was recently completed with only one team including WSB & Associates, TKDA and
EVS, Inc., submitting a proposal at a cost of $142, 223.67.
0310Lyndale Bridge
The WSB team is qualified to perform the work. The team prepared the bridge
plans and has already performed construction engineering since October 1, 2008
on the Lyndale Avenue Bridge Project. Their work to date has been satisfactory.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City has followed federal procedures in securing bids to perform
the work.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Council approval will allow the City to use federal funds to pay for the
construction engineering services on the Lyndale Avenue Bridge.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City will use Federal Highway funds to pay for the construction
engineering services.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney will be available to answer any questions.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• The Lyndale Bridge Project has received all necessary state and
federal environmental approvals.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Refuse to hire WSB & Associates. The City would be forced to use its own
funds to obtain engineering services from a different consultant causing
possible delays in building the bridge.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposal dated February 18, 2009 for engineering services on the Lyndale
Avenue Bridge Project from WSB & Associates.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None anticipated.
~ ~ D -~ I
WSB
I^ ^
~^
- Infrastructure 1 Engineering 1 Planning 1 Construction
& Associates, Inc.
February 18, 2009
Ms. Kristin Asher, PE
City Engineer
City of Richfield
6700 Portland, MN 55423
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Ms. Asher:
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
The Lyndale Avenue Interchange reconstruction is a signature project for the cities of Richfield and
Bloomington. The WSB team, consisting of WSB & Associates, TKDA and EVS, Inc., is excited to
present you with the following proposal for the construction engineering services on the
replacement of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over I-494.
The WSB team has been involved with this project for the past five years. Our team successfully
completed the preliminary and final design plans for this project, which gives us a thorough
understanding of the project and its intricacies. This project is a complex urban design that
requires extensive coordination with the Cities, Mn/DOT, and the local businesses. Our team has
developed strong working relationships with these stakeholders and understands their concerns.
In addition to working on the Lyndale Avenue single-point urban interchange preliminary and final
design, members of the WSB team also participated in the design and construction of the Penn
Avenue Interchange, which is very similar to Lyndale Avenue. In addition to these single-point
urban interchange projects, our team has recently completed the CSAH 18/I-94 Interchange in
Monticello and the Sauk Rapids Regional Bridge in Sauk Rapids. WSB was involved with the
design and construction these projects, which included multiple agencies and funding sources,
including Federal Highway funds. Further detail on these projects is provided in this proposal.
These projects give our team the knowledge and experirence to successfully deliver the
construction engineering services for the I-494/Lyndale Avenue Interchange Project.
We look forward to completing this important project for the Cities of Richfield and Bloomington.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or items for discussion in our
proposal. Thank you.
r~
Associates, Inc.
Vice P
mann, PE
ACEC 2008 Firm of the Year
.~
..
Minneapolis 1St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer
-1-
wsB
^^
^®
T.~i~..~A`I~NUE ~~~ ~4N~TRi3~"FiQN I~P[GINI~ER:Il~[G
Our work plan reflects our team's detailed knowledge
of each of the project elements that must be
completed for this project, as well as the many
design related decisions that were made along the
way by the Cites, Mn/DOT, and local stakeholders.
. , ~, a~ v:::~ -. ,
c• ~ _'';rA 3.1?..~ 'i.~~'~", .. any, sv.;;s :y;:rf:: '. }f_):ir=;~'~
~;' ..
r .,
,.
~..: ..:
. ,:._:, .:::u
SGH:ED~J~E~:=~::~~.. ~, ..
The following Scope of Services outlines in greater
detail the tasks required to fulfill the objectives of the
Project. The schedule for completing these tasks is
shown in Figure 1 at the end of the Scope of Work.
• Schedule meetings of project team, Mn/DOT,
the City of Bloomington, and the City of
Richfield staff.
• Identify roles of key personnel and establish
.communication procedures.
• Establish need and frequency of ongoing project
team meetings/reviews. Participate in meetings
and document meeting minutes.
• Monitor progress and manage WSB staff and
subconsultants.
• Prepare and submit monthly status reports on
project progress.
• Respond to requests for attendance at City-
initiated meetings to discuss project.
• Implement and oversee quality control plan.
• Establish project file control system and
distribute to project team.
• Monitor project budget and work progress.
• Prepare subconsultant contracts.
Deliverables: Project Budgeting, Progress Reports
and Memoranda, Work Orders and Subcontracts,
Quality Control Plan
Task 2.Q. Construction 4bsarvation
Description: Visit the construction site once per
week to attend construction meetings, monitor the
construction progress, meet with Mn/DOT
construction staff and identify potential issues.
Subtasks:
• The project manger shall attend the weekly
construction meetings and monitor the
construction progress and consistency with the
plans. The time commitment for this task shall
be eight hours per week for the duration of the
project.
• The bridge engineer shall attend the weekly
construction meetings and monitor the
construction progress and consistency with the
plans. The time commitment for this task shall
be eight hours per week during active bridge
construction.
• Provide plan interpretation to Mn/DOT and the
contractor.
• Review shop drawing submittals.
• Process RFI's that are submitted by the
contractor and/or Mn/DOT.
• Provide design calculations requested by
Mn/DOT to aid in the bridge construction.
Deliverables: As needed per subtask
Task .Q: A,r~raenr~ent Rrocessing
Description: Provide coordination with the utility
companies and the railroad and provide the City with
agreement documents which are complete and
ready for Council consideration.
Deliverables: Agreements with Comcast, Qwest,
Xcel, and Progressive Rail
i i wsB
- `Z - ~ ~ssocmrcC ~~ro.
7 /~-3
i ~ T,~n:~.E Avi~r~ SRIIaG~ ~QNSTI~TG"I'IQN )~~~F,)[~[G ~
Task 4,Q; CQ~rdinatican with local Review and Pay Invoices.
BUSlnessea Process the contract documents (Change Orders,
Pay Vouchers, etc.) submitted by the contractor.
Description: Conduct meetings with local business
affected by the project on an as-needed basis. The
goal of this task is to keep the local businesses
current with the construction schedule and how it
affects their business. Bi-monthly meetings with
each local business will be held as the construction
progresses until the new bridge opens in 2009.
Subtasks:
• Schedule and attend meetings with local
businesses.
• Provide meeting minutes from each meeting.
• Provide assistance to business owners on
construction related concerns.
• Print Copies of Staging Brochure.
Deliverables: Meeting minutes from each business
meeting. Staging Brochure.
Task 5,A Funding l~~rawdown Schedule
Description: WSB will prepare monthly drawdown
schedule for the bridge construction project to assist
the City in estimating cash flow and reimbursement
requests. Evaluate city funds needed to cover for
federal advance funds not yet released. Adjust the
drawdown schedule monthly based on actual
drawdowns.
Deliverables: Forecasted drawdown schedule updated
monthly based on actual payment requests submitted by
the contractor. Monthly analysis of federal advance
funds not yet released.
The list below describes the responsibilities of the
City:
• Provide City Contact-Project Manager.
• Have Regular Discussions with Consultant Project
Manager.
• Keep Consultant Apprised of Issues and Concerns
of City and Others.
^
^^
-3-
wsB
~~
& A.rsnciales, I ic.
a~
~.
W
a~
~~
~ v
U ~
~ ~
~ ~~
C~ ~
~ ~
~bA
~ W
~" O
~ ~
~ ~"
~"~ O
U
V
O
.r."y'
U
` o
,~
mil e
°~
ti
~~
b
o
~ ~
N o
0
0
N
G
W k
O
3
ti
a
z
~
O ff
f
~ .~
~ ~
o
0 ,~
N
~ ~
~ ~
;.
1 1
W
~/1
o
"
a)
~
O
Z
y
n
~
w
v
~
a
O
.--I
O
~
y
O
~
~
~.
O
~
O
N
A
y
~
~
~
~
~
O
M Ci
O
~
.~.".
ib
O
0
~
~
O
a
o
~ ""
,b
~
~..
~
C
3
~
G
~
w
0
~A
~
o
U
o
Lr
a
~~~
~-
i ® LUYNIIAAi.,E A~II~1~ ~itl~ll)I)GE QNS~T'~>I:fCTiON EN~~i11~ERlIfY~ i
LYNDALE AVENUE INTERCHANGE
RICHFIELD, MN
The WSB
team,
including
TKDA, is
providing
the City of
Richfield
with
engineering
services to
complete
the design
for a new
federally funded single-point diamond interchange at
Lyndale Avenue and I-494.
An evaluation of access to I-494 and I-35W at both
Lyndale Avenue and 76th Street took place during
the preliminary design phase. In order to
accommodate the ramps over the freeway, a unique
bridge design is required. Both steel and concrete
bridge superstructures will be evaluated. Elements
of the project include:
• construction staging with maintenance of traffic
• utility relocation
• lighting, traffic signal
• .ramp meters
• sidewalks
• frontage road work
• landscaping
• aesthetic treatments
Reference:
Mike Eastling, Public Works Director
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
612.861.9700
ii
-5-
~~ -•
• •
WSB assisted the City of Monticello with
infrastructure improvement projects related to the
CSAH 18/I-94 Interchange area, resulting in an
investment of $25 million. WSB's assistance to the
City with innovative financing resulted in having
much of the cost on this project paid by other
stakeholders, with as little as 15% coming from the
general fund. The newly located interchange
replaces the previous existing half interchange,
providing two full interchanges to serve the City's
transportation needs. This project consisted of
several area improvements that required significant
planning and coordination.
The CSAH 18/
I-94 Interchange
also included
Minnesota's first
multi-lane
roundabout. The
roundabout was
added as a
supplemental
agreement to the
original contract.
Mn/DOT had previously not allowed multi-lane
roundabouts on the State Aid system. When
Mn/DOT changed this policy, it happened while the
CSAH 18/I-94 Interchange was already under
construction. The City and WSB raced to get agency
approvals, design plans and negotiate a
supplemental agreement with the contractor in time
for the roundabout to be completed during the
current construction season. The massive
coordination effort paid off.
The distinctiveness of the project was the creative
funding program developed to maximize both public
and private investments the various bid packages
utilized to meet the compressed schedule and the
first Multi-lane roundabout in Minnesota.
The interchange, utility systems, and local streets
including the roundabout were fully operational in
November 2006.
Reference:
Bruce Westby, City Engineer
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Avenue; Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
763.295.2711
w.SB
~~
& As ociarae. ~,n
~o
;; ~YN]QAI~E A~NB~ $I!I~~ ~Q]i~ISiTRLTC", ~Q-N ~NC~~~G i
PENN AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
RICHFIELD AND BLOOMINGTON, MN
The Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 located in the
Cities of Richfield and Bloomington was
reconstructed in 2002 to accommodate the future
expansion of I-494.
The single point (one intersection with one traffic
signal) diamond interchange provides for dual left
turn lanes in each direction as well as two through
lanes in each direction. The interchange
reconstruction schedule was compressed to meet
the aggressive redevelopment of the immediate area
including the new Best Buy Corporate Headquarters
facility. The $25 million Mn/DOT Cooperative
Agreement project went from preliminary design,
through final design and construction letting in just
over a year.
WSB was responsible for preparing and obtaining
concurrence on both the Environmental Assessment
and the Interchange Modification Request
documents for the project. While with a different
consulting firm, Tony Heppelmann of WSB was
instrumental in the development of the conceptual
and preliminary design of the interchange as well as
the future development of the corridor. His
professional relationship with the communities along
the corridor facilitated the process of obtaining
municipal consent in the ultimate corridor design.
Dave Vincent of WSB provided construction
inspection services on the Penn Ave Bridge. He
responded to RFI's and provided technical
inspections on a weekly basis.
Reference:
Mike Eastling, Public Works Director
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
612.861.9700
-.- ~
Stearns County
and the City of
Sauk Rapids
retained the
WSB/SRF team
to review
alternatives
being prepared
for Benton
County for the
Sauk Rapids
bridge replacement in downtown Sauk Rapids. This
included several alternatives with grade-separated
and at-grade crossings of the BNSF tracks. This
project involved a substantial coordination effort with
the BNSF and Mn/DOT Office of Railways. Several
meetings were held to discuss both the ultimate
configuration, as well as the temporary configuration
during construction of the bridge crossing. The
project involved an analysis of the existing train
traffic and vehicular traffic. The cost benefit of a
railroad at-grade crossing versus a railroad grade-
separated crossing was analyzed.
WSB was responsible for the project management of
the construction of the Sauk Rapids Regional Bridge.
The project included the construction of two bridges,
a concrete one to span the BSNF railroad and a
steel one to span the Mississippi, and a pedestrian
helix ramp to allow foot traffic direct access to the
park located beneath the bridge.
The project included:
• Right of way coordination
• Demolition plan review
• Construction oversight and contract
administration
• Roadway design for all bridge approaches
• Detailed information process involving the
public, businesses, and governmental agencies
• Substantial MnDNR coordination requiring a
steel design with less pier impact versus the
proposed concrete design
Reference:
Mark Campbell, Mayor
City of Sauk Rapids
115 2"d Avenue North
Sauk Rapids, MN 56379
320.258.5300
;; wsB
- 6 - & dssnciate, Grc.
^^
^®
~~~
I.dYI`ID-AL~ A~ENU)E B-)~~ID~ ~~.INSTRiIC`I'IQN ~NG1INE:ER11)`[~ ~ ~
~~~
WSB has selected a team that has been working
with the City of Richfield on the Lyndale Avenue
Bridge project from its inception. Our familiarity with
the area, the process, and the design will give the
City the advantage of no "learning curve"; therefore,
minimizing costs.
Qer~k Schmidt, PE
Project Manager
As Project Manager, Derek will be responsible for
leading and coordinating the work within the WSB
team and be responsible for the quality control, staff
scheduling, and overall project management to
ensure that the project meets a high quality
standard, is delivered on time, and within budget.
He will serve as the primary contact for
communication with the City of Richfield staff.
Derek is a Project Manager in WSB's Transportation
Group with more than ten years of experience. His
primary focus of work includes preliminary and final
highway design on major interstate and trunk
highway projects. He has extensive knowledge of
CAD software including MicroStation and
GEOPAKT"'. Prior to joining WSB; Derek was
employed by a global engineering firm where he
provided detail design services on numerous
complex projects throughout the United States and
also served as the ISO 9001 quality coordinator for
their local office.
Relevant Experience:
• Project Manager - I-494/Lyndale Ave Final
Design
• Project Engineer - I-94/CSAH 18
Interchange Final Design
• Project Manager - I-94/CSAH 18
Construction
• Lead Roadway Reviewer-TH 212 Design
Build
pave Vincent
Construction Observation
Dave will be responsible for the construction
observation on the Lyndale Bridge construction. He
has more than 30 years of experience in his areas of
expertise, including coordinating the preliminary and
final design of construction documentation for
structural projects throughout the United States,
bridge construction inspection, estimating, and plan
.®
..
production. He has acted as on-site inspector for a
variety of major projects and also supervised other
inspectors during the construction process. Dave
has a number of Mn/DOT certifications, including
Bridge Construction Inspection Levels I and II.
Relevant Experience
• Bridge Designer - I-494/Lyndale Ave Final
Design
• Quality Assurance Technician - I-35W
Bridge Design Build
Sarr~tt LEavela~, FEE
Bridge Engineer
Barritt has been the Bridge Design Engineer for the
three span steel girder single point diamond bridge
at Lyndale Avenue. He will continue in this role
throughout the construction process. Barritt is a
Senior Structural Engineer in our Structural Group,
with more than ten years of experience. His
experience encompasses various areas including
bridges, retaining walls, buildings, water and
wastewater facilities, and bridge safety inspections.
Relevant Experience
• Bridge Engineer - I-494/Lyndale Ave Final
Design
• Bridge Engineer - I-94/CSAH 18 Interchange
final design.
Hans Erick~an, PEA SE
TKDA -Bridge Engineer
Hans joined TKDA's Surface Transportation Division
with a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering
with an emphasis in Steel and Concrete Structures.
His experience includes all areas of design and
management for various bridge structures. He has
been integrally involved with many local bridge
projects at various levels from project inception
through to final design. He is active in local
professional organizations and has recently finished
a term as chairman of the local ASCE Structures
Technical Committee. He is proficient in a wide
range of analysis and drafting software, and is
registered as a Professional Engineer in the State of
Minnesota, and as a Structural Engineer in the State
of Illinois. He is certified as a Team Leader for bridge
safety inspections in the State of Minnesota, and as
the Bridge Inspection Program Administrator for the
City of Brooklyn Center. Hans was responsible for
design and detail of the substructure elements
supporting the steel superstructure for the Lyndale
wsB
- 7 - & A.csnciNes, Grn
^^
^®
~~"~
I.s~l`I1~ALE A~~E ~Rlll~~ ~QNS'T11~iJG1IQN ~NE~E~iG ~.
Avenue Interchange bridge. He is the Engineer of
Record for the substructure elements.
Ttnathy Ghalu~nik, PE
TKDA -Highway Engineer
Tim has over 30 years of consulting experience in
transportation engineering. He has been with TKDA
for 17 years. His experience encompasses project
management, public involvement facilitation, and
design engineering for all phases of highway and
traffic engineering projects. This includes
environmental documentation, corridor studies,
geometrics, profiles, super elevations, pavement
design, construction staging and traffic control, utility
relocations, traffic analysis and projections, Signal
Justification Reports, Intersection Control
Evaluations, traffic signal design, signing and
pavement marking design, drainage design and
studies, and preparation of final construction plans,
specifications, and cost estimates. Tim was the
design manager for the highway elements on the
Lyndale Avenue Interchange bridge project.
Mark Daubenber~er, PE
TKDA -Retaining Wall Engineer
Mark joined TKDA in 1993 and has been involved in
a wide variety of projects. He has experience in the
design of highway, railroad, and pedestrian bridges,
including new construction and rehabilitations; trails;
and railroad fueling facilities. His activities on these
projects includes project management, feasibility
studies, environmental documentation, preliminary
and final design and plan production, cost
estimating, special provisions, and construction
contract administration. Mark was responsible for
the design and quality control of almost 3,200 lineal
feet of six cast-in-place concrete retaining walls with
spread footings on the Lyndale Avenue Interchange
bridge project.
.®
^s
-8-
wsB
~ at~ooro~~. i,~.
a~
v
.r.,
TT~
Q V1
..•r O
CC ',~^",
~ v
rl ~ ~
~ ~ ~~~..yy
iN
E O
~~yl ~
hl
•ry
~~
W ~~~..yy
iN
::
c
~~ 4
O
W
Q
I1-W--11
w
x
U
w
O O
W
~
`°
d'
~
N ~
O
F x
U
y
N
~
M
U
~ U
x
~ F"'
~ 7
N 7
N
3 ~
d
~ C
O
y V O
W ~ v
~ ~c ~o
~
F°., m
C
U
v~ M
M M
M
N
N
C
O
M
O
d,
O
~
~
~
W
~ ~
d ~
S
O
W
V~
N
N
0.i G C
W
G
.~ ON N
a
z
0 W
0
¢
x
z a ~ ~ ~
W
~
~'
o z
z
3
W O V U O
¢ z °x W 3
o ~
r ~ w ~
o F
U ~
F ~
W W
.a C7
~
z
`
~'
z ~y
C4
U qq
~
W A ~ O Q O w L
'a
`~' d
z
0
0
0
0
0 ~
'y ~--~ N M V vi y
w h F
~~-~
ON N N E O M b N
~O 00
N N
M \O ~ O N T N
~ ~
~ .M. N
b9 b ti
69
~ O~
yj ~ fi
9 fR
Vi ~
~ ~ ~ o
~ M ~
~
l~ ~
M
ti ~
~ ~
V~
~
'"
v v ~ o
~ N ~ ~
~ d' ~ h
N N
~ b
7 C
O
O N
N O
O~ N
ti
N M ~ 7
N N l~ O~
vl N O N
V ~ M l~
N
O N
00 ~n
t~1 l~
N
N V ~ 7
~ H O N
~O ~C cV OC
O
M M
O~ d'
h h
~O
N N N N
a
b b N
Vl N M OC
~ ~ M 00
N N
'C
a
w ~
~ U
c. c
+ ~
v
4 C
R > X
O W
ti
~ ~ O Y
~ O N
Ua .c
ca
~ ~
y ~
'~
K
W
s L
o ~ '~ ~ ~ °Q
0 4
x
~
O ~ a F ~ w F
b
d
d
c
L
d
A
:~
.~
b
O
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 10, 2009
CONSENT
7E
61
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION MANAGER
N,9MG, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses with
optional tam closing for Tejaban Mexica Grill, LLC d/b/a EI Tejaban Mex.Grill, 2 W. 66th
Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a public hearing to be held March 24, 2009, for
Tejaban Mexica Grill, LLC d/b/a EI Tejaban Mex.Grill, 2 W. 66th Street
for:
• Consideration of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor
licenses.
• Include national tam closina.
IL .BACKGROUND
Applications far new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses with optional
tam closing for for Tejaban Mexica Grill, LLC d/b/a EI Tejabab Mex.Grill were
received by the City on December 11, 2008.
0310 Set PH EI Tejaban Mexica Grill New Liquor Licenses
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing
to consider all intoxicating liquor license applications and that a date
be set for the public hearing prior to the hearing.
• The hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may be
considered.
• The new process has been initiated.
• Holding the public hearing on March 24, 2009 will provide ample time
to complete the licensing process.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Reject the applications for new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor
licenses with optional tam closing for Tejaban Mexica Grill, LLC d/b/a EI
Tejabab Mex.Grill.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
AGENDA SECTION: PROP. ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM # 9
REPORT # h9
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 10, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a second reading of an ordinance that would incorporate an aircraft impact
overlay district imposing standards on construction of all new residential dwellings and
recommending construction standards on the remodeling or expansion of existing residential
dwellings within the 2007 60+ DNL noise contours.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
1. Conduct a second reading of an ordinance that would incorporate
an aircraft impact overlay district imposing standards on
construction of all new residential dwellings and recommending
construction standards on the remodeling or expansion of existing
residential dwellings within the 2007 60+ DNL noise contours.
2. Approve the attached resolution authorizing summary publication
of an ordinance incorporating the aircraft impact overlay district
imposing standards on construction of all new residential
dwellings and recommending construction standards on the
remodeling or expansion of existing residential dwellings within
the 2007 60+ DNL noise contours.
031009-2"d Rdg Airport Overlay Ordinance_Summary Publication
CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
II. BACKGROUND
In 2005 the Cities of Richfield, Minneapolis, and Eagan were parties to litigation
against the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to ensure that residents
receive mitigation from airport noise.
In October 2007 the lawsuit was settled, and under the terms of the settlement MAC
is providing varying degrees of noise mitigation measures to single and multi-family
homes. The settlement provided for noise relief to approximately 1,200
homeowners in the community. Additionally, as part of the settlement, all of the
affected cities were required to formally consider a draft ordinance (prepared by the
MAC) for airport noise attenuation by September 1, 2008 as outlined in the
settlement's Consent Decree.
In July 2008 the Planning Commission and City Council held hearings regarding the
proposed ordinance. The City Council voted to reject the proposed ordinance and
directed staff to .rewrite an ordinance that is specific to the needs and goals of the
community.
Since that time, staff has been developing a draft ordinance that would reflect
Richfield's needs. A number of similar ordinances from jurisdictions around the
country were reviewed. In reviewing these ordinances it was found that a majority
required the property owner to have a home tested for noise attenuation, which is
an expensive undertaking.
The City Council had expressed that they do not want to put undue burden on a
homeowner nor prevent the rehabilitation or expansion of existing homes by
creating an onerous set of requirements. Frequently, homeowners have prepared
and designed a remodeling project before they approach the City for building
permits to begin the work. A requirement by the City to meet noise attenuation
requirements would likely result in a need for the homeowner to redesign their
project at increased costs for labor and material; which may be a deterrent for
homeowners to make such improvements. The City of Richfield has always
promoted the rehabilitation of existing homes in an effort to encourage families to
stay in our community. Therefore, it is recommended that the requirements in the
proposed Airport Impact Overlay District would serve only as guidelines for
homeowners who are planning to remodel or expand their home.
However, for new construction it is much easier to include noise attenuation
measures, since most of these projects will be brought to the City's attention before
construction plans or work would begin. Additionally, modern building standards
are much more conducive to adaptation for noise attenuation than is the remodeling
of homes built decades ago. In the proposed ordinance, new single and multi-
family construction would be re uired to use building materials that have a Sound
Transmission Class (STC) rating of 40 (which is the noise attenuation of products
used by the MAC for current and previous noise mitigation programs). New
residential dwellings would also be required to have central air conditioning and
mechanical ventilation, which further attenuate the noise.
If adopted, staff would make a concerted marketing effort to notify builders,
contractors, homeowners, and real estate agents in the area regarding the
ordinance for new construction and the guidelines for rehabilitation or expansion of
existing residential structures. Marketing efforts would include the development of a
handout, promotion on the City's website, at the Remodeling Fair and at the
upcoming Realtor Workshop. The building permit forms would also be altered to
reflect this new ordinance.
Of the communities involved in the lawsuit, the City of Minneapolis has passed an
ordinance that is similar to the attached draft ordinance and the City of Eagan has
decided not to develop an ordinance.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Metropolitan Council requires that Richfield address airport noise
impacts in our 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. Staff is in the process
of determining whether the adoption of the proposed ordinance would
fulfill this requirement. If not, staff would then prepare a Comprehensive
Plan amendment to meet the Metropolitan Council's concerns.
• Staff will develop an education outreach program to inform property
owners, builders, remodelers, and real estate agents about the ordinance
requirements.
• Educational outreach will include a handout of the guidelines for property
owners who are considering a remodel their properties within the 2007
60+ DNL noise contours.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The proposed ordinance provides guidelines for homeowners to remodel
or expand their home with materials and practices which lessen the
adverse impact of airport noise without being a determent to making such
improvements.
• Any new residential structure in the community that is impacted by the
noise contours will be required to mitigate the structure for noise.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on
February 26, 2009. No members of the public spoke on this item.
• The Planning Commission voted unanimously (8-0) to recommend
approval of the attached Ordinance.
• The Council approved a first reading of the attached Ordinance on
February 27, 2009.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with additional changes.
• Recommend denial of the proposed ordinance.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed Ordinance
• Resolution
• Map of City with 2007 60+ DNL contours
s
VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
~- i
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE
ADOPTION OF NEW SECTION 541; AND
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 512.13 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED
TO AIRPORT IMPACT OVERLAY ORDINANCE
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
Single Family Residential R
Low.Density Single Family Residential e . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R-1
Two Famil Residential
....................................................................... _..Y...................................................................................
.
.. MR-1
.
....
.................................................................
Multi-Famil Residential
.............................. y........ .......... ........................ . e............. ................................
MR-2
.
Hi h Densit Multi Famil Residential
...........................g...............................................y..............................-................................y............................................................... .........................................
MR-3
,.......................................................
Commercial Districts
Service Office
............ .................................................................................................................................................................................. S-O
e
.......................
Neighborhood Business ......................................................
C-1
General Commercial
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Mixed-Use Districts
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . .
:
.
:
.
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mixed-Use Re tonal
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MU-R
.
. .
. . . . . . . .
. . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mixed-Use Communit
.................................................................................................................. y .................................... ................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MU-C
Mixed-Use Nei hborhood
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MU-N
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Industrial Districts
Industrial
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Planned Unit Development Districts
Planned Residential PR
Planned Two Famil Residential
.........................................................................................................
..
y ~
~ PMR-1
.
.....
.......................
Planned Multi-Famil Residential
.................. y......
~
~ .............._......
PMR
...
.........................
...............................
Planned Nei hborhood Commercial
...................................................................................9......
.
: .................................................
PC-1
..
.................................................
.....................................................................................
Planned General Commercial .......................................................;
PC-2
Overlay Districts
Airport ~-unwa~ Impact Overlay District AR_
Safet AIO-1
q-2-
Airport Impact Overlay District II AIO-2
Noise
Sec. 2. Subsection 512.01, Subdivision 2 of the Richfield City Code is amended to
read as follows:
Subd. 2. District boundaries. The location and boundaries of the zoning districts
established in this code, other than airport overlay districts, are set forth in
"Appendix 1" to this code which delineates the legal descriptions of land within each
zoning district. Appendix 1 is on file and open to public inspection during regular
city office hours in the Office of Community Development. The location and
boundaries of the airport impact overlay districts are identified in section 541 of this
code.
Sec. 3. Subsection 512.13, Subdivision 1 is amended to read as follows:
512.13. Airport o~wa~ impact overlay districts. Subdivision 1. Purpose and intent.
Two overlay districts are established in the city to address unique land use
situations related to the proximity of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
(Wold-Chamberlain Field) ("MSP Airport"). The airport impact overlay districts are
established to protect the public health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and
general welfare and to promote the appropriate use of land in the vicinity of the
MSP Airport.
Subd. 1 a. Airport Impact Overlay District I(Safety)("AIO-I). The Airport
sway Impact Overlay District I Safet is established to implement the 2004
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (Wold-Chamberlain Field) Zoning
Ordinance (hereinafter 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance). T"~o4 AAS~ee;~
~dt9~#~ L~Qi °~~~e~e~Ctt~Y7tLF11T7~G'Ain-7 n~~~i~t~~ of la inhfi°~ppy~I~+inQ
r°~ n }~I h°inh+ of ~++n ~n+~ ~r°e ~nrl nhi°n+c of n~+i ~rol nrn~ei+h onr~ n+h°neiic°
i~.stFil~t~c~Ltil~rT~~rrr-vr.TCruaccn~.~~rra-vuJcvr.~~rr~arcn-rn-c~rv o v m--a-rTCr~v~rrrcr-o a-rrc
T~[L_ ~n +h° iii nini+~i n~f +h° I~Ainn°~nnli~_C+. D~~ ~I In+°rn ~+inn~l
Airnnr+ `~~ The ~/~~ nAC~+D~ ~~ ~~ Winn rrlin~nn° },,,,
r-cirpvn~T~~`-~4--tVtvr-ZArTrrrc~ ra~rtcrrTV~ .~eT~tC~ $ a{~ e~ ~s
hn~~ ~++ ~°niJ in+n +h° (~i+~i n~~~r+~hy~n~e~~e~ ho A~~
f f e e
nr~p ri+~eaeral-wel#a~r~;~The AIO-1 District is intended to promote the
most appropriate use of land by preventing the creation or establishment of A+r~er~
ur,~aTd~ certain uses subject to the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance and Minnesota
Statutes-
Subd. 1 b. The Airport Impact Overlay District II (Noise) ("AIO-II") is intended
to reduce the impact of airport noise on residential land uses by establishing
standards for noise attenuation in new construction and by establishing Guidelines
for noise attenuation in the rehabilitation or remodelina of existina residential land
uses.
Subd. 1 c. The regulations for airport impact overlay districts are set forth at
section 541 of this code.
~-3
Sec. 4. Subsection 512.13, Subdivisions 2 and 3 of the Richfield City Code are
hereby repealed.
Sec. 5. Chapter 5 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new Section
541 as follows:
Section 541 -Zoning: Airport Impact Overlay Districts
541.01. Airport Impact Overlay Districts; Applicability. Subdivision 1.
Subsections 541.05 through 541.15 relate to Airport Impact Overlay District I
(Safety) "AIO-I."
Subd. 2. Subsections 541.75 and 541.77 relate to Airport Impact Overlay
District II (Noise) "AIO-II."
541.05. Definitions. The following words and terms when used in this section
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 the Effective Date, the terms. of which are
incorporated herein by reference.
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" -Any 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.
f) "Board of adjustment" -The body established in Section XII.A of the 2004 MSP
Zoning Ordinance.
g) "Consent Decree" -The Consent Decree signed on October 17, 2007 by Judge
Stephen C. Aldrich of the Minnesota District Court 4th Judicial District in the
action entitled .City of Minneapolis et al v. Metropolitan Airports Commission et
al., a true and correct copy of which is on file in the office of the Community
Development Director of the City of Richfield.
-I `~
h) "d BA" - a unit of sound pressure level weighted by use of the A metering
characteristics and weighting as specified in the American National Standards
Institute specifications for sound level meters (ANSI S1.4-1983), which is hereby
incorporated by reference. "d BA" is also referred to as an A-weighted decibel.
i) "Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)"-The day-night average sound level is
a measure of the average noise environment over a 24-hour day. It is the 24-
hour energy-averaged A-weighted sound level with a 10 decibel penalty applied
to nighttime levels which occur between 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
j) "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.
k) "Low density residential structure" - Asingle-family ortwo-family home.
I) "Low density residential lot" -Asingle 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.
m) "Noise Contours" -Lines or "footprints" of noise level usually drawn around a
noise source (such as an airport, industrial plant or highway). The lines are
generally drawn in 5-decibel increments so that they resemble elevation
contours found in topographic maps.
n) "Safety zones" -The land use zones established in Section V.A of the 2004
MSP Zoning Ordinance.
o) "Sound attenuation" -The reduction in sound level which occurs between the
source and receiver by means of construction methods and materials.
p) "Sound Transmission Class (STC)" - Asingle-number rating for describing the
degree of sound transmission loss specified for a wall, window, partition or other
building element. The higher the STC, the more attenuation the building
element will afford as defined by the Metropolitan Council's Builders Guide.
541.07. Airport Impact Overlay District I (Safety); district boundaries. The
Airport Impact Overlay District I (Safety) 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.
541.09. General Restrictions. All permitted, accessory, conditional and interim
uses allowed in the underlying zoning district are allowed in the Airport Impact
Overlay District with the exception of the following prohibited uses.
a) Within the portion of the A10-I 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:
(1) Amphitheaters;
(2) Campgrounds;
(3) Churches;
(4) Fuel storage tank farms;
(5) Above-ground fuel tanks;
(6) Gasoline stations;
(7) Hospitals;
(8) Nursing homes;
(9) Residential uses (including low, medium and high density residential
uses);
(10) Schools;
(11) Stadiums;
(12) Theaters;
(13) Trailer courts;
(14) 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 AIO-I 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.
541.11. Height. 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.
541.13. Exemptions. 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.
541.15. 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance use variances. Within the AIO-1 District,
variance to allow uses listed as prohibited in the AIO-I District that are granted by
the Board of Adjustment as contained in the 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.
541.17 to 541.73 [reserved for future use]
541.75. Airport Impact Overlay District II (Noisej: findings; district
boundaries. Subdivision 1. Findings. The City finds that noise generated by
aircraft over flights has adverse impacts on residential uses of property, .especially
on properties located within noise contours having a DNL decibel level of 60 or
higher. The adverse impacts of aircraft noise can be reduced in new construction
through the use of construction materials that have a sound transmission
classification of 40 or higher. In the case of rehabilitation, remodeling or additions
to existing residential dwelling units, the benefits of using construction materials with
an STC rating of 40 or higher will depend upon the particulars of the project and in
the city's determination should be left to the individual property owner to determine.
Subd. 2. District boundaries. The provisions of subsections 541.75 and
541.77 shall apply to all lots or parcels of record within the City of Richfield having
an underlying zoning designation of Single Family Residential (R), Low Density
Single. Family Residential (R-1), Two Family Residential (MR-1), Multi-Family
Residential (MR-2), and High Density Multi-Family Residential (MR-3) and located
within or touched by the 2007 60-64 DNL contours as shown at Appendix A of the
Consent Decree, which contour map is incorporated into this ordinance by
reference.
541.77. Noise Attenuation. It is in the best interest of the City and of current and
future residents that the integrity of all residential structures which have received a
5dB or; other sound insulation package from the Metropolitan Airports Commission
be maintained subject to the following:
Subd. 2. Noise Attenuation Required -Any new single-family or multi-family
construction on property located within the 60+ DNL Contours, or any infill
construction or rebuilding of residential structures after tearing down the original
structure which takes place within blocks or between structures that have received
noise attenuation pursuant to the Consent Decree or pursuant to previous noise
mitigation programs of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, shall utilize building
~'~
materials with a sound transmission class (STC) rating of at least forty (40) and
shall include installation of central air conditioning and mechanical ventilation
throughout the habitable areas of the structure.
Subd. 3. Requirements within the 2007 60-62 Contours. All construction of
new single family homes located in blocks or between structures that have received
noise attenuation pursuant to the Consent Decree that are in the 60 to 62 DNL
contours as defined in the Consent Decree must include installation of central air
conditioning and mechanical ventilation throughout the habitable portion of the
structure.
Subd. 4. Requirement for Multi-Family Homes in the 2007 60-64 Contour.
All construction of new multiple family homes in blocks that have received noise
attenuation pursuant to the Consent Decree or which are between structures which
have received noise attenuation pursuant to the Consent Decree or pursuant to
previous noise mitigation programs of the Metropolitan Airports Commission must
include installation of central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation throughout
the habitable portions of the structure.
Subd. 5. Noise .Attenuation Recommended but not required. For
construction of a habitable addition to a dwelling unit that expands the habitable
area of a dwelling unit which had previously received 5dB sound insulation package
from the Metropolitan Airports Commission pursuant to the Consent Decree or
pursuant to previous noise mitigation program of the Metropolitan Airports
Commission, the property owner is encouraged to consider (i) the inclusion of
central air conditioning and mechanical ventilation for the expanded area and (ii)
utilization of materials with a sound transmission class (STC) rating of at least forty
(40) in order to achieve similar noise attenuation in the expansion of the structure as
existed in the principal structure prior to the expansion.
Sec. This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
Richfield City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of March 2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
-8
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF
BILL NO. BY TITLE AND SUMMARY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield has adopted the above
referenced ordinance, relating to the incorporation of an ordinance that incorporates an
aircraft impact overlay district that imposes standards on construction of all new residential
dwellings and recommends construction standards on the remodeling or expansion of
existing residential dwellings within the 2007 60+ DNL noise contours; and
WHEREAS, Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter allows publication by title and
summary in the case of lengthy ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly
inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
that the following summary of Bill No. is hereby approved for official publication:
***
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO.
On March 10, 2009, the City Council of the City of Richfield adopted an
ordinance designated as Bill No. The ordinance incorporates
aircraft impact overlay district that imposes standards on construction of
all new residential dwellings and recommends construction standards on
the remodeling or expansion of existing residential dwellings within the
2007 60+ DNL noise contours. The full text of Bill No. is available
for inspection at Richfield City Hall during regular business hours.
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
2009.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of March,
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
atl03O
4181
41L L
419L
NOlONIWOOIB
V1SL
41b1
43EL
41ZL
41LL
VIOL
loll l3
OOV OIHO
SnHWnIQ.'(~
ONtlINVO ~~
ONVIl/~O/
41S
41b O'~~
O1 Nll
P1E
puZ `'
n31S
15L
1311O01N
113O31V1H
ilOr 3M O
Aanesllld
1NtlSV31d
0 NVaO
3ltlONAI
H Ola Oltl
1NVnae
XVdlO~
1NOdn0
NOSa3W3
1NOw3ad
aavalo
laloewnH
oNlnal
S3Wtlf
XONN
Nv~ol
Nvoaow
NO1M3N
a3nno
NN3d
N33nO
113ssna
Nvala3Hs
svwoHl
Nolan
1N 30NIn
N anBHSVM
53Xa3X
ava3o
~~
4181
Va_Ll_LI~J
W
~~ \
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
4191
NO1'JNIWOOIe
4151
Vlbl
41f L
41Z:
4111
410 L
loll l3
OOVOIHO
snewmoo
NaVd
ONtl1NtlO
ONVIlaOd
UIS
41b
N O1NIl0
Pr£
DuZ
SN3n31S
7sL
13llOOIN
113OSIVlH
H 1aOM1N3M
Aanesllld
1NVSV3ld
ONVao
131aatlH
a13l3atlo
3lV0NA1
H OIaOIH
1NVAae
Xb31OO
1NOdnn
NOSa3 W3
1NOW3aa
aavalo
~
~
N
~
~
a a~
~
~
a
i i
a
O
t/1
~
~ ai
2 ii
O
Z ~ ~ ~ ~
J ~
T J ~` N ~ 7
~
~
~
~ N
D ~ ~ ~ C
n
~ o~ ~ I- -
~ ~ ~ N M ~ ~
N ~ ~
~ al ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
AGENDA SECTION: PROP. ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM # jQ
REPORT # 63
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 10, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY
PLANNER
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading of an ordinance amending Subsections 537.07 and 537.09 of the City Code,
related to bulk, dimensional and parking standards in the mixed use zoning districts.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Conduct a first reading of an ordinance amending
Richfield City Code Subsections 537.07 and 537.09 related to bulk,
dimensional and parking standards in the mixed use zoning districts.
II. BACKGROUND
On January 10, 2006 the City Council approved an ordinance establishing
regulations for three new mixed use zoning districts: Mixed Use-Regional, Mixed
Use-Community and Mixed Use-Neighborhood. These regulations were
established in response to the one-year planning study that created the I-494
Corridor Plan (the Plan). This fall, at the request of City staff, Hoisington Koegler
Group, Inc. (HKGi) revisited the mixed use district regulations to examine how they
would be applied to small (two acres or less) sites to determine whether or not
regulations should be amended to allow more flexibility for these parcels.
The regulations of the mixed use zoning district were designed to help achieve the
vision of a more intensely developed; compact, walkable, transit-friendly corridor as
envisioned by the Plan. Both the Plan and the zoning regulations assume that
some existing parcels will be combined to form more efficient redevelopment sites.
Land assembly can be difficult at times due to issues of timing and coordination
031009 - 1St reading - MU District amendments
among multiple owners. The evaluation conducted by HKGi examined the
possibility of smaller sites redeveloping without assembly.
Study Findings (see attached memo and illustrations for additional detail)
Mixed Use -Regional (MU-R) and Mixed Use -Community (MU-C) sites
under two acres in size cannot simultaneously meet all parking, lot coverage
and performance standards.
Sites larger than two acres and sites within the Mixed Use -Neighborhood
(MU-N) District can be developed without approaching or infringing on any of
the zoning requirements.
Changing zoning regulations to allow. independent redevelopment of smaller
sites changes the need to assemble land, which may allow more
redevelopment of small site; however, it will likely lessen the ability to
achieve some of the goals of the Plan in terms of development intensity, use
of structured parking, etc.
Staff also re-examined parking requirements in the mixed use districts. Some (not
all) of the parking requirements in these districts are lower than the requirements in
other commercial districts given that the vision for the Plan would include a
significant amount of shared parking. While a compact, walkable, transit-friendly
area remains the goal of redevelopment in this area, the reality of relaxing bulk and
dimensional standards for small sites, and a location along an interstate highway
that will be further expanded; staff believes that some of the reductions in parking
requirements may go too far. Specifically, the requirements in the MU-C District
may not be adequate.
Recommended changes
1. For sites two acres or less in the MU-R District, reduce the required the
minimum building coverage from 50% to 30%.
2. For sites two .acres or less in the MU-C District, reduce the required minimum
building coverage from 30% to 25%.
3. Add a modest minimum building coverage requirement of 25% to MU-N
District requirements (currently 0%) to encourage density.
4. "Street level active use building frontage" is defined as the space of a
building that fronts a primary street and contains a use that provides for a
significant amount of pedestrian activity from early morning to late evening.
There are minimum "active use" requirements in the MU-R and MU-C
Districts. Further clarification of this requirement is warranted. The proposed
language specifies requirements for corner properties, indicating that
requirements shall apply to the primary street and other pedestrian-oriented
streets.
5. Parking ratios within the MU-C District will increase to be equal with the
requirements of the MU-R District:
Commercial retail -increase from 3 to 4 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.
Commercial service -increase from 2 to 3 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.
Office -increase from 2 to 3.3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.*
Civic -increase from 2 to 3 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.
*Staff proposes adopting the general requirement for office parking in
both the MU-C and MU-R Districts. This requirement is 3.3 versus 3.5
which is currently in place for the MU-R District.
In comparison, the following are provided as examples of the general parking
requirements that are applicable in other zoning districts:
General retail (other than shopping center) - 5 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.
General service (i.e. bank) - 4 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.
General office (50,000 - 200,000 sq.ft.) - 3.3 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.
Civic -varies depending on particular use
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The purpose of the mixed use districts is to guide future development
in a manner that adapts to market and transportation changes while
promoting greater pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections;
reducing impervious surface; and ensuring high quality architectural
design.
• The recommended changes are provided as a means to allow more
flexibility for redevelopment of small sites, while requiring
conformance with the fundamental goals of the mixed use districts.
• The recommended changes will ensure that the mixed use zoning
designations can be implemented in other appropriate locations
throughout the City (i.e. Penn Avenue).
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The Plan envisioned the assembly of smaller sites to create a
pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented, high-density mixed use area.
• The mixed use district regulations were designed as a tool to achieve
this type of development.
• Given the fact that in some cases smaller parcels may be ripe for
redevelopment before surrounding parcels, staff recommends
changes to the Code that will allow independent redevelopment of
.smaller sites.
Staff recommends increasing the minimum parking requirements of
the MU-C District to assure that enough on-site parking will be
available.
o For example: Under the existing and proposed
requirements, a 12, 000 sq. ft. retail business would be
required to have the following parking provisions:
Minimum S aces Maximum S aces
Current MU-C Requirement 36 44
Proposed MU-C Re uirement 48 58
Other Commercial Districts 60 66
• Rules governing legally nonconforming buildings and uses in the
mixed use districts remain the most flexible in the City. Through the
issuance of a conditional use permit the Council may allow a
nonconforming use to expand by up to 10% so long as the expansion
does not impede implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Council may also allow the expansion or modification of legally
nonconforming buildings so long as the'expansion results in the
building being in greater conformance with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan (i.e. expansion of the existing Menard's
building).
• New construction requires compliance with the adopted standards.
o For example: Development of the parcel located at 301
West 77th Street (north of the Candlewood Hotel) would
continue to require atwo-story building; however, the
proposed decrease to .the building coverage requirement
would allow for additional parking area to -serve the
building and allow it to be a more easily developed
property.
C. FINANCIAL
• HKGi provided this follow-up evaluation without charging a fee.
D. LEGAL
• Public hearings were held before the Planning Commission on
January 26, 2009 and February 23, 2009.
• One resident expressed concerns over inadequate parking
requirements in the mixed-use districts. The Planning Commission
clarified that the proposed changes would increase the required
parking.
• The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommended
approval of the proposed ordinance (8-0).
• A second reading is scheduled for March 24, 2009.
• If approved, the amendments will take effect 30 days following
publication in the Sun Current Newspaper.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
TERNATIVE
• ueny a tirst reaamg of the attached oramance.
• .Recommend changes to the attached ordinance.
I V . ATTACHMENTS I
• Ordinance
• HKGi evaluation memo
• Sites two acres or less in size
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
/~~'~
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE
SUBSECTION 537.07 RELATED TO
BULK AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS IN
MIXED USE DISTRICTS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Subsection 537.07, Subdivision 1 of the Richfield City Code is amended to
read as follows:
Table 2. Mixed Use Bulk and Dimensional Standards
Standard MU-R MU-C MU-N
Building Stories 2 min No 2 min 12 2 min 8 max
max max
Building Coverage 50% 75% 30% 50% 825% 50%
min max min max min max
Sites 2 acres Sites 2 acres or '
or less less
30% 75% 25% 50%
min max min max
Maximum Impervious Surface 85% of gross 80% of gross 75% of gross
Covera a arcel area arcel area arcel area
Usable Open Space 5% of gross 5% of gross 10% of gross
Re uirement arcel area arcel area arcel area
Street Level Active Use 60% minimum 50% minimum No minimum
Buildin Fronta e?
Residential Setbacks -
(standard setbacks)
Front -build to line 10' 20' 10' min 20' 15' min 25'
min max max max
Side 5' min 5' min 5' min
Rear 5' min 5' min 5' min
(zero lot line setbacks)
Front -build to line 10' 20' 10' min 20' 15' min
min max max 25'
Side 0' min 0' min 0' min max
Rear 0' min 0' min 0' min
Commercial and Mixed Use
Set -backs~3 (standard
setbacks) 0' min 15' 0' min 15' 5' min 15'
Front (build to line) max max max
5' min 5' min 5' min
Side 5' min 5' min 5' min
Rear
(zero lot line setbacks) 0' min 15' 0' min 15' 5' min
Front -build to line max max 15'
0' min 0' min 0' min max
Side 0' min 0' min 0' min
Rear
Front yard setback for upper 20' 20' min 20' min
stories after the 3~d sto min
®~~
Set backs and landscape area 5' min 5' min 5' min 5' min
(front and parkin )
Set backs and landscape area 15' 15' min 15' min
to I-494 min
' Parking structures shall not be included in calculation of building stories.
Single story portions of structures may be allowed provided they are attached to a principal structure that is two or more stories
in height and that the footprint of the single story portion of the structure is no more than 40% of the total structure's footprint.
2 For buildings with multiple street frontages, the Street Level Active Use Buildin_ Fq_ rontage requirement shall apply to the
primary street and other pedestrian oriented streets as determined by the Director. In cases where active use, pedestrian-
oriented building frontage along secondary streets is not supportive of the purposes and intent of the mixed use districts
(Subsection 537.01, Subd. 2) the Director may waive or reduce the required minimum percentage of Street Level Active Use
Building Frontage on those secondary streets.
~-s Standard setbacks apply to all uses except zero lot line developments. The front setback is a build-to line designed to locate
buildings in close proximity to the public street. Zero lot line setbacks allow buildings to be placed on an interior property line if
that structure and the adjacent structure are designed with that placement in mind and a compatible relationship of uses results,
including consideration of circulation drives, open space, easements, utility parking areas and glazed facades.
Sec. 2 Subsection 537.09, Subdivision 1 of the Richfield City Code is amended to
read as follows:
Table 3. Minimum Parking Standards for Mixed Use Districts
Land Use Type Off Street Parking Ratio
MU-R and
MU-C #1~3-E MU-N
Commercial Retail * 4 3 3
Commercial Services * 3 ~ 2
Office * 3.~3 ~ 2
Civic * 3 ~ 2
Hotel or motel (per room) 1 ~- 1
Residential Townhouse ** 1,5 -1--5 1.5
Residential Multi-family ** 1.5 ~5 1.5
Other Uses As determined by the Zoning Administrator
* Per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
** Per dwelling unit.
Sec. 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 24th day of
March 2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
/0-3
Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
To: John Stark, Community Development Director
Melissa Poehlrnan, Planning & Zoning Administrator
From: Mark Koegler, Brad Scheib, Greg Ingraham and Gary Hittle, HKGi
Date: October 24, 2008
Re: Richfield, MN -Mixed LIse Zoning Code Evaluation Summary and Findings
Code Evaluation
At the request of the City of Richfield, Hoisington Koegler Group evaluated the Mixed Lase (MLI) zoning
regulations as they would be applied to small (less than two acre) sites along the I -494 Corridor. We
tested three sites along the corridor using the existing Code regulation and anticipated future development
scenarios that likely would occur on the three properties. The purpose of the evaluation was to see the
effect of the regulations on the three sites and to determine if the Code should be amended to allow more
flexibility for small freestanding properties.
Mixed Lase Zoning Code Overview
Richfield's Mixed Llse zoning districts were designed and approved as a tool to implement the I 494
Corridor Plan. The Corridor Plan is a vision for a more intensely developed area bounded by I-494, 77`h
Street, I-35W and TH 77. The Corridor Plan envisioned this area evolving over time into a mixed use area
that would have greater pedestrian and transit orientation in the future and a supportive mix of uses that
will allow alive-work-shop-play environment. The Mixed LIse Districts allow greater density and economic
development than allowed under the former conventional single use zoning districts in exchange for
performance requirements to create a compact, walkable, transit friendly and aesthetically pleasing
environment. The Corridor Plan and Mixed Lase zoning regulations assume that many of the area properties
would redevelop over time to achieve the Plan vision and that some existing parcels would be combined.
together to form more efficient redevelopment sites.
The Mixed LIse zoning district has three sub-districts: Mixed Llse Regional (MLI-R), Mixed LIse
Community. (MLI-C), and Mixed Ltse Neighborhood (MLI-N) that vary in intensity and performance
requirements. In general, the zoning districts require a vertical form of development (primarily two stories
or more), require new buildings to front close to the street to create an active pedestrian-oriented
streetscape and require the use of structured parking for the majority of the parking. The regulations apply
to new development, substantial redevelopment and major expansions of existing buildings.
See http://www.ci.richfield.mn.us/Residents/Codes/ZONING%20-%20Section%20537%20MLI pdf
for a copy of the Mixed Llse District Code.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659
Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838
IU-~
Code Questions
Richfield City staff expressed concern about the ability of smaller properties to redevelop independently
(without combining with other adjacent parcels) under the strict application of the Mixed Use Code
standards. HKGi analyzed development of three small sites in the Mixed Use District to test the Code
requirements and to determine if Code revisions were needed. The following is a summary of that analysis
followed by findings and recommendations.
Mixed LIse Code Analysis
We evaluated three small sites that had three different sub-district zoning designations within the Mixed
Use (MU) District -Mixed Use Regional (MU-R), Mixed Use Community (MU-C), and Mixed Use
Neighborhood (MU-N). The three test sites are:
The MLi-R site is a vacant City-owned parcel located between Grand and Pleasant Avenues South on
the south side of West 77t`` Street. The parcel is next to the RB Honda dealership, Candlewood Suites
and a railroad track. The site is approximately 48,544 square feet (1.1 acres) in size. There are some
unusually constraints on this property that may not be typical of other properties. There is a driveway
easement that bisects the property and a rail line directly east of the site. The MU-R dimensional
standards require a building coverage of 24,272 sq. ft. minimum (50% of the site) to 36,408 sq. ft.
maximum (75%) and being a minimum of two stories high. The maximum impervious coverage
allowed is 41,262 sq. ft. (85%). The parking requirement is a minimum of 146 spaces. This is based on
the minimum mixed use of 24,272 sq. ft. retail on the ground level and 14,563 sq. ft. (60% of the
ground level area) of commercial office on the second level.
The MU-C site is located on the west side of Nicollet Ave. S. between West 77`'' and 78`h Streets. It
currently contains a Super America gas station and a restaurant. The site is approximately 33,722
square feet (.77 acres) in size. The site has one minor constraint. It is directly adjacent to a residential
district which requires a minimum setback of 15 feet from the property line for parking. The MU-C
dimensional standards require a building coverage of 10,117 sq. ft. minimum (30% of the site) to
16,861 sq. ft. maximum (50%) and being a minimum of two stories high. 'The maximum impervious
coverage allowed is 26,978 sq. ft. (80%). The parking requirement is a minimum of 42 spaces. This is
based on the minimum mixed use of 10,117 sq. ft. of retail on the ground level and 6,070 sq. ft. (60%
of the ground level area) of commercial office on the second level.
The MU-N site is the remnant of the City maintenance site located between Pleasant and Pillsbury
Avenues South on the south side of West 77t" Street. The site is approximately 40,150 square feet (.92
acres) in size. There are no constraints on the property. The MU-N dimensional standards require a
minimum building coverage of zero square feet (0%) to a maximum 20,075 sq. ft. (50%) and a
minimum building height of two stories high. The maximum impervious coverage allowed is 30,112 sq.
ft. (75%). The parking requirement is a minimum of 1.5 vehicles per dwelling unit.
We laid out mixed use development plans on the three sites to test the Code performance requirements. A
retail and office development was designed for the City owned MU-R site. A gas station, retail and office
development plan was prepared for the SA/restaurant MU-C site. For the MU-N City maintenance site, a
residential townhouse development was evaluated. Copies of the concept site plans are attached as a pdf
file.
Findings
The two primary challenges for small sites in the MLI-R and MLI-C districts are:
1.) The need to utilize structured parking to attain the required parking while achieving the minimum
building coverage. Structured parking is most efficient when two bays of one way circulation is
provided within the ramp. This requires a minimum width of 100-120 feet. That width and size of
ramp can best occur on sites of two acres and larger.
2.) The need to balance the desire for two story urban form with the additional parking need generated
by a multiple story building.
Additionally the required minimum building frontage requirements in the MLI-R and MLI-C districts needs
further def"inition for parcels with multiple street frontages.
The MLI-R site can not be economically developed based on the minimum standards as required by the
zoning ordinances. A building meeting the minimum coverage requirement will fit on the site if placed out
to the setback requirements on all sides of the property. This configuration allows for a maximum of 51
parking spaces on the remainder of the site which is about a third required. The standards require 146
spaces which would equal a three story parking ramp. If the entire site was a parking lot it would allow for
only a maximum of 140 surface parking spaces. The impervious coverage is 88% for any of these scenarios.
Several options were explored to determine what the balance point would be for building coverage and the
parking required and how this would reduce the minimum zoning standards. One scenario was reducing the
building coverage to 40% with underground parking below. This allowed for 100 parking spaces which was
16 short of the requirement for this building. The impervious coverage was at 87%. This was relatively
close to balancing. The balancing point came by reducing the building coverage area to 26% which required
78 parking spaces. However, at 95% impervious coverage this did not meet the maximum of 85% allowed.
It must be pointed out that the driveway easement through the middle of the site presented a major
restriction to the configuration of a building and parking lot on this site. This may have reduced the size of
the building and parking area that could be developed on the site.
It is difficult to develop the MLI-C test site based on the minimum standards as required by the zoning
ordinance. Three scenarios were developed -two commercial plans and a gas station plan. In the gas station
plan it was not possible to meet the minimum building coverage of 30% of the site area while meeting the
parking requirements (25% building coverage was attainable). The non-gas stations scenarios
accommodated a building meeting the 30% minimum coverage of 10,117 sq. ft. and the required parking of
42 spaces, but the site design was very tight with little room for amenities or buffers. The impervious
coverage was right at the 80% maximum allowed. This shows that the MLI-C district standards do not
allow for any margin of deviation for the development of a small site that may have other constraints or
special landscape features that should be saved.
The MU-N site can be developed without approaching or infringing on any of the zoning standards
required. A single scenario was developed. It had two residential buildings with 28 total units with
approximately 1000 square feet per unit and a parking area with the required 45 spaces. The impervious
coverage was 68%. Since this zoning district does not have a minimum building coverage, it seems that the
development of any site in this district would meet the code standards.
1~~~
Polio Questions
The Mixed Use Code and the I-494 Corridor Plan envisioned the assembly of smaller sites to create more
efficient redevelopment parcels. Land assembly can be difficult at times due to the need for multiple owners
to agree on the timing and nature of development or the ability of one owner to acquire sufficient property
from willing sellers. In some cases the smaller land parcel may be ripe for development while the
surrounding property is not ready for redevelopment.
Changing the I-494 Code to allow independent redevelopment of smaller sites changes the need to assemble
land, which may allow more redevelopment of small sites, however, it will likely lessen the ability to
achieve some of the goals of the I-494 Corridor Plan in terms of development intensity, use of structured
parking, etc. Therefore, the following recommendations are provided as a means to allow more flexibility
for redevelopment of small sites while requiring conformance with the fundamental goals of the Mixed Use
Districts and the I-494 Corridor Plan. Code changes for larger sites (other than further defining of building
frontage requirements) are not recommended. Larger sites have the area to utilize structured parking and
meet the building coverage and other performance standards.
Recommendations
1. In the MU-R district change the required dimensional standards and parking requirements for
sites under 2 acres to equal that of the MU-C district.
2. In the MU-C district, for sites under two acres, change the minimum building coverage from
30% to 25% of the site area. Maintain the 80% maximum impervious coverage.
3. In the MU-N district consider adding a minimal building coverage of 25% or a minimum
density requirement of 20 dwelling units per acre to the dimensional standards.
4. Further define the street level active building frontage requirements in the MU-R and MU-C
districts and clarify the frontage requirements and properties for multiple frontage buildings.
Actions
If after staff review of the evaluation and recommendations you concur with the suggested Code changes we
will prepare ordinance revision language for your use in public review and modification of the Mixed Use
ordinances.
9 .
~ ` O`O ~~
Cr ~ M
ti ~ t ,~
.~ ~~~ ~~
_6 ~~
r
~,
.~ _.
~:,
iY~ ~'
Z
! ~ ~~ ~,.
`. r .rte ~ <,
' ~ i ,~
1 ~ ~ `t ,i Pt `t
' ~ ~` ~ 1-` ~~$
f 11
~ ~ fir- \,
r-~- V ~~'
c p~ a ~ ~,
~~ ~~.
~~"~'~`
~ ~- ~,
..
~ .-~
4f,
~ , r ~,~F~
~~
r' : ; t ~; ,
J{ i , .sar
j f
r ~ '
w
r ` /^~
~,: ~ ~ ~ ~ -
~~ ~ ~ ~ -
;. ~ - ~ --
_ ,.
v -~_
~' x. 1 ~ ~ 1
'~ _e ~ ~ ~~° ° ~ _
~~
~ ~i
i
~;
.....
~ V
~ J .. ~.J $ 11,E ,p ~ ~ ~ 1? T a. ~ ..:
v
.~ i ^~. ~:
~1 J
~C~ ~~'
R
~~
~ {ti, i
~~~. COUP - ~nolo _,\
C~t~'
,'~.
~f ln)K,Fam'~ (crop/off - C~'~'(~~ ' •'~ ~ !~ ~CYt1 ~~-~ 1 !~ ~l ~ .17
1,~a4~ ~ f' i~ / { ~
~.
a
.~
__
- --_ _ ,
-G
r
:, r ~ ~~< ~
~ \ ~
__... ____... _ I i° ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
n .~
,
__ ,__ ~ .
_,.. ~ ~~.
_~.
_ ~, .,
_ I. ,
_ ,
~- ___~ .
.___ .L ~'
----r ! ~ i 3 I _
i _.~
..
,~, : ~r ~~~ ~~i,722~~~.
aG
ft ~ ~._ .,_
%'
Mf~S .~
~- p~lb b CaV. 121E~?. 3 0% t N
--- Q,e~c t t~ ~ ~ ~5
spy ~~~ L ~3 -~~.
~vw~r~v~ous Cgo o ~wV~~~
86,E /~
~~a p~-•')u~~''
MV-~
ST
I - - ~-^ t4 - - -
t3
--_'_A i
- - ~--.. 3L _.--~~
--- , , -
•
ts• ~ ,
- -- __ IK ~ ~~-
tom' _ __ _ ~ i `~,--
- t - `"'s - ~ -- ~~ I
u_~
- -- --- .~
__`q Lam- -~} I-
{
~~---- --
.,
11- - ~_~ ,
t...._ ...•~~... 4~
~42~~
1. \.
~ .st"
`~ __ - - ~.
-.
': `, t
>>~~ `-
~.~/, ~7 r~ s~
z_ ~~
~`
rf
'
.
"'
~ ,,~
~ ~ *
~~~ ~
III .;
S
_~
1
I
--~ 2 -• ~~ Pvr~ ~~1 ~~~=~, I
I
_ ~ -----t C~ ~tn~(' -- fcL~~ ~~s
I
lrt~°~«~r-; ~j~_ ~~1,4~~= ~~~n Cry%>
~°Er.1 fsrzc(-~ - (oZq~2. S~ ~ I~l ~o ~ca°~O)
~~
1 ,
141 v1T`'1 (-:~'' j--~C1;~~~~it-~'~
b 5 l0 30
~.
~,:
~.~.:
~`~ ~~
,~
R
.ykx ~ ~ ~ t
c =~
~n '~
--~•z- -_ _ __...
4 ~
i.
~, i
\.s
Y
~j .~ l
Y ~
~\ ~
r .
Y Z
e~~
~ C°" ~ ~ ``
~
~ f .~
~~ ~~
~"
-
t
~
~.,
~
, w
J i~
/
~
~
~ ~ ^~
,~ £
( b
.. __
_
~ 1
~ ~~
t
``A
1!
~.
Ie
i
`.. .`.:.:..::.Y '.. ,,tied°""w
___r ~~ ! ._ -i-
,~ ~-~~~~
-i ~
_ };
j
f-
_. __.
.,r J
~
_~` ~.~.
~_.__j , _
..~.__
~` ~ T
s ~ ~ ~ r '~'
t '~~ ~ Y, j'L ~ ~,
_
r
_~
,
.., ~
~ ! ~
E~ ~ ;
-_ ~ ---- ~ k ~a
„~'_:
~ r
y~ ~
~_
~ ~ ti
;~
_-
~
!
._.._.. _....._,y~
S -
y
~
ti
.gg~~
'
~
)
^'
Z S
Y
,
~
J. ~
~_~. ._t.. t
.___~__'~._.
_.....____--1
-
1
<~
L
~~
E
°t-
4 Q
;.~„ mac, ..;,:~ ,
;,
~~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~
r;~
~ v -it
~ ~ ~
L
L
V
a
N^^
V/
••~+
V•
V
1
1
~Jb'O~0
438 L
43L L
439 L
NOlJNIWOOlB
439 L
43b L
43£ L
43Z L
436
430 L
lOllld
OJd01H0
snewnlo~
~12i dd
aNdl~idO
aNtlll2~Od
439
43b
NOlNIlO
Pa£
PUZ
SNd/~~1S
is L
l~llOO1N
ll~4Sldl8
H12~ OMl N dM
ooz ,~~nasllld
oos 1NdSd~ld
oov aN`d2iJ
009 1~12i~Jb'H
® 009 aldl~bt-/J
ooh ~lb'aNll
T1TfTfTT1 fTl-fl-flTl =; !_
008
HOl~lalb'
v~
o^
c~ ^
o fl
N ~J
0
0
0
0
+I
~_
O N V
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ p
~ .~ U
~ ~ ° c~a ~
a~ o a~ ~ ~
Z U ~ o ~ ~
N N N ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c
N N N d ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a
r i i
i
Z U ~ ~ ~ N
~ ~ ~ a ~ a
vi ~ ~
~ ~ N
~ c ~,
}, -
~~ o ~~
(B U ~
~ ~ LL
:«.
~ N ~
~ ui N ~ ~
~, ~ ?_' ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m
~ ~ c~ ~ ~
p IL o ~ ~
~ o ~ H ~ 2
c J ~
~ ~ ~ N M
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~ ~ '~:
U
N
~ ~ ~
o ° ~
~ a~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o
U
L
N
1 0
U v ~ ~ m ~
~ ~L ~ ~ ~ ~L
+~ ~-'
~ N m ~ ~ ~
~ Z C~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ N
C ~ ~ ~ U U -
~ ~C
rn
0
c~
0
0
a~
U
c~
N
U
a~
AGENDA SECTION: pgpp _ (1RD.INANCES
AGENDA ITEM # 11
REPORT # F,G
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCx 10, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY
PLANNER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
SIGNA RE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: ~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading of an ordinance creating a Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay Zoning District and the
rezoning of properties along Penn Avenue between Hi hwa 62 and 68th Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Conduct a first reading of an ordinance amending
Richfield City Code Subsection 512.01, 541.17 and Appendix 1 to
establish regulations for a new Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District
and rezone certain properties along Penn Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
On September 11, 2008 the City Council approved a moratorium for certain
properties located along Penn Avenue between Highway 62 and 68th Street. The
moratorium was intended to provide time for the completion of a number of
guidelines and regulations related to the Penn Avenue Corridor -specifically, a
Comprehensive Plan amendment, creation of design guidelines, development of
zoning regulations and the rezoning of properties in this area. A Comprehensive
Plan amendment has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and
design guidelines have been adopted. The attached ordinance will rezone
properties in the Penn Avenue Corridor to Mixed Use -Community and establish
the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District to more specifically guide development in
this particular area.
031009 - 1st reading Penn Ave rezoning
Coordination of regulations
Base zoning district -Mixed Use -Community (MU-C)
The regulations of a base zoning district apply unless specifically stated
otherwise. In this case, the regulations of the MU-C District will apply
UNLESS there is a regulation in the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay (PAC)
District that specifically states otherwise. For example: In the base MU-C
District new buildings must be a minimum of two (2) stories (537.07, Table
2); however, in the PAC District this minimum story requirement will not apply
(541.17, Subd. 3(d)(i)).
Overlay zoning district -Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay (PAC)
The regulations of an overlay district supersede those of the underlying- base
district. In this case, the regulations of the PAC District can remove or revise
the regulations of the MU-C District to be more specifically tailored to the
desired development outcomes along Penn Avenue.
Example 1:
In the base MU-C District, regional retail services are conditionally permitted.
(537.05, Subd. 2). In order to be allowed, regional retail services (defined as retail
uses with over 50,000 square feet of floor area) must be located within amulti-
tenant, multi-use. building. The PAC Overlay District classifies regional retail
services as permitted (541.17, Table 1), thereby exempting the development from
the requirement to mix uses within a single building.
Example 2:
In the base MU-C District, new buildings must be a minimum of two (2) stories
(537.07, Table 2). This is appropriate for the type of development desired along
Interstate 494. This requirement is not appropriate along Penn Avenue, therefore,
the PAC Overlay District specifically exempts properties from this minimum story
requirement (541.17, Subd. 3(d)(i)).
Summary of Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay (PAC) District Regulations
For the most part, the regulations of the MU-C District shall apply within the area to
be rezoned. The PAC Overlay allows for the following deviations from that base
zoning district.
Regional retail services are permitted and will not be required to be part of a
multi-tenant development.
New auto mechanical, body repair shops and auto detailing uses will not be
permitted in the Penn Avenue Corridor (existing uses may continue
indefinitely).
Townhomes with a minimum density of six (6) units per acre in the Penn
Avenue Corridor. Townhomes are not permitted in the base MU-C District.
• Multi-family developments must have a minimum density of six (6) units per
acre in the Penn Avenue Corridor: There is no specific density requirement
in the base MU-C District.
• Live-work units must be part of a development with a minimum density of six
(6) units per acre in the Penn Avenue Corridor. There is no specific density
requirement in the base MU-C District.
• Stand-alone transit facilities shall be permitted in the Penn Avenue Corridor.
• In addition to the rules. governing drive-up window or teller service in the MU-
C District, the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay will require a minimum distance
of 150 feet be maintained between such facilities (as measured from property
line to property line).
• There will be no two-story minimum requirement for new buildings in the
Penn Avenue Corridor.
• The maximum number of stories allowed in the Penn Avenue Corridor shall
be 8, as opposed to 12 stories in the base MU-C District.
• A mix of uses is not required for site over two (2) acres.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Subsection 507.03 of the zoning code states as its foremost purpose,
"to assist in the implementation. of the city's comprehensive plan."
• The City Council approved an amendment- to the comprehensive plan
and design guidelines for the Penn Avenue Corridor.
• Current zoning regulations do not .adequately regulate development to
be in conformance with this. comprehensive plan amendment.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Adoption of zoning regulations for the Penn Avenue Corridor is the
final task intended. to be completed under the development
moratorium.
• Prompt adoption of new regulations may allow the moratorium to be
terminated before its expiration date of September 11, 2009.
• In addition to these zoning ordinance changes, staff has suggested (in
a separate staff report and ordinance) modifications to the Mixed Use
Districts (MU-N, MU-C and MU-R) that will allow greater flexibility in
the redevelopment of small sites (under two acres) and will modify
parking. requirements. If approved, these changes will apply in the
Penn Avenue Corridor, as the MU-C District is the base zoning district.
• As is the case in any rezoning, buildings and uses legally established
under previous regulations are allowed to continue indefinitely,
including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or
improvement. Additionally, the Mixed-Use District regulations give the
Council the option of allowing the expansion of legally nonconforming
buildings and uses so long as the expansion does not impede the
implementation of the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on
February 23, 2009.
• Public comments centered around clarification of nonconformity rules.
One resident objected to the. proposed reduced setbacks and parking
minimums.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval
of the proposed ordinance (8-0).
A second reading is scheduled for March 24, 2009.
If the second reading is approved, the ordinance will take effect 30
days following publication in the Sun Current Newspaper.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny a first reading of the attached ordinance.
• Recommend changes to the attached ordinance.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance
Current zoning map
Proposed zoning map
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
FOR A NEW PENN AVENUE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT;
AMENDING SUBSECTION 512.01 OF -THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE;
AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY CREATING NEW
SUBSECTION 541.17; AMENDING APPENDIX 1 TO THE RICHFIELD CITY
CODE BY REZONING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PENN AVENUE
CORRIDOR AREA AS MIXED-USE COMMUNITY AND SUBJECT TO THE
PENN AVENUE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
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
Sin le Famil Residential
.................................~...........................................y.........:............................................................................................................................. R
.....,......................................................,
Residential
Single Family
Density
Low R-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . .
.
.
.
.
Two Famil Residential
...................................................................Y............................ ~.........................~......................................................................................... :
MR-1
Multi-Family Residential MR-2
Hi h Densit Multr Famil Residential MR-3
Commercial Districts
Service Office S-O
Nei hborhood Business
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ~ C-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ;
General Commercial C-2
Mixed-Use Districts
Mixed-Use Re Tonal
............................................................................................9........................................................................................................................... MU-R
....~ ....................................................;
.... Mixed-Use Community ........................................:...:.........:......................... MU-C .........
......._Mixed-Use....N.ei.9.hborhoo.d ...............:.......................................................... M_U..-N..............
Industrial Districts
Industrial I
Planned Unit Development Districts
Planned Residential PR
Planned Two Famil Residential
...................................................................................... y.................................... PMR-1
.................................
Planned Multi-Family Residential ~ PMR
Planned Neighborhood Commercial I'C-1
Planned General Commercial ~ PC-2
031009 - 1st reading Penn Ave rezoning
~ r-Z
.. .. . ,
Overlay Districts
Air ort Runwa Overl.a ;District AR
I? .......................................................Y ... y ........................,.........................................................`.
Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District PAC
Sec. 2. Section 541 of-the Richfield City Code is amended by adding new subsections after
Subsection 541.15, the new subsections to read as follows:
nn Avenue Corridor Overlay District. Subdivision 1. Purpose and
Penn Avenue Corridor District provides for a balanced mix of
commercial office and residential uses that together create a cohesive and
pedestrian-friendly area.
Subd. 2. Creation of district and applicability. The Penn Avenue Corridor
Overlay (PAC) District shall apply to properties designated within Appendix 1
of this code.
Subd. 3. Applicable regulations. The regulations of the underlying Mixed-
Use Community (MU-C) District shall apply with the following additions and
exceptions:
a) Uses. All permitted, accessory, conditional and interim uses allowed
in the MU-C District are allowed in the PAC District with the following
additions, qualifications and/or exceptions:
Table 1. Uses in the Penn Avenue .Corridor Overlay District
The following abbreviations are used within the use table:
P= permitted use A= accessory use
C= conditionally permitted N= not permitted
Use PAC
Re Tonal retail services P
Auto mechanical or bod re air sho s N
Auto detailin N
Dwelling, townhouse min. densit r~6
du/acre P
-
Dwelling, multi-family (min. density 6
du/acre P
-
Live -work units (min. density 6
du/acre P
Transit facilities P
b) Uses not listed. Any land use not listed as Permitted, Accessory or
Conditional in this subsection or other referenced subsections is
prohibited in the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District unless the use
is found to be substantially similar to a use listed, as determined by the
City in accordance with Subsection 509.23 of this Code.
~-3
c) Conditional uses. All conditions applicable in the MU-C District ,as
found in Subsection 537.05 of this code, apply in the PAC District with
the following additions, qualifications and/or exceptions:
(i) Restaurant Class III or Drive-Up Window Teller Service.
In addition to the rules governing drive-up window or
teller service in the underlying MU-C District, a minimum
distance of 150 feet must be maintained between such
facilities in the PAC District. (as measured from property
line to property line).
d) Bulk and dimensional standards. All bulk and dimensional standards
applicable in the MU-C District, as found in Subsection 537.07 of this
code, shall apply in the PAC District with the following additions,
qualifications and/or exceptions:
(i) The minimum two-story building_requirement prescribed
in Table 2 of Subsection 537.07 does not apply within
the PAC District.
(ii) The maximum number of building stories in the PAC
shall be 8 stories.
(iii) A mix of uses, as prescribed by Subsection 537.07
Subd, 2~b), is not required within the PAC District.
e) Other Performance Standards: All additional performance standards
applicable in the MU-C District, as found in Subsection 537.11 of this
code, shall apply in the PAC District with the following additions,
qualifications and/or exceptions:
(i) The above ground parking ramps orientation
requirement described by Subsection 537.11, Subd. 6(d)
does not apply in the PAC District.
(ii) The open space requirement described by Subsection
537.11, Subd. 8 does not apply in the PAC District.
Sec. 3
Sec. 4
Paragraph (4) of Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield City Code is
amended to read as follows:
(4) M-g-; 10 (ref 66t" and Queen; 68t" and Penn) ~ ^+~ ~ +hrn„nh
~~ 7-r~_L-v^t~,-rte hrm, ~.~z^,~; oTO~, Lot 1 and the east 33 feet of Lot
2 of Block 2, Tingdale Brothers
Lincoln Hills Addition; and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Tingdale Brothers
Lincoln Hills Third Addition.
Paragraph (6) of Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield City Code is
amended to read as follows:
(6) M-9~-A (NWE earner; of 66t" and ~e+~-r~Queen) Ttaa# area-I~-r
~etweee tfae-settees ~ ~ n~~~ nnr+h of a~
+rco} ,,Mr1 +ho nn n+ r limo of Donn 4v ,o .~nc!
~~rr~ctGrru-n-r~-vc-rrcE e~}~c~ ana
~r- ~f
t~x~-se~~ r I~:~-a~oo~'-a+~-66~'-~t-ree#~-°~'~ Lot 3, Block 3, Harry
Tickner's Subdivision of Lot 15 Richfield Gardens.
Sec. 5. Paragraph (11) of Section 3 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield City Code is
amended to read as follows:
(11) M-8 (S€NW corner, 66t" and Pef~AOliver) -rh~+ ~r°, I„inn
h +h° n + of D°nn nrl (11iv°r 4~i°n~YCC h°fini°°n +h°
~etwee~-~,~oen~er-I+~es-o,-T-~,-ar,a-~~,-a , ..,,.,.~.,., .,.,~...,.,., ~....
~'--~t~e -Ii+ae-ef Lots 11 ,
~~tVVe°r~ +~n~~,tcrlin~ °~DD°n~~~~~RJ++ lir~° of I n+c 4:
c+r°°+ ,n in glock 6, Fairwood Park Addition.
Sec. 6. Section 16 of Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding
new paragraphs 6 through 14 as follows:
(6) M-9, 10 (W of Penn, 62 to 67t") That area lying between the center
lines of state highway 62 and 67t" Street, and between the center lines of Penn
Avenue and Queen Avenue extended north.
(7) M-9 (S of 62, W of Penn) That area lying between the center lines of
state highway 62 and 63`d Street extended westerly, and between the east line
of Leslie Terrace Addition and a line parallel with and 330 feet westerly of the
center line of Penn Avenue.
(8) M-10 (W of Penn, between 67t" & 68t") Lots 1 through 12 of Block 16,
Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Addition.
(9) M-7 (E of Penn, between 62 and 63`d) That area lying between the
center lines of state. highway 62 and 63`d Street, and between the center lines
of Penn Avenue and Oliver Avenue.
(10) M-7 (SE of 63`d and Penn) That area lying between the center lines. of
Penn Avenue .and the alley in Block 12, Ray's. Lynnhurst Addition, and
between the south line of said Block 12 and the center line of 63`d Street.
(11) M-7 (E of Penn, near 64t" to 66t") That area lying between the center
lines of Penn Avenue and Oliver Avenue, and between the south line of Block
12, Ray's Lynnhurt Addition and the center line of 66t" Street.
(12) M-8 (E of Penn, 66t" to 67t") Lots 6 though 10 of Block 6, Fairwood Park
Addition.
(13) M-7 (E of Oliver, 62 to 63`d) That area lying between the center lines of
state highway 62 and 63`d Street, and between the center lines of .Oliver
Avenue and the east line of Dolphins Addition.
(14) M-7 (SW corner of 63`d and Oliver) Lots 1 and 2 of Block 12, Ray's
Lynnhurst Addition.
((-S
Sec. 7. Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding a new
Section 18 to read as follows:
Section 18. Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District (PAC)
(1) M-9, 10 (W of Penn, 62 to 67t") That area lying between the center
lines of state highway 62 and 67t" Street, and between the center lines of Penn
Avenue and Queen Avenue extended north.
(2) M-9 (S of 62, W of Penn) That area lying between the center lines of
state highway 62 and 63rd Street extended westerly, and between the east line
of Leslie Terrace Addition and a line parallel with and 330 feet westerly of the
center line of Penn Avenue.
(3) M-10 (W of Penn, between 67t" & 68t") Lots 1 through 12 of Block 16,
Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Addition.
(4) M-7 (E of Penn, between 62 and 63rd) That area lying between the
center lines of state highway 62 and 63rd Street, and between the center lines
of Penn Avenue and Oliver Avenue.
(5) M-7 (SE of 63rd and Penn) That area lying between the center lines of
Penn Avenue and the alley in Block 12, Ray's Lynnhurst Addition, and
between the south line of said Block 12 and the center line of 63rd Street.
(6) M-7 (E of Penn, near 64t" to 66t") That area lying between the center
lines of Penn Avenue and Oliver Avenue, and between the south line of Block
12, Ray's Lynnhurt Addition and the center line of 66t" Street.
(7) M-8 (E of Penn, 66t" to 67th) Lots 6 though 10 of Block 6, Fairwood Park
Addition.
(8) M-7 (E of Oliver, 62 to 63rd) Thaf area lying between the center lines of
state highway 62 and 63rd Street, and between the center lines of Oliver
Avenue and the eastJine of Dolphins Addition.
(9) M-7 (SW corner of 63rd and Oliver) Lots 1 and 2 of -Block 12, Ray's
Lynnhurst Addition.
Sec. 8. Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by repealing
Section 1, paragraphs 1, 2, 3; Section 3, paragraphs 10 and 64; and
Section 12, paragraphs 1, 7, 20 and 25.
Sec. 9. This ordinance constitutes a rezoning of the following properties: 6200
Queen Avenue, 6445 Queen Avenue, 6629 Queen Avenue, 6645
Queen Avenue, 2120 63rd Street West, 6215 Penn Avenue, 6221 Penn
Avenue, 6237 Penn Avenue, 6253 Penn Avenue, 6228 Penn Avenue,
6310 Penn Avenue, 6301 Penn Avenue, 6315. Penn Avenue, 6317
Penn Avenue, 6320 Penn Avenue, 6321 Penn Avenue, 6325 Penn
Avenue, 6328 Penn Avenue, 6333 Penn Avenue, 6337 Penn Avenue,
i~-~
6341 .Penn Avenue, 6344 Penn Avenue, 6345 Penn Avenue, 6400
Penn Avenue, 6401 Penn Avenue, 6407 Penn Avenue, 6417 Penn
Avenue, 6420 Penn Avenue, 6427 Penn Avenue, 6433 Penn Avenue,
6436 Penn Avenue, 6444 Penn Avenue, 6445 Penn Avenue, 6500
Penn Avenue, 6501 Penn Avenue, 6525 Penn Avenue, 6528 Penn
Avenue except Lot 3, Block 3, Harry Tickner's Subdivision of Lot 15
Richfield Gardens Addition; 6529 Penn Avenue, 6545 Penn Avenue,
6600 Penn Avenue, 6601 Penn Avenue, 6608 Penn Avenue, 6612
Penn Avenue, 6613 Penn Avenue, 6620 Penn Avenue, 6621 Penn
Avenue, 6628 Penn Avenue, 6630 Penn Avenue, 6636 Penn Avenue,
6640 Penn Avenue, 6645 Penn Avenue, 6700 Penn Avenue, 6708
Penn Avenue, 6722 Penn Avenue, 6724 Penn Avenue, 6736 Penn
Avenue, 6744 Penn Avenue, 6215 Oliver Avenue, 6220 Oliver Avenue,
6241 Oliver Avenue, 6244 Oliver Avenue, 6416 Oliver Avenue, 6436
Oliver Avenue, 6444 Oliver Avenue, 6500 Oliver Avenue, 6504 Oliver
Avenue, 6506 Oliver Avenue, 6512 Oliver Avenue, 6520 Oliver Avenue,
6526 Oliver Avenue, 6532 Oliver Avenue, 2200 66t" Street West, 2208
66t" Street West, 2210 66t" Street West, and 2321 66t" Street West
Sec. 10. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield
City Charter.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
11- ~
Penn Avenue Moratorium Area
Current Zoning
64TH
z ~
O Q
H ~
a ~
~ _
H
66TH ST W (CO RD NO
end
Industrial
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 General Commercial
R Single Family Residential
R-1 S. Family -Low Density
MR Multi Res. (discontinued)
MR-1 Two Family Residential
MR-2 Multi Res -Med. Density
MR-3 Multi Res -High Density
PMR Planned Multi Res.
a~ a~Q
~~
Qr
L t' x,
Penn Avenue Moratorium Area
Proposed Zoning
W
Q
Y,
~ ~ to Y ~ ~ ~ cn cn
z
Q
o \,
-;
~
:
W
Q
W
Q
>
¢ ~
2
cn
W
Q
~ ,~
,y
~ ~
y ; ~
Wyy
Q ~'.
>
a
>
a
64TH ST W
_J~ ~~
7 y yf
~
w Z
~ ~
~ J
(n ~~
` ~ Z~~'i~YV
~~ wlY,yY .
' Z
~ Z
C7
U
Z ~
~ p
H cn
~ ?
'~
} _ ,a' ~
T
~~
~ '? '
1~~
.: ~
W
Z ~
~
~
5TH ST W
'
,
f
' J
~ .,
r `17
'~`,a ,
r.
:: `,
~
>
~~'{
~
v Y Y
iY>
~a
% ~
Legend ;
oning `~ '~'~
C-1 -Neighborhood Commercial (co R~ No 3>
~
`
-.' C-2 -General Commercial '' `~
~
~~ r
~ ~
.
R -Single Family Res. ~
R-1 -Single Family Res. Low Density
MR -Multi Res. (discontinued) ~: ~=1
MR-1 -Two Family Res. ~~
MR-2 -Multi Family Res. ~o
~
c
MR-3 -Multi Family Res. High Density to
<~ ~~
~'~'`~~ MU-C -Mixed Use -Community ~~,
~ ~oRESr ~~_
~
PMR -Planned Mutli Res. vG~z ~
%~ ` PAC Overlay ~~,
N'J z
I
bt5 I h7 J I VV
-~,
~ -
--
T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I
AGENDA SECTION:. RESOLIITIONS _
AGENDA ITEM # 12
REPORT # 65
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 10, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO
THE CITY MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution approving the contract with International Association of
Firefi hters Local 1215 for the contract eriod Janua 1, 2009 throu h December 31, 2009.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution approving the provisions of the 2009
labor agreement with the International Association of Firefighters
Local 1215 bargaining unit and authorize the City Manager to execute
the a reement.
II. BACKGROUND
City staff has completed labor negotiations with the International Association of
Firefighters Local 1215 (Union). The provisions of the 2009 labor agreement cover
all the employees in this Union. There are twenty-four employees represented in
this bargaining unit.
During the course of negotiations, City staff made the Union aware of the severe
financial constraints the City is facing in 2009, and beyond, and sought a delay in
implementation of across-the-board wage increases for the first quarter of the year.
031.0-fire contract
The City sought the same delay for the other bargaining units, as well as for
General Services and Management employees.
The tentatively approved settlement includes the following significant changes:
Wages
A 3% across-the-board wage increase, effective March 29, 2009:
Health Insurance
A $50 increase to the Employer health insurance contribution which provides full
coverage for single Employee, $780 per month for Employee plus spouse or
Employee plus child(ren) coverage and $830 per month for Employee plus family
coverage.
A $2 increase to the Employer contribution for Employee single dental insurance
coverage, from $32 per month to $34 per month.
Grievance Procedure
A mediation step will be added to the grievance process
Salary schedule
A contract language change to allow employees promoted from a top step F2
(Lieutenant) pay grade to an F3 (Captain) pay grade to receive the wage step
increase effective the date of his/her promotion.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City has met and negotiated in good faith with the -Union and its
representatives and is bound under the Public Employer's Labor
Relations Act to meet and bargain over the terms and conditions of
employment..
• The proposed settlement for the health and dental insurance
provisions is identical to those provided to non-union City employees.
The City has a long history of providing the same level of health and
dental insurance benefits to all eligible City employees.
• The wage increase represents the same increase proposed for non-
union City employees prior to the temporary suspension of the
proposed increase. The Union has agreed to an effective date of
.March 29, 2009, as long as the other bargaining groups within the City
also adopt the same wage terms.
• This is one of the final two union settlements before the Council on
March 10, 2009. If both receive Council approval, than all of the City's
five bargaining units would be settled for 2009.
• The wage settlement and health insurance increase is well within the
range for other comparable bargaining groups in similar metro cities.
Although the City is facing significant budget challenges for 2009; a
survey of Stanton 5 cities indicates that those cities are providing an
average wage adjustment of approximately 3.02% for its employees.
The City has a long history of trying to remain as close to the mid-
range as possible for Stanton 5 cities, in terms of wages and benefits.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll
records in a timely manner for 2009 wages and benefits, it is
recommended that the City Council act on March 10, 2009 to adopt
the attached resolution providing for contract changes, effective
January 1, 2007. The settlement provisions are effective January 1,
2009, except the 3% wage increase, will become effective March 29,
2009.
C. FINANCIAL
• 3% wage increase, effective March 29, 2009.
• A maximum $50 increase in Employer monthly contribution towards
health insurance coverage for 2009.
• $2 increase in Employer monthly contribution towards employee
single dental insurance in 2009.
D. LEGAL
• If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation
and/or mediation will be necessary.
E. ENVIIZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• NA
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not approve the terms of this agreement and prepare for further
negotiation and/or mediation.
• Defer discussion to another date.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
~a-l
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD AND
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS (IAFF), LOCAL 1215
BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEAR 2009
..WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Richfield Firefighters IAFF Local 1215 have
reached an understanding concerning conditions of employment for year 2009; .and
WHEREAS, it would be inappropriate to penalize IAFF Local 1215 members who
have negotiated in good faith; and
WHEREAS, the City Ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the
exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be
completed by Council resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve
the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield and IAFF Local 121.5 Bargaining Unit
for year 2009, under the provisions of the Labor Agreement to be implemented, effective
January 1, 2009 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
March, 2009.
Debbie Goettel Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLIITIONS
AGENDA ITEM # 13
REPORT # 66
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 10, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO
THE CITY MANAGER/HR MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution approving the contract with Police Officers and Detectives LELS
Local 123 for the contract period Janua 1, 2009 throu h December 31, 2009.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution approving the provisions of the 2009
labor agreement with the Police OfFicers and Detectives LELS 123
bargaining unit and authorize the City Manager to execute the
agreement.
II. BACKGROUND
City staff has completed labor negotiations with the Police Officers and Detectives
LELS 123 (Union). The provisions of the 2009 labor agreement cover all the
employees in this Union. There are thirty-two employees represented in this
bargaining unit.
During the course of negotiations, City staff made the Union aware of the severe
financial constraints the City is facing in 2009, and beyond, and sought a delay in
implementation of across-the-board wage increases for the first quarter of the year.
0370 police
The City sought the same delay for the other bargaining units, as well as for
General Services and Management employees.
The tentatively approved one year contract settlement includes the following
significant changes:
Wages
A 3% across-the-board wage increase, effective March 29, 2009.
Health Insurance
A $50 increase to the Employer health insurance contribution which provides full
coverage for single Employee, $780 per month for Employee plus spouse or
Employee plus child(ren) coverage and $830 per month for Employee plus family
coverage.
A $2 increase to the Employer contribution for Employee single dental insurance
coverage, from $32 per month to $34 per month.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City has met and negotiated in good faith with the Union and its
representatives and is bound under the Public Employer's Labor
Relations Act to meet and bargain over the terms and conditions of
employment.
• The proposed settlement for the health and dental insurance
provisions is identical to those provided to non-union City employees.
The City has a long history of providing the same level of health and
dental insurance benefits to all eligible City employees.
• The wage increase represents the same increase proposed for non-
union City employees prior to the temporary suspension of the
proposed increase. The Union has agreed to an effective date of
March 29, 2009, as long as the other bargaining groups within the City
also adopt the same wage terms. This is one of the final two union
settlements before the Council on March 10, 2009. If both receive
Council approval, than all of the City's five bargaining units would be
settled for 2009.
• The wage settlement and health insurance increase is well within the
range for other comparable bargaining groups in similar metro cities.
Although the City is facing significant budget challenges for 2009, a
survey of Stanton 5 cities indicates that those cities are providing an
average wage adjustment of approximately 3.02% for its employees.
The City has a long history of trying to remain as close to the mid-
range as possible for Stanton 5 cities, in terms of wages and benefits.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• As of the writing of this staff report, the final vote of the Union
membership is not known. However, because of the tentative
approval by the bargaining representatives and both parties' desire to
process this agreement in a timely fashion, staff is proceeding under
the assumption that the proposal will be approved by the Union. The
results of the vote will be known before the Council meeting and if it
did not pass, this item will be removed from the agenda.
• In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify. payroll
records in a timely manner for 2009 wages and benefits, it is
recommended that the City Council act on March 10, 2009 to adopt
the attached resolution providing for contract changes, effective
January 1, 2007. The settlement provisions are effective January 1,
2009, except the 3% wage increase, will become effective March 29,
2009.
C. FINANCIAL,
• 3% wage increase, effective March 29, 2009.
• A maximum $50 increase in Employer monthly contribution towards
health insurance coverage for 2009.
• $2 increase in Employer monthly contribution towards employee
single dental insurance in 2009.
D. LEGAL
• If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation
and/or mediation will be necessary.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• NA
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not approve the terms of this agreement and prepare for further
negotiation and/or mediation.
• Defer discussion to another date.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. ,PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
13-~
RESOLUTION. NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (EELS), LOCAL 123
BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEAR 2009
WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Richfield Police Officers and Detectives
EELS Local 123 have reached an understanding concerning conditions of employment for
year 2009; and
WHEREAS, it would be inappropriate to penalize EELS Local 123 members who
have negotiated in good faith; and
WHEREAS, the City Ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the
exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be
completed by Council. resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve
the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield and EELS Local 123 Bargaining Unit for
year 2009, under the provisions of the Labor Agreement to be implemented, effective
January 1, 2009 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
March 2009.
Debbie Goettel .Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM # jl,
REPORT # 67
J
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 10, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES
DIRECTOR
NAME, T]TLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of authorization to proceed with plans and specifications for the renovation of
Lincoln Athletic Com lex.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion.: Authorize staff to proceed with plans and specifications
of the renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex, 7500 Pleasant Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
A group of ten citizens represented by the Community Services Commission,
Richfield Girls Softball Association and Richfield Baseball Inc., has been
assembled to begin plans for the renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex. City
Council approved a contract with Busch Architects on November 25, 2008, to
assist with concept design and cost estimates.
The group began their design process by conducting a public meeting on
December 17, 2008, to gather initial input from residents. Busch Architects
conducted five programming sessions with the group, developed the attached
site plan and presented the plan to the public again on February 25, 2009.
The project scope includes four multipurpose ball fields ranging from 210 feet to
220 feet to center fence. A small concession building is located in the center of
the complex, equipped with restrooms and storage. Play equipment is also
located in the center of the complex with overhead netting to protect kids from fly
balls and the sun. A 75 car parking lot is located on the south end of the park
with privacy fence and landscaping to screen the parking lot from the homes
0310 Lincoln Athletic Complex Concept Plan and Cost Estimates
along the park's south property line. Kevin Busch will present details of the
concept at the meeting.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City of Richfield has a charter provision regarding capital
improvements that exceed the total cost of $500,000 and/or design
costs that exceed $75,000. Since the estimated cost of the renovation
of Lincoln Athletic Complex exceeds this threshold, authorization for
the project will require two public notices and a public hearing. Upon
Council consideration of concept plans and cost estimates of this
project, staff will post the initial public notice for a public hearing.
B.. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The group would like to proceed with plans and specifications as soon
as possible so that the project can eventually be bid out later this
spring. Pending Council approval, the project is scheduled to begin at
the end of July, 2009 immediately after the upcoming ball season.
Completion of the project is planned for June 2010.
C. FINANCIAL
• The estimated cost of the project including design cost is
approximately $1,500,000.
• The City of Richfield has included the renovation of Lincoln Athletic
Complex on the Capital Improvement Budget each year for several
years and has accumulated $168,000 for this project so far.
• Funding for the remainder of this project will be in the form of an
internal loan to the City's recreation fund, paid back from future
proceeds from City liquor store operations, the same manner that the
City financed the outdoor pool renovation in 2003.
D. LEGAL
• None
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• None
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• None
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Site Plan for Lincoln Athletic Complex
• Project Schedule for Lincoln Athletic Complex
V L PRINCIPAL PARTIES r;XPECTED AT
MEETING
• Rick Jabs, Chair, and other members of the Lincoln Planning. Team.
• Kevin Busch, Busch Architects and members of his staff.
j c~_ I
I~-2
m
0
s
~ .'
O °'
O o
~ z
00
N
~ m
r ~
N ~
a~
~ d
~ a
~
~
O
O
O N
N ~
rn
d ~
a
..,
y
~ A
~ ~
V 3
fi t..
0
r
~
'~ _ a
7 N
v
~ ..
~
~ r
~ r'C..
N ~ ~
w
~'
•`
~ a ^
~
M ~
s ~ ~-
a
L ~ r'C..
a
O
0 LL ~ N
V v=..
_ ~ r
R
J
c
w
~ N
.--~ N
O)
U1 C
O
S U U U U ~ ~ O ~ O O C ~
~
O
O
O
~
~
Q
Q
~
~
Q
~ ~
C
O a
~
j~/ LL LL LL O
LL ~ O p O Q ~ V ~ O- .U 0 p~ O
LL Y Y Y Y ~ V
~ Q N Q O O
~ ~p ~ Q
' ` ~ A U
~
O (0
N fC
M C6
~ (6
~ N
N
~ Q
Q ~
~ U
~ O
U
N Q
N fE
~ O
m ~
C O Y
~ ~ ~
a
~ (d
:
I-
~ H
L~ F-
~ ~
~
~
-
O
0
~
7
N
-
O ~
O 7
~ c 0
~
C .
C
~ C
~ '~ O
O1 ~ C
~ ~ O
~ Y U ~ ~ ~
p) ~ ..
..
N Q y Q ~ (•) O
Q t N
N O
l
L .~ O
•~ ~ ~ f
Y
y
•N
N
•U1
N
•N
N
•in
N
~
E
O
•rn
O
~
E
~
~
~
N
•~ •
•"= \
O
c
~
._
`t n
.Q
V R
I- N
~ O
~ N
~ O
~ N
0 O
~ N
0 N
~ O
d O
U O
U N
~ O
F- O
U O
U
m ~
00 O
U ~
(n ~'
fn (9
W :~.
~ ~
lL N
LL 'C
L 3
00 7
fn ~
fn