The URL can be used to link to this page

03-24-09 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2009 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 allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of March 10, 2009; (2) Regular City Council Meeting of March 10, 2009; and (3) Special City Council Meeting of March 14, 2009 COUNCIL DISCUSSION 1. Council discussion • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 2. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action 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 authorizing planning, design and construction of renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex and scheduling public hearing and second reading for April 28, 2Q09 S.R. No. 68 B. Consideration of approval of awarding contract to Busch Architects for schematic design, design development and construction documents for renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex in amount of $71,500 S.R. No. 69 C. Consideration of approval of purchase of two unmarked Public Safety vehicles from Car/Truck City in amount of $41,886, plus tax and license S.R. No. 70 D. Consideration of approval of purchase of Ford Explorer SUV from Elk River Ford for Police Reserves/Public Safety in amount of $23,552.40,. plus tax and license S.R. No. 71 Notes: 4. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARING 5. Public hearing authorizing issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for Tejaban Mexica Grill LLC dba EI Tejaban Mex. Grill, 2 West 66th Street Staff Report No: 72 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCES 6. Consideration of second 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. 73 Notes: 7. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Subsections 512.01, 541.17 and Appendix 1 establishing regulations for new Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District and rezoning certain properties along Penn Avenue between Highway 62 and 68th. Streets and resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance amendment Staff Report No. 74 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 8. Consideration of resolution approving 2009 Management and General Services salary compensation plans, effective March 29, 2009 Staff Report No. 75 Notes: 9. Consideration of resolution approving 2009 City Manager salary compensation, effective March 29, 2009 Staff Report No. 76 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 10. Consideration of appointments to newly-created Property Excellence Task Force Staff Report No. 77 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 11. City Manager's report Notes: 12. 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: 13. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J REPORT PREPARED BY: STAr'r' REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR CONSENT 3A 68 NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: O ...._ / ~ ,~NATU~/ i i .,,,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the planning, design and construction of the renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex and scheduling of a public hearing and second reading for April 28, 2009. , I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the first reading of the transitory ordinance I authorizing the planning, design and construction of the renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex and schedule a public hearing and second reading for April 28, 2009. 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 the initial step of preliminary 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 group then presented their plan to City Council on March 10. The City Council gave conceptual approval for the project, provided the total project cost did not exceed $1,500,000. 0324 Lincoln Renovation Project 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 along the park's south property line. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Pursuant to Section 8.04 of the City Charter, the project will -require approval of a transitory ordinance because the estimated design costs . exceeds $75,000 and the estimated construction cost exceeds $500,000. • With City Council approval, a public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the planning, design and construction of a the renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex will be scheduled for April 28, 2009. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The proposed facility is designed as amulti-purpose facility which serves both boys and girls. Planning Team closely evaluated the needs for both genders and incorporated applicable features and amenities to insure gender equity. • In addition to four ball fields, parking lot and aconcession/restroom facility, play equipment is proposed in the. project as a benefit to the users of the park, the surrounding neighborhoods and the entire community. C. FINANCIAL • The estimated cost of the project is $1,500,000. • Financing for the project is proposed in the form of an internal loan paid back without interest from existing and future. proceeds of the City's Liquor Stores. A total of $168,000 has been collected to date in the previous years from the Special Revenue Fund as part of the City's approved Capital Improvement Budget, and future payments are planned in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. D. LEGAL • Pursuant to Section 8.04 of the City Charter, the project will require approval of a transitory ordinance because the estimated project cost exceeds $500,000. • Pursuant to Section 8.05 of the City Charter, notice of the public hearing will be published twice in the Sun Current fourteen days prior to the hearing. Publication dates will be April 9, 2009 and April 16, 2009. • The City Attorney has reviewed the procedure for this capital improvement and finds that it complies with the City Charter. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • The project complies with the City's current storm water regulations. IV. AL1 ~KNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may choose to take no action at this time or defer action to a later date. Any deferment will impact the scheduling of future Council actions required under the City Charter and, ultimately, the construction of the project. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed transitory ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None .7~' BILL NO. Transitory Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE RENOVATION OF LINCOLN ATHLETIC COMPLEX PURSUANT TO RICHFIELD CITY. CHARTER SECTION 8.04 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background: findings. 1.01. Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter requires that any capital improvement on City-owned property that has an estimated cost exceeding $500,000.00 or expenditures for design or engineering costs exceeding $75,000.00 must be approved by ordinance after a public hearing. - 1.02. It is proposed that the City Council prove a capital improvement project for the improvement of property located at 7500 75 Street South, the current site of the existing Lincoln Athletic Complex.. 1,.03. The capital improvement project consists of the design, engineering and construction of the renovation of Lincoln Athletic Com lex and related improvements, including, but not limited to parking and utilities connections (~he "Lincoln Renovation Project"). 1.04.. The estimated construction cost of the capital improvement is in excess of $500,000. The preliminary estimate for total construction cost is $1,500,000.00, which includes estimated totaLdesign costs of $98,131. 1.05. A public hearing was held on April 28, 2009 after due notice as required by Section 8.05 of the Richfield City Charter. 1.06. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its inhabitants that the Lincoln Renovation Project be approved. Sec. 2. Approval; effective date. 2.01. The Lincoln Renovation Project is approved, and planning, design and construction of the Lincoln Renovation Project may proceed according to the procedures required by law. 2.02. The purpose of this Ordinance is to comply with the requirements of Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter. This Ordinance shall not be construed to require that the City proceed with the Lincoln Renovation Project; nor does it vest any rights in~the Lincoln Renovation Project to any individual or entity. This Ordinance shall not be construed to pre-approve any contracts for the design or construction of the Lincoln Renovation Project, and the City Council specifically reserves to itself the authority to approve any such contracts. The City Council reserves the rigght to abandon the Lincoln Renovation Project or to modify elements of the Lincoln Athletic Project, if the Council deems abandonment or modification to be in the public interest. 2.03. This ordinance is effective 30 days following its publication. Adopted by the City of Richfield this 28th day of April, 2009. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 3B REPORT # 69 REPORT PREPARED BY: STAr~r~ REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract for schematic design, design development and construction documents for the renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex to Busch Architects. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Award the attached contract. in the amount of $71,500.00 for schematic design, design development and construction documents for the renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex to Busch Architects. ~;~ 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 the initial step of preliminary 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 site plan and presented the plan to the public again on February 25, 2009. The group then presented their plan to City Council on March 10. The City Council gave conceptual approval for the project,. provided the total project cost did not exceed $1,500,000. ;~,_.> r.~~-- 0324 Busch Contract . As conceptually approved, the project will include four multipurpose ball fields ranging from 210 feet to 220 feet to center fence. A small concession building will be located in the center of the complex, equipped with restrooms and storage. Play equipment will be located in the center of the complex-with overhead netting to protect kids from fly balls and the sun. A 75-car parking lot will be located on the south end of the park with privacy fence and landscaping to screen the parking lot from the homes along the park's south property line. - Busch Architects requires a contract to proceed with the design of the project and the preparation of plans and specifications. The services will be provided at the listed hourly-rates, with snot-to-exceed cost of $71,500. Under the contract, Busch Architects has also committed to amend the contract to also include services for bidding and negotiation and construction supervision, at an amended not-to-exceed cost of $98,131; provided, that the City musf exercise the right to amend the contract within 90 days of the date of this contract. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Pursuant to Section 8.04 of the City Charter; the project will require approval of a transitory ordinance because the estimated design costs exceeds $75,000 and the estimated construction cost exceeds $500,000, and with City Council approval, a public hearing and second reading of a~transitory ordinance authorizing the planning, design and construction of a the renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex will be scheduled for April 28, 2009. The attached award of contract is to authorize the next phase of design which is construction plans and specifications. The amount of these services including the concept plans and initial cost estimates will not exceed $75,000. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A contract for the preparation of plans and specifications is required in order for the proposed project to move forward. • .The proposed contract complies with the requirements of the city charter but includes provisions that will allow the City to contract for additional needed services after the charter amendment becomes effective. - C. FINANCIAL • The estimated cost of the project is $1,500,000. The cost of this contract is $71,500. • Financing for the project is proposed in the form of an internal loan paid back without interest from existing and future proceeds of the City's Liquor Stores. A total of $168,000 has been collected to date in the previous years from the Special Revenue Fund as part of the City's approved Capital Improvement Budget, and future payments are planned in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. D. LEGAL, • The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed contract and finds that it complies with the City Charter. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • The project complies with the City's current storm water regulations. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may choose to take no action at this time or defer action to,a later date. Any deferment will impact the scheduling of future Council actions required under the City Charter and, ultimately, the construction of the project. V. ATTACHMENTS • Contract (not-yet available) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: 'CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 3C REPORT # 7Q J STAr'r' REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: MARK HALL, FLEET AND PARK MAIN 1 ~;NANCE SUPERVISOR ~~ SIGNATU ~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the purchase of two unmarked Public Safety vehicles. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I By Motion: Approve a purchase order for two unmarked Public Safety vehicles to Car/Truck City for $41,886.00 plus #ax and license. _ - ~ ~ _ II. BACKGROUND The City of Richfield is not purchasing the Dodge Durango and Dodge Charger for unmarked Public Safety vehicles, as approved on February 24, 2009 in the amount of $39,350.97 plus tax and license. The Dodge Durango was recently discontinued for production and is no longer available for purchase. A Chevrolet Tahoe and a Chevrolet Impala will be purchased instead, in the amount of $41,886.00 plus tax and license. Smaller SUV's were considered, such as a Ford Escape, but were deemed too small in the driver's compartment for an officer equipped with uniformed gear. The Dodge Charger was dropped and replaced by the Chevrolet Impala to keep the combined purchase of all four vehicles within budget.- III. BASIS. OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • This dealer is included in the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Program. 032409unmarked squads • The City of Richfield participates in the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Program. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval at the March 24, 2009 Council meeting will facilitate delivery of the new detective cars. C. FINANCIAL • The approved 2009 budget contains $80,000 for this purchase. • At the December 1, 2008 Special City Council Meeting a resolution was passed awarding the sale of General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 20086 in the par amount of $515,000. • The issuance of the General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 20086 provides the funding for the purchase of the four vehicles. D. LEGAL • When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment, or construction exceeds $25,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may delay approval to a later meeting. Delayed approval, however, will result in delayed delivery. • No action by Council on this purchase will eventually compromise safety for police officers driving old detective cars. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: rp~~p AGENDA ITEM # ~p REPORT # 7 ~ J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: MARK HALL, FLEET AND PARK SUPERVISOR ~' NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the purchase of a Public Safety Reserves SUV. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the purchase of a Ford Explorer SUV from Elk River Ford in the sum of $23,552.40 plus tax and license for the Police Reserves in the Public Safety Division. - i II. BACKGROUND Unit 2434, a 2004 Ford Explorer SUV, is a vehicle used by the Police Reserves of the Public Safety Division. This vehicle is fully depreciated and is scheduled for replacement in the year 2009. It currently has 35,000 miles on it and will be rotated to duty as the Police Cadet vehicle. The current Police Cadet vehicle (Unit 2224), a 2002 Ford Explorer, currently has 150,000 miles and needs to be replaced. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Elk River Ford is on the State contract for mid-sized SUV's. • The City of Richfield participates in the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchase Program. 032409reserveSUV B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval at the March 24, 2009 Council meeting will facilitate delivery of the new Police Reserves vehicle. C. FINANCIAL • $28,000.00 for the purchase of this vehicle is in the Central Garage 2008 Budget (61000-7500) • The balance of the funds will be used for police equipment and graphics. D. LEGAL • When the purchase price of materials, merchandise, equipment, or construction exceeds $25,000.00, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may delay approval to a later meeting. Delayed approval, however, will result in delayed delivery. • No action by Council on this purchase will eventually compromise safety for the Police Reserves driving these vehicles. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: pIIBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # rj REPORT # 72 REPORT PREPARED BY: STAr~r~ REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER ~~~ ~~;~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for 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 i West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing for Tejaban Mexica Grill and by motion: • Approve the issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. • Approve optional 2 am closing, for Tejaban Mexica Grill LLC d/b/a EI Tejaban Mex. Grill, 2 West 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On December 11, 2008, the City received new applications and other required documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with optional tam closing, for Tejaban Mexica Grill LLC d/b/a EI Tejaban Mex. Grill. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: EI Tejaban Mex. Grill is a Limited Liability Corporation that is comprised of two owners; Miguel Angel Hernandez and Rosa Isela Zambrano Medina. Criminal history checks were conducted on the applicants and neither of these individuals 0324 PH EI Tejaban Mex. Grill New Liquor Licenses has any criminal record. In addition, no criminal records were found for family member Gregorio Garcia Ventura, who has a financial interest in the business. Miguel Hernandez and Rosa Medina are husband and wife. They currently reside in Bloomington, Minnesota. Both applicant's have prior experience in the operation or finance of food and alcohol service businesses. Miguel served as the manager of the Rainforest Cafe from 1996 to May 2007; He owned and operated the Mixteca Restaurant from 2007 to 2008; and he served as the acting manager of Taco Morelos in Richfield from 2008 to the beginning of 2009. Miguel currently serves as the president and on-premise manager of EI Tejaban Mex. Grill. Rosa was previously employed as manager by the Rainforest Cafe from 1996 to 2007 and has been the manager of ABM Maintenance from 1997 to the present. Rosa also currently serves as the vice-president of EI Tejaban Mex. Grill. The location of this license request was formerly Taco Morelos, which has held an on-sale intoxicating liquor license since 2005. Mr. Hernandez was acting manager of this establishment from early 2008 until he purchased the establishment in December 2008. - The property is owned by Centro Bradley SPE LLC and leased by EI Tejaban Mexica Grill. A copy of the lease agreement between -the applicants and the property owner has been received and is on file. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Truck Insurance Exchange affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. In addition, a surety bond in the amount of $10,000, issued by Western Surety Company, has also been submitted. As a result of this being a new request for an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license, there is no need for an accountant's statement to be submitted regarding the food/alcohol ratio. In addition, there has not been any service of alcohol in 2009. There were three Public Safety/Police contacts with this establishment in 2008. The contacts included two suspicious activities and one no pay theft. These contacts were received when the establishment was operating as Taco Morelos. There have been no Public Safety/Police contacts with EI Tejaban Mex. Grill since January 1, 2009. No complaints have been received by Public Safety/Environmental Health staff regarding this establishment since the ownership change. In addition, no complaints were received during the previous year while the establishment was still operating as Taco Morelos. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of. Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on March 12, 2009. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both ,City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing.. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. ~ C. FINANCIAL ~ • The required background investigation and licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • -The Council could decide to deny the license request, which would mean that the current applicants would not be able to obtain on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. • Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the licensing process. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Miguel Hernandez, Owner of EI Tejaban Mex. Grill • -Rosa Zambrano Medina, Owner of EI Tejaban Mex. Grill • Luis Cairo, Interpreter ~`' Tejaban Mexica Grill LLC d/b/a EI Tejaban Mex. Grill Owners Miguel Hernandez President/ On-Premise Manager Rosa Zambrano Medina Vice-President AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: STAr~r~ REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME TITLE Pi~(1P„ nRDINANCES 6 7~ SIGNATURE w „~ ,/ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Second 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. II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an amendment to Richfield City Code Subsections 537.07 and 537.09 related to bulk, dimensional and parking standards in the mixed use zoning districts. , 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 a 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 districts 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 032409 - 2nd Reading - MU District amendments among multiple owners. The evaluation conducted by HKGi examined the possibility of smaller sites redeveloping without assembly. Studv findinas (see attached memo and illustrations far additional details) • 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 site 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 sites; 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 along 1-494, the reality of relaxing bulk and dimensional standards for small sites and a location along an interstate highway that will be further expanded, is that increased parking minimums are warranted. Specifically, the requirements of the MU-C District are thought to be inadequate. In addition to addressing this issue along I-494, these revised parking standards will allow the MU-C District to be used in additional areas of the City. Specifically, areas in which uses may be mixed throughout a district as opposed to vertically mixed as in the I-494 Corridor. Recommended chances 1. For sites two acres or less in the MU-R District, reduce the required minimum building coverage from 50% to 30%. 2. For-site 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 the 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 Example: The following chart depicts the required parking fora 12,000 sq.ft. retail business under the current and proposed MU-C standards, as well as those of the other commercial districts. ~ Minimum Spaces Maximum Spaces ~ Current MU-C requirement 36 44 Proposed MU-C requirement 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 and policies of the Comprehensive Plan (i.e. expansion of the existing Menard's building). • New construction requires compliance with the adopted standards. o Example: Development of the parcel located at 301 77tH Street West (north of the Candlewood Suites 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 more easily development. 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 recommend approval of the proposed ordinance (8-0). • The Council approved a first reading of the proposed ordinance (5-0) on March 10, 2009. If approved, amendments will take effect 30 days following publication in the Sun Current Newspaper. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALirxNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny a second reading of the attached ordinance. • Recommend changes to the attached ordinance. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance • HKGi evaluation memo • Site two acres or less in size VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A r BILL N O. AMENDMENT TO RI CHFIELD CITY CO DE SU BSECTION 53 7.07 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% 925% 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 Coverage parcel area parcel area parcel area Usable Open Space 5% of gross 5% of gross 10% of gross Requirement parcel area parcel area parcel area Street Level Active Use 60% minimum 50% minimum No min imum Building Frontage? Residential Setbacks~3 (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 3rd story min 032409 - 2nd Reading - MU D istrict amendm ents ~`~ Set backs and landscape area 5' min 5' min 5' min 5' min (front yard parking) 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 Buildina Frontage requirement shall aooly to the primary street and other pedestrian oriented streets as determined by the Director. Incases where active use. oedestrian- oriented building frontage along secondary streets is not suooortive of the ourooses and intent of the mixed use districts (Subsection 537.01. Subd. 21 the Director may waive or reduce the required minimum nercentaae of Street Level Active Use Buildina 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 Commercial Retail Commercial Services * Office Civic Hotel or motel (per room) Residential Townhouse ** Residential Multi-family Other Uses Off Street Parking Ratio MU-R and ~J ~ MU-N MU-C 4 ~ 3 3 ~ 2 3.~3 ~ 2 3 ~ 2 1 ~- 1 1.5 ~ I 1.5 1.5 ~-5 I 1.5 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 ~~~ Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design ~~ Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ~e 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 Lase Zoning Code Evaluation Summary and Findings Code Evaluation At the request of the City of Richfield, Hoisington Koegler Group evaluated the Mixed LIse (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 Lase 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 Ltse 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 Lase zoning district has three sub-districts: Mixed Llse Regional (MLi-R), Mixed LIse Community (MLI-C), and Mixed Llse 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 LIse District Code. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 ~f 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 Lase 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 MU-R site is a vacant City-owned parcel located between Grand and Pleasant Avenues South on the south side of West 77`h 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''' 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 77`'' 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. // ,--- a~ 5 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 devmition 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 MLI-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. WA Polio Questions The Mixed LIse 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 Lase 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 MLI-R district change the required dimensional standards and parking requirements for sites under 2 acres to equal that of the MLI-C district. 2. In the MLi-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 MLI-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 MLI-R and MLI-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 Lase ordinances. ~, ~ ~y fi ~ s ..r..~~.... 1 ~ ,~ ., ,. w >_:_ ~ ~ ` rF~ ~~tl-'dS ~~ Z PTO. t ~ I2 Utz l os~ ;-~ ~ _ ° t~ h~Nf~~~,'_"~1fi6€~ v 9 C~IJ~-` 3~1~ ,.xA • ~ ,~ " ~- -...:. ~ ' i~ ~ , ~ .. 4 ,r ~r :~ I _ 1~ ;`. ~~ a °a~ ~ ~ -~ _ .. _ i-'~: 'mss ~ t -,i _ t'~ '' "~:vE a=c- m,.z g, -.~.r - ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~°~~ ~. ~ x'C° ~ t&~ ~r ti .~ s'c s- bpd` Y • ,. y '~ e ~ .: Rl_ Y. yh' ~I Y u~`kJi .~ `'°~$'~SS '~1 ~~~5 ~ kxX Y - ~ ~ A ~~~ }~ LL,.. t _~~ ~ r F ~ ..,,~, I /) U r... v. ^ t F ~~ '~, ~ - Q ! ~t ~ ~,~ xti Z ~6' ~ ~ a ~1~ ~ ~%' , ~~ 2 = l,y (r X -- - ,. _ ~. ,~ .. e ~ ~ ~ ,~~CYgL --- --- i - - _ _ - -- __ .^ -- _,_ _. 1~~ .. ~~ > _~ ~. _ ,~ ; -_ ~~~ ~ ___ __ ,----1 - -- --~ - -~. - --- {- ~ -~ ~ ~ I i~•, ..-----i` --- Qaru~ - ~ to Y~-E 85 ~~~~rw~o~SCBo n~V~~) 56,5 /d _.. ~ _ r ~- ~ ST ~n1, 'Z7 r~ sf , ~~~ !~, °~ ~, .~ -~.=~ tti ^yT~G~~-"(• ?~UILt-'INS ~ J a 4 _~ Z -j /L ~ 4 Pllt~it° ~~c.~rY-~. LIEN PsrLtct~ -- (a 29YZ. ~ = lc1 % ~5%) `.~; F ,, ~.~.~. M~•~/ ~~F~ ~~ ~~ ILN • ~rD s~~, 2~0?~ '~ 7 ~ io 30 Hi'-~-~, ( N- ~'. ., IIZ ~ ~~`';` ~ ,.,:;~. ~. ,;~ .~~ ~ ~ ' _. a ~.w.._ ._. -o-r wa.«i,,,.~omyr~w "3w=.€'c_~.,~ -d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' l ~ ~~ --~= ~ ~ y .' ~ e _ _ r _.. C~ • .t ~'~~ r b P' _3t 1L . })_','aR .~ i ~ ~ ~~~ ~ \` J • - (-'i~G7~ -- ,. o . x` r ~PE;h°stX" ~1~~ tA1" ~~,~ ~!4D ~ s~~e~~-~ .-. j D vas Nrsl' M~~T GoDE v s~ x ' ~ ~.? .' ~c~~ ~~ Cy~ `~ y' ~ \ F ~"h~'1i{,~-tt~'o !YL~f ~ '' (L~GTYi1t~ ~NAfttN~ ~~ h (~j` `ar `,~ `~±~ .. ,~ ~ a~ ~l .~<- ~... _ ~.~~.v_ ::.~ .,... "' ~ _ Mu~~ .,. ..... `'~ ~1 \V; ----~-~ c ~~~ ~ °i' ` rr ~ i ~ ~ I ., ~~ ~` ~ ~ j 1 ~ , ~ ,~ I ~ ~ ~ cf~~ .~ f~; k:~ pry.: 7 ~. ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 1' i - i i ~ ~ i f ~ , ~ ! ~, ,~ i , ~___ 3__ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ i. ` n '~~,. ~ r'r-,."~` - ' Z~fi !~i„o~)f2, Ca, <od°J~ ~5 t ,. ~' ~¢~ i' I ~, 2 ~ QUO /~ ~ = i ~~'~' YL~J` I l I.3x3,5~ 3 ~~ .\ ,~ ;` ~~~ ., £~ ~ ,y ~ ~ $ 1 ,J ~< - $ j ~. ~ v_ a ~ '~ ~ -_. s.~ i ~ -' s~ ~ c . i it _ 5 ~~ ~ ._ 1! LL ~~~ ~3 ~~ ~~ ~. ~ w ~_, r ~~ _~ ~ ,~ ~' 1 MU-R and MU-C Sites 2 Acres or Less _ - _ ~ - Q ' - - - - ~ _ ~ t~f~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ X r ~ ~ ~~ 194 O O O O O O O O o O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O O ~ O O N O O O O O O O ~ N ~ O O O N O N O N M M V tf7 ~p (O 1~ r ~ W Z Z ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ a ~ Z ~ U O Q ~ ~ Q ~ Q ~ O Q Q W CV (~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q Q m Q J U Y a ~ _U J ~ a a ~ m Z cq U ~ Q ~ _ W p U O U U O O O O O O O N O O O p O 0 ~ r r r r r ~ r ~ 01 ~ '~ ate-' .~-" w y L Z L .L- ~ O ~ cM- ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ Q J c- J Ur ~ W Z W ~ U O O J m 76th 77th 78th 0 0.050.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Miles Legend MU-R/MU-C 2 acres or less ~ - J R -Single-Family Res. ~~ MU-N -Mixed Use -Neighborhood Zoning Districts ~ I R-1 -Low Density Single-Family Res. ~X~~X~i MU-C -Mixed Use -Community I;_,,, ISO -Service-Office ~ MR -Multi-Family Res. (discontinued) ~ ~ MU-R -Mixed Use -Regional L\ C-1 -Neighborhood Commercial \\ MR-1 -Two-Family Res. ®PMR-1 -Planned Two-Family Res. ® C-2 -General Commercial \ MR-2 -Multi-Family Res. ®PMR -Planned MUlti-Family Res. ® I -Industrial - MR-3 -High Density Multi-Family Res. PC-2 -Planned General Commercial Title: MU-R MU-C 2 acres or less 011309 Un 1 AGENDA SECTION: pRQp .. nRDINANCES AGENDA ITEM # 7 REPORT # 7[4 J REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: STAr~r~ REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 SIGNATURE ..,,,,, - MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Second reading of an ordinance creating a Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay Zoning District and the'rezoning of properties along Penn Avenue between Highway 62 and 68th Street. L ,RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1) Approve an amendment to Richfield City Code Subsections 512.01, 541.17 and Appendix 1 establishing regulations for a new Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District and rezoning certain properties along Penn Avenue. 2) Approve the attached resolution authorizing summary publication of an ordinance amendment establishing regulations for a new Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District and rezoning 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 032409 - 2nd Reading Penn Ave rezoning 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. Coordination of reaulations 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. 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, but is not appropriate along Penn Avenue. Therefore, the PAC Overlay specifically exempts properties from this minimum story requirement (541.17, Subd. 3(d)(i)). Summary of Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay (PAC) District Reaulations 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 and auto detailing shops 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 will be permitted. Townhomes are not permitted in the base MU-C District. • Multi-family developments and .live-work units must maintain a minimum density of six (6) units per acre in the Penn Avenue Corridor. There is no specific density requirement for these uses in the base MU-C District. o Note: New single-family residential lots must be a minimum of 6,700 square feet. This is a typical 50' x 134' lot. This type of development results in a density of 6.5 units per acre. The Penn Place development at 69th Street and Penn Avenue is an example of 13-14 units per acre. • Stand-alone transit facilities shall be permitted in the Penn Avenue Corridor. • In addition to the rules governing drive-up window or teller services 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 sites 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. • Staff anticipates that the Metropolitan Council will approve the Comprehensive Plan in the very near future. • 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, MU-R) that will allow greater flexibility in the redevelopment of small sites (two acres or less) 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 on 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)~. • The City Council approved a first reading of the proposed ordinance (5-0) on March 10, 2009. • If approved, the ordinance will take effect 30 days following publication in the Sun Current Newspaper. • The verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, .and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. The Council may publish a summary that clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the bill E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny a second reading of the attached ordinance and/or resolution. • Recommend changes to the attached ordinance and/or resolution. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance • Resolution • Current zoning map • Proposed zoning map VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A `~-I 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. Zonina 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 , Low Density Single ,Family Residential .... _. R-1 Two Famil Residential ................................................................Y...................~........... MR-1 Multi-Famil Residential ........... _Y MR-2 .. Hi h Densit Multi Famil ...........................9..................... Y .......................~..- Y Residential .................................................. MR-3 Commercial Districts Service Office S-O Nei hborhood Business 9 C-1 ........................M.............. a ............................................... ......................................... . Industrial Districts -_- - ....~.. ........................ Industrial I Planned Unit Development Districts Planned Residential ;.... PR Planned Two Family Residential PMR-1 Planned Multi-Family Residential :.... PMR Planned Nei hborhood Commercial .............................................. ~............................ -1 Planned General Commercial PC-2 032409 - 2nd Reading Penn Ave rezoning ~~- Overlay Districts Airport Runway Overlay ,District AR Penn Avenue Corridor Overlav 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: 541.17. Penn Avenue Corridor Overlav District. Subdivision 1. Purpose and intent. The 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 Overlav (PAC) District shall aaaly to properties designated within Appendix 1 of this code. Subd. 3. Applicable reaulations. The reaulations of the underlvina Mixed- Use Community (MU-C) District shall apply with the followina 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. aualifications and/or exceptions: Table 1. Uses in the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District The followina abbreviations are used within the use table: P= permitted use A= accessory use C= conditionally permitted N= not permitted Use PAC Regional retail services P Auto mechanical or body repair shops ~ N Auto detailing ~ ~ N Dwelling. townhouse (min. density 6 du/acre) P - Dwellina. multi-family lmin. density 6 du/acre) P - Live -work units (min. density 6 du/acre) P - Transit facilities ~ P b) Uses not listed. Anv 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. ~~~ 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 followina additions. aualifications and/or exceptions: (i) Restaurant Class III or Drive-Up Window Teller Service. In addition to the rules aovernina drive-up window or teller service in the underlvina 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 followina additions. aualifications and/or exceptions: (i) The minimum two-story buildina reauirement prescribed in Table 2 of Subsection 537.07 does not apply within the PAC District. (ii) The maximum number of buildina 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 followina additions. aualifications and/or exceptions: (i) The above around parkina ramps orientation requirement described by Subsection 537.11. Subd. 6(d1 does not apply in the PAC District. (ii) The open space reauirement 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-~ 10 (ref 66t" and Queen: 68t" and Penn) ~Letc 1 tf} 1? Gnd-Coto 1 E +.hraegh ?1 a€-~leska-, Lot 1 and the east 33 feet of Lot 2 of Block 2, °^^~ ~ n+~ ') +hrn~ ~rh 1? of B196~fi, alb 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 corner; of 66t" and ~ :~nQueen) Tf~at arcs I between thy-ser~tar lines n{ n, ~°°^ ~.,°^~~ea north--ef~6 c+~~m caul-e€-66~'~reE*. an~+ +h° ,.°„+°r r.,° cf Pew-AvEn:~c; and tie-ser}tEr lines-ef-6a~'-a~-~6~' StreE±s. .4fse 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 ~r~Oliver) Tha*. Gr° between th° ,.~„+e,- r.,o~ „f oEnn an*+ nr.,e, n.,Enu2£ ~~~`•,~.~ti se~tc~ lime-e~66~~trec*. and- "mss^~ ~+~~f Lote 11 a~~^, and between th~~-ce+~ter~+ge-sf Pann °~~^~„ue-and the--east I~e-~{ Lsta-6 }h~'1 a "etaveEn the--S6uth Iln~ ^{ ~ ^+ ~ n .,~,+ +ho ..e.,+,,; Ilne-A~-6.7~' meet, all in Block 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 Lynnhurst 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. ~/ .-, l `~ 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 67t") Lots 6 though 10 of Block 6, Fairwood Park Addition. (8) M-7 (E of Oliver, 62 to 63rd) That area lying between the center lines of state highway 62 and 63rd Street, and between the center lines of Oliver Avenue and the east line of Dolphins Addition. (9) M-7 (SW corner of 63ra 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, ~-~ 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 ~'~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF BILL NO. 2009- WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendments to the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendments is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the following summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of Bill No. 2009- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Bill No. 2009- to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO.2009- AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR A NEW PENN AVENUE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT; AMEDING RICHFIELD CITY CODE SUBSECTION 512.01; AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY CREATING A NEW SUBSECTION 541.17; AMENDING APPENDIX 1 TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES ALONG PENN AVENUE AS MIXED USE -COMMUNITY AND SUBJECT TO THE PENN AVENUE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The ordinance establishes the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District. The ordinance regulates the land uses that are permitted, conditionally permitted or prohibited in this district. Through reference to the -Mixed Use - Community District regulations, it establishes building setback and minimum and maximum building height requirements as well as requirements for parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, exterior lighting, open space, landscaping, and other performance standards. In general, the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District allows for a mix of residential, retail, and office uses, as is envisioned by the City's Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance also rezones most of the properties within the area bounded by Highway 62 to the north, Queen Avenue to the west, 68th Street to the south, and Oliver Avenue to the east into both the Mixed Use - Community and Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay Districts. -~ Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office during normal business hours or upon request by calling the Department of Community Development at (612) 861-9760. A map showing the new zoning district boundaries, as well as a list of the addresses of properties that are being rezoned, can be obtained from the Department of Community Development: /s/ Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, .that the City Clerk is directed to keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at City Hall for public inspection and to post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place in the City for a period of two weeks. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of March, 2009. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk - -i I Penn Avenue Moratorium Area Current Zoning i I I I V" II II I Q I I NI I I I I I I I IQ I I o I I- - ~ w , i w > > lal IQI I~ I QI ., _._ Q 64TH ST W i z ~ z ~ i Q w ""' ~' '~ z ~ ~i it _ O it ~ o i ~ ~ ~ nW. a .;~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I ;~; '':rte I I I ~ I I I ~ I I I I II I ~ 65TH ST W I I ~~~~ ~a -~ I I I II ~ I _ I I I L_ ~ ~~~~~ I II I I ,~ 5 ~ vv ~ I I I ~ a~ i I I I I z ,~~; I ~ I L I I L r °~~~,,~ I 66TH ST W (CO RD NO i3) I I I ~ I ' I I I I i - _ ~' I I - yegend I I I -_ - I I - I Industrial I I ~_ I I I C-1 Neighborhood Commercial ~ ~ ~ I ~ C-2 General Commercial - - ~~ I F ~I R ~d f l I ~c%~- ~' II II I - II II I _ II I I II I I II I I II I - ~ II I I ~i3RD I ST II W _ I i -_ I _ ~~ - u, I v~' I I - ~ ~ I I;~ - I i i~ W W ly I I~ Q I Q lal 64TH S' 1 II z i Izl Ixl ~ I I~ I lOz I ~ ° I ly I ~ I II II I I I II II i II II I II II II II II II 65TH S I I I I I I I II I II it it ii ~' II II II li I - 66TH ~~ I I II I I I I I II I II I 1I I I R Sing e aml y esI en la - I . ~~ ,~, FOREST I R-1 S. Family -Low Density = _ ~ \~~ o m ~//~f MR Multi Res. (discontinued) ~ ~ ~ i )`~ z~ MR-1 Two Family Residential ~- ~ ~- I I I I IN __ 'i MR-2 Multi Res -Med. Density - MR-3 Multi Res -High Density I I I l i I I I I w ~ i , I PMR Planned Multi Res. -¢ I I ~ a w _ I I > I II M I N I I N I - L j I l I I I a! ~" I i t I I I I I i I I I I ~ I j I~ ~ ~ ICI I I I I I i I I ~ I I ~ ~ I _ i j i I i ~- I I>I I I> ICI - I Ian ~ Ial la! --~ -1 V lr Penn Avenue Moratorium Area Proposed Zoning II II III II I~ II II j QI ICI ~I I ICI i I I II II I IQ II li i i° QI I QI I la I i~ 4TH I ST I ~ ~ ~ IZI I Q Z IZ I I ~j ~ i° I>I I I I ~ I I I -~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ .65TH ST I I I i I I j I I I II I I ~ I I I I I I I II II I ~I i I I I I I I I al W W Zoning ~'///,~;f: j C-1 -Neighborhood Commercial 11 (co R~ rvo ~s> ~J C-2 -General Commercial -_ R -Single Family Res. -- - -- ~ _- R-1 -Single Family Res. Low Density -- ~ -- ~~~/,~ MR -Multi Res. (discontinued) -- - ~ `~ ~~~. '~~~. ~A R_'1 _ Vein ~o milt' C?cc I .i -; I ;I I I I I I ~~ I I I I I I II II II I II II II II I I II ~~i 1 ~~ ~ ~ I i it lal I _ I I ~ - w - > _ la I IZ - I~ - ~= I _ I -_ I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ I I _ I I I AGENDA SECTION RESOLIITIONS AGENDA ITEM # 8 REPORT # 75 J STAr~r~ REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: FRANCIS FLETCHER HUMAN RESOURCES COORDINATOR d NAME, TITZE SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolutions approving the adoption of the 2009 Management and General ~ Services salary compensation .plans. ,- I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: . By Motion: Adopt the resolutions designating a 3% salary increase, ~ effective March 29, 2009, for the Management and General Services Salary Compensation Plans. I~ -~, II. BACKGROUND At the December 30, 2008 Special City Council Meeting the City Council suspended implementation of the 2009 Management and General Services 2009 Salary Compensation Plans due to the projected State of Minnesota budget deficit and the effect it would have on the City's budget. Suspending the increases at that time gave staff and- the City Council more time to consider what actions or adjustments needed to be made for 2009 to meet the projected revenue shortfalls to the City. Since that time, the City has successfully negotiated with all labor groups the delay of a 3% wage increase effectively saving the City approximately $100,000. TII. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY 0324Mgmt GS Increase • The City of Richfield has historically given employees that are represented by labor unions and those not represented by unions, such as General Services and Management, the same salary adjustments. each year. • All labor unions have agreed to a 3% wage increase effective March 29, 2009. This gives all employee groups the same wage increase for 2009. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • This action must be taken prior to March 29, 2009. C. FINANCIAL ^ • Delaying the 3% wage increase to the second quarter of 2009 will save the City approximately $100,000. D. LEGAL • Salary adjustments for any City employee group must be done by an act of the -City .Council in the form of a resolution.. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council could decide not to adopt these resolutions. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolutions VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 0324Mgmt GS Increase. ~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2009 GENERAL SERVICES WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services employees from time-to-time, and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2009 pay plan for position classifications for General Services employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2009 the following pay plan, which is to be effective March 29, 2009 and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code: 2009 GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN STEP 1 2 3 4 5 6 RANGE GS1 YR 30,721.60 32,..552.00 34,340.80 36,192.00 38,355.20 39,499.20 MO 2,560.13 2,712.67 2,861.73 3,016.00 3,196.27 3,291.60 BW 1;181.60 1,252.00 1,320.80 1,392.00 1,475.20 1,519.20 HR 14.77 15.65 16.51 17.40 18.44 18.99 GS2 YR 33,800.00 35,547.20 37,273.60 39,166.40 .41,184.00 .43,222.40 MO 2;816.67 2,962.27 3,106.13 3,263.87 3,432.00 3,601.87.. BW 1,300.00 1,367.20 1,433.60 1,506.40 1,584.00 1,662.40 HR 16.25 17.09 17.92 18.83 .19.80 20.78 GS3 YR 37,273.60 39,166.40 41,246.40 43,222.40 45,385.60 47,881.60 MO 3,1.06.13 3,263.87 3,437.20 3,601.87 3,782.13 3,990.13 BW 1,433.60 1,506.40 1,586.40 1,662.40 1,745.60 1,841.60 HR 17.92 18.83 19.83 20.78 21.82 23.02 GS3E YR 40,060.80 42,099.20 44,324.80 46,467.20 48,755.20 51,480.00 MO 3,338.40 3,508.27 3,693.73 3,872.27 4,062.93 4,290.00 BW 1,540.80 1,619.20 1,704.80 1,787.20 1,875.20 1,980.00 HR 19.26 20.24 21.31 22.34 23.44 24.75 GS4 YR 41,246.40 43,222.40 45,448:00 47,736.00 50,086.40 52,728.00. MO 3,437.20. 3,601.87 3,787.33 3,978.00 4,173.87 .4,394.00 BW 1,586.40 1,662.40 1,748.00 1,836:00 1,926.40 2,028.00 HR 19.83 20.78 21..85 22.95 24.08 25.35 GS4SN YR 44,283.20 46,446.40 48,838.40 51,334.40. 53,872.00 56,596.80 MO 3,690.27 3,870.53 4,069.87 4,277.87 4,489.33 4,716.40 BW 1,703.20 1,786.40 1,878.40 1,974.40 2,072.00 2,176.80 HR 21.29 22.33 23.48 24.68 25.90 27.21 0324Mgmt GS Increase ~r~ GS5 YR 45,448.00 47,736.00 ..50,086.40 52,728.00 55,369.60 58,136.00 MO 3,787.33 3,978.00 4,173.87 4,394.00 4,614.13 4,844.67 BW 1,748.00 1,836.00 1,926.40 2,028.00 2,129.60 2,236.00 HR 21.85 ~ 22.95 24.08 25.35 26.62 27.95 GS5E YR 48,838.40 51,334.40 53,830.40 56,596.80 59,446.40 62,753.60 MO 4,069.87 4,277.87 4,485.87 4,716.40 4,953.87 5,229.47 BW 1,878.40 1,974.40 2,070.40 2,176.80 2.,286.40 2,413.60 HR 23.48 24.68 25.8$ 27.21 28.58 30.17 GS6 YR 50,086.40 52,728.00 55,369.60 58,136.00 .61,110.40 67,392.00 MO 4,173.87 4,394.00 4,614.13 4;844.67 5,092.53 5,616.00 _ BW 1,926.40 2,028.00. 2,129.60 2;236.00 2,350.40 2,592.00 HR 24.08 .25.35 26.62. 27.95 29.38 32.40 GS6E YR 53,830.40 56,596.80 59,467.20 62,441.60 65,582.40 72,404.80 MO 4,485.87 4,716.40 4,955.60 5,203.47 5,465.20 6,033.73 BW 2,070.40 2,176.80 2,287.20 2,401:60 2,522.40. 2,784.80 HR 25.88 27.21 28.59 30.02 31.53 34.81 a. Step 1 -Start b. Step 2 -One year from anniversary date. c. Step 3 -One year since last increase. If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 3 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. d. Step 4 -One year since last increase. If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 4 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. e. Step 5 -One year since last increase. An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to Step 5. f. Step 6 -One year since last increase. An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to Step 6. _ Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated Unsatisfactory may not advance to the next step until their performance improves. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of March 2009. Debbie Goettel ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk (Revised 3-09) Mayor 0324Mgmt GS Increase ~l '~ GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE GRADE POSITION TITLES GLASS 1 Office Aide Non-Exempt Data Entry Operator Non-Exempt Switchboard-Receptionist Non-Exempt 2 Community Development Technician .Non-Exempt Community Service Officer Non-Exempt Custodian Non-Exempt Investigative Clerk Non-Exempt Lead Liquor Clerk Non-Exempt Licensing Clerk Non-Exempt Police Cadet Non-Exempt Senior Office Aide Non-Exempt Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt Community Development Assistant Non-Exempt Facility Operations Assistant Non-Exempt Forestry Inspector/Operations Assistant Non-Exempt Environmental Health Assistant Non-Exempt Lead Licensing Clerk Non-Exempt Leased Housing Asslstant Non-Exempt Secretary Non-Exempt Utility Billing Clerk Non-Exempt 3E Assistant Liquor Store Manager Exempt 4 Assessment Clerk Non-Exempt Information Technologies Help Desk Non-Exempt Technician Operations Aide Non-Exempt 4SNE Administrative Aide Non-Exempt Payroll Accountant Non-Exempt 5 Engineering Technician Non-Exempt Facility Maintenance Supervisor Non-Exempt Recreation Supervisor Part-time Non-Exempt Information Technologies Technician Non-Exempt 5E Code Compliance Specialist Exempt Communications Coordinator Exempt Crime Prevention Program Coordinator Exempt Community Development Accountant Exempt Community Development Coordinator Exempt Executive Coordinator Exempt Housing Specialist Exempt Human Resources Coordinator Exempt Human Services Planner/Coordinator. Exempt Leased Housing Specialist Exempt Naturalist Exempt Records Supervisor - Exempt Recreation Supervisor Exempt. Redevelopment Specialist Exempt 6 Civil Engineer Non-Exempt Network Administrator Non-Exempt Project Civil Engineer Non-Exempt Trade/Building Inspector Non-Exempt Trade/Electrical Inspector Non-Exempt 6E Accountant Exempt Planner Exempt 0324Mgmt GS Increase RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2009 MANAGEMENT SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for Management employees from time-to-time; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2009 pay plan for position classifications for Management employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify`positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and- hereby does establish for the year 2009 the following pay plan, which is to be effective March 29, 2009 and subject to all applicable provisions of the City. MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PAY PLAN EFFECTIVE MARCH 29, 2009 PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-RANGE MAXIMUM M-L YR 53,019.20 60,528.00 68,016.00 MO 4,418.27 5,044.00 5,668.00 BW 2,039.20 2,328.00 2,616.00 HR 25.49 29.10 ~ 32.70 M-1 YR 57,948.80 66,289.60 74,547.20 MO 4,829.07 5,524.13 6,212.27 BW 2,228.80 2,549.60 2,867.20 HR 27.86 31.87 35.84 M-2 YR 69,014.40 78,832.00 88,732.80 MO 5,751.20 6,569.33 7,394.40 BW 2,654.40 3,032.00 3,4121.80 H R 33.18 37.90 42.66 M-3 YR 75,233.60 85,945.60 96,678.40 MO 6,269.47 7,162.13 8,056.53 BW 2,893.60 3,305.60 3,718.40 H R 36.17 41.32 46.48 M-4 YR 82,014.40 93,683.20. 105,393.60 MO 6,834.53 7,806.93 8,782.80 BW 3,154.40 3,603.20 4,053.60 HR 39.43 45.04 50.67 M-5 YR 92,643.20 105,851.20 119,100.80 MO 7,720.27 8,820.93 9,925.07 BW 3,563.20 4,071.20 4,580.80 HR 44.54 -50.89 57.26 . 0324Mgmt GS Increase Normal Progression Through Management Compensation Plan The Range Adjustment shall be applied to Management employees who have achieved at least a Satisfactory performance evaluation during the preceding year. Employees who have received a Needs Improvement performance evaluation are eligible for %2 of the following year's range adjustment. The Range Adjustment is effective- March 29, 2009. Individual Merit adjustments will normally be made effective on an employee's anniversary date and will vary in size, depending on the individual's performance. rating and current position in the salary range in line with the following criteria. PERFORMANCE RATING Outstanding Above Satisfactory Satisfactory Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory POSITION IN SALARY RANGE UNDER 95% MIDPOINT 95-105% OF MIDPOINT OVER 105% OF MIDPOINT 3.5 to 5% 1.6 to 4% 1 to2% 1.6to3.5% .5101.5% .5 to 'I% .5 to 1.5% No Merit Increase No Merit Increase No Merit Increase. Requires mandatory 6-month evaluation. No future increases until performance improves to at least Satisfactory. Performance and employee status subject to mandatory review every 3 months. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of March 2009. Debbie Goettel ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs 0324Mgmt GS Increase City Clerk Mayor -_~ MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE .RANGE POSITION TITLES CLASS M-L Liquor Store Manager Exempt M-1 City Clerk Exempt Facility/Program Manager Exempt Supervisor Exempt Health Administrator Exempt Transportation Engineer Exempt M 2 Assistant Utility Superintendent Exempt Chief Building Official Exempt Community Development Manager Exempt Information Technologies Manager Exempt M-3 Asst. Fire Chief/Fire Marshal Exempt Assistant to the City Manager/H.R. Manager Exempt City Engineer Exempt Housing & Redevelopment Manager/ Exempt ` Assistant Community Development Director Operations Superintendent Exempt Utilities Superintendent Exempt M-4 Deputy Public Safety Director Exempt Finance Manager Exempt Liquor Operations Director Exempt M-5 Department Director Exempt (Rev. 3-09) AGENDA SECTION RESOI.IITIONS AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # ~( J STAr~r~ REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 REPORT PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution approving the 2009 City Manager salary compensation. ~~, I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution designating a 3% salary increase, effective March 29, 2009, for the City Manager. . II. BACKGROUND At the December 30, 2008 Special City Council Meeting the City Council suspended implementation of the 2009 City Manager compensation adjustment, and the 2009 Management and General Services 2009 Salary Compensation Plans due to the projected State of Minnesota budget deficit and the effect it would have on the City's budget. Suspending the increases at that time gave staff and the City Council more time to consider what actions or adjustments needed to be made for 2009 to meet the projected revenue shortfalls to the City. Since that time, the City has successfully negotiated with all labor groups the delay of a 3% wage increase until March 29, 2009 effectively saving the City approximately $'100,000. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield -has historically given employees that are represented by labor unions and those not represented. by unions, such as General Services and Management, the same salary adjustments each year. ' • The City Manager's base pay adjustment has historically also been the same as the base pay increases given to other City employee groups. 0324City Manager Increase STEVEN L. DEVICH • All labor unions have agreed to a 3% wage increase effective. March 29, 2009. This gives all employee groups the same wage increase for 2009. • The City Manager's compensation adjustment should follow the other groups and not be effective until March 29' 2009.- B. CRITICAL ISSUES • This action must be taken prior to March 29, 2009. C. FINANCIAL • Delaying the 3% wage increase to the second quarter of 2009 will save the City approximately $100,000. D. LEGAL • Salary adjustments for any City employee group and the City Manager must be done by an act of the City Council in the form of a resolution. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could decide not to adopt this resolution. ' • The City Council could decide to modify the resolution. . V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 0324City Manager Increase 1'~ _ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: The following section of the Employment Agreement between the City of Richfield, .Minnesota and Steven L. Devich, City Manager, dated February 2005 is amended as follows: Section 5. Salarv. Employer agrees to increase the City Manager's total base annual salary of $125,548.80 (including $3,500 of deferred compensation annually) to $129,315.00 (including $3,500 of deferred compensation annually), effective February 24, 2009 payable in installments at the time as other employees of the employer are paid. .Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of March, 2009. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 0324city Manager Increase AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # jQ REPORT # 77 STAr~r REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 REPORT PREPARED.BY: CHE~ UMHOLZ, EXEC. COORDINATOR. N Tr7zE REVIEWED BI' CITY MANAGER: / ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of appointments to Property Excellence Task Force. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Appoint persons to the newly created Property Excellence Task Force. III. BACKGROUND The City Council conducted a recruitment seeking individuals to serve as volunteers on the newly-created Property Excellence Task Force. Special City Council meetings were. held on March 14, 2009 and March 23, 20p9 to interview applicants. There are also vacancies on various City advisory commissions that the City Council may choose to fill by appointing individuals who are not selected for the task force. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council established the Property Excellence Task Force in early 2009. The purpose of the task force is to identify ways to improve the maintenance of property in Richfield. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES • .Applicants were interviewed at Special City Council meetings on March 14 and 23, 2009. • The first meeting of the Property Excellence Task Force is scheduled for April 8, 2009 so, to ensure a quorum is present, appointments should be made at the March 24, 2009 City Council meeting. 0324propertytaskforce IV. ALI~KNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Defer appointments to a future City Council meeting. V. .ATTACHMENTS • Vacancy list VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. ~; 2:19 PM 03/16/09 PROPERTY EXCELLENCE TASK FORCE COMMISSION VACANCIES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. „~. 9. ~ 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. TASK FORCE CHAIR (over) COMMISSION VACANCIES ARTS COMMISSION -1 full-term vacancy; 1 mid-term vacancy (mid-term) COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION. -2 mid-term vacancies (mid-term) (mid-term) FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION -3 full-term vacancies; 1 mid-term vacancy (mid-term) HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - 3 full-term vacancies; 2 mid-term vacancies (mid-term) (mid-term) 2:19PM 03/16/09 Term Exaires January 31, 2012 January 31, 2010 January 31, 2011 January 31, 2012 January 31; 2012 January 31, 2012 January 31, 2012 January 31, 2010 January 31, 2012 January 31, 2012 January 31, 2012 January 31, 2011 January 31, 2010 -~ ~, (over) AGENDA SECTION: UTIiER BIISINESS ;AGENDA ITEM # 1 OA REPORT # ]$ r CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of funds to reimburse the City of Bloomington for acquiring land. from Forklifts Minnesota for the Lyndale Avenue Bridge. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve reimbursement of funds to the City of Bloomington for the purchase of land from Forklifts Minnesota for the Lyndale Avenue Bridge Project. II. BACKGROUND Under an agreement with-the City of Bloomington, the Richfield- City Council, acting as the lead agency for the Lyndale Avenue Bridge project, must also approve the offers made by Bloomington. The City of Bloomington has completed negotiations to acquire land and a building at a cost of $1,302,000 from Forklifts Minnesota needed for the Lyndale Avenue Bridge Project. The amount includes the cost. to relocate plumbing and an electrical panel, the cost to hire an electrician to move the electrical panel, and related acquisition expenses. Forklifts Minnesota is relocating its business to a new site in Bloomington. Richfield staff has reviewed the Bloomington offer-.and found it to be acceptable. STAFF REPORT THOMAS FOLEY, .TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER ,,~`"' NAME, TITLE ~~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 0324LyndaleBridgeROWForklift A. POLICY • RiglSt of way acquisition procedures set forth by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration are being followed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Forklifts Minnesota parcel was the most ,complicated of all the parcels needed for the Lyndale Avenue Bridge Project. Successful completion of negotiations removes-this parcel from possible condemnation proceedings. C. FINANCIAL • Federal Highway High Priority Project (HPP) funds will pay 100% of the cost to acquire the necessary right of way. D. -LEGAL • The City attorneys have overseen the right of way acquisition process and will be available to answer any questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • The purchase of this parcel needed for the Lyndale Avenue Bridge Project has been evaluated as part of the environmental review that was approved by both the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration in 2007. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could reject the negotiated settlement between the City of Bloomington and Forklifts of Minnesota. However, this could result in the acquired parcel being sent through the condemnation process. A process the City has tried to avoid. V. ATTACHMENTS • Parcel sketch showing the Forklifts Minnesota parcel in Bloomington affected by the Lyndale Avenue Bridge Project. • Stipulation of Settlement for the Acquisition of Forklifts Minnesota. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. I ,..._ STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Condemnation City of Bloomington, Minnesota, Court File No. 27-CV-08-4742 Judge Deborah Hedlund Petitioner, -vs- The Luther Company, LLLP; U.S. Bank National Association; R. L. Imports, Inc., d/b/a Bloomington Acura and d/b/a Bloomington Acura Subaru; Forklifts of Minnesota, Inc., d/b/a Clarklift of Minnesota, Inc.; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.; City of Bloomington; Hennepin County; and all other persons unknown claiming any right, title, estate, interest or lien in the real estate described herein, STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT FOR PARCEL NO. 5 (Forklifts of Minnesota, Inc., d/b/a Clarklift of Minnesota, Inc.) Respondents. IN THE MATTER OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE LYNDALE AVENUE BRIDGE OVER INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 494 THIS STIPULATION is made by and between Petitioner City of Bloomington (the "City"), and Respondent Forklifts of Minnesota, Inc., d/b/a/ Clarklift of Minnesota, Inc. ("Forklifts"), each acting by and through its attorneys. WHEREAS, the City supports the City of Richfield, which is acting cooperatively in conjunction with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, in its intended reconstruction of the Lyndale Avenue bridge along with associated ramping improvements and approaches (the "Bridge Project"); and WHEREAS, the construction of the Bridge Project will require the acquisition of various lands, easements, and other rights and interests in both the City of Richfield and the City of Bloomington; and l0~-.3 Forklifts: If Forklifts cannot secure its lender's consent to the direct payment, then in such event, the City shall deposit the additional sum of $628,000 with the administrator of the Hennepin County District Court as a supplemental deposit to the account of Parcel No. 5. Payment of the $52,000.00 of relocation benefits shall be paid by the City directly to Forklifts upon the City Council's approval of this settlement. 4. Forklifts waives any and all rights to any further notices, viewings, or hearings regarding the instant condemnation action, except that the parties will secure an Award of Commissioners for Parcel No. 5 in the amount of $1,250,000.00. Forklifts and the City waive their rights to appeal from the filing and entry of the fnal award of commissioners, unless the commissioners' award is other than $1,250,000.00. 5. Counsel for the parties are hereby authorized and directed to file a Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice (Parcel No. 5) with the Hennepin County District Court. Dated: March ~, 2009 Date: March ~, 2009 " Marc ~-M clers rie1Ci ~# 1 J 166X Brooke C. on #0387959 BRIGGS AND MORGAN, P.A. 2200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 977-8400 Attorneys for Petitioner City of Bloomington FORKLIFTS OF MINNESOTA, INC., D/B/A CL IFT O MINNESOTA, INC. By Peter J. Coyle # 58021 Rob A. Stefonowicz #2971 1 LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 (952) 835-3800 Attorneys for Respondent Forklifts of Minnesota, Inc., d/b/a Clarklift of Minnesota, Inc. ~J~~ -~ EXHIBIT A Leal Description of Parcel s Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, UNIPRESS 2ND ADDITION ~°- 1 - ~ , ~- 1= rv ~ o ~ ~ ~ F~ x ~ W~E~ W W p ~ Z O In V1 N N N € ~=> F, ~ v CO Ll1 N Q O h~ W p p L(l v O ~-+ v tD Q ~. ~O N ~~ U _ Q IX ~ U D II it II _ _ II _ II N O ~ ~ S ., H N O p O ~ I- z O~ Q V7 CL ~ ~ U W N H N W W -~ Z ~ 0 O ow N~ mm a ~~ H W Z w N ~° o N Z a U U O Z Qt W O ar m N Z Z Z Z \ • E(7 I Q H Z ~ EV w ~- Z H M U~1 \ .: J F- N W '-' ~ Z ~ O ~ o W f~ O Y O Z O -+ ~ ~~ U o U H O ~ ~ p 0 dS U I r *,~~ ~- .. I p ~ Q M J m (n O ~ Q O W O Y ~ O W 0 y 0 \ # ~ N Q d N O O N d \ Z ~ U O J ~ d d O H Z ~ m W F- ~ .. ~ ~ a W ~ w Z U w In 3 In Q O Q w %~~ Q ~ LL. W LL. w W c, w W ~ Z to N N V] N -~ O _ H ~ Lf7 Q O p1 f~ Q N N ~ m~ @ ~~ ~` ~ p O lP l0 Q z 'E~ U p II II II II II j ~ L'~ i-. N Z O O ~ H w m .¢'E m d5 W ~ Z Z a cn o~ U w z N ~ O F- V1 w J Z ~ O W > m a w W ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ oM~ r O I N (n ~ m ~ ~' Z N W d T W O F- Z Q Z U F- Z :- W ~ ¢ O a u ~ v i N m ~ _ J °- e E ~' ~ Q H N W H Z ~ Z \ . ~ d~ L(7 I U W W ~~ H ~ m In ~ . . ~i M gy - ~ N J I Z I- Z W -" ? ~. O\ ~ w w w a w a w w ~ U O V O U W U ~ _ `~ s ~ O ~ O Z O ~ r W I ~ Q I~] O Q ~ Q J m O ~ 3 Z O \ i a~ $ ° W W W Y ~ .-. O to O --~ c : . B ~' # Q ~ O ~ O d H ~ Q \ m m ~~. ~ H -~ p O a- d H U J W O Z ~ s~ 3 0~ '~, W ~ .. NO p- ~ ~=e i° ' w d w Z U O V7 ~ s 5 c ~~ o w w w o >'~ a ~ ° '~s w o w d J ~' ~ 1 I p W W 8 11 ~ ~~ I r r~ ~~ o U~ O G ~ ~ 1 > ~ ~ I o W ~ w ~~~~~ ' ~.~~~~~ ~~y:f-dl~.V.u~Y\~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~\\ Y m ut 1 I ri1~ ~~~OlL4~~~~~~~~~~~ »~~~~~~:` U I ? ~I P` tC'~ , ~ a . 3 o ~. J ~~ Y~ W w ~ ~ ' I \ I ~ - \\\ pa \ ,li\\\ ~~ ~ _ w w i ~I \ '~\\~ a W ~ I ~ ~ ~=~> ~ ~ ~\ x\z~ ~ ~ a t~Jid:~, ~ ~ 1 V\ I \ \/ ~ t f \C ( _ ~ w vi O ' ~ m ~° " ~ u \ ~ ~ II \ ~ I ("1 -~- E 524920 z .. ~' n va K rvV lb°15B LOOZ/9Z/0l °31b'O