06-14-05 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:30 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 May 24, 2005; (2) Regular
City Council Meeting of May 24, 2005; (3) Special City Council Meeting of June 1, 2005;
and (4) Special City Council Meeting of June 6, 2005
PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of Certificates of City of Richfield Honorary Citizenry to Doctor Anne
Bertrand and Nicolas Guarnieri
2. Presentation of proclamation designating June 2005 as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual,
Transgender Pride Celebration Month in Richfield
3. Presentation of 33rd Annual Gene and Mary Jacobsen Outstanding Citizen Award to
Arc's Value Village Richfield
4. Annual meeting with Human Rights Commission
5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to Miss Richfield Ambassadors and Little
Miss Richfield Ambassador
6. Presentation of Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget
Presentation Award to Finance Manager Chris Regis
Notes:
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
7. Council discussion
• Hats Off To Hometown Hits
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
8. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
9. 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 ordinance amendment to Richfield
Zoning Code Section 538 creating new floodplain management regulations and
schedule public hearing and second reading for July 12, 2005 S.R. No. 105
B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing off-street parking permit at 6545
Penn Avenue S.R. No. 106
C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing execution of Funding Year 2006
to 2008 Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for participation in
Community Development Block Grant Program S.R. No. 107
D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing application to Minnesota
Department of Finance for funding of 17th Avenue extension (Cedar Corridor)
through 2006 Capital Budget Bonding Bill S.R. No. 108
E. Consideration of approval of new therapeutic massage therapist license for Anne
O'Keefe at Salon Junallo, 6800 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 109
Notes:
10. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARING
11. Public hearing regarding resolution approving modifications to redevelopment plan for
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Cedar Point development)
Staff Report No. 110
Notes:
RESOLUTION
12. Consideration of resolution approving 2005-06 labor contract with International
Association of Firefighters, Local 1215
Notes:
Staff Report No. 111
OTHER BUSINESS
13. Consideration of appointment to fill youth term on City's Friendship City Commission
Notes:
Staff Report No. 112
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
14. City Manager's report
Notes:
15. Claims and payrolls
Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by
majority vote of the City Council)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to 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:
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.
~~ STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 14, 2005
OTHER BUSINESS
I12
REPORT PREPARED BY:
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of an appointment to fill a youth term on the City's Friendship City Commission.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the appointment to fill a youth term on the City's
Friendship Cit Commission.
II. BACKGROUND
The Friendship City Commission has one available youth term vacancy. The term
is effective upon appointment through August 31, 2005.
The applicant was interviewed at a Special City Council meeting on June 6, 2005.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• -The City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or
resolution.
• The Advisory Board of Health, Human Rights Commission, Friendship City
Commission, Arts Commission and Celebrations Commission permit youth
membership.
• The applicant was interviewed at a Special City Council meeting, which was
posted in accordance with the open meeting law requirements.
CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, EXEC. COORDINATOR
0614commission
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The applicant was interviewed at Special City Council meeting on
June 6, 2005.
• Terms are effective upon appointment through August 31, 2005.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Defer the appointment to another Council meeting.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
AGENDA SECTION: ItL~.SOLDTION
AGENDA ITEM # j~
REPORT # I 1 I
~~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 14, 2005
PAM DMYTRENKO,
REPORT PREPARED BY: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY
MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution approving the contract with International Association of
Firefi hters Local 1215 for the contract eriod Janua 1, 2005 throu h December 31, 2006.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution approving the provisions of the
2005-2006 labor agreement with .the International Association of
Firefighters Local 1215 bargaining unit and authorize the City
Manager to execute the agreement.
II. BACKGROUND
City staff has completed labor negotiations with the International Association of
Firefighters Local 1215 (Union). The provisions of the contract agreement for 2005-
. 2006 cover all the employees in this Union. There are twenty-four employees
represented in .this unit.
0614Fire contract
The tentatively approved settlement includes the following significant changes:
1. Wages
A 3% across-the-board wage increase, effective January 1, 2005.
A 3% across-the-board wage increase, effective January 1, 2006 and an additional
.5% across-the-board wage increase effective July 1, 2006.
2. Health Insurance
A maximum $70 increase to the Employer health insurance contribution for contract
year 2005 which provides full coverage to single Employees, $605 per month for
Employee plus spouse or Employee plus child(ren) coverage, and $650 per month
for Employee plus family.
Re-opener for 2006 for health insurance only
Effective January 1, 2006, the Employer would contribute an additional $3 towards
the employee single dental insurance premium for a total monthly contribution of
$30.
3. Sick Leave
Effective July 1, 2005, an increase in the sick leave accrual rate from 7.38 hours per
biweekly pay period to 11 hours per biweekly pay period, up to a maximum of 1,440
hours. Thereafter, firefighters will continue to accrue sick leave at the current rate
of 2.77 hours per biweekly pay period.
For severance benefit purposes, employees with less than ten years of service will
receive 22.5% of their accrued sick leave hours up to the first 1,440 hours and 33%
of any accrued sick leave hours above 1,440 hours. Employees with ten years or
more of service will receive 33% of all sick leave hours accrued. Previously, all
employees received 33% of accrued sick leave hours, regardless of years of
service, at termination.
The maximum number of sick leave hours that may be paid as a severance benefit
was reduced from 720 hours to 600 hours.
Eligibility for cash bank accrual was changed from zero to 8 years of service. (Once
an employee qualifies for accruing disability reserve bank hours at a rate of 3.31.
hours per biweekly pay period, he/she will also accrue cash bank hours at a rate of
1.7 hours per biweekly pay period. At the last pay period of each calendar year, the
entire cash bank is debited and paid to the employee.)
4. Overtime Pav
Call back pay was reduced as follows:
Effective July 1, 2006, employees who respond to call backs will be paid at time and
one-half their base salary rate according to a new response schedule that
encourages a timely response. The new schedule provides:
• a minimum of 3 hours overtime pay for employees who arrive within 30 minutes
of a call out;
• a minimum of 2.5 hours of overtime pay for employees who arrive within 31-45
minutes of a call out;
• a minimum of 2 hours overtime pay for employees who arrive within 46-60
minutes of a call out;
• no overtime pay for an employee who arrives after 60 minutes of a call out,
unless the incident is still ongoing, in which case the employee would receive a
minimum of 1 hour overtime pay or pay for the actual time spent until cleared by
the duty officer.
5. Vacation Leave
The annual vacation leave accrual was increased by 12 hours to 312 hours of duty
shift per year for employees after completion of 24 years of service, effective in
2005.
6. Clothing Allowance
An increase of $20 in the clothing allowance to $500 for 2005 and an additional $20
increase to $520 in 2006.
7. Training Pay
The training pay provision was removed from the contract.
8. Longevity Pay
An increase of .5% was made to each step in the longevity pay provision, effective
July 1, 2006, concurrent with the call back benefit reduction. At the time of this
agreement, 19 firefighters receive longevity payments, which are based upon the
employee's regular base salary. The payments currently are 2% after 5 years of
service, 3% after 10 years of service, 4% after 15 years of service and 5% after 20
years of service
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
1~. POLICY
• The City has met and negotiated in good faith with the Union and its
representatives and is bound under the Public Employer's Labor
Relations Act to meet and bargain over the terms and conditions of
employment.
• The 2005-2006 proposed settlement is the fifth and final union
contract settled for 2005 and is identical in wages and health
insurance provisions to non-union City employees and the other four
bargaining units. The contract provisions are also well within the
range for other comparable bargaining groups in similar metro cities.
• This contract reflects the second union settlement for 2006.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll
records in a timely manner for 2005 wages and benefits, it is
recommended that the City Council act on June 14, 2005 to adopt the
attached resolution providing for contract changes, effective January
1, 2005.
C. FINANCIAL
• 3% wage increase for 2005 and 3% increase effective January 1,
2006 and an additional .5% effective July 1, 2006.
• A maximum $70 increase in Employer monthly contribution towards
health insurance coverage.
• $3 increase in Employer monthly contribution towards employee
single dental insurance in 2006.
• $20 increase in the annual clothing allowance for both years.
• .5% increase at each step in the longevity pay plan, effective July 1,
2006.
• Reduction in call back pay, as of July 1, 2006.
• Reduction in sick leave severance accrual from 720 to 600 hours per
employee.
D. LEGAL
• If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation
and/or mediation will be necessary.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do not approve the terms of this agreement and prepare for further
negotiation and/or mediation.
• Defer discussion to another date.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD AND
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS (IAFF), LOCAL 1215
BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEARS 2005 AND 2006
WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Richfield Firefighters IAFF Local 1215 have
reached an understanding concerning conditions of employment for years 2005 and 2006;
and
WHEREAS, it would be inappropriate to penalize IAFF Local 1215 members who
have negotiated in good faith; and
WHEREAS, the City Ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the
exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be
completed by Council resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve
the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield and IAFF Local 1215 Bargaining Unit
for years 2005 and 2006, under the provisions of the Labor Agreement to be implemented,
effective January 1, 2005 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
June, 2005.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM # 11
REPORT # 110
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 14, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
KATIA MEDVETSKI,
REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and consideration of a resolution approving Modifications to the Redevelopment
Plan for the Richfield Redevelo ment Pro'ect Area Cedar Point Develo ment
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Adopt a
resolution approving Modifications to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Cedar Point Development)
II. BACKGROUND
• On May 24, 2005, the City Council (City) approved a resolution authorizing a public
hearing on the proposed adoption of a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Modified Plan), pursuant to a request by
the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA).
• The purpose of the Modified Plan is to incorporate the Cedar Point Development
Area into the Modified Plan that is contained within the overall Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area). (See Map #1 -Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area and Map #2 -Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
Modification (Cedar Point Development Area).
• The Project Area boundary is not being changed.
061405ModRedPlan
The following summary highlights the Modified Plan.
Section A. Foreword The main purpose of the Modified Plan is to facilitate
the implementation of land use and development changes in the Cedar Point
Development Area that is impacted by the operations at the Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport.
Section B. Statement of Public Purpose sets forth the determination that
the Cedar Point Development Area is considered "blighted" in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, Subd. 11 and Minnesota
Statutues, Section 469.028, Subd. 3 after review of comprehensive studies
that examined the impact of operations at the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International airport over the years on the Richfield community and the
projected low frequency noise levels resulting from the operation of the new
North/South (17/35) Runway at the airport, all documented within the "Blight
Assessment Report -Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification -
Cedar Point Area," dated June 3, 2005 by Cornejo Consulting (the "Blight
Assessment Report").
The purpose of the Blight Assessment Report is to support the Modified Plan
by analyzing the physical conditions of the Cedar Point Development Area
and public policy evidenced through a number of key studies, committee
analyses, and legislative initiatives and actions relative to airport operations
and projected low frequency noise, impacting the Cedar Point Development
Area. The Blight Assessment Report is a comprehensive document that
summarizes the findings made by the Governor's Airport Community
Stabilization Funding Task Force Final Report -January 15, 2000, Low
Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report -August 10, 2000, and City of
Richfield, including The Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept
Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan amendment designating the Cedar
Point Development Area "Regional Commercial/Office". Attachment D
(Detailed Analysis of Blight Conditions) of the Blight Assessment Report
provides in-depth description for the summarized chart findings located at
Attachment C (Cedar Point Area Blight Assessment Criteria Chart). Photos
at Attachment E provide a visual aid for a review of the Cedar Point
Development Area.
• Section C. Statutory Authority provides the background statutory citation
for the undertaking of the Modified Plan.
Section D. Statement of Goals and Objectives has been expanded to
add two (2) new goals (#7 and #8) and eight (8) new objectives (#23 through
#30) to the Modified Plan document. The new goals and objectives
specifically address items not considered before by the plan although much
activity has occurred throughout the years relating to airport noise mitigation
matters and other redevelopment subprojects within the Project Area. Some
of the objectives evolved from items specific to the Cedar Point Development
Area that are proposed to be implemented in the broader Project Area based
on planning studies undertaken to date.
Section E. Description of the Redevelopment Project Area reinforces
that the boundary of the Project Area is not being changed.
061405ModRedPlan
Section F. Development Activities and Agreements provides for the
private and public activities to be undertaken in the Cedar Point
Development Area. The maior private activities include
acquisition/relocation of 33 single family homes; minimum improvements to
include a SuperTarget and Home Depot with an additional 61,200 square
feet on in-line, freestanding retail; and partial contribution to the construction
of a new intersection at 66th Street and approximately 17th Avenue. (See
full list of private development activities on page 7 of the Modified Plan.) The
maior public activities include acquisition/relocation of five (5) properties still
in private ownership; acquisition of 62 properties, mostly vacant land, from
the City; conveyance of 67 properties to the developer (this includes a
number of remnant properties from the 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77
interchange reconstruction); and construction of public infrastructure
including transit-related amenities, new intersection at 66th Street and 17th
Avenue, greenway/parkway, enhanced streetscape.
• Section G. Public Development Cost• Proceeds• Financing lists the
various sources of revenue received and used over the years for airport
noise mitigation. The primary source of financing to be received by the
developer will be a tax abatement (most recently approved by the City on
May 24, 2005).
• Section H. Proposed Land Use indicates the land uses by type in the
Cedar Point Development Area. The Planning Commission and City
previously (in 2004) adopted resolutions to amend the Comprehensive Pfan
designation for the Cedar Point Development Area to "Regional
Commercial/Office" to accommodate the proposed retail improvements.
• Section I. Acquisition, Relocation, and Rehabilitation Activities
provides a comprehensive list of all the properties in the Cedar Point
Development Area, broken down by public and private acquiring parties.
Note that there is no rehabilitation program in the Cedar Point Development
Area. (This title is maintained for purposes of the plan document itself.)
• Section J. Environmental Considerations is a general plan paragraph.
As implementation of the Cedar Point Development Area progresses, exact
environmental studies will be determined and carried out.
• Section K. Administration of the Proiect Area states the HRA is the
administering agent of the overall Project Area, including the Cedar Point
Development Area.
• At this writing, the Modified Plan is scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning
Commision for land use conformance, pursuant to Minnesota Statututes, Section
469.027, at a special meeting on Monday, June 13, 2005. It is anticipated that the
Planning Commission will make a finding of conformance of the Modified Plan to the
Comprehensive Plan. This favorable finding is being forecast because of the
Planning Commssion's previous action on July 26, 2004 to amend the
Comprehensive Plan on July 26, 2004 and the City Council's approval of the
amendment on September 16, 2004.
The actual finding of the Planning Commission will be reported to the City Council at
the June 14, 2005 meeting.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469, provides for the procedural requirements
for the undertaking of a modification to a redevelopment plan, including a
public hearing by the governing body.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The Cedar Point Development Area requires reference in the redevelopment
plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area.
• A blight assessment study was required in order to make a finding for the
Modified Plan.
• The blight assessment was undertaken by Cornejo Consulting, as approved
by the HRA on May 16, 2005 through a Professional Services Agreement.
• The developer of Cedar Point, Ryan Companies US Inc., cannot undertake
certain acquisition activities until the Modified Plan is approved by all
necessary parties (Planning Commission, City Council, and HRA).
C. FINANCIAL
• The Modified Plan calls for tax abatement to be the primary source of
revenue to fund the necessary activities relevant to the Cedar Point
Development Area.
D. LEGAL
• On May 16, 2005, the HRA adopted a resolution applying to the City Council
to take certain actions, including calling for a public hearing, with respect to
the Modified Plan.
• On May 24, 2005, the City adopted a resolution authorizing a public hearing
on the proposed adoption of a Modified Plan.
• On June 2, 2005, the legal notice of public hearing on the Modified Plan was
published in the Sun Current newspaper.
• At this writing, the Planning Commission is scheduled at a special meeting
on June 13, 2005 to review the Modified Plan to determine conformance to
the Comprehensive Plan.
• The HRA is scheduled to consider the Modified. Plan at its regular meeting
on June 20, 2005.
• The Blight Assessment Report, Cedar Point Area, June 3, 2005, was
prepared by Cornejo Consulting and reviewed by staff and legal counsel.
• The Modified Plan, dated June 3, 2005, was prepared by Cornejo Consulting
and staff and reviewed by legal counsel.
• The approving City Council resolution was prepared by legal counsel.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Delay the public hearing and approval of the Modified Plan.
• Do not hold a public hearing; do not approve the Modified Plan.
• Both options would preclude the developer and HRA in undertaking the necessary
activities in the Cedar Point Development Area in a timely manner.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Map #1 -Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
• Map #2 -Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification -Cedar Point
Development Area
• Resolution and Exhibit A -Blight Assessment Report -Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area Modification -Cedar Point Area, dated June 3, 2005
• Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project
Area
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Dan Cornejo, Cornejo Consulting
r
Lf
m
W
a
U
`a
r
w
0
`~
W
NN~
i~L~.
W
2
V
I~
~ a _r t
~ ~ ~ ~
atlaao O O C
418E ~~~~
t L
~ ~ N
~O
r
^^^^^~J
t ~Z O
~ ~ ^ M ~ N t0 1~ n r
r r r r I~
fV
r
43LL Ir//~,~uuuuu
419E ^^r~^~^U /~~~ ~~~
OloNIWOOIa __" ^^^L^^~^^^~~~^^^^ _
439E -:- ^^^~~ ~^~~~^
L__1 ^
y,£~ ~, ^[^^^^^^^C~C~~^^
4311 :..--, ^^~^ ^^^^~~ '•
410E -cr.:. ^^^~ ^^^^^^ li
OOtlOIHO ,~~ ^^^^^C~C~^^^
snawnloo [^^^^(^~'~^^C~^^^ --
ONb'lNHO I W ~~~~~~i--1~1~~~~~
aNtlllaod _` ~~~~~~ ^ ^^^
4l4 __-: ~~ C~^~ ~ I--
NOlNllO _.._. ^uu uu ~~L^^~~~~ ~~
PuZ ~^ ^~C~~C~^^^
SN3n31S ~~ ^ L~~~]~~ ^ ^ f
1sL ~ ^ ^~0~~^^^^ ~`,
13llOOIN -"-~~
ll3OSltlla ---~~~~~
IlaOM1N3M-~ -
AanaSllld ~ ~,,; ~~~
1NtlS'd3ld _ ^
ONtlao
131aatlH
alaldavo ^
3ltlONAI _."__,
Holaaly
1Ntlnaa
xtldloo
1NOdna ,il
NOSa3W3 '"
1NOW3ad
oatlalo j
^^ ~~~~
^^ ^^^^^ ~
DD nnnrn~n n
u~~ ~
~^~~~
~~~~^ ^
C~
~~ a°^o°o
--~~nnn^^^^
laloewnH ~ ~ ^ ^ ~~ u
oNlnal ~^~^^^
S3Wtlf %~% ~^^I -
XONN ,~~~~ ~ ^ ^ ~J
NtlOOI ~~ ~ ^ ^ ^
Ntl°JaOW ~~ ~~~~
NOlM3N f\. ~~OO
a3nll0 ..J ~^^^
NN3d - ~ ^ ~^
N33n0
ll3SSna JU
NtlOla3HS -~_ I r~-~~~
SNWOHl _ -' u i
NOldn -- ~ ^
NanaHSVM --'~ ~ O
S3Xa3X - , _ ,,~-
~~ ~.r ~ ~
~ m m ~
^ ^ ^ ^
^^^^^
^^^^^
^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
~~
0 0
~~~
t s L N y N ~
O N
n r
~,
r r r ^ ~ ~ -
atlaao
438 L
43L L
419 L
NOlONIW00-
439 L
414 L
43£ L
4LZL
4R L
4l0 L
lOlll3
O°JtlOIHO
snawnloo
Natld
ONH'DitlO
ONtlllaOd
415
4i4
NOlNllO
P~£
puZ
SN3n31S
1SL
13llOOIN
1130S1tl1a
HlaOM1N3M
Aanasllld
1NHStl3ld
ONtlao
lalaatlH
al3ldavo
3ltlONAI
Holaoly
1NtlAa8
X'dd100
1NOdn0
NOSa3W3
1NOW3ad
oavalo
laloawnH
oNlnal
S3Wtlf
XONN
Ntl~JOI
NVOaOW
NO1M3N
a3nll0
NN3d
N33n0
ll3SSna
NtlOla3HS
StlWOHl
NOldn
1N30NIn
NanaHSHM
S3Xa3X
Z
m
Q
W
a
~"'
U
W
~°
~"'
Z
W
0
J
W
W
W
W
J_
N
r
Q
^ u
^ ^
°~ ~
^° o d a
^ ~
Q ~ ~~
^ ~
~ ~
a a
~]
^ =
^ ~ F
-
^ ~
~ ~
o
^^^~ ~a^~^~~
ID
65TH ST.
~ ~ ~ ~ a° O
0 ~
0 ^ ~^ 0
~~ ~~
^ I 4 I ~^
ti
a
ui ~
a =
c~
~ _
p
Y
U
J
MAP #2
CITY OF
RICHFIELD
RICHFIELD
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
MODIFICATION
Legend
Cedar Point
Development
Area
66TH ST.
~ ~ ~] ~
~
n
I~
~ ~ n
[
~
LJ
~I
n I
100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Feet N
JUNE, 2005
I/GIS/COMDEV/STAFF/BILL/PROJECTS/CEDAR PT REDEV ASSESSMT. APR
u
63RD ST.
~~
2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATIONS
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
(Cedar Point Development)
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the
"Authority") did on or about June 14, 1993 originally adopt the Redevelopment Plan for the
Richfield Project Area, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to
469.047 (the "HRA Act"), and has subsequently modified the same thereafter, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the HRA Act the Authority proposes to modify the Redevelopment
Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Authority has caused to be prepared a modification to the Redevelopment
Plan, and has received the written opinion of the Planning Commission of the City, and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the City Council hold a public hearing on the
proposed modification, and
WHEREAS, the Authority has scheduled a meeting on the adoption of the proposed
modifications to the Redevelopment Plan for June 20, 2005, and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on June 14, 2005, based on such reference and following
notice as required by law, hold its hearing on the approval of the modifications to the
Redevelopment Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City as follows:
I. The City makes the following fmdings:
1. the land in the project area would not be made available for redevelopment
without the financial aid to be sought;
2. the modifications to the redevelopment plan for the redevelopment areas in
the locality will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of
the locality as a whole, for the redevelopment of the areas by private
enterprise; and
3. the redevelopment plan conforms to a general plan for the development of
the locality as a whole; and
4. based on the information contained in Exhibit A and information presented
at the hearing and otherwise known to the council, the portion of the Project
Area comprising the proposed Cedar Point Development is blighted within
the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.002 and 469.028.
II. The City Council hereby approves the proposed modifications to the Redevelopment
Plan, and makes all of the findings stated therein.
JBD-263583v1
RC 125-239
3
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June, 2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
JBD-263583v1
RC125-239
EXHIBIT A
BLIGHT ASSESSMENT REPORT
RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION
CEDAR POINT AREA
JBD-263583v1
RC125-239
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for the
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
(Cedar Point Development)
Dated : June 3, 2005
For Planning Commission Consideration on Jun 13, 2005
For City Council Consideration on June 14, 2005
For HRA Consideration on June 20, 2005
Prepared By:
Dan Cornejo
CORNEJO CONSULTING
1657 Saunders Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55116
(651) 699-1927
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
(612) 861-9760.
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for the
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
(Cedar Point Development)
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
A. Foreward 3
B. Statement of Public Pur ose 3
C. Statuto Authorit -Redevelo ment Plan Modification 3
D. Statement of Goals and Ob'ectives 4
E. Descri tion of Redevelo ment Pro'ect Area 6
F. Develo ment Activities and A reements 6
G. Public Redevelo ment Costs; Proceeds; Financin 8
H. Pro osed Land Use 8
I. Ac uisition, Relocation, and Rehabilitation Activities 9
J. Environmental Considerations 10
K. Administration of Pro"ect Area 10
A endix A: Ma of Richfield Redevelo ment Pro'ect Area
A endix B: Ma of Cedar Point Develo ment Area
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE
RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
(CEDAR POINT DEVELOPMENT)
A. FOREWARD
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area. This Modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives
set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. It also is intended
to facilitate the implementation of land use and development changes in the Cedar Point Development
Area, as such area is depicted on the map at Appendix B, to address blighting conditions, including the
significant and unique, adverse environmental and socioeconomic conditions directly associated with
the current operation of the nearby Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and the anticipated
operation of the new North/South (17/35) Runway in late 2005.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area, adopted June 14, 1993, is recommended and available in the Community Development
Department at the City of Richfield.
B. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC PURPOSE
Comprehensive environmental studies that examined the projected low frequency noise levels
associated with the operation of the new North/South (17/35) Runway at the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport resulted in a mitigation plan that provides for the redevelopment of Richfield's
east side into a more compatible use.
A comprehensive review of the portion of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (the
"Project Area") comprising the Cedar Point Development Area concluded that such portion is blighted
within the meaning of the Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, Subd. 11 and Section 469.028, Subd.
3. A copy of the Slight Assessment Report -Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification -
Cedar Point Area, dated June 3, 2005, is on file and available in the Community Development
Department at the City of Richfield.
Therefore, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota (the "HRA") and the City Council of the City of Richfield (the "City") have determined
that public intervention is necessary in the Cedar Point Development Area in order to achieve set goals
and objectives for proper redevelopment of the area.
C. STATUTORY AUTHORITY - REDEVLOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION
The HRA determines that it is necessary, desirable, and in the public interest to undertake a
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (the "Modified
Plan") pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.029, Subd. 6, a redevelopment plan may be
modified at any time provided that the HRA and City Council adopt such modifications upon the
notice and after the public hearing required for the original adoption of the redevelopment plan. If the
HRA determines the necessity of changes in an approved redevelopment plan or approved
modification thereof, which changes do not alter or affect the exterior boundaries, or do not
substantially alter or affect the general land uses established in such plan, then such changes shall not
constitute a modification of the Redevelopment Plan nor require approval by the governing body of
the political subdivision in which the project is located.
D. STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following goals were originally established in 1993. The current Modified
Redevelopment Plan adds two additional goals (shown in bold face).
To provide a revenue base to meet the needs of Richfield.
2. To develop job opportunities for area residents.
3. To develop strategies to encourage revitatlization.
4. To maintain a positive business environment.
5. To enrich the quality of life for residents through planning of the interrelationship of land use.
6. To recognize the needs of all segments of the populace through diversity in housing stock
which is a major determinant of the living environment.
7. To protect the community from the adverse affects of the operations of the Minneapolis-
St. Paul International Airport.
8. To protect the community from the adverse, low frequency noise impacts of the
implementation and operation of the new North/South (17/35) Runway at the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
The following objectives were originally established in 1993. The current Modified
Redevelopment Plan adds eight (8) additional objectives to the list (shown in bold face).
1. To achieve a high level of design quality through use of design features such as
landscaping to enhance the physical environment.
2. To better utilize vacant or underdeveloped land.
3. To improve vehicular circulation by providing a comprehensive system which
provides good, direct access to and from the commercial areas. To the extent
practical, eliminate commercial traffic from residential streets and minimize vehicular
circulation conflicts or congestion.
4. To achieve a balanced variety of commercial businesses and services appropriate to
the market area.
5. To provide increased employment opportunities.
6. To diversify the tax base of the community.
4
To eliminate or reduce the conflicts which result from imcompatible land use relationships,
especially between residential and non-residential.
8. To protect the single-family residences from the adverse effects of nearby commercial
development, roadways, and off-street parking.
9. To utilize landscaping and/or screening between all single-family residential and
commerciaUoffice uses. Landscaping and/or screening should also be provided along major
thoroughfares which border residential areas.
10. To eliminate unsightly and blighting elements such as exposed trash storage areas, overhead
utility lines, poorly maintained and excessively large billlboards or signs, and deteriorated
structures.
11. To provide for the elimination of blight which is evidenced by irregular sized lots, inadequate
streets, incompatible land uses, physical and functional obsolescence, and inadequate parking.
12. To encourage the sharing of parking facilities and to generally improve the parking and
circulation in the area.
13. To provide public utilities and other public facilities of sufficient quality and size to support
the future development in the area.
14. To provide for an expanded range of housing opportunities in the community, as appropriate.
15. To encourage open lines of communication between all the residents, businesses and city staff.
16. To provide maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the city for development by
private enterprise.
17. To coordinate elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan with these project objectives.
18. Provide jobs within close proximity of the residential population and concurrently saving
energy by reducing trip time to jobs.
19. Provide a retail service level required by the residents of the community.
20. Secure the increase of housing, commercial, and industrial property subject to taxation by the
City, Independent School District No. 280, Intermediate School District No. 287, Hennepin
County, City, and other taxing jurisdictions in order to better enable such entitites to pay for
governmental services and programs required to be provided by them.
21. Encourage local business expansion, improvements, rehabilitation, and development,
whenever possible and provide financial incentives for same.
22. Combine the elements of other City Plans with these project objectives.
23. To facilitate the acquisition and removal of single-family residential and multi-family
residential properties located with the city's airport impact zones.
5
24. To facilitate the acquisition and removal of single-family residential, multi-family
residential, commercial and industrial properties deemed blighted due to a number of
factors including low frequency noise levels associated with the construction and
operation of the new North/South (17/35) Runway at the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport.
25. To facilitate the acquisition of land or space that is vacant, unused, underused,
inappropirately used or contains incompatible land uses.
26. To facilitate the redevelopment of land for the construction of commerciaVretail
development better suited to withstanding airport noise.
27. To provide modern, transit stop plazas with features such as heated structures, lighting,
landscaping, bus pullouts.
28. To provide newer designed, high-volume street intersections able to better control traffic
and interface with pedestrian traffic.
29. To provide bikeways, paths, greenways and parkways for non-vehicular traffic.
30. To provide enhanced streetscape features such as decorative concrete, pedestrian
lighting, landspacing features.
E. DESCRIPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
In order to further guide the development and redevelopment of the Project Area, the HRA has
created this Modified Plan.
The boundary for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area is not being altered. This
Modified Plan is intended to address primarily the area known as the Cedar Point Development Area.
See Appendix A for a map of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. See Appendix B for a map
of the Cedar Point Development Area.
F. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND AGREEMENTS
General
The objectives of the Modified Plan will be accomplished pursuant to the authority granted to
the HRA by Minnesota Statutes.
Redevelopment within the Project Area must be financially feasible, marketable, and
compatible with long range redevelopment plans of the City and HRA. The following development
activities are appropriate for the area in light of current redevelopment opportunities within the Cedar
Point Development Area:
(1) Property acquisition;
(2) Relocation;
(3) Site clearance; and
(4) Site improvements.
6
Any and all proposals by the developer of Cedar Point will be reviewed by the HRA to
determine conformance with the Modified Plan and applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To
facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval:
(1) Site Plan;
(2) Construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings;
(3) Landscaping Plan;
(4) Grading and storm drainage plan;
(5) Signage system plan; and
(6) Any other drawings or narrative deemed by the HRA to demonstrate the conformance
of the development with the Modified Plan.
It is the intention of the HRA that the majority of the redevelopment activities, including but
not limited to acquisition, relocation, site clearance, and improvements be directly undertaken by the
developer with assistance when and where appropriate from the HRA.
The proposal for the Cedar Point Development Area calls for acquisition, relocation,
environmental investigation, site clearance, and construction of new commerciaUretail buildings and
related parking. Currently, the Cedar Point Development Area comprises one-hundred (100) parcels:
sixty-two (62) are vacant land, many of which have been cleared; thirty-three (33) are occupied by
single-family houses; three (3) are occupied by residential, multi-family apartment buildings; and two
(2) are occupied by commercial buildings. The subject properties are owned by the City of Richfield
and various private parties. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has current
control of certain properties along the east side of Cedar Avenue and the north side of East 66th Street
for the reconstruction of the ramps at 66th Street and Trunk Highway 77. Remnant land from this
right-of--way project will be available for redevelopment in the Cedar Point Development Area.
Description of Anticipated Private Development Activities within the Cedar Point Development
Area
^ Redevelopment of a 29 acre site.
^ Private acquisition of 33 single family homes.
^ Relocation.
^ Environmental investigation and mitigation.
^ Site clearance.
^ Minimum improvements to include a SuperTarget retail merchandise store and Home Depot
home improvement store.
^ Proposed additional improvements to include 61,200 square feet of in-line and freestanding
retail development.
^ Financial contribution to the construction of a new intersection at 66th Street and
approximately 17th Avenue.
_Description of Anticipated Public Development Activities within the Cedar Point Development
Area
The proposed public development activities in the Cedar Point Development Area would be
undertaken by the HRA and City in order to support the private development activities and facilitate
redevelopment in the area in the manner suitable to overall development plans. These activities
include direct financial assistance to the developers to facilitate site assembly.
7
It is proposed that the HRA sell to the developer certain properties ("HRA Property")
described below in Section H. Redevelopment activities would be contingent upon the mutual
agreements set forth in a Contract for Private Development.
^ Acquisition of two (2) residential, multi-family apartment buildings from private owners.
^ Acquisition of three (3) commercial properties from private owners.
^ Acquisition of 62 properties, mostly vacant land, from public owner (City of Richfield).
^ Relocation.
^ Environmental investigation and mitigation.
^ Site clearance.
^ Conveyance of 67 properties to developer.
^ Construction of two transit stop plazas with lighting, heated structures, bicycle storage, cart
corral, landscaping and bus pullouts.
^ Construction of a newly designed, high-volume intersection on 66th Street and approximately
17th Avenue (roundabout or traditional design).
^ Roadway improvements to link the bridge at Trunk Highway 77 with the new intersection on
66th Street.
^ Highly landscaped greenway/parkway.
^ Enhanced streetscape features (decorative concrete, pedestrian lighting, landscaping features,
etc.).
G. PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT COST; PROCEEDS; FINANCING
The HRA determines that the funding of the necessary activities and improvements in the
Cedar Point Development Area shall be accomplished through the use of private funds from the
developer and public funds to the developer up to the principal amount of $2,068,700, or a lesser
amount as provided for in a Contract for Private Development.
The revenue source of the public funds will be in the form of a property tax abatement, in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.1812 to 469.1815, as previously approved by the
City of Richfield on May 24, 2005. The following revenue sources have also been provided for
property acquisitions and other site assembly activities in the Cedar Point Development Area:
$2.0 million multi jurisdictional project funds (2005) from Hennepin County for acquisition of
properties and related activities by the HRA;
$7.0 million in funds from the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) (2000) for property
acquired by the City along Cedar Avenue for Truck Highway 77 ramp reconstruction and bridge
widening in which the remnant land will be part of the proposed project; and
$5.0 million in funds appropriated by the 2000 Legislature to the City, and administered by
the then Department of Trade and Economic Development, for the purchase of single family homes
within the 87db noise contours of the airport impact zone.
Also, it is proposed that a special assessment bond, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429, may fund transit-related improvements in the Cedar Point Development Area.
H. PROPOSED LAND USE
The current land use in the Cedar Point Development Area is approximately one-third
residential, and two-thirds vacant, with two commercially-used properties. Current zoning is a mix of
R (Single Family Residential), C-2 (General Commercial), and MR-3 (Multi-Residential-High
Density). The City of Richfield Planning Commission and City Council have previously adopted
resolutions to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for the Cedar Point Development Area,
within the Project Area to "Regional Commercial/Office" to accommodate a retail center.
The proposed commercial/retail land use would be consistent with the "Regional
Commercial/Office" designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
I. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES
Acquisition
The HRA intends to acquire the following properties for this project and convey them
to the developer in accordance with the stipulations in a Contract for Private
Development:
6301 Cedar Ave. So. 6315
6311 Cedar Ave. So. 6321
6315 Cedar Ave. So. 6327
6325 Cedar Ave. So. 6333
6333 Cedar Ave. So. 6339
6341 Cedar Ave. So. 6345
6345 Cedar Ave. So. 6401
6405 Cedar Ave. So. 6409
6409 Cedar Ave. So. 6415
6417 Cedar Ave. So. 6421
6421 Cedar Ave. So. 6427
6425 Cedar Ave. So. 6433
6429 Cedar Ave. So. 6439
6437 Cedar Ave. So. 6445
6441 Cedar Ave. So. 6509
6445 Cedar Ave. So. 6515
6501 Cedar Ave. So. 6521
6509 Cedar Ave. So. 6527
6511 Cedar Ave. So. 6533
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
18th Ave. So.
Cedar Ave. So.
Cedar Ave. So.
Cedar Ave. So.
6412
6444
6520
6300
6320
6500
6528
Cedar Ave. So.
Cedar Ave. So.
Cedar Ave. So.
Cedar Ave. So.
Cedar Ave. So.
Cedar Ave. So.
Cedar Ave. So.
6521 Cedar Ave. So. 6314
6525 Cedar Ave. So. 6320
6529 Cedar Ave. So. 6326
6333 Cedar Ave. So. 6332
6337 Cedar Ave. So. 6334
1820 66th Street E. 6400
1800 66th Street E. 6408
1720 66th Street E. 6414
1714 66th Street E. 6328
1708 66th Street E. 6344
1700 66th Street E. 6400
9
The developer, in accordance with the stipulations of the Contract for Private
Development, anticipates the acquisition of the following properties for this project:
6315 17th Ave. So. 6445 17th Ave. So. 6500 18th Ave. So.
6321 17th Ave. So. 6501 17th Ave. So. 6501 18th Ave. So.
6327 17th Ave. So. 6509 17th Ave. So. 6508 18th Ave. So.
6333 17th Ave. So. 6515 17th Ave. So. 6514 18th Ave. So.
6339 17th Ave. So. 6521 17th Ave. So. 6520 18th Ave. So.
6345 17th Ave. So. 6527 17th Ave. So. 6526 18th Ave. So.
6401 17th Ave. So. 6533 17th Ave. So. 6532 18th Ave. So.
6409 17th Ave. So. 6338 18th Ave. So.
6415 17th Ave. So. 6420 18th Ave. So.
6421 17th Ave. So. 6426 18th Ave. So.
6427 17th Ave. So. 6432 18th Ave. So.
6433 17th Ave. So. 6438 18th Ave. So.
6439 17th Ave. So. 6444 18th Ave. So.
2. Relocation
The HRA is bound by the procedures set forth in the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended and Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 117.
In the event that the developer, based on information provided by the HRA,
determines that any of the properties it is obligated to acquire is occupied by tenants,
lessees, or other non-owner occupants, the developer will notify the HRA to provide
relocation assistance and benefits to such parties to the extent and at the times
required by applicable law, and the developer shall promptly reimburse the HRA for
these costs.
3. Rehabilitation Program
No rehabilitation program is currently intended in the Cedar Point Development Area.
J. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
All municipal actions, public improvement, and private development shall be carried out in a
manner that will enhance, rather than detract, from the natural environment. All necessary
environmental permits and clearances will be obtained by the developer.
K. ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROJECT AREA
The administration of the Project Area will be undertaken by HRA officials.
10
APPENDIX A
MAP OF RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
11
~ ~ ~ m ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ m
n A n A
avaac
4181
41L1
419{
O1'JNIWOO~B
4iSL
414E
41E L
41ZL
4ll.l
/~' 430E
lOnl3
0 OJtlO1H0
snswmoa
HaVd
ONV~IVO
MQ aNVUaod
W yM,
No1Nno
a~¢
F SN3/131S
1sL
W 13T1001N
TI30SIK19
_O LLaOM1N3M
~ AanBSTld
~ 1NVSV~d
F aNda'J
Z 131aavH
W arduavo
3ldONAI
iii HORION
O 1NtlAa8
J XMdl00
(~ ,rodna
NOSa3W3
W 1NOW3iLi
Q Oatlal~J
LIJ lmoswnH
'JNIA211
Q sawvr
J Xo~
W ""~°'
~ rlvoaow
i NOlAM13N
a3An0
~ NN3d
Nino
T~ssna
NVORI3HS
SdWOHl
NOldn
1N30NIA
NanaHSVM
S3Xa3X
~Z O
v
r
N
ava~o
419t
411E
419E
NOI~JNIW00~
41SL
414E
41£L
4iZL
4iLL
410E
lOIT3
O'JWJIHO Q
Sn8VS1'100 Z
HaVd
aNVVlvo p
aNruaod m
~ W
4q
NO1Nn0 Q
P+t; ~
U
we W
SN3/1315
'~` a
13llOOIN
1130S1tl1S z
H1aOM1N3M CW
G
AanesTw p„
1NVSVad OJ
aNVao W
~~ W
a~ldav~ D
3lMONA'I W
HORIOItl
1NVAa8
lMdl00
1NOdna
NOSa3W3
1NOW3a~
OaVal'J
lmoewnH
orllnal W
J
S3WVr
XONH
Nv~m
Nv~aow
NOlN13N
aanno
NN3d
Naano
Tlassna
NVORi3HS N
SNWOHl ~'
NOldn
1N30NIA
Nan9HStlM
S~(a~C
a
m m ~ m ~ ~ m ~ A ' n N N t~l ~ N ~ A m p
rA la A A A A n ~
O
A A
APPENDIX B
MAP OF CEDAR POINT DEVELOPMENT AREA
12
^ u
0
f„'
o
D
F~ ~~
~] a
C
n o
~o
Jn
iii i
~~~~
63R® ST.
,.,;,, ~.
n ~-~ 1
~-
64TH ST.
1
ti
ti
a
>
Q ~
=
d =
W
Z
V ~
H
100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Feet
I/GIS/COMDEV/STAFF/BILUPROJECTS/CEDAR PT REDEV ASSESSMT. APR
CITY OF
RICHFIELD
RICHFIELD
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
MODIFICATION
Legend
Cedar Point
Development
Area
N
JUNE, 2005
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # QE
REPORT # 109
~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 14, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATNE
SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION
MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for a new therapeutic massage therapist license for Anne O'Keefe
who will be workin for Salon Junallo, 6800 Penn Avenue South.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a request for a new therapeutic massage
therapist license for Anne O'Keefe who will be working for Salon
Junallo, 6800 Penn Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND
On May 4, 2005, Anne O'Keefe submitted an application for a new therapeutic
massage therapist license. Ms. O'Keefe will be employed by Salon Junallo, 6800
.Penn Avenue South, whose license as a therapeutic massage enterprise business
was renewed for 2005 on December 14, 2004.
The following requirements for license issuance have all been satisfied and they are
as follows:
• The applicant has paid the required licensing fees.
• The required proof of liability insurance has been submitted.
0614 New Massage Therapist License O'Keefe
• Proof of schooling and experience requirements have been met.
• A Public Safety background investigation has been completed and the applicant
has no known criminal history. She has complied with all the requirements for a
therapeutic massage therapist license.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The applicant has complied with all the provisions of the application
process, has paid all the licensing fees and has provided proof of
.liability insurance.
• Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the
investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the
license request.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• None
C. FINANCIAL
• All licensing fees have been paid.
D. LEGAL
• None
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny the request for a therapeutic massage therapist license for Anne
O'Keefe; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for
a denial.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Anne O'Keefe
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # RD
REPORT # I O$
~J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 14, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
PATRICK SMITH, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
ACTING DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing application to the Minnesota Department of Finance
for funding of the 17th Avenue Extension (Cedar Corridor) through the 2006 Capital Budget
Bondin Bill.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing an application
to the Minnesota Department of Finance for funding the 17th Avenue
Extension (Cedar Corridor) through the 2006 Capital Budget Bonding
Bill.
II. BACKGROUND
• The City has identified the Cedar Corridor, located within the 87db area, for
redevelopment in the Cedar Avenue Corridor Master Plan.
• The City has been working with Ryan Companies to redevelop the area north
of 66th Street, between 17th and Cedar Avenues with a retail power center.
• The Master Plan identifies the area west of 17th Avenue for future housing
development.
• Several infrastructure improvements are necessary for the retail center and
future housing development. One of these infrastructure improvements is
061405bonding bill resolution of support
the 17th Avenue Extension, which will be located between the retail and
housing developments.
The 17th Avenue Extension will be constructed in two phases. The first
phase will be from the intersection at 17th Avenue and 66th Street to Taft
Park. The second phase will be from Taft Park to Bloomington Avenue.
Staff has been trying to identify funding for the 17th Avenue Extension.
The State of Minnesota provides funding for capital improvements through
the Capital Budget Bonding Bill. Staff is seeking authorization to apply for
funding for the 17th Avenue Extension through the 2006 Capital Budget
Bonding Bill.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• It is appropriate to seek outside funding for City projects whenever
possible.
• On January 25, 2005 the City Council approved The Cedar Avenue
Corridor Master Plan, which calls for redevelopment of the 87db area
with noise-compatible development. Various infrastructure
improvements are required as part of the plan.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The application for funds is due to the Minnesota Department of
Finance by June 15, 2005.
C. FINANCIAL
• Additional financing still needs to be identified. The state funding is
limited to no more than 50 percent of total capital costs.
D. LEGAL
• The program guidelines require the City Council to pass a resolution in
support of the application.
IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Deny authorization.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF
AN APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
FOR FUNDING THE 17TH AVENUE EXTENSION (CEDAR CORRIDOR) THROUGH
THE 2006 CAPITAL BUDGET BONDING BILL
WHEREAS the City of Richfield (the "City") is a city located within the State of
Minnesota and is therefore eligible to make application for funding through the State
bonding process; and
WHEREAS, the City supports the Application made to the Minnesota Department of
Finance for funding of the 17th Avenue Extension (Cedar Corridor) as a necessary
capital improvment; and
WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to
ensure adequate project administration; and
WHEREAS The City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and
regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized
to apply to the Minnesota Department of Finance for this funding on behalf of the City of
Richfield and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on
behalf of the applicant.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of
June, 2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
061405bonding bill resolution of support
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 9C
REPORT # 107
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 14, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
ACTING DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing execution of a Funding Year 2006 to 2008 Joint
Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for participation in the Community
Develo ment Block Grant Pro ram.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the
execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City of
Richfield and Hennepin County for participation in the Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program in
fundina vear 2006 to 2008.
II. BACKGROUND
Hennepin County wants to finalize the agreement to receive Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding from the federal government for the next
three years. Hennepin County provides a portion of these funds to Richfield.
Every year, the City Council conducts a public hearing and allocates federal CDBG
funds for home rehabilitation, affordable new home construction and public
services.
061405 CDBG
In 2005 for example, with an allocation of $208,460, the City Council authorized the
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to administer a home
rehabilitation loan program for low-income homeowners. Often times, because it is
a deferred loan that requires no monthly payment, homeowners on limited incomes
can make necessary repairs and improvements without an additional financial
burden. The loan is satisfied in the future when the home is sold.
Richfield also supports four public service agencies through the CDBG allocation:
Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (H.O.M.E.}, Greater Minneapolis
Day Care Association (GMDCA), Community Action for Suburban Hennepin
(CASH), and HOME Line.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The agreement for the next three years ensures the ongoing
opportunity to fund CDBG programs and projects.
• Hennepin County has an allocation system, which is unique in
providing an annual funding source that can be planned for. Twenty-
eight years of programming have yielded over 480 rehabilitation loans
over 40 new homes, and ongoing public service programming.
• CDBG is under attack at the federal level and program elimination or
dramatic funding cuts are proposed. Senator Norm Coleman and
others are defending the program aggressively because it consistently
makes a difference in local communities. It has in Richfield.
• The Hennepin County Board has reviewed and approved the
Agreement.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Richfield cannot continue to receive CDBG funds without the
agreement.
• Richfield's use of CDBG funds consistently serves low-income
homeowners and renters that benefit from the offered programs and
projects.
• The County has requested Council action during the month of June to
ensure federal agreements can be completed in a timely manner.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City will have an opportunity to utilize $600,000 to $700,000 over
a three year period
• The HRA and public service agencies administer the program funding
based on agreements prepared annually with the City.
D. LEGAL
• The agreement has been previously reviewed by legal counsel. The
only change affecting Richfield is a tighter performance requirement.
Funds will need to be spent in 18 months rather than 24 months.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do not act on the joint agreement and discontinue receiving CDBG funds
from Hennepin County.
• Direct staff to discontinue projects and programs that are CDBG funded.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Joint Cooperation Agreement
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR
PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN FUNDING YEAR 2006-2008
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in
effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs; and
WHEREAS, the City and County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement
in order to continue to qualify as an Urban County for purposes of the Community
Development Block Grant and HOME Programs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a new Joint Cooperation Agreement
between the City and County be executed effective October 1, 2005 and that the Mayor and
the City Manager be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City.
2005.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June,
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Contract No. A050448
JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of
Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," A-2400.Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55487, and
the cities executing this Master Agreement, each hereinafter respectively referred to as "COOPERATING UNIT,"
said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and made pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59:
WITNESSETH:
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that
COOPERATING UNIT shares its authority to carry out essential community development and housing activities
with COUNTY in order to permit COUNTY to secure and administer Community Development Block Grant funds
as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein defined and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual
covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and
conditions.
COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that by the execution of this Agreement that it understands that it:
1. May not also apply for grants under the State CDBG Program from appropriations for fiscal
years during which it is participating in the Urban County Program; and
2. May not participate in a HOME Consortium except through the Urban County.
I. DEFINITIONS
The definitions contained in 42 USC-5302 of the Act and 24 CFR §570.3 ofthe Regulations are incorporated
herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them:
A. "Act" means Title I of the .Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, (42
U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).
B. "Activity" means aCDBG-funded activity eligible under Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended. Example: single family rehab activity.
C. "Annual Program" means those combined activities submitted by cooperating units to COUNTY for
CDBG funding as part of the Consolidated Plan.
D. "Consolidated Plan" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or
documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is
developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community
Development Block Grant Program.
1
E. "Cooperating Unit(s)" means any city or town in Hennepin County that has entered into a cooperation
agreement that is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County, which is a party to each
Agreement.
F. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
G. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is certified
by HUD to have a population of 50,000 or more people.
H. "Program" means the HUD Community Development Block Grant Program as defined under Title I of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended..
I. "Program Income" means gross income received by the recipient or a subrecipient directly generated
from the use of CDBG.
J. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not limited
to 24 CFR Part 570.
K. "Urban County" means the entitlement jurisdiction within the provisions of the Act and includes the
suburban Hennepin. County municipalities which are. signatories to this Agreement.
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate to
undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities and
authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who reside
within the corporate limits of the COOPERATING ,UNIT which will be funded from annual Community
Development Block Grant and HOME appropriations for the Federal Fiscal Years 2006, 2007 and 2008 and from
any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds.
III. AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on October 1, 2005 and terminating no sooner than
the end of the program year covered by the Consolidated Plan for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal Year 2008, as
authorized by HUD, and for such additional time as maybe required for the expenditure of funds. granted to the
County for such period. The COUNTY may notify COOPERATING UNITS prior to the end of the Urban County
qualification period that the Agreement will automatically be renewed unless it is terminated in writing by either
party. Either the COUNTY or COOPERATING UNIT may exercise the option to terminate the Agreement at the
end of the Urban County qualification period. If the COUNTY or COOPERATING UNIT fail to exercise that
option, it will not have the opportunity to exercise that option until the end of a subsequent Urban County
qualification period. The COUNTY will notify the COOPERATING UNIT in writing of its right to elect to be
excluded by the date specified by HUD.
This Agreement must be amended by written agreement of all parties to incorporate any changes necessary to
meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in the Urban County Qualification Notice applicable for
the year in .which the next qualification of the County is scheduled. Failure by either party to adopt such an
amendment to the Agreement shall automaticallyterminate the Agreement following the expenditure of all CDBG
funds allocated for use in the COOPERATING UNIT's jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated at the end of the
program period during which HUD withdraws its designation of the COUNTY as an Urban County under the Act.
This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY
pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and
executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the Hennepin County Department of
Housing, Community Works and Transit, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than June 30, 2005.
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take .all actions necessary to assure compliance with the
applicant's certifications required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, including Title. VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing Act, Section 109 of Title I
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; and other applicable laws..
IV. ACTIVITIES
COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to undertake and carry out, within the
terms of this Agreement, certain activities eligible for funding under the Act. The COUNTY agrees and will assist
COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this
Agreement. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations
and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in
this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate the COUNTY'S responsibility to assume all obligations of an
applicant under the Act, including the development of the Consolidated Plan, pursuant to 24 CFR Part 9 L
COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agree as follows:
A. COOPERATING UNIT will, in accord with aCUUNTY-established schedule, prepare and provide to
the COUNTY, in a prescribed form, requests for the. use of Community Development Block Grant
Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and the Urban Hennepin County
Consolidated Plan.
B. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR§570.501(b), it is subject to the same
requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Subrecipient
.Agreement set forth in 24 CFR §570.503. The Subrecipient Agreement will cover the implementation
requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly executed with and
in a form prescribed by the COUNTY.
C. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same Subrecipient requirements stated
in paragraph B above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity pursuant
to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such instances, a written Third Party
Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING UNIT in a form
prescribed by COUNTY..
D. COOPERATING UNITS shall expend all funds annually allocated to activities pursuant to this
Agreement within eighteen (18) months of the authorization by HUD to expend the basic grant amount,
1. With each annual program COOPERATING UNITS shall submit to the COUNTY activity
schedules for the completion and expenditure of funds within eighteen (18) months. COUNTY will
institute monitoring measures and provide technical or other assistance to insure activities are
proceeding on schedule.
3
2. Funds for activities not expended within eighteen (18) months maybe recaptured at the discretion
of the COUNTY and distributed by COUNTY as .provided for in D. 4. Limited extensions to the
expenditure deadlines in this section maybe granted by COUNTY upon written request only where the
authorized activity has been initiated and/or is subject to a binding contract which provides for the
expenditure to be completed within a time period acceptable to COUNTY.
3 . Amendments to an annual program by COOPERATING UNITS may be approved by COUNTY up
to fifteen (15) months after initial funding has been approved only when the new. activity can be
completed and funding expended within six (6) months of the amendment approval. Funds not
expended within the six (6) month extension period may be recaptured and distributed by COUNTY as
provided for in D.4.
4. All funds recaptured by COUNTY will be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on a
competitive request for proposal basis at the discretion of the COUNTY where total of such. funds is
$100,000 or greater. Amounts less than $100,000 shall be allocated by COUNTY to other existing.
activities consistent with timeliness requirements and Consolidated Plan goals.
E. COUNTY and COOPERATING UNITS shall expend all program income pursuant to this Agreement as
provided below:
1. Program income from housing rehabilitation activities administered by the COUNTY will be
incorporated into a pool at the discretion of the COUNTY.. This provision is effective with the term of
this Agreement commencing October 1, 2005. The pool will be administered by COUNTY and will be
used for housing rehabilitation projects located throughout the entire Urban County. When possible,
COUNTY will give priority to funding housing rehabilitation projects within the COOPERATING
UNIT where the program income was generated. Funds expended in this manner would be secured by
a Repayment Agreement/Mortgagerunning in favor of the COUNTY. Program income generated by
certain COOPERATING UNITS that administer their own housing rehabilitation activities maybe
retained by the COOPERATING UNIT at its discretion, however such COOPERATING UNITS will
be bound by the conditions of D.2., above. Only COOPERATING UNITS that were administering
their own activities pursuant to the Joint Cooperation Agreement pertaining to the HUD fiscal years
2003-2005 will be eligible to retain their program income.
2. COUNTY reserves the option to recapture program income generated bynon-housing rehabilitation
activities if said funds have not been expended within twelve (12) months of being generated. These
funds shall be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on a competitive request for proposal
basis administered by COUNTY or, where the total of such funds does not exceed $100,000, shall be
reallocated by COUNTY to other existing activities consistent with timeliness requirements and
Consolidated Plan goals.
F. COOPERATING UNITS are encouraged to undertake joint activities involving the sharing of funding
when such action furthers the goals of the Consolidated Plan and meets the expenditure goals.
G. If COUNTY is notified by HUD that it has not met the performance standard for the timely expenditure
of funds at 24 CFR 570.902(a) and the COUNTY entitlement grant is reduced by HUD according to its
policy on corrective actions, then the basic grant amount to any COOPERATING UNIT that has not met
its expenditure goal shall be reduced accordingly.
H. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to assist in accomplishing the community
development program and housing goals, as contained in the Urban Hennepin. County Consolidated
Plan.
4
I. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all activities funded, in part or in full by grant funds received
pursuant to this Agreement, shall be undertaken affirmatively withregard to fair housing, employment
and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall, in implementing all programs and/or
activities funded by the basic grant amount, comply with all applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws,
statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment
opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY.
J. COOPERATING UNIT that does not. affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or
that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its fair housing certification shall be prohibited from
receiving CDBG funding for any activities.
K. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in .the citizen participation process, as established by
COUNTY, incompliance with the requirements of the Housing and CommunityDevelopment Act of
1974, as amended.
L. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY for any expenditure determined by HUD or
COUNTY to be ineligible.
M. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the
interests of the parties hereto or any other parry of interest as maybe designated by the COUNTY.
N. COOPERATING UNIT has adopted and is enforcing:
A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its
jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and
2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or
exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights
demonstrations within its jurisdiction.
COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows:
A. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, on an annual basis,
all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the
Act.
B.- COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance .and coordinating
services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of a request for funding.
C. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING UNIT to aid COUNTY in
fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and
housing goals.
D. COUNTY shall, upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer local housing
rehabilitation activities funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive
Twelve percent (12%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as reimbursement
for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity.
E. COUNTY may, at its. discretion and upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to
administer, for a possible fee, other activities funded pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of
COOPERATING UNIT.
F. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination ofprogram administration, develop and
implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations, HUD administrative directives,
and administrative requirements of COUNTY.
V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS
Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under Section 106 of the Act shall be allocated as follows:
A. COUNTY shall retain thirteen percent (13%) of the annual basic grant amount for the administration of
the program. Included in this administrative amount is funding. for annual county-wide Fa1r Housing
activities.
B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be made available by COUNTY to COOPERATING
UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C and the procedure stated in part D of this
section utilizing data provided by HUD. The allocation is for planning purposes only .and is not a
guarantee of funding.
C. Allocation df funding will be based upona formula using data supplied by HUD that bears the same
ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between:
1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING UNITS.
2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all
COOPERATING UNITS.
3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of
overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING UNITS.
4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be
counted twice.
D. Funds will be made available to communities utilizing the formula specified in C of this Section in the
following manner:
1. All COOPERATING UNITS with aggregate formula percentages of greater than three and one
half percent (3.5%) of the total using the procedure in part C. of this section will receive
funding allocations in accordance with the COUNTY formula allocations.
2. COOPERATING UNITS with aggregate formula percentages of three and one half percent
(3.5%) or less of the total using the procedure in part C. of this section will have their funds
consolidated into a pool for award in a manner determined by COUNTY on a competitive
request for proposal basis. Only the COUNTY and COOPERATING UNITS whose funding
has been pooled will be eligible to compete for these funds.
6
E. The. COI7NTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY
assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data
furnished by HUD.
F. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request a funding allocation, or a portion thereof, the
amount not requested shall be made .available to other participating communities, in a manner
determined by COUNTY.
VI. METROPOLITAN CITIES
Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitlement status and become part of Urban
Hennepin County.
This agreement can be voided if the COOPERATING I1NIT is advised by HUD, prior to the completion of the re-
qualification process for fiscal years 2006-2008,, that it is eligible to become a metropolitan city .and the
COOPERATING UNIT elects to take its entitlement status. If the agreement is not voided on the basis of the
COOPERATING UNIT's eligibility as a metropolitan city prior to July 8, 2005, the COOPERATING UNIT must
remain a part of the COUNTY program for the entire three-year period of the COUNTY qualification.
VII. OPINION OF COUNSEL
The. undersigned, on behalf of the Hennepin County Attorney, having reviewed this Agreement, hereby
opines that the terms and provisions of the Agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and that the
COOPERATING UNIT has full legal authority to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community
development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly-assisted housing.
Assistant County Attorney
VIII. HENNEPIN COUNTY EXECUTION
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on May 3, 2005, and
pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the COUNTY agrees to be
bound by the provisions herein set forth.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA
By:
Chair of its County Board
And:
Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator
Attest:
Deputy/Clerk of the County Board
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Date:
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION:
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
Assistant County Administrator -Public Works
Date:
Director; Housing, Community Works and Transit
Department
Date:
s
IX. COOPERATING UNIT EXECUTION
COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the COOPERATING UNIT'S governing body having
duly approved this Agreementon , 2005, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city official
having signed this Agreement, .COOPERATING UNIT agrees to be bound. by the provisions of this Joint
Cooperation Agreement, contract A050448.
CITY OF
By:
Its Mayor.
And:
Its City Manager
ATTEST:
CITY MUST CHECK ONE:
The City is organized pursuant to:
Plan A Plan B Charter
9
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # g$
REPORT # 10(
~i
JUNE 14, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
i
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution regarding an off-street parking permit at 6545 Penn Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution for an off-street parking
permit at 6545 Penn Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
• The applicant, Flowerama, is the proposed tenant of 6545 Penn Avenue
pending the outcome of the City Council's decision of the off-street parking
permit.
• The applicants are requesting an off-street parking permit for a retail
specialty shop which features fresh cut flowers, floral arrangements, a wide
variety of tropical green and blooming plants, silk and dried floral products,
as well as bedding plants and an array of plant accessories located outside
the store.
• The location is zoned `I' Industrial District. A retail store is an allowed use as
long as the gross floor area is less than 80,000 square feet. The proposed
site is 1,305 square feet.
• The site is the former location of Cousin's Subs, and is currently vacant.
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
061405-OSP-6545Penn
The business will have approximately 10 employees, but only 3 employees
will be at the business during the work-day.
City parking standards indicate that a retail store is to have one space per
250 square feet of gross floor area or five parking spaces for this application.
The site currently contains sixteen parking spaces.
The applicant is proposing to resurface and re-stripe the parking spaces as
well as include additional landscaped areas. These areas will reduce the
number of parking spaces to eleven spaces which still meets the parking
standards.
The applicant's proposal has gone through the site plan review process with staff.
The following matters were addressed:
• The site can accommodate eleven spaces; including one required handicap
space.
• The maximum impervious surface standard for this lot is 90%. Currently the
lot is at 93%. The additional landscaped areas will bring the maximum
impervious surface to 90%.
• Currently the landscaping of the site does not meet the City's landscape
standards. The applicant will be providing additional landscaped areas along
the south and west property lines (See attached survey/site plan). The
applicant will be removing existing plant materials which are overgrown. The
detailed landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development.
• The type of plant materials that would be required in the landscape plan
could include such plantings as flowers, shrubs and evergreens.
• The parking lot does not meet setback requirements. City standards require
a eight-foot setback for parking lots adjacent to right-of-ways (boulevards);
however, when modifications are being made to an existing lot the setback
can be reduced to three-feet due to site constraints. The additional
landscape areas along the south and west will bring the property closer into
compliance with City standards than the site is currently. Meeting all parking
lot setbacks would make it impossible to utilize parking at the building. The
parking spaces in the front of the building will not require a Boulevard
Feature Permit since the spaces will not be located within the boulevard. But
the proposed landscaped area to the south will require a Boulevard Feature
Permit, as well as County approval that is necessary since 66th Street is a
County road.
• Under Section 800 of the City Code the City Council has the discretion to
determine the number of off-street parking spaces. Five spaces meet the
City's parking standard and eleven will be provided. The parking standards
include both customer and employee parking. There are not separate
standards.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Procedures for issuance of an off-street parking permit are outlined in
City Code Section 800.17 and authorize the City Council to issue a
permit after determining that the requested parking area will not have
an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare of the
community.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Staffs recommendation is to grant an off-street parking permit with the
following stipulations:
a). Provide eleven striped parking spaces on the property.
b). Resurface the parking lot.
c). Full curbing be added around the new landscaped areas
along the south and west property lines and remove
existing pavement from these areas.
d). That all landscaping be continuously maintained and not be
unsightly in appearance or in a state of disrepair.
e). Remove existing gravel from landscaped areas.
f). In all landscaped areas install weed barrier and moisture
retaining mulch to a depth of three inches.
g). The landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Community Development.
g). Outdoor merchandise shall not obstruct the vision of
drivers entering and exiting the premise.
h). Outdoor merchandise shall not obstruct the public and
private sidewalks, and shall not be located within the public
right-of-way.
i). Outdoor merchandising shall not be placed in areas
reserved for off-street parking and shall be protected from
prolonged exposure to the elements.
j). All parking spaces be accessible year round.
k). Scrap and re-paint the signpost if the post remains for the
sign, if not remove the signpost.
I). The dumpster enclosure shall be closed at all times and the
enclosure materials shall be similar to the principal building.
m). Obtain a Boulevard Feature Permit and any County
approvals for work that needs to be done within the
boulevard.
n). The Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued by the City
until the stipulations are met.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• 60-DAY RULE: 60 day clock `started' when complete application was
received on May 13, 2005. A decision must be given to the applicant
by July 11, 2005, OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is
extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120
days total) for issuing a decision.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny the request for an off-street parking permit with a finding that the
proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or the City as
a whole.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
Survey/Site plan
Photos of Flowerama
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Bob Whitt,(Flowerama) applicant
• Danae Timmerman, (Flowerama franchisee owner) applicant
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT
AT 6545 PENN AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of an off-street parking permit for the parcel of land located at 6545 Penn
Avenue, legally described as:
The south 158 feet of the west 133 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township
28, Range 24, in the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the requested off-street parking permit has been reviewed by staff
and meets city requirements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed parking area will adequately serve the purpose for which
it is proposed and will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare;
and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the off-street
parking permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That an off-street parking permit is hereby approved for a parking area as detailed in
the site plan entitled "6545 Penn Avenue Proposed Site Plan", which provides for
eleven off-street parking spaces.
2. Provide eleven striped parking spaces on the property.
3. Resurface the parking lot.
4. Full curbing be added around the new landscaped areas along the south and west
property lines and remove existing pavement from these areas.
5. That all landscaping be continuously maintained and not be unsightly in appearance or
in a state of disrepair.
6. Remove existing gravel from landscaped areas.
7. In all landscaped areas install a weed barrier and moisture retaining mulch to a depth
of three inches.
8. The landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community
Development.
9. Outdoor merchandise shall not obstruct the vision of drivers entering and exiting the
premise.
10.Outdoor merchandise shall not obstruct the public and private sidewalks, and shall not
be located within the public right-of-way.
11.Outdoor merchandising shall not be placed in areas reserved for off-street parking and
shall be protected from prolonged exposure to the elements.
12.A11 parking spaces be accessible year round.
13. Scrap and re-paint the signpost if the post remains for the sign, if not remove the
signpost and the light fixture.
14. The dumpster enclosure shall be closed at all times and the enclosure materials shall
be similar to the principal building.
15.Obtain a Boulevard Feature Permit and any County approvals for work that needs to be
done within the boulevard.
16. The City will not issue the Certificate of Occupancy until the stipulations are met.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June
2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
2
42.00
---~
O
cry ~~ .~~~~o~~;
e
J
N
J
~ ~.
ti
e
i°t
C~I~G~T~L~OC~Q i~l~ OO [~ ~MG°~MC~
~a~dC~~ ~OC~ (~ 5 y 5 PAN N A~~..
~E~~N-~_ . ~ . 6 6 T H
-' ~A2.A~INC~ SPACES
G° u ~~
,,_LU~~'r,:<; --~ t-.aNDS~RI~GD~Q.ca
e-~ .~
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the
boundaries of:
The south 158 feet of the west 133 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township
28, Range 24, in the Village of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
And of the locations of all buildings thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any,
from or on said lan As. surveyed by me this 23rd day of May, 2005.
Land Surveyor, Minn. Reg. No. 9587
Ti~ILLZlS L. GZLLIgRD
Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor
PO Box 17
104 Central Avenue East
St. Michael, Minnesota 55376
Telephone: 1.763.497.3536 3
Fax: 1.763.497.3864
S'TREET'
o !o Zv
SLALE~ 1 INCH ~ ~O.DO FEET
O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT
Exterior Views
Interior View
EXAMPLES OF
FLOWERAMA
J STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 14, 2005
OONSENT
9A
I05
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TLTLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
~/
ra`
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of first reading of amendment to Richfield Zoning Code Section 538 to create
new flood lain mana ement re ulations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Conduct a first reading of the attached ordinance
amendment to Richfield Zoning Code Section 538 to create new
floodplain management regulations and schedule a public hearing
and second readina for July 12. 2005.
II. BACKGROUND
• The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is currently in the process of
updating all flood insurance rate maps. The maps are used for the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).
• The NFIP is a federal program under which flood-prone areas are identified and flood
insurance is made available to property owners in eligible communities. The City of
Richfield participated in NFIP from 1975 to 1981.
• In 1981, the flood hazard boundary map for the City of Richfield was rescinded by
FEMA. FEMA determined that Richfield would be very unlikely to experience a
qualifying flood. Richfield has remained a part of NFIP however, so homeowners may
participate if they desire. Insurance coverage is offered on a voluntary basis (other
061405-FEMAOrd 1 stRead
than the flood plain regulations the City of Richfield has no involvement in the
program.)
• There are currently seven flood insurance policies in force in Richfield on improved
residential property, providing a total of $1,051,300 of flood insurance coverage. Not
participating in the program means homeowners would not have the option to
participate.
• Richfield currently has Floodplain Management Regulation in Section 538 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The purpose of Section 538 is to promote a floodplain management
program consistent with the surface water management plans of the Minnehaha
Watershed District and to maintain eligibility in NFIP. The current floodplain
management regulations are not considered sufficient by FEMA in order to maintain
our eligibility in NFIP. Therefore, FEMA is requiring the adoption of a new/revised
ordinance to meet their requirements.
• The requirements of the proposed ordinance only applies to those properties
designated as being within the 100-year floodplain. The City of Richfield is not within
the 100-year floodplain.
• It is felt that these changes should be made to Section 538 of the Zoning Code
because NFIP is a Federal program and every resident should have the ability to
participate in the program if they so desire.
• Insurance agencies sell the NFIP insurance and not participating would make all
Richfield residents ineligible to receive flood insurance. In speaking with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), they stated that there have been 13 claims
since 1978 in Richfield. The definition of "flood" within this ordinance is broad enough
that it sometimes covers stormwater concerns which FEMA has not traditionally
mapped.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The recommended ordinance amendment will create new floodplain
management regulations for properties in the R, R-1, MR, MR-1, MR-
2, MR-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, PC-2, PMR, PMR-1, and I zoning districts.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Regulations for floodplain management are necessary to ensure
Richfield's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
• The FEMA and the Minnesota DNR has reviewed and approved these
proposed amendments to the Zoning Code.
• Because Richfield does not typically have qualifying floods, the provisions
of the code have no impact on construction. The ordinance needs to be
in place should a homeowner want to seek the NFIP insurance.
• The Engineering Division of Public Works has reviewed the proposed
ordinance amendment and they are satisfied with the amendments.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Zoning: This ordinance amendment creates floodplain
management regulations for the entire City of Richfield.
• Land Use: All zoning districts
• Comprehensive Plan: N/A
• Notification: Notification for the City Council public hearing on this
proposed Zoning Code amendment will be provided as required by State
Statute and City requirements.
• Other Actions:
• Council: The recommendation of the Planning Commission will
go to the City Council for two readings and a public hearing. If the
City Council adopts the recommended changes, they will take effect
30 days after the approved Council resolution is posted in the Sun
Current newspaper.
IV. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION
• Date of Action: May 23, 2005
• Subject of Vote: Recommendation to amend the relevant portions of Richfield Zoning
Code Section 538 to create new floodplain management regulations
• Vote: S-1
• Comments: Concerns from Commissioners in attendance at the meeting included:
A member of the Planning Commission was concerned as to why we
should approve the changes to an ordinance that does not apply to
Richfield. Others felt it important to have regulations in place so that
homeowners would have the option available.
• Public Notice: Planning Commission -Not required
City Council - At the second reading on July 12, 2005
• Mailed Notices: Does not require mailed notices.
V. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Reject the motion to amend Richfield Zoning Code Section 538 to create new
floodplain management regulations.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
• Draft of proposed amendments to Zoning Code Section 538
VII. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Persons interested in land-use and floodplain management regulations.
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE
SECTION 538
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Section 538.01, Subdivision 2 of the code of the City of Richfield is amended
to read as follows:
538.01. Purpose. Subdivision 1. It is the purpose of this section to guide
and regulate the orderly development of land within the floodplain by
establishing a floodplain overlay district. The floodplain within the City of
Richfield, Minnesota is subject to periodic inundation, which adversely
affects the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Subd. 2. It is the intent of this section to promote a uniform floodplain
management program consistent with the surface water management plan
of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Nine Mile Creek Watershed
District, and the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed District and to maintain
eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Sec. 2 Section 538.03 of the code of the City of Richfield is created to read as
follows:
538.03. Administration. T"° (~i+~i (~n~ ~r,nil h°r°hv iJ°c~iir r~~+°c~ +h° I'lir°n+nr of
D~ ~hlin 1A/nrl« ~~ +h° ~rlminic.+ro+nr of +hic. c.°n+inr~ .e.i+h +h° h~ ~ihJinn nffini.~l
.The Director of Public Works,
hereinafter referred to as the responsible person, is appointed as the
"person" responsible for receiving applications and examining the plans and
specifications for the proposed construction or development.
Sec. 3 Section 538.05, Subdivision 4 of the code of the City of Richfield is created
to read as follows:
538.05. Application and interpretation of provisions. Subdivision 1.
Provisions of this section shall apply to the floodplain of the City, which shall
include those areas designated or otherwise defined by the City as being
within the 100-year floodplain. The boundaries of the floodplain shall be that
area that could be inundated by a flood that has a one percent chance of
being equaled or exceeded in any given year. All decisions will be based on
elevations of the 100-year floodplain and other available technical data.
Persons contesting the location of the floodplain boundaries shall be given a
reasonable opportunity to present their case to the board of adjustments and
appeals in accordance with the provisions of subsection 546.03.
Subd. 2. It is not intended by this section to repeal, abrogate, or
impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However,
where this section imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this section
shall prevail.
Subd. 3. Warning and disclaimer of liability. This regulation does not
imply that areas outside the floodplain or land uses or obstructions permitted
within the floodplain will be free from flooding or flood damages. The City is
not responsible for any flood damages that result from reliance on this
section or any administrative action lawfully taken as a result of reliance on
this section.
Subd. 4. The provisions and sections of this ordinance shall be
deemed separable and the invalidity of any portion of this Ordinance shall
not affect the validity of the remainder.
Sec. 4 Section 538.07 of the code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as
follows:
538.07. Definitions. Subdivision 1. Basement. For floodplain management
purposes, any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or
base sub-grade below ground level.
Subd. 2. Development. °°.~ae,~~„~e +^ i,,,,r,r^„°,+ „r
i ~nirv~r~rn~ioiJ rc~l oc•+~+o innl~ ~rlir~ h~ ~+ n^+ lirv~i+~rl ~ilrlin^ct ~r~i-1 ^~
arnrrlprv-rcc~rccrr--cvrc~cc~rraTUaTn~, rrrcctr , .~r-urra~ ~
,s+r~^~~-~?, r»ir~ir~^~ rlr~pyrL~ fillir~ir~ n~r~rl_p ~j,~~ r.
ems: Any man-"m`"a.7d.~e~`J'change to real estat`e-, ~i~n7cluding but not limited to
construction or reconstruction of buildings, installing manufactured homes or
travel trailers, installing utilities, construction of roads or bridges, erection of
levees. walls. or fences. drilling. mining. filling. dredging. and storage of
materials.
Subd. 3. Flood. ° +orr,,,nr^r., in^ro^~o in +ho f~^,., ^r ~.+^..e ^f ~ ~.+re^w,
^r in +ho ~+,..o „~P~~r,.J ^r i~~e A general and temporary condition of
partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from overflow of
inland or tidal waves, or the unusual and raaid accumulation or runoff of
surface waters from any source.
Subd. 4. Flood frequency. The frequency for which it is expected that
a specific flood stage or discharge may be equaled or exceeded.
Subd. 5. Floodplain or Flood Prone Area. Any land area susceptible to
being inundated by water from any source (see Flood) as determined by the
City in Section 538.05.
Subd. 6. Flood proofing. Any combination of structural and
nonstructural additions, changes or adjustments to structures that reduce or
eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and
sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. Flood proofing requirements
are contained in the state building code.
Subd. 7. Flood stage. Peak flood elevation of an area for a given
return frequency event.
Subd. 8. Floodway. The channel of the watercourse, the bed of water
basins, and those portions of the adjoining floodplain that are reasonably
required to carry the discharge floodwater and provide storage during a
flood.
Subd. 9. Manufactured Home. A structure, transportable in one or more
sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designated for. use with
or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities.
Subd. 10. New Construction. For the purposes of determining
insurance rates, structures for which the "start of construction" commenced
on or after the effective date of an initial FIRM or after December 31, 1974,
whichever is later, and includes any subsequent improvements to such
structures. For floodplain management purposes, new construction means
structures for which the start of construction commenced on or after the
effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a
community and includes anv subsequent improvements to such structures.
Subd. 11. Person. Includes any individuals, corporation, partnership,
association, or anv other entity, including State and local governments and
agencies
Subd. 12. Obstruction. Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee,
dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert,
building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along,
across, or projecting into any channel, water course, or regulatory floodplain
that may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either
in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water.
Subd. 13. Reach. A hydraulic engineering term to describe a
longitudinal segment of a drainage system influenced by a natural or man-
made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a drainage system
between two consecutive bridge crossings or culverts would most typically
constitute a reach.
Subd. 14. Regulatory flood protection elevation. The regulatory flood
protection elevation shall be an elevation no lower than two feet above the
elevation of the floodplain plus any increase in flood elevation caused by
encroachments on the floodplain.
Subd. 15. Structure. For floodplain management purposes, a walled
and roofed building, including gas or liquid storage tanks, that is principally
above ground. The term includes recreational vehicles and travel trailers on
site for more than 180 days.
Subd. 16. Substantial Improvement. Any repair, reconstruction or
improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of
the market value of the structure either, (a) before the improvement or repair is
started, or (b) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before
the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition "substantial
improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of anv wall,
ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not
that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure regardless of the
actual work performed. The term does not, however, include either (1) any
project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local
health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to
assure safe living conditions or (2) anv alteration of a "historic structure",
provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued
designation as a historic structure.
Sec. 5 Section 538.08 of the code of the City of Richfield is created to read as
follows:
538.08 Flood insurance study. A Federal Emergency Management Agency
!FEMA) Flood Insurance Study lFIS) has been completed for areas within
the city of Richfield. This FIS is titled "Flood Insurance Study, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, All Jurisdictions, Volume 1 of 2 and Volume 2 of 2,"
dated September 2, 2004. The foregoing FIS, and the respective Flood
Insurance Rate Map Panels contained therein for the city of Richfield, show
all areas of the city as an Unshaded Zone X. An Unshaded Zone X is an
area where FEMA did not have sufficient supporting hydrologic and/or
hydraulic data to designate 100-year or 500-year floodplains. Therefore, to
administer this ordinance consistent with the provisions of Section 538.05,
the city will use, at a minimum, the reports titled Watershed Management
Plan, Richfield-Bloomington Watershed, Nine Mile Creek Watershed, and
Minnehaha Creek Watershed to determine floodplain boundaries. A copy of
the foregoing reports are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a
part of this ordinance.
Subd. 1. No person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair,
improve, move, or demolish any building or structure without first obtaining a
separate permit for each building or structure from the designated
responsible person.
Subd. 2. No man-made change to improved or unimproved real
estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, fences,
mining, dredging, filling, gradin_q paving, excavation or drilling operations,
shall be commenced until a separate permit has been obtained from the
designated responsible person for each change.
Subd. 3. No manufactured home shall be placed on improved or
unimproved real estate without first obtaining a separate permit for each
manufactured home from the designated responsible person.
538.09. Permitted uses in the floodplain overlay district. Any use of land
that does not involve a structure, a habitation, addition to the outside
dimensions of an existing structure, an obstruction, or the storage of
materials, supplies, so long as such use is permitted in the underlying zoning
district is permitted within the floodplain. The use must not increase any
stage of the 100-year flood, cause an increase in flood damages in the reach
or reaches affected, or reduce the existing storage capacity of the floodplain.
538.10. Floodplain uses in the floodplain overlay district. Any permitted,
accessory, or conditional use or structure allowed in the underlying zoning
district may be allowed as a floodplain use in the floodplain upon the
issuance of a special permit in accordance with the provisions of this
section. Subdivision 1. The use or structure will not cause a net decrease in
storage capacity of the floodplain. Compensatory storage will be required if
the use or structure decreases the floodplain capacity, and
Subd. 2. The use or structure will not cause high water or aggravate
flooding on other properties, and
Subd. 3. The use or structure will not restrict flood flows, or
Subd. 4. The use is for railroads, essential government facilities,
accessory structures for public and private recreational facilities, essential
utilities, marinas, docks, other water oriented accessory structures, or
reasonable plan to reduce flooding.
538.11. Applications for floodplain use permits. Applications for floodplain
use permits shall be made to the administrator. A fee as specified in
appendix D shall be charged for floodplain use permits. The application
shall be prepared by a registered engineer and shall include the following.
Subdivision 1. A report detailing the results of the computer modeling of the
impact of the proposed structure, obstruction, or use on the floodplain, and
Subd. 2. A site plan showing property lines, work area, existing and
proposed contours of the work area, and existing and proposed floodplain
elevations, and
Subd. 3. Computation of the change in water storage capacity
resulting from the project.
Sec. 6 Section 538.12, Subdivision 1 and 2 of the code of the City of Richfield is
created to read as follows:
538.12 2Application review. The administrator shall review applications for
floodplain use permits and make a determination.
Subd. 1. After reviewing the application, the responsible person may
require any additional measures, which are necessary to meet the minimum
requirements of this ordinance.
Subd. 2. The responsible person shall review proposed development
to assure that all necessary permits have been received from those
governmental agencies from which approval is required by Federal or State
law, including Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1334.
538.13. Variance. A variance to the standards outlined in this section may
be requested under city zoning code section 546.09.
Sec. 7 Section 538.14, Subdivision 3, 4, 7, and 8, of the code of the City of
Richfield is amended to read as follows:
538.14. Construction standards near or in floodplain overlay district. The
building official administers this section. If a use or structure is either
permitted or a special use, the following construction standards apply.
Subdivision 1. All permanent structures, including accessory structures and
additions to existing structures shall be constructed on fill so that the low
building opening elevation shall be at least two feet above the floodplain
elevation.
Subd. 2. As an alternative to construction on fill, accessory structures
that do not exceed 500 square feet may be internally flood proofed in
accordance with FP-1 or FP-2 flood proofing classifications in the state
building code.
Subd. 3. Structures shall be
designed (or modified) and
adequately anchored to prevent floatation, collapse, or lateral movement of
the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads. including
the effects of buoyancy
Subd. 4. ~ ~-•,ieti-v-rv° fc~avFiTtfe~s~lvr~raT~ev^±r~^rrrvaranv-RCatFF}~~•~ccidTpr"i~rc~;r;
~e,hc~hor inc•irlo nr n~ ~~c irlo 6#--a-s ~n~o c+h.~ll ho ir+c+~Ilor! ~~ nr nhn"o +ho
Tvc-vr-vuc~~cr~ ~arrcrrra v~~ma.
s
Constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation,
plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are
designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or
accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding,,
Subd. 5. Structural works for flood control that will change the course,
current, or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall not be
allowed to encroach on a floodway, and are subject to the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, chapter 105.
Subd. 6. Parking lots must be at or above the floodplain unless it can
be demonstrated by the applicant that the lot will be used infrequently and/or
vehicles or other stored items could be moved in a short period of time.
Subd. 7. Constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to
flood damage, and methods and practices that minimize flood damage.
Subd. 8. Constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood
damages.
Sec. 8 Section 538.15, Subdivision 1 and 2, of the code of the City of Richfield is
amended to read as follows:
538.15. Utility standards. Subdivision 1. A;' ^''",--puuii^v~~t~t~S f°^~'~tfes~
The responsible
person shall require within flood prone areas, new and replacement water
supply systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood
waters into the systems.
Subd. 2. S terms^^'., , .,, -sfaul' h~ ~'~c~^^~~ ^^^'
,,.,;.,;.,.,.~e ;,,~~+r,+,,,,, h„ f~,,,,,~ ..,,+or^. New and replacement sanitarysewage
systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into
the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters.
538.16. Amendments. The floodplain overlay designation shall not be
removed from a floodplain area unless it can be shown that the designation
is in error or that the area has been lawfully filled to or above the elevation of
the 100-year floodplain and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain.
538.17. Building elevation information. The applicant shall provide to the
building official the elevation of the first floor and basement of all new
structures or additions to existing structures in the floodplain. The building
official shall maintain a record of these elevations.
538.18. Certificate of compliance. No structure in the floodplain that is
hereafter erected, altered or moved shall be occupied until the applicant
submits a certification by a registered engineer, surveyor, or architect to the
city engineer that the finished fill elevations or other flood-proofing measures
are in compliance with this section.
538.19. Penalties for violation. Subdivision 1. Violation of the provisions of
this section or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a
misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law.
Subd. 2. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City of Richfield from
taking such other IawFul action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any
violation. Such actions may include but are not limited to:
(a) In responding to a suspected violation, the administrator
and/or building official may utilize the full array of enforcement actions
available. Richfield must act in good faith to enforce these official
controls and to correct violations to the extent possible so as not to
jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program.
(b) When a violation is either discovered by or brought to
the attention of the administrator or building official, the situation shall
immediately be investigated. Documentation of the nature and extent of
the violation shall be provided.
(c) The administrator shall notify the suspected party of the
requirements of this section and all other official controls and the nature
and extent of the suspected violation. If the structure or use is under
construction or development, the administrator may order the construction
or development immediately halted until a proper permit is granted by the
City. If the construction or development is already completed, then the
administrator may either: a) issue an order identifying the corrective
actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use
or structure into compliance with the official controls; or b) notify the
responsible party to apply for an after-the-fact permit within a specified
period of time not to exceed 30 days.
(d) If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the
administrator or building official within the specified period of time, each
additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this
section and shall be prosecuted accordingly. The administrator shall
also, upon the lapse of the specified response period, notify the
landowner to restore the land to the condition that existed prior to the
violation of this regulation.
Sec. 9 Section 538.20, Subdivision 1, 2, 3, of the code of the City of Richfield is
created to read as follows:
538.20 Review of Subdivision Proposals. The responsible person shall
review subdivision proposals and other proposed new development to
determine whether such proposals will be reasonably safe from flooding. If a
subdivision proposal or other proposed new development is in a flood prone
area, any such proposal shall be reviewed to assure that:
Subd. 1. All such proposals are consistent with the need to
minimize flood damage within the flood prone area,
Subd. 2. All public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, pas,
electrical, and water systems are located and constructed to minimize or
eliminate flood damage, and
Subd. 3. Adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure of
flood hazard_
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
July, 2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk