04-12-05 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 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 Concurrent City Council/HRA/Planning Commission
Worksession of March 21, 2005; (2) Regular City Council Meeting of March 22, 2005; (3)
Special City Council Worksession of March 22, 2005; (4) Special City Council Closed
Executive Session of March 29, 2005; and (5) Continued Special City Council Closed
Executive Session and Continued Special City Council Meeting of April 1, 2005
PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation by Hennepin County Richfield Community Prosecutor, Allison O'Toole
2. Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Academy of Holy Angels "Stars" boys
hockey team and coach for winning Section 5AA State Championship title
3. Annual meeting with Civil Service Commission
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
4. Council discussion
• Hats Off To Hometown Hits
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
5. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. 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 amendments to Richfield Zoning Code
Sections 506 and 521 to create new regulations for private driveways in single family
residential, low density single family residential and two family residential zoning
districts and schedule public hearing and second reading for May 10, 2005 S.R. No.
65
B. Consideration of approval of resolution modifying Richfield Tourism Promotion Board
membership S.R. No. 66
C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing donation of used City computer
equipment to Richfield Independent School District No. 280. S.R. No. 67
D. Consideration of approval of resolution designating City Manager Steven Devich as
Responsible Authority to oversee City's government data practices and rescinding
Resolution No. 9290 S.R. No. 68
E. Consideration. of approval of resolution authorizing renewal of Contract No. A03251
with Hennepin County for purchase of assessment services commencing August 1,
2005 and ending July 31, 2009 S.R. No.69
F. Consideration of approval of hiring WSB & Associates consulting firm to complete
transportation study and environmental assessment for 66th Street and Portland
Avenue intersection. S.R. No. 70
Notes:
7. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance authorizing sale of real
property at 6758 Portland Avenue to Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Staff Report No. 71
Notes:
9. Public hearing regarding resolution authorizing property tax abatement for certain
properties in Cedar Point project area in Richfield
Staff Report No. 72
Notes:
RESOLUTION
10. Consideration of.resolution creating Transportation Commission and establishment of
by-laws
Notes:
Staff Report No. 73
OTHER BUSINESS
11. City Manager's report
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
12. Claims and payrolls
Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by
majority vote of the City Council)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the'
agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the
meeting.
Notes:
Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 12, 2005
Resolution
10
73
REPORT PREPARED BY:
THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
L=1
a'
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Approve creation of Transportation Commission and establishment of its Bylaws.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the resolution creating a Transportation
Commission and establishment of its b laws.
II. BACKGROUND
The City Council created a Transportation Committee in 2002 to address several
transportation issues facing the City. The committee was only temporary until the
Council decided to either terminate it or make it a permanent commission.
In the past two years the Transportation Committee has been involved in: the
design of the 35W/Highway 62 Crosstown Reconstruction Project; a study of 76th
Street Ramp Alternatives; a study of Lyndale Ave. Bridge; a study of 66th Street
and Portland Avenue Intersection; and, a discussion of possible Transit Hub
locations on I-35W. It is evident that there will be new transportation issues facing
Richfield in the future.
0322TranspCom Bylaws
The Committee has done a commendable job in weighing all competing interests in
preparing its recommendations and has earned the respect of the community in its
willingness to hear all sides of an issue.
The two Co-chairpersons have indicated an interest in stepping down as officers.
This has triggered the need for bylaws to describe the process for electing new
officers. This provides the Council with the opportunity to consider making the
Committee a permanent Commission.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Comprehensive Plan encourages citizen involvement in city
decision-making. The City Council formed the Transportation
Committee to assist the Council in evaluating transportation issues.
• .Transportation decisions have a major impact on land use and the
future development of the city.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The Council needs to consider if transportation warrants a permanent
Commission to address transportation issues on an on-going basis.
C. FINANCIAL
• Standing advisory committees do require staff time and resources to
maintain, but they also provide citizens with access to decision-
making. No additional costs are expected by converting the
Transportation Committee to a permanent commission.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney has reviewed and made changes to the proposed
Bylaws of the Transportation Commission.
~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~
• Council may choose not to make the Transportation Committee a permanent
Commission. .
• Council may choose to abolish the Transportation Committee, although the
Committee has not completed its studies of the 66th Street and Portland
Avenue intersection, and the Lyndale Avenue Bridge Project.
I V . ATTACHMENTS I
• Resolution establishing a Richfield Transportation Commission.
• Proposed Bylaws and Rules of Procedure of the Richfield Transportation
Commission, Richfield, Minnesota
• February 25, 2003 City Council Meeting minutes establishing Transportation
Advisory Committee
I V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• ivone
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A RICHFIELD TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the importance that transportation. planning
has on the overall development of the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to establish a Richfield
Transportation Commission to advise the Council on a variety of transportation issues and
to encourage citizen involvement in the City's decision-making process on transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota that a Richfield Transportation Commission be established as follows:
1. The Commission will consist of 11 members. The City Council will appoint nine
members. The Community Services Commission and Planning Commission will each
appoint one member from their respective commissions to serve as members of the
Commission and as liaisons to their respective commissions.
2. To be eligible for appointment, a person must be a resident or owner/manager of a
business in Richfield and must have an interest in diverse transportation or
environmental. issues. It is desirable that each Council Ward be represented by three
residents or owner/managers of businesses.
3. The Council shall appoint three members to an initial term of two years, three members
to an initial term of three years, and three members to an initial term of four years. All
subsequent Council appointments shall be for a term of three years, except when filling
a vacancy in an unexpired term. The Community Services Commission and Planning
Commission shall establish the length of the term for their respective appointees at the
time of the appointment, but the term may not exceed the remaining term of the
appointee's membership on the appointing commission.
4. Members serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority and may be removed at any
time. When a vacancy occurs, the appointing authority shall appoint a person to fill the
unexpired term of the vacated seat.
5. The Commission shall be advisory to the City Council on transportation matters
including: (1) review of policy plans on the state, regional or city level; (2) encourage
citizen involvement in the City's decision-making process on transportation issues; (3)
conduct transportation studies; and, (4) oversee the planning of transportation projects.
6. The Commission will be charged to recommend transportation capital improvements
and prepare reports to the City Council on other related topics that the Council refers to
it.
7. A seat on the Commission is deemed vacated upon any of the following: (a) death; (b)
failure to attend three (3) consecutive regular meetings of the Commission without an
excused absence; (c) removal of legal residence in the City; (d) resignation in writing
presented to the Mayor; (e) removal by the appointing authority; or (f) election or
appointment to a public office. An absence is excused if a member provides advance
notice to the city staff or the Chair that the member cannot attend a meeting.
8. In addition to the designated number of members to serve on the Commission, each
January, the City Council shall designate a Council Member as liaison and a second
Council Member as alternative liaison to this Commission.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of April, 2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
BYLAWS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE
OF THE RICHFIELD TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
The following Bylaws and Rules of procedure are adopted by the City's Transportation
Commission to facilitate the performance of its duties and functions as authorized by the
City Council
PART I. RESPONSIBILITIES
Section 1. Commission Responsiblities
The Commission will be responsible for making recommendations to the
Council on transportation planning including:
• Encouraging citizen involvement in the Commission's work;
• Reviewing policy plans on the state, regional or city level;
• Conducting transportation studies; and,
• Overseeing the planning of transportation projects.
The Commission will be charged to recommend transportation capital
improvements and prepare reports to Council on other related topics that the
Council refers to the Commission.
PART IL MEETINGS
Section 1. Regular Meetings
Regular meetings. of the Transportation Commission shall be on the second
Wednesday of each month commencing at 7:00 P.M. in the Council
Chambers of the City Hall and the meeting day may be adjusted for the
convenience of the members.
Section 2. Special Meetings
Special meetings of the Transportation Commission can be called by the
Chairperson and one member or by three members of the Commission or at
the request of the City Council. Notice, designating the time and place of the
meetings, shall be given to all members not less than twenty-four (24) hours
in advance thereof.
Section 3. Open Meeting Law
All meetings of the Transportation Commission must be noticed and held in
compliance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
1
Section 4. Deadline for Hearing Items
The Transportation Commission will accept all requests to be heard before it,
no later than ten (10) working days preceding the regular Transportation
Commission meeting.
Section 5. Quorum
Six members of the Transportation Commission shall constitute a quorum for
the transaction of business. No action shall be taken in the absence of a
quorum with the exception that the Transportation Commission members
present may take testimony for use at a later meeting at which a quorum is
present, and may adjourn a meeting to a later time without further notice.
Section 6. Voting.
At all meetings of the Transportation Commission, each member attending
shall be entitled to cast one vote. Voting shall be by voice. An affirmative
vote of a majority of members present or four members, whichever is greater,
shall be necessary for the passage of any matter before the Transportation
Commission, except as otherwise provided in these Bylaws. The council
liaisons to the Commission are ex-officio and do not cast a vote.
Section 7. Proceedings
a) Format of Meeting
At a regular- meeting of the Transportation Commission, the following
format shall be followed in conducting the business of the meeting.
1) City staff will note the attendance
2) Review and Approve Agenda
3) Approval of Minutes
3) Regular Business and Public Hearing Items
4) Updates
5) Future Agenda Items
6) Upcoming Meetings
7) Other Business
8) Adjournment
b) Public Hearing
The purpose of a hearing is to collect information and facts in order for
the Commission to develop a recommendation for the City Council. At
a public hearing the following procedure shall be followed for each
case for which a public hearing is held:
1) Chair shall state the issue to be heard.
2
2) Chair shall call upon the City staff to present the staff report.
3) Members of the Transportation Commission shall be
allowed to question the staff report proposal.
4) Interested persons may address the Commission,
giving relevant information regarding the proposal
before the Commission.
a) -All questions or statements by Richfield staff personnel,
Transportation Commission members, applicants or
interested citizens will be directed through the Chair.
b) All who wish to speak will be heard, but only in
accordance with the above procedure and after
recognition by the Chair.
c) No individual may speak longer than five (5) minutes,
except through previous arrangement with the Chair, or
by vote of the Commission.
d) The spokesperson for a group will be allowed ten (10)
minutes.
e) In addition to the statements by individual or groups,
there will. be a period, not to exceed thirty (30) minutes,
during which the public may question the City's staff
members present, the applicant or their representatives
or any member of the Transportation Commission.
Questions must be directed through the Chair.
6) The hearing shall be closed. Interested persons shall not be
heard again unless the hearing is reopened by a majority vote
of the Commission.
7) The Commission shall discuss and clarify the item before it,
and take action on it.
8) Any decision of the Commission on the merits of any question
before it shall be embodied in the form of a motion, resolution,
or report, and referred to the City Council or city staff for action.
c) Rules of Procedure
At all regular meetings of the Transportation Commission where
formal action is required on a matter before the Commission, the
meetings shall be governed by the latest printed edition of "Sturgis
3
Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure." At general meetings of
the Transportation Commission no formal parliamentary procedure
shall govern the conduct of the proceedings unless found- to be
necessary such as when a formal motion is before the Commission.
PART III. ORGMNtZATION
Section 1. Membership
The Commission will consist of 11 members. The City Council will appoint
nine members. The Community Services Commission and Planning
Commission will each appoint one member from their respective
commissions to serve as members of the Commission and as liaisons to their
respective commissions.
To be eligible for appointment, a person must be a resident or
owner/manager of a business in Richfield and must have an interest in
diverse transportation or environmental issues. It is desirable that each
Council Ward be represented by three residents or owner/managers of
businesses.
Section 2. Term of Membership
The Council shall appoint three members to an initial term of two years, three
members to an initial term of three years, and three members to an initial
term of four years. All subsequent Council appointments shall be for a term
of three years, except when filling a vacancy in an unexpired term. The
Community Services Commission and Planning Commission shall establish
the length of the term for their respective appointees at the time of the
appointment, but the term may not exceed the remaining term of the
appointee's membership on the appointing commission.
Section 3. Removal, Vacancy.
Members serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority and may be
removed at any time. When a vacancy occurs, the appointing authority shall
appoint a person to fill the unexpired term of the vacated seat.
A seat on the Commission is deemed vacated upon any of the following: (a)
death; (b) failure to attend three (3) consecutive regular meetings of the
Commission without an excused absence; (c) removal of legal residence in
the City; (d) resignation in writing presented to the Mayor; (e) removal by the
appointing authority; or (f) election or appointment to a public office. An
absence is excused if a member provides advance notice to the city staff or
the Chair that the member cannot attend a meeting.
4
Section 4. Council Liaisons.
In addition to the designated number of members to serve on the
Commission, each January, the City Council shall designate a Council
Member as liaison and a second. Council Member as alternative liaison to
this Commission.
Section 5. Election of Officers
At the first regular meeting in April of each year, the Commission shall hold
an organizational meeting and elect from its membership a Chairperson, and
Vice-chairperson. Each member shall cast a ballot for the member he/she
wishes to be elected Chairperson. If no one receives a majority of all the
members of the Commission, balloting shall continue until one member
receives majority support. Vice-chairperson shall be elected from the
remaining members by the same procedure.
If the Chairperson resigns from office before the next regular organization
meeting, the Vice-chairperson shall automatically become acting
Chairperson. In any instance where an officer of the. Commission resigns or
retires from office, a new officer shall be elected to the vacated position at
the next regular meeting of the Commission.
If the Chairperson and Vice-chairperson are absent
from a meeting, the Commission shall elect a temporary
Chairperson by voice vote.
Section 6. Tenure
The Chairperson, and Vice-chairperson shall take office immediately
following their election and hold office until their successors are elected and
assume office. Election of officers will occur annually at the April meeting of
the Commission.
Section 7. Duties of Officers
The duties and powers of the officers of the Transportation Commission shall
be as follows:
a) Chairperson
1) Presides over all meetings of the Commission.
2) Appoints sub-Commissions and performs such other duties as
may be ordered by the Commission.
3) Signs documents of the Commission.
4) Sees that all actions of the Commission are properly taken.
5
5) Calls special meetings of the Commission in
accordance with these Bylaws.
6) Works with appropriate city staff in organizing agendas of all
general Transportation Commission meetings.
b) Vice-chairperson
Performs all of the duties and responsibilities of the
Chairperson in his/her absence.
c) City Public Works Staff
1) Keeps the minutes of the meetings of the Commission in an
appropriate minute book.
2) Maintains all minutes of the Commission as well as other
official documents of the Commission.
PARS IV, MISCELLANEOUS
Section 1. Suspension of Rules
The Commission may suspend any of these Rules by a 2/3 vote of those
members present.
Section 2. Amendments
These.Rules may be amended at any regular meeting by a 2/3 majority of
the members of the Commission, provided that the amendment was
presented and written into the minutes of a previous meeting.
Section 3. Review
The contents of these Bylaws and Rules of procedure should be
comprehensively reviewed, evaluated, and modified where necessary, at the
organization meeting held in April of each year.
Adopted this 12th day of April, 2005 by the City Council of the City of Richfield.
Mayor Martin J. Kirsch
City of Richfield
6
\\RI-FS1\PUBWKS$\PubWorks\TRANSP\Transportation CommitteelBylaws 03-01-05REV.doc
Council Meeting Minutes -6- February 25; 2003
Council Member Enger requested the City Attorney provide additional information on this
matter to the City Council. He said a change in allocation should be considered in the future but
not for this year.
Council Member Ulrich said the program has been closely reviewed and agreed a change
should not be made at this point.
Council Member Rosenberg stated the school receives funding based on a "per pupil" ratio
and this program invites families with children to the school system.
74.
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 9311 in Resolution Book No.
Item #9 CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO ADVISE COUNCIL ON TRANSPORTATION ISSUES S.R. NO.
51
Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 51 regarding consideration of
establishing a Transportation Advisory Committee to advise the Council on transportation issues.
She said the City Council could use citizen input on transportation issues and recommended
moving forward with the committee.
M/Sandahl, S/Rosenberg to approve the creation of a Transportation Advisory Committee
to advise the Council on transportation issues.
City Manager Orduno stated if the City Council desired a formal advisory commission, a
resolution needs to be approved. She said this transportation group is a committee, not
commission, at this time.
Council Member Rosenberg requested a City Council Member serve as liaison.
Council Member Ulrich expressed concern regarding establishing the committee because
of budget constraints and the considerable amount of staff time required. She requested a sunset
date for the committee.
Council Member Sandahl agreed the committee should be short-term and to not establish
another commission.
Council Member Sandahl suggested there be nine Committee members -one Community
Services Commission Member, one Planning Commission Member with the remaining seven at-
large and appointed by the City Council.
Council Member Enger suggested the recruitment process be the same as for the advisory
commission.
The City Council directed staff as follows:
• Nine members on the Committee. One liaison from the Planning Commission, one
liaison from the Community Services Commission and seven at-large members.
• There will be a three-year sunset provision, at which time the Council may consider
extending its term.
• Advertise for members along with vacancies on other commissions.
Council Meeting Minutes -7- February 25, 2003
• Conduct interviews at the same time as for the other commissions.
• Assign one Council member as liaison to the Committee.
• City Council to appoint committee members.
Motion carried 5-0.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Orduno reported on the Governor's proposed local government aid (LGA)
reductions and its affect on Richfield. She said the Legislature has the final authority, but if there is
no agreement, the Governor will unallot.
Council Member Ulrich suggested the City Council or staff attend the League of Minnesota
Cities hearings scheduled around the metro area regarding the budget deficit.
Report.
Council Member Ulrich stated she had copies available of the Richfield Foundation Annual
CLAIMS AND PAYROLL
M/Rosenberg, S/Ulrich that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
RICHFIELD BANK 8~ TRUST CO.
A/P Checks: 122156 - 122500 $ 1,032,861.75
PAYROLL 34407 - 34546 $ 433,146.67
TOTAL $ 1,466,008.42
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #12 ADJOURN TO SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN
EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM FOR PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING CITY
MANAGER'S ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mayor Kirsch adjourned the meeting at 7:26 p.m. to continue with the Closed Executive
Session in the Executive Conference Room. The Mayor noted that the Council would reconvene in
the Council Chambers after the Closed Executive Session concluded.
Item #13 RECONVENE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular City Council Meeting reconvened at 9:09 p.m.
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings
AGENDA ITEM # 9
REPORT # ~ 2
~~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 12, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
JOHN STARK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~/
REVIEW: ~j
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing regarding a resolution approving Property Tax Abatement for Certain Properties
in the Cedar Point Pro'ect Area in the Cit of Richfield.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Adopt a
resolution approving Property Tax Abatement for Certain Properties
in the Cedar Point Project Area in the Citv of Richfield.
II. BACKGROUND
• The Cedar Point area has been identified as an area in which redevelopment is
necessary in order to remove structures which cannot tolerate the negative effects of
low frequency noise that will occur when the new "north-south" runway at the
Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport becomes operational.
• The affected area is bounded by Trunk Highway 62 ("the Crosstown") on the north, by
66th Street on the south, by 17th Avenue on the west and by Trunk Highway 77 on the
east.
• In 2004, the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area was amended to "Regional
Retail/Office" to reflect the recommendations contained in the Cedar Corridor
Redevelopment Concept Master Plan.
041205 Abatement
• The City of Richfield, in cooperative efforts with the Metropolitan Airports Commission
(MAC) and the State of Minnesota, have purchased and cleared many properties (63
single-family homes, five apartment buildings (72 units) and 30 commercial properties)
to date.
• Thirty-three single-family homes, two apartment buildings and two businesses remain
on the development site. The estimated cost to purchase these properties, plus the
cost of cleared land from the City, is estimated at $14 to $16 million.
• Based on discussions with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA) financial
analysts, Ehlers and Associates, Inc. and with retail developers, it has been concluded
that approximately $3.5 million in public assistance is required in order to make a
development project on this site feasible.
• On March 22, 2005, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and Hennepin
County HRA took final actions to approved a $2 million in grant Multi jurisdictional
Project Grant (MJG) as public assistance for the Cedar Point area. The provision of
these funds is governed by the terms of a Cooperative Agreement between the
Hennepin County Board, the Hennepin County HRA, the City of Richfield and the
Richfield HRA previously approved by both the Richfield HRA and City Council.
• Evidence shows that this area will not meet the definition of "substandard" as currently
identified in redevelopment statutes. Without special legislation, a TIF District is not a
viable source of public financing.
• It is proposed that the remaining required assistance, therefore, be provided by the City
of Richfield through a tax abatement.
• The proposed structure of the tax abatement would run for 15 years and would abate
the taxes to a "$0 Base," meaning that all of the taxes on the site during the duration of
the 15-year period would be abated.
• The total future value of the tax abatement is estimated at approximately $3,140,617;
when considering the impacts of inflation, this amount translates to a "net present
value" of approximately $1.9 million.
• It is further being proposed that the City Council take a subsequent action (at a future
meeting) to pledge the tax abatement proceeds to the HRA, so that the HRA can use
its redevelopment authority to provide the abatement funds to the eventual
developer(s) of the site in accordance with the provisions of a Contract for Private
Development.
• Upon the expiration of such a tax abatement, it is estimated that the City of Richfield
could recuperate the property taxes that would have been realized during the
abatement period at the property's present state in approximately two and a half years.
• In past discussions with the City Council and HRA at work sessions, policymakers have
indicated a willingness to provide tax abatement as an impetus for redeveloping the
area.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City of Richfield has committed itself to the removal of homes and
businesses in the low frequency noise area that will be unable to
withstand the negative affects of low frequency noise.
• -The City of Richfield has committed itself to replacing the acquired
homes and businesses with uses that will serve as a noise buffer to
homes and businesses to the area's immediate west.
• Staff has determined that it is infeasible for private redevelopment to
occur in this area without additional public assistance.
Evidence suggests that the area will not qualify for tax increment
financing under current State statues.
• Tax abatement is an alternative source of public assistance that could
facilitate redevelopment in the low frequency noise area and, in
particular, in the Cedar Point redevelopment area.
• The concept of tax abatement in this area was discussed at a
concurrent work session of the City Council and. the HRA on
November 17, 2003.
• At its regular meeting on November 17, 2003, the HRA adopted a
motion to provide the City Council with an advisory recommendation
to support the concept of tax abatement in this area.
• At its regular meeting on November 25, 2003, the City Council
unanimously adopted a motion supporting the concept of tax
abatement in the Cedar Point area.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Without additional public assistance, it is unlikely, if not impossible, for
private redevelopment to occur in this area.
• Without private redevelopment, this area will remain as tax exempt, it
will require perpetual funding for property management and it will not
buffer adjacent neighborhoods from the negative effects of low
frequency noise.
C. FINANCIAL
• City and HRA staff has been working closely with financial analysts at
Ehlers and Associates, Inc. in order to conclude that private
redevelopment will not occur without additional public financing and
that tax abatement is the most feasible source of additional public
financing.
D. LEGAL
• City and HRA staff has been working closely with legal counsel in
exploring the need for, and legal ramifications of, tax abatement.
• The Tax Abatement Resolution was drafted by the City's legal firm of
Kennedy & Graven.
• A legal notice of the public hearing was published in the Richfield Sun-
Current on March 31, 2005.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Ask staff to provide further information and continue the consideration of a
motion on the issue to a later meeting.
• Do not adopt a motion supporting the concept of tax abatement in the Cedar
Point redevelopment area.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
A map of the Tax Abatement Area.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Sid Inman, Ehlers and Associates, Inc.
DRAFT
4/6/05
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING
PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY
IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council ("Council") of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
("City") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City has determined a need to grant a property tax abatement to certain property
in the City, legally described in Exhibit A (the "Property"), all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.1812 to 469.1815 (the "Act").
1.02. The purpose of the abatement is to provide funds to (i) make debt service payments
on bonds issued by the City with the proceeds to be made available to the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA"), (ii) make payments to a
redeveloper on a note to be issued by the HRA to be used in the acquisition, site preparation and
related redevelopment activities within the area described in Exhibit A (the "Project."), and to
reimburse the City and the HRA for site acquisition costs in support of the Project.
1.03. Hennepin County (the "County") has agreed to contribute to the financing of the
Project, but has declined to grant a tax abatement after receipt of a request from the City. The City's
request to the County was made in accordance with Section 469.1813, subdivision 6 of the Act.
1.04. This Council has fully reviewed the proposed Abatement (as hereinafter defined)
and on April 12, 2005 conducted a public hearing thereon,. at which the views of all interested
persons were heard.
Section 2. Findings.
2.01. It is hereby found and determined as follows:
(a) the benefits to the City from the Abatement will be at least equal to the costs to the City
of the Abatement;
(b) the Abatement will help to increase or preserve the tax base by the resulting location of
new retail businesses on land purchased with assistance of the Abatement;
(c) the Abatement will provide access to services for residents of the City by the resulting
establishment of new retail businesses on land purchased with assistance of the Abatement;
(d) the Abatement will provide employment opportunities in the City by the resulting
establishment of new retail businesses on land purchased with assistance of the Abatements;
JBD-257698v5
RC125-239
(e) the Abatement will assist in the redevelopment of areas that are subject to blighting
influences; and
(f) the new retail businesses established on land purchased with assistance of the
Abatements will be paying for part of the cost of new public infrastructure.
Section 3. Actions Ratified; Abatement Approved.
3.01. The Council hereby ratifies all actions of the City's staff and consultants in
arranging for approval of this resolution in accordance with the Act.
3.02. Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Abatement is hereby approved and adopted
subject to the following terms and conditions:
(a) The term "Abatement" means the real property taxes payable in the years 2007
through 2022: (i) generated in any tax-payable year by extending the City's local tax
rate against the tax capacity of the land and improvements, excluding any portion of
the tax capacity attributable to the areawide tax under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
473F) as of January 2 in the prior year; and (ii) paid to the City by the county. The
term also includes, to the extent permitted by law, any delinquent real property taxes
which are due and payable during the period of the Abatement, and which are
subsequently paid, either during the period of the abatement or afterwards. In no
event will the Abatement in any year exceed the greater of (1) ten percent of the
City's current levy, or (2) $200,000 (the "Abatement Cap.").
(b) The Abatement will be paid for a period of 15 years, commencing with taxes
payable in 2007. In order to grant abatements longer than 10 years, the City
acknowledges receipt of written notice from Hennepin County formally declining to
participate in abatement for the Project.
(c) In accordance with Section 469.1814 of the Act, the City may issue general
obligation bonds ("Bonds") secured by Abatements in a maximum principal amount
of $1,000,000, which is the estimated present value of the sum of the Abatements for
the 15-year term of this resolution. The City agrees to pledge the Abatements to
make annual debt service payments on the Bonds.
(d) Proceeds of the Bonds will be used solely to pay for costs of the Project (including
without limitation any acquisition of land needed to construct the Project) and costs
of issuance of the Bonds.
(e) The Abatement, to the extent not needed to make payments on the Bonds, will also
be pledged to make annual payments on a Tax Abatement Limited Revenue Note in
the maximum amount (principal and issuance costs) of $1,881,131 (less the principal
amount of any Bond) (the "Note") which will be issued to redevelopers of the
Project and used to reimburse site acquisition and related expenditures incurred by
the redeveloper. The Note will bear interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum, payable
JBD-257698v5
RC125-239
only from the Abatement. It is anticipated that if the Note were issued in the
maximum amount, interest would total approximately $1,468,840.
(f) The Abatement, to the extent not needed to make payments on the Bonds and the
Note, will also be pledged to reimburse the HRA and the City in an amount not to
exceed $531,217 for site acquisition and public infrastructure costs and other
activities in support ofthe Project.
(g) In accordance with Section 469.1814, subdivision 4 of the Act, the total amount of the
Abatement authorized under this resolution may not be modified during its term.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
2005.
Mayor
Attest:
_ City Clerk
l 1
JBD-257698v5
RC125-239
Exhibit A
Description of Property
(see attached map)
~_ ~
~,
JBD-257698v1
RC125-239
_G
••.
~'~1
~11~
~~ 1
t3
-- ~~
~~
i
l
e ?
~~~ 1 64Et0 6401 64(~Q
6333 [
641
C~3
,~-,
6~GC~: 6408 W 6409 3
4'i 5 ' 641 ~4 <'~ 6415
64'72
~~421 6420 ~ 5421
6427 6426 ~~ ~7 ' ®
6433 ;
X5432 r
€ 6433 U
,.[
6439 643_8 6439 6'44<~ ' 36441
6445 644
4 6445. ;6445
r T
i ~ T
6 W
6501.
' 6500 ; 6501 ~ 6500 ~ 6501
r
6509 65+08- ~ 6509
f 6515 6514 651.5 , 6520 , 651 '€
6521'. 6520 6521 ~
, 6521. f
652 ~ 6526 6527 6528
6x33 .: .6532 ' ' 6533
o
0 czs
o ~d-
r c7
~ ~
°
oa
1820 .~~
~,- r_ ~,. ~.
6TH ST.
I- i
1~~ Q `IC1D Z~t~ 3C#t~ 400 ~Qt} 6t~C~ ..~ a ~~fi
...
eeantdcv':*=t;~n't:+l['.-;r~c'ar pt !ax_aba~e :§rea.apr
h
h
CY
L~~TE: 4-1 5
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings
AGENDA ITEM # $
REPORT # 71
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 12, 2005
KATIA MEDVETSKI,
REPORT PREPARED BY: REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
IVAA~', TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and second reading regarding a Transitory Ordinance authorizing the sale of
real property located at 6758 Portland Avenue to the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the
attached Transitory Ordinance authorizing and providing for the sale,
transfer or other disposition and conveyance of certain city owned
real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin,
Sate of Minnesota, at 6758 Portland Avenue.
II BACKGROUND I
On March 8, 2005, the City Council undertook a first reading of a Transitory
Ordinance to authorize the sale of 6758 Portland Avenue (Property) to the Richfield
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Funds from the sale of this property
would be used to defray the cost of updating the land-use controls of the City such
as the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Council stipulated,
however, that any future repurchase of the property back from the HRA would be for
same sale price to the HRA of $200,000. On March 21, 2005, the HRA authorized
the purchase of the Property with the stipulation.
041205Sa1e_6758Portland
The Transitory Ordinance is attached. Section 2 of the ordinance addresses the
repurchase stipulation. At the first reading of the Transitory Ordinance, Council
did not indicate a term on the repurchase period. Five years was added as a
-- reasonable period of time. Council has the option of accepting this term as given
or providing an alternative period of time.
Also, Section 3 of the ordinance complies with Minnesota Statutes, Section
462.356, Subd. 2. Currently, the Property is zoned "R", single family residential
which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan's designation of "Park".
However, the sale to the HRA will not result in any land use changes. Therefore,
there is no relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The HRA is better equipped to handle the operation and
maintenance issues. If at some point a determination is made that
the home should return to private ownership, it could be
incorporated into the New Home Program to provide an affordable
housing opportunity.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The sale of the Property to the HRA would provide revenue to the
City's general fund. A portion of these revenues could be used to
pay for the badly needed updating of the. City's Zoning Ordinance
and to help defray the cost of updating the. Comprehensive Plan
which by Sate law must be completed by mid-2007.
It is recommended that the Council determine the term for the
repurchase of the property.
No land use changes are anticipated with the sale of the Property,
therefore, the transaction has no bearing on the Comprehensive
Plan.
C. FINANCIAL
Revenue from the sale of the Property would be provided to the
City's general fund.
D. LEGAL
The first reading of the Transitory Ordinance by the City Council
occurred on March 8, 2005.
The HRA authorized the purchase of the Property on March 21,
2005.
A legal notice of public hearing on the Transitory Ordinance was
published in the Sun Current newspaper on March 31, 2005.
Legal counsel prepared the revised Transitory Ordinance.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
Continue the public hearing and delay the second reading of the
Transitory Ordinance.
Reject the sale concept.
V. ATTACHMENTS
~' . Revised Transitory Ordinance.
VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
N/A
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
_,
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR
OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN,
STATE OF MINNESOTA AT 6758 PORTLAND AVENUE
The City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1.
The following described real property (the "Property") located in the City of Richfield,
County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or
otherwise disposed of and conveyed by the City as herein provided:
6758 Portland Avenue:
The South 50 feet of that part of the Southeast'/ of the Northeast'/ of the
Southeast'/ of Section 27, Township 28, North, Range 24 West of the Fourth
Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point 30 feet North of
the Southeast corner of the Northeast'/ of the Southeast Quarter of said
section; thence North long the East line of said section a distance of 100 feet;
thence West parallel with the South line of said Northeast'/ of the Southeast'/
of said Section 27 a distance of 168 feet; thence South parallel with the East line
of said Section 27 a distance of 100 feet; thence East parallel with the South line
of said Northeast'/ of Southeast'/ of said Section 27 a distance of 168 feet to
the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Section 2.
The Property is to be sold to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of Richfield (the "HRA") for the price of $200,000, but subject to a condition or
option in favor of the City of Richfield, under which the City shall have the right to
repurchase the Property from the HRA within five years of the date of conveyance for
the price of $200,000.
Section 3.
The Council finds that the proposed sale of the property has no relationship to the
Comprehensive Plan, because the sale will not result in a change in use from the
current use (which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan) and because the sale
is conditioned upon the City's right to repurchase the Property within five years.
Section 4.
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all action as is required to
sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the
foregoing Section 1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the execution of
all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments
connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance.
Passed this day of 2005 by the Richfield City Council.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # E)F
REPORT # ]O
rl
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 12, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEER
Na xE TiTr,~
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Approve the hiring of the WSB & Associates consulting firm to complete the transportation
stud and environmental assessment for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the hiring of the WSB & Associates consulting.
firm to complete the transportation study and environmental
assessment for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection.
II. BACKGROUND
The City has received federal and county funds to reconstruct the intersection of
66th Street and Portland Avenue. Federal funds will be lost if a plan is not prepared
by September 30, 2006.
City. staff reviewed proposals from SEH and WSB to complete the transportation
study. Staff compared proposals based upon staff availability, approach and costs.
City staff is recommending that WSB be selected.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
0412Consultant Agreement
A. POLICY
• The Comprehensive Plan identified the intersection of 66th Street and
Portland Avenue as needing safety and capacity improvements.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• There is a need to quickly complete the transportation study of 66th
Street and Portland Avenue to retain federal funds for reconstruction.
C. FINANCIAL
• The cost of the traffic study and environmental assessment is about
$78,082. The work will be financed using Municipal State Aid Street
funds (gas tax revenues.)
D. LEGAL
• Work in excess of $25,000 requires Council approval.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The SEH, INC. consulting firm has previously performed the transportation
study.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• WSB proposals for the transportation study and the environmental
assessment.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None anticipated.
WSB PROPOSAL TO PERFORM 66TH STREET AND
PORTLAND AVENUE TRANSPORTATION STUDY
I. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The City of Richfield desires to complete altemative analysis and preliminary geometric layout development to upgrade
the current intersection at 66th Street and Portland Avenue. The city has developed several intersection alternative
concepts and an altemative selection criteria process. In addition, concept layouts have been developed showing
alignments and right of way for the alternatives still under consideration.
WSB & Associates Inc. (WSB) will evaluate the remaining alternatives relative to selection criteria developed by the City
of Richfield to narrow the alternatives through a ranking process. Intersection alternatives still under consideration
include:
1. Double left-turn lanes on north and west legs; left-turn lanes on the south and east legs.
2. Left-turn lanes on all four legs with raised medians.
3. Left-turn lanes on all four legs without raised medians.
4. Two-lane roundabout.
Alignment alternatives affecting Veterans Memorial Park are under consideration which may result in environmental
impacts to the park land of Veterans Memorial Park adjacent to this intersection. These environmental and park impacts
will be considered in the evaluation process. Environmental review and documentation will be performed under a
separate contract.
Once the preferred alternative is selected, WSB will prepare a preliminary layout, profile, and cost estimate for the
proposed improvements at the 66th Street at Portland Avenue intersection.
WSB will coordinate on-going alternative development, analysis, and results with the City of Richfield through attendance
and active participation in monthly meetings with the Transportation Committee and City staff. WSB will attend public
open houses and public hearings as required for public comment and City Council action.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
TASK 1.0 -Project Management and Coordination
Manage the overall study and coordinate activities to ensure high quality products, on time delivery, compliance with
project budget and conformance with the City of Richfield standards and practices.
^ Actively communicate and coordinate with City of Richfield staff as needed to discuss work products,
project development, and study findings.
^ Refine the scope of work as necessary based on changing project conditions.
^ Provide on-going review of project development in each work task and recommend appropriate
additions and corrections as necessary.
^ Assure the project work is being completed on time and within budget through monitoring of task
performance and project expenditures..
^ Conduct quality review of major deliverables to ensure project quality.
^ Prepare project invoicing.
Task 7.0 Deliverables: Progress reports, invoicing.
Task 2.0 • Traffic Forecasting Review
Verify forecast assumptions by several sources to assure that the preferred alternative will provide acceptable levels
of service for the design year. Review forecasted traffic volumes developed by SEH Inc. for the project by
comparing the values with forecasts from other sources including the TH 62 Crosstown Reconstruction project. In
addition, .Hennepin County, Mn/DOT, and the Metropolitan Council have regional models that will be reviewed to
verify consistency in future traffic volumes. Use a sensitivity analysis approach so the preferred alternative is not
over-designed orunder-designed to meet design year level of service requirements.
Task 2.0 Deliverables: Memorandum of review and findings.
TASK 3.0 -Alternative Analysis
Traffic Operations Analysis
WSBwill perform traffic operations analysis of the remaining alternatives for the AM and PM peak hours for the
design year. Measures of Effectiveness (traffic movement and intersection LOS and queue lengths) will be
determined and presented. It is understood that some of this has been done, but refinements may be necessary if
traffic forecasts change and require subsequent updates to the analysis.
Although large scale corridor analysis and simulation is not being performed along 66th Street or Portland Avenue as
part of this project, assessment of the overall corridor operations will be given based on known conditions and
impacts of each alternative. In particular, assessment of Portland Avenue at 64th Street will be reviewed due to
potential impacts to the northeast quadrant of the 66th Street intersection.
Drainage Analysis
WSB will analyze existing hydraulic facilities to determine preliminary storm sewer drainage requirements and
potential ponding needs.
Land Use Impacts
WSB will coordinate transportation alternatives with a consultant who has been hired by the City of Richfield to
evaluate land use implications of each alternative. The other consultant is responsible to advise the Transportation
Committee on the merits of each alternative for future land use and assist the Transportation Committee in ranking
alternatives relative to land use criteria (these criteria are already developed.)
Evaluation of Alternatives
WSB will evaluate the alternatives relative to the established goals, objectives and weighted criteria to select a
preferred alternative and prepare a preliminary geometric layout. Alternatives still under consideration include the
following:
1. Double left-turn lanes on north and west legs; left-turn lanes on the south and east legs.
2. Left-turn lanes on all four legs with raised medians.
3. Left-turn lanes on all four legs without raised medians.
4. Two-lane roundabout.
Alignment alternatives affecting Veterans Memorial Park are under consideration which may result in environmental
impacts to the park land of Veterans Memorial Park adjacent to this intersection. These environmental and park
impacts will be considered in the evaluation process. Environmental review, assessment, and documentation will be
performed under a separate contract. Access options including backage/frontage roads and relate use of other
access (i.e. Portland Avenue at 64th Street) will be considered in the evaluation.
Alternative analysis and impact assessment will consider the following:
^ land use
^ right-of--way
^ access
^ transit operations
^ intersection /corridor operations
^ pedestrian /bicycle safety
^ driver /pedestrian familiarity
^ planning level construction cost estimate
After alternatives are ranked, the two leading candidate altematives will be refined by evaluating the effects of
shifting the 66th Street alignment north and south and shifting Portland Avenue alignment east and west to consider
possible land use, right of way, and access impacts. It is understood that right-of--way impacts and cost estimates of
some alternatives have already been performed.
Preliminary analysis indicates that the two-lane roundabout alternative offers a level of service (LOS) A. Further
investigation is required to identify and present a complete impact analysis of all possible effects of this alternative to
the Transportation Committee. In particular, impacts to transit operations, safety of pedestrians and bicyclist, and
driver familiarity need to be assessed.
Task 3.0 Deliverables: Memorandum summarizing goals, objectives, alternative analysis and selection process.
TASK 4.0 -Layout Development
WSB will prepare a preliminary geometric layout and profile for the preferred alternative for review by city and county
staff. A second layout of an independent alternative with roadways through Veterans Memorial Park may be
required. The layouts will also include the following:
^ construction limits
^ sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks
^ transit stops, bus pull-outs, and location of bus shelters/benches
^ access points
WSB will provide a cost estimate of the preferred alternative.
Task 4.0 Deliverables: Preliminary layout and alignment of preferred alternative. Memorandum summarizing impacts of
preferred alternative and cost estimate.
TASK 5.0 -Meetings
There are several meetings that WSB will attend and actively participate in to ensure project development is
advancing on schedule. This will be a significant part of the project to ensure altematives and impacts are
effectively communicated to key decision makers. The critical path includes complete alternative assessment and
preferred alternative selection by October 2005 in order to package the project and qualify for federal funding prior to
a sunset date of September 2006. Meetings including the following:
^ Attend monthly City of Richfield Transportation Committee meetings to present alternative
development and facilitate the criteria and alternative ranking process.
^ Attend monthly City of Richfield staff meetings to discuss project status and prepare for Transportation
Committee meetings.
^ Attend Public Open Houses and Public Hearings for public comment and City Council action..
^ Prepare graphic layouts and material as necessary to support meetings and presentations.
• Assume 26 meetings between April and November 2005 including staff meetings.
Task 5.0 Deliverables: Meeting agendas and minutes. Presentation material as necessary.
Project Schedule
See attached project schedule. WSB will complete services by November 1, 2005 through a decision making and
public involvement process facilitated with the Transportation Committee, city staff, key stakeholders and general
public.
Cost Estimate
See attached breakdown of the estimated staff hours and costs by task to complete the alternative analysis and
layout development. The estimated cost is $48,110.00 including direct expenses. WSB will invoice the City of
Richfield for actual hours worked at each employee classification times the current WSB hourly rates for that
employee classification up to the estimated amount.
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 6E
REPORT # 69
~i
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 12, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
NAME, E
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the renewal of the agreement for assessment services with Hennepin County.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize the City Manager to execute renewal contract
number A03251 with Hennepin County for the purchase of
assessment services for the period commencing August 1, 2005 and
endin Jul 31, 2009.
II. BACKGROUND
In 1981, the City of Richfield entered into the first of a series of four-year contracts
with Hennepin County for assessment services. Prior to that time, assessment
services were performed by a City assessing staff consisting of a City Assessor and
three Property Appraisers. The current contract with Hennepin County will expire
on July 31, 2005. The City must take action to renew the contract with Hennepin
County or hire a City Assessor and property appraising staff.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The assessment service provided by Hennepin County during the past
24 years has been extremely responsive and professional.
0412Assessing
Tamara Doolittle, Hennepin County Principal Property Appraiser, was
assigned to supervise the Richfield assessment in August 2003,
following the retirement of Larry Miller. She is very responsive and
courteous to residents and City staff.
Hennepin County assigns well-trained and knowledgeable staff to
perform the Richfield assessment in addition to Ms. Doolittle.
The City has no less local control of the assessment process under
contract with Hennepin County than it would if the assessment was
performed by City staff.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• If the City were to consider terminating this contract, the City would
need to begin immediately to assemble a City property assessment
staff.
• The current contract expires at the end of July and Hennepin County
would like advance notice of the City's intentions with respect to the
contract renewal.
C. FINANCIAL
• .The cost of purchasing the base assessment service from Hennepin
County is $186,000 per year starting with the 2005 assessment, a
1.4% increase over the past year.
• The cost of the 2004 base assessment was $183,500.
• The cost estimate of providing an in-house City Assessor and
Appraiser staff would be $266,931 based on the Stanton Group V
Salary Data average salaries plus benefit cost calculation of 33% of
salary.
D. LEGAL
• The City and County may enter into a legal contract for the provision
of this service.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The City could elect not to renew this contract with Hennepin County.
However, if this contract were not renewed, the City would have to hire at
least three new employees to provide this service.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• .Letter from Hennepin County.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Tamara Doolittle, Hennepin County Principal Property Appraiser
Hennepin County Assessor Department
- -.
A-2103 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0231
October 25, 2004
Samantha Orduno, City Manager
City of Richfield
6700. Portland Ave. So.
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Samantha:
Re: Assessment Agreement A03251
ACT 2 5 "2004
www.co.hennepin.mn.us
This Assessment Agreement between the County of Hennepin and the City of Richfield expires
July 31, 2005. Section 11 of this agreement provides that this agreement maybe extended for a
term of four (4) years by either party giving the other written notice of its intent to so extend no
less than 1.50. days prior to the. termination of this agreement.
We would appreciate a written notice of your intent at your earliest convenience so we may start
planning for the 2006. assessment.
We truly appreciate our professional association with the City of Richfield and look forward to
performing assessment services for the City. If you have any questions. or concerns,. feel free to
call me at (612). 348-3046.
Very truly yours,
~~W_Y~ /~
Thomas J. May
Hennepin County Assessor
TJM:js
Cc: Rob Winge
Tamara Doolittle
An EqualOpportunity Employer t?ecycted Paper
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 12, 2005
Consent
6D
68
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
NAME,
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution designating City Manager Steven Devich as the Responsible
Authorit to oversee the Cit 's overnment data ractices and rescindin Resolution No. 9290.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:.
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution designating City
Manager Steven Devich as the Responsible Authority to oversee the
Citv's government data practices and rescinding Resolution No. 9290.
III. BACKGROUND ~
The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13,
requires that the City designate an individual (the "Responsible Authority") to be
responsible for collecting, using and disseminating any set of data on individuals,
government data or summary data on behalf of the City, in compliance with the Act
and other laws. Specifically, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, Subdivision 16
defines the Responsible Authority as an "individual".
The Statute requires that the City's government data practices be reviewed annually
and updated as needed. Therefore, Resolution No. 9290 needs to be rescinded
because the Responsible Authority named in Resolution 9290 has been replaced
and the new employee must be approved by the City Council.
Therefore, it is recommended that City Manager Steven Devich be designated as
the Responsible Authority to oversee the City's government data practices.
0412 responsi blea uthority
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota Statute requires that the City designate a Responsible
Authority to oversee the City's government data practices.
• Specifically, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, Subdivision 16 defines
the Responsible Authority as an "individual". Therefore, the
Responsible Authority must be a named employee of the City.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City Manager oversees all areas of City operations and the data
associated with them, and is in the best position to be the Responsible
Authority covering all the City's data practices.
• As the Responsible Authority, the City Manager can designate
Department Directors and other employees to carry out some of the
Responsible Authority responsibilities.
• As the Responsible Authority, the City Manager retains all
responsibilities under the Act that are not specifically designated to
other staff.
C. FINANCIAL
• None.
D. LEGAL
• Minnesota Statute requires that the City designate a Responsible
Authority to oversee the City's government data practices.
~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION('S~ ~
• The City Council may choose not to designate anyone as the Responsible
Authority. However, this would violate Minnesota Statute.
• The Council may choose to designate someone other than City Manager
Steven Devich as the Responsible Authority. However, that person may not
be as familiar with all aspects of City operations.
I V . ATTACHMENTS I
~ VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~
• None.
RESOLUTION NO.
DESIGNATING CITY MANAGER STEVEN DEVICH
AS THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY FOR
GOVERNMENT DATE PRACTICES
WHEREAS, the City is committed to a policy of making public information available
upon request, as well as safeguarding the privacy rights of individuals; and
WHEREAS, aCity-wide data practices plan guides the City in upholding those
commitments; and
WHEREAS, the City is required to designate a Responsible Authority to oversee the
City's government data practices and to enable the City to adopt an overall plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager is in the best position to be familiar with all of the
City's operations and the data associated with them, and can set policies and procedures;
and
WHEREAS, the Responsible Authority can designate Department Directors and
other employees to carry out some of the Responsible Authority's responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, the Responsible Authority retains all responsibilities under the Act that
are not specifically designated to other staff; and
WHEREAS, this resolution rescinds Resolution No. 9290.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota that City Manager Steven Devich is hereby designated as the Responsible
Authority to oversee the City's government data practices.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of April, 2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # (~C
REPORT # 67
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 12, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
SALLY MORTON, INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Request to donate used City computer equipment to the Richfield school district.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve resolution authorizing the donation of used
computer equipment to Independent School District #280.
II. BACKGROUND
The City has 3 - 17" CRT monitors and 27 PCs with keyboards and mice that have
been replaced with new equipment. The retired equipment is still in good operating
condition, but the technology no longer performs adequately in the City's
environment. The Richfield School District accepts donations of used computers
and related components and is interested in receiving this retired equipment. The
City has made several similar donations to the School District in the past.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The retired equipment was purchased with tax dollars from the same
taxpayers that fund the school district.
0412PCDonation.doc
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The cost to the City to recycle a personal computer is about $12 and
the cost to recycle a monitor is about $17.
• A quick survey by City staff revealed that similar used PCs are selling
for $85 - $200. Ours would be worth less because they are not
refurbished and do not have a warranty.
• If the City were to sell this equipment there would be costs associated
with that effort and staff time would be diverted from other projects.
D. LEGAL
• The donation to the school district is authorized by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 471.85 which provides: "Any county, city, town, or
school district may transfer its personal property for a nominal or
without consideration to another public corporation for public use
when duly authorized by its governing body."
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Direct staff to take the equipment to a recycling center for disposal.
• Direct staff to research options for selling the equipment.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution authorizing the transfer of used computer equipment to
Independent School District #280.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF USED COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
TO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #280
WHEREAS, the City owns some computer equipment for which it no longer has any
use; .and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.85 permits the City to transfer this
property to the School District for public use; and
WHEREAS, representatives of Independent School District #280 have indicated
that they will accept the donation and use it in a manner permitted by Minnesota Statutes
Section 471.85.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, that 27 personal computers and 3 computer monitors owned by the
City be transferred to Independent School District #280.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
April, 2005.
Martin. J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 6 $
REPORT # 66
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 12, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
NAME,
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution modifying the bylaws regarding membership to the Richfield.
Tourism Promotion Board.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution modifying the Richfield Tourism
Promotion Board RTPB membershi .
III. BACKGROUND ~
On May 14, -1990, the City of Richfield approved the ordinance to levy a 3% tax on
the gross receipts of lodging from Richfield hotels and motels pursuant to Minnesota
Statute Section 469.190. Minnesota Statute Section 469.190 authorizes the
proceeds from the lodging tax to fund a Tourism Promotion Board for the purposes
of marketing and promoting the City as a tourist or convention center. Later, on
June 25, 1990, the City Council adopted a resolution that established bylaws and
appointed three directors to head the RTPB.
The articles and bylaws of the RTPB as modified by the City Council in 2001,
provide that the Richfield City Council appoints five directors to the Board. One
director is a representative of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, three directors
represent the hotel/motel properties and one director is a representative at large.
The term of each director is three years and each director serves until his or her
successor has been appointed and have qualified, or until his or her earlier
disqualification, death, resignation or removal.
Since the adoption of the 2001 City Council resolution, which increased the number
of directors from three to five and established the director at large appointment, the
RTPB has changed its view of the RTPB membership. The RTPB has changed its
0412TourismBoard
bylaws to eliminate the at large position and replace it with a fourth. director
representing ahotel/motel property and is requesting that the City Council take the
same action. Currently four lodging facilities contribute to the lodging tax: Hampton
Inn, Motel 6, Americinn and Candlewood Suites. However only three of the four can
be members of the RTPB and Motel 6 currently has no member.
Therefore, this item is coming to the City Council to make the requested change to
the RTPB bylaws regarding membership.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
OLICY
• The City Council makes appointments to the RTPB.
• The focus of the RTPB has created a need to encourage the
membership of each lodging property on the RTPB.
• The recommended composition of the RTPB provides a-good cross-
section of representation of individuals that deal with tourism and
promotion issues for Richfield.
• The RTPB has changed its bylaws to allow for a member from each
lodging property and is asking the City Council to change the official
bylaws by resolution.
B. CRITICAL ISStrEs
• There is a need to change the Board representation to reflect the
opportunity for each property to have a membership to the RTPB.
C. FINANCIAL
• .There are no financial implications in as much as Board Members
serve without compensation.
• The RTPB generates adequate funding through the 3% lodging tax to
fund its activities. There is no property tax levy impact.
D. LEGAL
• City .Council has the legal authority to make appointments to the
RTPB and to establish the Board's composition.
ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~
• Do not modify the bylaws to change the at large member to a lodging
property representative to the RTPB.
• Seek other modifications to the RTPB.
V . ATTACHMENTS ~
• Resolution
• Information from the RTPB
~ V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION MODIFYING REPRESENTATIVE
STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE RICHFIELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has levied a 3% tax on the gross receipts of
lodging from hotels and motels in the City pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 169.190;
and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Section 169.190 authorizes the proceeds of the tax
to fund a Tourism Promotion Board for the purpose of marketing and promoting the City as
a tourist or convention center; and
WHEREAS, the articles and bylaws of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc.
provide the City Council of the City of Richfield appoint directors to the Board, and
WHEREAS, The Board has passed a motion making a change to the by-laws of the
Richfield Tourism Promotion Board to replace the Director At Large with an additional
Director representing a Richfield Lodging property, and
WHEREAS, currently only three of the four Richfield lodging properties collecting
and submitting the 3% lodging tax have a representative on the Richfield Tourism
Promotion Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, that the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board be modified as follows:
The Board membership is to include one representative from the Richfield Chamber
of Commerce and four representatives to be comprised of one representative from
each of the following lodging properties:
• Hampton Inn
• Candlewood Suites
• Americlnn
• Motel6
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of April,
2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Rpr 05 05 06:33a User 612-866-0373 p•1
Richfield Tourism Promotion Board
Russ Susag, President
7305 - Ist Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423 Phone & FAX: 612..866.0373
DATE: 04.OS.OS Number of pages {including this page): ~..
To: Steve Devich, City of Richfield
At the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board April 5, 2005, Board
meeting, the following amendment was unanimously approved.
BYLA~JI~S
OF
RICHFIELD TOURISM pROi~IOTION BOARD, INC.
ARTICLE III
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section .3.02. Number ualifications Metho of Selection
and Term of Office. The number of directors of this Corporation
shall be wee--(~3- five 5 , to be appointed by the City Council of the
City of Richfield. The five (S) directors shall include a Richfield
Chamber of Commerce representative and four (4) directors selected
from the four (4) lodging facilities in Richfield. The term of each
director shall be three { 3) years, - - - - - - - - - -
I will send you a copy of the codified BYLAWS shortly.
Russ Susa
g
..p,,
tl~ TOTAI. PAGES OF FAX TRANSMISSION ARE NOT RECEIVED OR iE THh~RE ARE ANY
QUIi'S"PIONS ABOUT' "PHIS TRANSMISSION, N[.FASE CALL BUSS AT fi.l ~.8G6.o373
7305 -- lst Avenue South; Rich€9eld, bfPt 55423 Yhone & FAX: 6i 2.866.0373
Rpr OS 05 06:33a User
612-866-0373 p•~
Richfield Tourism Promotion Board
Apri15, 2005: 1.1:30 p.M.
Richfield Chamber of Cotnmerce/Houlihans
Meeting Niinu~es
Attendance: Rhonda Osborne, AMERICINN
Rudy Hanuman, CANDLE'WOOD SU[TES
Robyn Goolsbey, FIAMPTOT INN
Russ Susag, BOARD MEMBER
Steve Devich, City of RICHF[ELD
Steve Lindgren, R[CHFIELD Chamber of Commerce
Jim Fieger, neroerfieger
I. Call to Order: l 1:35 n.Nl.
II. March 15, 2005, Meeting Minutes m/R. Hanuman, sIR. Osborne, approved
IQ. Disbursements
A. Russell Susag (lunch): $1.00; mIR. Goolsbey, sIR. Hanuman, approved
B. Richfield CofC -brochure postage: $84.22; m/R. Osborne, sIR. Goolsbey,
approved
C. neme~eger: $16,572.45; tn/R. Susag, s/R. Osborne, approved
N. Funding Requests
A. Properties
1. AmericInn: $650.00; m/R. Susag, s/R. Goolsbey, approved
R. Osborne abstained
B. Other
1. Norwegian Narianal League -Norway day Program Ad: $45A0;
m/R. Hanuman, sJR. Goolsbey, approved
2. MN National Guard -Annual Convention Program Book Ad: $92.50;
m/R. Susag, s/R. Goolsbe3~, approved
V. Committee Reports
A. Audit: 2004 audit almost complete
B. Markering: RTPB brochures shipped to MN interstate rest stops.
Commit#ee to look into potential revisions to brochure and possible RTPB
handouts.
C. Budget: on target
Vl: Annual Meeting
A. Election of Officers: President -Russ Susag
Vice President -Robyn Goolsbey
Secretary -Rhonda Osborne
Treasurer -Rudy Hanuman
B. BYLAWS Amendment: Article III, Section 3.02 eras amended to increase
the number of RTPB Directors from three (3) to five (5); motion passed
unanimously. (Amendment attached:)
VI. Correspondence, Communications, Announcements:
VII. Ad}corn - 12:30 p.M.
Next RTPB Meeting Date: May 3, 2005; 11:30 n.M.
Location: Richfield CofClHoulihan's
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 6A
REPORT # 65
~~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 12, 2005
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING
ADMII~TISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of first reading of amendments to Richfield Zoning Code Sections 506 and 521
to create new regulations for private driveways in the single family residential (R), low density
sin le famil residential R-1 ,and two famil residential MR-1 Zonin Districts
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Conduct a first reading of the attached ordinance
amendments to Richfield Zoning Code Section 506.07 Subdivision 79
and 521.05 Subdivision 11 and Section 521.21 Subdivision 10, and
Section 521.41 Subdivision 10 to create new regulations for private
driveways in single family residential, low density single family
residential and two family residential zoning districts and schedule
public. hearing and second reading for May 10, 2005.
II. BACKGROUND
In 2004 the Richfield City Council requested that staff review the front-yard parking
regulations within the City. There have been concerns from City Council as well as
citizens regarding what many believe to be the excessive amount of paving and
vehicles in the front yards of residential properties.
The issue of pavement in front yards is particularly common along major streets in the
City where on-street parking is prohibited. In 2004 a moratorium was placed on the
041205-1 stRead_DrivewayOrdinance
issuance of driveway permits so a study could be conducted involving a review of the
City's current zoning and parking regulations. The goal of this study was to determine
the most appropriate amendments to the regulations relating to front yard parking.
During the study phase it was determined that current standards are too lenient and that
revisions are required. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Code and City Code
should offer residents adequate driveway and turnaround space. During the study
period it was also determined that there were additional areas of the Zoning and City
Code that needed to be reviewed. Staff plans to address these issues in incremental
phases. The phases include looking at the following:
• Outside storage of vehicles
0 including recreational and commercial
• Enforcement of existing front yard parking that is not in compliance
with the proposed changes.
• Permitted driveway construction materials (gravel, asphalt, etc.)
• Maximum impervious surface requirements
Community Development staff has also worked with the Inspections division to create
driveway .requirements for the front-yard parking ordinance. These recommended
requirements are also included in the attached resolution providing amendments to the
City's Ordinances.
The Planning Commission did not have any comments on the proposed language
_ changes. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to send the proposed
ordinance changes to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption.
Summary of recommended land-use regulations and licensing requirements.
The recommended revisions to the City's Zoning Code can be summarized as follows:
Zoning.
a) The proposed changes define turnaround areas and includes such areas within
the existing zoning regulations for private driveway uses. Turnaround areas
would only be allowed on parcels that are located along arterials and collector
streets. A turnaround area is also only allowed for vehicle maneuvers and not
for the parking of vehicles.
b) Additional zoning requirements were revised and include the permitted location
of parked vehicles on a driveway and allowed lot coverage in the front yard.
Public Safety and Licensing.
a) The permitting process for driveway permits will not change under this proposed
code revision. The changes to the Code will allow for easier interpretation and
enforcement of the driveway standards.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Council referred this issue to staff for study and a
recommendation in October 2004.
• The recommended ordinance amendment will create a definition for
turnaround areas and provide zoning regulations for driveways in the R,
R-1, and MR-1 zoning districts.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Regulations for driveway uses are necessary to provide reasonable controls
for such uses to insure public health, safety, and welfare.
• The City Attorney has reviewed and approved these proposed amendments
to the City's Code.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
Zoning: This ordinance amendment creates land-use controls for
Driveways, parking areas, and turnaround areas, in the R, R-1, and
MR-1 zoning districts.
Land Use: R, R-1, MR-1
Comprehensive Plan: N/A
Notification: Notification for the City Council public hearing on this proposed
Zoning Code amendment will be provided as by State Statute and
City requirements.
Other Actions:
Council: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed
amendments at its March 28, 2005 meeting.
If approved by the Council at this first reading, a second reading
and public hearing will be scheduled for May 10, 2005. 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. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Reject the motion to amend Richfield Zoning Code Sections 506.07
Subdivision 79 and 521.05 Subdivision 11, 521.21 Subdivision 10, 521.41,
Subdivision 10 to create zoning regulations for driveway related to create new
requirements for driveways, parking areas, and turnaround areas.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• .Code References: Draft of proposed amendments to Zoning Code Sections 506.07
Subdivision 79 and 521.05 Subdivision 11, 521.21, Subdivision 10, and 521.41,
Subdivision 10.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Persons interested in zoning and land-use regulations.
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE
SECTION 506.07, SUBDIVISION 79;
SECTION 521.05, SUBDIVISION 11;
SECTION 521.21, SUBDIVISION 10;
AND SECTION 521.41 SUBDIVISION 10
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Section 506.07, of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding new
subdivision after subdivision 78, the new subdivision to read as follows, and
by now renumbering all following subdivisions accordingly.
Subd. 79. "Turnaround area" - An area used for vehicle maneuvers.
Sec. 2. Section 521.05, Subdivision 11 of the Richfield City Code is amended to
read as follows:
521.05, Subdivision 11. Private driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and
sidewalks for residential uses, provided the following conditions are met:
a) all such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and sidewalks shall
be set back no less than one foot from any lot line abutting another parcel,
except that upon written request from the landowner, the Director may
reduce or rescind this setback requirement for shared access agreements
or with a finding of necessity and public convenience;
b) all such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and sidewalks shall
be constructed with concrete, asphalt, concrete pavers, brick set in
compacted sand, or other material approved by the Director;
tha maYimi im imTaniini is ci ~rfar_a rrniara~a~ ~niithin tha frnnt ~iarri arAa
shall ha .r,(1°/ nr 1 Firf) cTi Sara faPt ~n~hirhavar ie Iccc~~
d raa
~50 feet or less• 50°!
51-60 fpet• 48°i
71-80 feet• 44°!
over 8n fpet• 42°!~
in the
d~ within the front vard area, vehicles shall only be
parked on the driveway area.
e) driveways, where located within the boulevard or the front vard area,
are subject to the following requirements:
(i) they shall not exceed 22 feet in width up to a maximum of 35% of
the front yard area (curb cut radii excluded);
(ii) curb cut radii (five feet minimum) shall not encroach upon the
boulevard of abutting properties;
(iii) on corner lots, driveways shall be set back at least 30 feet from an
intersection, as measured from the point where the extended curb
lines of the streets intersect;
(iv)only one curb cut shall be permitted from a public street to an
interior lot. A comer lot may have one curb cut from each public
street, provided the driveway setback requirement in item (iii)
above is met; and
(v) upon written request from the landowner, items (i), (ii), (iii), and
(iv) above may be varied by the Director with a finding of
necessity and public convenience.
f,~any expansion or installation of a driveway, parking area, turnaround area,
or sidewalk on a lot shall be subject to a City permit.
~ Any expansion, installation or replacement of a curb cut from a public
street to a lot shall be subject to a City permit and any curb cut abandoned
with the installation of a new cut shall be extinguished and replaced with
curb and gutter according to specifications determined by the Director of
Public Works, except as provided in (e) (iv), provided the curb cut meets
all requirements of (e) and is in service for driveway or parking purposes.
(Added, Bill No. 1999-3)
h) A turnaround area maybe located within a front yard subiect to the
rements
n
area can
not exceed 150 square feet. The turnaround area must be contiguous to
the driveway.
Sec. 3 Section 521.21,. Subdivision 10 is of the code of the City of Richfield is
created to read as follows:
521.21. Subdivision 10. Private driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas and
sidewalks provided the following conditions are met:
a) all such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and sidewalks shall
be set back no less than one foot from any lot line abutting another parcel,
except that upon written request from the landowner, the Director may
reduce or rescind this setback requirement for shared access agreements
or with a finding of necessity and public convenience;
b) all such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and sidewalks shall
be constructed with concrete, asphalt, concrete pavers, brick set in
compacted sand, or other~material approved by the Director;
r_mm~lu ~niith tha fnlln~niinn tahla•
2
d raa
50 feet or less ~n%
~ _~n fAAt• 48~
6a -~n fAAt• 46°i
Z1-Rn fAAt• 44%
over 80 feet 42%
(i) they shall not exceed 22 feet in width up to a maximum of 35% of
the front vard area (curb cut radii excluded);
(ii) curb cut radii (five feet minimum) shall not encroach upon the
boulevard of abutting properties;
(iii) on corner lots, driveways shall be set back at least 30 feet from
an intersection, as measured from the point where the
extended curb lines of the streets intersect;
(iv) only one curb cut shall be permitted from a public street to an
interior lot. A corner lot may have one curb cut from each public
street, provided the driveway setback requirement in item (iii)
. above is met; and
(v) upon written request from the landowner, items (i), (ii), (iii), and
(iv) above may be varied by the Director with a finding of
necessity and public convenience.
g f) any expansion or installation of a driveway, parking area, turnaround
area or sidewalk on a lot shall be subject to a City permit.
h g) any expansion, installation or replacement of a curb cut from a public
street to a lot shall be subject to a City permit and any curb cut
abandoned with the installation of a new cut shall be extinguished and
replaced with curb and gutter according to specifications determined by
the Director of Public Works, except as provided in (e) (iv), provided the
curb cut meets all requirements of (e) and is in service for driveway or
parking purposes. (Added, Bill No. 1999-3)
be parKeq on the arivewaY area.
e) driveways, where located within the boulevard the front vard area, are
subject to the following requirements:
not exceed 150 square feet. The turnaround area must be contiguous to
the driveway.
Sec. 4 Section 521.41, Subdivision 10 of .the code of the City of Richfield is
amended to read as follows:
521.41, Subdivision 10. Private driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and
sidewalks provided the following conditions are met:
a) all such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and sidewalks shall
be set back no less than one foot from any lot line abutting another parcel,
except that upon written request from the landowner, -the Director may
reduce or rescind this setback requirement for shared access agreements
or with a finding of necessity and public convenience;
b) all such driveways, parking areas, turnaround areas, and sidewalks shall
be constructed with concrete, asphalt, concrete pavers, brick set in
compacted sand, or other material approved by the Director;
d rF-a
65 fPPt or IesS~ 5D°!
6675 feet 48°~
-rLVPr 75 feefi 4fi°~
c) no parking area shall be permitted in the front yard area.
d~ wi}hin fV~a frnnT ~nml ~ o Than throe n~r4inn ehall ha
shall only be parked on the driveway area.
n
e) driveways, where located within the boulevard the front yard area, are
subjecf to the following requirements:
(i) they shall not exceed 22 feet in width up to a maximum of 35% of
the front yard area (curb cut radii excluded);
(ii) curb cut radii (five feet minimum) shall not encroach upon the
boulevard of abutting properties;
(iii) on corner lots, driveways shall be set back at least 30 feet from an
intersection, as measured from the point where the extended curb
lines of the streets intersect;
(iv) only one curb cut per dwelling unit shall be permitted from a public
street to an interior lot. A corner lot may have one curb cut per
dwelling unit from each public street, provided the driveway
setback requirement in item (iii) above is met; and
(v) upon written request from the landowner, items (i), (ii), (iii), and
(iv) above may be varied by the Director with a finding of
necessity and public convenience.
I~AramhPr ~1 ~ 199R~ maTr_nntlnlle tf~ pxi~t and to be repaired and
g ~ any expansion or installation of a driveway, parking area, or sidewalk
shall be subject to a City permit.
h g~ any expansion, installation or replacement of a curb cut from a public
street to a lot shall be subject to a City permit and any curb cut
abandoned with the installation of a new cut shall be extinguished and
replaced with curb and gutter according to specifications determined by
the Director of Public Works, except as provided in (e) (iv), provided the
curb cut meets all requirements of (e) and is in service for driveway or
parking purposes. (Added, Bill No. 1999-3)
h) A turnaround area maybe located within a front yard subiect to the
turnarou
not exceed 150 sauare feet. The turnaround area must be contiguous to
the driveway.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
May, 2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
5