Loading...
02-08-05 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2005 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. Call to order Roll call 1. Discussion regarding immigration ordinance Notes: Adjournment (not later than 6:20 p.m.) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. AG_ 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. Comment sh to address he Couuntclltmus~havetregistered pr or to tthe meeting, agenda. Indw~duals who w Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of January 19, 2005; (2) Special City Council Meeting of January 20, 2005; (3) Special City Council Worksession of January 25, 2005; and (4) Regular City Council Meeting of January 25, 2005 PRESENTATION 1. Presentation of Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting to City of Richfield Finance Manager Chris Regis COUNCIL DISCUSSION 2. Council discussion Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 3. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of continuing public hearing to February 22, 2005 regarding resolution authorizing property tax abatement for certain property (Cedar Point redevelopment area) in City of Richfield S.R. No. 24 B. Consideration of approval of first reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from Special Revenue Fund and scheduling public hearing and second reading for March 8, 2005 S.R. No. 25 C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of public health grants award to City of Richfield in 2005 S.R. No. 26 D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Richfield Public Safety Department to accept donation of $1,000 from Wal-Mart Foundation for Police Division Canine Unit S.R. No. 27 E. Consideration of approval of changing cellular telephone antenna configuration by Verizon Wireless at Penn Avenue water tower S.R. No. 28 F. Consideration of approval of bid ationtof filter #6 naWater Treatment Plantr ncamou t Lake Construction, Inc. for renov of 388,600 S.R. No. 29 Notes: 5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance establishing one-year moratorium on development of ces ud pandeesolutiontauthorz ng summary publ cationlof ordinance directing planning y (Continued from January 25, 2005) Staff Report No. 30 Notes: 7. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance establishing one-year moratorium on development of certai Lion a t or zin I summarydpufg'ilit cationfof ordinanceommercial/ office uses and resolu g Staff Report No. 31 Notes: 8. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance modifying electric franchise fee on Northern State Power n/author¢in ns ummary publicatioln of ~ordman ewithin City of Richfield and resolutio 9 Staff Report No. 32 Notes: 9. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance modifying gas franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy for providing gas service in City of Richfield and resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance Staff Report No. 33 Notes: 10. Public hearing regarding reso6600 N cohlet Avenueeto allow extens on in seasonal lit for Academy of Holy Angels, sports facility hours in R-single family residential zoning district Staff Report No. 34 Notes: 11. Public hearing regarding resoolution Center) to allow~restaurantpwith customler seatng Avenue (Woodlake Plaza Sh pp g. in C-2 general commercial zoning district Staff Report No. 35 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 12. Disciplinary hearings regarding resolutions imposing civil enforcement on alcohol establishments in Richfield that recently underwent alcohol compliance checks conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff and failed by selling alcohol to underage youth Staff Report No. 36 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 13. City Manager's report Notes: 14. Claims and payrolls OTHER BUSINESS 15. Interview Richfield City Manager candidate, Steven L. Devich Notes: 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: 16. Closed Executive Session in Executive Conference Room for Attorney-Client discussion of litigation Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # 12 REPORT # 36 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 RELATED TO: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. 1 REPORT PREPARED BY: AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S~ NO. 1 BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolutions regarding civil enforcement for alcohol establishments in Richfield that recently underwent alcohol compliance checks, conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff,. and failed b selling alcohol to underage youth. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a disciplinary hearing for establishments that failed alcohol compliance checks and approve the attached resolutions for each of the first time violating establishment: • Suspending the license to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days, and • Levying a fine against each establishment in the amount of $1,000, and; • Requiring a mandatory meeting with the Public Safety Director to present their individual establishment plans to ensure eliminating any future actions of this kind, and • Reauirinp the establishment to provide roof of the attendance of 0208 Liquor Compliance Violators Resolutions ~~ /°1 the manager. of the establishment in an alcohol sales awareness program. Approve the attached resolutions for each of the second .time violating establishments: • Suspending the license to sell alcohol for seven (7) consecutive days; and; • Proposing that the Public Safety Director select the seven consecutive days their licenses will be suspended; and, • Levying a fine against each establishment in the amount of $1,750; and, • Requiring a second meeting with the Public Safety Director; and, • Requiring the establishment to conduct a mandatory alcohol and sales awareness training session with all of their employees, provided by a private firm approved by Public Safety officials, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. II BACKGROUND I On November 3 and November 9, 2004, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted alcohol compliance checks at all of Richfield's alcohol establishments, assisted by three underage youth that were all 18-20 years of age. These compliance checks were the second set of checks conducted in 2004. Richfield Public Safety staff made arrangements for the minors to enter the establishments with undercover police officers. In six instances, the underage youth were served alcohol. The businesses that made sales to underage youth on November 3, 2004 are as follows: • Richfield Mobil Mart - 6744 Penn Avenue South • Pu'hket Thai - 6345 Penn Avenue South This is a first offense for Richfield Mobil Mart. Technically, it is a fourth violation, but because of time elapsed between now and the previous violations, it is considered a first violation. This is a first offense for Pu'hket Thai. The businesses that made sales to' underage youth on November 9, 2004 are as follows: • Kwik Way Foods - 7701 Portland Ave. S. • Rainbow Foods - -140 East 66th Street SuperAmerica - 7720 Nicollet Avenue South i/FW - 6715 Lakeshore Drive This is a second offense for Kwik Way Foods. Technically, it is their fourth violation, but due to the time elapsed between now. and the previous violations, it is considered a second offense. This is a first offense for Rainbow Foods. Technically, it is their third offense, but due to the time elapsed between now and the previous violations, it is considered a first offense. This is a second offense for SuperAmerica. Technically, it is their fourth offense., but due to the time elapsed between now and the previous violations, it is considered a second offense. This is a first offense for the VFW. Technically, it is their third offense, but due to the time elapsed between now and their previous violations, it is considered a first offense. At no time did any of the minors consume any of the alcohol. The youth presented their ID's and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were. of legal age. Establishments were visited at a variety of times, busy or not busy, in an effort to determine if busy times produced more successful buys. It doesn't appear to have made a difference at either time. After each attempt, successful or unsuccessful, the officers identified themselves to the clerks and issued them a citation if they failed. If the underage youth was unsuccessful in securing alcohol, the clerk was congratulated by officers for doing a good job. The employee that sold alcohol will be charged criminally in court. The action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the businesses that hold a license to sell alcohol within the City. The fines being recommended at this time are intended to recover 100% of the costs for conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the businesses punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur in the future. It is also recommended that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future alcohol and tobacco education efforts within the community. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION - A. .POLICY Resolution No. 9511 specifies certain improper conduct of alcohol license holders and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of alcohol to minors. Staff recommends that the City Council suspend each of the first time violating establishment's license to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days and levy a fine against each establishment in the amount of $1,000 for the first violation. Staff is also proposing that each first time violating establishment attend a mandatory meeting with the Public Safety Director to present their individual establishment's plan to ensure eliminating any future actions of this kind. In addition, one employee, preferably the manager, must attend a mandatory alcohol and sales awareness training session, provided by a private firm approved by Public Safety. The cost of the training is to be paid for by the establishment. Staff recommends that the City Council suspend each of the second time violating establishment's license to sell alcohol for seven (7) consecutive days and levy a fine against each establishment in the amount of $1,750 for the second violation. Staff is also proposing that the Public Safety Director will select the seven consecutive days that the licenses will be suspended. It is further recommended that second time violating establishments be required to meet a second time with the Public Safety Director and to also conduct a mandatory alcohol and sales awareness training session with all of their employees. This training will be provided by a private firm approved by Public Safety, with all costs of the training to be paid by the establishment. B. CRITICAL ISSUES It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell alcohol to underage youth. Civil enforcement penalties taken in the past by-the City Council against several establishments have been severe. This was done to send a message to the establishments and the community that the Council will not tolerate this type of violation to continue in the community and that Richfield youth and their well-being are highly valued. Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community and to send a message that youth and their well-being are a high priority in this City. C. FINANCIAL All costs of conducting compliance checks will be reimbursed through the fines that are levied against an establishment for failing an alcohol compliance check. Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are designated for future alcohol and tobacco educational efforts within the community. D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE IZECOMMENDA S) The Council could decide to take no action against the establishments for the sale of alcohol to a minor which would result in no disciplinary actions against the establishments. This would, however, send a message to the community that children and their well-being are not a priority in Richfield. The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against the establishments that sold alcohol to underage youth; however, that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in Resolution No. 9511. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution 9511, resolution specifying certain improper conduct of on- sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licensees and stating recommended discipline. • Resolution for Pu'hket Thai Discipline. • Resolution for Rainbow Foods Discipline. • Resolution for Richfield Mobil Mart. • Resolution for VFW Discipline. • Resolution for Kwik Way Foods Discipline. • Resolution for SuperAmerica Discipline. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Representatives from each of the establishments are expected to be in attendance at the meeting. They have been notified in writing regarding the City Council meeting date. RESOLUTION N0.9511 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR, WINE AND 3.2 MALT LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 9204. WHEREAS, at their July 13, 2004 Council meeting, City Council directed staff to update the Cityys current alcohol discipline document. This, therefore, is a new Resolution that specifies the discipline an alcohol establishment can expect for the types of violations listed and rescinds Resolution No. 9204; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: I. BACKGROUND STATEMENT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the sale of on- sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although the provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. 'The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed-only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not- intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject .liquor licenses to discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance with this resolution are not intended to preclude such further actions such as actions in law or in equity or criminal prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in this resolution. II. SPECIFIC PROHIBITED CONDUCT AND PROPOSED SANCTIONS. A. Noise and Other Disturbing Conduct Within or Near the Licensed Premises. Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the immediate vicinity of the establishment whom are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation of a licensed alcohol establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licenses for verified .reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): 1 1) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such five incidents) -suspension of the license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,00.0 for each. incident. 2) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) -suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. 3) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) -suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outlined above is intended to be cumulative in nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the Director of Public Safety. by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code of the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the Director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to make requests for services in situations where the licensee is capable of resolving-the incident without police assistance. However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The Department of Public Safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor license: 1) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year -suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000. 2) For the second such incident in any license year -suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. 3) For the third such incident in any license year -suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. Serving Alcoholic Beverages Beyond the Interior of the Licensed Premises or Permitting Patrons to Leave such Licensed Premises with Alcoholic Beverages. Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the. Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licenses: 2 1) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 2) The second incident during the license year -- up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 3) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 4) The fourth incident during the license year -revocation of license. C. Permitting Occupancy to Exceed the Limits Permitted Under the Uniform Fire Code 25.114 (overcrowding) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environment wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses for incidents of overcrowding verified by the City's Public Safety Director or their designee: 1) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10-day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 2) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 3) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 4) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year -revocation of the license. D. Facilitating Gambling. Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises, which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises, which could be used, for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video. games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01. For any incident of facilitation of gambling, the on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor license may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. Effect of Suspension or Revocation of Food License. On-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of actions taken by the City Manager, enforcement officer or both pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. 3 The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor during such period shall constitute an unlicensed sale. F. The Sale, Consumption or Service to a Minor of Intoxicating Liquor, Wine or 3.2 Malt Liquor. Licensees must assure that the sale, consumption or service to a minor of any alcoholic beverage is prohibited under any condition. Failure to do so will result in swift and severe progressive civil penalties. The following discipline will be imposed upon on- sale intoxicating, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses for verified reports or compliance checks of misconduct occurring at the establishment: 1) For a first offense, the establishment's license will be suspended for (five) 5 days and a civil fine of $1000 will be due and payable to the City. 2) For a second offense, (if within one (1) year of the first offense), the establishment's license will be suspended for seven (7) days and a civil fine of $1750 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of one (1) year of a first offense, it will be considered a first offense. 3) For a third offense, (if within 2_years of the second offense), the establishment's license will be suspended for 12 days and a civil. fine of $20.00 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of two years of a second offense, it will be considered a second offense. 4) For a fourth offense, (if within 2 years of the third offense), the establishment's license will be brought before the City Council fora *revocation hearing and a civil fine of $2000 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of two years of a third offense, it will be considered a third offense. For a fifth offense, (if within 2 years of the fourth offense, the establishment's license will be revoked for the remainder of the license year and a civil fine of $2,000 will be due and payable to the City. An establishment whose license is revoked is ineligible for a license for a period of five (5) years from the date of revocation. • A revocation hearing at the fourth offense level would result in a hearing before the City Council to discuss whether there are alternatives available that can be agreed upon by Council and the owner of the establishment to prevent the need to revoke the establishment's license. Alternatives will be determined on a case-by-case basis. If no alternatives exist, the license would be revoked. If feasible alternatives exist, conditions will be placed on the licensee by the City Council. A fine will be assessed in either instance. An establishment whose license is revoked is ineligible for a license for a period of five (5) years from the date of revocation. Step Back Option - It is possible to "step back" a failure level. if an establishment has successfully passed a minimum of two consecutive compliance checks. For example, if an establishment is at the third offense level but has successfully passed two consecutive compliance checks since the last failure, they are eligible to "step back" to a second offense level. This provides a serious incentive to establishments to work on keeping their record clean so that they can "step back" in the discipline grid. If an establishment passes two consecutive compliance checks, they step back one offense level. It is, however, possible that if an establishment has several failures but continues to pass compliance checks time after time for several years, they may eventually "step back" to the step one 4 starting point. Each step back requires two new consecutive passes. Previous passes to "step back" can not be used toward future passes. G. General Provisions Regarding Sanctions. In addition to the sanctions listed for specific offenses listed in paragraphs A through F above, the City Council may impose other mandatory requirements upon the establishment such as: meetings with the Public Safety Director to present a plan of action to assure that the problem will not continue; mandatory educational sessions with Crime Prevention staff; or other actions that the City Council deems appropriate. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time to time and to impose penalties greater than or less than those contained herein when in the judgment of the Council it is appropriate to do so. The City Council may suspend all or a portion of any penalty or license suspension upon compliance with such conditions as the Council deems appropriate. Prior to imposing any monetary penalty or license suspension or revocation, the City Council will set an initial appearance at which the licensed establishment. must appear before the City Council to admit or deny the violation. If the violation is admitted, the licensed establishment will be allowed to explain any mitigating circumstances at the time of the initial appearance. If the violation is denied, the licensed establishment may request a hearing at or prior to the initial appearance. Licensed establishments may explain mitigating circumstances or request a hearing in writing prior to the initial appearance or may do so orally by appearing at the initial appearance. The City Council strongly encourages licensed establishments to make a personal appearance at the initial appearance. A licensed establishment that does not request a hearing at or prior to the initial appearance will be deemed to have waived its right to a hearing, and the City Council may deem the violation admitted and impose sanctions as provided in this resolution. Where a hearing is requested, the City Council may conduct the hearing or refer the hearing to an independent hearing examiner. All hearings involving possible suspension or revocation of a license will be conducted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 14. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 16th day of September 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 5 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING ON- SALE WINE AND 3.2 PERCENT INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSES FOR PU'HKET THAI, 6345 PENN AVENUE SOUTH, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Pu'hket Thai, ("Licensee") holds On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2004, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor and; WHEREAS, this is their first failed alcohol compliance check; WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on February 8, 2005 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension -and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses are hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before March 8, 2005, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000. 3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by March 8, 2005 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of February 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE OFF-SALE 3.2 PERCENT INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FORALTYB OR F RSDT TIME ALCOHOL COMPL ANCE FAILURE IMPOSING A CIVIL PEN WHEREAS, Rainbow Foods, ("Licensee") holds an Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Intoxicating Malt Liquor license from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2004 the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor and; WHEREAS, this is technically their third failed alcohol compliance check but because of the time that has elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a first failure. Their previous penalties were imposed by the Council at the October 11, 1999 and the July 23, 2002 meetings; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on February 8, 2005 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Intoxicating Malt Liquor license is hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before March 8, 2005, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000. 3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by March 8, 2005 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of February 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE OFF-SALE INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSES FOR RI NALTY ORF IRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE IMPOSING A CIVIL PE WHEREAS, Richfield Mobil Mart, ("Licensee") holds an Off-Sale Intoxicating Malt Liquor license from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2004 the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor and; WHEREAS, this is technically their fourth failed alcohol compliance check, but because of the time that has elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a first failure. The previous penalties were imposed by the Council at the April 26, 1999, December 13, 1999 and the July 23, 2002 meetings, and; WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on February 26, 2005 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's Off-Sale Intoxicating Malt Liquor license is hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before March 8, 2005 the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000. 3. Licensee will meet with the Director of Public Safety by March 8, 2005 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of February 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE CLUB ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR FRED BABCOCK, V.F.W., .POST NO. 5555, INC., d/b/a FOUR NICKELS FOOD AND DRINK, 6715 LAKESHORE DRIVE; AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Fred Babcock, V.F.W., Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink, (Licensee") holds Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2004, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment,. and during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor. WHEREAS, this is technically their third failed alcohol compliance check but because of the time elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a first. Their previous penalties were imposed by the Council at the October 11, 1999 and the September 25, 2000 meetings; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on February 8, 2005, and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed. by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses are hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before March 8, 2005, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000. 3. Licensee will meet with the Director of Public Safety by March 8, 2005 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of February 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE OFF-SALE 3.2 PERCENT INTOXICATING MALT .LIQUOR LICENSE FOR ICWINKAW~ FOR SECOND T ME ALCOHOL COMPLOIANCE ND; IMPOSING A CIVIL PE FAILURE WHEREAS, Kwik Way Foods (Licensee") holds an Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Intoxicating Malt Liquor License from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2004, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment, and during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor. WHEREAS, this is technically their fourth failed alcohol compliance check but because of the time elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a second. Their previous penalties were imposed by the Council at the April 26, 1999, July 23, 2002 and March 23, 2004 meetings; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on February 8, 2005, and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Intoxicating Malt Liquor license is hereby suspended for a period of seven (7) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. the Licensee 2. A civil penalty of $1,750 is hereby imposed. On or before March 8, 2005, shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,750. 3. Licensee will meet with the Director of Public Safety by March 8, 2005 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of February 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE OFF-SALE 3.2 PERCENT INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR SUPERAMERICA, 7720 NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH, AND; IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR SECOND TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, SuperAmerica (Licensee") holds an Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Intoxicating Malt Liquor License from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2004, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment, and during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor. WHEREAS, this is technically their fourth failed .alcohol compliance check but because of the time elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a second. Their previous penalties were imposed by the Council at the April 26, 1999, December 13, 1999, and March 23, 2003 meetings; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on February 8, 2005, admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Intoxicating Malt Liquor license is hereby suspended for a period of seven (7) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1,750 is hereby imposed. On or before March 8, 2005, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,750. 3. Licensee will meet with the Director of Public Safety by March 8, 2005 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of February 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: public Hearing~_ AGENDA ITEM # 11 REPORT # 35 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~~~~ FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 2- CHRISTINE COSTELLO, REPORT PREPARED BY: PLANNING BL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing to consider the resolution requesting a Conditional Use Permit at 6417 Lyndale Avenue (Woodlake Plaza .Shopping Center) to allow for a restaurant with customer seating in the "C-2" zoning district. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit at 6417 Lyndale Avenue (Woodlake Plaza Shopping Center) to allow for a restaurant with customer seating in the "C-2" zoning district. 020805CUP7417Lyndale NAME, TITLE II. BACKGROUND Ms. Claudia Zermeno is proposing to open a cafe with customer seating in a tenant space at the Woodlake Plaza Shopping Center (6417 Lyndale Avenue). The cafe will occupy 695 sq. ft. of the shopping center. The hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The cafe will operate with two employees initially. The tenant space for the applicant is located at Woodlake Shopping Center. In 1993 an Off-Street Parking permit was approved for the restructuring of the parking lot, which improved access for the customers and tenants. In 1992, a variance for the shopping center was approved for a six foot high fence along the rear property line that abuts the residential properties located behind the shopping center. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY A traditional restaurant with customer seating is classified as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the G2 district. The findings necessary to issue a CUP (526.27, subd.7) are as follows: a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is met. The Comprehensive Plan calls for `Community Commercial' at this location. A cafe is a community use that provides services to everyone in the community. b) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. There are no officially adopted redevelopment or urban design guidelines that would dictate this project since it is locating in an existing retail shopping center. The site is within the Lakes at Lyndale area. Redevelopment at this location is currently a low priority. c) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code. All performance standards are existing already. There is a six foot fence in place. to screen the residential properties behind the shopping center from the parking. d) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. This requirement is not applicable. e) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. This requirement is met. The primary concerns associated with the cafe would be parking. The center contains approximately 25,000 sq. ft. of building area. Parking standards require 99 spaces. In 1993 an Off-Street Parking permit was approved to reduce the number of parking spaces to 97 to improve access to the lot. A restaurant such as the one proposed required the greater of one space per 60 sq. ft. of gross floor area or one space per 2.5 seats. Therefore, this request will require ten parking spaces. f) There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. The proposed use is in keeping with uses in the area. g) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such Conditional Use Permit. This requirement is met. The Zoning Code specifies two requirements, which must be met for a restaurant with customer seating. The current request meets all of these requirements, as explained below. 1, The first requirement, is that a buffer yard of not less than 25 feet in width shall be provided to separate all aspects of the use from abutting residential parcels. The shopping center is an already established building and requiring a buffer yard of 25 feet would cause the site to lose parking. There is currently a seven foot buffer with a six foot privacy fence along the back property line of the shopping center. 2. Alcoholic beverages shall not be served unless the lot abuts an arterial or collector street. The proposed cafe will not serve alcoholic beverages, so this not a concern for this use. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION "ACTION • Date of Action: January 10, 2005 • 'Subject of Vote: Recommendation for a Conditional Use Permit at 6417 Lyndale Avenue (Woodlake Plaza Shopping Center) to allow for a restaurant with customer seating Vote: 8-0 with no stipulations: • Comments: • No one spoke for or against the request. Staff received one call asking for clarification on what was being proposed. • Public Notice: Planning Commission -Sun Current published notice December 23, 2004. City Council -Sun Current published notice January 27, 2005. • Mailed Notices: Sent to properties within the surrounding 350 feet. (17 single- family residential properties, 4two-family residential property, and 4 multi- residential properties, 13 general commercial properties, and 3 planned general commercial unit development properties where sent mailed notices) • 60 Day Clock: Start: December 13, 2004 Extension Received: N/A Deadline: February 11, 2005 V. ALTERNATNE RECOIVIMENDATION~S~ • Deny the requested Conditional Use Permit to allow a restaurant with customer seating at 6417 Lyndale Avenue. Approve the requested Conditional Use Permit to allow a restaurant with customer seating at 6417 Lyndale Avenue with stipulations. VI. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Zoning and Land Use Maps • Tenant space site plan Woodlake Plaza Shopping Center site plan VII. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Ms. Claudia Zermeno, applicant RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RESTAURANT WITH CUSTOMER SEATING AT 6417 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which request approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a restaurant with customer seating at 6417 Lyndale Avenue South, legally described as: LOTS 12 13 14 15 16 17 AND THE NORTHWESTERLY 25 FT OF LOT 18, BLOCK 6, "LYNDALE OAKS", INCLUDING THE WESTERLY-HALF OF VACATED ALLEY OTO18 I N TOWNSOHIP 1 6,1RANGE 24ASEDCT ON 2O8,TNORTHEAST QUARTER F WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield has recommended approval of this requested Conditional Use Permit at 6417 Lyndale Avenue South at its January 10, 2005 meeting; and WHEREAS, this requested Conditional Use Permit at 6417 Lyndale Avenue South meets those requirements necessary for issuing a Conditional Use Permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, section 546.05, subd.6; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the Conditional Use Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A Conditional Use Permit is issued for atwo-family dwelling, as described in City Staff Report No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. This conditional use permit at 6417 Lyndale Avenue South is subject to the following conditions in Section 526.27 Subdivisions 7 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 3. The conditional use .permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the Conditional Use Permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -6417 LYNDALE AVENUE FEBRUARY 8, 2005 ZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET ~ ~' ~iJ RICHFIELD LAKE 65TH ST. ui Q D C7 / /\ i~ / / i ZONING SYMBOLS C-2 =GENERAL COMMERCIAL PC-2 =PLANNED GENERAL COMMERCIAL MR-3 = MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -HIGH DENSITY MR-1 =TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL N 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Feet 12-22-04 pmdeNsfafflbill\projects16417 lyndale 350'r. apr 63RD ST. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -6417 LYNDALE AVENUE FEBRUARY 8, 2005 LAND USES OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET 63RD ST i~ ~~~o~~ APT APT IPRK ~ Q a Z a c; RES = COM Z J APT DP DP DPLX RES RES RES DPLX 35p 64TH S T. RES S RES COM CO RES RES ~~ ~ RES RES RES ' COM RES RES RES RICHFIELD coM COM RE RES LAKE _ ,.,, COM / ~ LAI COM APT DPLX RES PRK 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Feet comdev\stafflbil~projecls\6417 lyndale 350'r. apr ~~D USE SYMBOLS = COMMERCIAL = APARTMENT BUILDING =TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL = SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL = PARK N 12-22-04 " ~~TH ST. ~~~~c ~~ 1 ~ ~~ ~v~ ±~ - _ ~ o ~ ~~~:~ ~~~sa ~ b «~.~., ~ ( ~ ~ ~~~~ I ~t~~ ~~~ i °~~{ =~ ~. s ~~ to-~ ~~~- t~~~~~~~R ~.~~ ~~~ ~ ~ . ;~ ~, "TAB?! ~5:~ .~~~ ~--~ .. s~ ~~~ 3 ~~5 -----'' ,_. ~,~ ^^~^V .. ~,~. ~~ t,.. ~ t... ~ a i~~ 1 69i ,C/~ ! . i ~ a ~ e ~ ~ ~~ ' IY i f6Eii I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ l~i~: 1 l 1 _.. " eo Nw~~ ,Y L ~ w 4 .~ ~. e Az ®~ ~~ ~~// ~ J ti ~~i C v ! ~ ~ a: ~ r . aN s ~ Dye ®~ O ~; I' j i Sri/i~I ~Z 0 J 0 J r Z ~7 ~" •I c' ar-- ti~ ~ m ~ Y ~ ~ W d Y ~'a !~ 3 x W .,~¢\ s~ '~s AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # lO REPORT # 34 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~~~~ FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Related to: CITI' COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. 1 AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 3, 8. 9 CHRISTINE COSTELLO, REPORT PREPARED BY: PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Nance, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing to consider the resolution requesting an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Academy of Holy Angels at 6600 Nicollet Avenue to allow an extension in the Seasonal Sports Facility hours in the "R" zoning district. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving the amendm600 Nicollet Avenue t Use Permit for the Academy of Holy Angels at 6 allow an extension in the Seasonal Sports Facility hours in the "R" zoning district. 020805AmendCU PHolyAngels NAME, TITLE II. BACKGROUND The Academy of Holy Angels (AHA) is seeking to expand the operational hours of the Seasonal Sports Facility (Starpome), which is controlled by the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). • Currently the Starpome's hours of operation are from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily. AHA is requesting to expand the hours until 12:30 a.m., daily. AHA reports the Starpome is used by the students of AHA for their sporting events and is also used by a number of local sports organizations from Richfield and surrounding communities. Participants include children and adults. Due to the various age levels, the younger participants occupy the facility from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m., leaving the later hours for the adult organizations. A number of adult leagues are. seeking the expanded hours. AHA reports approximately 200 Richfield residents are participants in these adult leagues. In 1996, an amendment was made to the CUP to allow for the construction of an athletic field and the Starpome. There were a number of stipulations of the CUP. One of the requirements was the hours of operation be limited to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., Monday through Sunday. In reviewing the case file, it was noted that the Starpome was highly debated throughout the neighborhood; especially the hours of operation. Mailings have been sent to the property owners within the surrounding 350 feet of the AHA property. Also, AHA has sent their own letter to those surrounding property owners, which is attached to this report. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The AHA is located in the `R-Residential' zoning district. Public and private high schools are conditional uses in the `R' District. The findings necessary to issue a CUP (546.05, subd.6) are as follows, (when the CUP was granted in 1996 all of the findings listed below were met as noted): a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is met. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a school at this location. b) The proposed use is consistent with any offrcially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. This requirement is met. There are no adopted redevelopment plans for this area. c) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code. This requirement is met. d) The proposed use ,will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. This requirement is met. e) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. Based on the official records of Public Safety reported in the "Critical Issues" section of the staff-report this requirement is met. The public hearing will provide an opportunity for expression of concerns by the public should there be any: Currently, the AHA is requesting approval to better serve their students and community residents. fl There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. This requirement is met. The proposed extension of hours is in response to the reported need by leagues. g) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. This requirement is met, as explained below. Public and private high schools are a conditional use in the `R' district, as specified in section 521.07, Subdivision 11 of the zoning code. This section of the Zoning Code specifies four requirements for a CUP to be issued for a high school. These four requirements with which AHA is in compliance are: (When the CUP was granted in 1996 all of the findings listed below were met and the proposed extension of operating hours would not nullify this compliance.) 1. Pick-up and drop-off areas shall be designed to enhance vehicular and pedestrian safety; 2. Outdoor recreational facilities designed for group activities shall be set back at least 40 feet from any lot line; 3. Buffering shall be provided to mitigate noise and adverse visual impacts on adjacent properties; and 4. Lighted playing fields shall be permitted only upon demonstration that off-site impacts can be substantially mitigated. As of July 1998, AHA has met all the requirements of the original CUP approval. $. CRITICAL ISSUES • Upon review of the Public Safety records it was noted that the following calls were recorded: • In 2002: 9/28/02 (Noise complaint-PA system too loud) 9/19/02 (Noise complaint-loud music) 9/9/02 (Noise complaint-no dispatch comments) • In 2003: 6/15/03 (Noise complaint-no dispatch comments) In 2004: 8/14/04 (Noise complaint-loud music from field) 7/17/04 (Noise complaint-no dispatch comments) There are not any restrictions imposed by the city on hours and use of the PA system at Richfield High School (7001 Harriet Avenue) according to the official zoning files for this properly. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION • Date of Action: January 10, 2005 • Subject of Vote: Recommendation an amendment to the CUP for Holy Angels Academy at 6600 Nicollet Avenue to allow for an extension in the Seasonal Sports Facility hours • Vote: 8-0 with no stipulations: • Comments: Four people spoke in favor of the extension of the dome hours. • No one spoke against the request for the extension of dome hours. Staff did not receive any calls regarding the petition. • Public Notice: Planning Commission -Sun Current published notice December 23, 2004. City Council -Sun Current published notice January 27, 2005. • Mailed Notices: Sent to properties within the surrounding 350 feet. (62 single- family residential properties, 1two-family residential property, and 4 multi- residential properties, 14 general commercial properties, and 17 planned general commercial unit development properties where sent mailed notices) • 60 Day Clock: Start: December 13, 2004 Extension Received: N/A Deadline: February 11, 2005 V. ALTERNATIVE RECOMIVIENDATION(S • Deny the requested amendment to the CUP to allow an extension of dome hours at 6600 Nicollet Avenue. • Approve the requested amendment to the CUP to allow for the extension of dome hours at 6600 Nicollet Avenue with stipulations.- . Provide for extended hours Friday through Sunday only. VI. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Zoning and Land Use map • Letter sent to surrounding properties by Holy Angels • Site Plan VII. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Dr. Jill Reilly, Academy of Holy Angels, applicant RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6600 Nicollet Avenue WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for a private high school on land generally located at 6600 Nicollet Avenue, legally described as: The north 'h of the northeast'/4 of the southwest'/4 of section 27, township 28, range 24, excluding roads and excluding the west 25 feet thereof. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield has recommended approval of this requested amendment to a Conditional Use Permit at 6600 Nicollet Avenue at its January 10, 2005 meeting; and WHEREAS, this requested amendment to a Conditional Use Permit at 6600 Nicollet Avenue meets those requirements necessary for issuing a CUP as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, section 546.05, subd.6; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. An amendment to the Conditional Use Permit is issued for the expansion of the Seasonal Sports Facility (Starpome) hours to 12:30 a.m. daily at a private high school, as described in City Staff Report , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. The amended .Conditional Use Permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the amended Conditional Use Permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of February, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 020805AmendCUPHoIyAngels AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS FEBRUARY 8, 2005 ZONING WITHIN 350 FEET PG2 G2 PC-2 G2 PC-2 PC-2 C-2 C-2 PC-2 R PC-2 C-2 PC_2 w z R R w a R F, R R Z ~ R w R R ~ R R a z R R R C7 R R R R R R R R R R R R R C-2 PC-2 66TH STREET C-2 HOLY ANGELS R R R R-2 R R R R R R R R R-2 R R R R-2 MR_2 R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 6 8TH R R STREET R R R MR-1 R R R MR-1 R R R MR-1 R R R MR-1 C-2 C-2 G2 C-2 C-2 C-2 G C-2 ~' C-2 - R C-2 R C-2 R R R G2 R R R R R R R R R R R R R MR-1 z R R R w R R R ~ R R R ~ R ~ R J U R Z ¢ R R R ~ R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R ZONING SYMBOLS C-2 =GENERAL COMMERCIAL MR-1 =TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MR-2 =MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY PC-2 =PLANNED GENERAL COMMERCIAL R =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL I 0 112.5 225 450 675 900 Feet ~I AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS FEBRUARY 8, 2005 LAND USES WITHIN 350 FEET COM COM COM COM ~$' COM ~ O ^~ 66TH STREET COM COM COM ACADEMY OF '' HOLY ANGELS Res REs SCHOOL RES RES Q' RES pFLX ~ w Q w -- a j Z ~ CHURCH CHURCH ~ ~ ~ ~\~ w d ~ ~, Z APT RES RES RES RES RES ~ RES APT RES RES RES RES RES RES .RES RES RES APT ppU( RES RES RES R RES 68TH STREET LAND USE SYMBOLS APT=APARTMENT BUILDING COM=COMMERCIAL DPLX=TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RES=SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 0 115 230 460 690 920 N Feet ~~ ~--~_ ~~~ A C A D E M Y O F HOLY *ANGELS December 16, 2004 Dear Richfield Neighbor, Based upon requests from local adult recreational groups, the Academy of Holy Angels has asked the Richfield City Council for permission to increase operations of our Starpome facility by one hour. We invite you to attend a Richfield City Planning Commission meeting on Monday, Jan.10 at 7 p.m. at City Hall (67th and Portland) where this will be discussed. As you may know, a large number of community youth groups and adult recreational groups rent the Starpome during the day and evening. Currently, community youth groups utilize the Starpome until 9 p.m., followed by adult recreational groups. Some adult recreational groups have asked Holy Angels to extend the closing time from 11 p.m. to midnight when the Dome is inflated in order to have a large enough block of time to include all those who wish to play and to meet the needs of these organizations. The number of people using the Starpome is not expected to increase during the additional hour, and traffic and noise levels are expected to remain the same. Holy Angels has adequate parking to honor this request and provides adult supervisory staff until closing. We also have replaced lights on the Starpome so there is even less light reflecting from the Dome in the evening. In the recent past, Richfield Police Chief Dan Scott has reported no complaints about the Starpome or its operation while the Starpome is inflated. If you have any questions or concerns about this request, please contact Starpome Manager Greg Trebil at (612) 798-2626 or gtrebilQahastars.org or me at (612) 798-2611 or jreilly@ahastars.org. Sincerely, . %~J ~• Jill M. Reilly, Ed.D. President 6600 Nicollet Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 4 PLEASANT AVENUESO. -- -- -- S -- E g C M x ~ ~ ~ -- -- pp QQO ~ Q ~ ""Q o n ~ C) ~~ Q ~~~ X- X_ X_ X_ X. x._ x- X- X- X~ X_ X_ X- x._ x- x- x- ----- x x -- I ------------ I x I------- I I I I I x x I I I~ I I x I I I ~i x I ~ I I ~ I I I I ~ I p I x I o I I x I ~ 1 I I m x I I I i i I I I _ _______- i ------- - x x I X _ X ~ X - % J X x IO x ~ X _ X ' X O X -~ Q C~ ~ .... ~ 0 T~ r 1111111111111111 v~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII t~J r 1 -N O O Y ,~ ~~ D m o :o ~, A O 0 ~Cc~.~~aA a~~ z~ ~~ N ~ A. ~ ~$~~ 00 e "'a'' d O w~ ~° r Kok °°~~x I' III I I~ I' I~ ~~i Q O a ~ O - ,__- ~~ r'~ I n z i ~ _- O ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~r ~ i ~-- ~ _ i Y ~ ~ ~ Z - I ~ ~ Q I ~ Z c ~iI z m r ~ m$ I I ~ ~a _ -- • ~ ` I I m i~. 'N ~ t f..!Sy I I ~ d ~ , I ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ O x:~~ ~ . i o ~ ~ , __ -_ ~i 4 I ~ C ~ I ~ I ~ Z 0 1 --3 t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I b i .I - -. ~.~ ~ I i O H _. ~ ~ ~ ®~~ xi 1aJ -,-_ O o a -,_ - ~`` 'ooo _ _ ooo~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ o .. o • 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~' 0 o o 0 ~ a ~ a 0 0 0 0 0 © 0 o 0 o • ' o '~ ® ° ° ~ ~ ° ° ®®. 0 0 0 0 0 I ,~ oo ® ~ o ® o I ~ b---- -- -- -- __ -- -~ ~ ~, NICOLLET AVENUE ~~ -. AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 33 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. N/A AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A STEVEN L. DEVICH REPORT PREPARED BY: ACTING CITY MANAGER Nance TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of second reading of the proposed ordinance modifying the gas franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy for providing gas service within the City of Richfield and consideration of resolution authorizin summa ublication of the ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve second reading of the attached ordinance modifying the gas franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy for providing gas service within the City of Richfield, and • Approve the attached resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance. II BACKGROUND At the December 16, 2003 City Counal Meeting, the City Council held a public hearing and adopted a Gas Franchise Fee Ordinance for implementation in early 2004. The franchise ordinance included a fee schedule that incorporated several classifications of properties and the corresponding monthly fee per meter. The fees ranged from the lowest fee per meter, established for residential property at a monthly meter charge of $1.45 to LVDF (Large Volume-Dual Fuel) customers at a monthly meter charge of $10. 0208centerPoint During the 2005 budget preparation process, ohich took place in the late summer and fall of 2004, the City Council included a 10 /o franchise fee increase as part of the 2005 revenue package. This amounted to a 15 cent per month increase on each residential meter and up to a $1 per month increase on the LVDF classification. The City Manager then notified the gas utility, CenterPoint Energy, of the intended franchise fee increase. In accordance with the franchise agreement, the gas company accepted the fee increase and agreed to implement the fee increase commencing January 1, 2005. As a formality, the Cit{ ou rhean amendment to the Fratnchise Ordinagce.o the fee schedule be adopted g First reed ngthe R chf eld Sun Current o~OJanuary 27,12005 ring notice was publish The attached resolution approving the summary publication of the ordinance must be approved unanimously by Council. OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The dedicated funds generated from franchise fees provide a reliable funding source for the important infrastructure elements of streets, buildings and trees. Franchise fees are reviewed annually for potential periodic adjustment. $. CRITICAL ISSUES A franchise fee increase was included as a part of the 2005 budget and accepted by the gas company pursuant to the franchise agreement. The fee increase was noticed and implemented by the gas company commencing with the January 2005 billing. C. FINANCIAL The cumulative annual fees generated by the 10% increase amount to between $40,000 and $50,000. These additional fees are a necessary part of the 2005 budget D. LEGAL -The City Attorney. has recommended that the City formally adopt the fee schedule increase by amending the Gas Franchise ordinance. ALTERNATIVE KECOMMr;NI None, as the fee sche Franchise Ordinance. TTACHMENTS finance. Resolution. Letter dated September 16, 2004. CIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT luo d be memorialized through the ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE iral)T i'ARL'1lTTi1`Tf' MODIFYING THE GAS FRANCHISE FEE ON CENTERPOINT ENERGY==`T"T,=.uanp~ FOR PROVIDING GAS SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Richfield Munici as follows:ppendix E is hereby amended ~~-~e .., ~._.. _~--- ~ --o Subdivision 1. Pur ose. The Richfield City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services within the City of Richfield. fee ~ ----(-aj--Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2003-10, a Franchise Agreement between the City and CenterPoint Energy ~~~ ,,, ~""'`~ ~,~~1"CenterPoint"), the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on '~ nterPoint in an agreed upon amount and fee design, as set forth in Section 6.1 of the ~CQnterPoint Franchise. Subd. 2. on part of tnis oramance, cuiiuii~ 2.9942005 billing month. The Minnegasco for its use of Public franchise b~~~~r'pnterPoint under its lias rrancrose iended fee schedule .attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a .r ~''PnterPoint's Janua ~ acing with the ~=T franchise fee is in lieu of all permit fees otherwise paid by Ways and Public Ground in the. City. Subd. 3. Payment. The said franchise fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with the terms set forth as follows. The franchise fee shall be payable quarterly and shall be based on the complete billing months during the period for which payment is to be made. The payment shall be due the last business day of the month following the period for which the payment is made. The fee may be changed by ordinance from time to time, however each change shall meet the same notice requirements and may not occur more often than annually. Such fee shall not exceed any amount, which the Company may legally charge to its customers prior to payment to the City by imposing a surcharge equivalent to such fee in its rates for Gas service. The Company may pay the City the fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account for uncollectibles or customer refunds. The time and manner of collecting the franchise fee is subject to approval of the Public Utilities Commission, which the Company agrees to use best efforts to obtain. The Company agrees to make its records available for inspection by the City at reasonable times, provided that the City and its designated representative agree in wrrtmg not to disclose any information that is not public data which would indicate the amount paid by any identifiable customer or any other information regarding specific customers. Subd. 4. Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission allows the utility company to add a suT~harge to crept rPoint wille urcharge it utility company for the cost of the fee and that ~-- customers in the City the amount of the fee. Subd. 5. Record Sunuort for Payment. Z p.~a[`PnterPoint shall make each payment when due and, if requested by the City, shall provide at the time of each payment a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to account for any uncollectibles, refunds or error corrections. Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.5 the Franchise Agreement. Subd. 7. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. Notwithstanding the effective date of this ordinance and notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the Franchise, the effective date of the fee collected under Subdivision 2 of this ordinance is .the later of ten (10) days after the publication or after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted ordinance upon ~,q~..enterPoint by certified mail. It has been agreed to in advance by enterPoint will abide by the ~, ' nterPoi s representatives that ~„Qeg~' provisions of this Subdivision 7, provided fee collection will not commence before the later of the Company billing month set forth in subdivision 2 or the first billing month commencing 20 days after the. foregoing effective date of the franchise fee. Subd. 8. Fee_ Re_ The City Council shall begin a review of this Ordinance by June 30, 2008 to determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to continue the fee in its current form, no Council action is necessary. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to terminate or modify the fee, the Council shall give =;~;~enterPoint at least sixty (60) days written notice pnor to the proposed change. Subject to the City's rights under Minnesota law, the City shall obtain the consent of ~e4~g~=~-=`"enterPoint to any proposed increase in the fee but may unilaterally decrease or terminate the fee. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein. Read by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of , ~3-2005. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of ~9A~-2 5 Martin Kirsch, Mayor Steven L. Devich, Acting City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk EXHIBIT A ENTERPOINT GAS FRANCHISE FEE SCHEDULE Fee Per Meter Class $~~ Residential $ S~ Comm-A ~~~ Comm/Ind-B $~A9 11v_ Comm/Ind-C $x&99 11 SVDF-A $~~~' SVDF-B $~-~ LVDF Franchise fees are to be collected by the Utiis as follows ounts set forth in the above schedule, and submitted to the City on a quarterly bas January -March collections due by Apri130. April -June collections due by July 31. July -September collections due by October 31. October -December collections due by January 31. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO APPE TO THE FRANCHISE ORDI ANCE ODE WHICH PERTAINS WHEREAS, The City of Richfield has adopted the above referenced ordinance, amending Appendix E to the Richfield City Code, and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. AN ORDY OR PROVDIDING GAS SERVICE WNTHIN THE CITI(OF RICHFIE D ENERG The purpose of this ordinance amendment is to impose a franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy under its Gas Franchise Agreement commencing with the CenterPoint Energy's January 2005 billing month. The franchise fee is in lieu of all permit fees otherwise paid by CenterPoint Energy for its use of Public Ways and Public Grounds in the City. Fee Schedule Class Fee Per Meter 60 1 Residential - . 60 $1 A Comm Comm/Ind-B . $4.95 Comm/Ind-C $11.00 SVDF-A $11.00 00 $11 SVDF-B . 00 1 $1 LVDF . . Franchise fees are to be collected by the utility and submitted to the City on a quarterly basis. The utility may surcharge the fees to its customers as permitted by law. The City will review the ordinance by June 20, 2008 to determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the Public Works Department during normal business hours or upon request by calling Mike Eastling, Director of Public Works at 612-861-9792. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of February 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ,~~ -.> . ~ii~^i MAYOR MARTIN J. KIRSCr CITY COUNCIL JOHN ENGER SUSAN ROSENBERG SUZANNE M.SANDAHL GERTRUDE ULRICH CITY MANAGER SA~btANTHA ORDUNO City Manager's Office September 16, 2004 Ms. Connie Hargast CenterPoint/Minnegasco 800 LaSalle Minneapolis, MN 55402 Subject: 2005 Franchise Fee Increase Dear Connie: Hello, Connie. I hope your day is going well. Thank you for clarifying today that a formal resolution is not needed to increase the franchise fees. This letter will confirm our earlier conversation regarding the City Council's request to CenterPoint/Minnegasco that franchise fees on natural gas meters throug!'?~~!t th° Ci!y i^.~~~s~~ h;, ~n%, effective January 1, 2005. On September 6, 2004, the Richfield City Council certified the 2005 tax levy. As part of the 2005 City budget, the Council has approved a 10% increase in the franchise fee for 2005. This translates into a 15-cent increase per month on residential meters. Thank you, Connie, for all your help with this matter. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Warme 1Regards, . ,~l~i~. Samanth O uno City M ager SO:cak Copy: Richfield City Council Administrative Services Director .finance Manager Tltc~ Ci'rGcrn Honic~to>•t•it 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE. RICHFIELD. MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749 www.ci.ncnlielA.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # 8 REPORT # 32 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 ~~e~ Related to: AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) No N/A CITY COUNCrt, GOAL(S) No. N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH ACTING CITY MANAGER ]NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY t MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of second reading of the proposed ordinance modifying the electric franchise fee on Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy for providing electric service within the City of Richfield and consideration of the resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of-the attached ordinance modifying the electric franchise fee on Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy for providing electric service within the City of Richfield, and Approve the attached resolution authorizing summary publication • of the ordinance. II BACKGROUND ~ At the December 16, 2003 City Council Meeting, the City Council held a public hearing and adopted a Electric Franchise Fee Ordinance for implementation in early 2004. The franchise ordinance included a fee schedule that incorporated several classifications of properties and the corresponding monthly fee per meter. The fees ranged from the lowest fee per meter, established for residential property at a monthly meter charge of $-1.45 to large commercial and industrial customers at a monthly meter charge of $65. 0208Xcel Energy During the 2005 budget preparation process, which took place in the late summer and fall of 2004, the City Council included a 10% franchise fee increase as part of the 2005 revenue package. This amounted to a 15 cent per month increase on each residential meter and up to a $6.50 per month increase on the large commercial and industrial classification. The City Manager then notified the electric utility, Xcel Energy, of the intended franchise fee ~feeencrease and ag eed twoithmplement the feet ncreastethe electric company accepted the commenting January 1, 2005. As a formality, the City Attorney has recommended that the new change to the fee schedule be adopted through an amendment to the Franchise Ordinance. First reading of the a Richfield Sun CudrrentJon January 27~2005he public hearing notice was published in th The attached resolution approving the summary publication of the ordinance must be approved unanimously by Countil. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION YUL1C; Y ' The dedicated funds generated from franchise fees provide a reliable funding source for the important infrastructure elements of streets, buildings and trees. Franchise fees are reviewed annually for potential periodic adjustment. 1.,K1111;AL la~u~~ A franchise fee increase was included as a part of the 2005 budget and accepted by the electric company pursuant to the franchise agreement. The fee increase was noticed and implemented by the electric company commencing with the January 2005 billing. r iNti~~~.,~~, The cumulative annual fees generated by the 10% increase amount to between $40,000 and $50,000. These additional fees are a necessary part of the 2005 budget U Lr;CiAL ' The City Attorney has recommended that the City formally adopt the fee schedule increase by amending the Electric Franchise ordinance. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ None, as the fee schedule change should be memorialized through the Franchise Ordinance. TTACHMENTS Hance. Resolution. Letter dated September 16, 2004. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT one. ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE 71'fD7 r~.~r~~T~''7N`~- ~~~ODIFYING TH ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER DB/A XCEL ENERGY FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Richfield Municipal Cl de Appendix E is hereby amended ~~ Subdivision 1. Pur ose. The Richfield City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise feeof Richfieldublic utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services wrthm the City ~ --{~}-Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 1987-27, a Franchise Agreement between the City and Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy, the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on Xcel Energy in amount and fee des~gn° ,,,asp authorized in Section 9.1 of the Xcel Energy Franchise i~P~ its right to impose a ( 1 Pursuant to Citv Ordinance 2003 25 the Citv exerc , z `L u franch,Cp fep on Xcel Energy This include the right to m • ~•+h +-,p consent of Xcel Ener~v a n Ener~y has consented. Subd. 2. Franchise Fee Statement. ~4Pur~~^~.,t t~ ordinance 2003-2_ ,the franchise a fee ~~-imposed on Xcel Energy under its Electric Franchise ~- ~---- hereby amended The amended fee schedule attached hereto and made a part of this ~9A4~Q~ billing month. ordinance, commencing with the Xcel Energy's Janua ~ Subd. 3. Payment and Fee Design. The franchise fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with the terms set forth in Section 9.3 of the Franchise. This fee is an account-based fee on each premise and not ameter-based fee. In the event that an entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter at a single premise, but only one account, only one fee shall be assessed to that account. If a premise has two or more meters being billed at different rates, the Company may have an account for each rate classification, which will result in more than one franchise fee assessment for electric service to that premise. If the Company combines the rate classifications into a single account, the franchise fee assessed to the account will be the largest franchise fee applicable to a single rate classification for energy delivered to that premise. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one premise, each premise (address) shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question arises as to the proper fee amount for any premise, the Company's manner of billing for energy used at all similar premises in the city will control. Subd. 4. Sur_ c= The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission allows the utility company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse such utility company for the cost of the fee and that Xcel Energy will surcharge its customers in the City the amount of the fee. Subd. 5. Record Sunaort for Payment. at then time sof 1 each paymenta an st t ment due and, if requested by the City, shall provide summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to account for any uncollectibles, refunds or error corrections. Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.5 the Franchise Agreement. Subd. 7. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. Notwithstanding the effective date of this ordinance and notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the Franchise, the effective date of the fee collected under Subdivision 2 of this ordinance is the later of ten (10) days after the publication or after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted ordinance upon Xcel Energy by certified mail. It has been agreed to in advance by Xcel Energy's representatives that Xcel Energy will abide by the provisions of this Subdivision 7, provided fee collection will not commence before the later of the Company billing month set forth in subdivision 2 or the .first billing month commencing 20 days after the foregoing effective date of the franchise fee. Subd. 8. Fee~e~'v• The City Council shall begin a review of this Ordinance by June 30, 2006 to determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to continue the fee in its current form, no Council action is necessary. If the Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to terminate or modify the fee, the Council shall give Xcel at least sixty (60) days written notice prior to the proposed change. Subject to the City's rights under Minnesota law, the City shall obtain the consent of Xcel to any proposed increase in the fee but may unilaterally decrease or terminate the fee. SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein. Read by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of ~'~_ Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of ~~:2005• Martin Kirsch, Mayor Steven L. Devich, Acting City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk EXHIBIT A XCEL ENERGY ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE SCHEDULE Class Fee Per Meter Residential Sm C & I -Non-Dem Sm C & I -Demand Large C & I $~4~. 1 60 $4-~$ 4.95 $~-A-A~ 11 00 $5-89 71 50 Franchise fees are to be collected by the Utility in the amounts set forth in the above schedule, and submitted to the City on a quarterly basis as follows: January -March collections due by April 30. April -June collections due by July 31. July -September collections due by October 31. October -December collections due by January 31. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX E OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO THE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE WHEREAS, The City of Richfield has adopted the above referenced ordinance, amending Appendix E to the Richfield City Code, and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE la R oSOdL of offcyal publication ncil of the City of Richfield, that the following summary is hereby pp SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE PROVID NG ELECTRSC SERVICE W TH N THE CITI( OF POWER DIBIA XCEL ENERGY FOR RICHFIELD The purpose of this ordin undeaits E ectric Franch see Agreement commencing w thrthe Xcel Power d/b/a Xcel Energy Energy's January 2005 billing month. FEE SCHEDULE Class Fee Per Meter Residential 1.60 Sm C & I -Non-Dem $4.95 Sm C & I -Demand $11.00 Large C & I $71.50 Franchise fees are to be collected by the utility and submitted to the City on a quarterly basis. The utility may surcharge the fees ttermine whether to cont nu~eeterminate or modify the f~eereview the ordinance by June 20, 2008 to de Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the Public Works Department during normal business hours or upon request by calling Mike Eastling, Director of Public Works at 612- 861-9792. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of February 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk h City Manager's Office ti _: September 16, 2004 Pat Cline ~ _ Xcel Energy 5309 West 70th Street Edina, MN 55439 MAYOR Subject: 2005 Franchise Fee Increase h1ARTIN J. KIRSCH CITY COUNCIL Dear Pat: JOHN ENGER SUSAN ROSENBERG Hello, Pat. I hope your day is going well. I received your voice-mail message yesterday - suzANNE M. sANDAHL thank you for getting back to me. I understand that you are researching if a resolution is GERTRUDE ULRICH needed to request an increase in the electric franchise fee to the City of Richfield. Just as an CITY MANAGER FYI, Connie Hargast at CenterPoint/Minnegasco researched the same issue and today SAtiIANTHA ORDUNO confirmed that her research indicated that a letter is sufficient. ' I am sensitive to the timeline you have for informing your customers, especially the large users, so 1 wanted you to receive a formal letter as soon as possible. If your research determines that a resolution is also required; please let me know and the City will get that process moving as quickly as possible. On September 6, 2004, the- Richfield City Council certified the 2005 tax levy. As part of the 2005 City budget, the Council approved a 10% increase in the electric franchise fee for 2005. This translates into a 15-cent increase per month on residential meters. This letter will confirm the City of Richfield's request to Xcel Energy that franchise fees on electric meters throughout the City increase by 10%, effective January 1, 2005. Thank you, Pat, for all' your help with this matter. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Warmest Regards, a Orduno City Manager SO:cak Copy: Richfield City Council Administrative Services Director Finance Manager The L'rhnrt Hvntetolrn 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.970.0 FAX: 612.861.9749 www.ci.tichfieltl.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # 7 REPORT # 31 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. N/A AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: JOHN STARK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY ACTING CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading regarding an ordinance calling for the establishment of a one year moratorium on the development of certain properties in the I-494 corridor that are ataided for regional commercial/office uses. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve second reading of an ordinance establishing a one year moratorium on the development of certain properties in the 1-494 Corridor that are guided for regional commercial/office uses. • Approve resolution for the summary publication of the ordinance. 020805 494 Moratorium II BACKGROUND ---J The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Richfield designates a number of properties between 77th Street-and Interstate Highway 494 (the 1-494 Corridor) as Regional Commercial/Office (C-R). The Comprehensive Plan states that properties that are designated as C-R should be "visible and accessible from major regional roads and highways or adjacent to regional centers like Southdale. A regional complex has more than 150,000 square feet of retail space and includes a variety of goods and services..." The C-R designation is further described as attracting customers from the metropolitan region rather than just within the immediate community. The properties designated as C-R in the Comprehensive Plan which are located within the 1-494 Corridor are classified as either General Commercial (C-2), High Density Commercial (C-3), Industrial (I) or Planned General Commercial (PC-2) in the Richfield Zoning Ordinance. Contrary to the C-R Comprehensd'~oe do not adequately regueatel development to zoning districts m the 1-494 Corr be in conformance with the expressly stated goals and intents of the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, current plans for future improvements to 1-494 and changes in access to 1-494 will occur that will have significant impacts on the land uses in the 1-494 Corridor. In order to ensure that future deveian andtis complement'ry withgplanned provided by the Comprehensive P changes to 1-494, staff is recommending a moratorium on new construction or major additions to properties designated as Regional Commercial/Office within the 1-494 Corridor. This proposed moratorium would prohibit the issuance of a building permit for new construction and the issuance of a building permit for additions exceeding 500 square feet in size. The moratorium would not affect properties in the 1-494 Corridor that have Comprehensive Plan designation dinancehwa held onlJanuary 25, 2005.e A first reading of the proposed Or Mailed notices were sent to affected property owners and tenants on January 31, 2005. A notice of the public meeting was published in the Richfield Sun-Current on February 3, 2005. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The Comprehensive Plan is meant as a guide for directing growth and development in Richfield. Section 506.03 of Richfield's Zoning Ordinance states as its foremost purpose, "to assist in the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan." .The Regional Commercial/Office (C-R) designation in the Comprehensive Plan describes uses of a regional nature and of a large-scale size. The properties designated as C-R in the Comprehensive Plan which are located within the I-494 Corridor are classified as either General Commercial (C-2), High Density Commercial (C-3), Industrial (I) or Planned General Commercial (PC-2) in the Richfield Zoning .Ordinance. Contrary to the C-R Comprehensive Plan designation, the regulations for noted zoning districts in the I-494 Corridor do not adequately regulate development to be in conformance with the expressly stated goals and intents of the Comprehensive Plan. Development could occur in this area that satisfies the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, but does not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. A planning study is recommended in order to ensure that planning tools (such as the Zoning. Ordinance) correctly regulate land uses in the area to conform with the Comprehensive Plan. In order to prevent future development that does not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and may ultimately become legally non- conforming uses upon a potential change in zoning classification, a moratorium on new construction and major additions is proposed while this planning study is conducted. A first reading of the proposed Ordinance was held on January 25, 2005. Mailed notices were sent to affected property owners and tenants on January 31, 2005. A notice of the public meeting was published in the Richfield Sun- Current on February 3, 2005. The City Council on January 25, 2005 adopted a resolution establishing a one year moratorium. To fully effectuate the moratorium an ordinance must also be in place. B. CRITICAL ISSUES There is a potential for the submittal of zoning or building permit applications which do not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and may ultimately become legally non-conforming uses upon a potential change in zoning classification. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL Richfield legal counsel drafted the attached resolution for a summary publication and ordinance. Legal counsel has advised that this proposed ordinance does not require a public hearing. In order to be consistent with past actions, however, staff is recommending that public testimony be taken in consideration of the proposed ordinance. A one year moratorium was established by resolution on January 25, 2005. However, it must also be enacted by ordinance. IV ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ Do not approve the proposed Ordinance. Approve the proposed Ordinance with modifications. V ATTACHMENTS I A proposed Ordinance establishing a one year moratorium on the development of certain properties in the I-494 corridor that are guided for regional commercial/office uses. Map depicting moratorium area. Resolution approving summary publication of the ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Legal counsel ORDINANCE NO. _____ ~ OTORIUM ON THE ADEVELOPMENT OF CERT~ MORA PROPERTIES IN THE 1-494 CORRIDOR THAT ARE GUIDE DIRECTINGGI HAT A~ PLANNI NGO S UDY SBE AND CONDUCTED THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Badc_around• 1.01. The Richfield Comh ~ nfor R Iaona9Comm0erciaVOffice use hensive Plan") designates certain areas within t ity eg 1.02. The Comprehensive Plan provides that Regional Commercial sites are intended to be visible and accessible from major regional roads and highways and specifically identifies the 1-494 corridor as having "the most potential for new regional commercial development in Richfield." 1.03. The Comprehensive Plan states that Regional Commercial sites should have more than 150,000 square feet of retail space and to include a variety of goods and services that would attract customers from a sector of the metropolitan area. 1.04. The Comprehensive Plan contemplates that office uses would be mixed with commercial uses over the entire length of the t~94 corridor. 1.05. Volume T a ~ encoura a concentration of high-density development along guiding. principle the nee 9 transit routes. 1.06. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the 1-494 Corridor sub-areas, including 1494 Corridor (East), the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet area (ILN) and the 1-494 Corridor (West), are highly desirable commercial locations and are the most appropriate areas for higher density development that maximizes the potential tax base for the City. 1.07. With limited exceptions for longstanding existing uses, the Comprehensive Plan designates almost the entire 1-494 Corridor through the City of Richfield for high dens"ity uses, either Regional CommerciaVOffice or Multi-Residential -High Density. 1.08. As contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan and by current plans for future improvements to 1-494, changes in access to 194 will occur that will have significant impacts on the land uses in the 1-494 Corridor. X09. The contemplated changes include the closure of interchanges to la d the both 12 Avenue and Nicollet Avenue, to be repl ~ced~aynd A enue and Lyndale~Avenue, replacement and expansion of the interchanges a to accommodate the higher traffic demands created by the other interchange closures. 1.10. The City has not developed any plans or land use studies specific to the 1- 494 Corridor area within the last five years. 1.11. The land within the 1-494 Corridor that is guided for Regional CommerciaUOffice use is presently zoned as either General Commercial C-2, High Density Commercial C-3, Industrial I, or PC-2 Planned General Commercial. 1.12. The General Commercial C-2 zoning class cation allows as a pem~iitted use shopping center uses of less than 100,000 square feet and retail, service and office uses with 50,000 square feet or lessP~ i o the Re Tonal' Commeec aUOffice an:as~andsmo~st goals of the Comprehensive 9 specifically, within the 1-494 Corridor sub-areas. 1.13. The High Density Commercial C-3 zoning classification contemplates higher density commercial development but lacks fully developed standards to guide such development. 1.14. The Industrial I zoning district allows as permitted uses a variety of light which industrial, retail and office uses with 80,000 square feet or less of gross floor area, are uses that are inconsistent with the expressly stated goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the Regional CommerciaUOffice areas, and most spec~cally, within the 1-494 Corridor sub-areas. 1.15. At the present time there is no zoning classfication that appropriately corresponds to the types of uses contemplated fo u~ devebpment~dwithin the 1-494 accordingly, the City Zoning Code does not adequately g Corridor area with respect to Regional CommerciaUOffice land uses. 1.16. Minnesota Statutes Section 473.865, subdivision 3 requires that official controls, such as zoning cod fad a tion of tenComprehe sive Plan so as not t conflict amended within rnne months op with the Comprehensive Plan. 1.17. Volume Four, Section 2.2 of the Comprehensive Plan expressed the intention to rezone specific sites for specific areas "as the opportunity presents itself'. 1.18. The expected changes to access within the 1-494 Corridor will either necessitate or will dramatically encourage continuing redevebpment within the 194 Corridor. 1.19. The City has received at least one inquiry about potential redevelopment of 2 property within the 1-494 Corridor that further evidences the need for the City to bring its official controls into conformance with its Comprehensive Plan. 1.20. The lads of an adequate and available zoning class cation that corresponds to the Regional CommerciaVOffice land use guide plan designation is a barrier to staged and orderly implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and is contrary to the fundamental precepts of orderly municipal planning. 1.21. The public interest will be harmed if piecemeal development is permitted to continue according to zoning standards that conflict with the stated goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 1.22. The City Couforl t e land in'the~ I-494~Comdoa h tk s guided for Reg oval the appropriate land uses CommerciaVOffice uses. 1.23. Upon completion of the study, the City Council, together with such city commissions as the City Council deems appropriate or as may be required by law, will consider the advisability of a onrddinance~capital~ improveme~program~ oruother official comprehensive plan, zoning controls. 1.24. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, subdivision 4 allows the City to adopt an interim ordinance for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Sec. 2. Findin s. 2.01. The City Councll finds that it is necessary to ondroct plus tha mee all of determine the appropriate land use controls that should apply p pe the following characteristics: a, The lands have a Comprehensive Plan land use guide plan designation of Regional CommerciaVOfilce; and b, The lands are I ~ the easterly ando westerVly I mits of th C ity that area lying and between 1-494 and 76~' Street; and c, The lands have a current zoning classification of General Commerdal C-2, High Density Commercial C-3, or Industrial I. 2.02. The purpose of the studies to be conducted includes, but is not limited to, determining the appropriate land use and development standards that should apply to such property and determining the appropriate changes, if any, that should be made to the City's official land use controls, including but not limited to the City's Zoning Ordinance, 3 Comprehensive Plan, and Capital Improvement Program. 2.03. The City Council finds that there is a need to adopt a moratorium ordinance for a portion of the Ciiy ("Moratorium Area"), while the studies referenced in section 2.01 of this ordinance are being conducted. The Moratorium Area includes those properties generally described in the preceding section 2.01 and shown in the attached Exhibit A. 2.04. The City Council finds that this moratorium should apply to the following types of land use applications, as more specifically described at section 3.02 below: requests for rezoning, subdivisions, conditional use permits, site plan review, and building permits. Sec. 3. Planning Study Moratorium.. 3.01. A study is authorized to be conducted by City staff, to be followed by consideration of potential changes to the city's official land use controls by the City Council and such other commissions of the City as required by law or as directed by the City Council. 3.02. Pending completion of the study and adoption of any amendments to the City's official controls, a moratorium is established on the issuance of City approvals for the properties in the Moratorium Area, as provided in this section 3.02. a. Except as provided at paragraph c of this section 3.02, no building permit may be issued (i}.for the expansion of any existing use in the Moratorium Area, where the expansion is greater than 500 square feet, or (ii) for the establishment of a new use; or (iii) for the construction of a new building. b. Except as provided at paragraph c of this section 3.02, no applications for any of the following approvals may be granted or processed during the period of the moratorium: rezoning, comprehensive land use plan amendment, subdivision or consolidation approval, variances, conditional use permits, site plan approval, changes in curb cut location, or off-street parking permits. c. The moratorium will not apply to land use applications for any development that will have a zoning class cation of Planned General Commercial PC-2 and that involves the construction of more than 150,000 square feet of retail -space as part of the development. The moratorium will not apply to building permits issued for routine maintenance or routine repairs of an existing use that do not constitute an expansion or a change in use. 3.03. During the period of the moratorium, applications for any such approvals related to property in the Moratorium Area shall not be ac9 Pled b oval of an r such the Planning Commission or City Council consider or rant app Y 4 application, except after approval of the City Council as provided in section 3.05 of this ordinance. 3.04. The moratorium established by this ordinance shall apply to any application pending as of the date of this ordinance, but if shall not apply to a subdivision or consolidation that has received preliminary plat approval prior to the adoption of Resolution No. ,nor shall the moratorium extend the timeline for acting upon an application as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99. Any application submitted to which the moratorium applies shall be denied unless the application includes a specific request that it be excepted from the moratorium, in which case the City staff shall submit the application to the City Council for consideration of granting an exception. 3.05. The City Council may approve .exceptions to this moratorium for an application if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that the approval being sought will not interfere with the purposes for which this moratorium was adopted. Sec. 4. Enforcement. The City may enforce this ordinance by mandamus, injunction or other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. Sec. 5. Term. Unless earlier repealed by the City Council, the moratorium established under this ordinance shall remain in effect until January 25, 2006. The moratorium may be extended for a reasonable time, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355. Sec. 6. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective as provided by section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Attest: Nancy C. Gibbs, City Clerk 5 W oosl 2iVa3~ ~~ ~ oosl 43at ° _ Z, cn ~~ Y oou ylLl ~- om 0091 4391 ~ ~ D m ~~ ~ 3 'tom ~ ._ ~~j~] gZ91 NOl`JNIWOOl9 ~ d ~ ~ ~~~ 0091 419E ~~ acs ~~~ o. m-~ 0041 4341 `~ ~ `~ O1 T C r ~~T{~~ U® oo£L 43EL ~ ~, a~ a o 11J.J1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O y ~ C OOZL 43ZL $ n a ~ m ~~~ > j ~ ~ d 0011 ylLl ~ ~ ~~ N ~ O O N 0001 4lOl m u' ~ G: ~ >, O N ~ O ~ ~p ~~~ OOS lOlll3 ~ a~~y.~w vl ~ N U V O ooe O`JV~IH~ ~ ° ~ °~ a ~ Q r m o H£~ ozL snawmoo oos ~lavd rmrr~rrr~r~~fT~ ozs QNV'DIVO multi ~Il i J ~ oos ONYIlZlOd 009 439 ^ _ ~T~T~1 ~ ® o0q 434 L ~ ~ 4Z£ NO1NI~~ O ooE PEE ~~ ~ o0z POZ qzt SN3n31S L 001 1S 1 '~ ~ ~ 000 13~~O~IN ++ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ os ~134S1'd18 ~ ® 001 H1NOM1N3M O ooz ,~anas-nld c L1- oos 1NbSV3ld ~ oor 4N~3`J W ~ ~ 009 131bab'H ^ - ~ ~ 00s tJ~31~bd0 00[ 3lb'4Nll 008 H~12i4~V p ^ ~ ~ (l~1Tif i l l l l ~ 006 1NVla9 (gyp m 0001 X'dd~0~ m ® ~ o. /~ • ~®~ ~ 0011 1NOdna ~ Q oozt NOS213W3 ~ ~~~~7 ) / ooEl 1NOW32ld ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~L-~/ U ~~ ~ OOgI 421V2J1`J p 0091 la-IOewnH _~ , oosl ONlnal ca i ~ oo~l s3wvr ~' o 0081 XONN c oosl NVJO~ ~ oooz N'dJ2lOW ~ ~ ~ o oosz NO1M3N N ~ oozz 2i3n1~0 0 g oosz NN3d ~ ~ ~ ~ 0072 N33nD ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ oosz T13SSnb a-°i ~ CV N oosz Nb'41a3HS ~ ~ '~ Trn n r rrrrn~ morn 0 (j p b RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF BILL NO. WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced ordinance; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the ordinance is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A ONE YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE I-494 CORRIDOR THAT ARE GUIDED FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL/OFFICE USES AND DIRECTING THAT A PLANNING STUDY BE CONDUCTED On February 8, 2005, the Richfield City Council adopted an ordinance designated as Bill No. ,the title of which is stated above. This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The ordinance establishes a moratorium on the development of properties that are: (1) located between I-494 and 76tH Street; (2) guided for Regional Commercial/Office uses; and (3) currently zoned for. General Commercial C-2, High Density Commercial C-3 or Industrial I. The ordinance also directs that a planning study be conducted to determine the appropriate land uses and development standards for properties in the I-494 Corridor and that appropriate amendments be made to the City's official controls upon completion of the study. The following land.. use applications are excepted from the moratorium: a buildin expansions of 500 square feet or less; b () 9 permits for maintenance or repairs that do not constitute an expansion onr cchange in use,• (c) applications for development of 150,000 square feet or more of retail space on property zoned or to be zoned Planned Commercial PC-2. Applications for exceptions from the moratorium may be made to the City Council. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk during normal business hours or upon request by calling 612-861-9760 of the Community Development Division. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at City Hall for public inspection and to post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place in the City for a period of two weeks. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of February, 2005. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 012505 494 Moratorium RICHFfELD Related to: AGENDA SECTION: public Hearin G AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # 30 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: o' REVIEWED BY ACTING CITY MANAGER: a1vD/oR RICI~IELD 2020 GOAL(s) NO N/A BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER Na,~ TITLE Public hearing and secondEeadingRregaOrdL ing an ordOinancneE~TION: expansion or new construction/development or other land use changes whi erlstudying alnd g tanning improvements to the intersection at 66th Street and Portland Avenue. I• RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve a second reading of an ordinance; establishing a one year moratorium on the development of certain properties at the intersection , of 66th Street and Portland Avenue and directing that a planing study be conducted. • Approve resolution for the summa publication of the ordinance. II. 020805 66th Street Moratorium BACKGROUND The city is studying intersection and roadway design alternatives to address safe and congestion issues. Adjacent land use impacts will. also be evaluated. On ~ December 14, 2004 the City Council conducted a first reading of an ordinance providing cone-year moratorium on new development, expansion or other land use changes for the referenced area. Routine maintenance and repair of property would not be restricted. Also, the Transportation Committee is actively discussing alternative design options and establishing goats and objectives as the basis for intersection improvements. Meetings in December 2004 and January 2005 have been productive and property owners impacted by the moratorium have been actively involved. A moratorium would remain effective until December, 2005. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A public hearing has been scheduled for February 8 on this matter. • One of the City Council goals for 2004 was to initiate the process to make improvements at 66th Street and Portland Avenue and utilize available funding. • Congestion, crashes, and functional failure of the intersection is occurring on a regular basis. • Hennepin County has an interest in making improvements and has committed $2 million. • Improvements are included in the 2005 and 2006 Capital Improvement Budget for the City and County. • A moratorium is used by the City Council on those occasions when necessary controls are put in place while plans and land use implications are studied. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • $1.88 million of federal dollars received through the Metropolitan Council has been secured for this right-of--way improvement project. However, planning has to be completed this year or the funds will be lost. • Making improvements such as dedicated left tum lanes, removal of cut-through driveways, the addition of sufficient space for bus riders to safely wait, and safer pedestrian movements has proven successful in other city locations. There is a concern that adjacent property owners will be impacted, and changes to land uses prior to the completion of a study would be detrimental. C. FINANCIAL • Multiple funding sources are secured or anticipated. • The amount of local resources needed will continue to be studied based on the approved scope of the project. • Hennepin County recently committed $40,000 for the land-use planning study. D• LEGAL • Legal counsel has prepared the ordinance. • Public notice of the. public hearing has been published. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do nothing, allowing the intersection to remain a safety and congestion concern. Physical changes to the intersection are required to improve the safety and function. V• ATTACHMENTS .Ordinance • Map depicting moratorium area • Resolution approving summary publication of the ordinance. VI• PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING l • Property owners within the moratorium area. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A ONE YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE INTERSECTION OF 66TM STREET AND PORTLAND AVENUE AND DIRECTING THAT A PLANNING STUDY BE CONDUCTED THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The intersection of 66~' Street and Portland Avenue in the City of Richfield is rated first in Hennepin County's crash ranking of all suburban intersections in Hennepin County, based on the rate of vehicular accidents, the number of vehicular accidents, and the severity cost of vehicular accidents that have occurred at that intersection over the past three years. 1.02. The .City has included the reconstruction of the 66~' Street and Portland Avenue intersection in its 2001-2005 Capital Improvement Program. 1.03. The City has qualified for a grant of $1.8 million in federal SurFace Transportation Program (STP) funds, to be administered through the Metropolitan Council, for the reconstruction of the intersection. 1.04. A condition of the grant of funds is that the reconstruction project have an approved environmental document, a plan that has been determined to be eligible for federal funds and proof that title and possession of right of way can be achieved within 90 days of September 30, 2006. 1.05. The reconstruction of the 66"' Street and Portland Avenue intersection wilt require additional right of way from one or more properties abutting that intersection, and the taking of that right of way will result in remnant parcels. 1.06. The City Council has determined a need to undertake a study to determine the appropriate land uses for the land in the immediate vicinity of the intersection, including but not limited to the appropriate integration of land uses and transportation infrastructure; 1.07. Upon completion of the study, the City Council, together with such city commissions as the City Council deems appropriate or as may be required by law, will consider the advisability of amending certain official controls, which may include the City's comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, capital improvement program or other official controls. 1.08 In order to protect the planning process, the City Council has determined that no development or other land use changes should occur until the study process is complete. 1.09 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, subdivision 4 allows the City to adopt an interim ordinance for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Sec. 2. Findings. 2.01. The City Council finds that it is necessary to conduct planning studies to determine the appropriate land use controls that should apply to properties in the vicinity of the intersection of 66~' Street and Portland Avenue. The purpose of the studies includes, but is not limited to, determining the appropriate land use and development standards that should apply to such property and determining the appropriate changes, if any, that should be made to the City's official land use controls, including but not limited to the City's Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and Capital Improvement Program. 2.02.. The City Council finds that there is a need to adopt a moratorium ordinance for a portion of the City ("Moratorium Area"), while the studies referenced in subsection 3.01 of this ordinance are being conducted. The Moratorium Area includes those properties identified and shown in the attached Exhibit A. 2.03. The City Council finds that this moratorium should apply to all land use and traffic-related applications affecting properties within the Moratorium Area, including, but not necessarily limited to, requests for rezoning, subdivisions, variances, conditional uses, site plan review, changes in curb cut location, and off-street parking, as well as building permits for the expansion of any existing use or the establishment of a different use than the existing use. Sec. 3. Planning Study Moratorium 3.01. A study is authorized to be conducted by City staff, to be followed by consideration of potential changes to the city's official land use controls by the City Council and such other commissions of the City as required by law or as directed by the City Council 3.02. Pending completion of the study and adoption of any amendments to the City's official controls, a moratorium is established on the issuance of City approvals for the properties in the Moratorium Area, as provided in this paragraph. No building permit may be issued for the expansion of any existing use in the Moratorium Area or for the establishment of a different use than the existing use; however, buildin issued for routine maintenance or routine repairs of an existing use that do notltconst tute an expansion or a change in use. No applications for any of the following approvals may be granted or processed during the period of the moratorium: rezoning, comprehensive 2 land use plan amendment, subdivision or consolidation approval, variances, conditional use permits, site plan approval, changes in curb cut location, or off-street parking permits. 3.03. During the period of the moratorium, applications for any such approvals related to property in the Moratorium Area shall not be accepted by the City nor shalt the Planning Commission or City Council consider or grant approval of any such application, except after approval of the City Council as provided in subsection 3.05 of this ordinance. 3.04. The moratorium established by this ordinance shall not apply to any application for subdivision or consolidation that has received preliminary plat approval prior to the adoption of this ordinance. 3.05. The City Council may approve exceptions to this moratorium for an application if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that the approval being sought will not interfere with the purposes for which this moratorium was adopted. Any exception shall be approved by resolution of the City Council. Sec. 4. Enforcement. The City may enforce this ordinance by mandamus, injunction or other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. Sec. 5. Term. Unless earlier repealed by the City Council, the moratorium established under this ordinance shall remain in effect until December 14, 2005. The moratorium may be extended for a reasonable time, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355. Sec. 6. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective as provided by section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Attest: Nancy C. Gibbs, City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 3 EXHIBIT A Map Depicting Moratorium Area and Property Addresses Addresses of Affected Properties: 6500 Portland Avenue 6501 Portland Avenue 6505 Portland Avenue 6507 Portland Avenue 6508 Portland Avenue 6516 Portland Avenue 6520 Portland Avenue 6527 Portland Avenue 6544 Portland Avenue 6545 Portland Avenue 6600 Portland Avenue 6601 Portland Avenue 6613 Portland Avenue 6616 Portland Avenue 6617 Portland Avenue 6620 Portland Avenue 6621 Portland Avenue 6624 Portland Avenue 6625 Portland Avenue .6629 Portland Avenue 6630 Portland Avenue 6633 Portland Avenue 6636 Portland Avenue 6637 Portland Avenue 6644 Portland Avenue 6645 Portland Avenue 500 East 66th Street 6600 Oakland Avenue 6601 Oakland Avenue 6612 Oakland Avenue 6600 Park Avenue 6600 5th Avenue 6601 5th Avenue 6644 5th Avenue 6601 4th Avenue 4 66th & Portland Proposed ~ry, ¢. 0 200 400 600 800 Feet 5 is\gis\community dev~lopmont\~taf~\~Sill\projoo~s\~& ~ pc~rtlarad aeriai.apr N S r~ . ~~ ~~ ~_ ~~a~ ~~ ~~ 11/10/04 Moratorium Area RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF BILL NO. WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced ordinance; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the ordinance is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A ONE YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE INTERSECTION OF 66TH STREET AND PORTLAND AVENUE AND DIRECTING THAT A PLANNING STUDY BE CONDUCTED On February 8, 2005, the Richfield City Council adopted an ordinance designated as Bill No. ,the title of which is stated above. This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The ordinance establishes a one year moratorium on the. development tof the following properties: 6500 through 6645 Portland Ave; 500 East 66 St; 6600, 6601 and 6612 Oakland Ave; 6600 Park Ave; 6600, 6601 and 6644 Fifth Ave; and 6601 4th Ave. The ordinance also directs that a planning study be conducted. During the moratorium, applications for rezoning, reguidmg, subdivision or consolidation, variances, conditional use permits, site plan approval, curb cut changes, and off-street parking permits will not be accepted, and building permits will not be issued for expansions or changes in use. Building permits will be issued for routine maintenance or routine repairs of an existing use. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk during normal business hours or upon request by calling 612-861-9760 of the Community Development Division. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at City Hall for public inspection and to post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place in the City for a period of two weeks. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of February, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk .~ STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: Consent 4F 29 AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO ROBERT HINTGEN, ACTING UTILITY SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ca' ra" 10 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the acceptance of bids for the renovation of filter #6 in the Water Treatment Plant. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the bid minutes and tabulation and award the bid to the low bidder, Rice Lake Construction, Inc. in the amount of $388,600.00. ~ II. BACKGROUND The Water Treatment Plant was built in the Early 1960's. Since that time the filters/filtering system has not been replaced except for an under-drain system that was installed in 1992. The filters are the last phase of the treatment process. The current filter system is operating with the original equipment, media and controls from the early 1960's. The media has become calcified thus hampering performance and ultimately will hamper efficiency. The plan is to completely renovate filter #6 and use the information from this renovation to compile a more 0208Filter 6 completed work analysis for the fall of 2005 when filters #1 through #5 are planned for renovation. The City hired a consultant, Bonostroo, Rosene, Anderlink and Associates, to prepare plans and specifications for the renovation of filter #6. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Rice Lake Construction, Inc.. was the lowest responsible bidder and is an established contractor that meets all of the City's requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The filtering process is the final step in the water treatment process. The current filter system is operating with the original equipment, media and controls from the early 1960's. The age of the current filter system makes it difficult to repair and almost impossible to find replacement parts. Approval at the February 8, 2005 Council meeting will facilitate the process to begin renovation. C. FINANCIAL • The Water Division has budgeted $1,100,000 in 2005 for the renovation of the filters. This amount will be sufficient for the renovation of filter #6, however additional money will be needed in the revised 2005 budget for filters #1 through 5. The Water Division will fund 100% of the invoiced amount, thus having no impact on the General Fund. D. LEGAL • All contracts or purchases over $50,000 require sealed bids to be solicited by public notice. • The bid opening held on January 27, 2005 was in accordance with legal requirements. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could reject all bids and instruct staff to re-advertise. It is the opinion of staff that the bid submitted by Rice Lake Construction, Inc. is reasonable and responsible. V. ATTACHMENTS • Bid minutes and tabulation. • Bid evaluation from the City's Consultant. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening January 27, 2005 2:00 pm 2005 Filter No. 6 Renovation Bid No. 05-01 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 2005 Filter No. 6 Renovation, bid no. 05- 01, as advertised in the official newspaper on January 13, 2005. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Robert Hintgen, Acting Utility Superintendent Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name Total Base Bid Part 1 Total Part 2 Unit Price Total Bid Amount Rice Lak . e Construction Group $358,116.00 $30,484.00 $388,600.00 Shank Constructors, Inc. $361,873.00 $46,927.00 $408,800.00 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the February 8, 2005 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk .2335 West Highway 3G • St Paul. MN 55113 Bonestroo Re~5er1E' Office: G51-G3G°4G00 • Fax: G5i-G3G-i3i1 Anderlilc & wwwbanestroo corn Associates Engineers & Architects January 27, 2005 Robert Hintgen City of Richfield Utility Division 6700 Fortiand Avenue Richfield, MN SS423-2599 Re: Richfield Water Treatment Facility -Filter No. G Renovation File No. 673-04-107 Recommendation of Contract Afvard Dear Robert, Bids were opened for the Filter No.. G Renovation Project on Thursday January 27, 2005. at 2:00 P.M.. Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Bid Tabulation for your informatian and file, Ten copies will fallow by mail. Copies will also be distributed to each Bidder. There were a total of two (2) Bids. The fallowing summarizes the results afthe Bids received: Contractor #1 Rice Lalce Construction Group #2 Shanlc Constructors, Inc.. Base Bid Unit Price Iter~rs Total Bid $358,116.00 $3a,4s4.oo $38s,6oo.oa $.361,873.00 $46,927.00 The following is a summary of the Base Bid and the Unit Price Items: $408,800,00 Base Bid: This Base Bid includes removal of the filter wash troughs and underdrain, installation of aII new filter equipment, and miscellaneous valve, piping and painting work. Unit Price Items: The Unit Price Items include items such as removal of the existing filter media, protection of the filter room terrazzo floor, and miscellaneous concrete repair items. Discussion: We are pleased with the Bids received. Our estimated construction cost was $380,000. With respect to the Contractors that Bid this Project, both have a considerable amount of experience with these types of Fraject. Either Contractor would be well suited to perform the work and would do a fine,job for the City. Far this Brd, Rice-Lake Construction Group was the low Bidder. Should you wish award the Project to the. low Bidder, then Rice Lake Construction Group should be awarded the Project an the Bid Amount of $388,600. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4878. SC Paul. St Cloud. Rochester. Willmar. MN • Milwaukee. WI • Chicago, 1L Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned R Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSE.NE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. M , files B.. Jensen P.E. ~~ Enclosures 'O N cC0 N \V\V h y ~ y~uim`D v a~ a~ yZ U p C C ,O ~ U .~ ~ is m .~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ L:. ti u o w p d f+7 CB U z° c ~, m X77 O N N Z ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ LL F"'I ~ O ~ C z U ~+ o O a 'ar'-o ci. ° ~a ~ h~~c v m~ o m~QQ K ~~~ w M M 4 O _._ _._.. O Q p U 0 ' ' ° a ~ p i 5 m ~ ro d T' v °" o ~ c ~ O ~ r- ma ~ ~ ~ tf7 ~ to N ~ N ~ p U (. y ~ ~ r iT N ~ ~ it7 ~ ~ N fry t7 O V O O O O VO' O p ~ O ~ C) '~; , CJ ~j N . ¢ G? O 6 m ~ rn 0 0 p b O ~ O O C ~ ~ "' O O h: d O ~ O ~ ~ r r (~D (~O ~ Q t im Q O O r 00 p0 t t! v - N N G r O U 01 Z v ° a°° °o ° ~ o a . x ~ '~ ~ , o v, _ o a o y J CL w' r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cfl7 m ~ ~ u tti M rfl v " U tsr _ GQ lY C'S q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (O h b O ~ tt N m "= cn ~ ~ ri ~ J z z CUB ~ q U .ur O ~ C°~ ,ALL' tL yNC7 ~ i~-~xU a}-~ tai.}-.~- p O oUp~ ~~z"'~~~ ?a~~ Qt'r' ¢~'n ~ao ww¢ -tUp~Up an 2 SSQ~ qL7~~ aqU`~ wu- ~O~y >~1=' NF-jZo ~.~.~_ zw zw z maw acres-' o ~ ¢~¢M O .r z ¢~~~ '1~~~ w¢a wn„ ¢ g~~¢a~wxo nAp~ m ~w,y~~w> q~wj o~~ p~~~ ~a~wa~~p~p E w - w ¢F-UO ~FUp Ot-C'1 Oz~~ mmtxv~v~QS-I~- ~ ZE"0¢'3a" Zap= jOa2 .~z4 JZ~O GCFt3.1 ~}w-~~' ~F- m Q~z~ p. C1zZO~ ~~~W ~>pwa~>U~~~~UCgi~~U-J~nw.~ mo~o~~~ m¢~Za a~za u°U~~,°F~°~zo~~a~u~~w x a~,~a N>xao >xaa a~vi~> ~~-~U¢Uw¢U~v~a~ wsq u.~ t-.aUw .oUw > F-wO~cL¢OV~~ ~ tY~ ~ Uae~~ h- a~~zo°-O ~w~.-F~r~",'w~dz~r~~pOW~ou.z~aM©o°a~~Q ~S¢tt1..._...toF- [Ltzmti_w~cntt_.Nn.u.-'~UfYt~UO¢~rS`oU'~orl1U~U o n q) ~ r M".. Z N M ~' ~ ~D h ao ~ w C 0 U .~'. N N Z u° •c L Y Q. m ~ ~ ~ 'CI OI tq ~! c n ro N C ~ b Z ~ U .~ y J sl ~ ~_ V ~ ~ GI ~ C7 N O a t,9 4 `~'~~ M U m~° O ~z~n v cn ur o ~ ~ ~ ~ .Y N ~~} ~ C7 M ~.+ Mf+C]~y O 3 m m c ty v U~ o0 N N¢ d b `t y ~ C r O om ~0. O ~ ~ G t~ E t ~ W V ~ '~ ~ . V7 c~ D] _ _ ~ ~ ~ S C0 0 N m e o ~ b v o ~ .~ O a Z W~ C C U ~~~ttTO O Slt O ~ t!') 1~ d t3 3 ~ ou7 ocbco-a ~bF' ~ c p~ O `rfDj fD ~ QO 00 'O m N [Y C7NfiO~~.m ~a ~ ~>m0 c~m~ ~ abi Q a. c v m _m to 's` c ~ ~° °c m m ~ ~ Q ~ v O b U Q u C O U 2 ¢a W U ~~ W ~ () p; Q ~ F- ~ O a ~ qq u~Z .7Z ~ ., !ll~ h ~ QO ~ ~ U 07 ~ a w~ m ~ d G] o Z Ci m C N CZ© a h IJ. `'N p Q ~ Q a 0 a. U Q a n ~11.i)..~0 yd ? ~- O ~ ~ Q Q ~`'wwp U~ vs a ~04~ h th 1- h h ~ ~ .:; Z ~ N f= m X (O 0 rr a D Related to: STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # [FE REPORT # 28 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ^ REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ` ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a motion changing cellular telephone antenna configuration at the Penn Avenue water tower b Verizon Wireless. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a change in cellular telephone antenna confi uration at the Penn Avenue water tower. III. BACKGROUND On March 1, 1997, the City of Richfield entered into a Site Lease Agreement with US West New Vector Group, predecessor in interest to Verizon Wireless, the current Tenant of the lease. The Site Lease Agreement allowed the Tenant to erect cellular telephone antennas on the Penn Avenue water tower. Accordingly, the Tenant constructed an antenna configuration of three sectors of four antennas. 02082005CeIlAntenna The Tenant of the lease, Verizon Wireless, is requesting to be allowed to replace two antennas in each of the three sectors of the antenna configuration with two new antennas that due to advances in technology are smaller in both height and weight. With the replacement of new antennas, new coaxial cable will also need to be installed. The replacement of the antennas would not take up any additional space on the water tower and all new antennas would be painted to match existing antennas. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • NIA B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Tenant, Verizon Wireless is working under a tight timeframe to update their network with the latest technology. C. FINANCIAL • Any costs incurred in the replacement of cellular telephone antennas will be borne by Verizon Wireless. • The City collects an annual rental payment from the Tenant based on the Site Lease Agreement. D. LEGAL • Section 5(f) of the Site Lease Agreement allows the Tenant to update or replace Antenna Facilities, however, Tenant must notify and provide a detailed proposal to the City. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Do not approve the replacement of antennas. However, the Site Lease Agreement does provide for the Tenant to update and replace equipment. V. ATTACHMENTS --I • Schematic drawings of the current and planned antenna configuration. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. N v N v ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ i ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ v v N i" ~' p ~~ ~~~ ~~a~ x~ ~~ ~~ ., ~, o ~~ c v m - r m D _~ O Z rl m N , a PROJECT: MIN CROSSPENN DESIGN EVDO 6401 PENN AVE S ,,,,~,,,,~„~ a~« RICHFIELD, MN E°°"'Po"~W~ ~fRJ. M~6.MA (~19Q1Q2] FAIT ~R _l o~ ~N m =+ sz r, G] c~ ~ =z° CCK ~ !~ 5 .'q ~~ Vf -aC .1 /A I m -v r D Z ~ \ \ \\ // O X O ^ J ~ ~\\ // ~ m \ Z ~ ~ S O X yy Zm a~ '. 3m ~ ~_ _... _._.:.r _.. ._. ~.~ _ ~ X ~ _ _ ' fN 2 OD ~~D ~ W v Z H -Zi ~ ~Zj ~~ C ~~ m V~ V ~, g X A --1 m m Z O .ZJ "'~ ~ o PROJECT: m z N MtN CROSSPENN m ~ EVDO ,, ~ 6401 PENN AVE S ~ RICHFIELD, MN // .~/ ,, ~ rn N X ~ ~ z cZ'> DESIGN w»vwur~rvEav nn~o ~®w.~m ~~ ~,.~ Related to: STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 4D REPORT # 2 ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S~ NO. N//~ REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR RE~IIE~I: RE~IIEihIED BY CITY MANAGER: -I ~~l AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N//~ DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY Nan~tE TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council approval of a resolution authorizing the Public Safety Department's acceptance of a donation of $1,000 for the Police Canine Unit. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the Public Safety Department's acceptance of a donation of $1,000 for the Police Division Canine Unit. ~ II. BACKGROUND The Public Safety Department hired a new police officer, Curt Graff, on February 13, 2003. Officer Graff was a canine officer with the Wabasha County Sheriff's Office and, as such, was the handler of a drug detecting yellow Labrador named Jordan for a number of years. Public Safety saw the opportunity to start adrug- detecting canine program in Richfield by purchasing the Lab from Wabasha County. 0208 Acceptance of Donation to Police Canine Unit Realizing the costs that would result from having a K-9, local businesses and organizations were approached seeking financial assistance to cover the initial purchase, care and maintenance of a K-9 Unit. Jordan was officially "sworn in," along with ®fficer Curt Graff, in front of the Council on April 22, 2003. Businesses, organizations, and occasionally residents are proud of the law enforcement programs and accomplishments in Richfield because the programs and quality of service add to their sense of safety and security as they live and work in Richfield. Neighboring communities such as Bloomington, Edina and the Airport Police, as well as Richfield, will at times request assistance from each other. To ensure that programs continue, they will offer to contribute to specified areas, such as the K-9 unit or protective vests for the officers. III. BASIS. OF RECOMMENDATION A• POLICY • Public Safet does not acce t financial su y p pport unless it is designated for a specific program that will affect the department as a whole. • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council. • The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to Departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Police Departments in the suburbs of Richfield, Bloomington, Edina and the Airport Police often call upon each other to assist in the pursuit of criminals and to put a stop to criminal activity in their cities. Richfield's drug-detecting K-9 is called upon at times, just as Richfield Police request K-9's of other cities to track criminals. • The Wal-Mart Foundation, through its store in Bloomington, designated Richfield and specifically the K-9 Unit as a recipient of a $1,000 donation to assist in the maintenance of this program. C. FINANCIAL • The $1,000 donation was ear marked for the K-9 Unit only. • Funds for the maintenance of the K-9 Unit are taken from the Forfeiture Fund, and therefore, the donation would be deposited in that particular fund. D. LEGAL • N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE .RECOMMENDATION(S) Council could deny the resolution and the funds would be returned to the Wal-Mart Foundation. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT A DONATION OF $1,000 FROM THE WAL-MART FOUNDATION TO BE APPLIED TO THE POLICE CANINE UNIT WHEREAS, the Public Safety Department Police division, through its Director, received a check for $1,000 from the Wal-Mart Foundation through its Bloomington Wal- Mart Store, designating the funds to be used for the canine unit; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal properly on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the donation is a means of thanking the Police K-9 Unit for the use of Richfield's drug-detecting Labrador in mutual aide areas of law enforcement with the City of Bloomington. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Director Dan Scott will accept the donation of $1,000 to be placed in the forfeiture fund and directed for use by the K-9 Unit of the Public Safety Department, Police Division. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of February 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. REPORT I~REPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # [~C REPORT # 2f) STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 N/A AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO IVO. 1 BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval and acceptance of public health grants awarded to the City of Richfield for the year 2005. I• RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve and accept the public health grants awarded to the City of Richfield for the year 2005. • Approve attached Resolution stating acceptance of public health grants for 2005. II. BACKGROUND Each year,, the City of Richfield receives grants from either the Federal government or the State of Minnesota to financially support the work the City is doing in having a strong public health response system and a Community Health Board. As a result, it is necessary for the City Council to accept and approve the receipt of these grants for 2005 before any of these grant funds can be expended. 0208 Acceptance of Health Grants for 2005 Descriptions of the terms and conditions of these agreements are as follows: • Public Health Emergency Preparedness/Bioterrorism Grant - $43,096 This grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,. through the State of Minnesota, is intended to assess and enhance the capacity of the state and local public health departments to respond to bioterrorism, infectious diseases, and other threats to public health. • Regional Clinic Grant - $4, 016 This grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, through the State of Minnesota, is intended to plan and implement regional small clinics throughout the metropolitan area. • Local Public Health Act Grant - $136,800 This grant is from the Federal government, through the State of Minnesota, and is intended to achieve state and local administrative efficiencies, to allow community health boards to target local health priorities and to move toward results-based accountability. Our dollars support the provision of public health nursing services in the community and a portion of the enforcement and inspection of all food/restaurant establishments. • Cities Readiness Initiative - $3, 982 This grant is from the Federal government, through the State of Minnesota. It is a pilot program that is intended to be used to aid cities in increasing their capacity to deliver medicines and medical supplies during alarge-scale, public health emergency; such as, a bioterrorism attack or a nuclear accident. These monies are being pooled regionally to assess and enhance the metropolitan area ability to respond in a regional fashion. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield has accepted grant funds over the years to enable the City to deliver services in these public health areas to our residents that would otherwise not be funded through the City's budget. B• CRITICAL ISSUES • Without these funds, the City of Richfield would not be able to deliver the same level of service in the area of public health to Richfield residents. ~• FINANCIAL • N/A D• LEGAL • All grant contract documents are current and have been accepted by the State of Minnesota. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could decide not to accept these grant funds, which would result in these areas within public health not being funded. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF ALL GRANTS AND DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THE WORK THE CITY IS DOING TO HAVE A STRONG PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE SYSTEM AND A COMMUNITY HEALTH BOARD AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ADMINISTER THE FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GRANT AGREEMENTS AND TERMS PRESCRIBED BY DONORS WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 reads in part as follows: Any city, county, schools district or town may accept a grant or devise of real or personal property and maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor. Nothing herein shall authorize such acceptance or use for religious or sectarian purposes. Every acceptance shall be by resolution of the council adopted by two- thirds majority of its members, expressing such terms in full, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received grants and donations as described below: Public Health Emergency Pre aredness/Bioterrorisrn Centers for Disease Control $43,096 Planning & Implementation of throu h State of Minnesota Centers for Disease Cont l small ox clinics re ionall Local Public Health Act ro throu h State of Minnesota $4,016 fundin Federal government throu h g $136 800 Cities Readiness Initiative the State of Minnesota Federal government throu h , g the State of Minnesota $3,982 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby accepts all grants and donations as listed above for the year 2005 and authorizes the City to administer the funds in accordance with grant agreements and terms prescribed by donors. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of February 2005. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor fVancy Gibbs, Cit- y Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPGRT # ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY $, 2005 Consent 4B 25 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: Arm/OR RICI~IELD 2020 GOALS} NO CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, T7T7~ COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: N/A ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the S ecial Revenue Fund. ~~ I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve first reading of the transitory ordinance providing- for the expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements and schedule public hearing and second reading for March 8, 2005. II. BACKGROUND • At the December 14, 2004 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized $500,000 of Special Revenue Funds for improvements to several City recreation capital .improvements in 2005. • Included in the $500,000 are: • $100,000 for major park maintenance projects • $50,000 for Ice Arena Second Sheet Loan Repayment • $70,000 for Ice Arena Ceiling Beams • $214,000 outdoor pool renovation loan repayment • $12,000 for Mini Golf carpet replacement • $11,000 for restoration of Wood Lake Prairie • $43,000 Lincoln Field and other ballfield improvements • In addition, the 2005 Capital Improvement Budget also provides for expenditures for all types of funds contained in the budget including municipal state aid, user fees, federal grants and state grants. • Authorization by ordinance is not required for expenditures other than Special Revenues. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 2 requires that Special Revenue Funds used for capital improvements must be authorized by ordinance. • This process provides for public input through a public hearing. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication of the second hearing notice. • The ordinance requirements must be completed early enough in 2005 so that the capital projects can be initiated on a timely basis, completed and the funds expended. • In order for the timely start of the projects under consideration in the Capital Improvement Budget, it is suggested that the first reading of the transitory ordinance take place on February 8 and a public hearing and second reading be completed at the March 8, 2005 City Council meeting. C. FINANCIAL • While the total 2005 Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) includes total budgeted expenditures of $11,520,000 the portion of CIB concerning proposed funding from the Special Revenue fund is $ 500,000. Park Maintenance 100,000 Ice Arena Second Sheet Loan Repayment 50,000 tce Arena Ceiling Beams 70 000 Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repayment 214,000 Mini Golf Course Carpet Replacement 12,000 Wood Lake Prairie Restoration 11,000 Lincoln Field and other ballfied improvements 43,000 • A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize these appropriations pursuant to City Charter. • The source of Special Revenue funds is municipal liquor profits. D. LEGAL • The City Charter requires that a transitory ordinance be used to authorize the expenditure of .Special Revenue funds. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could postpone the first reading of the transitory ordinance to a future City Council meeting. • The City Council could decide to authorize none or only a portion of the expenditures identified from special revenue in the CIB. V. ATTACHMENTS • An ordinance providing for the expenditure of money from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Park Maintenance $ 100,000 Ice Arena Second Sheet Loan Repayment $ 50,000 Ice Arena Ceiling Beams $ 70,000 Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repayment $ 214,000 Mini Golf Course Carpet Replacement $ 12,000 Wood Lake Prairie Restoration 11,000 Lincoln Field and Ballfield Improvements $ 43,000 Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by Council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 4A REPORT # 2[E STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY ACTING CITY MANAGER: NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Continue the public hearing to February 22, 2005 regarding consideration of a resolution approving property tax abatement for certain property (the Cedar Point development area) in the City of Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Continue the public hearing to February 22, 2005 regarding consideration of a resolution approving property tax abatement for certain property (the Cedar Point redevelopment area) _ in the City of Richfield. II. BACKGROUND This item is being continued in order to make modifications to the resolution as directed by legal counsel. JOHN STARK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 020805 Continue Cedar Point Tax Abatement III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A public hearing is required to consider property tax abatement. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Delaying consideration of this item until February 22 will not have a detrimental effect on the project. C. FINANCIAL • NA D. LEGAL • NA IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • NA V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • NA