01-26-05 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2005
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
5:30 P.M.
Call to order
Roll call
1. Presentation by Richfield School Superintendent Barbara Devlin regarding School District's
2005-2010 strategic planning
Notes:
Adjournment (not later than 6:20 p.m.)
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Roll call
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is fo keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to .the meeting.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of January 3, 2005; (2) Special City
Council Worksession of January 7, 2005; (3) Special City Council Worksession of January 11,
2005; (4) Regular City Council Meeting of January 11, 2005; and (5) Special City Council
Meeting of January 12, 2005
PRESENTATION
1. Announcement of City Manager applicants by Lynn & Associates
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 and second reading to February 8,
2005 regarding ordinance establishing one-year moratorium on development of certain
properties at intersection of 66th .Street and Portland Avenue and directing planning study
S.R. No. 15
B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing cooperative agreement for Cedar
Point Project with Hennepin County S.R. No. 16
C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing agreement between State of
Minnesota, acting through Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol Division, and City
of Richfield Public Safety Department, for grant funds for payment of overtime for Police
Officers involved in Operation NightCAP S.R. No. 17
D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing application for 2005 Municipal
Recycling Grant from Hennepin County S.R. No. 18
E. Consideration of approval of new therapeutic massage enterprise license for EQ-Life,
2900 East 66th Street S.R. No. 19
Notes:
5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
6. Consideration of motion regarding Cedar Corridor Concept Master Plan
Staff Report No. 20
Notes:
7. Consideration of appointments to fill expiring or vacant terms on City advisory
commissions
Staff Report No. 21
Notes:
RESOLUTION AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE
8. .Consideration of resolution and first reading of ordinance calling for establishment of one-
year moratorium on development of certain properties in I-494 Corridor guided for regional
commercial/office uses
Staff Report No. 22
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
9. City Manager's report
• Worksession schedule and prioritization of topics
Notes:
10. Claims and payrolls
Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority
vote of the City Council)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to bean opportunity to address the Council on items not on fhe agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
11. 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.
~~- STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 25, 2005
CONSENT
4F
23
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL~S~ NO. N/A AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL~S~ NO 2 ~ , 27, 3 ~
REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution approving a conditional use permit at 7227 Penn
Avenue to allow a Montessori re-school and da care in the "R" zonin district,
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion, approve the attached amended resolution granting a
conditional use permit to allow a Montessori pre-school and daycare
at 7227 Penn Avenue in the "R" zoning district.
II. BACKGROUND
• The City Council approved the conditional use permit for the Montessori
School and day care at 7227 Penn Avenue on December 14, 2004.
• The City Council vote was 5 to 0.
• The resolution was to be recorded at Hennepin County. The resolution did
not meet County requirements and could not be recorded without the full legal
description.
012505-CUP-7227Penn-AmendResolutionOnly
• Without the recorded resolution the applicant can not proceed with obtaining
the required State licensing.
• Legal counsel recommended that the City Council amend the resolution for
the correct legal description.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The correction of the erroneous legal description will allow the
resolution to be recorded as required by law.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• The resolution cannot be recorded without correction of the legal
description.
IV. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION
• Date of Action: December 14, 2004
• Subject of Vote: Conditional use permit request to allow a Montessori pre-
school and daycare at 7227 Penn Avenue (St. Nicholas Church).
• Vote:5-0
• No comments regarding request from City Council or public.
V. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• N/A
VI. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
VII. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
• N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 9560
AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
MONTESSORI SCHOOL AND DAYCARE AT
7227 PENN AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the purpose of this resolution is to correct an incomplete legal
description contained in Resolution No. 9560, adopted by the Richfield City Council on
December 14, 2004, and
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which
requests approval of a conditional use permit to allow a Montessori school and daycare
at 7227 Penn Avenue South, legally described as:
All that part of the Southwest Quarter (SW'/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW'/4)
of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at a
point on the West line of Section 33 which is six hundred eighty-six (686) feet
North of the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of said section; thence
North along the West line of said section two hundred ninety-eight (298) feet;
thence East parallel with the North line of said subdivision one hundred sixty-
three and eighty-one hundredths(163.81)feety thence South parallel with the
West line of said Section 33 a distance of two hundred ninety-eight (298) feet;
thence West one hundred sixty three and eighty-one hundredths (163.81) feet to
the point of beginning.
The west 163.81 feet south 12 rods on the north 20 rods of the Southwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 28 North, Range 24
West of the 4th Principal Meridian.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield has recommended
approval of this requested conditional use permit at 7227 Penn Avenue South at its
October 25th, 2004 meeting, and
WHEREAS, this requested conditional use permit at 7227 Penn 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 a Montessori school and daycare
center, as described in Staff Report No. , on the Subject Property
legally described above.
2. This conditional use permit at 7227 Penn Avenue South is subject to the
following conditions in Section 521.07 Subdivisions 2 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance.
3. The playground area shall be setback 15 feet from all property lines and shall
be screened with a privacy fence. The plans for which are subject to the
approval of the Community Development Director.
4. 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 25th day of
January, 2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Resolution and
AGENDA SECTION: Prop. ° Ordinance
AGENDA ITEM # $
REPORT # 22
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 25, 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 CITY nl
MANAGER: L~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a proposed resolution, and first reading of an ordinance calling for the,
establishment of a one year moratorium on the development of certain properties in the I-494
corridor that are uided for re Tonal commercial/office uses.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached proposed resolution, conduct a first
reading of an ordinance and schedule a second reading of an
ordinance for February 22, 2005 establishing a one year moratorium
on the development of certain properties in the 1-494 corridor that are
guided for regional commercial/office uses.
II. BACKGROUND
• 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).
012505 494 Moratorium
• 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 Comprehensive Plan designation, the regulations for noted
zoning districts in the 1-494 Corridor do not adequately regulate development to
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 development is consistent with the guidance
provided by the Comprehensive Plan and is complementary with planned
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 designations other than Regional Commercial/Office.
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 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 Comprehensive Plan designation, the regulations
for noted zoning districts in the 1-494 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.
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.
• Affected property owners will be notified of the resolution and
upcoming public hearing on the proposed ordinance following City
Council action on January 25, 2005, should the resolution be
approved.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Richfield legal council drafted the attached resolution and ordinance.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not approve the proposed resolution and ordinance of first reading.
• Approve the proposed resolution, but modify the ordinance of first reading to
change the date of the second reading and public hearing on this issue.
• Approve the proposed resolution and ordinance with modifications.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• A proposed Resolution establishing a one year moratorium on the
development of certain properties in the I-494 corridor that are guided for
regional commercial/office uses.
• A proposed 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.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Legal counsel
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A ONE YEAR
MORATORIUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN
PROPERTIES IN THE 1-494 CORRIDOR THAT ARE
GUIDED FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAUOFFICE USES
AND DIRECTING THAT A PLANNING STUDY BE
CONDUCTED
WHEREAS, the Richfield Comprehensive Plan (1997-2007) (the "Comprehensive
Plan") designates certain areas within the City for Regional CommerciaUOffice use; and
WHEREAS, 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;" and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan contemplates that office uses would be
mixed with commercial uses over the entire length of the 1-494 Corridor; and
WHEREAS, Volume Three, Section 3.7 of the Comprehensive Plan identfies as a
guiding principle the need to encourage concentration of high-density development along
transit routes; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the 1-494 Corridor sub-areas,
including the 1-494 Corridor (East), the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet area (ILN) and the 1-494
Corridor (West), are highly desirable commercial locations and are most appropriate-for
higher density development that maximizes the potential tax base for the City; and
WHEREAS, with limited exceptions for longstanding existing uses, the
Comprehensive Plan designates almost the entire 1-494 Corridor through the City of
Richfield for high density uses, either Regional CommerciaUOffice or Multi-Residential -
High Densityr; and
WHEREAS, as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan and by current plans for
future improvements to 1-494, changes in access to 1-494 will occur that will have
sign cant impacts on the land uses in the 194 Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the contemplated changes include the closure of interchanges to 1-494
at both 12~' Avenue and Nicollet Avenue, to be replaced by bridges spanning 1-484, and
cnx-xsaxaor~ I
RC160-s
the replacement and expansion of the interchanges at Portland Avenue and Lyndale
Avenue, to accommodate the higher traffic demands created by the other interchange
closures; and
WHEREAS, the City has not developed any plans or land use studies specific to
the 1-494 Corridor area within the last five years; and
WHEREAS, the land within the 1-494 Corridor that is guided for Regional
CommerciaVOffice use is presently zoned as either General Commercial C-2, High
Density Commercial C-3, Industrial I, or PC-2 Planned General Commercial; and
WHEREAS, the General Commercial C-2 zoning classification allows as a
permitted use shopping center uses of less than 100,000 square feet and retail, service
and office uses with 50,000 square feet or less, which are uses that inconsistent with the
expressly stated goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the Regional CommerciaVOffice
areas, and most specfcally, within the 1-494 Corridor sub-areas; and
WHEREAS, the High Density Commercial C-3 zoning classification contemplates
higher density commercial development but lacks fully developed standards to guide such
development; and
WHEREAS, the Industrial I zoning district allows as permitted uses a variety of light
industrial, retail and office uses with 80,000 square feet or less of gross floor area, which
are uses that are inconsistent with the expressly stated goals of the Comprehensive Plan
for the Regional CommerciaUOffice areas, and most specifically, within the 1-494 Corridor
sub-areas; and
WHEREAS, at the present time there is no zoning class cation that appropriately
corresponds to the types of uses contemplated for the 1-494 Corridor area and,
accordingly, the City Zoning Code does not adequately guide development within the 194
Corridor area with respect to Regional CommerciaVOffice land uses; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 473.865, subdivision 3 requires that official
controls, such as zoning codes, that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan be
amended within nine months of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan so as not to conflict
with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Volume Four, Section 2.2 of the Comprehensive Plan expressed the
intention to rezone specific sites for specific areas "as the opportunity presents itself ;and
WHEREAS, the expected changes to access within the 1-494 Corridor will either
necessitate or will dramatically encourage continuing redevelopment within the 194
Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the City has received at least one inquiry about potential
redevelopment of property within the 1-484 Corridor that further evidences the need for the
cwH.~sazso.~i 2
RC160-5
City to bring its official controls into conformance with its Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the lack of an adequate and available zoning class cation that
corresponds to the Regional CommerciaUOfflce 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 ordery municipal planning; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined a need to undertake a study to
determine the appropriate land uses for the land in the 1-494 Corridor that is guided for
Regional CommerciaVOffice uses; and
WHEREAS, 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The City Council finds that it is necessary to conduct planning studies to determine
the appropriate land use controls that should apply to properties that meet all of the
following characteristics:
a. The lands have a Comprehensive Plan land use guide plan
designation of Regional CommerciaUOffice; and '
b. The lands are located within the 1-494 Corridor, which is defined as
that area lying between the easterly and westerly limits of the City
and between 1-494 and 76s' Street; and
c. The lands have a current zoning classification of General Commercial
C-2, High Density Commercial C-3, or Industrial I.
2. 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,
Comprehensive Plan, and Capital Improvement Program.
3. 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 Paragraph 1 of this
cnx-zsszsovi 3
RC160-S
resolution are being conducted. The Moratorium Area includes those properties generally
described in the preceding paragraph 1 and shown in the attached Exhibit A.
4. The City Council finds that this moratorium should apply to the following types of
land use applications, as more specifically described at paragraph 6 below: requests for
rezoning, subdivisions, conditional use permits, site plan review, and building permits.
5. 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.
6. 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.
a. Except as provided at subparagraph c of this paragraph, 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 subparagraph c of this paragraph, 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 classification 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.
7. 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 shall the
Planning Commission or City Council consider or grant approval of any such
application, except after approval of the City Council as provided in paragraph 9 of this
resolution.
8. The moratorium established by this resolution shall apply to any application
pending as of the date of this resolution, but it shall not apply to a subdivision or
consolidation that has received preliminary plat approval prior to the adoption of this
resolution, 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
CAH-258280v1 4
RC160-5
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.
9. 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.
10. Unless earlier repealed by the City Council, the moratorium established under this
resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year after its effective date.
11. This resolution is effective upon adoption.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
Attest:
Nancy C. Gibbs, City Cierk
cnx-isszsori
xci6as
EXHIBIT A
Map Depicting Moratorium Area
MAP TO BE DISTRIBUTED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CAH-255107v 1
RC160-5
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A ONE YEAR
MORATORIUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN
PROPERTIES IN THE 1-494 CORRIDOR THAT ARE
GUIDED FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAUOFFICE USES
AND DIRECTING "THAT A PLANNING STUDY BE
CONDUCTED
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background.
1.01. The Richfield Comprehensive Plan (1997-2007) (the "Comprehensive Plan")
designates certain areas within the City for Regional Commercial/Office use.
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 1-494 corridor.
1.05. Volume Three, Section 3.7 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies as a
guiding principle the need to encourage concentration of high-density development along
transit routes.
1.06. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the 1-494 Corridor sub-areas,
including 1-494 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
density uses, either Regional CommerciaUOffice 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 1-494 will occur that will have signficant
.impacts on the land uses in the 1-494 Corridor.
CAH-255223v1 1
RC160-5
1.09. The contemplated changes include the closure of interchanges to 1.494 at
both 12~' Avenue and Nicollet Avenue, to be replaced by bridges spanning 1-494, and the
replacement and expansion of the interchanges at Portland Avenue and Lyndale Avenue,
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 specfc 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 classfication allows as a permitted use
shopping center uses of less than 100,000 square feet and retail, service and office uses
with 50,000 square feet or less, which are uses that inconsistent with the expressly stated
goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the Regional CommerciaUOffice areas, and most
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 1 zoning district allows as permitted uses a variety of light
industrial, retail and office uses with 80,000 square feet or less of gross floor area, which
are uses that are inconsistent with the expressly stated goals of the Comprehensive Plan
for the Regional CommerciaUOffice areas, and most specifically, within the 1-494 Corridor
sub-areas.
1.15. At the present time there is no zoning class cation that appropriately
corresponds to the types of uses contemplated for the 1-494 Corridor .area and,
accordingly, the City Zoning Code does not adequately guide development within the 1-494
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 codes, that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan be
amended within nine months of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan so as not to conflict
with the Comprehensive Plan.
1.17. Volume Four, Section 2.2 of the Comprehensive Plan expressed the
intention to rezone specific sites for spec 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 redevelopment within the 1-494
Corridor.
1.19. The City has received at least one inquiry about potential redevelopment of
c,~x-sssza.~~~ 2
RC160-s
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 lack of an adequate and available zoning classification 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 Council has determined a need to undertake a study to determine
the appropriate land uses for the land in the 1-494 Corridor that is guided for Regional
CommerciaUOffice 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 amending certain official controls, which may include the City's
comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, capital improvement program or other official
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. 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 that meet all of
the following characteristics:
a. The lands have a Comprehensive Plan land use guide plan
designation of Regional CommerciaVOffice; and
b. The lands are located within the 1-494 Corridor, which is defined as
that area lying between the easterly and westerly limits of the City
and between 1-494 and 76~' Street; and
c. The lands have a current zoning classification of General Commercial
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,
CAFI-255223v1
Rc16o-s 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 City ("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 Studv: 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 wiA 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 accepted by the City nor shall
the Planning Commission or City Council consider or grant approval of any such
cnH-zssus~~
Rc~bo-s 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 it 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. €ffective 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
CAH-255223v l 5
RC 160-5
EXHIBIT A
Map Depicting Moratorium Area
MAP TO BE DISTRIBUTED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CAH-255107v 1
RC160-5
~- STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 25, 2005
OTHER BUSINESS
21
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
aND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A
CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST.
Nance TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of appointments to City advisory commissions.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Appoint persons to fill the expiring or vacant terms on the
Cit advisor commissions
II. BACKGROUND
Several terms of City commission members expire on January 31, 2005. In addition,
there are mid-term vacancies due to resignations that need to be filled. Vacancies were
advertised in-the Richfield Sun-Current, on cable television channel 16, the outside
message board at City Hall and Water Plant, Your City Enews, and the City's Website.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or
resolution. Terms are for three-years-and are staggered. Several terms
expire on January 31 annually.. The Council directs the City Manager's
office to conduct a recruitment seeking applicants to fill the vacancies.
Interviews of the applicants are conducted at Special City Council
0125commissions
meetings. These Council meetings were posted in accordance with the
open meeting law requirements.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Applicants were interviewed at Special City Council meeting on January 12,
2005 and January 20, 2005.
• Terms of several commission members expire on January 31, 2005.
• There are mid-term vacancies which need to be filled.
• In order to ensure quorums for future meetings, appointments should be
made on January 25, 2005.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Defer appointments to a later Council meeting.
• If appointments are not made at the January 25 meeting, quorums may not be
present at future meetings.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Commission vacancy list
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
v~
0
w
0
W
V
Z
Q
U
Z
~_
0
V
O O M M M M M M O M M M
O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
~
L
r r r
M M M
r
M
r r r r
M M M M
r r r r
M M M M
X
f6 fa f6 (a f6 fC f6 f0 (6 R3 (6 f0
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
C C C ~
~ ~ 7 ~ ~
C C C C ~
C C C C
~, f6 f0 f6 (a f~ R5 C6 f0 (~ fIf f~ fa
U
c
(a
V
(6
N
.Q
X
N
C
r
A
U
C
R5
U
fa
r
2
H
w~~
=.~r.r
~~~
~ QQ
a~~
m ~~
N_
Q
Z
O
v
N
a
O
U
z
0
W
J
V
U
C
RS
U
(B
w
w
N
J
U
U
C
(~
U
'~
N
.Q
X
N
C
r
N
~U
C
(6
U
M
Z
N .~.
~~
ON
V .Q
x
~~
a"
Z
W_
N
O
0
r,
0
~ MMM M M M M
0 0 0 0 0 O O O
O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
M M M M M M M M
~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C C C C C C C C
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
U
C
fa
U
(~
"~
N
L
.Q
X
r
~U
C
t6
U
f~
Z
N ~
~~
~ ~
X
N
~ ~
H ~
2
C~
Z
Q
N
N
~U
C
f~
U
(~
M
Z
N
0
U
C~
Z_
Z
Z
Q
J
a
AGENDA SECTION: (] h B Si ss
AGENDA ITEM # 6
REPORT # 20
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 25, 2005
Related to:
CrrY COUNCU, GOAL(S) No. 36
REPORT PREPARED BY:
aND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) No
JOHN STARK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
~"
REVIEWED BY ACTING CITY
MANAGER:
2, 3, 7,
9, 19,
25, 30,
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a motion supporting the Cedar Avenue Corridor Concept Master Plan.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a motion in support of the Cedar Avenue Corridor
Conce t Master Plan.
II. BACKGROUND
I.
• As part of the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport's expansion, a new
"north-south" runway has been constructed and will become operational in the
fall of 2005.
• Concerned with the possible negative impacts of this new runway approximately
1,200 feet from then-existing residential areas, the City of Richfield and the
012505 Cedar Plan
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) commissioned a study to identify those
impacts.
• The study, entitled Findings of the Low Frequency Noise Expert Panel, identified
an area in Richfield where the "low frequency noise" would exceed 87db of
volume.
• At this volume of low frequency noise, the study concluded that negative impacts
such as "rattle" would occur at unacceptable levels and that noise insulation
would not be fully adequate nor would it be economically feasible.
• As a result, it was determined that Richfield needed to redevelop the area
contained within the "low frequency noise impact area".
• Staff, therefore, has been conducting redevelopment concept plans for the area
with the help of planning and architecture consulting firms.
• First, in 1999, the firm RLK-Kuusisto drafted a concept plan for the
redevelopment of the entire east-end of Richfield, between Bloomington Avenue
and TH77.
• Since 1999, the area being considered for redevelopment has been reduced
because of further information on the extent of low frequency noise impacts and
the available funding to mitigate those impacts.
• In February 2004, JLG Architects (JLG) was hired by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to complete a revised concept plan for this
reduced redevelopment area. JLG has since drafted a concept plan for the low
frequency noise area.
• JLG were provided with all available data on noise impacts. As they are not
acoustical engineers, they relied on the findings of previous noise studies.
• In order to complete a concept plan that would be widely accepted and would
reflect the vision of the community, JLG relied heavily on active participation
from residents.
• Three neighborhood open houses were held on (3/21/04, 5/12/04 and 9/23/04)
at which time there were opportunities for members of the community to provide
their input into the plan.
• The neighborhood open houses were well attended (the average attendance
was 100 residents) and featured some very lively discussion and creative ways
for citizens to illustrate their desires for the future of the area.
• The community input process also included Richfield's policymakers; with
concurrent study sessions of the HRA, City Council and Planning Commission
on March 15, May 11 and September 28, 2004.
• JLG also wanted to make sure that the vision of Richfield's residents and
policymakers could be implemented, so they held meetings with seven area
developers to make sure that the concept plan was a practical one.
• The Cedar Avenue Corridor Concept Master Plan is now complete and can
serve as a valuable tool to staff in seeking, and to the HRA and City Council in
considering, development proposals that achieve or exceed the vision of the
community for the area.
• The Plan is conceptual in nature and is meant to be a "fluid" document that can
be further developed and refined as the community moves forward with
implementation.
• The overall timeline for the implementation of the entire concept plan is 12 - 15
years, but it is anticipated that the first of the four identified phasing areas could
be completed within two-three years and that the second phase could be well
underway within three or four years.
• The biggest challenge to implementation will be the identification of financial
resources to help bring site assembly costs to a level that the real estate market
will bear.
• The HRA adopted a motion supporting the Cedar Avenue Corridor Concept
Master Plan on October 18, 2004.
• The Richfield Planning Commission adopted a motion supporting the Cedar
Avenue Corridor Concept Master Plan on November 22, 2004.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Based on the results of professional noise studies, the City of Richfield
has recognized that there will be an area, termed the "low frequency
noise impact area", where aircraft noise will exceed the tolerances of
existing homes once the new "north-south" runway becomes
operational
• In 1999, a concept plan for the area was completed by the firm RLK-
Kuusisto for the area from Crosstown Highway 62 to 77th Street, east
of Bloomington Avenue in Richfield.
• Since 1999, subsequent findings of noise experts modestly scaled
back the extent of the "low frequency noise area".
• In order to reflect the revised "low frequency noise area", and to better
reflect market demand, a need was identified for a revised
redevelopment concept plan for the area.
• On February 17, 2004 the Richfield HRA hired JLG Architects, Inc., to
complete a new concept plan for the redevelopment of the Cedar
Avenue Corridor.
• After much community and developer input, JLG Architects, Inc. has
completed the Cedar Avenue Corridor Concept Plan as a concept for
City support.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The Richfield HRA adopted a motion supporting the Cedar Corridor
Concept Plan at its October 18 meeting and the Planning Commission
adopted a motion supporting the Plan at their November 22 meeting.
• City Council support of the concept plan is a critical demonstration of
community support for the concept plan.
C. FINANCIAL
• All costs for JLG's plan for the Cedar Avenue Corridor were paid by
the Richfield HRA.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Continue the consideration of the Cedar Corridor Concept Plan in order to
further review the Plan or to provide suggested changes to the Plan.
• Do not make a motion supporting the Cedar Corridor Concept Plan.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• The Cedar Avenue Corridor Concept Master Plan (an updated version -
pleasediscard any older versions [without page numbers] that may be in
your possession to avoid confusion)
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
.} 15 ,vat Iable ~r rev ~~~
S
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4E
REPORT # 19
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 25, 2005
FZelated to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A
BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
~~
I~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a license request for a new, Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license for EQ-
Life, 2900 West 66th Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a license request for a new Therapeutic Massage
Enter rise license for EQ-Life, 2900 West 66th Street.
II, BACKGROUND
On November 29, 2004, EQ-Life submitted an application for a new Therapeutic
Massage Enterprise license.
The following requirements-for license issuance have all been satisfied:
• The applicant has paid the required licensing fees.
• The required proof of liability insurance has been submitted.
0125 EQ Life New Massage Therapy License
• All real estate and personal property taxes that are due and payable for the
premises have been paid.
• The parent company of EQ -Life is Best Buy. This is a concept store for Best
Buy and will offer products and services that pertain to health and wellness. It
will include services typically found in a salon, as well as therapeutic massage
services, tanning services and healthy prepackaged food and beverage
products.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• Gretchen Pearson is the EQ Director for the store and has no known criminal
history.
• The following individuals submitted a therapeutic massage therapist license
application: Jessica Hoffman, Jileen Deluney, Lisa Marie Myers, Jacqueline
LeFevr and Kaitlin Lee. None of the applicants has any known criminal history,
and they all complied with the requirements for a therapeutic massage therapist
license.
• Nothing was found during this investigation that raised any concerns regarding
the licensing of EQ -Life for a Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The applicant has complied with all the provisions of the application
process, has paid all the licensing fees and has provided proof of
liability insurance.
• Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the
investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the
license request.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• None
C. FINANCIAL
• All licensing fees have been paid.
D. LEGAL
• None
TERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~
Deny the request for the Therapuetic Massage Enterprise license for EQ -
Life; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a
denial
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
~ V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~
• Representatives from EQ -Life/Best Buy
AGENDA SECTION: CoIISeIIt
AGENDA ITEM # 4D
REPORT # t Q
a
JANUARY 25, 2005
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NAME, TITLE
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A
JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION
SERVICES DIRECTOR
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
o'
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution authorizing the City of Richfield's application for the 2005 Municipal
Rec clin Grant from Henne in Count and the si nin of the 2005 rec clin contract.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the City of
Richfield's application for the 2005 Municipal Recycling Grant from
Hennepin County and the signing of the 2005 recycling contract.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield receives a municipal recycling grant from Hennepin County
each year to promote recycling initiatives. 90% of this grant is given to Richfield
residents as a quarterly utility bill refund and 10% is used to cover administrative
costs of the recycling program. The amount of the grant varies from year-to-year;
last year's grant was about $80,700. This year is expected to be the same.
0125 recycling
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield supports a residential recycling program as part of local
environmental management.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval of the resolution is required to receive the grant.
• Action is requested on January 25 to meet the grant application
deadline.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City acts as a community partner and, with this grant, no
expenses are incurred to administer this program.
D. LEGAL
N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do not approve the resolution, preventing the implementation of the recycling
program.
• Deferring action is not an alternative as the grant deadline needs to be met.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution authorizing the grant application.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE MUNICIPAL GRANT
APPLICATION FOR 2005 HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING
PROGRAM AND THE SIGNING OF THE 2005 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING PROGRAM
CONTRACT.
WHEREAS, Hennepin County provides annual grants related to residential
recycling programs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield desires to participate in the residential recycling
grant program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Richfield City Council of the City of
Richfield:
1. That a municipal grant application be processed for participation in the 2005
Hennepin County Residential Recycling Program.
2. That the City Manager of the City of Richfield is hereby authorized and directed
to execute and file such application with Hennepin County Department of
Environmental Management.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
January, 2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # L~.C
REPORT # 17
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 25, 2005
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A
aND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
MIKE KOOB, POLICE LIEUTENANT
Nance, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution regarding an agreement between the State of Minnesota, acting
through its Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol Division, and the City of Richfield,
Public Safet De artment, ertainin to O eration Ni htCAP.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
• Approve the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of
grant funds to be used for the payment of overtime for officers
involved in Operation NightCAP.
II. BACKGROUND
The Minnesota State Patrol coordinates alcohol enforcement saturations with local
police departments throughout the state and has contacted the Richfield Police
Department to participate in the periodic saturations for alcohol enforcement in
coordination with the State Patrol. The State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Public
0125 Operation NightCAP. Resolution to Accept Grant
Safety, has awarded the Richfield Police Department reimbursements not to exceed
$2,200 for overtime to participate in the NightCAP Grant Program.
The contract runs from November 6, 2004 through March 26, 2005. Six coordinated
alcohol saturation events will take place on November 6, December 17 and 31,
2004; and, February 19 and 25, 2005.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota Statue 465.03 requires that the City approve a resolution
accepting the funds of the grant money.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The resolution needs to be signed by the Richfield City Council,
adopted by two-thirds majority of its members.
C. FINANCIAL
• The overtime paid to the officers will come from Grant funds.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Council could disapprove the resolution, which would void the agreement.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD/POLICE TO PARTICIPATE
JOINTLY WITH THE MINNESOTA STATE PATROL IN AN AGREEMENT WITH AND TO
RECEIVE GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, COMMISIONER OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, TO PAY OVERTIME TO OFFICERS INVOLVED IN
OPERATION NIGHTCAP
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield/Police has signed a contract with the State of
Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol Division in
November 2004; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield/Police would receive grant funds not to exceed
$2200 for saturated overtime alcohol enforcement in coordination with the Minnesota State
Patrol; and
WHEREAS, the contract began November 6, 2004 and the contract ends March 26,
2005; and
WHEREAS, Six coordinated alcohol saturation events would take place on
November 6, December 17 & 31, 2004, and February 19 & 25 and March 25, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Richfield Public Safety/Police will
enter into a grant agreement with the State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Public Safety,
State Patrol for the project entitled Operation NightCAP, during November 6, 2004 through
March 26, 2005.
Public Safety Director Dan Scott is hereby authorized to execute such agreements
and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Richfield
Police division and to be the fiscal agent and administer the grant.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of
January 2005.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
Consent
4B
16
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. 38
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NAME, TITLE
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
.TANUARY 25, 2005
AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 25
JOHN STARK, ASST. DIIZECTOR OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a Cooperative Agreement for the Cedar Point Project with Hennepin County.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution approving a Cooperative Agreement
for the Cedar Point Pro'ect with Henne in Count .
II. BACKGROUND
• The Cedar Point area has been identified as an area in which redevelopment is
necessary in order to remove structures which cannot tolerate the negative
effects of low frequency noise that will occur when the new "north-south" runway
at the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport becomes operational.
• The affected area is bounded by Trunk Highway 62 ("the Crosstown") on the
north, by 66th Street on the south, by 17th Avenue on the west and by Trunk
Highway 77 on the east.
Cedar Point Project with Hennepin County
• In 2004, the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area was amended to
"Regional Retail/Office" to reflect the recommendations contained in the Cedar
Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan.
• The City of Richfield, in cooperative efforts with the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) and the State of Minnesota, have purchased and cleared
many properties to date.
• Thirty-three single-family homes, two apartment buildings and two businesses
remain. The estimated cost to purchase these properties, plus the cost of
cleared land from the City, is estimated at $14 to $16 million.
• Based on discussions with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA)
financial analysts (Ehlers and Associates) and with developers, it has been
concluded that a regional retail development would require approximately $3.5
million in public assistance in order to be feasible.
• A resolution authorizing tax abatement funds will be brought before the Richfield
City Council for consideration in February 2005 in the approximate present value
of $1.5 million as part of this public assistance.
• On December 14, 2004, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
approved a budget that included $2 million in grant Multi jurisdictional Project
Funds (MJP) as public assistance for the Cedar Point area. The provision of
these funds is governed by the terms of a Cooperative Agreement between the
Hennepin County Board, the Hennepin County HRA, the City of Richfield and
the Richfield HRA.
• The proposed Cooperative Agreement (attached) would provide the City with $2
million in grant funds immediately upon approval on a reimbursement basis.
• As stated in Article III of the Agreement, these funds could be used for appraisal
costs, real estate purchase costs, demolition costs, environmental
investigation/remediation costs and relocation benefits.
• The proposed Agreement requires that the HRA enter into a binding
development agreement and that the development proposed in such an
agreement be completed within five years.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Cedar Point Area is located within the "87db Low Frequency
Noise Impact Area."
• It is the stated policy of the City of Richfield to remove existing
residential properties from the "87db Low Frequency Noise Impact
Area" in order to replace them with structures that can withstand the
negative impacts of low frequency noise.
• The Cedar Point portion of the "87db Low Frequency Noise Impact
Area" has been identified for redevelopment as regional retail
development..
• It has been determined that, in order for regional retail development to
be feasible at this location, approximately $3.5 million in public
assistance is necessary.
• Hennepin County has designated $2 million in Multi jurisdictional
Project Funds for use in assisting redevelopment of this area.
• The Richfield HRA and City Council must be partied to a Cooperative
Agreement with Hennepin. County in order to receive these funds.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The HRA approved the proposed Cooperative Agreement at their
January 18, 2005 meeting.
• Hennepin County requires approval of the Cooperative Agreement by
the City of Richfield prior to consideration and approval by their
respective HRA and Board.
• Remaining acquisition of property and relocation processes can
proceed following acceptance of this Cooperative Agreement, allowing
for construction in October 2005 as anticipated.
C. FINANCIAL
• If the area were not developed within five years, the City of Richfield
and/or the Richfield HRA would have to refund any expended grant
funds to Hennepin County.
D. LEGAL
• HRA legal counsel in cooperation with the Hennepin County
Attorney's Office drafted the proposed Agreement.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do not approve the proposed Agreement.
• Suggest modifications to the proposed Agreement, which mayor may not be
to the satisfaction of the other involved parties.
• Continue consideration of the proposed Agreement in order to seek more
information about the terms of the Agreement.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Cooperative Agreement for the Cedar Point Project.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT AND
DESIGNATING HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TO ADMINISTER FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota (the "Authority") is undertaking a redevelopment project called Cedar
Point, hereinafter called the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project is included within The Richfield Redevelopment Project
Area, duly established by Resolution No. 8030, adopted on June 14, 1993 (the "Project
Area"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield (the "City") is contemplating providing financial
assistance to the Project, which will include tax abatements; and
WHEREAS, the Project fits within the goals of a multi jurisdictional reinvestment
program authorized under Minnesota Statutes Section 3836.79 by including corridor
planning, acquisition of property, development of commercial projects and job creation;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the County has approved the Project,
and the multi jurisdictional reinvestment program (the "Program"), and authorized the
County's participation in the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the HCHRA have the authority to undertake and
participate in the Project pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.001 to 469.047,
469.1812 to 469.1815 and other applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the County is authorized to contribute funds to the Project pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 3836.79 and 469.041 and other applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the funds provided by the County for will be used to pay qualifying
costs incurred for the Project, which are limited to appraisal costs, real estate purchase
costs, demolition costs, environmental investigation/remediation costs, and relocation
benefits; and
WHEREAS, the funds provided by the County to the City will be furnished by the
City to the Authority for reimbursement of such qualifying costs.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections
3836.79 and 471.59 a proposed Cooperative Agreement for Cedar Point Project (the
"Agreement") has been presented to the Authority for its consideration; and
1
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the proposed Agreement and received the
recommendation of staff that the Agreement be approved;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City of Richfield, Minnesota as
follows:
1. The Agreement is approved in substantially the form presented.
2. The funds obtained by the County pursuant to the Agreement are hereby
pledged to the Authority, and the Authority is hereby authorized and directed
to expend such funds pursuant to and in accordance with. the provisions of
the Agreement.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the Agreement on
behalf of the City and to take all actions and do all things that are reasonable
necessary to the fulfillment of the City's obligations under the Agreement.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of January, 2005.
Martin irsc ,Mayor
ATTEST:
ancy i bs, ity erk
2
Hennepin County Contract No. A050010
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FOR CEDAR POINT PROJECT
This Cooperative Agreement, hereinafter called the "Agreement", made and entered
into as of the day of , 2005, by and between the County of Hennepin,
a Minnesota public body corporate and politic, hereinafter called the "County"; the
Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, a Minnesota public body
corporate and politic, hereinafter called the "HCHRA"; and the City of Richfield, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter called the "City"; and the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, a Minnesota public body
corporate and politic, hereinafter called the "Authority".
WHEREAS, the Authority is undertaking a redevelopment project called Cedar
Point, hereinafter called the "Project", which is described in the Cedar Point
Redevelopment Area Proposal dated December 15, 2004, attached hereto as Exhibit A;
and
WHEREAS, the Project is included within The Richfield Redevelopment Project
Area, duly established by Resolution No. 8030, adopted on June 14, 1993 (the "Project
Area"); and
WHEREAS, the City will be providing financial assistance to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project fits within the goals of a multi jurisdictional reinvestment
program authorized under Minnesota Statutes Section 3836.79 by including corridor
planning, acquisition of property, development of commercial projects and job creation;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the County has approved the Project,
and the multi-jurisdictional reinvestment program (the "Program"), and authorized the
County's participation in the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the HCHRA have the authority to undertake and
participate in the Project pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.001 to 469.047,
469.1812 to 469.1815 and other applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the County is authorized to contribute funds to the Project pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 3836.79 and 469.041 and other applicable law; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 3836.79 and 471.59 authorize the parties
hereto to enter into this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms contained herein, it is agreed by
and between the parties that they enter into this Agreement in order to provide for the
participation of the County in the Project in cooperation with the City and the Authority and
the HCHRA.
3
ARTICLE I
Purpose
The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the participation of the County in the
Project in accordance with the goals of the Program.
ARTICLE II
Source of Funds
The County will contribute $2,000,000.00 on a reimbursement basis to the City in
support of the Project upon receipt of proper verification from the City that eligible
expenses have been incurred in accordance with the terms of Article III below.
ARTICLE III
Use of Funds
The City agrees to use the funds provided by the County for qualifying costs
incurred for the Project, which are limited to appraisal costs, real estate purchase costs,
demolition costs, environmental investigation/remediation costs, and relocation benefits.
These funds will be furnished by the City to the Authority in reimbursement of such
acquisition costs. County funds may only be used for capital costs directly associated with
the Project, and shall not be used for any costs associated with any construction outside
the boundaries of the site shown on Exhibit A. The County will have no further obligation
to provide such funds to City for qualifying costs for which the City fails to submit proper
invoices within six years of the date of this Agreement, unless the parties agree to an
extension of this Agreement by amendment.
ARTICLE IV
Administration
The commitment of the County to continue to contribute funds to the Project is
contingent upon the City/Authority certifying within five years of the date of this Agreement
that the portion of the Project located on lands acquired with the Program funds has
reached completion. The City/Authority shall provide a Declaration in form similar to that
attached hereto as Exhibit B certifying to the County that a Certificate of Completion has
been issued to the developer of the Project evidencing that the portion of the Project
located on lands purchased by the Program funds has been completed.
The City shall submit invoices and supporting documentation in the manner
specified by the County and to the satisfaction of the County.
In the event that the City abandons the Project or fails to meet the time
requirement contained above, the City shall, upon written notice by the .County,
immediately repay any funds previously paid the City under this Agreement, together with
reasonable attorney fees and suit costs incurred by the County in any action brought to
collect such repayment. Interest on the repayment amount will accrue at the rate of 5%
per annum on the unpaid portion from the date of the written notice until paid.
4
In order to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, Patrick Convoy,
Hennepin County Community Works & Transit, will manage this Agreement on
behalf of the HCHRA and serve as liaison between the HCHRA, the County, the
City and the Authority. During the term of this Agreement the City shall submit
quarterly updates as to the progress of the Project to Patrick Connoy or his
successor or designee. The City will also supply Patrick. Convoy with copies of all
Development Agreements relating to the Project Area.
ARTICLE V
Term
This Agreement shall be effective upon execution of all parties to this Agreement,
and shall remain in effect until December 31, 2010, or such earlier time as this Agreement
is terminated by mutual agreement of the parties.
ARTICLE VI
Data Privacy
The parties agree to abide by all applicable State and Federal Laws and regulations
concerning the handling and disclosure of private and confidential information concerning
individuals and/or data including but not limited to information made non-public by such
laws or regulations.
ARTICLE VII
Records -Availability
The City and the Authority agree that the County, the State Auditor, the Legislative
Auditor, or any of their duly-authorized representatives at any time during normal business
hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the
right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records,
etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of City and Authority
and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Such materials shall be maintained
and such access and rights shall be in force and effect during the term of this Agreement
and for six (6) years after its termination.
ARTICLE VIII
Merger and Modification
i. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is
contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements
and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof.
All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are
deemed to be part. of this Agreement.
ii. Any alterations, variations, modification, or waivers of provisions of this
Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an
amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto.
5
ARTICLE 1X
Indemnification
This Agreement creates no obligation on the County, other than the obligation to
make the payments according to the terms contained herein. Without limitation, this
Agreement shall not be construed as obligating the County to acquire property, to make
relocation benefit payments to displaced parties, or to make any payment of any nature to
a redeveloper selected by the Authority to develop the Property. Other than the County
obligation created under this Agreement, the City/Authority hereby releases, indemnifies
and agrees to defend and hold harmless the County, its officers agents and employees
from any claims based on the development of the Project.
ARTICLE X
Amendments
This Agreement may be amended only by unanimous agreement of the parties
hereto by resolution of the governing bodies of said parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have hereunto set their
hands on the date written below.
Approved as to form and execution: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Assistant County Attorney
Date: , 20
Approved as to form and execution:
City Attorney
Date: , 20_
By:
Chair of Its County Board
By:
Assistant/Deputy/County
Administrator
ATTEST:
Deputy/Clerk of County Board
CITY OF RICHFIELD
- BY~
Its: Mayor
By:
Its: City Manager
6
Approved as to form and execution.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD
Authority Attorney
Date: , 200_ By:
Its:
HENNEPIN COUNTY HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By:
Its: Chair
By:
Its: Executive Director
EXHIBIT A
Cedar Point Redevelopment Area Proposal
December 15, 2004
7
EXHIBIT B
DECLARATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The undersigned, on behalf of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield, Minnesota hereby certifies and declares that it did on or about
200 issue and deliver to the developer of the Cedar Point Project,
a Certificate of Completion covering the portion of the Project that was acquired with funds
provided to the Authority by the County in accordance with the provisions of the
Cooperative Agreement for Cedar Point Project dated , 2004 (the
"Agreement"). A copy of the Certificate of Completion is attached as Attachment A hereto.
The undersigned respectfully requests that the County countersign this Declaration
acknowledging that the Authority has satisfied its obligations under Article IV of the
Agreement and is forever discharged from its obligation to repay all or part of the funds
paid to the Authority under the Agreement.
DATED:
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD
By:
Its: Chairperson
By:
Its: .Executive Director
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The undersigned, on behalf of, and with authority of the County of Hennepin, hereby
declares and acknowledges that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of Richfield, Minnesota has fully satisfied its obligations under Article IV of the
Agreement and is forever discharged and released from any obligation to make repayment
of all or part of the funds paid to the Authority pursuant to the Agreement.
Approved as to form and execution:
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Assistant County Attorney
Date: , 20
By:
8
Attachment A
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
The undersigned hereby certifies that a
has fully and completely complied with its obligations under
Article of that document entitled "Contract for Private Development," dated
200_ between THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT IN AND FOR
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD and
with
respect to construction of the Minimum Improvements located on the tract of land
described in the attached Schedule A In accordance with the requirements of such
document and is released and forever discharged from its obligations to construction the
Minimum Improvements under such above-referenced Article on the above-referenced
tract.
DATED:
.HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD
By:
Its: Chairperson
sy:
Its: Executive Director
9
Schedule A to
Certificate of Completion
Property Description.
[to be inserted before execution]
10
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # CFA
REPORT # 15
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 25, 2005
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A
AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO
N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW
REVIEWED BY ACTING CITY
MANAGER:
SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Continue consideration of a moratorium on building expansion or new
construction/development or other land use changes while studying and planning
im rovements to the intersection at 66th Street and Portland Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Continue consideration of conducting a second reading
of an ordinance to February 8, 2005; establishing a one year
moratorium on the development of certain properties at the
intersections of 66th Street and Portland Avenue and directing that a
tannin stud be conducted.
II. BACKGROUND
On December 14, 2004 the City Council announced that at a January 25, 2005
Council meeting, a public hearing and second reading of an ordinance related to a
moratorium at 66th Street and Portland Avenue would be scheduled. A publication
deadline was missed resulting in a need to reschedule the public hearing. The
012505 Moratorium
public hearing is being scheduled for the regular City Council meeting of February
8, 2005.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Council establishes the date of public hearing to consider an
ordinance.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Property owners affected by the moratorium have been notified of the
date change.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A