The URL can be used to link to this page

03-09-2004 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of February 24, 2004 PRESENTATION 1. Proclamation designating March 13, 2004 Human Rights Day in Richfield COUNCIL DISCUSSION 2. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Richfest 20D4 Optimists assistance with warming houses 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 resolution authorizing subdivision waiver for properties at 305 East 77th Street (Church of the Assumption) and 308 East 78th Street (Progress Valley group home) S.R. No. 36 B. Consideration of approval of new gambling license for Mpls-Richfield American Legion Unit #435 Auxiliary, 601 Portland Avenue, and resolution granting gambling activity S.R. No. 37 C. Consideration of approval of contract with City of Bloomington, using federal grant funds from Centers for Disease Control, to provide public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism services and development of response system S.R. No. 38 D. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to Asplundh Tree Expert Company for 2004 diseased tree removal on private property in amount of $107,746 S.R. No. 39 E. Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing for March 23, 2004 for new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for LaVilla Restaurante Mexicano, 1120 East 66th Street S.R. No. 40 F. Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing for March 23, 2004 for new wine and 3.2 on-sale malt liquor licenses for Pu'hket Thai Restaurant, 6345 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 41 G. Consideration of approval of itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses, with fee waiver, for Richfield Human Rights Commission Richfest celebration at Richfield Intermediate School, 7020-12th Avenue, on March 13, 2004 S.R. No. 42 H. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City of Richfield to participate with cities of St. Louis Park, Golden Valley and Brooklyn Center, equally sharing cost, in Phase II of Public Safety Answering Point Dispatch Consolidation Study S.R. No. 43 Notes: 5. Consideration of item(s), if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Public hearing regarding resolution authorizing use of funds for 2004 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Staff Report No. 44 Notes: 7. Public hearing regarding resolution amending conditional use permit at 616 East 78th Street (Enterprise Rent-A-Car) to allow automobile sales in addition to automobile leasing Staff Report No. 45 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 8. Consideration of new motor vehicle dealer license for Enterprise Leasing Company dba Enterprise Car Sales, 616 East 78th Street Staff Report No. 46 Notes: RESOLUTION 9. Consideration of resolution approving provisions of 2004-2005 labor agreement between City of Richfield and International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 Staff Report No. 47 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 10. Discussion of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District proposed Rule M Staff Report No. 48 Notes: 11. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 12.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. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of February 24, 2004 PRESENTATION 1. Proclamation designating March 13, 2004 Human Rights Day in Richfield COUNCIL DISCUSSION 2. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Richfest 2004 Optimists assistance with warming houses 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 resolution authorizing subdivision waiver for properties at 305 East 77th Street (Church of the Assumption) and 308 East 78th Street (Progress Valley group home) S.R. No. 36 B. Consideration of approval of new gambling license for Mpls-Richfield American Legion Unit #435 Auxiliary, 601 Portland Avenue, and resolution granting gambling activity S.R. No. 37 C. Consideration of approval of contract with City of Bloomington, using federal grant funds from Centers for Disease Control, to provide public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism services and development of response system S.R. No. 38 D. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to Asplundh Tree Expert Company for 2004 diseased tree removal on private property in amount of $107,746 S.R. No. 39 E. Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing for March 23, 2004--for new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for LaVilla Restaurante Mexicano, 1120 East 66th Street S.R. No. 40 F. Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing for March 23, 2004 for new wine and 3.2 on-sale malt liquor licenses for Pu'hket Thai Restaurant, 6345 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 41 G. Consideration of approval of itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses, with fee waiver, for Richfield Human Rights Commission Richfest celebration at Richfield Intermediate School, 7020-12th Avenue, on March. 13, 2004 S.R. No. 42 H. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City of Richfield to participate with cities of St. Louis Park, Golden Valley and Brooklyn Center, equally sharing cost, in Phase II of Public Safety Answering Point Dispatch Consolidation Study S.R. No. 43 Notes: 5. Consideration of item(s), if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Public hearing regarding resolution authorizing use of funds for 2004 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Staff Report No. 44 Notes: 7. Public hearing regarding resolution amending conditional use permit at 616 East 78th Street (Enterprise Rent-A-Car) to allow automobile sales in addition to automobile leasing Staff Report No. 45 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 8. Consideration of new motor vehicle dealer license for Enterprise Leasing Company dba Enterprise Car Sales, 616 East 78th Street Staff Report No. 46 Notes: RESOLUTION 9. Consideration of resolution approving provisions of 2004-2005 labor agreement between City of Richfield and International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 Staff Report No. 47 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 10. Discussion of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District proposed Rule M Staff Report No. 48 Notes: 11. 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. Commenfs 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: 12.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: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 10 RF,P(7RT # G R STAFF REPORT r ~ ' ~'' ~` ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~~ .,.a ~~~.~~ .~ F,' MARCH 9, 2004. REPORT PREPARED BY: MIKE EASTLING, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:. Review of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District proposed Rule_M. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: B Motion: No Formal action at this time. II. BACKGROUND The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has been considering the establishment of Rule M to require that vegetated btaffers be established around all wetlands in the district. At the City Council's annual goal setting session the City. Council requested that the buffer issue be brought to the Council for consideration. The attached' January 21, 2004 letter to Jim Hafner of the MCWD outlines the concerns of City staff. A copy of the proposed Rule M is also attached. A photo of the homes that abut Milner Pond near 64th Street and 5th Avenue is included to depict the potential impact of imposing the buffer on the backyards of the homes. A buffer of unmowed native vegetation that extends from the edge of the pond to near the house could be required if Rule M were enacted: Rule M would be enforced at the time the property was. improved, such as an addition to the garage. City staff will be available at the Council Meeting to discuss the proposed Rule M. 0309 MCWD rule M III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION No recommendation is being made at this time. The item is for discussion purposes only. A. POLICY • N/A B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council could request a City Council Study Session on this topic • The City Council could request that a member of the MCWD Board of Managers attend a City Council Study Session on this topic.. V. ATTACHMENTS • January 21, 2004 letter to Jim Hafner, MCWD • Photo of the homes along Milner Pond • MCWD Rules B & M VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None ICHFIELD Public Works. Department January 21, 2004 Jim Hafner Project Manager/Senior Technician Minnehaha Creek Watershed District MAYOR 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard MARTIN J. KIRSCH Deephaven, MN 55391 CITY COUNCIL JOHN ENGER Dear Mr. Hafner: SUSAN ROSENBERG SUZANNE M. SANDAHL Thank you again for coming over last week to help me better. understand Rule M. The GERTRUDE ULRICH comments that I got from; the staff from the other cities in attendance. indicate that the CITY MANAGER meeting was. helpful especially due to the insight that you provided. As I mentioned at SAMANTHA ORDUNO the meeting, at their annual goal setting meeting, the Richfield City Council instructed me to respond to the MCWD with their concerns about Rule M. I want to make the following points about Rule M,Buffers: 1. The proposed rule is particularly burdensome to developed communities. 2. The "one size fits all" rule is not supported by good science as a beneficial wetland protection: practice (and in some .circumstances it is counterproductive).: 3. The rule does not allow reasonable flexibility... 4. Milner Pond in Richfield provides a specific example of the unreasonableness of the rule. 5. There are reasonable alternative approaches. 1. Burdensome to developed communities The imposition of Rule M in its current form would impose. significant burdens on owners of property in the watershed. Although land would: be lost for development in undeveloped areas, a greater burden would be imposed in areas that are already subdivided and developed. In some cases, the creation of the required buffer would mean the loss of all or a significant part of a .backyard that is currently usable for open space, recreation, entertaining, gardening, and the like. Not all citizens would have the knowledge, time, information, financial resources, or physical ability to plant and maintain a buffer that is suitable. for the location and compatible with the neighborhood. Faced with the need to lose a backyard o a buffer, some landowners would choose not to improve their properties. so that Rule M would also be a disincentive to reinvestment in the community. In many cases, this would affect the redevelopment of older areas that are very much in need of redevelopment or reinvestment. 2. Not supported by good science- not beneficial in some circumstances While the general goals of Rule M .are laudable, there will be many cases in which the application of the Rule would not significantly advance those goals. The runoff from a mown lawn that is not fertilized with phosphorus, and from which grass The Urban Hometown 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861..9700 FAX: 612.861.9749 www.ci.richfield.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Jim Hafner January 21, 2004 Page 2 clippings are removed, may contain lower levels of nutrients than an unmaintained buffer strip containing decomposing leaves and other plant materials. In some. cases, such as with ice ridges around a lake, surface water. does not even flow from the upland to the water body through a buffer area. The City is not convinced that the available scientific evidence demonstrates consistent or predictable benefits from buffers, particularly benefits that are of sufficient magnitude to justify the substantial social, economic, and even environmental burdens resulting from buffer strips in fully developed areas. Not all buffers would be beneficial and pleasant natural gardens. Some, perhaps most, would be unmaintained weed. patches that provide a harborage for mosquitoes and other pests, collect wind blown refuse and leaves, and serve as a fire hazard and source of seeds of undesirable plants for nearby lawns. These buffers would be a blighting influence on the neighborhood .and adversely affect property values. 3. Not reasonably flexible The public will not accept a law that is unreasonable or does not make sense. A significant concern about Rule M, in its current form,. is that. it is a "one size fits all" Rule that does not provide any reasonable flexibility for situations where buffers would be of little or no benefit. Or, the Rule would not have sufficient beneficial effect to offset unreasonable burdens that the Rule would impose. The Comprehensive Site Water Resource Plan (CSWRP) does not provide sufficient flexibility to address these concerns. In some cases, there will be no greater justification to impose the implementation of a CSWRP than there is for the imposition of the buffer rule. And, depending on the circumstances of any given case, aCSWRP-may be more expensive to design and. implement than a buffer. 4. Milner Pond, Rule M unreasonable In Richfield, there is a pond known as Milner's Pond, 65th. and 4th, that has served as a storm water pond since that area of Richfield was developed in the 40's. The pond is approximately 7 acres in size and is surrounded by 31 houses, built over 50 years ago, with relatively small backyards that are mowed nearly to the water line (A photo is attached). The area of Richfield that flows through Milner's Pond has been fully developed for over 50 years, and is approximately 150 acres in size. There are approximately 384 residential properties in the watershed flowing through the pond. Surface water from all of these properties, both front and back yards, flow onto the streets and into the storm sewers, untreated, through Milner's Pond. Whatever water quality or storm water treatment benefit a buffer serves would result from a buffer around the edge of every one of these 384 properties to the same extent as a buffer around Milner's Pond. Yet any of these other properties would be able to construct a garage, widen a driveway or expand their houses without having to create and maintain a buffer strip. The only properties that would be subject to the Rule would be a handful of .properties around Milner's Pond. Jim Hafner January 21,2004 Page 3 5. Reasonable alternative approaches There are a number of ways .that the City's concerns might be addressed, at least in part. These include the following: Apply the rules only to new development. 2. Incorporate reasonable exceptions into the Rule. 3. Encourage, rather than mandate, buffers by the use of grants, education, model projects, and model ordinances. 4. Substantially reduce the width of the required buffers.. 5. Adopt buffering. as a means of attaining a performance standard under the MCWD's surface water management plan rather than as a rule. This would allow cities the latitude to meet these performance standards in a way.that would take local concerns into account in the adoption and implementation of their local municipal plans. 6. Provide for variances that take into account such factors as: ^ the hardship involved in the imposition of the Rule, ^ the availability - or lack of availability - of reasonable alternative. means of meeting the same objectives, ^ the direction of surface water flow,. ^ the potential effectiveness of buffers in each individual case, ^ the .compatibility of a buffer with adjacent and nearby uses, and ^ the public benefit of the project that triggers the application of the Rule. The City urges the MCWD to continue a dialog.with the cities to explore whether the objectives of the Rule can be met in a way that avoids, or at least minimizes, the unreasonable costs and burdens about which the City is concerned. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Michael J. Eastling Director of Public works City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Attachment MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS RULES B & M PROPOSED REVISIONS PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES §103D.341 December 5, 2003 DEFINITIONS The following terms are added or amended, as indicated: "Impervious surface" means a surface of largely uninterrupted material such as, but not limited to, asphalt, concrete, shingle, wood or compacted gravel that is unable to effectively absorb or infiltrate rainfall and snowmelt or allow water to enter the underlying soil. "Lake" means a waterbasin other than a wetland as defined at Minnesota Statutes 103G.005, subdivision 19. "Land-disturbing activity" or "land disturbance" means any disturbance to the ground surface that, through the action of wind or water, may result in soil erosion or the movement of sediment into waters, wetlands or storm sewers or onto adjacent property. Land-disturbing activity includes but is not limited to the demolition of a structure or surface, soil stripping, clearing, grubbing, skidding, excavating, surface disturbance related to tunneling, filling and the stockpiling of soil or other erodible materials. "Mature tree" means a woody plant with a trunk diameter of at least 12 inches measured 24 inches above the ground. "Native Plant Community" means a community so listed at the time of Board permit action by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. "Pervious surface" means a surface that is not impervious, as that term is defined above. "Public use right" means the collective right of the public, as set forth in Minnesota court decisions concerning riparian and public trust rights, to make reasonable use of a navigable waterbody for beneficial purposes. "Riparian canopy tree" means a mature tree with a canopy that extends beyond the vertical plane of the ordinary high water level. MCWD Rule Revision Proposed Rules B & M December 5, 2003 "Riparian right" means the right of a public or private riparian landowner, as set forth in Minnesota-court decisions, to make any reasonable, otherwise lawful use of a waterbody in common with the rights of other riparian landowners and any other public rights. "Sapling" means a young woody plant with a trunk diameter of between one and four inches measured 24 inches above the ground. "Stream" means a watercourse. "Wetland" means all wetlands identified as wetlands under Minnesota Statutes 103G.005, subdivision 19, excluding any wetland created solely as a result of actions taken by a person for a purpose other than creating the wetland. "Wooded buffer" means a vegetated area at least 15 feet wide parallel to the riparian edge; with a mature. tree canopy covering at least 50 percent of the area; and characterized by heavy ground litter and sparse undergrowth. RULE B: EROSION CONTROL A new subsection 2(c) is added as follows: (c) Does not propose activity subject to Rule M (Lake, Stream and Wetland Buffers), subsection 6(e). A new paragraph 5(b)(8) is added as follows: (8) Documentation that no vegetation or soils will be disturbed or compacted, and no excavated, fill or construction material will be stockpiled, closer to any identified public water or wetland than the following. Each wetland is classified (Preserve, Manage 1, Manage 2, Manage 3) using the MCRAM wetland assessment method as further described in Rule M (Lake, Stream and Wetland Buffers), subsection 4(b): Stream 50 feet Lake 50 feet Wetland Manage 3 20 feet Manage 2 30 feet Manage 1 40 feet Preserve 75 feet MCWD Rule Revision 2 Proposed Rules B & M December 5, 2003 (a) Notwithstanding the above, when Rule M applies, the temporary buffer width required under paragraph 8 shall be equal to the permanent buffer width specified under Rule M. (b) If an applicant demonstrates that the specified temporary buffer width will not accommodate applicable construction techniques, the District will reduce the buffer width required. The buffer shall be as wide as site conditions allow and the permit shall include additional conditions to offset any reduced protection. (c) Paragraph 8 shall not apply to any wetland with a surface area equal to or less than the area of wetland impact allowed without replacement as de minimis under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. (d) Vegetation or soil disturbance or material stockpiling otherwise prohibited under paragraph 8 is allowed if approved under Rule M, subsection 6(e). A new paragraph 5(b)(9) is added as follows: (9) Restoration and revegetation measures for disturbed area within a permanent waterbody buffer to optimize conditions for vegetation growth and infiltration, including decompaetion of the subgrade to a depth of 12 to 18 inches, depending on soil type, and application of at least six inches of soil meeting the specifications for select topsoil borrow at MnDOT specification 3877.2B (2000 ed.), as amended. A new paragraph 5(c)(7) is added as follows: (7) Soil stabilization measures shall provide for prompt and effective stabilization under prevailing site conditions and seasonal factors. Section 9 is amended to read as follows: 9. MAINTENANCE. The permittee shall be responsible at all times for the maintenance and proper operation of all erosion and sediment control facilities. On any property on which land-disturbing activity has occurred pursuant to a permit issued under this Rule, the permittee shall, at a minimum, inspect, maintain and repair all disturbed surfaces and all erosion and sediment control facilities and soil stabilization measures every day work is performed on the site, and at least weekly, until land-disturbing activity has ceased. Thereafter, the permittee shall perform these responsibilities at least weekly until vegetative cover is established. Fencing of sufficient height and visibility to prevent land-disturbing activity from intruding on temporary buffer shall be maintained between MCWD Rule Revision Proposed Rules B & M December 5, 2003 the buffer and land-disturbing activity until that activity has ceased. The permittee shall maintain a log of activities under this section for inspection by the District on request. RULE J: FEES A new subsection 2(e) is added as follows: (e) when a Comprehensive Site Water Resource Plan is proposed under Rule M (Lake, Stream and Wetland Buffers); Subsections 2(e) and 2(f) are revised to 2(f) and 2(g), respectively. RULE M: LAKE, STREAM, AND WETLAND BUFFERS 1. POLICY. A vegetated buffer is a strip of land bordering a waterbody in which primarily native or restored vegetation is maintained largely undisturbed, and serves- a critical role in protecting water resources. Purposes served by vegetated buffers include bank and shoreline stabilization; erosion prevention; filtration of nutrients, sediments and other pollutants from storm flows; protection of stream beds and banks and mitigation of downstream flooding through moderation of peak flows both into and within the resource; regulation of in-stream temperatures; preservation of aquatic and terrestrial habitat; protection of scenic resources; and maintenance of property values. The purpose of this Rule is to use sound scientific principles to afford the greatest possible protection to the functions and values, including the water quality, flow regime and habitat, of the surface waters within the District consistent with the interest in avoiding undue disruption of established public and private activities in littoral and riparian zones. To minimize disruption and encourage innovation, the Rule, in particular through a Comprehensive Site Water Resources Plan alternative, allows. a landowner to select other means of achieving the functions provided by a buffer provided the same standard of performance is achieved. 2. APPLICABILITY. The Rule applies as stated in this section. (a) A buffer permit is required before undertaking activity- that requires a permit under. Rule C (Floodplain Alteration), D (Wetland Protection), G (waterbody Crossings) or N (Stormwater Management) of the District Rules, or when 500 square feet or more of new impervious surface is to be created, consistent with the following: (1) This Rule applies only to land adjacent to a public water as defined at Minn. Stat. § 103G.005, subd. 15, as amended; or a wetland as defined at Minn. Stat. §103G.005, subd. 19, as amended. MCWD Rule Revision 4 Proposed Rules B & M December 5, 2003 (2 nd that is separated from an adjacent public water or wetland by mtervemng property not under the applicant's control is excepted from this Rule if the established permanent use of the intervening property renders the required buffer ineffective. _~ (3) This Ru e ap , an not in place of, any applicable shoreland ordinance. Wetland buffer requirements are adopted pursuant to authority in Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D. An activity subject to these requirements needs a permit from the District whether or not the District is responsible for administration of the Wetland Conservation Actin the location where the activity is to occur. (4) This Rule does not apply to any wetland: (a) with a surface area equal to or less than the area of wetland impact allowed without replacement as de minimis under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act; or (b) that will be lawfully converted to non-wetland by the. proposed activity. (5) Activity on asingle-family residential parcel that requires a permit under Rule C does not trigger this Rule, if the parcel is a lot of record or has received preliminary plat approval as of [the effective date of this RuleJ. The Rule will apply, however, if the activity requires a permit under another provision of subsection 2(a). (6) If the District, pursuant to an approved local water plan, has agreed that it will defer all permitting under the subsection 2(a) triggering rule to the local unit of government, a Rule M permit still is required from the District. (b) A buffer is required along a waterbody or part thereof as follows: (1) When triggered by a Rule N (Stormwater Management} permit, along that length of shoreline or streambank that received surface runoff from within the area of land disturbance prior to disturbance. (2) When triggered by a Rule C (Floodplaln Alteration) permit, along each waterbody, the floodplaln of which is to be altered. (3) When triggered by a Rule D (Wetland Protection) permit, along each wetland that is to be drained, filled or excavated. MCWD Rule Revision Proposed Rules B & M December 5, 2003 (4) When triggered by a Rule G (Waterbody Crossings) permit, along each waterbody, the bank or bed of which is to be used fora crossing. (5) When triggered by the creation of 500 square feet of hard surface, along that length of shoreline or streambank that received surface runoff from within the area of land disturbance prior to disturbance. (c) Where this Rule requires District permission for activity within a recorded buffer, permission shall be in a written document termed a buffer encroachment approval. Application shall be made on a form provided by the District. Notwithstanding any other provision of the District Rules, District staff may issue a buffer encroachment approval on application without further notice or process. A buffer encroachment approval may encompass a single activity or multiple activities, and may be included in a Comprehensive Site Water Resource Plan approval under section 5 of this Rule. (d) This Rule shall be implemented in accordance with the Minnesota Historic Sites Act, Minnesota Statutes. §§138.661 through 138.669. 3. RECORDATION AND MONUMENTATION. (a) A buffer shall be documented by declaration or other recordable instrument that shall be approved by the District and recorded in the office of the county recorder or registrar before the MCWD permit is issued. The recordable instrument shall state that on further subdivision of the property, each subdivided lot of record shall meet the monumentation requirement of subsection 3(b). In lieu of recordation, a buffer on public land or right-of-way may be documented in a written agreement executed with the District. The agreement shall state that if the land containing the buffer is conveyed, the public body shall require the buyer to comply with this subsection. (b) A buffer pursuant to this Rule shall be indicated by permanent, free-standing markers at the upland edge of the buffer. Stream buffer markers shall be placed at the edge of the streamside zone only. (1) One marker shall be placed at each lot line, with additional markers for a maximum marker spacing of 200 feet. (2) The marker shall consist of afour-inch-square treated wood post, installed to a height of four feet above .grade and set at least 42 inches into the ground. A sign obtained from the District, identifying the buffer, shall be mounted flush with the top of the post using permanent, non-removable fasteners. Minor divergence from this specification is permissible for consistency with a local ordinance. MCWD Rule Revision 6 Proposed Rules B & M December 5, 2003 (3) If the District permit is sought for a subdivision, the monumentation requirement will apply to each lot of record to be created. (4) Monumentation is not required when the buffer requirement is imposed on a single residential lot. Notwithstanding, the recordable instrument filed pursuant to subsection 3(a) shall include the language specified in that subsection concerning monumentation, which shall apply in the event that the lot later is subdivided. (5) With respect to public land or right-of-way, the monumentation requirement may be satisfied by the use of markers flush to the ground, breakaway markers of durable material, or a vegetation maintenance plan approved by the District. 4. BUFFER WIDTH. (a) Buffers shall be of the following minimum and average widths.. "Maximum" refers to the maximum width of buffer that will be counted in calculating average width. The average width below shall be met at all points of concentrated sheet inflow to the wetland. All widths are stated as plan view (horizontal). (b) A wetland buffer shall be of the following width, measured from the wetland edge. Wetland classifications (Preserve, Manage 1, Manage 2, Manage 3), as described in the Functional Assessment of Wetlands incorporated within the District's Water Resources Management Plan, are means of measuring wetland function and value according to criteria specified in the Functional Assessment. The District has evaluated most wetlands in the watershed and their classifications are contained in the Functional Assessment. If a wetland has not been classified, the District will classify it during permit review, with the cost reimbursable under Rule J (Fees). When a waterbody includes wetlands of different classifications, the buffer width of the dominant classification shall control. Minimum Average Maximum (feet) (feet) (feet) Manage 3 15 20 25 Manage 2 25 30 35 Manage 1 35 40 50 Preserve 50 75 100 MCWD Rule Revision 7 Proposed Rules B & M December 5, 2003 (c) A stream buffer consists of two adjacent zones. Zone widths shall be as follows, beginning at the ordinary high water level:. Minimum Average Maximum (feet) (feet) (feet) Streamside 25 50 100 Outer To structure setback line under applicable shoreland ordinance or, if none, under DNR shoreland ordinance (d) A lake buffer zone shall be of the following width, measured from the ordinary high water level: Minimum Average Maximum (feet) (feet) (feet) 25 50 100 (e) In an area where more than 25 percent of the applicable average buffer width in subsections 4(b) through (d) falls on a steep slope, the buffer shall extend to the top of the steep slope, or shall have a total width of 100 feet, whichever is less. A steep slope is defined as land with an average slope exceeding 12 percent over a distance of 25 feet, determined on the basis of final contours. (f) In an area. where the upland buffer edge or, for a stream, the upland streamside zone edge falls on a Native Plant Community associated with a waterbody, the buffer or streamside zone shall extend to the upland edge of the Native Plant Community, or shall have a total width of 100 feet, whichever is less. 5. COMPREHENSIVE SITE WATER RESOURCE PLAN. (a) In place of a portion of the buffer specified in section 4, a public or private applicant may submit a Comprehensive Site Water Resource Plan. The District will approve the plan if it finds that the alternative means specified in the plan will provide for performance equivalent to that of the applicable buffer with respect to water quality protection, peak flow and volume control, and plant and wildlife habitat preservation. The plan shall provide for the comprehensivel-y use of site design and maintenance, along with structural and non-structural methods, to restore and preserve the functions and values of affected water resources within the subwatershed or other appropriate ecological unit. MCWD Rule Revision 8 Proposed Rules B & M December 5, 2003 (b) The plan must contain the following: (1) The submittals required by section 9; (2) Identification of the subwatershed(s) in which the parcel is situated. If the ecological unit selected is something other than a subwatershed, or if the area of activity is something other than the parcel, this must be identified and a written justification of why it was selected must be included with the permit application; (3) A topographic map of the parcel and adjacent parcels with best available contours that encompasses the parcel; (4) A scaled site plan showing existing and proposed contours; the locations of proposed improvements; all waterbodies on the parcel; proposed waterbody buffers; and all vegetation types on the parcel, identifying those to be removed, those to be preserved and those to be planted; (5) Cross-sections showing high and low points where water will run off and accumulate; (6) A competent analysis by a qualified professional of water quality, peak flow and volume impacts of the proposed activity, including a comparison of impacts with the full buffer in place and impacts under the plan, and an assessment of plan compatibility with surrounding present and likely future land uses; (7) A competent assessment by a qualified professional of the existing, proposed and potential functional condition of the parcel's riparian plant and wildlife habitat, including a plant and wildlife inventory; identification of listed or locally rare species; and assessment of the degree of habitat alteration, specialized habitat, connection to other habitat or habitat types, and existence of habitat barriers; (8) Implementation plans and specifications, including implementation- phase erosion and sedimentation controls; (9) A maintenance plan, including the identification of responsible persons; (10) Identification of those plan elements required by a governmental body. MCWD Rule Revision Proposed Rules B & M December 5, 2003 (11) Other information as determined by the District to be necessary to evaluate the plan. (c) As part of meeting the performance criteria of subsection 5(a), the plan must provide, at a minimum, fora 10-foot buffer of primarily native vegetation on at least 70 percent of the shoreline or streambank subject to a buffer under this Rule. The requirement of 70 percent will be reduced if justified under another provision of this Rule. (d) All plan elements .shall be analyzed, designed and constructed in accordance with accepted engineering standards. The following events shall be assessed: (1) For water quality impacts, the one-year, 24-hour event; (2) For peak flow impacts, the one-, 10- and 100-year, 24-hour events; (3) For volume impacts, the 100-year, 24-hour event. (e) As a condition of plan approval, the District may require: (1) A surety in an amount consistent with Rule K (Sureties), section 3, to ensure installation and maintenance according to the plan; (2) Execution or recordation of a maintenance agreement or declaration to ensure that the parcel is used and maintained consistent with the plan. (f) The District may refer an applicant to manuals and other sources of assistance in developing a plan. (g) A watershed, corridor or other area plan may .serve as the basis for a plan under section 5, provided that the area plan is supplemented as necessary to meet the application requirements of the section. Asite-specific application under this Rule may propose to vary any provision of an area plan.. 6. BUFFER RESTRICTIONS. (a) The buffer shall consist of primarily native vegetation that is not cultivated, cropped, pastured, mowed, fertilized, subject to the placement of mulch or yard waste, or otherwise disturbed, except for periodic cutting or burning that promotes the health of the buffer, actions to address disease or invasive species, or other actions to maintain or improve buffer quality, each as approved under subsection 2(c). Pesticides and herbicides maybe used in accordance with Minnesota Department of Agriculture rules and guidelines. The vegetation shall be maintained to preserve buffer function. MCWD Rule Revision 10 Proposed Rules B & M December 5, 2003 (1) Within the outer zone of a stream buffer, the restrictions of subsection 6(a) shall not apply. (2) The District may impose reasonable conditions to establish primarily native vegetation within the buffer. (3) Notwithstanding subsection 6(a), the District will allow disturbance of an existing District-required buffer pursuant to subsection 6(e). (b) Subject to section 8 of this Rule, except as provided in this subsection, no above-ground structure or impervious surface shall be placed within the buffer permanently or temporarily. (1) A structure may extend or be suspended above the buffer on District approval under subsection 2(c) if the impact of any supports within the buffer is negligible, the design allows sufficient light to maintain the species shaded by the structure, and the structure does not otherwise interfere with the protection afforded by the buffer. (2) Where a buffer is required in conjunction with a Rule G (Waterbody Crossings) permit, the structure associated with an approved crossing is exempted from the prohibition of this subsection. The impact of.the crossing on the waterbody and buffer shall be minimized. (3) A public road, an above-ground public utility, an above-ground structure associated with a public road or public utility, or a maintained public utility right-of-way may be located within a buffer zone on a demonstration that there is no reasonable alternative that avoids or reduces the proposed buffer intrusion. A structure, impervious cover or right-of- way maintained permanently within a buffer shall minimize the area of permanent vegetative disturbance. Minimization includes, but is not limited to, approach roads and rights-of-way that are perpendicular to a crossing and of a minimum width consistent with use and maintenance access needs. (4) Outlet, flood control and stormwater treatment facilities may be located within a buffer subject to conditions to minimize buffer impact. (5) Shoreline or streambank stabilization measures maybe installed pursuant to a Rule F (Shoreline & Streambank Improvements) permit or as specifically excepted from Rule F under subsection 2(d) of that Rule. (c) Fill, debris or other material shall. not be excavated from or placed in a buffer, except for: (1) temporary placement of fill or excavated material pursuant to lawful work in the associated waterbody, with District approval under subsection MCwD Rule Revision 11 Proposed Rules B & M December 5, 2003 2(c); (2) excavation, filling and the temporary placement of fill or excavated material in the outer zone of a stream buffer, with District .approval under subsection 2(c); or (3) activity pursuant to subsection 6(e). (d) The buffer may enclose a linear feature on a demonstration that doing so will not significantly reduce the protection afforded the waterbody. A trail no more than 10 feet in width bordered by a pervious buffer of at least five feet on each side is deemed to meet this requirement. The feature shall not count toward buffer width. (e) Notwithstanding subsection 6(a) or Rule B (Erosion Control), paragraph 5(b)(8), the District shall issue a permit allowing a buffer to be disturbed for the purpose of altering land contours, installing abelow-ground public utility or improving buffer function if the following criteria are met: (1) An erosion control plan is submitted that- complies with section 7; (2) Wooded buffer and riparian canopy trees, and their root systems within the dripline, are protected and left intact; (3) When disturbance is completed: (a) Sheet flow characteristics within the buffer are improved; (b) Average slope is no steeper than preexisting average slope; (c) The top 18 inches of the soil profile is uncompacted, has a permeability at least equal to the permeability of the preexisting soil in an uncompacted state and has organic matter content of between five and 15 percent; and (d) Habitat diversity and riparian shading are maintained or improved. (4) A revegetation plan specifies removal of invasive species and establishment of primarily native vegetation suited to the location; the plan also provides that saplings shall be planted to replace removed trees at a ratio of at least two diameter inches for each diameter inch removed. (5) A recorded instrument establishes that for three years following site stabilization, the property owner of record will correct erosion, maintain and replace vegetation, and remove of invasive species to permanently establish vegetation according to the revegetation plan. MCWD Rule Revision 12 Proposed Rules B & M December 5, 2003 A permit will not be approved if on the basis of existing or proposed slope, soil type, root structure or proposed construction methods, it is likely that disturbance will result in erosion, slope failure or a failure to establish vegetation. 7. TEMPORARY PROTECTION. (a) The substantive requirements of Rule B (Erosion Control), specifically including the requirements of this section, shall apply to land-disturbing activity within any buffer zone other than a stream outer zone that requires a permit or buffer encroachment approval under this Rule, irrespective of the area or volume of earth to be disturbed. (b) Buffers and the location and extent of proposed vegetation disturbance shall be delineated on the erosion control plan. (c) Alterations must be designed and conducted to ensure only the smallest disturbed area is exposed for the shortest time possible. Mulches or similar materials must be used for temporary soil coverage and permanent natural vegetation must be established as soon as possible: (d) Fill or excavated material shall not create an unstable slope. (e) When land-disturbing activity occurs adjacent to a buffer, siltation or other fencing shall be maintained at the buffer edge to prevent .buffer disturbance. When land-disturbing activity occurs in the outer zone of a stream buffer, fencing shall be maintained at the common boundary of the outer and streamside zones. 8. EXCEPTIONS. (a) A structure, impervious surface, road or utility in place on [the effective date of this Rule]; its maintenance, reconstruction or relocation further from the waterbody without an increase in surface area; and maintenance of its existing right-of-way are excepted from this Rule. (b) Access may be created and maintained for the exercise of a riparian right or public use right in a waterbody. An access surface within a buffer shall be non- polluting, pervious where feasible, and no larger than needed for the intended use. Permanent vegetative disturbance shall be limited to that needed for access in light of the nature and extent of the permitted use. A facility that is a necessary part of a riparian or public use of the waterbody and required by its nature to be adjacent to the water may be located within a buffer subject to conditions specified by the District to minimize buffer impact. Such facilities include, but are not limited to, docking facilities, boat ramps, fishing piers, overlooks, beaches and canoe racks. The exception provided by this paragraph applies to no more than 30 percent of the shoreline or streambank subject to a buffer under this Rule. MCWD Rule Revision 13 Proposed Rules B & M December 5, 2003 (c) The District may grant a variance or an exception from this Rule in accordance with Rule I of the MCWD Rules. 9. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS. A scaled site plan shall be submitted with the application showing: (a) Property lines and corners and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant; (b) Existing and proposed elevation contours; (c) Delineation of the stream top of bank, lake ordinary high water level or wetland edge and the buffer applicable under this Rule. For a wetland delineation, the application shall include data sheets with detailed information on soils, hydrology and vegetation and a summary report. Wetland should be delineated between May 1 and October 15. A delineation outside of this period may not be accepted and must be approved by the District in advance. The top of bank or wetland boundary shall be staked in the field. (d) Identification, within waterbody and buffer areas, of the location and species of each tree larger than four inches in diameter at a point four feet above the ground, indicating those trees proposed to be removed. (e) Identification and location of all waterbodies on the property or within 100 feet of the property boundary. (f) State, county and local protection status or designation of the subject waterbody. MCWD Rule Revision 14 Proposed Rules B & M December 5, 2003 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF TRANSPORTATION PLAN INFORMATION This acknowledgment is given by Lois Berg ("Berg") and Enterprise Leasing Company, a Minnesota corporation dba Enterprise .Rent-a-Car ("Enterprise"), to -the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"): Recitals A. Berg is the owner and Enterprise is the tenant of real property located at 616 East 78~' Street in the City of Richfield (the "Property"). Enterprise operates a car rental facility on the Property, pursuant to a conditional use permit, No. 1989-CUP-04, issued by the City. B. Enterprise has applied for an amendment to its conditional use permit to allow car sales in. addition to car leasing on the Property. C. The Property has frontage on 78~' Street, which is a-one-way street for westbound traffic. The Property is located approximately 180 feet east of the intersection of 78~' Street and Portland Avenue and 953 feet west of the intersection of 78~' Street and Chicago Avenue. D. The City has advised Berg and Enterprise that the current plans for the fiiture widening of I- 494 near the Property will result in changes to the street plans and traffic flow in the area of the Property. Acknowled~lnent Enterprise and Berg hereby acknowledge receipt of information from the City regarding the current plans for the future widening of I-494. Specifically, Enterprise and Berg acknowledge that the current plans contemplate the following changes to the traffic patterns in the vicinity of the Property: • 78th Street will be converted to a two-way street, terminating in a cul-de-sac immediately to the west of the Property. • Access to Portland Avenue via 78~' Street will be eliminated. • Travelers to the Property will access the Property via the new cul-de-sac street. • -The nearest intersecting street to the east will be Chicago Avenue. Enterprise and Berg fiuther acknowledge the City has advised Enterprise and Berg that future widening of I-494 is not in the current 10-year plan for the Minnesota Department of Transportation and that changes are not expected to occur prior to the year 2013. In addition, the City has advised that both the current plans and the anticipated timeline for construction are subject to change. This instrument is given for the sole purpose of acknowledging receipt of information concerning possible changes in street routes and access to the Property. CAH-241104v2 RC160-5 Dated: ~~~~-~' ~1 Loi Berg, Date ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY, dba ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR Its !) G~ ~ e AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # (, 7 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ' ' ~' MARCH 9, 2004 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: PAM DMYTRENKO ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE ', ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving the contract with the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local No. 49 for the contract period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2005. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution approving the provisions of the 2004-2005 labor agreement with the Loca149 bargaining unit and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. III. BACKGROUND ~ City staff has completed labor negotiations with the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local No. 49 (Union). The provisions of the two year contract agreement for 2004-2005 cover all employees in this Union, including Public Works Workers, Water Plant Operators, Automotive Mechanics and Water Plant Mechanics. There are approximately 40 employees represented in this unit. 0309Local49 contract The tentatively approved settlement includes the following changes: 1. Wages A 3% across-the-board wage increase, effective January 1, 2004, for contract year 2004, and a re-opener of this provision for contract year 2005. 2. Health Insurance A $50 increase to the Employer health insurance contribution for contract year 2004 which provides full coverage to single Employee, $565 per month for Employee plus spouse or Employee plus child(ren) coverage, and $580 per month for Employee plus family. The Employer health insurance contribution may be reopened for contract year 2005. Effective for 2004, the Employer will continue to contribute a maximum of $27 per month per employee for individual dental coverage. 3. Vacation Leave Accrual Effective January 1, 2005, vacation leave accrual will be increased from 240 hours to 248 hours. 4. Uniforms and Safety Boot Allowance An increase of $25 to the clothing allowance,. from $330 to $355, which can be used towards the purchase of clothing and/or qualifying safety boots, for contract year 2004. An additional $20 increase towards the clothing. allowance in 2005 to $375. A separate safety boot allowance of $85 (an increase of $25) is available to Automotive Mechanics only, effective January 1, 2004. All other employees still have a $60 boot allowance to use towards the purchase of qualifying safety boots. 5. Working Out of Classification Effective January 1, 2005, employees who operate the Logging Truck will receive the Public Works Worker III pay rate for those hours assigned to that piece of .equipment. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has met and negotiated in good faith with the Union and it representatives and is bound under the Public Employer's Labor Relations Act to meet and bargain over the terms and conditions of employment. • The 2004-2005 proposed settlement is the first union contract settled for 2004 and is identical in wages and health insurance provisions to non-union City employees. The contract provisions are also well within the range for other IOUE bargaining groups in similar metro cities. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • In order to allow the City's accounting .personnel to modify payroll records in a timely manner for 2004 wages and benefits, it is recommended that the City Council act on March 9, 2004 to adopt the attached resolution providing for contract changes, effective January 1, 2004. C. FINANCIAL • 3% wage increase • $50 increase in Employer contribution towards health insurance coverage for 2004. • $25 increase in clothing allowance and- safety boot allowance for Mechanics for 2004 and a $20 increase to clothing allowance for 2005. • Operation of Logging Truck hours included in working out of class. D. LEGAL • If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation and/or mediation will be necessary. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the terms of this agreement and prepare for further negotiation and/or mediation. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 49 BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEARS 2004-2005 WHEREAS, the City Manager and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 (Local 49) have reached an understanding concerning conditions of employment for the years 2004 and 2005; and WHEREAS, it would be inappropriate to penalize Local 49 members who have negotiated in good faith; and WHEREAS, the City Ordinance requires that contracts between the City-and the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining.. unit shall be completed by Council resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield and. Local 49 Bargaining Unit for the years 2004-2005, under the provisions of the Labor Agreement to be implemented, effective January 1, 2004. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of March, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk J STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 OTHER BUSINESS 46 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for a new motor vehicle dealer license for Enterprise Leasing Company dba Enterprise Car Sales, 616 E. 78th Street, with the stipulation that the new conditional use permit applied for by the owner of the property is approved by the City Council at the March 9, 2004 City Council meeting. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for a new motor vehicle dealer license for Enterprise Leasing Company dba Enterprise Car Sales, 616 E. 78th Street, with the stipulation that the new conditional use permit applied for by the owner of the property is approved by the Citv Council at the March 9, 2004 City Council meeting. II. BACKGROUND On December 29, 2003, the City received an application for a new motor vehicle dealer license for Enterprise Leasing Company dba Enterprise Car Sales. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Ronald S. Cerko is the general manager and vice-president and has no known criminal history. 0309 New Enterprise Car Dealer License The Zoning Administrator has been contacted to discuss the issuance of a new motor vehicle dealer license at the desired location. The owner of the property has applied for a conditional use permit, and it is being considered by the City Council at the March 9, 2004 Council meeting.. If the conditional use permit is approved on March 9, the Zoning Administrator has indicated that there are no other areas of concern regarding Enterprise as long as all of the requirements of the CUP are followed. The applicant currently has a State of Minnesota Motor Vehicle Dealer's License. A copy of this form has been received. The Public Safety Department/Police had two contacts with this property in the past year. One was in May of 2003 and was regarding narcotics; however, no report was written so the specifics are unknown, and the other contact was a medical call in November of 2003. Environmental Health did not receive any complaints for this location in the past year. The applicant agrees to act in a cooperative manner with the Public. Safety Department and will comply with all City ordinances and State statutes. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the provisions of both City codes and State statutes pertaining to motor vehicle dealer licensure. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • If the conditional use permit is denied by the City Council, the dealership will be unable to sell vehicles from the property. G FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request of a new motor vehicle dealer license. This would result in the applicant not being able to operate a motor vehicle dealership at 616 E. 78th Street. ~ V . ATTACHMENTS ~ • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Rick Mendlik • Brian Genesky AGENDA SECTION: pUBL.TG HEARTNGS AGENDA ITEM # ~ REPORT # 45 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BRUCE SYLVESTER, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Nandr:. Tiir.r: ~~~ ~' SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing to consider the attached resolution amending the Conditional Use Permit at 616 East 78th Street (Enterprise Rent-A-Car) to allow automobile sales in addition to automobile leasing. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolution amending the Conditional Use Permit at 616 East 78th Street (Enterprise Rent-A-Car) to allow automobile sales in addition to automobile leasing, with those conditions listed under the "Stipulations For Approval" in the Leaal Section of this report. III. BACKGROUND Enterprise Rent-A-Car operates a vehicle rental business at the parcel it leases at 616 East 78th Street. This property is zoned C-2, or Gelrleral Commercial. Enterprise Rent- A-Car received a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on April 24, 1989 for its automobile leasing business after meeting all City requirements, including landscaping, parking, and building requirements. In the fall of 2003, Enterprise Rent-A-Car representative Brian Genesky submitted an application for an amendment to the CUP to allow the sale of vehicles at 616 East 78th 030904-C U P-616-E-78th. doc Street in addition to the leasing of vehicles. Upon reviewing this request, staff determined that the zoning requirements for a vehicle `sales' lot are the same as for a vehicle `lease' lot, and both are regulated under that same item in the zoning code, as explained below. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Both the `sale' and `leasing' of vehicles are regulated as conditional uses in the C-2 zoning district under Section 526.27, Subdivision 11 ("Auto or boat sales/lease lots")..The findings necessary to issue a CUP (546.05, Subd. 6) 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 `Regional Commercial' at this location, which is consistent with a business that both leases and sells vehicles and that would serve the surrounding community. b) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. This requirement is met since there are no officially adopted redevelopment plans in the area. Furthermore, since no new construction is proposed, design guidelines do not apply. However, staff has required the applicant to significantly improve the appearance of the property and landscaping, and to add a screening fence between the adjoining apartment building. 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. The site and proposed use have been reviewed by City staff and meet the performance standards specified in Section 541. d) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements. This requirement is met. The applicant and property owner have. been made aware of MnDOT's plans for reconfiguring East 78th Street, as explained below. e) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. This requirement is met. The proposed amendment to the CUP will not change the use of this property from its current use as a vehicle lease lot. f) There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. The proposed use as a vehicle leasing and sales lot will provide a needed community service. The business specializes in leasing vehicles to people who are having their primary vehicle serviced at a local auto repair business. Allowing the applicant to also sell vehicles will improve their business by selling their leased inventory. X g) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such Conditional Use Permit. The Zoning Code specifies eight requirements that must be met for the sale of motor vehicles. The current request meets seven of these eight requirements,. as explained below. • The business must receive a City license. The applicant is requesting a license simultaneously with this zoning request. • The use shall not abut a property that is `R' or `R-1'. This requirement is met. Apartments do exist to the east and a residential care facility does exist to the north. Staff has required, and the applicant has agreed to install, privacy- style fencing along the eastern property line. Furthermore, the applicant will maintain the landscaped buffer along the north property line. (Due to a change in elevation to the north, staff is not recommending a fence along the north property line.) • A buffer yard of 15 feet is required on all sides. This requirement is not met. The proposed buffer yards are: 15 feet along the west property line; 5 and 10 feet along the north property line; and 9 feet along the eastern property line. While the minimum width requirement is not met, the applicant has agreed to include substantial landscaping and fencing to create a buffer between the vehicle sales and lease lot and the adjoining properties. • Landscaping for the site must meet City requirements. This requirement is met. The proposed site plan calls for 20% of the site to be landscaped, while the Zoning Code requires 15% of commercial properties to be landscaped • Inoperable vehicles shall not be stored on the premises. The applicant states that this requirement will be met. • Parking of vehicles in the right-of-way is prohibited. The applicant states that this requirement will be met. • All repair and servicing of vehicles must be done within an enclosed building. The applicant states that this requirement will be met. • Any exterior speakerphones shall comply with noise ordinance requirements. This requirement is met because such speakers shall be prohibited as a stipulation for approval. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Proximity to Neighbors. Due to the proximity of apartment buildings to the east, staff is recommending that a privacy fence be required along the east property line. • Signage. The applicant has stated that the existing pylon sign will be used and wall signs will meet city requirements. • Landscaping. The applicant will add landscaping to the site to meet City landscaping requirements. • 78th Street and the reconstruction of I-494. City staff met with representatives from MnDOT to discuss future plans for the widening of 1- 494, the reconstruction of the Portland Avenue bridge over I-494, and how these projects will affect the applicant's property at 616 East 78th Street. Staff obtained current MnDOi' plans for the reconfiguration of East 78th Street east of Portland Avenue, which show that 78th Street's connection with Portland will be closed and replaced with a cul-du-sac, and two-way traffic will be allowed on 78th Street from this cul-du-sac and Chicago Avenue. (Please see the attached map.) Both the property owner and the applicant (Enterprise Rent-A-Car, which leases the property...) has been provided with these plans and both have signed an 030904 CUP 616E 78th St "Acknowledgement of Receipt of Transportation Plan Information" form. The City will keep this signed acknowledgement form on file. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • 60-DAY RULE: The 60 day clock `started' when a complete application was received on December 31, 2003. NOTE: This item was originally scheduled for a public hearing on February 24, 2004, so that the applicant would receive a decision by the 60-day March 1st deadline. However, the Sun Current did not publish the legal notice that had been properly submitted by staff and so the public hearing had to be delayed until March 9. Due to the Sun Current's error, City staff notified the applicant that the City is extending its deadline (as allowed by State law) an additional 60 days to issue a decision. A decision must now be given to the applicant by Apri130, 2004, and the City is NOT able to further extend the deadline for issuing a decision beyond April 30. Zonin `C-2', General Commercial Land Use: Current: Vehicle leasing business. Proposed: Vehicle leasing and sales business. Comprehensive Plan: Regional Commercial Notification:. Mailed notice sent to neighbors and property- owners within 350 feet. Legal notice published in the Sun Current on February 12, 2004. Other Actions: Planning Commission: Recommended approval on January 26, 2004. H RA: N/A Hearing Examiner: N/A. Stipulations of Approval: 1. A six-foot tall, solid privacy fence must be constructed along the eastern property line to buffer the proposed use from the abutting apartment buildings. 2. Exterior speakers shall be prohibited. 3. That the accessory building on site be used only for cleaning vehicles, and that this accessory building can not be used for any type of auto repair or auto bodywork. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the requested CUP #o allow vehicle sales in addition to vehicle leasing at 616 East 78th Street. Approve the requested CUP to allow vehicle sales at 616 East 78th Street but with different stipulations for approval. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Landscaping plan • Area maps showing zoning and land-uses within 350 feet • Copy of MnDOT's current plans for East 78th Street near Portland Avenue • Copy of the signed "Acknowledgement" form regarding planned changes to East 78th Street VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Applicant, Mr. Brian Genesky, Enterprise Rent-A-Car RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW VEHICLE SALES AT 616 EAST 78TH STREET WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of a an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow vehicle sales on land generally located at 616 East 78th Street, legally described as: All that part of the South 415 feet of the West'/2 of the Southwest'/4 of the Southwest'/4 of the Southwest'/4 of Section 35, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4t" Principal Meridian, lying North of the North line of Trunk Highways No. 5 and 100 and Interstate Freeway No. 494 EXCEPT the West 213 feet. thereof. ALSO ALL that part of the West 213 feet of the South 415 feet of the West'/Z of the Southwest'/4 of the Southwest'/4 of the Southwest'/4 of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24 lying North of Trunk Highways No. 4 and No. 100 and Interstate Freeway 494, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said parcel; Thence West along the North line to a point 30 feet West of the Northeast corner; thence South 115.5 feet parallel with the West line thereof; thence Southeasterly to a point on the East line which is 30 feet North of the Southeast corner of the above described parcel; thence North along said East line to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield has recommended approval of this requested amendment to the Conditional Use Permit at 616 East 78th Street at its January 26, 2004 meeting; and WHEREAS, this requested amendment to the Conditional Use Permit at 616 East 78th Street meets those requirements necessary for issuing a Conditional Use Permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Sections 526.27 Subdivision 11 and 546.05, except as specified in Staff Report No. ;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 to allow vehicle sales in addition to vehicle leasing, as described in Staff Report No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. This amended Conditional Use Permit at 616 East 78th Street is subject to the following conditions in addition to those specified in Sections 526.27 Subdivision 11 of the City's Zoning Code: A) That the recipient of this Conditional Use- Permit record this resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subdivision 1 and Richfield Zoning Code 546.05, Subdivision 7. 030904 CUP 616E 78th St B) That a six foot tall, solid privacy fence must be constructed along the rear property line to buffer the proposed use from the abutting apartment buildings. C) That exterior speakers shall be prohibited. D) That the accessory building on site be used only for cleaning vehicles, and that this accessory building can not be used for any type of auto repair or auto bodywork. 3. The amended 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 9th day of March, 2004. Suzanne M. Sandahl, Mayor Pro Tempore ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk w z rj ~ ~~'~~~ a Y ~~'#~ ~~~~~ s ot4^~~JJO ~V ~IJ~b6~ YOOZ4 'ON '03a £0'9l'Zl 3LYO lYinoa aavw lOZ6't94'lS9 (d) OZl6'l94'tS9 (d) OItSS NYY 'aAol Hoag aA4M pooa a~ogo~ bZSC Y1053NNIw d0 31Y15 3HL !O SMY"I E7~SaVV ~ BV J08V BV 3H1 a30Nf1 a33NION3 IYNORS3iDad 035N30f1 ~ 1 ^^ >~ Y ! tY 3 AV10 Y wV 11YH1 ONY N06Na3dfffi 103ai0 Aw a3aNw a0 3w A9 03aYd3ad SYM laOd3a a0 UOS.I~a ^ ~I NOLLYOLiYJ3d5 'NY1d SML 1YH! AdLLa30 A63a3H 1 •rr ?• ~• r. .a ~ .i' ti •: g C7 ova Nolsuaa 'aN ylOS3NNIW `O~31dH~Rl a ~ U NOISNt/dX3 10'i JNI)121Vd 21~dJ-b 1N321 3SRId2131N3 £o~eral :~.ro Nb~ld 3dtl~SONtlI OlY Q3N03FYJ war :NMVaa I I I I I I I i I -'I' - I I i I I I I I 1 1 .. .~., , ."i'. ~~3 ~oc~ ~}~~ ~~~m I $ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ J W ~ ~- S O ~~ ~~ ~ ~ w~ z a ~ ,5~~`- rnM ~raNntaa st~usaa c~ 4 1 4 WF - Q d O • ~ F~ ng ~ v3 K~ m ~ ~ g ~ U 1'"' N~g ~ ~~ Y ~ 2U nnW.. 0 0 ~ ~'~ ~ p ~ U m aS <~< C ~KO ~~ ~ = ~ g ~<~Ii J ~ ~ ~U~QQ ~ Z ZQ BB W~N ~ t t Wa Z6 ~"~W X =W Z <~j ¢ F Q~ ~ ~4~ ~ «l~ 0 61-:•l~ W ~m ~ Z 0 :r V ~ W !• W U Z O ~ o ~~ a o ~~ _X ~ q tl r.. ~ s ~ ~ ••i a m ~ i..~ ~ ~ m ~ F N x~ V ~ "' CN ~bW p 3 ~ ? 4 L7 _ O ~ W U p SO K 3 N NO p ,0-,9 ~ ,b • • ,0-,f 9 . S ~ , d J ~ Fa- •°~ ~ W O ~ W ~ ~ ~ors:~ ,~ ~~<;. Z F=~ ~ • g W ~mW a • o_ LL yy~~ X ~0t 9 y p ~ ~ Q K m ~ o O Q Z J J ~ ~ Q _ ~ O J . ,p J > ~ ~ U J F N~ U W - Fy ~j ~ n Z~DEf O ~ g ~ ~ .Z p 3 W O Q ~ ~ r l 0 0 ~ (y/~~ ~ _ ULLV < tom A ,p ~~~~~ ~ W W ~m€~~ m= m~~ a ~~bo~ pyp ~^ SwS ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~~ ~~yyy~~~ ~~Um 6 ~~ N II N N i o ~ I ~ m m ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ l yy{ tX yy{ l F l Wy F W m ~ N m ~ ~ 1 ~ r. 'i F a~ ~ 6 Z w N 1 •i 0 z J '~ a Z ~ ° ~ ~ a U ~ - d Z 3 a ~ ~ z F- ~ ~ ~ rn S ~ ~ a ~ g ~ ' ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ a p~ ~ s w Z S 6 ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ m 1 F ZQ .r N :o N Q 0 m N Q ' m U O W ~ ~ (/ i- z Q J W !. • • iJ CUP REQUEST TO ALL~tiV AUTO SALES AT 616 EAST 78TH STREET .dA(d UARY 2004 ZONING OF PROPERTIES V~/!THlN 350 FEET L_ ZONING SYMBOLS C-2 =GENERAL COMMERCIAL MR-3 = MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -HIGH QENSITY 100 a 1aa 2a0 300 4aa 5aa 600 Feet JAN. 2004 /.J N SUP REt~UEST TO ALL~U~ AUTO SAES AT 61 fi EAST 78TH STREET JANUARY 2004 LAND USES OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET W a 0 a U LAND USE SYMBOLS APT =APARTMENT BUILDING COM =COMMERCIAL QUASPBLC = QUASI PUBLIC 100 6 100 200 300 400 500 600 Feet JAN. 2004 N n ?i Q w~ AGENDA SECTION: pUg ,T H .ARTNGS AGENDA ITEM # 6 REPORT # I, I, STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 PAMELA BOOKHOUT, REPORT PREPARED BY: REHABILITATION SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of resolution regarding the use of funds from the Community Development Block Grant allocation for 2004. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the. use of funds for the 2004 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizing- signature of a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required third party agreements. III. BACKGROUND ~ The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on March 9 to authorize Richfield's use of the 2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation of $241,556, as proposed. As in past years, Richfield proposes the funds go toward public service, home improvement, and property acquisition and redevelopment for first time homebuyers. Richfield supports four public service agencies through the CDBG allocation: Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (H.O.M.E.), Greater Minneapolis 030904cdbg applic Day Care Association (GMDCA), Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH), and HOME Line: • H.O.M.E. is a homemaker, maintenance and chore services program for residents who are 60 years old or more, or who have a disability, with the goal of keeping people in their homes longer to avoid the high costs of nursing home care. Clients are asked to pay for services based on a sliding fee scale. • GMDCA provides funds to help cover day care costs of lower income families who are working, in school, or who are experiencing ashort-term emergency need. Co-payments are determined on a sliding scale basis. • CASH provides homebuyer workshops, individual homebuyer counseling, foreclosure prevention services and counseling and reverse mortgage services. Services are available to residents of any income level, but CASH estimates that two-thirds of the Richfield households served are below 50 percent of the median income. • HOME Line provides support to renters by offering free call-in or walk-in service, providing information and advice on tenant/landlord law and on court procedures. Staff also helps solve problems such as maintenance/repair related issues or instances of management abuses. A Renter Education Program for high school students is a program to present the basics of renting for young people soon to be entering the rental market for the first time. This program has been presented at Richfield High School and Academy of Holy Angels. Third party agreements with each of these agencies are prepared annually. The Richfield Community Development Department and Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) work collaboratively to address public service needs.. RCHSPC makes recommendations to the City Council regarding public service funding for CDBG funds. This year's recommendation by RCHSPC is attached. The recommendation for public service funding with the prescribed county guideline of a maximum of 15 percent would provide a total allocation of $36,230. Richfield provides two home improvement programs: rehabilitation of owner- occupied property (Rehabilitation Deferred Loans) and acquisition of property on scattered sites (New Home Program). Through the Deferred Loan program, the new CDBG funds will serve approximately six low-income households that need home. repairs and improvements during the year 2004. Currently, there are approximately seven homeowners going through the loan process and fifteen homeowners waiting for funding. A total amount of $105,326 is requested for rehabilitation. The New Home Program allocation will remove a substandard property to allow a new one to be built, or will go towards the acquisition and rehabilitation of a single family home for a first time buyer. The project request for 2004 is $100,000 for acquisition and site preparation. The chart below summarizes the .recommended funding: Project Allocation Total Per Project Recommendation 1. Public Service: a. H.O.M.E. $ 19,230 b. GMDCA $ 12,000 c. CASH $ 2,500 d. HOME Line $ 2,500 $ 36,230 2. Rehab of Owner-Occupied Property: $105,326 $105,326 3. Acquisition of Property $100,000 $100,000 TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $241,556 $241,556 III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • Hennepin County's statement of objectives indicates that communities should limit the number of projects funded to three. Meeting this objective, .the Richfield proposal is divided into three projects: public service, home. rehabilitation, and acquisition of substandard property. • Public service funding is as recommended. by the Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council A. POLICY • Allocation of CDBG funds is an annual activity. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for March 9, 2004. The deadline for submitting the 2004 CDBG application materials to Hennepin County, March 5, 2004, has been extended to March 12, 2004 due to the Sun Current's error in publication. C. FINANCIAL • The total Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program allocation from the federal government in 2004 is $85,000 less than the 2003 allocation. Therefore, all of the county's subrecipient communities received less than last year. Richfield's allocation in 2004 is $5,8431ess than in 2003. D. LEGAL • Notice of public hearing was published February 26, 2004 in the Sun Current. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Modify the amount of funds allocated to each project in a way that still achieves funding guidelines. • Fund other eligible projects, which have not been identified by staff for funding. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution RCHSPC recommendation VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF FUNDS FOR THE 2004 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY REQUIRED THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield developed a proposal for the use of CDBG funds made available to it, and held a public hearing on March 9, 2004 to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and priorities for the City's proposed use of $241,556 from the 2004 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota approves the following projects for CDBG and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 2004 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program. Project Allocation Total Per Project Recommendation 1. Public Service: a. H.O.M.E. $ 19,230 b. GMDCA $ 12,000 c. CASH $ 2,500 d. HOME Line $ 2,500 $ 36,230 4. Rehab of Owner-Occupied Property: $105,326 $105,326 5. Acquisition of Property $100,000 $100,000 TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $241,556 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize and direct the execution of the Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required Third Party Agreements on behalf of the City to implement the 2004 CDBG Program. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of March, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL Memorandum Date: January 27, 2004 To: Bruce Nordquist From: Marc Boone, RCHSPC Chair Subject: 2004 Recommended Allocations for City Public Service CDBG The Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council met on January 26, 2004 to make recommendations regarding 2004 CDBG Public Service allocations. It is the assessment of the RCHSPC that: • The applicant agencies are providing valuable and effective service to the people of Richfield and meet the CDBG definition of Public Service. • In a variety of ways these. programs support the City's housing goals by maintaining dwellings and contributing to the stability of the community. • Due to limited dollars available, it is recommended that the following CDBG allocations be made for 2004: A licant Recommendation Senior Communi Services HOME Pro ram $19,230 Greater M Is. Da Care Association 12,000 CASH Full-C cle Homeownershi Services 2,500 HOME Line 2,500 TOTAL $36,230 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4H REPORT # 43 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 REPORT PREPARED BY: JAY HENTHORNE, POLICE LIEUTENANT NAME, T/TLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approve the resolution to continue the Public Safety Answering Point dispatch consolidation stud ,Phase II. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution to formally acknowledge Council's February 24, 2004 authorization for the City of Richfield's participation in Phase II of the PSAP Dispatch Consolidation Study. II. BACKGROUND Phase I of the PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point) dispatch consolidation study was completed in January of 2004. Out of this phase came a scenario that would include the cities of Richfield, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley and Brooklyn Center. Staff from these cities recommended moving into Phase II of the consolidation study that will include information from the Phase I study and focus on various consolidation scenarios with the four cities. Information was presented to the City Council on February 24, 2004. At that time, discussion was held and, as indicated in the minutes of the 2/24/04 Council meeting, staff was given the approval to proceed with Phase II. However, it is necessary to provide written confirmation to the City of St. Louis Park. 0309 PSAP Dispatch Consolidation Study III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield must provide a resolution authorizing their participation in Phase II of the study. • In order to participate, the City must agree to equally share in the cost of the study. • Council approval was given on February 24, 2004 to continue into Phase II. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The study will identify the effect that consolidation may have on service levels to existing constituents and the opportunities for improved service that consolidation may offer. • The Cities of Richfield, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley and Brooklyn Center will move forward to determine if consolidation will be feasible with these four cities. PSC Alliance will conduct the study. C. FINANCIAL • The amount of money for each city to participate in the study of Phase II will not exceed $20,000. • Council approved the recommendation that Richfield's portion will come out of the fund balance. D. LEGAL • City must agree by resolution to the continuance of the study. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • To not approve the resolution will prevent the City of Richfield from moving forward and participating in Phase II of the study. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing participation in Phase II of the study. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO PARTICIPATE WITH THE CITIES OF ST. LOUIS PARK, GOLDEN VALLEY AND BROOKLYN CENTER, EQUALLY SHARING THE COST, IN PHASE II OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT DISPATCH CONSOLIDATION STUDY WHEREAS, the City of Richfield participated in Phase I of the feasibility study of the consolidation of public safety dispatching services, along with nine other cities; and WHEREAS, Phase I of the study was completed in January of 2004 and five consolidation scenarios resulted from that phase; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Richfield, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley and Brooklyn Center have participated in Phase I of the PSAP study and are recommending that these four cities should proceed jointly into Phase L1 of the consolidation study; and WHEREAS, the proportionate share of the cost of Phase II will be equally shared and will not exceed $20,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield agrees to participate in Phase II of the study and to pay for this participation in an amount not to exceed $20,000. It is further resolved that the City of Richfield's representative will participate in the study and coordinate the efforts for the study process. The City also agrees to provide access to premises and give full cooperation to PSA in conducting the study. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of March, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4G REPORT # 4 2 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: - _: _ . _ NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: LA j1 SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request by the Richfield Human Rights Commission, for itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses, for the Richfest celebration to be held March 13, 2004 at the Richfield Intermediate School, 7020 12th Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request by the Richfield Human Rights Commission for itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for the Richfest celebration to be March 13, 2004 at the Richfield Intermediate School, 7020 12th Avenue. This event is held every other year and because it is a City organization event, no fee is charaed. II. BACKGROUND On February 25, 2004, the Richfield Human Rights Commission applied for itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for the activities scheduled to take place at the Richfield Intermediate School on March 13, 2004. The event wilt take place from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. As decided by the City Council in past years, the Human Rights Commission will not be charged a fee for this event, as it is a City organization. 0309 Richfest Celebration Licenses There will be two vendors serving food. Pepitos restaurant will be selling tacos, burritos, chips, salsa, and con queso and has submitted the necessary application and paid the required licensing fees. Betsy's Back Porch Coffee will be selling coffee and pastries. The necessary application and fees have been received. The food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington have been contacted and will follow up with the vendors to ensure that proper and safe food handling practices are followed. III. BASIS OF IZECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application process. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request by-the Richfield Human Rights Commission for an itinerant amusement and itinerant food licenses for the Richfest celebration. This would result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation, on March 13, 2004. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Brent Pavia, Richfield Human Rights Commission Chair AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4F REPORT # 41 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~ ],~, "~ t1 SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the issuance of new wine and 3.2 on-sale malt .liquor licenses for Pu'hket Thai Restaurant, 6345 Penn Avenue South, and set date of ublic hearin . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approval of a public hearing to be held March 23, 2004, for the consideration of new wine and 3.2 on-sale malt liquor licenses for Pu'hket Thai Restaurant, 6345 Penn Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND Application for new wine and 3.2 on-sale malt liquor licenses for Pu'hket Thai Restaurant was received by the City on January 23, 2004. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all wine and 3.2 on-sale malt liquor license applications and that a date be set for the public hearing prior to the hearing. 0309 Pu'hket New Liquor Licenses Set PH • The hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may be considered. • The new process has been initiated. • Holding the public hearing on March 23, 2004 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reject the application for a new wine and 3.2 on-sale malt liquor licenses for Pu'hket Thai Restaurant. • Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the licensing process. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4E REPORT # G fl ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NanaE, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for LaVilla Restaurante Mexicano, 1120 East 66th Street, and settin date of ublic hearin . RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a public hearing to be held March 23, 2004, for the consideration of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for LaVilla Restaurante Mexicano. 1120 East 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND Application for new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for LaVilla Restaurante Mexicano was received by the City on October 23, 2003. Some pieces of information were missing at the time the application was submitted, and the information was ultimately received by the City in December of 2003. At that time, the file was given to a police detective for a background investigation to be completed. 0309 LaVilla-New Liquor Licenses Set PH III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license applications and that a date be set for the public hearing prior to the hearing. • The hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may be considered. • The new process has been initiated. • Holding the public hearing on March 23, 2004 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reject the application for new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for LaVilla Restaurante Mexicano. • Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the licensing process. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4D REPORT # 3 9 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 REPORT PREPARED BY: RAYMOND WROBLEWSKI, FORESTRY INSPECTOR/OPERATIONS ASSISTANT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~ '- SIGNATU REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ .. ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract to Asplundh Tree Expert Company in the amount of $107,746 for removal of diseased trees from rivate ro ert in 2004. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract to Asplundh Tree Expert Company for $107,746 for 2004 diseased tree removal on private property. IL BACKGROUND In the early 1970's, the City of Richfield began a shade tree disease program to assist homeowners in the removal of diseased elm and oak trees on private property. When the City's Forestry Inspector marks a diseased tree on private property for removal, the homeowner has three options: • Homeowner removes the tree. • Homeowner hires a contractor to perform the work. • Homeowner authorizes the City's contractor to perform the work. If the. City's contractor performs the tree removal, the homeowner has the option to pay the removal costs immediately or have the cost assessed to the property taxes over athree-year period. 030904 Diseased Trees A formal bid opening for this work was held on February 19, 2004. Bid documents were mailed to nine tree removal contractors. The contractors were asked to .bid a per-inch cost, based on the average number and sizes of trees removed in the .past three years. The bid submitted was Asplundh Tree Expert Company for $107,746. Although there was only one bidder, staff is recommending the bid be .accepted because Asplundh Tree Expert Company is an established contractor with the City and staff does not believe we can obtain a better price from a reputable contractor. Residents also have the option of hiring a private contractor to perform the work after receiving the City's estimate to have the work done. There is asix-dollar discrepancy in the amount on the proposal form ($107,740) and the amount listed in the staff report ($107,746). This discrepancy is because of some computation errors found on the bid proposal afterthe bid opening.. The correct amount is $107,746 Contract amounts forthis year and the last three years are as follows: Year Amount Contractor 2001 $ 61,073 Asplundh Tree Expert Company 2002 $ 59,880 Top Notch Tree Care 2003 $ 83,766 Top Notch Tree.Care 2004 $107,746 Asplundh Tree Expert Company III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Asplundh Tree Expert. Company submitted the lowest qualifying bid for this work. The City has had a previous positive working. relationship with Asplundh. Staff believes the per-tree prices are low enough. to provide Richfield homeowners with a reasonable removal cost should they-decide to have the City coordinate the .removal of their diseased tree(s). B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval at the March 9, 2004 Council meeting will assure sufficient time to process the necessary paperwork before the first trees are marked for removal. C. FINANCIAL • Funding to allow the assessment option is through the Permanent Improvement Revolving fund. D. LEGAL • When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or services exceeds $50,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. • State and City ordinance provides authority to conduct a diseased tree program. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may choose to reject this bid and direct staff to readvertise in an attempt to receive a -lower bid. However, staff does not believe lower prices could be obtainedfrom a responsible contractor. V. ATTACHMENTS • Bid minutes/tabulation VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening February 19, 2004 10:00 a.m. Removal and Disposal of Diseased. Trees on Private Property Bid No. 04-02 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy-City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for removal and disposal of diseased trees on private property, bid no. 04-02, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 5, 2004. Present: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Randy Hughes, Public Works Representative Ray Wroblewski, Public Works Representative The following bid was submitted and read aloud: Vendor Bid Security Bid Amount Asplundh Spring Lake Park, MN 5% Bid Bond $107,746.00* "Denotes corrected figure The Deputy City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the March 9, 2004 City Council Meeting. Deborah J. Guiher Deputy City Clerk AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~i STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 CONSENT 4C 38 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® ~ ~l • '(~ SIGNATURE 9 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: -- ---- ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration and approval of a contract with the City of Bloomington, using public health emergency preparedness grant funds distributed by a federal grant from the Centers for Disease Control, to provide services in the area of public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism and the development of a response system. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the contract with the City of Bloomington, using grant funds, to provide services in the area of public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism and the development of a res onse s stem. III. BACKGROUND ~ The State of Minnesota has received $16 million from the federal government (Centers for Disease Control) to be used in developing Richfield's public health emergency preparedness/response to bioterrorism. This is part of a nationwide effort to respond to serious public health emergencies. There are requirements in the grant in the areas of coordination, assessment, planning and exercise, response surveillance, Health Alert Network, risk communication and training. 0309 Public Health Emergency Preparedness Contract (03-04) The City of Richfield will receive $46,955 in the second year of the grant cycle, which runs from September 1, 2003 to August 31, 2004. The contract with the City of Bloomington for this same period of time is in the amount of $36,553. Richfield has pooled its resources with Bloomington and Edina with a portion of these funds to support a Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator for the three cities. Denise Dunn, Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, is representing the Tri-City area (Bloomington, Edina and Richfield) and has been meeting with Richfield and Edina health staff to plan and develop requirements of the CDC grant. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield became a Community Health Services (CHS) agency in 1977, which makes the City eligible to receive these grant funds to use in the development of a public health emergency response system. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • These funds are part of a nationwide effort to respond to serious public health emergencies, to include threats of bioterrorism. C. FINANCIAL • Funds being used are those given to Richfield as a CHS agency, from the federal government, to develop a system for responding to public .health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism threats. D. LEGAL • The City must comply with the requirements of the grant in order to receive grant funds. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could decide not to approve the contract with the City of Bloomington for the services of a Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator in developing a public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism plan. This would mean that the City would have to hire a staff person to assume some of the grant's responsibilities, which cannot be met with current City staffing levels. V. ATTACHMENTS • City of Richfield contract with City of Bloomington. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE TO BIOTERRORISM THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this 9th day of March, 2004, by and between the City of Bloomington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Bloomington"), and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Richfield"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Bloomington warrants and represents that its Division of Public Health is a duly certified public health agency operating in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements; and WHEREAS, Bloomington's Division of Public Health provides public health emergency preparedness services to respond to bioterrorism, infectious diseases, and other threats to public health, including, but not limited to coordination, assessment, planning and exercise, response, surveillance, Health Alert Network, training, and implementation of the National Smallpox Vaccination Program (hereinafter referred to as "PH Emergency Services"); and WHEREAS, Richfield wishes to promote, support, and maintain the health of its residents by providing public health emergency preparedness services, and to contract with Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, to provide such services to residents of Richfield; and NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, and for consideration of the covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from September 1, 2003, through August 31, 2004, provided that either party may terminate the same by sixty (60) days written notice to the other. In the event of termination pursuant hereto, the quarterly payment next due shall be prorated and paid for only the period ended on the date of termination, and Richfield shall pay such reduced quarterly payment for the period ended on the date of termination, within fifteen (15) days after receipt of Bloomington's invoice. 2. Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, agrees to provide residents of Richfield with the following Emergency Services: a. Coordination (1) Liaison with the Minnesota Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as "MDH"), Hennepin County and regional planning groups. (2) Update the Richfield Community Health Administrator on a regular basis. (3) Assist in completing quarterly reports, as requested. (4) Meet with local Bioterrorism advisory committee and/or elected officials, as requested. b. Assessment (1) Assist in assessing the capacity to respond to public health emergencies. (2) Develop a timeline of goals and objectives to achieve critical requirements. c. Planning and Exercise (1) Provide planning coordinator services for PH Emergency Services. (2) Assist in developing and enhancing plans to support local response to a public health emergency. (3) Coordinate or participate in planning and exercise activities with regional preparedness partners. d. Strate gic National Stockpile Planning (1) Participate in the development of a regional plan for receipt, storage, delivery and dispensing of Strategic National Stockpile assets. e. Response (1) Assist in responding to events of Bioterrorism, other infectious disease outbreaks and other public health threats and emergencies. (2) Assist in clarifying Community Health Board roles and State roles during a public health emergency. (3) Participate in the revision of the statewide smallpox response plan. f. Surveillance and Epidemiology (1) Implement disease reporting protocols on a 24/7 basis. (2) Distribute urgent disease reports to local providers. (3) Assess training needs regarding disease surveillance. g. Laboratory Support (1) Assist in specimen collection during a confirmed public health emergency. h. Health Alert Network and Information Technology (1) Transmit State health alert messages to .local health alert network. (2) .Maintain local health alert contacts. (3) Test the local health alert network primary system and the backup system two (2) times during the term of this Agreement. (4) Acquire e-mail addresses from local health alert contacts. i. Risk Communication (1) Assist in assessing the risk communication needs. (2) Assist in the development of a risk communication plan. (3) Address risk communications needs for special populations. j. Education and Training (1) .Participate in regional meetings, workshops and conferences. (2) Respond to local requests for public health emergency training. (3) Maintain a local distance training coordinator. (4) Identify training needs for local staff for public health emergency response. 3. Bloomington shall provide the PH Emergency Services pursuant hereto on a confidential basis, using capable, trained professionals. 4. All PH Emergency Services to be rendered hereunder by Bloomington shall be rendered pursuant to and subject to public health policies, rules, and procedures now or hereafter, from time to time, adopted by the Bloomington City Council, and in full compliance with all applicable state and federal laws, provided, however, that (i) no policy, rule, or procedure hereafter adopted by the Bloomington City Council shall in any way affect, modify, or change the obligations, duties, liabilities, or rights of the parties hereto as set out in this Agreement, or reduce or detract from the kind, quality, and quantity of Emergency Services to be provided hereunder by Bloomington to residents of Richfield, and (ii) all such policies, rules and procedures shall be uniformly applied to all persons receiving services from Bloomington, whether residents of Richfield or Bloomington. Richfield agrees to adopt the same policies, rules, and procedures as are from time to time adopted by Bloomington, if determined by Richfield to be necessary or desirable to facilitate or regulate the provision of PH Emergency Services by Bloomington to residents of Richfield pursuant hereto. 5. Richfield agrees to pay Bloomington $36,553 for the provision of PH Emergency Services pursuant hereto, amounts and on terms as follows: a. Bloomington shall bill Richfield for PH Emergency Services rendered. Payment shall be made within fifteen (15) days of receipt by Richfield of Bloomington's invoice. b. No payment or payments need be made by Richfield under this Agreement while Bloomington is in default under any of the terms and conditions hereof. 6. In the event Richfield desires to inspect the financial books and records of Bloomington related to the providing of PH Emergency Services hereunder by Bloomington, Bloomington shall make its financial books and records available at the Bloomington City Hall for inspection and copying by Richfield, or any agent, employee, or representative of Richfield, at reasonable business hours. 7. It shall be the sole responsibility of Bloomington to determine the qualifications, functions, training, and performance standards for all health service personnel who render PH Emergency Services under this Agreement; provided, however, that Bloomington agrees that all such personnel shall be capable, trained professionals. 8. Bloomington's Division of Public Health will communicate with Richfield relative to PH Emergency Services to be performed hereunder by Bloomington, such communication to be in the form of reports, conferences, or consultations, as the respective Richfield departments shall request. 9. Bloomington also agrees to send to Richfield quarterly reports describing the activities performed and PH Emergency Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such report shall be in such detail and form as Richfield may reasonably request. Also, at Richfield's request, made not more than two (2) times during the term of this Agreement, responsible administrative officers of Bloomington's Division of Public Health shall attend meetings of the Richfield City Council or appropriate board or commission to answer questions and give further information relative to the activities performed and PH Emergency Services rendered under this Agreement. 10. Bloomington hereby agrees to maintain in force. its present policy of comprehensive general liability insurance in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 466, and professional liability coverage in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and one million dollars ($1,000,000) in aggregate for the term of this contract. Said policy shall be with an insurance company authorized to do business in Minnesota. If requested, the City of Bloomington will provide a certificate of insurance evidencing such coverage. 11. The parties agree to comply with the following laws and regulations: a. ADA. Richfield agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Bloomington from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought by third partiesalleging aviolation of ADA by Richfield. Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought by third parties alleging a violation of ADA by Bloomington. The City of Bloomington does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Bloomington has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. For information contact the Human Services Division, City of Bloomington, 1800 Old West Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431; telephone (952) 563-8700; TTY: (952) 563-8740. b. Human Rights. The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota State Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 363. 12. Non-Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of Bloomington. 13. Scope of Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Richfield and Bloomington and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof; and amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 14. Data Practices. Richfield will comply with all applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes. 15. Indemnification. Both parties shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other party, its officials, employees, volunteers and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from either party's (including its officials, employees, volunteers or agents) performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused by any negligent actor omission or willful misconduct of either party including its officials, agents, volunteers or employees. Liability shall be governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. 16. Mediation. The parties agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1536 Hewitt Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55104. -The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed and their corporate seal to be affixed hereto the day and year first above written. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON: Dated: By: Its Mayor Dated: Reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. City Attorney Dated: By: Its Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD: ay: Its Mayor Dated: By: Its Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4B REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® J~ ''- ~ ~[ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of renewal of a lawful gambling license for the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Unit #435 Auxiliary, 6501 Portland Avenue South, with a resolution approving the gambling activit re uested b the a licant. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for a new lawful gambling license for the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Unit #435 Auxiliary, 6501 Portland Avenue South, and also the attached resolution approving the gambling activity requested by the applicant in accordance with Richfield City Code 1100.13, subd.6. II. BACKGROUND On February 25, 2004, Mpls-Richfield American Legion Unit #435 Auxiliary group submitted an application for renewal of their lawful gambling license. The applicant will be submitting the $100.00 investigation fee by March 1, 2004. The Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation and has determined that the applicant has complied with all of the requirements. 0309 Legion Auxiliary Gambling Renewal III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety department to review the request for the gambling license and make its review and recommendation to the City Council. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The applicant has complied with the State statutes and City code pertaining to lawful gambling. • The applicant has submitted the request within sixty days of the renewal of the license. • The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested is a benefit to the community. C. FINANCIAL • N/A IJ. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of a lawful gambling license for the Mpls- Richfield American Legion Post #435 Auxiliary. This would mean that the applicant would not be able to conduct gambling activities within their establishment; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • A resolution granting approval for the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Unit #435 Auxiliary to conduct lawful gambling. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Terry Cruzen, Representative from the American Legion Auxiliary RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE MPLS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION UNIT #435 AUXILIARY TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING WHEREAS, the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Unit #435 Auxiliary has submitted an application for a lawful gambling license; and WHEREAS, the application requests a license to conduct raffle operations; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for review of applications by local authorities; and WHEREAS, Section 1100.13 of the Richfield City Code provides regulation of lawful gambling; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety has completed an investigation of the application and finds the application to be in order. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council, City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Unit #435 Auxiliary, 6501 Portland Avenue South. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of March, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4A REPORT # ~ 6 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 9, 2004 BRUCE SYLVESTER, REPORT PREPARED BY: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: " SIGNATURE, REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution authorizing a Subdivision Waiver for the property at 305 East 77th Street (Church of the Assumption) and 308 East 78th Street (Progress Valley group home). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution, approving the Subdivision Waiver for the properties at 305 East 77th and 308 East 78th Streets. III. BACKGROUND ~ The Assumption Church property, at 305 East 77th Street, includes several buildings, including the church building and a former convent building. The convent building, which has an address of 308 East 78th Street, has been leased by a non- profit organization called Progress Valley since 1978. The organization received a conditional use permit in 1978 to operate a group home facility in the former convent building. Since that time, Progress Valley has continued to operate the group home. Recently, Progress Valley decided to purchase the former convent and the land that it leases from Assumption Church. A lot split is necessary to allow Progress Valley to purchase the land and the building, because the land is currently part of the 030904--Su bWaiver.doc Assumption Church property. The Assumption Church property currently covers 392,800 square feet. The proposal is to split-off 43,076 square feet to sell to Progress Valley, leaving 349,724 square feet in the Assumption Church property. Both resulting lots will meet minimum lot size, width, and depth requirements. The proposed lot split is strongly supported by staff primarily because it will cause both the Assumption property and the Progress Valley property to become compliant with the zoning code requirement that "only one principal building and use may be located on a lot." (Zoning Code 511.09, Subd. 1). Currently, the Assumption property violates this requirement because there are multiple "principle buildings and uses" on the property. Lastly, the Council may recall that there have been two subdivision waivers at the Church of the Assumption property in the last two years.. Both of these previous lot splits were completed to create one separate parcel at the corner of 2nd Avenue South and East 78th Street, where Mr. Bob Lurtsema recently constructed a small office building. Please note that the current subdivision wavier request is not related to Mr. Lurtsema's office building and is instead only related to the Progress Valley group home building at 308 East 78th Street. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Approval of the Subdivision Waiver would not interfere with the purposes of platting regulations, Section 500.05. • Compliance with the regular platting requirements of Section 500.05, Subdivision 1 of the Richfield City Code would result in an unnecessary hardship. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The current parcel is zoned C-2, General Commercial. Both resulting parcels after the lot split (308 East 78th Street and 305 East 77th Street) will continue to be zoned C-2. • Approval of the Subdivision Waiver will not create unusable parcels. Both resulting parcels will meet Richfield requirements for minimum lot size, lot width, and lot depth. Minimum lot are in the C-2 zoning district is 9,00 square feet, minimum lot width is 75 feet, and minimum lot depth is 100 feet. • There will be no change in uses from what has existed for at least 20 years. Assumption Church will continue to operate its facilities, as will Progress Valley. No new buildings, parking areas, or other changes are requested or planned. • Minnesota Statute 505.03 Subdivision 2, Plats requires Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to review all property subdivisions abutting MnDOT right-of-way. MnDOT has received all required information for this proposed lot split and will forward any requirements to City staff. • Access to/from 78th Street. 308 East 78th Street currently has access to 78th Street. MnDOT plans to eliminate 78th Street when I-494 is reconstructed, which will eliminate access to the property at 308 East 78th Street. Progress Valley and the Church of the Assumption will enter into an access easement agreement to allow access to the parcel at 308 East 78th Street via a shared driveway to 2nd Avenue South. A copy of the draft of this access easement agreement is attached. • Because East 78th Street will be eliminated when MnDOT expands 1- 494, the City has required the applicant to sign an Acknowledgement Agreement indicating that they have been informed of the future loss of East 78th Street. A copy of this signed Acknowledgement Agreement is attached. • Currently, utilities such as water, sewer, and electric service are provided to the Progress Valley group home building through the Assumption Church buildings. City Code requires separate utility services for each lot and does not allow a building on one lot to receive utility services through an adjoining lot. Therefore, Progress Valley will install separate and independent public and private utility connections to the Progress Valley property and disconnect the connections between Progress Valley and the Church of the Assumption. • Parking will not be affected by the proposed lot split and will continue to be adequate for the uses on both parcels. • Setbacks-Accessory Buildings. The proposed new property line between the Church of the Assumption and Progress Valley will cause two small accessory buildings at 308 East 78th Street to become non- conforming with regards to set-back requirements. However, both of these accessory buildings are small (a 120 square foot shed and a 196 square foot gazebo) and moveable. Both buildings can be moved or demolished if necessary to comply with set-back requirements. • Setbacks-Principal Buildings. The back wall of the former convent and current group home. building at 308 East 78th Street is 77.1 feet wide (along its north face and closest to the proposed new property line splitting the two parcels). 61.5 feet (80%) of this back wall is located 22 feet away from the proposed new property line and meets the 20 foot set-back requirement for principal buildings in the C-2 zoning district. 15.6 feet of this back wall (20%), however, extends further north by 4 feet and so is located 18 feet from the proposed property line where 20 feet is required. Staff recommends that this small non-conformity be disregarded since it has negligible impacts. • The City has received no complaints regarding the group home since 1998, when the City received a complaint about bags of leaves on the lawn. The only other complaint was in 1996, when the City received a complaint about tall grass along the curb. Both complaints were resolved within two days. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has prepared the required acknowledgement forms and utility agreements that are required as conditions of approval for this Subdivision Waiver. • The applicants have signed an "Acknowledgement Agreement" which states that they have been informed of the planned elimination of 78th Street when MnDOT expands I-494. • The applicants will sign an Access Easement Agreement to formally establish access between 2nd Avenue and 308 East 78th Street (Progress Valley) via a shared driveway with 305 East 77th Street (Church of the Assumption). The applicants have signed an agreement to install separate utility connections for the property at 308 East 78th Street. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny this Subdivision Waiver if a finding of fact determines that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Survey • Location. maps showing zoning and land-uses of properties within 350 feet. • Draft access easement agreement • Signed Acknowledgement Agreement regarding the future of East 78th Street • Signed agreement regarding the installation of separate. utility connections for 308 East 78th Street VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. Tom Hoben, Opus Corporation, representative for the applicants (Progress Valley and Assumption Church) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER FOR THE CHURCH OF ASSUMPTION LOCATED AT 305 EAST 77TH STREET WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of land located at 305 East 77th Street, legally described as: Parcel A: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, township 28, Range 24, described as follows: The South 156 feet of the East 125 feet of the Southwest'/ of the Southeast'/ of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, EXCEPT that part taken for State Trunk Highway No. 5 and 100 over the South 40 feet thereof, ALSO: that part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24 corresponding to that part of the East 1/8 of the South'/2 of the Southwest'/4 of the Southeast'/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying North of the South 156 feet thereof, EXCEPT the Northerly 30 feet thereof. ALSO: That part of the South '/z of the Southeast'/4 of the Southeast'/4, of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying Southerly of 77th Street and lying Westerly of a line drawn at right angles from a point on the North line of the South 590 feet thereof distant 425.65 feet West of the West line of Ranft's Addition, EXCEPT therefrom that part described as follows: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at a point which is 408.65 feet West of the Southwest corner of Ranft's Addition and 462.00 feet North of the South line of said Lot 1, which is the point of beginning; thence West along a line parallel to the South line of said Lot 1, a distance of 17.4 feet; thence North at right angles to said parallel line, a distance of 128.00 feet; thence East at right angles a distance of 17.4 feet; thence South to the point of beginning. ALSO: That part of the West'/2 of the East'/4 of the South %Z of the Southwest'/4 of the Southeast'/ of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying North of the South 156 feet thereof, EXCEPT the North 30 feet thereof and EXCEPT that part of Government Lot 1 in Section 34, Township 28, Range 24 described as follows: beginning at the Northwest corner of the East 216 feet of the South 156 feet of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24; thence West a distance of 82.65 feet to the East line of Second Avenue South; thence North along said East line a distance of 18 feet; thence East a distance of 82.65 feet to the. west line of the East 216 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast quarter, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24; thence South along said West line, a distance of 18 feet to the point of beginning; EXCEPT that part of Government .Lot 1 described as follows: The North 18 feet of the South 174 feet of the West 91 feet of the East 216 feet of the Southwest'/4 of the Southeast'/4 of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and, WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to divide the above-described Parcel A into two parcels, legally described as: Parcel B: The east 125.00 feet of the south 174.00 feet of the South '/z of the Southwest'/4 of the Southeast'/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24 EXCEPT those parts taken for State Trunk Highway No. 5 and 100 over the South 40 feet thereof, per Doc. 1349782 and per Doc. No. 1719066; ALSO: The west 206.54 feet of the south 120.14 feet of South '/z of the Southeast '/4 of the Southeast'/4, of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24; ALSO: The west 28.05 feet of the north 53.86 feet of the south 174.00 feet of the South '/2 of the Southeast'/4 of the Southeast'/4, of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24; and Parcel C: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24 corresponding to that part of the East 1/8 of the South'/2 of the Southwest'/4 of the Southeast'/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying North of the South 174 feet thereof, EXCEPT the Northerly 30 feet thereof. ALSO: That part of the South'/z of the Southeast'/4 of the Southeast'/ of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying Southerly of 77t" Street, and lying Westerly of a line drawn at right angles from a point on the North line of the South 590 feet thereof distant 425.65 feet West of the West line of Ranft's Addition, EXCEPT therefrom that part described as follows: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at a point which is 408.65 feet West of the Southwest corner of Ranft's Addition and 462.00 feet North of the South line of said Lot 1, which is the point of beginning; thence West along a line parallel to the South line of said Lot 1, a distance of 17.4 feet; thence North at right angles to said parallel line, a distance of 128.00 feet; thence East at right angles a distance of 17.4 feet; thence South to the point of beginning, and EXCEPT the West 206.54 feet of the South 120.14 feet and the West 28.05 feet of the North 53.86 feet of the South 174.00 feet of said South'/Z of the Southeast'/4 of the Southeast'/4 of Section 34. ALSO: That part of the West'/2 of the East'/4 of the South'/2 of the Southwest'/4 of the Southeast'/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying North of the South 156 feet thereof; EXCEPT the North 30 feet thereof, and EXCEPT that part of the North 18 feet of the South 174 feet of said West'/2 of the East'/4 of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast'/4 of Section 34 lying east of the West 30 feet thereof. WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the subdivision waiver; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that compliance with the City Code Subsection 500.05, Subdivision 1 would result in unnecessary hardship and that failure to comply therewith will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section 500.01. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A waiver for the subdivision of the Subject Property legally described above as Parcel A into Parcels B and C is hereby granted; and 2. Future transfers may be by parcel as described above as Parcel B or Parcel C; and 3. City staff is authorized and directed to take any action necessary to effectuate this resolution and to authorize the recording of conveyances complying with the terms of this resolution. 4. This Subdivision Waiver for the Subject Property legally described above is subject to the following conditions: A) That the recipient of this Subdivision Waiver provide separate and independent utility connections directly to Parcel B; and B) That the recipient of this Subdivision Waiver sign an Acknowledgement Agreement stating that the recipient has been informed of plans for the future eliminationof East 78th Street; and C) That the recipient of this Subdivision Waiver enter into an access easement agreement to allow access to Parcel B from 2nd Avenue South via a shared driveway with Parcel C; and Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of March, 2004. Suzanne M. Sandahl, Mayor Pro Tempore ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk r - - - - - - -----~ °Y8 0° "~frr~g",: Fa :z-e=~ 8~° ~ x f° ~°fi°o $ ~os Y'~8 $ ~:C~ss°6° _ ti~ o .~ Zb ~~ '~~~98 g.. ;s x des •-" 89EE8~° 8 or ;°` o,g LS S..°8s d 8 6 ..~ ~ 8'€~tg ~8 :. ~ .- g °S 8 ~sa °~~ °s so.-~ ~„"sum-$- I~= ° ~£~;-Ew°3:~ so'os s =6~ s °so$o~_We~^9 ~~~oso °~{ .s ~ sg °€.: 6x"-s;es_ ssx ass r ~=°Fa°~6% ~s~ s$ 6a- :so s~go$~s= _~ s $ s6 ;s"°• ~ C ~~'° ;.'~sa~#="_€ z..r 9 °`.°s~o$`.u ;~~ $°-°Co~°S ~c~u o orYi$~:5 ~`1 o~8t5~6;~$fr $ $"~-~ 5 -aS"a$ ~;~3~ Yea 6~' ~ ,n° X a6- s.z E8 = ~ 0.6" 3s $ a~ ; ~ $CO E6S:' &6~`°a°-g-_ a8 °9e~° ;ten y~"" s'88oN~ ~.# ~ ", S~,_;zdaow~o~w s "2~" ~a ~~3: o;~° ~i56 8 °•~a sa s" 8 ~ €.SR~CiS~$..~- .-I~$ s~ ~8a 5° °~ E X68 s ~ ~oE °s~s s s~~ °~° ss 3 3t"' g~~a=E~~s'~"_,~ - ss3~ s_°ss~~~=~nYas $~$ n apo6 -~.. .. £ °~'i; es;$ z ~_ ~•Oi S .£z-`a"- 3~-°$°a° a °~Ra n~~~ew - aL ~o~ ;x° 8 r" ~•aa6°$SC'ogg S; 8 8~$•.e°a~s-~ +$a ~;€~s3 S$°~ $°~ ~s;a°°aa ~"° 8 L ;553oY~esl~ssoss~oe g~ a; ~. ~~°~~~=°E _ 5 5 ~f o ;o e°~~~s-n o.~s~a ~8 SNw"oo"Y -~€ =n rc a'F °aa 5$°$,~~~;,a~ SOS _s`,~ ~ rL $5 FfX ~;,e o• a 1~$o~s-~= { s g~_oR°°~ onT { a°€ °~_ • ~~ ° e J ~s~ $ ~~ ~ ~~ eSEjs~`s8as'~°" ¢~ ~.•~ '~ ~"p8~ifi$g~o~_rF •~°.. Ea 5`- °s 5 as r 8a Jan.,°_g ~"80 S ~ ..050 w~i6'° 5°0 rc g~Y E"e oe~`O Of .~ •~ s ~ ~a °Oe ~°~° 0:3 8p so~~x8 a 8 °_8Eo $ "' aoLEE $~= °~ { ~8S8 off-- b ~~ E s {°'$ ~Lfe°~oY_ti -az -0S 63WE °~' o^ ~~~$~aF:~ s;«~aat 6. a~d~ ~~ a~aRR ~r°go~. €~ X90 `O ~°3W g'Y ,<; 8~`=° a ~ £~'~ 8"=„~ ~° 8°~ ~~ ~-~$ JSB z~~ ~ a "~~ ~~k~~oa~a~~~'wp~ w€o~„oon S !§ x~""s~'~~~o°s asesl°s~$s °~ sp 'sss$6~~fag~~ ~~ ~9~ ' ~°~ .# =°ra€ ° ~$ ~t"° s"F '. ~~ s"~s~„s°.~o s ~s s a s~ _ ~= s a sY s"g ~ osg s°~~ gs; ~~° r~ s g~ ;$w ~ _ 6 -„"~ "$E ~p°_{~ °X"£="-p - 5° ~ ~,a oFa58"86~$o°;~Y~ a~ 5'~ ~~~s_°°°6 $~F°'~ Jt~a '~r=~5~~"°~°€ o saas° s~8 ~ ~$ C_,~ ~`3="". ~°Lf° fXs a~_s s. ~ =s~~"__ F M ;- 9 €- S °s "S s.•.az8#r•.-C ~€; ~ 8fr S"~-°6Fsa yg8o a n L8~.°.. ,~.g~q 3z s Jt ~aF 6g `fi`r-~~ 5 ~° s.o ~°~~$E~S~Ta ~ag•a ;'Y'° =`b 3°{~•e9 a{~ Sn So ~~s ~a uSir''a9ou a; ~ 5 R$i- o- ~~,E ~~fS-"s .. -I~• 5 88 .° a 5 ~.rr -~ IJii FSl... s i ¢ il`---- TS I~..~o~~• $ ~"~e~t '. of os. o - F &^ 9 g ;°r E.{i3Sr5~.gp°6° S$~S~hY`=~c°{ ~~3 i{ ~ ES~S~.cg6 F.c h~~~i5 ~'$W~ Z~ ~ ~°,89; YS Ey~i''-~'S ~-~g'c8 e do o~_~~a Y6 °ss`°o = ~ X =~ xa ~ :- ~~=s~~y~=~Eaass°,a"•r ° ~ s $$~Xs ~s..~ S _ ~ S P $-b S S sa^- ~ ~a.- ~°o~~~a•~~ ~;$a~o ~ s ~ x nY ~s°~- ~" F°o;~. s" ~: ~_ ~~ I~-"s_ sdsao a~s s`.F o9a" '~ nji ,",€°. 8X i°d,~5 oaf°r ~si°5 ~R oB °8• 80°~" Sz" a ° ra 6`~5 "~~=-SNZ;a~€ R~oa~4's6 ~s z€ _~ ~g~~~6~€s€~a~i1=a~~R ~$ vas ~a 8o~s~iE a.~E 8s°~$ I aes3b=x :~ os s~ €~~€~~~~t •ss~ g~ =s ""g rl-~°Y~xs a=" s "~~ m '~°'ss"= s!'s ~ W- ~~p5" uppus~ ubbu~~ va r{'~Y S~ ~ ~ i~ EE I ... ~o~O ~O< n~esLS °°oaz82~sn°.-wa 'os3o +`~g ~ ~o ~ ~o €wrc 3.dv° Xss_c ^_~~,5 ss ~~ ~ 1°-S 8` ~ ~'~ ~so~Ev~~~go- t ; i ~ rye ~ +ft~ a~ ~ • vz k ° hfr Ea ,FS 6 3~ ~ avo S~ m~ ~ 1~y •~, ik` .M+' ~{"ssF 9s " F: ~f=`seek ~a ~~~ E ~.,~~~ t 88-c-ooo,a=°~ ~ _ agsesaesaasgssoes~zeogs$sasgs :asap ~1 ~ ~ ° ~°86£ooca865coooe86o~coo~~oooo coooo ° ~ R~ I ~ - e ~,o ~` y <8°aa®~°~~~Yz3Qg§~~.°ag~~~G~tI~C,m~~3a~ m~i88c~ ~ /~ ~° f "t-~ 0 Q 4 :°a f^ f~ _ ~,~~~ $ --° n ~ ~ ~' o~ _ ° Z` c`9$ \ {1M ro3S A Y/1 35 tl Y/1 '03i J0~/1 3S !J Y/I E J0 3N M 3'501 ~2 10~ ~j N ~ ~ g ~~i 2 S'S01 OEI ° ,d.... *+~ ~ ,w 3 ' 1/I !D Y/1 MS !D Z/1 S D 13 1p 3Nf1 M _ M~ ~ #~ YL b 4L '1 'K ro3510 t/1 35'!0 Y/I MS D L/I 510 Y/1 310 3Nf1 M~ - 3NI'7 A1L3=tld T I ~ ~/ R ~ ~ ~ ~ I J /~ /N • 0 ' I ; ~ ~yj N i~ I I ~ ~~;~ /~'~ 'e ~ ~ ~ a y I { ~~ I nd ~~I a€ [ y a ~8 f I ~G °L1 y i ~ ~b / (l I ~~ ~ ~ L 4 Izc i ~ • * ~ LL M 4 V ~ L: 3NIl A1H3doHd _ od C 1 2 ~~/1 35 !0 Y/ MS !U L/I S f/I 310 ~1 MlD 3Wl3 1 O Q~ I j/ °°2 ! ~ I Z 4N ~. ~, ' V _ : Qo ~ I H ~. _ E ^ OW ~ L S M R a ~~ ; ~ k _ 8 i $Y ~~.W - L 3 I 1 ~~~ I~ L • a i Iw. ~'. e SI ~ Ili ` O ' OOm ~.:.J S M CIYRYL roN ro00 Hid 1NiK35V3133WS' ss 3nN~ anrt ;k ~ers/.av LNI[9L roN roo° H1d 1N31ms/3133ws -- 051=- T-- • l 1 1 - $ ~ ~ o '~ & ~ 6 ~~w $ J~ ~ '~~$ ~ bl ~ ~ ~ ~ R Q ; # ~ vl Vi {~ I ~ . $ i I s°° §~ 8 € ~ ~s I _ 99~ ~°b_fr 3~SS _ g li ! { ~ sob ~ s ~ ~ a~ R I ~ I s,°,6E U `-,~{g~ p~ ~ $04 i F X~t j n~S~ d R~ ~ ~ I ~ -ifi - 5 0 ~ ~'oa n 2 2 ~ ~9E riY19 = I 3°gSa ° ~ m zc: r ~~ I I 8I , sI a I l b I t ~ ~ b ~ M I { ~ I 8 ~ n ~ _~ ~ 8I • M~ ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ ¢ I ~ 1 O GF F- ~~ ~ o_ X ~S W I ~~~ I~ C ~~ YI4 WI-- Z ~9 {~ ~~ I L cY Jam- t{ ~ I ~\ ~1~ I `-~ ~ I >~~ ~ €` „ .. ~' F } aw f- Z „. U 6$~~°cE g `° ° ~ $ ~ g E={~ ~ 6 z° T °6°3~~ 8 ~6 ° ° 6 ° 1 _ c c€QQg SY ~~2 ~ ~B ~~ 9o ` _ ° a Tgg E os~gg g° ~ ~~ $ b ~ ' $~ F 8E ~ - ~ ~ sa . g ~ ~~~~.~ ~~ as ~ € ~ ~ . o~ggEoo $o SJ $ ~' .~ $~R. ~~R . ~ J ~4$•~P~ °~ °~ x °~ ~ 9 g6S~ - ° ~8 ~oy l ..E~53ou .~~ ^~e ~ ~ E l~ ~I I~ I J MARCH 2004 SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST FOR 305 EAST 77TH STREET (ASSUMPTION CHURCH). AND 308 EAST 78TH STREET (PROGRESS VALLEY) ZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ a w ~ a f- z W a p a ROOSEVELT PARK N ~ R N R R M R R R R R R ~ R R R R R ~ h~ M 77TH ST. 305 c-2 w -2 ASSUMPTION a _ CHURCH ~ ~ -2 C-2 C-2 PROGRESS C2 VALLEY c-z ~ ~ e,_2 C-2 78•TYH•S•T-•.~ 0 I - 494 a O g ~L 0 a ZONING SYMBOLS R =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL C-2 =GENERAL COMMERCIAL N 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Feet 2-26-04 .MARCH 2004 SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST FOR 305 EAST 77TH STREET (ASSUMPTION .CHURCH) AND 308 EAST 78TH STREET (PROGRESS VALLEY) LAND USE OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET 7RTH ST_ w COM LLI a z w w y a 0 a ROOSEVELT .PARK RES N RES RES ~~,, RES PARK R RES. RES RES. RES ES RES RES RES RES h~ 77TH ST. 305 ASSUMPTION CHURCH CHURCH PROGRESS VALLEY COM COM 78TH ST. 308 coM w a a APT I I I f I - 494 LAND USE SYMBOLS COM =COMMERCIAL APT =APARTMENT BUILDING QUASPBLC = QUASI-PUBLIC 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Feet Q 2-26-04 i i ~w ~Q ~o 'z ,g '~ ~~ a w a x DRIVEWAY ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS DRIVEWAY ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of , 2004 (the "Effective Date") by and between the Church of the Assumption of Richfield Minnesota, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation ("Grantor"), and Progress Valley, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation ("Grantee"). RECITALS A. Grantor is the owner of that certain parcel of land legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" together with any buildings and improvements located thereon (the "Grantor Parcel"). B. Grantee is the owner of that certain parcel of land legally described on the attached Exhibit "B" together with any buildings and improvements located thereon (the "Grantee Parcel"). C. On the Effective Date, Grantee acquired the Grantee Parcel from Grantor, and as part of that transaction, the Grantee Parcel was subdivided from a larger parcel of land owned by Grantor. In connection with the subdivision, Grantee desires to obtain, and Grantor desires to grant, an easement over and across the portion of the Grantor Parcel legally described on the attached Exhibit "C" (the "Easement Area") for the benefit of, and as an appurtenance to, the adjacent Grantee Parcel for the purposes described in Section 1 below. AGREEMENT Grantor and Grantee agree as follows: 1. Grant of Driveway Easement. .Grantor hereby grants Grantee a perpetual, non-exclusive driveway access easement ("Driveway Easement") on, over and across the Easement Area for the benefit of, and appurtenant to, the Grantee Parcel for ingress to and egress from the Grantee Parcel from and to 2"d Avenue South. (a) Use of Drivewav. Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that (i) the City of Richfield anticipates that Interstate Highway No. 494 will eventually be widened and legal access to 78th Street East eliminated, (ii) the City of Richfield has conditioned its approval of the minor subdivision of the Grantee Parcel on Grantor granting Grantee the Driveway Easement to provide legal access to the Grantee Parcel when the 78th Street East access is eliminated and (iii) until legal access to 78th Street East is eliminated, Grantee does not need the Driveway Easement for access to a public roadway; therefore, Grantee may not exercise its Driveway Easement rights until the date ("Trigger Date") Grantee's legal access to 78th Street East is eliminated. Grantor may not use the Easement Area in any manner that materially, adversely and unreasonably interferes with Grantee's use of the Driveway Easement; however, Grantor may, as reasonably necessary from time to time, restrict use of the Driveway Easement in order to perform the maintenance described in Section 3 below. Neither Grantor nor Grantee may use the Easement Area for parking purposes (b) Maintenance and Repair of Drivewav. As of the Effective Date, an asphalt driveway, concrete curbing and related driveway improvements ("Driveway Improvements") have been constructed on the Easement Area and the Easement Area is being operated, maintained and repaired by Grantor as a driveway access from the Grantor Parcel to 2"d Avenue South. After the Effective Date, Grantor will continue to operate the Easement Area as a driveway and will maintain the Driveway Improvements (i) in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and (ii) in a good and safe condition and repair, including, without limitation, striping, cleaning, removing snow and ice, sealcoating, and replacing the driveway and curbing or any part thereof. Grantee will reimburse Grantor for % of the costs ("Maintenance Costs") incurred by Grantor after the Trigger Date in maintaining, repairing and replacing the Driveway Improvements. Grantor will submit an invoice to Grantee for Maintenance Costs, along with reasonable evidence to support such invoice, and Grantee will submit payment to Grantor within 30 days after receipt of the invoice from Grantor. 2 Grant of Utility Easement. Grantor hereby grants Grantee a perpetual, non-exclusive easement ("Utility Easement") above, over and under the Easement Area for the benefit of, and appurtenant to, the Grantee Parcel for the purpose of constructing,. operating, maintaining, repairing and removing above-ground and underground public utility service lines and related equipment for electric, gas, telephone and cable television services running from the right-of-way or public utility easement area along 2"d Avenue to the Grantee Parcel. (a) Exercise of Utility Easement Rights and Restoration. Grantee will exercise its Utility Easement rights at Grantee's sole cost and expense, and will promptly repair any damage to the Grantor Parcel arising out of Grantee's exercise of its Utility Easement rights, including, without limitation, filling and compacting excavations, repaving paved areas, replacing curbing and landscaping. 3. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, Grantee will defend, indemnify and hold harmless Grantor from and against any and all loss, cost, damage, suits, claims, demands, liens, expense and liability (including reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees and other costs of defense and/or settlement) 2 ("Claim") arising out of Grantee's use of the Easement Area, and any other act, omission, negligence or misconduct of Grantee, its agents and employees in, on or about the Grantor Parcel. Grantee will not, however, be obligated to indemnify Grantor for that portion of a Claim (if any) that ultimately determined, upon final adjudication, settlement or other resolution of the Claim, to have been caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Grantor, its employees and agents. 4. Attorneys' Fees. If Grantor or Grantee (their respective successors and assigns) commence any legal action to enforce any provision of this Agreement, the non-prevailing party in such action will reimburse the prevailing party for all reasonable costs incurred by the prevailing party in such action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. 5. Running of Benefits and Burdens. The Driveway Easement, Utility Easement and all rights and obligations under this Agreement run with the land and are binding on and inure to the benefit of the owners of the Grantor Parcel and the Grantee Parcel and their respective successors and assigns. 6. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed to be modified to be within the limits of enforceability or validity, if feasible, and all other provisions of this Agreement will remain valid and enforceable. 7. Governing Law. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 8. Recording. Grantor will record this Agreement in the appropriate county land records and will pay any applicable recording fee. 9. Entire Agreement and Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Grantor and Grantee regarding the Driveway Easement and Utility Easement, and may only be amended in a writing signed by Grantor and Grantee and recorded in the appropriate county land records. (SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE) 3 THE CHURCH OF THE ASSUMPTION OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation By: _ Name: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2004, by ,the of The Church of the Assumption of Richfield Minnesota, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, on behalf of said corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) PROGRESS VALLEY, INC., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation By: _ Name: Its: Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2004, by ,the of Progress Valley, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, on behalf of said corporation. THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY: Opus Corporation 10350 Bren Road West - Minnetonka, MN 55343 Notary Public 4 Exhibit A Legal Description of the Grantor Parcel That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24 corresponding to that part of the East 1 /8 of the South 1 /2 of the Southwest 1 /4 of the Southeast 1 /4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying North of the South 174 feet thereof, EXCEPT the Northerly 30 feet thereof. ALSO: That part of the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying Southerly of 77'h Street, and lying Westerly of a line drawn at right angles from a point on the North line of the South 590 feet thereof distant 425.65 feet West of the West line of Ranfts Addition, EXCEPT therefrom that part described as follows: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at a point which is 408.65 feet West of the Southwest corner of Ranft's Addition and 462.00 feet North of the South line of said Lot 1, which is the point of beginning; thence West along a line parallel to the South line of said Lot 1, a distance of 1~.4 feet; thence North at right angles to said parallel line, a distance of 128.00 feet; thence East at right angles a distance of 17.4 feet; thence South to the point of beginning, and EXCEPT the West 206.54 feet of the South 120.14 feet and the West 28.05 feet of the North 53.86 feet of the South 174.00 feet of said South 1 /2 of the Southeast 1 /4 of the Southeast 1 /4 of Section 34. ALSO: That part of the West 1 /2 of the East 1 /4 of the South 1 /2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying North of the South 156 feet thereof, EXCEPT the North 30 feet thereof, and EXCEPT that part of the North 18 feet of the South 174 feet of said West 1/2 of the East 1/4 of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34 lying east the West 30 feet thereof. A-1 Exhibit B Legal Description of the Grantee Parcel The east 125.00 feet of the south 174.00 feet of the South 1 /2 of the Southwest 1 /4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, EXCEPT those parts taken for State Trunk Highway No. 5 and 100 over the South 40 feet thereof, per Doc. No. 1349782 and per Doc. No. 1719066. And The west 206.54 feet of the south 120.14 feet of South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24. And The west 28.05 feet of the north 53.86 feet of the south 174.00 feet of South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24. B-1 Exhibit C Legal Description of the Driveway Access and Utility Easement The north 32.18 feet of the south 206.18 feet of the east 155.00 feet of the South 1 /2 of the Southwest 1 /4 of the Southeast 1 /4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24. And That part of the north 30.00 feet of the south 204.00 feet of the South 1 /2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying west of the east 155.00 feet, and lying east of the west 30.00 feet of the East 1/4 of said South 1 /2 of the Southwest 1 /4 of the Southeast 1 /4. And The north 32.18 feet of the south 206.18 feet of the west 28.05 feet of the South 1 /2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24. C-1 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF TRANSPORTATION PLAN INFORMATION This acknowledgment is given by Progress Valley, Inc., a Minnesota non-profit corporation ("Progress Valley"), to the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"). Recitals A. Progress Valley is the owner of real property located at 308 East 78th Street in the City of Richfield (the "Property"). Progress Valley operates a group residential care facility on the Property, pursuant to a conditional use permit, No. , issued by the City. B. Progress Valley requested permission from the City for the division of the Property from a larger tract of land. The City approved the division pursuant to Resolution No. , on the condition that Progress Valley provide this acknowledgment. C. The Property has frontage on 78th Street, which is a two-way street. The Property is located approximately 325 feet east of the intersection of 78th Street and Second Avenue South and 600 feet west of the intersection of 78th Street and Fourth Avenue South. D. The City has advised Progress Valley that the current plans for the future widening of I-494 near the Property will result in changes to the street plans and traffic flow in the area of the Property. Acknowledgi ent Progress Valley hereby acknowledges receipt of information from the City regarding the current plans for the future widening of I-494. Specifically, Progress Valley acknowledges that the current plans contemplate the following changes to the traffic patterns in the vicinity of the Property: Access from the Property onto 78th Street will likely be closed. The Property will need to obtain access to Second Avenue South via an easement over the land from which the Property was subdivided. The City approved the subdivision of the Property from the larger parcel on the express condition that Progress Valley obtain an easement that provides access from the Property to Second Avenue South. Progress Valley further acknowledges that the City has advised Progress Valley that future widening of I-494 is not in the current 10-year plan for the Minnesota Department of Transportation and that changes are not expected to occur prior to the year 2013. In addition, the City has advised that both the current plans and the anticipated timeline for construction are subject to change. This instrument is given for the sole purpose of acknowledging receipt of information concerning possible changes in street routes and access to the Property. cax-Zaasas~i RC160-5 Dated: PROGRESS VALLEY, INC. By, Its EXHIBIT A The east 125.00 feet of the south 174.00 feet of the South '/Z of the Southwest '/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, EXCEPT those parts taken for State Trunk Highway No. 5 and 100 over the South 40 feet thereof, per Doc. No. 1349782 and per Doc. No. 1719066. And The west 206.54 feet of the south 120.14 feet of South %2 of the Southeast'/4 of the Southeast'/4 of Section 34, Township 28,Range 24. And The west 28.05 feet of the north 53.86 feet of the south 174.00 feet of South %z of the Southeast '/4 of the Southeast'/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24. PETITION AND WAIVER AGREEMENT This Agreement made this _ day of , 2004, by and between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Cit}~'), and Progress Valley, Inc., a Minnesota non- profit corporation ("Owner") WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owner is the fee owner of certain real property (the "Subject Property") located in the City, legally described on the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property was divided from a larger tract of land, and that land division required the approval of the City; and WHEREAS, the City conditioned its approval of the land division upon the Owner's agreement to disconnect the building sewer and water systems on the Subject Property from the private sewer and water lines owned by and located on the property from which the Subject Property was divided, and to connect the building sewer and water systems on the Subject Property to the City's public sewer and water systems (hereinafter referred to as the "Improvement Project"); and WHEREAS, as security for the completion of the Improvement Project, the City has requested that the Owner enter into this Petition and Waiver Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Owrier intends to complete construction of the Improvement Project no later than June 30, 2004; however, if the Owner does not complete construction by that date, the Owner wishes the City to construct the Improvement Project without notice of hearing or hearing on the Improvement Project, and without notice of hearing or hearing on the special assessments levied to finance the Improvement Project, and to levy 100 percent of the cost of the Improvement Project against the Subject Property; and CAH-244644v2 1 RC 160-5 WHEREAS, the City is willing to construct the Improvement Project in accordance with the request of the Owner and without such notices or hearings, provided the assurances and covenants hereinafter stated are made by the Owner to ensure that the City will have valid and collectable special assessments as they relate to the Subject Property to finance all of the costs of the Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, were it not for the assurances and covenants hereinafter provided, the City would not construct the Improvement Project without such notices and hearings and is doing so solely at the behest, and for the benefit of, the Owner. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Owner hereby petitions the City for construction of the Improvement Project, if Owner has not completed construction of the Improvement Project by June 30, 2004. 2. The Owner represents and warrants that it is the owner of 100 percent of the Subject Property, that it has full legal power and authority to encumber the Subject Property as herein provided, and that as of the date hereof, it has fee simple absolute title in the Subject Property, which is not subject to any liens, interests or encumbrances, except as set forth on the attached Exhibit B. 3. The Owner requests that 100 percent of the cost of the Improvement Project be assessed against the Subject Property. The Owner understands and agrees that the amount to be assessed for the Improvement Project maybe as much as $15,000.00. 4. The Owner waives notice of hearing and hearing pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 429.031, on the Improvement Project and notice of hearing and hearing on the special assessments levied to finance the Improvement Project pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 429.061, and specifically requests that the Improvement Project be constructed and special assessments levied therefor against the Subject Property without hearings. 5. The Owner waives the right to appeal the levy of the special assessments in accordance with this Agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 429.081, or reapportionment thereof upon land division pursuant to Minn. Stat., Section 429.071, Subd. 3, or otherwise, and further specifically agrees with respect to such special assessments against the Subject Property or reapportionment that: a. Any requirements of Minn. Stat., Chapter 429 with which the City does not comply are hereby waived by the Owner; CAH-244644v2 2 RC160-5 b. The increase in fair market value of the Subject Property resulting from construction of the Improvement Project will be at least equal to the amount specified in paragraph 3, and that such increase in fair market value is a special benefit to the Subject Property; c. Assessment of 100 percent of the cost of the Improvement Project against the Subject Property is reasonable, fair and equitable and there are no other properties against which such cost should be assessed; and d. The Owner further specifically waives notice and right to appeal reapportionment of such special assessments upon land division pursuant to Minn. Stat., Section 429.071, Subd. 3. 6. The Owner understands and agrees that the City may provide for the payment of such special assessments in installments bearing such interest as may be determined by the city council. However, the decision regarding the period of time over which the special assessments may be paid and the interest rate to be applied is in the absolute and sole discretion of the city council, subject only to limitations imposed by law. 7. Owner represents and warrants that the Subject Property is not so classified for tax purposes as to result in deferral of the obligation to pay special assessments; and Owner agrees that it will take no action to secure such tax status for the Subject Property during the term of this Agreement. 8. The covenants, waivers and agreements contained in this Agreement shall bind the successors and assigns of the Owner and shall run with the Subject Property and bind all successors in interest thereof. It is the intent of the parties hereto that this Agreement be in a form that is recordable among the land records of Hennepin County, Minnesota; and they agree to make any changes in this Agreement which may be necessary to effect the recording and filing of this Agreement against the title of the Subject Property. 9. This Agreement shall terminate upon the final payment of all special assessments levied against the Subject Property regarding the Improvement Project, and the City shall thereupon execute and deliver such documents, in recordable form, as are necessary to extinguish its rights hereunder. 10. If Owner constructs the Improvement Project and. connects the buildings on the Subject Property to municipal sewer and water systems in accordance with all applicable governmental codes and regulations prior to June 30, 2004, this Agreement shall be void and of no further force or effect. 11. If not earlier terminated, this Agreement terminates as of December 31, 2005. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands the day and year first written above. CAH-244644v2 3 RC 160-5 Progress Valley Signature Page PROGRESS VALLEY, INC. Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2004, by ,the of Progress Valley, Inc. a Minnesota non-profit corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public CAH-244644v2 4 RC160-5 CITY OF RICHFIELD STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) By Its Mayor By Its City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2004, by Martin J. Kirsch and Samantha Orduno, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the City. THIS DOCUMENT DRAFTED BY: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 Notary Public CAH-244644v2 RC160-5 EXHIBIT A The east 125.00 feet of the south 174.00 feet of the South %2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/a of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, EXCEPT those parts taken for State Trunk Highway No. 5 and 100 over the South 40 feet thereof, per Doc. No. 1349782 and per Doc. No. 1719066. And The west 206.54 feet of the south 120.14 feet of South % of the Southeast'/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24. And The west 28.05 feet of the north 53.86 feet of the south 174.00 feet of South %Z of the Southeast'/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24. CAH-244644v2 RC 160-5 EXHIBIT B List of Encumbrances CAH-244644v2 RC160-5