11-09-04 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2004
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
5:00 P.M.
Call to order
Roll call
1. Tour of Richfield Dispatch Center followed by discussion of four-city Public Safety
Answering Point Consolidation Study and Hennepin County dispatch proposal
Notes:
2. Discussion related to Portland Avenue and 66th Street
Notes:
Adjournment.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Roll call
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to bean opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of October 12, 2004; (2)
Regular City Council Meeting of October 12, 2004; (3) Special City Council Worksession of
-~ October 12, 2004; (4) Special City Council Meeting of October 27, 2004; (5) Special City
Council/HRA/Planning Commission Worksession of October 26, 2004; and (6) Regular
City Council Meeting of October 26, 2004
PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of proclamation designating American Education Week; November 14-20,
2004
2. Annual meeting with Planning Commission
Notes:
3. Annual meeting with Charter Commission
Notes:
4. Presentation of Woodlake Centre 2004 Smart Growth Design Award
Staff Report No. 181
~~~ Notes:
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
5. Council discussion
• Hats Off To Hometown Hits
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
6. City Manager's report
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
7. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
8. 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 authorization of resolution determining results of City's General
Election of November 2, 2004 S.R. No. 182
B. Consideration of approval of resolution approving subdivision waiver for 6305 Dupont
Avenue S.R. No. 183
C. Consideration of approval of resolutions levying special assessments for nuisance
abatement and weed destruction against certain property owners S.R. No. 184
D. Consideration of approval of new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses,
including outside service of wine/3.2 beer and food for Chipotle Mexican Grill of
Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 185
E. Consideration of approval of purchase of new 4x4 Ford F-350 from Rochester Ford
for use by Utility Maintenance Division in amount of $16,452.65, plus sales tax and
delivery charge S.R. No. 186
Notes:
9. Consideration of item(s), if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARING
10. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment rezoning property at 6941
and 6945 Nicollet Avenue to Service Office District and consideration of resolution
regarding off-street parking permit at 6941 Nicollet Avenue
Staff Report No. 187
Notes:
RESOLUTIONS
11. Consideration of resolution regarding four-city Public Service Answering Point
Consolidation Study recommendation and resolution regarding Hennepin County
dispatch proposal
Staff Report No. 188
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
12. Claims and payrolls
Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by
majority vote of the City Council)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the
.~. agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the
meeting.
Notes:
Adjournment
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Call to order
Roll call
1. Discussion of airport issues, including Part-150 Sound Insulation Program and Noise
Oversight Committee
Notes:
Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702.
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM # 11
REPORT # 18 $
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S~ NO. ~ 7
REPORT PREPARED BY:
AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A
JAY HENTHORNE, POLICE
LIEUTENANT
NAME, TirtE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
SIGNATURE
m' ~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider the results of the PSAP Consolidation Study and consider the offer made by
Henne in Count to erform all 911 dis atch services for the Cit of Richfield.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve or deny the four-city PSAP Consolidation Study
Recommendation and approve or deny the Hennepin County
Dis atch Proposal
II. BACKGROUND
In the 2002 Council/Staff goals, Council indicated under "Other" to "Discuss Public
Safety communication (Dispatch) alternatives. Council directed staff with Goal 9 of
the 2003 Council/Staff Goals to "Commence the feasibility of establishing
consolidated dispatching services with the first priority being Richfield as a regional
dispatch center and if not feasible, consolidating the service with other service
providers." In addition, this direction continued into the 2004 Council/Staff Goals
with Goal 17, to "Complete Phase 2 of Dispatch Study."
1109 PSAP Dispatch Consolidation
-- Staff received a letter, dated August 13, 2004, from Hennepin County
Administration offering our community the opportunity to be served by the Sheriff's
Office PSAP for dispatch services, at no cost. The Public Safety Director was
directed by the City Manager to list the pros and cons of County dispatching. (See
attached list).
The County's proposal was also discussed on October 12, 2004 at a Council
worksession.
Richfield participated with nine (9) cities in a feasibility study of Hennepin County
consolidated dispatching in 2003. In 2004, the study was then narrowed to four
cities in a study of PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point) evaluating how efficient
the present local dispatching services are. This study involved the cities of
Richfield, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley and Brooklyn Center and was performed to
evaluate the costs and pros and cons of a consolidated dispatch with Hennepin
County.
At the inception of the 911 system in the early 1980's, we were one of 11 Public
Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) in Hennepin County. Prior to its implementation,
there was some talk of consolidation as acost-saving measure for implementation
of 911, but it was not pursued to any great degree. Since the inception of 911,
Golden Valley, which has its own dispatch system first operated a joint dispatch
serving New Hope (who previously had their own but shared some radio
frequencies with Golden Valley) and subsequently with St. Louis Park. New Hope
is the only independent PSAP that has gone with the County. Today there are 10
PSAP" in Hennepin County. They are:
Minneapolis Hennepin County Richfield
Edina Eden Prairie Bloomington
St. Louis Park (also serving Golden Valley) Hopkins
Brooklyn Center Minnetonka
In the past few years, the communities of Richfield, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley
and Brooklyn Center have actively explored some form of consolidation as a result
of budget issues, with the other PSAPs in Hennepin County participating in the
exploration. (This has been, in part, driven by their consideration of the costs
associated with transition from their own radio system to the new Metro Radio
system). The options that were looked at included a consolidation into the County
system, an "Allied PSAP Consolidation" of four cities (Richfield, Brooklyn Center,
Golden Valley and St. Louis Park), and even discussion of some joining the
Minneapolis system. One of the issues that has prompted consideration of the
County's system over the years has been that they have always provided their
dispatch services to those cities on the system "free of charge." These communities
represent about a third of the county's population (346,196 of a total 1,116,200
county population) that has been paid for by all the County's taxpayers. The
rationale advanced by the Sheriff is that they have to provide the system for the
Sheriff's Department operation and that the marginal cost of providing service to the
other communities that they serve is not that great.
The trade-off between a local dispatch center and the Sheriff's has been the level of
-- service provided by the Sheriff's operation, which has remained minimal to the cities
served in order to keep the cost of serving them down.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Dispatching receives 911 calls and other community-based calls.
• Dispatching provides appropriate resources via radio (and/or referral
to appropriate department).
• Dispatch coordinates public safety resources during response and on-
scene operations.
• Dispatching records incident data for records and future analysis.
• Given the critical nature of providing the best information and
coordination of public safety personnel on the street, and in light of the
organization mission of providing quality services at an affordable
price, it is recommended that Richfield continues with our own
dispatch service to better support providing the level, of public safety
services that our community has come to rely on.
The Richfield Public Safety Department realizes that there are
apparently some immediate cost savings in having. Hennepin County
~~ dispatch for our community; however, to lose control on a local level
would prevent the department from maintaining personal services to
the citizens. The department, therefore, recommends rejection of the
Hennepin County offer and the four-city consolidation of PSAP
services. It is recommended that the City of Richfield- Public Safety
Department continue to operate its own 911 Communication services.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• While the Sheriff's Department carries out the first two areas indicated
under "Policy" above, it traditionally has not provided the additional in-
route and on-scene information and coordination, the depth of the
incident information, or the in-depth knowledge of the community or of
the responding public safety personnel and their operations that is
found with a locally based dispatch.
• The Sheriff's Department only deals with bona fide 911 emergencies
and tells all other non bona fide 911 callers to contact their local
community.
• In the course of this study, cities that had previously been with
Hennepin County and have since moved to their own systems were
contacted and evaluated. Those cities were Bloomington,
Minnetonka, Edina and Eden Prairie. Letters are attached from the
named cities giving their reasons for maintaining their own systems.
• The limitations of the Sheriff's current level of service are also a theme
noted in the attachments from the communities listed above.
• Should the City concur with the staff recommendation listed under
"Basis of Recommendation," the City of Richfield can then inform the
other three cities and the County of the decision to continue to do local
--~ dispatching prior to a November 30 deadline set forth in the County's
letter (attached).
C. FINANCIAL
• See the "Allied Communities PSAP Consolidation Analysis for the
Cities of Brooklyn Center, Golden Valley, Richfield and St. Louis
Park."
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Remain with our current dispatch arrangement.
• Undertake the process to have the County provide the dispatch service.
• lndertake the process to join the "Allied Communities PSAP Consolidation"
and venture into afour-city dispatch facility.
• Defer a decision to a later meeting.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution No. to abstain from transferring Richfield Communication
,~ service to Hennepin County PSAP.
• Resolution No. to withdraw from the four-city PSAP Consolidation.
• Hennepin County letter dated 8/13/04, Attachment A.
• City of Eden Prairie letter dated 8/27/04, Attachment B.
• City of Minnetonka a-mail dated 9/20/04, Attachment C.
• City of Edina letter dated 10/6/04, Attachment D.
• City of Bloomington Police Department Recommendation, Attachment E.
• Pros and Cons Prepared by Richfield Director of Public Safety to City
Manager, Attachment F.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT TO
ABSTAIN FROM THE OFFER SUBMITTED BY THE HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE TO CONVERT THE. DISPATCHING OF 911 COMMUNICATION CALLS FROM
RICHFIELD PSAP TO HENNEPIN COUNTY PSAP
WHEREAS, a study of the Public Safety Answering Point dispatch services has
been conducted in conjunction with other cities; and
WHEREAS, the results of the consolidation study and the pros and cons of the
dispatching from outside the City of Richfield have been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the recommendation of the Richfield Public Safety department is to
continue to provide our own dispatch service to better support the level of public safety
services to the community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield will respond to
the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office that it will not participate in the transfer of 911
Communication call duties to Hennepin County.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this ninth (9th) day of
November, 2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~)
1109 PSAP Dispatch Consolidation
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT TO
ABSTAIN FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE FOUR-CITY PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING
POINT (PSAP) CONSOLIDATION OF 911 COMMUNICATION SERVICES
WHEREAS, the cities of Richfield, Brooklyn Center, St. Louis Park and Golden
Valley participated in a study to evaluate and consider consolidating 911 dispatch services;
and
WHEREAS, the PSAP Consolidation Study has been completed and the results
have been analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield Public Safety Department has determined that to
consolidate the services in any way will interfere with the quality of service provided to
Richfield citizens and to which they have become accustomed; and,
WHEREAS, the first concern should be the level of service provided and the feeling
of security, safety and quality services provided to the community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield will -not participate
in the consolidation of the four cities (Richfield, Brooklyn Center, St. Louis Park and
Golden Valley) for dispatching services, and will continue to operate its own
communication center.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this ninth (9th) day of
November, 2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
1109 PSAP Dispatch Consolidation.
ATTACHMENT A
Hennepin County Administration
Sandra L. Vargas, County Administrator
A-2303 Government Center
300 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55487-0233
August 13, 2004
Mr. Dan Scott, Chief of Police
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Chief Scott:
612-348-7574
FAX:612-348-8228
TDD:612-348-7367
www.co.hennepin.mn.us
We are pleased to inform you that the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners has passed a
resolution offering your community the opportunity to be served by the Sheriff's Office Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP) for dispatch services, at no cost. This offer is being made after extensive
discussions with four cities (Brooklyn Center, Richfield and St. Louis Park and Golden Valley) about
this possibility over the last few months.
Following these discussions, it was decided that this offer would be extended to all ten cities that
currently operate independent PSAPs within Hennepin County. If your community wishes to take
advantage of this offer, a firm commitment must be made in writing to the Hennepin County Sheriff's
-- , Office by November 30, 2004. If you choose not to commit at this time, the opportunity to join the
Sheriff's dispatch center at no cost will not be extended again for a minimum of eight years.
If you choose to convert to the Sheriff's Office dispatch system, your only financial commitment will
be to buy or lease 800 MHz radios. You must also ensure your MDTs or squad laptops are compatible
with the county system and utilize the Sheriff's Office dispatch protocols. A timetable and conversion
plan (staged rollout) of new users will be developed after it is known which communities will be
converting to the Sheriff's system. Cities will be added to the system in the order that their written
commitment is received.
We think this is an excellent approach to providing public safety dispatch services in acost-effective
manner across the county. In addition, the more cities that are on~the 800 MHz system and utilize the
same PSAP service, the better public safety will be enhanced for all users and residents of the county.
To assist you in making this decision, Sheriff's Office personnel are available to meet with you or your
staff to discuss implementation issues or any questions you may have. Please call Inspector Bill
Chandler at 6.12-348-9648 if you are interested in discussing this proposal.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
'~~~~
Sandra L. Varg Patrick D. McGowan
County Admini r Hennepin County Sheriff
Attachment
An Equa(OpportunityErnployer Recycled Paper
NOV-~~-~~~4 l~~~b ut i r ur DLI'1. 1-~LI'111V. !.J`.J~.~V ~...-. P2Qe 1~
-- ..,.~ - - - _.~.. -- -1
r-- ~- - -- .,. ...
ATTACHMENT B
"1
Off ce of the ~'ity Manager
August 27, 2004
Ms. Sandra L, Vargas
County Administrator00
A-2303 Hennepin County Government Center
300 South 6'^ Street
Minneapolis, MN 55487
Dear Ms. Vargas:
T am writing in response to your August 1S, 2004 concerning the County's offer to Eden Prairie to,join a
consolidated County-wide public safety dispatching system and the mEtropolitan S00 MI•Iz radio system.
The City of Eden Prairie does not wish to proceed with either of these options at this time.
Eden Prairie has previous experience with consolidated public safety answering points (PSAP). That
experience leads us to a decision that Svc are not currently interested in participating in a consolidated
PSAP. Our citizens appreciate the level of service we currently offer them through the operation of our i
own PSAP. They are willing to pay for that level of service. We believe that maintaining our own PSAP 4
is a key ingredient in providin; a high level of public safety services to our citizens. !;
With regards to radio communication, Eden Prairie has its own trunkcd 800 MI-Iz radio System. We have
been using our system since 1940. Our radio system provides services for not only our police, fire, and 1.
rescue services, bttt also for our Gity Public'Works Dtparttnent, Hden Prairie School District, and ~
Southwest Metro Transit. We believe that our radio system has at least 10 years of useful life. Our
system is tested, reliable and does no[ compromise public safety by exposing us to interoperability j
problems, including the S00 MHz metro radio system. If we were to join the metro radio system, we
would not only lose the remaining years of useful life of our current radio system, but we would also he
forcing the School District, Southwest Metro Transit, and our own Public Works Department to purchase
new rad'so systems. This change atone would cost Eden Prairie taxpayers millions of dollars. ~
I believe there will be a time in our future when joininb the metro radio system will be to Eden Prairie's
financial and operational advantage. I would ask that you preserve your invitation to us to join the metro
radio system until a latc3r date. I appreciate the County Board's invitation to join the County's system
now, but joining the system would not he the right decision for Edcn Prairie at this time.
SincCrcly,
Scott Deal
City Manager
cc: Nancy'Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
Dan Carlson, Police Chief
George Esbensen, Fire Chief
From: "John Gunyou" <jgunyou@eminnetonka.com>
To: "Mark Bernhardson (E-mail)" <mbernhardson@ci.bloomington.mn.us>
bate: 9/21/2004 10:18:21 AM
Subject: FW: P5AP study
> Here's our conclusion.
> ----Original Message-----
> From: John Gunyou
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 9:56 AM
> To: Police Mail List
> Cc; Leadership Team Mail List
> Subject: PSAP study
> As you know, Hennepin County recenfly offered to serve the ten cities that operate independent dispatch
centers (PSAPs) at no cost, Cities were required to make a final commitment to the county by November
30, 2004, and another opportunity to receive These services would not be extended again for at least eight
years.
> A working group consisting of Police Chief Joy Rikala, Police Captain Mark Raquet, Fire Chief ,Joe
Wallin, Public Works Director Brian Wagstrom, and Finance Director Merrill King evaluated the costs and
benefits of either staying with our own dispatch center or converting to the county's dispatch. In addition to
the financial implications, the study group considered impacts on service levels and the technical feasibility
of converting to the county. A copy of their analysis is attached.
> Although the financial analysis reflects favorably on a conversion, we concluded that the service value
provided by our own Minnetonka dispatch center justifies its Continued operation.
> In addition to validating the importance of maintaining our own PSAP, the review provided us an
opportunity to examine how we may be able to enhance the service we already provide to our community
by better integrating dispatch into public safety and city-wide operations. The study also identified
opportunities to improve the ongoing training and support that is provided to our PSAP personnel. Chief
Rikala will be coordinating these follow-up efforts.
> I appreciate your patience as we considered these sensitive issues, and would encourage you to contact
either me or Chief Rikala if you have any questions.
> John
> > «Public Safety Answering Point 2 :doc»
>
~.~c-.d ~. ~.~ r .c~
October 6, 2004
Ms. Sandra L. Vargas
County Administrator
A-2303 ~Tennepin County Government Center
300 South 6~' Street
Minneapolis, MN 55487
Dear Ms. Vargas:
A - ~^
,~J~
Thank you for your letter of August 13, 2004, with respect to Hennepin County's offer to
provide public safety dispatching services to Edina and other Hennepin County cities.
We appreciate the County's irrtexest in joint pubic safety dispatching and your offer to
provide this service at no charge.
This offer comes at a rather inopportune time for the City of Edina. As you may know,
the City joined the Metro Radio Board's 800 MHz system in 2003. On February 1, 2004,
we occupied our new City Ha1U1'olice Station that includes a brand new, state of the art
communications center. Therefore, a decision to now abandon this center, completely
equipped with new communications equipment, would indeed be difficult for us.
Notwithstanding these concerns, our City Council finds it encumbent to examine your
proposal before making a final decision. Therefore, we would like to pose the following
questions and concerns:
We are concerned about the long-term comtuitment of the County to provide
these services at no cost. Is there a proposed contract or agreement that we can
now review?
• The City of Edina is the only city in Hennepin County that provides ALS
ambulance service to its residents. This is a service that is highly valued by our
residents and businesses. As part of that service, our dispa~hers provide "pre-
arrival" infractions to 911 callers, which has proven to dramatically improve
patient care. It also allows our dispatchers to assess the qualifiative aspects of the
medical emergency and deploy public safety resources at appropriate levels. If
the County provided dispatch services, will it be able to provide the same service
level as vc~e now provide to our medical emergency callers?
• If we accepted this proposal, what mechanism will be available to the City of
Edina in the future to participate i~~. and influence decision-making with respect to
operational standards and procedures employed at the dispatch center?
• Is there any way that the City of Edina can be reimbursed for the significant
investments which it recently made in eommuni.cations infrastructure?
Conversely, is it possible that our equipment and dispatch center could be used as
a component of a new County-operated joint dispatch center.
• Many calls received by our dispatch center are for situations not requiring a full
emergency response. We are able to assess the nature of the call and provide an
appropriate response given the situation. How Will the County handle such calls?
1_
a r.s~
ATTACHMENT D
Page 2
• A.s a follow up to the previous question, fire calls can be particularly expensive
for Edina as well as all cities when the nature and extent of the reported f re is
unclear. In such cases, we need to call back off duty firefighters and activate
mutual aid responses from other cities. Our present system allows the dispatoher
to evaluate the qualitative nature of a fire call thereby allowing our fire
department to respond with appropriate resources. Will the County's system
provide a similar level of service?
• During the course of a fire response, our dispatch center provides ongoing
updates to our firefighters concerning relevant developments that may affect our
level of response. Will the County system be able to provide such information?
• During a critical public safety event in our community, for example a large
structural fire or a shooting, will a single dispatcher be dedicated to this event
until cleared, or will the situation be handed off among more than one individual?
On behalf of the City Council, I appreciate your review of our questions and concerns.
We would appreciate a timely xesponse in order for us to respond to your proposal as
soan as possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
GLH
CM
cc. Mayor and Council
_~
_z
TOTAL P. 11
ATTACHMENT E
CITY MANAGER INFORMATION EXCERPT - Week of October 11, 2004
Hennepin County Dispatch
Regarding this issue, the Police Department finds no compelling reason to take advantage
of this "free" offer from the County. Although there is apparently some immediate cost
saving, the loss of local control in the way of personal service to our citizens far
outweighs whatever immediate dollar savings may be realized.
The draft letter composed by the City of Edina on October 6 raises parallel issues that
Bloomington would also have with the County's offer. In Chief Laux's informal
conversations with Sheriff McGowan, he has not sensed any indication that the County
would make significant changes in their protocols to address our issues. At this point the
Police Department does not endorse a switch to the County dispatch system.
ATTACHMENT F
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Memorandum
DATE: October 6, 2004
TO: Samantha Orduno, City Manager
FROM: Dan Scott, Director of Public Safety
SUBJECT: Pros and Cons of Hennepin County Dispatching
Pros
• The County has more staff available during peak and off peak times.
• Savings in salaries, maintenance fees, and capital infrastructure costs for the City.
• Savings in upgrade costs for the 800 system being that we would be dispatched by the
county.
The county has dedicated fire dispatching for fire incidents. They can easily allocate staff
resources for multiple fires in multiple jurisdictions if needed.
Cons (Including Questions)
• The financial loss to the City will be in excess of $740,000 when you take into account
updating our dispatch center, paying for the 800 system, new software and programs, and
all of the upgrades.
• Our dispatch center serves as a command center or a nerve center. Anytime that command
staff, swat team members, police officers or firefighters are called in for emergencies they
stop in the dispatch center to be updated on the emergency call out. This would not be the
case if the county were dispatching our city.
• Will the county dedicate a dispatcher for emergency/serious criminal situations? Currently
we assign a dispatcher to these high-risk situations. Our dispatchers are familiar with our
policies, swat team members and our communications van.
• Governance. We would be clients of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Radio System.
We would have little- to no-say on the operations of the radio system.
• If the county does the dispatching, all dispatching personnel problems/issues would be
handled by the county with little or limited input at best.
• The county has narrow standard operating procedures with limited access to change. We
would also have to follow these procedures.
ATTACHMENT F
Page 2
• What is the guarantee that in the future that the county will not charge for dispatching
services? With tight budgets, this would be an opportunity for the county to recoup lost
revenue.
• If we didn't like the county dispatching service and wanted to restart our own dispatching,
the cost might be prohibitive. Would we then be stuck?
• The quality of our dispatch service currently is locally controlled. If we need to change
something, put in new policies, hire personnel, or purchase new equipment, we can do so
based on our needs without the county authorizing this. We have dispatchers who either
grew up in Richfield or are currently living here.. They know Richfield and its officers very
well, and this adds to the quality of life in our community.
• We have good dispatchers who know the community very well. How long will it take for the
county dispatchers to learn our community? How long will it take the county dispatchers to
become familiar with our officers?
• Our police officers had several concerns regarding county dispatching:
- They feel they would lose the personal touch that our dispatchers now give. Our
dispatchers make calls, dig up information, and are great at recalling location history.
Our dispatchers are also an important part of officer safety. Our police officers know the
dispatchers and feel that this is very important.
- Our officers know former Richfield police officers that work at other Hennepin County
police agencies and have been told that they don't like the county dispatch system. Our
dispatchers know our officers and they keep checking on them when they are on calls or
traffic stops. Will the county keep checking up on our officers?
- They felt that the county radio would have more radio chatter because of all of the cities
they are dispatching.
- One last concern that they had was that officers might become more reactive instead of
being proactive because of the support that they get from our dispatchers. They felt this
would lead to fewer crimes being solved. They also believe that our dispatchers are an
important part in solving crimes and arresting criminals. Will the county dispatcher be
able to fill this void?
Our dispatchers know our officers, our procedures, policies, residents, trouble spots so
when a call for assistance comes in, they become invaluable for the quality of life in
Richfield. This would not be the case with the county dispatching. It will take. a lot of time to
get to know our officers since the county dispatch center is not located in Richfield. Other
than radio calls, our officers would have very little contact with the county dispatchers. Will
the county dispatchers treat our residents and officers better or as well as we currently do?
• Homeland security concerns/issues is another area that is important. Having our own
dispatch center will ensure that we have the most readily information at a moments notice,
and we don't have to compete with other jurisdictions for dispatching. This is critical
~~ because of our proximity to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport and the Mall of
America. Other hazards such as windstorms, tornadoes, and hazardous spills are also
11 /02/04
ATTACHMENT F
Page 3
concerns. This is not to say that the county dispatch couldn't also provide this support, but
,~ they dispatch multiple jurisdictions. Again our dispatchers know this community and its
officers.
We currently offer a program called Operation Checkpoint. Operation Checkpoint allows
elderly residents who are home alone and have very little outside contact with others to call
our dispatch center in the morning to let us know they are ok. If they don't call us, then we
call them to check on them or send a police officer to their residence. The county doesn't
have this type of program. This would be a loss to our senior citizens. Will the county
dispatch be willing to do this program?
The county is not planning on being a LOGIS participant. Changes in software for Mobile
Data Computers may need to take place to be compliant. Information from the County
would need to be directly downloaded into our Records Management System, which could
require more changes. We just switched over to all new computers, and dispatch and
record's software last month at a significant cost. We are scheduled to install software for
Records Management in October. What additional costs would be needed for county
dispatching?
The county has no way to access our City data.. This could be critical for officers on the
street who need background information on addresses.
• Officers being dispatched by the county are not allowed to call out traffic stops and must
enter them into their mobile data computers before they leave their squads. This practice is
technically unsound from an officer safety standpoint. The county recommends or has
suggested that officers use their City talk-around channel for traffic stops to let other officers
know. The problem is that the dispatcher would not know where the officer is which
becomes a safety issue. This is not a good practice to follow for suburban agencies in a
major metropolitan area.
• Currently, we work together with the Cities of Bloomington, Edina, and the Minneapolis/St.
Paul International Airport police who have their own dispatch centers. We are more aligned
with these cities because of our location. If we give up our dispatch; we will be surrounded
by other cities that have their own dispatch. Our dispatchers currently monitor these other
communities. Will the county dispatch continue to do this for us?
• If we lost our Dispatch Center, we would have to add afull-time Crime Analyst position in
order to input data into the records management system. Currently, this information is
automatically downloaded into the system, in addition to the dispatchers also entering data.
This would not be continued by the County because they would not have access to or be
able to enter the data since they don't have the program that allows this to be done.
• If we went with the County Dispatch Center, we would- also need to hire additional staff to
perform the following tasks during the hours following normal City business closure:
• cover front counter traffic after closing and during the night shift;
• data entry, i.e. stolen vehicle entries; and,
`~
• jail/prisoner monitoring.
11 /02/04
ATTACHMENT F
Page 4
• We have well-trained dispatchers who know the community well, police officers, firefighters,
and have location history. Will the county dispatcher be able to provide the same level of
experience and knowledge?
• The county is interested in providing dispatching services for all Hennepin County Cities.
Will we. become a number and will our taxpayers really count other than at election time?
How many cities are too much? Safety of our residents, police officers, and firefighters are
my primary concern.
Comment: The county dispatch is probably a good dispatch center, but will it serve our
community as well or better than our current dispatch center?
WHERE OTHER CITIES STAND ON THE COUNTY PROPOSAL:
Several independent dispatch agencies were contacted in reference to Hennepin County
offering no cost dispatching service. The agencies contacted were Minnetonka, Hopkins, Edina,
and Bloomington.
Minnetonka stated that they have been evaluating the county offer and a decision has not been
made. However, they feel that they will keep their dispatch where it is. In 1990, they went from
the county to their own dispatch center and have built their new building with a dispatch center
in it.
Hopkins has made a decision to keep their own center. They are proceeding with the 800 MHz
~ radio system and construction of a new building.
Bloomington is proceeding with installing the 800 MHz system within the next year or so and will
be on-line in 2005 or 2006.
Edina has recently built a brand new building with a new dispatch center and has just cut over to
the 800 MHz system.
NOTE: I have had the opportunity to talk with police chiefs that are currently receiving Hennepin
County dispatch services. They have told me that they would rather have their own dispatching
than the county dispatch. They don't have a lot of input into the county dispatching policies
because the county has the final decision. They said that it would be cost prohibitive to restart
their own dispatch center. One chief told me that he didn't think that they caught as many
criminals for theft or burglaries since the county has dispatched them. He stated that the county
dispatchers don't stay on the phone as long as their own dispatchers did, preventing more
information being relayed to the officers responding to the call.
11 /02/04
~J STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING
10
187
Related to:
CITY COUNCII. GOAL(S) No. N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
AND~oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 27, 29
CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning the property at 6941
and 6945 Nicollet Avenue to SO-1 (Service Office District) and a resolution regarding an off-
street arkin ermit at 6941 Nicollet Avenue.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
~_,
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Conduct second
reading and approve an ordinance amendment- rezoning property at
6941 Nicollet Avenue from R (Single Family Residential) to SO-1
(Service Office District) and 6945 Nicollet from C-1 (Neighborhood
Business) to SO-1 (Service Office District) and approve the attached
resolution for an off-street parking permit at 6941 Nicollet Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
• The petitioner, Kevin Anderson of Cornerstone Realty, has purchased the
house at 6941 Nicollet Avenue.
110904-RZN2ndRDG-OSP-6941-6945N icollet.doc
• Cornerstone Realty would like to convert the house into additional office
space for their real estate business.
- • It is proposed that the house will have the same appearance as their existing
business next door at 6945 Nicollet Avenue, which is also proposed to be
rezoned to SO-1.
• SO-1 is the recommended zoning district for low intensity commercial uses in
areas designated as Single Family High Density in the Comprehensive Plan.
• The applicant is proposing to employ six to eight employees in the new office
and parking will be located at the rear of the building for approximately six
vehicles.
• The business will primarily operate Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m., but will occasionally be open during limited weekend hours.
• The application for consideration of rezoning was heard at the September 27,
2004, Planning Commission meeting. Comments from the public included
concerns with the "creeping" of businesses along Nicollet Avenue.
• The SO-1 District is less intense than the C-1 District, which is the lowest
commercial district. SO-1 District does not allow retail sales while C-1
District does.
• The Planning Commission recommended approval of this action with a vote
of 7-0.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
_. A. POLICY
• The SO-1 zoning district was created in order to permit a low intensity
business primarily oriented to providing professional services to
individual customers in a small office environment that do not include
retail sales.
• The property at 6945 Nicollet Avenue is currently zoned C-1. This
classification is not being proposed because the permitted uses
include retail sales, while the SO-1 district does not include retail
sales.
• The rezoning of the two properties for commercial uses is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan as a conditional use.
• The Comprehensive Plan designation for this area pre-dates the SO-1
zoning area classification.
• As a requirement for rezoning, the petitioner must obtain the
signatures of the owners of at least 50% of the property within 300
feet of the land proposed to be rezoned. The petitioner has obtained
the required number of signatures.
• Building permits may not be issued while proceedings for a rezoning
are pending unless the improvements would. be permitted under both
the existing and proposed zoning classification or unless City Council
approval is obtained. The applicant has taken out building permits for
a number of items such as replacement of windows, re-roofing and
siding. This type of work can be done on a single family home,
therefore the work has been allowed. The item that can not be
installed is the proposed parking lot; which will have to wait until the
rezoning is approved.
• The applicant has also applied for an Off-Street Parking permit for the
site at 6941 Nicollet Avenue. This process is required when there is a
change in use. Review of an Off-Street Parking permit requires a
professional survey indicating required parking, drainage, landscaping
area, and screening. Applications for an Off-Street Parking permit are
heard by the City Council at the time of the second reading for
rezoning.
Off-Street Parking Requirements
• The site can accommodate the required five parking spaces for an
office use as noted on the attached site plan.
• Petitioner also plans to have one parking space in the front yard
area for the location of their company vehicle. The parking spot for
this vehicle must be located 8 feet from the property line and the
parking space must be 9 feet by 19 feet to meet parking
requirements. Staff was informed of this change on November 2,
2004, therefore it is not noted on the attached site plan.
• Staff is recommending denial of the front yard parking space
because it is not in keeping with the purpose of the SO-1 zoning
districts purpose of maintaining as many residential like qualities
as possible.
• Landscaping will meet the City's landscape requirements. The
petitioner plans to sod, install plant materials, as well as have the
lot on a sprinkler system for maintenance, like their existing
business at 6945 Nicollet.
• The proposed parking lot meets parking lot standards, for drive
aisle width, stall dimensions, and the provision of handicapped
spaces.
• The parking lot meets setback requirements. City standards
require a minimum fifteen-foot setback for parking lots adjacent to
residential property. The petitioner meets this requirement on both
the north and east sides of the property.
• The petitioner has also installed a privacy fence along the north
and east side to screen the lot from the residential uses.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The property at 6941 Nicollet Avenue is zoned R. It is currently a
vacant single family residence. The Comprehensive Plan designates
the property as single family residential -high density. The proposed
zoning is SO-1.
The property at 6945 Nicollet Avenue (existing business) is zoned C-
1. It is currently the existing business of Cornerstone Realty. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property as single family
residential -high density.
• The map attachments illustrate the surrounding zoning, land use and
Comprehensive Plan classifications.
• As of this writing the Planning Commission is scheduled to discuss the
SO-1 (Service Office District) and limiting the zoning to a distance of
150 feet from the intersection at their November 8, 2004, work
session. You will receive a report of their action at the City Council
_, meeting.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Notification: A mailed notice was sent to all property owners and
occupants within 350 feet of the property to be rezoned.
• Other Actions:
The Council held the first reading October 12, 2004.
The Council holds a second reading and conducts a public
hearing at the scheduled November 9, 2004, Council meeting.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Deny the request to rezone the property at 6941 Nicollet Avenue from R
(Single Family Residential) to SO-1 (Service Office District) and 6945 Nicollet
from C-1 (Neighborhood Business) to SO-1 (Service Office District).
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance Amendment
• Resolution
• Map of land uses around the property
• Map of zoning classifications around the property
• Map of Comprehensive Plan classifications around the property.
• Proposed plan
• Landscape plan
• Rezoning aerial map
• Letters of opposition
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Mr. Kevin Anderson, Cornerstone Realty
• Mr. Steve Penney, Cornerstone Realty
~,.
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix 1 which describes the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the City is
hereby amended in the following respect:
Section 2, Paragraph (9) is amended to read as follows:
(9) M-6,
That area Ivinq between the center line Nicollet Avenue and the west line of
Meredith's Addition, and between the center line of 70th Street and a line
distant 133 feet northerly and parallel thereto.
APPENDIX 1. BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
SECTION 14. SERVICE OFFICE DISTRICT (SO-1 ).
(1) M-6 (NE corner. 70th and Nicollet) That area Ivinq between a line distant
133 feet northerly of the center line of 70th street and parallel thereto, and a line 147 feet
northerly of said line and parallel thereto, and lying between the center line of Nicollet
Avenue and the west line of Meredith' Addition.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
November, 2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT
AT 6941 NICOLLET AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of an off-street parking permit for the parcel of land located at 6941 Nicollet
Avenue, legally described as:
S80FTOFN240FTOFW1/8OFS1/3OFSW1/4OFSE1/4EXCEPT
ROAD
WHEREAS, the requested off-street parking permit has been reviewed by staff
and meets city requirements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed parking area will adequately serve the purpose for which
it is proposed and will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare;
and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the off-street
parking permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
Approval is granted subject to the following conditions:
,__ 1. That an off-street parking permit for 6941 Nicollet Avenue is approved for a
parking area as detailed in the attached site plan.
2. The site can accommodate the required five parking spaces for an office use as
noted on the attached site plan.
3. No parking spaces to be located in the front yard.
4. Landscaped to adequately meet the City's landscape requirements. The
petitioner plans to sod, install plant materials, and maintenance system, such as
sprinklers. A temporary certificate of occupancy will be issued until landscaping
is completed per the landscape plan.
5. The proposed parking lot will meet parking lot standards, for drive aisle width,
stall dimensions, and the provision of handicapped spaces.
6. A fifteen-foot setback for parking lots adjacent to residential property on the
north and east sides of the property.
7. Installation of a 6-foot privacy fence along the north and east side to screen the
lot from the adjoining residential uses.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
November, 2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
2
,~
~;
RE
RE RES
ES RES
RES RES
RES ~-
RES APT
'RES
RES COM
LANDUSE SYMBOLS
RES =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DPLX = TW0 FAMILY.RESIDENTIAL
APT =APARTMENT BUILDING
COM =COMMERCIAL
PUB =PUBLIC
100 0 100 200 300 400 Feet
N
9-2-04
3
REZONING AND OSP REQUEST FOR 6941 NICOLLET AVENUE
SEPTEMBER, 2004
LAND USES OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET
69TH ST.
REZONING AND OSP REQUEST FOR 6941 NICOLLET AVENUE
SEPTEMBER, 2004
ZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET
..
ZONING SYMBOLS
R =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MR-1 =TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MR-2 = MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -MEDIUM DENSITY.
C-2 =GENERAL COMMERCIAL
N
100 0 100 200 300 400 Feet
9-2-04
4
REZONING AND OSP REQUEST FOR 6941 NICOLLET AVENUE
SEPTEMBER, 2004
COMPRENSIVE PLAN FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SYMBOLS
R =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
1 R-SFH =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -HIGH DENSITY
PUB =PUBLIC
100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet N
9-9-04
5
N
n
O
7
- 3 ~
II ~
O
s~
w~°~ NICOLLET AVENUE
~~ n,o -
~ ~ n N
..~ -
Tw ~.y
m ~ ~ --~I
.-O.p~ O
~ m U W l I ne of aoulh BO la of I
eth 240 leel I W/18 f 51/3
1/1 N S ~ m I 1 $W 1/4 of SE 1/4 Sec. 2], Tw9•~ 29, Rqa. 24
00. N a
0 ~ O N Om _
3 w
vo~~ IW a (,,
o w~ ~
£ m m p
o F. o $ m
z m
_ o' ~ ~ m ~ : g ~ mud °~
m °'° ~
N O N O £ m
:il ~. C > ~ ~ * O~g6 Y 1g6 yO186y B/9.BT O$5r6
~O IS A J ~ Y d~~O 80.00. SiOewalk b
A o ~ N U ~
I~a6Y9) ~ re 060
A~ A.O. ~ ~ I - ~aT
_O~. C
O /ul O 1
to ~ ~ n ~ ~J/ I e.o
n c o o ~ I I ,
:' r- I ~ ~°
' » I ~, n l I s
o 3
a I ~ II JI c.~
I I I I I.
.I I I
I I I.
~S. 1~ _ I I '
_ n I I L+ 1
p I I ~...JJJ
n_S ~ Ij Jv _
? I w.o S S I I c°.
o I '` z I
1. ~ ~ I I ~
a '" ~ ,1 I ~
» ~I~ .. ~II (.J1 i4s - - 1 ~ ~~~ -- - -- -"' x1.9-----~ -c
f \ 27.1 4.9 7w
Ij ~ -a
~ I p iI ~ ~3 \ ~~ ~~:
li £ ~ cs ~~
U u a ~\
.~\.__:\ . _ ... - ,T ;- -fir -- o ~ ~ ~~ =~ , .~ ` ~
i!~ \ \` ~
~~~ ~
1
. ( u -- --re ----
~. ~-~ ji - le! - L ,. 4.
.` ``U ` ~ 'I ~ ~ r ` ~ ~
~` I a~ I S
•~ I `~ar.~ (852DTL
`~~ ~ ~~ ~'~ ~+ B52.OTC 851.5
^ ~~~ na 1~ ~ • 851.51 2.OTC
.,, , 1
~•~
_~__ _._-1]6 IiI-Y__ ~ f_S
11 ( L Y.g4
it ~ ~~ j~ ~ ~'i ~ o ~~g
I---1].5--1F-- `\_ w - N w ~ 05.0 ~ ~`e
r j 4 ~ ~
jl I ~\
~I I
V L
O
I (B52.Oh I 852.2 ~ \ +
II (851.5 (852.STC
I I m )x (852.2T4)- 852.]TC x..- \`
I ~ N ~_ \
~~ ~-.
ly5
.`' ~' _
~ N N
N V~.oo N
_ Ny»'
YO' w
i~ N
~S
y~' _
M
~,y
~"
~/'')
s
W "_
<~
Ca
O
4~
.i..~
O
u
.,..,
d'
o~
~o
rl
r ~ ~~~ ~
. ~,~.,~,vc~„
C~, ~~~
•._~"~'
C~-~~ ~'?
k
~'•-~s~
~~~, ~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~` LEA
~~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~
`~'~~
~~
~ cam--- ~~c'.'"
~ _ - ~`.,~
~-Q--
~~-~ ~
~,~c-..rz..
~~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ _ ~~.
~ ~ ~~~ ~
~,, m ~~~,
~ ~~~ ~
~~ ~
~~
~~,, ~~~
~~
`~,- ~..A.~ -~C-"`-~.``~ ~--c~ ~~` ~--ye`a'
x ~~
J`~,~~.~
`•
`~ ~ ~~~
~~ `~ ~-
-~.~:
~~ .
~.~..~ ,
~.~..
--z,t.~
~-~.~- ~-
`` ~~ ~.
-~~..~
ti C
`~
~--
~~
10
1~ ,~ ~Q
C~~v~
~~ ~~
tv ~~ ~
~ ~ ~~~ L~
~ ~~~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~
~ ~ .~-~~
u~~-~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~
~~~ ~ ~- ~ ~
r ~~ ~ , ~~ ~
~~ ~~ ~ ~~'
~~~ ~~,~ _
~~~
~ ~~~ ~~
~r~-~ s~; ~ ~~~~~
1 ~
~ ' .~ ~
~L ~ ~_ ~ ~ ....
~~~,~~~
11
AGENDA SECTION: ppNS .NT
AGENDA ITEM # gE
REPORT # 18 6
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. NIA
REPORT PREPARED BY:
AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 10
ROBERT HIIVTGEN, ACTING UTILITY
SUPERINTENDENT
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 1 ; .1/
REVIEW: ~J
REVIEWED BY CITY ~'~/
MANAGER: ~~~JQQQ
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the purchase for a new Ford F-350 for the use by the Utility Maintenance
Division.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the purchase of a 4 x 4 Regular Cab F-350 Super
Duty from Rochester Ford in the sum of $16,452.65. (Price does not
reflect sales tax or delivery charge.)
II. BACKGROUND
The revised 2004 Wastewater Division Budget includes aPick-up truck. Utilities
divisions recently purchased certain equipment such as a vac-all, portable
generator, and water main break trailer that requires a larger vehicle for pulling. The
Ford F-350 is large enough to pull this equipment and can also be used as a plow
truck, therefore, will act as a backup plow truck for the Streets Division.
1109FordF-350
Purchase of this vehicle has been coordinated through the State of Minnesota
Cooperative Purchasing Program. Under this program, the State of Minnesota
solicits bids from a variety of dealers for specific motor pool equipment. The low
bidder for the type of equipment required is then awarded a contract to supply
equipment to the participating members of the Cooperative Purchasing Program at
the lowest possible price. The City of Richfield participates in his program.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Rochester Ford has the state contract on the Minnesota Cooperative
Purchasing Program for the F-350 Super Duty Ford.
• The City of Richfield participates in the Minnesota State Cooperative
Purchasing Program
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval at the November 9, 2004 Council meeting will facilitate
delivery of the new Ford F-350.
C. FINANCIAL
• The revised 2004 Wastewater budget contains $22,500 for this
purchase.
D. LEGAL
• When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or
construction exceeds $25,000, authority to purchase shall be
submitted to the City Council for consideration.
IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Council may delay approval to a later meeting. Delayed approval, however,
will result in delayed delivery.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # $D
REPORT # 185
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. NIA
AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR Rj j
REVIEW: ~J
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider a request for a new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license, including the
outside service of wine/3.2 beer and food for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644
L ndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the issuance of a new on-sale wine and 3.2
percent malt liquor license, including the outside service of wine/3.2
beer and food for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644
Lvndale Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2004, the City received the application and other required documents for
anew on-sale wine and a 3.2 percent malt liquor license, including the outside
service of wine/3.2 beer and food for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC.
1109 Chipotle Mexican Grill New Liquor Licenses
The applicant has satisfied all objective criteria for eligibility under state and local
ordinances.
The following requirements for license issuance have all been satisfied:
1. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees.
2. The applicant has complied with all of the procedures/criteria required for
outside service for wine/3.2 beer and food. They have been approved for
twenty-six outside seats..
3. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received
showing RSUI Indemnity Company affording the coverage.
4. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied.
5. The property is owned by Lyndale Gateway, LLC., 7300 Metro Blvd., Suite 585,
Minneapolis; MN 55439, and the real estate property taxes are paid and current.
6. As this is a new business, there are no unpaid general sales and withholding
taxes.
7. As this is a new license, there is no previous "calls for service" or contact
records.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
The Articles of Organization for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC that were
filed with the Minnesota Secretary of State show that Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., is
the owner of Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC. Shareholders owning a
percentage of 5% or greater of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. are McDonalds
Corporation, One McDonald's Plaza, Oak Brook, 1L.
The applicant and shareholder/managers of Chipotle Mexican Grill, LLC are
Matthew Steven Ells and Kevin Michael Reddy. Background checks and criminal
histories were conducted on Matthew Steven E11s, DOB 09/12/65, and Kevin
Michael Reddy, DOB 02/27/58. Matthew E11s and Kevin Reddy have no criminal
histories. Both Ells and Reddy are currently living in Colorado. Driver license
checks showed Ells and Reddy are both valid.
The on-.premise manager is Christopher James Bores, DOB 05/01/81. Criminal
history and background checks were done on Christopher Bores and no criminal
history was found. Mr. Bores has a Minnesota Driver's license, which is valid and
clear. A credit history was conducted and he was found to have no items of
concern regarding his credit history. Nothing was found during this investigation
that would raise any concerns about the applicant's suitability for licensing.
At this time, there are currently 27 locations of Chipotle Mexican Grill being
operated in Minnesota.
_ On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these
establishments to comply with Resolution No: 9511, which outlines discipline they
can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been
given to the owner of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal
of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City
Codes and State Statues pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent
malt liquor license, including outside service of wine/302 beer and
food.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The requirements in Resolution 9511 must be met.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The Council could decide to deny the license request, which would mean that
the currenf applicants would not be able to obtain an on-sale wine and 3.2
malt liquor license, including outside service of wine/3.2 beer and food.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Kaela Brennan
• Christopher James Bores
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # $ C
REPORT # I $ 4
~~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCII, GOAL(S) No. N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
AND/ox RICHFIELD 2020 .GOAL(S) NO N/A
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NMI, TIZLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Considerations of resolutions levying special assessments for nuisance abatement, and weed
destruction.
L RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolutions levying special
assessments for nuisance abatement, and weed destruction against
listed aroaerty owners.
II. BACKGROUND
• The special assessment for nuisance abatement is for costs incurred by the City
in connection with abatement for nuisances on certain properties in-the City,
which are not properly maintained.
• The owners of the subject properties are notified by the City to correct the
nuisance and have failed to do so within a timely limit.
• The property owners were notified that if the nuisance were not abated within
the proper time limit, the City would take the corrective action necessary and bill
the property owner.
.X(x...
Finally, each year the City hires contractors to cut weeds on certain properties in
the City not maintained by the owners. If the owner fails to cut the weeds in a
timely manner after notification by the City, the City undertakes the weed
destruction and bills the property owner for the service.
In all cases, the property owners were notified that any unpaid charges of fees
may be assessed against the property.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The nuisance properties were not maintained by the owners and the
City incurred costs to abate the nuisance.
• Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one-
year assessment for these costs.
• Notice of the certification was published in the Sun Current October
14, 2004.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The proposed special assessment for nuisance abatement is $252.00
with an additional 6% interest penalty.
• The proposed special assessment for weed destruction is $85.00 with
an additional 6% interest penalty.
• Costs incurred for city staff time in the clean up of the properties is
included in the special assessment amount.
D. LEGAL
• N!A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do not approve the attached resolutions and have the costs absorbed by the
City.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution levying special assessments for nuisance abatement for one year
with 6% interest.
• Resolution levying a special assessment for weed destruction for one year
with 6% interest.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND FALSE ALARM FEES
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following
amounts for expense incurred by the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance
health hazard and a safety hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 429.101, to wit:
PROPERTY ID ADDITION
ADDRESS AMOUNT
NUISANCE ABATEMENT:
34-028-24-13-0045 45900
33-028-24-32-0059 45633
26-028-24-44-0104 45197
7345 Nicollet Avenue $70.00
7539 Morgan Ave. So. $91.00
6944 17t" Ave. So. 91.00
2. The above special assessments are to be spread over one year at the rate of 6%
interest per annum.
3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this
resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of November,
2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR WEED DESTRUCTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following
amounts for expense incurred by the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance
health hazard and a safety hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 429.101, to wit:
PROPERTY. ID ADDITION
WEED DESTRUCTION:
ADDRESS AMOUNT
34-028-24-12-0102 45050
7140 1St Avenue So. $85.00
2. The above listed special assessment will be spread over a period of one year at the
rate of 6% interest per annum.
3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this
resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of November,
2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
J
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
CONSENT
$B
I8
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. NIA
REPORT PREPARED BY:
AIVD/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A
CHRISTINE COSTELLO,
PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TIT/ &
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
NAML, TITLE
SI(iNA%'(/RI'
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: ~
Consideration of a subdivision waiver for 6305 Du ont Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving the subdivision
waiver for 6305 Dupont Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
• The applicant, Mr. Joel Larson, is seeking to divide his property at 6305
Dupont Avenue into two parcels. Currently, a house sits on the north half of
this property and the south half is vacant.
• If split, both parcels will .meet minimum City requirements for lot area, width,
and depth. These requirements can be meet since each of the lots were lots
of record on or before June 1, 1995: There is a grandfather clause in the "R"
110904-SubdivisionWaiver-6305DuPont.doc
zoning district requirements that allows for this as long as the width is not less
than 40 feet and the lot contains at least 5,000 sq. ft.
• The applicant proposes to build a new single family residence on the vacant
lot that will meet all current zoning ordinance requirements.
• In May 2002 the residents of the 6300 blocks of Colfax and Dupont Avenues
submitted a petition requesting vacation of an unconstructed north-south alley
between Colfax and Dupont Avenues.
• The alley was not improved so there was no pavement or vehicular access,
rather there was an alley easement at the rear of the adjoining properties. In
vacating the alley, it was converted from public to private land, with half of the
alley going to adjacent property owners.
• The petition for vacation of the north-south alley was approved by the City
Council on June 25, 2002, with a vote of 5-0.
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 City Code would result in an unnecessary
hardship.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval of the subdivision waiver will create two parcels that meet
minimum City requirements for lot area, width and depth.
• The minimum lot width in the R district is 50 ft. and the minimum lot
area is 6,700 sq. ft. But if it is a lot of record on or before June 1,
1995, then the lot can be split if it is at least 40 ft. in width and contain
at least 5,000 sq. ft. in area.
• Parcel A will be 40 ft. wide, 135 ft. deep and include an area of 5,400
sq. ft. This parcel will have the existing house on it.
• Parcel B will be 40 ft. wide, 135 ft. deep and include an area of 5,400
sq. ft. This parcel will have a new house constructed on it.
• Both Parcel A and B do not meet the current standard for lot width of
50 feet and lot area of 6,700 sq. ft. The lot was a lot of record on or
before June 1, 1995, and as long as the lot width is not Tess than 40 ft.
and the lot area is at least 5,000 sq. ft they are allowed. Both of the
proposed lots meet this requirement.
• The driveway access for the existing garage will require an easement
over the proposed lot to the south.
• The proposed driveway easement will be 10 ft. over the proposed new
lot. This easement will not impede the rear yard of the proposed
house, which will still have approximately 25 ft. of green area. The
petitioner will be required to record the easement against both lots to
ensure that there always remains access to the existing garage on the
north lot.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
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
• Location of approved alley vacation
• Survey of proposed subdivision
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
• Mr. Joel Larson, applicant
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER
6305 DUPONT AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield (the "City")
which requests approval of a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of
land located at 6305 DuPont Avenue, legally described as:
LOTS 11 AND 12 INCLUDING ADJACENT 1/2 OF VACATED ALLEY.
WHEREAS, the proposed division of land for which the subdivision waiver is
sought is legally described as:
Parcel A: .Lot 12 and the adjoining one half of alley, Ray's Lynnhurst 2"d
Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel B: Lot 11 and the adjoining one half of alley, Ray's Lynnhurst
2"d Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the resulting parcels A and B will comply with Section 521.09 of the
City Code relating to lot area and width; and
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 Section
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
is hereby granted; and
2. Future transfers of any of the Subject Property may be by parcel or parcels
as described above as Parcel A and Parcel B; 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. A copy of the recorded easement for the driveway over Lot 11, will be on file
at City Hall.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
November, 2004.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
LOCATION OF APPROVED ALLEY VACATION
:;~:
~i<
~:
tj,
1ki:
W
a
z
0
Q
tii/~
k,~.r:~ti;._fi: :.}?:fir.;. :s;k:1cy:a'ttti,'•>:<„<:
• : .i•:~•~ski.
?z YF ~iry`,~r. avi'Y:;l.;.';.. '.v\i: }.ti...:}i•..i::
`: its}} ,~: Ur:v)v •:,{:.
63RD ST.
.i~.}i:~:..~~:.:..:.. .:~~ _ r ::::
v : ~a';M1V ~;:}
05 ~°:::~..:::::~ .
.~~..v,;.:i~.4..A;
r
~- ;1='xis-fang i:411e
~M1t •'
.{is ~i':ti
•::w},.•
~:iiSti}%: ii
}t: %' ~' :t?~n::::n ~1}:
t : ~ :: :::::::.: i .:
.ii~ .:::::.::.:..~~~:
::~:~:::: }.::.}::::: i. 101
1020
:Ai,..:.r::~
v:.
~:~.. :«
s3oo
.i.
'v:+~.:?iii ~+>:•;r•~;•:i•,:
C... r.::nn vv........ urU: :::.....xY: •.::v:..
1008
1000
MiLDRED pR.
63 4
}.
63
8 ui }
a
a
v
}y `itii
p Yti~:\Y:+'X r
4}::;}tvi}}}::.
. v;~.;ci~}.,{
M1v
\~vfv
,
~'S ti'•~.iL\nt
}~~4'}iii'
}..rii.:i..
Q~
N
VACATED ALLEY
50 0 50 100. 150 Feet
Ugiskd/sfaft/6iil/projec~lalley93~Oc9 du.apf
3
pC
0
N
..~ .~ ~.xtw.a'.•wb++RMaw,w..ur,e•~v.....,.,.e~,...c«•N+M•xwxr=aC,..x•mu~awr~Hw..<.;rrn,ww~,:t aeLf•"•r>"rnw•ew r»rowmsxx-.+:~fmwe.xxronus+v'UIWLRR!1nV^'WYHRVtl>Y.IN"'Y,Hw:Mr+Ail~'C fH°`>•n~.,h-yrl Ka:V.C .,. .S + aF2rw> w".,rks ~+^FR'^.
~ ~..
.
O pC~
O p
v
-d b `d
bb° CJ d d d
zz~z
000 o.ooo
yyyy
d ~~
dd ~H
oyo ~~°z
~ nyo
;
~
~
O y
~~
~~
yh1-h dz
z~
~ ~~
omr
OO ~~C
~
M~a ~oa
~<° ~zz
a~
r ~'
a
oo~
u ~
u~
~. o ~
~Nz ~
~, II
N
°z
~~x
~~
~~
max..
y
~~b
zzo
II ~ C1
~-• °; O
ooz
`~ ~" ;Cd]
°ty~
H ~ tyit
~ `-`
d
~y
~ ~
y
O
y
,~
m
--i
~°o
'~
h~
o ~ ~ •o° ~ 40.00 --_.., ..~ f
Cn 7
--~ ..
/
A
,. ,
~+
v ~
r '
9
2
~ ~.-1 ~ titi0 ! ~
OvX ~
~F
~
1 ,~ ,
~,fl s'~,, ', ,`
.'
av
d~
~n Y
H
n
z
0
0
~~
~w~'~ ~~~ ~°~ ~~ + ~
r,~ `~~~nn r-r- n ~ ~r- ~~ .
• vv~ Vt v ~ ~ n v t~ .. a ,~v.
g~
- • ^ 0 9 i ~~
- - - :f.
• ~.~ ' : . .
~ ~ ~ 40::Ou ~ 40.00
. ~ :F : ~ op '' ,oo
~• • ~
. z:. ~ , ~ o
p, s,
~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ;
. ,,, ~ ~ (102.3) • rod ~, .P ~°
',DO~~!~,"• 1 ~rn COVERED a i v :~:
I ~ ~ _` o PORCH ~ . \17.7
'090 ~ c,; \ s~ ,~y, atiT ~~ •`~; ~.` ~
. ~ OAF N \~•`\~. \~~ ~~S' `• `` 1
1 . . o\
_ ` x~ ` 1
I ;r ~• 6.0. ~ ~ U
...~ I A O
' ~ ~ ~
C~ O w ~` , , ...
N- O ~ 9-y `~~` ~ ~
y r-d r cn rn Y
x~~oaz z
o~~~~cd
~~o~~~~~
x~d~~~~o
brritdO'
r
O~~~j~~YZ
~,."'~~ o~r~
~'~'~,,;,yCr
td
~~~~ ~~y~
OG `-~~atrl~
°~do ~ ~
°z~~ °z
~ qtr ~y~
z
~~ ~ ~d~
En
b N~ -~'toao
~~ Q ~ ~
~"~~ ~-3~tYi
~ y a n ~
~ ti O
b ``~ ~' O ~,.~ ~
o ~~ ~~txy
~ ~ '~ t=i y
~" ~Z~
~a~ ~~
~'~f ~
A Oy ~ OZ~
o~~'' v
Q
~~ °~
~~ ~M
N
O
cn
n
D
rn
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # $~,
REPORT # 1$ 2
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A
AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) No N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK
N~ TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR .COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution determining results of City General Election held on Tuesday,
November 2, 2004.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution determining the results of the City
General Election held on Tuesda ,November Z, 2004.
II. BACKGROUND
The City General Election was conducted on Tuesday, November 2, 2004 in
conjunction with the State General Election. The City General Election included
contests for the offices of Council Member at Wards 1, 2 and 3.
The Richfield City Charter states that the Council shall meet and canvass the
election returns at the next regular or Special Council meeting immediately
following any regular, primary or special election, but in no event later than the
Monday next following.
1109ELECTIONS
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 205 also governs the conduct of municipal election.
Section 205.02 states that all City elections are governed by Chapter 205 as far as
practicable. Section 205.185 sets the date for canvassing any city general election
as "within seven days after an election." Moreover, the provisions of Chapter 205
preempt the City Charter; therefore the canvassing of election results is scheduled
for the November 9, 2004 regular City Council Meeting.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Charter provides that the City Council declare the results of
the election.
The Regular City Council Meeting of November 9 provides a timely
opportunity to canvass the election results in accordance with State
Statutes Chapter 205.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City Council must take action by November 9, 2004.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• City Charter Section 4.07 provides that the City Council declare the
results of the Election. State Statute Chapter 205 sets the. date for
canvassing the election and controls over the charfier provision.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• N/A
~ V. ATTACHMENTS ~
• Resolution determining the results of the November 2, 2004 General
Election.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION OF THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the Council,
having received and considered the tally of votes by the election judges of the General
Election held November 2, 2004, the results are determined to be as follows:
Votes cast for Council Member Ward 1
Four Year Term
Susan Rosenberg 2659
Betty J. Gustafson 2119
Write Ins 29
Votes cast for Council Member Ward 2:
Four Year Term
Votes cast for Council Member Ward 3:
Four Year Term
Total number of voters in this election
Fred Wroge 2849
John Bjostad 2757
Write Ins 32
Bill Kilian 2500
John Enger 2059
Write Ins 32
18, 865
Attached Attachment A is complete tabulation of results.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following list of judges were those certifying returns
of said election:
James Alagna William Andersen Lisa Anderson
Marilyn Birkelo Delores Armstrong Thomas Birkelo
Adrian Athey Carol Athey Cheryl Avenson
Pat Bailey Kathleen Barta Robert Boehlke
Charles Bauer Jr. Marlys Bergstrom Linda Boyd
Erva Brown Jim Butler Mary Boespflug
Gail. Brinkman Patrick Conness Shari Fisher
Stanley Cromer Ellen Cutter David Dahl
Marie Dallager Andrew Daniels-May Emily Day
Gladys Denesen Joanne Dentinger Delrose Desrosier
.Carol DeVries Gharles DeVries Robert M. Doebler
Marguerite Dozois Sheila Duscher Denise Eckerman
Duane H. Edberg Dee Ann Edlund Liz Ekholm
Betty Elenbaas Margaret Erickson Susanne Erickson
Mary Jo Fadell Anne Michelle Forbes Donna Fischer
Sheila Fitzgerald Gertrude Herll Beatrice Frankus
Gregory Frost Karen Garrett Nancy Garwick
Elayne Gilhousen Dennis Gillespie Joann Gleason
Earlene Goalen Judy Goebel ~ Rebecca Guarino
Roger Guarino Ruth Hiland Earl Hagen
James Grant William Handt Char Hanson
Diane Healey Mae Hermansen Helen Hillstrom
Ilene Holen JoAnn Holt JeNee Honningford
Nancy Hoon Marion Horning Donald Houlding
Ruth Hoglund Bob Houlton Mary Lou Janco
John Jobe Norman Johnson Robert Kraus
Sita Johnson Kathryn Jeffries Kalla Kalloway
Betty Kamps Danette Kamrath Thomas D. Keegan
Olga Kelash Bev Kenealey June King
Erica Klein Vernon Knudsen Rosemary Koelln
Joan Koepke Joseph Kovach Lois Kovach
Cherill Lindquist Brian Kroulik Bernadette Lais
James Lewis Susan Lewis Doris Liedtke
Nancy Lindberg Jeanette Lofstrom Lester Loney
Dorothy B. Lowe Dan Ludwig Eleanor Maanum
Johnathan McClellan Cynthia Mandl David Martin
Norma Martin Paul Matuschek Karin McComb
Connie McDonald Clyde McRae Patricia Medley
Carolyn Moe Lee Monssen Richard Morey
Erich Morris Carol Mortenson Philip Mortenson
Eileen Muelken Helen Nachicas James Niemackl
Marilyn Nienkerk Dawn Nilsen Katherine Nordquist
Martha Obenchain Marlene Odegard Lee Ohnesorge
Cynthia Miler Joan Olinger Robert O. Olson
Geraldine Nachicas Fern Oreck Julia O'Sullivan
Ruth Pafko Linda Nemitz James Pearson
Betty Peltola Betty Pemble Bradley Peterson
Monica Petrov. Lillian Phillips Richard Phillips
Rosanne Pingree Cindy Prince Diane Rappe
Sunny Ray Carolyn Ring Harriet Ring.
Ward Ring Russ Rooney Jeff Rundgren
Sandy Schmidt Judy Schultz Anne Sheridan
Bradley Smith Margaret Smith. William Snyder
Becky Spitzack Faye Sprecker William Stixrud
Jason Stroth Jean Swenson -Julie Remarcik
Ed Thom Myrtle Thom Douglas Saxton
Claire Todd Pat Toney Phyllis Unger
Bernice Utter Beatrice Van Liew Kenneth Vevea
Helen Volz Tasha Waldron Margaret Schouw
Elaine Wetsch Lorraine Widme DePaul Willette
Shirley Wold Marian Woolery Dorothy Wulf
Daisy Young Doris Thorson Paul Roe
Donna Roe Donald Timmons Linda Vigen
Jen Wodnick Betty Young Denise Gajeski
Ellen Brandon Kathy Gesler Thomas Niemackl
Patricia Grahn Tom Murphy Daniel Gardner
2004.
PASSED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of November,
ATTEST:
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
® City of Richfield 9 of 9 precincts reporting
,~,,,, November 2, 2004 General Election '~*Unofficial*** Results
Precinct
Total % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
FEDERAL OFFICES
U.S. President and Vice President
Badnarik & Campagna 36 0.2%
Bush & Cheney 7144 37.9%
Calero & Hawkins 0 0.0%
Cobb & LaMarche 15 0.1
Harens & Ryan 14 0.1
Kerry & Edwards 11442 60.7%
Nader & Camejo 119 0.6%
Peroutka & Baldwin 12 0.1
Van Auken & Lawrence 3 0.0%
Write-I n Candidates 17 0.1
Over Votes 35 0.2%
Under Votes 28 0.1
U.S. Representative District 5
Daniel Mathias 5617 29.8%
Jay Pond 549 2.9%
Martin Olav Sabo 11408 60.5%
Write-I n Candidates 27 0.1
Over Votes 6 0.0%
Under Votes 1256 6.7%
STATE OFFICES
State Representative -Dist. 63A
Paul Thissen 6969 57.8%
Amy Vrudny 4309 35..7%
Write In Candidates 15 0.1
Over Votes 4 0.0%
Under Votes 763 6.3%
State Representative -Dist. 63B
Pat Kirby 2225 32.8%
(name in this slot removed from ballot) 18 0.3%
Dan Larson 4062 59.9%
Write In Candidates 13 0.2%
Over Votes 1 0.0%
Under Votes 459 6.8%
COUNTY OFFICES
County Commissioner -District 5
Chris Howard 4049 21.5%
Randy Johnson 9395 49.9%
Write In Candidates 110 0.6%
Over Votes 3 0.0%
Under. Votes 5281 28.0%
Suburban Regional Park Commissioner -Di strict 4
James (Jim) Holmbeck 7269 38.6%
Peter R. O'Gorman 4086 21.7%
Write In Candidates 120 0.6%
Over Votes 5 0.0%
Under Votes 7358 39.1
3 4 3 7 4 5 4 3 3
618 1061 1012 720 612 1261 425 789 646
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4 1 0 2 1 0 2 5
6 3 0 1 0 2 0 2 0
930 1835 1523 1095 906 1871 693 1421 1168
14 20 15 14 9 13 9 13 12
1 2 2 0 0 7 0 0 0
1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3 6 1 0 5 1 0 1
2 9 4 0 0 11 0 4 5
3 9 4 1 1 3 2 2 3
452 850 819 579 500 1009 323 602 483
58 71 76 58 39 79 35 57 76
951 1824 1495 1080 892 1892. 694 1418. 1162
1 6 2 4 3 Z 4 3 2
1 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
115 197 178 117 100 195' 78 156 120
- 1730 1469 1065 848 1857 - - -
- 982 947 671 592 1.117 - - -
- 4 2 6 1 2 - - -
- 0 0 1 1 2 - - -
- 233 152 93 88 197 - - -
556 - - - - - 386 720 563
8 - - - - - 7 2 1
901 - - - - - 653 1343 1165
2 - - - - - 3 5 3
1 - - - - - 0 0 0
105 - - - - - 81 164 109
382 540 465 442 272 686 305 496 461
746 1599 1281 857 794 1548 517 1132 921
13 14 15 12 3 21 10 11 11
1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
431 795 809 525 461 919 298 595 448
579 1182 943 767 547 1144 440 848 819
427 569 505 361 311 694 260 572 387
15 16 16 11 7 24 8 11 12
0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
552 1180 1106 697 665 1310 422 803 623
11/4/2004 11:52 AM ***UNOFFICIAL RESULTS*** Page 1 of 5
Precinct
Total % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(rounded)
Soil & Water Conservation Supervi sor -District 1
Kim N.Boyce 10556 56.0% 892 1681 1375 1026 814 1717 646 1299 1106
Write In Candidates 168 0.9% 16 18 23 21 9 37 11 16 17
Over Votes 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 8114 43.1 % 665 1250 1172 789 707 1421 473 919 718
Soil & Water Conservation Supervi sor -District 3
Write In Candidates 1008 5.4% 94 175 129 99 72 157 59 132 91
Over Votes 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 17830 94.6% 1479 2774 2441 1737 1458 3018 1071 2102 1750
Soil 8~ Water Conservation Supervi sor -District 5
Gregory J. Bownik 1686 8.9% 151 261 222 201 122 248 112 199 170
Jonathan M. Burris 2413 12.8% 185 387 298 237 192 422 140 267 285
Kevin W Rodewald 2439 12.9% 215 363 296 210 173 424 154 341 263
Michael Wyatt- 3852 20.4% 374 583 494 376 295 588 240 511 391
Write I n Candidates 119 0.6% 8 13 18 14 5 26 6 15 14
Over Votes 10 0.1 % 0 5 1 0 1 1 0 2 0
Under Votes 8319 44.2% 640 1337 1241 798 742 1466 478 899 718
CITY OFFICES
Richfield Council Member Ward 1
Betty J. Gustafson 2119 35.7% - - 839 743 537 - - - -
Susan Rosenberg 2659 44.8% - - 1219 742 698 - - - -
Write In Candidates 29 0.5% - - 8 15 6 - - - -
Over Votes 0 0.0% - - 0 0 0 - - -
UnderVotes 1129 19.0% - - 504 336 289 - - - -
Richfield Council Member Ward 2
John Bjostad 2757 38.0% - 1116 - - - 1252 389 - -
Fred Wroge 2849 39.3% - .1121 - - - 1210 518 - -
Write In Candidates 32 0.4% - 11 - - - 15 6 - -
Over Votes 4 0.1 % - 0 - - - 4 0 - -
UnderVotes 1612 22.2% - 701 - - - 694 217 - -
Richfield Council Member Ward 3
John Enger 2059 36.5% 553 - - - - - - 843 663
Bill Kilian 2500 44.3% 731 - - - . - - - 894 875
Write In Candidates 32 0.6% 10 - - - - - - 14 8
Over Votes 0 0.0% 0 - - - - - - 0 0
Under Votes 1057 18.7% 279 - - - - - - 483 295
JUDICIAL OFFICES
Supreme Court
Associate Justice 2
Helen Meyer 10159 53.9% 857 1668 1326 984 782 1661 621 1215 1045
Write In Candidates 156 0.8% 12 20 18 9 32 25 12 12 16
Over Votes 9 0.0% 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 1 0
Under Votes 8514 45.2% 704 1261 1226 843 709 1488 497 1006 780
Associate .Justice 5
Sam Hanson 981& 52.1% 833 1599 1280 949 769 1599 590 1189 1008
Write In Candidates 129 0.7% 13 21 16 11 9 24 13 11 11
Over Votes 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 8892 47.2% 726 1329 1274 876 752 1552 527 1034 822
Associate Justice 6
Alan C. Page 10743 57.0% 876 1814 1464 1010 865 1831 644 1256 983
Tim Tingelstad 3922 20.8% 339 580 510 391 320 657 238 440 447
Write In Candidates 72 0.4% 3 8 7 3 29 9 4 4 5
Over Votes 20 0.1 % 0 1 0 0 18 0 0 0 1
Under Votes 4081 21.7% 355 546 589 432 298 678 244 S34 405
11/4/2004 11:52 AM ***UNOFFICIAL RESULTS*** Page 2 of 5
Precinct
Total % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(rounded)
Court of Appeals
Judge 2
Natalie E. Hudson. 9681 51.4% 819 1584 1271 921 756 1573 598 1171 988
Write In Candidates 125 0.7% 13 18 18 11 8 26 10 11 10
Over Votes 4 0.0% 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0
UnderVotes 9028 47.9% 741 1347 1281 904 763 1576 521 1052 843
Judge 3
David Minge 7858 41.7% 641 1310 1096 734 642 1287 489 922 737
Paul Elliot Ross 4578 24.3% 404 692 569 472 341 776 262 568 494
Write In Candidates 55 0.3% 4 6 5 4 7 14 4 6 5
Over Votes 9 0.0% 0 1 0 1 6 0 0 1 0
UnderVotes 6338 33.6% 524 940 900 625 534 1098 375 737 605
Judge 4
Wilhelmina (Mimi} Wright 9563 .50.8% 814 1555 1245 914 748 1552 587 1170 978
Write In Candidates 136 0.7% 13 21 20 9 10 26 12 11 14
Over Votes 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 9139 48.5% 746 1373 1305 913 772 1597 531 1053 849
Judge 13
Randolph W. Peterson 9449 50.2% 805 1537 1225 899 731 1546 588 1155 963
Write In Candidates 132 0.7% 7 24 21 9 11 21 11 14 14
Over Votes 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UnderVotes 9257 49.1% 761 1388. 1324 928 788 1608 531 1065 864
Judge 14
Daniel L. Griffith 4488 23.8% 390 685 565 469 375 .740 287 511 466
R.A. (Jim) Randall. 7365 .39.1% 596 1209 996 689 570 .1229 432 909 735
Write I n Candidates 65 0.3% 6 7 6 4 9 15 4 7 7
Over Votes 2 0.0% 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 6918 36.7% 581 1048 1003 674 574 1191 407 807 633
4th District Court
Judge 1
Thor Anderson 6658 35.3% 551 1043 939 635 495 1175 375 818 627
Julie Delgado O'Neil 5163 27.4% 437 834 629 '498 459 793 354 588 571
Write In Candidates 54 0.3% 5 8 3 4 4 11 4 8 7
Over Votes 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0
UnderVotes 6962 37.0% 579 1064 999 699 572 1196 397 820 636
Judge 2
H. Peter Albrecht. 9344 49.6% 805 1529 1208 886 722 1534 567 1140 953
Write In Candidates 137 0.7% 14 22 16 11 15 24 11 14 10
Over Votes 3 0.0% 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
UnderVotes 9354 49.7% 754 1398 1344 939 792 1617 552 1080 878
Judge 5
Catherine L. Anderson 9364 49.7% 810 1534 1210 893 732 1514 577 1139 955
Write In Candidates 123 0.7% 11 17 17 7 13 25 10 12 11
Over Votes 2 0.0% 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 9349 49.6% 752 1398 1343 936 783 1636 S43 1083 875
Judge 7
Heidi Schellhas 9264 49.2% 800 1521 1204 883 723 1501 560 1123 949
Write In Candidates 107 0.6% 12 15 12 7 9 22 11 10 9
Over Votes 2 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
UnderVotes 9465 50.2% 761 1412 1354 946 798 1652 559 1101 882
Judge 8
Kevin S. Burke 9448 50.2% 818 1549 1251 882 734 1535 574 1136 969
Write In Candidates 137 OJ% 13 19 13 10 15 29 13 15 10
Over Votes 2 0.0% 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 9251 49.1 % 742 1381 1306 943 780 1611 543 1083 862
11/4/200411:52 AM ***UNOFFICIAL RESULTS*** Page 3 of 5
Precinct
Total % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(rounded)
Judge 13
Regina Ghu 9256 49.1% 802 1518 1215 882 722 1497 562 1120 938
Write In Candidates 114 0.6% 14 18 11 7 8 24 10 10 12
Over Votes 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 9468 50.3% 757 1413 1344 947 800 1654 558 1104 891
Judge 18
Stephen Allan Baker 3766 20.0% 343 589 492 347 294 646 201 464 390
Susan N. Burke 8299 44.1% 662 1313 1141 825 661 1389 524 977 807
Write In Candidates 61 0.3% 4 9 9 5 4 8 4 11 7
Over Votes 1 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 6711 35.6% 563 1038 928 659 571 1132 401 782 637
Judge 19
Isabel Gomez 9362 49.7% 810 1541 1220 886 733 1507 574 1133 958
Write In Candidates 119 0.6% 13 17 17 9 7 24 10 12 10
Over Votes 3 0.0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Under Votes 9354 49.7% 749 1390 1333 941 790 1643 546 1089 873
Judge 21
Mel Dickstein 8104 45.4% 787 1479 1188 867 705 1488 554 111 925
Write In Candidates 122 0.7% 9 21 9 9 10 23 11 16 14
Over Votes 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 9612 53.9% 777 1449 1373 960 815 1664 565 1107 902
Judge 23
William R. Howard 9163 48.6% 789 1495 1196 872 706 1495 566 1117 927
Write In Candidates 122 0.6% -11 22 12 7 10 24 11 12 13
Over Votes 2 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Under Votes 9551 50.7% 773 1432 1362 957 814 1655 553 1105 900
Judge 24
Marilyn Dustman Kaman 9216 48.9% 801 1505 1199 879 721 1494 567 1119 931
Write In Candidates 111 0.6% 10 21 16 5 5 20 9 13 12
Over Votes 1 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Under Votes 9510 .50.5% 762 1423 1355 952 804 1661 554 1101 898
Judge 26
Steve Pihlaja 9101 48.3% 782 1484 1187 871 707 • 1476 566 1112 916
Write In Candidates 120 0.6% 11 25 11 6 8 21 11 12 15
Over Votes 3 0.0% 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
Under Votes 9614 51.0% 780 1440 1372 958 815 1678 553 1110 908
Judge 27
Kevin J. Kolosky 4476. 23.8% 406 653 534 466 360 720 287 515 535
LaJune Thomas Lange 7005 37.2% 559 1178 959 645 578 1159 420 871 636
Write In Candidates 70 0.4% 7 8 8 5 6 9 8 10 9
Over Votes 1 0.0% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 7286 38.7% 601 1110 1069 720 585 1287 415 838 661
Judge 29
Gary Larson 9240 49.0% 799 1507 1199 879 716 1508 569 1126 937
Write In Candidates 117 0.6% 8 21 15 7 9 20 12 13 12
Over Votes 4 0.0% 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 9477 50.3% 766 1417 1356 950 805 1647 549 1095 892
Judge 30
Katherian Roe 9260 49.2% 800 1513 1208 878 727 1508 574 1118 934
Write In Candidates 114 0.6% 10 21 13 5 9 20 10 12 14
Over Votes 3 0.0% 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Under Votes 9461 50.2% 762 1415 1348 953 794 1646 546 1104 893
Judge 34
E. Anne McKinsey 9242 49.1% 790 1519 1200 886 721 1511 570 1111 934
Write In Candidates 113 0.6% 12 19 14 6 8 18 12 12 12
Over Votes 6 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0
Under Votes 9477 50.3% 770 1410 1356 943 801 1644 548 1110 895
11/4/2004 11:52 AM
***UNOFFICIAL RESULTS***
Page 4 of 5
Precinct
Total % 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(rounded)
Judge 41
Mark Wernick 9155 48.6% 784 1491 1191 875 713 1494 563 1113 931
Write In Candidates 125 0.7% 11 23 12 8 9 23 13 14 12
Over Votes 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 9558 50.7% 778 1435 1367 953 808 1658 554 1107 898
Judge 49
John J. Sommerville 8922 47.4% 770 1440 1165 851 693 1460 546 1084 913
Write In Candidates 130 0.7% 10 21 17 7 11 24 15 13 12
Over Votes 28 0.1 % 2 5 4 2 4 8 0 3 0
Under Votes 9758 51.8% 791 1483 1384 976 822 1683 569 1134 916
Judge 54
Lucy Ann Wieland 9030 47.9% 769 1463 1176 854 710 1480 559 1095 924
Write In Candidates 113 0.6% 12 18 14 6 6 20 12 12 13
Over Votes 1 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Under Votes 9694 51.5% 792 1468 1380 976 814 1674 559 1127 904
Precinct
VOTER TURNOUT Total % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(rounded)
Registered at 7AM 20027 1677 3213 2594 1930 1703 3343 1162 2364 2041
Registered on Election Day 3533 288 546 461 384 273 563 209 445 364
Total Registered Voters 23560 1965 3759 3055 2314 1976 3906 1371 2809 2405
Persons Voting at Precinct 16366 1419 2233 2255 1702 1378 2690 1042 1966 1681
Presidential Absentee Ballots 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Regular Absentee Ballots 2459 154 716 316 134 152 485 87 259 156
Federal Absentee Ballots 39 5 2 0 2 4 4 4 12 6
Total Voting 18864 80.1% 1578 2952 2571 1839 1534 3179 1134 2237 1843
80,3% 78.5% 84.2% 79.5% 77.6% 81.4% 82.7% 79.6% 76.6%
11/4/2004 11:52 AM "'**UNOFFICIAL RESULTS"`** Page 5 of 5
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
PRESENTATIONS
4
I$I
Related to:
CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S~ NO. N/A AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S~ NO N/A
REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
Naner, Tifzr
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Presentation of award for Woodlake Centre.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Accept the Woodlake Centre 2004 Smart Growth Design
Award.
II. BACKGROUND
Woodlake Centre continues to be recognized by organizations that encourage
quality development.
On October 21, 2004 the organization, "1000 Friends of Minnesota" recognized
_ Woodlake Centre and its public and private partners with the "2004 Smart Growth
Design Award". A panel of judges found Woodlake Centre to be an excellent
example of using selective infill to transform a low density, single-use site into a
dense, mixed-use urban center.
110904 Woodlake Centre
!t could not have come at a better time as nationally the National Association of
Realtors on the same date, issued a press release:
"Among people planning to buy a home in the next three years, 87 percent
place a high importance on...a shorter commute, sidewalks, amenities like
shops, restaurants, libraries, schools, and public transportation within walking
distance...Smart Growth communities are the wave of the future".
Bruce Nordquist, Housing and Redevelopment Manager accepted the award on
behalf of the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and
development partners.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Council participates in redevelopment with partnerships that
yield quality projects.
• An award has been presented to recognize the City Council, HRA,
Richfield State Agency, Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Frana
and Sons Construction and Ryan Construction for authorizing,
designing, developing and building Woodiake Centre.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The award includes a certificate for framing and a plaque to be
installed at Woodlake Centre. More information about 1000 Friends of
Minnesota is available at: www.1000fom.org
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Copy of Certificate
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
'~
,.,
._. - ; _.
C
N ;'
~•.
L
to ~
~ Z ~ 'V ~ ~ ~,,~ a E
~ ~ ` ~~~
S ~ N C~ R s~ J'-
~ O •o ~ ~ fi
O a+0 qp ~ a. ~ ~, ~
•~ H ~ L O _
.a i~+
w` ~ ~ ~ ~ V h
W ~- ~ V C ;~~'s
~ o -~ o
o x.
^~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ C ~ ~ N ~~ F~ ,
~ ~ ~. U
N W ~ ~ L O~ ,~b"C ~ G L ~ ~ m
`; ~ ~ c s
~ 0 ( 1 o ao ° ~ c ~ ~ ~'
a V
O ~ ~ O ~ ~ +~ 000
- ~ sue. ~ _ '~ °~
/~~N/`
t ~ ~ ~~ a
,-vsv 0 0 ~
O - ~, E
a ~ N ~ - .
.~
4.
O
~: k
~'.• O' ^'
_._ ,.
f' E :. _ _. _.. :~
v
1
~ 2004 Smart Growth .Design Awards
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Smart Growth Design Awards honor those who lead the way
by demonstrating that development can enhance our natural
environment and create vibrant communities.
The Smart Growth Design Awards celebrate the achievements of key leaders in
development consistent with the Principles of Smart Growth.
Winners have been chosen by their ability to demonstrate how new building and
public realm construction contribute to neighborhood and regional livability.
Winners also demonstrate how both the design process, as well as the end product,
contribute to a local identity and provide for local citizens' daily needs.
Judging Panel
oob Close is the founding Principal. of Close Landscape Architecture, an urban design and landscape architectural con-
sulting firm located in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He has led or participated in numerous development and redevelopment
projects in the inner city and suburbs of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. These have included the design of a new
residential neighborhood and riverfront park on a Saint Paul superfund site, a recreation marina and greyfield redevel-
opment project in a suburban Saint Paul community, and a new, 322 acre transit-oriented town center northwest of
downtown Minneapolis.. He also developed a conceptual master plan for the redevelopment of a ! 75-acre superfund
site into amixed-use, mixed-income housing and marina project in the Duluth harbor. Bob taught urban design and
landscape architecture studios at the .University of Minnesota College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture for
nine years and interdisciplinary design studios at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design for three. He continues to
lecture and teach occasional studios at the University. He was recently appointed to his fourth term as an advisor to
the Metropolitan Council on their Livable Communities Advisory Committee.
Rodne~D. HardX is a Principal of the Sienna Corporation and has more than 30 years experience in the planning and
development field. Rod was instrumental in helping Sienna broaden its efforts in the areas of Traditional Neighborhood
Development (Park Place in Farmington, Minnesota) and a public/private venture with the City of East Grand Forks,
Minnesota to rebuild its housing stock lost in the floods of 1997. Rod's academic career includes an undergraduate
degree with honors from Harvard College, a Masters Degree in Architecture from the University of Pennsylvania, and a
Fullbright Fellowship at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland). He serves on the executive committee of the
Minneapolis District Council of the Urban Land Institute, is a former trustee of the Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota,
and is active in his local Rotary club.
n Kari is a board member of the Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association in Southeast
Minneapolis where he has lived for the past 35 years. He received his Bachelors of Arts from California State
University -Fresno, and his Masters in Public Policy and Administration with an emphasis on urban and regional plan-
ning from the University of Wisconsin, Madison.-John is a PlanningAnalyst with the Metropolitan Council's Community
Development Division.
Rich McLaughlin currently practices as an independent design consultant and as adjunct faculty for the College of
Architecture and Landscape Architecture at the University of Minnesota. He has fed citizen workshops and design
charettes for communities throughout. the country. Rich's comprehensive understanding of principles and techniques
`ter building sustainable, walkable neighborhoods is complemented with practical implementation experience.Through
s professional experience and eight years as a Minnesota Design Team volunteer, Rich has become well aware of the
challenges and opportunities facing communities throughout the state, and how they might be addressed squarely
through community-based visioning. He has also come to understand how highly transparent planning and design
processes can become educational experiences, constituency-building events and a foundation for success. Rich holds
undergraduate degrees in American Cultural History from the University of Wisconsin, and Architecture from the
University of Minnesota, as well as a Master of Architecture from Arizona State University.
Philipp Muessig_, is a Pollution Prevention Specialist and Sustainable Communities Team Member at the Minnesota
Office of Environmental Assistance. Philipp promotes sustainable community development through direct assistance,
funding, and publication of a biweekly a-mail newsletter to the 2600. members of the MN Sustainable Communities
Network. Prior to joining the Office of Environmental Assistance, he spent eight years as executive director with a
Minneapolis neighborhood association where he also staffed the focal business association. Philipp also spent five years
as the ombudsman for a regional wholesale grocery cooperative.A graduate of Carleton College, Philipp worked briefly
as a minerals exploration geologist in North America.
Suzanne Rhees,A1CP is an associate with URS, a planning, design and engineering firm with offices nationwide,
working primarily on community and neighborhood planning, zoning and design. Recent projects .include the "Urban
Village Code" and the Riverview Transit Corridor Plan for the City of Saint Paul, the Skyline Parkway Corridor
Management Plan for the Ciry of Duluth, and zoning ordinance updates for Green Bay,Wisconsin, and Rice County,
Minnesota. Suzanne edited the Minnesota APA chapter newsletter, Planning Minnesota, from 1994 to 2002, and has
written articles for Planning, Zoning News and other publications. She is the author of the 1990 PAS Report
inventing the Vi(Iage, one of the first applications of new urbanist concepts to existing small tovvns, villages and ham-
.<:cs, and was a contributing editor of a new PAS Report: Codifying the New Urbanism.
Brian Ross is a co-founder of CR Planning, a regional and community planning consulting firm that provides land use,
economic development, and natural resource planning. He has worked with many communities on sustainable develop-
ment and smart growth policies, programs, and regulations, including Minneapolis's first-in-the-nation ordinance award-
ing density bonuses for energy efficiency.. Brian was the primary author of Minnesota Planning's guidebook on sustain-
able development practices, "From Policy to Reality: Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development", Hometown
Minnesota, Inc:'s guidebook on sustainable development and downtown planning, "The Heart of the Community;
Downtown Planning and Sustainable Development", and model ordinances for protecting water quality completed by
the Northland NEMO program.
Larry Thompson is a Project Manager with Sienna Corporation. He initially served as project manager for a
public/private joint venture between Sienna and the State. of Minnesota to assist the City of East Grand Forks to
rebuild its housing stock after the ! 997 flood. Recently he has managed various elements in the development of over
1,400 lots, including land acquisition, design, entitlement, financing, construction and sales. Prior to joining Sienna in
1997, Larry served as city administrator of three different cities. During his 12-year tenure with Farmington, Minnesota,
he managed a $ I 0 million operating budget and 60 full-time employees through a period that saw the city more than
double its population. His most recent position in River Falls,Wisconsin, included a Housing and Redevelopment
Authority and Electric Utifiry, where he managed an annual budget of over $15 million, and ISO full- and part-time
employees. Larry earned his undergraduate degree and Masters of Arts degree in Public Administration from
Minnesota State University.
3
-, -----------~~Q~_~xx~~r_~_~r_Q~nr~la__l~~~ign_A~nr_ar_~_Y~!ira~.~r_~.-------
2004 Smart Growth Design Award Winners
Building/Block Scale -Marketplace Lofts, Hopkins
This mixed-use project with (offs above and retail below has helped the
City achieve its goal of bringing new energy and economic stability back
to this suburban main street.The close involvement of local stakehold-
ers ensured that the finished product carried out the goals of the
broader community. Careful attention to architectural detail creates a
visually interesting streetscape and reinforces the historic nature of the
downtown area.. By bringing residents to Main Street Hopkins,
Marketplace Lofts has brought new life to this suburban downtown and
serves as an excellent example of small-scale downtown revitalization.
Neighborhood Housing. InfiH -New Bridge, St. Paul
This residential urban infill development employed New Urbanist prin-
ciples of small lot sizes, front porches, rear garages, sidewalks and nar-
row streets to increase the density and livability of this neighborhood.
.The style of the homes compliments that of the surrounding St. Paul
neighborhoods and. brings the amenities of association-maintained liv-
ing to the. City. The relatively high density of the development kept
housing costs down and allowed for much of the adjacent open space
to be preserved
Neighborhood Housing and Workplace Infill -.Excelsior Tech Center and Regency Development, Hopkins
This project renovated the abandonedAlliantTechsystems defense
plant. into amixed-business center that includes office space, ware-
house/manufacturing space, mini-storage and production space. A
neighborhood with rowhomes and detached townhomes was con-
structed on the surface parking lots bringing additional housing
adjacent to this job center.The homes reflect the architectural
style of a nearby historic neighborhood with rear garages, front
porches and sidewalks connecting the neighborhood to a regional
trail system.This creative solution to a difficult problem has
brought housing and jobs together and turned a blighted industrial
property into a community amenity without the use of public
subsidies.
4
Town Center Redevelopment -Excelsior and Grand, St. Louis Park
This extensive redevelopment of Excelsior Boulevard incorporates
retail space, mixed income housing, a park, amphitheater, and com-
munity gathering space to implement the community's vision of a
walkable town center. By paying careful attention to the needs of all
users, Excelsior and Grand has created both a strong public realm
for the community and private amenities for its residents.The suc-
cess of this project demonstrates how a thoughtful integration of
uses can transform a blighted, suburban arterial into an active, thriv-
ing town center.
Town Center Infill -Woodlake Centre, Richfield
The City of Richfield undertook the redevelopment of Woodlake
Centre as one step in implementing the City's town center revital-
ization plan. Selective infill was used to improve the street presence
of the existing buildings at this prominent intersection that was
once dominated by surface parking.The construction of a parking
..ramp on-site created room for an assisted living facility as well as a
public plaza and sculpture garden.Townhomes with a mix of mar-
ket-rate. and affordable rents were constructed on an adjacent par-
cel increasing housing choices in Richfield's downtown area.
Woodlake Centre is an excellent example of using selective infill to
.transform aloes-density, single-use site into a dense, mixed-use
urban center.
City/Regional Scale -The Phalen .Corridor, St. Pau(
5