03-12-02 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Roll call
Open Forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to a staff
member. Speakers are also asked 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.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval. of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of February 26, 2002 and {2)
Regular City Council Meeting of February 26, 2002
PRESENTATIONS
1. Introduction of Hennepin South Services Collaborative (HSSC) Community Resource
.Coordinator, Sally Booher
2. Presentation of State of City address
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
• Council attendance at community meetings
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
3. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the
City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the
individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further
~- ' Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an
item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda
for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are
recommended for approval.
A. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing two-year agreement with Fortis
Benefits Insurance Company for long-term disability insurance benefits S.R. No. 52
B. Consideration of approval of resolution appointing Larry Emond and Glenn Erickson
~fo_2002_Board of Equalization._and_setting_compensation,f_or..service o board at $65
per session or $25 per hour per session, whichever is greater S.R. No. 53
C. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to A Top
Notch Treecare for 2002 diseased tree removal on private property in amount of
$59,880 S. R. No. 54
D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing execution of stipulation for final
settlement for 6511 Cedar Avenue, Parcel 19; 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77
Interchange Project S.R. No. 55
E. Consideration of approval of new auto-detailing license for Quality Details, 7720
Wentworth Avenue S.R. No. 56
F. Consideration of approval of itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses
for annual Richfest celebration on March 16, 2002 at Richfield Intermediate School,
7020-12th Avenue S.R. No. 57
G. Consideration of approval of easement agreement with CSM for electric utility
easement at Shops at Lyndale to service stormwater lift station at 78th Street and
Colfax Avenue S.R. No. 58
H. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City
Zoning Code Section 524 to create Service Office zoning district S.R. No.59
I. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City
Code Section 416.07 Subdivision 2(c) to create sign regulations for new Service
Office district S.R. No. 60
J. Consideration of approval of first reading. of ordinance amendment to Richfield City
Zoning Code Sections 521.07, 521.09, 521.11, 521.43, 521.45, 521.47, 521.65 and
521.69 regarding limits for density, set-backs and height for cluster home
developments S.R. No. 61
K. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City
Zoning Code Sections 521.05, 521.13, 521.49 and 521.73 regarding allowable living
space in garage accessory structures S.R. No. 62
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain
capital improvements from Special Revenue Fund
Staff Report No. 63
Notes:
6. Public hearing regarding resolution authorizing use of funds for 2002 Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block. Grant Program
Staff Report No:-64
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
7. Consideration of re-issuance of revoked off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for 12th
Avenue Phillips 66, 7744-12th Avenue
Staff Report No. 65
Notes:
8. City Manager's report
Notes:
9. 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 asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to a staff
member. Speakers are also asked 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.
Notes:
10.Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702.
AGENDA SECTION: Other Business
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT # 65
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
o SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL. CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the request for the re-issuance of a revoked off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
license. for 12th Avenue Philli s 66, 7744 12th Avenue South.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the request by 12th Avenue Phillips 66, 7744 12th.
Avenue, for the re-issuance of an off-sale. 3.2 percent.. malt liquor
license which the City Council revoked on September 10, 2001 for a
fourth alcohol compliance failure with an amendment to reapply 90
from revocation.
II. BACKGROUND
On September 10, 2001 the City Council passed a resolution imposing a civil
penalty and revoking the off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for 12th Avenue
Phillips 66, 7744 12th Avenue, for their fourth alcohol compliance failure.
Additionally, an amendment to the motion was approved that requires the license be
revoked for one year with the stipulation that an application for a reinstated off-sale
3.2 percent malt liquor license can be made after 90 days from September 10,
2001, provided the identification checking equipment is installed.
0312Phillips66 Liquor
In mid-February, all 12th Avenue Phillips 66 employees underwent training by the
Richfield Crime Prevention staff relating to the sale of alcohol to underage youth.
The applicant has recently installed the identification checking equipment as
required by the City Council.
Managers and district managers of 12th Avenue Phillips 66 met on February 25,
2002 with the Administrative Support Services Division Manager and the Director of
Public Safety to discuss the re-issuance of their off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
license and the steps they plan to take to ensure no further occurrences of the sale
of alcohol to minors.
The Public Safety Director and the Administrative Support Services Division
Manager met with management at the 12th Avenue Phillips 66 location on Monday,
March 4, 2002 for a demonstration of their identification checking equipment
process. The equipment, while not completely fail safe, appears to afford the most
features for protection at the current time. They are expecting a more sophisticated
identification scanning program by the. end of 2002; however, the safety net
measures in place until then are reasonable and should deter unlawful sales. Their
written plan of action is attached for Council review.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• N/A
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Council meeting minutes from September 10, 2001 includes a
stipulation that an application for a reinstated off-sale 3.2 percent malt
liquor license can be made after 90 days from September 10, 2001
provided the identification checking equipment is installed. The 90-
.day period has been fulfilled and the identification checking equipment
has been installed.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Deny the request for the re-issuance of an off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
license for 12th Avenue Phillips 66. This would mean that the applicant
would no longer be able to sell 3.2 percent malt liquor at their location.
However, Public Safety has not found any basis for a denial.
V. ATTACHMENTS
n • Copy of Resolution No. 9089.
• Copy of Minutes from the September 10, 2001 meeting.
• 12th Avenue Phillips 66 Written Plan of Action, dated 3/3/02.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• 12th Avenue Phillips 66 management.
RESOLUTION NO. 9089
RESOLUTION REVOKING THE OFF-SALE 3.2 PERCENT INTOXICATING MALT
LIQUOR LICENSE FOR 12TH AVENUE PHILLIPS 66, 7744 12TH AVENUE SOUTH,
AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FOURTH TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE
FAILURE
WHEREAS, 12th Avenue Phillips 66 ("Licensee") holds an Off-Sale 3.2 Percent
Intoxicating Malt Liquor license from the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2001, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department
conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and during the compliance
check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor; and
WHEREAS, this is their fourth failed compliance check with the civil penalty being
imposed by the Council at their September 10, 2001 meeting; and
WHEREAS, this is the fourth violation of the sale of alcohol to a minor with the third
violation occurring on August 7, 2000, the second violation occurring on July 12, 1999, and
the first violation occurring on March 23, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on September
10, 2001 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the revocation and penalty imposed
by this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
as follows:
1. The Licensee's Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Intoxicating Malt Liquor license is hereby revoked.
2. A civil penalty of $2000 is hereby imposed. On or before October 10, 2001, the
Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the
amount of $2000.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th Day of September,
2001.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Council Meeting Minutes -13- September 10, 2001
RESOLUTION NO. 9086
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE ON-SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY LIQUOR
LICENSES FOR KHANS MONGOLIAN BARBECUE, 500 EAST 78TH STREET; AND
IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR SECOND TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 9086 in Resolution
Book No. 73.
EI Jalapeno - 1430 East 66th Street -George Frost admitted the violation occurred and
stipulated to the suspension and civil penalty. The store representative requested that the
Public Safety training be provided in Spanish.
Public Safety Director Scott said the City would be as accommodating as possible.
M/Sandahl, S/Rosenberg that the following resolution be adopted, that it be spread
in the resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 9087
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE OFF-SALE 3.2 PERCENT INTOXICATING MALT
LIQUOR LICENSE FOR EL JALAPENO, 1430 EAST 66TH STREET; AND IMPOSING A
CIVIL PENALTY FOR SECOND TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 9087 in Resolution
Book No. 73.
Kenny's Market - 6708 Penn Avenue - No one was present to represent the business.
City Attorney Dean said that since notice of the disciplinary hearing was served,
failure to be present did not mean action could not be taken. He said the business could
dispute the action and appear before the City Council. He suggested the resolution be
amended to include their not attending the hearing.
M/Sandahl, S/Enger that the following amended. resolution be adopted, that it be
spread in the resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 9088
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE OFF-SALE 3.2 PERCENT INTOXICATING MALT
LIQUOR LICENSE FOR KENNY'S MARKET, 6708 PENN AVENUE SOUTH, AND
IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR THIRD TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 9088 in Resolution
Book No. 73.
12th Avenue Phillips 66 - 7744 12th Avenue -Chelsea Beyer and Kathy Hallick admitted
the violation, but requested that the new management staff be given another chance on
the revocation.
Council Member Sandahl asked about the process for re-application for a liquor
license after a revocation.
Council Meeting Minutes -14- September 10, 2001
Public Safety Director Scott said this is the first liquor revocation to come before the
City Council
Council Member Sandahl asked the length of the license.
Public Safety Director Scott answered 12 months from the issue date.
M/Sandahl, S/Rosenberg that the following resolution be adopted, that it be spread
in the resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes and that 12th Avenue
Phillips 66 can re-apply for a liquor license 12 months from September 10. 2001:
RESOLUTION NO. 9089
RESOLUTION REVOKING THE OFF-SALE 3.2 PERCENT INTOXICATING MALT
LIQUOR LICENSE FOR 12TH AVENUE PHILLIPS 66, 7744 12TH AVENUE SOUTH,
AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FOURTH TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE
FAILURE
Council Member Enger asked if the City could stipulate that the store install
identification checking equipment similar to Richfield's municipal liquor stores.
City Manager Orduno said that might be overstepping legal boundaries to request
this capital expenditure.
City Attorney Dean said the City Council could state that if the store installs ID
equipment, they could re-apply for a liquor license within a certain amount of time.
Council Member Enger suggested an amendment to the motion that the license be
revoked for one year with the stipulation that application for a new liquor license can be
made after 90 days from September 10, 2001 provided the identification checking
equipment is installed.
The amended motion was acceptable.
Motion carried 5-0 with the stipulation that application for a new liquor license can
be made after 90 days from September 10, 2001 provided the identification checking
equipment is installed. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 9089 in Resolution Book
No. 73.
Council Member Ulrich said the liquor establishments should not get the perception
that the City Council takes these violations lightly. She said enforcement is important.
~ Pxaurs PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY
'~_ / ~ ~
March 3, 2002
To The City of Richfield:
We at Phillips 66 have come to the end of our suspension period of our
liquor license. In the months since we lost our license, we have made
significant strides to insure that our employees and our customers know that
we will not tolerate further violations. We have done this in a number of
ways.
First, we have installed an identification machine from Identi5can Company.
The machine is the series 9000, with an integrated laser reader and receipt
printer. The machine will quickly and easily identify if customers are of age
for both alcohol and tobacco. The license is easily swiped through the
machine, and it answers "green" for okay, and "red" for not. The machine is
the newest release, and fully capable of reading the new Minnesota State.
licenses, as well as any other state with a magnetic strip. For those. without,
or for passports, etc., the machine also has a "enter birth date" function.
At this time, our store register system is not capable of .supporting the
integration of the ID machine. This means that we cannot "lock" our register
into the ID machine and force a swipe of the ID card. However, we have
taken a few. steps to insure that the ID will be forced through the machine.
Our register system has been set up to prompt for birth date verification on
all restricted items. It will prompt them to use the ID machine. We have
also set up that each restricted item will show up the end of shift reports.
This can be easily compared to the report that is printed from the ID
verification machine. We will compare these to insure a 100% ID verification
rate. Also, within 6 months to a year, we will have a new register system that
the ID machine will be integrated in. This system is currently being tested in
Arizona, and implementation is scheduled for within the year.
In addition to the ID machine, we have been working with our employees to
help them understand that we will have no tolerance for future problems.
r
.. r
,~ We have been through the Richfield PD alcohol training, and also have
administered advanced in-store Phillips 66 training. We have discussed the
various kinds of acceptable identification, how to determine a fake ID, and
how to know what n proper passport or military ID is. We have worked with
our beer distributors to bring out books that identify what all state licenses
look like. We have had lengthy conversations about how to turn down
customers with out an ID. We have done our best to insure that QII
employees are very clear about what our policy is. Our policy that we have
put into place is n 100% ID rate-that is, we will card 100% of all customers
that purchase either alcohol or tobacco from us. We have tested employees
by observation on all shifts. We have also passed a tobacco compliance test
. from the City of Richfield recently. The penalty for any employee not
• carding a customer, regardless of age, is automatic termination of
employment.
Our plan is to keep this program in place indefinitely. We will train all future
employees using the Richfield PD presentation as well as Phillips 66
materials. We will continue to implement any programs that we feel will help
our employees or customers to insure that there will be no future sales of
restricted products to minor customers. For example, we will be working
with the Richfield PD to develop some signs to hang and give to customers to
help alleviate cashier pressure from upset customers. Other situations will
be dealt with as they arise.
I hope that you can see that we have worked very hard to insure that we will
go beyond compliance checks and make it a culture at Phillips that there is
absolutely no way an underage individual will purchase restricted products.
Our future expectation is that we will not fail any compliance checks, either
with tobacco or alcohol. We have appreciated your leniency, and the ongoing
help and support of the Richfield Police Department.
Thank you,
Chelsea Beyer
District Manager
Phillips 66 Company
~~~
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT # 64
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: L"J
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
PAMELA BOOKHOUT,
REHABILITATION SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and consideration of resolution regarding the use of funds from the Community
Development Block Grant allocation for 2002.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the
resolution authorizing the use of funds for the 2002 Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant Program and
authorizing signature of a subrecipient agreement with Hennepin
County and anv required third party agreements.
II. BACKGROUND
The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on March 12 to authorize
Richfield's use of the 2002 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation
of $237,426, as proposed. As in past years, Richfield proposes the funds go toward
public service, home improvement, and property acquisition/development for first
time buyers.
Richfield supports three public service agencies through the CDBG allocation:
Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (H.O.M.E.), Greater Minneapolis
0312cdbg
Day Care Association (GMDCA), and Community Action for Suburban Hennepin
(CASH):
H.O.M.E. is a homemaker, maintenance and chore services program for
residents who are 60 years old or more, or who have a disability, with the goal
of keeping people in their homes longer to avoid the high costs of nursing
home care. Clients are asked to pay for services based on a sliding fee scale.
GMDCA provides funds to help cover day care costs of lower income families
who are working, in school, or who are experiencing a short term emergency
need. Co-payments are determined on a sliding scale basis.
CASH provides homebuyer workshops, individual homebuyer counseling,
foreclosure prevention services and counseling, and reverse mortgage
services. Services are available to residents of any income level, but CASH
estimates that two-thirds of the Richfield households served are below 50
percent of the median income.
Third party agreements with each of these agencies are prepared annually. The
Richfield Community Development Department and Richfield Community Human
Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) work collaboratively to address public service
needs. RCHSPC makes recommendations to the City Council regarding public
service funding for CDBG funds. This year's recommendation by RCHSPC is
attached. The recommendation for public service funding with the prescribed
county guideline of 15 percent would provide a total allocation of $35,613.
Richfield supports two home improvement programs:. rehabilitation of owner-
occupied property (Deferred Loans) and acquisition of property on scattered sites
(New Home Program). Through the Deferred Loan program, the new CDBG funds
will serve approximately eight low-income households that need home repairs and
improvements during the year 2002. Currently, there are approximately ten
homeowners going through the loan process and six homeowners waiting for
funding. A total amount of $101,813 is requested for rehabilitation. The New Home
Program allocation will remove a substandard property to allow a new one to be
built, or will provide for the acquisition and rehabilitation of a single family home for
a first time buyer. The project request for 2002 is $100,000 for acquisition and site
preparation..
The chart below summarizes the recommended funding:
Project Allocation Total
Per Project Recommendation
1. Public Service:
a. H.O.M.E. $ 22,700
b. GMDCA $ 10,913
c. CASH $ 2,000
$ 35,613
2. Housing Improvements:
a. Rehab of Owner-Occupied Property $101,813
b. Acquisition of Property $100,000
$201,813
TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $237,426
~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
`~- -' Hennepin County's statement of objectives indicates that communities should
limit the number of projects funded to three. The Richfield proposal is divided
into two projects: public service and housing improvements, meeting this
objective.
• Public service funding is as recommended by the RCHSPC.
• Housing improvement funding has been allocated to housing rehabilitation
(deferred loans) and acquisition of substandard property (New Home
Program).
A. POLICY
• Allocation of CDBG funds is an annual activity.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for March 12,
2002. The deadline for submitting the 2002 CDBG application
materials to Hennepin County was March 8, 2002. Hennepin County
has said a Council resolution could be provided by March 13, 2002.
C. FINANCIAL
• The total Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program allocation from the
federal government in 2002 is $3.525 million, approximately $66,000
less than last year. Richfield is receiving $8,479 less than last year.
D. LEGAL
• Notice of public hearing was published February 27, 2002 in the Sun
Current.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Modify the amount of funds allocated to each project in a way that still
achieves funding guidelines.
• Fund other eligible projects, which have not been identified by staff for
funding.
V. ATTACFIMENTS
• Resolution
RCHSPC recommendation
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF FUNDS FOR THE
~'~ ' 2002 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY REQUIRED THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS
~ ,
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota through execution of a Joint Cooperation
Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield developed a proposal for the use of CDBG funds
made available to it, and held a public hearing on March 12, 2002 to obtain the views of
citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs
and priorities for the City's proposed use of $237,426 from the 2002 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota
approves the following projects for CDBG and authorizes submittal of the proposal to
Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 2002 Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant Program.
Project Allocation Total
Per Project Recommendation
1. Public Service:
a. H.O.M.E. $ 22,700
b. GMDCA $ 10,913
c. CASH $ 2,000
$ 35,613
2. Housing Improvements:
a. Rehab of Owner-Occupied Property $101,813
b. Acquisition of Property $100,000
$201,813
TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $237,426
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize and
direct the execution of the Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required
Third Party Agreements on behalf of the City to implement the 2002 CDBG Program.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of March,
2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES
PLANNING COUNCIL
Memorandum
Date: March 5, 2002
To: Bruce Nordquist
From: Tom Scaglia, RCHSPC Chair
Subject: 2002/2003 Allocation for City Public Service Programs
The Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council met on March 4, 2002 to make
recommendations regarding 200/03 CDBG Public Service allocations. It is the assessment of
the RCHSPC that:
The applicant agencies are providing valuable and effective service to the people of
Richfield and meet the CDBG definition of Public Service.
In a variety of ways these programs support the City's housing goals by maintaining
dwellings and contributing to the stability of the community.
Due to limited dollars available, it is recommended that the following CDBG allocations be
made for 2002/2003:
\ i
Applicant Recommendation
Senior Community Services Home Program $22,00
Greater Mpls. Day Care Association $10,913
CASH Full-Cycle Homeownership Services $2,000
HOME Line 0
TOTAL $35,613
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 12, 2002
PUBLIC HEARINGS
63
REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, T! E
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:,
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~ ~dL~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and second reading of attached transitory ordinance providing funding for
certain ca ital im rovements from the S ecial Revenue Fund..
L RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public heariing and by motion: Approve
second reading of the attached transitory ordinance providing for the
expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain
improvements.
II. BACKGROUND
At the December 10;.2001 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized $545,000
of Special Revenue Funds for improvements to City recreation capital improvements in
2002. The amount of improvements was later reduced by $305,000 with the deferral of
the Community Center renovation project ($200,000), the Tri-City Skate Park ($80,000)
..and a reduction of Park Capital maintenance ($25,000) at the February 12,2002 City
Council meeting. Therefore, the amount of improvements to be authorized is now
$240, 000.
Finally, the 2002 Capital Improvement Budget provides for expenditure for all types of
funds contained in the budget document including, municipal state aid, user fees,.
federal grants and state grants, however, authorization by ordinance is not required for
these expenditures.
0312TransitoryOrd
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 2 requires that Special Revenue Funds
for capital improvements must be authorized by ordinance.
• This process provides for public input through a public hearing.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes
effective 30 days after publication of the second hearing notice. The
ordinance requirements must be completed early enough in 2002 so that
capital projects can be initiated on a timely basis, completed and funds
expended. This needs to be completed promptly so payments can be made
for projects authorized.
C. FINANCIAL
• While the total 2002 Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) includes total
budgeted expenditures of $10,405,000 the portion of CIB concerning.
proposed funding from the Special Revenue fund is now $240,000 as
shown below:
Park Maintenance 75,000
~ Ice Arena Second Sheet (repayment) 125,000
1, Ice Arena Air Conditioning .($50,000) 25,000
Pleasant Avenue Bike Trail Segments 15,000
• A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize these appropriations
pursuant to City Charter.
• The source of Special Revenue funds are municipal liquor profits. `
D. LEGAL
• First reading of the ordinance was. approved at the February12, 2002 City
Council meeting and a notice of public hearing was published on
February 27, 2002.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• The City Council could postpone he second reading. of .the transitory ordinance to a
future City Council meeting.
• The City Council could decide to authorize none or only a portion of the expenditures
identified from the special .revenue in the CIB.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• An ordinance providing for the expenditure of money from the Special Revenue
Fund for certain capital improvements.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
~~` AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM
THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend
money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in
Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds.
Section 2: The.capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements
which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12,
Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows:
Park Maintenance ~ r5,uw
Ice Arena Second Sheet (repayment) $ 125,000
Ice Arena Air Conditioning ($50,000) $ 25,000
Pleasant Avenue Bike Trail Segments $ 15,000
Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as
are authorized from time to .time by Council action.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield. this 12th day of March 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4K
REPORT # 62
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY; BRUCE SYLVESTER,
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ I,~
', SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
'I ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
', First reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield Gity Zoning Code Sections 521.05,
Subdivision 14; 521.13, Subdivision 8; 521.49, Subdivision 8; and 521.73 Subdivision 2
re ardin allowable livin s ace in ara a accesso structures.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve first reading of the attached ordinance
amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code Sections 521.05; 521.13;
521.49; and 521.73 regarding allowable living space in garage
accessory structures.
I. BACKGROUND
In December 2001 the Planning Commission discussed the idea of allowing living
space over detached garages on parcels identified for High-Density, Single Family
residential uses (R-SFH) in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to limiting such
living space to these parcels, the Planning Commission discussed the idea of
allowing living space over detached garages only in approved Cluster Home
~1 Developments, which require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Planning
[ Commission and City Council review. This living space in garage accessory
structures would only be permitted on parcels of one acre or less in size; the
03-12-GarageLiving.doc
Planned Unit Development (PUD) process would control this type of space on
parcels larger than one acre.
The Planning Commission felt that allowing living spaces over detached garages as
part of approved Cluster Home Developments (and even then only on parcels
identified for high-density, single-family development in the Comprehensive Plan)
will accomplish the goals'of the Comprehensive Plan by allowing new and varied
housing options in the community in those areas designated for higher densities in
the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission also determined that this
proposed change will benefit Richfield for two reasons:
First, such an allowance would provide some flexibility in the zoning code for
new and different housing options in the community to respond to market trends
and consumer housing demands; and
Second, allowing living space over detached garages only with Cluster Home
Developments insures Planning Commission review (as well as City Council
review) and community input before such a development could be approved,
because Cluster Home Developments require a CUP.
To insure that such living spaces would truly be accessory to the primary residence,
the Planning Commission also limited the maximum size of such units to no more
than 500 sq. ft.
II. BASIS OF RECOMMEI~TDATION
POLICY
• Currently, '96 percent of the R-SFH parcels identified in the.
Comprehensive Plan are zoned either `R', `MR-1' or `MP.-2' (750 of
782 parcels) Currently, the zoning code has three allowable uses for
creating `higher' density housing in these. three zoning districts: 1)
Two Family Dwellings, 2) Twin Homes, and 3) Cluster Home
Developments. Allowing living space above detached garages in a
Cluster Home Developments in these three zoning districts is one
method for promoting and accommodating higher densities where
designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
• Currently, housing may be constructed over garages, which are
attached to a residence. There are examples throughout the
community.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City's Zoning Code should support and advance the development
goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plana
• The Comprehensive Plan states that the Zoning Ordinance will be
revised to conform to the adopted 1997-2007 Plan. (Implementation
4.2) The suggested changes increase the conformity of the zoning
code with the Comprehensive Plan by allowing higher single-family
residential densities-with aCUP-on parcels identified for such
development in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Commission agreed to limit the size of accessory living space
over garages to no more than 500 sq. ft., and that such accessory living
~ spaces would not be counted toward density calculations.
Rick Regnier, Richfield's Building Official, has stated that several times per
year his department receives requests to allow living space over detached
garages. Currently, his department informs people that the City does not
allow living space over detached garages. Mr. Regnier stated that if living
spaces over garages are allowed in some areas of the City as proposed,
property owners outside of those areas may expect to be allowed to have
such living space over their garages.
Staff from the Community Development Department has responded to this
issue by clarifying that the proposed change will only allow living space over
detached garages if four specific requirements are met:
1) such living space over detached garages can only exist as part of an
approved Conditional Use Permit for a Cluster Home Development;
2) such living space over detached garages can only exist if the proposed
location is along a major arterial street;
3) such living space over detached garages can only exist on parcels
designated as High-Density Single-Family Residential in the
Comprehensive Plan; and
4) such living space will be limited to no more than 500 sq. ft. to insure that
it is truly accessory to the principal residential use.
Property owners who do not meet these four requirements may request a
variance to allow living space over a detached garage in other areas of
Richfield (note: this option currently exists and this proposed amendment
does not alter that reality). For such requests, the Hearing Examiner will
need to find that a hardship exists before granting a variance.
The Fire- Department has also reviewed the proposed changes and has no
comments or concerns.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Richfield's City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached
zoning ordinance amendment.
• The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed amendment to the
zoning ordinance and recommended approval at its February 25,
2002 meeting.
• The first reading requires a simple majority of the full Council.
l~
~, ,
III. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
~ Reject the recommendation to amend Richfield City Zoning Code Sections
521,05 Subdivision 14; 521.13, Subdivision 8; 521.49, Subdivision 8; and
521.73 Subdivision 2 to allow living spaces above detached garages in
approved Cluster Home Developments.
IV. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance Amendment
• Comprehensive Plan map showing parcels designated for High-Density,
Single Family Residential uses.
V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
N/A
~1
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 521.05, SUBDIVISION 14
521.13, SUBDIVISION 8;
521.49, SUBDIVISION 8; AND
521.73 SUBDIVISION 2
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
1. Section 521.13, Subdivision 14 of the Zoning Code of the City of Richfield is
amended to read as follows:
521.13 Accessory uses in the `R' District
Subdivision 14. The accommodation of one roomer in addition to the family,
provided that: (i) the roomer plus the family shall not exceed the total of five
persons; (ii) such arrangement does not constitute an accessory ~~t livinq
space except as specifically allowed under section 521.13; and (iii) adequate off-
street parking is available (see definition of family).
2. Section 521.13, Subdivision 8 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended
to read as follows:
521.13 Additional rules for accessory buildings and uses-R District
Subdivision 8. No accessory building shall be more than one story in height,
greater in lot coverage than the principal building, or greater in height than the
principal building, except as follows: In approved cluster home developments, one
floor of livinq space above a detached garage may be provided if all of the following
conditions are met:
a) The parcel must be designated as High-Density Single-Famiy
residential in the Comprehensive Plan; and
b) The detached garage-plus-living space must be part of an
approved CUP for a cluster home development; and
c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 521.11 Subdivision 2,
the detached garage-plus-livinq space must be at least 10 feet
from the rear property line and 5 feet from any interior-side
property line; and
d) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 521.11 Subdivision 2,
the detached garage-plus-livinq space can not exceed 22 feet
in height or be taller than the primary structure: and
e) The total square footage of the livinq space can not exceed 500
square feet; and
~ Two parking spaces in addition to those required for the cluster
home development must be provided: and
q) Any living space over a detached garage must be accessory to
the principle dwelling on the parcel: and
~,, ; h) Fire and building codes must be met.
Section 521.49, Subdivision 2 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended
to read as follows:
521.49 Additional rules for accessory buildings and uses-MR-1 District
Subdivision 8. No accessory building shall be more than one story in height,
greater in lot coverage than the principal building, or greater in height than the
principal building, except as follows: In approved cluster home developments, one
floor of livina space above a detached aaraae may be provided if all of the followina
conditions are met:
a ~parcel must be designated as High-Density_Single-Family
residential in the Comprehensive Plan; and
b) The detached garage-plus-living space must be part of an
approved CUP for a cluster home development; and
c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 521.47 Subdivision 2.
and Section 521.47 Subdivision 9, the detached garage-plus-
living space must be at least 10 feet from the rear property line
and 5 feet from any interior-side property line: and
d) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 521.47 Subdivision 2.
the detached garage-plus-living space can not exceed 22 feet
in height or be taller than the primary structure; and
e) The total square footage of the living space can not exceed 500
square feet; and
~ Two parking spaces in addition to those required for the cluster
home development must be provided; and
g ay living space over a detached clarage must be accessory to
the principle dwelling on the parcel; and
h) Fire and building codes must be met.
Section 521.73, Subdivision 2 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended
to read as follows:
521.73 Requirements for accessory buildings and uses-MR-2 District
Subdivision 2. The maximum height for accessory buildings shall be 15 feet,
except as follows: In approved cluster home developments, one floor of living
space above a detached garage may be provided if all of the following conditions
are met:
('~ a The parcel must be designated as High-Density Single-Family
residential in the Comprehensive Plan; and
b) The detached garage-plus-living space must be part of an
approved CUP for a cluster home development; and
c) The provisions of Section 521.73 Subdivision 3 shall still apply
for set-back requirements; and
d) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 521.73 Subdivision 2
the detached garage-plus-living space can not exceed 22 feet
in height or be taller than the primary structure; and
e) The total square footage of the living space can not exceed 500
square feet; and
f) Two parking spaces in addition to those required for the cluster
home development must be provided; and
g Any living space over a detached garage must be accessory to
the principle dwelling on the parcel; and
h) Fire and building codes must be met.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of April,
2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~ J'
XERXES
-O WASHBURN
_o
~D VINCENT
A
N
~' UPTON
3
~ THOMAS
SHERIDAN
m
~ RUSSELL
QUEEN
PENN
OLIVER
NEWTON
MORGAN
LOGAN
KNOX
JAMES
IRVING
HUMBOLDT
GIRARD
FREMONT
EMERSON
DUPONT
COLFAX
BRYANT
ALDRICH
LYNDALE
GARFIELD
HARRIET
GRAND
PLEASANT
PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH
BLAISDELL
NICOLLET
t st
STEVENS
2nd
3rd
CLINTON
am
5th
PORTLAND
OAKLAND
PARK
COLUMBUS
CHICAGO
ELLIOT
tan
11th
Inn
13th
14th
15th
BLOOMINGTON
18th
17th
1 etn
CEDAR
v v
m =
A ~
m p~ W N
to A W
S Q 6
XERXES
WASHBURN
VINCENT
UPTON
I THOMAS
SHERIDAN
I O
.~ RUSSELL
1
1 ~ QUEEN
l
I ~
I ~
O
~ ~
PENN
1 li l'"Ij IIIifC11D'I~ = OLIVER
NEWTON
MORGAN
LOGAN
KNOX
JAMES
IRVING
HUMBOLDT
GIRARD
I i FREMONT
~~, EMERSON
DUPONT
~
Q COLFAX T
'v
D ~_ ~~ BRYANT ~
A'1~~;'t? ALDRICH "
~~~
~
fllj~l
s % tTLT' LYNDALE T
;
~ GARFIELD
ii' HARRIET ~
GRAND rn
,__ r-
1~~~~1 PLEASANT
PILLSBURY v
WENTWORTH
rr~r
~,rT7T
111'.!:::;x!.
BLAISDELL A
r '
`'
-- II fll /~
` NICOLLET O
I
~lllllll '`. 1st
STEVENS
2nd
3rd
CLINTON
4th
rn
'
'
~ 5th 2
i
L I I: I . : .
~. 11 ll f l PORTLAND
OAKLAND
3 PARK
COLUMBUS //~
\/•
~
~
~ p mmp
~~y CHICAGO
ELLIOT ~
<
y
~ 1an 1' 1
11th
12th
3th r
~
~ 14th
~~,
".
~;i"~,.
!
'' 15th
I
!
- BLOOMINGTON
--
16th
~ 17th
W IIIIIILIlIII
® __ 1 etn
® 1~W CEDAR
~ m JN. a w a H 4 ~
~ ~ ~ .
~
5 3 ~ ~ n
«O O L
~ ~ v
mm~
m O
~ D % II III ~~ ~ ~
N~~
°~~ ~
~ W
~ A~~c~A'~'~3~3~~O~~zc~~
w ~'c c cci ~ a.c c c ~~ ~o~ ~? occ
;
~
~ y
Z
co m ~~ ~
o N O
~ ~ M fC f7
y O -~ ~ y 71' `=
3
O
~°~~~ "~~~~~
~~~
_ Z
rn
it y ,
~
~
c to c y y y y 01 O O p~
a '~ '~ '~ •' 3 ~ 3
?
n Q
° 3~
s
x 3 0
C ~
`~ ~ ~ ~
N
Z o
~ ~
p_~Q•~
~
~
~ Gov°.~
' ~~ ~ ~
O V)
e r
~ y y y O c
c~
V V
r R
V J V V N ^ j J ~ ~ W pl
Q~ tJi A W ~ ~ m V O1
~ S J J ~ 2 N .. N ~J ~ S S S
AGENDA SECTION: (;onsent
AGENDA ITEM # 4,T
REPORT # h ~
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 12, 2002
BRUCE SYLVESTER,
REPORT PREPARED BY: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
.~~T~~
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code related to Cluster
Home Developments in the R District, including Sections 521.07, subdivision 6 (allowable
density); 521.09, subdivision 5 (minimum Ibt size required)(new); 521.11, subdivision 7 (set-
back requirements); and 521..11, subdivision 10 (height limits).
First reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code related to Cluster
Home Developments in the MR-1 District, including Sections 521.43, subdivision 5 (allowable
density); 521.45, subdivision 6 (minimum lot size required)(new); 521.47, subdivision 6 (set-
back requirements); and 521.47, subdivision 8 (height limits);
First reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning related to Cluster Home
Developments in the MR-2 District, including Sections 521.65, subdivision 3 (CUP
requirements); and 521.69, subdivisions 2 (minimum lot size required) and 12 (set-back
requirements) (new).
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve first reading of an ordinance amendment to
Richfield City Zoning Code Sections 521.07, 521.09, 521.11, 521.43,
521.45, 521.47, 521.65 and 521.69 regarding limits for density, set-
backs. and heiaht for Cluster Home Developments.
0312CIusterHomes.doc
I. BACKGROUND
Richfield's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1997 and identifies parcels along
arterial streets in Richfield for use as "High-Density Single-Family residential" (R-
SFH). The intention of this classification is to encourage these parcels to be
developed with higher density housing such as cluster home developments (e.g.
townhouses).
Currently, 96% of these R-SFH parcels are zoned either `R', `MR-1' or `MR-2' (750
of 782 parcels) Currently, the zoning code has three allowable uses for creating
`higher' density housing in these three zoning districts: 1) Two Family Dwellings, 2)
Twin Homes, and 3) Cluster Home Developments. All three of these higher-density
residential uses require a Conditional Use Permit in all three of these zoning
districts.
Two of these conditional uses-Two Family Dwellings and Twin Homes-do not
increase density significantly, as summarized in the following table:
Two Twin Cluster
Zoning District Famil Homes Homes
Allowed Densit
R (665) 9 units/acre Not permitted 10 units/acre
MR-1 (57~) 8 units/acre 8 units/acre 10 units/acre
12, 14, and 17 units/acre,
MR-2 (28") Not permitted Not permitted depending on size of cluster
home development.
*These numbers indicate the number of parcels identified in the Comprehensive Plan that are
slated for "Hi h-Densit Sin le-Famil residential" that are in this. zonin district now.
As the table above reveals, the City's current rules only allow truly `higher' density
housing in the MR-2 district by obtaining a CUP for a Cluster Home Development.
As the table indicates, only 28 parcels are currently zoned MR-2. As a result, these
28 parcels are the only parcels currently zoned to accommodate truly higher density
housing. Further, these ordinance amendments would only be operative on
parcels of one acre or less in size-the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD)
rules which have been in place for several years will continue to control sites larger
than 1 acre in size. Without changing the zoning rules, the remaining 722 parcels
would need to be rezoned from `R' or `MR-1' to `MR-2' to accommodate higher
density housing. This need to rezone a property creates a significant impediment to
having these parcels developed at higher densities.
II. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The significance of this information is that the City's current zoning code
does not lend itself to accommodating or encouraging development which
the Comprehensive Plan identifies as desirable, and in fact the zoning code
as currently written impedes implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
To remedy this situation and create zoning rules that are more
~ supportive of the goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan, the
~ J Planning Commission discussed several options at a study session in
December of 2001. Options discussed included creating a new zoning
district for high-density single-family developments, creating a process
similar to one used on larger parcels for PUDs to review cluster home
developments, or modifying our existing CUP rules for Cluster Home
developments to allow greater densities. The Planning Commission
selected the last of these three options for further discussion.
This staff report outlines suggestions for making changes to the Cluster
Home Development CUP. By modifying this CUP as suggested below,
two goals are accomplished. First-higher densities of single-family
residential developments along the city's arterials-as identified as a
goal in the Comprehensive Plan-are more likely to be built. Second-
because aCUP is still required, the Planning Commission, the City
Council, and the community. still maintain the ability to review and
approve, deny, or amend a cluster home development project.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Richfield's Zoning Code should support and advance the development
goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
• The Comprehensive Plan states that the Zoning Ordinance will be
~ revised to conform to the adopted 1997-2007 Plan. (Implementation
~' 4.2) The suggested changes increase the conformity of the zoning
code with the Comprehensive Plan by allowing higher single-family
residential densities-with aCUP-on parcels identified for such
development in he Comprehensive Plan.
• This ordinance amendment would only apply to parcels one acre in
..size. or smaller. For reference, a typical Richfield residential. block is ,
about 4 acres in size, thus one acre would be approximately one-
quarter of a block.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Richfield's City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached
zoning ordinance amendment.
• The Planning Commission is working to make our zoning code and
Comprehensive Plan more consistent with each other.
• The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed amendment to the
zoning .ordinance and recommended approval at its February 25, 2002.
meeting.
• This ordinance amendment requires a simple majority vote of the full
Council (3 votes to approve).
III. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Reject the recommendation to amend Richfield City Zoning Code Sections
521.07, 521.09, 521.11, 521.43, 521.45, 521.47, 521.65 and 521.69
regarding rules for Cluster Home Developments.
IV. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance Amendment
V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CLUSTER HOME DEVELOPMENTS;
ESTABLISHING SETBACK AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING
SUBSECTIONS 521.07, 521.09, 521.11, 521.43, 521.45, 521.47, 521.65
AND 521.69 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 521.07, subdivision 6 of the Richfield Zoning Code is
amended to read as follows:
Subdivision 6. Cluster home developments with three to #~ fifteen units,
provided the following conditions are met:
a) the design of the development must be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood in terms of building materials,
architectural design, scale and mass of the structure, or other
similar urban design characteristics;
b) landscaping e~ must be provided in accordance with the
Richfield Landscape Requirements, on file with the Office of
Community Development;
c) two off-street parking spaces, at least .one of which must be
enclosed in a garage, must be provided for each dwelling
unit;
d) there must be a minimum of 500 square feet of outdoor
open space provided on the lot per dwelling unit;
e) the number and location of driveways and curbcuts shall
minimize conflict with vehicular traffic and should not adversely
impact adjacent land uses;
f) the density of the development may not exceed the density
recommended in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Sec. 2. Subsection 521.09, subdivision 2 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended
to read as follows:
USE LOT AREA LOT WIDTH LOT DEPTH
SINGLE FAMILY 6,700 Sq. Ft. 50 Ft. 100 Ft.
TWO FAMILY (CUP) 9,000 Sq. Ft. 60 Ft. 100 Ft.
CLUSTER HOME 2,800 Sa. Ft.
DEVELOPMENTS (CUPS per Unit 60 Ft. 100 Ft.
IN R-SFH GUIDED AREA
CLUSTER HOME 000 Sq. Ft.
4
DEVELOPMENTS (CUP) ,
Per Unit 60 Ft. 100 Ft.
IN NON-R-SFH GUIDED AREA
NON-RESIDENTIAL 40,000 Sq. Ft. 150 Ft. 100 Ft.
Sec. 3. Subsection 521.11, subdivision 2 of the Richfield Zoning Code is ,amended
to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Required setback and maximum height:
USE FRONT REAR SIDE - SIDE - MAXIMUM
INTERIOR STREETSIDE HEIGHT
SINGLE FAMILY 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft.
TWO FAMILY 30 Ft 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft.
(CUP) .
50 feet from
CLUSTER HOME
DEVELOPMENT centerline
of originally 25 ft. 5 ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft.
(CUP) IN AREA lap tted
GUIDED R-SFH
street
CLUSTER HOME
DEVELOPMENT 30 Ft 25 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 25 Ft.
(CUP) NOT .
GUIDED R-SFH
ACCESSORY - 30 Ft 3 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 14 Ft.
GARAGE .
ACCESSORY -
NON-GARAGE 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 5 Ft. 12 Ft. 12 Ft.
STRUCTURES
NON- 40 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 42 Ft.
RESIDENTIAL
ACCESSORY 40 Ft. 10 Ft. 10 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft.
Sec. 4. Subsection 521.11, subdivision 10 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended
to read as follows:
Subdivision 10. Maximum height increase for cluster housing
developments.
The maximum height for primary buildings in a cluster housing development
may be increased one foot for every foot the primary building is located from
the 25 foot rear set-back, up to a maximum of 35 feet, +^~-~fe~ if the
increased height is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood and if the
increased height does not adversely affect the surrounding
neighborhoods in terms of a decrease in privacy, noise, overcrowding, or
other similar impacts.
Sec. 5. Subsection 521.43, subdivision 5 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended
to read as follows:
Subdivision 5. Cluster home developments with three to #~ fifteen units,
provided the following conditions are met:
a) the design of the development must be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood in terms of building materials,
architectural design, scale and mass of the structure, or other
similar urban design characteristics;
b) landscaping must be provided in accordance with the
Richfield Landscape Requirements, on file with the Office of
Community Development;
c) there s~(I must be a minimum of 500 square feet of outdoor
open space provided on the lot per dwelling unit;
d) the number and location of driveways and curbcuts shall
minimize conflict with vehicular traffic and should not adversely
impact adjacent land uses;
e) the density of the development may not exceed the density
recommended in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
f) two off-street parking spaces, at least one of which must be
_ enclosed in a garage, must be provided for each dwellincLunit.
Sec. 6 Subsection 521.45, subdivision 2 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended
to read as follows:
USE LOT AREA LOT WIDTH LOT DEPTH
SINGLE FAMILY 6,700 Sq. Ft. 50 Ft. 100 Ft.
TWO FAMILY 10,000 Sq. Ft. 75 Ft. 10.0 Ft.
CLUSTER HOME 2.900 Sg. Ft.
DEVELOPMENTS (CUP) per Unit 60 Ft. 100 Ft.
IN R-SFH GUIDED AREA
CLUSTER HOME 4
000 Sq. Ft.
DEVELOPMENTS (CUP) ,
Per Unit 60 Ft. 100 Ft.
IN NON R-SFH GUIDED AREA
NON-RESIDENTIAL 40,000 Sq. Ft. 150 Ft. 100 Ft.
Sec. 7 Subsection 521.47, subdivision 2 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended
to read as follows:
USE FRONT REAR SIDE - SIDE - MAXIMUM
INTERIOR STREETSIDE HEIGHT
SINGLE FAMILY 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 25 Ft.
TWO FAMILY 30 Ft 25 Ft 10 Ft 15 Ft 25 Ft
(CUP) . . . . .
50 feet from
CLUSTER HOME
DEVELOPMENT centerline
(CUP) IN R-SFH of originally 25 ft. 10 ft. 15 Ft. 25 Ft.
lap tted
GUIDED AREA
street
SIDE - SIDE - MAXIMUM
USE FRONT REAR INTERIOR STREETSIDE HEIGHT
CLUSTER HOME
DEVELOPMENT
(CUP) IN NON- 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 25 Ft.
R-SFH GUIDED
AREA
ACCESSORY - 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 14 Ft.
GARAGE
ACCESSORY - 30 Ft. 3 Ft. 10 Ft. 15 Ft. 12 Ft.
NON-GARAGE
STRUCTURES
NON- 40 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 30 Ft. 42 Ft.
RESIDENTIAL
ACCESSORY 40 Ft. 10 Ft. 10 Ft. 30 Ft. 15 Ft.
Sec. 8. Subsection 521.47, subdivision 8 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended
to read as follows:
Subdivision 8. Maximum height increase for cluster home
developments. The maximum height for primary buildings in a cluster
housing development may be increased one foot for every foot the primary
buildina is located from the 25 foot rear set-back, up to a maximum of 35 feet,
+^~~ if the increased height is in harmony with the surrounding
neighborhood and if the increased height does not adversely
affect the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of a decrease in privacy, noise,
overcrowding, or other similar impacts.
Sec. 9. Subsection 521.65, subdivision 3 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended
by adding a new clause (d) to read as follows:
d) two off-street parking spaces, at least one of which must be
enclosed in a garage, shall be provided for each dwelling unit.
Sec. 10. Subsection 521.69, subdivision 2 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended
to read as follows:
Subdivision 2. Minimum Lot Area
a) Three unit structure in area not designated as "High Density Single-
Family Residential" in the city's comprehensive p lan: 3,5.00 square
feet per unit
b) Four unit structure in area not designated as "Hi gh Density Sing le-Family
Residential" in the city's comprehensive plan: 3,000 square feet per
unit
c) Three or four-unit structure in area designated as "Hig h Densit y Single-
Family Residential" in the citv's comprehensive plan: 2,900 sq uare feet
ep r unit
,d~ Five or more unit structure: 2,500 square feet per unit
Sec. 11. Subsection 521.69, subdivision 8 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended
to read as follows:
USE FRONT REAR SIDE -
INTERIOR SIDE -
STREETSIDE
CLUSTER HOME 50 feet from
DEVELOPMENT centerline of
~CUP1 IN R-SFH
originally platted 25 ft. 10 ft. 15 Ft.
GUIDED-AREA street
CLUSTER HOME
DEVELOPMENT
(CUPS IN NON- 30 Ft. 25 Ft. 20 Ft. 30 Ft.
R-SFH GUIDED
AREA
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of April,
2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
J STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
-,
MARCH 12, 2002
Consent
41
60
REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE SYLVESTER,
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, T[TLE
REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~~~
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code Section 416.07, Subdivision 2
(c) regarding sign regulations in the Service Office (SO-1) zoning district:
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached first reading of an ordinance
amendment to Richfield City Code Section 416.07 Subdivision 2 (c) to
create sign regulations for the new Service Office (SO-1) district.
I. BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission is recommending a new zoning district for service and
office uses. The sign regulations from the existing Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)
District will be used to regulate signs in the new Service Office (SO-1) district.
Therefore, Section 416.07, Subdivision 2 (c) needs to be amended to include the
SO-1 district in addition to the C-1 District.
0312-SO-1 Signs.doc
II. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The recommended ordinance amendment will simply state that the
current sign regulations for the C-1 district are now also the sign
regulations for the new SO-1 district.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Richfield's City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached
zoning ordinance amendment.
• The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed amendment to the
zoning ordinance and recommended approval at its February 25, 2002
meeting.
• A simple majority of the full Council is required for approval.
III. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Reject the motion to amend Richfield City Code Section 416.07 Subdivision 2
(c) to apply sign regulations from the C-1 zoning district to the new SO-1
Zoning District.
IV. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance Amendment
V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE
SUBSECTION 416.07, SUBDIVISION 2 (c)
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 416.07, subdivision 2, clause (c) of the Richfield City Code is
amended to read as follows:
416.07 Sign Regulations
Subdivision 2. Specific district regulations.
(c) Neighborhood business and service-office districts (C-1 and SO-1):
Sec. 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with section 3.09 of the Richfield
City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of April,
2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # ~H
REPORT # 5 9
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
BRUCE SYLVESTER,
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code to create Section 524,
a new zoning district for Service Office uses.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached first reading of an ordinance
amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code Section 524 to create. a
Service Office zoning district.
I. BACKGROUND
In response to development or redevelopment proposals, such as Bernie's
Montessori School on East 66th Street, the Planning Commission has become
aware of the need for a zoning district that allows for professional and service
offices but that would. not allow for retail sales. Such a zoning district would provide
increased protection to residential areas. Currently, the City's zoning code has two
non-planned unit development zoning classifications that allow for office uses-the
C-1 (neighborhood commercial) and C-2 (general commercial) districts. Parcels
zoned as either of these two classifications also allow retail sales. Prospective
office or service businesses often find it difficult to rezone a parcel to a commercial
zoning classification due to concerns that subsequent uses may include. retail sales
or other uses that are not compatible with surrounding-typically residential-uses.
To address this situation, the Planning Commission agreed to draft a new zoning
district entitled "Service Office" that would allow small office or service uses but not
retail.
0312-SO-1 District.doc
NAME, TITLE
There are no plans for the City to identify and rezone any parcels to this new zoning
district. Rather, this district, Service Office (SO-1), would become available for
future use as necessary and appropriate.
II. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Creating a zoning category that allows office and service uses, but that
precludes retail uses will better protect residential uses and provide an
alternative for prospective businesses looking to locate in the City.
• Creating a zoning district for service and office uses will allow parcels
to be used constructively by a small business or service rather than
remaining unusable or needing to be rezoned to a commercial use.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The standard procedure for rezoning a parcel of land will apply to this
new zoning category.
• Creating a zoning district exclusively for service and office uses will
bring the zoning code into closer conformity with the Comprehensive
Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies "Office" uses along arterial
streets such as 66th Street, Cedar Avenue, and I-494 .(Plan Elements,
Three-5). Under current zoning regulations, such parcels would have
to be zoned one of two commercial districts-which would allow retail
activities as well as-office uses.
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
Richfield's City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached
zoning ordinance amendment.
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed amendment to the
zoning ordinance and recommended approval at its February 25,
2002 meeting.
First reading requires a simple majority of the full Council.
III. ALTERNATIVE
Reject the motion to amer
new SO-1 Zoning District.
ng Code Section 524 creating the
IIV. ATTACHMENTS I
• Ordinance Amendment
V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY ZONING CODE
CREATION OF SECTION 524
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Sec. 1. Appendix B of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new
section 524 as follows:
524.01. Service Office District (SO-1 ). Subdivision 1. Subsections
524.01 to 524.19 apply to the SO-1 District.
Subd. 2. Service Office defined. A Service Office use is a low
intensity business that is primarily oriented to providing professional
services to individual customers in a small office environment.
Service and office uses do not include retail sales.
Subd. 3. Purposes. The purposes of the SO-1 District are to:
a) provide appropriately located areas where Service Office uses
may locate;
b) provide opportunities for Service Office uses to concentrate for
the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial
relationship to each other;
c) permit the development of Service Office uses according to
standards that minimize adverse impacts on adjacent uses;
d) provide adequate space
development, including
landscaping;
to meet the needs of modern
off-street parking areas, and
e) minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of
utilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive
size in relation to the surrounding land, buildings, and
infrastructure; and
f) protect Service Office uses and neighboring properties from
noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, traffic, fire,
explosion, noxious fumes, and other objectionable or
hazardous influences.
524.03. Permitted uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this
subsection are permitted uses in the SO-1 District (excluding those listed in
subsections 524.07 and .524.09):
Subd. 2. Executive, administrative, and nonprofit organization
offices with 4,000 square feet or less of gross floor area.
Subd. 3. Business offices such as, but not limited to, insurance
offices, real estate offices, loan companies, savings and loan
associations, and sales offices with 4,000 square feet or less of gross
floor area.
Subd. 4. Professional offices such as, but not limited to, medical
offices, including medical clinics and medical laboratories; dental
clinics; chiropractic offices; therapeutic massage centers licensed
under section 1188 of the City Code; offices of engineers, architects,
and accountants; auditing, bookkeeping and legal offices; and studios
of artists and photographers with 4,000 square feet or less of gross
floor area.
Subd. 5. Service businesses providing services on the premises
with 4,000 square feet or less of gross floor area. The following
service businesses only are permitted: photocopying, non-auto repair
shops (such as watch or shoe repair), tailor shops, beauty parlors and
barbershops. Hours of operation for these businesses are limited to
no earlier than 6:00 a.m. and no later than 9:00 p.m.
Subd. 6. Multi-tenant office developments with 6,000 square feet or
less of gross floor area.
Subd. 7. Religious institutions and related convents and
parsonages.
Subd. 8. Nursing or rest homes.
Subd. 9. Minor public utilities.
Subd. 10. Governmental buildings and public libraries, including
their appurtenances.
524.05. Accessory uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this
subsection are allowable accessory uses in the SO-1 District.
Subd. 2. One accessory building that is 750 square feet or less in
gross floor area.
Subd. 3. Parking, as authorized by a council approved off-street
parking permit.
Subd. 4. Assembly or warehouse operations incidental to a
permitted or conditional use, provided such use occupies no more
than 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principal building.
Subd. 5. Accessory satellite dish antennas and other antennas and
towers that are incidental to the principal use on the premises,
provided that they conform to section 425 of the City Code and that
they do not extend higher than 15 feet from the antenna or related
structure's point of contact with the building to the highest point of the
antenna, except as provided for in subsection 524.07, subd. 4 of this
Code.
Subd. 6. Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services
(CWTS) antennas and related features, the use of which is not
incidental to the principal use; provided that they conform to section
426 of the City Code, are located on the rooftop or near the roof-line,
screened from public view to the extent possible, and do not extend
higher than 15 feet from the antenna or related structure's point of
contact with the building to the highest point of the antenna, except as
provided for in subsection 524.07, subd. 5 of this code.
Subd. 7. Fences, walls, and hedges as permitted in subsection
511.23 of this code.
Subd. 8. Apartments within commercial buildings, provided such
use occupies not more than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the
principal building.
Subd. 9. Other uses customarily associated with, but incidental to
the principal use, as determined by the City pursuant to subsection
511.05 of this code.
524.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this
subsection are conditional uses in the SO-1 District, and are subject to the
conditional use permit provisions outlined in subsection- 546.05 of this
code.
~~ Subd. 1. Office and service uses as allowed in subsection 524.03,
subdivisions 2, 3, 4, and 5 with more than 4,000 square feet of gross
floor area.
Subd. 2. Multi-tenant office developments as allowed in subsection
524.03, subdivision 6 with more than 6,000 square feet of gross floor
area.
Subd. 3. Licensed day care facilities with no more than 5,000
square feet of gross floor area, provided the following conditions are
met:
a) pick-up and drop-off areas must be located on the site, .and
must be designed to avoid interfering with traffic and
pedestrian movements;
b) outdoor recreational areas must be located and designed in a
manner that mitigates visual and noise impacts on any
abutting residential parcels; and
c) such facilities must obtain all applicable state, county, and city
licenses.
Subd. 4. Accessory roof-mounted antennas that extend higher than
15 feet from the antenna or related structure's point of contact with
the building to the highest point of the antenna, provided that they
conform to section 425 of the City Code.
Subd. 5. CWTS antennas and related features that extend higher
than 15 feet from the antenna or related structure's point of contact
O with the building to the highest point of the antenna, provided that
they conform to section 426 of the City Code.
Subd. 6. Major public utilities.
Subd. 7. Other uses similar to those conditionally permitted by this
section, as determined by the City pursuant to subsection 511.05 of
this code.
Subd. 8. Apartments within commercial buildings that exceed 50
percent of the gross floor area of the principal building.
524.09. Prohibited uses. The uses listed in this subsection are prohibited
in the SO-1 District:
Subd.1 All uses not included under permitted, accessory, or
conditional uses are prohibited in the SO-1 District.
524.11. Lot area, width, depth, and coverage. Subdivision 1.
Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply in the SO-1
District.
Subd. 2. Minimum lot area: 8,000 square feet.
Subd. 3. Minimum lot width:
a) Interior lot: 60 feet.
b) Corner lot: 75 feet.
Subd. 4. Minimum lot depth: 100 feet.
Subd. 5. Maximum impervious surface coverage: 75 percent.
524.13. Required buildingsetback and maximum height. Subdivision
1. Standards. The standards set out in this subsection apply in the SO-1
District.
Subd. 2. Required setback and maximum height:
SIDE- SIDE- MAXIMUM
BUILDING FRONT REAR INTERIOR STREETSIDE- HEIGHT
PRINCIPAL 30 Ft. 15 Ft. 15 Ft. 20 Ft. 30 Ft.
ACCESSORY 30 Ft. 8 Ft. 15 Ft. 20 Ft. 15 Ft.
Subd. 3. Additional setback requirement: vehicle access door
facing a side or rear lot line. Whenever any building (principal or
accessory) is located in such a manner that a vehicle access door
faces a side or rear lot line, such side or rear setback requirement
must be not less than 20 feet.
Subd. 4. Additional setback requirement: all
structures located on a corner lot that abuts a key
lot. On a corner lot that abuts a key lot, the
streetside side setback requirement of such corner
lot must be not less than 30 feet. (Figure 12)
Subd. 5. Front setback reduction: principal
buildings. The front setback requirement for a
principal building on a lot may be reduced to no
less than the average front setback of the existing
principal building(s) abutting such lot, to a
t th t th' rovision
Figure 12
Corner lot
-- ---- I - - ~ - ~ ---
'
30 "streetside"
side lot line
>~ Key lot
front
lot line ~,
curb
minimum of 25 feet, excep a Is p
does not apply if any single family lot faces the
same street and lies between the same two cross-streets.
Subd. 6. Interior side setback reduction: principal and accessory
buildings. Whenever an interior side lot line abuts anon-residentially
zoned parcel, such interior side setback requirement may be reduced
to ten (10) feet for principal and accessory buildings.
Subd. 7. StorLr limitations. Principal buildings must not exceed two
stories in height, and accessory buildings must not exceed one story
in height.
524.15. Additional requirements for accessory buildings and uses.
Subdivision 1. The requirements set out in this subsection apply to
accessory buildings and uses in the SO-1 District.
Subd. 2. No accessory .building on any lot, except through lots,
may be situated forward of the front building line of the principal
building. In the case of a through lot, no accessory building may be
located within 30 feet of the lot lines abutting either street.
Subd. 3. In the case of a corner lot, no accessory building may be
located in the yard area between the principal building and either
street.
Subd. 4. The required setback between an accessory building and
any other building on the lot is governed by section 400 of the City
Code.
Subd. 5. No accessory building may be located on any lot prior to
the time of construction of the principal building on the lot, unless
specifically approved by the City Council
Subd. 6. The architectural design and building materials of an
accessory building must be similar to the principal building.
Subd. 7. No accessory building may be greater in lot coverage than
the principal building, or greater in height than the principal building.
524.17. Conduct of business operations. Subdivision 1. The following
restrictions apply in the SO-1 District.
Subd. 1. No retail -sales are allowed in the SO-1 district other than
sales directly resulting from service, maintenance, or repair work.
Subd. 2. No services regulated under section 1187 or 1196 of the
city code are allowed in the SO-1 District.
Subd. 3. No business may operate without an approved off-street
parking permit on file with the department of community development.
524.19. Additional regulations and requirements. Subdivision 1. The
regulations and requirements set out in this subsection apply to buildings
and uses in the SO-1 District.
Subd. 2. Developments must be constructed and maintained in
accordance with the applicable performance standards set out in
section 541 of this code.
Subd. 3. Signs within the SO-1 District are governed by subsection
416.07 subdivision 2 (c) of the City Code.
Subd. 4. .Where no alley is present, a rear yard area that abuts any
residential parcel must not be used for parking, loading, or storage
within eight feet from the rear lot line.
Subd. 5. All property located within a design district or corridor
overlay district is subject to such district's additional requirements
and/or modifications.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of April,
2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 12, 2002
Consent
4G
58
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ROBERT HINTGEN, UTILITY SUPERVISOR
NAME, TITLL'
MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a utility easement at the Shops at Lyndale to service the 78th Street and
' Colfax Avenue stormwater lift station.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve the attached easement agreement with CSM for
an electric utility easement at the Shops at Lyndale to service the
stormwater lift station at 78th Street and Colfax Avenue.
III. BACKGROUND ~
The City-owned stormwater lift station at 78th Street and Colfax Avenue is located
in the right-of-way between the Shops at Lyndale and Interstate 494. The current
power supply to this lift station is no longer serviceable. Power for the lift station
must now be obtained by hooking into a closer, existing underground power line
located in the parking lot for the Shops at Lyndale, and specifically near the
southeast corner of the Don Pablo's Restaurant. To install and service a power line
between the lift station and the existing power supply, the City must obtain an
easement agreement from the owner of the Shops at Lyndale -CSM Shops, Inc.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
0312CSMEasement
A. POLICY
O . The City Council must approve easement agreements such as the
one proposed for provided electric service to the stormwater lift station
at 78th Street and Colfax Avenue.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• This easement is necessary to provide power to the City-operated
78th and Colfax stormwater lift station.
C. FINANCIAL
• CSM Shops, Inc. is providing the easement at no cost.
• City will pay all costs to move the electric service and repair the
surface.
D. LEGAL
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the easement
agreement.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do not approve the easement agreement.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Easement agreement between the City and CSM Shops, Inc.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
,
tad lWtlUib111U.~ 141UUY
crr •r Mrr,..poas
Bar {7
Easement Deed
Corporation to Corporation
State Deed Tex Due Hereon: S .,~.._
Dale: 2.001 .. '
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, ~ ~ ~~ ittor~ hereby conrey~ CONY of Richfield. a
municipol corporation under the laws of Minnsaota. Grontoe. a perpetwt Mght and eeaement fot Tndns'gtotid
electric purposes over. antler, end across the lopowinp describer! lend iY-n8 in Hennepin County,
Minnesota,:
See Exhibit a for legal descx'iptim erid depiction of ~sement (the "Eastanertt Parcel")
eccotdng to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County. Minnesota,
together with sit hereditaments end eppurtenenoee bebnying thereto.
S3B Ddd~ for Bdditzaal t~Taa ad eaditialB.
f9~1 SF~PS, INC.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF Ij[~ R~
ey vlioe-Ptesxdslt
i.
The forepoing was ecknowledge:d belore ITte this day of
by ~:~ the vi~oe-Pevsident of tai Shops, Iric., a
tiara, on bBalf of the mo<poratign.
,~
r~rAwul, BTAMP OR sw. ..
f16NATtl11e OR PN{~ON TA"NgSbO~
TAx STATEMlNT! POR TIIG wsAt wwOPBwTV OF.SCWBeD Ii TNis NSTw1AEMr
BNOULD B! sEllT TO:
TNIS "ISTpUMeNT WAB DMFTQO BT ~ -
David J. Ytng
AtLta'ney at Law
c/o CSr1 Ca'poration
2515 Wiversity Ave. W., b150 '
St. Paul, MN 55t1a
.
1o/o~/eo xON 1~:b7 I'rx/~ NO aS1ai
Exhibit A to Easement Deed.
Suede Land Survevin~. T~~.C_
~~~ 9001 Eost Bloomington Freeway (35W)
Suite "$ ~'asement Sketc~i .t~'or.•
Bloomington, Minnesota 55420-3435
Business: 952-88 I -2455
FAX: 952-888-9526 THE' CITY OT' RICH.~'I~Ll~
- ~ ~ ~
I ~ v
"- ~ TRANS
'- 4 /1
/ ~/ - ~
1 ~! _
- ~ (: j ~
- r
` J
7 ~ ~ I
~,~ -~
~
` ,~
l1~ ~~
- ~~ ~ : ~ OON P LO'S ' ~ s
- ~, n V
- ~
-
~, ~
" ,
J I ~~,
~ ~
,~ -
~:) ~
~~ -
~ t
~ _~'
- N'LY R/W LINE OF INTERSTATE H WY . ~ f_
U~ uJ• 1/.: 1!!L 1M. cl l:-.~ UJ1 l~U ~.{1{~~ I.JA! LWtt U11.111 U~. ~UV~
j
e.
Exhibit B to Easement Deed
I. The Easement granted is non-exclusive, and is subject to current taxes and assessments, and all
easements, rights-of--way, encumbrances, liens, covenants, conditions, restrictions, obligations and
liabilities as may appear of reco{d, as of the date hereof.
2. Grantee shall be responsible at its sole cost for all installation, re-installation, repairs and maintenance of
the underground electric line and agrees, following completion of any repair, maintenance or work on
the underground electric line by Grantee or its employees, agents or contractors, to restore to its former
condition, any portion of Grantor's property that is excavated, damaged or disturbed by reason of such.
installation, maintenance, repair or work.
Grantor hereby reserves and retains the right to (1) install, reinstall, repair, utilize and maintain access
driveways, curbing, paving, parking areas, landscaping and other non-building improvements over and
across the Easement Parcel, and (2) use the subsurface area of the Easement Parcel in any manner that does
not materially interfere or conflict with the easement rights granted Grantee hereunder. By utilisation of the
Easement, Grantee hereby accepts the terms hereof, and expressly acknowledges that Grantor will use the
surface and subsurface area of the Easement Parcel as provided for above.
4. Grantee, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby indemnifies and agrees to hold harmless Grantor and
any mortagees of record of the Easement Parcel, from and against any and all damages, liability, fees,
penalties and claims, including those. for personal injury, wrongful death, or property damage, arising out of
or related to the usage of the Easement by Grantee, its employees, agents or contractors.
5. Grantee, for itself, its successors.and assigns, shall keep the Easement Parcel and Grantor's property free
from any liens arising out of any work performed, materials furnished or obligations incurred by Grantee.
If any mechanic's lien is filed against the Grantor's property relative to such work, materials or obligations,
Grantee shall immediately obtain and deliver to Grantor an appropriate release of said lien, or a bond in an
amount equal to one and one-half times the amount ofthe lien, to insure Grantor and Grantor's mortgagees.
against any liability for such mechanic's lien.
6. Grantee hereby agrees to exercise reasonable efforts to minimize any disruption to the business gperations
of Grantor, or its tenants, in the exercise of the rights granted hereunder, and to perform and complete all
necessary work of maintenance, repair and replacement in a diligent manner.
::ODMAIORPWISBtCSM DOMI.CSM POI.AcquiritioNDevelopmeM_Lib:l'168.1
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4 F
REPORT # S 7
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ \.
~l S/GNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request by the Richfield Human rights Commission, for itinerant place of
amusement and itinerant food licenses, for the annual Richfest celebration to be held March
16, 2002 at the Richfield Intermediate School, 7020 12th Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the request by the Richfield Human Rights
Commission for itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food
licenses for the annual Richfest celebration to be March 16, 2002 at
the Richfield Intermediate School, 702012th Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
On January 31, 2002, the Richfield Human Rights Commission applied for itinerant
place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for the activities scheduled to take
place at the Richfield Intermediate School on March 16, 2002. The event will take
place from 1.1:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. As decided by the City Council, the Human
Rights Commission will not be charged a fee for this event as they are a City
organization.
The Richfield Human Rights Commission will be serving such items as hot dogs,
hamburgers, cookies, nachos, chips and soda. There will also be one outside
0312Richfest
vendor, Taco Morelos, at this event. Taco Morelos has submitted the necessary
application and has paid the required licensing fees.
The committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to
ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with
Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome
food handling.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City
application process.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny the request by the Richfield Human Rights Commission for itinerant
amusement and itinerant food licenses for the Richfest celebration. This
would result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially
those concerning food preparation, on March 16, 2002.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• N/A
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Brent Pavia, Richfield Human Rights Commission Chair
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent
4E
56
MARCH 12, 2002
BETSY CHRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES
REPORT PREPARED BY: DIVISION MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~~~
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: v~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for a new auto detailing license for Quality Details, 7720 Wentworth
Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the request for a new auto-detailing license for
Qualit Details, 7720 Wentworth Avenue.
II BACKGROUND I
On September 12, 2001; Quality Details, 7720 Wentworth Avenue, submitted an
application for a new auto-detailing establishment. The application is complete and
the required fees have been paid.
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was granted for the property at 7720-7722
Wentworth Avenue in 1975 to allow the sale of electric motor vehicles, the rental
and lease of trucks and vans, and to conduct an auto service garage. The CUP did
not include detailing work.
The Zoning Administrator was contacted at the time of this application to make sure
the property was properly zoned for the desired business. Richfield's Zoning Code
requires a separate CUP for auto detailing businesses [526.27, Subd. 13]. The
0312QualityDetailsAutoDetailing
{~ landlord, Mr. Hilmer Hovelson, applied for the necessary CUP at that time, which
was approved by the City Council on November 26, 2001. A copy of the staff report
is attached. The delay in processing the requested license was due to the property
owner's failure to comply with the stipulations imposed on him with the approval of
the CUP in November of 2001. The issues have since been resolved allowing staff
to move forward with the auto detailing business application.
Environmental Health staff have received two complaints in the past regarding this
address. The complaints were regarding garbage storage and debris, and cars
being sold on the street. The owner of the property was notified and no further
complaints have been received.
Inspections, Police and Fire staffs have also been contacted. They have no
problems or concerns with the issuance of the requested license.
III BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION ~
A. POLICY
N/A
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The stipulations of the approved CUP must be meet.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~
Deny the request to license a new auto-detailing establishment for Quality
Details, 7720 Wentworth Avenue.
V ATTACHMENTS
Copy of Staff Report granting approval of a CUP to allow auto-detailing
businesses to locate and operate at 7720-7722 Wentworth Avenue.
VI PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Mr. Bob Lemon, Owner
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA'1'rEM #
REPORT #
STAFF~~ ` 'PORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 26, 2001
BRUCE SYLVESTER, -
REPORT PREPARED BY: PLAI~INING'&'ZONING ADMII~IISTRATOR
BRUCE: PAL.1vIBORG, .;
'REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
~, ~
~' `" i Ir~PARTMENT'DIRECTOR REVIEW:
.~
~c~wx~
°;;:~~
_.
~~:
~ W~~~BYCITrY MANAGER:
~.
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION.: "
Consideration of~a;cequest for a cond~tionalzusepermit to allow autodetailing businesses to
~.L.ocate'and o ==„e~i. to at7~7~20 7722 Wen,~tw~orth ven._ue.
n.. ~_ ., . _::
~I~`~ ~i~ECO~ A~M~,, DED~ACTION: ~:
~' x C.anduet~°and~close the public hearing' and °by motion: Approve the
~- ;request dconditional use permtto allowauto~detailing businesses
~r t • e ~ cfop~,erate at~`77~2077
A w~ ,,
'~~~° A ~ o alai "se~permit (CUP) wasp granted for the ~ ro rty~at~77P20=7722 .
~ P Pe . ,~
~W ~ ~Aiu`,enue in~ 1975 to~:allow~the~s`ale o~ e)x ct°~ c m~tcr~uehi~le `;4the rental
°and a of~tr=ucks'and vans, `and to conduct~an=auto~service garage: The CUP
does n~ot`include'detailing work.
~' Since~1975, a variety of auto-related uses have~been~operated~#romsthis address.
In~Septemberof 2001, Mr. Lemon-the owner~of~an~auto-detailingtbusiness-
applied fob a business license to operate his~auto~detailing businessAattthis address..
City~licensing referred Mr. Lemon to the Zoning~Administrator~to~rnake sure the
• " prbpeity~was properly zoned.` Richfield's Zoniig~Code requires~a separate-CUP for
auto detailing businesses [526.27, Subd. 13].
1128-7720Wentworth.doc ,
The landlord-Mr. Hilmer Hovelson-has applied for the necessary CUP so he can
rent his property to businesses that~provide auto-detailing services in addition to
business that conduct auto repair orauto/truck sales/leasing;
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
I A POLICY I
Auto Detailing is a Conditional Use in the C-2 district. The findings necessary to
issue a CUP (546.05, Subdivision 6) are as follows:
a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
City's Comprehensive Plan. This=finding=isrnet: The Comprehensive Plan
identifies this area for'Regional Commercial/,O,ffice'.
b) .The proposed use is consistent with any officiallyn:edopted~_redevelopment
plans or urban design guidelines. This=finding is met. There-.are. no adopted
~. redevelopment plans for this address or the. surrounding:area.
'' t ~ ~ ~ c) The proposed use is or will be in compliance -with the performance
standards~specified in Section 541 of this code. This .finding~is met. There
~':
;; , ace issues-related to outdoor storage of debris: and. junk,- which are
y addressed below.
d)~ The°proposed use will -not. have: undue adverse impactts on govemmenfa!
f ! ~es,~utilities, services,: or existing or proposed improvements. This
.. ~~ ~~fin ~ ingis~met.
~-~ A~ a~'.-,~ ~ 'e)~ Thee?u~d"Will'hot~havecundue~adverseimpacts omfhe public health, safety, or
welfare. This finding is met.
~ Theree is a public need for such: use at the proposed location. This
` ~ requirement is met. A large percentage of the community owns
.automobiles. Also, local car dealerships .contract with auto-detailing
businesses to clean used vehicles.b~efore they are.sold at the dealership.
g) The proposed use meets or willrmeet alhthe.specific conditions set by this
code :for the granting of such conditional use permit. This finding is NOT
met, as explained below.
Auto ,; obilezdetaling>is a conditional use in the.'C-2 district, as specified in section 526.27,
S,ubdvision 13 of~the zoning code. This section of~#he`zoning code specifies that the
business ~must-meet~licensing requirements under. section 1195 of the City Code. Section.
11,95~of,~the~City~~Code provides sixteen requirements~which must be met for a business to
rece~u~;e~an~autornobiledetailing license. Elevern.of~.>,.these.£.condtions are met, while five are
'not~met. These~sections bfthe City Code (Section 526:27, Subdivision 13 and Section
1'195) ace~attached to this staff report.
While the current request for a CUP meets eleven of the sixteen requirements for an auto
detailing business, it does not meet. five of them and therefore does not meet this
requirement (letter'g' above...) for issuing a CUP. Nonetheless, staff recommends that
#his requested CUP be granted. The following is an outline of the various requirements.
which are not met, and staffs explanation for why this request for a CUP should be
granted despite not meeting these specific requirements.
Code Requirements that are NOT met for an Auto Detailing CUP
At 7720-7722Wentworth Avenue
Novamber'26, 2001
~~
~~„~
~~.
Section Description Staff Comments
~ ~ ~~.09 (a) Arterial This licensmgcodeYregwres~theaprogerty to abut an
Roadway arterial roadway. ~ ~ tle~this~cond~tionfis~not strictly met,
on a one block~section of Wentworth
the property is
,
with excellent4access$tolbdth7~~lthland~78th Street.
09 (c)
1195 ~ No Outdoor This licensing c~ode~prohib~~ts~outdoor'storage of
. vehicle
m '~° a
vehicles: ~Tiie prop~etty~at~7720=7722~Wentworth has a
storage. large, Pgravelyartl The~owner~of~ttie~property leases
this yard~forvanous~businessesxto store~their vehicles.
Staff recomrnendskthat~the°owner°be'~allowed to
continue to lease his yard~for this purpose, so long as
all vehicles ans`operab/e.
119.5109 (h) No`Exterior This licensing code~prohibits outdoor torage of
storage materials. The owner of the property leases space in
~ ~
~ the yard at this property. ~Staff~recommends that
~
: - outdoor storage be~allowed~to~continue; so long as no
trash orjunk-is stored'on=site:
1.195.09 (j) Only One This licensing~code allows only`onecurb-cut per street.
Curb cut The property ;has two curb cuts, but he cuts are in ftont
of finro separate service bays and both are needed.
1195.09 (m) No Trash. This licensing code requires the property to be kept free
of litter, trash, weeds, and debris. Currently, the owner
leases aportion:of the yard at'this address'to a garbage
hauler for storing trucks and waste material such as
scrap metal. `Staff~has~to/d the applicant that no funk or
debris can`be"s'~ored'on'site.
n
..
$. CRITICAL ISSUES
Staff will recommend that the city Zoning Code be changed so that CUPs for
auto repair include auto-detailing work. Currently, a separate CUP is needed
for auto detailing, even if a property has a CUP for auto repair. The property
at 7720-7722 Wentworth Avenue has a CUP for auto-repair, but under
current zoning rules must apply for a separate CUP to legally allow auto-
. ~ detailing work on the premise.
.. Richfeld's Environmental Health division has received one complaint in 2001
`'`~ ;~,,~•~ :about cars being sold on street, although that division thinks it was. a
neighbor who was selling cars; not businesses at this address. The
Environmental Health division,also ceceived~two complaints in1995 for debris
and junk stored outside at this`:address. In 1992, the City received one
complaint about junk, debris and~'inoperable vehicles atsthis address.
th t et from this ro erty
A 12-urnt apartment building is=directly~across e s re p p
~~ z ~4"~ _ -The remainder of the surrounding area is used`by similar auto,
manufacturing, or warehouse uses.
Because of the presence of children in the vicinity, staff has required the
_ owner/applicant to more securely enclose his storage yard to prevent people
from entering the site.. '
The property owner and applicant are allowing the .outdoor storage area of
F •
~~ ~ s ;,-~ - his property to be used by a garbage hauling-business. This business stores
.. ,
q ~' ~ waste materials in the yard. Staff has informed`the`property owner and
1 ~ applicant that such storage of junk on the property is not allowed..
The owner/applicant has done some landscaping in front of the property.
C. .FINANCIAL
~.
N/A
D. LEGAL
Zoning:
Land Use:
Comprehensive Plan:
Notification:
Other Actions•
Planning Commission:
n
HRA:
Hearing Examiner:
C-2, General Commercial
Auto Service-Automobile Repair and Detailing
Regional Commercial/Ofi:ice
Neighbors=and ~pcoperty.=owners within 350 feet.
Legaf noticeappeared in the Sun Current on
November 14, 2001.
The.Planning Commission recommended
approval of the~requested CUP at it's October 23,
2001 meeting. No one spoke against the request.
N/A
N/A
Stipulations of Approval:
1. Use of the properly for storage of junk and waste materials must cease
prior to a business license being issued.
2. The owner must enclose his yard in a manner to prevent people from
being able to enter into the yard, especially children.
_' 'IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
- ~.
Deny~the requested Conditional Use~Perrnit to allow~auto~~de~ta~l~ng-businesses to
z. _ locate and operate at 7720-7722 Wentworth Avenue.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• City Council Resolution
• Site Plan
',11 pit
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• 'Applicant/Owner: Mr. Hilmer Hovelson owner and applicant
• Auto-detailing business owner: Mr. Bob Lemon
r
;;
a
:`~w~ ~ '
i
i .~«
t.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
7720-7722 WENTWORTH AVENUE
VHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval-of'a conditional use permit for an auto-detailing business to locate and operate on
land`generally located at 7720-7722 Wentworth ~-venue, legally described as:
-shot 2, Block 6, R.C. Soen's Addition
W[4EREAS, the Planning Commission of~the City~of~Richfieldghas recommended
~ri.~
app~roval,ofthis'cequested Conditional Use Permit at 7720=7722~Wentworth Avenue at its
October 23, 2001 meeting, and
.WHEREAS, this requested conditional use permit at 7720-7722 Wentworth Avenue
me~e~ts;ahose requirements necessary for issuing a CUP as specified in Richfield's Zoning
y,C~o~de, Section 546.05, Subd.6, except as explained in City Council Letter No.
and '
s
`~ ~ WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the .request for approval of the conditional
use~perm~t;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of-the City of
°Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. A conditional use permit is issued for an automobile detailing business, as
4 ~, described in City Council Letter No, , to locate and operate at the
.Subject Property legally described above.
2. This;conditional use permit at 7720-7722 Wentworth is subject #o completing
the following conditions before an auto-detailing license will ~be issued:
• That-the recipient of this amendmentto the conditional use_permit record
this~,resolution with the County,<pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
462.36, Subdivision 1 and Richfield`Zoning Code 546.05; Subdivision.
. • That: use of the property for storage of junk and waste materials must
cease prior to a business license. being issued.
• That the owner must enclose his;yard in a manner to prevent people-from
being able to enter into: the yard, especially children.
3. The conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions
regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall~expire if
.normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as
required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9.
Adopted~by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26
fiber, 2001. th day of
FOR 7720 AND 7722 WENTWOR
TH AVENUE
•. -.
..
x r
. .
--
:•.m
,~,~, , .
~u ~...~
W W' -
lL ~ •
.•
~,
~- ' f'.
W
W
O Q
Q•
O ~
~ ~ F"
~ ~
C
3
_, .
~-
.. z
...
~• •
-,
~ W
.•
~'
DATES 9-21-OI
N
~•
;.
.•
.'
..
'•.
.~
.~
.•
•.
:.
.'
.•
..
.•
.•
:"
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4D
REPORT # 5 5
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER
KATIA MEDVETSKI,
REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
o;
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final
Settlement for 6511 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 19) (66th Street /Trunk Highway 77 Interchange
Project).
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing execution of a
Final Settlement Agreement for 6511 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 19) (66th
Street /Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Proj
III. BACKGROUND
The City acquired 6511 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 19) (Ryan) through aquick-take
condemnation action in December 2000 for the realignment and expansion of the
Trunk Highway 77 and East 66th Street Interchange. The property was owned by
Ronald and Patty. Ryan (Owners) who used the premises to operate R. J. Ryan
Construction, Inc. The "quick take deposit" made by the City with the District Court
was $350,655 for real estate and fixtures. In November 2001, the condemnation
commissioners awarded damages in the amount of $405,000 for the real estate and
$5,655 for immovable fixtures (or a total of $410,655), plus reimbursement of $500
0312Ryan
for appraisal fees. The Owners appealed the commissioners' award to the District
Court.
During apre-trial conference in District Court, the City, through its attorney, John M.
LeFevre, Jr., a Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) representative, and the
Owners reached a Stipulation of Final Settlement. This agreement amounted to
$437,550 for the real .estate plus $5,655 for immovable fixtures (or a total amount of
$443,205), less any amounts previously paid (such as the "quick take deposit").
The City Attorney has recommended that the City Council approve this settlement.
The MAC has concurred with this settlement amount.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The subject property has been identified for purchase for the project.
• The Memorandum of Understanding between the City, the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and the MAC, approved by the
Council on February 28, 2000, outlines the responsibilities for each
participating agency.
• An agreement between the City and the MAC, dated February 28,
2000, allows the use of condemnation proceedings as a means of
acquiring property.
• In accordance with the agreement, the MAC is responsible for
approving and recommending to the City just compensation and
condemnation settlement payments with property owners., which they
have done in this situation.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval of the Stipulation of Final Settlement for the property with
Ronald and Patty Ryan should essentially complete condemnation
proceedings for this property.
C. FINANCIAL
• MAC is obligated to fund this transaction..
• MAC has approved this final settlement amount.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney has prepared a draft of the Stipulation of Final
Settlement.
E. TIMING
• If the negotiated settlement is approved by the City Council, no further
proceedings will be required for this parcel.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~
• Do not accept the final settlement amount. However, this will impede all
negotiations made to date and continue costly condemnation proceedings.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6511
Cedar Avenue (Parcel 19) (66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project)
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A
STIPULATION OF FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR 6511 CEDAR AVENUE (PARCEL 19)
(66TH STREET/TRUNK HIGHWAY 77 INTERCHANGE PROJECT)
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") acquired the property
located at 6511 Cedar Avenue in eminent domain proceedings in furtherance of the 66th
Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project (the "Project"), said property being described
as follows (the "Subject Property"):
Lot 4, Block 1, and the North 20 feet of Lot 5, Block 1, New Ford Town;
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and
all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (the "MAC") is initially funding
the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney has negotiated a final settlement in the amount of
$437,550 for the real estate plus $5,655 for immovable fixtures (or a -total amount of
$443,205), plus interest and appraisal fees; and
WHEREAS, MAC staff concurs with the amount of the settlement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. That the proposed settlement amount of $443,205 plus interest and appraisal fees is
hereby approved.
2. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute the Stipulation of Final
Settlement and take all other actions necessary to complete the obligations of the City
pursuant to its terms.
3. That the City Attorney is authorized to take all actions necessary to complete the
obligations of the City pursuant to the Stipulation of Final Settlement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
March, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4(,
REPORT # c/.
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
RAYMOND WROBLEWSKI, FORESTRY
INSPECTOR/OPERATIONS ASSISTANT
NAMr, TITLE
MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of award of contract to A Top Notch Treecare in the amount of $59,880 for
removal of diseased trees from private property in 2002.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract to
A Top Notch Treecare for $59,880 for 2002 Diseased Tree Removal on
Private Property. ___
III. BACKGROUND ~
In the early 1970's, the City of Richfield began a shade tree disease program to
assist homeowners in the removal of diseased Elm and Oak trees on private
property. When the City's forestry Inspector marks a diseased tree on private
property for removal, the homeowner has three options:
• Removal of the tree by the homeowner;
• Homeowner hires a contractor to perform the work;
• Homeowner authorizes the City's contractor to perform the work.
If the City's contractor performs the tree removal, the homeowner has the option to
pay the removal costs immediately or have the cost assessed to the property taxes
over a three year period.
031202distrees
NAME, TITLE
A formal bid opening for this work was held on February 21, 2002. Four bids were
submitted. The companies were asked to bid aper-inch cost, based on the average
~) number and sizes of trees removed in the past three years. Bids were as follows:
Larry's Landscaping & Tree Service $45,986.79 (No bid security included)
A Top Notch Service, Inc $59,880.00
Precision Landscape & Tree, Inc. $60,275.00
Wilson Custom Tree Trimmers $66,232.00 (No bid security included)
Contract amounts for the past three years are listed below:
1999 $53,775
2000 $53775
2001 $61,073
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or services
exceeds $50,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City
Council for consideration.
• The bids from Larry's Landscaping & Tree Service and Wilson's
Custom Tree Trimmers were rejected because their bids did not
include the proper bid security.
• A Top Notch Service, Inc. submitted the lowest qualifying bid for this
work.
• The City has had a previous positive working relationship with A Top
Notch Service, Inc.
• Staff believes the per-tree prices are low enough to provide Richfield
homeowners with a reasonable removal cost should they decide to
have the City coordinate the removal of their diseased tree(s).
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval at the March 12, 2002 Council meeting will assure sufficient
time to process the necessary. paperwork before the first trees are
marked for removal.
C. FINANCIAL
• Funding to allow the assessment option is through the Permanent
Improvement Revolving fund.
D. LEGAL
• State and City ordinance provides authority to conduct a diseased tree
program. Larry's Landscaping & Tree Service and Wilson Custom
Tree Trimmers did not include the proper bid security as required in
the bid specification. The City Attorney has advised that these would
not be acceptable bids.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Council may choose to reject this bid and direct staff to readvertise in an
attempt to receive a lower bid. However, staff does not believe lower prices
could be obtained from a responsible contractor.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Bid minutes/tabulation.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
n
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
c
Bid Opening
February 21, 2002
11:00 a.m.
Removal and Disposal of Diseased Trees on Private Property
Bid No. 02-02
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk, who announced that the purpose
of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for removal and disposal of
diseased trees on private property, bid no. 02-02, as advertised in the official
newspaper on February 6, 2002.
Present: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Randy Hughes, Public Works Representative
Ray Wroblewski, Sr. Clerk Typist
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Vendor Bid Security Bid Amount
A Top Notch Tree Care Cashier's Check $59,880.00
Plymouth, MN
Larry's Landscaping & Tree Service None $45,986.79
Cushing, MN
Precision Landscape & Tree Inc. 5% Bid Bond $60,275.00
Little Canada, MN
Wilson Custom Tree None $66,232.00
Cresco, IA
The Deputy City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at
the March 12, 2002 City Council Meeting.
Deborah J. Guiher Deputy City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4$
REPORT # 5'I
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
STEVE DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
STEVE DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution. appointing resident experts to the 2002 Board of Equalization
and settin com ensation for service to the 2002. Board.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution appointing Larry Emond
and .Glenn Erickson to the 2002 Board of Equalization and set
compensation for service to the Board at $65 per session or $25 per
hour per session, whichever is greater.
II. BACKGROUND
Mr. Larry Emond, 6325 Russell Avenue, has indicated his willingness to serve as a
residential representative to the 2002 Board. He has been an independent property
appraiser for over 30 years and has served on the Richfield Board of Equalization
since 1983. He holds a Federal Appraisers License and has worked primarily in
conducting property appraisals for financial institutions. He is also experienced in
building construction and held a real estate license.
O Mr. Glenn Erickson, 7240 Bryant Avenue, has also indicated that he is willing to
serve on the 2002 Board. Mr. Erickson has been in the property appraisal business
since 1951. He first served on the Richfield Board of Equalization in 1991. His
0312Bd of Rev
business has predominantly included appraisal of single family residential, duplex
O and fourplex properties. His appraisals have been for mortgage loans and appraisal
audits. Mr. Erickson currently holds both an appraisers and real estate brokers
license.
Both Mr. Emond and Mr. Erickson have been extremely valuable assets to the
City's Board of Equalization in their past service.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City has previously convened a Board of Equalization to not only
comply with legal requirements but also to provide a forum for
residents to voice concerns about their respective property values.
• Mr. Emond and Mr. Erickson are long-standing residents of Richfield
who have an excellent knowledge of Richfield property values and real
estate appraisal
The Board provides the City Council with a methodology to
independently review selected property values established by the
County Assessor.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• It is important to convene and conclude the 2002 Board of
Equalization within the time frame established by State Statutes and
the City Charter.
• The 2002 Board is scheduled to convene at 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, May
7, 2002.
C. FINANCIAL
• It is recommended that the compensation for this expert service be set
at $65 per session of the Board or $25 per hour per session of the
Board, whichever is greater.
D. LEGAL
• Both the City Charter and MN State Statutes require some process to
review property value challenges posed by residents. The Charter
specifies the current Board of Equalization structure.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Recruit and select other qualified expert residents to serve on the Board.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution confirming appointments and setting compensation.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENT OF
TWO RESIDENT MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota hereby
approves the City Manager's appointment of Mr. Lawrence Emond and Mr. Glenn Erickson
as 2002 resident members of the Board of Equalization as provided in Chapter 7 of the
City Charter.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that compensation for the two resident members of
the Board of Equalization be set at a minimum of $65 per session of the Board or $25 per
hour per session of the Board, whichever is greater.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
March, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
n
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4A
REPORT # S 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 12, 2002
STEVEN L DEVICH,
REPORT PREPARED BY: ADMINISTRATNE SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
STEVEN L. DEVICH,
REPORT PRESENTER: AD IS RATIVE SERV CES DIRECTOR
NAME, TLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE I
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
_~%~~~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with
Fortis Benefits Insurance Com an Fortis for Ion -term disabilit insurance benefits..
I. .RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City
Manger to enter into a two year agreement with Fortis Benefits
Insurance Company for long-term insurance benefits.
IL BACKGROUND
The City currently provides long-term disability (LTD) insurance benefits to all
Management, General Services, Labor and Trades, Police Officer and Detectives,
Dispatchers and Police Supervisory employees. The City first began providing this
benefit to certain employee groups in 1982. For the past four years, the City's LTD
provider has been Fortis Insurance. Pursuant to State law, cities must advertise for
bids for LTD coverage at least once every five years. Therefore the City is seeking
to renew a LTD contract beginning in April 2002.
In February 2002, the City of Richfield, through its agent, Marsh USA, Inc.,
advertised for bids and solicited proposals from 15 carriers for. LTD coverage.
0312LTD
Of the 15 carriers, 10 declined to submit a quote. The primary reasons for not
submitting quotes centered on the small size of the group and the relatively large
t proportion of police and fire employees within the group.
~.
After reviewing the quotes submitted, it is apparent that the Fortis renewal options
are the lowest bids providing the level of benefits requested in the proposal.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City provides LTD insurance benefits to most of its employees.
Some of the LTD benefits are provided through obligations
established within collective bargaining agreements with City
employees groups.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City's current contract is set to expire on March 31, 2002. City
Council action on this matter is requested on March 12, 2002 to
ensure a smooth transition into the next April 1 contract period.
C. FINANCIAL
• Fortis has submitted a proposal for a premium rate of $.27 per $100 of
covered payroll for a one year renewal and $.29 per $100 of covered
payroll for a two year renewal. With a ".hardening" of the insurance
market and the past experience of the Richfield group, it would seem
to be prudent to secure atwo-year contract at the very competitive
rates offered by Fortis.
• The City's current rate is $.27 per $100 of covered payroll.
• While National Insurance Services proposed a two year contract at
$.24 per $100 of covered payroll, the coverage provided under their
plan did not meet those of the other bidders and the benefit level
requested in the bid proposal.
• There is no additional premium cost to the City during the first year of
the contract and a cost increase of $.02 per $100 of covered payroll
the second year. The estimated additional cost for the second year is
$2,600 citywide.
D. LEGAL
• The City must seek bids for LTD coverage at least once every five
years. The City is meeting this statutory obligation.
~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl ~
Hpprove the renewal with Fortis
$100 of covered payroll.
a one year period at a cost of $.27 per
~ V . ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Bid comparison prepared by Marsh USA
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
None.
n
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE COMPANY FOR
LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS
WHEREAS, the City has provided long-term disability insurance benefits to many of
its employees since 1982; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Minnesota statutes to request proposals for
group insurance coverage at least once every five years; and
WHEREAS, the City requested proposals for long-term disability insurance for
benefit years beginning in 2002; and
WHEREAS, the City made benefit and cost comparisons evaluating all of the
proposals, using written criteria; and
WHEREAS, Fortis provided the lowest premium cost and met all of the City's
criteria; and
WHEREAS, the proposed premium rate will be the same for 2002 and increase only
$.02 per $100 of covered payroll for the second year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED-the City Manager is authorized to execute
an agreement with Fortis. Benefits Insurance Company for long-term disability insurance
benefits for the two-year period beginning April 1, 2002.
Adopted by the City council of the city of Richfield, Minnesota this 12t" day of March,
2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~ ~ ~ UJ ~ G7 C7 C7 n
Z
~ o .O. ~ fD. G) y Z j ~
C d a~ Z
c/r y~ r~ ~ a D a D
7 ~ O ~ y' O r
a -
m
a 3 ~ m ~
m a
~ y
III a
0000000000
m m m m m m m m m m
a n a a n a a n a a
Q Q Q n 0_ n n n n 0_
(D (D CD C C C C C C C
C1 O (~ (D (D (D (D (D (D CD
d N N
C C C O O O O O O O
CyD N N O >> > O O O
C C G C C C //~~
Y J
O ~
(D lD (D ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ O
~
`~ '~ '~ CD (D (D (D (D lD _
~~~ N
oooooo
~
~
~~~ N
c c c T T T T T T
O 7 O - C
m
m m
m
a~ m m m m
n
Q Q a T T T T T T S
O
m m cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
rt
0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g
-
- v
~
~
~
a a a m a~ m m v v C1
c c c ~ ~ >
~~~ n n n n n n
~'
~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~
m~ m o 0 0 0 0 o Q
a ~ a O
p
~~~
o
~~a
C C C
O O O
(D (D (D
m o d~~ m o o ~~~ m~ a~i ~
x
~
m~ m m =' ~ r
Lf O
~
m a . ~
3
K 7 C~ ~
O
.
7 O
o m~~~ z r~ .. m ~ 3~ ~.
w~ ~ ~' o w p
O ~ m
O N ~ .'. ~ ~ ~
• ~
m 3
O
°~ N O O S~
(D O C
~ O fD
fD
7 7
3
3 ~ °
~
D~ ~
o' ~m O
v,
0
~
,
o
~ a
' in
o. '~ ~ ~»
~ c
O O _ ~ ~
y
() N K ~
O ~ ~
m a fD
m -p
a m
~ ~
°i o
o ~.
T
O c~D O
.Z
w
m~ ~ ~
m •
H
~
cD N
N A m
v ~
~ y
n m
N
~
~
~ ~
fD
bq ~
w `< ° O~ z
N ~
=
N N
-`~- 3 m o z
-
~ O Co
~ m° o~° 7
~
d
A
v f j D
IV ~ O
~ " ~
~ O
(D 7 'L n w N y N O O o
.L O
O
y ~ 7 Q o
~ N N lD ~
O
n ~ N o
U N ry
y 7
y "O
o m
W
.~ fU O, n r
w °~ ~ m
0 T
O
(D N
N O V A
`
~ ., y
p_ y .
C N n p ry
y ~
oo E~ ~ O
W H O _~
y
~ O
Z
N N `{ ~ D ~ N
~ O -" ~~ O Ui
N N N ~ O O ~
fD
U O O
y O ~
y CD ~ `G ~ W .~ O
y 3
n N y N~ O d
n N ~ y
O
N ~
° r
~ m
CD y
W
~ ~ y
~ N CD
m
A N O °i A v o
~' ° - ~
~ ~
W A m _
d
~~ A O~~ y ~ 4 Z ~ N n O~°
y
~ m~ o y G
O ~
a
N
~ ~ w
n
~ o
w °
o
(D N
to N O N A
to `~ ~ '~ D n
a~
~ o Z _
W fA A
W ~ ° o 'fl
C
a
~m ~~~ vo, 3 m° n~N ~OOOo ~
O N A = ~
O y ~_ ° ~ O
y ..
d
('1 N
n X
W W
0
~
~
N A
N ~_
c O_
O
! S A
C
O
~ ~ {
O
O (D w p (D
~ Z
- 7
~ (O
3
O O
W O
~ ~
~ N ~ O
O o
Z
~
W 67 Vi
Z 7 y
Of
7 N
' N y fU O
.L O
~,
N
O y
n ~
~
n (D
~
(D
ffl N
W
O
W
`G
CD o
~
Z
y
tV N
~ Q
N ~
W O~ A 01
m -
y
o m ~
o m
ao v A O~ y °- ~. o
c~ ~ n o o°
~
N y n> o N
~
N N ~
~ N ~ (O O
~
y
~ ~
O
n
(7 m ~
O ~
N ~ ~
fD
y
r
0
~ c~
ov
~•
N ~
N ~
~•
~,~/I
°`T,
/`
~`
~~
^~_
i.i