The URL can be used to link to this page

04-09-02 agendasCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 '-~ SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:30 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call Discussion of priorities for 2003 budget Adjournment 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 March 26, 2002 and 2) Regular City Council Meeting of March 26, 2002 PRESENTATIONS 1. Annual meeting with Advisory Board of Health 1A. Presentation by Jennifer Swenson from Miss Richfield Ambassadors COUNCIL DISCUSSION • Council attendance at community meetings Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 2. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 3. 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 first reading of ordinance amendment relating to City Council salaries and scheduling public hearing and second reading for May 14, 2002 S.,R. No. 78 B. Consideration of approval of first reading of amendment to Chapter IV of_Richfield City Code for erosion and sediment control regulations and scheduling public hearing and second reading for May 14, 2002 S.R. No. 79 C. Consideration of approval of firsf reading of amendment to Chapter IX of Richfield City Code for phosphorous fertilizer use regulations and scheduling public hearing and second reading for May 14, 2002 S.R. No. 80 D. Consideration of approval of first. reading of amendment to Richfield's City Code/Zoning Ordinance by adding Section 538 for floodplain management regulations and scheduling public .hearing and second reading for May 14, 2002 S.R. No. 81 E. Consideration of approval of first reading of amendment to Chapter IV of Richfield City Code by adding Section 429 for storm water management regulations. and scheduling public hearing and second reading for May 14, 2002 S.R. No. 82 F. Consideration of approval of amendment to pond lease between .City of Richfield and Academy of Holy Angels relative to maintaining storm water retention pond -near 66th Street S.R. No. 83 G. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing execution of Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6315 Cedar Avenue,. Parcel 3, Claim of Diamond Vogel North, -Inc.; 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project S. R. No. 84 H. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing execution of Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6315 Cedar Avenue, Parcel- 3, Claim of Eller Media Company; 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project S.R. No. 85 I. Consideration of approval of auction service contract renewal between City of Richfield and Auction Broadcasting Company of Minneapolis for transporting, storage, maintenance and sale of forfeiture vehicles from Richfield .Public Safety S.R. No. 86 Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Public hearing and consideration of resolution regarding housing program joint powers agreement and issuance of revenue bonds relating to residential group homes facilities on behalf of Fraser (MN non-profit corporation) under Municipal Housing Program Act and related statutes Staff Report No. 87 Notes: 5. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code Section 524 to create service office zoning district Staff Report No. 88 Notes: 6. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code Section 416.07, Subdivision 2(c) to create sign regulations for new service office district Staff Report No. 89 Notes: 7. Public hearing and second 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 Staff Report No. 90 Notes: 8. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning -Code Sections 521.05, 521.13, 521.49 and 521.73 regarding allowable living space: in detached garages in approved cluster home developments Staff Report No. 91 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 9. Consideration of resolution amending Comprehensive Plan for increasing allowable densities from 12 units per acre to 15 units per acre for parcels designated as high density-single family residential Staff Report No. 92 Notes: 10. Consideration of resolution declaring adequacy of.petition for improvement,,project, accepting prepared feasibility report and calling for public hearing on May 14, 2002 Staff Report No. 93 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 11. Consideration of: • Selection of one of three ordinance alternatives, for managing bus shelters and courtesy benches • First reading of selected ordinance alternative modifying Section 805 of Richfield City Code for bus benches and shelters and scheduling public hearing and second reading for May 14,-2002 StaffReport No. 94 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 12. Consideration of Memorandum of Understanding between City of Richfield and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Staff Report No. 95 Notes: 13. Consideration of transfer of $28,600 in Community Development .Block Grant funds for remediation activity at Lake Shore Drive condominium Staff Report No. 96 Notes: 14. Consideration of appointment of LOGIS to provide financial management, human resources/payroll and utility billing systems and support Staff Report No. 97 Notes: 15. Consideration of Stipulation of Settlement for Bloomington Parcel 2, TCF Bank, of Penn Avenue Bridge Project Staff Report No. 98 Notes: 16. Consideration of appointment of community-at-large members to serve on Transportation Task Force Staff Report No. 99 Notes: 17. City Manager's report Notes: 18. 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: 19.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. J STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 OTHER BUSINESS 16 99 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~~-~ ~ ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of appointment of community-at-large members to serve on a Transportation Task Force. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Appoint community-at-large members to serve on a Trans ortation Task Force. II. BACKGROUND Council Member Gertrude Ulrich requested that the composition of the Transportation Task Force, which was discussed at the March 26, 2002 Council meeting, be placed on the agenda for the April 9 Council meeting to discuss the appointment of community-at-large members to the Task Force. The issues the Task Force will address involve three separate but related issues: ^ Regional highway network ^ Community-wide impacts of transportation facilities Localized impacts of freeway ramps on individual neighborhoods. Council, at its March 26, 2002 meeting, passed a motion that two members of the City at-large be appointed and representatives of each neighborhood on both sides 0409TaskForce of I-35W directly affected by proposed transportation projects be selected to provide _ the local residential perspective. Council also identified that the Chamber of Commerce be represented on the Task Force to represent businesses that may be directly affected by the design of the 76th Street ramp and the Lyndale Avenue bridge. The Council may also want to consider the appointment of a chairperson to convene the first meeting of the Task Force. The duties of the Task Force will be limited to reviewing design alternatives of the 76th Street ramp to I-35W and the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over I-494. The Task Force's role will be advisory to Council and to submit a report to Council in January 2003 on the merits of design alternatives. Council will still be responsible for making final decisions on proposed layouts that are submitted to the MnDOT. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Task Force can further the City's goal of expanding the existing transportation system so as to improve accessibility and the quality of life for all Richfield residents. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The proposed MnDOT design of the 76th Street ramp to I-35W requires the acquisition of 23 homes on Humboldt and Girard Avenues. • The proposed MnDOT design of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over 1- 494 causes serious right of way impacts on the Shops at Lyndale shopping center. C. FINANCIAL • The City will hire Tony Heppelmann of WSB, an engineering consultant, on a time and materials basis to assist the Task Force in evaluating design alternatives. The cost of this will not exceed $10,000. Funding will come from the Public Works planning budget and Best Buy development fees. Staff may return to request additional consultant services if needed to complete the study. D. LEGAL • There are no legal issues involved in the proposed study of design alternatives. IV. ATTACHMENTS • None V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Ken Meter and other residents of the. Humboldt Avenue area affected by the proposed 76th Street ramp. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 Other Business 15 98 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the Stipulation of Settlement with respect to Bloomington Parcel 2 (TCF Bank) of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project (C.P. 401-30-521). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a Stipulation of Settlement for Bloomington Parcel 2 (TCF Bank) of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project subject to City Attorney review and approval III. BACKGROUND The City has been in process of delivering the Penn Avenue Bridge Project from its initial design phase to its current phase of construction. In this process, the City needed to acquire the necessary right of way for the construction of the new bridge. Those parcels in Bloomington have been acquired by Bloomington pursuant to a Cooperative Agreement under which Richfield is obligated to reimburse Bloomington for damages and costs incurred by Bloomington for the acquisition process. Bloomington acquired the necessary right of way through the 90-day condemnation process as outlined by Minnesota Statutes. On June 28, 2001, the City of Bloomington deposited $955,000 with the District Court and subsequently an additional $220,000, together comprising the $1,175,000 as the approved appraised 040902-TCFStipAgrmt NAME, TITLE value for the partial takings from Bloomington right of way Parcel No. 2 of the project (TCF Bank). TCF Bank has two appraisers who have prepared written reports estimating that TCF has incurred damages of $3,100,000 and $2,925,000, respectively. Bloomington has three independent real estate appraisers who have prepared written reports that TCF has incurred damages of $997,500, $1,220,000 and $1,435,000, respectively. Attorneys for TCF and Bloomington have negotiated a proposed amount of $1,800,000 in settlement of all TCF claims (less amounts previously paid), including interest. This $1,800,000 settlement amount is essentially the same as if the condemnation commissioners were to award to TCF 24.5% of the $1,490,000 difference between the city's high appraisal opinion and TCF's low appraisal opinion. A proposed settlement has been reached between Bloomington and the TCF. Bank. Approval of this settlement by the Councils of both Bloomington and Richfield will avoid going further through the condemnation process. The attached copy of correspondence lays out the agreements and .contingencies between the parties. A stipulation of settlement is being drafted for signature by the appropriate representative of TCF Bank. The form of the stipulation of settlement will be subject to approval of the Richfield City Attorney. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • On behalf of the City of Bloomington, the City of Richfield deposited funds with the District Court to acquire property needed for right of way under the quick take condemnation procedures. • The replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 is consistent with.the proposed reconstruction of I-494 and has been identified as a high priority capital improvement in the City's Comprehensive Plan. • The Developer's Agreement between Richfield and Best Buy contains language that commits the City to replace. Penn Avenue Bridge over 1- 494. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • TCF Bank agreed to a settlement amount of $1.8 million for all claims relating to partial acquisitions from the TCF Bank parcel in Bloomington. Bloomington approved modifications to the property proposed by TCF to adjust business operations to fit the reduced parcel C. FINANCIAL ;~ The City has already deposited with the Courts an amount of $1,175,000. Additional money needed for this right of way acquisition will come from Best Buy funds held in reserve by the City for the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney must still review and approve the stipulation of settlement on behalf of the City. • The City Attorney will be available to answer questions relating to the proposed settlement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council may choose not to approve the proposed settlement. However this requires the City to continue with the condemnation process and risk the possibility that TCF will be awarded a higher amount in the condemnation proceeding. If the case is not settled, Bloomington estimates that it will incur approximately $100,000 in legal, appraisal, expert witness and commissioners costs through approximately 30 half-day hearings involving an estimated 10 witnesses for each party. V. ATTACHMENTS • Correspondence from TCF Bank and the City of Bloomington regarding the terms of settlement on Bloomington Parcel 2 TCF Bank. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. MQH-25-200 1109 TCF Ngt'L HANK 6i~33966d2 p.~~i03 ~ , ue..a~.. roc March 26.2002 Eric Berg, Eaq. City Attorney's Office City of $loomirtgtvn 2215 W. Old Shakopee Road $toamington, MN 55431 Robert Lindell, Esq. Kennedy do Graven 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 AC MiL>~ Td: (lS2)363•$~89 ~~ FwCSIMIL~ TO; (6I2) 337•g„ 31D Re: TCF National Battle peen Avenue Branch Dear Eric and t3ab: This will contlrnt the discussion I beet with Eric Berg on Friday regarding our settlement of the pending eandemnatiou action for this property. Pwesua>Yt to the settlement, TCF would receive an award for damages of SI.S trillion. The settlement will be set forth in a settlement agreement that harry Martin u-i11 drag in the next few days and will rzftect the following additional tctrns: 1, The settlement award will cover at! t~f 7CF's claims (rca! estate, fixtures, relocatitart. goodwil) and intet~esi vn that part of the damage award not yet paid). Each parry will be responsibic for its own costs and disbursements, such as appraisals and attvmey's fees. 2. The settlement wilt be cantitigert open the City of $loomington's granting of nerrtaining tared use approvals required for ?CF's redevelopment of this property in connection with the relocation and rebuilding of its brat-ch_ 3. The settlement will be subject to the approver ofpending agreements beta-ean TCF artd ?arget Corporation regarding a land swap and access issue, relevant to the redevelopment. (These agreernettts have been exchanged between the patties and their counsel and are in claw to final fora,, We anticipate that a clc~si:sg .x~i11 occur the week of April 15.) d. The settlement will be submitted for approval by the $lsomingtotl and Itichfteld City Councils. I understand that Eric has spoken with the Gity Manager of RicBf e1d. wlto will recommend approval of the settlement. Jtg werdlettcr_u2,Soud-to.+n }~Il MARQUF.ttr gYRkU$ ti?tNNFAR7l.i8. NN SSdU2 u...i... 1t;~1Ep EE8-d !0/60'd 689-1 Ot68lE61t9+ N3htlb9 t ,103NN3N-we~j 05 80 ZO-10-60 MaR-26-2092 11.06 t~~ rear L B~ LetDet w M~ P~Se Berg aed Robert Lindell, Eta. Match 26~ 2QD2 Page 2 of3 6123386642 P.03i03 Larry Martin has conts~ted Marilyn Michaels and let her know that we have reached an agrcemeat in principle that ie now being docua~eMed. 1 understas-d thgt Ms. Michaels is keeping April 8a' on the calendar for purposes of presenting the stipulated award, but she has requested that the parties confirm that the remaining hearing dates in April should be removed from the calendar. Please contact me immediately if ar>,y of the foregoing i5 inconsistent with your understanding of vur discussion. I may be reached at (612) 661-8828. Very tnrly yours, cc: Larry D_ Martin, Esq. Itg.wond. IeRef.02-$ntlfhlo~ ~'V ~vseph 'T. Green General Counsel TfIT01 A raZ £E8-~ LO/DO d V89-1 0IE8l6Et19+ N3AV89 ~ AQ3NN3H-~alj 0580 tO-ZO-tiO nAt?-2~-ZJ02 16: d5 CITY OF $Lr'i. ~iN'1IN, 9525638754 w.02 ~~ cit~- of Bloomington, irninnesotd wes ogee oa • oo~na+gton . x• : s 0327/02 Mr_ Jaseph T. Omen, t3eneral Counsel TCF Natioctal Bank SOl Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55a0Z RE: TCF Penn Avenue Branch -Settlement SENT BY FACSIMILE Dear Joe, Thanks for your letter yesterday concerning our settlement. (3orty for the delay in responding back to you, but I did not receive the faxes until mid-afternoon since they were being fenced to a machine in a different pact of City Hall and they did not find their way do me until Then. The fax number in my office area is (952j 563-8?54.) Here ate the comments that I have an your discussion of the proposed settlement: (1) Ia Paragaph 1, I believe your intent was to be alt-inclusive as to claims, as we had discussed, but I would like to rephrase ss follows: "The settlement award will cover all of TCF's claims and damages arising from the Penn Avenue bridge project and the takings oecuerir-g therefore (including, but not limited tn, real estate, £,xfures, sevcraacc• construction related damages, decnolitian and related expenses, lass of going concern, goodwill. and interest). Each party will be responsible for its own casts and disbursements, such as appraisals and attorney's fees." (2) In Paragraph Z, we understand your need to have. the contingency for the two remaining landuse approvals that yvu }rave coming before the City CotutciE an April In (the plat and the sign variances). The contingency should, however, be specific tp hose two approvals Sa that vse have clostue on that contingency_ {33 In Paragraph 4, the settlement needs to be contingent on the approvals of both city councils. f We are intending to bring the settlement to the Bloomington City Council on April 1°`, and I understand that the settlement will be co»sidered by Richfield on April 9w.) An Affirmative ActioNlgUal OpportuNliea Emplger 668-d !0/90 d ti89-1 ~tEBl66d19+ N3Atla9 ~ Aa3NN3N-wn~~ t5:80 ZO-ZO-bO MFR-~7-2882 20~Q5 CITY 0~ $LM. ADMIN. 95256387$4 P.03 (d) The settlement amount needs to include a resolution of the interests of all respondents in addition to TC>C. These other parties would include the Target folks and Ryan Cc+a[ and Lumber Company (which apparently was a predecessor in title to the target site and was a holder of the easement rights acroSS the TC~ site). if these changes and understandings arc acceptable, please confum that to me. Thanks for your work on this matter, Joe. s, ely, Fxic tt. $erg Associate City Attorne cc1 Larry Martin, $ob Lindali \~ Efi8-~ !0/!0'd b69-1 O[E61E6Z19+ N3Atla~ ~ A03NN371-wn~j 1580 Z~-ZO-pO AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 14 REPORT # 9 7 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER AND SALLY MORTON, IT MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER AND SAL~Y MORTON, IT MANAGER NAME', TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: f ' SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ I ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of appointment of Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS) to provide financial mana ement, human resources/ a roll, and utilit billin s stems and su ort. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the appointment of LOGIS to provide financial management, human .resources/payroll, and utility billing systems and supaort. II. BACKGROUND In December 1995 the City purchased financial management, payroll and utility billing software and an IBM AS/400 computer from New World Systems (NWS) of Troy, Michigan. The system was installed in 1996. The AS/400 hardware model purchased is now out of date and NWS has very few customers still running their applications on this platform. They have decided to discontinue their support of it and thereby, force these customers, including the City, to purchase both. hardware and software upgrades by the end of this year. This will involve a .complete replacement of the AS/400 computer and a conversion to a new version of the vendor's software. It is not an option for the City to continue without vendor support, as necessary software updates such as those required to process W2's .each year. will also be discontinued. 0409LOGIS The City has upgraded the AS/400 operating system and hardware capacity once since the system was originally purchased. Application software has been upgraded several times. At the time of the original purchase, the City was lead to believe that the software and hardware, with minor upgrades, would last for seven years. Accordingly, the system was put on a seven-year depreciation schedule with plans to upgrade or replace it in 2003. Staff received a letter from NWS in late 2000 stating that they planned to discontinue support for our current system and would be contacting us to discuss conversion to a supported system. NWS never contacted the City regarding their letter of 2000, and consequently in April 2001, as preparations for the proposed 2002 budget began, we contacted our project manager at New World Systems. He was reminded of the seven-year replacement plan and he assured us that we would have ample advance notice before support was discontinued. Unfortunately, after trusting that representation, late last fall we were informed of their decision to discontinue support as of the end of 2001.. After some discussion they agreed to provide us with the necessary updates to complete year-end tasks such as W2's for 2001. Options Considered Staff began to explore the City's options for financial, payroll and utility billing software. We considered: 1) attempting to force the vendor to continue support for our existing system; 2) upgrading our existing system to one supported by the current vendor; 3) converting to the applications offered by L_OGIS, a consortium of metro area cities; and 4) going out for bids on a replacement system. Options 1 & 2: Staving with the Current Vendor The first two options, which ihvolve remaining with the current vendor, are not desirable due to shortcomings in the service and software provided by this vendor. Their slow response times and need for repeated requests for resolution of problems has .been a frustrating and unproductive use of staff time..,- Some City staff would rather work around problems than call the vendor to get them fixed. Often their effort to fix one problem results in' an error elsewhere in the system. City staff is accused by the vendor of making mistakes and when- it is proven to be the vendor's error; they are slow to correct it. Support has been a troublesome>issue dating back to 1996 during our initial conversion. The Finance and IT Managers have made repeated efforts to work with the vendor to improve their service to the City, but the vendor's promises and staffing changes never delivered improved results. The software had several significant shortcomings discovered in 1996 that still have not successfully been resolved. For example, the certification of unpaid utility bills is a very time-consuming process that has become a manual task because the automated processes built into -the utility billing software have never worked as promised. The biweekly PERA report was initially missing from the- payroll application. Since all Minnesota payroll requirements were to have been apart of the software, the vendor added the report to the software, but it has never worked correctly and is now also atime-consuming manual process every 2 weeks. There are other examples as well. Again, staff has made repeated attempts to get these situations resolved without success. Staff recommends looking for another solution rather than to invest additional ,--~ resources and time with a vendor who.-has not. met the City's needs nor convinced us that they have the ability or desire to do so. Option 3: LOGIS Discussions with finance staff at other cities .and our own experiences pointed us in the direction of LOGIS, the third option considered. LOGIS is a consortium of metro area cities and government agencies.. LOGIS offers computer applications for a variety of municipal. functions and is located in Golden Valley. A board of directors made up of representatives from its 28 member cities and agencies governs the organization. They are highly service-oriented and offer solutions selected by and appropriate for Minnesota local governments. City staff has experience working with LOGIS and their software offerings for other applications. Police records, police/fire. dispatching, recreation program registration, permits, GIS, Internet access, web site hosting and network. security are some currently in use. The service and support from LOGIS staff has been very good. Several other cities using the financial, payroll and utility billing applications from LOGIS were contacted and all expressed high levels of satisfaction with the software and support they receive. A team of the City's Finance, IT and Utility staff visited LOGIS and viewed demonstrations of the software. The LOGIS applications appear to have none of the shortcomings of our current systems and in fact have greater flexibility and functionality than we currently have. Staff feels confident that the software will meet our needs based on those demonstrations and on the fact that 20 area cities use the financial and payroll applications and 17'area cities use their utility billing software. Staff has worked with LOGIS to determine the feasibility of converting to their applications by the end of this :year and at a price the City can afford. LOGIS has been very flexible and we have been able to put together a schedule to convert to their software applications by this fall. LOGIS charges initial buy-in costs and then a recurring flat monthly fee: Because they understand the financial constraints faced by cities, LOGIS has offered to spread the buy-in .costs over 3 years and to discount the first 12 monthly fees by 40%: Other than;-.the normal equipment replacement plans already in place, no additional hardware investment will be needed as this software runs on the City's existing PC network and on computer systems located at LOGIS. The City and LOGIS are already connected via a network that has adequate capacity to handle these additional uses. Although it is a much more expensive solution that the current system, which will be discussed in the "Financial" section of this report below; the City will be able to make this change without incurring increased costs to the General Fund in 2002. Option 4: Seeking Bids The fourth option considered, preparing specifications and going out for bids is not recommended. Staff is concerned that the bidding process followed by conversion and training can not be completed by the end of the year. Staff also- questions. whether this process would yield a significantly less .expensive alternative to LOGIS. Staff did attempt to work with one of-the leading vendors for local government software to get a ballpark estimate, but they were unwilling to commit much time to working with the City unless they knew a bid was forthcoming. One other vendor did respond to our request for pricing information, but when they found ~ that we didn't meet their small city profile, they too knew they would be facing a bidding situation and would not provide the cost estimates we sought for the software appropriate for our City. Bidding also presents the risk that we will go through the process and wind up with no acceptable or affordable solution. We will then be faced with no other alternative than to invest in the current vendor's solutions. Recommendation: LOGIS The LOGIS solution is recommended. because the software appears to meet our needs, the support is excellent, and the conversion can be completed this fall. Although more expensive than our current system, the fees we will pay LOGIS are comparable to those being paid by 20 other area cities. Richfield staff and those contacted at other cities feel that the software and service provide value at least equal to their cost. - III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield requires comprehensive and sophisticated financial, payroll and utility billing software to meet its fiduciary and legal obligations. • The City cannot take unnecessary risks and must insure the continuous operation of the systems that support these functions. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City's vendor for these applications has informed the City that the current system is no longer supported. The City will not be able to meet its 2002 year-end financial and payroll obligations without taking some action.- • The current vendor has'not provided adequate service and#herefore staff is hesitant to spend further resources with them. • It is staffs', position that NWS is not following through with the terms of the three year maintenance agreement signed in 2001. However, rather than engage in litigation, it is more prudent to move forward to a system that meets the City's needs. C. FINANCIAL • The New World Systems system has cost the City a total of $363,000 over the past 5 years for an annual average of $72,600. Much of this cost was paid in the first year. • To stay with the current vendor the City will have to purchase new equipment estimated to cost about $50,000 and maintenance and service fees estimated to be about $25,000 annually. In addition the City will have to pay one-time conversion costs estimated to be about $10, 000. • The last time the City went out for bids for these applications in 1995, a company who currently provides these applications to several area cities submitted a proposal. Their bid at that time was for $440,071 in one-time costs and $55,375 in annual costs. If we went out for bids now this company, because of their presence in the Minnesota market, would be a leading contender and we have no reason to believe that their bid would be lower now than it was over 6 years ago. • The LOGIS proposal for financial management and payroll will cost $74,400 in 2002, $121,600 in 2003, $134,200 in 2004 and an estimated $106,600 in 2005 and beyond. The rate drops in 2005, as the buy-in costs will have been paid in full. • The LOGIS proposal for the Utility Billing application will be $18,900 in 2002; $38,100 in 2003; $46,100 in 2004; and $47,600 in 2005 & beyond (no buy-in costs). The funding for this application will come from the utility funds, water, wastewater and storm sewer. • The cost for LOGIS in 2002 is estimated to be $74,400. Funding for this will be $55,000 from the IT Fund and $19,400 from the Self Insurance Fund. The Self Insurance Fund contribution will cover the unexpected cost of losing the existing maintenance contract while keeping General Fund IT charges level for 2002. D. LEGAL • The City does not need to use a formal bid process to obtain services and software from LOGIS because the City is a member of LOGIS via a joint powers agreement signed several years ago. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • The Council can direct staff to negotiate with New World Systems in an effort to convince them to continue to provide necessary support and updates for another year. Staff is~skeptical that they will be agreeable, as we have not. found them to be very cooperative in the past. If an agreement is possible, staff can work on a 2003 conversion as originally planned. If an agreement cannot be reached, the hardware and software upgrade from New World Systems will need to be purchased and the conversion completed by the end of the year. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 13 REPORT # 9 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 BRUCE NORDQUIST, REPORT PREPARED BY: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: v~ ~~~~~~ n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of using Community Development Block Grant funds for remediation activity at Lake Shore Drive Condominium. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the transfer of $28,600 in Community Development Block Grant funds for a remediation activity at Lake Shore Drive Condominium. II. BACKGROUND The City Council on February 26, 2002 held a public hearing and considered remediation activity at Lake Shore Drive Condominium. On a two-to-two vote, the motion failed. Council members asked whether this item could be reconsidered. Legal counsel determined it can "on a motion to renew the original motion" in accordance with City parliamentary rules. At the request of Council, the item is being presented for reconsideration. ~ `=~ Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are allocated to ~~ Richfield through Hennepin County on an annual basis. Richfield through the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) uses CDBG funds for housing 040902CDBG rehabilitation, removal of substandard homes followed by new construction for first time buyers, and for public service programs. On February 19, the HRA reviewed and approved a program to assist with a remediation activity at Lake Shore Drive Condominium. The program was in response to a request by the Condominium Association to explore funding possibilities to help individual homeowners in repairing toilets and showers that had leaking seals that had caused, over almost 20 years, hidden water damage and mold that was not easy to detect. Lake Shore Drive is a,179-unit condominium development for seniors built in 1983. It is currently the most affordable senior ownership housing available in Richfield. In 2001, units had assessed values in the $60,000 to $126,000 range. Most owners are on fixed retirement incomes. The Condominium Association hired an inspector and discovered that 31 of the units were experiencing unusual mold and moisture problems in the bathrooms. The source of the problem appears to be related to undetected deterioration of the caulk seal around the toilets and shower stalls. When several units were experiencing the problem, an inspection of all the units was conducted, which concluded that 31 are affected. Of those units, some were fixed before the scope of the problem had been determined; therefore, 26 remain to be repaired. Since these are interior unit repairs, they are the responsibility of each affected ~\ owner and not provided for by association reserves. Mold and mildew are issues of indoor air quality, but are not addressed by grants from state or regional sources, unlike other environmental problems such as radon, asbestos or lead. With on-site monitoring and sealed handling of affected rooms and materials throughout the entire remediation process, the cost of removal of mold and mildew alone is $500 to $1,000. Then, based on the extent, size and scope of removal, bids are obtained for each individual unit, for floor, wall, and plumbing repairs to return the affected areas to a finished state. Total project costs in the $5,000 range per unit are possible. Again, the unit owners are responsible for those costs. The $1,000 CDBG grant is applied to the remediation and repair work for income- qualified homeowners. The balance of the repairs would be made through loans provided by Richfield Bank and Trust. They have agreed to provide a special below market loan to owners. The HRA's administrative work will be covered by a $20 fee per unit, in addition to $2,600 in CDBG funds. Therefore the total CDBG expenditure (grants and administration) would be $28,600. The Lake Shore Drive Association is also assuming administrative work by obtaining the cost estimates, selecting the contractor and monitoring work completion. To meet CDBG requirements, all of the owners that participate would have incomes i~ less than 80 percent of the median, which is $38,100 annually for one person household and $43,500 annually for two person household. This is the highest income allowed. Many have fixed incomes that are much lower. Some owners may not wish to receive the grant, but the grant opportunity will be extended to all 26 affected owners. Because of CDBG rules on prior work, owners that already made ~ repairs would not be able to receive a grant, nor would grant funds be used for the two affected guestrooms that are owned and managed by the Condominium Association. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The HRA develops programs to meet Richfield's housing needs. The City Council, the recipient of CDBG funds, is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to approve the allocation of funds. • HUD and Hennepin County, Richfield's CDBG providers, support individual communities to solve problems as they deem appropriate. The use of CDBG funds in this instance assists lower income homeowners with a remediation problem in collaboration with the Lake Shore Drive Association and Richfield Bank and Trust. Both HUD and Hennepin County have approved this proposal. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The HRA's grant program would primarily fund the mold remediation with the individual homeowners using personal assets or loans for -~ funding a majority of the repairs.. • This is a unique maintenance problem previously unknown to the homeowner. Almost every HRA rehabilitation loan or grant since 1977 has dealt with rehabilitation issues of an unknown, emergency or deferred nature. • Homeowners need to meet the general eligibility (income, ownership) requirements that are being outlined by HUD and Hennepin County. • A grant rather than a loan was determined the best way to distribute the funds given the long-term administrative burden and higher cost associated with filing and monitoring repayment agreements, the property liens anticipated for the work not funded by CDBG, and for the small amount of grant money per unit. C. FINANCIAL • The CDBG funds provided would be in the form of a $1,000 grant to each eligible homeowner. • The maximum amount of CDBG funds used would be $28,600 (grants and grant administration). • The $26,000 proposed for 26 homeowners compares to the $25,000. maximum amount available for one single-family home through the HRA's Rehabilitation Deferred Loan program. Thus, impact to the regular program would be minimal. • Funds are available to reprogram. - D. LEGAL % • CDBG funds, procedures and requirements are established and prescribed by HUD and Hennepin County. • Legal counsel has determined that because the motion on this item was previously voted on and lost, the motion may be renewed by being reintroduced at a subsequent meeting. • No additional public testimony may be taken on this item since the public hearing was already held. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not support a remediation program using CDBG funds for the described purpose. • Modify the program, requiring a deferred loan rather than a grant. V. ATTACHMENTS • Star Tribune article about leaking plumbing and mold removal VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A Printer version: Fixit: Important to clean up mold after plumbing leak. Page 1 of 2 c~osE ~riNaow ~ Fixit: Important to clean up mold after plumbing leak Feb 19 2002 12:OOAM Q We had a significant plumbing leak behind the wall in our bathroom. The leak is now repaired. Can the the be cleaned and the walls repainted, or do we need to clean inside the wall? We are concerned about mold growing there. A Yes, you should be concerned. A sufficiently damp wall interior, with its paper-coated gypsum board, is an ideal habitat for mold. Once established, mold in walls can thrive, even after the original moisture source is removed. Be on alert for signs or odor of mold. They may come and go, depending. on air movement into the house and the season of the year. Summer humidity can activate mold that's been dormant during the cold, dry months of winter. Mold should be eliminated whenever it is found in house, according to the Minnesota Health Department. Mold can contribute to asthma, allergies and other health problems. Mold exposure is a special concern for children, the elderly, pregnant women, those with immune system problems, those who are HIV-positive and people with allergies, asthma or known chemical sensitivities. In addition, untreated mold can cause structural damage to your home. With that said, though, there's no need to panic. If you can see mold or smell it, simply get rid of it. The Health Department offered the following advice for mitigating mold risk once the moisture source is eliminated: • Clean all moldy surfaces with soap or detergent in hot water, or a good commercial. cleaner. Scrub. surfaces with a stiff brush, using plenty of cleaning solution, then rinse. Use awet-dry vac to take up the rinse water. Never mix bleach with ammonia when cleaning -- the resulting fumes are toxic. • after cleaning, disinfect the area with a solution of 1/4 cup bleach in a gallon of water. If the mold grows back, try a stronger solution, 1 /2 gallon of bleach in 5 gallons of water. Spray the solution on, then use awet-dry vacuum to take up the excess. • Dry the area as quickly as possible using fans and dehumidifiers. • Protect your health during cleanup. The cleaning process can drastically increase the number of mold spores in the air. Consider using an N95 particulate respirator (sometimes called the TC-21 C respirator) approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and wear clothing that can be laundered or discarded afterward. Use rubber gloves. In addition, avoid careless handling of moldy material that can release clouds of tiny spores, potentially creating health problems for occupants during remediation. Isolate the work area from the rest of the house by sealing doorways and forced-air registers with plastic sheeting and tape. Place an exhaust fan in an open window to blow out. When the fan is on, make sure the plastic barriers to the http://www.startribune.com/viewers/story.php?template=print_a&story=1622090 02/19/2002 c Printer version: Fixit: Important to clean up mold after plumbing leak Page 2 of 2 room bulge into the room. That lets you know that the airflow is from clean parts of the house through the "dirty" or moldy area and out the window. Demolition debris should be bagged and sealed before being transported through the house. Mold spores aze not captured by standazd vacuum cleaners. After work is completed, give the entire work area a thorough damp cleaning. For more information about mold and protecting your health, contact the Minnesota Department of Health or your local county extension agent. -- Send your questions to Fixit in care of the Star Tribune, 425 Portland Av S., Minneapolis, MN 55488, or call 612-673-9033, ore-mail frxit~astartribune.com. Past columns are available at http://www.startribune.con:/ rxit. Sorry, Fixit cannot supply individual replies. Fixit appears every day except Friday. © Copyright 2001 Staz Tribune. All rights reserved. http://www.startribune.com/viewers/story.php?template=print a&story=1622090 02/19/2002 AGENDA SECTION: ether RiisineGG AGENDA ITEM # ~ ~ REPORT # n ~ J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNA RE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~9' ~ ~ ~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Memorandum of Understanding between Richfield and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Richfield and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. r~ III. BACKGROUND ~ The previous items on the agenda addressed four of the ordinances that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is asking the City to pass in order to allow the City to have control of stormwater management issues that the MCWD has traditionally controlled. The remaining issue that has not yet been worked out in detail is buffers around wetlands and streams. The MCWD is continuing to have hearings and deliberations on what if any buffers to require. (See the attached Sun article on the City of Edina's concerns about buffers). As long as the buffer issue remains uncertain and the City desires to enforce the stormwater regulations that MCWD and the City agree should be enforced, the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) transfers regulatory responsibilities to the City and specifically leaves out any regulation of buffers. The issues of managing 040902MCWD-MOU stormwater-related infrastructure, wetland protection, flood protection and -~ development within and outside of protected wetlands are .included. The buffer ordinance being considered by MCWD would require a buffer strip 16.5 feet in width on a small lot (like a single family residence) and up to 35 feet in width on lots larger than 5 acres (generally commercial sized lots). III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Approval of the attached Memorandum of Understanding, along with approval of the four previously considered ordinances, will allow MCWD to grant to Richfield the right to manage its stormwater and related development issues. Staff will continue to work with MCWD to bring to Council a draft of a proposed "Water Resource Management Regulations" (buffer) ordinance. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The issue of buffers on private property was the only issue staff considers critical. C. FINANCIAL • The attached MOU does not affect developers' costs. City cost will increase only slightly do to a slightly increased level of scrutiny that development plans will receive. Such costs are usually recovered through the stormwater Utility. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the ordinances and will be available at the meeting to answer questions. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council could decline to approve the attached MOU; however, MCWD has made passage of the`attached a condition of granting increased stormwater management powers to the City. V. ATTACHMENTS • A copy of the proposed Memorandum of Understanding. • Article from the March 5 publication of the Sun Newspapers on the City of Edina's concerns about buffers. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • No one known at this time. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City of Richfield for Local Water Planning and Regulation This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made this day of 2002 by and between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, a watershed district with purposes and powers as set forth at Minnesota Statutes Chapters 1036 and 103D ("MCWD"), and the City of Richfield, a body corporate and politic and a home rule charter city in the State of Minnesota ("City"). Recitals and Statement of Purpose WHEREAS in 1997, the MCWD revised its comprehensive watershed management plan under Minnesota Statutes 1036.231, which details the existing physical environment, land use and development in the watershed and establishes a plan to regulate water resource use and management to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of .Minnesota Statutes Chapters 1036 and 103D; WHEREAS the MCWD's comprehensive watershed management plan incorporates the Rules adopted by the MCWD to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 1036 and 103D; WHEREAS the City has developed a local water management plan under Minnesota Statutes 1036.235 that describes the existing and proposed physical environment and land use within the City and sets forth an implementation plan for bringing local water management into conformance with the MCWD's comprehensive watershed management plan; WHEREAS on April 26, 2001, the MCWD Board of Managers conditionally approved the City's local water management plan by adoption of Resolution 05-2001, which resolution is attached and .incorporated herein; WHEREAS the City wishes to exercise sole authority over erosion control, floodplain alteration, wetland protection, dredging, shoreline and streambank improvements, stream and lake crossings and stormwater management within the City; WHEREAS the April 26, 2001 local plan approval was conditioned on fulfillment of the terms set forth in Resolution 05-2001, which terms have been fulfilled except for adoption of water resource management regulations ordinances; WHEREAS the MCWD and City desire to memorialize their respective roles in ~ implementing water resource protection and management within the City; / \ NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties that they enter into this MOU in order to document the understanding of the parties as to the roles and responsibilities of each party. 1.0 Responsibilities of the City of Richfield 1.1 The City may exercise all present and future authority it otherwise may possess to issue permits for and regulate activities affecting water resources within the City. 1.2 On written confirmation to the MCWD that the City has adopted an erosion control, floodplain alteration, wetland protection, dredging, shoreline and streambank improvements, stream and lake crossings, or stormwater management ordinance consistent with the local water management plan and Resolution 05-2001 and that said ordinance is in force, the City shall become solely responsible for regulation of the corresponding activity within the City. 1.3 Within 120 days of its receipt of the MCWD's wetland inventory and function & value assessment for the City, the City shall review its local water management plan, submit to the MCWD such revisions as the City believes warranted by the new information, and gain MCWD approval of the revisions. 1.4 The City will not issue a variance for an activity that does not comply with an ordinance referenced in paragraph 1.2 until the MCWD has approved the variance. On receipt of a request for a variance, the City promptly will transmit a copy of the variance request and supporting documentation to the MCWD for review. The MCWD will act on the variance request within 30 days of receipt of the variance request and supporting documentation. 1.5 The City will maintain a log of permits it grants pursuant to this MOU, will provide the log to the MCWD annually and will meet at least annually with the MCWD to review the implementation of the City's local water management plan. 2.0 Responsibilities of the MCWD 2.1 The MCWD will apply and enforce MCWD Rules B (erosion control), C (preservation of flood storage capacity), D (wetland protection), and N (stormwater management) within the City until the conditions in paragraph 1.2 have been met. 2.2 The MCWD will apply and enforce MCWD Rules E (dredging), F (shoreline and streambank improvements), and G (stream and lake crossings) within the City 120 days after this MOU if the conditions in paragraph 1.2 have not been met and until those conditions are met. ,- , 2.3 The MCWD will perform a wetland inventory and a function & value assessment for the City and will provide the results to the City. The MCWD will exercise good faith in its review and approval of any revision submitted by the City in accordance with paragraph 1.3 above. 2.4 The MCWD will meet with the City at least annually to review the implementation of the City's local water management plan. 2.5 The MCWD retains the right to enforce any and all of its rules in the event that the City is unable or unwilling to carry out its obligations listed in Section 1.0 of this Agreement. 2.6 The MCWD retains all authority that it may possess under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 1036 and 103D or any other provisions of law, except as explicitly reposed in the City under this Agreement, including but limited to authority set forth at Minnesota Statutes 1038.211, subd. 1(a); 103D.335 and 103D.341. 3.0 Effect of MOU On execution of this MOU, the City's local water management plan shall be deemed finally approved by the MCWD. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Cooperative Agreement. CITY OF RICHFIELD By Mayor By City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION By Its Attorney MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT By President, Board of Managers APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION By Its Attorney w MNSIJN -News Archive ,~, "~~ -~.~;.- Select a Town i G01; Archivac Classifieds Finance Calc Market Place Net Directory Nutrition Calc Weather Contact Us How to Advertise Jobs At Sun ~,. ~ . Sun Slots . _ Bridal Guide Educational Excellence Mature Lifestyles NET DIRECTory Dealing With Drugs Affordable Housing In Memory Of Let It Be Known Sport Shots Stork Report Powered by: ~~ ~~_ Search Page 1 of 4 Local Forecast Mar. 5, Click Here '-~-`~' ~~~'~ 1 ~~ ~-~ - ~ ~ r t...nn.r...+ LIB fiTt'~' ~~ Proposed watershed district changes face opposition By Laura Waldon Sun Newspapers (Created 2/27/02 9:03:00 AM) A proposed rule change by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has stirred up some negative responses from local communities that are within the boundaries of the district. The district's proposed rules relate to erosion control, buffers for lakes, wetlands and streams and storm-water management standards. The rule changes would affect properties adjacent to any wetland or lake within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, which includes parts of 27 cities. Some of these cities are Edina, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Richfield, St. Louis Park, Plymouth, Orono, Minneapolis and Wayzata. In Edina, this includes wetlands by Todd Park, Weber Park, Browndale Park, Pamela Park, the White Oaks and Rolling Green/Hilldale areas, as well as Minnehaha Creek, Lake Harvey and Melody Lake. "It greatly restricts us on what we can do," said Eric Anderson, , Edina assistant city manager. Under the proposed rules, a property owner would be required to set aside an increased buffer area around wetlands and would not be allowed to mow, dispose of yard or animal waste or fertilize there. In addition, the property owner could be required to post signs denoting wetland areas and have surveys done of those areas, at the cost of the property owner. Any property owner that needs an erosion-control permit or storm-water permit could be required to adhere to the new rules, with some exceptions,. Edina city staff reported. Under current rules, MCWD requires buffer distances of up to 16.5 to 35 feet around wetlands, depending on the area of the wetland, said Jim Hafner, senior technician at MCWD. http://www.mnsun.com/archive.asp?display=story2&year=2002&storyID=84401 03/05/2002 MNSLJN -News Archive ~. City staff also noted that the cities of St. Louis Park and Minnetonka, the Minneapolis Park Board and the Builder's Association of the Twin Cities have objected to the rule changes. "I would think that they would respect our opinion on the proposed rule," Houle said of the MCWD Board of Managers. The watershed district first discussed these rule changes about a year ago, but revised their previous proposal after some groups voiced considerable opposition to the changes, Hafner said. MCWD held a public hearing two weeks ago on this issue, and the public comment period ended Feb. 21, Hanrer reported. The watershed district notified the public of the hearing by placing a legal notice in local papers and posting information on its Web site, www.minnehahacreek.org. However, some Edina City Council members were upset that MCWD did not give residents more notice. "I think this is a very, very significant issue," said Councilmember Mike Kelly, adding that a legal notice provides insufficient notification to residents. "I think this is classic bureaucratic overreaching, in my mind," Kelly added. "We are a public agency and if we were to mail a notice out to everyone that lived in the watershed district, it would be extremely expensive," Hafner said. "By publishing the notices in the Star Tribune and a couple other papers that we know have high readership ... we felt that we had more than adequately notified people." Page 3 of 4 As with all changes, there would be an "educational period" during which people adjust to the new rule, Hafner said. He noted that people were originally opposed to the idea of separating their trash to recycle certain materials, even though recycling is positive for the environment. "You're not always going to do something that is accepted by everybody," Hafner said. "Buff I think over time ... people will become more receptive and more understanding to it." The MCWD Board of Managers is scheduled to vote on the rule change Feb. 28 at the earliest, Hafner said. At least four of the seven board managers would have to approve the rule changes in order for them to take effect. http://www.mnsun.com/archive.asp?display=story2&yeat=2002&storyID=84401 03/05/2002 AGENDA SECTION: pro$osed Ordinance AGENDA ITEM # 11 REPORT # q 4 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: t/~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NaMt:, Tircr_ MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Nanar, TiTCc ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration for selection of one of three ordinance alternatives for managing bus shelters and courtesy benches. Alternatives include two possible amendments and "do nothing" to Section 805 of Richfield City Code for bus benches and shelters, consideration of first reading and setting the public hearing and second reading for May 14, 2002.. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Select one of the two proposed ordinances, then By Motion: Approve first reading of the attached modified Section 805 of Richfield City Code for bus benches and shelters and schedule a Public Hearing and Second Reading of Section 805 on May 14, 2002, or direct staff to leave the ordinance unchanged and to monitor and permit bus shelters, benches and telephone booths using the existing ordinance. II. BACKGROUND Nearly two years ago, staff was approached by a private company that wants to place bus shelters in Richfield. As a result of that proposal the City Attorney was asked to review the current ordinance that regulates shelters and benches. 0409shelter-benchord Staff has since presented the proposed ordinance amendment to the Community Services Commission (CSC) and appeared before the City Council at Worksessions on October 8 and December 10, 2001. At those meetings, Council Members made several suggestions as to how the new ordinance should be worded. However, Council Members did not agree on what direction they wished to proceed. Staff is, therefore, placing before the Council three alternative actions: a) adopt the revised ordinance that includes most of the changes previously suggested, b) adopt a second proposed ordinance that prohibits bus shelters that include advertising (only Metro Transit shelters would be allowed) and c) do nothing and direct staff to permit and monitor benches and shelters under the existing ordinance. The first proposed ordinance contains certain changes that were suggested by Council and the Community Services Commissioners. • Allow both a bench and a shelter at the same corner. • Require bi-weekly maintenance of shelters including garbage pick-up. (The CSC recommended garbage collection for both shelters and benches.) • There was a lot of discussion by both the City Council and the Community Services Commission about regulating advertising content. It is the advice of the City Attorney that the proposed ordinance not include prohibitions against liquor, tobacco and political advertising. Advertising of these types is regulated by other methods. Liquor advertising is controlled by state liquor laws, tobacco advertising is regulated. by the terms of the tobacco law suit settlement and political advertising is controlled by state election laws. As a result the only prohibitions on advertising contained in the proposed ordinance are "Advertisements for obscene, immoral or indecent advertising matter is prohibited on all benches, shelters and booths" and "IVo advertising matter on any bench, shelter or booth may display the words "Stop", "Look"; "Drive In" or any other word, phrase or symbol which might interfere with, mislead or distract traffic." The second proposed ordinance is a duplicate of the existing ordinance with all references to shelters removed. Language has been added to prohibit all shelters that use advertising as a method of financing the facility. Only Metro Transit shelters would be allowed if this alternative is approved. An alternative to approving either of the proposed changes to the existing ordinance would be for Council to take no action at all and to direct staff to continue to issue permits for, and monitor courtesy benches, bus shelters and telephone booths using the existing. ordinance. Choosing alternative three (do nothing) would not allow staff to replace an existing bench with a shelter; however, shelters could be placed at any bus stop where there ~~ is not an existing bench or, if the situation warrants it, a shelter could be installed near a bench to serve abusier-than-average bus stop. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Existing ordinances as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan and Vision 2020 encourage the use of mass transit. Council has strongly supported efforts to encourage mass transit. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The placement of both a bench and a shelter at the same corner, inclusion of a garbage container with bi-weekly collection and advertising content have been considered critical by the CSC, City Council and the bench and shelter vendors. All of these issues have been addressed in the current version of the proposed ordinance herein referred to as Alternative One. Under Alternative Two, bus shelters would not be allowed; therefore, the issues of a bench and shelter at the same bus stop and a garbage container in each shelter become mute issues. Under Alternative Three (do nothing), benches and shelters could share the same bus stop; however, the issue of garbage containers and cleanup as well as concerns about advertising would be left un- addressed. - C. FINANCIAL • Under the current fee schedule, which will not change under any of the alternatives, applicants for bench or shelter permits pay $50 for the first year of a permit and $25 each annual renewal. These fees are large enough to cover staff expenses incurred in managing the benches and shelters around the City. D. LEGAL • None known at this time. The City Attorney will be present to answer questions. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Since Alternative Three is the "Do Nothing" alternative, Council has three alternative recommendations before it. V. ATTACHMENTS. • Copies of two proposed ordinance amendments. • Courtesy bench and shelter location maps. ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives of U. S. Bench Corporation and Outdoor Promotions, Inc. were notified of this meeting. Whether they choose to attend is not known. Alternative No. 1 A bill that is the result of Planning Commission, City. Council and Staff input. This proposed ordinance sets minimum standards for shelters, removes prohibitions against certain advertising, allows multiple facilities at one bus stop and requires a garbage container at each shelter and bi-weekly garbage pickup. ~~ BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 805 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; RELATING TO BENCHES, SHELTERS AND TELEPHONE BOOTHS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 805.03 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 805.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. "Courtesy bench" means a bench placed upon a public street by a person other than the city, designed for the convenience of the general public and constructed and used as an advertising device. Subd. 2. "Director" means the director of public works. Subd. 3. "Shelter" means a shelter placed upon a public street by a person other than the city designed for the convenience of the general public and constructed and used as an advertising device. Section 2. Subsection 805.07 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 805.07. Permits and Applications. Subdivision 1. Requirements. Application for permits elm must be made to the director. The application s~ must contain the following information: (a) location of the bench, shelter or outdoor telephone booth; (b) name, telephone number and address of the applicant; (c) detailed plans and specifications of each proposed bench, shelter or booth including the general nature of advertising matter to be posted thereon; and (d) such other information the director may reasonably require. Subd 2 Changed Information. A permit holder shall notify the director of changes in any of the information required for apermit within a reasonable time. Section 3. Subsection 805.11 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 805.11. Conditions governing issuance of permits. Subdivision 1. Application. This subsection governs the issuance of a permit for a courtesy bench1 shelter or booth. Subd. 2. Permit for each bench. A separate permit is required for each bench, shelter or booth to be constructed, but permits may be granted for more than 0312shelter-benchord one location on the basis of a single application provided the director is satisfied --y , that all the information required by subsection 805.07 has been obtained for each proposed bench, shelter or booth. Subd. 3. Transfer: If a bench, shelter or booth for which a permit has been issued is sold or title or control thereof is transferred or assigned, a new one-year permit s#al~e is required for its maintenance. Permits expire, unless renewed, on the first day of January next following the date of issuance. Subd. 4. Location. No new permit may be issued for the installation of benches, shelters or booths in the following places: (a) in an alley; , or (b) at any location where the distance from the face of the curb to the inside sidewalk line is less than eight feet; e~ Subd. 5. Permit fees. The permit fee and renewal fee shall be as provided in appendix D. - Section 4. Subsection 805.15 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 805.15. Permits. Subdivision 1. Approval and issuance. If the director is satisfied that all of the conditions enumerated in this section have been met and that the erection and maintenance of the bench, shelter or booth at the proposed location will not restrict pedestrian traffic, ,endanger the health. safety order convenience or general welfare of the City, #~e the Director sf~4 will approve the application. . Subd 2 Competing applications In the case of competing applications for one location that otherwise satisfy the conditions enumerated in this section, the director shall approve the applicant who will provide a greater public service based on the needs of the particular location Based on public need the director may permit both one shelter and one bench at the same location. In determining the needs of a given location the director may consider the following factors: (a) nearer traffic density; (b) effect on pedestrian safety; (c) effect on pedestrian traffic; ~d) effect on lines of sight; and fie) beneficial effect for users of the proposed bench shelter or booth. Subd. 3. Application. Competing applications will not be accepted during the first nine renewals after installation of a shelter. Section 5. Subsection 805 of the Richfield City Code is amended by repealing subsection 805.17. Section 6. Subsection 805.19 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 805.19. Renewal of Permits. At least 30 days prior to the expiration of a permit, the permittee may apply for renewal of the permit. If there is no change in the construction, location or advertising content and if consent of abutting owners or lessees has not been withdrawn, the applicant must so certify and the permit may be reissued by the director upon payment of the required renewal fee.'{+here i~.., ,.-,.,r,ne ir, .,.,., „f+hc re r.c~ui.+l c.h.+ll h'+ ., r. r.rr,~iorl .~r,.J iee~ ~o.J .+e. ., r. r`rininr.l r.~rrv~i~ The director eqa~ will ... ..>...,.. .,. ...... ..... ... ~.. r.. ....., ... ....._ .__~._~. ~._ ~... _..~...~. r_..... _. _ promptly notify the permittee of a withdrawal of consent filed with him by any abutting owner or lessee. Section 7. Subsection 805.23 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 805.23. Installation and maintenance of benches, shelters and booths. Subdivision 1. Size and location. Courtesy benches ehatl must be installed parallel with the curb and set back at least 18 inches from the face of the curb. Subd. 2. Size limitations -courtesy benches. ;acs °°~eTariso.~: No courtesy bench shall exceed: (a) height - 42 inches ems; (b) width - 30 inches ~; and (c) length -Seven feet ~. Subd. 3. Size limitations -shelters. No shelter shall exceed 100 square feet. Subd. 4. Exception. A shelter may exceed the 100 square foot limit if approved by the director The director may approve an exception to the shelter size limitation if the level of use at a particular shelter location warrants. a larger structure. Subd. 5. Permit display. Each bench, shelter or booth s1~ must display the permit number in a conspicuous place. Subd. 6. Conditions. It is the responsibility of the permittee to maintain each bench, shelter or booth in a safe condition and to keep benches, shelters and booths in ~`, a neat, clean and usable condition. The permittee must insure that the bench, ` shelter or booth is kept free of ice and snow and is kept accessible at all times. Every shelter permittee must install a garbage receptacle of a size sufficient to handle the ~, location's use The receptacle must have a cover and must be attached to the bench or shelter The permittee must service the receptacle twice per week. Subd. 7. Advertising Matter. Advertising matter may be displayed only on the front and rear surfaces of the backrest of a bench. Advertisements for er-er deer; bscene, immoral or indecent advertising matter is AiJ~ior~ic~ir~n m~#er i~ e~~hien+ fn +he prohibited on all benches, shelters or booths. ,~...,...~ ...~.._.._ ___,___ __ __._ " . No advertising matter on any bench, shelter or booth may display the words "Stop", "Look", "Drive In", "Danger" or any other word, phrase e# or symbol which might interfere with, mislead or distract traffic. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Alternative No. 2 This Alternative is a copy of the existing ordinance with all references to bus shelters removed. If adopted, this ordinance will not allow bus shelters except for those installed by Metro Transit. Richfield City Code 805.01 ~_,_ ~ Section '805 -Benches,, °"-~~*°~"~ and. telephone booths 805.01. Benches °"~~ and outdoor telephone booths on public walks and places. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate the placing and maintenance of courtesy benches, °"~~ and outdoor telephone booths upon the public streets. 805.03. Definitions. .Subdivision 1. "Courtesy bench" means a bench placed upon a public street by a person other than the city designed for the convenience of the general public and constructed and used as an advertising device. Subd. 2. "Director" means the director of community services. 805.05. General rule. It is unlawful for a person to place a courtesy bench, or outdoor telephone booth upon a public street or other public way subject to the control of the city without first having been granted a permit as provided in this section. Except for bus shelters arovided by Metro Transit, bus shelters shall not be allowed in the City of Richfield. 805.07. Permits and application. Application for permits shall be made to the director. The application shall contain the following information: (a) location of the bench, or outdoor telephone booth; (b) name and address of applicant; (c) detailed plans and specifications of each proposed bench,-s;~*~ or booth including the general nature of advertising matter to be posted thereon; and (d) such other information the director may reasonably require. 805.09. Consent of owners and lessees. The application must be accompanied by written consent, in a form prescribed by the director, of the owners or lessees of the property abutting the street where the bench is to be located. 805.11. Conditions governing issuance of permits. Subdivision 1. Application. This subsection governs the issuance of a permit for a courtesy bench. Subd. 2. Permit for each bench. A separate permit is required for each bench; e#elte~ or booth to be constructed, but permits may be granted for more than one location on the basis of a single application provided the director is satisfied that all the information required by subsection 805.07 has been obtained for each proposed bench,-~~ or booth. Subd. 3. Transfer: new permit. If a bench,- "~ or booth for which a permit has been issued is sold or title or control thereof is transferred or assigned, a new permit shall be required for its maintenance. Permits expire, unless renewed, on the first day of ~~, January next following the date of issuance. Subd. 4. Location. No permit may be issued for the installation of benches; S or booths in the following places: (a) in an alley; (b) at any location where the distance from the face of the curb to the inside sidewalk line is less than eight feet; or (c) at any location distant more than 50 feet from the nearest point of intersection with a street unless the director directs a change of location. Subd. 5. Permit fees. The permit fee and renewal fee shall be as provided in appendix D. 805.13. Bond requirements. Subdivision 1. Form. Applicants for permits shall post or maintain with the council a bond or policy of public liability insurance approved by the city attorney conditioned as follows: That the permit holder will indemnify and save harmless the city, its agents, officers and employees from any and all loss, costs, damages, expenses or liability which may result from or arise out of the granting of the permit or the installation or maintenance of the bench1 er benches, °"-~,~ or booths for which a permit is issued regardless of the point to which the bench,, e~ benches, c"tea or booths may be moved within the city with or without the consent of the permit holder, and further that the permit holder will pay any and all loss or damage that may be sustained by any person as a result or which may be caused by or arise out of the installation or maintenance. The bond or insurance shall be maintained in its original amount by the permit holder at his expense at all times during the period for which the permit is in effect. When two or more permits are issued to one person one bond or insurance policy may be furnished to cover two or more benches,, °"~~ or booths, and the bond or policy shall be of a type in which coverage is automatically restored upon occurrence of any accident or loss from which liability may thereafter accrue. Subd. 2. Liability limits. The limit of liability upon the bond or policy of insurance required by this subsection is $25,000 for a loss, bodily injury to or death occurring to any one person or arising out of any one accident. 805.15. Permits: approval and issuance. If the director is satisfied that all of the conditions enumerated in this section -have been met and that the erection and maintenance of the bench,~~ or booth at the proposed location will not restrict pedestrian traffic or otherwise be detrimental to public safety, he shall approve the application and forward it to the manager. 805.17. Review by city manager. If upon review of the application the manager is satisfied that all of the conditions enumerated in this section have been complied with and that erection of the bench, shelter or booth will not violate any of the provisions of this code or endanger the health, safety, order, convenience or general welfare of the city, the manager shall approve the application. Upon approval of the application by the manager --~. and payment of the required fees, the director shall issue the permit. 805.19. Renewal of permits. At least 30 days prior to the expiration of a permit, the permittee may apply for renewal of the permit. If there is no change in the construction location or advertising content and if consent of abutting owners or lessees has not been withdrawn, the applicant shall so certify and the permit may be reissued by the director upon payment of the required renewal fee. If there is a change in any of the information required for the original application for the permit, the application for renewal shall be approved and issued as an original permit. The director shall promptly notify the permittee of a withdrawal of consent filed with him by any abutting owner or lessee. 805.21. Revocation of permit. The manager may revoke or deny renewal of any permit for failure to comply with the provisions of this code, for misrepresentation of material facts in the original application, or for any reason which would have been grounds for denial of the original application. 805.23. Installation and maintenance of benches.. °"tee and booths. Subdivision 1. Size and location. Courtesy benches shall be installed parallel with the curb and set back at least 18 inches from the face of the curb. Size limitations on courtesy benches are as follows: (a) height - 42 inches maximum; (b) width - 30 inches maximum; and (c) length -Seven feet maximum. Subd. 2. Permit display. Each bench,-~t~ or booth shall display the permit number in a conspicuous place. Subd. 3. Conditions. It is the responsibility of the permittee to maintain each bench, or booth in a safe. condition and to keep benches; °"~~ and booths in a neat, clean and usable condition. The permittee shall insure that the bench, or booth is kept free of ice and snow and is kept accessible at all times. Subd. 4. Advertising matter. Advertising matter may be displayed only on the front and rear surfaces of the backrest of a bench. Advertisements for liquor or beer, political advertisements and obscene, immoral or indecent advertising matter is prohibited on all benches, °"~~ or booths. Advertising matter is subject to the approval of the city council. No advertising matter on any bench,- "~ or booth may display the words "Stop", "Look", "Drive In", "Danger" or any other word, phrase of symbol which might interfere with, mislead or distract traffic. ~~, 805.25 Removal of benches,, °"~~ or booths. Subdivision.1. Notice: costs. Upon the _.~ revocation or expiration of any permit without renewal, the permittee shall remove the bench,- ;~~ or booth promptly. The director may remove the bench,- "~^'~ or booth after ten days mailed notice to the permittee and the cost of removal shall be paid by the permittee. If the permittee fails to pay the costs within 60 days after receiving notice from the director, the bench, or booth shall become the property of the city, but the permittee shall remain liable for the cost of removal and storage of the benche or booth. Subd. 2. Summary removal. A bench,- "~ or booth placed upon a public street in the city contrary to the provisions of this section may be summarily removed by the director, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 160.27, subdivision 6. 805.27. Registration of permits obtained from other road authorities. When a courtesy bench, ~"~~ or outdoor telephone booth is placed the city within the limits of a street or roadway subject to the control of a road authority other than the city as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 160.02, the person placing the bench, or booth shall file proof of the procurement of a permit from the other road authority with the director. Alternative No. 3 This is the "Do-Nothing" alternative. Under this option both benches and shelters will be allowed in the City and benches and shelters may be allowed at the same bus stop. Since this alternative does not change the ordfinance, advertising regulations will remain unchanged and prohibitions against alcohol and political advertisements will remain in place, maximum shelter dimensions will not be included and garbage containers/collection will not be required. Despite the fact that no changes would be made to the existing ordinance under this alternative, staff can use this ordinance to manage and control courtesy benches and bus shelters. When it was decided that a courtesy bench and a bus shelter could, in certain locations, be installed at the same bus stop, the need to change the ordinance diminished greatly. If the do-nothing alternative is approved, some minor additions to the ordinance might be advisable in the future. Said changes could include shelter size requirements, reduction of advertising prohibitions and so on. To see a copy of the unchanged Ordinance, please see the copy attached to Alternative No. 2 and ignore the strikeouts. ~ N m 1 ~ ~ O C3i A ~ \\\\ \\ ~~~_ ~~ w CJ1 ~ , (D AN NN ~~~ a~~ C. P,. R. 5y -_ -~~- ~~dil~ ~'''l o~~ o _. cQ. ~ o~ ~~~ ~~ NN N ~ NN ~z l ~ ~z %I ~~ ~~ ~_ ~ D N S D ~ ~ m Z A m - ~~z s. 0 0 ~ ~~! ~ ~' CD ~ i ~, W ~ z N I ----- _ ..... ~ ,x... _ .,,, ._ _ . ~~' ! c. P. R. syS r-+- N ICI I ~~ ill ~ I ~'~I', -~1~~`~~ ~~~ m ~- m11~~ ~;b~=~--- o°~ o .cQ ~ N cn ~' ~, O (D (D ~ ~ ~ (Q r ® ® • ~ o ~, ~ o N ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ a a Q ~ ~ rn ~ (D (D U1 Sys ~~ N r'~j A 0 0 Q N N ~D ~D r 0 n ~ Z m ~ ~ ~ N m ~_ N D N O D -N-1 ~ Z m n ~ o D A m AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # 10 REPORT # 93 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ALANA T. GETTY, E.I.T., AND GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution regarding the adequacy of a petition for an improvement project, accepting the prepared feasibility report, and calling for a public hearing on the improvement project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution declaring the adequacy of petition for an improvement project; accepting feasibility report; and calling for a Public Hearing on Mav 14, 2002. III. BACKGROUND During 2001, Mr. George Holter, owner of real. property identified as 6305 Dupont Avenue South, contacted City staff expressing his interest in paving a portion of the alley at the rear of his home (please see attached graphic). Mr. Holter also indicated his willingness to pay the associated costs. On July 20, 2001 a letter was sent from City staff to Mr. and Mrs. Holter outlining the procedures and timeline to be followed regarding the alley paving. Because of the lateness of the season and the legal requirements pertaining to assessing public improvements, the project was delayed until 2002. 0409AlleyspecialAssessment Mr. and Mrs. Holter have signed a Petition and Waiver Agreement requesting the ,~-~ City Council to order the alley paved and the cost of the improvement to be assessed against their property. A copy of the petition is attached for Council consideration. The petition submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Holter states they are owners of adjacent property and wish to be assessed for 100 percent of the project cost. In the petition the Holters also waive their rights to appeal the assessment of said alley costs. A separate petition was recently received from neighbors with property adjoining this alley. This second petition from neighbors has asked that the City vacate the alley. Because this second petition--for vacation--was received only recently, staff is proceeding with the Holter's application but advising the City Council to consider the desires represented in both petitions when it makes a decision regarding the Holter's request. In response to the petition, staff has conducted preliminary surveys, had underground exploration done, and completed a cost estimate. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • In the 1980's Richfield paved most of the alleys within the City. The alleys that were not paved were exempted because of lack of support by the adjoining neighbors. This alley was probably exempted because no one on the block has needed this alley to access a garage or parking area. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Two separate and opposed petitions have been submitted regarding this alley. The first petition received was from the Holter's to improve the alley; a subsequent petition was received to vacate the alley. The Council should consider both of these requests when it holds a public hearing on May 14. If the Council decides to deny the first petition to improve the alley, staff will prepare the necessary materials for the Council to consider vacating the alley at a future meeting. • While surveying for this proposed project, staff observed the site and spoke with neighbors regarding the project. Staff has learned that some of the neighbors may ask the Council to not order the project because they, the neighbors, will not benefit from the alley improvement and they currently use the alley for storage. and a garden. • Some neighbors are also considering requesting that the Council order the project to be extended to 63rd Street. Mr. and Mrs. Holter cannot be assessed for the remainder of the alley, and it is unlikely that the neighbors can be assessed, because they can argue that they do not benefit. For these reasons, staff sees no way at this time to fund the alley extension, except for the possibility of using general fund monies. • Snow plowing has been a concern of staff; however, Richfield's Operations Coordinator has assured staff the alley can be plowed and has no reservations about the project. C. FINANCIAL • Mr. and Mrs. Holter have requested to pay 100 percent of the costs of the alley improvements, to a maximum dollar amount of $12,758.39 (see attached Petition and Waiver Agreement). D. LEGAL • Chapter 429 of State Code (the Public Improvement Code) spells out the procedures that the City must follow to accept a petition, construct the project and assess the costs. Staff has been in frequent contact with the City Attorney to assure that all legal requirements are being met. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may choose to not accept the adequacy of the petition or may choose to not order the project. • Council could direct staff to construct the alley all the way to 63rd Street. As discussed above, a funding source for the extra length would have to be determined. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution declaring the adequacy of the petition for an improvement project, accepting the feasibility report, and calling for a public hearing. • Feasibility Report on the Alley Construction Improvement Project. • Signed Petition and Waiver Agreement signed by Mr. and Mrs. Holter. • Petition for Vacation of Streets, Alleys, and Public Grounds signed by landowners abutting the unconstructed north-south alley in the 6300 block between Dupont and Colfax Avenues. • Two graphics showing the location of the improvement project. • Photographs of the alley right-of--way as it looks today. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • City staff has spoken with several adjacent property owners regarding the proposed alley construction special assessment and expects them to voice their concerns at the public hearing. • Mr. and Mrs. Ray Ahrndt, 6304/6308 Colfax and applicants for vacating the alley. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION FOR AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT; AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. A certain petition requesting .the construction of a public improvement, consisting of alley construction on approximately 80 feet of the 120 feet platted, in the 6300 block between Dupont Avenue South and Colfax Avenue South in the City of Richfield (Improvement Project), on this date is declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. This declaration is made in conformity with Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.035. 2. The Improvement Project, described to be necessary, cost effective and feasible in the feasibility report prepared by the City Engineer, will be ordered by Council, pending the outcome of a public hearing. 3. The Council will consider the Improvement Project and the assessment of abutting property for all of the cost of the Improvement Project all pursuant to Minnesota - , Statutes, Chapter 429. A public hearing on the Improvement Project will be held in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 14, 2002. The Clerk is authorized and directed to give published and mailed notice of the hearing on the Improvement Project as required by law and to publish the resolution as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.036. 2002. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of April, Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk FEASIBILITY REPORT ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ALLEY CONSTRUCTION Description of proposed improvement project: The project consists of alley construction in the 6300 block between Dupont Avenue South and Colfax Avenue South in the City of Richfield. The proposed alley improvement would be constructed perpendicular to and north of the existing alley. The City has prepared the plans and specifications for this project. Need for the proposed improvement: Mr. George C. Holter and Mrs. Marilyn S. Holter have requested the proposed improvement by petition. The improvement will provide public access to their property at 6305 Dupont Avenue South. The cost and feasibility of the proposed improvement: The estimated contract cost for the proposed alley improvement is $12,758.39 based on an engineer's estimate. The City of Richfield will assess 100 percent of these charges to the adjacent property owned by petitioners Mr. and Mrs. Holter. The project is necessary, cost effective and feasible and should be constructed as proposed and not in connection with some other improvement. Assessment amount and methodology The amount to be specially assessed is a maximum of $12,758.39, which is 100 percent of the estimated cost. It is proposed that the special assessment be levied for collection with the Holter's real estate taxes beginning in the year 2004. PETITION AND WAIVER AGREEMENT We aze the owners of property located at 6305 Dupont Avenue South in the City of -- ~ Richfield, Minnesota, legally described as: LOTS 11 AND 12, BLOCK 4, RAYS L~i'NNHURST 2ND ADDN Our property abuts a platted but unconstructed alley (see attached Exhibit 1). We are proposing that this alley be improved in order to provide access to one of the two lots that we own. The alley we aze proposing be improved is identified as "B" in the attached Exhibit 1. Our property is identified as "C" in E~chibit 1. We hereby petition the City of Richfield to assess 100 percent of the cost of the alley improvements to our property. We understand that the costs which we request to be assessed included the following: 35 CUYD COMMON EXCAVATION 127 SQYD SUBGRADE PREPARATION 26 TON AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 108 SQ YD 6" CONCRETE PAVEMENT 1 EACH SIGN TYPE SPECIAL, 352 SQYD SODDING 1 EACH SOIL BORING for a total amount of $12,758.39. These costs are referred to as "Chazges". - - We acknowledge and agree. that these Charges are valid and legal chazges and that we will be obligated to the City in the amount of .$12,758.39 when the alley :improvements have been completed. We request that 100 percent of the Charges be levied as a special. assessment against our property for collection with our real estate taxes beginning in the yeaz 2004. We understand that we may pay the entire amount of the assessment within 30 days after the council adopts the assessment rolls, without any charge of interest. If we elect not to pay the entire amount of the assessment within 30 days, we understand that we are obligated to make annual installments over the number of years allowed by the council. We also understand that these installments include interest at a rate to be determined by the city council We also understand that state. law gives us the right to appeal the levy of special assessments against our property. We hereby waive .our right to appeal the levy of special assessments that are levied in accordance with the terms of this Petition and Waiver Agreement. This waiver is only to the extent of the estimated costs noted above:in the amount of $12,758.39. We further agree that the payment of the Charges will continue to be our personal obligation until they are paid and that we will- pay any part of the Charges which the City is unable to. collect through special assessments. _ L Dated: , 2002 ~ ~~ George C. olter Marilyn S. H,olter~ /cam PETITION FOR VACATION OF STREETS, ALLEYS, AND PUBLIC GROUNDS ~i To: Richfield City Council We, the undersigned owners of land abutting ~ ,hereby petition that such public land be vacated by the City of Richfield. -Ty, e ~n ~~, 5.{-Fu~.~-.e d ~vo r~(., - sa u ~h a I le y ~t n fh e 6 3~0 6 f oc~ b~'~.en ~Q.,~on ~- $- J ~(-~ax f}~rtu25. *Civnatnre Address (please print clearly) l 1 ~~ ~~~ ~LF~ .~-~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ 3 ~/ ~ ~pn~ ,~ . s ~~~" * Signatures may not be removed after the petition is submitted to the City. 2~~ -- (STATE H[WY NO 62) :.: . -. - = Ezisting Paved Alley =Proposed Alley, Subject of Petition ' =Two Lots Owned By the Holter's g' ~ ; J - ,- f I f g l --~ s ~ 27 ea ' 0 0 ~'' ~ 'B /-~ m ~~ ' 1 ~, 1. -- ~., _:~ a ~ ' . ::~ p 2 ~ ..,~ a ~~. aaz +31.n 3 ~ =`r,: ~~ • 131.a1 ~ is ~ • s. m l., 131.91 m _~ 0.a5 4 1~ !~) e ~ .' .... .~ 3 > ~` ,~.3e (14) $ g ~ (~ , ~ w' 136.Ra l65 gj 63RD ST W . !~~ ~ (~~ f ,za Li, s z --a g (64) ~ ~ o ~ ,z tza U a .. 3 ~ ua ~ "1 ,LYNNHURST ,~ 128 ~, 13 (~) ~ ~~ o ~ ~s (61 ~ ~ a f tsa ~ ~~` f ,~e .30A 10 10 10 10 10 ~._ ~ 10 10 10 N o ' z I ~ ~~~-' 4 ° 3 O \e o ~~ $ ~ R '~ 4. ~ 9~ (g~j !~7' a s~ 1 ~o N 9 a~ ~ s s ~I ~ .; ~.s Io.+ .0~1 .I" 10.4 ~~ _ w6 ~ '' ~~ /, ~~ IOA 33j ~ bA .DR 12a t g • , ~~ .,+ ~.~ .. f ,aa r ~~ ~ + d :` ~`;: ~'``_ o ~ 10 10 o ~ . 5 N ''b 4 o acF; s 3 ~? ; r ~: ~ IQI .,.i PRo~osE D A ~~EY - iz8 ~T -~ ~ ra C .y ~ y DFT y ~ .~' 9 Ga,~9e. ~ s3oo SFT ~ ~ ~ (COLE M.4N ;~ t~ ~~, $DFT 63Q5 63 ~b3p~: 75Fr (AHRNDT~ Q EXISTING ALLEY /-~ ~ a F Z O a 0 M~~RE~ DR ~- ~' ,~ 1 J Figure 1 -Existing Alley -Looking East from Existing Alley -Arrow pointed at Proposed Alley Figure 2 -Proposed Alley. -Looking North from Existing Alley -Arrow pointed at Proposed Alley Figure 3 -Proposed Alley -Looking South from 63rd Street West STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 9 2 D REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE SYLVESTER, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMSORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE .SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ' DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~~/~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan for increasing allowable densities from 12 units per acre to 15 units per acre for parcels designated as "high-density, sin le-famil residential" in the Com rehensive Plan. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:. By motion: Approve or deny the resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan that would increase the allowable density of housing in parcels designated as "high-density single-family residential" from 12 units per acre to 15 units .per acre and authorize submittal of the amendment to the Metroaolitan Council. II. BACKGROUND The motion to approve this Comprehensive Plan amendment was defeated at the February 26, 2002 City Council meeting by a vote of 3 in favor of the motion and 1 opposed to the motion. One council member was absent. Because atwo-thirds vote of the full Council is required, 3 votes were not sufficient to approve the motion. This item has been placed on the April 9, 2002 agenda for reconsideration by the full Council at the Council's request. 0409-CompPlanAmend.doc Because this matter has not changed in any material way from its public hearing ,_- ~ and presentation on February 26, legal counsel has opined that no further public comments can be taken unless a public hearing notice is again published. The Planning Commission reviewed the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code last year. At its December, 2001 study session, the Commission discussed changes that were necessary so both documents supported each other and were more responsive to current needs in Richfield. (The Comprehensive Plan was formulated in 1995-96.) The Planning Commission identified the need to modify the City's Comprehensive Plan to increase opportunities for housing diversity by encouraging townhouses and other, higher-density, single-family residential developments. After reviewing densities for various types of development, including single-family detached housing on various sized lots and townhouse projects of various densities, the Commission recommended revising the allowable density of residential uses in parcels designated as "high-density, single-family attached" in the Comprehensive Plan. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan allows densities up to 12 units per acre. To accommodate a wider variety of housing options and styles higher densities and community needs, the Planning Commission recommended that this figure be increased to allow densities on these parcels up to 15 units per acre. For comparison purposes, examples of housing densities in Richfield include: 1) Atypical Richfield city block is 600 feet long by 270 feet wide for 162,000 square feet or 3.72 acres. A block with 50 foot lots contains 12 houses per side or 24 houses total. The density for this type of residential block is 6.5 houses per acre. 2) Wood Lake Village along the north side of 66th Street between Rae Drive and Emerson Avenue includes 92 townhouses and encompasses 255,856 square feet of area or 5.87 acres. The density for this housing example is 15.7 units per acre. 3) Casteel Place, at Garfield and 76th Street behind Main Street Village includes 40.townhouse units on a parcel that is 522.11 feet long and 134.41 feet wide for 70,177 square feet or 1.61 acres. The density for this housing example is 24.8 units per acre. 4) The Oaks on Pleasant is a townhouse development included in the Wood Lake Centre and includes 138 units. The Oaks on Pleasant occupies a parcel that is 593 feet long and 309 feet wide for 183,984 square feet or 4.22 acres. The density for this housing example is 32.7 units per acre. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • With few exceptions the Comprehensive Plan restricts high-density, single-family residential development to portions of arterial streets in Richfield. The current allowed maximum density of 12 units per acre is not sufficient to allow many standard townhouse or other high-density, single-family residential developments. • The Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed periodically to insure that it is relevant to current conditions in our community and amendments should be made as appropriate. • The goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan are supportive of the proposed amendment. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Planning Commission is simultaneously reviewing the City's zoning code and will be suggesting similar zoning code changes to accommodate higher densities along major arterial streets in Richfield. C. FINANCIAL • Increasing the allowable units per acre would make townhouses more economically viable. D. LEGAL • The City Council must adopt and amend the Comprehensive Plan by resolution by two-thirds vote of the full Council. (Four of the five members must vote in favor of the amendment.) • The amendment would be contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval. • On January 28, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the recommended amendment and voted unanimously to support the amendment. • The City Council is not required by state statute to conduct a public hearing on a Comprehensive Plan amendment; however, it has been City policy for both the Planning Commission and City Council to hold a public hearing on proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. • The City Council did hold a public hearing on this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment on February 26, 2002. A copy of the comments from that public hearing are included as an attachment to this staff report. • Notice of the February 26, 2002 public hearing was published in the Sun- Current on February 6, 2002. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the amendment. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution amending the City's Comprehensive Plan concerning allowable densities in areas designated as "high-density, single- family residential". • Attachment A, excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan. • Attachment B, Comprehensive Plan map. • Attachment C, minutes from the February 26, 2002 public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A member of the Planning Commission and staff will be available to respond to queries about this matter. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNING ALLOWABLE DENSITIES IN AREAS DESIGNATED AS HIGH-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan provides a Guide Plan establishing classifications for individual property; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan designates many parcels along arterial streets in Richfield for use as high-density, single-family residential; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Guide Plan classifications and determined that it would be appropriate to increase the allowable densities in parcels designated as high-density, single-family residential from 12 units per acre to 15 units per acre; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on January 28, 2002 concerning modifying the Guide Plan to allow densities of 15 units per acre on those parcels designated as high-density, single-family residential; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the modification on January 28, 2002 following a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council held. a public hearing on the amendment on February 26, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the City's Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to change the allowable densities on those parcels designated as high-density, single-family residential from 12 units per acre to 15 units per acre, contingent upon the following: 1. The revision is submitted to and approved by the Metropolitan Council. 2002. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of April, Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 0409-CompPlanAmend.doc Attachment A RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Volume Three: Plan Elements PART ONE Land Use and Density 1.1 Residential Residential will continue as the dominant land use in Richfield as the existing low-density residential neighborhoods and multiple-family developments are maintained and upgraded. The Plan graphics show four residential land use areas as follows: A. Single-family (all undesignated areas) detached and attached residential use areas with densities of up to five units per acre represent most of the developed areas in Richfield. Attached housing (duplexes only on 9,000 square feet) sites should be permitted in single-family areas, but limited to no more than eight units in any eight block area. The sites for attached housing should be developed on the basis of opportunity (distressed housing), natural conditions, adjacent non-residential land uses, available utility and other community services and related planning factors. Current programs that support maintenance, upgrading and replacement of the existing housing stock must continue and be expanded as the housing stock ages. Nothing in the Plan is more important to the preservation of the "small town" character value than maintaining the quality, appearance and marketability of the single-family residential housing stock throughout the City. B. High-density, single-family attached residential use areas with densities of up to 4~ 15 units per acre are shown on the Plan graphics as R-SFH (residential single-family, high- density). These areas are selected on the basis of existing use, adjacent non-residential or multiple land uses, street access, available public and private services and related planning and economic factors. Manufactured housing would be included in this use category if the lots are owned by the occupants and the streets and open spaces are public orquasi-public and operated by an association. If the development is operated as a business, a conditional use permit would be required. All of the areas designated for R- SFH use are described in subarea plans in 6.2. C. Medium density, multiple-family residential use areas with densities of up to 24 units per acre are shown on the Plan graphics as R-MM (residential multiple, medium density). Richfield has too much of this form of housing, so several existing developments along 1- 494 have been redesignated for regional commercial or office use. Two developments (Century Court and Fountainhead) have been designated as high-density multiple, and one (The Colony) has been designated for single-family use. No new medium density, multiple housing areas are proposed in the Plan. The proposed areas are described in more detail in the sub-area plan graphics for the 1-494 East and West and Interstate- Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) areas in Section 6.2 of this document. D. High-density, multiple-family residential use areas with densities over 24 units per ~~ acre are shown on the Plan graphics as R-MH. The ultimate result of these densities is high-rise structures. For that reason, R-MH uses are appropriate in locations where transportation, utility, security, shopping and social services are in abundance in order to support larger numbers of people. J v V C y~ V N ~ E ~~ vip~Op _~' W ~ o-~~ ~r~ rn0 N _ _ O ~ ~ cV E ~ ~ .~'=~xx ~ s V ,~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ t6 7 V 0 0 Ll ~~ d d a L .C - d R W o Ervv d m~~~~ ~ .N ~~ ~' 3 w Z d 0 .d d O~ .C u' 7 0 7~ R 3 t~ ttj 3 Y eY0 Q ~UZ~c~Ov)vj~~~aaU' c~UcnU' m ~ a 1 ~L !1%1 ~ 11 I~r~1 11 ~ ~ ®_ ®®_ ®®~ ® _ ~ :.+~..~iir~T ^ tO atl030 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 418E ___ ~• fT171I: CIlIILTL ~~ IL111 rTil] LI t1'-LT~ 41L L ,~ - ~"~ .. 1~ ~ 4i9L _ ._ .. Z NOl°JNIWOOlB weL _ I l ,I ~~. Gr~~ I~ Q 414E ~ IWlu uu '~-~ ' `I I 1 ~ ~TI1 iW~1 ~Kj1 j [ ~ ~ m ~ r W 1 I JJ ^~ ~~ L LLLl~ - LLJ' IrL' J 41£L ~-'.- ~ ~ .. ~~ii ; rr~ ~~ I~ , I ~_' T ,~i' 11.!11 f_~11 ^ i~ 41ZL fl~~~j .. - - ~W111, 11 C7?. 410E ' ..__ _.. ~ lOll~3 H q~Y 1-r -_. ..... ~ ~ ~ ... ~ OOtlOIHO moo ulw ~ Q a . :-. _.. .::::. . ~' _: //~ V • snew > ~ '~ 1 tfL'u~ ~ Z ~lavd VO rr ~r77 - ~I . i ~P ~i%J+~ 1L W ONtllN aNVllaod ' ' '~ ~ t ll11I1L' h1It1LIl I! U3S .l .:.: ~ ,j W ~° NOlNllO , I ~~ ~1111ull (1~-~7=~~~] W Z ... . , .1-j r'~I '~ CQIIIID [II.LLrLD QI - S SN3n31S n '-~_. ~ ' 'l~.' j -; _, G ^ 11.1111- " ~-~ `_-_ O is L `~// ~~ ~ ~ ®I 1~ I ~' I C'~ I i I ] [m ~ V 1311OO1N 1130SIM8 Ili ; ' HlaQM1N3M AanBSllld ~,~~j~ ~~---~I i 1171 I L " ~~~~ ~ , ` ` ~ - ~~ 77 -L-CC~ - t]i~I W d3ld 1NVS aNtlao i--~- , ~• ~~" ~ 7 i ~ 1'. ~ ~ I~1 i a ~ 131aaVH Ol31daV~J ~ -- I .. t ~ ~` '~ ~ ~- ~ ~r 3lVONAI ~~ _ ' 11~~ %%% 1 _- V Holaaw 7 t-:;~~~ i ; ~; i, I~. Y ~ 1NVAa8 Q Q ''I = J ~ U `~ ~~ Xtldl00 C ~ ~ 1NOdn0 ~-'~~ ..... _ _. ~ NOSa3W3 . ~ ~ rTf1Y _~ . .. 1NOW3ad ~ aavalo ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~r~rr~llw liL~ l.;l_1.1 I ~ ?~ rilil~[lIIIIffi- i~lP.,C lanoewnH ~~~ ~ _ _ oNlnal S3WVf I I r ~1IIiT i ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~~ ~.T ~.1 r1 XONN ~ I' ~ ~I li,l Ff - fly ~ffII ilk , : ~I I!~l ' l ° , ~.I1 I Nv JO J i LII,::. NOlM3N a3nno ~ .~. .. ..~ ~- '.~ ~i11LTL L z `~11 I1»111f I ii~111J ~~ ~ ~ i ' ~~ L 1= O ~ ---_.. _ ~`~ W NN3d rn rn rn ~ T '1~3SSna i 1~=1. O - ~' ~ . ~;lU NYOIa3HS LI ~ ~~ .I;`, d StlWOHl I ~ (I NOldn r' r ~ ~I ~~ r- ll 1N30NIn ~ } ~ }j -r ~ ll J Ili .1~>~ rtl~ 1 rr77~~ ~ ~;r l~l tl L ~ ~~~ -~: ~ ,~ ~~r' NanBHSVM , _I , ~~~ ~,] III ~~k~11~ `I It~~~ ~ull~~i~' ~ITiITP`~J s3xa3x ~ ~ ~ L S .L. ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m L s L s ~r n ~ n n ~ n S ~ H ~ C t0 r L r r s , L L L Cv n n n m a~ N 0 0 0 CV O O 0 0 O O O r L ~ n r - Q=I °i rn o 0 Qa~ ~ p p rww ati~ O » pww ¢~~ atl030 438 L 43L L 4l9 L NOl~JNIWOOlB 41s L 414 L 4l£ L 43Z L 4iL L 410 L lOll~3 OOYOIHO snewmoo NaHd ON V1Ntl0 ONYIlaOd 4LS 414 NOlNl~O P~£ WZ SN3n31S is L 13llOOIN 1~30SItl18 HlaOM1N3M AanBSl~ld 1Nb'SV3ld ONVaO 131aaVH Ol31jatl0 3ltlONAI HOIaOItl 1NtlAa8 Xb'd100 1NOdn0 NOSa3W3 1NOW3ad aavalo la~oawnH ownal S3Wtlf XONN NHOOI NV~JaOW NO1M3N a3nno NN3d N33n0 ll3SSna Ntl01a3HS SVWOHl NOldn 1N30NIn NanBHStlM S3Xa3X m a a E N N 0 n m m D8 U N m Council Meeting Minutes -3- February 26, 2002 Item #4 CONSENT~.CALENDAR A. Approved resolution designating increase in City's contribution toward health insurance premiums for Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local 123 S.R. No. 44 RESOLUTION N0.9152 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, LOCAL 123 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 9152 in Resolution Book No. 73. B. Approved resolution designating increase in City's contribution toward health insurance premiums for Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local 162 S.R. No. 45 RESOLUTION NO. 9153 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, LOCAL 162 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 9153 in Resolution Book No. 73. C. Removed from the consent calendar and placed on the regular agenda for consideration as Item 7A. D. Removed from the consent calendar and placed on the regular agenda for consideration as Item 76. E. Approved new residential kennel license for 209 Pillsbury Lane; four dogs S.R. No. 48 M/Rosenberg, S/Sandahl to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Motion carried 4-0. -~ : , - Item #5 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING RES,~I~U,TIQN~AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;FOR;INR~ASING`ALLOWABLErDENSITY OFH.OUSINGK,IN PARCELS -.DESIGNAT4ED~AS~HIGH=DENSITI(4SINGLE=FAMILYyfRESIDENTIAL FROM 12 "UNITS'PER?"`ACRE T0,15'.UNITSPER ACRE AND AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF AMENDMENT?TO METROPOLITAN COUNCIL' S.R. N0..49 = xr ~, City Manager Orduno reviewed Staff Report No. 49 regarding a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan for increasing allowable density of housing in parcels designated as high density single family residential from 12 units per acre to 15 units per acre and to authorize submittal of an amendment to the Metropolitan Council. Council Meeting Minutes -4- February 26, 2002 --~ Community Development Director Palmborg reviewed the background related to the changes necessary for the Comprehensive Plan so the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance supported each other and were more responsive to current Richfield conditions. Council Member Enger said he didn't understand the need for increasing parcel densities from 12 to 15 units per acre. He asked about the process for the Wood Lake Village, Casteel Place and Oaks on Pleasant housing densities. Community Development Director Palmborg explained the zoning process used by the Planning Commission and City Council to obtain approvals. Council Member Enger asked if these approvals would no longer be needed if this resolution were approved. Community Development Director Palmborg said the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and does not pre-empt a proposal from needing review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Council Member Enger asked why the change is needed if the process remains the same. Community Development Director Palmborg said the zoning ordinance is not changing, only the Comprehensive Plan which is a guide. Robert Hall, 7309 Oliver Avenue, expressed concern about main thoroughfares to accommodate densities, the number of multiple housing units on lots and transient housing; and not enhancing school population by changing the balance of people living in Richfield. He said this was a step backward in making Richfield a desirable place to live. Council Member Sandahl asked if there are traffic complaints at the Casteel Place due to the higher density of housing. Mr. Palmborg said there have been no traffic volume concerns. M/Rosenberg, S/Sandahl to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0. Council Member Sandahl said she supports the resolution because the higher density housing replaces lost housing and provides a variety. She said the Planning Commission has reviewed current market trends. She said the housing is not transient, but homeowners. Council Member Enger asked Mr. Hall for his definition of transient. Mr. Hall said that, to him, it means purchasing a home for ashort-term stay to gain equity or renting. He questioned the effectiveness of undersize housing because it doesn't encourage children. Council Member Enger said he reviewed a plan for the 6800 block of Penn Avenue and it is tight, but there was an alley to gain access to garages. Council Member Rosenberg said she believed Wood Lake Village and Oaks on Pleasant residents would be insulted to be called transients. M/Rosenberg, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted, that it be spread in the resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNING ALLOWABLE DENSITIES IN AREAS DESIGNATED AS HIGH-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Council Meeting Minutes -5- February 26, 2002 ~_ Motion failed 3-1. (Enger opposed.) The motion failed because the Comprehensive Plan must be adopted and amended by resolution by two-thirds vote of the full City Council. City Attorney Thomson said the prevailing side must move to have the item reconsidered by the City Council Council Member Sandahl asked if an absent City Council Member could move to reconsider the resolution at the next City Council meeting. City Attorney Thomson said she would check into that matter. - - ~ ,. Item #6 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING TRANSFER~OF $28,600 IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: BLOCK-GRANT; FUNDS FOR REMEDIATION ACTIVITY AT `LAKE SHORE:DRIVE`CONDOM{NIUM'S.R. N0: 50; Housing and Redevelopment Manager Nordquist reviewed Staff Report No. 50 regarding the transfer of $28,600 in Community Development Block Grant Funds for remediation activity at Lake Shore Drive Condominium. Council Member Rosenberg asked about the Lake Shore Drive association fees covering repairs. She said using block grant funds for this activity appeared to be taking away from single family homeowners. Housing and Redevelopment Manager Nordquist said the collected association fees do not apply to interior repairs of individual condominiums. He said, historically, 50% of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds go to seniors and 50% to families to repair single-family homes. He said HUD asked for the City Council to redirect rehabilitation funds to assist these 26 homeowners. Council Member Enger asked for examples of single family home repairs that could apply to a deferred loan. Mr. Nordquist said roof and siding repair, interior repairs and code compliance updates. Council Member Enger asked if the funds for Lake Shore Drive and single family homes are loans or grants. Mr. Nordquist answered it was proposed that Lake Shore Drive would receive a grant. Single-family homes receive deferred loans. Council Member Enger said the mold remediation appears to be a lack of preventative maintenance and not a normal wearing out due to use. He said the income guidelines indicated this repair could be afforded by the owner. Alice Finley, Lake Shore Drive Manager, explained the problems creating the mold in the wall. She said interior wall problems are the homeowner's responsibility. -She said repair costs have significantly increased since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared mold a hazardous substance and must be contained. M/Rosenberg, S/Sandahl to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0. Council Member Sandahl said her initial reaction is that this is not an appropriate use of these funds, but further distinction of homeowner use had clarified the matter. She asked why the $1000 is a grant and not a deferred loan. Mr. Nordquist said the grant was used because it provided assistance without creating an administrative burden. AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # $ REPORT # 91 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE SYLVESTER, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code Sections 521.05, Subdivision 14; 521.13, Subdivision 8; 521.49, Subdivision 8; and 521.73 Subdivision 2 regarding allowable living space in detached garages in approved Cluster Home Developments. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the. second 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 detached garages in approved Cluster Home Developments. 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 R-SFH parcels, the Planning Commission discussed the idea of only allowing living space over detached garages in approved Cluster Home Developments, which require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Planning Commission and City Council review. This living space over detached garages 0409-GarageLiving.doc would only be permitted on parcels of one acre or less in size; the Planned Unit _ Development (PUD) process would continue to control proposals for 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: 1) Such an allowance would provide some flexibility in our zoning code for new and different housing options in the community to respond to market trends and consumer housing needs; and 2) 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 square feet. Note: The Planning Commission review of cluster home rules, including allowing living space over detached garages, was prompted by a specific development proposal for the northeast corner of Penn Avenue and 69th Street, .presented by Richfield resident David Gepner-and Harold Teasdale, an experienced residential builder. This proposal highlighted the difficulty of providing increased densities along. Richfield arterial streets-as called for in the adopted Comprehensive Plan- under current zoning regulations. While this project initiated the review of cluster home rules, the Planning Commission .and staff have found that the proposed revisions to the City's Zoning Code are worthwhile regardless of the proposal at 69th and Penn. The proposed ordinance is not tailored to the Gepner proposal. II. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Currently, 96 percent of the R-SFH parcels identified in the Comprehensive Plan 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. Allowing living space above detached garages in a Cluster Home Development in these three zoning districts is one method for promoting and accommodating higher densities where designated in Richfield's Comprehensive Plan. • Currently, living space may be constructed over garages that are ,_ attached to the primary residence. There are examples throughout the community of this existing living space over an attached garage. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City'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 the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission agreed to limit the size of accessory living space over garages to no more than 500 square feet. 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 three specific requirements are met (again, this is only on parcels of one acre in size or less): 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 on parcels designated as High-Density, Single-Family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan; and 3) Such living space will be limited to no more than 500 square feet to insure that it is truly accessory to the principal residential use. Property owners who do not meet these three 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 maintains this option). 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. • Please see the `Overview' for more details regarding this proposed zoning ordinance amendment (see IV. Attachments section of this report). 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 first reading of this proposed ordinance was approved by the City Council at its March 26, 2002 meeting. • Approval of the second reading requires a simple majority of the full Council. 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. • See Council Report #88 attachments for "Overview" of proposed ordinance amendments. V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A Planning Commissioner will be available for the Council discussion of the item. ~~ 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: 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: al The aarcel must be designated as High-Density Single-Famil 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-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 521.11 Subdivision 2, the detached garaqe-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 livinq space can not exceed 500. square feet; and fl Two parking spaces in addition to those required for the cluster home development must be provided; and qty 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 living space above a detached garage may be provided if all of the following conditions are met: a) The parcel must be desianated as High-Density Sinale-Famil 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 fl Two~arkinq 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. 4. 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 desianated as High-Density Single-Family residential in the Comprehensive Plan; and 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. 2002. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of April, Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk J V V C~ d V to ~ ~ `~~ rrip°'oop _~' W ~ 0-~~ ~s~ ono _ V V ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ Ul Q C O p L4 vj N N N ~ fn 7 t6 ~ U O LL d d d 0 d _ a >+ W ~ VV m~~~~ ~ ~ ~ O• ; N Z O~ t_ d •N ~~ O N Z d 0 •d d 0~ C LL 3 7 7~~ 7 L t t~j 7 Y ~ Q ~c.~z~c~0inui~~~aaC~c~UcnCJ co ~ a ~~ ~11~1 ~J11 'LJi~, 11 ~ _ ~~ ®® -® ®®® L L .L.. L L_ H ~ r S ~ ^ M O h f0 ,~, ~p ~ n r n r n r ~ ~ ava3o 438E 41LL U191 Z NOlONIWOOlB ~ - 41SL 11... _.. Q 414E ` r J 41EL -i--71 4lZL ... ~_ V1L L 410 L W lOlll3 /~ OOtlOIHO •/\ Sn8Wnl00 2 >iavd ""`~ ~ ONblxtlO TW ONb'llaOd _- - i I_l:.i 41S W 414 -'-:L~ NOlNllO ~',.~!~ ~ P £ ~~_ WZ SN3n31S O 'S` ~- 13llOOIN U 1130Sib'l8 HlaOM1N3M =t+ AanBSllld J 1NVSV3ld W ONtlaO r ~ 131aatlH ~ ~-I ~~ Ol31datl0 ,.I 3ltlONAI V HOladltl -i ~ 1NYAa8 Xvdl00 -- 1NOdnO NOSa3W3 1NOW3aj aavalo a ='-~ laloewnH ~ ~i1I oNlnal 'Ar;1~ S3Wtlf '. i-~': -~ XONN NtlOOI NHOaOW ...__. NO1M3N ~ ~....,.. a3nll0 z ~~I'~ NN3d O N33n0 ~ ll3SSna U Ntl01a3HS ~^~~~ SVWOHl ~_,..~i~~li.. NOldn ~~ 1N30NIn NanBHSVM s3xa3x '!J 'O L ~ ~ ~ L L L ~`l N ~ C' L L .L. S S L co co r L r ~ n r n n~ rr- °r~ s n N N LL 0 0 0 (V O 0 0 r 0 O O O r Q= °~r' rn o H ~ N ~ ~ U aa~ Woo ~ww a ~? ~? O > > ^ww ¢~~ ava3~ 438 L 4iL L 419E NOlONIWOOlB 4lS L 4141 43£ L 41Z L N1L 4101 lOlll3 OOtlOIHO snewnloo ~latld ONtllxtlO ON`dllaOd 41S 4l4 NOlNllO P~£ WZ SN3n31S is L 1311O01N ll3aSl`d18 H1aQM1N3M AanBSll Id 1Nb'Sb9ld ONtlao 131aatlH Ol31jatl0 3ltlONAI HOIa4lV 1NVAa8 Xvdl00 1NOdn0 NOSa3W3 1NOW3ad aavalo laloewnH oNlnal S3 Wtlf XONN NtlOOI NtlOaOW NO1M3N a3nll0 NN3d N33n0 ll3SSna NVOIa3HS SVWOHl NOldn 1N30NIn NanBHStlM s3xa3x a m m n a E N U m Q pd J AGENDA SECTION: Hublic Hearings AGENDA ITEM # ~ REPORT # o n STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 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: Public hearing and second 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 lot size required)(new); 521.11, subdivision 7 (set-back requirements); and 521.11, subdivision 10 (height limits)]; 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)]; and 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: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the second reading of the attached 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. ~, _ _ __ 0409CI usterHomes. doc NAME, TITLE 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 percent 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: Zoning District Two Twin Cluster Family Homes Homes Allowed Density R (665x) 9 units/acre Not permitted 10 units/acre MR-1 (57x) 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 "High-Density Single-Family residential" that are in this zoning district now. As the table above reveals, current zoning 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-our existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) rules, which have been in place for several years, will continue to control sites larger than one acre in size. Without changing our 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. Note: The Planning Commission review of cluster home rules was prompted by a specific development proposal for the northeast corner of Penn Avenue and 69th Street, presented by David Gepner and Harold Teasdale. This proposal highlighted the existing contradiction between the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and current zoning regulations. While this project initiated the review of cluster home ~., rules, the Planning Commission and staff- have found that the proposed revisions to the City's Zoning Code are necessary regardless of the proposal at 69th Street and Penn Avenue. II. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The 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 our Comprehensive Plan. To remedy this situation and create zoning rules that are more supportive of the goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan, the 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. (Again this is for parcels of one acre or less in size.) 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 our 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. • This ordinance amendment would only apply to parcels one acre in size or smaller. For reference, a typical Richfield residential block is about four acres in size, thus one acre would be approximately one- quarter of a block. • Please see the `Overview' for more details regarding this proposed ordinance amendment (see IV. Attachments section of this report). 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 Richfield's 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. • A first reading of this proposed ordinance was approved by the City Council at its March 26, 2002 meeting. • Approval of the second reading requires a simple majority of the full Council. 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 • See Council Report #88 attachments for "Overview" of proposed ordinance amendments. V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A member of the Planning Commission will be available for the Council discussion of this item. 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 s.,;+h +h,-oo +„ +a., „~;+~ provided the following conditions are met: a) the design of the development e#~4 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#afl 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, s#atl 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 curb cuts shall minimize conflict with vehicular traffic and should not adversely impact adjacent land uses; f) the density of the development s#at4 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: f~_ 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,g00 Sq. Ft. DEVELOPMENTS ICUP) 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. 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. 55 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, *^ '~-~e~ 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 ~~~~*h *4+re~^ +^ +^., o,n;+~ 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 e~lt 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 curb cuts shall minimize conflict with vehicular traffic and should not adversely impact adjacent land uses; e) the density of the development a may not exceed the density recommended in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. fl two off-street parking spaces, at least one of which must be enclosed in a garage, must be provided for each dwelling unit. 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. 100 Ft. CLUSTER HOME 2.900 Sg. Ft. DEVELOPMENTS (CUP) 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. 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 USE FRONT REAR SIDE - SIDE - MAXIMUM 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 building 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: 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: 3,500 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 Density Single- Family Residential" in the citv's comprehensive plan: 2.900 sa uare feet er 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 ft 10 ft 15 Ft SCUP) IN R-SFH originally platted 25 . . . GUIDED-AREA street CLUSTER HOME DEVELOPMENT SCUP) 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 AGENDA SECTION: public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # 6 REPORT # g 9 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BRUCE SYLVESTER, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE i ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing and second 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: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the second reading of the attached ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code Section 416.07 Subdivision 2 (c) to create sign regulations for the new Service Office (SO-1) district. t'~1 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. 0409-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 • Please see the `Overview' for more details about this proposed ordinance revision and the Service-Office District in particular (see IV. Attachments section of this report). 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 first reading of this proposed ordinance was approved by the City Council at its March 26, 2002 meeting. • Approval of the second reading requires a simple majority of the full Council 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. ATTACI-IMENTS • Ordinance Amendment See Council Report #88 attachments for "Overview" of proposed ordinance amendments. 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: Public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # 5 REPORT # 88 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING '' °' ~ APRIL 9, 2002 BRUCE SYLVESTER, REPORT PREPARED BY: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~ ~~ _ ~~ ~ ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second, reading of an ordinance amendment to the Richfield City Zoning Code to create Section 524, a new zoning district for Service Office uses. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the second reading of the attached 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 0409-SO-1 District.doc 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. 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. • Parking requirements for Service Office uses will conform to current city standards for office uses. Specifically, the greater of 10 spaces or one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area will be required. A 4,000 square foot office use-the largest that would be permitted with special approval in the new district-would need to provide at least 16 off-street parking spaces. • Please see the attached `Overview' for more details regarding this proposed zoning ordinance amendment. 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 first reading of this proposed ordinance was approved by the City Council at its March 26, 2002 meeting.. • Approval of the second reading requires a simple majority of the full Council III. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reject the motion to amend Richfield City Zoning Code Section 524 creating the new SO-1 Zoning: District. IV. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance Amendment `Overview' for proposed ordinance amendments -- provides more complete details (including drawings showing possible configurations of a service- office site). V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A ,.o, 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 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, d~th, 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 building setback 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 f 25 f t t th t th° rovision Figure 12 Corner lot -- -- T- - ~ --- -- _. o- wo >! 30'< ' ~ "streetside" ' side lot line ®^; Key lot front lot line >~ curb minimum o ee , 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. Story 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. 2002. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of April, Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS TO ACCOMMODATE CURRENT MARKET TRENDS FOR HOUSING AND BUSINESSES 1. Creating aService-Office Zoning District. 2. Creating sign rules for a new Service-Office District. 3. Amending rules related to Cluster Home Developments. 4. Allowing living space over detached garages. APRIL, 2002 RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL Prepared by the Richfield Community Development Department. TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa e Introduction and Executive Summary 3 Proposed Service-Office District • Explanation of proposal for a new zoning district 4 6 • Pros and Cons for this new zoning district 6 • Parking issues ~ • Examples Proposed Cluster Home Ordinance Revisions • Explanation of proposal 8 9 • Pros and Cons for the proposed revisions 10 • Examples Proposed Ordinance Allowing Living Space Over Garages • Explanation of proposal 11 12 • .Pros and Cons for the proposed revisions 13 • Other matters Definitions of Terms Used in this Report 14 Appendix 1-Detailed Analysis of Current Cluster Home Development Zoning Regulations in Richfield 20 CityCouncilPrimer.doc -2- INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Richfield regulates the use of land within the City. The Planning Commission is charged with overseeing these regulations and recommending changes as necessary to the City Council. During a three month period between November of 2001 and February of 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a thorough review of current City regulations regarding business and residential uses. As a result of this review, the Planning Commission determined that updates to the City's zoning code would be appropriate. Specifically, the Planning Commission determined that changes are needed in two sections of the zoning code: 1) in commercial zoning districts to better protect residential neighborhoods and accommodate a variety of businesses and 2) in residential districts to better match the types of housing choices that can be built as guided by the Comprehensive Plan and to accommodate the styles and types of housing that will continue to make Richfield attractive in the market place for both current and new residents.. In response to these needs, the Planning Commission drafted proposed changes to our zoning ordinance. A brief outline and description of these proposed changes is provided below. 1) Proposed Service-Office District This ordinance revision will create a new zoning district to accommodate low- impact commercial uses, such as businesses that do not have a retail component. 2) Proposed Service-Office District Sign Re~~ulations. This ordinance revision proposes sign regulations for the new Service-Office district, and proposes using the same rules as currently used for the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district for the new Service-Office district. 3) Proposed Cluster Home Ordinance Revisions This ordinance revision will amend our current zoning rules to better accommodate Cluster Home developments. 4) Proposed Ordinance Allowing Living Space Over Garages This ordinance revision will allow space to be built over detached garages only when it is part of an approved Cluster Home Development and then only if located along a major arterial street. This space may be used for a variety of purposes, including a home office, a guest room, a child's play room, or an accessory apartment. This allowance would only apply to very specific parcels, only if a series of conditions are met, and only if a permit is issued. C ityCouncilPrimer. doc -3- SERVICE-OFFICE DISTRICT. Note: All underlined words in the following report are defined in easy-to-understand language in the `Definitions' section at the end of this report. Recommended action: Approve an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code Section 524 to create aService-Office zoning district. A. Explanation of proposal The Planning Commission is recommending the creation of a new zoning district. Currently, the City of Richfield has 13 zoning districts. (See definition of `zoning district' for more details about these 13 districts) Each of these zoning districts has rules about what kinds of uses are allowed in that zoning district. The Planning Commission has concluded that a new zoning district for service-office uses is necessary for the following reasons: • To better protect residential neighborhoods from sometimes unwanted retail uses. • A zoning district that allows for certain non-retail commercial activities adjacent to residential areas would provide more flexibility to the City's zoning code. • The City has the opportunity to accommodate low-intensity service oriented businesses with appropriate zoning districts in the City • Currently, businesses are only allowed in commercially-zoned areas. (With two exceptions...see "Home Occupations" and "Planned Unit Developments" in definitions section for more information.) • Areas or parcels of land that are zoned commercial allow retail sales. • Many businesses do not offer retail sales.. Examples ofnon-retail uses include executive offices, business offices, professional offices, and service offices. • To amend the zoning code to reflect the increasing number of service businesses in the nation's increasingly service-oriented economy. There are no plans 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, and the standard procedure for rezoning would be followed for any parcel to be rezoned to this new zoning classification. The uses that would be permitted (note that `permitted' in zoning has a specific meaning as explained in the definition section...) in the new zoning district are: CityCouncilPrimer.doc -4- The following uses will be allowed in buildings up to 4,000 sauare feet or less. • Executive, administrative, and non-profit organization offices • Business offices • Professional offices • Service businesses The following uses will be allowed in buildings with either no square foot size limit or the size limit indicated. • Multi-tenant office developments limited to a total of 6,000 square feet. • Religious institutions • Nursing or rest homes • Government buildings and public libraries. In addition to these allowed uses, accessory uses would also be allowed. (Again, please note that `accessory' in zoning has a specific meaning as explained in the definition.) • Accessory buildings such as sheds or garages • Parking lots • Warehouse space within a building that is primarily used for one of the permitted or conditional uses, so long as such warehouse space occupies no more than 30 percent of the building. • Antennas and antenna towers up to a 15 feet high (this is a federal requirement) • Fences, walls, and hedges • Apartments within a building that is primarily used for one of the permitted or conditional uses, so long as the apartment occupies no more than 50 percent of the building. In addition to these allowed uses, conditional uses would also be allowed. (Please note that `conditional use' has a specific zoning meaning, as explained in the definitions section.) • Office and service uses with more than 4,000 square feet • Multi-tenant office developments with more than 6,000 square feet • Licensed day care facilities with less than 5,000 square feet provided conditions are met including regulations for drop-off and pick-up sites, outdoor recreation equipment placement, and licensing. • Antennas and antenna towers taller than 15 feet in height (this is a federal requirement) • Major public utilities • Apartments within commercial buildings that exceed 50 percent of the building. CityCouncilPrimer.doc -5- NOTE: All uses not explicitly listed under `permitted', `accessory', and `conditional' uses would be prohibited in this new zoning district. Examples of businesses that will NOT be allowed include: gas stations, retail stores, restaurants, and automobile repair shops. B. Staff outline of pros and cons of the proposed ordinance Pros • Parcels can be rezoned to allow low-intensity businesses that will have minimal impacts on the surrounding properties-especially residential properties-without the concern that a future retail use will be established at that location. • The zoning code is made more flexible and accommodating for a variety of businesses. AService-Office district is also much less intensive than our existing commercial zoning districts. • A zoning district is created that corresponds with the `Office' use designated in the Comprehensive Plan. As a result, parcels can be zoned to be in compliance with their Comprehensive Plan designation. Cons An additional zoning district will be created and will need to be administered by the zoning administrator. C. Parking Matters Parking for all uses in the City of Richfield is regulated by parking standards. For general office uses, current city standards require "The greater of 10 spaces or 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area." A 4,000 square foot building (the largest that would be allowed for asingle-tenant building in the proposed district) would require at least 16 parking spaces, and more could be provided. For reference, the examples below show existing uses and parking: Bernie's Montessori School at 1100 E. 66th Street 20 spaces for their approx. 4,000 square foot building MN Valley School of Music at 6601 E. 66th Street 26 spaces for their approx. 4,000 square foot building. Salon Magic at 1415 East 66th Street Richfield Florists at 817 East 66th Street 13 spaces for their approx. 2,000 square foot building. 12 spaces for their approx. 4,000 square foot building. CityCouncilPrimer.doc -6- Please see the sample site plans on the following pages for how a site with a 4,000 square foot building and 16 parking spaces could be built on an interior parcel and on a corner parcel using the proposed site requirements of the proposed new zoning district. D. Sins The Planning Commission is recommending 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. Currently, signs are regulated by zoning district rules for signs vary from residential to commercial to industrial districts. The Planning Commission is recommending that the current rules for signs in the "C-1" zoning district (the Neighborhood Commercial district, which is the less intensive of Richfield's two commercial zoning districts) be the same rules that apply to the new Service- Office zoning district. Therefore, the proposed ordinance change is to simply add "Service-Office" to the "Neighborhood Commercial" section of the sign regulations. E. Examples • Bernie's Montessori is an example of anon-retail `service' use with approximately 4,000 square feet of space. • Minnesota Valley School of Music is an example of anon-retail `service' use with approximately 4,000 square feet of space. • Salon Magic on East 66th Street is an example of anon-retail `service' use with approximately 2,000 square feet of space. CityCouncilPrimer.doc -7- EXAMPLE OF PGSSIBLE Sl_TE. PLAN FOR AN OFFICE IN THE°~PROPOSED~ __ SEBViCE -OFFICE ISTFtICT ~~ ~~ ATE : INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK MAY BE REDUCEt~ TO l0 FEEr I F THE laT Li N E A@UTS !~ NQI~-REStDENTIAI~Y ZONED PARCEi". STr~~~~ S CAt..E~ t" = 2C,}~ 3 -28-02 r ro' _EXAMPLE Ot= P45St BLE SITE PLAN FQ R .AN._.OFFjCE~ IN THE ~P.ROP~SEQ } I S E R Y 1 C E_ - _Q_FF 1 C E__a? LST_R1CT ~ X20' ~ofi~ -- ---- ,~ - ---- a I ~ ~ N o 0 a~ CO ~ ;-- ~ ,_ ~ ~ g~ 22' /9' ~~ t- t ;:~ r. ~. ~~ ~ 10 1 l ~`~ H C a ~ - i ~ N N m -- -- --- ~, ~aoTE: tN r ERIQ~ SIDE SETEQCK MAY BE ~~E~UCED TO tQ FEET t~ Tf~E L4T LINE 4~sUT,S ,4 ~lQRj_ RESIQE'I'~Tt~~.~-ZONE.p PAF2C E"~. SO' i t 1 DCa. r Q l ER LO`~ ~ l5"' i 1 1 I e s' e J ~ ~D NT S` #~ E ET ~ CALE: I "= 20~ 3-28-G2 PROPOSED CLUSTER HOME ORDINANCE REVISIONS Recommended action: Approve an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code Section 521regarding limits-for density, set-backs, and height for Cluster Home Developments on parcels 1 acre or less in size. A. Explanation of proposal First, the term `cluster home development' must be defined before this proposed ordinance revision can be explained. A cluster home development is defined in the Richfield Zoning Code as: "A development of three or more detached one family dwellings or a row, group or cluster of attached one family dwellings. Dwelling units may be located on individual lots or on a lot in common." Townhouses are an example of a cluster home development. Cluster home developments are a common method for achieving greater residential densities. • The City of Richfield has said that it wants Hiah-Density Single-Family Residential uses on 782 parcels in the City. (For a complete explanation of how the City has expressed this desire for higher density housing on 782 parcels, please see Appendix 1 for a summary of the City's Comprehensive Plan.) • Currently, zoning regulations for the city limit these 782 parcels to a maximum density of 11 units per acre. (For a complete explanation of how current zoning regulations limit density to 11 units per acre on these 782 parcels, please see Appendix 1 for a summary of current zoning regulations.) • After reviewing current housing developments in both Richfield and in neighboring suburban communities, the Planning Commission determined that Richfield's current limit of 11 units per acre is too restrictive to meet current housing market trends. The Planning Commission also determined that limiting development to 11 units per acre does not meet the intent of "high density" as required by the Comprehensive Plan. • The Planning Commission has not altered the requirement that cluster home development projects on parcels smaller than one acre in size receive a Conditional Use Permit, or a CUP. A CUP requires that projects can be built only if they meet a series of requirements-or conditions-and only after they have been reviewed by city staff, the Planning Commission, the City Council, anc~through public hearings-the community. Please see the definition section for more information about CUPs. Good public policy as well as State law requires that the City's zoning code be written so that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan can be accomplished. Because the Comprehensive Plan calls for higher density housing on 782 parcels, and because our zoning code is currently written ss~ that this goal may be difficult or impossible to meet, the Planning Commission is recommending that the zoning CityCouncilPrimer.doc -8- code be changed so that implementation of the Comprehensive Plan can be achieved. • Currently, the private housing market is calling for-and other communities are allowing--cluster home developments with densities that range up to 32 units per acre. • The last two cluster home development projects that have been built in Richfield are good examples of the densities that are current in the housing market-one has a residential density of 32 units per acre (The Oaks on Pleasant) while the other has 25 units per acre (Casteel Place). (Note- both of these projects encompass more than one acre and were therefore processed as a PUD and not a CUP...Please see Appendix 1 for a detailed explanation of how projects over one acre in size are reviewed and regulated versus projects under one acre in size.) Examples from neighboring communities confirm that higher density cluster home developments are an attractive housing alternative that should be allowed in Richfield. Please see the attached photographs. B. Staff outline of pros and cons of the proposed ordinance Pros • The proposed changes will allow for smaller Cluster Home developments on parcels smaller than one acre in size, rather than limiting higher density residential developments to only parcels that are larger than one acre. • Because the proposed changes still require Cluster Home developments to receive a Conditional Use Permit, public review and neighbor notification will still be required, as will Planning Commission review and City Council approval. • Multiple goals of the Comprehensive Plan will be accomplished, including: • Amore diverse housing stock will be provided for residents of Richfield. • A greater variety of housing alternatives will be encouraged. • The City's land-use regulations will be in conformance with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. • The proposed changes will allow housing in Richfield that consumers are seeking in the housing market, especially on smaller parcels. Cons Some residents may be opposed to new Cluster Home developments in Richfield. Some residents mistakenly equate high-density housing with low-income or transient populations. CityCouncilPrimer.doc -9- C. Examples and Photos of Cluster Home Developments Including Density Information. Please see the following pages for photos of and information about cluster home developments that have been built recently in the metro area. ~. CityCouncilPrimer.doc -10- a~ d e~ w v .~ z~ b c~ 0 ^. c~ s~ a~ 0 C7 w 0 ~. s. 0 U w h S: O ~ to ~O~rr V ~ ~"i C~ c. ~ V ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ '~ ~ ,~' U ~+ t," azA a~ c d ... b c~ b c~ 0 c~ ~. 0 ~7 0 v s. 0 U h {~..~ 7.r O ~ ~ ~", C~ O V y ~ CC ~ ~ S. ~ V °" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C7~°~° a a~ ,.~' v ~ C o ~ ~ ~.1ZA _.~ rr '+ ~ti ~ i ~fw ..:9 .•~ -i ~ . r~ ~~ ~ ~?. 4 ~ ~:.rS ..+3 ~~. It ,~y M ~~yy ~~~yyl i~ •'y ~~y ~V~yy PM ~~y V N0 I~ ^~ ^y ~:; ~:~t- 1.1 ~~y V ~~ ~I~M 0 IL ~1 V ~}Qyy ~1 1~1 ~ U °" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~° ~ ~ C7~°~° a ,.~' ~ ~ ~ azA ~. b 0 z w ~. N w 0 x. 0 v .C 0 C ~. a .~ 0 a C O 0 V ~ 0 a ^° a ,. U ~ L: O ~ ~ aza v s, c ~. 0 z d ~. N w 0 ~. ~. 0 U r.+ 1." L O C i. GCS .~ O -.~ h C." O O V ~ +~' 1, v~ y ~ ~ t' ~ ... a ~ L: ~y~++ ~ ~" V ~i L". O ~ ~ azA 0 Z d e~ c~ ~. Q+ ~. ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ +~ a~ w ~ b ~" o " cis ~ ~ C. ~ G ~ ~ ~ '~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~xr° a~ ,~' U ~ L: O ~ ~ azA tf,, ~~, 3 ~~ s ~~r . 0 z a .? ~~ ~~ 0 ~ ~ o ~ c~ ~ ~ .~ ~. e~ ~. c. C ,~' v ~ ~ aza M ^C ~'. ^C C~ O i. O S, V a :x~ a 0 x 0 ~. 0 ~~ ~ ,~ o ~, ~~ f. ~ O ~ .r.+ :C L", ~ ~. U C~ Sr C: d' ~--~ C". O ~+ y .~ V ~ C O ~ ~ azA M ^C C Ri ^C C~ O i. O it V a a 0 x 0 ~~ ~~ o~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ o ~~~ ~~~ ~3~" 0 ;; ,.~ ~~~ o~~ azA M b C~ 'C O i. O i. U o, 0 x w 0 b O v S! r.S O ~„ C ~ .x' C ~ bA O .~ y ... 1~ -~ C ti v CL r.+ .. C '~+ y .~' U ~ C; O ~ ~ azA ,v ~ ~ w r.., ~~ 7~ °~ ~~ ~ .a,,j c~ ~~` } ~ w ~~~ ~ ~ ~a ,,~~~ .~~o~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~: D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i F M L: ~+ ~ ~~' ~ ~ G O ~ ~ aza 1 f ~~ I~ TT.F^i V1 z~ *; <=i ;.'~',. .' ~ ~ n, ~ ~ ILI ~i Fey 0 ^~^ ICI .' y ~ ~i w 4 '~ ~~ ~ tYiHM C '~` ~ ~ .~ ~`k aZA ~, U CC ~ ~ ~ ~ CL bA ~ ~.+ Ori .. C". O '~ y .~' U ~ L: O ~ ~ azA a M w ca i, C". O S: O L," V O M N ^CS O i. O S. V s~ a 0 x w 0 v 0 ~ ~ ~, ~ U C~ ~ ~ ~ L; ~ Cr ~ ~ ~ {:, O L" C ~ ~ r .. .-i C Gj ~~" v ~ C O C~ 6~ azA PROPOSED ORDINANCE ALLOWING LIVING SPACE OVER GARAGES IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES Recommended action: Approve an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code Section 521 to allow living space over detached garages as part of an approved Cluster Home Development on parcels identified in the Comprehensive Plan as High-Density Single-Family residential. A. Explanation of proposal Currently the City of Richfield does not allow livin sg~nace over detached garages in any zoning district in the City. Living space over attached garages is allowed with an approved building permit. The Planning Commission reviewed methods for increasing the density of housing along major arterial streets in Richfield to accomplish the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. One approach that the Planning Commission considered was to allow living space over detached garages along these arterial streets. Currently, the height of detached garages is limited to 14 feet from grade. The building inspectors limit the height of a second level (or second `story') in a detached garage to no more than 4 feet in ceiling height, so a garage could have an 8 foot ceiling on the first level and a space 4 feet in height on the second level for storage. A detached garage could not currently have 6 feet of storage on a second level. This 4 foot ceiling height restriction for the second story of a detached garage is in place to allow people to store boxes in a second level of their garage, but to prevent space that could be used for an office or living space. The Planning Commission considered allowing the space over detached garages to be increased to one full story only in very particular situations and only if a series of requirements are met, as described below: One, the Comprehensive Plan identifies 782 parcels for higher density single- family housing along arterial streets in Richfield. The Planning Commission discussed allowing living space over detached garages in only these areas as one method for increasing allowable densities. Two, the Planning Commission decided that living space over detached garages would not be allowed on any parcels, but only on parcels that were developed as an approved Cluster Home Development. This decision meant that living space over detached garages would only be allowed in cluster home developments. This decision also meant that living space over detached garages would only be allowed after review by city staff, the Planning Commission, neighbors and community members through the public hearing process, and the City Council. CityCouncilPrimer.doc -11- (Note that the reviews described in the preceding sentence arise from the fact that ._ cluster home developments must receive a CUP. See the definition of CUP for more information... ) Three, the Planning Commission determined a set of standards to regulate living space over detached gazages on those pazcels where they would be allowed as part of a cluster home development. These standards include 1) limiting the height of the detached gazage to no more than 22 feet or no taller than the primary structure-whichever is less, 2) limiting the total azea of the living space to no more than 500 squaze feet to insure that it is truly secondarv to the np .mazy residence, and 3) requiring two pazking spaces in addition to the number of pazking spaces required for the primary residence. This additional parking is required since pazcels that aze designated for high-density single family residential are located along arterial streets that do not allow on-street parking. B. Staff outline of pros and cons of the proposed ordinance Pros • Development that is consistent with the adopted goals for the community will be facilitated-specifically, higher density along major arterials will be allowed as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. • A greater variety of housing options will be made available in the community. • Living space that is built over gazages will be available for a variety of uses such as storage, home office, or play room. Such living space over a detached gazage can only be used as an independent living space if the density limitations for the development are not exceeded. If living space over a detached garage is used as an independent living space, it will need to be licensed and inspected annually by the City. • The procedure required to receive permission (a CUP) to build living space over a detached gazage will require staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and community review before such space is approved. • The flexibility of living space over garages matches the transit-oriented and neighborhood business qualities already provided on arterials. Cons • Because the proposed changes will allow living space over detached garages only on major arterial street, property owners who do not live along a maj or arterial street who want to build living space over their detached gazage will not be able to. As a result, these property owners may be more inclined to request a vaziance to allow them to build living space over their detached garage by azguing that "those people are allowed to have living space over their detached gazages so I ought to be able to also." However, the Comprehensive Plan which guides our zoning C ityCouncilPrimer.doc -12- rules-does not recommend higher densities on all parcels in Richfield- but onl~on parcels along arterial streets. Therefore, variances are unlikely to be granted for living spaces over detached garages on non- arterial streets. • Parking, number of persons per residence, and congestion are possible outcomes. C. Other Matters As noted earlier, allowing `livable' space over detached garages does not necessarily mean that the space will be occupied as a living space. For example-the owners of the property may use the space for a home office or for a play room for their children. In situations where the `livable' space over a detached garage is occupied as a living space, the City's Inspections Division has stated that they will treat such space as any other apartment in the City-a rental license will be required of the property owner and annual property inspections will be conducted. CityCouncilPrimer.doc -13- DEFINITIONS The definitions below are those words and terms used in this report that have a specific meaning relevant to land-use regulations. Accessory Use. A use associated with, incidental to, and on the same lot as, a principal use. Storing a car on a parcel is accessory to the primary use of living on a parcel in residential districts. See also: Zoning District, Primary Use, Permitted Use, Principle Use, Secondary Use. Arterial, Arterial Street. A street which connects adjacent sub-regions and activity centers within sub-regions. Examples of arterial streets in Richfield include: Penn, Lyndale, and Nicollet Avenues. Attached, Attached Dwelling. A dwelling which is joined to another dwelling at one or more sides by a party wall or walls. Sharing a party wall. Attached residential units such as townhouses do not have yards separating the individual dwelling units. Business, and Business Uses, and Business Offices. Commercial activity, including retail, service, and office uses. See also: Service-Office Use, Service Office Zoning District. Cluster Home, Cluster Home Development. A development of three or more detached one family dwellings or a row, group, or cluster of attached one family dwellings. Dwelling units may be located on individual lots or on a lot in common. See also: Townhomes and Townhouses. Commercial, Commercial Use, Commercial District, and Commercially-zoned. Activity that is neither residential nor industrial, typically including retail, service, and office uses. A commercial district includes parcels that are commercially-zoned to allow these kinds of uses. See also: Zoning Districts. Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is an officially adopted City plan showing how land within the City is ~~ designated for future use. The Comprehensive Plan outlines desired uses and densities for parcels located within the City. CityCouncilPrimer.doc -14- Conditional Use, Conditional Use Permit, and CUP. A use, either public or private, which because of its unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified as a permitted use in a particular district. After due consideration in each case, of the impact of such use upon neighboring land, and of public need for the particular use at.the particular location, such use may or may not be approved by the Council. If the Council approves of such use, a Conditional Use Permit will be granted to the property owner allowing the use in question to be conducted on the parcel. See also: Zoning Districts. Detached, Detached dwelling. A single dwelling which is entirely surrounded by open space on all sides. Dwelling. Any building or portion thereof used exclusively for residential occupancy, including single family, two family, and multi-family dwellings, but not including nursing homes, rest homes, or hotels. Executive, and Executive Use, and Executive Offices. Business activity that does not entail retail sales or heavy customer traffic. Lawyers, architects, and accountants are examples of executive office uses. See also: Service-O, ffice Use, Service-Office Zoning District. High-Density. Density is defined as the number of units, such as dwellings, per acre. The more units per acre, the higher the density. `High' density is a subjective measure and varies from community to community-what is considered high-density in one community may be considered low density in others. `High' density also varies between single-family developments and multi-family developments. Currently, the City of Richfield defines single-family high-density up to 12 units per acre, and multi-family high-density up to 24 units per acre. See also: Comprehensive Plan. Home Occupations. A business activity of a service character which is clearly incidental to the principal use of the premises as a dwelling and which does not alter the exterior of the property or affect the character of the neighborhood. Industrial, Industrial Use, Industrial District, and Industrially Zoned. Industrial activities including manufacturing, warehousing, assembly, distribution, packaging, and other high-intensity uses. The industrial district includes parcels that are industrially zoned to allow these kinds of uses. See also: Zoning Districts. CityCouncilPrimer.doc -15- Living Space. Living space is defined by the building code to have sufficient square footage, height, and facilities such as bath to adequately accommodate a person or family. Maior Public Utilities. Public utility buildings with more than 500 square feet of gross floor area; electric sub-stations; orhigh-voltage transmission lines. Office and Office Use. Offices are enclosed business spaces primarily for use by on-site employees and not serving customers on-site. See also: Service-O~ce Use, Service-O~ce Zoning District. Owner-Occupied. A dwelling unit that is occupied by the owner of the dwelling. Permitted Use. A principal use which may be lawfully established in a particular district, provided it conforms with all the requirements, regulations and performance standards of such district. An example of a permitted use is asingle-family home on a parcel zoned `R'. An apartment building would not be a permitted use on a parcel zoned `R', but would either be conditional or prohibited. See also: Zoning Districts, Primary Use, Principle Use, Accessory Use, Secondary Use. . Primary Use. See principle use. See also: Zoning District, Principle Use, Permitted Use, Accessory Use, Secondary Use. Principle Use. The primary purpose for which land or premises or a building thereon is designed, arranged or intended or for which it is or may be occupied or maintained. See also: Zoning District, Primary Use, Permitted Use, Accessory Use, Secondary Use. Planned Unit Developments, and PUD's. A planned unit development is a development of land that is under unified control and is planned and developed as a whole in a single development operation or in a programmed series of development stages. The development may include streets, circulation ways, utilities, buildings, open spaces, and other site features and improvements. A planned unit development is built according to a detailed final development plan, as approved by the City Council. Professional. and Professional Use, and Professional Offices. CityCouncilPrimer.doc -16- Business activity that does not entail retail sales or heavy customer traffic. Lawyers, architects, and accountants are examples of professional office uses. See also: Service-O~ce Use, Service-Office Zoning District. Residential, Residential Use, Residential District, and Residentially Zoned. Housing activity for individuals and families other than institutional facilities such as retirement homes, prisons, or mental institutions. Single family homes, apartment buildings and townhouses are examples of residential uses. Residential districts include properties that are residentially zoned and allow these types of uses. See also: Zoning Districts. Retail. and Retail Sales. The sale of products to the general public. Grocery stores, bait shops, automobile parts stores, and music stores are examples of retail sales. See also: Commercial, and Commercially-zoned. Secondary Use. See accessory use. See also: Zoning District, Primary Use, Permitted Use, Principle Use, Accessory Use. Service, Service Business, Service Use. and Service Offices. s ~ `'= ~~ •ii~ i See also: Cluster Home Develoments. Use. Activities on a parcel, such as residential, commercial, or industrial. Uses are categorized as permitted, accessory, conditional, and prohibited. Zoning District. An area or areas of the City for which the regulations under the zoning code governing use, land, and structure are uniform. Each zoning district designation includes 4 major categories: Permitted Uses; Accessor~Uses; Conditional Uses; and Physical requirements. -Please see the defmitions section for the definition of these terms. Following is a brief description of these 4 categories within each zoning district: The `Permitted Uses' section of each zoning district outlines those uses which are permitted on any parcel within that district. These uses do not require city review or approval-a property owner can utilize his or her property for a permitted use so long as the Physical Requirements of that zoning district are met. (see "Physical Requirements" below... ) The `Accessory Uses' section of each zoning district outlines those uses which are permitted on any parcel within that district in addition to a `Permitted Use'. These `accessory uses' must be secondary or incidental to the `principle use' (Note: a `Principle Use' is the `Permitted Use'.--these two terms are used interchangeably...) Examples of an accessory use are garages, gazebos, or storage buildings. The `Conditional Uses' section of each zoning district outlines those uses which are allowed on a parcel within that district only after the city reviews the proposed use and issues a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). These `conditional uses' are only allowed if the requirements spelled-out in the zoning code are met and if the City issues a permit. Conditional Uses are typically uses that have the potential to negatively impact surrounding properties and so conditions such as screening or set-backs are imposed. The `Physical Requirements' section of each zoning district outlines the requirements for the parcels themselves and the buildings upon the parcel. These requirements include minimum lot size, building set-back requirements, building height limits and other matters of a physical nature. CityCouncilPrimer.doc -18- Current zoning districts are: 1) Industrial 2) Neighborhood Business 3) General Commercial 4) High Density Commercial 5) Single-Family Residential 6) Low-density Single Family Residential 7) Multifamily Residential (discontinued) 8) Two Family Residential 9) Medium Density Multi-Family Residential 10) High Density Multi-Family Residential 11) Planned Unit Development General Commercial 12) Planned Unit Development Multifamily Residential 13) Planned Unit Development Two Family Residential Proposed zoning district is: A) Service-Office CityCouncilPrimer.doc -19- APPENDIX ONE DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CURRENT CITY OF RICHFIELD CLUSTER HOME DEVELOPMENT ZONING REGULATIONS Background (For an explanation and history of the term `cluster home' in Richfield, please see the definition section of this report.) • Cluster Home developments can be built on any size parcel; however, the type of regulations that will apply to a particular cluster home development proposal will depend upon the size of the parcel being developed. • Two different sets of regulations exist-one set of regulations will guide cluster home developments on parcels smaller than one acre while a different set of regulations will guide cluster home developments on parcels larger than one acre. • For cluster home development proposals for parcels smaller than one acre- -a Conditional Use Permit is required. (Please see the definitions section for an explanation of Conditional Use Permits.) • Each separate zoning district has its own set of conditions which must be met for a cluster home development, or in other words, the requirements for a cluster home development CUP vary between the different zoning districts such as `R', `MR-1', and `MR-2' districts. • For cluster home development proposals for parcels larger than one acre-a Planned Unit Development is used. (Please see the definitions section for an explanation of Planned Unit Developments.) The current proposed revisions to the City's zoning ordinance will only affect the regulations that apply to cluster home development proposals on parcels smaller than one acre. In other words, the proposed revisions to the City's zoning ordinance only apply to the requirements for cluster home development Conditional Use Permits, which only apply to parcels smaller than one acre in size. (Note-because cluster home developments on parcels larger than one acre are regulated by the rules for Planned Unit Developments, the proposed changes to the CUP requirements do not affect cluster home development proposals larger than one acre.) CityCouncilPrimer.doc -20- Proposed Ordinance Revisions The preceding Background Section provided an outline of the current and existing set of regulations for how cluster home development proposals are reviewed and either approved or denied by the City. The following paragraphs outline how the proposed revisions to Richfield ordinances improve our existing regulations for cluster home developments and make them more compatible with both our Comprehensive Plan and current housing market conditions. Again, the proposed changes only affect the requirements for a CUP for a cluster home development, and therefore the proposed changes only affect cluster home development proposals that are not covered by our PUD regulations. Current Zoning Districts Where Cluster Home Developments on Parcels Less Than 1 Acre are Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. Cluster Home developments of less than one acre in size are currently allowed in Richfield as follows: Allowed: • In the `R' district, Cluster Home developments are allowed with a CUP. • In the `MR-1' district, Cluster Home developments are allowed with a CUP. • In the `MR-2' district, Cluster Home developments are allowed with a CUP. Not Allowed: • In the `R-1' district, Cluster Home developments are not allowed. • In the `MR-3' district, Cluster Home developments are not allowed. (Note: in ALL districts, Cluster Home development proposals of over one acre are allowed if reviewed and approved as a PUD.) Current Requirements of a CUP for a Cluster Home development. In the three districts where Cluster Home developments are allowed on parcels smaller than one acre (`R', `MR-1' and `MR-2') -several conditions must be met in order for the necessary Conditional Use Permit to be issued. These conditions address issues such as parking, landscaping, driveway locations and other site , concerns. Most importantly for this discussion is the fact that in all three zoning districts, one of the requirements necessary for a Conditional Use Permit for a Cluster Home development project on a parcel smaller than one acre is the following requirement: "the density of the development shall not exceed the density recommended in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan". This density CityCouncilPrimer.doc -21- requirement is included for a Cluster Home development project in the `R', `MR- 1' and `MR-2' districts. The Comprehensive Plan. The reference to the Comprehensive Plan in the requirements which must be met for a CUP for a Cluster Home development on parcels zoned `R', `MR-1' and `MR-2' in the paragraph above introduces another level of complexity into this discussion. • The Comprehensive Plan shows how the community wants the City to develop over time. • Parcels are designated a variety of ways on the Comprehensive Plan map, such as "Single Family Residential" or "Commercial" or "Park". • It is important to remember that these designations do not show how a particular parcel is currently used, but rather how the City and the community have indicated they want the parcel to be used in the future: • One type of designation for property in the Comprehensive Plan is "High Density Single-Family Residential" and the plan shows that this type of use is the long-term goal for many parcels in the City. • The Comprehensive Plan uses the phrase "High Density Single-Family Attached" residential. This term is generally interpreted to mean Cluster Home developments such as townhouses, as opposed to High-Density non-single family (which would include apartment buildings) or Low- Density single-family (which would include individual houses). The use of the term `attached' in the definition especially indicates that town homes are the intended uses on these parcels. • The Comprehensive Plan states that these parcels are intended to have densities "up to 12 units per acre". • Staff research has concluded that 12 units per acre is not considered "high density" in the overwhelming majority of other communities. The proposed ordinance revisions ONLY apply to parcels designated in the Comprehensive Plan as "High Density Single-Family Residential". These parcels are located along the major arterial streets of Richfield such as Penn, Portland and Nicollet. The Comprehensive Plan states that the City envisions parcels along these streets to ultimately be developed as high density single family residential. It is important to note that the proposed ordinance revisions for CUP requirements for Cluster Home developments DO NOT apply to parcels beyond those identified in the Comprehensive Plan as "High Density Single- Family Residential". The proposed zoning ordinance changes ONLY affect parcels that are designated ,F~ in the Comprehensive Plan as High Density Single-Family residential. How are these parcels zoned and what are the relevant zoning regulations for these parcels? CityCouncilPrimer.doc -22- What is the Current Situation in Richfield? • 782 parcels are designated in the Comprehensive Plan as High Density Single Family Residential. • Of these parcels, 665 are zoned `R', 57 are zoned `MR-1', and 28 are zoned `MR-2'. (The remaining 32 parcels are zoned as commercial or PUD and are therefore not addressed in this report...) Returning now to the zoning rules for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for a town-house project, the following section outlines the requirements in each of the three zoning districts that allow such developments and illustrate what our current land-use regulations allow. 1) In the `R' District, Cluster Home developments are allowed on parcels smaller than one acre in size with a Conditional Use permit, and such developments are limited to "three to ten units" on any parcel. This limit means that no more than 10 units can be built in a Cluster Home project, although the density of the project may be more than 10 units per acre, as explained below. A requirement for receiving the Conditional Use Permit is that "the density of the development shall not exceed the density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan". As described earlier, the Comprehensive Plan limits densities on parcels that are designated as High Density Single Family Residential to no more than 12 units per acre (see above). Two examples in the `R' district will illustrate what the current regulations can allow for Cluster Home projects on parcels smaller than one acre. Example One: on a half-acre lot, 6 Cluster Homes are currently allowed for a density of 12 units per acre. 8 Cluster Homes would not currently be allowed because 8 Cluster Homes on a half acre lot would be 16 units per acre. Lastly, 4 Cluster Homes would be allowed because the density would be less than the Comprehensive Plan density limit. Example Two: On a parcel `just shy' of one acre, 10 units are the most allowed, for a density of approximately 10 units per acre. While the Comprehensive Plan allows for densities `up to 12 units per acre', the current language of the zoning code limits the total number of units to 10. As a result, there is an inconsistency between our zoning code and our Comprehensive Plan. One of the changes suggested in the current ordinance revisions is to increase the allowable number of units to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Please remember, for a parcel larger than one acre, a Cluster Home development would be reviewed using PUD regulations and not the CUP regulations outlined here. CityCouncilPrimer.doc -23- In the `MR-1' district, Cluster Home developments are allowed on parcels smaller than one acre in size with a Conditional Use Permit, and such developments are limited to "three to ten units" on any parcel. This limit means that no more than 10 units can be built in a Cluster Home project, although the density of the project may be more than 10 units per acre, as explained below. A requirement for receiving the Conditional Use Permit is that "the density of the development shall not exceed the density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan". As described earlier, the Comprehensive Plan limits densities on parcels that are designated as High Density Single Family Residential to no more than 12 units per acre (see above...) Two examples in the `MR-1' district will illustrate what the current regulations can allow for Cluster Home projects on parcels smaller than one acre. Example One: on a half-acre lot, 6 Cluster Homes are currently allowed for a density of 12 units per acre. 8 Cluster Homes would not currently be allowed because 8 Cluster Homes on a half acre lot would be 16 units per acre. Lastly, 4 Cluster Homes would be allowed because the density would be less than the Comprehensive Plan density limit. Example Two: On a parcel `just shy' of one acre, 10 units are the most allowed, for a density of approximately 10 units per acre. While the Comprehensive Plan allows for densities `up to 12 units per acre', the current language of the zoning code limits the total number of units to 10. Again as in the `R' district, there is an inconsistency between our zoning code and our Comprehensive Plan. One of the changes suggested in the current ordinance revisions is to increase the allowable number of units to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. CityCouncilPrimer.doc -24- In the `MR-2' district, Cluster Home developments are also allowed on parcels smaller than one acre in size with a Conditional Use Permit. Unlike the `R' and the `MR-1' districts, however, no limit is explicitly specified on the number of Cluster Homes permitted on a parcel. Minimum lot requirements, however, are provided, and by calculating the number of units which could be built on a parcel using the minimum lot size requirements, density limits can be calculated. When calculated, these minimum lot sizes effectively mean that densities for Cluster Home projects on a parcel zoned `MR-2' are limited to either 12, 14, or 17 units per acre, depending on the number of units built. (for projects with more units higher densities are allowed...) However, because the proposed ordinance revisions only affect parcels that are designated as High Density Single Family Residential on the Comprehensive plan, the CUP requirement that a Cluster Home project conform with the density limits set by the Comprehensive Plan effectively limits the allowable density for a Cluster Home project to only 12 units per acre in the `MR-2' district (Again, the Comprehensive Plan limits densities on parcels that are designated as High Density Single Family Residential to no more than 12 units per acre...see above...) Two examples in the `MR-2' district will illustrate what the current regulations can allow for Cluster Home projects on parcels smaller than one acre. Example One: on a half-acre lot, 6 Cluster Homes are currently allowed for a density of 12 units per acre. 8 Cluster Homes would not currently be allowed because 8 Cluster Homes on a half acre lot would be 16 units per acre. Lastly, 4 Cluster Homes would be allowed because the density would be less than the Comprehensive Plan density limit. Example Two: On a parcel `just shy' of one acre, 11 units are the most allowed, for a density of approximately 11 units per acre. Unlike the `R' and the `MR-1' districts, no limit on the number of units is specified in the zoning code itself, and so the only limit on the allowable density is the Conditional Use Permit requirement that the density limit of the Comprehensive Plan be met. (Note: If 12 units were built on a parcel `just shy' of one acre-the actual density would (barely) exceed 12 units per acre. Again, if the parcel were larger than one acre, a PUD would be utilized rather than a Conditional Use Permit). CityCouncilPrimer.doc -25- Flow Chart Showing Cluster Home Development Review Process. Is project for a parcel smaller or larger than one acre in size? A. If project is smaller than one acre in size, apply for CUP for a Cluster Home Development Project. B. If project is larger than one acre in size, apply for a PUD. 2. For parcels smaller than one acre, determine the zoning of the parcel. If the parcel is zoned R, MR-1, or MR-2, a CUP can be requested. If the parcel is not zoned R, MR-1, or MR-2, the parcel either must be rezoned or a Cluster Home Development cannot be built. 3. Determine the density limit (as established by the Comprehensive Plan) for the parcel in question. All parcels are designated in the Comprehensive Plan as some type of use. Residential uses include density limits. The proposal should be reviewed to see if the proposed density will meet the Comprehensive Plan limits. 4. Review the proposal to see if it meets the requirements of the Conditional Use permit, including the requirement that the proposal meet the density limits stated for the parcel in question by the Comprehensive Plan. If the proposal meets most or all of the requirements, schedule the proposal for review by the Planning Commission. 5. Hold a public hearing at the Planning Commission. Inform neighbors and property owners within 350 feet about the public hearing. Planning Commission will review the proposal and make a recommendation to the City Council. 6. The City Council holds a second public hearing and considers the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding whether or not the proposed Cluster Home Development should be granted the necessary Conditional Use Permit. 7. If the CUP is granted, the development can be built. CityCouncilPrimer.doc -26- AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 Public Hearings 4 87 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of a resolution regarding a housing program joint powers agreement and the issuance of revenue bonds relating to residential group home facilities on behalf of Fraser (a Minnesota non-profit corporation) under the Municipal Housing Program Act and related statutes. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolution 1) recognizing Richfield as a "participant city"; 2) authorizing a joint powers agreement relating to residential group home facilities; 3) approving a related housing program on behalf of Fraser; and 4) issuing revenue bonds thereof under the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C as amended and sections 469.162-469.165 as amended. III. BACKGROUND Fraser has significant facilities within the City of Richfield within close proximity to ~ Penn Avenue. Those facilities are not a part of this proposed transaction. Fraser owns and operates 22 residential group home facilities in the cities of Blaine, Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield. The facility in Richfield is located at 6527-5th Avenue. 0409fraser In addition, Fraser has a significant facility at 3333 University Avenue SE in -~ ~ Minneapolis. All of these facilities are included in a debt consolidation refinancing proposal in which Blaine would issue approximately $4 million of revenue bonds. Because a portion of the bonds would be issued on their property in Richfield, the City is being asked to become a "participant city". There will be no financial obligation against Richfield (Richfield played a similar role in a similar situation about 14 months ago with Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, Inc.). Each of the other cities noted above is being asked to assume a role as "participant city" except for Blaine which will be the issuer. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield has assumed the role of "participant city" previously with other non-profits. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Participation will strengthen the housing resources of the community. C. FINANCIAL • The City is not assuming any financial liability as a "participating community". D. LEGAL • The notice of public hearing was published on March 20, 2002 in the .Sun Current. Staff did not have an opportunity to review the notice. There are two errors which legal counsel has opined will not cause any legal process problems. One error indicates that the Council meets at 7:00 p.m. It must be that this item does not come up for hearing until 7:00 p.m. or after. Secondly, the notice indicated Monday, April 9. If someone comes to the Council Chambers on Monday, they will learn that the hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, April 9. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Delay action. • Reject participation. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Public hearing notice • Joint Powers Agreement • Housing Financing Program • Memo from John Utley, Kennedy & Graven VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING representative of Fraser (a Minnesota non-profit corporation) ~, RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL GROUP HOME FACILITIES OWNED AND OPERATED BY FRASER, A MINNESOTA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, AND THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE THE COSTS THEREOF UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, AS AMENDED, AND MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 469.152-469.165, AS AMENDED, PURSUANT TO A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT; GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL THERETO; ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN REIMBURSEMENT REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986, AS AMENDED; GRANTING APPROVAL FOR ENTERING INTO A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT; AND TAKING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City is a home rule city duly organized and existing under its Charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota. 1.02. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 - 469.165, as amended, (collectively, the "Act"), the City is authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the Act by providing for the issuance of revenue bonds to provide funds to finance multifamily housing developments and revenue producing enterprises located within the City. 1.03. Fraser, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Company") has proposed that the City, pursuant to the Act, authorize the City of Blaine, Minnesota (the "City of Blaine") to issue revenue bonds of the City of Blaine in the approximate aggregate principal amount not to exceed $4,000,000, in one or more series at one time or from time to time (the "Bonds"), the proceeds of which will be loaned by the City of Blaine to the Company to be applied by the Company to: (i) refinance the costs to the Company of twenty-two residential group home facilities (collectively, the "Project") located in the City, the City of Blaine, and in the cities of Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield (collectively with the City and the City of Minneapolis, the "Participant Cities"), including the group home facilities located at 6527 Fifth Avenue S. in the City; (ii) finance the costs of the rehabilitation of the residential group home facilities comprising the Project; (iii) refinance the costs of a development achievement center for children with autism and related disorders located at 3333 University Avenue S.E. in the City of Minneapolis (the "Minneapolis Facility"); and (iv) finance the costs of issuing the Bonds. 1 1.04. The City is required to adopt a housing program (the "Housing Program") pursuant to Section 46X.03, subdivision la, of the Act, prior to the issuance of revenue bonds. 1.05. Under Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), prior to the issuance of the Bonds, a public hearing, duly noticed, must be held by the City Council. Under Section 46X.04, subdivision 2, of the Act, the City must conduct a public hearing, duly noticed, with respect to the Housing Program and the portion of the Project located in the City. A public hearing was held on Apri19, 2002, after publication of notice on March 20, 2002, in the Richfield Sun-Current, a newspaper circulating generally in the City, with respect to: (i) the required public hearing under Section 147(f) of the Code; (ii) the Housing Program; and (iii) the preliminary approval of the issuance of the Bonds. Section 2. Preliminary Findings. Based on representations made by the Company to the City to date, the City Council of the City hereby makes the following preliminary findings, determinations, and declarations: (a) The Bonds will refinance the outstanding indebtedness incurred with respect to the residential group home facilities for the developmentally disabled comprising the Project and will also refinance a development achievement center for children with autism and related disorders comprising the Minneapolis Facility. (b) The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to the Company by the City of Blaine and the proceeds of the loan will be applied to refinance the Project, finance the rehabilitation of the Project, refinance the Minneapolis Facility, and finance the issuance costs of the Bonds. The City of Blaine will enter into a Loan Agreement with the Company requiring loan repayments from the Company in amounts sufficient to repay the loan when due and requiring the Company to pay all costs of maintaining and insuring the Project, including taxes thereon. (c) In authorizing the issuance of the Bonds and the financing and refinancing of the portion of the Project located in the City and related costs, the City's purpose is and the effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare of the City and its residents by retaining and improving group home facilities and otherwise furthering the purposes and policies of the Act. (d) The Bonds will be limited obligations of the City of Blaine payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, and will not be a general or moral obligation of the City or be secured by the taxing power or any property or assets of the City. Section 3. Preliminary Approval. The City Council hereby gives preliminary approval to the issuance of the Bonds pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Blaine and the Participant Cities in the approximate aggregate principal amount not to exceed $4,000,000 to finance all or a portion of the costs of the Project and the Minneapolis Facility, subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Blaine, following the preparation of bond documents and a determination by the City of Blaine that the financing of the Project and the Minneapolis Facility and the issuance of the Bonds are in the best interests of the Participant Cities and the City of Blaine. 2 Section 4. Joint Powers Agreement. The City Council hereby approves a Joint Powers Agreement between the Participant Cities and the City of Blaine (the "Joint Powers Agreement") substantially in the form of the Joint Powers Agreement now on file with the City. The City Council hereby authorizes the execution and delivery of the Joint Powers Agreement by the Mayor and City Manager of the City (or by other members of the City Council or other officers of the City who are authorized to execute and delivery the Joint Powers Agreement on behalf of the City) consistent with the provisions of this resolution. Section 5. Housing Program. The City Council hereby approves the Housing Program and authorizes submission of the Housing Program to .the Metropolitan Council for its review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 46X.04, subdivision 2. Section 6. Reimbursement of Costs under the Code. 6.1. The United States Department of the Treasury has promulgated final regulations, designated as Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2 (the "Regulations"), governing the use of the proceeds oftax-exempt bonds, all or a portion of which are to be used to project expenditures paid prior to the date of issuance of such bonds. The Regulations require that the City adopt a statement of official intent to reimburse an original expenditure not later than sixty days after payment of the original expenditure. The Regulations also generally require that the bonds be issued and the reimbursement allocation made from the proceeds of the bonds occur within eighteen months after the later of: (i) the date the expenditure is paid; or (ii) the date the project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date the expenditure is paid. The Regulations generally permit reimbursement of capital expenditures and costs of issuance of the bonds. 6.2. To the extent any portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be applied to expenditures with respect to the Project, the City reasonably expects to reimburse the Company for the expenditures made for costs of the Project from the proceeds of the Bonds after the date of payment of all or a portion of such expenditures. All reimbursed expenditures shall be capital expenditures, a cost of issuance of the Bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Regulations and also qualifying expenditures under the Act. Based on representations by the Company, other than (i) expenditures to be paid or reimbursed from sources other than the Bonds, (ii) expenditures permitted to be reimbursed under prior regulations pursuant to the transitional provision contained in Section 1.150- 2(j)(2)(i)(B) of the Regulations, (iii) expenditures constituting preliminary expenditures within the meaning of Section 1.150-2(f)(2) of the Regulations, or (iv) expenditures in a "de minimus" amount (as defined in Section 1.150-2(f)(1) of the Regulations), no expenditures with respect to the Project have been made by the Company more than sixty days before the date of adoption of this resolution. 6.3. Based on representations by the Company, as of the date hereof, there are no funds of the Company reserved, allocated on a long term-basis or otherwise set aside (or ,,.-~ reasonably expected to be reserved, allocated on a long-term basis or otherwise set aside) to provide permanent financing for the expenditures related to the Project to be financed from 3 -~ proceeds of the Bonds, other than pursuant to the issuance of the Bonds. This resolution, therefore, is determined to be consistent with the budgetary and financial circumstances of the Company as they exist or are reasonably foreseeable on the date hereof. Section 7. Costs. The Company will pay the administrative fees of the City and pay, or, upon demand, reimburse the City for payment of, any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project, the Minneapolis Facility, and the issuance of the Bonds, whether or not the Bonds are issued. Section 8. Commitment Conditional. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City of Blaine will issue the Bonds as requested by the Company. The City also retains the right, in its sole discretion, to withdraw from participation should the City Council, at any time prior to the issuance thereof, determine that it is in the best interests of the City not participate in the financing of the Project and the Minneapolis Facility or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents for the transaction. Section 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, on this 9th day of April, 2002. NR185-081 (JU) 211074v.2 ~~ By Its Mayor By Its City Manager 4 - - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE AND REFINANCE HOUSING AND HEALTH CARE FACILITIES AND A PROPOSED HOUSING PROGRAM (ERASER PROJECT) CITY OF RICHFIELD, NIINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), will meet on Monday, April 9, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue S., in Richfield, Minnesota for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on a proposal that the City: (i) give host approval to the issuance of revenue bonds, notes, or other obligations (the "Bonds") by the City of Blaine, Minnesota (the "Issuer") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended, and Sections 469.152 - 469.165, as amended, a portion of which in the amount of $105,000 will be applied to fmance and refinance a project hereinafter described to be undertaken by Fraser, a Minnesota non-profit corporation (the "Borrower"); (ii) execute a Joint Powers Agreement with the Issuer; and (iii) adopt a housing program (the "Housing Program") with respect to the housing project hereinafter described (the "Project"). The Project to be located in the City and to be financed and refinanced with the proceeds of the Bonds proposed to be issued by the Issuer is comprised of a single residential group home facility located at 6527 Fifth Avenue South in the City of Richfield. The Issuer will apply the proceeds of the Bonds to finance and refinance the Project and other housing developments (the "Developments") located in the Issuer and several other cities in the State of Minnesota. The maximum aggregate estimated principal amount of the Bonds to be issued by the Issuer to finance and refinance the Project and the other Developments is $4,000,000. The Borrower will be the owner and operator of the Project and the other Developments. The Borrower will be the obligor under the Bonds. The Project and the other Developments will be managed by the Borrower. The Bonds, as and when issued, will not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance upon any property of the City, except the interest of the City in the Project and the revenues to be derived from the Project. The Bonds will not be a charge against the general credit or taxing powers of the City or the Issuer, but are payable from sums to be paid by the Borrower pursuant to a revenue agreement. At the time and place fixed for the public hearing, the City Council of the City will give all persons who appear at the hearing an opportunity to express their views with respect to the financing of the Project pursuant to the Housing Program. Written comments will be considered if submitted at the above City office on or before the date of the hearing. Dated: [Date of Publication] CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA b First Draft Thursday, March 07, 2002 JOINT- POWERS AGREEMENT This Joint Powers Agreement ("Agreement"), dated as of April 1, 2002, is made and entered into by and between the City of Blaine, Minnesota (the "City" or the "Issuer"), the City of Bloomington, Minnesota ("Bloomington"), the City of Brooklyn Park ("Brooklyn Park"), the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota ("Eden Prairie"), the City of Edina, Minnesota ("Edina"), the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota ("Golden Valley"), the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota ("Minneapolis"), the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota ("Minnetonka"), the City of Plymouth, Minnesota ("Plymouth") and the City of Richfield ("Richfield" and, together with the Issuer, Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, and Plymouth, referred to collectively as the "Joint Powers Participants"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 4'71.59 (the "Joint Powers Act"), provides that two or more governmental units, by agreement entered into through action of their governing bodies, may jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties, and may provide for the exercise of such power by one of the participating governmental units on behalf of the other participating units; and WHEREAS, the Joint. Powers Participants are "governmental units" within the meaning of the Joint Powers Act; and WHEREAS, each of the Joint Powers Participants is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Housing Act"), to issue and sell revenue bonds or obligations to finance programs or multifamily housing developments upon approval of a housing program as provided in Section 46X.04, subdivision 2, of the Housing Act; and WHEREAS, the program described in Appendix A as the "Blaine Program" (the "Blaine Program"), the program described in Appendix A as the "Bloomington Program" (the "Bloomington Program"), the program described in Appendix A as the "Brooklyn Park Program" (the "Brooklyn Park Program"), the program described in Appendix A as the "Eden Prairie Program" (the "Eden Prairie Program"), the program described in Appendix A as the "Edina Program" (the "Edina Program"), the program described in Appendix A as the "Golden Valley Program" (the "Golden Valley Program"), the program described in Appendix A as the "Minnetonka Program" (the "Minnetonka Program"), the program described in Appendix A as the "Plymouth Programs" (the "Plymouth Programs"), and the program described in Appendix A as the "Richfield Program" (the "Richfield Program" and together with the Blaine Program, the Bloomington Program, the Brooklyn Park Program, the Eden Prairie Program, the Edina Program, the Golden Valley Program, the Minnetonka Program, the Plymouth Program, and the Richfield Program, collectively referred to as the "Programs" or the "Program") to be financed and refinanced as described in the Loan Agreement (defined below) constitute, in the opinion of bond counsel, a "program" within the meaning of the Housing Act; and WHEREAS, each of the Joint Powers Participants is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152-469.165, as amended (the "Development Act"), to issue revenue bonds to finance, in whole or in part, the costs of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, betterment, or extension of a revenue producing enterprise, whether or not operated for profit (including a revenue producing enterprise engaged in providing health care services), and is also authorized to issue revenue bonds to refund, in whole or in part, bonds previously issued pursuant to the Development Act; and WHEREAS, on October 3, 2001, Minneapolis issued its Revenue Note (The Fraser Child and Family Center Project), Series 2001A (the "Series 2001A Note"), in the original aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000, and its Revenue Note (The Fraser Child and Family Center Project), Series 2001B (the "Series 2001B Note"), in the original aggregate principal amount of $750,000 (the Series 2001A Note and the Series 2001B Note are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Notes"), pursuant to the Development Act and Resolution 2001R-371 adopted by the City Council of Minneapolis on August 24, 2001; and WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the City issue one or more series of revenue bonds or obligations (the "Bonds") on behalf of itself, Bloomington; Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Plymouth, and Richfield to finance the Programs, pursuant to Section 46X.07 of the Housing Act, and to refund the Series 2001A Note pursuant to Section 469.155 of the Development Act; and WHEREAS, the Bonds shall not constitute a general or moral obligation of, or pledge of the full faith and credit or taxing powers of, the Issuer, Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Plymouth, or Richfield, the State of Minnesota; or any other agency or political subdivision thereof, but shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged and assigned thereto pursuant to the Loan Agreement (as hereinafter defined) and the Assignment (as hereinafter defined); and WHEREAS, the governing bodies of each of the Joint Powers Participants have authorized the execution and delivery of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, the Joint Powers Participants hereby agree as follows: 1. In order to finance and refinance the Program and to refund the Series 2001A Note, the City shall issue, on behalf of itself and the other Joint Powers Participants, one or more series of revenue obligations under the Housing Act and the Development Act (the "Bonds") in a principal amount not to exceed $145,000 for the Blaine. Program, a principal amount not to exceed $710,000 for the Bloomington Program, a principal amount not to exceed $100,000 for the Brooklyn Park Program, a principal. amount not to exceed $475,000 for the Eden Prairie Program, a principal amount not to exceed $480,000 for the Edina Program, a principal amount not to exceed $295,000 for the Golden Valley Program, a principal amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for the refunding of the Series 2001A Note, a principal amount not to exceed $110,000 for the 1Vlinrietonka Program, a principal amount not to exceed $536,000 for the Plymouth Program, and a principal amount not to exceed $105,000 for the Richfield Program, 2 ~- provided, however, that the principal amount of the Bonds shall in no event exceed $4,000,000, all pursuant to the Joint Powers Act, the Housing Act, the Development Act, and the terms of a Loan and Purchase Agreement, to be dated on or after April 1, 2002 (the "Loan Agreement"), to be entered into between the Issuer, Fraser, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, as Borrower (the "Borrower"), and Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC, as purchaser of the Bonds (the "Purchaser"), pursuant to which the Bonds will be purchased from the Issuer by the Purchaser and the proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned by the Issuer to the Borrower. The rights of the Issuer under the Loan Agreement, including the right to receive loan repayments from the Borrower in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement, have been assigned to the Purchaser pursuant to the terms of an Assignment of .Loan Agreement, dated on or after April 1, 2002 (the "Assignment"), between the Issuer and the Purchaser. 2. Of the $4,000,000 aggregate principal amount. of the Bonds, an amount not to exceed $145,000 will be allocated to the Blaine Program. 3. Of the $4,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, an amount not to exceed $710,000 will be allocated to the Bloomington Program. 4. Of the $4,000,0.00 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, an amount not to exceed $100,000 will be allocated to the Brooklyn Park Program. 5. Of the $4,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, an amount not to exceed $475,000 will be allocated to the Eden Prairie Program. 6. Of the. $4,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, an amount not to exceed $480,000 will be allocated to the Edina Program. 7. Of the $4,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, an amount not to exceed $295,000 will be allocated to the Golden Valley Program. 8. Of the $4,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, an amount not to exceed $110,000 will be allocated to the Minnetonka Program. 9. Of the $4,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, an amount not to exceed $540,000 will be allocated to the Plymouth Program. 10. Of the $4,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, an amount not to exceed $105,000 will be allocated to the Richfield Program. 11. Of the $4,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 will be allocated to the redemption and prepayment of the Series 2001A Note issued by Minneapolis. -~ 12. Except to the extent specifically provided herein, the Joint Powers Participants shall not incur any obligations or liabilities to each other as a result of the issuance of the Bonds or the Programs. -The Bonds shall be special, limited obligations of the Issuer payable solely from proceeds, revenues, and other amounts under the Loan Agreement pledged thereto under the Assignment. The Bonds and the interest thereon shall neither constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability, general or moral obligation, or a pledge of the full faith and credit or taxing powers of the Joint Powers Participants, the State of Minnesota, or any political subdivision of the above, within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory provisions. 13. All costs incurred by the Joint Powers Participants in the authorization, execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement shall be paid by the Borrower, as provided in the Loan Agreement. 14. Any surplus money remaining after the purpose of this Agreement has been completed shall belong to the Joint Powers Participants, pro rata. 15. This Agreement may not be terminated by any party so long as the Bonds are outstanding. 16. This Agreement may be amended by the Joint Powers Participants at any ,time. No amendment may impair the rights of the Borrower, the Purchaser, or any subsequent holder of the Bonds, unless it has consented to such. amendment in the manner provided for in an amendment of the Loan Agreement. 17. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be regarded as an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same Agreement. (The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, duly authorized officers of the Joint Powers Participants have executed this Agreement as of April 1, 2002. CITY OF BLAINE, MINNESOTA By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Manager ~`_~ S-1 Execution page to the Joint Powers Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2002. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Manager S-2 Execution page to the Joint Powers Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2002. CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Manager s-~ Execution page to the Joint Powers Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2002. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Manager S-4 Execution page to the Joint Powers Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2002. CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Manager S-5 Execution page to the Joint Powers Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2002. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Manager ~, S-6 Execution page to the Joint Powers Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2002. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Manager S-7 " Execution page to the Joint Powers Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2002. CITY OF MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Manager ,, S-8 Execution page to the Joint Powers Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2002. CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Manager S-9 Execution page to the Joint Powers Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2002. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By: Its: Mayor Bv: Its: City Manager 5-10 APPENDIX A Participant Cities Housing Programs NR185-081 (JU) 206055v.2 A-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAM FRASER PROJECT This housing finance program is undertaken by the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") with respect to residential group home facilities located at 6527 Fifth Avenue S. in the City (the "City Homes"). The Project (as hereinafter defined) will be undertaken to further the policies and goals stated in the City's Housing Plan. The Project will consist of discharging the existing indebtedness related to the acquisition of twenty-two residential group home facilities for the developmentally disabled (collectively, the "Project") in the City of Blaine, Minnesota (the "Issuer"), the City of Bloomington, Minnesota ("Bloomington"), the City of Brooklyn Park ("Brooklyn Park"), the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota ("Eden Prairie"), the City of Edina, Minnesota ("Edina"), the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota ("Golden Valley"), the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota ("Minnetonka"), the City of Plymouth, Minnesota ("Plymouth"), and the City of Richfield ("Richfield" and, together with the Issuer, Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Minnetonka, and Plymouth, referred to collectively as the "Joint Powers Participants"), and financing the rehabilitation of the residential group home facilities for the developmentally disabled comprising the Project. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), the City is authorized to develop and administer programs to finance the rehabilitation and refinancing of multifamily housing developments and health care facilities under the circumstances and within the limitations set forth in the Act. Section 46X.07 of the Act provides that such programs for developments may be financed through the issuance of revenue bonds or obligations payable exclusively from the revenues of the program or developments. The City has received a proposal that it approve a program providing for the rehabilitation and refinancing with respect to the City Homes. The rehabilitation and refinancing of the City Homes and the other facilities of the Project are to be funded through the issuance of up to $4,000,000 in revenue bonds (the "Bonds") to be issued by the City of Blaine, Minnesota (the "Issuer"), pursuant to the terms of a Joint Powers Agreement (the "Joint Powers Agreement"), between the Issuer and the Joint Powers Participants. Fraser, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Owner") will own the Project. The City, in establishing this multifamily housing program (the "Program"), has considered the information contained in the City's comprehensive plan. The Project will be refinanced and rehabilitated in accordance with the requirements of Subdivisions 1 and 2 of Section 46X.05 of the Act. Section A. Definitions. The following terms used in this Program shall have the following meanings, respectively: ~, "Act" shall mean Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as currently in effect and as the same maybe from time to time amended. "Bonds" shall mean the revenue bonds to be issued by the Issuer pursuant to the terms of the Joint Powers Agreement between the Issuer and the Joint Powers Participants. "City" shall mean the City of Richfield, Minnesota. "City Home" shall mean the residential group home facility located at 6527 Fifth Avenue S. in the City. "Group Home" shall mean any one of the residential group. home facilities, located in the Cities of Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield. "Issuer" shall mean the City of Blaine, Minnesota "Joint Powers Agreement" shall mean the Joint Powers Agreement between the Issuer and the Joint Powers Participants. "Joint Powers Participants" shall mean, together with the Issuer, the Cities of Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield. "Land" shall mean the real property upon which each Group Home is situated. "Owner" shall mean Fraser, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. "Program" shall mean this program for the financing of the City Homes comprising a portion of the Project pursuant to the Act. "Project" shall mean the twenty-two Group Homes, to be refinanced and rehabilitated by the Owner. Section B. Program For Financing the Project. It is proposed that the City establish this Program to provide financing for the rehabilitation and refinancing of the Project at a cost and upon such other terms and conditions as are set forth herein and as may be agreed upon in writing between the Issuer, the initial purchaser of the Bonds, and the Owner. The City expects the Bonds to be issued as soon as the terms of the Bonds have been agreed upon by the Issuer, the Owner, and the initial purchaser of the Bonds. The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned by the Issuer to the Owner to finance the rehabilitation and refinancing of the Project, to fund required reserves (if any), and to pay the costs of issuing the Bonds. It is anticipated that the Bonds will have a maturity of thirty years or less and will bear interest at a variable rate or at fixed rates consistent with the market at the time of issuance. The City will hire no additional staff for the administration of the Program.. No administrative costs will be paid from the City's budget with respect to this Program. The Bonds 2 will not be general or moral obligations of the City and will not be secured by any property or assets of the City. The Bonds will be paid solely from properties pledged to the payment thereof, which may include additional security such as additional collateral, insurance, or a letter of credit. Section C. Standards and Requirements Relating to the Financing of the Project Pursuant to the Pro~,ram. The following standards and requirements shall apply with respect to the operation of the Project by the Owner pursuant to this Program: (1) Substantially all of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be applied to the rehabilitation and refinancing of the Project, the payment of the costs of issuing the Bonds, and to the funding of appropriate reserves (if any). The proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds will be made available to the Owner pursuant to the terms of the Bond offering, which will include certain covenants to be made by the Owner to the Issuer and the Joint Powers Participants regarding the use of proceeds and the character and use of the Project. (2) The Owner, and any subsequent owner of the Project, will not arbitrarily reject an application from a proposed tenant because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or status with regard to public assistance or disability. (3) The Project has been designed to be affordable by persons and families with Adjusted Gross Income not in excess of the greater of (a) one hundred and ten percent of the median family income as estimated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for Hennepin County, or (b) one hundred percent of the income limits established by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for the City and by other persons and families to the extent determined to be necessary by the City in furtherance of the policy of economic integration. Subsection D. Evidence of Compliance. The Issuer may require from the Owner at or before the issuance of the Bonds, evidence satisfactory to the Issuer and the Joint Powers Participants of the ability and intention of the Owner to complete the rehabilitation of the Project, and evidence satisfactory to the Issuer of compliance with the standards and requirements for the making of the loan to be financed with the proceeds of the Bonds; and in connection therewith, the Issuer or its representatives may inspect the relevant books and records of the Owner in order to confirm such ability, intention, and compliance. In addition, the Issuer may periodically require certification from either the Owner or such other person deemed necessary concerning compliance with various aspects of this Program. Subsection E. Issuance of Bonds. To finance the Program authorized by this Section the City will by resolution enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the Issuer and the Participant Cities to provide for the authorization, issuance, and sale by the Issuer of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount of approximately $4,000,000. The Bonds will be issued pursuant to Section 46X.07, Subdivision 1, of the Act, and will be payable primarily from the revenues of the Program and the Project. The costs of the Project, including costs of issuance of the Bonds and required reserve funds (if any), are presently expected to be in excess of the principal amount of the Bonds. It is expected that the Owner and its affiliates will contribute to the Project 3 - the difference between the total costs of the Project and the principal amount of the Bonds available to finance the Project. The costs of the Project may change between the date of preparation of this Program and the date of issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds are expected to be issued in April of 2002. Subsection F. Severability. The provisions of this Program are severable and if any of its provisions, sentences, clauses or paragraphs shall be held unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions. Subsection G. Amendment. The City shall not amend this Program, while Bonds authorized hereby are outstanding, to the detriment of the holders of such Bonds. Subsection H. State Ceiling. The Bonds will be issued as "qualified 501(c)(3) bonds" and, therefore, will not require an allocation of the state ceiling for private activity bonds, pursuant to Section 146 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A, as amended. NRI85-081 (JU) 205112v.1 4 f~,~~~ Q~ ~ ~~~~2 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED 200 South Sixth Street 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-337-9300 John Utley Voice: 612-337-9270 /Fax: (612) 337-9310 / E-mail: jutley@kennedy-graven.com TO: The City Council of Each Participant City Under the Joint Powers Agreement FROM: John Utley RE: Joint Powers Agreement and the Issuance of Revenue Bonds to Finance and Refinance .Facilities Owned and Operated by Fraser, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation DATE: Friday, March 08, 2002 Fraser, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation ("Fraser"), currently owns and operates twenty-two residential group home .facilities (the "Group Homes") located in the City of Blaine, Minnesota ("Blaine"), the City of Bloomington, Minnesota ("Bloomington"), the City of Brooklyn Park ("Brooklyn Park"), the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota ("Eden Prairie"), the City of Edina, Minnesota ("Edina"), the City of Golden .Valley, Minnesota.. ("Golden Valley"), the City of .,..Minnetonka, Minnesota ("Minnetonka"), the City of Plymouth, Minnesota ("Plymouth"), and the City of Richfield ("Richfield"). Fraser financed the initial acquisition and development of the Group Homes with a conventional loan but is now proposing to refinance this conventional loan with tax-exempt indebtedness in conjunction. with the moderate rehabilitation of the Group Homes. Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Housing Act"), any city may issue revenue bonds or obligations to finance the rehabilitation of multifamily housing developments and, in conjunction with such financing, may refinance any existing indebtedness with respect to the facilities to be rehabilitated. On October 3, 2001, the City of Minneapolis ("Minneapolis") issued its Revenue Note (The Fraser Child and Family Center Project), Series 2001A (the "Series 2001A Note"), in the original aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000, and its Revenue Note (The Fraser Child and Family Center Project), Series 2001B (the "Series 2001B Note"), iri the original aggregate principal amount of $750,000 (the Series 2001A Note and the Series 2001B Note are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Notes"), pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.152-469.165, as amended (the "Development Act"), and Resolution 2001R-371, adopted by the City Council of Minneapolis on August 24, 2001. The proceeds derived from the sale of the Notes were loaned to Fraser to finance the acquisition and construction of a development achievement center for children with autism and related disorders located at 3333 University Avenue S.E. in the City of Minneapolis (the "Minneapolis Facility"). Pursuant to the provisions of the Development Act, a city may issue revenue bonds to refund, in whole or in part, bonds previously issued by a city under the authority of the Development Act. It would not be economically efficient for each city referenced above to issue revenue bonds with respect to the Group Home or Group Homes located solely in each such city or with respect to the the Minneapolis Facility. However, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, as amended (the "Joint Powers Act"), provides that two or more governmental units; by agreement entered into through action of their governing bodies, may jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties, and may provide for the exercise of such power by one of the participating governmental units on behalf of the other participating units. Blaine has indicated that it is willing to issue revenue bonds or other revenue obligations under the Housing Act and under the Development Act to finance and refinance all of the Group Homes and the Minneapolis Facility. Blaine may do so only if Blaine and the cities of Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Plymouth, and Richfield (the "Joint. Powers Participants") enter into the Joint Powers Agreement, dated on or after April 1, 2002 (the "Joint Powers Agreement"), authorizing Blaine to issue one or more series of revenue bonds or obligations for these purposes. Fraser is requesting that the city councils of each of the Joint Powers Participants hold a public hearing with respect to this transaction as required by applicable provisions of the Housing Act and the Development Act and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and to consider and adopt a resolution approving a housing program with respect to each city (other than the .City of Minneapolis), approving the issuance of revenue bonds or obligations by Blaine for the purposes described above, and authorizing the execution and delivery of the Joint Powers Agreement. The revenue bonds or obligations to be issued by Blaine will be limited obligations of Blaine payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, and will not be a general or moral obligation of Blaine or any of the other Joint Powers Participants or be secured by the taxing power or any property or assets of Blaine or any of the other Joint Powers Participants. The issuance of such revenue bonds or obligations by Blaine will not impose any limitation or restriction on the governmental bonds that any of the Joint Powers Participants may propose to issue and any financial difficulties with respect to such revenue bonds or obligations will have no adverse impact on the ratings maintained by any of the Joint Powers Participants. Please contact me at your convenience with any questions. NE & G VEN, CHARTERED John Ut y NR185-081 {JU) 211247v.1 2 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3I REPORT # 8 6 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: JAY HENTHORNE, POLICE LIEUTENANT NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: .~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of renewing a contract with Auction Broadcasting Company Minneapolis for auctionin of forfeited vehicles from Richfield Public Safet . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the renewal of the attached auction service contract between the. City and Auction Broadcasting Company (ABC) of Minneapolis for the transporting, storage, maintenance and sale of forfeiture vehicles. II. BACKGROUND On March 12, 2001, Council approved an ordinance amendment to Subsection 315.01, Subv. 4, relating to the disposition of forfeited, abandoned, junk and impounded motor vehicles, expanding the limitation to include motor vehicles and personal property acquired by the City through civil or criminal forfeiture proceedings, and the addition of Subsection 315.02 giving disposition authority to the City Manager to determine what forfeited property is to be sold and the method of sale in a timely manner. The City currently has a contract with the Auction Broadcasting Company Minneapolis, hereinafter referred to as "ABC," to transport, store, repair, maintain 0409 ABC Auction Service Contract and sell its forfeiture vehicles. ABC was awarded the contract for 2001 and would like to renew the contract for the year 2002, as the contract expires on April 9, 2002. ABC's performance during the contract period was satisfactory. They auction forfeiture vehicles for many cities including the City of Bloomington. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • ABC is a reputable, established auction company that meets all contract requirements. • ABC notified the City that they wish to renew the contract. • The Public Safety Department wishes to renew the contract with ABC. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Numerous conditions of the contract must be met. • A 30-day notice must be given by either party in writing to terminate the contract. • Public Safety must have a company to store and auction forfeited vehicles. • Adequate space is not available in the City to store forfeited vehicles. C. FINANCIAL • The current contract with ABC reflects rates from 2001 /2002. The rates will be staying the same for the 2002/2003 contract. • Public Safety receives monies from the sale of forfeited vehicles after appropriate fees are taken out. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney reviewed and approved the past contract with ABC. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could choose not to approve the contract; however, Public Safety would need to find other means to auction forfeited vehicles. V. ATTACHMENTS • Contract between the City of Richfield and Auction Broadcasting Company Minneapolis. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND AUCTION BROADCASTING COMPANY MINNEAPOLIS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 9th day of April, 2002 by and between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 6700 Portland Ave. S., Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and Auction Broadcasting Company Minneapolis, a limited, liability corporation with its principle business offices located at 18270 Territorial Road, Dayton, Minnesota 55369 (hereinafter referred to as "ABC". WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City comes into possession of and is authorized to retain various motor vehicles which are identified as potentially being subject to forfeiture or other civil processes under the laws of the State of Minnesota as a result of their having been used in the connection with a criminal act (hereinafter referred to as "Forfeiture Vehicles") and upon successful completion of the forfeiture or civil process the City is authorized to dispose of said vehicles in accordance with Section 315 of the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, ABC represents that it has the professional expertise and knowledge to perform its duties as an automobile dealer, and is licensed by the State of Minnesota in that capacity; and WHEREAS, the City desires to hire ABC to transport, store, repair, maintain and sell its Forfeiture Vehicles; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed herein, the parties agree as follows: I. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall begin April 9, 2002 and shall continue until April 9, 2003, subject to termination as provided in Article IV. II. DUTIES OF ABC A. Upon specific authorization from the City, ABC agrees to drive or transport those vehicles identified by the City as one of its Forfeiture Vehicles to a secure location to be determined and managed by ABC. B. Upon receipt of a City Forfeiture Vehicle, ABC accepts full responsibility for it and agrees to exercise due diligence in its care, maintenance and storage of said vehicle until the time that it is sold or released; so as to avoid waste and obtain a reasonable sale price at auction. C. Upon specific authorization from the City, ABC agrees to perform such minor repair work on the City's Forfeiture Vehicles so as to prepare them for auction and maximize the City's return at auction, but in no event shall such repair work exceed the cost of TWO HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($200.00) without prior, written authorization by the Richfield City Manager or his/her designee. D. Upon specific authorization from the City, ABC agrees to release the City's Forfeiture Vehicles prior to auction on such terms and conditions as the City may direct. E. ABC agrees to box and store personal property that is not affixed to, but located within, the City's Forfeiture vehicles and upon specific authorization from the City to release such property on such terms and conditions as the City may direct. F. Upon specific authorization from the City, ABC agrees to promptly sell the City's Forfeiture Vehicles in a commercially reasonable manner by an open and competitive automobile dealer or salvage auction. G. ABC agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officials, employees and agents from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from ABC's (including its officials, agents or employees) performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damage, loss or expense is attributable. to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of ABC. H. During the term of this Agreement ABC agrees to maintain general comprehensive liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 for any damage to property, theft, loss or other claims as a result of ABC's negligence or malfeasance in performing this Agreement. In addition, ABC agrees to maintain such motor vehicle liability insurance ~ as required by state and federal laws. I. ABC shall be licensed and bonded in the State of Minnesota to perform its duties under this Agreement and shall provide a certificate of licensure, bonding and insurance to the City. J. ABC agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in the performance of the duties of this Agreement. K. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between the parties hereto or as constituting ABC's staff as the agents, representatives or employees of the City for any purpose in any manner whatsoever. ABC and its staff are to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. ABC represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of ABC or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by ABC under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with the City and shall not be considered employees of the City, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against ABC, its officers, agents, contractors or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the City; and ABC shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the City, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. L. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of the Contractor, relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by the City, and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, Subdivision 5. M. ABC agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its services, programs, or activities. ABC agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City from, costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA and/or Section 504 caused by the ABC. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs and activities. The City has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. N. The Contractor will comply with all applicable provisions, of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes. 0. Any Forfeiture Vehicles which ABC has been authorized and directed to sell but was unable to under the terms of this Agreement shall be returned to the City at a site designated by it as soon as reasonably practicable but in no event more than sixty (60) days from the occurrence of the event making sale under this Agreement impossible. III. DUTIES OF THE CITY A. The City shall consign specifically identified Forfeiture Vehicles to ABC to sell to the highest bidder at public dealer or salvage auctions. B. The City shall certify that it has good title and right to sell those of its Forfeiture Vehicles which it directs and specifically authorizes ABC to sell at public dealer or salvage auctions and shall provide and deliver merchantable title to the purchaser upon notification from ABC. C. The City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the ABC, its officials, employees and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the City's performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of City. D. The City shall pay to ABC the following amounts as and for its services properly authorized and provided pursuant to this Agreement: 1. Transportation of an operable Forfeiture Vehicle to or from the City of Richfield to ABC's designated storage site: $35.00. 2. Tow of an inoperable Forfeiture Vehicle (tow or trailer) to or from the City of Richfield to ABC's designated storage site: $75.00. 3. Basic cleaning of a Forfeiture Vehicle: $25.00. 4. Repair of a Forfeiture Vehicle prior to auction: Shop Rates. 5. Sale by auction of a Forfeiture Vehicle: $110.00. 6. Release of a Forfeiture Vehicle prior to auction: $50.00 redemption fee plus any charges (i.e., transportation). 7. Storage fee if car is not sold within 90 days: $3.00/day. 8. Inventory fee for release of personal property: $15.00. IV. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other party. The City reserves the right to cancel this Agreement at any time in event of default or violation by ABC of any provision of this Agreement. The City may take whatever action at law or in equity that may appear necessary or desirable to collect damages arising from a default or violation or to enforce performance of this Agreement. V. MISCELLANEOUS A. Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement and signed by both parties. B. This Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of the City. C. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between ABC and the City and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof; and amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. D. The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota State Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 363. E. The parties hereto agree to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973/31 CFR Part 51. This Act states in part that, "...all recipients of federal funds, whether in the form of a grant or a contract, review, and if necessary modify, their programs and activities so that discrimination based on handicap is eliminated." F. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding on ABC's successors and assigns and to the extent any assignee of ABC. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF RICHFIELD DATED: BY: Its Mayor DATED: BY: Its Manager AUCTION BROADCASTING COMPANY MINNEAPOLIS DATED: BY: Its AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3 H REPORT # $ 5 ~~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6315 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 3, Claim of Eller Media Company) (66th Street / Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6315 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 3, Claim of Eller Media Company) (66th Street /Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project). II. BACKGROUND The City acquired 6315 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 3) (Diamond Vogel North, Inc.) through aquick-take condemnation action in January 2001 for the realignment and expansion of the Trunk Highway 77 and East 66th Street Interchange. The building on the property was a wholesale paint store and showroom that included atwo- faced, roof-mounted billboard owned by Eller Media Company. The City was exposed to a claim by Eller Media for the billboard in addition to Diamond Vogel's ~, claim. City Attorney, Robert Lindall, requested the District Court to direct the condemnation commissioners to not consider any going concern claims by Eller 0409EIIerMedia Media. The Court subsequently granted such an order but later determined that Eller Media would have a right to compensation because of the loss of its billboard -- on the Diamond Vogel property. Appraisers representing both sides had varying opinions on the value of the billboard since essentially all valuable information available as to billboard valuations and comparables remain in the hands of a limited number of billboard companies. Therefore, the task of valuing the billboard and supporting the appraisal opinion was very difficult. Eller Media was willing to work with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) in finding a replacement site for the billboard. Since then, Eller Media has agreed to a settlement of $495,000 for the taking of all interests in this matter, including interest and appraisal fees. The MAC has reviewed this matter and concurs with the settlement. The City Attorney recommends that the City Council approve the settlement. 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 billboard with Eller Media Company should essentially complete condemnation proceedings for this matter. C. FINANCIAL • MAC is obligated to fund this transaction. • MAC has approved the final settlement amount. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney prepared a draft of the Stipulation of Final Settlement; Eller Media Company has since signed the Stipulation. E. 'IYMING _ If the negotiated settlement is approved by the City Council, no further proceedings will be required for the matter involving Eller Media Company. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not accept the final settlement amount. However, this will impede all negotiations made to date and continue condemnation proceedings. V. ATTACPIlVIENTS • Resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6315 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 3, Claim of Eller Media Company) (66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A STIPULATION OF FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR 6315 CEDAR AVENUE (PARCEL 3, CLAIM OF ELLER MEDIA COMPANY) (66TH STREET/TRUNK HIGHWAY 77 INTERCHANGE PROJECT) WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") acquired the property located at 6315 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 5, Block 15, 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 Subject Property contained atwo-sided, roof-mounted billboard owned by Eller Media Company; and WHEREAS, the City was exposed to a claim by Eller Media Company; 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 $495,000 for the billboard, including 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 $495,000, including 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 9th day of April, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ~ ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 Consent 3G 84 REPORT PREPARED BY: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~ _ , , _~~ ._ .n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6315 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 3, Claim of Diamond Vogel North, Inc.) (66th Street / Trunk Hi hwa 77 Interchan a Pro'ect . L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6315 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 3, Claim of Diamond Vogel North, Inc.) (66th Street /Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Pro The City acquired 6315 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 3) (Diamond Vogel North, Inc.) through aquick-take condemnation action in January 2001 for the realignment and expansion of the Trunk Highway 77 and East 66th Street Interchange. The property was a wholesale paint store and showroom. (Another staff report addresses aroof- mounted billboard owned by Eller Media that also required compensation.) The "quick take deposit" made by the City with the District Court was $331,040 for real estate and fixtures. The City's Attorney, Robert Lindall, and attorneys for Diamond Vogel reached a settlement prior to the condemnation commissioners' hearings commencing. The recommended settlement is for the City to pay Diamond Vogel $460,000 (less the quick take deposit) including interest and appraisal fees. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has reviewed this 0409DiamondV matter and concurs with the settlement. Both the City Attorney and MAC agree that the settlement is equivalent of obtaining a very favorable award from the City's perspective. 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 Diamond Vogel North, Inc. should essentially complete condemnation proceedings for this property. C. FINANCIAL • MAC is obligated to fund this transaction. • MAC has approved the final settlement amount. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney prepared a draft of the Stipulation of Final Settlement; Diamond Vogel North, Inc.. has since signed the Stipulation. E. TIMING • If the negotiated settlement is approved by the City Council, no further proceedings will be required for the matter involving Diamond Vogel North, Inc. I 1 V . ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) I Do not accept the final settlement amount. However, this will impede all negotiations made to date and continue condemnation proceedings. I V . ATTACHMENTS I Resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6315 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 3, Claim of Diamond Vogel North, Inc.) (66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project) I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A STIPULATION OF FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR 6315 CEDAR AVENUE (PARCEL 3, CLAIM OF DIAMOND VOGEL NORTH, .INC.) (66TH STREET/TRUNK HIGHWAY 77 INTERCHANGE PROJECT) WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") acquired the property located at 6315 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 5, Block 15, 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 $460,000 for the real estate and immovable fixtures, 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 $460,000 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 9th day of April, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3 F REPORT # 83 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 1/~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NanrE, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAMF_, TITL/i ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an Amendment to the Pond Lease between the City of Richfield and the Academy of The Holy Angels relative to maintaining the storm water retention pond near 66th. Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached Pond Lease Amendment between the City of Richfield and the. Academy of Holy Angels and authorize the Mavor to sign said Amendment on behalf of the City. III. BACKGROUND I When the Academy of The Holy Angels (AHA) built the Star Dome, it was required to provide ponding for the increased runoff generated by the dome. For many years AHA tried to maintain the landscaping around the pond with little success. In an effort to assist AHA. in completing the pond restoration and to provide much needed storm water storage near 66th Street at the traffic signal for the HUB, the ~~ City entered into a lease agreement with AHA. The lease allows the City to pond water in an expanded pond. This ponding provides flood protection to the adjacent commercial properties. The City also paid engineering design fees associated with reconfiguring the pond plus a lease payment of $50,000. 0409AHA-City-LaseAmend AHA is still having problems getting the pond into a good looking and maintainable condition. In an attempt to complete the project, AHA staff and City staff have worked out the attached Pond Lease Amendment. The change allows AHA to construct a dry pond. A dry pond is a depression that is usually dry and able to be mowed, similar to the dry pond at 69th Street and Penn Avenue. The depression will fill with water in a heavy rainfall event. The Amended Lease does not change the conditions set forth in the original lease but, rather, further defines the responsibilities and privileges of each party relative to the reconstruction and maintenance of the pond. The primary changes to the pond that will occur as a result of this Amendment are: • AHA will remove the black plastic liner of the pond, re-grade the pond in order to convert it from a wet pond to a dry pond, establish turf, and install a small lift station to pump out water stored after a rainfall event. • The City will adjust the surface overflow from 66th Street into the pond. The overflow will relieve flooding in the intersection that occurs after a major event. Today the overflow is partially provided by a pipe from the street into the pond. The pipe is being removed as part of this work. The City will also reshape the planting beds, make a minor alteration to the City's storm water collection. system near the pond and install two lengths of fence to help keep shopping carts out of the pond.. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Since the flooding of 1987, .Richfield has created a storm water utility and has spent millions of dollars increasing the level of flood protection around the City. The intersection of 66th. Street and Pillsbury Avenue has suffered from flooding for a long time and is in need of increased storm water storage. There are alternative ways to solve the flooding problem at this location including construction of a storm main between the site and one of the lakes. This would be, of course, a very large financial commitment on behalf of the City. Staff believes that the most financially responsible response to the flooding of 66th Street will be to provide the overflow into the AHA pond. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • From the perspective of City staff, the most critical issue is the installation of an overflow from 66th Street into the pond. This will allow a nearly unlimited flow of storm water from 66th Street whenever storm water starts to pond in the street to a depth of more that about three or four inches. • The most critical issue for AHA is to gain the ability to mow the pond between rainfall events. • The HUB businesses north of 66th Street receive an increased level of flood protection. C. FINANCIAL • Installation of the overflow, reshaping the planting beds and the storm sewer system modification will be done in-house by Richfield staff. Therefore, the cost will be for materials only and will be funded by the Stormwater Utility fund. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney drafted the attached Amendment. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decline to approve the attached Amendment, but staff and representatives of AHA believe that this is the easiest and financially the least expensive way to satisfy the needs of both AHA and Richfield. V. ATTACHMENTS • A copy of the Richfield/AHA Pond Lease Amendment is attached for Council consideration. • Map showing proposed improvements to the AHA pond. • Color photographs of the existing pond. -- . VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. FIRST AMENDMENT TO POND CONSTRUCTION AND LEASE AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT is made as of , 2002, by and between the Academy of the Holy Angels ("Academy"), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation having its principal place of business at 6600 Nicollet Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota, and City of Richfield ("City"), a Minnesota municipal corporation having is principal office at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. Recitals A. The Academy and City have entered into a Pond Construction and Lease Agreement dated June 29, 1999 (the "Lease"). The Lease concerns the Premises described on the attached Exhibit A. B. The Lease contemplated the construction of a "wet" storm water drainage pond that would retain water year-round but would have the .capacity to hold larger volumes of storm water on ashort-term basis after rainfall events. C. The parties have determined that the current design of the Pond Facility is not adequate to the parties' needs, and the parties desire to modify the design of the Pond Facility to a "dry" storm water drainage pond, so that turf can be established within the ponding area but the pond will have the capacity to hold storm water on a short-term basis after rainfall events. D. The parties desire to modify the Lease to address the reconstruction of the Pond Facility and the maintenance responsibilities of the parties. Terms of Amendment 1. REDESIGN OF POND FACILITY. The parties agree that the Academy will provide to the City a drawing or plan of the proposed changes to the Pond Facility. The City will review and approve the plan in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of the Lease. Said approval will constitute acknowledgement that the plan conforms to the provisions of said paragraph 3. Said approval also grants consent to construct the improvement. 2. RECONSTRUCTION OF POND FACILITY. The parties contemplate that reconstruction of the Pond Facility will include:. (a) removal of the in-place plastic pond liner; (b) re-grading of the Pond Facility to convert it from a "wet" pond to a "dry" pond; (c) installation of a lift station structure and associated piping; (d) regrading the pond edge; (e) installation of an overflow structure or pipe that will convey storm water from 66th Street into the Pond Facility, including cable-crete erosion control; (f) installation of two lengths of split rail fence; (g) modification of existing planting beds on the perimeter of the Pond Facility; (h) installation of cable-crete at the storm sewer outlets on the CAH-211135v1 RC145-352 Premises; (i) grading to lower an existing berm between the Pond Facility and 66th Street; and Q) disconnecting the storm water inlet pipe that empties into the. Pond Facility from a catch basin in 66th Street and re-routing the storm water from that catch basin into existing storm sewer pipe in 66th Street.. At its sole cost, the Academy agrees to contract for items (a), (b), (c) and (d) above. The Academy agrees to complete its work by October 1, 2002. At its sole cost, the City agrees to perform the work associated with items (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) and Q) above. The City agrees to complete its work by July 1, 2002. 3. CITY'S DUTY TO MAINTAIN. The City shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, for maintaining the hydrologic capacity of the Pond Facility by removing accumulated silt on an as-needed basis. The City agrees to restore any turf disturbed by the City during the removal of silt. The determination of when silt needs to be removed shall be the sole judgement of Richfield's Director of Public Works. The provisions of this paragraph 3 of this Amendment supersede and replace the provisions of paragraph 8 of the Lease. 4. ACADEMY'S DUTY TO MAINTAIN. Except for the City's obligation to restore turf disturbed by the City as stated in paragraph 3 above, the Academy shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, to maintain the Premises and Pond Facility, including, without limitation, removal of papers and debris, elimination of noxious weeds, keeping vegetation neatly trimmed, and maintaining and repairing any retaining walls or other improvements on the Premises. The Academy shall be in compliance with its obligations under this paragraph so long as the condition of the Premises and improvements thereon and the condition of the Pond Facility, including without limitation the height of grass and accumulation of debris and paper, does not violate any ordinance of general applicability in the City. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to modify the Academy's obligation of non-interference under paragraph 6 of the Lease. The provisions of this paragraph 4 of this Amendment supersede and replace the provisions of paragraph 9 of the Lease. 5. NO OTHER MODIFICATIONS INTENDED. Except as expressly modified in this Amendment, all provisions of the Lease remain in full force and effect. ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS By Jill M. Reilly, President CAH-211135v1 RC145-352 CITY OF RICHFIELD By Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 2 By Samantha Orduno, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA } COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss.. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2002 by Jill M. Reilly, the president of Academy of Holy Angels, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, by and on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA } COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss.: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2002 by Martin J. Kirsch and Samantha Orduno, the mayor and city manager, respectively, of the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, by and on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public CAH-211135v1 RC145-352 3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Premises The West 420 feet of the South 90.00 feet of the North 140.00 feet of the North '/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except roads and except the West 25 feet thereof. CAH-211135v1 RC145-352 4 SFILE8 ~, 0 0 m 0 "'R..~ '~g,,,r '99..x' X r"'i ~ !/ //~ L Ci~'°n,i'~iil ~ O n ~ ~ ~ 1, ~ ~^ ~ \\ l: \~ l v 0 0 m v n 0 z c n 0 z I ~ I I I i it I ~ ~ ~~ 7 o ~''-- 0 m 0 n ~_ ~ ~ I I .--.. I Z I ~ ~ ~~ 00 I W (~ O Q7 I Z 0 2 U1 ~ 1 I ~ ;; ~ -I I N ;i 1 ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~./'~'~ I ~ ,. / ~ T V ~' W N V i I I 1 ~ ~ co --- I O ,--. 1 Z V ~,~ < O ~ ~ t < I ~ (7 ~ 1i l W ~ .. W A. / ~ I i Q W ~ (~A1 07 ~ V ~ I LLB - N~= o w ~~ ~ w~'~l , cn to ~O ~ a z , l m i ~ ao ao ao - ~ V ~ ~ V ~ ~ l I ''~ I l I I ` ~ "RCP ~~ `--O ---» -------» -------» .~ ~ ~] ® I z n ®® I , L ~ < I I , ~ W I n w I ~ ~ w I I! i ~ 0 `~ I I .. _ -n -- '~ z I n`t ~ ~~ ~ I f ~ ~ I O I ' ; ~ ~"~ o. I "I Q ~ I ~ ~l I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n:^ ~,GZ C W I ~ ~ ~ 12" R' - - -> ` - r. `~ p7 ~ n ~ ~ ~. I i n ~ I V ! I ~-, ~ I W ~ ~ I ~ ~: --. ~ -~' n m ~ __. _,,.. _ I „ O CD 1 ' ` ~ O ~ I < o ~ I ~ D ~, I m w n m ~ ~ `~ ~ w w _ cn :r, I '7 ~ ~ ~~ ~ Q ~ n ~ v ~ I ~ ~ I b V ~ ~ ~ b O I ~ Q ~ i ~~ n m ~ m j ~ s ~-~ ~ ar cna mc~ a m CR 350 Westwood lake Office WV`+ 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55428 ~~ e~2StT-4800 HOLY ANGELS POND WATER SUPPLY w '~~ ~~ .. .. ~ aD ~ ww W c0 w .rte .~ (HEREBY CERiiY TNAT THS PL/N, $PECFICATKKA, OR REf+ORT REV(: WAS PREPARED BY Oft IROER AAY DIRECT SUPPERWSION AND SOLL[~ AS HDTED f THAT IAA( A DULY REGSTERED fTtOTE5510NK ENGNEER LNDER PLW Sr, DESIGN Br, THE LAWS OF THE STATE dF AAtwESOTA bECNEO Sri PNOJECt NO, ~~ 0 to cn -+ - ~ ~ m m o -I- + EAPLAXATIQt ~ ~ ~~ i~ f i '~•o ~'~ r ~ r r r ai-~ ,,. ~ _ , ~ 0 3 ' s g ~~~,: ,' i ;~.~: R,: ;xs;~' w. s y '- 3:". 1 x ~ ~~.xe.,.;,..;; `?~ ~° ~ ~. :"~ ~_ :~ ^ ~_ ~ ~~~ ~~r°s AFL ~ ~ ~ 3 h ~~ k 4 ~ '" s~ ~ a R .,y' ,~ &,a~ to ~{~Y r~k"~,. z "? z~,_s~ r~. ~_~~~~ ~.~ r '~ ;y a' AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 CONSENT 3E 82 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of amendment to Chapter 4 of the Richfield City Code by adding ~' section 429 for Storm Water Management regulations and setting a Public Hearing and Second Reading on May 14, 2002. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve first reading of the attached Storm Water Management Regulations Ordinance and schedule a Public Hearing and Second Reading on May 14, 2002. III. BACKGROUND As with the previously proposed ordinances the proposed Storm Water Management Regulations Ordinance has been drafted in response to requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The District has agreed in principal to allow Richfield to control stormwater management and floodplain protection within the City. However, before that control is totally placed with the City, the District is requiring that certain amendments be made to Richfield's City Code. The required amendments will set acceptable minimum standards and grant to staff the authority to enforce those standards. 040902StormWtrMgmtOrd The proposed ordinance provides the necessary tools for implementation of policies described in Richfield's Surface Water Management Plan. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield long supported storm water management projects, including both rate and quality control. Most of Richfield's previous storm water related projects have dealt with flood relief and storage. This proposed ordinance sets minimum standards for storm water management based on project type and size. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The requirements of this proposed ordinance are directed at land development activities that take place away from wetlands. Said requirements are intended to protect wetlands from pollution and nearby properties from flooding by controlling the rate and the quality of water that is discharged into those wetlands. C. FINANCIAL • Staff has for many years, required Storm Water Management Plans and Sediment and Erosion Control Plans from contractors and developers seeking to build in the City. So, as a practical matter, the financial impact to developers and builders caused by adopting this ordinance should be very minor. D. LEGAL • Before the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District allows the City to manage its own storm water facilities as well as development around the City, the District is requiring that the City adopt five modifications to City ordinances. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could decline to approve the attached ordinance; however, the Watershed District would then decline to approve Richfield's roll in managing storm water within the City.. • The attached will establish specific standards to enforce and grant to staff the authority to enforce them. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed ordinance for Stormwater Management Regulations. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING CHAPTER IV OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter IV of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding the following Section: Section 429 -Water Resource Management Regulations 429.01. Purpose. The purpose of these regulations is to achieve the policies described in the city's surface water management plan relating to wetland management, shoreline and streambank improvements, stream and lake crossings, dredging, and stormwater management. 429.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings set forth below. Subd. 2. Best Management Practices (BMPs): Guidance and design criteria for stormwater management facilities contained within the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's publication entitled, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas", dated October 1989 and as amended. 429.05. stormwater Management for Land Altering Activities. Subdivision 1. Administration. The city council hereby designates the Director of Public Works as the administrator of this section. Subd. 2. Application. stormwater management plans shall be reviewed and approved under the existing building permit review process. The applicant must include the requirements of this section in the plans submitted as part of the building permit review. Subd. 3. Activities Subject to stormwater Management Regulations. The following table I outlines those activities that require no permit and those activities that require permits for stormwater management as outlined in the city's comprehensive surface water management plan for various development and redevelopment activities: Table I ,~. Requirements No permit BMPs Water Water Project quantity quality control control a) Single- family home X construction b) Construction on less X than 2 acres w/ density of less than or equal to 2 acres c) Residential X subdivision between 2 and 8 acres d) Residential X X subdivision between 8 and 20 acres e) Residential X X X subdivision greater than or equal to 20 acres f) Multi-unit residential X development w/ less than 8 units/acre g) Multi-unit residential X development greater than 2 acres and less than 5 acres h) Multi-unit residential X X development greater than or equal to 5 acres and less than 8 acres i) Multi-unit residential X X X development greater than 8 acres j) Commercial, X industrial, institutional, or mixed use development of less than '/ acre k) Commercial, X X industrial, institutional, or mixed use development of greater than '/2 acre and less than 8 acres ,~ Requirements No permit BMPs Water Water Project quantity quality control control I) Commercial, X _ X X industrial, institutional, or mixed use development of greater than 8 acres m) Maintenance, X improvement, or construction of public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail, other linear project or parking lot that does not result in net increase in impervious surface n) Maintenance, X improvement, or construction of public, or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail, other linear project or parking lot that results in net increase in impervious surface of less than 1 acre o) Maintenance, X X improvement, or construction of public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail, other linear project or parking lot that results in net increase in impervious surface of greater than 1 acre and the project area is less than 5 acres p) Maintenance, X X X improvement, or construction of public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail, other linear project or Requirements No permit BMPs Water Water Project quantity quality control control parking lot that results in net increase in impervious surface of greater than 1 acre and the project area is more than 5 acres a. Stormwater runoff discharge rates may not exceed the existing conditions for the 1-, 10-, and 100-year storm events. If the increase in imperviousness is 50% or greater, the discharge rate requirements must be based on pre- development conditions. b. Stormwater runoff to a landlocked area that cannot handle the increased runoff must maintain runoff volumes to the existing conditions. c. Water quality control facilities must remove 50% of the phosphorous on an annual average removal basis. d. Stormwater ponds must have a 10-foot, 10:1 bench, two feet of freeboard, and must remove floatables from a 1-year event. e. Sidewalks and trails that do not exceed. 10 feet in width and are bordered by a pervious buffer of at least 5 feet on each side are not included in calculations for net increase in impervious surface. f. Water .quality and quantity provision requirements may be waived by the administrator if a downstream .facility is in place or will be constructed and the facility is designed to accommodate the stormwater runoff from the project. g. The requirements of this ordinance may be waived by the administrator or board of adjustments and appeals if it is determined that meeting the requirements of this subsection on site is not feasible. ,~ ~ Subd. 4. Construction Standards. The design and construction ' criteria for stormwater management plans outlined in the city's surface 4 water management plan and the MPCA "Protection Water Quality in Urban Areas" shall be utilized as the construction standards for these regulations. These criteria are on file in the city engineering office. 429.07. Penalties for Violation. Subdivision 1. Violation of the provisions of these regulations or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. Subd. 2. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City of Richfield from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. Such actions may include but are not limited to: a. In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the administrator and/or building official may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to the guilty party. b. When an ordinance violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the administrator or building official, the situation shall immediately be investigated. Documentation of the nature and extent of the violation of the official control must be provided. _ c. The administrator must notify the suspected party of the requirements of this ordinance and all other official controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation of these controls. If the structure or use is under construction or development, the Administrator may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit is granted by the city. If the construction or development is already completed, then the administrator may either: a) issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use or structure into compliance with the official controls; or b) notify the responsible party to apply for an after-the-fact permit within a specified period of time not to exceed 30 days. d. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the administrator or building official within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses constitutes an additional violation of .this regulation and may be prosecuted accordingly. The administrator must also, upon the lapse of the specified response period, notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition that existed prior to the violation of this regulation. 5 Section 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 day of .2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 6 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 CONSENT 3D 81 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~ GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of amendment to Richfield's City Code/Zoning Ordinance by adding section 538 for Floodplain Management Regulations and setting the Public Hearing and Second Reading for May 14, 2002. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve first reading of the attached Floodplain Management Regulations Ordinance and schedule a Public Hearing and Second Reading on May 14, 2002. III. BACKGROUND I The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has required that Richfield make certain changes/additions to its City Code. These changes have been incorporated into five new, proposed ordinances. The subject of this City Council Staff Report is a proposed ordinance that would protect the floodplains and set minimum building standards for the protection of structures constructed within a floodplain within the City of Richfield by establishing a floodplain, overlay, zoning district and establishing more stringent building standards. 0409FIoodplainOrd NAME, TITLE In addition to more restrictive building standards, (for instance, service facilities such as electrical boxes and heating equipment in structures constructed within a flood plain must be mounted higher than the floodplain elevation and structures built within floodplains must be so constructed as to not float if submerged). The proposed ordinance also sets forth a process for issuing permits for land uses within a floodplain. This proposed ordinance amendment is intended to promote uniform floodplain management consistent with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan and to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. The Planning Commission on May 22, 2001 reviewed the draft floodplain management ordinance. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. .POLICY • Because of the small number of wetlands in Richfield and the fact that most floodplain areas are contained within City owned parks, (and, therefore, not on private property) staff has had very little need for involvement in regulating activities within floodplains. The homes \ around Milner Pond at 66th .Street and Fourth Avenue and Norby's . Pond at 69th Street and Second Avenue could be affected. • The proposed ordinance, by establishing building standards and a permit process for proposals within floodplains, will make it easier for staff to regulate such activities in the future. • The proposed ordinance does not prohibit building within a floodplain but, rather, sets increased standards for constructing a use within the floodplain. Said increased standards are designed to protect both the floodplain and the proposed building. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The proposed ordinance allows any use that is allowed in the underlying zoning district provided that the use does not cause a net decrease in storage capacity. If the allowed use does create a net loss in storage capacity, compensatory mitigation for the flood plain loss will have to be provided. Increased flood proofing standards and a permit are required for allowed projects within the floodplain and therefore, an increase in the cost of construction can be anticipated for those projects that lie within a floodplain. The instances in which a resident or developer will need to apply for a permit and apply the increased standards should be very rare as most of the floodplain within Richfield lies within City owned land and is therefore not developable. .e-. C. FINANCIAL • Projects that involve construction activities within a floodplain will see increased cost because of the need to apply for a permit and the increased flood- proofing requirements. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has been a member of the team that has drafted the attached ordinance. • If the attached ordinance is adopted by Council, staff will prepare a Floodplain Construction Permit Application form and will ask Council to approve a Permit Fee in Appendix D as part of the 2003 budget process. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council could choose not to approve this ordinance; however, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will decline to allow Richfield staff to fully monitor development within the City until the necessary ordinances are adopted. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed "Floodplain Management Regulations Ordinance" • Graphic depicting a typical lot in relation to adjoining wetland VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE BY ADDING SECTION 538 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The Richfield Zoning Code is amended by adding the following Section: Section 538 - Floodplain Management Regulations 538.01. Pur ose. Subdivision 1. It is the purpose of this section to guide and regulate the orderly development of land within the floodplain by establishing a floodplain overlay district. The floodplain within the city of Richfield, Minnesota is subject to periodic inundation, which adversely affects the public health, safety, and general welfare. Subd. 2. It is the intent of this section to promote a uniform flooplain management program consistent with the surface water management plan of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. 538.03. Administration. The City Council hereby designates the Director of Public Works as the administrator of this section with- the building official having authority to evaluate construction standards (section 538.15) and enforce violations (section 538.31). 538.05. Application and interpretation of provisions. Subdivision 1. Provisions of this section shall apply to the floodplain of the City, which shall include those areas designated or otherwise defined by the City as being within the 100-year floodplain. The boundaries of the floodplain shall be that area that could be inundated by a flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. All decisions will be based on elevations of the 100-year floodplain and other available technical data. Persons contesting the location of the floodplain boundaries shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the board of adjustments and appeals in accordance with the provisions of subsection 546.03. Subd. 2. It is not intended by this section to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, CAH-202510v1 RC145-364 where this section imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this section shall prevail. Subd. 3. Warning and disclaimer of liability. This regulation does not imply that areas outside the floodplain or land uses or obstructions permitted within the floodplain will be free from flooding or flood damages. The City is not responsible for any flood damages that result from reliance on this section or any administrative action lawfully taken as a result. of reliance on this section.. 538.07. Definitions. Subdivision 1. Basement. For floodplain management purposes, any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base sub-grade below ground level. Subd. 2. Development. Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate including, but not limited to, buildings and other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations. Subd. 3. Flood. A temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake. Subd. 4. Flood frequency. The frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equaled or exceeded. Subd. 5. Floodplain. Floodplain is the 100 year floodplain elevation defined as that area adjoining the bed of a wetland, lake, or the channel of a water course that could be inundated by a flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Subd. 6. Flood~roofina. Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes or adjustments to structures that reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. Flood proofing requirements are contained in the state building code. Subd. 7. Flood stage. Peak flood elevation of an area for a given return frequency event. Subd. 8. Floodway. The channel of the watercourse, the bed of water basins, and those portions of the adjoining floodplain that are reasonably required to carry the discharge floodwater and provide storage during a flood. Subd. 9. Obstruction. Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, CAH-202510v1 Z RC145-364 .~-, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, water course,. or regulatory floodplain that may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. Subd. 10. Reach. A hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a drainage system influenced by a natural or man- made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a drainage system between two consecutive bridge crossings or culverts would most typically constitute a reach. Subd. 11. Requlatory flood protection elevation. The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an elevation no lower than two feet above the elevation of the floodplain plus any increase in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain. 538.09. Flood insurance study. A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) was completed for areas within the city. The city is a participating member in FEMA. The city's FEMA Study Record Number 474 is a special conversion study without a map. This report identified the boundaries of the flood way and floodplain. _~ All areas within the city of Richfield are classified as Zone C coverage. j 538.11. Permitted uses in the floodplain overlay district. Any use of land that does not involve a structure, a habitation, .addition to the outside dimensions of an existing structure, an obstruction, or the storage of materials, supplies, so long as such use is permitted in the underlying zoning district is permitted within the floodplain. The use must not increase any stage of the 100-year flood, cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected, or reduce the existing storage capacity of the floodplain. 538.13. Fooodplain uses in the floodplain overlay district: Any permitted, accessory, or conditional use or structure allowed in the underlying zoning district may be allowed as a floodplain use in the floodplain upon the issuance of a special permit in accordance with the provisions of this section. Subdivision 1. The use or structure will not cause a net decrease in storage capacity of the floodplain. Compensatory storage will be required if the use or structure decreases the floodplain capacity, and Subd. 2. The use or structure will not cause high water or aggravate flooding on other properties, and Subd. 3. The use or structure will not restrict flood flows, or CAH-202510v1 3 RC145-364 Subd. 4. The use is for railroads, essential government facilities, ,• accessory structures for public and private recreational facilities, essential utilities, marinas, docks, other water oriented accessory structures, or reasonable plan to reduce flooding. 538.15. Applications for floodplain use permits. Applications for floodplain use permits shall be made to the administrator. A fee as specified in appendix D shall be charged for floodplain use permits. The application shall be prepared by a registered engineer and shall include the following. Subdivision 1. A report detailing the results of the computer modeling of the impact of the proposed structure, obstruction, or use on the floodplain, and Subd. 2. A site plan showing property lines, work area, existing and proposed contours of the work area, and existing and proposed floodplain elevations, and Subd. 3. Computation of the change in water storage capacity resulting from the project. 538.17. Application review. The administrator shall review applications -, for floodplain use permits and make a determination. 538.19. Variance. A variance to the standards outlined in this section may be requested under city zoning code section 546.09. 538.21. Construction standards near or in floodplain overlay district. The building official administers this section. If a use or structure is either permitted or a special use, the following construction standards apply. Subdivision 1. All permanent structures, including accessory structures and additions to existing structures shall be constructed on fill so that the low building opening elevation shall be at least two feet above the floodplain elevation Subd. 2. As an alternative to construction on fill, accessory structures that do not exceed 500 square feet may be internally flood proofed in accordance with FP-1 or FP-2 flood proofing classifications in the state building code. Subd. 3. Structures shall be constructed to prevent floatation that may result in damage to it or other structures and/or restrictions of bridge opening or other narrow sections of water-courses. Subd. 4. Service facilities, such as electrical and heating equipment, whether inside or outside of a structure, shall be installed at or CAH-202510v1 4 RC145-364 above the floodplain, or be adequately flood-proofed to avoid the facility's damage during periods of flood. Subd. 5. Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current, or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall not be allowed to encroach on a floodway, and are subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 105. Subd. 6. Parking lots must be at or above the floodplain unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant that the lot will be used infrequently and/or vehicles or other stored items could be moved in a short period of time. 538.23. Utility standards. Subdivision 1. All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer and water supply systems shall be designed and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage. Subd. 2. Sewer and water supply systems shall be designed and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage and shall be designed to minimize infiltration by flood waters. 538.25. Amendments. The floodplain overlay designation shall not be removed from a floodplain area unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been lawfully filled to or above the elevation of the 100-year floodplain and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain. 538.27. Building elevation information. The applicant shall provide to the building official the elevation of the first floor and basement of all new structures or additions to existing structures in the floodplain. The building official shall maintain a record of these elevations. 538.29. Certificate of compliance. No structure in the floodplain that is hereafter erected, altered or moved shall be occupied until the applicant submits a certification by a registered engineer, surveyor, or architect to the city engineer that the finished fill elevations or other flood-proofing measures are in compliance with this section. 538.31. Penalties for violation. Subdivision 1. Violation of the provisions of this section or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. Subd. 2. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the city of Richfield from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. Such actions may include but are not limited to: CAH-202510v1 rj RC145-364 ~ (a) In responding to a suspected violation, the administrator ,. and/or building official may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available. Richfield must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. (b) When a violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the administrator or building official, the situation shall immediately be investigated. Documentation of the nature and extent of the violation shall be provided. (c) The administrator shall notify the suspected party of the requirements of this section and all other official controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation. If the structure or use is under construction or development, the administrator may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit is granted by the City. If the construction or development is already completed, then the administrator may either: a) issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use or structure into compliance with the official controls; or b) notify the responsible party to apply for an after-the-fact permit within a specified period of time not to exceed 30 days. (d) If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the administrator or building official within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this section and shall be prosecuted accordingly. The administrator shall also, upon the lapse of the specified response period, notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition that existed prior to the violation of this regulation. CAH-202510v1 6 RC145-364 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 day of 2002. ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk CAH-202510v1 RC145-364 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 7 ~. ,~~~, 4 r 5 .i ~ ~ j ` S ~: • z~:_ d ~~ • ~ ~ + ` [^' J W . - ~ • `~ ~i r^t, ~ N ^ ~ vv}jjn~, ~ °n O ~~ ran ~ ~ ^ ~ ~~~~ L ~ N ~~ a ~ ~~ k 6 F-~*-"' ~'d-* '~'^` F. t 4{ ~~i ~ O ~y ~~4 r ~` ~) _~ ~ is ~ ~ V Q~ ~ I ~ , ~ 5 ! y"a ~+ Q ~ S+r i O ~~` U Q ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~. ~r . ~- ~ L ~ ~. w `ki 7 ^ O T ~ 1 LL ~ ~ .A ,:l 0 0 ~ k ADZ AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # ~ REPORT # STAFF REPORT ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 CONSENT 3C 80 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, T[TL8 MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of amendment to Chapter IX of the Richfield City Code for Phosphorous Fertilizer Use Regulations and setting the public hearing and second reading for May 14, 2002. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve first reading of the attached Phosphorous Fertilizer Use Regulations Ordinance and schedule a Public Hearing and Second Reading on May 14, 2002. III. BACKGROUND ~ The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has required that Richfield make certain changes/additions to its City Code. These changes have been incorporated into five new, proposed ordinances. The subject of this City Council Staff Report is a proposed ordinance that would protect the quality of the water bodies within the City of Richfield by limiting the use of phosphorous containing fertilizers. ~, This proposed ordinance affects both commercial and non-commercial applicators and sets limits on the amount of fertilizer that can be applied per application and per season. The proposed ordinance also limits where and when phosphorous fertilizers can be applied. 040902Fertalizerord NAME, TITLE III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield has historically been on the leading edge in storm water rate and quality control. This ordinance is but another step in a process to maintain quality wetlands by cleaning storm water runoff. Other measures taken include the installation of grit chambers, sumps and skimmers to remove solid waste from runoff. The City also requires that property owners mow in such a way as to keep grass cuttings off the streets and alleys and out of the storm sewer system. Also, vehicles may not leak oil or other pollutants in such a way as to pollute storm water runoff. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • In the near future, Richfield will have no direct way of enforcing this ordinance as no "fertilizer cops" are on staff. However, a public information campaign will be begun that we hope will bring about public acceptance and compliance. It is also hoped that, as other cities adopt similar ordinances, high phosphorous fertilizers will become less readily available. The Minnesota Legislature is currently considering, whether or not to restrict the sale phosphorous fertilizer state wide. • Garden centers in and around Richfield are planning to "feature" no phosphorus fertilizers, but will carry low phosphorus, wholly organic fertilizers for those homeowners whose lawns may not have sufficient phosphorus. Stores will also carry high phosphorus "starter fertilizers" that contain up to 20% manmade phosphorus. These should only be used for newly seeded or sodded yards. The difference between manmade and organic phosphorus is the rate at which the phosphorus is dissolved. Manmade phosphorus dissolves more quickly and is therefor more prone to being carried into wetlands by runoff. C. FINANCIAL • There will be no financial impact to the City beyond the cost of drafting and enacting this ordinance. • The impact on residents and businesses will be very little, if any, as the cost of low phosphorous or no phosphorous fertilizers are only about 2 or 3 cents more expensive for 20 .pounds (1,000 square feet of yard). The Lyndale Garden Center in Richfield will sell both products for the same price. D. LEGAL • The staff of Kennedy and Graven has been active in drafting and reviewing the- proposed ordinance. There are no legal concerns known at this time that would affect the adoption of this ordinance. • Hardware stores and garden centers are not sure at this time if they will even be allowed to sell remaining stocks of high phosphorous fertilizes this coming season, much less order any new amounts. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could decline to enact this ordinance; however, the City is being required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to enact this or a similar ordinance. Failure to enact Phosphorous Fertilizer Use Regulations will cause MCWD to withhold final approval of Richfield's Local Water Management Plan which will, in turn, give back to the District the authority to review and issue permits for construction activities within the City, including proposed City projects. Staff feels that this would lead to higher project/developer costs and delays. V. ATTACHMENTS • A copy of the proposed ordinance relating to public safety and water quality, regulating the use of lawn fertilizers, and amending Chapter IX of the Richfield City Code. • Articles from Opinion page. of February 12, 2002 St. Paul Pioneer Press and from the local news section of the April 2, 2002 St. Paul Pioneer Press. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND WATER QUALITY; REGULATING THE USE OF LAWN FERTILIZERS; AMENDING CHAPTER IX OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. .Chapter IX of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding the following Section: Section 911 -Lawn Fertilizer Use 911.01. Purpose. The purpose of these regulations is to achieve the policies outlined in the City's Surface Water Management Plan and protect the water quality of the water bodies within the City of Richfield. 911.03. Administration. The City Council hereby designates the Public Works Director as the administrator of these regulations. 911.05. Fertilizer Use Regulations. Subdivision 1. Time of Application. Neither commercial applicators nor noncommercial applicators may apply lawn fertilizer when the ground is frozen or when conditions exist which will promote or create runoff. Subd. 2. Prohibition Regarding Phosphorous Content Fertilizers. No person shall apply liquid fertilizer which contains more than one-half percent by weight of phosphorous, or granular fertilizer which contains more than three percent by weight of phosphorous (i.e. "NPK" rating of >3 for the phosphorous), unless the single application is less than or equal to the one-tenth pound of phosphorous per one thousand square feet. Annual application amount shall not exceed one-half pound of phosphorous per one thousand square feet of lawn area. Subd. 3. Impervious Surfaces, Drainage Ways, and Buffers. No person shall apply fertilizer to impervious surfaces, drainage ditches, waterways, or buffer areas. Subd. 4. Exemptions. The following exemptions apply to the fertilizer use ordinance: a. Newly established turf and lawn areas during the growing season. b. Turf areas that have been confirmed by soil testing to be below phosphorous levels established by the University of Minnesota Extension Services. The lawn fertilizer application shall not contain an amount of phosphorous in excess of that which is recommended in the soil test evaluation. 911.07. Penalty. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. Section 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 day of 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk WWW:TWINCITIES:COM ^ ST. PAUL PIONEER PBESS CRY 12, 2002 , i - ~, Should state le 'slators pass a law. to restrict the sale and use of phosphorus lawn .fertilizers?.. _~ • wns don't need hos horus Critics exaggerate fertilizer problems Most la p p - , BY WOODY LOVE .pet feces, soil runoff at construction BY. WAYNE R. KUSSOW ~ ~ : ~ surfaces during the growing season con Guest Columnist sites, and'leaves in the streets as things Guest Columnist ~, tribute phosphorus :that enters water _ nobody seems to be doing much about. ' ways directly thmugh storm sewers. TTn a move to protect the water quality But local governments in Minnesota /~ lot has been written recentlyabout, . `. Pet and waterfowl wastes slap .con lof our lakes and streams, the Minneso- are doing something about them. They 1"lhow phosphorus in soil and lawn fer- ` tribute to the problem. - :: to Legislature is considering bills to have worked with the University of Min- tilizers affects our lakes, .streams- and ~ It is well established that there are tvv~ restrict the sale and use of phosphorus reacts . to control geese. They have rivers. Minneapolis and St. Paul, in fact, peaks in Phosphorus concentrations it lawn fertilizers. Why restrict phospho- raised public awareness and enacted recently opted to restrict the use of lawn ~ urban storm water - in fall when tree rus? The simple answer is it turns our ordinances regarding the need for peo- fertilizers that contain ,phosphorus, a' are dropping their leaves and durlny blue lakes, streams and wetlands green pie to clean up after their pets. Cities vital plant nutrient. Now the issue is '` .,spring snowmelt when phosphorus i by promoting algae and weed growth. and watershed districts require develop- again being considered at the state level ~•. leached from frozen leaves and grass. ~ This, in turn, reduces everyone's enjoy- era and builders to install silt fences or But is this the answer to keeping our ~fact,.spring snowmelt can carry with it a went, of our waters and decreases prop- provide hay bales at construction sites waterways clear of algae? ~ much as 80 percent of all phosphoru erty values. ~ to min;m;~.~ sediment runoff The state We all agree that the phosphorus that entering urban storm water for an emir Phosphorus is generally an unneed- requires that yard waste be collected ends up in waterways can promote algae .:.yeas: ed additive to soil The last retreat of separately in the metropolitan area, and growth. 1n turn, this can deplete-the oxy- While some believe that organic fertC . glaciers left much of our soils rich with .many residents take their leaves to com- gen supply in the water. But the phospho- izers are better for our waterways, that i phosphorus. A bag of lawn fertilizer will post sites. Cities sweep leaves from rus in modern.lawn fertilizers is not. nun- simply not true. show three numbers indicating the ratio streets at least twice a year. Wing off the grass and into our waterways Organic fertilizers, because of thei of its ingredients. The percent of phos- Farmers. have been aware of the need in nearly the .amounts that some people low. nitrogen contents, result in appIla phorus is indicated by the middle rum- not to use excess phosphorus in crop fer- ale claiming. = tion of 5 to 10 'times more phosphoru ber. Phosphorus-free fertilizers will tilizers. Their decisions have been based First, let me address the notion that than modern:-..lawn fertilizers :and in have a "0" for the middle number. on good science and sound econom- applying phosphorus over-saturates form that doesn't quickly bind to the soi Using phosphorus in lawn ferti>izer ics...Their decisions reflect acommit- phosphorus-rich soil That simply isn't The use of these products can acluall costs money. To save unnecessary meat to good stewardship of land and true at the rates being applied to lawns. ~ increase phosphorus runoff and make tb expense, for example, most golf courses water resources. It is time Minnesotans Years of agronomic research have shown problem worse. use phosphorus only on high-mainte- in urban areas do the same. -that phosphorus .quickly binds to the. soil We must also realize that urbanizatia Hance areas like tees and greens. Com- A law restricting the sale as well as and remains there until plants use it. is a great. contributor to the problem. mercial lawn services generally do not . the use of lawn fertilizer that contains In the case of turf grass,,phosphorus is .one time, when natural woodlands an put phosphorus in their residential for- phosphorus is not a silver bullet, but it is needed to help develop a dense, healthy prairies dominated the landscape, tb minas. There are many "zero-phospho- an important component in an overall sod that restricts soil sediment, water and vegetation greatly reduced the erosis rus" lawn fertilizers distributed in Min- strategy to improve water quality while nutrients from running off the lawn. Asa force of rainfall, allowed the water 1 reacts. Scotts, the household name in minimizing public expense. The most homeowner mows the lawn and.mulched slowly. percolate into the. soil, and r"ittt< the industry, has chosen not to batch cost-effective approach would have the clippings are leff to decay, some phospho- ents ~ from decaying plant • material'wea and distribute azero-phosphorus prod- state be~ responsible for the administra- rus is returned to the soil, but not enough simply returned to the "soil ,As .nog . uct for our phosphorus-rich Minnesota tion and enforcement of such a restric- to provide 'the plants with .what they houses, office :buildings °and shoppin soils. Instead, Scotts has engaged abat- tion. Local governments would welcome need. A minimum amount of phosphorus. areas replace the natural vegetation wI1 tailor of lobbyists to convince our elect- such action. .:They do not have the must be .applied periodically in order to hard, impermeable- surfaces such ,s ed officials we need phosphorus lawn resources to be fertilizer police. maintain that healthy lawn; rooftops, driveways and parking lot fertilizers in Minnesota.. As state officials look to curb costs in Separate studies conducted at the Uni- more and more of the nutrients fro; There are ' also significant public 'light of -the budget shortfall, this is one versify of Minnesota, the University~~ of plants in .the landscape enter stor costs iu removing phosphorus and program that should not be delayed Wisconsin, Michigan State University and drains. addressing its effects on storm water since it will reduce public costs overall... -Pennsylvania State University show that This doesn't ` mean, of `course, th management systems and bodies of lawns and lawn fertilizers are not causing homeowners can't -help. Growing- thic water. Six million pounds of phosphorus Love (e-mail: cityhall@ca shorewood. phosphorus to build up in waterways: healthy lawns will, indeed, reduce st lawn fertilizer are used inthe metropoli- mn.us) is the mayor of Shorewood, one of Truth be told, the main source of phos- runoff The key is to have your soil test tan area each year. One pound of phos- so cities that have endorsed legislation to photos in storm water is vegetation - liv- ' and carefully follow the' recommend photos can produce 300 to 500 pounds of restrict the use of lawn fertilizers ing and dead - in the landscape. Leaves bons of university and extension perso algae. -Public expenditures to remove containing phosphorus. and .grass` clippings left on impervious nel for maintaining a quality lawn.. phosPho^.as from our lanes and storm We all need to became more dilige water .systems have been running $300. when it comes to-following proper fertilj to $500 per pound and more. The runoff : er application guidelines and not allowh from residential lawn fertilizer repre- fertilizer, grass clippings, yard and g2 serfs 15 to 30 percent of the phospho- den refuse and leaves to remain on impe rus load that ends up in storm water vious surfaces.. ~ -. management .systems buIlt and main- Before enacting :legislation that oou tamed by local, governments. ~ potentially add to the problem, let's la ~. According .to industry. represents= -., more closel~-. at what .coni~butes to it a~ fives, more appropriate local govern- determine. what is the lower limit belt mental action than a ban on phospho- ,which. phosphorus loading of urh rus.;. would be more frequent street.... runoff cannot be reduced due to natty sweeping and public education. Both of ,sources. Our lawmakers. simply need these. approaches mean spending more base their. decisions on sound science aJ public money,-and public education has then ensure that . storm water is mop resulted in little change in the demand toted throughout theyear to confirm tb for or availability of phosphorus-free a~ legislation enacted . is truly acoo~ lawn fertilizers. This is why regulating pushing its intended purpose...' . . the sale of these lawn fertilizers would ~ - bemore effective and economical Kussow (emgil: ~ . Turf fertilizer industry represents- wrkussow@facstafj:wisc.edu) fives have suggested that there are is a professor of soil science at the . greater sources of phosphorus to elimi- fl~ aHOro University of Wisconsin-Madison. Hate. They point to goose droppings, A lawn care professional applies a~treatment. ,, - - ~: _ ,~:.:.:- ~. z , ~ ~ •. Q' ~ O ~ A;. O E z ~O F U W C/1 W Z ~J Q V O ~- 0 U :~ E M U z E y3 i z 0 E A w ~z 'd a oa F 0 -~ • i..i ~~ 0 ^., W J h W J f 0 N W Z z a ~'i zs .,~ C7r~ a3o ~oc"'a Rio, ~ ~~~ ,C m d ~ o y ~ ~ ~ +' " °' c ~ ° ~ ~ .C ~' °ob 'o o ° ~D.o o vi o = a ~ s., is oa°Oadpgqr.:~+c~~5e a°a`i~~ ~y.°03°'~8 ~.o~~°~~3~0°,~m~c°.~00 $'~wo1~°~~p3S,.~a=. a~C +J>~> a ~ ~ ~ ?:fit 4~ G. 'OCR ~ ~ O 3 ~~0~ ~'O 0~0° ~ m m~ ~ b ~ °".' '~ ~ ~W d Fj ,O y~ C~._, 'C vai N ~ ° W eOd q ~,: mw d °' 3 a ~ g; eo c'2 ~~~y ~ °m~~ o~°y d ~~ °.3$~ °'~ a .~ ms ~ 3 `a3 . a3 ~ 13~~~ d«'S d'o O.a ° d ~a~..3 o a'.~', ~ m o., as .s ~S a3yo '`'_ ~, .~ e~m~ °.°'Q,SSS~=_ °° a o%... ,a o~S v ~ ° y~r~ ~~. c~ a „~ c'o5 ° .a ~ c~ c dam„ ¢~~ cqi~,," ~a .a~S,~ C aE~ $~~~~ C 5 ~ ~ 3 ~~~.+ ~ $ ~ ~ ~C~ ~'~ TS•~p0~,,,_ ~ ~ wo~g ca s~.~ ~~ ~ o~~ °°'g ~ m~y ° ~ n 7 n = ~ m °~ Tp"~p^q a'o 0~5"~~°'`~ pa,°1 ti ~ C ~~•v~i c'a ~ v~i~'a~ m~ ~S e~2~ o ~ °~ ova v' „°, ae~°i 3 c°d m 5p~q a.~°., ~ c: •c, ego o•°a~ B.u E ct''~S 5 _ ~ a>^ y ° ~ o ° o ~ b c'a ~~~o~ d ~'° c ~ ~ 3 b.°3 b asir~ ~°> c~ a~ y $,8~a~~ 5?0 `O ~c°.co°' S~•`~ So88~~a`tla`-~~ A~a°v~'-'~a a.r ocy,_.d ~°~o ~~, Som~3 ~~~,•- s° o m °',~,~.» ~b,~ $.~ ~ `°.°c 8 ~.~,c ~~° 3 3 ~yW ~, ° a ow5 " ca dd ~°`" m m .CO°.aosa~ oa a ~~ ~,°~~" a ° .d ~B R muo a'~b~,~yr a> ~~ ~ a a °F' $ `' ~~ c,m ° d e`d y o.+ ~S `~5 0 ~ y~~ c~ $ °~ `° >'SeqoCc~aS ~ 8'~'8 ~ ~ ° yW o~x~i Ta ., ~~~:3,°gc°°>$gg: c:..°>coo~'°rs~8a.~•E3~;•~w~dod~y°'~o~~E~~~~~ ~oa~D~~~a~~~aoieo,,ca°~~do a.c°'oo~d~'ic,~~°°P~m~'n~'ic~.cp,omwo°' S °O o,c-~g°'85ov~ ~_c.$a~3,~m'~ iq aye a~•~ a r.. os.~ o~~~'~e~oa~i3~~a~°i~"~a~~S$o3~~a~~°`~~~~b~3~8~Sya~a~~oa~i .'~ ~ U a P ~ V a+~ a~ ~° a ~~..~~a Y 3~' a~ ° ~ o a o o,.., ,a„...~ ~a °'c`~~.., a°m' ~3 ~~~~ ° o~~~~~ a5" m~ ~ ~,~ ~ ° ~~S m~~ aa°i~~r, 8~ 3 ~ ° o acv ~~~m~a~o.~~~a8~+ ~S~~cY~o~~i °3.n~8~~~8~88. o'Sm°ao°m °~°> d~'°Qbo~~a ~p~8a°'aS bSoc.co~~'a~`a b~o ~8ao ~0'8~ a~aS~'~ ~,V ~p,~a~~~~~~~~~~, ~a-~Sa~Bo'o.a.~ ~~8.~e3c`~a ox ~~$a~ :~a.o:~~U",r~ a °'.gaSC'a~~O'b~o~'8`"S°'~ ~a~aMa .a ~~~•~~c aai~~ ~ .~~ 9tj,q°.~ a',,v°sS q °~io`~~'`~'-'~ e,° c d ~,c~ a a°' ~ ~ c~ o ~5~~Q ~"" ~S 3~~ ~~ ~ ~ y~~S~ as d8~ ~ ~ ~~Ra ~~~~ i0 10 .C f0 A ~~ it~ Y7 a0 ~~~i~ 00 i.~~ ~ ld 0°0 GC .. >'f~ O ~T.b ~•' ~Qd .aw>a „aid ~~oa3 b°858 O ~ ~~~~~~`t~o ~i-a ~e~o~~.~~~~~ ~~~ 8cr ~ moa~~S as baai~~~o.ro~-~'p°'°'o° a ~°' ~8~~ ~ ~' ~ a~~ ~.~~ s~s 9~ .~ ~°'aSB~~ d 0 ~~ ~~•~008~' $ ~ s ~~ b ~ ~ ~ z~ _~ ~ ~ STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 CONSENT 3B 79 REPORT PREPARED BY: GEORGE L. ATKINSON, ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR NAME, T/TLE i REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGN URE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~ti~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of amendment to Chapter IV of the Richfield City Code for Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations and setting the public hearing and second reading for May 14, 2002. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve first reading of the attached Sediment and Erosion Control Ordinance and schedule a Public Hearing and Second Reading on May 14, 2002. III. BACKGROUND In 1997 The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) revised its Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan to regulate water resource use, protect water resources, improve water quality and prevent flooding. In 2000 the District adopted revised rules. The City of Richfield has developed a Local Water Management plan that sets forth ,~., an implementation strategy for bringing local water management into conformance with MCWD's Comprehensive Watershed Management plan. 040902ErosionOrd On April 26, 2001, the MCWD Board of Managers conditionally approved Richfield's Local Water Management plan. Said approval was conditioned upon Richfield's adoption of several ordinance modifications. City staff and consultants have worked with the staff of MCWD to create five ordinances that meet the requirements of MCWD's approval The attached Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance sets minimum standards for when erosion control measures must be installed, which erosion control measures are to be installed, how such measures must be maintained, who is responsible for installation and maintenance, and establishes penalties for non- compliance. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Since 1987 Richfield has been on the leading edge of storm water runoff rate and quality control • Many of the provisions of the proposed ordinance are currently in- place and are required of contractors and developers who disturb soil in the City. For example,. staff already enforces the provisions of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's handbook of best management practices entitled "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas". • Silt fence, hay bales, vegetative swales and other such erosion control \ measures have been required of most contractors working in Richfield for more than a decade. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The proposed ordinance would require two important changes in the way Richfield controls erosion. • The Building Official will now be responsible for requiring and approving an "Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan". In the past the Engineering Division has had that responsibility. Engineering will still review and comment on submitted plans. • Contractors on much smaller construction sites will now be required to install and maintain erosion control measures. If the attached ordinance is adopted, all sites that disturb an area of more than 5,000 square feet will be required to provide an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and install and maintain erosion control measures. C. FINANCIAL The attached ordinance provides for no additional fee to applicants for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan review. • There should be very little if any increased cost to Richfield for implementing this ordinance change because staff currently requires ,~~, erosion and sedimentation control plans to be submitted. Staff currently reviews submitted plans. Staff also inspects project sites to assure proper installation and maintenance of erosion control measures. assure proper installation and maintenance of erosion control measures. D. LEGAL • This proposed ordinance has been reviewed by the staff of Kennedy and Graven. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could decline to approve the proposed ordinance; however, staff wishes to manage Richfield's storm sewer system including insuring that it is protected from sedimentation. MCWD will not grant final approval of Richfield's Local Water Management Plan until this and other proposed ordinances amendments are enacted. V. ATTACHMENTS • A copy of the proposed ordinance. • Article from the local Sun Newspaper of March 5, 2002. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. r`~, CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL REGULATIONS; AMENDING CHAPTER IV OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter IV of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding the following Section: Section 428 -Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations 428.01. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote the public health, safety, property and general welfare of the citizens of the City and to regulate land disturbing activities to preserve and enhance the natural environment by reducing sedimentation. in streams, lakes, ponds, storm sewer systems, and other water ways, protect the quality of surface water resources, preserve and protect wildlife habitat, restore sites to reduce the negative environmental effects of construction activities, and provide uniform techniques and methods for erosion and sedimentation control. 428.03. Administration. The City Council hereby designates the Building Official as the Administrator of this Section. Erosion control plans shall be reviewed and approved under the existing building permit process. A fee. in addition to the building permit fee is not required for erosion control plan review. 428.05. Performance Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control. The design, testing, installation, and maintenance of erosion and sediment control operations and facilities shall adhere to the standards and specifications contained in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's handbook of best management practices entitled, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" dated. 1989, as amended. 428.07. Activities Subject to Erosion Control Measure. Subdivision 1. The following land disturbing activities shall be subject to erosion control measures, except those activities described in section 428.09: a. An area of 5,000 square feet or greater that will be disturbed by excavation, grading, filling or other earth moving activities resulting in the loss of protective vegetation; or, b. Excavation or fill exceeding 50 cubic yards; or, c. The installation of underground utilities, either public or private, resulting in more than 300 linear feet of trenching or earth disturbance. Subd. 2. Any other land disturbing activity for which the City Engineer determines to have the potential for substantial erosion. 428.09. General Exemptions. Subdivision 1. The following land disturbing activities that meet all of the requirements of this subdivision are exempt from this section. The disturbed or fill area is less than five thousand (<5,000) square feet in area, and a. The volume of soil or earth material stored or moved is fifty (50) cubic yards or less, and b. Impervious surface of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet is created, and c. No drainage way is blocked or has its storm water carrying capacities or characteristics modified, and d. The activity does not take place within one hundred (100) feet by horizontal measurement from the top of the bank of the water course, the ordinary high water mark of the water body, or the ordinary high water mark of a wetland associated with a water course or water body. Subd. 2. Agricultural lands, including gardens, used mainly for the production of food, general farming, nurseries, etc. are exempt from this regulation. 428.11. Erosion Control Plans. Subdivision 1. Land disturbing activities not exempt from this Section shall be required to have an approved erosion control plan on file with the City prior to commencement of construction. Subd. 2. The erosion control plan shall contain all information necessary for the City Engineer to determine that adequate erosion control and sedimentation measures are proposed. At a minimum, a topographic map showing existing and proposed contours, location of any natural water courses, storm sewers, and drainage ways shall be provided. The extent of the land disturbing activity and any erosion control measures should be shown on the submitted erosion control plan. The following information should be submitted with the site map and grading plan: a. Existing and proposed topography of the site taken at a contour interval of no less than two (2) feet. b. Contour lines extending beyond the property boundaries for a distance sufficient to show the relationship between on-site and off-site drainage, but in no case less than 100 feet. c. Property lines shown in true location with respect to topographic information on the plan. d. Location and graphic representation of all existing and proposed natural and man-made drainage facilities. e. Detailed plans of any surface and sub-surface drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams, and other devices to be constructed with or as part of the proposed work and a map showing the drainage area and the estimated runoff of the areas served by any drain. f. Location and graphic representation of proposed excavation, fill, on-site storage of soil and other earth material, and on-site disposal of earth material g. Location of proposed final surface runoff, erosion and sediment control measures. h. Quantity, in cubic yards, of soil or earth material to be excavated, filled, stored or otherwise utilized on-site. i. Outline of the methods to be used in clearing vegetation and in storing and disposing of cleared vegetative matter. j. Proposed sequence and schedule of excavation, filling, and other land disturbing and filling activities, and soil or earth material storage or disposal. k. Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners which are within fifteen (15) feet of the property line of the subject property or which may be affected by the proposed grading operations. I. In addition to the plans, a narrative report summarizing the proposed erosion control measures should be submitted. This report should include language discussing the timing of the installation, phasing, stabilization of all erosion control structures, maintenance and eventual removal of all erosion control structures. 3 428.13. Maintenance of Erosion Control Measures. Subdivision 1. It shall be responsibility of the owner/developer to maintain all erosion control structures in a condition that will ensure continuous functioning of those devices. If, after the installation of the erosion control structure, the City Engineer determines that additional measures are needed, they shall be installed at the expense of the owner. Subd. 2. Any erosion or sediment that runs off or blows off the site onto adjoining properties, City streets, storm sewer, etc. shall be the responsibility of the owner or developer for clean-up and restoration. If the owner fails to properly clean up or restore all areas affected by erosion, the City will hire a contractor to complete the work and bill the owner for the expenses associated with the clean-up. Failure to maintain these measures shall be a violation of this Ordinance. 428.15. Penalties for Violation. The following penalty options are available for violation of this ordinance: Subd. 1. "Stop Work" Order. It is unlawful for any person, either by the owner or the occupant of premises, to violate, neglect or refuse to comply with the requirements of this section. In addition, if the City Engineer determines that adequate erosion control measures are not being followed and there is little cooperation on the part of the owner to do so, a "stop work" order may be issued to the land disturbing activity until such times as adequate measures are implemented. Subd. 2. Suspension or Revocation of Permit. The City may suspend or revoke the permit and permittee shall cease work on the site except for work necessary to remedy the cause of the suspension. The permittee may request a reinstatement of a suspended or revoked permit upon correction of the causes for suspension and, if the conditions of the Permit have been complied with in full, the City shall reinstate the permit. Subd. 3. Issue Violation as a Misdemeanor. Any person violating a section, subdivision, paragraph or provision of this Ordinance when that person performs an act thereby prohibited or declared unlawful, or fails to act when such failure is thereby prohibited or declared unlawful, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as for a petty misdemeanor, except as otherwise stated in specific provisions hereof. Sec. 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. 4 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk (~ 5 MNSUN -News Archive ~I~ ~; r -- -- -- --,.~«,- ~1~.11".;jxsi~cx's Select a Town `- ~ ' Archives Classifieds Finance Calc AAarkat PIacP ''' Net Directory Nutrition Calc Weather Contact Us How to Advertise Jobs At Sun w .;. ~.E Sun Slots ~~~ ~~ 0 Rrirlal ('.iiirla Educational Excellence Mature Lifestyles NET DIRECTory Dealing With Drugs Affordable Housing In Memory Of Let It Be Known Sport Shots Stork Report Powered by. ~:. ,~ ~ _~ ~~ Search ...-- -~- ~~ Page 1 of 4 Local Forecast ,Mar. 5, Click Here r. ~ r~:,ti .M..., r.=, i.-~~~rr~t ~ rh ~~ Proposed watershed district changes face opposition By Laura Waldon Sun Newspapers (Created 2/27/02 9:03:00 AM) A proposed rule change by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has stirred up some negative responses from local communities that are within the boundaries of the district. The district's proposed rules relate to erosion control, buffers for lakes, wetlands and streams and storm-water management standards. The rule changes would affect properties adjacent to any wetland or lake within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, which includes parts of 27 cities. Some of these cities are Edina, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Richfield, St. Louis Park, Plymouth, Orono, Minneapolis and Wayzata. In Edina, this includes wetlands by Todd Park, Weber Park, Browndale Park, Pamela Park, the White Oaks and Rolling Green/Hilldale areas, as well as Minnehaha Creek, Lake Harvey and Melody Lake. "It greatly restricts us on what we can do," said Eric Anderson, Edina assistant city manager. Under the proposed rules, a property owner would be required to set aside an increased buffer area around wetlands and would not be allowed to mow, dispose of yard or animal waste or fertilize there. In addition, the property owner could be required to post signs denoting wetland areas and have surveys done of those areas, at the cost of the property owner. Any property owner that needs an erosion-control permit or storm-water permit could be required to adhere to the new rules, with some exceptions, Edina city staff reported. Under current rules, MCWD requires buffer distances of up to 16.5 to 35 feet around wetlands, depending on-the area of the wetland, said Jim Hafner, senior technician at MCWD. Glick Nerd ~~ i ,piw3nc It http://www.mnsun.com/archive.asp?display=story2&year=2002&storyID=84401 03/05/2002 MNSLTN -News Archive If MCWD's Board of Managers approves the new rules in the next few weeks, buffer distances around wetlands up to one acre would be increased from 16.5 feet to 25 feet, wetlands greater than one acre would see an increase from 35 feet to 50 feet, streamside distances would be increased from 25 feet to 50 feet and buffer distances around lakes would go as high as 50 to 100 feet, Anderson said. The Builder's Association of the Twin Cities estimates that this change would take 9,204 acres of land, Edina city staff reported. "The intent is to protect the quality of a wetland," Hafner said. "We feel that these buffers are an important aspect of providing that protection." The city of Plymouth already requires posting signs at wetlands, Hafner noted. "This isn't really new," Hafner said. "It's new somewhat as our watershed rules go, but as far as the practice in the Twin Cities, it isn't new." The watershed district "wouldn't go knocking on doors" and tell people that they have to put up buffers, Hafner explained. Rather, the new rule would be primarily enforced "as opportunities arise," such as at the time of construction of a new residential subdivision that has wetlands on it, Hafner said. Buffer maintenance and signage would be part of the requirement of the new homeowner's association. At the time of construction, property owners in the watershed district would need to apply for a permit with MCWD, Hafner added. "We certainly encourage people to adopt a practice of maintaining buffers [without our rule]," Hafner said. "A 25- to 50-foot buffer does not guarantee a better water quality," said Edina Public Works Director and City Engineer Wayne Houle. "You have to look at the bigger picture of storm- water management." Houle added that this "one-size catchall" does not fit with all of the cities that are located within the watershed district. Further, the engineering firm of Roger Anderson and Associates reviewed the proposed changes and said that the studies MCWD used to back its proposal were invalid, Houle said. The Edina City Council found the proposed rule regarding buffers too restrictive and agreed with city staff that the increased buffer area would not guarantee better water quality within the wetland or lakes. As a result, the council approved a resolution opposing MCWD's rule changes at its Feb. 19 meeting. All council members voted in favor of the measure except for Jim Hovland, who abstained because his property could be affected by the rule changes. Page 2 of 4 http://www.mnsun.com/archive.asp?display=story2&yeat=2002&storyID=84401 03/05/2002 MNSLTN -News Archive City staff also noted that the cities of St. Louis Park and Minnetonka, the Minneapolis Park Board and the Builder's Association of the Twin Cities have objected to the rule changes. "I would think that they would respect our opinion on the proposed rule," Houle said of the MCWD Board of Managers. The watershed district first discussed these rule changes about a year ago, but revised their previous proposal after some groups voiced considerable opposition to the changes, Hafner said. MCWD held a public hearing two weeks ago on this issue, and the public comment period ended Feb. 21, Hafner reported. The watershed district notified the public of the hearing by placing a legal notice in local papers and posting information on its Web site, www.minnehahacreek.org. However, some Edina City Council members were upset that MCWD did not give residents more notice. "I think this is a very, very significant issue," said Councilmember Mike Kelly, adding that a legal notice provides insufficient notification to residents. "I think this is classic bureaucratic overreaching, in my mind," Kelly added. "We are a public agency and if we were to mail a notice out to everyone that lived in the watershed district, it would be extremely expensive," Hafner said. "By publishing the notices in the Star Tribune and a couple other papers that we know have high readership ... we felt that we had more than adequately notified people." As with all changes, there would be an "educational period" during which people adjust to the new rule, Hafner said. He noted that people were originally opposed to the idea of separating their trash to recycle certain materials, even though recycling is positive for the environment. "You're not always going to do something that is accepted by everybody," Hafner said. "But I think over time ... people will become more receptive and more understanding. to it." The MCWD Board of Managers is scheduled to vote on the rule change Feb. 28 at the earliest, Hafner said. At least four of the seven board managers would have to approve the rule changes in order for them to take effect. ~, ~ ~w__ ~_ .. ~ ~ ~ ~.._...~~ .__.. Page 3 of 4 http://www.mnsun.com/archive.asp?display=story2&year=2002&storyID=84401 03/05/2002 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 3A REPORT # 7 8 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST. NAME, TITLE ~~ REPORT PRESENTER: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of the attached ordinance amendment relating to City Council salaries. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve first reading of the attached ordinance amendment relating to City Council salaries and schedule the public hearina and second reading for Mav 14, 2002. II. BACKGROUND At the March 26 Worksession, the City Council requested that a proposed ordinance amendment to increase the Council salaries by 3.5%, effective January 1, 2003, be prepared for consideration at the April 9, 2002 City Council meeting. The Council also requested that the proposed ordinance include an increase to the 2003 salary of the Mayor and Council Members, effective January 1, 2004, equal to the percentage increase granted on January 1, 2003 for Management and General Services pay plans. The 2003 increase would adjust the Mayor's salary to $8,523 per year and Council Member salaries to $6,616 per year. 0409salaries.doc III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION / A. POLICY • Chapter II, Section 210 of the City Code establishes the salaries of the City Council and provides that the salaries of the Council Members be reviewed by December 1 of each year in which an election is held. • The City Charter stipulates that City Council salaries may be adjusted only by ordinance. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City Council adopted Policy Statement No. 1 on July 13, 1987. The policy statement provides that in years a municipal election is to be held, the Council shall establish a revised pay schedule for Council Members and the Mayor. The policy also provides that the amount of increase granted to employees in the year subsequent to the previous salary adjustment would be used as a guideline. The salary increase for employees in the General Services and Management pay plans was 3% in 2000 and 2001; and 3.5% in 2002. • Including a City Council salary increase effective January 1, 2004 equal to the pay structure increase granted on January 1, 2003 to Management and General Services pay plans will keep the Council salaries comparable with other cities. C. FINANCIAL • .Preparation of the 20.02 Revised/2003 Proposed budget will begin in a few months. The Council's decision on a salary adjustment will be necessary to provide adequate funding, should an adjustment be approved. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could defer action on this item to a future meeting. However, budget preparation timelines should be considered. • Do not approve first reading of the ordinance and take no further action. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 210 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 210 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by amending Subsection 210.01 to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Mayor. Effective January 1, 2003, the salary of the mayor is ~~~ 8 523 per year. Subdivision 2. Council. Effective January 1, 2003, Tthe salary of a member of the council is $0~2 6 616 per year. C{fon~i~io fl.~ ~~ ~rrlin.~nno honnrwe. ~ff~.n+i~m nn L~n~ v~ni 1 ~nn~ Subdivision 3. ~ rr~~cra-c-vote-~~1;~-vrarrr~ncc-~~cvrR~-nzzmn-o,-rvz, Effective January 1, 2004, the annual salary of the mayor and a member of the council as provided in Subdivision 1 and 2 above shall be increased by a percentage equal to the annual pay structure increase granted on January 1, 2003 to Management. and General Services pay Ip ans. Subdivision 4. Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective on January 1, 2003. 2002. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this ~ _ day of , Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk