Loading...
07-09-02 agendaHOC, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2002 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING `-~ COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open Forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to a staff member. Speakers are also asked to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Counci/ on items not on the agenda. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of June 19, 2002; (2) Special City Council Worksession of June 24, 2002; (3) Special City Council Meeting of June `'?5, 2002; and (4) Regular City Council Meeting of June 25, 2002 PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of proclamation designating July 7-13, 2002 National Therapeutic Recreation Week m Richfield 2. Annual meeting with Community Services Commission COUNCIL DISCUSSION • Council attendance at community meetings Notes: 3. City Manager's report Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL ~. 4. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 5. 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 laced on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items Psted on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of resolution affirming tort liability limits established by State Statute 466.04 S.R. No. 162 B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing application to Metropolitan Council for Livable Communities Demonstration Program grant for Lyndale Gateway, Phase III S.R. No. 163 C. Consideration of approval of resolution supporting amendments to Local Government Information Systems Joint Powers Agreement S.R. No. 164 D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizin execution of Stipulation of Final Settlement for Morrow Towing, 6429-6445 ~edar Avenue; 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Pro ect S.R. No. 165 E. Consideration of approval of resolution identifying progressive discipline for alcohol establishment violations and rescinding Resolution No. 8808 S.R. No. 166 F. Consideration of approval of setting July 23, 2002 as public hearing regarding issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc., Two West 66th Street S.R. No. 167 G. Consideration of approval of on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor, itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for Church of the Assumption, 305 East 77th Street, annual Fun Fest on August 11, 2002 S.R. No. 168 H. Consideration of approval of veterinary license renewal for Veterinary Radiation Therapy Clinic, Inc., 1208 East 66th Street S.R. No. 169 I. Consideration of approval of veterinary license renewal to operate veterinary clinic -_ for Woodlake Veterinary Hospital, 6436 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 170 J. Consideration of approval of commercial kennel license renewal for Animal Care Clinic, 1208 East 66th Street S.R. No. 171 I<. Consideration of approval of multi-animal residential license renewal for: 7308 Sheridan Avenue, four dogs and two cats S.R. No. 172 • 6600 Newton Avenue, five dogs S.R. No. 173 • 6834 Knox Avenue, four dogs S.R. No. 174 Notes: 6. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar PUBLIC HEARING 7. Public hearing and consideration of resolution authorizing amendment to planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit for City Bella project located in southwest corner of Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street Staff Report No. 175 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 8. Consideration of second reading of proposed ordinance amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.39 describing bereavement leave Staff Report No. 176 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 9. Consideration of plans and specifications for Phases One and Two of Outdoor Pool Renovation Project and authorizing advertisement forbids Staff Report No. 177 Notes: 10. Claims and payrolls Open Forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is 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: 11.Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861- 9702. AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 17 7 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~ /, .SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 1-1 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of plans and specifications for Phases One and Two of the Outdoor Pool Renovation Pro'ect and authorization to roceed with bid. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the plans and specifications for Phases One and Two of the Outdoor Pool Renovation Project and authorize staff to proceed with the advertisement for bids for the project. II. BACKGROUND Gremmer and Associates have prepared final plans and specifications for the Outdoor Pool Renovation project. With the help of Gremmer, staff will solicit bids for the project and commence with the work in August after the contracts are approved by the Council (see attached construction schedule). On February 12 and March 26, respectively, the City Council approved transitory ordinances authorizing the planning, design and execution of Phases One and Two of the Outdoor Pool Renovation Project. Phase One has an estimated cost of $820,531; Phase Two has an estimated cost of $1,549,861. With estimated project costs exceeding $500,000, the hearings were required by Section 8.04 of the City Charter. 0709 pool plans A summary of construction specifications follows (refer to attached schematics): .--_~ 1. Main Pool • Replace re-circulation pipes and main pool re-circulation pump with 3 inch PVC. • Replace aluminum gutter grate with PVC grates. Install deck drain diverting deck run off from pool container to sanitary sewer. • Sandblast, paint and caulk pool surfaces. Base bid includes epoxy paint with diamond brite surface as add-alternate. • Construct a handicapped ramp to comply with ADA. • Convert existing sand filter tank into surge tank. • Install a new. high-rate sand filtration system. • Add a 12' x 18' room with pre-cast walls to existing pool mechanical room to accommodate new equipment. • Reuse existing pool heaters. • Remove gas chlorine storage area. Install tank for calcium hypo-chlorite disinfectant system. • Install new fencing on south side of pool site, with replacement of all fencing from 6 feet to 8 feet chain link with steel cable for upper support. 2. Interactive Wading Pool • Replace existing wading pool (2,200 square feet) with a new 3,976 square-foot interactive wading pool, to comply with ADA and State codes. • Install water play equipment, specifying water system with 16-foot water fall, 1 water curtain, 4 bubbler jets, 2 water guns, 3 overhead rope pulls, 2 hose jets, 9 horizontal jets, 1 umbrella jet, 1 pipe falls, 11 bar jets, 8 peacock jets, 5 up jets, 1 single angle jet, 5 high angle jets, 1 tunnel slide, 1 tire swing, 3 platforms, and 1 crawl tunnel. • Construct separate mechanical system for the wading pool with high-rate sand filtration system and calcium hypo-chlorite disinfectant system. 3. Bathhouse Replace existing bathhouse (4,000 square-foot) with new, 5,400 square-foot bathhouse. New bathhouse to comply with ADA and State codes Building envelop to include: a) Walls -rock face concrete block with integral color. b) Roof -heavy asphalt shingles over plywood deck and pre-fabricated trusses. c) Fascia - prefinished metal. d) Soffits -painted cement boards with ventilation holes. e) Floors -sealed concrete. f) Doors & Windows -Aluminum frames with tinted glass at all windows and front entrance. Hollow metal doors and frames for all other entrances. Interior building materials: a) Partition walls -painted concrete block. b) Ceilings -Portland cement plaster in shower rooms and painted water resistant gypsum wallboard for remaining areas. c) Ceiling hieght - 9'-2" with vaulted ceiling at entrance. ^ Furnishings & equipment: a) Toilet rooms -high density polymer toilet partitions, stainless steel toilet accessories including mirrors, soap dispensors and hand dryers. Accessible toilet rooms will also have baby changing station, toilet shower grab bars and accessible shower stall with seat. b) Locker rooms -solid maple benches and exterior located solid polymer lockers. ^ Staff room: a) Solid polymer lockers for lifeguards b) break area and first aid area with cot. ^ Entrance: a) 2 cashier stations with glass windows and solid polymer countertops and shelves. ^ Concession stand: a) Counters -stainless steel counters with integral drawers. b) Equipment -list c) Windows -aluminum double hung cashier windows with sliding screen for ventilation. An extensive soil test was conducted by Allied Test Drilling Company. Recommendations to prepare suitable soil conditions for bathhouse and wading pool foundations were incorporated into the project specifications. - ~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Pursuant to Section 8.04 of the City Charter regarding projects with estimated cost exceeding $500,000, City Council approved a transitory ordinance authorizing' staff to proceed with plans and specifications for Phase One and Phase Two of outdoor pool improvements on February 12 and March 26, 2002, respectively. B. CRITICAL ISSUES ^ In order to stay on schedule for an estimated re-opening of June 2003, plans and specifications will need to be approved at the July 9 meeting. ^ In its current state, the main pool structure is inoperable due to several leaks in the circulation system. The 40 year-old circulation pipes located beneath the pool deck have deteriorated to the point where the `entire circulation system must be replaced. ^ Because of the relocation of the bathhouse and the new wading pool, grading will necessitate the removal of 21 mature trees and some ornamental trees (see attached Memorandum to City Council dated June 6, 2002). The trees have caused a maintenance problem for years with unwanted pine needles on the picnic grounds and in the filtration system. Because the trees are too large to relocate, staff recommends replacing them by planting new trees in Veterans Park. Staff notified the public of the need to remove the pool trees through the City's website, and by arranging an interview with the Richfield Sun Current (see attached Sun Current issue dated June 12, 2002). As of the date of submittal of this report, staff has not received any phone calls or -°~ inquiries concerning the pool trees. C. FINANCIAL • The estimated costs for each pool phase follows: • • ~- • ~ • $765,478 $55,053 $820,531 • $1,445,735 $104,126 $1,549,861 TOTAL $2,211,213 $159,179 $2,370,392 D. LEGAL • Pursuant to Section 8.04 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance was approved authorizing staff to proceed with phases one and phase two of the outdoor pool improvements because the estimated project cost exceeds $500,000. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Schematics • .Site Plan • Construction Schedule • City Council Memorandum dated June 6, 2002 • Sun Current Article dated June 12, 2002 VI. .PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Members of the Outdoor Pool Task Force • Jody Dahms and Tim Gremmer, Gremmer and Associates • Tom Schuelke, TSP Architects and Engineers, Inc. '~ ~J C FILE NAME: RF_C1-4.DU1G REVIBEDi 6/28/04 PLOT SCALE= I:4m ,,, u~ u• ui u~ u~ u~ u~ v ~j O O O O O O O 5 U~ 1. 1. ,~i t., ~ O O (') q O ~ O (~ t) 66TH S BEET ~ I' ` I f I I _ (1 ., _ { - I , ~,I' ' `'r r r r ~ r > C ,1 f ~ 1 1 r , ~~ I 1 ~' -~ ) ~/' ST~I/ ~Y04 / / / GONSTR~GTI STAGING'.4REA ~ b I ~, I ~ 1 ONE WAY i I : ~ I : _ ~ i __Ji L __~'~ ~ __ ~ '_ ,~~ / / ~ PROT~GT EX 6TMG PAVEMENT I / ,~ ~ ' / -~ , 1 l.ui , ~ i (~ o Q 1 ~ ~ A "I' DROP AREA a i~ Q w ~ v~ ~ ,%~~ , , ~~ I 1 _ ,-~ .. ~ - o MATCHi CURB RAfhP _ -.- CURS-_ -__ _ .._ MATCH i DRIVEWAY - MATCH '~ is N s. 1 ~ ~ ~ Y, r"OI 45 D4E,G I ~ ~ ~' ~ _"_ - - - -- 1 n o o ~ ~ ~ rn ~ ~'?~ i ! _ _, =fit Ip O ~ > > ~ w ~~ ~.. ~ ~ I ~?S ~~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ .. ,; - ~ - --t> ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ , - ~ - -- ~ 1 4 ~~ t. ~ N JS"~": I .t SY- 'p- t -I 1 -/_~/ .- 1 ~+I~-~. _ - ] - - ~~ -7- ---- - -~~L -- mil- 5, 7RAGT N0.1 _\. -_-_. ~ __~ w ~ 0 0 o I, I• ' t ~ ~ 0w lu ~ Iw wni0~ , (i n 0 0 111 I ,~ -~ p~ / A ~ m ~ i '- (7 i S i ---J ~' -- --r - --- ~ ~ ip \ 0 m - 1'il ~ ~ I I I I ,t I ~ _ _ ~ f. ~ , A 2 ro~~ 1 ~ ~ -- -- --- - - - - - _ 0.. \ I u I ,. , - `~ 1 : ~~: J pj 3.-~-- I iI ~ ~ ~~~ iii•':ii~• I ~,, 'tJ i\".( I It~C~ 0 ~~, ~ 1 ... ~ ~ .I y __ \ I ,~ ~ ~ ~ Imo` :• ~ w~ :z€~~'``~•~ o ~I ~ •, ;~. ~ \~ per' `~ `~':.:` ; • I 1 ~jgg ~ 1 ~ ~ - ~~~~~`''•~ ~ ) `~: ~ .Imp I ~ c w ~ I a •~'•• ~ , ~g Iftli~'. r~~~• E1w 1 1t:...•• ~\ \ •~~~•••1~•• '~ ~ i3~ ( I1 I~''~ I'~ ~ -; I 1 ~' ~•• ` I ~~I I fl ;;,.., ~`~`~ 8 ro C I ~~ i ! ~ I I ' \ , ~ ~~~ ~\ ~'t ~ ~~\ \ I ~ . s , , ( I I, t- ' FEN E : ;. .. :• '" . •. .~~•: ~p~p 0 I .•. .. ` •,;: t `v ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ D l ` ~ ~'~';?:;' E.•~`I ~ ?:?I. .Q '~ ~ i e \ ' ;~~~i.~?;.' ~ ~ ',~ r~: I 1 A W w~ - (yl rtl ~~ I `( ' 1 ,'. ~tj>~'::. :~;, gyp, r ~ ~ ~'`L l I~, ,`` g ~-1 -. ~~. ~ -11 ~ ~~ .` ... ~ ~ '.V~ ~ ~l~ ~ u,~,,, ~ ,~, .; i.e _ _ •.::.. 111 ~ :-:-~(-•:; ', '.~;' ` 1( ~~ 1 . , .:~' - `~\` .' I 1 D`~ ~D F V ~ it 1', I `~` `•~ ~ •p. ~ ~~ ~ / ~\1 '\) ~~•~i~ II~1 :f~.3~(w'S~0 •~• ~ 11 D, N NN ~' 111 ' ~ ; , ~ w Z ~ ~\ -- -1" ''''''~`:`~•:`'`~•~~I~~f'`' ,) I , ~~~' 0 ~ ~-=; -1 \ ~ J • 1I~ ..... .;:::: •~ 'I ' i Q Q 1 f r . - 3 ~,.-_.. ~ ~ y•,) I ~ ~~Il r ~~ ,t ~ ^-( ~ ~-~~ ~ ~ ~ -000 ~ ~ I /~ t ~ ~ (~~ ~ t -/( ~ '~ ~- 0 ~~~~ (T - rte- _.__ r ~, m~ - - ~~~~ ~_ - ~_~ -~ -~ U Z ~~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~~ D ~ Q~I~1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ D~ ~ r ~ - _ -_ _ _ --- --- - --- --~ ---- - - --- - - ---- -- ---- ---~ --A ~ - ~ -~ --~ -.~ ~ .. - - ., ~ r 0 ~ IA ~1 ~ ~ - ~ r ~~ ~ O- ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ci z ~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~D~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o ~ d ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~~ O ~d~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ D D ~ ~ r d ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~.mdm =~ ~ o~ co ' ~N-. ~ ~ B3 ~g~ ~ m ~ m~~ ~`~ 1 ~ ~ C ~'~n s ~ - ~ ~ m o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u Y FF DY a 0~ g ~ z ~ ~ I ~~~~ c ~ N O .. ~ (') 00 pa '° a a $ ~~~ ovo 0 0 0 0 o n ~ ~ ~ ~ W l~ ~~ `~ i ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ >e N ~~ ebb ~ o ~ ~' ~~ y; ~N , o ~~ ~ Y. , rt • z ys 5~~ : fi' k Z g C c ~ ±~ `;x~ ~~ ~ ~~r{ x`.~` ~ c ; ~ 5 Q ~ ~~ ~ ~{{ 76j ~ v ~~~ ~y l'1' 4{yi ¢ ~ i ~ ' r a• ,~ c om : }31~, ~ r t t r,••~ ~ z . y 4 +. i ~ . 7 f~: i ~ ~ ~. Q~Q 3E ; ~ 4 142 k ?: t J ; . ~ ~ Y ~ ' ~• ~_ li l I ~ ~ 3m D-2 ~ ~ ~ ii i m ~ o ~~ I I I I ~~~ I . iI ii~~~ ~ .i: , ~ . > > n ~~ I ~~ . III ll~ ~' d N X j I ~ x r d jp t0 m, v = o ~ A A ~ N ' ~ Z N t (.l N .. N ~ W N ~ j (~ D J D NO Of ~ J ~ ~ rncn ~ r- cue ~ o~~ +~ z ~ moo ~ ~ O ~ mm ~ mrn ?~ ~ mao <oo <C DC ~- D- • d Z pz ~ ZZ - ~~ ;z~a~il ; ~,__ U, s s rn~ m m ~~ ~z D O O ~fTl ~~ ~ 8 '~ 8 N ~ ~ ~ ~~ X ' fTl 036 ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ °D rn ~ ~` '• i-' s m --f O Z N 1 I f 1 t ~~ ~ ~ 1 Y i O 9 $ri~ A ~ 6 ~ O ~ ~ A ~ 2 ~ Q G ~ I m~~ o~ ~ w ~`'~~~ o~~g ~ A a E ~D~N~ ~~~~~ m ~'° ~ o N ~ O Q O O y 7~C ~ ~ A 7 a y aDD ~iP ZP C O O Q~ m $j0~0 ~ Q N ice. W N Q Q O 4 A Q g ~~ 'If~ ~ ~ $ Q ~ ~~i N ~ g ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ r s ~ ~ r ~ ~ o~ ~ 4 z ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ g m ~ ~ f T7 ~ ~ ~ D ~~ ~ >° ~ ~ m °~~ ~ Z ~, ~~~ ~ ~ D0 X00 DD ~ o ~aa ~ 8~ x~ ~ ~ ~ TN -•bg~ ~ ~~ ~< ~ ~ T~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z n {~~ P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~ +~ ^m~-I m ,'o ~ o ~ ~~ 0~.~0 w.~o m ~ > > ~_ n ` r-im~ i/) m m x x-~~ jp m~n,m N N v 0 m D p A ~ ~ Z m ~ W W N ~ ~ W N ~ m / /1 ~O V l C1 ~ m ~ ~ rn ~ X10 z (1 C1 ~ c' ~O ~ m~ r d?~ .~ z ~ N N ~ 3 ~ z ~z ~ •r ;D ~~ O +~ r -T, N r O O ~~ -ft 1- 0 /~ r D z ~~ '~ t~~~~~~ ~o ~~~~ ~~ ~m ~~ s4 ~~ :_~''~~ ~ z~o ~ ~ ;c 2S ~i~ ~~~~ ~~ ~•~ SCS Interactive Inc. --WaterPlay, Standard Model 212 ~" u9M.. .±~L " ~' ~~' ~ ~ ~" ~`' r Interactive ~~-~~~~~~~~t~ WaterPlay~~ Systems Page 1 of 2 SCSI Interactive Model 212 is a complete WaterPlay system with many interactive activities that encourage the entire family to enjoy the fun together. Participants can interact with the water features individually or with other guests, as they create and control certain effects, or surprise others with a shower of water from a hidden source. Angle Jets spray out several feet before arching onto participants below. Bar Jets form a series of streams directed downward, while the Water Curtain forms a transparent sheet of water 4' wide. An Umbrella Jet rings the Tire Swing so it can be either a wet or dry experience. Many other water effects combine to make the Model 212 the best of our mid- sized play systems. As with all SCS® Interactive systems, guests may choose to stay dry and control the water effects in their clothes, or wear their swim suits to experience the full effect of waterplay. Water Features 1 - 16' Central balls 1 -Water Curtain (6') 4 -Bubbler Jets 2 - Waterguns 13 -Angle Jets 3 - O~~erhead Rope Pulls 2 -Hose Jets 9 -Horizontal Jets 1 -Umbrella Jet 1 -Pipe Falls 11 -Bar Jets 8 -Peacock .Tets 5 - Up .lets 1 -Single Angle Jet 5 - FIigh Angle Jets Play Features I -Tunnel Slide http://www. scsinteractive. com/212.html 7/2/02 ~a TM SCS Interactive Inc. -- WaterPlay, Standard Model 212 1 -Tire Swing 3 -Platforms 1 -Crawl "funnel ira in a 0 ,-. All SCS® Interactive Play Systems are built of steel pipe, galvanized inside and out, specially cleaned and primed, then finished with a chlorine and chemical resistant polyurethane paint. The structure pictured above is shown in our standard recommended colors. Your structure can be painted in the colors of your choice. IJ. S. Patent Numbers, 5,194,048 and 330,579. Other patents pending. Interactive Waterplay® is a registered trademark of SCS® Interactive Incorporated. n Model 108 ~ Model 110 ~ Standard Models a Photographs: Copyright© 1998 by SCS® Interactive Incorporated, Tillamook, OR. All rights reserved. Graphic images and site design: Copyright© 1998 by Reynen &_iJber, Palo Alto, CA All rights reserved. Comments to: webmaster@scsinteractivc.com http://www. scsinteractive. com/212.html Page 2 of 2 7/2/02 rs'-ft" 17'.011° ~~~ i r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager June 6, 2002 Council Memorandum No. 0606 pool The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Outdoor Pool Renovation Project: Update Council Members: _.. s_ _~_ _ __ . _ ~ _ _. Staff is working closely with Gremmer and Associates to complete the final design for the outdoor pool improvements. Demolition of the bathhouse and wading pool has been arranged, soil borings were conducted, and there have been many meetings to discuss details. One change from the original plan is to reuse the existing filter room for the main pool instead of locating the new filter in the new bathhouse. As a result, there will be no need fora two- . story filter room, thus providing a cost saving. Another issue is the number of trees to be removed from the site. Because of the relocation of the bathhouse and the new wading pool, 21 mature trees and some additional ornamental trees will need to be removed (see attached photos and site plan). Most of the trees are Red Pine, which have caused a tremendous maintenance problem in the pool for years with pine needles everywhere. Staff proposes to replace the lost trees with new trees, to be planted in a nearby location in Veterans Park. Unfortunately, the existing trees are too large to move. The actual inventory of trees recommended for removal include: Fenced area west of pool ^ 10 Red Pine ^ 1 Blue Spruce ^ 2 Hackberry ^ 1 Honey Locust ^ 2 Green Ash South of Existing Bathhouse ^ 2 Red Pines ^ 2 Chinese Elm ^ 1 American Linden ^ Ornamental Trees In an attempt to inform citizens of the potential loss of trees during pool construction, staff has posted the pictures on the City's website at www.ci.richfield.mn.us/ParksRecreation/pool htm. Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director, has contacted Mr. Wayne Sames, LAWCON Representative from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, about the need to remove these trees from the site. Mr. Sames has confirmed that removing trees for the purposes of improving the pool does not violate any terms of the LAWCON grant received in 1990-for the development of Veterans Park.- There will be no trees removed until final design of pool improvements are reviewed and considered by City Council. Written approval from the DNR of tree removal will accompany final design documents. Pending City Council approval, pool construction is expected to begin in August, after the existing bathhouse and wading pool is removed. If you would like more information or a tour of the pool site, please contact Jim Topitzhofer at ..612-g61-9394.,. _., _ Respectfully submitted, Samantha Orduno City Manager SO:je c ~' F ~ Q I ~ ~!I ~~ `~ a- O ~ °'3~ 3 ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~/• `~li~ Q U N j ~ ~ ~L= ~ ~ J o LL 0 ~ 4 ~/ ~j~~ ~;., U ~ ~ x~= ~ ~ ~ I~ ~~ -~ J O Q O F-- u~ w d w J J Q U Z J W_ LL i~ U w ~ ~O wU ~ ~ ~ N Z w~ w ~~ ~~ >~~p ~ N~ zp„ O ~~ Fw Z' Q(1 Q9~:~ ~~i~ ~tzt~ p~ wu 0 U ~ ~......... >~ Q U . p: ~~ W CJ~ ~--- d C,3 Z w' O 1--- -Q w r- cry W Q City to consider taking down trees for pool renovation by John Klun Sun Newspapers 6/12/02 The Richfield City Council will decide this summer on whether to allow the removal of 21 mature trees around the municipal pool, 630 E. 66th St. The consulting firm of Gremmer and Associates is in the process of developing the final design for more than $2.3 million in improvements to the 40-year-old outdoor pool. Approximately $820,000 in repairs is planned in order to get the pool functioning properly after two seasons of equipment failure, and $1.5 million will go toward enhancements to the facility, including a new bathhouse and wading pool. According to Recreation Services Director Jim Topitzhofer, the demolition phase of the project is imminent, and he will recommend to the City Council that several trees be removed. The list of trees Topitzhofer will recommend for removal includes red pine, blue spruce, hackberry, honey locust, green ash, Chinese elm, American linden, and some "ornamental trees." Some of the trees must be removed because they stand in the proposed location of the new bathhouse and wading pool, west of the current bathhouse, he said. Topitzhofer also will recommend the removal of several pine trees on the northwest side of the park, mostly because they pose a maintenance and equipment problem. The pine needles from these trees get in the pool and clog the filter. He will also recommend planting new trees in Veterans Memorial Park. Topitzhofer is being careful with his recommendation. He has posted a notice on the city's Web site, and he insists there will be no trees removed until the final design of the pool improvements are reviewed and considered by the City Council. "I'm trying to be as up-front as possible on this," he said. By being up-front, he hopes to avoid the controversy caused by a previous tree-removal incident in Veterans Park. In 1997, the city removed approximately 200 mature trees to prepare a site for a new city maintenance facility. Many residents objected to the removal of the grove of trees. One of those residents was John Enger, now a City Council member. Enger said he did not know about the " '`ree removal in 1997 until after it happened, and when he found out about it, he was disappointed. "You just don't take down trees for a city garage," he said. The current proposal is different, he argued. "The loss of these trees can be replaced elsewhere," he said. "The public benefit of what we're doing here with the pool is worth it. The public amenity outweighs the loss of the trees." Topitzhofer said the final design for the pool renovation should go before the City Council in about a month, at which time he will make his recommendation to approve the removal of trees. The pool renovation project is scheduled to continue throughout the year, requiring that it be closed this summer. It is scheduled to be ready by next season. ;~,i.. r' ~ .~. ,- ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ h .4 V, J 3 r~ r~i~ ~ $' yuc4rti'a ~r s ~ ~ ~ ~~ dal .. ~ I:r 'k ' i~E'M ~h J ~.~ ydx~~i4r... „ t .~ ,~~.i. t ~ ~ .~ i^a ~~ STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 2002 Proposed Ord. 8 176 DAWN WEITZEL, REPORT PREPARED BY: HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: STEVEN L. DEVICH, AD~tvISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Second reading of amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.39 describing bereavement leave. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the second reading of the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.39 describing bereavement leave. III. BACKGROUND Within the last few years, there has been an increase in the number of employee and Union requests for changes regarding the City's bereavement leave policy. In comparison with other metro cities, Richfield's policy is more restrictive in the areas of length of leave available and for which family members the leave is available in the time of their death. The proposed ordinance amendment is meant to address those concerns. A recommendation is being made to amend Subsection 310.39 (Bereavement Leave) in ,~ two parts. The first change is to increase the bereavement leave granted to eligible ' employees for each allowable occurrence from 16 to 24 hours. 07096reavement The second change is to expand the definition of family member covered by the section to ~~ include son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepparents, and legal guardians and stepchild/foster child. It also provides authority for the City Manager to approve exceptions to the list. These changes would affect those employees included in the General Services and Management Pay Plans, who are not represented by a collective bargaining agreement. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The proposed amendment to, Subsection 310.39, Subdivision 6 Bereavement Leave, will enable the City to become less restrictive and equitable to other cities in its granting of bereavement leave. • The proposed amendment to Subsection 310.39, Subdivision 6 Bereavement Leave, aids in balancing some of the benefits already offered to some Union employees. • Making this leave policy less restrictive will not compromise the integrity of City services. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The first reading of the ordinance was held on June 11, 2002. C. FINANCIAL • By amending Subsection 310.39, Bereavement Leave, approximately 155 regular and part-time General Services and Management employees would be eligible to receive an additional 8 hours of bereavement leave for each allowable occurrence. D. LEGAL • In order to provide the requested bereavement leave rate increase and definitional change, the City Council must. approve an amendment to the City's personnel ordinance. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the second reading of ordinance amendment and take no further action. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. BILL NO. ,--~ AMENDMENT TO SECTION 310.39 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 310.39 Subd. 6 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Bereavement leave" is hereby amended: Subd. 6. Bereavement leave. Employees eligible for personal leave shall also be eligible for bereavement leave. Eligible employees may be granted up to a maximum of ~ twenty-four hours of bereavement leave for the death of a~ i~,~~;ate the following employee or spouse family members:- Fo "~ ^~ ~r^^c~c ^f ,hi ~"hn~+r.+nr~+nh ~mrv~erl; +~ r,.,.. ~...,.,..., ... ~ , f.~w,ily rv+omher ~h~+ll ho rJefinciJ ~ spouse, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-lawand sister-in-law, son-in-law and daughter-in-law, stepparents and/or legal guardians and stepchild/fosterchild. The Citv Manager may approve exceptions to this list. 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 9th day of July, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM # 7 REPORT # 1 ~ 5 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BRUCE SYLVESTER, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAnrE TITLE BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of a request to amend the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the City Bella mixed-use project at the southwest corner of Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the requested amendments to the final development plan and conditional use permit for the City Bella project, located in the southwest corner of Lyndale Avenue and .66th Street, with the stipulations listed in the Leaal Basis of Recommendation. II. BACKGROUND The redevelopment of the southwest quadrant of one of the most important intersections in Richfield-66th Street and Lyndale Avenue-has taken more than 25 years to reach this point. The City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in 1975 recognized the aging and decline, changing markets and movements of people and businesses, which resulted in the. creation of the Lyndale HUB Nicollet (LHN) redevelopment area. In 1983, Lake Shore Drive Condominiums became the first HRA project to affordably meet senior housing needs and provide new housing choices in this quadrant. Additional affordable senior housing at 0709-CityBella Gramercy Park was added in 2000. It is the City Bella proposal in 2002 that --, completes the quadrant and links all of the preceding developments together. In addition to removing blight and substandard conditions, as already determined by the City Council and HRA, the redevelopment offers: • New non-age-restricted housing choices; • Retains retailing; • Introduces an opportunity for an additional full-service restaurant; • Provides structured parking designed in such a way to yield a landscaped plaza exceeding one -acre in size; and • By design improves pedestrian connections to the-Nature Center and downtown. The City Council approved plans for City Bella in December 2000 for amixed-use development at the southwest corner of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Please see Attachment `A' for a summary of the approved City Bella plans. Gramercy Corporation-the applicant and developer for the City Bella project-is requesting approval of modifications to their previously proposed and approved City Bella development. In general, the modifications call for areduced-scale mixed- use project including fewer residential units, reduced retail square footage, and fewer parking spaces. Please see Attachment `A' for a summary of the current proposal for the City Bella project. Specific details for the current proposal include: • A 15-story building on the corner of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue with 117 owner-occupied units located over approximately 6,300 square feet of retail- restaurant space and a private health club. • A 4-story building on Lyndale Avenue with 27 condominium .units over 12,560 square feet of retail space. Proposed rental housing did not proceed after a funding request for an affordable housing component was not funded by Hennepin County. • Parking for the 15 story and 4 story buildings includes: one level of underground parking with 297 spaces, 102 surface spaces, and 13 on-street spaces. • A 2-story housing structure with 13 townhouse units on Lake Shore Drive with 32 underground parking spaces and 13 surface parking spaces. The developer has reported that the height of the townhouses will be approximately 2 feet higher than the existing single family home. • A 1.07 acre urban plaza with hard surface and landscaping elements. • Accommodation .for the future installation of skyway connections. • An at-grade pedestrian connection to Wood Lake Nature Center. The applicants have responded to the requests of staff and the Planning Commission by providing a strong commercial presence on the first floors of both the corner and 4-story residential buildings along Lyndale Avenue. The application also recognizes the need for adequate parking balanced with an appropriate sized plaza amenity. _ Parking: The proposed City Bella provides a mixed use/shared parking concept. There is sufficient parking for the housing elements. At staff's request, the applicant modified the parking plan and increased the number of parking spaces by 28 surface spaces to match the developers efforts to provide more retailing and sufficient parking. Parking Analysis -City Bella Com onent Ci Standard Cit .Bella Pro osed Tower, 117 units 1.25 - 2 stalls per unit (146 220 stalls; 1.88 stalls/unit to 234 stalls Condominium, 1.25 - 2 stalls per unit (34 38 stalls; 1.41 stalls/unit 27 units to 54 stalls Townhouse, 13 units 2 stalls er unit 28 stalls 45 stalls; 3.46 stalls/unit Retail/restaurant Retail - 1 stall per 250 sq. 141 stalls Mixed use (using all ft. restaurant -1 stall per available visitor 50 sq. ft. (155 stalls) parking including tower and condominiums Total Parkin Stalls 370-483 stalls 444 stalls Comparable parking ratios downtown: • Lakeshore Drive Condominium, 178 units, 1.07 stalls/unit, underutilized • Village Shores, 166 unit, 1.19 stalls/unit, underutilized • Woodlake Point Condominium, 157 units, .87 stalls/unit, fully utilized • Gramercy Park/VFW, 160 units, 1.4 stalls/unit with shared VFW, underutilized. With assistance from the engineering firm SEH, it is proposed that the Lyndale Avenue median would be modified to improve car-turning movements into the development. A crosswalk across Lake Shore Drive would be provided with a center median. The proposal also includes side street parking to sustain a vital retail component. Parking availability is important at this location for access to retail and fostering a pedestrian friendly environment where walking is desirable. Increases safety concerns that any side street parking would create. A staff review of Richfield accidents in 2001 and accidents at the commercial area of 50th Street and France Avenue indicates that left turn, right turn, and rear end accidents within intersections are predominant. The mid-block accidents in commercial areas are a very small number, but do occur. Several inner-ring suburbs allow on street parking within their retailing core. Access: Access to the development will be off of 66th Street, Lyndale Avenue and Lake Shore Drive. 66th Street: Right turns only will be allowed both entering and leaving the development at 66th Street. Hennepin County has asked the City to explore with the developer a right turn lane immediately preceding the 66th Street entrance. Lyndale Avenue: A full, signalized entrance will be provided on Lyndale Avenue at 67th Street allowing both left and right turns entering and leaving the development. Lyndale Avenue: A driveway entrance between the existing Gramercy Park Co- op building and the proposed 4 story building (already existing) will allow access to 35 additional surface parking stalls and retain access to 35 parking stalls used by the Co-op and VFW. Cars exiting from this area will be prohibited by signage from turning left onto northbound Lyndale Avenue. Lake Shore Drive: Access on Lake Shore Drive will be to the townhouse units only. Right and left turns will be allowed entering and leaving the townhouses.. Traffic: Traffic impacts will be substantially less than the impacts from the original and previously approved City Bella proposal. An environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the originally proposed project and a traffic study was a part of that document. The traffic study determined that the overall operation of the intersections in the vicinity would continue to operate at Level of Service D and above (the standard for urban intersections) for the originally proposed project. Because the proposed modifications reduce both the number of residential units and the amount of retail square footage, the consulting firm that prepared the EAW for the original project (Loucks Associates) concluded that "...the changes in environmental impacts as a result of the changed scope are insignificant and therefore do not warrant preparation of revisions to the approved EAW." This determination is supported by staff and is included in the letter from Loucks Associates dated February 12, 2002 and is attached as Attachment B. Building Heights: The proposed building height of the residential and retail building at the corner of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue will be 15 stories and 154 feet. The height is consistent with the existing residential towers in the immediate vicinity. Because the first level is devoted to public uses (retail and restaurant), the proposed corner building contributes to apedestrian-friendly downtown environment. The 4-story apartment housing over 12,560 square feet of retail along Lyndale Avenue will be approximately 42 feet in height. The proposal calls fora 2 story, 26' high building that includes 13 townhouses on Lake Shore Drive. These townhouses will be similar in height to the single-family home that is currently located on the site and will therefore not significantly affect the sight lines of residents of the adjoining Lake Shore Drive condominiums. ~ Plaza, Landscaping and Streetscape: A primary focus of the development is the 1.07-acre central plaza area. The plaza provides open space for all components of the development and all previous developments in the quadrant. Because an underground parking structure underlies the central plaza, large shade trees are not possible. Ornamental trees and other landscaping will be provided throughout the plaza area. A decorative ~- fence and gated connection to the plaza will be provided between the development and the Lake Shore Drive condominiums, at the request of the condominium residents. The streetscape design (e.g. sidewalk, pedestrian lighting, boulevard landscaping) along Lyndale and 66th Street will complement the streetscape at Woodlake Centre on the east side of Lyndale Avenue and conform with requirements for the Lakes at Lyndale downtown plan. Pedestrian Connections: At-grade pedestrian connections are provided throughout the development among the various uses. Options for the design of the street level connection to Wood -Lake Nature Center across Lake Shore Drive are still being examined. Pedestrian access to the plaza from the Gramercy Park Cooperative and the Lake Shore Drive Condominiums will also be provided. The design of the corner co-op tower is such that a skyway connection between the second levels of City Bella on the west and Woodlake Centre on the east is possible in the future. Adjacent Land Uses: In the original proposal, Gramercy worked extensively with representatives from the Lake Shore Drive condominiums to address concerns raised by the condominium residents, and the proposed amendments incorporate design features to address those concerns to insure that the development does not negatively- impact neighboring residents. Other Matters: The applicant states that a restaurant is proposed and will seek a liquor license. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • This area has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. • The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the 1999 Lakes at Lyndale Master Plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Gramercy has worked extensively and came to agreement with Lake Shore Drive Condominiums on items of mutual concern. • Gramercy has made great efforts to create a development that contributes to the `downtown' environment, especially by incorporating as much first level retail and public spaces as possible facing 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. -~ • Affordability at City Bella has been a concern. The funding sought for eight affordable rental apartments was not provided by Hennepin County. The developer has recently redesigned the four-story apartment building to provide 27 non-age restricted condominiums. To summarize: Units Estimated Market Value 9 $169,900 12 $191,000 6 $201,500 ~i If looking at all the housing provided with HRA assistance within the quadrant: Most affordable price point total: 331 units (67 percent affordable) Project Units Estimated Market Value Lakeshore Drive Condominium 178 (Senior) Gramercy Park Cooperative 136 (senior) City Bella Tower (non-age 8 restricted) City Bella Condominium (non-age 9 restricted) Total Units 331 $46,500 to $117,000 $97,000 to $149,000 $147, 846 to $165, 876 $169,900 Middle market price point total: 25 units (5 percent middle market) Project Units Estimated Market Value City Bella Tower 7 $191,680 to $215,280 City Bella Condominium 18 $191,000 to $201,500 Total Units 25 Higher market price point total: 139 units (28 percent higher market) Project Units Estimated Market Value Gramercy Park Cooperative 24 $235,000 to $323,000 City Bella Tower 102 $241,408 to $619,368 ~~' City Bella Townhouse 13 $420,000 to $559,000 The 495 housing units in the quadrant provide primarily affordable senior housing units. City Bella offers new non-age restricted options. -~ • The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the requested amendments to the City Bella Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit on June 4, 2002. After taking public comments the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested amendments. • The developer has reported positive progress in property negotiations with affected landowners: C. FINANCIAL • The HRA in May and the City Council in June 2002 approved the formation of the City Bella Tax Increment District. • The HRA will consider the amount of TIF assistance at their July 15, 2002 meeting. • The City Council will consider the amount of TIF assistance at their August 13, 2002 meeting. • The developer is very near to securing the private financial commitments that are being sought. D. LEGAL • Notice of the public hearing was mailed to owners and occupants of property within 350 feet of the development area. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current Newspaper on June 26, 2002. • The City Attorney has reviewed both City ordinances and State law and determined that a simple majority of the Council is required to approve this amendment. • All uses are conditional uses in the PC-2 district. The findings necessary to issue a CUP (546.05, subd.6) are as follows: a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Community Commercial and High Density Multiple Family Residential. The Community Commercial designation encourages mixed-use development. b) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines: This area has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. The design is also consistent with the vision of the Lakes at Lyndale plan. c) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 549 of this code: Adequate provision has been made for lighting, traffic, parking, landscaping, utilities, exterior treatment of buildings, screening mechanical equipment, dumpster enclosures and stormwater management. Adequate odor-control facilities will be provided for the restaurant ~-=~, use. d) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements: There are adequate facilities, utilities and services to support the development. e) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare. ~ There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. New housing choices, complementary retail, structured parking, open space, and pedestrian connections are all provided. g) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. • Stipulations of Approval: 1. That detail in design be finalized with the Director of Public Works for on-street parking on Lyndale Avenue. 2. That aconstruction-period parking plan, including off-site solutions, be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community Development. 3. That an off-site parking plan, when uses are in high demand, be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community Development. 4. That a traffic analysis be conducted regarding on-street parking on Lyndale Avenue. 5. That a final parking plan that incorporates items 1 through 4 above be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community Development. 6. That the trash enclosure currently located behind the VFW be removed and replaced with one within City Bella to be shared with the VFW. 7. The Director of Public Works approve that any street median alterations. 8. That Lakeshore Drive median and crosswalk plans be approved by the Director of Public Works. 9. That a tree protection plan be approved by the. Director of Community Development, and that any ornamental trees or small boulevard trees that are removed from within the project area must be made available to the City for transplanting off-site. 10. That the placement of any bollards be approved by the Director of Public Works. 11. That a final landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 12. That a final sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 13. That a final stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 14. That a final utility plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 15. That a final plan for walkways and sidewalks, both public and private, be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. 16. That a final lighting plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. 17. That a plan for an odor control system for any restaurant be ,: ~ submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. 18. That a final plan for trash storage and removal be approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. 19. That a final signage plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. 20. That the property be replatted. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMIVIENDATION(S~ • Recommend denial of the request to amend the final development plan and conditional use permit with a finding that the development would have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. V. ATTACHIVIENTS • City Council Resolution • Attachment A: Summary of original, approved City Bella proposal and the current proposed City Bella. • Attachment B: Letter from Loucks Associates dated February 12, 2002 regarding traffic impacts. • Attachment C: Letter from Colliers Towle dated March 20, 2002 regarding retail "~~~ia ' matters. it ---~,~~(I-w` • Full proposal package from the applicant, including: ~,ti-~ Existing conditions and tree preservation plan ~' ~~~ • Site plan ~,o~` ~ Parking designation plan • Grading, drainage, and erosion control plan • Utility plan • Preliminary plat • Underground parking level plan • Floor plans • Building elevations • Planting plans and details. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Applicant/Owner: Mike Conlan, Gramercy Corporation RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOMENT, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CITY BELLA PROJECT WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of an amended planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit for a mixed use development on land generally located in the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue, legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the original request for a planned unit development, final development plan and conditional use permit on October 24, 2000 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of this original request; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the original request for a planned unit development, final development plan, and conditional use permit on December 11, 2000 and voted to recommend approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request for an amended final development plan and conditional use permit on June 4, 2002 and voted to recommend approval of the amended plan; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property on June 26, 2002; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the amended final development plan and conditional use permit on July 9, 2002; and WHEREAS, the proposed mixed-use development is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: A. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to, "Promote diverse development that will broaden the tax base while reinforcing the residential character of Richfield," and with its accompanying objective, "promote development that can support itself and broaden the tax base." B. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to "Maintain and enhance Richfield's image as a distinct and livable community." C. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "maintain and provide quality amenities and a safe living environment for all residents." D. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "develop pedestrian and bike facilities that are functional, attractive, safe and accessible." E. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "promote the development of housing stock that is available to all income levels." F. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "minimize the impacts of parking." G. The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective to "address the means to improve the visual quality throughout the City, concentrating on design districts and transportation corridors, beginning with land use coordination." H. The development is consistent with the description of the Lyndale-HUB- Nicollet sub-area plan that states as follows: "Mixed use projects incorporating high density single and multiple family housing and commercial uses would be encouraged throughout the Lakes at Lyndale area." I. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates the master plan, The Lakes at Lyndale: the Richfield Lake Area Plan, and the proposed development is consistent with the following objectives of the master plan: take advantage of opportunities to provide more and varied housing and use redevelopment to provide new commercial investment and upgrade commercial/retail WHEREAS, The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines: This area has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. The design is also consistent with the vision of the Lakes at Lyndale plan; and WHEREAS, The proposed project is consistent with the tax increment financing plan for the area; and WHEREAS, The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code: Adequate provision has been made for lighting, traffic, parking, landscaping, utilities,- exterior treatment of buildings, screening mechanical equipment, dumpster enclosures and stormwater management; and WHEREAS, The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements: There are adequate facilities, utilities and services to support the development; and WHEREAS, The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare; and WHEREAS, There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. The area has been identified for mixed use development in the Lakes at Lyndale plan. The Lakes at Lyndale plan calls for increased housing densities in the downtown area; and WHEREAS, The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. Office, retail and multi-family housing are allowable uses in the PC-2 district; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the amended final development plan and conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the original project was found to be adequate, and the amended proposal calls for a less intense development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: The City Council adopts as its Findings of Fact the WHEREAS clauses set forth above. 2. A final development plan and conditional use permit are approved for a mixed-use development as described in City Council Report No. , on the Subject Property legally described in Exhibit A. 3. The final development plan and conditional use permit are subject to completing the following conditions before a certificate of occupancy will be issued: • That detail in design be finalized with the Director of Public Works for on-street parking on Lyndale Avenue • That a traffic analysis be conducted regarding on-street parking along Lyndale Avenue • That a plan for parking during construction, including off-site solutions, be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Directors • That an off-site parking plan, when uses are in high demand, be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director • That a final parking plan that incorporates items 1 through 4 above be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community Development • That. the trash enclosure currently located behind the VFW be removed and replaced with one within City Bella to be shared with the VFW • That any street median alterations be submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works • That Lake Shore Drive median and cross walk plans be submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works • That a tree protection plan be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community Development, and that any ornamental trees or small boulevard trees that are removed from within the project area must be made available to the City for transplanting off-site • That the placement of any bollards be submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works • That a final landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. • That a tree protection plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. • That a final sediment and erosion control plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a final stormwater management plan be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a final utility plan be submitted to and approved by the Public -_ , Works Director. • That a final plan for walkways and sidewalks, both public and private, be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. • That a final lighting plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. • That a plan for an odor control system for any restaurant be submitted to and approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. • That a final plan for trash storage and removal be approved by the Community Development and Public Safety Directors. • That a final signage plan be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. • That the developer submit a final plat. • That a resolution be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1. 2002. 4. The final development plan and conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of July, Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk EXHIBIT `A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE RICHFIELD CITY BELLA PROJECT Proposed Legal Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Gramercy Park City Bella. Current Legal Description: Parcel 1: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1: Lots 11 to 17 inclusive, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County. Parcel 2: Lots 3,4, and 18; Lot 19, except that part of the North 5.0 feet thereof lying East of a line drawn South at right angles to the North line of said Lot from a point thereon distant 32.0 feet West of the Northeast corner of said Lot; and except that part of the Easterly 10.0 feet of said Lot lying Northeasterly of a line drawn Northwesterly at right angles to the Easterly line of said Lot from a point thereon distant 52.0 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, according to the plat thereof on fine or of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County. Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2, Fairwood Shores. Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Fairwood Shores. Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 3 Fairwood Shores. Lot 16, Block 3 Fairwood Shores. Lot 17, Block 3 Fairwood Shores. Lot 18, Block 3 Fairwood Shores. AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5K REPORT # 17 4 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: T SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Cheryl Scam , 6834 Knox Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Che I Scam , 6834 Knox Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On June 9, 2002, Cheryl Scamp submitted an application for the renewal of her multi-animal residential license. She owns four dogs. Her application is complete and contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. Staff did not receive any letters or phone calls regarding this multi-animal residential license request. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on June 19, 2002.. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The Environmental Health Division has no history of receiving complaints for this address for the previous year. 0709 Scamp Kennel License There were no police reports on or contacts with this address in the past year. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Although this application is for four dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. • The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the multi-animal residential license that the license is up for renewal. Staff did not receive any letter or phone calls regarding this request. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • NA D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Cheryl Scamp. This would mean that the applicant would have to decrease the number of animals she has from four to two. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Cheryl Scamp AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 2002 Consent 5K 173 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIltECTOR REVIEW: ~~ ~~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Louise Loftis, 6600 Newton Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of a multi- animal residential license for Louise Loftis, 6600 Newton Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On June 3, 2002, Louise Loftis submitted an application for the renewal of her multi- animal residential license. She owns five dogs. Her application is complete and contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. Staff received two phone calls in response to this multi-animal residential license request. Both callers indicated that they did not have any problems with the issuance of the requested license. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on June 19, 2002. There were no apparent problems found at that time. 0709 Loftis Kennel License The Environmental Health Division has no history of receiving complaints for this address for the previous year. There were no police reports on or contacts with this address in the past year. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Although this application is for five dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. • The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the multi-animal residential license that the license is up for renewal. Staff received two calls regarding this application indicating no concerns for issuing the requested license. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • NA D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Louise Loftis; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Louis Loftis STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 2002 Consent SK 172 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CIIRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Reeta Lincoln, 7308 Sheridan Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Reeta Lincoln, 7308 Sheridan Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On June 11, 2002, Reeta Lincoln submitted an application for the renewal of her multi-animal residential license. She owns four dogs and two cats. Ms. Lincoln's application is complete and contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. Staff received two phone calls in reference to this multi-animal residential license request. Both calls were in agreement with the issuance of this license. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on June 19, 2002. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The Environmental Health staff has no history of receiving any complaints for this address. 0709 Lincoln Kennel License There were no police reports on or contacts with this address in the past year. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the multi-animal residential license that the license is up for renewal. Staff received two phone calls regarding this application. Both calls were agreeable to the issuance of the requested license. Both callers also stated that they never see the animals outside and that they never seem to be any sort of nuisance. • Although this application is for four dogs and two cats, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential license for Reeta Lincoln; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHIVIENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Reeta Lincoln AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5 I REPORT # 17 ~ ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: w~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of a veterinary license to operate a veterinary clinic for Woodlake Veterina Hos ital, 6436 L ndale Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of a veterinary license to operate a veterinary clinic for Woodlake Veterinary Hospital, 6436 Lvndale Avenue. II. BACKGROUND On June 11, 2002, Wood-lake Veterinary Hospital submitted an application for the renewal of their veterinary license. The application was complete and the $150 fee has been received. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on June 19, 2002. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The Public Safety Department has received no complaints and there were no police reports or contacts with this address during the past year. 0709WoodlakeVeteri naryHospital The City has previously issued a veterinary license to Woodlake Veterinary ~~ Hospital. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a veterinary license. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of a veterinary license for Woodlake Veterinary Hospital; .however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # S J REPORT # 171 ~i STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the .renewal of a commercial kennel license for Animal Care Clinic, 1208 East 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of a commercial kennel license for Animal Care Clinic, 1208 East 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On June 11, 2002, Animal Care Clinic submitted an application for the renewal of their commercial kennel license. The application is complete and the $150 fee has been received. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on June 19, 2002. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The Public Safety Department has received no complaints and there were no police ,~ reports or contacts with Animal Care Clinic during the past year. 0709AnimalCareClinicKennelLicense III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a commercial kennel license. • The City has previously issued a commercial kennel license to Animal Care Clinic. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of a commercial kennel license for Animal _ Clinic. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # $ REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING .TULY 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME. T/TLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~_ /~ ~'( SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of a veterinary license for Veterinary Radiation Thera Clinic, .Inc., .1208 East 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of a veterinary license for Veterinary Radiation Therapy Clinic, Inc., 1208 East 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On June 17, 2002, Ralph Weichselbaum submitted an application for the renewal of his veterinary license for providing radiation treatments on cats. The application is complete and the $150 fee has been received. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on June 19, 2002. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The Public Safety Department has received no complaints and there were no police reports or contacts with this address during the past year. The veterinary service is located within the same building as Animal Care Clinic. 0709VeterinaryRadiationTherapyClinic ~~ The applicant, Ralph Weichselbaum, is a licensed veterinarian in the State of Minnesota and has a history of no complaints with the Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine. The City has previously issued a veterinary license to Veterinary Radiation Therapy Clinic, Inc. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a veterinary license. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of a veterinary license for Veterinary Radiation Therapy Clinic; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING .TULY 9, 2002 Consent SG 168 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CIIRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:. ,,® SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: /~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request by the Church of the Assumption for on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor, itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for their annual Fun Fest to be held Au ust 11, 2002. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor, itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for the Church of the Assumption, 305 E. 77th Street, for their annual Fun Fest to be held August 11, 2002. II. BACKGROUND On June 17, 2002, the Church of the Assumption submitted a request for a temporary license to serve 3.2 percent malt liquor. They also submitted requests for itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for their annual Fun Fest to be held August 11, 2002. The required licensing fees have been received. They will be serving such food items as hamburgers, brats, roast beef, french fries; pizza, tacos, caramel rolls, and other snack type items. The Church of the Assumption has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington 0709 Assumption FunFest sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. The event will take place from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. The applicant has hired a private security crew to be on duty during this event to address any issues that may arise. The Public Safety Department received no complaints regarding this event for the previous year. The City has previously issued these licenses in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fest. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to these licenses. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Liquor liability insurance coverage has been. provided showing The Catholic Mutual Relief Society as affording the coverage. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • .Deny the request. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted these licenses in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fest. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Church of the Assumption staff AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # S F REPORT # I ( 7 ~J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING .TULY 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT,. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ , fl ~A SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ; J~ ~~ ~ IYJ /~ . ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CbNSIDERATION: Set date for the public hearing to consider the issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunda li uor licenses for Taco Morelos II, .Inc., Two West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a public hearing to be held July 23, 2002, for the issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc., Two West 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND Application for new on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc. was received by the City on January 4, 2002. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY ~, City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license applications and that a date be set for the public hearing prior to the hearing. 0709 Taco Morelos Set PublicHearing • The hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may be considered. The new process has been initiated. Holding the public hearing on July 23, 2002 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reject the application for new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc. • Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the licensing process. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A !'~, AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # SE REPORT # 16 6 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING .TULY 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~ ®®~~ ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of a new resolution that identifies the progressive discipline an alcohol establishment can expect for violations and rescinds Resolution No. 8808. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached new resolution that identifies the progressive discipline an alcohol establishment can expect for violations and rescinds Resolution No. 8808. II: BACKGROUND At their June 25, 2002 Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to update the alcohol discipline document (Resolution No. 8808) that identifies the progressive discipline that an alcohol establishment can expect for violations. These changes are as a result of a meeting with liquor establishments in early 2001 at which establishment owners/managers provided City staff with feedback on the compliance check program. Feedback from them included shortening the timeframes between progressive discipline steps so those establishments did not need to be failure free for as long as 3-4 years, as is the case in the current Resolution No. 8808. They thought that was an unusual length of time for establishments to be failure free and believed that it was an impediment to their overall success in complying. They also 0709Progressive Liquor Discipline thought that servers should have higher penalties and that fines and suspensions ~~ associated with failed compliance checks should be higher, earlier in the process. They also believed there should be some sort of incentive within the program that would reward establishments who do routinely pass alcohol compliance checks. This feedback was also similar in nature to the feedback from the City Council regarding specifics within each violation level, fines and penalties. Specific changes to the updated resolution include the following: • For a first offense, the establishment's license will be suspended for five (5) days, instead of two (2), and a civil fine will be due for $1,000, instead of $500. • For a second offense, the establishment's license will be suspended for seven (7) days, instead of five (5), and a civil fine will be due for $1,750, instead of $1,500. The length of time the establishment needs to be failure-free between a first and second offense is reduced from two (2) years to one (1) year. • For a third offense, the establishment's license will be suspended for 12 days, instead of ten (10) days, and a civil fine will be due for $2,000, instead of $1,750. The length of time the establishment needs to be failure-free between a second and third offense is reduced from three (3) years to two (2) years. • For a fourth offense, the establishment's license will be brought before the City Council for a revocation hearing, and a civil fine of $2,000 will be due. A revocation hearing at the fourth level would result in a hearing before the City Council to discuss whether there are alternatives available that can be agreed upon by the Council and the owner of the establishment to prevent the need to revoke the establishment's license. Alternatives will be determined on a case-by-case basis. If no alternatives exist, the license would be revoked. If feasible alternatives exist, conditions will be placed on the licensee by the City Council. A fine will be assessed in either instance. A license that is revoked is ineligible for a license for a period of five (5) years from the date of revocation. The length of time the establishment needs to be failure-free between a third and fourth offense is reduced from four (4) years to two (2) years. ~ A fifth offense level is being added due to the fact that one establishment in the City is currently at a fourth step level. For a fifth offense, (if within two ((2)) years of a fourth offense), the establishment's license will be revoked for the remainder of the license year and a civil fine of $2,000 will be due, payable to the City. An establishment whose license is revoked is ineligible for a license for a period of five (5) years from the date of revocation. A "step back" option is also being added that provides an incentive to establishments to work toward being failure free. It is possible to "step back" a failure level if an establishment has successfully passed a minimum of two consecutive compliance checks. If an establishment passes two consecutive compliance checks, they do not step back to step one but rather they step back one level in their overall number of compliance check failures. -For example, if an establishment has had a total of three failures but has successfully passed two consecutive compliance checks since the last failure, they are eligible to "step back" to a second offense level. It is, however, possible that if an establishment has several failures but continues to pass compliance checks time after time for several years, they may eventually "step back" to the step one starting point. ' ~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • By amending the current Resolution No. 8808, the City Council will have an updated version of the progressive discipline resolution in place prior to the July 23, 2002 Council meeting. It will be at that meeting, that establishments who failed the most recent liquor compliance check, will appear. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • Establishments who fail alcohol compliance checks are penalized both with a dollar fine and a significant loss of alcohol revenue as a result of suspensions. The increase of fines and suspensions will cause more dollars to be expended for those that continue to fail alcohol compliance checks. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council could decide to do nothing. This would mean that the changes identified would not be made and that Resolution No. 8808 would remain as is. This would further mean that there would be a reduced amount of fines collected and fewer days of suspension, as well as there would not be a fifth offense level. It would also not include an incentive option for establishments to "step back" based on a history of successful compliance checks. V. ATTACHMENTS • New resolution incorporating explained changes into Resolution 8808. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR, WINE AND 3.2 MALT LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 8808. WHEREAS, at their June 25, 2002 Council meeting, City Council directed staff to update the City's current alcohol discipline document. This, therefore, is a new Resolution that specifies the discipline an alcohol establishment can expect for the types of violations listed and rescinds Resolution No. 8808; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: BACKGROUND STATEMENT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the sale of on- sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although the provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance with this resolution are not intended to preclude such further actions such as actions in law or in equity or criminal prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in this resolution. II. SPECIFIC PROHIBITED CONDUCT AND PROPOSED SANCTIONS. A. Noise and Other Disturbing Conduct Within or Near the Licensed Premises. Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the immediate vicinity of the establishment whom are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation of a licensed alcohol establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): 1) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such five incidents) -suspension of the license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. 2) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) -suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. 3) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) -suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outlined above is intended to be cumulative in nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the Director of Public Safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code of the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the Director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to make requests for services in situations where the licensee is capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. - However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The Department of Public Safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor license: 1) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year -suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000. 2) For the second such incident in any license year -suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. 3) For the third such incident in any license year -suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. Serving Alcoholic Beverages Beyond the Interior of the Licensed Premises or Permitting Patrons to Leave such Licensed Premises with Alcoholic Beverages. Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licenses: 1) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 2) The second incident during the license year -- up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 3) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 4) The fourth incident during the license year -revocation of license. C. Permitting Occupancy to Exceed the Limits Permitted Under the Uniform .Fire Code 25.114 (overcrowding) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environment wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses for incidents of overcrowding verified by the City's Public Safety Director or their designee: 1) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10-day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 2) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 3) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. ,= 4) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year-revocation of the license. D. Facilitating Gambling. Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises, which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises, which could be used, for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01. For any incident of facilitation of gambling, the on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor license may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. Effect of Suspension or Revocation of Food License. On-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of actions taken by the City Manager, enforcement officer or both pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor during such period shall constitute an unlicensed sale. F. The Sale, Consumption or Service to a Minor of Intoxicating Liquor, Wine or 3.2 Malt Liquor. Licensees must assure that the sale, consumption or service to a minor of any alcoholic beverage is prohibited under any condition. Failure to do so will result in swift and severe progressive civil penalties. The following discipline will be imposed upon on- sale intoxicating, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses for verified reports or compliance checks of misconduct occurring at the establishment: 1) For a first offense, the establishment's license will be suspended for (five) 5 days and a civil fine of 1000 will be due and payable to -the City. 2) For a second offense, (if within one (1~ year of the first offense), the establishment's license will be suspended for seven (7~ days and a civil fine of 1750 will be due. and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of one (1) year of a first offense, it will be considered a first offense. 3) For a third offense, (if within 2 years of the second offense), the establishment's license will be suspended for 12 days and a civil fine of 2000 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of two years of a second offense, it will be considered a second offense. 4) For a fourth offense, (if within 2 years of the third offense), the establishment's license will be brought before the City Council fora *revocation hearina and a civil fine of 2000 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of two years of a third offense, it will be considered a third offense. 5) For a fifth offense, (if within 2 vears of the fourth offense the establishment's license will be revoked for the remainder of the license year and a civil fine of $2,000 will be due and payable to the Citv An establishment whose license is revoked is ineligible for a license for a period of five (5) vears from the date of revocation. A revocation hearina at the fourth offense level would result in a hearing before the Citx Council to discuss whether there are alternatives available that can be agreed upon by Council and the owner of the establishment to prevent the need to revoke the establishment's license. Alternatives will be determined on a case-bv-case basis If no alternatives exist, the license would be revoked. If feasible alternatives exist conditions will be placed on the licensee by the City Council A fine will be assessed in either instance. An establishment whose license is revoked is ineligible for a license for a period of five (5) vears from the date of revocation Step Back Option - It is possible to "step back" a failure level if an establishment has successfully passed a minimum of two consecutive compliance checks For example if an establishment is at the third offense level but has successfully passed two consecutive compliance checks since the last failure they are eligible to "step back" to a second offense level. This provides a serious incentive to establishments to work on keeping their record clean so that they can "step back" in the discipline grid If an establishment passes two consecutive compliance checks they step back one offense level It is however possible that if an establishment has several failures but continues to pass compliance checks time after time for several years they may eventually "step back" to the step one startin point. ~, G. General provisions regarding sanctions. In addition to the sanctions listed for specific offenses listed in paragraphs A through F above, the City Council may impose other mandatory requirements upon the establishment such as: meetings with the Public Safety Director to present a plan of action to assure that the problem will not continue; mandatory educational sessions with Crime Prevention staff; or other actions that the City Council deems appropriate. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time to time and to impose penalties greater than or less than those contained herein when in the judgment of the Council it is appropriate to do so. The City Council may suspend all or a portion of any penalty or license suspension upon compliance with such conditions as the Council deems appropriate. Prior to imposing any monetary penalty or license suspension or revocation, the City Council will set an initial appearance at which the licensed establishment must appear before the City Council to admit or deny the violation. If the violation is admitted, the licensed establishment will be allowed to explain any mitigating circumstances at the time of the initial appearance. If the violation is denied, the licensed establishment may request.. a hearing at or prior to the initial appearance. Licensed establishments may explain mitigating circumstances or request a hearing in writing prior to the initial appearance or may do so orally by appearing at the initial appearance. The City Council strongly encourages licensed establishments to make a personal appearance at the initial appearance. A licensed establishment that does not request a hearing at or prior to the initial appearance will be deemed to have waived its right to a hearing, and the City Council may deem the violation admitted and impose sanctions as provided in this resolution. Where a hearing is requested, the City Council may conduct the hearing or refer the hearing to an independent hearing examiner. All hearings involving possible suspension or revocation of a license will be conducted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 14. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of July 2002. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # D REPORT # ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING .TULY 9, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 1=J 7ULIE URBAN, .COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final Settlement for Morrow Towing, located at 6429-6445 Cedar Avenue (Parcels 13-16) (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 Morrow Towing, located at 6429- 6445 Cedar Avenue (Parcels 13-16) (66th Street /Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Proiectl. ~ II. BACKGROUND The City acquired the Morrow Towing property at 6429-6445 Cedar Avenue (Parcels 13-16) through condemnation proceedings for the Trunk Highway 77 and East 66th Street Interchange project. The property was owned by various members of the Morrow family and was occupied by Morrow Auto Body Specialty, Inc. In September 2001, the City Council approved the condemnation commissioners' award for the property in the amount of $350,000. The property owners appealed this award. The City (through its attorney, John M. LeFevre, Jr.), a Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) representative, and the owners recently reached a 0709morrow.doc Stipulation of Final Settlement. This agreement amounts to $485,000 for the real ~-. estate plus $35,000 for fees and interest. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The subject property has been identified for purchase for the 66th Street/TH 77 interchange project. • An agreement between the City and MAC, dated February 28, 2000, allows the use of condemnation proceedings as a means of acquiring property. • In accordance with this agreement, MAC is responsible for approving and recommending to the City just compensation and condemnation settlement payments with property owners. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval of the Stipulation of Final Settlement completes condemnation proceedings for this matter. C. FINANCIAL • MAC is obligated to pay the settlement amount. • MAC concurs with the settlement amount. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney negotiated the settlement in cooperation with a MAC representative. • The City Attorney recommends that the City Council approve the settlement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reject the proposed settlement; however, this action will require the condemnation process to continue. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution approving settlement of claim for Morrow Towing. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. ` RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A STIPULATION OF FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR 6429-6445 CEDAR AVENUE (PARCELS 13-16) (66TH STREET/TRUNK HIGHWAY 77 INTERCHANGE PROJECT) WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota ("City") acquired the property- located- at 6429-6445 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 ("Subject Property"): Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission ("MAC") is funding property purchases for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney has negotiated a final settlement in the amount of $485,000 for the real estate plus $35,000 for fees and interest; and WHEREAS, MAC 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 settlement amount of $485,000 plus $35,000 in fees and interest 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 July, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~ STAFF REPORT DAWN WEITZEL HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 2002 Consent 5C 164 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: NAME, TITLE STEVEN L. DEVICH AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # TIVE SERyICES DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution supporting the amendments to the Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS) Joint Powers Agreement. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution supporting the amendments to the LOGIS Joint Powers Agreement. II. BACKGROUND Since 1988, LOGIS has been administering a group health and medical insurance plan for those members who choose to participate. Their legal counsel has recently advised the Board of Directors that the Plan Agreement needs to be modified to clarify LOGIS' authority to conduct and administer the group health and medical insurance plan (Plan). The attached amendment also ratifies participation by members of the Plan. The amendment to the General Purpose statement within the agreement is as follows: The general purpose of this agreement is to provide for an organization through which the parties may jointly and cooperatively provide for ~, the establishment, operation and maintenance of data processing facilities and management information systems for the use and benefit of the parties and others and (ii) group health, life, accident and other insurance and personnel benefits for the officers and employees of the parties and the organization Sec. 2. The terms of this amendment are effective as of April 1, 2002. This amendment is effective on the date of its execution and delivery by all of the members of the organization in accordance with the Agreement. Richfield has been notified that it is necessary for all members to approve the amendment. The Joint Powers Agreement can be amended only by a unanimous action of the members. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City is a long-time member of LOGIS and agrees with the amended version of the Plan Agreement. • The proposed amendment is merely a "housekeeping" change suggested by legal counsel for Logis. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Joint Powers Agreement can be amended only by unanimous action of its members. FINANCIAL • .The amendment to the LOGIS Joint Powers Agreement will .present no financial obligation to the City. ~ D. LEGAL • The amendment to the LOGIS Joint Powers Agreement brings forth no legal implications to the City. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council may take no action on this item • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. • Exhibit A. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. 0709 Logis RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (LOGIS); AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is party to the joint and cooperative agreement (Agreement) establishing an organization know as Local Government Information System (LOGIS). The Agreement is originally dated May 1, 1972, and has been amended by Amendment No. 1, adopted May 3, 1993; and WHEREAS, in 1988 LOGIS established the LOGIS Healthcare Group (Plan) to enable members of LOGIS to participate in a program of cooperatively providing group health, life, accident and other insurance and personal benefits for the officers and employees of the members of the Plan and LOGIS itself. LOGIS has continuously operated and administered the Plan since its inception; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of LOGIS has been advised by legal counsel that it is necessary that the Agreement be amended to clearly authorize the Plan and the participation in the Plan by members of LOGIS; and WHEREAS, there has been presented to this Council a form of Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement (Amendment); and 'WHEREAS, it is found and determined that it is in the best interests of the City that the Agreement be amended as proposed in the Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT .RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby approves the second amendment t~ the joint and cooperative agreement of LOGlS and the City Clerk is authorized and directed to deliver the Amendment in the manner provided for in the Agreement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of July, 2002. - Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: ;~ Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~_~ 0709 Logis ATTACHMENT TO AGENDA ITEM: 5C REPORT ~: 164 EXHIBIT A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, Originally Dated May 1,1972, As amended By Amendment No. 1, Adopted May 3,1993 Section 1. Article I, General Purpose, of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement, Local Government Information Systems, as amended, (Agreement) is amended to read as follows: I. GENERAL PURPOSE The general purpose of this agreement is to provide for an organization through which the parties may jointly and cooperatively provide for ~ the establishment; operation and maintenance of data processing facilities and management information systems for the use and benefit of the parties and others and (ii) group health life accident and other insurance and personnel benefits for the officers and employees of the parties and the organization. Sec. 2. The terms of this amendment are effective as of April 1, 2002. This amendment is _ effective on the date of its execution and delivery by all of the members of the organization in accordance with the Agreement. DJK-209993v1 LG100-16 A-1 AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 9, 2002 Consent 5B 163 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JULIE URBAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing application to the Metropolitan Council for a Livable Communities Demonstration Program grant for Lyndale Gateway, Phase III. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing an application to the Metropolitan Council for a grant for Lyndale Gateway, Phase III. III. BACKGROUND The Housing-and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has been working with The Cornerstone Group to redevelop the west side of the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue. The Cornerstone Group is proposing amixed-use development of retail, office and housing. Staff is exploring a variety of funding options for the development including a Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) grant from the Metropolitan Council. The grant request would be to help offset the cost of underground parking, streetscape and property acquisition and clearance. A resolution indicating City Council support of the application is required with the application. 0709LCDAlyndale NAME, TITLE III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It is appropriate to seek outside funding for City/HRA projects whenever possible. • The 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue has been identified for redevelopment since 1985. Assistance for the project through a LCDA grant will help to realize this redevelopment goal. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The first two phases for redevelopment of the 7600 block have been completed. Funding through a LCDA grant will assist the completion of this third phase. C. FINANCIAL • Financing for the development is extremely tight; funding from outside sources will increase the chances of a successful development. • Funding from outside sources will help to reduce the cost of housing, improving the project's affordability component. • If a grant is not received, staff and the developer will continue to pursue all avenues for financing the redevelopment of the area. • No local match is required for the grant. • The application contemplates a local contribution of tax increment financing. This local contribution makes the application more competitive. D. LEGAL • The program guidelines require the City Council to pass a resolution in support of the application. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny authorization and direct staff not to apply for funding. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM WHEREAS the City of Richfield (the "City") is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 2002 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and WHEREAS the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration Account's purpose/s and criteria; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS The City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and WHEREAS the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the Demonstration Account application submitted on July 15, 2002. _ NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for this funding on behalf of the City of Richfield and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of July, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING .TULY 9, 2002 CONSENT 5P 162 REPORT PREPARED BY: DAWN WEITZEL, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: STEVEN L. DEVICH, AD ISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR N TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Resolution authorizing the City not to waive the monetary limits on statutory municipality tort liability I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion:. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Council not to waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04. II. BACKGROUND In 2002 the City of Richfield went out for bid on insurance carriers. As a result, the City will continue to purchase its insurance from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). A requirement of that insurance coverage is that each participating municipality must annually either affirm or waive its statutory limits of liability. This action must be taken on or about July 1 of each year. The current statutory limits of liability for Minnesota cities are $300,000 for an individual claimant and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Cities can waive those limits by allowing an individual claimant to recover more than $300,000, up to the $1,000,000 occurrence limit or more if limits are waived and excess liability insurance is 0709Tort Liability purchased. They may also waive the per occurrence limit and purchase excess liability insurance. Historically, Richfield has not waived its limits of liability. This is true of more than half of the cities in Minnesota. Richfield has also elected not to purchase excess liability coverage for the past several years. The cost of excess liability insurance has been, and continues to be very expensive. An additional $1,000,000 of coverage would cost around $50,000 annually. Moreover, buying the coverage may expose the City to liability exposure in excess of the statutory $1,000,000 cap. III. BASIS OF RECONIlVIENDATION A. POLICY • The State Statute establishing liability limits for cities has been raised two. times in the last few years to the current $1,000,000 level. The legislature felt that the $1,000,000 limit was more reasonable than the previous lower limits. • Historically, the majority of municipalities in Minnesota are not waiving the monetary limits on municipality tort liability as was established by Statutes 466.04. • The Council could waive its statuary limits in future years,if a decision was made to do so. • The City Council may also wish to further consider purchasing excess liability in the future. If this is the case it may be purchased at any point in the future. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City's insurance policy with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust will renew on July 1, 2002. This action must be completed on, or about, that time. C. FINANCIAL • The City has historically not purchased excess liability coverage because of the cost of such coverage. The annual premium for $1 million of coverage would be $50,000 if the City does not waive its liability limits. D. LEGAL • The tort liability limits established by Minnesota Statutes have protected cities historically and no Minnesota court has ever established a monetary award in excess of the statutory limits against a municipality. • Each city must annually decide whether the City would voluntarily waive the statute for both the single claims each occurrence limits. -~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ If the Council feels that any single claimant should receive more than the $300,000 limit, the Council could elect to waive the statutory monetary limits. • If the Council feels that the $1,000,000 per occurrence limit is not adequate, the City could purchase excess liability coverage and subsequently waive the limits of liability up to the amount of excess coverage purchased by the City. V. ATTAC~IMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AFFIRMING MUNICIPAL TORT LIABILITY LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES 466.04 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 466.04 provides for Municipal tort liability limits for Minnesota, cities; and WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities. Insurance Trust has asked that each city review the tort liability limits and determine if the respective city would choose to waive it's limits; and WHEREAS, such decision to affirm or waive the tort liability limits must be filed with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust at the insurance renewal date. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to report to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust that the Richfield City Council does not waive the monetary limits on the municipal tort liability established by Minnesota statutes 466.04. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of July, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk