10-08-02 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2002
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
5:30 P.M.
Call to order
Roll call
Discussion related to on-street parking ban in Richfield
(Deferred from September 24 City Council Worksession)
Adjournment
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
• Call to order
Roll call
Open Forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to a staff
member. Speakers are also asked to keep their comment period to three minutes
to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address
the Council on items not on the agenda.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special Concurrent City Council, HRA and Planning
Commission Meeting of September 16, 2002; (2) Special City Council Meeting of
September 17, 2002; (3) Special City Council Worksession of September 24, 2002; (4)
• Regular City Council Meeting of September 24, 2002; (5) Special City Council Meeting
of September 25, 2002; and (6) Special City Council Meeting of October 2, 2002
PRESENTATIONS
• 1. Acknowledgement of donations from Richfield/Bloomington Eagles #3208 and
Richfield Firefighters Local 1215 to Richfield Fire Department for purchase of three
defibrillators
2. Annual meeting with Planning Commission
Notes:
- - COUNCIL=DISC-USSION
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
3. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by
the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been
approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been
approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council
Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and
placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items
A. Consideration of approval of resolution appointing high school student trainee
election judges for November 5, 2002 General Election S.R. No. 229
B. Consideration of approval of resolution regarding off-street parking permit at 7715
Fourth Avenue S.R. No. 230
C. Consideration of approval of purchase of estimated 1,700 ton of winter deicing salt
for 2002/03 winter season from Cargill Incorporated Deicing Technology in
amount of $27.97 per ton, plus tax S.R. No. 231
D. Consideration of multi-animal residential kennel license renewals:
• 7301 Wentworth Avenue; three dogs S.R. No. 232
• 6428 Knox Avenue; three dogs S.R. No. 233
• 7144 Oliver Avenue; three dogs S.R. No. 234
Notes:
5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
PUBLIC HEARING
6. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning
Code Sections 536.19 and 536.25 to conform to State Statute 462.357 and Sections
536.11, 536.17, 536.19, 536.21 and 536.25 to clarify rules- regarding planned unit
developments
Staff Report No. 235
RESOLUTIONS
•
7. Consideration of resolution authorizing agreement with Minnesota Department of
Transportation and Hennepin County for replacing traffic control signals on Penn
Avenue bridge over I-494
Staff Report No. 236
8. Consideration of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase
of three apartment buildings at 6238, 6344 and 6400 Cedar Avenue; Airport
Acquisition Noise Program area (Tabled from September 12, 2002)
Staff Report No. 237
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
9. Consideration of proposal from W.D. Schock Co. Inc. for disposition of homes in
Airport Noise Acquisition Program area
Staff Report No. 238
Notes:
10. City Manager's report
Notes:
11. Claims and payrolls
Open Forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by
majority vote of the City Council)
Each speaker is asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to a stafif
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-theJagenda.
Notes:
12.Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative
Services Director at 612-861-9702.
•
•
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUS INE S S
AGENDA ITEM # 9
REPORT # 2 3 8
~i
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 8, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
70HN STARK,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
REPORT PRESENTER:
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
•
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a proposal from W. D. Schock Co., Inc. for disposition of homes in the Airport
Noise Ac uisition Pro ram ANAP area.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the terms of a proposal from W. D. Schock Co.,
Inc. for disposition of homes in the Airport Noise Acquisition
Program (ANAP) area and authorize execution of an agreement.
III. BACKGROUND ~
City staff requested proposals from two companies for services related to the
disposition (moving and/or demolition) of the 22 houses in the Airport Noise
Acquisition Program (ANAP) area. The two firms who were asked to provide
proposals, W. D. Schock Co., Inc. and URS Corporation, were identified by staff as
being the only two such firms with the ability and experience to provide the
requested services.
•
URS is proposing a cost of $64,650 for their services, while W. D. Schock is
proposing $24,090.
W. D. Schock and URS differ to some degree in the types of services they typically
perform. URS is a full service engineering firm that could perform some of the
necessary environmental mitigation while W. D. Schock is experienced in managing
1008schock
such processes but does not perform them. This being the case, the scope of
services that has been proposed by each firm differs. Attachment A shows the
• services that each firm is proposing. Essentially, the main difference is that URS is
proposing that their cost would include the drafting of two Phase 1 Environmental
Site Assessments (one for a commercial property and the other for the
conglomeration of houses) and asbestos surveys while W. D. Schock would
manage the process of identifying and supervising the work of outside
environmental consultants.
Staff's experience with hiring environmental consultants for asbestos surveys is that
a typical cost is $550 per house. Further, an environmental engineering firm has
indicated that Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments on the affected properties
should be approximately $20,000 to .$25,000.. Therefore,. if the proposal with W. D.
Schock were approved, it should cost an additional $32,000 - $37,000 to conduct
the environmental work that is included in the URS proposal; even with these
additional costs, the results is that the W. D. Schock proposal is the more cost
effective.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• In accordance with the City of Richfield's contract with the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), the City is responsible for
environmental mitigation and site clearance of properties purchased
with the $10 million grant being provided by MAC.
• B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City now owns many of the 22 homes in the ANAP area and staff
is anticipating complete ownership by the end of the year.
C. FINANCIAL
• The cost of professional services relating to disposition of homes in
the ANAP area is an eligible expense for the use of MAC grant funds.
Additionally, it is hoped that the sales proceeds from house moves will
cover the costs of such services.
D. LEGAL
• There are no significant legal issues.
~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMI~~NDATION(S) ~
• ~eiect urc5 for similar services.
• Direct staff to seek out alternative proposals.
ATTACFIMENTS ~
• A comparison of the tasks included in the proposals submitted by W. D.
Schock and URS.
• W. D. Schock's proposal.
• URS' proposal
~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~
•
•
Attachment A
Scope of Services Being Proposed
Task W. D.
Schock URS
1. Conducting Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment X
2. Managing Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment X X
3. Conducting Asbestos Surveys X
4. Managing Asbestos Surveys X X
5. Abating Asbestos
6. Drafting Bid- Specs for Asbestos Abatement X X
7. Supervising Asbestos Abatement X X
8. Determining Houses Suitable for Moving X
8. Drafting Bid Specs for Moving X X
9. Managing the Bidding & Selection Process for House Movers X X
10. Supervising the House Move Process X X
11. Drafting Bid Specs for Demolition X X
12. Managing the Bidding & Selection Process for Demolition Contractors X X
13. Supervising the Demolition Process X X
14. Supervising the Site Preparation Work (rough grading, seeding, etc.) X X
•
•
r~
L.J
City of Richfield
Disposal of Improvements
Low Frequency Noise Mitigation Program
Introduction
The City of Richfield (City) is in the process of acquiring approximately twenty-two
single family houses and one commercial building for purposes of noise mitigation
adjacent to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. The City will require all
buildings and other improvements to be removed from each parcel of land. Removal
methods will be either by sale of buildings or by demolition, which ever method is more
efficient and cost effective.
The City is requiring a project management firm to oversee the removal and disposal
efforts: W. D. Schock Company, Inc. (WDSCO) is able to provide such services
necessary to facilitate this project. Below summarizes the proposed work scope and may
not be limited to what is stated below.
Task 1-Project Management
Scope of Services
1.1 WDSCO shall provide overall project management for the disposal of all
buildings and site improvements, either by sale or demolition, as directed by the
city.
1.2 WDSCO shall assist the City in selecting additional consulting and work services
and if so directed by the City shall subcontract said services.
1.3 WDSCO shall assist the City in managing contractors directly contracted with the
City.
1.4 WDSCO will, at least once a month, submit invoices to the City for services
rendered including any subcontractor services.
1.5 WDSCO shall provide periodic status reports and attend meetings required by the
City, relative to each property to be disposed.
Task 2 -Environmental Remediation
2.1 Assign Environmental Engineer to conduct Environmental Site Assessments
(ESA's) on all parcels and its buildings to identify any and all environmental
concerns. Each ESA shall recommend to the City appropriate means of mitigation
and if necessary the estimated costs involved. Such environmental concerns may
include, but not be limited to, asbestos, wells, above ground and underground
. storage tanks, septic tanks, etc.
Page 1 of 4 W.D. Schock Companv. Inc.
• 2.2 Any identified and confirmed Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM's) located on
a parcel and/or in its buildings shall be abated according to state and federal
requirements.
2.2.1 WDSCO shall require the Environmental Engineer to test and confirm all
ACM's and recommend appropriate methods for abatement.
2.2.2 WDSCO shall select a qualified asbestos abatement contractor based on
qualifications andlor costs to perform any asbestos abatement. The contractor may
be contracted by either the City or WDSCO.
2.2.3 All abatement work must be completed prior to disposal of any buildings.
2.2.4 Upon completion of any asbestos abatement, WDSCO, the Environmental
Engineer and the asbestos abatement contractor shall certify the work is
completed.
2.3 Any identified and confirmed water wells located on a parcel and/or in its
buildings shall be abandoned according to local, state and federal requirements.
2.3.1 WDSCO shall select a qualified well abandonment contractor based on
qualifications and/or costs to perform any well abandonment. The contractor may
be contracted by either the City or WDSCO.
2.3.2 All well abandonment work must be completed prior to disposal of any
buildings.
2.3.3 WDSCO shall ensure the appropriate documentation complies with and is
submitted to the Minnesota Department of Health.
2.4 Any other identified and confirmed environmental concerns located on a parcel
• and/or in its buildings shall be mitigated according to local, state and federal
requirements.
Task 3 -Building Sale
3.1 WDSCO will determine the feasibility of moving or demolishing each building
and recommend to the City an appropriate action.
3.2 WDSCO will manage the sale of each building. Buildings will be sold by
obtaining competitive price quotes from qualified house movers.
3.2.1 In collaboration with the City, WDSCO shall identify the available
buildings to be sold and preferably group them in batches for sale.
3.2.2 WDSCO shall prepare the quote packages to be mailed to qualified house
movers. Quote packages shall include a description of each building, a
quote sheet and sample performance contract.
3.2.3 WDSCO shall coordinate and make available all buildings to be sold for
inspection prior to quote submittals.
3.2.4 All quotes will be received by WDSCO. WDSCO shall determine the
highest quote from the most responsible house mover for each building
and will recommend to the City acceptance of the quote.
3.2.5 Upon the City accepting a quote, WDSCO shall obtain the funds from the
sale, performance contract and bond and shall provide to house mover a
bill of sale issued by the City and will then issue a notice to proceed.
•
Page 2 of 4 W.D. Schock Company. Inc.
Task 4 -House Removal Oversight
4.1 Upon house movers receiving a notice to proceed, WDSCO shall monitor their
moving activities and shall ensure strict adherence to performance contract
.requirements.
4.2 Prior to each building move, WDSCO shall schedule or require to be scheduled
the disconnection of all utilities that serve each parcel. Utilities include, but
limited to, sewer and water, natural gas, electricity, telephone, and cable
television.
4.3 During each building move WDSCO shall be available to inspect each site when
requested by a house mover for scheduled inspection pursuant to the performance
contract.
4.4 Upon completion of all .site work WDSCO shall verify that all buildings and site
improvements are completely removed from each site and that the house mover
has restored the site to its desired condition.
4.5 When material violations of performance contracts occur WDSCO shall inform
the house mover to correct the violation and also shall inform the City along with
a notice of any fine.
4.6 Upon the successful removal of each building and site restoration, WDSCO shall
inform the City and request the refund of the house mover's performance bonds.
4.7 Should a house mover not complete all of the terms and conditions of the
performance contract resulting in a need for the City to receive liquidated
damages, WDSCO shall assist the City in receiving any damages due.
Task 5 -Demolition of Remaining Buildings and Other Improvements
5.1 Where sale of buildings is determined not feasible, WDSCO will recommend to
the City demolition of the building or any other such site improvements the City
requires to be removed.
5.2 When it becomes prudent to demolition remaining buildings and other site
improvements WDSCO shall obtain quotes from qualified demolition contractors
for the removal, disposal and restoration of each site.
5.3 WDSCO shall prepare the quote packages to be mailed to qualified demolition
contractors. Quote packages shall include a description of the work to be
performed, a quote sheet and sample performance contract.
5.4 All quotes will be received by WDSCO. WDSCO shall determine the lowest
quote from the most responsible demolition contractor for each site and will
recommend to the City acceptance of the quote.
5.5 Upon the City accepting a quote, WDSCO shall identify the cost to the City for
the work to be provided, submit a performance contract and bond and shall
provide a notice to proceed.
5.6 If not already done so, prior to each demolition of buildings, WDSCO shall
schedule or require to be scheduled the disconnection of all utilities that serve
• each parcel. Utilities include, but limited to, sewer and water, natural gas,
.electricity, telephone, and cable television.
Page 3 of 4 W.D. Schock Company. Inc.
• 5.7 WDSCO shall provide demolition oversight to enswe compliance with demolition
work scope.
5.8 Should a demolition contractor not complete all of the terms and conditions of the
performance contract resulting in a need for the City to receive liquidated
damages, WDSCO shall assist the City in receiving any damages due, or may
assist the City in obtaining other means of correcting any issues of non-
compliance.
Estimated Project Cost
Task 1 -Project Management $4,290
Task 2 -Environmental Remediation 1,760
Task 3 -Building Sale 7,480
Task 4 -House Removal Oversight 3,520
Task 5 -Demolition of Remaining Buildings 7,040
and Other Improvements
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $24,090
r~
U
•
Page 4 of 4 W.D. Schock Companv. Inc.
O
U
Mr. John Stark, AICP
Manager
Richfield Community Development
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 554
RE: Proposal for Engineering and Environmental Consulting Services
Richfield Community Development
Airport Noise Acquisition Program (2002-2003)
URS Proposal No. E01-109
Dear Mr. Stark:
URS Corporation (URS) is please to provide this proposal to provide the necessary consulting services to
perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Transaction Screen, asbestos surveys and hazardous
building materials assessments; prepare project plans and specifications for asbestos and hazardous
building materials abatement and house moving/building demolition; and perform observations and
documentation for the properties targeted for acquisition as part of the 2002-2003 Airport Noise
Acquisition Program. The following description of our work effort summarizes the scope of this
• proposal:
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task I -Phase !Environmental Site Assessments
URS will perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) for the commercial building
(American Family Insurance) and one Transaction Screen for the 22 residential properties in general
conformance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessment documents. The Scope of Services for the Phase I ESA and Transaction
Screen will include and be limited to the following tasks:
• Historic Activities Review and Records Search;
• Site Reconnaissance;
• Interviews with site owners and local authorities;
• Review of Environmental Setting;
• Environmental Incident and Regulatory Agency Review; and
• Regulatory File Review.
Deliverables: Phase I ESA and Transaction Screen reports will be prepared for this task.
• Thresher Square
700 Third Street South
Minneapolis, MN 55415-1199
612.370.0700 Tel
612.370.1378 Fax
Ci~-~
Mr. John Stark
September 5, 2002
Page 2
• Task 2 -Asbestos Surveys and Hazardous Building Materials Assessments for Demolition
Minnesota Rules and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) guidance require that thorough pre-demolition surveys be performed for asbestos and hazardous.
building materials. URS will perform pre-demolition surveys in a1123 buildings proposed for demolition
or moving. The surveys will be performed in accordance with the applicable rules and guidance
documents, and will include an inventory of the following:
• Types, locations and estimated quantities of asbestos-containing building materials;
• Types, locations and estimated quantities of mercury-containingelectrical components;
• Types, locations and estimated quantities of suspected (non-labeled) PCB-containing electrical
components;
• Locations and estimated quantities of fluorescent light tubes and ballasts;
• Locations and estimated quantities of refrigerant-containing equipment;
• Locations and estimated quantities of lead-based paint in poor condition; and
• Locations and estimated quantities of other hazardous materials.
Five hundred (500) bulk asbestos samples and 100 paint samples have been budgeted.
Deliverable: Asbestos Survey and Hazardous Building Materials Assessment reports will be prepared for
the each property. The reports will be suitable for inclusion with the Project Plans and Specifications
described in Task 3.
• Task 3 -Plans and Specifications, Bidding and Contracting Assistance
Independent project plans and specifications will be developed for the following contractor activities:
• asbestos and hazazdous materials abatement,
• house moving; and
• demolition.
The plans and specification packages will be suitable for use in obtaining comparable contractor bids for
the specified work. URS will assist the. City in obtaining contractor bids for work specified in the project
plans and specifications. URS will conduct pre-bid site walkthroughs, solicit and answer written
questions regarding the work to be bid, prepaze necessary addenda, and will assist the City in conducting
the bid openings.
Following receipt of contractor bids, URS will assist the City in evaluation of the bids, and will provide
recommendations to the City regarding contractor adherence to the bidding documents. During and
following completion of the project, URS will review progress payment requests, and work with the City
and the contractor to ensure that proper payment amounts are approved for work completed.
Deliverables: Deliverables under this task will include the following:
• Project Plans and Specifications package;
• Submittal of Project Plans and Specifications packages to local plan rooms (e.g. F. W. Dodge,
Builder's Exchange);
• • Providing Project Plans and Specifications packages to contractors upon request;
Mr. John Stark
September 5, 2002
Page 2
• Written answers to submitted questions to all plan holders;
• Preparation and submittal of specification addenda as needed;
• Assistance with execution of contract between City and selected contractor;
• Review of contractor payment requests;
• Contract closeout documentation.
Task 4 -Construction Observations and Documentation
URS will perform contractor oversight during the abatement, demolition .and house moving to monitor
contractor activities and document compliance with project plans and specifications. URS will serve as
the liaison between the contractor and the City regarding contract compliance and potential unforeseen
conditions encountered during performance of the work. URS will prepare necessary change orders for
review and approval by the City. We have budgeted twenty days of a full time inspector and fifteen
percent project management time for this task.
Deliverable:. A written report detailing URS's contractor observations will be prepared for this task.
PROJECT BUDGET
URS has prepared the following project budget/cost estimate based on the scope of services and the
schedule of charges in our existing agreement with the City. The scope of services will be performed on a
time and materials, not-to-exceed basis.
Task 1-Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and Transaction Screen
Professional Services $5,000
Subcontractors $500
Expenses 150
Subtotal Task 1: $5,650
Task 2 -Asbestos Surveys and Hazardous Building Materials Assessments for Demolition
Professional Services $22,000
Expenses 1000
Subtotal Task 2: $23,000
Task 3 -Plans and SDecifications. Bidding and Contracting Assistance
Professional Services $9,500
Subcontractors $7,500
Expenses $1,000
Subtotal Task 3: $18,000
Task 4 -Construction Observations and Documentation
Professional Services $17,000
Expenses $1.000
Subtotal Task 4: $18,000
ESTIMATED PROJECT TOTAL: $64,650
Mr. John Stark
September 5, 2002
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to the City of Richfield Community Development.
We can initiate services immediately upon receipt of your authorization. Please contact me (612) 373-
6873 if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
URS Corporation
~ ~~~~
/~~~' v~
Chris G. Bratsch, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
r-
cc: Julie Urban, City of Richfield Community Development
U
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM # $
REPORT# 237
•
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER g, 2U~2
REPORT PREPARED BY:
JOHN STARK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
`MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER
Tats
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the
purchase of three apartment buildings located at 6328, 6344 and 6400 Cedar Avenue; Airport
Noise Ac uisition Pro ram Tabled from Se tember 12, 2002 .
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution establishing just
compensation and authorizing the purchase of 6328, 6344 and 6400
Cedar Avenue (Airport Noise Acquisition Program).
On March 26, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement (Agreement) with the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to provide $10 million of Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) airport improvement program funds to the City of Richfield to
purchase properties (including all related costs) that are, or will be, negatively
impacted by airport operations.
C]
Single family and duplex properties in the 6600 and 6700 blocks of 18th Avenue
were identified for first priority purchase with the funds because they would be
directly impacted by the diversion of traffic from Cedar Avenue to 18th Avenue at
67th Street. This traffic diversion is necessary in order to accommodate the
expanded 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 intersection, which will be constructed by
MAC and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The remaining funds were
identified in the Agreement for use to purchase as many of the apartment buildings
north of 66th Street as possible, beginning with the northernmost building and
moving south. Enough single family and duplex homes have been purchased or
purchase offers signed to give staff an indication of the funds available for
apartment purchases. The City Council is being asked to establish just
1008justcomp
compensation for three of the seven apartment buildings (representing 26 of the 88
total units) at this time.
This item was originally placed on the September 12, 2002 Council agenda. In
response to the concerns of homeowners on the east side of 17th Avenue,
however, Council Member Sandahl asked to delay consideration of this item so that
additional discussion could take place regarding the acquisition strategy. Council
directed staff to put the item back on the Council agenda at a later date after
discussion. At the September 24 City Council Worksession additional discussion
focused on the criteria for phasing buyouts in the Low Frequency Noise Area
particularly with the use of the $10 million grant from the MAC. Fourteen
homeowners from the east side of the 6600 and 6700 blocks of 17th Avenue made
public comment that they felt their properties would be negatively impacted by the
diversion of traffic from Cedar Avenue to 18th Avenue at 67th Street. These
homeowners further asserted their-belief that the`City had an obligation to acquire
their single-family homes prior to purchasing any apartments.
There are a number of reasons for continuing the acquisition of the apartments on
Cedar Avenue, as directed in the Agreement approved by the City Council on
March 26, 2002. Much of the rationale was described in Council Memo Number
113 (distributed prior to the Sept. 24 Worksession). The following is a brief
reiteration of the rationale for continuing with the apartment acquisitions:
• Written and verbal commitments have been made to the owners and tenants of
the affected apartments that the City is planning on acquiring their properties;
• More than $50,000 of the available grant funds have been expended on
appraisals and title commitments for the apartment properties;
• An agreement has been signed with the MAC, with the required FAA approval -
this agreement identifies the apartments as properties to be acquired;
i • The FAA has communicated to the City that it expects the apartments be
acquired because they clearly meet the funding criteria of being located within
the 65 DNL overflight noise area and not receiving noise insulation -whereas
the homes on 17th Avenue do not meet both of these funding criteria;
• Unlike the homes on 18th Avenue (onto which Cedar Avenue traffic will be
diverted north of 67th Street), it may be extremely difficult to persuade the MAC
and FAA to consider the homes on 17th Avenue as an area that would be
affected by "direct airport impacts;"
• Design features can be implemented in the Cedar Avenue to 18th Avenue
diverter route that would greatly diminish, if not eliminate, any negative effect on
17th Avenue;
• The apartment acquisition, when combined with the properties that the City has
already acquired north of 66th Street, would result in a more marketable
development parcel than could be achieved south of 66th Street with the
purchase of homes on 17th Avenue;
• The ongoing discussions with a potential developer for the area north of 66th
Street have presumed City acquisition of at least four of the seven apartment
buildings on Cedar Avenue -without this City acquisition, the financial feasibility
of the developer's proposal becomes even more difficult to establish;
• There are nearly 90 residential properties remaining in the Low Frequency Noise
Area, each with varying degrees of impact from the airport. The buyout strategy
has been based on the Council's desire to move from north to south, with
houses receiving greater priority over apartments or commercial properties. The
sources of funding, however, have included specific criteria which has
sometimes altered the Council's strategy. If it is ultimately determined that the
MAC grant can be used to purchase properties other than the apartments which
have already been identified, then there may be other single-family blocks which
would take precedence over 17th Avenue.
Additionally, at the September 24 Council Worksession, a concern was raised about
the ability of tenants in the apartments on Cedar Avenue to find affordable housing
if the apartments are acquired. If the apartments were acquired, then the tenants
• would be eligible for relocation benefits. Included in these benefits is sufficient
funding to ensure that no household has to spend in excess of 30% of their monthly
income on rent and utilities for a period of 42 months.
If a decision is made to reject the acquisition of the apartments on Cedar Avenue so
that an effort to purchase single-family homes can be pursued, there are a number
of activities that would follow. These activities include: identification of single-family
homes with the greatest degree of "direct airport impacts"; negotiations with the
MAC to amend the Agreement to include those homes, and; an indication from the
FAA (who is the ultimate source of the funding) that the amended Agreement is in
conformance with their funding criteria. It is not definitively known how long this
process would take and if any amended Agreement would be approved.
If the Council's decision is to continue with the apartment acquisition, the next step
is to begin making offers to purchase the properties. Offers would be based upon
appraisals, which have been completed., on the apartment buildings. The
appraisals have been reviewed by the City's review appraiser who has -made a
recommendation to the City and MAC. MAC concurs with the review appraiser's
opinion and is recommending just compensation for three apartment buildings in the
following amounts:
it ~
LJ
Pro a Address Fair Market Value
6328 Cedar Ave S $616,000
6344 Cedar Ave S $605,000
6400 Cedar Ave S $302,000
TOTAL $1 523,000
Once offers have been considered by these apartment owners and the amount of
relocation benefits for which tenants are eligible has been determined, then staff
can identify the remaining balance of the MAC grant and, hopefully, progress with
the acquisition of subsequent apartment buildings. If there are remaining funds
after the apartment buildings are acquired, staff will consult the MAC and City
Council on the appropriate use of such funds.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City and MAC have identified certain properties for purchase for
the Airport Noise Acquisition Program in accordance with the
Agreement.
• The properties are within the 87dB low frequency noise contour
identified by the City Council as a high priority acquisition area, and
only 1200 feet from the new North/South Runway. More importantly,
the properties meet the criteria for AIP funds because they have not
been insulated and are within the 65 DNL.
• Uniform acquisition procedures are being followed.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The airport noise acquisition strategy has not changed since recent
discussions with 17th Avenue residents, the MAC and FAA.
• Therefore, it is important to move forward with the apartment
acquisitions if the current strategy is to be maintained.
• It is highly unlikely that the MAC and FAA would approve any
changes to the Agreement which remove the aircraft .noise mitigation
element.
• Design features can be implemented in the diverter route that can
preserve the -17th Avenue neighborhood and protect the residents.
• Conworth, Inc. will make purchase offers immediately to property
• owners upon the City Council's approval of just compensation.
• After sufficient progress has been made in purchasing these three
apartment buildings and if funds remain, the Council may be asked to
establish just compensation for additional apartment buildings.
C. FINANCIAL
• Attempting to amend the Agreement may jeopardize the receipt of the
remaining funds.
• The MAC is obligated to fund this transaction in accordance with the
Agreement.
• The MAC has reviewed the fair market values of the properties and
has recommended that the City Council approve just compensation so
that purchase offers can be made to the property owners.
D. LEGAL
• There are no pending legal issues at this time.
E. TIMING
• The City's acquisition agent, Conworth, Inc., and legal counsel,
Kennedy & Graven, will coordinate settlement issues with property
owners.
• If a property owner accepts a purchase offer, a settlement closing
could occur within a 90-120 day period.
• Tenants will be provided with a 90-day notice to vacate and a
determination of relocation benefits once a purchase offer has been
accepted by the property owner.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECONIlVIENDATION(S)
• Delay approval of just compensation. However, a significant delay may
invalidate the appraisals.
• Do not approve just compensation and property acquisition.
• Defer action on this item to a future Council meeting.
~ V. ATTACI-IlVIENTS ~
• Resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of
properties.
• October 3, 2002 letter from Jeff Hamiel, MAC Executive Director
• September 18, 2002 letter from Nigel Finney, MAC Deputy Director
• Two letters from FAA commenting on the Agreement
VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Nigel Finney, Director of Planning & Environment, MAC
• Property owners and residents located within the Low Frequency Noise
Impact Area.
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING
• PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT
6328, 6344, 6400 CEDAR AVENUE
AIRPORT NOISE ACQUISITION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2001, the City Council approved the acquisition
strategy for residential property in the airport mitigative area, using $10 million in federal
funds secured by Congressman Sabo; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement
(Agreement) with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to provide $10 million of
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport improvement program funds to the City of
Richfield to purchase properties (including all related costs) that are, or will be, negatively
impacted by airport operations; and
WHEREAS, within the aforementioned airport mitigative area the real property listed
within Exhibit A is identified for purchase; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property
within its corporate boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals for the subject properties to be made by
qualified independent professional appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate;
and
WHEREAS, qualified review appraisers for the real property have certified the
• appraisal reports as being in conformity with professional appraisal standards, the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) of the Appraisal Foundation and
the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal
Institute, Appraisal Specifications (5-491.203) set forth in the State of Minnesota's Right of
Way Manual, and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Preparation of Real Estate
Appraisals, Appraisal Report Content, Detailed Appraisals and Appraisal Reviews; and
WHEREAS, the fair market values, as recommended by the review appraisers and
approved by MAC, are listed within Exhibit 6.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. That the just compensation amounts in Exhibit B are hereby approved.
2. That the City's acquisition/negotiation/relocation consultant, Conworth, Inc., is
authorized to present purchase offers of said amounts listed in Exhibit B to the
respective property owners.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
September, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
CJ
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Pro a Address Le al Descri tion
6328 Cedar Ave S Lot 3 and the North 40 Feet of Lot 2, Block 3, Iversons 3rd
Addition
Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be
vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores,
a urtenant thereto
6344 Cedar Ave S Lot 1 and the South 60 Feet of Lot 2, Block 3, Iversons 3rd
Addition
Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be
vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores,
a urtenant thereto
6400 Cedar Ave S Lot 6, Block 2, Iversons 3rd Addition
Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be
vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores,
a urtenant thereto
C7
EXHIBIT B
•
Pro a Address Fair Market Value
6328 Cedar Ave S $616,000
6344 Cedar Ave S $605,000
6400 Cedar Ave S $302,000
n
U
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
~,P°t'S Sq,ti Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
~2 t '~ 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
• ~ o Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
t ~ + ~,
O N
Office of Executive Director
~~ t G
9ti 4iRPO R19
October 3, 2002
Samantha Orduno
City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, N 55423
Dear No:
The Metropolitan Airports Commission has received a request from residents of
Richfield who live on 17t" Avenue regarding acquisition of their property due to
airport related noise impacts caused by the redevelopment of the intersection of
• Cedar Avenue and 66t" Street. While the Metropolitan Airports Commission
understands change in the vicinity may result in different traffic flows, the.
improvements agreed upon by the City of Richfield, the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Metropolitan Airports Commission provide an
accommodation in the best interest of all three parties.
As you know, the FAA has made funds available for the acquisition of noise
impacted properties in Richfield. FAA's priority is acquisition of noise impacted
areas. We and the City have jointly agreed to. acquisition of both noise impacted
properties as well as properties affected by traffic impacts associated with the
interchange construction. It is our understanding this includes multi-family
residential units located north of 66t" Street on Cedar Avenue. Additional single-
family homes were also acquired or approved for acquisition as part of this
agreement. Finally, some funding has been set aside to deal with noise impacts
caused by airport related traffic as a result of the reconstruction of the
intersection of 66t" Street and Cedar Avenue.
Ms. Jean Beaver has specifically requested that her property on 17t" Avenue be
acquired as an airport related traffic impact. Her request is contrary to existing
agreements between Richfield, the FAA and MAC. In discussions with her, I
indicated that she should first contact representatives of the City and express her
concern for the current plan. She also has indicated that she will present her
• position before the Planning and Environment Committee of the Metropolitan
Airports Commission on October 8 at 1:00 pm. ,
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer.
Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE • ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN
It is my understanding that the FAA is unlikely to approve changes to the existing
agreement that would reduce the acquisition of the. number of noise impacted
properties. This was a difficult and prolonged negotiation and it is unlikely that
any substantial changes will be made. The MAC's concern is primarily focused
on acquisition of properties that are impacted by aircraft noise located within the
65 DNL noise contour. While. we are sensitive to traffic related impacts, we
continue to support the original agreement unless other signatories believe there
is substantial rationale for modification.
If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact Nigel Finney,
Deputy Executive Director -Planning and Environment, as I will be unavailable
until after October 15.
cerely,
Jeffr Hamiel
Executive Director
Hamiel: Orduno-acquisition requests
01.15-D2 20:01 Proe•KENNEDY i GRAVEN
-- .
u S Oeport~'t
of y~poerana+
i'edMd Ark>~
A~~
I~AInMipd~ tirp~ i]isincc Ofrice
Minnatota. WaGOni~
January 7~, 2t)02
tplLS~f~ilY
60Z~ 280 /-.~nus s°"In _ - -
~p~01is. MN SS4S0~2706 :.
A~C~tVED _ - .~-.:_ _----:--- -~
~~ 4 g ZdQZ - - = .: -
N,gel D. ~nneY DEPUTY EXEC.-Q1R.
Deputy Exscu4ve Director
Ptanciu~9 and Env~tonme~~ssion .
Metropol-tan Ait'potts
• 61)40 - 28 ~ Minnesota 55454-2799 .
M;nneapd .
• bear Mr. Finney ~etd
Draft Agreement petwean MAC and R~d+f
Triank you for tt+e opporwnny tO review the December 7.2001, daft ~roemsnt
orts Commission and the aty of Ridgy regatdn9
between tha Matropditan arP cflmmerns ana
. mitigation of airport impacts vlnttun R~chfietd. Ws do have some
concerns perta~nin4 to the document as noted below: federal funds in
5» ragoaph on page 1 suggesu that the
' - 1. The fir5t'wHEREp- Pa Ric~~td to acqu'~re P~PeNes Within Richfield.
,;
. AtP-64 are avaitaote for use by tion. the federal funds are far sound
This is not the case. Per the grant descriP ~. However. the AIP-64 grant
insulation of some fi07 riom~' uiri~ n9 the MAC tO ~^d up to S3QM of airpon
contains a special condition req noise miogatipn projecxc vl~thtn
revenue funds {nol federal funds} on airport that -Such Hate m~agaaon
oes on to say. a ~bte
e acts ~ ~
Richfield. The special condition g
projects within the City of Richfield shah be lim+ced~ sP~~r.,
under the Airport Impro~~m Program by FAA commit MAG •
water sentence an ~ sal condition vrais to ontY
. purpo6e of this Ri~hfietd and >t s onhl the AIP eG®ible Prep that
to AtP eligible protects vYithmu~ condn ~~ ~s for they -
would be credited toward thk spy .. p
condition does not pre~e M~ from using attpo ens aro permitted .- .
Projects in Richfield that art not AIP et'igidle if such other ~ use policy
uses of airport revenue fu Ss 1999. Federal Register-
puclished in the fsbruary shall hest ~ m~e
~,. Tne fast sentence in (tern fit on page 1 sta~S''~uisi~ • . _ ._ . ..
On Fxhipit A which are mssded to eonnecxivo~n not
of the propettias shown • The roadwaYr ~'~ uhp~ -
ements. ;
- _ planned roadway improv red wnh u-e
exdusivelY sen-e ai<Pon traff`c a~ therefore ~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~qu
improvements would not ~ considered AIP 81i9-b the sped egndition doss
noise mitigation. AS noted above.
them to ~ ai rt revenue funds for those roaawsy
- not preclude MAC from using ~ ~ if it's consistent with the FAA s airport
imprevemeta+ associated v~ith the a~rp
01-16-02 20:Ot
FrorKENNEDY i GRAVEN
+6i233rt31D T-i6t P.Ot/Ol F-tt0
2
revenue use porky. but it's onN cats that are considerod both noise mitigation
and AIP el'lg~bte that can be counted towards fi+IfiNing the special condition.
3. The fu~st sentence m Item d3 on page 2 again;ndicaws.that Ricnfield Has use of
ttu grant proceeds. As indicated in Comment 61 above, none of the fiadetat
funds in the grant are intended for Richfield. Also ss indicated m C.ortttnent #i2
above. acquisition of single-family Homes in the 6600 ano 8700 bbdcs of 18'" .
Avenue to en~abte other roadway improvements wotild not bC considen~ as AIP
eGgibte noise mitigation costs and therefore would not tall under the inxnt of the
speaai condition. W8 suggest that first priority for use of the 110 fnilCorl should
be AIP dig~ble noise mitigation. such as acquisit~ott of the apatttnent buildings
on Cedar Avenue.
4. The first sentence in Item it4 on page 3 indicates R~ctlfield'may sell' any of the
- parcels acquired. but nothing appears to tequit+e theirs to do so. How does
MAC consider pemtitting Rlcltfield to retain fee uae m property acqured with
airport rwenue fun0s as being cane"~cwnt with the Febrt,ary 16.1899. a~tport
ic4a~ ~e s;S~ pa!iry~ T;,. came question would aPPN m 'remnants" discussed
m Item iFtO on page 4
5. Item !!5 on page 3 addresses the use of sale proceeds. What happens to the
proceeds if no further mitgation can be .identified that is'~rithin the intent of the
Grant Otter"? We suggest revis'mg it tD indicate the procared5 can either be
used for further mitigation of airport nose impacts as jantly determined by MAC
and Richfiett! (wNt first priority to mose that are AIP eligible) or caromed to MAC
in the event there is no further airport noise mitigation possible. Also. rather
than rr1CiC8te "within the intent of the Grant Offer it maybe better to say 'wittun
the intent of the special condiRion" or ro make it more liberal it could be opened
up to 'vvittun the intent of the FAA's 2115199 Airport Revenue use policy".
6. Item #5 on page 3 discusses up to an additional 3800.000 of additional funding
for right-of-wajr and other necessary costs related to the 68'" Street Bridge
Project. As noted above, only costs that are AIP eligible noise mitigation costs
wiu be creditea as fulfilling the special conditon. The 66" Street Bridge Projea
costs are Hat likely to meet the provisions of me speaal condition for the same
. _ reason clad in Comment ir2.
if you nave any questions regarding our comments please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely.
,, ~- /`t.
~~
Robert A. MubBr
Assisgnt Manager
_~
::~.
r,~ :.
U.S. oepaRmanf
Of TraflspOrtdtofl
tyd~rd JWb1bn
Adnwnahadlon
February 27, 2002
blairwapolis AiryOrLs Oisbid Olrice
, waoonsin
Nigel D. Finney
Deputy Executive Director
Planning and Environment
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 - 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450-2799
!)eat Mr. Finney:
6020 Z8~ Avarnn Sam _....-
RoOm 102
~weapals.l~1 ss'~so-sroe.
Revised Draft Agreement between MAC and Richfield
Thank you for the 9pportur-ity to again review the February 4, 2002, revised draft
agreement between the Metropolitan Airports CQmmiss'~on (MAC) and the City of
Richfield regarding mitigation of airport impacts within Rici'tfield. Subject to-the
following we find the' revised draft agneement to be acceptable for the purposes of
implementing the temps of Special Condition No. 2 of AtP Grant 3-27-0059-64:
1. Paragraph No.1 indicates Yhat properties needed in connection with t+oadway
improvements will be acquired first. That decision is totally within the punnew
of the MAG and the City of Richfield.. However we again want to reiterate that
because the costs of those properties are not AIP eligible and are not related to
noise mitigation those costs have no relevance toward satisfying the Special
Condition.
2. Paragraph Na. 4 which is fitted "Resale and Development_Controls' only
indicates that Richfield wdl utilize its best efforts to resell the parcels. In the
_ ~ , : ~ evert tl~se eF~ ~ not smut we timid e~y of the
Property to be in accordanoE with FAA's February 16.1999, "Policy and
Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue'.
If you have any questions regarding our Gxnments please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely.
nv. !/7U 1. L: 1
a
ME~ROPOI.ITAN A~RPOR~'S CO~I~S~IOl~
,,,•z •,., Minneapolis-Saint Pahl Internation~ Airport
-~ •~ 6040 -28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 5545p-2799
` Phonet6lZ)126-8100
r t
:* •
C~ J
O O?
September 13, 2002
Samantha Orduno
City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
~s•
Cear ~p~no:
At our meeting last Monday you indicated that the .Gity has had requests from residents to defer
acquisition ofthe~ apartment units~dentified.ln the_AAAC.-C~t agreement and to transfer these
funds to additional single-famt'iy aogt~sitiOn scwth of 66~' Street.
As you recall, the funds being .used for this program yvere made available by the FAA for
acquisition of-elig~ible noise irttpacted prc>Exrties. Foc. anumber of reasons, it was determined
that the FAA funds should be used for the -Part 150-Residential lstsulation PraBram. with an
equivalent amount of'' . furtds_ allocated to- the acquisition program to Richfield. The
acquisition of properties that had not yet been soundproofed, but were (orated Within the 1996
65 DNL contour we{~ considered an~ eligible use- of-these loads; the multi:.family apartments
north of 66`" Street on Cedar Avenue meet this criteria. The MAC and the City of Richfield also
jointly determined that a-t>dmber of single famiiy tron~snntt- of 66`" Street should.be acquired
with these funds as they would be directly impacted by an airport ++etated 'improvement. This
impact is created by-thE _need~ to divert traffic from Cedar Axenue to~ 18" Avenue which will
probably result in an increase in traffic on 18'~ Avenue, thensbyimpacting those tomeswhich
front 18'" Avenue in that ~an*a. When FJ~A reviewed the IdbaC-City agreement, tt~ expressed
_. __ . t„~ view an-gwo separate- occa§ior~s; +~at the f~rtd~ should be us!~ primarily for noise mitigation
pc,rposes rather than airport related traffic impacts. t do not believe tirra`rarrame~ment to~ t#~
agreement that wcauld eliminate the noise mitigation acquisition element of the program wou~
be acceptable to FAA.
Sincerely, -
. _ the Menupuluae Airports eonvnisNUn i+ an axinn.tire action ernptonT.
www.ntspairputt.com
AdM•a Aupnr~.~ Atltu-xe • ANOxA t:OUNTY/t1US1Ne • GR~~tI, • FL17NG ~t.OVD • IJt1CE Et.MO • SA1tJr ri-t1L Ao~wNTOwnt
•
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM # 7
REPORT # 236
STAFF REPORT
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
OCTOBER 8, 2002
•
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER
MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
Na,~ TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution authorizing approval of agreement with the Minnesota Department
of Transportation (MnDOT) and Hennepin County for replacing the traffic control signals on the
Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494.
III. RECOMMENDED ACTION: II
By motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and
City Manager to execute Minnesota Transportation Department Traffic
Control Signal Agreement No. 82378R among the State of Minnesota,
Department of Transportation, Hennepin County and the City of
Richfield.
II. BACKGROUND
The Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494 is being reconstructed and includes a new
traffic signal on the Bridge. Any new traffic signals or modifications to existing signals
require a construction cooperative agreement to be signed among Hennepin County,
the State of Minnesota and cities where the signals are located. In this case an
agreement is needed between the State, the County and the City and Richfield.
0611 HennCoSignalAgmt
. MnDOT has prepared a signal agreement for the removal of existing signals and the
installation of a new signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, signal
interconnect wiring and signing on the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 that is being
installed as part of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. This project is included in the
City's 2001 capital improvement budget
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 Project is identified in the City's 2001
Capital Improvement Budget.
• Formal agreements are required for the State and County to maintain
traffic signals built or modified by cities.
• The agreement is consistent with the City's existing agreements with
MnDOT and .Hennepin County regarding the construction, operation and
maintenance of signals.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The traffic signals along Penn Avenue will have increased spacing, the
result of replacing two existing signals at the 494 ramps with a traffic
signal in the center of the new Penn Avenue Bridge. This will improve
traffic flow and provide increased storage space for vehicles traveling on
Penn Avenue.
C. FINANCIAL
. Council approved monies in the 2001 Capital Improvement fund for the
Penn Avenue Bridge Project containing the signal improvements
described in this report.
• Funds for the new traffic signal are part of the funding for the Penn
Avenue Bridge over 1-494. These funding sources include Best Buy funds,
Federal High Priority Project funds, Minnesota Transportation Revolving
Loan funds and Minnesota Department of Transportation funds.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney will be present at the Council meeting and available to
answer questions.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION S
^ The Council may defer action on this item to a later meeting.
V. ATTACFIMENTS
^ Resolution authorizing approval of agreement with MnDOT.
^ Minnesota Transportation Department Agreement No. 82378R.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
^ None.
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
.MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL
AGREEMENT N0.82378R
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, the State of Minnesota, and Hennepin County
have been working to bring about improved traffic signals on the Penn Avenue Bridge
over I-494; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and its consultants have prepared the
necessary plans and specifications for the State Project No. 2785-328, State Project
No. 157-020-20, Federal Project No. HPP MN 10 (102), County Project No. 0021 and
City Project No. 401-30-521; and
WHEREAS, the County has indicated its willingness to approve said plans and
specifications and participate in the maintenance of said projects as they affect Penn
Avenue (CSAH 32); and
WHEREAS, it is contemplated the said parties under the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 162.17, Subdivision 1 and Section 471.59 carry out that said work.
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into an
agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following
purposes, to wit:
To remove the existing traffic control signals and install a new traffic
control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption,
interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 494 Ramps at County
State Aid Highway No. 32 (Penn Avenue) in accordance with the terms
and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 82378R, a copy
of which was before the Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are
authorized to execute such agreement and any amendments, and thereby assume for
and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
October, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL
AGREEMENT NO. 82378R
- BETWEEN
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
THE~COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
AND
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
TO
• Remove the existing Traffic Control Signals and Install a new
Traffic Control Signal with Street Lights, Emergency-Vehicle
Pre-emption, Interconnect and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 494
Ramps at County State Aid Highway No. 32 (Penn Avenue) in
Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
S.P. 2785-328
S.P.. 157-020-20 and 27-632-22
F.P. HPP MLV 10 (102)
County Project 0021
City Project CP401-30-521
Prepared by Traffic Engineering -
ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE ~ AMOUNT ENCUMBERED
City of Richfield S10 000 00 None
Otherwise Covered
•
•
PARTIES
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the Minnesota
.Department of Transportation, (State), and the County of
Hennepin, (County), and the City of Richfield, (City).
RECITALS -
Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20 authorizes the
Commissioner of Transportation to enter into agreements with any -
governmental authority for the purposes of constructing,
maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway system.
The parties desire to remove the existing traffic
• control signals and install a new traffic control signal
including street lights, interconnect and signing (Traffic
Control Signal) on Trunk Highway No. 494 Ramps at County State
Aid Highway No. 32 (Penn Avenue).
The City requests and the State agrees to the
installation of an Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption System, (EVP
System), as a part of the new Traffic Control Signal -
installation.
It is in the public's best interest for the State to
provide a new cabinet, (State-furnished Materials) for said new
Traffic Control Signal.
•
___
_ 82378R - - __ _
-1-
•
•
It is considered in the public's best interest .for the
County to provide a new controller .(County-furnished Materials)
for said new Traffic Control Sgnal._
The County, City and the-State will participate in the
__
cost, maintenance and operation of the new Traffic Control Signal
and EVP System.
CUN't'KAC'1'
1. The City will prepare the necessary plan,
specifications and proposal, (Preliminary Engineering). The
State will perform all necessary construction inspection,
(Engineering and Inspection).
2. The City with its own resources or by contract
will remove the existing traffic control signals and install the
new Traffic Control Signal and EVP System on Trunk Highway
No. 494 Ramps at County State Aid Highway No. 32 (Penn Avenue)
pursuant to the plan and specifications for State Project
No. 2785-328, State Project No.'s 157-020-20 and 27-632-22,
Federal-aid Project No. HPP MN 10 (102), County Project 0021 and
City Project CP401-30-521. The State's cost participation for
the new Traffic Control Signal and-EVP System for this project
will be covered in the Municipal Agreement, between the parties.
__ __ - --.
- _ .82378R .. -. - -- ---- - _ _
-2-
• -
3. The County will furnish-the County-furnished
Materials to be installed with the City work provided in
.Paragraph 2, all at the cost and expense of the City.
4. The State will furnish materials to be installed
with the City work provided in Paragraph 2. Estimated cost for
.the State-furnished Materials is $10,000.00. City's share is
100 percent.
5. Upon execution of this agreement and receipt of
State's written request, the City will make an advance payment to
the State of its share of the estimated costs as specified in
Paragraph 3.
• 6. After the State determines the actual costs for
State-furnished Materials, if the amount of the funds advanced by
the City exceeds the City's share, the excess will be promptly
returned to the City without interest. If the amount of funds
advanced by the City is less than the actual costs, the City will
promptly pay the balance to the State.
7. The City will be responsible for the cost and -
application to secure an adequate power supply to the service pad _
or pole. Upon completion of this project, the City will
thereafter pay all monthly electrical service expenses necessary
to operate the new Traffic Control Signal and EVP System.
•
82378R
-3-
[]
•
8. Upon completion of this project, the
responsibility for the new Traffic .Control Signal is as follows;
-a) The County will, at its cost and expense: (1) relamp the new
traffic control signal; and (2) clean and paint the new traffic
control signal, cabinet and luminaire mast arm extensions; b) The
City will, at its cost and expense: (1) maintain the luminaires
and all its components, including replacement of the luminaire if
necessary; and (2) relamp the street lights; and c) The State
will, at its cost and expense, maintain the signing and
interconnect and perform all other new traffic control signal and
street light maintenance, which all is to be performed by the
County on a reimbursable basis.
9. The EVP System will be installed, operated,
maintained, or removed in accordance with the following
conditions and requirements:
a) It shall be the State's responsibility, at
its cost and expense, to maintain the EVP
System which is to be performed by the County
on a reimbursable basis.
b) Emitter units may be installed only on
authorized emergency vehicles, as defined in
Minnesota Statutes Section 169.01,
•
Subdivision 5. Authorized emergency vehicles
82378R _... _ _. ___ _-__--
-4-
[7
•
•
may use .emitter units only when responding to
_ an emergency. The City will provide the
State's Assistant Division Engineer or
his/her designated representative a list of
all vehicles with emitter units.
c) Malfunction of the EVP System must be
reported to the State immediately.
___
' d) In the event the EVP System or its components
are, in the opinion of the State, being
misused or the conditions set forth in
Paragraph b above are violated, and such
misuse or violation continues after the City
receives written notice from the State, the
State may remove the EVP System. Upon
removal of the EVP System pursuant to this
Paragraph, all of •its parts and components
become the property of the City.
e) All timing of the EVP System will be
determined by the County's Traffic Engineer.
10. The County will maintain and keep in repair the
new Traffic Control Signal and EVP~System. The County will
operate the new Traffic Control Signal and EVP System, including
timing, as specified in Paragraphs 8 and 9. The County-will
82378R
-5-
• -
defend and indemnify the State from any claims arising .out of the. -_
performance or non-performance of the County's obligations under- -
__
this paragraph. The County's liability is governed by .Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable law.
11. The County will invoice the State annually for the
actual costs it incurs in maintaining and keeping in good repair
the new Traffic Control Signal and EVP System, as specified. in
Paragraphs 8 and 9 excluding the following: Maintenance of the
luminaires and all its components, including replacement of the
luminaire if necessary; relamping the new traffic control signal
and street lights; and cleaning and painting the new traffic
• control signal, cabinet, and luminaire mast arm extensions,
assigned to the County or City by this Agreement. The invoice
must be submitted, in quintuplicate to the State's Office of
Maintenance - Electrical Section. The invoice must include a
detailed itemization of costs and be signed by a responsible
County official, attesting to the validity of the expenses.
Subject to State's approval of the expenses and encumbrance of
funds, the State will promptly pay the invoice. The invoice, and
any supporting documents are subject to audit by proper State
officials, for a minimum of six years.
12. All timing of the new Traffic Control Signal will
be determined by the County's Traffic Engineer.
•
_ -
82 3 7 8R - _. - - - -------- -- - - - - -
-6-
C
•
•
13. Each party will be solely responsible for its. own
acts and omissions,: and the results thereof, to the extent
authorized by law. The State's liability is governed by_the
Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736.
Each party will be solely responsible for its own employees for
any Workers Compensation Claims.
14. The State ,or the County may terminate the terms
and conditions covering maintenance and operation contained in
Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, upon providing 30 days notice to
the other parties. The County's termination must be accomplished
by a resolution of the County Board. -The State's termination
must be accomplished by a letter from Mn/DOT's Assistant
Commissioner. Upon termination, responsibility for the Traffic
Control Signal and EVP System will be as follows: a) The County
will, at its cost and expense: (1) relamp the traffic control
signal; and (2) clean and paint the traffic control signal,
cabinet and luminaire mast arm extensions; b) The City will, at
its cost and expense: (1) maintain the luminaires and all its
components, including replacement of the luminaire if necessary;
and (2) relamp the street lights; and c) The State will, at its
cost and expense, maintain the signing and interconnect and
perform all other traffic control signal and street light
maintenance. In addition, all timing of the Traffic Control
_ _ _ _ --- -
82378R -
-7-
[7
•
Signal and EVP System will be determined by the State, and no
changes may be made. except with the approval of the State.
= 15. Upon execution and approval by the County, the
_.: ..:..
City and the State and completion of the construction work
provided for herein, this agreement will supersede and terminate.
Agreement No. 71587, dated July 11, 1994, between the County, the
City, the City of Bloomington and the State.
' 16. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing
and will not be effective until it has-been executed and approved
by the same parties who executed and approved the original
Agreement, or their successors in office.
17. If the State fails to enforce any provisions of
this Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or its
right to enforce it.
18. This Agreement contains all negotiations and
•
agreements between the parties. No other understanding regarding
this Agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to bind
either _ _ _
party.
19. Minnesota law governs this contract. Venue for
all legal proceedings arising out of this Agreement, or its
breach, must be in the appropriate- state or federal court yuith
competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
__
82378R __ _.
-8-
•
20. This Agreement is .effective on the date the State..
obtains all required signatures under Minnesota Statutes 16C.05, .
,Subdivision 2, and will remain in effect until terminated by
written agreement of the parties:
•
•
_____ ,
_- - _ - - --
R -
-9-
ATTEST: ~ By: -_- ,;:::'::
Chair of its County-Board
_ ~ By
Deputy/Clerk of the County Date:
~~ Board
Date: And:
Assistant/Deputy/County
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Administrator - ----
By : ~ Date : .. , ._
-Assistant County Attorney
Date: And:
•
Assistant County
Administrator, Public Works
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: and County Engineer
Date:
By : RECONIlriENDED FOR APPROVAL
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
(County Seal)
Rv-
Director, Transportation
Department
Date:
This certifies that the signatories for the
County have lawful authority, by virtue of
board resolution, to bind the County to the
terms of this Agreement.
•
_ . _ _ _ _ - -
_ _ _
82378R
-10-
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
.City Attorney
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BY:
Mayor
Date:
(City Seal)
By:
City Manager
Date:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
• Assistant Division Engineer
COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION
As delegated to Materials
Management Division
By:
Date:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
By:
Assistant Commissioner
Date:
ATTORNEY GENERAL
As to form and execution
By:
Date:
•
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into an
agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of
~`ransportation-for the following purposes, to wit:
To remove the existing traffic control signals and-
install a new traffic control signal with street
lights, .emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and
signing on Trunk Highway No. 494 Ramps at County State
Aid Highway No. 32 (Penn Avenue) in accordance with the
terms and conditions set forth and contained in
Agreement No. 82378R, a copy of which was before the .
Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers- be
and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement and any
amendments, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all
of the contractual obligations contained therein.
•
CERTIFICATION
State of Minnesota
County of Hennepin
City of Richfield
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a
true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by
the Council of the City of Richfield at a duly authorized meeting
thereof held on the day of 2002, as
shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession.
City Clerk
• (Seal)
r ~
~J
AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM # 6
REPORT # 235
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 8, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
NAME, TITLE
C7
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
BRUCE SYLVESTER,
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and second reading for the attached ordinance amendment to Richfield City
Zonin Code Sections 536.11; 536.17; 536.19; 536.21; and 536.25.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close public hearing and by motion: Approve second
reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code
Sections 536.19 and 536.25 to conform with State Statute 462.357 and
Sections 536.11, 536.17, 536.19, 536.21, and 536.25 to clarify rules
recardinc Planned Unit Developments.
•
I. BACKGROUND
Section One-Chances in Response to Last Year's Changes in State Statutes.
During the 2001 legislative session, the State of Minnesota amended State Statutes
regarding the procedures municipalities must follow when approving a rezoning.
Specifically, State Statute Section 462.357 was amended to require local governing
bodies (City Councils) to approve zoning changes in certain prescribed cases by a
simple majority rather than requiring atwo-thirds vote. The revised State Statutes
do still require an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the City Council for any rezoning
which "changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from
1008-2ndRead-Ord Revision-PUDs.doc
residential to either commercial or industrial..."
. In essence, the State of Minnesota requires city councils to approve most zoning
changes by a simple majority vote, while still requiring a `super majority' vote for
rezonings that change residential properties to commercial or industrial uses.
Last year, the Richfield City Council amended Zoning Code Section 536.17,
subdivision 3 (regarding votes to approve new proposals for Planned Unit
Developments (PUD)); Section 536.19, subdivision 1 (regarding votes to approve
new final development plans and conditional use permits fora PUD); and 546.07
(regarding votes to approve rezonings) so these sections conform to the new State
Statute 462.357.
Two changes are still necessary to make Richfield's PUD regulations consistent
with State Statutes: 1) Section 536.19 regarding votes needed to approve a final
development plan and a conditional use permit for a planned unit development must
be further modified by removing the reference to voting requirements in Section
546.07 and 2) Section 536.25 regarding votes needed to approve amendments to a
final development plan and conditional use permit for a planned unit development
must be modified to remove the two-thirds voting requirement. The proposed
changes are explained below:
1) The first change that is necessary to Richfield's PUD ordinances regards
Section 536.19. Section 536.19 currently refers to Section 546.07,
subdivision 4 which outlines voting requirements for rezonings. The City
Attorney has determined that the voting requirements for rezonings do not
apply to voting requirements for approving final development plans and
CUPs and so the reference to Section 546.07, subdivision 4 must be
removed.
2) The second change that is necessary to Richfield's PUD ordinances regards
Section 536.25. Currently, Section 536.25 states "Any amendment to a final
development plan and conditional use permit shall require atwo-thirds vote
of the Council." The City Attorney has determined that using this voting
requirement for approving amendments to a final development plan and
conditional use permit for a PUD is in conflict with State laws. Specifically, to
make Richfield's regulations conform with State Statute, Section 536.25 must
be rewritten so that amendments to final development plans and conditional
use permits for PUDs require only a simple majority to approve.
Section Two-Other Changes Identified by Staff to Improve PUD Regulations.
In addition to the changes recommended above in Section One, staff is
recommending the following changes to improve Richfield's zoning code as it
relates to Planned Unit Developments:
1) References to "Original District" (536.01, Subds. 4 & 6 and 536.17 Subd. 4(c)1.
Currently, the Zoning Code defines (536.01 subd. 4) and makes reference to
[536.01 subd. 6 and 536.17 subd. 4(c)] the "Original District" for a PUD. The
`original district' is defined as the "zoning district from which land is proposed
to be rezoned to a PUD" (subd. 4). Subdivision 6 states that the "various
. zoning regulations and requirements...which apply to the original district
should be considered as guidelines...in the approval of any PUD..." Lastly,
536.17 subd. 4 (c) states that a proposed PUD must be in `substantial
conformity with the purpose and intent of the `original district'.
While it appears in subdivision 6 that the 'original district' is to be considered
when reviewing a proposed PUD, it is unclear whether or not subd. 6
requires reference to the `original district' in the review process of
modifications in use;and building regulations (height, set-back, etc...) after
the PUD has been approved and established. In either case, reference to
the `original district causes two problems.
A) First, referring to the `original' district when a proposed PUD would
allow completely different uses than the `original' district is irrelevant.
For example, the Urban Village/Richfield Bank PUD is a commercial
PUD on many parcels that were originally residential. Reference to
the `original district' is meaningless when reviewing a proposed PUD
in this situation.
B) Second, referring to the `original' district after a PUD has been
approved (for example, when a new use is proposed) is
administratively difficult for staff. For example, Market Plaza was
rezoned to a PUD in the early 1980s. When a proposed new use is
• suggested for Market Plaza, referring to the `original district' would
require staff to consult with how Market Plaza was zoned 25 years
ago to determine whether or not a newly proposed use is allowable.
This process is complicated in PUDs, such as the Market Plaza
example that incorporated multiple parcels with multiple zoning
designations..
To correct this situation, staff is recommending that all references to the
`original district' be eliminated. Also, Section 536.11 will be modified so that
when reviewing proposed PUDs, current zoning regulations for `guiding
districts'-will be referenced for guidelines for the proposed PUD district in
question. For example--current C-2 rules would be used as guidelines when
reviewing proposed commercial developments in a proposed PC-2 district.
Also, Section 536.11 will be modified so that afters PUD is approved and
established, questions regarding allowable uses and building regulations will
be evaluated using the current rules for the `guiding' zoning districts that
correspond to the PUD in question. (This would be in addition to referring to
the specifications of the final development plan and conditional use permit.)
Lastly, Section 536.17, subd. 4 (c) will be modified so that guiding districts
will be referenced, rather than `original' districts, for required findings when
• reviewing a PUD application.
,2~ Clarification of minor versus major proposed changes to a final development
plan and conditional use permit and how each such change is reviewed and
approved (Administrative vs. Council review) 536.25-Plan Amendments.
Currently, Section 536.25 states that `Any amendment to a final development
plan and conditional use permit shall require atwo-thirds vote of the Council."
As explained above, staff is recommending that the two-thirds voting
requirement be modified to conform with State Statutes. A further
recommendation from staff regarding this section is to differentiate between
minor amendments to an Final Development Plan/Condition Use Permit
(FDP/CUP) and major amendments to an FDP/CUP, and to allow the former
to be reviewed and approved administratively while still requiring the latter to
be reviewed by the Council. An example of minor amendments which could
be administratively reviewed and approved would be proposed signage or
landscaping-changes in a PUD. Rather than requiring the property owner or
applicant to take these types of `minor' requests to the City Council for review
and approval, administrative review would be allowed. Minor amendments
will be outlined in a summary list. Staff decisions on those items deemed to
be `minor' changes could be appealed to the City Council.
Fees for a minor amendment to a Final Development Plan and Conditional
Use Permit will be established in Appendix D of the Richfield City Code. The
current fee fora "PUD plan amendment" is $500. Staff recommends that the
fee fora "minor FDP/CUP amendment" be $250.
Minor Amendments to a Final Development Plan will include:
• Signage changes
• Landscape changes
• Parking lot configuration changes (not change in number of spaces)
• Less than a ten percent change in floor area in any one structure
• Less than a ten percent change in the approved separation of
buildings
• Less than five percent change in the ground area covered by the
project
• Less than a five percent change in the number of residential units
• Less than a five percent change in the number of parking spaces
The Director of Community Development will have the option of determining
if a particular request, even if it is included in the list of `minor' amendments,
should be considered a `major' amendment and referred to the Planning
Commission and City Council. (Example-a request for a billboard would be
a `sign' change but would be considered `major' enough to go to the Council.)
With regards to the last bullet point in the list above, at first reading of this
• proposed ordinance amendment the City Council requested details about
existing PUDs in the City and what a five percent change in the number of
parking spaces would look like. The table below outlines the existing PUDs
and their available parking, and shows how. many parking spaces would be
affected with a five percent change:
•
. Name of PUD # of Parkin S aces 5%
HUB 920 46
HUB West 258 13
Woodlake Center 1,072 54
6412 L ndale 243 12
Woodlake Villa a 80 4
Market Plaza/Village Shores
6501 Wood Lake Drive 497 25
Woodlake Point
6500 Wood Lake Drive 136 7
Lake Shore Apartments '
6615 Lake Shore Drive 206 10
Gramercy Co-op
6711 Lake Shore Drive 168 8
VFW
6715 Lake Shore Drive 61 3
Sheridan Court
2500 W. 66th Street 15 1
Decision One
6636 Cedar Avenue 375 19
Best Buy (7601 Penn Avenue)
Ramp = 6,700±
Surface = 325
Surface Tem = 476 7,501 375
Meridian Crossin s 1 & 2 1,204 60
Emerson Congregational
Church 7601 Girard 92 5
Sho s at L ndale 1,098 55
7601 Lyndale (110 surface),
7645 L ndale 137 ara e 247 12 --
7601-15-25-45 Garifeld Ave: 56 3
3) Clarify the relationship between approving major changes to an FDP/CUP
and the possible need to rezone the underlying PUD district. (Reference
and/or clarify votes needed to approve various PUD rezonings e.q.: from
residential to commercial versus from commercial to residential...). 536.25.
Currently, Richfield's Zoning Code Section 536.25 outlines the procedure for
amending an FDP/CUP, but only briefly and ambiguously refers to the
rezoning of the underlying PUD district. Staff is recommending that this
section be amended to add information stating that proposed major changes
in use may require the underlying PUD district to be rezoned in addition to
the FDP/CUP being amended. (A related amendment will be to reference
other sections of the code regarding how many votes are required for such a
rezoning.)
For example, a developer proposes amixed-use residential development
with some retail uses. The parcel is rezoned to PMR and the developer
receives approval for an FDP/CUP. Later, the developer returns with a
request to amend the FDP/CUP to allow a development that is primarily
office with a secondary residential component. In this scenario, in addition to
requiring an amendment to the FDP/CUP, the developer would need to
obtain approval for the property to be rezoned from PMR to a commercial
PUD district, such as PC-1 or PC-2. In this scenario, atwo-thirds vote of the
Council would be required to rezone the property from a residential to a
commercial PUD district. Amendment of the FDP/CUP would require a
simple majority of the Council to approve.
A second example would be a developer that proposes a commercial
development with some residential. The parcel is rezoned PC-2 and the
developer receives approval for an FDP/CUP. Later, the developer returns
with a request to amend the FDP/CUP to allow a development that is
primarily residential with some office/retail space. In this scenario, in addition
to requiring an amendment to the FDP/CUP, the developer would need to
obtain approval for the property to be rezoned from PC-2 to a residential
PUD district, such as PMR or PMR-1. In this scenario, a simple majority of
the Council would be required to rezone the property from a commercial to a
residential PUD district. Amendment of the FDP/CUP would also require a
simple majority of the Council to approve.
The proposed ordinance revision clarifies if/when a proposed amendment to a
FDP/CUP triggers the need for the PUD to be rezoned, and references the section
of the City Code that specifies the number of votes necessary to approve such a
rezoning.
II. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield's zoning codes must be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes
to prevent confusion about `which rules apply'. By adopting the
recommended City code revision, Richfield's zoning code will include the
same requirements for approving zoning changes as State Statues.
• Richfield's zoning codes should be clear to understand and easy to
administer.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The Richfield City Code adopted amendments to other sections of the
zoning code in 2001 to make Richfield's Zoning Code consistent with
State Statutes. The current proposed amendments were overlooked at
that time and must be adopted now so that all sections of the Richfield
zoning code are consistent with State Statute.
C. FINANCIAL
• Anew fee will be added to Appendix D for `Minor Amendments to PUD
plans and FDP/CUPs.
D. LEGAL
• Richfield's City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached zoning
ordinance amendment.
• The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed amendment to the
zoning ordinance and recommended approval at its August 26th, 2002
meeting.
• Four votes are required to approve this recommended amendment.
III. ALTERNATNE RECONIlVIENDATION(S~
• .Reject the recommendation to amend Richfield City Zoning Code Sections
536.19 and 536.25 to conform with adopted State Statutes, and to further
amend Section 536.01, subdivisions 4 and 6; Section 536.11; 536.17,
subdivision 4(c); and Section 536.25 to make regulations regarding PUDs
more clear and consistent.
IV. ATTACPIlVIENTS
• Ordinance Amendment
V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
r1
LJ
•
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 536.01 Subdivisions 4 and 6; SECTION 536.11 Subdivision 1;
. SECTION 536.17 Subdivision 4 (c); 536.19 Subdivision 1;
536.21 Subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; and 536.25 Subdivisions 1 and 2.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
1. Section 536.01 Subdivision 4 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is
deleted as follows:
2. Section 536.01 Subdivision 6 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is
deleted as follows:
3. Section 536.11 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended to
read as follows:
536.11. PUD districts: guiding districts .Subdivision
• 1.
The following table denotes the six types of PUD districts, the abbreviations for such
PUD districts, and the ^"^~•~^h'° ,.°°° ,•,;+tii., °nnh o~ in ,+.~+,-,,.+ guiding districts
which correspond to each PUD district. The various zoning regulations and
requirements (e.a_ use_ building setback. heiahtl which aonly to the auidina district
n
PUD DISTRICTS ABBREVEATION GUIDING DISTRICTS
~
Planned Residential PR R & R-1
Planned Two-Famil Residential PMR-1 MR-1
Planned Multi-Famil Residential PMR MR-1, MR-2, & MR-3
Planned Nei hborhood Commercial PC-1 C-1
Planned General Commercial PC-2 C-2 & C-3
Planned Industrial P)
4. 536.17 Subdivision 4 (c) of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is
amended to read as follows:
• 536.17 Review of PUD application.
Subdivision 4 (c) the development is in substantial conformity with the purpose
and intent of the er-i~i~af uig ding district, and departures from the etig+nat uiy ding
district regulations are justified by the design of the development.
5. 536.19 Subdivision 1 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is
amended to .read as follows:
• 536.19 Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit.
Subdivision 1. Upon approval of the PUD application and rezoning, but prior to the
commencement of any construction or development of land, an applicant shall
submit a final development plan, together with an application for a conditional use
permit for the development shown in the final development plan, which is
consistent with the PUD application. T"° „^+.n,. r°n~ nr°m°n+e fnr ~r~r~rn"~I .,f +h°
.Final developmentplans and
conditional use permits will be processed according to the procedures established
in 546.05 subdivisions 4 and 5.
6. Section 536.21 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended to read
as follows:
536.21 Compliance with the PUD plan and final development plan.
Subdivision 1. Changes. The development of a PUD district shall be in substantial
compliance with the approved PUD plan, final development plan, and conditional
use permit. ~^^^.,r.,^^° c•h.~ll nn+ h^ nnnc•i.d°r°rJ c~ ~hc+~n+iol i~+h^r° ice..
Subdivision 2. Minor Amendments to a PUD plan and FDP/CUP, defined.
Minor amendments to a Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit
are:
Subdivision 3. Major Amendments to a PUD plan and FDP/CUP, defined.
area.
• Subdivision 4: Proposed Minor amendments to be reviewed administratively.
Proposed minor amendments (as specified in Subdivision 2 above) to a PUD plan
and FDP/CUP shall be reviewed and decided by the Director of Community
m
.Subdivision 6: Building Permits.. (no changes to this section other than the
subdivision number changes from 2 to 6...)
7. Section 536.25 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended to read
as follows:
536.25
Any major amendment to a final development plan and conditional use permit shall
be considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The
• Council. Any major amendment shall require a ids ma'ori vote of the
Council. The Council may hold such hearings on a proposal to amend a final
development plan and conditional use permit as it may consider necessary; but at
least one public hearing shall be held. -The Council may consider all factors
considered in connection with rezoning the PUD district and issuing the conditional
use permit therefor, as well as any other factors relevant to the public health,
safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, or general welfare and to the
protection of property or improvements in the neighborhood.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
October, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
~i
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Subdivision 5: Proposed Mayor amendments to be reviewed by the Council.
Subdivision 2. Determining if Underlying PUD District Must Be Rezoned.
~J
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 4D
REPORT # 234
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
•
OCTOBER 8, 2002
BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
Nan1E TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIItECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for renewal of amulti-animal residential kennel license for Suzanne
and Thomas Erickson, 7144 Oliver Avenue South.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: -
By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of amulti-animal
residential kennel license for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson, 7144
Oliver Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND ~
On July 25, 2002, Suzanne and Thomas Erlckson submitted an application for the
renewal of their multi-animal residential kennel license. They own three dogs.
Their application contains the signatures of three property owners nearby.
According to the applicant, an incident took place a few years ago involving one of
their dogs "nipping" at a neighbor. This neighbor has property adjacent to
Erickson's and is a contiguous property owner to Erickson's property. The animal
did not break any skin and no reports were filed with the Public Safety Department.
Furthermore, this property owner has not signed this application as a contiguous
property owner in previous years as well. A privacy fence has been constructed
between the two properties, which appears to be in very good condition. Therefore,
the signatures on their application are not all contiguous property owners. It should
1008Erickson Multi-Animal Residential Kennel Renewal
also be noted that the neighbor involved in the incident did not respond either way
• to our letter of notification regarding this license request.
A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on August 5,
2002. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The exterior of the
property appeared to be in good condition with no odors or feces present. The
Community Service Officer noted that the dogs were very quiet and obedient.
Environmental Health staff have not received any complaints for this address in the
past year. The most recent complaint received was in 1997 regarding the need to
obtain a residential 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 three 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 residential kennel license. Staff did not
• receive any calls regarding this application.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
N/A
C. FINANCIAL
NA
D. LEGAL
N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMNIENDATION(S~
• Deny the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential kennel license
for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson; however, the Public Safety Department
has not found any basis for a denial.
V. ATTACFIMENTS
None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• • Suzanne and Thomas Erickson
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 4D
REPORT # 233
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 8, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
•
DEPARTMENT DIIECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for renewal of amulti-animal residential kennel license for Sarah
Delon and Tim Fahe , 6428 Knox Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of amulti-animal
residential kennel license for Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey, 6428 Knox
Avenue South.
•
II. BACKGROUND
On July 15, 2002, Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey submitted an application for the
renewal of their multi-animal residential kennel license. They own three dogs.
Their application contains the signatures of contiguous property owners.
Public Safety Staff have not received any complaints regarding this residential
kennel license renewal. There was, however, a caller indicating concern for future
barking dog issues.
A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on August 8,
2002. There were no apparent problems found with the exterior premises at that
time. It appeared to be free of feces and odor.
0813DelongandFaheyKennelLicense
• The Environmental Health Division has not received any complaints for this address
in the past year.
There were no police reports on or contacts with this address in the past year.
III. BASIS OF RECO1~~Ilv1ENDATION
A. POLICY
• Although this application is for three 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 kennel license.
Staff received one call regarding this application.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• NA
• D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECONIlVIENDATION(S~
• Deny the request for the renewal of amulti-animal residential kennel license
for Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey; however, the Public Safety Department
has not found any basis for a denial.
V. ATTACHIVIENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey
U
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 4D
REPORT# 232
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 8, 2002
BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® ~~nn .J,~.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for renewal of amulti-animal residential kennel license for Jane Noll
West, 7301 Wentworth Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of amulti-animal
residential kennel license for Jane Noll West, 7301 Wentworth
Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
On July 16, 2002, Ms. West submitted an application for the renewal of her
residential kennel license. She owns three dogs. Her application is complete and
contains the signatures of three contiguous property owners.
Public Safety staff have not received any complaints regarding this residential
kennel license renewal.
• A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on August 5,
2002. There were no apparent problems found with the exterior premises at that
time. It appeared to be free of feces and odor.
0924 West Multi-Animal Residential Kennel Renewal
The Environmental Health staff has no history of receiving any complaints for this
address.
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 three 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 residential kennel license. Staff did not
receive any calls regarding this application.
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 residential kennel license for Jane
West; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a
denial.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Jane Noll West
•
•
J STAFF REPORT
CONSENT
4C
231
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 8, 2002
•
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
DAVE ZELAZNY, STREET SUPERVISOR
NAn~ TITLE
MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NA,t~ TITLE
~~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of purchase of winter deicing salt.
I. RECOI~IMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize the purchase of an estimated 1,700 ton of
winter deicing salt for the 2002/2003 winter season from Cargill
Incorporated Deicing Technology, North Olmsted, Ohio at the price of
$27.97 per ton, delivered, plus sales tax.
II. BACKGROUND
Each year the City purchases rock salt, to control ice on road surfaces during the
winter season.
III. BASIS OF RECONIlVIENDATION
• The City participates in a joint purchasing agreement with the State of
Minnesota.
• The State of Minnesota solicited bids for all the participants in the joint
purchase agreement.
1008sa1t
A. POLICY
When the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment, or
construction exceeds $50,000, authority to purchase shall be
submitted to the City Council for consideration.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The City is obligated to purchase 80% of the agreed amount, and may
purchase up to 120% of the agreed amount, in accordance with the
contract.
C. FINANCIAL
A recent history of prices for this product is:
Year Base .Price Vendor
98/99 25.32/ton I.M.C. Salt, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas
99/00 24.02/ton Cargill .Inc. -Salt Division, North Olmsted,
Ohio
00/01 26.33/ton Cargill Inc. -Salt Division, North Olmsted,
Ohio
01/02 39.02/ton I.M.C. Salt, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas
Funding for this purchase is included in the 2001 and 2002 operating
budgets for street maintenance.
D. LEGAL
N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMNIENDATION(S~
• Council could choose to discontinue the use of rock salt to control ice on
road surfaces during the winter season. However, staff is not aware of a
more effective means of provided the safest road condition possible under
icy conditions. Although the City is obligated to purchase 80% of the agreed
amount for the 2002/2003 winter season, further participation in the
cooperative State bidding process for deicing salt could be abandoned.
V. ATTAC~IlVIENTS
• None.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
None.
•
r1
LJ
STAFF REPORT
CONSENT
4B
230
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 8, 2002
:7
n
LJ
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
BRUCE SYLVESTER,
PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME; TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
/^1/
/~/.dill o
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution for an off-street parking permit at 7715 Fourth
Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve the attached resolution for an off-street parking
permit at 7715 Fourth Avenue.
III. BACKGROUND ~
The Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union (Credit Union) is requesting an off-street
parking permit for its business at 345 East 77th Street. Currently, the Credit Union
has 32 parking spaces available on its parcel at 345 East 77th Street and an
additional ten spaces at an unimproved (gravel) parking lot across the street at
7715 Fourth Avenue. The Credit Union's request is to improve the parking lot at
7715-Fourth Avenue by removing a detached garage and installing an enlarged and
paved parking lot with 22 spaces. Parking on Fourth Avenue will be used by
employees to keep the parking stalls on 77th Street which are closer to the Credit
Union-open for customers. This additional parking is needed in anticipation of the
Credit Union adding a second story to its current building. The expanded building
will have 8,880 square feet. City parking lot standards require one parking stall per
250 square feet of space for uses such as the Credit Union, or 36 total spaces for
1008-0 S P-7715-4thAve
the expanded building. With this improved surface lot at 7715 Fourth Avenue, the
Credit Union will have a total of 54 spaces between their two parking areas.
• The applicant has passed site plan review with staff, where the following matters
were satisfactorily addressed in the parking lot site plan:
• The parking will be adequate relative to anticipated need.
• Adequate trafFc control devices and safety features have been incorporated
into the design of the parking lot.
• Stormwater management, lighting, and landscaping are adequate.
• The impact on nearby streets and intersections will be negligible.
• The parking lot meets parking lot standards, for drive aisle width, stall
dimensions, landscaping, and the provision of handicapped spaces. The
Public Works Department and the applicant are finalizing details for the
design and width of the driveway entrance.
• The parking lot meets setback requirements on the east, west, and south
sides but does not meet City standards for setbacks on the north side, where
it is adjacent to a parking lot for an apartment building. City standards
require a 15-foot setback for parking lots adjacent to residential uses;
however, such a setback would make it impossible to improve this parcel as
desired. Therefore, City staff has recommended that a 5-foot setback be
allowed on the north side of the parking lot. When taken in combination with
the 5-foot setback that the residential parking lot already has, there will be 10
• feet of separation between the two parking lots, which will be sufficient for
snow storage and landscaping.
III. BASIS OF RECOMIVIENDATION
A. POLICY
• Procedures for issuance of an off-street parking permit are outlined in
City Code Section 800.17, which authorizes the City Council to issue a
permit after determining that the requested parking area will not have
an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare of the
community.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The Credit Union has deposited $1,000.00 in an escrow account. This
escrow will be returned to the Credit Union after the landscaping
improvements at the improved parking lot have been completed.
D. LEGAL
• 60-DAY RULE: 60 day clock `started' when complete application was
received on September 20, 2002. Decision must be given to applicant
by November 19, 2002 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it
is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or
120 days total) for .issuing a decision.
IV. ALTERNATNE RECONEVIENDATION(S~
• Deny the request for an off-street parking permit with a finding that the proposal
would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole.
V. ATTACHIVIENTS
• City Council resolution
• Certificate of Survey
• Site Plan
• Ariel photo showing the proposed parking lot in context with the surrounding
area
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Mr. Larry Klement, Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union
•
~J
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION GRANTING AN OFF STREET PARKING PERMIT
AT 7715 FOURTH AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of an Off-street parking permit for the parcel of land located at 7715 Fourth
Avenue, legally described as:
Lot 2, Block 1 Blaylock Plumbing Addition; and
WHEREAS, the requested Off-street parking permit has been reviewed by staff
and meets city requirements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed parking area will adequately serve the purpose- for which
it is proposed and will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare;
and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the Off-Street
Parking permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
• 1. That an Off-street parking permit for 7715 Fourth Avenue is hereby approved for
a parking area as detailed in the site plan entitled "Site Plan-Richfield-
Bloomington Credit Union Off-Street Parking", and drawn by the BKV Group,
Inc.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October,
2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
' ~'~
~x
~. --f-
- - - - 3N1'1 J,ya3dOad ~' _,[ye
8
~ r-_-
`-' y; ~ ~ I
t~ I N;'.
~_ ~
i ~l
r` I
M
1 +,
I
J I
~' I Y
~^ ~ ~:
I N
W
n
w ~ 1 '7
=I ~ ~a
u
~~ u
w' 4
o gl ~
J '-
1 ~
~ ~ r'
Z CV I
Y `,
~ ~,
~ x` 1
i~ ~ ~
N I ~
X
W
o^ I
i
i
aaa~s J.J. ,~ - -~
X
r` ~ ~ ~
M
~ I
' I
Sd• •;
~ I
I
7
~ N~n uW
3~i
~ \
~~ !s~ N
! F\ M
~ N \ I
I
h
\
~W~~~~ I ~ \\V. +
~ w~
o ~
u ~ ~
: gab I ~~
a ~" i-
wF
~
~ ~~tY l
7
w W N U
H
F- D ~ _ :J ~
v: I l7
~
~ \
~
a' N w ~~ ~ \ \
~~ ~
~\~ In \\\
Wm ~~t' ~~ w ~~
~ _.~J v~\1v~
BKV
G R O U P
~,~ Architecture
L~7 ~ W ~ ~ '
I Interior Design
" °L ~'' "- ° '`'
~ '~ ( Engineering
a
~a
Wm< +
au~i N ZjU~fOYS
~ M I I
I
~
Boorman
~ gZ
~=~~is° N
W~~
~
~~
o ~
~ I
I Kroos
Vogel
•
°°
~
ko
aw >o~~'v <~u ~
~ ~ ' Group
~ ~
~ a~w`~r"~~~ ~ ~ ~ Y InC.
~ o ~ ~m~~~~~~ ~ ~
~
~
a "
~ ~ ~
a m 222 North Second Street
~ v z
3
a
w Minneapolis, MN 55401
E} -~-- ° "~
~ ~`-'- Telephone: 612.339.3752
"
r ~
B
f'O ~
.
--- Facsimile: 612.339.6212
.
, - ~'`
~
o=
~ www.bkvgroup.com
_
_
~ ~~
~~
M °~ ~
\
~
~~.p_Lyv~ ~~ CONSULtANiS
R
~
. -
S O x
~ ~ ~ PROJECTTBlE
i RICHFIELD
Marc < Co
~ ° t7u~i Ir j ~ ~
f- '" N I ~ I q
~ :a ~-~
((yy ~ z
E N ~
',) r
`~ x
-- -
C ` Jam. ~ ~ ~°
w
'~ ~
K-- - .- m
~a
~:J
\
u~ ~
` /
1 N m
i5 °
p
~w~ I M ~ t n
~E~ ~ M I
~a~ I ~'0'. I ~ 1J7
O
t
~ r .~
.
W fY t7
~ W.r ' ~ _.
ti CO b -
~
tD . .
~! 11
~~~
u'~ = ~~ m ~ r-; II
~
r -
- - --
u
J ii
t- i, 7
~
r N ,: a
ye _ ~~ Y ~ d
~1~~'~~ ~1~~9Et ~'S~'
NJ 470 Wm ~ ~ ~ •0',LE
~~ Z~= ~~ ~
~ ~
x . ___.
I 1
~~ ..
.o-,bt ll
/ ,.
n~
g ~aF • II
w
mWF a
~~~wK r toth
+ \~~~~
N
N\
u. \
~\
OI r
O
O N fn
N ~X
N 2.''J.i
~\
az¢
M
Y
O
u
u
L - - - - - -
U
~~. L _ ~
x ~~L'Si. L
~~s~ ~ - ~
V
nog ~nN~nd Hl~ '~ ~
H1 x~.,:L;
X Z'9i L '
-STR
BLOOMINGTON
CREDIT UNION
OFF- STREET
~- PARKING
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
SHEET TBLE
cERnflcnnoN
t hereby ce,h7Y ttaf th'e don. sperd~earion
tX report w~ proparsC by me or urWer my
direct supeMsae aW that I om o duly
lieerued Pretssstonot /vchitect under
tiro tv«s W the Stole of Mirvros0la.
JackBOartnan
Date
license Number
SCALE= 1 "=20' -O
_.J.~
C1
p 2001 8KV Group
A
Z
Z
~ wQ _
l 8 ' Z9 ~ --~ o cV
..... __...... __.,..... Q Q N ;O
a a __ 'n N
~ , t ~- o
W ~ Q iil •• ~'
? ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~~
f ~ N t1? Q^ ~ .. r
(4 ~ Y ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ r ~
v*
O
~ N
C ~ r-~-•_•:- f
o ; yew ~
~ ~~~ ~
i .L
p. Y ~ 1
.~' (~ a #
• M ( a
3 `~'
w ~'
z ~
~ ~ t
s ~w
2
`SILL-- ''
i 3.
i ~ a
e x ~t t W
~ w ~~._ _ _ _ _~~ !a-
~' o~C
~. ~~ a
~~ u
/~
~Z
~a
z
• 3~
~~
a i"
_x
c/1 U
1;
`t
_~
,~O YOGI
' e~n~
~.~
77th St
~..
+ ~ ~
~~` A , ~ ~, ~"~ ~ " Arby's s? ` ~ _ ~~
;} ,
nn ~ , : :.:
` per ~ ~~ _ R ~ ~ ` ,
~ ~ ~ T - ~ } ~ ~ ` '' `'? Fora .q fi
~~~, ~ .__ , ~ ~ ~~;.y ~ ~ ,, laths ..~ ~a ,~ ~.
Richfield-Bloomington Credit Union
Off Street Parking Permit Application
October 8, 2002
N
50 0 50 Feet
October 8, 2002
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 4A
REPORT # 229
~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 8, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK
NAME, TITLE
•
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER;
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution appointing high school student trainee election judges
for the November 5, 2002 General Election.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution appointing high school
student trainee election judges for the General Election on November
5, 2002.
III. BACKGROUND
Minnesota Statute 2046.21 Subd. 2 provides that election judges for precincts in a
municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality and that
the appointments be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election
judges will serve.
•
Also Minnesota Statute 2046.19, Subd. 6 provides that a student enrolled in a high
school in Minnesota who has attained the age of 16 is eligible to be appointed as a
trainee election judge (without party affiliation) in the county in which the student
resides. The student must meet qualifications for trainee election judges specified
in rules of the Secretary of State. A student appointed as a trainee election judge
may be excused from school attendance during the hours that the student is serving
as a trainee election judge if the student submits a written request signed and
approved by the student's parent or guardian to be absent from school and a
1008ELECTIONS
NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK
certificate from the appointing authority stating the hours during which the student
will serve as a trainee election judge to the principal of the school at least ten days
• prior to the election. The principal of the school may approve a request to be
absent from school conditioned on acceptable academic performance and the
requirement that the student must have completed or be enrolled in a course of
study in government at the time of service as a trainee election judge.
The City utilized high school student trainee election judges in the 1994, 1996, 1998
and 2000 elections. The City Clerk's office again has worked with Richfield High
School and the Academy of Holy Angels to facilitate student participation in the High
School Student Trainee Election Judge Program for the November 5, 2002 General
Election.
The City Clerk's office has received a list of students who are eligible and able to
serve as student trainee election judges for the Tuesday, November 5, 2002
General Election.
III. BASIS OF RECONIlVIENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Council is required by State Statute to make election judge
appointments at least 25 days prior to the election.
• The proposed resolution contains names of high school student
trainee election judges for the November 5, 2002 General Election.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• If the City Council does not appoint high school student trainee
election judges, the conduct of the election would be hindered.
C. FINANCIAL
• Student Trainee Election Judges are paid $7.25 per hour.
D. LEGAL
• Compliance with Minnesota Statute 2046.21, Subd. 2 regarding
election judges.
• Compliance with Minnesota Statute 2046.19, Subd. 6 regarding high
school student trainee election judges.
• The General Election will be conducted on Tuesday, November 5,
2002. Therefore, the City Council should appoint student trainee
judges to serve at this election.
TERNATIVE KECOMI~~NDATION(S) ~
The City Council could choose not to appoint the students who are named in
the resolution to serve as student trainee judges.
V. ATTACFIlVIENTS
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
C7
RESOLUTION NO.
•
RESOLUTION APPOINTING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT TRAINEE
ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE
GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 5, 2002
WHEREAS, a General Election will be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2002.
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
that the following are hereby appointed as high school student trainee election judges for
said election:
Amanda Bandur Elizabeth Noble
Rachel Schneider Maryah Wilson
Natalia Walton Laura Mlynorek
Eric Westlund Gina Bandith
O. J. Holman Sarah Whiteley
Mandy Schwenn Brian Bielke
Loni Plinski Bob Fiedler
Eric Sabouneh Develle Belfrey
Sunny Singh Tiffhanle Chan
Amy Orth Andy Berg
Octavius Crawford Dan Bittmann
Tamou Miller Kim Jensen
Gentry Griemann Brandon Lueder
Amanda Greeter Mat Schultz
Janell Brown Tamara Cohen
Kristine Lacy Meagan Kavanaugh
Dharti Bhakta Dhruti Bhakta
Cate Gaertner Melissa Sack
Melissa Jungers Andy French
Erin Petrik Matt Freeman
Kevin Davy
Kormassa Jaryan
Nate Krantz
Sarah Benson
Joann Htut
Bre Violet
Joanna Zacarias
Meriecia Wright
Chris Mazrarka
Jakob Wartman
Parker Martz
Ahmed Mohamed
Laura DeRung
Heather Michaelsen
Craig Ernst
Takawi Peters
Jesse Voltin
Erin Severson
Megan Petrik
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of
October, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
•
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk