The URL can be used to link to this page

10-08-01 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2001 .SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call I. Discussion of City Council attendance ~at community meetings II. Discussion of date and time for 2002 City Council/City Staff Strategic Planning Worksession III. Discussion of proposed amendment to Section 805 of Richfield City Code related to bus benches and shelters Adjournment ' REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open Forum (7-7:15 p.m.) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Adjournment • Call to order Roll call Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Regular City Council Meeting of September 24, 2001 and (2) Special City Council Meeting of October 1, 2001 PRESENTATIONS 1, Introduction of City of Richfield Fire Services Director Kevin McGinty 2. Presentation of certificates to winners of third grade fire. safety poster contest held in conjunction with National Fire Prevention Week and Richfeld Fire Department's annual open house 3. Recognition of Richfield Fire Department 2000 Life Safety Achievement Award presented by Residential Fire Safety Institute and Minnesota State Fire Marshal 4. Presentation of Letter of Commendation to Richfield. Fire Department B-Shift from Fire Services Director Kevin McGinty 5. Presentation of Richfield Planning Commission's Build With Vision Award to Jan Susee and Steven Kirchner for Woodlake Centre/Oaks on Pleasant/Pines project at Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street 6. Annual meeting with Planning Commission COUNCIL DISCUSSION Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 7. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 8. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual .items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval A. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield Zoning Code Section 536.17, subdivision 3; Section 536.19, subdivision 1; and Section 546.07, subdivision 4 to conform with newly adopted State Statute 462.357 S.R. No. 249 B. Consideration of approval of amended resolution authorizing subdivision waiver for C. 6933 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 250 Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing execution of Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6501 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 17), 66th Street/T.H. 77 Interchange D. Project S.R. No. 251 Consideration of approval of contract-with Gremmer and Associates for preparation of preliminary plans for Richfield outdoor pool renovation project in amount of $5,000 E. S.R. No. 252 Consideration of approval of purchase of estimated 1,750 ton of winter deicing salt for 2001/2002 winter season from I.M.C. Salt, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas in amount ;. ~of $39.02 per..ton,.alelivered,.~plus_sales..#ax _S~.R.-.Na..:25~ - F. Consideration of approval of resolution granting lawful gambling license renewal, with fee waiver, for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post #435, 6501 Portland G. Avenue S.R. No. 254 Consideration of approval of itinerant°place-of amusement and itinerant food. license, with fee waiver,. for Church. of St. Richard, 7540 Penn Avenue, annual Fall Festival on November 17 and 18, 2001 S.R. No. 255 H. Consideration of approval of residential kennel license renewal for 7144 Oliver Avenue, three dogs S.R. No. 256 Notes: RESOLUTION 9. Consideration of resolution ordering assessment on Penn Avenue Bridge Project with $628,627.78 special assessment levied against Best Buy Co., Inc. Staff Report No. 257 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 10. Consideration of request for five permanent signs and four long-term temporary signs for Century Court apartments at Penn Avenue and 76th Street Staff Report No. 258 Notes: • 11. Consideration of stipulation of settlement for Parcel 2 (Century Courts Apartments) of Penn Avenue Bridge Project Staff Report No. 259 Notes: 12. Consideration of workers' compensation claim settlement Staff Report No. 260 • Notes: 13. Update on plan related to portable temporary speed humps on 70th Street Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Notes: 14. Claims and payrolls Open Forum (additional 15 minutes, if necessary, and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 15.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. C AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 12 REPORT # 2 6 ~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • i~ OCTOBER 8, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: DAWN WEITZEL HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: STEVEN L. DEVICH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: j IGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of Workers' Compensation claim settlement. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the stipulation of settlement subject to final approval of the stipulation language by all parties involved. III. BACKGROUND I On October 29, 1992 (impingement syndrome of the right shoulder); February 21, 1994 (occupational disease); June 5, 1994 (occupational disease); September 28, 1995 (low back strain); August 12, 1.999 (low back strain) and February 10, 2000 (impingement syndrome and acromioclaviculardcgenerative joint disease) a Richfield Public Works' employee claimed work-related injuries. As a result of these injuries, the employee was unable to continue to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position and began receiving disability benefits. The employee did not return to City employment as a Public Works' employee because of work restrictions that did not permit the employee to function in a Public Works Worker position. The employee has not worked since February 10, 2000 A stipulation for settlement has been negotiated between representatives of the City and the employee who provides fora $110,000 lump sum payment to the employee. This 10-8 WC stipulation represents the full, final- and complete settlement of all claims unrelated to claimed occupational disease. Future medical treatment expense related to the employee's claimed occupational disease remains open subject to all defenses including primary liability. For purposes of future medical treatment expense claims related to the employee's claimed occupational disease culminating on February 21, 1:994 and :June 5, 1994, City attorney's will stipulate that the Statute of Limitations was tolled when the May 5, 2000 Claim Petition was filed. As part of the settlement, the employee will voluntarily resign his employment at the City effective on February 10, 2000 and will waive any and all employment claims. The employee also will waive his claim for payment of accrued leave including, but not limited to vacation and personal leave. While the terms of the agreement have been finalized, the actual language of the stipulation must be reviewed and approved by the attorneys. of the City, .the WCRA, the claimant and the State of Minnesota before the claim can be finally concluded. III. BASIS OF RECONIlVIENDATION A. POLICY • This settlement fairly represents. the interests of both the former employee and the City. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • City staff and legal counsel consider this settlement to be reasonable and recommend accepting it. • This item has been scheduled for October 8 so that this claim may be i concluded as soon as practical. C. FINANCIAL • A lump sum payment of $110,000 will be taken from the Self- Insurance fund to pay for this workers' compensation claim. D. LEGAL • The settlement avoids the additional time, expense and ill will of pursuing this matter in litigation or continuing negotiations on this claim. ALTERNATIVE RECONIlVIENDATION(S) ~ • The City Council could disapprove this settlement package, however, it is doubtful that either the former employee or the City's best interest would be heightened by protracting negotiations further or pursuing litigation. ATTACHMENTS I • None. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 11 REPORT # 25 9 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER $, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: ~IM OLSON, PROJECT ENGINEER NAME, TlTY.E REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, T7TZE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ !~9/~ ~~n , REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: • ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the Stipulation of Settlement with respect to Parcel 2 (Century Courts Apartments) of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project C.P. 401-30-521. . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached Stipulation of Settlement for Parcel 2 (Century Courts Apartments] of the Penn Avenue Brid a Pro'ect. III. BACKGROUND The City has been in process of delivering the Penn Avenue Bridge Project #rom its initial design phase to its current phase of construction. In this process, the City needed to acquire the necessary right of way for the construction of the new bridge. Richfield acquired the necessary right of way through the 90-day condemnation process as outlined by Minnesota Statutes. On June 28, 2001, the City deposited $525,000 vvi#h the District Court equal to the approved appraised value for the partial takings from right of way Parcel No. 2 of the project (Century Court Apartments). A stipulation of settlement has been reached between the City and th$ owners of Century Court Apartments. Approval of this settlement will avoid going further through the condemnation process.. The attached copy of the settlement lays out the agreements and contingencies between the parties. The stipulation of settlement has been signed by the appropriate parties including the Mayor, the. City Manager, the City Attorney and the Century Court Apartment owner's partners. However, amendments to the originally signed settlement have been made and will require. further signatures. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The City of Richfield deposited funds with the District Court to acquire property needed for right of way under the quick take condemnation procedures. + The Replacelment of the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494 is consistent with the proposed reconstruction of 1-494 and has been identified as a high priority capital improvement in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Reveloper's Agreement between Richfield and Best Buy contains language .that dcammits the. City to replace Penn Avenue Bridge over 1- 494. The ad for bid for the construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge was published, .The City Council recommended an award of contract to the law bidder for construction of the new bridge. • $. CRITICAL ISSiJES • Within this settlement, the owners of Century Court Apartment agreed to donate the Tennis Court building so that the 78th Street Frontage Road may be extended through this area and connected to Penn Avenue where a newfour-legged signalized intersection will be constructed. This new intersection will provide full access to Penn. Avenue far both the 78th Street Frontage Road and the west entrance to the Best Buy Complex. This work has been included in the plans for the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. In response #o this donation, the City has agreed to transfer the remnant parcels from the Gitga Service Station and the Tennis Building and the vacated frontage road to Century Court Apartments. This remnant land is long and narrow and not suitable for redevelopment. + To prepare for the construction of this new intersection, the Century C©urt Tennis Building and the neighboring Citgo Gas Station need to be demolished. the City has awarded a contract for this work contingent upon the stipulation of settlement with Century Court Apartments. Should the City Council choose not to approve this settlement, this would further delay the demolition contract. This could • possibly result in increased costs to the demolition contract and passible delays in the Penn Avenue Bridge Construction. C: FINANCIAL The City has already deposited with the Courts an amount of $525,OU0: No additional-money will be required for this necessary right of way acquisition of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. • An agreement within the settlement requires the City to evenly split the cost of a survey of the owner's property. • The City agreed to pay for the cost to demolish the Tennis Court building and the skyway that connects that building to the rest of the complex, and to restore the building fagade. Portions of the Penn Avenue Bridge-Project and a separate City contract for the demolition of the Citgo Station and Tennis Court Building satisfy certain agreements within the settlement. • Funding for the purchase will come from Interchange West tax increment financing proceeds. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney drafted the stipulation of settlement on behalf of the City. The City Attorney will be available to answer questions on the stipulation of settlement. LIV. ALTERNATIVE R.ECQMMENDATION(S) ~ • The Cvuncif may choose not to approve the stipulation of settlement. However this require the City to continue with the condemnation process and attemp# to reach a settlement. This would continue to add costs to the takings of this parcel and the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. it could possibly delay the bridge project and/or cause revisions to the plans of the bridge project. • The City staff and City Attorney recommend approval of this settlement. V. ATTACHMENTS • Stipulation of Settlement, Parcel 2 • Map of mitigative parcel to be transferred to Century Court Apartments VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETIl~TG • Ron Mehl, Dominium Properties, owner and management company of Century Court Apartments. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Condemnation City of Richfield, a municipal corporation under Minnesota law, Petitioner, v. RK Green L.L.P., formerly a Minnesota AMENDED limited liability partnership, dba Citgo STIPULATION OF Service Station; Roger H. Green; Richfield SETTLEMENT Bank & Trust Co., a Minnesota corporation; Richfield Housing Associates I Limited PARCEL 2 Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership; Glaser Financial Group, Inc., a Minnesota corporation; Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; Northwest Racquet Swim & Health Clubs, Inc., aka Northwest Racquet Swim & Health Clubs, LLC, aka NWR, LLC, formerly a Minnesota. corporation; The Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co., Ltd., aka Sumitomo Bank, Limited; The Bank of Tokyo Trust Company; Marvin Wolfenson and Harvey Ratner, dba Northwest Unit Investment Co., aka N.W. Un, Inv. Co.; Midwest Federal - Savings and Loan Association; City of Richfield; County of Hennepin; all other parties unknown, together .with unknown heirs or devisees and spouses, if any, Respondents. THIS STIPULATION is made by and between Petitioner City of Richfield ("City"), acting by and through its attorneys, and Respondent Richfield Housing Associates I Limited • Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, dba "Century- Court Apartments" ("Housing") and RJL203885v1 j RC 145-447 Recreation Facility Limited Partnership, a Minnesota .limited partnership ("Recreation") (collectively,-Housing and Recreation are referred toherein as "Respondents"). WHEREAS, Housing is the fee owner of the real estate located at 7600 Penn Avenue South and 7620 Penn Avenue South, Richfield,. Minnesota, which real estate is identified as Parcel 2 in the Petition filed herein and is legally described in the attached Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as "Parcel 2" or the "Premises"); and WHEREAS, Recreation is the owner of the tennis court building ("Tennis Building") located on Parcel 2; and WHEREAS, City wishes to widen and improve 76`h Street adjacent to the north side of ; Parcel 2 (the "76`" Street Project"); and WHEREAS, City also is working with the City of Bloomington and the Minnesota State Department. of Transportation to acquire necessary right of way to enable the construction of a new bridge over I-494 at .Penn Avenue and the widening and improvement of Penn Avenue adjacent to the east side of Parcel 2 (the "Penn Avenue Project"); and WHEREAS, for purposes of the 76`'' Street Project and the Penn Avenue Project, the City has commenced this action in -order to acquire a permanent wall maintenance easement and certain temporary construction easements over, under and across portions of Parcel 2, ,together with certain access rights thereto, which rights and interests (the "Original Rights and Interests") ("Right In-Right Out Access") are more fully described on Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, as part of the Penn Avenue Project, City intends to install a traffic signal ("Signal") in Penn Avenue immediately east of the Tennis Building located on Parcel 2; and WHEREAS, City intends to install a median in Penn Avenue which will have the effect of preventing left turningmovements between Parcel 2 and Penn Avenue; and RJLr203885v1 2 RC 145-447 WHEREAS, Respondents desire to secure access to the Signal for the benefit of Parcel 2 and are willing to donate the value of the Tennis .Building to the City in return .for the City agreeing to provide Parcel 2 with access to the Signal in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, City is willing to revise the takings from Parcel 2 and to provide Parcel 2 with access to the Signal in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, in the expectation that this Stipulation of Settlement would be finalized, the Respondents consented to issuance by the Court of the following: (a) First Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Appointing Commissioners, as amended to substitute the takings described on First Amended.. Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Amended Rights and Interests" or "Full Access") for the Original Rights and Interests, dated and filed in the office of the District Court Administrator on June 20, 2001; and (b) First Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Transferring Title and Possession, as amended to substitute the Amended Rights and Interests for the Original Rights and Interests,. dated and filed in the office of the District Court Administrator on June 20, 2001 ("Quick Take Order"); and WHEREAS,. City deposited $525,000 ("Settlement Amount") with the District Court Administrator on June 28, 2001 as its approved appraisal of value pursuant to Minna Stat. § 117.042 and the Quick Take Order, thereby transferring title and possession of the Amended Rights and Interests to City as of that date; and WHEREAS, due to the unique configuration of the property after the taking, Housing contends that it requires additional signage in order to satisfactorily advertise its apartment complex; and WHEREAS, Housing and City staff have met and reviewed Housing's proposal for the addition of five permanent signs around the perimeter of the complex and three temporary .: banner signs, with the size, style, character and dimensions of each permanent sign described in RJLr203885v1 3 RC 145-447 • greater detail on Exhibit C (the "Signage"); and WHEREAS, the approximate location for each sign around the perimeter of the complex is shown on Exhibit D, the ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey, 5/6/95; and WHEREAS, City staff has carefully considered the requests as amended from earlier requests and will recommend that the .City Council grant special council approval for the requested signs in order to permit Housing to legally erect the Signage in substantially the same locations as indicated in Exhibit D; and WHEREAS, Housing requires a replacement structure (the "Maintenance Structure") for maintenance and equipment storage, to be paid for solely by Housing, .and shall apply for a building permit to construct such Maintenance Structure in substantially the form described in Exhibit E, BKV Group Drawing of Century Court Apartment Maintenance. Garage, 9/19/01 • (Revision No. 2), and in the approximate location shown on Exhibit D; and. WHEREAS, the parties to this Stipulation have negotiated a full and final settlement of the instant action and desire to provide for payment of compensation as provided herein; and WHEREAS, the real estate which is legally described in Exhibit B attached hereto ("Mitigative Parcel") is owned by the City, abuts. Century Court, and is not required .for the Projects; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Respondents agree as follows: L The foregoing Recitals are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by reference: 2. Respondents agree to execute and deliver to City a Seller's affidavit and recordable quit - claim deed to the City of the Amended Rights and Interests, including all interests in the Tennis Building -and the Skyway connection between it and the Office Building, so as to permit demolition thereof; and RJL203885v1 4 RC 145-447 3. Respondents hereby: (a) waive all claims for compensation with respect to the Amended Rights and Interests, including the Tennis Building, Skyway and other related site improvements,. and (b) waive all severance damages as a consequence of the taking of all site improvements and the other right of way and easements required for the Projects. 4. City shall pay Respondents: (a) $525,000 ("Settlement Amount") for the Amended Rights and Interests and in settlement of all claims of Respondents herein, and (b) the cost of restoring that .portion of the wall of Respondents' Office Building which is directly impacted by the removal of the Skyway. 5. City will contract for and pay the cost of demolition of the Tennis Building and Skyway (currently estimated to be $88,000). Such demolition shall commence in City's. discretion at any time after satisfaction of .the contingencies described in Section 15 hereof. • 6. City will contract for and pay the cost of: (a) Reconstructing the existing northwest frontage road inside the Century Court campus so as to redirect traffic to the New Penn Avenue Signal; and (b) Closing the present northwest frontage road connection to Penn. Avenue.. 7. Respondents will pay for remediation of .any existing on-site environmental contamination and for the construction of the Maintenance Structure. 8. Not later than .December 31, 2001, City will convey via quit claim deed to Housing approximately 21,546 .square feet of land lying between the realigned .entrance driveway and Penn Avenue, the legal description of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B ("Mitigative Parcel") (except the portion which has heretofore been. frontage road). Not later than December 31, 2001, or within 15 days after release to City by MnDOT of the portion of the frontage road contained therein, whichever is later, City will convey the frontage road portion of • the Mitigative Parcel to Housing. Each of said conveyances shall be subject to a temporary RJL-203885v1 5 RC 145-447 • construction easement in favor of City which .shall expire December 31, 2003, or such earlier. date as City notifies Housing in writing that the Penn Avenue Project is completed. Prior to expiration of the temporary easement, City shall grade and shape the Mitigative. Parcel and restore turf thereon. Upon expiration of the temporary easement or such written notice by City, Housing may install the pylon .sign which is described in Exhibit C in the Mitigative Parcel, subject to the sign permit relating thereto which is issued by the City Zoning Administrator. Until expiration of the temporary easement, Housing may install and maintain a temporary construction sign containing not more than 128 square .feet on its property just westerly of the Mitigative Parcel. Said temporary sign maybe illuminated and shall otherwise comply with the conditions of the City sign permit. 9. City will not assess Century .Court property for any Project costs, including,. but not • limited to, .those on 76`'' Street, Penn Avenue or the estimated $250,000 on Century Court property. 10. The City and the Respondents agree that the Settlement Amount includes all amounts, due and owing to Respondents in consideration for the taking of the Amended Rights and Interests and the improvements thereon in this proceeding, including but not limited to amounts due and owing for just compensation, interest, and costs and disbursements including appraisal and attorney fees. To implement this settlement, the City and the Respondents stipulate that the court- appointed condemnation commissioners may enter an award in the gross amount of $525,000 in this action for the acquisition of the .Amended Rights and Interests, naming Housing as the respondents entitled to all damages awarded by the commissioners and with all other respondents receiving $-0-. 11. Provided (a) that the commissioners make an award of $525,000, and (b) that no other respondent appeals the award of commissioners, the City shall make direct payment of the RJL-203885v1 6 RC 145-447 • $525,000 to Housing and to any other respondents that. may be named by the commissioners as beneficiaries of the award.. Such payment shall be .made within fifteen (15) days after the expiration of the period of appeal from the award. In the event that the: award is other than $525,000, or .other respondents appeal the commissioners' award, the City may appeal such award and may also elect to make payment as provided by law by deposit of the funds. into District Court. 12. When the City has made payment hereunder directly to: the Respondents, the City shall be entitled to the Quick Take deposit that has been made into District. Court with respect to the acquisition of the Amended Rights and Interests from Parcel 2, together with any interest that has accrued thereon, and the City may obtain an ex pane order of the Court which directs the court administrator to disburse to the City all such funds on deposit with the Court with respect to • Parcel 2, including accrued interest thereon. 13. The Respondents waive any and all rights to any further notices, viewings, or hearings regarding the. instant condemnation action. The ,Respondents also waive their rights to appeal -from the entry of the final award of commissioners, unless the commissioners' award is less than $525,000 or parties to this. proceeding, other than Respondents, are also named as beneficiaries of the $525,000 award. 14. The City also agrees as follows: (a) that it will direct the Project contractor to, at all times during the Project, maintain vehicular access between the Premises and Penn Avenue and between the Premises and 76th Street;. (b) that all damage to the Premises or .the improvements thereon caused by the. Project contractor or its subcontractors or agents will be repaired to their pre- Project condition (it is understood that this provision is not applicable to areas of the Premises that are being specifically altered as part of the Project itself); and • (c) ..that it shall promptly and diligently review, and approve or disapprove, of (i) the application for the variance or amendment for the Signage, and (ii) the application for the permit to construct the Maintenance Structure.. 15. This Agreement is contingent: (a) upon approval of the Richfield City Council; (b) upon the City Council granting special council approval for the requested signs in order to permit Housing to legally erect the Signage in substantially the locations indicated in Exhibit D; • • (c) upon the approval of the building permit for the Maintenance Structure by the City; and (d) upon the review and approval by the City and Housing of a survey to be prepared depicting the Amended Rights and Interests and the Mitigative Parcel. The costs of such survey shall be split evenly between City and Housing. Contingency (a) iswithin the control of the City,. and not Housing. If the City contends that this contingency has not been met, it shall provide written notice of that fact. to Housing no later than 12:00 p.m. on October 9, 2001, together with the reasons why it believes the contingency has not been met, and its written plan for securing lifting of that contingency (including a time table for lifting the contingency). Contingencies {b), (c) and (d) are within the joint control of the City and Housing. If either party contends that .one or more of these contingencies has not been met, it shall provide written notice of that fact to the other party no later. than 12:00 p.m. on October 9, 2001, together with the reasons why it believes the contingency has not been met, and its written plan for securing lifting of that contingency (including a time table for lifting the contingency). If all of the contingencies contained in this section have not been met by 5:00 p.m: on October 9, 2001, then this Stipulation shall be deemed canceled and terminated as of such date, except if that deadline is extended by further written agreement of the parties. 16. Housing agrees that it shall submit a complete application to the City Building Official for the building permit for the Maintenance Structure on or before October 1, 2001. 17. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and. by facsimile transmission. 18. The effective date of this Amended Stipulation of Settlement shall be September 27, 2001. • [The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.) • RJL~203885v1 9 RC145-447 V N PETITIONER CITY OF RICHFIELD.. E KENNEDY &GRA 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 By; Telephone: (612)337-9300 Its Mayor By: And by: Robert J. Lindall (63277) Its City Manager ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER CITY OF RICHFIELD Dated: September , 2001 .RESPONDENT RICHFIELD HOUSING KELLY & BERENS ASSOCIATES I LIMITED PARTNER- 3720 IDS Center SHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership, dba 80 South Eighth Street CENTURY COURT APARTMENTS Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-6171 . By: Richfield Housing Associates, L.L.P. A Minnesota limited liability partnership By: Timothy D. Kelly Its: General Partner Joseph Beckman gy; ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS Paul R.Sween RICHFIELD HOUSING ASSOCIATES I Its General Partner LINITI'ED PARTNERSHIP AND RECREATIONAL FACILITY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Dated: September _, 2001 RESPONDENT RECREATIONAL FACILITY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership By: Richfield Housing Associates, L.L.P. A Minnesota limited liability partnership Its: General Partner By: Paul R. Sween Its: General Partner • Dated: September _, 2001 RJL203885v 1 10 RC145-447 • EXHIBIT A Ori ing al Rights and Interests ("Right In-Right Out Access") PARCEL 2: P.I.N. 32-028-24-44-0003 (Abstract) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 7600 Penn Avenue South and 7620 Penn Avenue South DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE ENCUMBERED: PARCEL A That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as commencing at the southwest ,corner of JACOBSEN QUIST 2ND ADDITION; thence east to the southeast corner thereof; thence north to a point distance 258 feet south from the northeast corner thereof; thence east 170 feet; thence north 258 feet to the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence east to the northeast corner thereof; thence south to a point 230 feet north from the southeast corner of the North Half of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence west 330 feet; thence south 230 feet; thence east 330 feet to the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence south to the northerly line of a road Quit Claim deeded to the city on April 4, • 1967; thence southwesterly, westerly'and southerly to the northerly line of State Highway No. 5; thence southwesterly along the northerly line of said Highway to the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence north to the point of beginning. Except streets and also subject to Highway Easement described in Hennepin County Recorder Document No.-6365484. PARCEL B The Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter except that part. lying Northeasterly of the following described line and same extended: Beginning at a point- on a line drawn parallel with and distant 33.0 feet West of the East. line of said Northeast Quarter distant 43.0 feet. South of the North line of said Quarter,; thence run Northwesterly through a point in a line drawn parallel with and distant 33.0 feet South of the North line of said Quarter distant 43.0 feet West of .the East line of said Northeast Quarter, also -the East 1/z of Northwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter except the North 258 -feet of West 170 feet thereof; and the South lh of Southeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter all in Section 32, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota subject to streets and highway; except that part of the Southeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Section 32; Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; described as follows, to-wit; Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter;. thence on an assumed bearing of South along the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 526.01 feet; thence South 89 degrees 40 minutes 38 seconds West, a • distance of 33 feet; thence on a bearing of South along. a line parallel with and 33 feet West of the East line of said Southeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter a distance of 315.25 feet to actual RJL-203885vI A-1 RC145-447 point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence North 57 degrees O1 minutes and 59 seconds West a distance of 49.95 feet;. thence South 88 degrees 30 minutes West a distance of 51.97 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left, the radius being 55 feet, a distance of 84.96 feet; thence on a bearing of South tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 106.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right, the radius being 104 feet, a distance of 17.21 feet to the Northerly right-of--way of Interstate Highway No. 494; thence North 78 degrees 50 minutes 09 seconds East along said right-of-way, a distance of 151.28 feet to its intersection with said line parallel with and 33 feet West of the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, thence North along said parallel line to the point of beginning. PARCEL C The East 330 feet of the South 230 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 28, Range 24. DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENTS TO BE ACQUIRED: 1. A perpetual easement for roadway and utility purposes over, under, and across that part of the. above described Parcel A which lies southerly of 76th Street westerly of said Highway Easement and which lies northerly, .northeasterly and easterly of Line A described as commencing at the northwest corner of said Parcel A, being on the south line of said .76th Street; thence North 89 degrees 53 minutes 48 seconds East, along the south line of said 76th Street, a distance of 289.62 feet to the point of beginning of Line A to be described; thence easterly 56.64 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the south, having a radius of 499.00 feet and a central angle of 06 degrees 30 minutes 14 seconds; thence easterly 51.62 feet along a reverse curve, having a radius of 501.00. feet and a central angle of OS degrees 54 minutes 11 seconds; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 09 seconds East 56.89 feet; South 83 degrees 47 minutes 24 seconds East 120.50 feet; thence South 89 degrees. 29 .minutes 55 seconds East 71.52 feet; thence easterly 35.55 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the south, having a radius of 2826.12 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 43 minutes 15 seconds; thence South 88 degrees 46 minutes 41 seconds East 47.67 feet; thence southeasterly 46.71 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 32.33 feet and a central angle of 82 degrees 46 minutes 31 seconds; thence South 06 degrees 00 minutes 09 seconds East 106.44 feet to a point in the west line of said Highway Easement described in Document No. 6365484 and said Line A there terminating. Said perpetual easement contains 7,424 square feet more or less. 2. A temporary easement for construction purposes over, under, and across that part of Parcel A which lies southerly, southwesterly, and westerly of the above described Line A and lies northerly and westerly of Line B. Line B is described as beginning at said northwest corner of the above described Parcel A; thence North 89 degrees 53 minutes 48 seconds East 284.62 feet to .the point of beginning of Line B to be .described; thence. South 00 degrees 06 minutes 12 seconds East 10.22 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30 • minutes 09 seconds East 169.57 feet; thence South 83 degrees 47 minutes 36 seconds RJL-203885v1 A-2 RC145-447 East 39.40 feet; thence South 17.61-feet; thence North 89 degrees 54 minutes'25 seconds East 253.93 feet; thence. South 00 degrees 03 minutes 49 seconds East 59.34 feet; thence East 10.49 feet; thence South 06 degrees 00 minutes 09 seconds East 69.47 feet; thence South 88 degrees 46 minutes 41 seconds East 6.51 feet to a point in the west line of said Highway Easement described in Document No. 6365484 and said Line B there terminating. For purpose of this description, bearings are-oriented to the Hennepin County Coordinate System iri which the east line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 28, Range 24 has a bearing of North 00 degrees 13 minutes 20 seconds East. Said temporary easement contains 6,304 square feet more or less. Said temporary easement shall commence on July 1, 2001 and shall expire December 31, 2002. 3. A Permanent Roadway Easement over, under and across .that part of the above described property lying Southerly and Easterly of the following described .line:. Beginning at a point on the east line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township.28, Range 24, distant 821.82 feet on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 13 minutes- 12 seconds East from the southeast corner of the Southeast .Quarter of said Section 32; thence. North 89 degrees 46 minutes 15 seconds West, a distance of 49.71 feet; thence South 0 degrees 38 minutes 03 seconds West, a distance of 252.60 feet; thence Southwesterly on • a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 25.00 feet; a central angle of 87 degrees 38 minutes 04 seconds, a distance of 38.24 feet; .thence South 88 degrees 16 minutes 07 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 87.34 feet; thence Southwesterly on a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 60.00 feet, a central angle of 88 degrees 27 minutes 11 seconds ,a distance of 92.63 feet; thence South 0 degrees 11 minutes 04 seconds East, a distance of 159.32 feet; thence South 27 degrees. 59 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 12.78 feet ,more or less to -the intersection with the north right-of--way line of Interstate Highway No. 494 and there terminating. Said permanent roadway easement contains 4,895 square feet more or less. Description of Parties Known or Believed to Have an Interest in Said Property Name Nature of A arent Interest Richfield Housing Associates I Limited Fee Owner Partnershi , a Minnesota limited artnershi Glaser Financial Group, Inc.; a Minnesota Mortgage, Regulatory Agreement, Title II co oration Re ulatory A reement Minnesota Housin Finance A enc Declaration of Rent Restriction Covenants Northwest Racquet Swim & Health Clubs, Inc., Lease; Possible holder of an interest aka Northwest Racquet Swim & Health Clubs, LLC, aka NWR, LLC, formerly a Minnesota co oration RJIr203885v1 A-3 RC145-447 • Name Nature of A arent Interest The Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co., Ltd., aka Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Sumitomo Bank Limited and The Bank of Financing Statement; Agreement and Fixture Tokyo Trust Company Financing Statement, Second Agreement of Spreader and Modification of Mortgage; Security. Agreement and Fixture Financing Agreement; Assignment of .Leases and Rents; Amended and Restated Assignment of Leases and Rents; Amended and Restated Collateral - Assi nment and Securit A reement Marvin Wolfenson and Harvey Ratner, dba Northwest Unit Investment Co., aka N.W. Un. Possible holder of an interest Inv. Co. Midwest Federal Savings and Loan Association Mortgage; Assignment of Rents and Leases; Mortgage; Modification Agreement All other parties unknown, together with Any right, title or interest in the Subject unknown heirs or devisees ands ouses, if an Pro ert Notwithstanding the foregoing attempt to identify all interests held by a party named herein, it is Petitioner's intention herein to acquire or encumber all interests owned by the named respondents in the above-described real estate. Access will be continuously provided .between the above described properties and adjacent public streets throughout the term of said temporary easement. RJL-203885v1 A-4 RC145-447 FIRST AMENDED EXHIBIT A Amended Rights and Interests ("Full Access") Property Description: - That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as beginning at the southwest corner of JACOBSEN QUIST SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence Easterly to the southeast corner thereof; thence Northerly to a point distant 258 feet south of the northeast corner thereof; thence Easterly. 170 feet; thence Northerly 258 feet to the north line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 32; thence Easterly to the northeast .corner thereof; thence Southerly along the east line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 32 to the intersection of the northeasterly extension of the northerly .line of the Roadway parcel deeded to the City of Richfield (per document number 3650706) ;thence Southwesterly, Westerly and Southerly along the northerly and westerly .lines of said Roadway parcel to the north line of Interstate Highway No. 494 (formerly known as State. Highway No. 5); thence Southwesterly along said north line to the intersection with the west line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 32; thence Northerly to the point of beginning . Subject to Street Easements for Thomas Avenue , 77`h Street, Sheridan Avenue, 76`h Street and Penn Avenue adjoining said described property. " Easement Descriptions: A Permanent Roadway Easement over , under. and across that part of the above described property said Easement is described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of said .Section 32; thence North 0 degrees 13 minutes 12 seconds East on an assumed bearing along the east line. of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 32, a distance of 785.79. feet; thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes 48 seconds West, a distance of 44.00 feet to the point of beginning. of the land to be described; thence South 0 degrees 13 minutes 12 seconds West, parallel with the east line of said Section 32, a distance of 225.84 feet; thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes 48 seconds .West, a distance of .9.00 feet; thence South 0 degrees. l3 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance of 12.28 feet; thence South 53 degrees 33 minutes 10 seconds West, a distance of 23.66 feet; thence South 88 degrees 43 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance of 83.62 feet; thence Westerly along a tangential curve, concave to the south, having a radius of .60.00 feet, a centralangle of 25 degrees 37 minutes 16 seconds , a chord of 26.61 feet, a chord bearing of South 75 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds West, a distance of 26..83 feet; thence North 0 degrees 14 minutes 19 seconds East ,not tangent to said curve , a distance of 140.18 feet; thence Northeasterly on a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 81.00 feet, a central angle of 86 degrees 21 minutes 39 seconds, a distance of 122.09 feet; thence North 86 degrees 35 minutes 58 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 33.18 feet; ..thence North 3 degrees 24 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance of 8.00 feet; thence Northeasterly on anon-tangent curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 30.00 feet, a central angle of 86 degrees 22 minutes 37 seconds , a chord of 41.06 feet, a chord bearing of North 43 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds East, a distance of 45..23 feet; thence South 89 degrees RJL-203885v 1 f~lA-1 RC 145-447 46 minutes 48 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 0.70 feet, to the point- of begmmng. (Above described Permanent Road Easement Area = 28,116 Sq. Ft. A Permanent Wall Maintenance Easement over, under and across that part of the above described property, said Easement is lying Northerly of the above described Permanent Roadway Easement and lying Southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 32; thence North 0 degrees 13 minutes 12 seconds East on an assumed bearing along the east line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 32, a distance of 785.79 feet; thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes 48 seconds West, a distance of 44.70 feet ; thence Southwesterly along anon-tangent curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 30.00 feet, a central angle of 73 degrees 46 minutes 25 seconds, a chord of 36.02 feet, a chord bearing of South 37 degrees OS minutes 28 seconds West, a distance of 38.63 feet to the point of beginning of the easement line to be described; thence North 0 degrees 06 minutes 23 seconds- East, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 11.31 feet; thence South 86 degrees 35 minutes. 58 seconds West, a distance of 40.42 feet; thence Southwesterly on a tangent curve, concave to the south, having a radius of 101.00 feet, a central angle of 32 degrees 42 minutes OS .seconds, a chord of 56.87 feet, a chord bearing of South 70 degrees 14 minutes 56 seconds West, a distance of 57.65. feet; thence South 30 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East, not tangent to said ; curve, a distance of 20.16 feet to the intersection with the above described Permanent Roadway Easement, and there terminating. (Above described Permanent Wall Maintenance Easement Area = 1,805 Sq. Ft.) • A Temporary Construction Easement over, under and across that part of the above described property ,said Easement is .described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 32; thence North 0 degrees 13 minutes 12 seconds East on an assumed bearing along the -east line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 32, a distance- of 785.79 feet; thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes 48 seconds West, a distance of 44.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 0 degrees 13 minutes 12 seconds West, parallel with. the east line of said Section 32, a distance of 51..04 feet; thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes 31 seconds West, a distance of 20.70 feet; thence South 0 degrees 13 minutes 20 seconds West, a distance of 59.24- feet; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 44 seconds West, a distance of 88..59 feet; thence North 0 degrees OS minutes 37 seconds West, a distance of 30.19 feet; thence South 89 degrees 54 minutes 28 seconds West, adistance of 18.00 feet; thence North 0 degrees OS minutes 32 seconds West, a distance of 8.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 54 minutes 28 seconds West, a distance of 10.00 feet; thence South 2 degrees 43 minutes 22 seconds West, a distance of 61.76 feet; thence South 23 degrees 26 minutes 36 seconds West, a distance of 43.36 feet; thence South 0 degrees 14 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 179.03 feet; thence North 89 degrees 53 minutes 53 seconds West, a distance of 33.12 feet; thence SOUTH , a .distance of 50.79 feet; thence South 89 degrees 53 minutes 56 seconds East, a distance of 21.51 feet; thence Northeasterly along anon-tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 60.00 feet, a central angle of 51 degrees 13 minutes 57 seconds , a chord of 51..88 feet, a chord bearing of North 37 degrees 28 minutes 58 seconds East, a distance of 53.65 feet; thence North 0 degrees 14 minutes 19 seconds East ,not tangent to said curve , a distance. of 140.18 feet; thence Northeasterly on a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 81.00 feet, a central angle of 86 degrees 21 minutes 39 seconds, RJL203885v1 AA-2 RC 145-447 a distance of 122.09 feet; thence North 86 degrees 35 minutes 58 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 33.18 feet; thence North 3 degrees 24 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance of 8.00 feet; thence Northeasterly on anon-tangent curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 30.00 feet, a central angle of 86 degrees 22 minutes 37 seconds , a chord of 41.06 feet, a chord bearing of North 43 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds East, a distance of 45.23 feet; thence South 89 degrees 46 minutes 48 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 0.70 feet, to the point of beginning. • * Said Temporary Construction Easement to Expire on December 31, 2003.* (Above described Temp. Const. Easement Area = 13,291 Sq. Ft.) Description of Parties Known or Believed to Have an Interest in Said Property Name Nature of A arent Interest Richfield Housing Associates I Limited Fee Owner Partnershi , a Minnesota limited artnershi Glaser Financial Group, Inc., a Minnesota Mortgage, Regulatory Agreement, Title II co oration Re ulator A reement Minnesota Housin Finance A ency Declaration of Rent Restriction Covenants Northwest Racquet Swim & Health Clubs, Inc., Lease;. Possible holder of an interest. aka Northwest Racquet Swim & Health Clubs, - LLC, aka NWR, LLC, formerly a Minnesota co oration The Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co., Ltd., aka Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Sumitomo Bank Limited and The Bank of Financing Statement; Agreement and Fixture Tokyo Trust Company Financing Statement, Second Agreement of Spreader and Modification of Mortgage; Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Agreement; Assignment of Leases and Rents; Amended and Restated Assignment of Leases and Rents; Amended and Restated Collateral Assi nment and Securit A reement Marvin Wolfenson and Harvey Ratner, dba Northwest Unit Investment Co., aka N.W. Un. Possible holder of an interest Inv. Co. Midwest Federal Savings and Loan Association Mortgage; Assignment of Rents and Leases; Mort a e; Modification A reement All other parties unknown, together with Any right, title or interest in the Subject unknown heirs or devisees ands ousel, if an Pro ert Notwithstanding the foregoing attempt to identify all interests held by a party named herein, it is Petitioner's intention herein to acquire or encumber all interests owned by the named respondents in the above-described real estate.: Access will. be continuously provided between the above described properties and adjacent public streets throughout the term of said temporary easement. RJLr203885v1 AA-3 RC 145-447 EXHIBIT B Legal Descr~tion of Mitigative Parcel ( aka "EXCESS R/W REMNANT PARCEL" ) That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as commencing at the southeast corner of said Section 32; thence North 0 degrees 13 minutes 12 seconds East on an assumed bearing along the east line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter. of said Section 32 , a distance of 355.00 feet; thence South 79 degrees 03 minutes 21 seconds West, a distance of 100.63 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 6 degrees 20 minutes 24 seconds East, a distance of 193.95 feet; thence North 17 degrees 42 minutes O1 seconds East, a distance of 61.12 feet; thence North 3 degrees 49 minutes 02 seconds West, a distance of 93.05 feet; thence North 0 degrees 06 minutes 34 seconds East, a distance of 13.35 feet; thence South 86 degrees 43 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 30.64 feet; thence Southwesterly along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 35.00 feet, a central angle of 80 degrees 25 minutes 21 seconds , a distance of 49.13 feet; thence South 6 degrees 18 minutes 25 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 228.96 feet; thence South 2 degrees 31 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 108.51 feet to -the intersection with the north right-of- way line of Interstate Highway No. 494; thence North 79 degrees 03 minutes 21 seconds East, along said north right-of-way line, a distance of 60.59 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel Area = 23, 790 Sq. Ft. (0.546 Acre ) ** Subject to the Roadway parcel deeded to the City of Richfield (per document number 3650706) ** • • C EXHIBIT C Signa~e Signs #1, #2 and #3 are to be of a design, character and quality substantially similar to the design, character and quality of the signs described in Housing's August 13, 2001, sign permit applications to the City. Sign #1 (76`h Street at parking lot entrance between 7600 and 7610 buildings) Sign Dimensions & Description -Two Sided Backlit Ground Sign. 36 sq. ft. area limitation. Area of sign does not include the base, although it is anticipated the area of the base will not exceed the area of the sign.. This sign may. include the phone number. Sign #2 (Penn Ave at parking lot entrance to 7600 building) Sign Dimensions & Description -Two Side Backlit Ground Sign..36 sq. ft. area limitation. Area of sign does not include the base, although. it is anticipated the area of the base will not. exceed the area of the sign. This sign may include the phone number.. Sign #3 ("Grand Entrance" Sign located in hillside along north/northwest/west curve of new fronta e road) Sign Dimensions & Description -Ground level, "corporate style grand entrance sign with landscaping". 80 sq. ft. area limitation, does not include surrounding landscaping... Ground lighting, but no back lighting. Sign #4 (Commerciale Ground Sign located in "mitigating_parcel" that includes part of former as station Sign Dimensions & Description -Two Side Backlit C-2 commercial Ground Sign.. (Likely pylon style, not exceeding- 27' in height). 1.28 sq. ft: per side (200' less 36' for sign #1 and less 36' for sign #2). May include phone number. Sign #4 shall be of a design, character and quality consistent with other pylon signs along 494. Sign #5 (Wall Sign located on "all brick" east wall of 7720 building closest to Interstate Highway No 494 or westernmost portion of south wall of 7710 building) Sign Dimensions & :Description -Backlit wall sign, mounted upon one of the two all brick walls, not exceeding 15% of total wall area on which it is affixed. This wall sign is to be similar in character to the Village Apartments sign reviewed and discussed at the September 24, 2001 meeting. This sign may include phone number. RJL-203885v1 RC145-447 C-1 Temporary Sin #1 (76`h Street on 7600 building) Until December 31, 2003., or such earlier date as the Projects are completed, Housing may maintain a temporary banner, not exceeding 2 feet by 10 feet in size, on the side of the building facing 76`'' Street. Temporary Sign #2 (76`h Street on 7610 building) Until December 31, 2003, or such earlier date as the Projects are completed, Housing may maintain a temporary banner, not exceeding 2 feet by 10 feet in size, on the side of the building facing 76`h Street. Temporary Sign #3 (I-494 on a south facin¢ wall building to be determined) Until December 31, 2003, or such earlier date as the Projects are completed, Housing may maintain a temporary banner, not exceeding 2 feet by 10 feet in size, on the side of the building facing Interstate Highway No. 494. Temporar~Si~n #4 (Westerly of Mitigative Parcel) Until December 31, 2003, or such earlier date as the Projects are completed, Housing may maintain a temporary construction style sign of up to 128 sq. ft. in area, announcing the name of the property, its address, and phone number. This sign maybe illuminated. This sign shall be removed prior to the erection of Sign #4 on the Mitigative Parcel. RJL203885v1 C-2 RCI45-447 EXHIBIT D ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey dated 5/26/95 EXHIBIT E BKV Group Drawing of Century Court Apartments Maintenance Group, 9/19/01 (Revision No. 2) ^I --== = =-~ aFFlCe~'';. alJILL'!NG ~---~-~ ~ ExISTiNG B~ILp1NG j I I ~ f ~ ~~-.~= ~a __....-------, i 1 ~ ~~_ I 1 ~ EXITING BuIL[}tN6 ~ 1 l ~ v`' ~' ~~~ • BR1A~ ht MI'TI~AT~VE PARCEL ~"""' w J ~~ c~i f CWL 1 INCH = 1 ~JO FEET ~38S703Fi Mil'-t~gR•pN1G BJY TOTAL P.02 • AGENDA SECTION: .OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 10 REPORT # 258 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE SYLVESTER, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE ~~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for special approval from the Council for five permanent signs and four long-term temporary signs at Century Court Apartments at Penn and 76th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve Dominium's request for five permanent signs and four long-term temporary signs for Century Court:Apartments. III. BACKGROUND Century Court Apartments is a large apartment complex bounded by 76th Street to the north, Penn Avenue to the east, 78th Street/I-494 to the south, and portions of Thomas and Sheridan Avenues to the west. The complex contains five large buildings with a total of 698 apartments and a rental. office building. Century Court is the largest apartment complex in Richfield. Dominium Development and Acquisition, LLC is the owner's representative and manager of Century Court. Dominium is undertaking improvements to this property and is requesting special Council approval for five permanent signs and four long- term temporary signs. Special Council approval is required because the signs are unusual, as described below. 1008-Dominium.doc A. Five permanent signs are requested: Two monument-style ground signs, one, wall sign, one corporate-style ground sign, and one commercial-style ground sign. Two monument style ground signs. Century Court has entrances to their units on both 76th Street and Penn Avenue. For each of these entrances, Dominium is requesting a monument style ground sign with 36 square feet of sign face where 24 square feet is normally allowed. One wall sign. Dominium is requesting an illuminated wall sign that would face I-494. While such a sign is normally not permitted in the MR-3 zoning district, the requested sign would meet size restrictions for such signs in commercial districts, such as those found along the I-494 corridor. One corporate-style around sign. Dominium is requesting an 80 sq. ft .sign at their main entrance along Penn Avenue. This sign would be off of the street and serve as an `announcement' for people entering their complex as opposed to an advertisement or marketing tool for people driving by on local streets or 1-494. One commercial-style sign. Dominum is requesting a sign that will be no taller than 27 feet in height and no larger than 128 sq. ft. in sign face area. This sign will be located on the parcel that currently has a gas station on it and is zoned C-2. (Dominium Properties is acquiring this parcel.) In the C-2 . district, commercial-style signs of the size. and style being .requested are allowed without special City Council permission-so long as the parcel that is zoned C-2 is combined with Dominium's parcel that is zoned MR-3 into one . tax parcel. (If the C-2 parcel were not combined with Dominium's MR-3 parcel, the requested sign on the C-2 parcel would be considered a billboard and staff would not recommend that it be allowed.) B. Four long-term temporary signs are reauested to direct residents and visitors to the rental office during the reconstruction of 76th Street, Penn Avenue, and the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494. Richfield's City Code [Section 416.07, Subdivision 2 (d)(7)] allows temporary signs in commercial districts but for no more than four weeks during any one year. Three temporary signs, each two feet tall by ten feet wide, are requested at Century Court apartments to direct visitors to the rental office until road and bridge construction in the vicinity is complete, and in no case beyond December 31, 2003. These three signs will be located as follows: 1. On the north face of the 7600 building, visible to traffic on 76th Street. 2. On the north face of the 7610 building, visible to traffic on 76th Street.. 3. On the south face of one of the buildings fronting 78th Street and 1-494, visible to traffic on 78th Street and I-494. (These temporary signs are consistent with the size and style of signs that are normally allowed for shorter periods of time in commercially zoned districts of the City.) 4. Dominium is requesting a fourth long-term temporary sign to be erected where the commercial-style sign will eventually go (See `commercial-style sign' in `A'.) Because the commercial-style sign will be located in an area that will be used during the reconstruction of the Penn Avenue Bridge, it cannot be erected until at least winter 2003. This requested temporary sign will be in place until the permanent commercial-style sign can be installed after road work is completed. at the end of 2003. This long-term temporary sign will be removed once its permanent replacement has been erected. The sign will be similar in size and style to the permanent one that it is temporarily `filling-in' for. Lastly, it will be located in the general area where the permanent sign will be .located, but out of the way of construction work. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Section 416.03, Subdivision 6 states "In the case of an application for a sign of unusual height or location, the manager shall refer such sign to the Council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred, shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the Council." B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Century Court property is very large with five separate, large apartment buildings, multiple entrances, and at least two separate functions (apartments and business office). Due to these characteristics, the proposed signs are appropriate and reasonable for the property. • Reconstruction of streets and the Penn Avenue Bridge over a period of 15 to 27 months necessitates prolonged `temporary' signs to help visitors find their way to the business office and apartments. The temporary signs will be removed when the road projects end. • .There will be no negative impact on surrounding properties, especially the single-family neighborhood to the west. • Best .Buy's corporate headquarters will be located across the street to the east. While the requested signs are larger than the City currently allows in the MR-3 district, they will not be over-bearing or out of proportion with the scale of buildings and. properties in the vicinity. • A portion of Century Court's property will be in the C-2 district where the requested commercial-style sign is permitted. • The City is acquiring temporary and permanent easements from Century Court to facilitate the widening of 76th Street and Penn. Avenue and to realign the frontage road to enter a new signalized intersection between the entrance on the east and Penn Avenue. A stipulation of settlement of the condemnation filed by the City to acquire these easements is proposed for Council approval under which Century Court is donating a • building for City demolition to permit the rerouting of the frontage road. The agreement is contingent upon approval of these signs. Outline of how the permanent signs requested by Dominium Properties depart from Richfield's code, with explanations of reasons for staff recommendation that the requested signs be granted special Council approval: • Si nand Location Code De arture Justification Monument Sign One 1. This sign is 36 sq. ft. in area, This sign will be located between two large 76th Street, between 7600 where 24 sq. ft. is allowed in buildings. Due to the large size of the buildings, a and 7610 buildings. the MR-3 District. smaller sign will not be visible.. Monument Sign Two Penn Avenue; at entrance 1. This sign is 36 sq. ft. in area, This sign will be on Penn Avenue. To have the sign consistent with Sign One on 76th Street, this to 7600 building. where 24 sq. ft. is allowed in the MR-3 district one will be the same-size. While larger than . otherwise permitted in the MR-3 district, it will not 2. 2. This sign is one of two be too large given its context with Century Court's signs along Penn Avenue, large buildings and the fact that Best Buy's where only one such sign. is headquarters will be directly across the street. allowed in the MR-3 district. `Corporate' Ground Sign This sign is larger than 1 This sign will be some distance from monument At new entrance into the complex from Penn . normally allowed in the MR-3 Sign Two and provide identification to people entering the apartment complex.. Because it is Avenue. district. across the street from a large corporate complex, 2. 2. This sign is one of two a larger, landscaped ground sign is appropriate. signs along .Penn Avenue, where only one such sign is allowed in the MR-3 district. Wall Siqn 1. Wall signs are not normally 1. Given the large size of the complex,. a wall Mounted on east facing allowed in the MR-3 District. sign is appropriate to identify the buildings to wall of 7720 building or the public-including traffic along 1-494. south wall of 7710 building. ~ 2. The sign will meet wall sign requirements as they apply to other zoning districts; namely, it will not exceed 15 percent of the wall face in size. 3. The sign will not face the single-family residential area to the west. 4. 4. Two similar apartment complexes (Village Park and Fountainhead) have wall signs due to zoning circumstances that put these apartment buildings in a commercial zone. To treat similar apartment complexes in a similar fashion, this si n should be allowed. Commercial Siqn 1. This sign will be located on a This sign will meet City requirements once the Sign to be erected in the .parcel that is zoned C-2. /f parcel on which it is to be located has been area currently occupied by this parcel is combined with combined with the parcel that Century Court a gas. station. the rest of Dominium's apartments occupy. Properties, the sign will meet City requirements for a sign in the C-2 district. • .7 C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Staff is working to revise City Codes to accommodate large apartment complexes and their unique signage requirements. The signs recommended in this Staff Report will be used as examples for revisions to the City's sign code for similar large apartment complexes, with the goal of revising the codes so that the signs. approved for Century Court would conform with City Codes. • .The City Attorney has reviewed this request and supports the staff recommendation. • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Reject the motion granting special Council approval for the requested signs at Century Court apartments. (Note:.. Rejecting the motion would potentially jeopardize the settlement of the condemnation and demolition of the building for the Penn Avenue Bridge project.) V. ATTACHMENTS • City Council Resolution Site Plan showing location of requested signs Illustrations of requested signs VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Ron Mehl, Dominium Properties,-owner and management company for Century Court • RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION FOR SPECIAL COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MULTIPLE SIGN PERMIT REQUESTS FOR CENTURY COURT APARTMENTS (DOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ANDACQUISITIONS, LLC) WHEREAS, application has been made to the City of Richfield which requests special Council approval for signs of unusual height and location on land generally located. at Century Court Apartments, legally described as The Northeast'/4 of the Southeast'/4 of the Southeast'/4 except that part lying Northeasterly of the following described line and same extended: Beginning at a point on a line drawn parallel with and distant 33.0 feet West of the East line of said Northeast'/4 distant 43.0 feet South of the North line of said '/4; thence run Northwesterly through a point in a line drawn parallel with and distant 33.0 feet South of the North line of said'/4 distant 43.0 feet West of the East line of said Northeast'/a, also the East % of Northwest'/a of Southeast'/4 of Southeast'/ except the North 258 feet of West 170 feet thereof; and the South'/2 of Southeast'/4 of Southeast'/4 all in Section 32, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County,. Minnesota subject to streets and highway; except that part of the Southeast'/4 of Southeast'/4 of Section 32, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Southeast '/4 of the Southeast'/4; thence on an assumed bearing of South along the East line of said Southeast'/4 of the Southeast'/4 a distance of 526.01 feet; thence South 89 degrees 40 minutes 38 seconds West, a distance of 33 feet; thence. on a bearing of South along a line parallel with and 33 feet West of the East line of said. Southeast • '/ of Southeast'/4 a distance of 315.25 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence North 57 degrees 01 minute and 59 seconds West a distance of 49.95 feet; thence South 88 degrees 30 minutes. West a distance of 51.97 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the left, the radius being 55 feet, a distance of 84.96 feet; thence on a bearing of South. tangent to the last. described curve, a distance of 106.62 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the. right, the radius being 104 feet, a distance of 17.21 feet to-the. Northerly right of way of Interstate Highway No. 494;. thence North 78 degrees 50 minutes 09 seconds East along said right of way, a distance of 151.28 feet to its intersection with- said line parallel with and 33 feet West of the East line of said Southeast'/4 of the Southeast ~/a; thence North along said parallel line to the point of beginning. And furthermore on land generally located at 7744 Penn Avenue (AKA "Mitigative Parcel" and AKA "Excess R/W Remnant Parcel") and legally described as: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as commencing at the southeast corner of said Section 32; thence North 0 degrees 13 minutes 12 seconds East on an assumed bearing along the east line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 32, a distance. of 355.00 feet; thence South 79 degrees 03 minutes 21 seconds West, a distance of 100.63 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 6 degrees 20 minutes 24 seconds East, a distance of 193.95 feet; thence North 17 degrees 42 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 61.12 feet; thence North 3 degrees 49 minutes 02 seconds West, a distance of 93.05 feet; thence North 0 degrees 06 minutes 34 seconds East, a distance of 13.35 feet; thence South 86 degrees 43 minutes 46 • seconds West, a distance of 30.64 feet; thence Southwesterly along a tangential curve concave to the southeast, having a radius of 35.00 feet, a central angle of 80 degrees 25 minutes 21 seconds, a distance of 49.13 feet; thence South 6 degrees 18 minutes 25 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 228.96 feet; thence South 2 degrees 31 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 108.51 feet to the intersection with the north right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 494; thence North 79 degrees 03 minutes 21 seconds East, along said north right-of-way line, a distance of 60.59 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the requested signs; and WHEREAS the proposed signs are reasonable and appropriate for their proposed location and purpose; and WHEREAS the proposed signs will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements; and WHEREAS the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the .public health, safety, or welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Special Council approval is granted for five permanent and three temporary signs, as described in City Council Staff Report No. , onthe Subject Properties legally described above. 2. This special Council approval is subject to the following stipulations: • All existing banner signs must be removed from the premise before sign permits can be issued. Those temporary signs which are approved by • this action shall be allowed to remain until December 31, 2003, or such earlier date as road construction on 76th Street and Penn Avenue has been completed. • The MITIGATIVE PARCEL that will be acquired by Dominium, which is zoned C-2, must be combined with Dominium's MR-3 parcel before the permit for the commercial style sign be granted. • Permits must be obtained for all signs included in this action before the signs are erected. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, -City Clerk L` _ __ __ W ~s .. I • ~ • ~ f ,,• IfC ~f~ f s' jfa 4p .ii~~i #s a ~~f (> W ~ f ' 3: Q .. ~z 1>~ i 2 i ~} ~ z93 ~ # g 31~1s ~ ~ ~.fy, J I ~ ~% ie ~f f ~3 ~ •~ ~~i3 ~j~jj~~>`S ~1 ~~j~~ ~ : Z •~ ~' > ~F Q E ~ ~.>~ ~ • o _~ aezst: ---~3 3nN3r1 d ~ N3d Hfao" .-__ ~ _.` ~ _ ~n<.. . ~ -• ~ - ~ - --- - --- - -'- J 1 ~` .mac. ~'~ -~ H- ~ t Syr-~,~ ---, ~_ - _ ..~,~~ -~ • - ----\ •- - r ,> • ~ ~1 t,L I Ili' ;.~;`°.f ~"': \\:J '%~ X11 ,*T', il; `g . •• ~,,\ j rl li, - I \ It- ' fir- ~ „'-~ ~ /. "~-/ ~ ~ `~~~! Y ~~'~ ~ j ` ~1 ~ i III . ~ ~~\~ -I,_:`-yak -'~j \\ /r ~ ~i1~:.- 3""'- ~`II •i1 ~/. II~;\ -5~ -.^Z ~1l ~ 4~ , 1~ -"gyp ~ ,~ `~~+ •\, O I ~ of I L _'~`\~\'l-jes•9 _ r' !'_'_ ^. ~\ li 1 ~~ -#te-j -_~ ~ \, ' , 3 `~ \/ Z• ' _ f ~ ~~ ~ ' .. I ~ . ~ I I ~ I ~ . i . ~ i ~ F•.~y.~ ~4-P. i` \, -si4.- ~;,"'.IR- ' 1 ~ ~` i {¢-- I 'r11 ~~_~ mss- ~-- - \~\ ~ ~`I^ G p ~ .*` '1 \\~J (P °:"~~"__._ i~•,'~ . '"~1 ~1 ~-~ W \\\ - ~ ° '~ (V : of \\~~ _~ _~ ~ \\' ° • i I ~ \~`:~ ~ °~ ~ ~\ 1~ H ~ E ~ 1 Cal 'P' 11• :~ \\ _-• I \\ 1 ' , p ~, ~ I~ ~ "~I ~' •~~!, +i` I ~'~ : ka ~ ` ' 1 \~\ \*`\~ \ ' II p~ ~ _ I i \ ~! 1 v °' 111 l1~ ~ ~ ~l~ \\~ ~\~ ~\ Illi i-i lii:ll'Ir~ ~. !~..F~ .~~ ~I° `~ 1~, 1,tt I pq v i _~ ~ ~ `~-I 111 U 004SZ' i 3.-4~J.O~S ~1 ~ ~''lil,; {' I,1 rl Ilj _ 11, i i % 14 ;,4,,1 .~WI ~ I ~~~Ij~ ' ~ i. ; I iil 1.1 ~ „ It! •li:lli fall ~ I ~ ~~° ' ~' ~ (~ ~ tit- i' ~ o< il'~ih~ ?..(iilll!Illii~ (i.l .~ti I' `\ 4Nj 11 I --'~'~. ~6966f.-_--3 .ZS, i0.0 S_ _ ~ ~ ~ Y- .~~ r~- ~`- ~ ~ 'I' 1» 1{ I '. -- -- _-_ _ _ --_ _ ,_-_ -1-- - `~.~ qty ~~; ~~~ ~ ~~e ~''~' ~ ',', ~~ I~ 3nN3n d NIb'O/2/3HS I 1 i ~ o~ " ~ ~ j~ o i 1 ~ t ~1 i~ _ is .. ~ .. ~ II~ ~ ~~ ,~J~\.~.~ ~I ~ ,' I .. Y ~ 3 ~ i ! ! IrY ~Flyf_r i ~\~ \\~ • \ f Y~ • , '` 1~ j tl q a 3' '~ R Im'L r~- 1 1~ I ~ t y 1 y d 3 x b 3 °- p : ~ `I I f °O •;~ o*~~ yam= \ \ -" ~I~ 1 i . 3 ...: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i n 1 ~ t i j '" $ }. Y . 1--~~~ <~ - ' ¢' ~Il t;-:-i`•- ~ -' ~`'~_. -• ' 4 ~I I I _ 1 I,_ x la y "-~~ i I ~~ i 1 , ,f ' ~ 73 I I *~~+.. F U 3 ~ CC i'"'1 y _.. _ ~ - ... . \j \I/ - .. i { f~ }j TTT [~j / j t - ~ L f1 . ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ~~° ~ ~ \ 'W/ • r ~ ~ ~ ~ A \/ VII ~ ~ ~ , / ~' ~~ ~ .~< ~ ~ . o ~ v~ .~. _. _ [7 .~ GC1 +, ~ ~ ~--~ ~ . ~ o ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ . ~ U .~.., N j ~+ ~, ~ ~ N' a ~ bJJ ~ ~ "M- vl,! ~ ~ ~ N •~ ~ o ~ -.. ~. .~; •. • ~ .~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • .~ .~ • a ~' ~ o ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .~? ~ ~ ~ • o o •~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ° '~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ o ~ .~ ~ ~. ~ o ~ . ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ a ~ ~n ~ ~ .,~ ~ ° ~ ~ 00 N • • • .~ . ~..a 0 0 a .,..~ o ~+ ~., o ~ r-.-~ a~ ~ E-+ N 00 N M 00 N ~- • ~. ~ • . ~..a __. 0 .~,..., a ~ .~ ~ .~ c-- N ~ , . ,.., c~3 ~ O ~ ~ Q 43 H N 00 N M N n ~a ~~ w,/ . ~..~ ~ ~r ` "!~ -~ .. ~_ Cf~ F~ 1 M ~ ~ - t~A . *.., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ N ~-.t bA o ~ _w ~~ a ~ . ~..~ a.~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ • • AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTION . AGENDA ITEM # 9 - REPORT # R . T.A •M .NT 2 7 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: /~ TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAn~', TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of special assessment levy for the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution ordering assessment on -the Penn Avenue Bridge Project with said $7,328,627.78 special assessment to be levied against Best Buy Co., Inc. III. BACKGROUND I On August 13, 2001 the City Council approved the creation of a special assessment district for financing a loan from the Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TREE) for partial financing of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. On September 10, 2001 the City Council approved a TRLF loan agreement between the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority and the City of Richfield and adopted a General Obligation Improvement Bond resolution issuing and selling the bond to the Authority. The principal and interest of the $6.7 million loan/bond is to be assessed against the • owner of the redevelopment tracts, that is Best Buy Company, Inc. An agreement has been signed by the City and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) that those assessments would be paid by the HRA. The City must now levy the special assessments. 1008SpAssessLevy1 • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The agreement between the City, HRA and Best Buy waived all requirements for notice and hearing in the conduct of the improvement project and the levying of the special assessments. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Levy.-ofspecial assessments-must:b_e_.on _or..before the .October 22, 2001 City Council meeting in order to become a lien on the project property. C. FINANCIAL • The total amount of the principal and interest on the TRLF loan is shown on the attached Assessment Roll that is to be certified to the County Auditor. The special assessment is against unimproved land and may be deferred until December 31, 2006 as specified by the Council. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has undertaken to reimburse the City for the principal amount of the TRLF loan in the years 2005 and 2006. The City will pay the TRLF loan interest as it comes due. • D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has recommended that the assessments. be deferred as proposed. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ None. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution adopting assessment on Penn Avenue Bridge Project. Proposed Assessment Roll. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None. • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON PENN AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT WHEREAS, a petition by Best Buy Co., Inc. requested construction of a public improvement consisting of the replacement of the existing bridge over Interstate 494 at Penn Avenue South (Project), and WHEREAS,. in the petition Best Buy Co., Inc. agreed that the. entire assessable cost of the improvement be specially assessed against the Company's real property abutting Penn Avenue South, and WHEREAS, the Clerk with the assistance of the City Engineer has prepared a proposed assessment roll (Roll) for the Project, the Roll has been reviewed by this Council and is on file with the Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT .RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Such. proposed assessment in the total amount of $7,328,628 is hereby accepted-and shall constitute the special assessment against the Best Buy Co. Ind.'s real property abutting Penn Avenue South, and :each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the public improvement in the amount of assessment levied against it. The assessment is found to be against unimproved land. and is to be deferred until • December 31, 2006 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 424.061, Subdivision 2. The owner of the property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the. assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the City's Finance Division and may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City's Finance Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor with an appropriate certificate requesting deferral Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 8th day of October 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PENN AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT The special assessment to be levied pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 429.061, subdivision 2 for the Penn Avenue Bridge Project duly ordered by the City Council on August 13,2001, is as follows: Property to Be Assessed: That part of the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of .Section 33, Township 028, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying south of the south right of way line of 76th Street West, lying west of the west right of way line of .Knox Avenue South, lying north of Interstate Highway 494, and lying east of the east right of way line of Penn Avenue South. Owner of Property: Best Buy Co. Inc., 7075. Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Amount of Special Assessment: • $7,328,628 Interest to be Charged on Special Assessments: 0% This Special Assessment is against unimproved land and is to be deferred until December 31, 2006 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 429.061, subdivision 2 • "" Exhibit A Minnesota Public Facilities Authority Transportation Revol ving Loan Fund Richfield, Clty of Funding Source Reference Amount ~MPFA-01-0083-R-FYOi Bonds 20EilA 6,700,000.00 finding Commit. Loan Date Accrual Date immediate Interest Rate 2.00% b,?00,000.00 Date Effective Disbursement ref Rea ent interest Princi al Loan Balance Cal . D.S. projected 09!27101 5,700,000.00 6,700,000.00 02/20/02 53,227.78 53,227.78 6,700,000.00 08/20/02 67,000.00 67,000.00 6,700,000.00 120,227.78 02/20/03 67,000.00 67,000.00 6,700,000.00 08/20/03 67,000A© b7,000.00 b,7~,000.00 134,000.00 02/20/04 77,000.00 67,000.00 10,000.00 6,690,000.00 08/20/04 66,900.00 66,900.00 6,690,000.00 143,900.00 02/20105 7b,900.00 66,900.00 10,000.00 S,b80,000.00 08/20/05 ~ ~ 66,800.00 66,800.00 b,680,000.00 143,700.00 02/20/06 4,746,800.00 66,800.00 4,680,000.00 2,000,000.00 08/20/06 20,000.00 20,000.00 2,OOO,t?00.00 4,766,800.00 02/20/07 2,020,000.00 20,000.00 2,000,000.00 - 2,020,000.00 Totals b,700,000.00 ~ 7,328,627.78 62$,627.78 6,700,000.00 7,328,627.78 weighted avg maturity based on an assumed issue date of• 09/27/01 weighted average maturity: 4.69 • DTED Fiscal Service 09/06/01 tr 2001 Richfield.xls r AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 8H REPORT # 256 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2001. REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for renewal of a residential kennel license for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson, 7144 Oliver Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of a residential kennel license for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson, 7144 Oliver Avenue. II. BACKGROUND On August 7, 2001, Suzanne and Thomas Erickson. submitted an application for the renewal of their residential kennel license. They own three dogs. Their application contains the signatures of two contiguous property owners. One property owner did not sign the application. According to the applicant, an incident took place a few years ago involving one of their dogs "nipping" at this neighbor: 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. 1008Erickson Kennel Renewal Staff received one phone call in response to this residential kennel license request. The caller indicated that they did not have any problems with the applicant, the animals at this residence or the issuance of the renewal kennel license. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on September 10, 2001.. 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. An inspection of the interior of the home also revealed good condition. The Community Service Officer noted that the kennels in the basement of the home were extremely clean and sanitary and appeared to be in above average condition. 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. The animals of this application have. all received training in canine obedience and have received awards for such training. 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 received one call regarding this application indicating there were no problems ....with the issuance of the requested kennel license renewal B. ~ CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • NA D. LEGAL • N/A ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • Deny the request for the renewal of a residential kennel license for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial ~ V. ATTACHMENTS ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I as • • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 8G REPORT # 255 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxIUSTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME. TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ J G SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request for an itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food license, with a request for a fee waiver, for the Church of St. Richard, 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their annual Fall Festival, November 17 and 18, 2001. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food license, with a request for a fee waiver, for the Church of St Richard for their annual Fall Festival to be held November 17 and 18, 2001. II. BACKGROUND On September 21, 2001, the Church of St. Richard submitted a request for an itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food license for November 17 and 18, 2001. They are requesting that the fees be waived. The event will take place from 9 a.m. until 7 p.m. on Saturday, November 17, 2001 i and 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. on Sunday, November 18, 2001. They plan to serve food items such as roast beef sandwiches, pizza, hot dogs, cote slaw, cake, and soft drinks. 1008 St. Richards Fall Festival The Church of St. Richard has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with City codes pertaining to this license. • The City has previously issued this license in conjunction with the Church of St. Richard's Fall Festival. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 8 F REPORT # 2 S STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ /p (/ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~ _ .y~~ . ~s ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the renewal of a lawful gambling license, fee waived, for the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435, 6501 Portland Avenue South, and the attached resolution a rovin the amblin license. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for renewal of a lawful gambling license for the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435, 6501 Portland Avenue South, with further recommendation to waive the investigation fee. Also approve the attached resolution approving the gambling activity requested by the applicant in accordance with Richfield City Code 1100.13. Sub.6. II. BACKGROUND On September 24, 2001, the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435 submitted an application for the renewal of their lawful gambling license. 1008 Legion Gambling The Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation . and has determined that the applicant has complied with all of the requirements. The applicant is requesting that the $100.00 investigation fee be waived. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety department to review the request for the gambling license and make its review and recommendation to the City Council. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The applicant has complied with the State statutes and City code pertaining to lawful gambling. • The applicant has submitted the request within sixty days of the renewal of the license. The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested is a benefit to the community. C. FINANCIAL • N/A • D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of a lawful gambling license for the Mpls- Richfield American Legion Post #435. This would mean that the applicant would not be able to conduct gambling activities within their establishment; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. • Deny the request for a fee waiver of the investigation fee. V. ATTACHMENTS • A resolution granting approval for the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435 to conduct lawful gambling. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A • • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE MPLS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION POST #435 TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING WHEREAS, the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435 has submitted an application for the renewal of their lawful gambling license; and WHEREAS, the application requests renewal of their pulltab operations; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for review of applications by local authorities; and WHEREAS, Section 1100.13 of the Richfield City Code provides regulation of lawful gambling; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety has completed an investigation of the application and finds the application to be in order. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council, City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: • 1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435, 6501 Portland Avenue South. 2. The investigation fee be waived. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # $E REPORT # 253 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • OCTOBER 8, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~' MARK HALL, STREET SUPERVISOR NAMC, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of purchase of winter deicing salt. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the purchase of an estimated 1,750 ton of winter deicing salt for the 2001/2002 winter season from I.M.C. Salt, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas at the price of $39.02 per ton, delivered, alus sales tax. III. BACKGROUND ~ Each year the City purchases rock salt, to control ice on road surfaces during the winter season. r ~ U III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • 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. A. POLICY 1008sa1t NAME, TITLE 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 97/98 27.69/ton North American Salt Co., Overland Park, Kansas 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 • Funding for this purchase is included in the 2001 and 2002 operating budgets for street maintenance. D. LEGAL N/A • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(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 2001/2002 winter season, further participation in the cooperative State bidding process for deicing salt could be abandoned. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # $D REPORT # .252 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 200.1 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: /~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: TIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR Nann;, Tirzc JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR Nanar, Tircc ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of the attached contract with Gremmer and Associates for the preparation of preliminary-plans for the Richfield Outdoor Pool Renovation project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Award the attached contract with Gremmer and Associates in the amount of $5,000 for the preparation of preliminary ans for the Richfield Outdoor Pool Renovation project. C7 III. BACKGROUND I A selection committee has completed its task of reviewing five proposals that were received for the preparation of preliminary plans for the Outdoor Pool Renovation project. The purpose of a preliminary plan for pool improvements into map out a master plan based upon the concept adopted by the Outdoor Pool Task. Force and. the Community Services Commission. This plan will enable the City to effectively phase the project in over time as funding becomes available without costly modifications to work already performed. The plan will also provide the City with more accurate cost estimates of each phase. The selection committee recommends the award of the attached contract to Gremmer and Associates in the amount of $5,000 for these services. 1008 pool . III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The process used by the selection committee consisted of the review of each proposal, a review of pre-interview questions received by each consulting engineer in advance; and a face to face interview. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • ..Critical selection criteria included. he_vendor's ability to manage a project on time, proven success with previous renovation projects similar to the Richfield pool, and a past history of accurate cost estimates. Most of the five vendors excelled in all three areas. • Gremmer and Associates has an office locally in Bloomington and will be conveniently assessable to the work site. • Gremmer has recently prepared plans for improvements to Silver Lake .Pool in Rochester, an identical pool to Richfield's. • Gremmer has also performed a number of renovation projects for other similar pools originally designed by Larkin and. Associates. C. FINANCIAL • Gremmer proposed these services at a fee of $5,000. This was the best value when comparing fees offered by all five vendors (see attachment for comparison of fees). D. LEGAL • The attached contract authorizes Gremmer and Associates to provide preliminary drawings, phasing plan, and cost estimates for the project. • The City is not obligated. to continue the services of Gremmer after the preliminary plan is completed. • The City Attorney has reviewed the attached contract. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not award the contract to Gremmer and Associates. Direct staff to re-assemble the committee and select another vendor. V. ATTACHIVIENTS • Vendor comparison chart. • Gremmer and Associates pre-interview question responses. • Proposed contract with Gremmer and Associates. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • • None ~J • • S"., V C~ .~ J.~ iw O v ~ O i~ ~O ~ ~ a ~ °' s~ ~ sue. ~ ~bA ~ ~ ~". r3 A W N p ~ a ~ ~ N O ~ p a o~ cU ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ G .~ ~ ~~ a w t'" ~ o U ~ ' ~ ~ a ,-a -d ~ ~ U ~ ~ N N N Q~ 0 0 ~~ ~ O O O O ~ ~ •-'' ~ ~ ~ ~ +~ r--~ bA ~ ~ ~ ~ bA bA ~ O b4 z [ ~^ ~ 69 N N N ~ Oi O N ~"' ~ ~ z z z c O ~ M U N N N N ~'' ~'tl ~"' z z ..p "C N N "d "'d N N U U cC O ,7, ai O U \° N N N 0 0~ U U ...., 4J N N N~ O 69 r~"-i 00 ~"~ ~ ~"" z z ~ ~ ~ ~'' ~'' J'' / z N '~ o 'C "a O .~ ~ "O 'C ^a ~ '~ "a o ~ U ~ O ~ U U ~ . '~ .~ N . ~ . _., ON.~ o ~ , ~'' ~"" O ~ ~ ~ ~" , , O O O +~ O N ~ ti ti +-+ ++ bA N N N O O N U O ~ ~ ~ bA bA N N N N N 64 z l~ ~ ~"~ ~ z z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z '~ N N ~ c ^C TJ "p rn O . U r^f "~ ~ ..-r ~ ~ ~ x o, ~ ~ a a, ° \ ~ . . o i i i o o ~ ~ U ~ ~ :~ o 0 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ds~ v i ~ds ~+~~zzz ~~ ~ ~"~'~-'zz o ~ O M 'C3 'p ~ 'z3 ~ .~ ,~ "" ~ O ^~ ~ ~ ~ yc7 O ~ ~ ..~ ..-+ .,..., ~ p ~ U ~ ~ N N O O ^ '' as ~~ ~ ~~~zz~ \° V~ ,~ ~ O ,~ N ." N M~ ~~~~z a~ .~ o ..~"', .~ '-' ~ ~ ~ ~"" U ~ U N . ~ ~.' ..-i ~ N Qr 7 + • - ~ FBI . ~ ~. ~"i ~ N ~ ~ ~ W'" o .-~ WQ ~~ o ~,~ ~ W~ ~ d ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ xUa aw ~~ ~ ~ a aa x P aA E a ~, ~~ ~, .~ ~~ ~ -~ ¢~ .~~ bA ~, ~" ~: ~ .', ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~~ H bA ~ ~ ~ N v; ~ ~ ~ U a~ a a ~ GREMMER & ASSOCIATES C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S 2546 POST ROAD PLOVER, WISCONSIN 54467. 715.341.4363 FAX: ?15.341.1856 September 25, 2001 City of Richfield Recreation Services Department 7000 Nicollet Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Attention: John Evans, Administrative Aide Subject: Richfield, Minnesota Swimming Pool. Renovation Response to Selection Committee's Interview Format and Questions Dear Mr. Evans: The following is our response to the Pre-Interview Questions received on September 24, 2001:. 1. Please identify one or two of your previous projects that most closely match the conditions and needed renovations of the Richfield Outdoor Pool. The renovations of Soldier's Field and Silver Lake Pools in the City of Rochester, Minnesota, are very similar: a. Soldier's Field Pool: The original Soldier's Field Pool consisted of a 12-year old, 6-lane, T- shaped, 50-meter pool and diving area; a small wading pool; and the original bathhouses. These bathhouses consisted of a separate building for the men's and women's dressing area and a center admissions/administrative building. Gremmer & Associates and TSP, Inc., were the design team for the project. The project was. phased with the final phase still to be completed. The first and primary renovation consisted of demolition to the women's dressing area, center admissions/administrative building, and wading pool. The renovation included: • Addition of a 4,800 square foot, zero-depth entrance adventure pool • Shallow water play features • Drop. slide • Shade structures • Concession area • New bathhouse , • PLOVER, WISCONSIN FOND DU LAC, WISCONSIN BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA The men's dressing facility housed the filtration equipment in the basement and remained. The second phase included repiping the surge tank and miscellaneous piping changes in the filter room to correct several existing problems. The third phase is the addition of a waterslide to the 50-meter pool. b. Silver Lake Pool: Rochester's Silver Lake Pool was designed by the same firm that designed the Richfield Pool and is almost identical. Our work to date consists of developing a master plan for the renovation of the pool and implementation of Phase I, the addition of a drop slide.. With both projects, we developed a master plan and phasing plan for the work. We spent the portions of the last several years working with the City of Rochester on this project. We worked closely with Roy Sutherland, Ron Bastian, and Steve Browning. One positive result of the upgrade is that the attendance has tripled at the Soldier's Field Pool, which is -now a very attractive and enjoyable facility. 2. Why would the City of Richfield choose the services of your firm over others? What added value do you bring to the table? Our experienced design team worked well on the renovation of the very successful Soldier's Field project and will do the same for Richfield. Other reasons for choosing Gremmer & Associates are: i • Experience: Gremmer & Associates has designed over 500 indoor and outdoor pools. Tim Gremmer has been the Project Manager on all of these projects. Jody Dahms is a Minnesota Registered Engineer with 6 years of pool design and construction experience. • Location: Our office is 10 minutes from.-the project site-it is in our backyard. We know that the difficulties increase according to the square of the distance from the office to the jobsite. We can respond quickly to any construction problems and also spend our time on actual inspections instead of travel time. The closer we are, the better service we can provide. • Demonstrated ability to stay within owner's budget: All of the projects .listed in our proposal and other projects, including the City of Hastings, were constructed within budget. At the beginning of the planning, we develop a detailed budget and continue to monitor it throughout the design process. It is much easier to tell the owner the truth regarding costs during the design process, rather than finding out at the bid opening. After reviewing the costs, the owner can select the items they desire and build their own project. • Demonstrated ability to work with the owner: This may be the main reason for the City of Richfield to hire us. We assume ownership of a project. This ownership extends through the design, construction, and even after the project is completed. The way to verify this is to check with our Minnesota clients. GREMMER & ASSOCIATES • Efficient, economical designs: The added value includes an attractive, well- engineered pool that will increase attendance and last many years. Our film is owned by engineers and we have 25 years of design experience on similar facilities. This experience translates into efficient and cost effective designs. No one gets more pool from a fixed project budget than Gremmer 8c Associates! 3. What are ways to expedite improvements so that interference with the normal operating season is avoided or minimized? We will begin immediately with the design of the new gutter and recirculation piping. This work that must be done regardless of the other pool improvements or problems. and must be completed before June. We will open bids in December or early January. There is much that the contractor could do even in the winter months, such as the demolition, ordering of materials, and partial installation of the gutter. Once the. ground thaws, the contractor can- install the piping anc1--replace the concrete deck. Whatever we can do to expedite the project will be done to open the pool in early June. The rest of the work will be implemented, as monies are available. Normally, we would open bids in March or April. and the contractor would begin work in mid-August. We have found that if we can close the pool a few weeks early, it greatly enhances the contractor's ability to complete the project on time. • 4. Given that there is a good chance that funding may not be received all at once, what is enerall g Y the most pragmatic approach in phasing pool improvements over time? Our study will develop a phasing plan for the upgrade. The study will assess the condition of the existing facility. Once we know. the condition, we will be able to develop a phasing plan. For example, replacement of the bathhouse or the filter system and filter building may be delayed to a later phase. Replacement of the gutter and filtration piping in the first phase is critical because of the recent problems. It seems feasible that features that would attract additional users, such as a shallow water pool with play features, tube slide, or expanded concessions, should be done at an earlier phase. Once a master plan is developed, the infrastructure for, each of the phases can be constructedF during the first phase. This will eliminate any unnecessary demolition when the later phases are constructed. 5. Describe the amount of staff resources currently available to your firm that you can dedicate to this project to ensure a timely conclusion. We have the staff to complete the project within your timeline. Gremmer & Associates also provides transportation design and construction inspection services. Most of the pool design takes place from November to March, when our inspectors are in the office and available for design. Doing both pools and transportation allows a nice match and we can keep our people busy year round. In other words, we will have ample staff to dedicate to-your project. • GREMMER &. ASSOCIATES 6. Describe a method you would take to present recommendations to a City Council. I feel the most effective presentation method for large. group is a PowerPoint presentation. It allows us to utilize a big screen with a large projection area that can be easily seen by all of the audience. We can clearly present the result of the study, including AutoCAD drawings of the proposed facility, the phasing plan, cost estimates, and photos of the proposed improvements. PowerPoint can be shown in a reasonably lighted room to allow for audience interaction. We normally like to receive questions throughout the presentation to address the issues of concern to the City Council. 7. Describe your,. approach in managing the construction of pool improvements and methods you employ to report on progress. • The specifications will require conforming to the project schedule or the contractor will be subject to monetary penalties if they do not comply. • Digital photos will be taken and reviewed on a regular basis to document the work. A disk of the photos will be turned over to the owner. • The project schedule including milestones will be part of the Contract Documents. The contractor will be required to conform to this schedule and the schedule will be monitored weekly. Retainage will be increased if the contractor does not conform to this schedule. • We will be available! Again, our close location will enable us to respond to any construction problems or unknowns that become known. • We utilize a Construction Specification Institute (CSIJ Format and Documents in preparing our specifications. These Documents are the best that the design industry has to offer. • Quality of our inspectors. Inspections will be done by Jody Dahms, who is the Project Engineer. Having the Project Engineer conduct the inspections ensures continuity. We hope that by answering the above questions, you have a better .understanding of our aquatic design experience, our project approach, and our enthusiasm for working with the City of Richfield. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions. I may be reached at (715) 341-4363, (715) 341- 1856 fax, ore-mail to t.gremmer@gremmerassociates.com. We look forward to working with you. Ve truly yours, Timo y A. Gr er, PE Project Manag r TAG/jlc cc: Jody Dahms, Project Engineer GREMMER & ASSOCIATES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND GREMMER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PRELIMINARY PLANS AND COST ESTIMATES FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE RICHFIELD OUTDOOR POOL Hereinafter, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, will be referred to as the OWNER and Gremmer and Associates, Inc., as the ENGINEER. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. The evaluation will conform to the OWNER's Request for Proposal and the ENGINEER's proposal. We will evaluate aquatic facility including: • Swimming pool gutter • Swimming pool structural condition • Swimming pool water distribution system • Swimming pool water treatment. system, including filters, chemical feed, and heater • Swimming pool site • Swimming pool deck • TurF and landscaping • Fencing. • Bathhouse The evaluation will address: • Accessibility • Conformance to swimming pool and structural codes • Conformance to modern design practices 2. ENGINEER will attend and coordinate four programming sessions with staff and various user groups to develop a program needs analysis of the facility.. Based on the. program needs analysis results, ENGINEER will prepare preliminary plans of filter and circulation system, bathhouse replacement, deck modification, wading pool modification, and the addition of water play features. 3. Prepare recommendations and analysis of pool mechanical systems and recommended modifications. 4. Use existing records and drawings to prepare a base map of the existing facility.: Masterplan will show proposed pool features on site base map, layout of proposed filter building and bathhouse. 5. Develop master plan of proposed facility. Master plan will show proposed pool features on site base map, layout of proposed filter building and bathhouse. 6. Estimates of total .project cost and phasing plan. OWNERSHIP OFPRELIMINARY PLAN AFTER COMPLETION The OWNER will own the preliminary plan and all documents, drawings, specifications, estimates and other work submitted by ENGINEER after completion of the preliminary plan and payment is ubmitted by OWNER to ENGINEER for the preliminary planning phase of the project. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional services, if requested by the OWNER in writing, shall be billed according to the attached Professional Services Fee Schedule. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. This agreement, upon execution by both parties hereto, can be amended only by written instrument signed by both parties. As the project progresses, facts uncovered may reveal a change in direction, which may alter the scope. ENGINEER will promptly inform the OWNER. in writing of such situations so that changes in this agreement can be negotiated as required. - 2. Costs and schedule commitments shall be subject to renegotiation for delays caused by the OWNER's failure to provide specified facilities or information, or for delays caused by unpredictable occurrences, including-without limitation, fires, floods, riots, strikes; unavailability of labor or materials, delays or defaults by suppliers or materials or services, shutdowns, acts of God or the public enemy, or acts or regulations of any governmental agency. Temporary delay of services caused by any of the above which results in additional costs beyond those. outlined. may require renegotiation of this agreement. 3. .ENGINEER will maintain insurance coverage in the following amounts.: Worker's Compensation Statutory General Liability Bodily Injury $1,000,000 Property Damage $500,000 Automobile Liability Bodily Injury $1,000,000 Property Damage $1, 000, 000 Professional Liability Insurance $1,000,000. • 4. Termination of the agreement by the OWNER or ENGINEER shall be effective upon seven (7) days written notice to the other party. The written notice shall include the reasons and details for termination. ENGINEER will prepare a final invoice showing all charges incurred through the date of termination. 5. ENGINEER intends to serve as the OWNER's professional representative for those services as defined in this agreement and to provide advice and consultation to the OWNER as professional. Any opinions of probable project costs, approvals and other decisions made by ENGINEER for the OWNER are rendered on the basis of experience and qualifications and represent ENGINEER's .professional judgment. 6. This agreement shall not be construed as giving ENGINEER the responsibility or authority to director supervise construction means, methods, techniques, sequence or procedures of construction selected by contractor or subcontractor, or the safety precautions and programs incident to the work. of the contractors or subcontractors. Gremmer and Associates, Inc. Professional Services Fee Schedule Principal $95.00/hr Project Engineer (registered) $85.00/hr Senior Designer $85.00/hr Civil Engineer $60.00/hr Civil Engineering Technician $45.00/hr Survey Crew (two-man) $90.00/hr Office Services $30.00/hr Inspector $50.00/hr Mileage $0.40/hr Meals,.lodging, air travel, Telephone, supplies, postage At Cost Printing Services Photocopies $0.10~mpression Blueprints $0.25/square foot Mylar $1.50/square foot Printing Services (outside services) At Cost Photographs $0: 79/each Slides $0.89/each Expert Witness $200.00/hr or $1, 000/day plus expenses Gremmer and Associates, Inc. David L. Glodowski, PE Secretary/Treasurer Date • City of Richfield, Minnesota Martin Kirsch Mayor Samantha Orduno Manager Date • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # Q C • REPORT # 251 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • OCTOBER 8, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ii~~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6501. Cedar Avenue (.Parcel 17) (66th Street /Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project). RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6501 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 17) (66th Street /Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project). • II. BACKGROUND ~ As part of the realignment and expansion of Trunk Highway 77 and East 66th Street Interchange, the City acquired 6501 Cedar Avenue (Degidio property). Originally, this parcel was appraised by the City's appraisers at $265,000. An updated appraisal necessitated by condemnation provided a revised figure for the real estate to be $300,000. The- immovable fixtures were valued at $18,520.. Therefore, the final total value for the property was $318,520. The property owners' appraiser had an indicated value for the real estate of $460,000.. There was no dispute as to the value of the immovable fixtures. Condemnation Commissioners determined an award of $340,000 for the real estate. Both parties appealed. On September 20, 2001, at a pre-trial conference with a district court judge, a settlement was reached 1008Degidio.doc between the City, property owners, and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) in the amount of $400,000 for the real estate (and. appraisal fees) and $18,520 for the immovable fixtures excluding relocation benefits plus interest. Final payment to the property owners include interest on the remaining balance due, less amounts previously paid. III. BASIS OF,RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The subject property has been identified for purchase for the project. • The Memorandum of Understanding. (MOU) between the City, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and MAC outlines the responsibilities for each participating agency. The MOU was approved by the City Council on February 28, 2000. • An agreement separate from the. MOU between the City and MAC,. dated February 28, 2000, allows the use of condemnation proceedings as a means of acquiring property. • In accordance with this agreement, MAC is responsible for approving and recommending to the City just compensation and condemnation .settlement payments with property owners. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval of the Stipulation of Final Settlement for the Degidio property would essentially complete condemnation proceedings for this property. C. FINANCIAL; • ~ MAC is obligated to fund this transaction. • .MAC approved the final settlement amount. D. LEGAL • The Stipulation of Final Settlement was prepared by the City's attorney, John M. LeFevre, and is subject to the approval of the property owners, their legal counsel, and the MAC upon their review of the document. The terms of the settlement will. not change because of this review. E. TIMING • The terms of the settlement are final.. Final payment to the property owners will be made upon execution of the Stipulation of Final Settlement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not accept the final settlement amount. However, given the nature of the settlement, it is unlikely that a trial by jury will bring about any lesser amounts than those settled at and may, in fact, cost more. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6501 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 17) (66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project). VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A U • RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A STIPULATION OF FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR 6501 CEDAR AVENUE (PARCEL 17) (66TH STREET/TRUNK HIGHWAY 77 INTERCHANGE PROJECT) WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project (the "Project") heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (the "City") said real property located at 6501 Cedar Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota, being described as follows (the "Subject Property"): Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto; and WHEREAS, the City Council has: adopted a layout for Project improvements; and WHEREAS, the Project improvements necessitate the purchase of Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its corporate boundaries; and • WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is initially funding the Project; and WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals for the Subject Property to be made by qualified independent professional appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate and immovable fixtures and equipment appurtenant thereto; and WHEREAS,. a qualified. review appraiser has certified the appraisal reports as being in conformity with appraisal standards; and WHEREAS, a qualified fixture review appraiser has certified the fixture appraisal report as being in conformity with appraisal standards; and WHEREAS, MAC has reviewed all appraisal reports and review appraisal reports prepared for the Subject Property and has recommended that the just compensation for the real estate be determined by the City Council to be $265,000 and $18,520 for immovable fixtures; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2000, the City Council approved just compensation for the real estate in the amount of $265,000 and on October 23, 2000, a corrected amount of $18,520 for the immovable fixtures and equipment appurtenant thereto and did make an offer, and subsequent corrected offer to the property owners in said amounts; and WHEREAS, the City Council authorized condemnation of the Subject Property on September 11, 2000, such proceedings were commenced on behalf of the City by the city attorney; and WHEREAS, on December 22, 2000, the City paid the property owners $309,690 in accordance with the Stipulation of Partial Settlement; and WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals for the Subject Property to be made by qualified independent professional appraisers to update the fair market value of real estate and immovable .fixtures and equipment appurtenant thereto to the date of taking for condemnation purposes; .and WHEREAS, the updated appraisal reports indicated a fair market value of real estate to be $300,000 and $18,520 for immovable fixtures; and WHEREAS, the City and MAC have since reached a settlement with the property owners in -the amount of $400,000, in settlement of all claims to the property owners for damages caused to the real estate and appraisal fees, plus $18,520 for immovable fixtures, excluding relocation benefits, plus interest on the unpaid balance (less amounts previously paid). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the proposed settlement amount of $400,000 for the real estate and appraisal fees, $18,520 for immovable fixtures, plus interest on the unpaid balance is hereby approved. 2. That the city manager and mayor are authorized to execute the Stipulation of Final Settlement and take all other actions necessary to complete the obligations of the C pursuant to its terms. 3. That the city attorney is authorized to take all actions necessary to complete the obligations of the City pursuant to the Stipulation of Final Settlement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2001. ity Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # gB REPORT # 250 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JOHN STARK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NanrE, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUI~]ITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an amended resolution authorizing a subdivision waiver for 6933 Penn Avenue South: I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an amended resolution authorizing a subdivision waiver for 6933 Penn Avenue South. III. BACKGROUND At the August 13, 2001 City Council meeting, unanimous approval was given for the approval of a subdivision waiver for the property located at 6933 Penn Avenue South. The southerly 14 feet of this property was purchased by Dr. Donald Johnson and is to be joined to his property located at 6945 Penn Avenue South for future use as a parking lot for the dental clinic under his ownership. According to the resolution, the remaining 36 feet of the northern portion of the lot were to be joined with City owned property lying to the north. Upon further review it was discovered that the lot at 6933 Penn is not quite 64 feet • in lot width. Therefore, staff is recommending that the resolution authorizing a subdivision waiver be modified to indicate that the southern 14 feet of the lot are to 1008subdivision NAME, TITLE be adjoined to the property to the south. and the remaining portion of the property be adjoined to the property to the north. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The amended resolution would more accurately define the lot split. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The amended resolution is needed in order for the subdivision to be recorded. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Legal counsel has reviewed the attached amended resolution. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the amended resolution, in which case the subdivision will be inaccurate and may not be acceptable to the recorders office and will lead to • future difficulties in land surveying and title transfer. V. ATTACFIMENTS • A resolution authorizing a subdivision waiver for 6933 Penn Avenue South. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Community Development staff RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER 6933 PENN AVENUE WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of land located at 6933 Penn Avenue, legally described as: Lot 15, Block 10 Tingdale Brother's Lincoln Hills Second Addition. WHEREAS, the proposed division of land for which the subdivision waiver is sought is legally described as: Parcel A: The southern 14 feet of Lot 15,-Block 10 Tingdale Brother's Lincoln Hills Second Addition. Parcel B: The remaining portion of Lot 15, Block 10 Tingdale Brother's Lincoln Hills Second Addition. WHEREAS, the proposed Parcel A will be joined with the adjoining property to the south so that the resulting Parcel A from the subdivision waiver will comply with Section 521.09 of the City Code relating to lot area and width;. and. WHEREAS, the proposed Parcel B will be joined with the adjoining property to the north so that the resulting Parcel B from the subdivision. waiver will comply with Section 521.09 of the City Code relating to lot area and width; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the subdivision waiver; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that compliance with the City Code Section 500.05, Subdivision 1 would result in unnecessary hardship and that failure to comply therewith will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section 500.01.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A waiver for the subdivision of the Subject Property legally described above is hereby granted; and 2. .Future transfers of any of the Subject Property may be by parcel or parcels as described above as Parcel A and Parcel B; and 3. City staff is authorized and directed to take any action necessary to effectuate this resolution and to authorize the recording of conveyances complying with the terms of this resolution. Adopted by the .City Council of_the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of October, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • OCTOBER 8, 2001 CONSENT 8A 249 BRUCE SYLVESTER, REPORT PREPARED BY: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TiriE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~" ~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code Section 536;17, Subdivision. 3; Section 536.19, Subdivision 1; and Section 546.07, Subdivision 4 to conform with newt ado ted State Statute 462.357. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve first reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code Section 536.17, Subdivision 3; Section 536.19, Subdivision 1; and Section 546.07, Subdivision 4 to conform, with newly. adopted State Statute 462.357. I. BACKGROUND During the 2001 legislative session, the State of Minnesota amended State Statutes regarding the procedures municipalities must follow when approving a rezoning. Specifically, Minnesota State Statute Section 462.357 has been amended to allow local governing bodies (city councils) to approve zoning changes in some 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 residential to either commercial or industrial..." 10080rdinance.doc In essence, the State has made it easier for city councils to approve zoning changes that do not rezone to commercial or industrial uses, while still requiring a `super majority' vote for rezonings that allow these uses. Section 536.17, Subdivision 3 and Section. 546.07, Subdivision 4 specify city requirements for approving Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and rezonings. Section 536.19, Subdivision 1 specifies city requirements for approving Final Development Plans (FDP) and Conditional Use Permits (CUP) fora PUD. While the new State Statute applies only to rezoning cases (and therefore only to Richfield's City Codes 536.17 and 546.07), the City Attorney and Community Development staff recommend that the requirements for approving a FDP and CUP (City Code 536.19) be consistent with- the requirements for approving the PUD. The .attached ordinance amendment reflects this recommendation. IL BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. .POLICY • Richfield's Zoning Codes must be in compliance with State Statutes. By adopting the recommended City Code revisions, Richfield's Zoning Code will include the same requirements for approving zoning changes as State Statutes. • B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Three sections of Richfield's Zoning Ordinance need to be revised to conform with the new State Statutes. Section 536.17, Subdivision 3 addresses City Council consideration. of rezonings for PUDs, while Section 546.07, Subdivision 4 addresses City Council- consideration for all other rezonings. Lastly, Section 536.19, Subdivision 1 addresses requirements for approving a FDP and CUP for a PUD project, after the PUD has been approved. All three of these sections must be amended to conform with the new State Statutes and be consistent with each other. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • The 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 September 25, 2001 meeting. III. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Reject the recommendation to amend Richfield City Zoning Code Sections 536.17 Subdivision 3; 536.19 Subdivision 1; and 546.07, Subdivision 4 to conform with newly adopted State Statutes. IV. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance Amendment V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT 1VIEETING • N/A • r~ U BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY ZONING, CODE SECTIONS 536.17, SUBDIVISION 3; 536.19, SUBDIVISION 1; AND 546.07, SUBDIVISION 4. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: 1. Section 536.17, Subdivision 3 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 536.17. Review of PUD application. Subdivision 3. Council consideration. Following action by the Planning Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing and consider rezoning the area described. in the plan. Votes required for approval of the rezoning shall follow those reauirernents as outlined in Section 546.07. Subdivision 4 of this zoningcode. If the PUD plan is approved, the area shall be rezoned as one of the six types of PUD districts. 2. Section 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. The voting requirements for approval of the Final Development Plana and Conditional Use Permit are the same as those set forth at Subsection 546.07. Subdivision 4. 3. Section 546.07, Subdivision 4 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is Amended to read as follows: 546.07. Zoning amendments. Subdivision 4. City Council consideration. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Council shall consider the matter at a first reading. The Council may offer whatever public notice of its first reading review that it deems necessary. If the application is approved for first reading, the Council shall set a date for a second reading and public hearing. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be • published once in the official newspaper. Notice regarding an amendment which involves a change in the boundaries of a zoning district shall also be sent by mail to the applicant and all the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet. The Council shall act upon the amendment within 60 days of submission of a completed application unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the • reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Council fails to make a timely decision, the amendment shall be deemed to have been approved. The Council may adopt an amendment to this code e~ upon an affirmative vote of a majority of all -its members. The adoption or amendment of any portion of a zoning ordinance which changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a a~-least two-thirds majority vote of all members of the Council. ~{' i4c~ f~ X11 ,,.,o.,.,her~+hir~ • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk •